1992.12.31 / Jed Rothwell /  One man can't compete
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One man can't compete
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:12:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Well, I certainly got the rise out of poor Tom Droege when I said that he
and I are "not in the running." Sorry Tom, but Get Real. We don't have the
resources or the time to do 200 experiments like McKubre, so as much as we
would love to make definitive claims, we have not got enough data. The best
scientist in the world cannot do everything himself.
 
Let me put it this way: I happen to be a fine, fast, accomplished
programmer. I can write programs 3 times faster than most people, and my
programs are generally bug free and useful. I am no guru, but I sure am a
professional, as good as most people at Microsoft or Borland. Okay. Does
that mean that I could sit in my house and produce a better version of
Microsoft Windows? How about Turbo Pascal? Of course not! It takes hundreds
of man years to do that, and it takes the specialized skills of dozens of
people. One man could not do it in a lifetime, any more than he could build
a 747 airplane.
 
For goodness sakes! You know perfectly well that is what I meant when I
said "we are not in the running." It means we don't have to bucks for those
pretty little toys from HP, and we don't have a staff of people to try
sixty zillion variations on each experiment. That is why our experiments
never work, and those of McKubre and P&F always work. They got the money,
and we don't, and that is Life In The Big City. It is no reflection on your
ability or intelligence.
 
Good Grief! Give me a break!
 
 
As I said, I have to do other work, I can't be posting these messages or
responding. Sorry. Jon Webb's comments were particularly worthwhile, way
better than before. Briefly:
 
I meant "accept," or "understand" the significance of 90 sigma, to "get"
those kinds of results by doing experiments with palladium requires a
mountain work of labor and cash. The only worker you mentioned I am not in
touch with is Ying, in Florida, because he is one of many minor people I
think is wrong. I never gave him any credence. The people at China Lake
tried a few times more, but they have no money and no time to do much
additional work. McKubre may or may not "see fit" to publish, but that is
certainly not his decision. SRI would never allow it, and neither would any
other sane corporation. Corporations do not survive by handing out $3
million dollar secrets for free.
 
You are wrong about this:
 
      "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..."
 
Look, I have measured heat, and there is nothing to it, as long as you
don't try to get ultra-accurate. It is a Piece of Cake! Just drop the whole
kit and caboodle into a bucket of water, and watch the thermometer. It is
dead simple, people have been doing it that way for 200 years, it works
fine. Don't worry about tiny little losses due to evaporation, or bigger
losses due to disassociation of water -- just write them off! Forget them.
Measure the gas, but don't bother adding it into the heat balance. Stuff
like this should not matter, because you want a 70% excess, not 0.7%. If
the results are close to the margin, and require skilled sorting out of
minor effects like evaporation, then the experiment is no good. You want a
BIG effect that drowns out all these minor sources of error. You want
DEFINITE results, far out of the noise. If you can't get results like that
nowadays, you are playing in the wrong league.
 
You don't need to worry about a few watts leaking out of the hot parts
because it is all underwater. The heat that you lose (or gain) "going into
the palladium as it absorbs hydrogen or deuterium or into or emerging from
various chemical reactions..." is marginal. There may be a few chemical
reactions; okay, so let the experiment run a week, and they will fade out,
because there is a limited supply of chemicals in there. Let it run a
month. Let it run a year!
 
So long 'till after the inauguration!
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 / Mike Jamison /  Re:  Electrostatic Fusion
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Electrostatic Fusion
Date: 31 Dec 1992 09:59 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

First, to the Sysadmin for sci.physics.fusion:  I've had trouble with
multiple duplications of messages I send from this account.  Please advise
me as to whether you get duplicates from all machines this message passes
through!
 
Now that that's out of the way, I have a few concerns about the electrostatic
fusion idea:
 
1)  Deflection of D by Pd.  The author states that when high energy (well,
sort of low-medium energy, at 10-20 keV) pass through a *thin* metal plate,
very little deflection occurs.  OK, I'll buy that.  However, if I understand
the idea presented, it appears that as the D ions travel towards the tip
of the cone, they "bounce" back and forth, following a zigzag pattern up
and out of the cone.  Each "bounce" passes through a thinner and thinner
section of cone.  However, multiple passes through a thin slice add up to
one pass through a thick slice.  Hence, deflection cannot be ignored.
 
2)  "Matter is made of mostly empty space":  True.  However, the electric
fields of the Pd nuclei extend over quite a bit of that empty space.  Maybe
you can play around with averaging here, since there are so many Pd atoms,
to allow you to neglect their E-fields.
 
The big problem, though, is that the D ions are *also* "mostly empty space".
Hence, an extremely large number of passes between D ions will occur before
a D hits another D hard enough to fuse.  The probability of a hit vs a miss
would have to be worked out, with respect to D's in a Pd lattice.  This will
give you something like a "mean free path" for the D's, and from that you'll
find out how many "zigzags" the D will go through before fusing with another
D.  You also have to weigh the probability of the D hitting another D vs.
a Pd.  You'll lose a lot of that acceleration to useless Pd collisions...
 
3)  How about that acceleration, anyway?  As Terry Bollinger has pointed out,
You ain't gonna get out more than what you put in (which is why I don't see
any reason for Fractofusion to work, BTW).  Unless you've got inductance
working for you (Note to John Logajan and Terr Bollinger:  Remember those
                                          ^^^^ I meant Terry (Sorry, Terry)
funny little books, like "shocking stories".  You open the thing up and get
zapped by a 1.5 volt battery, with the aid of an inductor, of course.)
 
Remember that V = L dI/dt in an inductor, so when you suddenly interupt
a current path (possibly what happens at the surface of the Pd rod) you get
not only a huge (change in voltage with respect to distance, or acceleration)
but also a huge change in voltage.  It's pretty easy to get 100V using an
inductor and a source of 10 V or less.  Conservation of energy just makes
sure that the current goes down as the voltage goes up.
 
Anyway, the theory is at least as plausible as any other cold fusion theory,
and more nuts and bolts than the others I've seen.  But, then, it won't be
"Cold Fusion" because 20 kV ain't "cold" :-)
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Comments
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:10:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First thanks to Tom Kunich who was the source for the possibility of gain
change of the thermoelectric devices.  It really helps to get warnings about
devices, so when the problem comes it does not cause so much wasted effort.
 
Tom, the thermoelectric material in the devices I use are "a quaternary alloy
of bismuth, tellurium, selenium, and antimony with small amounts of suitable
dopents. carefully processed to produce an oriented polycrystalline ingot
with superior anisotropic thermoelectric properties.  (from mfgrs literature)
 
I know the material is fragile.  I have broken a number of the units.  The
crystal pieces can almost be crushed between the fingers.  The crystals are
mounted between two metalized ceramic plates.  The materials are selected
based on a figure of merit, where thermal conductivity is bad and electrical
conductivity is good.  In the 60's when all the work was done, the figure of
merit for discovered materials was going up like the memory capactiy curve.
Had it continued for another year or two, we would all be getting our power
from such devices today.  But it just stopped.  I think there is no theoritical
reason why better materials can not be found.  But there have been no good
new materials since the 60's, I believe.
 
Since they are such a desirable way to pump heat, we will just solve the
mechanical problems by operation at constant temperature.
 
Thanks to John Logajan for reminding me of the "killer" experiment for the
Nickel cells.  It was the cell & recombiner in the calorimeter versis the
same physical configuration with the recombiner outside the calorimeter and
the correction taken.  So if the mercury bubbler killed the reaction why
didn't it kill it when it was outside the calorimeter the same length of
tubing away?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Dumb Question
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Dumb Question
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:10:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Let me ask a dumb question about the electric field debate with Allred,
Logajan, and others.
 
Consider two D ions sitting in a tube.  The tube is the Palladium lattice.  Let
them be at adjacent sites in the tube.  Now sneak up behind each with some
negative charges.  Q: How many charges does it take to push the two together?
Q: How much work is done in the process? (ev)
 
Seems to me it does not take either very many ev or charges.  I don't think we
need anything like 20 Kev, or a high voltage anywhere.  We just need a very
high, very local electric field.  Now if all those electrons in the lattice
can just be persuaded to bunch up peroidically, the internal net field could
be very high while the external field is zero.  Seems to me that all those
electrons in the lattice would want to lock up in some way.
 
Happy New Year to All - Lets make this a breakthrough year!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1992.12.31 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: A Good Question
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Good Question
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:22:06 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <921231130918.20a05c3e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> Consider two D ions sitting in a tube.  The tube is the Palladium lattice.
> Let them be at adjacent sites in the tube.  Now sneak up behind each with
> some negative charges.  Q: How many charges does it take to push the two
> together? Q: How much work is done in the process? (ev)
 
Not much.  The question is whether a plausible energy-focusing mechanism can
be postulated.
 
> Seems to me it does not take either very many ev or charges.  I don't think
> we need anything like 20 Kev, or a high voltage anywhere.  We just need a
> very high, very local electric field.
 
No.  If you calculate the effective voltage of the charges you are postulating,
you will indeed find them to be very high.  (The voltage gradient will also be
very steep for such a postulated arrangement.)
 
If you can persuade a great many electrons or ions or atoms or whatever to
symmetrically contribute their energy to a very small number of ions or atoms,
you will get some interesting hot spots.  The formation of such hot spots
could certainly be postulated to make use of field emission or some similar
effect, but something _more_ than just local gradients will definitely be
needed.  The main problem is that such steep local gradients normally have
access only to a very limited (local) quantitiy of potential energy.  You will
need potential energy contributions from a very wide range of locations in
your crystal lattice, and that implies something more generalized than the
local gradients alone can provide.
 
> Now if all those electrons in the lattice can just be persuaded to bunch up
> periodically, the internal net field could be very high while the external
> field is zero.
 
The "bunching up" is in fact the postulated energy focusing mechanism.  The
problem is to quantify it specifically and propose a way that it might be
able to exist in a transition metal lattice.  Look for mechanisms that _end_
with strong field gradients, but begin with something more gradual.  Otherwise
your attempt to focus energy will break up prematurely and nothing of any
great interest will occur.
 
I have no idea what such an electron-based energy focusing mechanism would be,
but it would necessarily show a high degree of symmetry when represented in
the appropriate space.  It would also have to "zero in" very specifically on
a single very tiny region of the lattice for the final focusing of energy.
(Note again the difference from "fracto" approaches, in which high gradients
occur all over the matrix and no single focus can be identified.)
 
> Seems to me that all those electrons in the lattice would want to lock up
> in some way.
 
Not normally.  You've got the metallic equivalent of an electron gas, and
unless disciplined in some curious fashion it will behave like most gases --
chaotically.
 
> Happy New Year to All - Lets make this a breakthrough year!
 
It would make a great New Year, wouldn't it?  Thanks for all the great
contributions, Tom, and for the interesting speculations that make one
stop and think.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1992 
------------------------------
1993.01.01 / Jeffrey Miller /  BOB HARVEY
     
Originally-From: jemille@eis.calstate.edu (Jeffrey d Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BOB HARVEY
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:53:56 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

LOOKING FOR BOB HARVEY AT GA IN SAN DIEGO.  PASS IT ON!
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjemille cudfnJeffrey cudlnMiller cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: electrostatic fusion
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:57:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Dec31.055118.11523@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>.. .
 
>
>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.
 
> .. .
>
>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.
 
Actually, there are other considerations.  One would like to get electrons
moving through a gas of a certain density. The problem is that when using
a low voltage gradient approach the electron will probably lose all of its
gained energy (on the average) due to collisions with gas atoms.  Thus a
discharge will not "get started".  Using lower gas density will help
(longer initial mean free path). To make matters worse, oxygen will even
adhere electrons to form negative molecules.
 
If the gradient is high (sharp) enough so that the electron can gain
enough energy between collisions from the field to free another electron
or more from the gas then it is more likely it will speed up between
collisions and the faster it goes the longer the mean free path gets
(lower the collision cross-section).  Consequently, such electrons runaway
until the field decays with distance to an insufficiently supporting
level.  Once conducting paths are formed from the excess production of
electrons, they become current streamers which light up and usually can
be seen.  For example from a laboratory hand tesla coil discharging into
open air.  The light probably eminates from back flowing ions generated
along the track (recombinations).
 
So ... after selecting an appropriate range of gas pressures, the case
depicted above on the right may disharge while the one on the left will
not.
 
         Now back into the discharge path and fusion.
 
Ions generated by the electron removal would then be free to zap
inward toward the sharp high gradient point.  Note that the very first
ions arriving maybe what breaks lose a really strong avalance of ions.
The first ones arriving would then be inertially compressed
by the following much denser radially closing ion wave. But ---
I'm sure you realize this part is pure speculation and even if somewhat
true, the effect may not be anywhere near good enough to produce
commercial levels of fusion or aneutronic energy. -- in this business,
Who knows.
>                               Cheers, Terry
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.01 / A Boulanger /  Re: A Good Question
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Good Question
Date: 1 Jan 93 19:32:01
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec31.232206.20322@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
   The "bunching up" is in fact the postulated energy focusing mechanism.  The
   problem is to quantify it specifically and propose a way that it might be
   able to exist in a transition metal lattice.  Look for mechanisms that _end_
   with strong field gradients, but begin with something more gradual.
 Otherwise
   your attempt to focus energy will break up prematurely and nothing of any
   great interest will occur.
 
   I have no idea what such an electron-based energy focusing mechanism would
 be,
   but it would necessarily show a high degree of symmetry when represented in
   the appropriate space.  It would also have to "zero in" very specifically on
   a single very tiny region of the lattice for the final focusing of energy.
   (Note again the difference from "fracto" approaches, in which high gradients
   occur all over the matrix and no single focus can be identified.)
 
   > Seems to me that all those electrons in the lattice would want to lock up
   > in some way.
 
   Not normally.  You've got the metallic equivalent of an electron gas, and
   unless disciplined in some curious fashion it will behave like most gases --
   chaotically.
 
 
I have been boning-up on the stochastic acceleration literature that I
posted a reference to in this group as a possible acceleration
mechanism for light-emitting cavitation. (I was not thinking directly
in terms of solid-state fusion at the time.) However, in my digging
around, I discovered that there was an acceleration mechanism
postulated by Fermi which entailed accelerations via random fields.
(Fermi was seeking a mechanism for cosmic rays.) Ulam made a
simplified model of this. It consisted of a particle moving between
two walls -- one of which is periodically vibrating. Hmm, lets see --
Fermi (electron) gas, lattice vibrations (phonons), periodic
potentials (crystal lattice) anyone?
 
Just some solid state thoughts,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Ultra Cavitation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ultra Cavitation
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:34:11 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
--------- Copyrighted document begins with (and includes) this line ----------
 
 
                               ULTRA CAVITATION
 
            -- An Outline of Theoretical and Experimental Issues --
 
                              December 31, 1992
                                 Version 1.0
 
                              Terry B. Bollinger
                             2416 Branch Oaks Lane
                           Flower Mound, Texas 75028
 
 
                    Copyright 1993 by  Terry B. Bollinger.
                    Unlimited rights  to  duplicate in any
                    form, provided only that the  document
                    and its  copyright  notice  are copied
                    in their entirety. Properly attributed
                    short quotes are also fine.
 
 
                        -- DOCUMENT UPDATE HISTORY --
 
            AUTHOR             DATE                  ACTION
    ----------------------  ----------  ----------------------------------
    Terry B. Bollinger      1992-12-20  Initial outline completed
    Terry B. Bollinger      1993-01-02  Version 1.0 completed and released
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION
 
The purpose of this document is to further explore a number of issues related
to how cavitation in a fluid may be capable of generating extraordinarily
high pressures and temperatures that are well beyond the range normally
assumed possible with cavitation.  I refer to this idea of an extended range
of cavitation phenomena as "ultra cavitation."  Ultra cavitation is proposed
to be quantitatively different from ordinary cavitation through its use of a
"wedge-out" mechanism to accelerate a fraction of the imploding molecules to
much higher velocities that are possible in ordinary cavitation.  For this
acceleration effect to apply, the interior of the ultra cavitation void must
contain an extremely hard vacuum, and the surface of the void must maintain a
very high degree of spherical symmetry throughout the collapse process.
 
This exploration is an extension of the ideas the author first proposed in
Network references [1] and [2].  The issue of cavitation and whether or not
it could induce exceptionally energetic events was first brought to my
attention by Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) in a
private email, and my interest was further increased by some intriguing
recent data on cavitation results that were provided by Steven E. Jones in
Network references [3] and [4]
 
The style of this document is to provide a broad framework and exploration of
theoretical and experimental issues, rather than a rigorous mathematical
analysis of the relative importance of many of the effects described.  The
style of exploration is perhaps more characteristic more of computer science
than physics, since it emphasizes identification of key abstractions ("what
really makes cavitation work?") followed by exploration of a broad range of
potential theoretical and experimental "free parameters."  The next step is
"implementation," or expansion of the concepts and relationships described
here into specific mathematical formula and numerical analysis methods.
 
It is my hope that by publishing the outline as quickly as possible, others
on the Net will be able to contribute to directly to the quantification of
the framework I am proposing below.  Also, I think it would be worth looking
at the possibility of synthesizing contributions into a multi-author paper
for submission to a conventional physics journal, so that slow-mail readers
will have easier access to such Network results.
 
My overall conclusion is that cavitation is an extraordinarily complex and
rich phenomenon.  Based on early reports of cavitation energies corresponding
to 100,000 degrees with comparatively simple setups [3], I would judge it to
be highly probably that significant, detectable increases in the rates of T-T
and possibly D-T reactions should be possible using advanced cavitation
methods.  Details of such reactions will require further experimental and
(especially) numeric simulation work to be validated and studied in detail.
 
 
2.  FUNDAMENTALS OF VOID FORMATION
 
Cavitation consists of two major steps: void formation, and void collapse or
implosion.  This section looks at void formation.
 
2.1  VOIDS IN GASES AND LIQUIDS
 
The initial step in cavitation is the formation of a vacuum bubble (void)
within a gas or liquid.  Both gas and liquid voids are inherently unstable.
Gas voids will quickly be filled through simple diffusion, while liquid voids
will close because of surface tension in the void surface and (if present)
internal fluid pressure.
 
Of the two types, liquid voids are significantly more interesting due to the
special properties of well-defined void surfaces.  Sharply delineated void
surfaces that exhibit surface tension drastically alter the dynamics of void
collapse, generally by making them far more intense than gas void closures.
Apart from this key difference, the dynamics of gas voids should be largely a
subset of the dynamics liquid voids.  Thus in this paper gas voids will be
discussed only as they relate to the behavior of liquid voids.
 
2.2  INTRA-LIQUID BONDS
 
All liquids possess cohesive intra-liquid forces that hold the fluid together
even in the presence of a vacuum.  At the molecular level these cohesive
forces translate into inter-molecular and inter-atomic bonds that range over
many orders of magnitude in strength, from the exceedingly weak Van der Waals
forces that provide liquid helium with cohesion to the very strong ionic,
metallic, and covalent bonds that are characteristic of most high-temperature
fluids.  Hydrogen bonding, which allows the very light constituents of water
to exist in liquid form at room temperature, is an example of a intra-fluid
bonding mechanism of intermediate strength.  Intra-liquid bonds also vary
greatly in relative mobility, or the ease with which molecules or atoms can
"slip around" each other to form new bonds.  Van der Waals bonds and hydrogen
bonds in water are examples of highly mobile intra-fluid bonds, while the
largely covalent bonds of high-temperature liquids such as molten silica are
both highly directional and difficult to rearrange rapidly.
 
2.3  EXPLOSIVE VOID FORMATION
 
To form a void in liquid, it will be necessary to both to break and to
rapidly rearrange intra-fluid bonds to form a nanovoid, and to then expand
the nanovoid by rapidly accelerating its walls outward from the point of
origin.  There are two primary mechanisms for driving this outward
expansion:  explosive void formation, and decompressive void formation.  (A
third possibility of very rapid removal of an object from a fluid is similar
enough to decompressive void formation that it will not be treated separately
here.)
 
In explosive void formation, a void is created in a liquid (or gas) by a tiny
but intense explosion within the liquid.  Such an explosion drives away the
liquid with very high momentum gases (possibly the vaporized liquid itself),
thus leaving a region of relative vacuum.
 
Explosive void formation is limited in several ways.  Firstly, the energy
needed to enlarge the void increases rapidly with increasing void size, since
the explosion must "push" increasingly large volumes of fluid outward as the
radius of the void expands.  Secondly, the vacuum formed my such a explosive
methods will necessarily be imperfect for two reasons:  the early stages of
the micro-explosion are likely to vaporize much of the fluid around it, and
most micro-explosive mechanisms are likely to leave behind a residue of gases
or other products.
 
Ironically, the most practical approach to creating the necessary minuscule
explosions for explosive void formation is through implosion of decompression
voids.  That is, the rebound effect of void collapse can be energetic enough
and sufficiently point-like to lead to secondary (explosive) void formation.
Such secondary voids will in general be smaller than the voids that produced
them, but if the original implosion is exothermic (e.g., if it resulted in
the recombination of dissolved hydrogen and oxygen in the fluid), secondary
voids could in some cases be as large as or larger than the original voids.
 
This paper will in general assume that voids are created via decompression,
not explosion.  Explosive void formation will be discussed only as it is
relevant to the aftermath of decompressive void implosions.
 
2.4  DECOMPRESSIVE VOID FORMATION
 
In decompressive void formation, a void is formed literally by "stretching"
the liquid (that is, forcing it to increase in total volume) until nanovoids
present in the fluid undergo exponential expansion and become macroscopic.
 
In contrast to explosive void formation, decompressive void formation tends
to produce clean voids that can be expanded to arbitrarily large size,
without requiring the addition of large quantities of a foreign explosive
materials into the void region. Also, since the events surrounding the
rupture and subsequent rearrangement of intra-fluid bonds are relatively low
energy at the rupture point, less of the fluid is likely to be vaporized
during the early stages of void formation.  In fact, if the fluid possesses
sufficiently strong intra-fluid bonding, it should be possible to arrange
decompressive void formation so that extremely few (possibly zero) molecules
of liquid will enter into the void.
 
Voids of quite large size can be formed by decompression, since a
sufficiently rapid and symmetrical decompression cycle will allow them to
grow in size until the surrounding fluid either breaks up or physically can
no longer contain them.  However, once the dynamic forces of decompression
are removed, the resulting voids will necessarily become unstable due the
effects of surface tension at the void surface, even in the absence of
internal fluid pressure.  (The effects of surface tension are discussed
further in the Section 3.XX discussion of symmetry enhancement, and in the
Section 3.XX discussion of the early stages of void implosion.)
 
2.4.1  Impulse Decompression (and Void Formation in Nature)
 
Mechanically, decompressive voids can be created by something as simple as an
abrupt pull on a piston in a cylinder that contains a low-gas liquid. Note
that the liquid must "wet" or bond tightly to the piston and cylinder surface
if the void is to form in the interior of the fluid; weak bonding to the
surrounding surfaces will simply result in voiding formation at the junction
between the cylinder/piston and the fluid.
 
This concept of impulse decompression is sufficiently simple that it is quite
likely to occur naturally.  For example, one possible scenario for natural
formation of impulse decompression voids would be the sudden "snapping" of a
fluid-filled crack in a rock.  Because a sufficiently sudden break in the
rock would not allow enough time for fluid to fill the crack, void formation
would be a likely consequence.
 
2.4.2  "Flow Shadow" Decompression
 
Another mechanism that can be used to generate decompressive voids is the
very rapid flow of a fluid around a "shadow object."  If the flow is rapid
enough, and the if the trailing side of the object cuts off abruptly enough
to make laminar or even ordinary turbulent flow impossible, the result will
be the formation of a large "void shadow" that continually breaks up and
enters into the fluid flow voids of various sizes.  Using very-high-velocity
water, this technique has been studied as a method for drilling into solid
rock using the impact of the imploding voids [5].
 
Flow shadowing could perhaps exist in nature, but is less likely due the need
for very high fluid velocities in an environment free of gases. Nonetheless,
the existence of high-velocity "black smoker" vents at some mid oceanic
ridges provides a simple example of how surprisingly rapid velocities can
develop within natural fluids.  (To be of interest from a cavitation
perspective, such rapid flows would of course also need to meet the
additional requirement of having low dissolved contents, which is in general
not the case for such "black smokers" with their high hydrogen sulphide
content.)
 
2.4.3  Sonic Decompression
 
For general applications, the most common decompression void formation
technique is to use intense sound waves, generally (but not necessarily) in
the ultrasonic range.  Since sound waves are composed of traveling regions of
high and low pressure, sufficiently powerful sound waves provide a good
technique for rapidly and cyclically producing regions of sufficiently high
stress to cause fluid rupture around a transient defect or a point defect.
Sound has the additional advantage of providing compression cycles shortly
after the formation of a void.
 
Transient sonic cavitation in nature is clearly possible in any circumstances
where sharp, intense sounds are generated in fluids by natural phenomena.
 
Two major types of sonic decompression should be distinguished:
 
   1)  Traveling-wave decompression, and
 
   2)  Standing-wave decompression
 
Traveling waves are conventional sound waves in which the decompression
region moves at the speed of sound.  Although the can cause cavitation, they
are of secondary interest here because voids formed by this method will tend
to be "pulled along" by the traveling wave.  This "pulling" effect will tend
both to distort the shape of the void axially and cause the void to collapse
over an extended period of time, rather than as a single brief collapse event.
 
Standing wave decompression, which is usually achieve by reflecting the
initial traveling wave back on itself, is far more interesting from the
perspective of creating high-quality, high-symmetry voids.  In standing-wave
decompression the regions of decompression stay "in place", and furthermore
can be shaped to relatively high levels of symmetry by the use of complex
combinations of reflection and wave interference.  Finally, standing-wave
decompression permits the formation of "lattices" of similar decompression
regions that can be used to create large numbers of highly similar voids.
 
 
3.  THE CAVITATION PROCESS
 
In this section the cavitation process is analyzed with the objective of
identifying parameters that are likely to influence peak implosion pressures
and temperatures.  Cavitation is described in terms of the following phases:
 
   1)  Void Initiation                 (Section 3.1)
 
   2)  Accelerated Expansion           (Section 3.2)
 
   3)  Inertial Overshoot              (Section 3.3)
 
   4)  Restructuring of Void Surface   (Section 3.4)
 
   5)  Implosion Initiation            (Section 3.5)
 
   6)  Early Implosion                 (Section 3.6)
 
   7)  Mid Implosion                   (Section 3.7)
 
   8)  Late Implosion                  (Section 3.8)
 
   9)  Implosion Termination           (Section 3.9)
 
   10)  Region of Maximum Energy       (Section 3.10)
 
   11)  Post-Implosion Rebound         (Section 3.11)
 
 
3.1  VOID INITIATION
 
The earliest identifiable stage in void formation is to create a macroscopic
region in a liquid for which the average intra-liquid bond length is somewhat
larger than normal.  This elastic stretching of molecule-to-molecule bonds in
the region then provides the necessary potential energy for the formation of
a void.
 
If the stretched bonds of the liquid region are viewed as an elastic
"fabric", then void formation is simply the release of their potential energy
through the rapid growth of a "hole" somewhere in the fabric.  Just as
pricking a balloon with a pin results in a (catastrophically) rapid expansion
of the hole to release energy in the stretched fabric of the balloon, a "pin
prick" in a (considerably less) stretched liquid will result in the rapid
formation of a void that permits intra-liquid bonding lengths to return to
normal.
 
(It should be noted that in the case of an extremely pure liquid, it may be
possible for such a stretched state to remain stable for long lengths of
time.  This "superstretched" liquid state would be a close analog of a liquid
superheated and supercooled states.  I do not know if this concept has ever
been explored experimentally.)
 
Borrowing the analogy of the balloon, what exactly would be the nature of the
"pin prick" (nanovoid) that would lead to rapid release of the potential
energy of intra-liquid bond stretching?
 
There are two possible answers:
 
   1)  Statistical Nanovoids.  Fluctuations at the molecular level should be
       capable of forming "nanovoids," or extremely tiny (Angstrom range),
       very short lived voids.  If the stress on the fabric of the liquid is
       very severe, amplification of these statistical nanovoids may be
       possible.
 
   2)  Void Seeds.  As implied by the name, void seeds are small to
       extremely small imperfections in the "fabric" of the stretched
       liquid.  They could be foreign bodies ranging in size from dust
       particles to single molecules, or the could be energy events such the
       passage of ionizing radiation.  A void seed forms a nanovoid when
       bonding of the fluid to the void seed fails and a vacuum region forms
       around the seed.
 
Except for extremely pure liquids preserved under careful conditions, the
most likely source of nanovoids will be void seeds, since the initial energy
required to expand around a statistical nanovoid will be so high that it will
tend to be self-equalizing -- that is, the pull of adjacent fluid molecules
on the surface of a statistical nanovoid will be near the limit of what the
fluid can handle, so that rather than expanding the nanovoid might simply
shift to or be recreated in a new position.  This means that the level of
strain on the intra-fluid bonds will be so high that amplification of a
statistical nanovoid will be more likely to cause a general explosion of the
liquid than it is to cause void formation.
 
Void seeding, however inadvertent, therefore will be assumed to be the normal
mechanism by which decompressive void formation is initiated.
 
3.2  ACCELERATED EXPANSION
 
3.2.1  Conversion of Bond Potential Energy into Void Potential Energy
 
The next phase of void formation is expansion, in which the potential energy
of the stretched intra-liquid bonds is rapidly converted into a general
acceleration away from the initial nanovoid.  This acceleration will be the
most rapid at the surface of he nanovoid, and will fall off linearly away
from the surface until at some point it reaches zero.  The closed surface
defined by all of these zero acceleration points will be called the Zero
Acceleration Surface (ZAS), and the volume of liquid enclosed by it will be
referred to as the ZAS cell for the void.
 
The ZAS cell contains the total volume of liquid that will contribute its
potential (tension) bond energy to the formation of the void.  Thus if the
size of the ZAS cell and the potential energy profile of the liquid within it
are both known, this information can be used to calculate the maximum total
energy available for forming the void.  There will be some loss of the bond
potential energy due to heating, but in general a high percentage of the
total bond energy in the ZAS cell should be converted into a new form of void
potential energy that will be released when the void collapses.
 
In a generally decompressed fluid in which multiple voids are formed at the
same time, a ZAS "cell structure" of zero acceleration surfaces will be
formed in the fluid, with a void at the center of each ZAS cell.  In the case
of sonic decompression the region that contributes to a single void will be
defined by the form of decompression regions of the standing waves, with ZAS
cells separated by distinct regions of sonic compression.
 
Although in this paper the ZAS cell will generally be discussed as if it were
a stable, unchanging volume in the fluid, a more realistic model must take
into account the fact that the ZAS cell may shrink or expand if the ambient
pressure changes during void expansion or collapse.
 
3.2.2  Release of Dissolved Gases Into Decompressive Voids
 
An important side effect of void expansion is the release of dissolved gases
into the growing void.  This is in part due simply to the natural tendency of
a liquid to de-gas into any hard vacuum with which it comes into contact, but
it is also due to the dynamic, non-equilibrium nature of the void surface
during expansion.  Because the void surface is rapidly "stretched" as it
expands, normal lateral surface bonding at the surface of the liquid will be
severely stressed.  This in turn means that the normally higher density of
the fluid surface may be largely or entirely lost, especially during the
early stages of decompression, and that this resulting "porous" surface will
not be able to inhibit the passage of dissolved gases as efficiently as a
normal fluid surface.  (This argument does not apply to explosively formed
voids, since during expansion their void surfaces will be compressed rather
than expanded.)
 
Also, the rapid expansion of the void during decompression will in effect
"sweep" a large volume of liquid into close proximity with the void surface.
This again will encourage release of dissolved gases into the void,
especially in combination with the increased porosity of the surface during
expansion.
 
The idea that decompression voids should act as effective gas "sweepers" is
demonstrated by the use of ultrasonic cavitation to degas liquids [6]. As
will be discussed later, the tendency for voids to sweep up dissolved gases
during expansion has considerable significance for the mid and late phases of
void implosion.
 
For a reasonably symmetrical void, the accelerated expansion phase of void
formation ends when average bond lengths in within the zero-acceleration
surface have returned to normal (non-stressed) lengths.  However, because the
particles near the void surface have appreciable mass, the void will continue
to grow for a short period after the zero-acceleration point.  This overshoot
effect is described in the next section.
 
3.3  INERTIAL OVERSHOOT
 
When the average bond length within the ZAS cell has reached normal values,
ZAS cell bond potential energy will have been converted primarily into three
new forms:
 
   1)  Kinetic energy (outward motion of liquid)
 
   2)  Tension in void surface
 
   3)  Dissipative heat
 
Dissipative heat during expansion should be relatively minor if the void is
highly symmetrical, and should impact void collapse only through the indirect
effect of possibly producing some heating of the liquid around the void.
 
The role of tension in the void surface can be best understood by realizing
that during the very early expansion of the nanovoid the dominant force that
must be overcome is not the inertia of the liquid, but the highly resistive
effects of surface tension in very small voids.  Just as blowing up a very
small balloon requires far more force than adding the same volume of air to a
balloon that has already been expanded to a large size, the energetic role of
this "stretching" of the nanovoid surface will be dominant while the void is
sufficiently small in size.  For a very large void the dominant force
resisting further expansion will become the inertial of the liquid, rather
than the surface tension of the void.  An accurate mathematical model of the
conversion of ZAS cell bond potential energy into void energy thus must take
the forces of surface tension carefully into account, especially for models
of the earliest stages of void expansion.
 
Kinetic energy will consist of an (ideally) linear outward-bound velocity
profile that has its highest value at the void surface, and reaches zero at
the ZAS.
 
It is the kinetic energy component of the newly formed void that will lead to
overshoot and further enlargement of the void.  This kinetic energy will be
converted rapidly into compression of (momentarily) normal-average-length
intra-fluid bonds within the ZAS cell.  For the ideally linear acceleration
profile of a line drawn from the void surface to the ZAS, this new
compressive potential energy should be stored uniformly throughout the fluid
of the ZAS cell.
 
The overshoot phase will end when all of the kinetic energy of the ZAS cell
has been converted over to compressive bond energy.  Since this is the point
at which all of the outward bound kinetic energy has been exhausted, it will
also be the same point at which the void encloses its maximum volume.
 
Another effect over overshoot compression is "closure" of void surface, which
was more porous than normal during the rapid expansion phase.  By the time
the void has reached its maximum volume, the void should have a fairly normal
(or actually compressed) liquid surface that exhibits higher density and
greater cohesiveness than the volume fluid.
 
3.4  RESTRUCTURING OF VOID SURFACE
 
3.4.1  Surface Tension
 
Surface tension now begins to play a significant role in the maximum-volume
void.  Surface tension may be roughly understood as a lateral and downward
(into the fluid) "re-alignment" of intra-fluid bonds that otherwise would
have gone to bonding with the "missing" fluid.  A molecule at the surface of
a liquid thus will bond more tightly (and physically more closely) with the
fluid molecules around and below it, giving the net effect of an elastic
membrane that tends both to compress the underlying fluid and to resist
stretching.  This elastic-membrane analogy helps provide a general idea of
how such surfaces will behave.
 
It should be noted that if surface tension is a consequence of "re-alignment"
of intra-fluid bonds, the fluids that will tend to have the strongest surface
tensions will be those that have intra-fluid bonds that are both very strong
and easily re-aligned.  Many liquid metals provides examples of such strong
surface tension, since metallic bonding is both strong and generally easy to
re-align.  Hydrogen bonding also meets these criterion well, at least in the
case of water.
 
In general, the smaller the radius of a displacement of a liquid surface is,
the stronger the accelerating "displacement removal" force per molecule will
be.  A single molecule displaced slightly above the surface will be subject
to a very strong accelerating force consisting of its own bonding forces
trying to return it to body of the fluid, while for larger and larger
displacements of fluid this accelerating force will be distributed out over
increasingly large numbers of molecules.  Very large displacements thus will
be subject only to modest accelerations, and may be overcome by other forces
that could (for example) tend to break up the surface structure into droplets
or bubbles.
 
In general, these accelerating effects of surface tension thus will tend to
simplify the equations that describe the curvature of the liquid surface,
with very small radii of displacement being subject to very high, short-
duration accelerating forces, and large radii displacements being subject to
much lower accelerations over more extended periods of time.  This range of
accelerations over a wide scale of sizes helps produce the common liquid
effects of both bubble and droplet formation, and the tendency of a fluid in
a gravitational field to form a large-scale flat surface.
 
3.4.2  Surface Tension at Maximum Void Displacement
 
Once the kinetic energy of void overshoot has been expended, surface tension
will take over as the dominant force in the surface of voids in most fluids.
As described above, its major effect will be to rapidly "smooth out" the
surface of a the void and create a highly symmetrical spherical surface. Very
large voids may be subject to fragmentation, but relatively small ones are
far more likely to be "sphericized" than they are to fragment.  The most
likely remnants of asymmetry from the expansion phase will be comparatively
large-scale ones, such as the void being an ovoid instead of a sphere.
 
3.4.3  Void Formation and Entropy
 
The process of void formation is highly entropic in the sense that it cannot
be reversed in time.  Both the expansion phase and the restructuring of the
void surface by surface tension "lose" information needed to make the inverse
process of void collapse time-reversible.
 
This entropic process can be understood by imagining an orderly arrangement
of marbles at the bottom of a shallowly depressed, flexible sheet.  If this
sheet is very gently pushed upwards, the marbles will slowly begin to roll
outward along paths determined primarily by their initial positions on the
sheet.  This kind of outward expansion is non-entropic and time reversible in
the following sense:  If the sheet is again allowed to relax back to its
original shallowly depressed position, the marbles can in principle retrace
their paths and literally reassemble themselves back into the same positions
from which they originated.  The reversal process (collapse) is in this case
smooth and low in energy.  Each marble is enclosed by other marbles of
similar speed and direction, so that from the perspective of any individual
marble the surrounding environment is very "cool" (low in energy differences).
 
In contrast, if the marbles are allowed to expand over a sheet that is rough
and allowed to come to rest on a circular rim around the sheet, all of the
early time-reversible trajectory information that permitted each marble to
"remember" its original location relative to its neighbors will be lost.
Instead, when the sheet is flexed back down the marbles will all take on
trajectories that try to take them to the same location in space at the same
instant in time.  Time reversibility thus has been lost, and the gentle
return of the marbles to complementary positions has been replace with a
"race" that ensures that there will be relatively violent collisions between
the marbles as they attempt to occupy the same location in space and time.
 
In the case of voids, this same kind of entropic "forgetting" of original
positions occurs both as a result of rapid randomization of the trajectories
of individual molecules during the expansion phase, and as a result of the
strong coercing effect of surface tension, which tends to erase large-scale
differences in where the molecules would have been "targeted" to return.
 
All of this is relevant to the final intensity of void implosion in that a
void which is characterized by nearly total "forgetting" of the original
locations of all of the molecules on and near the void surface will result in
a far more intense collapse than one in which significant remnants of that
information can still be found in the detailed structure of the void.  In an
ideal "total position erasure" void, all of these molecules should be "aimed"
at a single very tiny target area at the center of the void, and all of them
should begin their inward trajectory at the same instant in time.  The result
is a highly time-asymmetric  collapse profile in which "competition" for the
interior target position of the void ensures much higher temperatures and
pressures than ever existed during the original formation of the void.
 
In contrast, a void in which there are severe long-range distortions of the
void surface, such as a long stretching along one axis (a thin tube) or two
axis (a thin sheet) will be far less severe (and far more time-symmetric) in
their collapse.
 
In summary, the degree of positional "forgetting" that is made possible both
by the void expansion process and surface tension at maximum void
displacement is a key initial condition for obtaining high intensity void
implosions.  The final intensity of that implosion process will of course be
determined by many other factors, also, but without this initial condition of
a past-erasing, highly spherical void form, very high final intensities are
unlikely.
 
3.5  IMPLOSION INITIATION
 
Another way of understanding the importance of spherical symmetry development
(or "sphering" as it will be referred to below) is to recognize that when it
is combined with a rapid, powerful inwardly directed acceleration of the void
surface it becomes the microscopic equivalent of a spherical explosive of
much higher quality and symmetry than can be obtained by large-scale
processing of explosive charges.  This micro-implosion analogy is useful in
understanding the subsequent evolution of the void as it collapses, because
it turns out that there are several forces which provide a substantial
initial impulse for the collapse of such spherical voids.
 
The three main forces working towards inward collapse of the void surface are:
 
   1)  Release of ZAS cell "overshoot" compressive potential energy
 
   2)  Ambient fluid pressure
 
   3)  Surface tension effects
 
Collectively, these three effects provide a sufficiently strong and rapid
inward acceleration of the void surface that the term "implosion" is used
instead of "collapse."  The use of the former term serves as a reminder that
the process of void closure is both forceful and highly energetic at the
physical scales involved.
 
3.5.1  Release of ZAS Cell Compressive Energy
 
As described earlier, the initial expansion of the void in a decompressed
fluid will normally lead to the conversion of the kinetic energy of void
formation into compressive potential energy that is stored evenly throughout
the ZAS cell.  At maximum void displacement this stored energy will lead to a
rapid rebound effect that begins accelerating the void cell surface inward.
The magnitude of this effect will depend on many factors such as the detailed
characteristics and compressibility of the fluid, but in general it should
lead to a rapid and strong initial inward acceleration of the void surface as
the compressive ZAS cell energy is converted back to kinetic motion.
 
As with the initial outward expansion, the ZAS cell should develop an overall
velocity profile in which the void surface is moving inward the fastest, with
the velocity (and acceleration) falling off in an ideally linear profile
until both reach zero at the ZAS boundary.  This gradual profile is important
not only because of the rapid and smooth acceleration of the void surface it
provides, but because the inertial of the fluid around the void will help
provide better containment (resistance to early rebound) as the process of
void implosion intensifies.
 
The release of compressive energy should nominally fall gradually to zero as
the void approaches the point of zero average intra-fluid bond distortion,
which (unless the pressure of the fluid is changing dynamically) will be well
before the collapse process is completed.  After that point the fluid will
again be under tension and should act as a drag against further implosion.
 
However, this profile can be modified by the use of dynamic pressure changes
in the fluid, such as can be provided by appropriately designed standing
sonic waves.  By causing the ambient pressure of the ZAS cell to increase at
or before the point where the void reaches its zero-ZAS-bond-distortion size,
it should be possible to effectively nullify or even reverse the slowing
effects of intra-fluid bond stretching.
 
Even in the presence of a rapidly increasing ambient fluid pressure profile,
however, the contribution of compression to the void collapse will eventually
fade due to entropic effects.  The fluid around the void cannot be compressed
in an exact time reversal of the way in which it was expanded, so that adding
high levels of external pressure will result more in heating of the fluid
around the collapsing void than it will contribute directly to the collapse
of the void.
 
An important difference between early implosion in an explosively formed void
and a decompression void is that the fluid immediately behind the surface of
an explosive void will tend to "rebound" due to compression of that fluid
during the initial explosion.  This rebound effect will contribute to the
speed of the void collapse by reducing the "drag effect" that would normally
slow inward acceleration of the void surface.
 
3.5.2  Ambient Fluid Pressure
 
While high ambient fluid pressures will of course help close a void and add
to the initial implosion impulse, it must be recalled that for decompressive
voids the ambient pressure in the ZAS cell must initially be negative, or
else the void will never form in the first place.  Thus a high ambient
pressure amounts to the same case as using a rapidly increasing pressure
profile during the collapse of the void, as described above for extending the
useful length of ZAS cell compressive rebound.  A high ambient pressure will
be useful only if a decompression method that is sufficiently intense to
overcome the ambient pressure can be used.
 
On the positive side, the use of high ambient pressure provides a fairly
simple way to construct a rapidly increasing pressure profile during the
early stages of void collapse.  In the case of standing sonic waves, it may
be possible to further use the standing waves to shape the details of the
increasing pressure profile.
 
3.5.3  Surface Tension Effects
 
The effects of surface tension in driving the void collapse are especially
interesting.  Unlike compression of the liquid, surface tension will tend to
inwardly accelerate the surface of the void more rapidly as the void size
shrinks.  This is a consequence of the general principle described earlier
that surface tension tends to accelerate the molecules in small deformities
more quickly than it does the molecules of large deformities, primarily due
to surface forces being distributed over a smaller total numbers of molecules.
 
Thus while surface tension may or may not be a dominant force (compared to
compressive release) during the early stages of void collapse, it is likely
to play a highly significant role later in the collapse.  The constantly
increasing inward force of surface tension on the void surface will continue
until vaporization of the surface occurs and surface tension is thus lost.
The importance of surface tension acceleration and loss of surface tension
due to void surface vaporization will be discussed in more detail below,
since it is particularly relevant to trying to determine the total energy
that will be imparted during void implosion.  (These same surface tension
effects are also important for self-focusing.)
 
3.6  EARLY IMPLOSION
 
Early implosion is the period between maximum void displacement and the
vaporization (if any) of the void surface.  Early implosion is the energy
contribution phase, in which the void collapse process receives the majority
of the total energy that will be available to it during the final stages of
collapse.
 
As described above in Section 3.5, the drivers of early implosion are rebound
of the ZAS cell, ambient pressure, and surface tension.  While for very large
voids the ambient pressure would be the dominant effect, for small voids the
other two effects of rebound and surface tension will become increasingly
significant or dominant to the final energy contribution profile.
 
However, for intense void implosions in ordinary fluids the early implosion
phase must invariably end as a result of void surface heating.  This surface
heating is a direct consequence of the "competition" for the same location in
space and time that the molecules in the void surface must undergo in a
spherical collapse.  As the total void surface area decreases, molecules must
be "forced out" of the surface and outward into the surrounding fluid, an
effect which jostles the molecules and results in rapidly a rapidly
increasing temperature at the void surface.
 
Along with this heating effect there will also be an increase in void surface
pressure as too many molecules compete for the same space.  This increase in
pressure will in general reach a maximum very slightly outward from the void
surface, but for a very rapid implosion it may be present essentially at the
void surface due to inertial (acceleration) confinement of surface molecules.
 
The combination of void surface heating and void surface pressure increases
will complicate the behavior of the void collapse and make it dependent on
the particular properties of the fluid, but for ordinary fluids the effects
of heating will eventually win out and cause loss of surface tension (that
is, vaporization) at the implosion surface.  Despite this vaporization event,
the surface may remain rather sharply defined if collapse rate is very high.
But the loss of surface tension has other important effects, such as loss of
the accelerating effects of surface tension, even if the surface itself
remains sharply defined.
 
The vaporization of the void surface will be referred to below as the
Vaporization Event, or VE.
 
3.6.1  Factors Affecting Early Implosion Energy Contribution
 
The main factors that affect the overall energy contribution during the early
implosion phase include:
 
   1)  Size of the void (the larger the better)
 
   2)  Available ZAS cell compression energy (the higher the better)
 
   3)  Increasing ambient pressure (best if "tuned" to collapse process)
 
   4)  High surface tension (the higher the better)
 
   5)  Delay of the vaporization event
 
Larger voids increase the total energy contribution simply by extending the
length of the acceleration phase.  However, larger void sizes involve factors
that tend to work against the benefits of a longer acceleration period.
These include increased venting of gases into the void, increased turbulence,
and failure to make good use of surface tension acceleration prior to
vaporization of the void surface.  Thus the use of larger voids can be more
complex than it might at first appear.
 
The ZAS compression energy is most effective if the fluid is both elastic
under compression and capable of significant energy storage when under
decompressive tension.
 
Rapid increases in ambient pressure should be oriented towards adding energy
early in the collapse and preventing "drag" on surface tension acceleration
during later phases.  Additionally, it should help provide overall pressure
confinement during the final stages of collapse by preventing premature
rebound of the outer fluid layers around collapsing void.  Resonances and
standing wave methods provide the most direct approach to implementing such
detailed pressure increase profiles.
 
High surface tension comes into play not only as an accelerating force, but
also as a self-focusing mechanism (see below).
 
Delaying the vaporization event is particularly important if the void size
becomes small enough for surface tension acceleration to become significant.
The simplest approach is to pick a fluid with a high boiling point and to set
the ambient temperature of the fluid to be as low as possible.  Mixtures of
fluids often demonstrate higher boiling points than pure liquids, so this
point also argues for the use of such "antifreeze" style fluid mixtures.
 
3.6.2  Self-Focusing Effects
 
Until this point surface tension has been discussed primarily in the contexts
of initial shaping of the maximum displacement void surface, and acceleration
of the void surface during early implosion.  However, another important
effect of surface tension is that it provides "self-alignment" or focusing of
the collapse process itself.  The significance of this is that self-focusing
effects can significantly delay the onset of turbulence and thus increase the
intensity of the final stages of the collapse.
 
3.6.2.1  Radial Self-Focusing
 
Radial self-focusing refers to the tendency of surface tension to produce a
surface in which any line normal to the surface points to the exact center of
the void.  Because of the tendency of a liquid surface to suppress small
deviation more with greater force, this tendency may actually be grow
stronger as the void shrinks in size.
 
When combined with implosion, radial self-focusing due to surface tension has
the effect of "guiding" or correcting the trajectory of inward-bound
molecules so that they remain targeted towards the center of the void.
 
3.6.2.2  Temporal Self-Focusing
 
Temporal self-focusing refers to the tendency for surface tension to keep the
entire void surface collapsing at very nearly the same rate.  As with radial
self-focusing, this effect should increase in strength as the void collapses.
Temporal self-focusing has the net effect of keeping the molecules of the
void surface targeted to arrive at the center of the void at the same instant.
 
 
3.7  MID IMPLOSION
 
Although the vaporization event corresponds roughly to the end of external
energy contribution into the void collapse, it does not necessarily represent
the end of energy intensification.  In the next (mid implosion) phase the
emphasis shifts from mechanisms that contribute to the total energy of the
void collapse to a new set of mechanisms that serve to focus or collect the
energy of many inwardly moving molecules and transfer it to a smaller number
of correspondingly more energetic molecules.  It is this process, rather than
the initial implosion drivers, that is the most likely to make extremely high
densities and temperatures possible during a void collapse.
 
3.7.1  Wedge-Out Effect
 
The tendency for the void surface to increase in both pressure and
temperature as it implodes has already been mentioned, but these effects need
to be looked at in more detail to understand the details of the later stages
of implosion. In particular, the high spherical symmetry of an intense
collapse should lead to a tendency for these temperature and pressure effects
to be both selective and directional in nature.  In particular, faster or
more mobile molecules or ions should tend to be selectively given still
higher velocities that will be oriented primarily towards the center of the
void.  This _wedge-out effect_ is particularly important for estimating the
final energy intensity of the void collapse, since it presents a mechanism by
which the final stages of void collapse might reach almost arbitrarily high
densities and temperatures.
 
The term "wedge-out" intentionally has a mechanical connotation of forcing or
"popping out" an object under extreme mechanical pressure.  Figure 1 shows an
idealized wedge-out scenario.
 
 
                                   Pressure
                                   | | | |
                                   v v v v
 
                               --> ()()()|
                               --> ()()()|       ()  Slightly slower molecules
                      Pressure --> ()() <>|      <>  Slightly faster molecule
                               --> ()()()|        |  Void surface (gaseous)
                               --> ()()()|
 
                                   ^ ^ ^ ^
                                   | | | |
                                   Pressure
 
                                 ---------->
                              Overall Direction
                               of Acceleration
                               (All Molecules)
 
 
                       Figure 1 -- The Wedge-Out Effect
 
 
For elastic objects such as atoms, the scenario described in Figure 1 is
capable of transferring the kinetic energy of a number of (slower) molecules
into a lesser number of faster molecules that can then "escape" into the
interior of the void while carrying off most of the kinetic energy of that
originally belonged to the slower molecules.  The effect can be described
formally in terms of conversion of energy using two low-friction wedges to
rapidly accelerate an object between the wedges, but can perhaps be more
easily understood by the informal analogy of launching a slippery seed at
high speed by squeezing it tightly between two fingers.  Even though the
fingers never move at a high speed, they are capable of producing a rapid,
intensive acceleration of the seed and a commensurately large increase its
final momentum and energy.
 
Wedge-out is relevant in void collapse only because the extreme inward
compression of the void surface and lateral compression due to shrinking void
surface area create a very difficult "competition" among void surface
molecules.  Essentially all "escape routes" except inward ones are blocked
for nearly all of the surface molecules, and even those paths are severely
limited by rapid shrinking of the void surface.  By "wedging out" any
molecule that has moved slightly farther into the interior due either to
chance or a higher average velocity, the slower molecules are able to expend
some of their inward kinetic energy while simultaneously reducing the total
number of molecules in the surface.  Slightly faster molecules or ions thus
will be preferred for this "launching" into the void interior, since they
will be the ones that are more likely to protrude slightly towards the
interior.
 
Wedge-out thus can be thought of a "directed" temperature rise, in which the
kinetic energy of the molecules increases as in a normal temperature rise,
but the direction in which the rise in kinetic energy occurs will be strongly
biased towards the interior of the void.
 
Two key requirements for an effective wedge-out effect are that:
 
   1)   the interior of the void be as empty of gases as possible, and
 
   2)   the surface of the void remain as sharply defined as possible.
 
The first of these requirements simply reflects the need for a clear, well-
defined "exit path" to keep the wedge-out effect directional.  Gases in the
interior of the void will make alternative energy release paths (primarily
random-motion heating of the void surface) more attractive and rapidly reduce
the acceleration affect provided by wedge-out.
 
The second requirement for a well defined void surface reflects the need to
keep a very high pressure profile as close to the void surface as possible.
If the point of maximum pressure falls too far behind the collapsing void
surface, the result will again be to make alternative random-heat energy
release paths more attractive than wedge-out.
 
In short, the wedge-out effect will be most effective when the sharpest
possible contrast between void surface pressure and interior void pressure
can be maintained.  A very sharp, very well-defined transition from extremely
high pressure to a hard vacuum should allow the wedge-out effect to produce
quite phenomenal accelerations of some subset of the void surface molecules.
 
It is worth noting that wedge-out is primarily a gaseous effect, and that for
single-molecular fluids it is unlikely to become a significant factor until
after the vaporization event.  The reason is that surface tension will tend
to resist allowing any of the fluid molecules to "get ahead" enough to permit
wedge-out to dominate until after vaporization of the surface.
 
However, for multi-molecular fluid wedge-out may become a significant effect
even in the pre-vaporization early acceleration phase, since the dominant
fluid may permit other components to "leak out" into the leading edge of the
void surface.
 
3.7.2  Wedge-Out Cascades
 
Wedge-out becomes even more interesting when it is note that it can (at least
in principle) be cascaded.  That is, the highly accelerated molecules
resulting from the first major wedge-out event may, if sufficiently even in
both radial and temporal distribution, come together to cause a second wedge-
out event in which another component is "launched" at even higher velocity.
Just as a multi-stage rocket permit small payloads to reach phenomenally high
velocities, such wedge-out cascades could in principle result in phenomenally
high final velocities of a (generally very small) "payload" of lightweight,
fast particles that have been "distilled" out of the liquid by repeated
applications of the wedge-out effect.
 
Due to the self-focusing effects of surface tension, it appears quite likely
that first-order wedge-out effects can almost certainly be obtained by high-
quality cavitation experiments.  An interesting experimental question is then
whether second and higher-order wedge-out cascades can be constructed to
provided even higher final accelerations and energies.  One clear requirement
for obtaining higher-order wedge-out events will be a very high level of
initial symmetry, since otherwise the growth of turbulence will rapidly make
the formation of a sharp pressure/vacuum interface impossible.
 
Speculations concerning the limits of compression in sonoluminescence would
tend to support the idea that some sort of unusual acceleration phenomenon
exists in highly symmetrical cavitation phenomena [7].  Wedge-out and wedge-
out cascades could well provide just such a mechanism.
 
3.7.3  Wedge-Out Shells
 
Because the wedge-out process will favor lighter, faster molecules and ions,
there should be a natural tendency for components of the fluid to separate
and form shells of distinct chemical composition during the last stages of
the collapse.  These wedge-out shells are of interest because formation of
"clean" shells of a uniform composition may encourage the development of
wedge-out cascades (and thus much higher final temperatures and pressures).
 
The formation of wedge-out shells could also result in new (very short-lived)
liquid surfaces, since the newly separated components may behave differently
under the extreme pressures of the void implosion.  Whether these new liquid
surfaces would have time to influence (in particular, to re-focus) the inward
motion of the void surface is difficult to say without explicit simulation or
experimental modeling.
 
3.7.4  Ionization of Wedge-Out Shells
 
It should be noted that because the wedge-out process is primarily mechanical
in nature, it should be capable of accelerating not just whole molecules, but
also charged (ionic) fluid components.  Thus is should be possible for highly
charged wedge-out shells for form during the collapse process, owing to the
preferential separation of any charged ions whose average velocity in the
fluid is greater than that of the majority fluid molecules.  The formation of
such charged shells will of course be an energy-consuming event, and would in
general reduce the final intensity of the collapse.
 
However, the formation of charged wedge-out shells would be extremely
interesting from both a theoretical viewpoint and an exploratory,
experimental viewpoint.  Recombination of the charges after rebound would
lead to various forms of electromagnetic radiation, whose overall features
would tend to be complex due to the details of the recombination currents in
the type of highly dynamic environment that should exist during the final
stages of the void collapse.
 
It is entirely possible that sono-luminescence [8], an effect that has
already been observed in cavitation research, is an example of one of the
electromagnetic radiation effects stemming from wedge-out shell ionization of
the inner layers of a void collapse.  Further examination of such
luminescence effects as possible evidence for the formation of wedge-out
shells would be most interesting, since it would tend to confirm that
cavitation possesses an acceleration mechanism (wedge-out) by which
exceptionally high energies could be obtained by void collapse phenomena.
 
One of the most important "side-effects" of the formation of ionized wedge-
out shells would be its potential as an effective tool for exploring the
details of the final void collapse.  Radiation released by recombination
should be rich in information about both the formation of such shells and
their subsequent development.  It should also provide important information
on how various experimental parameters may result in higher or lower final
pressures.  Appropriate ions could also be "seeded" at low levels to act as
tracers for higher intensity void implosions, since in general the energy-
draining formation of high levels of charge in the shells will need to be
avoided to reach the highest possible final pressures and temperatures.
 
3.7.5  Plasma Event
 
For highly symmetrical, highly energetic void collapses, the mechanisms of
wedge-out and (possibly) wedge-out cascades should be capable of producing
late implosion energies that are easily capable of ionizing the imploding
gas.  (This tends to be confirmed also by the presence of ultraviolet light
in sono-luminescence [9], which implies a significant level of ionization.)
This ionization process may be assisted or quickened by the formation of
charged shells when the liquid contains ionic components, but should also be
capable of occurring as a result of inward acceleration effects alone.
 
The mid implosion phase is arbitrarily defined as ending when the void
surface becomes primarily a plasma in composition (the Plasma Event, or PE).
It should be noted that the plasma formed at the time of this event should
for a very symmetrical collapse consist of very high velocity ionized
particles whose velocity vectors are still directed inward toward the void
center.  As long as this inward velocity of the plasma remains largely
intact, the maximum implosion temperature and pressure will not yet have been
reached.
 
 
3.8  LATE IMPLOSION
 
3.8.1  Initial Conditions for Late Implosion
 
The late implosion phase extends from the plasma event until termination of
the implosion by one or more rebound effects, which are discussed in the next
section.
 
Ideally, late implosion should begin as a set of inwardly directed plasma
ions that are still focused on a shared central point.  Wedge-out effects are
still conceivable during the late implosion if the radial and temporal
symmetry of these inwardly directed plasma components remain high enough.
 
3.8.2  Micro Ion Fusion (MIF) Analogy
 
One way of viewing the potential intensity of the late implosion is to note
its similarity to a microscopic version of what is known as "ion fusion," in
which very fast ions are directed inwards to a single target point in order
to induce light-element fusion.  Although constructed in a very different
fashion, the "machinery" of early and mid implosion of a well-formed void may
very well be capable of producing a final scenario that is essentially the
same as that of ion fusion -- that is, a set of roughly synchronized ions
moving radially inwards at a very high velocity towards a common target.
 
This "Micro Ion Fusion" (MIF) analogy also helps emphasize the need for more
experimentation to determine what, exactly, is the final densities and
temperatures possible through cavitation collapse.  Because of the extreme
simplicity of "building" liquid void "mechanisms" in comparison to large-
scale ion fusion machinery, an experimental verification that inwardly
directed plasma streams actually do exist in some forms of cavitation would
be of considerable interest theoretically and experimentally.
 
 
3.9  IMPLOSION TERMINATION
 
In this section the various mechanisms that lead to termination of inward
motion of the void surface are discussed.
 
3.9.1  Implosion Termination Due to Pressure of Void Gas
 
The single most detrimental to achieving high-intensity void implosions is
the presence of a low-quality vacuum in the void -- that is, the presence of
significant levels of void gases.
 
The negative impact of void gases can be imagined in part by recognizing that
in the extreme case they result in a stable, non-collapsing gas-filled bubble
instead of an unstable void.  In less extreme cases the void gases will
result in a very rapidly increasing pressure profile as the void shrinks in
size, so that at some point the outward pressure of the void gases will cause
the collapse process to stall.  Such a scenario will result in moderately
high pressures and temperatures through simple compression, but is unlikely
to result in exceptional pressure or temperatures for three reasons:
 
   1)  the collapse energy will be spread out over too many gas molecules,
 
   2)  wedge-out acceleration mechanisms will be "shut down" prematurely, and
 
   3)  gas impinging on the void surface may damage its symmetry and cohesion.
 
The first effect of excessive spreading of energy is unavoidable because the
central gases retain their "information" on their relative position and thus
behave in a simple spring-like compressive fashion.  As mentioned earlier in
the discussion of void formation and entropy, achieving very high pressures
and temperatures depends critically on getting as much of the system as
possible to "forget" the original comparatively orderly arrangement of
molecules, and instead have them "compete" for a single position in space and
time.  Void gases fail to meet this criterion, and thus act as a serious
"drag" to increasing the final collapse intensity.
 
The second effect of premature shut down of the wedge-out acceleration
mechanism is a consequence of the fact that wedge-out requires a very sharp
pressure/vacuum transition at the void surface, a condition that is not
possible if the gas pressure within the void rises rapidly.
 
Finally, the presence of gases will also negatively impact the void surface
by encouraging small-scale turbulent behavior and lessening surface tension
through the impact of the gas molecules.  These are comparatively minor
effects, but still may need to be taken into account in some cases.
 
Termination of implosion due to void gases is significant not only because of
its negative effects on final intensity, but also because it is very easy for
voids to acquire such gases.  Voids naturally tend to "scoop up" gases as
they form, so that initially the voids that form in a fluid are unlikely to
be capable of significant implosion intensities.  On the other hand, the void
mechanism itself can be used to help rid the fluid of dissolved gases, so
that a similar experimental arrangement can be used both to "clean" the fluid
and subsequently produce more intense collapses.
 
Another key factor is fluid vaporization, since some level of fluid molecules
will almost certainly end up in the void.  The use of cooled fluids and fluid
mixtures with very low vapor pressures can help greatly in this area.  (An
added benefit is that these same characteristics will also tend to help in
the formation and preservation of surface tension during the early stages of
the void collapse.)
 
3.9.2  Implosion Termination Due to Void Surface Turbulence
 
Prior to the vaporization event, a fluid with strong surface tension is
likely to be highly effective at minimizing turbulence in the void surface.
This again emphasizes the importance of maintaining a liquid surface for as
long as possible during the void collapse, since even a small delay in the
onset of turbulence can provide a significant improvement in the orderliness
of the final collapse.
 
However, after the vaporization event the radial and temporal self-focusing
effects of surface tension will be lost and turbulence will begin to grow
much more rapidly.  Compression will lead to a limited form of radial self-
focusing after the VE, since each void surface molecule will be constrained
into a largely radial path by the pressure of the molecules around it.
 
However, this limited form of compression-induced radial alignment is
unstable with respect to temporal alignment.  That is, the pressure effects
will also increasingly encourage some parts of the surface either to fall
behind or race ahead of the average void surface.  (Wedge-out acceleration is
in fact a "favorable" form of this temporal instability effect, provided that
the inward wedge-out of fluid occurs in a sufficiently symmetrical fashion.)
After a time, the instability of the surface with respect to time will cause
a general loss of order and cause the "directed heat" of the imploding
molecules to become ordinary (non-directed) heat.
 
Again, the presence of a very hard vacuum in the void interior can help delay
the onset of temporal instabilities by providing a clear "direction" in which
some fraction of the faster molecules can head.  This "race effect" can in
effect "filter out" initial levels of turbulence by allowing a subset of the
molecules to enter an energetically favorable region of (empty) space.
 
Another factor that can help delay turbulence is a high particle momentum.  A
heavy-mass molecule should tend to be affected by turbulence at a somewhat
lower rate than a light, easily disturbed molecule.
 
3.9.3  Implosion Termination Due to Loss of Confinement Layers
 
Another mechanism by which implosion maybe terminated is loss of one or more
of the outer "confinement layers" surrounding the collapsing void.  These are
layers of fluid that should (ideally) display a pressure profile that during
the final stages of collapse increases monotonically in towards the central
collapse.
 
Stated in a somewhat different form, it is important that all the layers of
fluid around the collapse retain either a slight inward velocity or no
velocity at all during the period of the final collapse.  If any of these
outer layers "rebounds" and loses its pressure prematurely, the net effect
will be a "peeling back" of layers until the central void collapse is
reached.  As the decompression reaches the central void it will rapidly
become turbulent and then rebound back into the surrounding fluid.
 
A qualification to this is that if the lost confinement layer is far enough
out from the central collapse, it may not influence that collapse until after
the central void has reached its maximum intensity.
 
To avoid termination due to the loss of confinement layers, the overall
pressure profile around the central void should at least be taken into
account in modeling the final collapse.  Modification of the decompression
and compression cycles for the void should then be able to limit or avoid
premature rebound of such confinement layers.
 
3.9.4  Implosion Termination Due to Charge Build-Up
 
As mentioned earlier, the wedge-out effect should be capable of producing
some separation of ionized fluid components, leading to the build-up of
layers of charge around the collapsing void.  The formation of significantly
charged shells would be a significant drain on the energy available to the
collapse process, and in some cases may be sufficient to halt the implosion.
 
 
3.10  REGION OF MAXIMUM ENERGY (ROME)
 
The late implosion phase ends with termination of directed inward motion, and
results in a (generally turbulent and roughly isotropic) region of maximum
energy density.  Due to turbulence, this Region Of Maximum Energy (ROME) will
in most cases be a ragged-edged region in space-time, and will contain a
(generally very small) quantity of very high temperature gases.
 
The duration of the ROME will depend largely on how smoothly the confinement
pressure profile around the ROME falls back to zero.  If the profile falls in
an orderly, uniform fashion the ROME may persist considerably longer than for
the case of an irregular breakup of the pressure confinement profile (which
will in turn lead to earlier loss of one or more confinement layers).  As in
ion fusion devices, the use of high-mass particles for the fluid may also
help extend the duration of the ROME through simple inertial effects in both
the ROME itself and in the surrounding confinement pressure profile.
 
As described earlier, experimental evidence for ROMEs that contain high-
temperature plasmas already exists for some cooled water-based cavitation
systems [3] [9].  Thus it appears likely that even more intense ROMEs can be
created in future generations of cavitation systems.  Given reports of
effective temperatures in the tens of thousands of degrees for existing
cavitation systems and the existence of many currently poorly controlled
parameters in such systems, it appears likely that ROMEs with temperatures in
the million degree range are at least plausible.  The combination of possible
accelerating mechanisms such the wedge-out effect and existing reports of
very high temperatures would certainly appear to make the effort to at least
try for such high temperatures plausible.
 
Obviously, on of the most interesting experiments to try if high-intensity
ROMEs can be created and verified would be fusion of light hydrogen isotopes
such as tritium and deuterium, possibly in combination with lithium.  Indeed,
in some cases such materials might even act as important experimental probes
for testing and gaining a better understanding of ROME properties.
 
 
3.11  POST-IMPLOSION REBOUND
 
Post-implosion rebound is most notable here in that it may help generate a
second-generation (explosively formed) void.  Such effects will be increased
if the implosion produces a net release of energy.  Cyclic void formation
processes, such as those provided by sonic standing waves, will need to take
rebound into account to accurately model and "tune" the cyclic void formation
process.
 
 
4.  EXPERIMENTAL
 
4.1  MATERIALS
 
4.1.1  General Materials Characteristics
 
The following is a list of general characteristics that should be favorable
towards the production of intense cavitation events:
 
   1)  Resistance to void formation
 
   2)  Low vapor pressure
 
   3)  Simple, highly stable molecular composition
 
   4)  Small molecule size (atomic being ideal)
 
   5)  High molecular weight
 
In general, the harder a liquid is to cavitate, the more likely it will be to
produce highly intense void collapses.  Resistance to cavitation tends to
indicate both very strong intra-fluid bonding and a low vapor pressure, both
of which should be highly advantageous to void formation and collapse.
 
The need for a low vapor pressure is a direct consequence of the need to keep
a very hard vacuum in the void interior.
 
Simple, highly stable molecules are needed to prevent non-collapse mechanisms
paths from draining energy from the void collapse.  Molecules that are easily
broken apart may both absorb energy and complicate surface mechanics during
the early collapse.
 
Molecules that are too large will be hard to accelerate during and rearrange
during the final stages of collapse, and in extreme cases could lead to an
"arch effect" in which the void surface briefly locks up into a highly
resistant, semi-solid structure.  Additionally, large "floppy" molecules are
more likely to convert the energy of rearrangement into wasted (premature)
heat.  From this perspective the ideal molecule for cavitation are those
whose molecules consist of single atoms, which are both highly mobile and
highly elastic under collision.
 
Finally, a high molecular weight is helpful (but not critical), since it can
extend the duration of the ROME and possibly make the ROME significantly more
intense.  The analogy here is a simple one:  Hitting two sledge hammers
together tends to be a more energetic event than hitting two ordinary hammers
together.
 
Where mixtures of fluids meet some of these criteria better than individual
fluids (e.g., by reducing vapor pressure), those mixtures may also provide
good cavitation candidates.
 
4.1.2  Specific Possibilities for Materials
 
When combined, these recommended characteristics point to two particularly
interesting classes of fluids for cavitation experiments:
 
   1)  Water, small-molecule water-like, and mixtures of these
 
   2)  Mercury, liquid metals, and mixtures of these
 
Mercury in particular is an exceedingly interesting candidate because of its
very high surface tension, low vapor pressure, single-atom composition, and
high molecular (atomic) weight.  However, it has the disadvantage of being
impermeable to nearly all forms of electromagnetic radiation, making it
difficult to verify the consequences of cavitation.  Indeed, in the case of
mercury it may be necessary to use an isotope such as tritium simply to
permit "fusion tracing" of the radiation results of cavitation events that
are (presumably) intense enough to fuse such materials.
 
There are many other metals (e.g, gallium, lead, tin, and the alkaline metal
of Li, Na, P, and Cs) that melt at low temperatures and are also relatively
easy to work with (and in the case of tin, far less toxic) than mercury.  For
such metals the term "cold" can be used relatively, since the key issues are
low vapor pressure and enduring surface tension, rather than low temperatures
per se.  Metals and other substances that maintain these characteristics at
high temperature should be quite usable, even if the absolute temperatures at
which they become fluids are well above room temperature.
 
Metal mixtures and mercury amalgams are also interesting candidates for
cascaded wedge-out effects, since it may be possible for distinct wedge-out
shells of different atomic masses to form more readily from such a medium.
 
Water and mixtures of low-mass, water-like molecules (e.g., the (CHOH)nH2
family that includes methanol, glycol, and glycerin) are also interesting
candidates due to their small sizes and strong, easily rearranged hydrogen
bonding.  Moreover, these media are much easier to work with experimentally
because of their transparency to most forms of electromagnetic radiation.
Finally, water and related hydrogen-bonded liquids are capable of dissolving
a wide variety of ionic substances that could prove useful in both modifying
and experimentally tracing cavitation properties in such fluids.
 
Mixing such hydrogen-bonded fluids can drastically lower freezing point of
the fluids, so that very cold initial fluids can be used both to greatly
reduce vapor pressure during void expansion, and to increase the period of
time for which surface tension will provides self-focusing and acceleration
of the void surface.
 
4.1.3  Purity of Materials
 
As noted before, "ready to use" materials should have extremely low levels of
dissolved gases to prevent premature implosion termination.  Salts and other
soluble materials are less likely to interfere, but the possibility that they
could enhance the formation of charged layers and thus reduce the energy of
the final collapse should at least be taken into account.
 
A more complex issue is that of particulate impurities.  In general some
degree of particular impurities are likely to be needed to provide seeds for
nanovoid formation, but too many particles (especially too many large
particles) is likely to degrade the ability to form high-quality voids.
 
Ideally, particles in the fluid should be as small as possible while still
permitting formation of nanovoids at reasonable decompression intensities,
and common enough to be readily available at the void formation site.
 
4.1.4  Gas and Particulate Doping
 
Both gases and particulate material may be intentionally introduced into a
fluid for the explicit purpose of providing "targets" for the final implosion
of cavitation voids.
 
In the case of gases the idea would be to add a very low lever of dissolved
"target" gas, such that a very small quantity of the gas will be swept up by
the void during expansion.  A disadvantage of such an approach is that even a
very small increase in the total gas in the void may greatly reduce the final
intensity of the collapse.
 
A potentially superior approach is to intentionally introduce very small,
solid particles that will act both as seeds for initial void formation and as
"targets" during the final collapse.  The solid state of the target keeps it
from interfering with the collapse process, and potentially could allow a
sharp pressure/vacuum transition to exist in the void surface until the very
last instant of the collapse.
 
While a solid target in a vacuum void will fall somewhat due to gravity, the
generally very short time between expansion and collapse (e.g., half of an
ultrasound cycle) should keep the target particle near the needed location.
The intentional introduction of a slight vertical asymmetry into the initial
expansion of the void might also provide a mechanism by which the target
could be "tossed upwards" and subsequently fall back to the position where
the implosion will reach its maximum.  Finally, the high pressure of the
implosion surface should provide a strong sweeping effect on a solid
particle, moving it towards the center (but at the cost of some of the
spherical symmetry of the final collapse).
 
In general, seed/target particles should have surfaces that are not easily
wet (adhered to) by the fluid selected.  Thus a seed/target in liquid metal
should not mix with the metal, and a seed/target in water and water-like
fluids should have a hydrophobic (oil-like) surface.  The importance of this
is that it provides a natural base for the formation of a nanovoid.
 
One interesting long-term class of seed/targets for water like-fluids and
possibly liquid metal fluids) would be graphite-jacketed "fullerene" spheres
of large size.
 
 
4.2  INITIAL TEMPERATURE
 
In general, the absolute temperature of a cavitation fluid should be less
significant than how temperature effects vapor pressure and the duration of
surface tension during collapse.  Thus a relatively high temperature for a
liquid metal such as lead might prove to be just as effective as a much lower
temperature for a mix of hydrogen-bonded, water-like liquids.
 
Thus temperatures should be selected primarily on the basis of how they
affect the particular fluid selected.  In general, the lower range of
temperatures at which the fluid remains free-flowing should give better
results than the higher temperature ranges for that same fluid.
 
 
4.3  INITIAL PRESSURE
 
In general a high initial pressure should help contribute to both the initial
implosion impulse and subsequent confinement of the implosion layers around
the collapsing void.  However, it should be noted that the decompression
method used will always have to "fight against" this initial pressure, so
that substantially more energetic decompression mechanisms may be required.
This added energy then contributes to the void collapse once it is formed,
and so falls under the general rule of "the harder to cavitate, the better."
 
 
4.4  PHYSICAL SET-UP AND TECHNIQUES
 
4.4.1  Single-Node Sonic Decompression Methods
 
The most powerful and symmetrical decompression generators are spherical-
symmetry, single-void ultrasonic generators, such as those described by
Steven Jones for ongoing work at BYU [4].  It is likely that if interesting
collapse phenomena can be found that these types of generators will be the
best for initial identification and exploration of such effects.
 
A somewhat less exact form of single-node decompression would be to use
either a long parabolic reflector and a plane wave generator, or two "end to
end" parabolic reflectors with a small, point-like sonic generator at the
focus of one of the generators [10].
 
4.4.2  Multi-Node Sonic Decompression Methods
 
Another class of sonic based generators are "lattice" generators that create
a three-dimensional field of alternating compression and decompression
regions, each of which has a reasonably high (e.g., cubic) initial level of
symmetry.  The simplest way to construct an example of such a cavitation
lattice is to direct a plane sound wave into a corner-cube reflector.
Reflections within the corner-cube will then result in the formation of a
field of compression/decompression regions with roughly cubic symmetry.
 
Since lattice methods provide only modest radial symmetry during expansion,
it is likely that a high surface-tension liquid and careful timing of the
decompression/compression cycle would be needed to allow surface tension to
thoroughly restructure the void surface at peak void displacement.  In
particular, a pressure cycle that would tend to extend the period of peak
displacement would provide more time for reshaping of the void surface.
 
 
4.4.3  Impulse Decompression Methods
 
Impulse generators could be constructed in the lab by techniques as simple as
tapping a piston that has been arranged to decompress a fluid within a
cylinder.  Such simple methods would have difficulty competing with
ultrasonic generation, but impulse decompression has the advantage of being
able to generate unusually severe decompressions.
 
For example, the same cylinder just described could be severely decompressed
by firing a high-speed projectile at the piston, instead of simply tapping it
with a hammer.  For very pure, very low-gas fluids such explosively rapid
decompressions could make intense cavitation possible in fluids that might
not respond to ultrasound or other milder techniques.
 
 
4.5  SONIC FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY
 
A final point about experimental setups is simply to note the importance of
scanning a broad range of both frequency and intensity for sonic (and
impulse) generation methods.  Because the number of variables that could
potentially affect final cavitation intensity, it may, for example, not
always be the case that "more intense is better."  Subtler effects such as
loss of confinement layers around a void may in some cases mean that lower
intensities or frequencies will work better.
 
Eventually, detailed shaping of sonic pressure cycles to match the particular
characteristics of a fluid would probably provide the best results.
 
 
5.  Ultra Cavitation in Nature
 
Perhaps one of the most interesting aspect of the idea of ultra cavitation is
that if it exists at all, it may quite possibly also exist as a natural
effect.  This is particularly interesting in light of earlier proposals by
Jones et al [11] that the heat output of large planets may in part be due to
some form of very-low-level natural fusion.  Natural ultra cavitation could
quite possibly provide both a plausible mechanism by which such very-low-
level fusion might occur.  Perhaps more importantly, the specificity of the
conditions needed for ultra cavitation to occur should make such hypotheses
empirically testable through simulations of relevant natural conditions.
 
5.1  CANDIDATE FLUIDS FOR NATURAL ULTRA CAVITATION
 
The major natural fluids in which some form of cavitation could (at least in
principle) occur include:
 
   1)  Surface and free-flowing water
 
   2)  Ocean bed and thermal vent water
 
   3)  Hydro fluids associated with deep faults
 
   4)  Hydro fluids associated with subduction
 
   5)  Volcanic magmas
 
   6)  Liquid iron alloys at the mantle/outer-core interface
 
   7)  Liquid iron alloys at the inner-core/outer-core interface
 
5.2  EARTHQUAKES, SUBDUCTION, AND IMPULSE DECOMPRESSION
 
With possible exception of free-flowing surface water, the best candidate
mechanism for void formation in all of these fluids would be some form of
impulse decompression.  The likelihood of successful void formation by this
method will fall drastically for very deep, very high-pressure fluids such as
the liquid iron alloys of earth's outer core, but cannot be excluded even
here for sufficiently energetic impulse decompressions.  If cavitation does
occur at such depths, it would inherently be very high in available energy.
The question would be more one of whether the very rapid collapse of a void
at such a depth would permit the development of a high degree of symmetry in
the void.
 
The simplest model for natural impulse decompression is the "snapping" of a
rock that already contains a fluid-filled crack.  Such a scenario places
sever stress of the fluid near the center of the crack, and should be capable
of forming significant voids even deep within the earth.
 
The "snapping" idea is particularly interesting in conjunction with hydro
fluids that are associated with both deep faults and subduction zones, where
often extremely vigorous fracturing of rock is a commonplace occurrence.  It
seems likely that in such regions the basic requirements for cavitation of
some sort are not only available, but highly likely.
 
The question then becomes one of whether the fluids involved are capable of
meeting the criteria for ultra cavitation -- that is, cavitation in which the
void contains a vacuum of exceptionally high quality, and the spherical
symmetry of the void is high.  Both hydro fluids and (perhaps) highly fluid
magmas could be worth considering in this regard.
 
A question of this type cannot easily be answered without detailed estimates
of the nature of such fluids, their gas contents, how they will evolve over
time (e.g., will they tend to degass?), and other features relevant to the
formation of high-quality voids.  A positive feature of such questions is
that they should be amenable to experimental testing and simulation.
 
As a research issue, perhaps the best approach to resolving whether a natural
form of ultra cavitation could lead to very-low-level fusion within the earth
would be to first verify whether or not significant levels of fusion can be
achieved with cavitation in a controlled laboratory environment.  If the
answer to that question should turn out to be "yes," then it would seem
highly appropriate for the question of natural ultra cavitation fusion to be
pursued with great vigor through a combination of theory, speculation,
numerical simulation, and direct testing of simulated deep-earth environment.
 
 
6.  NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF ULTRA CAVITATION
 
Ultra cavitation is a problem that fairly well begs for detailed numerical
simulation, since many of the details of how and whether certain intensities
can be reached will be dependent on behaviors that cannot be accurately
estimated by manual methods.
 
One interesting possibility for speeding the development of ultra-cavitation
simulation programs could be to "borrow" features from simulations of other
larger collapse phenomena, such as ion and laser confinement fusion, or
possibly even supernova collapse simulations.  However, highly tailored
software would clearly be needed to accurately model this special class of
collapses in which the final stages may involve a small number of atoms.
 
Numeric simulation would also help wade through the potentially vast number
of chemical and mechanical parameters that could be modified for ultra
cavitation experiments, particularly in combination with experiments to
identify interesting or unexpected regions of behavior.
 
 
7.  SUMMARY
 
In summary, it seems likely that the full range of temperatures and pressures
available through the simple, well-known phenomenon of cavitation has yet to
be fully explored.  This paper has presented the premise that when cavitation
is combined with a very hard void vacuum and a very high level of spherical
symmetry, a significantly enhanced process that is referred to in this paper
simply as "ultra cavitation" may extend obtainable pressures and temperatures
into ranges normally reserved for intense plasma phenomena.
 
Experimental verification of this very-high-end range of cavitation effects
would be of great interest scientifically and perhaps practically, since it
would mean that such very high pressures and temperatures could be obtained
far more easily, and with far less complex equipment, than was previously
thought possible.
 
Finally, the possibility of naturally occurring ultra cavitation provides an
intriguing possibility for experimental examination of the Jones et al
hypothesis that planetary heating is in part the result of very-low-level
fusion deep within the earth.
 
 
8.  REFERENCES
 
    [1] Terry B. Bollinger (terry@asl.dl.nec.com), "In defense of Steven
        Jones."  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion, Message-ID:
        <1992Dec15.233802.16896@asl.dl.nec.com>, Date:  Tue, 15 Dec 1992
        23:38:02 GMT.
 
    [1] Terry B. Bollinger (terry@asl.dl.nec.com), "HICCUP Fusion."
        Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion, Message-ID:
        <1992Dec16.201708.26730@asl.dl.nec.com>, Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992
        20:17:08 GMT.
 
    [3] Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu), "Sonofusion at BYU."
        Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion, Message-ID:
        <1992Dec16.113342.285@physc1.byu.edu>, Date: 16 Dec 92 11:33:42 -0700.
 
    [4] Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu), "Sonoluminescence
        References."  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion, Message-ID:
        <1992Dec18.111410.294@physc1.byu.edu>, Date: 18 Dec 92 11:14:10 -0700
 
    [5] Private conversations with Jay Yow regarding his research work at UMR.
 
    [6] Private email from Tom Droege regarding ultrasound equipment.
 
    [7] B.P. Barber, S.J. Putterman, "Observation of synchronous picosecond
        SL," Nature, 352:318, 25 July 1991.  [Reference provided by S. Jones.]
 
    [8] 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).  [Reference provided by S. Jones.]
 
    [9] R. Hiller, S.J. Putterman, B.P. Barber, "Spectrum of Synchronous
        Picosecond SL", Physical Rev. Letters, 69:1182 (24 Aug. 1992).
        [Reference provided by S. Jones.]
 
   [10] Tom Droege (DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV), "Misc." Newsgroups:
        sci.physics.fusion, Message-ID:<921221133431.20c01220@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
        Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:02:37 GMT
 
   [11] Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.ed), "Natural Fusion in Earth
        Hypothesis." Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion, Message-ID:
        <1992Dec28.121139.306@physc1.byu.edu>, Date: 28 Dec 92 12:11:39 -0700.
 
 
---------- Copyrighted document ends with (and includes) this line -----------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.03 / Chuck Sites /  More comments on Analysis of Tom's Cells
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More comments on Analysis of Tom's Cells
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:01:56 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
   So much has been going on, I'm just now getting caught up.  Holidays
have an interesting way of blowing ones concentration.  I'm just now getting
to the "Electrostatic Fusion" material, and so far I don't doubt thier claims.
It's quite an interesting comparison that Terry Bollinger make between this
and "Fracto-fusion".  Most people think of fractures a quite large effect
compaired to atomic scales.  That's not necessarily so, most are 10 angstroms
or so, and are classified as plastic deformations, and brittle metal fratures.
Pd tends towards plastic and Ti brittle, but hydration stiffens Pd and softens
Ti. There is a lot to fracturing as I've be learning, and so far it seems like
a very possible stimulus for fusion in metal as seen by Steve Jones, Menlove,
etc.  Anyway, back to some old material.  This may be out of date, but it's
something I would like to get of my chest.  Frank Close apparently has a
misunderstanding of the capabilities of anylitical electronmicroscopy
and what we found in Tom Droege's cells.
 
  Tom is correct, we are just experimenting, not making claims. (Yet.)
Experimenting is basically, learning, refining thoughts, then methods,
and experimenting again. Try Try again.  We all learn from this.  The
metal transport problem between cathode/anode and extraneous sources are
important as Dieter Britz argues. (Dieter, I did see a very small Cr peak
in one scan of the "Takahashi style" electrode, but at the time, we thought
it was an artifact and dismissed it.) Being clean of oils is important too
as Jed Rothewell argues. I didn't see any obvious effects of this in Tom's
cells, but we were not looking for organics.  Well, such is experimenting
sometimes it's right, sometimes wrong, and then sometimes it... well...
how can I put this Frank.. ehh.. mis-stated hear-say.
 
   In a recent posting by Dr. F. Close, there are a couple of comments
I would like to correct.  The elemental analysis we did of Tom Droege's
cells were done by electron X-ray backscatter techniques.  This technique
has the advantage that ZrO is easily distinguished from Pd.  There is no
problem with molecular masses being confused with atomic masses as in
mass-spec.  The disadvantage is that isotope separation is difficult since
the X-ray spectrum of an isotope is only shifted by the hyperfine constant.
That type of information is easily lost in the detector/MCA.  Our detection
capabilities were further limited by running the system with the light
element window closed (to protect the SiLI detector from residual D & Li
in the cell), so we are limited to elements above Oxygen.  Infact isotope
shifts can't be done with the type of equipment we are using as far as I
know. But if there was Zr in Tom's Cells we would have seen that simply
because it's X-ray spectrum is quite different from Pd.
 
   What we did have problems with was the ability to quantify what might
be a trace amount of Ag in Pd cells.  Our instruments reported trace
amounts in the cells labeled "Fractured electrode" (FE) and "Takahashi
style" (TS) at about 1% localized to areas about 1 nm^2 .  The problem is
this could be a spectral peak overlap from the strong PD line.  However,
I did observe an escape peak for Ag while looking at a sharp fractured edge
in FE, but because of metal transport problem (found by our work), this may
moot since the source could have come from one of the brass connectors that
made contact with the electrolyte. I should know more when we do our next
run.
 
   In spite of what that somewhat gray analysis, what we did find may
be more important to the experimentalist than anything.  Metal transport
has a profound effect on the surface structure. The electrolyte material
has a similar effect on the surface. Those are to be expected, but are
these metal deposits benfitial to the production of hydrated metal excess
heat effects, anonomolus nuclear effects, hydrogen-band formation, or what
ever?  This still remains a unknown, as are so many things in this
cutting edge science field.
 
   Lastly Frank,  I just heard you speak on Radio Canada shortwave in a
segment called "Of Quirks and Quarks."  Very fascinating talk I must say
although it was pure-luck finding it.  Do you have such detailed discussions
on the goings on of "Cold Fusion"?  I would like to get your opinion.  What is
your belief on the connection between hydrated metal excess heat and fusion
in metals?  What's your favorite theory?
 
Happy New Year!
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.03 / John Logajan /  Cavitation and driven resonance
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cavitation and driven resonance
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 18:23:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I'd just like to add a little elaboration on the topic of driven resonance
to Terry Bollinger's discussion of cavitation.
 
If you set up system of standing waves as Terry suggests, you will have
created a driven resonance system.
 
In such systems (as Tesla was fond of dramatically demonstrating) energy is
accumulated over many cycles, making the amplitude of each cycle successively
larger until a limit is reached.
 
For instance, in the case of a cyclical system in which the energy loss rate
is proportional to the amplitude, and say, for instance, accounts for 10%,
then the amplitude after several cycles will be the inverse of the loss rate,
(or 10 times in this case) of the amplitude of the first cycle (or of a
comparable single shot device.)
 
This ratio of first cycle amplitude to later maxed out amplitudes is known as
the "Q" of the resonance (though there is a more precise definition of "Q".)
 
Another way to look at it is to see that the amplitude of the oscillation
and its proportional fraction of energy loss (to heating, etc) will continue
to grow until the amount of energy loss grows to just equals the amount of
driven energy being input on each cycle.  The oscillation amplitude stops
increasing when all the input energy is being consumed to cover the energy
loss mechanisms.
 
Therefore if you have a very efficient oscillator (low fraction of energy
loss per cycle) then you can have very high "multiplications" of the
"driver" amplitude.
 
A loss rate of 10% would mean an amplification of 10.
A loss rate of 1% would mean an amplification of 100.
A loss rate of 0.1% would mean an amplification of 1000.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Bruce Dunn /  Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:40:56 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

     A variety of reports have suggested that there may be something
different about anomalous heat experiments run in "open" cells and in sealed
cells with recombiners.  Terry Bollinger's recent discussion of the
possibility of sonofusion indicate that for this postulated fusion mechanism,
the types and concentrations of dissolved gases in the liquid play a very
important role in what happens in a collapsing bubble.  Some thinking on my
part has suggested that various experimental setups trying to demonstrate
anomalous heat are likely to have widely different compositions of dissolved
gases in their electrolytes.  It is possible that these differences are
related to whether or not anomalous heat is produced.
 
     There is far more gas in the headspace of the cells than is dissolved in
the electrolyte.  Through gas interchange through the electrolyte/headspace
surface, the concentrations of gases dissolved in the electrolyte will tend
to equilibrate with the concentrations of gases in the headspace.  The amount
of a given dissolved gas in the bulk of the electrolyte will therefore
depend, among other things,  on the partial pressure of the gas in the
headspace.  Other factors of course apply - the continued production of
oxygen and hydrogen bubbles in the electrolyte will tend to flush other gases
from the electrolyte unless counterbalanced by a similar inflow of the gas
from the headspace.   The electrolyte near electrodes will tend to be
enriched in hydrogen or oxygen, due to electrolysis.
 
     In going back in my mind over the types of experiments which have been
reported, I think that I can distinguish at least 5 types of anomalous heat
experiments which are distinguishable not by their electrode and electrolyte
composition, but by what the composition of the headspace gas is and how it
got that way.   I list these below, along with what I think the partial
pressures of oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen are likely to be.
 
 
 
Type 1:  No recombiner, wide open cell with air accessible surface
 
- headspace of cell will be largely air, enriched slightly with oxygen and
hydrogen
 
- steady state partial pressures of gases in headspace:
 
O2     20 kPa
N2     80 kPa
H2     trace
 
 
Type 2:  No recombiner, outflow of gas through a narrow orifice or a bubbler
 
- during initial charging, electrolytic hydrogen will be absorbed by the
electrode and electrolytic oxygen will flush nitrogen from the cell
- once hydrogen starts to be liberated, the headspace will be stochiometric
hydrogen and oxygen
- in steady state conditions nitrogen will have been flushed from the cell by
the constant flow of gas and will be kept from the cell by the constant gas
flow through the orifice or by the bubbler
 
- steady state partial pressures of gases in headspace:
 
O2     33 kPa
N2     none
H2     66 kPa
 
Type 3:  Recombiner, outflow of gas through a bubbler
 
- headspace of cell initially air, but some nitrogen is flushed out by the
excess volume of oxygen produced during charging, and headspace converts to
an oxygen enriched atmosphere
- once hydrogen starts to be liberated, hydrogen will be recombined with
oxygen; a low level of hydrogen will be maintained as the recombiner cannot
drive the hydrogen level to zero
- the bubbler will keep atmospheric nitrogen from getting back into the
system
 
- partial pressures of gases in headspace
 
O2     20 to 100 kPa, likely above 50 kPa
N2     80 to 0 kPa, likely below 50 kPa
H2     trace
 
O2 and N2 partial pressure add to 100 kPa; the more efficient the flushing,
the higher the O2 partial pressure and the lower the N2 partial pressure
 
 
 
 
Type 4:  Recombiner, outflow of gas through a narrow orifice
 
- headspace of cell initially air, but nitrogen is flushed out by the excess
volume of oxygen produced during charging, and headspace converts to an
oxygen enriched atmosphere
- once hydrogen starts to be liberated, hydrogen will be recombined with
oxygen; a low level of hydrogen will be maintained as the recombiner cannot
drive the hydrogen level to zero
- once charging is finished, there will no longer be a net flow of gas
through the orifice, and nitrogen from the surrounding air can diffuse back
into the cell; eventually, the headspace will approximate air
 
- initial partial pressures of gases in headspace
 
O2     20 to 100 kPa, likely above 50 kPa
N2     80 to 0 kPa, likely below 50 kPa
H2     trace
 
O2 and N2 partial pressure add to 100 kPa; the more efficient the flushing,
the higher the O2 partial pressure and the lower the N2 partial pressure
 
 
- steady state partial pressure of gases in headspace (after air diffusion)
 
O2     20 kPa
N2     80 kPa
H2     trace
 
 
 
Type 5:  Recombiner, outflow of gas captured in a constant pressure syringe,
bellows or similar arrangement
 
- headspace of cell initially air, but nitrogen is flushed out by the excess
volume of oxygen produced during charging, and headspace converts to an
oxygen enriched atmosphere
- once hydrogen starts to be liberated, hydrogen will be recombined with
oxygen; a low level of hydrogen will be maintained as the recombiner cannot
drive the hydrogen level to zero
- with time, the nitrogen displaced into the syringe will diffuse back to
give a uniform gas composition throughout the system.  The level of nitrogen
will depend on the ratio between the volume of air initially sealed inside
the headspace/syringe combination, and the volume of oxygen generated during
charging
 
- initial partial pressures of gases in headspace
 
O2     20 to 100 kPa, likely above 50 kPa
N2     80 to 0 kPa, likely below 50 kPa
H2     trace
 
O2 and N2 partial pressure add to 100 kPa; the more efficient the flushing,
the higher the O2 partial pressure and the lower the N2 partial pressure
 
- steady state partial pressure of gases in headspace (assuming as an example
that the volume of oxygen generated during charging is equal to the gas
volume of the system when first sealed)
 
O2     60 kPa
N2     40 kPa
H2     trace
 
Summary Table
Steady State Partial Pressure of Gas after Long Term Operation
 
Type of Cell                             O2        N2        H2
 
1  No recombiner, completely open        20        80        trace
2  No recombiner, bubbler or orifice     33        none      66
3  Recombiner, bubbler                  >50       <50        trace
4  Recombiner, orifice                   20        80        trace
5  Recombiner, syringe or bellows        60        40        trace
 
     Immediately noticeable is the fact that the highest nitrogen
concentrations are available in Type 1 open cells, which is the type of cell
where anomalous heat has most often been reported.  The same level of
nitrogen could in principle be eventually available in a Type 4 cell, but
only after equilibration with the atmosphere.  Type 4 cells early in their
life would more resemble type 3 cells in their gas composition.
 
     Note that adding a bubbler to a Type 1 cell will turn it into a Type 2
cell and very quickly result in the elimination of nitrogen from the system.
If I remember correctly, adding a bubbler to a nickel cell kills the
anomalous heat.
 
     To speculate, the level of nitrogen in the headspace (and thus in the
electrolyte) may affect anomalous heat production if it is proceeding via
sonofusion.  This could occur because:
 
Possibility 1:  The nitrogen may be involved in atomic reactions (are there
any possible paths which fit the evidence ?)
 
Possibility 2:  The nitrogen may be involved in Terry Bollinger's "secondary
wedging" in which a shell of compressed nitrogen inside a collapsing bubble
squirts hydrogen at high speed to the center of the bubble.
 
     If secondary wedging is operating, one may ask why oxygen can't
participate as well as nitrogen.  Perhaps at some intermediate temperature
during bubble collapse, oxygen reacts with hydrogen rather than wedging it.
The availability of hydrogen to be accelerated therefore may be controlled by
the local hydrogen to oxygen ratio - only if there is more than a
stochiometric amount of hydrogen will there be any left over to participate
in high temperature reactions as the cavity finishes its collapse.
Sonofusion may therefore depend on getting the ratios of dissolved hydrogen,
oxygen and nitrogen just right.  Speculatively, there must be more hydrogen
than oxygen (in order to leave free hydrogen) and there must be the correct
nitrogen to hydrogen ratio to give secondary wedging.
 
There may be a possibility that when there are appreciable amounts of both
dissolved hydrogen and oxygen, there is amplification of the strength of
bubble collapse.  In this scenario, during the generation of the void, oxygen
and hydrogen would degas from the liquid and enter the void.  During the
subsequent collapse of the void, the high temperatures generated would
trigger the reaction of the hydrogen and oxygen.  The chemical energy
released would add to the kinetic energy of the collapsing liquid.
 
 
Where to go from here:
 
1) Probably a lot more thought should be given to electrolyte levels of
hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in anomalous heat experiments, and how they are
affected by the experimental setup used.  At the very least, some
measurements of head space gases would be useful.
 
2)  It might be useful to design a setup in which the cell could constantly
be flushed with a premixed gas mixture.  Perhaps a flow calorimeter could be
designed, in which the insulated cell is cooled by bubbling pre-humidified
cool gas through the electrolyte.  Gas coming out of the cell would be run
through a recombiner, and heat output measured by using a separate setup to
measure the heat content of the evolved hot gas stream.
 
3)  Sonofusion experiments should explore a range of gas mixtures for
equilibration with the working fluid.  If for example nitrogen (MW 28) were
thought to be involved in secondary wedging, it would be interesting to
replace it with say neon (AW 20), argon (AW 40), or krypton (AW 84).
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Barry Merriman /  Re: electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: electrostatic fusion
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:10:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Dec29.112835.62319@cc.usu.edu> system@cc.usu.edu writes:
> 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.
 
Sorry, but there appears to be prior publication. Dadaelus, in
his old column in "New Scientist", essentually invented this fusion
device about 10 years ago. Furthermore, he pointed out there is not
even any need for electrification---simply tap the big end of the
cone with a hammer---the sound waves will travel through the cone, be
focused at the tip, and create sufficient energy density to fuse
the few D-T atoms at the tip. See the collected columns of Dadaelus,
which were published as a book several years ago, or look in old
issues of New Scientist (prior to 1987) for his columns.
 
Also, a physics professor here two years ago conceived of a metallic
D-T "porcupine", which would do D-T fusions at the needle tips,
under the action of an applied voltage, so again your idea is not
so original.
 
 
The real problem with such "tip-focused" fusion schemes is that the
fusioning region contain only a few atoms, and so cannot produce
much energy.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Mark Epperson /  Re: Electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic fusion
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:15:45 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <9212310041.AA08904@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.network.com
 (John Logajan) writes:
>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.
>
Please forgive me if I am asking a stupid question (this is not my field). Does
this mean the the D ions will be more concentrated at the tip? Possibly
increasing the probability of an event IN the PD latice?
 
just a thought,
Mark Epperson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenepperson cudfnMark cudlnEpperson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #6 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #6 Cell 4A3
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:44:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #6 Cell 4A3
 
After about 250 hours of charging, we are up to an apparent 2.9 to 1 D/Pd.
 
The gas charging is very curious and I do not have a good explanation.
 
Remember, the cell is closed with a tube going off to a motor driven syringe.
When I talk about 2.9 to 1 D/Pd, I mean that 183.8 cc of gas has accumulated
in the syringe since the start of charging the 0.1 cc Palladium cathode.  This
is presumed to be Oxygen, which means that 376.7 cc of D2 has gone somewhere.
There is no guarantee that any of this is correct, but many experiments have
shown that early in charging when essentially all of the D2 is absorbed (by
visual check) that the gas accumulation in the syringe matches the expected O2
evolution as determined by the cell current.  We also reduced the current from
1 amp to 0.1 amp for a brief time and observed about 30 cc of gas evolution
which has taken several days to recover now that the cell is back at one
ampere.
 
The cell is presently running at one ampere.  This should produce 209 cc of O2
and 418 cc of D2 per hour.  This is roughly 10 cc per minute, which is my data
taking interval.
 
As readers of this column will observe, we have been slowly accumulating gas
in the syringe.  This takes place in a curious fashion.  There are occasional
spikes in the evolved gas.  The interval between spikes is 20 minutes to 2
hours.  The spike is typically a +5 cc change over the one minute sampling
interval.  Over the next 5 to 10 minutes this gas increase is mostly re-
absorbed, with an accumulation at the end of a few tenths of a cc.  Over time
this results in an accumulation of gas.  In most cases, the positive spike is
accompanied by a cooling of the catalyst.  During the subsequent re-absorption
the catalyst regains its former temperature.  We have not observed any spike
where the gas accumulation exceeds the 10 cc per min of D2 + O2 evolved by the
electrolysis.  From time to time there is a very large spike, as much as 20 cc
having been observed, but these take several minutes to accumulate so that a
number of one minute measurements are obtained on the up tick.  There is no
consistent cell temperature change during these events.
 
I remind you all that the catalyst tends to have hot spots.  A hot spot
converts more efficiently and thus becomes hotter.
 
Explanation A - Trickle down conversion
 
>From time to time a drop of condensate formed at a higher spot in the catalyst
trickles down to an active piece of catalyst, wets it, and causes it to turn
off.  This causes a burst of gas until another spot takes over conversion.
This does not explain the apparent net accumulation.  To explain that we need
the pressure surge to cause a permanent leak of a small amount of gas.
 
Explanation B - New Crack Theory
 
>From time to time a crack opens up in Palladium.  This immediately releases
some gas.  But the new surface exposed eventually absorbs more gas so there is
a net gas gain.  But this should cause an increase followed by a return to
normal in the catalyst temperature.  We observe the opposite.
 
Note that I am quite confident in the short term measurement ability of my
kludge.  Less so for the long term, but the new gas switch seems to be tight.
It was tested for leaks for several weeks.  I have ruled out things like
ambient temperature changes (these can be seen and track the heating system
changes to the expected value) and ambient pressure changes (careful
observation can detect the pressure change caused by the furnace drawing in
house air for combustion).
 
There are lots of other measurements.  I will be happy to make observations
and report back to check a theory.  Besides the cell voltage and current, we
measure gas, cell temperature, catalyst temperature, several temperatures
around the cell, ambient temperature, cooling water temperature, many power
supply voltages, ADC reference calibration, and forty or so other things.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  New Information from BYU Team
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Information from BYU Team
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:44:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Recent post by S. Jones relays information provided by Profs. Jensen and
Palmer concerning the detector used in the first Jones experiment reporting
low yield neutron production from cold fusion.  I had been relying on the
following statement which I quote from the Czir-Jensen paper:
 
"Two useful applications for the spectrometer in the capture-spectrum
mode are: measureing the spectrum of neutrons from fusion experiments
(particularly the recent cold-fusion experiments where the expected
neutron flux is low) and measuring cosmic-ray produced neutron spectra."
 
This is followed immediately by the acknowledgements section which begins
with:
 
"We thank Professors Steven E. Jones and E. Paul Palmer for encouragement
and support in adapting the spectrometer to the present applications in
cold fusion research."
 
Profs. Jensen and Palmer now inform me that "The only mode used in the
experiment was the standard spectrometer mode. Nothing was added to the
signal.  The 'capture-spectrum' was not developed until after the data
used in the Nature paper was taken.  We did use it to investigate the
nature of the background."
 
Clearly I was mistaken as to which mode of operation had been employed
to obtain the spectrum reported in the Nature paper.  There do, however,
remain some questions as to what the reponse function of the detector
is for neutrons and for gammas.  Both Jensen and Palmer in their replies
refer to spectra obtained at 2.9 MeV and 5.2 MeV as reported in the
Czir-Jensen paper, but Jones discounts those as calibration spectra in
favor of some more recent calibrations with monoenergetic neutrons.
Not only do we seem to be getting differing answers from different
members of the team, we seem to have a situation in which information
crucial to the intepretation of the spectra was subject to revision
long after the experiment was completed.  If we are to be convinced
that the spectrum reported in Nature shows a "peak", it would be nice
to know whether the detector as operating at the time was in fact
capable of producing such a peak in response to fusion neutrons.  One
question that remains in my mind is what mechanism accounts for
the roll-off of the proton recoil response on the low side of the
peak.  Off hand I would expect the response to be close to what is
shown in the Czirr-Jensen paper.
 
The next question that can perhaps be laid to rest if I understand
Jensens reply has to do with the way in which the background subtraction
was made.  Jensen states: "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."  I take that to
mean that the background was scaled in strict ratio in accord with
the different recording times before subtraction, and no other
adjustments were made such as matching forground and background in
a region of the spectrum away from the "peak".
 
We are still left with the issue of the gamma response of the
detector and what fraction of the response was in fact due to
neutrons.  From other experiments which employed liquid
scintillation counters with pulse-shape discrimination to
separate neutron and gamma response on sees cosmic-ray-induced
backgrounds showing gamma-to-neutron ratios of something like
10E3 or 10E4.  Clearly this ratio can be altered by effects
specific to the surroundings of a given experiment, but I
see a potential problem in making a determination of this
ratio with a detector that may well respond with no better
than a 100 to 1 rejection ratio for gammas.  To make that
explicite let us assume that the true ratio of gammas to
neutrons is 10E4.  Then the detector will respond to gammas
at a rate 10E2 times the neutron rate.  Under those circumstances,
or something approaching them, how do you tell what the ratio
of neutrons to gammas really is?  Jensen asserts that about 1/4
of the background is due to gammas, but how does one go about
making a determination of that number?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Frank Close /   Questions to Frank Close: Some answers
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Questions to Frank Close: Some answers
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:44:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege thought I was feeling that ``Tom is not being scientific".
On the contrary Tom. Your reports on your heat measurements show the extreme
care that you are taking and, I repeat what I said some months ago, if you
eventually decide that you have observed a positive phenomenon then it will have
to be taken seriously. In the absence of a positive heat result, any tests
for nuclear ``ash" have limited bearing on the central question of whether
a nuclear process generates measurable heat in the Pd/d system. However, they
may teach much about natural backgrounds and how to recognise them - an
essential stage in a project. As you and I well know from experience in
particle physics, experimentalists ``learn" about their detectors by recording
cosmic rays, test beams etc in advance of the ``real" experiments.
I interpret the nuclear measurements associated with your expt to be
in an analogous ``learning" stage; the ``real" experiment in your
case will follow if positive heat has been demonstrated.
 
Jed Rothwell claims that ``Jones, Huizenga, Morrison, Close - - - believe
theory overrules facts". I know that experimentalists often hold
theorists in awe but I dont recall Drs J,H or M having put us on such a
pedestal! I certainly have not - show me where I have. While you are looking,
you should read what I wrote on this in Too Hot To Handle (in the prologue on
page 3 I think), namely that it is EXPERIMENT not theory that decides
and that that was a reason why we had to check the CF claims.
 
Jon Webb has it right: it is a question of which ``facts" one accepts.
 
Chuck; glad you liked the Canadian radio piece on quarks which is the area
of physics that I have put most of my effort into. You ask if I have said
anything about ``CF". Well, I wrote 300 pages about it in Too Hot To Handle
(if you're in Canada you can get it in paperback for less than the price of
a flask of heavy water and find the answers to many questions that keep
coming up on the net). It exposes some of FP's actual data as distinct from
the invention that they published (FP's attorney C Gary Triggs wrote
to me in November - Douglas Morrison has posted something about this on
the net. Several net readers have contacted me about this; suffice to say
that I have told him that I have no doubt about the quality of my sources,
nor about the evidence in my possession and the consequent claims in THTH.
For the record, I stand by everything that I have written about that episode).
As concerns the science, I concluded that there is no evidence that watts
of power are produced by a nuclear process at room temperature in the Pd/d
system  but I left open the question of whether there is an atomic
(chemical not nuclear) energy storage mechanism responsible for transient
heat bursts. Jed Rothwell would say (has said) that the amounts of heat
are too much to be chemical, but that seems to me to be theory
prejudice :-)
 
(An additional comment: I would like to see better evidence that
*systematic* errors have been carefully incorporated in the claims of
watts/cc. In particle physics nowadays results are quoted with TWO separate
errors; one statistical, one systematic.  The latter you are stuck with
unless your understanding of the apparatus or other details improves. The
former gets better as the number of events increases e.g. to quote a case
from the primitive CF literature,if the measured number of events in a bin
increases from 2000 to 20,000, the error bars cannot remain unaltered.)
 
 
Steve Jones posts on fusion in the Earth and asks me to take note of a point
he makes. Steve, it will be several days before I have time to digest your
comments which I have so far only read here at my terminal (my NY resolution
is to do CN-F only at weekends - and I am already violating it) but can
you clarify which point? Is it in connection with the appendix in THTH
``Fusion does not give the Earth's Heat" or is this some new information
 about gas emissions that you are emphasising?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenUK cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: electrostatic fusion
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:10:00 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <1992Dec31.055118.11523@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.112835.62319@cc.usu.edu> system@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>> ....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 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.:
 
OK, I'll stick my neck out again.  According to this analysis, if you
put the same number of electrons on a big sphere or a small sphere, a
proton at the surface of either sphere has the same potential energy
relative to a distance of infinity from the sphere.  This seems
correct to me.
 
The point about the points (sorry) is that they allow you to cram a
lot of electrons into a small space.  Imagine a sphere with a cone
stuck onto it.  (Call it a "construct".)  Put some number of electrons
onto the sphere.  Now the "voltage" at the surface of the sphere
opposite the cone is X.  But the "voltage" at the tip of the cone may
be 20X.  (I put voltage in quotes because I'm not sure if I should say
"potential" or "apparent gradient" or...)  I agree that if you put the
same number of electrons on this construct as on the above spheres,
the potential energy of a proton at any point on its surface is the
same as it was above.
 
But now put a constant current source of "voltage" 2X onto the
spherical part of the construct.  Now you can't make any assumptions
about the number of electrons on the construct, and so Terry's
argument doesn't apply.  This is the setup that is described as
producing enormous fields.  You can squeeze a lot more electrons onto
a "construct" than you can onto a similarly sized sphere.  And
remember to ignore the potential of the current source--that doesn't
matter for this any more than it does for a Van de Graaf generator.
 
Whether this will produce fusion is another matter entirely.  I don't
even know, if you do the integral of potential*area of circular
sections of the cone, whether (theoretically speaking) a finite or
infinite number of electrons can dance on the tip of the cone.  But
certainly the problem is more complex than Terry's stated analysis can
handle.
 
If you disagree with the above two paragraphs, read this restatement:
The voltage of the current source is a red herring--ignore it.  The
only question is how many electrons will end up on the "construct".
Terry's analysis implicitly assumes a fixed number of electrons:
charge a sphere, then deform it into a cone.  This is not the setup
the CF people are using.  After reading other discussion on this
group, it sounds like it is unknown how to compute the integral
mentioned in the previous paragraph, so there is no way to know how
many electrons will end up on the construct.
--
A person without religion is like a fish without a hook.
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-737-2061
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:14:13 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <19199@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
 
>Summary Table
>Steady State Partial Pressure of Gas after Long Term Operation
>
>Type of Cell                             O2        N2        H2
>
>1  No recombiner, completely open        20        80        trace
>2  No recombiner, bubbler or orifice     33        none      66
>3  Recombiner, bubbler                  >50       <50        trace
>4  Recombiner, orifice                   20        80        trace
>5  Recombiner, syringe or bellows        60        40        trace
>
I think you forgot one: My Pd Pt cell has a hydrocap recombiner,
and was evacuated after Pd charging.  The head pressure is very low.
 
--
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:
cuddy4 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.04 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: A Good Question
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Good Question
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:43:35 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <1992Dec31.232206.20322@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In article <921231130918.20a05c3e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>> Consider two D ions sitting in a tube.  The tube is the Palladium lattice.
>> Let them be at adjacent sites in the tube.  Now sneak up behind each with
>> some negative charges.  Q: How many charges does it take to push the two
>> together? Q: How much work is done in the process? (ev)
>
>Not much.  The question is whether a plausible energy-focusing mechanism can
>be postulated.
 
Not sure this is worth "hundreds if not thousands of dollars", but
here goes a farfetch: Electrons, like everything else, have a
wavelength.  A palladium-water interface or crystal boundary might be
a pretty good reflecter of electrons.  Is it possible you're building
an elecron laser?  This would result in clumps of electrons zipping
back and forth, wouldn't it? (Don't tell the gov't, they might try to
start up Star Wars again... :-)
--
A person without religion is like a fish without a hook.
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-737-2061
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Re: Fusion Digest 666
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 666
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:23:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
>
>--------------------
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes
 
>
>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 ... .
>
 
This is pure, unadulterated rubbish.  Mills recommended that a recombiner
**not** be used with the Ni/K+ system.  This recommendation was based on
his lack of success with recombiners. [This could mean that the process
will not work with (or without) a recombiner.  Or, it could mean that Mills
had not worked out the necessary experimental parameters to get it working
with a recombiner.]  Nonetheless, Mills is now depicted as a "moving
target" by someone who failed to heed Mills' advice and who asked Mills for
suggestions to further his (Droege's) perception of how the experimental
verification of this excess heat phenomenon should proceed. [Droege
*assumes* that an experiment with a recombiner is a more complete
experiment.  He also *assumes* that if it doesn't work with a recombiner
that it doesn't work period.]
 
I will concede that Tom Droege has an excellent calorimeter.  [Mills also
has a very good data aquisition system and some very sophisticated
equipment.]  Unfortunately, Droege's calorimeter is not being used to full
advantage.  I remind you that Droege was getting excess heat without the
recombiner.  He attributed this heat to recombination (gas analysis by
Mills showed little or no recombination).  Recombination is a serious
complication as long as the output wattage is less than or equal to the
input wattage.  But as I reported here several weeks ago,  Mills (and
Thermacore, Inc.) was getting several times VI [typically 20 watts in, V*I
= 20 watts with no 1.48 *I correction, and 60 watts out].  Actually, those
data were several months old.  I am now free to say that more recent
experiments have 2.5 watts in and 50 watts out. Once again the 2.5 watts is
V*I (no 1.48*I correction). You are welcome to conclude that Mills is
making some sort of error--because the details of these more recent
experiments will not be published for some time (the older three-fold
increase can be achieved using procedures published previously). In my
opinion, however, no error is being made.  These measurements are difficult
at the mW level but not at the 10 W level.  Droege's calorimeter could
easily do the job, but he would have to sacrifice his recombiner.  Alas,
hard decisions.
 
Jed Rothwell has been taking a verbal beating of late, but basically I
agree with him--the experiment always wins in an encounter between
experiment and theory. No exemptions are granted to any theoretician.
 
Best regards to one and all.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Dunn Summary
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Dunn Summary
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:23:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Many thanks to Bruc Dunn for an attempt at an overview of CNF experiments.  I
nominate Bruce as the keeper of the summary table, and hereby provide my input.
 
Type 1 No recombiner, completely open.
 
Mills runs this way.  Plain water, very open to the air for his large cells.
Ni Cathode, Pt anode, K2CO3 electrolyte.  Sees heat.
 
Ying.  P&F type cell, open, but exposed to a source.  Sees heat.
 
Appleby.  P&F type cell, not gas tight, Saw heat (Not Active?)
 
Type 2, No recombiner, bubbler
 
Huggins.  P&F type cell, Saw heat, not active now, but Martha Schreiber of his
group now works with McKubre.
 
Type 3, Recombiner, bubbler
 
Droege ran Mills experiments in this mode.  No net heat seen.
 
Type 4, Recombiner, orifice
 
No experiments known to me in this category.
 
Type 5, Recombiner, syringe or bellows
 
Droege runs mostly this way.  I have run with cell purges of Helium, Deuterium,
Oxygen, and Argon.  With the Deuterium purge, absorbed Deuterium is made up by
more Deuterium from an auxilliary syringe.  With the Oxygen purge, excess
oxygen is taken off into an auxilliary syringe.  The present run is with an
Argon purge.  The cell was filed and sealed up in the Argon bag.  An early
disaserous attempt was mad to fill with Helium.  All that is left is a great
picture of me in front of the apparatus with my cat and the Helium baloon I
used as a source of helium.  Wonderful American Flag on the balloon.
 
Type 6. Closed and pressurized.
 
McKubre and one of the Japanese runs this way.  McKubre back loads with up to
10,000 psi of D2 gas.  There is no vent.  Evolved gas just builds up the
pressure.  But now I guess (after the accident) that the blow out plugs are set
for lower pressure.  He said the last runs were made at 50 psi, I remember.
 
The big mystery is how P&F run.  To my knowledge they have never told us.  The
early paper said "sealed with parafilm".  What the heck is parafilm?  But if
they seal the cells, they have to vent the gas.  My guess it that they are
Type 2, but perhaps someone can fill in.  Remember that even Hawkins was never
in the back room, so we have to get the answer from P or F.
 
The only first class experiment that I know of (McKubre) runs with a 100%
D2 fill.  I guess 10,000 psi is a lot of kPa.  McKubre says that this high
pressure completly prevents the formation of O2 bubbles.  Perhaps someone
can explain this.  Where does the O go if it does not make bubbles?  But he
has also claimed excess heat at the much lower 50 psi.
 
How about it Bruce, do you want to be keeper of the matrix?  If so I will start
sending everything I can find.  At present I am keeping what I know in my head
and trying to do the same job as you in trying to find a common thread in the
successful experiments.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: A Good Question
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Good Question
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:04:30 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <C0CK8o.J4H@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) writes:
 
> ... a farfetch: [1] Electrons, like everything else, have a wavelength.
> [2] A palladium-water interface or crystal boundary might be a pretty
> good reflecter of electrons...
 
Yes on both counts.  They have wavelengths, and a metal crystal that has
an insulator at its surface provides an extremely efficient "mirror" of
such wave-like electrons.  In fact, you've just described the fundamental
principles of how electrons motion in a metalic crystal is usually modeled.
They are described not as particles, but as as "standing waves" that bounce
back and forth between the nearly perfectly reflecting walls of a crystal.
 
> Is it possible you're building an elecron laser?
 
Oops.  The problem is that electrons are fermions.  That is, electrons are
particles that just _don't_ like to be in the same place  at the same time.
Nor do they like to have the same momentum (energy) while they are bouncing
back and forth wave-style within the same metal crystal.  (Since in QM the
wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum, the latter statement is
equivalent to saying that electrons and other fermions "don't like to have
the same wavelength (energy) inside the crystal."
 
In contrast, the photons that are involved with lasing are bosons.  That
basically means that they love to do things together -- give them half a
chance, and they will all hop into the same region of space at the same
time, and will travel with the same momentum (wavelength).
 
This latter tendency of bosons to cluster together is the key to why lasers
work.  Basically, one photon start through a medium that's "loaded for bear"
and just itching to fire off many, many more photons of that same type.
But because they are bosons, the first photon is able to "entice" other
incipient photons to join it in perfect lockstep -- that is, with the same
direction, same phase, and same energy (momentum).  An interesting aspect
of boson statistics is that the more photons join in, the more tempting
it becomes for the next photon to join in, also.  I guess you could say
that bosons are real party animals, except that unlike most party animals
they insist on dressing and acting absolutely identically.
 
The final result is a sort of phenomenally well-ordered avalanche of bosons
that all share the same direction, energy (momentum), and phase.  That is,
they become a burst of coherent laser light.
 
 
Alas, for electons none of this group behavior can occur.  Electrons are
antisocial -- so much so that the level of energy required to force them
into _exactly_ the same location and momentum is nominally infinite.  The
electrons in the same metal crystal will do just about _anything_ to stay
out of step and out of each other's space, even if they have to climb all
over each other to do it.
 
And in fact, that is literally what they do.  A few poor electrons are
mercilously mashed into the lowest possible momentum and energy states
in the metal crystal (meaning that they move very, _very_ slowly, if at
all), while other electrons pile on top energy-wise to reach higher and
higher levels of momentum.
 
The net result of this fermion "anti-lasing" effect is altogether different
from what happens with bosons in the same situation.  Instead of flocking
together, the anti-social electrons spread out into a broad energy pile
that is more commonly known as a "band."
 
By that time the king-of-the-mountain electrons emerge on top of this
unfriendly electron energy heap, their velocities may be a large fraction
of the speed of light.  Hot stuff for a cold piece of metal! (The place
where the pileup ends is called the "Fermi surface," by the way.)
 
So why don't you get burned by these very hot electrons when you touch a
piece of metal?  Because they have no place to go to after they "dump"
their energy -- the lower levels of the energy pile are already filed up
with slower-moving electrons.  Just as a lake on a high plateau has stored
energy that can be used _only_ if you can find a way to let that water
flow down to some lower place, the extremely energetic Fermi surface
electrons simply cannot release any of their energy as long as all of
the energy spaces below them are filled up.
 
Thus the X-ray energy level electrons that are at this moment circling
your ring finger at nearly the speed of light turn out to be harmless
puffballs.  They are held back from doing finger-frying hard radiation
damage only by the presence of all those slow pokes sitting underneath
them.  (But if the rest of the band disappeared for just an instant...!)
 
If you want to see some of these very-fast, "king of the mountain" electrons
in action, just look at any piece of shiny metal.  Because the highest level
electrons are the _only_ ones with any room left to maneuver in, they are
the only ones in the heap (band) that that can absorb and re-emit photons --
that is, they are the ones that reflect light.
 
So while electrons cannot lase, we have all been looking at and using
examples of electron "anti-lasing" all of our lives.  It's an interesting
thought to keep in mind the next time you look at your own image being
reflected from the the metallic backing of a mirror.
 
....
 
So can this banding behavior be made into anything else interesting?  It's
hard to say, really.  But fermion banding is a lot of fun and an intriguing
effect, the sort of thing that makes solid state physics so fascinating.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic fusion
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:48:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson) writes:
>>>The sharp points produce enormous fields.
 
>Does this mean the the D ions will be more concentrated at the tip?
 
Actually, the more intense the external field around a conductive surface, the
fewer relative charged "sites" it has.
 
Since a conductive surface will always settle to an equilibrium (any location
on the surface must have the same electrical potential as any other location on
the surface else charge carriers will be induced to move to make it so) the
only way for the conductive surface effect to accomplish such an equilibrium
is for charge carriers to tend to vacate any area of higher (non-uniform)
external electrical potential.  i.e. the relative scarcity of regional
charges makes up for and nullifies the stronger adjacent external field --
bringing the surface potential to be equal at all locations simultaneously.
 
You will actually find the highest density of charge carriers adjacent to
the portion of the surface with the lowest external field gradient.
 
In simple terms, similar polarity charges repel, hence where there is a high
concentration of similar polarity fields, mobile charge carriers will vacate
the area until a new equilibrium is established.
 
 
There are four general cases of conductive surface shapes, the point, the
wire, the plane, and the sphere.
 
The "point charge" gradient diminishes proportional to the inverse square of
the seperation.  Since at any non-infinitely small distance, this defines
a spherical space, the gradient around a sphere also diminishes proportional
to the inverse square of the seperation (measured from the center of the
sphere) for all locations on or beyond the surface.
 
The wire surrounding gradient dimishes more slowly with seperation (where
seperation is much less than wire length) because each charge along the
wire adds to the field at any given point.  Those points more distant have
less effect, but are also more numerous.  Seperation from points nearby
on the wire can quickly double or triple the distance from nearby charges,
but only change the the distance to the far more numerous more distant
charges by a tiny increment.
 
The result is that in the earths atmosphere, a sphere of about 15" in diameter
is require to hold a voltage potential of 1,000,000 volts without causing
electrical breakdown in the air due to high near surface gradients, while
it only requires a wire of about 2" in diameter to transport 1,000,000 volts
along a high tension power grid with causing electrical breakdown of the air.
 
The final general case is the flat plane, a two dimensional extension of the
one dimensional wire case.  The field gradient diminishes most slowly with
seperation in this case (where again, seperation is much less than the plane's
dimensions.)  Here the vector sum of many more charges are combined to produce
the field at any give point.  Hence seperation chances near the surface are
but a tiny increment in vector distance for most of the charges on the surface
of the plane and therefore the gradient diminishes very slowly with distance
(in the case of an infinite plane, there would be no voltage gradient 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:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: HICCUP Fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HICCUP Fusion
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:48:28 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <1992Dec17.221424.6404@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
 
> Is there any reason why [cavitation] couldn't be done in, say, liquid D2?
> Would the ultrasound necessarily vaporize the D2 before the cavitation
> process is set up?
 
I didn't give my answer to this one earlier, but it's a good question.
 
The UC paper gives the basic approach I'd take to answering it, which is
that to the degree that you can keep the vapor pressure down and surface
tension up, you should be able to get proportionately good UC effects.  The
absolute temperature (low in this case) shouldn't matter all that much
except as it affects these other two issues.
 
So your best bet would probably be to keep the D2 as cold as you can without
freezing it.  (Actually, that would apply to nearly any liquid at whatever
temperature range, at least according to what I've laid out in the UC paper.)
 
A general problem with such cold-gas liquids is that the Van der Waals forces
that hold them together are not very intense, so that the void surface will
tend to vaporize pretty quickly.  Without specific numerical models and some
baseline experimental data, it'd be hard to say the degree to which such
issues would affect the final result.
 
I'd say it would be an interesting experiment if you could set it up.
 
I would agree that the ultrasound heating could make it hard to keep at it
for very long, but then you might not need too many cycles just to check it
out for luminescence and/or UC effects.  You might also flow the liquid D2
throught the chamber (preferably at a modest rate) to provide cooling.
 
Also, you could probably get away with less intense ultrasound that might
reduce the heating problem.  That's because the Van der Waals intra-fluid
bonds of D2 should be easier to to rupture and stretch than the hydrogen
bonds of water.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / John Logajan /  What did Droege know, and when did he know it?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What did Droege know, and when did he know it?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 07:21:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>Nonetheless, Mills is now depicted as a "moving
>target" by someone who failed to heed Mills' advice and who asked Mills for
>suggestions to further his (Droege's) perception of how the experimental
>verification of this excess heat phenomenon should proceed.
 
Droege did in fact duplicate the Mills experiment and results and so posted
those results here.  He then went on to throw additional curves at it to see
if it would break.  I think his experimental variations are much more difficult
to pass off than you are letting on.
 
To reiterate, he (Droege) *got* excess heat with a recombiner attached, as long
as the recombiner was outside the calorimeter.  Simply moving the recombiner
inside the calorimeter (and thus eliminating the need for the 1.48*I
"correction") made the anomalous heat disappeared.
 
You have to recall that at that time the claimed anomalous heat was still
less than the I*V input, and so could be explained by recombination or
parallel current paths.  In my own experiments of a few months ago, either
recombination or parallel current paths caused a measured 23% reduction in
evolved gases.  This would have caused a mis-identification of anomalous
heat in an open cell of the Mills type.
 
>I am now free to say that more recent experiments have 2.5 watts in and
>50 watts out. Once again the 2.5 watts is V*I (no 1.48*I correction).
 
With success rates like these, you can afford to be more generous toward
your detractors.  :-)
 
But seriously, is there any possibility of getting an independent neutral
observer to witness this gain of 20 in operation?  He could sign a
non-disclosure agreement on technical details (he wouldn't even need to be
given any beyond those measuring electrical energy input and temperature
measurement.)
 
I believe it might be a lot easier to find neutral competent observers on
this issue than you may at first think.
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Parafilm and other CF garbage
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Parafilm and other CF garbage
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:16:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

What is Parafilm you ask.  It is simply parafine wax supplied in thin
sheets that is routinely used in biology, biochem, and related field
as a quick and easy way to seal flasks that you don't want exposed to
the nasty little things that float in the air.  I don't think it meets
the Jed Rothwell protocol for keeping CF experiments squeeky clean
with respect to organics.
 
As to other recent CF news that I would assign to the dust bin is
the message from Prof. Farrell that Mills is producing 50 Watts
of heat with 2.5 Watts input power - too big an effect to require
careful measurements.  But, of course, we can't be told anything
about how this is done!  Perhaps Mills would consider releasing
a video.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Ni CF Recombiner
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ni CF Recombiner
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:16:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
There have been some questions about the use of recombiners in closed cell
nickel light water CF experiments. I have heard from 2 or 3 people who have
done successful experiments of this type, but Tom Droege and one other person
said that experiments with recombiners fail, and Mills says you should not
use a recombiner. Perhaps the problem is in the type of material used in the
recombiner. Bob Bush, of California State Polytechnic U. reported success, so
I asked him what kind of he used. He reported as follows: "the recombiner is
platinum black impregnated into a nickel screen mesh on one side, coated on
teflon on the other side."
 
My impression is that commercial, off-the-shelf recombiners are finicky and
unpredictable, and that many are not designed to work at room temperature. I
recommend open cells. Since there are apparently some cases of recombination
on the cathode, you should not declare a definite excess until you are well
above total input power I*V. If you insist on a closed cell, I urge you to
include a large, low pressure escape valve in the cell design. Select a valve
that cannot become plugged up by condensed salts or other crud that appears
in CF cells after weeks of operation. The accident at SRI that occurred
exactly one year ago was caused by a valve that was incorrectly aligned and
blocked off accidentally.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:12:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
A few quick comments:
 
 
1. WEDGE-OUT
 
My favorite response so far was from Dieter:  He described my "wedge-out"
mechanism as sounding a lot like wishful thinking.
 
Alright!  That's exactly the kind of whack-em-about-the-ears criticism
that the UC (ultracavitation) idea needs.  Dieter zeroed in on exactly
the weakest link:  Can you _really_ get massive acceleration through this
kind of proposed mechanism, or not?
 
So I'll echo the challenge:  Can anyone out there show one way or the
other whether this wedge-out idea is either bogus or has merit?
 
Also, is there any chance someone out there can simulate this issue?
(I tend to be leary of easy proofs for a system that is so drastically out
of equilibrium.)
 
Again, the key premise is that a very sharp pressure/vacuum transition on
an inwardly collapsing void will lead to substantial increases in inward
velocity for some fraction of the surface molecules.  True or false?  Why?
 
 
2. LIQUID LITHIUM CAVITATION
 
Very, very premature, but someone is bound to ask, so I'll pre-empt the
question:  If you could get appreciablely high levels of D-T fusion in
liquid lithium, wouldn't that be a good way to breed more T?
 
FARFETCH (Meaning I _won't_ include the following in the UC draft paper):
 
IF the effect exists at all (recall that Jones et al will not have their
measurements for a while), then yes, lithium would tend to swallow neutrons
quite nicely and breed T out of them.  Shucks, you might even be able to
use the cavitation effect itself to squeeze out the T into voids.  That
would be rather cute, actually -- feed it Li and D and conceivably you
might be able to keep the T isolated mostly internal to the lithium. (It
would also sort of emphasize that fusion eats Li and D, _not_ "just D.")
 
I have no idea what the breakeven point would be for such a system would
be, but it could certainly be calculated.  Don't be overly surprised and/or
disappointed if it proves to be astronomically higher than any of the
results that come out of UC fusion experiments over the next few months --
IF in fact UC fusion is demonstrated at all!
 
 
3. UC AND PALLADIUM
 
The Pd media are sufficiently poor candidates for UC that I haven't really
looked at them much.  But I applaud the exploration of the idea on the net,
and will be interested in seeing where it goes.
 
PLEASE note that under no imaginable conditions could UC in Pd EVER give
the kind of huge-heat-with-negligable-radiation results originally claimed
by P&F.  UC fusion would necessarily be conventional hot fusion with very,
very conventional byproduct and radiation profiles.
 
Thus if the high-heat effect exists at all, it is an unrelated mechanism.
(Low-radiation from Pd _without_ heat is at least plausible as a UC effect,
however.)
 
 
4.  LIQUIDS WITH WIDE TEMPERATURE RANGES
 
It's implicit in the UC draft, but let me state it in a single sentence:
 
Liquids that remain liquid over a very wide range of temperatures are
much more likely to be interesting than ones that have only a short range
between solidification and vaporization.
 
Thus liquid helium would be a _really_ poor UC choice by these criteria,
and liquid mercury would be a quite good one.  Mixtures of liquids will
general do better by this criterion than single-composition liquids
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Bubbles
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubbles
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:27:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger has been corresponding with me about his bubble ideas.  This
has reminded me that Fermilab once had a 15' bubble chamber, and there have
been many other bubble chambers operated over the years.
 
To introduce bubble chambers, I am reminded fo physics folk lore.  It seems
Don Glasser was opening a bottle of beer, and noticed a streak of bubbles
that appeared as he opened it.  Being a good physicist, he tried to explain
the streak, and concluded that a cosmic ray had passed through the bottle just
as he opened it.  The cosmic ray left ionized beer molecules which then became
the nucleation sites for bubbles which formed in the super heated beer caused
by the decompression of the opening.  Fortunately the beer can had not yet
been invented, so Don Glasser won a Nobel prize.  Ever since physics students
have been devoted beer drinkers.
 
Modern bubble chambers worked with a large piston.  Fermilab's was 15' and
there was at least one even larger.  Someone correct me but I believe that
there are no bubble chambers currently in operation.  The chambers were
usually placed inside a large magnet, and surrounded by trigger electronics.
 
A particle beam would be directed through the chamber, and when the
the electronics detected an interesting event (like a beam particle in, but no
beam particle out - meaning there had been an interaction) the piston would
expand the chamber contents.  Some time later, the time determined by the
bubble groth rate to get optimum resolution, a flash tube would be fired to
expose film.  The film was then sent of the measureing machines where the
tracks (in 3 D) were measured, and computations made on the results.
 
Now why does this relate to Terry's bubble ideas?  Well sometimes the chambers
were operated with liquid D2.  Remember, the expansion of the chamber forms
bubbles.  These colapse some time later.  Perhaps these collapsing bubbles
cause D - D interactions.  As Terry would say a "far fetch".
 
What we need is to look at some "double expansions" where the bubble chamber
was expanded a second time shortly after the first expansion so tracks coming
off a bubble collapse might be seen.  I know that the Fermilab chamber
sometimes triggered more than once per spill, i.e. at less than a second after
the first expansion.  Then there was the PPA chamber that went 20 times a
second.
 
So does anyone out there know where to finde such film.  (Douglas Morrison are
you listening?)
 
The problem is that bubble chamber experiments are very expensive, and no one
would likely support running one for such a wild idea.  But if the right old
film can be found, it might be worth looking.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: The Dunn Summary
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Dunn Summary
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Tom Droege writes:
 
>
> The big mystery is how P&F run.  To my knowledge they have never told us.
> The early paper said "sealed with parafilm".  What the heck is parafilm?
> But if they seal the cells, they have to vent the gas.  My guess it that
> they are Type 2, but perhaps someone can fill in.  Remember that even
> Hawkins was never in the back room, so we have to get the answer from P or
> F.
 
 
     Parafilm (tradename) is a sheet of stretchy, slightly sticky, wax.
Imagine if you can a cross between Saran wrap, paraffin wax, sheet rubber and
the skin of a bubble-gum bubble.  It comes on a roll, interleaved with paper
to keep it from sticking to itself (which it will do under moderate finger
pressure).  It is possible to make an air tight seal with it on a beaker, but
the seal won't withstand any great pressure differential (if pressure builds
up in a Parafilm sealed container, the Parafilm bulges out, followed a little
later by a "Pffft" as a hole develops).
 
I presume that the P&F cell is sealed with Parafilm, with a small hole
somewhere in the system for venting.  This would then qualify as a "Type 2,
no recombiner, bubbler or orifice" cell.
 
  The point of why I lumped together no-recombiner cells with bubblers and
orifices is that with the continued flow of gas caused by the electrolysis, a
small orifice is probably just as good as a bubbler in keeping air (and
nitrogen) from getting at the cell.  Bubblers and orifices hower do not seem
to me to be equivalent when a recombiner is used.  In this case, once
charging is finished, there is no continuous flow of gas and nitrogen could
come back in through an orifice, but not through a bubbler.
 
 
> The only first class experiment that I know of (McKubre) runs with a 100%
> D2 fill.  I guess 10,000 psi is a lot of kPa.  McKubre says that this high
> pressure completly prevents the formation of O2 bubbles.  Perhaps someone
> can explain this.  Where does the O go if it does not make bubbles?  But he
> has also claimed excess heat at the much lower 50 psi.
 
10,000 psi would be about 70 MPa, or 70,000 kPa (1 atmosphere is roughly 100
kPa).  Any bubbles attempting to form would be very small, squashed by the
pressure.  Perhaps oxygen simply dissolves in the electrolyte as it is
formed, as a result of the pressure.
 
 
 
> How about it Bruce, do you want to be keeper of the matrix?  If so I will
> start sending everything I can find.  At present I am keeping what I know
> in my head and trying to do the same job as you in trying to find a common
> thread in the successful experiments.
 
Sorry - but no thanks.  I am not well enough up on what everone is doing to
be able to adequately do this.  I am not an experimenter in this field.  I do
however have some practical experience in dissolved gases - I do high
pressure liquid chromatography and have to use helium sparging each morning
to flush the nitrogen and ocygen out of my solvents.
 
     I see from your posting that there should be a "Type 6, closed and
pressurized".  I also see that "Type 5, recombiner, syringe or bellows" has
been run with a fill of inert gases - maybe a separate classification is
needed.  Hoyt Sterns mentions yet another type of cell, with a recombiner but
evacuated after the initial generation of oxygen during charging.
 
     The point of my rather speculative posting was not to make an exhaustive
classification of cells, but to point out that little attention seems to have
been given to gas compositions in cells (in comparison for example with the
concentration on the surface finish, impurities etc. of cathodes).  I am
particularly struck by the fact that the most positive results seem to have
come from the more "open" cells where dissolved nitrogen levels would be
expected to be higher.
 
 
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / John Robinson /  Re: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
     
Originally-From: jr@ksr.com (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrolyte gases as an overlooked variable
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:51:10 GMT
Organization: Kendall Square Research, Waltham, MA

Well, I can't resist this, so this naif (me) steps up to:
 
In article <19199@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
        To speculate, the level of nitrogen in the headspace (and thus in the
   electrolyte) may affect anomalous heat production if it is proceeding via
   sonofusion.
 
Sonofusion is a fascinating idea (as is the Mills-Farrell suborbital).
 
But if nitrogen correlates to excess heat, and oxygen is present, are
we simply finding a way to catalyze nitrogen burning?  Nitrogen is
plentiful, but oxides of nitrogen aren't so wonderful to the planet.
But trading some NOx or NxO production for fossil fuel burning might
be a win.
 
This could be tested in a closed cell by flushing with nitrogen...
 
(Of course I don't even know for sure that oxidizing nitrogen is
exothermic).
--
/jr, aka John Robinson                       Place stamps here
internet: jr@ksr.com                    Post Office will not deliver
uucp: {world,harvard,uunet}!ksr!jr      mail without correct postage
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjr cudfnJohn cudlnRobinson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Wedge-Out #2
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wedge-Out #2
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:12:10 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi again,
 
A diagram that may help explain why I used the "wedge-out" terminology:
 
                              +
           "fast" wedge ---->+ +    "slow"
                             + +     wedge       +
                            +   +             + +
                            + | +    /     +   +
                           +  |  +  v   +   / + <---- "fast" wedge
                           +  V  +   +    /  +
             Void Surface ----------,_  L   +
                                      \_   +
                             Void       \_
                           Interior       \ Void Surface
 
Not very easy to read (or draw) in ASCII, but the basic idea is that an
inward spherical collapse will develop "slow wedge" regions n which the
wedge tip points inwards toward the center of collapse, and "fast wedge"
regions whose bases will form the interior of the collapsing void.
 
Both types will be moving inward, but I'm suggesting that slow wedges will
be undergoing deceleration as the void collapses, while the fast wedges
will be undergoing acceleration.  The fast wedges will also become smaller
and thinner as collapse continues, giving up fluid on their exteriors to
the surounding (decelerating) slow wedges.
 
It's a bit easier to see why I chose the "wedge out" terminology when looking
at this larger scale flow pattern.  I'm proposing that this sort of thing
can extend all the way down to individual molecules if the pressure/vacuum
bondary is sharp enough.  (It was the easier-to-draw molecule-level case
that I diagrammed in the UC draft.)
 
Comments are welcome. (Any non-equilibrium fluid flow experts out there?)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:01:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan5.161234.25298@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>Hi folks,
>
>A few quick comments:
>
>
>1. WEDGE-OUT
>
>My favorite response so far was from Dieter:  He described my "wedge-out"
>mechanism as sounding a lot like wishful thinking.
>
>Alright!  That's exactly the kind of whack-em-about-the-ears criticism
>that the UC (ultracavitation) idea needs.  Dieter zeroed in on exactly
>the weakest link:  Can you _really_ get massive acceleration through this
>kind of proposed mechanism, or not?
>
>So I'll echo the challenge:  Can anyone out there show one way or the
>other whether this wedge-out idea is either bogus or has merit?
 
     A couple of quick points:
 
     1) in stable cavitation in acoustical fields,
     the sonoluminescence occurs shortly after the bubble reaches maximum
     radius (i.e. just as the bubble starts its inward cycle.  Keep in
     mind that in stable sonoluminescence, the bubble itself does not
     completely collapse.).  This implies that the sonoluminescence
     is mediated by a strong shock in the vapor itself (See Barber
     and Putterman PRL: 69:3839 (1992) among others),
 
     2) it is not clear what physical/thermodynamic meaning 100,000 K has for
     this process (a discussion of 'huge' fugacity should be kept in mind
     here).  However, all of the component species should be fairly well
     ionized at that point if it has any physical meaning.  Putting aside
     the thought that it probably has limited physical meaning, at that point
     there are very good electrostatic reasons for the character
     of the interaction to change somewhat drastically.
     I would also point out that the concept of ordinary fluid dynamic surface
     tension breaks down well before that point (to put it mildly).
 
     3) If you seriously want to present a model, the burden of proof is
     on you to describe such things as
          a) why your process does not violate the second law,
          b) why surface tension itself does not seem to operate in
             the 'wedgeout process',
          c) why diffusion and damping do not significantly operate,
          d) how one applies a fluid continuum approach to a putatively
             ionized gas,
          e) how one can get a further 11 order of magnitude concentration
             of energy beyond the concentration probably caused by an
             ionizing shock, especially considering that at indicated
             spectral temperature, electromagnetic interactions will
             dominate long before fusion energies are reached,
          f) why it seems to be somewhat at variance with current
             indications of the mechanism of stable sonoluminescence.
 
     Among other side issues, quantification also seems to be a
     fairly significant burden.
 
>Also, is there any chance someone out there can simulate this issue?
>(I tend to be leary of easy proofs for a system that is so drastically out
>of equilibrium.)
 
     Sure, for $50,000 + overhead, I'd be glad to.  Sonoluminescence
     is not a trivial problem, but there are certain obvious ways of
     approach at this juncture.
 
     The problem is getting someone to pay for the work since I value my
     lunch money.  However, I think the application to fusion to be probably
     somewhat limited.
 
>Again, the key premise is that a very sharp pressure/vacuum transition on
>an inwardly collapsing void will lead to substantial increases in inward
>velocity for some fraction of the surface molecules.  True or false?  Why?
 
     More like 'substantial increases in local KE for some fraction of
     the interior molecules'.  However, the mechanism is likely
     somewhat different than you propose, in that it may be the shedding of
     a strong shock into the vapor bubble.  If so, it appears to be of
     limited value in fusion studies unless you can explain why a partially
     ionized gas can further concentrate energy.  Our good friends in the
     hot fusion business can probably explain better than I how difficult
     that is.
 
>4.  LIQUIDS WITH WIDE TEMPERATURE RANGES
>
>It's implicit in the UC draft, but let me state it in a single sentence:
>
>Liquids that remain liquid over a very wide range of temperatures are
>much more likely to be interesting than ones that have only a short range
>between solidification and vaporization.
>
>Thus liquid helium would be a _really_ poor UC choice by these criteria,
>and liquid mercury would be a quite good one.  Mixtures of liquids will
>general do better by this criterion than single-composition liquids
 
      So something that is doubly ionized is harder to get close together
      than something that is 80x ionized?  Keep in mind, at hot fusion
      energies your original fluid is gone.  All that remains is that nucleus
      and all its charges.
 
                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 / Dick Jackson /  Neutron Measuring 50 Years Ago
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron Measuring 50 Years Ago
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:53:22 GMT
Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc.

 
I am typing in this extract from the New Scientist magazine (without
their permission, although the managers of such an excellent magazine
would surely approve) because it reminded me of what I am not reading
in this group:
 
"... The experiment resumed at 2:30 pm. Fermi again instructed the pile to
be operated with a single conrol rod, as he calculated what the neutron
count would be when the rod was withdrawn by another foot....
 
"The neutron counter was eventually overwhelmed, and everyone's attention
turned to the chart recorder, its pen scratching out a continuous ascent.
Fermi spent several minutes carefully checking that the rise was
exponential, that is, rising by the same factor in each successive time
interval -- evidence that the chain had been established. He put away his
slide rule and broke into a broad smile, announcing: 'the reaction is
self-sustaining'. The reactor was working at half a watt."
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
Obfusion: the New Scientist recently lam-(ever so slightly)-pooned Frank
Close in a jokey almanac for 1993. Something about his hat.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to John Farrell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John Farrell
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:16:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From John Farrell's 5 Jan 93 message, noting my comments about Mills being a
"moving target":
 
"This is pure, unadulterated rubbish."
 
I have never claimed that these were good experiments.  Only that there was
something about them that did not make sense.  As my experiments went on,
Mills kept telling me other things that I should do that were not in the
original recipe.  After discussing the 24 Feb 1992 posting with him, he really
out talked me, and I came away from the conversation thinking that I would
never see an end to my attempt at a replication.  Thus my moving target
comment.  While all parts of the experiment did not follow the Mills recipe,
some of it did.  I think the extensions were a proper attempt to verify an
anomalous result.
 
Here is the sequence reported here 24 Feb 1992:
 
1) Cell in the calorimeter, gas vented to atmosphere.  With 1.48*I correction
see "anomalous heat".  Note that this is the basic experiment as reported in
"Fusion Technology", and except that I see somewhat lower levels than Mills
(in a more precise calorimeter) agrees with his measurements.
 
2) Cell in the calorimeter, gas connected to mercury bubbler, then to
catalyst, then to servo gas measurement system.  With 1.48*I correction
**still see "anomalous heat"**.  Also see the same levels of "anomalous heat"
as in 1).
 
So from 2) I can conclude that the mercury bubbler and the catalyst does not
affect the cell operation.
 
3) Cell in the calorimeter, mercury bubbler and catalyst in the calorimeter,
any excess gas to external servo gas measurement system.  No excess gas seen
by servo.  Maintain same physical configuration i.e. tubing length as when
separated inside and outside.  Now do not take 1.48*I correction.  *** No
longer see "anomalous heat". ***
 
4) Now restore conditions as in 2) and again see "anomalous heat", indicating
that the phenomena was not in some way time dependent.
 
To accept Farrell's current position, I have to assume that there are two
kinds of "anomalous heat".  One is an erroneous small amount that deceived me
into thinking that the above sequence was a demonstration that there was
nothing to the Mills claim, and a second is a large "real" "anomalous heat"
that is presently being produced by the Mills team.  OK, I will admit I was
misled by the "false" "anomalous heat".  Bring on your heater for my house.  I
will be happy to sign a ten year contract at say half the natural gas rate.
 
I think Occam's razor tells me the conclusion to make.
 
I quote from my 2 Mar 1992 posting:
 
"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
phenomena."
 
Farrell says "I remind you that Droege was getting excess heat without the
recombiner."  I was getting it with the recombiner too, John.  See 2) above.
So can you explain the sequence?  I will be the first to admit that my
experiments were not very good.  But not quite rubbish. (I know you did not
call them rubbish, John.)  At the time I figured it would have taken about six
months to do a good experiment.  I could not see a reason to try.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  List
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: List
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:16:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hoyt A Stearns writes:
 
"I think you forgot one: My Pd Pt cell has a hydrocap recombiner, and was
evacuated after Pd charging.  The head pressure is very low."
 
Does it stay low?  Under these conditions, either outgassing or new absorption
will cause a pressure change.  Since I believe I see these things going on all
the time, I would be very interested if the vacuum holds, as it would indicate
possible problems with my measurement.
 
Note anything kills the vacuum.  If there is D2 absorption then the excess O2
kills the vacuum.  If the cathode outgasses D2 then that kills the vacuum
since there is no O2 to combine it on the catalyst.
 
Again my measurements indicate a constant mucking around of the gas.  I am very
interested in your observations.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Jed Rothwell /  More Nonsense
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Nonsense
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:16:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I really don't have time to be posting these messages, and I promise I will
not post any more of those essays, but I cannot let this nonsense pass
without remark. Frank Close says:
 
     "Jon Webb has it right: it is a question of which `facts' one accepts."
 
You both have it completely wrong! It is a question of which "facts" have a
higher sigma level of confidence, and which have been more widely and
conclusively reproduced. You have no choice: you MUST accept those facts
which are plainly, obviously, proven beyond any statistically reasonable
level of doubt. You are saying:
 
     "It is perfectly okay for me to reject inconvenient facts, I can pick
     and choose the ones I like. McKubre's results, at sigma 90, are not an
     issue: I will only talk about the 1989 work of P&F, and I will never
     mention their more recent work, either."
 
 
Also, in a technical note, Richard Blue is correct in saying:
 
     "Paraffin wax supplied in thin sheets that is routinely used in biology,
     biochem, and related fields... I don't think it meets the Jed Rothwell
     protocol for keeping CF experiments squeaky clean with respect to
     organics.
 
When I was assisting Notoya at MIT, she sent me over to collect 4 liters of
pure water from the biology lab, and she specifically told me: "do not let
them cover it with paraffin!" Then she decided to come and supervise (I
carried). The other electrochemist observers agreed at once that paraffin wax
sheets would be a deadly contaminant. It is precisely because they know this
sort of thing that they succeed at CF, whereas many physicists fail at first.
 
 
Richard Blue also outdoes himself by posting this wretched, ill-mannered,
lie:
 
     "As to other recent CF news that I would assign to the dust bin is the
     message from Prof. Farrell that Mills is producing 50 Watts of heat with
     2.5 Watts input power - too big an effect to require careful
     measurements.  But, of course, we can't be told anything about how this
     is done!  Perhaps Mills would consider releasing a video."
 
For the record: nobody in this field has been more open, forthcoming, and
precise in publishing ALL details about their experiments than Dr. Mills. No
one has offered more help to others than Dr. Farrell. No experiment has
worked better, or been easier to replicate, than the Mills experiment.
 
Think about something Richard. You have published these outrageous, unfounded
statements time after time. Anyone who has read anything from Mills knows
that what you are saying is an outrageous falsehood. You just make this crap
up and publish it without thinking. You attacked Yamaguchi without even
knowing whether he was working with a gas or a liquid! That's incredible! You
did not have the foggiest, vaguest idea what the man was doing, and you
attacked him for being incompetent.
 
Did it ever occur to you that this kind of silly, irresponsible behavior
might come back to haunt you someday? Did you ever think, for even a second,
what might happen to you if these people turn out to be right?
 
Now, I am not suggesting you might be sued or anything like that. Heavens no!
You are not hurting anyone but yourself. You are not like at all like these
vicious, lunatic, character assassins Taubes and Britz. For one thing, you
have never accused anyone of wrongdoing. That is very important! For another
thing, when you say "Yamaguchi is using a liquid" or "Mills doesn't tell
anyone how he does it" -- anyone can check the facts and see that you are
wrong. When someone lies about what I supposedly did in Nagoya, that can
never be checked; but when you lie about what Mills has published, anyone can
check the public record. So you are not doing any harm.
 
Still, doesn't it ever occur to you that you are a making public fool of
yourself, and heading off a cliff for no reason?
 
 
Finally, I think John Logajan and Tom Droege are correct:
 
     "Droege did in fact duplicate the Mills experiment and results and so
     posted those results here.  He then went on to throw additional curves
     at it to see if it would break.  I think his experimental variations are
     much more difficult to pass off than you [Farrell] are letting on...
 
     To reiterate, he (Droege) *got* excess heat with a recombiner attached,
     as long as the recombiner was outside the calorimeter.  Simply moving
     the recombiner inside the calorimeter (and thus eliminating the need for
     the 1.48*I 'correction') made the anomalous heat disappear."
 
I don't remember the details, but if Tom's results were less than I*V, it
must have been recombination, just as he says. His experiments seem very
convincing to me, especially since other people have reported recombination
on the cathode. The logical conclusions:
 
     Tom saw no excess heat, only recombination. He tried to duplicate Mills,
     but he failed. This is not surprising; there are, after all, plenty of
     ways to do this experiment wrong.
 
     Some other people see substantial recombination on the cathode, but some
     don't. My guess is that it depends upon geometry. If you see
     recombination, some electrochemists suggest you try a larger anode, or
     move the anode farther away from the cathode.
 
     Other people do see excess heat, since they are far beyond I*V. Since
     recombination can occur, it is best to discount results below I*V.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:58:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
OK, can someone address the timing issue here?  When exactly does the effect
of sonoluminescence occur during the cavitation cycle?  How well is that
timing really known (and by what methods)?
 
 
From reference list Steven Jones provided I have this short quote:
 
> 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), a phenomenon 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."
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 
From Dale Bass in <1993Jan5.180115.17549@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> I have:
 
>  ... in stable cavitation in acoustical fields, the sonoluminescence occurs
> shortly after the bubble reaches maximum radius (i.e. just as the bubble
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> starts its inward cycle.  Keep in mind that in stable sonoluminescence,
> the bubble itself does not completely collapse.).  This implies that the
> sonoluminescence is mediated by a strong shock in the vapor itself (See
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Barber and Putterman PRL: 69:3839 (1992) among others), ...
 
 
Sooo... Am I trying vainly to solve a pretty-much-fully-understood problem?
 
If it's rock solid that the luminescent pulse occurs in the central void just
as the surface of the a vapor-filled bubble twitches inward, then what's to
solve?  It would indeed have to be a vapor-filled bubble (not void), and it
would indeed _have_ to be a shock wave, not a surface implosion.
 
So again, has sonoluminiscence _already_ been solved, or not?
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Chuck Harrison /  Nitrogen reactions
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nitrogen reactions
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:52:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In FD676  jr@ksr.com (John Robinson) (5 Jan 93 16:51:10 GMT) writes:
 
> But if nitrogen correlates to excess heat, and oxygen is present, are
> we simply finding a way to catalyze nitrogen burning?
 
Making nitrogen oxides (there are plenty to choose from) isn't
generally an energy-releasing process.  On the other hand, making
ammonia, NH3, from H2 and N2 releases more than 40 kJ per mole.  (This
reaction, enhanced by high temperature, high pressure, and an iron
catalyst, is used on a large scale for commercial manufacture of
ammonia.)  It is conceivable, under the special conditions existing at
a Pd or Ni cathode under hydrolysis, that this reaction could proceed
slowly.
 
To explain 50 watts of Mills power this way would require over a liter
per minute of N2 consumption.
Tom Droege note that this _would_ consume hydrogen.
 
> This could be tested in a closed cell by flushing with nitrogen...
 
... or in an open one by sparging with argon.
                                               - Cheers,  Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / N Redington /  Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:36:33 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jan5.225833.29067@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.|>
|> So again, has sonoluminiscence _already_ been solved, or not?
|>
|>
|>                              Cheers,
|>                              Terry Bollinger
 
Doesn't Julian Schwinger say it's the dynamical analogue of the
Casimir effect?
 
N. Redington
14S-100
MIT
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / B Bartholomew /  Re: Replies to D. Blue/Original BYU Expts.
     
Originally-From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Replies to D. Blue/Original BYU Expts.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:12:50 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

        Um, please pardon the question from a mathematically
illiterate person, but how do you extrapolate a peak?
        Seems like you could make a guess as to the value at
some point outside the available data, but I don't see how that
tells you anything about the points, also outside the data, on
either side of the point (2.45MeV) of interest.
        BartB
--
"I'll need a sample."  "Come again?"  "No, once is enough." Joel<-> 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:
cuddy6 cudenhcbarth cudfnBart cudlnBartholomew cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:49:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan6.063633.15257@athena.mit.edu> redingtn@athena.mit.edu
 (Norman H Redington) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.225833.29067@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.|>
>|> So again, has sonoluminiscence _already_ been solved, or not?
>|>
>|>
>|>                             Cheers,
>|>                             Terry Bollinger
>
>Doesn't Julian Schwinger say it's the dynamical analogue of the
>Casimir effect?
 
     Just curious.  What meaning is assigned to 'the dynamical analogue
     of the Casimir effect'?  I don't really see any place for the
     Casimir effect or an analogue in the process.  This isn't exactly
     a subtle indication of zero-point energy.  Are you sure it
     wasn't a joke?
 
     As far as Terry's post that I apparently did not reach this site, no it
     has not exactly been solved in detail to my knowledge, however there
     are recent strong experimental and theoretical indications as to the
     mechanism for the so-called 'stable cavitation'.  The mechanism is a
     strong shock being shed into the vapour bubble after
     the bubble begins contracting.  About seven other possible mechanisms
     of various stripes are mentioned in Young's book on cavitation
     (appropriately entitled 'Cavitation'), a good book I'd recommend
     to anyone interested in cavitation.
 
     I was curious, so I looked at UNC (they apparently received Terry's
     post) and the full question involved the timing of the flashes.
     Barber and Putterman's, in their 28 December PRL article,
     (again PRL: 69:3839 (1992)) measure the bubble radius of 'stable
     cavitation' against time and sonoluminescence.  They
     find that the the SL is 'clearly emitted at or near the moment
     of collapse' (Figure 1).
 
     Detailed measurements indicate that a roughly 40 microsecond
     period bubble sonoluminesces roughly 4 microseconds after reaching
     maximum radius (and the bubble surface velocity reaches Mach 1 about 10
     nanoseconds before reaching its minimum radius, Figures 3 and 4).
     This would seem to indicate that the shock 'slow(s) down the collapse
     of the bubble' and that it is, in fact, a shock.  I have seen a
     very recent preprint that theoretically describes the first stages
     of this shock shedding process.
 
                             dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:45:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Could someone set my mind at ease by making a clear statement as to
what is know about sonoluminescence, ultracavitation, and related
topics as opposed to conjecture based on doubtful interpretations of
a very limited data set?
 
My understanding of cavitation and bubble formation is that it can
involve a very small move away from equilibrium conditions.  All that
is required is that the local pressure in the liquid fall below the
vapour pressure.  I would assume that the bubble fills with vapour
on a time scale close to that required for collapse so I don't
understand why there is any talk about collapse into a "void".
 
Now as to sonoluminescence, I have the feeling that the conjectures
have run somewhat ahead of the facts in a chain of reasoning that goes
something like the following:  The emission of visible light from
a gas implies high excitation energies such as would result from
temperatures of many tens of kilovolts or higher so we can conclude
the sonoluminescence indicates conditions similar to high-temperature
plasmas are being produced in the bubbles.  It is but one small jump
from there to say that this might be a path to fusion.  It seems to
me, however, that this chain of reasoning has several weak links.
Suppose I suggest as an alternative point of view the notion that
the observed photons are not produced in the volume of the bubble at
all, but are instead coming from the boundary layer of the bubble?
What does the experimental data tell us in that regard?
 
Why would I think that the light emission is a surface effect?  Basically
because it is something easy to mimmick in the privacy of your own home,
and it can even be done in your kitchen.  Just unroll some plastic wrap
in a dark kitchen.  The layers of plastic film stick together because
the material is a polar dielectric.  When you pull the layers apart the
surfaces are left with unpaired charges in a nonuniform distribution
that is then equilibrated by surface discharges.  When I form a bubble
in a polar dielectric liquid might I not produce the same effect?
 
I have one more question relating of fractofusion, bubbles, and
non-equilibrium.  Suppose by hook or crook I do produce a transient
electric field in the presence of some deuterons and some electrons.
What keeps the electrons sitting still while the deuterons accelerate
to velocities high enough to induce fusion?  I have always be taught
that a mass ratio of roughly 4000:1 would leave the deuterons sitting
still while the electrons rushed off to cancel the field.  Of course
that is old fashioned theory.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 /  /  Re: Fusion Digest 677
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 677
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:45:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov  writes
 
>Farrell says "I remind you that Droege was getting excess heat without the
>recombiner."  I was getting it with the recombiner too, John.  See 2) above.
>So can you explain the sequence?  I will be the first to admit that my
>experiments were not very good.  But not quite rubbish. (I know you did not
>call them rubbish, John.)  At the time I figured it would have taken about six
>months to do a good experiment.  I could not see a reason to try.
>
>Tom Droege
 
1.  I did not call your experiments rubbish.  I did call your statement
that "Mills was a moving target" rubbish.  Mills was simply trying to help
you with an experiment that he did not recommend.
 
2.  I cannot explain your result (2).  I'll add it to the list of things
that I don't understand.
 
For what it is worth, I recommend, once again, that you not use a
recombiner. I cite the following reasons:
 
1.  The danger of explosion.
 
2.  It is harder to get the excess heat.  Maybe it is contamination.  Maybe
it is H2 pressure.  There may be other reasons.  Mills has not spent much
time or effort on recombiners.
 
3.  If you get 50% excess heat with a recombiner you will be surprised that
people will still not believe it.  They will say that it is a chemical
reaction, heat transfer problems, cosmic ray interactions, and god knows
what all.
 
4.  The heat value of the recombination process is small compared to the
excess heat that can be produced.
 
The proposals (from the net and from private communications from net
readers) for demonstration of this process are under consideration by
HydroCatalysis Power Corporation and Thermacore.  My guess is that it will
not happen for a month or two.  At which time, the demo will be so
convincing that there will be no question of the energy producing potential
of this process.
 
A note to Dick Blue.  Keep your dust bin handy.
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Randy Burns /  What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
     
Originally-From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:59:05 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA

 
The more I read the news in sci.physics.fusion, the more that I tend
to think that _somebody_(my own favorite horses in this race are some
of the small companies working on hot fusion) will come up with a
dramatically improved energy source sometime in the next 30 years.
 
What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit
from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy.
My ideal investment would be somethink like selling electrity futures
-deliverable in some long horizon-short. Now, to the best of my knowledge
there are no "pure" energy futures  Oil futures would come close, but
oil is used for lots of other things besides just producing energy, though
I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
(i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
cheaper energy prices.
 
 
Thanks for your suggestions. Followups to misc.invest.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrburns cudfnRandy cudlnBurns cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Jon Webb /  Re: More Nonsense
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Nonsense
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:51:59 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <930105213557_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM>
 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
        "It is perfectly okay for me to reject inconvenient facts, I can pick
        and choose the ones I like. McKubre's results, at sigma 90, are not an
        issue: I will only talk about the 1989 work of P&F, and I will never
        mention their more recent work, either."
 
It is permitted in science to give a lower weight to results that have
not appeared in the archival literature, which includes both examples
you mention above.  Has anyone ever published in a journal a result
which exceeds I*V?  I believe that all the results published in
journals have been much smaller effects, which can be explained by the
various sources of heat contamination I mentioned in a previous post.
 
   The other electrochemist observers agreed at once that paraffin wax
   sheets would be a deadly contaminant. It is precisely because they know this
   sort of thing that they succeed at CF, whereas many physicists fail at first.
 
The point of the comment about parafilm is that this was what Pons and
Fleischmann (who are electrochemists) said they sealed their cells
with in the early experiments.  So once again we have two classes of
cold fusion phenomena; one which works fine in the presence of
paraffin, and another for which paraffin is a deadly contaminant.
 
   For the record: nobody in this field has been more open, forthcoming, and
   precise in publishing ALL details about their experiments than Dr. Mills. No
   one has offered more help to others than Dr. Farrell. No experiment has
   worked better, or been easier to replicate, than the Mills experiment.
 
Well, Farrell is now claiming 2.5 Watts in, 50 Watts out.  He has not
published information about the experiment, nor permitted an unbiased
observer to view it.  It seems to me that this is far less open than
many others have been, including people you've been associated with.
 
   Did it ever occur to you that this kind of silly, irresponsible behavior
   might come back to haunt you someday? Did you ever think, for even a second,
   what might happen to you if these people turn out to be right?
 
I'm sorry, but this reminds me so much of a statement I saw in the New
York Times from a Lubavitch Jew about the Moshiach.  Well, if you're
right it's wonderful.  But even if cold fusion does exist in some form,
I'm certain you aren't completely right -- it can't be the case that
Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and Pons & Fleischmann and
McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent experiments.
 
   Still, doesn't it ever occur to you that you are a making public fool of
   yourself, and heading off a cliff for no reason?
 
I think that if we took a vote here on who was making a public fool of
themselves, you or Dick Blue, you'd lose.
 
        Tom saw no excess heat, only recombination. He tried to duplicate Mills,
        but he failed. This is not surprising; there are, after all, plenty of
        ways to do this experiment wrong.
 
Tom got results consistent with Mills's early results (same level of
heat).  So are you now saying that Mills's early results were
recombination?
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #7 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:07:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #7 Cell 4A3
 
We are presently running a Takahashi style Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion"
experiment.  Cell 4A3 contains a 1 cm by 1 cm by 1mm Pd cathode.  The cathode
was squeezed down to 1 mm thickness from a 3mm thick coin bar in a high
pressure hydraulic press.  Fill is 30 cc of .47 M D2O.  Cell is running with a
Pt dummy electrode at a 300 microampere bias current positioned off to one
side of the anode grid.  The Pt anode is wound around the cathode like the
grid in a 6AS7 vacuum tube.  (I might as well say positioned like the tongue
in a Plesiosarus for all most of you would know.)  A glass tube down the
center of the cell supports the teflon anode/cathode structure at its end.
The tube contains two solid state thermometers.  One where the tube is
surrounded by the liquid measures the cell temperature.  A second is located
above where the tube is surrounded by gas in the vicinity of the catalyst.
The glass tube between the two thermometers is stuffed with foam to reduce
coupling.  The catalyst is Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, which is Palladium
based.  The catalyst is formed as small cylinders which are 0.1" in diameter
by 0.1" long.  The catalyst is located in eight sodium glass tubes which are
supported in the top of the cell by teflon spacers.  The glass tubes are
mounted vertically with the bottoms slightly closed to keep the cylinders in
place.  This allows condensate to drip out the bottoms of the tubes.  About 15
of the catalyst cylinders are in each of eight tubes.  The cell is sealed with
"O" rings external to the cell volume and any excess gas is removed to an
atmospheric pressure motor driven syringe.  The cell was assembled in an Argon
filled glove bag after an appropriate cleaning ritual.  The cell is operated
in a null balance calorimeter of my design with a one sigma calibration for
this run of 0.035 watts.  (We will repeat this summary from time to time for
new readers.)
 
We are presently operating at 800 ma which results in a cell voltage of 4.5
volts.  Present calorimeter balance is at 7.300 watts.  Peak to peak changes
over the last several hundred hours are consistent with the 0.035 mw one sigma
calibration.  But there is an offset from the December calibration with only
probable cause due to high temperature TED creep.  Remember to get the
temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.  A
curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air
temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is
relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar, 1
1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10' of
air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.
 
After about 350 hours of charging, we have accumulated enough (presumed
oxygen) gas to indicate that the cathode has absorbed D2 gas to an apparent
3.0 to 1 D/Pd.
 
At this point, I guess I favor the "Trickle Down" gas theory.  While running
at one ampere there was a gas run away where the catalyst could not keep up.
Backing down the cell current to 0.8 ampere gives stable operation, but there
are still gas bumps.  Looks like previously we were running right on the edge
of what the catalyst could convert.  The gas volume is observed to bump up
slowly 5 cc or so over 15 minutes.  Then it decays back to the baseline.  This
is accompanied by a cooling of the catalyst.  They are mirror images of each
other - gas goes up/catalyst goes down.
 
This still does not explain why there is so much gas in the syringe.  3/1 is a
lot but for comfort I have the Moore thesis where he found 2.3/1.
 
For the first week or so the cell voltage had been slowly rising.  Now it is
quite stable so there is every indication that we will be able to run here for
a long time.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: More Nonsense
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Nonsense
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:47:27 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago

In article <930105213557_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>Still, doesn't it ever occur to you that you are a making public fool of
>yourself, and heading off a cliff for no reason?
 
I think it's a risk that we all have to live with when we post to the net.
 
I know that you've promised not to publish any more essays, Jed, but I
am very curious as to how committed you are to CF.  You said that you
haven't invested all that much money into it.  Will there be more in
1993?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / John Logajan /  Health Hazards
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Health Hazards
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:54:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL writes:
>3.  If you get 50% excess heat with a recombiner you will be surprised that
>people will still not believe it.  They will say that it is a chemical
>reaction, heat transfer problems, cosmic ray interactions, and god knows
>what all.
 
Speaking of chemical reactions, I assume the Mills theory is still proposing
fractional level orbitals.
 
Has any more theoretical or experimental data come foward to decide whether
such forms of hydrogen represent biological hazards?  Or are they essentially
inert?
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:11:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <00966330.AB98DB60.10309@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
 blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Could someone set my mind at ease by making a clear statement as to
>what is know about sonoluminescence, ultracavitation, and related
>topics as opposed to conjecture based on doubtful interpretations of
>a very limited data set?
 
     The dataset is not as limited as it sounds, and the recent results
     are a) consistent with earlier results, b) plausable on theoretical
     grounds, and c) apparently well done.
 
>My understanding of cavitation and bubble formation is that it can
>involve a very small move away from equilibrium conditions.  All that
>is required is that the local pressure in the liquid fall below the
>vapour pressure.  I would assume that the bubble fills with vapour
>on a time scale close to that required for collapse so I don't
>understand why there is any talk about collapse into a "void".
 
     Yes.  Void is used by fluid dynamicists to talk about a
     space filled with vapour.  We shouldn't be talking about a vacuum.
 
>Now as to sonoluminescence, I have the feeling that the conjectures
>have run somewhat ahead of the facts in a chain of reasoning that goes
>something like the following:  The emission of visible light from
>a gas implies high excitation energies such as would result from
>temperatures of many tens of kilovolts or higher so we can conclude
>the sonoluminescence indicates conditions similar to high-temperature
>plasmas are being produced in the bubbles.  It is but one small jump
>from there to say that this might be a path to fusion.  It seems to
>me, however, that this chain of reasoning has several weak links.
>Suppose I suggest as an alternative point of view the notion that
>the observed photons are not produced in the volume of the bubble at
>all, but are instead coming from the boundary layer of the bubble?
>What does the experimental data tell us in that regard?
 
     No, it is not a small jump.  There are clearly shock phenomena
     that involve ionization and dissociation, that upon species
     recombination can emit light.  To then postulate nuclear excitation
     from this is not a small leap at all, and the weak links are
     basically nonexistent links.
 
     As far as the photons, they appear to be locallized at the
     center of the bubble in 'stable cavitation'.  This would make sense
     if there were a strong shock-dissociation-recombination chain
     of events inside the vapour bubble.
 
     As far as the spectra go, they are an attempt to fit the
     observed spectral energy density of the flashes to a blackbody spectrum
     (e.g. PRL 69:1182 (1992)).  I think they have doubtful physical
     significance from this perspective.
 
>Why would I think that the light emission is a surface effect?  Basically
>because it is something easy to mimmick in the privacy of your own home,
>and it can even be done in your kitchen.  Just unroll some plastic wrap
>in a dark kitchen.  The layers of plastic film stick together because
>the material is a polar dielectric.  When you pull the layers apart the
>surfaces are left with unpaired charges in a nonuniform distribution
>that is then equilibrated by surface discharges.  When I form a bubble
>in a polar dielectric liquid might I not produce the same effect?
 
     This is related to one of the old theories before it became apparent
     it was coming from the middle of the bubble.  A number of others
     are discussed in Ronald Young's book 'Cavitation' (McGraw Hill (1989)).
 
>I have one more question relating of fractofusion, bubbles, and
>non-equilibrium.  Suppose by hook or crook I do produce a transient
>electric field in the presence of some deuterons and some electrons.
>What keeps the electrons sitting still while the deuterons accelerate
>to velocities high enough to induce fusion?  I have always be taught
>that a mass ratio of roughly 4000:1 would leave the deuterons sitting
>still while the electrons rushed off to cancel the field.  Of course
>that is old fashioned theory.
 
     Absolutely.  Any prospective theory of such a process must explain
     a) exactly how one overcomes the repulsion, and b) why other things
     to not interfere.  One other minor point, it should probably also
     agree with experiments.
 
                                dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / J Hugly /  Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
     
Originally-From: jice@luth.chorus.fr (Jean-Christophe Hugly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:11:12 GMT
Organization: Chorus systemes, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France

In article <3959@key.COM>, rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
%% What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit
%% from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy.
%% My ideal investment would be somethink like selling electrity futures
%% -deliverable in some long horizon-short. Now, to the best of my knowledge
%% there are no "pure" energy futures  Oil futures would come close, but
%% oil is used for lots of other things besides just producing energy, though
%% I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
%% some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
%% (i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
%% cheaper energy prices.
 
Think about :
        - umbrellas
        - fridges
        - boats
        - grounds in the north not yet usable for agriculture
 
Because if the price of energy decreases dramatically, the earths temperature
will rise.
 
J-C
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjice cudfnJean-Christophe cudlnHugly cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Inconsistent Experiments
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inconsistent Experiments
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:45:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While I agree with most of what Jon Webb says in reply to Jed Rothwell, when
he says:
 
-- it can't be the case that Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and
Pons and Fleischmann and McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent
experiments."
 
I don't think we know enough about what is happening to know that they are
inconsistent.  For example, they could all be wrong, and that would make
them consistent!
 
So Jon, how are they inconsistent?  From my view, they could all be
based on some common principal.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / John Logajan /  Droege's snare for wayward Mills hydrogen
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's snare for wayward Mills hydrogen
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:20:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL writes:
>The proposals (from the net and from private communications from net
>readers) for demonstration of this process are under consideration by
>HydroCatalysis Power Corporation and Thermacore.
 
Speaking of demos, has anyone tried the simple "snare" idea proposed by
Tom Droege (almost a year ago) to trap the Mills postulated shrunken
hydrogen?
 
The assumption was that such hydrogen would diffuse more easily through
most materials.  So he put a B+W TV set under his apparatus and turned it
on.  The idea was that any sub-hydrogen diffusing into the picture tube
through the glass envelop would have a good chance of being "scanned"
by the sweeping electron beam.  This collision would supply enough energy
to the sub-hydrogen to knock it back to normal hydrogen.   And the normal
hydrogen would have a much more difficult time diffusing back out of the
TV tube because of its physically larger orbital dimensions.
 
So the hydrogen would be trapped inside the TV tube.  After a period of
this hydrogen capture mechanism, the TV picture would start to distort,
a sort of smearing effect from the constant collisions of the beam with
the hydrogen gas.  This is known as a "gassy" TV picture tube, a common
and fairly easy to diagnos failure mode.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.06 / John Cobb /  Re: electrostatic fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: electrostatic fusion
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:19:40 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <C0CIoo.Iun@efi.com>, chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec31.055118.11523@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
...
|>>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.:
|>
|>OK, I'll stick my neck out again.  According to this analysis, if you
|>put the same number of electrons on a big sphere or a small sphere, a
|>proton at the surface of either sphere has the same potential energy
|>relative to a distance of infinity from the sphere.  This seems
|>correct to me.
|>
 
chop, thump, bump, roll, roll. Sorry Chris, welcome to Decaps anonymous
(Ann Bolelyn Pres. Ichabod Crane Secy.). The last statement is incorrect.
Given a fixed charge (number of electrons) on the surface of a sphere, the
electric potential at the surface of the sphere does depend on the radius.
If you halve the radius, the potential will be 4 times as large.
 
|>The point about the points (sorry) is that they allow you to cram a
|>lot of electrons into a small space.  Imagine a sphere with a cone
|>stuck onto it.  (Call it a "construct".)  Put some number of electrons
|>onto the sphere.  Now the "voltage" at the surface of the sphere
|>opposite the cone is X.  But the "voltage" at the tip of the cone may
|>be 20X.  (I put voltage in quotes because I'm not sure if I should say
|>"potential" or "apparent gradient" or...)  I agree that if you put the
|>same number of electrons on this construct as on the above spheres,
|>the potential energy of a proton at any point on its surface is the
|>same as it was above.
|>
 
I think the wording of your message is confusing. The electric field is what
provides the force (i.e. how hard the field pulls the particles).
Mathematically,
the electric field is the gradient of the potential. The physics comes
into play
when you ask whether the problem at hand depends of the field or on the
potential.
 
There are really two distinct problems here (actually many more). First
consider
a sphere inside a box. Assume the box is attached to a grounded wire and that
the ball inside the box is attached to another wire that is held at a given
potential V. This is the case that Terry is referring to. Here you can magnify
the electric field if the ball is replaced by a needle. Near the point of the
needle the field can be very strong. In fact for a small arrangement, moderate
voltages can cause "mini-lightning bolts" from electric fields that exceed the
breakdown voltage. However, each of the electrons that leave the needle whether
by breakdown at the needle's point of thermal excitation off of the midshaft
will strike wall with an energy per unit charge of V volts. No matter its path,
the electron will have gone through a voltage drop of V volts going from
needle to wall. This is what Terry means by "a voltage drop is a voltage
drop is a
voltage drop".
 
Now consider another arrangement. Given the sample ball in the miidle of a
grounded box. Now instead of attaching it to a given reference voltage, give
it a fixed charge and electrically insulate it. Now suppose that the ball is
malleable and can change its size. For example, let's let the ball be a balloon
attached to a air hose and pump. If, while the balloon is inflated to a radius
d a single electron "sneaks" off the ball and is accelerated to the wall, it
will acquire and energy of eV where V is the instantaneous voltage drop between
the balloon and the wall (ground). Now deflate the balloon until its radius is
d/2. Now when an electron "sneaks" off the smaller surface, it will fall
through
a larger electrostatic potential (about 4V if the box is large). The difference
is that the ball is not held at a fixed potential but rather at a fixed charge.
It's potential can fluctuate. Well this seems like something for nothing until
you realize that you must do electrical work to deflate the balloon.
Thus you are
trading stored elastic energy in the balloon's surface tension for electrical
potential energy. It is not a free lunch, it is more of an amplification scheme
in the same sense that a simple lever (or pulley) allows one to lift
heavy object
with a small force. A similar mechanism may be responsible for the phenomena
associated with sonoluminescence where a multitude of particles at low energy
can act collectively to create a small number of particles at high energy. In
fact there the amplification in energy can be about 10 orders of
magnitude, truly
enormous.
 
Now if you want to talk about fusion applications, you need to specify
what your
setup is etc. before you can intelligently answer whether it can have an
effect and what that effect is.
 
|>If you disagree with the above two paragraphs, read this restatement:
|>The voltage of the current source is a red herring--ignore it.  The
|>only question is how many electrons will end up on the "construct".
 
That's one approach (equivalent to my econd example).
 
|>Terry's analysis implicitly assumes a fixed number of electrons:
Nope: he assumes a fixed potential.
 
|>charge a sphere, then deform it into a cone.  This is not the setup
|>the CF people are using.  After reading other discussion on this
|>group, it sounds like it is unknown how to compute the integral
|>mentioned in the previous paragraph, so there is no way to know how
|>many electrons will end up on the construct.
 
Well not really. It is just that no one has done it yet, but it is quite
doable, certainly numerically.
 
Let me suggest another scheme. Take a ball of charge and squeeze it
into a cigar shape and then further into a needle. Now you get both
advantages.
The potential goes way up just from solving poisson's equation since the charge
now occupies a much smaller volume and the field gradient is even more
accentuated at the two ends because of the "sharp corners" effect. Hmmm,
something to think about. How you get it to cause fusions is not so clear to
me.
 
However this looks remarkable similar to something which has recently grabbed
my attention. It is a novel small-scale fusion idea with single component
plasmas. The citation is:
 
 "Non-neutral plasma compression to ultrahigh density"
by Dan Barnes and Leaf Turner in Physics of Fluid B Vol. 4 p. 3890 December
1992.
Briefly the idea is to take a single component plasma  in a penning trap and
cool it thermodynamically to cyrogenic temperautes. Pick your magnetic field
such that the EXB drift causes a spin at just the right frequency. Then you
can do the math and find that in the rotating frame the dynamics of the
plasma is that of motion in a spherically symmetric potential with a weird
shape. Because it is a potential, you can solve for the nonlinear langmuir
oscillation. The pertrubation can be either spherical, cigar or pancake -like.
Because of the nature of the "potential" you can get hugh density
multpilications.
The idea is that this might form a small (a few watts) fusion device if we are
really lucky and if it can't achieve that goal, it might be a great compact
intense neutron source.
 
you gotta love the idea if for no other reason than the novelty of the
approach.
 
 
john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  Bo /  Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River.
     
Originally-From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups:
 sci.space,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.electr
 onics
Subject: Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River.
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:02:49 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

 
Here is the second announcment of the Space Plasma Summer School, to
be held in Russia in June 1993.
 
We think we have a very attractive list of lecturers, with the Noble laureate
Anthony Hewish the top of the bill.  Don't be late or you may miss it because
of limitations in the number of attendees.
 
Bo
 
==============================================================================
                              Second announcement
 
              International Summer School on Space Plasma Physics
 
 
                                  Organised by
       Radiophysical Research Institute, NIRFI, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia
                                      and
           Swedish Institute of Space Physics, IRFU, Uppsala, Sweden
                                   to be held
 
           Onboard a Cruise Ship on the Volga River, 1--10 June, 1993
 
 
 
 
The purpose of the school is to give an introduction to the problems
of linear and non-linear space plasma physics, ionospheric modification,
the use of the ionosphere as a space plasma laboratory, as well as to
discuss current topics in astrophysics and ionospheric, solar, and
stellar plasma physics.
 
 
                   Preliminary list of lecturers and lectures
 
 
Prof C E Alissandrakis, Greece, Emissions From Solar Flares.
 
Prof T Chang , USA, Electromagnetic Tornadoes in Space---Ion Cyclotron
  Resonance Heating of Ionospheric Ions; Lower hybrid collapse, caviton
  turbulence, and charged particle energization.
 
Dr F C Drago, Italy, Radio Emission of Active Regions of the Sun and
  Stars.
 
Prof G Dulk, USA, Radio Methods For Investigating the
  Solar Wind Between Sun and Earth.
 
Prof Lev Erukhimov, Russia, Space Plasma Laboratories.
 
Dr J Foster, USA, Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
Dr C Hanuise, France, Coherent Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
Prof M Hayakawa, Japan, Terrestrial Electromagnetic Noise Environment.
 
Prof A Hewish, UK, Mapping Interplanetary Weather Patterns.
 
Prof Yu Kravtsov, Russia, Polarisation and Wave Propagation Effects in
  Inhomogeneous Plasma.
 
Prof J Kuijpers, Holland, Magnetic Flares In Accretion Disks.
 
Prof M Nambu, Japan, Plasma Maser Effects.
 
Prof V Petviashvili, Russia, Vortexes in Space.
 
Prof V Radhakrishnan, India, Pulsars--The Strangest Radiators in the
  Sky.
 
Prof H O Rucker, Austria, Planetary Radio Emissions.
 
Dr R Schlickeiser, Germany, The Theory of Cosmic Ray Transport and
  Acceleration and Astrophysical Applications.
 
Dr K Stasiewicz, Sweden, Auroral Kilometric Radiation.
 
Dr B Thide, Sweden, Controlled Generation of Radio Emission in the
  Near-Earth Plasma by Wave Injection from the Ground.
 
Prof V Trakhtengertz, Russia, Alfven Masers.
 
Dr V Zaytsev, Russia, Solar plasma.
 
Prof V V Zheleznyakov, Russia, Cyclotron Resonance in Astrophysics.
 
 
General and topical lectures will be mixed with seminars and poster
sessions.  The lecture notes and reports of new results will be pubished
in "Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics".  The definitive list of
lecturers and lectures will be included in the school programme that
will be mailed to all participants.  Applications for attendance must be
submitted before 1 March, 1993 to either of:
 
 
Lev M. Erukhimov                       Bo Thide
Radiophysical Research Institute       Swedish Institute of Space Physics
ul. B. Pecherskaya 25/14               Uppsala Division
603024 Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia        S-75591 Uppsala, Sweden
Fax: [+7] 8312-369902                  Fax: [+46] 18-403100
E-mail: le@appl.nnov.su                E-mail: bt@irfu.se
 
 
There will be an excursion to Vasil'sursk where the NIRFI radio
observatory ``Sura'' is located.  The cultural program of the school
includes sightseeing in interesting old Russian towns on the upper
Volga, art exhibitions, and other activities.
 
The total cost for full board an lodging on the ship for the school is
estimated at between US300 and US500, depending on type of cabin (first
class single, first class double, second class singel, second class
double).
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbt cudlnBo cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:02:52 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jan5.180115.17549@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> [Terry Bollinger writes:]
>
> | Can anyone out there show one way or the other whether this wedge-out
> | idea is either bogus or has merit?
> ...
>
> 1) in stable cavitation in acoustical fields, the sonoluminescence occurs
> shortly after the bubble reaches maximum radius (i.e. just as the bubble
> starts its inward cycle.  Keep in mind that in stable sonoluminescence,
> the bubble itself does not completely collapse.).  This implies that the
> sonoluminescence is mediated by a strong shock in the vapor itself (See
> Barber and Putterman PRL: 69:3839 (1992) among others),
 
In the UC draft I did assume vapor or gas in most bubbles, but (by choice)
emphasized keeping the vapor level low.  I dropped the use of "shock
wave" from my first outline for that same reason.  I was interested mainly
in _very_ thin shock wave media, not the conventional thick stuff.  (In
retrospect I wish I had left the "shock" terminology in there.)
 
I find the fact that the surface is able to accelerate to Mach 1 that
quickly to be most interesting.  So there _really is_ an implosion, hmm?
 
 
I would love to get this (and other) references, but in my current location
I no longer have easy access to my old resource (the Library of Congress).
 
I thus will beg a bit:  If anyone out there has a copy of this and any other
related cavitation papers that they might be willing to fax to me (without
violating any university rules, please), I would be extremely appreciative.
 
Could any kind souls out there help me out a bit on this?
 
 
> 2) it is not clear what physical/thermodynamic meaning 100,000 K has for
> this process (a discussion of 'huge' fugacity should be kept in mind here).
 
Sorry, you need to talk to Seth Putterman about that one.  You know more
about the details of his peak extrapolation than I do anyway.
 
 
> However, all of the component species should be fairly well ionized at that
> point if it has any physical meaning...
 
You mean at the void center when your shock wave hits?  OK by me.  You are,
after all, dumping a lot of energy into a small region over a short time.
 
 
> Putting aside the thought that it probably has limited physical meaning,
> at that point there are very good electrostatic reasons for the character
> of the interaction to change somewhat drastically.
 
Sorry, I don't get it.  If the plasma is created through thermal methods and
is not being subjected to intense currents or magnetic fields, my assumption
was (and is) that it will be subject to the same general dynamic behavior as
any very hot gas.  Are you implying that you think a strong field or current
will be present?  If so, why?  It would seem like an unnecessary assumption
without a lot more evidence for the presence of such phenomena in the center.
 
 
> I would also point out that the concept of ordinary fluid dynamic surface
> tension breaks down well before that point (to put it mildly).
 
From conversations with you offline, I gather that you were originally under
the impression that I was trying to whack the fluid surface all the way into
the center of the void.
 
I most decidely proposed no such thing in UC, and I explicitly described the
"wedge-out" as a proposed _gaseous_ effect.
 
 
Moreover, in UC I described the wedge-out in the context of a very fast,
inwardly moving gaseous front that has a very sharp transtion from high
pressure to (hopefully) low void pressure on its leading edge...
 
You'll pardon my lack of using standard terminology at times, but I believe
that such a thing is called a "shock wave," is it not?
 
 
> 3) If you seriously want to present a model, the burden of proof is on you
> to describe such things as
>
> a) why your process does not violate the second law,
 
Hmm?  Since when does the second law prevent _local_ increases in temperature
and pressure as long as they don't reduce entropy for the system as a whole?
 
Whatever sonoluminscence is, it's clearly expending a lot of energy in the
whole bubble to produce an increase in energy in a _much smaller_ central
region.  So what?  Multi-stage rockets behave quite similarly when they
accelerate a payload, but they certainly don't violate the second law.
 
 
Speaking of such things, David Cyganski sent me a very nice (and easy-to-do)
example of how mechanical bouncing around (literally!) can result in the
energy of one object being transferred largely or entirely into another one:
 
Take two elastic balls, one of which is about 1/3 the weight as the other.
Carefully drop them so that the light ball rest exactly on top of the heavy
ball as they fall.
 
If the weights are about right, then when they both hit the ground the heavier
ball will transfer _all_ of its kinetic energy to the lighter ball, which will
then rebound much higher than the height from which it was dropped.
 
Does the ball violate the second law?  No, of course not.  Nor does the idea
that the collapse of a highly symmetrical void could produce a brief, highly
energetic central region.  A close cavitation system with a self-contained
energy source increases in entropy quite nicely over time, no matter how
hot certain individual events within that system may or may not become.
 
 
> b) why surface tension itself does not seem to operate in the 'wedgeout
> process',
 
Because if it exists, it's a gaseous process...  :)
 
 
> c) why diffusion and damping do not significantly operate,
 
The stupid answer is "because it's spherical and it's collapsing inward."
Things are getting damped, alright, but most of what is getting damped is
also getting "left behind" as the wave front moves inward.
 
I guess I just don't believe that the models for all this are necessarily
all that complete or insightful.  You get out what you put in.
 
 
> d) how one applies a fluid continuum approach to a putatively ionized gas,
 
Again, I'm ignorant.  Is neutal plasma "sticky," or what?  Can you elaborate?
 
 
> e) how one can get a further 11 order of magnitude concentration of energy
> beyond the concentration probably caused by an ionizing shock, especially
> considering that at indicated spectral temperature, electromagnetic
> interactions will dominate long before fusion energies are reached,
 
Hey, I said measureable _low level_ fusion.  I don't recall the curves
that used to be discussed in this group, but it seems to me that a real
kinetic energy of 100,000 K might _already_ be high enough for some very
low level increases in, say, T-T that could be detectable.  (Anyone game?)
 
On the other hand, I honestly _don't_ feel that the concentration curve has
been anywhere near exhausted yet, because I don't think there is a full
understanding of what is going on for some ranges of the effect -- such as
for exceptionally low void pressures.
 
I say that if you thin the medium through which the shock wave travels, you
will get an intensification.  I also note that the slanting of SL spectra
towards the UV when the water is cooled are nicely compatible with that
prediction.  Have any of the other seven or so models predicted that?
 
 
> f) why it seems to be somewhat at variance with current indications of the
> mechanism of stable sonoluminescence.
 
I did not take shock waves composed of void media into account, yes.  I only
mentioned elastic compression and the idea that more void vapor should reduce
the overall intensity of the event.
 
But I don't think we're talking about a major mismatch here.  Indeed, there
shoud be a continuum of effects between whacking a thick void gas and sending
off a shock that way, versus cavitations in which the void surface itself is
vaporizes and begins "filling in" a sparsely filled void with a particularly
vicious (and dense) shock wave.
 
It is the latter that I am betting on as being an interesting effect.  That
the former void-shock gives sonoluminscence simply makes me that much more
interested in the thin-vapor scenio.
 
> Among other side issues, quantification also seems to be a fairly
> significant burden.
 
Sounds about right.
 
 
> | Also, is there any chance someone out there can simulate this issue?
>
> Sure, for $50,000 + overhead, I'd be glad to.  Sonoluminescence is not a
> trivial problem, but there are certain obvious ways of approach at this
> juncture.
 
Heh.  Thanks, but no thanks.
 
 
> ... However, the mechanism [for increasing the interior energy] is likely
> somewhat different than you propose, in that it may be the shedding of
> a strong shock into the vapor bubble...
 
See above.
 
 
> If so, it appears to be of limited value in fusion studies unless you can
> explain why a partially ionized gas can further concentrate energy.
 
How about the other way around:  Why can it _not_ for if the plasma is
electrically neutral and no large fields are present?
 
 
> Our good friends in the hot fusion business can probably explain better
> than I how difficult that is.
 
Sounds good.  Could some kind soul explain the added instabilities that
make neutral (?) plasmas behave differently from high-temp gases?
 
 
> | Thus liquid helium would be a _really_ poor UC choice by these criteria,
> | and liquid mercury would be a quite good one.  Mixtures of liquids will
> | general do better by this criterion than single-composition liquids
>
> So something that is doubly ionized is harder to get close together than
> something that is 80x ionized?  Keep in mind, at hot fusion energies your
> original fluid is gone.  All that remains is that nucleus and all its
> charges.
 
Again, you seem to be assuming that the plasma as a whole has lost the
neutralizing effect of its electrons.  I have no knowledge of any physical
basis for that kind of assumption.  Also, most plasmas do _not_ totally
ionize all elecrons, especially from heavy metals.  I don't understand
your point in suggesting such extreme ionization, which almost certainly
could not occur even in a tokamok or other comparable plasma devices, let
alone in whatever (if anything) is going on in cavitation.
 
........
 
P.S. -- I will be re-issuing a discussion of the wedge-out with a new emphasis
        on development of flow-cells (formerly called wedges) at the margin
        of a converging "shock front" (or whatever you wish to call it).
 
        A new version will also take Dale Bass' excellent shock wave points
        into account -- but not until _after_ I can get hold of a few of the
        various references I need to get UC "synched up" with standard ideas
        and terminology.  For all I know I'm exactly duplicating one of the
        seven mechanisms of the caviation book (I actually doubt that), and if
        so I need to know it and to properly reference it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:32:02 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <00966330.AB98DB60.10309@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
 blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>>Could someone set my mind at ease by making a clear statement as to
>>what is know about sonoluminescence, ultracavitation, and related
>>topics as opposed to conjecture based on doubtful interpretations of
>>a very limited data set?
 
>     The dataset is not as limited as it sounds, and the recent results
>     are a) consistent with earlier results, b) plausable on theoretical
>     grounds, and c) apparently well done.
 
>>My understanding of cavitation and bubble formation is that it can
>>involve a very small move away from equilibrium conditions.  All that
>>is required is that the local pressure in the liquid fall below the
>>vapour pressure.  I would assume that the bubble fills with vapour
>>on a time scale close to that required for collapse so I don't
>>understand why there is any talk about collapse into a "void".
 
>     Yes.  Void is used by fluid dynamicists to talk about a
>     space filled with vapour.  We shouldn't be talking about a vacuum.
 
  Some food for thought.  What we seem to be discussing is how the
energy of cavitation can lead to fusion.  IMHO, it's an excellent
question, so let me give you my simple thought model of how it works.
Get a balloon, and put some dots on it.  The dots represent molecules
of the liquid at the void/liquid interface.  As you blow the balloon
up (representing the expansion of the void), add more dots to maintain
an equal spacing of dots.  As you draw lines between the dots (representing
bonding) you can see this should collect a large number of electrons at the
surface interface (many weakly bonded).  The vapor molecules are self-
contained.  The collapse of the balloon, must then either push the additional
dots back to it source, or be pushed into the void area.  Either way a
significant number of bonds are broken at the surface, and that suggests
the emission of quanta.
 
    Still the the release of electrons during the void collapse should
concentrate at the center of the void.  If we assume the void is a fusible
vapor, two actions occur. Kinetic energy is transferred from the
collapsing surface to the center by EM forces of the lattice, and
free electron densities increase at the center.  It follows from
the work of S. Koonin, that these combinations are optimal enhanced
fusion rates.
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Wegde-Out; liquid lithium; UC & Pd; liquids with wide temp ranges
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
 
>My favorite response so far was from Dieter:  He described my "wedge-out"
>mechanism as sounding a lot like wishful thinking.
 
>Alright!  That's exactly the kind of whack-em-about-the-ears criticism
>that the UC (ultracavitation) idea needs.  Dieter zeroed in on exactly
>the weakest link:  Can you _really_ get massive acceleration through this
>kind of proposed mechanism, or not?
 
Just to clarify things, let me add that what I regard as possibly wishful
thinking, or at least a very unsupported bit of optimism, is secondary
wedging. The primary wedging effect seems reasonable, but it requires some
quantification. I once had to do with molten salts, a field new to me at the
time, and I thought up a beautiful explanation - all in words - of something
or other to do with charge transport (I forget the details). My colleague, to
whom I explained it, was agog with admiration of my acuity of thought, and I
basked in the glory. It turned out I was quite wrong. Whatever the scientific
method is, one of its most powerful tools is certainly the use of mathematics
to quantify things, starting with simple assumptions. Words can lead you
astray.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 774 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 774 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello Gentle Reader,
here is the next lot. You will perhaps admire my straight face in the
abstracts below (I do), in the face of strong provocation, you'll have to
admit. The flavour of the month seems to be clumps of neutrons; three out of
the four suggest them, either as dineutrons (Yang), quad-neutrons (Matsumoto)
or even up to 1E09 in a bunch (Fisher). In all cases, the observed anomalies
of cold fusion are thus explained, it seems. I was relieved by the Matsumoto,
I must say: having previously read papers by him about gravity collapse and
black holes, when I saw "formation of stars" - well what do you think I
expected? But it's only star-shaped emulsion tracks. I note in the "To appear
next month" page in the journal, Matsumoto also finds mesh-like traces, and I
guess these are from that itonic mesh. The paper below has 6 references, by
the way, all to the man himself. The fourth paper (Mizuno) should perhaps have
been in the "peripheral" file, but I put it into the main one, because
although it does not try to measure cold fusion, it has all the right
references and is clearly a study of phenomena to do with cold fusion and
motivated by it.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 6-Jan-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 774
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher JC;                                      Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 511.
"Polyneutrons as agents for cold nuclear reactions".
** This attempts to address the problem of anomalies in cold fusion, which
clearly cannot be "normal" d-d fusion. Electrostatic repulsion demands that
the new mechanism involves at least one neutral species; it cannot be a single
neutron (not observed), so perhaps it is polyneutrons. This assumes the
existence of a precursor super-heavy isotope (A)H (with A=6, for example) and
the reaction n + (A)H --> (A)n + H, which is mildly exothermic. The poly-
neutron (A)n could then enter a number of different reactions, including
fusion and growth to a higher A value, up to 1E09. Much of this takes place in
the electrolyte, involving lithium, so the role of the PdD phase is not clear
here. This new physics opens up a rich new field of study.       Jan-92/Dec-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 518.
"Observation of stars produced during cold fusion".
** M has searched for more features on nuclear emulsions held close to a cnf
electrolysis at a thin Pd foil. His theory of quad-neutrons predicts various
events. Multiple neutrons formed within the PdD matrix are covered with the
itonic mesh. This slowly fades, but it might be so sticky that it will allow
the multiple neutrons to react with the nuclei of the media, e.g. in the
emulsion. One of the expected features is the formation of star-shaped
tracks, and they were indeed found. Some of these have long tracks and some
have short tracks, and they obviously are the result of cold fusion taking
place in the cell.                                               Jan-92/Dec-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mizuno T, Akimoto T, Azumi K, Enyo M;
Denki Kagaku oyobi Kogyo Butsuri Kagaku 60 (1992) 405 (Japanese, with English
abstract).
"Diffusion rate of deuterium in Pd during cathodic charging".
** A more fundamental paper, on the absorption and release rates for deuterium
during electrolysis at a Pd cathode in 0.5M LiOD. The Pd rod was degassed in
vacuum at 200 degC for about 20 h. This abstractor infers that loading was
measured by gas volumetry. At a charging current of 44 mA/cm**2, the rod was
fully charged to a D/Pd ratio of close to 0.8 in 16 days; discharge
(presumably by current reversal) led to a rapid initial decrease of this ratio
to about 0.3, followed by a slower decline to zero over a 25-day period. From
these experiments, the authors draw the conclusion that there exist phases
within the metal with different diffusion coefficients for deuterium, i.e.
1E-06 cm**2/s in the alpha and beta phases, and and 1E-08 cm**2/s in a new
hypothetical gamma phase.                                             Dec-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yang J;                     Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Norm. Hunan 15 (1) (1992) 18.
"(2)(1)H-e touched capturing and (2)(1)H-(2)(0)N fusion".
** The above is an attempt to write in one line the symbols
2                2
 H     and        N , denoting deuterium and a dineutron, respectively.
1                0
The author puts forward a theoretical model for the fusion of a deuteron and a
dineutron produced by the capture of an electron by a deuteron. This would
explain some of the anomalies of cold fusion, such as neutron bursts. The
fusion leads to (3)He and a free neutron, plus energy; secondary processes
would also take place, producing some tritium and beta and gamma emission. One
of these secondary reactions is the absorption of neutrons, which would
explain the anomaly of heat but few neutrons observed by FPH. Some interesting
questions remain.                                                May-91/Mar-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Frank Close /   Questions of integrity for Jed Rothwell and Gene Mallove
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Questions of integrity for Jed Rothwell and Gene Mallove
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed writes about "facts" that one should weigh "which have been more
- - conclusively reproduced". Exactly.
 
I have not said, nor do I agree with, the next several lines within quotes
that Jed says I am saying.
 
I note too that you did not answer my question as to "where did I say that
theory takes preference over experiment". You made great play recently as to
how you never duck issues Jed, so answer it.
 
And while you insist on accusing Britz of having made statements on this net
that might damage your reputation and worse, and now are harping on again
including Taubes name too, I have to remind you, and readers, that you have
an outstanding matter in your own name here. You posted, on behalf of Gene
Mallove your colleague, a statement in early 1992 claiming that I had
deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important positive data on
neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had been sent to me
by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly false, as anyone
can confirm by calling Worledge. I have said so explicitly on this net
and challenged you/Mallove to withdraw or substantiate this libel.
 
  Yet all that you responded, after I challenged on two occasions, was to
distance yourself as it was Mallove's message:"I am too busy; I will deal with
you in good time; Gene deals with your province" was the gist of your
feeling of responsibility. But you acted as his postman Jed; had I posted
such things for a third party about you and then  claimed that it wasn't
really my business I can imagine the short shrift that you would give it.
 
The fact that Mallove has his own book in commercial competition with mine
could make this more than a trifling matter. I recall that you got very
hot about the possible financial implications if the Japanese took Dieter
Britz's remarks to heart. It could also have a more serious impact on
the developing perspective of cold fusion for future commentators.
Any evaluation of my account of the early history is likely to be based on
my credibility as an established and internationally known physicist. Were
Mallove's accusation thought to be true then this would raise serious
questions about my integrity and sideline Too Hot To Handle as a legitimate
work of record. So I repeat to you: Mallove is challenged to produce any
evidence to substantiate his accusations posted on this net about me last year.
If he refuses, or this challenge is ignored, then at least future historians
can draw their own conclusions about the integrity of two authors. And net
readers might also draw their own conclusions about the solidity of some
of the claims that are posted on this net, if they have not already done so.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenUK cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan asks:
 
 
>Speaking of chemical reactions, I assume the Mills theory is still proposing
>fractional level orbitals.
 
Yes.  We call any hydrogen atom in the n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... state a
hydrino.
 
>Has any more theoretical or experimental data come foward to decide whether
>such forms of hydrogen represent biological hazards?  Or are they essentially
>inert?
 
No more theoretical work.  I can't comment on the experimental data.  As
far as we can tell they do not represent a biological hazard.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Re: Blue's questions about BYU experiment
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue's questions about BYU experiment
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to BartB, perhaps it would help if I gave a bit more complete
description of the data which is under discussion.  This is not a
case in which there is a well defined peak at the appropriate energy
and that is all.  As is common for measurements of this sort, there
are in fact two measurements required:  one for effect and one in which
the effect is somehow turned off without altering significantly the
interferring background signal.  The background determined with the
effect turned off must then be subtracted from the measurement for
effect to see any net signal that remains.  It sounds more straight
forward than it may actually be.  For starters both the measurement
for effect and for background are subject to statistical fluctuations.
Furthermore in the experiment under discussion the background may
have an unknown time dependence that limits the acuracy with which
one can due a subtraction of two data sets recorded at different
times.  The background measurement may not be "proper" for other
reasons, such as a removal of a background source such as the
palladium sample itself.  Finally, one question I am raising
about this experiment has to do with the nature of the signal
the detector would record even in the absence of background.  In
the Czir-Jensen paper that describes the detector, the calibration
spectrum shown is not in accord with the signal claimed in Jones
paper.  This is not just a question of extrapolation beyond the data.
The data is more or less a continuum from zero energy to well beyond
anything associated with 2.45 MeV neutrons.  It is a very tough
experimental problem, and when it has only been done once and several
other attempts give different results or nothing at all.... well
I don't think it is one of those "facts" that Jed Rothwell says
we just have to accept.
 
As an aside, Thanks to Jon Webb for his well stated reply to Jed's
latest.  Saves me the trouble.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /   /   Request for published report exceeeding E*I
     
Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Request for published report exceeeding E*I
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:41:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 -------------------
 
NOTE:  This is being re-submitted due to the note at the end of
this digest suggesting possible problems with submissions...sorry
if this is a duplicate.
SPK...
 
Jon Webb [webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)] writes:
>It is permitted in science to give a lower weight to results that have
>not appeared in the archival literature, which includes both examples
>you mention above.  Has anyone ever published in a journal a result
>which exceeds I*V?  I believe that all the results published in
>journals have been much smaller effects, which can be explained by the
>various sources of heat contamination I mentioned in a previous post.
>
 
I refer you to the August 1991 Fusion Technology article "Excess Heat
Productionby the Electrolysis of Aqueous Potassium Carbonate ..." by Mills
and Kneizys (the present author) in Vol 20, Number 1, pages 65-81.
In that article, on pages 78-79, there is a table that includes
seventeen or so Nickel/Potassium Carbonate cells that gave excess heat.
In that table, we published excess heat result percents that were
calculated with the 1.48V*I correction, but we also printed the raw
data so that anyone could draw their own conclusions.  Just pulling
out the data from one of the less productive cells, cell 14, where
there was stirring, no extra heater power, and Aqueous Potassium
Carbonate with Nickel cathode.  We reported an excess heat of 243%,
with a delta T of 6.9 C, a cell constant of 14.8 C/Watt, an input
voltage of 3.08, and a constant current of 85 milliAmperes.
 
The TOTAL output power is:
 
6.9 C /(14.8 C/Watt) = .466 Watts
 
With the 1.48*I correction, the input power was:
 
(3.08-1.48) x 0.085 = .136 watts
 
The excess heat reported was:
 
[((.466-.136)/.136) x 100] = 243
 
If we ignore the 1.48*I correction, the total input power is:
 
3.08 x .085 = 0.262 Watts
 
Seems we observed power exceeding V*I by:
 
[(.466-.262)/.262] x 100 = 78%
 
And this was from one of the less productive cells.
 
Jon Webb also writes:
>Well, Farrell is now claiming 2.5 Watts in, 50 Watts out.  He has not
>published information about the experiment, nor permitted an unbiased
>observer to view it.  It seems to me that this is far less open than
>many others have been, including people you've been associated with.
 
While Dr. Farrell does not need me to speak for him, Mills does need
someone on the Net to speak for him.  That person is currently Dr.
Farrell, and I never read Dr. Farrell say that he was doing the experiment,
rather that Dr. Farrell was relating Mills current experiment in progress
for you information.  Mills is running a business, and as such has to
decide when and how to release information...but as well as I know him,
he very much wants to release all pertinent information after such time
as his "business" legal rights have been protected.
 
On a general note, I would generally post much more information, except
that I am very dissappointed with the tone of this net at times.  It
seems we have far too much personal jabs, and other non-science postings,
that really don't belong here, and I hate to just add fuel to the fire.
I have defended the Mills and Farrell theory quite often from ridiculous,
nonspecific attacks.  While I do not believe that they have a workable
atomic or CNF or HECTER theory, I have heard few (and read less) reasonable
reasons why their theory is incorrect.
 
Saying that it violates quantum mechanics is not a valid reason to reject
a theory.  Theories that violate theories are not inherently incorrect.
Theories that violate experiment results, the laws of physics or the
laws of mathematics, on the other hand, do have problems.  I would be
happy to discuss the problems I know of with the M&F theory, but I don't
was to just add fuel to this theory "bashing".  Can we all make a slightly
late New Years Resolution to just stick to the scientific method?
 
On a humorous note, the acronym I suggest for this whole process of
excess heat production is Gobs Of Energy From Unknown Sources (GOEFUS).
But there I've gone and broken my own resolution.  Oh, well, I hope
you all can forgive me.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College
 -------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Dieter Britz /  Electrons in fractures
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrons in fractures
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:42:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
 
<... quite a long posting, almost a JR unit... {:]  >
 
>I have one more question relating of fractofusion, bubbles, and
>non-equilibrium.  Suppose by hook or crook I do produce a transient
>electric field in the presence of some deuterons and some electrons.
>What keeps the electrons sitting still while the deuterons accelerate
>to velocities high enough to induce fusion?  I have always be taught
>that a mass ratio of roughly 4000:1 would leave the deuterons sitting
>still while the electrons rushed off to cancel the field.  Of course
>that is old fashioned theory.
 
Having said all that stuff in my last posting about words, I nevertheless
reckon this is brilliant, and I wish I had thought of it! Fractofusion
demolished in a sentence, it seems. Just like Frank Close's demolition of
Bockris's dendrite theory, in one brilliant sentence. I would like to be able
to refer to this, Dick - but the NEWS net is not a "real" reference. How about
dressing this up as a note to some journal? Nature might even take it as a
Letter, they have published a fracto-related paper. Wouldn't take you too long
to write a short Letter, would it? Come on, Dick.
 
How about it, you solid state experts out there? Is there any reason for this
to be wrong? Is there something to make electrons stick tighter to the lattice
than deuterons, i.e. harder to eject across a crack? I'd say not, look at
vacuum tubes (there are some of us, Tom, who remember them). How come
everybody writing about fractofusion has overlooked this? Prof. Jones, does
this not also apply to piezofusion, or is that an entirely different effect? I
must look up that paper to refresh my memory.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Jon Webb /  Re: Inconsistent Experiments
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inconsistent Experiments
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:20:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <930106161158.20c082a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
   While I agree with most of what Jon Webb says in reply to Jed Rothwell, when
   he says:
 
   -- it can't be the case that Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and
   Pons and Fleischmann and McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent
   experiments."
 
   I don't think we know enough about what is happening to know that they are
   inconsistent.  For example, they could all be wrong, and that would make
   them consistent!
 
   So Jon, how are they inconsistent?  From my view, they could all be
   based on some common principal.
 
You may be right; perhaps there is some completely unknown theory that
will explain all of them.  But their explanations of the phenomena are
completely different, and inconsistent; e.g., Mills & Farrell's
shrinking hydrogen theory vs. Pons & Fleischmann's deuterium fusion
theory.  The experimental conditions they think are important are
different -- e.g., Notoya's abhorrence of parafilm vs. Pons &
Fleischmann's use of it, at least in the early experiments.  Their
experimental results (amount of heat seen and time taken to see it)
are completely different; some claim copious amount of heat almost
immediately and with excellent reproducibility, and others claim small
(10% excess) heat after long periods of time, and unreliably.
 
There are so many differences between these experiments that the only
thing they really have in common is that they put isotopes of hydrogen
and metal in non-equlibrium conditions, and got more heat than
expected.  There is very little reason to think that all of these
experiments derive their excess heat from the same basic source.  It
is only because of historical context that we seem them that way.
 
-- J
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / N Redington /  Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:00:35 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jan6.074948.27304@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|>
|>      Just curious.  What meaning is assigned to 'the dynamical analogue
|>      of the Casimir effect'?  I don't really see any place for the
|>      Casimir effect or an analogue in the process.  This isn't exactly
|>      a subtle indication of zero-point energy.  Are you sure it
|>      wasn't a joke?
|>
 
Definitely not a joke: Proceedings of the National Academy 89(4091)1992.
 
The basic idea, as best I understand it, seems to be this. The ordinary
Casimir effect concerns two static conductors. One calculates the energy
difference due to the vacuum energy which exists between them; this leads
to an inverse-fourth-power force. Now consider the case where the conductors
are in motion. The time dependence introduces a new level of complexity.
In ordinary perturbation theory, one difference between the static and
time-dependent cases is that in the static case you calculate changes in
energy levels, while in time-dependent theory you calculate transition
probabilities; the same is true here. In the dynamic case, there is a
probability for a photon to be emitted -- hence, possibly, sonoluminescence.
 
Actually reading the paper indicates that this is not quite, as I had
thought, a theory of sonoluminescence already completed; no experimental
data is addressed. However, he states repeatedly that this is his mechanism
and that he in fact developed the theory with sonoluminescence in mind.
 
Also with cold fusion in mind, by the way, though he doesn't say so. The
reason I knew about this was that he gave a talk here last year on both
subjects, although he deliberately did not make any explicit link between
them: he just said that sonoluminescence proves that everyday phenomena
(bubbles on propellors, electrochemical cells) may hold unexpected new
physics.
 
Incidentally, I can think of a "hand-waving" reason for at once thinking
that the Casimir effect might be involved. Although everyone thinks of the
static Casimir effect as "a subtle indication of zero-point energy", it's
really not so subtle when you think about it: at a certain scale of distances,
namely the scale of small water droplets, it's van der Waals and Casimir
rather than Newton and Maxwell you have turn to. Now sonoluminescence
originates with bubbles right in that size regime, but in a dynamic
environment... If only I could think of things like this in advance, I'd
be Schwinger!
 
N. Redington
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:11:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
> ...
> temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.
> A
> curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air
> temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is
> relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar,
> 1
> 1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10'
> of
> air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.
 
 
        Is is possible that your apparatus is not directly "seeing" the
outside temperature, but seeing the effect of cold weather on the power
supply to your house.  Cold outside temperatures will result in greater power
draws by people using electrical heating, and may give altered line voltages
and possibly increased line transients as kilowatt sized units in neighboring
houses switch on and off under thermostatic control.  Is there any part of
the apparatus which is not operated of highly regulated, filtered power?
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Jed Rothwell /  Paraffin; recombination
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Paraffin; recombination
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:53:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
No essays, I promise. Just technical notes and a response to Jon Webb:
 
"The point of the comment about parafilm is that this was what Pons and
Fleischmann (who are electrochemists) said they sealed their cells with in
the early experiments.  So once again we have two classes of cold fusion
phenomena; one which works fine in the presence of paraffin, and another for
which paraffin is a deadly contaminant."
 
Right, organics don't seem to bother Pd CF as much as they bother Ni CF.
Also, parafilm on top, far away from the electrolyte may be okay. After a
discouraging day, I think I saw Notoya used several sheets of it to seal up
various chemicals that she did not plan to pour out again. She told me keep
it away from the lip of the pure H2O bottle, and the bottle of spare
electrolyte. She, and the other chemists and electrochemists I have watched
do CF, are fanatical about contamination and very precise and practiced in
every move. She acts exactly like someone who has been mixing chemicals for
35 years. As they fiddled with the power supplies, Prof. Smullin muttered,
"measure, measure, measure... I have been measuring stuff for 50 years."
 
 
"Well, Farrell is now claiming 2.5 Watts in, 50 Watts out.  He has not
published information about the experiment, nor permitted an unbiased
observer to view it.  It seems to me that this is far less open than many
others have been, including people you've been associated with."
 
For goodness sake! Give the man some time! It takes months to write a good
paper. Let him get his patents filed. What is the big rush? He has been
completely open, I have hundreds of pages from him. I know a dozen people who
have been in his lab. Heck, I know somebody who dragged a cot in and slept
there. (Ha, ha! He is probably reading this, too,)
 
 
"It can't be the case that Mills & Farrell and Yamaguchi and Notoya and Pons
& Fleischmann and McKubre are all right; they have inconsistent experiments."
What on earth is this supposed to mean? What is inconsistent about them? Heat
is heat is heat. They are perfectly consistent.
 
 
"Tom got results consistent with Mills's early results (same level of heat).
So are you now saying that Mills's early results were recombination?"
 
I have no idea. I suppose that is possible. So what?
 
I am absolutely positive that his later results are not due to recombination,
because he is getting more 20 times heat out than you can possibly get from
recombination, plus lots of other people have replicated him, and they are
also getting far more than I*V. So, maybe his early experiments did not work,
but there is absolutely no question that his present experiments are.
 
 
"I think that if we took a vote here on who was making a public fool of
themselves, you or Dick Blue, you'd lose."
 
A public vote has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. If you check the
record, and read actual, documented facts and experimental evidence, and you
look at the hundreds of pages that Mills has provided to anyone who asks, you
can see instantly that I spoke the truth, whereas Dick Blue was lying through
his teeth (or just making it up -- which is equally irresponsible). You do
not decide facts by taking votes, you look at evidence. That is true in
science, and it is true in places like the legal system, too. This is not a
popularity contest. I don't care what anyone thinks of me: I have the facts
and the documents that prove I am right, and Dick is wrong. So I win.
 
 
"It is permitted in science to give a lower weight to results that have not
appeared in the archival literature, which includes both examples you mention
above.  Has anyone ever published in a journal a result which exceeds I*V?"
 
What is that supposed to be, some kind of joke? Where do want us to publish,
Nature? Scientific American? They hate our guts! They attack us at every
opportunity, they call us frauds, liars, thieves. How in the world can you
expect us to publish anything when this band of corrupt fools own the
presses? It is crazy. Read Fusion Technology, read the Japanese Journal of
Applied Physics.
 
Publish, Hell. Give me a break! Look, when I announce a result on this e-mail
board, I put people in severe jeopardy. I can't even put stuff here, and you
expect people to send results to Nature! Many scientists have explicitly
ordered me never, ever to mention their names, because they saw what happened
to Farrell and Notoya. You stick your neck out and announce a positive result
here, or anywhere else, and immediately a band of cranks, lunatics, and ax
grinders attacks you and tries to shred your reputation and get you thrown
out of work. Do a successful CF experiment in the DoE and you are asking to
get fired. This is not some kind of joke, it is real life.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:44:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan7.073202.22731@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <00966330.AB98DB60.10309@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
 blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>>>Could someone set my mind at ease by making a clear statement as to
>>>what is know about sonoluminescence, ultracavitation, and related
>>>topics as opposed to conjecture based on doubtful interpretations of
>>>a very limited data set?
>
>>     The dataset is not as limited as it sounds, and the recent results
>>     are a) consistent with earlier results, b) plausable on theoretical
>>     grounds, and c) apparently well done.
>
>>>My understanding of cavitation and bubble formation is that it can
>>>involve a very small move away from equilibrium conditions.  All that
>>>is required is that the local pressure in the liquid fall below the
>>>vapour pressure.  I would assume that the bubble fills with vapour
>>>on a time scale close to that required for collapse so I don't
>>>understand why there is any talk about collapse into a "void".
>
>>     Yes.  Void is used by fluid dynamicists to talk about a
>>     space filled with vapour.  We shouldn't be talking about a vacuum.
>
>  Some food for thought.  What we seem to be discussing is how the
>energy of cavitation can lead to fusion.  IMHO, it's an excellent
>question, so let me give you my simple thought model of how it works.
>Get a balloon, and put some dots on it.  The dots represent molecules
>of the liquid at the void/liquid interface.  As you blow the balloon
>up (representing the expansion of the void), add more dots to maintain
>an equal spacing of dots.  As you draw lines between the dots (representing
>bonding) you can see this should collect a large number of electrons at the
>surface interface (many weakly bonded).  The vapor molecules are self-
>contained.  The collapse of the balloon, must then either push the additional
>dots back to it source, or be pushed into the void area.  Either way a
>significant number of bonds are broken at the surface, and that suggests
>the emission of quanta.
 
     Actually, it suggests that the molecules move around and
     the pressure changes.   Equal spacing is not maintained
     in most fluids.
 
>    Still the the release of electrons during the void collapse should
>concentrate at the center of the void.  If we assume the void is a fusible
>vapor, two actions occur. Kinetic energy is transferred from the
>collapsing surface to the center by EM forces of the lattice, and
>free electron densities increase at the center.  It follows from
>the work of S. Koonin, that these combinations are optimal enhanced
>fusion rates.
 
     There are good electromagnetic reasons to suggest that any
     ionization does *not* concentrate electrons in the center of
     an ordinary vapor bubble.   To which work of Koonin's are you referring?
 
                             dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:23:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan7.080252.15953@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <1993Jan5.180115.17549@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>> [Terry Bollinger writes:]
>>
>> | Can anyone out there show one way or the other whether this wedge-out
>> | idea is either bogus or has merit?
>> ...
>>
>> 1) in stable cavitation in acoustical fields, the sonoluminescence occurs
>> shortly after the bubble reaches maximum radius (i.e. just as the bubble
>> starts its inward cycle.  Keep in mind that in stable sonoluminescence,
>> the bubble itself does not completely collapse.).  This implies that the
>> sonoluminescence is mediated by a strong shock in the vapor itself (See
>> Barber and Putterman PRL: 69:3839 (1992) among others),
>
>In the UC draft I did assume vapor or gas in most bubbles, but (by choice)
>emphasized keeping the vapor level low.  I dropped the use of "shock
>wave" from my first outline for that same reason.  I was interested mainly
>in _very_ thin shock wave media, not the conventional thick stuff.  (In
>retrospect I wish I had left the "shock" terminology in there.)
 
     Why the 'thick' vs. 'thin' stuff?  A shock is a shock.  They are
     usually pretty thin.  A vacuum bubble collapsing does not necessarily
     create a shock, it is also not necessarily energetic.
 
>> Putting aside the thought that it probably has limited physical meaning,
>> at that point there are very good electrostatic reasons for the character
>> of the interaction to change somewhat drastically.
>
>Sorry, I don't get it.  If the plasma is created through thermal methods and
>is not being subjected to intense currents or magnetic fields, my assumption
>was (and is) that it will be subject to the same general dynamic behavior as
>any very hot gas.  Are you implying that you think a strong field or current
>will be present?  If so, why?  It would seem like an unnecessary assumption
>without a lot more evidence for the presence of such phenomena in the center.
 
      You have a small region of very hot gas inside a large region
      of very cold gas.  In fluids, all interactions occur via
      electromagnetic means.  How does one avoid large currents or
      large fields while doing such a thing (i.e. fusion within a bubble)?
      My contention is that the bubble avoids such large fields by not doing
      precisely the thing you want it to.  There is good experimental
      reason to believe that fusion does not occur significantly
      in shocks (you'd have technicians everywhere dying of radiation
      poisoning), so the assumption that shocks can concentrate energy
      in a manner sufficient to produce fusion seems to be the unnecessary
      one.
 
      The only way I know to do such things is to do things the way
      ordinary hot fusion people do things.  Keep in mind we are still
      discussing processes that occur at much larger scales and much lower
      energies than are necessary for fusion.
>
>> I would also point out that the concept of ordinary fluid dynamic surface
>> tension breaks down well before that point (to put it mildly).
>
>From conversations with you offline, I gather that you were originally under
>the impression that I was trying to whack the fluid surface all the way into
>the center of the void.
>
>I most decidely proposed no such thing in UC, and I explicitly described the
>"wedge-out" as a proposed _gaseous_ effect.
>
>Moreover, in UC I described the wedge-out in the context of a very fast,
>inwardly moving gaseous front that has a very sharp transtion from high
>pressure to (hopefully) low void pressure on its leading edge...
>
>You'll pardon my lack of using standard terminology at times, but I believe
>that such a thing is called a "shock wave," is it not?
>
 
     If it is to be a shock wave, you will get no fusion under ordinary
     circumstances.  The way to do this in reality is exactly the way
     the US and Russian militaries do it, nuclear driving pressure.
 
     This is the problem with theories that are not quantified.  I think
     you'll find that the driving pressure required to induce fusion is
     substantial.
 
>> 3) If you seriously want to present a model, the burden of proof is on you
>> to describe such things as
>>
>> a) why your process does not violate the second law,
>
>Hmm?  Since when does the second law prevent _local_ increases in temperature
>and pressure as long as they don't reduce entropy for the system as a whole?
 
     This is not the way a shock wave works,  you are requiring a coherent
     wedge eject itself from the fluid under solely thermal and dynamical
     influences, and you are requiring it to continue to cascade.  Unless
     you can show it does not violate the second law, I have a hunch it
     does.  The way to show it is to consider the entropy of the fluid
     before formation of the wedge and after.  It is probably not all that
     difficult a calculation.
 
>Whatever sonoluminscence is, it's clearly expending a lot of energy in the
>whole bubble to produce an increase in energy in a _much smaller_ central
>region.  So what?  Multi-stage rockets behave quite similarly when they
>accelerate a payload, but they certainly don't violate the second law.
>
 
     Multistaged rockets are well-organized, fluids are not.  Don't
     get me wrong, shocks can concentrate energy, but
     they are fairly well understood as far as fusion goes.
 
>Speaking of such things, David Cyganski sent me a very nice (and easy-to-do)
>example of how mechanical bouncing around (literally!) can result in the
>energy of one object being transferred largely or entirely into another one:
>
>Take two elastic balls, one of which is about 1/3 the weight as the other.
>Carefully drop them so that the light ball rest exactly on top of the heavy
>ball as they fall.
>
>If the weights are about right, then when they both hit the ground the heavier
>ball will transfer _all_ of its kinetic energy to the lighter ball, which will
>then rebound much higher than the height from which it was dropped.
>
>Does the ball violate the second law?  No, of course not.  Nor does the idea
>that the collapse of a highly symmetrical void could produce a brief, highly
>energetic central region.  A close cavitation system with a self-contained
>energy source increases in entropy quite nicely over time, no matter how
>hot certain individual events within that system may or may not become.
 
     Absolutely, if you are allowed to micromanage the fluid and it behaved
     like steel balls, you'd be set.  However, it does unfortunate things like
     sit in a fairly high entropy state and ionize and have a non-billiard
     ball kind of behavior when one gets it hot.  It also does not have the
     tendency to form wedges.  You can do almost anything if allowed to
     put the fluid molecules in an arbitrary state of energy or entropy.
 
     It would be easier to simply assume that all the ionized deuterons
     had some massive energy and were all heading towards a single point.
     You'd get substantial fusion there.
 
>> c) why diffusion and damping do not significantly operate,
>
>The stupid answer is "because it's spherical and it's collapsing inward."
>Things are getting damped, alright, but most of what is getting damped is
>also getting "left behind" as the wave front moves inward.
 
     It isn't spherical, you've given it structure.  If it is spherical
     it is a shock and works via ordinary shock mechanics.
 
>> d) how one applies a fluid continuum approach to a putatively ionized gas,
>
>Again, I'm ignorant.  Is neutal plasma "sticky," or what?  Can you elaborate?
 
     All fluids are 'sticky' or 'repulsive' to one degree or another,
     however, the point is that the electrons will react to, say, strong
     'mechanical' forcing much faster than the ionized deuterons you
     hope to force.  One must always keep in mind that 'mechanical' forcing
     is electromagnetic forcing for all ordinary fluids and plasmas.
     You are applying a fluid continuum model down to scales
     where it clearly does not apply at low energies
     (low is defined as energies that are not equal to or greater than
     those found in your average tokamak.  For mercury, low is defined as
     energies not equal to or greater than energies found in your average
     supernova).
 
>> e) how one can get a further 11 order of magnitude concentration of energy
>> beyond the concentration probably caused by an ionizing shock, especially
>> considering that at indicated spectral temperature, electromagnetic
>> interactions will dominate long before fusion energies are reached,
>
>Hey, I said measureable _low level_ fusion.  I don't recall the curves
>that used to be discussed in this group, but it seems to me that a real
>kinetic energy of 100,000 K might _already_ be high enough for some very
>low level increases in, say, T-T that could be detectable.  (Anyone game?)
 
     As I attempted to say earlier, the 100,000 K is taken from an
     assumption of black-body radiation applied to the light spectra
     from the sonoluminescing region.
 
     Even if it is not simply the representation of a huge peak
     of a single recombination process, it does not seem a) physically
     realistic to apply a equilibrium description to a clearly nonequilibrium
     process, b) physically plausible.
 
     However, assuming we have an equilibrium process, as far as 100,000K
     being sufficient to cause T-T fusion, I'd bet that the fusion
     probability is very very very low.  In any case, you're back to hot
     fusion caused by shock waves.  This is not a viable process at
     low energies.
 
>On the other hand, I honestly _don't_ feel that the concentration curve has
>been anywhere near exhausted yet, because I don't think there is a full
>understanding of what is going on for some ranges of the effect -- such as
>for exceptionally low void pressures.
 
      What's below zero?  I don't think it suits your purpose to put the fluid
      in tension.  The important thing is the pressure differential.
 
>I say that if you thin the medium through which the shock wave travels, you
>will get an intensification.  I also note that the slanting of SL spectra
>towards the UV when the water is cooled are nicely compatible with that
>prediction.  Have any of the other seven or so models predicted that?
 
      You also lower the drive pressure, there is also a limiting value
      for the mean velocity which is related to the temperature, which
      is fairly small at ordinary temperatures (fairly small in relation
      to energies required for fusion, and ordinary includes 100000K).
 
      Shock waves are fairly well-understood, try Courant and Friedrichs
      "Supersonic Flow and Shock waves".
>
>> f) why it seems to be somewhat at variance with current indications of the
>> mechanism of stable sonoluminescence.
>
>I did not take shock waves composed of void media into account, yes.  I only
>mentioned elastic compression and the idea that more void vapor should reduce
>the overall intensity of the event.
>
>But I don't think we're talking about a major mismatch here.  Indeed, there
>shoud be a continuum of effects between whacking a thick void gas and sending
>off a shock that way, versus cavitations in which the void surface itself is
>vaporizes and begins "filling in" a sparsely filled void with a particularly
>vicious (and dense) shock wave.
 
     How does one vaporize a vapor?  In any case, there is a kinetic limit
     on the velocity of the molecules in a very rarefied situation at ordinary
     temperatures.  The limit is somewhat below fusion energies, to put
     it mildly.
 
     There is certainly a continuum of shock waves.  I don't believe
     any of the ones at ordinary energies have been found to cause fusion.
 
>> If so, it appears to be of limited value in fusion studies unless you can
>> explain why a partially ionized gas can further concentrate energy.
>
>How about the other way around:  Why can it _not_ for if the plasma is
>electrically neutral and no large fields are present?
 
     Large fields *are* present whenever you get two positive ions
     very very close together.
 
>> Our good friends in the hot fusion business can probably explain better
>> than I how difficult that is.
>
>Sounds good.  Could some kind soul explain the added instabilities that
>make neutral (?) plasmas behave differently from high-temp gases?
 
     They are not added instabilities necessarily.  It is just that
     you wish to fuse the component ions.  To do so you must give them
     enough energy to get them close together, the charges on the
     ions tend to prevent a) giving them enough energy, and b) getting
     them close together.
>>
>> So something that is doubly ionized is harder to get close together than
>> something that is 80x ionized?  Keep in mind, at hot fusion energies your
>> original fluid is gone.  All that remains is that nucleus and all its
>> charges.
>
>Again, you seem to be assuming that the plasma as a whole has lost the
>neutralizing effect of its electrons.  I have no knowledge of any physical
>basis for that kind of assumption.  Also, most plasmas do _not_ totally
>ionize all elecrons, especially from heavy metals.  I don't understand
>your point in suggesting such extreme ionization, which almost certainly
>could not occur even in a tokamok or other comparable plasma devices, let
>alone in whatever (if anything) is going on in cavitation.
 
     Providing you've overcome the obvious, there *are* no electrons down
     where you're going.  At some point the two 'fusing' bodies are
     well within each other's wells, and they don't like to be there.
     You have this problem if you ionize them, if you don't ionize them,
     if you partially ionize them.  Fusion is far down below the inner shell,
     where electrons dare not tread.  This is one of reasons hot fusion people
     use hydrogen isotopes instead of heavier elements.
 
>
>P.S. -- I will be re-issuing a discussion of the wedge-out with a new emphasis
>        on development of flow-cells (formerly called wedges) at the margin
>        of a converging "shock front" (or whatever you wish to call it).
 
     If it is a shock, Courant and Friedrichs do a fairly good job
     on a spherically converging shock wave.  You'll not find a
     panacea there.
 
     I cannot stress enough the importance of quantification in
     proposed physical models.  It is very easy to create mental images of
     things that are not physical, or do not have the consequences
     we mentally ascribe to them.
 
                               dale bass
 
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:41:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan7.160035.25521@athena.mit.edu> redingtn@athena.mit.edu
 (Norman H Redington) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.074948.27304@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
 crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|>
>|>      Just curious.  What meaning is assigned to 'the dynamical analogue
>|>      of the Casimir effect'?  I don't really see any place for the
>|>      Casimir effect or an analogue in the process.  This isn't exactly
>|>      a subtle indication of zero-point energy.  Are you sure it
>|>      wasn't a joke?
>|>
>
>Definitely not a joke: Proceedings of the National Academy 89(4091)1992.
 
     Thanks for the reference.
 
>Incidentally, I can think of a "hand-waving" reason for at once thinking
>that the Casimir effect might be involved. Although everyone thinks of the
>static Casimir effect as "a subtle indication of zero-point energy", it's
>really not so subtle when you think about it: at a certain scale of distances,
>namely the scale of small water droplets, it's van der Waals and Casimir
>rather than Newton and Maxwell you have turn to. Now sonoluminescence
>originates with bubbles right in that size regime, but in a dynamic
>environment... If only I could think of things like this in advance, I'd
>be Schwinger!
 
     Unconstrained by experimental results, I can think of at least
     five ways to get light emission from a system, and the Casimir effect
     is not the most obvious, nor seemingly the most plausible.  At small
     scales, there are certainly different electromagnetic effects than if one
     envisions hard spheres, but unless one views the electronic levels
     in an atom as an indication of zero-point energy, I think Schwinger
     may be reaching.
 
     Theories are a dime a dozen.
 
                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Steve Kneizys
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve Kneizys
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:03:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First I would like to welcome Steve Kneizys to the fray.  It ain't always
pretty here Steve, but sometimes some real information gets passed.
 
Steve, if you have been following this gorup, you will have seen some comments
about systematic and statistical error.  Perhaps you can help me by putting
some error limits on the last column of Table I of Mills and Kneizys.  It it
the lack of such error limits, and the supporting experiments that determined
them that prevents me from accepting your results as (as Dieter Britz would
say) a "quality positive".
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The problems with theories
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The problems with theories
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:03:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jon Webb is bothered that all the different CNF experimenter seem to have
different theories about what is going on.  And so says "There is very little
reason to think that all of the experiments derive their excess heat form the
same basic source."
 
Consider the theories of Gorg.  In the early days, Gorg looked up in the sky
and saw a brilliant ball of light.  Gorg attributed the light to the all
powerful sun godd.  Later he saw flashes of light in the stormy sky and
attributed the flashes to the god Thor.  Then he looked out into the woods
on a quiet evening and attributed the light flashes to the spirits of the
departed.  Sometimes he would pet his cat on a dry evening and would see
light flashes and feel pin pricks.  Obviously the work of daemons.  Many
thousands of years later, Gorg put a filament in an evacuated bulb, and said
"I have invented an electric light".
 
So over the years, Gorg had a lot of different theories.  But except for
cat petting and thunderstorms, Gorg's experiments were pretty repeatable.
What CNF needs is a repeatable experiment, any repeatable experiment.  Jed
Rothwell thinks we have one in Ni H2O.  I am not so sure.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Bruce Dunn
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Bruce Dunn
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:03:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce Dunn wonders if my outside temperarute effect could be due to line
voltage variations.  Don't think so Bruce.  There was a table in the early
version of the Como paper that got cut out of the final version due to the
space limitations.  It listed some of the control measurements taken over
a three day period of operation, I repeat some of them below:
 
Variable                                   Mean           Sigma
+5 Volt Reference                         5.0008        .00022
ADC Reference                             4.5299        .000081
+15 Supply                               14.9590        .00072
High Quality Ground                       0.00049       .00012
Cell Current                             -0.5557        .0011
Current Sum                               0.0017        .00068
 
In general while running I watch 60 odd such variables.  Any that look
suspicious I can plot, and I store the last 3 1/2 hours so that the recent
history of anything funny can be brought up.  I usually plot about 10, which
is about the limit of colors that can be distinguished.
 
The ADC reference has been through three layers of regulator before it is
used.  The last two in a temperature controlled environment.  So there are
lots of checks.  But never enough.  The Mark II version suffered from some
cleverness on my part that is too complicated to explain, but probably was the
source of the reported heat pulses.  This was partially fixed in the Mark II/
V, and will be fully fixed in the Mark III.
 
So this remains a tough business.  Simple open cells, i.e. Mills, have large
error bars.  Complex designs like my kludge can have complex interactions and
so tale long and careful study.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / William Johnson /  "Clumps of neutrons" (was: CNF biblio...)
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Clumps of neutrons" (was: CNF biblio...)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:15:04 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

I will briefly poke my head up, out of lurker mode, for this one.  In
article <9C0D43A6BE3FA08B2D@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>here is the next lot. You will perhaps admire my straight face in the
>abstracts below (I do), in the face of strong provocation, you'll have to
>admit. The flavour of the month seems to be clumps of neutrons; three out of
>the four suggest them, either as dineutrons (Yang), quad-neutrons (Matsumoto)
>or even up to 1E09 in a bunch (Fisher). In all cases, the observed anomalies
>of cold fusion are thus explained, it seems.
 
Readers should be aware that explanations involving polyneutrons aren't
*totally* incredible, at least on the face of them.  (When you get down
to details ... more about that in a minute.)  Various more or less
credible models have been proposed that allow for the existence of very
weakly bound polyneutron states, particularly 6N and 4N, although the
main model positing that 6N would be weakly bound also says that 4N
would be slightly *un*bound.  A series of experiments looking for
polyneutrons using radiochemical techniques were performed by Anthony
Turkevich (U. of Chicago, a most reputable nuclear chemist) and his
colleagues during the late 1970s; Dieter, let me know if you're
interested, and I'll try to scare up a reference.
 
What is significant, however, is that these *very* careful experiments
(nobody in the world was better at stuff like that than Tony) turned
up not a shred of evidence for stable 6N, 4N, or any-other-N.  It's
fine to "explain cold fusion" in terms of some exotic mechanism like
this; but when extremely competent experimenters go to great lengths to
find the agent behind the exotic mechanism and fail, the explanation
begins to lose some of its appeal.  Bluntly, I have a lot more faith
in Turkevich than in the polyneutron advocates, and it will take more
than unreproducible claims of excess heat to change that.
 
As for ultraheavy hydrogen, let's not get ridiculous ...
 
--
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:
cuddy7 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:44:08 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
Due to an unfortunate local system failure, I have not been able to receive
sci.physics.fusion postings for about a week.  I find that I owe responses to
Dick Blue, Frank Close, Bart Bartholomew and Jed Rothwell.  Jed first.
 
Jed amuses and dismays.  He chides Dick Blue in <72240.1256@compuserve.com>:
"You have published these outrageous, unfounded statements time after time."
"You just make this crap up and publish it without thinking."  (Jed Rothwell)
 
Hmmmm.  Perhaps some of Jed's own statements fit his description, for example:
"Jones, Huizenga, Morrison, Close --- believe theory overrules facts."
"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
electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."  (Rothwell in "Brilliant as
usual, wrong as always" ca. 21 Dec. 1992)
And in a recent reply to 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=mc2. ... *You* are the one who wants to overthrow Einstein." (Rothwell in
"A straw man & calorimeter drift)
 
The careful reader will find self-contradictions in Rothwell's faulty
assertions.  I am quite disappointed in Jed now.  I thought my essay on
"possible natural fusion in the earth" laid out the BYU hypothesis (1986)
of natural terrestrial fusion
briefly, showed that we indeed challenge existing theory (that 3He emissions
from volcanoes arise from 3He stored inside the earth since its formation)
but without overruling or throwing away existing data.  In none of this do
we challenge E=Mc2 -- we use it, arguing that some heat and 3He (and, leading
to a crucial experiment) tritium could be PRODUCED inside the earth by fusion.
Even though the expected d-d and p-d rates would be very small, these could
result in significant produced amounts on the scale of the earth.  Our
approach, I suggested, presented a "PATH OF LOGICAL SCIENCE."
 
Jed's response failed to address these points, instead he makes unfounded,
outrageous statements (quoted last above; his "a straw man" was a response to my
essay on natural fusion).
 
No, Jed, I do NOT assert that xs heat violates E=Mc2.  I DO assert in my 18
Dec. 1992 posting ("Open-minded versus 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 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 no P/F or Takahashi
or Notoya or McKubre or Mills or Bush or Storms or Srinivasan."  (S.E. Jones
in earlier posting "Open-minded versus empty-minded.")
 
Huizenga makes the point succinctly in his book:
"ROOM TEMPERATURE NUCLEAR FUSION WITHOUT COMMENSURATE AMOUNTS OF FUSION
PRODUCTS IS A DELUSION AND QUALIFIES AS PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE."
 
The problem seems to be that Jed equates xs heat with nuclear reactions,
without requiring the presence of commensurate (see E/c2) products. This mindset
I have found to exist in many workers who take xs heat as being nuclear if
only the xs heat is real.  Consider Jed's recent response to Jon Webb ("Webb
is right") in which he discloses:
"I don't know anything about He3 or gamma rays, though, and you left out the
single most import, most overriding and undeniable product; the key to the
whole riddle:
   Heat
Don't forget that!  it is by far the easiest thing to measure, and the most
conclusive, by far.   -  Jed.  "
 
While educating about He3, gammas, neutrons, and other nuclear emissions is
evidently sorely needed, perhaps quoting from a recent paper by Dave Buehler,
Lee Hansen, Larry Rees and myself will help chip away at this type of fixation:
 
"...at the Nagoya meeting and elsewhere, we found that errors and uncertainties
in current experiments prevent unambiguous interpretation of claims of excess
heat generation.  Hence, this paper also outlines criteria for establishing
calorimeter performance for definitive measurements of "excess heat" in cold-
fusion experiments."
(There follows an extensive discussion on difficulties of calorimetric
measurements, precautions, etc. mostly by Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU.  We also
discuss the use of an X-ray spectrometer as a critical means of probing for
nuclear origins of heat, when the precise nuclear reaction is unknown.  I have
posted notes on this, here, some months ago.)
"Because all electrochemical calorimetric experiments intended to demonstrate
'excess heat' require correction for the heat of the electrolysis reaction,
the expected reaction must be verified and quantified.  Otherwise an incorrect
value for the thermoneutral potential will be used in the correction.  For
example, deposition of an alkali metal under a silicate (or aluminate or
borate) coating on an electrode in aqueous solution is possible at cell
voltages near 3 volts.  The thermoneutral potential for Li is about 2.9 volts,
compared to 1.5 volts for hydrogen.  An xs heat rate proportional to the rate
of deposition of Li would thus be found if the reaction were assumed to be
strictly generation of hydrogen.  The accuracy of the thermoneutral potential
must also be assessed.  A value derived from a single source or type of
measurement cannot be considered reliable.
Note also that if a lithium layer is deposited on an electrode under a coating
(e.g., silicate, borate or aluminate coating) and later should the coating
crack, then exothermic water-lithium reactions would result, producing
'heat bursts.'
[Note:  observations of heat may be real, without implying nuclear origins.]
 
"Excess heat" can only be proven to be nuclear in origin by showing that the
products of the nuclear reactions are produced at the same time and rate as
the heat and in amounts commensurate with the law of mass-energy conservation.
X-rays would, however, be a strong indicator of nuclear (MeV-scale)
reactions and would be an effective tracer of high-energy reactions when the
precise nature of the processes remains hidden.  Until such proof exists,
application of Occam's razor demands that "excess heat" be regarded as
having its source in ordinary chemical reactions."  (BYU pre-print, Dec. 1992,
copies available on request.)
 
Finally, I must re-emphasize that observations of nuclear-product emissions,
if confirmed, would NOT imply that the claimed heat in Pd/d systems is nuclear
in origin.  That is, a small nuclear effect may exist without producing
enough "excess heat" to be measured calorimetrically in the laboratory.
E = Mc2 cuts both ways.  QUANTITATIVE agreement is totally lacking between
claims of xs heat and nuclear products (by 10**6 even in the case of
Yamaguchi's neutrons.)
 
Respectfully,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Frank Close/Fusion in Earth
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Frank Close/Fusion in Earth
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:00:24 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9301041335.AA01375@suntan.Tandem.com>, Frank Close
<FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Steve Jones posts on fusion in the Earth and asks me to take note of a point
> he makes. Steve, it will be several days before I have time to digest your
> comments which I have so far only read here at my terminal (my NY resolution
> is to do CN-F only at weekends - and I am already violating it) but can
> you clarify which point? Is it in connection with the appendix in THTH
> ``Fusion does not give the Earth's Heat" or is this some new information
>  about gas emissions that you are emphasising?
>
Primarily the latter.  That is, I hope people will take seriously the obser-
vations of tritium in magmatic waters of three separate volcanoes by the
Los Alamos Nat. Lab./U. Hawaii team.  These scientists were partially
supported via the grant to BYU to study "cold fusion" from the
U.S. Dept. of Energy (1990-1991).  (Some seem to prefer to forget that the
DOE ever supported this work here.  But they did!)
BYU is directly supporting Prof. McMurtry (Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics)
in the team's trip to Galeras volcano in Colombia So. America this month.
 
They carefully differentiate between magmatic and meteoric (rain) waters
using isotope ratios for 18oxygen/16oxygen and d/p.  Furthermore, they have
carefully and I think thoroughly explored the possibility that tritium could
originate from prosaic reactions such as n(6Li,t)alpha  -- and have ruled
these out.  Bart Czirr and I checked this one in particular, using known amounts
of Li and U in Kilaeua and found that less than 1% of the observed tritium
could be accounted for in this way.
 
The earth's heat can be accounted for in other ways than fusion, I think
(agreeing with Frank's treatment on this in THTH).  But tritium detection
coupled with older observations of 3He emissions from volcanos may just
lead to interesting new science.  Once more we have an example of the
possibility of a discovery of a new phenomenon (natural fusion in the earth
and planets) without implying that commercial heat generation may follow.
(Frank's discussion of P/F's fears that our discussion of "excess heat"
production in the earth/planets could interfere with their patents is
fascinating.  See his book, THTH!  Note that my paper with Clint Van Siclen
(written in 1985)
on the possibility of cold or piezonuclear fusion inside Jupiter includes
the term "excess heat."  J. Phys. G12: 213-221 (1986). )
 
Frankly, I hope to prepare readers of the net to look for the paper of these
colleagues -- I'll let you know where it will be published should it be
accepted.  (Oral talks have already been given in geology meetings, generating
considerable interest and controversy Prof. McMurtry tells me.)
 
Another reader asked me privately whether the active volcano in Antartica,
Mt. Erebus, might be tested using the publicized robot for the presence
of tritium.  Erebus
volcano is actually a good place to look, since very little tritium remains
from H-bomb testing way down there in the So. Hemisphere, I understand.
I do not know whether the robot will get samples which could be tested for
tritium content.  However, Prof. McMurtry and team have applied for permission
to take samples there; so far, their request has been denied.
 
They would also like to acquire samples from underwater volcanoes, where the
ambient tritium in deep seawater is essentially zero.
 
These guys are understandably excited about their observations of tritium in
volcanoes.  They have waited to analyze results from THREE different volcanoes
before trying to publish.  I'm excited too.  I just hope they can publish
their findings in a major journal.
 
Respectfully,
Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yamaguchi's neutrons
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi's neutrons
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:42:41 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
In "A straw man & Calorimeter drift", Jed Rothwell raises the point that
Yamaguchi "got a million [neutrons] per second for several seconds" whereas
I  "got a few dozen, " and "It seems to me that he has a lot more going for him
than you do. ... You see a spark, they see a bonfire.  What's the matter with
that?"
 
My colleague Howard Menlove, Fellow of the Los Alamos National Lab., visited
Yamaguchi late in 1992.  Howard has worked for decades on neutron detection,
and with the BYU group on measuring neutrons from deuterided solids.  The
numbers of neutrons he reports for random neutron emissions are consistent
with those we found:
"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.  Four independent neutron detectors based on 3He
gas tubes were used. ... For the random emission yields, the levels (approx.
0.08 n/s) were similar to the yields reported by Jones et al." [in Nature]
[Quoted from Menlove et al., J. Fusion En. 9: 495-506, Dec. 1990.]
 
Following his visit to Yamaguchi's lab (NTT, Japan), Howard said Yamaguchi's
neutron detection system consisted of a pair of health-physics counters.
(I can imagine Dick Blue groaning at the news.)    The
neutron-detection efficiency of each is about 10E-6.  Thus, the detection of
a million neutrons per second is near the sensitivity of these rather
crude detectors.  By contrast, Menlove's detectors have a n-detection
efficiency of 30-40% (typically).  Howard told me that Yamaguchi's neutron
counter technique was "unimpressive."  He did not believe
Yamaguchi's claims of neutron detection at levels a million times ours,
and neither should you.
 
But Yamaguchi's experiments are front page news in Japan.  If you buy the
NTT cold-fusion kit for a mere $565,000 (J. Wall Street 11/27/92), which is
based on Yamaguchi's experiments,
you might want to get a better neutron-detection system.
 
Also, note that even at 10E6 n/s, fusion would generate only about a microwatt
of heating  -- not measurable by current calorimetry experiments.  That is,
even if we believed Yamaguchi's claims of a million n/s, this is not enough
by far to account for macroscopic xs heat.
 
-- Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:48:26 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jan7.182337.19186@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> In article <1993Jan7.080252.15953@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | I was interested mainly in _very_ thin shock wave media, not the
> | conventional thick stuff...
>
> Why the 'thick' vs. 'thin' stuff?  A shock is a shock.  They are usually
> pretty thin.  A vacuum bubble collapsing does not necessarily create a
> shock, it is also not necessarily energetic.
 
 
Assume the following (highly non-equlibrium) initial conditions:
 
  (1) A very sharp, gaseous "bubble boundary" with a high degree of
      spherical symmetry,
 
  (2) A bubble interior that is an extremely hard vacuum, and
 
  (3) An initial velocity profile in which the gaseous surface is moving
      radially inward at a even rate either equal to, or in excess of,
      the velocity of sound in that gas under those surface conditions.
 
 
First question:  _Do_ you call this a "shock wave," or not?  I have
always understood a shock wave to be a result of pushing an object
through another media at a rate beyond its normal sonic velocity.
 
But what if the "object" is the wave front itself?  And the media is
a vacuum?  What is the correct terminology when there will be _no_
additional matter "piling up" at the front of the wave?
 
 
Second question:  Will the inboud surface velocity of the whatever-you-
choose-to-call-it of my hypothetical scenario:
 
  (a) Always rapidly slow down
 
  (b) Sometimes remain at the same velocity
 
  (c) Sometimes accelerate rapidly
 
 
For a what I always thought was a "shock wave", I'd say that (b) is a
pretty reasonable answer.  The media will limit the velocity.  Also, no
part of the original surface will ever reach the center of the bubble when
the wave reaches the center.
 
I do not see the hard vacuum scenario as being nearly as intuitive.  For
one thing some part of the original interior surface _will_ be the same
matter that reaches the center.  But only a very _small_ portion of that
surface will ever reach it.  One way or another the surface molecules in
that case must "compete" to reach the center.  Most will lose, a few will
"win."
 
The ones that "win" _must_ be accelerated to some degree relative to the
ones that "lose," else the competition cannot be resolved.  If there is
enough diversity of inward momentum, such a "competition" will be resolved
trivially by selection of the faster components (already a violation of
your second law concerns, of course, but please don't forget Hilsche (sp?)
vortex tubes).
 
If there is not enough diversity of the momentum profiles, I say that you
_will_ get an acceleration effect as in (c), whatever you wish to call it.
I call it wedge-out, and I maintain (as originally in the UC draft) that
this effect is _quantitatively_ different from milder effects such as a
"classic" shock wave in which such a "competition" does not exist -- there
will never be any of the original matter making it to the center.
 
 
Well?  Is there room for further analysis there, or not?  I am truly
interested in your opinion on this, Dale.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Dieter; thanks; yes, words are dangerous.  (And so are equations
        when they lack common sense and good analysis to back them up!)
 
        But I've nailed one or two items with this style of information-based,
        "search space" theorizing (e.g., the prediction of hydrogen forming
        atomic bands in metals), and I'm starting to get a bit more stubborn
        about it having some real value as an approach to physical problems.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 00:33:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>A curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air
>temperature than to the room temperature.
 
The only explanation I can think of is that the changing infared flux from
the house walls to the calorimeter walls doesn't have as good a coupling to
the room air as to the solid walls of the apparatus.  This makes sense.  We
know from normal sun/earth/atmosphere interaction that 80% of atmospheric
heat is first captured by the ground and then transfered to the atmosphere by
the physical contact of the wind against the earth.
 
The problem is that thermometers, being solid objects, should mimic the
coupling, and hence indicate the actual temperature on the outside calorimeter
shell.  Hmm.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:12:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan7.234826.23344@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <1993Jan7.182337.19186@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan7.080252.15953@asl.dl.nec.com>
>> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>
>> | I was interested mainly in _very_ thin shock wave media, not the
>> | conventional thick stuff...
>>
>> Why the 'thick' vs. 'thin' stuff?  A shock is a shock.  They are usually
>> pretty thin.  A vacuum bubble collapsing does not necessarily create a
>> shock, it is also not necessarily energetic.
>
>
>Assume the following (highly non-equlibrium) initial conditions:
>
>  (1) A very sharp, gaseous "bubble boundary" with a high degree of
>      spherical symmetry,
>
>  (2) A bubble interior that is an extremely hard vacuum, and
>
>  (3) An initial velocity profile in which the gaseous surface is moving
>      radially inward at a even rate either equal to, or in excess of,
>      the velocity of sound in that gas under those surface conditions.
>
>
>First question:  _Do_ you call this a "shock wave," or not?  I have
>always understood a shock wave to be a result of pushing an object
>through another media at a rate beyond its normal sonic velocity.
 
      Not exactly, there would be a rarefaction wave within
      the fluid.  Some people call your surface a 'contact wave'.
      However, you are still limited in driving force
      to the ambient pressure.  Shock tubes are run somewhat this way, but
      you don't obtain fusion.
 
      One can do an analysis of this collapse (an empty bubble as
      per Rayleigh), but it breaks down at the time compressibility
      effects start to become important (and starts to impede the
      acceleration process).
 
      An even better way, though, to get the fluid to higher
      thermal energy is to assume a spherical piston of some sort in a gas.
      Give the 'piston' a massive whang, and a strong shock is created.
      As the center is approched, the shock itself gets stronger.
      One can solve this using similarity methods (c.f. Landau and Lifshitz,
      Fluid Mechanics, section 107). As the center of the the region
      approches, the energy within the shock goes as
 
                    E ~ R^{5-2/a}
 
      Where $a$ is a similarity parameter (about 0.7 for polytropic
      gases with with gamma = 5/3 (monatomic) or gamma = 7/5 (diatomic).
 
      So, you can see that though the shock itself gets stronger, the
      energy it contains the decreases drastically as one approaches
      the center.
 
>Second question:  Will the inboud surface velocity of the whatever-you-
>choose-to-call-it of my hypothetical scenario:
>
>  (a) Always rapidly slow down
>
>  (b) Sometimes remain at the same velocity
>
>  (c) Sometimes accelerate rapidly
>
 
     Look at this another way.  The inbound surface increases its
     velocity.  The velocity is limited by a) real gas effects
     b) energy.  If you have sufficient energy, you have
     a thermonuclear weapon.  And even if you figure out a way
     to simply extract some tail of the standard energy distribution
     (without violating the laws of thermodynamics),
     you have to go way way up the tail to get to fusion energies.
     One has to go so far up the tail that there are probably
     no such molecules actually present in the fluid, and you
     cannot get the fluid to give them to by itself you without violating
     the second law.
 
>The ones that "win" _must_ be accelerated to some degree relative to the
>ones that "lose," else the competition cannot be resolved.  If there is
>enough diversity of inward momentum, such a "competition" will be resolved
>trivially by selection of the faster components (already a violation of
>your second law concerns, of course, but please don't forget Hilsche (sp?)
>vortex tubes).
 
     There is a way to quantify this gain in velocity, but it is not
     in the thermodynamically organized fashion presented.  However,
     my specific second law objection was to a specific scheme.  I
     do have general second law objections, but it seems silly to bring
     them up in the absence of some quantification.
 
>If there is not enough diversity of the momentum profiles, I say that you
>_will_ get an acceleration effect as in (c), whatever you wish to call it.
>I call it wedge-out, and I maintain (as originally in the UC draft) that
>this effect is _quantitatively_ different from milder effects such as a
>"classic" shock wave in which such a "competition" does not exist -- there
>will never be any of the original matter making it to the center.
 
     It doesn't matter.  There will certainly be acceleration, but
     pressure-limited, and nothing truly exciting for ordinary fluids
     under ordinary conditions.
>
>P.S. -- Dieter; thanks; yes, words are dangerous.  (And so are equations
>        when they lack common sense and good analysis to back them up!)
>
>       But I've nailed one or two items with this style of information-based,
>        "search space" theorizing (e.g., the prediction of hydrogen forming
>        atomic bands in metals), and I'm starting to get a bit more stubborn
>       about it having some real value as an approach to physical problems.
 
      Words are much more dangerous than equations.  Equations are
      well-defined and can be examined quantititively for correlations
      with experience.  Words are fluid and mutable and ill-defined.
 
                              dale bass
 
 
 
 
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Request for published report exceeeding E*I
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Request for published report exceeeding E*I
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 02:59:33 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
>I refer you to the August 1991 Fusion Technology article "Excess Heat
>Productionby the Electrolysis of Aqueous Potassium Carbonate ..." by Mills
>and Kneizys (the present author) in Vol 20, Number 1, pages 65-81.
 
>The TOTAL output power is:
>6.9 C /(14.8 C/Watt) = .466 Watts
>If we ignore the 1.48*I correction, the total input power is:
>3.08 x .085 = 0.262 Watts
>Seems we observed power exceeding V*I by:
>[(.466-.262)/.262] x 100 = 78%
 
I've been under the false impression that exceeding V*I was only a fairly
recent claim (i.e. mid 1992.)  I have made some statements and assumptions
to that effect.  I stand corrected.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 03:15:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>As far as we can tell they [hydrinoes] do not represent a biological hazard.
 
This can only be true, I would think, if they were essentially chemically
inert below temperatures hostile to lifeforms.  Much of biological chemistry
involves the structures of molecules, and the size of the constituent
atoms has a strong influence on such structural alignment.  Thus a smaller
hydrogen atom would certainly muck up biological chemistry if it had similar
chemical properties to its larger cousin.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / Jay Pritchard /  Explanations
     
Originally-From: jaydee@seanews.akita.com (Jay Dee Pritchard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Explanations
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:15:31 GMT
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News + Mail

That post on the nature of electrons is well done!
 
 
--
[] SEANEWS [] Seattle Public Access Usenet News + Mail [] +1 206 747 NEWS []
jaydee@seanews.akita.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjaydee cudfnJay cudlnPritchard cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.07 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: List
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: List
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:14:58 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <930105144432.20a07695@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Hoyt A Stearns writes:
>
>"I think you forgot one: My Pd Pt cell has a hydrocap recombiner, and was
>evacuated after Pd charging.  The head pressure is very low."
>
>Does it stay low?  Under these conditions, either outgassing or new absorption
 
Yes. It has been "low" for a year.
 
The hydrocap is quite efficient, I guess.
 
DISCLAIMER: I don't have any where near the equipment, time, or money
available to me as you have.  This is a "back burner" project. If something
is convenient to try, I'll do it, without necessarily having any
hypothesis.
 
The electrolyte is 100g  99.9% D20, 1 pellet of Li metal, and a trace of CS2.
 
The cell was evacutated to prevent the Li0D from absorbing C02 to form
LiCO3; to prevent H20 exchange with D20, and, of course, the cell is sealed
because I can't afford to keep buying D20.
 
Because of previous experiments with very high voltages and currents,
I definitely don't want very much combustible gas in the head space,
and the hydrocap obliges.
 
The cell consists of 2 in^2 of platinum ribbon wrapped on a polyethylene
semi-permeable membrane 1" dia. In the center is a 5g Pd rod.
At the top fluid surface is a 10 g Pd disk, half immersed, flat side down.
All electrodes are wired with Pt wire mechanically connected (no brazing).
 
The cell is sealed with parafilm around a 2" rubber stopper.
 
Normally I have the two Pd pieces connected together electrically, but
I have varied the currents to change the current distribution in the
electrolyte.
 
>
>Note anything kills the vacuum.  If there is D2 absorption then the excess O2
>kills the vacuum.  If the cathode outgasses D2 then that kills the vacuum
>since there is no O2 to combine it on the catalyst.
>
 
I wouldn't say my "low pressure" is a vacuum. It is, of course, higher than
the vapor pressure of D20 at room temperature, but substantially lower than
atmospheric (but I don't have calibrated guage).
 
A bit of history:  This cell has been sealed for >2YR, and been through
many different experimental conditions.  It has been operating with 5 volts,
42 ma for a year.   It gets warm to the touch every couple of weeks
for a day or so (There is no calorimeter, so this counts for nothing).
 
Previously (>1 year ago):
 
The cell has been run with 10 amps in a water cooled jacket, which
boils the electrolyte and expels vapor out a check valve through a bubbler,
due to thermal expansion, boiling etc. (this leaves low pressure when the steam
condenses);
 
It has been pulsed with 1000V high current pulses once a second for a while
(interesting and spectacular display of red plasma--this probably creates
ultrasonic shock waves. It was violent enough I was worried about shattering
the container. It also created a black sediment of unknown composition);
 
It has been run with an immersed ultrasonic generator
(the only effect I saw was the electrolysis bubbles changed in size,
as I recall there were fewer of them, but larger, making it easier to
see inside).
 
It has been run surrounded with a wire solenoid, with pulsed high current
applied, constant DC current, and sinuosoidal AC.(The idea here was
to induce large circulating currents in the Pd) (A previous cell had
electrical connections on both ends of the Pd rod, and various combinations
of currents through the rod and currents to the electrolyte were tried,
including AC and DC).
 
 
It has been run raised to + and - 40KV (the whole apparatus).;
 
It has been run with DC offset AC electrolysis current, the AC varying from
60 HZ to several MHz.
____
 
Things I'd like to try but haven't yet:
 
Mount a Pd rod in two bearings to make an axle, then angularly misalign
one bearing, and rotate the Pd to create alternating compression and
rarefaction at the perimeter of the rod.
 
Rotate the Pd rod at high speed to create a boundary layer of electrolyte.
 
Rotate the whole apparatus about the Pd rod (this will cause the bubbles
to migrate toward the rod).
 
Put the whole apparatus in an ultra-centrifuge (this will cause the bubbles
to be of much higher pressure, and probably rise faster.
 
Fire a high power pulse laser to a spot on the Pd.
 
Ultrasonically excite the Pd rod itself.
 
Explosively compress a D charged Pd sphere.
 
--
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:
cuddy7 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 /   /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:52:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)> quotes and writes:
 
>J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>>As far as we can tell they [hydrinoes] do not represent a biological hazard.
>
>This can only be true, I would think, if they were essentially chemically
>inert below temperatures hostile to lifeforms.  Much of biological chemistry
>involves the structures of molecules, and the size of the constituent
>atoms has a strong influence on such structural alignment.  Thus a smaller
>hydrogen atom would certainly muck up biological chemistry if it had similar
>chemical properties to its larger cousin.
 
When Mills and I were first considering the possiblility of the hydrino
causing harmful biological effects, were we going on the assumption that
it was a highly reactive species and would thus not participate in
catalytic effects.  Then Mills changed his mind, and said that any
hydrinos would be inert.  I'm not sure why he changed his mind.  Perhaps
Dr. Farrell has an explanation as to why they would be inert rather than
highly reactive.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Steve Kneizys
Ursinus College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / Dieter Britz /  A real wire
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A real wire
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:53:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan):
 
>The result is that in the earths atmosphere, a sphere of about 15" in diameter
>is require to hold a voltage potential of 1,000,000 volts without causing
>electrical breakdown in the air due to high near surface gradients, while
>it only requires a wire of about 2" in diameter to transport 1,000,000 volts
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>along a high tension power grid with causing electrical breakdown of the air.
 
Now that is what I call a real wire! Would that be silver, John?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 /   /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:19:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to several postings and E-mail messages, I offer this reply:
 
I am not worried so much about the tone of the net being anti-CNF, but
I am unhappy about the LaRouche-type postings and the personal jabs
that often appear.  I guess I'm too much of an idealist.
 
As far as peer review, I do want that before I release any significant
findings.  But I also like the kind of peer review that Tom Droege does,
where everybody has a chance to comment on things while the experiment
is in progress.
 
I am fully aware that there are "problems" with the experiments Mills
and I published in Fusion Technology, but I have never personally been
asked to help anyone with a replication, so what do you want me to say?
Most of the "problems" have to do with our not using a constant temperature
bath, but we really didn't have to have one since our results were so
spectacular.  We wanted it to be extremely easy to replicate for anyone,
so we made the experiments simple.
 
A replication is fairy easy, as far as our data goes...we published
all details, including the very simple circuits I designed so that anyone
could just go to Radio Shack and get all the parts, as well as purchase
all other needed materials for less than $500 from chemical supply
houses. (If doing pulsed circuits, borrowing an oscilloscope would
be most helpful, but constant current cells also give nice results)
 
To anyone attempting an MKF replication:
 
1) Use very clean Nickel cathodes.  Do NOT use any organic solvents, or
any acid cleaners.  We used just distilled water on nickel purchased
from Aldrich used right out of the box. NO FINGERPRINTS!!!
 
2) When the cell operates correctly, you should observe a milky white
stream of bubbles along the cathode.  Large bubbles should tip you off
that the cells are not working properly.
 
3) Rubber and any other organic materials will cause problems...don't
put anything in solution except Potassium Carbonate, Nickel, Platinum
and glassware.  I have also use Teflon, but I have had some problems
with it, probably due to contamination of the teflon.  Noninski has
published results in Fusion Technology using some teflon.
 
4) It is often helpful to put the cell in reverse, with the Nickel as
anode, for about 30 minutes, at the very start of the experiment, but
most of the cells I use produced excess heat without this step.  Multiple
reversals of the cell polaritly can lead to serious performance deficits.
 
 
If you have any questions, I'd be glad to help.
 
Sincerely,
 
Steve Kneizys...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / Dave Andrews /  Re: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
     
Originally-From: dandrews@bilver.uucp (Dave Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fractional State Hydrogen Atoms
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:10:46 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL

In article <01GT8EGK7KMQ0001WC@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>John Logajan asks:
>
>>Has any more theoretical or experimental data come foward to decide whether
>>such forms of hydrogen represent biological hazards?  Or are they essentially
>>inert?
>
>No more theoretical work.  I can't comment on the experimental data.  As
>far as we can tell they do not represent a biological hazard.
 
Can you say whether or not you have found a way to CONTAIN the little buggers?
 
- David Andrews
  dandrews@bilver.oau.org
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendandrews cudfnDave cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:49:02 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <1993Jan8.021210.27077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> ...
> Words are much more dangerous than equations.  Equations are well-defined
> and can be examined quantititively for correlations with experience.
> Words are fluid and mutable and ill-defined.
> ...
 
Alright!  Concur completely.  Precisely why I _stuck my neck out and sent
out the UC draft_ -- so others would whack me up the side of the head and
(maybe even occassionally) help me develop specific quantifications for it.
 
I rushed it because it has very specific experimental implications, some
of which seemed to be pretty relevant (and maybe even accurate).  This was
a terrible thing for me to do?  Maybe next time I should sit on it for, oh,
six months to a year and patent the daylights out of every other sentence?
Alas, I just don't have that high of an opinion of my own ideas!
 
 
> [terry writes:] ... _Do_ you call this a "shock wave," or not? ...
>
> Not exactly, there would be a rarefaction wave within the fluid.  Some
> people call your surface a 'contact wave'.  However, you are still limited
> in driving force to the ambient pressure...
 
Ah.  Thanks -- that will help in the lookup process.
 
 
> Shock tubes are run somewhat this way, but you don't obtain fusion.
 
The shock tube is nice as a verbal analogy, but it needs quantification.
E.g., how precisely does the spherical curvature and very small size of
the "bubble" vacuum scenario impact the behavior of contact waves?
 
I will try to do a literature search on this to find the relevant articles,
if they exist.  (Boy do I miss D.C.  UTA, maybe?  Do you guys let off-campus
computer types into your physics library without a leash?)
 
 
> One can do an analysis of this collapse (an empty bubble as per Rayleigh),
> but it breaks down at the time compressibility effects start to become
> important (and starts to impede the acceleration process).
 
Reasonable enough.  In UC I even mentioned compressibility slowdown in the
context of large, hard-to-rearrange molecules, and only proposed the wedge-
out as likely to apply to small, mobile molecules.  Unquantified, of course.
 
 
> An even better way, though, to get the fluid to higher thermal energy is
> to assume a spherical piston of some sort in a gas.  Give the 'piston' a
> massive whang, and a strong shock is created.  As the center is approched,
> the shock itself gets stronger.
 
Yes, I assume that this is the same Landau et al model you've mentioned
before as your approach to quantifying and formalizing cavitation problems.
($50K?  Wowzers!)  But do Landau et al explicitly include an analysis of the
contact wave case, or not?  (Sigh.  Sorry that I don't just look it up, but
I'm still trying to get a copy of the book.)
 
 
> One can solve this using similarity methods (c.f. Landau and Lifshitz,
> Fluid Mechanics, section 107). As the center of the the region approches,
> the energy within the shock goes as
>
>     E ~ R^{5-2/a}
>
> Where $a$ is a similarity parameter (about 0.7 for polytropic gases with
> with gamma = 5/3 (monatomic) or gamma = 7/5 (diatomic).
>
> So, you can see that though the shock itself gets stronger, the energy it
> contains the decreases drastically as one approaches the center.
 
I hope I can interpret that correctly.  Please let me know if I messed up:
 
            E - energy
            R - Radius of shock front
          $a$ - Same as "a"?
            a ~ 0.7  (for a first approximation?)
   polytropic - Sorry, my physics dictionary is at home
        gamma - (??)  'aven't the foggiest
    R^{5-2/a} - R to the exponent ( 5 - 2/a ) => ( 5 - 2/0.7 ) => ~ 2.1
 
I'll assume that to be the correct interpretation for the rest of the
discussion, and will apologize later if it is not... :)  I assume, by
the way, that this Landau et al equation is for shock waves only?  It
would seem plausible that modifications would be needed for contant waves.)
 
So I guess you are saying that total energy decreases something close to
R^2 as R drops towards zero.
 
Of course, since _volume_ decreases as R^3, this would mean that the energy
density (I'll call it D for the moment) in this shrinking region of space
is _increasing_ as:
 
    D  ~  R^2 / R^3  =  1/R
 
Now given that energy _density_ is what a lot of folks might call "heat,"
could you _please_ tell my why you seem to think everything that I say
is a violation of the second law, yet the equation (as I've been able to
interpret it) that you just gave is _not_?
 
Also, I note that the energy density increases to infinity as the shock
wave reaches the center, hmm?  And here I thought you disagreed with me!
 
I'm just kidding, of course. The billiard-ball like behavior of gas molecules
under high pressures -- fugacity, as Dale mentioned -- will dominate in the
end stages and keep such silly predictions from having any meaning.  The
question instead is how _far_ you can go with such increases before other
effects begin bleeding away too much of the energy to give intensification.
 
More specifically, the exponent for the total inbound energy wave equation
should itself be a monotonically decreasing function f(R), reflecting the
increasing importance of new energy draining mechanisms as the density and
temperature of the matter inside a sphere of radius R increases.  Thus the
maximum energy density will be reached when:
 
    E = R^(f(R))   and   f(R) = 3
 
... where the first equation gives the total inbound energy of the wave
front.  My wedge-out postulate is that for contact waves and small (e.g.,
monatomic gases), the equation f(R) will remain relatively flat and below
3 for several orders of magnitude of R closer as it approaches R=0 than
for classic shock waves.
 
I do not know (yet) how to quantify that postulate.  Nor I am convinced
(yet) that such a quantification has _every_ been fully studied for the
case of contact waves in very small spherical implosions.
 
 
> Look at this another way.  The inbound surface increases its velocity.
> The velocity is limited by a) real gas effects b) energy.
 
I'm unsure what you mean by "real gas effects."
 
If by that you mean some kind of contrast to "ideal gases," you might note
that I _never_ assumed ideal gases for the wedge-out idea.  I don't see how
you could and still expect to get plausible results on the size scales we
are talking about, especially during the last few nanoseconds.  Indeed, that
is precisely why I keep insisting on _specific_ quantification of what goes
on at a near-molecular level, not just extrapolations from larger scales.
 
As for energy, see my earlier disucussion about energy _densities_ being
the key issue, not the total wave energy.
 
 
> ... even if you figure out a way to simply extract some tail of the
> standard energy distribution (without violating the laws of thermodynamics),
> you have to go way way up the tail to get to fusion energies.  One has to
> go so far up the tail that there are probably no such molecules actually
> present in the fluid, and you cannot get the fluid to give them to by
> itself you without violating the second law.
 
Phffft.  I never proposed this.  I mentioned a diffusion selection mechanism
simply to point out that such things happen (e.g., in Hilsch tubes).  I was
very specific in saying that to be really interesting some sort of further
_acceleration_ of the gas molecules would be needed -- i.e., wedge-out.
 
What is the point of arguing against assertions I never made?
 
Also, you seem to be returning to the theme that _any_ instance of one
particle gaining energy from two or more other ones is a violation of the
second law.  It is not, and I really don't care to rehash the issue again.
 
You are very welcome to argue that the _specific_ case of very small, very
round contact waves cannot do it, but the issue is whether there is enough
structure and "order" of some sort in such systems to allow amplification
effects to occur in them.  _That_ is the real issue, not the second law.
 
My entire argument has been based on the presence of just that kind of
order (via the combination of high symmetry and no void gases), so I'm
not about to throw without a much more detailed analysis of this case.
 
 
> There is a way to quantify this gain in velocity, but it is not in the
> thermodynamically organized fashion presented.  However, my specific
> second law objection was to a specific scheme.  I do have general second
> law objections, but it seems silly to bring them up in the absence of
> some quantification.
> ...
> It doesn't matter.  There will certainly be acceleration, but pressure-
> limited, and nothing truly exciting for ordinary fluids under ordinary
> conditions.
 
A strong assertion, but I've heard somewhere or the other that "words are
much more dangerous than equations."  :)  Would you care to quantify _your_
claim that while there will be acceleration, it will be "nothing truly
exciting for ordinary fluids under ordinary conditions?"  (BTW, since when
is severe cavitation an "ordinary" condition?)
 
As for "pressure limited," I would like to see (or develop) a very specific
quantification of small, highly spherical contact waves before responding.
 
I might note that my own analysis of that scenario is based heavily on
information and entropy arguments, and from that analysis I say that such
cases are very interesting, even for ordinary fluids.  Your analysis appears
to be based primarily on an extrapolation of large-scale shock wave models
to very small scales and the contact wave situation.
 
I think there is room for further analysis and (I suspect) quantification
that goes beyond the standard texts you've mentioned.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
 
P.S. -- Dale, I know you from the other group.  You've made some great
        observations and suggestions, but I am worried that this could
        be turning into one of your infamous ping-pong matches.  Could
        we maybe tone it down a bit after this exchange?  Feel free to
        get your response to this one in, but my next one is liable to
        be a lot shorter (up to and including zero bytes!)
 
        I look forward to being blasted by you again in the near future.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / Stephen Behling /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:06:48 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

 
In article <930106131352.20c082a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Status #7 Cell 4A3
[...]
> We are presently operating at 800 ma which results in a cell voltage of 4.5
> volts.  Present calorimeter balance is at 7.300 watts.  Peak to peak changes
> over the last several hundred hours are consistent with the 0.035 mw one sigma
> calibration.  But there is an offset from the December calibration with only
> probable cause due to high temperature TED creep.  Remember to get the
> temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.  A
> curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air
> temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is
> relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar, 1
> 1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10' of
> air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.
>
   Especially in winter, inside air humidity is strongly correlated
with outside air temperature.  Perhaps??
 
    -steve behling
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensxb cudfnStephen cudlnBehling cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Dick Blue/Original BYU Expts.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue/Original BYU Expts.
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:54:24 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <00966113.17594E40.9677@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
> Recent post by S. Jones relays information provided by Profs. Jensen and
> Palmer concerning the detector used in the first Jones experiment reporting
> low yield neutron production from cold fusion.
>  .....
> Clearly I was mistaken as to which mode of operation had been employed
> to obtain the spectrum reported in the Nature paper.
 
I'm glad to see we have settled that point.
 
> There do, however,
> remain some questions as to what the reponse function of the detector
> is for neutrons and for gammas.  Both Jensen and Palmer in their replies
> refer to spectra obtained at 2.9 MeV and 5.2 MeV as reported in the
> Czir-Jensen paper, but Jones discounts those as calibration spectra in
> favor of some more recent calibrations with monoenergetic neutrons.
> Not only do we seem to be getting differing answers from different
> members of the team, we seem to have a situation in which information
> crucial to the intepretation of the spectra was subject to revision
> long after the experiment was completed.  If we are to be convinced
> that the spectrum reported in Nature shows a "peak", it would be nice
> to know whether the detector as operating at the time was in fact
> capable of producing such a peak in response to fusion neutrons.  One
> question that remains in my mind is what mechanism accounts for
> the roll-off of the proton recoil response on the low side of the
> peak.  Off hand I would expect the response to be close to what is
> shown in the Czirr-Jensen paper.
 
I will try to show figures from the Czirr-Jensen papers so readers can
understand Dr. Blue's questions, and to provide the answers.
       Figure 1:  Neutron spectrometer response to 5.2 MeV neutrons
              (Fig. 5 of NIM A284 (1989):365, Czirr and Jensen, BYU)
|          -
|          -
|           \                  --
|            -               -   - -
|            -             -        -  -
|            -            -          -
|  COUNTS     \          -              -
|              -        -                -
|              -       -                 -
|               - - - -                   -
                                           -
                                            - -----------
 --------------------------------------------------------
                 PULSE-HEIGHT CHANNEL (neutron energy information)
 
                               /|\  Clearly the detector shows a peak here.
         /|\  But what is this low-energy tail?  This is a principal question
of Dr. Blue's; as he says in reply to BartB:
"one question I am raising about this experiment has to do with the nature
of the signal the detector would record even in the absence of background.
In the Czirr-jensen paper that describes the detector, the calibration spectrum
[given in Fig. 1 above]
shown is not in accord with the signal claimed in Jones paper [Nature 1989]"
which looks roughly like this:
 
    Fig. 2  Neutron spectrum from original Nature paper, background subtracted
|               (agrees with monte carlo prediction for monoenergetic neutrons)
|
|
|           - -
|          -   -
|        -      -
| COUNTS         -
|
|       -         -
|
|      -           -          -
|     -             - - -    - - - -       -  -
|   -                 - -    -   - - ---- -  -   - etc.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
     -                    -
                   Pulse Height Channel
The peak is lower than for the 5.2 MeV neutrons used in the calibration curve
above.  (We also ran a calibration for 2.9 MeV neutrons; the above peak appears
just below this 2.9MeV peak, and an short extrapolation based on both calibra-
tions gave the energy of the above peak as approx. 2.5 MeV, consistent with
neutrons from deuteron-d fusion.  See Nature
papers, 27 April 1989 and 22 Feb 1990 - correspondance from us.  This responds
to BartB's questions in a recent post.)
 
But, Dr. Blue questions, where is the low-energy tail?
First, as explained in the Czirr-Jensen paper, the calculated response of the
spectrometer based on the Monte Carlo program MCBD provides a bump as given
in Fig. 2 -- WITHOUT A LOW ENERGY TAIL.  (Didn't you notice this in the paper
Dick?)  This was the subject of a BYU Master's Thesis, in part.  In fact, the
observed bump shape/width fit pretty neatly with the monte carlo prediction.
 
Second, in work since the Czirr-Jensen paper (rec'd 7 June 1989), the two
demonstrated that the low-energy tail arises from high-energy deuteron beam
interactions in the Ti-d target, due to deuteron break-up.  When the d beam
from the BYU Van de Graaf impinges on metal foils (not containing deuterons
for d-d fusions), they found the following response in the spectrometer:
 
     Fig. 3  Spectrometer response for 1.9 MeV deuteron beam on blank
       copper disk (instead of titanium deuteride target with Cu backing)
          (From Prof. Jensen; included in BYU pre-print 1992,"Single-Tube
                                 Neutron Spectrometer")
       -
|       -
|       -
|       -
|        -
|         -
|         -
| COUNTS   -
|           -
|           -
|           -
|            -    -   -          -
|             --   ---  - --- ----- ------ etc.
|----------------------------------------------------------------
                PULSE-HEIGHT CHANNEL
Aha!  So that's what the low-energy tail is -- nothing but neutrons from
deuteron break-up.  NOT the response of the detector per se.
 
So in the latest calibrations, Jensen et al. measure the background as in
Fig. 3 for d break-up, and subtract this from Fig.1 (since there both d-d
fusion and d break-up occur) to yield a peak as in Fig. 2 and 3, that is,
the corrected calibration spectrum agrees both with the monte carlo calcula-
tion and the original data spectrum!
Send me your address, Dick, and I'll send the write-up on this.
Please understand, there is no "discounting" of earlier calibrations, nor
differing answers from different team members.  I hope we're clear on these
points now and can move on.
 
> The next question that can perhaps be laid -to rest if I understand
> Jensens reply has to do with the way in which the background subtraction
> was made.  Jensen states: "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."  I take that to
> mean that the background was scaled in strict ratio in accord with
> the different recording times before subtraction, and no other
> adjustments were made such as matching forground and background in
> a region of the spectrum away from the "peak".
 
There are different, legitimate ways of scaling background discussed in our
papers.  I refer you particularly to our response in Nature 22 Feb. 1990.
There we describe an analysis of runs 1 to 7; the scaling was done as you
state above "in strict ratio in accord with the different recording times
before subtraction."  Note that background runs were run more or less
alternately with foreground runs, and that background runs included metals
involved in the foreground runs.   Please read for more info. another BYU
paper in J. Fusion E. 9:199-208, Dec. 1990, where we state:
 "Background runs were made using operating cells containing standard
electrodes and electrolytes, except that H2O replaced the D2O:  numerous
light-water control runs were performed prior to submission of [Nature 27
April 1989 paper].  Other background runs were made using both new and
previously used standard cells containing D2O plus the usual electrolyte
but with no electrical current.  In the case of used D2O cells, the
current had been off for many hours.  The individual background runs
followed the featureless pattern of the integrated background illustrated
in Fig. 4."  (J. Fusion Energy 9:199, Dec 1990,"Anomalous Nuclear Reactions
in Condensed Matter:  Recent Results and Open Questions,"  S.E. Jones et al.)
 
>
> We are still left with the issue of the gamma response of the
> detector and what fraction of the response was in fact due to
> neutrons.  From other experiments which employed liquid
> scintillation counters with pulse-shape discrimination to
> separate neutron and gamma response on sees cosmic-ray-induced
> backgrounds showing gamma-to-neutron ratios of something like
> 10E3 or 10E4.  Clearly this ratio can be altered by effects
> specific to the surroundings of a given experiment, but I
> see a potential problem in making a determination of this
> ratio with a detector that may well respond with no better
> than a 100 to 1 rejection ratio for gammas.  To make that
> explicite let us assume that the true ratio of gammas to
> neutrons is 10E4.  Then the detector will respond to gammas
> at a rate 10E2 times the neutron rate.  Under those circumstances,
> or something approaching them, how do you tell what the ratio
> of neutrons to gammas really is?  Jensen asserts that about 1/4
> of the background is due to gammas, but how does one go about
> making a determination of that number?
>
> Dick Blue
> NSCL @ MSU
 
Our COINCIDENCE spectrometer differs significantly from other detectors
which use liquid organic scintillator (which do indeed show a low-energy
tail as part of the response).  The key is to require a pulse from
neutron capture in 6Li-doped glass in delayed COINCIDENCE with the
pulse from the liquid scintillator.  This coincidence is a powerful
way to reject gammas since the glass response to gammas is of very low
efficiency and differs from the t+alpha pulse arising from n capture
on 6Li.  We do NOT rely only on pulse-shape discrimination.
 
(This is important:  understand the nature of our coincidence
spectrometer.  We DO get a bump from mono-energetic neutrons, without
a low-energy tail.)
Perhaps quoting from the most recent Jensen-Czirr write-up will further
clarify this:  "A series of low-resolution neutron spectrometers has been
developed in our laboratory for spectral measurements in the MeV energy
range.  These detectors operate on the "coincidence calorimeter" principle
in which two signals from a single neutron are required to assure total
kinetic energy deposition within the detector.  The first signal is produced
by the multiple elastic collisions of an incident neutron with protons in
the organic scintillator comprising the bulk of the dector body.  The second
signal arises if the neutron remains within the detector and is captured by
a ^Li nucleus incorporated in thin lithium glass scintillators that are
dispersed among the several organic plastic scintillators.  The slowing
down of the incident neutron occupies approximately 50 ns and the mean capture
delay is 11 microseconds."
 
This standard mode of operation, used also in original BYU experiments, is to
be distinguished from the "capture-spectrum mode" which is described in detail
in the Czirr-Jensen 1989 paper (NIM A284:365-369).  Basically, the capture-
spectrum mode provides pulse-height spectra from the glass alone, rather than
from the plastic scintillator.  We cannot determine the neutron energy from
the 6Li-doped-glass scintillator, but we can see neutrons clearly, and the
distinct signal from gammas.  Background at BYU looks like this:
 
   Fig. 4:  Capture-spectrum mode distribution for background events.
            (Differs from standard mode in Figs 1-3 above!)
|        -         (Figure 8 in Czirr-Jensen paper in NIM A284(1989):365)
|       - -
|
|
|      -   -
| COUNTS
|
|     -     -
|                         --
|    -       -         /- -  - -
| ---         --   -----        - ----\
|---------------------------------------------------------------
                    Pulse-height channel
 
The low-energy peak is caused by gamma interactions in the glass, while
the higher-energy bump (smaller) is caused by neutrons, presumably originating
from cosmic-ray interactions.  In the standard mode, we select only light-
pulses from the glass scintillator which occur in the higher-energy bump,
thus discriminating against gammas.  The cross-section for gamma interaction
in the thin glass scintillator plates is very low compared to the cross-section
for thermal neutron capture in the plates.
 
Using the same mode with a radium source shows the gamma peak only, with a tail
that extends into the neutron-bump region.  By scaling this gamma peak to match
the gamma peak in the background, then counting events in the gamma tail which
extend into the neutron bump region, and comparing to background-
neutron-generated events in the neutron-bump region leads to an estimate of
the events in the neutron region arising from gamma-ray leakage.
 
This is explained in the NIM paper by Czirr and
Jensen, but I can understand some confusion due to their term "capture-spectrum
mode"  which refers to the spectrum from the GLASS scintillator only, whereas
the standard mode involves capture also, but the spectrum is that yielded by
neutrons slowing in the PLASTIC scintillator, with subsequent neutron capture
required in the glass.
[Note:  I discussed these points with Prof. Jensen, co-inventor of the
coincidence spectrometer, but neither he nor Prof. Czirr are now available to
proofread what I have written.  Copies of their papers are available on
request.]
 
In short, the BYU neutron spectrometer discriminates well against gammas
and produces a peak in the pulse-height spectrum given a monoenergetic neutron
source.  It is thus much better than using organic scintillator with pulse-
shape discrimination alone for low-level neutron studies.
 
 
Respectfully,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #8 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #8 Cell 4A3
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #8 Cell 4A3
 
To the non-experts out there, please don't copy this data down as if it were
the gospel.  To the experts, please look at this and tell me if there is a
reason to do it right i.e. with about 200 grams of Pd that has been properly
outgassed.
 
The experiment is presently in the "watching paint fade" stage.  At about 400
hours into the run, there is nothing to see except small changes (one sigma or
less) due to outside temperature variations.  Since I would like to present
something about the experiment every few days, I have spent a little time
looking at the charging data.  (Oh! for a student.)  The 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm
cathode was charged over a period of 21 hours by a current ramp which
increased from 1 ma to 46.9 ma over that time.  The hourly data is presented
below:
 
JSUM        Gas         D/Pd        G*26.34     Diff/G      K
    0       0           0             0          0
    +.6     0.02        0.000        -0.53    -28.2
  -16.0     0.59        0.009       -15.54      0.4         37
  -33.4     1.18        0.018       -31.08      1.0         92
  -56.2     1.89        0.030       -49.78      1.7        156
  -45.1     3.05        0.048       -80.34      5.8        533
  -52.5     4.41        0.070      -116.16      7.2        662
  -71.1     6.27        0.099      -165.15      7.5        689
  -85.1     8.61        0.136      -226.79      8.2        754
 -130.1    11.31        0.178      -297.91      7.4        680
 -197.4    14.66        0.231      -386.14      6.4        588
 -283.2    18.41        0.290      -484.92      5.5        505
 -375.2    22.41        0.353      -590.28      4.8        441
 -479.8    26.73        0.422      -704.07      4.2        386
 -597.9    31.43        0.496      -827.87      3.7        340
 -714.6    36.41        0.574      -959.04      3.4        312
 -859.5    41.84        0.660     -1102.07      2.9        266
-1003.1    46.53        0.734     -1225.60      2.4        220
-1129.9    49.41        0.779     -1301.46      1.7        156
-1216.1    50.66        0.799     -1334.38      1.2
-1279.7    50.37        0.794     -1326.75      0.5
-1332.2    50.40        0.795     -1327.54     -0.0
 
The first two columns are raw data.  JSUM is the integrated balance in
joules.  The minus sign means that extra heat had to be added to keep the
calorimeter in balance.  Gas is the cc of gas accumulated in the syringe.  The
rest of the columns are my computations and subject to horrible errors.  The
measured one sigma calorimeter drift at the start of this run is of order 5
mw.  Actual measured peak to peak drift in the 10 hours before the run started
was 9 mw.  (Dieter, I know you have noted my 35 mw one sigma, but this is for
making a large temperature change coming back to an old balance point - and
likely turned out to be optimistic.)  This means that the error of the JSUM
measurement is time dependent.  This would give a one sigma error after one
hour of 18 joules, and for the last entry at hour 21 of 378 joules.  The gas
measurements are somewhat better, the servo resolution is 1/70 cc, and the
balance is always good to a few steps.  There should be a temperature
correction proportional to the gas in the syringe (the gas in the calorimeter
is at constant temperature) and the ambient temperature.  It has not been
made.  There are also unknown barometric pressure changes, but there was no
violent weather during the test period.  The peak to peak ambient temperature
variation over this run was 0.9 C.  There is also a syringe non-linearity that
has not been thoroughly investigated but which I have checked at a few points
to 1% with a 1% gas burette.  All in all, I would put a limit on the error of
the gas measurement at 2% of the reading.
 
What we would like to get from this data, is a measure of heat of absorption
of Palladium/Deuterium as a function of the gas loading.  There are problems.
First there is a calorimeter servo time lag.  Even though we tried to charge
very slowly, the calorimeter thinks a while before it reports the balance.
This makes the last few points particularly suspect where the conditions are
switching from the Palladium absorbing nearly all of the Deuterium to none of
it.  Since this results in a real change of operating power level, the servo
must compensate, and so lags behind.  Next, there is the measurement problem
due to the known errors mentioned above.  We note that these errors could be
reduced by a factor of up to 500 if we just run a larger Palladium cathode.
We could also reduce the servo errors by charging somewhat more slowly.  But
this is an "anomalous heat" run and was not optimized for measurement of the
heat of absorption.
 
The major problem with this run is that it has an unknown D/Pd starting point.
Since the first try at starting this run was aborted by a gas leak, it is
quite possible that the starting point was not 0.0 D/Pd but more like 0.1.  We
attempted to remove the gas from the aborted start by running the cell weakly
backwards, but with an unknown result.  There is also the problem that our
Palladium "coin" bar has an unknown gas absorption history.
 
The G*26.34 column is the joules lost per cc because the measured oxygen did
not recombine to form water.  This is derived from the 1.53*I energy for dis-
association, 96,484 coulombs per mole, two atoms per D2, and the fact that we
are measuring O2 not D2 giving another factor of two.  Someone please check as
I always worry that I will mis-count charges or something.
 
The Diff/G column is the difference between the joules per cc of un recombined
oxygen and the calorimeter balance, divided by the absorbed D (2*observed
oxygen) to get the average joules per cc of D absorbed integrated up to the
indicated D/Pd loading.  The plus sign for most of this data indicates that
the absorption of D by Palladium releases heat.
 
The K column converts the Diff/G column to kilocalories per mole D2 absorbed
at the indicated D/Pd loading.  I have not computed all the entries in this
column where the error limits make the measurement meaningless.
 
It seems to me that there is a hint in this data that much of the heat of
absorption comes from the first 0.13 or so of D/Pd (or 0.23 if this sample
started at the suspected 0.1).  After that, less and less heat is released per
unit absorbed.  Is there a thermodynamic reason for this?  I have F. A. Lewis,
"The Palladium Hydrogen System", can someone point me to the right curve for
comparison?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Thanks, Jed for putting on your bad guy list
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks, Jed for putting on your bad guy list
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have said some harsh things about cold fusion experiments in one
context or another, and I expect I will continue to do so.  Still I
would like to stay fairly close to making valid remarks and to correct
the most significant errors that creep into these missives that are
obviously tossed off without any editing.  So even if it is Jed Rothwell
who says I tell lies, I would like to track down and correct my
misstatements when that is possible.  I will need your help, Jed, to
spot the specific misstatements to which you refer.
 
Most recently you asserted that I had incorrectly associated Yamaguchi's
name with liquids.  I am sorry if I have made any remarks that would
tend to indicate that improper association.  As I recall the key point
I wished to make about Yamaguchi's experiments had to do with the
operating pressures at which he was attempting to use an RGA scan to
resolve 4He+ ions from D2+ ions.  I can't for the life of me think
how I may have gotten "liquids" into that discussion.  Please help
me out, Jed, by specific references to any of my lies that you think
I should retract.   I don't intend to tell lies.  I really do be
believe in the power of truth.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have a question relating to Chuck's assertion:
 
        "Still the release of electrons during the void collapse
        should concentrate at the center of the void."
 
Is this obviously the case?  What makes the electrons move toward the
center of the void?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Woops!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Woops!
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:20:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Looks like I multiplied by 4.1 instead of dividing by 4.1 to convert joules
to calories.  So the K column should at least be divided by 16.8.  Even then
the values look rather large compared to the numbers in Lewis.  You have all
been warned!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / Paul Karol /  Tritium in Magma?
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium in Magma?
Date: Fri,  8 Jan 1993 16:04:36 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I've only caught the tail end of some discussion on the presence of
tritium in material from the Earth's core and allusions to its
indicating fusion occurs in the core.  I seem to recall that there is a
branch in uranium and thorium fission which leads to production of
tritium.  Is this point irrelevant?
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / dave pierson /  Re: A real wire
     
Originally-From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A real wire
Date:  8 JAN 93 14:44:40
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <9AFE0CEE377FA0C463@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz
<BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes...
 
>Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan):
>
>>The result is that in the earths atmosphere, a sphere of about 15" in diameter
>>is require to hold a voltage potential of 1,000,000 volts without causing
>>electrical breakdown in the air due to high near surface gradients, while
>>it only requires a wire of about 2" in diameter to transport 1,000,000 volts
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>along a high tension power grid with causing electrical breakdown of the air.
>
>Now that is what I call a real wire! Would that be silver, John?
>Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 
        Older books (1930s) show hollow conductor (drawn interlocking segments)
        for 100KV and up.  More currently (8)>>) clusters of two, three, or
        four smaller (~1") conductors spaced 6-12" are used, with spacer
        brackets to maintain the interval.  They simulate a larger
        conductor well enough for practical purposes.  Aluminum is common.
 
thanks
dave pierson                    |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation   |the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd                |I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA
01775                           pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Bubbles/Cavitation Fusion in D2 Liquid
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles/Cavitation Fusion in D2 Liquid
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:05:38 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <930105122413.20a07695@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Terry Bollinger has been corresponding with me about his bubble ideas.  This
> has reminded me that Fermilab once had a 15' bubble chamber, and there have
> been many other bubble chambers operated over the years.
>
> To introduce bubble chambers, I am reminded fo physics folk lore.  It seems
> Don Glasser was opening a bottle of beer, and noticed a streak of bubbles
> that appeared as he opened it.  Being a good physicist, he tried to explain
> the streak, and concluded that a cosmic ray had passed through the bottle just
> as he opened it.  The cosmic ray left ionized beer molecules which then became
> the nucleation sites for bubbles which formed in the super heated beer caused
> by the decompression of the opening.  Fortunately the beer can had not yet
> been invented, so Don Glasser won a Nobel prize.  Ever since physics students
> have been devoted beer drinkers.
>
> Modern bubble chambers worked with a large piston.  Fermilab's was 15' and
> there was at least one even larger.  Someone correct me but I believe that
> there are no bubble chambers currently in operation.  The chambers were
> usually placed inside a large magnet, and surrounded by trigger electronics.
>
> A particle beam would be directed through the chamber, and when the
> the electronics detected an interesting event (like a beam particle in, but no
> beam particle out - meaning there had been an interaction) the piston would
> expand the chamber contents.  Some time later, the time determined by the
> bubble groth rate to get optimum resolution, a flash tube would be fired to
> expose film.  The film was then sent of the measureing machines where the
> tracks (in 3 D) were measured, and computations made on the results.
>
> Now why does this relate to Terry's bubble ideas?  Well sometimes the chambers
> were operated with liquid D2.  Remember, the expansion of the chamber forms
> bubbles.  These colapse some time later.  Perhaps these collapsing bubbles
> cause D - D interactions.  As Terry would say a "far fetch".
>
> What we need is to look at some "double expansions" where the bubble chamber
> was expanded a second time shortly after the first expansion so tracks coming
> off a bubble collapse might be seen.  I know that the Fermilab chamber
> sometimes triggered more than once per spill, i.e. at less than a second after
> the first expansion.  Then there was the PPA chamber that went 20 times a
> second.
>
> So does anyone out there know where to finde such film.  (Douglas Morrison are
> you listening?)
>
> The problem is that bubble chamber experiments are very expensive, and no one
> would likely support running one for such a wild idea.  But if the right old
> film can be found, it might be worth looking.
>
> Tom Droege
 
Tom, I had the opportunity to work as a graduate student at Fermilab one
summer, 1976 or thereabouts, with Bob Panvini and Firestone.  We used a 200-GeV
proton beam impinging on a deuterium-filled bubble chamber, as I recall.  So
the films from this may have what you are looking for.
Sounds fun, but your search may prove expensive.  Should we pursue this?
--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:46:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan8.214902.837@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>P.S. --        Dale, I know you from the other group.  You've made some great
>       observations and suggestions, but I am worried that this could
>       be turning into one of your infamous ping-pong matches.  Could
>       we maybe tone it down a bit after this exchange?  Feel free to
>       get your response to this one in, but my next one is liable to
>       be a lot shorter (up to and including zero bytes!)
>
>       I look forward to being blasted by you again in the near future.
 
     'Ping pong' is over.  I was interested in nothing more
     than explaining to you certain difficulties in what you were saying.
 
     Have a good time with it.
 
                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.08 / nod sivad /  Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 14:17:38 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

Steve Jones provides a sober counterpoint to Jed Rothwell's emotive
postings.  Yes, I take Dr. Jones more seriously than the
sometimes overwrought Rothwell, but Jed does make some good points.
Sometimes I wish Jed didn't end every sentence with an implied 15
exclamation points, but he is perhaps the best wordsmith in this
group and I enjoy his posts.  Keep it up, both of you.
 
The one problem I have with Dr. Jones' post is a quote from Huizenga:
 
>"ROOM TEMPERATURE NUCLEAR FUSION WITHOUT COMMENSURATE AMOUNTS OF FUSION
>PRODUCTS IS A DELUSION AND QUALIFIES AS PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE."
 
I think this is an extreme statement.  In fact, if Jed was a non-believer
he would have said this first. ;-)  Of course, if one defines fusion in
terms of current theory and calls anything else a non-fusion nuclear process,
then the statement stands.  If there is anything to CF, it may
very well be some special case undreamed of by our Horatio imaginations.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some "intermediate" nuclear
process residing somewhere between chemistry and fusion.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 / John Moore /  Re: List
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: List
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:15:55 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

Keywords:
 
In article <1993Jan7.181458.5320@isus.UUCP> hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
 writes:
]It has been pulsed with 1000V high current pulses once a second for a while
](interesting and spectacular display of red plasma--this probably creates
]ultrasonic shock waves. It was violent enough I was worried about shattering
]the container. It also created a black sediment of unknown composition);
 
Err... Hoyt... 1000V is enough to create a some amount of
self targetted fusion - have you noticed whether or not you glow in the
dark? Has your cat been complaining about neutron poisoning lately?
How about your neighbors (fortunately there is about 1/2 mile of
mountain and a mile of air between your house and mine :-)
 
Without a calorimeter, what are you measuring?
 
--
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! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 /  Bo /  Re: Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River.
     
Originally-From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups:
 sci.space,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.electr
 onics
Subject: Re: Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River.
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:32:29 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

 
This is an update version of the second announcement:
 
 
Bo
 ==============================================================================
 
                            Second announcement
 
            International Summer School on Space Plasma Physics
 
                                Organised by
     Radiophysical Research Institute, NIRFI, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia
                                    and
         Swedish Institute of Space Physics, IRFU, Uppsala, Sweden
 
                                 to be held
         Onboard a Cruise Ship on the Volga River, 1--10 June, 1993
 
 
The purpose of the school is to give an introduction to the problems
of linear and non-linear space plasma physics, ionospheric modification,
the use of the ionosphere as a space plasma laboratory, as well as to
discuss current topics in astrophysics and ionospheric, solar, and
stellar plasma physics.
 
 
                   Preliminary list of lecturers and lectures
 
o Prof C E Alissandrakis, Greece, Emissions From Solar Flares.
 
o Prof T Chang, USA, Electromagnetic Tornadoes in Space---Ion Cyclotron
  Resonance Heating of Ionospheric Ions; Lower Hybrid Collapse, Caviton
  Turbulence, and Charged Particle Energization.
 
o Dr C Chiuderi, Italy, Alfven Waves in Nonuniform Media: Propagation
  and Dissipation.
 
o Dr F Chiuderi-Drago, Italy, Radio Emission of Active Regions of the
  Sun and Stars.
 
o Prof G Dulk, USA, Radio Methods For Investigating the Solar Wind
  Between Sun and Earth.
 
o Prof Lev Erukhimov, Russia, Space Plasma Laboratories.
 
o Dr J Foster, USA, Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
o Dr C Hanuise, France, Coherent Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
o Prof M Hayakawa, Japan, Terrestrial Electromagnetic Noise Environment.
 
o Prof A Hewish, UK, Mapping Interplanetary Weather Patterns.
 
o Prof M Kelley, USA, Weather in the Earth's Ionosphere.
 
o Prof Yu Kravtsov, Russia, Polarisation and Wave Propagation Effects in
  Inhomogeneous Plasma.
 
o Prof J Kuijpers, Holland, Magnetic Flares In Accretion Disks.
 
o Prof M Nambu, Japan, Plasma Maser Effects in Space Plasma Physics.
 
o Prof V Petviashvili, Russia, Vortexes in Space.
 
o Prof V Radhakrishnan, India, Pulsars--The Strangest Radiators in the Sky.
 
o Prof H O Rucker, Austria, Planetary Radio Emissions.
 
o Prof R Schlickeiser, Germany, The Theory of Cosmic Ray Transport and
  Acceleration and Astrophysical Applications.
 
o Dr K Stasiewicz, Sweden, Auroral Kilometric Radiation.
 
o Dr B Thide, Sweden, Controlled Generation of Radio Emission in the
  Near-Earth Plasma by Wave Injection from the Ground.
 
o Prof V Trakhtengertz, Russia, Alfven Masers.
 
o Prof V Zaytsev, Russia, Solar Plasma.
 
o Prof V V Zheleznyakov, Russia, Cyclotron Resonance in Astrophysics.
 
 
General and topical lectures will be mixed with seminars and poster
sessions.  The lecture notes and reports of new results will be
published in "Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics".  The definitive
list of lecturers and lectures will be included in the school programme
that will be mailed to all participants.  Applications for attendance
must be submitted before 1 March, 1993, to either of:
 
Lev M. Erukhimov                      Bo Thide'
Radiophysical Research Institute      Swedish Institute of Space Physics
603024 Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia       S-75591 Uppsala, Sweden
Fax: [+7] 8312-369902                 Fax: [+46] 18-403100
E-mail: le@appl.nnov.su               E-mail: bt@irfu.se
 
There will be an excursion to Vasil'sursk where the NIRFI ionospheric
modification facility ``Sura'' is located.  The cultural program of the
school includes sightseeing in interesting old Russian towns on the
upper Volga, art exhibitions and other activities.
 
The total cost for full board an lodging on the ship for the school is
estimated at between USD300 and US5D00, depending on type of cabin.
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbt cudlnBo cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 / Todd Green /  Mallove - Morrison bet
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove - Morrison bet
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:36:15 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

Looking at Huizenga's cold fusion book a few days ago, I noticed that
there is mention of a bet between Eugene Mallove and Douglas Morrison
as to whether or not cold fusion wil be demonstrated as an "excess energy
generating nuclear phenomenon by Dec 31 1992". I would seem that Morrison
has won but maybe somebody (Jed Rothwell?) could find out if Mallove has
conceeded defeat yet.
 
Todd
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.09 / Todd Green /  Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:35:47 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1993Jan7.124408.311@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> While educating about He3, gammas, neutrons, and other nuclear emissions is
> evidently sorely needed, perhaps quoting from a recent paper by Dave Buehler,
> Lee Hansen, Larry Rees and myself will help chip away at this type of
 fixation:
>
> "...at the Nagoya meeting and elsewhere, we found that errors and
 uncertainties
> in current experiments prevent unambiguous interpretation of claims of excess
> heat generation.  Hence, this paper also outlines criteria for establishing
> calorimeter performance for definitive measurements of "excess heat" in cold-
> fusion experiments."
> (There follows an extensive discussion on difficulties of calorimetric
> measurements, precautions, etc. mostly by Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU.  We also
> discuss the use of an X-ray spectrometer as a critical means of probing for
> nuclear origins of heat, when the precise nuclear reaction is unknown.  I have
> posted notes on this, here, some months ago.)
> "Because all electrochemical calorimetric experiments intended to demonstrate
> 'excess heat' require correction for the heat of the electrolysis reaction,
> the expected reaction must be verified and quantified.  Otherwise an incorrect
> value for the thermoneutral potential will be used in the correction.  For
> example, deposition of an alkali metal under a silicate (or aluminate or
> borate) coating on an electrode in aqueous solution is possible at cell
> voltages near 3 volts.  The thermoneutral potential for Li is about 2.9 volts,
> compared to 1.5 volts for hydrogen.  An xs heat rate proportional to the rate
> of deposition of Li would thus be found if the reaction were assumed to be
> strictly generation of hydrogen.  The accuracy of the thermoneutral potential
> must also be assessed.  A value derived from a single source or type of
> measurement cannot be considered reliable.
 
This is a valid point but codeposition of lithium at the cathode would produce
an energy deficit and NOT excess energy if a thermoneutral potential of 1.53
volts was assumed. The thermoneutral potential for lithium deposition at the
cathode and an oxygen evolving anode is approximately 3.5 volts, so if, say,
10% of the electrolysis was due to Li+ reduction and the rest D2O reduction,
then the effective thermoneutral potential, Eth,  would be 1.73 volts.
Then, the Joule heating calculated by (Ecell-1.53)*I would clearly overestimate
the actual input power, and an apparent negative energy balance would be
calculated.
 
In general, the occurrence of a chemical/electrochemical process other than
oxygen evolution(anode)/deuterium evolution(cathode) will lead to apparent
excess heat if the thermoneutral potential of that process is < 1.53 volts
and "negative" excess heat when E > 1.53 volts.
 
One other point is that lithium deposition is rather unlikely under most
conditions because of the extremely negative standard electrode potential
(-3.05 V) for the reaction Li+ + e- ---> Li. There is a possibility that
there might be an underpotential deposition of Li on Pd (i.e. its occurrence
at a potential more anodic than -3 volts) but I don't think there is much
evidence supporting this to date.
 
Todd
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.10 / John Logajan /  Falling thru a voltage gradient
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Falling thru a voltage gradient
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:17:49 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I have a question.  Given a very large conductive flat surface, say a circular
plane of copper sheeting one mile in circumference, and charged with a finite
number of electrons (X coulombs), we know that the voltage gradient will
drop off very slowly with distance for points along the axial center of the
plane.
 
Suppose we deposit a free electron one millimeter above the surface of the
plane, on the axial center line.  It should be repelled upward away from the
electrons distributed on the surface.  Being close to some electrons
distributed near the axial center, the "test" electron should undergo strong
repulsive forces, yet as it moves away, the voltage gradient hardly changes,
since the gradient represents the vector sum of all unbalanced charges on
the entire surface of the plane, and the vector sum changes significantly
only when the "test" electron moves significantly farther away from *ALL* the
surface charges. (i.e. the "test" electron movement from 1mm to 10 meters
is an increase in distance of a factor of 10,000 for electrons on the axial
line, but only 60 mm farther from the electrons 800 meters away on the
plane's edge, or an increase of only a factor of 1/10,000th.)
 
Don't we then have enormous electron acceleration (or at least force) without
seeing commensurate change in the local field strength?   Why am I confused
by this?
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.10 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:33:54 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>I have a question relating to Chuck's assertion:
 
>       "Still the release of electrons during the void collapse
>       should concentrate at the center of the void."
 
>Is this obviously the case?  What makes the electrons move toward the
>center of the void?
 
To answer Dale and yours questions regarding what would drive
electrons to the center of a void collapse, let me see what I can
think up here (educated guessing right now.)  First a geometric
argument.  If a void is being filled (say its a vacuum), a lot of
matter is moving towards the center of the void already.  That's
a simple implosion.  The question, then, is whether 1. electrons
are liberated from the void-material interface during the implosion,
2. are they focused to the center of the void during the collapse.
(This may not be the case).
To answer the first, think of the dotted balloon again.  When it's
inflated,  we have several dots of equal spacing.  As it deflates,
we remove dots to maintain the equal spacing. Really it would be
like the dots are pushed off.  All ready we have a possible source
for a quantum transition as the system re-arranges (rotational and
vibrational). But who is pushing who.  There is a three dimensional
aspect to this such that forces are focused to the center. (That is
as the surrounding 'lattice' relaxes the energy is directed to the
void-material interface).  Depending on materials and such, the
focused forces may be enough to ionize the material-void interface
during the collapse.  This would be especially true if the collapse
is forced by an external source (with possible resonance conditions
applicable).
   Would the ionized electrons be focused to the center?  I think
statistically they would be. For one, we already have imparted
some momentum to the material-void interface, and it's directed
to the center of the void.  That momentum is transferred by lattice
electrons already, so if the collapse does ionize the inside surface,
it would seem to me, they would be forced into the direction of the
center.
 
Well anyway.  I'm still trying to get a mental model of how sono
works.  It's a lot of fun.
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.10 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:45:12 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
: Why would I think that the light emission is a surface effect?  Basically
: because it is something easy to mimmick in the privacy of your own home,
: and it can even be done in your kitchen.  Just unroll some plastic wrap
: in a dark kitchen.  The layers of plastic film stick together because
: the material is a polar dielectric.  When you pull the layers apart the
: surfaces are left with unpaired charges in a nonuniform distribution
: that is then equilibrated by surface discharges.  When I form a bubble
: in a polar dielectric liquid might I not produce the same effect?
 
Funny you should mention this.  Seth Putterman was talking with me
about various unsolved "simple" physics problems.  Specifically, how does
a spark happen when you make "static electricity"?  What
are the dynamics that caused the macroscopic
voltages get so concentrated out of low-energy large scale motion?
 
:
: Dick Blue
: NSCL @ MSU
 
--
-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:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.10 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: 10 Jan 1993 18:49:07 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
:      No, it is not a small jump.  There are clearly shock phenomena
:      that involve ionization and dissociation, that upon species
:      recombination can emit light.  To then postulate nuclear excitation
:      from this is not a small leap at all, and the weak links are
:      basically nonexistent links.
:
:      As far as the photons, they appear to be locallized at the
:      center of the bubble in 'stable cavitation'.  This would make sense
:      if there were a strong shock-dissociation-recombination chain
:      of events inside the vapour bubble.
 
When I went to the UCLA lab a few months ago, Prof Putterman said that
the light appeared to have a overall macroscopic polarization pattern,
which you would not expect from independent atomic recombinations, but
rather pointing towards some overall collective phenomenon.
 
I don't know what more recent experimental results say.
 
:                                 dale bass
 
--
-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:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:52:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1ipr33INNkem@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>:      No, it is not a small jump.  There are clearly shock phenomena
>:      that involve ionization and dissociation, that upon species
>:      recombination can emit light.  To then postulate nuclear excitation
>:      from this is not a small leap at all, and the weak links are
>:      basically nonexistent links.
>:
>:      As far as the photons, they appear to be locallized at the
>:      center of the bubble in 'stable cavitation'.  This would make sense
>:      if there were a strong shock-dissociation-recombination chain
>:      of events inside the vapour bubble.
>
>When I went to the UCLA lab a few months ago, Prof Putterman said that
>the light appeared to have a overall macroscopic polarization pattern,
>which you would not expect from independent atomic recombinations, but
>rather pointing towards some overall collective phenomenon.
>
>I don't know what more recent experimental results say.
 
    You've got me.  The most recent work I've seen is in PRL of
    28 December, received in September.  There seems to be no mention of
    polarization.  One of the difficult things about such
    a measurement would seem to be the fact that the light comes
    through a shock and a phase discontinuity of currently unknown
    detailed properties.
 
                             dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chuck Sites' dotted balloon
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:03:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan10.083354.588@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
 writes:
>blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
>>I have a question relating to Chuck's assertion:
>
>>      "Still the release of electrons during the void collapse
>>      should concentrate at the center of the void."
>
>>Is this obviously the case?  What makes the electrons move toward the
>>center of the void?
>
>   Would the ionized electrons be focused to the center?  I think
>statistically they would be. For one, we already have imparted
>some momentum to the material-void interface, and it's directed
>to the center of the void.  That momentum is transferred by lattice
>electrons already, so if the collapse does ionize the inside surface,
>it would seem to me, they would be forced into the direction of the
>center.
 
     Think about it this way.  Why would electrons concentrate in
     the center of a void if a) their velocities statistically
     center about the velocity of the interface at the time
     of the ionization, and b) they electrostatically repel each other,
     and c) they are generally attracted to the ionized fluid?
     I can see an argument for leaving them behind, but even that
     falls on the fact that they are easily dragged around and
     tend to hang around places that are attractive.
 
                         dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:57:10 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1ipr33INNkem@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton
(Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> When I went to the UCLA lab a few months ago, Prof Putterman said that
> the light appeared to have a overall macroscopic polarization pattern,
> which you would not expect from independent atomic recombinations, but
> rather pointing towards some overall collective phenomenon.
>
> I don't know what more recent experimental results say.
 
I would be extremely interested in hearing more about this polarization data.
In particular I would be curious whether they could be reconciled with some
kind of directed radial asymmetry during emission.
 
Another set of possible symmetries that I would find even more interesting
would be patterns that could be reconciled with any of the major regular
solids -- e.g., octahedral, cubic, or dodecahedral -- or near-regular solids
such as a 7-point bipyrimid.
 
.....
 
Your conversation with Dr. Putterman about "simple" things is well taken.
Odd how carpet sparks and even the accumulation of static on a balloon seem
largely to have fallen between the cracks when it comes to details of how they
work, especially at the atomic scale.  (And what about triboluminescence?)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Matt Kennel /  Sonoluminesence and fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminesence and fusion
Date: 11 Jan 1993 03:21:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
I think we can get some reality-checks on acoustically generated fusion
by comparing it to the results from known inertially confined fusion
results.  Specifically, I remember a few things from the Physics Today
article a few months ago about ICF.
 
For it to work, the DT fuel must be compressed to nearly Fermi
degeneracy.  This compression happens on timescales of a few nanoseconds,
I believe.  The central problems are (of course) the zapper technology,
and fluid instabilities in the compressing plasma fuel.
 
Can sonoluminesence come close to these parameters? It seems unlikely.
 
Now---what about that "dynamical analogue to the Casimir effect" proposed
by Schwinger.  It seems that this might play a significant role in
ICF fusion, considering the speed and violence of the process.
 
I gather the idea is that photons may somehow be radiated by a rapidly
compressing conductor (the plasma) changing the "eigenfunctions" of the
EM field inside, resulting in differing "zero-point" energies.  Thus,
may the ICF compression in some way extract energy from the vacuum? Or
at least use the energy generated that way in getting closer to
the conditions needed for fusion.
 
 
It's been recently revealed that hydrogen nuclear weapons work on the
same principle (or really vice versa) as ICF.  (which means of course
that thermonuclear weapons aren't really thermonuclear at all, but
more really pyconuclear---government misinformation, I wonder)
 
Might this postulated Casimir effect play a big part there?  Might
hydrogen weapons get part of their energy from the vacuum?
 
That would be of course totally far out, but that's exactly how insiders
described the discovery by Teller & Ulam.    Hans Bethe wrote (in 1954, but
not published until 1982)
"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
in 1939.  Before 1939 scientists had a vague idea that it might
be possible to release nuclear energy in 1939, they would have worked
on anything else rather than the field which finally led to the discovery
of fission, namely radiochemistry."
 
It's been described as "very interesting physics".
 
Compressing something with radiation pressure may be pretty bold to begin
with, but would that be incredibly surprising to somebody like Hans
Bethe, who was working on the project himself?
 
Any back-of-the-envelope calculations, anyone?
 
 
In the same article, HB concludes with "In summary I still believe
that the development of the H-bomb is a calamity."
 
--
-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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Larry Watanabe /  Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
     
Originally-From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:35:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
 
>The more I read the news in sci.physics.fusion, the more that I tend
>to think that _somebody_(my own favorite horses in this race are some
>of the small companies working on hot fusion) will come up with a
>dramatically improved energy source sometime in the next 30 years.
 
>What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit
>from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy.
>My ideal investment would be somethink like selling electrity futures
>-deliverable in some long horizon-short. Now, to the best of my knowledge
>there are no "pure" energy futures  Oil futures would come close, but
>oil is used for lots of other things besides just producing energy, though
>I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
>some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
>(i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
>cheaper energy prices.
 
>Thanks for your suggestions. Followups to misc.invest.
 
Shorting is probably a bad strategy for a long time frame,
and there are no long term puts.
 
So, the strategy should be to invest in industries that
will benefit from cheap energy.
 
For example, you might invest in Japanese companies,
since Japan must import a lot of oil from the Middle East.
If Japan could have its own independent energy, that would
make it much less vulnerable, increasing the economic
viability and security of the country.
 
But you might be right in the long term but the short-term
could be very rocky. For example, suppose you implemented
this strategy just before the Nikkei Index went from
32,000 to 16,000 ..
 
-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwatanabe cudfnLarry cudlnWatanabe cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bubbles/Cavitation Fusion in D2 Liquid
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles/Cavitation Fusion in D2 Liquid
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:34:52 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jan8.140538.324@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> In article <930105122413.20a07695@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
> | Terry Bollinger has been corresponding with me about his bubble ideas.
> | This has reminded me that Fermilab once had a 15' bubble chamber...
> |
> | [Tom's interesting idea of how to search for a special class of events
> | in bubble-chamber archives omitted.]
> |
> | ... The problem is that bubble chamber experiments are very expensive,
> | and no one would likely support running one for such a wild idea.  But
> | if the right old film can be found, it might be worth looking.
>
> Tom, I had the opportunity to work as a graduate student at Fermilab one
> summer, 1976 or thereabouts, with Bob Panvini and Firestone.  We used a
> 200-GeV proton beam impinging on a deuterium-filled bubble chamber, as I
> recall.  So the films from this may have what you are looking for.  Sounds
> fun, but your search may prove expensive.  Should we pursue this?
 
The idea of such a search sounds interesting, but I'd maintain my stance that
the bubbles in such a warmish (by D2 standards) fluid would be pretty flabby.
Still, you are talking about a _lot_ of bubbles being formed in any one photo,
and a lot of unknowns about the actual intensity of cavitation in such media.
 
 
I would in the sake of cost vs. benefits point out that you could also set up
cavitation in a quite smallish tube of (preferably near-freezing) liquid D2
via either decompression (a small piston) or sound (a smaller, faster piston!)
and place it in a good detector.  If your D2's clean I would think you could
get a pretty decently low nominal background count for such a device.
 
Why bother?  Because extreme cavitation, if it exists, probably has a widely
different set of detailed parameters in D2 than would detection of particles
through bubble formation.  This means that separating generation of how the
cavitation-for-high-intensity from bubble-formation-for-detection would be
more likely to give you a decent event signal, and be easier to control to
boot.
 
A little beast something like this might be highly portable and not overly
costly to construct:
 
              Small, tunable   Short tube filled     Small corner reflector
             sonic generator    with test fluid    (intended for 1 node only)
                    |                  |                         |
                    |                  V                         |
                    |                 _____                      |
                    |      ||||||--> |     \                     |
                    +--->  ||||||--> |     *>   <----------------+
                           ||||||--> |_____/
                                               ("*" = single cavitation node)
 
The idea above is to tune the frequency of the sonic generator so that the
corner cube reflector will give a _single_ stable node (which will of course
have approximately cubic symmetry.)
 
The main advantage of such a beast is that you could make it small, portable,
and pretty versatile.  If you which to change the temperature and/or fluid
a sufficiently variable sonic generator should be allow you to re-adjust it
to get back to single-node operation.  You could also use a generator that
is quite a bit wider than the short tube so that you could "chop out" a good
plane wave from an otherwise somewhat iffy waveform (at the cost of losing
simple enclosure of the fluid and making the device quite a bit more complex,
though.)
 
This is not nearly as powerful or ideal a setup as the spherical ones, but it
has the advantage of versatility and comparative simplicity.  I'd be inclined
to think, for example, that it could stand up a lot better to getting shipped
around from lab to lab than a spherical setup would.  You probably could also
drive a single-node corner-cube pretty ferociously with a good generator and
reflector materials.  Also, don't forget the possibility of making the corner
cubes out of materials that are windows for whatever you want to observe --
e.g., silica for light observations, salt and non-water for UV, etc.
 
And don't forget etching of corner cubes!  You create corner cubes by etching
a corner-cut from lots of cubic symmetry materials -- e.g., a cross-the-corner
cut in plain old rock salt can be etched with water.  (I'm not sure of the
quality you'd get, though!)  Or (more complex & dangerous) silicon with HF.
The nice thing about sonic is that just about any rigid material with the
right fluid will give _some_ sonic reflectance, so you've got a lot more
choices than for optical reflectance.
 
Etching, by the way, also leads to this "ganged corner reflectors" design:
 
                     Cavitations
                          |
             Sonic        |    XXXXXXXXX
           Generator    __V  XXXXXXXXXXX
            |||||||--> |  *>XXXXXXXXXXXX
            |||||||--> |  *>XXXXXXXXXXXX
            |||||||--> |  *>XXXXXXXXXXXX Etched corner-cut cubic crystal
            |||||||--> |  *>XXXXXXXXXXXX (E.g., rock salt for non-H2O work)
            |||||||--> |  *>XXXXXXXXXXXX
            |||||||--> |__*>XXXXXXXXXXXX
                             XXXXXXXXXXX
                               XXXXXXXXX
 
 
... in which you are still in single-node operation for each corner reflector,
but you may have many, many such reflectors in the etched crystal.  This one
might be particularly nice for very-short-lamda ultrasound experiments.  If
you try rock salt and non-H2O fluids, it could perhaps also turn out to be a
relatively easy beast to build.
 
 
Anyway, perhaps proposed devices of these types might provide a few options
cost-wise for liquid D2 cavitation searches.  Some profs/agencies might even
be willing to fund such a basically off-the-shelf device just on general
research principles, since a well-constructed version should permit orderly
exploration of cavitation curves for a variety of fluids and across a range
of temperatures and sonic intensities.
 
Also, I suspect (but do not know) that the single-node corner-cube approach
may be novel, and thus could be merit a little research work in its own right.
(That's a warning, too.  If you have any interest in building one of the
above ideas, _please_ note they are just ideas of mine, not validated or even
literature-researched design concepts.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  morrison@vxpri /  Bubble Chambers
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubble Chambers
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:38:02 GMT
Organization: At Home; San Jose, CA USA

   Tom Droege raised the possibility that Terry's ideas could be tested by
looking at bubble chamber photographs where the liquid used was deuterium
and he asked me for comments. I replied briefly to Tom privately - he found
it too brief, so sent him a second longer private message, hoping to end the
discussion. However Steve Jones raised the issue based on his own experience of
bubble chambers and Terry has also mentioned the possiblility. Hence enclose
a modified version (reference added) of what I sent to Tom.
                                               Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
 
Dear Tom,                                                6 January 1993.
         Yes, you are right, I did work on Bubble Chambers, starting when
I arrived in CERN where I spent the first four years building chambers.
Have been busy with them since, though after the Fermilab 15-foot chamber
closed down have not done any running, but as spokesman for E632 am still
busy with the analysis which is now being done in Russia so will go there
in 10 days. There are no bubble chambers that I know of operating recently.
      Let me try and explain better about bubble chambers.
First you keep the chamber under pressure so that it cannot boil. Then you
release the pressure so that it wants to boil but does not know where. But if a
charged particle passes, then it gives lots of low energy delta rays (electrons)
along its path. As these electrons stop, they make many collisions which give
a local heating in a radius of about a micron. This is the nucleus that
starts the bubble. In a microsecond, the bubble centre is formed and and then
the growth follows a (time) to the power one-half law as more liquid evaporates
into the bubble. Essentially there is a competition between the surface
tension trying to crush the bubble and the evaporation of heated liquid. This
is described by Seitz in an easy to remember reference - Physics of Fluids,
Vol. 1 page 1.
    Suppose the maximum movement (ie expansion) of the piston is 100 units. It
is normally arranged that the particles enter at about 95 units and an equal
time after the lowest pressure, the flash is triggered and this is long enough
for the bubbles to be big enough to be photographed. This time is about
1 to 10 milliseconds. Now suppose that the extraction of the beam from the
accelerator is not too good and some particles escape early and enter the
bubble chamber, say at 50 units. Then the chamber is not fully sensitive and
only a few of the delta rays will have enough concentrated energy to heat the
liquid locally to give a nucleus and then a bubble. Thus on these early
tracks, there will be very few bubbles per cm. But since they have much longer
to grow before the flash, these bubbles will be bigger than the later ones.
Often the chamber is not quite perfect and there are currents that will show
as distortion on the early tracks. But there is another more striking effect.
As these very early bubbles are bigger than the good beam ones, they will be
brighter. Now in almost all chambers it is not possible to illuminate all
the volume of the chamber efficiently. So very high or very low in the
chamber there are regions out of focus. If an track passes there, it will not
be seen or only very poorly - unless it is an early one that is very bright when
it will appear as a broad diffuse track (especially if high and near the
cameras as in the 15-foot chamber). No doubt this is what you were remembering.
   Another point, as you will have realised from my description, once the
chamber is recompressed, the energy from the stopping of the delta rays will
have been disappated long before it is possible to start a new cycle.
   The conclusion is that it would not be profitable to study old bubble
chamber photographs.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmorrison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Dieter Britz /  Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I am in a bit of a hurry, and don't want to take the time to chase the
quote from Terry's postings. But Terry, you mention temperatures of 100000K
inside a cavitating bubble, and that this just might give you a bit of fusion.
Well, on the back of an envelope, I do the E = kT bit, and get pretty close
to 10 eV for that temperature. If I remember correctly, you need some keV
for anything to happen, so you might still need some miracles to get fusion
from this mechanism, fascinating though the phenomenon itself may be.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Dieter Britz /  Hydrinos, harmful or not?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>:
 
>When Mills and I were first considering the possiblility of the hydrino
>causing harmful biological effects, were we going on the assumption that
>it was a highly reactive species and would thus not participate in
>catalytic effects.  Then Mills changed his mind, and said that any
>hydrinos would be inert.  I'm not sure why he changed his mind.  Perhaps
>Dr. Farrell has an explanation as to why they would be inert rather than
>highly reactive.
 
I can offer an explanation, in terms of the Mills theory (which I don't
believe):
The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen atoms
falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this to work, the
resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely, otherwise you'd
reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why Mills does not
believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do something chemical, it
would have to get back up to a normal state, or be ionised.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
>In article <1993Jan8.021210.27077@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>> ...
>> Words are much more dangerous than equations.  Equations are well-defined
>> and can be examined quantititively for correlations with experience.
>> Words are fluid and mutable and ill-defined.
>> ...
 
>Alright!  Concur completely.  Precisely why I _stuck my neck out and sent
>out the UC draft_ -- so others would whack me up the side of the head and
>(maybe even occassionally) help me develop specific quantifications for it.
 
>I rushed it because it has very specific experimental implications, some
>of which seemed to be pretty relevant (and maybe even accurate).  This was
>a terrible thing for me to do?  Maybe next time I should sit on it for, oh,
>six months to a year and patent the daylights out of every other sentence?
>Alas, I just don't have that high of an opinion of my own ideas!
 
Relax, Terry. As the originator of the "words are dangerous" quote, let me add
that it was not meant as a put-down, but rather as an encouragement for you to
quantify these arguments. As they stand, they are not enough, that's all.
Quantification (mathematics) can also be way off, of course, if you start with
nonsensical axioms. But the very act of formulating mathematical relationships
seems to focus the mind, and one tends to reduce the starting premises to a
minumum of (safe) assumptions. In any case, a beautiful argument will always
get to the point where you have to provide some numbers. How big is the
effect? Is it significant? As I have asked, is 100,000K = 10 eV enough for
fusion?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Lost in the mail?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lost in the mail?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Frank Close says:
 
"You posted, on behalf of Gene Mallove your colleague, a statement in early
1992 claiming that I had deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important
positive data on neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had
been sent to me by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly
false, as anyone can confirm by calling Worledge."
 
I called Dave Worledge last week, but he was not there. He must be out of
town. He told Gene he sent a lot stuff to you. Maybe it got lost in the mail.
Why don't you call him and ask for another copy? I gather that part of it
described the work of Howard Menlove, of Los Alamos. Menlove did not make it
into the index of THTH.
 
Perhaps the material was lost in the mail, but that is not really the issue.
The issue is that you very deliberately ignore things. Even now, you are
deliberately ignoring everything we know about chemistry, calorimetry,
thermodynamics, conservation of energy, the scientific method, and the roles
of experimental evidence versus theory.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Guilty as charged
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Guilty as charged
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
One little essay, then I will go back to bothering the Democrats.
 
Frank Close says:
 
"Jed Rothwell would say (has said) that the amounts of heat are too much to
be chemical, but that seems to me to be theory prejudice :-)"
 
Guilty as charged. Yes, I firmly believe that the maximum limits of chemical
energy storage are well known, and have been know to every man, woman and
child for the last 100,000 years. A candle will not burn for eight months
nonstop, not even for eight days. In the Old Testament, people described a
candle that burned for eight days as a miracle, because they understood
perfectly that such a thing can never happen under ordinary circumstances.
Furthermore, chemical reactions always create macroscopic changes in the
material, like ash. CF devices run thousands of times too long to be
chemical, and they never create macroscopic amounts of ash.
 
Frank Close, and the other so-called "skeptics" are trying to evade this
simple, ancient, and obvious truth. They like to make little jokes about it,
with these :-) happy face things. This attitude is not funny, it is sick.
These people are trying to rewrite the last 500 years of science, and
overthrow everything we know about thermodynamics, calorimetry and chemistry.
They are desperately trying to avoid facing simple, convincing and elegant
proof from instruments as rock solid and reliable as mercury thermometers. It
is an outrage that they refuse to look at evidence like McKubre's, and it is
even worse that they pretend to have evaluated "all of the evidence." This is
a travesty. It is a mockery of fair play, intellectual honesty, and the
scientific method.
 
Close also says, "I left open the question of whether there is an atomic
(chemical not nuclear) energy storage mechanism responsible for transient
heat bursts." This is absurd nonsense, as Close and everyone else knows. When
CF appears in "bursts" it never goes negative; there is no storing up
interval, no negative heat (after the initial palladium loading). At no time
during the process do you see the energy storing up, so it cannot be coming
out in chemical bursts. Furthermore, there have been many, many recorded
examples of steady state, high level positive heat events that go on
uninterrupted for weeks or months.
 
In the video Pons showed at Nagoya, 2.5 moles of electrolyte boiled away,
which required 86,000 joules of excess heat energy. This was one, continuous
event lasting about 10 minutes, which did not stop, cool, and store up energy
midway through. The cathode was 0.0392 cc, so the excess energy came to 200
electron volts per atom of cathode palladium, which is far beyond the limits
of chemistry, unless you want to claim the electrolyte was burning.
 
You cannot just make up facts, Frank. You are writing fiction. You have to
pay attention to real experimental data, beyond the earliest experiments.
Don't tell us about the experiments on page 3 of your book: they failed! They
did not work, there was no heat. 10,000 failed experiments mean nothing, if
one works convincingly. It is absurd nonsense to say an experiment that
failed to produce heat in one laboratory proves that another experiment, in
another lab, also failed. Sometimes experiments work, and sometimes they
don't, and you -- a particle physicist -- know that as well as anyone.
 
- Jed
 
 
Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:48:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 Dave Andrews dandrews@bilver.uucp writes:
 
>Can you say whether or not you have found a way to CONTAIN the little
 >buggers(hydrinos)?
 
No, I cannot say.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:09:56 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C0o7Ay.HEB@cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
 writes:
>rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
>
>>The more I read the news in sci.physics.fusion, the more that I tend
>>to think that _somebody_(my own favorite horses in this race are some
>>of the small companies working on hot fusion) will come up with a
>>dramatically improved energy source sometime in the next 30 years.
>
>>What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit
>>from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy.
...........
>>I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
>>some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
>>(i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
>>cheaper energy prices.
 
 
 
This just doesn't hold water.  In many of the oil producing areas of
the world - especially, the US and the North Sea, the cost of
production is high enough that a precipitous drop in consumption would
just take these produccers off line.  The market would probably
stabilize at about $15 per barrel.
 
 
 
>For example, you might invest in Japanese companies,
>since Japan must import a lot of oil from the Middle East.
>If Japan could have its own independent energy, that would
>make it much less vulnerable, increasing the economic
>viability and security of the country.
 
 
 
 
Japan seems to be making major investments in a strategy that would
make their energy Plutonium based.  Short term, this could give them
great advantages because there's a lot of excess PU, and it's
comparatively cheap.  But long-term, when cheap alternative energy
becomes available, the Japanese will suffer the costs of cleaning up
their nuclear trash, while the rest of the world laughs at them.  If
you don't believe this can happen, look at the Trojan nuclear plant in
Oregon; planned for 40 years of operation and clean-up costs of about
$20 million, it closed after 17 years with projected cleanup costs
around $550 million.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / John Logajan /  Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:22:02 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>This just doesn't hold water.  In many of the oil producing areas of
>the world - especially, the US and the North Sea, the cost of
>production is high enough that a precipitous drop in consumption would
>just take these produccers off line.  The market would probably
>stabilize at about $15 per barrel.
 
As any economist will tell you, production costs don't set prices,
demand sets prices.  In other words, production costs will adjust as much
as possible to the demand level and if it cannot supply the demand at
the demand price, then trading will cease in that commodity.
 
Example, it might cost quite a bit to produce orange flavored mud pies,
but whatever the production cost, there is no demand, and so you cannot
even give orange flavored mud pies away.  It would be meaningless to assign
a price to such mud pies based upon their production cost.
 
>But long-term, when cheap alternative energy
>becomes available, the Japanese will suffer the costs of cleaning up
>their nuclear trash, while the rest of the world laughs at them.
 
I'm not sure if you're talking just plutonium or generic fission, but
look to countries such as France which get a large fraction of their
electrical power from fission.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / Kent EECS /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: kjones@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:44:15 GMT
Organization: Washington State University!

In article <1993Jan8.150648.365@walter.cray.com> sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen
 Behling) writes:
>
>In article <930106131352.20c082a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
 writes:
>> Status #7 Cell 4A3
>[...]
>> We are presently operating at 800 ma which results in a cell voltage of 4.5
>> volts.  Present calorimeter balance is at 7.300 watts.  Peak to peak changes
>> over the last several hundred hours are consistent with the 0.035 mw one
 sigma
>> calibration.  But there is an offset from the December calibration with only
>> probable cause due to high temperature TED creep.  Remember to get the
>> temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.  A
>> curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air
>> temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is
>> relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar, 1
>> 1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10' of
>> air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.
>>
>   Especially in winter, inside air humidity is strongly correlated
>with outside air temperature.  Perhaps??
>
>    -steve behling
 
Could the barometric air pressure which is also related to the temperature
be having any affect? i.e. could there be more gas absorption by the pd under
greater pressure?
 
        Kent Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenkjones cudfnKent cudlnEECS cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / mitchell swartz /  cf seminar
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cf seminar
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:35:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
 
                        COLD FUSION
 
 A Massachusetts Institute of Technology IAP Lecture Program
       January 16, 1993   Saturday 9AM-4PM   Room  6-120
 
   Cold fusion is the production of excess power from
 electrochemical cells, typically involving heavy water with
 palladium, or light water with nickel. From these systems and
 from metals in gases, nuclear products and radiation have
 also been reported, such as tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and
 charged particles.  As the literature of cold fusion expands,
 the startling phenomena are of continuing interest to
 experimentalists, theoreticians, inventors, and
 entrepreneurs.  In this day of lectures, discussions, and
 videos, we will focus on the history, science, technology,
 and business of cold fusion.
 
9:00    Registration             - Background Videos
9:30    Introduction, Overview   - Dr. Mitchell Swartz
9:45    A Brief History of Cold Fusion
 
                   Theory and Experiment
                                 - Dr. Eugene Mallove
10:45      Survey of Palladium and Nickel Systems
 Isotope Loading  - Dr. Mitchell Swartz
 Theories         - Professor Peter Hagelstein (MIT)
 Calorimetry      - Professor Vesco Noninski (Fitchburg State)
 Input Power      - Isidor Straus
 Panel discussions: findings, measurement and definitions of
                   potentials, input and excess power.
 
12:30                   *****LUNCH *****
         Video Tapes of Boiling Cold Fusion Cells
                 - Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
 
       Looking Ahead: Technology, Politics and Beyond
1:30 Implications for Space Exploration - Dr. Eugene Mallove
     Commercialization of Cold Fusion
                               - Hal Fox, Fusion Info. Center
     Patent Perspective        - Attorney Robert Rines
     Enterprise and Innovation - Richard Shyduroff
     Panel Discussion          - All
4:00    Open Discussions, Planning for the 1st "Heat Off"
        Contest, Summary
_____________________________________________________________
Information on pre-registration for the meeting:  contact
  Dr. Mitchell Swartz, 617-239-8383 [mica@world.std.com]
 
    * IAP is the Independent Activities period at MIT
 $3 registration, refreshment fee ($5 non-MIT Community)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Terry Test
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry Test
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:31:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones reminds me that he worked with the bubble chamber here at Fermilab
as a graduate student.  And that it was with a deuterium fill.  Douglas
Morrison reminds me that he independently observed muon catalyzed fusion in
bubble chamber film. (Apparently Alvarez saw it first.  Alvarez got to almost
everything first.)  I assume, Steve, that you know about this as the muon
catalysis expert.  So if we can make D-D fusion work with Terry Bollinger's
terribly smashing bubbles, then bubble chambers are a way to go as a detector.
We already know that they will work, thanks to Douglas Morrison.
 
But Douglas was quick to tell me why there is not much sense looking at film
of old Deuterium filled bubble chamber events.  I had the bubble chamber
operation slightly wrong.  First the piston is expanded making the contents of
the chamber "superheated" (even though it is liquid duterium).  Then a
particle beam is passed through the chamber.  This produces trails of ions,
which form the nucleation sites for bubbles.  After time for the bubble
growth, the flash tube is fired to expose film.  So this mode of operation
guarantees that all the pictures were taken on expanding bubbles.  Operating
procedure was such, that ion tracks from fusion events from bubble collapse
when the chamber was pressurized would have long since recombined if they had
existed.
 
So what to do?  We have to expand and compress the chamber at the same time so
let's do it.
 
Inside a plain water bubble chamber, we put a pressurized small container of
D2O in a thin wall container.  This container is fitted with an ultrasonic
probe - I actually have one designed for cell disintegration that could be
used.  It could put 100 watts of sonic energy into a few cc container.  A
little shaping of the ultrasonic probe would produce a near point source of
bubbles inside the small container.  For operation, first the piston would
expand the plain water (if beer works, so should plain water) chamber making
it sensitive to tracks.  The shaped ultrasonic transducer would be fired,
making a bubble.  After enough time for the ultrasonic formed bubble to
collapse, and the track bubbles to grow, the flash tube would be fired to take
a picture.  I think the D-D fusion products would make it through a pretty
thick inner chamber.
 
The whole thing would be relatively easy to build.  With D2O in the test cell
and H2O in the bubble chamber we could operate at room temperature.  Later if
an event was seen the whole thing could be redone with liquid D2 and H2 and the
associated cryogenic problems.  We would not need to buy a camera and flash
tube system right away, as we could sit with our noses up against the glass
chamber wall looking to see an event.  Almost any source could be used for
test, but a little patience would give a cosmic ray.  I would not worry too
much about getting radiated until I saw a track or two.
 
Why should you do it with a bubble chamber instead of setting up counters
(radiation detectors)?  Well, one picture gets Terry (and possibly you) a
ticket to Stockholm, where detector counts produce endless debates about
background.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:45:02 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen atoms
>falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this to work, the
>resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely, otherwise you'd
>reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why Mills does not
>believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do something chemical, it
>would have to get back up to a normal state, or be ionised.
 
In the general case, do atoms with valence electrons in non-ground states
cease to react chemically or do the chemical properties change radically?
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:03:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jan9.014604.28670@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> In article <1993Jan8.214902.837@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | ...  I am worried that this could be turning into [a] ping-pong match...
>
> 'Ping pong' is over.  I was interested in nothing more than explaining to
> you certain difficulties in what you were saying.
 
Actually, what you provided is what I would consider to be some of the best
dialog and cross-examination I've ever seen on this particular group.  You
stuck with facts, and you went straight for the conceptual jugular -- the
weakest links in the ideas I'd presented.
 
In short, you're an outstanding scientist.  I hope you will keep working on
your variant of the shock wave idea, and that you will post it here.  I'm
intrigued by what you have said to date, but (like you about mine) I'm not
convinced about the details and I'd love a chance to critique _your_ model.
 
.....
 
Comment in general:  Beware the Farfetches of Terry.  I will go on for some
length discussiong _possible_ mechanisms for increased intensity in bubble
cavitation, but until I see some actual, highly reproducible _experimental_
results I will remain just about as unconvinced as Dale Bass about the final
results.  (I'm perhaps a little more optimistic because of my off-beat entropy
arguments, but much of what Dale has said is doggone convincing.)
 
After all, how _can_ you say that all cavitation collapses will not turn out
to be governed by some very general principles that will guarantee nothing
more intense than noodling fireplace-level hot gases can ever be achieved by
cavitation?  I certainly cannot exlude such a possibility, and I think Dale
has pointed out a lot of reasons why such general failure modes _should_ be
considered as both possible (and perhaps likely).  Experiments are the only
way I can see to resolve such questions with any degree of certainty.
 
In that vein, I do hope that some of this net dialog will encourage reasoned,
well-thought-out new experiments in cavitation.  If folks had gone strictly
by the "rules," I'd say it's very likely sonoluminescence would never have
been found in the first place.  Why?  Because if you had asked the experts,
I'd bet that the majority of them would have rather adamantly said: "NO --
there are simply no mechanisms by which the simple, well-understood effect
of cavitation can produce visible light.  So don't waste your time on it."
 
But of course, sonoluminescence _did_ turn out to exist, didn't it?
 
So why quit now?  Push cavitation a bit and see what happens.  Who knows,
someone out there just might wind up uncovering the existence of one or two
_more_ things happening that everyone "knew" could not happen in cavitation.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Peak shape and gamma response for Jones exp
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peak shape and gamma response for Jones exp
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:50:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve, I have read and reread the Czirr-Jensen paper and examined each
of the figures to which you refer.  Your comments, and those of your
collaborators, have clarified some points, but if you will bear with
me there are still some things I am not clear on.  First off it is the
2.9 MeV calibrations spectrum, rather than the 5.2 MeV one that would
seem to have the most bearing on the issue.  If, as you indicate, this
spectrum was produced by deuteron bombardment of a deuterated titanium
target, I have trouble accepting your explanation of the recorded spectrum
as consisting of a peak due to neutrons from the d + d reaction, and
a tail due to deuteron breakup on titanium, copper, or whatever.  The
reason for my skepticism is simple reaction kinematics.  If we note
that zero incident kinetic energy is to result in 2.45 MeV neutrons,
what deuteron bombardind energy was used to produce the 2.9 MeV
neutrons?  It was a few 100 keV was it not?  What is the threshold
for deuteron break-up?  It is above 2 MeV is it not?  I think the only
way you can non-monoenergetic neutrons is from deuteron stripping
reactions, and here the coloumb barrier does play a significant
role.  In short the bombarding energy makes a big difference so you
have to put together a picture which includes a background run at
the same bombarding energy before you can explain the lower portion
of the 2.9 MeV calibration run as being due to something else.
 
It would seem that you have put alot of faith in the calculated
response of the detector.  We all know that without the coincidence
requirement for the neutron capture in the glass, the pulseheight
response for the liquid alone would be a continuum extending down
to zero pulse height.  In fact that spectrum would rise a low
energies.  I can see that the coincidence requirement would reduce
that low energy side of the spectrum, but the Monte Carlo calculation
looks a bit wierd.  Note, the two lowest calculated points indicate
a very steep rise near zero pulse height.  I am tempted to
speculate that the 450 counts in those two lowest bins should
really have been distributed over channels 0-30.
 
Your assertion that the gamma efficiency for the glass is low does
not square totally with the literature on the subject.  It depends
on the thickness of the glass plates, a bit of data not contained
in the paper so I have to guess that it is 2 or 3 mm.  We then
need to recall that although the pulse heights for neutron capture
in the glass is independent of energy, as a gamma detector the glass
acts more like a normal scintillation detector showing a pulse height
roughly linear as a function of electron energy loss.  Hence an
evaluation of how much "leakage" there is of the gamma response
into the neutron peak is dependent on the gamma energy spectrum.
The reponse deduced for a radium source is not universal.  While
it is true that the cosmic ray spectrum seems to show a gamma
peak and a neutron peak, determining how those two peaks merge
and what events belong to which peak is a bit of a guess isn't it?
I guess I would like some way of knowing, independent of measurements
made with the Czirr-Jensen detector itself, what the background
neutron rate really is relative to the gammas.
 
I had hoped that my question concerning the normalization of the
subtracted background could have been resolved by now, but you haven't
made a completely clear statement as I read your latest message.
Was the normalization of the background subtracted based solely on
the ratio of times spent recording the two spectra?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 / mitchell swartz /  irradiated
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: irradiated
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:06:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  In article sci.physics.fusion:4845, Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993
  Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) writes:
 
>>  "Almost any source could be used for test, but a little
>>   patience would give a cosmic ray.  I would not worry too
>>   much about getting radiated until I saw a track or two.
 
 
 
  It is respectfully noted that ought be "irradiated".
 
  The electrode might radiate (or it might not),
   but if it did, and Tom Droege was in the incident beam,
   then he would be irradiated.
 
 
==   "radiated -- to send out rays, shine brightly"
==  "irradiated -- to cast rays of light upon,
        to affect or treat by radiant energy"
             [after Webster (ibid)]
 
 
  One should not work so long or so hard as to confuse
 one's self and the experiment.  Unless...
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:56:12 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <9970B5DAE75FA0D881@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
> But the very act of formulating mathematical relationships seems to focus
> the mind, and one tends to reduce the starting premises to a minumum of
> (safe) assumptions. In any case, a beautiful argument will always get to
> the point where you have to provide some numbers. How big is the effect?
> Is it significant?  As I have asked, is 100,000K = 10 eV enough for fusion?
 
Your 100,000 = 10eV argument is excellent, pointed, and nicely succinct.
 
By simply granting the key point for the moment and then examining it a
bit more closely, a great deal of quantification work might be saved.
Good intellectual efficiency, I'd say.
 
Thus I hereby cheerfully defer this (and the 10E6 case) to Dr. Steven Jones.
 
Dr. Jones?   :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S to Douglas Morrison -- Thanks for posting your excellent summary of the
    bubble chamber issue.  Because I received it as a Cc I never replied,
    but I thought it was an excellent summary of the key points, and also
    doggone interesting item from a purely history-of-science viewpoint.
 
 
P.P.S - My understanding from a private email is that the polarization of
    sonoluminescence is dipole.  Interesting.
 
    The reason for my interest is simply that in my UC proposal (as it now
    exists, having undergone some modifications), the high density in a final
    collapse must by rather simple geometrical arguments lead to some degree
    of organized lateral flow in the surface of the void (assuming that such
    a surface still exists!).  These would take the form of what I've called
    "flow cells" in previous emails, although it's not so much a flow as a
    sort of "folding out" of fluid as it enters into a still-well-organized
    surface.
 
    The lowest possible flow cell count would be two, with fluid entering
    two "poles" and converging at an "equator."  If you could link the
    rapid longitudinal accelerations to polarized light emission, a dipole
    polarization would be conceivable.
 
    But that would also imply that higher numbers of fluid cells (three, four
    [tetrahedral], etc., should also be possible.  A single cavitation with
    a sufficiently sharp inner surface would by such a model begin with a
    large number of flow cells that would rapidly merge together into the
    final (pre-rebound) count of some very small number of cells, two being
    the smallest possible.
 
    If the light emission began prior to the formation of a two-cell, other
    (and probably fainter) polarization geometries might exist on top of
    the dipole signal.  I would judge the identification of such three,
    four, or more pole geometries in the luminescence to be a strong
    indication that the collapse has remain well-organized down to very
    small, near-molecular dimensions.
 
    And as always, please note that none of this may have any validity
    whatsoever, since turbulence could set in long before the such low-cell-
    count geometries could ever form.  (If things get small enough and remain
    "sharp" enough, though, I stick to my point that simple geometry will
    force the formation of identificable flow cell patterns with simple
    geometrical relationships.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Larry Wall /  Re: Request for published report exceeeding E*I
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Request for published report exceeeding E*I
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:57:14 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <9301071530.AA27161@suntan.Tandem.com>
 <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
: On a humorous note, the acronym I suggest for this whole process of
: excess heat production is Gobs Of Energy From Unknown Sources (GOEFUS).
 
Nah, that doesn't distinguish the phenomenon from whatever it is that
makes my kids tear from one end of the house to the other all day
long.  And it has the additional problem of presuming the sources will
always remain "Unknown".  Unless, of course, you intend that to be an
editorial comment.  However, while there do exist fields of inquiry in
which the proponents prefer to define negatively, in perpetuity, the
scope of their investigation (the UFO and AI folks come to mind), I
don't think the proponents of excess heat are prepared to take that
step quite yet.
 
For reasons that may become obvious upon reflection, I prefer to call
the phemonenon MHTL.  That's short for "More Heat Than Light".
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Kent EECS /  Re: Terry Test
     
Originally-From: kjones@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry Test
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:14:55 GMT
Organization: Washington State University!

In article <930111132916.20802676@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>associated cryogenic problems.  We would not need to buy a camera and flash
>tube system right away, as we could sit with our noses up against the glass
>chamber wall looking to see an event.  Almost any source could be used for
>test, but a little patience would give a cosmic ray.  I would not worry too
>much about getting radiated until I saw a track or two.
>
Maybe I am missing something, but if bubbles of water collapsing can cause
fusion, then wouldnt I get radiated while body surfing at the beach?
 
Probably another stupid question, so someone please set me straight...
 
Kent
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkjones cudfnKent cudlnEECS cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Re: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Hydrinos, harmful or not?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:31:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>In the general case, do atoms with valence electrons in non-ground states
>cease to react chemically or do the chemical properties change radically?
 
I suppose that by "non-ground" states you mean the normal states for the
valence electrons. Most elements have all of their electron shells filled,
except the outer ones, which are those that take part in chemical reactions.
A chemical reaction can be described as a process in which one or more bonds
are made or broken, and this means that some of these valence electrons
change the degree to which they are being shared between different atoms.
The inner-shell electrons don't get affected. You can do things to them, e.g.
by shooting x-rays at them; this is done in x-ray fluorescence, where you
knock electrons into higher states, and they (or others) later fall back,
emitting more x-rays. You can also excite the valence electrons (more easily
in fact) with ultraviolet or visible light, and they, too, fall back; such
excited species can also enter into chemical reactions more easily sometimes.
 
Generally, then, we can excite electrons to higher-energy states, and they
generally (if not knocked completely out to infinity) fall back down, with
emission of energy. The Mills theory, however, proposes that the very inner
electrons at low quantum numbers (that for most elements require x-rays to
knock out) can fall down into sub-basement states. This is the opposite
effect, and Mills reckons they will do this only in the presence of some
other elements that can absorb the resulting energy quanta, i.e. exactly the
right amounts. So the shrunken atom then could only return back up to the
normal state by being offered the same energy quantum by another atom; it
could not spontaneously come back up. Chemistry is not involved here, in fact
- since we are talking about hydrogen with its sole (valence) electron, that
electron when in its sub-basement state could not enter into a normal chemical
reaction, which is no doubt why these "hydrinos" are reckoned to be safe.
 
I think we are safe from them too, just as we are safe from Kurt Vonnegut's
Ice-9...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /  /  Re: Fusion Digest 698
     
Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 698
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:53:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan logajan@ns.network.com asks:
 
 
>In the general case, do atoms with valence electrons in non-ground states
>cease to react chemically or do the chemical properties change radically?
 
Atoms with valence electrons in excited states are much more reactive than
atoms in ground states. Furthermore, the reactions of excited-state atoms
and molecules typically undergo reactions by  different pathways
(mechanisms) than ground-state atoms and molecules.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /  FEC%UK.AC.RUTH /   Faster than light mail service
     
Originally-From: FEC%UK.AC.RUTHERFORD.VAX2%V2.RL.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Faster than light mail service
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:40:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a recent posting I reminded Jed Rothwell that
 
>"You posted, on behalf of Gene Mallove your colleague, a statement in early
>1992 claiming that I had deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important
>positive data on neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had
>been sent to me by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly
>false, as anyone can confirm by calling Worledge."
 
Jed has replied:
 
 >>I called Dave Worledge last week, but he was not there. He must be out of
>>town. He told Gene he sent a lot stuff to you. Maybe it got lost in the mail.
>>Why don't you call him and ask for another copy? I gather that part of it
>>described the work of Howard Menlove, of Los Alamos. Menlove did not make it
>>into the index of THTH.
 
 
 
So you called Worledge last week and he wasnt in. Keep calling until
he is. It is over *six months* since you posted Mallove's reckless accusations.
 
 
You suggest that the papers Mallove refers to might have been
"Lost in the mail". Is it you or Mallove that has invented this?
If you are going to be the postman for Gene Mallove, first ensure that
what you are encouraged to post has at least some chance of being credible.
Check your facts both of you. As I stated in my original objection to
Mallove, Worledge sent me four papers, which I received; these were sent
on 7 May 1991, four months AFTER the first appearance of Too Hot To Handle.
Worledge did not send me papers prior to these; the accompanying letter
from Worledge to me makes it clear that this is his first attempt to
communicate papers to me: "Several of my colleagues have informed me that
your book Too Hot To Handle contains many interesting and provocative
discussions of the early cold fusion era --- etc".
 
So "Lost in the Mail" is an excuse that should have been lost in the mail.
Try again, but this time get Mallove to speak for himself.
 
 
>>The issue is that you very deliberately ignore things. Even now, you are
>>deliberately ignoring everything we know about - - conservation of energy
>>- - and the roles of experimental evidence versus theory.
 
After your attempt to post excuses for Mallove (he of the energy non-conserving
5Gev helium) it hardly seems worth reminding you that you have *not* explained
where I said that theory rules over experiment.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenUK cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cheap energy investments
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:40:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
This is a dicey area because when a commodity gets too cheap, overall
industry profits fall. The old-line leaders suffer a lot, and the johnnie-
come-lately's also get hit. We have seen this during the past few years in
the computer business. If the world market for energy is two trillion dollars
(?), 15 years after CF it might collapse into only 10 billion, and a decade
later, the total cost of fuel worldwide will be zero dollars. (That is fuel,
not equipment). After 2020, selling energy will be exactly like trying to
sell ice to eskimos.
 
Energy intensive products like aluminum will drop in price, which will
initially help ALCOA, but after a while, the overall market will be
saturated, the competition will grow, and ALCOA will suffer for the same
reason the microcomputer hurt IBM. A company that makes airplanes out of
aluminum might do better.
 
 
Randy Burns writes:
 
"...after some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses
of oil (i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response
to cheaper energy prices."
 
I think this is incorrect. I have talked to oil experts, and I gather that if
CF works, and the cost of energy drops by a factor of, say, 100000, chemists
would quickly find ways to synthesize hydrocarbons on site, from local
sources of hydrogen and carbon (sources like air). This would be the reverse
of burning gasoline, and it would require enormous amounts of energy, but
that would not make the slightest bit of difference. The reasons they would
manufacture oil on site are: 1. It is far safer than shipping the stuff
around; 2. It is easier; 3. It provides 'just-in-time' inventory so that you
do not need large explosive stocks sitting around; 4. The quality of the
synthetic product would be much better than the natural product, there would
be fewer impurities; 5. It would pollute less than oil refining.
 
As soon as people wake up and realize that CF real, the price of oil, natural
gas, and uranium will collapse, never to recover. The price will be
discounted to reflect the future drop in use; there will no need to hoard
current stock, or explore for additional supplies.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Larry Wall /  Re: Lost in the mail?
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lost in the mail?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:47:52 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <930110201809_72240.1256_EHL45-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
: Even now, you are
: deliberately ignoring everything we know about chemistry, calorimetry,
: thermodynamics, conservation of energy, the scientific method, and the roles
: of experimental evidence versus theory.
 
It's amazing the positive feedback loop that can arise when two hyperbolists
start conversing...
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /   /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:27:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
>Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>:
>
>>When Mills and I were first considering the possiblility of the hydrino
>>causing harmful biological effects, were we going on the assumption that
>>it was a highly reactive species and would thus not participate in
>>catalytic effects.  Then Mills changed his mind, and said that any
>>hydrinos would be inert.  I'm not sure why he changed his mind.  Perhaps
>>Dr. Farrell has an explanation as to why they would be inert rather than
>>highly reactive.
>
>I can offer an explanation, in terms of the Mills theory (which I don't
>believe):
>The Mills theory explains the excess heat as coming mainly from hydrogen
>atoms falling to a lower energy state, one of the 1/N states. For this
>to work, the resulting hydrinos would have to remain as such indefinitely,
>otherwise you'd reabsorb the heat, and no excess. This would explain why
>Mills does not believe in a biological hazard. For the hydrino to do
>something chemical, it would have to get back up to a normal state, or
>be ionised.
 
>From what I understand of the M&F theory, there is no reason why two
hydrinos could not chemically combine the same way the larger cousins
do.  In fact, from my original discussions with Mills he said that it
would release more energy than would the larger cousin equiv., and the
bond energies for the hydrino dimer would be higher.  We still have
not heard from Dr. Farrell as to why the hydrinoes are chemically
inert...
 
Sincerely,
 
Steve Kneizys...
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #9 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #9 Cell 4A3
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:27:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #9 Cell 4A3
 
Well, here we are 480+ hours into the run and last night there was a clear cut
180 joule pulse.  Most of the energy appeared in 1/2 hour, so with the time
constant of my apparatus, it is not possible to distinguish the heat from an
impulse.  Peak (one minute) heat measurements were 115 mw.  The rms noise on
the one minute samples over the last several days has been 15 mw.  So as a
"noise" event it is 7.6 sigma.  But it did not look as noise looks.  The 15 mw
background "noise" looks like noise i.e. +/- wanderings from a mean, with a
very occasional 30 or 40 mw deviation.  This was 30 or so successive 100+ mw
measurements all in the direction of anomalous heat.  With a "time constant"
profile, i.e. large deviations from the balance point at first, with the
deviations slowly returning to the base line.  Everything makes sense.
Various thermometers and the servos all reacted as if there was some real heat
deposited in the calorimeter.
 
Prior to the pulse there had been two additions of one ml of electrolyte to
which Boric acid had been added to give a Boron concentration in the
electrolyte of 200 ppm.  The last addition about a day before the event (from
memory).
 
Note that over the 480 running hours, the peak to peak wanderings of the
calorimeter have been of order 60 mw (stated without looking at actual data -
so I could be off as much as a factor of two - also eliminating data around
cell current changes when it takes a few hours for the calorimeter to
stabilize).  I think this is consistent with the quoted 0.035 watts that
Dieter Britz has so faithfully recorded.
 
Everything that you all worry about seemed normal.  Power supply voltages,
temperature, barometric pressure, furnace cycles, etc..  There was a small
increase in gas volume, but it was reabsorbed by the end of the heat pulse,
and seemed to come as a result of the heat pulse.  My old "something gets hot
and blows out some gas" theory.  Other equally large gas pulses have not
generated a heat pulse.
 
Of course it could be chemistry.  In the cell are the 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm
cathode, 50 cc of gas (started with argon), 32 cc of electrolyte, several
grams of teflon, a soft glass center tube, eight soft glass catalyst holders,
120 or so pieces of catalyst, a gram or so of Platinum, and it is all in a
polypropylene test tube.
 
The following is the corrected table from the last status report:
 
JSUM        Gas         D/Pd        G*26.34     Diff/G      K
    0       0           0             0          0
    +.6     0.02        0.000        -0.53    -28.2
  -16.0     0.59        0.009       -15.54      0.4          2
  -33.4     1.18        0.018       -31.08      1.0          5
  -56.2     1.89        0.030       -49.78      1.7          9
  -45.1     3.05        0.048       -80.34      5.8         31
  -52.5     4.41        0.070      -116.16      7.2         39
  -71.1     6.27        0.099      -165.15      7.5         45
  -85.1     8.61        0.136      -226.79      8.2         45
 -130.1    11.31        0.178      -297.91      7.4         40
 -197.4    14.66        0.231      -386.14      6.4         35
 -283.2    18.41        0.290      -484.92      5.5         30
 -375.2    22.41        0.353      -590.28      4.8         26
 -479.8    26.73        0.422      -704.07      4.2         23
 -597.9    31.43        0.496      -827.87      3.7         20
 -714.6    36.41        0.574      -959.04      3.4         19
 -859.5    41.84        0.660     -1102.07      2.9         16
-1003.1    46.53        0.734     -1225.60      2.4         13
-1129.9    49.41        0.779     -1301.46      1.7          9
-1216.1    50.66        0.799     -1334.38      1.2
-1279.7    50.37        0.794     -1326.75      0.5
-1332.2    50.40        0.795     -1327.54     -0.0
 
The first two columns are raw data.  JSUM is the integrated balance in
joules.  The minus sign means that extra heat had to be added to keep the
calorimeter in balance.  Gas is the cc of gas accumulated in the syringe.  The
rest of the columns are my computations and (still) subject to horrible
errors.
 
What we would like to get from this data, is a measure of heat of absorption
of Palladium/Deuterium as a function of the gas loading.
 
The G*26.34 column is the joules lost per cc because the measured oxygen did
not recombine to form water.  This is derived from the 1.53*I energy for dis-
association, 96,484 coulombs per mole, two atoms per D2, and the fact that we
are measuring O2 not D2 giving another factor of two.  Someone please check as
I always worry that I will mis-count charges or something.
 
The Diff/G column is the difference between the joules per cc of un recombined
oxygen and the calorimeter balance, divided by the absorbed D (2*observed
oxygen) to get the average joules per cc of D absorbed integrated up to the
indicated D/Pd loading.  The plus sign for most of this data indicates that
the absorption of D by Palladium releases heat.
 
The K column converts the Diff/G column to kilocalories per mole D2 absorbed
at the indicated D/Pd loading.  I have not computed all the entries in this
column where the error limits make the measurement meaningless.
 
It seems to me that there is a hint in this data that much of the heat of
absorption comes from the first 0.13 or so of D/Pd (or 0.23 if this sample
started at the suspected 0.1).  After that, less and less heat is released per
unit absorbed.  Is there a thermodynamic reason for this?  I have F. A. Lewis,
"The Palladium Hydrogen System", can someone point me to the right curve for
comparison?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:27:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Mitchell Swartz for correcting my use of radiated.  Going back to
the early criticism of P&F, it was stated that fof them to have seen the
quantity of heat claimed, they would have absorbed enough neutrons to
"radiate".  So perhaps my use was correct after all.
 
Kent Jones worries about getting "radiated" while body surfing.  Sorry to
inform you Kent, but you do get irradiated while at the beach.  By IR and
visible light and UV, and cosmic rays, to name only a few sources.  But not
by fusion produced by collapsing bubbles unless Terry has hit on something and
you swim in D2O or T2O, which I hope (at least T2O) are relatively scarce at
your beach.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The power of a homemade supply?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The power of a homemade supply?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:47:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Kneizys's recent post on how to replicate an MKF experiment informs
us that the available information includes "...very simple circuits I
designed so that anyone could just go to Radio Shack and get all the
parts..."
 
Steve, I must admit that makes me just a bit nervous.  I would think it
might take a very well designed current-regulated supply to cope with
some possibly very weird load characteristics.  Are you sure you
simple supply does what you ask of it?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Quick replies
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quick replies
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:26:02 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
  With the start of the new term at BYU -- and teaching a class I've not
previously taught -- I find considerable difficulty in keeping up with
questions and comments apropos (did I misspell, Mitchell?) to the net.
I regret this since I enjoy the ongoing give-and-take, but will try a
few quick responses here.
 
1.  Natural fusion in the earth
Paul J. Karol asks whether we considered a tritium-producing branch in
uranium and thorium fission -- as a prosaic explanation for tritium now
being detected in volcanic emissions (see Jones' earlier postings).
We looked at this some time ago (ca 1989) and found the 3H branch to be
far too small.  I don't find quantitative notes.  Note that some
(e.g. Harmon Craig) suggested
that the tritium which we noted was detected in Kilaeua serendipitously
in 1972 (see Jones et al. J. Fusion Energy Dec. 1990 paper) was due to
release of radioactive gasses from a nuclear sub stationed off the coast
of Hawaii (big island).  This colorful explanation failed for several
reasons -- including the large distance from the shore to the monitoring
station near the top of Mauna Loa,  and a sharp denial by the U.S. navy--
one of which was the small branching ratio for fission into 3H.
However, since one should be quantitative, would someone do some homework
on this?  (For extra credit, of course.)
 
2.  Fracto- vs piezo-nuclear fusion  (or, Hot vs Cold fusion)
Dieter asks whether fracto-fusion is related to piezonuclear fusion (so called
in a joint paper I wrote in 1985 -yes, 1985 - with Clint Van Siclen, J. Physics
G12:213-221, published March 1986).  No:  fracto-fusion is a speculative
sub-order of hot fusion.  It involves acceleration
of deuterons due to electric fields produced during fracture of a deuterided
solid, so as to induce microscopic hot fusion in the crack.  (BTW, I think
Dick Blue is correct about electrons being accelerated preferentially to d's,
so as to wipe out any accelerating E field.  But electrons moving in a metal,
e.g. Pd, should neutralize fields in a conductor when a crack forms, precluding
formation of a large E field to begin with.)
 
On the other hand, piezonuclear fusion, if it exists pour de vrai, would
 involve a cold-fusion process, of which
the prime example is muon-catalyzed fusion.
  What is the difference between hot and cold fusion?  Glad you asked.
Essentially, the difference is that in hot fusion the nuclei are unbound and
mostly undergo elastic collisions, whereas in cold fusion [which we earlier
called "piezonuclear" fusion, using Greek term for squeezing], the nuclei are
bound by some agent, such as muons (or perhaps a lattice).  Therefore, in
cold fusion, the nuclei continually bounce against the Coulomb barrier so that
barrier penetration ("tunnelling") has a higher probability to occur than would
otherwise be the case.  E.g., in muon catalysis, deuterons are bound by a muon
and separated by about 0.004 angstroms (1/200th the separation in D2 bound by
electrons).  The equivalent temperature is about 250 eV, of the deuterons so
bound.  Fusion occurs in about a nanosecond -- while the deuterium target
itself may very well be near room temperature.  Hence the term 'cold fusion'
has been applied to muon-induced fusion for decades.  (See article in Sci.
American, July 1987 by Johann Rafelski and myself:  "Cold Nuclear Fusion.")
Someone calculate the fusion rate for
these conditions assuming hot fusion -- another exercise.
 
3.  Someone at Johns Hopkins (Nod Sivad?) objects to a statement of John
Huizenga, which I quoted:
"Room temperature nuclear fusion without commensurate amounts of fusion
products is a delusion and qualifies as pathological science."
 
This is indeed a strong statement, but I think it hits the mark pretty closely.
Sivad objects:  "Of course, if one defines fusion in terms of current theory
and calls anything else a non-fusion nuclear process, then the statement
stands.  If there is anything to CF, it may very be some special case
undreamed of by our Horatio imaginations.  I wouldn't be surprised if it
turned out to be some "intermediate" nuclear process residing somewhere
between chemistry and fusion.  -- me"  (8 Jan. 1993 posting,
ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu)
  >>> Please give one example of an ' "intermediate" nuclear process residing
somewhere between chemistry and fusion'.   Thanks.
 
I don't see why current theory is needed here, beyond E=Mc2 (which is strongly
supported by a large experimental data base).  That is, take ANY nuclear
reaction, for discussion, say
   A + B --->  C + D.
In a nuclear reaction, nucleons are rearranged, the binding (nuclear) energy
changes, and energy(E) may be released.  If so, mass of (C+D) is less than that
of (A+B), by an exact amount E/c2.  But this also means that (C+D) are
different species than (A+B) -- unless we are talking about de-excitation.
Even then, the de-excited species (hydrinos, anyone?) must be produced in
quantities commensurate with E/c2.
 
Ash or products must correspond in quantity to the heat released, says
E=Mc2.  Huizenga does not need to presuppose any particular
reaction.  E.g., d+d --> helium4 + lattice heating  is allowed in
his statement (and it can be broadened beyond "fusion" of hydrogen isotopes
while retaining full validity) -- but even in this reaction which certainly
violates current paradigms, there must be helium4 produced commensurate with
the heat released.  (A quick calculation for this particular reaction is
instructive since it shows that a great deal of 4He is made, 2.6 X 10E11 atoms
4He per watt of "excess heat".  Quantities of 4He associated with megajoules
of xs heat now claimed are EASILY measurable.)  Where's the helium4????  This
is an example of what Huizenga is demanding -- and rightly so.
 
If one is
claiming nuclear reactions as the basis for xs heat, then nuclear ash
(products) must be shown in quantities commensurate with the heat.
This is what Huizenga is demanding, and I agree.
 
Note that for ANY nuclear reaction, products are produced at a rate
    6.24 X 10E12/Q   per second, for each watt of xs power,
where Q is the energy released in the reaction in MeV.
Since nuclear reactions release of order MeV, we find that a LARGE quantity
of products -- helium isotopes, or Be, or transmuted isotopes -- whatever--
MUST be produced.
 
These products of nuclear reactions are nowhere found in
quantities commensurate with xs heat claimed.  That's the bottom line.
 
--SteveJones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:34:39 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <930112164600_72240.1256_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>         ...           If the world market for energy is two trillion dollars
>(?), 15 years after CF it might collapse into only 10 billion, and a decade
>later, the total cost of fuel worldwide will be zero dollars. (That is fuel,
>not equipment). After 2020, selling energy will be exactly like trying to
>sell ice to eskimos.
 
But the cost of energy is *not* the cost of fuel.  If that were true, then
the discovery of photovoltaic cells would have long ago made any search for
Cold Fusion unnecessary.  There is a very good reason why a network of
solar cells do not provide our energy today -- that energy would be too
expensive.
 
The cost of energy is the cost of fuel plus the amortized cost of the
capital equipment used to turn fuel into energy, plus the cost of a
distribution or load sharing system if one is needed.  Surely a business
oriented person such as yourself knows this.  To make such a claim as
you stated above, you would need to know the life cycle cost of the CF
equipment.  I do not think you can even estimate the cost of a 1 kVA home
system, let alone tell me how long it will work before it needs replacement.
 
--
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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Cheap energy investments
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 10:18:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>This is a dicey area because when a commodity gets too cheap, overall
>industry profits fall. The old-line leaders suffer a lot, and the johnnie-
>...
>Energy intensive products like aluminum will drop in price, which will
>...[if]
>CF works, and the cost of energy drops by a factor of, say, 100000, chemists
>would quickly find ways to synthesize hydrocarbons on site, from local
>sources of hydrogen and carbon (sources like air). This would be the reverse
>of burning gasoline, and it would require enormous amounts of energy, but
>that would not make the slightest bit of difference. The reasons they would
>manufacture oil on site are: 1. It is far safer than shipping the stuff
>around; 2. It is easier; 3. It provides 'just-in-time' inventory so that you
>do not need large explosive stocks sitting around; 4. The quality of the
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                   (explosive? oil?)
 
>synthetic product would be much better than the natural product, there would
>be fewer impurities; 5. It would pollute less than oil refining.
 
>As soon as people wake up and realize that CF real, the price of oil, natural
>gas, and uranium will collapse, never to recover. The price will be
>discounted to reflect the future drop in use; there will no need to hoard
>current stock, or explore for additional supplies.
 
I have promised to ignore personal attacks by Jed, but this is different. Have
we learned nothing from the "electricity for nothing" promises made about
nuclear energy, some decades ago? It seems not. Even after this myth was
shattered, the same promise was made for hot fusion, with the added promise
(in contrast with fission energy) that it would also be clean - also wrong, we
now find. You need to find out about scale-up, Jed. A lab effect becomes a
different animal when scaled up to industrial scale. Many a chemist has found
this out. About 20 years ago, electrochemists got all starry-eyed about the
promise of wonderfully cheap and clean electrochemical syntheses of many
expensive chemicals, under mild conditions... This never did eventuate,
scale-up proved difficult, and we now have just a few processes, one of them
(chlor-alkali, until recently using tons of mercury) quite the reverse of
clean. CNF, too, could be quite filthy on a large scale.
 
Even if CNF were real, and at some stage we work out how to harness all that
excess heat, it is very optimistic to think that after scale-up, it will be
virtually cost- and pollution-free, and far too early to predict the demise
of existing energy sources. Neither does it have to be a free lunch. If it
were able to beat, say, oil-based energy by a smallish margin, it might still
be a boon to humanity. That is, if it were real...
 
For the moment, Jed, stick to demonstrating that this thing IS in fact real.
Let us have that unequivocal demo: a machine that runs itself, and produces
some extra energy as well. The world will be at your feet.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / John Kreznar /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: 13 Jan 93 07:37:17 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1993Jan11.235612.23501@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> In article <9970B5DAE75FA0D881@vms2.uni-c.dk>
 
> P.S to Douglas Morrison -- Thanks for posting your excellent summary of the
>     bubble chamber issue.
 
I am puzzled that a bubble chamber is being considered as a possible
environment for Ultra Cavitation.  The bubble-forming conditions seem
to be incompatible.  Terry Bollinger stresses over and over again the
importance to his theory of low pressure in the void, and favors
``decompressive void formation'' wherein the fabric of the liquid is
torn by decompression, leaving a ``clean'' void behind.  In contrast,
by Douglas Morrisson's account, the growth of a bubble in an operating
bubble chamber is driven by evaporation of the super-heated liquid
into the bubble.  Terry, how can such a bubble possibly satisfy the
conditions of your theory?
 
Here are highly edited passages from Bollinger's and Morrison's recent
postings to which I refer:
 
In ULTRA CAVITATION, Version 1.0, 1992 Dec 31, Bollinger says
 
> In fact, if the fluid possesses sufficiently strong intra-fluid
> bonding, it should be possible to arrange decompressive void
> formation so that extremely few (possibly zero) molecules of liquid
> will enter into the void.
 
In ``Let me try and explain better about bubble chambers'', Morrison
says
 
> First you keep the chamber under pressure so that it cannot boil.
> Then you release the pressure so that it wants to boil....
 
> ...the bubble centre is formed and and then the growth follows a
> (time) to the power one-half law as more liquid evaporates into the
> bubble. Essentially there is a competition between the surface
> tension trying to crush the bubble and the evaporation of heated
> liquid.
 
In one case, the liquid is being pulled apart.  The pressure is
presumably negative where the void forms.  In the other case, the
liquid is being pushed apart by its own vapor.
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:13:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> As any economist will tell you, production costs don't set prices,
> demand sets prices.
 
Any economist will say that the intersection of the demand and supply curves
sets prices.  Production costs combined with demand sets prices in a capitalist
society.
 
If production costs for a certain item are halved and the suppliers
don't drop prices, new suppliers will come in to take advantage of the high
profit and the price will drop.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.12 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Guilty as charged
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Guilty as charged
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:23:49 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> In the video Pons showed at Nagoya, 2.5 moles of electrolyte boiled away,
> which required 86,000 joules of excess heat energy. This was one, continuous
> event lasting about 10 minutes, which did not stop, cool, and store up energy
> midway through. The cathode was 0.0392 cc, so the excess energy came to 200
> electron volts per atom of cathode palladium, which is far beyond the limits
> of chemistry, unless you want to claim the electrolyte was burning.
 
Why do you say excess?  What was the power in?  What percentage of the
"boiling" was D2 and O2 as opposed to D2O?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Status #9 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Status #9 Cell 4A3
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 15:16:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
 
>Status #9 Cell 4A3
>Well, here we are 480+ hours into the run and last night there was a clear cut
>180 joule pulse.  Most of the energy appeared in 1/2 hour, so with the time
>constant of my apparatus, it is not possible to distinguish the heat from an
>impulse.  Peak (one minute) heat measurements were 115 mw.  The rms noise on
>the one minute samples over the last several days has been 15 mw.  So as a
>"noise" event it is 7.6 sigma.  But it did not look as noise looks.  The 15 mw
 
Tom, as you note a bit further down,
 
>stabilize).  I think this is consistent with the quoted 0.035 watts that
>Dieter Britz has so faithfully recorded.
 
Yes, I remember. And that makes your 115 mW not 7.6 but 3.3 sigma. I have a
file of a million Gaussian-distributed random numbers, and I could find many
"events" in this file, with 3.3 sigma... I do take your point, however, about
the "look" of the signal. Having at one time looked at many traces of signals
from turbulent flows, I can tell such a signal from a random one, even though
it is often hard to get a computer to tell the difference. So you may have
a real heat event there.
 
As for the thermodynamics of PdD(x), there is some info on this on p.125 etc
in Lewis's book. The way I see it, you have the alpha phase at very low x,
and start to get the beta phase at x > 0.06. It is the formation of this one
that is exothermic at the given figures (no doubt the formation of the alpha
phase is also exo). This would continue up to x = 0.8 or so (or 0.72, or
whatever you take it to be). I see no reason for anything special to happen
at 0.13 or 0.23. Do you maybe have a factor 4 in there somewhere? That would
make it 0.06, where you would get a change; and your total loading, which you
have said goes as high as 3, would become 0.75, much more in line with the
literature. I am afraid now that you're going to dump a heap of numbers on
me...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Lost in Space
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lost in Space
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 17:28:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Frank Close writes:
 
"So you called Worledge last week and he wasn't in. Keep calling until he is.
It is over *six months* since you posted Mallove's reckless accusations...
You suggest that the papers Mallove refers to might have been "Lost in the
mail". Is it you or Mallove that has invented this?"
 
I am terribly sorry. Let me explain: "it might have been lost in the mail" is
my idea of a joke. You deliberately overlooked and ignored the work of
Menlove, and many others -- to me that is a hilarious joke, like a lot of
other things that happen in this field.
 
Getting serious: No, I do not believe the information was lost in the mail. I
suppose Dave did send it to you, because that is an innocuous and common
thing to do, after all. I send people papers every day, so why shouldn't he?
In any case -- what I find hilarious about this -- is that you would not need
anything from Dave Worledge to know about Menlove. Everybody knew about him
back then. The suggestion that you might have missed his work because you did
not get a package from Dave is silly, and I do love silliness.
 
What I cannot understand is why you are upset about this matter. What is the
big deal? Your whole attitude reflects great pride at your ability to
overlook, denigrate, and ignore many people's work because you consider it
second-rate or questionable. So, Gene and I point that out, we draw attention
to it... So what? We are pointing out things about you that you yourself brag
about. It is as if someone accused me of having strong opinions about simple
versus complicated experiments, or being a "true believer." It is no secret
that I like simple, foolproof experiments; and it is no secret that you have
great contempt for calorimetry, low level neutrons and tritium as proof of a
nuclear reaction, and that you would never seriously consider such evidence
in your book. What is "reckless" about pointing this out? Do you deny it?
Have you changed your mind?
 
You have stated publicly, on British TV, that you think P&F now believe CF is
a chemical reaction, and you stated here that you allow as how it might be
chemical. You are -- in effect -- bragging about this view, even though is it
violates everything we have known about chemistry for the last 100,000 years!
You are bragging about absurd, upside down, and unbelievably stupid
statements, you boast that you have forgotten elementary thermodynamics and
the conservation of energy. So why should you be upset when I remind you that
you also forgot some of the key cold fusion workers? You forgot Newton, you
forgot Joule!
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 /   /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 17:28:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue <blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu> writes:
 
>Steve Kneizys's recent post on how to replicate an MKF experiment informs
>us that the available information includes "...very simple circuits I
>designed so that anyone could just go to Radio Shack and get all the
>parts..."
>
>Steve, I must admit that makes me just a bit nervous.  I would think it
>might take a very well designed current-regulated supply to cope with
>some possibly very weird load characteristics.  Are you sure you
>simple supply does what you ask of it?
 
I know there have been some postings about weird loading changes
with cells, but with my cells I had not noticed anything that the
circuit could not handle.
 
For example, the LM317 regulator chip does not respond well to
transient load changes (freq. greater than about 10 kHz), but in
our cells I did not see these frequency components present.  I
was looking at the voltage across the 15 ohm resistor int the
constant current circuit as well as across the cell. The circuit
was:
 
 
 About      ---------------------------
 9 volts   |        LM 317T            |
 IN        |                           |
 ----------| IN                  OUT   |----------
           |                           |         |
           |          ADJUST           |         |
            ---------------------------          \
                        |                        /
                        |                        \ 15 Ohms
                        |                        /
                        |                        \
                        |                        |
                        -------------------------------------- To Cell
 
 
It seemed as though the resistance and capacitance of the cell tended to
filter out any higher frequency components that would have had a
significant impact on the input power calculations.  Of course it
would be a good idea for anyone replicating the experiment to use
an oscilloscope to verify this for themselves.
 
As for the current switching circuit, it was designed for low frequency
use ONLY...the transistor bias current puts the ouput transistor in
saturation.  The circuit will not repond well to higher frequency
components, and thus will be less vulnerable to transient problems.
Of course we carefully monitored the cell voltages and currents and
found no high frequency components.  We reproduced the observed
waveforms in the Aug 1991 Fusion Technology paper.
 
Sincerely,
 
Steven P. Kneizys
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBITNET cudln cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Responses to Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 17:54:39 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

Hi folks,
 
In a class & playing hooky, so this will be short:
 
In article <326@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
 
> I am puzzled that a bubble chamber is being considered as a possible
> environment for Ultra Cavitation.  The bubble-forming conditions seem
> to be incompatible.  Terry Bollinger stresses over and over again the
> importance to his theory of low pressure in the void, and favors
> ``decompressive void formation'' wherein the fabric of the liquid is
> torn by decompression, leaving a ``clean'' void behind.  In contrast,
> by Douglas Morrisson's account, the growth of a bubble in an operating
> bubble chamber is driven by evaporation of the super-heated liquid
> into the bubble...
 
> Terry, how can such a bubble possibly satisfy the conditions of your theory?
 
It doesn't.  Assuming that UC exists, I would describe a bubble chamber
as a very weak candidate for a number of reasons, most of which go back
to saying that it really is more a _bubble_ chamber than a _cavitation_
chamber.  The bubbles in such a chamber are full of vapor, and I cannot
readily see why they should be inclined to collapse with even ordinary
cavitation force.
 
Specific weak points of looking for UC in an "as is" bubble chamber are:
 
  o  Weak to very weak (van der Waals) intra-fluid bonds
  o  The fluid is very close to (or even above) its boiling point
  o  _Intentional_ use of conditions to encourage vapor in the bubble
 
Similar reasons, by the way, address the other question that someone
mentioned about why ordinary ocean waves don't do anything cavitation-wise.
I'm not sure that most of the bubbles for such processes even qualify
for regular garden-variety cavitation, let alone the proposed UC idea --
they are just too "bubble like" (filled with vapor and gas) for even a
very good shock wave to be likely to form.
 
While I haven't (yet!) budged much at all from my contention that you may
get a drastic increase in final intensity if the bubble is so empty that
void surface molecules have a decent chance of reaching the center,  I
also haven't really budged much from my assertion that very cold mercury
laced with "target" gases would be much more interesting to look at than
van der Waals fluids.  Water is a lot easier to handle and measure, though,
and I think it would just make good sense to see what happens with some of
those experiments before trying the much more difficult Hg etc. metallical
bond fluid experiments.
 
One qualification:  Dale Bass' excellent and pursuasive arguments about
shock wave mechanisms mean that I need to modify some of my more negative
remarks about voids with high vapor content.  I assumed simple elastic
compression of the void gases in the Version 1.0 UC draft, and that was
clearly naive.  Shock wave formation is a much more likely result for very
rapid wall collapse, and that could actually favor _some_ increase in the
final intensity of high vapor pressure bubbles -- _provided_ that they
still undergo very rapid wall acceleration during the early stages.
 
 
Net conclusion:  I really did like Douglas Morrison's evaluation of the
bubble chamber issues, and see no reason think that "garden variety"
D2 bubble formation would have any experimentally meaningful likelihood
of resulting in detectable increases in fusion.
 
If you modify it and instead go for a separate D2 "true cavitation"
experiment, I think you're chances for unexpected, non-linear increases
in final collapse intensity would go up quite a bit -- but you will _still_
be fighting against the weak intra-fluid bonding, low surface tension, short
liquid temperature range, and general "flabbiness" of the D2 medium.
 
I would again mention that if there is any experiment that my hypothetical
conditions would tend to point to as interesting for _possibly_ seeing
measurabley higher fusion rates, it would be mercury and/or mercury amalgams
chilled to very low temperatures and laced with very small quantities of
pure tritium -- that is, to shoot for T-T fusion (_not_ D-D, which is many,
many orders of magnitude more difficult).  But even that one is not one that
I'd necessarily encourage until after more data on the results of trying to
"push" water-based and water-like cavitation to their limits.  The Hg+T one
is just too costly, too risky (Hg is poisonous and T is radioactive), and
too difficult to instrument.
 
 
Tom, sorry to be a sour grape about my own ideas, but I hate to think of a
bunch of folks doing experiments with high expectations when I cannot even
provide my own "hypothetical only" brand of reassurance that they will work.
I think that there should be other cheaper (and ultimately more publishable)
approaches to exploring the high ends of cavitation intensity than the
bubble chamber approach, and it might be better for folks to look into
those first.
 
The key issue is not "fusion" per se, but simply whether or not the high end
of cavitation intensity has been fully explored and understood.  If it has,
fine.  If not, some folks should check it out carefully -- and _then_ figure
out how the resulting intensities might affect things such as the "easier"
classes of fusion reactions (e.g.) T-T.  If you've done the intensity reseach
well, the latter part becomes a comparatively trivial exercise of plugging in
results to the known pressure/temperature curves of reactions such as T-T.
 
And of course, a good _literature search_ is the key initial step to anyone
even thinking abuot such a thing.  Doesn't make much sense to build a new
cavitation device only to find out that it only covers issues that were
fully scoped out ten years ago.  Use the literature to make sure that if
you build something, it will test some _unique_ premise or set of conditions,
not just repeat what has come before.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / William Johnson /  Re: Quick replies
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quick replies
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 18:08:06 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1993Jan12.172603.331@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>1.  Natural fusion in the earth
>Paul J. Karol asks whether we considered a tritium-producing branch in
>uranium and thorium fission -- as a prosaic explanation for tritium now
>being detected in volcanic emissions (see Jones' earlier postings).
>We looked at this some time ago (ca 1989) and found the 3H branch to be
>far too small.  I don't find quantitative notes.  Note that some
>(e.g. Harmon Craig) suggested
>that the tritium which we noted was detected in Kilaeua serendipitously
>in 1972 (see Jones et al. J. Fusion Energy Dec. 1990 paper) was due to
>release of radioactive gasses from a nuclear sub stationed off the coast
>of Hawaii (big island).  This colorful explanation failed for several
>reasons -- including the large distance from the shore to the monitoring
>station near the top of Mauna Loa,  and a sharp denial by the U.S. navy--
>one of which was the small branching ratio for fission into 3H.
>However, since one should be quantitative, would someone do some homework
>on this?  (For extra credit, of course.)
 
Sure.  From Vandenbosch and Huizenga (yes, *that* Huizenga, and as I have
said several times here, my Ph.D. thesis advisor many moons ago -- a thoroughly
reputable nuclear chemist), "Nuclear Fission," Academic Press 1973 (getting a
bit dated, but still an outstanding overview of fission):
 
First, the spontaneous-fission case.  Spontaneous-fission half lives for Th-232
and U-238 are *very* long; as of the date of VdB&H, only a lower bound on the
Th-232 number was known, and that bound was very long indeed (>10^20 years), so
that we can neglect thorium spontaneous fission completely.  Meanwhile, various
experiments on U-238 suggest a number of roughly 10^16 years, although there
exists considerable scatter in the deduced values.  So the decay constant
for U-238 spontaneous fission is something like a few times 10^-24(!)/sec.  To
the best of my knowledge, ternary fission has not been observed for U-238
spontaneous fission, but based on systematics we can estimate that it occurs
roughly once per thousand binary fissions; so now our decay constant for
U-238 spontaneous *ternary* fission is of the order of 10^-27/sec.  Finally,
most ternary fissions produce alpha particles rather than tritium, which is
made maybe 5-10% of the time (based on experiments on other isotopes); so we
see that the decay constant for fission leading to tritium production is like
10^-28/sec.  Estimating that there are something like 10^22 grams of uranium
on planet earth (someone may want to check this estimate) equivalent to about
3x10^19 moles or 2x10^44 atoms, our total tritium production rate (and hence
decay rate, since secular equilibrium has obviously been reached) is of the
order of 10^17 atoms per second -- over the entire volume of the earth!  So
spontaneous fission doesn't look like a credible source of geological tritium
to me.
 
Now, as for the hypothetical submarine:  Assume the same branching ratios for
ternary fission and for tritium as the third particle emitted, probably a
sensible assumption for back-of-the-envelope calculations.  I don't have a
good number for the power levels of submarine reactors handy, but assume that
they're canonical 10-megawatt reactors; again, maybe someone can do better.
At this power level the reactor is incurring a few times 10^17 fissions per
second, if I do my math right (1 fission = 200 MeV energy), so simply from
the ternary-fission route, our submarine is making somewhere over 10^13 tritium
atoms per second -- and they're all coming from the same source.  Furthermore,
this analysis doesn't include the tritium from neutron-induced reactions on
things surrounding the submarine.  So, given that tritium is relatively
detectable stuff, is it so obvious that this source of tritium in the vicinity
of the Hawaiian islands isn't credible?
 
To expand on this, note that both Cs-137 (produced by nuclear weapons tests
in the atmosphere) and Be-7 (from cosmic-ray-induced spallation of stuff in
the air) *are* readily detected at the Hawaiian volcanoes; various papers by
the atmospheric-chemistry group at the University of Maryland demonstrate this,
I'll dig up references if you're interested.  The volcanoes are *very* good
places for detecting things in the air, because there is so little background.
Furthermore, the existence of up-slope and down-slope winds at the volcanoes
causes significant diurnal fluctuations in the stuff in the air (Aras _et al._
and Johnson _et al._, papers at an ACS meeting so long ago I've forgotten when
and where it was...), and up-slope winds may very well provide a plausible
mechanism for getting submarine-released tritium to the sampling station.
 
In summary, I think the terrestrial spontaneous-fission route to tritium
release is quite implausible, just as Steve suggests it is, but the verdict
on reactors aboard submarines is not necessarily so clear.  Perhaps someone
would check my math to make sure I haven't missed anything; it's always
possible when working on the back of the envelope.
 
 
While I'm on this subject, a challenge to Steve Jones.  I have e-mailed you on
more than one occasion asking for more information on your Kamiokande and
drying-cement experiments, and you have not replied.  You did not even reply
when I asked simply for a (p)reprint describing the cement work, which is a
normal professional courtesy.  I have extended you such a courtesy by
providing this (admittedly back-of-the-envelope) information for tritium
production through ternary fission; is it so unreasonable to expect that you
will reciprocate with the information I have requested?
 
--
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:
cuddy13 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / Nick Haines /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: 13 Jan 93 17:50:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <930112164600_72240.1256_EHL72-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
   This is a dicey area because when a commodity gets too cheap,
   overall industry profits fall. The old-line leaders suffer a lot,
   and the johnnie- come-lately's also get hit. We have seen this
   during the past few years in the computer business. If the world
   market for energy is two trillion dollars (?), 15 years after CF it
   might collapse into only 10 billion, and a decade later, the total
   cost of fuel worldwide will be zero dollars. (That is fuel, not
   equipment). After 2020, selling energy will be exactly like trying
   to sell ice to eskimos.
 
Cobblers. See Jim Carr's post. Try getting this sort of nonsense onto
sci.energy, if you can stand the humiliation. Electricity will never
be `too cheap to meter,' until it is made so by our rising standard of
living (i.e. until the materials required are cheaper by a factor of
say 1000 in real terms).
 
   I think this is incorrect. I have talked to oil experts, and I
   gather that if CF works, and the cost of energy drops by a factor
   of, say, 100000, chemists would quickly find ways to synthesize
   hydrocarbons on site, from local sources of hydrogen and carbon
   (sources like air).
 
Again, cobblers. Even if you do have enormous amounts of cheap energy
the physical plant required to make basic hydrocarbons will rule it
out except for sites that use vast quantities. Maybe humanity will
make HC's out of hydrogen and carbon, but it will do so centrally with
a distribution system.
 
   As soon as people wake up and realize that CF real, the price of
   oil, natural gas, and uranium will collapse, never to recover.
 
Patent nonsense. This will not happen until
 
(a) CF plants are on line, selling base-load electricity to
distributors at less than 1c/kWh, with demonstrated capacity to take
over the remainder of the (TW magnitude) world requirements within the
mine-to-wall-socket timescale of coal, and
 
(b) small CF plants are driving automobiles for an amortized cost of
less than 5c/mile.
 
Until then this is all a pipe-dream, and a disgrace to any sci.*
newsgroup.
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #10 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #10 Cell 4A3
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 21:02:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #10 Cell 4A3
 
Last night, about 520 hours into the run we had another pulse.  This one is
350 to 400 joules.  It's size depends on when I choose to declare it over as
there were a number of "after pulses".  Half width half max was about 20
minutes.  It was again shaped like a time constant, but with a ten minute or
so constant amplitude part.  So I no longer think it consistent with an
impulse.  Besides a 400 joule impulse would likely do damage.  Cell
temperature rose 0.3 C at the front edge of the pulse.  A 400 joule impulse
and the 32 cc D20 load would have given 3 C rise, so it looks like a 10 minute
event.  This pulse peaked 202 mw above the base line.   It was four hours
removed in time of day from yesterday's pulse for those that look for
something the power company did, etc..  The Chicago area has 8" or so of snow
and sleet, but for a change this did not kill the power.
 
Dieter Britz questions how I computed the significance of the last pulse.
There is a long term component and a short term component to the calorimeter
error.  Actually a continuum of noise/drift figures.  The 35 mw number is the
long term stability of the apparatus, and was generated over a period of about
10 days.  The 15 mw number is the short term noise estimate.  It is computed
by using the last 50 one minute samples.  If the heat pulse came in over ten
days, then it would be proper to use the 35 mw number to test it's
significance.  But since it came in over about 20 minutes, it seems proper for
me to test its significance against the 15 mw noise number.  To clarify
further, I consider the ratio to 15 mw as a test at to whether or not
something happened.  I would use the 35 mw number to test as to whether or not
this was a real release of excess heat.
 
Those that have read my papers may notice that in them the long term drift
component is smaller than the short term component.  That is because I had to
turn off the shell servo to get the wide temperature swing that was used
between loading and running.  With the shell servo on the long term drift is
of order 1 mw.  The Mark III will fix this.
 
So I look at the 202 mw peak of one of the one minute measurements of the new
event, use the 15 mw short term noise figure and say with 13.4 sigma
confidence that "something happened" for this single measurement.  Actually
there were about twenty 150+ mw measurements in a row.  I would think that
this makes the event more significant, but don't know how to compute it.
 
Because of the 35 mw long term uncertainty in the base line, my limited
understanding would require a 400 joule event every 3 hours to distinguish at
one sigma real "anomalous heat" from some chemical store and release process.
What say, Dieter, is this a reasonable view?
 
I do not know anything about statistics, so I would appreciate comments.  As
before, I keep looking at all the controls and do not see anything that
explains the pulses.
 
I continue to do various tests, current ramps, boric acid additions, etc., in
an effort to understand what is going on.  In general when I disturb the
system it comes back to where I think zero is within the 35 mw long term
accuracy.  But there is a bias toward "anomalous heat".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / 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: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 20:12:46 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <9301121732.AA02912@suntan.Tandem.com>
 <STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
: From what I understand of the M&F theory, there is no reason why two
: hydrinos could not chemically combine the same way the larger cousins
: do.  In fact, from my original discussions with Mills he said that it
: would release more energy than would the larger cousin equiv., and the
: bond energies for the hydrino dimer would be higher.  We still have
: not heard from Dr. Farrell as to why the hydrinoes are chemically
: inert...
 
I've been thinking about this, and would like to ask whether anyone has
considered the possibility that hydrinos might exist ONLY as dimers.
Put another way, there would really be no such thing as hydrinos, just
two (or more?) ordinary hydrogen atoms sharing a single quantum of
basement energy.
 
Then the puzzle becomes, why don't dihydrinos interact chemically?
Perhaps they can, but the reaction products look too much like
something else that's expected.  Maybe said reactions require a high
activation energy, or a platinum catalyst?  Perhaps dihydrinos can last
long enough to escape an open cell, since it might take something like
a hard X-ray to reset them back to an ordinary H2 molecule.  (What is
the basement energy of an H electron, anyway, in terms of photon size?
I don't have any of the right books handy.)
 
The other problem, of course, is why it doesn't emit one of those
photons when it forms.
 
Anybody with enough knowledge to be more dangerous than me want to
speculate further?  I've got a cold, so if I'm not thinking clearly,
be gentle...
 
Farfetchedly yours,
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Droege Detector (was: Terry Test)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege Detector (was: Terry Test)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 21:38:48 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
An OOPS and an accompanying apology to Tom Droege.
 
Having just responded quite negatively to the question about D2 bubble
chambers, I only now got around to reading over Tom's earlier posting from
yesterday.  He's already way past the D2 idea, and is now looking at an
explicit D2O (heavy water) cavitator enclosed within a easier-to-find water
based bubble chamber, as Tom wrote here:
 
> Inside a plain water bubble chamber, we put a pressurized small container of
> D2O in a thin wall container.  This container is fitted with an ultrasonic
> probe - I actually have one designed for cell disintegration that could be
> used.  It could put 100 watts of sonic energy into a few cc container...
 
Now THAT I find very interesting.  It's a long shot, sure, but the use of
a bubble chamber would allow some really detailed tracking of every very low
levels of events.  And the switch to (presumably cold, pressurized) heavy
water is certainly in keeping with the general implications of both my UC
draft _and_ some existing cold-is-better sonoluminscence findings.
 
If Tom _does_ find something with this Droege Detector, it could be a very
interesting thing indeed.  And if he finds nothing -- well, then, he will
have placed some firm upper limits on what water based cavitation phenomena
_cannot_ do.  Nothing wrong with that!
 
 
Tom has also been kind enough to fax me some very much appreciated
literature references.  It will take me a while to collect some of the
material, but at least that gives me some good, general starting points
for finding out who has already done what and properly crediting them in
the references, as well (of course) as beating on the UC idea itself.
 
By the way, lest any of you missed it earlier:  "Ultra Cavitation" (v1.0)
is very nearly a pure exercise in structured, heuristic logic.  It is _not_
assembled from the existing cavitation literature.  In fact, at the time
I wrote it I had yet to read a single cavitation paper (ever).  So if you
find yourself thinking (as a couple people have already asked me) "Why
didn't you just reference where you read about that point?," it's because
I haven't _read_ that point anywhere yet.  Take that for good or bad, but
it doesn't hurt to keep it in mind as a cautionary point.
 
 
> Why should you do it with a bubble chamber instead of setting up counters
> (radiation detectors)?  Well, one picture gets Terry (and possibly you) a
> ticket to Stockholm, where detector counts produce endless debates about
> background.
 
The last line got a big smile from me as I read it (thanks Tom!).  Especially
coming from you, I appreciate the vote of confidence that there could perhaps
be something to the ultracavitation idea.
 
And yes, a picture would be a _lot_ more convincing than a particle count,
wouldn't it?  Not to mention you could get some _really_ decent sensitivity
in your detection process.
 
For whatever it's worth, you have my full support on the Droege Detector
concept.  It may not be the optimal cavitation setup, perhaps, but it's
a _good_ setup.  It should give strong cavitation, and it's versatile,
easy to build, and comparatively cheap.  Good luck!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Capital Equipment Costs
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Capital Equipment Costs
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 01:03:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jim Carr, lucid as always, makes the following points:
 
"The cost of energy is *not* the cost of fuel.  If that were true, then the
discovery of photovoltaic cells would have long ago made any search for Cold
Fusion unnecessary... The cost of energy is the cost of fuel plus the
amortized cost of the capital equipment used to turn fuel into energy, plus
the cost of a distribution or load sharing system if one is needed."
 
Right, right. I had that in parenthesis, but it is not parenthetical. Fuel
costs are very important, naturally, but we do need to look at the likely
cost of CF capital equipment like home heaters, home power generators, auto
engines, and so on. Also, the likely cost of the power and distribution
systems, the cost of controlling pollution, and the approximate cost to
society of the pollution that we do *not* control. Looking at a few points in
a whirlwind fashion:
 
Capital equipment cost is greatly affected by power density. Low power
density is what makes some forms of solar energy uneconomical. It is just too
spread out. The power density of the best Pd cells is excellent -- better
than commercial fission reactors. Ni cells are also okay, and getting better,
thanks to the convoluted rough surfaces of the latest porous nickel cathodes.
 
The core materials needed in Ni systems are practically free. The engine
block and other peripheral technology will cost no more than it does now.
 
The core materials needed for Pd may not be much more expensive than Ni,
because thin film Pd seems to work. You may not need much more Pd in your CF
car than you already have in your gas car, in the catalytic converter. (This
is speculation on my part, the rest of this stuff comes from various other
sources.)
 
Assuming we can get a handle on Tritium generation, power distribution costs
will be zero. Infrastructure costs will be zero. Over the long term, one
power unit in your house will be cheaper than your share of the local poles
and transformers. That is not even looking at the cost of the high tension
wires and the central power generation plants. The recent hurricane in
Florida toppled mile after mile of newly installed high tension wires --
millions of dollars worth. All costs like this will be eliminated. All those
brave, incredibly strong and skillful men and women who come to your
neighborhood two or three times a year during ice storms to restore the power
will be out of a job.
 
Fuel delivery costs will be so small, you can't measure 'em.
 
The cost of controlling the pollution will be zero. The price we now pay for
*not* controlling some pollution will also be reduced to zero. Approximately
70% of air pollution is caused by auto transport or power generation. This
will be eliminated, which will save many lives and fabulous amounts of money.
 
One of the key issues with other forms of energy is the efficiency of the
technology used to convert heat into useful work. People pay a lot for a
high-efficiency steam turbine with a lot of bells and whistles, in order to
catch and convert as much heat as possible into electricity. With CF, this
will cease to be an issue. Instead of selecting high cost, high tech, finicky
devices that require cadres of expert engineers to maintain and run, we will
want devices with lowest possible capital cost. Suppose a good steam turbine
converts heat at 60% efficiency and costs a million bucks. You build gadget
for $10,000 that converts heat at 6% efficiency, so with CF as your heat
source, you put the steam turbine company out of business. You use up ten
times more fuel (a bucketful of water instead of a cupful), and you generate
a lot of waste heat, but that makes no difference. Ultra-low cost fuel tends to
promote lower cost, inefficient capital equipment, and discourage high tech,
expensive equipment. Ultra-low cost fuel also promotes low-maintenance,
decentralized, reliable, hands-off, automatically controlled forms of
equipment. We went from railroad engines, to manual shift automobiles, to
automobiles with automatic transmissions: less and less efficiency, more and
more customer convenience.
 
That wraps up the issue for now. You can see I am ready to bat out a chapter
or two.
 
 
Deiter Britz asks whether oil can explode. Yes, some fractions of it can. I
don't know about the ones they use to make plastic. I am sure that some
volatile forms are used in industry, because I read about horrible industrial
hydrocarbon explosions from time to time, and not just in oil refineries.
 
Dieter also asks: "Have we learned nothing from the 'electricity for nothing'
promises made about nuclear energy, some decades ago? It seems not."
 
Actually, electricity already costs nothing. Just about flat out nothing. You
just don't remember what things used to cost before electricity. Compared to
toiling in the fields by hand, or using a horse, or even firing up your own
steam engine, electricity is so cheap you can barely measure the cost of
doing work. It would be like trying to figure out the cost of a glass of tap
water. Relative to other things, electricity has been getting cheaper and
cheaper over the last 120 years, and there is every reason to believe that
trend will continue and accelerate. As my mentor Clarke said 20 years ago,
"The age of cheap energy has ended, the age of free energy is just around the
corner."
 
The promises made decades ago, of "electricity too cheap to meter" will come
true eventually. It has taken a little longer than we expected, but when
another nanosecond of history has passed, mankind will be living on the Moon,
and Mars, and every person will have all the energy he wants, plus all the
clean water, food, computer power, medical care, and education he wants, too.
The future will not bring Utopia, but it *will* make the 20th century look as
dark, barbaric and impoverished as the 16th century now appears to us. If you
don't think so, tell us why technological progress will suddenly and
inexplicably grind to a halt. Have you learned nothing from history?
 
 
Brian Rauchfuss asks about Pon's video: "Why do you say excess? What was the
power in?" Umm... that should be in Peter Hagelstein's paper, which should be
available and uploaded here by January 18, hopefully. Peter and Stan went
over the numbers, and I just kinda borrowed them.
 
Brian also asks: "What percentage of the 'boiling' was D2 and O2 as opposed
to D2O?" All of the *boiling* product was D2O of course. But what you are
asking, I gather, is what percent of the gas evolved from the system during
that 10 minutes was from electrolysis, and what percent was from boiling. The
answer can be determined by watching the video time lapse sequence numbers,
and the water levels. The cells are run for a week or so under electrolysis,
first at low power, then at high power, as described during the lecture. The
high power phase lasts several days before the cell suddenly goes to boiling.
During the high power phase, you can see that the water level hardly drops at
all. So, during several days of electrolysis, only a fraction of the
electrolyte is lost to the combined effects of electrolysis and evaporation.
However, when it shifts into high heat boiling, the loss rate of fluid
increases drastically. The electrolysis power is the same, but suddenly, the
fluid is dropping minute by minute. Therefore, only a tiny fraction of the
fluid loss during that ten minute phase was due to electrolysis.
 
Videos are wonderful tools for answering questions like that. Message to all
serious CF experimenters: use a video with a clock! I have seen some *really*
great stuff with video, data you could never get with any other instrument. I
am sold on it. A computer data collection system is a must, but put video
number two on your wish list. And for goodness sake, use a clean, clear,
nondistorted glass calorimeter. The shots P&F showed British TV were amazing!
I know a bunch of electrochemists who went ape over them.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Discussion of Ni - H2O Papers
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Discussion of Ni - H2O Papers
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 01:03:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Kneizys and Dick Blue have been discussing power measurement in the
Mills/Kneizys (MK) paper.  Dick says (referring to the pulser circuit) "Steve,
I must admit that makes me just a bit nervous."
 
It made me nervous too, Dick.  That is why I immediately discounted all the
measurements made with the pulser.  So Steve, if you are reading, I am still
looking for error limits on the last (excess heat %) column of Table 1.  But
don't bother with anything but the fixed current runs.  It is not enough to
say that the thermometers were good to 0.1%.  I know the number of digits
entered in the various columns does not imply error limits since some of the
temperatures are shown to millidegrees when the stated thermometer accuracy is
0.1 degree.  So error limits need to be stated.  Without some error limit, the
table is just so many numbers.
 
While some of the other equipment was named, all I can find for the voltage
and current measurements are "a multimeter voltage measurement (+/-0.2%)
across a calibrated resistor (1 Ohm)...".  This makes me so "nervous" that I
am going to quote a whole paragraph from MK.
 
"For circuit A, peak voltage measurements were made with
an oscilloscope (BK model 2120), and the time-averaged cur-
rent was determined from a multimeter voltage measurement
(+/-0.2%) across a calibrated resistor (1 Ohm) in series with the
lead to the cathode.  The waveform of the pulsed cell was a
square wave.  Since there was current only during the peak
voltage interval of the cycle, Pappl [Eq.(105)] is given by the
product of the peak voltage and the peak  current and the
duty cycle, which is the product of the peak voltage and the
time-averaged current.  In circuit B, voltage across the cell
was measured with the multimeter, and the current was de-
termined from the multimeter voltage measurement across a
calibrated resistor (1 Ohm) in series with the lead to the cathode.
For this mode, Pappl[Eq.(105)] is given by the product of
the constant voltage and the constant current."  (by TD some
liberties taken in the quote due to key limitations).
 
Waveforms are shown for the circuit A, the pulsed cell.  These show the
voltage varying from 2 to 3 volts while the current varies from near zero to
150+ ma.  The voltage waveforms are not square, and the currents do not quite
make it down to zero.
 
Any of us that have worked on high power switches know that the big problem is
what happens at the edges.  Note that above MK say "Since there was current
only during the peak voltage interval..."  The load is capacitive and the
oscilloscope traces show it.  There is current off the peak voltage and
Figure 4 shows it.  So it is not so easy to measure.  Another problem is that
ordinary multimeters normally have circuitry built in to reject sixty cycle
noise pickup.  This can give a peculiar response especially when tuned to some
multiple of 60 cycles.
 
I note from page 80 of MK that "The frequency, duty cycle, peak voltage, step
waveform, peak current, and offset voltage were adjusted to achieve the
optimal shrinkage reaction rate and concomitant power while minimizing ohmic
and electrolysis power losses."  You bet.  My guess is that by proper tuning
of the indicated set up one could get any answer desired.  It is a wonder that
MK settled for 2621%.
 
If I had to measure power in this circuit, I think I would opt for an old
fashioned two coil wattmeter that does the computation of ExH
electromechanicaly.  That or something really fancy made by HP.  If done by
sampled E and I measurements, I would want to go to MHz sample rates to get
all the power in the edges.
 
Jed Rothwell has generously sent me the Srinivasan et. al. paper from the
Nagoya meeting.  This paper discusses 29 MK type cells with various studies of
excess heat and tritium.  Excess heats between <5% and 130% are listed.  No
negative numbers are listed, though there are some blanks in the excess heat
column.  There is almost no discussion of error.  The only place it is
quantified is in a discussion of recombination in the cell.  In the discussion
of the excess heat experiments, it is noted that "In contrast cell XA-2 which
was basically a Pt-Pt cell (also K2CO3 in H2O) was expected to yeald a single
curve showing no excess heat.  However surprisingly this cell has also shown
some excess heat.  Later we learnt that the material of the cathode-mesh used
in this cell is not pure Pt but is an alloy of Pt-10%Rh."  This caused me to
look in the table to see how much excess heat - and the line is blank!  So if
an experiment does not conform to expectations they leave out the data so as
not to confuse the result.  There are many more problems with this paper, not
the least of which is the problem of tritium measurements at a location where
there is a lot of tritium around.  When I told Jed that I was not very
impressed with this paper, he said I should fax my objections to Srinivasan,
and pointed out the fax number on the cover.  Jed, it is not my job to correct
senior researchers from big name institutions.  I look for good technique and
enough discussion of the problems that I can believe that the workers have
exercised due diligence.  The Srinivasan paper goes in the trash.
 
But some put in the content that I seek, and I cite McKubre as one who makes a
proper presentation of his work.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Bill Johnson/Excusez-moi
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Bill Johnson/Excusez-moi
Date: 13 Jan 93 15:55:23 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Bill Johnson asks for information about the Kamiokande experiments --
excusez-moi, either I or a secretary failed to send you the write-ups.
This regrettable oversight will be corrected TODAY.
BTW, I have posted quite a bit of info on this net regarding the cement
and Kamiokande experiments.  Did you see this info?  I'll send copies
of relevant postings, too.
Best Regards,
SteveJones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Status #9 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Status #9 Cell 4A3
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 15:53:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
 
>Dieter Britz questions how I computed the significance of the last pulse.
>...
>Because of the 35 mw long term uncertainty in the base line, my limited
>understanding would require a 400 joule event every 3 hours to distinguish at
>one sigma real "anomalous heat" from some chemical store and release process.
>What say, Dieter, is this a reasonable view?
 
You are saying, would a more or less steady 35 mW excess be significant? I'd
say yes, because even though at short time scales, such an event might only
be 1 sigma above background, a long-term integral would rise far above noise.
Unless you have a hidden systematic error.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Quick replies
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Quick replies
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 15:53:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I am interested in the theoretical base of the leading experimental players
in the cold fusion game. Professor Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes
(Digest 701):
 
>  What is the difference between hot and cold fusion?  Glad you asked.
>Essentially, the difference is that in hot fusion the nuclei are unbound and
>mostly undergo elastic collisions, whereas in cold fusion [which we earlier
>called "piezonuclear" fusion, using Greek term for squeezing], the nuclei are
>bound by some agent, such as muons (or perhaps a lattice).  Therefore, in
>cold fusion, the nuclei continually bounce against the Coulomb barrier so that
>barrier penetration ("tunnelling") has a higher probability to occur than would
>otherwise be the case.  E.g., in muon catalysis, deuterons are bound by a muon
>and separated by about 0.004 angstroms (1/200th the separation in D2 bound by
>electrons).  The equivalent temperature is about 250 eV, of the deuterons so
>bound.  Fusion occurs in about a nanosecond -- while the deuterium target
>itself may very well be near room temperature.  Hence the term 'cold fusion'
>has been applied to muon-induced fusion for decades.  (See article in Sci.
>American, July 1987 by Johann Rafelski and myself:  "Cold Nuclear Fusion.")
 
Professor Jones, do you describe this process in a published paper that can
be cited?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Jed Rothwell /  How CF might grow
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How CF might grow
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 15:54:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Nick Haines comments:
 
"Even if you do have enormous amounts of cheap energy the physical plant
required to make basic hydrocarbons will rule it out except for sites that
use vast quantities."
 
That is not my impression talking to petrochemical engineers. There is no
particular technological reason we cannot make a miniature petrochemical
plants. I have seen enormous petrochemical complexes in New Jersey, but I
have also seen small ones in Japan in the ports of the Inland Sea, about the
size of a city block, where shallow draft tankers unload. Up until now, there
has been little use for small plants, because oil tends to be concentrated
geographically, and because there are economies of scale in large plants with
present day technology.
 
However, when we talk about a "reverse" petrochemical plant, that takes
hydrogen out of water and carbon out of air (perhaps?) to make feed stocks
for plastics factories, the economics will be different. Part of the economy
of scale is gained by saving energy, and this will not play a role any more.
Furthermore, other economies of scale might be counterbalanced by issues of
safety, convenience, shipping costs and so on. Sometimes, technologies start
big, then grow smaller. Two examples: the "mini-mills" now used for scrap
steel; and computers.
 
You understand, when I say "miniature" I mean a plant that takes up an acre or
two. Perhaps, eventually, they will be the size of a house, if we still use
plastics in 100 years.
 
 
Nick also comments that the price of oil and gas will not fall until:
 
"CF plants are on line, selling base-load electricity to distributors at less
than 1c/kWh, with demonstrated capacity to take over the remainder of the (TW
magnitude) world requirements within the mine-to-wall-socket timescale of
coal..."
 
In the recent past, the price of oil has shot up, and dropped precipitously
back because of wars, political disturbances, boycotts and other disruptions
to supply. In many cases these disturbances did not actually affect the
physical supply, they were only "psychological" (perhaps justified
nonetheless). The price of oil reflects future expectations as well as
present supply and demand. If it becomes obvious that in 20 years, demand for
oil will drop precipitously, I am sure the Saudis will cut their price and
try to sell as much oil as possible now, before the stuff becomes as useless
and unsalable as sand.
 
As far as CF plants being "on line," I do not think that will ever happen. I
think they will be "in inventory" at K-Mart and Sears, like hot-water heaters
or airconditioners. You will buy one, put it in your house, and connect it up
where the power lines used to come in to your circuit breakers. If it breaks,
you will be out of power until Sears shows up, the way I was out of hot water
for a couple of days this summer. CF will replace central power generation
house by house, factory by factory, over 20 or 30 years. It will grow to "TW
magnitude" in 20 KW jumps -- one small unit at a time -- just as automotive
energy use grew from nothing into Godzilla from 1895 to 1935. The question
is: when will it be obvious that CF devices are have the "demonstrated
capacity" to do that? The answer is: five minutes after Toshiba demonstrates
the first home unit. The first dozen Model-T Fords that came off the line
doomed the entire horse-and-buggy industry, instantly. It took many, many
years for the buggy manufacturers to realize that, and even longer for them
to go bankrupt and disappear. The peak U.S. horse population was in 1929,
after all. But once the Model-T came along, the obsolete, expensive,
inconvenient and dangerous horse and buggy had no chance of survival.
 
I think it is possible to build a small, economical, fully automatic
thermoelectric CF powered home generator, if tritium production can be
minimized I am probably right, because I know a lot about this business
and I am well connected. If I am right, then a 10 KW unit costing $30,000 will
appear on the market in five or ten years. Then, competition will soon drive
the cost per watt far below the cost of any possible "mine-to-wall-socket"
technology. The cost of materials for a 200 C nickel CF thermoelectric device
is already surprisingly low. Once competitive mass production begins, prices
will drop as quickly they did with the VCR, which went from $3,000 to $250 in
about 10 years. There is nothing inherently expensive about a CF generator.
Once the R&D has been paid for, there is no reason for one to cost more than a
few thousand dollars per house.
 
The first demonstration of a small unit will herald the beginning of the end
of OPEC, and of the electric power companies in their present form -- just as
surely as the first Apple and TRS-80 microcomputer doomed the mainframe
computer as we knew it, and the first airline flight spelled the end of
passenger rail service.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  CF Reality Check
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Reality Check
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 17:48:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Before we go off on flights of fancy as to how wonderful it will be
to have cold fusion generators supplying all our power needs shouldn't
at least consider some of the developments that remain before you can
plug your coffee pot into CF.  If we follow Jed Rothwell's lead on this
we go with the light-water-nickel system which doesn't not seem to
be a terribly robust technology as we speak.  The latest claim from
Prof. Farrell which promised good power gain was operating below 1 W
as I recall so the power density isn't all that great.  If going to
10 Watts is going to be simple surely it will happen soon, now that
the possible biohazards of all those hydrinos need not be considered.
(Excuse the attempt at humor.)
 
Next, we are going to need some preliminary generator disign work.
How do you get electricity out of one of these things?  I would
mention thermodynamics, but that is Jed's domain.  Then before you
can really cost out one of these things you have to get some idea
as to how long a cell will work properly before contaminants kill
it.  I am reminded for fuel cell technology which was showing great
promise a few years back, but proved to be a bit too fussy in that
regard.  Then there are questions such as how well will this
technology serve for on/off operation or even varying loads.  And
after you can run a coffee pot with a CF generator will your
device scale up to a size that can make a dent in our energy needs.
Assume that all these questions get answered before the end of this
century, and then make an estimate of the size of the industry that
would be required to build enough CF generators to replace 1% of
our present generating capacity per year.  In short don't get
too itchy about throwing out our present energy technologies.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Bubbles
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubbles
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 21:10:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger was too modest to mention that one of the pictures I sent was
a simulation that clearly shows a two stage wedge of the type Terry was
predicting from first principals.  There were also real pictures that show
the same kind of stuff, but not as obvious as the simulations.
 
I have not yet found an experienced bubble-head (sorry those of us in the
hardware end of this biz tend to think of the bubble chamber people as all
thumbs types.  But it is in good humor.) to tell me what a DD event would
look like in a bubble chamber.  But first discussions with a counter physicist
are not too encouraging.  If the result is an energetic p it would likely not
make it out of my inner chamber.  If an n, it would wander off and not be
detected.
 
But it seems to me that all the critics used to say that DD would be easy to
detect because of all the radiation.  So either it makes a lot of radiation and
the bubble chamber will see it, or it does not and the critics were wrong and
a DD cell that just puts out heat is possible.
 
Sorry I don't know more about the "front end" details of these reactions.  I
concentrate on dreaming up ways to instrument the reactions my physicist
friends want to measure.
 
Some of you out there know the answer.  If I make a DD inside say a 1 cm
heavy water source inside a water bubble chamber, will enough of the reaction
make it out into the bubble chambe so that it can be measured?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #11 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #11 Cell 4A3
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 21:11:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #11 Cell 4A3
 
No pulse today.  Just watching the paint fade.  Actually there was a small
negative pulse (about 70 joules) but it was completely explained.  I now have
an external catalyst which sops up D2 O2 mix if it gets out of the cell
because the cell catalyst partially stops working.  A few cc of gas mix
escaped from the cell and was converted externally.  All the instrumentation
clearly matched.  Gas volume went up, then to its starting level as the gas
was converted externally.  New water drop mist appeared in the external
catalyst container.  The internal catalyst temperature cooled for a few
minutes.  The integral energy balance showed a net loss that roughly matched
the gas pulse into the external recombiner.  Everything else remained normal.
 
Is this all there is?  This abundant energy source would not give me a shave
from all the energy produced so far!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Give the man a chance!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Give the man a chance!
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 21:11:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege says:
 
     "When I told Jed that I was not very impressed with this paper, he said
     I should fax my objections to Srinivasan, and pointed out the fax number
     on the cover.  Jed, it is not my job to correct senior researchers from
     big name institutions.  I look for good technique and enough discussion
     of the problems that I can believe that the workers have exercised due
     diligence.  The Srinivasan paper goes in the trash."
 
Hey, give us a break Tom, or we will throw YOU in the trash. What kind of an
attitude is that? What is this crap about "senior researchers" and "big
names" supposed to mean? Since when did you start believing in big names?
 
Let's get this straight: Srinivasan is a real sweet, personable guy. He is
nice, and open, like you, so he gave me an advanced copy of his paper, and I
gave it to you. You found it was slightly incomplete, you found some rough
edges and unanswered question. Naturally. What did you expect? What did it
look like you were getting? Look at the date.
 
So what did you do? Instead of acting like a mensch, and giving the man a
hand, you go on this public network and start calling him names! Incredible!
What kind of slimball thing is that to do?
 
You could printed out the note you sent to me and faxed it to him with zero
effort. Maybe that would have cleared up your concerns, maybe not. I am sure
it would have helped him, and I might add, he always thanks people and
acknowledges help. If it did not clear up your concerns, then maybe in a week
or two you could have posted a message putting him in the garbage. But to do
that WITHOUT EVEN LIFTING A FINGER TO SEND A FAX is outrageous, unscientific,
unsporting, uncalled for, and just plain bad manners.
 
You had a chance to learn something, and to help this guy, and to push
progress forward, and what did you do? You blew it!
 
What is this whacko attitude you people out here in Fusion Digest have? What
is the matter with you? This place is a Goddamn Piranha Pool! Let's have some
patience, and some manners. Notoya reports something and you say she is
lying. Srinvasan circulates a paper and you throw him in the garbage. When
people see this outrageous behavior, they decide never to report anything
here. Then you complain because you never see any results posted! People will
never post details of their experiments, or circulate unfinished manuscripts,
or announce lectures here if you people act like a bunch of Barbarians. It
took me 3 months of waiting and watching before I threw poor old Ying into
the trash, and if he gets replicated I will pull him out and dust him off.
 
Let us join the 17th century, okay? There are standards, rules, and etiquette
to scientific discussions and exchanges. These rules have been around since
Newton's day, but you people have forgotten or abolished them. The system of
free exchange of information depends upon mutual respect, and upon giving the
other guy a chance to explain himself, finish up his report, and correct
minor errors gracefully.
 
Good Lord! Competitors in the software business are nasty to one another, but
I never saw such petty nonsense as I see here.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Jed Rothwell /  It's a heat engine
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It's a heat engine
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 03:33:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I found one last note on my disk about the cost of CF generators. This should
be obvious, but from some of the questions and concerns raised, I guess some
readers have overlooked it:
 
A CF engine will be a heat engine. These have been around since the days of
James Watt. There are lots of new and old designs to pick from: everything
from steam turbines, to triple expansion low pressure cylinders, to
thermoelectric devices. What is great about CF is that the approximate range
of heat, 200 C to maybe 1000 C, and the power density, are roughly similar to
what we already have, in things like fission fuel rods. So, we are already
used to working in this domain. That is why I can make fairly confident
predictions about costs, although it is impossible to predict "exact numbers"
because it will be a brave new world if CF works. Some of the rules and
economics will change radically, and engineers will work feverishly to iron
out problems and lower the cost of producing things like thermoelectrics and
magneto hydrodrodynamics (sp?), which have been languishing for lack of
market up until now.
 
I mentioned that with ultra-low cost fuel, we would gravitate to low capital
cost engines and generators. There are various old designs lying around from
the cheap oil era of the sixties, and the new fuel economics will encourage
new research to find others. My last example was muddy, let me try again:
suppose a generator costs $10,000, and burns $2,000 in oil per year. I invent
another one that costs only $3,000, but it burns $20,000 in oil. Obviously, my
machine finds no market. Pull out the oil burner, put in a nickel device, and
suddenly the efficient machine costs one dollar per year to run, and mine
costs ten dollars. So, my gadget is $7,000 cheaper, and I put the other one
out of business. Cheap fuel promotes cheap engines; expensive fuel, and
energy shortages, promote more expensive, efficient engines. This was
especially evident in the 1970's. (BTW, these rules do not apply to special
performance applications like air and spacecraft.)
 
Thermoelectric devices are more rugged and potentially more cost-effective
than people realize. It is easy to fall into the trap of comparing them to
photovoltaic cells, because: they work in a similar fashion, they are
expensive to make, and they have low efficiency. The difference is that CF
has much greater power density than sunlight. If you take photovoltaic cells
to the moon, where sunlight is much more intense, they would be cost
effective too. People say that the capital cost per watt of thermoelectrics
with CF at 200 or 300 C (or better) would compete with steam turbines.
Thermoelectrics are a lot cheaper to maintain, and they have long service
lives. I don't know if you could make an auto engine at those temperatures;
it might be too bulky and hot. I read that the Russians use thermoelectrics
in remote Siberian villages, where they are fired up by burning wood! Any
device which can survive the tender mercies of Siberian villagers must be
rugged. They are also used with fissionable materials in spacecraft, and I
believe in remote microwave telephone repeaters, which are also rugged,
demanding applications.
 
One way to build the "much cheaper" $3,000 generator might be to invent a way
to mass produce crude, low efficiency, large sized thermoelectric devices.
Manufacturing efficiencies can easily be improved; there has not been enough
demand to justify doing this up until now, but if the cost of heat drops to
zero, the engineers will jump to work, and manufacturing costs will tumble.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Jed's electricity is going to be cheap
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's electricity is going to be cheap
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 15:26:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Taking the numbers Jed Rothwell gave in a recent post: $30,000 for
a 10kW CF generator and an electric rate of say $0.06 per kWh I
calculate that this generator is worth $0.60 per hour of service.
Even if we neglect the cost of money that says the pay-back time
is 50,000 hours.  That is 2000 days if the duty factor of usage
is 100% or more likely 4000 days.  We are talking 10 years plus.
Don't sell Con Ed short just yet!  And don't forget the possibility
that you end up with a basement full of hydrinos.  Speaking of
potential investments, anyone interested in being a partner in the
nation's first hydrino disposal company? d;-)
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 778 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 778 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 17:03:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello Gentle Reader(s?),
just a few papers slowly stacked up here. Two of them try to find neutrons -
either directly or indirectly - and fail, getting impressively low upper
limits, or noise levels, it seems. The Szpak et al paper is fundamental but
seems to be examining an aspect of cold fusion, talking about "electrochemical
compression", a phrase used mostly by those who believe, I find.
 
You might be amazed (-used) to see the 1986 paper from the Jones lab here. I
previously had it in the 'peripherals' file but have just changed my mind. If
the essence of cold fusion in Pd or Ti is the 'compression', then this is
clearly an attempt at cold fusion, or a theoretical look at it anyway. It
asks, rather than answers, questions, but this is OK. This, then, along with
the 1986 Russian fracto work, is some of the early history of cold fusion.
 
You might reckon that I am a bit hard on Hines, and on Huizenga's book. Well,
I have previously said that the book makes H appear an ultra-hard skeptic, and
this has been pointed out (sometimes in much stronger terms) by others. This
is not to say that I think it's such a bad book; I don't. However, a book
reviewer ought to know something about the subject of the book, and I am
skeptical of a psychologist reviewing a book on a chemico-physical subject (I
could be wrong, the man might be a polymath), and Hines gives me the
impression that he uncritically accepts every word Huizenga writes. This might
be sort of standard for the journal; I have heard occasional comment that it
is not skeptical but reactionary with respect to borderline science.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 15-Jan-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 778
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lopez Garcia AR, Vucetich H, Bolzan AE, Arvia AJ;
Il Nuovo Cimento A105 (1992) 987.
"Gamma-radiation detection limits for electrochemically induced deuterium
cold-fusion rates".
** The fact that the 2.45 MeV neutrons expected from d-d fusion are
thermalised by water and then yield 2.224 MeV gamma radiation, was made use of
here; a single NaI scintillation detector was used here, in conjunction with
an electrolysis cell, with LiOH in D2O, at a Pd rod cathode, and rather small
currents. These were stepped occasionally from 0.8 mA/cm**2 to double or ten
times that, in order to provoke fusion. Measured emissions were three orders
of magnitude below those of FPH but more in line with those of the Jones team.
The FPH results may be due to errors.                            Dec-91/Jul-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Szeflinski Z, Kozlowski M, Osuch S, Sawicki P, Szeflinska G, Wilhelmi Z,
Starowieyski KB, Tkacz M;                          Phys. Lett. A168 (1992) 83.
"Upper limit of neutron emission from the chemical reaction of LiD with heavy
water".
** Claims (Arzhannikov et al 1991) that chemical reactions, too, can cause
cold fusion, inspired this work, in which neutrons were measured next to a
test tube of heavy water, to which crystals of LiD were gradually added. Five
liquid scintillation neutron detectors were used to exclude noise events,
with additional shape discrimination. The upper limit for neutron emission
was measured to be 1.2E-26 n/d-atom/s, one order of magnitude lower than the
previous workers (Arzhannikov et al). No bunched emissions were seen either.
The authors conclude that no fusion was seen.                    Jun-92/Aug-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Scharber SR;    J. Electroanal. Chem. 337 (1992) 147.
"Charging of the Pd/(n)H system: role of the interphase".
** The success of electrochemical compression of a hydrogen isotope into Pd
- and of obtaining the Fleischmann-Pons effect - depends on what happens at
the interface between the Pd surface and the electrolyte. Most of what is
known refers to hydrogen, and cannot simply be transferred to deuterium, hence
this study. Slow scan cyclic voltammetry was employed. Examined were: the time
behaviour of voltammograms, effect of scan rate, the difference between light
and heavy water, pH effects, weakly adsorbable ions (Cl-, OH-), and surface
active species such as CN-. The team concludes that the interphase is an
active participant in the bulk charging process.                 Nov-91/Oct-92
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Siclen CDeW, Jones SE;             J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 12 (1986) 213.
"Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules".
** Asks the question whether high pressure of the order of 10**6 atm, as
obtainable from a diamond anvil can significantly increase the natural fusion
rate of hydrogen isotope atoms. There is a lot of theory but no real
conclusion, because some experimental data is needed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comment: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hines TM;                                    Skeptical Inquirer 17 (1993) 201.
"Cold fusion and pathological science".
** Psychologist Hines, on sabbatical in a biological institute, reviews the
book "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" by Huizenga, and
finds it by far the best book on the subject. He likes the very detailed cold
fusion history of the first two months, and accepts all Huizenga writes. This
is seen from quote marks around "discovery", and phrases like 'spurious
reports' or 'near religious zeal'. He agrees that this book is a useful
addition to the literature on pathological science.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Jones's BYU cement experiment
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones's BYU cement experiment
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 17:04:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I just finished a preprint that I had received from Steve Jones which
describes the experiments on neutron emission from concrete made with
heavy water.  In a series of careful measurements they do seem to
establish that gammas from thorium in portland cement in combination
with deuterium constitute a neutron source due to photodisintegration
of deuterium that is significant for experiments involving low-level
neutron detection.  (Where have I heard this before?)
 
They go on to assess this neutron production effect as a function of
time as portland cement mixed with D20 cures over the course of
many days, and find that the neutron yield decreases with time.  They
then recognize that there is a significant loss of D20 from the sample
during the course of the measurements, and seek to correct for the
effects of the loss using an external thorium source to determine
the loss of deuterium by a measurement of the neutron yield induced
by this added source.
 
One possible area of systematic error that I do not see mentioned in
this work which I think needs to be looked into has to do with
attenuation both of gammas and neutrons.  (Note that these are fairly
low energy neutrons.)  The samples are described only by given the
masses of the ingredients so I have to do some guess work, but I
think we are looking at samples that are several cm thick.  In a uniform
mix of deuterium and thorium the neutron yield is going to be peaked
in the middle due to solid angle effects alone.  If the sample loses
D2O I would also guess the loss is from the surface.  And finally
the natural arrangement of things when using the thorium source is
to put the source on the side of the sample away from the detector.
Steve, have I given you enough reasons for doing a very careful
analysis of the effects of attenuation on your experiment?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.13 / nod sivad /  Re: Quick replies
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quick replies
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 14:54:32 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>>"Room temperature nuclear fusion without commensurate amounts of fusion
>>products is a delusion and qualifies as pathological science."
 
>This is indeed a strong statement, but I think it hits the mark pretty closely.
> [...] If one is claiming nuclear reactions as the basis for xs heat, then
> nuclear ash (products) must be shown in quantities commensurate with the heat.
>This is what Huizenga is demanding, and I agree.
 
If cold fusion doesn't exist, then Huizenga and you are right.  I agree
this is most likely the case.  But let's consider the ramifications if
cold fusion *does* exist.  The two most likely explanations are:
 
1.  Cold fusion is really hot chemistry.  Some heretofore undiscovered
chemical process is the culprit.
 
2.  Cold fusion is cold fusion: a nuclear process.  As you point out,
none of the expected evidence for such a process has been forthcoming (at
least not in a reliable manner), so either our understanding of the process
is in error, many many experiments are in error, or this is some "intermediate"
nuclear process which leaves little ash and may not even be properly called
"fusion."  Perhaps "intermediate" is a bad choice of words.  Let's call
it "unknown."
 
I'm sure there are other possibilities.  Mills supposedly has a remarkable
nickel and water soup brewing in his lab.  Until this manifestation has
been fully investigated I must assume a 99.9% probability that "Room
temperature nuclear fusion without commensurate amounts of fusion
products is a delusion and qualifies as pathological science," but
I also seriously consider the .1% possibility that "the belief we fully
understand the nuclear process involved is a delusion and qualifies
as a pathological grok."
 
 
                                        me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Xinbing Liu /  Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 05:42:27 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

Just saw an article in TIME magazine's science section about searching for
dark matter (which may make up to 97% of the total matter) of the universe.
One hypothesis is that dark matter is made of WIMPS -- Weakly Interacting
Massive Particles.  Recent postings in this group brought up M&F's
sub-basement hydrogens, or hydrinos, again.  It looks to me these tiny
hydrinos, if they exist, can be WIMPS, if they exist.  Suppose a hydrino in
the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to normal ground state) is
13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.  And since they are extremely small, the
cross section will be very small.  So they are pretty inert, i.e. weakly
interacting.
 
As for 1/n = 1/2 hydrinos, they are not quite WIMPS, but since nobody has
seen them, we might as well call them Physically Invinsible Massive
Particles, or PIMPS, for short.
 
Back to my lurker mode.
 
Xinbing Liu
University of Michigan
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmonkey cudfnXinbing cudlnLiu cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Xinbing Liu /  Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 05:56:06 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

 
Just saw an article in TIME magazine's science section about searching for
dark matter (which may make up to 97% of the total matter) of the universe.
One hypothesis is that dark matter is made of WIMPS -- Weakly Interacting
Massive Particles.  Recent postings in this group brought up M&F's
sub-basement hydrogens, or hydrinos, again.  It looks to me these tiny
hydrinos, if they exist, can be WIMPS, if they exist.  Suppose a hydrino in
the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to normal ground state) is
13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.  And since they are extremely small, the
cross section will be very small.  So they are pretty inert, i.e. weakly
interacting.
 
As for 1/n = 1/2 hydrinos, they are not quite WIMPS, but since nobody has
seen them, we might as well call them Physically Invinsible Massive
Particles, or PIMPS, for short.
 
Back to my lurker mode.
 
Xinbing Liu
University of Michigan
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmonkey cudfnXinbing cudlnLiu cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Capital Equipment Costs
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Capital Equipment Costs
Date: 14 Jan 93 17:21:29 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930113214915_72240.1256_EHL70-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Jim Carr, lucid as always, makes the following points:
>
>"The cost of energy is *not* the cost of fuel.  If that were true, then the
>discovery of photovoltaic cells would have long ago made any search for Cold
>Fusion unnecessary... The cost of energy is the cost of fuel plus the
>amortized cost of the capital equipment used to turn fuel into energy, plus
>the cost of a distribution or load sharing system if one is needed."
 
Plus the cost of environmental controls needed before, during and after
the generation of power.  In the case of past nuclear plants, this cost
will turn out to be the only one that is really significant.  We will
be paying this cost for millenia.
 
>Right, right. I had that in parenthesis, but it is not parenthetical. Fuel
>costs are very important, naturally, but we do need to look at the likely
>cost of CF capital equipment like home heaters, home power generators, auto
>engines, and so on. Also, the likely cost of the power and distribution
>systems, the cost of controlling pollution, and the approximate cost to
>society of the pollution that we do *not* control.........
 
 
 
At least you have a clue about that.
 
 
 
>Capital equipment cost is greatly affected by power density. Low power
>density is what makes some forms of solar energy uneconomical. It is just too
>spread out. The power density of the best Pd cells is excellent -- better
>than commercial fission reactors.
 
 
The overwhelming majority of those who read this are not convinced there
is anything useful there.  You are able to project "power densities".
 
> Ni cells are also okay, and getting better,
>thanks to the convoluted rough surfaces of the latest porous nickel cathodes.
>
>The core materials needed in Ni systems are practically free. The engine
>block and other peripheral technology will cost no more than it does now.
>
>The core materials needed for Pd may not be much more expensive than Ni,
>because thin film Pd seems to work. You may not need much more Pd in your CF
>car than you already have in your gas car, in the catalytic converter. (This
>is speculation on my part, the rest of this stuff comes from various other
>sources.)
 
 
You call it speculation.  Sounds to me like "blue sky".
 
>
>Assuming we can get a handle on Tritium generation, power distribution costs
>will be zero. Infrastructure costs will be zero. Over the long term, one
>power unit in your house will be cheaper than your share of the local poles
>and transformers. That is not even looking at the cost of the high tension
>wires and the central power generation plants. The recent hurricane in
>Florida toppled mile after mile of newly installed high tension wires --
>millions of dollars worth. All costs like this will be eliminated.
 
 
Give me a break, please!.
 
 
>
>Fuel delivery costs will be so small, you can't measure 'em.
>
>The cost of controlling the pollution will be zero. The price we now pay for
>*not* controlling some pollution will also be reduced to zero. Approximately
>70% of air pollution is caused by auto transport or power generation. This
>will be eliminated, which will save many lives and fabulous amounts of money.
 
 
.....and on and on, and.......
 
 
 
Please rein in your mouth and give your brain a chance to catch up.
 
The worst thing that could possibly happen is that everyone starts
using some kind of inefficient mechanism to convert lots of "free" heat
into "useful" forms of energy.  The result of this will be an
uncontrolled rise in the temperature of the earth to the expense of all
the living creatures thereon.  Just expelling a lot of water vapor from
boiling CF cells could create unreversible problems.
 
 
 
If, indeed, it does turn out that there is useful energy here, it will
not turn out to be free - or even nearly free - when the infrastructure
surrounding its safe and efficient use is truly considered.
 
 
 
The one most universal law of everything is
 
 
 
        "THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH."
 
 
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 17:33:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu) writes:
>Suppose a hydrino in
>the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to normal ground state) is
>13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
>13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.
 
Just an intuitive guess, but I would suspect a maximum energy limit
based upon the energy release value of k capture (the electron is
caught by the proton to make a neutron.)  I don't have my books handy
but the value would be the reverse sign of the energy liberated by a
free neutron decay back to a proton and an electron.  This gives,
I think, a way to determine the upper limits of "n".
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / w Davidsen /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: 14 Jan 93 20:12:40 GMT
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <C0t083.1Ir.1@cs.cmu.edu>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
 
|    As soon as people wake up and realize that CF real, the price of
|    oil, natural gas, and uranium will collapse, never to recover.
|
| Patent nonsense. This will not happen until
|
| (a) CF plants are on line, selling base-load electricity to
| distributors at less than 1c/kWh, with demonstrated capacity to take
| over the remainder of the (TW magnitude) world requirements within the
| mine-to-wall-socket timescale of coal, and
|
| (b) small CF plants are driving automobiles for an amortized cost of
| less than 5c/mile.
|
| Until then this is all a pipe-dream, and a disgrace to any sci.*
| newsgroup.
 
  I glad you have that 5c/mile figure handy, because no one else can
operate a combustion vehicle for that. In truth, most people will
probably spend that on the fuel alone. Consider the total cost of the
engine, transmission, all those belts, pulleys, alternator, etc, and the
cost of an electric car is far lower than the cost of a combustion car
except for the cost of the energy. Given any reasonable cost for the
power source, and the public will flock to it.
 
  Also, the environmentalists will legislate it as soon as it becomes
practical. And if the energy is really cheap, think of offering people
in the north a car that stays warm and defrosted all night, or the
people in the south a car which can sit in a parking lot with the A/C
on, and not gas or bankrupt you. The inherent advantages are such that
the cost need only be close and the switch will take place.
 
  Think of the military uses, elimination of long supply lines for fuel,
and elimination of frequent refueling would make every existing tank
obsolete. Not to mention the refitting of ships, both commercial and
military, which would take place, and the rush to cheaper trains and
large trucks.
 
  You may say "patent nonsense" and quote some arbitrarily low figure
like 5c/mile, but the truth is that the engineering factors make these
powerplants attractive and practical even at a much higher cost, for
almost every application.
 
  Unfortunately we're no closer than we were years ago, no one has
produced a convincing aparatus which produces commercial scale output at
any price.
 
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendavidsen cudfnwilliam cudlnDavidsen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: 14 Jan 1993 16:42 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Jan14.173353.25923@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes...
>monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu) writes:
>>Suppose a hydrino in
>>the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to normal ground state) is
>>13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
>>13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.
>
>Just an intuitive guess, but I would suspect a maximum energy limit
>based upon the energy release value of k capture (the electron is
>caught by the proton to make a neutron.)  I don't have my books handy
>but the value would be the reverse sign of the energy liberated by a
>free neutron decay back to a proton and an electron.  This gives,
>I think, a way to determine the upper limits of "n".
 
The problem is, a neutron mass is about 1.2 MeV greater than that of a proton.
Neutrons have a half life of about 13 minutes, after which they break up
into a proton and an electron, and about 700 keV of energy (don't know if
it's just a gamma - conservation of spin looks like it would require both
a gamma and a neutrino...)
 
The point is that, if there *is* an intermediate, still lower than unexcited
Hydrogen state for H, wouldn't at least *some* neutrons decay into this
state???
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Mike Jamison /  First attempt to quantify HICCUP
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: First attempt to quantify HICCUP
Date: 14 Jan 1993 17:28 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

A "temperature" of 100,000 degrees K is purported to exist in a cavitating
bubble.  (Note to Dale Bass: temperature is in quotes because, as you have
pointed out, we're working with such a small scale that the word may not
make sense).
 
To determine the equivalent energy in eV, use the fact that:
 
k = 1.38066e-23 J/(K molecule), 1 eV = 1.602189e-19 J, T = 100,000 K
 
kT = 8.62 eV  (Note: a quick and dirty method to make this estimate uses
a simple ratio:  at 300 K, kT = 0.025 eV, so at 100,000 K,
kT = 0.025 * 100,000/300 eV)
 
Now the "fun" part:
 
On pages 29 thru 31 of "Fusion Reactor Physics" a reaction rate is derived
for DD and DT fusion.  The caveat is that the derivation holds for a
Maxwellian (Gaussian) velocity distribution in thermal equilibrium.  I
suspect that neither condition is true for cavitation.  Howver, Dr. Jones'
Phd. student may want to come up with a time/temperature/density model of
her cavitation apparatus, and do a time integration of the following formula
to see how close it comes to reality.  A few more caveats (my own) about the
following formula:
 
1)  The units are expressed as cm^2/sec. I believe the units should be cm^3
per sec.
 
2)  When plugging in values to compute reaction rates as a reality check
against the author's numbers, my results differed by two orders of magnitude
(The author's number for rDD = 8.6E-19 nD^2 cm^3/sec, I came up with 2.0E-17
nD^2 cm^3/sec, given a temp. equivalent to 10keV.  Here, nD = Deuteron
density per cm^3.  The number is squared because each D has nD - 1 chances
of smashing into another D per cm^3).
 
That said, the formula for DD reaction rates is:
 
rDD = 2.3E-14 * nD^2 * (1 / kT)^0.66666 * e^(-18.8 / [kT]^0.33333)
 
For a temperature of 100,000 K = 8.62 eV, I come up with a reaction rate
of 5.7E-19 * nD^2 cm^3/sec
 
Assuming the cavitation is in D2O, the reaction rate would have to be
multiplied by 2/3, since the chance of a D smacking an O is 0.3333 and smack-
ing another D is 0.66666.
 
Also, water, at 300 K, has a vapor pressure of 0.0311 atm, one mole of an
ideal gas has a volume of 22.414 liters at 1 atm and 298 K, so the number
of water *molecules* per cm^3 at 0.0311 atm at 300 K is:
 
0.031 * 6.022E23 / 22414 = 0.835E18 molecules/cm^3.  The number of D atoms
is twice this, or 1.67E18/cm^3
 
Plugging in some more numbers, I get (1.67E18)^2 * 2/3 * 5.7E-19 =
1.06E18 D-D fusions/cc/sec at 100,000 K.  This number probably sounds very
high, but remember that the density of the gas is 4 orders of magnitude
greater than the Tokamaks run at (if not more).  Also, if the author's
numbers are correct, then I'm at least 2 orders of magnitude higher in my
estimate than reality.
 
Referring back to what I was trying to say about Dr. Jones' Phd. student:
 
It should be possible to use the above formula to determine the fusion rate
in the cavitation calculations.  First, the simple formula is probably the
upper bound on fusion rates.  Second, if cavitation bubble temperature and
pressure can be quantified for the cavitation cycle with respect to time,
it should be possible to use the above formula, substituting D(t) =
# of Deuterons/cc at any given instant, and kT(t) = temperature at any
given instant, and integrating over one "bubble cycle", to determine the
actual fusion rate.
 
Thinking about what I just wrote, I guess that at 100,000 K the gas density
will be a lot less than 10^18 atoms/cc, which is why that fusion rate looks
high...
 
Just some "food" for thought.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / S Schaffner /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 22:18:30 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <14JAN199316422897@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov
(Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
|> The problem is, a neutron mass is about 1.2 MeV greater than that of a
 proton.
|> Neutrons have a half life of about 13 minutes, after which they break up
|> into a proton and an electron, and about 700 keV of energy (don't know if
|> it's just a gamma - conservation of spin looks like it would require both
|> a gamma and a neutrino...)
 
No gamma, just a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino (this conserves both
angular momentum and lepton number).
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 22:25:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>Just an intuitive guess, but I would suspect a maximum energy limit
>>based upon the energy release value of k capture (the electron is
>>caught by the proton to make a neutron.)  I don't have my books handy
>>but the value would be the reverse sign of the energy liberated by a
>>free neutron decay back to a proton and an electron.  This gives,
>>I think, a way to determine the upper limits of "n".
>
>The problem is, a neutron mass is about 1.2 MeV greater than that of a proton.
>Neutrons have a half life of about 13 minutes, after which they break up
>into a proton and an electron, and about 700 keV of energy (don't know if
>it's just a gamma - conservation of spin looks like it would require both
>a gamma and a neutrino...)
 
Ouch.  Proving once again that my intuition is bassackward.
 
Apparently the dilemma is that when an electron gets within nuclear force
range of the proton, there is a repulsion effect that overpowers the
electrostatic attractive effect.
 
I had all the reasons wrong, but there still seems to be an upper limit
to "n", based upon the distance versus relative strength of the nuclear
forces.
 
>The point is that, if there *is* an intermediate, still lower than unexcited
>Hydrogen state for H, wouldn't at least *some* neutrons decay into this
>state???
 
Given 700 KeV betas, it's hard to believe they decay into *any* captured
state, at least not directly (trillions of collisions later, however ...)
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Bruce Dunn /  RE: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Cheap energy investments
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 03:33:04 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

        Not all energy is necessarily equally useful.  If the current water
based systems which are claimed to demonstrate anamolous heat are scaled up,
you may end up with a good water heater, but a totally useless way to
generate electricity.  Heat to electricity conversion systems require large
temperature differentials to avoid low efficiency and the resulting need to
have a large physical plant.  "Free" heat is available now using ocean
surface water to deep water temperature differentials.  The free heat however
has not yet made ocean thermal electricity generation very competitive, as a
lot of equipment is needed to turn a large amount of heat interaction into a
small amount of mechanical energy (low Carnot efficiency).
 
      A potential strategy would be to look for industries which could
rapidly expand if large amounts of low grade heat were available at little
cost.
 
 These might include:
- greenhouse operations in cold climates
- aquaculture operations in cold climates
- providers of systems for home heating or air conditioning (the latter would
use heat-driven absorbtion cycle refrigerators) - there would likely be a
huge replacement market as gas and oil furnaces and electrically driven
airconditioning become obsolete
- novel uses such as driveway and sidewalk heating to melt ice
 
        This becomes a very interesting exercise in creative thinking.  What
new possibilities would exist if you had a small device which was capable of
producing unlimited quantites of heat at a temperature of say 50 C?  I am
currently stuck with my list above, but there must be other possibilites!
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / G Aharonian /  Re: CF Reality Check
     
Originally-From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Reality Check
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 05:00:32 GMT
Organization: The World

    A follow up comment on the economics issue.  I have gone to a few
CF talks in the Boston area, given by people claiming to have repeatable
CF results. Physics aside, I always ask if they have calculated the
economics of their experiment as a product (obviously an experimental
system is going to have high costs), and whether they can project up
in scale for the economics of their CF system.
    I am continually amazed at the lack of interest by these people (some
with their own companies) in the economics of their specific approach.
Partly these economic models are high to construct, since most don't know
what is being consumed/transformed and how, which you need for these
models.
    In short, if I was a venture capitalist, I would have no way to
calculate a return on my investment in funding such products, even as
a very speculative investment.  Until CF developers start putting cost
figures into their work, CF (assuming it exists) will have no impact on
the general electric utility industry.  I want my microeconomics.
 
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
--
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensrctran cudfnGregory cudlnAharonian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Pierre Hilaire /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: pierre@media.mit.edu (Pierre St. Hilaire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 04:10:35 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

 
>One hypothesis is that dark matter is made of WIMPS -- Weakly Interacting
>Massive Particles.  Recent postings in this group brought up M&F's
>sub-basement hydrogens, or hydrinos, again.  It looks to me these tiny
>hydrinos, if they exist, can be WIMPS, if they exist.  Suppose a hydrino in
>the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to normal ground state) is
>13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
>13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.  And since they are extremely small, the
>cross section will be very small.  So they are pretty inert, i.e. weakly
>interacting.
>
 
        Hydrinos would still interact via the strong force (due to the
proton) and thus have a significant cross section. Hence they could
not qualify as WIMP's, which by definition interact only via the weak
interaction (an example of a weakly interacting particle is the
neutrino - their cross section is so small that they can traverse the
earth virtually unimpeded).
 
                                        Pierre St Hilaire
                                        MIT Media Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpierre cudfnPierre cudlnHilaire cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 06:49:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <19634@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>        Not all energy is necessarily equally useful.  If the current water
>based systems which are claimed to demonstrate anamolous heat are scaled up,
>you may end up with a good water heater, but a totally useless way to
>generate electricity.  Heat to electricity conversion systems require large
>temperature differentials to avoid low efficiency and the resulting need to
>have a large physical plant.
 
Bruce, this isn't necessarily so. Certainly the most common methods
require large temperature differentials, but they also aren't very efficient.
And just because scaling a plant up makes them _more_ efficient doesn't make
them truly efficient.
 
Sterling Cycle engines can use low grade heat differentials. Certainly there
are other methods.
 
Though I'm not a fan of Pons, Fleischman, et. al., if they are showing
boiling water they are certainly showing the source for a steam engine
and they are notably efficient under certain circumstances.
 
No, if we can find a cheap source of heat we can use it very well thank you.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Scott Lurndal /  Re: Status #10 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: scott@starbase.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #10 Cell 4A3
Date: 14 Jan 93 22:19:31 GMT
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <930113132931.20a036be@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
|> Status #10 Cell 4A3
|>
|> Last night, about 520 hours into the run we had another pulse.  This one is
|> 350 to 400 joules.  It's size depends on when I choose to declare it over as
|> there were a number of "after pulses".  Half width half max was about 20
|> minutes.  It was again shaped like a time constant, but with a ten minute or
 
 Have you correlated your xs heat pulses with local seismic activity :-)?
 Perhaps
 tectonic plate movements at low magnitudes are causing geologic fusion which
 generates neutrons which cause ultracavitation effects in your electrolyte
 which
 generates xs heat? :-) :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Give the man a chance!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Give the man a chance!
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 07:07:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Perhaps we ought to get the rules straight Jed:
 
Notoya was soundly and rightfully criticized for displaying a careless
experiment publicly and trying to pass it off as good science. Aside from
your tirade about how she would completely destroy her career for doing so
I haven't seen much personal comments on her -- only her work.
 
We might also note that you were unable to follow the arguments about the
wire gauge with any understanding and it was quite plain. So your support
for Notoya lacked a certain credibility.
 
Now you are complaining that Srinvasin is being treated badly on the net.
Well, in a way I agree with you. Until published, papers should be treated
as 'in progress' and not be too open for criticism unless the procedures
followed are obviously unprofessional.
 
I have rewritten a number of papers for scientists that were technically
above reproach, but who were literarily incompetent. Even after seeing
the finished paper they couldn't understand what the changes were and why
they were done. But, I must say, these papers included all of the data,
all of the procedures and complete information on the experiments.
 
Not having seen the paper referred to I must remain neutral yet skeptical.
Though attacks such as you tendered tend to make me swing into the other
camp's direction.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Capital Equipment Costs
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Capital Equipment Costs
Date: 15 Jan 93 16:28:51 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <930113214915_72240.1256_EHL70-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>
>Capital equipment cost is greatly affected by power density. Low power
>density is what makes some forms of solar energy uneconomical. It is just too
>spread out.    ...
 
This belongs on sci.energy, but it is not power density.  The issue is the
amortized cost of the stuff needed to make the power.  Low density solar
systems for hot water can actually cut it because they are cheap and do
not suffer much at night.  High density systems for electrical generation
are not there yet for a number of reasons, one of which is just the cost of
the necessary solar cells.  If they ever do become feasible, then we will
have to decide what the value of the remaining Michigan sand dunes really
is before they are turned into electricity.  We have never sorted out how
to charge for "public goods", and I suppose having a CF cell boiling out
tritium in my garage might fall in that category.
 
Home CF systems do have one very important thing in common with solar, which
is why I raised the issue.  As a distributed system, it would be owned and
maintained by the home owner or landlord.  Thus the capital and recurring
costs, plus the costs of meeting EPA guidelines, must be met by a large
number of individuals rather than a utility.  Just asking the question
of what the expected MTBF for a CF system would be, and what the rate of
regular maintenance (anode and cathode replacement?) would be shows just
how little you know about the economics of CF -- and about the chance that
a CF system will generate interesting amounts of reliable power.
 
--
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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Nick Haines /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 18:18:51 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1993Jan14.201240.29876@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM
 
(Bill Davidsen) criticises my 5c/mile amortized figure for a
combustion vehicle.  Well, the fact is that in the current academic
year my car will travel something like 15000 miles, and I anticipate
spending less than $1000 on it. That includes fuel, maintenance, the
real difference between purchase and sale cost of the vehicle, and
lost interest on the capital.  OK, that's nearly 7c/mile, but my fuel
economy isn't all that good. I know these figures don't apply to the
majority of cars, and that Joe Blow's car probably costs him 20c/mile
at least, but frankly Joe Blow doesn't do these sums, is principally
aware of the fuel cost, won't trust a nukular-driven car (or even an
electric one), and so on. To sell him a CF car you'll have to get the
cost-per-mile down below 5c. And what we were discussing was Jed's
remark:
 
   |    As soon as people wake up and realize that CF real, the price of
   |    oil, natural gas, and uranium will collapse, never to recover.
 
Do you really disagree that this is `patent nonsense'?
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Jed Rothwell /  MIT IAP Update
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT IAP Update
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 21:45:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
The MIT IAP seminar on cold fusion to be held on Saturday, Dec. 16, looks
like it will be great. There is a lot of interest, and many inquiries. I am
sorry that I will not be able to attend. I just heard about a splendid last
minute addition to the agenda:
 
Larry Forsley will be there and he will show his Takahashi type cell, which
recently underwent a spectacular heat excursion. During the night, the
temperature shot up 30 C in 5 minutes. By the next morning, the electrolyte
was all gone. The evidence indicates that 15 ml of electrolyte boiled away in
about 20 minutes. He will show the insulating layer of the calorimeter which
was scorched and cracked.
 
Congratulations, Larry!
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 21:45:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes
 
>The latest claim from Prof. Farrell which promised good power gain was
 operating below 1 W
>as I recall so the power density isn't all that great.  If going to 10 Watts is
 going to be simple >surely it will happen soon, now that the possible
 biohazards of all those hydrinos need not be >considered.(Excuse the attempt at
 humor.)
 
The lastest claim is input power = 2.5 watts, output power = 50 watts. No
correction for H2 and O2 formation.
 
Steve Kneizys: STEVO%URSINUS.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu asks if dihydrinos are
possible.
 
Possible, if both hydrinos are in the same "n" state.  I can't comment on
the bond strength.  However, this does not make hydrinos biologically
hazardous.
 
Xinbing Liu: monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu quips
 
>Just saw an article in TIME magazine's science section about searching for dark
 matter (which may >make up to 97% of the total matter) of the universe. One
 hypothesis is that dark matter is made of >WIMPS -- Weakly Interacting Massive
 Particles.  Recent postings in this group brought up M&F's
>sub-basement hydrogens, or hydrinos, again.  It looks to me these tiny
 hydrinos, if they exist, can >be WIMPS, if they exist.  Suppose a hydrino in
 the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to >normal ground state) is
 13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
 >13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.  And since they are extremely small, the cross
 section will be very >small.  So they are pretty inert, i.e. weakly
 interacting.
 
>As for 1/n = 1/2 hydrinos, they are not quite WIMPS, but since nobody has seen
 them, we might as well >call them Physically Invinsible Massive Particles, or
 PIMPS, for short.
 
>Back to my lurker mode.
 
Humorous and correct. It's nice to know that someone is paying attention. n
= 1/2 hydrinos also qualify as dark matter.  n = 1/2 hydrinos are 8 times
smaller that n = 1 hydrogen atoms.  I give you another clue to solving the
riddle of this amazing story:  Some people claim that the Sun does not give
off sufficient neutrinos to account for the heat released.
 
A note to those who have encourage Mills to attend CF conferences.  Randy
Mills and others at HPC have not attended conferences labeled Cold Fusion
because they want to distance themselves from the notion that the excess
heat in these electrolyses comes from some fusion process (deuterium plus
deuterium; K+ plus H+; or whatever). I know that from a scientific point of
view this policy is not helpful to the advancement of the understanding of
this process, but there are other considerations and this policy will
continue.
 
Mills and I maintained from the beginning that the heat does *not* come
from fusion (that is why H2O was used).  We also maintained that some
fusion, D plus D, does occur (if D2O is used) as the deutrinos get quite
small, but this releases an insignificant amount of heat.  We essentially
agree with S. Jones, here.  That is, we predicted that a small number of
tritons and a much smaller number of neutrons will be produced if D2O is
used.  The heat from the tritium and neutron formation will be about
10(-12) less than the heat from hydrino formation.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Eruption of Colombian Volcano
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eruption of Colombian Volcano
Date: 15 Jan 93 12:01:26 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
In an earlier posting, I noted that two friends of mine were going to the
Galeras Volcano in Colombia, So. America in order to take samples to search
for tritium emanating from the earth's interior. [Reply to Frank Close/Fusion in
Earth, 7 Dec. 1993.]  In fact, Prof. Gary McMurtry of the Univ. of Hawaii
is supported by BYU in order for him to make the trip.  (Funding is bad for
those of us interested in natural fusion, but BYU has provided a small
grant.)  He traveled to Colombia with Fraser Goff, a geologist from Los
Alamos Nat. Lab. and also a good friend.  Both are intrigued by the BYU
hypothesis of production of tritium (and 3He) by fusion processes in the
earth, and are actively acquiring samples from volcanoes.  Hence their
expedition to Galeras.
Imagine then my horror on reading this article in the newspaper this morning:
 
"A volcano erupted in southern Colombia on Thursday [1-14-93], spewing a huge
column of ash and killing at least six scientists taking gas samples on its
side, according to the Colombian Red Cross.
Eight other scientists -- three Americans and five Colombians -- were injured
and 10 were missing, the Red Cross said.
The names of those killed were not immediately available.
"I can hear people below in the crater screaming for help," said RCN radio
reporter Jose Meseses.  "   [BYU Daily Universe, p. A-2, 1-15-93]
 
I immediately called Los Alamos, Fraser's secretary, and was overjoyed to learn
that both colleagues are safe though shaken.  Thank God.  I shed tears.
At the same time, I lament the passing of other brave scientists taking samples
at the same volcano yesterday.
 
Some of you attended the BYU conference on possible nuclear effects in
deuterided solids, held at BYU Oct. 1990.  You may remember the after-dinner
remarks of Gary McMurtry in which he showed videos of their expedition into the
Pu'u O'o vent of Kilaeua volcano in Hawaii.  This is dangerous business.  These
men literally risk their lives in pursuit of truth.  I guess I just risk my
reputation.
 
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 20:26:05 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
 
> (b) small CF plants are driving automobiles for an amortized cost of
> less than 5c/mile.
 
Or until the price of gasoline from synthesis plants driven by CF has
the equivalent price.
 
> Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Capital Equipment Costs
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Capital Equipment Costs
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 22:13:49 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> The core materials needed in Ni systems are practically free. The engine
> block and other peripheral technology will cost no more than it does now.
 
Assuming that future CF systems will have the present needs for clean cathodes
and electrolyte, additional costs will be for ultrapure water (possibly could
be made on-site, but that makes the equipment more complex and expensive) and
replacements for poisoned cathodes.
 
The power generation costs will include the head-exchanger, turbine (probably
using freon or some other low boiling liquid) and generator.  Hard to get
simpler than that, but it is not free and it will wear out.
 
I once calculated that if the entire world used the energy that the average
American used, it would add up to 1/100th of a percent of the energy the earth
recieves from the sun.  Careless use of "free" energy could bring us up above
1%, enough to have an effect.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Cheap energy investments
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cheap energy investments
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 17:53:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> Bruce, this isn't necessarily so. Certainly the most common methods
> require large temperature differentials, but they also aren't very efficient.
> And just because scaling a plant up makes them _more_ efficient doesn't make
> them truly efficient.
>
> Sterling Cycle engines can use low grade heat differentials. Certainly there
> are other methods.
 
A Sterling engine works but is not very efficient at low temperatures.
The maximum efficiency of a reversible thermodynamic engine is
 
 1 - Tc/Th
 
Which for a 50 degree CF engine is (100C CF and a radiator at 50C as the heat
sink):
 
 1 - 300/350 = 14.3%
 
So for every watt of useful work done, 7 watts of waste heat are generated.
This is for an ideal engine, real engines will be much less efficient.  Running
it hotter will help, but remember that Palladium and Nickel will outgas at
higher temperatures, which might or might not kill/reduce the effect.
 
Remember that if the efficiency is too low, the waste heat will be
difficult to get rid of, requiring large radiators or cooling towers for large
installations.
 
Getting higher than 100C/400K will require a pressurized system, which is
probably only appropriate for a large installation where the dangers can be
minimized.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Replies to Dick Blue/BYU spectrometer
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Dick Blue/BYU spectrometer
Date: 15 Jan 93 16:59:08 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dick Blue raises some good questions about our coincidence spectrometer,
to which I wish to respond.
To begin, I think further clarification on the modus operandi of the
spectrometer is still in order.  When a neutron strikes a proton in an
organic scintillator, a recoil proton is produced.  It is the light output
generated by this recoil proton which provides some information about the
incident neutron energy.  Ordinarily, this is all the information one gets,
just the energy from the first collision of the neutron.  This will vary
from the full neutron E for a head-on collision down to near zero for a
glancing collision.  Thus, one would expect a significant low-energy tail
on the measured E spectrum:
|  +
|COUNTS
|    +
|     + + + + +
|                +  + +   +
|                          + +
|                              +
|                               +
|                                +
|                                 +
|___________________________________________________________
              Pulse Height from organic scintillator
                                   | Max. recoil proton E = incident neutron E
Details of the bread-loaf shape depend on the geometry of the detector, etc.
This is the way Kevin Wolf, for instance, determines that he has seen neutrons
of approx. 2.5 MeV energy in some of his deuterided-metal experiments (see e.g.
AIP#228, Proc. Provo meeting/1990).
 
But the BYU spectrometer is not just a simple scintillator.  Without re-writing
all the papers on this, let me quote briefly from our Nature 27 Apr 1989 paper:
"The neutron spectrometer, developed at BYU over the past few years (refs) has
been crucial to the identification of this cold fusion process.  The detector
consists of a liquid organic scintillator contained in a glass cylinder 12.5 cm
in diameter, in which three glass scintillator plates doped with lithium-6 are
embedded.  Neutrons deposit energy in the liquid scintillator through MULTIPLE
COLLISIONS, and the resulting light output [integrated from all n-p collisions]
yields energy information."  Thus, we add up all the light from perhaps a
dozen collisions to to determine the energy of the neutron.  We make sure the
neutron finally thermalizes in the detector by requiring a delayed coincidence
with a pulse from the glass, due to the neutron-capture reaction n+6Li
-->t+4He.  True, this coincidence requirement decreases the efficiency of the
detector, but it gives us a peak corresponding to E for mono-energetic neutrons,
instead of the bread-loaf shape shown above for the simple scintillator.
That's the principle behind the BYU coincidence spectrometer.  It also cuts
down on gamma backgrounds since the 1.5-mm thick glass plates are RELATIVELY
more sensitive to neutrons than gammas, and since the neutron-capture time
relative to the plastic-start pulse shows an exponential decay (1/3 approx.
11 microseconds) whereas the gammas produce accidental coincidences which are
flat in start-to-stop timing.  The start-to-stop time spectrum also allows
an estimate of gamma-contamination.  It seems to me Czirr and Jensen have this
about right.  Dick, please see the Jensen-Czirr paper "Gamma-ray sensitivity
of 6Li-glass Scintillators" in NIM 205:461 (1983) for more on this.  They
there answer more of your questions about gamma-sensitivity.  They did
use gammas from 28 Al, 38Cl and 24Na so they considered a range of gamma
energies.  They've done their homework.
 
The main reason our peak is so broad is that the organic scintillator is non-
linear in its light output, i.e., a single head-on collision yields more
light that a dozen collisions which extract less of the neutron's energy from
each collision.  There are two ways around this problem:  1- use a hydrogenous
scintillator which has a (near-) linear response -- Bart Czirr is working on
just this approach;  2- Use a very fast photomultiplier tube so that each
collision's light output can be identified so that corrections for the
plastic's non-linearity can be put in.  (I just thought of #2 today, but I
think with an ultra-fast PMT (like a Hamamatsu 2809), it might work.  I'll
pass the idea by Bart Czirr later.)
 
However, we do expect SOME low-energy tail -- not as bad as Fig. 1 above --
due to neutrons which deposit some energy in the plastic then wander out of
the detector where they lose more energy, finally re-entering to capture in
the glass to satisfy the coincidence requirement.  This shows up in the
montecarlo calculation, I think explaining the low-energy tail there (although
I agree with Dick this seems a too narrow).
 
In the calibration runs, we generally use a Van de Graaf accelerator,
giving a deuteron-beam energy of about 2 MeV.  The 5.2MeV neutrons come form
d-d at 0 degrees, whereas the 2.9 MeV neutrons emerge at 90 degrees (you may
check the kinematics).  Dick, you were mistaken when you evidently
 assumed that deuterons
of a "few 100 keV" energy were used to generate the 2.9 MeV calibration peak.
We maintain that the low-energy tail for the 2.9MeV neutrons and 5.2MeV n's
comes predominately from (d,n) reactions on Ti, Cu etc. in the Ti-d target
which is backed with Cu -- because we see the same low-E tail when we
shine 2MeV deuterons on Cu without the d-loaded Ti.
(When I referred to "deuteron break-up" in an earlier posting, I was incorrect
/unclear:  it appears that mostly the tail comes from (d,n) reactions rather
than break-up per se, since the disintegration threshold is about 2 MeV.)
 
Sometimes I wonder why I don't remember things sooner. Czirr and Jensen
did a calibration at a more standard d-d reaction facility at the
Colorado School of
Mines in 1990, using a d-beam of about 100 keV.  Then the spectrum looked like
this:               - - -
| COUNTS           -   -  -
|                 -        -
|                -          -
|               -            -
|              -              -
|             -                -
|            -                  -
|      -    -                    -
|  - -- -- -                      -
|   -     -                        -
|                                   -
|____________________________________----_____________________
   Pulse-height with low-energy d on d, BYU spectrometer
 
There is a SMALL low-E tail, but the peak is clearly seen.  This spectrum
is given twice in the Proceedings of the Provo meeting (American Institute of
Physics No. 228):  I think we could have saved a lot of time and avoided
confusion if I had just given Dick a copy of the Proceedings.  I will now do
this (free) if Dick will just send address (e.g. by e-mail).  We find that this
shape is consistent with that found in our original data published in Nature,
27 Apr 1989.  The low-energy tail is obscured by background in that case, but
a bump of the correct width and energy is seen.  So we stand by these data.
But with *less* certainty now than then, due to difficulties in triggering a
reproducible signal.
 
Dick's question regarding the normalization finally triggered a memory.  (My
hair is turning a palladium-blond color; memory may be going too?)  In our
original paper, we did not normalize background by run-TIMES, and Meyerhof
 of Stanford
among others disapproved.  But this was corrected in the next publication,
J. Fusion Energy 9:199-208, where in Fig. 5 we show background-subtracted
RATES for each run instead
of foreground-to-background ratios.  Take a look, Dick, and see if we
adequately responded to your concern.
 
Have a nice tomorrow,
Steven E. Jones
 
P.S.  Dick makes valid points about possible effects of attenuation in the
cement experiments.  I think the 2.6-MeV gammas from thallium-208
sample the cement uniformly and that neutrons are too little affected by the
cement to change the results -- but its worth checking carefully.  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Negative excess heat
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Negative excess heat
Date: 16 Jan 93 00:36:43 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

In 1993Jan7.124408.331 article "Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2", I asserted
that   SILICATE  OR ALUMINATE  OR BORATE  coatings on electrodes might affect
interpretations of xs-heat experiments.  In particular, I quoted from a BYU
pre-print in which we suggest that lithium may deposit under such a coating
and result in apparent xs-heat.
 
Todd Green responds:
"This is a valid point but codeposition of lithium at the cathode would produce
an energy deficit and NOT excess energy if a thermoneutral potential of 1.53
volts was assumed.  The thermoneutral potential of lithium deposition at the
cathode and an oxygen evolving anode is approximately 3.5 volts..."
 
Prof. Lee Hansen at BYU gets 3.79 V (versus 3.5), and Todd is correct about
the sign of the excess heat for this process: it is negative.  There still
would be positive xs heat BURSTS if the coating cracked to let water react
with the lithium so deposited.
 
--> I note that Tom Droege added boric acid to his latest cells.  Why?  Any
evidence of a borate-coating on electrodes, Tom?  Can you rule this out?
 
Also, we have heard of evidence for Li alloying into the surface of Pd which
implies that Li deposition may occur.
 
Several proponents of xs heat have shown -xs heat prior to +xs heat, including
R. Huggins of Stanford U.:
 
  CUMULATIVE EXCESS ENERGY (kJ/mole) vs. TIME
6000   |
       |
4000   |                                              +
       |                                           +
2000   |                                     +
       |                                   +
  0    |+------------------------------------------------------------Hours
       |     20   40   60   80   100  120  140  160  180
-2000  |                             +
       |  +
-4000  |
       |      +                 +
-6000  |
       |
-8000  |                    +
       |                  +
-10000 |            +
 
That's about as well as I can reproduce the Huggins' data plot.
If I calculate correctly, the NEGATIVE EXCESS ENERGY AT 50-60 HOURS works
out to about -100 eV/atom.  Now this is far too much to be chemical energy
storage, right?  So what is it -- NUCLEAR since it is too much to be
chemical energy?  No way--this is apparent energy storage.  Here is
another example of why the argument -- you've heard it --
 "It's too much energy to be  chemical, so it MUST be nuclear"
just falls flat on its face.
 
And I've seen negative xs power in other experimental data, such as that of
the Oak Ridge boys Chuck Scott and Hendrickson (sp?) -- see report ORNL/DWG
90-7157.  Mind you, I respect their work, but I think one must be exceedingly
careful not to ignore negative xs heat and its implications.
 
I've got to run and check low-level nuclear-type experiments running in
our tunnel laboratory..  Have a nice weekend.
 
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Capital Equipment Costs
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Capital Equipment Costs
Date: 16 Jan 1993 01:53:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
: I once calculated that if the entire world used the energy that the average
: American used, it would add up to 1/100th of a percent of the energy the earth
: recieves from the sun.  Careless use of "free" energy could bring us up above
: 1%, enough to have an effect.
 
How much of this solar energy do humans eat?
 
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
: brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: First attempt to quantify HICCUP
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First attempt to quantify HICCUP
Date: 16 Jan 1993 02:45:33 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
: A "temperature" of 100,000 degrees K is purported to exist in a cavitating
: bubble.  (Note to Dale Bass: temperature is in quotes because, as you have
: pointed out, we're working with such a small scale that the word may not
: make sense).
:
: To determine the equivalent energy in eV, use the fact that:
:
: k = 1.38066e-23 J/(K molecule), 1 eV = 1.602189e-19 J, T = 100,000 K
:
: kT = 8.62 eV  (Note: a quick and dirty method to make this estimate uses
: a simple ratio:  at 300 K, kT = 0.025 eV, so at 100,000 K,
: kT = 0.025 * 100,000/300 eV)
:
: Now the "fun" part:
:
: On pages 29 thru 31 of "Fusion Reactor Physics" a reaction rate is derived
: for DD and DT fusion.  The caveat is that the derivation holds for a
: Maxwellian (Gaussian) velocity distribution in thermal equilibrium.
 
Even in hot fusion, the proportion of nuclei that participate in
fusion is extremely small.  If you could somehow create nonequilibrum
conditions (with a high-energy bump) you could greatly increase
the fusion rate without much increasing the total energy.
 
It seems that the goals of tokamaks, stability & equilibrum isn't
the way to go.  (but it may be quite hard to sustain such a bump.
Maybe you need some collective effects).
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Dick is right, for once
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick is right, for once
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:02:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue made a lot of good points about power density etc. Seriously!
However, he mixed up one or two minor things:
 
"The latest claim from Prof. Farrell which promised good power gain was
operating below 1 W as I recall so the power density isn't all that great."
 
Woops! The power density might have great, and it might have been awful. It
depends on how big the gadget is, and Farrell did not say. If it was the size
of the P&F cathode, it was great. If it was another 10 gallon bucket, it was
awful. I have no idea how big it was, but I *do* know that some other nickel
systems have excellent power density, because they use high rough, convoluted,
porous nickel cathodes.
 
"How do you get electricity out of one of these things?"
 
The key question! There are 100 ways, and the trick will be to find the one
with the cheapest capital cost. With other types of fuel, the trick was to
balance capital cost against fuel use, but now the spreadsheet in simplified,
the rules are changed, and a lot of engineers will have to get busy.
 
"Then before you can really cost out one of these things you have to get some
idea as to how long a cell will work properly before contaminants kill it."
 
Excellent point! (Really!) As far as I know, the current record for
uninterrupted power that did not decline or die off was just over a year.
Contamination will have to be dealt with, just as it is in many other
industrial power generating applications, like large batteries. It is a very
sensitive and serious issue in fission power plants too. I am sure that CF
will be more forgiving about contamination, cooling water blockages, and
leaks than fission plants, because CF chemicals are less toxic. I predict
that small CF systems will be closed and sealed, like rechargeable batteries,
hard disks, or laser printer cartridges, which all die with contamination. CF
cells will have recombiners, which work fine over 100C, but can be dangerous
below that temperature, in my opinion.
 
"Assume that all these questions get answered... then make an estimate of the
size of the industry that would be required to build enough CF generators to
replace 1% of our present generating capacity per year."
 
That is easy! A CF engine will probably be simpler and cheaper to make than a
standard auto engine. Also, CF cars will be cheaper, since they will not have
to incorporate expensive plastics and light alloys. A CF generator will be
*far* easier and cheaper to make (per watt). So, you take the size of the
auto industry, and subtract about 10%. Take GE, Hitachi and other power
generator companies and subtract maybe 60%. Take the power and oil companies
and subtract 100%. Now, take the remaining total dollar amount and subtract
from it the present day cost of the auto, generator, and power companies. The
answer comes out negative, by several trillion dollars per year. That is the
amount of money it will "cost" to replace 100% of our present generating
capacity over a period of 20 to 30 years: perhaps -$200 trillion over 20
years. It is a *savings*, not an expense. Worldwide, we save very roughly
half the U.S. GDP.
 
You see, the trick is, we have to replace our capacity *anyway*, because all
cars and generators wear out. We must gradually replace equipment no matter
what happens. To gradually replace them with CF will not cost any more than
our present maintenance and upgrading; in fact, it will cost far less.
 
 
"Don't get too itchy about throwing out our present energy technologies."
 
Yes, well, we don't actually need to do anything. The Japanese will do it for
us (or to us, you might say). Obsolete technology disappears on it own
accord, you don't have to lift a finger.
 
 
"Taking the numbers Jed Rothwell gave in a recent post: $30,000 for a 10kW CF
generator and an electric rate of say $0.06 per kWh I calculate that this
generator is worth $0.60 per hour of service... "
 
Whoa there Dick! Keep reading! That was my guess about the cost of the very
first product that might be introduced. I went on to say that the cost of
materials (things like nickel) is dirt cheap, the only major cost is a
billion or two for R&D. Once that is covered, and the competition heats up,
we have every reason to expect that in 10 years, the price will plummet a
factor of at least 10, or perhaps even 100. When materials are cheap, and the
gadget is inherently simple to manufacture, that has *always* happened in the
past: look at the history of computers, floppy diskettes, VCRs, TVs, autos
and auto tires. At the turn of the century, some auto tires cost $50 apiece!
(A week or two of most people's earnings). You can get el cheapo tires for
$50 today. A large demand, simple materials, simple manufacturing
techniques... inevitably lead to a steep drop in price.
 
Thanks Dick!
 
 
Moving right along:
 
Me: "The power density of the best Pd cells is excellent -- better than
commercial fission reactors."
 
Arnie Frisch: "The overwhelming majority of those who read this are not
convinced there is anything useful there.
 
In 1980, the overwhelming majority of people working for IBM thought that
microcomputers were useless toys. In 1947, the overwhelming majority of
Railroad Execs thought that air transport would never seriously hurt their
business. In the early 50's, the vast majority of people assumed that "Made
In Japan" would remain synonymous with "cheap and flimsy" and that American's
would never buy Japanese cars. You should never pay any attention to what the
majority says in matters of business, future predictions, or breakthrough
technology. Pay attention to people like Arthur Clarke and me -- because we
have a rare and valuable track record of being right.
 
"You are able to project 'power densities'."
 
I am not "projecting" anything. I am looking at the numbers that Stan gave
us, and the numbers from Notoya-san and Bob and the others. Read my messages
carefully, and you should be able to spot when I project future trends (and
speculate, obviously), and when I am talking about present or recent past
results.
 
 
"You call it speculation.  Sounds to me like 'blue sky'."
 
Perhaps. But let me remind you that without "blue sky" speculation, the
Wrights would never have built their airplane, Babbage would never have
designed his computer, and Columbus would never have discovered America. In
fact, the human race would still be living in caves.
 
It is necessary for the survival of our race that we speculate, dream, hope,
and try to imagine how things might turn out, and how we might improve our
lot. If we lose our capacity to do this, we will surely perish from
overpopulation and environmental disaster. In particular, I feel that it is
the birthright and the destiny of Americans to speculate and hope, and try to
build new things. If we lose the courage to try new ideas, if we reject any
possibility that CF might work, and we refuse to allow any experiments (as
the DoE has done)... if we refuse to even think about the ramifications... we
will perish. Sooner or later, we will sink in a hopeless morass of
unemployment and misery, like the nations of the third world, or the former
Soviet Union. It is inevitable: whenever people lose hope, they end up like
the crowds of beggars around the airports in South America, or like some
people in Los Angeles.
 
People sometimes wonder whether the U.S will ever become like a third world
country. I say, it will happen -- it must happen -- if we give up hope.
Because all nations that give up hope and initiative become like that.
Whenever you allow the establishment to crush new ideas the way they did in
the Soviet Union, you end up a shambles. Mexico has as many natural
resources, minerals, and so on, as the U.S., but they are dirt poor, while we
are rich, because we have the right spirit. Japan has no minerals and no
material wealth at all. If resources and population density mattered, the
Japanese would be the poorest people on earth. Instead, they are the richest,
because resources do *not* matter, ultimately. Only spirit and hope count for
anything.
 
It looks to me like the U.S. has lost its nerve, at least temporarily. I am
glad that I am half Japanese, because whatever happens in the future, I
intend to stay on the cutting edge, win or lose.
 
 
Me: "The recent hurricane in Florida toppled mile after mile of newly
installed high tension wires -- millions of dollars worth. All costs like
this will be eliminated."
 
Arnie: "Give me a break, please!"
 
Say what? The hurricane gave us a tremendous break. Check out the FL
newspapers. What are you saying? My point is that if a small household and
factory CF generator can be made, it will eliminate the electric power
distribution infrastructure. That is a perfectly obvious and straightforward
conclusion. How can you dispute it? As to the amount of money it would save:
consider how much we spend building, upgrading and maintaining that
infrastructure. It is enough to fight a small war.
 
 
"The worst thing that could possibly happen is that everyone starts
using some kind of inefficient mechanism to convert lots of "free" heat
into "useful" forms of energy.  The result of this will be an
uncontrolled rise in the temperature of the earth to the expense of all
the living creatures thereon..."
 
Nope. Waste heat in the atmosphere would not be such a problem according to
people I have talked to. Especially compared to the waste smoke we now
create. Also, by the time significant numbers of CF generators are built, the
technology will have matured and efficiency will increase somewhat.
Efficiency will no longer be an economic necessity, but it will be a
practical, engineering necessity; a 6% efficient fixed power generator would
be too bulky for my house (I have no room), and it would never work in a car.
The 6% generator would be practical in a central generating plant or factory.
However, 12% thermoelectrics are do-able, and maybe even 24% without too much
trouble, so the size might decrease radically, and the waste heat might be
perhaps only double or triple what we now have. Some very profitable
applications demand greater efficiency, like truck engines, and these will
spur a gradual return to greater efficiency, in spite of some economic
pressure in the other direction. Even at the height of the cheap oil era
(1945 - 1970) auto engines never got too ridiculously inefficient. Our family
clunker used to get about 10 or 12 miles to the gallon, as I recall. They
never made 3 mpg cars.
 
The thing to remember is, once a market appears, people like Hitachi will
suddenly start pouring billion of dollars into peripheral technology like
thermoelectrics. Money does wonders to reduce production cost, and increase
efficiency and reliability. There has been no incentive to invest billions
in thermoelectrics before now. Furthermore, even if thermoelectrics don't
meet the need for automatic, safe, self contained power units, it is
absolutely certain that somebody will come up with some other technology that
will. Once you get free, concentrated heat, the economic incentive will be
overwhelming. The market potential is so vast, the rewards so great, that
dozens of solutions will be developed and sold, and the market will
eventually winnow out the best of them. It will be the biggest technological
gold race in history. It will dwarf previous 20th century booms in autos,
radios, TVs and computers.
 
These topics being right up my alley, I can gather notes and create these
long responses quickly. I hope I am not upsetting or inconveniencing my
Gentle Readers by posting these long messages.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Srinivasan Paper
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Srinivasan Paper
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:02:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thomas Kunich says:
 
"Now you are complaining that Srinvasin is being treated badly on the net.
Well, in a way I agree with you.  Until published, papers should be treated
as 'in progress' and nt be too open for criticism unless the procetures
followed are obviously unprogessional."
 
Tom, when you say "I agree with you," is it because of what I posted on the
net, or because of what Jed said that I said?  There seems to me to be quite
a difference.
 
In the IEEE (NSS group) we go to the meetings with our talks on matts (Now on
floppy disks) and turn them in before the talk.  So we are done with them, and
the conference pre-print is pretty final.  For Como, we had a couple of months
to turn in the paper.  I don't know what the rules were at Nagoya, but the
paper I referred to was printed at the bottom:
 
"Preprint of Paper presented at the IIIrd International Conference on
Cold Fusion (ICCF3) held at Nagoya, Japan
 
October 21st - 25th, 1992"
 
So it looked pretty final to me.  But you will have to read my actual posting
to see if I made a fair criticism.  Remember Jed sent it to me because I was
complaining about the lack of good evidence for the extravagant Ni - H2O
claims that he has been making.  You will find my comments in Fusion Digest 706
as I get them, or my posting dated 14 Jan 1993 01:03:33.
 
I will admit that my comment "The Srinivasan paper goes in the trash." was a
bit flippant.  I only ask that you compare Jed Rothwells comments about my
comments to my comments, and judge which is more restrained.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / Jed Rothwell /  MIT IAP is TOMORROW!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MIT IAP is TOMORROW!
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:02:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tarl Neustaedter pointed out to me that this month is January, and the
MIT IAP seminar is tomorrow, January 16, 1993. It's $5 at the door, come
one, come all!
 
Also, I multiplied half the U.S. GDP times 20 and came up with 200 trillion.
Umm... make that 50 trillion.
 
Thank goodness computers do simple arithmetic, spelling and calendars. I would
be lost forever without computers.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Efficiency, pressure, safety
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Efficiency, pressure, safety
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:03:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Brian Rauchfuss made many valuable comments. He talked about "gasoline from
synthesis plants driven by CF..."
 
If CF devices cannot be made compact enough, with high enough power density,
and high temperatures for good Carnot efficiency, something like this might be
needed. A bulky, fixed CF plant might supply chemical fuel to autos and
aircraft, or charge batteries in autos. The fuel might be gasoline, or perhaps
hydrogen for fuel cells. Gasoline has wonderfully high power density, but it
is explosive and very dangerous in an accident. I believe that hydrogen can be
stored more safely than gasoline, by using sophisticated "sponges" of Pd or
other metals. I think that if price was not an issue, hydrogen might win out
because it is safer and cleaner. Actually though, I am reasonably sure that CF
compact steam engines will have sufficient power density for automotive
applications. If they do, they will beat chemical motors in price, simplicity,
convenience, and luxury.
 
Brian also discusses the "additional costs will be for ultrapure water." CF
engines with recombiners require only a tiny amount of water, and ultrapure
water is cheap. I suppose auto engines might require a liter or two. I got some
ultrapure water at the MIT Biology Department from a filtering machine attached
to regular tap water. It was about the size of a small microwave oven, and it
looked like it cost a few thousand bucks. It generated a couple of liters a
minute. Notoya and the other electrochemists said that this was "pure enough"
for any CF application.
 
I suppose that small, closed cells will have a service life of at least a year,
and perhaps five years, like present auto batteries. I am confident they will
last at least a year, because one already has, and because they are, after all,
electrochemical systems remarkably similar to batteries, which have well know
service lives. They will have a big advantage over present day batteries: you
never need to shut off a CF engine, so with a solid state heater or cooler, the
engine can maintain itself in ideal operating conditions and temperatures year
round. One of the biggest sources of wear and tear is cycling on and off, for
example, when you drive a car a short distance to the store and back, and it
does not have time to reach the recommended operating temperature.
 
Brian describes a generator with a "heat-exchanger, turbine (probably using
freon or some other low boiling liquid) and generator.  Hard to get simpler
than that, but it is not free and it will wear out...."
 
Actually, it is very easy to get simpler than that! The reason CF people are
so excited about thermoelectrics is that they are far simpler than that. There
are no moving parts in a TE; it is a solid state device. It is inherently
simpler, more rugged, and easier to automate. It has a very long service life
(20 years or more, I think). That is why TE are used in satellites, and in
remote mountain top telephone microwave repeaters. Present day TE are
expensive, but they will fall in price rapidly when demand increases, and there
may be other, alternative designs if present ones cannot be made cheaply.
 
"Careless use of "free" energy could bring us up above 1%, enough to have an
effect..."
 
I agree, waste heat might become a problem. But, as I mentioned before,
engineering constraints in automotive applications will not allow extreme
inefficiency; a 6% efficiency auto engine would be too bulky to be practical.
So automotive power, which is a large chunk of the total, will not pollute the
atmosphere with too much heat. Perhaps, for a while, small electric power
generators will produce worrisome amounts of waste heat, but this concern must
be counterbalanced by several factors: waste heat is better than waste smoke;
a great deal of electrical energy is now wasted in transmission from the plant
to the house, if this is eliminated, perhaps it will compensate for most of the
heat; if heat becomes a problem, laws can be enacted to counterbalance the
economic forces that push towards inefficiency, and things like heat pumps may
lessen the use of low grade heat for space heating. Finally, with the advent
of CF, efficiency may lose much of its economic attractiveness, but it will not
lose it all. Small, powerful, compact engines require less high grade steel and
other materials, so they might be cheaper to manufacture. A 20% efficient TE
may well be cheaper and better than a 10% TE. Also, efficiency will retain is
aesthetic, engineering beauty. Nobody loves a cludge with a gigantic radiator.
We would not drive 3 mpg car even if gas was free. We like compact, clean
designs, so efficiency will always have it's virtues.
 
Brian comments on Sterling engines, which are interesting and worth looking at
closely. Then he goes on to talk about CF and Carnot efficiency:
 
"Getting higher than 100C/400K will require a pressurized system, which is
probably only appropriate for a large installation where the dangers can be
minimized..."
 
I don't think this is correct. I presume "pressurized" means a pressurized CF
cell, not high pressure steam from a working fluid (water or freon). The key
reason pressure is no danger is that a CF cell requires only a small amount of
fluid. It much easier and safer to pressurize the amount of liquid in your car
battery than it is to pressurize the amount in the gas tank. If the recombiner
in a pressurized CF cell failed, and cell was in the core of an engine, the
accident might not hurt anyone. Of course, it would wreck the engine and make
quite a bang. ICE's can do that when they throw a cylinder, lose a belt, or
lose all lubrication at high speed. As far as I know, catastrophic auto engine
failures seldom shoot deadly shrapnel from under the hood. (However, high
performance engine failures are far more dangerous. I heard about a helicopter
that lost lubrication as it was landing; the engine disintegrated and killed
all passengers and many bystanders.)
 
Recombiners are said to work better and more reliably over 100 C, so a 200 or
300 C cell might even be safer than a closed 90 C cell. CF reactions certainly
do work at those temperatures, in fact, many people have reported enhanced
performance and better gain at higher temperatures.
 
This safety issue is a complicated, because while a *laboratory* pressurized
cell is more dangerous than a cell at 1 atm, a carefully engineered, mass
produced cell, enclosed in heavy steel engine block will be as safe as a low
pressure CF cell. Diesel engine blocks are no more dangerous than standard auto
engines, even though the cylinder compression is much higher, and even though
the first test engines in Diesel's labs blew up several times. The reason
diesel engines do not blow up is instructive: the cylinders are small. There
is a great deal of pressure, but it is in a relatively tiny space in the middle
of the massive engine block. This is very similar to what I imagine a
pressurized CF cell motor would look like. High compression in one small area
is much easier to deal with than a gigantic high pressure vessel in something
like a pressurized fission reactor.
 
The smaller the high pressure device, the less the danger. A laboratory diamond
anvil can create the highest pressures on the face of the earth, in microscopic
areas, but it presents no danger whatsoever. Perhaps, if pressure enhances
performance, a large CF engine can be made up of many thousands of tiny CF
devices encased in ceramic shells, or something like that. Perhaps millions of
tiny cathodes manufactured like computer chips would be best. I cannot think
of any reason why one large cathode would be better than 10 small ones, or a
million tiny ones.
 
It is far to early for us to accurately predict the best size, shape, and scale
of CF cathodes, or other engineering details. (Of course, it is never too early
to start thinking about them!) I can predict the economics of small versus
large engines, because these issues relate to economics, business and
sociology. I am much less certain about what the best cathode sizes,
temperatures, or conversion technologies might be.
 
Although the performance temperatures and power density of CF is roughly the
same as existing technology, the economics and engineering are totally
different. It will be many decades before we discover optimum ways to exploit
new capabilities. Furthermore, there is not "one solution" waiting around,
there is not "one patent" waiting to be filed. There are thousands. James Watt
did not file the ultimate steam engine patent, Carl Benz did not finish
inventing the auto engine. Ultimately, CF devices will become as diverse as
internal and external combustion engines have been, and their use may well
extend over the same enormous range of applications that combustion engines
have reached. They will continue to be developed, refined and improved until
they become obsolete, and are no longer manufactured.
 
One more note about high working temperatures: gas phase CF reactors and molten
salt devices work spectacularly well at high temperatures, but I doubt they
will be suitable for home or auto use.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 /  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: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:03:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
The last  posting  of  S.Jones  shows  that  he  still  does  not
fully understand the remark of Todd Green regarding the  role  of
Li deposition, if   any,   in   the    assessment    of    excess
energy.   In suggesting that "[t]here still would be positive  xs
heat BURSTS if the coating cracked to let water  react  with  the
lithium   so   deposited"   S.Jones    demonstrates    a    major
misunderstanding of the nature of  excess   heat.  If  such  heat
exists it cannot be due to the above stated reason. Thus,  before
writing articles to  educate  others (this intention  is  clearly
admitted by him  in  his  posting)  he himself  should  read  and
understand  papers  like:
 
"Eight chemical explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons  effect"  by
J.O'M.Bockris  and  coworkers,  Int.J.Hydrogen  Energy,  14,  771
(1989)
 
in which questions like the above one, commented by  Todd  Green,
are thoroughly discussed. I also would  like  to  know  in  which
journal  is  this  S.Jones'  "educational"  paper  going  to   be
published since I would like to respond to it.
 
I think it is necessary to remind   you  also  that   some   time
ago,  again in connection with excess heat, S.Jones  resorted  to
deliberate changing of posted  numbers  in  order  to  prove  his
point.
 
Truly yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                                January 17, 1993
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenvnoninski cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / Frank Close /   Newton; father of cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK@ib.rl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Newton; father of cold fusion?
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 18:03:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am only dealing with CNF matters at weekends, hence the delay in
this response to Jed Rothwell a.k.a. Gene Mallove's messenger. JR writes:
 
 
*What I cannot understand is why you are upset about this matter. What is the
*big deal?
*Your whole attitude reflects great pride at your ability to
*overlook, denigrate, and ignore many people's work because you consider it
*second-rate or questionable. So, Gene and I point that out, we draw attention
*to it... So what?
 
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. The statement made
about me by Mallove was utterly false and potentially a libel.
The latter half of that sentence is my opinion; the first half is a fact.
The reasons why this is serious were explained in my original post
of last week. You attribute to me things that I have not in fact said;
you make suggestions that I "forgot" Menlove, as if he is the essential
proof of FP,s cold fusion claim, you post a tale invented by Mallove
in attempt to discredit my work, and when exposed you first ignore, then
try to fudge by claiming Worledge was "not in " when you called and now
you suggest it was all merely  a piece of silliness.
Discerning readers can draw their own conclusions.
 
 
*You have stated publicly, on British TV, that you think P&F now believe CF is
*a chemical reaction
 
That is what MF told the reporter on a Wednesday in late August
 and I was asked to comment.I said that if so I encouraged them in
that direction as there certainly was no nuclear source of watts of
power.
The next day MF changed tack and helium was flavour of the day.
I pointed out to him the consequences of that for his expt (the 100
watts for ten minutes claim) and he agreed. I have been awaiting the
10**N helium atoms ever since.
I did not speak to MF on the Friday so I cannot say what he believed in
by then; perhaps *you* can enlighten us?
 
 
*you boast that you have forgotten - - -
*the conservation of energy. So why should you be upset when I remind you that
*you also forgot some of the key cold fusion workers? You forgot Newton, you
*forgot Joule!
 
Yes; "guilty as charged". Newton was an alchemist. Joule corresponds to
10**12 nuclear transmutations. Should I include Brightsen Mallove and the
5 GeV helium in this list?
 
Oh, as you never duck a question, where did I say theory rules experiment?
(For the fourth time)
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenUK cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Pons and Fleishmann Video Tape
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons and Fleishmann Video Tape
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 21:23:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I understand that the Pons and Fleishmann video tape of the electrolysis of
LiOD in D2O was shown at the MIT conference on Saturday.  As I understand
it: (1) there were 4 large test tubes filled with about 50 mL of
electrolyte; (2) there was a Pd cathode surrounded by a Pt wire anode in
each test tube; (3) that the cells were connected in parallel; (4) that
when the voltage was applied a large number of bubbles were seen (H2 and
O2); (5) that the electrolyte was boiling within 5 minutes and no
electrolyte was present after about 20 minutes.
 
My question is this:  Does anyone know the applied voltage and the current
for each cell?
 
Thank you.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Quick replies
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quick replies
Date: 16 Jan 93 22:24:20 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <968255BF347FA12421@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
 writes:
>
>I am interested in the theoretical base of the leading experimental players
>in the cold fusion game. Professor Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes
>(Digest 701):
 
  [rather nonstandard description of fusion rates that seemed to imply
   to me that "continually bouncing off the coulomb barrier" is somehow
   special to the bound case and does not occur in the plasma case has
   been deleted.  I can see why Dieter questions the theoretical skills
   of Prof. Jones from that layman's level description of QM tunneling.
 
>>       ...              E.g., in muon catalysis, deuterons are bound by a muon
>>and separated by about 0.004 angstroms (1/200th the separation in D2 bound by
>>electrons).  The equivalent temperature is about 250 eV, of the deuterons so
>>bound.  Fusion occurs in about a nanosecond -- while the deuterium target
>>itself may very well be near room temperature.  Hence the term 'cold fusion'
>>has been applied to muon-induced fusion for decades.  (See article in Sci.
>>American, July 1987 by Johann Rafelski and myself:  "Cold Nuclear Fusion.")
>
>Professor Jones, do you describe this process in a published paper that can
>be cited?
 
Since I have not seen a reply from the author, I will just pass on that I
think the only "theoretical" paper on this subject by Prof. Jones is
Van Siclen and Jones, J.Phys.G 12(1986)213.  This paper basically applies
the semi-classical approach of J.D.Jackson, Phys.Rev. 106(1957)330, which
was essentially the state of the art until CF claims motivated lots of
theoretical interest in the problem.  This paper by Jones is perfectly
reasonable, so it must be that his way of thinking about what the calcs
mean in non-mathematical language indicates a rather different way of
visualizing a QM process than I have -- or he was being too terse to be
clear about how he visualizes the process.
 
--
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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.14 /  an1060@anon.pe /  SuperString Theory Book For Sale...
     
Originally-From: an1060@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SuperString Theory Book For Sale...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 19:24:54 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

X-Anon-To: sci.physics.fusion
 
 
Hello,
 
I have the following book set I wish to sell:
 
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 obo + shipping charges
 
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:
cuddy14 cudenan1060 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 04:08:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Xinbing Liu) writes:
>Suppose a hydrino in
>the state 1/n = 1/1000, the "binding energy" (to normal ground state) is
>13.6*1000^2 =13.6 MeV, and its excitation energy to 1/999 state is
>13.6*(1000^2-999^2) = 24.2 KeV.
 
Just to pick a nit, the energy to normal ground state would be expressed in the
above case as:
 
eV = (13.6 * n^2) - 13.6           Eq. #1
 
this is, of course, more important for lower values of n.
 
I have yet another idea on the limits of "n."
 
When an electron and a positron annihilate, they release a pair of photons
whose combined energy is the sum of the mass coversion energy of the electron
and positron mass (511 Kev each) AND the "falling" energy they picked up
while falling into each other.
 
Unfortunately I cannot find an accounting which differentiates the specific
energy contribution made by each of these two factors.
 
But if I had some empirical data on such photon energies, I could presume
that the "falling energy" (fe) equals:
 
falling energy (fe) = Minimum photon eV - 1022 Kev        Eq. #2
 
Since the falling energy must represent a sort of upper limit on the energy
that one can obtain from the (de-)seperation of electrostatic charges,
 
Putting "fe" into Eq #1 and solving for "n" gives:
 
Maximum value of MKF "n" = SQRT( (fe + 13.6) / 13.6 )       Eq. #3
 
Does anyone have empirical data to plug into these equations?
 
p.s. the value I have for 13.6 is really 13.58.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
Date: 18 Jan 93 15:34:48 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <01GTJX9IHRO2000IRZ@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>, by J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu:
> Humorous and correct. It's nice to know that someone is paying attention. n
> = 1/2 hydrinos also qualify as dark matter.  n = 1/2 hydrinos are 8 times
> smaller that n = 1 hydrogen atoms.  I give you another clue to solving the
> riddle of this amazing story:  Some people claim that the Sun does not give
> off sufficient neutrinos to account for the heat released.
 
If n = 1/2 hydrinos are 8 times smaller than hydrogen then what is the
density (at room temperature) of pure hydrino gas (or would it be a
liquid or a solid?) How about for n = 1/4 n = 1/8...?
 
What is the spontaneous fusion rate for bound and unbound hydrino
pairs at different values of n?
 
Going just slightly beyond the edge...
 
For the sake of argument let's say that hydrinos are real. I suspect
the little suckers are slowly being accumulated in the core of every
massive body in the universe. If we dump enough of them into the core
of the earth we eventually get a nice little fusion reaction going down
there and things up here get messy.
 
Now, that's what I call a biohazard. :-)
 
And then there is the ultimate terrorist weapon, a bucket of hydrino
gas and a compressor. When the pressure gets high enough, BOOM!
 
The nuclear rocket people might like hydrinos too. A nice dense way to
store hydrogen would be nice. If you can get it to fuse by itself,
then that's even better. Talk about an energetic monopropellant!
 
So, it seems that hydrinos might be a very valuable/dangerous product
all by thenselves.
 
                        Weird science is fun
 
                                        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:
cuddy18 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steven Jones
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 21:23:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

At last a CNF question that I completely understand!!  (Tom says modestly but
a little nervously.)
 
Steve Jones puts up a Huggins curve and notes that it goes to -100ev per atom.
At first I thought this was figure 4 from the Huggins et al paper from ICCF1.
But while that curve is similar, the curve put up by Jones has both a larger
time and energy scale.  The ACCF1 curve would (I compute) give -5 ev per
Pd atom, and the conclusion would be similar.  Jones concludes that since this
curve indicates such a large negative energy that the argument ""It's too much
energy to be chemical, so it MUST be nuclear" just falls flat on its face."
 
I don't blame Steve for missing a possible simple explanation.  One thing
that comes from working on calorimetry for nearly four years is that I have
done enough back of the envelope heat calculations that I can recognize what
others are talking about.
 
On page 47 of the ICCF1 proceedings, Huggins explains this curve by stating:
"Figure 4 shows both the power and energy balances during the early part of
the electrolysis.  It is seen that there is an initial energy investment or
deficit of roughly 500 kJ/mole during the first hour of operation.  This
resulted mostly from the energy consumption necessary to heat the cell and
calorimeter mass to the equilibrium operating temperature.  There are also two
other contributions at the start.  One is due to the insertion of deuterium
into the palladium cathode, which is exothermic, and the other is an
endothermic effect due to the loss of enthalpy in the cell due to the
evolution of unrecombined oxygen.  This unbalanced oxygen, which amounted to
about 100 ml at a D/Pd ratio of 0.6 for this 3.055 gm sample, escaped from the
system through a bubbler."
 
As Huggins explains, most of those negative ev/atom go into heating up the
calorimeter to its operating temperature.  Some go into lost gas, and a few
are gained back when the palladium absorbs deuterium.  There is a lot of
calorimeter and not much Pd (At the time Huggins was poor mouthing that he
only had this single old piece of palladium crucible).  For the long time
scales of the curve presented by Steve, gas losses would be significant.
 
In my case, when I went from the 4 C charging temperature to the 60 C
operating temperature on the recent run, 14 megajoule per mole Pd went into
heating up the calorimeter, which has a thermal capacity of 2500 joules per C.
The thermal capacity of the calorimeter is 12,500 times that of the palladium
sample.  This is quite similar to the 10 megajoule per mole in the curve
presented by Steve.  That is one of the reasons I did the charging operation
in two stages.  I wanted to measure the heat of absorption and it would have
been very difficult to do against background of temperature change if I
changed the calorimeter temperature at the same time.
 
So Steve, we see big negative possible xs heat values all the time.  If, for
example, we are operating at 100 ma and go to 1 ampere under the present
running conditions, there is about a -3 kJ heat balance change.  We regain
this when we go back down to the original 100 ma, but we don't call it xs heat
since we know where it came from.  The whole heat balance measurement is very
complicated as it includes a primary 21 minute time constant and some others
that are much longer.
 
I presume that the reason Huggins presented the data as he did was to rule out
specific heat of the apparatus as a source of the "anomalous heat" by showing
that it was small compared to the final heat accumulated.
 
So Steve, I think there is just no astounding conclusion to be drawn from the
negative part of the Huggins curve.  It makes complete sense.
 
I should point out, that until this question was brought up, that I never
looked carefully at the Huggins scale.  I always assumed that the dip at the
beginning was due to the Pd charging loss.  As soon as Steve pointed out the
scale, I knew that the losses were much too large. (Note that I have been
putting up postings about these losses, so I have been thinking about them.)
It is just great to have this "college" to present data and carry on
discussions.  We all learn from each other.  It is worth the effort.
 
Steve asks why I added boric acid.  The recent meeting with McKubre indicated
that a coating of boron, silicon, or aluminum was a necessary condition for
his positive results.  No specific recipe was given (beyond a suggestion of
200 ppm), so I just have to flub around.  But remember for a long time I have
been asking "what can possibly take so long for the initiation of heat?"
Well, if you have to wait for enough boron or silicon to leach out of the
Pyrex (boro-silicate??) glass, then this could be an explanation.  Remember
the early discussions that said P&F were incompetent because they put a base
in a glass container?  Perhaps they knew what they wanted to do!  So I will
grind up some glass or some aluminum foil or boric acid and add it as
suggested by McKubre.  Note that when I asked him why not thio-urea, or
arsinides (sp?) (which are the common cathode "poisons") he replied that they
do not hold up under the long electrolysis.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinos are wimps
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos are wimps
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 21:41:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
 
>When an electron and a positron annihilate, they release a pair of photons
>whose combined energy is the sum of the mass coversion energy of the electron
>and positron mass (511 Kev each) AND the "falling" energy they picked up
>while falling into each other.
>
>falling energy (fe) = Minimum photon eV - 1022 Kev        Eq. #2
 
Oops.  The potential energy must already pre-exist in the mass of the
electron and positron, therefore Eq #2 double counts it.
 
>Maximum value of MKF "n" = SQRT( (fe + 13.6) / 13.6 )       Eq. #3
 
Assuming all the electron/positron energy represents the "falling
energy" at least gives us an upper "n" limit of 274.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Dick is right, for once
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick is right, for once
Date: 18 Jan 93 22:08:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930115214758_72240.1256_EHL118-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dick Blue made a lot of good points about power density etc. Seriously!
 
.........
 
>Arnie Frisch: "The overwhelming majority of those who read this are not
>convinced there is anything useful there.
>
>In 1980, the overwhelming majority of people working for IBM thought that
>microcomputers were useless toys. In 1947, the overwhelming majority of
>Railroad Execs thought that air transport would never seriously hurt their
>business. In the early 50's, the vast majority of people assumed that "Made
>In Japan" would remain synonymous with "cheap and flimsy" and that American's
>would never buy Japanese cars. You should never pay any attention to what the
>majority says in matters of business, future predictions, or breakthrough
>technology. Pay attention to people like Arthur Clarke and me -- because we
>have a rare and valuable track record of being right.
>
 
 
 
You put yourself in very good company.  Your place may yet to be earned!
 
 
 
>Arnie Frisch: "You are able to project 'power densities'."
>
>I am not "projecting" anything. I am looking at the numbers that Stan gave
>us, and the numbers from Notoya-san and Bob and the others. Read my messages
>carefully, and you should be able to spot when I project future trends (and
>speculate, obviously), and when I am talking about present or recent past
>results.
>
 
 
I repeat my comment.
 
 
 
>
>Arnie Frisch: "You call it speculation.  Sounds to me like 'blue sky'."
..........
 
 
 
 
 
>Arnie Frisch: "The worst thing that could possibly happen is that everyone
 starts
>using some kind of inefficient mechanism to convert lots of "free" heat
>into "useful" forms of energy.  The result of this will be an
>uncontrolled rise in the temperature of the earth to the expense of all
>the living creatures thereon..."
>
 
 
 
 
>Nope. Waste heat in the atmosphere would not be such a problem according to
>people I have talked to. Especially compared to the waste smoke we now
>create. Also, by the time significant numbers of CF generators are built, the
>technology will have matured and efficiency will increase somewhat.
 
 
 
Name the people, presumably experts, you have talked to about this
issue.  I would like to be able to publicly villify them for their total
incompetence.  If you are unwilling or unable to name them, I will take
it as a sign that they are either inexpert or non-existent.
 
 
Also, out of one side of your mouth you talk about how the problems of
cold fusion (or whatever is the source of the supposedly free energy
are solved and we can quickly start applying the "technology"; while
from the other side you say that -
 
"Also, by the time significant numbers of CF generators are built, the
technology will have matured and efficiency will increase somewhat."
 
Which is it?
 
People have been working on the efficiency of thermal energy plants for
a long time.  It's going to take a long time and a lot of effort to
markedly improve their efficiency.  Are you saying that the mass
application of "cold fusion" is that far in the future?  Do you know
what you're saying?
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.18 / John Logajan /  Poisons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Poisons
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 22:49:12 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Note that when I asked him why not thio-urea, or
>arsinides (sp?) (which are the common cathode "poisons") he replied that they
>do not hold up under the long electrolysis.
 
On an vaguely related note, I've read that carbon monoxide is an electrode
poison in concentrations of just ppm.  The reason I mention this is because
it can exist in various concentrations depending on the local conditions,
and because it may just possibly be created in some amounts in an
electrolysized K2CO3 bath.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Yet another miracle?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another miracle?
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 02:52:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones, referring to a paper from Robert Huggins, says:
 
"If I calculate correctly, the NEGATIVE EXCESS ENERGY AT 50-60 HOURS works out
to about -100 eV/atom.  Now this is far too much to be chemical energy storage,
right?  So what is it -- NUCLEAR since it is too much to be chemical energy?
No way--this is apparent energy storage.  Here is  another example of why the
argument -- you've heard it --
 'It's too much energy to be  chemical, so it MUST be nuclear'
just falls flat on its face."
 
Umm... I have never seen that paper, but if *I* got a result like that, I would
check the calorimeter very carefully. I would assume the zero energy balance
line was too high. My calorimeter has 3 different ways to measure heat, and one
of them did have a negative bias like this.
 
Look Steve, please, PLEASE get real. You know chemistry far better than me, and
you know darn well that if Huggins did, in fact, find a way to store 100 eV per
atom, it is a miracle that shatters everything we know about electron bonds.
Stuffing that much energy into a tiny piece of palladium is like pushing a ton
of sand into a mailbox; it is physically impossible, as far as anybody knows.
Maybe the energy is bleeding off into a parallel universe, or converting into
new Pd atoms, or who-knows-what, but it is *not* going into any known form of
chemical bonds.
 
Chemistry has been around for a long, long time. It cannot "fall on its face"
because of one experiment. Obviously, unless the Huggins result is widely
replicated, we must assume it is due to a calibration error. I have never heard
of any other "massive CF energy storage systems" from any other worker. As far
as I know, this is one, isolated example. We must assume that one isolated
example is simply an experimental error. I never believe *anything* until I
hear from a dozen workers, who have performed a couple of hundred experiments
between them.
 
By the way, what was the scale of this experiment? How much actual heat was
there? The graph shows kJ per mole, but how many moles were there? How big was
the cathode, how high was the current? Tiny little amounts of excess heat (or
deficits caused during loading, or caused by error) are inconclusive at best.
An experiment yielding only milliwatts of excess heat cannot prove much. An
experiment that is apparently swallowing up milliwatts is also inconclusive,
because it is dead simple to make a mistake when measuring milliwatts of heat,
unless you have superb, expensive equipment and you are an expert. On the other
hand, if Huggins had a massive cell, and he was charging it at 100 watts and
watching 10 watts disappear per minute for 2 and half days, that is impressive
and quite baffling.
 
Also, what did Huggins say about the deficit? Did he claim it was real, or did
he say it was a probable artifact? Please tell us a little bit more.
 
Here is another reason we can be nearly certain this is an error: we know that
nuclear fission allows slow releases of energy, that eventually add up to
megajoules per mole, then 100s of megajoules. A lump of hot, fissionable
material powering a spacecraft demonstrates this is possible. However, I have
never heard of any example of the reverse process -- a slow, gradual change of
energy into mass on the scale of small rock or lump of metal at room
temperature. Perhaps it is possible, but if so, then Huggins certainly deserves
a Nobel Prize.
 
Like Steve, I have seen negative xs power in other experiments (unpublished
ones), including my own. It is always in the noise. It is obviously due to
experimental error, or due to ultra-conservative, worst-case analysis of the
data. A tiny, milliwatt deficit is bound to be an error (and so are most
milliwatt excesses, in my opinion). I would only take it seriously if Huggins
reported 100 experiments with negative excesses of ten watts or more, adding
up to megajoules per mole in each experiment. *That* kind of result means
something. Little bitty results come from little bitty errors plus large
amounts of wishful thinking.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  BYU Spectrometer over and out
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Spectrometer over and out
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 02:52:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think I have beat on this subject long enough so I'll make
this my last comment on this subject.  Steve Jones correctly describes
the basic physics employed in the BYU spectrometer so I have no
arguement with most of what he has said.  My questions really have to
do with how close the actual performance of the device comes to the
desired performance.  I still have a problem with the fact that in
the Czirr-Jensen paper the calibration peak for 2.9 MeV neutrons is
much, much worse than anything Steve has ever sketched in his posts
here.  It is essentially the breadloaf shape he drew as the response
with no coincidence requirement.  In the CJ paper the authors dismiss
the low-energy tail as being an artifact, but this is where things
start to get a bit fuzzy.  If, as I pointed out earlier, the calibration
spectrum was obtained at the Colorado School of Mines using 100 keV
deuterons incident on a deuterated titanium target the explaination
given by CJ for the tail does not fly!  I personally think that what
they saw may have been the true response of the spectrometer at that
stage in its development.
 
Steve seems to indicate that there are other calibration spectra that
are better looking so it is a natural question to ask whether the
response can change from one calibration to another.  This goes to
the question of whether neutrons detected in 6Li glass must first
be thermalized as Steve says or whether neutrons, prior to having
lost a major fraction of the incident energy, are captured in the
glass with significant probability.  It is not clear to me whether
the coincidence requirement is set to reject prompt coincidences
as might be indicative of such events.  If so the setting of the
coincidence gate timing could have a strong effect of the response.
 
As to the gamma response of this device, Steve refers to accidental
coincidences (characterized by a flat TAC spectrum for the relative
timing).  I would think there must also be a part of the gamma
response that involves true coincidences, i.e. a peak in the
TAC spectrumt where the prompt neutron coincidences would be.
 
where the prompt neutron coincidences would be.   My
reasoning is that most gammas that interact with the liquid are
Compton scattered.
 
Dick Blue
Michigan State University
Cyclotron Lab
E. Lansing, MI 48824   <- that's my mailing address.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Negative excess heat
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Negative excess heat
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 02:52:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>Several proponents of xs heat have shown -xs heat prior to +xs heat, including
>R. Huggins of Stanford U.:
>
>  CUMULATIVE EXCESS ENERGY (kJ/mole) vs. TIME
>6000   |
>       |
>4000   |                                              +
>       |                                           +
>2000   |                                     +
>       |                                   +
>  0    |+------------------------------------------------------------Hours
>       |     20   40   60   80   100  120  140  160  180
>-2000  |                             +
>       |  +
>-4000  |
>       |      +                 +
>-6000  |
>       |
>-8000  |                    +
>       |                  +
>-10000 |            +
 
>That's about as well as I can reproduce the Huggins' data plot.
>If I calculate correctly, the NEGATIVE EXCESS ENERGY AT 50-60 HOURS works
>out to about -100 eV/atom.  Now this is far too much to be chemical energy
>storage, right?  So what is it -- NUCLEAR since it is too much to be
>chemical energy?
 
Are you sure that is kJ, not J? This must be from a conference, since the
papers (Belzner et al) do not show such a figure. However, the papers show
that the Huggins team neglected the power absorbed by water electrolysis, and
this means they need more heat than others (who correct for this) in order to
claim excess. The figures in their papers show a loss early on, and an excess
after 66 h. The initial loss, just like the excess, is about 10% of the power
going in, and this would come to no more than 2 eV. This initial loss is quite
expected; the unexpected thing is that it becomes an excess. As I said before,
a pity this was a one-off with no follow-up.
 
I will admit that if heat excursions are random events due - say - to the
convective nature of the electrolysis cells, than one would expect as many
negative events as positives, and we don't usually see this. I suspect that
they are there, but we don't get shown them, as they are unexciting. But I
could be cynical and wrong. Certainly in Oyama et al, there were both, and
the authors picked out the highs and neatly tabulated them as so many % excess
heat. I am more inclined to trust Tom Droege, and he would tell us if he saw
deficit events; he has not.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 02:17:33 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
 
>From article <01GTJX9IHRO2000IRZ@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>, by J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu:
>> Humorous and correct. It's nice to know that someone is paying attention. n
>> = 1/2 hydrinos also qualify as dark matter.  n = 1/2 hydrinos are 8 times
>> smaller that n = 1 hydrogen atoms.  I give you another clue to solving the
>> riddle of this amazing story:  Some people claim that the Sun does not give
>> off sufficient neutrinos to account for the heat released.
 
>If n = 1/2 hydrinos are 8 times smaller than hydrogen then what is the
>density (at room temperature) of pure hydrino gas (or would it be a
>liquid or a solid?) How about for n = 1/4 n = 1/8...?
 
>What is the spontaneous fusion rate for bound and unbound hydrino
>pairs at different values of n?
 
>Going just slightly beyond the edge...
 
 Wow! I've got one for you.  At what point is a 'hydrino' distinguisable
from a neutron?  After all, a neutron is a proton-electron bound by the
Qm and the weak force.
 
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wattage, hydrinos, and other matters
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 04:47:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>At what point is a 'hydrino' distinguisable
>from a neutron?  After all, a neutron is a proton-electron bound by the
>Qm and the weak force.
 
As Mike Jamison pointed out, an electron/proton pair has less mass in sum
than a neutron.  So a hydrino cannot decay into a neutron since it would
require a mass/energy input.
 
Thus there is a local energy minima some distance from the proton past which
it requires energy to move the electron closer.  Standard physics places this
at the n=1, 13.58 ev "ground state."  MKF have it still closer, but I think
from conservation of energy constraints it cannot be any closer than n=1/274.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Guilty as charged
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Guilty as charged
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 04:52:12 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <930110201843_72240.1256_EHL45-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>They are desperately trying to avoid facing simple, convincing and elegant
>proof from instruments as rock solid and reliable as mercury thermometers.
 
I seem to have grown another head, so I'll stick my neck out again.
 
Mercury is a metal.  If placed near a varying current, I'd expect eddy
currents to form in it, thus heating it.  Surely there must be a varying
current through the surface of a bubbling electrode.  I bet no one has ever
thought that the thermometers might be heated *more* than the electrolyte.
 
Don't ask me to put numbers to this--I don't know enough.  It could be a
trivial effect, or an impossible event.  You could accuse me of thinking
up one more improbable red herring to waste the time of CNF investigators,
but that's not my point.  My point is that there is no way to be *totally*
sure that *everything* in an experiment acts the way you think it does.
No one can think of everything.  Even mercury thermometers may have
surprises.
 
If someone had said to you a week ago, "I replicated XXX experiment except
I used alcohol thermometers and it didn't work" you would laugh at them.
I hope you wouldn't laugh now, until you had calculated the effects of
electric heating of the thermometers.
 
You have said a lot about how one experiment can overturn centuries of
theory.  I disagree.  ANY experiment can be misinterpreted.  The
chances are pretty low, but so are the chances of CNF.  Please don't
expect us to absolutely believe in CNF simply on the basis of some
successful experiments.  Maybe all of the successful experiments used
mercury thermometers.
 
--
"7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity."
                        -- _Turbo C Reference Guide Version 2.0_
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-286-8581
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bubbles
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 06:44:23 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <930114122120.20803f06@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger was too modest to mention that one of the pictures I sent
> was a simulation that clearly shows a two stage wedge of the type Terry was
> predicting from first principals.  There were also real pictures that show
> the same kind of stuff, but not as obvious as the simulations.
 
Well, to be honest I'm not sure whether it was modesty or embarassment.  I'm
pleased to see simulations and actual pictures that track quite closely to
some of what I presented in UC, of course, but it also makes me unconfortable
by pointing out how badly I need to do a thorough literature search
 
The pictures Tom showed me describe both a simulation of a bubble implosion
near a solid surface, and actual pictures of such bubbles in motion.  Both
show the formation of a large jet whose tip accelerates rapidly as the jet
develops.  The jet also develops a little "minijet" at its tip during the
final stages of formation, which is what I believe Tom was referring to as
an example of a two-stage wedge.  (He may be right, but I'd have to see more
details about the simulation and how the secondary tip was generated.)
 
The pictures also very nicely confirm that not only is my Zero-Acceleration-
Surface (ZAS) cell analysis of how compressive potential energy contributes
to the void implosion correct, but that something much like it must have been
used in that particular simulation.  The pictures clearly show that even when
a bubble is highly symmetrical and located several diameters away from the
solid surface, the side away from the solid will collapse much more rapidly
and form itself into a large jet of fluid.  In the ZAS cell model such an
asymmetrical collapse would be a direct (and necessary) result of the ZAS
cell being "cut short" by the solid surface.  This will reduce both the total
compressive energy that can be stored on that side of the ZAS cell, and the
acceleration that can be produced during rebound.  The resulting asymmetrical
acceleration should lead to premature collapse of the far side of the bubble.
 
 
Such a set of pictures also rather nicely eliminates any doubt that radially
focused implosions can lead to rapid acceleration of some parts of the fluid.
Whether you call them wedges or jets, the whole process does not appear to
much more profound in its underlying principles than is shooting toothpaste
across a room by accidentally stepping on an open tube of it -- the pressure
translates into an impressive acceleration _if_ there is a sufficiently
attractive "opening" into which it can be released.
 
In the case of an incompressible fluid collapsing symmetrically inward, a
central void that remains largely empty will serve much the same role as
the missing cap on the toothpaste, while the symmetrical pressure buildup
of the inwardly moving fluid will serve much the same purpose as your foot.
The main difference is that for a collapsing void the size of the tube of
"toothpaste" (and the "foot") will keep shrinking, even the pressure applied
by the "foot" keeps intensifying.  This intensification process will continue
either until the "tube" begins to leak too much and/or explodes, or until the
volume of toothpaste has been halved down to the size of a single molecule or
so.  A sort of Zeno's Toothpaste Paradox, if you will pardon the humorous but
fairly apt imagery.
 
Nothing in the (small set of) materials I've looked at so far leads me to
believe that Zeno's Toothpaste Paradox has been either fully quantified or
simulated, so I will keep plugging along and seeing what I can dig up.  Odd
questions of this sort sometimes seem to fail to recieve much recognition or
attention even well-studied areas like cavitation, so I remain hopeful that
the basic (ZTP?) premise that a hard vacuum plus very high symmetry leads to
exceptionally intense void collapse behavior has not been fully explored
either theoretically or experimentally.
 
My general (postulated) advice thus remains essentially unchanged:  Go for
cold fluids, wide fluid temperature ranges, high surface tension, and voids
with as high a vacuum as is experimentally possible.  I'm just not convinced
that this particular region of cavitaion behavior has been sufficiently gone
over yet, although the situation has been changing rather rapidly lately.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- Please note that the single-node corner-refector idea that I gave
        here a couple of weeks ago may lead to low-symmetry ZAS cells, which
        could (as in the case described above) lead to asymmetrical collapse
        even when the void itself is highly spherical.  The ultrasound
        pressure waves may compensate somewhat for this, but if you are
        interested in the single-node corner-reflector approach you will
        need to evaluate the ZAS cell impact.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Re: Quick replies
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Re: Quick replies
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 15:31:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
 
>In article <968255BF347FA12421@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
> writes:
>>
>>I am interested in the theoretical base of the leading experimental players
>>in the cold fusion game. Professor Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes
>>(Digest 701):
>
>  [rather nonstandard description of fusion rates that seemed to imply
>   to me that "continually bouncing off the coulomb barrier" is somehow
>   special to the bound case and does not occur in the plasma case has
>   been deleted.  I can see why Dieter questions the theoretical skills
>   of Prof. Jones from that layman's level description of QM tunneling.
 
Hey hey! Not so fast. I did not "question the theoretical skills of Prof.
Jones", I just asked a question. As I said, I am interested in the various
sorts of theories put forward by both theorists and experimenters, and I had
not seen this one. If you ask me, the argument seems intuitively OK, although
it would of course need to be quantified (and would then probably fall down).
The argument being - I take it - that since there is a finite probability of
making it through the Coulomb barrier even at low energies, if you have many
many attempts at it (as you do in a metal deuteride), you might succeed at
a rate greater than in a gas. Is this right, Prof. Jones? And would you say
that it is the thought behind the 1986 piezo-paper?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / B WILLIAM /  help debunk this
     
Originally-From: "BERNECKY WILLIAM R" <BERNECKY@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: help debunk this
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 20:14:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here is a notion which should be easy to dismiss:  D, properly spaced in
a metal-hydride lattice, will become delocalized. Or, to say it another way,
we may view a D as not sitting in one energy well, but sitting
fractionally in many wells. My first question:
 
Are there any circumstances where these energy wells appear "empty" to
to other nuclei?
 
If so, then we may have the wells doubly-occupied, once by some delocalized
(out-of-town) D, and a spatially localized T, Li, B, etc (or D if this makes
sense). Now, we may ask a second question:
 
What is the probability that a delocalized D will "appear" near (say within
10 F) of another (localized) nuclei?
 
Interestingly, if a well is occupied by some nucleus, and D appears (localizes)
to that well, there is a finite chance (about 1 in 10^4) that it will be
within 10 F (1 F= 10E-15 m) of the nucleus.  Since D is weakly bound,
the N and P can easily be separated by 10 F; we should expect some nuclear
interaction. My third question:
 
If D appears within 10 F of: D, Li, T, B... what should we expect to occur?
 
Since this is just a story, we can have some fun with it, and make a few
observations relative to DPd systems.  First, we would like a wavelength
of D which fits integrally within its well, to maximize its stationarity,
and thus the delocalization of the D. This implies a 2 lambda spacing,
which occurs at a temperature of about 420 K. (1 lambda spacing
occurs at about 100 K, significantly below room temperature.) Second, we
would like to force the delocalized D to localize to an energy well.  This
implies that we must "measure" the D's location with e.g. a photon. The act
of measuring will "force" the D to make a decision, and appear in a
particular location.  So we should irradiate the system with gamma rays to
force these transitions.
Third, it may be that we require some species other than D to serve as the
target (since new D entering a well may just delocalize...)  This suggests
that first we introduce D into the Pd, and then introduce a "target".  The
best target species would be something that is easily incorporated into Pd,
and reacts with D (probably by capturing its wandering N).
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnWILLIAM cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Thermometers
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermometers
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 20:15:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Congratulations to Chris Phoenix on the new head.  It seems to be working very
well.  You remind me why it is good practice to not only have multiple means
of making measurements, but that it is good to have them different types of
devices as well.  I was about to switch over from the solid state thermometers
that I have been using to thermisters, because I think that they are lower
noise devices in my temperature range.  But you convince me that a mix would
be better.  So into the design it goes.
 
Certainly the cells can get into pulsing modes, and current pulses might
disturb a mercury thermometer.  Possibly someone out there who likes to
amaze us with simple experiments (John Logajan comes to mind) would line to
put a transformer near a thermometer.  Say a transformer, 1" of foam, then
a mercury and an alcohol thermometer.  Turn on the transformer and see if
the mercury thermometer changes more than the alcohol one.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Carbon anything
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Carbon anything
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 21:36:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I chopped out a phrase and made things disjointed. John Logajan talked about
carbon monoxide as poison, and I meant to say:
 
Yes. Carbon dioxide is a problem too, they say carbon anything can affect
cells. It is big issue with open cells. People say that CO2 will go from the
atmosphere into D2O which is sitting in an open bottle...
 
and bla, bla, bla...
 
The TAMU conference I refer to was hosted by Bockris in honor of Takahashi.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Bubbles
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles
Date: 19 Jan 1993 19:07:09 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: In the case of an incompressible fluid collapsing symmetrically inward, a
: central void that remains largely empty will serve much the same role as
: the missing cap on the toothpaste, while the symmetrical pressure buildup
: of the inwardly moving fluid will serve much the same purpose as your foot.
 
Remember, water is incompressible only to the extent that your velocities
are much less than the speed of sound.  How much energy will be radiated
away in sound, I wonder?
 
: The main difference is that for a collapsing void the size of the tube of
: "toothpaste" (and the "foot") will keep shrinking, even the pressure applied
: by the "foot" keeps intensifying.  This intensification process will continue
: either until the "tube" begins to leak too much and/or explodes, or until the
: volume of toothpaste has been halved down to the size of a single molecule or
: so.  A sort of Zeno's Toothpaste Paradox, if you will pardon the humorous but
: fairly apt imagery.
 
I would guess that at some point there would be "back-pressure" on
the toothpaste trying to put it back in the tube.  :-) :-)
 
This is cute.
 
: Nothing in the (small set of) materials I've looked at so far leads me to
: believe that Zeno's Toothpaste Paradox has been either fully quantified or
: simulated, so I will keep plugging along and seeing what I can dig up.
 
I'm sure you're right!
 
If you're still interested in fusion, please remember the densities
necessary for ICF fusion experiments are on the order of 10^3 times ordinary
solid/liquid density.
 
:                               Cheers,
:                               Terry
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermometers
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermometers
Date: 20 Jan 1993 07:12:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov () says:
 
>Possibly someone out there who likes to
>amaze us with simple experiments (John Logajan comes to mind) would line to
>put a transformer near a thermometer.
 
My "lab" time at home is currently fully devoted to a non-CF project, but if
no one does it in the next month or so, I'll get around to it.
 
I'm not especially excited about doing it because my intuition tells me that
such eddy currents are unlikely to be of a magnitude large enough to heat
significantly a thermometer bathed in a good thermal conductor such as water.
 
The eddy currents would have to be truely intense, yet everybody claims they
are seeing their input voltages as flatline traces on o-scopes.
 
I'm sure somehow someway I could induce immense eddy currents to heat the
thermometer hotter than the bath, but what possible relevence would it have
to SOP?
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Terry Tries for a Funky Debunky...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry Tries for a Funky Debunky...
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:09:52 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Well, this one definitely succeeded in getting me going.  Some doggone
good questions and reasoning in this one, I think, and at least one
question (towards the end) that left me scratching my head.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In article <9301191843.AA06331@suntan.Tandem.com>
William R. Bernecky <BERNECKY@nl.nusc.navy.mil> writes:
 
> Here is a notion which should be easy to dismiss:  D, properly spaced in
> a metal-hydride lattice, will become delocalized. Or, to say it another way,
> we may view a D as not sitting in one energy well, but sitting
> fractionally in many wells...
 
Exactly right.  (Ref: Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III -- the discussion
on how electrons move through a metallic lattice.)  It's a lot harder for
whole atoms than electrons, but it's a difference in scale only, not concept.
 
 
> ... My first question:
>
> Are there any circumstances where these energy wells appear "empty" to
> to other nuclei?
 
No.  As a first approximation you _can_ draw out the wavefunctions of two
or more nuclei as occupying the same set of lattice positions, but such
an image is deceptive.  There are important constraints that don't show
up with such particle-by-particle wavefunctions.
 
An accurate quantum model requires that _both_ nuclei reside in the same
many-dimensional wavefunction, one that cannot be drawn in ordinary space.
These are usually constructed in something called a Hilbert space, which
is closely akin to the concept of a phase space (x=space, y=momentum), but
with far more dimensions.
 
When represented in its full form in Hilbert space, the wavefunction for
two non-identical nuclei delocalized in a lattice will give very much the
same result you would anticipate from a classical analysis -- they just
don't like to get close to each other.  If you poke the wavefunction to
find out where the two nuclei "really" are, you will find that the chances
of them being found close together will be very remote, _even though both
particles were delocalized into the same physical space_.  In short, there's
no free lunch.  Whether by wavefunction analysis or by classical analysis,
the only way to increase the probability of the two nuclei approaching
each other closely in such a situation (ignoring muons etc. and just
assuming a simple lattice) is to add more energy -- a _lot_ more energy.
 
 
> If so, then we may have the wells doubly-occupied, once by some delocalized
> (out-of-town) D, and a spatially localized T, Li, B, etc (or D if this makes
> sense)...
 
Correct.  In fact, you can in principle have quite large numbers of "multiple
occupancies" by both a single species (say D) or multiple species of other
very-low-mass atoms.  The main constraint is that their quantum states must
differ in some way, such as being different particles altogether, or by
having different spin states (D has multiple nuclear/electron spin states),
or by having slightly different "wavelengths" (momenta).  All of these
things allow a single lattice position to "contain" part of the overall
probability for finding various delocalized particles at that location.
 
But again, the probability of finding any pair of them there _at the same
time_ is another issue altogether.  You won't, unless the energy level is
high enough (e.g., in a white dwarf core) to make such an even reasonably
likely.
 
There is a parallel situation with electron banding.  Astronomically large
number of electrons can be "isolated" by both spin and momentum to permit
them to occupy the same lattice postion, and effect called "banding."  The
collected set has some peculiar properties that, for example, permit the
formation of fractional charge states and other curious effects, but one
peculiar effect you will _not_ find is any two electrons popping out of
the band at the same place and at the same time.  The full wavefunction
for _all_ of the electrons makes the probability of such an event very small.
 
 
> Now, we may ask a second question:
>
> What is the probability that a delocalized D will "appear" near (say within
> 10 F) of another (localized) nuclei?
 
I'd say very, very low, due to the reasons described above.
 
 
> Interestingly, if a well is occupied by some nucleus, and D appears
> (localizes) to that well, there is a finite chance (about 1 in 10^4)
> that it will be within 10 F (1 F= 10E-15 m) of the nucleus...
 
No.  If both nuclei were originally in the polyatomic band, the chances of
them being found in the same place is vanishingly small.  If the first atom
was there all along and not part of the band (possible if it was recently
"found" by a neutron or gamma ray), then the wavefunction will be different
and will no longer include that site as one of its high-probability nodes.
 
If both atoms are in the band and one is "found" first, you will wind up
with the same situation -- the wavefunction will be "instantly" (shades
of EPR!) readjust and all of the polyatomic band atoms will henceforth
avoid that site.  Thus the 1 in 10000 figure you mentioned is tempting,
but cannot actually come about because the wavefunction will either make
it exceedingly unlikely in the first place, or will "readjust" to keep
an existing occupied location from getting "bumped."
 
I would make one interesting qualification to all that.  If the polyatomic
band wavefunction is very, very regular and "needs" that space to keep its
orderly structure, the _composite_ node of many, many delocalized atoms
may be capable of exerting an actual physical pressure that will try to
nudge the offending atom out of the way.  In compounds such as polyacetylene
the equivalent composite nodes of many, _many_ "continuum" electrons can
behave remarkably like discrete, ordinary bonding electrons.  It's a bit
of a charade, though, since such composite nodes are _not_ ordinary in
their detailed properties (e.g., their ability to support the formation
of fractional charges).  (By the way, "continuum" elecrons this context
refers to the _momentum space_ continuum of electron states.  If your a
particle type that can be a bit confusing, because in non-band terminology
the "continuum states" almost always means the _coordinate space_ continuum,
not the one in momentum space.  Just a bit of terminology trivia there...)
 
At any rate, even in the "push out" case you still don't get any increased
probabilities of _individual_ nuclei getting closer in coordinate (ordinary)
space.  The impact of a composite polyatomic band node are strictly a
collective effect that disappears as soon as you start trying to break
everything down into conventional coordinate-localized atoms.
 
 
> Since D is weakly bound, the N and P can easily be separated by 10 F;
> we should expect some nuclear interaction.  My third question:
>
> If D appears within 10 F of: D, Li, T, B... what should we expect to occur?
>
> Since this is just a story, we can have some fun with it, and make a few
> observations relative to DPd systems...
 
 
> First, we would like a wavelength of D which fits integrally within its
> well, to maximize its stationarity, and thus the delocalization of the D.
> This implies a 2 lambda spacing, which occurs at a temperature of about
> 420 K. (1 lambda spacing occurs at about 100 K, significantly below room
> temperature.)
 
By the way, thanks for earlier calculating these figures.  I need to dredge
my brain about the 2 lamda figure, though.  There are some constraints and
equivalences in band theory that may need to be taken into account.  (Again,
Feynman Vol. III has a great section wavelengths (k) in bands and how some
of them cannot exist, and others are equivalent.)
 
(Dr. Petschek, are you still lurking out there?  Would you be willing to
give a quick overview of how k works in banding, for general edification?)
 
 
> Second, we would like to force the delocalized D to localize to an energy
> well.  This implies that we must "measure" the D's location with e.g. a
> photon. The act of measuring will "force" the D to make a decision, and
> appear in a particular location.  So we should irradiate the system with
> gamma rays to force these transitions.
 
You know, that's a doggone good argument.  I didn't realize that you would
be bringing up the importance of detection to localize the polyatomic band
atoms when I wrote about your earlier comments.
 
I'd suggest you play around with the "composite atomic node" idea if you
want to pursue this line of thinking.  A composite atom is really a weird
idea, but quite permissible by quantum theory.  I.e., if you can do it for
electrons, you _must_ be able to do it for atoms also -- the rules all work
pretty much the same, differing only in scale and degree.  Since that is
an idea that did not exist in the literature (prior to Twist, if you call
that "literature!"), I doubt if it's been very well explored for the atomic
polyband case, if at all.
 
My nominal position remains, however, that you will not get any exceptional
proximity due either to reconfiguration of the wave function, or to an
outright physical effect of "pushing" the localized atom out of the way...
 
It's a weird case, however.  If the atom "appears" in the middle of the node,
what happens before it gets "pushed" out of the way by the composite effects?
Can the wavefunction simply make it unlikely that the atom can ever appear
anywhere except away from the center of the composite node, so that it in
effect "pushes" the atom out of hte way before it even appears?  But if that
is the case, how can you maintain the usually interpretation that the center
of the wavefunction is the _most_ likely place for any of its constituent
atoms to appear, at least individually?  Doe the Hilbert space version
somehow complicate the usual coordinate space "image" or interpretation
of the wavefunction so that single atoms always appears on the fringes?...
 
 
My final hypothesis:  The band wavefunction immediately reconfigures into
a higher energy configuration in which that one node where the atom has
appeared is "blanked out."  The higher energy comes from the necessity
of adding additional momentum states to the Fourier transform of the
coordinate node structure of the band (to cancel out to deviant node). The
energy would need to be added by the photon that performs the detection.
"Nudging" the atom out of the way by re-forming the node slowly would then
lower the total energy of the band, providing the incentive to make the
atom move without ever introducing high probabilities of dual occupation.
 
Hmmm... yup, that's my final off-the-cuff analysis of this case, for
whatever it's worth.  I don't think you'll get anything novel proximity-wise,
but it certainly wouldn't hurt to do a bit more analysis on such a rather
interesting case.  Effects of gammas on removing electrons from metallic
bands would be a good place to start a literature search, since it might
deal with some related issues.  I doubt very strongly that the atomic band
and localized atom version of this has ever been done, however.  I'd bet
that the results might prove relevant to understanding the dynamics of H
in palladium hydrides better, however, since it's at least conceivable
that some of the curious "band pressure" effects I've just mentioned could
be related to the curiously ephemeral way hydrogen behaves when yout try to
find it using neutrons or NMR.  If it exists, who knows, perhaps it could
even be related to the substantial physical swelling of the beta phase
as localized and delocalized hydrogens "argue" for space in the lattice.
(The latter would imply less swelling for deuterium than for protium at
comparable loading.  Must try to look that up in the Pd(Hx,Dy) literature.)
 
 
(By the way, with regards to the idea of polyatomic band nodes masquerading
as "ordinary" atoms:  I did a _very_ thorough literature search on that one
before sending out Twist, and I can say with considerable confidence that
the idea simply did not exist.  I have no idea whether anyone has found
them experimentally yet, but I expect someone will eventually.  In fact,
I still strongly suspect that the mysteriously transient behavior of
hydrogen atoms in Pd crystals is due quite simply to them not being single
atoms at all, but a mix of band nodes and more conventional atoms (at least
until you force detection of atoms in the nodes with neutrons or NMR.)
 
 
> Third, it may be that we require some species other than D to serve as the
> target (since new D entering a well may just delocalize...)  This suggests
> that first we introduce D into the Pd, and then introduce a "target".  The
> best target species would be something that is easily incorporated into Pd,
> and reacts with D (probably by capturing its wandering N).
 
The far end of the farfetch, so I'll pass on commenting.
 
.....
 
All in all, this is one of the most interesting and (in my opinion) soundly
reasoned items I've seen on this net group on the subject of delocalization.
Mr. Bernecky has cleary done a lot of homework, and I tip my hat to him.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 / COLIN HENDERSON /  hydrinos and fusion
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (COLIN HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: hydrinos and fusion
Date: 20 Jan 93 11:54:41 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

*IF* hydrinos did exist ( and I remain very skeptical of this, of course ),
then  how big would they be?
 
If they were as big as a hydrogen muonic atom, then they would look very much
like a neutron.  This neutral particle could drift close to, say, another
hydrogen atom, approach very closely, and in a manner similar to muon
catalysed fusion, fuse with it.  I'd be interested to know what effect the
field of another hydrogen atom or  molecule would have on the rotating
spherical shell of charge on the Hydrino.  How does Mills theory cope with
molecules?
 
Of course, none of the mechanisms of muon catalysed fusion are available to
the hydrino-hydrogen molecule.  I wonder if the hydrino will bind with another
proton, ejecting an electron via Auger, and making a dihydrino, fusion
 following.
Or would the hydrino just drift around until the strong interaction from some
nucleus sucks it in?   Probably a greater chance of fusion with the materials
in the walls of the calorimeter.  What about transfer of the collapsed
orbital to a higher Z atom?
 
What about nuclear charge?  Forgive me.  I guess I don't know enough of the
basics of Mills theory.
 
I think all this requires too great a bending of my brain.
--
 
Colog "nku-e-shweleng" the Henderdog
Physics Dept, UCT, South Africa.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencolin cudfnCOLIN cudlnHENDERSON cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The education of Jed
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The education of Jed
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 15:31:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reference the following quote from Jed Rothwell:
 
        << "We know that nuclear fission allows slow release of
        << energy, that eventually add up to megajoules per mole
        << ...  However I have never heard of any example of the
        << the reverse process ... "
 
The problem, Jed, is that there are far too many things relating to
nuclear reactions that you have never heard of.  In order to reverse
a nuclear fission reaction there are some basic conditions that must
be met.  You have to get the reaction products turned around so that
they come together rather than fly apart and you have to supply the
energy needed to return the system to its initial state of higher
total mass.  There are some other nit picking details, of course, but
if you meet the obvious basic requirements as I have stated you can
undo nuclear fission in a reaction process known as "heavy ion fusion".
In a word you accelerate a nucleus of mass number A to sufficient
energy to overcome the coulomb barrier an strike the target nucleus
of mass number B.  Their is a finite probability that they will stick
together and form a nucleus of mass number roughly A + B.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU      a.k.a  Heavy Ions R Us
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 / Jon Noring /  Coulombic Barrier to Fusion?
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coulombic Barrier to Fusion?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 17:18:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

As a mechanical engineer, some aspects of the discussion about fusion are
above my head.  For example, yesterday, I was talking to an electrical
engineer who stated that fusion of certain nuclei can readily take place if
the 'coulombic barrier is overcome'.  This did not make any sense to me, so
if anybody out there could educate me on this matter, I'd appreciate it.
 
Jon
 
--
 
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:
cuddy20 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 / Larry Wall /  Re: hydrinos and fusion
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: hydrinos and fusion
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 19:08:45 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

I still think that hydrinos could exist only as bound pairs.  Sort of a
poor man's Helium-2, as it were.  But what could bind two protons into
a pseudo-nucleus?  Perhaps each hydrino could pretend to be the
neutron that makes the other hydrino look like deuterium.  I smell a
weak force in here somewhere...
 
I still don't profess to understand how the formation of one could be
exothermic, nor why, if it is, it wouldn't form spontaneously.  In
atmospheric equilibrium it must be very rare, or it would have been
noticed.  But rarity usually indicates higher energy states, not lower,
unless something is actively pumping things from the rare state to the
common state.  What could be missing in nickel or palladium that drives
the reaction the other way?  Is this a heat pump that works on coolth
rather than warmth?  I smell a thermodynamic rat in here, along with
the weak force.
 
But hey, you can lie with statistics, and thermodynamics is statistics...  :-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Question for William Bernecky
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Question for William Bernecky
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 21:24:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

William Bernecky has posted a nice resonant theory.  I think he put this
up once before, and I still have the same problem.  But I think the gamma
forcing is new.
 
My problem is that 100K is too low for my apparatus.  420K is too high.  So
William, can you conjure up a 3/2 or 5/4 or 73/17 resonance that will put
the test operating point between 280K and 330K??  In particular, si 40C near
any interesting point??
 
Consider that it is mucical chairs, and each proton has a home chair.  Now
one more proton enters the room.  It seems to me it would sit on a lot of
laps before it got tossed out.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Mercury Thermometers
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mercury Thermometers
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 23:24:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan watches the Hawaiian Wiggler Spoon with Jeweled Hook go by and
does not bite.  (Considering Chris Phoenix's proposal that eddy currents
might heat a mercury thermometer.)  John says:
 
"I'm not especially excited about doing it because my intuition tells me that
such eddy currents are unlikely to be of a magnitude large enough to heat
significantly a thermometer bathed in a good thermal conductor such as water."
 
First, John, water is *not* a "good thermal conductor".  Most things except
foam are better.  Copper has 637 times the thermal conductivity of water.
Water is only about 20 times more conductive than foam.  We think of water as
a good cooling agent because its specific heat is high.  But still water is a
pretty good insulator.  It is similar in thermal conductivity to most plastics
and to glass.
 
So let's get out the old envelope back and try to guess whether or not this is
a real problem.
 
I remember that the old fashioned mercury thermometer has about a 10 second
time constant.  The hope is that we can guess within a half order of
magnitude for such things.  We will model it as a thermal R (the glass) and a
thermal C (the mercury).  T = RC is the time constant that EE's use for such
things, there is a differential equation somewhere, but we never actually have
to solve it.  (Yes, I know that heat flow is a partial differential equation,
does not have a closed solution, and that this simple minded assumption does
not really work, but I have patented a use for such a time constant and people
are paying good money for its application so as the saying goes - "it is good
enough for government work".)  We know T, we will shortly guess C, then we can
compute R.
 
When as a kid, a mercury thermometer would be broken we would get a small glob
of mercury.  I estimate this as 1/100 cc.  Mercury is 13.6 gm/cc, and its
specific heat is 138 joules/C-kg.  This gives for a standard thermometer glob
0.018 Joules/C.  Substituting in T = RC we get R = 555 C/watt.
 
In other words, if we can get 2 milliwatts into the mercury, it will give a
one degree C rise just from the thermal resistance of the glass.  The water
will not help at all, and will increase the temperature rise unless it is well
circulated, but a foot per second circulation will reduce the resistance to
0.1% of the rise due to the glass (from the water machine work).  With no
circulation it is a wonderful problem to solve in 3d, and good luck!
 
We can also guess at the size of the eddy current losses in a typical
transformer.  For various reasons of copper cost versus steel cost, and
similar things, a small transformer is likely to be about 90% efficient and to
have equal copper and eddy current losses.  So the eddy current losses in a
100 watt transformer are of order 5 watts.  Guessing a core volume this would
put about 1/2 milliwatt into the thermometer glob if it were in the
transformer core.  Conditions elsewhere could be more or less, it depends on
where the field is.
 
There could easily be large stray fields around some of the Mills experiments,
for example.  One paper describes a 3 volt 50 ampere cell.  The power supply
for such a cell will have a large transformer, and lots of stray field because
high current, low voltage supplies are hard to build and are not very
efficient.  One would normally have it nearby as buying all that welding cable
is expensive.  Cells I have worked on are not all that constant current, due
to bubbles, etc..  So there are changing fields in a cell.
 
While my seat of the pants estimate is that it would be hard to get more than
a few microwatts into a thermometer, I still like Chris's advice, and will
plan to have multiple thermometers of different types in my next design.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Noninski again and Taubes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Noninski again and Taubes
Date: 20 Jan 93 14:28:51 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <00966BD4.D3DE5300.12122@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>,
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
 
> The last  posting  of  S.Jones  shows  that  he  still  does  not
> fully understand the remark of Todd Green regarding the  role  of
> Li deposition, if   any,   in   the    assessment    of    excess
> energy.   In suggesting that "[t]here still would be positive  xs
> heat BURSTS if the coating cracked to let water  react  with  the
> lithium   so   deposited"   S.Jones    demonstrates    a    major
> misunderstanding of the nature of  excess   heat.  If  such  heat
> exists it cannot be due to the above stated reason. Thus,  before
> writing articles to  educate  others (this intention  is  clearly
> admitted by him  in  his  posting)  he himself  should  read  and
> understand  papers  like:
>
> "Eight chemical explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons  effect"  by
> J.O'M.Bockris  and  coworkers,  Int.J.Hydrogen  Energy,  14,  771
> (1989)
>
> in which questions like the above one, commented by  Todd  Green,
> are thoroughly discussed.
 
The journal cited is not in our library.  In any case, Bockris may have
been in error. I would like to see the rationale for your saying that
exothermic reactions of Li with water could not produce xs heat BURSTS
explored on this net.  I expressed my idea, now give us your reasons,
not just a (hard-to-find?) reference.  Then we can take a crack at your
assertions.  I may be wrong, or you may misunderstand me.  Let's find out.
 
>I also would  like  to  know  in  which
> journal  is  this  S.Jones'  "educational"  paper  going  to   be
> published since I would like to respond to it.
 
The paper was submitted to proceedings of the Nagoya meeting, ICCF3.
Give me your address so I can send a copy of the paper.  You can respond
right here.
 
> I think it is necessary to remind   you  also  that   some   time
> ago,  again in connection with excess heat, S.Jones  resorted  to
> deliberate changing of posted  numbers  in  order  to  prove  his
> point.
>
This is unkind and misleading.  I posted 11/12/92 measurements written down
by graduate student David Buehler of Dr. Notoya's demonstration at the
Nagoya meeting.  I made the error of saying that the nickel cell ran at
"approx. the same voltage and I" when I should have added "as regards Joule
heating," since a 1.5 V higher voltage was applied to the nickel-cathode cell
to compensate for IX1.5V power lost due to escaping H2 and O2.  I explained
the error and corrected it on the net.  The "posted numbers"
themselves did not change and continue to show that about 36% of the heat in
Dr. Notoya's "control" cell was in fact dissipated into the air, consistent
with the lower temperature of this cell relative to the Ni cell.
 
David Buehler himself posted this clarification on 18 Nov. 1992:
"Because there was a 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 as about 1.5 volts higher
than on the resistive cell.  This was all explained with little signs in
front of the two cells [at the Nagoya conference]."
 
I have admitted and corrected a mistake.  Why must you dredge this up and say
that I "resorted to deliberate changing of posted numbers in order to prove
his point"?  This is untrue, sir.
 
--Steve Jones/BYU
 
BTW, I am reminded of nasty comments of Gary Taubes about me.  He attempts
to discredit me, I find, by referring to my religious beliefs and my looking
like a Boy Scout.  Yes, I work with the youth of the Boy Scouts of America and
have done so for many years.  I enjoy hiking, camping, friendly associations
and even character-building aspects of the program.  I like to get away
occasionally into the mountains.  And I am a Christian, like Henry Eyring and
Isaac Newton and others who have managed to do some useful research despite this
"handicap."  Please excuse this aside; I am sensitive since Taubes' book
attacking nearly everyone working on "cold fusion" is evidently about to
appear.    --SEJ
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Replies to Tom and Jed/ neg. xs heat
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Tom and Jed/ neg. xs heat
Date: 20 Jan 93 15:13:32 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tom Droege explains the *negative* excess heat reported by R. Huggins as
probably due mostly to "heating up the calorimeter to its operating
temperature.  Some [of the negative eV/atom]
go into lost gas, and a few are gained back when the palladium absorbs
deuterium. "
 
Fascinating, but worrisome to me.  What all is hidden in the negative
excess heat that evidently is common in such experiments?  What kind of
energy storage?  In particular, what about borate/aluminate/silicate
coatings deposited onto electrodes, possibly with lithium deposited
underneath the barrier onto the electrode(s)?
 
Thanks for the help, Tom.  When you are confident of YOUR xs heat (which
I trust much more than Huggins' heat), remember my offer to help look for
for neutrons, x-rays, gammas etc. as a crucial test for nuclear origins.
[To Henny Penny last autumn on this net.]  In particular, we have developed a
*portable* x-ray detector which is small and operates at room temperature.
 
Jed asks where the Huggins plot came from.  As I recall, it was shown at
the 1990 Hydrogen Energy meeting.  There was some discussion there of
negative xs heat measurements.
Jed says (19 Jan 1993):
"Like Steve, I have seen negative xs power in other experiments (unpublished
ones), including my own.  It is always in the noise.  It is obviously due to
experimental error, or due to ultra-conservative, worst-case analysis of
the data."
This attitude WORRIES me, Jed.  The negative xs power should be understand as
Tom tries to do, not dismissed as noise or error or ultra-conservative analysis.
The data may tell us something worthwhile to our understanding if it is not
ignored.
 
It looks, Jed, like your book is going to begin with discussions of how
glorious cold fusion power will be -- cheap, non-polluting, etc.  I think you
are putting the cart before the horse.  This may work in business or it may
more likely backfire.  In science, demonstrations are required.  The arguments
about cheap, abundant, non-polluting power from cold fusion I heard for the
first time from Chase Petersen, President of the U. of Utah, during the pivotal
meeting at BYU on March 6, 1989 (see books by Frank Close or John Huizenga for
some discussion of this.)   This talk still scares me -- I still think the
"promise of cold fusion power" is pie in the sky and may mislead and hurt
people again and again.
 
--Steve Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Quick correction
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quick correction
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:38:09 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

A quick correction is needed in my posting earlier today, responding to
Dick Blue.  The original (Jan. 1989) calibrations were taken with a 2 MeV
deuteron beam impinging on a TiD target so that the 2.9 MeV neutrons
emerge at 90 degrees WRT the beam and 5.2 MeV neutrons emerge at zero
degrees [I said 180 degrees in the earlier posting].  I find that I
had already explained that both calibrations were done with the 2 MeV
beam in my posting of 15 Jan. 1993.  This is why the low-energy tail
appears in both of the earlier calibrations.  It is worth re-emphasizing
that the 2.9 MeV calibration spectrum was NOT taken at the Colorado School
of Mines using 100 keV deuterons incident on Tid.  Note that the shoulder
of the spectra on the high-energy side corresponds to maximum-energy recoil
protons, from head-on neutron-proton collisions, and that the light output
of the organic scintillator for such cases varies nearly linearly with the
(monoenergetic) neutron energy, which helps in the calibration of the
spectrometer.
 
--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 02:51:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>PLANCK'S CONSTANT GOES BYE-BYE
>    If you allow atomi hydrogen orbitals of the form 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/n,
>    then you must also "fracture" Planck's constant by 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/n.
 
My introductory physics text claims mvr=n(h/2pi) where m=mass, v=velocity,
r=radius (all of the electron and its orbit) n=integer, and h=Planck's
constant.
 
It further states that r = (E0*h^2)/(pi*m*e^2) * n^2  where E0=permittivity
of free space, and e=charge.
 
Thus on the face of this incomplete formula, it seems that Planck could still
be rescued as a constant by allowing another of the terms to change.
 
Being bold and foolish, I'll suggest the fractionalization of the electric
charge.  That is to say, for n=1,2,3... the proton and the electron keep
their respective charge identities at 1.0  but for n=1/2,1/3,1/4... each of
their charges assumes a fractional value also.
 
 
>DRASTIC SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION
>If you allow suborbitals the same sort of thing will happen.  The farther
>you drop, the more energetic will be the photons that are released, and
>the less the final bound system will weigh.
 
I have a new upper limit on "1/n" (see below) that also puts an upper limit
on the amount of potential mass loss.  Assuming a maxium "n" = 1/210,
where liberated energy = (13.6*1/n^2)-13.6 gives 600 KeV. This is just
slightly over one electron mass, and as such represents about 1/1600th of
the mass of the hydrogen atom, or about 1/16th of one percent.
 
Not really a drastic system mass reduction.
 
 
>PROTONS AREN'T POINT PARTICLES
>Now the aforementioned shrinking assumes that the proton is a point particle.
>It isn't, of course.
 
My same text lists the radius of the proton to be 1.2E-15 meters.
 
The radius of an n=1 electron orbit is given as 5.3E-11 meters.
 
The radius for (normal) values of n is given as r=5.3E-11 * n^2.
 
The electron orbit radius is nearly equal to the proton radius when n=1/210.
 
Ergo my new upper limit for "inverse" n.  My old limit (of 274) was based
upon the assumption that an electron/positron annihilation represent the
ultimate in energy release due to charge annihilation, and therefore the
energy released could not exceed the combined mass of the electron/positron.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 03:28:18 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>m=mass, v=velocity, r=radius n=integer, and h=Planck's constant.
>It further states that r = (E0*h^2)/(pi*m*e^2) * n^2  where E0=permittivity
>of free space, and e=charge.
>
>Thus on the face of this incomplete formula, it seems that Planck could still
>be rescued as a constant by allowing another of the terms to change.
>
>Being bold and foolish, I'll suggest the fractionalization of the electric
>charge.
 
Heh heh.  Oops again.  Actually nothing else has to change in the equation,
since the equation itself doesn't enforce integer values for n.
 
And I think the electric charge being in the denominator would cause r to
increase with fractionalization of the charge.
 
Terry mentioned a mass increase for the electron to compensate.  Perhaps it
is a mass transference from the proton to the electron, a sort of confusion
of who owns what.
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:17:47 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Hmm, hydrinos...
 
Central premise:  1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/n  hydrogen electron states that are
_below_ ground are possible.
 
I cannot address the accompanying metallic-like-shell model of Mills/Farrell
because it essentially discards most of known physics.  However, the premise
of subground shells is simple enough that some implications can be addressed.
 
PLANCK'S CONSTANT GOES BYE-BYE
 
Firstly:  If you choose to use a Bohr-like approximation of atomic orbitals
and then draw out any one dimension of the "motion" of a ground state
hydrogen electron in "phase space" (x=distance, y=momentum), you will find
that it always encloses an area equal in size and units to Planck's constant.
 
Indeed, if you draw out _any_ selected dimension of _any_ atomic orbital in
a Bohr-like, orbiting-electron model, you will find the that it always sees
fit to enclose an integral number of Planck's constant "units of area" in
the phase space representation.
 
This rule was first determined by observation in the early 1920's, and is
called (I believe) the Wilson-Sommerfield quantization rule.  It provides
a rather graphic understanding of the role Planck's constant plays in the
formation of atomic orbitals.
 
Those days are long, long gone.  The discrete orbitals of Bohr were rapidly
replaced by the standing waves of probability of Schroedinger (the wave part)
and Born (the probability part) in the late 1920s, and Bohr atom quickly
became little more than an intriguing but arbitrary relic of the early days
of quantum theory, when no one could yet conceive of an orbit that was not
really an orbit, or of a particle that was as much a wave as a particle.
Bohr himself quickly and enthusiastically adopted the new approach, and even
became one of the strongest advocates of the new ("Copenhagen") style of
interpreting electrons as both particles and waves.  Bohr never looked back
on his old model, which I suspect he found a bit embarassing because of
complete lack of any mathematical foundation comparable to the new theory.
 
But be that as it may, the old, hoary Wilson-Sommerfield rule still very
nicely makes a point that remains just as valid for the Schroedinger model
as it was for the much more arbitray model.  The point is this:
 
    If you allow atomi hydrogen orbitals of the form 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/n,
    then you must also "fracture" Planck's constant by 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/n.
 
You can see this very readily by simply drawing out the new orbitals in
the old Wilson-Sommerfield phase space.  No matter how you do it, suborbitals
_must_ either reduce the total area drawn out to less than one Planck unit
of area, _or_ increase the mass of the electron to get a big increase in
the momentum, or y, coordinate.  The former is (I guess) the more acceptable
of the two, since the latter flatly violates mass-energy conservation.
 
Actually, allowing an indefinite number of suborbitals would in effect
eliminate Planck's constant altogether, which some physicists might be
inclined to view as unfortunate.  Why?  Well, since h is the "building
block" of the Wilson-Sommerfield quantization areas, you will need to
fix it as the smallest possible common denominator of the new areas.  So
if you allow 1/2 and 1/3, the new h value can be _no larger_ than 1/6 of
its current value.  For 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 it's 1/12 h, for 1/2..1/5 it's
1/60 h, and so forth.  By the time you get to, say, 1/100 you might just
as well kiss _any_ meaningful definition of Planck's constant goodbye.
 
So the first consequence of allowing 1/2..1/n suborbitals is that you
really will need to trash Planck's constant altogether.  If you choose to
do so, that's your business, of course, but please keep in mind that h is
for all practical purposes _the_ constant on which the highly successful
field of modern quantum theory is built.  Some caution might be in order.
 
DRASTIC SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION
 
Ever notice that the nominal masses of quarks can be larger than that of
particles that they form?  That's because they release a _lot_ of energy
(mass) when they combine, so that the resulting bound system (e.g., a
proton or neutron) may actually be lighter than its constituent parts.
 
If you allow suborbitals the same sort of thing will happen.  The farther
you drop, the more energetic will be the photons that are released, and
the less the final bound system will weigh.
 
You _won't_ get anything resembling a neutron out of such a process, by the
way, because the resulting bound system will be too light in mass.  I guess
the electron would keep falling until it either interacts directly with
the nucleus, or until the next jump requires more energy (mass) than the
total bound system has left in it.  I have no idea what exactly that limit
might be turn out to be, but as a guess I wouldn't be surprised it it was
quite small, maybe even less than the mass of a single electron.  A curious
little super-light "hydrino" indeed!
 
PROTONS AREN'T POINT PARTICLES
 
Now the aforementioned shrinking assumes that the proton is a point particle.
It isn't, of course.  Assuming that the electron could drop at all, I would
guess that before it got to the point of not having enough mass left to jump
anymore it would find itself immersed in a small cloud of three very upset
quarks.
 
This might normally cause all sorts of generally violent nuclear reactions,
but since we got there by violating the very laws that keep relatively low
energy electrons from ever _being_ in such a situation, I really don't see
any way to analyze the situation.  You are once again in the position of
pretty well having to abandon most or all of the quite useful rules used with
gusto by particle types for many years now.  Caution would again be appropo.
 
CONCLUSION
 
Suborbitals do severe damages to a lot pretty solid (understatement) work
in both the theory and practice of quantum mechanics in general, and particle
physics in particular.  Not to mention chemistry, electronics, materials
physics, astronomy, and just about any other QM related field of physics or
modern technology.  Because it appears to either dismiss or drastically
alter the idea of Planck's constant, the suborbital hypothesis should give
rather huge deviations in the predictions of every QM based physics theory.
It should show up just about everywhere, literally, and not just in one
limited class of chemical reactions.
 
If you wish to follow this hypothesis, I'm certainly not one to object, but
please don't take the implications too casually.  This is the kind of change
that cannot be introduced locally into _one_ theory and be expected to give
the same results everywhere else.
 
I think some further exploration and quantification of the consequences
of the suborbital hypothesis would be useful for anyone interested in this
line of thinking.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: BYU Spectrometer over and out
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Spectrometer over and out
Date: 20 Jan 93 13:15:50 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <00966CEB.8243E380.13262@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
 blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
> I think I have beat on this subject long enough so I'll make
> this my last comment on this subject.  Steve Jones correctly describes
> the basic physics employed in the BYU spectrometer so I have no
> arguement with most of what he has said.  My questions really have to
> do with how close the actual performance of the device comes to the
> desired performance.  I still have a problem with the fact that in
> the Czirr-Jensen paper the calibration peak for 2.9 MeV neutrons is
> much, much worse than anything Steve has ever sketched in his posts
> here.  It is essentially the breadloaf shape he drew as the response
> with no coincidence requirement.  In the CJ paper the authors dismiss
> the low-energy tail as being an artifact, but this is where things
> start to get a bit fuzzy.  If, as I pointed out earlier, the calibration
> spectrum was obtained at the Colorado School of Mines using 100 keV
> deuterons incident on a deuterated titanium target the explaination
> given by CJ for the tail does not fly!  I personally think that what
> they saw may have been the true response of the spectrometer at that
> stage in its development.
 
No, Dick, the 2.9MeV calibration was not obtained at the Colorado School
of Mines.  Rather, it was acquired at using the 2MeV deuteron beam from the
BYU Van de Graaf machine.  Hence the explanation for the low-energy tail
given by Czirr-Jensen holds.  The same tail is seen with this d-beam impinging
on a Cu foil, showing that (d,n) reactions are the cause of the tail, as they
say.  The low-E tail nearly disappears when the Colorado d-d facility is used,
so that (d,d) reactions are seen without the (d,n) component.  All these data
are consistent with the C-J conclusion that the response of the spectrometer
to mono-energetic neutrons is to produce a clear bump with a relatively small
low-energy tail, consistent with the bump which led to our original paper
in Nature (27 Apr 1989).
Are you having a hard time accepting these facts and changing
what you personally think?
>
> Steve seems to indicate that there are other calibration spectra that
> are better looking so it is a natural question to ask whether the
> response can change from one calibration to another.
 
I have posted spectra obtained with the 2 MeV deuteron beam from the BYU
Van de Graaf -- both Tid with Cu backing and Cu alone show the low-energy tail.
At 5.2 MeV, an additional bump at higher energy is clear.  With the same
beam, but with the detector at 90 degrees (rather than 180) WRT the beam,
a spectrum for 2.9 MeV neutrons is obtained; here a hump is seen but
admittedly obscured by the low-energy tail caused mostly by (d,n) reactions of
the incident 2 MeV deuteron beam.  Both the 5.2 and 2.9 MeV spectra
are published in the Czirr-
Jensen NIM paper (A284:365, 1989).  The spectrum obtained in Colorado with
an approx. 100 keV d-beam is published in the AIP Proceedings No. 228 of the
Provo Conference on possible low-level nuclear effects in deuterided solids;
I'm sending a copy of this 1000+ page proceedings to Dick.  There is no reason
to suppose that the intrinsic spectrometer response changes "from one
calibration to another"; rather, the measured spectra reflect the presence or
absence of (d,n) reactions caused by higher energy beam deuterons.
 
>  This goes to
> the question of whether neutrons detected in 6Li glass must first
> be thermalized as Steve says or whether neutrons, prior to having
> lost a major fraction of the incident energy, are captured in the
> glass with significant probability.  It is not clear to me whether
> the coincidence requirement is set to reject prompt coincidences
> as might be indicative of such events.  If so the setting of the
> coincidence gate timing could have a strong effect of the response.
>
> As to the gamma response of this device, Steve refers to accidental
> coincidences (characterized by a flat TAC spectrum for the relative
> timing).  I would think there must also be a part of the gamma
> response that involves true coincidences, i.e. a peak in the
> TAC spectrumt where the prompt neutron coincidences would be.
>
> where the prompt neutron coincidences would be.   My
> reasoning is that most gammas that interact with the liquid are
> Compton scattered.
 
Prompt coincidences (within about 1 microsecond) were rejected.  This decreases
the efficiency of the spectrometer, but by less than 10% Bart says. Remember
that the glass plates were only 1.5mm thick so the probability of fast neutron
detection in the glass is relatively small.
 
--Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:14:32 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I liked John's response.  He is trying to resolve some of the issues I
mentioned, vs. (say) just getting mad at me or some such reaction.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1993Jan21.025141.17694@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | PLANCK'S CONSTANT GOES BYE-BYE
> ...
>
> My introductory physics text claims mvr=n(h/2pi) where m=mass, v=velocity,
> r=radius (all of the electron and its orbit) n=integer, and h=Planck's
> constant.
>
> It further states that r = (E0*h^2)/(pi*m*e^2) * n^2  where E0=permittivity
> of free space, and e=charge.
>
> Thus on the face of this incomplete formula, it seems that Planck could still
> be rescued as a constant by allowing another of the terms to change.
>
> Being bold and foolish, I'll suggest the fractionalization of the electric
> charge...
 
Yes, you can "farfetch" other aspects of the proposed suborbital system, but
keep in mind that the next step is to _critique yourself_ as severely as
possible_.  In particular, the self-critiquing phase should include a very
thorough search for the _full_ implications of such a change, and a comparison
of those implications with well-established experimental and everyday results.
 
Actually, I think you intended here to say "_multiplication_ of the electric
charges," didn't you?  Fractional electron charge would make the hypothetical
system larger, not smaller -- e.g., if there was _no_ charge left the electron
would wander off to infinity.
 
Interestingly enough, your (multiplication?) proposal does _not_ violate
charge parity, which was my first thought.  You are keeping an even balance
of +/- charge by increasing charge symmetrically on _both_ the proton and
the electron.
 
It _does_ make the behavior of very simple particles "context dependent" in a
most peculiar fashion.  E.g., you've got the electron / proton pair somehow
"agreeing" to double their likelihood of exchanging virtual photons (alpha),
but _only_ with each other.  I have no idea whether or not you could extend
that into a self-consistent extension to standard QED or not, but an very
much inclined to be dubious.
 
Overall, though, I'd rate your paired doubling of charges as a pretty good
farfetch.  You didn't violate Planck's or charge parity, and it suggests a
specific path for elaborating the farfetch (namely multiplication of the
alpha coupling constant for some "special" (??) case of bound +/- particles.)
 
But wow, you would _really_ need to do some fancy footwork to explain the
peculiar relationship between _one_ electron and _one_ proton.  Nothing in
QM or QED is known to behave that way.  Alpha is postulated to be variable
at very high (GUT) temperature ranges, but even there it would be variable
with respect to _all_ particles, not just one particular particle.
 
> | DRASTIC SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION
>
> The electron orbit radius is nearly equal to the proton radius
> when n=1/210 [giving a mass loss of] about 1/16th of one percent...
>
> Not really a drastic system mass reduction...
 
Fair 'nuff as such things go.  You seem to be shooting for the idea that
the electron will "stop" when it gets to the proton surface.  Tell you what,
if you instead say that the positive charge of the proton is "smeared out"
over its volume (it is), then you _could_ argue for a bottom-orbital that
restes slightly within the proton, rather than on its surface.  That way
it would simply be a matter of saying that the positive charge "inside" of
your intra-proton orbital is exactly balanced by the layer of positive proton
charge just outside of the intra-proton orbital.
 
Historical note:  Back when neutrons were first discovered they were indeed
postulated to be very closely bound states of electrons around protons, an
idea that was quickly dismissed as soon as it was realized that they were
particles in their own right.  But you might want to try a literature search
on the very, very early days of neutrons, just to see what (if anything)
might have been proposed back then for "close" proton/electron orbitals.
 
.....
 
Final points:  Because I am a computer scientist, I treat exercises such as
the above in much the same way as I would treat alternatives for the structure
and logic of a computer program.  If you are unwilling to explore _and_ then
criticize the implications of your lates explorations, you are not overly
likely to come up with superior architectures.  It's just a type of problem
in logic from that perspective, and I see no big reason to get overly
emotional about it one way or the other.  The bottom line, after all, will
always be whether you can ever get your "program" to work on your "computer."
 
In software we write programs for ordinary computers.  Physicists write
programs that are called "theories," yet those theories use much the same
language of mathematics as many computer programs.  The big difference is
that these special programs are "executed" in the laboratory of experiments,
where they are either found to provide consistent prediction or turn out to
be a bit "buggy."  If it's too buggy (e.g., the pre-Michelson-Morely "ether")
you eventually chuck it out the window and start anew.  If the bugs are small
you patch it up and go on.
 
And if you are really, really lucky you discover a new, more elegant and more
powerful algorithm that covers a wider range of data and makes more accurate
predictions, like QED.  (What is "renormalization," after all, other than
a hacker's fix to what was previously a terribly inefficient and generally
inaccurate algorithm for how the world works at the quantum level?  :)  )
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 / Steve Crocker /  Japanese Replication Kits - Results?
     
Originally-From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese Replication Kits - Results?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 08:57:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

 
I don't read this group often, so perhaps I have missed news on
this. As I recall, late last year a Japanese lab was providing
inexpensive kits which supposedly contained all the necessities to
replicate a working cnf experiment. Have there been any results yet
from those using these kits?
 
-Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenaq817 cudfnSteve cudlnCrocker cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 19:27:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>trying to resolve some of the issues I mentioned, vs. (say) just getting mad
>at me or some such reaction.
 
My view is that Mills' claimed results are so fantastic that experimental
error is unlikely, and therefore Mills is either telling the truth, or is
running a scam.  I'm just killing time here until the situation resolves
itself.
 
>Yes, you can "farfetch" other aspects of the proposed suborbital system, but
>keep in mind that the next step is to _critique yourself_ as severely as
>possible_.
 
I should really formulate my statements into the form of a question.  i.e.
when someone says, "it must be X" or "it can't be X", then all I am asking is
did they consider this variable or that variable also?  I am intellectually
ill equipped to be anything more than a question poser.
 
>It _does_ make the behavior of very simple particles "context dependent" in a
>most peculiar fashion.
 
I think an example of "context dependent" would be the mass difference between
a hydrogen atom with an electron with a forward spin versus one with an
electron with a retrograde spin.  These differences change the "step"
energies very slightly of the photons emitted in transversing the various
"n" states, yet Planck's constant remains rock solid.  We end up with pairs
of closely spaced emission (or absorption) lines in our spectrums.
 
>You seem to be shooting for the idea that
>the electron will "stop" when it gets to the proton surface.
 
Wouldn't the strong (or is it the weak) nuclear force insist?
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:30:46 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
 
Dieter Britz and Jim Carr have recently asked for clarifications on my
comments regarding distinctions between "cold" and "hot" fusion (see
"Quick Replies" by me and "Re:  Quick Replies" by Dieter and Jim).
I think I have time this p.m. to hammer out a response with apologies for
the delay.
 
It will be helpful to juxtapose potential energy curves vs. separation for
the deuteron (d) plasma (hot fusion) case and the muonic molecular d-d-mu
(cold fusion) case.  What is now called "cold fusion" MAY be similar to
one of these, but I really don't know if recent experimental results fit
into either category.  But plasma fusion and muon-catalyzed fusion are real
and the distinctions are instructive to scrutinize.  Warning:  the plots
are not to scale.
 
         POTENTIAL ENERGY:  PLASMA D-D FUSION
|
|  =
|  =+
|  = +
|  =  +
|  =   +
|  =    +
|  =     +
|  =      +
|  =  T1<-- +    E= 4 keV
|  =          +
|  =             +
|  =                    +       _     _
|+0---------------------------------      d-d separation (r)
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
  \ Strong nuclear reactions take over at few fermi separation-->fusion
 
                  POTENTIAL ENERGY VS R FOR MUONIC DD MOLECULE (BOUND)
|  =
|  =+
|  = +
|  =
|  =  +
|  =
|  =   +
|  =
|  =    +
|  =
|  =     +
+0------------------------------------------_------------ d-d separation (r)
|  =      +               +      +
|  =  T2 <-- +         + <-- binding energy of ground d-d-mu state = 325 eV
|  =             +      <-- depth of Born-Oppenheimer potential = 557 eV
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
|  =
  \Fusion at r = few fermi
 
My picture may be semi-classical, but I assert that we can learn
much about cold vs hot fusion from the plots.  Tunnelling through the Coulomb
potential barrier is important for both bound and plasma cases:  note that
even for hot fusion, very few collisions are of sufficiently high energy to
surmount the barrier, for plasmas at say 10E7 kelvin.
 
The binding of the nuclei by muons clearly changes the WIDTH of the potential
well, as well as permitting frequent collisions of the deuterons so bound.
Excuse, Jim, the "classical" picture, but the fact is that the vibrational
frequency of a molecule is a relevant and observable quantity.  I do not
understand the vigorousness of your objection.  We can calculate the tunnelling
integral and multiply by the vibrational frequency of the molecule to determine
the d-d fusion rate, in a semi-classical approach.  Or, we can follow the
"pure" quantum-mechanical route of calculating the complex wavefunction over
ALL space, then calculate the probability of fusion.  I spoke
to Jim Cohen of Los Alamos this morning who has gone through the latter
approach (the more difficult method), and he said that the difference in
calculated rates is only about 20%.  He and I both defend the semi-classical
approach as useful calculationally as well as pedagogically.  Jim Carr is
correct that Clint Van Siclen and I used a semi-classical approach in 1985
in our paper on "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules" (J.
Physics G12:213-220 pub'd 1986) as did David Jackson in his classic 1957 paper,
and Steve Koonin in his follow-up to the Van Siclen/Jones paper.
 
Cohen went further:  he contrasts the fusion rates in D2+ (bound by electrons,
a la Van Siclen and Jones 1986 paper) with that of (d-d-mu)+.  The
rate for the muonic molecule is faster for two reasons:
1-Shorter internuclear distance (see plot above:  binding decreases the
   d-d separation by the electron/muon mass ratio = 207, from about 1 angstrom
   to about 4X10-3 angstroms)
2-Increased vibrational frequency in the muonic molecular ion  - this
    increases the fusion rate by a factor of about 3000, Cohen calculates.
    Clearly, the vibrational frequency in the BOUND molecule is important.
 
Note that in the plot for plasma fusion above, the nuclei are unbound.  This
is an important distinction WRT the bound or "cold" fusion case.  In the
D2 molecule (neutral), the equilibrium separation distance R is about 0.74
angstroms.  When a d-d-mu molecular ion forms (we tire of saying this always
and often just say muonic molecule), the internuclear distance shrinks to
about 4X10E-3 angstroms.  In the ground state of d-d-mu, the zero-point energy
is (557-325) = 232 eV.  Screening of the coulombic repulsion by the negative
muon causes the WIDTH of the barrier to decrease.  This is important since
the tunnelling probability varies roughly as
      EXP[- barrier height X (width)E2].
This holds for a square barrier; for the Coulombic barrier, we see that
decreasing the width increases the tunnelling rate more than would decreasing
the barrier height.
 
Without the effects of screening, that is for bare, unbound nuclei, a
center-of-mass energy of about 4000 eV would be required to allow the nuclei
to approach to 4X10-3 angstroms.  This energy is reached in plasmas of approx.
4 X 10E7 kelvin, which is achieved in "hot" fusion devices like TFTR.  Thus,
binding of the nuclei allows "cold" fusion to proceed rapidly without the
need for high temperatures.  BOTH proceed primarily by tunnelling through the
Coulomb barrier.  Thus, on the plots above I show T1 for tunnelling in the
hot fusion case occuring at an energy of 5 keV, while tunnelling T2 in the
cold fusion case occurs at a much lower energy.
 
  Therefore, I object to statements such as this which appear
commonly in physics texts:
"To obtain energy from fusion, the particles must be heated to a temperature
great enough for the fusion reaction to occur as the result of random thermal
collisions."  (Tipler, p. 1353, "Physics for scientists and engineers", 1991.)
 
Note the distinction between random thermal collisions and collisions of
nuclei bound in a molecule.
 
I have endeavored to clarify the distinction between "hot" and "cold" fusion.
Other short discussions of the same subject are found in:
1. L. Ponomarev, "Muon cataysed fusion," Contemporary Physics, 1990, 31:219-245;
2. J. S. Cohen and J. D. Davies, "The cold fusion family," Nature 338:705-707,
     27 April 1989 (same issue as the original BYU experimental paper, in which
     we say:
  "When a current is passed through palladium or titanium
electrodes immersed in an electrolyte of deuterated water and various metal
salts, a small but significant flux of neutrons is detected.  Fusion of
deuterons within the metal lattice MAY BE THE EXPLANATION."  (Emphasis added.)
 
The principal idea behind the 1986 paper (replying to Dieter) was that for
fusion in bound electronic molecules, the fusion rate might be increased by
distortion  of the molecular potential by subjecting the molecules to extreme
pressures.  I had the idea of considering the possible of piezonuclear fusion
inside Jupiter (which we then included in the Van Siclen/Jones paper pub'd
1986).  BYU Prof. Paul Palmer extended the idea to possible fusion
inside the earth when I discussed the piezonuclear (or electron-catalyzed)
fusion idea at BYU colloquium on March 12, 1986.  Our lab experiments began
at BYU based on these ideas in May 1986, and have continued to this date.
We began with electrolysis in D2O in May 1986 and added D2 gas pressure loading
in June 1986.  We have experimented with diamond-anvil cells holding deuterided
metals Pd and Ti as well as LiH and LiD, but only at approx. 150 kbar.  The
diamond-anvil cell holding LiH and LiD reached 1.8 mbar but then the diamonds
cracked.  We have not yet studied metallic hydrogen isotopes, but I am anxious
to try this difficult experimental program.  Note that these concepts,
including the use of diamond-anvil cells and metallic hydrogen and fusion in
the planets, are all outlined in the original Van Siclen/Jones paper which we
wrote by June 1985, long before any of us heard of Pons/Fleischmann.  Our work
with electrolysis began in May 1986 (with nominal funding from DOE in fact).
Our research, therefore, should not be confused with P/F -- PLEASE.
 
Thanks, Dieter, for finally including the Van Siclen / Jones paper in your
list of early works related to cold fusion.  But let's not associate this
with Pons and Fleischmann.  Can't we all see the difference?  We
understand the difference between hot and cold fusion, now, hopefully.  And
the distinction between muon- and electron- catalyzed fusion seems transparent.
No one sees enough neutrons OR helium OR gammas OR tritium (I could go on to
include any products of nuclear reactions) to justifiably associate claimed
xs heat with nuclear reactions.  So why throw the BYU work in with P/F claims?
   PLEASE HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE.
The distinction is clear in Huizenga's book and Frank Close's, but uncritically
muddled in Mallove's (which I profoundly resent).  It seems that believers in
the unfounded notion that xs heat as claimed by P/F is nuclear  USE the
low-level nuclear findings of the BYU group and others to support their claims.
To me, this is grossly unfair and fallacious.  I will continue to fight such
nonsense.
 
Respectfully,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>=Hot vs Cold Fusion/to Carr&Britz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>=Hot vs Cold Fusion/to Carr&Britz
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:36:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Just trying to add a title to my posting earlier today on the distinctions
between hot and cold fusion, which got out without a title.
--SteveJones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.21 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Coulombic Barrier to Fusion?
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Coulombic Barrier to Fusion?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:53:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
 
> As a mechanical engineer, some aspects of the discussion about fusion are
> above my head.  For example, yesterday, I was talking to an electrical
> engineer who stated that fusion of certain nuclei can readily take place if
> the 'coulombic barrier is overcome'.  This did not make any sense to me, so
> if anybody out there could educate me on this matter, I'd appreciate it.
>
> Jon
 
That is one of the secret things electrical engineers are taught :-)
 
Nuclei have to be very close together to fuse, but if for example two hydrogen
ions (p) approach each other, the positive electric charges will push them
apart.  If you "push" them hard enough, they will get close enough for the
strong force to take over and they will fuse. (Some details left out for
clarity).  The natural repulsion of nuclei is the coulombic barrier.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.22 / Jed Rothwell /  Swallow energy
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Swallow energy
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:25:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue says my problem is that there are far too many things relating to
nuclear reactions that I have never heard of. Dick's problem is that he never
finishes reading a sentence before responding. I asked for an example of a
simple, naturally occurring "energy-swallowing" reaction; one that occurs
slowly, at room temperature (or near room temperature). Dick gives us "heavy
ion fusion," which sounds to me like it needs an accelerator, lots of extra
energy to promote the reaction, and is barely observable. Dick says, "you
have to supply the energy needed to return the system to its initial
state..." and "there is a finite probability that [particles] they will stick
together..." Okay, but does it happen naturally, without prompting, at low
temperature, at macroscopic, readily observable levels? I am not suggesting
that CF is fission. I am just pointing out that we know of one common,
natural, exothermic, non-chemical process that can gradually produce
megajoules per mole: fission. So that raises the likelihood that nature
allows other, similar processes.
 
 
Regarding mercury thermometers being affected by current, Tom Droege suggests
we "get out the old envelope back and try to guess whether or not this is a
real problem."
 
Not a bad idea, but there is a much simpler, easier, much more certain
method. Get a mercury thermometer and hold it near a current. Now move it
away. Try that experiment in air, and try it under water. Do it many, many
times. If possible, do it with a current 10 times greater than any you expect
to encounter during the experiment. Do you see any change? Nope. I have done
that many times, and millions of other people have been doing it for 200
years, and nobody has ever observed any change as large as 1 C, as far as I
know. Naturally, we check mercury thermometers against other types (like
alcohol thermometers). Never assume that your instruments are working right,
always test and calibrate them. Also, never use the back of an envelope to
guess at something without *also* testing to be sure you are right. There is
no substitute for a real-world experiment.
 
I posted a long message about this, but it disappeared into the cybernetic
void. Too bad, it also included a response to poor old Frank Close. I should
stop picking on the man.
 
 
Steve Jones says: "I am reminded of nasty comments of Gary Taubes about me.
He attempts to discredit me, I find, by referring to my religious beliefs..."
Please do not let Taubes bother you. You are in excellent company being
attacked by him. You must worry if he *praises* you. That would be like
getting a political endorsement for honesty from Richard Nixon. His book will
be an excellent source of information. I know some "skeptics" who are
sweating bullets about it, because it reveals their sordid, attack-dog
tactics. A few years ago, some of these people were bragging to Taubes about
their knife-in-the-back, late night phone call tactics, and their bullying.
Now that CF has become slightly legitimate in the U.S., and fully recognized
in Japan, their actions will not look good.
 
Me: "[Negative heat] is always in the noise.  It is obviously due to
experimental error, or due to ultra-conservative, worst-case analysis of
the data."
 
Steve: "This attitude WORRIES me, Jed.  The negative xs power should be
understand as Tom tries to do, not dismissed as noise or error or
ultra-conservative analysis."
 
Now just one cotton-picking minute! Who said anything about DISMISSING it?
Who said I don't understand it? Good Grief. I *find* *out* the source of the
error, if I can, I don't just write it off. For example, I think that the
negative bias on one of my thermocouple pairs might have been due to
humidity, since the copper sleeve appeared to get wet, and the problem was
substantially ameliorated by putting a dehumidifier in the room. If I say a
deficit is due to an "ultra-conservative analysis" I mean that I found out
which analysis it was (or I think I did). If I say it is in the noise, it
means I got a less noisy gadget from Tom, or somewhere, and found the effect
disappeared. I am not dismissing anything, I am saying that unpublished
examples of heat swallowing devices have always turned out to have simple,
understandable, prosaic explanations, as far as I know.
 
Also, you are always claiming that theory disproves any possible excess heat
without neutrons, and you know a ton about theory (don't pretend otherwise!).
So if you really, honestly, think there is some possibility that Pd can
swallow up and store megajoules per mole, please tell us why this is
theoretically possible. And if it is possible, why can't Pd release those
megajoules later? Why do you seriously entertain the possibility of negative
heat, but so constantly dismiss reports of positive heat? The positive
reports are far more widespread and thousands of time farther above the
noise.
 
Anyway, here is a message to anyone out there who has a calorimeter with a
strong negative bias during calibration: It's broken. Fix it. You should have
no strong biases either way. A slight bias is inevitable. I recommend
measuring heat and temperature with 2 or 3 independent systems. Naturally,
there is no way 3 different types of thermometer can agree to 10 decimal
places. One or two decimal places is fine, because you must dismiss all
"excess heat" events less than a watt or two, and all Delta-T temperatures
less than 5C. Inconclusive evidence is useless. This is not 1989 anymore. If
you cannot get the kind of conclusive, obvious results other people see, far
above the noise, then you are doing something wrong, so there is no point in
reporting your results. It is like coming out in 1910 and announcing that you
don't know how to build an airplane. Who cares? Other people have succeeded,
so you don't count. You are not a programmer if your programs don't run; you
are not a pilot if you can't get off the ground; and you are not doing CF if
you have no massive, easily observable, excess heat. You are a CF wannabe,
like me.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.22 / Rusty Perrin /       Quick reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: Rusty Perrin <U7584RT%DOEMA.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Quick reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:25:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
"If...we refuse to allow any new experiments (as DoE has done)"
 
There seems to me to be a big difference between refusing to fund any
experiments and refusing to allow any experiments. I presume that fund is the
correct word here. Keep in mind that DOE receives its money by law from
Congress, and can only spend the money on the activities for which Congress
has given to money. DOE cannot legally spend money on other activities no
matter how good they seem. So if contractors to the DOE are using DOE funds to
conduct CF research with funds intended for another purpose, DOE has to stop
that or people could wind up in jail. It's the law. At least in my mind, this
still falls under the heading of refusing to fund CF research, not refusing to
allow it.
 
Disclaimer: I work for DOE, but not in the Energy Research area. I just
personally find this topic to be interesting. The above is written based upon
my general knowledge of the funding process rather than any specific knowledge
of what has happened regarding CF. Actually most of what I know in specific
about DOE's history with CF comes straight from this list.I am certainly not s
peaking with the official voice of DOE.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBITNET cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #12 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #12 Cell 4A3
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:26:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #12 Cell 4A3
 
Here is an event for you all to ponder.
 
There was an accumulation ("anomalous cold") of -180 joules over 40 min FWHM,
(2 joule sigma).  No (<.1cc sigma) gas change during the event.  Catalyst 1.5
C hotter during the event (.1 C sigma).  Cell temperature drifted lower 0.2 C
during event (0.02 C sigma). No change in cell voltage of about 5.6 volts
(0.002 v sigma).  Cell current 0.886 ampere (sigma 0.001 or less).  Ambient
temperature change during event less than 0.1 C (furnace on off cycle, slow
cool down during event - best guess at ambient temperature correction for
present configuration is -40 mw per C).  Change in power level -0.100 watts
(sigma 0.015) during the event.  The power balance change was a trapezoid with
the leading edge somewhat taller than the trailing edge, and with a rise time
of 5 minutes.  This event occurred about 8 hours after the end of a 40 hour up
ramp from 100 ma to 900 ma.  The cell has now been charging over 700 hours.
The "sigmas" quoted above (except power) are not actual measurements but my
estimate from looking at a 3 1/2 hour plot of the various items.  All the
various control measurements look normal, 3 precision references, 5 power
supply voltages, 4 grounds, 8 thermometers, servo control loops were normal,
and nothing was oscillating (at least not while I was looking).  I have no
doubt but what this is a real measurement of something.
 
The above means that the cell put out 180 joules of cold, the gas volume did
not change, the catalyst got significantly hotter, the cell cooled slightly,
and nothing else much happened.
 
My impression is that the event was "paid back" with some heat over the next
several hours.  The calorimeter is just not good enough to say for sure.  The
general picture was that of a fast pulse through capacitive coupling.
 
In trying to understand the above event, you should know that a cell
temperature change is indicative of more heat than is computed by the specific
heat of the water in the cell and the delta temperature.  This is because the
cell is in a large aluminum block and quickly exchanges heat with it.  About a
factor of ten is needed.
 
Steve Jones in his FD-722 (20 Jan 93 14::28) reply, and in a note to me has
suggested some mechanisms for heat or cold relating to cracks allowing the
electrolyte to contact an under surface coating deposit of lithium.  How
about a back of the envelope computation of how big the crack would have to be
to absorb 180 joules Steve?  Or to release 400 joules?  Seems to me that it
requires 10% or so of all the available reactants (Li) unless we get gas
involved, and the above event suggests just that.  I have long suspected that
there are whole surface events that take place.
 
Suppose that for a while, we start generating another gas along with the usual
component of D2 and O2.  The 5+ volt cell voltage should be enough to do it.
Note that it has to be in addition to, and this means that each charge has to
somehow do double duty (which I did not think possible), or we must generate a
gas with greater heating value than D2 and O2.  (Brown's gas comes to mind -
an "in" joke for the privileged few!)  The loss of energy would thus cool the
cell and when the gas converted on the catalyst the heat there would be
explained.  CO comes to mind as a possibility, but I did not put any C in the
cell that I know of.  There is the polypropylene cell, and Teflon, so possibly
over 700 hours some carbon has been extracted from the cell wall.  If so,
then there might be circulation as CO is converted to CO2 on the catalyst and
then is reabsorbed into the electrolyte (and I do not know what I am talking
about here - just to get you all thinking).  Are there any gasses that can be
made from Lithium?
 
For calorimeter fans, the energy balance was reset about 1 megasecond ago.
Since then we have accumulated 5 kilojoules.  This works out to an average
balance of 5 mw (and happens to be +).  Note my claim is one sigma of 0.035
watts.  It just happens that the system drifted in the positive direction for
a while, and lately in the negative direction.  During various times of the
day the drift can be as much as 30-40 mw.  So I think the 35 mw one sigma
below is conservative.  I would guess the real number at 20 mw one sigma
without any correction.  I think I now see how to correct it to the few mw
level using some of my measured values.  So had there been something to see as
to real net "anomalous heat" we would have seen it.  As it is, it looks like
"zero" so far to me.  It does look like there is some chemistry going on and
that it is fairly violent.
 
Experiment summary repeated below for new readers.
 
We are presently running a Takahashi style Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion"
experiment.  Cell 4A3 contains a 1 cm by 1 cm by 1mm Pd cathode.  The cathode
was squeezed down to 1 mm thickness from a 3mm thick coin bar in a high
pressure hydraulic press.  Fill is 33 cc of .47 M D2O.  Cell is running with a
Pt dummy electrode at a 800 microampere bias current positioned off to one
side of the anode grid.  The Pt anode is wound around the cathode like the
grid in a 6AS7 vacuum tube.  (I might as well say positioned like the tongue
in a Plesiosarus for all most of you would know.)  A glass tube down the
center of the cell supports the teflon anode/cathode structure at its end.
The tube contains two solid state thermometers.  One where the tube is
surrounded by the liquid measures the cell temperature.  A second is located
above where the tube is surrounded by gas in the vicinity of the catalyst.
The glass tube between the two thermometers is stuffed with foam to reduce
coupling.  The catalyst is Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D, which is Palladium
based.  The catalyst is formed as small cylinders which are 0.1" in diameter
by 0.1" long.  The catalyst is located in eight sodium glass tubes which are
supported in the top of the cell by teflon spacers.  The glass tubes are
mounted vertically with the bottoms slightly closed to keep the cylinders in
place.  This allows condensate to drip out the bottoms of the tubes.  About 15
of the catalyst cylinders are in each of eight tubes.  The cell is sealed with
"O" rings external to the cell volume and any excess gas is removed to an
atmospheric pressure motor driven syringe.  The cell was assembled in an Argon
filled glove bag after an appropriate cleaning ritual.  The cell is operated
in a null balance calorimeter of my design with a one sigma calibration for
this run of 0.035 watts.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.22 /  CLOSE@vipmza.p /  More Educating Rita
     
Originally-From: CLOSE@vipmza.physik.uni-mainz.de
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Educating Rita
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:26:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

CHEMICAL AND UNCLEAR POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES
 
Steve Jones reminds us that there have been negative power excursions
that may compensate the positives. And he is right that Hutchinson of
Oak Ridge is an example (Scott at ORNL maybe but thats another story).
I followed Hutchinson's experiments as I held a senior position at Oak
Ridge then; indeed it was his comment to me about the large *negative*
excursion  of order a MJ that began to make us suspicious about nuclear
fusion as "explanation" of any heat (I am talking about spring 1989
here).The published work of his group shows that the net energy "excess"
is (my estimation) 1.5+/-1.9MJ. The flow from negative to positive could
be artificial (e.g. sloping baseline) or a "genuine" storage.
 
(p.s. After preparing this note I saw Tom Droege's post about possible
sources of negative heat in the "warm up" stage. This was all allowed for
here as in the Harwell data, see below, I believe. The Pd lattice undergoes
a phase change during the loading, which is an important player in this
"negative heat" story I guess. Perhaps other people can comment on this).
 
Hutchinson also looked for nuclear products. There were none. So if you
want to advertise this as an Oak Ridge positive heat (as Bockris has e.g.)
you should include it as a definitive nuclear negative (MJ = 10**18
nuclear events approx). This leaves nothing, chemistry or miracle.
Jed Rothwell assures us that chemistry is impossible for MJ, as has been
known for 100,000 years apparently, so that seems to leave nothing or miracle.
 
If you go look at the Harwell data you will see that these also show a
negative for hundred hours followed by a positive. The positives never
exceeeded two sigma and so they did not regard it as significant, but *if*
you want to believe that Harwell really saw positive heat, then you also
must accept the negative heat too. And here again, the integrated negative
and positive are consistent with zero.
 
Now, some people want to claim that Harwell *really* saw heat but
misanalysed their data. If so, then the fact that Harwell also took
careful measurements of neutrons, tritium etc and found that there were
none (in these "heat producing expts") means either that there was no
nuclear process at work or that they misanalysed their neutrons too.
Now, it is well known that people have mistakenly thought they saw
neutrons when there werent any, but I have not before heard suggested
that neutron experts saw none when they were actually being flooded by
10**12 each second. So here again the message seems to be "nothing,chemical
or miracle".
 
So lets examine the idea that a chemical process is at work further.
 
Jed Rothwell suggests that I have ignored FP later paper(s). Does this include
their 1991 paper Jed? have you read it? If so, please explain how it is
that it claims to have made experiments with ordinary water that balanced
*before* the 23 March press conference when it was stated explicitly by
Fleischmann on the 28 and 31 March89 that those experiments had *not*
been done. Did he have a poor memory? Surely we are not to believe that
he was deliberately lying, for if he were then we would have no reason to
believe any claim made then or since. So what is the explanantion Jed?
How are we to know which statements to believe?
Given the track record of credibility how are we to know whether to
believe that a video of bubbles and a dry cell shows, as claimed,
boiling with 100 watt excess power for ten minutes?
Guidance would be appreciated.
 
*If* the 100W excess is as reported then I dont care whether it is
nuclear or not, it would be an interesting phenomenon to be explained.
The problem is that Pons has made several claims during the cold fusion
episode which have later been shown to be less than the verite' - here
again I refer you to my book and invite you to verify with the sources.
It could be that this time it is for real and that he cried "wolf" too
often,and that this video shows a nuclear fusion process at work,
in which case you can all have fun enjoying the banquet at Stockholm
while I eat my hat. But in the meantime dont waste your breath badmouthing
all and sundry whose views do no agree with your own. Nature "knows" what
the real answer is and this will not be changed however much hot air is
blasted for or against in the meantime.
 
And in the chemical-nuclear conundrum do not forget the fact that Pons
expt produced apparently positive heat with *ordinary* water when finally
done in April 89. At least that is what he believed so long as it fitted in
with his nuclear belief (fed in part by Schwinger's interest at that time).
Pons told Martin of Texas, he told the DOE, he told Seaborg, as some
of these people noted in their diaries at the time. Fleischmann believed
in this too, as became clear to those at Erice in mid April 89. But then
the incompatibility of these data with a nuclear hypothesis was
realised and no more was heard. Now it is possible that they discovered
perfectly valid reasons to disregard those data; it is also possible that
those data are as "real" as the heavy water data. Heat with heavy and light
water and with no nuclear products conveys one message to me and another to
Jed Rothwell.
 
 
*******************************************************************
 
MORE EDUCATING RITA
 
 I had prepared the previous msg before reading the Rothwell post
that dismissed Huggins negative  heat and breaks new ground even by
JR's unique standards. As I am interacting remotely from Germany this
week I cant readily call up the first post and so apologise for
some duplication.
 
Jed Rothwell informs us that
 
*Chemistry has been around for a long time it cant fall flat on its
*face because of one expt
 
 
1.Replace "chemistry" by "nuclear physics"
 
2.It is not just "one" experiment. I have suspected for a long time that
you have either not read or have not understood some of the papers that
you denigrate. Your claims about Huggins show this. Start
by reading the Harwell paper; look at the figure. They had a high
percentage of negative power for over 100 hours (see previous posting).
Go and look at Hutchinson group from Oak Ridge. They also had a long
negative period, accumulating (negative) between 0.5 and 1.5MJ. This
appeared in Fusion Technology (I think it was) and/or one of the early
conferences.
This negative period is a well known phenomenon and the positive output later
in these expts did not exceed that early negative.
When I "left open" the question of storage (and note I used
"atomic" not "chemical") it was such phenomena that I had in mind.
You castigated me on this point two weeks ago asserting that there was
never any negative heat etc etc; I forgive you as it is clear that
you were unaware of this phenomenon.
 
(You also keep saying that the energies are beyond chemistry.
There are electrons bound with hundreds of eV in heavy atoms. Normal
chemistry may indeed primarily read the loosely bound electrons and hence
energies per atom in CNF be "more than chemistry" but that does not rule
out these energies on these grounds of *energy conservation* alone.)
 
 
*We must not believe an isolated example - - simply expt error. I never
*believe anything until I hear from a dozen workers....
 
Hutchinsons group and Harwell (and other calorimetric expts such as your
much loathed Caltech group) satisfy the dozen
 
*who have performed hundreds of expts.
 
Ah; thats the crunch; that is how I feel about Pons' video.
 
*An experiment yielding only  milliwatts of excess cannot prove much
 
Bang goes Fleischmann and Hawkins expt as written up by Pons.
 
*It is dead simple to make mistakes when measuring milliwatts of heat (power).
 
At last we agree on something. This point was made about the FPH work
in 1989. And before you accuse me of misquoting you by having omitted
your rider about experts, first rate equipment (or whatever), dont forget
that
(1)most of the data on heat/power in FP were actually measured by the
student Hawkins whose claims to expertise were established in the author
list of the original paper, and
(2) many electrochemists seem not to be overly impressed by the FP
calorimeters as the optimal precision devices.
 
 
In summary, I suspect that the systematic errors have been underestimated
in the original FPH work certainly and in other work possibly and that
localised heat excursions do not exceed the net energy budget contained
within the *electronic* degrees of freedom. A serious attempt to understand
the physical mechanisms might focus on these questions since there is one
reproducible datum, namely the lack of billions of nuclear remnants.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenCLOSE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:34:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jan21.192756.23373@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
 
> .. My view is that Mills' claimed results are so fantastic that experimental
> error is unlikely, and therefore Mills is either telling the truth, or is
> running a scam...
 
Dr. Farrell is definitely not the scam type.  I think he is entirely sincere
in his beliefs about subground states and his experiments, and that he is a
downright decent fellow.  However, I flatly do not accept his technical
premises for proposing subground states.  I am also convinced that no amount
of tinkering around with that particular set of premises will ever lead to
a theory that is consistent with how the universe as whole behaves.
 
I know nothing at all about Mills except what I've seen on this group.
 
 
> I think an example of "context dependent" would be the mass difference
> between a hydrogen atom with an electron with a forward spin versus one
> with an electron with a retrograde spin.  These differences change the
> "step" energies very slightly of the photons emitted in transversing the
> various "n" states, yet Planck's constant remains rock solid.  We end up
> with pairs of closely spaced emission (or absorption) lines in our
> spectrums.
 
That is covered without change by _existing_ QM, though.  Jim Carr could
comment far better than I, if he takes an interest in a quick explanation.
 
 
> | You seem to be shooting for the idea that the electron will "stop" when
> | it gets to the proton surface.
>
> Wouldn't the strong (or is it the weak) nuclear force insist?
 
Nope.  Strong and EM normally don't usually "see" each -- they are two ships
passing in the night, so to speak.  That has to be modified by the (very)
weak interaction, of course, but even then I suspect that if you could
somehow stably stuff an electron into a proton it would still be several
minutes (comparable to neutron decay times) before the electron and some
quark bumped into each other via the weak force.
 
There is no "solid" surface to a proton, only the outer edge of a bag of
three asymptotically (sp?) bound quarks moving at very high speed.  They
don't like other quarks (protons, neutrons) much, but are generally
indifferent towards electrons.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.23 /  dima /  New nuclear data
     
Originally-From: dima@arm.msk.su (dima)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New nuclear data
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:10:19 GMT
Organization: Levkovsky's home

Dear Scientists!
I want to suggest for your attention the book: "Cross sections
of mass medium nuclide activation (A=40-100) by medium energy
protons and a-particles (E=10-50MeV)",
by PhD of Physics V. N. Levkovski (activation method, radiation
material science; worked in the Nuclear Physics Institute,
Kazakhstan, former USSR).
                       SUMMARY
Experimental research of more than 500 nuclear reactions activation
cross sections, depending on energy of bombarding particles, and
nuclear-physical characteristics of nuclide-targets and reaction
products are presented and classified in this book.
The book is of interest for experts in the field  of practical use
of charged particle accelerators, activation analysis,
isotope production, radiation material testing, radiation chemistry,
space chemistry, as well as for scientists and postgraduates
majoring in fundamental theoretical research.
 
The book contain: 55 pages of grafs, 87 - tables of experimental
results, 73 - phenomenological analysis, in all -215 pages.
ALL DATA PRESENTED IN THIS BOOK ARE PUBLISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
Price:US$50
I am Dmitri Levkovski, son of V. N. Levkovski.
After my father's death, I succeeded in having the book published in
Russia with my family's money. Now by selling the adapted for English
speaking user variant of the book(with applied translated in English
expanded contents and tables of data guide usage), I am trying to
collect money for having the book published in English.
 
Everybody who is interested in buying this book send me a message, please.
 
I would appreciate any of your thoughts(about the price also) and ideas
which might help to expand the use of this book.
Thank You!
Dmitri Levkovski
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendima cudlndima cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #13 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #13 Cell 4A3
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:00:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #13 Cell 4A3
 
Yesterday's event to ponder may have an explanation after all.  It now looks
like there is a gas leak.  If we assume that the cathode puffed out some D2
gas, and it blew the cell seal, then the event would be explained.  I.e. the
loss of gas would explain the accumulation of "cold".
 
Last night in the course of normal checks I found the cell leaking.  Now the
question is why.  Unfortunately this cell has a teflon to glass seal.  Not too
easy to do right.  I think the next design will have only a teflon face in the
cell and the rest will be made of something that can be glued.
 
My preference at the moment is epoxy fiberglass.  Does anyone know if this
is likely to be a bad material?
 
It is likely that there was a real pressure surge in the cell.  My pressure
switch tries to hold very near ambient pressure, but there is a time lag as it
can only adjust about 6 cc a minute.
 
The seal was tested at an atmosphere or so.  To get beyond that would have
required the sudden appearance of 50 cc+ of gas.  That is a lot to come out of
the 0.1 cc cathode in a hurry.  The electrolysis makes 10 cc a minute of
combined D2 and O2, so it should take a while to build up pressure even in the
unlikely case of loss of catalyst function everywhere at the same time.  We
have seen such events, but usually the catalyst starts working again in a few
minutes.  Sigh!  More things to do to make the experiment better!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.24 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 08:52:20 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>Hi folks,
 
>In article <1993Jan21.192756.23373@ns.network.com>
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
[ No scamm (Mills-Farrell-Kneizys Ni/K/H theory) from what I can tell..]
 
>> | You seem to be shooting for the idea that the electron will "stop" when
>> | it gets to the proton surface.
>>
>> Wouldn't the strong (or is it the weak) nuclear force insist?
 
>Nope.  Strong and EM normally don't usually "see" each -- they are two ships
>passing in the night, so to speak.  That has to be modified by the (very)
>weak interaction, of course, but even then I suspect that if you could
>somehow stably stuff an electron into a proton it would still be several
>minutes (comparable to neutron decay times) before the electron and some
>quark bumped into each other via the weak force.
 
>There is no "solid" surface to a proton, only the outer edge of a bag of
>three asymptotically (sp?) bound quarks moving at very high speed.  They
>don't like other quarks (protons, neutrons) much, but are generally
>indifferent towards electrons.
 
This is a fun one.  I really think Mill-Kneizys-Farrell's "Hydrino" theory
will some day be taught in graduate quantum classes all over the world.
Not because it is correct, but because it is a masterpiece of deductive
logic given the Bohr model of single electron atoms.  If you can accept
their first premise ["To radiate, the space-time Fourier transform of the
charge density function must possess components that are synchronous with
waves traveling at the speed of light. Alternately, for nonradiative states,
charge density functions must *not* possess space-time Fourier components
that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light."], then by
pure logic, you must accept all else. Yes Terry, their theory is that good!
 
   In many respects this groups severe criticism of the hydrino is
justified, we now have QED in place of Maxwell for example. Are photons
EM waves or an SR action at a distance where photons play gage?  Anyway,
sometimes mob criticism misses the beauty of a piece of work. I think this
is just one such case. *So* where does the collapse of a Hydrino lead?
To me, from what I read, a subground state 1-electron atom is has to be
inert (if it wasn't, then it would show up as absorption lines in
hydrogen spectra!) According to the theory, once the shell-level becomes
a resonating cavity trapping an EM wave, It can not take any more photons.
This could be interpreted like a all inclusive EM force occurring between
the nucleus and the electron, and makes the system virtually neutral in
appearance. So how do you distinguish a neutron from a hydrino?  At what
point does a hydrino become a neutron?
 
 John has given us figures for the hydrino shell radii, good going.
Larry suggests they bond, or come in hydrinoets. Could be.. What's
to keep the same theory from applying to molecular bonds and their
transitions? Chaos you say? point well taken. Also, if they are that
neutral, what is to keep them from interacting strongly, ala a tightly
bonded molecule?
 
 
Well they paper calls for another read.  Until then,
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The reason I through out the Hydrino to Neutron
question is that if one follows
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 01:11:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>At what point does a hydrino become a neutron?
 
Never.
 
A neutron has a rest mass of 939.573 Mev/c^2
 
A proton has a rest mass of  938.280 Mev/c^2
 
An electron has a rest mass of 0.511003 Mev/c^2
 
If a MKF electron/proton pair didn't lose any energy/mass at all to radiation
then it would come out to be 939.573 - 938.28 - 0.511 = 0.782 Mev's too light
to be a neutron.  But, of course, MKF claim each transistion does radiate,
thus in a fall from n=ground to n=1/210 (an orbit the size of the proton radius)
the MKF electron/proton pair lose an additional 0.6 Mev.
 
Therefore an n=1/210 MKF pair is about 1.4 Mev lighter than a neutron, or about
1/6th of one percent lighter than the neutron mass.
 
The electron/proton pair start out too light in the ground state, and lose mass
for each subground state, thus at no point will they intersect the mass of the
neutron.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Mercury Thermometers
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mercury Thermometers
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 01:21:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>...water is *not* a "good thermal conductor".
>...water is a pretty good insulator.
 
Hey, wait a minute!  Aren't you the same guy who a few months ago was
lecturing us about how crummy even the best insulators were? :-)
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Monkey King /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:42:46 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <1993Jan25.011105.16977@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>>At what point does a hydrino become a neutron?
>
>Never.
>
Here is a physics question: when an electron in a atom radiates, which
particle loses mass -- the electron or the nucleus or both?  For example,
suppose a proton and an electron at rest, initially unbound, the total mass
is M = Mp + Me, where Mp and Me are rest mass of the particles, respectively.
The electron then combines with the proton to form a hydrogen atom in the
ground state, losing 13.6 eV in the form of radiation.  The total mass of the
two particles is now M - 13.6 eV.  Now the question is which particle is
lighter than before?   And why? Can you say here that you can't ask such a
question because you have to treat the atom as a single entity?  This
quesiton is relevant to Bollinger's argument about the electron becoming
lighter and lighter when it falls thru the basement to become a hydrino.  I
hope experts in this group can give a serious answer to my question (Blue,
Carr, Jones, are you listening?).
 
The fisrt and last argument against hydrinos is that there is NO EXPERIMENTAL
proof.  Maybe you can argue that people have not been looking for them.  The
1 -- 1/2 transtion giving a photon of 54.4 eV, or 228 angstroms, is indeed a
rather inaccessible energy.  One needs a vacuum grazing-incidence grating
spectrometer, like a Hettrick, to see it.  But I can't believe nobody ever
saw it during all these years.  I remember Prof. Farrell hinted once that
they were trying to look for this 54.4 eV radiation by asking for a vacuum
spectrometer.  Well, have you succeeded, Prof. Farrell?  Besides the M&F
theory is, as it stands, rather shaky (remember the episode where they try
fix a dimensionless constant?).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Monkey King                 | This message printed on
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:17:14 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Sorry, folks, but I'm not interested in having anything to do with another
Mills et al phase in this group.  See you all later (maybe _reeeaaal_ later).
Email me directly if you have something you really want me to read.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
 
                "If the stone dogs in front of the old mansion
                 hear thunder, they always run under the porch."
 
                            --Example of a logically valid statement that
                              demonstrates how a false premise ("stone dogs..
                              hear thunder") leads to _any_ implication (if
                              stone dogs can hear, why _not_ run, too?).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 06:54:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King) writes:
>The 1 -- 1/2 transtion giving a photon of 54.4 eV, or 228 angstroms, is
>indeed a rather inaccessible energy.
 
I believe this is incorrect.  A fall from infinity to n=1/2 gives 54.4 eV,
but a fall from n=1 to n=1/2 would (assuming MKF) give 54.4-13.6=40.8 eV.
 
It is unlikely that any hydrogen atoms in a MKF cell will start from anything
other than the n=1 ground state, and therefore we should look for 40.8 eV
photons rather than 54.4 eV photons.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.26 / Jed Rothwell /  Common Ground
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Common Ground
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:35:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Frank Close and I have at last found common grounds for agreement
(seriously!), on the following two critically important points:
 
1. An isolated example of a phenomenon is probably expt error, results must
be replicated by a dozen workers or so, or better yet 100 workers.
 
     However! Frank says, "Hutchinsons group and Harwell (and other
     calorimetric expts such as your much loathed Caltech group) satisfy the
     dozen..." These people did not prove anything; they did the experiment
     wrong. They got no results. The Kamiokande work also did not prove
     anything, because their results were either non-existent or very weak (I
     cannot judge which).
 
2. An experiment yielding only milliwatts of excess cannot prove much.
 
Frank says: "Bang goes Fleischmann and Hawkins expt as written up by Pons."
 
Amen. The 1989 work was inconclusive, and nobody should ever believe (or
dismiss) cold fusion because of it. It took many, many years of hard work,
and hundreds of experiments in places like SRI before conclusive evidence was
obtained. This is not unexpected or unusual; the history of science and
technology is filled with similar examples of effects which were first
discovered at only marginal, difficult to detect strength, and were later
enhanced. It took SRI a great deal of money to build precision calorimeters,
and hundreds of experimental runs before they had results significant to 90
sigma.
 
However, given the limitations of their budget and their knowledge, and the
demands on their time, Pons, Fleischmann and Hawkins did the best job that
anyone on earth could have done. New science and technology always begins
like this, in fits and starts.
 
The parallels that I frequently cite to the Wright Brothers are uncanny:
contrary to popular belief, the so-called "first flight" at Kittyhawk was a
marginal, questionable experiment, that failed in many important ways. The
plane barely got off the ground in spite of the fact that there was a strong
wind "helping." The machine jumped up and down violently, barely under
control. They later reported that it came down in a "controlled landing" but
in fact, the landing was involuntary and so violent that the skids cracked on
impact. All flights were much shorter, and under much less control, than
their best previous glider flights. A "skeptical" observer might easily have
concluded that the 3 or 4 flights that day were dumb luck, and might never be
repeated. The results were, in every sense, marginal. If someone watching
that experiment had suggested that in 11 years thousands of those machines
would be the key weapons in a World War, he would have been crazy. It would
have taken an expert observer to see that the Wrights were on to something,
and a skeptical expert would have been completely justified in saying they
had failed, or they were not done much. It took many years of follow-up work
before they truly did demonstrate that they had a viable, replicatable
technology. This is *exactly* the case with P&F -- the first experiments did
not prove anything, you must look at the follow-up work.
 
"I suspect that the systematic errors have been underestimated in the
original FPH work certainly and in other work possibly..."
 
How so? What other work? Tell us exactly what McKubre, Kunimatsu, Srinvasan,
Storms, Mills and Thermacore have done wrong. If you can find no error, you
must admit the evidence is convincing. These results are not marginal,
arguable, they are not close to the noise, like the 1989 work was. They are
either right, or disastrously, obviously, wrong. You cannot hide subtle
errors with 2.5 watts in, 50 watts out, or even 3 watts out. Either McKubre
is right, or there is some dead simple, perfectly obvious mistake in his
work. I admit, you might have trouble getting the details from Mills, so why
not concentrate on McKubre? Go ahead, tell us what is wrong with *this* work.
We don't want to hear that the Kittyhawk flyer cracked a skid; we want you to
look at that Sopwith Camel up there at 5,000 feet going 120 mph, and tell us
why it is not airborne.
 
Also, it is not enough to say that "perhaps they forgot to check the power
in" or perhaps X, or Y or Z. You have to show that they actually *did*
forget. Actually, playing by the rules, you have to fax them and get them to
publicly admit that they forgot X, Y or Z, and that when they went back and
did X, Y or Z, the effect went away. If you can actually disprove these
experiments, you will save Japanese government and industry $50 million this
year alone, easily. You will become a national hero over there. They will
make you a top advisor to MITI, chauffeur you around, and feed you lunches
that cost more than most people's monthly rent. That's what they have done
for Pons and Fleischmann. So, if you can disprove the calorimetry, and show
that the megajoules per mole are an illusion, I will make you a millionaire
overnight. (I'll be your PR man; give me a percentage of the take.) Go ahead!
I will have Hitachi, Toshiba, Mitsubishi and the other NHEP members eating
out of your hand in no time, I promise.
 
Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an experimental
error. Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons. They do not
care whether CF is nuclear energy, zero point energy, or green cheese. They
know it yields megajoules of heat from each tiny bit of fuel, and they know
the fuel is water, and that is ALL they care about. PERIOD. They know that
the fuel contains thousands of times more energy than gasoline, and they
don't care about the details. I have talked with them and met with them, and
these issues never came up. So, don't bother trying to show there are no
neutrons; don't prove this is (or is not) D-D fusion. You must prove that the
heat does not exist in any quality, credible experiment, anywhere on earth.
 
By the way, this offer is open to Dick Blue, Dieter Britz, or any other so-
called "skeptic." I am perfectly serious: if you can conclusively disprove
the existence of CF heat, I can make you millionaire, a celebrity, the toast
of the Japanese Government, a lifetime advisor to EPRI, and the conquering
hero of the Japanese Hot Fusion community, which is getting antsy these days.
 
It will be very easy for any of you to disprove these results: a 50 watt
error is dead simple to find! It stands out like a sore thumb. Hiding a 50
watt error in any calorimeter would be like trying to hide an elephant in a
broom closet. Detecting a 50 watt excess is about as difficult as detecting
the noise of hand grenade going off in your front yard.
 
THIS is the very essence of your problem: the original FPH work is no longer
the issue. It is history. It has no bearing on the present. You are obsessed
with it! Please forget it; please forget the very existence of Pons and
Fleischmann, if that helps. You must concentrate on the later work, and upon
other people's work too, because it is far more convincing.
 
You must stop looking for neutrons, because they are not there. This cannot
be D-D fusion as we know it. We don't know what this is, it makes no sense to
even ask at this stage. You are exactly like the drunk looking for his key
under the streetlight, even though he dropped it in the garden. (He says he
looks for it under the light "because I can't see in the garden.") Stop
nattering on about the evidence which is not here! Stop worrying about
marginal, inconclusive, or failed experiments at places like Harwell and
Kamiokande. These people tried and failed. It turns out, as it so often does,
that they did not try hard enough, they did not stick to the problem long
enough. They stopped after a dozen experiments in a few months. They needed
to do 200 experiments over 2 or 3 years, like McKubre. A few months was not
long enough. This sort thing happens all the time in the particle physics
business; please do not pretend that you are not used to the idea.
 
There is heat, there are no neutrons, and that's that. You must work with the
pieces of the puzzle that nature has handed to you, and stop complaining
about the ones which are not included in this box. We know, with absolute
certainty, that the puzzle can fit together perfectly, somehow, because all
of nature's puzzles always do fit together eventually.
 
Also, please stop pretending that you believe a match can burn for eight days
without creating any ash. Stop quoting megajoules without telling us how much
material they came out of (how many moles, or grams). This is not a religion
forum. That is a fine story for the Old Testament, but it has no place in
modern science. If you *do* believe that, you and I have nothing in common.
CF cannot possibly be a chemical reaction. I suppose there is a finite
possibility that a 90 sigma result is incorrect, but there is absolutely no
possibility that any chemical reaction can evolve a million megajoules from
one mole of matter at room temperature, and you know it! You know it better
than me, to many decimal places.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Dieter Britz /  RE: <None>=Hot vs Cold Fusion/to Carr&Britz
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: <None>=Hot vs Cold Fusion/to Carr&Britz
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:40:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Thank you, Prof. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu, Digest 724), for your
clarification of your mechanism and the history of cold fusion at BYU. It is
interesting that you, like P&F, are doubtful of what is supposed to be
happening:
 
>  "When a current is passed through palladium or titanium
>electrodes immersed in an electrolyte of deuterated water and various metal
>salts, a small but significant flux of neutrons is detected.  Fusion of
>deuterons within the metal lattice MAY BE THE EXPLANATION."  (Emphasis added.)
 
F&P, too, have backed down from their strong d-d fusion claim, in saying that
"an all-important question-mark was omitted from the title" of their first
paper.
 
However, your attempts at disassociation from the P&F work,
 
>Our research, therefore, should not be confused with P/F -- PLEASE.
 
>Thanks, Dieter, for finally including the Van Siclen / Jones paper in your
>list of early works related to cold fusion.  But let's not associate this
>with Pons and Fleischmann.  Can't we all see the difference?  We
>understand the difference between hot and cold fusion, now, hopefully.  And
>the distinction between muon- and electron- catalyzed fusion seems transparent.
>No one sees enough neutrons OR helium OR gammas OR tritium (I could go on to
>include any products of nuclear reactions) to justifiably associate claimed
>xs heat with nuclear reactions.  So why throw the BYU work in with P/F claims?
>   PLEASE HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE.
>The distinction is clear in Huizenga's book and Frank Close's, but uncritically
>muddled in Mallove's (which I profoundly resent).  It seems that believers in
>the unfounded notion that xs heat as claimed by P/F is nuclear  USE the
>low-level nuclear findings of the BYU group and others to support their claims.
>To me, this is grossly unfair and fallacious.  I will continue to fight such
>nonsense.
 
... are to no avail; your work, that of Fleischmann and Pons, the Russian
fractofusion work and even the recent (very dubious) work of Mills et al, are
all irrevocably lumped under "cold fusion", no matter what the origin or
original meaning of that term. I understand your resentment, but it can't be
helped. Behind that resentment, I feel, lies your assumption that the excess
heat type cnf is bogus, while your low-level neutron emissions are real, and
due to a nuclear process. At the moment, we do not have enough information to
judge which of the effects are real or not, which are nuclear or chemical. We
do all have our ideas, of course.
 
The distinction between cold and hot is fine. Clearly, muon catalysed d-d
fusion is cold: it does not require the two d's to hit each other with great
force. But this is also what the other camp claims, in saying that there is
something special in the metal deuteride crystal that micmics muon catalysis.
Even fractofusion, which involves accelerated (hot) deuterons, takes place in
an otherwise cold matrix, as opposed to a tokamak with a plasma at 1E08 K.
Mills et al - well, they themselves don't believe in fusion except as a minor
side effect, but here it is their imitators who lump this with cold fusion;
editor Miles did, too, when he put their paper into the "Cold Fusion Notes"
part of FT. Or did Mills and Kneyzis (Kneizys?) ask for that?
 
So as far as history goes, the Jones+ work was demonstrably there first,
together with the Russian fracto-work. Whether or not Fleischmann and Pons's
work goes back that far, we do not know, as there are no publications to prove
it. And, Prof. Jones, if I have my history right, you yourself must have seen
an association between your work and P&F's back at the time when you suggested
a collaborative effort.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 781 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 781 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:40:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
We have three new papers here, plus a report.
Qiu et al used positron annihilation, a novel tool, to look for evidence of
cnf, without success. Then Robert et al (again) describe their nifty fast
neutron detector and set an upper limit to cnf at below Jones+ levels
(although I am not sure where Jones+ levels now lie, after Kamiokande).
 
The star of this update is Quickenden and our very own Green; this is Todd's
Ph.D. work. He has done a good job and, while not getting down to Tom Droege's
error levels, 1.5% is about the best that can be achieved with that kind of
cell. This definitely goes into my "quality work" list, as a negative - Todd
did not find any excess heat, neither in the short nor the long term; i.e. no
bursts, no integrated excess. The measured points lie beautifully around the
input power line, deviating by less than the known error. As the authors
point out, if there IS an effect hidden by the noise level, then it is too
small to be of interest. Good stuff, Todd, and I look forward to a paper on
loading measurement.
 
Finally, Bruce Lewenstein, lurking behind the scenes of this group, has
studied the role of electronic media and written a report. As I don't put
reports into my bibliography, this will not be archived but it might interest
a lot of people, and Bruce is too modest (or is that lurky?) to tell you
himself, so I include it below. Cold fusion features as an example, and
although many people feel (I think) that email and fax played an important
role in information dissemination in the field, there seems to be little
concrete evidence that it has changed research patterns on the whole. Bruce
must of course stick to what has been documented, but I think the report has
underestimated the effect. Certainly a lot of people have benefitted from the
easy access to information, and it has - I am sure - speeded up their research.
You can get quick advice, for example, on how to use some technique - just ask
whether anyone knows where to get, or how to use, some gadget, and someone is
sure to know all about it. You "meet" people. I have yet to meet Terry, but
we regard each other as friends, and the same goes for a number of people.
These contacts are more than trivial, I have had good useful advice from Terry
and Frank Close and Bill (lurk-mode) Johnson. I was even going to have a
coauthor of a forthcoming paper, again someone I have met only by email. This
did not work out but for other reasons than communication difficulties. These
things are hard to document, though, and we can't blame Bruce for that. The
report is no doubt available to anyone who wants it, just ask your librarian.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 25-Jan-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 781
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qiu WC, Dong QH, Gan FX, Wang SJ;         Mat. Sci. Forum 105-110 (1992) 1961.
"PAS studies on the new topic: Cold nuclear fusion".
** The behaviour of H and D in palladium hydride might be analogous to
positrons in electric flows, so positron annihilation spectroscopy might be a
useful tool. By this method, as well as by the electrochemical hydrogen
permeation (EHP) method, the behaviour of H and D in Pd were compared. The Pd
plates (15*15*2 mm**3) were annealed at 550 C for 8 h, and electrolysis
carried out in 0.5 M LiOH/D for 5 h at 800 mA. An Ortec lifetime spectrometer
with a fast-fast coincidence system and BaF2 detectors was used, with a (22)Na
source, for 1E06 counts. Results are that H and D behave in nearly the same
way; both change one of the PAS parameters (tau1) but this can be attributed
to volume changes and not to crack formation, since the value recovered after
final annealing. No cold fusion effects were observed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quickenden TI, Green TA;                 J. Electroanal. Chem. 344 (1993) 167.
"A calorimetric study of the electrolysis of D2O and H2O at palladium
cathodes".
** A very thorough calorimetric study, with  5 series of 4 experiments each,
always comparing heavy and light water electrolysis in the same bath and, as
far as possible, the same conditions. Variously (un)treated Pd rods and wires
were used, in 0.1 M LiOH(D) and in one case 0.25 M Li2SO4. Gases produced were
vented, so the cells were of the "open" type. Calorimetry was by means of a
cooling coil, measuring the difference between inlet and outlet temperature.
This kept cell temperature down and provided a very accurate calibration of
cell power, independent of electrolyte volume. Charging was carried out prior
to calorimetry, at low current to avoid fracturing of the palladium.
Experiments were continued over a period of up to 6 weeks, and careful error
analysis showed an error level in of 1.5% cell power. Results were within this
limit at all times, so no excess (or deficit) heat was observed. Apr-92/Jan-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts DA, Becchetti FD, Ashktorab K, Stewart D, Jaenecke J, Gustafson HR,
Dueweke MJ;                           IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 39(4) (1992) 532.
"Deuterated liquid scintillator (NE230) as a fast neutron detector for cold-
fusion and other research".
** NE230 scintillator detectors with deuterium can provide neutron spectra
without time of flight, unlike the type NE213. The authors report the use of
these. They are small and and have good collection efficiency and n-gamma
discrimination. One of these was used around a cold fusion electrolysis cell,
with a Pd wire and a 13 g Pd casting. An upper limit for the fusion rate of
<7E-24 fusions/s/dd-pair was measured. In another experiment, Ti sponge was
charged from the gas phase at liquid nitrogen temperature, and here the upper
fusion limit was <3E-24 fusions/s/d-d-pair. No comment is made.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Report (not filed):
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewenstein B; Office of Technology Assessment, OTA Contractor Rept. 29-Dec-92,
"The changing culture of research: Communication technologies and knowledge
transfer".
** This examines the role of relatively recent communication technology such
as telefax and email (and its offspring, bulletin boards or NEWS groups) on
progress in science. The cold fusion saga is used as an example, and the
sci.phycics.fusion NEWS group is under special scrutiny as an example. BL
concludes that while there is increased awareness of developments, there is
little evidence of increased collaboration between people as a result of these
communication techniques. They will not replace face-to-face interaction.
Nevertheless, researchers will increasingly require access to electronic
media.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.26 /  /  Submission for Fusion Digest
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!jaguar.csc.wsu.edu!COLLINS (Gary Collins,
 Physics, Washington State Univ)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for Fusion Digest
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There continues to be discussion in this group about the
existence of "hydrinos", proposed by John Farrell and others.  Hydrinos
are supposed to be states of the hydrogen atom having total binding
energies significantly greater than the binding energy
of the conventional ground state, 13.6 eV.  Since states of the conventional
hydrogen atom have mean radii varying inversely as the binding energy, in good
approximation, it has been suggested that hydrinos are correspondingly
smaller.  I find these ideas rather silly, and I will try to explain why
in this submission.
 
The hydrogen atom, that is, a system of a hydrogen nucleus and electron
bound by the Coulomb force, is one quantum system which we understand
very well.  The wavefunctions and energies of all physically admissible
states follow directly from the solution of the Schroedinger wave
equation.   These states are characterized by quantum numbers, the most
important of which is known as the principal quantum number n.  It is found
that the total energy of a state is given by  E(n)= -13.6 eV/n**2, and the
mean radius is given (roughly) by r(n)= n**2 a/0/, in which a/0/ is the Bohr
radius, 0.053 nanometers.  The only solutions found are for positive,
integer values of n.  The mathematics is not especially difficult to follow
but is inappropriate for this forum.  Interested persons may read further in
an undergraduate text such as Quantum Physics, by R. Eisberg and R. Resnick.
 
In the remainder of this submission, I will try to explain qualitatively why
hydrinos cannot exist using an argument based on the wave-particle duality
of matter and Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.  The argument is independent
of any detailed solutions.  We shall find the radius and energy of the
ground state of the hydrogen atom are given by the conventional n=1 of the
Bohr model.
 
Matter has either wave or particle attributes, depending on the circumstances
under which it is observed.  Thus, for example, Debroglie's relation tells us
that a particle with momentum p has an associated wavefunction whose
wavelength l given by  p= h/l, in which h is Planck's constant.  A point
that I wish to emphasize is that a confined electron, or any other particle,
can only have a wavefunction built up out of a superposition of wavelengths
equal to or smaller than the range of confinement, which I will call
(dx) along one direction in space.  Each wavelength component has an
associated momentum.  If we take the maximum wavelength to be equal to (dx),
then there must be a minimum momentum (dp), in the root-mean-square sense,
of the confined particle equal to (dp)= h/(dx).  The quantity (dp) can
be considered the minimum uncertainty in the momentum of the particle,
and the momentum can be no smaller than this uncertainty.
 
The rough connection just found between the uncertainties in position and
momentum of a matter-wave is more precisely expressed in Heisenberg's
uncertainty relation:
 
        (dx)(dp) >= hbar/2.                                             (1)
 
Here, hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2pi= 6.2830.  We will now use
Heisenberg's relation to estimate the minimum kinetic energy of the electron.
The argument is qualitative but will reveal an essential dependence of the
minimum energy of the atom on atomic size.  The total energy of the system
is equal to the sum of the potential and kinetic energies:
 
        E= U+ K,                                                        (2)
 
in which U= -k e**2/r is the Coulomb potential energy and K= p**2/(2m) is
the kinetic energy of the electron (we neglect the kinetic energy of the
much heavier nucleus).  Here r is the distance of the electron from the
nucleus, p, e and m are the electron's momentum, charge and mass, and k is
a measure of the Coulomb interaction stength.  For simplicity, we will
assume that the particle is confined by equal lengths (dx) along the three
directions in space.  Then, summing the p**2 contributions for the three
independent directions in space, the minimum value of K is found to be
 
        K/min/=  3(dp)**2 /2m =  3 hbar**2/ (8 m (dx)**2),              (3)
 
using eqation 1 to obtain for the second equality.  To obtain an order-of-
magnitude estimate of the minimum value of the TOTAL energy we set (dx)
equal to the atomic radius, r, in the above equation, and add K/min/ to
the potential energy, U, obtaining
 
        E/min/=  -k e**2/r + 3 hbar**2/ (8 m r**2).                     (4)
 
Equation 4 shows how the minimum energy of a hydrogen atom varies as a
function of r, the atomic radius.  No assumptions have been made about
quantum numbers.  For large values of r, E/min/ goes to
zero (the atom becomes unbound).  As r goes to zero, E/min/ diverges to
positive infinity as 1/r**2.  In between, E/min/(r) takes on negative
values with a global minimum which can be obtained by setting the
derivative of E/min/(r) with respect to r equal to zero.  Doing this,
we find that the following value of r minimizes the function E/min/(r):
 
        r= 3/4 [ hbar**2/ (m k e**2)].                                  (5)
 
The factor in square brackets is just the Bohr radius, a/0/, whereas the
the prefactor of 3/4 is a consequence of the particular assumption made
here about (dx).
 
According to the Bohr model, the energy and radius of a hydrogen atom
are given in terms of a quantum number n by  E= -13.6 eV/n**2  and
r= n**2 a/0/.  Thus, we can interpret the result in eq. 5 as showing that
the minimum-energy state corresponds to n= 1.   Equation 4 shows that
both smaller and larger atoms have GREATER energies.  If a state satisfying
r= n**2 a/0/ with fractional quantum number n= 1/210 were to exist, for
example, its minimum energy computed from eq. 4 would be equal to
about +10**10 eV!   Thus, we find that fractional quantum numbers do not
lead to "sub-ground-level" energies and can not be used to explain reports
of excess heat production in electrolysis experiments.
 
Yours,  Gary S. Collins  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenCOLLINS cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / S Schaffner /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:15:59 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1993Jan25.044246.16642@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King) writes:
 
|> Here is a physics question: when an electron in a atom radiates, which
|> particle loses mass -- the electron or the nucleus or both?  For example,
|> suppose a proton and an electron at rest, initially unbound, the total mass
|> is M = Mp + Me, where Mp and Me are rest mass of the particles, respectively.
|> The electron then combines with the proton to form a hydrogen atom in the
|> ground state, losing 13.6 eV in the form of radiation.  The total mass of the
|> two particles is now M - 13.6 eV.  Now the question is which particle is
|> lighter than before?   And why? Can you say here that you can't ask such a
|> question because you have to treat the atom as a single entity?  This
|> quesiton is relevant to Bollinger's argument about the electron becoming
|> lighter and lighter when it falls thru the basement to become a hydrino.  I
|> hope experts in this group can give a serious answer to my question (Blue,
|> Carr, Jones, are you listening?).
 
        Even though I am not one of the above mentioned . . . the correct
answer is that neither loses mass.  The rest mass of the system in its initial
state is M.  The rest mass of the final state (hydrogen + photon(s)) is
also M (conservation of rest mass is guarenteed by the seperate conservation
of momentum and energy); the rest mass of the hydrogen atom is smaller than
that of the system as a whole.  The masses of the electron and proton do
not change (unless of course they decay, which would be novel).
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: <None> (reply to Britz)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None> (reply to Britz)
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:31:43 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1993Jan21.153047.359@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>Dieter Britz and Jim Carr have recently asked for clarifications on my
>comments regarding distinctions between "cold" and "hot" fusion (see
>"Quick Replies" by me and "Re:  Quick Replies" by Dieter and Jim).
 
Thanks, Steve.  It was always clear to me that there was nothing wrong
in the way you approached the theory for cold fusion -- either with
muons or under pressure, etc.  There was an implication in your first
post that the important thing was how frequently collisions occured
with the barrier rather than the barrier and its penetrability.  This
has been cleared up by, for example, the following:
 
>The principal idea behind the 1986 paper (replying to Dieter) was that for
>fusion in bound electronic molecules, the fusion rate might be increased by
>distortion  of the molecular potential by subjecting the molecules to extreme
>pressures.   ...
 
By the way, I really liked the quote you pulled from Tipler.  No mention
of barrier penetration as a function of E or anything.  I wish stuff like
that was either done right or not at all in introductory texts.
 
>                                ...                                     And
>the distinction between muon- and electron- catalyzed fusion seems transparent.
>No one sees enough neutrons OR helium OR gammas OR tritium (I could go on to
>include any products of nuclear reactions) to justifiably associate claimed
>xs heat with nuclear reactions.  So why throw the BYU work in with P/F claims?
>   PLEASE HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE.
>The distinction is clear in Huizenga's book and Frank Close's, but uncritically
>muddled in Mallove's (which I profoundly resent).  It seems that believers in
>the unfounded notion that xs heat as claimed by P/F is nuclear  USE the
>low-level nuclear findings of the BYU group and others to support their claims.
>To me, this is grossly unfair and fallacious.  I will continue to fight such
>nonsense.
 
As will I.  Actually, as someone who does coincidence experiments you should
realize that it was the time relationship between the two events -- with your
announcement after P&F -- that led to the view (among those who cannot do
arithmetic) that this was confirmation of the nuclear part of the P&F(&H)
work.  For some time this historical accident (if it was an accident,
since F&F knew when Jones was to submit his article) kept the two intertwined
while we tried to sort out what was going on.  Since things got sorted out,
the two different sets of results are only mixed up by those trying to give
more credence to the claims of heat.
 
Personally, I would prefer to call your work "cold fusion" and the other
stuff "mysterious electrolytic heat" until proven otherwise, but we are
stuck with the nomenclature.
 
--
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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Quick reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quick reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:38:36 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <9301211614.AA22296@suntan.Tandem.com> Rusty Perrin
 <U7584RT%DOEMA.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu> writes:
>Jed Rothwell writes:
>
>"If...we refuse to allow any new experiments (as DoE has done)"
>
>There seems to me to be a big difference between refusing to fund any
>experiments and refusing to allow any experiments.       ...
 
Precisely.
 
>            ...            So if contractors to the DOE are using DOE funds to
>conduct CF research with funds intended for another purpose, DOE has to stop
>that or people could wind up in jail. It's the law.   ...
 
It is also important to note that DOE enters into "contracts" and NSF
makes "grants".  There is more than just a semantic difference here.
The DOE can always fall back on its contractual language to stop you
from doing something that it did not fund.
 
--
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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: <None> (reply to Britz)
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None> (reply to Britz)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 23:00:55 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>In ... jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>
>> ...  So why throw the BYU work in with P/F claims?
>>   PLEASE HELP STOP THIS NONSENSE.
>>The distinction is clear in Huizenga's book and Frank Close's, but
 uncritically
>>muddled in Mallove's (which I profoundly resent).  It seems that believers in
>>the unfounded notion that xs heat as claimed by P/F is nuclear  USE the
>>low-level nuclear findings of the BYU group and others to support their
 claims.
>>To me, this is grossly unfair and fallacious.  I will continue to fight such
>>nonsense.
 
   I'd strongly agree that Jones' genuine science indeed should be
(and by knowledgable people is) clearly distinguished from P&F's
??? (whatever it is they do).
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.26 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:33:30 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>>At what point does a hydrino become a neutron?
 
>Never.
>A neutron has a rest mass of 939.573 Mev/c^2
>A proton has a rest mass of  938.280 Mev/c^2
>An electron has a rest mass of 0.511003 Mev/c^2
 
>If a MKF electron/proton pair didn't lose any energy/mass at all to radiation
>then it would come out to be 939.573 - 938.28 - 0.511 = 0.782 Mev's too light
>to be a neutron.  But, of course, MKF claim each transistion does radiate,
>thus in a fall from n=ground to n=1/210 (an orbit the size of the proton
 radius)
>the MKF electron/proton pair lose an additional 0.6 Mev.
 
And the winner is John!  A neutron decays in 15.5 Hrs, by
               n -> p + e- + (anti)v_e
because the neutron is 0.782ev too heavy and a half-spin in the wrong
direction! I was half-heartedly kidding about neutron production from
a hydrino collapse. Yet by electron capture,
                p + e- -> n + v_e
I'm not going to suggest cold EC. MKF is basically the Borh model for one
electron atoms taken to the extreem.  It's the exact oposite of ionization,
electron orbital collapse.  The difference between an electron spiraling
into the nucleus and MKF is that, MKF treats the photon as a wave and
certain syncronous components of that wave are trapped by the electron
charge density.  If the phase of the trapped photon hits C, that
component of the photon is emitted, and the shell collapses. It's
pure and simple a 1/n Bohr model (a Bohr model all the way down to
the nucleus).
 
The implications are obvious, an absorbtion spectrum should be seen
for 1/n and I understand Mill's claims that these lines have been
seen in an UV sky survey.  I'm skeptical that there is anything to
this, but I'll see what I can find in the library.
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.26 /  /  Hydrinos
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!acad.fandm.edu!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinos
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:45:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I thought I sent this message last Friday, Jan 22.  Maybe I didn't send it.
 Maybe it got lost.  If this is a duplicate, my apologies.
 
Terry Bollinger: terry@asl.dl.nec.com  writes
 
>
>PLANCK'S CONSTANT GOES BYE-BYE
>
>Firstly:  If you choose to use a Bohr-like approximation of atomic orbitals
>and then draw out any one dimension of the "motion" of a ground state
>hydrogen electron in "phase space" (x=distance, y=momentum), you will find
>that it always encloses an area equal in size and units to Planck's constant.
>
Terry continues with some historical arguments of why Bohr-type orbits
cannot be used to describe the hydrogen atom electron.
 
What does this have to do with the Mills/Farrell theory?  We propose that a
bound electron is a two-dimensional *surface* (and a free electron is a
plane wave)--it is not a particle that moves in an orbit or a probility
density function.  For example, a n=1 electron in the hydrogen atom looks
like a soap bubble of zero thickness at the Bohr radius, a0. The mass and
charge of the electron are uniformly distributed on the surface.  (The mass
and charge do move, BTW, and give rise to angular momentum.  I will not
elaborate here.)  The electric field *inside* the bubble or cavity--we call
it an electron orbitsphere--is the electric field of a bare proton.  The
electric field *outside* of the orbitsphere (cavity) is zero.  The
spherical cavity is of a particular size (volume = (4/3) pi r^3)) and can
absorb photons of certain frequencies (quantization).  An absorbed photon
does not disappear--it is trapped inside the cavity.  The "standing wave"
of the trapped photon sets up surface charge on the surface (described by
spherical harmonics) or, if you prefer, the trapped photon creates an
electric field (described by spherical harmonics) inside of the cavity that
opposes the electric field of the proton. The electron density on the
surface may be uniform (kind of like s-orbitals) or non-umiform (like p, d,
f, ... orbitals)--the resultant surface is described by the spherical
harmonics.  For any hydrogen atom where the electron state is described by
"n" the effective nuclear charge is 1/n.  The effective nuclear charge =
the nuclear charge (+1 for hydrogen)  +  the trapped photon charge. For
example, for n = 2 the proton charge is + 1, the photon charge is -1/2, the
effective nuclear charge is +1/2, and the radius is 2 a0; for n = 3, the
proton charge is -2/3, the effective nuclear charge is +1/3, and the radius
is 3 a0; for n = infinity, the proton charge is +1, the photon charge is
-1, the effective nuclear charge is zero, the radius is infinity * a0, and
the electron is ionized. The electron orbitsphere (bubble) gets larger as
the effective nuclear charge decreases, radius(n) = n*a0.  The n = 1 state
is the only state where there is no trapped photon.  When the atom absorbs
a photon the effective nuclear charge decreases and the atom gets bigger;
when the atom emits a photon the effective nuclear charge increases and the
atom gets smaller.
 
I know that I have not directly addressed the angular momentum issue here.
But that requires some time and some abilities that this electronic mail
system does not provide.  Let me assure you however that we do not throw
out Planck's constant--quite the contrary.
Clearly, this is not a Bohr atom.
 
>DRASTIC SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION
>
>Ever notice that the nominal masses of quarks can be larger than that of
>particles that they form?  That's because they release a _lot_ of energy
>(mass) when they combine, so that the resulting bound system (e.g., a
>proton or neutron) may actually be lighter than its constituent parts.
>
>If you allow suborbitals the same sort of thing will happen.  The farther
>you drop, the more energetic will be the photons that are released, and
>the less the final bound system will weigh.
>
 
This is true.  So?
 
 
>PROTONS AREN'T POINT PARTICLES
>
>Now the aforementioned shrinking assumes that the proton is a point particle.
>It isn't, of course.  Assuming that the electron could drop at all, I would
>guess that before it got to the point of not having enough mass left to jump
>anymore it would find itself immersed in a small cloud of three very upset
>quarks.
 
We do not assume that the proton is a point particle.  In fact, we
calculate the proton radius:
 
r(proton) =  1.3214 x 10(-15) m
 
Furthermore, as the electron orbitsphere radius decreases the electron
moves faster and *gains* mass.
 
Consider a bare proton.  The electric field, ef is given by
 
    ef = e/(4 pi epsilon0 r^2)
 
where epsilon0 is the permittivity of vacuum.
 
This electric field represents *stored electric energy*.
 
A free electron (plane wave) comes by.  It is negative and it is attracted
to the proton. The electron forms a sphere around it--a minimum and
constant potential energy surface in a central force field.  (BTW, we now
have a two-dimensional particle that is curved (positive)--we have curved
space-time, gravity.)  The electron surface is a wave (lambda = 2 pi r),
has velocity (velocity = h/(2 pi mass(electron) r)) and the forces balance
(coulombic and centrifugal) at the Bohr radius, a0.  Recall that the
electric field *outside* of the orbitsphere is zero. Thus, the *proton*
electric field between r = infinity and r = a0 has been destroyed
(superposition of the proton's positive field and the field of a sphere of
-1 negative charge).  The stored energy of the proton's field is given by
 
     E(elec) =  (1/2)*epsilon0* integral(from infinity to a0) of (ef)^2 * 4
pi r^2 dr
 
             =  e^2/(8 * pi* epsilon0 * a0)  =  13.6 eV
 
Of course, it is the *electron's* field that "destroys" the proton's field.
 Thus 13.6 eV of the electron's field has been destroyed.  A grand total is
27.2 eV of stored energy is annihilated.
 
Conservation of energy requires that the stored electric energy = the
kinetic energy of the electron, 13.6 eV.  Because this is a central force
problem the potential energy = - 2*kinetic energy or -27.2 eV.
 
Thus, as the electon goes from infinity to a0, 27.2 eV of electric field is
destroyed.  The electron's KE goes from 0 to 13.6 eV (and its mass
increases by 13.6 eV) and 13.6 eV is emitted as a photon.  On balance, the
atom is 13.6 eV lighter; it is the *proton* that is lighter.  (This
calculation ought to be close to the correct answer.)
 
Now, assume for a moment that n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... states are possible.
Granted that this is a *big* assumption.  As the orbitsphere gets smaller
and smaller, more and more  electric field is annihilated.  One-half of
this annihilation energy is emitted as radiation and the atom gets lighter
and lighter.  Simultaneously, the electron is moving faster (getting
heavier).  The net effect, of course, is that the atom is lighter.
 
Now, when the electron goes from r = infinity to r = r(proton) the
potential energy is
 
        V = 2 * (1/2) *epsilon0* integral(from infinity to r(proton) of
(electric field)^2 * 4 pi r^2 dr
 
             =  e^2/(4 * pi* epsilon0 * r(proton))  =  1.09 M eV
 
Thus, a maximum of 1.09 MeV of stored energy can be annihilated. One-half
of this will be radiated, 0.545 eV. The whole atom is 0.545 MeV lighter.  I
haven't worked out the masses of the individual particles--the electron and
the proton--but there is sufficent energy in the system to allow this to
happen.
 
The electron cannot get any smaller, under these conditions (bound to a
proton), than the radius of the proton.  About the only thing that can
happen now is electron capture.  The two mechanisms--going to lower quantum
states and electron capture--are quite different.  Nevertheless, going to
smaller lower quantum states should enhance electron capture.
 
>
>CONCLUSION
>
>Suborbitals do severe damages to a lot pretty solid (understatement) work
>in both the theory and practice of quantum mechanics in general, and particle
>physics in particular.  Not to mention chemistry, electronics, materials
>physics, astronomy, and just about any other QM related field of physics or
>modern technology.  Because it appears to either dismiss or drastically
>alter the idea of Planck's constant, the suborbital hypothesis should give
>rather huge deviations in the predictions of every QM based physics theory.
>It should show up just about everywhere, literally, and not just in one
>limited class of chemical reactions.
>
>If you wish to follow this hypothesis, I'm certainly not one to object, but
>please don't take the implications too casually.  This is the kind of change
>that cannot be introduced locally into _one_ theory and be expected to give
>the same results everywhere else.
>
>I think some further exploration and quantification of the consequences
>of the suborbital hypothesis would be useful for anyone interested in this
>line of thinking.
>
>                                Cheers,
>                                Terry
 
We are trying.  We intend to do a lot of damage (but not to Planck).  So
far, we maintain that we have not violated special relativity, general
relativity, Maxwell's equations, or the deBroglie relationship.  We have
violated the Bohr atom and the Schrodinger's mechanics.  Frankly, my dear,
we don't give a damn.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Discretionary Spending
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Discretionary Spending
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:31:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Rusty Perrin and J. A. Carr have questioned whether the DoE has any legal
authority to conduct CF experiments in the first place, without authorization
from Congress. This is a reasonable question. I have discussed it with
Members of Congress and with officials in the DoE, and as I understand it,
the rules are as follows:
 
1. The DoE has various discretionary funds, both at headquarters and at the
individual research institutions, like LANL. These represent only a small
fraction of the total DoE budget (I do not know what percent). In 1989, many
CF experiments were performed using these funds. (Far too many, in my
opinion.)
 
2. Congress does not micromanage on this level. The DoE could not perform CF
experiments costing $100 million, but they certainly could perform scattered
work amounting to a few hundred thousand, or even a few million, as long as
each experiment did not exceed the authorized discretionary limit of the
worker.
 
3. Dr. Walter Polansky, Director of the Division of Advanced Energy Projects,
has told me and many other people that his Department does have the authority
to fund CF work. He said that the 1989 DoE panel, headed by Huizenga, "was
sympathetic towards modest support for carefully focussed and cooperative
experiments within the present funding system. The Department of Energy
accepted the report and its recommendations. We have been monitoring the cold
fusion research area since the issuance of that report and believe its
recommendations are still valid. We continue to be available to review any
research proposal of interest to the Department."
 
That's what the man says, but actually, as far as I can tell, Polansky is a
hatchet man who goes around shutting down CF experiments, overriding other
people's spending authority, and cutting everything including your telephone
if you try anything related to CF. So, if you are thinking of submitting a
proposal, I suggest you steer clear of the man.
 
Under normal circumstances, if a scientist at LANL, Fermilab or some other
DoE lab had some level of discretionary spending authority, and he or she
wished to, he could conduct experiments relating to energy. As long as the
experiments stayed within the allowed budget, there would be no problem.
Certainly, if he could show that his Japanese colleagues were spending 10's
of millions on the subject, nobody would object to a few simple replications
of the Japanese work costing $10 or $20 thousand. Nothing about CF is normal,
so these customs do not apply.
 
"Discretionary" is a loose term, subject to definition and revision. There is
no such thing as perfectly 100% discretionary money, in any institution. No
DoE honcho would get away with funding a study of orgasmic energy sources.
The closest thing I can think of to a real Discretionary Fund is the 5
million Yen Japanese professors get just for showing up at work: when I
attended a National University, I took a nice day trip or two, and used a lot
of "discretionary" video and computer equipment for purposes not directly
related to the Department's work. Also, we had several pet chickens and a
large turtle, whose sustenance came out that funding I believe.
 
In most institutions, however, discretionary expenditures that get too far
away from the subject would be reviewed and censured. Projects which are too
wild and flakey, like ESP spoon bending energy in the DoE, or faith-healing at
NIH would get anyone into trouble, which seems reasonable to me.
Unfortunately, anything remotely related to CF falls in this category: too
flakey and weird to be allowed. Research institution heads and other people
with discretionary authorization have been explicitly ordered *not* to spend
anymoney or allow any experiments in CF. The ostensible reason is that it is
too far beyond the pale, too "pathological." This may, in fact, be one of the
reasons it is banned, but I believe the main reason it that the people who
are fighting against it know that if it succeeds, their reputations will go
down in flames; and also because the hot fusion program, and many other
energy programs, will be rapidly terminated. People engaged in a turf war
find it easy to convince themselves that their opponents are flakes.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 / B Lewenstein /       OTA Report on Communication Technology & Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: Bruce Lewenstein <ub-gate.UB.com!cornella.cit.cornell.edu!LEW>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      OTA Report on Communication Technology & Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:31:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello all,
 
As Dieter has pointed out on several occasions, I'm a historian of
science who prefers to lurk rather than interact on this bboard.
Has to do with theoretical issues in historical and sociological
analysis--the "Hawthorne effect," which is sort of like the uncertainty
principle: if the people you're studying are self-conscious about
you studying them, then they change behavior.
 
But, since he mentioned in his most recent bibliography my OTA report,
I thought I'd give more direct information on how to get it:
 
Write to "Knowledge Transfer,"
SET Program
OTA--US Congress
Washington DC 20510-8025
 
Request a copy of the report "Changing Culture of Research: Communication
Technologies and Knowledge Transfer."
 
Best wishes,
 
-- Bruce
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce V. Lewenstein                     Phone: 607-255-8310
Depts. of Communication and             Fax: 607-255-7905
   Science & Technology Studies         Email: b.lewenstein@cornell.edu
321 Kennedy Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnBruce cudlnLewenstein cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 /  /  Status #14 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #14 Cell 4A3
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:31:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #14 Cell 4A3
 
"Anomalous Cold" kept increasing.  When it got up to the 200 mw level I
decided that it was time to do something about it.  I opened up the
calorimeter and while everything was live and continuing to operate, smeared
my favorite black rubber gunk over the likely leak.  No success.  So I pulled
the cell out of the spool piece and examined it.
 
There were two holes burned through the side.  Looks the like hot catalyst in
one of the glass tubes got close enough to the side of the cell to burn a hole
through it.  It is possible that one of the catalyst pieces has jumped out of
the glass tube and burned its way into the cell wall, but I cannot see clearly
enough through the semi-opaque polypropylene to say for sure.
 
So out came the 5 - minute epoxy.  Not much inside the cell, but it is at
least a fair patch.
 
Now everything is sealed up and again the gas, catalyst temperature, cell
temperature, and power measurements make sense.  Because some liquid had been
lost during the long period of operation with the leak, we added 4 cc of the
boric acid mix.  Accumulated -energy matched the electrolyte loss only to a
factor of three.  This indicates some vapor loss too.  This addition should
produce an electrolyte boron content of order 400 ppm.  Since the addition
there has been a steady accumulation of gas in the cell.
 
There is now a small "anomalous heat", 60 mw or so.  With the 35 mw one sigma
claim, this is not significant, but the cell noise level has gone up to 30 mw
from  15 mw.  This does seem to be significant, as I have hundreds of hours
earlier in this run where it was 15 +/-2 mw.  There is a small increasing
trend, but not possible yet to distinguish the trend from ambient temperature
effects.  We are roughly at hour 820 of this experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 /  /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:32:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed, in a response to Frank Close says:
 
"How so?  What other work? Tell us exactly what McKubre, Kunimatsu, Srinvasan,
Storms, Mills, and Thermacore have done wrong."
 
McKubre looks pretty good.  Kunimatsu I do not recognize.  Srinvasan I have
already critiqued here.  Storms published on 1/2 of a good run.  I would have
been more conservative.  Mills I did extensive work duplicating, and found
problems which have not yet been resolved.  Thermacore has not to my knowledge
published, so I have no way of evaluating their work.
 
So my personal assessment is that the field (based mainly on McKubre's work)
is provocative, but not convincing.
 
Later Jed says:
 
"Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an experimental
error."
 
That is not the way science works, Jed.  Experiments are published with enough
detail for replication.  Belief results when enough separate replications are
made so that workers in the field generally agree on the result.  One problem
for me is that I have observed that McKubre leaves importent parts of the
recipe out of the published papers.  So I can not be sure that my work is
really a replication.  So that reduces the weight of the McKubre result.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 /  /  The Other Side
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Other Side
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:32:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While I have just zapped Jed Rothwell's list of good experiments, let me point
out that I don't find the negative experiments all that good either.
 
If we assume that as McKubre says, that essential conditions are 1000+ running
hours, and 200+ ma per sq cm, then almost all negative experiments are
eliminated.  If we add a need for Si or Al or B, then we may eliminate them
all!  Someone remind me of a negative experiment that achieved high D/Pd
loading, ran for 1000+ hours, ran at 200+ ma, and had traces of Al, B, or Si?
Oh yes, add 1% or better sensitivity or eonugh runs to get a hot one.
 
So I think the jury is still out.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.26 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: 26 Jan 1993 05:15:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
What are the possible angular momentum states of these alleged
"1/N" hydrogen states?  What transisions are allowed in
single-photon radiation?
 
--
-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:
cuddy26 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.25 / Paul Houle /  Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implications of hypothesis of subground states
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:59:39 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <1993Jan25.044246.16642@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
 monkey@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Monkey King) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.011105.16977@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>>chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
>Here is a physics question: when an electron in a atom radiates, which
>particle loses mass -- the electron or the nucleus or both?  For example,
>suppose a proton and an electron at rest, initially unbound, the total mass
>is M = Mp + Me, where Mp and Me are rest mass of the particles, respectively.
>The electron then combines with the proton to form a hydrogen atom in the
>ground state, losing 13.6 eV in the form of radiation.  The total mass of the
>two particles is now M - 13.6 eV.  Now the question is which particle is
>lighter than before?   And why? Can you say here that you can't ask such a
>question because you have to treat the atom as a single entity?  This
>quesiton is relevant to Bollinger's argument about the electron becoming
>lighter and lighter when it falls thru the basement to become a hydrino.  I
>hope experts in this group can give a serious answer to my question (Blue,
>Carr, Jones, are you listening?).
 
        Actually,  neither particle becomes lighter.  The "negative energy"
in the system is going to be "negative" electromagnetic energy in the
space around the particles.  Of course the net energy is going to be positive,
but you will find the difference if you,  say,  compute the electric field of
a positive and negative charge at a distance of 1m and at a distance of .5 A
and then work out the energy density and integrate to find the total energy.
 
        If you care about the inertia of the whole system,  you have to
remember that the fields have inertia too -- since particles already have
"electromagnetic mass".
 
        Of course there was a little swindle here because we have serious
problems in defining electromagnetic energy;  i.e.,  the electromagnetic
energy of a point particle is infinite.  This is a problem that isn't
entirely resolved;  but it is still pretty meaningless to say that
either particle actually "loses mass",  only that the system (including
fields) does as a whole.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.26 / William Davis /  Nat'l Undergrad Fellowships in Plasma Physics
     
Originally-From: bdavis@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (William Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nat'l Undergrad Fellowships in Plasma Physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

                    Applicants Wanted for the
             National Undergraduate Fellowships
         in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering.
 
(Please pass along the following announcement to any strong
candidates, or have them request an application by phoning
(609)-243-2112.  Women and minority students are especially encouraged
to apply.  Thank you.)
 
The National Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics and Fusion
Engineering provide outstanding undergraduate students in United
States colleges and universities an opportunity to participate in
projects in the forefront of research and development of fusion
energy. The goal of the program is to stimulate studentsU interest  in
the fields relevant to fusion research while providing capable
assistants to fusion research projects. The fellowships are sponsored
by the United States Department of Energy.
 
The fellowship program consists of two parts: a one-week introductory
course and nine weeks of research. During the week of June 14 - 18,
1993, students will attend the introductory course at the Princeton
University Plasma Physics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, which
will cover basic elements of plasma physics, an introduction to the
technology questions being addressed by fusion researchers, and an
overview of the worldwide fusion effort.
 
Starting June 21, each student will then take part in nine weeks of
fusion research at one of the participating universities and national
laboratories. Research opportunities are available in theoretical,
computational and applied physics, materials science, and electrical
and mechanical engineering. Research assignments will conclude on
August 20, 1993.
 
Students will receive a stipend of $4,800 and will be reimbursed for
travel expenses to and from their university or permanent U.S.
address, up to $1,000. Room and board expenses during the one-week
course at Princeton will be paid by the program.  Students will be
responsible for their housing and meal expenses during the remaining
nine weeks.
 
Applications are invited from students in engineering, mathematics,
computer science, or physics,who are presently in their junior year in
a U.S. college or university.  Exceptional sophomores will also be
considered.   Students should have taken at least one course in
electricity and magnetism beyond introductory physics. Preference in
selection will be given to students who have not
previously participated in this program.
 
Students should send application materials to:
 
National Undergraduate Fellowship  Program
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
P.O. Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543
 
Telephone:(609) 243-2112
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbdavis cudfnWilliam cudlnDavis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 /  /  Jed Clears the Air?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Clears the Air?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:39:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If we accept the latest missive from Jed Rothwell as CF gospel we have
the following:
 
<< They know the fuel is water....  They know that the fuel contains >>
<< thousands of times more energy than gasoline....                  >>
 
<< They needed to do 200 experiments over 2 or 3 years, like McKubre.>>
 
Last time I heard anything about Mckubre's work it involved the use of
D2O with ordinary water serving as a blank that produced no heat.  Just
where are we, Jed, on the question of heavy vs. light water?  You site
McKubre's work as a prime example of careful and diligent experimenta-
tion, but what has been learned from those 200 experiments?  If you
want to use McKubre's results as a standard for CF research, how
can you jump ship on all the D2O experiments, and assert that "They
know the fuel is water."?
 
Then you return to your old challenge that "You must prove the heat
does not exist."  Wrong!  As has oft been stated the burden of proof
lies with you and other advocates of cold fusion.  We skeptics can
just sit back and watch you flounder about as you make your wild
assertions without any logical basis in fact.  "Heat" with no
apparent source is going to be a tough commodity to sell.  My
advice, as always, is that you will have to track down the source
before you attempt any development of cold fusion.  The idea that
water is a potential fuel has been tried before.  You will have to
do better.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Not your normal assignment
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not your normal assignment
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:39:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Me: "Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an
experimental error."
 
Tom D: "That is not the way science works, Jed.  Experiments are published
with enough detail for replication."
 
Yes. I know that. I am not giving out your normal, everyday scientific
assignment here. Instead, I have in mind that someone should "debunk" cold
fusion the way the American physicist R. W. Wood debunked "N-Rays" on
September 29, 1904. Wood did not need to "replicate" the experiments (which
was impossible, in any case). All he had to do was to show that the method of
detecting and measuring the effect was bogus.
 
CF is exactly the same. No "skeptic" needs to replicate anything, or perform
any experiment in order to debunk it once and for all. You do not need to
know anything about the cell construction; not a single detail. All you have
to do is prove that calorimetry does not work.
 
It is simple! For 200 years, we have been measuring heat by generating linear
temperature calibration curves, and then running samples that generate
unknown amounts of heat. We see how hot the calorimeter water gets, then by
referring back to the calibration curve, we see how much heat was generated.
Either this method works, or it does not. The so-called skeptics say that all
excess heat results are invalid, therefore they are saying that this method
does not work. They are asserting that heat does *not* raise water
temperature in a linear, proportional manner; or they are asserting that
thermometers do not measure temperature. These are very simple, very
straightforward assertions, so they should be dead simple to prove.
 
The issue is not what is in the "black box" cell, or what nuclear or unknown
processes it is undergoing. The issue is far simpler than that: can we, or
can we not, measure the heat that comes out of a cell? If we can, then the
skeptics are utterly wrong and misguided, and the Japanese are entirely
justified in spending money to enhance and commercialize the effect.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 / Jim Carr /  Re: Discretionary Spending
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discretionary Spending
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:23:49 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <930126163947_72240.1256_EHL56-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Rusty Perrin and J. A. Carr have questioned whether the DoE has any legal
>authority to conduct CF experiments in the first place, without authorization
>from Congress. This is a reasonable question. I have discussed it with
 
I did not say anything of the sort, Jed.  I said that DOE *contractors*
must be careful to operate within their contracts, which is a bit different
from the situation for an NSF grantee.  Congress only enters at the
appropriation level (and could ban or mandate CF research, but has
done neither) and this level is far removed from the level of all but
the larger DOE contracts and the largest NSF programs.  Congress does
micromanage DOE more than NSF, although that changed this past year
with the LIGO earmark that has led to large (>10%) cuts in nuclear and
materials research (plus others of which I am unaware).
 
All contracts have some discretionary funds, but contractors, especially
small ones, must act within the limits of their contract.  As Jed notes:
 
>Under normal circumstances, if a scientist at LANL, Fermilab or some other
>DoE lab had some level of discretionary spending authority, and he or she
>wished to, he could conduct experiments relating to energy. As long as the
>experiments stayed within the allowed budget, there would be no problem.
 
Further, with Congressional oversight the way it has been, I believe
there has been a general reduction in the discretionary funds
available at national labs.  Probably goes back to LAMPF, where they
managed to excavate the accelerator hall with spare change and the
soils testing money during the "pre-design" stage of the project.
 
The situation is different when you are a university researcher with a
$60,000 or $100,000 contract to explore some particular project.  One
needs approval from the contract monitor to shift the entire focus of
the contract to some other project.
 
--
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:
cuddy27 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 / Hwal Song /  neutron transport equation
     
Originally-From: hsong%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Hwal Song)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutron transport equation
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:51:19 MST
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science

Hi!
I am not sure this is a right newsgroup to send this question
but I found nowhere to go with this question.
Please understand.
 
Does anyone know any existing code or well-written book(s)
for solving the neutron transport equation by mutigroup methods
in 2-D and 3-D?
 
Please send me an email if you do.
Any other related info is welcome, too.
 
Thank you in advance.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedu cudfnHwal cudlnSong cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Submission for Fusion Digest
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for Fusion Digest
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 18:46:18 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Gary S. Collins  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
>The rough connection just found between the uncertainties in position and
>momentum of a matter-wave is more precisely expressed in Heisenberg's
>uncertainty relation:
>       (dx)(dp) >= hbar/2.                                             (1)
 
Farrell suggests the electrons gain mass as they fall to lower orbits, so
I'm wondering how this might affect the "p" quantity.
 
For instance, how does a muon's mass effect its orbital radius and the
minimum energy of a muon/proton "atom?"  Is the n=1 radius still .53A ?
Or is the orbit bigger or smaller than .53A ?
 
How about minimum energy?  Does a muon in n=1 state give the muon/proton
system less energy than an equivalent electron/proton system? More energy?
The same?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Dieter Britz /  DOE budget request, IEEE comment
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DOE budget request, IEEE comment
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:26:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
This is no doubt stale news, but in the latest issue of Fusion Technology,
i.e. vol. 23, no. 1, January 1993, p.131, there is a statement by the Energy
Policy Committee of the IEEE on the FY1993 DOE budget request for fusion
energy. There is to be strong support for an overall package of energy
technologies including energy conservation and efficiency, electric power
generation and storage systems, photovoltaics and renewable energy, and
advanced nuclear fission power as well as fusion power technologies. In the
last context, both magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion are
to be supported. Cold fusion is conspicuous by getting no mention at all in
this statement.
In the same issue of FT, there is a report of the 14th IEEE/npss Symposium on
Fusion Energy. This might interest some of you, to help get a feel for what
front-line researchers are saying and doing. I had the feeling that inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) has been forgotten; this is far from true. It got
close to $200 million in 1992, and there is a fair amount of comment on it,
including some allusions to its military interest. Curiously (if you remember
the postings of Koloc on this group) one of the designs is called Prometheus;
it's a KrF laser, whatever that means. If you want to get a feel for the
current fusion scene, chase this paper.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:32:33 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 /  /  G10 Good, FR grades bad
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: G10 Good, FR grades bad
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:32:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege asks about the use of fiber glass - epoxy as a material
suited for use in his experiments.  Based on experience around here
with the use of such materials in gas-filled counters that are very
sensitive to impurities,  good old G10 material is OK but you have to
stay away from FR grades which have bromine added as a fire retardant.
Unfortunately it gets harder and harder to find G10.  One test is to
smell it. (Many of you have no doubt experienced the fact that new
electronics gear stinks!)   G10 does have one potential problem in that
it tends to be porous along the glass fibers.  One way to deal with
that is coat all exposed edges with another epoxy.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 /  /  Rhett Farrell has spoken!
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rhett Farrell has spoken!
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:32:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary Collins has given one good indication that the Mills-Farrell theory
is well out of main-stream quantum theory.  John Farrell says he doesn't
give a damn, and when it comes to really hard questions that would put
his "theory" to the test he can only put us off.  I trust that it is
clear to most of you is that the "hydrino theory" is incomplete, to use
the most polite word I can think of
 
However, I will make some use of hydrino theory to make the old point
about reaction products all over again.  According to our source of all
good news about cold fusion,  Mills has an ongoing experiment producing
watts of power so once again we can calculate a production rate for
the ashes.  Prof. Farrell has proposed a model for the reaction process
which we can use to estimate the energy release per event and again we
learn that the rate must be several times 10^12 per second for each
watt.  It would seem that most of those "things" should end up in the
gas stream evolving from the experiment, so why isn't there an effort
to study that gas?  Anyone want to jump at this opportunity to confirm
a major revolution in quantum theory?  One good experiment should be
the key to fame and fortune, if John Farrell is really on to something.
So where are the true believers?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Jed Rothwell /  CF News From Russia
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF News From Russia
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:33:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
This just in from Fusion Facts newsletter:
 
Three scientists in the Russian Republic have developed a gas plasma cold
fusion reactor that generates as much as 500 percent excess heat, and works
at temperatures as high as 1800 C. It employs a thin film palladium cathode.
 
Drs. Yan Kucherov, Alexander Karabut and Irina Savvatimova are working in the
"Luch Association," near Moscow, which was one of the former U.S.S.R.'s top
nuclear reactor and nuclear rocket design laboratories. Dr. Kucherov's title
at the institute is Leading Scientist, and he was named "Best Engineer" in
1982. He holds 21 patents.
 
Fusion Facts named the three "Scientists of the Year" for 1992.
 
For more information, contact Fusion Facts at 801-583-6232 Fax: 801-583-6245.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Not your normal assignment
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Not your normal assignment
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 15:38:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
 
>Tom D: "That is not the way science works, Jed.  Experiments are published
>with enough detail for replication."
 
>Yes. I know that. I am not giving out your normal, everyday scientific
>assignment here. Instead, I have in mind that someone should "debunk" cold
>fusion the way the American physicist R. W. Wood debunked "N-Rays" on
>September 29, 1904. Wood did not need to "replicate" the experiments (which
>was impossible, in any case). All he had to do was to show that the method of
>detecting and measuring the effect was bogus.
 
A non-personal comment here. It was easy with N-rays: there was only the one
lab producing experimental "evidence"; once this was debunked, the show was
over. Similarly with polywater. It all rested on a single strong assertion: no
contamination. As soon as one worker found contamination, that was it. Ditto -
moving now closer to cnf - for CIF, cluster impact fusion. The strong
assertion here was: the beam of D2O cluster ions was mono- sized, i.e. all
clusters in a given beam had the same size, there was no contamination with
smaller fragments. Someone showed this to be wrong; bang went CIF. With cnf,
even if one were to debunk one lab's work, the TB's would say OK they were
flaky but look at all those other labs. The cnf-Wood would have to do it many
times. It wouldn't be so easy, in fact it can't be done.
 
I am not saying whether or not there is some exotic effect here. But Tom is
right, the burden of proof is on the TB's. The way to prove it is not to cite
hundreds of successful experiments (because there is considerable doubt about
their success, and the ones considered most successful do not tell us anything)
but to make a demonstration model, running under its own steam and producing
excess power to boot, preferably tested by Randi and Martin Gardner.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Hydrinos
     
Originally-From: mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos
Date: 28 Jan 1993 21:55:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

fusion@zorch.ogi.edu writes:
: We are trying.  We intend to do a lot of damage (but not to Planck).  So
: far, we maintain that we have not violated special relativity, general
: relativity, Maxwell's equations, or the deBroglie relationship.  We have
: violated the Bohr atom and the Schrodinger's mechanics.  Frankly, my dear,
: we don't give a damn.
 
Okay.  What about scattering off atomic bound states?  Isn't this
done all the time in electron microscopes and x-ray crystallography?
I would think that the answers are consistent with ordinary three-dimensional
charge distributions, rather than 2-d, unless by some accident they
turn out the same.
 
I.e. after the hydrogen atom was solved by Schroedinger's equation, I'm
sure some experiments must have been done to see whether actual electrons
fall in orbitals that like those wavefunction solutions.  Probably
in the early 1930's, low-energy electron scattering.
How do these relate to your theory?
 
The bohr atom people have given up a while ago.  But schroedinger's
equation + perturbation theory predict quite a large number of
experimentally observed phenomena, e.g. the spin-orbit coupling and the
removal of degeneracies with differing angular momentum states, and
quantitative prediction of their energy splittings.
 
: John Farrell
: Franklin & Marshall College
 
--
-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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Hydrinos
     
Originally-From: mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos
Date: 28 Jan 1993 21:59:27 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

fusion@zorch.ogi.edu writes:
: What does this have to do with the Mills/Farrell theory?  We propose that a
: bound electron is a two-dimensional *surface* (and a free electron is a
: plane wave)--it is not a particle that moves in an orbit or a probility
: density function.  For example, a n=1 electron in the hydrogen atom looks
: like a soap bubble of zero thickness at the Bohr radius, a0. The mass and
: charge of the electron are uniformly distributed on the surface.
 
One quick question.  What selects this radius 'a0'?  In standard QM
it's a result of solving the S.E. given the mass of the electron
and Planck's constant, presumably more fundamental quantities.
 
:(The mass
: and charge do move, BTW, and give rise to angular momentum.  I will not
: elaborate here.)  The electric field *inside* the bubble or cavity--we call
: it an electron orbitsphere--is the electric field of a bare proton.  The
: electric field *outside* of the orbitsphere (cavity) is zero.  The
: spherical cavity is of a particular size (volume = (4/3) pi r^3)) and can
: absorb photons of certain frequencies (quantization).  An absorbed photon
: does not disappear--it is trapped inside the cavity.  The "standing wave"
: of the trapped photon sets up surface charge on the surface (described by
: spherical harmonics) or, if you prefer, the trapped photon creates an
: electric field (described by spherical harmonics) inside of the cavity that
: opposes the electric field of the proton. The electron density on the
: surface may be uniform (kind of like s-orbitals) or non-umiform (like p, d,
: f, ... orbitals)--the resultant surface is described by the spherical
: harmonics.  For any hydrogen atom where the electron state is described by
: "n" the effective nuclear charge is 1/n.  The effective nuclear charge =
: the nuclear charge (+1 for hydrogen)  +  the trapped photon charge. For
: example, for n = 2 the proton charge is + 1, the photon charge is -1/2, the
: effective nuclear charge is +1/2, and the radius is 2 a0; for n = 3, the
: proton charge is -2/3, the effective nuclear charge is +1/3, and the radius
: is 3 a0; for n = infinity, the proton charge is +1, the photon charge is
: -1, the effective nuclear charge is zero, the radius is infinity * a0, and
: the electron is ionized. The electron orbitsphere (bubble) gets larger as
: the effective nuclear charge decreases, radius(n) = n*a0.  The n = 1 state
: is the only state where there is no trapped photon.  When the atom absorbs
: a photon the effective nuclear charge decreases and the atom gets bigger;
: when the atom emits a photon the effective nuclear charge increases and the
: atom gets smaller.
:
: I know that I have not directly addressed the angular momentum issue here.
: But that requires some time and some abilities that this electronic mail
: system does not provide.  Let me assure you however that we do not throw
: out Planck's constant--quite the contrary.
: Clearly, this is not a Bohr atom.
:
: >DRASTIC SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION
: >
: >Ever notice that the nominal masses of quarks can be larger than that of
: >particles that they form?  That's because they release a _lot_ of energy
: >(mass) when they combine, so that the resulting bound system (e.g., a
: >proton or neutron) may actually be lighter than its constituent parts.
: >
: >If you allow suborbitals the same sort of thing will happen.  The farther
: >you drop, the more energetic will be the photons that are released, and
: >the less the final bound system will weigh.
: >
:
: This is true.  So?
:
:
: >PROTONS AREN'T POINT PARTICLES
: >
: >Now the aforementioned shrinking assumes that the proton is a point particle.
: >It isn't, of course.  Assuming that the electron could drop at all, I would
: >guess that before it got to the point of not having enough mass left to jump
: >anymore it would find itself immersed in a small cloud of three very upset
: >quarks.
:
: We do not assume that the proton is a point particle.  In fact, we
: calculate the proton radius:
:
: r(proton) =  1.3214 x 10(-15) m
:
: Furthermore, as the electron orbitsphere radius decreases the electron
: moves faster and *gains* mass.
:
: Consider a bare proton.  The electric field, ef is given by
:
:     ef = e/(4 pi epsilon0 r^2)
:
: where epsilon0 is the permittivity of vacuum.
:
: This electric field represents *stored electric energy*.
:
: A free electron (plane wave) comes by.  It is negative and it is attracted
: to the proton. The electron forms a sphere around it--a minimum and
: constant potential energy surface in a central force field.  (BTW, we now
: have a two-dimensional particle that is curved (positive)--we have curved
: space-time, gravity.)  The electron surface is a wave (lambda = 2 pi r),
: has velocity (velocity = h/(2 pi mass(electron) r)) and the forces balance
: (coulombic and centrifugal) at the Bohr radius, a0.  Recall that the
: electric field *outside* of the orbitsphere is zero. Thus, the *proton*
: electric field between r = infinity and r = a0 has been destroyed
: (superposition of the proton's positive field and the field of a sphere of
: -1 negative charge).  The stored energy of the proton's field is given by
:
:      E(elec) =  (1/2)*epsilon0* integral(from infinity to a0) of (ef)^2 * 4
: pi r^2 dr
:
:              =  e^2/(8 * pi* epsilon0 * a0)  =  13.6 eV
:
: Of course, it is the *electron's* field that "destroys" the proton's field.
:  Thus 13.6 eV of the electron's field has been destroyed.  A grand total is
: 27.2 eV of stored energy is annihilated.
:
: Conservation of energy requires that the stored electric energy = the
: kinetic energy of the electron, 13.6 eV.  Because this is a central force
: problem the potential energy = - 2*kinetic energy or -27.2 eV.
:
: Thus, as the electon goes from infinity to a0, 27.2 eV of electric field is
: destroyed.  The electron's KE goes from 0 to 13.6 eV (and its mass
: increases by 13.6 eV) and 13.6 eV is emitted as a photon.  On balance, the
: atom is 13.6 eV lighter; it is the *proton* that is lighter.  (This
: calculation ought to be close to the correct answer.)
:
: Now, assume for a moment that n = 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... states are possible.
: Granted that this is a *big* assumption.  As the orbitsphere gets smaller
: and smaller, more and more  electric field is annihilated.  One-half of
: this annihilation energy is emitted as radiation and the atom gets lighter
: and lighter.  Simultaneously, the electron is moving faster (getting
: heavier).  The net effect, of course, is that the atom is lighter.
:
: Now, when the electron goes from r = infinity to r = r(proton) the
: potential energy is
:
:         V = 2 * (1/2) *epsilon0* integral(from infinity to r(proton) of
: (electric field)^2 * 4 pi r^2 dr
:
:              =  e^2/(4 * pi* epsilon0 * r(proton))  =  1.09 M eV
:
: Thus, a maximum of 1.09 MeV of stored energy can be annihilated. One-half
: of this will be radiated, 0.545 eV. The whole atom is 0.545 MeV lighter.  I
: haven't worked out the masses of the individual particles--the electron and
: the proton--but there is sufficent energy in the system to allow this to
: happen.
:
: The electron cannot get any smaller, under these conditions (bound to a
: proton), than the radius of the proton.  About the only thing that can
: happen now is electron capture.  The two mechanisms--going to lower quantum
: states and electron capture--are quite different.  Nevertheless, going to
: smaller lower quantum states should enhance electron capture.
:
: >
: >CONCLUSION
: >
: >Suborbitals do severe damages to a lot pretty solid (understatement) work
: >in both the theory and practice of quantum mechanics in general, and particle
: >physics in particular.  Not to mention chemistry, electronics, materials
: >physics, astronomy, and just about any other QM related field of physics or
: >modern technology.  Because it appears to either dismiss or drastically
: >alter the idea of Planck's constant, the suborbital hypothesis should give
: >rather huge deviations in the predictions of every QM based physics theory.
: >It should show up just about everywhere, literally, and not just in one
: >limited class of chemical reactions.
: >
: >If you wish to follow this hypothesis, I'm certainly not one to object, but
: >please don't take the implications too casually.  This is the kind of change
: >that cannot be introduced locally into _one_ theory and be expected to give
: >the same results everywhere else.
: >
: >I think some further exploration and quantification of the consequences
: >of the suborbital hypothesis would be useful for anyone interested in this
: >line of thinking.
: >
: >                                Cheers,
: >                                Terry
:
: We are trying.  We intend to do a lot of damage (but not to Planck).  So
: far, we maintain that we have not violated special relativity, general
: relativity, Maxwell's equations, or the deBroglie relationship.  We have
: violated the Bohr atom and the Schrodinger's mechanics.  Frankly, my dear,
: we don't give a damn.
:
: John Farrell
: Franklin & Marshall College
 
--
-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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: Not your normal assignment
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not your normal assignment
Date: 29 Jan 93 16:09:42 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <930127153020_72240.1256_EHL34-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>
>Me: "Let me make your assignment crystal clear: prove the heat is an
>experimental error."
>
>Tom D: "That is not the way science works, Jed.  Experiments are published
>with enough detail for replication."
>
>Yes. I know that. I am not giving out your normal, everyday scientific
>assignment here. Instead, I have in mind that someone should "debunk" cold
>fusion the way the American physicist R. W. Wood debunked "N-Rays" on
>September 29, 1904. Wood did not need to "replicate" the experiments (which
>was impossible, in any case). All he had to do was to show that the method of
>detecting and measuring the effect was bogus.
 
Funny you should mention this last point after what the grad student
from BYU did in Japan.  That measurement he made was rather like the
way Wood surreptitiously removed the object being imaged by N-rays.
 
Further, I have long advocated double-blind experiments (which is, in
effect, what Wood caused to happen) in CF to sort out what is going
on with those experiments where no one seems to agree on what is crucial.
 
But your history is wrong.  Wood traveled to the French lab to observe
their replication of N-rays after many other labs had followed the
published protocol and failed to observe them.  When it became clear
that only a few labs in one country could "see" them, suspicions were
aroused (as they were in the more recent case where homeopathic expts
only worked when done by one person) and an actual experiment was
observed to see what was left out of the published paper.  It was at
that point that Wood made his famous move that exposed the delusion
of the researchers.
 
With CF, we are not yet at the point (but getting close) where the
debate between researchers is that person A says "I do exactly this
and that as you describe and I get nothing" and person B says "Yes,
that is exactly what I do, and it always works for me".  When that
point is reached, it will be worth the effort to look at 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:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Not your normal assignment
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not your normal assignment
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:30:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930127153020_72240.1256_EHL34-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
 
>Yes. I know that. I am not giving out your normal, everyday scientific
>assignment here. Instead, I have in mind that someone should "debunk" cold
>fusion the way the American physicist R. W. Wood debunked "N-Rays" on
>September 29, 1904. Wood did not need to "replicate" the experiments (which
>was impossible, in any case). All he had to do was to show that the method of
>detecting and measuring the effect was bogus.
 
Jed, there is simply no way that anyone is going to convince you that CF
doesn't exist. Notoya claims to have repeatedly reproduced CF. She shows
up at a conference with a 'cell' producing excess heat. It is shown to
be severely flawed and demonstrating only that the experiment was improperly
done.
 
Your response? That that experiment was only a quicky demonstration and that
her 'real' experiment really does work. However, there is no information,
no paper, no photographs, no inspection allowed.
 
How do you demonstrate that the detecting and measuring methods were
improperly done if the so-called 'sucessful' experiments aren't published
and the others are poorly documented to the point where reproducing
results is a pure guess in the very best cases?
 
You seem to have a penchant for making grandiose philosophic pronouncements
that you hold true only when the results are in favor of your opinions.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Vadim Pevzner /  NO JOBS? ACT NOW!!!
     
Originally-From: pevzner@ceg.uiuc.edu (Vadim Pevzner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NO JOBS? ACT NOW!!!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:43:53 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

 
READ, UNDERSTAND, ACT!
(this message is posted on behalf of the YSN)
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       The Young Scientists' Network is trying to nominate Kevin Aylesworth,
>  Norman Barth, Michael Cohen and Zachary Levine by petition to be officers
>  of the American Physical Society.  We feel that the dismal employment
>  situation in physics needs to be brought to center stage.
>
>  For a copy of the petition and statements from the candidates,
>  please contact:
>
>       zachary@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
>
>  Specify whether TeX or postscript is desired, and, if postscript, whether
>  you are on a Unix system.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpevzner cudfnVadim cudlnPevzner cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Path-of-logical science
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Path-of-logical science
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:09:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
I think neutrons are important.  But Jed Rothwell authoritatively states:
 
 "You must stop looking for neutrons, because they are not there."
 "Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons.  They do not
care whether CF is nuclear energy, zero point energy, or green cheese.
They know it yields megajoules of heat from each tiny bit of fuel, and they
know the fuel is water, and that is ALL they care about. PERIOD."
"This cannot be D-D fusion as we know it.  We don't know what this is, it
makes no sense to even ask at this stage."
"There is heat, there are no neutrons, and that's that."
    (J. Rothwell, "Common Ground," 26 Jan. 1993)
 
Shucks, Jed, three days ago I had a visit from three Japanese scientists who
ARE interested in neutrons.  One is supported by MITI.  They DO want to know
whether xs heat can be nuclear in origin. (I suggest that most people do not
think the xs heat could be due to d-d fusion, refuting the original
claims of P&F.  But if nuclear, corresponding nuclear products must be
present, with quantities of nuclear ash corresponding to the heat released.)
 
Maybe we should care if the xs heat is nuclear or not.
Some people may want to know whether the process emits
gammas, x-rays, etc. -- they care about safety, health and the environment
perhaps.
Some may worry about the possibility of radioactive wastes.
How about hazards of hydrinos?
 
Moreover, nuclear reactions release of order MeV's per reaction, whereas
chemical reactions typically release eV's.  That's why nuclear reactions are
so much more interesting from an energy point of view.  Frank Close correctly
pointed out that "there are electrons bound with hundreds of eV in heavy
atoms."  (22 Jan.) Why assume unusual nuclear physics when unusual chemistry
will do the job?  Heat alone is not proof of nuclear physics.
 
 
No, I will continue to look for neutrons (and tritium/charged particles)
independent of claims of xs heat.
If we can understand a physical mechanism for producing neutrons in deuterided
solids, we might better understand nuclear physics, other approaches to fusion,
fusion in the earth and planets -- there may be some insights that even lead
to "applications."   Neutrons are indeed useful, for cancer treatments, testing
for plastic explosives in airports, formation of useful isotopes, testing of
materials which could be used in fusion reactors in the future.
 
Not a short-cut to nuclear energy sans understanding.
But a path-of-logical science which may lead ultimately to benefits to mankind.
This is what drives me, Jed.
 
--Steve Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Credit where Credit is due
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Credit where Credit is due
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:23:21 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Due to heavy university assignments until April, I find myself posting on
Thursdays mostly.  This has an advantage of allowing me to juxtapose
differing points of view, such as the following responses to my posting
21 Jan. 1993 on distinctions between hot and cold fusion:
 
>"Thanks, Steve.  It was always clear to me that there was nothing wrong
with the way you approached the theory for cold fusion -- either with
muons or under pressure, etc.  There was an implication in your first post
that the important thing was how frequently collisions occured with the
barrier rather than the barrier and its penetrability.  This has been
cleared up...  as someone who does coincidence experiments you should
realize that it was the time relationship between the two events --
with your announcement after P&F -- that led to the view (among those who
cannot do arithmetic)  that this was confirmation of the nuclear part of
the P&F (&H) work.  For some time this historical accident (if it was an
accident, since P&F knew when Jones was to submit his article) kept the
two intertwined, while we tried to sort out what was going on.  Since things
got sorted out, the two different sets of results are only mixed up by those
trying to give more credence to the claims of heat.   Personally, I would
prefer to call your work "cold fusion" and the other stuff "mysterious
electrolytic heat" until proven otherwise.."  --Jim Carr, Florida State U.
 
-----  Thanks, Jim -- very well explained and written.  And I agree
wholeheartedly.
 
>"I'd strongly agree that Jones' genuine science indeed should be (and by
knowledgable people is)  clearly distinguished from P&F's  ???  (whatever it
is they do)."  --Anthony Siegman, Stanford U.
 
------  Thanks, Anthony, very much.
 
 Now a contrasting viewpoint:
>>"Fusion of deuterons within the metal lattice MAY BE THE EXPLANATION."
  [quoted in my posting, from the original Jones+ paper in Nature 1989]
>"F&P, too, have backed down for their strong d-d fusion claim..."
 
"...your attempts at disassociation from the P&F work ... are to no avail;
your work, that of Fleischmann and Pons, the Russian fractofusion work and
even the recent (very dubious) work of Mills et al, are all irrevocably lumped
under "cold fusion", no matter what the origin or original meaning of the
term.  I understand your resentment, but it can't be helped.
...So as far as history goes, the Jones+ work was demonstrably there first,
together with the Russian fracto-work.  Whether or not F&P's work goes back
that far, we do not know, as there are no publications to prove it.  And,
Prof. Jones, if I have my history right, you yourself must have seen an
association between your work and P&F's back at the time when you suggested
a collaborative effort."
 
--- How discouraging.  Dieter really tries to keep me in bed with P&F despite
all my reasoning and efforts to the contrary.  However, the quote from our
1989 paper that d-d fusion "may be the explanation" was a cautionary note IN
the paper as published -- I am not backing down from this claim, Dieter.  As
Bacon noted, our convictions regarding scientific verities wax and wane as
data is accumulated.  The experiment on low-level d-d fusion has not "ended"
yet; our efforts continue.       Many xs heat believers
are, indeed, retreating from the d-d fusion connection (see Jed's
postings, for example).  But Jim is correct in saying that these types still
like to use low-level nuclear evidences to bolster their claims that the heat
"must be" nuclear, even though d-d fusion is essentially abandoned, and as
Frank Close succinctly put it:  "there is one reproducible datum, namely the
lack of billions of nuclear remnants."  Maybe the distinctions between the BYU-
type experiments and the xs-heat efforts are growing clearer even to the xs-heat
believers... I think so.
 
The "collaborative effort" Dieter points to was to look for neutrons/gammas,
which we at BYU had been doing in electrolytically polarized and D2-gas-loaded
metals since 1986 -- NOT to look for heat.  I do not think P&F had found any
real evidence for neutrons, tritium, or gammas when I made the suggestion in
late 1988 (first to Dr. Gajewski of DOE, who passed this along to Pons).  Frank
Close's book provides detail.  My offer via Gajewski was following the "golden
rule" approach, of offering to use our accumulated expertise to help a
colleague as I would likewise appreciate such cooperation.  The only
association was that THEY claimed a fusion reaction was occurring in
electrolytic cells -- the evidence being very weak.  (And their theoretical
underpinning was uhhhh...  very poor.)  Our work, as Dieter
has acknowledged, on "piezonuclear" or cold fusion goes back in PUBLICATION to
the Van Siclen/Jones paper written in 1985.  So to "irrevocably" link our work
to that claiming xs heat in heavy and light water cells is wrong and therefore
capable of being straightened out -- as Carr and Siegman correctly point out.
 
We will keep trying to find out what causes the apparent neutron emissions from
deuterided solids, and what causes the apparent tritium emissions from volcanos
(both of which we claimed in our 1989 papers, following our 1985-written
theoretical treatise).
This work should not be credited to P&F.
 
Moreover, some members of the BYU group are examining the effects of silicate,
aluminate and borate coatings on electrodes in P&F-type (i.e., xs-heat
producing) cells.  As I have previously posted, we think that such coatings
can lead to lithium deposition on the cathode, changing the thermoneutral
potential and permitting heat "bursts" should the coating crack,  as well as
changing the resistivity in the cell.  Thus, both spurious and real (chemical)
xs-heat effects may be explained in terms of such coatings.  Tom Droege may
be working along similar lines, as he has posted the importance of boron and
aluminum in cells lately, citing the work of McKubre.  Clarifications are
coming soon, I predict.
 
I admit that in order to have our work on low-level nuclear effects in solids
generally distinguished from P&F claims will not be easy.  It will probably
require the unequivocal demonstration of neutron or tritium production
 -- at low-levels [ far below observable heat generation] --
ALONG WITH the admission that xs-heat claims are not due to d-d fusion. Credit
is a rather fickle thing anyway.  Will P&F be ultimately rewarded for their
preemptive and ill-founded press conference?  For the use of lawyers to
threaten other scientists?  (etc.)
It may depend on the opinions of competent and knowledgable persons like Close,
Carr, Siegman, Britz, Droege, Bollinger, Blue (please excuse omissions as the
list becomes long) and YOU, gentle reader.
 
--Steven E. Jones
P.S. to Terry Bollinger:  experiments on sonoluminescence and a possible
connection to fusion are finally beginning in the BYU Tunnel Lab
following the usual experimental hiccups.  Stay tuned.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  what about heat pumps?
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: what about heat pumps?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 21:35:59 EST

         People in this group seem to be assuming that if a cold fusion
experiment appears to yield 1+x units of heat energy out for every 1 unit
of electrical energy in, the experiment is a success.  This bothers me
since a heat pump can do this.  I have a couple of questions:
         1.  While I don't really believe that CF experiments are pro-
ducing heat by sucking it out of the environment, how is this possibilty
absolutely excluded?
         2.  Is it not the case, that unless a CF device has a gain
(value of x) better than that of a perfect heat pump, it will be use-
less for generating electricity or powering machinery (or for anything
except generating heat)?  How many of the 'positive' experiments report
such gains?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjbs cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 785 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 785 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 15:38:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
Got another issue of FT. Cerofolini + come up with yet another exotic
aggregation, the binuclear atom (dd)2e, i.e. two deuteriums clumped together,
and this seems to explain all the anomalies of cold fusion. What is more, the
theory can be tested experimentally. I believe there were some experiments
showing a neutron deficit, and this theory explains that, as well as neutron
bursts. This is a kind of neutron fluorescence. We have not heard much from
the Liaw + Liebert group in Hawaii, who at one time were claiming a lot of
excess heat - although their definition is debatable. They have now had other
people look for helium, and some was found. Not enough, but they feel it is
significant and not due to contamination. And they can explain where the rest,
required  by theory (the "commensurate with heat" thing) has gone. They should
have trapped the gases coming from their cell, it should all be there. I can't
read Korean, and getting hold of the Kim + Park paper did me no good at all,
it is entirely in Korean, not an English word to be seen. So I had to rely on
the Chemical abstract, which tells us nothing. "Polemic" most often means a
critique, but who knows.
Lastly, regular FT contributor (staff writer?) Matsumoto has done it again.
Looking at the photos of his nuclear emulsions (he shows all), I'd say they
are getting old and moldy. I can see filaments of fungi, I reckon, and the
mesh-like structures he describes here look to me like cracks. No, they
reflect the meshes on the iton beads, says Matsumoto, and the filaments are
"anomalous traces" on "strange pictures". Miley, oh Miley, where are your
referees, or are you ignoring their advice? One of these anomalous traces
looks like a stylised dog, and I expect a paper entitled something like
"Evidence of submicroscopic organised life on the periphery of black holes
produced by cold fusion". But there I go again, showing my true under-a-rock
nature. I did do a very neutral abstract of the paper, though, you'll have to
admit. Oh, and this time, of the 14 references in the paper, 5 are
non-Matsumoto.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-Jan-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 785
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerofolini GF, Foglio Para A;                   Fusion Technol. 23 (1993)  98.
"Can binuclear atoms solve the cold fusion puzzle?"
** The evidence for cold fusion is inconsistent with known physical laws and
self-contradictory. The authors have previously proposed a model of binuclear
atoms (dd)2e, but this is not a sufficient explanation. Here, they examine the
possibility that these binuclear atoms partly activate cold fusion by the
capture of a thermal neutron, which then leads to the breakup of the group,
into various fragments, among them D, T, and (4)He. This would cause neutron
depletion, and delayed emission, and cnf can be stimulated by thermal
neutrons. All this can explain tritium enrichment, the formation of (4)He and
neutron bursts. The theory can be tested experimentally.         Feb-92/Jan-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim MS, Park MY;                 Anal. Sci. Technol. 3 (1990) 265 (in Korean).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 117:259549 (1992).
"Comment on room temperature nuclear fusion".
** "A polemic in response to M. Fleischmann, S. Pons and M. Hawkins, J.
Electroanal. Chem. 1989, 261 (2A), 301". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liaw BY, Tao P-L, Liebert BE;                   Fusion Technol. 23 (1993)  92.
"Helium analysis of palladium electrodes after molten salt electrolysis".
** This team, which has previously claimed large amounts of excess heat from
an electrolysis in molten LiH, has now both SEM-examined some 4 mm Pd rods
used in these runs (as well as controls), and sent them for He assay. The
technique used was able to measure a He fraction in the material as low as
1E-11. Although the results showed considerable fluctuations, the deuterated
samples stood out with somewhat more (4)He than blanks and controls,
especially when looking at a distribution of the number of He atoms released,
which brings out a distinct grouping. For some events, the statistical
significance (probability of event being random) is 1/2**14. No significant
(3)He was found. The amounts of (4)He found were 8 orders of magnitude below
the level that would be commensurate with excess heat, and the authors
speculate that there was escape of the He from the samples at the elevated
melt temperature (about 400 C), only a trace remaining for analysis.
Contamination from the atmosphere is considered unlikely but not entirely
ruled out.                                                       Oct-91/Jan-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matsumoto T;                                    Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 103.
"Observation of meshlike traces on nuclear emulsions during cold fusion".
** A cold fusion experiment, using as cathode a thin Pd foil at the bottom of
a cell, was performed. Below the foil, a stack of 30 nuclear emulsions was
mounted and this was examined afterwards by microscope. The foil was then
refrigerated to increase the deuterium loading and then taken out. It
continued to warm above room temperature for three hours, showing that cold
fusion was taking place. This is the process 2d + 2e --> (4)n + i2 + d, the
(4)n being a quad neutron (which has been shown to then collapse by gravity
and to form black holes) and the i2 is the double iton. In highly compressed
deuteride, these itons are in the form of beads with a mesh-like structure,
and such meshes have been found on the emulsions.                Nov-91/Jan-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 /  /  Need update on significant positives
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need update on significant positives
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 15:38:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In order to avoid continually rehashing the same old issues, I think
it would be appropriate to have Jed Rothwell give us a list of the
best positive results that seem to be pointing toward some consistent
and reproducible CF results.  It would be nice if the results he selects
were well documented, but perhaps that is asking too much.  In particular
it would be good to hear what Japanese research is now seen as being
definitive.  Also the "heavy water" vs. "light water" question should
be kept explicite.  I don't think it makes any sense to use experiments
with D2O as evidence in support of the MKF results, for example, particularly
when the D2O experiments use H2O as the "blank".  I would also take this
opportunity to point out the obvious fact repeating a measurement 200
times is not necessarily a sign of diligent experimentation.  It may be
just a form of compulsive behavior. :-)
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Jed Rothwell /  D2O and H2O
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2O and H2O
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 21:48:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Me: "the fuel is water..."
 
Dick Blue: "Last time I heard anything about Mckubre's work it involved the
use of D2O with ordinary water serving as a blank that produced no heat..."
 
That is correct. When I said "water" I meant heavy or light water.
 
"Just where are we, Jed, on the question of heavy vs. light water?"
 
With Pd based systems, only D2O works. With Ni systems, H2O, or D2O, or a
mixture of both will work. I am not aware of anyone who has successfully
tried pure light water, all experiments that I know of used purified water
with the natural abundance of deuterium mixed in.
 
Some workers report optimum performance with 25% heavy water. This also
generates the highest levels of tritium. Mizuno and several other
electrochemists told me that given the different rates at which hydrogen and
deuterium are absorbed, and speeds at which they migrate through nickel
lattices, he expects that with 25% D2O the number of hydrogen and deuterium
atoms in the lattice would be about equal.
 
Dick asks: "You cite McKubre's work as a prime example of careful and
diligent experimentation, but what has been learned from those 200
experiments?"
 
McKubre has learned to make Pd based CF cells that work 100% of the time. To
my knowledge, McKubre's group, and P&F's group, are the only two in the world
that have achieved 100% replicability and control. His cells always generate
megajoules of excess heat per mole if you let them run long enough. This
proves beyond question that the CF effect is real; it is not chemical; and it
is of vital importance to the human race. In his words:
 
     "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 [was] 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..."
 
His accomplishments are pretty impressive, don't you agree?
 
Dr. Carr explained a few things about DOE contractors. I have no idea what
the rules are for contractors, or what they might have done in CF. The only
CF research within the DoE that I have ever heard of was performed by regular
employees in the national laboratories. In 1991 and 1992 a number of those
DoE workers and I asked the DoE headquarters, and the Congress, to allow
additional experiments. We were turned down.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!acad.fandm.edu!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 21:48:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan: logajan@ns.network.com asks
 
>For instance, how does a muon's mass effect its orbital radius and the
>minimum energy of a muon/proton "atom?"  Is the n=1 radius still .53A ?
>Or is the orbit bigger or smaller than .53A ?
 
>How about minimum energy?  Does a muon in n=1 state give the muon/proton
>system less energy than an equivalent electron/proton system? More energy?
>The same?
 
 
First, Let us calculate the radius, r, of the n = 1 orbitsphere in hydrogen
(one proton plus one electron).
 
The centripetal force is
 
me * v^2/( 4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)
 
where me is the mass of the electron (neglect relativity for a moment), v
is the velocity of the electron, and epsilon0 is the permittivity of
vacuum.
 
The coulombic force is e^2/(4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)
 
where e the the magnitude of the charge on an electron.
 
Equate these forces
 
me * v^2/( 4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)  =  e^2/(4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)
 
Substitute for v, the velocity of the electron
 
v = hbar/(me*r)
 
where hbar is h/(2*pi)
 
Solve for r
 
r = (4*pi*epsilon0*hbar^2)/(e^2 * me)  =  a0
 
where a0 is the Bohr radius.
 
Of course, everyone knows that this is not quite correct.  The correct
radius is
 
r = (4*pi*epsilon0*hbar^2)/(e^2 * mue)  =  aH
 
where ue is the reduced mass of the electron/proton system and aH is the
Bohr radius for the hydrogen (proton) atom.
 
1/ue  =  1/me  + 1/mp
 
where mp is the mass of the proton.
 
The only problem is--we believe that scientists have put the reduced mass
in the equation for the wrong reason.  They believe that the reduced mass
is there because the point particle electron circles the almost point
particle proton.  We take this approach.
 
There is a magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton.
(Remember that we have the electron as an orbitsphere; the proton is also a
spherical surface composed of three quarks (orbitspheres) and three gluons
(trapped photons)).  We show that the magnetic force (relativistically
corrected) is
 
- hbar^2/(mp*r^3)
 
Thus, we balance the forces
 
me * v^2/( 4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)  =  e^2/(4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)  -
hbar^2/(mp*r^3)
 
Substitute for v,
 
v = hbar/(me*r)
 
Solve for r
 
r = (4*pi*epsilon0*hbar^2)/(e^2 * ue)  =  aH
 
Voila!
 
Now, to the proton /muon atom.
 
Balance the forces.
 
mmuon * v^2/( 4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)  =  e^2/(4* pi*epsilon0 * r^2)  -
hbar^2/(mp*r^3)
 
where mmuon is the muon mass.
 
substitute  v = hbar/(mmuon*r)
 
r  =  r = (4*pi*epsilon0*hbar^2)/(e^2 * umuon)  =  amuon
 
where umuon is the reduced mass of the muon/proton system and amuon is the
Bohr radius for the hydrogen (proton)/muon atom.
 
Thus, the radius should be about 186 times closer (if my calculations are
correct).  I have no idea how this compares to experiment.  I don't know
much about muons.
 
I hope that I haven'y mis-typed some of the equations. They are hard to
read in this format.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF News From Russia
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF News From Russia
Date: 29 Jan 93 16:19:38 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <930128201742_72240.1256_EHL59-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell
 <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>
>This just in from Fusion Facts newsletter:
>
>Three scientists in the Russian Republic have developed a gas plasma cold
>fusion reactor that generates as much as 500 percent excess heat, and works
>at temperatures as high as 1800 C. It employs a thin film palladium cathode.
                            ^^^^^^
 
Now that is an interesting definition of "cold" fusion!
 
1800 C is pretty far below 10^6 C, but it is pretty far above 20 C.
 
Guess this would be "lukewarm 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:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 / Mike Jamison /  "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "size" of an electron
Date: 29 Jan 1993 16:12 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Doing as Paul Houle suggests, I calculated the "size" of an electron using
the assumption that all of its mass (energy) is wrapped up in its electric
field.  The diameter I come up with is 1.4E-15 meters.  I suspect that trying
to assign a meaning to the "size" of an electron is what gets us in trouble.
 
When one speaks of a photon vs. a given wavelength, what is the "size" of
the photon?  One of my physics professors had said that speaking about
photons as if they are actually real particles is more a question of
philosophy than physics.  What we all *must* remember is that the things
we measure are really inferred, not direct.  This comes out clearly in the
discussions between Dick Blue and Steve Jones w.r.t. neutron measurements.
 
And now, for something completely different:
 
Has anyone thought about training a neural net for all known particle
physics data, and using it to make predictions?
 
I've read that the Japanese, among others, are using neural net programs
to forecast the stock market - with an accuracy of ~80%, vs. the best
humans having a reliability of ~60%.  Could be that the computer might pick
up something we miss...
 
I'd be interested in a project of this sort (can't donate money, just
bought a house.  Can, however, donate time & computing resources [my own, not
NASA's])  If anyone else is interested, drop me an e-mail direct.
 
 
Since, no-one has asked yet, and it's about time that someone does, and I
haven't said anything relating to fusion in this post:
 
Paul Koloc, how's the Plasmak work going?  My feeble recollection says that
the January/February timeframe was/is the next query time.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Sub-MINIMUM energies? or no-no hydrino.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sub-MINIMUM energies? or no-no hydrino.
Date: 29 Jan 93 18:21:16 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
I enjoyed Gary Collins' posting on 26 Jan. reminding us that the ground
state of the hydrogen atom is in fact a MINIMUM energy state.  That is,
we cannot extract energy by going to "sub-ground-state orbitals" since
such would in fact have HIGHER energies than the ground state.  Hence
the suggestion (by Farrell, Mills, et al.) that energy is
RELEASED in light-water cells as hydrogen
atoms shrink to sub-ground states is absurd, independent of arguments
regarding the existence of such sub-ground states.
 
Nicely done, Gary.
 
John Logajan notes:  "Farrell suggests the electrons gain mass as they
fall to lower orbits..."  (27 Jan. posting)
Gaining mass requires INPUT of energy, E = mass gain X c**2.
Also, the electrons must JUMP (i.e., atom must GAIN energy) to move to
"lower orbits", as Collins explained (see above).
 
John asks about muonic atoms in the same posting.  The Bohr radius in
a proton - negative muon atom is reduced relative to the electronic atom
since the muon mass is 207 times greater than that of the electron.   The
binding energy of the muonic atom is correspondingly higher.  (See my posting
on 21 Jan. 1993 about muonic d-d molecules.)
 
--Steve Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.28 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Not your normal assignment
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not your normal assignment
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:49:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> CF is exactly the same. No "skeptic" needs to replicate anything, or perform
> any experiment in order to debunk it once and for all. You do not need to
> know anything about the cell construction; not a single detail. All you have
> to do is prove that calorimetry does not work.
 
This is not the issue.  Every published cold fusion work has enough problems
with it (e.g.  incorrectly measured input power, so little output power that it
falls in the noise, etc) that it is not convincing, and the rumors we hear of
Thermacore, McKubre, etc, can not be looked over because they will not publish!
 
> The issue is not what is in the "black box" cell, or what nuclear or unknown
> processes it is undergoing. The issue is far simpler than that: can we, or
> can we not, measure the heat that comes out of a cell? If we can, then the
> skeptics are utterly wrong and misguided, and the Japanese are entirely
> justified in spending money to enhance and commercialize the effect.
 
People spending money on the effect may very well be justified if they have
more information.
 
> - Jed
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Imaginary nonsense
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Imaginary nonsense
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 18:34:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas H. Kunich made up a bunch of nonsense and posted it. Regarding R.
Notoya's work, he said, "there is no information, no paper, no photographs,
no inspection allowed."
 
For the record:
 
There is an abstract in the Conference Proceedings.
 
The full paper by Notoya and Enyo will be published soon.
 
Photographs and raw data were made freely available during the Nagoya
Conference, the demo at Hokkaido U. and the MIT lecture. This material has
also been mailed to many people who enquired.
 
Eight very well known Americans and 10 Japanese scientists have been in the
lab and watched the preparation of the cathodes and the electrolysis. Two
Americans who just came back participated in the experiments for three
solid 12 hour days. I have received photographs and copies of raw data from
several of these people.
 
Notoya has visited two U.S. Labs (besides MIT) and provided sample cathode
material to 5 different people that I know of, three of whom have
successfully replicated the experiment.
 
Tom: it is one thing to make a minor mistake when you discuss someone's
actions, like maybe saying, "she only brought one cathode to the U.S., and
did not leave it with anyone to test..." It is another thing entirely to
make up a bunch of blatantly false nonsense. Anyone who knows anything
about her -- or anyone who has received photos from me, for example, knows
that you are lying. Why make a fool of yourself? You could have asked me
"has anyone been in her lab?" or "can I have a photograph, or raw data?"
 
This has nothing to do with whether she is mistaken or correct, mind you.
The issue here is whether it is okay for Thomas Kunich to make blatantly
false, damaging statements in public about another scientist. If she
actually *did* hide results, or not allow inspections, that would be highly
irregular, irresponsible behavior, as you well know. So your false
accusation is pretty serious. As I said to Dr. Britz, if you were to make
up statements like that about another group of professionals -- say, cancer
researchers -- you would be up to your eyeballs in trouble. We should also
ask whether it is okay for Dick Blue to claim that Mills and Farrell never
cooperate and never provide information, when in fact, I have about 100
pages of detailed material from them. If you people are not going to take
the trouble to ask these scientists for information, you have no business
declaring that they are secretive, or that you cannot find out anything
about them.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.31 / Jed Rothwell /  Ya' gotta pay for it
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ya' gotta pay for it
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 03:36:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue has an interesting suggestion:
 
"In order to avoid continually rehashing the same old issues, I think it
would be appropriate to have Jed Rothwell give us a list of the best
positive results that seem to be pointing toward some consistent and
reproducible CF results."
 
Well, if you want a short list, in Pd I would say: McKubre, P&F, Storms. In
Ni: Mills, Thermacore, Bush, Noninsky, Srinivasan. Gas phase: Yamaguchi,
Kucherov. Neutrons and other particles: I have no idea. If you can debunk
those guys, you are well on your way to demolishing CF. The most serious
questions about any of this work that I am aware of came from Nate Hoffman
to Yamaguchi. However, the last time I talked to Nate, he seemed satisfied
with the paper and the answers provided to him by Yamaguchi-san.
 
But what you really want, and need, is a comprehensive list with notations
explaining why the author thinks the results are "best" and a list of other
experiments replicating the results, or calling them into doubt. Sorry. No
can do, for three reasons:
 
1.    I am not Fusion Technology, Fusion Facts or the Japanese Journal of
      Applied Physics. (Plus, I don't work for free). If you want to
      understand this work you *must* read the full papers, talk directly to
      the researchers, look at viewgraphs, and spend the time and effort it
      takes to understand the work. I do not know enough to give you the in-
      depth information you need to make a professional judgement. Just
      quoting the numbers from "positive result" is not enough; you need to
      see the whole experiment. When people ask me for a survey of the
      field, I recommend they start with Fire from Ice, read the Storms
      review, and then call Fusion Facts, or check out Dieter's ongoing list
      of publications (I warn them to ignore Dieter's comments).
 
2.    An e-mail forum like this does not allow sufficient space for a
      serious discussion, and it does not support graphics. I cannot, and
      will not, attempt to carry on a proper, in-depth discussion in this
      limited medium. The other day, one of the Gentle Readers of this forum
      asked me a few simple questions about how to detect bursts of heat
      with a flow calorimeter, and I ended up sending him 10 or 20 pages of
      stuff... and it was not enough to satisfy his curiosity, I bet.
 
3.    Here is the biggest reason: this forum has a dreadful reputation. Most
      of the CF scientists I deal with have explicitly told me *not* to
      mention their names, and never to quote their results here. I get
      meeting notices and papers with notations: "don't post this on the
      damn network." My policy now is that I will not hand out or quote any
      details, data, photos, or papers except to people who e-mail me formal
      written requests. If I did not agree to keep stuff off the network,
      people would stop sending it to me. It is incredible that in the late
      20th century, scientists find they cannot discuss their experimental
      results freely and publicly without fear of having their reputations
      shredded, but that is the situation, thanks to the whacky,
      irresponsible behavior that has become the norm.
 
So, it is shame, because most people here are reasonable (the silent
majority), but you will get no up-to-date, detailed information from me, or
from anyone else who values their professional reputation. You are just
going to have to wait in line and see the stuff as it gets published in
Fusion Technology, a year or two after I hear about it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  DoE support defended
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DoE support defended
Date: 30 Jan 93 12:06:14 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Jed Rothwell's repeated bad-mouthing of the U.S. Department of Energy
and Dr. Walter Polansky (by name) is ill-founded and in poor taste.
 
In a recent posting ("D2O and H2O"), Rothwell states:
>"I have no idea what the rules are for contractors, or what they might have
done in CF.  The only CF research within the DoE that I have ever heard of
was performed by regular employees in the national laboratories.  In 1991 and
1992 a number of those DoE workers and I asked the DoE headquarters, and the
Congress, to allow additional experiments.  We were turned down. --Jed"
 
In his 27 Jan. posting ("Discretionary Spending"), Rothwell says:
>"Dr. Walter Polansky, Director of the Division of Advanced Energy Projects,
has told me and many other people that his Department does have the
authority to fund CF work.  He said that the 1989 DoE panel, headed by
Huizenga, "was sympathetic towards modest support for carefully focussed
and cooperative experiments within the present funding system. ..."
That's what the man says, but actually, as far as I can tell, Polansky is a
  hatchet man  who goes around shutting down CF experiments, overriding other
people's spending authority, and cutting everything including your telephone
if you try anything related to CF. ... -- Jed"
 
 
I wonder if Mr. Rothwell can document his accusations which seem slanderous.
The fact is, Mr. Rothwell, that the BYU group received "modest support for
carefully focussed and cooperative experiments," in CF from March 15, 1990 to
December 31, 1991.  Furthermore, the DoE supported the conference at BYU
held in October 1990 on "Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems."
You can read about DoE's support for  this work, outside of regular
employees of national labs, in your friend Mallove's book, "Fire from Ice"
-- surely you have read it.  Our research was directly related to CF and
included collaborations with American, Italian and Japanese scientists.
It included laboratory and geological/volcano searches for neutrons, charged
particles and tritium.  [See Proceedings of the Provo Conference, published
by the American Institute of Physics 1991, AIP#228.]  Thanks to DoE support
along with EPRI funding, we have a dedicated and well-equipped laboratory
in a tunnel in the Wasatch mountains near BYU where we hope to resolve
questions regarding possible low-level nuclear effects in deuterided solids.
 
Is your memory selective regarding DoE's support for the BYU research?
Do you remember this now?
 
The contract was administered primarily by
Dr. Polansky, who was courteous and supportive throughout.  He is no "hatchet
man" who cuts "everything including your telephone if you try anything related
to CF" as you erroneously claim.  Our telephone worked fine throughout the
contractual period.  There were no "cuttings" of anything, sir.  Dr. Polansky
does insist on peer review and "carefully focussed and cooperative experiments"
-- perhaps your proposal failed for good reason.
 
Your vicious sniping at the man behind his back is in very poor taste.
Shame on you.
 
--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.31 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Credit where Credit is due
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Credit where Credit is due
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 06:36:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Terry here again, who is Scarlet only with embarassment at my own tantrum... :)
 
In article <1993Jan28.152321.372@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> P.S. to Terry Bollinger:  experiments on sonoluminescence and a possible
> connection to fusion are finally beginning in the BYU Tunnel Lab following
> the usual experimental hiccups.  Stay tuned.
 
Hey, thanks.  I got over my Hydrino Mad a few days ago (it's Gone With the
Wind), but have been physically off-line for about a week due to system
problems.  I wish you and the graduate students involved in this experiment
good luck, and hope (but am not overly convinced) that some of my ideas in
the UC document may have been or perhaps will be of some assistance.
 
 
FARRELL, HYDRINOS, AND SCHROEDINGER
 
I may use Dr. Farrell's entry as an excuse for explaining a bit of QM for
non-physicist readers, but will not try to contradict his ideas directly.
He is a gentleman, and primarily for that reason I have no interest in
getting into a claim/counterclaim contest with him.  He disagrees with
Schroedinger.  I most certainly do not.  I would characterize Schroedinger's
marvelous mathematical quantification of quantum behavior as one of the most
beautiful and insightful pieces of physics work in this century, and one
that has been repeatedly verified in non-relativistic work.  More later...
 
 
JONES AS "PART" OF THE PONS/FLEISCHMANN "COLD FUSION" SAGA
 
I strongly disagree with the tendency to lump the Jones et al work with
heat-generation mysteries, and must disagree with my good friend Dieter
that history and common misconceptions provide some degree of justification
for such a mixing of issues.  The point in science is to clarify such mixups,
even when they may exist in a historical context.  Were that not the case
we would probably still be calling "astronomy" as "astrology," would we not?
 
I might note that if you wish to be scientifically precise about implications
of the phrase "cold fusion", then there is only _one_ body of well-established
research of which I am aware that fully justifies any use of this phrase, and
that is muon-induced fusion of the type studied intently by Jones et al.
 
Why?  Because muon-induced fusion alone meets the _thermodynamic_ definition
of fusion occurring at "cold" (room) temperatures.  No extraordinary energies
are needed for this type of bona fide "cold fusion," since it depends on the
high mass of muons to bring deuterons together.  In fact, muon-bound D2 could
in principle be in thermal equilibrium with liquid He and it would _still_
exhibit very high rates of fusion.  That, indeed, is "cold" fusion!
 
Thus if anyone has a right to claim and define the correct usage of the phrase
"cold fusion," it is _not_ Pons and Fleischmann.  It is instead Jones et al
and the various researchers who preceeded him (it was a hot topic back in the
Manhatten Project days).  They found cold fusion, quantified it, published
good, solid papers on it, and through their publications made it reproducible
to anyone with access to a good suppy of muons.  I say _they_ own the phrase.
 
In the absence of any serious explanation for whatever it is that is being
seen, I for one would suggest that large levels of excess heat in Tm(Dx,Hy)
system simply be called that -- excess heat, or heat anomolies.  Much more
direct, and (frankly) much more honest.
 
 
[Note: JR: I do not read your postings, should you decide to respond.  Sorry.]
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.31 / John Gallant /  Re: what about heat pumps?
     
Originally-From: johng@csc2.anu.edu.au (John Gallant)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: what about heat pumps?
Date: 31 Jan 1993 23:28:31 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

jbs@watson.ibm.com wrote:
:          People in this group seem to be assuming that if a cold fusion
: experiment appears to yield 1+x units of heat energy out for every 1 unit
: of electrical energy in, the experiment is a success.  This bothers me
: since a heat pump can do this.  I have a couple of questions:
:          1.  While I don't really believe that CF experiments are pro-
: ducing heat by sucking it out of the environment, how is this possibilty
: absolutely excluded?
 
Doesn't the calorimeter do this for you? It must be insulated from the
environment in order to make heat measurements possible.
 
 
:          2.  Is it not the case, that unless a CF device has a gain
: (value of x) better than that of a perfect heat pump, it will be use-
: less for generating electricity or powering machinery (or for anything
: except generating heat)?  How many of the 'positive' experiments report
: such gains?
 
Sort of. To get electricity from a heat-producing CF device (you need
electricity to run the device) you need to use a heat-engine driving a
generator (e.g. a steam turbine) just like we use in coal-fired
electricity plants now. The thermodynamic efficiency of the generator
system is what you should be looking at, not a heat pump (and
incidentally, I think the idea of a "perfect heat pump" is very
misleading, as the only limits to the performance of heat pumps is the
properties of the working fluids I think).
 
Thermodynamic efficiency is determined by the source temperature vs.
sink (environmental) temperature, but I can't remember the formula,
simple as it is. The best we can do these days is somewhere around 35% I
think. So you're right in saying that there is a minimum x needed to
produce useful power (other than heat), and it needs to be at least 1.85
i.e. 185% excess heat for a very efficient generator. For a more
realistic efficiency (for lab setups) of 20%, you need 400% excess heat.
And this is before you even get any net energy production, as you say.
 
:                           James B. Shearer
 
An interesting point!
 
--
    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:
cuddy31 cudenjohng cudfnJohn cudlnGallant cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 / B Bartholomew /  Please help, need info (be kind)
     
Originally-From: hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Bart Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please help, need info (be kind)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 07:36:14 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

Please be kind, as I know this is an off-topic post, but I
don't know a better place to get the information I need.
Don't ask why, but I simply must know why things are shiny.
That is, why does a smooth surface reflect light?  Smooth to
us is grossly irregular to a photon.  *Why* does a smooth surface
reflect light?  Also, are there frequency sensitive effects
in action here?  To round things out, why are some materials
opaque at some frequencies and transparent at others?
(Are there any X-Ray crystallographers out there?)
        Since this is off-topic, please email to my address
rather than compound my clutter of this newsgroup.
        Thanks
        BartB   hcbarth@afterlife.ncsc.mil
--
"I'll need a sample."  "Come again?"  "No, once is enough." Joel<-> 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:
cuddy1 cudenhcbarth cudfnBart cudlnBartholomew cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Path-of-logical science
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Path-of-logical science
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 15:51:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>I think neutrons are important.  But Jed Rothwell authoritatively states:
 
> "You must stop looking for neutrons, because they are not there."
> "Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons.  They do not
>care whether CF is nuclear energy, zero point energy, or green cheese.
>They know it yields megajoules of heat from each tiny bit of fuel, and they
>know the fuel is water, and that is ALL they care about. PERIOD."
>"This cannot be D-D fusion as we know it.  We don't know what this is, it
>makes no sense to even ask at this stage."
>"There is heat, there are no neutrons, and that's that."
>    (J. Rothwell, "Common Ground," 26 Jan. 1993)
 
>Shucks, Jed, three days ago I had a visit from three Japanese scientists who
>ARE interested in neutrons.  One is supported by MITI.  They DO want to know
>whether xs heat can be nuclear in origin. (I suggest that most people do not
>think the xs heat could be due to d-d fusion, refuting the original
>claims of P&F.  But if nuclear, corresponding nuclear products must be
>present, with quantities of nuclear ash corresponding to the heat released.)
 
The trouble with Jed is that he is not a scientist. He takes the engineering
approach, doesn't care how this works, just wants to build a machine that
will make money (at least I THINK that's what he wants to do). He projects
this onto other people. There are those who reckon that the world would be a
better place if we all took this approach. Well, they are wrong. Assuming (for
a brief moment) that excess heat from electrolysis is real, it would indeed
be imperative for "hundreds, yes, hundreds" of scientific teams to find out
where it comes from, so as to optimise the process in a rational, rather than
random, manner. I would be very surprised if MITI is as simple-mindedly
pragmatic as Jed describes them. Remember, too, that the amount of money MITI
has asked for (and received, I suppose) for cold fusion, is peanuts compared
to the rest they dispose over. Let's not overstate the importance of cnf to
MITI. Rather than "Let us invest heavily into this wonderful new thing", it
was more likely "So-and-so wants us to give money to - what did he say it's
called? Cold fusion? Well, throw them a few peanuts, can't hurt".
 
>Maybe we should care if the xs heat is nuclear or not.
>Some people may want to know whether the process emits
>gammas, x-rays, etc. -- they care about safety, health and the environment
>perhaps.
>Some may worry about the possibility of radioactive wastes.
>How about hazards of hydrinos?
 
These, of course, are more reasons for scientific studies. Engineers might
resent being held up by such trifles but they could turn out important.
 
>Moreover, nuclear reactions release of order MeV's per reaction, whereas
>chemical reactions typically release eV's.  That's why nuclear reactions are
>so much more interesting from an energy point of view.  Frank Close correctly
>pointed out that "there are electrons bound with hundreds of eV in heavy
>atoms."  (22 Jan.) Why assume unusual nuclear physics when unusual chemistry
>will do the job?  Heat alone is not proof of nuclear physics.
 
Here I must protest, as a chemist. This would be more than unusual chemistry.
Chemical energies are limited to something around 10 eV. To do something with
those deeper electrons, you need energies of hundreds of eV, and chemistry
cannot provide these. People use x-rays to do it. So sorry, Frank, Jed is
right. If you get some hundreds of eV from a process, it's not chemical.
That's not saying it's nuclear, of course - and yes, I know, Jed is not
claiming that (most of the time).
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Credit where Credit is due
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Credit where Credit is due
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 15:51:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>"...your attempts at disassociation from the P&F work ... are to no avail;
>your work, that of Fleischmann and Pons, the Russian fractofusion work and
>even the recent (very dubious) work of Mills et al, are all irrevocably lumped
>under "cold fusion", no matter what the origin or original meaning of the
>term.  I understand your resentment, but it can't be helped.
 
>--- How discouraging.  Dieter really tries to keep me in bed with P&F despite
>all my reasoning and efforts to the contrary.  However, the quote from our
 
I am sorry about that. When I say "irrevocably lumped", I mean in the eye of
the beholder. And while you dissociate yourself from the electrolytic excess
heat branch, that branch embraces yours. P&F variously say "aneutronic and
atritonic" but, as you point out, they don't mind claiming the odd neutron
or triton as evidence that they are on the right track, either.
 
While I have your attention, Prof. Jones: what would you say, today, is the
"Jones-level" fusion rate? After Kamioka, it must be less than the rate of
about 1E-23 fusions/d-d-pair/s, not so? Is there a reference to the revised
rate? I don't mind waiting until after next Thursday.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 /  /  Where is CF #1 - McKubre?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where is CF #1 - McKubre?
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 16:07:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, Jed, for your listing of the better CF results and the additional
information about McKubre.  As I understand you, his results are that
for the D-Pd system, high loading is essential and he has learned how to
achieve that condition with 100% reproducibility in 40 out of 200 experiments.
While his experiments "prove" that there is too much heat to be accounted
for by any known mechanism, he provides no information about reaction products
and has made no attempts to observe any reaction products.  While you
may characterise this as a great achievement, I can only point out that
the experiments are incomplete and perhaps unbalanced in the way in which
resources have been directed. Given that McKubre can reproduce the effect
at a high level I believe his obligation to science is to extend his
investigations to include a search for reaction products.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Not Rumors
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not Rumors
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:05:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Brian Rauchfuss comments:
 
"Every published cold fusion work has enough problems with it (e.g.
incorrectly measured input power, so little output power that it falls in the
noise, etc) that it is not convincing, and the rumors we hear of Thermacore,
McKubre, etc, can not be looked over because they will not publish!"
 
First of all, that is not true. There is nothing wrong with the good papers
from the experienced people. You see a lot of daffy, airhead objections here
on the network, but you can ignore them. There have been no real, legitimate
objections to work from people like Bockris, Huggins, Ikegami or Oriani.
Examples of daffy objections you can ignore include:
 
     Dick Blue's suggestion that the heat was caused by friction from the
     cooling water. If this was the case, the heat would be there during
     calibration, it would not suddenly appear after a week of electrolysis.
     Furthermore, water friction does not create tritium. Besides, if water
     caused that much friction, flushing the toilet would burn down the
     house, and a garden hose nozzle would be too hot to handle.
 
     Tom Droege's suggestion that glass calorimeters don't work. Calibration
     curves from Takahashi, Storms, and me prove that they *do* work. Period.
 
     Many people's suggestions that the input power is actually 20% or 400%,
     or 2000% higher than it looks because of "hidden spikes," or some other
     hocus pocus that would bankrupt the electric power companies if it
     existed.
 
     The suggestion that closed calorimeters are actually heat pumps. Funny
     we haven't noticed that in 200 years!
 
     Tom Droege's suggestion that CF is caused by miniature, local "storms"
     or hurricanes within cells that have no stirrers... These storms create
     massive thermal gradients that persist for weeks on end. These storms
     magically survive extraordinarily disruptive events, like when:
     Takahashi pulls the cell about a meter up, out of the detector, replaces
     D2O and lowers it back in; Srinivasan "gently shakes" the cells to test
     for mixing; Takahashi pulls out the thermocouples and replace them;
     Takahashi and others put in three thermocouples; Takashi and others add
     stirrers and observe the excess heat anyway... These are robust storms.
     Remarkably, they did not occur in Takahashi's lab for 3 years, and they
     were replicated in 20 other labs within a year of Takahashi, and if they
     occur at all, they always start a week after electrolysis starts, and
     they are accompanied by neutrons and tritium production.
 
I have not seen any legitimate, non-science-fiction objections. After four
years, I guess it is safe to conclude that calorimetry has not been
dethroned, there are no objections, and there can be no objections. The only
logical conclusion is that science still works, heat still makes temperatures
go up, and the effect has been widely replicated, with far less trouble, and
at much higher sigma levels than the incandescent light effect 110 years ago,
or the transistor effect in the late 1940's.
 
Second, these people *have* all published. How do you think I know about
them? I have their papers, viewgraphs and data. If you want papers, do what I
do: subscribe to Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts, buy the Como Proceedings
and the Nagoya Proceedings, call the workers and ask for unpublished papers,
and learn to read Japanese. Unfortunately for you, CF work is never published
or mentioned in the mainline journals like Nature and Scientific American.
 
The statement, "they will not publish" is incorrect and misleading. People
working for large corporations are never allowed to publish trade secrets;
career people at national labs and tenured University profs would love to
publish, but the journals refuse to look at their stuff; junior people, who
do this work at home, obviously cannot talk about it or publish anything,
because they will never, ever get a promotion or tenure if they do. In fact,
some are frightened because their bosses have threatened to summarily fire
them if they talk about CF or sign my petition.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 /  Rusty Perrin
 /       CF by DOE employees
     
Originally-From: Rusty Perrin
 <ub-gate.UB.com!vm1.nodak.edu!U7584RT%DOEVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      CF by DOE employees
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:05:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
The only CF research within the DoE that I have heard of was performed
by regular employees in the national laboratories.
 
That seems rather unlikely to me. DOE employs about 140,000 contractors
and 20,000 employees. Most of the employees are in the business of
managing the contractors. DOE scientists are generally contractors. When
I was last at a national laboratory, I was told that only about 10
employees were there, and everyone else was a contractor.
 
Once again, I'm not speaking from my area of expertise, so you could be
right. It just doesn't sound like the way things are done here to me.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Not a tea party
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not a tea party
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:05:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steven Jones remarks:
 
Jed Rothwell's repeated bad-mouthing of the U.S. Department of Energy and Dr.
Walter Polansky (by name) is ill-founded and in poor taste. I wonder if Mr.
Rothwell can document his accusations which seem slanderous..."
 
I am not a fool. I do not say things like that in public if I do not have
witnesses, dates, places and times. Besides, his actions are well documented.
As Gene Mallove said to Polansky the other day, "a bureaucrat can run, but he
can't hide."
 
"Your vicious sniping at the man behind his back is in very poor taste. Shame
on you."
 
Don't be ridiculous Steve, I have faxed him far worse. I have also written to
his boss, and his boss's boss. I never attack anyone behind his back. Why
should I? I am out for blood. I intend to get him, along with Huizenga, Park,
Parker, Maddox, Piel, Taubes and many others. I don't hide that fact, I
advertise it, in order to bait them into doing foolish things. They have
obliged me on several occasions. This is dead serious power politics, these
people are playing for keeps, and so am I.
 
They screwed up in 1989, and misjudged CF. They made a dreadful mistake which
might cause irreparable harm to the nation and to science. Later, rather than
admit they made a mistake, in their hubris they lashed out and hurt people,
and corrupted the scientific process. They will not get away with it forever.
Irresponsible, foolish people in authority who make dreadful mistakes must be
replaced. They must be forced to take responsibility for their statements and
actions. A free society demands no less.
 
I am sincerely delighted to hear that the DoE supported CF at BYU up until
December 31, 1991. As far as I know, you people never succeeded in getting
any heat, which is a real shame. To be honest, I would not recommend the DoE
give you any more money, because after all, lots of other people have gotten
heat -- and heat is what matters. Heat first, neutrons later. As far as I am
concerned, if you don't have heat at BYU, you have failed, and I would not
want to see any more government money going to failures. You have not learned
how to enhance the reaction, and others have, so they should get the funding.
Good intentions and should not be funded, only positive, outstanding results.
The government should not pay people to build airplanes that cannot get off
the ground; computers that do not get the right answer; telephones that don't
connect; or CF experiments that do not generate heat.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Polansky not responsible?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Polansky not responsible?
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:05:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Via deep back channels, someone told me that in his impression, Dr. Polansky
does not enjoy implementing the DoE's CF policy. My contact says that he
feels Polansky is under pressure, and he been forced to do things against his
better judgement. That may be true; a bureaucrat has to follow orders, after
all. My contact said the policy is formed by Adm. Watkins (Bush appointee)
and Dr. Happer (who will probably stay).
 
I have no personal relationship with any of these people. Obviously, the
letters they send me contain no detailed explanation. I send them
translations of official MITI statements, scientific papers, newspaper
clippings, a list of corporations in the NHEP, invitations to conferences and
meetings, and so on. They send me the sort of empty, bureaucratic claptrap I
quoted earlier. I can only judge the man by his actions and words. It may
well be that he is only following orders -- that's how the Government works,
after all. If he disagrees with the policy, I am confident that someday,
during a Congressional Investigation, he will have a chance to explain his
actions, reveal his CYA file, and to point the finger at someone else.
 
Because I don't have access to his CYA file, I want to repeat that it is my
*impression* that he is a hatchet man: I said "as far as I can see...," and I
meant exactly that. I cannot follow his every move. If he is just some poor
bureaucrat doing his job, I'm sorry for him.
 
I have seldom named specific names, because there is always the danger that I
might finger some low level flunky. Top bureaucrats often find ways to escape
responsibility. There is a good example of the danger of "naming names" in a
widely read Japanese magazine. This magazine quoted a specific name of a
person at MIT, and said the fellow was the culprit who dummied up the
infamous 1989 CF fraud. They fingered the wrong guy!
 
In this case, however, I posted Polansky's name specifically to warn off my
Gentle Readers, because a couple of them asked me about submitting a proposal
to him. That can be a negative career move. Until we see a hint of sanity in
Washington, I advise everyone in the CF business to keep a low profile. If
you must submit a proposal, don't use the phrases "cold fusion," "fusion,"
"nuclear," or "excess heat," don't mention the Japanese program, and keep
everything low key. He is definitely the guy to go to, if you send it to
anyone else, your proposal will wander around the bureaucracy for a couple of
months until they figure out you mean "cold fusion" then they will send it to
him, and he will deep-six it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 /  /  Where is CF #2? - Yamaguchi
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where is CF #2? - Yamaguchi
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:06:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This has to be one of the poorer examples of experiments which support
cold fusion.  Strictly speaking it does not even demonstrate "surplus
heat".  While Yamaguchi did at one time claim to have detected neutrons,
the principle feature of his experiments would seem to be a claim for
the production of helium.  It is my opinion that his helium data is
on very weak footing because it involves the interpretation of mass
spectrometer data taken under transient conditions following a rise
in pressure of his test chamber that could well take the mass spectrometer
out of its proper operating range.  His data do, in fact, show the
extreme broadening of the mass 4 peak due to deuterium into the
region of the mass spectrum where a helium signal, if present, would
lie.  As for his "heat" measurements, he gets virtually the same
response from Pd loaded with hydrogen as he does with deuterium
loading.  Thus, even if we accept his interpretation of the data,
we have two seemingly related processes that can produce heat, but
only one has a clear nuclear reaction product associated with it.
The most logical explaination of the Yamaguchi results has to be
that nothing is happening beyond bad experimentation.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 /  mwk@risc.rockw /  Farrell-Mills Theory
     
Originally-From: mwk@risc.rockwell.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Farrell-Mills Theory
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 01:09:54 GMT
Organization: At Home; San Jose, CA USA

It seems to me that the Farrell Mills theory predicts quite precisely
what the absorption (or emission) spectrum of the hydrino should be.
Obviously as recently pointed out on the net the spectrum of the gas
phase above a cell supposedly emitting this gas should be obtained.
I suggest doing this experiment at BNL or Stanford where there are
plenty of photons available for such spectroscopy.
 
M. Kendig (mwk@risc.rockwell.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmwk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 /  Sonja /  HP-Software
     
Originally-From: zwissler@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Sonja)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HP-Software
Date: 1 Feb 1993 14:25:03 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany

Hello,
 
 
  I am currently engaged in buidling an archive for
 
 
  H   H  PPPP        SSSS   OOO   FFFFF  TTTTT  W  W  W    A    RRRR   EEEEE
  H   H  P   P      S      O   O  F        T    W  W  W   A A   R   R  E
  HHHHH  PPPP   --   SSS   O   O  FFFF     T    W  W  W  AAAAA  RRRR   EEEE
  H   H  P              S  O   O  F        T    W W W W  A   A  R   R  E
  H   H  P          SSSS    OOO   F        T     W   W   A   A  R   R  EEEEE
 
 
  which is running at least on HP-machines 9000/7xx.
  This archive will be published on three identical file-servers
  in Liverpool, Toulouse and Karlsruhe.
 
  Therefore I am collecting software running on HP 9000/7xx, software
  which is portable, documentation and papers of the following disciplines:
 
                    * mechanical engineering
                    * fluid dynamics
                    * electrical engineering
                    * civil engineering
                    * computational chemistry
 
 
  To create this archiv as useful as possible I need your feedback.
  If you have any comments or suggestions as to the content of the archive,
  or if you have any contributions for any of the topics below,
  I would be grateful if you could get in touch with me via e-mail
  with your comments:
 
Topics:
 
  - Which programs of these disciplines are existing/are you using?
 
  - Which programs are still used?
    (e.g: fhdl-cad, vhdl, edif, galaxy, xgraph, sigview, gks, chipmunk-CAD ...)
 
  - Which versions of the programs are current?
 
  - Is the software running on HP 9000/7xx or portable?
 
  - From where did you get your software up to now?
 
  - Do you want to publish software?
 
  - Do you have documentation about programs?
    (Each program could be mentioned in ASK-SISY, which supplies
    an online-search for programs reachable e.g. via telnet, gopher and wais)
 
 
Many thanks ...
 
Sonja Zwissler
zwissler@askhp.ask.uni-karlsruhe.de
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenzwissler cudlnSonja cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Sub-MINIMUM energies? or no-no hydrino.
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sub-MINIMUM energies? or no-no hydrino.
Date: 1 Feb 1993 17:28:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
>John Logajan notes:  "Farrell suggests the electrons gain mass as they
>fall to lower orbits..."  (27 Jan. posting)
>Gaining mass requires INPUT of energy, E = mass gain X c**2.
>Also, the electrons must JUMP (i.e., atom must GAIN energy) to move to
>"lower orbits", as Collins explained (see above).
 
Farrell has it that the electron gains mass from the proton in some
sort of energy/mass transference. So you have 1X energy emitted in the
form of a photon, 1X energy gained by the electron, and 2X energy
lost to the proton, for a net system loss of 1X.
 
Gary Collins did not explicitly cover cases such as the muon, in which
the mass of the muon allows a much smaller minimum orbital radius.
In the Farrell hydrino we have a postulated heavier electron, and
therefore Collins' presented equations do not actually disallow it.
 
There might well be other reasons why the hydrino can't work, but
I think it is now shown that the equations presented by Collins
do  not apply the coup de grace(sp?).
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.30 / John Logajan /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 06:12:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>I've read that the Japanese, among others, are using neural net programs
>to forecast the stock market - with an accuracy of ~80%, vs. the best
>humans having a reliability of ~60%.  Could be that the computer might pick
>up something we miss...
 
Even if such a successful program did exist, it would quite quickly start
losing money and have to be abandoned.
 
The reason is that more and more people would start taking market positions
based upon the neural net predictions, and therefore they would more and
more begin to bid against each other for the same items.  At some point a
contrarian would be able to fleece the flocks.
 
Even if the existence of the other neural nets was anticipated by the neural
net itself, such a situation would deteriorate to the neural net not being
able to find any opportunities it could predict.
 
This, incidently, is along the same lines of reasoning as to why all economists
aren't rich.
 
Not that this has much to to with cold fusion ...
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.01.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 06:55:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ub-gate.UB.com!acad.fandm.edu!J_FARRELL writes:
>>For instance, how does a muon's mass effect its orbital radius
 
>r  =  r = (4*pi*epsilon0*hbar^2)/(e^2 * umuon)  =  amuon
>where umuon is the reduced mass of the muon/proton system and amuon is the
>Bohr radius for the hydrogen (proton)/muon atom.
>
>Thus, the radius should be about 186 times closer
 
I really intended to direct that question toward Gary Collins since he was
making some claims about n=1 being a hard and fast limit on the minimum
energy/radius of the atom.
 
I believe that, as in the case of the muon, his listed equations had more
to say than he was letting on. i.e. "I will try to explain qualitatively why
hydrinos cannot exist using an argument based on the wave-particle duality
of matter and Heisenberg's uncertainty relation." And, "Thus, we find that
fractional quantum numbers do not lead to "sub-ground-level" energies and can
not be used to explain reports of excess heat production in electrolysis
experiments."
 
Simply by changing the mass of the electron, as in a muon, we find, by
Farrell's above calculation, that the radius of the orbit is much reduced.
 
I can think of six general cases in which the radius of an atom might well
differ from the dimensions derived in Gary Collin's post.
 
1.) The muon/proton (muon=206 electron masses)
2.) Forward spin versus retrograde spin of the electron axis in relation to
    its direction of orbit around the proton.  (This causes very closely
    spaced spectral emission or absorption lines.)
3.) Zeeman effect, in which emission or absorption in a magentic field changes
    the emitted or absorbed photon energy, and therefore its orbit radius.
4.) Stark effect, in which emission or absorption in an electric field changes
    the emitted or absorbed photon energy.
5.) The presence or absence of other electrons, and their phase state, in the
    orbits around the nucleus.  (These complications prevent a workable model
    of energy/radius for all atoms with more than one electron.)
6.) The presence or absence of other electrons in orbit around nearby atoms.
    (i.e. the case of protium in and amongst palladium or nickel.
 
Some of these effects are subtle (the electron spin) and some are intense
(the muon/proton.)  An n=1/2 orbit falls somewhere inbetween these two
examples.  So therefore I am inclined to doubt that it "cannot be" based upon
conclusions drawn from a set of equations in which the above six deviations
were not also explicitly explained.
 
--
- 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 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: 1 Feb 93 21:19:49 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1993Jan30.061259.27367@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
 
      ...
 
>Even if the existence of the other neural nets was anticipated by the neural
>net itself, such a situation would deteriorate to the neural net not being
>able to find any opportunities it could predict.
>
>This, incidently, is along the same lines of reasoning as to why all economists
>aren't rich.
>
>Not that this has much to to with cold fusion ...
 
Yeah, it has nothing to with cold fusion, but I can't help but advertise
the work of a guy here, who is a "poor" economist.  He gives a *fantastic*
talk about market analysis, mainly because he starts off by saying he
knows less than anyone else, since everyone thinks they can understand
economics!  Paul Beaumont is his name.
 
Anyway, he looks at market data after the fact, to see if there is any
correlation in time of various things that one might feed into such a
program.  If there exists a time correlation, then one *might* be able
to exploit it.  There is zero correlation in the Dow from day-to-day
today so newspaper analysis is worthless.  (He shows historical data
that there used to be as much as a week in some markets, but communication
speed has wiped that out.)  One has to work on minute time-scales to get
an arbitrage advantage today, except in some commodity markets.  This
ignores the long-term investment analysis, of course, which is a
completely different problem.  BTW, the SEC does the same analysis to
look for correlations, since there are some on a few-hour to several
day time scale that result from insider trading....
 
--
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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.optics
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: 2 Feb 93 00:08:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>>I've read that the Japanese, among others, are using neural net programs
>>to forecast the stock market - with an accuracy of ~80%, vs. the best
>>humans having a reliability of ~60%.  Could be that the computer might pick
>>up something we miss...
 
>Even if such a successful program did exist, it would quite quickly start
>losing money and have to be abandoned.
 
>Not that this has much to to with cold fusion ...
 
   True, but it does give an opportunity to point out that neural nets
do have really astounding predictive capabilities, given an initial
data base of experimental results to use in training them.
 
   I've recently seen a neural net program which predicts the depth of
the cut that a high-power laser beam makes in a stainless steel plate
as a function of the laser power, the speed at which the laser spot is
moved across the plate, and the elemental composition of the stainless
steel (5 different elements).  This would be a fearful problem to
solve using basic physics, involving thermodynamics, phase changes,
specific heats, heats of melting, thermal conductivities, radiative
transfer, etc., etc -- all as a function of the 5-dimensional space of
the elemental composition of the stainless steel.  Yet a 7-node neural
net, trained on just 75 experimental measurements, solves it
accurately, immediately and with no knowledge of physics.
 
   I think neural nets are the vision of the future...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Peter Costanza /  Re: Imaginary nonsense
     
Originally-From: Costanza@world.std.com (Peter Costanza)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Imaginary nonsense
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 02:12:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        Re: wild accusations.  Sooner or later, someone in here is going
to really harm someone else's professional reputation with one of these
posts. Sooner or later, the person who has been libeled or defamed is
going to sue, and if the accusations are false as far as the jury is
concerned, the poster is going to pay real, not virtual, money damages.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenCostanza cudfnPeter cudlnCostanza cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Les Earnest /  Neural net nattering
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.optics
Subject: Neural net nattering
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 05:09:52 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

Responding to an astounding and probably apocryphal claim that
Japanese neural net programs outperform humans in playing the stock
market, Tony Siegman writes:
      True, but it does give an opportunity to point out that neural nets
   do have really astounding predictive capabilities, given an initial
   data base of experimental results to use in training them.
 
Yes, I tested a neural net program at Stanford last year that attempts
to recognize cursive writing.  I would place it just five years behind
the state of the art -- in 1961.
 
      I've recently seen a neural net program which predicts the depth of
   the cut that a high-power laser beam makes in a stainless steel plate
   as a function of the laser power, the speed at which the laser spot is
   moved across the plate, and the elemental composition of the stainless
   steel (5 different elements).  This would be a fearful problem to
   solve using basic physics  [.  .  .]  Yet a 7-node neural
   net, trained on just 75 experimental measurements, solves it
   accurately, immediately and with no knowledge of physics.
 
And I would expect a sophomore numerical analyst to be able to handle
the same curve-fitting problem, also with no knowledge of physics.
 
      I think neural nets are the vision of the future...
 
I've been watching neural nets since the halcyon days of perceptrons,
some 40 years ago, and have seen any number of rosy claims followed by
negligible performance.  I will believe this vision when I see it.
But this has nothing to do with fusion, it seems.
--
Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305        Fax:  415 941-3934
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 /  /  Is CF beyond criticism?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is CF beyond criticism?
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 15:52:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell blasts every criticism that has ever been leveled against
cold fusion as if no mistakes could possibly have been made, and nothing
could possibly be wrong with any current results.  I had suggested that
one possible heat source that Takahasi was not correctly dealing with
was the power input from the pump recirculating water in his calorimeter.
Jed seems to think that power just disappears into thin air.  Quite
possibly my suggesting that as being Takahashi's problem was wrong, but
it certainly isn't a totally silly idea.
 
Meanwhile there is some silly ideas creeping into the discussion of
the hydrogen subgroundstate question.  There seems to be confusion
between the result of substitution of a muon for the electron and
relativistic effects on the mass of the electron.  A bound electron
is still an electron with the mass of an electron.  While on the
subject, let me say that in spite of all its other flaws the
Farrell theory suffers badly as a case of "special pleading,"
i.e. hydrogen atoms behave strangely with clear case being made
for how this strange behavior occurs in only one peculiar situation.
No mention has been made of any interaction more selective than
the normal electromagnetic interaction, but the resulting transition
somehow leaves something that is more inert.  Where is time reversal
invariance?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 /  /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:18:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am greatly amused by Jed Rothwell's creative mis-quotation.
 
Jed says:
 
"Tom Droege's suggestion that glass calorimeters don't work.  Calibration
curves from Takahashi, Storms, and me prove that they *do* work."
 
You might quote what I really said Jed.  I have posted on Takahashi, an my
conclusions there are that the calibration that I say was questionable.
Takahashi must have thought so too as he revised the original distribution
(note it was not a "publication") downward.  I do have Storms paper, and in
my opinion is was 1/2 of a good run where something happened that prevented
the endo of run calibration to confirm the result.  A second run did not
show heat.  I do not have any write up on *your* work, Jed, and so would have
to see how you made your calibrations to judge your results whic I believe
were null.
 
Jed further says:
 
"Tom Droege's suggestion that CF is caused by miniature, local "storms"
or hurricanes within cells that have no stirrers... These storms create
massive thermal gradients that persist for weeks on end.  These storms
magically survive extraordinarily disruptive events, like when:
Takahashi pulls the cell about a meter up, out of the detector, replaces
D2O and lowers it beck in;..."
 
Gosh, Jed, one of us is into some good stuff.  If you can show me where I
said anything about "storms" or "hurricanes" I will admit it was me.  Otherwise
I will have to think that your link to reality has low bandwidth.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 /  /  Status #15 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #15 Cell 4A3
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 01:19:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #15 Cell 4A3
 
As this is being written, the run is passing 1000 hours.  For the last several
days we have been running Takahashi style Hi-Lo.  There was a net accumulation
of energy during the Hi-Lo, but not enough to be significant.  Now the run has
been stopped in the "Hi" state and the calorimeter is presently in balance to
a few mw.
 
It was necessary to cut back the maximum cell current in order to allow the
catalyst to keep up with the gas production.  Presently it is set at 300 ma
per sq cm.
 
There continue to be events that are hard to explain, and there is a hint of
something going "pop-pop", but nothing that can be pinned down for sure.
 
We will run a while longer here, say to 1200-1500 hours to give things time to
happen, then will do it all over again better.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Is CF beyond criticism?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is CF beyond criticism?
Date: 3 Feb 1993 00:45:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue () says:
 
>There seems to be confusion
>between the result of substitution of a muon for the electron and
>relativistic effects on the mass of the electron.
 
The raising of the muon on my part was merely to probe what Gary
Collins' equations were telling us.  i.e. what variable had to change in
Collins' equations to cover the muon case.  In establishing that there
was such a variable (in this case the mass) we then have to go back and
verify that under no circumstances can the mass of the orbiting
electron change significantly.
 
This may or may not be true, but, as I understand it, it cannot be resolved
merely by application of the Collins equations and therefore requires
appeals to additional theory/data.
 
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 2 Feb 93 16:58:33 -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, ("Amazing
          Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,
          and front cover), 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 are $3.00 each from the
          U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try
          getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your
          local public or university library's inter-library loan
          dept..]
 
               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.  [It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY!]
 
               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 at the China Lake
          Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of
          chemist Melvin Miles, 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:
cuddy2 cudenmcelwre cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 15:40:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
> >>I've read that the Japanese, among others, are using neural net programs
> >>to forecast the stock market - with an accuracy of ~80%, vs. the best
> >>humans having a reliability of ~60%.  Could be that the computer might pick
> >>up something we miss...
>
> >Even if such a successful program did exist, it would quite quickly start
> >losing money and have to be abandoned.
>
> >Not that this has much to to with cold fusion ...
>
 
I can't resist continuing this non-cold fusion thread...
 
I have done some work with artificial neural-nets (and a great deal with
natural nets :-)) and the stock market, and have found that it is trivial to
train it on 10 years worth of data and get 99% accurate predictions.
Unfortunately, it is finding correlations which do not actually exist, and for
any data it has not seen, it does very poorly.  The best I have done is 60%
accurate predictions for both training data and new data, which is slightly
better than predicting that it will go up every day.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.02 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Not Rumors
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not Rumors
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 16:42:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Brian Rauchfuss comments:
>
> "Every published cold fusion work has enough problems with it (e.g.
> incorrectly measured input power, so little output power that it falls in the
> noise, etc) that it is not convincing, and the rumors we hear of Thermacore,
> McKubre, etc, can not be looked over because they will not publish!"
>
> First of all, that is not true. There is nothing wrong with the good papers
> from the experienced people. You see a lot of daffy, airhead objections here
> on the network, but you can ignore them. There have been no real, legitimate
> objections to work from people like Bockris, Huggins, Ikegami or Oriani.
> Examples of daffy objections you can ignore include:
 
When I said "so little output power that it falls in the noise" I meant that
heat excess was small enough that it is less than the recombination heat.  I
thought this was true for Bockris and Huggins, I am not sure of the others; as
you have pointed out, it is difficult to get information on cold fusion
results.
 
>      Many people's suggestions that the input power is actually 20% or 400%,
>      or 2000% higher than it looks because of "hidden spikes," or some other
>      hocus pocus that would bankrupt the electric power companies if it
>      existed.
 
This effect does exist.  Power companies use simple analog wattmeters which
correctly does the integration for them, but most researchers sample the
voltage and current.  If the sample rate is not 2x the highest frequency
in the system then errors will occur.  If they are driving the cell with a
square wave and assuming a resistive cell then the error can become extreme.
Oscillations are also possible.
 
> I have not seen any legitimate, non-science-fiction objections. After four
> years, I guess it is safe to conclude that calorimetry has not been
> dethroned, there are no objections, and there can be no objections. The only
> logical conclusion is that science still works, heat still makes temperatures
> go up, and the effect has been widely replicated, with far less trouble, and
> at much higher sigma levels than the incandescent light effect 110 years ago,
> or the transistor effect in the late 1940's.
 
The main calorimetry problems that I see are:
 
1) Long term drift with long experiments; this is minimized with fast startup
   (nickel) experiments.  Tom Droege saw a calorimeter drift with the experiment
   but not with the calibration!
 
2) Open cells which produce less than recombination heat.  Unknown amounts of
   recombination requires more careful measurement of the gasses.
 
 
So what experiments are there which have short startup times, heat above the
maximum amount of recombination, and careful monitoring of the input power?  I
get the impression that there are a few experiments that might meet these
criteria, but have never heard of a paper by them.
 
I know I am asking alot!
 
> Second, these people *have* all published. How do you think I know about
> them? I have their papers, viewgraphs and data. If you want papers, do what I
> do: subscribe to Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts, buy the Como Proceedings
> and the Nagoya Proceedings, call the workers and ask for unpublished papers,
> and learn to read Japanese. Unfortunately for you, CF work is never published
> or mentioned in the mainline journals like Nature and Scientific American.
 
Unfortunatly my Japanese volcabulary is about 100.
 
> - Jed
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 /  /  Hydrinos and their optical spectra
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!cougar.csc.wsu.edu!COLLINS (Gary Collins,
 Physics, Washington State Univ)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinos and their optical spectra
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:28:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Fusion Digest 741, JOHN LOGAJAN asks how general the result is which
I derived in FD 730 for the minimum energy of a hydrogen atom.   First, I will
extend my previous discussion to include a discussion of different masses.
Then I consider what optical spectrum might be expected from hydrinos.
 
In FD 730, starting only from the wave nature of the electron and
Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, the minimum energy of a hydrogen atom
(that is, a system of an electron and hydrogen nucleus bound by the Coulomb
force) was determined to depend on the radius of the atom r as
 
        Emin(r) = -k e**2/r  +  3 hbar**2/ (8 m r**2).          (1)
 
The form of Emin(r) is such that it has a global minimum value at radius
 
        r =  3/4 [ hbar**2/ (m k e**2) ],                       (2)
 
in which the factor in brackets is just the Bohr radius, 0.053 nanometers.
Plugging the value of r from equation (2) in equation (1), we obtain the
following expression for the global minimum energy, which I will call the
ground-state energy Egs:
 
        Egs =  - 4/3 [ m k**2 e**4 / (2 hbar**2) ].             (3)
 
Here, the bracketed factor is just the familiar ionization energy of hydrogen,
13.6 eV.  While this derivation tells nothing about the excited states of an
atom, it does obtain the same ground-state energy and radius as the good old
Bohr model, apart from the factors of 3/4 and 4/3.
 
One still needs to replace the electron's mass m in equations 1-3 (and in the
Bohr model's equations) by the REDUCED mass mred, given by
 
        mred=  mM/ (M+m),                                       (4)
 
(or, equivalently, 1/mred = 1/m + 1/M)  in which m and M are the masses
of the electron and nucleus.   This is a well-known correction for nuclear
motion which arises because both the electron and nucleus orbit about their
common center-of-mass.   In terms of the electron's mass, the reduced mass is
0.999456 for an electron-proton atom and 0.999728 for an electron-deuteron
atom.  Even this small difference is quite detectable in optical experiments.
 
For muonic atoms, one can substitute the mass of a muon for the mass
of an electron in all the above equations.  Binding energies are much larger,
radii much smaller, and reduced mass differences between muon-proton and
muon-deuteron atoms much larger than for electronic atoms.
 
 
Optical spectra of atoms reflect their energy levels.  According to the
Bohr model, the energy levels of a hydrogen-like atom have energies which
depend on quantum number n as
 
        E(n)=  - (1/n**2) (mred/m) 13.6 eV.                     (5)
 
A transition, for example, from the n=2 level to the n=1 level will result
in an energy decrease of the atom by  3/4 (mred/m) 13.6 eV, and emission
of a photon with a corresponding energy.   A transition from the n=3 to n=1
level will have an energy of 8/9 13.6 eV, and so on, so that one should
observe a series of lines corresponding to transitions to the n=1 state
with energies proportional to 13.6 eV times  3/4, 8/9, 15/16, 24/25, ...
Such a series of lines is observed and is known as the Lyman series.
The optical spectrum of hydrogen contains the Lyman and other series,
and is commonly measured in upper division undergraduate physics laboratories.
An electric arc which is passed through a evacuated tube filled with a
low pressure of hydrogen breaks up the molecules and ionizes and excites
the atoms.  The emitted light is passed through a prism or diffraction
grating and the wavelengths and energies are determined, either
visually or using a photographic emulsion.  When I did the experiment,
the inverse n**2 dependence of the Bohr model explained the energies quite
well.  Using a gas tube with a mixture of deuterium and hydrogen, one can
even resolve the pairs of emission lines which differ because of the reduced
mass.  The emission lines of a deuterium atom will be very slightly
greater in energy than those of a hydrogen atom, by about 3 parts in 10,000.
In fact, observation of such shifted lines by Urey et al. contributed to the
discovery of deuterium in 1932.
 
Now what is the optical spectrum of a hydrino?  According to John Farrell
(FD 731), the radius depends on a quantum number n as  r(n)= n*a0  (instead
of the Bohr model result, r(n)= n**2 *a0), in which a0 is the Bohr radius, from
which the energy should vary inversely with n (instead of n**2):
 
        E(n)= - (1/n) (mred/m) 13.6 eV                          (6)
 
(compare equations 5 and 6).  If optical transitions are allowed between ANY
n-states, then one expects for transitions from n>1 states to the n=1 state to
observe a series of energies proportional to 13.6 eV times 1/2, 2/3, 3/4,
4/5, 5/6, ...  Such a series of lines is not observed.  Why not??
 
John Logajan lists a number of interesting alternative situations under
which the radii and/or energy levels of an atom might change, including the
muonic atom case just described.  My intention was to question the hydrino
model as I understood it in its simplest form: specifically, a model of an
isolated system of a single electron and nucleus with a radius and binding
energy which may be, respectively, significantly smaller and larger than for
a conventional hydrogen atom in its ground state.  Thus, I don't care to
address the situations you list without some reason to believe that they
might be necessary for producing/observing hydrinos.
 
Steven Jones, thank you for your comment.
 --------------------------------------------------------
Yours,          Gary S. Collins   (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenCOLLINS cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Not Rumors
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Not Rumors
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:28:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes in #740:
 
>logical conclusion is that science still works, heat still makes temperatures
>go up, and the effect has been widely replicated, with far less trouble, and
 
This is not a trivial point: heat does NOT always make temperatures go up. Put
a heater into a bucket containing a mixture of ice and water, and watch the
temperature remain at freezing, until all the ice is gone. The heat goes into
a phase change, i.e. ice --> water. Some have suggested phase changes in PdD
as a source of heat. More on this later, from me.
 
>Second, these people *have* all published. How do you think I know about
>them? I have their papers, viewgraphs and data. If you want papers, do what I
>do: subscribe to Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts, buy the Como Proceedings
>and the Nagoya Proceedings, call the workers and ask for unpublished papers,
>and learn to read Japanese. Unfortunately for you, CF work is never published
>or mentioned in the mainline journals like Nature and Scientific American.
 
You can't help it, Jed, not being a scientist, but your idea of "mainline
journals" is a bit off. Nature is for really exciting and radically new work,
from any field, although one finds a preponderance of biological and
geological stuff. The same, by the way, goes for its USA counterpart, Science.
I would not try to put into either of these esteemed journals a normal paper
of mine on electrochemistry - unless I struck it lucky and found an amazing
new effect. That seemed to apply to Jones et al, and to F&P(&H), which is why
they chose Nature. Follow-up work would not tend to go there, but instead into
the usual mainline journals. In Jones's case, that might be physics journals,
which is why I was surprised to see him in Surface Coatings Technol., although
he has published in such appropriate outlets as J. Fusion Energy and Fusion
Technol. The F&P group has published in J. Electroanal. Chem., THE journal in
electrochemistry, and very appropriately so.
 
Scientific American is in no way mainline. Nothing wrong with this magazine,
but it is not intended to be a specialist journal for scientists to read about
their own field, but rather specialises in excellent round-up articles for
the nonspecialist. We nonspecialists can, for example, read Rafelski and
Jones' article (NOT "paper") on the real cold fusion in the July 1987 issue,
and a good read it is, too. If ever cnf appeared in this magazine (other than
in a small NEWS paragraph), it would have to be a well established field, with
generators being built everywhere, and people asking "Just what IS this cnf?".
Don't hold your breath. I see no activity in this direction from all these
companies formed around cnf - and after four years, gentlemen, how come? What
are your shareholders saying? Where are your pilot scale models?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 /  BUILDING THE D /  Thanks for all the info.
     
Originally-From: BUILDING THE DREAM AROUND THE WORLD...PGR 2026
 <ub-gate.UB.com!fab9.intel.com!AHARDISON>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks for all the info.
Subject: RE: Path-of-logical science
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:28:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
 
Subject: RE: Path-of-logical science
 
>Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>>I think neutrons are important.  But Jed Rothwell authoritatively states:
 
>> "You must stop looking for neutrons, because they are not there."
 
>The trouble with Jed is that he is not a scientist. He takes the engineering
>approach, doesn't care how this works, just wants to build a machine that
 
Dieter, if you think he is bad, wait until CNF goes into full production.
He will seem like a laid back fella.
 
>These, of course, are more reasons for scientific studies. Engineers might
>resent being held up by such trifles but they could turn out important.
 
And on that note, I would like to thank each and every one of you who is
working on CNF experiments. I am a hobbiest who enjoys reading/listening to
scientist who work on CNF projects.
 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                Andy Hardison
                                        Internet:
                                          Ahardison@Intel9.Intel.Com
                                                     -  or  -
                                            Ahardison@Fab9.Intel.com
 
Disclaimer:  Any views, opinions, or thoughts are mine, not Intels.  If you
are going to flame someone, flame me, not my employer.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / Dieter Britz /  Chemical explanations?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chemical explanations?
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:28:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Let us set limits for the chemical heat we can get from an electrochemical
cold fusion cell. There have been a number of suggestions of exotic chemical
reactions to explain excess heat. Now the formation of water - the substance
there is most of in these cells - is a highly energetic reaction; it yields
close to 300 kJ/mol of water. This would be the figure to use for
recombination. To make it general, not knowing how big the cell is, we
calculate a "per cm**3" figure. One ml of heavy water is about 1/20 of a mol,
whose formation gives off 15 kJ. So if you can demonstrate that much specific
excess heat or considerably more, you have an exotic effect. Other substances
present in the cells cannot yield anywhere near so much. Within the Pd, there
is a comparably piddling amount of deuterium. Kreysa showed elegantly, by
taking out a charged rod and putting it on a table, that the deuterium can be
released and burn, making a burn mark on the table. The total amount of heat
is not large, though. Deposition of Li, and its subsequent recombination with
water, won't do - not enough of it. As I say, what there is most of is water,
and this sets the limits. As well, your integrated power figure has to be
believable.
 
The bottom line is this. If you can demonstrate megajoules of excess heat
from a smallish cell, you have done it; no chemical explanation will do.
Until someone does, no explanation is needed. Take a hint from the cluster
impact affair. There was a modest number of papers explaining why this was
happening. Then it turned out that it wasn't happening at all.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / 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: 3 Feb 93 15:24:40 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1993Feb2.165833.3522@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.
>...
 
Balderdash.  Ninety to 100 years ago anybody with eyes could look up
and see nature's heavier-than-air machines flying all around
(birds).  Your quote of one person proves absolutely nothing about
what "all of the experts" believed.  Even if it did, so what?  Even
if the "experts" had been wrong on this point you would need to
prove them wrong on every point to show that expert opposition is
any indicator of the validity of a concept.  Yes, experts have been
wrong, it happens all the time (though the example you cite is not
one of them).  However they are often right also.
 
Why are you re-posting this garbage?  It was shot down the last
time, why waste bandwidth?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / Mike Jamison /  RE: Path-of-logical science
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Path-of-logical science
Date:  3 Feb 1993 12:43 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <88638FB2F1DFA24EC8@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz
 <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes...
>
>Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
>
>>I think neutrons are important.  But Jed Rothwell authoritatively states:
>
>> "You must stop looking for neutrons, because they are not there."
>> "Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons.  They do not
>>care whether CF is nuclear energy, zero point energy, or green cheese.
>>They know it yields megajoules of heat from each tiny bit of fuel, and they
>>know the fuel is water, and that is ALL they care about. PERIOD."
>>"This cannot be D-D fusion as we know it.  We don't know what this is, it
>>makes no sense to even ask at this stage."
>>"There is heat, there are no neutrons, and that's that."
>>    (J. Rothwell, "Common Ground," 26 Jan. 1993)
>
>>Shucks, Jed, three days ago I had a visit from three Japanese scientists who
>>ARE interested in neutrons.  One is supported by MITI.  They DO want to know
>>whether xs heat can be nuclear in origin. (I suggest that most people do not
>>think the xs heat could be due to d-d fusion, refuting the original
>>claims of P&F.  But if nuclear, corresponding nuclear products must be
>>present, with quantities of nuclear ash corresponding to the heat released.)
>
>The trouble with Jed is that he is not a scientist. He takes the engineering
>approach, doesn't care how this works, just wants to build a machine that
 
Dieter, sounds like you've either had bad luck with engineers or are possibly
just kidding.  As an engineer I *do* care about how things work.  Maybe more
than some engineers, but probably not more than most engineers who go for
advanced degrees (my advanced degree is in physics, which might make me a
bit of an oddball.)  Anyway, you're making a stereotypical statement, which
is nowadays considered politically incorrect (along with a lot of other
things.  The truth is also considered politically incorrect :))
 
I think Jed is probably thinking like a consumer:  Who cares how the damn
VCR works, how do you set the time?  How good does it tape?  How much does
it cost?  Will it kill *me*?
 
>will make money (at least I THINK that's what he wants to do). He projects
>this onto other people. There are those who reckon that the world would be a
>better place if we all took this approach. Well, they are wrong. Assuming (for
>a brief moment) that excess heat from electrolysis is real, it would indeed
>be imperative for "hundreds, yes, hundreds" of scientific teams to find out
>where it comes from, so as to optimise the process in a rational, rather than
>random, manner. I would be very surprised if MITI is as simple-mindedly
>pragmatic as Jed describes them. Remember, too, that the amount of money MITI
>has asked for (and received, I suppose) for cold fusion, is peanuts compared
>to the rest they dispose over. Let's not overstate the importance of cnf to
>MITI. Rather than "Let us invest heavily into this wonderful new thing", it
>was more likely "So-and-so wants us to give money to - what did he say it's
>called? Cold fusion? Well, throw them a few peanuts, can't hurt".
 
I agree with you.
>
>>Maybe we should care if the xs heat is nuclear or not.
>>Some people may want to know whether the process emits
>>gammas, x-rays, etc. -- they care about safety, health and the environment
>>perhaps.
>>Some may worry about the possibility of radioactive wastes.
>>How about hazards of hydrinos?
>
>These, of course, are more reasons for scientific studies. Engineers might
>resent being held up by such trifles but they could turn out important.
 
*I* don't resent making sure something is safe, for me and everyone else.
Weren't there a bunch of physicists involved in the creation of a certain
type of bomb? :)
>
>>Moreover, nuclear reactions release of order MeV's per reaction, whereas
>>chemical reactions typically release eV's.  That's why nuclear reactions are
>>so much more interesting from an energy point of view.  Frank Close correctly
>>pointed out that "there are electrons bound with hundreds of eV in heavy
>>atoms."  (22 Jan.) Why assume unusual nuclear physics when unusual chemistry
>>will do the job?  Heat alone is not proof of nuclear physics.
>
>Here I must protest, as a chemist. This would be more than unusual chemistry.
>Chemical energies are limited to something around 10 eV. To do something with
>those deeper electrons, you need energies of hundreds of eV, and chemistry
>cannot provide these. People use x-rays to do it. So sorry, Frank, Jed is
>right. If you get some hundreds of eV from a process, it's not chemical.
>That's not saying it's nuclear, of course - and yes, I know, Jed is not
>claiming that (most of the time).
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / Eliot Moss /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: moss@cs.cmu.edu (Eliot Moss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 3 Feb 93 17:40:19 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)

This was posted (and discussed) before. I suggest we ignore it this time
around.
--
 
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:
cuddy3 cudenmoss cudfnEliot cudlnMoss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.03 / Mike Jamison /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date:  3 Feb 1993 12:56 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Jan30.061259.27367@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes...
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>I've read that the Japanese, among others, are using neural net programs
>>to forecast the stock market - with an accuracy of ~80%, vs. the best
>>humans having a reliability of ~60%.  Could be that the computer might pick
>>up something we miss...
>
>Even if such a successful program did exist, it would quite quickly start
>losing money and have to be abandoned.
 
The program *does* exist.  As I understand it, though, you have to have a
few hundred $K to move around in chunks to be able to use the program's
advice.  That alone will keep most of us from using such a program to make
money.
>
>The reason is that more and more people would start taking market positions
>based upon the neural net predictions, and therefore they would more and
>more begin to bid against each other for the same items.  At some point a
>contrarian would be able to fleece the flocks.
 
Fortunately, the laws of physics won't change because a neural network
discovers them.  Unless, of course, you've read the "Hitchhiker's Guide to
the Galaxy", and believe a certain theory put forth in it :-)
>
>Even if the existence of the other neural nets was anticipated by the neural
>net itself, such a situation would deteriorate to the neural net not being
>able to find any opportunities it could predict.
 
Perhaps it would then choose another way to make money...
>
>This, incidently, is along the same lines of reasoning as to why all economists
>aren't rich.
>
>Not that this has much to to with cold fusion ...
 
Right.  I was just using the stock market example to illustrate the fact that
a lot more is known about physics than about the stock market.  So, if we
can use neural nets to effectively predict stock market fluctuations, why
can't we use them for something we know a lot more about?  The stock market
example also shows that neural nets aren't limited to making decisions based
on a few inputs/outputs.  I believe the japanese program tracks over a
thousand variables.  Or maybe it's another program I'm thinking of...
 
There was a write-up I read (can't remember where, sorry) stating that a
386 based system used over a thousand inputs, forty outputs.  Took something
like 3 months to train it.
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 / Les Earnest /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 00:58:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

Mike Jamison earlier wrote:
   I've read that the Japanese, among others, are using neural net programs
   to forecast the stock market - with an accuracy of ~80%, vs. the best
   humans having a reliability of ~60%.  Could be that the computer might pick
   up something we miss...
 
I and others expressed doubt that such a program exists.
 
Mr. Jamison now says:
   The program *does* exist.  As I understand it, though, you have to have a
   few hundred $K to move around in chunks to be able to use the program's
   advice.  That alone will keep most of us from using such a program to make
   money.
 
   [.  .  .]  So, if we
   can use neural nets to effectively predict stock market fluctuations, why
   can't we use them for something we know a lot more about?  The stock market
   example also shows that neural nets aren't limited to making decisions based
   on a few inputs/outputs.  I believe the japanese program tracks over a
   thousand variables.  Or maybe it's another program I'm thinking of...
 
   There was a write-up I read (can't remember where, sorry) stating that a
   386 based system used over a thousand inputs, forty outputs.  Took something
   like 3 months to train it.
 
Let me repeat my observation more bluntly: I believe that this is
fabricated nonsense.  I invite Mr. Jamison to find a citation for the
article describing this allegedly marvelous device.
--
Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305        Fax:  415 941-3934
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 /  /  McElwaine
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McElwaine
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 14:57:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am not much for censorship, I might be the first to go under the blade.  But
could we at least require that McElwaine get poor old Bogdan Maglich's name
right before he gets another post?  No, Scott, I am not asking you to do
anything.  The hope is that McElwaine reads the groups that he post to and will
see this message.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Path-of-logical science
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Path-of-logical science
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 14:57:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
 
>In article <88638FB2F1DFA24EC8@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz
> <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes...
>>The trouble with Jed is that he is not a scientist. He takes the engineering
>>approach, doesn't care how this works, just wants to build a machine that
 
>Dieter, sounds like you've either had bad luck with engineers or are possibly
>just kidding.  As an engineer I *do* care about how things work.  Maybe more
>than some engineers, but probably not more than most engineers who go for
>advanced degrees (my advanced degree is in physics, which might make me a
>bit of an oddball.)  Anyway, you're making a stereotypical statement, which
>is nowadays considered politically incorrect (along with a lot of other
>things.  The truth is also considered politically incorrect :))
 
Sorry, let me rephrase it. There is the scientific, and the engineering
approach. You are right, there are lots of engineers with scientific curiosity
- and your physics degree says something too. But when it comes (if it ever
comes) to building a cnf machine, a bunch of engineers will be given a heap of
specs and asked to design it. They will no doubt be interested to know how it
all works, but that won't be part of their job. And their job will not be to
say, look, don't use electrolysis, I think gas phase charging is much better;
or use Ni instead of all this expensive Pd. Etc.
 
I don't mind being non-PC but in fact I have nothing but admiration for
engineers as a species. They can do all sorts of things.
 
>*I* don't resent making sure something is safe, for me and everyone else.
>Weren't there a bunch of physicists involved in the creation of a certain
>type of bomb? :)
 
Touche - but I am a chemist, not a physicist! Sorry, Frank.
 
Environmental and safety issues do tend to be compromised under the pressure
to make money, unless they are so pressing that they can't be ignored. Early
in this group, there was some snide comment about the radicals screaming
about safety in cnf. We have lots of problem hardware in the world, spreading
asbestos, plutonium, dioxin, NOx etc etc, about. Let the future take care of
itself, the builders of all this say. I'd rather be on the safe side and not
have to worry about what sort of world my kids will live in.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Paper from Kucherov
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Paper from Kucherov
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 01:39:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265-272
North Holland
 
Nuclear product ratio for glow discharge in deuterium
 
A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov and I. B. Savvatimova
Scientific Industrial Association LUTCH, 24 Zhelesnodoroznaja Street,
142100 Podolsk, Moscow Region, Russian Federation
 
Received 24 Sep. 1992; accepted for pub. 28 Sep. 1992
Communicated by J. P. Vigier
 
Abstract: "New results for glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry are
presented. In separate experiments a heat output five times exceeding the input
electric power was observed. The result for the charged particle spectrum
measurement is presented. Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and an
average energy of 2 - 4 MeV were seen. Beams of gamma-rays with energies of
about 200 keV and a characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. The summed
energy of the registered products is three orders short of the values needed to
explain the calorimetric results."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 /  /  Where is CF #3? - Storms and P&F
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where is CF #3? - Storms and P&F
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 01:39:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege has evaluated the Storms work and was not impressed.  I
put much more faith in that than in Jed's assessment.  Amoung the
D + Pd experiments, that leaves Pons & Fleischmann.  As far as I can
tell they have not been doing calorimetry for publication so there
is really no data to discuss at present.  It would seem that 4 years
into this there stands only one D + Pd experiment of any significance.
I would say, in summary, that the lack of clear progress through a
series of improving experiments in combination with the total failure
to find reaction products should just about nail the lid on the
coffin for this form of CF.  Perhaps the most important outcome to
be recognized is how easy it has been for a "simple" experiment in
calorimetery to give rise to misleading or misinterpreted data.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / Dieter Britz /  Bibliography Comments
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography Comments
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 01:39:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I am too lazy to retrieve the Digest containing his posting, but Jed Rothwell
recently pointed someone at my archived bibliography, with the added remark
along the lines of "but beware, the abstracts are biased". He has of course
a perfect right to this opinion; mine is that I keep these abstracts carefully
neutral. Be that as it may, if you want the bibliography untainted with any
comments, note that there is the file CNF-BRIF, which has only author(s),
reference and title, nothing else. One advantage of this file is that it
contains the whole bibliography of published papers. So far, it all fits into
the 150 kbyte limit, whereas the other one, with my (biased?) abstracts needs
to be chopped up into slices (6 now).
 
It appears I am not the only one accumulating a bibliography. Hal Fox has one,
too, and I recently got a copy of it. It contains a great number of conference
papers, most of which are probably available, if you get hold of the conf.
proceedings. Some people are interested in such papers - not me. There are
also references to a lot of articles written in Fusion Facts and 21st Century
which I do not touch, and reference to a few preprints. It is a large list,
and I mention it in part because I found about 10 real papers in it that I
seem to have missed. I am catching up now and will of course tell you where
I got the information when I put them into updates.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / Jed Rothwell /  MITI's opinion of neutrons
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MITI's opinion of neutrons
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 01:40:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Let us please get something straight here. When I said:
 
"Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons. They do not care
whether CF is nuclear energy, zero point energy, or green cheese. They know it
yields megajoules of heat from each tiny bit of fuel, and they know the fuel
is water, and that is ALL they care about. PERIOD..."
 
I was reporting the opinions of MITI and the NHEP. They never actually
mentioned green cheese, but they have made it abundantly clear in public
pronouncements and in official meetings that they do not care whether CF is
fusion per se, or not. I was invited to give a statement at the Official Post-
Nagoya MITI planning meeting, where I heard them express that opinion
repeatedly, and I read the Japanese newspapers, so I can definitely and
authoritatively report the official MITI and the NHEP position on this
subject: they are neutral, they consider the question beyond their ken. They
do not want to get involved in an academic debate about the origins and exact
nature of CF.
 
As everyone knows, the CF reaction does produce trace "non-commensurate"
amounts of neutrons. This means, of course, that the CF reaction has some
nuclear components to it. Perhaps it is a combination of conventional fusion
plus some exotic new reaction (shrinking hydrogen, ZPE, or what-have-you.)
Neutrons, and tritium, can only mean that some nuclear process is at work.
MITI, the NHEP, and I fully recognize the scientific importance of the
neutrons. The neutron evidence may help someone develop a theory, and we all
acknowledge that a scientific theory explicating CF would be an enormous help
in advancing the research. When I wrote "they do not care about neutrons" I
expect that Steven Jones and the others understood perfectly what I meant; I
expect they are merely playing at castigating me as some sort anti-scientific
philistine. But I will go along with this game and define exactly what I mean:
 
"Do not care," in this case, means that they would not be spending 10's of
millions of dollars, organizing R&D cartels, and battling with the Japanese
Hot Fusion program unless they saw potential commercial and industrial uses
for CF in the near term. If CF was only good for generating neutrons, it would
be of strictly scientific interest, with no industrial potential. MITI never
handles pure scientific research. That is not their bailiwick, they do not
want to get into turf wars with other Ministries and Agencies. They support CF
research because it has direct, near-term industrial potential, and there is
one and only reason for this: CF generates massive, easily measured, excess
heat. Time after time, MITI has made statements like this in the newspapers
and on National Television:
 
     "While it is not clear exactly what is occurring, the existence of the
     heat is beyond question... We cannot ignore this potential alternative
     source of energy." (Hokkaido Shimbun, Chunichi Shimbun, 9/18/92)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 / Jon Webb /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1993 14:43:39 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1993Feb4.005804.23312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
 les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
 
   Mr. Jamison now says:
 
      There was a write-up I read (can't remember where, sorry) stating that a
      386 based system used over a thousand inputs, forty outputs.  Took
 something
      like 3 months to train it.
 
This is ridiculous.  Last I heard, a few years ago, the best such
programs in this country were using Kalman filters incorporating every
traded stock, and running on the most advanced supercomputers.  They
were then talking about arbitrage on the millisecond level.  The
technology has presumably advanced since then.  Now, I understand that
Japanese financial markets are somewhat more restrictive than the
markets here, and they may be behind our technology, but a 386-based
system?  Give me a break!
 
-- J
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: McElwaine
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McElwaine
Date: 4 Feb 93 15:46:02 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

In article <930203123458.20802a96@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
 ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
> I am not much for censorship, I might be the first to go under the blade.  But
> could we at least require that McElwaine get poor old Bogdan Maglich's name
> right before he gets another post?  No, Scott, I am not asking you to do
> anything.  The hope is that McElwaine reads the groups that he post to and
 will
> see this message.
>
> Tom Droege
 
I'm afraid that I have seen no evidence of him reading the groups that
he posts to.
 
I too, don't advocate censorship.  However, I AM following a suggestion of
someone from the sci.astro group (which also receives these posts), to
forward any inappropriately place posts to his return address.  I do
include a short note suggesting more appropriate groups for these posts.
The idea is that if enough people do this, and he does not take the
recommended action, maybe the sysop will become interested in the amount
of space Rob McElwaine's mail account is taking.
 
However, I have not noticed any change in his behavior since starting this
course of action and I would guess that he either has multiple accounts
and doesn't read mail from this one, or skips mail he suspects is a
complaint about his posting practices.
 
I guess it is the price to be paid for certain freedoms.
 
--
.watch this space for a shorter .sig.
   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Banzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
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:
cuddy4 cudenjbatka cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 / Mike Jamison /  "Free Energy"
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Free Energy"
Date:  4 Feb 1993 17:03 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I think the people who read s.p.f would be open-minded enough to accept an
idea such as free energy, just as they are open-minded enough to accept an
idea like cold fusion.  You only have to do one thing:
 
Show us one that works, producing energy for free.  Solar cells don't count.
 
Until such a time as this can be done, we'll continue believing in Thermo-
dynamics, conservation of energy, etc.
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / John Logajan /  Re: McElwaine
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McElwaine
Date: 5 Feb 1993 05:21:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, jbatka@desire.wright.edu () says:
>I too, don't advocate censorship.  However, I AM following a suggestion of
>someone from the sci.astro group (which also receives these posts), to
>forward any inappropriately place posts to his return address.
 
I think this would cross the line into the arena of harassment, however.
Since there is nothing particularly threatening in McElwaine's postings,
I think the most appropriate response is a quiet chuckle or two.
 
Despite the "excuses" given for the ardent reaction, i.e. bandwidth
wasting or corrupting of innocent minds, the real reason people object
so strongly to McElwaine type postings is much more self-centered.
 
A fictional dramatization of what I'm referring to was the scene in the
movie "Close Encounters" in which a group of UFO witnesses and other interested
people were in a meeting with some Airforce representatives.  The "real"
witnessess were quickly neutralized from any hope of credibility when a
"Bigfoot" witness began to regale the crowd with his accounts of an
encounter with the big fella.
 
McElwaine is like the guy with the Bigfoot story, and people working on the
fringes of science (as all progressive scientists must) are like the UFO
witnesses -- fearful of the fragility of their own credibility.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinos and their optical spectra
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos and their optical spectra
Date: 5 Feb 1993 05:50:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
cougar.csc.wsu.edu!COLLINS (Gary Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ) says:
>John Logajan lists a number of interesting alternative situations under
>which the radii and/or energy levels of an atom might change, including the
>muonic atom case just described....  Thus, I don't care to
>address the situations you list without some reason to believe that they
>might be necessary for producing/observing hydrinos.
 
First let me say that I appreciated the clarity of your postings, such that
even a simpleton such as myself was able to engage in a discussion about them.
 
I agree that you need'nt "disprove" any of the MKF hypothesis (and surely
not any of my rantings.)  All I was doing was pointing out that since you
had advanced a (negative) hypothesis of your own, it was itself subject to
tests of the fidelity of the conclusions to the premises from which they were
drawn.
 
We are all aware of the difficulties of proving negatives, and of the infinite
number of alternative explanations that await anyone who launches on a career
of proving negatives.  It is this sheer impractibility that leads us to
demand that positive theorists prove their cases, rather than having their
theories stand until disproven.  MKF must still prove their case.
 
Again, I appreciate your excellent and thought provoking posts.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
Date: 4 Feb 93 15:58:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <8861FF29687FA252E7@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz
<ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
> >
>>"...your attempts at disassociation from the P&F work ... are to no avail;
>>your work, that of Fleischmann and Pons, the Russian fractofusion work and
>>even the recent (very dubious) work of Mills et al, are all irrevocably lumped
>>under "cold fusion", no matter what the origin or original meaning of the
>>term.  I understand your resentment, but it can't be helped. [D. Britz]
>
>>--- How discouraging.  Dieter really tries to keep me in bed with P&F despite
>>all my reasoning and efforts to the contrary.  However, the quote...  [Jones]
>
> I am sorry about that. When I say "irrevocably lumped", I mean in the eye of
> the beholder. And while you dissociate yourself from the electrolytic excess
> heat branch, that branch embraces yours. P&F variously say "aneutronic and
> atritonic" but, as you point out, they don't mind claiming the odd neutron
> or triton as evidence that they are on the right track, either.   [Britz]
 
"Strangles yours" would accurately replace "embraces yours", Dieter.
No, I won't give up on the effort to keep the issues straight -- I point to
my paper on "Current issues in cold fusion research:  heat, helium, tritium
and energetic particles"  (Surface and Coatings Tech. 51 (1992): 283-289)
in which I try again to show the distinctions.  BTW, the article appears in
that journal since it was part of a proceedings of a conference mostly on
surface research -- to which I was invited by my colleague Graham Hubler,
an expert in that field.  Graham has also done work on charged-particle
production in deuterided metals, and has published on his work:
 
"Thin titanium films have been bombarded with low energy (350-1000 eV)
deuterium ions at high current density (0.4 mA/cm2) in an effort to produce
fusion reactions at ambient temperatures.  A silicon particle dector was
used to observe possible reaction products.  Evidence for nuclear reactions
occurring at a rate of at least 10E-16 events/deuteron pair/s is presented."
 (AIP Proceedings # 228, p. 383-396, of Provo 1990 meeting on Anomalous
Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems.  -- A fine contribution, in my
opinion.  Is it included in your bibliography, Dieter?)
 
Dieter, would you really find it necessary to associate me with, e.g.,
a Jed Rothwell?  -- who says about my respected colleague Dr. Walter Polansky
of the U.S. Dept. of Energy:
"I am out for blood.  I intend to get him, along with Huizenga, Park, Parker,
Maddox, Piel, Taubes and many others.  I don't hide that fact, I advertise it,
in order to bait them into doing foolish things.  They have obliged me on
several occasions.  This is dead serious power politics, these people are
playing for keeps, and so am I.....
"As far as I am concerned, if you don't have heat at BYU, you have failed,
and I would not want to see any more government money going to failures..."
    --Jed Rothwell posting "Not a tea party", 2 Feb 1993.
 
No, NO -- I will not accept being classed with such persons, Dieter.  Mr.
Rothwell's statements are, to me, unethical, unscientific, and repugnant.
As were Dr. Pons' lawyer's efforts to induce my colleague Mike Saloman to
retract a scientific paper -- you know the story.  Include Mallove's public
vituperative attacks on Prof. Huizenga.   I simply will NOT allow
you to uncritically link me to such persons or behaviors.  If *you* say
"cold fusion"
is "irrevocably lumped...in the eye of the beholder" with such nonsense and
ungentlemanliness as we see coming from the xs-heat-is-nuclear camp, I will
nevertheless try to clarify the beholder's vision to see that our research is
distinct and originated completely independently from P&F's work.
>
 
> While I have your attention, Prof. Jones:
   *you've got it*
 
> what would you say, today, is the
> "Jones-level" fusion rate? After Kamioka, it must be less than the rate of
> about 1E-23 fusions/d-d-pair/s, not so? Is there a reference to the revised
> rate? I don't mind waiting until after next Thursday.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
As noted above, Hubler et al. find a rate of approx. 10E-16 fusions/d-d/s.
In my 1992 paper referenced above, I provide a table juxtaposing rates from
various experiments, both positive and negative.  There appears a band from
10E-3 n/s for the cement+D2O runs at Kamioka (neutron excess only during
cement curing; see Ishida's thesis ICRR-Report-277-92-15) up to the rate of
about 100 charged particles/sec seen by Hubler (Naval Res. Lab. Wash. D.C.)
and Ed Cecil (Colorado School of Mines).  Most of the "positive" neutron
measurements lie below the max. values for the charged-particles experiments; I
don't know why.  It is not because the charged-particle detectors are less
sensitive than the neutron detectors.
For instance, Kevin Wolf's neutron yields reported at the
Sante Fe meeting in 1989 and newer results in the Provo mtg. proceedings (AIP
#228) are close to the original BYU rates of 0.4 n/s (maximum; 0.06 n/s ave.
for all runs originally reported).
Note that I made no effort in the 1992 summary to normalize the rates to the
d-d pairs in the various materials (nor is this done for the Kamioka results).
Not only is such normalization difficult to do accurately due to uncertainties
in d-content in various solids, it is also hard to justify.  That is, we have
not yet discovered the conditions which "trigger" neutron/charged-particle
genesis,
hence we don't know what the proper quantity is for normalizing rates.  Is
the rate proportional to phase-change rates in the metal, to d/metal ratio or
change thereof, to current or current density? -- we don't know.  Indeed, until
a trigger mechanism is found, I myself continue to wonder if the low-level
nuclear effect we claim, is real and not just a rare artifact (that happens
to show up in different detectors).  It is the rarity of events that plagues
us, as I have said in previous postings (replies to D. Morrison, e.g.).
 
The reason we introduced the normalization to d-d pairs in our Nature paper
(April 27, 1989) was to facilitate comparisons with rates which would be
required in the earth to account for observed helium-3 emission rates,
following our natural geo-fusion hypothesis which we introduced in that paper.
The notion of "cold" fusion  (in the sense of theoretical
arguments recently posted here by me, not in the P&F sense) inside Jupiter
which was introduced  in the 1986 Van
Siclen/Jones paper on piezonuclear fusion (J. Physics G, March 1986)
was also pursued in the 1989 Nature paper.
 
Indeed, I would hope readers of this net would take the initiative to suggest
possible trigger mechanisms -- as Terry Bollinger has done with respect to
possible fusion during sonoluminescence in D2O, etc.
 
I have not given up yet on seeking a trigger mechanism, but the
effort is tiresome with few rewards.  In fact, our work is deprecated by
"cold fusion" advocates such as Rothwell
as well as by his many antipoles.  We get flak from both sides,
and there is an unfortunate polarization of views
that negatively impacts even our low-level work despite the lack of
any reasonable connection to the P&F-type claims/political methods.
 
 
Cement+D2O during curing looks promising, as I have before
posted.  We're looking for a response curve.  Lately we have returned to
a cell invented in 1989 by BYU grad. student Dave Buehler (the same who
challenged Notoya's xs-heat Ni/H2O cell in Nagoya).  In this cell, a wire
is coiled on an insulator, then placed in a stainless steel vessel which
can be evacuated or pressurized with H2 or D2 gas.  We measure the resistance
of the wire to evaluate approximately the d/metal loading.  We send a current
through the wire to heat it to drive hydrogen out.
To further provide off-equilibrium
conditions, we now pulse the current (following a suggestion by Tom Claytor).
Off-line analysis will help us decide whether apparent neutron counts are
reliable -- we use fast-transient digitizers to digitize all pulses from
our segmented detectors.  And we are looking at possible fusion associated with
sonoluminescence in D2O.
 
During all of this, a top priority for me is educating students.
I must return to this activity now.
 
Farewell,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / Phil Regier /  Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: peregier@sun6.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Phil Regier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 5 Feb 93 13:45:21 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

 
I can't WAIT to get these NEW energy SOURCES for my HOUSE.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenperegier cudfnPhil cudlnRegier cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.05 / Larry Wall /  Re: Path-of-logical science
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Path-of-logical science
Date: 5 Feb 93 17:58:16 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

Robert E. McElwaine writes (to nobody in particular):
:                                    Robert E. McElwaine
:                                    B.S., Physics, UW-EC
 
Then Dieter writes (to Jed):
: Sorry, let me rephrase it. There is the scientific, and the engineering
: approach. You are right, there are lots of engineers with scientific curiosity
: - and your physics degree says something too.
 
Hmm...  :-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.06 /  MRuskin /  `Images from the Edge' CD-ROM: State-of-the-Art SPM Images
     
Originally-From: ruskin@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca (MRuskin)
Newsgroups:
 sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physicsPhysical,sci.skeptic,sci.spac
 e,sci.space.shuttle,sci.systems
Subject: `Images from the Edge' CD-ROM: State-of-the-Art SPM Images
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 01:07:36 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

Marshall Ruskin, President of Specmark Information Engineering
Inc. invites all interested to download sample images and product
description for the `Images from the Edge' CD-ROM.  Briefly, the
CD-ROM is a collection of images of atomic landscapes, advanced
semiconductors, superconductors and experimental surface
chemistry among others.  The colored, rendered images are of
objects as small as a few atoms up to 170 microns.
 
There is a sample set of images available via anonymous ftp on
ic16.ee.umanitoba.ca, directory `specmark'. For additional
information via email, contact ruskin@ee.umanitoba.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenruskin cudlnMRuskin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 01:27:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Dieter Britz has argued that Steven Jones work should be
lumped in in a general way with Pons' and Fleischman's work
on Cold Nuclear Fusion. The logic appears to be that Jones
et.al. published their work in such close proximity to P&F
that Jones' work on muon catalyzed nuclear fusion is
inextricably identified with the sounds and fury
surrounding P&F's rather piculiar method of publishing
results.
 
Jones complains that his work is real science and that he
has published to the best of his ability (and none too
small an effort it is.) He, he says, is completing real
science while too much of the 'competition' appear to be
riding the wave of psuedo science either because they
aren't really competent enough to understand science enough
to work properly, or because they are attempting to get
'their share' of research funds and CNF is a hot field (pun
intended.)
 
I think that we can all agree that S. Jones and company are
doing REAL (tm) science and that the _vast_ majority of
papers on the subject are so open to criticism that it is
probably correct to quietly push them into the background
of other useless expenditures of time, money and effort.
 
And I think that we can all agree that there is enough
experiemental evidence to imply that there may be something
to CNF even if it doesn't contain the slightest trace of
nuclear fusion. Even if the whole thing turns out to be
some rather clever form of fuel cell in action there is
probably something to be learned by some minor pursuit of
the source of excess heat.
 
But it isn't plain that CNF as practiced by most of the
experimenters doesn't contain some functions from S. Jones
work. And it still isn't plain that S. Jones latest work
has really shone anything at all except that statistical
evidence could possibly be giving us the wrong impression
of the frequency and density of neutron bursts. Or that
there is possibly a problem with radon or uranium
contamination in the experiments.
 
While I'm inclined to take Jones' work at face value, we
must allow that others may be biased in the opposite
direction. After all, this is science and if all
scientists agreed with one another we would still be
thinking that the earth was the center of the universe.
 
Considering the above, I would think that I would be in
agreement with Britz that Jones' work is inextricably
linked with the rather less prosaic and less workmanlike
experiments of Pons and Fleischman in the public eye and
also in the general mind of most scientists.
 
This does _not_ mean that we cannot tell the difference
between their work! I don't think that Steven Jones need
fear that anyone knowledgable would connect his
evolutionary research physics with the radically
revolutionary electro-chemistry of Pons and Fleischman.
 
And as for connecting him in any way with Jed Rothwell!
HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. :-) That was a good one
Steve.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.07 / Jed Rothwell /  386 based supercomputers
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 386 based supercomputers
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 01:52:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jon Webb made a comment about supercomputers:
 
"Last I heard, a few years ago, the best such programs in this country were
using Kalman filters incorporating every traded stock, and running on the most
advanced supercomputers... a 386-based system?  Give me a break!"
 
I have not read anything about neural net software or hardware in Japan
lately, and I know nothing about stock trading software. The only neural net
software I ever saw was remarkable -- quite amazing -- but it was purely
experimental, terribly slow, and could not be used for any real world
application. It converted English words from standard spelling to phonetic
(diacritical) spelling, with amazing accuracy. I sense that it will someday
become useful in applications relating to linguistics and machine translation.
 
Anyway, regarding 386 processors, some of the fastest and best supercomputers
in the world are 386 based massively parallel machines. One is made by Intel
itself, which should scare the hell out of IBM, Hitachi and Fujitsu. K-Mart
corporation (and many other retailers) now use MPP machines to analyze their
daily sales figures, and plan their restocking and marketing activities. The
machines pay for themselves quickly, by increasing sales, reducing inventory,
and keeping customers from going elsewhere by reducing shortages.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Japanese TV Program
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Japanese TV Program
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 01:53:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

News From Japan.  In case you cannot tell, this is not an unbiased review.
 
My friend Tokio Ohska from KEK (the High Energy Physics Laboratory in Japan)
make a fast pass through yesterday.  He just happened to notice a "Cold
Fusion" program in the listings and set his recorder to tape it.  (Japanese
actually know how to use their tape recorders to do such things.)  In Tokio's
jet lagged state and my usual fog, neither of us could figure out just when
the program aired, but let's say Tuesday in Japan.  Tokio had also been able to
visit the Isagawa experiment at KEK and brought polaroid photographs of the
set up.
 
The program was about an hour long and Tokio sat next to me and translated
while we had a dinner party.  So I do not remember everything, and try as I
might backspacing the tape does not generate any information from those funny
sounds and funny characters.  Style of the program was Nova.  Coverage
included a wide variety of "Cold Fusion" happenings, including the Nagoya
meeting and an MITI meeting.  The main focus seemed to be the MITI meeting.
The program was fairly event handed, and included at least five "skeptical"
views, including Douglas Morrison, Steve Jones, and a mysterious "disguised
voice".
 
Early in the program there were pictures of the P&F boiling cells.  One of a
set of four is seen to boil away with a superimposed clock showing the time.
After one of these shots, an english speaking skeptic came on camera and
commented that a boiling cell is not science.  While the cell was boiling the
camera panned into an animation of blue blips migrating into the cathode,
whence the camera panned in further and we were treated to bouncing balls
colliding and producing flashes of light.  One of the bouncing balls contained
a red ball and a white ball, while the other had a red ball and two white
balls.  With the flash we were left with an object that was two red balls and
two white balls and a white ball went flying off!  Presented without comment!
 
There were many pictures of cells, including the Natoya setup at Nagoya.  Try
as I might I could not spot the skinny wire.   Every time a cell was shown,
(including P&F setups) I studied as well as I could the lead arrangement.  No
conclusions, I just can't tell if the arrangements were reasonable.  It is
clear that the P&F cells are quite simple.  They have opted for many simple
cells, with very little instrumentation.  Try as I might, I could not see how
the gas was removed from the P&F cells, though one of the other lab shots
clearly showed bubblers.
 
The tail end of Morrison's talk at Nagoya was shown, with Ikegami grabbing the
microphone and hustling Morrison away.  The famous apology speech was aired.
Unfortunately I did not get from Tokio the tone that the program was taking,
but I would judge that it was at least fair, as Douglas got several rebuttals
on camera.
 
In documentary style, they explained the mysterious disappearance of Pons from
the University of Utah for the famous project review meeting.  It seems the
Japanese had him.  Too bad Tokio is not still here as I would like to go over
this section of the tape and figure out just what they were trying to tell us.
The impression I get is that it was a Japanese "cloak and dagger" triumph of
capturing the key player while the US languished!
 
The program spent considerable time with the head of MITI and Ikegami talking
about "Cold Fusion".  The scene started with a shot of the ivy in front of the
MITI offices.  I could tell Japanese TV anywhere just from the flower shots.
The head of MITI announced that they would spend 24 million dollars over the
FY 1993-1996.  Industry would contribute 10 Million dollars over the same
period.  That is dollars, the numbers were also given in yen.  There was
considerable footage of the MITI meeting.  During part of it there was a
mysterious voice playing in the background.  Tokio explained that one of the
industry participants was complaining that they would be required to
participate.  It seems that when MITI decides to do something they call in
industry and announce that they want industry "volunteers" to work with them
(and to spend their own money).  The mysterious voice was complaining that
such participation was not really voluntary, since if you did not "volunteer"
for every crack pot MITI scheme you did not get asked to participate on the
good ones.  Obviously this particular company did not like to have to spend
money on "cold fusion".   The amazing Japanese.  In the US such an objection
would be a written statement that might or might not be actually read in the
meeting.  In Japan they go for a "high tech" voice modifier.  But this clearly
shows the "dark side" of government co-operation with business.
 
I think the MITI funding is separate from the Technova funding of P&F.
Whatever P&F have been doing, they seem to have convinced the Japanese.  There
was a shot of Pons near the end of the program where he was saying that he did
not want to hold a grudge against the US for his treatment, but that he just
wanted to work to prepare the world for the 21st century.
 
The MITI head made a comment something like that the US was quick to attempt
new things but they did not have tenacity.  The Japanese were slower to jump
on the bandwagon, but once they did that they were willing to apply the time
and the resources to get the job done.  All in all it seemed to be quite
racist to me, and I felt that Tokio was somewhat embarrassed to make the
translation.  It was clear to me, and in fact I believe that the purpose of
the whole piece was to show that the Japanese had now decided to make a
national effort on "Cold Fusion".
 
After an aerial view zooming into the new "art decco" style building, we were
treated to the ribbon cutting ceremony at the new French P&F laboratory.  I
estimate it at 24,000 square feet.  It sticks out of the hillside, with sort
of a ship's prow balcony as was popular in the 30's.  In the US, the most
important dignitary or an actress or some other one person cuts the ribbon.
But for this ceremony Pons, and Fleischmann, and about 5 Japanese all had
scissors.  There was a coordinator who signaled with a slashing motion that
they were all to cut at the same time.  Take notes everybody, either we get
our act together, or group think is coming!  They did not cover smashing the
saki barrel, but I bet it was done!  Inside there was lots of new shiny
equipment.  Blue seems to be the favorite color.  I did see glove boxes.
 
We were treated to tours through several newly minted laboratories.  I think
about three different locations were shown in Japan.  All new and shiny
equipment, no mess anywhere.  Looked like a US lab while the Tigers were on
site.  I would say two of the labs were about 10,000 square feet.  The third
site was an immense empty building.  Apparently an industrial site.
 
None of the new facilities shown would fit my idea of a productive laboratory.
They were all too clean.  For good lab, look at photos of the Edison lab at
Menlo Park, or any of the lab scenes from "Buckeroo Bonsai" - especially the
Princeton lab scene.  But I think that the only problem was that they were
just brand new.
 
We were shown Palladium being cast into a piece about 1" square by 1' long.
Possibly the source of the Tanaka Metals pieces.  If they are slicing up this
bar to make the Takahashi type pieces, then this will have a different crystal
structure than rolled pieces.  But we were also shown such bars being rolled.
One shot showed a huge pile of Palladium pieces of all different sizes and
shapes.  Plates, balls, etc.  Some of the balls looked to be 2" or so in
diameter.  One slug which was about 1" in diameter by 2" long looked distorted
and cracked as if it had been run.
 
A number of tours were shown through various name experimenters.  Including
Takahashi, and the NTT lab.  If you get that whole set up $560,000 is cheap.
These did look like working laboratories, and there was the expected "stuff"
everywhere.  Ditto for the photos that Tokio brought me of the Isagawa set up.
 
The program ended with Steve Jones trudging up through the snow to his tunnel
in Utah.  He was carrying an empty electronics rack piece and several other
things.  We were then treated to an interview where Steve said that we did not
have the answer now but that he would go back to work and would have the
answer "in a year".  The camera then followed Steve down the tunnel until he
was a speck in the distance.  Honest, folks, there was a light at the end of
the tunnel!  The show then ended with a picture of a sunrise!  They don't make
em like that in the good ol' USA.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 01:53:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes: "Tom Droege has evaluated the Storms work and was not
impressed.  I put much more faith in that than in Jed's assessment.  Amoung
the D+Pd experiments, that leaves Pons & Fleischmann."
 
I don't think you are trying to count, Dick.  In ACCF1 we have P&F, McKubre,
Appleby, Huggins, Bockris, Scott, Droege, and Miles; all with fairly well
described "anomalous heat" results.  I don't know that any of these has
retracted, but some have quit work to keep their jobs.  I do not retract, but
stick with the statement liked so much by Huizinga - that while it looks like
there is something there, it could just be noise.
 
ICCF2 brings us Bertalot, Gozzi, Liaw, Oyama, Kunimatsu, Bockris, P&F, Miles,
Will, and McKubre.  ICCF3 brings Storms, McKubre, P&F, and a bunch of other
new results.  I do not yet have the proceedings to study.
 
What has always been interesting to me is the long time to heat for these
experiments.  The table in Bertalot from ICCF@ lists 12 experiments with a
minimum running time of 16 days, a maximum of 82, and a mean run time of
54 days.  That is 1296 hours.  My current run is at about 1050 and it seems
to me that it has been running forever!
 
P&F said from the start that it would take very long running times to see
their results.  They were not quite consistent in their statements, but their
published documents (the patent application) clearly show very long times to
first observation of heat.  It takes a long time to learn how to do experiments
that last 80 days.  A few mistakes and three years have gone by.
 
So I did not mean to be too harsh on Ed Storms.  This is tough work, and Storms
had what appeard to him to be a real heat release.  I did not mean that there
was anything wrong with his experimental proceedure, just that I would have
liked to see him have more than one event for publication.
 
By the way, Dick, thank you for reminding me about what they have done to epoxy
fiberglass.  One of these days I will see heat, then it will be time for a gas
proportional chamber filled with Xenon? to look for x-rays.  I would not want
to fail because FR - xx gave out nast gas!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: 6 Feb 93 05:23:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <29JAN199316120852@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) queries:
 
>Paul Koloc, how's the Plasmak work going?  My feeble recollection says that
>the January/February timeframe was/is the next query time.
 
 
Although the details are confidential, here is a thumbnail of the status.
Our work is restricted by available funds and progress is only 2/3 of our
intended goals.  This does not include diversion of resources into
responding to unexpectedly early Government interest.  All of this is
continuing, albeit at a grindingly slow pace.  The latter aspects will
expand greatly as the original milestones are met in the quite near
future.  I would expect that the funding situation would be turning
sharply around within a year since we are greatly increasing our financial
and marketing capabilities and efforts.
 
>Mike Jamison
>
>"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
>thinking what no one else has thought"
>                                               -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Japanese TV Program
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Japanese TV Program
Date: 7 Feb 93 18:21:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov () says:
 
>The MITI head made a comment something like that the US was quick to attempt
>new things but they did not have tenacity.  The Japanese were slower to jump
>on the bandwagon, but once they did that they were willing to apply the time
>and the resources to get the job done.  All in all it seemed to be quite
>racist to me...
 
Technically I think it'd have to be considered "culturalist" rather than
racist, since the US is not mono-racial.  In any event, I'm sure there is
plenty of it in Japan.
 
But racism against Japan is a national pastime here in the US.  Hardly a day
goes by without some media or politico blast against Japan's "buying up" of
America -- yet there is never a mention that such whitebread nationalities as
the British or the Dutch own far more "American" holdings than the Japanese.
 
The US government itself "calculates" production prices based upon the overhead
costs of average US operations.  If the Japanese can produce something more
efficiently, it is an ipso facto case of "dumping."  The trade laws are thus
used primarily as an international form of Jim Crow laws.
 
The saddest thing of all is that it is considered politically correct to be
anti-Japanese.  The reason is that Japan has had some success with capitalism,
reason enough for the PC crowd to hate and revile them.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.06 /  jej007@vax1.ma /  Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 6 Feb 93 20:45:41 -0600
Organization: Mankato State University

  Forgive my ignorance and the possibility that I'm dredging up an old issue,
but could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
fusion than they put in)?  I thought I saw it on the news (sometime last year),
but I was a little preoccupied at the time and didn't get many details.  I
don't remember seeing it in any of my magazines either.  I was just wondering
if someone out there could enlighted me.
 
  Please forgive another stupid (set of) question(s), but could someone also
inform me a bit more on 'cold fusion'?  Did they get more energy out than they
put in?  Were they certain it wasn't a chemical reaction?  Was it practical
(would it be able to produce useable amounts of energy)?  How did they do it?
What is their theory of how it occurs? etc.
 
  Thanks in advance for the replies, comments, and suggestions. -Jon Jeckell
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjej007 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 /  eerbl@cc.newca /  Muon catalysed (warm) fusion?
     
Originally-From: eerbl@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon catalysed (warm) fusion?
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 08:04:52 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA

 
Can anyone enlighten me on the state of the art in muon catalysed
fusion?
 
- Russel
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneerbl cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.07 / Mark Andrews /  FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: mark.andrews@nitelog.com (Mark Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 7 Feb 93 09:07:00 GMT
Organization: Nitelog BBS - Monterey, CA - 408-655-1096

If this stuff works why isn't in use everywhere?  There is an better
explanation than conspiracy theories to answer this question:  it does
not work.  The hallmark of the scientific method is "repeatability."
Everyone follows the same rules, nothing held back.  You give me the
recipe you used, I should be able to get the same results.  Doesn't
happen w/Free Energy Technology.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenandrews cudfnMark cudlnAndrews cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Japanese TV Program
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Japanese TV Program
Date: 8 Feb 93 14:03:03 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1l3jugINNgoh@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Ed
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>The US government itself "calculates" production prices based upon the overhead
>costs of average US operations.  If the Japanese can produce something more
>efficiently, it is an ipso facto case of "dumping."  The trade laws are thus
>used primarily as an international form of Jim Crow laws.
 
This may be true in some cases, but a japanese post-doc of my acquaintance
could not believe how cheap some goods were in this country compared to
their price back where they were manufactured if converted at the current
exchange rate.  He said that he would pay twice as much at home.  The
people in one market are subsidizing the penetration of another market.
It is hardly unfair to extend laws directed at the predatory practices
of the robber barons of a previous century to the present international
market.  Now back to cold fusion.
 
Is anyone else going to calculate the expected fusion rate at 1800 C?
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / Harvey Rutt /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: hnr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Harvey Rutt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.optics
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: 8 Feb 93 12:46:43 GMT

I am not quite sure why this is entitled "size" of an electron...
 
Regarding the neural net prediction of laser cutting speeds, is it
*genuinely* so impressive?
 
Sur to do the whole thing from scratch would be a 3D nightmare & tie
up a Cray for years. But so would many (most?) multi phase heat
transfer problems. A 'correlation' is developed by fitting to the
available data based on the appropriate parameters, & I suspect you
could fit some rough functions for thermal conductivity etc etc as a
function of composion. An awful lot of huge idustrial plant is
designed from such correlations; no physics in sight!
 
The data they are fitting is unlikely to be all that accurate; work in
this field is bedevilled by people using lasers with poor, often
ireproducible mode structure, polarization effects, gas jet/shock wave
problems, etc  etc. The few who bother to check the mode **very
rarely** check it on line where mode & polarization get altered by
feedback from the workpiece.
 
Overall I'm not convinced a few fitting functions based on a bit of
insight wouldn't do just as well on such data. Am I being too
suspicious?
 
Neural ntes are developing something of a credibility problem; they
are always just about to do something magic you really couldn't do any
other way, but it never quite seems to happen! (Bit like optical
computing......!)
 
(Incidentally, I have measured cutting speeds, mode feedback effects
etc etc, so you touched a nerve!)
 
Harvey Rutt
Southampton UK
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhnr cudfnHarvey cudlnRutt cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / nod sivad /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 14:44:33 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>  Please forgive another stupid (set of) question(s), but could someone also
>inform me a bit more on 'cold fusion'?  Did they get more energy out than they
>put in?  Were they certain it wasn't a chemical reaction?
 
You've come to the right group.  We've determined without a shred of doubt
that there are two kinds of people in the world: slope skulled fumble
fingered "scientists" using toy chemistry sets to "prove" the existence of
cold fusion and the close minded establishment nazis who are
attempting to quash them.  There is no middle ground.  Please inform me
which group you are a member of so I can add you to the appropriate hate mail.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / Lawrence Curcio /  Re: Japanese TV Program
     
Originally-From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Japanese TV Program
Date: Mon,  8 Feb 1993 11:00:25 -0500
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

It may well be that the US lacks the tenacity to pursue projects like
CNF, which have small likelihoods of very great return. We should try to
learn from the remarks of our competitors, instead of being insulted or
amused by them. Also, instead of marvelling at their gullibility, we
should marvel at the low cost of capital in Japan - that is the essence
of their tenacity, and the reason that they can afford to back long
shots. Much of the absurdity, from our perspective, in their doing so
comes from the high cost of capital here, and the demand for immediate
return on investment. (Some of it may also come from the people with
whom they are dealing, I grant you.)
 
-Larry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnLawrence cudlnCurcio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / Ad aspera /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 8 Feb 93 18:34:48 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

> could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
> finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
> fusion than they put in)?
 
In a word, no.  The experiment at the Joint European Torus (JET)
was newsworthy as the first deuterium-tritium "shot" in a major
tokamak.  (Previous results were usually, if not universally, D-T
extrapolations from D-D experiments.)  As I recall, it was in
October 1991.  The longest and hottest shots remain well below breakeven.
 
Think of it as a "sneak preview" of future results.  (Some cattily
called it, sotto voce, a "stunt" to steal Princeton's thunder and to
give a rousing sendoff to J. Rebut, the JET director who was moving
on to bigger and better things.)  More substantial D-T research
programs might be conducted at JET and/or Princeton in the 1993
time frame.
 
For good survey articles on the status of this and that, see Conn
et al, Scientific American, April 1992; Furth, Science, 28 September
1990; and various authors, Physics Today, September 1992.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 19:34:06 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>> could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
>> finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
>> fusion than they put in)?
>
>In a word, no.  The experiment at the Joint European Torus (JET)
>was newsworthy as the first deuterium-tritium "shot" in a major
>tokamak.  (Previous results were usually, if not universally, D-T
>extrapolations from D-D experiments.)  As I recall, it was in
 
   Was this not also the shot that so contaminated the whole apparatus
(with radioactivity?) that it became unusable for further research,
and in fact the experiment was performed only because the system was
about to be dismantled for reworking anyway?  Or am I confusing this
with some other recent UK experiment?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.08 / Ad aspera /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 8 Feb 1993 20:00:49 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

>    Was this not also the shot that so contaminated the whole apparatus
> (with radioactivity?) that it became unusable for further research,
> and in fact the experiment was performed only because the system was
> about to be dismantled for reworking anyway?
 
You should read about this in the magazines rather than relying on
my faulty memory, but as I recall, you're partly right.  Activation
occurred, but was not tremendous -- they were doing some kind of
work on the innards several days later.  A lengthy D-T program, like
the one they are planning to conduct after rework, would cause more
activation.
 
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Japanese TV Program
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Japanese TV Program
Date: 9 Feb 1993 07:16:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) says:
 
>The people in one market are subsidizing the penetration of another market.
>It is hardly unfair to extend laws directed at the predatory practices
>of the robber barons of a previous century to the present international
>market.
 
It's more than unfair.  It's immoral.  It is simply a case of using the
coercive force of government to protect connected producers from the choices
of consumers.
 
"Predatory pricing" is a non-falsifiable concept, and cannot therefore be the
moral justification for the use of state power.  Consider that "predatory
pricing" has been charged in the following three general cases:
 
1.) If the price is higher than average, it is called "predatory gouging."
2.) If the price is lower than average, it is called "predatory undercutting."
3.) If the price is the same as average, it is called "predatory collusion."
 
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that arguments for any one of the
above must necessarily contradict the other two.  And yet it is exactly such
mendacity that forms the basis for most of the US's domestic and foreign
trade law -- despite the protest of most mainstream economists (any of the
Nobel Prize winners in economics in the last 20 years, for instance) and
a huge body of empirical evidence that lays bare the canard for anyone who
cares to examine it.
 
The case for free trade made 200 years ago by Adam Smith and put on scientific
footing 150 years ago by David Ricardo has never been successfully
intellectually or morally challenged.  Anti-free trade is US policy not because
it is good for the public weal, but because it is good for the squeaky wheel.
 
As for the "robber barons", D.T. Armentano shows in his classic study
(Antitrust and Monopoly) of every major anti-trust case, that everything you've
heard about the "robber barons" is wrong -- because everything is based
upon non-falsifiable concepts and is therefore not supportable by rational
analysis.  (i.e. in no major anti-trust case is there any evidence of price
increases above the average, nor in long term trends.  Just the opposite,
in fact.  In all major cases, anti-trust action was brought against those who
were, in fact, the most efficient producers, for the purpose of protecting
those who were less efficient but who had connections in the government.)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 / Harvey Rutt /  Re: Neural net nattering
     
Originally-From: hnr@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Harvey Rutt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.optics
Subject: Re: Neural net nattering
Date: 9 Feb 93 08:48:52 GMT

 
 am not quite sure why this was entitled "size" of an electron...
so have reposted it under the more appropriate new title thread.
 
My feelings seem rather similar to those of Les Earnest!
 
Regarding the neural net prediction of laser cutting speeds, is it
*genuinely* so impressive?
 
Sur to do the whole thing from scratch would be a 3D nightmare & tie
up a Cray for years. But so would many (most?) multi phase heat
transfer problems. A 'correlation' is developed by fitting to the
available data based on the appropriate parameters, & I suspect you
could fit some rough functions for thermal conductivity etc etc as a
function of composion. An awful lot of huge idustrial plant is
designed from such correlations; no physics in sight!
 
The data they are fitting is unlikely to be all that accurate; work in
this field is bedevilled by people using lasers with poor, often
ireproducible mode structure, polarization effects, gas jet/shock wave
problems, etc  etc. The few who bother to check the mode **very
rarely** check it on line where mode & polarization get altered by
feedback from the workpiece.
 
Overall I'm not convinced a few fitting functions based on a bit of
insight wouldn't do just as well on such data. Am I being too
suspicious?
 
Neural ntes are developing something of a credibility problem; they
are always just about to do something magic you really couldn't do any
other way, but it never quite seems to happen! (Bit like optical
computing......!)
 
(Incidentally, I have measured cutting speeds, mode feedback effects
etc etc, so you touched a nerve!)
 
Harvey Rutt
Southampton UK
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhnr cudfnHarvey cudlnRutt cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 /  Bo /  cmsg cancel <1993Feb9.062822.29719@irfu.se>
     
Originally-From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Feb9.062822.29719@irfu.se>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 06:44:02 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

<1993Feb9.062822.29719@irfu.se> was cancelled from within rn.
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbt cudlnBo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 /  Bo /  Space Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Space Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 06:45:07 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

 
 
                              Second announcement
 
              International Summer School on Space Plasma Physics
 
                                  Organised by
       Radiophysical Research Institute, NIRFI, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia
                                      and
           Swedish Institute of Space Physics, IRFU, Uppsala, Sweden
                                   to be held
 
           Onboard a Cruise Ship on the Volga River, 1-10 June, 1993
 
The purpose of the school is to give an introduction to the problems
of linear and non-linear space plasma physics, ionospheric modification,
the use of the ionosphere as a space plasma laboratory, as well as to
discuss current topics in astrophysics and ionospheric, solar, and
stellar plasma physics.
 
                         List of lecturers and lectures
 
o Prof C E Alissandrakis, Greece, Emissions From Solar Flares.
 
o Prof T Chang , USA, Electromagnetic Tornadoes in Space---Ion Cyclotron
  Resonance Heating of Ionospheric Ions; Lower hybrid collapse, caviton
  turbulence, and charged particle energization.
 
o Dr F C Drago, Italy, Radio Emission of Active Regions of the Sun and
  Stars.
 
o Prof G Dulk, USA, Radio Methods For Investigating the
  Solar Wind Between Sun and Earth.
 
o Prof Lev Erukhimov, Russia, Space Plasma Laboratories.
 
o Dr J Foster, USA, Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
o Dr C Hanuise, France, Coherent Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
o Prof M Hayakawa, Japan, Terrestrial Electromagnetic Noise Environment.
 
o Prof A Hewish, UK, Mapping Interplanetary Weather Patterns.
 
o Prof R Hunsucker, USA, Radio Techniques for Probing the Terrestrial
  Ionosphere.
 
o Prof Yu Kravtsov, Russia, Polarisation and Wave Propagation Effects in
  Inhomogeneous Plasma.
 
o Prof J Kuijpers, Holland, Magnetic Flares In Accretion Disks.
 
o Prof M Nambu, Japan, Plasma Maser Effects.
 
o Prof V Petviashvili, Russia, Vortexes in Space.
 
o Prof V Radhakrishnan, India, Pulsars--The Strangest Radiators in the
  Sky.
 
o Prof H O Rucker, Austria, Planetary Radio Emissions.
 
o Dr R Schlickeiser, Germany, The Theory of Cosmic Ray Transport and
  Acceleration and Astrophysical Applications.
 
o Dr K Stasiewicz, Sweden, Auroral Kilometric Radiation.
 
o Dr B Thide, Sweden, Controlled Generation of Radio Emission in the
  Near-Earth Plasma by Wave Injection from the Ground.
 
o Prof V Trakhtengertz, Russia, Alfven Masers.
 
o Dr V Zaytsev, Russia, Solar plasma.
 
o Prof V V Zheleznyakov, Russia, Cyclotron Resonance in Astrophysics.
 
General and topical lectures will be mixed with seminars and poster
sessions.  The lecture notes and reports of new results will be
published in "Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics".
 
Applications for attendance must be submitted before 15 March, 1993 to
 
Bo Thide
Swedish Institute of Space Physics
Uppsala Division
S-75591 Uppsala, Sweden
Fax: [+46] 18-403100
E-mail: bt@irfu.se
 
There will be an excursion to Vasil'sursk where the NIRFI radio
observatory ``Sura'' is located.  The cultural program of the school
includes sightseeing in interesting old Russian towns on the upper
Volga, art exhibitions, and other activities.
 
The total cost for full board an lodging on the ship for the school is
estimated at between US$300 and US$500, depending on type of cabin (first
class single, first class double, second class singel, second class
double).
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbt cudlnBo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 /  Bo /  cmsg cancel <1993Feb9.062822.29719@irfu.se>
     
Originally-From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Feb9.062822.29719@irfu.se>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 06:45:33 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

<1993Feb9.062822.29719@irfu.se> was cancelled from within rn.
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbt cudlnBo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 / Jed Rothwell /  NHK Documentary
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NHK Documentary
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 15:32:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege uploaded a marvelous description of the NHK documentary on the
Nagoya Conference. I have not seen it yet! All of my usual Japanese contacts
were either out of the country, or they could not figure out how to use the
VCRs right, or they don't have a second VCR to dub the film. I am hoping to
get a copy from the producer but he is out of the country right now. Anyway,
as you saw from Tom's description, it was pretty interesting.
 
The only part of Tom's description which sounds out of kilter is this
statement, about participation in the NHEP:
 
"The mysterious voice was complaining that such participation was not really
voluntary, since if you did not 'volunteer' for every crack pot MITI scheme
you did not get asked to participate on the good ones.  Obviously this
particular company did not like to have to spend money on 'cold fusion'..."
 
I don't know which of the companies this refers to, but I talked to all of
the industry people at the meeting, and nobody complained about their share
of the minimum contribution ($266,000). It does not seem like much to me. I
am sure they are spending more than that in their individual labs. They
complained about a variety of things, but I did not hear any mention of being
forced to participate. (The NHK camera crew wasn't allowed into the informal
discussion, so I don't know when or where they got that voiceover.)
Furthermore, the NHEP started with 10 members, in 1991, and it now contains
15 members. The Japanese newspapers (Nikkei, Asahi, and Yomiuri) reported
that in 1992, 5 additional companies asked to be added to the Panel, so MITI
invited them in. They do not seem to want any more members at the moment.
This seems wise to me, because it is hard enough to reach consensus with 15
members. So, my impression is that it is a low-key, voluntary R&D consortium.
The scale of it is microscopic compared to your average MITI venture.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 / Jed Rothwell /  If Steve apologizes first...
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If Steve apologizes first...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 15:32:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones thinks I am "unethical, unscientific, and repugnant" for attacking
the following people:
 
     Huizenga, Park, Parker, Maddox, Piel, Taubes...
 
Okay Steve, let's you and me apologize. You go first. You apologize for those
nasty, uncalled-for, repugnant comments you made about Taubes, and I will
apologize to the rest of these clowns.
 
Ha, ha, ha! Just kidding. Let us not forget who started this war. Let us not
forget what your "respected colleague" Dr. Polansky and his friends are doing
over that the DoE. If you want to associate yourself with people like that,
fine, but I think it is better to be on the side of sanity and academic
freedom. You and I don't owe Taubes or Park an apology, we will owe them only
forgiveness, after I win and boot them out. Also, for those who think *I* am
nasty, let us not forget who started this shouting match, who continues it a
much higher decibel level, and who gets published in the Washington Post and
elsewhere. I have never accused any of these people of anything worse than
stupidity and hubris (except Parker and the others at MIT, who published
fraudulent data, admitted in public it was garbage, but never formally
retracted). What have they accused Jones of? What have they attacked P&F,
Bockris, and everyone else of? Here, read what Robert Park said in The
Washington Post (1991):
 
     "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."
 
Frank Close's hysterical, last ditch Banzai attack in American Scientist (Jan.
1993) is almost as bad.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 15:33:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Fusion Digest 748, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>"Thin titanium films have been bombarded with low energy (350-1000 eV)
>deuterium ions at high current density (0.4 mA/cm2) in an effort to produce
>fusion reactions at ambient temperatures.  A silicon particle dector was
>used to observe possible reaction products.  Evidence for nuclear reactions
>occurring at a rate of at least 10E-16 events/deuteron pair/s is presented."
> (AIP Proceedings # 228, p. 383-396, of Provo 1990 meeting on Anomalous
>Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems.  -- A fine contribution, in my
>opinion.  Is it included in your bibliography, Dieter?)
 
No, it is not. For one thing, it seems to be a conference proceedings item,
and for another, it looks like self targeting work, not cold fusion. Am I
wrong? In what way is this anomalous? A lot of the Russian work - including
that which has people stirred up right now - is in this category, but they
don't seem to know about self targeting, all the rage in the 1950's. I include
such papers, if they (albeit mistakenly) think they are doing cold fusion.
 
>Dieter, would you really find it necessary to associate me with, e.g.,
>a Jed Rothwell?  -- who says about my respected colleague Dr. Walter Polansky
>of the U.S. Dept. of Energy:
>"I am out for blood.  I intend to get him, along with Huizenga, Park, Parker,
>Maddox, Piel, Taubes and many others.  I don't hide that fact, I advertise it,
>..
>No, NO -- I will not accept being classed with such persons, Dieter.  Mr.
 
It's OK, Steven, calm down. No, I don't find that necessary. Jed Rothwell is
pretty prominent on this list, just by word count, but he is not a cold fusion
researcher. I have never seen his name on a research paper. This is not to
denigrate him, he does different work. But yes, I do associate you with cold
fusion researchers like F&P, Bockris, Menlove, etc. You go to all the right
conferences, and you have your name in all the papers. In fact, I always
feel that someone is being deliberately pointed, if your Nature paper is not
one of the first references in a cold fusion paper, alongside the FPH one.
Let's face it, you are not working in a different area, you just have a solid
disagreement with the excess heat people, within the area. As I have
mentioned, you at one time were willing to collaborate with them. At that
time, both your low-level neutron camp, and the excess heat camp, thought and
said that d-d fusion was happening. Later, doubts crept in, and everybody now
has retreated to an unspecified exotic reaction, still called cold fusion for
want of a better name. Unfortunate maybe, since that name was already taken,
both by muon-catalysed fusion, and even by heavy ion fusion, to make
superheavy elements - a long way from what we regard as cold.
 
>Note that I made no effort in the 1992 summary to normalize the rates to the
>d-d pairs in the various materials (nor is this done for the Kamioka results).
 
I take your point. Nonspecialists like to have things served up simply; it
would be nice to be able to say that the Jones fusion rate is 1E-24 f/dd/s,
but as always, it's not as simple as that. But may I ask, what led to your
working with cement? Is this synthetic geology, or fracto-inspired?
 
>I have not given up yet on seeking a trigger mechanism, but the
>effort is tiresome with few rewards.  In fact, our work is deprecated by
>"cold fusion" advocates such as Rothwell
 
Forget Rothwell. Worry only about fellow scientists, if at all.
 
>During all of this, a top priority for me is educating students.
>I must return to this activity now.
 
Same here.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Counting CF positives
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Counting CF positives
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 15:33:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Perhaps I should explain myself better for Tom Droege's benefit.  I have
argued for some time on Compuserve with Jed Rothwell and I may have
gotten confused as to which line of discussion occurred where.  My contention
has been that to further their cause cold fusion advocates should draw up
a list of the best results and stop trying to defend everything that ever
gave a positive result.  I think such a filter is needed to get the signal
to noise ratio on this subject under control.  In any case, as per my
suggestion, Jed Rothwell gave a list of D + Pd experiments consisting
of McKubre, Storms, and Pons and Fleischmann.  My counting thus started
with three which I reduced to one because Pons and Fleischmann haven't
released any data and because the Storms experiment wasn't very convincing.
I have since received another very negative evaluation of the Storms
work so it doesn't all hang on your judgement.  Of course there is no
magic in starting with Jed Rothwell's list.  If you really think there
are some other solid results based on calorimetry that isn't subject
to the kinds of errors you have described here, give us your list.
I just don't see that the case for cold fusion can be based on a large
collection of weak evidence.  There have to be some "good" experiments
that show the effect clearly.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Corrections and Comments
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrections and Comments
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 01:16:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Another viewing of the Japan tape reavealed several corrections.  First, the
new P&F building is not the art deco one, that is the Hokaido research
building.  Next, there were only three Japanese besides P&F cutting the
ribbon.  But there was a cheer leader directing the cut.  The P&F building
style is more 1960's Pei.  I again tried to estimate the size, and stick to
my 24,000 sq ft esitmate.
 
I almost rolled off my chair laughing at nod sivad's classification system.
Which classification am I in nod?
 
Anyone who watches public TV can tell that the crowd that controls it is trying
to propagandize us in preparation for some high level Japan bashing.  I can
assure you that it is not the Milton Friedman crowd that controls public TV.
I note that the program "Japan" has been running stuff on the Japanese invasion
of Manchuria.  This is a switch from their usual attempt to make us feel guilty
by running stuff on Viet Nam.
 
One reason the Tokio Ohska came by (and brought me the tape) was that I had
bought an Apple DUO-210.  At $2200 here it was about $1000 cheaper than he
could purchase it in Japan.  The same ratio would have been true if I had
bought him a Sony TV instead of the Apple computer.  It is the Japanese
distribution system that runs up the price.  Just watch that Tuna being sold
a dozen times or so on the program "Japan" to understand how complex the
Japanese system is.  No Wall-Mart or Sears mass purchasing in Japan.  Part
of the problem is that the railroads own the baseball teams and the department
stores.
 
If any of you ever go to Japan I recommend attending a Japanese baseball game.
Af first it looks like american baseball.  But after a while you realize how
different our cultures are.  Not that I just say "different".  I do not say
either is better.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cultural Superiority
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 01:16:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Tom Droege's statement has drawn a lot of attention:
 
"The MITI head made a comment something like that the US was quick to
attempt new things but they did not have tenacity. The Japanese were slower
to jump on the bandwagon, but once they did that they were willing to apply
the time and the resources to get the job done. All in all it seemed to be
quite racist to me..."
 
Let me put in my two cents, as an anthropologist and Asian scholar. I agree
with MITI head, and I do not regard his statement as racist. I think it is a
fact: during the last three decades of the 20th century, Japanese society as
a whole is more successful at developing and applying technology than U.S.
society. Looking back at history, you will find that in various fields of
science, technology, and the arts, sometimes they were ahead of us, and
sometimes we were ahead of them. Usually, we have been about equal (as we
are now), but sometimes there have been dramatic differences between our
societies. This is even more true of China. While we English speaking people
were still primitive savages who lived in the woods and painted ourselves
blue, they were living in an advanced urban civilization with enormous
libraries, literature and fine arts unsurpassed, the rule of law, hygienics,
medicine, banking, taxes, high living standards, and military technology
that we did not come close to for another 2500 years. This has nothing to do
with race, it is a fact of history.
 
Civilizations and cultures ebb and flow in mysterious ways. At this
nanosecond of history, relative to the Japanese we are in decline. Earlier
this century we surged ahead of them, and perhaps within our lifetimes, we
will do so again. But, I doubt this will happen, because I think the
strength and security of any civilization, eastern or western, lies in only
one thing: children. Resources, population density, current accounts,
military ascendancy and all other factors have only a short-term role (10 or
20 years). If material resources mattered, then Japan would the poorest
nation on earth; instead, it is the richest nation per capita by a wide
margin. They have invested in education, and their primary education
encourages creativity, responsibility, and independent thinking far more
than typical U.S. education does. While they lavish attention, money, and
love on their children, we abandon scores of ours to the streets and to
drugs. It has reached the point in some U.S. neighborhoods where half of our
young men end up in jail. This is an unprecedented catastrophe on the same
historic scale as the Fall of Rome.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 / Topher Cooper /  The Journal of Scientific Exploration
     
Originally-From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,rec.arts.sf.sc
ence,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.research,sci.misc,alt.divination,a
t.consciousness,misc.health.alternative
Subject: The Journal of Scientific Exploration
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 18:03:42 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA

 
 
    The JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION publishes peer-reviewed research
    articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the
    matrix of present-day science.  Now in it's 6th year of publication,
    this quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the
    presentation, scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the
    established scientific disciplines.  JSE publishes articles both "pro"
    and "con", the only criteria being quality and scholarship.  It is the
    official publication of the international Society for Scientific
    Exploration (founded in 1982).  For information contact:
 
                             JSE Editorial Office
                             ERL 306
                             Stanford University
                             Stanford, CA 94305
                             FAX: 415-725-2333
                             sims@flare.stanford.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencooper cudfnTopher cudlnCooper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.09 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  LARSONIAN Physics
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LARSONIAN Physics
Date: 9 Feb 93 16:44:47 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
                          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 other 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:
cuddy9 cudenmcelwre cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Too much politics?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Too much politics?
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 17:23:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
One of my Gentle Readers sent me a very polite note asking me to stop posting
political messages, arguing about the actions and statements of Close, Taubes
and others. He thinks we should confine these discussions to private e-mail,
because the subject is not scientific. Others have expressed similar views;
one person said that he "hated arguments." I get a sense that both of these
people find something shameful, or inappropriate in my saying that I am "out
for blood" in a political battle.
 
I sympathize with these views, although I personally love politics,
arguments, National Conventions, C-Span, and the rest of it. I agree though,
that it is a shame that CF is so permeated by political catfighting, emotion,
and raw hate. Unfortunately, this is the human condition. Throughout history,
important discoveries and technologies have been characterized at first by
emotion, greed and politics. It is inescapable. Edison faced widespread
attacks and accusations of fraud as he worked feverishly to develop the
incandescent light. This was true even though he was the most famous inventor
in the world, and even though incandescent lamps had been in existence for 10
or 15 years! He was viciously attacked by vested interests, and by leading
scientists from England and America. Fortunately, like P&F, he had plenty of
funding, so he did not have to worry. The hysteria and attacks continued even
after he demonstrated dozens of working lamps strung outside his lab at
night, just as the attacks on P&F continue, even though they, and McKubre,
have shown videos and data that should have ended the argument once and for
all. The Wrights also wandered in the wilderness for 5 years, under attack as
frauds, bluffers, and idiots by the entire scientific establishment, the
Scientific American, and the New York Times. Fortunately, P&F only had to
suffer like that for a few years before they were accepted as heroes, and
given all the money, support, and recognition they could want.
 
I must repeat, sadly, that I did not introduce the politics, and I did not
set out looking for a fight. I am out for blood -- yes -- but that is only
because the other side will not yield to common sense, and to the most
modest, reasonable, sensible demands imaginable. After all, consider what we
are asking for:
 
     We want to allow a few dozen Americans to work in this area. We want $10
     million or so -- we have zero funding, our Japanese friends spend $50 to
     $100 million per year.
 
     We want to be allowed to publish papers in academic journals. When we
     discover gross errors in the "negative" experiments, we want to the
     editors to publish our letters pointing this out.
 
     We want to do our work in peace without be attacked, slandered and
     driven out of the country by people like Taubes, Park and Britz. You ask
     me to conduct this by private e-mail, while they conduct their attack-
     dog campaigns the national newspapers, in the pages of Nature, American
     Scientist and on this e-mail board!
 
     We want to be able to apply for funding, and to perform experiments with
     discretionary funds without interference and harassment from Washington.
 
     We want a fair chance, and as many years as it takes, to make this thing
     work. Let there be no more rush to judgement! If the Japanese can do it,
     so can we, and it is not fair that a tiny minority of sick-minded
     scientists like Close and Huizenga have been allowed to paralyze almost
     all research in the U.S. It is unjust.
 
Is this asking too much? Are my demands so radical and outrageous that I am
beyond the pale? Are we asking for the moon, or are we merely asking for what
due to us, as respected and honorable members of the scientific and
engineering community? Is a discussion of such demands somehow immoral or
inappropriate? I do not see how that can be. What has become of science if
such a modest, reasonable agenda is to be dismissed without discussion? I am
attacked and dismissed as some kind of radical fruitcake now, because I
insist that data always overrules theory, and that a few dozen people should
be allowed to work on CF in peace, in properly equipped and safe
laboratories, without having to pay for their own equipment. In later
generations, when the history of this affair is written, mine will be seen as
the voice of moderation and reason -- even if  CF turns out to be a mistake!
A mistake should be allowed to proceed quietly and earnestly in science,
without hinderance, and without accusations of fraud.
 
Finally, how can anyone ask us to lapse into a polite silence, here or
anywhere else, while the opposition attacks us at every opportunity? Look at
what they say in the Scientific American, or the Washington Post. Look
anywhere! It is sickening. People in my parent's generation answered the
attacks of McCarthy with fear and silence. That was a grave mistake. Even
though we are a minority, we must not allow ourselves to be cowed and
bullied, we must not give up, and we must not shut up, just because they
control all the media and all the money.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 17:23:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
 
>  Forgive my ignorance and the possibility that I'm dredging up an old issue,
>but could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
>finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
>fusion than they put in)?  I thought I saw it on the news (sometime last year),
 
This has been partly answered. As I understand it, you can define break-even
in several ways. The scientists working with the machine would probably focus
on the fusion chamber itself and look at output vs input to that chamber. This
ignores the fact that to keep the whole thing running, a lot more power is
being applied, not to mention all the energy that went into its building. In
this sense, whatever energy they got out of that short burst (1s?) was
piddling. Hot fusion enthusiasts would say, though, that this is a start,
just wait until we get this going continuously. Skeptics say, maybe, maybe
not. In the end, an overall energy budget would be needed.
 
>  Please forgive another stupid (set of) question(s), but could someone also
>inform me a bit more on 'cold fusion'?  Did they get more energy out than they
>put in?  Were they certain it wasn't a chemical reaction?  Was it practical
>(would it be able to produce useable amounts of energy)?  How did they do it?
>What is their theory of how it occurs? etc.
 
Notwithstanding ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad), who writes
 
>You've come to the right group.  We've determined without a shred of doubt
>that there are two kinds of people in the world: slope skulled fumble
>fingered "scientists" using toy chemistry sets to "prove" the existence of
>cold fusion and the close minded establishment nazis who are
>attempting to quash them.  There is no middle ground.  Please inform me
>which group you are a member of so I can add you to the appropriate hate mail.
 
this group is said by some to be comparatively peaceful. I believe that most
people posting here are fairly thoughtful and willing to consider other's
ideas. There does tend to be considerable polarisation on the topic of CNF,
with strong believers on one side and ultra-skeptics on the other. The reason
that this is sustained is that we all lack information, and convincing
evidence one way or the other. If you keep following this group, you will
come across the slope-skull vs nazi thing but it does not dominate discussion.
 
Now, to your question of whether "they" got more energy out than in: ah, that
is the question! Some firmly say YES! Others - well, a whole spectrum from
"maybe" to NO! We don't know.
How did "they" do it? What is "their" theory? Read the 785 papers in my
bibliography...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Cultural Superiority
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 17:23:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
 
>Let me put in my two cents, as an anthropologist and Asian scholar. I agree
>with MITI head, and I do not regard his statement as racist. I think it is a
>fact: during the last three decades of the 20th century, Japanese society as
>a whole is more successful at developing and applying technology than U.S.
>society. Looking back at history, you will find that in various fields of
>science, technology, and the arts, sometimes they were ahead of us, and
>sometimes we were ahead of them. Usually, we have been about equal (as we
>are now), but sometimes there have been dramatic differences between our
>societies. This is even more true of China. While we English speaking people
>were still primitive savages who lived in the woods and painted ourselves
>blue, they were living in an advanced urban civilization with enormous
>libraries, literature and fine arts unsurpassed, the rule of law, hygienics,
>medicine, banking, taxes, high living standards, and military technology
>that we did not come close to for another 2500 years. This has nothing to do
>with race, it is a fact of history.
 
Although this is getting off our topic, I want to comment on this. I am not
an Asian scholar, but have read Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in
China (or parts of it anyway, it's a huge collection of tomes). In the
introduction, Needham, a recognised scientific historian, puts down the myth
you seem to have fallen for here, Jed. It was popular at one time, and I guess
both the Chinese and Japanese don't mind basking in it, to state that they
were centuries ahead of Europe. According to Needham it is not true, however.
There was civilisation in different ways but at roughly the same level, all
the time, in the two areas. Every civilisation likes to point to some golden
age when something significant happened. Islam proudly points to such times,
from which much of our culture comes; it is probably true that China had
gunpowder and printing before Europe, but then Europe had things that they
didn't. Correct me if I am wrong.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  /  State of muon-catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: State of muon-catalyzed fusion
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:47:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Someone recently ask about the "state of the art" of the orignal form
(and perhaps the only form" of cold fusion.  I haven't been keeping too
close an eye on this, but there really isn't lots of activity in this
field as far as I have seen.  There has been some recent experiments
done at a lab in Zurich called PSI.  It doesn't seem there is much that
can be done to advance the art, in the sense that there is anyway to
enhance the effect.  The problem remains that each muon gets used only
a few times before it dies.  I believe the number is about 7.  Muons
are too expensive to make the fusion yield pay.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Erwin Buck /  RE: Fusion Digest 718
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!poers1.dnet.dupont.com!buckae (Erwin Buck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 718
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:47:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        I can think of no better way to discredit cold fusion than including
such things as "LARSONIAN PHYSICS" in the discussion.  To be a uesful forum
on cold fusion only cold fusion research should be included.
Erwin Buck
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbuckae cudfnErwin cudlnBuck cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  /  Status #16 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #16 Cell 4A3
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:47:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #16 Cell 4A3
 
We are just sitting at 350 ma per sq cm watching the paint fade.  At about
1175 hours.  Every once in a while something happens that is hard to explain.
I will describe such an event below.  There is the continuing problem that we
seem to be sitting just at the edge of the gas production rate that the
catalyst can recombine.  Every so often some gas makes it out to the syringe,
never to return.  This means that we keep accumulating gas in the syringe,
which means a net loss of energy from the calorimeter.  I know that by partial
pressures, the gas should make it back into the cell and thus be seen by the
catalyst.  It does not.  Perhaps we are accumulating CO or He or something.
Does any one out there want to analyze a syringe full of gas?
 
Here is another event to ponder:
 
A) About 13 cc of gas suddenly (few minutes) accumulate in the syringe.  Over
   several hours, most of this gas is re-absorbed.
B) The catalyst temperature rises 1.2 C.  Very significant, usual noise level
   less than .1 C.
C) The cell temperature falls 0.3 C for about 1 hour.  Also significant,
   the noise being of order 0.05 C.  (There was about 35 cc D2O in the cell.)
D) Generally there was an accumulation of 100 Joules above the average value
   during the hour or so before the sudden release of gas.  As gas is
   released, the calorimeter stays close to balance - +/- 20 joules (aprox).
E) After the event was over several hours, and most of the gas was re-
   absorbed, the energy balance returned to close to it's long term trend, with
   the possibility of a small net gain.
F) There have been a half dozen of so of this type of event.
 
There are a lot of events where there is an accumulation of gas in the syringe
due to temporary catalyst failure.  On these occasions, we see the catalyst
get cooler, as it has less gas to recombine.  Also on these occasions, there
is little or no change in cell temperature.  We also see a clear loss of
energy because un-recombined gas escapes to the syringe.  Note that 13 cc of
D2 - O2 mix represents 112 joules.  We would clearly see this.  Instead what
is seen is an approximate balance while gas is being lost.
 
Here is my shot at an explanation:
 
A hot spot develops on the cathode creating local boiling.  Some steam
bubbles make it to the surface before they condense, taking heat from the
liquid part of the cell.  Condensing in the catalyst area, heat is released
making the catalyst warmer, and reducing its efficiency so that some gas
escapes from the cell.  Eventually the hot spot turns off and the catalyst
starts working and so sucks the gas back from the syringe.  Possible net
release of energy.
 
My Occam's razor says "please do not leave me out again at night when there is
a full moon".  (For those who do not read certain literature, a razor is
supposed to be dulled by exposing it to the light of the full moon.)
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:47:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick is looking for a list of good experiments.  It is a short one.  Mckubre.
And McKubre has the problem that I know that he does not publish everything
that is important to the experiment.
 
I did put up a list of a dozen or so positive heat experiments picked out of
the cold fusion proceedings.  I am also in touch with a dozen or so others
who are more in my condition.  i.e. we see things that are hard to explain,
but nothing is clear cut enough to publish.
 
So Dick, I know the burden of proof is on us.  We have to come up with and
(an) experiment that you can reproduce (should you care to).  Until then,
we can only say that we are working, apparently because we have enough
provocation (or delusion) to keep us at it.
 
The Japanese, on the other hand, have "captured" P&F, and somehow (I think
money) got them to talk.  They seem to have liked what they have heard, and
are funding work with about the right amount of money (my view) to get to
a next level of confirmation, or to really kill it.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  /  Robert E. McElwaine
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!pkedvm7.vnet.ibm.com!HANKINS
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Robert E. McElwaine
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 01:47:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Robert E. McElwaine
>B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
BS is right.  Has the time come to moderate Fusion Digest?
 
 
Dan Hankins
hankins@pkedvm7.vnet.ibm.com
Can a blue man sing the whites? - Algis Juodikis
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenHANKINS cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / Robert McGrath /  Re: The Journal of Scientific Exploration
     
Originally-From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,rec.arts.sf.sc
ence,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.research,sci.misc,alt.divination,a
t.consciousness,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: The Journal of Scientific Exploration
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 18:26:30 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1993Feb9.180342.130@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, cooper@cadsys.enet.d
c.com (Topher Cooper) writes:
|>
|>
|>     The JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION publishes peer-reviewed research
|>     articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the
|>     matrix of present-day science.  Now in it's 6th year of publication,
|>     this quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the
|>     presentation, scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the
|>     established scientific disciplines.  JSE publishes articles both "pro"
|>     and "con", the only criteria being quality and scholarship.  It is the
|>     official publication of the international Society for Scientific
|>     Exploration (founded in 1982).  For information contact:
|>
|>                              JSE Editorial Office
|>                              ERL 306
|>                              Stanford University
|>                              Stanford, CA 94305
|>                              FAX: 415-725-2333
|>                              sims@flare.stanford.edu
|>
 
No flame intended.
 
Just what exactly does "peer review" mean in this context?  From
my limited knowledge of this publication, it covers a lot of topics
for which there just aren't that many independent investigators,
and such as exist don't necessarily belong to convenient professional
organizations.
 
(As an aside, I note that, IMHO, "peer review" publication is a scientistic
talisman--high quality publishing depends on high editorial standards,
not on the credentials of the reviewers.  Any competant editor will
seek to have complicated methods and claims checked by the independent
"experts", no matter how the experts are obtained, or what their formal
qualifications are.)
 
--
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmcgrath cudfnRobert cudlnMcGrath cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / David Brunsting /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics
     
Originally-From: dbruns77@ursa.calvin.edu (David Brunsting)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 21:10:36 GMT
Organization: Calvin College

I have to warn you that this man is a major book pusher and has
posted on rec.pets and rec.music.christian only to get a rise out
of netters with his outrageous claims. He rarely responds to email
except for occational canned messages that can be very long...
 
David Brunsting
dbruns77@ursa.calvin.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendbruns77 cudfnDavid cudlnBrunsting cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 21:31:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930209175429_72240.1256_EHL99-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
>Civilizations and cultures ebb and flow in mysterious ways. At this
>nanosecond of history, relative to the Japanese we are in decline. Earlier
>this century we surged ahead of them, and perhaps within our lifetimes, we
>will do so again. But, I doubt this will happen, because I think the
>strength and security of any civilization, eastern or western, lies in only
>one thing: children.
 
I suggest you study history a little closer Jed. Simplistic and idealistic
utterances may sound good but they don't put ther heat in the house nor
the light in the bulb.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Who Stole the Fake Diamonds?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who Stole the Fake Diamonds?
Date: 10 Feb 93 13:38:46 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Feb6.012735.4553@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com
 (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> Dieter Britz has argued that Steven Jones work should be
> lumped in in a general way with Pons' and Fleischman's work
> on Cold Nuclear Fusion. The logic appears to be that Jones
> et.al. published their work in such close proximity to P&F
> that Jones' work on muon catalyzed nuclear fusion is
> inextricably identified with the sounds and fury
> surrounding P&F's rather piculiar method of publishing
> results.
>
 ......>
> I think that we can all agree that S. Jones and company are
> doing REAL (tm) science and that the _vast_ majority of
> papers on the subject are so open to criticism that it is
> probably correct to quietly push them into the background
> of other useless expenditures of time, money and effort.
>
> And I think that we can all agree that there is enough
> experiemental evidence to imply that there may be something
> to CNF even if it doesn't contain the slightest trace of
> nuclear fusion. Even if the whole thing turns out to be
> some rather clever form of fuel cell in action there is
> probably something to be learned by some minor pursuit of
> the source of excess heat.
>
>.....
>
> While I'm inclined to take Jones' work at face value, we
> must allow that others may be biased in the opposite
> direction. After all, this is science and if all
> scientists agreed with one another we would still be
> thinking that the earth was the center of the universe.
>
> Considering the above, I would think that I would be in
> agreement with Britz that Jones' work is inextricably
> linked with the rather less prosaic and less workmanlike
> experiments of Pons and Fleischman in the public eye and
> also in the general mind of most scientists.
>
> This does _not_ mean that we cannot tell the difference
> between their work! I don't think that Steven Jones need
> fear that anyone knowledgable would connect his
> evolutionary research physics with the radically
> revolutionary electro-chemistry of Pons and Fleischman.
>
> And as for connecting him in any way with Jed Rothwell!
> HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. :-) That was a good one
> Steve.
 
[To me, a connection to P&F is as ludicrous as a link to JR.-=- Steve]
                                                             ^
Oh, my!  Thomas is stating that research on "muon catalyzed fusion is
inextricably identified with the sounds and fury surrounding P&F's rather
peculiar method of publishing results"  -- surely this is stretching what
the P&F press conference was designed to claim too far!  Muon-catalyzed fusion
was postulated in 1947 by F.C. Frank (now Sir Frank) of Bristol, and seen
first by Luis Alvarez at Berkeley in 1956 in his new bubble chamber.  Giving
credit to P&F for this form of cold fusion boggles the mind, truly.  --Just
because they held a highly publicized press conference and claimed exclusive
discovery of cold fusion does not mean this behavior should be so handsomely
rewarded!
 
Yet, I admit a certain consistency.  P&F exploited methods which clearly
circumvent peer-review standards -- e.g., press conferences in which related
work anywhere else was explicitly and twice denied [ note:  this in itself
should by their admission
stand as demonstration that the BYU work was not related to their xs heat
claims ], appeals for funding via non-peer-reviewed channels, use of a lawyer
to induce retraction of a contrary paper, etc.  If by such methods they
successfully
establish priority, then where do we stop?  Why not include the only bona fide
form of cold fusion at present, viz. muon-catalyzed fusion?  After all, if P&F
popularized cold fusion in the public eye with such resounding success, should
not they be entitled to the whole of it?  Is this approach to be rewarded and
thereby recommended to other scientists?  Where will it end?
 
I wonder whether
Dieter would agree with Thomas on this point.  If not, where do we draw the
line?  If we do not give them credit for muon catalysis, then should we give
credit for the geological natural fusion hypothesis which clearly arose at
BYU, on which we have published repeatedly
  [I remind you of the 1986 paper on Piezonuclear Fusion in which I and
   Van Siclen address the possibility of this type of fusion in Jupiter,
   and of subsequent papers in Nature and J. Fusion Energy]
and on which P&F have been totally silent?  How about low-level neutron
emissions in deuterium-charged solids, where
the P&F original work was badly flawed if not fraudulently handled (as Frank
Close has researched so thoroughly).
 
Where do we draw the line?
 
I am troubled that if such behaviors are so handsomely rewarded, by the Japanese
or a resigned scientific community, then these quasi-scientific methods will
be more widely adopted, to ultimate hurt.  I believe that the peer-review
system is crucial to the integrity of science.  Therefore, blatant examples of
end-running of this system of checks should not be encouraged.
Traditionally, priority (and often funding) goes to the scientist who first
publishes, not to the first to hold a press conference.  Are we changing this?
Will science benefit if we do?
 
I posit that
the stakes are or may become larger than just me or a small group of people.
Public trust in science is threatened, and perhaps the training of
students who must soon seek support somehow for their own research efforts
which will certainly exceed my humble contributions.  In the USA, I am
concerned that exaggerated/unfounded claims may be made for the SSC and the
Space Station in an effort to secure funding, just as P&F did for cold fusion
(I suggest).
 
At the present, this discussion may seem like a moot debate over "Who stole
the fake diamonds?"  But this may change soon.  Frankly, I hesitate along with
serious colleagues to publish results relating to low-level neutron or charged-
particle production, or tritium as a tracer of natural fusion in the earth,
when such results may be taken as "proof" that xs-heat must be nuclear,
esp. by scientists who yield to the "public eye and...  general mind of most
scientists" -- because of a pre-emptory press conference!  [See Kunich above.]
 
BTW, if test-tube fusion generates xs heat,
then clearly the credit goes to P&F, no question.  By the same token,
if natural fusion takes place inside the earth, BYU (especially Prof.
Paul Palmer, Van Siclen and I) should be recognized, not P&F.
 
The unwillingness by many to separate the xs-heat claims from the
low-level nuclear/geological fusion hypothesis is very discouraging.
Part of my effort here is to sharpen arguments
to prepare for forthcoming publications which I do not want to see
misinterpreted or misused.
 
I would like to invite Frank Close's opinion on this matter.  (Thanks to
Terry Bollinger and others who have commented.)
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Blue paint
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue paint
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 15:32:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Someone who knows a lot more Western anthropology than me told me that it was
the Picts who used to paint themselves blue, and that they got wiped out by
English speaking invaders. There is an important lesson here: don't paint
yourself blue. It doesn't enhance National Security. Pentagon programs in
this area should be scrapped.
 
This person also recommended the recent Scientific American article comparing
primary education in the U.S., Japan and China. That was a terrific article,
I recommend it too.
 
Somebody else asked me how I managed to estimate that they spend $50 to $100
million on CF in Japan. This is a seat-of-the-pants estimate, because you
cannot just walk up to some guy at an International Conference and ask
"How much are you guys spending?" (You must wait until the Banquet, and ask him
when he has had a few drinks.) Anyway, the low-end estimate is based on 400
people multiplied by $120,000 average salary equipment and overhead. 400 people
equals 20 people at each of the NHEP companies, and 5 at each major university
and national lab. These are absurdly low numbers: some of those people get more
than $120,000 in salary alone. I have no solid way of knowing how exactly how
many people are working on CF at each NHEP company, but I know one has at
least 60 (I saw 'em in a photo), and another supposedly has 200. So, I am
certain that 20 average is a safe bet.
 
The 4 year, $24 million MITI money, by the way, is for frills, extra equipment
at the national labs, meetings and travel only. Salaries, overhead and the
main equipment budgets all come out of separate accounts. None of the $24
million will be spent by private industry. Indeed, they are being asked to
chip in an additional $4 million, as I mentioned earlier.
 
In any case, I think we can all agree that $50 million is peanuts, or "noise
level," and there is no way they could *not* be spending that much. It is, as
the Japanese say, "sparrow's tears." I personally think that $50 to $100
million is exactly the right amount to spend on CF at this stage, because, as
the saying goes, "9 women cannot have 1 baby in 1 month."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 788 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 788 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 15:32:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENZIONE!
I owe two of the items below: the Rotegard, and the Takahashi, to Hal Fox's
collection. Don't know how I missed the Takahashi. Anyway, Rotegard is a
borderline case as a paper, being more or less pure special pleading, but it
does get science-philosophical, so I decided to include it. I have had the
Shunjin paper for some time, but as it is written in Chinese, I couldn't do
much with it. We now have a Chinese guest here and I asked him to look at it.
He tells me there is no conclusion, just some formulae.
The Takahashi et al has a lot of experimental detail and is interesting on
that account. Although I feel that this way to do "calorimetry" is a bit
rough, the paper does say that good calibrations were achieved, i.e. a linear
relation between the temperature in the middle of the cell and the heat given
out by the cell, with a known time constant. Maybe. I note a strange
periodicity in the measured neutron flux. Now you might (optimistically)
expect this to be at the same frequency as the current switching - but it's
about 10 sweep periods long. One sweep is said to be 12 hours, so the neutron
signal period is 5 days long. Anyone with an explanation? Is there some
astronomical phenomenon with that sort of period? The second part of the paper
outlines the authors' theory, and it is typical of experimenters' theories,
i.e. obviously weak. The idea is that at high loadings, you start to fill the
tetrahedral sites in the Pd (and I seem to remember this has been debunked by
metal hydride experts), and then you get 3-body and yes, even 4-body
collisions and fusions. Now this is not two d's waiting for the third, etc, to
come along, but three colliding at the exact same instant. Even humble
electrochemist I can see how fantastically unlikely this is. But it opens the
way for an explanation for heat without neutrons etc. The reaction, e.g., 3d
--> d + alpha + 23.8 MeV does not produce neutrons or tritium, OK? Neither
does 4d --> 2 alpha + 47.6 MeV. If this sounds plausible to you, consider
this: if it is true that F&P ought to be dead from neutrons if their excess
heat were caused partly by d+d --> n + (3)He, then they ought equally to be
dead from the secondaries knocked out of the matrix by those high energies
released by the hypothetical multi-body fusions above. I could be wrong but I
can't imagine that such a flux of x-rays and charged particles would be
completely stopped by the Pd. But if you like, you can console yourself with
Takahashi et al's experimental results, which are massively positive.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Feb-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 788
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotegard D;                                         Space Power 10 (1991) 205.
"Fusion, cold fusion, and space policy".
** A science-philosophical work by a space economist. Rotegard believes that
hot fusion advocates are suppressing cold fusion, and is critical of USA
policy with respect to the financing of hot fusion. R suggests that more
support should be given to both cold fusion (to avoid a Japanese lead), and
asteroid mining.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shunjin W;               Gaoneng Wuli Yu Hewuli 15(8) (1991) 761 (in Chinese).
"Effect of Coulomb screening on deuterium-deuterium fusion cross section".
** "The popular Gamow formula for the deuterium-deuterium fusion cross-section
is generalized to take into account the Coulomb screening effect. The
generalized formula has been used to discuss the fusion process occurring in
the metal medium" (English abstract).
Using the WKB approximation and Gamow approach, some mathematical expressions
for fusion rates are derived, but no conclusions about cold fusion reached.
                                                                 Oct-90/Aug-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi A, Iida T, Takeuchi T, Mega A;
Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mater. 3 (1992) 221.
"Excess heat and nuclear products by D2O/Pd electrolysis and multibody
fusion".
** A detailed description of a series of electrolysis experiments, in which
both cell temperature and neutron emission were monitored, cell temp. by a
single thermistor between the cathode and a cooling coil, and neutrons by an
method described elsewhere. The cathodes were Pd plates, 25*25 mm**2 by 1 mm
thick, mounted between two polyethylene insulators, which was wound with the
Pt anode at a pitch of 5 mm. This allowed a loading of close to 1, believe the
authors. The cell temperature (mixing) time constant was measured at about 15
min, and a rough calibration of power output vs cell temperature was made. The
applied (controlled) current was either ramped or pulsed at around 1A/cm**2,
for long periods, with topping up of D2O every 4-8 days. Several anomalous
excess heat events were observed, in one instance an accumulated excess of 160
MJ over a week. Some neutron events were seen, but correlated somewhat
negatively with excess heat events. Neutron flux was generally higher for high
current, however. Also, neutron flux remained low for 1-2 days after one D2O
topping up.
The authors present their theory to explain the dearth of neutrons. At high
loadings, 3-body and 4-body fusions might take place, some producing no
neutrons or tritons, but alpha particles instead.                     May-92/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  /  Radical Fruitcake?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radical Fruitcake?
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 15:32:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed,  It is by your own words that an image of you being a radical
fruitcake is established.  Trying to paint a picture of cold fusion
researchers as belonging to a special class of martyr is not a useful
approach in the furtherance of your cause, and your portrayal of
Edison and the Wright brothers as unappreciated scientists is not
historically accurate.  The issue should be the science!  Where is
the evidence needed to make a strong and coherent case for cold fusion?
It is nice that Pons and Fleischmann have found a sugar daddy to
pay for their continuing research, but until that research is exposed
to the light we have little to judge about their efforts except their
earlier blundering.  It is absurd to consider any significant increase
in the cold fusion research effort, however funded, unless there is
a clear direction for that effort to take.  From your own postings I
would conclude that investigations of the Pd-D systems should be dropped
in favor of the Ni-H as being more promising.  But this latter system
is so unlikely a candidate for being able to induce nuclear reactions
that the search for reaction products is more important than ever.
The longer the CF saga continues with no clear indication of the
nature of the reactions involved the less credible the existing
"positives" become.  If you want to clear up your image avoid trying
to make villains out of everyone expressing legitimate doubts and keep
the issue focused on the science.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Breakeven
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakeven
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:18:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz explained what "breakeven" means in the context of hot fusion and
other energy systems. Let me just add the terms that I have heard to describe
the three different types of "breakeven:"
 
1. Scientific breakeven -- where more energy comes out of the reactor than
goes in. Energy "going in" means only the energy going directly into the
magnets and plasma heaters (or lasers with inertial confinement). It does not
include the energy needed to run the cooling pumps, computers, reactor
building air conditioners and so on. A reactor close to the scientific
breakeven point would not be able to push any kind of power generator. A hot
fusion (HF) reactor reached this point last year.
 
2. Engineering breakeven -- where the energy coming out is enough to power a
generator that "feeds back" and powers the reactor and the peripheral
equipment like pumps. You could never get just exactly enough capacity to do
this and nothing more, so any installation that passed engineering breakeven
would also be capable of generating some extra power, which you could sell,
theoretically. I believe HF power plants are expected to reach this level at
around 2030.
 
3. Commercial breakeven -- where the reactor is both powerful enough and cheap
enough to generate electricity at commercially competitive rates. I believe HF
is supposed to reach this stage around the year 2050.
 
CF passed scientific breakeven in 1989, and engineering breakeven power levels
last year (although nobody has actually hooked up a cell to a generator, as
far as I know). It will pass commercial breakeven in a couple of years, and it
will put every other form of energy out of business long before 2030.
 
 
Britz recommended Joseph Needham's "Science and Civilization in China" which I
have never read. I did take 5 years of Japanese and Chinese history and
anthropology though, so I am pretty sure Needham is wrong, or Britz
misunderstands him. There is no question that at a time when Northern
Europeans had no writing, no permanent architecture, and no organized
government, the Chinese had libraries, large, permanent stone buildings, tax
returns, warehouses, bills of lading, stubborn and useless bureaucrats,
standing armies, budget deficits, and many other accoutrements we associate
with "civilization." For that matter, you can find tax returns, nitpicking
regulations, building codes, and letters asking parents for more tuition and
beer money written in cuneiform. The Greeks, Egyptians and later the Romans
also had "advanced civilization" and technology hundreds of years ahead of
other civilizations. Many primitive peoples devised the technology needed to
move large rocks; examples can be found in Stonehenge and on Easter Island.
However, it took "advanced civilization" to build an Egyptian pyramid, because
the project was on such a large scale that it could never have been
accomplished without writing, arithmetic, bureaucratic organization, advanced
planning, schedules, written accounting, banking, and above all, taxes. You
could never get such a large group of workers to cooperate, and you could not
get them in one place, or supply them with food, tools, and raw materials
without these institutions. The largest pyramid was built in only 20 years,
from start to finish. That speed reflects a tight, careful, organizational
genius that was seldom seen again in later megaprojects, like the cathedrals,
the space program, HF, the Superconducting Supercollider, or the Second World
War.
 
In the present day, when geographical separation no longer makes a big
difference, we still see many examples of cultures and civilizations right
next door to one another where large gaps in living standards, education and
technology exist. Examples include: the U.S. and Mexico (and Central America);
Western Europe and the former Communist Block; Europe and Africa; Japan and
China; Korea and China. Differences in culture, politics, history, and
population density often lead to vast differences in wealth and technology.
Anyone who doubts that should visit a so-called "Third World" country, or a
Russian factory. What is interesting is that no single factor appears to
control the levels of wealth and welfare: if population density and natural
resources mattered, Mexico and Russia would be rich, and Japan would be poor.
As far as I can tell, the only two certain requirements for wealth are
education and liberty, and even liberty may not be needed, because places
like Singapore don't have much of it, by my standards.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Who Stole the Fake Diamonds?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who Stole the Fake Diamonds?
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 22:19:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

( Steven Jones has a long and confusing statement about credit where
credit is due.)
 
I wonder if Dr. Jones isn't misunderstanding what Deiter and others (including
myself) are saying.
 
I don't think there is anyone that is trying to attach the scientific
work he and his cohorts are doing with the apparent work being done
by Pons, Fleischman et. al.
 
What is being said is that P&F's work came to the public eye at the same
time as Jones' work was being published. THere was general discussion
about whether or not the phenomena reported by Jones wasn't causing the
phenomena reported by P&F.
 
I think we all understand that there is no actual connection. But in the
great general work of physics, you must connect all of the 'cold' and
all of the 'hot' fusion ideas under a general banner. So we find BYU
papers included in the same bibliography as others of less scientific
disapline.
 
Might I remind you that the jury is still out over P&F have anything
or not? I see no reason to completely dismiss P&F until they have sufficient
time to demonstrate whether or not they have something there. While
I'm very skeptical, I need only think of Nickolas Otto or the Wright
Brothers to see that scientific laws have been revised in the past.
 
I was also involved in one round where we passed 1 megaAmp at
1 megaVolt in 1 nanosecond through a target. Previously the physics world
had proclaimed that such a current would self-limit. Dr.'s Sloan
and Ian Smith thought different and so there was a new understanding.
 
While I certainly understand Dr. Jones' discomfort at being connect,
no matter how slightly, with the side show around CNF, I don't think that
he can be separated from the general field even though his results
are quantitatively and qualitatively in another universe.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  graber@vax1.ma /  Albert Einstein
     
Originally-From: graber@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Albert Einstein
Date: 11 Feb 93 23:55:18 GMT
Organization: Mankato State University

I am looking for information on Albert Einstein.
 
 
If you have any information that you think is interesting, please mail me.
 
I would really appreciate it.
 
 
Any book titles, magazeen articles, etc. are welcome.
 
 
 
@)-->-->-------
Rosebud
 
 
Graber@mkvax1.mankato.msus.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengraber cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Les Earnest /  Re: "size" of an electron blown out of all proportion
     
Originally-From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron blown out of all proportion
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:17:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

My apologies for prolonging this off-topic thread but a loose end
needs tying.  In one article today, Mike Jamison apparently tangled
with his text editor and lost -- the article shows me as the author of
a bunch of remarks made by someone else.
 
In a subsequent response to my repeated expression of doubt about
whether a neural net system exists that plays the stock market better
than humans and my request for a citation of the source of his
information, Mr. Jamison now says:
  I had assumed from your first post that you were talking about the article
  I was referring to.  Hence, I didn't reply.
 
Eh?
 
  You are now making it clear that you believe I'm lying.
 
On the contrary, I'm making it clear that the article you read appears
to have been a fabrication.  I would like to know where it appeared.
 
  The best I can do at this time is to refer you to a write-up in the
  January 1993 Byte magazine.  [.  .  .]
 
But that article apparently isn't about a stock market predictor --
it is about another trivial curve fitting task.
 
  If you wish to e-mail me privately about this thread, please do so.  I'm
  not going to followup on it in s.p.f again.
 
I did and I won't either, even though we haven't gotten anywhere in
this discussion.
 
  I do have one more comment on the neural net stock market forecasting:
 
  Perhaps the programs referred to here aren't accurate because they *only*
  take into account the actual stock fluctuations, and *don't* include enough
  "extraneous" data.  For example, it's been documented that more crimes are
  committed during a full moon than at other times of the month.
 
I would submit that they don't work because we have only a very foggy
idea of what drives the market.  Computational "magic" cannot make up
for the lack of a theory, though various hucksters and the Pentagon
keep trying to pretend otherwise in their fruitless development of
military command-control-communications systems and other examples of
"advanced technology."  But that's even further off-topic.
 
--
Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305        Fax:  415 941-3934
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Jacques Amar /  Tritium_production?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!emoryu1.cc.emory.edu!phsjga (Jacques G. Amar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium_production?
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:18:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
>Amoung the
>D + Pd experiments, that leaves Pons & Fleischmann.  As far as I can
>tell they have not been doing calorimetry for publication so there
>is really no data to discuss at present.  It would seem that 4 years
>into this there stands only one D + Pd experiment of any significance.
>I would say, in summary, that the lack of clear progress through a
>series of improving experiments in combination with the total failure
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to find reaction products should just about nail the lid on the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>coffin for this form of CF.
 
  I would suggest that Dick Blue read a copy of "On an electrode producing
  massive quantities of tritium and helium" by C.C. Chien, D. Hodko, Z.
  Minevski, and J. O'M. Bockris in J.Electroanal. Chem. 338 (1992) p.189-212.
 
  I quote here the full Abstract:
 
        "A Pd electrode has been examined which produced a concentration of
tritium in a 0.1 M LiOD solution around 10^3 times above background.  Tritium
production at a given potential ceased after a few days, but could be restarted
by a small increase of the deuterium overpotential.  Correspondingly, He4 was
found in 9-10 pieces of the Pd electrode at 2-100 times background.  Addition
of fresh amounts of D2O quenched the T production which began again spontaneous
ly after 1-2 days.  If the T had come from contamination, He3 would have been
found in the electrode: it was absent.  Loss of charge by the nucleus takes
place when the fugacity of D in voids exceeds 10^17 atm (Lifshitz & Pitaevskii,
1963).  Sporadicity of function arises from the state of the surface, which is
difficult to reproduce.  The surface state controls the D2 evolution; only some
mechanisms give a fugacity high enough to cause fusion.  Only one electrode
out of four examined produced T and He4.  The surface of this electrode
contained a Cu-mosaic structure, not seen on the inactive electrodes."
 
  This does not sound like the nail in the coffin to me.
 
  Perhaps someone knowledgeable who has read the paper could comment on why
  I should (or should not) believe these results.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenphsjga cudfnJacques cudlnAmar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Rusty Perrin /       Fusion Digest 754
     
Originally-From: Rusty Perrin <ub-gate.UB.com!vm1.nodak.edu!U7584RT%DOEVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Fusion Digest 754
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 01:18:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes: "We want $10 million or so" presumably of
government funding to fund some work in the CF area.
 
My question is: if CF has been proven as thoroughly as you say, why
can't you find private sector financing? I wouldn't think $10M is beyond
the means of a typical venture capitalist (if that is the right term),
and with the profit potential and likelihood you describe, investment
money shouldn't be hard to find.Just wondering...
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / MIKE JAMISON /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: 11 Feb 1993 11:15 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <C1xI8w.1JH.1@cs.cmu.edu>, webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb) writes...
>In article <1993Feb4.005804.23312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> les@SAIL.S
anford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
>
>   Mr. Jamison now says:
>
>      There was a write-up I read (can't remember where, sorry) stating that a
>      386 based system used over a thousand inputs, forty outputs.  Took something
>      like 3 months to train it.
>
>This is ridiculous.  Last I heard, a few years ago, the best such
>programs in this country were using Kalman filters incorporating every
>traded stock, and running on the most advanced supercomputers.  They
>were then talking about arbitrage on the millisecond level.  The
>technology has presumably advanced since then.  Now, I understand that
>Japanese financial markets are somewhat more restrictive than the
>markets here, and they may be behind our technology, but a 386-based
>system?  Give me a break!
 
^C (Break)
 
Let's see.  The write-up on the 386 training time *isn't* the same as the
one claiming the 80% accuracy on the stock market predictions.  *That*
write-up indicated the use of a supercomputer (Japanese, of some sort) for
doing the predictions.
 
If you're running a neural net program on a GFLOP machine, is it the *only*
task you're running?  At NASA, the Cray is used by *hundreds* of people.
Suddenly, you've basically got something with the same CPU speed per person
as a 386.  The difference, of course, is that you've got a lot more memory
that you can devote to a given task.
 
Not many people can afford to pay millions of dollars for a machine just to
run *one* program for *one* user *all* the time.
 
>
>-- J
>
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / MIKE JAMISON /  More McElwaine
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MIKE JAMISON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More McElwaine
Date: 11 Feb 1993 11:20 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Mr. McElwaine appears to have gotten me mixed up with Jed Rothwell in his
reply to my reply to Dieter Britz.  I'm the one with the degrees in
engineering and physics.  You'll have to ask Jed what his degrees are in.
 
Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMIKE cudlnJAMISON cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Nick Haines /  Re: cold, hot, or warm fusion
     
Originally-From: nickh+@cs.cmu.edu (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cold, hot, or warm fusion
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 15:56:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <52010@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
 
   In article <7520022@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
(Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
   > Thermacore [...] heat
   > McKubre [...] energy
   > Japanese researchers [...] heat
   > Mills & Farrell [...] heat
 
   Well, heat claims have been shown to be bogus - if for no other reason than
   that none of the examples do proper calorimetry, nor do they even bother to
   stir the fluid in the cell, resulting in hot spots that are then reported
   as heat for the whole system.
 
'Heat claims have been shown to be bogus,' yes. But not every heat
claim. This is akin to dismissing the Wright brothers because of Baron
Muenchausen's tales of heavier-than-air flight. In particular those
four sets of researchers named by Brian Rauchfuss have not had their
heat claims shown to be bogus.
 
I shan't bother criticizing the rest of Richard Stead's article, since
it is clear that his knowledge of these experiments is substantially
out of date. He says "the problem with most claims like these," (while
commenting principally on the outdated Pons-Fleischmann experiment)
accuses the researchers of deliberate error, and suggests that the
heat production is a case of bad calorimetry and failing to account
for energy input in early phases of cell use. If he were properly
informed, he would know that, for instance, the Thermacore people do
not require a long ramp-up for their cell, and claim a 25x heat excess
(i.e. too much to account for by his thesis).
 
Look, I'm not saying that `cold fusion' generates excess heat, or that
if it does so the mechanism is fusion (many researchers now believe
some other non-chemical quantum effect is in play, possibly the
Mills-Farrell `hydrino' hypothesis), or that it will ever be a useful
source of energy. But to dismiss it all as bogus is to dismiss the
research of many honest scientists. He's suggesting that he (knowing
little about current research in the field) knows better than they. As
I said in a previous article, I have studied the rhetoric on both
sides of this debate, and the Sceptics are as guilty of blind
defensiveness as the True Believers.
 
And as for "many of our top physicists amd chemists have disproven
this on both theoretical and experimental grounds," might I ask _what_
has been "disproven"?  Many mechanisms for excess heat have been
proposed. Some of them are compatible with current quantum theory, and
make testable predictions.
 
I'm no expert on this, but I don't think Richard Stead is placed to
comment on current research into `cold fusion'. He (and anyone else
wanting to comment) should read sci.physics.fusion for a month or so
first. It's as bad as people who've never commuted on a bike
ignorantly suggesting that the things acheived daily by people on
rec.bicycles.soc are impossible.
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Mike Jamison /  Re: "size" of an electron
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron
Date: 11 Feb 1993 11:38 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Feb4.005804.23312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, les@cs.sta
ford.edu writes...
>Mike Jamison earlier wrote:
>I and others expressed doubt that such a program exists.
>
>Mr. Jamison now says:
>   The program *does* exist.  As I understand it, though, you have to have a
>   few hundred $K to move around in chunks to be able to use the program's
>   advice.  That alone will keep most of us from using such a program to make
>   money.
>
>   [.  .  .]  So, if we
>   can use neural nets to effectively predict stock market fluctuations, why
>   can't we use them for something we know a lot more about?  The stock market
>   example also shows that neural nets aren't limited to making decisions based
>   on a few inputs/outputs.  I believe the japanese program tracks over a
>   thousand variables.  Or maybe it's another program I'm thinking of...
>
>   There was a write-up I read (can't remember where, sorry) stating that a
>   386 based system used over a thousand inputs, forty outputs.  Took something
>   like 3 months to train it.
>
>Let me repeat my observation more bluntly: I believe that this is
>fabricated nonsense.  I invite Mr. Jamison to find a citation for the
>article describing this allegedly marvelous device.
 
I had assumed from your first post that you were talking about the article
I was referring to.  Hence, I didn't reply.  You are now making it clear that
you believe I'm lying.  You're wrong.  I admitted that I could not remember
the reference(s).  The best I can do at this time is to refer you to a
write-up in the January 1993 Byte magazine.  The neural net program used
in the example is a simple one, having the net categorize the likelihood
of a loan applicant's being able to re-pay a home mortgage loan based upon
11 input variables.  The net was trained on 75 cases, and another 75 cases
were used to test it.  Depending on the net used (Lotus 123 and Excel versions
were tested) the network was correct 60 to 70 percent of the time.  Don't take
*my* word for it, though, go read the article.
 
If you wish to e-mail me privately about this thread, please do so.  I'm
not going to followup on it in s.p.f again.
 
I do have one more comment on the neural net stock market forecasting:
 
Perhaps the programs referred to here aren't accurate because they *only*
take into account the actual stock fluctuations, and *don't* include enough
"extraneous" data.  For example, it's been documented that more crimes are
committed during a full moon than at other times of the month.
 
I'd guess that stock fluctuations probably correlate to at least the
following two variables, as well as what's already being taken into
consideration:
 
1)  Natural disasters.
2)  Political climate.
>--
>Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
>Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305       Fax:  415 941-3934
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Mike Jamison /  Re: 386 based supercomputers
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 386 based supercomputers
Date: 11 Feb 1993 12:24 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <930205150501_72240.1256_EHL63-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Jon Webb made a comment about supercomputers:
>
>"Last I heard, a few years ago, the best such programs in this country were
>using Kalman filters incorporating every traded stock, and running on the most
>advanced supercomputers... a 386-based system?  Give me a break!"
>
>I have not read anything about neural net software or hardware in Japan
>lately, and I know nothing about stock trading software. The only neural net
>software I ever saw was remarkable -- quite amazing -- but it was purely
>experimental, terribly slow, and could not be used for any real world
>application. It converted English words from standard spelling to phonetic
>(diacritical) spelling, with amazing accuracy. I sense that it will someday
>become useful in applications relating to linguistics and machine translation.
>
>Anyway, regarding 386 processors, some of the fastest and best supercomputers
>in the world are 386 based massively parallel machines. One is made by Intel
>itself, which should scare the hell out of IBM, Hitachi and Fujitsu. K-Mart
>corporation (and many other retailers) now use MPP machines to analyze their
>daily sales figures, and plan their restocking and marketing activities. The
 
Actually, the last few incarnations of Intel's machine (the Touchstone Delta,
I believe, is the latest) use the 80860 RISC processor.  i860XP, to be more
specific.  Rated (by Intel) at 100 MFLOPs in single precision mode, at 50 MHz.
the Touchstone Delta uses 6000 of 'em, for 300 GFLOPs maximum performance,
in 32 bit floating point mode.  Only 3000 of the processors are used for
doing the actual calculations.  the other 3000 are used for message passing.
 
>machines pay for themselves quickly, by increasing sales, reducing inventory,
>and keeping customers from going elsewhere by reducing shortages.
>
>- Jed
>
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / J Lewis /  Re: Robert E. McElwaine
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Robert E. McElwaine
Date: 11 Feb 93 21:36:29 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

 
Give McElwaine a break.  He has been one of the more temperate and
sensible posters to this group.  Some of his ideas are even falsifiable.
I was particularly taken with his article on biologically-induced cold
fusion - hell, the processes he described probably didn't even violate
baryon-number conservation!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
Date: 11 Feb 93 18:26:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <820F7818C31FA20633@vms2.uni-c.dk>, Dieter Britz
<BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
> In Fusion Digest 748, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>>"Thin titanium films have been bombarded with low energy (350-1000 eV)
>>deuterium ions at high current density (0.4 mA/cm2) in an effort to produce
>>fusion reactions at ambient temperatures.  A silicon particle dector was
>>used to observe possible reaction products.  Evidence for nuclear reactions
>>occurring at a rate of at least 10E-16 events/deuteron pair/s is presented."
>> (AIP Proceedings # 228, p. 383-396, of Provo 1990 meeting on Anomalous
>>Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems.  -- A fine contribution, in my
>>opinion.  Is it included in your bibliography, Dieter?)
>
> No, it is not. For one thing, it seems to be a conference proceedings item,
> and for another, it looks like self targeting work, not cold fusion. Am I
> wrong? In what way is this anomalous? A lot of the Russian work - including
> that which has people stirred up right now - is in this category, but they
> don't seem to know about self targeting, all the rage in the 1950's. I include
> such papers, if they (albeit mistakenly) think they are doing cold fusion.
 
Look again at the description of the experiment which I quoted above:  the
titanium films were bombarded with LOW energy deuterons, 350-1000 eV.  The
paper shows that most runs actually used 350-400 eV.  The authors claim that
the rate of charged particle production at MeV-energies exceeds the rate
expected from self-targeted "hot" fusion by over 20 orders of magnitude, and
that sounds anomalous to me.  (Their calculation seems plausible.)
 
I agree that there are some experiments which operate at over a few keV and are
clearly in the conventional hot fusion regime.  But this is not one of them.
I think this experiment bears scrutiny.  It is too bad they could not get it
published in Physical Review -- they did try.  Their earlier paper which
showed nothing in a less sensitive (P&F-level) search WAS published by
Physical Review B41, 1990.  This is probably in your biblio.
 
The Russian work you allude to is probably the Kucherov work, so highly touted
in Hal Fox's Fusion Newsletter (Kucherov was a Man of the Year in that pub.).
But the Kucherov work was publicly challenged by Dr. Vladimir Tsarev who
provided a review of the Russian efforts, at the Nagoya mtg. in Oct. 1992.
Self-targeting may have been one of the problems in the Kucherov work.  In any
case, I did not find those results convincing since the detectors were rather
crude.  Dick Blue is correct of course in insisting on highest quality
detectors and controls esp. at this stage of the research.  There are some
who are doing this even now.
 
>
>>Dieter, would you really find it necessary to associate me with, e.g.,
>>a Jed Rothwell?  -- who says about my respected colleague Dr. Walter Polansky
>>of the U.S. Dept. of Energy:
>>"I am out for blood.  I intend to get him, along with Huizenga, Park, Parker,
>>Maddox, Piel, Taubes and many others.  I don't hide that fact, I advertise it,
>>..
>>No, NO -- I will not accept being classed with such persons, Dieter.  Mr.
>
> It's OK, Steven, calm down. No, I don't find that necessary. Jed Rothwell is
> pretty prominent on this list, just by word count, but he is not a cold fusion
> researcher. I have never seen his name on a research paper. This is not to
> denigrate him, he does different work. But yes, I do associate you with cold
> fusion researchers like F&P, Bockris, Menlove, etc. You go to all the right
> conferences, and you have your name in all the papers. In fact, I always
> feel that someone is being deliberately pointed, if your Nature paper is not
> one of the first references in a cold fusion paper, alongside the FPH one.
> Let's face it, you are not working in a different area, you just have a solid
> disagreement with the excess heat people, within the area. As I have
> mentioned, you at one time were willing to collaborate with them. At that
> time, both your low-level neutron camp, and the excess heat camp, thought and
> said that d-d fusion was happening. Later, doubts crept in, and everybody now
> has retreated to an unspecified exotic reaction, still called cold fusion for
> want of a better name. Unfortunate maybe, since that name was already taken,
> both by muon-catalysed fusion, and even by heavy ion fusion, to make
> superheavy elements - a long way from what we regard as cold.
>
 
As I asked in a recent posting ("Who stole the fake diamonds?"), why not
include muon-catalyzed fusion in this "area", if we follow your arguments
to a conclusion.  Where do we draw the line?  The xs-heat papers essentially
never reference our Nature article.  Papers in muon-catalyzed cold fusion never
reference P&F (the very idea!).   I point to the Van Siclen/Jones 1986 paper
(J. Phys. G) as showing our early, independent work and also claim that 2.5MeV
neutrons as evidenced in our 1989 Nature paper show a signature for fusion.
Why did not P&F reference our 1986 paper?  I know they had it since I sent
it to them around Dec. 1988.  Why did the U. Utah people, with P&F's tacit
consent since they were there and did not demur, say at the press conf.
that they knew of noone else anywhere doing related work?  They knew very
well about the BYU work -- so they are saying that our low-level nuclear
work is unrelated, by their own admission, are they not?
 
We are not among the "everybody now has retreated to an unspecified exotic
reaction."  We still point to 2.5 MeV neutrons as evidence for fusion under
unusual conditions. Yes, I was *willing* to assist P&F at an early time in
looking for neutrons, but this did *not* occur.  It never happened, Dieter.
In any case, this willingness should
not be construed as an endorsement of their claims or methods.  The heat, I
posit, is not nuclear since nuclear products do not appear in any where near
sufficient quantities to account for the heat.  They cannot establish a claim
to a new field of "cold fusion" by the evidence they presented at the U. Utah
press conference, in my opinion.  Science works by different rules, I think
and certainly hope.
 
What are we coming to, Dieter, if such a press conf.
awards them the years of BYU research?  How about the BYU hypothesis on
natural fusion in the earth?  Would you give P&F credit for this too?
 
I do not go to "ALL the right conferences," I think.  I deliberately avoided
the Como meeting, for instance.  I went to Nagoya as a skeptic of the heat-is-
nuclear claims and hopefully served some use to scientific honesty with my
grad. student in pointing out the problems with the Notoya demonstration (thin
wires going into the control cell, etc.).  Huizenga was also there.  BTW,
I find that Huizenga in his book makes a clear distinction between the BYU and
P&F lines -- repeatedly and pointedly.  I like his attitude in this regard
much better than yours, as I think it is more accurate, fair and reasonable.
Huizenga states:
"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." (p. 214)
Huizenga points to the BYU work as a "genuine scientific claim," and says
"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)
On the other hand, he argues forcefully:  "Room-temperature nuclear fusion
without commensurate amounts of fusion products is a delusion and qualifies
as pathological science."
 
I agree with Prof. Huizenga in these points and with his book in general,
and therefore hope that his reasoned attitude of carefully separating the
BYU and P&F paths is widely adopted by the scientific community, if not
by the public at large.
 
A final note on meetings:  we held a meeting at BYU in 1990 entitled "Anomalous
nuclear effects in deuterium/solid systems," Proceedings published by the
American Institute of Physics, 1991, No. 228.  Our goal was to discuss
possible nuclear effects without the confusion of a connection to xs-heat
claims, and I think we succeeded.  I do not wish to get sucked into the P&F
camp as this meeting made abundantly clear.  (Dieter, you evidently lack
a copy of the proceedings; I'll send you one.  Please look at it.)
The next "cold fusion" conference, i.e., xs-heat-is-nuclear oriented meeting,
is planned for Hawaii in Nov. 1993.  I was invited to participate on the
international organizing committee -- I declined some weeks ago.  If I go at
all, it will not be to discuss BYU results nor geological-fusion evidences
since these do not bear on the xs-heat-is-nuclear claims, in my studied opinion
.  Our results will be presented elsewhere.
 
>>Note that I made no effort in the 1992 summary to normalize the rates to the
>>d-d pairs in the various materials (nor is this done for the Kamioka results).
>      [Jones}
> I take your point. Nonspecialists like to have things served up simply; it
> would be nice to be able to say that the Jones fusion rate is 1E-24 f/dd/s,
> but as always, it's not as simple as that. But may I ask, what led to your
> working with cement? Is this synthetic geology, or fracto-inspired? [Dieter]
 
The idea of looking for neutrons in cement+D2O (esp. during curing processes)
originated with BYU Prof. Paul Palmer.  You are right -- the approach was
motivated by our geological cold-fusion hypothesis, since similar reactions
occur in setting cement as occur in the earth (e.g., hydration and crystal
formation).
>
>>I have not given up yet on seeking a trigger mechanism, but the
>>effort is tiresome with few rewards.  In fact, our work is deprecated by
>>"cold fusion" advocates such as Rothwell
>
> Forget Rothwell. Worry only about fellow scientists, if at all.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> --------------------------------------------------
 
Thanks for your comments, even if I sometimes disagree.  Hopefully we can
agree to disagree agreeably.
 
Best Regards,
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.11 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Too much politics?
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Too much politics?
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 18:17:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
 
> all. The Wrights also wandered in the wilderness for 5 years, under attack as
> frauds, bluffers, and idiots by the entire scientific establishment, the
> Scientific American, and the New York Times.
 
Actually it was 2 1/2 years between the Wrights first flight and the first
positive, full article on them in Scientific American.  This was also the
earliest article on them in any magazine in the Reader's Guide to Periodical
Literature.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: "size" of an electron blown out of all proportion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "size" of an electron blown out of all proportion
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 07:40:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Feb12.011723.28211@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> les@sail.s
anford.edu (Les Earnest) writes:
>
>I would submit that they don't work because we have only a very foggy
>idea of what drives the market.
 
Les, I would submit that the stock market moves because a million people
make decisions based on their own personal feelings and that those are
so varied and baseless that 'predicting' them is a stupid and senseless
experiment.
 
Also, the original poster noted that you had to have a remarkably large
amount of money to take advantage of the 'predictions'. I think that
we're both aware that it is difficult to loose money in the market if you
start with a large enough investment. Furthermore, all one has to do is
look at the majority of mutual fund results to see that investing power
equals money made in pretty positive terms.
 
Moreover, the stock market can appear to be completely predictable for long
periods of time. It is at the transition periods where prediction methods
fail.
 
And the person who suggested that as soon as neural nets become capable
they would immediately nullify theirselves was pretty spot on. If market
performance is being regulated by neural nets you would need serious
information on these nets in order to predict their effect. And to give
that advice would be to throw away your advantage. Hah, everyone has a get
rich quick scheme that they are sure works. Mine was a working gold mine
that was lost in a snow slide.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Topher Cooper /  Upcoming meeting of Society for Scientific Exploration
     
Originally-From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,rec.arts.sf.sc
ence,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.research,sci.misc,alt.divination,a
t.consciousness,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Upcoming meeting of Society for Scientific Exploration
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 16:36:52 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA

 
 
[I sent the following out a while ago, but, probably due to a typo in the
 Newsgroups: line, it did not propagate very far -- if at all.  My apologies if
 you see this more than once.  --  Topher]
 
    The Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration
    will be held at the Best Western Inn at Loretto in Santa Fe, New Mexico
    June 24 - 26, 1993.  Local arrangements have been made by SSE members
    Dr. John Alexander and Dr. Larry Dossey.  Any Associate or Member of
    SSE is entitled to present a paper at this meeting.
 
    The Program Committee for this year's meeting consists of Henry Bauer,
    Brenda Dunne, Michael Epstein, Beverly Rubik, and Michael Swords
    (chair).  The Committee has structured this meeting to be both
    educational and entertaining.  We plan to cover two areas of great
    current interest.  One is the so-called Mind-Body interactions with
    implications for health, placebo effects, psychoneuroimmunology, and
    bio-electromagnetism.  The other comprises UFO phenomena, especially
    concrete evidence, physical effects, and abductions.  These subjects
    will be the twin themes of the conference, with talks on these topics
    dominating two of the three days.  A tentative list of invited speakers
    includes:  Robert Ader, Larry Dossey, Beverly Rubik, Harry Rubin, and
    Jan Walleczek for mind-body topics, and John Alexander, Richard Haines,
    Donald Johnson, Mark Rodeghier, and Don Schmitt for UFO topics.
 
    To encourage in-depth discussion, the talks and panel discussions will
    have significant amounts of question time.  To allow other SSE members
    to present papers on their own research, the Program Committee has
    decided to create what they hope will prove an attractive format for a
    poster session, to be held in concert with a wine-and-cheese reception.
 
    An excursion to an "exotic" setting will be scheduled:  either the Los
    Alamos Supercomputer facility or the ancient Anasazi Pueblo ruins near
    Santa Fe.  Cocktails and a banquet are scheduled for Friday evening.
    SSE Associates and Members are encouraged to contribute papers for
    possible oral or poster presentation.  Please submit an abstract (of
    200 words or less, to be received by April 24) to the Program Committee
    Chair:  Dr. Michael Swords; Department of Science Studies; Western
    Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008.
 
    To obtain your registration material please contact Professor Larry
    Frederick at Society for Scientific Exploration, P.O. Box 3818,
    University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903-0818.  Please note
    that there will be a late registration fee after May 15.
 
    A block of rooms has been reserved at the Inn at Loretto at the special
    conferences rates of $98 per night for a single room, and $108 per
    night for a double room.  The address is: Inn at Loretto, 211 Old Santa
    Fe Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87504, USA, Telephone: 505-988-5531,
    FAX 505-984-7988.  Please make your own reservations directly with the
    hotel.
 
    We look forward to seeing you in New Mexico!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencooper cudfnTopher cudlnCooper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 /  jej007@vax1.ma /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 12 Feb 93 17:03:38 GMT
Organization: Mankato State University

In article <JTCHEW-080293100414@b50-afrd5.lbl.gov>, JTCHEW@lbl.gov
(Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>> could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
>> finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
>> fusion than they put in)?
>
> In a word, no.  The experiment at the Joint European Torus (JET)
> was newsworthy as the first deuterium-tritium "shot" in a major
> tokamak.  (Previous results were usually, if not universally, D-T
> extrapolations from D-D experiments.)  As I recall, it was in
> October 1991.  The longest and hottest shots remain well below breakeven.
 
  In the one I was thinking about, the media (oh yes, the word of God, I know),
and a Discovery Channel program called 'Beyond 2000' (I beleive I saw it there
too), said they did (finally) surpass the break even point.  I don't clearly
recall, so I hate to keep dredging this up, but I really want to be sure.
 
- Jon
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjej007 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Eric Weaver /  Re: LARSONIAN Physics
     
Originally-From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 19:57:42 GMT
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA

 
When I first saw the subject of the ref'd posting, I thought it
was about GARY Larson.
 
After reading it all the way through, I now think it SHOULD be.
 
Robert MacElwaine, please meet Andrew Hampe...
--
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
--
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenweaver cudfnEric cudlnWeaver cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: State of muon-catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: State of muon-catalyzed fusion
Date: 12 Feb 93 12:17:45 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <00967EC4.E57C0B40.21255@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue writes:
> Someone recently ask about the "state of the art" of the orignal form
> (and perhaps the only form" of cold fusion.  I haven't been keeping too
> close an eye on this, but there really isn't lots of activity in this
> field as far as I have seen.  There has been some recent experiments
> done at a lab in Zurich called PSI.  It doesn't seem there is much that
> can be done to advance the art, in the sense that there is anyway to
> enhance the effect.  The problem remains that each muon gets used only
> a few times before it dies.  I believe the number is about 7.  Muons
> are too expensive to make the fusion yield pay.
>
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
 
 
A few clarifications are in order.  The field is active with the last mu-c-f
(muon-catalyzed fusion) conference held at Uppsala, Sweden in June 1992.  I
was there with a graduate student (Stuart Taylor) who is working on his Ph.D.
thesis in this field.  We presented a paper based on experimental data taken
at LAMPF (in Los Alamos) in 1989 and 1990.  The paper has been submitted to
"Muon Catalysed Fusion", a journal which reports the latest in the field and
for which I serve as an associate editor.  There are other active groups in
U.K. (Davies, Pyle), Japan (Nagamine), Canada, Switzerland (Petitjean), Austria
(Breunlich), Italy (Bertin y Vitale), Russia (Ponomarev, Zinov, etc.), Sweden
(Froelich), India (Chatterjee) among others.
 
The largest number of fusion cycles per muon is actually 150, achieved in
a liquid deuterium-tritium target at LAMPF in ca. 1985, an experiment for which
I was spokesman.  We also found a strong temperature dependence of the muon
cycling rate, corroborating theoretical predictions of Leonid Ponomarev et al.;
this was demonstrated for the first time by us in 1982 at LAMPF.  At that time,
we achieved 20 fusions/muon (average), so we learned how to increase the yield
substantially thereafter (using high density targets, equimolar D2/T2 mixtures,
etc.)
 
Consider this:
  20 fusions/muon  x 17.6 MeV released/fusion  =  350 MeV released/muon.
Compare this with the total (mass+kinetic) energy of the "driver", the muon:
  E (driver) = approx. 130 MeV.
Thus, in 1982, the thermal energy out exceeded already the energy of the
"driver" of the fusion reaction, IF we ignore the energy required to generate
the muon.  This is the normal definition of "scientific breakeven," as Jed
recently pointed out.  But then, by this definition, scientific breakeven
was achieved via mu-c-fusion (near room temp.) in 1982.
 
This caused considerable excitement at the Idaho Nat'l Lab. where I worked
in 1982.  The management in fact very strongly urged us in '82 to hold a press
conference (!) to announce our "breakthrough."  But Dr. Caffrey and I insisted
that we must wait until our results were published, namely in
S.E. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. Letters 56 (1983):1757.
By then, we had convinced the management that "scientific breakeven" was far
from "commercial power" since enormous energy must be invested to create
the muon drivers (at least 3GeV electrical/muon).  Thus, the real "cold fusion"
(for now) had a scare with press conference-itis back in 1982.  I had fought
this battle once before.  It's much easier to put out a small fire, friends.
 
I should add that I related this story to P&F and Chase Peterson (U. Utah
President in 1989) during their visit to BYU on March 6, 1989 -- even though
I had no indication that they were contemplating a press conference at that
time, it was clear that they were very excited about "billions of dollars"
that *could* come from "cold fusion" (sans muons) as they saw things.  I tried
diligently at that meeting to explain, by comparison with mu-c-f and our own
piddling neutron yields in deuterided metals, that "cold fusion" sans muons
was *extremely* unlikely to generate the heat levels and the dollars that they
imagined.  My pouring cold water on their excitement over potential energy
sources -- and they mentioned big dollars and much glory just as Jed does now--
did little to dampen their enthusiasm.
 
Back to mu-c-f.  The current yield record is held by LAMPF, as I said, at
 150 fusions/muon (average) X 17.6 MeV/fusion  =  2640 MeV/muon.
This approaches the predicted optimal cost for producting a muon in a dedicated
muon factory (calculations by Yuri Petrov, etc. in "Mu-C-F" the journal
which further estimate that about a factor of 15 is needed for commercial
power production by mu-c-f.  Maddeningly close, isn't it...)
The limit is imposed by the propensity of the negative muon to "stick" to the
positive alpha particle synthesized during d-t fusion, the "sticking factor."
We found at LAMPF that this factor is less than theoretically predicted,
announcing in 1984 a value of 0.4% (per cycle) compared to the theoretical
value of about 0.9%.  Theory has come down to 0.6%, but still we have a
smaller experimental value which keeps the field alive to a large extent.
I should note that it was just last year that the PSI group agreed that the
sticking value was about 0.4% (they found finally 0.48%+-0.02 stat.+-0.04
calibration)%.  Prior to 1992, they argued that the theoretical value of 0.6%
was valid; now we agree that experimental values are both smaller than theory.
 
A small sticking allows more fusions/muon since this is the bottleneck in the
muon catalysis cycle.  About 250 fusions/muon average appears to be the limit.
But there are ideas about *why* the sticking is so small that may permit
fiddling with the sticking to reduce it further.  So work continues.
 
Dr. Ponomarev last year invited me to help put together a collaboration to
continue mu-c-f studies, at the Dubna, Russia lab.  It appears this will be
a go.  So the field is active, and I am active in it, contrary to rumors.
Our group actually has approved muon-beam time at LAMPF, but the major problem
there relates to tritium=safety issues, which now look insurmountable for
our continued program at LAMPF.
 
Another rumor has it that mu-c-f died in the US due to "cold fusion" in about
1989.  This is *not* correct.  In fact, in 1988, the DOE-supported mu=c=f
effort was reviewed by the DOE BESAC committee and the JASONS.  Both stated
that while the experimental effort was strong, it should not be further
supported by DOE's Advanced Energy Projects Division, since this division
had a charter to support projects for only about 3 years and we had already
been supported for six.  Thus, the funding pipe was closed in 1988, before
"cold fusion" (ala P&F) hit the fan.  Funding for mu-c-f dribbled into 1989.
 
But as I mentioned above, we did mu-c-f experiments at LAMPF during summer
1990.  How?  By then, DoE had provided funding for cold fusion
low-level/geological studies (ala BYU) and gave permission for us to use
some of this funding to complete mu-c-f work.  Thus, the cold fusion funding
*helped* us continue mu-c-f studies when otherwise funding was extremely
tight.
 
I hope this helps set the record straight.  It probably opens
further questions.  Some answers (regarding mu-c-f science) can be found in
reviews:
S.E. Jones, Nature 321 (1986): 127-133.
J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, Scientific American, July 1987.
W.H. Breunlich et al., Annual rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 39 (1989): 311-356.
 
Gotta run,
--Steve Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 / Scott Lackey /  Re: The Journal of Scientific Exploration
     
Originally-From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,rec.arts.sf.sc
ence,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.research,sci.misc,alt.divination,a
t.consciousness,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: The Journal of Scientific Exploration
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 00:10:28 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM

From article <1993Feb9.180342.130@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, by cooper@cadsys.e
et.dec.com (Topher Cooper):
>
>
>     The JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION publishes peer-reviewed research
>     articles and invited essays in areas that do not fit neatly into the
>     matrix of present-day science.  Now in it's 6th year of publication,
>     this quarterly journal provides a professional forum for the
>     presentation, scrutiny and criticism of topics falling outside the
>     established scientific disciplines.  JSE publishes articles both "pro"
>     and "con", the only criteria being quality and scholarship.  It is the
>     official publication of the international Society for Scientific
>     Exploration (founded in 1982).  For information contact:
>
>
        Does this mean the "peers" are from outside the "matrix of
present day science" and are not in "established scientific disciplines"?
If so, what are the qualifications to review, (and thus validate to some
degree) a submitted article?
 
Scott Lackey
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensmlacke cudfnScott cudlnLackey cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Tritium_production?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Tritium_production?
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 15:40:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!emoryu1.cc.emory.edu!phsjga (Jacques G. Amar)
 
>  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
>>Amoung the
>>D + Pd experiments, that leaves Pons & Fleischmann.  As far as I can
>>tell they have not been doing calorimetry for publication so there
>>is really no data to discuss at present.  It would seem that 4 years
>>into this there stands only one D + Pd experiment of any significance.
>>I would say, in summary, that the lack of clear progress through a
>>series of improving experiments in combination with the total failure
>                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>to find reaction products should just about nail the lid on the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>coffin for this form of CF.
 
>  I would suggest that Dick Blue read a copy of "On an electrode producing
>  massive quantities of tritium and helium" by C.C. Chien, D. Hodko, Z.
>  Minevski, and J. O'M. Bockris in J.Electroanal. Chem. 338 (1992) p.189-212.
...
>  This does not sound like the nail in the coffin to me.
 
>  Perhaps someone knowledgeable who has read the paper could comment on why
>  I should (or should not) believe these results.
 
You hit the nail on the head here, i.e. THE problem with all this. If you
uncritically believe every single claim for positive results, then you do
indeed have "hundreds, yes hundreds" of confirmations. But how can you judge
the merit of any given paper? This is hard to do, and will be everyone's
individual choice.
 
Now tritium is a difficult case. It is present in the air in most of those
places where people are measuring it. Storms, e.g., works at Los Alamos. In
one of his experiments, several cells suddenly showed tritium, even though
they had been running different lengths of time. Occam's Razor would tell us
to assume that some tritium wafted into the lab; Storms says no, the cells
produced it. Do we believe him? Everyone has his/her own answer. Bockris is
one of the best known electrochemists, and a superb experimentalist; so maybe
we shoud just believe him? On the other hand, he is also known for digging
his heels in, and does seem to have done so in this affair. The levels of
tritium found in the Bockris lab are not convincing to all; the heavy water
used in the cells has tritium levels fluctuating from batch to batch by many
orders of magnitude. At the very least, these results leave room for doubt.
SO it goes with helium. There are one or two studies where (4)He is claimed
at significant levels, even - according to some - at levels commensurate with
the other paramaters like excess heat. Others disagree.
 
In this sense CNF is very much like polywater. The contamination level of
those traces of water in the capillaries at the time was thought variously
to be zero, or a lot, and the whole thing hinged on that. It was eventually
possible to prove contamination. In the present case of CNF, I don't think
there will ever be real proof, one way or the other. What there will be, is
scientists voting with their feet. My publication statistics say that they
already have - i.e. the subject is almost dead, if you look at submissions
per month. This does not preclude, of course, a sudden upsurge of interest
next month, if someone finally does produce what is needed here: a working
model, clearly and unequivocally, without the use of tricks or subtle Kalman
filtering, producing more power than it receives.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.12 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Who Stole the Fake Diamonds?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who Stole the Fake Diamonds?
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 15:41:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
 
>I wonder if Dr. Jones isn't misunderstanding what Deiter and others (including
>myself) are saying.
>I don't think there is anyone that is trying to attach the scientific
>work he and his cohorts are doing with the apparent work being done
>by Pons, Fleischman et. al.
 
>Might I remind you that the jury is still out over P&F have anything
>or not? I see no reason to completely dismiss P&F until they have sufficient
time to demonstrate whether or not they have something there.
 
While there seems to be forming a kind of concensus here that P&F are
opportunists with no real results, and Steven Jones is a real scientist
honestly reporting a real effect, might I remind all that the jury is not yet
out on the BYU results, either. For all Steven Jones' straightness etc, his
lab's results are not uncontroversial. To me, the fact that when they go to
lower-background environments, the signals also go down in intensity, could
be interpreted as no signal being there at all. I have no doubt that, if/when
Steven realises this, we here will be the first to be told; one suspects that,
in contrast, F&P will fight tooth and nail for every single gamma particle or
Joule of heat to be recognised as solid evidence. This difference in openness
and honesty must not however be taken as evidence that the BYU results are
beyond doubt. We are not talking about muon catalysis, where the BYU lab is
at the forefront, but about cold fusion without muons.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 /  /  Credit
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Credit
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 04:11:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones says:
 
"BTW, if test-tube fusion generates xs heat,
then clearly the credit goes to P&F, no question.  By the same token,
if natural fusion takes place inside the earth, BYU... "
 
You bet!  Seems like a good division of spoils to me.  But my bet is that if
either are true, then likely both are true, and we will have some rich new
natural phenomina to study.  Then there will be credit enough for everyone.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 /  /  Status #17 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #17 Cell 4A3
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 04:11:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #17 Cell 4A3
 
Last night the Chicago area had an ice storm, and we lost power for an hour
and a half.  Too long for the battery back up which only lasts about a half
hour.  We were about at 1200 hours.  I think that this is a record long run
for me without a major disaster.  During this time, 45 cc of gas appeared in
the syringe.  This does not make sense, since if the cathode loses D then the
net gas should *decrease*.  This assumes that there is oxygen in the syringe
to recombine it.
 
What I need is a miniature Orsat analysis set.  Can't even find the regular
kind in chemical supply catalogues.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to
what I should try to buy?  I need something that would do an analysis for D,
O, and CO2 using about a 20 cc sample.
 
In any case, it looks like we are about at the end of this run.  Time to put
the "super polished" cathode prepared by Ed Manning in a cell and see what
happens.  I will run a while longer though to see how well the system
recovers.  This morning the calorimeter had returned within 10 mw of it's
balance before the crash.  Well within our error.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 /  /  May as well be zero!
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: May as well be zero!
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 04:12:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jacques G. Amar calls my attention to the abstract of a recent paper by
Chien, Bockris, et al.  which indicates that they observed tritium at
"10^3 times background" and helium at "2-100 times background".  Is this
something that should keep us from nailing the lid on the CF coffin?  I
don't think so, Jacques.  As has been said many times in many ways, the
reaction product rate has to be something like 10^12  per second per watt
of power.  If you observe potential reaction products at a rate that is
millions of times too low and at the same time rather close to the levels
of detectability, it may as well be zero!  These observations are much
more likely to be somekind of artifact, and before anyone can attach real
meaning to statements such as "10^3 times background" you have to
establish what is meant by the word "background".  Tritium, for example,
can come from several sources in the Bockris lab, and past experience has
shown that the experimenters may not know how it gets from one place to
another.  Helium is an atmospheric gas but is also widely used at high
concentrations in many laboratory settings.  It also diffuses into and
out from laboratory glass ware so defining "background" levels can be
difficult.  You may believe the results as they stand, but they don't
ammount to a hill of beans as far as establishing cold fusion as a
"real" phenomenon.
 
While we're discussing low-level results, Steve Jones has mentioned
experiments by Chambers, Hubler, and Grabowski as being worthy of
some consideration.  Since Steve has provided me a copy of the
conference proceedings containing this work, I will pass on my
thoughts about it since there has been some question as to what
the experiments consist of.  First off there are in fact two separate
set-ups to be considered which yielded quite different results.
 
The first of these is refered to as the transmission experiment.
A thin titanium foil is mounted across the face of a silicon
surface-barrier detector, placed in a volume filed with D2 gas
at 2.4 X 10^-4 Torr, and bombarded with D+ and D2+ ions at 350-400
eV.  "After 40 minutes total ion bombardment time, counts appeared
in multiple bursts over a two to three minute period. ... Bombardment
continued for two more hours with no additional counts observed."
In a second run, after 5 minutes bombardment the detector counted for
about 5 minutes and then stopped.  During the course of this run
they turned the detector bias down in am attempt to gain some
added information about the "particles" reaching the detector.
In both cases the recorded pulse height spectra show peaks corresponding
to about 5 MeV particle energy by the particles can not be
identified unambiguously.  Tritons are suggested but the evidence is
weak.
 
The second experiment places the foil on a substrait oriented at 45 deg
with respect to the ion beam.  The detector is at 90 deg.  In this
case two runs of 55,000 seconds and 43,000 seconds show nothing of
real statistical significance.  So it is really only two brief events
covering no more than 8 minutes total time that are under discussion.
One can speculate as to what phenomena generated the pulses in the
detector.  All I care to say is that if the reaction d + d -> t + p
were involved the protons should have been observed as well as the
tritons.  I will also remark that ECR ion sources put out high
intensities of UV to X-ray radiation as well as ions and the detector
was looking right down the throat of the ion source.  'Nuff said?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 / R ALTSTATT /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 04:54:13 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

 
I They have invested in education, and their primary education
> encourages creativity, responsibility, and independent thinking far more
> than typical U.S. education does. While they lavish attention, money, and
> love on their children,
        As institutional tragedies have demonstrated, Jappaneese are far
more interested in teaching strict obedience to rules over anything
resembling creative or independant thinking.  They do encourage
responsibility but I do not here of them lavishing attention , money
and love on their children.  I may not have heard anything bad but
they also have no reporting of ANY child or family abuse.  I think
this is closer to the situation of fifty years ago in the US where no
incidences of child abuse or wife beating were reported unless someone
was killed.  Don't confuse reported data with reality.
 
 
we abandon scores of ours to the streets and to
> drugs. It has reached the point in some U.S. neighborhoods where half of our
> young men end up in jail. This is an unprecedented catastrophe on the same
> historic scale as the Fall of Rome.
>
> - Jed
>
        Yes, the poor are in trouble.  We have an unemployment problem in
the US but the Jappaneese have and UNDER employment problem.  All able
bodied people can find work.  Included in this is the long term race
problem in the US where a large sub-culture of unemployed people are
living outside the laws and supports of our culture.  No one in the US
wants to see the loss of their children, but there is little we can do.
        I agree that their expansion has made them extremely wealthy.  The
government/corporation link has allowed a fast reaction rate and high rate
of reinvestment.  These should be emulated but few people want to trust
the governments control of business when it invariably results in high
level corruption as is clearly see in Japan today.  Take a second look
at this wonder culture, it is not all roses.  The US will again rise in
the future.  Unlike the Jappaneese, we encourage immigration and
social integration which, in time or world crisis, should make us stronger.
It has before, it will again.
        Richard
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrlaltsta cudfnRICHARD cudlnALTSTATT cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 21:22:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Feb13.045413.18587@ncsu.edu> rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu
(RICHARD L ALTSTATT) writes:
>
>       As institutional tragedies have demonstrated, Jappaneese are far
>more interested in teaching strict obedience to rules over anything
>resembling creative or independant thinking.
 
This _may_ be true as an overview, but please don't think that individually
japanese are any different than you or I. While the japanese society _tends_
to produce very regimented thinking, the _general_ American system _tries_
to do the same thing. (Thank heavens it fails mostly.) So we can hardly
criticize the japanese. Glass houses and all that you know.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:23:05 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <1993Feb13.212204.26885@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> In article <1993Feb13.045413.18587@ncsu.edu>
> rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT) writes:
>
> | As institutional tragedies have demonstrated, Japaneese are far
> | more interested in teaching strict obedience to rules over anything
> | resembling creative or independant thinking.
>
> This _may_ be true as an overview, but please don't think that individually
> japanese are any different than you or I. While the japanese society _tends_
> to produce very regimented thinking, the _general_ American system _tries_
> to do the same thing. (Thank heavens it fails mostly.) So we can hardly
> criticize the japanese. Glass houses and all that you know.
 
I know quite a few Japanese folks where I work.  I have worked directly for
Japanese managers, and have had Japanese employees working for me.  I know
some truly "Americanized" Japanese, also.  Thus I hope I'm speaking at least
in part from actual experience.
 
It is difficult for Americans to fully understand the severity with which
deviating from "the norm" is often viewed in Japan.  I think for that
reason we tend to underestimate how profound the difference between our
cultures really is.  America is descended from pioneers and (literally)
outlaws from England and other European cultures, and our heritage is one
of "leave me alone, I'm doing quite well on my own, thank you."  Modern
Japan is a transformation in form only of one of the most severe forms
of Confucian feudaly society that ever existed, with a profound emphasis
on loyalty to authority that flatly never existed in the U.S. in any form.
 
In the modern feudal form the corporation has replaced the fiefdom, but
there has been very little change in the underlying cultural emphases.
I've heard Japanese give equal billing to loyalty to country and loyalty
to company in the same sentence, and they meant it exactly as it sounded.
Thus going against your boss in Japan has more than a little flavor of
the level of roguery that intentionally going against civil authorities
has in the U.S.  It means that you have in some sense chosen the path of
"outlaw" behavior.  Very few Americans would interpret a disagreement with
their boss in that sense, I suspect.
 
Being critiqued individually in Japanese culture has a severity to it that
most Americans literally cannot comprehend, because we do not equate self-
worth and value with how closely you are integrated and "blended in" with
those around you.  In Japan, however, self-worth is often intimately linked
to how well you "blend in" with your society as a whole.  To be creative is
one way of standing out in a crowd, and standing out in a crowd (for whatever
reason) is simply not considered the right way to behave.
 
All of this is overseen by one of the strictest hierarchial obedience
structures I've ever seen.  Japanese bosses do not, repeat _do not_ expect
to be contradicted, debated, or in any way told that they might be wrong,
at least not by anyone who works beneath them.  Americans working in Japan
on software often shock their bosses profoundly by saying things like "Why
should I do that?  It won't work."  In response, the Japanese bosses are
often at a loss as to what to do with Americans who make such statements,
because the Americans just don't seem to understand how serious a direct
reprimand from their bosses is supposed to be.  The Americans just don't
give a hoot, knowing darned well that they can pack up their bags and go
to another company whenever they get fed up with it all.
 
Going to another company is _not_ an option for most Japanese employees.
 
I've had Japanese tell me that leaving a company usually is taken as an
indication that the person is some kind of thief or reprobate, and it is
(traditionally, at least) viewed very, very negatively.  Thus unless you
wish to be disenfranchised from Japanese society as a whole (a very
devastating thought for most Japanese), you do _exactly_ what your boss
tells you to do, and hope that some day you can scramble up the ladder
and become a boss yourself.  Then, and only then, you may be able to
exercise a wee bit of creativity in how you tell others to do their work.
And you will enjoy knowing that those workers will _never_ talk back to you
when you ask them to do something, no matter how unusual the request.
 
No, Japanese and American culture are not just "a little" different --
they are profoundly and deeply different, and it may be decades before
the current process of Westernization that is going on there makes them
similar enough to where it really is only a matter of degree.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.13 / Anthony Hursh /  Re: State of muon-catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: bitbangr@skynet.cojones.com (Anthony W. Hursh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: State of muon-catalyzed fusion
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 23:08:31 GMT
Organization: Mooseware Productions, Anchorage Alaska

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
: Compare this with the total (mass+kinetic) energy of the "driver", the muon:
:   E (driver) = approx. 130 MeV.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
: By then, we had convinced the management that "scientific breakeven" was far
: from "commercial power" since enormous energy must be invested to create
: the muon drivers (at least 3GeV electrical/muon).
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
: Back to mu-c-f.  The current yield record is held by LAMPF, as I said, at
:  150 fusions/muon (average) X 17.6 MeV/fusion  =  2640 MeV/muon.
: This approaches the predicted optimal cost
 
Presumably the 3 GeV figure above?
 
| for producting a muon in a dedicated muon factory (calculations by Yuri
| Petrov, etc. in "Mu-C-F" the journal
 
Steve, I'm not a physicist (a fact that will shortly become readily
apparent :-) but I'm curious about the tremendous gap between the muon
rest mass and the amount of energy required to produce it. Is the optimal
cost you refer to an engineering limit or a scientific one? In other
words, is there a possibility that there might be a way to make the
muons more cheaply, given engineering improvements (better or different
accelerator designs, e.g.) or is there a theoretical limit operating
here?
 
 
BTW, I really appreciate your posts, and those of Tom Droege.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbitbangr cudfnAnthony cudlnHursh cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.14 / John Kreznar /  Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: 14 Feb 93 08:27:27 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

The subject is nuclear fusion.  But the discussion affords outsiders
like myself a rare glimpse of the degree to which the ``entitlements''
(to tax funding) mentality has permeated the minds of even the
talented people to be found in this newsgroup.
 
For example, in <930209175429_72240.1256_EHL99-1@CompuServe.COM>, Jed
Rothwell writes
 
>      We want $10 million or so... [of taxpayer money]
 
> Is this asking too much... or are we merely asking for what
> due to us, as respected and honorable members of the scientific and
> engineering community?
 
> At this nanosecond of history ... we [i.e. U.S. nationals, I assume
> -jek] are in decline....  This is an unprecedented catastrophe on
> the same historic scale as the Fall of Rome.
 
Apparently he does not perceive that his demands, combined with those
of the other hundred million patrons of government, are exactly what's
driving the catastrophe.
 
In <930209225803_72240.1256_EHL93-3@CompuServe.COM> he further writes
 
> In later generations, when the history of this affair is written,...
 
In later generations when the history of 20th-century science is
written, many of its results will be recognized as tainted by having
been funded by taxation.  This is assuming that civilization survives
the current threat from Statism and that such a history ever comes to
be written.
 
I'm not arguing that cnf should rely less on taxation than hot fusion
or any other field of science; I'm arguing that _any_ scientific
knowledge gained by expropriating the toil of unconsenting others is
forever tainted by that blot on its history.
 
An initiative with some prospect of near-term commercial success,
certainly a claim made for cnf by proponents such as Rothwell, has
even less excuse to enlist the guns of the State on its behalf.  This
would be a fine arena for venture capitalism if people could only be
reawakened to a sense of simple decency.
 
Lest the reader think this posting was provoked by Jed Rothwell alone,
let me hasten to add that I was also shocked (though not surprised) at
Steve Jones' reminder in <1993Jan30.120614.381@physc1.byu.edu> that
even his good work bears this same blot: "Thanks to DoE support ... we
have a dedicated and well-equipped laboratory...."
 
Knowledge gained through science funded by taxation is forever tainted
thereby.
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.14 / John George /  Posting TEST ONLY
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Posting TEST ONLY
Date: 14 Feb 93 22:09:49 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

This is only a test of my supposed ability to post to
this newsgroup. Hopefully I will be able to select a
position on the "slope vs nazi" question.
 
THX
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 /  /  Government Support
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Government Support
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 14:57:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I can't resist jumping into the government support thread any longer.  I am
doing just fine without government support.  But it would be nice to be in
a university with Dieter Britz or Tod Green down the hall.  Then I could
badger someone into analyzing my gas.  So while I am libertarian in my
primary views, there is a good argument that society should support some
people who think about things with a long range view.  That is what our
universities do.
 
CNF is a field that does not require a lot of money.  Any of you that read
this could find enough money if you wanted it more than sex or night baseball.
 
We are gradually gatering "a few good (PC) people" to go after this thing.  I
would rather have this few, than a staff of thirty where this is their "job".
 
Jed Rothwell says that I can not compete with the massive effort being put
together by the Japanese.  It is true, that if I was boss, and the thirty
did whatever I wanted that it would be fun for a while.  About six months.
Then the lack of feedback and criticism would send me down some wrong turn
and I would stop making progress.
 
In forty years in various laboratories, I have never been stopped from doing
what I wanted to do by lack of money.  Most of the time I am held up by lack
of a good idea - or by lack of trained people.  Sometimes you have to stop and
train people for three years, and management does not usually want to spend
that money even when you can make a guaranteed prediction (like for maintenance
of CDF) that it will be needed.
 
So what I need now is a positive experiment instead of hints of one.  Then I
would build 20 calorimeters and start a diverse program.  But I won't do that
until I have more evidence than I presently have.
 
>From time to time a venture capatalist does call.  I take their number and
put them on a list.  Money will come when we have a repeatable experiment.
 
Meanwhile, I could use a few more good helpers.  Not someone that says "why
don't you do this or that" to get the gas analyzed, but someone who says
"send it to me, I'll find a way".  Or whatever task is to be done.
 
I agree with Terry Bollinger's comments about the Japanese.  Nothing like
watching a Japanese baseball game to realize how different the two cultures
are.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Jed Rothwell /  Edison
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Edison
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 14:57:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Richard Blue comments:
 
"...your portrayal of Edison and the Wright brothers as unappreciated
scientists is not historically accurate."
 
Oops. You shouldn't have said that Dick. You are playing in my court. You do
neutrons, I do history. Both the Wrights and Edison met a firestorm of
establishment scientific opposition, which went on for years and years. That
fact is well documented. I just read the best "warts and all" biography of
Edison I have ever seen, titled "A Streak of Luck," by Robert Conot.
 
Let's have a quick look at the situation in 1879, 3 years after Bell invented
the telephone, and about six months after Edison got serious about the
incandescent light. He had gone through four design iterations, open air,
vacuum, partial vacuum... He and his crew were doing "teeth grinding" all-
nighters, and he was getting nowhere. His design goal was to produce lights
that could be "subdivided;" that is, run in parallel circuits, and not just
serial. The eventual solution, as we all know, was to use high resistance 100
ohm filaments instead of 5 ohm arc lights, but in 1879, no scientist on earth
imagined that a high ohm light could exist. When Edison later claimed he had
one, very few scientists believed him.
 
Edison had revealed the phonograph April 1878. He was proclaimed the
scientist of the ages, he showed the phonograph in the offices of Scientific
American, and at the White House... The reporters found out that he had
patented 158 inventions, and by the fall of 1878 he was acclaimed the
"Napoleon of Science" and "Wizard of Menlo Park." Arc lights and other
experimental incandescent lights had been around for about 15 years, but they
were not practical or economical compared to gaslight. There was no question
that the phenomenon existed, and there should have been no question that if
anyone could bring it to commercial reality, Edison could. But he hadn't done
it yet, he was being lambasted in the press and the scientific establishment.
He was busy doing science by press conference: "popping into the newspaper
pages like a vaudeville announcer going onstage to usher in each new act,
Edison set off a scientific brouhaha of unprecedented proportions... William
Siemens, who had worked on electric lighting for a decade, declared: 'Such
startling announcements as these should be depreciated as being unworthy of
science and mischievous to its true progress.'" (p. 129)
 
By and by, of course, Edison got the thing to work, so he strung up several
lights on poles around his laboratories. Ordinary people came every evening
from miles around to marvel. The scientists stayed home. They knew the answer
already, they didn't bother replicating, they did not even bother going over
to have a look at a public demonstration. The drumbeat of daffy skeptical
opposition continued. Professor Henry Morton, who knew Edison personally,
lived nearby, and could have driven his buggy over any time, "felt compelled
'to protest in behalf of true science.' The results of Edison's experiments,
he asserted, were 'a conspicuous failure, trumped as a wonderful success. A
fraud upon the public.'"
 
The "prestigious" Professor Du Moncel said, "One must have lost all
recollection of *American* *hoaxes* to accept such claims. The sorcerer of
Menlo Park appears not to be acquainted with the subtleties of the electrical
science. Mr. Edison takes us backwards." A letter in Scientific American
attacked the light bulb and the newly improved dynamo, saying it would be
"almost a public calamity if Mr. Edison should employ his great talent on
such a puerility." Edwin Weston, a respected arc light specialist called
Edison's claims, "so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of
knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the
construction and operation of electrical machines." (p. 162)
 
The reaction in Europe was even more negative, and the "English Mechanic"
journal declared "all anxiety concerning the Edison light may be put to one
side. It is certainly not going to take the place of gas." (Anxiety?)
 
Finally, the light began to dawn (as it were). For one thing, people realized
that Edison was, after all, a world famous inventor applying for a license to
illuminate a neighborhood in New York, and he was getting huge amounts of
carte blanche financing from the world's most canny, successful investors,
including J. P. Morgan. People who had their head screwed on straight began
to wonder whether J.P. knew something they did not know. People realized that
J.P.'s men had good technical judgement -- just as any sensible person in
1993 realizes that when MITI and Toyota start spending $50 million a year, it
cannot be because they have accidently mistaken 20C for 80C, or 0 watts for
100 watts.
 
Gradually, the "daffy skeptic brigades" swung into absurd denial, phase II.
'Okay,' they admitted, 'maybe these weird effects do exist after all, but we
see now that they will never be of any use to anyone.' Here is a mind-
boggling warning from the New York Graphic:
 
     "When the phonograph was invented and the telephone was paraded before
     the admiring public, promises of magical results were lavishly made. How
     signally they have failed of perfection everyone now knows."
 
Three years after the telephone had been introduced, the daffy skeptics were
busy writing it off as a useless toy! 'It may exist,' they said, 'but it is
marginal, don't sell your telegraph stocks yet!" They knew that Bell had been
wrapped up in litigation for years, and could not raise capital, and could
not get to work, and they knew that he was fighting the biggest, most
powerful vested interest in the world: Western Union. They knew that the
development was tied up in knots by hostile opposition and severe technical
challenges, but they figured three years should be enough to bring it to
fruition no matter what the obstacles. It was all over, they said, the
telephone was a failure. This is the same nonsense we hear today from Dieter
Britz, who expects people to conduct and publish clean, beautiful CF
experiments even though he knows that there is not single dollar of money;
that most universities strictly ban all work (even when the researchers offer
to pay for the equipment); that workers face unending hostility and
accusations of fraud; and that no Editor will print even a short letter about
CF. It's all over, he says, because the number of articles has declined.
 
Phase II denial always kicks in after a while. The establishment lambasted
the Wrights for five years as bluffers, frauds, and liars, and never bothered
to send a reporter to Dayton. The Scientific American and the New York Times
never acknowledged the photographs and affidavits from the leading citizens
of Dayton (just as today they refuse to acknowledge videos, data, and letters
from MITI). Occasionally, a positive note would creep into S.A., but it would
immediately be countered by another strong denial. (See: "The Wright
Brothers" by Fred C. Kelly, the "authorized biography.") The experts made up
their minds instantly, the moment they heard the news in 1903, and that was
that. Even after the 1908 demonstration flight at Ft. Myres, VA, one of the
leading skeptics jumped up and said 'okay, it's real, but they will never be
able to carry a passenger.' They already had carried a passenger, and they
did it again a week later. History does not record what the skeptic said
after that, but I am sure it was something like: 'okay, but it is unreliable,
dangerous and expensive; it will never be practical.'
 
So, here we are 115 years after the incandescent light, 90 years after the
airplane, and we have just entered "absurd denial phase II" with CF. Here is
Dr. David Williams, Professor of Chemistry at University College London,
lambasting cold fusion in Physics Today:
 
     "Indeed, it is important to say that there do seem to be some good
     measurements which indicate the possible occurrence of an interesting
     phenomenon. But what profit is there in such an inefficient, unreliable,
     dangerous and expensive energy storage method?"
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.15 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Response to Dieter Britz/where we stand now
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:07:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>As I asked in a recent posting ("Who stole the fake diamonds?"), why not
>include muon-catalyzed fusion in this "area", if we follow your arguments
>to a conclusion.  Where do we draw the line?  The xs-heat papers essentially
 
Ouch! Where indeed do we draw the line? I shudder to think of all the work
ahead of me, if I now decided to add muon catalysed fusion to the
bibliography. But my line is between the known and accepted (e.g. muon), and
the anomalous and controversial cold fusions. This list/NEWS group did not
arise as a result of muon work, but as a result of anomalous cold fusion, and
that is what I collect.
 
>We are not among the "everybody now has retreated to an unspecified exotic
>reaction."  We still point to 2.5 MeV neutrons as evidence for fusion under
>unusual conditions.
 
OK, I was wrong.
 
>They cannot establish a claim
>to a new field of "cold fusion" by the evidence they presented at the U. Utah
>press conference, in my opinion.  Science works by different rules, I think
>and certainly hope.
 
Let's not be too hasty here, Steven. That press conference was not the only
way they made their work known; they also published in several real journals,
refereed and all. This press conference thing is overrated, I think. It has
been said before in this group that others have had press conferences without
people complaining. E.g. the HTSC mob. The complaint in the cold fusion case is
rather that of double dealing, running to the press, and posting manuscripts,
in breach of a gentlemen's agreement. I suggest, Steve, that had this not
happened, you would not be quite so hard on P&F.
 
>How about the BYU hypothesis on
>natural fusion in the earth?  Would you give P&F credit for this too?
 
No.
 
>Huizenga states:
>"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." (p. 214)
>Huizenga points to the BYU work as a "genuine scientific claim," and says
>"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)
>On the other hand, he argues forcefully:  "Room-temperature nuclear fusion
>without commensurate amounts of fusion products is a delusion and qualifies
>as pathological science."
 
To be fair, there is another way of looking at this. Your group claimed only
low-level neutrons. So there was nothing for them to be non-commensurate
with. FPH bravely claimed everything, and were quickly found to be in trouble
by many orders of magnitude. Also, while you clearly are taking the open and
honest approach as befits a scientist, and seem to have the favour of the
physics world, your low-level claim is about as far from known physics as
FPH's. If the expected fusion rate is 1E-80 or 1E-100 fusions/pair/s, and
one group claims 1E-19, the other 1E-23, they are both about equally far from
standard physics. The jury has its private thoughts but in both cases, it is
not out.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.15 /  /  Tritium_production?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium_production?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:07:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says "In this sense CNF is very much like polywater." refering
to tritium production claims of CNF experiments.
 
The big difference for all to remember is that no on thought they were going
to make **billions** from polywater.
 
With CNF, anyone with a positive result immediately hires a patent attorney
and shuts up.  This does not mean that the positive result is correct, but
only that we do not hear the truth about how it was achieved.
 
Please do not be confused.  This field is not conducted by the rules of
science.
 
Meanwhile, Pons and Fleischmann were able to convince the Japanese to spend
money.  The money is not so significant as the open political position that
the Japanese have now taken.  While no bureaucrat likes to make a public
mistake, Japanese bureaucrats top almost any list for their conservatism.
They have many ways to provide support without taking a public position.  But
they have taken a public position.  Very Interesting!!
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.15 / Drew Asson /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: asson@halcyon.stsci.edu (Drew Justin Asson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 20:21:26 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

On 14 Feb 93 08:27:27 GMT, jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) said:
 
>In later generations when the history of 20th-century science is
>written, many of its results will be recognized as tainted by having
>been funded by taxation.  This is assuming that civilization survives
>the current threat from Statism and that such a history ever comes to
>be written.
...
<stuff deleted>
...
>I'm not arguing that cnf should rely less on taxation than hot fusion
>or any other field of science; I'm arguing that _any_ scientific
>knowledge gained by expropriating the toil of unconsenting others is
>forever tainted by that blot on its history.
...
<more stuff deleted>
...
>Knowledge gained through science funded by taxation is forever tainted
>thereby.
>         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
 
What is trying to be said here?  Is all science done with taxpayers dollars
tainted?  Where should taxpayer's money go?  Cancer research does not benefit
me directly, nor perhaps > 50% of the US population (my figures may be off
but I am assuming that there are more people without cancer in the US than
those who have cancer), BUT I don't feel that that money is tainted or
being wasted.  I'm sure that there are some people who get these entitlements
who are not doing something for the nation as a whole, but to blindly say
that "knowledge gained through science funded by taxation is forever tainted"
is TOO much a claim to make.  A great deal of taxpayer-financed research has
led to amazing medical research that can help increase the quality of life
of many people, both directly and indirectly.
 
Just wanted to add my 2 cents.
 
-- Drew
============================================================
Drew J. Asson                                asson@stsci.edu
Advance Planning Systems Group               (410) 338-4474
 
Space Telescope Science Institute
3700 San Martin Drive
Baltimore, MD 21218
 
--
Drew J. Asson                                asson@stsci.edu
Advance Planning Systems Group               (410) 338-4474
 
Space Telescope Science Institute
3700 San Martin Drive
Baltimore, MD 21218
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenasson cudfnDrew cudlnAsson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.15 / William Unruh /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: 15 Feb 1993 23:43:21 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
>        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
>         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
 
I see, so if I don't like you living near me you will willingly move,
and you ask all your neghbours for their consent before you paint your
house, or flush your toilet into your common sewer? Or do you really
mean "Anything you do must have my consent but I'll do as I please?"
 
Ps I agree with you that the "entitlements" issue is a thorny one, and
it is all too easy to fall into the trap of seeing your own entitlement
as sacred and others as dispensible. but please don't try to solve the
problem with such moral imperitives.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenunruh cudfnWilliam cudlnUnruh cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / John George /  SRI Explosion Questions
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI Explosion Questions
Date: 16 Feb 93 00:14:55 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I have been following this newsgroup for about a month and now
have the ability to post to it. If this is old news, please
point me to where I can read more.
 
Several months ago, there was a gas explosion at SRI (Stanford
Research Institute) and the SF Bay Area media said that it occurred
while working on a CNF experiment for PG&E (the local utility).
Then it was like the lights went out, nothing more was ever said.
Usually the media swarm over dramatic bad news like flies, but not
this time.
 
Does anyone have any more information on the explosion itself or
the work at SRI?
 
Also, if anyone has archives, etc. I could read, I'd appreciate it.
I am wondering why the Japanese would be pursuing this at all if
there is absolutely nothing to it. They don't strike me as that
dumb.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Edward Stokes /  Fusion for the non-PhD
     
Originally-From: ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion for the non-PhD
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 02:03:49 GMT
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

I am interested in Fusion as a power sourse for the future, but
a lot of what you people are posting just flies over my head. I'm
a Freshman Elect. Engin. major, so
I'm catching some of whatyou say, just not enough. Could someone post or email a
"Fusion primer"?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenebstokes cudfnEdward cudlnStokes cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.15 / nod sivad /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 14:01:05 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
>       As institutional tragedies have demonstrated, Jappaneese are far
>more interested in teaching strict obedience to rules over anything
>resembling creative or independant thinking.
 
This is a well known weakness of their system.  Add to this that college
in Japanese culture suffers from even more of a party atmosphere than in
America.  On the other hand, the students aren't distracted by gun-toting
criminals in the hallways.
 
>They do encourage
>responsibility but I do not here of them lavishing attention , money
>and love on their children.
 
I lived in Japan for two years.  I can assure you they lavish attention,
money, and love on their children.
 
>No one in the US
>wants to see the loss of their children, but there is little we can do.
 
There is *lots* we can do.  The question is whether we will do it.
 
>Unlike the Jappaneese, we encourage immigration and
>social integration which, in time or world crisis, should make us stronger.
 
America welcomes *some* people from other cultures, then throws them into
a "melting pot" to scour away all vestiges of their previous culture.
America, which should be one of the most international countries in the
world, is one of the most parochial.  We hate diversity.  We persecute
minorities.  Many have said "our diversity will make us stronger;" the media
has established this as an accepted fact.  But is this accepted fact true?
I wish we lived in an America where it was, but I don't think we do.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: 16 Feb 1993 07:35:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh) says:
>jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
>>        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
>
>I see, so if I don't like you living near me you will willingly move,
 
Your criticism fails the test of reciprocity -- that is, it isn't mutual
consent if he doesn't want to move.  Try again -- but let's do it on
a different channel.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / N Redington /  Clustrons
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clustrons
Date: 16 Feb 1993 09:42:34 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Some time ago there was much talk about "clustron"
nuclear theory on this newsgroup, but I couldn't
figure out what it meant. Is it some sort of geomet-
ric model, like Pauling's helions etc.? Who proposed
it? What happened to it? Any information would be
appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Jed Rothwell /  Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Venture Capitalists
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 14:57:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Rusty Perrin asked a very reasonable and interesting question:
 
"...if CF has been proven as thoroughly as you say, why can't you find private
sector financing? I wouldn't think $10M is beyond the means of a typical
venture capitalist (if that is the right term)."
 
I dealt with venture capitalists 15 years ago when I was just starting in the
software business, and so did many of my friends in the computer biz, so I
think I can address this question. There are several roadblocks that keep most
U.S. VCs out of CF (Please bear in mind that these are a broad
generalizations):
 
Most VCs are timid. They generally offer you capital two years after you no
longer need it. This was true even during the height of first the PC boom,
around 1983.
 
$10M is wa-a-a-y too much for the typical VC to start up. They want to give
you $80,000 for 51%. They will settle for $200,000 for 80%.
 
They usually deal in very safe bets, like a beer distribution franchise in
South Carolina (a real example). This kind of deal gives you a guaranteed rate
of return with practically no risk. If you have a lot of money, you will find
that people bring you many sure-fire deals like this, so you have no reason to
risk fooling around with new technology.
 
VCs read the newspapers like anybody else. They read in the Washington Post
that CF is a bunch of malarkey, conducted by "tarnished, greedy
administrators..., gullible politicians, lazy journalists... corrupt
scientists..." and that's all they want to hear! There is no other source of
information to counter the attacks.
 
Many VCs are scientifically illiterate. They have no idea what
"thermodynamics" means. They have never heard of calorimetry, or specific
heat. They think that a thermometer might register a 50 C mistake.
Furthermore, they believe that nobody would notice such impossibly large
mistakes, even after 4 years of work. They see no reason why a match cannot
burn for a week. When you cannot judge even the simplest, most obvious
experimental results, like an open test tube of water boiling away, you have
no firm way of knowing whether Pons and Fleischmann are right or wrong.
 
CF is very dicey! Even if you discovered exactly how it works, you might not
be able to cash in. As I recall, one of the fellows from AT&T who got a Nobel
for the transistor cashed in, set up a company in Silicon Valley, and promptly
went out of business. There is no sure way to make a buck in CF, and dozens of
ways to lose a million.
 
The competition is awesome. Toyota is probably the second or third largest
maker of heat-engines in the world. They know exactly how to engineer heat
engines, and exactly how to sell them. They have a hammerlock on the world
auto market, and only the power of the U.S. Federal Government keeps them from
grabbing another large chunk of the North American Market. In CF, they have
the best people, and the best teams, both in Japan and in France, and they
have support and cooperation for MITI and 20 major National Laboratories.
Would you like to compete head-to-head with that? Nope. Not me either. If I
had some big-time support here in the U.S., Gov't backing, and many
megadollars, I might do it, but standing on my own would be like going mano-a-
mano with a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
 
"Standing on my own" would actually be a lot safer and more comfortable than
what happens to the poor slobs who try to do CF in the U.S. In Japan, as you
would expect, the top CF scientists get the red-carpet treatment, and the
government cooperates and coordinates private industry, universities and
national laboratories. In this country, people have sneak in and use labs
after hours, and if word of what they are doing gets out, nasty, anonymous
phone calls come from Washington threatening to shut down the entire
Department if the research is not stopped immediately. There is no way you can
keep up a running battle with the DoE, the Character Assassin Brigades, the
Washington Post, Nature, Huizenga, the Media Jackals like Taubes, and still
somehow get money and compete with Japan. The very idea is absurd.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / Jed Rothwell /  A society built on consensus
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A society built on consensus
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:02:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard L. Altstatt offers excellent advice: "Don't confuse reported data with
reality." I never do. Richard also claims, "Japanese are far more interested
in teaching strict obedience to rules over anything resembling creative or
independent thinking."
 
This is a perfect example of reported data which has nothing to do with
reality. It is true that Japanese leaders have often emphasized strict
obedience, but they do it for *exactly* the same reason the parents of
teenagers emphasize chastity and obedience: because kids never listen, and
they never have listened, and they always have babies. It is almost as bad now
as it was in Colonial Times, when most brides were pregnant teenagers.
 
When you hear a constant drumbeat: "obey me, obey me..." it tells you far more
about the drummer than the recipient of the message. When a Congressmen pleas
for more ethics in politics, he does not mean it, he is "going through the
motions" in a hypocritical effort to satisfy a moral imperative that nobody
takes seriously. The reason the Japanese make all that noise about obedience
is because people there seldom follow orders. Anthropologist Robert Smith said
(as I recall 20 years later), "They have always emphasized obedience, and it
is true, the history of Japan is littered with the bloody corpses of leaders
who did not obey the will of their underlings."
 
Japan is a society built on consensus, and this consensus always starts at the
bottom. Nothing ever happens in a Japanese organization until the lower level
people "sign off" on it. The leaders are usually weak, vacillating
figureheads. During the war in China, an American advisor to a Chinese General
suggested that they negotiate with the Japanese (over a temporary cease-fire
or something, I don't remember what.) The American suggested they contact
Tokyo. The Chinese laughed and said. "don't bother, if you want reach Japanese
policymakers, never talk to anyone higher than a junior officer in the field."
Mind you, I am not suggesting that there is no pressure for conformity in
Japan. But the pressure comes from below, not from above. This information,
by the way, is taught in Japanese History & Anthropology 101 (literally).
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 790 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 790 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:02:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
In my last Update, I attributed the Takahashi reference to Hal Fox's
collection. This was overgenerous, since I found later that I got it from
Phys. Abstracts, so I hadn't missed it. In this mini-update, the Bracci et al
item, however, is indeed from Hal Fox's list. Thank you, Hal. I also got a
couple of others, but found that they are not directly about cnf, so they are
not included here. Fox includes anything that might be of interest, like
metal-hydrogen papers, Gorsky effect, etc. I take some of these, if I reckon
they are fairly important, in the cnf-peri file - but not all.
 
The Bracci might give heart to cnf believers, but not to believers in
collective effects. There is an interesting sort of argument in this paper. I
have often wondered why electron effective masses should be greater in a metal
hydride (the greater such a mass, the closer two d's can approach, if one of
these little heavies gets in between them; e.g. a muon is very good at it).
There are papers mentioning that you need an effective mass of 5-7 to do the
trick. Bracci et al say something like if you apply a high pressure and
squeeze the d's together to the right distance, then this is the same as
having that effective mass that would pull them together that close. I picture
a normal electron watching the d's crowding in on it and thinking "Hey, am I
doing that?". Let's get serious. The Karabut et al is another low-pressure
discharge paper, and I don't really see why this should be cold fusion. It
falls under self targeting, I say, and I frankly don't believe the excess heat
it claims to measure. They do correct for the target heating due to the
discharge, I have to add. Neither is any surprise that they find neutrons,
and helium isotopes (noone else ever finds (3)He, but here you certainly
should). Someone will now probably tell me that the observed fusion rates are
anomalous for self targeting at 100-500 eV. This is no doubt similar work to
that mentioned by Steven Jones recently. The Russians have done a lot of it,
and I still suspect that they have not read the 1950's literature on self
targeting; they don't refer to it, anyway.
                                                                        Dieter
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 16-Feb-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 790
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bracci L, Fiorentini G, Mezzorani G;                  J. Phys. G 16 (1990) 83.
"Nuclear fusion in molecular systems".
** Theoretical calculation of the fusion rate of pairs xx', where x and x' can
be p, d or t, for a range of internuclear distances and effective masses of
the binding particle (electron). A model thought to be more accurate than the
naive Gamow-Sommerfeld formula is used. In some cases, high pressures might
lead to an internuclear distance sufficiently smaller than normal, to increase
fusion rates by tens of orders of magnitude, even at normal electron mass.
Collective effects on the fusion process are ruled out, however, because they
operate at inter-atomic spacings, not the small internuclear distances. The
table of results shows that claimed cold fusion rates are possible with
effective electron masses of 5-10 for all xx'.                   Jun-89/Jan-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karabut AB, Kucherov YaR, Savvatimova IB;         Phys. Lett. A170 (1992) 265.
"Nuclear product ratio for glow discharge in deuterium".
** A chamber with a Pd foil of 0.1-1 mm thickness in an atmosphere of D2 at
3-10 Torr was used. Thermistors measured the foil temperature and this served
as calorimeter. Also in the chamber were detectors for neutrons, gammas and
charged particles (cp's) as well as x-rays.. The Pd foil acted as cathode for
a discharge beam of 10-100mA at 100-500V in the chamber. During running,
excess heat, neutrons, gammas and cp's were detected. These paramaters were
however not in the ratios expected from a fusion reaction. Postmortem
examination of the foil revealed some increase in (3)He and an increase by
factors of 4-100 in (4)He. All nuclear products, however, were at levels 3-4
orders of magnitude lower than commensurate with excess heat. The authors
regard the calorimetry results as promising.                     Sep-92/Nov-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 /  /  Some old questions and a fusion primer
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some old questions and a fusion primer
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:02:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In answer of two old questions resently revived by new comers:
The accident at SRI was analyzed in great detail, the results were reported
here, but in essence the accident involve an explosion due to the ignition
of a deuterium-oxygen mixture in a closed container.  The event had no
special implications relating to cold fusion except to highlight the
fact that the electrolysis of water produces a potentially explosive
gas mixture, and anyone engaged in such experiments should be aware of
the hazard.
 
Another old question relates to the "clustron theory" of nuclear fusion.
That seems to have been nothing more than a flash in the pan.  No credible
theory ever saw the light of day, and some obviously flawed statements
(Well, actually incredibly silly!) were floated by way of explaining cold
fusion.  There was a press release that was followed by some very fast
back peddling, but that was followed by silence.
 
As for a fusion primer:  Chemical reactions may release energy by the
rearrangement of the chemical constituants in ways that change the
binding energies between various atoms.  In this forum the example
most often under discussion is the combining of oxygen and hydrogen
to form water.  Such processes can release energy on a scale of
roughly a few electron volts per reactant atom or perhaps 10 times
that.  By analogy it is possible to release nuclear energy by
making rearrangments of the constituant particles of the nucleus,
i.e. protons and neutrons.  If you start with nucleii that are less
tightly bound and put them into nucleii that are more tightly bound
the energy difference can be typically millions of electron volts per
reactant nucleus.  Fusion is a term that applies loosely to a class
of nuclear reactions in which very light nucleii are combined to form
something heavier.  Cold fusion, at least initially, was supposed
to involve dueterium as the "fuel", the expected reactions being
d + d -> t + p or d + d -> 3He + n.  In this notation d stands for
the deuteron which consists of a proton and a neutron, t stands for
the triton which consists of a proton and 2 neutrons, p is a proton,
n is a neutron, and 3He is 2 protons and a neutron.  It is expected
that these two reactions would occur with roughly equal probability.
The evidence from all cold fusion experiments to date is that neither
reaction is occuring, at least not a a rate sufficient to be of
interest as a power source.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 /  /  History Lessons for CF
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl00.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: History Lessons for CF
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:02:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell treats us to a long discourse on how hard it was for poor
ol' Tom Edison to get the scientific establishment accept his electric
light bulb.  One piece of history you may not know, Jed, is that Edison
is a very early example of the use of an extensive and well planned
public relations campaign to promote the public image of an individual
in support of a commercial venture.  You also seem to confuse the fierce
struggle between competing commercial interests with the supposed
tendency of the scientific establishment to suppress new truths.  Of
course the arc lighting companies were opposed to the introduction of
incandescent lights.  However, scientific facts were not involved in the
conflict.  In any case I don't think there is much to be learned by
drawing poor analogies from a past that is well encrusted with myth.
When you have some new evidence to support "cold fusion" it will get
the consideration it deserves regardless of what happened to Edison.
 
So, in a effort to get back to the current state of cold fusion
research, you had asserted that the best results for the nickle-based
cold fusion were indicating that deuterium enhanced the effect, and
that although the natural 0.015% abundance would do, a 25% mix was
better.  Could you say how much better?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.15 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Breakeven
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakeven
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 21:41:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
> CF passed scientific breakeven in 1989, and engineering breakeven power levels
> last year (although nobody has actually hooked up a cell to a generator, as
> far as I know). It will pass commercial breakeven in a couple of years, and it
> will put every other form of energy out of business long before 2030.
 
It would be very impressive to have a closed-loop cold-fusion generator demo
though!
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Lawrence Curcio /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 13:36:00 -0500
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad) writes:
 
>America welcomes *some* people from other cultures, then throws them into
>a "melting pot" to scour away all vestiges of their previous culture.
>America, which should be one of the most international countries in the
>world, is one of the most parochial.  We hate diversity.  We persecute
>minorities.  Many have said "our diversity will make us stronger;" the media
>has established this as an accepted fact.  But is this accepted fact true?
>I wish we lived in an America where it was, but I don't think we do.
>
>                                        me
 
Indeed we do all that, and it is perhaps a sad fact. Still, for all the
truth there is in what you say, we do a far-and-away better job of
accomodating diversity than any other country in the world. Intolerance
is not an American condition, it's a human condition.
 
In a way, though, to tolerate any perspective at all is to trivialize
perspectives. One can tolerate only unthreatening things. If a set of
ideas has influence, it will threaten some faction or other, and that
faction will react. The conflict is therefore, at least to some extent,
evidence that the scouring process is not complete, and that the
marketplace of ideas is working, and that's why diversity DOES make us
stronger.
 
Are we really more tolerant than other countries? Damn right. We HAVE to be.
Diversity IS all around us. If you look at a group of school children in
Japan, you see Japanese school children - a vision of a country. If you
look at a group of school children in the US, you see children from a
wide variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds - a vision of the World.
Some people, to be sure, don't like it, but THAT'S the reality that EVEN
THEY have to deal with here.
 
There is *some* cause for optimism.
 
-Larry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnLawrence cudlnCurcio cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: 16 Feb 93 19:07:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

I would argue that science funded by all society (which is what public
funding is) is less tainted than that funded by rich individuals, which is
the only alternative in point of fact. The latter are much more capricious
in their decision-making than even the former in the case of the US (see:
history). Fusion funded by the government is in the open literature (now,
at last!) rather than company secret, which helps the advance for its own
sake. At the very best you have the French genome-mappers who will give all
they know to the UN where it will be available to all; research in the
US has been hampered by the struggle for patents.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: 16 Feb 93 19:32:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
"In this country, people have sneak in and use labs after hours, and if
word of what they are doing gets out, nasty, anonymous phone calls come
from Washington threatening to shut down the entire Department if the
research is not stopped immediately."
 
Kindly give details for one occurrence of this. Names and dates.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Dieter Britz /  Seminal inventions
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Seminal inventions
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 02:06:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been a bit of talk here about important inventions of about 100
years ago, like the light bulb and the flying machine. Let us not forget that
when Bell invented the first telephone, it was found to be totally useless.
Then he invented the second telephone, and the thing took off.
{:]
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Venture Capitalists
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 02:06:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Digest #766 Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
 
>"Standing on my own" would actually be a lot safer and more comfortable than
>what happens to the poor slobs who try to do CF in the U.S. In Japan, as you
>...
>national laboratories. In this country, people have sneak in and use labs
>after hours, and if word of what they are doing gets out, nasty, anonymous
>phone calls come from Washington threatening to shut down the entire
>Department if the research is not stopped immediately. There is no way you can
 
Please, Sir, can you give us an instance of this, or are you just making this
up?
 
Jed, I HAD sworn off responding to you, but I find I have to get this off my
chest. I have just worked out what you are doing. Most people reading and
posting to this group are really interested in the subject, and want to know
what the facts are, and what informed people are doing and thinking. These
people (most of us) ask, and answer, real questions that arise. The tone of
this group, as Terry has said, is generally very good.
 You, on the other hand, are no scientist, and you don't care about questions.
You have all the signs of the advertising PR man - I don't know for whom or
what; is it maybe Clustron Inc, of which I believe you are one of the
principals? Will your PR help sell shares? You answer questions at great
length, only if it suits you. When you do hold forth at boring great length,
you are usually talking about something that is either obvious to everyone,
or is of no interest anyway. Like any politician, you do this deliberately.
It is not because you are boring or stupid yourself that you wasted kilobyte
after kilobyte on polemics on thermometers; all PR. Again and again, you state
that in the USA there is NO money for cold fusion research. This is a plain
lie and you know it. You have been corrected many times but - like any
politician or PR man - you just ignore that, and trot out the same lies again.
 Your lack of respect for informed people - people who have spent years
learning stuff - lowers the tone of this group. Now I don't advocate that we
should believe anything an authority figure says - they can be wrong. But if
I know that so-and-so is an expert on a subject, I assume that the expert
probably knows what he/she is talking about, and am hesitant to dismiss it.
This is why I take people like Fleischmann, Bockris and Schwinger seriously,
and give them the benefit of doubt. Were I you (on the other side of the
fence), I'd call them all fools, liars, mischiefmakers. You show no such
respect for learning. With one swipe, you dismiss Joseph Needham, because what
he wrote, after considerable study, contradicts what you learned in Chinese
History 101 or - I suspect - what you choose to believe. You call Huizenga and
Frank Close fools and worse, and what you know about their subject is
negligible.
 
In short, I would prefer not to see your postings to this group; they do not
inform us of anything, they are not even entertaining, they are just empty PR
and get in the way of what we others are here for: the exchange of information
and ideas about a fascinating subject.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 /  /  Effective mass vs. real mass
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Effective mass vs. real mass
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 02:06:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Unless I am mistaken those who are looking to the effective mass of
electrons as a way to enhance deuteron fusion are misguided on two
counts.  My understanding is that "effective mass" as it is applied
to electron transport in a solid is a convenient parameterization
device which accounts for interactions that are not explicitely
considered.  Large effective masses really do not imply any fundamental
change in the electrons, and it applies only to those electrons involved
in transport, i.e. the conduction electrons.  On the other hand
the electrons involved with pairs of deuterons have to be closely
bound at specific sites if they are to influence fusion rates.  In this
case the mass is significant (as in muons vs. electrons) because in
determines the charge probability density at the deuteron.  Those electrons
close to the deuterons aren't the same electrons that have an "effective
mass" and effective mass isn't what determines charge densities around
the deuterons.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: Some old questions and a fusion primer
     
Originally-From: wolff@liberator.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some old questions and a fusion primer
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 20:38:31 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue writes:
 
>                    Cold fusion, at least initially, was supposed
>to involve dueterium as the "fuel", the expected reactions being
>d + d -> t + p or d + d -> 3He + n.  In this notation d stands for
>the deuteron which consists of a proton and a neutron, t stands for
>the triton which consists of a proton and 2 neutrons, p is a proton,
>n is a neutron, and 3He is 2 protons and a neutron.  It is expected
>that these two reactions would occur with roughly equal probability.
>The evidence from all cold fusion experiments to date is that neither
>reaction is occuring, at least not a a rate sufficient to be of
>interest as a power source.
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL @ MSU
 
You forgot to mention that these nuclear reactions liberate around a
few million electron volts of energy. This energy will be transformed
into (deadly levels of) gamma rays.
 
The most striking evidence against cold fusion is that those who report
excess heat, still live to tell about it.....
 
(Come to think about it.... Maybe this is the mechanism that prevents
the right techniques for building positive experiments from becoming
public knowledge.......:-)
 
 
                                        Roger.
--
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783643 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / KNOWLES PAUL /  Re: Some old questions and a fusion primer
     
Originally-From: KNOWLES@ERICH.TRIUMF.CA (KNOWLES, PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some old questions and a fusion primer
Date: 17 Feb 1993 23:32:54 GMT
Organization: TRI-UNIVERSITY MESON FACILITY

In <1993Feb17.203831.27565@donau.et.tudelft.nl> wolff@liberator.et.tudelft.nl writes:
 
> ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue writes:
> >                    Cold fusion, at least initially, was supposed
> >to involve dueterium as the "fuel", the expected reactions being
> >d + d -> t + p or d + d -> 3He + n.  In this notation d stands for
> >the deuteron which consists of a proton and a neutron, t stands for
> >the triton which consists of a proton and 2 neutrons, p is a proton,
> >n is a neutron, and 3He is 2 protons and a neutron.  It is expected
> >that these two reactions would occur with roughly equal probability.
 
 (nuclear charge symmetry breaking aside, since i'm not sure where the
reference to this effect is, it's Gerry Hale's work however. The upshot is that
there are nuclear spin dependent branchings in here)
 
> >The evidence from all cold fusion experiments to date is that neither
> >reaction is occuring, at least not a a rate sufficient to be of
> >interest as a power source.
> >Dick Blue
 Which was continued with...
> You forgot to mention that these nuclear reactions liberate around a
> few million electron volts of energy. This energy will be transformed
> into (deadly levels of) gamma rays.
>                                       Roger.
 Well, the dd reaction releases 4MeV of energy, in the form of the kinetic
energy of the fusion fragments, no gammas, sorry, although a 3 mev neutron is
not to be kept in ones pocket. For comparison, a 3MeV proton has a range of
~100 micrometers in silicon. not what one would call deadly.
.paul.
 A few months hard work in the lab can save an hour in the library!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenKNOWLES cudfnKNOWLES cudlnPAUL cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / Joel Wedberg /  Re: Upcoming meeting of Society for Scientific Exploration
     
Originally-From: joel@moho.sdsu.edu (Joel Wedberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,rec.arts.sf.sc
ence,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.research,sci.misc,alt.divination,a
t.consciousness,misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Upcoming meeting of Society for Scientific Exploration
Date: 17 Feb 1993 23:34:42 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper) writes:
 
:
:     The Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration
:     will be held at the Best Western Inn at Loretto in Santa Fe, New Mexico
:     June 24 - 26, 1993.  Local arrangements have been made by SSE members
:     Dr. John Alexander and Dr. Larry Dossey.  Any Associate or Member of
:     SSE is entitled to present a paper at this meeting.
 
     Is this the same group that met in Santa Fe around that time
of year last year? There were people there last year who were
interested in, well, stuff like this last year while I was there
for a geophysics experiment called SAGE. I remember, in particular,
a group of women, at least some of whom are (well, were) from
Oregon. We talked until late at night about our fields of interest.
 
     Any of them read the Net?
 
     - Joel, the San Diegan who was into earthquake seismology.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjoel cudfnJoel cudlnWedberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Date: 17 Feb 93 17:21:18 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
          (Book Review):
 
 
          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed,
          hardcover.
 
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries.
 
               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988).
 
               Most books and journal articles on the subject of
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual
          validity.
 
               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements
          they contain.
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE,
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of
          space and time:
 
               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME.
 
               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN.
 
               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES,
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation
          ready for those also.
 
               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the sacred
          doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists,
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter,
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure),
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles,
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc.,
          used to maintain them.
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of
          SINGLE stars.
 
               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME).
 
               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against
          observations that contradict their theories would find
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE
          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly
          at random.
 
               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann,
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists,
          astronomers, and astrophysicists.
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmcelwre cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 05:30:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <1587@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
>I would argue that science funded by all society (which is what public
>funding is) is less tainted than that funded by rich individuals, which is
>the only alternative in point of fact.
 
(Yeah, those many libraries funded by Carnegie were full of "tainted" books.)
 
Great!  Now we are getting into the old socialist/individualist debate.
 
Believe me -- we individualists are prepared and willing to reply with
an abundance of argumentative megatonnage.  Be advised that we understand
the need for MAC (Mutually Assured Congestion.)
 
You are playing with fire here -- don't make us go to DEFCON 3!   :-)
 
>Fusion funded by the government is in the open literature (now,
>at last!) rather than company secret, which helps the advance for its own
>sake. At the very best you have the French genome-mappers who will give all
>they know to the UN where it will be available to all; research in the
>US has been hampered by the struggle for patents.
 
As far as I know, the only two remaining industrial secrets are the formulas
for Coke Classic and the recipe for Colonel Sander's Kentucky Fried Chicken.
 
Patents are creations of the state and so cannot be claimed as a flaw of
"individualism."  In any event, they require full public disclosure.
 
But the most basic flaw in your thinking is to assume that all non-coercively
financed efforts must result in "secrets."  I bet my bottom dollar that you
cannot list three industrial "secrets" which have a significant effect on
the human condition.  And thus your justification of coercive financing
falters for lack of supportive evidence.  May I remind you that when you
call upon the power of coercion, your burden of proof is at its highest!
 
Will it be war or peace?
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.16 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Edison
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edison
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:31:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> Phase II denial always kicks in after a while. The establishment lambasted
> the Wrights for five years as bluffers, frauds, and liars, and never bothered
> to send a reporter to Dayton. The Scientific American and the New York Times
> never acknowledged the photographs and affidavits from the leading citizens
> of Dayton (just as today they refuse to acknowledge videos, data, and letters
> from MITI). Occasionally, a positive note would creep into S.A., but it would
> immediately be countered by another strong denial. (See: "The Wright
> Brothers" by Fred C. Kelly, the "authorized biography.")
 
About 2 1/2 years after the Wright's first flight, Scientific American devoted
a large part of one issue to the Wright's acomplishments (April, 1906).  After
that there was a flood of articles on airplanes in many different popular
publications.  Before that there was nothing but silence, but acceptance
seemed to occur at 30 months.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / Honey Wagon /  Re: Effective mass vs. real mass
     
Originally-From: kevinwhi@girtab.usc.edu (Honey Wagon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Effective mass vs. real mass
Date: 17 Feb 1993 23:44:31 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

hello
does anyone on this list know anything
about some summer research programs for undergraduate
physics students?
 
if you have any info, please mail me
 
-kwhite@girtab.usc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenkevinwhi cudfnHoney cudlnWagon cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Stephen Cooper /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen R Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 18 Feb 93 08:50:38 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <1993Feb12.110338.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
 
>In article <JTCHEW-080293100414@b50-afrd5.lbl.gov>, JTCHEW@lbl.gov
(Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>>> could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
>>> finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
>>> fusion than they put in)?
>>
>> In a word, no.  The experiment at the Joint European Torus (JET)
>> was newsworthy as the first deuterium-tritium "shot" in a major
>> tokamak.  (Previous results were usually, if not universally, D-T
>> extrapolations from D-D experiments.)  As I recall, it was in
>> October 1991.  The longest and hottest shots remain well below breakeven.
 
>  In the one I was thinking about, the media (oh yes, the word of God, I know),
>and a Discovery Channel program called 'Beyond 2000' (I beleive I saw it there
>too), said they did (finally) surpass the break even point.  I don't clearly
>recall, so I hate to keep dredging this up, but I really want to be sure.
 
>- Jon
>
 
Well it wasn't us. The October 1991 experiment only used a small percentage
of Tritium and was used as a pointer experiment to see how well the D-D to D-T
extrapolations hold up. It was also used to get some D-T experience for the
diagnostics, ready for the full D-T experiments at the end of the project. It
may be true that some of our D-D experiments or the D-T shots when extrapolated
for a full D-T mix would be at breakeven, I'll try to check on that.
 
Stephen R Cooper, Physics Operations Group, Operations Division, JET.
 
Smail: J20.0.46 Jet Joint Undertaking                   Email: src@jet.uk
       Culham Laboratory
       Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3EA
 
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.17 / Michael Cooper /  Relativity
     
Originally-From: genius@tradent.wimsey.com (Michael Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Relativity
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 18:50:33 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

I am aware that this is not the best place to post this message.  This
is, however, the only physics forum I have access to, so please bear with
me.
 
I know it is a fairly vague topic, but I would appreciate it if someone
could summarize for me, and be prepared to explain, the concepts covered
in relativity.
 
Thank you very much for any help you can offer.
 
                                                        Michael Cooper
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengenius cudfnMichael cudlnCooper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Ni CF enhancements
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ni CF enhancements
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:08:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue asks:
 
"...you had asserted that the best results for the nickel-based cold fusion
were indicating that deuterium enhanced the effect, and that although the
natural 0.015% abundance would do, a 25% mix was better. Could you say how
much better?"
 
Not much better. The results are puzzling. There are two different ways to do
it:
 
1. What Srinvasan calls the "cocktail" approach, where you mix a D2O + H2O
electrolyte, pour it in, and run an experiment. At around 25% D2O
concentrate, this produces more heat on average, and usually produces far
more tritium (like thousands of time background versus 10's of times). For
details, see Srinivasan's paper in the Nagoya Proceedings.
 
2. The titrating method, where you add D2O little by little, with something
like an intravenous medical pump. I find this more convincing. You generally
see a rise in heat which peaks around 25% to 30% concentrate. I do not think
the rise in heat is dramatic; I believe it generally goes up from, say, 70%
excess to 110%; or in another experiment, say, from 40% to 45%. It begins to
slide down again as you pass 30% concentration. I do not know anyone with
enough money to do this experiment with an on-line tritium monitor like
Srinivasan uses, so the tritium peak has not been investigated. The reason I
like this method better is because it is one continuous experiment, under the
same general conditions. With a "cocktail" you have to stop, then start
another run. Perhaps other conditions are altered when you change out the
electrolyte. For example, the cathode might get dirty.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 /  /  Re: Cultural Superiority
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!mach.attmail.com!brad
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cultural Superiority
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:08:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Are we really more tolerant than other countries? Damn right. We
>HAVE to be. Diversity IS all around us. If you look at a group of
>school children in Japan, you see Japanese school children - a
>vision of a country. If you look at a group of school children in
>the US, you see children from a wide variety of ethnic and racial
>backgrounds - a vision of the World.
 
 
I must agree with you.  When I lived in the States, all I heard was
how horrible and racist American's were.  Then I moved to Hong Kong.
I've seen people spit in the ground when a black person walks past.
Anyone who is not Chinese is called a Gwailo which means a ghost
person, but actually is used in much the same way as the Japanese use
Gaijin -- sort of the same as an American calling someone a Nigger.
 
I've also seen Americans, who are racially Chinese, treated as if
they have brain damage only because they cannot speak any form of
Chinese.  For some strange reason if you have a Chinese face you are
supposed to understand the language as if language is genetic.
 
I love my home here in Hong Kong, and I love the Chinese (you have to
take the good with the bad) but I will never ever believe that
Americans are racist by nature again.  People in the States may be
racist, but they are taught that this is wrong and most people feel
at least a twing of guilt when they are racist.  Racism is actually
taught in schools in many other countries, it isn't encouraged, it is
just a fact of life.
 
Sorry for being off topic -- back to Cold Fusion.
 
Brad Collins
Hong Kong
brad@mach.attmail.com (NeXTmail welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbrad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Please remit $1
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please remit $1
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:09:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
John Logajan says: "I bet my bottom dollar that you cannot list three
industrial 'secrets' which have a significant effect on the human condition."
 
1.   The source code for Microsoft Windows.
 
2.   The exact layout and masks for the Intel 486 microprocessor.
 
3.   The exact formulas and methods AT&T uses in it's fiber optic plant in
     Norcross, GA.
 
I could give you list of 100,000, or 1,000,000 significant industrial
secrets. They are the lifeblood of industry, far more important than patents.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 /  /  What's wrong with luke-warm fusion?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl00.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's wrong with luke-warm fusion?
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:09:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Now that cold fusion seems to be dying a slow death, there have come to
the fore some experiments that are sort of "luke warm".  To characterize
this group of experiments I list the following common features: (1) sample
foils of deuterated (or protonated) metal with some special added coating
or treatment, (2)bombardment of this sample by an ion beam or glow discharge
at ion energies up to 1 keV, (3)charged particle detection using a Si
detector, (4)operation in a vacuum chamber at a pressure of about 10^-4 Torr,
(5)possibly some attempt at calorimetry.
 
This is a classic case of an experimental environment that is very difficult
to control in a variety of key aspects.  It is ideal for the occurance of
strange and unexplained events, but a very poor choice for proof of any
fundamentally new phenomena.  Let us start with the calorimetry.  In it's
basic form this must involve a measurement of power input and a temperature
rise for the sample.  So we have several mA of ion current at say 0.5 kV
for something of the order of watts input, but where does that power go?
I suggest that assuming that it all is delivered to the sample is no
better than an assumption.  There are too many other possibilities such
as secondary ionization.  The energy distribution of ions striking the
sample is unknown until proven otherwise.  Secondly, the energy loss
by the sample is equally problematic.  In the typical experiment the
pressure is on the edge of the range where convection becomes significant,
and the "effects" are often seen under transient conditions.  Calibrations
simply may not reproduce running conditions in some significant detail.
 
As for the detection of charged particles, let us start by noting the
signal level.  For Si the deposition of 5 MeV produces something like
1.4 X 10^6 electron-hole pairs which translates into 2 X 10^-13 Coulombs
of charge.  An ion source or a glow discharge is electrically very
noisey, and a source of other forms of radiation to which the detector
is sensative.  I noted in one of the experiments in this class that
the point is made that the detector was protected agains visible light,
but no mention is made of its sensitivity to vacuum UV or soft X-rays.
The transport of energy and of charge in the environment under consideration
can do some totally unexpected things.  Insulators can charge and discharge
in totally random fashion.  Residual gas can be ionized by photons and
by electrons.  The Si has a leakage current that is temperature dependent,
and the detector is subject of avalance breakdown.  In summary these
experiments have to be upgraded in a number of significant details before
they have any bearing on the establishment of special lattice effects
on nuclear reactions.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Back to the Future
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Back to the Future
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:09:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Here is something I need to get to the bottom of. Brian Rauchfuss (a.k.a.
"Smokefoot") comments:
 
"About 2 1/2 years after the Wright's first flight, Scientific American
devoted a large part of one issue to the Wright's accomplishments (April,
1906)."
 
I don't have back issues of S.A. quite that far. Perhaps it was 1908? Or
perhaps the Orville Wright got the dates mixed up, when he worked with Kelly
on the "authorized bio." Anyway, it is a fascinating subject, and here is what
Kelly has to say about it, on pages 86 and 87 (well worth reading!):
 
     ...in its issue of Dec. 16, 1905, the Scientific American said, in an
     editorial... "The most promising results (with the airplane) to date were
     those obtained by the Wright Brothers, one of whom made a flight of over
     half a mile..." Previously in the same editorial though, was the
     assertion: "...the only successful 'flying' that has been done this year
     -- must be credited to the balloon type." By this time, the Wright's
     total flying distance was about 160 miles.
 
     In its issue of January 13, 1906, in an article titled "The Wright
     Aeroplane and its Fabled Performances," the S.A. commented skeptically on
     a letter written by the Wright Brothers in a Paris automobile journal...
     In expressing its disbelief in the "alleged" flights described in the
     Wright letter, the S.A. said: "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 known, comes down the chimney when the door is
     locked in his face -- even when he has to scale a fifteen-story
     skyscraper to do so -- would not have ascertained all about them and
     published them broadcast long ago?"
 
Now where have I heard that line of argument before? "If such sensational
claims were real, they would certainly be widely replicated." "If CF was real,
it would certainly be on the 7:00 news." "Funding would certainly be
available." "If MITI really was spending all that money, it would certainly be
in the U.S. press, because Japan is not in a very remote part of the world,
and energy is a subject in which everyone feels the most profound interest."
Hmmm.... it has a familiar ring.
 
Anyway, I believe that wraps up the S.A. coverage in this book for 1906. As
far as I know, the schizophrenic editorial stance at the S.A. remained until
the very moment of the 1908 demonstration.
 
Getting back to Dick Blue's comments about Edison for just a sec: Oh Yes It
Was A Scientific Controversy! Every book and article agrees on that point.
Money and power also played a role, just as they do in CF. But there is no
question that the vast majority of scientists thought Edison was dead wrong,
because they did not think that a high-resistance incandescent light was even
theoretically possible, and he claimed he would soon be manufacturing
thousands of them. The top experts in the field, like Siemens, said that it
was impossible on scientific grounds. (Siemens was a very smart cookie, too.
He was not kidding -- he honestly thought Edison was wacky.)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Geofusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Geofusion
Date: 18 Feb 93 17:28:20 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
It's Thursday again, and I'm glad for the few hours to try to catch up on the
net.  (Teaching and research tasks are filling my hours to overflowing.)
 
I appreciate Dieter's emphatic "NO" [15 Feb. 1993 posting] in response to my
query:  "How about the BYU hypothesis on natural fusion in the earth?  Would
you give P&F credit for this...?"
 
Let me follow up a bit on this notion, whose roots can be found in:
  1. C. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen
molecules," J. Physics G:Nuclear Physics 12 (1986):213.
  2. S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer et al.,"Observation of cold nuclear fusion in
condensed matter," Nature 338 (April 1989):737.
  3. S. E. Jones, E.P. Palmer et al., "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in
Condensed Matter:  Recent Results and Open Questions," J. Fusion Energy 9
(1990): 495.
I list these references for those caring for additional information, and to
demonstrate that our work in this area pre-dates "cold fusion" ala P&F.
 
After our paper to Nature was published with unexpected publicity, I received
a letter from John Lockwood, a geologist at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory:
 
"Many black holes seem to lie between Hawaii and London, and I have still not
seen your celebrated article on "Cold Fusion in Condensed Matter" which was
published in Nature last month.  Could you please send me a reprint?
 
"Your research has certainly stimulated lots of fresh thinking around the
world!  In the widely FAX-circulated "preprint" which I received from a
colleague in April, you presented tritium data from the NOAA Mauna Loa
Observatory which demonstrated an anomalously high level of atmospheric HT in
February and March, 1972.  You suggested that this gas may have emanated from
the Mauna Ulu vent of Kilauea Volcano.  [Note:  most of these data and our
interpretations were shifted from the Nature paper --due to space limitations--
to ref. 3 above. --Steve]
"I was intrigued by this possibility, and with Dr. Elmer Robinson (present
MLO Director) obtained the original anomalous data, which was indeed recorded
coincidentally with Mauna Ulu eruptive activity.
...
"I am frankly skeptical of the possibility of a volcanic HT source, but the
fact remains that NO ONE HAS EVER LOOKED for short-lived isotopes in volcanic
gases, so that your suggestion has stimulated a great deal of discussion here
at the Observatory."         [His emphasis.]
"I look forward to hearing from your.
"Sincerely,
"John P. Lockwood"
 
I visited Dr. Lockwood at the MLO in 1990 as well as Kilauea, and found him
still interested.  And well he should be:  since our articles, several
geologists have taken samples at volcanoes and found *tritium*.  Now, we
early on pointed out that both helium-3 and tritium would be potential tracers
for natural fusion in the earth (geofusion), see refs 2 and 3; ref. 1 points
to possible natural fusion inside the dense hydrogen core of Jupiter.  The
prevailing paradigm regarding 3He emissions from volcanos
[very high 3He-to-4He ratios from volcanos relative to the air and continental
rocks is a long-standing puzzle]   is that it comes
from a primordial store of 3He (Harmon Craig et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
26 (1975):125 and 31 (1976): 369).
 
So our model of geofusion as a possible source of volcanic emissions of
3He and 3H challenges existing paradigms -- Dieter is right when he points out
that our work is iconoclastic even revolutionary in its own right.  Even our
very low rates of fusion as seen (we claim) in the laboratory may add up to
significant levels on the scale of the planets, and help resolve significant
 puzzles
in geophysics. [Even if xs heat on the laboratory scale is unmeasurable -- I
do not agree with a 13 Feb. posting by Tom Droege that if natural fusion takes
place in the earth, "then likely both are true" -- that is, that "test-tube
fusion generates xs heat."  The scales are VASTLY different -- about 13 orders
of magnitude-- and no such extrapolation to laboratory P&F conditions is
justified at all.]
 
We are pointing here to 3He and 3H (especially, in view of the 12.4 year half-
life of tritium) as evidence for contemporaneous geofusion.  We are *not*
pointing to fusion without commensurate products.  Rather we look for those
products as evidence for the possible fusion in the earth.  Moreover,
the amounts of
these tracers will constrain *rates* of geofusion.
 
  Dieter says that
"your low-level claim is about as far from known physics as FPH's" (15 Feb.
posting).  True, we are far from known nuclear physics, but another 13
orders of magnitude would be needed to take us to the xs-heat-is-nuclear
claims of FPH  -- I believe this is stretching far too far.  I point out that
nuclear theorist Steve Koonin compared our claims with those of FPH.  He found
that fusion in condensed matter at the rates we claim are "improbable but not
impossible."  He found the FPH rates to be totally "impossible."  So there is
a big difference from his point of view.  He could not find our rates in
equilibrium conditions of deuterium in a lattice (ref. 1 above reached a
similar conclusion); but he pointed to the possibility of fusion during
non-equilibrium conditions.  This has been our suggestion all along -- that
off-equilibrium conditions are essential to fusion.  (See ref. 1 above.)
The interior of earth may be a place where such conditions exist so that
piezonuclear fusion may occur.
 
What is the status of the prevailing model,
 that of 3He coming from a store in the earth's mantle or core?
A recent paper in Science (5 Feb 1993, 259:788) addresses this very
question and finds the prevailing paradigm in trouble:
 
"The Earth's mantle, at least the upper mantle, has undergone extensive
degassing during the early history of the Earth. ... In view of this extensive
degassing, it is puzzling that primordial 3He and 20Ne are still degassing
from the Earth's interior.  In particular, HELIUM HAS SUCH A HIGH
DIFFUSIVITY THAT ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT THIS ELEMENT HAS ALMOST COMPLETELY
DEGASSED."  [My emphasis.]  The authors go on to describe experiments
which test a suggestion to "save the hypothesis", namely that helium is
retained in the earth's core and is escaping slowly.  Then they report:
"Hence, we conclude that, if core separation took place under equilibrium
conditions, the CORE CONTAINS ONLY NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNTS OF NOBLE GASES."
[including 3He; my emphasis].
 
So where does the 3He come from?  We challenge the popular paradigm that
3He was trapped during earth's formation and is being released now.  We
hypothesize (refs. 1,2,3 above) that 3He is PRODUCED (along with heat and
tritium) by natural fusion in the earth, contemporaneously.  Thus, geofusion
may add to heat, 3He and tritium from other sources.
 
We proposed what could turn out to be a crucial experiment to discern
between the older trapped-helium model and our geofusion hypothesis:  Is tritium
found in the earth's magma?  (Ref. 3; alluded to in ref. 2.)
As I have before posted, geophysicists F. Goff
and G. McMurtry (and a few others, but not many yet) are looking for tritium
emissions in volcanos -- and finding significant though small quantities of
tritium in MAGMATIC water.  One of their major contributions in this search,
in my view, is the identification of magmatic water (versus meteoric =rain
water) based on isotopic analyses of oxygen 16 &18 and hydrogen 1&2.
Furthermore, these brave men have taken samples in four volcanos now:
Kilaeua, Mt. St. Helens, Picaya, and Galeras.  They predict that Icelandic
volcanos should produce significant tritium.  They hope to take more samples
in the future, and other geologists are beginning to look also.  The BYU
team has worked most closely with the Goff/McMurtry team (e.g., looking for
other reactions which could produce tritium in volcanos.  -- There is very
little of neutron emitters in magma which could generate tritions, for
example.  Most of the U and Th are in continental crusts now.  The numbers
do not work out to explain the quantities they observe.)
 
The Goff/McMurtry paper has been submitted to a major journal.  It is of
sufficient importance and quality, in my humble opinion, that it deserves
rapid publication.  But I anticipate some struggle, if just because some
cannot differentiate between geofusion and claims of xs heat by nuclear
reactions without commensurate nuclear products.  The evidence for natural
fusion in the earth in no way supports the FPH claims.
 
Finally, I would respond to Dieter's claim that "when they go to lower-
background environments, the signals also go down in intensity..."  (12 Feb.
posting, "Re:Who stole the fake diamonds.")  I assume Dieter is referring
to the Kamiokande results, where the rates were indeed lower than reported
in Ref. 1 (but not consistent with zero -- please see my earlier postings
on this).  Our results were first checked in the low-background laboratory
of Howard Menlove, Los Alamos National Lab.  There we found a neutron-singles
source rate of 0.12 per second, at a 10.3 sigma significance level (H. Menlove
et al., "Measurement of Neutron Emission from Ti and Pd in Pressurized D2 Gas
and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion Energy, 9 (1990): 495).  This is close
to the rate we reported in Ref. 1 above (0.4 s-1 max., 0.06 s-1 average of
runs).
 
A committee was organized by EPRI about a year ago to look at our data,
including that from Kamiokande, and to recommend a course of action.  I thought
the group (headed by Steve Koonin and including Charles Barnes and Al Mann)
would simply recommend that the research be terminated.  After a few days
of intensive review, they recommended instead that the research be continued.
That is not to say they found the evidence compelling, but they found enough
to strongly urge us to continue.  We would like to know what we have seen --
we cannot ascribe the signals in diverse detectors to noise or statistical
aberrations, even when the episodes of apparent nuclear particle production
have been sporadic and rare in the past.  So we keep looking, doggedly, trying
to find a "trigger" to produce the reaction on demand.  Without this, we
must maintain skepticism even though we have been unable so far to find
a source of systematic error to explain our observations.
 
The Koonin review panel recommended that we use redundant detectors in a low
background environment (underground, etc.), that we digitize pulses,
that we use for high-efficiency detectors.  They emphasized that we work
close to BYU, finding that the effort to run such experiments in a remote
location in a 3000-ton tank of water (Kamiokande) was fraught with problems.
*  Lower rates may correlate with the difficulty of carrying on experiments
under 8 meters of water in the Japanese alps.  Give us a break, please,
Dieter.  (On the other hand, you may be right...)*
 
Hence, we have developed a laboratory in the Wasatch mountains, in a tunnel
just 10 km from campus.  Our experiments complement the geological studies,
and we plan to publish
after we have thoroughly checked everything, as recommended by the EPRI panel.
 
We have not given up.  Far from it.
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:10:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <13352@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>In article <1993Feb18.160016.26994@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.
om (Dick Jackson) writes:
>>Dieter Britz addesses Jed Rothwell:
>>
>>>In short, I would prefer not to see your postings to this group; they do not
>>
>>I agree.
>
>Ditto.  In spades!
>
 
Whoah! Let's hold on here. Jed is everything that Dieter claims he is.
He is a non-scientist in a scientific forum. He is illogical and argumentative.
In fact, I can't really think of many good things to say about him (he
is pretty poor in the history he's mentioned after saying that history was
his subject -- hmm). He seems to punctuate OK if not precisely. :-)
 
But it is _very_ easy to 'n' past any message that has his name on it.
 
I always allow him one page. If I can't see anything worth reading on the
first page of his message (24 lines _including_ header) or if his message
runs to more than two pages I _always_ skip it.
 
I suggest that rather than complain about his posting everyone simply use
the critical path method -- garbage in gets dumped in the garbage. :-)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Peter Tattam /  Requesting summary of CF news group for last month or two.
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Requesting summary of CF news group for last month or two.
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 07:14:40 GMT
Organization: Psychology Department, University of Tasmania

I have been following the CF group recently, but have lost track of it
temporarily while on vacation.
 
Could some kind soul post a summary of major events and outcomes so that I can
get up-to-date again.
 
Thanks
 
Peter
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Tattam                                    International Phone 61-02-202346
Programmer, Psychology Department           Australia     Phone   002-202346
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: 19 Feb 93 07:21:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>>>Dieter Britz addesses Jed Rothwell:
>>>
>>>>In short, I would prefer not to see your postings to this group; they do not
 
Since we seem to be turning this into a plebiscite, I'll have to side with
letting Jed speak.  He is a useful source of information on the goings on
in Japan as well as certain quarters in the US.  We would be ill served by
losing this source of information.
 
I feel I am a big enough boy to read through Jed's postings and decide for
myself what is fact and what is opinion.  I don't need any self-appointed
blue pencils doing my thinking for me -- thanks just the same.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 /  /  D-T
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D-T
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:09:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I sometimes wonder if these posts get read.  At least the technical content.
Half baked ideas seem to be picked up quickly enouth.  In any case, there has
not been one comment on my description of the NHK animation which clearly
showed **** D-T **** fusion.  Have sent the tape to Jed Rothwell and Steve
Jones.  Perhaps they can get the translation of the background comments to
the animation.
 
Why in the world would they show an animation of D-T fusion unless that is what
P&F are claiming.  If so, why are they not dead, as the D-T animation came
while showing a picture of the P&F boiling cell.  It clearly showed the boiling
cell then switched to the D-T animation with those neutrons coming off!  I
think Dick Blue or someone can tell us that enough energy by D-T to boil away
50 cc of electrolyte would be pretty damaging to the environment.  There did
not seem to be any shielding around the boiling cell.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 /  /  Re:  Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!jaguar.csc.wsu.edu!COLLINS (Gary
Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Venture Capitalists
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:09:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In FD767, Dieter Britz indicates why this discussion group is ill-served
by the contributions from Jed Rothwell.  I strongly support Dieter's views.
 
Gary S. Collins
Washington State University
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenCOLLINS cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:00:16 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

Dieter Britz addesses Jed Rothwell:
 
>In short, I would prefer not to see your postings to this group; they do not
 
I agree.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Edison
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edison
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:09:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <7600032@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
(Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
>About 2 1/2 years after the Wright's first flight, Scientific American devoted
>a large part of one issue to the Wright's acomplishments (April, 1906).  After
>that there was a flood of articles on airplanes in many different popular
>publications.  Before that there was nothing but silence, but acceptance
>seemed to occur at 30 months.
 
It is also interesting to note that the Wright brothers kept their heavier
than air flights nearly a complete secret and that although there were
rumors it wasn't until they decided to go public with it that there was
any positive proof of their accomplishments.
 
The fact of the matter is that Rothwell, as well as being argumentative,
is simply and completely wrong about the Wright's acceptance.
 
And why should that be suprising? All they had to do was _prove_ their
achievements with a public flight of the aeroplane. :-)
 
Isn't that all we're asking of CNF?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: 18 Feb 93 18:06:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Feb18.160016.26994@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
>Dieter Britz addesses Jed Rothwell:
>
>>In short, I would prefer not to see your postings to this group; they do not
>
>I agree.
>
>Dick Jackson
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ditto.  In spades!
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / K Blackler /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (Kenneth Blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 18 Feb 93 15:05:55 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <1993Feb12.110338.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:
 
>In article <JTCHEW-080293100414@b50-afrd5.lbl.gov>, JTCHEW@lbl.gov
(Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>>> could someone please tell me if its true that physicists in the UK have
>>> finally reached the 'break even' point (where they got more energy out of
>>> fusion than they put in)?
>>
>> In a word, no.  The experiment at the Joint European Torus (JET)
>> was newsworthy as the first deuterium-tritium "shot" in a major
>> tokamak.  (Previous results were usually, if not universally, D-T
>> extrapolations from D-D experiments.)  As I recall, it was in
>> October 1991.  The longest and hottest shots remain well below breakeven.
 
>  In the one I was thinking about, the media (oh yes, the word of God, I know),
>and a Discovery Channel program called 'Beyond 2000' (I beleive I saw it there
>too), said they did (finally) surpass the break even point.  I don't clearly
>recall, so I hate to keep dredging this up, but I really want to be sure.
 
>- Jon
>
 
No we didn't!
 
JET was never designed to reach break even, we are an experimental site
to study the physics, engineering and heating issues of Hot Fusion.
 
There are three important parameters in fusion and we do well for
each separately, but never all at the same time which is necessary
for a real reactor.
 
Our best try yet was in November 1991 using Tritium and Deuterium
isotopes of hydrogen as a fuel. This produced a PEAK fusion power
of 1.7MW and a total released fusion energy of about 2MJ.
 
Real break-even will be acheived by ITER, a worldwide fusion project
(Europe, USA, Japan and Russia) which is just now getting underway in
design phase and will start operating maybe in 10 years. (But this
is not designed to produce electricity....)
 
For further information contect:
 
Public Relations Office
JET Joint Undertaking
Abindgon
England
OX14 3EA
 
they have lots of glossy brochures which actually have some
real numbers in ;-). Ask for the latest ANNUAL REPORT, its free!
 
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL JET STATEMENT!
 
KenB.
--
 ______________________________________   ____________   _____________
|Ken Blackler kb@jet.uk (+44)235 464743| | __________ | |   -Fusion-   |
|JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon       | |   | |_ |   | |Energy for the|
|Oxfordshire, England. OX14 3EA        | | \_/ |_ |   | | (far) future |
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkb cudfnKenneth cudlnBlackler cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Henry Hoeksma /  NTT reports "vacuum method" CF
     
Originally-From: Henry Hoeksma <hhoeksma@bnrca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NTT reports "vacuum method" CF
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:19:19 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

From the newsletter:
   New Breeze, Vol. 4, No. 4, Winter (January 1993), pg. 20
   Quarterly of the New ITU Association of Japan, Inc.
   ISSN 0915-3160
 
This is an English language telecom newsletter that I receive.  I thought
this article might be of interest.  Perhaps someone who works in CNF
could contact NTT for additional information and report back.
 
I hereby quote the entire article verbatim:
-----
NTT Employs Unique Vacuum Method to Verify Nuclear Fusion at Room
Temperature
 
Through a room temperature nuclear fusion experiment using its own
"vacuum method," NTT has found that heavy hydrogen in solid palladium
converts into helium-4 atoms.
  A company representative says, "The results of the experiment has made
significant contribution to the advancement of the verification of
nuclear fusion at room temperature. We are convinced that follow-up
experiments by other research institutions will lead to the same result."
  In the experiment, the NTT researchers detected certain but negligible
amounts of protons and tritium in addition to helium-4. This means that
the nuclear fusion which took place in the present experiment did not
emit neutrons and, therefore, was of the safest type of all the reaction
types which have been generally presumed to take place during nuclear
fusion. Under these three types of reaction in nuclear fusion of heavy
hydrogen, two heavy hydrogen atoms fuse into (a) helium-3 and neutrons,
(b) tritium and protons, or (c) helium-4.
  In the present experiment, helium-4 was generated along with excess
heat by saturating palladium metal with heavy hydrogen in a vacuum and
then applying slight heat distortion. This means that two atoms of heavy
hydrogen fused with each other into one atom of helium-4.
  Most nuclear fusion experiments at room temperatures which have
conventionally been conducted use the electrolysis method. Experiments
using this method, however, have failed to provide a decisive proof of
the occurrence of nuclear fusion because this method is highly
susceptible to environmental conditions and can provide only a limited
reproducibility of significant differences in heating value. NTT,
therefore, decided to apply its semiconductor technology which it has
worked on for many years to the development of its own "vacuum method"
for such an experiment.
  This method, conducted in full vacuum to minimize foreign matter and
other environmental conditions affecting the experiment, allows
researchers to detect excess heat, charged particles, generated atoms,
etc., with extremely high precision.
  The achievements of the present experiment is attracting attention from
all over the world as the first step toward the clean energy scientists
have long been seeking.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhhoeksma cudfnHenry cudlnHoeksma cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion breakthroughs
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion breakthroughs
Date: 18 Feb 93 23:00:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

In the talk given at EPS and IAEA last year, it was said that the jet shots
had an "extrapolated Q" of 0.6 and 0.8, respectively (there were two of
them). This value is estimated assuming the same energy content and power
balance that was observed, would also obtain if there were 50-50 D and T.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / mitchell swartz /  food for thought
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: food for thought
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 23:23:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
 
 
   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
 
                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts
 
 
                =============================
 
 
                   Posted by: Jed Rothwell & Mitchell Swartz
                     with permission from Prof. Hagelstein.
 
  Two Notes and Comments regarding the SUMMARY:
 
  "Prof. Hagelstein sent me this document in "Latex" format.
   I converted it to Word Perfect, and then to 80 column ASCII,
   with the following conventions:
 
  -  Superscripts, including footnote numbers, are shown between curly
    brackets: {4}He
  -  Subscripts are shown between square brackets: D[2]O
  -  Italics are marked by asterisks: *ab initio*
  -  Greek letters and symbols are spelled out: sigma, mu, Deg."
          Jed Rothwell [Cold Fusion Research Advocates (404) 451-9890]
 
 
     "Last month on January 16, at the MIT IAP all-day seminar on cold
  fusion Prof. Hagelstein gave a fantastic detailed presentation on this
  subject which left the participants in the auditorium in rapt attention.
  He has graciously allowed his full work and insight of the
  Third International Conference to be uploaded herefollowing to Internet.
 
    "Incidentally, at that IAP meeting, I took a survey near the end, and
  of the nearly 80+ people questioned (8 hours after starting), about 3 in
  every 4 attendees read, or had otherwise received info form, the postings
  on sci.physics.fusion.  I submit that the proportion was a surprising
  barometer for this field, and the influence of, and interest in, the net."
 
    "Thanks are in order especially to Peter Hagelstein for this paper, but
  also to Jed Rothwell (and daughter Naomi) for working it into a
  format consistent with facile presentation on, and to, this net."
                       Mitchell Swartz [JET Technology (617) 239-8383]
 
 
====================================================================
 
        SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                ON COLD FUSION (ICCF3) IN NAGOYA
 
 
                         Peter L. Hagelstein
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
 
                         ABSTRACT
 
    We review highlights of the international cold fusion conference that was
held recently in Nagoya, Japan. Excess heat results in heavy water
electrolysis experiments constitute the observations with the most important
potential applications. Experiments in gas phase systems exhibit fast particle
and gamma emission that make progress toward elucidating mechanisms. The
evidence in support of a light water heat effect has improved.
 
 
                              INTRODUCTION
 
    The Third International Cold Fusion Conference took place in Nagoya,
Japan between October 21 and October 25, 1992. Over 300 attendees
participated, listening to about 27 oral presentations and looking over
roughly 80 poster papers. Many people have asked me about the conference, and
rather than repeating the same things over and over again, I thought that it
would be useful to put my thoughts down on paper as a more efficient method of
communication.
 
    Given the near complete absence of cold fusion sessions in more
traditional physics and chemistry meetings, the international conferences
represent about the only chance for people in the cold fusion field to get
together and learn about what has happened lately. The international
conferences, starting with the Salt Lake City conference in 1990, followed by
Como, Italy in 1991, and now Nagoya, Japan in 1992, have been and continue to
be the most important sources of reliable and relevant information in the
field; an important meeting was also held at BYU in 1990 which focused on
nuclear products. The field is advancing pretty rapidly these days, and since
publications tend to lag with more than a year's delay, the conferences and
conference proceedings play a key role in the field. The next international
conference was originally scheduled to take place in Hawaii in November, 1993;
I understand that it may be delayed until December.
 
    The results presented at this conference were overall technically much
stronger than last year's conference, and benefitted by a very strong showing
from the Japanese contingent. I will first itemize what I thought were some of
the most interesting new experimental results presented at the conference.
 
    I admit to having numerous biases. One bias is that I believe the
observations of excess power are ultimately the most important, both
scientifically and technologically. Another bias is that I favor results which
in my view help to elucidate reaction mechanisms.
 
    Following the discussion of significant positive results, I review
abstracts and presentations of negative results. Coming from the theory end of
the field, I felt that it was appropriate for me to survey the theory papers
which were presented (in the following section); in this case, it was possible
to include a larger fraction of the papers submitted. Having my own theory as
to the origin of the effect, I warn the reader that my discussion of theory
necessarily carries a bias in favor of my world view; it is my hope that this
discussion will be useful in spite of this bias. Almost as interesting in some
cases as what was presented, was what was not presented; a discussion of work
that was absent is presented before the summary and conclusions.
 
    For a review as long as this one, there are many issues and many details,
most of which I have made a serious attempt to get right. I would hope that I
will not make enemies of those whose work I did not include (which at this
point will include about half of all papers submitted). This review was
constructed from preprints, notes, memory, and discussions with many people in
the field -- should the reader note errors or misconceptions, I would
appreciate corrections.
 
 
                              SURVEY OF POSITIVE RESULTS
 
1.  S. Pons{1,2} described briefly recent results obtained at the
    Japanese-funded IMRA laboratory in Sophia Antipolis, France. During the
    Como meeting (July, 1991), Pons and Fleischmann had announced that they
    were able to obtain very high levels of excess power production (on the
    order of 1000 Watts/cm{3}) corresponding to a factor of 10 power gain, and
    that they had done so 11 times.
 
    Part of their research since then has focused on defining a procedure
    that would improve on the reproducibility of this very high power effect
    (at Como, they had announced that complete reproducibility had been
    attained on achieving consistent excess power at lower levels). At
    Nagoya, Pons reported that this had been accomplished; that very high
    levels of heat production (more than 1 kilowatt/cm{3}) were now obtained
    reproducibly accompanied by a factor of 4 power gain.
 
    The key to the new results included some advances that they outlined. One
    such improvement involves the observation that the excess power
    generation increases at higher temperatures. The cathode is charged at
    intermediate current densities at temperatures below 50 Deg. C for
    several days, and then the current is stepped up. Due to the relatively
    low thermal loss of the cell and calorimeter, the cell temperature rises,
    but the loading is maintained. This rise improves the excess power
    generation, which in turn drives the temperature higher; the positive
    feedback leads to very high excess power generation and vigorous boiling.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann perform their calorimetry using open cell systems,
    which have the advantage of being cheaper and more accessible, and allows
    them to do more experiments at a time. The particular method of
    calorimetry which they have developed was motivated in part by the
    existence of the positive feedback described above -- Pons and
    Fleischmann are able to achieve good calorimetric precision with
    time-varying electrolyte levels, cell temperatures and cell voltages.
    Most others have sought in their work to maintain either constant
    temperature or power, or else require the presence of steady-state
    conditions in their system to obtain accurate results. Very few groups
    have so far taken advantage of such sophisticated methods to obtain
    excess power values from their raw data; no other groups have yet
    reported the ability to obtain reproducibly the high power and boiling
    mode reported by Pons and Fleischmann.
 
    It was pointed out by Pons that the calorimetry could be checked during
    the very high excess power burst by measuring the time taken to boil away
    the electrolyte, and using a knowledge of the heat of vaporization to
    compute the total energy and hence power generation. He presented the
    results of this analysis for one cell, which he said was in agreement
    with the calorimetric results.
 
    Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D[2]O were boiled away
    during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average *iv*
    input power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as follows: The
    heat of vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol at 100 Deg. C, and
    2.5 moles of heavy water corresponds to 102.5 kJ; the energy lost during
    this time in the calorimeter (primarily radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input
    electrical *iv* energy during this time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy
    produced is the output energy (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy
    (22.5 kJ), or 86.7 kJ. The production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes
    corresponds to an excess power of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85.
 
    The volume of the cathode was given to be 0.0785 cm{3}, which was noted by
    many (this volume was in error, as will be commented on shortly). The
    average excess power claimed during the boiling episode was 144.5 Watts,
    which would correspond to 1841 W/cm{3}.
 
    The cathode geometry was given by Pons to be cylindrical, with a diameter
    of 2 mm and a length of 1.25 cm. I note that this geometry does not
    correspond to the volume quoted by Pons above -- a rod of these
    dimensions would have a volume of 0.03927 cm{3}, which is almost precisely
    a factor of 2 smaller than the volume given during Pons talk. Pons has
    confirmed that this smaller volume is correct (the correct value appears
    in their conference proceeding{2}). I will continue my discussion here
    using the corrected power per unit volume, which is 3682 W/cm{3}.
 
    The anomalous excess energy production in this experiment is
    considerable, as can be calculated. In 1 minute, 8.7 kJ of excess energy
    is produced. At a density of 12.02 g/cm{3} and an average mass of 106.42
    amu, pure Pd contains 6.8 X 10{22} atoms/cm{3}. The total number of atoms
    in the cathode is 2.7 X 10{21}, or 0.0044 moles. In 1 minute, the excess
    energy production is 1.96 MJ/mole, which corresponds to 20.3 eV/atom of
    Pd. This number is greater than can be accounted for by a chemical
    explanation for the effect. After 10 minutes, the cathode has produced
    203 eV/atom.
 
    In the absence of current flow, film-boiling limits the heat flow from
    the cathode at cathode temperatures higher than about 120 Deg. C; the
    maximum heat flux from the rod under these conditions is limited to I
    think somewhere near 125 Watts/cm{2}. The surface area of the cathode,
    including the top and bottom, is 0.85 cm{2}, which leads to an observed
    average heat flux of about 170 Watts/cm{2}. This number is comparable to,
    but greater than my version of the film-boiling limit given above, and
    was a potential cause for concern.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann have considered this effect, and have found
    experimentally that the presence of current flow delays the onset of
    film-boiling to higher temperatures and higher heat fluxes. In their
    conference proceeding, they claim{2} to have observed heat transfer rates
    during electrolysis in separate experiments which are between 1-10
    kW/cm{2}. I consider this result to be very important.
 
    The cathode gets very hot in these experiments. Pons and Fleischmann have
    observed the Kel-F supports at the base of the cathodes to melt, from
    which the presence of temperatures in excess of 300 Deg. C are inferred.
    A direct measurement of the cathode temperature is currently problematic;
    Pons is currently interested in practical proposals as to how to do this
    without impacting the electrochemistry.
 
    A common misunderstanding often occurs in the discussion of the results
    of Pons-Fleischmann experiments which is of interest here. It is
    sometimes argued that the energy production during a short event can be
    disregarded, since there may exist energy storage mechanisms which could
    have been collecting energy at a low level for a long period of time. For
    example, the total energy output from this experiment would not be very
    much larger than the total input energy if no heat excess had occurred
    prior to the boiling event (1 watt-day = 86.4 kJ). This type of argument
    seeks to make palatable the notion that since the total energy excess
    measured over days is small compared to the input (and hence there might
    exist a signal to noise problem in the measurement), the measurement can
    be dismissed. As discussed above, this type of argument completely misses
    a key implication of the experiment -- specifically, that there exists no
    known physical mechanism which could store the energy observed to be
    released during the boiling episode.
 
    It is true of this experiment as well as of others to be described below,
    that no products or "ashes" of the heat have been found and verified that
    are commensurate with the energy production. This will be discussed
    further below.
 
2.  M. McKubre{3,4} described experiments done at SRI during the past several
    years. They have developed closed cell flow calorimeters, which are
    ideally *first principle* calorimeters (which means that the heat flow
    out of the cell goes into the flowing water coolant, and the power
    generation is determined by measuring the mass flow rate and output to
    input flow temperature difference, with no calibration required). They
    have succeeded in reducing the conduction losses (which are not first
    principle contributions) down to the order of one per cent, and then they
    calibrate the Fick's law constant associated with the conduction losses.
    Overall, the SRI calorimeters achieve a relative accuracy in the
    calorimetric measurements which is on the order of a few tenths of a per
    cent.
 
    The SRI group reported the development of a procedure at Como that
    appeared to yield excess heat essentially every time, and this method is
    described in the Como conference proceedings. Highlights of these
    experiments were discussed. A significant advance that was pioneered by
    the SRI group was described: it consisted of the addition of aluminate or
    silicate to the electrolyte, which caused the formation of a colloidal
    surface layer that passed light ions (deuterium, lithium, boron,...) and
    shielded the surface from impurities; this procedure improves the ability
    of the Pd rod to maintain a high loading ratio.
 
    Two distinct modes of excess power generation were observed; one in which
    the excess power occurs at relatively low levels (1%-50%) and responds to
    changes in current density (they have observed 38 occurrences of this
    mode, lasting hours to many days), and one that is characterized by much
    higher relative power levels (up to 350% excess) and appears to be
    insensitive to changes in current (this mode has been observed 3 times,
    lasting many hours).
 
    For the first mode of heat generation, SRI finds that the excess power
    rises linearly with current above a threshold current density (which is
    on the order of 100-200 mA/cm{2}). A graph illustrating this appears in
    their conference proceeding.{4} This is in apparent contrast with the Pons
    and Fleischmann results, which showed a possible quadratic component to
    the increase above threshold current. Discussion during the meeting
    pointed to the fact that the SRI experiments are run at constant
    temperature, while the temperature of the Pons and Fleischmann cells
    increase when excess heat is produced.
 
    Mckubre presented a graph of excess power production as a function of
    fractional deuterium loading as determined from resistance ratio
    measurements. This dependence was found to increase roughly parabolically
    above a loading of 0.85 (*P[xs]*~(x-0.85){2}) up to loadings near 0.95,
    which is as high as had been achieved during their C1 experiment.
 
    The group has spent considerable effort chasing down and quantifying
    uncertainties in the SRI experiments, and are now able to assign
    meaningful error bars to essentially all quantities measured and inferred
    in their experiments. The result of this analysis yields rather high
    sigma numbers on the excess power measurements (in excess of 50 sigma on
    some of the best data analyzed so far).
 
    Their largest power numbers correspond to on the order of 15 W/cm{3}; it
    would take a small number of hours of running at this level to defeat a
    chemical storage explanation. Their highest excess total energy numbers
    have reached 200 MJ/mole of Pd, which corresponds roughly to 2 KeV per Pd
    atom; this level of excess energy production cannot be of chemical
    origin.
 
3.  K. Kunimatsu{5,6} of IMRA JAPAN Co. in Sapporo presented results on their
    heavy water electrolysis experiments. A number of things struck me as
    being interesting about this talk, aside from the fact that this is one
    of the first presentations of anything from this group at a conference at
    which I have managed to be. This effort appears to have a great deal of
    resources and some nontrivial technical expertise. They reported excess
    power measurements as a function of loading (where the loading was
    determined through measurements of the deuterium gas pressure in the
    cell), and arrived at essentially the same dependence of excess power on
    loading fraction as SRI, but with the cut-off shifted down by a few
    points relative to the SRI results (from a D/Pd ratio of 0.85 inferred
    from a resistance ratio measurement, down closer to 0.83 determined from
    measurements of the D[2] gas pressure{6}). The peak excess power occurs
    when the current density is greater than 100 mA/cm{2}, and the peak excess
    power which appears on the graph in Ref. 6 is about 35%.
 
    The IMRA experiments differed qualitatively from the SRI and
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments in that they were run in fuel-cell mode.
    Conventional Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments are run such that
    D[2] gas is generated at the cathode and O[2] gas is generated at the
    anode. IMRA has developed a pressurized cell in which deuterium reactions
    occur at the anode. Cells operating in fuel-cell mode have been developed
    in the past, however, this is the first time that I am aware that a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell has generated excess power sufficiently reliably
    while operating in such a mode to produce relatively high quality excess
    power data of the sort presented.
 
    This group seems to have good people, good funding, and much expertise.
    They presented several poster papers on studies of excess power
    generation, and the absorption of hydrogen and deuterium in palladium
    cathodes{7-10} I think that we will be hearing much more from them in the
    future.
 
    I note that a positive correlation between loading and excess heat
    production in a Pd/D modified Pons-Fleischmann experiment was reported by
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno in a poster paper.{11,12}
 
4.  Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
    described experiments that I thought were very important.
 
    The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
    metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
    400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current). Apparently this group has had
    considerable experience with glow discharges and is aware of several
    tricks that help to preserve the surface of the cathode which helps to
    attain very high loading (a D/Pd ratio of more than 1).
 
    Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
    considered. Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
    cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
    distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
    temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
    gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
    cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission). Excess power
    production at the level of tens of watts is observed; their best result
    out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing a power gain of a
    factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume, the resulting power
    generation rate is quite high; the highest values are on the order of
    3000 watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy production observed to
    date exceeds 20 kJ.
 
    After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
    emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec in
    some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier work
    was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
    type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
    appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance
    of 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of
    30 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
    discharge.
 
    After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up to
    10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). The gamma emission was studied
    using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
    recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
    detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
    at 511 keV. An example of an anomalous gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in
    a recent publication{16}.
 
    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma spectrum
    returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the identified
    lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines originating
    from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where *Z*=46 for
    Pd, were observed).
 
    A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is emitted
    from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used for
    detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in some
    experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched off
    which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
    fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
    inside the discharge chamber.
 
    A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks were
    observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12 MeV
    and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as determined
    through measurements with different barrier thicknesses.
 
5.  There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two electrodes
    inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure (4-13 torr).
    A thin (1 micron) metallic layer of the electrode material (for example,
    Pd) was deposited on the interior of the glass bulb. The glow discharge
    current was less than 100 mA; an anomalous current was observed with an
    average value of 1 A, and excursions up to 10 A. A D/Pd ratio of 0.5-0.8
    was claimed to have been obtained.
 
    Substantial neutron emission (13-330 neutrons/sec) was observed, and the
    energy spectrum was resolved with a recoil proton fast neutron
    scintillation spectrometer. The resulting neutron spectrum contained both
    2.0-2.5 MeV neutrons, and broad emission between 2.5-7.0 MeV; most of the
    emission occurred above 2.5 MeV.
 
    Neutron emission was also recorded from metals chosen at random, and the
    signal strength varied with metal according to the order Pt, Nb, W, Pd,
    Ag, Cu, Mo and Fe. The fluence observed from the D/Pt system was 1.2 X
    10{4} neutrons/sec.
 
    The energy spectrum of the neutron emission for these metals was also
    observed. In the case of the D/Pt emission shows broad emission up to
    about 8 MeV, decreasing generally with increasing neutron energy, and
    with a number of possible peaks appearing.
 
    Intense gamma spectra were also observed with a NaI scintillation counter
    during the experiments; the gamma ray yield was about ten times that of
    the neutron yield. The gamma spectrum of D/Nb showed lines at tens of
    KeV, 3.4 MeV and 5.8 MeV, and some unresolved emission below 7 MeV.
 
    These experiments seem to me to be similar to the experiment described in
    1989 by Wada.{21} Another experiment of this sort was reported by Tazima,
    Isii and Ikegami, and also by Jin, Zhang, Yao and Wu, at the Como
    conference.
 
6.  E. Yamaguchi of NTT presented a paper{22,23} on {4}He production from a PdD
    foil that is sandwiched by gold and MnO[x]. I think of the NTT research
    labs as being the ATT Bell Labs of Japan, which has an excellent
    technical reputation. This paper attracted considerable interest in the
    Japanese media, and there were reports that the price of the NTT stock
    climbed as a result. The NTT stock climbed a bit more than 10%; Morrison
    pointed out in his review that the stock went back down to its
    pre-announcement value within a few days.
 
    In the experiments that he reported, a current of 0.5-0.8 A/cm{2} is
    applied perpendicularly to the sandwich. The foil produces heat at a
    level of 0.5-5 Watts for about 1000 seconds (this is the case whether the
    foil is PdD or PdH), and then explosively outgasses. At the peak of the
    outgassing, the samples undergo substantial plastic deformation which
    lasts for about 10 seconds. During his presentation, it was not obvious
    whether the temperature rise observed was being claimed as anomalous or
    not. If the foil is deuterated, these phenomena are accompanied by {4}He
    emission.
 
    Yamaguchi previously reported at the BYU conference very high levels of
    neutron emission from this system at a 10{6} neutrons/second. The
    experiments described at Nagoya included only helium, heat, and fast
    charged particle detection.
 
    The {4}He emission is monitored using an expensive high resolution mass
    spectrometer that is capable of distinguishing between {4}He and D[2]
    signals, as was demonstrated. A minor peak in the data appears near the
    expected HT mass position, and Yamaguchi claimed that this signal
    indicated the presence of HT (Claytor notes in his trip report that the
    HT signal, if real, would imply a "radiological hazard (> 10 Ci)."). The
    H[2]D trimer is more massive than D[2] and does not interfere with the
    {4}He measurement.
 
    Yamaguchi sees {4}He in his mass spectrometer when he uses PdD, and he
    sees no {4}He when he uses PdH. Yamaguchi stated that the amount of {4}He
    was "consistent with the heat," but if he gave figures for the amount of
    {4}He produced, I missed them. Given that heat occurs for PdH runs as well
    as for PdD runs, it is not clear what the statement means. Hopefully this
    issue will be clarified at a later date.
 
    When asked whether the {4}He is due to contamination, Yamaguchi argued
    that it is not in the D[2] gas used, it is not in the metal, and the
    vacuum system being used is a high quality system of the type used in
    semiconductor research that will hold a 10{-6} torr vacuum for a month
    without pumping.
 
    Yamaguchi also sees 3 MeV protons and fast alphas at 4.5-6 MeV using two
    identical systems based on silicon detectors (Canberra
    Si-SSD:PD-450-19-700-AM; active area=4.5 cm{2}, active thickness = 700
    mu). Protons were observed at 3 MeV, and were attributed to the *p+t*
    branch of the *dd*-fusion process. Significant emission was observed
    between 4.5-6.0 MeV; by comparing signals with and without an intervening
    7 mu foil, these signals were identified as being due to either alphas or
    {3}He nuclei. The total number of fast particles detected was a few
    hundred per experiment.
 
    The experiment which Yamaguchi and Nishioka have constructed looks very
    impressive; I got the impression that the helium measurement capability
    was relatively new. I think that the {4}He signals are real, but I am less
    convinced yet that it has been made through an anomalous effect. The
    strongest argument in support of it being genuine is the rather strong
    time-correlation of the {4}He signal with the temperature excursion of the
    foil.
 
    The NTT group has been active for years, and by now I think that the
    basic anomalies which they observe are likely to be right. The new result
    presented at Nagoya is the helium measurement, which I will be more
    comfortable with after Yamaguchi and Nishioka have had more experience
    exploring. I look forward to more results from this group.
 
    I note that the first significant claim for substantial {4}He production
    in Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments were made at Como by Miles
    and coworkers at China Lake. Previous negative results had been obtained
    in searches for helium in the cathode; Miles and coworkers claimed the
    observation of {4}He in the gas stream. Miles presented a paper at
    Nagoya{24} which gave an update of the group's recent efforts, which have
    been hindered by an inability to obtain significant excess heat.
 
    Bockris reported at Nagoya{25} observations of {4}He above background (by
    factors of 2-100) that accompanied tritium production (described below);
    the helium was analyzed by thermal expulsion and mass spectroscopy.
 
7.  S. Isagawa et al from the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy
    Physics (the KEK collaboration) reported their results on experiments
    involving searches for heat, tritium and neutrons in Pons-Fleischmann
    cells.{26,27} I was impressed that the KEK was working at all in this area,
    and even though they have apparently had an effort at some level since
    1989, it appeared to me from their presentation that they have more or
    less just gotten started.
 
    Most of their results to date are negative, and it appears that they are
    confident that they are going to get the expected (that is, null)
    results. Of the possible excess heat events that they have observed so
    far, they have been able to rule out all but one as being due to known
    (non-anomalous) causes. Neutron emission is mostly not observed, but they
    have one event at 3.5 sigma of excess neutron emission (23 q 7
    neutrons/sec) recorded over nine hours from one PdD cell after 20 hours
    of electrolysis.
 
    Although their results to date have little impact on the field, should
    they continue, their contributions could be and should be substantial in
    time. One thing that this group would be able to do which few other
    groups in the field are as well suited to do to bring on board the
    physics community. Positive results obtained at the KEK would stir
    interest in other physics laboratories as almost no other result. The
    physicists have written off Pons and Fleischmann, so they are free to
    ignore the claim of kilowatt/cm{3} reported at the conference; but if the
    KEK gets 10% heat power at 10 Watts/cm{3}, I would bet that every physics
    lab on the planet will likely be pulling out their electrochemistry sets
    again.
 
8.  T. P. Perng of National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan described
    observations of excess power from molten salt electrolysis experiments as
    part of a paper on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann experiments.{28} Although
    I did not recall seeing it, and I have no notes of it, numerous friends
    at the conference mentioned it to me (including Liaw). I also received a
    preprint of this work.
 
    Liaw and coworkers at the U. of Hawaii described at the last two
    international cold fusion conferences experiments using molten salt
    electrolysis with Pd and Ti anodes in a LiCl-KCl eutectic saturated with
    LiD. At Como, the group reported the observation of excess power at a
    level of about 10 times the input electrochemical power in Pd (up to a
    30% increase over electrochemical plus heater power), with an energy gain
    reported as about 1 GJ/mole Pd or 6 MJ/mole D[2]. The Pd anode volume was
    0.040 cm{3}, so that the excess power per unit anode volume is about 250
    watts/cm{3}.
 
    This result was important because the power excess was so large relative
    to the electrochemical input power, and because the temperature excess
    was on the order of a hundred degrees centigrade, which would have the
    potential for efficient energy extraction.
 
    Little progress has so far been reported toward a reproduction of the
    Liaw experiment. Perng described results from an experiment performed to
    provide a confirmation of the Liaw experiment; the power excess claimed
    was on the order of 2-5 times the input power.
 
    The preprint{29} from C. M. Wan et al consists of an abstract and copies
    of 11 figures, from which I will attempt to give an account of the work.
    Following Liaw, the palladium electrode is used as an anode (instead of a
    cathode as is done in conventional Pons-Fleischmann experiments),
    immersed in a KCl-LiCl eutectic saturated with LiD. The anode dimensions
    are 6 mm diameter and 5 cm length. The molten salt sits in an aluminum
    container which serves as the cathode. The temperature is sensed using a
    thermocouple embedded in a quartz tube which is placed in the molten salt
    in the general vicinity of the Pd anode. A Ni-Cr alloy resistive wire
    heater (encased in quartz) is wrapped around the cell, within a ceramic
    fiber insulator. Nearby is a {3}He neutron detector with a 0.01% detection
    efficiency.
 
    From the figures and the abstract, it is clear that a time-dependent
    excess neutron signal appears following 200 hours of electrolysis, at
    twice background (background is 5.51 q 0.44 cpm) corresponding to 800
    neutrons/sec. This neutron signal is rather clearly correlated with the
    excess power production which is time-dependent and rises to about 10
    watts. Given the large anode volume, this level of excess power
    corresponds to about 7 watts/cm{3}. The associated temperature excursions
    are about 25 Deg. C, with one excursion up to 50 Deg. C.
 
    The abstract quotes power gains of 5 to 108 for the 6 mm Pd rod which is
    5 cm long, and power gains of 8 to 560 from a 4.5 mm diameter rod. These
    numbers are very high and represent excesses in comparison with
    electrochemical power rather than total input power; I think that the
    highest numbers correspond to modest excess powers observed at low input
    current level.
 
    There was an abstract from the National Tsing Hua University by Yuan et
    al that described a molten salt experiment;{30} I do not know whether this
    paper was presented. I suspect that this paper may not have been
    presented, and that Perng was reviewing results obtained by his
    colleagues.
 
9.  There were several papers on attempts at replicating the Takahashi
    experiment that captured the attention of the Japanese press earlier this
    year. A. Takahashi described earlier this year obtaining tremendous
    excess heat in a heavy water electrolysis experiment that ran at an
    average of 1.7 output power over input power for about two months.{31,32}
    The total excess enthalpy generated was claimed to be about 2250 MJ/mole
    Pd (more than 20 KeV per Pd atom), which is one of the highest claims to
    date from this type of experiment. Following Takahashi's announcement,
    many laboratories attempted a replication.
 
    Takahashi's experiment is similar in many ways to the classical
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments with some variations. A Pd foil from Tanaka
    Kikinziku Kyogo (Tanaka Precious Metals Co.) with dimensions 2.5 cm X 2.5
    cm X 1 mm is used for a cathode instead of a rod. The electrolyte volume
    is very large (700 cc of D[2]O with 0.3 M LiOD). An innovation of
    Takahashi is the use of a time-varying current which alternates between a
    high mode (4-5 amps) and a low mode (0.2-0.4 amps) every six hours.
 
    Takahasi's calorimeter is an open cell flow calorimeter, where water from
    a chiller is flowed through a coil inside the cell, and the power is
    determined from a knowledge of the mass flow rate and the input-output
    temperature difference. An advantage of this type of calorimeter design
    is that it is able to function at near constant temperature when high
    power is applied to the electrochemistry. The temperature was monitored
    using teflon coated thermocouples at the inlet, outlet, and cell
    interior. The cell was calibrated before and after the run in the initial
    experiment, and the calibration lines were approximately reproduced.
 
    The total input energy for the initial experiment was 250 MJ, the total
    output energy measured was 410 MJ, leading to an excess of 160 MJ.
    Takahashi's excess power level claimed was 32 watts averaged over two
    months, with excursions to 100-130 watts. The cathode volume is 0.625
    cm{3} (0.0706 moles), so that the average power density is 51 watts/cm{3}
    and peak excursions are 160-208 watts/cm{3}. As discussed above, a
    chemical explanation of the effect (barring other systematic errors) is
    defeated in less than half an hour at the high excess power levels.
 
    Attempts at replication had varying degrees of success, but no one has
    been able to reproduce the very high power levels claimed by Takahashi.
    In the reproduction which Takahashi reported at Nagoya, the excess
    average power was 8 watts, with excursions to 15 watts.
 
    Takahashi's method comes with the recommendation that it is a potentially
    technically easier experiment than other experiments which have been
    reported. It is less exacting in the rigorous electrochemical purities
    required as compared to the SRI experiments; the cathodes from Tanaka
    metals are readily available to workers in the field, in contrast to the
    Johnson-Matthey cathodes employed by Pons and Fleischmann. The system is
    in principle relatively cheap to set up; Mallove{33} described a version
    of the Takahashi experiment which was built up using about $10K of
    hardware funds.
 
    Storms at LANL is claiming excess heat from a Tanaka batch 1 foil, and no
    heat from a batch 2 foil.{34} The anomalous power from the first foil was
    more than 20%. The batch 2 foil suffered an increase in internal volume
    on loading, which Storms suggested might be used as an indicator of
    whether a cathode was suitable for heat experiments. No one has reported
    a success with a batch 2 foil that I am aware -- batch 3 appears to be
    free of this problem.
 
    Celani{35,36} described efforts to reproduce the Takahashi experiment at
    his laboratory in Frascati. Experiments were run in an open cell flow
    calorimeter using two Tanaka metals batch 1 cathodes, one Tanaka batch 2
    cathode, and one IMRA batch 1 cathode. Positive results were obtained
    with the Tanaka batch 1 rods (at 8% and 25% peak power excess) and with
    the IMRA rod (12% peak excess). No excess power was observed with the
    Tanaka batch 2 cathode. Blank experiments were performed where a gold
    cathode sheet was substituted for the Pd cathodes, and no excess was
    observed. A correlation between high loading and excess heat was noted;
    small amounts of excess tritium were reported for the runs which gave
    excess heat.
 
    Oyama{37} reported a 2.4% excess energy, which is small, but was measured
    with much smaller error bars; a light water blank showed no excess.
 
10. Tritium production was discussed by several groups. The existence of such
    an effect is interesting because it constitutes an additional signature
    of the presence of a nuclear phenomenon; tritium cannot be made
    chemically. An additional feature of many tritium experiments is that the
    tritium is not accompanied by neutron emission (neutron/tritium ratios of
    10{-7} - 10{-9} have been reported). The *dd*-fusion reactions would
    produce neutrons and tritons in roughly equal amounts, so that the
    observations imply either a new mechanism or else a very significant
    modification of the fusion reactions. Possibly more significant is that
    14 MeV neutrons from *d-t* fusion reactions would be expected from
    secondary reactions if the tritium nuclei were created with MeV-level
    kinetic energy. The very low neutron to tritium ratios claimed imply a
    very low triton energy (below 10-15 keV), sufficiently low to be
    inconsistent with all but the most exotic reaction mechanisms.
 
    At Como, strong presentations of tritium production were made by Will,
    Claytor, Lanza, Szpak. Will has not been active in the field during the
    past year, and did not attend the Nagoya conference; Lanza has continued,
    but was not able to attend this year; Szpak has continued, but was also
    not present at Nagoya.
 
    Claytor{38} (whose work impresses me) described further experiments on
    tritium production in which a stack of alternating layers of palladium
    and silicon is placed in deuterium gas at over 10 atmospheres, and a
    pulsed current is passed through the stack. Reproducible tritium
    production is claimed at levels of 0.02-0.2 nCi/hr (1.1 X 10{6} - 1.1 X
    10{7} tritium atoms/second). Advances which the LANL group has made during
    the past year includes: reduction of background tritium, improvement in
    detection sensitivity, improvement in reproducibility at higher tritium
    generation rates, and the innovation of working with stacks using Pd
    built up from powder. Upper limits on neutron emission can be placed from
    their work as reported at Como of 4 X 10{-9} neutrons/second; the {3}He
    neutron detector which they have used (which I saw during a recent visit
    there) has a roughly similar efficiency for 14 MeV neutrons as for 2.45
    MeV neutrons (the detector is more sensitive at 2.45 by a factor of 1.5
    according to Menlove).
 
    Bockris{25} described two tritium experiments at Nagoya. In one
    experiment, a reproduction of the Szpak-Boss experiment described at Como
    was attempted. Szpak codeposited Pd on either a Cu or Ni substrate from
    PdCl[2] in D[2]O containing 0.3 N LiCl; continued electrolysis resulted in
    tritium production. The Pd was observed to plate out during the first 6-8
    hours, and excess tritium would be detected about 10 hours later. The
    experiment Bockris reported involved codeposition of Pd on gold, and
    tritium production was observed to start as soon as 10 hours after the Pd
    deposition, and production up to 3 times background was observed. This is
    the first successful confirmation of the Szpak experiment of which I am
    aware. Bockris did not obtain the high degree of reproducibility claimed
    by Szpak.
 
    I note that Miles also described{24} attempts to reproduce the Szpak
    experiment, and reported the observation of a modest tritium increase,
    but "not clearly beyond levels expected for electrolytic enrichment due
    to isotopic separation factors."
 
    Much more spectacular are the results reported by Bockris of Chien's
    experiments on tritium production in a Pd electrolysis experiment where
    massive amounts of tritium (more than 10{15} atoms) were observed. This
    report is very significant because it represents a new claim for very
    high levels of excess tritium.
 
    Early on, reports of very high levels of tritium were reported to have
    been observed at Texas A&M, corresponding to production rates on the
    order of 10{10} tritium atoms/cm{3} or higher. These experiments were
    clouded by charges of fraud (this charge was apparently investigated by a
    panel hired by Texas A&M, and not substantiated), and by the observation
    of high levels of tritium contamination in Pd claimed by Wolf (found by
    dissolving Pd rods in acid, and then performing scintillation counting on
    a neutralized version of the resulting solution). Similar experiments
    reported by Cedzynska (differing in that the distillate of the solution
    was analyzed by scintillation counting) failed to show contamination at
    the high levels reported by Wolf, and in addition found that false
    positives could occur when the solution was not first distilled.
 
    Subsequently, much more stringent controls were done to attempt to defeat
    the insidious tritium contamination claimed by Wolf, and new post-Wolf
    experiments were reported in which anomalous tritium production has been
    claimed. Except for experiments reported by BARC, most new claims have
    involved tritium production rates many orders of magnitude below those of
    the initial claims (the new claims generally ranged from 10{4} - 10{6}
    tritium atoms/second). The significance of the Chien experiments is that
    the tritium production rate claimed by Chien (in a post-Wolf experiment)
    are some of the first to approach the very high early (pre-Wolf)
    experimental claims. Much care was taken to avoid possible contamination:
    samples from the same rod were dissolved in aqua-regia, and the resulting
    solution distilled, and then analyzed using a scintillation cocktail
    following the method described by Cedzynska at Como.
 
    Chien's earlier experiment was carried out at the Institute of Nuclear
    Energy Research in Lung-Tan, Taiwan. The palladium cathodes used were 1.0
    cm in diameter, and 1-2 cm long; Pt wire wrapped around at a distance of
    4 mm was used for the anode. Electrolysis was carried out in heavy water
    with 0.1 M LiOD; tritium assay was done with a scintillation cocktail.
    Solutions exhibiting high tritium activity were sampled at the time of
    the experiment (10/89), and then resampled 10 months later (8/90) in
    order to observe the tritium decay from the sample. Tritium generation
    rates of 10{6}-10{9} atoms/second were determined, lasting for a total of
    20-30 days. The numbers claimed by Bockris at Nagoya{25} for the Texas A&M
    version of the experiment correspond to about 10{7} atoms/sec/cm{2} of
    surface area, in experiments with a 3-6 cm{2} surface area.
 
11. V. A. Romodanov gave an oral presentation in the theory panel at
    Nagoya.{39} Romodanov's command of the English language was imperfect; he
    read from his paper for more than 20 minutes in a thick Russian accent.
    Essentially no one with whom I talked understood the point of what he
    said, and his abstract did not particularly add to the information
    content. Given that his talk occurred in the theory section, and given
    that his theory appeared to be largely classical fusion modified somewhat
    by lattice effects, no one was expecting that a major experimental result
    was buried in his presentation. Two things about his talk raised flags
    for me, indicating that I should try to follow up if possible. One was
    that he was from Luch, which is the same place Kucherov is from...and I
    was very impressed by Kucherov's results. The second thing that I recall
    was that there was a table giving some very high tritium numbers; at the
    time I thought they were theoretical estimates because they were so
    large.
 
    Romodanov handed me a preprint{40} which explained in rather clearer
    English what was the content of his talk. I will focus on what I consider
    to be the single most important part of his presentation, which if true,
    is of fundamental importance. Romodanov described the results of glow
    discharge experiments which appear to have been done on a system very
    similar to that discussed by Kucherov (see above in this review).
    Romodanov and his colleagues focused on the detection of tritium produced
    in glow discharge experiments in Pd and in other metals.
 
    The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas at 100-200 torr, with an
    applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V, and a current of 3-4 A (a wide
    range of operating conditions are described in the paper, and the numbers
    I have chosen appear on one table -- I am not completely certain from the
    paper that the tritium generation was done with these parameters).
    Various cathode metals were used, including Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W; as
    disks with a diameter of 13 cm and a thickness between 500 mu and 1 mm,
    or rods of 0.5-2 cm diameter. The cathode temperatures were measured to
    be between 970 Deg. K and 1670 Deg. K, with only minor (15% or less due
    to anomalous self-heating effects).
 
    Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 10{9} atoms/second
    were measured in the different metals under various conditions. The
    largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in Nb at 1170 Deg. K,
    corresponding to an increase in tritium activity in the deuterium gas of
    2.3 X 10{4}. The neutron emission was measured in these experiments with a
    "radiac instrument RUP-1," which appears to be a scintillator with silver
    activated ZnS dispersed in transparent plastic (sounds similar to the
    detector used by Kucherov), and a neutron to tritium ratio of 1.8 X 10{-7}
    was obtained.
 
12. R. Notoya from Hokkaido University brought a light water demo that was
    set up and operated in the hallway of the conference{41}. The demo
    consisted of two cells: in one cell was a resistive heater, and in the
    other cell was a nickel cathode immersed in a light water K[2]CO[3]
    electrolyte, similar to the method of R. Mills and colleagues.{42}
    Notoya's method differs from Mill's method in that (1) the Notoya cathode
    is made of porous nickel, and the Mills cathode is plain nickel; and (2)
    Mills uses an intermittent current, while Notoya uses a constant current.
 
    The resistive heater was driven at 2.1 Watts electrical *iv* input; the
    electrolysis cell was driven so that the joule heating in the cell was
    also 2.1 Watts. The *iv* input into the electrolysis cell is actually
    higher by about 30%, but since electrolysis is occurring with a Faradaic
    efficiency near unity, the power ending up inside the cell is matched as
    long as no recombination occurs in the space above the electrolyte. The
    live cell ran higher by about 15 Deg. centigrade than the blank, as could
    be inspected visually by observing alcohol thermometers immersed in both
    cells. Notoya claims that the light water cell temperature implies a
    factor of about 3 more net power input, or roughly 6 watts of heating
    present.
 
    This was interesting for a number of reasons. This was the first live
    demonstration of excess heat production at a cold fusion conference that
    I am aware of. I have always thought that live demos would start to show
    up at conferences and at presentations, but I had figured that the first
    ones would be heavy water demos. I thought that it was significant that
    Notoya's system works well enough for her to be willing to bring it as a
    demo at a major international conference.
 
    Many of the "established" workers in the field who have put in
    substantial effort on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann cells and have
    observed heat simply do not believe that a heat effect can be observed in
    light water. Among other arguments that can be heard is that if the
    effect is either nuclear or is fusion, it must involve deuterium. Others
    in the field argue that the light water claims are simply due to sloppy
    experimental work. Independent of the correctness of the various
    assertions, it is almost humorous to find senior members of the cold
    fusion community sounding very much like their critics and tormentors of
    1989.
 
    The first reports of heat from light water experiments were actually from
    Pons and Fleischmann early on in 1989; when I last spoke with Fleischmann
    about light water experiments about a year ago, he was firm in his
    conviction that it was not possible to get excess heat from a light water
    cell.
 
    R. Mills, who is the originator of this particular Ni/K[2]CO[3]
    experiment, has no previous reputation or standing as an electrochemist,
    calorimetrist or physicist. He rejects the notion of cold fusion as due
    to nuclear effects completely (in fact, he does not wish to associate
    himself with the cold fusion community, and does not consider his effect
    to be related in any way to cold fusion), and has developed his own
    theory as to why his experiment works; his theory is based on the
    proposed existence of orbitals of hydrogen that lie below the 1*s* level.
    An explicit assumption in the Mills and Farrell theory is that the
    electronic charge distribution in hydrogenic states consist of charged
    shells of infinitesimal thickness. In order for this proposal to be
    correct, quantum mechanics must be incorrect (which Mills believes -- he
    offers his theory as a replacement for quantum mechanics). There have
    been no observations of such states, and the existence of such states
    would likely not be consistent with the observed stability of atoms as
    atoms.
 
    Reproductions of the Mills experiment have been reported previously.
    Noninski{43} published positive results from his experiments; Noninski
    views his experiment as a verification of the work of Fleischmann and
    Pons, who state explicitly (in a 1989 patent application) the possibility
    of excess heat in a light water cell with Ni as a cathode material. Mills
    was apparently unaware of Fleischmann and Pons patent application and its
    relevance.
 
    Confirmations of the Mills light water experiment have also been reported
    by Srinivasan,{44,45} and Bush and Eagleton.{46} Notoya and her laboratory
    come with good reputations; her confirmation of the Mills experiment
    (complete with demo) is probably the most significant endorsement of the
    light water excess heat results standing.
 
    Notoya's demo is an open cell system. It operates at a sufficiently high
    excess power that recombination or other effects that would make an open
    cell system perform differently from a closed cell would not change the
    essential result even if the recombination and other secondary effects
    were taken into account incorrectly or ignored. You can put your finger
    on the tubes Notoya's demo to convince yourself that a very significant
    temperature difference occurs. This was also claimed for the Mills
    experiment, as well as for other experiments reproducing the Mills
    result.
 
    During the conference and afterwards, a virtual firestorm of controversy
    arose concerning the difference in wires that were attached to the live
    cell and to the blank. A student of Steve Jones suggested that since
    smaller diameter wires were used on the blank, that the reduced voltage
    drop across the resister could account for the difference. After the
    conference, Notoya replaced the offending wires, and reported essentially
    no difference in the resulting blank temperature.
 
    Notoya's demo was brought to the US and set up at MIT during the first
    week of December. During the day and a half before her presentation at
    MIT, the live cell and resistive blank ran at very nearly identical
    temperatures, consistent with no excess power production. Notoya
    attributed this to contamination of the nickel cathodes. After her visit,
    she returned to Japan and set up her demo in a laboratory in Tokyo where
    excess heat was observed. A few days later, she was back at MIT,
    attempting for a second time to demonstrate excess power production.
    During this visit, a temperature excess was seen during electrolysis of
    the second cathode tried. According to Notoya, the initial temperature
    differential in this case corresponded to a 100% power excess.
    Subsequently, a persistent excess of about 4 Deg. C was observed, which
    she said corresponded to a 30% power excess (the reduction in fractional
    excess was attributed by Notoya to contamination).
 
    The persistent excess power which Notoya obtained at MIT was about 0.75
    Watts, and the cathode volume was about 0.05 cm{3}, leading to a volume
    averaged excess of 15 Watts/cm{3}. At Nagoya, the cell ran at a 4 Watt
    excess, corresponding to 80 Watts/cm{3}. She claims that she has observed
    a maximum of 200 Watts/cm{3} excess. A few hours of operation at 15
    Watts/cm{3} is sufficient to defeat a chemical explanation, which was done
    at MIT. The power excess demonstrated at Nagoya would defeat a chemical
    explanation in tens of minutes, and the cell ran for many hours.
 
    Little is known about loading ratios (H/Ni) while heat is produced; no
    information is available about potassium loading in the Ni; there is
    apparently an alkaline intermetallic layer formed which is at least
    several hundred Angstroms thick which may play a role. Nothing is known
    about the temperature sensitivity of the effect; Notoya observes the
    excess power to be essentially linear in applied current down to her
    lowest values (50-100 mA, and about 1 cm{2} geometric area at MIT; the
    high current levels approach 1 amp).
 
    Notoya obtains her best results with cathodes which have an extremely
    high area ratio (real area to geometric area), and she uses cathodes with
    an area ratio of several thousand (and a reduced density of about 6
    gm/cm{3}). The effect is apparently extremely sensitive to contamination,
    especially to oils. She observes an increase of 20% in calcium
    concentration (near 20 ppm) in the electrolyte, which she believes may be
    anomalous.
 
    I do not think that there is yet any particular contradiction between the
    light water experiments of the Mills type and the light water blanks in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments. The light water blanks in Pd/H experiments
    run in a H[2]O/LiOH electrolyte give zero excess power in most everyone's
    blank experiments these days; the Mills experiment uses a Ni cathode with
    a H[2]O/K[2]CO[3] electrolyte. These are really very different systems. In
    any event, in time any connections between the two systems will be
    clarified.
 
    Based on Notoya's work, the evidence in support of a light water effect
    has improved significantly. The effect which she observes is so great
    that there appears to be no simple explanation for it.
 
    So is there a light water heat effect? At this point, I am not yet sure
    one way or another. On the plus side: (1) the effect is large, (2) looks
    to be nuclear given the excess heat numbers, and (3) can be reproduced.
    On the minus side (from my point of view): (1) the effect has been
    studied by a relatively small number of groups for a relatively short
    time, (2) the effect appears to be somewhat insensitive to choice of
    electrolyte (claims{41} of heat production have been made for experiments
    which have used other alkali-carbonates such as Li[2]CO[3], Na[2]CO[3] and
    Rb[2]CO[3]) and to some degree the choice of cathode (positive results
    were reported{47} for Ni, Ag, Au and Sn electrodes). The reason which I am
    uncomfortable with the insensitivity of the effect to cathode and
    electrolyte comes from potential difficulties associated with finding a
    reaction mechanism that would show such an insensitivity.
 
    The experimentalists have grown used to the idea that deuterium gives
    anomalies and hydrogen does not; the theorists who believe in fusion
    mechanisms are comfortable with positive effects in deuterium and
    negative effects in hydrogen. A light water heat effect causes
    consternation in both camps; it would be exceedingly difficult to
    reconcile with a fusion mechanism.
 
    The neutron transfer model which I have been looking at (described
    briefly below) needs a neutron donor (usually deuterium) and an acceptor
    nucleus, and therefore has somewhat fewer constraints; nevertheless, I do
    not relish the prospect of attempting to explain an apparently general
    light water heat effect where the nuclei present are widely different
    from one cell to another. An experimental determination (and
    confirmation) of the ashes in any of these experiments would of course
    greatly improve the situation.
 
    As a result, I am not yet sure that there is a light water effect. I will
    be surer one way or another when more confirmations (or
    non-confirmations) are reported. I will be surer when Notoya, who has
    worked on her experiments only since last August, has had more time to
    think about her experiments and to improve them. I will also be surer in
    time after the cold fusion community has had more time to study and to
    evaluate the experiment.
 
13. The successful production of significant excess energy must give rise to
    ashes of one sort or another. It is not currently known what reactions
    are occurring; consequently, it is not obvious what ashes are to be
    expected. Energy excesses in the range of 1 MJ to 10 MJ have been
    reported in several experiments; we will consider briefly the
    implications of excess power generation, both per joule and for a 10 MJ
    total excess.
 
    Conventional *dd*-fusion reactions producing 10 MJ would yield more than
    10{19} neutrons, and a roughly equal number of tritium atoms. Pons and
    Fleischmann's recent measurements{48} of the neutrons produced from their
    cells yield 5-50 neutrons per joule, low by more than 10 orders of
    magnitude from what would be predicted for conventional *dd*-fusion.
    Tritium is not produced in their experiments, with a limit which is
    probably on the order of 10{4} tritium atoms per joule; low by at least 8
    orders of magnitude.
 
    It has been suggested that the {4}He branch of the *dd*-fusion reaction is
    somehow favored, and several searches for {4}He have been made. The
    conventional {4}He branch yields a 24 MeV gamma, which is not observed
    when heat is produced. The reaction energy would have to go elsewhere to
    be qualitatively consistent, and many in the field believe that energy
    transfer to the lattice occurs. Many measurements have been performed
    seeking {4}He in the cathode after the experiment; my impression is that
    it is simply not there quantitatively by many orders of magnitude.
 
    There have been some efforts seeking {4}He in the gas stream produced
    during electrolysis; Miles focused the attention of the community on this
    issue last year at Como when he claimed the observation of {4}He which at
    its highest levels might account for roughly 10% of the excess energy.
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno{11,12} described a new cell, calorimeter plus
    helium detector with which they plan to attempt a confirmation; other
    groups are acquiring mass detection capability for similar studies. The
    measurements of Yamaguchi{22,23} described above has also raised interest
    in helium detection.
 
    I would think that by next year's conference, that there will be a
    consensus by many groups established on whether substantial helium is
    produced or not.
 
    If the pragmatic point of view is adopted that whatever reaction is
    occurring is not constrained by theoretical preconceptions, then the
    search for the ashes is generalized considerably to include possible
    isotopic shifts or anomalies, and the possible production of elements or
    isotopes not initially present.
 
    A large number of studies have been reported at the international
    conferences in which the cathode surface has been analyzed for the
    presence of trace elements. Due to the nature of electrochemical
    deposition in real systems, quite a long list of surface contaminants are
    found at significant levels, hopelessly complicating any straightforward
    *ab initio* experimental search.
 
    The number of nuclei which is sought is on the order of 10{12} per joule
    (or 10{19} per MJ), which either helps or hurts depending on the point of
    view. Present in large quantities are D, O, Pd, Li, and H. Determining a
    relative isotope shift between deuterium and hydrogen is generally deemed
    not to be feasible, given the presence of hydrogen as a ubiquitous
    universal contaminant. Isotope shifts in oxygen are not currently
    predicted by anyone in the field, and have never been studied in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments to my knowledge.
 
    The first serious claim of possible isotope shifts in heavy elements with
    which I am familiar was made by Rollison at the NSF/EPRI workshop in 1989
    (Rollison subsequently had to back down from her claim -- see the
    proceedings of the Salt Lake City conference). The glow discharge
    observations described by Kucherov{13-16} and the Chinese group{17-20} imply
    isotope shifts in Pd and other metals.
 
    The production of 10 MJ of energy in a Pd cathode (containing 0.1 mole of
    Pd) would give rise to modifications of the Pd isotope distributions
    (assuming Pd were fuel) at the 0.0002 level, assuming arbitrarily 5 MeV
    per reaction. The prospect of proving this experimentally if it is in the
    bulk is judged to be impractical. If the reactions occur near the
    surface, then the numbers improve; the "noise" associated with natural
    isotopic separation also increases. Searches for such surface isotope
    shifts have been reported, and continue to be performed; such searches
    for now remain in the background of the field.
 
    Lithium appears to be required for heat production in Pons-Fleischmann
    experiments, although it is unknown whether it plays any nuclear role.
 
    Thompson, formerly of Johnson-Matthey, reported{49} that the lithium on
    the surface of a Pons-Fleischmann cathode that had been involved in
    heat-producing experiments showed a depletion of {6}Li relative to the
    natural abundance (down to about 4%). Pons and Fleischmann had reported
    (in the Salt Lake proceedings) that the lithium which they had used was
    initially enriched in {6}Li (11%); Thompson noted this in his talk,
    quoting an initial concentration of 9-11%, but said the Johnson-Matthey
    group did not have a before to compare with their after.
 
    During the questions following Thompson's talk, McKubre noted that the
    Johnson-Matthey analysis only looked at the surface, and that any lithium
    present in the bulk might provide an internal reference. Thompson said
    that he thought that this suggestion could be tested. The conference
    proceedings from Johnson-Matthey states that no lithium is detected in
    the bulk,{50} which would imply that it will not be possible to establish
    an internal reference retrospectively.
 
    The amount of lithium present in a cathode is an interesting question.
    Gozzi reported last year the results of studies to determine Li loading
    in Pd during electrolysis, and found the very high number of 5% by
    monitoring the Li lost from the electrolyte. I questioned him at the
    conference (he presented{50} some nice positive results from his torus of
    cells where he monitors for heat, neutrons, tritium, helium, and I think
    gammas; unfortunately, I am lacking sufficient documentation of his
    results to present more details in this review), since several papers
    presented at each of the international conferences showed per cent level
    surface concentrations which fall rapidly on the micron scale into the
    bulk of the cathode (an exception to this was the measurements presented
    by Nakada{51} et al showing lithium profiles with significant lithium in
    20-30 microns). Lithium concentrations were measured by Myamoto et
    al,{52,53} who obtain Li/Pd ratios between 3 X 10{-4} and 3 X 10{-3}. I
    suspect that the Li/Pd ratio is probably sensitive to cathode properties,
    to the electrochemistry and loading time; one possible explanation of the
    long loading time required for Pons-Fleischmann cells, and remarked on
    explicitly by McKubre,{2} was that extra time beyond the deuterium loading
    time required to see the heat effect might be due to a necessity to
    achieve significant loading of another species, such as lithium or other
    light interstitials.
 
    I note here that energy production at the level of 100 MJ/mol would yield
    an observable (2%) isotope shift in lithium if the lithium concentration
    were at the 1% level, and if the bulk lithium did not substitute with
    lithium in the electrolyte. The numbers are worse if the electrolyte
    lithium is included, but not so bad to prohibit a measurement.
    Unfortunately, very few groups are currently pursuing the lithium isotope
    shift problem; I consider it to be an important question, especially in
    light of the initial Johnson-Matthey positive measurement.
 
14. B. Stella{54} presented a poster that I passed by twice; the title talks
    about the "stimulated emission of neutrons," that is of course impossible
    -- neutrons are fermions, and can of course not participate in stimulated
    emission. The third time by, Stella grabbed me and walked me through his
    poster (for which I am thankful, otherwise I would have missed it).
 
    In essence what the experiment consists of is taking a Pons-Fleischmann
    cell, putting it inside a 40 % efficient neutron detector underground in
    the Gran Sasso INFN laboratory, and directing an incident neutron beam
    (of about 30 neutrons/sec) with a substantial thermal component at the
    cell. Fast (2.45 MeV) neutrons are measured originating from the cell,
    and a gain of about 2 fast neutrons for every incident neutron is
    claimed.
 
    After talking to him, I was given to understand that for 30 neutrons/sec
    input that 60 or more neutrons/sec were measured (taking into account the
    neutron detector efficiency). I asked if the ratio held up at a higher
    input flux, and he said that they had done experiments up at 500/sec
    incident, with the same basic neutron gain (but that their neutron
    detector suffered from saturation problems at such a high flux).
 
    I asked whether the effect was reproducible. Stella said that they had
    done two runs (each run takes about a week to do) so far, and that they
    hoped to be able to do some more in the near future.
 
    I note that a neutron gain of 2 would be a very important result, if
    true, with rather important implications. I note also that this report of
    two observations (with a modest signal relative to noise) is the first in
    which such an effect has been claimed, and that no reproductions from
    either this group or any other group has been made.
 
 
                              NEGATIVE RESULTS
 
1.  A famous hydrogen-in-metals physicist, Y. Fukai, gave a presentation of
    the basic problems facing theorists attempting to provide an explanation
    of the anomalies.{55,56} I thought that this talk was excellent, and Fukai
    is really very knowledgeable; it is clear that the basic physics issues
    (the Coulomb barrier, screening, and solid state issues) that he
    discussed must be addressed theoretically, especially in the case of
    theories based on fusion reaction mechanisms.
 
    Fukai also presented a negative result{57} involving a search for neutrons
    that might be induced as a result of the generation of fractures in metal
    deuterides. The highest result observed was for fractured TiD, 1.8 q 0.1
    cpm, versus a background of 1.27 q 0.05 cpm.
 
    I was impressed that he attended, since I am convinced that mainline
    scientists of his caliber will play an increasingly important role in the
    field. After talking to him, it became clear that some scientists present
    who were not in the field had received very strong encouragement to
    participate.
 
    His talk was not well received by a number of those in the field, and he
    was criticized during and after his presentation.
 
2.  There was a negative result on a measurement of neutrons from a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell originating out of the physics department at Osaka
    University,{58} the poster of which looked very interesting. The group had
    a high-resolution Ge detector looking at gammas produced inelastically by
    neutrons impinging on an Fe plate placed between the detector and a Pd
    heavy water electrolysis cell. With this system, the group was able to
    place an upper limit of 1.6 X 10{-24} fusions/dd-pair.
 
    There was another negative result on the fusion rate as determined by the
    relative absence of 3 MeV protons reported by a group from Tokyo
    Metropolitan University.{59} I did not see this poster. According to the
    abstract, the upper limit on the fusion rate from this measurement was
    1.3 X 10{-24} fusions/dd-pair.
 
3.  D. Morrison of CERN presented a paper{60} that criticized the experiments
    in the field, and used data from an analysis of the literature published
    in the field to show that interest in the field is declining, symptomatic
    of "pathological science".
 
    Morrison made a number of arguments, most of which are restated and
    amplified in his recent review{61} of the Nagoya conference (his Cold
    Fusion Update No. 7 on the computer network; my copy is dated 12-17-92).
    I will attempt here to summarize briefly what I think are key points
    (drawing from his conclusions listed in Update No. 7), and to provide
    some commentary on the points.
 
    The major point of Morrison's presentation involves the inconsistency
    between the claimed excess heat production, which would correspond to on
    the order of 10{12} reactions per second, and the low tritium and neutron
    signals which are lower by many orders of magnitude. For example,
    Morrison uses the upper limit on neutron emission in the Kamiokande
    experiments (10{-4} neutrons/sec) to place an upper limit on heat
    production which is lower by 16 orders of magnitude. Morrison also noted
    that the mean distance between deuterons in the lattice is larger than
    for D[2], which implies that fusion reaction rates in a lattice would be
    expected to be smaller than the very low numbers which are well-known for
    D[2].
 
    A weakness of the limiting argument as stated by Morrison is the
    presupposition that conventional *dd*-fusion is the operative reaction
    mechanism; it has long been recognized by many (but not all) in the field
    that the excess heat production can not be due to conventional
    *dd*-fusion. I personally would accept Morrison's limit on the heat
    production for the Kamiokande cells, specifically for the amount of
    excess heat due to the conventional *dd*-fusion channel in those
    experiments. Possibly more relevant for a limit on the *dd*-fusion
    channel would be a neutron measurement in a heat-producing cell (there is
    no report of any calorimetric excess heat production at Kamiokande), in
    which case the limit claimed in other experiments is higher, but the
    basic argument is unchanged. This issue has been discussed above.
 
    Morrison advocates that due to the wide range of phenomena claimed (some
    inconsistent with others), and since "poorly designed and artifact-prone"
    experiments have been reported in the field, that only "good
    fully-instrumented and fully-calibrated experiments that need few and
    unimportant corrections" should be done; loading should always be
    measured.
 
    The claims of positive heat results in light water experiments appears to
    be inconsistent with previous claims of heat production (in which the
    effect was present in heavy water, and absent in light water). This issue
    was commented on above.
 
    Morrison points out that many negative results have been obtained which
    contradict the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, and those of Jones.
    Morrison points to the work of the GE group (R. H. Wilson et al, *J.
    Electroanal. Chem.* 332, 1 (1992)), as well as a large number of other
    experiments, in which no excess heat was observed in contrast to the
    claims of Pons and Fleischmann. He points to the Kamiokande experiment as
    the strongest refutation of the original claims of neutron emission by
    Jones and coworkers.
 
    This argument was presented by Morrison in a spirited fashion at the
    conference. He made use of the statistics of papers published for and
    against, seemingly as a route to help to decide whether an effect exists
    or not. For example, of 727 refereed published papers in the compilation
    of D. Britz, in each category of effect, there are more negative results
    than positive results. Of experimental papers in this set, there appear
    86 positive, 136 null, and 36 indecisive or contradictory.
 
    Of the 8 experimental papers published in 1992 included in the Britz
    compilation, 1 was positive, 6 nulls, 1 indecisive; of papers on proton
    measurements, 1 positive, and 11 nulls; of papers on {3}He, 1 positive and
    8 nulls; of papers on x-ray emission, 0 positives and 7 nulls. The subset
    which Britz rates as being expert yields the results as: 1 positive, 19
    null, 2 unclear and 6 technical; of those looking for artifacts: 1
    positive, 14 null, 2 unclear, and 1 technical.
 
    At issue in Morrison's discussion is whether there occur, or do not occur
    anomalies (heat, particles, etc.) in deuterated metal systems. Taking a
    vote by counting the number of published papers pro or con is certainly
    one way of deciding the issue; most others at the conference who argued
    for or against presented the results of an experiment or else the results
    of a theoretical model.
 
    Morrison went further at the conference; he used the results to support
    his contention that interest in the field is dying out (experimental
    papers: 72 in 1989, 128 in 1990, 48 in 1991 and 8 in 1992), which he said
    was symptomatic of "pathological science". Although Morrison has written
    about the field as an example of pathological science *Special Symposium
    Proceedings on Cold Fusion* of the World Hydrogen Energy Conference, July
    1990, p. 233), and he discussed pathological science at Nagoya, I did not
    see an elaboration of his arguments in his review.
 
    Whether the excess heat effect is real or not is a matter that either has
    been, or else will be, settled by experiment; not by counting papers or
    by discussing pathological science. Nevertheless, there is an issue
    buried in Morrison's arguments which is of interest. The issue of
    reproducibility is central in the field, especially given the early
    history and associated problems. The dark clouds which currently hang
    over the field today would likely not be present had the experiments been
    easier to reproduce in 1989. While the degree of reproducibility of the
    heat effect among groups working in the field has improved considerably
    since 1989, it is true that not very many examples exist where an outside
    effort has come back recently armed with the latest results and has
    attempted a replication. This situation needs to be addressed in the
    coming months and years.
 
4.  J. Huizenga of the University of Rochester submitted a post deadline
    abstract{62} that pointed out that there are two types of claims, one for
    heat and one for low levels of neutrons. Huizenga maintains that there is
    no evidence to support any relation between the two claims. The claims of
    fusion products at a level down by twelve orders of magnitude from the
    heat production do not support the notion that the heat is of nuclear
    origin.
 
    Although Huizenga was present, this paper was not presented.
 
 
                              THEORY PAPERS
 
    All but four of the theory papers were presented as posters during two
sessions where I had posters to attend; consequently I was unable to spend
much time looking over the theory papers of others. I will nevertheless
attempt a summary of some of the approaches of the work based both on the
abstracts and on what I have seen of the approaches previously. Once again, I
warn the reader that my review of the theory papers in the field are biased by
my own point of view as to what physical mechanisms are responsible for the
effects being observed.
 
    The theories may initially be divided up into two general categories;
those involving (modified) fusion mechanisms, and those not involving fusion
mechanisms. Papers considering fusion mechanisms face the two basic problems
of (1) arranging to get nuclei close enough together to fuse, and (2) possibly
modifying the fusion reaction profiles. We first consider papers describing
theories based on fusion mechanisms.
 
1.  G. Preparata{63} has been working on theory for coherent *dd*-fusion
    reactions; a major goal of the theory is to account for the heat
    production by a modified *dd*-fusion reaction where the {4}He branch
    dominates, and the gamma emission is replaced by energy transfer with the
    lattice. He argues that a proper quantization of the low energy
    electromagnetic field coupled to the metal electrons leads to enhanced
    screening between deuterons. He then proposes that the {4}He branch is
    favored by coherence factors that come about when the reaction energy (24
    MeV) is transferred to the lattice.
 
    In some sense, this is a version of the "classical" cold fusion model,
    which would be essentially forced somehow to be true if Fleischmann's
    initial conjecture that the effect was due to fusion were accepted. I
    consider this general type of model to be essentially the only game in
    town if it is assumed (following Fleischmann's initial conjecture) that
    the reaction mechanism must be fusion. I spent 6 months working on it
    myself in 1989.
 
    However, none of this makes the fundamental problems associated with
    screening and modification of reaction pathways any easier to solve.
 
2.  There have been a number of speculative theories that have been based on
    the notion that deuterons in a metal are well-described using Bloch-type
    wavefunctions. In such case, the principal interaction of the deuteron is
    assumed to be with the lattice, and deuteron-deuteron correlation effects
    would be brought in at higher order. A computation of the *dd*-fusion
    rate using uncorrelated orbitals yields anomalously high fusion rates, as
    expected since it operationally leaves out the Gamow factor.
 
    It has been suggested that the inclusion of the deuteron-deuteron
    correlation terms might not lead to Gamow factors as low as in the
    well-known case of molecular D[2]. S. Chubb and T. Chubb{64,65} have
    recently turned to the problem of electron correlation in ground state
    helium as an example where orbital and correlation effects compete, and
    argue that the Hylleraas solutions show an unexpected degree of overlap
    between the two electrons.
 
    Multi-body fusion theories have been proposed,{66,67} that would ultimately
    require deuteron-deuteron correlation to be essentially absent altogether
    to operate. It is not clear how this could come about.
 
3.  The possibility that anomalously large electron screening might occur is
    the subject of a number of works presented at the conference.{68-71} The
    basic idea is that if the coulomb repulsion between deuterons held in
    neighboring sites was reduced, then the degree of overlap of the nuclei
    would be increased, leading to a possibly measurable fusion rate. The
    difficulty here is to arrange for an enormous enhancement (of some
    unexpected sort) of screening in the metal beyond what screening occurs
    in D[2].
 
4.  Fast (multi-KeV) deuterons are able to overcome the coulomb barrier
    sufficiently to fuse with a low but observable probability. There have
    been suggestions that conventional mechanisms exist that could accelerate
    enough deuterons fast enough to account for low levels of neutron
    emission that have been reported. This explanation follows from the known
    phenomenon in insulators that hundred eV ions are emitted from insulators
    that undergo intense fractures; the corresponding effect is much weaker
    in metals by several orders of magnitude.
 
    Theories which propose anomalous ion acceleration in metal hydrides were
    described in a number of abstracts.{72-75} A variant on this general
    approach is discussed by Fukushima,{76} wherein recent observations of
    conditions in sono-luminescence experiments are proposed to result in an
    enhancement of the fusion rate.
 
5.  Kim and coworkers examine screening effects and modifications of the
    deuteron velocity distribution function that may occur at high
    density.{77-79} This approach is applicable both to cold fusion and to hot
    fusion problems; the authors believe that it may provide a solution to
    the solar neutrino problem. The fusion rate may be higher or lower than
    the conventionally calculated rate, depending on the condensed matter
    environment. Kim believes that these effects may also help to account for
    the anomalous branching ratio in cold fusion.
 
6.  A low energy resonance in the D+D system would enhance the fusion rate at
    low energy (no such resonance is known theoretically or experimentally).
    An abstract was submitted describing a proposed novel "combined resonance
    tunneling" effect,{80} that was not explained in the abstract.
 
7.  The catalysis of fusion by a heavy negatively charged particle, extending
    the essence of muon-catalyzed fusion, was made popular in 1989 by
    Rafelski and others. An abstract on catalysis by an anti-diquark with
    -4/3 charge was submitted.{81} From my perspective, this general approach
    suffers from the absence of abundant known massive negatively charged
    nuclear particles, and a reason why they should be appearing specifically
    in Pons-Fleischmann type experiments.
 
8.  V. A. Tsarev of the Lebedev Institute in Moscow described some
    calculations suggesting that an increase in the tunneling probability
    between deuterons would be expected due to lattice motion (my translation
    of "violation of stationarity in lattice").{82} Rather than the
    conventional kinetic or screening arguments often described, Tsarev
    proposed that the lattice would provide a time-dependent potential that
    would affect the deuteron wavefunction itself.
 
    I cannot see how there would be any but the weakest of effects from such
    terms; in time more documentation of this approach will hopefully be
    available, and the essence of the proposal will become clearer.
 
    Tsarev presented an interesting review of cold fusion research in Russia
    and in neighboring countries formerly of the Soviet Union. I do not have
    sufficient documentation (unfortunately) of his presentation to include a
    section in this review. I note that the Russian work was reviewed last
    year in an article by Tsarev and Worledge. {83}
 
    A number of theorists, including myself, have gone away from fusion
    reaction mechanisms. The motivation for this is to avoid the coulomb barrier
    (if possible) and to find reactions with signatures that hopefully more
    closely match the experimental observations. Each new non-fusion approach
    carries with it specific problems and issues that are associated with the
    specific reaction mechanism. Aside from this, any new approach must also
    arrange itself to be consistent with physical law, observations in this and
    other fields, and must presumably be functioning in a manner not previously
    expected (lest it would have been found earlier). We describe such
    contributions below.
 
1.  Electron capture on a deuteron would lead to two virtual neutrons; if it
    could be arranged for the virtual neutrons to be in proximity with
    neighboring nuclei, then further reactions could occur. This approach was
    described in two abstracts by J. Yang of the Dept. of Physics, Hunan
    Normal University of China.{84,85} Yang proposes that the two neutrons form
    a stable dineutron that reacts with deuterium to make tritium and a free
    neutron, and with {105}Pd to make {106}Pd and a free neutron.
 
    I consider this general approach to be one of the basic non-fusion
    approaches that actually begins to try to address the coulomb barrier
    problem. Once the electron capture occurs, the coulomb barrier is gone,
    potentially leading to the possibility of something happening near room
    temperature. One difficulty involved in this approach are that the
    electron capture is mediated by the weak interaction, which really is
    very weak, making it hard to obtain significant reaction rates. A second
    difficulty is that virtual neutrons do not generally wander more than
    fermis away from their point of origin, making it difficult for a virtual
    neutron to reach another nucleus to interact.
 
2.  Direct lattice-induced neutron ionization was described by Tani and
    Kobayashi,{86} motivated by the broad neutron emission that has been
    observed by several laboratories at energies higher than 2.45 MeV.
 
    The possibility that sufficient energy may be transferred from the
    lattice to a deuteron to disintegrate it is yet another significant
    conceptual step away from working with fusion reaction mechanisms. If a
    mechanism existed to do what Tani and Kobayashi proposes, the resulting
    spectra would likely follow the photodisintegration cross section
    generally qualitatively in shape, which would not be such a bad match to
    Takahashi's data.
 
    Once, I suspected that a single-step lattice-induced disintegration,
    something like what is described in this abstract, might be possible; I
    followed it up with a moderately sophisticated calculation (based on a
    harmonic lattice, without including some of the effects described in the
    abstract) that has been accepted for publication. The results of my
    computation were that although it is possible in principle to transfer
    sufficient energy to do the job, the energy transfer is sensitive to
    sign; in the end, I concluded that single-step lattice-induced
    disintegration could not be done (within the limits of my model), without
    having individual nuclei with MeV-level kinetic energy in the lattice
    initially to do the ionizing.
 
3.  I submitted two abstracts on neutron transfer reaction mechanisms that I
    have been exploring recently.{87-89} The basic reaction in this theory is a
    two-step transfer reaction of a neutron from a donor nucleus (typically a
    deuteron) to an acceptor nucleus located Angstroms to microns away. As
    originally proposed, the lattice would contribute the energy to promote
    the neutron from the donor, and take up energy at the acceptor;
    calculations showed that this was not viable, and so a modified version
    of the model in under development.
 
    The revised model works similarly, except that the intermediate state is
    virtual, as required since the lattice is unable to contribute energy to
    ionize the neutron. When the neutron reaches the acceptor nucleus, then a
    number of incoherent processes could occur, including gamma capture, and
    capture to states that decay by alpha emission. There might be a
    correlation between these decay products and the reaction products
    observed by Kucherov. Alpha particles in this model would range up to 4.1
    MeV (originating from neutron capture on {105}Pd).
 
    Heat production might be accounted for if a long-lived metastable state
    existed that was nearly resonant with the virtual neutron, and which
    alpha decayed.
 
    If the capture at the acceptor is preceded by energy transfer to the
    lattice during the donor transfer (which has now been shown explicitly to
    be allowed at least mathematically), or during scattering of the
    intermediate state virtual neutron, then the coherent neutron capture
    proceeds into long-lived ground state nuclei, which are born essentially
    at rest. This mechanism could account for heat production (accepting onto
    light interstitials such as {6}Li or {10}B) and anomalous slow tritium
    production (accepting onto deuterium).
 
    The primary difficulty with any reaction mechanism that involves a
    virtual free particle is that such intermediate particles do not go very
    far (typically fermis) from where they are born. I presented the results
    of computations of the virtual neutron Green's function including lattice
    effects,{88} and found that under conditions that phase coherence among
    neighboring hydrogen isotopes is maintained in a periodic lattice, that a
    usefully large and long-range contribution to the Green's function may
    occur that would lead to observably large net reaction rates. Quantum
    diffusion is conjectured to be able to set up the required coherence.
 
    One weakness of the approach which has become apparent following the
    conference is that the diffusion of hydrogen in metals generally proceeds
    by a hopping mechanism, which would likely not establish phase coherence
    of the sort required by the theory. In a loaded PdD lattice, some
    population of the tetrahedral sites would be expected; this is of
    interest since the tetrahedral to tetrahedral site barrier is expected to
    be considerably lower than the octahedral to octahedral site barrier,
    which might help the situation. The issue of coherence for such a
    diffusion mechanism is under study.
 
                              WHAT WAS NOT PRESENTED
 
    In spite of the relatively numerous set of papers that were presented at
ICCF3, there were several key players in the field who were not present or did
not give papers. I felt that the conference suffered from the absence of K.
Wolf, H. Menlove, E. Storms, E. Cecil, F. Will, S. Szpak, F. Lanza, and
several other key players in the field. Additionally, a paper from G. Chambers
(of NRL) that I had hoped to see was withdrawn by order of an associate
director of NRL.
 
    Possibly controversial was the absence of a presentation by Ishida of
experiments at Kamiokande. During the past year and a half, a very large
number of measurements seeking neutrons from various cold fusion experiments
were carried out. Kamiokande is famous as one of the world's premier neutrino
detection facilities, and received considerable attention following the
observation of neutrinos from the 1987 supernova. A positive result of
observation of anomalous neutron emission at Kamiokande would be a very big
event, since Kamiokande is well-respected in the physics community.
 
    Ishida's master thesis summarizes the results of over 100 cold fusion
experiments that were done at Kamiokande. Although it is a fact that neutrons
were observed at low levels, there are questions about what is the origin of
the neutrons. In the thesis, Ishida proposes that the neutrons are due to
naturally occurring radioactive contaminants.
 
    In the end, I think that the results from Kamiokande make either a weak
case in support of the existence of anomalous neutron emission, or else a
possibly disputable case in support of the non-existence of an effect. This
requires further explanation.
 
    The emission of neutrons from Ti shavings in deuterium gas was reported
early on by Scaramuzzi from Frascati. Attempts to replicate the experiment met
with success at LANL, where both random and large bursts of neutrons have been
observed with high efficiency {3}He neutron detectors. Low level random
emission of neutrons is claimed, and bursts of up to several hundred neutrons
in a 100 mu sec period were observed. The reproducibility of these experiments
is not great, and in spite of the progress made at LANL in improving the
reproducibility of the effect, the success rate reported in the Como
proceedings was about 10%.
 
    Menlove worked with the Japanese team to attempt a confirmation of the
LANL results. Due to the constraints imposed by the nature of the facility,
the number of runs which were attempted on Menlove's samples were 6. According
to Menlove, one of these samples might have shown something. If a case were
then to be made that the Kamiokande results disprove the Menlove's
observations at LANL, this argument is at best weak, since the probability of
obtaining a null result is on the order of (0.9){6} = 0.53 for these
experiments.
 
    Some have made the case that since no very large bursts (~100 neutrons)
were observed in any of the more than 100 experiments (which would improve the
statistics), that this refutes Menlove's positive observations of large burst
obtained at LANL and reported at Como. Lacking from this argument is an
estimate of expected frequency of bursts from the various experiments that
were done. If the expected rate of large neutron bursts were negligible in the
Portland cement experiments, for example, then doing many of them should not
alter a conclusion regarding a Menlove experiment.
 
    The poor reproducibility of the effect, in addition to the difficulty of
determining in a post-analysis what is the difference between a cell that gave
a signal and one that did not, prompted Scaramuzzi to recommend at Como that
this line of investigation should make way for other approaches which are less
frustrating. Research on Frascati cells has largely ceased in the field.
 
    The Kamiokande experiments were discussed in the talk by S. Jones,{90} who
was a collaborator in the experiments at Kamiokande. Jones argued that the
conjectures made by Ishida about radioactive contaminants had been
subsequently tested by introducing the proposed contaminants and measuring the
resulting signals elsewhere; the resulting neutron emissions did not agree
with the Kamiokande results. Jones therefore described the results as
supporting the presence of anomalous neutron emission.
 
    I do not think that we have heard the last of this discussion. I would
hope that in the future Kamiokande would try again, perhaps with experiments
which have larger signals and higher success rates. For example, the
experiment described by Kucherov would yield signals up to eight or nine
orders of magnitude above background at Kamiokande if there were any way to
field it there.
 
    Also absent from the conference were prominent US skeptics who have in
one way or another have made technical contributions to the field in the past.
The absence of such individuals indicates the lack of any significant respect
that the cold fusion field currently has among the scientific community. I
would have been interested in the response of such skeptics following many of
the papers presented at the conference; but alas, it was not to be. At the
conference, little in the way of substantive technical criticism of the best
heavy water calorimetry results was offered by any of the participants. If
there exist skeptics who are familiar with the Pons and Fleischmann
calorimetry or the SRI work and believe that they know what might be
technically in error, your technical input would be greatly appreciated.
 
 
                              CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
 
    Was the conference sufficiently strong technically to turn the tide, to
settle the seemingly endless controversy as to whether there is or is not any
new anomalous effect? I thought that it was. I regard the technical issue of
whether there is a reproducible anomalous excess power effect in heavy water
Pons-Fleischmann experiments to have been settled at this point; I think that
there is clearly an effect.
 
    For such a significant conference, it has been largely ignored by the
scientific community. Wrongly so, I think. The majority of scientists are
currently ill-informed of the experiments, the implications, the arguments, or
the goals of ongoing research in the field. At some point this needs to
change, but I confess that I do not see how it might happen in the foreseeable
future.
 
    The name "cold fusion" has been adopted by the field to some degree by
default. This name implies a generic physical reaction mechanism (fusion), and
because the experiments involve deuterium, the name further presupposes
specific reactions (*dd*-fusion reactions). But *dd*-fusion is expected to
produce neutrons and tritons, neither of which are quantitatively present with
the excess heat. Scientists who are not in the field are discouraged because
the expected fusion products are not present in quantities commensurate with
the observed energy production, and scientists working in the field have not
come up with an explanation in three and a half years as to why deuterons
should fuse that is acceptable to the scientific community.
 
    There have been proposals to change the name of the field: "solid state
nuclear physics" has been suggested; "nuclear effects in metals" has also been
put forth. I would strongly endorse a name change.
 
    A reviewer of this manuscript has pointed out that even these names
presuppose a nuclear component to the effect, which in the reviewer's eyes
remains to be demonstrated, and has recommended "hydrogen energy" or "hydrogen
in metals", with the understanding that "hydrogen" is to include the isotopes.
 
    The field continues to receive considerable bad press, which at this
point is not warranted. For example, I have recently obtained a copy of a
review of the Nagoya conference by D. O. Morrison, which has received very
wide distribution; it is unfortunate that the only updates about the field
received by most of the physics community is through such a biased channel.
This simply must change. I am open to suggestions as to how this situation
could best be changed.
 
    There are precious few sources of potential funding in this area,
especially in the US. I am convinced that DOE should be funding a significant
effort in the US, the goal of which should be to find out what is going on, so
that an informed and rational judgement can be made about any potential of the
effect to meet US and world energy requirements. One basic claim that has been
made is that excess energy at a level which must be nuclear (but is certainly
not conventional *dd*-fusion) is observed in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment
and variants; this is something that the DOE should be interested in.
 
    So what is it that should be done? The list is very long, but I will
attempt to enumerate some of what I think are a few relevant goals:
 
1.  Verification of a heat effect: I am convinced that the Pons-Fleischmann
    cells can produce excess energy of a nuclear origin based on the amount
    of energy per atom evolved. The scientific community does not accept
    this. This issue really needs to be put to rest, and the associated
    controversy ended.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann have been publishing further details of their own
    work in refereed journals and in readily available conference
    proceedings, and more papers are currently in the pipeline. Details of
    the work of many other groups is also readily available.
 
    Considerably more is known about the Pons-Fleischmann cells than in 1989,
    and the reproducibility of the effect has been improved considerably. SRI
    has produced documentation of criterion which, if met, carries the
    guarantee that similar experiments at SRI have produced heat reproducibly
    with a very high success rate. Palladium cathodes from sources other than
    Matthey-Johnson have now shown the effect.
 
    Significant deficiencies have been identified in the principal negative
    experiments which were done in 1989; the main criticisms of these
    experiments was that a high loading was not achieved and held. For
    example, the method developed at SRI requires very high loading (D/Pd
    ratio near 0.90) to be maintained for about a week. Since positive
    results have been obtained at lower loadings, this constraint is likely
    not to be absolute; nevertheless, many in the field believe that quite
    high loadings do improve the reproducibility of the effect.
    I do not know how this controversy is to be ended, but I know that it
    does need to be ended in a satisfactory manner. The basic experiments
    have been done, they have been repeated in many different ways by
    numerous groups, and the effect is observed with considerably better
    signal to noise ratio than in 1989.
 
    Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy
    skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate
    closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has
    been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that
    positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the
    reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough.
    I have heard some skeptics saying that a commercial product is the next
    hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be
    justified. This is simply not right.
 
2.  Basic reaction mechanisms for heat production: To date the claims of the
    observation of heat anomalies in metal deuterides have not been
    accompanied by any clear positive evidence for reaction mechanisms.
    Anomalous heat generation would have to have a fuel, and would have to
    have ashes; the confirmed identification of either fuel or ashes would
    help tremendously towards a determination of a reaction mechanism.
 
    I think that progress in this field is hindered by the absence of even a
    rudimentary understanding of the basic reaction mechanisms involved
    (there are of course theories, but to date there is no positive
    experimental confirmation of any proposed theory). At some point, the
    principal experimentalists in the field simply must take this issue
    seriously. Having an understanding of what the reaction mechanisms are
    would provide numerous benefits: (1) guidance as to what experimental
    parameters are expected to be important for optimizing reaction rates;
    (2) improvement of the general quality of the science being done in the
    field, especially as perceived by those not in the field; (3) allows
    those working in the field to focus more clearly on the issues that are
    most important. From the point of view of funders or potential funders, a
    knowledge of how the effect works allows the possibility of assessing
    more accurately potential future applications.
 
    The determination of fuel and ashes requires high sustained
    volume-averaged heat production. In the case of {4}He production, an assay
    of the gas stream is required; in the case of assays for other elements
    and isotopes, careful mass spectroscopy (and the presence of a small
    electrolyte volume) will likely prove to be most important.
 
3.  Verification and reaction mechanisms for other anomalies: Quite a few
    anomalies have by now been associated with deuterium in metals
    experiments, including observations of neutrons, gammas, fast ions,
    tritium, and helium production.
 
    None of these effects are currently accepted by the scientific community;
    as in the case of the heat effect, some way is needed to arrange for a
    consensus as to which of the effects are real. It would seem to me that
    the most dramatic claims come from the glow discharge experiments; most
    significant would be if these experiments could be further reproduced and
    verified.
 
    I think that experiments which produce energetic (MeV-level) nuclear
    products provide essential information relevant to the issue of reaction
    mechanisms. For example, a confirmation of significant isotope shifts and
    strong gamma emission from heavy elements would place very strong
    constraints on proposed reaction mechanisms. A detailed study of
    precisely which gamma lines are produced would likely shed light on how
    the gamma lines are excited, which provides further input on reaction
    mechanisms.
 
 
                              References
 
1.  M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Excess enthalpy generation in the region of
    the boiling point in Pd-type cathodes polarized in D[2]O," paper 24-
    PII-14.
 
2.  M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D[2]O system: from
    simplicity via complications to simplicity," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
3.  M. C. H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A. M. Riley, R. C. Rocha-Filho, S. I.
    Smedley and F. L. Tanzella, "Excess power production in D[2]O electrolysis
    cells: A comparison of results from differing cell designs," paper 22-
    PII-25.
 
4.  M. C. H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A. M. Riley, R. C. Rocha-Filho, S. I.
    Smedley and F. L. Tanzella, "Excess power observations in the
    electrochemical studies of the D/Pd system; the influence of loading,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
5.  K. Kunimatsu, "Deuterium loading ratio and excess heat generation during
    electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium cathode in a closed cell using
    a partially immersed fuel cell anode," paper 22-PII-27.
 
6.  K. Kunimatsu, N. Hasegawa, A. Kubota, N. Imai, M. Ishikawa, H. Akita and
    Y. Tsuchida, "Deuterium loading ratio and excess heat generation during
    electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium cathode in a closed cell using
    a partially immersed fuel cell anode," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
7.  N. Hasegawa, K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, T. Terasawa, "Observation of excess
    heat during electrolysis of 1 M LiOD in a fuel cell type closed cell,"
    paper 24-PII-19.
 
8.  N. Hasegawa, K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, T. Terasawa, "Observation of excess
    heat during electrolysis of 1 M LiOD in a fuel cell type closed cell,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
9.  A. Kubota, H. Akita, Y. Tsuchida, T. Saito, A. Kubota, N. Hasegawa, N.
    Imai, N. Hayakawa and K. Kunimatsu, "Hydrogen and deuterium absorption by
    Pd cathode in a fuel-cell type closed cell," paper 22-PII-8.
 
10. T. Nakata, Y. Tsuchida, K. Kunimatsu, "Absorption of hydrogen into Pd
    foil electrode: effect of Thiourea," paper 22-PII-9.
 
11. L. Bertalot, F. DeMarco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V.
    Violante, P. Zeppa, "Study of the deuterium charging in palladium by the
    electrolysis of heavy water: search for heat excess and nuclear ashes,"
    paper 24-PII-21.
 
12. L. Bertalot, F. DeMarco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V.
    Violante, P. Zeppa, "Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the
    electrolysis of heavy water: search for heat excess and nuclear ashes,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
13. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Experimentally
    defined ratio of nuclear reaction products flows intensity at glow
    discharge in deuterium," paper 22-PII-23.
 
14. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Gamma spectroscopy at
    glow discharge in deuterium,"  paper 24-PI-15.
 
15. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Heavy charged
    particles registration at glow discharge in deuterium," paper 24-PII-7.
 
16. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear product ratio
    for glow discharge in deuterium,"  *Phys. Lett. A* 170 265 (1992).
 
17. L. Heqing, X. Renshou, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, G. Jimbang, C. Bairong,
    "The anomalous effects induced by the dynamic low pressure gas discharge
    in a deuterium/palladium system," paper 24-PI-3.
 
18. L. Heqing, X. Renshou, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, G. Jimbang, C. Bairong,
    "The anomalous effects induced by the dynamic low pressure gas discharge
    in a deuterium/palladium system,"  preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
19. L. Heqing, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, X. Renshou, Z. Xinwei, "Anomalous
    effects in deuterium/metal systems," paper 24-PII-6.
 
20. L. Heqing, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, X. Renshou, Z. Xinwei, "Anomalous
    effects in deuterium/metal systems," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
21. N. Wada and K. Nishizawa, "Nuclear fusion in solid," *Jap. J. Appl.
    Phys.* 28 L2017 (1989).
 
22. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Direct evidences of nuclear fusion
    reactions in deuterated palladium," paper 24-PI-3.
 
23. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Direct evidences of nuclear fusion
    reactions in deuterated palladium," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
24. M. H. Miles and B. F. Bush, "Search for anomalous effects involving
    excess power, helium, and tritium during D[2]O electrolysis using
    palladium cathodes," paper 24-PI-4.
 
 
25. J. O'M. Bockris, C. Chien, and Z. Minevski, "Tritium and helium
    production in palladium electrodes and the fugacity of deuterium
    therein," paper 24-PI-11
 
    See also: C. Chien, D. Hodko, Z. Minevski and J. O'M. Bockris, "On an
    electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium," *J. of
    Electroanalytical Chemistry*, Vol 338, p. 189 (1992)
 
26. S. Isagawa, Y. Kanda and T. Suzuki, "Search for excess heat, neutron
    emission and tritium yield from electrochemically charged palladium in
    D[2]O," paper 24-PII-31.
 
27. S. Isagawa, Y. Kanda and T. Suzuki, "Search for excess heat, neutron
    emission and tritium yield from electrochemically charged palladium in
    D[2]O," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
28. C. M. Wan, C. J. Linn, C. Y. Liang, S. K. Chen, C. C. Wan and T. P.
    Perng, "Repeated heat bursts in the electrolysis of D[2]O," paper 24-
    PII-18.
 
29. C. M. Wan, S. K. Chen, L. J. Yuan, C. C. Wan and C. Y. Liang,
    "Simultaneous and reproducible detection of neutrons and excess heat in
    cold fusion experiments," preprint, Sept. 1992, from the materials
    Science Center, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
 
30. L. J. Yuan, C. M. Wan, C. Y. Liang, and S. K. Chen,  "Neutron monitoring
    on cold fusion experiments," paper 24-PI-34.
 
31. A. Takahashi, A. Mega, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and T. Iida, "Anomalous
    excess heat by D[2]O/Pd cell under L-H mode electrolysis," paper 24-
    PII-12.
 
32. A. Takahashi, A. Mega, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and T. Iida, "Anomalous
    excess heat by D[2]O/Pd cell under L-H mode electrolysis," preprint of the
    ICCF3 proceedings.
 
33. E. Mallove, presented during the Panel discussion on the Takahashi
    method.
 
34. E. Storms, "Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann type
    electrolytic cell using palladium sheet," paper 22-PII-26. This paper was
    presented by T. Claytor, as Storms was unable to attend.
 
35. F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi and A. Nuvoli, "Measurements of excess
    heat and tritium during self-biased pulsed electrolysis of Pd-D[2]O,"
    paper 24-PII-13.
 
36. F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi and A. Nuvoli, "Measurements of excess
    heat and tritium during self-biased pulsed electrolysis of Pd-D[2]O,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
37. N. Oyama, T. Terashima, S. Kasahara, O. Hatozaki, T. Ohsaka and T.
    Tatsuma, "Electrochemical calorimetry of D[2]O electrolysis using a
    palladium cathode in a clodes cell system," paper 22-pII-29.
 
38. T. N. Claytor, D. G. Tuggle and H. O. Menlove, "Evolution of tritium from
    palladium in the solid state gas cell," paper 24-PI-10.
 
39. V. A. Romodanov, V. I. Savin, and Yu. M. Timofeev, "Reactions of nuclear
    fusion in condensed media," paper 22-PI-2.
 
40. V. A. Romodanov, V. I. Savin, and Yu. M. Timofeev, "Nuclear fusion in
    condensed matter," preprint UDC: 539.172.13.
 
41. R. Notoya and M. Enyo, "Excess heat production in Electrolysis in
    K[2]CO[3] solution with Ni electrodes,"paper 24-PII-35.
 
42. R. L. Mills and S. P. Kneizys, "Excess heat production by the
    electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the
    implications for cold fusion," *Fusion Tech.* 20 65, (1991).
 
43. V. Noninski, "Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water
    solution of K[2]CO[3] with a nickel cathode," *Fusion Tech.* 21 163,
    (1992).
 
44. M. Srinivasan, A. Shyam, T. K. Shankarnarayanan, M. B. Bajpai, H.
    Ramamurthy, U. K. Mukherjee, M. S. Krishnan, M. G. Nayar, and Y. Naik,
    "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous
    solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," paper 22-PII-28.
 
45. M. Srinivasan, A. Shyam, T. K. Shankarnarayanan, M. B. Bajpai, H.
    Ramamurthy, U. K. Mukherjee, M. S. Krishnan, M. G. Nayar, and Y. Naik,
    "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous
    solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
46. R. T. Bush and R. D. Eagleton, "Calorimetric studies of an electrolytic
    excess heat effect employing light water-based electrolytes of some
    alkali salts," paper 24-PII-32.
 
47. T. Ohmori and M. Enyo, "Excess heat produced during the electrolysis on
    Ni, Au, Ag and Sn electrodes in alkaline media," paper 24-PII-36.
 
48. S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, *Il Nuovo Cimento*, 105A 763 (1992).
 
49. D. R. Coupland, M. L. Doyle, J. W. Jenkins, J. H. F. Notton, R. J. Potter
    and D. T. Thompson, "Some observations related to the presence of
    hydrogen and deuterium in palladium," paper 22-PII-2.
 
50. D. R. Coupland, M. L. Doyle, J. W. Jenkins, J. H. F. Notton, R. J. Potter
    and D. T. Thompson, "Some observations related to the presence of
    hydrogen and deuterium in palladium," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
50. D. Gozzi, P.L. Cignini, R. Caputo, M. Tomellini, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani,
    F. Garabaldi, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urcioli, "Experiment with global
    detection of the cold fusion products," paper 24-PI-7.
 
51. M. Nakada, T. Kusunoki, Y. Fujii, M. Okamoto and O. Odawara, "A role for
    lithium for the neutron emission in heavy water electrolysis," paper 22-
    PII-15.
 
52. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measure of protons and observations of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic  electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," paper 24-PI-37.
 
53. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measure of protons and observations of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
54. M. Corradi, F. Ferrarotto, M. Giannini, V. Milone, B. Stella, L.
    Storelli, F. Celani, and A. Spallone, "Evidence for stimulated emission
    of neutrons from deuterated palladium," paper 24-PI-17.
 
55. Y. Fukai, "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system," paper 22-PII-3.
 
56. Y. Fukai, "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
57. K. Watanabe, Y. Fukai, N. Niimura and O. Konno, "A search for fracture-
    induced nuclear fusion in some deuterium-loaded materials," 24-PII-8.
 
58. E. Choi, E. Eriji, and H. Ohsumi, "Limit on fast neutrons from dd fusion
    in deuterized Pd by means of Ge detectors," paper 24-PI-30.
 
59. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measurement of protons and observation of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," paper 24-PI-37.
 
60. D. Morrison, "Review of cold fusion experiments," paper 24-PI-9.
 
61. D. R. O. Morrison, "The third international cold fusion conference,"
    *Cold Fusion Update* 7 on the computer network, Nov. 1 - Dec. 6, 1992.
 
62. J. Huizenga, "Cold fusion claims," post deadline paper.
 
63. G. Preparata, "Theory of cold fusion in deuterated palladium," paper 22-
    PI-1.
 
64. S. Chubb and T. Chubb, "Ion band state fusion," paper 22-PI-20.
 
65. S. Chubb and T. Chubb, "Ion band state fusion,"  preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
66. T. Matsumoto, "Review for Nattoh model and experimental findings during
    cold fusion," paper 22-PI-8.
 
67. A. Takahasi, "Nuclear products by D[2]O/Pd electrolysis and multibody
    fusion," Proc. Int. Symp. Nonlinear Phenomena in Electromagnetic Fields,
    Nagoya (1992).
 
68. K. Tsuchiya, K. Ohashi and M. Fukuchi, "Mechanism of cold nuclear fusion
    in palladium," paper 22-PI-13.
 
69. N. Matsunami, "A mechanism for cold nuclear fusion: barrier reduction by
    screening under transient coherent flow of deuterium," paper 22-PI-15.
 
70. Q. Q. Gou, Z. H. Zhu, and Q. F. Zhang, "The possible theoretical model
    and it's experimental evidences of cold fusion," paper 22-PI-32.
 
71. V. I. Vysotskii, "Nonthreshold cold fusion as a result of nonequilibrium
    deuterium Fermi-condensate in microholes of crystal," paper 22-PI-28.
 
72. K. Yasui, "Fractofusion Mechanism," paper 22-PI-30.
 
73. N. Yabuuchi, "Quantum mechanics on cold fusion," paper 22-PI-26.
 
74. G. V. Fedorovich, "Nuclear fusion in the E-cell," paper 22-PI-29.
 
75. A. Tenenbaum and E. Tabet, "Temporal sequence of nuclear signals in a dry
    cold fusion experiment," paper 22-PI-23.
 
76. K. Fukushima, "A new mechanism for cold fusion -- sono-fusion," paper 22-
    PI-16.
 
77. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "Condensed matter
    effects for cold and hot fusion," paper 22-PI-25.
 
78. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "High density fusion
    and the solar neutrino problem," paper 22-PI-31.
 
79. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "Condensed matter
    effects for cold and hot fusion,"  preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
80. X. Li, D. Jin, L. Chang, X. Zhang and W. Zhang, "Combined resonance
    tunneling in low energy D-D nuclear reaction," paper 22-PI-17.
 
81. L. Fonda and G. L. Shaw, "Anti-diquark catalysis of cold fusion," paper
    22-PI-18.
 
82. V. A. Chechin and V. A. Tsarev, "On non-stationary quantum mechanical
    origin of cold nuclear fusion," paper 22-PI-7.
 
83. V. A. Tsarev and D. H. Worledge, "Cold fusion studies in the USSR,"
    *Fusion Tech.* 22, 138 (1992).
 
84. J. Yang, "Abnormal Nuclear Phenomena and Weak Interaction Processes,"
    paper 22-PI-9.
 
85. J. Yang, "Dineutron model of the cold fusion," paper 22-PI-10.
 
86. T. Tani and Y. Kobayashi, "Tunnel disintegration and neutron emission
    probability," paper 22-PI-5.
 
87. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherent and semi-coherent neutron reactions," paper
    22-PI-4.
 
88. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherence effects: theoretical considerations," paper
    22-PI-3.
 
89. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherent and semi-coherent neutron reactions,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
90. S. Jones, "Update on BYU research," paper 24-PI-1.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Cost of muons/reply to A. Hursh
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cost of muons/reply to A. Hursh
Date: 19 Feb 93 14:33:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I appreciate a question emanating from Anchorage, Alaska, Mooseware Productions
(I wonder what you DO, Anthony) --
 
In article <1993Feb13.230831.424@skynet.cojones.com>,
 bitbangr@skynet.cojones.com (Anthony W. Hursh) writes:
 
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>                ^^^^^^^
> : By then, we had convinced the management that "scientific breakeven" was far
> : from "commercial power" since enormous energy must be invested to create
> : the muon drivers (at least 3GeV electrical/muon).
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Steve, I'm not a physicist (a fact that will shortly become readily
> apparent :-) but I'm curious about the tremendous gap between the muon
> rest mass and the amount of energy required to produce it. Is the optimal
> cost you refer to an engineering limit or a scientific one? In other
> words, is there a possibility that there might be a way to make the
> muons more cheaply, given engineering improvements (better or different
> accelerator designs, e.g.) or is there a theoretical limit operating
> here?
>
>
> BTW, I really appreciate your posts, and those of Tom Droege.
 
Thanks.
 
The rest mass of the muon is 105.66 MeV.  But one must also conserve charge
and lepton number, suggesting muon-pair (+ and -) production.  Then we must
throw in cross sections for inelastic interactions and, if we use a beam on
a stationary target, kinematic losses.  (Not all the energy in the beam CAN
be converted into muons.)  These I consider fundamental limits.
 
What is the cheapest way to make muons?  A number of people have looked at
this question and come up with schemes involving first pion production,
since pions are copiously produced in proton (p) or neutron (n) reactions at
GeV-energies.  This is primarily because pions are strongly interacting
particles (hadrons) whereas muons are not.  Then negative pions decay to
produce negative muons (and muon-neutrinos, whose energy is lost).  One
must trap the pions efficiently as well as the muons.  To make a long story
short, I'll summarize calculated -muon production cost estimates:
 
Study:                         Beam:   Target:  Accelerator Eff.:    MeV/mu-
 
D Jackson, PhysRev105:1127 ('57) 1GeV p   --       20%              10,000 MeV
 
Y Petrov, AtomKern.46:25 (1985) 1GeV d   Li        60%               8,300 MeV
 
H. Takahashi, Proc. Mu-C-Fusion
 Workshop, S.E. Jones ed. 1984 4GeV d   Be         50%               4,800 MeV
 
S. Jones, Fus.Tech.8:1511(1985) 1 GeV n  Li        50%               3,000 MeV
 
G. Chapline, 1984 Proc. Mu-c-f  GeV t    t (colliding) 50%           1,700 MeV
 
G. Chapline, 1984 Proc. Mu-c-f  GeV t    t (colliding) 50%             600 MeV
 
The last entry provides a theoretical limit while the others take
into consideration practical losses.  It is interesting to note that David
Jackson in his classic 1957 paper addressed the energy-generation issue, and
came up with a negative response.  Matters improved when the radiofrequency
quadrapole (RFQ) accelerator was invented, and this along with the discovery
at LAMPF (which I assisted in) of a small alpha-muon sticking following muon-
catalyzed fusion, lead to a number of studies as you see above.  More detail
is available in the Fusion Technology (1985) article cited above.
 
Let me take a stab at clarifying how far we are from commercial energy using
muon-induced fusion.  Warning:  this is a simplified treatment.
 
Gain = E(/fusion) N(fusions/muon) Eff(acc*th*out) / E(muon cost)
 
where E per fusion = 17.6 MeV for d-t fusions (deuterium-tritium)
      N = 150 (average, established at LAMPF by our group several years ago)
      Efficiency of accelerator = 0.5 (using RFQ)
                 of thermal-to-electrical conversion = 0.4
                 of electrical power output (minus recirculating power to
                    drive accelerator, etc. of plant) = 0.85
      E (muon cost) = 3 GeV, taking a value from table above.
 
We find with these values (I've tried to avoid over-optimism):
Gain = 0.15,
which is less than unity so that a "pure" muon-catalyzed fusion
power reactor currently looks impractical, but *darn* it's so close.
Taking Chapline's theoretical limit of 600 MeV/muon investment, we get
Gain (theoretical max.) = 0.75    -- that's close.
Remember, the utilities want an appreciable gain, at least 5 I suppose.
 
The equations above show where work needs to go to improve the gain, primarily
into increasing N, the number of fusions per muon.  That's where my work here
focusses now.
 
One more thing.  Let's consider the goal of achieving commercial fusion power
production using by analogy a trip to Mars.  The distance between earth's and
Mars' orbits is aboutg 80 million km (50 million miles).  From the above
calculations, we could say that muon-catalyzed fusion is perhaps 12 million
km into space, but we're not sure we can surpass this distance.  Hot fusion
advocates, I've read but have no ready reference, say they're roughly half
way to this goal, equivalent to 40 km into space.  Finally, consider cold
fusion, using rates of claimed neutron production (xs heat without commensurate
nuclear products is not considered serious by me), and we find:
a few centimeters off of terra firma.
This is more graphic than saying "the neutron yield we claim by fusion in
condensed matter is ten-trillion-fold less than that required to generate
'excess-heat' claimed by others," isn't it?  Numbers on the scale of trillions
are like the U.S. national debt -- mind-boggling.  It's shameful to ignore
such large numbers...
 
Good question, Anthony.  Good luck in Anchorage.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Rothwell
Date: 19 Feb 93 15:19:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Speaking for myself, I would hate to see Jed Rothwell leave the net
entirely.  I strongly object to his vituperative attacks on Walter
Polansky, Dieter Britz, Frank Close and others.
But while potentially libelous attacks should
certainly be curtailed, I find that Jed represents the "xs-heat"
community and shows us what these guys are thinking.  Who else does
this for this net so thoroughly?
 
I think his gems are amazing, but revealing and often amusing:
 
"Jones, Juizenga, Morrison, Close -- believe theory overrules facts."
 
"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 electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."  (in his
response to my challenge regarding missing nuclear ash products, 21 Dec. 1992)
 
"*You* are the one are the one who wants to throw away old data, not me!
*You* are the one who wants to overthrow Einstein." (shortly after above, to
me)
 
"You must stop looking for neutrons, because they are not there. ...
Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons.  They do not
care whether CF is nuclear energy,  zero point energy,  or green cheese.
They know it yields megajoules of heat from each tiny bit of fuel, and they
know the fuel is water, and that is ALL they care about.  PERIOD."  (26 Jan 93)
 
These are fairly harmless.  And I find other 'true believers' have such
notions in their heads.  From a sociological and historical point of view,
I think we should welcome such input so that we can learn what these guys
are thinking and doing.  Scientifically, we can make our own discernments.
 
Peace,
Steven Jones
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Colin UCT /  Re: Clustrons
     
Originally-From: hndcol02@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Colin Henderson, Physics Dept. UCT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Clustrons
Date: 19 Feb 93 10:15:19 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

 
In article <1lqcuaINNrdg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, redingtn@athena.mit
edu (Norman H Redington) writes:
> Some time ago there was much talk about "clustron"
> nuclear theory on this newsgroup, but I couldn't
> figure out what it meant. Is it some sort of geomet-
> ric model,
 
Yup.  It appears to be.  Written by Ray Brightsen and put forward by
Jed Rothwell, among others.  Submitted to (and published, I believe,
sometime in 1992) by Fusion Technology.  Title: "The Nucleon Cluster
Model and Thermal Neutron Fission".    A totally ad hoc /post
hoc/whatever theory about how nuclei are made up of PNP, PNN and NP
clusters of nucleons.  It even has the cheek to borrow 'magic numbers'
from the shell model, even though the spin-orbit coupling in the shell
model which gives rise to the magic numbers wouldn't work with
clusters.  The clusters are supposed to generate a periodic table of
the nuclides (which they don't) and the model claims to be the
solution of a problem with has plagued nuclear physicists since the
discovery of the neutron and thermal neutron fission.  The whole thing
smacks of numerology and reminds me of a Scientology tract, with much
"after considerable research"es , "it was immediately apparent"s etc.
 
The model is 'verified' and 'tested' by some rather bizarre fits of
theoretical fission fragment mass yield curves (it's not clear to me
where they came from, though, of course, it was after 'considerable
reseach') to data.  There are supposed to be four (rather artificial
looking) modes for fission, each yielding a different number of prompt
neutrons and/or charged particles. By mixing them in various
proportions the authors get beautiful (though meaningless) fits to the
data.
 
The trouble with the mixing of the modes to get the required average
number of prompt neutrons is that there is no way one can obtain the
correct prompt neutron number *distribution* ( a gaussian curve, nearly)
however the modes are mixed.  Exit all the careful fitting and the
modes.  The theory does not fit the data.
 
The authors proposed starting a company (called 'Clustron') to harness
the energy they believe they can obtain by applying their model.  If I
hadn't come across Jed Rothwell's postings on the net, I would have
thought it was a scam to trap the unwary and greedy investor, but now
I'm sure the authors really believe it can work.
 
Experimental evidence of clustering in nuclei is somewhat elusive, at
best, though some has been seen in light nuclei.  The nearest heavy
nuclei come to clustering is the preformation factor in alpha decay,
where there is a chance of an alpha forming in the highly energetic
soup which makes up a nucleus, and tunnelling through the coulomb
barrier.
 
 
> ....               like Pauling's helions etc.? Who proposed
> it? What happened to it?
 
Died a gruesome, though entirely natural death, probably.
 
> Any information would be
> appreciated.
 
In short, IMO  forget about "Clustron".  Or get Jed to send you a
preprint, which he will very willingly do.  I'm still not sure how
much I should send him for postage and packaging.
 
--
Colin Henderson
Physics Dept, UCT, Cape Town, South Africa.
colin@physci.uct.ac.za
 
------------------natural selection favours paranoia!-------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhndcol02 cudfnColin cudlnUCT cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.18 / David Seghers /  Re: Seminal inventions
     
Originally-From: seghers@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Seminal inventions
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 18:35:30 GMT
Organization: HP Response Center Lab

>/ hpkslx:sci.physics.fusion / fusion@zorch /  6:06 pm  Feb 17, 1993 /
>
>There has been a bit of talk here about important inventions of about 100
>years ago, like the light bulb and the flying machine. Let us not forget that
>when Bell invented the first telephone, it was found to be totally useless.
>Then he invented the second telephone, and the thing took off.
>{:]
 
Actually, he let two teenagers use them.  Then their parents had to
buy more and telephones *really* took off...  :-)}
 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------
 
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.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenseghers cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Dieter Britz /  Electron effective mass
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electron effective mass
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 15:53:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Blue has alluded to electron effective masses, and I'd like a bit more
information on this, from anyone who can help. I understand the case of muons,
which are effectively electrons with a mass 207 times normal. If one of these
gets between two deuterons (e.g. in the muonic D2 molecule), the d's can get
much closer together because of the increased Coulombic screening by the muon,
and the rate of spontaneous fusion goes up from around 1E-80 (?)
fusions/dd-pair/s to 1E11 or so (is this figure right, Steven? Seems like a
lot).
 
Several theory papers have tried to explain cold fusion in terms of an
enhanced "effective mass" of the electrons in a metal deuteride. They are not
talking about muons but electrons. They usually find that you need a factor
of 5-7 or so, to get the fusion rates claimed by cnf researchers (those who
find anything). These papers do not usually go on to say that you in fact
CAN get such electrons or how.
 
One paper I read mentions high externally applied pressures pushing deuterons
together to distances that would correspond to electrons with effective masses
of about 7. This I understand - but I suspect that often, people do in fact
imply an actual raising of the effective mass of an electron.
 
What I want to know is:
* are there any special properties of the deuteride lattice that might favour
  raised effective masses?
* what are these properties?
* in what way are the masses "effective" as opposed to actual (as in muons)?
 
You physics theorists out there, please explain. Thank you in advance.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 /  /  In Defense of Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In Defense of Jed Rothwell
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:12:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Here I am in an unpopular position based on the last FD where everyone was
telling Jed Rothwell to go away.  Not me.
 
Jed Rothwell brings information from Japan.  It would be very hard to geyt
this information otherwise.  I think most of us are capable of filtering out
Jed's real information from the junk.  I just figure that the junk is the
price I pay for the good information.
 
While Jed prints a lot of things that I wish he did not, he does not seem to
let his opinions get in the way of his self apointed position as an information
mover.  Even though I was at the moment strongly disagreing with Jed over some
one thing or another, he still sent me a piece of the Tanaka palladium for us
to try.
 
So Jed, please don't go away.  I want to be able to exchange information with
you.  I accept the way you are, even though I don't agree with the way you
present your arguments.  I do not expect you to change.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 /  /  MITI Support of CNF
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MITI Support of CNF
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:12:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My Japanese friend sent an interesting comment:
 
"... Keep it in your mind, though, that MITI also can be steered to a wrong
direction depending upon the person pushing for a project, provided thet there
was some big guy in business behind it."
 
Seems to me that Jed Rothwell pointed out to us that there was some "big guy
in business behind it".  Mr. Toyoda of Toyota motors as I remember.
 
So as usual in life, we just have a mish-mash of information.  From this we
may seek truth.  That is the fun.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Read it first
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Read it first
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:12:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas H. Kunich says:
 
"It is also interesting to note that the Wright brothers kept their heavier
than air flights nearly a complete secret..."
 
Tom, you really, REALLY should read something about a subject before you post
messages like that. I mean, just one book, or a brief article. You can't just
make up stuff as you go along, you cannot pretend there is no historical
record. Here are the facts:
 
After 1903 the Wright Brother flew in Huffman Prairie, land owned by a local
bank president. They were in plain view of the local trolley car running in
downtown Dayton. They were seen by hundreds of commuters.
 
As the years went by, a number of the citizens of Dayton came to see the
flights: Mr. Huffman, a farmer, a local hardware store owner, a travelling
salesman, and many others, especially Mr. A. I. Root, who wrote about his
observations in a Beekeeper's Journal he published. These citizens signed more
than 40 affidavits saying they had seen flights, and many photographs were
taken. The Wrights contacted the U.S. Government and many others. Letters were
circulated throughout the U.S. and Europe describing the Wright's activities.
Their friend and confidant, Mr. Alexander G. Bell, inventor of the telephone
and owner of AT&T, knew all about their work. He had observed their early
glider flights at Kitty Hawk. The Wrights published detailed descriptions of
their work in various European magazines. I believe it was in 1907 that the
British and French Governments sent agents to Dayton, who reported back that
the Wrights had achieved everything they claimed.
 
Their work was not a "complete secret" it was COMPLETELY OPEN. For that
matter, so is a lot of CF work: any scientist who wishes to can make
arrangements to go visit Notoya, Ikegami or Takahashi. Anyone who asks will
get complete, detailed instructions from Dr. Mills, or a video and data from
P&F (this takes a some doing, but I have one, and others do too.)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / Scott Mueller /  Re: In Defense of Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: In Defense of Jed Rothwell
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 23:27:00 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

In article <930219103926.230004e5@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.f
al.gov!DROEGE writes:
>Here I am in an unpopular position based on the last FD where everyone was
>telling Jed Rothwell to go away.  Not me.
 
I run the email/Usenet gateway Jed Rothwell uses to post to sci.physics.fusion,
and I "public" Fusion Digest.
 
I possess the technical capability to restrict Jed's usage of my gateway.
 
I will not exercise it.
 
If you want to natter at him until he gets disgusted and goes away, that is
one of the workings of Usenet.  I would not advise it, as it would degrade
the quality of the group, certainly far more than Jed's input does by any
stretch of the imagination.  If you don't like his submissions, stop
reading them.
 
As for my own reading, I will continue to monitor *all* of the activity here
as I have done for almost 4 years.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: RE: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE: Venture Capitalists
Date: 19 Feb 93 15:09:51 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <7BCE3AFF99FFA378FC@vms2.uni-c.dk>, by Dieter Britz
<ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>:
 
> In short, I would prefer not to see your postings to this group; they do not
> inform us of anything, they are not even entertaining, they are just empty PR
> and get in the way of what we others are here for: the exchange of information
> and ideas about a fascinating subject.
 
Sorry, but I think you are out of line on this. If you don't want to
read Jed's postings skip them or put him in your kill file. If you
think his postings are not "sci." enough to be in a "sci." group then
direct him to the appropriate group. If no such group exists then work
to get it created.
 
I'm as interested in the sociolgy, politics, and religion of CNF as I
am in the science. So I actually read and value some of Jed's postings
(they are rather long though.)
 
It's like listening to your neighbors lawn mower. There are people in
my neighborhood who won't mow on Sunday, and those that won't mow on
Saturday, I think the guy around the corner doesn't mow on Friday, but
they all have learned to put up with me mowing on any day I please.
On the net you learn tolerance or you isolate yourself in ideological
ghettos.
 
                                Bob P.
P.S.
 
Tolerance doesn't not imply acceptance.
 
--
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:
cuddy19 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Too much politics?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Too much politics?
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 21:07:31 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930209225803_72240.1256_EHL93-3@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
>I get a sense that both of these people find something shameful, or
>inappropriate in my saying that I am "out for blood" in a political
>battle.
 
I disagree with these two people, then, as well as with Dieter Britz,
who has been asking you not to contribute to this group.  It is often
shameful and inappropriate to be out for the blood of your perceived
enemies, especially people who don't know you, but there are
exceptions.  And as long as you *are* in a vengeful mood, there's
nothing wrong with *saying* so.
 
Since you are one of the few writers here who has actually invested
money out of pocket in neutronpenision, I take seriously everything you
have to say about yourself.  (If I remember correctly, the last time I
asked, you said you've only put $12,000 into it, but considering how
badly neutronpenision is funded in the United States, this might not be
a completely insignificant sum.)
 
I think the state of mind and personality of the people who fund
neutronpenision is relevant to the state of the field generally.  If
not for your postings, we just wouldn't know you.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Breakeven
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakeven
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 21:27:02 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930211162132_72240.1256_EHL5-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>2. Engineering breakeven -- where the energy coming out is enough to power a
>generator that "feeds back" and powers the reactor and the peripheral
>equipment like pumps.
...
>CF passed engineering breakeven power levels last year (although
>nobody has actually hooked up a cell to a generator, as far as I know).
 
I have to second Brian Rauchfuss's comment here and say that a feat
like this would truly separate the money-makers from the idle
philosophers, or to put it in plain, sexist language, the men from the
boys.  Frankly, I don't understand why no one working in
neutronpenision has thought to do this yet.  But I can assure you that
nothing would turn the heads of skeptics and investors faster than a
machine that runs for long enough when it's not plugged in.
 
>I believe HF power plants are expected to reach this level at around 2030.
 
Actually, several years ago I was briefly a witness to the fusion
scene.  You might call me a skeptic, but I consider fusion
(specifically, what you call "HF") a long shot which might well never
be practical.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Edison
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edison
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 21:46:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930215220216_72240.1256_EHL80-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>Professor Henry Morton, who knew Edison personally, lived nearby, and
>could have driven his buggy over any time, "felt compelled 'to protest
>in behalf of true science.' The results of Edison's experiments, he
>asserted, were 'a conspicuous failure, trumped as a wonderful success.
>A fraud upon the public.'"
>
>The "prestigious" Professor Du Moncel said, "One must have lost all
>recollection of *American* *hoaxes* to accept such claims. The sorcerer of
>Menlo Park appears not to be acquainted with the subtleties of the electrical
>science. Mr. Edison takes us backwards."
 
I've never heard of Morton or Du Moncel.  If history of science is
indeed your court, can you fill me in on what these scientists did?
Your thesis is that the scientific establishment generated a firestorm
of opposition to Edison's claims.  When I think of the research physics
community of those times, Gibbs, Helmholtz, and Kelvin come to mind.
(Actually they are some names mentioned by my almanac.) How long were
they skeptical about the light bulb?
 
>A letter in Scientific American attacked the light bulb and the newly
>improved dynamo, saying it would be "almost a public calamity if Mr.
>Edison should employ his great talent on such a puerility."
 
It's my understanding that Scientific American was a popular technology
journal akin to the current "Popular Science" until 1955, when under new
ownership it began to solicit articles from the scientific community.
For the next 40 or so years I would say it gave a very good public
profile to to the scientific community, but I wouldn't say it
represented it.  A few years ago it was bought out again and now relies
more on science reporters and less on scientists speaking about their
work, although it still has some articles from the latter.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / John Logajan /  Energy storage
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy storage
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 12:02:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
>                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
>    ...there exists no
>    known physical mechanism which could store the energy observed to be
>    released during the boiling episode.
 
In perhaps a one line throw away, I recall Frank Close, of all people,
suggesting that a hypothetical non-nuclear energy storage location might
be in the Pd electron configurations below the valence electrons.
 
I believe his reasoning was something on the order that the binding energy
of those electrons is actually quite significant.  It must take quite a
bit of energy to rip that last electron off from around a Pd nucleus.  And
so it might be a candidate for anomalous energy storage.
 
While not being an energy source, such a high density method of energy
storage would be a technological boon in its own right.
 
I'm sure I've given Close's statement more play than he intended.  Never the
less, I found the suggestion intriquing.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Edison
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edison
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 12:41:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I always hate to see misdirected argumentative energy, so let me construct
a little table:
 
New theory wrong    | New theory right
Old theory right    | Old theory wrong
Old theory accepted | Old theory accepted
 ----------------------------------------
New theory wrong    | New theory right
Old theory wrong    | Old theory right
Old theory accepted | Old theory accepted
 ----------------------------------------
New theory wrong    | New theory right
Old theory right    | Old theory wrong
New theory accepted | New theory accepted
 ----------------------------------------
New theory wrong    | New theory right
Old theory wrong    | Old theory right
New theory accepted | New theory accepted
 
We all agree that these are the theoretical possibilities (except perhaps the
meaning of both new and old theory being right -- an extension perhaps?)
 
We all believe that there are historical examples of each -- though apparently
there is a disagreement on exactly who fits into each bin.
 
But the more fundamental point being ignored is that there is no apriori way of
categorizing cases.  So while each and every historical instance is interesting
in its own right, it tells us nothing about any other case, past or present.
 
So I think Jed is out to sea when he tries to draw conclusions from Edison
or the Brothers Wright.  And I think the critics of his history are wasting
time trying to clear that particular bin -- since they most likely agree that
the bin is at least theoretically occupy-able.
 
On the flip side, proponents of "pathological science" also try to suggest an
apriori means of classifying cases -- a somewhat depressing turn of events,
since these people are supposedly well versed in the methods of logical
necessity.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: 20 Feb 93 11:09:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <ASSON.93Feb15152126@halcyon.stsci.edu> asson@halcyon.stsci.e
u (Drew Justin Asson) writes:
>On 14 Feb 93 08:27:27 GMT, jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) said:
>
>>In later generations when the history of 20th-century science is
>>written, many of its results will be recognized as tainted by having
>>been funded by taxation.  ..
 
>>I'm not arguing that cnf should rely less on taxation than hot fusion
>>or any other field of science; I'm arguing that _any_ scientific
>>knowledge gained by expropriating the toil of unconsenting others is
>>forever tainted by that blot on its history.
>>         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
 
 
>What is trying to be said here?  Is all science done with taxpayers dollars
>tainted?  Where should taxpayer's money go?   .. .
 
>                           .. . Cancer research does not benefit
>me directly, nor perhaps > 50% of the US population (my figures may be off
>but I am assuming that there are more people without cancer in the US than
>those who have cancer), BUT I don't feel that that money is tainted or
>being wasted.
 
Actually the that portion of the tax money should NOT be collected and
should stay with the taxpayer so that he can pick and choose longer term
investments (which have VERY low capital gains taxation) which will
accomplish the solving of our technological (INCLUDING TECHNOHEALTH -
i.e. as from Cancer research) needs.
 
Two points should be made.
1. Government funded science as a whole is NOT EFFICIENT since continued
increased funding can go on infinitely as long as it can be claimed that
"progress" toward a desired technology end is being made no matter how
small for the increased cost.   Witness the tokamak (1963-2???)
 
2. Now to obtain research money in a collapsing tax base, it is necessary
to come out "a-hootin'".  Now apparently one must couch catchy phrases
in a science like context and make "sky is falling" claims to obtain
increased funding, i.e. the ozone and hot house boys.  It, of course, is
helpful to blanket the collegues that haven't caught on to the scam in
tons of press and media blitz.  Pity the poor "yokels" at Scripps?
Institute of Oceanography".
 
Let's face it, government science isn't tainted, it's closer to rotten
to the core (except for each of our individual research --- right??).
But Hey  let's be like the parasites that call themselves 'Onerous'
Members of Congressmen  (or was that Honorable? ) -- Rip while there
are a few drops of blood left.  :-)  Unfortunately, the smiley face
may be out of place in a number of instances.
 
Well let's take this with a big dose of salt. Science is basically a
good thing, but it is not beyond developing very serious problems that
could reduce its value and reputation. So we must work to fight the
BS boys and kept the baloney out for the sake of funding and the most
good will be accomplished if we change the system and the incentives.
After all peer review for publishing papers is one thing but if it's
tied in with research grants or it's peer review of initial or re-funding
of research, then a better label for peer review is "conflict of interest".
That's the problem with most of science on the dole.  They are all
competing for the same bucks.  And it's been going on in many areas
for a very long time.
 
                               Still
                     It seems that "tainted" is
                         a bit off the mark.
 
Stop Government sponsored research; switch to government/private
enterprise joint ventures for a while and then wean the government out
all together or down to minimal levels.  National Labs may have to
be privatized.  Business doesn't like to back losers very long and
it will move toward more promising approaches.  Then it won't take
long before we can get our science and technology (and government)
back on a reality driven track. We will gain in a competitive world
and develop fusion (aneutronic energy forthwith).
 
                        Go get'em big Bill.
The optimist.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Geofusion
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Geofusion
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 17:32:09 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Steve Jones writes:
>
> As I have before posted, geophysicists F. Goff and G. McMurtry (and a few
> others, but not many yet) are looking for tritium emissions in volcanos --
> and finding significant though small quantities of tritium in MAGMATIC
> water.
>
 
 
        Steve - can you give us some idea of how much tritium is in the water
samples, and how it is being measured.  Scintillation counting?  Accelerator
mass spectrometry?
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:12:32 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>$10M is wa-a-a-y too much for the typical VC to start up. They want to give
>you $80,000 for 51%. They will settle for $200,000 for 80%.
 
Sorry to bother you with facts, Jed, but I've worked for several
VC funded companies, and ALL of them were funded with over a million
dollars, and most of them were funded with over 10 million dollars
of venture capital (or similar) money.
 
The market for VC is mostly capitalistic and free market.  If you have
a good idea (technology) and a good story (sales and marketing) you can
get lots of money at a good rate, but if your ideas are bad, its $80,000
for 51%, or nothing at all.
 
Obviously, the VC people are voting with their money when they don't
fund CF at any rate.
 
Joshua Levy   (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 19:13:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>1. Government funded science as a whole is NOT EFFICIENT ...
>2. Now to obtain research money in a collapsing tax base, it is necessary
>to come out "a-hootin'".
>                               Still
>                     It seems that "tainted" is
>                         a bit off the mark.
 
I don't think the original poster had "efficiency" or the size of the "tax
base" as his prime determinants of ethical human interaction.  He was concerned
with the coercive nature of taxation, though for the purposes of this forum,
he limited the scope of the discussion to science funding.
 
But moral imperatives are universal (or so argued the philosopher Kant), and
so if slavery is immoral, so too is taxation, and if taxation is not immoral,
than neither is slavery.  The causal link being that both are forms of human
interaction in which labor is extracted through threats of physical violence
and/or imprisonment.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / Les Earnest /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 08:55:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

Joshua Levy writes:
   Sorry to bother you with facts, Jed, but I've worked for several
   VC funded companies, and ALL of them were funded with over a million
   dollars, and most of them were funded with over 10 million dollars
   of venture capital (or similar) money.
 
   The market for VC is mostly capitalistic and free market.  If you have
   a good idea (technology) and a good story (sales and marketing) you can
   get lots of money at a good rate, but if your ideas are bad, its $80,000
   for 51%, or nothing at all.
 
I hesitate to defend Jed in any context but wish to point out that the
above remarks exhibit an unwarranted faith in the competence of the
venture capital community.  I had some contrasting experience with
vulture capitalists, having founded the company that developed and
marketed the first desktop publishing systems, some 14 years ago.  In
that case the VCs clearly did not understand the technology, even
though we had a working prototype using a laser printer.  When no VC
would invest we decided to bootstrap it.  The company was cash-starved
all the way but succeeded.
 
It could have become a much larger company and the VCs would have made a
bundle of money had they invested, but at that time they were putting
their money instead into "proven" technologies with "experienced"
management such as Fortune Systems, Victor nee Sirius, and Trilogy,
all of which went down the tubes taking millions with them.
Fortunately for the VCs, they are in a business where you can be wrong
90% of the time and still make a tidy profit because the winners pay
off big.
 
   Obviously, the VC people are voting with their money when they don't
   fund CF at any rate.
 
Obviously, the VC people's vote counts for almost nothing as an
evaluation of new technology.
--
Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305        Fax:  415 941-3934
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / Peter Tattam /  Re: Please remit $1
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 07:18:53 GMT
Organization: Psychology Department, University of Tasmania

In article <930218161659_72240.1256_EHL30-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
>Subject: Please remit $1
>Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 02:09:03 GMT
 
Jed, I've been holding back for so long....'bout time I said my bit.
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
>John Logajan says: "I bet my bottom dollar that you cannot list three
>industrial 'secrets' which have a significant effect on the human condition."
 
>1.   The source code for Microsoft Windows.
 
This is a joke right.... were the source code available, the hundreds of
bugs would have been fixed by now.  :-)
 
>2.   The exact layout and masks for the Intel 486 microprocessor.
 
I am sure the are many companies in the silicon business who could do the
same.  The only difference is that they design the chips for the de facto
industry machine, nothing else.  There are many other capable processors.
They just have weight of numbers.
 
>3.   The exact formulas and methods AT&T uses in it's fiber optic plant in
>     Norcross, GA.
 
I can't comment on this since it is not my area of expertise.
 
>I could give you list of 100,000, or 1,000,000 significant industrial
>secrets. They are the lifeblood of industry, far more important than patents.
 
>- Jed
 
Jed, I think you are somewhat naive about the claims that some companies have
about how good their products are.
 
When the 8086 first came out, a number of other 16 bit processors came out at
the same time.  Upon examining its features, my colleagues and I decided that
it was real dog and that nobody would seriously use it.  The other processors
at the time had a lot more going for them, in particular the 68000 family.
 
A few years later when the ibm-pc was released, I was shocked at it containing
an 8086 processor (actually, an 8088, an 8 bit version at that).  The only
thing that it really had going for it was that it has big blue's stamp of
approval.
 
It is my opinion that the success of Intel's 486 and Microsoft's Windows have
little to do with state of the art, but more to do with marketing and
corporate power.
 
I have followed your chat in previous postings about industry being allowed to
keep secrets, the patent system being allowed to rule etc etc.  However, the
system really favours those with corporate power rather than any knowhow.  It
is my feeling that a lot of people are being hoodwinked by the little games
being played over the issue of Cold Fusion, and on the sidelines, the
profiteering is happening via the stock market.  If we allowed big business to
dictate the way science should go, we would be in a sorry state indeed.
 
The fact that you have quoted some of the industry giant's "trade secrets"
contradicts some of the statements you have made in the past about free
thinking in industry stimulating science.  In fact the system works against
ingenuity... the corporate power of big companies is able to put the little
man right out of business no matter how good his science or ideas may be.  I
just hope that you aren't one of those little men who get swallowed up...
 
Personally, I am fully open to the idea of Cold Fusion being a possibilility,
but I am more in favour of *free* science, none of this holding one's cards so
close to the chest that you can't even get a good look at them yourself.
 
Peter
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Boiling DT mix
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Boiling DT mix
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:51:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege worries about the health of anyone using a deuterium plus
tritium reaction to boil water since that may be what a Japaness cartoon
implies Pons and Fleischmann are up to.  Heck, just boiling a mix of
deuterated and tritiated water in an open flask would be silly enough
even if you used a Bunsen burner!  But of course whatever magic works
to make cold fusion work without emissions on pure D2O, pure H2O, and
mixes of those should also protect anyone experimenting with D2O
and T2O mixes as well.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  NTT press release
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NTT press release
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:51:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The recently posted press release from NTT on their vacuum fusion experiments
is a fine example of the distortion that takes place when an experiment gets
described by a PR type person.  In this case they simply fail to mention
those aspects of the experimental results which don't quite agree with the
overall picture NTT is trying to sell.  I have discussed this experiment
before, connecting it to the name of the principle scientist - Yamaguchi -
so I won't repeat everything.  Let me just point out the fact that
Yamaguchi reports that he gets the same heating when the experiment is
run with hydrogen and when it is done with deuterium.  The press release
ignores that and simply gushes on as to how their process converts
deuterium to 4He without the emission of any messy byproducts such as
neutrons or gammas.  It is all too good to be true, and I'll bet it
isn't.  Another subtlety that gets lost in converting scientific writing
to a blurb is the true conditions in which the experiment is performed.
As I recall the press release refers to "total vacuum" when I will point
out that one reason the results are not very believable is that the vacuum
is marginally too poor for the instruments to function properly.  The
press release would have you believe that vacuum is vacuum and a few
orders of magnitude pressure difference is not significant.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 /  BAUERH%VTVM1.B /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: BAUERH%VTVM1.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:51:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION; PEER REVIEW
 
There've been a couple of queries about how referees are chosen for
manuscripts submitted to this journal of the Society for Scientific
Exploration, "founded for the study of anomalies".
 
The Society was formed to provide a forum for disinterested, critical
discussion of areas that are typically excluded by mainstream scientific
periodicals: UFOs, cryptozoology (sea-serpents, Loch Ness monsters,
Sasquatch or Bigfoot), parapsychology (extra-sensory perception,
reincarnation) and the like. The Society takes no stand on the validity or
reality of any claim, but believes that evidence about and logical
discussion on ANY topic is desirable.
 
The 100 Founding Members have now become about 400 Society members, under
the general criterion for membership of a doctorate, a tenured position at
a university or its equivalent in government or industry, and evidence of
scholarly contributions made TO ONE'S MAINSTREAM DISCIPLINE. The
underlying reasoning is that people who have done and experienced peer
review in a regular academic atmosphere would be well placed to use the
same approach on other topics.
 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Get hold of the Journal and
scan the papers and book reviews. There are also columns, letters, and
Society news.
 
I
|===================================================================|
|     Henry H. Bauer, Book Review Editor                            |
|     Journal of Scientific Exploration                             |
|  Internet:  BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU    (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1)  |
|  Mail:      Chemistry, VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212           |
|  Phone:  (703)951-2107 [M-F, 8.30 a.m.-10 a.m. and after 7 p.m.   |
|                         and week-ends]                            |
|           Messages can be left there at most hours                |
|                 or at 231-4239 [M-F 8-12 & 1-5]                   |
|  FAX:       (703)231-3255                                         |
|===================================================================|
|  THE ONLY THING NECESSARY                                         |
|                   FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL                         |
|                                   IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING   |
|===================================================================|
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBITNET cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Chuck Harrison /  Who shot J.R.?
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who shot J.R.?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:52:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I cannot agree with those who wish Mr. Rothwell would simply stay
away.  He has posted much useful information (for example, I commend
his recent calm posting regarding H2O - D2O mixtures in Ni cells).
 
As a pay-per-view reader (sometimes using $60/hr overseas links, to
boot), I suppose I have as much right as anyone to resent the rambling
off-topic dissertations which JR and others have been known to
contribute.  I encourage everyone to be concise & on-topic; but I
wouldn't trade this in for a moderated group.  We can appreciate a bit
of variety now and then.
 
So, Jed, don't change too much, but a little change might be ok ;-).
   -Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Chuck Harrison /  Britz bibliography on WAIS
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz bibliography on WAIS
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:52:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Attention Goodlife!
 (apologies to db)  Dieter's bibliography has been installed as a WAIS
(wide area information server) database which is publicly available
for "keyword" (text) searches.  If you have internet access, you can
do this with gopher or wais services which are available at many
sites.  (If not at yours, try >telnet quake.think.com and login as
'wais').  The database is called 'cold-fusion', resides at sunsite.
unc.edu, and is listed in the master "directory-of-servers" at
quake.think.com .
 No promises, but try it, you might like it (esp. on X-windows).
  -Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Chuck Harrison /  Hagelstein ICCF3 review avail by ftp
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein ICCF3 review avail by ftp
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:52:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Peter Hagelstein wrote a review of the Nagoya conference which has,
shall we say, a different tone than D.O. Morrison's.
 
This paper has been copied from another network and archived at UNC.
You can access it by anonymous ftp:
  >ftp sunsite.unc.edu
login as 'anonymous'.
the directory you are looking for is
  pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
The file name is nagoya.txt
 
Thanks are due to those who made this possible.    -Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Chuck Harrison /  Anomolous 3He in volcanoes
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anomolous 3He in volcanoes
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:52:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Last fall (10 Nov 92) I attended a "general audience" lecture by Don
L. Anderson of the Seismological Lab at CalTech.  He touched upon the
3He question and mentioned that the He isotopic ratio varied widely
among volcanoes.  He excitedly proposed a theory based on 3He isotopic
enhancement due to cosmic-dust sediment.  Apparently cosmic dust
entering the Earth's atmosphere has highly elevated 3He (he didn't know
why), and in certain epochs this dust formed a large fraction of the
ocean-floor sediment.  Anderson felt that this hypothesis was testable
by correlating the He isotope ratio with the geological origin of the
ejected magma.
  Anderson presented this theory as new, so it may not have reached
publication.  Would Dr. Jones care to comment on it?
 -Chuck
p.s. Any distortion of Anderson's thesis is unintentional.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Requesting summary of CF news group for last month or two.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Requesting summary of CF news group for last month or two.
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:52:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
 
>Could some kind soul post a summary of major events and outcomes so that I can
>get up-to-date again.
 
Well, in a few days (27-Feb, to be exact), my monthly message on how to get
bibliographical files out of the archive will be fired off automatically. The
same archives have ALL the Digests stored, so you can catch up at your
leisure. I suggest you type in
dir fusion.93-*
which will get only a modest flow, and the last page will have what you want.
 
But major events? None, really. Anyone want to argue?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Geofusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Geofusion
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:52:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Fusion Digest 771  jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>still interested.  And well he should be:  since our articles, several
>geologists have taken samples at volcanoes and found *tritium*.  Now, we
>early on pointed out that both helium-3 and tritium would be potential tracers
>for natural fusion in the earth (geofusion), see refs 2 and 3; ref. 1 points
>to possible natural fusion inside the dense hydrogen core of Jupiter.  The
>prevailing paradigm regarding 3He emissions from volcanos
>[very high 3He-to-4He ratios from volcanos relative to the air and continental
>rocks is a long-standing puzzle]   is that it comes
>from a primordial store of 3He (Harmon Craig et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
>26 (1975):125 and 31 (1976): 369).
 
This is very interesting. Let us not forget, however, that a very careful
study (as far as I am able to judge), found nothing. This was the paper by
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". It's
in the bibliography. They found even less T in the volcano than in rain water.
I mention this not to discredit you, Steven, but to keep the balance.
 
Tritium is present at very low concentrations. What we need - and what you and
others are of course are working towards - is a sufficient number of clear
positive findings. Any single instance of a positive - or negative - result
proves nothing. Very frustrating, I suppose, to the researchers concerned.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Please remit $1
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 16:30:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam) writes:
>In fact the system works against
>ingenuity... the corporate power of big companies is able to put the little
>man right out of business no matter how good his science or ideas may be.
 
This is without foundation.  In the example you cite, Motorla was not a
"little" company compared to Intel.  Motorla was not put out of business.
 
IBM was not able to exercise its will without regard to the market (for
Christ sakes, they just posted a $5 billion dollar loss!)
 
At the introduction of the IBM PC, memory costs were far higher than today.
Obese code was considered a disease rather than a feature.  Selecting an
eight bit over a 16 bit architecture was a cost/performance tradeoff.  Even
in retrospect, it is hard to conjure this up as either an act of gross
stupidity or manipulative evil excess.  It was simply an evolutionary
expedition -- a search for where the market wanted to go with it.
 
IBM was able to be a standard "maker" because of their previous service to the
market.  People respected IBM's commitment to quality and service, that is why
IBM got to be big in the first place.  As soon as IBM started falling behind
the curve, they started losing  business -- witness their historic losses.
 
IBM is still big, despite its recent losses, but it will never again be able
to dominate the PC market unless and until it can offer something better than
the competition -- despite the fact that it is many times larger than its
nearest competitor.  Your theory just doesn't hold water.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Venture Capitalists
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Venture Capitalists
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 17:06:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

les@cs.stanford.edu writes:
>Obviously, the VC people's vote counts for almost nothing as an
>evaluation of new technology.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe venture capitalists are human beings.
 
This unfortunate limit means that they have to weigh risk against reward
without access to perfect information about what the risk really is or how
large the reward will be.
 
Unlike some of us, they cannot see into the future with the same clarity and
precision.  And so they have to make judgements on gut feel.  The poor slobs.
 
It really cracks me up when seekers of venture capital complain about how
"greedy" the VC are, implicitly demanding that the VC be altruistic
philanthropists -- all the while the seekers of the capital are attempting
to maximize their own eventual profit.  I mean, the fight seems to be over
the size of the slices of the pie.  If the captial seeker were himself an
altruistic philanthropist with an idea that would serve the world, you think
he'd take the VC money at whatever return rates they wanted.
 
I guess it is the other guy who is greedy -- we all just want our fair share.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please remit $1
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 18:26:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930218161659_72240.1256_EHL30-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
 
>>John Logajan says: "I bet my bottom dollar that you cannot list three
>>industrial 'secrets' which have a significant effect on the human condition."
 
>1.   The source code for Microsoft Windows.
 
The source code for any program is implicit in it's machine code. And any
program cracker worth his salt could reproduce Windows source code in three
months. This is proof positive that Rothwell is out of his leaque.
 
>>2.   The exact layout and masks for the Intel 486 microprocessor.
 
This is incredably easy. When the 8080 was all the rage another "Intel
Compatible" uP showed up on the european market from the U.S.S.R.
 
Intel took one apart and discovered that it was an 8080 that had been reverse
engineered. Since the U.S.S.R. couldn't reproduce photolithography at the
scale of American technology it was at approximately twice the scale. But
there for everyone to see under a microscope was the exact reproduction
of the Intel 8080 _complete_ with the Intel copyrighted markings!
 
The '486 is only a secret to those who have no idea what the business is
to begin with.
 
>3.   The exact formulas and methods AT&T uses in it's fiber optic plant in
>     Norcross, GA.
 
This is even easier. In fact, there are probably any number of other
formulas that are better. These things are not very secret in fact.
 
>I could give you list of 100,000, or 1,000,000 significant industrial
>secrets.
 
Then you ought to be able to find three _real_ ones.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please remit $1
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 18:54:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Feb21.163014.19141@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
>In the example you cite, Motorla was not a
>"little" company compared to Intel.  Motorla was not put out of business.
 
Quite right. However, had Apple turned to Zilog's Z8000 instead of the
Motorola 68000 there probably wouldn't have been a significant Motorola
presence in semiconductor manufacturing today.
 
>IBM was not able to exercise its will without regard to the market (for
>Christ sakes, they just posted a $5 billion dollar loss!)
 
I think there is something of a misunderstanding here. The people in industry
that had the power to purchase personal computers were the MIS professionals
who had broad experience with IBM and trusted them. IBM, thereby, did control
the market to a certain extent. It isn't because IBM has fallen behind
technically that there have posted a loss. It is purely a matter of
economics. You can buy a Big Blue PS/2 and get all of the horrendous
confusion of a gigantic mother company, or you can pay half the price and
get a workalike unit from a small company that is willing to give you
complete satisfaction and good service.
 
It is the snobbery of IBM that is causing their downfall, not their technology
 
When IBM wants to sell small cheap computers in single units they will be
on the right track.
 
>At the introduction of the IBM PC, memory costs were far higher than today.
>Obese code was considered a disease rather than a feature.  Selecting an
>eight bit over a 16 bit architecture was a cost/performance tradeoff.  Even
>in retrospect, it is hard to conjure this up as either an act of gross
>stupidity or manipulative evil excess.  It was simply an evolutionary
>expedition -- a search for where the market wanted to go with it.
 
The Intel processor was designed to use a very clever (and tried) user
protection scheme. It was the hardware equivilent of Intel's RSX operating
system. At the time the architecture made sense. Using DOS it never made
sense from the very beginning. The IBM group that designed the PC simply
didn't have a strong enough grasp on the personal computer to understand
this. There were many more much better designs around than IBM's PC.
>
>IBM is still big, despite its recent losses, but it will never again be able
>to dominate the PC market unless and until it can offer something better than
>the competition -- despite the fact that it is many times larger than its
>nearest competitor.
 
I believe that IBM could easily retake the market. The problem is that
IBM marketing simply doesn't want to sell PC's. Their sales force has
too long been too well paid for their rather minor efforts. When they could
sell one extremely expensive computer and make very large commissions they
would expend efforts to make a sale. But when they had to move 2,000
PC's for the same income they simply didn't want the business.
 
So they purposely ruined the business. When the PC first took hold I
looked carefully at their computers. After they really understood how
big the market was the production engineers did a spectacular job of
tooling up. The IBM PC could have been sold for _LOTS_ less than the
competition. Indeed, doing so would have kept the competition out of
that market altogether. But Big Blue wanted profits more than markets.
(Does the billionaire name Ross Perot ring a bell?)
 
Next they went for the jugular of the independant software producers.
They began putting road blocks in the way and hiding methods and tools
for producing fast, effective and efficient software.
 
So if they really want the business most of the small independant
computer manufacturers are dead meat. It is impossible for small
companies to be able to reproduce the economies of scale possible for
a really large company like IBM.
 
The big question is, Will They?
 
Now, let's let the net subside back to CNF arguments.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Cameron Bass /  cmsg cancel <1993Feb23.002910.15706@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Feb23.002910.15706@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:36:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 22 Feb 93 18:38:59 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
 
                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )
 
               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe )
 
               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!
 
 
 
          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE,
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY",
          1st Edition,
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of
               Science,
          1972,
          163 Pages, Illustrated,
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638,
               Binghamton, NY  13902
 
 
          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS",
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird,
          1973,
          402 Pages,
          Harper & Row,
               New York
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmcelwre cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post
Date: 23 Feb 93 03:28:52 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1599@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
 
> Terry,
>
> I really hope you realise the smallness of the fraction of the actives on
> sci.physics that are actually physicists. Don't trash physics just because
> some loonies got on your case.
 
Wow, you're braver than I am.  Thanks for helping to give me some perspective.
 
Thanks also for private comments from another working physicist whom I greatly
respect, and for some other interesting (and in one case intriguing) comments.
 
One email indirectly left me with the amusing impression that UC and/or Twist
do in fact get read by some real physicists -- although probably only when
carefully wrapped in plain brown paper...  :-)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -  Comments from me on this topic will be a bit limited.  I got into
        this little hassle at least in part by daring to try to cut off an
        especially argumentative poster, and so don't feel overly inclined
        to repeat the experience.
 
        Let's please return to the issue at hand, namely: _Are_ there any
        significant loose threads left in condensed matter physics?
 
        I vote YES.  And who knows, maybe, just _maybe_, one or two of those
        undiscovered threads may lead to some surprising results.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / T Neustaedter /  Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 23 Feb 93 03:54:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

If anyone wants to comment on this article, it's best done in
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. We've been through this discussion
many times on that newsgroup.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       Stratus Computer
         tarl@sw.stratus.com    Marlboro, Mass.
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 /  Bo /  International Space Plasma Physics Summer School (update)
     
Originally-From: bt@irfu.se (Bo Thide')
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
space,sci.research
Subject: International Space Plasma Physics Summer School (update)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 11:02:34 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden

 
 
                              Second announcement
 
              International Summer School on Space Plasma Physics
 
                                  Organised by
       Radiophysical Research Institute, NIRFI, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia
                                      and
           Swedish Institute of Space Physics, IRFU, Uppsala, Sweden
                                   to be held
 
    Onboard the Cruise Ship "Turgenyev" on the Volga River, 1-10 June, 1993
 
The purpose of the school is to give an introduction to the problems
of linear and non-linear space plasma physics, ionospheric modification,
the use of the ionosphere as a space plasma laboratory, as well as to
discuss current topics in astrophysics and ionospheric, solar, and
stellar plasma physics.
 
                         List of lecturers and lectures
 
o Prof C E Alissandrakis, Greece, Emissions from Solar Flares.
 
o Prof A O Benz, Switzerland, Plasma Diagnostic of the Solar Corona
  using Decametric Radio Waves.
 
o Prof T Chang , USA, Electromagnetic Tornadoes in Space---Ion Cyclotron
  Resonance Heating of Ionospheric Ions; Lower hybrid collapse, caviton
  turbulence, and charged particle energization.
 
o Dr F C Drago, Italy, Radio Emission of Active Regions of the Sun and Stars.
 
o Prof G Dulk, USA, Radio Methods For Investigating the Solar Wind Between
  Sun and Earth.
 
o Prof Lev Erukhimov, Russia, Space Plasma Laboratories.
 
o Dr J Foster, USA, Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
o Dr C Hanuise, France, Coherent Scattering in the Ionosphere.
 
o Prof M Hayakawa, Japan, Terrestrial Electromagnetic Noise Environment.
 
o Prof A Hewish, UK, Mapping Interplanetary Weather Patterns.
 
o Prof Yu Kravtsov, Russia, Polarisation and Wave Propagation Effects in
  Inhomogeneous Plasma.
 
o Prof J Kuijpers, Holland, Magnetic Flares In Accretion Disks.
 
o Dr Y Leblanc, France, Jupiter's Radio Emissions and Parameters the Plasma.
 
o Prof M Nambu, Japan, Plasma Maser Effects.
 
o Prof V Petviashvili, Russia, Vortexes in Space.
 
o Prof V Radhakrishnan, India, Pulsars--The Strangest Radiators in the Sky.
 
o Prof H O Rucker, Austria, Planetary Radio Emissions.
 
o Dr R Schlickeiser, Germany, The Theory of Cosmic Ray Transport and
  Acceleration and Astrophysical Applications.
 
o Dr K Stasiewicz, Sweden, Auroral Kilometric Radiation.
 
o Dr A V Stepanov, Ukraine, On the Penetration of Fast Particle Beams into
  Solar and Stellar Atmospheres.
 
o Dr B Thide, Sweden, Controlled Generation of Radio Emission in the Near-Earth
  Plasma by Wave Injection from the Ground.
 
o Prof V Trakhtengertz, Russia, Alfven Masers.
 
o Dr Yu M Yampolsky, Ukraine, Artificial Ionospheric Turbulence Investigations
  Using the Phased Array UTR-2.
 
o Dr V Zaytsev, Russia, Solar plasma.
 
o Prof V V Zheleznyakov, Russia, Cyclotron Resonance in Astrophysics.
 
General and topical lectures will be mixed with seminars and poster
sessions.  The lecture notes and reports of new results will be
published in "Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics".
 
Applications for attendance must be submitted before 15 March, 1993 to
 
Bo Thide
Swedish Institute of Space Physics
Uppsala Division
S-75591 Uppsala, Sweden
Fax: [+46] 18-403100
E-mail: bt@irfu.se
 
There will be an excursion to Vasil'sursk where the NIRFI radio
observatory ``Sura'' is located.  The cultural program of the school
includes sightseeing in interesting old Russian towns on the upper
Volga, art exhibitions, and other activities.
 
The total cost for full board an lodging on the ship for the school is
estimated at between US$300 and US$500, depending on type of cabin (first
class single, first class double, second class single, second class
double).
 
 
 
 
 
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: (+46) 18-303671.  Fax: (+46) 18-403100.  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: bt@irfu.se      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbt cudlnBo cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / John Logajan /  Re: food for thought
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: food for thought
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 20:47:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
>
>                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
>                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
>                         Cambridge, Massachusetts
 
This 120K+ posting might be too big to propogate successfully,  since
many news and e-mail sites restrict single messages to 100K or less.
 
Also, the USENET version was issued with a distribution of North America.
This further limited the propogation.
 
It is an excellent article, and I think it should get max propogation.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post
Date: 22 Feb 93 19:45:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Terry,
 
I really hope you realise the smallness of the fraction of the actives on
sci.physics that are actually physicists. Don't trash physics just because
some loonies got on your case.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  food for thought
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: food for thought
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 23:21:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  In sci.physics.fusion:5234 logajan@ns.network.com
    John Logajan asks re: "SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL
                            CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION"
                            by: Peter L. Hagelstein
 
 
>> "This 120K+ posting might be too big to propogate
>>  successfully,  since many news and e-mail sites restrict
>>  single messages to 100K or less."
                                 [John Logajan]
 
  Thank you, John.  A good idea.
  It is now broken up in the following two portions, which
  will follow this note.
 
 
                         Mitchell
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Electron effective mass
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electron effective mass
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 07:26:21 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
 
 
>Dick Blue has alluded to electron effective masses, and I'd like a bit more
>information on this, from anyone who can help. I understand the case of muons,
>which are effectively electrons with a mass 207 times normal. If one of these
>gets between two deuterons (e.g. in the muonic D2 molecule), the d's can get
>much closer together because of the increased Coulombic screening by the muon,
>and the rate of spontaneous fusion goes up from around 1E-80 (?)
>fusions/dd-pair/s to 1E11 or so (is this figure right, Steven? Seems like a
>lot).
 
Come on Dieter. You have been in the game long enough to understand the
electron screening effect.  Jump on Vince Gate's BBS and download
Koonin's unpublished works (It may be published by now. I havn't kept track)
Anyway that's the paper that demonstrated that electron screening could
inhance the d-d fusion from 1E-80 f/s to 1E-28.  It's a very solid piece.
I think you will find 1E-11 f/s is high.  Really high infact.
 
  >Several theory papers have tried to explain cold fusion in terms of an
>enhanced "effective mass" of the electrons in a metal deuteride. They are not
>talking about muons but electrons. They usually find that you need a factor
>of 5-7 or so, to get the fusion rates claimed by cnf researchers (those who
>find anything). These papers do not usually go on to say that you in fact
>CAN get such electrons or how.
 
One effect I recall was something called Ion screening, (I believe this
was Acher or something like that).  This effect assumed a negative ion
in place of an electron, and the corrisponding mass difference enhanced
the screening effect to 1E-18.  Regardless of the figure it was up there
in the P&F range.  The effect was called ion screening.  While the paper
reads good, and is plausable, one has to wonder if such a system is quantum-
mechanically plausable.  Maybe given a transient nudge, an ion could screen
a pair of D's but it's has got to be rare in nature.
 
>One paper I read mentions high externally applied pressures pushing deuterons
>together to distances that would correspond to electrons with effective masses
>of about 7. This I understand - but I suspect that often, people do in fact
>imply an actual raising of the effective mass of an electron.
 
>What I want to know is:
>* are there any special properties of the deuteride lattice that might favour
>  raised effective masses?
 
First answer this.  When Deuterium atom enters a metal system like Pd,
does it become:
1) a deuteron, with the electron given to the Fermi sea of the metal.
2) a deterium atom with electron bound floating in the metal.
3) a bound Pd/D molecule.
4) a mix of the above
 
>* what are these properties?
>* in what way are the masses "effective" as opposed to actual (as in muons)?
 
My thoughts. 4.  And if that wasn't enough each one of those is probably
thermodynamically dependent as well as structurally dependent in the
solid state sense.  But given the question consider an electro-magnet.
Here
 
 
>You physics theorists out there, please explain. Thank you in advance.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / Drew Asson /  Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
     
Originally-From: asson@halcyon.stsci.edu (Drew Justin Asson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Knowledge gained through taxation is forever tainted.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 14:04:42 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

I agree with most of what you have to say.  Money being thrown down the
drain on certain projects should be cut.  People who ask for money using
jargon and buzz words should be held accountable for the work they do.
 
BUT, I must say that the government should NOT get out of science research.
Business in the US tend to be focused soley on the bottom line of the
quarterly financial statement.  Short term projects that bring in money for
the company are good; long term projects with slim chances of bringing THAT
company money are bad.  Businesses in the US have one major goal in mind,
profit.  (Now, I don't think this is right, but that is irrelavant to this
discussion.)  Long term research with the possibility of failure must be
done.  The Japanese (thru MITI, a gov't and private industry group) have
invested tons of money into long term (> 10 years) projects that have reaped
great reward and great failure (e.g. the 5th Generation Computing project).
 
What I am saying is, that gov't provides the incentives that profit-minded
companies don't want to consider.  Risks must be taken, and the gov't sems
to be the ones who should do this.
 
-- Drew
Drew J. Asson                                asson@stsci.edu
Advance Planning Systems Group               (410) 338-4474
 
Space Telescope Science Institute
3700 San Martin Drive
Baltimore, MD 21218
--
Drew J. Asson                                asson@stsci.edu
Advance Planning Systems Group               (410) 338-4474
 
Space Telescope Science Institute
3700 San Martin Drive
Baltimore, MD 21218
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenasson cudfnDrew cudlnAsson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Electron effective mass
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electron effective mass
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:14:04 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
>Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
 
 
>My thoughts. 4.  And if that wasn't enough each one of those is probably
>thermodynamically dependent as well as structurally dependent in the
>solid state sense.  But given the question consider an electro-magnet.
>Here
 
... This is what I get for editing a message with the wrong term type
in my enviroment. Abyway the stuff about the electro-magnet was noise
anyway, (ie. while electrons in a metal have a small velocity, they
can have a big external effect).
 
Sorry for the typos.  I'll see if I can find the references.
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Jed Rothwell's right to post
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell's right to post
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 15:34:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post:
 
I liked one entry that suggested looking at the title and first page or so
of his postings, and then simply discarding the ones you don't like.  The
"n" key is so easy to push!  At any rate, I don't "kill" any of Mr.Rothwell's
entries -- I just don't bother reading most of them, especially the ones
where I suspect he's trying to needle people into a strong response.
 
 
Re: Censorship in general, whatever the tactic
 
I just had an intriguing experience over in sci.physics.  Someone asked the
status of cold fusion.  I had the audacity to quote John Maddox of Nature
magazine as saying that _possibly_ cavitation results in the formation of
a plasma, an opinion that John Maddox had clearly derived by talking to
experts noted for their experimentation in sonoluminescence (and, I might
add, ones who had no interest whatsover in "cold fusion" when developing
those views.)
 
I then pointed out that _if_ such a postulated plasma is actually is
actually formed in cavitation (and I really did underline the if), then
looking for a low-level increase in fusion rates would certainly seem like
something worth pursuing.  This of course is simply the line of reasoning
that I believe Steven Jones and Seth Putterman first noted in a private
conversation they had a few months ago.
 
I am decently respected for my ability to explain physics and ask difficult
questions on that group, or at least I think I am.  Yet what followed looked
more like slapstick comedy than decent science.  The fact that I was quoting
an author of a notoriously anti-"cnf" magazine was quite overlooked in the
enthusiam to trash (in an often strikingly personal fashion) one of them
thar "cold fusion" types.  I made a great target, anywho, since I've been
pretty candid in this group (and that one) about not being a physicist and
not even having a PhD (ya'll did know that?) in CSc (MS only, generally
optimal for CSc business career paths).  I've also been pretty frank about
having very poor access to good technical library faciliities at my current
work location, a point that was brought up gleefully in the other group in
the slighly altered context of noting what a slackard I was.
 
At any rate, my sympathies to first-rate scientists such as Steven Jones
who have to put up with such nonsense on a professional basis.  For me it
was just a significant disappointment.  My view of the physics community
in general, and especially of their ability to deal dispassionately with
interesting questions, has suffered greatly, and I do not thing it will
be recovering anytime soon.
 
Why are the American taxpayers continuing to dump enormous funds into the
coffers of some of these people?  I am very strongly in favor of increased
science research funding, but increasingly skeptical that the current system
is doing anything but create an incredibly expensive little playhouse in
which the members can stand in the windows and natter about all the silly
non-members who mill around beneath them.
 
I _thought_ we were paying them to develop new, innovative ideas and physics
for the betterment of mankind.  I'm beginning to suspect I was being naive.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- Chuck Sites:  Hey, thanks for a really decent defense of why it
        makes sense for Steven Jones et al to at least _try_ an experiment
        in detecting low-level events.  Good for you!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / Alwyn Teh /  Optical Phase Conjugation, Lasers & Fibre Optics
     
Originally-From: alteh@bnr.ca (Alwyn Teh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Optical Phase Conjugation, Lasers & Fibre Optics
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 15:46:04 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, Maidenhead, UK

Original posting in newsgroup sci.physics
 
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 18:28:20 GMT
>
> Hello world,
>
> Can  anybody  tell me what's the latest in the  application  of  optical
> phase  conjugation?  What's being  researched and what devices have been
> produced?  In  defence,  fibre  optics  communications/lasers,   nuclear
> fusion?
>
> It's been 5 years since  graduation  in Physics & Computer  Science, and
> I've been  working in the  computing/telecoms  world so I'm out of touch
> with what used to fascinate me in Physics.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alwyn
>
 
===================================================================
 Alwyn Teh                          |
 BNR Europe Ltd.                    |  Internet:  alteh@bnr.ca
 Norreys Drive                      |  Telephone: +44 628 794358
 Maidenhead  SL6 4AG                |  Fax:       +44 628 794053
 England                            |
 U.K.                               |
===================================================================
 BNR = Bell-Northern Research, R&D company of Northern Telecom
===================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenalteh cudfnAlwyn cudlnTeh cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  food for thought (part 2)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: food for thought (part 2)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 23:24:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
 
                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts
 
 
                =============================
 
                   Posted by: Jed Rothwell & Mitchell Swartz
                     with permission from Prof. Hagelstein.
 
 
    "This posting is made at the request of those who could not download
  the 125 kilobyte file.  That file has been divided into two portions
         - PART I (previous), and PART II (that below).  Please see
                 Part I for more details"
                                            Mitchell Swartz
 
 
================= PART II (of II) ==========================================
 
 
        SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                ON COLD FUSION (ICCF3) IN NAGOYA
 
 
                         Peter L. Hagelstein
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
 
                         ABSTRACT
 
    We review highlights of the international cold fusion conference that was
held recently in Nagoya, Japan. Excess heat results in heavy water
electrolysis experiments constitute the observations with the most important
potential applications. Experiments in gas phase systems exhibit fast particle
and gamma emission that make progress toward elucidating mechanisms. The
evidence in support of a light water heat effect has improved.
 
 
  ==== Continuing from Part I:
 
                              NEGATIVE RESULTS
 
1.  A famous hydrogen-in-metals physicist, Y. Fukai, gave a presentation of
    the basic problems facing theorists attempting to provide an explanation
    of the anomalies.{55,56} I thought that this talk was excellent, and Fukai
    is really very knowledgeable; it is clear that the basic physics issues
    (the Coulomb barrier, screening, and solid state issues) that he
    discussed must be addressed theoretically, especially in the case of
    theories based on fusion reaction mechanisms.
 
    Fukai also presented a negative result{57} involving a search for neutrons
    that might be induced as a result of the generation of fractures in metal
    deuterides. The highest result observed was for fractured TiD, 1.8 q 0.1
    cpm, versus a background of 1.27 q 0.05 cpm.
 
    I was impressed that he attended, since I am convinced that mainline
    scientists of his caliber will play an increasingly important role in the
    field. After talking to him, it became clear that some scientists present
    who were not in the field had received very strong encouragement to
    participate.
 
    His talk was not well received by a number of those in the field, and he
    was criticized during and after his presentation.
 
2.  There was a negative result on a measurement of neutrons from a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell originating out of the physics department at Osaka
    University,{58} the poster of which looked very interesting. The group had
    a high-resolution Ge detector looking at gammas produced inelastically by
    neutrons impinging on an Fe plate placed between the detector and a Pd
    heavy water electrolysis cell. With this system, the group was able to
    place an upper limit of 1.6 X 10{-24} fusions/dd-pair.
 
    There was another negative result on the fusion rate as determined by the
    relative absence of 3 MeV protons reported by a group from Tokyo
    Metropolitan University.{59} I did not see this poster. According to the
    abstract, the upper limit on the fusion rate from this measurement was
    1.3 X 10{-24} fusions/dd-pair.
 
3.  D. Morrison of CERN presented a paper{60} that criticized the experiments
    in the field, and used data from an analysis of the literature published
    in the field to show that interest in the field is declining, symptomatic
    of "pathological science".
 
    Morrison made a number of arguments, most of which are restated and
    amplified in his recent review{61} of the Nagoya conference (his Cold
    Fusion Update No. 7 on the computer network; my copy is dated 12-17-92).
    I will attempt here to summarize briefly what I think are key points
    (drawing from his conclusions listed in Update No. 7), and to provide
    some commentary on the points.
 
    The major point of Morrison's presentation involves the inconsistency
    between the claimed excess heat production, which would correspond to on
    the order of 10{12} reactions per second, and the low tritium and neutron
    signals which are lower by many orders of magnitude. For example,
    Morrison uses the upper limit on neutron emission in the Kamiokande
    experiments (10{-4} neutrons/sec) to place an upper limit on heat
    production which is lower by 16 orders of magnitude. Morrison also noted
    that the mean distance between deuterons in the lattice is larger than
    for D[2], which implies that fusion reaction rates in a lattice would be
    expected to be smaller than the very low numbers which are well-known for
    D[2].
 
    A weakness of the limiting argument as stated by Morrison is the
    presupposition that conventional *dd*-fusion is the operative reaction
    mechanism; it has long been recognized by many (but not all) in the field
    that the excess heat production can not be due to conventional
    *dd*-fusion. I personally would accept Morrison's limit on the heat
    production for the Kamiokande cells, specifically for the amount of
    excess heat due to the conventional *dd*-fusion channel in those
    experiments. Possibly more relevant for a limit on the *dd*-fusion
    channel would be a neutron measurement in a heat-producing cell (there is
    no report of any calorimetric excess heat production at Kamiokande), in
    which case the limit claimed in other experiments is higher, but the
    basic argument is unchanged. This issue has been discussed above.
 
    Morrison advocates that due to the wide range of phenomena claimed (some
    inconsistent with others), and since "poorly designed and artifact-prone"
    experiments have been reported in the field, that only "good
    fully-instrumented and fully-calibrated experiments that need few and
    unimportant corrections" should be done; loading should always be
    measured.
 
    The claims of positive heat results in light water experiments appears to
    be inconsistent with previous claims of heat production (in which the
    effect was present in heavy water, and absent in light water). This issue
    was commented on above.
 
    Morrison points out that many negative results have been obtained which
    contradict the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, and those of Jones.
    Morrison points to the work of the GE group (R. H. Wilson et al, *J.
    Electroanal. Chem.* 332, 1 (1992)), as well as a large number of other
    experiments, in which no excess heat was observed in contrast to the
    claims of Pons and Fleischmann. He points to the Kamiokande experiment as
    the strongest refutation of the original claims of neutron emission by
    Jones and coworkers.
 
    This argument was presented by Morrison in a spirited fashion at the
    conference. He made use of the statistics of papers published for and
    against, seemingly as a route to help to decide whether an effect exists
    or not. For example, of 727 refereed published papers in the compilation
    of D. Britz, in each category of effect, there are more negative results
    than positive results. Of experimental papers in this set, there appear
    86 positive, 136 null, and 36 indecisive or contradictory.
 
    Of the 8 experimental papers published in 1992 included in the Britz
    compilation, 1 was positive, 6 nulls, 1 indecisive; of papers on proton
    measurements, 1 positive, and 11 nulls; of papers on {3}He, 1 positive and
    8 nulls; of papers on x-ray emission, 0 positives and 7 nulls. The subset
    which Britz rates as being expert yields the results as: 1 positive, 19
    null, 2 unclear and 6 technical; of those looking for artifacts: 1
    positive, 14 null, 2 unclear, and 1 technical.
 
    At issue in Morrison's discussion is whether there occur, or do not occur
    anomalies (heat, particles, etc.) in deuterated metal systems. Taking a
    vote by counting the number of published papers pro or con is certainly
    one way of deciding the issue; most others at the conference who argued
    for or against presented the results of an experiment or else the results
    of a theoretical model.
 
    Morrison went further at the conference; he used the results to support
    his contention that interest in the field is dying out (experimental
    papers: 72 in 1989, 128 in 1990, 48 in 1991 and 8 in 1992), which he said
    was symptomatic of "pathological science". Although Morrison has written
    about the field as an example of pathological science *Special Symposium
    Proceedings on Cold Fusion* of the World Hydrogen Energy Conference, July
    1990, p. 233), and he discussed pathological science at Nagoya, I did not
    see an elaboration of his arguments in his review.
 
    Whether the excess heat effect is real or not is a matter that either has
    been, or else will be, settled by experiment; not by counting papers or
    by discussing pathological science. Nevertheless, there is an issue
    buried in Morrison's arguments which is of interest. The issue of
    reproducibility is central in the field, especially given the early
    history and associated problems. The dark clouds which currently hang
    over the field today would likely not be present had the experiments been
    easier to reproduce in 1989. While the degree of reproducibility of the
    heat effect among groups working in the field has improved considerably
    since 1989, it is true that not very many examples exist where an outside
    effort has come back recently armed with the latest results and has
    attempted a replication. This situation needs to be addressed in the
    coming months and years.
 
4.  J. Huizenga of the University of Rochester submitted a post deadline
    abstract{62} that pointed out that there are two types of claims, one for
    heat and one for low levels of neutrons. Huizenga maintains that there is
    no evidence to support any relation between the two claims. The claims of
    fusion products at a level down by twelve orders of magnitude from the
    heat production do not support the notion that the heat is of nuclear
    origin.
 
    Although Huizenga was present, this paper was not presented.
 
 
                              THEORY PAPERS
 
    All but four of the theory papers were presented as posters during two
sessions where I had posters to attend; consequently I was unable to spend
much time looking over the theory papers of others. I will nevertheless
attempt a summary of some of the approaches of the work based both on the
abstracts and on what I have seen of the approaches previously. Once again, I
warn the reader that my review of the theory papers in the field are biased by
my own point of view as to what physical mechanisms are responsible for the
effects being observed.
 
    The theories may initially be divided up into two general categories;
those involving (modified) fusion mechanisms, and those not involving fusion
mechanisms. Papers considering fusion mechanisms face the two basic problems
of (1) arranging to get nuclei close enough together to fuse, and (2) possibly
modifying the fusion reaction profiles. We first consider papers describing
theories based on fusion mechanisms.
 
1.  G. Preparata{63} has been working on theory for coherent *dd*-fusion
    reactions; a major goal of the theory is to account for the heat
    production by a modified *dd*-fusion reaction where the {4}He branch
    dominates, and the gamma emission is replaced by energy transfer with the
    lattice. He argues that a proper quantization of the low energy
    electromagnetic field coupled to the metal electrons leads to enhanced
    screening between deuterons. He then proposes that the {4}He branch is
    favored by coherence factors that come about when the reaction energy (24
    MeV) is transferred to the lattice.
 
    In some sense, this is a version of the "classical" cold fusion model,
    which would be essentially forced somehow to be true if Fleischmann's
    initial conjecture that the effect was due to fusion were accepted. I
    consider this general type of model to be essentially the only game in
    town if it is assumed (following Fleischmann's initial conjecture) that
    the reaction mechanism must be fusion. I spent 6 months working on it
    myself in 1989.
 
    However, none of this makes the fundamental problems associated with
    screening and modification of reaction pathways any easier to solve.
 
2.  There have been a number of speculative theories that have been based on
    the notion that deuterons in a metal are well-described using Bloch-type
    wavefunctions. In such case, the principal interaction of the deuteron is
    assumed to be with the lattice, and deuteron-deuteron correlation effects
    would be brought in at higher order. A computation of the *dd*-fusion
    rate using uncorrelated orbitals yields anomalously high fusion rates, as
    expected since it operationally leaves out the Gamow factor.
 
    It has been suggested that the inclusion of the deuteron-deuteron
    correlation terms might not lead to Gamow factors as low as in the
    well-known case of molecular D[2]. S. Chubb and T. Chubb{64,65} have
    recently turned to the problem of electron correlation in ground state
    helium as an example where orbital and correlation effects compete, and
    argue that the Hylleraas solutions show an unexpected degree of overlap
    between the two electrons.
 
    Multi-body fusion theories have been proposed,{66,67} that would ultimately
    require deuteron-deuteron correlation to be essentially absent altogether
    to operate. It is not clear how this could come about.
 
3.  The possibility that anomalously large electron screening might occur is
    the subject of a number of works presented at the conference.{68-71} The
    basic idea is that if the coulomb repulsion between deuterons held in
    neighboring sites was reduced, then the degree of overlap of the nuclei
    would be increased, leading to a possibly measurable fusion rate. The
    difficulty here is to arrange for an enormous enhancement (of some
    unexpected sort) of screening in the metal beyond what screening occurs
    in D[2].
 
4.  Fast (multi-KeV) deuterons are able to overcome the coulomb barrier
    sufficiently to fuse with a low but observable probability. There have
    been suggestions that conventional mechanisms exist that could accelerate
    enough deuterons fast enough to account for low levels of neutron
    emission that have been reported. This explanation follows from the known
    phenomenon in insulators that hundred eV ions are emitted from insulators
    that undergo intense fractures; the corresponding effect is much weaker
    in metals by several orders of magnitude.
 
    Theories which propose anomalous ion acceleration in metal hydrides were
    described in a number of abstracts.{72-75} A variant on this general
    approach is discussed by Fukushima,{76} wherein recent observations of
    conditions in sono-luminescence experiments are proposed to result in an
    enhancement of the fusion rate.
 
5.  Kim and coworkers examine screening effects and modifications of the
    deuteron velocity distribution function that may occur at high
    density.{77-79} This approach is applicable both to cold fusion and to hot
    fusion problems; the authors believe that it may provide a solution to
    the solar neutrino problem. The fusion rate may be higher or lower than
    the conventionally calculated rate, depending on the condensed matter
    environment. Kim believes that these effects may also help to account for
    the anomalous branching ratio in cold fusion.
 
6.  A low energy resonance in the D+D system would enhance the fusion rate at
    low energy (no such resonance is known theoretically or experimentally).
    An abstract was submitted describing a proposed novel "combined resonance
    tunneling" effect,{80} that was not explained in the abstract.
 
7.  The catalysis of fusion by a heavy negatively charged particle, extending
    the essence of muon-catalyzed fusion, was made popular in 1989 by
    Rafelski and others. An abstract on catalysis by an anti-diquark with
    -4/3 charge was submitted.{81} From my perspective, this general approach
    suffers from the absence of abundant known massive negatively charged
    nuclear particles, and a reason why they should be appearing specifically
    in Pons-Fleischmann type experiments.
 
8.  V. A. Tsarev of the Lebedev Institute in Moscow described some
    calculations suggesting that an increase in the tunneling probability
    between deuterons would be expected due to lattice motion (my translation
    of "violation of stationarity in lattice").{82} Rather than the
    conventional kinetic or screening arguments often described, Tsarev
    proposed that the lattice would provide a time-dependent potential that
    would affect the deuteron wavefunction itself.
 
    I cannot see how there would be any but the weakest of effects from such
    terms; in time more documentation of this approach will hopefully be
    available, and the essence of the proposal will become clearer.
 
    Tsarev presented an interesting review of cold fusion research in Russia
    and in neighboring countries formerly of the Soviet Union. I do not have
    sufficient documentation (unfortunately) of his presentation to include a
    section in this review. I note that the Russian work was reviewed last
    year in an article by Tsarev and Worledge. {83}
 
    A number of theorists, including myself, have gone away from fusion
    reaction mechanisms. The motivation for this is to avoid the coulomb barrier
    (if possible) and to find reactions with signatures that hopefully more
    closely match the experimental observations. Each new non-fusion approach
    carries with it specific problems and issues that are associated with the
    specific reaction mechanism. Aside from this, any new approach must also
    arrange itself to be consistent with physical law, observations in this and
    other fields, and must presumably be functioning in a manner not previously
    expected (lest it would have been found earlier). We describe such
    contributions below.
 
1.  Electron capture on a deuteron would lead to two virtual neutrons; if it
    could be arranged for the virtual neutrons to be in proximity with
    neighboring nuclei, then further reactions could occur. This approach was
    described in two abstracts by J. Yang of the Dept. of Physics, Hunan
    Normal University of China.{84,85} Yang proposes that the two neutrons form
    a stable dineutron that reacts with deuterium to make tritium and a free
    neutron, and with {105}Pd to make {106}Pd and a free neutron.
 
    I consider this general approach to be one of the basic non-fusion
    approaches that actually begins to try to address the coulomb barrier
    problem. Once the electron capture occurs, the coulomb barrier is gone,
    potentially leading to the possibility of something happening near room
    temperature. One difficulty involved in this approach are that the
    electron capture is mediated by the weak interaction, which really is
    very weak, making it hard to obtain significant reaction rates. A second
    difficulty is that virtual neutrons do not generally wander more than
    fermis away from their point of origin, making it difficult for a virtual
    neutron to reach another nucleus to interact.
 
2.  Direct lattice-induced neutron ionization was described by Tani and
    Kobayashi,{86} motivated by the broad neutron emission that has been
    observed by several laboratories at energies higher than 2.45 MeV.
 
    The possibility that sufficient energy may be transferred from the
    lattice to a deuteron to disintegrate it is yet another significant
    conceptual step away from working with fusion reaction mechanisms. If a
    mechanism existed to do what Tani and Kobayashi proposes, the resulting
    spectra would likely follow the photodisintegration cross section
    generally qualitatively in shape, which would not be such a bad match to
    Takahashi's data.
 
    Once, I suspected that a single-step lattice-induced disintegration,
    something like what is described in this abstract, might be possible; I
    followed it up with a moderately sophisticated calculation (based on a
    harmonic lattice, without including some of the effects described in the
    abstract) that has been accepted for publication. The results of my
    computation were that although it is possible in principle to transfer
    sufficient energy to do the job, the energy transfer is sensitive to
    sign; in the end, I concluded that single-step lattice-induced
    disintegration could not be done (within the limits of my model), without
    having individual nuclei with MeV-level kinetic energy in the lattice
    initially to do the ionizing.
 
3.  I submitted two abstracts on neutron transfer reaction mechanisms that I
    have been exploring recently.{87-89} The basic reaction in this theory is a
    two-step transfer reaction of a neutron from a donor nucleus (typically a
    deuteron) to an acceptor nucleus located Angstroms to microns away. As
    originally proposed, the lattice would contribute the energy to promote
    the neutron from the donor, and take up energy at the acceptor;
    calculations showed that this was not viable, and so a modified version
    of the model in under development.
 
    The revised model works similarly, except that the intermediate state is
    virtual, as required since the lattice is unable to contribute energy to
    ionize the neutron. When the neutron reaches the acceptor nucleus, then a
    number of incoherent processes could occur, including gamma capture, and
    capture to states that decay by alpha emission. There might be a
    correlation between these decay products and the reaction products
    observed by Kucherov. Alpha particles in this model would range up to 4.1
    MeV (originating from neutron capture on {105}Pd).
 
    Heat production might be accounted for if a long-lived metastable state
    existed that was nearly resonant with the virtual neutron, and which
    alpha decayed.
 
    If the capture at the acceptor is preceded by energy transfer to the
    lattice during the donor transfer (which has now been shown explicitly to
    be allowed at least mathematically), or during scattering of the
    intermediate state virtual neutron, then the coherent neutron capture
    proceeds into long-lived ground state nuclei, which are born essentially
    at rest. This mechanism could account for heat production (accepting onto
    light interstitials such as {6}Li or {10}B) and anomalous slow tritium
    production (accepting onto deuterium).
 
    The primary difficulty with any reaction mechanism that involves a
    virtual free particle is that such intermediate particles do not go very
    far (typically fermis) from where they are born. I presented the results
    of computations of the virtual neutron Green's function including lattice
    effects,{88} and found that under conditions that phase coherence among
    neighboring hydrogen isotopes is maintained in a periodic lattice, that a
    usefully large and long-range contribution to the Green's function may
    occur that would lead to observably large net reaction rates. Quantum
    diffusion is conjectured to be able to set up the required coherence.
 
    One weakness of the approach which has become apparent following the
    conference is that the diffusion of hydrogen in metals generally proceeds
    by a hopping mechanism, which would likely not establish phase coherence
    of the sort required by the theory. In a loaded PdD lattice, some
    population of the tetrahedral sites would be expected; this is of
    interest since the tetrahedral to tetrahedral site barrier is expected to
    be considerably lower than the octahedral to octahedral site barrier,
    which might help the situation. The issue of coherence for such a
    diffusion mechanism is under study.
 
                              WHAT WAS NOT PRESENTED
 
    In spite of the relatively numerous set of papers that were presented at
ICCF3, there were several key players in the field who were not present or did
not give papers. I felt that the conference suffered from the absence of K.
Wolf, H. Menlove, E. Storms, E. Cecil, F. Will, S. Szpak, F. Lanza, and
several other key players in the field. Additionally, a paper from G. Chambers
(of NRL) that I had hoped to see was withdrawn by order of an associate
director of NRL.
 
    Possibly controversial was the absence of a presentation by Ishida of
experiments at Kamiokande. During the past year and a half, a very large
number of measurements seeking neutrons from various cold fusion experiments
were carried out. Kamiokande is famous as one of the world's premier neutrino
detection facilities, and received considerable attention following the
observation of neutrinos from the 1987 supernova. A positive result of
observation of anomalous neutron emission at Kamiokande would be a very big
event, since Kamiokande is well-respected in the physics community.
 
    Ishida's master thesis summarizes the results of over 100 cold fusion
experiments that were done at Kamiokande. Although it is a fact that neutrons
were observed at low levels, there are questions about what is the origin of
the neutrons. In the thesis, Ishida proposes that the neutrons are due to
naturally occurring radioactive contaminants.
 
    In the end, I think that the results from Kamiokande make either a weak
case in support of the existence of anomalous neutron emission, or else a
possibly disputable case in support of the non-existence of an effect. This
requires further explanation.
 
    The emission of neutrons from Ti shavings in deuterium gas was reported
early on by Scaramuzzi from Frascati. Attempts to replicate the experiment met
with success at LANL, where both random and large bursts of neutrons have been
observed with high efficiency {3}He neutron detectors. Low level random
emission of neutrons is claimed, and bursts of up to several hundred neutrons
in a 100 mu sec period were observed. The reproducibility of these experiments
is not great, and in spite of the progress made at LANL in improving the
reproducibility of the effect, the success rate reported in the Como
proceedings was about 10%.
 
    Menlove worked with the Japanese team to attempt a confirmation of the
LANL results. Due to the constraints imposed by the nature of the facility,
the number of runs which were attempted on Menlove's samples were 6. According
to Menlove, one of these samples might have shown something. If a case were
then to be made that the Kamiokande results disprove the Menlove's
observations at LANL, this argument is at best weak, since the probability of
obtaining a null result is on the order of (0.9){6} = 0.53 for these
experiments.
 
    Some have made the case that since no very large bursts (~100 neutrons)
were observed in any of the more than 100 experiments (which would improve the
statistics), that this refutes Menlove's positive observations of large burst
obtained at LANL and reported at Como. Lacking from this argument is an
estimate of expected frequency of bursts from the various experiments that
were done. If the expected rate of large neutron bursts were negligible in the
Portland cement experiments, for example, then doing many of them should not
alter a conclusion regarding a Menlove experiment.
 
    The poor reproducibility of the effect, in addition to the difficulty of
determining in a post-analysis what is the difference between a cell that gave
a signal and one that did not, prompted Scaramuzzi to recommend at Como that
this line of investigation should make way for other approaches which are less
frustrating. Research on Frascati cells has largely ceased in the field.
 
    The Kamiokande experiments were discussed in the talk by S. Jones,{90} who
was a collaborator in the experiments at Kamiokande. Jones argued that the
conjectures made by Ishida about radioactive contaminants had been
subsequently tested by introducing the proposed contaminants and measuring the
resulting signals elsewhere; the resulting neutron emissions did not agree
with the Kamiokande results. Jones therefore described the results as
supporting the presence of anomalous neutron emission.
 
    I do not think that we have heard the last of this discussion. I would
hope that in the future Kamiokande would try again, perhaps with experiments
which have larger signals and higher success rates. For example, the
experiment described by Kucherov would yield signals up to eight or nine
orders of magnitude above background at Kamiokande if there were any way to
field it there.
 
    Also absent from the conference were prominent US skeptics who have in
one way or another have made technical contributions to the field in the past.
The absence of such individuals indicates the lack of any significant respect
that the cold fusion field currently has among the scientific community. I
would have been interested in the response of such skeptics following many of
the papers presented at the conference; but alas, it was not to be. At the
conference, little in the way of substantive technical criticism of the best
heavy water calorimetry results was offered by any of the participants. If
there exist skeptics who are familiar with the Pons and Fleischmann
calorimetry or the SRI work and believe that they know what might be
technically in error, your technical input would be greatly appreciated.
 
 
                              CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
 
    Was the conference sufficiently strong technically to turn the tide, to
settle the seemingly endless controversy as to whether there is or is not any
new anomalous effect? I thought that it was. I regard the technical issue of
whether there is a reproducible anomalous excess power effect in heavy water
Pons-Fleischmann experiments to have been settled at this point; I think that
there is clearly an effect.
 
    For such a significant conference, it has been largely ignored by the
scientific community. Wrongly so, I think. The majority of scientists are
currently ill-informed of the experiments, the implications, the arguments, or
the goals of ongoing research in the field. At some point this needs to
change, but I confess that I do not see how it might happen in the foreseeable
future.
 
    The name "cold fusion" has been adopted by the field to some degree by
default. This name implies a generic physical reaction mechanism (fusion), and
because the experiments involve deuterium, the name further presupposes
specific reactions (*dd*-fusion reactions). But *dd*-fusion is expected to
produce neutrons and tritons, neither of which are quantitatively present with
the excess heat. Scientists who are not in the field are discouraged because
the expected fusion products are not present in quantities commensurate with
the observed energy production, and scientists working in the field have not
come up with an explanation in three and a half years as to why deuterons
should fuse that is acceptable to the scientific community.
 
    There have been proposals to change the name of the field: "solid state
nuclear physics" has been suggested; "nuclear effects in metals" has also been
put forth. I would strongly endorse a name change.
 
    A reviewer of this manuscript has pointed out that even these names
presuppose a nuclear component to the effect, which in the reviewer's eyes
remains to be demonstrated, and has recommended "hydrogen energy" or "hydrogen
in metals", with the understanding that "hydrogen" is to include the isotopes.
 
    The field continues to receive considerable bad press, which at this
point is not warranted. For example, I have recently obtained a copy of a
review of the Nagoya conference by D. O. Morrison, which has received very
wide distribution; it is unfortunate that the only updates about the field
received by most of the physics community is through such a biased channel.
This simply must change. I am open to suggestions as to how this situation
could best be changed.
 
    There are precious few sources of potential funding in this area,
especially in the US. I am convinced that DOE should be funding a significant
effort in the US, the goal of which should be to find out what is going on, so
that an informed and rational judgement can be made about any potential of the
effect to meet US and world energy requirements. One basic claim that has been
made is that excess energy at a level which must be nuclear (but is certainly
not conventional *dd*-fusion) is observed in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment
and variants; this is something that the DOE should be interested in.
 
    So what is it that should be done? The list is very long, but I will
attempt to enumerate some of what I think are a few relevant goals:
 
1.  Verification of a heat effect: I am convinced that the Pons-Fleischmann
    cells can produce excess energy of a nuclear origin based on the amount
    of energy per atom evolved. The scientific community does not accept
    this. This issue really needs to be put to rest, and the associated
    controversy ended.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann have been publishing further details of their own
    work in refereed journals and in readily available conference
    proceedings, and more papers are currently in the pipeline. Details of
    the work of many other groups is also readily available.
 
    Considerably more is known about the Pons-Fleischmann cells than in 1989,
    and the reproducibility of the effect has been improved considerably. SRI
    has produced documentation of criterion which, if met, carries the
    guarantee that similar experiments at SRI have produced heat reproducibly
    with a very high success rate. Palladium cathodes from sources other than
    Matthey-Johnson have now shown the effect.
 
    Significant deficiencies have been identified in the principal negative
    experiments which were done in 1989; the main criticisms of these
    experiments was that a high loading was not achieved and held. For
    example, the method developed at SRI requires very high loading (D/Pd
    ratio near 0.90) to be maintained for about a week. Since positive
    results have been obtained at lower loadings, this constraint is likely
    not to be absolute; nevertheless, many in the field believe that quite
    high loadings do improve the reproducibility of the effect.
    I do not know how this controversy is to be ended, but I know that it
    does need to be ended in a satisfactory manner. The basic experiments
    have been done, they have been repeated in many different ways by
    numerous groups, and the effect is observed with considerably better
    signal to noise ratio than in 1989.
 
    Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy
    skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate
    closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has
    been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that
    positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the
    reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough.
    I have heard some skeptics saying that a commercial product is the next
    hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be
    justified. This is simply not right.
 
2.  Basic reaction mechanisms for heat production: To date the claims of the
    observation of heat anomalies in metal deuterides have not been
    accompanied by any clear positive evidence for reaction mechanisms.
    Anomalous heat generation would have to have a fuel, and would have to
    have ashes; the confirmed identification of either fuel or ashes would
    help tremendously towards a determination of a reaction mechanism.
 
    I think that progress in this field is hindered by the absence of even a
    rudimentary understanding of the basic reaction mechanisms involved
    (there are of course theories, but to date there is no positive
    experimental confirmation of any proposed theory). At some point, the
    principal experimentalists in the field simply must take this issue
    seriously. Having an understanding of what the reaction mechanisms are
    would provide numerous benefits: (1) guidance as to what experimental
    parameters are expected to be important for optimizing reaction rates;
    (2) improvement of the general quality of the science being done in the
    field, especially as perceived by those not in the field; (3) allows
    those working in the field to focus more clearly on the issues that are
    most important. From the point of view of funders or potential funders, a
    knowledge of how the effect works allows the possibility of assessing
    more accurately potential future applications.
 
    The determination of fuel and ashes requires high sustained
    volume-averaged heat production. In the case of {4}He production, an assay
    of the gas stream is required; in the case of assays for other elements
    and isotopes, careful mass spectroscopy (and the presence of a small
    electrolyte volume) will likely prove to be most important.
 
3.  Verification and reaction mechanisms for other anomalies: Quite a few
    anomalies have by now been associated with deuterium in metals
    experiments, including observations of neutrons, gammas, fast ions,
    tritium, and helium production.
 
    None of these effects are currently accepted by the scientific community;
    as in the case of the heat effect, some way is needed to arrange for a
    consensus as to which of the effects are real. It would seem to me that
    the most dramatic claims come from the glow discharge experiments; most
    significant would be if these experiments could be further reproduced and
    verified.
 
    I think that experiments which produce energetic (MeV-level) nuclear
    products provide essential information relevant to the issue of reaction
    mechanisms. For example, a confirmation of significant isotope shifts and
    strong gamma emission from heavy elements would place very strong
    constraints on proposed reaction mechanisms. A detailed study of
    precisely which gamma lines are produced would likely shed light on how
    the gamma lines are excited, which provides further input on reaction
    mechanisms.
 
 
                              References
 
1.  M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Excess enthalpy generation in the region of
    the boiling point in Pd-type cathodes polarized in D[2]O," paper 24-
    PII-14.
 
2.  M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D[2]O system: from
    simplicity via complications to simplicity," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
3.  M. C. H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A. M. Riley, R. C. Rocha-Filho, S. I.
    Smedley and F. L. Tanzella, "Excess power production in D[2]O electrolysis
    cells: A comparison of results from differing cell designs," paper 22-
    PII-25.
 
4.  M. C. H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A. M. Riley, R. C. Rocha-Filho, S. I.
    Smedley and F. L. Tanzella, "Excess power observations in the
    electrochemical studies of the D/Pd system; the influence of loading,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
5.  K. Kunimatsu, "Deuterium loading ratio and excess heat generation during
    electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium cathode in a closed cell using
    a partially immersed fuel cell anode," paper 22-PII-27.
 
6.  K. Kunimatsu, N. Hasegawa, A. Kubota, N. Imai, M. Ishikawa, H. Akita and
    Y. Tsuchida, "Deuterium loading ratio and excess heat generation during
    electrolysis of heavy water by a palladium cathode in a closed cell using
    a partially immersed fuel cell anode," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
7.  N. Hasegawa, K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, T. Terasawa, "Observation of excess
    heat during electrolysis of 1 M LiOD in a fuel cell type closed cell,"
    paper 24-PII-19.
 
8.  N. Hasegawa, K. Kunimatsu, T. Ohi, T. Terasawa, "Observation of excess
    heat during electrolysis of 1 M LiOD in a fuel cell type closed cell,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
9.  A. Kubota, H. Akita, Y. Tsuchida, T. Saito, A. Kubota, N. Hasegawa, N.
    Imai, N. Hayakawa and K. Kunimatsu, "Hydrogen and deuterium absorption by
    Pd cathode in a fuel-cell type closed cell," paper 22-PII-8.
 
10. T. Nakata, Y. Tsuchida, K. Kunimatsu, "Absorption of hydrogen into Pd
    foil electrode: effect of Thiourea," paper 22-PII-9.
 
11. L. Bertalot, F. DeMarco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V.
    Violante, P. Zeppa, "Study of the deuterium charging in palladium by the
    electrolysis of heavy water: search for heat excess and nuclear ashes,"
    paper 24-PII-21.
 
12. L. Bertalot, F. DeMarco, A. De Ninno, A. La Barbera, F. Scaramuzzi, V.
    Violante, P. Zeppa, "Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the
    electrolysis of heavy water: search for heat excess and nuclear ashes,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
13. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Experimentally
    defined ratio of nuclear reaction products flows intensity at glow
    discharge in deuterium," paper 22-PII-23.
 
14. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Gamma spectroscopy at
    glow discharge in deuterium,"  paper 24-PI-15.
 
15. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Heavy charged
    particles registration at glow discharge in deuterium," paper 24-PII-7.
 
16. A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear product ratio
    for glow discharge in deuterium,"  *Phys. Lett. A* 170 265 (1992).
 
17. L. Heqing, X. Renshou, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, G. Jimbang, C. Bairong,
    "The anomalous effects induced by the dynamic low pressure gas discharge
    in a deuterium/palladium system," paper 24-PI-3.
 
18. L. Heqing, X. Renshou, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, G. Jimbang, C. Bairong,
    "The anomalous effects induced by the dynamic low pressure gas discharge
    in a deuterium/palladium system,"  preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
19. L. Heqing, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, X. Renshou, Z. Xinwei, "Anomalous
    effects in deuterium/metal systems," paper 24-PII-6.
 
20. L. Heqing, S. Sihai, L. Hongquan, X. Renshou, Z. Xinwei, "Anomalous
    effects in deuterium/metal systems," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
21. N. Wada and K. Nishizawa, "Nuclear fusion in solid," *Jap. J. Appl.
    Phys.* 28 L2017 (1989).
 
22. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Direct evidences of nuclear fusion
    reactions in deuterated palladium," paper 24-PI-3.
 
23. E. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Direct evidences of nuclear fusion
    reactions in deuterated palladium," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
24. M. H. Miles and B. F. Bush, "Search for anomalous effects involving
    excess power, helium, and tritium during D[2]O electrolysis using
    palladium cathodes," paper 24-PI-4.
 
 
25. J. O'M. Bockris, C. Chien, and Z. Minevski, "Tritium and helium
    production in palladium electrodes and the fugacity of deuterium
    therein," paper 24-PI-11
 
    See also: C. Chien, D. Hodko, Z. Minevski and J. O'M. Bockris, "On an
    electrode producing massive quantities of tritium and helium," *J. of
    Electroanalytical Chemistry*, Vol 338, p. 189 (1992)
 
26. S. Isagawa, Y. Kanda and T. Suzuki, "Search for excess heat, neutron
    emission and tritium yield from electrochemically charged palladium in
    D[2]O," paper 24-PII-31.
 
27. S. Isagawa, Y. Kanda and T. Suzuki, "Search for excess heat, neutron
    emission and tritium yield from electrochemically charged palladium in
    D[2]O," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
28. C. M. Wan, C. J. Linn, C. Y. Liang, S. K. Chen, C. C. Wan and T. P.
    Perng, "Repeated heat bursts in the electrolysis of D[2]O," paper 24-
    PII-18.
 
29. C. M. Wan, S. K. Chen, L. J. Yuan, C. C. Wan and C. Y. Liang,
    "Simultaneous and reproducible detection of neutrons and excess heat in
    cold fusion experiments," preprint, Sept. 1992, from the materials
    Science Center, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
 
30. L. J. Yuan, C. M. Wan, C. Y. Liang, and S. K. Chen,  "Neutron monitoring
    on cold fusion experiments," paper 24-PI-34.
 
31. A. Takahashi, A. Mega, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and T. Iida, "Anomalous
    excess heat by D[2]O/Pd cell under L-H mode electrolysis," paper 24-
    PII-12.
 
32. A. Takahashi, A. Mega, T. Takeuchi, H. Miyamaru, and T. Iida, "Anomalous
    excess heat by D[2]O/Pd cell under L-H mode electrolysis," preprint of the
    ICCF3 proceedings.
 
33. E. Mallove, presented during the Panel discussion on the Takahashi
    method.
 
34. E. Storms, "Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann type
    electrolytic cell using palladium sheet," paper 22-PII-26. This paper was
    presented by T. Claytor, as Storms was unable to attend.
 
35. F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi and A. Nuvoli, "Measurements of excess
    heat and tritium during self-biased pulsed electrolysis of Pd-D[2]O,"
    paper 24-PII-13.
 
36. F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi and A. Nuvoli, "Measurements of excess
    heat and tritium during self-biased pulsed electrolysis of Pd-D[2]O,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
37. N. Oyama, T. Terashima, S. Kasahara, O. Hatozaki, T. Ohsaka and T.
    Tatsuma, "Electrochemical calorimetry of D[2]O electrolysis using a
    palladium cathode in a clodes cell system," paper 22-pII-29.
 
38. T. N. Claytor, D. G. Tuggle and H. O. Menlove, "Evolution of tritium from
    palladium in the solid state gas cell," paper 24-PI-10.
 
39. V. A. Romodanov, V. I. Savin, and Yu. M. Timofeev, "Reactions of nuclear
    fusion in condensed media," paper 22-PI-2.
 
40. V. A. Romodanov, V. I. Savin, and Yu. M. Timofeev, "Nuclear fusion in
    condensed matter," preprint UDC: 539.172.13.
 
41. R. Notoya and M. Enyo, "Excess heat production in Electrolysis in
    K[2]CO[3] solution with Ni electrodes,"paper 24-PII-35.
 
42. R. L. Mills and S. P. Kneizys, "Excess heat production by the
    electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the
    implications for cold fusion," *Fusion Tech.* 20 65, (1991).
 
43. V. Noninski, "Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water
    solution of K[2]CO[3] with a nickel cathode," *Fusion Tech.* 21 163,
    (1992).
 
44. M. Srinivasan, A. Shyam, T. K. Shankarnarayanan, M. B. Bajpai, H.
    Ramamurthy, U. K. Mukherjee, M. S. Krishnan, M. G. Nayar, and Y. Naik,
    "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous
    solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," paper 22-PII-28.
 
45. M. Srinivasan, A. Shyam, T. K. Shankarnarayanan, M. B. Bajpai, H.
    Ramamurthy, U. K. Mukherjee, M. S. Krishnan, M. G. Nayar, and Y. Naik,
    "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of aqueous
    solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
46. R. T. Bush and R. D. Eagleton, "Calorimetric studies of an electrolytic
    excess heat effect employing light water-based electrolytes of some
    alkali salts," paper 24-PII-32.
 
47. T. Ohmori and M. Enyo, "Excess heat produced during the electrolysis on
    Ni, Au, Ag and Sn electrodes in alkaline media," paper 24-PII-36.
 
48. S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, *Il Nuovo Cimento*, 105A 763 (1992).
 
49. D. R. Coupland, M. L. Doyle, J. W. Jenkins, J. H. F. Notton, R. J. Potter
    and D. T. Thompson, "Some observations related to the presence of
    hydrogen and deuterium in palladium," paper 22-PII-2.
 
50. D. R. Coupland, M. L. Doyle, J. W. Jenkins, J. H. F. Notton, R. J. Potter
    and D. T. Thompson, "Some observations related to the presence of
    hydrogen and deuterium in palladium," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
50. D. Gozzi, P.L. Cignini, R. Caputo, M. Tomellini, E. Cisbani, S. Frullani,
    F. Garabaldi, M. Jodice, and G. M. Urcioli, "Experiment with global
    detection of the cold fusion products," paper 24-PI-7.
 
51. M. Nakada, T. Kusunoki, Y. Fujii, M. Okamoto and O. Odawara, "A role for
    lithium for the neutron emission in heavy water electrolysis," paper 22-
    PII-15.
 
52. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measure of protons and observations of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic  electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," paper 24-PI-37.
 
53. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measure of protons and observations of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
54. M. Corradi, F. Ferrarotto, M. Giannini, V. Milone, B. Stella, L.
    Storelli, F. Celani, and A. Spallone, "Evidence for stimulated emission
    of neutrons from deuterated palladium," paper 24-PI-17.
 
55. Y. Fukai, "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system," paper 22-PII-3.
 
56. Y. Fukai, "The ABC's of the hydrogen-metal system," preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
57. K. Watanabe, Y. Fukai, N. Niimura and O. Konno, "A search for fracture-
    induced nuclear fusion in some deuterium-loaded materials," 24-PII-8.
 
58. E. Choi, E. Eriji, and H. Ohsumi, "Limit on fast neutrons from dd fusion
    in deuterized Pd by means of Ge detectors," paper 24-PI-30.
 
59. S. Miyamoto, K. Sueki, H. Iwai, M. Fujii, T. Shirakawa, H. Miura, T.
    Watanabe, H. Toriumi, T. Uehara, Y. Nakamitsu, M. Chiba, T. Hirose, and
    H. Nakahara, "Measurement of protons and observation of the change of
    electrolysis parameters in the galvanostatic electrolysis of the 0.1M-
    LiOD/D[2]O solution," paper 24-PI-37.
 
60. D. Morrison, "Review of cold fusion experiments," paper 24-PI-9.
 
61. D. R. O. Morrison, "The third international cold fusion conference,"
    *Cold Fusion Update* 7 on the computer network, Nov. 1 - Dec. 6, 1992.
 
62. J. Huizenga, "Cold fusion claims," post deadline paper.
 
63. G. Preparata, "Theory of cold fusion in deuterated palladium," paper 22-
    PI-1.
 
64. S. Chubb and T. Chubb, "Ion band state fusion," paper 22-PI-20.
 
65. S. Chubb and T. Chubb, "Ion band state fusion,"  preprint of the ICCF3
    proceedings.
 
66. T. Matsumoto, "Review for Nattoh model and experimental findings during
    cold fusion," paper 22-PI-8.
 
67. A. Takahasi, "Nuclear products by D[2]O/Pd electrolysis and multibody
    fusion," Proc. Int. Symp. Nonlinear Phenomena in Electromagnetic Fields,
    Nagoya (1992).
 
68. K. Tsuchiya, K. Ohashi and M. Fukuchi, "Mechanism of cold nuclear fusion
    in palladium," paper 22-PI-13.
 
69. N. Matsunami, "A mechanism for cold nuclear fusion: barrier reduction by
    screening under transient coherent flow of deuterium," paper 22-PI-15.
 
70. Q. Q. Gou, Z. H. Zhu, and Q. F. Zhang, "The possible theoretical model
    and it's experimental evidences of cold fusion," paper 22-PI-32.
 
71. V. I. Vysotskii, "Nonthreshold cold fusion as a result of nonequilibrium
    deuterium Fermi-condensate in microholes of crystal," paper 22-PI-28.
 
72. K. Yasui, "Fractofusion Mechanism," paper 22-PI-30.
 
73. N. Yabuuchi, "Quantum mechanics on cold fusion," paper 22-PI-26.
 
74. G. V. Fedorovich, "Nuclear fusion in the E-cell," paper 22-PI-29.
 
75. A. Tenenbaum and E. Tabet, "Temporal sequence of nuclear signals in a dry
    cold fusion experiment," paper 22-PI-23.
 
76. K. Fukushima, "A new mechanism for cold fusion -- sono-fusion," paper 22-
    PI-16.
 
77. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "Condensed matter
    effects for cold and hot fusion," paper 22-PI-25.
 
78. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "High density fusion
    and the solar neutrino problem," paper 22-PI-31.
 
79. Y. E. Kim, M. Rabinowitz, R. A. Rice and J. H. Yoon, "Condensed matter
    effects for cold and hot fusion,"  preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
80. X. Li, D. Jin, L. Chang, X. Zhang and W. Zhang, "Combined resonance
    tunneling in low energy D-D nuclear reaction," paper 22-PI-17.
 
81. L. Fonda and G. L. Shaw, "Anti-diquark catalysis of cold fusion," paper
    22-PI-18.
 
82. V. A. Chechin and V. A. Tsarev, "On non-stationary quantum mechanical
    origin of cold nuclear fusion," paper 22-PI-7.
 
83. V. A. Tsarev and D. H. Worledge, "Cold fusion studies in the USSR,"
    *Fusion Tech.* 22, 138 (1992).
 
84. J. Yang, "Abnormal Nuclear Phenomena and Weak Interaction Processes,"
    paper 22-PI-9.
 
85. J. Yang, "Dineutron model of the cold fusion," paper 22-PI-10.
 
86. T. Tani and Y. Kobayashi, "Tunnel disintegration and neutron emission
    probability," paper 22-PI-5.
 
87. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherent and semi-coherent neutron reactions," paper
    22-PI-4.
 
88. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherence effects: theoretical considerations," paper
    22-PI-3.
 
89. P. L. Hagelstein, "Coherent and semi-coherent neutron reactions,"
    preprint of the ICCF3 proceedings.
 
90. S. Jones, "Update on BYU research," paper 24-PI-1.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  food for thought
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: food for thought
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 23:23:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
 
                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts
 
 
                =============================
 
 
                   Posted by: Jed Rothwell & Mitchell Swartz
                     with permission from Prof. Hagelstein.
 
  Two Notes and Comments regarding the SUMMARY:
 
  "Prof. Hagelstein sent me this document in "Latex" format.
   I converted it to Word Perfect, and then to 80 column ASCII,
   with the following conventions:
 
  -  Superscripts, including footnote numbers, are shown between curly
    brackets: {4}He
  -  Subscripts are shown between square brackets: D[2]O
  -  Italics are marked by asterisks: *ab initio*
  -  Greek letters and symbols are spelled out: sigma, mu, Deg."
          Jed Rothwell [Cold Fusion Research Advocates (404) 451-9890]
 
 
     "Last month on January 16, at the MIT IAP all-day seminar on cold
  fusion Prof. Hagelstein gave a fantastic detailed presentation on this
  subject which left the participants in the auditorium in rapt attention.
  He has graciously allowed his full work and insight of the
  Third International Conference to be uploaded herefollowing to Internet.
 
    "Incidentally, at that IAP meeting, I took a survey near the end, and
  of the nearly 80+ people questioned (8 hours after starting), about 3 in
  every 4 attendees read, or had otherwise received info form, the postings
  on sci.physics.fusion.  I submit that the proportion was a surprising
  barometer for this field, and the influence of, and interest in, the net."
 
    "Thanks are in order especially to Peter Hagelstein for this paper, but
  also to Jed Rothwell (and daughter Naomi) for working it into a
  format consistent with facile presentation on, and to, this net."
 
    "This posting is made at the request of those who could not download
  the 125 kilobyte file.  That file has been divided into two portions
         - PART I (below), and PART II (which will follow)."
                     Mitchell Swartz [JET Technology (617) 239-8383]
 
 
==================  PART I (of II) ========================================
 
        SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                ON COLD FUSION (ICCF3) IN NAGOYA
 
 
                         Peter L. Hagelstein
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
 
                         ABSTRACT
 
    We review highlights of the international cold fusion conference that was
held recently in Nagoya, Japan. Excess heat results in heavy water
electrolysis experiments constitute the observations with the most important
potential applications. Experiments in gas phase systems exhibit fast particle
and gamma emission that make progress toward elucidating mechanisms. The
evidence in support of a light water heat effect has improved.
 
 
                              INTRODUCTION
 
    The Third International Cold Fusion Conference took place in Nagoya,
Japan between October 21 and October 25, 1992. Over 300 attendees
participated, listening to about 27 oral presentations and looking over
roughly 80 poster papers. Many people have asked me about the conference, and
rather than repeating the same things over and over again, I thought that it
would be useful to put my thoughts down on paper as a more efficient method of
communication.
 
    Given the near complete absence of cold fusion sessions in more
traditional physics and chemistry meetings, the international conferences
represent about the only chance for people in the cold fusion field to get
together and learn about what has happened lately. The international
conferences, starting with the Salt Lake City conference in 1990, followed by
Como, Italy in 1991, and now Nagoya, Japan in 1992, have been and continue to
be the most important sources of reliable and relevant information in the
field; an important meeting was also held at BYU in 1990 which focused on
nuclear products. The field is advancing pretty rapidly these days, and since
publications tend to lag with more than a year's delay, the conferences and
conference proceedings play a key role in the field. The next international
conference was originally scheduled to take place in Hawaii in November, 1993;
I understand that it may be delayed until December.
 
    The results presented at this conference were overall technically much
stronger than last year's conference, and benefitted by a very strong showing
from the Japanese contingent. I will first itemize what I thought were some of
the most interesting new experimental results presented at the conference.
 
    I admit to having numerous biases. One bias is that I believe the
observations of excess power are ultimately the most important, both
scientifically and technologically. Another bias is that I favor results which
in my view help to elucidate reaction mechanisms.
 
    Following the discussion of significant positive results, I review
abstracts and presentations of negative results. Coming from the theory end of
the field, I felt that it was appropriate for me to survey the theory papers
which were presented (in the following section); in this case, it was possible
to include a larger fraction of the papers submitted. Having my own theory as
to the origin of the effect, I warn the reader that my discussion of theory
necessarily carries a bias in favor of my world view; it is my hope that this
discussion will be useful in spite of this bias. Almost as interesting in some
cases as what was presented, was what was not presented; a discussion of work
that was absent is presented before the summary and conclusions.
 
    For a review as long as this one, there are many issues and many details,
most of which I have made a serious attempt to get right. I would hope that I
will not make enemies of those whose work I did not include (which at this
point will include about half of all papers submitted). This review was
constructed from preprints, notes, memory, and discussions with many people in
the field -- should the reader note errors or misconceptions, I would
appreciate corrections.
 
 
                              SURVEY OF POSITIVE RESULTS
 
1.  S. Pons{1,2} described briefly recent results obtained at the
    Japanese-funded IMRA laboratory in Sophia Antipolis, France. During the
    Como meeting (July, 1991), Pons and Fleischmann had announced that they
    were able to obtain very high levels of excess power production (on the
    order of 1000 Watts/cm{3}) corresponding to a factor of 10 power gain, and
    that they had done so 11 times.
 
    Part of their research since then has focused on defining a procedure
    that would improve on the reproducibility of this very high power effect
    (at Como, they had announced that complete reproducibility had been
    attained on achieving consistent excess power at lower levels). At
    Nagoya, Pons reported that this had been accomplished; that very high
    levels of heat production (more than 1 kilowatt/cm{3}) were now obtained
    reproducibly accompanied by a factor of 4 power gain.
 
    The key to the new results included some advances that they outlined. One
    such improvement involves the observation that the excess power
    generation increases at higher temperatures. The cathode is charged at
    intermediate current densities at temperatures below 50 Deg. C for
    several days, and then the current is stepped up. Due to the relatively
    low thermal loss of the cell and calorimeter, the cell temperature rises,
    but the loading is maintained. This rise improves the excess power
    generation, which in turn drives the temperature higher; the positive
    feedback leads to very high excess power generation and vigorous boiling.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann perform their calorimetry using open cell systems,
    which have the advantage of being cheaper and more accessible, and allows
    them to do more experiments at a time. The particular method of
    calorimetry which they have developed was motivated in part by the
    existence of the positive feedback described above -- Pons and
    Fleischmann are able to achieve good calorimetric precision with
    time-varying electrolyte levels, cell temperatures and cell voltages.
    Most others have sought in their work to maintain either constant
    temperature or power, or else require the presence of steady-state
    conditions in their system to obtain accurate results. Very few groups
    have so far taken advantage of such sophisticated methods to obtain
    excess power values from their raw data; no other groups have yet
    reported the ability to obtain reproducibly the high power and boiling
    mode reported by Pons and Fleischmann.
 
    It was pointed out by Pons that the calorimetry could be checked during
    the very high excess power burst by measuring the time taken to boil away
    the electrolyte, and using a knowledge of the heat of vaporization to
    compute the total energy and hence power generation. He presented the
    results of this analysis for one cell, which he said was in agreement
    with the calorimetric results.
 
    Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D[2]O were boiled away
    during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average *iv*
    input power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as follows: The
    heat of vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol at 100 Deg. C, and
    2.5 moles of heavy water corresponds to 102.5 kJ; the energy lost during
    this time in the calorimeter (primarily radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input
    electrical *iv* energy during this time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy
    produced is the output energy (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy
    (22.5 kJ), or 86.7 kJ. The production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes
    corresponds to an excess power of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85.
 
    The volume of the cathode was given to be 0.0785 cm{3}, which was noted by
    many (this volume was in error, as will be commented on shortly). The
    average excess power claimed during the boiling episode was 144.5 Watts,
    which would correspond to 1841 W/cm{3}.
 
    The cathode geometry was given by Pons to be cylindrical, with a diameter
    of 2 mm and a length of 1.25 cm. I note that this geometry does not
    correspond to the volume quoted by Pons above -- a rod of these
    dimensions would have a volume of 0.03927 cm{3}, which is almost precisely
    a factor of 2 smaller than the volume given during Pons talk. Pons has
    confirmed that this smaller volume is correct (the correct value appears
    in their conference proceeding{2}). I will continue my discussion here
    using the corrected power per unit volume, which is 3682 W/cm{3}.
 
    The anomalous excess energy production in this experiment is
    considerable, as can be calculated. In 1 minute, 8.7 kJ of excess energy
    is produced. At a density of 12.02 g/cm{3} and an average mass of 106.42
    amu, pure Pd contains 6.8 X 10{22} atoms/cm{3}. The total number of atoms
    in the cathode is 2.7 X 10{21}, or 0.0044 moles. In 1 minute, the excess
    energy production is 1.96 MJ/mole, which corresponds to 20.3 eV/atom of
    Pd. This number is greater than can be accounted for by a chemical
    explanation for the effect. After 10 minutes, the cathode has produced
    203 eV/atom.
 
    In the absence of current flow, film-boiling limits the heat flow from
    the cathode at cathode temperatures higher than about 120 Deg. C; the
    maximum heat flux from the rod under these conditions is limited to I
    think somewhere near 125 Watts/cm{2}. The surface area of the cathode,
    including the top and bottom, is 0.85 cm{2}, which leads to an observed
    average heat flux of about 170 Watts/cm{2}. This number is comparable to,
    but greater than my version of the film-boiling limit given above, and
    was a potential cause for concern.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann have considered this effect, and have found
    experimentally that the presence of current flow delays the onset of
    film-boiling to higher temperatures and higher heat fluxes. In their
    conference proceeding, they claim{2} to have observed heat transfer rates
    during electrolysis in separate experiments which are between 1-10
    kW/cm{2}. I consider this result to be very important.
 
    The cathode gets very hot in these experiments. Pons and Fleischmann have
    observed the Kel-F supports at the base of the cathodes to melt, from
    which the presence of temperatures in excess of 300 Deg. C are inferred.
    A direct measurement of the cathode temperature is currently problematic;
    Pons is currently interested in practical proposals as to how to do this
    without impacting the electrochemistry.
 
    A common misunderstanding often occurs in the discussion of the results
    of Pons-Fleischmann experiments which is of interest here. It is
    sometimes argued that the energy production during a short event can be
    disregarded, since there may exist energy storage mechanisms which could
    have been collecting energy at a low level for a long period of time. For
    example, the total energy output from this experiment would not be very
    much larger than the total input energy if no heat excess had occurred
    prior to the boiling event (1 watt-day = 86.4 kJ). This type of argument
    seeks to make palatable the notion that since the total energy excess
    measured over days is small compared to the input (and hence there might
    exist a signal to noise problem in the measurement), the measurement can
    be dismissed. As discussed above, this type of argument completely misses
    a key implication of the experiment -- specifically, that there exists no
    known physical mechanism which could store the energy observed to be
    released during the boiling episode.
 
    It is true of this experiment as well as of others to be described below,
    that no products or "ashes" of the heat have been found and verified that
    are commensurate with the energy production. This will be discussed
    further below.
 
2.  M. McKubre{3,4} described experiments done at SRI during the past several
    years. They have developed closed cell flow calorimeters, which are
    ideally *first principle* calorimeters (which means that the heat flow
    out of the cell goes into the flowing water coolant, and the power
    generation is determined by measuring the mass flow rate and output to
    input flow temperature difference, with no calibration required). They
    have succeeded in reducing the conduction losses (which are not first
    principle contributions) down to the order of one per cent, and then they
    calibrate the Fick's law constant associated with the conduction losses.
    Overall, the SRI calorimeters achieve a relative accuracy in the
    calorimetric measurements which is on the order of a few tenths of a per
    cent.
 
    The SRI group reported the development of a procedure at Como that
    appeared to yield excess heat essentially every time, and this method is
    described in the Como conference proceedings. Highlights of these
    experiments were discussed. A significant advance that was pioneered by
    the SRI group was described: it consisted of the addition of aluminate or
    silicate to the electrolyte, which caused the formation of a colloidal
    surface layer that passed light ions (deuterium, lithium, boron,...) and
    shielded the surface from impurities; this procedure improves the ability
    of the Pd rod to maintain a high loading ratio.
 
    Two distinct modes of excess power generation were observed; one in which
    the excess power occurs at relatively low levels (1%-50%) and responds to
    changes in current density (they have observed 38 occurrences of this
    mode, lasting hours to many days), and one that is characterized by much
    higher relative power levels (up to 350% excess) and appears to be
    insensitive to changes in current (this mode has been observed 3 times,
    lasting many hours).
 
    For the first mode of heat generation, SRI finds that the excess power
    rises linearly with current above a threshold current density (which is
    on the order of 100-200 mA/cm{2}). A graph illustrating this appears in
    their conference proceeding.{4} This is in apparent contrast with the Pons
    and Fleischmann results, which showed a possible quadratic component to
    the increase above threshold current. Discussion during the meeting
    pointed to the fact that the SRI experiments are run at constant
    temperature, while the temperature of the Pons and Fleischmann cells
    increase when excess heat is produced.
 
    Mckubre presented a graph of excess power production as a function of
    fractional deuterium loading as determined from resistance ratio
    measurements. This dependence was found to increase roughly parabolically
    above a loading of 0.85 (*P[xs]*~(x-0.85){2}) up to loadings near 0.95,
    which is as high as had been achieved during their C1 experiment.
 
    The group has spent considerable effort chasing down and quantifying
    uncertainties in the SRI experiments, and are now able to assign
    meaningful error bars to essentially all quantities measured and inferred
    in their experiments. The result of this analysis yields rather high
    sigma numbers on the excess power measurements (in excess of 50 sigma on
    some of the best data analyzed so far).
 
    Their largest power numbers correspond to on the order of 15 W/cm{3}; it
    would take a small number of hours of running at this level to defeat a
    chemical storage explanation. Their highest excess total energy numbers
    have reached 200 MJ/mole of Pd, which corresponds roughly to 2 KeV per Pd
    atom; this level of excess energy production cannot be of chemical
    origin.
 
3.  K. Kunimatsu{5,6} of IMRA JAPAN Co. in Sapporo presented results on their
    heavy water electrolysis experiments. A number of things struck me as
    being interesting about this talk, aside from the fact that this is one
    of the first presentations of anything from this group at a conference at
    which I have managed to be. This effort appears to have a great deal of
    resources and some nontrivial technical expertise. They reported excess
    power measurements as a function of loading (where the loading was
    determined through measurements of the deuterium gas pressure in the
    cell), and arrived at essentially the same dependence of excess power on
    loading fraction as SRI, but with the cut-off shifted down by a few
    points relative to the SRI results (from a D/Pd ratio of 0.85 inferred
    from a resistance ratio measurement, down closer to 0.83 determined from
    measurements of the D[2] gas pressure{6}). The peak excess power occurs
    when the current density is greater than 100 mA/cm{2}, and the peak excess
    power which appears on the graph in Ref. 6 is about 35%.
 
    The IMRA experiments differed qualitatively from the SRI and
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments in that they were run in fuel-cell mode.
    Conventional Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments are run such that
    D[2] gas is generated at the cathode and O[2] gas is generated at the
    anode. IMRA has developed a pressurized cell in which deuterium reactions
    occur at the anode. Cells operating in fuel-cell mode have been developed
    in the past, however, this is the first time that I am aware that a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell has generated excess power sufficiently reliably
    while operating in such a mode to produce relatively high quality excess
    power data of the sort presented.
 
    This group seems to have good people, good funding, and much expertise.
    They presented several poster papers on studies of excess power
    generation, and the absorption of hydrogen and deuterium in palladium
    cathodes{7-10} I think that we will be hearing much more from them in the
    future.
 
    I note that a positive correlation between loading and excess heat
    production in a Pd/D modified Pons-Fleischmann experiment was reported by
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno in a poster paper.{11,12}
 
4.  Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
    described experiments that I thought were very important.
 
    The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
    metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
    400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current). Apparently this group has had
    considerable experience with glow discharges and is aware of several
    tricks that help to preserve the surface of the cathode which helps to
    attain very high loading (a D/Pd ratio of more than 1).
 
    Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
    considered. Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
    cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
    distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
    temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
    gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
    cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission). Excess power
    production at the level of tens of watts is observed; their best result
    out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing a power gain of a
    factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume, the resulting power
    generation rate is quite high; the highest values are on the order of
    3000 watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy production observed to
    date exceeds 20 kJ.
 
    After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
    emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec in
    some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier work
    was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
    type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
    appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance
    of 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of
    30 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
    discharge.
 
    After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up to
    10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). The gamma emission was studied
    using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
    recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
    detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
    at 511 keV. An example of an anomalous gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in
    a recent publication{16}.
 
    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma spectrum
    returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the identified
    lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines originating
    from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where *Z*=46 for
    Pd, were observed).
 
    A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is emitted
    from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used for
    detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in some
    experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched off
    which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
    fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
    inside the discharge chamber.
 
    A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks were
    observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12 MeV
    and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as determined
    through measurements with different barrier thicknesses.
 
5.  There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two electrodes
    inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure (4-13 torr).
    A thin (1 micron) metallic layer of the electrode material (for example,
    Pd) was deposited on the interior of the glass bulb. The glow discharge
    current was less than 100 mA; an anomalous current was observed with an
    average value of 1 A, and excursions up to 10 A. A D/Pd ratio of 0.5-0.8
    was claimed to have been obtained.
 
    Substantial neutron emission (13-330 neutrons/sec) was observed, and the
    energy spectrum was resolved with a recoil proton fast neutron
    scintillation spectrometer. The resulting neutron spectrum contained both
    2.0-2.5 MeV neutrons, and broad emission between 2.5-7.0 MeV; most of the
    emission occurred above 2.5 MeV.
 
    Neutron emission was also recorded from metals chosen at random, and the
    signal strength varied with metal according to the order Pt, Nb, W, Pd,
    Ag, Cu, Mo and Fe. The fluence observed from the D/Pt system was 1.2 X
    10{4} neutrons/sec.
 
    The energy spectrum of the neutron emission for these metals was also
    observed. In the case of the D/Pt emission shows broad emission up to
    about 8 MeV, decreasing generally with increasing neutron energy, and
    with a number of possible peaks appearing.
 
    Intense gamma spectra were also observed with a NaI scintillation counter
    during the experiments; the gamma ray yield was about ten times that of
    the neutron yield. The gamma spectrum of D/Nb showed lines at tens of
    KeV, 3.4 MeV and 5.8 MeV, and some unresolved emission below 7 MeV.
 
    These experiments seem to me to be similar to the experiment described in
    1989 by Wada.{21} Another experiment of this sort was reported by Tazima,
    Isii and Ikegami, and also by Jin, Zhang, Yao and Wu, at the Como
    conference.
 
6.  E. Yamaguchi of NTT presented a paper{22,23} on {4}He production from a PdD
    foil that is sandwiched by gold and MnO[x]. I think of the NTT research
    labs as being the ATT Bell Labs of Japan, which has an excellent
    technical reputation. This paper attracted considerable interest in the
    Japanese media, and there were reports that the price of the NTT stock
    climbed as a result. The NTT stock climbed a bit more than 10%; Morrison
    pointed out in his review that the stock went back down to its
    pre-announcement value within a few days.
 
    In the experiments that he reported, a current of 0.5-0.8 A/cm{2} is
    applied perpendicularly to the sandwich. The foil produces heat at a
    level of 0.5-5 Watts for about 1000 seconds (this is the case whether the
    foil is PdD or PdH), and then explosively outgasses. At the peak of the
    outgassing, the samples undergo substantial plastic deformation which
    lasts for about 10 seconds. During his presentation, it was not obvious
    whether the temperature rise observed was being claimed as anomalous or
    not. If the foil is deuterated, these phenomena are accompanied by {4}He
    emission.
 
    Yamaguchi previously reported at the BYU conference very high levels of
    neutron emission from this system at a 10{6} neutrons/second. The
    experiments described at Nagoya included only helium, heat, and fast
    charged particle detection.
 
    The {4}He emission is monitored using an expensive high resolution mass
    spectrometer that is capable of distinguishing between {4}He and D[2]
    signals, as was demonstrated. A minor peak in the data appears near the
    expected HT mass position, and Yamaguchi claimed that this signal
    indicated the presence of HT (Claytor notes in his trip report that the
    HT signal, if real, would imply a "radiological hazard (> 10 Ci)."). The
    H[2]D trimer is more massive than D[2] and does not interfere with the
    {4}He measurement.
 
    Yamaguchi sees {4}He in his mass spectrometer when he uses PdD, and he
    sees no {4}He when he uses PdH. Yamaguchi stated that the amount of {4}He
    was "consistent with the heat," but if he gave figures for the amount of
    {4}He produced, I missed them. Given that heat occurs for PdH runs as well
    as for PdD runs, it is not clear what the statement means. Hopefully this
    issue will be clarified at a later date.
 
    When asked whether the {4}He is due to contamination, Yamaguchi argued
    that it is not in the D[2] gas used, it is not in the metal, and the
    vacuum system being used is a high quality system of the type used in
    semiconductor research that will hold a 10{-6} torr vacuum for a month
    without pumping.
 
    Yamaguchi also sees 3 MeV protons and fast alphas at 4.5-6 MeV using two
    identical systems based on silicon detectors (Canberra
    Si-SSD:PD-450-19-700-AM; active area=4.5 cm{2}, active thickness = 700
    mu). Protons were observed at 3 MeV, and were attributed to the *p+t*
    branch of the *dd*-fusion process. Significant emission was observed
    between 4.5-6.0 MeV; by comparing signals with and without an intervening
    7 mu foil, these signals were identified as being due to either alphas or
    {3}He nuclei. The total number of fast particles detected was a few
    hundred per experiment.
 
    The experiment which Yamaguchi and Nishioka have constructed looks very
    impressive; I got the impression that the helium measurement capability
    was relatively new. I think that the {4}He signals are real, but I am less
    convinced yet that it has been made through an anomalous effect. The
    strongest argument in support of it being genuine is the rather strong
    time-correlation of the {4}He signal with the temperature excursion of the
    foil.
 
    The NTT group has been active for years, and by now I think that the
    basic anomalies which they observe are likely to be right. The new result
    presented at Nagoya is the helium measurement, which I will be more
    comfortable with after Yamaguchi and Nishioka have had more experience
    exploring. I look forward to more results from this group.
 
    I note that the first significant claim for substantial {4}He production
    in Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments were made at Como by Miles
    and coworkers at China Lake. Previous negative results had been obtained
    in searches for helium in the cathode; Miles and coworkers claimed the
    observation of {4}He in the gas stream. Miles presented a paper at
    Nagoya{24} which gave an update of the group's recent efforts, which have
    been hindered by an inability to obtain significant excess heat.
 
    Bockris reported at Nagoya{25} observations of {4}He above background (by
    factors of 2-100) that accompanied tritium production (described below);
    the helium was analyzed by thermal expulsion and mass spectroscopy.
 
7.  S. Isagawa et al from the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy
    Physics (the KEK collaboration) reported their results on experiments
    involving searches for heat, tritium and neutrons in Pons-Fleischmann
    cells.{26,27} I was impressed that the KEK was working at all in this area,
    and even though they have apparently had an effort at some level since
    1989, it appeared to me from their presentation that they have more or
    less just gotten started.
 
    Most of their results to date are negative, and it appears that they are
    confident that they are going to get the expected (that is, null)
    results. Of the possible excess heat events that they have observed so
    far, they have been able to rule out all but one as being due to known
    (non-anomalous) causes. Neutron emission is mostly not observed, but they
    have one event at 3.5 sigma of excess neutron emission (23 q 7
    neutrons/sec) recorded over nine hours from one PdD cell after 20 hours
    of electrolysis.
 
    Although their results to date have little impact on the field, should
    they continue, their contributions could be and should be substantial in
    time. One thing that this group would be able to do which few other
    groups in the field are as well suited to do to bring on board the
    physics community. Positive results obtained at the KEK would stir
    interest in other physics laboratories as almost no other result. The
    physicists have written off Pons and Fleischmann, so they are free to
    ignore the claim of kilowatt/cm{3} reported at the conference; but if the
    KEK gets 10% heat power at 10 Watts/cm{3}, I would bet that every physics
    lab on the planet will likely be pulling out their electrochemistry sets
    again.
 
8.  T. P. Perng of National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan described
    observations of excess power from molten salt electrolysis experiments as
    part of a paper on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann experiments.{28} Although
    I did not recall seeing it, and I have no notes of it, numerous friends
    at the conference mentioned it to me (including Liaw). I also received a
    preprint of this work.
 
    Liaw and coworkers at the U. of Hawaii described at the last two
    international cold fusion conferences experiments using molten salt
    electrolysis with Pd and Ti anodes in a LiCl-KCl eutectic saturated with
    LiD. At Como, the group reported the observation of excess power at a
    level of about 10 times the input electrochemical power in Pd (up to a
    30% increase over electrochemical plus heater power), with an energy gain
    reported as about 1 GJ/mole Pd or 6 MJ/mole D[2]. The Pd anode volume was
    0.040 cm{3}, so that the excess power per unit anode volume is about 250
    watts/cm{3}.
 
    This result was important because the power excess was so large relative
    to the electrochemical input power, and because the temperature excess
    was on the order of a hundred degrees centigrade, which would have the
    potential for efficient energy extraction.
 
    Little progress has so far been reported toward a reproduction of the
    Liaw experiment. Perng described results from an experiment performed to
    provide a confirmation of the Liaw experiment; the power excess claimed
    was on the order of 2-5 times the input power.
 
    The preprint{29} from C. M. Wan et al consists of an abstract and copies
    of 11 figures, from which I will attempt to give an account of the work.
    Following Liaw, the palladium electrode is used as an anode (instead of a
    cathode as is done in conventional Pons-Fleischmann experiments),
    immersed in a KCl-LiCl eutectic saturated with LiD. The anode dimensions
    are 6 mm diameter and 5 cm length. The molten salt sits in an aluminum
    container which serves as the cathode. The temperature is sensed using a
    thermocouple embedded in a quartz tube which is placed in the molten salt
    in the general vicinity of the Pd anode. A Ni-Cr alloy resistive wire
    heater (encased in quartz) is wrapped around the cell, within a ceramic
    fiber insulator. Nearby is a {3}He neutron detector with a 0.01% detection
    efficiency.
 
    From the figures and the abstract, it is clear that a time-dependent
    excess neutron signal appears following 200 hours of electrolysis, at
    twice background (background is 5.51 q 0.44 cpm) corresponding to 800
    neutrons/sec. This neutron signal is rather clearly correlated with the
    excess power production which is time-dependent and rises to about 10
    watts. Given the large anode volume, this level of excess power
    corresponds to about 7 watts/cm{3}. The associated temperature excursions
    are about 25 Deg. C, with one excursion up to 50 Deg. C.
 
    The abstract quotes power gains of 5 to 108 for the 6 mm Pd rod which is
    5 cm long, and power gains of 8 to 560 from a 4.5 mm diameter rod. These
    numbers are very high and represent excesses in comparison with
    electrochemical power rather than total input power; I think that the
    highest numbers correspond to modest excess powers observed at low input
    current level.
 
    There was an abstract from the National Tsing Hua University by Yuan et
    al that described a molten salt experiment;{30} I do not know whether this
    paper was presented. I suspect that this paper may not have been
    presented, and that Perng was reviewing results obtained by his
    colleagues.
 
9.  There were several papers on attempts at replicating the Takahashi
    experiment that captured the attention of the Japanese press earlier this
    year. A. Takahashi described earlier this year obtaining tremendous
    excess heat in a heavy water electrolysis experiment that ran at an
    average of 1.7 output power over input power for about two months.{31,32}
    The total excess enthalpy generated was claimed to be about 2250 MJ/mole
    Pd (more than 20 KeV per Pd atom), which is one of the highest claims to
    date from this type of experiment. Following Takahashi's announcement,
    many laboratories attempted a replication.
 
    Takahashi's experiment is similar in many ways to the classical
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments with some variations. A Pd foil from Tanaka
    Kikinziku Kyogo (Tanaka Precious Metals Co.) with dimensions 2.5 cm X 2.5
    cm X 1 mm is used for a cathode instead of a rod. The electrolyte volume
    is very large (700 cc of D[2]O with 0.3 M LiOD). An innovation of
    Takahashi is the use of a time-varying current which alternates between a
    high mode (4-5 amps) and a low mode (0.2-0.4 amps) every six hours.
 
    Takahasi's calorimeter is an open cell flow calorimeter, where water from
    a chiller is flowed through a coil inside the cell, and the power is
    determined from a knowledge of the mass flow rate and the input-output
    temperature difference. An advantage of this type of calorimeter design
    is that it is able to function at near constant temperature when high
    power is applied to the electrochemistry. The temperature was monitored
    using teflon coated thermocouples at the inlet, outlet, and cell
    interior. The cell was calibrated before and after the run in the initial
    experiment, and the calibration lines were approximately reproduced.
 
    The total input energy for the initial experiment was 250 MJ, the total
    output energy measured was 410 MJ, leading to an excess of 160 MJ.
    Takahashi's excess power level claimed was 32 watts averaged over two
    months, with excursions to 100-130 watts. The cathode volume is 0.625
    cm{3} (0.0706 moles), so that the average power density is 51 watts/cm{3}
    and peak excursions are 160-208 watts/cm{3}. As discussed above, a
    chemical explanation of the effect (barring other systematic errors) is
    defeated in less than half an hour at the high excess power levels.
 
    Attempts at replication had varying degrees of success, but no one has
    been able to reproduce the very high power levels claimed by Takahashi.
    In the reproduction which Takahashi reported at Nagoya, the excess
    average power was 8 watts, with excursions to 15 watts.
 
    Takahashi's method comes with the recommendation that it is a potentially
    technically easier experiment than other experiments which have been
    reported. It is less exacting in the rigorous electrochemical purities
    required as compared to the SRI experiments; the cathodes from Tanaka
    metals are readily available to workers in the field, in contrast to the
    Johnson-Matthey cathodes employed by Pons and Fleischmann. The system is
    in principle relatively cheap to set up; Mallove{33} described a version
    of the Takahashi experiment which was built up using about $10K of
    hardware funds.
 
    Storms at LANL is claiming excess heat from a Tanaka batch 1 foil, and no
    heat from a batch 2 foil.{34} The anomalous power from the first foil was
    more than 20%. The batch 2 foil suffered an increase in internal volume
    on loading, which Storms suggested might be used as an indicator of
    whether a cathode was suitable for heat experiments. No one has reported
    a success with a batch 2 foil that I am aware -- batch 3 appears to be
    free of this problem.
 
    Celani{35,36} described efforts to reproduce the Takahashi experiment at
    his laboratory in Frascati. Experiments were run in an open cell flow
    calorimeter using two Tanaka metals batch 1 cathodes, one Tanaka batch 2
    cathode, and one IMRA batch 1 cathode. Positive results were obtained
    with the Tanaka batch 1 rods (at 8% and 25% peak power excess) and with
    the IMRA rod (12% peak excess). No excess power was observed with the
    Tanaka batch 2 cathode. Blank experiments were performed where a gold
    cathode sheet was substituted for the Pd cathodes, and no excess was
    observed. A correlation between high loading and excess heat was noted;
    small amounts of excess tritium were reported for the runs which gave
    excess heat.
 
    Oyama{37} reported a 2.4% excess energy, which is small, but was measured
    with much smaller error bars; a light water blank showed no excess.
 
10. Tritium production was discussed by several groups. The existence of such
    an effect is interesting because it constitutes an additional signature
    of the presence of a nuclear phenomenon; tritium cannot be made
    chemically. An additional feature of many tritium experiments is that the
    tritium is not accompanied by neutron emission (neutron/tritium ratios of
    10{-7} - 10{-9} have been reported). The *dd*-fusion reactions would
    produce neutrons and tritons in roughly equal amounts, so that the
    observations imply either a new mechanism or else a very significant
    modification of the fusion reactions. Possibly more significant is that
    14 MeV neutrons from *d-t* fusion reactions would be expected from
    secondary reactions if the tritium nuclei were created with MeV-level
    kinetic energy. The very low neutron to tritium ratios claimed imply a
    very low triton energy (below 10-15 keV), sufficiently low to be
    inconsistent with all but the most exotic reaction mechanisms.
 
    At Como, strong presentations of tritium production were made by Will,
    Claytor, Lanza, Szpak. Will has not been active in the field during the
    past year, and did not attend the Nagoya conference; Lanza has continued,
    but was not able to attend this year; Szpak has continued, but was also
    not present at Nagoya.
 
    Claytor{38} (whose work impresses me) described further experiments on
    tritium production in which a stack of alternating layers of palladium
    and silicon is placed in deuterium gas at over 10 atmospheres, and a
    pulsed current is passed through the stack. Reproducible tritium
    production is claimed at levels of 0.02-0.2 nCi/hr (1.1 X 10{6} - 1.1 X
    10{7} tritium atoms/second). Advances which the LANL group has made during
    the past year includes: reduction of background tritium, improvement in
    detection sensitivity, improvement in reproducibility at higher tritium
    generation rates, and the innovation of working with stacks using Pd
    built up from powder. Upper limits on neutron emission can be placed from
    their work as reported at Como of 4 X 10{-9} neutrons/second; the {3}He
    neutron detector which they have used (which I saw during a recent visit
    there) has a roughly similar efficiency for 14 MeV neutrons as for 2.45
    MeV neutrons (the detector is more sensitive at 2.45 by a factor of 1.5
    according to Menlove).
 
    Bockris{25} described two tritium experiments at Nagoya. In one
    experiment, a reproduction of the Szpak-Boss experiment described at Como
    was attempted. Szpak codeposited Pd on either a Cu or Ni substrate from
    PdCl[2] in D[2]O containing 0.3 N LiCl; continued electrolysis resulted in
    tritium production. The Pd was observed to plate out during the first 6-8
    hours, and excess tritium would be detected about 10 hours later. The
    experiment Bockris reported involved codeposition of Pd on gold, and
    tritium production was observed to start as soon as 10 hours after the Pd
    deposition, and production up to 3 times background was observed. This is
    the first successful confirmation of the Szpak experiment of which I am
    aware. Bockris did not obtain the high degree of reproducibility claimed
    by Szpak.
 
    I note that Miles also described{24} attempts to reproduce the Szpak
    experiment, and reported the observation of a modest tritium increase,
    but "not clearly beyond levels expected for electrolytic enrichment due
    to isotopic separation factors."
 
    Much more spectacular are the results reported by Bockris of Chien's
    experiments on tritium production in a Pd electrolysis experiment where
    massive amounts of tritium (more than 10{15} atoms) were observed. This
    report is very significant because it represents a new claim for very
    high levels of excess tritium.
 
    Early on, reports of very high levels of tritium were reported to have
    been observed at Texas A&M, corresponding to production rates on the
    order of 10{10} tritium atoms/cm{3} or higher. These experiments were
    clouded by charges of fraud (this charge was apparently investigated by a
    panel hired by Texas A&M, and not substantiated), and by the observation
    of high levels of tritium contamination in Pd claimed by Wolf (found by
    dissolving Pd rods in acid, and then performing scintillation counting on
    a neutralized version of the resulting solution). Similar experiments
    reported by Cedzynska (differing in that the distillate of the solution
    was analyzed by scintillation counting) failed to show contamination at
    the high levels reported by Wolf, and in addition found that false
    positives could occur when the solution was not first distilled.
 
    Subsequently, much more stringent controls were done to attempt to defeat
    the insidious tritium contamination claimed by Wolf, and new post-Wolf
    experiments were reported in which anomalous tritium production has been
    claimed. Except for experiments reported by BARC, most new claims have
    involved tritium production rates many orders of magnitude below those of
    the initial claims (the new claims generally ranged from 10{4} - 10{6}
    tritium atoms/second). The significance of the Chien experiments is that
    the tritium production rate claimed by Chien (in a post-Wolf experiment)
    are some of the first to approach the very high early (pre-Wolf)
    experimental claims. Much care was taken to avoid possible contamination:
    samples from the same rod were dissolved in aqua-regia, and the resulting
    solution distilled, and then analyzed using a scintillation cocktail
    following the method described by Cedzynska at Como.
 
    Chien's earlier experiment was carried out at the Institute of Nuclear
    Energy Research in Lung-Tan, Taiwan. The palladium cathodes used were 1.0
    cm in diameter, and 1-2 cm long; Pt wire wrapped around at a distance of
    4 mm was used for the anode. Electrolysis was carried out in heavy water
    with 0.1 M LiOD; tritium assay was done with a scintillation cocktail.
    Solutions exhibiting high tritium activity were sampled at the time of
    the experiment (10/89), and then resampled 10 months later (8/90) in
    order to observe the tritium decay from the sample. Tritium generation
    rates of 10{6}-10{9} atoms/second were determined, lasting for a total of
    20-30 days. The numbers claimed by Bockris at Nagoya{25} for the Texas A&M
    version of the experiment correspond to about 10{7} atoms/sec/cm{2} of
    surface area, in experiments with a 3-6 cm{2} surface area.
 
11. V. A. Romodanov gave an oral presentation in the theory panel at
    Nagoya.{39} Romodanov's command of the English language was imperfect; he
    read from his paper for more than 20 minutes in a thick Russian accent.
    Essentially no one with whom I talked understood the point of what he
    said, and his abstract did not particularly add to the information
    content. Given that his talk occurred in the theory section, and given
    that his theory appeared to be largely classical fusion modified somewhat
    by lattice effects, no one was expecting that a major experimental result
    was buried in his presentation. Two things about his talk raised flags
    for me, indicating that I should try to follow up if possible. One was
    that he was from Luch, which is the same place Kucherov is from...and I
    was very impressed by Kucherov's results. The second thing that I recall
    was that there was a table giving some very high tritium numbers; at the
    time I thought they were theoretical estimates because they were so
    large.
 
    Romodanov handed me a preprint{40} which explained in rather clearer
    English what was the content of his talk. I will focus on what I consider
    to be the single most important part of his presentation, which if true,
    is of fundamental importance. Romodanov described the results of glow
    discharge experiments which appear to have been done on a system very
    similar to that discussed by Kucherov (see above in this review).
    Romodanov and his colleagues focused on the detection of tritium produced
    in glow discharge experiments in Pd and in other metals.
 
    The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas at 100-200 torr, with an
    applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V, and a current of 3-4 A (a wide
    range of operating conditions are described in the paper, and the numbers
    I have chosen appear on one table -- I am not completely certain from the
    paper that the tritium generation was done with these parameters).
    Various cathode metals were used, including Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W; as
    disks with a diameter of 13 cm and a thickness between 500 mu and 1 mm,
    or rods of 0.5-2 cm diameter. The cathode temperatures were measured to
    be between 970 Deg. K and 1670 Deg. K, with only minor (15% or less due
    to anomalous self-heating effects).
 
    Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 10{9} atoms/second
    were measured in the different metals under various conditions. The
    largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in Nb at 1170 Deg. K,
    corresponding to an increase in tritium activity in the deuterium gas of
    2.3 X 10{4}. The neutron emission was measured in these experiments with a
    "radiac instrument RUP-1," which appears to be a scintillator with silver
    activated ZnS dispersed in transparent plastic (sounds similar to the
    detector used by Kucherov), and a neutron to tritium ratio of 1.8 X 10{-7}
    was obtained.
 
12. R. Notoya from Hokkaido University brought a light water demo that was
    set up and operated in the hallway of the conference{41}. The demo
    consisted of two cells: in one cell was a resistive heater, and in the
    other cell was a nickel cathode immersed in a light water K[2]CO[3]
    electrolyte, similar to the method of R. Mills and colleagues.{42}
    Notoya's method differs from Mill's method in that (1) the Notoya cathode
    is made of porous nickel, and the Mills cathode is plain nickel; and (2)
    Mills uses an intermittent current, while Notoya uses a constant current.
 
    The resistive heater was driven at 2.1 Watts electrical *iv* input; the
    electrolysis cell was driven so that the joule heating in the cell was
    also 2.1 Watts. The *iv* input into the electrolysis cell is actually
    higher by about 30%, but since electrolysis is occurring with a Faradaic
    efficiency near unity, the power ending up inside the cell is matched as
    long as no recombination occurs in the space above the electrolyte. The
    live cell ran higher by about 15 Deg. centigrade than the blank, as could
    be inspected visually by observing alcohol thermometers immersed in both
    cells. Notoya claims that the light water cell temperature implies a
    factor of about 3 more net power input, or roughly 6 watts of heating
    present.
 
    This was interesting for a number of reasons. This was the first live
    demonstration of excess heat production at a cold fusion conference that
    I am aware of. I have always thought that live demos would start to show
    up at conferences and at presentations, but I had figured that the first
    ones would be heavy water demos. I thought that it was significant that
    Notoya's system works well enough for her to be willing to bring it as a
    demo at a major international conference.
 
    Many of the "established" workers in the field who have put in
    substantial effort on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann cells and have
    observed heat simply do not believe that a heat effect can be observed in
    light water. Among other arguments that can be heard is that if the
    effect is either nuclear or is fusion, it must involve deuterium. Others
    in the field argue that the light water claims are simply due to sloppy
    experimental work. Independent of the correctness of the various
    assertions, it is almost humorous to find senior members of the cold
    fusion community sounding very much like their critics and tormentors of
    1989.
 
    The first reports of heat from light water experiments were actually from
    Pons and Fleischmann early on in 1989; when I last spoke with Fleischmann
    about light water experiments about a year ago, he was firm in his
    conviction that it was not possible to get excess heat from a light water
    cell.
 
    R. Mills, who is the originator of this particular Ni/K[2]CO[3]
    experiment, has no previous reputation or standing as an electrochemist,
    calorimetrist or physicist. He rejects the notion of cold fusion as due
    to nuclear effects completely (in fact, he does not wish to associate
    himself with the cold fusion community, and does not consider his effect
    to be related in any way to cold fusion), and has developed his own
    theory as to why his experiment works; his theory is based on the
    proposed existence of orbitals of hydrogen that lie below the 1*s* level.
    An explicit assumption in the Mills and Farrell theory is that the
    electronic charge distribution in hydrogenic states consist of charged
    shells of infinitesimal thickness. In order for this proposal to be
    correct, quantum mechanics must be incorrect (which Mills believes -- he
    offers his theory as a replacement for quantum mechanics). There have
    been no observations of such states, and the existence of such states
    would likely not be consistent with the observed stability of atoms as
    atoms.
 
    Reproductions of the Mills experiment have been reported previously.
    Noninski{43} published positive results from his experiments; Noninski
    views his experiment as a verification of the work of Fleischmann and
    Pons, who state explicitly (in a 1989 patent application) the possibility
    of excess heat in a light water cell with Ni as a cathode material. Mills
    was apparently unaware of Fleischmann and Pons patent application and its
    relevance.
 
    Confirmations of the Mills light water experiment have also been reported
    by Srinivasan,{44,45} and Bush and Eagleton.{46} Notoya and her laboratory
    come with good reputations; her confirmation of the Mills experiment
    (complete with demo) is probably the most significant endorsement of the
    light water excess heat results standing.
 
    Notoya's demo is an open cell system. It operates at a sufficiently high
    excess power that recombination or other effects that would make an open
    cell system perform differently from a closed cell would not change the
    essential result even if the recombination and other secondary effects
    were taken into account incorrectly or ignored. You can put your finger
    on the tubes Notoya's demo to convince yourself that a very significant
    temperature difference occurs. This was also claimed for the Mills
    experiment, as well as for other experiments reproducing the Mills
    result.
 
    During the conference and afterwards, a virtual firestorm of controversy
    arose concerning the difference in wires that were attached to the live
    cell and to the blank. A student of Steve Jones suggested that since
    smaller diameter wires were used on the blank, that the reduced voltage
    drop across the resister could account for the difference. After the
    conference, Notoya replaced the offending wires, and reported essentially
    no difference in the resulting blank temperature.
 
    Notoya's demo was brought to the US and set up at MIT during the first
    week of December. During the day and a half before her presentation at
    MIT, the live cell and resistive blank ran at very nearly identical
    temperatures, consistent with no excess power production. Notoya
    attributed this to contamination of the nickel cathodes. After her visit,
    she returned to Japan and set up her demo in a laboratory in Tokyo where
    excess heat was observed. A few days later, she was back at MIT,
    attempting for a second time to demonstrate excess power production.
    During this visit, a temperature excess was seen during electrolysis of
    the second cathode tried. According to Notoya, the initial temperature
    differential in this case corresponded to a 100% power excess.
    Subsequently, a persistent excess of about 4 Deg. C was observed, which
    she said corresponded to a 30% power excess (the reduction in fractional
    excess was attributed by Notoya to contamination).
 
    The persistent excess power which Notoya obtained at MIT was about 0.75
    Watts, and the cathode volume was about 0.05 cm{3}, leading to a volume
    averaged excess of 15 Watts/cm{3}. At Nagoya, the cell ran at a 4 Watt
    excess, corresponding to 80 Watts/cm{3}. She claims that she has observed
    a maximum of 200 Watts/cm{3} excess. A few hours of operation at 15
    Watts/cm{3} is sufficient to defeat a chemical explanation, which was done
    at MIT. The power excess demonstrated at Nagoya would defeat a chemical
    explanation in tens of minutes, and the cell ran for many hours.
 
    Little is known about loading ratios (H/Ni) while heat is produced; no
    information is available about potassium loading in the Ni; there is
    apparently an alkaline intermetallic layer formed which is at least
    several hundred Angstroms thick which may play a role. Nothing is known
    about the temperature sensitivity of the effect; Notoya observes the
    excess power to be essentially linear in applied current down to her
    lowest values (50-100 mA, and about 1 cm{2} geometric area at MIT; the
    high current levels approach 1 amp).
 
    Notoya obtains her best results with cathodes which have an extremely
    high area ratio (real area to geometric area), and she uses cathodes with
    an area ratio of several thousand (and a reduced density of about 6
    gm/cm{3}). The effect is apparently extremely sensitive to contamination,
    especially to oils. She observes an increase of 20% in calcium
    concentration (near 20 ppm) in the electrolyte, which she believes may be
    anomalous.
 
    I do not think that there is yet any particular contradiction between the
    light water experiments of the Mills type and the light water blanks in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments. The light water blanks in Pd/H experiments
    run in a H[2]O/LiOH electrolyte give zero excess power in most everyone's
    blank experiments these days; the Mills experiment uses a Ni cathode with
    a H[2]O/K[2]CO[3] electrolyte. These are really very different systems. In
    any event, in time any connections between the two systems will be
    clarified.
 
    Based on Notoya's work, the evidence in support of a light water effect
    has improved significantly. The effect which she observes is so great
    that there appears to be no simple explanation for it.
 
    So is there a light water heat effect? At this point, I am not yet sure
    one way or another. On the plus side: (1) the effect is large, (2) looks
    to be nuclear given the excess heat numbers, and (3) can be reproduced.
    On the minus side (from my point of view): (1) the effect has been
    studied by a relatively small number of groups for a relatively short
    time, (2) the effect appears to be somewhat insensitive to choice of
    electrolyte (claims{41} of heat production have been made for experiments
    which have used other alkali-carbonates such as Li[2]CO[3], Na[2]CO[3] and
    Rb[2]CO[3]) and to some degree the choice of cathode (positive results
    were reported{47} for Ni, Ag, Au and Sn electrodes). The reason which I am
    uncomfortable with the insensitivity of the effect to cathode and
    electrolyte comes from potential difficulties associated with finding a
    reaction mechanism that would show such an insensitivity.
 
    The experimentalists have grown used to the idea that deuterium gives
    anomalies and hydrogen does not; the theorists who believe in fusion
    mechanisms are comfortable with positive effects in deuterium and
    negative effects in hydrogen. A light water heat effect causes
    consternation in both camps; it would be exceedingly difficult to
    reconcile with a fusion mechanism.
 
    The neutron transfer model which I have been looking at (described
    briefly below) needs a neutron donor (usually deuterium) and an acceptor
    nucleus, and therefore has somewhat fewer constraints; nevertheless, I do
    not relish the prospect of attempting to explain an apparently general
    light water heat effect where the nuclei present are widely different
    from one cell to another. An experimental determination (and
    confirmation) of the ashes in any of these experiments would of course
    greatly improve the situation.
 
    As a result, I am not yet sure that there is a light water effect. I will
    be surer one way or another when more confirmations (or
    non-confirmations) are reported. I will be surer when Notoya, who has
    worked on her experiments only since last August, has had more time to
    think about her experiments and to improve them. I will also be surer in
    time after the cold fusion community has had more time to study and to
    evaluate the experiment.
 
13. The successful production of significant excess energy must give rise to
    ashes of one sort or another. It is not currently known what reactions
    are occurring; consequently, it is not obvious what ashes are to be
    expected. Energy excesses in the range of 1 MJ to 10 MJ have been
    reported in several experiments; we will consider briefly the
    implications of excess power generation, both per joule and for a 10 MJ
    total excess.
 
    Conventional *dd*-fusion reactions producing 10 MJ would yield more than
    10{19} neutrons, and a roughly equal number of tritium atoms. Pons and
    Fleischmann's recent measurements{48} of the neutrons produced from their
    cells yield 5-50 neutrons per joule, low by more than 10 orders of
    magnitude from what would be predicted for conventional *dd*-fusion.
    Tritium is not produced in their experiments, with a limit which is
    probably on the order of 10{4} tritium atoms per joule; low by at least 8
    orders of magnitude.
 
    It has been suggested that the {4}He branch of the *dd*-fusion reaction is
    somehow favored, and several searches for {4}He have been made. The
    conventional {4}He branch yields a 24 MeV gamma, which is not observed
    when heat is produced. The reaction energy would have to go elsewhere to
    be qualitatively consistent, and many in the field believe that energy
    transfer to the lattice occurs. Many measurements have been performed
    seeking {4}He in the cathode after the experiment; my impression is that
    it is simply not there quantitatively by many orders of magnitude.
 
    There have been some efforts seeking {4}He in the gas stream produced
    during electrolysis; Miles focused the attention of the community on this
    issue last year at Como when he claimed the observation of {4}He which at
    its highest levels might account for roughly 10% of the excess energy.
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno{11,12} described a new cell, calorimeter plus
    helium detector with which they plan to attempt a confirmation; other
    groups are acquiring mass detection capability for similar studies. The
    measurements of Yamaguchi{22,23} described above has also raised interest
    in helium detection.
 
    I would think that by next year's conference, that there will be a
    consensus by many groups established on whether substantial helium is
    produced or not.
 
    If the pragmatic point of view is adopted that whatever reaction is
    occurring is not constrained by theoretical preconceptions, then the
    search for the ashes is generalized considerably to include possible
    isotopic shifts or anomalies, and the possible production of elements or
    isotopes not initially present.
 
    A large number of studies have been reported at the international
    conferences in which the cathode surface has been analyzed for the
    presence of trace elements. Due to the nature of electrochemical
    deposition in real systems, quite a long list of surface contaminants are
    found at significant levels, hopelessly complicating any straightforward
    *ab initio* experimental search.
 
    The number of nuclei which is sought is on the order of 10{12} per joule
    (or 10{19} per MJ), which either helps or hurts depending on the point of
    view. Present in large quantities are D, O, Pd, Li, and H. Determining a
    relative isotope shift between deuterium and hydrogen is generally deemed
    not to be feasible, given the presence of hydrogen as a ubiquitous
    universal contaminant. Isotope shifts in oxygen are not currently
    predicted by anyone in the field, and have never been studied in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments to my knowledge.
 
    The first serious claim of possible isotope shifts in heavy elements with
    which I am familiar was made by Rollison at the NSF/EPRI workshop in 1989
    (Rollison subsequently had to back down from her claim -- see the
    proceedings of the Salt Lake City conference). The glow discharge
    observations described by Kucherov{13-16} and the Chinese group{17-20} imply
    isotope shifts in Pd and other metals.
 
    The production of 10 MJ of energy in a Pd cathode (containing 0.1 mole of
    Pd) would give rise to modifications of the Pd isotope distributions
    (assuming Pd were fuel) at the 0.0002 level, assuming arbitrarily 5 MeV
    per reaction. The prospect of proving this experimentally if it is in the
    bulk is judged to be impractical. If the reactions occur near the
    surface, then the numbers improve; the "noise" associated with natural
    isotopic separation also increases. Searches for such surface isotope
    shifts have been reported, and continue to be performed; such searches
    for now remain in the background of the field.
 
    Lithium appears to be required for heat production in Pons-Fleischmann
    experiments, although it is unknown whether it plays any nuclear role.
 
    Thompson, formerly of Johnson-Matthey, reported{49} that the lithium on
    the surface of a Pons-Fleischmann cathode that had been involved in
    heat-producing experiments showed a depletion of {6}Li relative to the
    natural abundance (down to about 4%). Pons and Fleischmann had reported
    (in the Salt Lake proceedings) that the lithium which they had used was
    initially enriched in {6}Li (11%); Thompson noted this in his talk,
    quoting an initial concentration of 9-11%, but said the Johnson-Matthey
    group did not have a before to compare with their after.
 
    During the questions following Thompson's talk, McKubre noted that the
    Johnson-Matthey analysis only looked at the surface, and that any lithium
    present in the bulk might provide an internal reference. Thompson said
    that he thought that this suggestion could be tested. The conference
    proceedings from Johnson-Matthey states that no lithium is detected in
    the bulk,{50} which would imply that it will not be possible to establish
    an internal reference retrospectively.
 
    The amount of lithium present in a cathode is an interesting question.
    Gozzi reported last year the results of studies to determine Li loading
    in Pd during electrolysis, and found the very high number of 5% by
    monitoring the Li lost from the electrolyte. I questioned him at the
    conference (he presented{50} some nice positive results from his torus of
    cells where he monitors for heat, neutrons, tritium, helium, and I think
    gammas; unfortunately, I am lacking sufficient documentation of his
    results to present more details in this review), since several papers
    presented at each of the international conferences showed per cent level
    surface concentrations which fall rapidly on the micron scale into the
    bulk of the cathode (an exception to this was the measurements presented
    by Nakada{51} et al showing lithium profiles with significant lithium in
    20-30 microns). Lithium concentrations were measured by Myamoto et
    al,{52,53} who obtain Li/Pd ratios between 3 X 10{-4} and 3 X 10{-3}. I
    suspect that the Li/Pd ratio is probably sensitive to cathode properties,
    to the electrochemistry and loading time; one possible explanation of the
    long loading time required for Pons-Fleischmann cells, and remarked on
    explicitly by McKubre,{2} was that extra time beyond the deuterium loading
    time required to see the heat effect might be due to a necessity to
    achieve significant loading of another species, such as lithium or other
    light interstitials.
 
    I note here that energy production at the level of 100 MJ/mol would yield
    an observable (2%) isotope shift in lithium if the lithium concentration
    were at the 1% level, and if the bulk lithium did not substitute with
    lithium in the electrolyte. The numbers are worse if the electrolyte
    lithium is included, but not so bad to prohibit a measurement.
    Unfortunately, very few groups are currently pursuing the lithium isotope
    shift problem; I consider it to be an important question, especially in
    light of the initial Johnson-Matthey positive measurement.
 
14. B. Stella{54} presented a poster that I passed by twice; the title talks
    about the "stimulated emission of neutrons," that is of course impossible
    -- neutrons are fermions, and can of course not participate in stimulated
    emission. The third time by, Stella grabbed me and walked me through his
    poster (for which I am thankful, otherwise I would have missed it).
 
    In essence what the experiment consists of is taking a Pons-Fleischmann
    cell, putting it inside a 40 % efficient neutron detector underground in
    the Gran Sasso INFN laboratory, and directing an incident neutron beam
    (of about 30 neutrons/sec) with a substantial thermal component at the
    cell. Fast (2.45 MeV) neutrons are measured originating from the cell,
    and a gain of about 2 fast neutrons for every incident neutron is
    claimed.
 
    After talking to him, I was given to understand that for 30 neutrons/sec
    input that 60 or more neutrons/sec were measured (taking into account the
    neutron detector efficiency). I asked if the ratio held up at a higher
    input flux, and he said that they had done experiments up at 500/sec
    incident, with the same basic neutron gain (but that their neutron
    detector suffered from saturation problems at such a high flux).
 
    I asked whether the effect was reproducible. Stella said that they had
    done two runs (each run takes about a week to do) so far, and that they
    hoped to be able to do some more in the near future.
 
    I note that a neutron gain of 2 would be a very important result, if
    true, with rather important implications. I note also that this report of
    two observations (with a modest signal relative to noise) is the first in
    which such an effect has been claimed, and that no reproductions from
    either this group or any other group has been made.
 
====== end of Part I (Part II to follow) =====
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 05:43:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Feb23.032852.24292@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In article <1599@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
>
>> Terry,
>>
>> I really hope you realise the smallness of the fraction of the actives on
>> sci.physics that are actually physicists. Don't trash physics just because
>> some loonies got on your case.
>
>Wow, you're braver than I am.  Thanks for helping to give me some perspective.
...
 
>P.S. - Comments from me on this topic will be a bit limited.  I got into
>       this little hassle at least in part by daring to try to cut off an
>       especially argumentative poster, and so don't feel overly inclined
>       to repeat the experience.
 
     I don't recall ever having been so obliquely introduced in my life.
     And in a *second* posting, no less.  In any case, in the
     interests of saving the reputation of the world's physicists, I
     am the loony (apologies to Bruce for stealing his word)
     who deigned disagree with Mr. Bollinger.  So,
     in fact there was only one anomalous loony, and western civilization can
     continue along its previous path.
 
     I think I'd have to go all the way back several years to Tim
     Maroney's cold-fusion bomb to get to a more surreal conversation
     on this subject than this has become.
 
     In any case, since this does involve a discussion of fusion,
     I humbly submit to this forum my four full, unexpurgated, unedited
     postings on the subject from sci.physics to provide edification
     and/or scientific interest and/or amusement.
 
     And please, please, please, Terry, if you are going to continue to
     refer to me in a third post, do so by name.  I'm not fragile,
     and you save indicting the entire research establishment.
 
                             dale bass
 
Posting #1
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1993Feb18.163605.10245@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <1993Feb17.204345.19928@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
>rizzo@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (anthony.r.rizzo) writes:
>
>> Does any one know what happened to the cold fusion issue?
>> Is cold fusion possible after all, or was it discredited conclusively?
>
>Addressing only one very specific aspect of this often unpleasant issue:
>
>If someone could come up with a mechanism by which a relatively low-energy,
>room temperature solid state or liquid state system could develop extreme
>"hot spots" that radiate continuous spectrum light well well into the UV
>region, would you be willing to postulate that such "hot spots" might be
>energetic enough to measurably increase very-low-level rates of, say, D-D
>or D-T fusion?
>
>If so, you might find the brief editorial article "Sonoluminescence in
>from the dark" by John Maddox in Nature Vol 361 4 Feb 1993 p. 397 to be
>of interest.  The _possibility_ (not established!) of plasma formation
>during the collapse of cavitation voids is mentioned, based on the unusual
>continuous (and _possibly_ Planck distribution) spectrum that is emitted.
 
     The nature of the spectrum is a hypothesis, not a fact.  As far as I know,
     no one has measured spectra anywhere near a 'peak'.  I find
     the hypothesis highly unlikely, in that it implies unphysically
     high temperatures in the 'plasma' formed.  Numbers like
     100,000 K and 1,000,000 K have been posited.  I'm not sure what
     those numbers mean in a small region (likely molecular dimensions)
     of an ordinary cavitating fluid in thermal nonequilibrium at room
     temperature.  I'd take the fits to tails of equilibrium black-body
     spectra as highly highly speculative.
 
     Representative work is Barber and Putterman, Phys. Rev. Lett.
     69:3839 (1992).  Spectral measuments are reported from 700 nm down
     to 250 nm in Hiller, Putterman and Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett.
     69:1182 (1992).
 
>There's even an acronym that has been bandyied about a bit:  HICCUP, or
>Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure.  Whether there are any real HICCUPs
>to be seen, or this is just another annoying BURP (Blasted UnReal Physics),
>is yet to be seen.  But it's being looked at, definitely.  And in this case
>there are no mysterious slanted nuclear reaction rates involved -- only the
>question, "Hey hot shot, is your hot spot really hot, or not?"
 
     This is a bit misleading.  Your acronym has been bandied about
     primarily by you.  I'm beginning to regret mentioning the
     subject in the context of 'cold fusion' sometime last year.
 
     And this is  apparently not a 'hot' field of research as far
     'cold fusion' goes.  Steven Jones over in the fusion group mentioned
     that one of his grad students is working on experiments,
     but I know of no one else working on the fusion angle.
     One reason to think that it is not plausable is that there is
     a tremendous difference in the scales on which fluid cavitation
     of this sort operates and fusion operates.   Sonoluminescence is
     a wonderful phenomenon that involves interactions over perhaps
     10^11 orders of magnitude, but there are certainly
     'ordinary' fluid phenomena that involve shocks and
     molecular-type interactions such as light emission.  But in order
     to produce fusion one has to go down many many more orders of
     magnitude in scale (or equivalently increase energy substantially).
     There is absolutely no reason to believe that one can do
     this by means of cavitation.  And there are very good reasons
     to believe one cannot.
 
                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
 
Posting #2
________________________________________________________________________
 
     Another good recent reference on cavitation and sonoluminescence
     is Cavitation, by Ronald Young (McGraw-Hill, 1992).  I recommend
     it highly.
 
In article <1993Feb18.223308.13801@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>> One reason to think that it is not plausable is that there is a tremendous
>> difference in the scales on which fluid cavitation of this sort operates
>> and fusion operates.   Sonoluminescence is a wonderful phenomenon that
>> involves interactions over perhaps 10^11 orders of magnitude, but there
>> are certainly 'ordinary' fluid phenomena that involve shocks and molecular-
>> type interactions such as light emission.  But in order to produce fusion
>> one has to go down many many more orders of magnitude in scale (or
>> equivalently increase energy substantially).
>
>Good points, and (as best I recall) an accurate statement of the issues.
 
     Glad you approve, he said dryly.
 
>Of course, sonoluminscence _itself_ wasn't really supposed to exist by any
>theoretical work that preceded it, was it?  So shucks, why not push the
>envelope a tad more just to see what _might_ happen?  It's just a poor grad
>students working with a small budget on a decently interesting phenomenon --
>is that such a horrible thing?  If they get absolutely zilch, then by golly,
>they will have a good thesis on how sonoluminscence does some nice things,
>but fusion definitely _ain't_ one of them.
 
    This is misleading too.  Sonoluminescence has a 60-year history.
 
    Your statement above is like saying that atomic transitions
    weren't supposed to exist before we noticed them.  The relevant
    point is that such results (sonoluminescence) are not and
    have never been EXCLUDED by theory.  However, to postulate
    fusion, you are using improper extrapolations of very simple
    incompressible flow and continuum fluid theory to scales where
    they clearly do not work.  Aw shucks, do you not see the problem here?
 
    And I think its wonderful that people actually work on
    sonoluminescence.
 
>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that one can do this by means of
>> cavitation.  And there are very good reasons to believe one cannot.
>
>Oh posh.  How can you support _that_ view, given that _no one_ claims to
>have a full understanding of the SL effect?  It works both ways, you know.
 
     I don't know how the solar corona works either, but I know
     it doesn't involve matter being transported instantaneously
     from alpha centauri.
 
>I say let the experimenters at BYU have it for a while, and see what (if
>anything) they come up with.  I would find a negative finding from an actual
>experiment far more convincing than discussions such as this, wouldn't you?
 
     Who knows?  Experiments are notoriously difficult things to do.
     Negative findings from experiments where one is vaguely rooting
     around do not seem to tell us much, the relevant parameter space
     is just too large most of the time to do it blindly.
 
                             dale bass
 
Posting #3
_________________________________________________________________________
 
In article <1993Feb19.062618.18531@netcom.com> doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes:
>In article <1993Feb18.223308.13801@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that one can do this by means of
>>> cavitation.  And there are very good reasons to believe one cannot.
>>
>>Oh posh.  How can you support _that_ view, given that _no one_ claims to
>>have a full understanding of the SL effect?  It works both ways, you know.
>
>
>As Terry says, cavitation is still controversial, so you're not all
>that likely to settle it here. (Not that I know much of anything about
>it myself. Call it a meta-nitpick.)
 
     Cavitation has been investigated for over a hundred years
     (c.f. Reynolds, Scientific Papers, 1:56 (1873)) and
     controlled in ship propeller applications for nearly a hundred years
     (Barnaby \etal, Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs. 122:57 (1895)).
 
     Sonoluminescence was first noticed sixty years ago
     (Marinesco and Trillat, Comptes Rendus 196:858 (1933)) and though
     the detailed mechanism remains elusive, there are very good indications
     that in some systems it involves dissociation/recombination
     of component species, and in other systems it involves shock wave
     formation.  Whether the two are cause/effect in every system
     is uncertain, but there certainly is no controversy that the
     effects exist, and are possible, and that there are mechanisms to
     produce such an effect.
 
     Fusion on the other hand is quite different.  No one has seen such
     effects in 'sonoluminescing' systems, and there are very very good
     reasons to think such a result exceedingly unlikely.  Scales are
     the primary consideration.   I know how to produce dissociation
     in a fluid at ordinary temperatures and pressures by producing a
     strong enough shock.  So I know how to get light from the system
     regardless of the cavitation results.  This shock, however, is
     many many orders of magnitude larger than the scales necessary
     to produce fusion. And I don't know how to produce fusion without
     going down a number of scales by getting the fluid very very hot.
     A shock won't do it because it will lose energy owing to
     such things as dissociation and other basic fluid phenomena.
 
     I want to reiterate that the postulate of fusion in sonoluminescing
     systems is based on extrapolation of simply hydrodynamic theory
     to places where it clearly and definitely does not work.  So, it
     isn't a question of 'we don't know anything, so it could work',
     it is 'we know a great deal about basic fluid phenomena, and
     the results used in this speculation do not apply'.
 
     I don't suppose y'all remember the discussion of 'fugacity'
     from the Pons and Fleishmann episode a while back.  Fugacity
     is a concept from chemistry that provides a certain correction
     to the ideal gas equation of state so that it applies to
     real gases.  It can be roughly thought of as an 'effective
     pressure'.  Now one of the reasons P&F started working on
     the Pd-D system was the enormous fugacity of deuterium in
     a palladium lattice, but such considerations are incorrect.
     First, fugacity is not thermodynamic pressure.  Second,in the Pd
     lattice, the D ions are actually farther apart than they
     would be if they they were D_2 gas.
 
     It is the same here.  Simple concepts applicable at low energy
     are misleading.
 
                         dale bass
 
Posting #4
__________________________________________________________________________
 
In article <1993Feb19.213314.23754@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In various articles Dale Bass writes... and writes... and writes....
>
>Sorry, Dale, but I don't consider you to be the world's leading expert on
>sonoluminescence anymore than you consider me to be.  So why don't we give
>all the other folks in this group a break and drop it?
>
>(By the way:  In HICCUP I predicted that adding glycerin and chilling the
>water should increase the intensity of the sonoluminescence.  They do.
>So how's _your_ record of experimental predictions for sonoluminescence?)
 
     In water, sonoluminescence reaches a maximum at 13C, and declines
     to 1/8 that value at 1C (Taylor and Jarman, Br. J. Appl. Phys
     Ser. 2, 1:658 (1968)).  In addition, surface tension/vapor pressure
     variations of sonoluminescence have been examined for
     over 30 years (c.f. Jarman, Proc. Phys. Soc. 73:628 (1959)).
 
     Tell you what, I predict that if you add xenon to water, the
     intensity is orders of magnitude higher than if you add helium.
     Of course, we knew that in 1976 (Young, J. Acoust. Soc. Am
     60:100 (1976)).
 
     And please, don't call into question my qualifications until
     you have at least a basic familiarity with the previous research.
 
     I bid you a fond farewell.
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 /  Richard /  off the wall muon fusion suggestions
     
Originally-From: "Richard Schroeppel" <rcs@cs.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: off the wall muon fusion suggestions
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 15:35:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

(Thanks to Steve Jones for summarizing muon (cold) fusion status.)
 
Problem:  Muons don't live long enough to do their thing.
Solution:  If you peek at them enough, they live longer.  How much
           voyeurism, with what probe, is required?
 
Problem:  Muon sticks to alpha particle, ending a productive career.
Solutions:  Arrange for He3 in medium, and hope muon will fuse it
            with something.
            Operate reactor hot enough that He (doubly) ionizes.
            Arrange for large excesses of D & T, so that He is hard
            for the muon to find.
            Accelerate He+muon through a metal to strip muon.
            How tightly bound is the muon to the alpha?  Any chance
            of stealing it with an energetic oxidizer?
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrcs cudlnRichard cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Dieter Britz /  Subject: Re: Electron effective mass
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject: Re: Electron effective mass
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 15:35:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
>Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
>>Dick Blue has alluded to electron effective masses, and I'd like a bit more
>>information on this, from anyone who can help. I understand the case of muons,
>>which are effectively electrons with a mass 207 times normal. If one of these
>>gets between two deuterons (e.g. in the muonic D2 molecule), the d's can get
>>much closer together because of the increased Coulombic screening by the muon,
>>and the rate of spontaneous fusion goes up from around 1E-80 (?)
>>fusions/dd-pair/s to 1E11 or so (is this figure right, Steven? Seems like a
>>lot).
>Come on Dieter. You have been in the game long enough to understand the
>electron screening effect.  Jump on Vince Gate's BBS and download
>Koonin's unpublished works (It may be published by now. I havn't kept track)
>Anyway that's the paper that demonstrated that electron screening could
>inhance the d-d fusion from 1E-80 f/s to 1E-28.  It's a very solid piece.
>I think you will find 1E-11 f/s is high.  Really high infact.
 
Yes, I understand screening - more or less. My question can perhaps be boiled
down to "how should electrons get heavy?". Koonin and Nauenberg have published
their theory, yes, it's in the big file. There are others. As I say, the
message is always, you need an effective mass of 5-7 times normal to do the
job. No paper I have seen answers my question, unless I have missed something.
Koonin and Nauenberg, in fact, say that they know of no mechanism for
achieving such a mass enhancement. They also say "This enhanced mass should
not be associated with any physical excitation in a solid material, as only
the bare electron is relevant at the short length scales that are important
here". What does this mean? Can a physical excitation enhance a mass?
 
Your point about ions is not irrelevant, Chuck. At least one paper I have seen
says that deuterium is present as D- ions in the PdD lattice, not - as assumed
by just about everyone else - deuterons or D+. So can it be the reaction
d + D- ? I think not, as these two would combine into a D2 molecule, and we
know that they fuse at a low low rate (Koonin+ give it as 3E-64 f/pair/s).
 
And I still think that a rate of 1E11 fusions/dd-pair/s is stated for muon
catalysed fusion. I can wait until Thursday for the answer, no problem.
 
[As in Winnie the Pooh: Really wanting to know]
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Jed Rothwell /  Not in favor of secrecy
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not in favor of secrecy
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:47:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I was surprised at the volume of comments about my examples of trade secrets.
Look, I did not say I was in favor (or against) such secrets; I did not say
these secrets are effective; I just said that they exist, and they "have had
a significant effect on the human condition." Surely we all agree that
Microsoft Windows has had an impact, at least as much as the Salad Shooter
kitchen appliance. The criticisms seemed largely irrelevant. I will just
cover two, regarding the source code Windows:
 
Peter R. Tattam: "This is a joke right.... were the source code available,
the hundreds of bugs would have been fixed by now.  :-)"
 
That is possible I suppose. All I said that the source code is not available,
but the product is very important. You are suggesting that it might be
improved if it was not so secret. I made no comment on the wisdom of keeping
it secret. The two are completely separate issues.
 
Thomas H. Kunich: "The source code for any program is implicit in it's
machine code. And any program cracker worth his salt could reproduce Windows
source code in three months..."
 
This is incorrect. A "program cracker" (reverse compiler) cannot restore
program comments; macros; or variable names, address labels, or any other
symbolic name. These things contain vital information, but they are never
included in object code. Furthermore, if a program is written in a high level
language like Pascal or C, the reverse compiler merely converts the binary
code into assembly language; the information needed to recreate the Pascal
code is usually lost. In a program the size of Windows it would take many
years of hard work to recreate these missing elements. I have used reverse
assemblers to good effect when writing device drivers. They are useful, but
not magical.
 
 
I wish that people would comment on Peter Hagelstein's paper. He spent a
great of time working on it, and I spent a lot of time assisting him, and
converting it to ASCII. I am in favor of open CF research, and this paper is
a prime example of that, and a step in the right direction.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Dieter Britz /  Dieter gets tut-tutted
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dieter gets tut-tutted
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:47:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Once again, I have roused the tut-tutters in this group, this time asserting
Jed Rothwell's right to free speech. Note, good people, that I was not asking
for Jed to be censored; I did not ask Scott to filter out his messages; I do
believe in free speech etc. I just said that I (i.e. me, myself) would prefer
not to see his postings. I believe I have a right to say so.
Just like McElwaine's, Jed's postings get in my way. Should Jed begin to
understand the difference between science and advertising, I'd be glad to see
contributions from him. I will admit that his notes on the Japanese cold
fusion scene are useful information. I wish it weren't accompanied by all the
disinformation on the USA scene.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio on WAIS
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio on WAIS
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:47:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com> tells us that my bibliography is
in a WAIS data base, and that we can use it by telnetting into
quake.think.com. Well, I had to try this. I got in OK, found cold-fusion, and
just to see how it worked, asked for the keyword "ion beam". It found 40 items
in no time. This is impressive, better than my slow editor way. It would be
nice now to get the list of these 40 items (i.e. just the headings, as they
appear on the screen) in a file to take away, but I couldn't do that. So I
pointed to the first item, and there it was, my own abstract. Then I got
stuck. Nothing I typed in would get me out again, and there was no HELP line
at the bottom. I ended up using the BREAK key and asking our server to
disconnect me.
Any advice, Chuck, on how to save the short list of found items? I suppose
there is a README file somewhere...
Good stuff, though.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Jed Rothwell /  Editing anomaly in Hagelstein paper
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Editing anomaly in Hagelstein paper
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:47:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The version of Peter Hagelstein's paper that went through Internet and came
back to me contained a slight anomaly. For some reason the "plus minus" sign
(plus on top, minus underneath) was converted to a lowercase "q" Thus, in part
1, section 7 we find:
 
     "...sigma of excess neutron emission (23 q 7 neutrons/sec)"
 
This should be:
 
     "...sigma of excess neutron emission (23 +- 7 neutrons/sec)"
 
There were 4 other examples of this. A find and replace for "(space) q
(space)" will repair the problem. I also recommend a macro to convert the
superscripts and subscripts into your native word processor format.
 
Anyone who has had trouble getting the paper should please contact me
directly. I cannot send it by e-mail to Internet users because it is too
large, but I can send it on diskette, or even on paper. Please specify
diskette size.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 /  /  The P&F Boiling Cell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The P&F Boiling Cell
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:38:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The P&F Boiling Cell
 
First I would like to thank Peter Hagelstein for his excellent write up of the
Nagoya meeting.  He has included a lot of numbers which are greatly
appreciated by those of us who did not attend.
 
Peter presents a very naive interpretation of the Pons-Fleischmann boiling
cell.  Using the amount of D2O in the cell as stated by Pons, he computes a
power gain of 3.85.  Peter is from MIT, is I believe a theorist (and can
therefore be assumed able to compute), and this calculation has now been
widely distributed, so it is likely that a lot of people will believe it is
true.  I too have a degree from MIT, and it is in "unspecified" which I
believe allows me to speak out on any topic.  I now have Peter's numbers and
the NHK video of the boiling cell, so I can take an engineer's view of the
event.
 
First the amount of water in the cell.
 
Pons says it was 2.5 moles at the start of the boil off.  I have seen the
pictures of the boiling cell, and I can think of no way, within a factor of
two, to estimate the contents.  The only thing I could say for sure is that it
is less than you are apt to think.  The cell is violently "boiling".  More
properly we might say gassing.  In any case it is hard to tell where the top
water line is.  There are so many bubbles in the cell that it may be more gas
than liquid.  My guess is that they add D2O from time to time in an amount
suitable to make up for the losses from the electrolysis.  If from time to
time some vapor leaves the cell, then there will be an accumulated over
estimate of the liquid in the cell.  This will be masked by the very vigorous
boiling.  Peter says the input power was 37.5 watts.  Wow!  For a 0.85 sq cm
cathode.  Even at 15 volts, this would mean nearly 3 amps per sq cm.  The area
around the cathode will be all gas.  From the pictures of these very simple
cells, it is obvious that P&F do not have on line cell weighing.  McKubre
would have it if he did this experiment.
 
Next the heat of vaporization of the cell contents.
 
Pons naively assumes that because the liquid leaves the cell, the heat of
vaporization is required.  Nonsense.  Just stick the outlet tube in the bottom
of the cell and it all can be removed with a few joules.  What we have is
something in between.  A lot of the cell contents will leave as un vaporized
water droplets (wet steam).  How much, is anyone's guess.  P&F could add a
"Superheater" to their cell, as is done in a steam plant to guarantee dry
steam (wet steam erodes the turbine blades), but their simple calorimetry
would not accommodate it (mine could).  There is no evidence that they even
condense the exiting gas and measure the condensate volume.  But that would
not be enough.  They must measure the heat of condensation in a second
calorimeter to get any idea of what it going on.
 
Other Problems
 
My view is that if you can see the cell, then there is likely some
uncontrolled radiation loss.  Superman would have a tough time seeing into my
cell there are so many radiation shields.  But you can sure see the P&F cells,
and there are four of them in the box together all likely talking to each
other.  I could not see any radiation shields between the cells.  Someone out
there that knows might look up how good water is as an infra red radiation
shield.  It is likely pretty good?  Still it looked like the cells were only
a few cm apart.  It is possible that P&F are doing something really
questionable like connecting the four cells in a box in series.  This would
almost guarantee a thermal run away condition.  Then there is the problem of
actually measuring the input power.  I have not seen anything yet from P&F
that indicates to me that they can do it.  It is not easy.  Again something
that only McKubre and few others have done properly.
 
Between over estimation of the liquid in the cell, and unvaporized liquid
leaving the cell there is no problem is disposing of the 3.85 factor.  So as
far as I am concerned the "boiling cell" demonstration proves nothing.  It
could be turned into an experiment by proper measurements.  Possibly these
were made, I don't know.
 
In the NHK film, Huizenga is on camera saying that a "boiling cell" is not an
experiment.  I second you John,  It is time for P&F to publish reasonable
descriptions of their experiments, or we in the scientific community need to
label them for what they seem to be, promotions.  If they have published
descriptions comparable to Scott in ACCF1 or McKubre in ICCF2, then I will
apologize, but I have not seen them yet.
 
OK, Stanley Pons, if you have done a decent experiment, then send me a write
up, or tell me where you have published it.  Show me that you have weighed the
condensate from the "boiling cell" and that it matched your 2.5 mole
statement.  Show me that you have condensed the vapor boil off and that the
heat of condensation matched the ****total**** heat of vaporization of the
claimed amount of liquid boiled off.
 
If you don't know how to do all this, I will be glad to help.  To do this
experiment takes at least three calorimeters.  One for the cell, one for
condensing the boil off vapor, and one for a catalyst to recombine the D2 and
O2.  Then there is an experiment.  I would be willing to work with you to
design such an experiment, and to build the calorimetry and its
instrumentation.  Further more, I will make the heat measurements to 0.05% and
will beat down the critics with calibration experiments until they cry
"uncle".
 
Jed Rothwell will now beat up on me for questioning Peter Hagelstein's
computation.  I enjoyed the one conversation that I had with Peter, and I like
him.  But Peter, remember Harry Truman's advice about heat and kitchens. It is
completely proper to point out problems with your computation.  It is not a
personal attack.  We engineers are used to working in the slime and gunk of
this world where things are never as they should be.  As a theorist you are
trained to strip off the extraneous details and to discover the essence.
Sometimes the essence is not the right answer.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 /  /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov!SCHULTZ
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:38:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

  John E. Kreznar, (jkreznar@ininx.com), writes
 
> I'm arguing that _any_ scientific knowledge gained by expropriating
> the toil of unconsenting others is forever tainted by that blot on
> its history.
 
> Knowledge gained through science funded by taxation is forever tainted
> thereby.
 
 
Since I acquired most of my knowledge in a public school system and
two different State Universities, supplemented by books from a public
library, all supported by tax dollars, I suppose that all the
knowledge inside my head and anything that I might accomplish with my
life must also be similarly tainted. Do you wish to advocate a world
where only the well to do can afford to do science or educate their
children about science? Other societies have tried that. Universal
access to education and knowledge, more than anything else, is what
makes America great. If that means that I must pay taxes, that is a
small price to pay.
 
Dan Schultz, schultz@cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov
Hubble Space Telescope Control Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
(yes, that's right, I feed off the oppressed taxpayer. All the pictures
we take with HST are forever tainted.)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenSCHULTZ cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.22 / Jason Cooper /  ** GAMMA SHIELDING **
     
Originally-From: lord@tradent.wimsey.com (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 20:15:41 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

Looking for any and all replies.  Can anybody suggest a method of gamma
shielding for a fusion reactor?  MUST be not bulky (like 40 feet of
cement or lead) and therefore not massive as such either.  _PREFERABLY_
a reflective shielding, though absorptive is perfectly acceptable too.
This (if it helps) is to go on a starship (fusion powered) which is why
it must not be bulky or massive.
 
While I have your attention, is anybody out there familiar with the
"theta pinch"?  I'm not sure if that's the correct name, but I've heard
it is.  It is the method of fusing reactants with a VERY constrictive
magnetic field.
 
Again, ANY help is welcomed.  Reply ASAP, please.
 
                                                        Jason Cooper
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlord cudfnJason cudlnCooper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 15:55:54 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Jason Cooper writes:
> Looking for any and all replies.  Can anybody suggest a method of gamma
> shielding for a fusion reactor?  MUST be not bulky (like 40 feet of
> cement or lead) and therefore not massive as such either.  _PREFERABLY_
> a reflective shielding, though absorptive is perfectly acceptable too.
> This (if it helps) is to go on a starship (fusion powered) which is why
> it must not be bulky or massive.
 
 
        The lightest (and cheapest) shielding is distance (applying equally
well to a starship and someone's basement fusion reactor).  Put your reactor
on the end of a stalk on the spacecraft, and if necessary use just enough
shielding to create a gamma shadow over the living quarters.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Please remit $1 --> sci freedom?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1 --> sci freedom?
Date: 23 Feb 93 13:21:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <peter.354.730279133@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au> peter@psyc
net.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam) writes:
 
> . .      .   .. .        .        If we allowed big business to
>dictate the way science should go, we would be in a sorry state indeed.
 
Huh??
 
As far as science freedom is concerned there are a number of things
that come to bear and entities with money are only one.  As long
as there are a multiplicity of such entities, we are safe, since there
will always be someone out there that will give us a listen and a few
bucks to demostrate our workable innovation.  The problem comes when
monopolies form, especially when they structure themselves with layers
of MBA's and CPA's.  They simply don't have to respond nor could they.
Now however, they are involved in a more global marketplace so until
super corporations merge to form world wide units we have some market
left for ideas.
 
Generally the research from corporations is now severely restricted
because of the high tax burdens placed on them by governments.
 
Governments now fancy themselves as super corporations whose task is
to "invest", and they set up a single agencies within each government
for each certain task.  They then "coordinate" with other governments
to form a super community in each endeavor.  That really clamps
diversity of thought.
 
Here, one example is the DoE.  Internationally it's the IAEA.  For
example they do "fusion (hot mostly)" research.  This research is
mostly inertial or magnetic and the magnetic side is wallowed in a
concept from fusion's pre history called the tokamak.
 
In magnetic fusion, there is no freedom to obtain reasonable
competititve funding of independent concepts, unless they directly
serve the tokamak program or are skewed to serve the interest of the
tokamak community.   The argument used is that no other concept has
built such a large physics base of data and (illogical) therefore
is it most likely to succeed.
 
It might be interesting to note, that the amount of study an approach
is given by a stupid large entity, is no indication whatsoever that
the well studied concept can ever work.  Look here for the inverse
correlation.  After all what government shutdown a project because
it was a bad idea?  They shut down projects when they step on someone's
toes who has more punch.
                        :-)
 
Because of desk top computers and computer operated model machines,
today's innovators are far less dependent on the resources of large
corporations.  Consequently, in the future, only the leanest and
toughest of these large corporations will survive, and a number of
garage and basement operations of a decade ago and today will be there
in five to ten years to push the weak ones out of the way.  Examples
of that in-the-happening abound in computer oriented products industry.
 
The bottom line is, that I wouldn't dismiss the early significance of
these new directions (more independence for new ideas getting a start)
that were aided by the breakthroughs specific industry research -- bugs
or NOT.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /   Hi Dale
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Hi Dale
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 18:25:38 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In <1993Feb23.002910.15706@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
> In article <1599@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
> | Terry,
> |
> | I really hope you realise the smallness of the fraction of the actives on
> | sci.physics that are actually physicists. Don't trash physics just because
> | some loonies got on your case.
>
> I was the sole loony, and Terry knows full well that his description
> is somewhat at variance with what actually happened, both publicly and
> privately.  And he knows full well that it had nothing to do with him
> being a 'cold fusion type'.  Included in each of my responses over in
> sci.physics were discussions of actual and potential phenomenon and
> references for further edification.  Since the discussion occurred only
> last week, I invite you to visit sci.physics yourself and read it under
> the heading Re: cold fusion.  I would be more than happy to mail you a
> copy of this thread if you are interested since I think sonoluminescence
> an extremely interesting phenomenon.
>
> Unfortunately, it is his same publicly self-aggrandizing behavior as in
> the posting to which you responded above that got him into trouble over
> in sci.physics.
>
> Have a nice evening.
>
> dale bass
>
>
 
Hi Dale.  By the way, congratulations on your selection as one of five
moderators for the new sci.physics.research group.  It's an honor and new
responsibility in which you should take great pride.  Good for you!
 
.....
 
In <1993Feb23.054327.21964@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> In article <1993Feb23.032852.24292@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | ...
> | P.S. - Comments from me on this topic will be a bit limited.  I got into
> | this little hassle at least in part by daring to try to cut off an
> | especially argumentative poster...
>
> I don't recall ever having been so obliquely introduced in my life...
>
> [600+ lines of Dale's excellent arguments from sci.physics deleted]
 
As I believe I mentioned in that same sci.physics thread, Dale, you are
truly an outstanding literature researcher, and I hope everyone pays
attention to the highly relevant references you mentioned.  Good work!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hi Dale
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hi Dale
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 21:02:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Feb23.182538.2641@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In <1993Feb23.054327.21964@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>> [600+ lines of Dale's excellent arguments from sci.physics deleted]
>
>As I believe I mentioned in that same sci.physics thread, Dale, you are
>truly an outstanding literature researcher, and I hope everyone pays
>attention to the highly relevant references you mentioned.  Good work!
 
     Thanks, but this is the subject you're hesitant to discuss,
     he asked dryly?  I'm left wondering what lack of hesitation would
     look like.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.23 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please remit $1 --> sci freedom?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1 --> sci freedom?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 23:05:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Feb23.132139.194@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP
(Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>Generally the research from corporations is now severely restricted
>because of the high tax burdens placed on them by governments.
 
Just a few comments, Paul. Though I generally agree with your analysis
I do differ in a couple of areas.
 
     1) There is a general trend towards the good ideas since just like
every other government sponsored idea you must show good results or face
the sponsor with bad news once too often.
 
     2) Small companies do _not_ have an advantage. Very much the oposite.
Just look at the industrial strength of Japan and Italy for different
approaches. Japan's large companies have the power and the profits to
direct the industrial respect of the entire world. In Italy they long
ago resolved that small companies with small approaches fitted in with
their national identity. So about all that Italy is known for is their
few large companies.
 
     Economies of scale isn't just a phrase and the destruction of the
American industrial base is the main driving component in the falling
behind of the U.S.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Hi Dale
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hi Dale
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:38:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Feb23.210217.23989@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> In article <1993Feb23.182538.2641@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> ...
> | > [600+ lines of Dale's excellent arguments from sci.physics deleted]
> |
> | As I believe I mentioned in that same sci.physics thread, Dale, you are
> | truly an outstanding literature researcher, and I hope everyone pays
> | attention to the highly relevant references you mentioned.  Good work!
>
> Thanks, but this is the subject you're hesitant to discuss, he asked dryly?
> I'm left wondering what lack of hesitation would look like.
 
Um?  You mean UC?  Quite irrelevant to the question that started all of this,
which was simply whether anyone should bother with experiments based on Seth
Putterman's (not mine!) plasma interpretation, as quoted by John Maddox of
Nature magazine.  Alas, we seemed to get sidetracked into a discussion of
whether or not I was truly one of the most despicable creatures ever to walk
the face of the earth for having using the acronym HICCUP on sci.physics.
 
I vote yes.  On doing SL experiments, not despicability.  How do you vote?  :)
 
                        Cheers,
                        Terry Bollinger, PSACT
 
                        (Pathologically Self-Aggrandizing Computer Type)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 / Edward Lewis /  EVs, ball lightning, and CF
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EVs, ball lightning, and CF
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 05:33:06 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
                                                (c) 1993 by Edward Lewis
 
                                                5719 S. Harper
                                                Chicago, Illinois  60637
                                                Feb. 5, 1993
 
        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology,
Matsumoto shows a picture of an EV.  He did not describe the
phenomena that was photographed.  I describe EVs in a paper that I
finished writing in Dec. 1992.  This EV is in the material matrix.
Unless the white lines are an artifact of some type, most of the EV
radiates as much as the surrounding metal radiates, except according
to a geometrical pattern, which is very interesting.  I would say it is
radiating the electricity-light substance I described in the paper.  If
the electrolysis was discontinued when he took the SEM, then this is
an example of a material continuing to radiate after the stress is
done.  This relates to the experience of many people who have
stressed materials in many ways in order to produce energy.  The EV
is associated with the excess energy and many of the other
anomalous phenomena which people have reported.  It seems to be a
locus of anomalous phenomena.  There is now pictorial evidence that
the CF phenomena is an EV phenomena, at least in part.
 
        In the paper that I wrote, I related ball lightning to EVs.  Not
all ball lightning is luminous.  Some people have reported seeing ball
lightning that was opaque and black(1).  Ball lightning and EVs may
leave the place where they form and travel around.  They may travel
along surfaces and leave the long trail-like traces Matsumoto has
shown in several articles.  Matsumoto reports that such a trail was
observed associated with another apparatus.  He says that the
emulsion was located behind the glass of the container of the
apparatus and the liquid, and far away from the palladium rod.
Therefore, the EV must have traveled through the glass and the
water and the air.  Ball lightning has been reported to travel through
material such as glass and ceramic and not have any apparent effects
on the material.  I wonder whether effects may be observable
microscopically, however.  Ohtsuki and Ofuruton have produced ball
lightning-like phenomena which traveled through ceramic and which
apparently did not effect the ceramic(2).  Ball lightning has also been
reported to travel though water(3).  Golka has produced ball
lightning-like phenomena in water.  EVs are also the cause of the
holes in substances which people find.
 
        I am hoping that there can be much more research of this
phenomena, and that people will attempt to detect this phenomena.
I think it is important that those who research EVs and those who
research ball lighting and produce ball lightning-like phenomena
participate in the next CF conference.  BL researchers have had
conferences every year or every other year for several years now,
and there is an international BL conference committee.  Perhaps the
two conferences can be merged together.  Many CF researchers have
begun to be familiar with this phenomena, so they will probably be
interested in discussing BL.  An address for the International
Committee on Ball Lightning is 381 South Meridith Avenue,
Pasadena, California, 91106 U.S.A.
 
 
1. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 67.
2. Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, "Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave
Interference in Air," Nature, 350, 139 (March 14, 1991).
3. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 69.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Not my opinion
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not my opinion
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 15:40:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
In a message which I accidentally erased (and thus cannot quote exactly), Steve
Jones poked fun at a number of my stated opinions. I have no objection to this
whatever. He say that I am weird for believing that proven facts overrule
theory; and I say that he is weird for believing his 3 sigma results and
ignoring McKubre's 90 sigma work. Fair is fair, and to each his own opinion.
 
However, I STRONGLY object to the fact that he added to that list my report of
MITI's position. I said something to the effect that MITI does not care whether
CF is caused by fusion or green cheese, and MITI has no use for low level
neutron radiation, and the only reason they are supporting CF is because they
believe CF creates heat at megajoules per mole of fuel. This is NOT MY OPINION,
and I object to Steve's adding it to the list as if it was. This is a straight,
verifiable report. I listed the dates and names of a few of the newspapers where
these statements appeared. If you don't believe me, call MITI, or get someone
else to translate their official statements. I object to this because by adding
it to list of my opinions, Steve implies that I make up these statements. I
always make a point to draw a clear and *obvious* distinction between my reports
of events, and my opinions, and I expect Dr. Jones to honor that distinction
hereafter.
 
Steve says he does not believe in CF heat. So, he must not believe McKubre's
results, and he must not believe in P&F's work either; apparently he thinks that
the heat of vaporization of water at one atmosphere has mysteriously changed
behind our backs. That's fine -- he is living in a fantasy world. However, MITI
does believe these results. Their spokesmen and program leaders have *clearly*
and *publicly* stated that they believe the heat is real, on several occasions.
They have also very clearly stated that they do not care what the origin of that
heat is, and that they will take no sides in academic debates. They have
publicly stated that they are only interested in the industrial potential of the
heat. Obviously, low level neutrons have no conceivable commercial value. MITI
does not do basic science; that job is for other ministries and agencies of the
Japanese Government.
 
If Steve wants to argue that MITI is misguided or wrong in their judgement,
fine. Good. Let him argue with them. But when he implies that I made up that
opinion and put the words in their mouth, he steps out of line.
 
Naturally, I agree with MITI's views 100%. They consulted with me, I was honored
to contribute to their policy. I would not have reported those views if I did
not agree with them -- there are plenty of other sources for anti-CF news. I am
not an unbiased reporter, and I never have pretended to be. However, when I say
"a MITI spokesman said thus and such in the newspapers," you may be certain I
am telling the truth, because why would I tell such a transparent and easily
detected lie?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 / Dieter Britz /  Fugacity, cheap theories
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fugacity, cheap theories
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 15:41:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
under the  Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post (I am allowing myself
to change this SUBJECT, which seems to have been dragged against its own will
into strange places):
 
>     I don't suppose y'all remember the discussion of 'fugacity'
>     from the Pons and Fleishmann episode a while back.  Fugacity
>     is a concept from chemistry that provides a certain correction
>     to the ideal gas equation of state so that it applies to
>     real gases.  It can be roughly thought of as an 'effective
>     pressure'.  Now one of the reasons P&F started working on
>     the Pd-D system was the enormous fugacity of deuterium in
>     a palladium lattice, but such considerations are incorrect.
>     First, fugacity is not thermodynamic pressure.  Second,in the Pd
>     lattice, the D ions are actually farther apart than they
>     would be if they they were D_2 gas.
 
Some of us do indeed remember this. I don't think this fugacity argument can
be so glibly denied. Again I am exposing my own tendency to bow to authority,
but Bockris has forgotten more than I'll ever know, and he has a certain
argument that defends the fugacity theory against the counterargument that it
is in fact equivalent to a real pressure of only about 1E04 atm. Despite my
admiration for the man (and for Fleischmann), I still have my doubts about
this argument, but the matter is far from settled.
 
Secondly, your dragging out the thing about the d-d distance in PdD, as
compared to that in D2 gas; this was one of the first attempts to disprove
CNF, and it is too cheap. This argument does answer those who seem to feel (as
I think F&P did at one time, presumably before they did some calculations on
the back of the envelope) that cold fusion comes about because of the
extremely high deuterium density in PdD; this has sometimes been named
("enormous hydrogen capacity" or words to that effect) but is no longer the
basis of any theory by thoughtful believers.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  /  Hagelstein Review
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein Review
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:53:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has done a real service in posting the Halgelstein paper, and
I want to thank him for his efforts.  Now, what has Hagelstein provided?
First off I find amoung Peter's comments some real insights into the problem
of finding ways inwhich a lattice can possibly influence nuclear processes.
He clearly recognizes that there are some real limits on what sorts of
things make any sense, where some cold fusion supporters seem to hold to
the notion that it's a free-for-all in which all sorts of wild speculation
can be passed off as "theory".  On the negative side, however, Hagelstein
is clearly too willing to accept all experimental results as valid, even
when there are clear contradictions and well known experimental errors
involved.  Tom Droege has just given us an extensive commentary on the
P&F boiling water reactor which clearly challenges Pons and Fleischmann
or their supporters to come up with something better by way of evidence
or else set those experiments aside as far as providing support for cold
fusion.  I put the various "glow discharge" experiments, including
the NTT-Yamaguchi experiments and the recent Russion work, into the
same limbo.  There are just too many obvious experimental problems to
give the measurements any credibility.
 
Lastly, I want to return to the issue of nuclear reaction products.  I
cannot see anyway in which the various claims for detection of neutrons,
tritium, and/or helium can be reconciled.  If experiment A finds tritium
at a high level and experiment B, presumably inducing the same reaction,
looks for tritium and doesn't find it or finds it at a level orders of
magnitude lower one or both experiments is in error.  If one experiment
finds neutrons correllated to heat production and another experiment
finds an anticorrelation, one or both measurements must be in error.
Hagelstein clearly has done nothing to sort this mess of contradictory
results, and when you consider the limits on possible effects on
nuclear reaction processes that he does admit to, I think he could have
done better at weeding out some of the more absurd claims.  Until
proven otherwise, I do not believe that you can stuff an electron
into a deuteron, convert it into a dineutron, have the dineutron
survive long enough to interact with another nucleus and still suppress
the emission of either or both neutrons sufficiently to match even
the wildest claims for neutron detection.  As for the transfer of
neutrons into some other nucleus such as Pd I say put up or shut up.
Either you offer a specific reaction, including a mechanism for
converting nuclear reaction energy to lattice heat, and show that
the reaction if consistent with experimental results or you admit
you haven't got a workable hypothesis.  The problem with finding
a sneeky way of transfering neutrons is that the energy release is
not going to be easy to hide unless it is small.  If the energy
release is small you then need lots of reactions and lots of reaction
product, i.e. large changes in isotope ratios if that is what is
being considered.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Gamma shielding
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gamma shielding
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:53:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A light gamma shield is wishful thinking unless you a considering pretty
puny gamma rays.  In terms of making most efficient use of space, high
Z materials are most effective by huge factors.  If you don't need
to get close to the source or put sensitive devices there, use of
the one over r-squarred is the way to go.  Only if the energy spectrum
is low relative to X-ray absorbtion edges of various materials is it
possible to do much better than lots of heavy stuff.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  /  Status #18 Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #18 Cell 4A3
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:53:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #18 Cell 4A3
 
Still running and watching the paint fade.  Now near 1500 hours.  The cell is
noisier, and keeps giving off gas.  Other than that we are as near zero as
possible.  But - Three Cheers! - a volunteer stepped forward and is going to
analyze my gas with some big fancy instrument.  I will not name him without
permission, but note the volunteer will be free to post his results, then we
all get to try to explain them.  Or they can be sent through me and identity
kept secret to prevent the establishment from retaliating.
 
Possibly next weekend we will start a new run.  It depends on the "water
machine" schedule, which is now paying the bills.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Chuck Harrison /  biblio on WAIS
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!73770.1337>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: biblio on WAIS
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:53:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes
 
> ... just to see how it worked, [I] asked for the keyword "ion beam".
> It found 40 items ...
wais servers often limit you to 40 items (max); it gives you the 40
"best" articles according to a rather dumb rating algorithm.  In the
quake.think.com server, it seems you can change this number (try 'o').
> ... It would be nice now to get the list of these 40 items (i.e. just
> the headings, as they appear on the screen) in a file to take away,
> but I couldn't do that.
I don't know how, either.  But you _can_ have individual abstracts
e-mailed to you by typing 'm'.
> Then I got stuck. Nothing I typed in would get me out again...
I've been there - it just says (END), right?  Try 'q'.
> ...I suppose there is a README file somewhere...
I learned most of what I know from Krol's _The Whole Internet..._
book.  But also take note regarding wais newsgroups:
 
Archives available from wais-discussion-archive and wais-talk-archives
wais servers or anonymous ftp from quake.think.com.
All wais-discussion newsletters are posted to comp.infosystems.wais, a
netnews discussion group on WAIS issues.
A bibliography of available written materials and resources is
available from
/pub/wais/wais-discussion/bibliography.txt@quake.think.com (ftp) or
WAIS server wais-discussion-archive.src, or on request from
Barbara@think.com.
 
 Cheers,  -Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Chuck Harrison /  Hagelstein article
     
Originally-From: Chuck Harrison <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!73770.1337>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein article
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:54:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some readers may have been confused by the odd timing of my post about
'nagoya.txt', available by ftp.  This _is_ the same article posted here
recently.
 It is available by ftp (login: anonymous) from sunsite.unc.edu in
directory /pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion .  But if you're reading
this newsgroup, you've already seen it all (maybe twice).
 
This archive can hold additional cold fusion papers -- let me know if
you have anything to put there.
  -Chuck
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Dieter Britz /  Hagelstein's Nagoya Summary
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein's Nagoya Summary
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:54:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have noew read all of the Hagelstein summary of the Nagoya cold fusion
conference, as posted by Jed Rothwell and Mitchell Swartz. I assume and hope
that it is intended for publication elsewhere; it certainly should be
published. Hagelstein is mainstream physicist, well known for his success
with x-ray lasers. He got interested in cold fusion, and has put forward
several versions of his own theory of what is happening. He clearly accepts
the reality of "cold fusion" in the sense that something exotic seems to be
going on; but he is not an uncritical TB, far from it. He joins the skeptics
in the demand that if it IS fusion, then there has to be commensurate ash,
so if there is no such ash, it's something else. Nevertheless, that something
else must be nuclear, since it can't be chemical, say the experimenters and
Hagelstein agrees, pointing to numbers like 203 eV/atom, which is too great
for chemistry.
You can read the review for yourself, so I don't need to tell you what's in
it. I was interested to read that Yamaguchi used a sensitive mass spectrometer
in order to confirm his (4)He findings; you need sensitive MS to distinguish
between (4)He and D2, and it has not been previously clear whether Yamaguchi
had it. This makes his helium result more credible - although outside
contamination is still not ruled out. Hagelstein agrees that so far, helium
results have not been convincing. I find his remarks on Li interesting, and
what he says about the Stella experiment. I have half jokingly said a few
times that the fact that as people move to low-background neutron environments
thay get correspondingly low neutron emissions, might mean that the reaction
is stimulated by background neutrons. Stella's results seem to make this a
serious proposition. I am also grateful to Hagelstein for his good summary of
the theories; clearly he is at home there.
All in all, worth reading and, as I said, I hope it will be published.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 793 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 793 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:36:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
All of the 3 core items come from Hal Fox's list. They are a little strange
but are motivated by cold fusion so in they go. The rather old Lo paper looks
at metal deuterides in terms of a dense, coupled, plasma and finds fusion rate
enhancement as a result, though no real numbers seem to be given. Maizza et al
look at the absorption of D2 gas into Pd and Ti at the low temperatures used
by the gas-phase cold fusion school, who always cycle the deuteride between
liquid nitrogen and room temperatures. It is of interest that surface
processes dominate absorption. The Stoppini almost didn't make it into the
category, but it does seem to aim at cold fusion. It is also interesting in
linking cold fusion with the known superconductivity of PdH and PdD - in
common with a quite small number of papers. What the relevance of this is on
cnf at room temperature, I don't know.
 
Recently, there was mention of pinch fusion here, and just a day or so before
that, I saw the item below. According to the people at IC, this bears another
look, as a competitor to the money-eating main techniques of the day, Tokamak
and laser fusion. I get the impression that the idea is that this is much
cheaper and the problems are maybe lickable with today's techniques.
Equally, there has been some mention of heavy Li isotopes, and you can't get
much heavier than (11)Li, which is exotic indeed, with a couple of orbiting
neutrons. This has associations in my mind with some theories of cnf, such as
virtual di- or polyneutrons, and maybe Hagelstein's theory.
 
Someone is going to ask why I ignore sonoluminescence, and the answer is that,
so far, it does not seem to be connected to fusion (it won't be cold) - yet.
When it is, I'll stop ignoring it.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 25-Feb-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 793
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lo SY;                                        Mod. Phys. Lett. B3 (1989) 1207.
"Enhancement of nuclear fusion in a strongly coupled cold plasma".
** Conditions in a metal deuteride are those of dense coupled plasmas (coupled
in the sense that the charges interact). Lo looks at the possibility of d-d
fusion enhancement as a result of this environment and concludes that the
observations of P&F are feasible.                                     Apr-89/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maizza G, Nakamura K, Fujitsuka M, Kitajima M; Il Nuovo Cimento 14D (1992) 27.
"Study on deuterium absorption of Pd at high-pressure D2 gas and low
temperatures".
** Motivated by the observations by several groups of neutron emissions from
metal-deuterium gas systems upon temperature cycling, this paper reports
experiments of deuterium absorption into Pd and Ti at low temperatures and a
range of gas pressures. The measured variable was the metal resistivity. The
analysis of the results included solving the diffusion equation within the
metal.  At Pd, a surface process appeared to be dominant.        Mar-91/Jan-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoppini G;                                  Il Nuovo Cimento 13D (1991) 1181.
"Coulomb screening in superconducting PdH".
** Although this paper alludes to d-d fusion in the metal hydride lattice, it
confines itself to the temperature range, i.e. T <= 11K, where PdH is
superconducting. Electron screening might be supplied by the electron pairs
that give rise to the superconductivity phenomenon, and this might enhance
d-d fusion at these temperatures.                                Jan-91/Sep-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen PG;                                     Nature 361 (1993) 501 (11-Feb).
"A shattered halo".
** This gives a summary of what is known about the (11)Li isotope, anomalously
stable. (10)Li decays instantly but (11)Li does not. Two of the 8 neutrons in
this isotope lie outside the nucleus, and tunnel effects render this
arrangement relatively stable. This has been known for 5 years, and Hansen
gives a description of both old and recent work.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Neill B;                         New Scientist 137(1859) (1993), 24 (6-Feb).
"Fusion at a pinch".
** Pinch fusion was the first method to realise fusion, writes O'Neill, but
has been superseded since its heyday in the 1950's by the two now major
methods, magnetic and inertial confinement, requiring large and expensive
equipment. These two have disappointed many workers during the decades, and
some are now looking again at pinch fusion, where the plasma is confined by
the magnetic field generated by the current going through the plasma itself.
Technical advances now favour another look at this old technique, and an
experiment is under construction at Imperial College, London.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Jed Rothwell /  As even tempered as Henry Higgins
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:36:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege remarks:
 
"Jed Rothwell will now beat up on me for questioning Peter Hagelstein's
computation."
 
Don't be silly. Why should I do that? What do I care, as long as you don't
accuse Peter (or me) of doing anything unethical or underhanded? It is not my
job to answer for Peter. I just did what I always do with interesting remarks:
I faxed them to Peter and Stan. Maybe they will respond, but probably not,
because most serious CF scientists do not post messages on this network. If
Peter made a mistake in his computation, it is no skin off my teeth. There is
nothing wrong with making mistakes. I only get mad:
 
      When people act in an ungentlemanly way -- like the time you wrote a
      letter with some interesting comments and criticisms of an unfinished,
      unpublished paper from Srinivasan, and then did not bother to send your
      letter to him for comment before publishing it. (This does not apply to
      Peter, because he "published" the paper on the network deliberately in
      order to garner comments.)
 
      When people act in a scurrilous, outrageous way -- like the time Britz
      accused Notoya and me of fraud, and the time Britz accused Farrell of
      lying.
 
The only thing that miffs me -- ever so slightly -- is your comment:
 
      "Huizenga is on camera saying that a "boiling cell" is not an experiment.
      I second you John, It is time for P&F to publish reasonable descriptions
      of their experiments..."
 
Huizenga is talking preposterous nonsense (as usual), but you were not at
Nagoya, so you wouldn't know that. Still, you should realize from Peter's
paper that Pons showed lots of data, and handed out data, both during and
after his lecture. He showed graphs and data, and his paper in the upcoming
proceedings is chock-full of both. Where do you think Peter got his numbers
from? The lecture included far more than "just" a video.
 
Let me point out also, that the time-lapse video has *tons* of data in it, for
those who have the eyes to see it. I have heard electrochemists discuss this
video and the BBC one, and they learn *far* more from the video record than
they would from the graphic or numerical data alone. It is a gold mine of
information; they can tell all kinds of things from it! For example, the
close-up shot from the BBC proves conclusively that the boiling is not caused
by electrolysis. There are a half-dozen solid reasons for this, starting with
the fact that there are very few bubbles on the anode, and a great many on the
cathode. With electrolysis, the number of bubbles would be roughly equal.
 
Someday, perhaps I will persuade one of these electrochemists to write an
essay describing the video tapes from a professional's eye. When you hear
these people discuss the video, you realize the enormous gap that exists
between people who specialize in a field, and people like Tom & I, who merely
dabble in it. Arthur Clarke wrote a fictional account of a non-professional
man looking through a microscope at a physics experiment:
 
      "He did not know what he had expected to see, and he remembered that the
      eye had to be educated before it could pass intelligible impressions to
      the brain. Anything utterly unfamiliar could be, quite literally,
      invisible, so he was not too disappointed at his first view." - from
      "Imperial Earth"
 
It is interesting that Tom repeated "McKubre would have done it better" two or
three times. Right after the Pons lecture, I asked McKubre what he thought of
P&F's calorimetry. I believe I mentioned that "Tom Droege thinks it is too
complicated." I don't remember his exact response, but he said something like,
"their calorimetry is perfectly okay. It serves their purposes exactly. It is
not what I do, for my type of experiment, but it fits their needs. I am sure
it is accurate." Mike had no objection to it, and he did not think it was
particularly complicated. The calorimetry seems straightforward to me, and
indisputable. I find Tom's objections to it farfetched and whimsical. Why on
earth would they connect the box in series? If they had any trouble measuring
the water level because of froth, why wouldn't they to turn off electrolysis
for a moment? What difference would it make if there is "some uncontrolled
radiation loss?" That would only add to positive side of the ledger, and
increase the total excess heat.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 / Deac UGC /  Re: Please remit $1 --> sci freedom?
     
Originally-From: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU (Deac Moo of the UGC)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1 --> sci freedom?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 15:51:07 GMT
Organization: The University of Maryland, University College

In article <1993Feb23.230501.18047@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com
(Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
>     2) Small companies do _not_ have an advantage. Very much the oposite.
 
Smaller companies are quicker to adapt to changing conditions.  Or else
they die.
 
Bigger companies get wrapped up in their own way of doing things, and they
usually don't take steps to buck the corporate culture until forced to.
Or would you like to tell me shining giants like IBM and GM have an
advantage of losing millions and millions every year.
 
>Just look at the industrial strength of Japan and Italy for different
>approaches. Japan's large companies have the power and the profits to
>direct the industrial respect of the entire world.
 
Only long enough for the hungry Koreans and ticked off U.S. companies to
undercut them.
 
>     Economies of scale isn't just a phrase and the destruction of the
>American industrial base is the main driving component in the falling
>behind of the U.S.
 
Economies of scale mean when a particular company sneezes, the supporting
industries catch a hold.  Boeing certainly has economies of scale.  Go to
Seattle and figure out what the impact is of their layoffs.
 
"Falling behind"? Bah  We have the healthiest economy in the world, once you cut
through the political propaganda which is (still) being foisted out by
the Clinton adminsitration.  Japan is just starting to correct for their
overgrowth during the 80s and they'll be worse before they'll get better.
Germany is in multi-year headaches as the financial and social costs
of unification catch up with them.
 
Our economic problems will be those inflicted upon us by our government, and
those which will continue to occur during the '90s as the large dinosaur
corporations of the '90s realize they have to make drastic changes or die.
GM and IBM have yet to get serious about reshaping their companies.
 
 
                               ******
   Net postings: Demonstrating the lack of quality psychotherapy in the world.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendoug cudfnDeac cudlnUGC cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  It's not worth it.
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: It's not worth it.
Subject: Re: cold fusion
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 05:45:31 GMT
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 22:33:08 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Well, after going through Dale Bass' carefully selected emails in detail,
I guess he must have been correct in his multiple personal email comments
(he gets _way_ more emotional in private) about me being a self-aggrandizing
dilettante (dabbler) who never puts any work into anything in physics, and
who thinks science is just coining catchy acronyms.  He surely makes a good
go of it, doesn't he?
 
I shouted at my little 3-year old girl tonight, and it wasn't because of
anything she did.  It was from reading Dale Bass' comments.  As I value my
children far more than I do Dale Bass, I think it's time to wrap up my 3
year career in the Usenet medium.  It's just not worth it.
 
Up until a few days ago I got great joy out of occassionally posting to
both sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion.  Now all I get is a little voice
that says "slacker! dilettante! you didn't even look up single reference
first, you lazy pig!"  Dale only said part of that in his private emails,
of course.  But I'm afraid part of me got the message quite effectively,
and it was the part of me that made spend most of my Christmas vacation
writing up ideas on cavitation for the sheer pleasure of it.
 
After this posting I'm shutting down my personal Usenet and flushing all
saved files from active storage.
 
I'll end with a (to me) important posting that Dale forgot to include in
his sequence of what happened in sci.physics.  When I say below that I
was using the acronym HICCUP lightly, I truly meant it.  After multiple
angry personal emails from Bass denouncing me for relying on cute acronyms
instead of science, and for having self-aggrandizement as my sole reason
for even being on this net (what an odd charge to come from Dale Bass),
and of being a dilettante for not immediately driving two hours to look up
the references Bass has provided, I even have to remind myself that I
really didn't mean anything terrible by what I did.  Or maybe I did.
 
Either way, I'm tired of losing sleep and shouting at my kids over it.
 
                                So long,
                                Terry
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From aslws01!aslss01!terry Thu Feb 18 16:33:34 CST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: cold fusion
Message-ID: <1993Feb18.223308.13801@asl.dl.nec.com>
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
References: <1993Feb17.204345.19928@cbfsb.cb.att.com> <1993Feb18.163605.
0245@asl.dl.nec.com> <1993Feb18.185148.17930@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 22:33:08 GMT
 
Hi folks,
 
Well, I said this could be a touchy topic.  I would humbly suggest that any
further discussion be taken to sci.physics.fusion, where it belongs.
 
> | If so, you might find the brief editorial article "Sonoluminescence in
> | from the dark" by John Maddox in Nature Vol 361 4 Feb 1993 p. 397 to be
> | of interest.  The _possibility_ (not established!) of plasma formation
> | during the collapse of cavitation voids is mentioned, based on the unusual
> | continuous (and _possibly_ Planck distribution) spectrum that is emitted.
>
> The nature of the spectrum is a hypothesis, not a fact.  As far as I know,
> no one has measured spectra anywhere near a 'peak'.
 
Cripes, Dale, how many "possiblies maybes perhaps not establisheds" do I have
to put into my sentences when I quote something out of Nature?  Take it up
with John Maddox, not me, please.
 
> I find the hypothesis highly unlikely, in that it implies unphysically
> high temperatures in the 'plasma' formed.  Numbers like 100,000 K and
> 1,000,000 K have been posited.
 
Those were not the figures in the Maddox editorial, I might note.  He said
"50,000 K or even 100,000 K."
 
(What in the world is an "unphysically high temperature," anyway?  NO,
please don't answer that here, take it to sci.physics.fusion if you wish.)
 
> I'm not sure what those numbers mean in a small region (likely molecular
> dimensions) of an ordinary cavitating fluid in thermal nonequilibrium at
> room temperature.  I'd take the fits to tails of equilibrium black-body
> spectra as highly highly speculative.
 
Well, I guess that _sort of_ answers the "unphysically high temps" question...
 
> Representative work is Barber and Putterman, Phys. Rev. Lett.
> 69:3839 (1992).  Spectral measuments are reported from 700 nm down
> to 250 nm in Hiller, Putterman and Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett.
> 69:1182 (1992).
 
Yes, good refs for those interested.  Thanks.
 
> | There's even an acronym that has been bandyied about a bit:  HICCUP, or
> | Hot-In-Cold Cavitation Ultra Pressure.  Whether there are any real HICCUPs
> | to be seen, or this is just another annoying BURP (Blasted UnReal Physics),
> | is yet to be seen...
 
> This is a bit misleading.  Your acronym [GASP! DALE HAS TOLD MY SECRET!]
> has been bandied about primarily by you...
 
Actually, I dropped it in favor of UC or some such.  Steven Jones of BYU has
used it once or twice (in good humor) on email postings, so I think I have
at least a modicum of justification for saying "bandied about," which to
my best recollection means something like "used in light conversation."
 
Speaking of light, Dale, I was rather hoping that a paragraph that includes
acronyms like HICCUP and BURP _might_, just _might_ be taken as an indication
that I'm not taking this as the most deadly serious topic I've ever discussed
in this group.  And anyway, I like BURP better than HICCUP, as both this
group and sci.physics.fusion seem to have had a marvelous number of rather
noisy BURPs submitted to them over the past few years.
 
> I'm beginning to regret mentioning the subject in the context of
> 'cold fusion' sometime last year.
 
Don't beat yourself too much.  I would guess that Steven Jones' interest in
sonoluminescene was due far more to his conversations with Seth Putterman
than anything you may have said.  You can go about with a clear conscience
on that one, I think.
 
> | But it's being looked at, definitely.  And in this case there are no
> | mysterious slanted nuclear reaction rates involved -- only the question,
> | "Hey hot shot, is your hot spot really hot, or not?"
 
> And this is  apparently not a 'hot' field of research as far 'cold fusion'
> goes.  Steven Jones over in the fusion group mentioned that one of his grad
> students is working on experiments, but I know of no one else working on
> the fusion angle.
 
Huh?  Who said it was hot?  I only said "it's being looked at, definitely" --
as you have just confirmed.  The BYU work was the only thing I had in mind
when I said that, and I certainly did not intend to invoke images of vast
hordes of people working full-time on sonoluminescence.
 
However, Steve Jones _does_ have a strong background in detecting low-level
nuclear events, probably one of the better backgrounds in that subject any-
where in the world.  Thus I certainly would rather see someone working under
him be the one looking for any kind of postulated low-level events than some
bunch that doesn't have the foggiest idea how to do such things right.
 
(You know, Steven Jones could easily have created his own little _authentic_
"cold muon fusion" stir years before the 1991 mess had he chosen to do so,
as his experiments in muon fusion in cold liquid D-T reached one of the
nominal "break even" points for that style of fusion.  People wanted him
to do just that -- great P.R., you know.  He didn't for the simple reason
that he realize that that particular breakeven point didn't really mean
much, and that you couldn't build an energy-producing system using such
figures.  I think that speaks well of his integrity in reporting results,
whether you agree with some of his results or not.)
 
> One reason to think that it is not plausable is that there is a tremendous
> difference in the scales on which fluid cavitation of this sort operates
> and fusion operates.   Sonoluminescence is a wonderful phenomenon that
> involves interactions over perhaps 10^11 orders of magnitude, but there
> are certainly 'ordinary' fluid phenomena that involve shocks and molecular-
> type interactions such as light emission.  But in order to produce fusion
> one has to go down many many more orders of magnitude in scale (or
> equivalently increase energy substantially).
 
Good points, and (as best I recall) an accurate statement of the issues.
 
Of course, sonoluminscence _itself_ wasn't really supposed to exist by any
theoretical work that preceded it, was it?  So shucks, why not push the
envelope a tad more just to see what _might_ happen?  It's just a poor grad
students working with a small budget on a decently interesting phenomenon --
is that such a horrible thing?  If they get absolutely zilch, then by golly,
they will have a good thesis on how sonoluminscence does some nice things,
but fusion definitely _ain't_ one of them.
 
> There is absolutely no reason to believe that one can do this by means of
> cavitation.  And there are very good reasons to believe one cannot.
 
Oh posh.  How can you support _that_ view, given that _no one_ claims to
have a full understanding of the SL effect?  It works both ways, you know.
 
I say let the experimenters at BYU have it for a while, and see what (if
anything) they come up with.  I would find a negative finding from an actual
experiment far more convincing than discussions such as this, wouldn't you?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Douglas Mulford /  Vacuums
     
Originally-From: huggabr@lclark.edu (Douglas Mulford)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vacuums
Date: 25 Feb 93 07:10:14 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

Hello All,
        I am in search of some information.  I need to do a paper on vacuum
technology and was wondering if anyone could help.  The specific directions
are "Write on some application of vacuum technology in science or industry."
This is not to be a long paper, but I was hoping that someone could either
direct me to some good sources of information or relate some possibly unique
or different uses of vacuums that they are familiar with.
        Any help that you could provide would be invaluable.  Please either
post to the news group or e-mail me at huggabr@lclark.edu .
I thank you in advance for you help!!!!
 
Thanks,
Douglas Mulford
huggabr@lclark.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhuggabr cudfnDouglas cudlnMulford cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: It's not worth it.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It's not worth it.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 09:17:38 GMT
Organization: None

In article <1993Feb25.054531.22154@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>Well, after going through Dale Bass' carefully selected emails in detail,
>I guess he must have been correct in his multiple personal email comments
>(he gets _way_ more emotional in private) about me being a self-aggrandizing
>dilettante (dabbler) who never puts any work into anything in physics, and
>who thinks science is just coining catchy acronyms.  He surely makes a good
>go of it, doesn't he?
 
     This is getting more surreal by the minute.  First, this is a
     blatant mischaracterization of what I wrote privately (feel free
     to share direct quotes or even the whole batch
     rather than interpreted paraphrases).  Second,
     my e-mail was a direct response to a swipe that you apparently later
     acknowledged as well as to your first posting in sci.physics.fusion
     on this in which you mischaracterized many of our discussions.
     Third, what exactly is the point here?  Surprisingly,
     for one of the very few times in my eight or nine years around Usenet,
     your posting about experimental predictions did actually irritate me,
     and I wrote you that I was not happy about a certain part.  And judging by
     the continuing posts here, you were agitated.  But what of it?
     What is the public posturing for?  What is the relevance to this
     group?
 
>I shouted at my little 3-year old girl tonight, and it wasn't because of
>anything she did.  It was from reading Dale Bass' comments.  As I value my
>children far more than I do Dale Bass, I think it's time to wrap up my 3
>year career in the Usenet medium.  It's just not worth it.
 
     I am responsible for any number of things in my life, my
     comments on Usenet public and private among them.  But I am
     not responsible for your interactions with your child any more
     than you are responsible for my interactions with mine.
 
     It is unfortunate that you feel that you must leave.
     You'd do well to reconsider.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  Richard /  von Neumann patent?
     
Originally-From: richard@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Richard Bornat;E124)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: von Neumann patent?
Date: 25 Feb 93 11:33:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

 
A colleague of mine, Wilfrid Hodges, is writing an entry in the Oxford
Dictionary of Biography (or something similarly impressive, I forget exactly
what) for John von Neumann.  He believes that von Neumann, with Ulam and
Teller, patented the first fusion device.  Is he correct?  Can anybody provide
chapter and verse either way?
 
Reply to me, unless you think the rest of the group really needs to know.
 
Richard Bornat
richard@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrichard cudlnRichard cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Dave Boddy /  Re: Vacuums
     
Originally-From: dboddy@pulsar.lrmsc.loral.com (Dave Boddy 5973)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vacuums
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:32:36 GMT
Organization: Loral Rolm Mil-Spec Computers

In article <1993Feb25.071014.29928@lclark.edu> huggabr@lclark.edu
(Douglas Mulford) writes:
>Hello All,
>        I am in search of some information.  I need to do a paper on vacuum
>technology and was wondering if anyone could help.  The specific directions
>are "Write on some application of vacuum technology in science or industry."
>This is not to be a long paper, but I was hoping that someone could either
>direct me to some good sources of information or relate some possibly unique
>or different uses of vacuums that they are familiar with.
>        Any help that you could provide would be invaluable.  Please either
>post to the news group or e-mail me at huggabr@lclark.edu .
>I thank you in advance for you help!!!!
>
>Thanks,
>Douglas Mulford
>huggabr@lclark.edu
 
        How about vacuum tubes?  Check out the
        _Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature_
 
 
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey! They're lighting their arrows!...Can they DO that?   (Gary Larson)
DoD # 0677   (408) 432-5973  dboddy@pulsar.lrmsc.loral.com
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendboddy cudfnDave cudlnBoddy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fugacity, cheap theories
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity, cheap theories
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 17:44:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <764D552D915FA3B416@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.c
m!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
>
>Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>under the  Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell's right to post (I am allowing myself
>to change this SUBJECT, which seems to have been dragged against its own will
>into strange places):
>
>>     I don't suppose y'all remember the discussion of 'fugacity'
>>     from the Pons and Fleishmann episode a while back.  Fugacity
>>     is a concept from chemistry that provides a certain correction
>>     to the ideal gas equation of state so that it applies to
>>     real gases.  It can be roughly thought of as an 'effective
>>     pressure'.  Now one of the reasons P&F started working on
>>     the Pd-D system was the enormous fugacity of deuterium in
>>     a palladium lattice, but such considerations are incorrect.
>>     First, fugacity is not thermodynamic pressure.  Second,in the Pd
>>     lattice, the D ions are actually farther apart than they
>>     would be if they they were D_2 gas.
>
>Some of us do indeed remember this. I don't think this fugacity argument can
>be so glibly denied. Again I am exposing my own tendency to bow to authority,
>but Bockris has forgotten more than I'll ever know, and he has a certain
>argument that defends the fugacity theory against the counterargument that it
>is in fact equivalent to a real pressure of only about 1E04 atm. Despite my
>admiration for the man (and for Fleischmann), I still have my doubts about
>this argument, but the matter is far from settled.
 
     That wasn't the point.  The relevant naive physical effect
     (distance between the deuterium ions) of thermodynamic
     pressure in gases is demonstrably not the same as the physical
     effect of fugacity in the lattice.  That's apparently a large part of
     what started all this, and the reasoning is not physically correct.
     If some other principle actually does produce 'CNF', then
     the search was quite serendipidous.
 
     I certainly defer to Dr. Bokris on the 'meaning' of fugacity, but
     for the effect initially considered, fugacity is not appropriate.
 
>Secondly, your dragging out the thing about the d-d distance in PdD, as
>compared to that in D2 gas; this was one of the first attempts to disprove
>CNF, and it is too cheap. This argument does answer those who seem to feel (as
>I think F&P did at one time, presumably before they did some calculations on
>the back of the envelope) that cold fusion comes about because of the
>extremely high deuterium density in PdD; this has sometimes been named
>("enormous hydrogen capacity" or words to that effect) but is no longer the
>basis of any theory by thoughtful believers.
 
     It was not an effort to 'disprove' CNF.  It was a demonstration of
     a naive concept based on simple considerations that is not quite right
     physically.  I'm sure you'll agree with me that any 'cold nuclear
     fusion' in the system we're discussing is not the result of
     thermodynamic pressure inside the lattice shortening the
     mean distance between deuterium ions in the lattice.  So, its
     use as an example in the case I cited seems perfectly valid.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Heavy electrons
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Heavy electrons
Date: 24 Feb 93 17:37:42 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Recently, Dieter Britz, Dick Blue and Chuck Sites have raised issues
regarding "electron effective masses" and the notion that somehow
"heavy electrons" could enhance fusion rates.  Large effective
electron masses are often associated with transition metal lattices,
as in palladium.  However, the notion of heavy electrons in this context
is related to *non-local* interactions of electrons with the crystal
lattice.  I agree that it is not easy to see how the *local* concept of
tight binding (e.g. of deuterons in Pd) can be accounted for in this
way.
 
Dieter is also correct that the rate of fusion in hydrogen-isotopic
molecules bound by muons is roughly 1E11 fusions/second.  Let's be more
precise:
 
Molecular ion              Fusion rate (s-1)
 
     d-d-muon               4 E8
     p-d-muon               1 E9
     d-t-muon               1.3 E12  (that's fusion in a picosecond,folks!)
     t-t-muon               1.5 E7
 
The differences in the calculated fusion rates are illuminating.  Small
variations in reduced masses generate very large differences in fusion rates.
Also, fusion from the d-d-muon molecule is suppressed since fusion must occur
from the J=1 state of the molecule rather than from the ground state.
(The d-d-mu molecular ion is formed resonately in the J=1 state; transition
to the ground state is forbidden quantum mechanically.)
A nuclear resonance enhances the d-t-muon fusion rate.  Cold muon-catalyzed
fusion proceeds rapidly without the need for high temperatures.
 
It is surprising that fusion increases by some * 80 * orders * of magnitude
when a muon replaces an electron as a binding agent in a hydrogen-like
molecule, and the internuclear separation is reduced by a factor of approx.
200 (the ratio of the muon to electron mass).  We expressed ourselves thus
in our Nature paper (27 April 1989) on "cold nuclear fusion" sans muons:
 
"A hypothetical quasi-particle a few times as massive as the electron would
increase the cold fusion rate to readily measurable levels of approx. 1E-20
per d-d molecule per second.  The results reported here imply that a
comparable distortion of the internuclear wavefunction can be realized when
hydrogen nuclei are loaded into metals under certain conditions."  (Jones
et al., p. 737)
 
We are not saying that we know how to make "heavy electrons."
 
For more information, I recommend:
C. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, J. Phys. G 12:213 (1986)  (Piezonuclear fusion)
J. Cohen and J. Davies, Nature 338:705 (1989)  ("The cold fusion family")
S.E. Jones, Nature 321:127 (1986)  (muon-catalyzed fusion)
W. Breunlich et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 39:311 (1989). (mu-c-f)
 
TTFN  (Ta Ta For Now)
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: Geofusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Geofusion
Date: 24 Feb 93 16:14:22 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks for responses to Fusion Digest 771 (S.E. Jones, 18 Feb 1993) on the BYU
geofusion hypothesis to 1) account for 3He arising in abundance from earth's
volcanos, and 2) predict tritium emissions from volcanos.  Now to answer
questions by Dieter, Chuck Harrison, and Bruce Dunn:
 
In article <77D649EA75DFA3BEE3@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:>
>
> This is very interesting. Let us not forget, however, that a very careful
> study (as far as I am able to judge), found nothing. This was the paper by
> 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". It's
> in the bibliography. They found even less T in the volcano than in rain water.
> I mention this not to discredit you, Steven, but to keep the balance.
>
> Tritium is present at very low concentrations. What we need - and what you and
> others are of course are working towards - is a sufficient number of clear
> positive findings. Any single instance of a positive - or negative - result
> proves nothing. Very frustrating, I suppose, to the researchers concerned.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 
Actually, Quick et al. found about 2.5 tritium units (1 TU = 7 dpm/kg H2O) as
I recall in their studies of water from fumaroles of Kilauea.  However,
they made
no attempt to differentiate magmatic water from rain water.  They simply
*assumed* that this amount of tritium came from rain water.
 
On the other hand, Goff, McMurtry et al. went the extra mile by analyzing
the fumarole water for oxygen 16/oxygen 18 ratio along with the p/d ratio,
compared this with surface (rain) water nearby and with other studies of
magmatic water.  They then were able to show that in their samples, which
showed about 2.8 TU at Kilauea, the tritium is indeed associated with
magmatic water.  In short, the *assumption* of rain water contamination by
Quick et al. was examined by Goff et al. (for the Goff samples) and found
wanting.  Quick et al. just did not go far enough.  They apparently stopped
looking when their result matched an easy explanation.  I must leave more
detail on the meticulous methods of Goff and McMurtry for their paper which
has been submitted for publication.
 
You are right, Dieter, that a single positive or negative result proves
nothing.  Therefore, McMurtry and Goff went on in the dangerous and difficult
task of collecting samples from other volcanos, Mt. St. Helens (showed about
3.0 +- 0.3 TU) and Picaya (less 3H but still significant).  They predict
that Galeras volcano (which erupted last month just before they took samples,
killing some 9 persons) will show 2.6 TU based on its relative 3He yield and
other considerations.  These samples are now being analyzed for 3H content.
So that makes *three* positives and one more test on the way.  Further
expeditions are contemplated for Japanese and African volcanos.
==Also for Loihi, the underwater volcano building SW of the Big Island of
Hawaii.  Underwater, the possibility of tritium contamination from rain
water is further reduced.  They have
waited to submit this paper referred to until they had completed studies
on three different volcanos, and separated magmatic from meteoric water
contibutions.  They also examined thoroughly the possibility of 3H
production via prosaic reactions, such as neutron capture in lithium.
Here the numbers fail by at least an order of magnitude for Kilauea (I
haven't checked the other volcanos myself), owing mainly to the very
small concentrations of fissile isotopes in magma.
 
{Is that volcanoes or volcanos -- guess I'll have to ask Dan Quayle...}
 
I spoke to Prof. McMurtry earlier today about the Quick et al. paper.
He feels that their
conclusion that the tritium they detected at Kilaeua was due to rain water
is unfounded and merely supports a preconceived notion, since they made no
attempt to differentiate rain from magmatic waters using other isotopes.
He reported to me that a geologist (I won't name him here) tried to prevent
their team from even collecting samples at Kilauea.
 
(An aside:  Terry
Bollinger is correct that I and others studying possible low-level nuclear
anomalies receive surprising and disconcerting opposition to our research
efforts.  In late 1989, one university
researcher swore at me, said virtually no one believed me, and said that
senior people did not like my getting media attention.  He said he
opposed my work and that he was trying to "save the face of science" from
my nonsense. Another time perhaps on this sad commentary.)
 
**Bruce Dunn asked how much tritium is in the magmatic water (reported above)
and how it is measured.  The 3H is evaluated by Gote Ostlund, an expert in the
field at the U. of Miami.  As I understand the process, Prof. Ostlund first
enhances the tritium concentration electrolytically, then electrolyses the
sample and passes the gas through a gas-flow proportional counter.  He has
been in the business for at least 25 years.   His lab is certainly one of the
best in the business.
 
**Chuck Harrison reports an interesting hypothesis by Don Anderson of CalTech,
that the 3He isotopic enhancement found in volcanic emissions may stem from
cosmic-dust sediment.  Prof. McMurtry points out that this hypothesis stretches
far to try to explain the 3He anomaly.  (This shows perhaps how worried
geologists are about the reigning paradigm, that 3He was trapped in the earth
and that the emissions are from this primordial reserve.  --I discussed this
in some detail in my 18 Feb. posting.)  He questions how this could possibly
account for the large 3He/4He ratio found in mid-Pacific plate hot spots, and
questions whether cosmic dust could account quantitatively for the scale of
the 3He emissions.    Has Don published any numbers?
 
Prof. McMurtry told me of another geologist who asked whether tritium could
come from a primordial supply.  We did a quick calculation, and found that
this is not possible owing to the short (12.4 year) half-life of tritium,
unless the earth is only 10E4 years old or thereabouts.
 
I think we should pursue the "geofusion" hypothesis a bit more, don't you?
We may yet learn something.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / David Morning /  Re: von Neumann patent?
     
Originally-From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: von Neumann patent?
Date: 25 Feb 93 16:45:05 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

richard@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Richard Bornat;E124) writes:
 
 
>A colleague of mine, Wilfrid Hodges, is writing an entry in the Oxford
>Dictionary of Biography (or something similarly impressive, I forget exactly
>what) for John von Neumann.  He believes that von Neumann, with Ulam and
>Teller, patented the first fusion device.  Is he correct?  Can anybody provide
>chapter and verse either way?
 
He wouldn't by any chance be related to Alfred E. Neumann?
 
[runs for cover!!]
 
Dave
 
--
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendam cudfnDavid cudlnMorning cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / mitchell swartz /  no boil at start
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: no boil at start
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 17:54:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
  In world sci.physics.fusion:5266,  Wed, 24 Feb 1993, Tom Droege,
 (ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE), discusses "The P&F Boiling Cell"
 
 
>>   "Peter (Hagelstein) presents a very naive interpretation
>>  of the Pons-Fleischmann boiling cell.  Using the amount of D2O in the
>>  cell as stated by Pons, he computes a power gain of 3.85.  ....
>>  First the amount of water in the cell.
>>   Pons says it was 2.5 moles at the start of the boil off.  I have seen
>>  the pictures of the boiling cell, and I can think of no way, within a
>>  factor of two, to estimate the contents.  The only thing I could say
>>  for sure is that it is less than you are apt to think.
>>  The cell is violently "boiling".  More properly we might say gassing.
>>   In any case it is hard to tell where the top water line is.
>>   There are so many bubbles in the cell that it may be more gas
>>  than liquid."
 
 
  Tom:
 
  I am watching the Pons-Fleischmann tape (albeit PAL to NTSC converted)
as this is written.  It is not true that ** initially ** there is "boiling".
These 4 grouped electrochemical cells (in this film) are quiet initially.
It would be easy to calculate the amount of water present, and with
Avagadro's number, thereby the quantity of moles present.
 
>>   "My guess is that they add D2O from time to time in an
>>  amount suitable to make up for the losses from the electrolysis."
 
 
   These experiments appear carefully designed with significant separation
of the cathode from the end of the long electrochemical cell, and also
appear to end when the solvent is gone.
 
 
                             Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / J Lewis /  Re: Not my opinion
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not my opinion
Date: 25 Feb 93 15:13:21 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930224011520_72240.1256_EHL87-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
   ...
>                 I said something to the effect that MITI does not care whether
>CF is caused by fusion or green cheese ...
 
>They have also very clearly stated that they do not care what the origin of that
>heat is, and that they will take no sides in academic debates.
Purely from a health and safety point of view this seems a little
irresponsible on MITI's part, wouldn't you say?
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Letter to Terry Bollinger
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter to Terry Bollinger
Date: 25 Feb 93 11:48:25 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Terry,
 
Please reconsider your decision to leave the net.
I for one find your comments insightful and thought-provoking.
In particular, your work on possible fusion connected with sonoluminescent
phenomena is one of the motivators for our experiments in this area at BYU.
*Idea men* are often ridiculed, in my experience, but which we need such
as you to maintain productive creativity.
 
I will let you know how the SL/fusion experiments turn out; I regret that
the experimental program moves so slowly, but that is the price paid for
extreme care.  Two students and I are planning a trip despite a major snow storm
to go to our tunnel lab in the Wasatch mountains -- to do SL experiments,
today.
 
I nearly left research entirely in 1990 and again in 1992, owing primarily
to vituperative comments
and behind-the-back efforts to restrict my research and funding.  Let me
be more specific:  there were messages to the director of LAMPF as
well as my funding agent at DOE, in attempts to have my research curtailed.
There were efforts also to prevent publication of the Los Alamos/BYU paper
on neutron detection.  I have gathered the facts in some detail, but feel
saddened rather than vengeful.  Ways have been found for me to continue the
research, mainly because of supportive friends and BYU and EPRI(small) funding.
 
Somehow we have to rise above those who are "out for blood" in an effort to
do good science.  I have long since given up on seeking for kudos -- I mostly
expect judo chops instead.  But the results don't go away, darn it, and my
curiosity and hope to find something true and perhaps useful drives me.  Your
contributions are appreciated by me, Terry.
 
I perceive that you are a man of peace with dislike for confrontations.  I
guess my skin has thickened since 1989 when the rug was pulled out from under
me.  The comments you take to be harsh and personally offensive are not seen
as so harsh by others (at least me).  I don't know if this helps,
but I think your contributions on the net
will be appreciated in the long run.  For now, we run the gauntlet.
 
 
Actually, you may be right -- maybe it's not worth it.  Perhaps this is part
of what's happening to research in America and elsewhere.  Many of my
colleagues have completely abandoned this area and counseled me to do the same,
and friendships are strained to the breaking point.  In Nagoya, Prof. Huizenga
commented that all the good researchers had long since left the field.  That
sort of remark hurts, you know.  In general, it is clear that the
unfair association of our work with claims of xs-heat-due-to-cold-fusion has
cost us dearly.
 
I have decided to continue the study of possible low-level nuclear effects
in deuterided solids, and the natural geofusion hypothesis, for one more year.
By personal notes, I will keep you posted
on developments here during this time.  If you choose to post your ideas, I
for one will welcome them.  I recognize the many hours you have put into them.
 
Best Regards and Hopes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 / Allan Duncan /  Re: RE: Geofusion
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE: Geofusion
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 23:16:45 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <1993Feb24.161422.444@physc1.byu.edu>, by jonesse@physc1.byu.edu:
 
> **Chuck Harrison reports an interesting hypothesis by Don Anderson of CalTech,
> that the 3He isotopic enhancement found in volcanic emissions may stem from
> cosmic-dust sediment.  Prof. McMurtry points out that this hypothesis stretches
> far to try to explain the 3He anomaly.  (This shows perhaps how worried
> geologists are about the reigning paradigm, that 3He was trapped in the earth
> and that the emissions are from this primordial reserve.  --I discussed this
> in some detail in my 18 Feb. posting.)  He questions how this could possibly
> account for the large 3He/4He ratio found in mid-Pacific plate hot spots, and
> questions whether cosmic dust could account quantitatively for the scale of
> the 3He emissions.    Has Don published any numbers?
>
> Prof. McMurtry told me of another geologist who asked whether tritium could
> come from a primordial supply.  We did a quick calculation, and found that
> this is not possible owing to the short (12.4 year) half-life of tritium,
> unless the earth is only 10E4 years old or thereabouts.
 
If the tritium was from a deep source, would you expect to see a
difference between volcanoes (sp. fr. Concise Oxford Dict. :-)) in
subduction zones cf. spreading?
 
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:
cuddy25 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Self-targeting
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self-targeting
Date: 25 Feb 93 17:38:28 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dieter Britz recently posted something regarding d-d (hot) fusion
caused by self-targeting.  I would like more information on this, please.
In particular, are you saying, Dieter, that there is early evidence (pre-1989)
for fusion caused by a deuteron beam with less than 1 keV incident energy,
impinging on a metal?
I would find this hard to believe -- but if so, please include references.
I probably misunderstood you and can't now put my finger on your posting.
I agree that many so-called cold-fusion experiments in fact use high (> 10keV)
energy deuteron beams, and are probably reporting hot fusion effects.
 
I would consider d-d fusion under circumstances of d energy < 1 keV --> metal
as anomalous -- indeed,
experiments of this type are included in the proceedings of the 1990 Provo
meeting on "Anomalous nuclear effects in deuterium/solid systems," published
by American Institute of Physics, No. 228.   Dick Blue has commented on some
of these experiments here.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: off the wall muon fusion suggestions
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: off the wall muon fusion suggestions
Date: 25 Feb 93 18:03:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <199302230412.AA01547@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, "Richard
Schroeppel" <rcs@cs.arizona.edu> writes:
> (Thanks to Steve Jones for summarizing muon (cold) fusion status.)
>
> Problem:  Muons don't live long enough to do their thing.
> Solution:  If you peek at them enough, they live longer.  How much
>            voyeurism, with what probe, is required?
 
You're right, Richard, this is off-the-wall.  Muons decay via the weak
interaction.  The only way I know of to increase their lifetime in a local
frame is to speed them up so that relativistic effects increase the effective
lifetime.
 
> Problem:  Muon sticks to alpha particle, ending a productive career.
> Solutions:  Arrange for He3 in medium, and hope muon will fuse it
>             with something.
>             Operate reactor hot enough that He (doubly) ionizes.
>             Arrange for large excesses of D & T, so that He is hard
>             for the muon to find.
>             Accelerate He+muon through a metal to strip muon.
>             How tightly bound is the muon to the alpha?  Any chance
>             of stealing it with an energetic oxidizer?
>
> Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>
 
As I recall (you can do a quick calculation:  homework), the alpha-muon
ion is bound with 11 keV in the ground state.  Obviously, if we operate a
reactor at this temperature, we will have hot fusion.  (Muon-catalyzed fusion
proceeds rapidly for *intact* hydrogenic molecules owing to *resonant* muo-
molecule foration in intact molecules such as D2 -- see Sci. American July
1987 or Nature May 1986 articles on mu-c-f.)  Oxidizer -- no.  Stripping in
as you suggest has been considered -- actually stripping in frozen
d-t ice -- see "A new concept for mu-c-f reactor", T. Tajima et al. in
AIP No. 181: "Muon Catalyzed Fusion", 1988, S.E. Jones, J. Rafelski and
H.J. Monkhorst editors.
 
Good luck,
Steve Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Frank Close /   BBC video?
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  BBC video?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:44:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has twice mentioned a "BBC" video of Pons bubbling cell.
Can you be more specific please? The BBC do not know of any such video.
Martin Fleischmann showed a video of bubbling cell in the UK in August
which I described on the net. You suggest that electrochemists have been
positively impressed by this. You do not say who these people are;
David Williams, Martin Fleischmann's one time colleague, described the
performance as "underwhelming"; excitement in this process in the UK
is deafening by its silence but perhaps you have access to some high quality
video that UK scientists have not seen.
 
Having seen the above video, and also one shown by Fleischmann in December,
I would say that Tom Droege has raised some questions that need answers.
 
Thank you for posting Peter Hagelstein's report; it is good to see some
"meat" for discussion on the net. But as it is now agreed (is it?) that
dd fusion is not happening, do we need to consider papers like that of Lo
(in Dieter Britz most recent bibliography)?
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Dieter Britz /  RE: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:44:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
 
>      When people act in a scurrilous, outrageous way -- like the time Britz
>      accused Notoya and me of fraud, and the time Britz accused Farrell of
>      lying.
 
Now, Jed, here your memory fails you. What I "accused" Farrell of is not
lying, but joking. I do know where to draw the line, and I have never believed
that he was lying. The Mills & Farrell theory is so preposterous that the
first reaction is, they must be playing a joke. This greatly offended Farrell
at the time, and I apologised.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fugacity, cheap theories
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fugacity, cheap theories
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:44:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
 
>>>     I don't suppose y'all remember the discussion of 'fugacity'
>>>     from the Pons and Fleishmann episode a while back.  Fugacity
>>>     is a concept from chemistry that provides a certain correction
>>>     to the ideal gas equation of state so that it applies to
>>>     real gases.  It can be roughly thought of as an 'effective
>>>     pressure'.  Now one of the reasons P&F started working on
...
>     That wasn't the point.  The relevant naive physical effect
>     (distance between the deuterium ions) of thermodynamic
>     pressure in gases is demonstrably not the same as the physical
>     effect of fugacity in the lattice.  That's apparently a large part of
>     what started all this, and the reasoning is not physically correct.
>     If some other principle actually does produce 'CNF', then
>     the search was quite serendipidous.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                ^
                                |
      --------------------------
      |
This idea has preoccupied me for some time. F&P had a certain idea, based on
quite naive initial assumptions such as enormous hydrogen capacity, therefore
close d-d neighbourhood in PdD, enormous fugacity, ergo: this might cause
fusion. They tried it, and lo! there seemed to be fusion. Later, doubts crept
in, and nowadays most seem to agree that whatever it is, it's unlikely to be
fusion. What are the chances that a specific idea will serendipidously let
you stumble on the very conditions that make for quite another anomalous,
hitherto unknown, effect? The chances of this are negligible. This in itself
again proves nothing. The creationists (and others) use such arguments against
evolution, and no doubt it is easy to prove that life as we know it is very
very improbable. Nevertheless, that argument adds to my hesitation in
accepting cold fusion as real - until I see incontrovertible evidence.
 
 As for fugacity, Bockris's point is that at a given (very high) fugacity, the
pressure, as felt at a wall, is not the same as forces felt between particles;
that, indeed, the high fugacity does reflect enormous inter-particle forces.
This argument is (now) uncoupled from any assumptions about d-d distances.
 
But thanks for clearing up my misconceptions about your misconceptions.
 
TTFN (I like it, Steve; didn't know USAmericans say "ta ta").
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 /  /  Vacuum Technology for D. Mulford
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vacuum Technology for D. Mulford
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:45:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Douglas, Get thee to a library that has one of the following journals.
Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology,  Review of Scientific Instru-
ments, or Measurement Science and Technology.  Vacuum technology plays
a key role in all semiconductor device fabrication, everything that
involves ion beams and/or particle accelerators, freeze drying to
produce instant coffee, vacuum coating processes used for optical
devices, plasma devices, every device and system launched into space,
everything using cryogenics, . . .  The list is endless.  Vacuum
technology is an essential, but generally overlooked, ingredient in
virtually every high-tech industrial and scientific enterprise you
can think of, a fact that makes it rather alarming to note that the
US of A has become an "underdeveloped third-world country" depending
very heavily on vacuum equipment manufactured abroad.  Your instructor
is to be congratulated for urging you to investigate the field of
vacuum technology!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 /  /  Yamaguchi's mass resolution, NOT!
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi's mass resolution, NOT!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:45:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One bit of misinformation keeps creeping into summaries of the current
state of CF research such as Hagelstein's recently post review.  The
statement which I challenge has to do with the capability of the mass
spectrometer used by Yamaguchi to resolve 4He+ ions from the predominant
D2+ ions.  Graphs of the peak(s) in the mass four region are shown in
Yamaguchi's presentation for everyone to examine themselves.  You don't
need to take anyone elses word, although some explaination of what is
happening may help you understand why I say Yamaguchi's claim for
detection of 4He is on shakey ground.  It is an unfortunate situtation
in that the basic instrument he used is capable of resolving 4He if, and
only if it is not abused.  A relatively minor and inexpensive modification
of his experimentaly apparatus could make a big difference in the quality
of his data.  The problem, simply put, is that the signal which Yamaguchi
interprets as evidence for 4He appears only when the operating vacuum
in his device is driven beyond the proper operating range for the mass
spectrograph.  Under those circumstances the deuterium peak broadens and
becomes distorted due to ion scattering in the spectrograph.  It clearly
overlaps the region where any helium signal would occur!  It simply becomes
an untruth to say that the instrument can resolve helium from deuterium.
The fact that in its proper operating range the instrument would provide
the needed resolution is irrelevant.  It's too bad that someone with
such resources available hasn't done a better experiment than has Yamaguchi,
but it just isn't good data.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 /  /  Hagelstein Paper
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!acad.fandm.edu!J_FARRELL
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein Paper
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:45:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My thanks to Peter Hagelstein for his excellent report on the Third
International Conference On Cold Fusion.  Also, my thanks to Jed Rothwell
for getting the paper to us.
 
Although I a sympathetic to Tom Droege's criticisms of the Pons and
Fleischmann demo I can not give these criticisms too much weight.
Suggesting that P&F could boil away 23 mL of water and try to pass it off
as boiling away 45 mL of water is more than I can bear from these fine
scientists.  I belive what they are saying.  They are too good at what they
do to expect anything else.
 
I learn these things from the P&F demo.
 
1.  They are getting excess heat.  This conclusion may be easier for me to
reach than for most of you to reach because I know from our measurements
that huge amounts of excess heat are possible.  Mills et al are getting 50
watts out with only 2.5 watts in (VxI).  They would have to be real dummies
to make such a gigantic error.  P&F are good and they are woring with a
system that should work.
 
Pd2+  =  Pd3+  +  1e-      32.93 eV
Li+  +  1e-  =  Li          -5.392 eV
______________________________________
Pd2+   +   Li+     =  Pd3+   + Li      27.54 eV
 
(27.2 eV is the potential enery of hydrogen-atom electron and it is also
the energy that must be removed to change the effective nuclear charge from
+1 to +2.  Note that the Li+ is critical;  Na+ will not work.).  In our
case we use
 
K+   =  K2+   + 1e-            31.63 eV
K+    +   1e-   =   K           4.34 eV
_________________________________________
 2K+   =    K2+   +    K        27.28 eV
 
(These are, of course, gaseous ionization energies.  The actual ionization
energies will be affected by the electrolyte: H2O, D2O, ion concentration,
electric field gradients, magnetic fields, etc)
 
(This is a catalytic process; the products immediately transfer electrons
to return to the reactants.)
 
2.  It looks to me that P&F can only sustain the excess heat for a short
period of time--otherwise they would do flow calorimetry to show the excess
heat. (Or, they might want to leave some doubt at this point.)
Nonetheless, they are making good progress.
 
3.  It is not a nuclear process--or at least not the **normal** nuclear or
they would be dead.  Note that the 200 eV per atoms is easily available
from fractional-quantum-number hydrogen-atom states.  Some nuclear ash will
be observed because of the slightly enhanced fusion rates of
smaller-than-normal hydrogen atoms (just like muon-enhanced fusion).
 
4.  P&F can easily show that Li+ is necessary and that the excess heat is
not due to factors stated by Droege.  Do the experiment with Na+ instead of
Li+.
 
Those scientists doing these experiments are now 100% certain that the
effect is real.  They now have two tasks:  (1) an experiment(s) that will
blow the detractors away;  (2) find out why the heat is produced.  For some
time those who knew the effect was real were not anxious to do the first
task.  After all, why encourage the potential competition. I not sure if
that time has passed, but its days are numbered.  The real race is now to
find why the excess heat.  My best wishes to all competitors.
 
John Farrell
Franklin & Marshall College
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 /  /  All those bubbles
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: All those bubbles
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 05:20:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The details about Pons and Fleischmann's current series of experiments
that are contained in the recent Hagelstein review and comments by others
really leave me wondering how they could possible have their experiments
well enough under control to justify their claims.  The situation as I
understand it involves the following:  a relatively small Pd cathode
in perhaps 50 cc of D20 gets very hot (perhaps 300 C) while the electro-
lyte boils away with lots of bubbles on the cathode.  Meanwhile the
electric power input is carefully measured with no serious perturbations
due to those bubbles, rapidly changing liquid levels, wild variations in
ion concentrations, and rising sample temperature.  We are assured that
the loading doesn't change even though no measurements are made on the
evolved gases, vapors, mists or droplets.  Through all this the very
sophisticated calorimetry technique is undisturbed by wide temperature
differences between the cathode and the electrolyte which eventually
all leaves the scene of the accident.  How do they keep on measuring
meaningful temperatures through all of this chaos?  Excuse me for
suggesting that perhaps even the world masters of electrochemistry
can't pull off a real experiment under these conditions.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 /  /  More on the P&F Boiling Cell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on the P&F Boiling Cell
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 05:20:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

More on the P&F Boiling Cell
 
The last note brought a response from Gene Mallove in which he says "...
Furthermore, no bulk water was leaving the cell  -- explicitly stated by
Pons."  I assume this is a correct quote of what Pons said, as Gene was there.
 
To me this is a very naive statement on the part of Pons.  If he had said < 1%
of the contents leave as water droplets, then I would still be skeptical, but
would at least consider that he has studied the problem.  "no bulk water"
implies that he has achieved something astounding.  Even though I have a trap
in the top of my cells, I still have trouble with water droplets in the gas
line.  In a cell boiling (or gassing) as violently as those shown in the P&F
video, there are droplets flying around everywhere inside the cell.  You can
even see likely liquid loss as large bubbles form and pop in the video.  Some
pieces of the exploding bubbles will splash into the outlet gas tube, then the
steam flow will push them outside.  A simple test would be to condense the
steam, and to check it with a pH meter.  The chemists out there can correct
me, but I would think that too much Lithium (i.e. high pH) in the condensate
indicates that there is some direct transport of liquid (and thus all the heat
of vaporization cannot be counted).
 
Unfortunately, I was unable to discern how the gas exits the cell from the
video.  I did not see any complex structure.
 
I have spent some time thinking about how to turn this into an experiment
which would be able to make a measurement of the heat flow.  It is not easy.
 
First I would have a trap in the top of the cell.  Something like a chemists
distillation column.  Convolutions and a tube to return the condensed and
trapped liquid to the bottom of the cell.  Then I would have a superheater to
raise the temperature of the steam well above the boiling point.  Again a long
insulated convoluted path, probably with an electric heater whose power is
counted in the energy put into the cell.  This is not all that easy.  The
superheater must be able to cope with a sudden high heat load as the cell
starts to boil.
 
Now I would take the hot gas (steam) to a second calorimeter where it would be
condensed at constant temperature.  The liquid would also be collected here
and weighed (at least at the end of the boil off).  The hard part would be
getting the steam from the first calorimeter to the second without loss or
gain of energy.  I would try a temperature controlled tube, held at the same
temperature as the superheater, which I would also temperature control.  The
tricky part is partitioning the heat between the transfer tube and the main
calorimeter.  Another problem is that the condensing calorimeter sees no load
for a long time, then suddenly has to take a large heat load for a short
period of time.  This suggests a water bath in a dewar, good old fashioned
calorimetry.  One could try just a dewar full of cold water with the tube
from the experiment sticking into the bottom of the dewar.  I think most of
the obvious problems could be solved by calibration experiments.  With care a
few percent should be possible.  With a claim of hundreds of percent, a good
experiment should be possible.
 
Some will say that I am too picky about these things, and that I don't have to
use a "heat microscope" to look at the sun.  I say I just want to see a
complete experiment, with the obvious things measured, and error limits.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / Jed Rothwell /  A delicious hot rumor
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A delicious hot rumor
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 05:20:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
According to a widely circulating, highly substantiated rumor, Dr. Steven Jones
of BYU has achieved massive excess HEAT in a light water "cold fusion" cell.
Furthermore, he is reportedly scrambling to get funding for this successful
massive excess HEAT cell.
 
Congratulations Steve! We knew you could get HEAT, if you only tried, because
you are such a hot scientist!
 
Anyone with a recipe for crow or hat should please forward it to Dr. Jones,
whose embarrassed face is probably burning (with HEAT), although he may be
having a red hot time. People wanting a reliable recipe for producing excess
HEAT should contact Dr. Jones. Perhaps Dr. Jones will bless us by posting
details of his latest HEAT results hot off the press.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / Henry Bauer /       DANGER--CHEMICAL FLAME--MOLE AND AVOGADRO'S NUMBER
     
Originally-From: Henry Bauer <ub-gate.UB.com!vm1.nodak.edu!BAUERH%VTVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      DANGER--CHEMICAL FLAME--MOLE AND AVOGADRO'S NUMBER
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 05:20:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz says it's easy to calculate the number of moles of water,
knowing the amount of water and using Avogadro's number.
I'm sorry: someone who thinks Avogadro's number is needed in this calculation
really shouldn't use the term "mole".
Maybe I'm especially sensitive because almost all my freshman chemistry
students said they had heard of "mole" in high school BUT NOT ONE OF THEM
UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT MEANS.
Is it really so difficult? 1 mole = (roughly) 6 x 10E23  which, yes, is
Avogadro's number. But to calculate the number of moles in a given weight of
anything, you just divide by its molecular weight
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnHenry cudlnBauer cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / John Logajan /  Re: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
Date: 26 Feb 93 06:07:54 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>...the
>close-up shot from the BBC proves conclusively that the boiling is not caused
>by electrolysis. There are a half-dozen solid reasons for this, starting with
>the fact that there are very few bubbles on the anode, and a great many on the
>cathode. With electrolysis, the number of bubbles would be roughly equal.
 
Why would bubbling necessarily be roughly equal?  You have a polarized current
flow, implying different electro-chemical reactions are taking place at each
electrode site.  I should think the energy division could be something other
than 50/50.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: no boil at start
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: no boil at start
Date: 26 Feb 93 07:29:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C30n3E.7y@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   These experiments appear carefully designed with significant separation
>of the cathode from the end of the long electrochemical cell, and also
>appear to end when the solvent is gone.
 
Mitchell, it seems to me that I either read or heard Pons saying that
they _never_ add any water to the operating experiment -- that he lets
them boil dry to end the experiment.
 
Can't think of where I heard or read it though.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Z Ahsanullah /  RE: Letter To Terry Bollinger
     
Originally-From: zahid@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Zahid Ahsanullah)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Letter To Terry Bollinger
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:03:37 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Austin, Tx.

I enjoy reading Terry Bollinger's article they have
been instrumental in clearing some of the concepts
in physics that I never really understood well. I'm
referring to two excellant articles on sub-ground states
especially. Terry, if you are reading this I hope you will
reconsider your decision to leave this newsgroup. I'm sure
a lot of us will benefit from your knowledge.
 
Best Wishes
Zahid
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzahid cudfnZahid cudlnAhsanullah cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Larry Wall /  Re: Hagelstein Review
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hagelstein Review
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 20:31:34 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <009689C0.AAB652C0.1714@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> ub-gate.UB.com!n
cl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue writes:
 
: If experiment A finds tritium at a high level and experiment B,
: presumably inducing the same reaction, looks for tritium and doesn't
: find it or finds it at a level orders of magnitude lower one or both
: experiments is in error.
 
Or the presumption is in error.  Logic should be as simple as possible,
but no simpler...  :-)
 
I can well imagine the tritium production depending on the
concentration of 1H in 2H, especially if, as seems likely, the fusion
reactions we do see are merely epiphenomenal.  On the other hand, I
quite agree that it's difficult to get *all* the results to agree.
Certainly we have seen differing thresholds of tolerance to "noise".
 
The big problem with this field is that the only people who can say
with certainty that there's a signal in the noise are those who have
eliminated all possible sources of noise.  And it's difficult to prove
a negative assertion like that to yourself, let alone to others.  Until
this happens, people will continue to see what they want to see, on
both sides.  Hats off to folks like Tom and Steve and Terry and Dieter,
who each (in their own way) aim to see what's there, and nothing else.
 
The integrity shines through, fellas.  Whatever else you give up, don't
give that up.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Vacuum Technology for D. Mulford
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vacuum Technology for D. Mulford
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 23:38:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue writes:
>...a fact that makes it rather alarming to note that the
>US of A has become an "underdeveloped third-world country" depending
>very heavily on vacuum equipment manufactured abroad.
 
This is equivalent to complaining that a brain surgeon is "underdeveloped"
because he is dependent on his neighbor to do his dental work for him.
 
Really, David Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage (mutual benefits
accrue from international specialization) has not been overthrown in its one
hundred and fifty years.
 
--
- 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 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / daniel herrick /  Re: Please remit $1
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please remit $1
Date: 26 Feb 93 14:48:38 EST

In article <1993Feb21.163014.19141@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes:
>
> IBM was able to be a standard "maker" because of their previous service to the
> market.  People respected IBM's commitment to quality and service, that is why
> IBM got to be big in the first place.
 
IBM introduced another machine at about the same time as the PC.  It had
a name like Data Master (the "Data" part is right).  Aimed at small businesses,
$10000, tower case, rock solid feel to it, 8085 programmable only in
interpreted BASIC.  My brother-in-law bought one, planning to become a
dealer.  "I couldn't sell software that cost more than the hardware." was
his reason for staying away from the $4000 PC.  I've consulted for a company
that bought two of them to do its DP on.  They wanted me to document a case
for going after the consultant who talked them into it.
 
They also have a slightly more successful captive word processor from the
same time.  But the word processor software became available in a version
that ran on the PC.
 
IBM threw three products out into the market, one took off (and they
are judged by that one), one completely fizzled and no-one ever heard
of it, and the third was useful but quickly eclipsed by the first.
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / Raju Chiluvuri /  Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
     
Originally-From: rchiluvu@oracle.com (Raju Chiluvuri)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 03:48:50 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corp

 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        I am a software engineer with very limited knowledge in
nuclear physics. When I am scanning the read news, The news group
"sci.physics.fusion" attracted my attention, because 2 years ago,
I read in the news about the successful cold fusion experiments.
I am really exited, because of some optimistic articles and I want
to share my exitment with you.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
        Effect Of Cheap Clean Energy On World Economy.
                                - - -   Raju Chiluvuri.
                                        (408) - 733 - 5775.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        Have you ever think about the changes very(very) cheap clean
energy could bring to the course of the human history ?.
 
        This will be the single most significant inventions in human
history which will have far reaching effects than any other invention
on geo-socio-politics of the world.
 
        The past hundred years world has seen most changes than
any other century in the human history.  The invention of the cheap
energy now could match the past century changes in just 50 years.
The cheap energy will create the GDP growth rates of 12-15% for
the world for next 10 to 12 years.
 
        The invention of the cheap energy may come to reality,
after all,  the matter(mass (e = m*c**2)) is nothing but solid
form of energy, scientist have to find a cheap clean solution how
to liquidate the mass in to clean usable energy.
 
        I would like to give some reasons to the climes I made
regarding the GDP growth it could bring to the world economy.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                Most Obvious GDP Growth Factors
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                (The GDP growth Factor:  "Part A")
 
1). cheap energy not only benefits the consumer directly at gas pump
    and house energy bills but also cheap energy will reduce the
    production and transportation cost which virtually effects every
    component and step of the production process which will have far
    reaching ripple effect across the economy.
 
2). The next effect of cheap energy is modifying/replacing existing
    machinery to use the new found technology. This capital
    investments could be financed by the increased consumer savings
    and spending resulted from the cheap energy. This creates more
    jobs and more consumer spending.
 
        Every year U.S importing $50 billion dollars of foreign oil.
[Ref:: (7 mil. bar. per day)*($20 per bar.)*(360 days) ~= $50 bil.].
If that money stays in the country which creates enough economical
activity to creates more than 3 million jobs.
(Ref: The A.D.M commercial on T.V. "The ripple effect".)
[** Ripple Effect::     If you give $1 billion to 40,000 unemployed
each $25,000. If they spend half of it,  which creates more jobs
and these people in turn create more jobs and so on. They pay taxes
which again create new jobs and investment in education and
infrastructure. They also save some money, which in turn invested
in some form which results in wealth and more new jobs.
 
        In the USA and industrialized rich countries, the energy
cost is not a significant part of the economical activity. It may
be 12-15% of the GDP(I don't have any hard facts).
 
        The cheap energy will bring new opportunities.(These new
opportunities may not be economical with to days high energy cost.)
This results in more automation and more industrialization etc. This
increases the productivity of the workforce significantly. This will
results in more GDP growth.
(Obviously energy consumption will be substantially increased.)
 
        The above factors will only be a small part of the GDP
growth in the USA.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of the most other inventions in the past are trickle
down to poor developing countries from rich industrialized nations.
The benefits of this invention will have a great opposite effect.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                (The GDP growth Factor:  "Part B")
 
        The world wide industrial and consumer revolution will start
in poor developing nations, result of the cheap energy. The real
world GDP growth starts in poor developing countries that will create
waves of demand for new technology, industrial goods and products
that result in new jobs and investment opportunities in industrialized
and developing countries. This result in long term sustained GDP
growth in the USA.
 
        the energy cost and it's effect on poor developing countries
economy is very important to substantiate the above GDP growth clime.
 
        As close to 80% of the world population live in developing
countries, their GDP growth and demand for new technology will have
profound effect on the industrialized countries economy.
 
        It is important to understand the economic realities of the
poor developing countries. To explain the energy cost effect on a poor
countries economy, I will provide some facts, as I know, in a country
like India. I know the economical facts in India because I am from
India. Here in this article I am using India but it is also true in
countries like china, eastern European and USSR in their own ways.
 
        Although each country have different culture, economy and
political structure and needs different approachs and solutions for
industrial development and economical growth, case study of one
country will certainly help understand the common problems facing
the developing countries.
 
The countries like India, china,eastern Europe and USSR have the
following factors in common:
 
1). They have large rate of literacy and good percent of them are
    engineers, scientists and skilled technicians.
2). These countries have large number of middle class population.
3). All of them are moving from some form of socialist economy to
    free market economy.
Note: These countries constitute close to 50% of the world population.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian economy and the effect of Energy Cost on the Indian economy:
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Facts:
 
1). The average engineer salary in India is about Rs. 60k. per year
    and a gallon of gas cost about Rs. 75(Rs=Rupees Indian currency).
    (as of to day $1 ~= Rs.28.75).
 
2). At the rate of minimum wages a poor unskilled worker has to work
    2 days to buy a gallon of gas.
 
3). Purchase of the imported Oil is the single biggest foreign currence
    drain on Indian precious foreign currence reserves(revenue). In
    fact, If India stop importing Oil, It's trade deficient will wipe
    out and post a significant trade surplus. This makes Indian
    currency strong and can afford to import foreign goods equipment
    and technology for industrial development.
 
4). Indian people extensively use mass transportation. The significant
    cost of mass transportation is energy cost.
 
5). The energy cost is one of the significant cost in any industrial
    production. It effects cost of every commodity in it's production
    and it's transportation. (Think the ripple effect).
 
6). Most of the industries suffer energy shortages. Due to energy
    shortage most of the companies frequently will shut down. This
    shutdowns resulting in more production cost and even loses.
 
7). Every year some industries post loses and even declare bankruptcy
    due to fluctuating energy supply and  cost. In 1990-91 a lot of
    startup industries closed permanently because of the loses
    resulting from energy shortages.
 
8). Energy cost have a significant effect on Indian inflation rate
    every year. In past few years Energy cost is the major factor
    in Indian inflation rate(I think, It is around 10-13%).
 
9). Indian old and inefficient equipment consumes more energy than
    the modern western equipment.
 
10).One of the biggest infrastructure deficiencies in India is
    adequate and reliable supply of energy.
 
        The above are the few important facts in the long list.
 
        The cheap energy disproportionally benefits the developing
nations more than the industrialized nations, As in every aspect
of economy and industry, the cost of energy has very higher share
in developing countries.
 
        India is a large country with 300 million middle class
population. Indian middle class families have very strong bond
because of the culture with less than 4% divorce rate and middle
class parents give education highest preority resulting in very good
literacy rate. Indian society is changing rapidly in last 5 to 10
years than any other time in the resent past. The literacy rate is
increasing. Information is reaching to every corner of the country,
thanks to explosive growth of TV networks.
 
        If India can produce it's energy cheaply, it's economy will
grow at a rate of 16-22%. With it's large middle class consumers,
Indian is attractive market place for global industrial giants.
 
        In past year lot of global industries start joint ventures
in India to make use of the changing Indian politics and policy
towards free market system and expected Indian economic growth.
 
        cheap energy and new industrial technology from western
countries will accelerate the economic growth. Energy cost plays
significant role in each and every part of economic activity in
India, cheap energy is like giving money to each and every
citizen some extra money to spend. India may even see deflation.
The cheap energy saves billions of US dollars worth hard currency
to spend on much needed new technology, industrial equipment and
material for investment.  These changes will reduce current very
high unemployment rate.
 
Note: Most big developing countries do not likely to import consumer
goods like TV's, but they import the technology and factory equipment
and some high-tech components like TV tubes and industrial material,
until local producers acquire the technology. (But changing new
technologies always keep the demand up.)
 
        In India business and industrial culture is much different
from USA. In India all most all of the publicly traded and privately
held companies are controlled by the founders family and they own
significant portion of the company and pass on control to their
children. I cannot say this system is good compared to the system
in place in the USA. Here I have to make note, One reason these
industries are inefficient because of the past government industrial
licensing policy. They give license depending on the demand and
business people with the help of corrupt politicians virtually
controlled the demand and production. The old licensing policy is
scraped recently.
 
        All most all retail stores, restaurants and distribution is
completely independently owned and maintained by the owner. Most of
them are small and competing with each other, This is resulted in
most efficient distribution and retail network,  I have ever seen.
(For example you can look at any Indian owned motel In the USA. They
may not provide good service but extremely cost efficient. Average
Indian is extremely cost conscious). Owners kids and family members
work part time or full time in the business and gain experience in
the business. There is significant savings and wealth is owned by these
people. They have very good savings generated over period of time.
Most(up to 90%) of the small business are virtually debt free.
 
        The cultural difference is important to explain, If a country
like India become self sufficient in energy, How it produces and
distributes the energy. Because of the large number of small business
India has a large number of experienced small entrepreneurs with
enough capital to start new small to mid size businesses, If they
can get technology and they think, it is profitable.
 
        If the energy could be produced indigenously, which will
result in new jobs, savings of precious hard currence, and low
cost and reliable energy.  Most of the problems I mentioned above
can be solved. India is self sufficient in most of the goods and
products. Technologically India has good talent. India exploded
first atomic bomb in 1974, build it's own supper computer and on
it's way to launch it's first satellite in to space on indigenously
build rocket.
 
        It is important for developing nations to generate their own
energy so that cost structure is more suitable to their consumption.
For example, energy sources like solar panels may not be suitable
to the USA but it may work in developing countries to achieve energy
independence. The following facts may help to understand, how it may
work.
 
1). An Indian can buy a decent dinner for about 55 cents(US currency).
    The restaurant can still makes reasonable profit.
 
2). An hair cur costs around 35 to 40 cents and an average doctor
    visit may cost about $1.50.
 
3). A train ticket from east coast city Madras to west coast city
    Bombay may cost $8 to $9.
    (These are looks so cheap in US dollars but reality these are not
    so cheap for Indians. The demand for hard currency to import
    energy, other industrial goods and technology resulted in
    devaluation of the Indian currency.)
 
4). An average car life time is 18 to 20 years. This is because low
    labor and parts cost. (By the time car reaches 10 years old, most
    of the parts including engine might have replaced or repaired more
    than once.)
 
5). The repair and service shops are quite common in India for every
    thing from umbrellas, watches, radios to expensive things. Because
    repairing and maintaining of these things(even the umbrella) is
    cheaper than replacing them.
 
Note:: Today advanced countries are not continue to do any research
on some existing alternative energy technologies, If they think these
are not economical to their cost structure. But some of these may
have very good export potential to developing countries and hence
world GDP growth. The U.N and advanced nations should look in to it.
Even If the alternative energy is costs as much as existing fuels,
This energy is generated within the country which creates jobs and
saves precious hard currency to invest in foreign technology and
industrial equipment for development. This also reduce the world
demand for fuels which pollute.
 
        Most of the things, like in agriculture and earth moving are
performed using heavy equipment in the USA, are performed manually in
the developing countries because of the high energy cost. The cheap
energy will make these and lot of other technologies economical and
significantly increase the productive of the workforce. Any nations
economy is depends on the productive of it's workforce.  This most
certainly will have profound effect on world GDP growth.
 
        Productivity gains will result in high GDP growth. (If I
can do the things normally takes 10 days in just 8 days, I would
work only 9 days earn 12% more and take one day off per 2 weeks.)
 
        World can maintain sustained long term GDP growth, If every
developing country could maintain reasonable trade balance. And I am
confident that most of the countries will maintain good trade balance,
If their economies growing at good rate.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                The Economical Inertia Factor.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
                (The GDP growth Factor:  "Part C")
 
        When economy going down, It compounds the problems by
magnifying every small problem(because it may not be fixed properly)
and creates new problems(like social problems). And when economy
is booming lot of problems disappear. The consumer spending and
wealth increases and more investment will be made in education and
infrastructure which sustains the growth.
 
        The economy normally always has good inertia, It takes up
and down turns very slowly, if the effect of the external forces
like politics(policies), natural tragedies like floods and external
global events can be minimized.
 
 
Example:
-------
(It is quit obvious example, Please skip it)
Consider California economy. When defense cuts started lot of people
lost jobs.  For every unemployed person state not only lost taxes but
also pay unemployment benefits. This effected every aspect of state
services including much needed education and infrastructure. These
problems are depressing the real-estate which in turn depressing the
wealth and consumer confidence of home owners and so on.
 
        A major boost like cheap energy gives a big momentum to world
wide economy. The resulting GDP growth rate could be maintained for
long period of time, because every aspect of the world economy(except
in OIL revenue dependent OPEC) is booming which minimizes the
possibilities of external recessionary pressures.
 
        Expanding world consumer market will benefit more, the
companies which have intellectual property like patents, software
and high-tech, whose developing cost share is high compared to
production cost in per unit cost as they can spread the developing
cost among more units.  This encourages the R&D and more new
technologies and hence more GDP growth.
 
        The growing economy in the country permits politicians to make
some sacrifices to have good and fair international trade agreements.
Which in turn generates more growth.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
        The list goes on ... The cheap energy will change the
"energy centric paradigm" forever. (But I believe that the best
product design(objective/goal) is, which consumes as little resources
as possible including energy, even though the energy is cheap.)
 
        The cheap energy, certainly will bring new socio-political
challenges(problems?) to the world,  but you con't blame me for
being optimistic.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Body asked in the net what are the good investments, If a
cheap alternative fuel is discovered?.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
I like to suggest some, I think good investments.
(With the expanding GDP, US debt will be wiped out in no time. We
 don't need to invest, we will get our social security benefits.
 If you determine to invest.... Then...)
 
1). Export oriented, companies with intellectual property, high tech.,
    industrial equipment and pharmaceutical industries are good choice.
 
2). Expanding world economy will produce enormous pressure on
    natural resources(wood,iron,copper etc) and mines. This fields
    are very good places to invest.
    (Immigrate to Australia, As it has highest percapital natural
     resources ... Just kidding.)
 
3). The investors also can get benefits from investing the money
    in developing countries growth funds for high yield and high
    profits. Pick some countries with stable political and industrial
    growth. The developing countries industrial and real estate growth
    provides good investment opportunities.
    (Those of you guys who missed the late 60's Japan and early
     80's pacific rim countries... This may create one more chance.)
    Note:: This investment is extremely important and good for both
        the USA and the developing countries. The US investors get
        very high profits and uncle Sam gets Taxes. The developing
        countries gets highly needed hard currency to import
        industrial equipment and US export industries sell them.
        (uncle Sam again gets taxes from the company and workers.)
 
4). Energy importing poor countries disproportionally benefit more,
    so these countries growth funds are attractive. But key thing
    here is, look for politically stable country.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
You may freely use the contents of the article any way as you like
at your own risk and I will not accept any liabilities resulting
from using (or misusing) the information.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrchiluvu cudfnRaju cudlnChiluvuri cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A delicious hot rumor
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A delicious hot rumor
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 07:37:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930226203652_72240.1256_EHL5-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>According to a widely circulating, highly substantiated rumor, Dr. Steven Jones
>of BYU has achieved massive excess HEAT in a light water "cold fusion" cell.
>Furthermore, he is reportedly scrambling to get funding for this successful
>massive excess HEAT cell.
 
     Someone apparently has a sense of humour.
 
     I'm just trying to figure out if it's Jed, Dr. Jones, or God.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / John Logajan /  Re: A delicious hot rumor
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A delicious hot rumor
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 10:47:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>Anyone with a recipe for crow or hat should please forward it to Dr. Jones,
>whose embarrassed face is probably burning (with HEAT)
 
Given the hypothetical case that this rumor is true, the only true source
of embarrassment would have been if the experiment was never tried in the
first place.  Again, speaking hypothetically, we can thank our lucky stars
for people who try experiments even though they expect them to be negative.
 
Jed's right about one thing, this is sure one heck of a rumor.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 11:53:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Raju's general thesis that cheaper energy would be a boon to the world is,
of course, correct -- since if you can spend less on one thing it means you
have more left over to spend on other things -- the general good of all
improvments in efficiency/cost reduction.  But some common false economic
myths crept into his analysis, and so I point them out.
 
rchiluvu@oracle.com (Raju Chiluvuri) writes:
>If that money stays in the country which creates enough economical
>activity to creates more than 3 million jobs.
 
This is only half the story, and hence, only half the truth.  Spending
on foreign products will always be returned with foreign spending on
local products.  Remember, money is basically an I.O.U..  If you get
something by handing out an I.O.U. (dollars) someday that I.O.U. will
trace its course back as a purchase (collecting on the I.O.U.)
 
This is why international trade really always balances, and why concerns
about "trade deficits" are much ado about nothing.  (Usually used to justify
some new pork for special interests.)
 
>[** Ripple Effect::    If you give $1 billion to 40,000 unemployed
>each $25,000. If they spend half of it,  which creates more jobs
>and these people in turn create more jobs and so on. They pay taxes
>which again create new jobs and investment in education and
>infrastructure. They also save some money, which in turn invested
>in some form which results in wealth and more new jobs.
 
Careful!  Beware the negative ripple.  The source of this "gift" is very very
important, lest you introduce a NEGATIVE ripple which nullifies the POSITIVE
ripple.
 
In the example above, $1 billion is given out.  But if it was raised through
taxation, then clearly each taxpayer has that much LESS to spend, which
cuts their other purchases, which loses jobs, which loses more jobs, and
so on.  This is why "job stimulus" economic packages of the government are
a canard.  They send out equal and opposite "ripple" effects which cancel
the net effect.  However, they result in a transference of money from one
group to another -- usually to those with the best connections.  So you can
see why politicians are more than happy to misrepresent these "favors" they
do for their buddies.
 
If the $1 billion is with "inflation" money -- created out of thin air -- then
those who get it first get the most benefit, until the market can catch up
and correct everything for the discount in the value of money.  As this
correction is in progress, the money chain continues with each recipient
getting less and less extra value, until the correction nullifies the inflated
value.  The people last in line to get the money get no extra value, since the
market has now fully corrected for the inflationary devaluation.  After the
dust has settled, there remains a net transfer of wealth from one group to
another -- since all transaction chains are not completed in the same instant.
One part of the transaction was started with one assumption about the value
of money, and the other part of the transaction was completed with a different
assumption about the value of money.  "Inflation" money therefore creates both
positive and negative ripples which nullify the net effect.
 
Only real creation of wealth can have a net positive ripple effect.  Cheaper
energy would be exactly the positive ripple source that Raju claims.  I only
belabor the point about the source of ripple effects because they are so
routinely misrepresented by sleazy politicians and their connected interests.
 
>8). Energy cost have a significant effect on Indian inflation rate
 
Inflation rates are set by government policy, specifically by their decisions
on how much new money to print.  Energy costs might influence them in their
monetary policy, but there is no other causal link.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.28 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 00:18:35 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy28 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.28 / Jed Rothwell /  No heat after all? Whatta Shame!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No heat after all? Whatta Shame!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 00:18:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Well, Steve Jones told me the rumor was a false alarm. It looked like there
was heat, but they checked carefully and found it was an artifact. I gather
it was down around the range 20% excess, which is kinda iffy and dangerous.
My group has been getting 20% or 30%, but I refuse to get excited, or believe
anything, until I see 70% or 100%, and preferably way above I*V. Also, I like
to see at least 2 or 3 watts in, better yet 10.
 
Ah, well, too bad! So many people called me yesterday, from all corners of
the map and said "Steve got heat!" These rumors go around from time to time.
I never talk about the mean ones, but when I hear something really nice
and happy, like a successful experiment, I see no harm in repeating it. I
figure that at worst, somebody in the lab must have gotten excited and talked
a bit too soon. What a disappointment it is when you go back and find out a
positive result was an artifact! Better luck next time.
 
For people who are only getting 20% or so, I recommend a closed cell. Bob
Bush told me about his recombiner, and I wrote it up here; I can dig up the
description of it if anyone needs to know. 20% at low current density with
an open cell is an iffy result at best.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Paul Houle /  Re: Hagelstein Paper
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hagelstein Paper
Date: 26 Feb 93 21:12:54 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <01GV69SI3JYA0030S7@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> ub-gate.UB.com!acad.fandm
edu!J_FARRELL writes:
 
>1.  They are getting excess heat.  This conclusion may be easier for me to
>reach than for most of you to reach because I know from our measurements
>that huge amounts of excess heat are possible.  Mills et al are getting 50
>watts out with only 2.5 watts in (VxI).  They would have to be real dummies
>to make such a gigantic error.  P&F are good and they are woring with a
>system that should work.
 
        Yes,  but over the operating lifetime of the cell,  how many Joules
are they putting in?  How many are they getting out?  Energy is conserved,
not power.
 
>
>2.  It looks to me that P&F can only sustain the excess heat for a short
>period of time--otherwise they would do flow calorimetry to show the excess
>heat. (Or, they might want to leave some doubt at this point.)
>Nonetheless, they are making good progress.
>
 
        This also reinforces the above point.  If energy is being stored in
the cell somehow,  it wouldn't be all that remarkable for it to put out
50 watts of power,  say for,  ten minutes,  after being fed 2.5 watts for
a month.  I wrote a science fiction story a while back that included an
energy storage system based upon using nanotechnology to make atomic hydrogen
and pack it in a "nanostructued palladium-platinum-rhodium alloy".  This
was about a year before cold fusion.  Too bad I didn't publish it,  or
twenty years from now,  they might say that I predicted anomalous storage
of energy in deuterated metals.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Tritium as probe of deep earth processes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium as probe of deep earth processes
Date: 26 Feb 93 17:19:29 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Allan Duncan (Re: RE: Geofusion, 26 Feb. 1993) asks:
"If the tritium was from a deep souce, would you expect to see a
difference between volcanoes... in subduction zones cf. spreading?"
 
Certainly; indeed, Gary McMurtry of the Hawaiian Geophysical Institute
suggested to me that tritium may provide a valuable probe of deep-earth
processes, including magma-plume ascension rates which apparently are
not well characterized.  Good insight, Allan.
 
--
Steve Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yamaguchi Revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi Revisited
Date: 26 Feb 93 18:21:34 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Dick Blue has revisited the Yamaguchi claims of helium-4 production
with insightful, pointed comments based his analyses.  On Nov. 16, I
posted concerns also, relating to the fact that the 5 cm thick
 *glass* windows used in the NTT experiments were a reservoir for helium.
I would like to provide an update based on analyses by a colleague, Nate
Hoffman of Rockwell International.
 
Nate observed that Yamaguchi ran helium through his system in order to
get a reading on the 4He peak in his mass spec.  In this way, Yamaguchi
exposed the glass windows to 4He -- and glass is a known "sponge" for
helium.  D2 or H2 passed over the glass can later extract the stored helium.
This is precisely the source of error in the Paneth and Peters experiments
with *palladium* and hydrogen in the 1920's (when they thought they had
produced helium from fusion):
"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."  (Huizenga's book on
cold fusion, p. 13)
The classic blunder was discussed also by Frank Close in his book.
 
Helium is also absorbed by glass from the air, but the 4He gas exposure is
a major source of contamination in the glass.  As Dick points out, the 4He
exists as a shoulder on the D2 peak.  D2 in this way differs from H2:  D2
raises the 4He peak to a higher (threshold) level, whereas the 4He peak can
be present with H2 but would be small and perhaps not measurable.  Nate finds
that the "pure" D2 run by Yamaguchi without "cold fusion"-type apparatus
also shows a small 4He peak (he apparently has more data than in Yamaguchi's
Nagoya paper).  Also, the amounts of 4He claimed by Yamaguchi as proof of
d-d fusion --> helium-4  are consistent with contamination
from the glass, according to Hoffman's calculations.  Finally, the order of
the D2 and H2 tests following the 4He calibration may well affect the amounts
of 4He found in these gases.  That is, if the D2 run followed the 4He run,
then the H2 run was later performed, one would expect the first (D2) run to
have the greater 4He contamination since it first swept the glass.
 
Dick Blue wonders why Yamaguchi did not use better resolution on his mass
spectrometer.  Similarly, Hoffman asks why Yamaguchi did not getter out the D2
before looking for 4He.  I wonder why Yamaguchi does not remove all the glass
from his system, since glass is a known reservoir for 4He.
 
Until these suggestions are followed, Yamaguchi cannot claim production of
helium-4 by "cold fusion."  His experiments, like those of Paneth and Peters
nearly 40 years ago, are subject to contamination.  Just saying, as Yamaguchi
does, that he did not detect 4He when H2 was used instead of D2 is
insufficient for a compelling test.
 
I must emphasize that it is easier to critique an experiment than to do a
compelling test.  I am trying to do both, fairly.  We have looked for both
neutrons and charged particles and found evidence for both (AIP Proceedings
no. 228, 1991, etc.)  Again, I emphasize that nuclear products that carry
MeV-scale energies provide a much better probe of nuclear reactions than
do claims of helium-4 or tritium (e.g., Storms, Bockris), which can
arise from contaminations.
 
The claimed observations of energetic (MeV) particles show rates that are
many orders of magnitude less than the levels of helium-4 claimed by Yamaguchi.
I conclude that Yamaguchi's claims are far from compelling.
 
I am surprised -- shocked -- at the bravado of the claims made in press
releases by Yamaguchi's company, NTT:
"Through a room temperature nuclear fusion experiment using its own
"vacuum method," NTT has found that heavy hydrogen in solid palladium
converts into helium-4 atoms.
... In the present experiment, helium-4 was generated along with excess heat
by saturating palladium metal with heavy hydrogen in a vacuum and than applying
slight heat distortion.  This means that two atoms of heavy hydrogen fused
with each other into one atom of helium-4.
... The achievements of the present experiment is [sic] attracting attention
from all over the world as the first step toward the clean energy scientists
have long been seeking."
(In the Quarterly of the New ITU Association of Japan, January 1993; put on
this net by Henry Hoeksma.)
 
Gentlemen and ladies, these claims are unfounded.  I can hardly believe such
claims are going out in this way.  Shades of the P&F press conference and
surrounding hype, unfortunately.
 
With regard to the claims of "excess heat" in the NTT announcement, let me
once again quote from Yamaguchi's own paper:
"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 and Pd:D systems..."  (Yamaguchi's Nagoya
paper).
 
In fairness to Dr. Yamaguchi, I should add that he confirmed to me in Nagoya
when I asked him privately, that he saw
xs heat in H2 as well as D2 tests, and therefore that heat from fusion should
*NOT* be claimed in his experiments.  One suspects that his company is
claiming too much.  Far too much!
 
Someone noted weeks ago that the NTT stock values shot up by billions of
dollars (on paper) following the Yamaguchi-experiment press releases in late
1992.
 
Actually, I think that his charged-particle
measurements are reasonably good, but note that the rate of possible charged-
particle production is too small by about a trillion-fold again to account for
xs heat.  I see absolutely no correlation, and I think he does not want to
claim such a correlation.  But NTT...
 
 
Keep smiling,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  NHK (Japanese TV) Critique of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NHK (Japanese TV) Critique of Cold Fusion
Date: 26 Feb 93 18:57:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Thanks to Tom Droege for sending a copy of the NHK tape (also received a copy
from Carol White -- thanks).
 
This program aired in Japan earlier in February and shows that many Japanese
do not believe the NTT (etc.) claims that cold fusion is proven or even
hopeful as a source of power.  I received a letter from Prof. Yoji Totsuka
of the University of Tokyo who saw the program and noted:
 
"I saw you in a NHK TV program on cold fusion a few weeks ago.
I was shocked how people were enthusiastic about a possible cheap energy
source (if it is true!)  Near the end of the program you appeared ...
stating the importance of further basic research before considering
applications, which I believe impressed many audiences.
 
Also I was impressed by you and your colleagues working in a cave in
snowy weather outside. ... I am indeed looking very much forward to your
results."
 
Prof. Nagamine of RIKEN also told me he thought the NHK show was informative; he
also doubts strongly the possibility of energy applications of cold fusion.
I could list many other Japanese scientists of my acquaintance who feel the
same way (Jed take note).
 
Tom is right that an animation shows d-t fusion.  I suspect that this was
just an available clip on fusion, not intended to be applied to the P&F cells,
Tom, but I'll have to wait for a translation to be sure.
 
Note:  In English, I find that I said that Takahashi did *not* use a resistor
in calibrating his cells in his early xs-heat experiments.  I stand by this
statement since I got it from Dr. Takahashi himself.  While I told the NHK
people that I felt Takahashi had done reliable work on charged particle and
neutron emissions (low-level admittedly), I did not believe his claims of
xs heat (by 3- and 4- body deuteron reactions!).  Prof. Hansen of BYU and I
provided some weeks ago to Prof. Takahashi a detailed list of suggestions
to improve his calorimetry (Prof. Hansen is the experienced calorimetrist).
We mean to be helpful and I hope he will receive our criticisms in a
scientific manner.
 
It appears to me that the MITI-supported researchers are just repeating the
studies on which the DOE labs spent upwards of $50 million dollars -- and
reached the conclusion that:
"Based on the examination of published reports, reprints, numerous
communications to the panel and severl site visits, the panel concludes
that the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells
reported to date do not present convincing evidence that useful sources
of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to cold fusion...
 In no case is the yield of fusion products commensurate with the claimed
excess heat."  -- DOE ERAB panel report, 1989.
 
I have followed claims since then.  I see nothing to change the above
conclusions.  I agree with Dick Blue and others that Peter Hagelstein accepts
many recent experiments too uncritically.  In particular, there are no
valid demonstrations of nuclear (not just fusion) products commensurate with
the claimed xs heat, although *many* have looked for such nuclear products.
It is time to admit that the xs heat is *not* nuclear in origin, even if, as
Prof. Totsuka says, "if it is true!"
 
--Steven Jones
 
TTFN,
Steven Jones
 
P.S. -- I will go again to Japan the week of March 21, where I will pursue
mainly muon-catalyzed fusion research interests, although I have been
invited to give a talk on so-called "cold fusion" also.  May I invite
questions here?  I will speak to Akito Takahashi again, and others.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / John Logajan /  Farrell nomenclature
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Farrell nomenclature
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 20:31:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

acad.fandm.edu!J_FARRELL writes:
>K+   =  K2+   + 1e-            31.63 eV
>K+    +   1e-   =   K           4.34 eV
>_________________________________________
> 2K+   =    K2+   +    K        27.28 eV
 
I don't understand what is being shown here.
 
--
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **
     
Originally-From: mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **
Date: 27 Feb 1993 22:54:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

lord@tradent.wimsey.com (Jason Cooper) writes:
: Looking for any and all replies.  Can anybody suggest a method of gamma
: shielding for a fusion reactor?  MUST be not bulky (like 40 feet of
: cement or lead) and therefore not massive as such either.  _PREFERABLY_
: a reflective shielding, though absorptive is perfectly acceptable too.
: This (if it helps) is to go on a starship (fusion powered) which is why
: it must not be bulky or massive.
 
A really long pole ought to work just fine.  Remember 1/r^2.
 
:                                                         Jason Cooper
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.27 /  kumarar@woods. /  Info. wanted about Physics Book.
     
Originally-From: kumarar@woods.ulowell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Info. wanted about Physics Book.
Date: 27 Feb 93 22:24:18 GMT
Organization: University of Lowell

Hi Netters,
        I am looking for a list of Journals/Magazines, where I can send a book
for review. The book deals with Undergraduate Physics course at Engineering
level. It would be great if anyone can mail me any information about the same
on the following email address :
 
arkumar@cs.ulowell.edu
 
Thanks in advance.
Arun Kumar.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenkumarar cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.28 / mitchell swartz /  Hagelstein paper
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein paper
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 01:03:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion:5284, Chuck Harrison
<ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!73770.1337>, discussing the
Hagelstein review article on the CF Conference in Nagoya,
 states:
 
>>>   "Some readers may have been confused by the odd timing
>>>  of my post about 'nagoya.txt', available by ftp.  This
>>>  _is_ the same article posted here recently.
>>>   It is available by ftp ..."
 
 
  Chuck: Thank you very much for both hosting and maintaining
key papers, and for correcting the status bit to enable "read"
at the ftp location.  The paper which was posted there appears
to be an earlier iteration than the version posted here.
 
  Examining 'nagoya.txt' heralds the absence of corrections
in Peter's draft made just prior to what was posted here.
 
  Given that the changes appear to not be present in the
  above-cited version of the paper
  INMO, as of now, the postings on the net remain the correct
  updated version.
 
   These texts are located in sci.physics.fusion at:
 
         sci.physics.fusion:5202     125,360 bytes in 1 file
 
  or in divided format:
 
      PART 1:    sci.physics.fusion:5236      73,264 bytes
      PART 2:    sci.physics.fusion:5237      54,296 bytes
 
 
 
                                   Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.28 / mitchell swartz /  vote against censorship
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: vote against censorship
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 01:05:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
    In world sci.physics.fusion: 5297, Frank Close
 [<ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
            re: BBC video?; 26 Feb 1993] says
 
===  "Having seen the above video, and also one shown by
===   Fleischmann in December, I would say that Tom Droege has
===   raised some questions that need answers."
 
  Tom raised(s) many good questions.
  However, those pertaining to the bubble calculation of said
 film do not, so far as the written questions which I have
 seen, negate any of the careful work of Martin Fleischmann
 and Stanley Pons.
 
   My previous comments on the bubble-issue/moles-present
 calculation stand unrebutted; perhaps for good reason.
 
 
===  "(Re: the Hagelstein Report on Nagoya) it is good to see
===  some "meat" for discussion on the net."
 
   Quite true.  Frank is correct here. It is good that it
 has caught the attention of so many.
 There has been enough meat so far that readers of internet
 can now sit down and determine for themselves whether cold
 fusion is real.
 
  In fact, the incessant flow of papers creates the
 possibility that we should examine why people attempt to
 filter scientific papers, stifle research, or stall progress
 of what is now a well-confirmed (at least) four-year old
 technology.
 
   The information which Peter Hagelstein summarized
 
   [confer sci.physics.fusion: 5202  (125,360 bytes)
      or in divided format:
      PART 1:    sci.physics.fusion: 5236   (73,264 bytes)
      PART 2:    sci.physics.fusion: 5237   (54,296 bytes)
 
   has been matched by many other positive results elsewhere.
   The skeptics appear to be left counting papers from 1989,
    and handwaving the neutron issue.
 
   So now lets move toward the converse:
 
  When the negativists match Peter's paper with equivalent
 "meat" rather than hollow banter, the quality of future
 discussions will certainly grow.
 
 
=== "But as it is now agreed (is it?) that dd fusion is not
===  happening, do we need to consider papers like that of Lo
===  (in Dieter Britz most recent bibliography)?"
 
   It seems hardly agreed.  Enough of this.  All people have
a right to post, and all evidence which supports science and
technology of this field certainly belongs here.
 
   The evidence indicates, to those that examine evidence
   (or "meat"?), that we simply need to consider **all** such
    papers, theories, experiments, &tc.
 
   First, since heavy water presents the preponderance of
 these effects {both regular anomalous and irregular anomalous
 (or burst)}, it seem agreed that "d" reactions are a probable
 putative and candidate reaction.
 
   Second, how likely is it that a skeptic might actually
 correctly lead towards the most likely theory (or experiment)
  to support cold fusion.   [Similarly, re: one whose funding
 might be compromised.]
 
   In summary, given that some variant of:
 
               (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
 
   remains the most likely etiology of these effects,
 any such attempted filtration of discussions pertaining
  to these postulated reactions
 goes against Freedom of the Press (perhaps less well-known
 elsewhere) and, of course, logic itself.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.28 / mitchell swartz /  re flame
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re flame
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 01:06:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion:5315 Henry Bauer
 [<ub-gate.UB.com!vm1.nodak.edu!BAUERH%VTVM1.BITNET> 27 Feb 1993] states:
 
=== "Mitchell Swartz says it's easy to calculate the number of moles of water,
===  knowing the amount of water and using Avogadro's number."
 
  Thank you for the careful attention.  The post dealt with, and
  referred to, calculating: "the amount of water present".
 
  Since the volume was presumed as already measured, the post therefore was
  meant to refer to the actual number of heavy water molecules present.
  Improper editing of two sentences led to the detected error. Moles should
  have read molecules.
 
     Avogadro's number remains needed to calculate amount
     of water (# of heavy water molecules) as follows, and
     many of the analyses used to determine whether
     chemical explanations are applicable for cold fusion are predicated
     on calculating the amount of (excess) energy per atom/molecule.
 
                # cm3 * density
                 __________            =  # moles
                  mol. wt.
 
 
              # moles   * Avogadro's #  =  # molecules
 
 
  thus       xs heat          mol. wt.  * excess heat
            __________  =  ____________________________ = eg. eV/molecule
            # molecules     #cm3 * density * Avogadro's #
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.02.26 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Hagelstein Review
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hagelstein Review
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:23:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> fusion.  I put the various "glow discharge" experiments, including
> the NTT-Yamaguchi experiments and the recent Russion work, into the
> same limbo.  There are just too many obvious experimental problems to
> give the measurements any credibility.
 
What are the problems with the "glow discharge" experiments, esp. regarding
nuclear products?  It seems impossible to do self targeting with only 400 volts
(to take one experiment as an example) and I don't see any reason to question
their competence in measuring nuclear products, so this seems like good
evidence of some sort of anomaly.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Critique
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Critique
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 01:10:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
It looks like the electrochemists are too busy to critique Tom's comments
about P&F's experiment. So, I will list a few of their private comments, and
I will put on my amateur electrochemist's hat and throw in a few of my own
ideas. Tom's suggestions are paraphrased here:
 
1. The cells may be in series. The video shows that the cells begin operation
many hours apart. As each cell boils away, the connection between the anode
and cathode is broken, electrolysis stops in that cell, but the others
continue. Also, as I mentioned, there is no reason on earth to put them in
series.
 
2. The cells may be leaking heat. This would *add* to the total excess heat.
The total is already far over the limits of chemistry; if Tom wants to argue
that it might be substantially farther, I have no objection. Actually,
though, Pons stated that radiation loss is minimal.
 
3. The heat leaking from one cell might affect the others. Presumably, this
means that heat might leak from cell A which is not boiling, and this heat
might drive cell B to boil. That would violate the second law of
thermodynamics. I suppose that a *boiling* cell might leak enough to drive
the one next to it to boil, but the film clearly showed that the boiling
events were many hours apart, and that by the time cell three boiled, cells 1
and 2 were shut off. Furthermore, P&F have described many, many experiments
with only one cell, like the boiling cell shown on the BBC.
 
4. The electrolysis might be driving the fluid out of the cell. This cannot
be the case. After an initial loading period, the electrolysis was held at a
steady, high level for a week or so, but the fluid level dropped only slowly
during this period. The electrolyte was not replenished. Then, suddenly, in a
ten minute period, the temperature shot up, the plastic under the cathode
melted somewhat, and the fluid level dropped precipitously. The same power
was going in for a week, so if that level of electrolysis could have forced
the fluid out of the test tube, it would have done so at a steady rate. It
would not have waited a week, and pushed the fluid out in only 10 minutes.
Something else must have been going on in the cell during that period.
Furthermore the test tubes are very tall, and you can clearly see that the
foam and bubbles are nowhere near the top.
 
As I mentioned before, the "something else" that was going on could only have
been boiling, as was clearly shown in the BBC close-up. It is very easy for
an electrochemist to see the difference between boiling and electrolysis, by
looking at shape, size and nature of the bubbles, and the size of the wires,
and so on, and there is *no* *question* that the main reaction that is
occurring on the cathode was boiling. (If my electrochemist friends don't
have time, and my Gentle Readers ask, I will attempt to describe that video
in another essay.)
 
5. The water level may have been difficult to measure. This is only true
during the last 10 minutes of the experiment, while the cell is boiling.
Going into the experiment, the exact amount of electrolyte is known, and as
ordinary electrolysis progresses, the water level remains very easy to
measure. The video shows the electrolyte level going down at the expected
pace. You can compute the amount of fluid that should be left after a week or
so, or you can measure it, and the two numbers agree. In other words: the
exact amount of fluid left in the test tube just before the onset of the
boiling event can be measured with great accuracy by looking at the video
record, and it can be double checked by looking at the total electric power
expended up until that moment.
 
6. Some of the fluid may have left the test tube in droplets, and not as
vapor. Not with such a tall test tube, and I am sure they thought of that,
and tested for it. (Quite sure, actually). In any case, how much fluid might
be leaving in this fashion? What percent? They are getting between 300% and
1000% excess heat, so there could be substantial errors in their calorimetry,
and the results would stand anyway. In a deep test tube, boiling cannot carry
off 2 parts liquid water for 1 part vapor; a 10:1 ratio is even more out of
the question. Boiling might carry off some amount of water, but nowhere near
that much!
 
7. Power in is difficult to measure. Not 35 watts, plus/minus one tenth watt
(actually, plus/minus a milliwatt). This is dead simple to measure. I am
quite certain that a few dozen Toyota and MITI scientists, working together
for four years, can measure 35 watts of power, and not mistake it for 100
watts.
 
I don't have Tom's message at hand, so I may have left out a few of his
ideas. I found each and every one of them as insupportable as the ones I
listed here. None had any merit. I see that Dick Blue bought on to Tom's
ideas in an uncritical fashion. Dick calls himself a skeptic, but he is quick
to adopt and support any idea, no matter how farfetched, that might help him
deny the obvious a little while longer.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: As even tempered as Henry Higgins
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 15:13:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
 
>Why would bubbling necessarily be roughly equal?  You have a polarized current
>flow, implying different electro-chemical reactions are taking place at each
>electrode site.  I should think the energy division could be something other
>than 50/50.
 
In fact, it wouldn't be roughly equal. The one current going through the cell
will - after metal saturation with deuterium - generate half as much oxygen
at the anode as deuterium at the cathode, the overall reaction being
2 D2O --> 2 D2 + O2.
So, not roughly equal, but precisely 2:1, unless there are side reactions,
which are unlikely in this system.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Self-targeting
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Self-targeting
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 01:18:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>Dieter Britz recently posted something regarding d-d (hot) fusion
>caused by self-targeting.  I would like more information on this, please.
>In particular, are you saying, Dieter, that there is early evidence (pre-1989)
>for fusion caused by a deuteron beam with less than 1 keV incident energy,
>impinging on a metal?
 
I must admit that the main source of my wisdom on this are two papers:
 
1. Robinson et al, J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1960) 1474
2. Fiebinger, Z. Angew. Phys. 9 (1957) 213.
 
In both, deuteron beams of 200-300 keV are used, and I can't find any
calibration curves of fusion rate vs. beam energy. I have seen reference to
such relationships - maybe in some of the CIF polemics, come to think of it.
They were saying that fusion rates are well established from work in the
'50's, etc, and do not agree with the claimed CIF results - which turned out
quite relevant, of course, CIF now being dead.
 
Also, theories of fractofusion seem to give the green light to measurable
fusion rates at the sort of energies expected from cracks, i.e. around a keV.
 
Sorry I can't be more helpful here. A quick look in the PA data base should
unearth a heap of hits, though.
 
On another topic altogether: I am sorry, Steven, to read about your travails
as a result of your preoccupation with cold fusion. This is disgraceful. Jed
has stated such things without ever naming anybody, and I have taken his
remarks as rhetoric. I see that I was wrong. Jed has given me one other name
at least, and a surprising one because I know him as someone who gets any
grant he wants - I thought. Anyway, I have to accept that cnf researchers are
at a disadvantage in some cases at least. There is of course no concerted
persecution, and the large number of papers by US workers in my bibliography
attests that people do in fact get grants for cnf work. Jed himself has said
that he believes that cnf should get no more than moderate funding, and I
contend that it is in fact getting that. It is far too early to demand a huge
national effort, if indeed, that time ever comes. It will come if it becomes
clear that cnf really does offer a bright new energy future, and for that, an
unequivocal demonstration is needed. What would one do with oodles of money
right now? Set up 1000 Mills&Farrell, or Takahashi or Yamaguchi cells,
working so many % of the time, instead of the tens now running? Is there a
concensus among cnf TB's how such money should be spent? I think not.
Sometimes, forcing something along does no good. The NCFI got no results,
remember? Would another outfit with 10, 100 times the money, do any better?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 /  /  Status #19 (and last) Cell 4A3
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #19 (and last) Cell 4A3
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 01:18:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #19 Cell 4A3
 
We have ended the run.  The end of run calibration confirms that nothing was
happening.  I think at near 1600 hours.  Long enough by most of the standards
of P&F and McKubre.
 
All indications are that loading exceeded .9 D/Pd.  On line analysis would
indicate that the results are consistent with zero to within my previously
announced 0.035 watt one sigma calorimeter error.  There is every indication
that I could reduce the error level to 0.01 watt by off line analysis on about
26 megabytes of collected data.  The result would likely still be zero.
 
Some of you would like me to publish this as a negative experiment.  There are
already enough good negative experiments to demonstrate that it is not easy if
it is possible.  It is a lot of work to publish a good paper, so it is my
intention to instead expend my efforts on yet another exploration.
 
There are still the two very interesting bumps in this data that I cannot
explain, and which encourage me to try again.
 
The plan is to again charge at near 4 C and to run in the high accuracy mode
at a calorimeter temperature of 30 C but with the heater on to raise the cell
temperature while running at high current.  This time we will make only
Aluminum additions.
 
First we will spend the next week or so exercising the calorimeter so that we
will have greater confidence if we see something.  Meanwhile, I have purchased
some of the parts for the next generation device.  A fellow worker on the
water machine is machining some of the large aluminum parts.  So spin offs
work both ways!  If ICCF4 is held, I plan to be there with a splendiferous
device, if not results.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 /  /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 01:18:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz, I, and a lot of others are looking at the boiling cell tapes.
 
My problem is that I imagine the cell liquid being replaced by a greater and
greater fraction of bubbles as the long run proceeds.  Of course they add a
lot of electrolyte as the run progresses.  For hundreds of hours.  So I wonder
how they keep accurate track of the cell contents.  Using Peter H's numbers of
iv input power of 37.5 watts and a guess of 12 volt cell potential, gives a
guess of near 3 amperes cathode current.  One ampere hour disassociates 0.018
mole of D2O so I calculate the cell uses up 1.1 cc of D2O per hour.  Some of
you check - do not believe that I can calculate such things right.
 
So how much electrolyte was in the cell when it started to boil?  How do P&F
claim to have determined this.  How much actually boiled off?  This is the
detail I want to see of the experiment.  Until the detail is known (Remember
Ross says "the devil is in the detail") we do not have an experiment.
 
Steven Jones says: "I must emphasize that it is easier to critique an
experiment than to do a compelling test."  I agree.  Doing experiments sharpens
one's view of other experiments.  When I notice an experimenter write that "we
worked hard on this" and I too have had to work hard on the item, then he gains
in my respect.  If I did not pay much attention to the item, and his comment
caused me to find something I did wrong, then he really gains my respect.  So
sometimes respect is measured by tiny little comments in a paper.  I have
(too many times) said that I have found such data in the McKubre papers.  I do
not find it in many others.
 
John Farrell says it is time for a "blow the detractors away" experiment.  I
agree.  Just because I dropped Mills Farrell the first time after I found
problems does not mean that I will not try it again if there is a reason.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Critique
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critique
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 05:57:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>As I mentioned before, the "something else" that was going on could only have
>been boiling, as was clearly shown in the BBC close-up. It is very easy for
>an electrochemist to see the difference between boiling and electrolysis, by
>looking at shape, size and nature of the bubbles,
 
I thought that the complaint was that the boiling itself might be pushing
a good deal of "unboiled" water out of the system.  When I was running my
Mills cell, even low level electrolysis bubbling would cause bubble films
to find their way up and out my exhaust tube.  Had it reached the level of
activity of boiling, a great percentage of my electrolyte would have left the
cell merely by being "pumped" out, rather than boiled away.
 
Here the complaint isn't that boiling isn't occuring, but that the assumption
that X amount of heat was required to boil the initial contents of the cell
may well be wrong.
 
--
- 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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.01 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
Date: 1 Mar 93 17:50:31 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
     The ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber described below has obvious potential
applications for Chemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Medical
Research, etc., allowing experiments which now can be done ONLY on the Space
Shuttle, AT GREAT EXPENSE!
 
 
                       Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Air/Spacecraft
                         or ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
 
               NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on
          U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $3.00 per complete copy from
          U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try getting
          it via your local public or university library's inter-library
          loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A
          SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to Inventor
          Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.
 
               In the patent, Figs. 7A and 7B are basically side views
          of a gravity-NEUTRALIZING FLYING SAUCER, or, if anchored to
          the ground, a ZERO-GRAVITY CHAMBER [which could have MANY
          possible GROUND-level applications for science, medicine,
          manufacturing, etc.].  Each oval diagram shows a motor
          spinning a central disc at a very high speed, about 28,000
          RPM, and also rotating two other discs sandwiched around the
          first disc, via gears, at a much slower speed, perhaps 2,800
          RPM, in the opposite direction.  The two outer discs have
          extensions [counter-balanced via off-center axis] that, as
          they rotate, alternately make contact with two wide
          extensions from opposite walls of the spacecraft.  The
          central disc should have shallow spiral-shaped grooves on
          both sides for air-bearings, to allow the needed very close
          contact with the two outer discs.
 
               I should clarify that each of the two outer discs has
          ONLY ONE [counter-balanced] extension, each one pointed
          opposite (180 degrees) the extension of the other disc.
 
               VERY CLOSE CONTACT must be made as the disc extensions
          slide past the wall extensions in order to conduct the
          "Kinemassic" Energy (term coined by the Inventor) from the
          discs to the walls in an ALTERNATING CIRCULATION.
 
               The most important factor making it work is that the
          discs, extensions, and outer walls of the spacecraft MUST be
          made of any material(s) in which a very large majority of the
          atoms are of isotopes having "half integral atomic spin",
          such as copper (3/2).  All other parts, etc., should have a
          minority of such atoms.  [See the appropriate column of the
          table of isotopes in the latest edition of "The Handbook of
          Chemistry and Physics."]
 
               Experimenters should use one motor to spin the center
          disc, and a 2ND SEPARATE motor to rotate the two outer discs,
          so their relative speeds can be varied to establish the
          needed conditions for PROPULSION of the spacecraft via
          "NEGATIVE WEIGHT" (with the spacecraft's "Kinemassic" field
          PUSHING AGAINST the earth's gravitational field, etc.).
 
 
               If we have to put up a space station, establish Moon
          bases, go to Mars, rendezvous with comets, etc., WHY DO IT
          THE HARD WAY?!
 
               Your favorite university or research company could make
          a big name for itself by making a small model of this work.
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                        Robert E. McElwaine
                                        B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmcelwre cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.01 / nod sivad /  Re: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:48:13 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>local products.  Remember, money is basically an I.O.U..  If you get
>something by handing out an I.O.U. (dollars) someday that I.O.U. will
>trace its course back as a purchase (collecting on the I.O.U.)
 
>This is why international trade really always balances, and why concerns
>about "trade deficits" are much ado about nothing.  (Usually used to justify
>some new pork for special interests.)
 
Hmmm.  But what if the foreign interest uses the IOU to buy an American company
and transfer its business to the foreign land?  They have used the IOU
to divert future income from our country to their country.  Thus we have
a permanent loss and they have a gain.
 
                                                me
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / Frank Close /   Re Censorship
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Re Censorship
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:49:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell: I too abhor censorship. Nowhere have I advocated it.
 
If Mr Lo, or anyone, wishes to write a theory paper that is already
 
inconsistent with data, or that has consequences that are ruled out
by data,
that is fine by me. That is what happens all the time in research. Out of
the papers that are written one needs to decide which ones are more worthy
of time and effort than others. If you dont do that in research you will
disappear under a paper mountain, or at least a Mole-hill. It was in this
sense that I asked do we need to consider Lo's paper.
 
While we are talking about censorship: I did not interpret Dieter Britz
critique of Jed Rothwell as a plea for censorship either. People should
be free to write whatever they wish and let others judge them by it.
(As now :-) )
 
If the PERSON who keeps POSTING his theories OVER and OVER in this
UPPER and LOWER case style keeps on posting AND FILLING up the medium,
one solution could be for those who are annoyed to edit out his offerings
and send them back to him. If he receives N copies of his postings back it
might reduce his enthusiasm. However, this has anarchic overtones which
have their own dangers.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 /  /  Critique Critique
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Critique Critique
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:49:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is mostly in reply to Jed Rothwells critique of my questions about the
P&F boiling cell.
 
1.  I agree the cells are not likely in series.  Jed made a better deduction
than I from the film.  I agree not likely in series as then when one boiled
away, the others would stop.  I would still like to hear details of how
they are connected.
 
2.  With respect to the cells leaking heat, this comment on the other side of
the ledger was an attempt at a fair assessment of the experiment.  Pons can
state all he wants that radiation loss is minimal.  Much better to publish
measured values.  It is not minimal in my book.
 
3.  The heat leaking out of one cell might affect the others.  The heat leaking
out of one cell **does** affect the others.  The question is how much.  Ross's
devil will tell.
 
4.  Jed clearly states "The electrolyte was not replentished".  OK Jed will
you kindly explain how a cell running at 37.5 watts can run for a week without
adding electrolyte?  Does this mean P&F have a catalyst in the cell?  I did
not see signs of one.  I extimate the cell would use up 185 cc of electrolyte
in a week.  Looks to me that it would hold about 100 and that the level was
set at 50.  For a reasonable experiment electrolyte would have to be added
every 4 hours or so.  From my viewing I saw bubbles just like John Logajan
observed in his experiments crawling up the sides of the tube and breaking
near the top.  There is no doubt in my mind that some of the bubble pieces were
exiting out the gas vent.  The only question is what per-cent leaves this way.
 
5.  Jed says the electrolyte level is easy to measure.  Jed says you can
measure it to great accuracy.  I am very cautious about the use of the word
accuracy.  "Great" to me is not a suitable adjective.  I like numbers like
0.01% to use with terms like "great".  But I would likely not say "great" but
let the error limits speak for themselves.
 
6. "Some of the fluid may have left the test tube in droplets, and not as
vapor.  Not with such a tall test tube, and I am sure they thought of that,
and tested for it. (Quite sure actually)."  Says Jed first quoting my concern.
I am not sure, Jed.  My name is Thomas, I have to be shown.  They have not
shown me a decent experiment yet!
 
7.  In response to my "power is difficult to measure", Jed says: "Not at 35
watts, plus/minus one tenth watt (actually plus/minus a milliwatt).  This is
dead simple to measure."  Now 35 watts to on milliwatt is one part in 35000.
Possibly it could be done at some NIST set up on a fixed precision resistor.
But very unlikely that anyone could make such a precise measurement on a
boiling cell, with wildly varying current, and a very strange capacitive
component.  At 100 mw out of 35 watts it is still tough, and I would have to
see all the detail to decide if the measurement was reasonable.  But with the
P&F setup, they are likely able to do a few percent, and as you say that is
good enough.
 
So Jed has restated some of my questions about the boiling cell, and says: "I
found each and every one of them as insupportable as the ones I listed here.
None had any merit."
 
But the one other actual experimenter reporting, John Logajan, has seen liquid
leaving his cells, and I have seen liquid leaving mine.  So to support his
claim that no liquid leaves the cell, Pons will have to present supporting
evidence of the steps taken to prevent it.  That is all I ask.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 /  /  Hagelstein's straw man
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein's straw man
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:49:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In his recent review, Peter Hagelstein does properly note that: "The
successful production of significant excess energy must give rise to
ashes of one sort or another.  It is not currently known what reactions
are occurring; consequently it is not obvious what ashes are to be
expected."  In this second remark, however, he has begun to construct
a straw man, i.e. the notion that there are some ashes that would be
difficult to detect and which may, to the present time, have escaped
notice inspite of the variety of nuclear and analytical techniques that
have been applied to cold fusion.  In further expansion on his ideas
and in his evaluations of theories put forward by others one can begin
to see his straw man get fleshed out to become the specific assertion
that shifts in isotope ratios from before to after the cold fusion has
occured would be difficult to detect.  Specifically he refers to the
transformation of [105]Pd to [106]Pd as a possible candidate.  I
believe that his ideas cannot be brought into any form of agreement
with the existing body of experimental evidence, and challange him
to make a specific proposal that would not be relatively trivial to
test experimentally.
 
The basic problem that Peter has overlooked is the simple energetics
of the situation.  (We are still agreed that energy conservation
applies, aren't we?).   The transformation of a given isotope of
mass number M to that with mass number M+1 obviously involves the
transfer of a neutron.  Such reactions have been favoured by CF
advocates because it removes the troublesome coulomb barrier from
the problem.  Such a reaction can, in general, result in the release
of energy as desired, but we need to ask carefully, "How much energy?"
For therein lies the rub.
 
If you have a free neutron, a virtual neutron, or a quasifree neutron
and you stick it into a Pd nucleus the energy release is 5-6 MeV.  Your
challange is to invent a mechanism that will transform that energy
entirely into lattice heat.  What should happen, you may ask?  Well,
I would say the possibilites worth considering are the reemission of
the neutron or the emission of a proton, an alpha, or gamma rays.
Experimental evidence rules out neutron and gamma emission, but those
are the only possible ways to get just a shift in isotopic abundance
as the other part of the ash.  Let me make that clear.  Any shift
in mass number that is not also accompanied by a change in Z must
result in the emission of gamma rays!  Of course there may be
ways to suppress some gamma rays, but in reality you will have to
work with a wide assortment of gammas because there are a number of
different Pd isotopes.  Just asserting that magic comes along to
stop all gamma emission from the lattice isn't going to convince
very many people that you have a workable theory.
 
What happens if you choose protons or alphas as the means of
transfering the excitation energy to the lattice?  At the very
least you now have to admit that there are all sorts of
ashes in the Pd lattice that aren't Pd isotopes anymore, so
the notion that shifts in isotopic abundance can hide the ashes
of cold fusion is a false hope.  That straw man has gone up in
smoke.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 /  mcgufbd@wkuvx1 /  Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **clo
     
Originally-From: mcgufbd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **clo
Date: 2 Mar 93 13:58:47 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1moreqINNnp1@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> lord@tradent.wimsey.com (Jason Cooper) writes:
> : Looking for any and all replies.  Can anybody suggest a method of gamma
> : shielding for a fusion reactor?  MUST be not bulky (like 40 feet of
> : cement or lead) and therefore not massive as such either.  _PREFERABLY_
> : a reflective shielding, though absorptive is perfectly acceptable too.
> : This (if it helps) is to go on a starship (fusion powered) which is why
> : it must not be bulky or massive.
>
> A really long pole ought to work just fine.  Remember 1/r^2.
 
As far as I know, you would need a material with an incredibly high Z
number and with a big cross-section for the type of gamma-rays emitted
from whatever you are "fusioning" together.  Even with this type of
material, you would need a LOT of it so as to reduce the intensity of
the radiation.  For we all know that gamma-rays do not lose energy
when traveling through lead, just intensity.
 
Stephen Holcomb
Western Kentucky University
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmcgufbd cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / Janeth SanPedro /  Neils Bohr and the atom
     
Originally-From: jsanped@eis.calstate.edu (Janeth SanPedro)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neils Bohr and the atom
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 20:28:11 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

        I am doing a research project on Neils Bohr and his efforts on
atomic research which led to the making of the atomic bomb---the Manhattan
project.  More specifically, I am interested in the kind of
responsibilities that he absolved for the eventual use of his research.
 
                                        Thank you much,
                                        Janeth San Pedro
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjsanped cudfnJaneth cudlnSanPedro cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Effect Of Cheap Energy On World Economy.
Date: 2 Mar 93 10:43:04 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad) writes:
>>Remember, money is basically an I.O.U..  If you get
>>something by handing out an I.O.U. (dollars) someday that I.O.U. will
>>trace its course back as a purchase (collecting on the I.O.U.)
>
>Hmmm.  But what if the foreign interest uses the IOU to buy an American company
>and transfer its business to the foreign land?  They have used the IOU
>to divert future income from our country to their country.  Thus we have
>a permanent loss and they have a gain.
 
Not at all.  This "future income" will still travel a circular path.  You
haven't changed the system at all by resorting to a second layer situation.
If company X moves to Japan, say, then products bought from company X will
fetch them IOUs (dollars) which they again will wish to collect on (buy
something in return.)
 
The idea that "they" can buy everything is certainly an amusing concept.
I can just imagine if that philosophy were held by Walmart or Seven-Eleven,
"Bolt the doors!  If those consumers get in here, they'll buy everything!
We'll be ruined!"
 
--
- 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / mitchell swartz /  facts corrected
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: facts corrected
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:09:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
     In world sci.physics.fusion [5343,
  <00968E7B.7FD84580.513@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, 3 Mar 1993]
  Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU,  ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
    says  {re: Subject: Facts is facts, Jeff}
 
===  "Jeff Rothwell continues to believe ......
===
===  "The NUMBER ONE most significant piece of data against cold fusion
===   still remains the lack of neutrons."
 
 
  Dick, facts are facts.  The fact is that  there are at least
     two (2) factual problems with your paragraph.
 
  First, "Jeff" is not Jeff, but Jed.
 
  Second, where is your evidence, facts, or proof,
    and you have been asked to provide it before if it exists,
  that neutrons ****must***** be generated in one (or more)
        of these reaction(s) in a solid.   In a solid.
 
                                            Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.01 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Critique
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critique
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 17:10:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> 6. Some of the fluid may have left the test tube in droplets, and not as
> vapor. Not with such a tall test tube, and I am sure they thought of that,
> and tested for it. (Quite sure, actually). In any case, how much fluid might
> be leaving in this fashion? What percent? They are getting between 300% and
> 1000% excess heat, so there could be substantial errors in their calorimetry,
> and the results would stand anyway. In a deep test tube, boiling cannot carry
> off 2 parts liquid water for 1 part vapor; a 10:1 ratio is even more out of
> the question. Boiling might carry off some amount of water, but nowhere near
> that much!
 
If steam is visible then it has suspended droplets in it.  The height of the
testtube will not make a large difference, most of the liquid will escape.  I
do not know what percentage of "wet steam" is steam vs. suspended droplets.
 
> 7. Power in is difficult to measure. Not 35 watts, plus/minus one tenth watt
> (actually, plus/minus a milliwatt). This is dead simple to measure. I am
> quite certain that a few dozen Toyota and MITI scientists, working together
> for four years, can measure 35 watts of power, and not mistake it for 100
> watts.
 
DC power is simple to measure.  AC power, or DC with high frequency components
is difficult.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / Mr Parsons /  International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium
     
Originally-From: tparso@.ic.ac.uk (Mr T.L. Parsons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 10:07:39 GMT
Organization: Imperial College

 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
           19th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON RAREFIED GAS DYNAMICS
 
                            University of Oxford
                              Oxford, England
                              July, 25-29 1994
 
 
                             FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT:
------------
The International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium is recognised as the
principal forum for the presentation of recent advances in the field of
Rarefied Gas Dynamics.  It is an inter-disciplinary conference of interest
to physicist, engineers, chemists and mathematicians and it encompasses the
areas of kinetic theory, transport processes and non-equilibrium phenomena
in gases.
 
The next International Rarefied Gas Dynamics Symposium (RGD19) will be
held next year in Oxford, England, from July 25 to July 29, 1994.
 
Oxford provides an ideal venue for the meeting.  Besides being a beautiful
city in its own right and the home of one of the world's oldest
Universities, it makes a perfect centre for excursions to such places of
interest as Blenheim Palace (birthplace of Winston Churchill), Stratford on
Avon, Stonehenge, the Cotswolds and, of course, London.  Inexpensive
accommodation in the Colleges of Oxford University will be available for
participants.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS:
------
The 19th RGD Symposium will include technical sessions on the following
topics:
 
A    Kinetic Theory and Transport Theory
B    Numerical Methods including Direct Simulation Monte-Carlo
C    Gas-surface phenomena
D    Gas Beams
E    Clusters, Aerosols and RGD aspects of Condensation and Evaporation
F    External Flows including Space Vehicles and Vacuum Technology.
G    Jets and Plumes
H    Internal Flows
I    Collision Dynamics
J    Relaxation Processes, Reaction Rates and Shocks.
K    RGD in Space Engineering.
L    RGD aspects of Ionized Gas Flows
M    Plasma Processing of Materials and Electron Impact.
N    Experimental Techniques and Instrumentation for RGD.
 
Papers presented at the meeting will be refereed and published in bound
Proceedings.
 
The Second Announcement will be a call for the submission of abstracts.
These should be up to three pages in length and they are to be received no
later than December 12th, 1993. Further information concerning the invited
speakers, registration, accommodation, travel and the social programme will
be included in the Second Announcement.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Symposium Co-Chairmen:
 --------------------
 
         Professor John Harvey,
         Department of Aeronautics,
         Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medecine,
         London, U.K.
 
         Dr Gordon Lord,
         Department of Engineering Science,
         Oxford University,
         Oxford, U.K.
 
***************************************************************************
In order to receive the Second Announcement, please complete and return the
attached sheet as soon as possible to the address given below:
***************************************************************************
 
           19th INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON RAREFIED GAS DYNAMICS
 
                            University of Oxford
                              Oxford, England
                              July, 25-29 1994
 
 
                                REPLY  FORM
                                -----------
 
I am interested in receiving further information on the 1994 RGD Symposium.
 
 
               Name           ....................
 
               Affiliation    ....................
 
               Address        ....................
 
                              ....................
 
                              ....................
 
                              ....................
 
               E-mail         .............
 
               Telephone      .............
 
               Fax            .............
 
 
Please indicate your research area(s) using letters A-N (see announcement)
 
               ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
 
I am definitely/possibly/not* planning to attend RGD19
 
I will definitely/possibly/not* be presenting a paper
 
I am/am not* interested in the accompanying person's programme.
 
                ( * Delete as appropriate )
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you know of another person who would be interested in receiving
information about the Symposium, could you kindly take the time to
complete the following:
 
               Name           ....................
 
               Affiliation    ....................
 
               Address        ....................
 
                              ....................
 
                              ....................
 
                              ....................
 
Please return this form to:
 
         Professor J K Harvey,
         Department of Aeronautics,
         Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medecine,
         London, SW7 2BY, U.K.
 
          E-mail: rgd19@ae.ic.ac.uk
          FAX:    (44) 71 584 8120
         PHONE:  (44) 71 589 5111 ext 4011
 
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentparso cudfnMr cudlnParsons cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Roughly equal
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Roughly equal
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 15:40:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I described the number of bubbles on the anode and cathode of the typical
electrochemical cell as being "roughly equal." Dieter Britz defined the
amount of gas precisely:
 
"The one current going through the cell will - after metal saturation with
deuterium - generate half as much oxygen at the anode as deuterium at the
cathode... [The ratio is] 2:1, unless there are side reactions, which are
unlikely in this system."
 
Okay, VERY roughly equal. The P&F video, by contrast, shows thousands and
thousands of bubbles that almost completely hide the cathode at times, and
only a handful of bubbles on the anode. I have watched many non-working CF
cells and they did not look a bit like this. As I said, I cannot judge as
well as the others who watched the tape, but they said that they could tell
by the size and appearance of the bubbles that they were caused by boiling. I
think electrolysis bubbles are "finer" or "milky" (smaller).
 
There were so many bubbles on the cathode that they must have seriously
hampered conductivity. According to my anonymous experts who watched the
film, with all that vapor around the cathode, you could not sustain
electrochemical heating at the cathode at a high enough level to maintain the
boiling. In other words, it cannot be electricity that is causing the
boiling, because if it was, the boiling would cut off the electricity; the
reaction would quench itself. Also, the lead wires are too thin to carry that
much current; they would melt.
 
As I said, I am trying to get someone more qualified than me to write this
thing up in a more organized fashion. I apologize for dribbling out details.
Several people have contacted me and asked for copies, but alas, I don't even
have one myself now (I lent it to a friend). It is a shame we cannot upload
video to Internet. A picture is worth a thousand words, but it takes up 100
megabytes.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Heating to boiling at the interface?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Heating to boiling at the interface?
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:48:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A day or so ago, I responded to logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan), who had
written
 
>Why would bubbling necessarily be roughly equal?  You have a polarized current
>flow, implying different electro-chemical reactions are taking place at each
>electrode site.  I should think the energy division could be something other
>than 50/50.
 
with
 
>In fact, it wouldn't be roughly equal. The one current going through the cell
>will - after metal saturation with deuterium - generate half as much oxygen
>at the anode as deuterium at the cathode, the overall reaction being
>2 D2O --> 2 D2 + O2.
>So, not roughly equal, but precisely 2:1, unless there are side reactions,
>which are unlikely in this system.
 
John privately pointed out to me that what he meant was not the gases
generated at the electrodes, but the steam, i.e. the heat.
 
This is indeed a much more complicated and interesting question. Cell voltages
in cnf cells are variously measured as between 10 and 20 V. What are the
voltage drops at the cathode/solution interface and anode/solution interface?
How much do they contribute to cell heating? Well, if we fine-focus on these
interfaces, we find that the voltage drops can hardly be more than about 1V,
the rest (and main part) coming from ohmic drop in the electrolyte itself.
This is putting it very crudely. Experimentally, if you were to put one
Luggin capillary, connected to a reference electrode, very close to the anode
and another one close to the cathode, you'd find that the potential difference
between the two would account for most of the total cell voltage. So the major
heating comes from the bulk of the electrolyte; unless there are insulating
films on the electrodes causing further iR drop (not likely, in my opinion
but I can't be sure). I get all this from looking at Tafel curves for the
hydrogen and oxygen electrodes in books like Vetter's on electrochemical
kinetics. These extend to just 100's of mV for current densities up to 1A/cm**2.
 
Why, then, is the boiling reported as happening AT the electrodes? My guess is
that the solid surface acts as a place where the bubbles can form. The gas
bubbles generated by the electrolysis would no doubt act as good bubble seeds
for steam. So my guess would be that you'd get about the same flux of steam
bubbles at both ends of the cell, as well as a lot in between.
 
None of this involves CNF-caused heat. If you believe in that, then you should
get next to no steam at the anode, and a lot at the cathode, where the
hitherto unknown nuclear process is doing all the heating. So one test of the
nuclear boiling hypothesis might be to see whether there is boiling at the
anode or not. Have another look at that video.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 /  /  Glow discharges and selftargeting
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Glow discharges and selftargeting
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:49:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To add my two cents to the discussion of what is the energy range in which
glow discharge or ion bombardment experiments are really just examples of
hot fusion resulting from selftargeting, the lowest bombarding energy
that I have seen for conventional measurements of d + d reaction cross sections
i.e. "hot fusion", is 20 keV.  At that energy reaction rates are already
so low as to make the measurements extremely difficult, and the cross sections
are dropping like a shot with any decrease in energy in excellent agreement
with the stardard view that the cross section is dominated by the energy
dependence of the coulomb penetrability.  From that perspective any of
the experiments involving deuteron ions at 1 keV or less would not be
expected to induce any nuclear reactions at an observable rate and thus
should not be dismissed as examples of "selftargeting."  These experiments
should be dismissed simply because they are poorly planned, poorly executed,
lacking in sufficient safeguards against false signals, and not followed up
with improved experiments that would avoid some obvious pitfalls.
 
I have commented on this before, but Brian Rauchfuss asks: "What are the
problems with 'glow discharge' experiments, esp. regarding nuclear products?"
Perhaps the most spectacular claims of this type of measurements has been
the "detection" of energetic charged particles, and I'll restrict my comments
to those claims.  To the best of my knowledge all the experiments of this
type share a common feature of using a silicon surface barrier detector
for these measurements.  The problem with these measurements is that there
are too many ways of generating signals which could be falsely interpreted
as charged particles.  These detectors respond to photons, something that is
produced in abundance over a very broad spectral range by ion sources and
by glow discharges.  Until someone does a better experiment than just sticking
a detector next to a foil that is subjected to ion bombardment, these
measurements aren't to be believed, particularly since they don't pass
the old "reproducibility" test very well.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 /  /  Facts is facts, Jeff
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Facts is facts, Jeff
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:49:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jeff Rothwell continues to believe that all the negatives associated with
cold fusion experiments will just go away, but his wishful thinking will
not prevail.  The NUMBER ONE most significant piece of data against cold
fusion still remains the lack of neutrons.  It is an unquestioned fact
that no experiment has ever come close to providing definitive evidence
for the occurance of a specific nuclear reaction as the source for
heat in any of the various forms of cold fusion.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Heating to boiling at the interface?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Heating to boiling at the interface?
Subject: Roughly equal
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 15:09:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Yesterday, I wrote:
>None of this involves CNF-caused heat. If you believe in that, then you should
>get next to no steam at the anode, and a lot at the cathode, where the
>hitherto unknown nuclear process is doing all the heating. So one test of the
>nuclear boiling hypothesis might be to see whether there is boiling at the
>anode or not. Have another look at that video.
 
and today, I see this note:
 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Subject: Roughly equal
 
>Okay, VERY roughly equal. The P&F video, by contrast, shows thousands and
>thousands of bubbles that almost completely hide the cathode at times, and
>only a handful of bubbles on the anode. I have watched many non-working CF
 
Well, congratulations. If this is true, it makes CNF more credible.
 
>There were so many bubbles on the cathode that they must have seriously
>hampered conductivity. According to my anonymous experts who watched the
>film, with all that vapor around the cathode, you could not sustain
>electrochemical heating at the cathode at a high enough level to maintain the
>boiling. In other words, it cannot be electricity that is causing the
>boiling, because if it was, the boiling would cut off the electricity; the
>reaction would quench itself. Also, the lead wires are too thin to carry that
>much current; they would melt.
 
This is not quite right. True, the bubbles would cause breaks in the
electrolyte and thus reduce conductivity - and at the same time cause extra
heating in that narrow space, simply by ohmic drop. But if the current stops,
this should show on the meters and presumably didn't. In an electrochemical
cell, the current can only go via the electrodes. What is meant by "that much
current" and "thin wires"? Was this cell run with constant current, or
constant voltage? In either case, these bubbles with iR drop would not
increase the current, maybe decrease it. Please explain about the fine wires.
 
A conventional explanation of the bubbles at the anode could be simply the
ohmic drop caused by D2 bubbles, leading to a positive feedback effect, with
steam bubbles formed, making for yet more ohmic drop. While one might expect
the same thing to happen at the anode, remember that there is only half as
much oxygen evolved there as deuterium at the cathode. Also I don't know the
relative electrode areas, i.e. current densities. If, e.g., the anode was much
larger than the cathode (in fact, usually the case), everything happening
there would be much less intense. I am not trying to sneak out of my above
admission that this looks like the Pd cathode doing the heating, just looking
at all the angles.
 
Now I'll put on my bad-skeptic hat again. The above addresses objective issues
and purported evidence. I have said before, and I'll repeat here, that since
this video comes from the Pons-Fleischmann factory, I don't trust it. They
have in the past shown highly questionable behaviour with respect to CNF
results, and cannot be trusted. I don't know to what lengths they will go to
convince people that they have something real. Certainly, Tom Droege's
question about the amount of water electrolysed away without being topped up
(i.e. about three times the cell contents) only adds to my doubts. P&F have
made a transition from being scientists honestly reporting everything, to
being PR men for what is for them a money-making venture with secrets to be
kept. Seen in this light, all we can do now is to wait for their concrete
results - or their failure to achieve them. I wouldn't take any of their PR as
scientific evidence.
 
Why is CNF such a ragbag? Some find tritium, some neutrons; others find
neither of these but helium. Some get boiling cells, others don't. Some get
no heat but low-level neutrons. Some use heavy water, some swear by normal
water and nickel cathodes. Some find that medium loading is optimal, others
say you must get as high as you can, preferably above 0.9. Are we blind men
feeling at small bits of a hitherto unknown monster from outer space? Have
people simultaneously stumbled on a multitude of entirely new processes? Or
is it - the simplest explanation - all pathological?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 794 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 794 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 05:33:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
Just a single paper, about I could not say much, as it is in Korean. I was
able to read between the lines a bit but what their conclusion is I don't
know. I will not update the archived files until I add a few more papers; it's
not worth it for just this one.
Frank Close has written a review of Huizenga's book, and comes up very
uncritical, even though I do not believe he is quite as hard on CNF as
Huizenga. I believe there will be a rebuttal by Mallove, and likely a rebuttal
rebuttal by Frank. I will update the cnf-cmnt file, since I don't get items
for that very often.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 3-Mar-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 794
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee KP, Kim SW, Choi KU, Hwang ST;
Anal. Sci. Technol. 4(1) (1991) 103 (in Korean).
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 117:259455 (1992).
"Cold Fusion".
** "Review of room temp. nuclear fusion phenomena controversy started by
Fleishmann [sic] and Pons with 8 refs." (Direct quote from CA).
The article shows a stylised figure of an electrochemical cnf cell, gives some
general fusion background, describes a spectrum of cnf experiments, the
problem of Coulomb barrier to fusion, tunnelling and screening.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close F; American Scientist  81 (1993) 83 (Jan-93 issue).
"From farce to fiasco".
** Frank Close's review of "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century"
by John Huizenga. Close has himself written a similarly critical book on the
subject, and here appears to agree with Huizenga, who will not allow any
possibility that some real phenomenon might lie behind "cold fusion".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 /  /  Correction: It's Jed
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction: It's Jed
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 05:34:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My apologies for substituting "Jeff" for Jed in refering to Mr. Rothwell,
as Mitchell Swartz pointed out.  However, Mitchell went on to suggest
that my emphasis on lack of neutron detection over looks  the requirement
"that neutrons **** must **** be generated in one (or more) of these
reaction(s) in a solid."  I have no quarrel with the obvious fact that
there are nuclear reactions that do not involve the emission of neutrons,
but the notion that nuclear reactions are somehow different when they
occur in a solid is nothing more than a cold fusion myth.  Some of the
ideas that had been put forward early in this game were directed toward
finding a solution to the "no neutron" problem, but nothing ever come of
them in terms of a coherent theory.  Now, as the various experimental
claims become more diverse it becomes less and less likely that anyone
can construct a theory of nuclear reactions in a solid that can merge
the ever more extravagant claims of excess heat with the widen variety
of means for producing that heat.  At some point you will simply have
to accept the fact that nuclear reactions don't become unobservable
just because they occur in a solid.  While they may be alternatives
to neutrons as the signature of a nuclear reaction, there will still
be a signature of some kind.  As long as there are no ashes to be
found,  cold fusion is in doubt.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / Jed Rothwell /  Another look
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another look
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 05:34:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz said, "So one test of the nuclear boiling hypothesis might be to
see whether there is boiling at the anode or not. Have another look at that
video."
 
I don't have the tape anymore, but the first thing that everyone notices is
that almost all bubbling activity is at the cathode. The anode wires are
nearly quiescent. The impression is startling. An electrochemist audience
immediately identified the bubbles on the cathode as boiling (not
electrolysis), whereas the anode bubbles look like "milky" O2 gas bubbles.
They ran the tape 20 times or so, stopping and discussing the details. This
is the close-up single cell BBC tape, not the "3 in a row time lapse." I
should try to wrangle some more copies and send one to Dieter.
 
Without even seeing it the video, Dieter zeroed in another one of those
reasons that show the heat is not from joule heating. The source of the heat
is clearly localized in the cathode; the heat is not distributed evenly
between the anode & cathode. Regarding the technical questions about cell
voltage, I would suggest Dieter get in touch with Peter Hagelstein, who spent
a lot of time going over the nitty-gritty of heat transfer and
electrochemistry with Pons while he was writing the paper. Fax him, he is
hard to reach by phone.
 
 
Dick Blue says, "The NUMBER ONE most significant piece of data against cold
fusion still remains the lack of neutrons." No, sorry. Not anymore. I just
decided that from now on, the presence of neutrons in hot fusion will be
cited as the most significant piece of data against it. Why not? If theory
can change facts, and matches can burn for a week, then anything goes, there
are no rules, and I get to play this irrational game on any terms I want,
just like you.
 
The ONLY significant piece of data that makes any difference whatsoever is
the calorimetry which shows 20,000 eV of energy per atom in some experiments.
Everything else is icing on the cake. As long as you ignore that, you miss
the whole point. You cannot dictate to nature that there shall be neutrons
because your theory demands it. God has overruled you.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Roughly equal
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roughly equal
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 18:58:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>film, with all that vapor around the cathode, you could not sustain
>electrochemical heating at the cathode at a high enough level to maintain the
>boiling. In other words, it cannot be electricity that is causing the
>boiling, because if it was, the boiling would cut off the electricity; the
>reaction would quench itself. Also, the lead wires are too thin to carry that
>much current; they would melt.
 
There is a not so subtle effect of running constant current that argues
against what you just said.
 
To maintain constant current, the power supply will automatically increase
the applied voltage if the resistance of the load goes up.  Power delivered
to the load is always give by P=I*V, where "I" is the current and "V" is
the voltage across the load.  So as the resistance increases, so does the
voltage needed to maintain the current, and the power applied to the load
goes up as well.
 
Therefore the boiling effect of increasing the cell resistance will lead to
much more power going into the cell, rather than less, as claimed.  There
is a limit, but it is when the upper voltage limit of the power supply is
reached.  We have no way of knowing what that is for any given power supply
unless the specifications are listed.  I imagine a good lab power supply
could deliver into the tens of volts.  This would allow a factor of 10 or
so increase in the power delivery range over and above a typical cell
operating point.
 
--
- 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.02 / John McCauley /  Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **clo
     
Originally-From: jsm@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **clo
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:38:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1993Mar2.135849.6141@wkuvx1.bitnet> mcgufbd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
[on gamma shielding]
>As far as I know, you would need a material with an incredibly high Z
>number and with a big cross-section for the type of gamma-rays emitted
>from whatever you are "fusioning" together.  Even with this type of
>material, you would need a LOT of it so as to reduce the intensity of
>the radiation.  For we all know that gamma-rays do not lose energy
>when traveling through lead, just intensity.
>
 
A big problem with fusion devices is activation of the device from fusion
radiation. So one tries to make the device and shielding from materials that
have low activation cross sections and whose activation byproducts have
short half-lives. One GW of fast neutrons is mind-boggling destructive and
even 1 GW of gamma rays is also nasty.
 
Most of the gammas from neutronic fusion reactions are from neturon capture
such as the n + p -> d + gamma reaction that makes a 2.2 MeV gamma.
If you just stick to aneutronic reactions, then you no longer worry too
much about neutron shielding. However, you probably will get lots of
gammas from charged fusion products hitting the walls, bremsstrahlung,
and runaway electrons.
 
Unfortunately, the higher the Z, the longer the half-life. Don't have nuclear
data handy but 10 m of Al might be as good as 1 m of Pb in terms of shielding.
However, it might take a week for the Al-based shield to decay to safe levels
and 10,000 yrs for the Pb-based shield to decay.
 
        Scott
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMcCauley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / nod sivad /  Re: Heating to boiling at the interface?
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heating to boiling at the interface?
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 18:23:34 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>say you must get as high as you can, preferably above 0.9. Are we blind men
>feeling at small bits of a hitherto unknown monster from outer space? Have
>people simultaneously stumbled on a multitude of entirely new processes? Or
>is it - the simplest explanation - all pathological?
 
Is pathological science truly the "simplest" solution...or merely the
most cynical?  I agree your explanation is more likely than a monster from
outer space or a multitude of entirely new processes, but there may be
still simpler explanations.  And let's remember the simplest explanation
isn't *always* correct.
 
Perhaps we are searching for an effect which requires some trigger
mechanism.  This would result in a series of negative experiments,
lucky experiments, and pathological experiments -- just as we've
witnessed.  I do not feel this explanation is any more complicated than yours.
 
Furthermore, what if the trigger were analogous to the fuel-air mixture
on a carburetor?  As one adjusted this trigger, at some point the motor
wouldn't run, then it would become a rich mixture, just right, lean, then
again the motor would sit still -- and the "ash" gushing from the
exhaust would vary.
 
In other words, I share your doubts, but not your certainty.
 
                                                me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / nod sivad /  Re: Facts is facts, Jeff
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Facts is facts, Jeff
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 19:05:02 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue writes:
 
>The NUMBER ONE most significant piece of data against cold
>fusion still remains the lack of neutrons.
 
I believe this is overstated a bit.  The lack of neutrons is simply
evidence cold fusion does not follow any known or expected fusion path.
Which may turn out to mean the same thing, but does leave open the possibility
of an *unexpected* fusion path.
 
Or some non-fusion atomic mechanism.  If cold fusion exists, I consider
this the most likely explanation.  I suppose this puts me in the Mills/Farrell
camp, though I don't understand their theory.
 
                                        me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / Jack Stitt /  Cold fusion? Hoax?
     
Originally-From: madmax@blkbox.COM (Jack L. Stitt II)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion? Hoax?
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 08:41:13 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l

  Not too long ago, I heard that two scientists had
"discovered" cold fusion.  It was in all the popular
science magazines.  I believe it was supposed to be
with Deutrium (H3O), Palladium, and Platinum with a
current running through it?
   This may be old news to readers of this newsgroup,
but I would like to know more about the findings of
what went on with this?  I thought perhaps that the
minute amounts of energy given off was a new form of
chemical reaction?]
  Any help would be appreciated (please send e-mail)
only, since I don't regularly read this group).
 
Thanks in advance,
Jack Stitt
madmax@blkbox.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmadmax cudfnJack cudlnStitt cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Heat? Neutrons? Charged particles?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat? Neutrons? Charged particles?
Date: 3 Mar 93 17:55:49 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
 
Rothwell posted "delicious rumors" to the effect that we had seen "excess heat"
in experiments at BYU -- ah, the irony!  He later retracted, but left the
story unfinished.  (I could not respond until today due to challenging teaching
duties this term.)
 
I remind you that searches for possible piezonuclear fusion were initiated at
BYU shortly after the publication of our first paper in the field in March
1986, *seven* years ago:
C.D. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen
molecules," J. Physics G 12:213-221 (1986).
 
Our searches for natural fusion in the earth, geofusion, began at the same
time.  This research had nothing to do with Pons and Fleischmann whatsoever,
we did not even hear about their work until Sept. 1988, 2.5 years after our
first publication!
 
To date, we still find absolutely no evidence linking our work to the claims
of "excess heat" in electrolytic cells made vociferously by FPH.  Three groups
at BYU have undertaken to look for xs heat, as has been done by many others of
course.  A difference is that we do *not* assume that if xs heat is real, then
it must be nuclear in origin.  Rather, we insist that commensurate nuclear
products must accompany any nuclear reaction, with quantities given precisely
by the experimentally proven relation:
      delta-mass  equals  delta-energy/(square of light speed).
This is not theory.  Nor does it mean that a tiny yield of neutrons or
charged particles must imply that alleged xs heat is nuclear in origin:  there
is a strict equality in this relation that tells us how much nuclear ash must
accompany heat from nuclear reactions.  Since the scale of nuclear reactions is
MeV (millions of electron volts energy), we find that a watt of xs power would
require about a *trillion* nuclear reactions per *second* -- with accompanying
X-rays.
 
Therefore, in all of the xs heat searches here, we also have looked for
neutrons or x-rays or gamma-rays.  Secondary x-rays should certainly accompany
nuclear reactions at the levels required to correlate quantitatively with xs
heat claimed; but *NO ONE* has shown an x-ray spectrum that correlates with
xs heat production.   To me, this lack of x-rays is stronger evidence against
nuclear reactions as the basis of alleged xs heat than is the paucity of
(not lack of, Dick) neutrons.  For while d-d- fusion produces neutrons, other
nuclear reactions do not.  But all nuclear reactions release energy which, in
a lattice, must produce secondary x-rays.  The Pd k-alpha line at 21 keV is
penetrating and should have been seen if the heat were indeed nuclear in
origin.  But the line is absent.  (Period, Jed.)
 
To us, the fundamental question as regards heat is *not*
   Is the heat real?
but rather,
   Is the heat nuclear in origin?
 
It is the paucity of x-rays as well as neutrons, charged particles and so
on that tells us, compellingly we believe, that the "xs heat" is *not* nuclear
in origin.
 
So what is the heat? Some hear are in fact pursuing this question.  (The
nuclear group helps with x-ray, neutron, etc. searches.)  We have found,
consistent
with Tom Droege's repeated warnings, that in *open* electrolytic cells, we can
find xs heat -- when assumptions are made that the H2 and O2 leave the cells
without recombination, carrying water vapor in saturation.  When we measure
the evolving gasses and transported vapor, without assumptions about these,
we have consistently found heat balance, that is, *zero* excess heat.
 
Need I remind you that many outspoken claimants --
including A. Takahashi of Japan and P&F in their boiling cell videos --
use open cells?  Regarding the latter, I would observe that a silicate
or borate or aluminate resistive coating formed on the cathode would result
in heating and boiling preferentially at the cathode, Dieter.   So that boiling
at the cathode does not necessarily evidence nuclear reactions there.  This
is an hypothesis that we are pursuing here to account for xs heat *bursts*,
without nuclear origins, you see.  Dick, please
note that Pons used *constant current* in his video-cells (I think you assumed
otherwise in a post).  Thus, a resistive coating on the cathode would indeed
result in higher power into the cell.  A Japanese researcher who wishes to
remain anonymous claims that he has found in experiments that he can achieve
boiling in cells in this way.  We are checking this assertion  -- a hypothesis
that occurred to Prof. Lee Hansen here independently.  Note that Pons did
*not* show any H2O control cells in his video.  Why not?  It looks suspicious
indeed.
 
The results of the first heat (and nuclear product) search at BYU was published
in Fusion Technology, 18:669-677 (1990), by Profs. Harb, Pitt and Tolley of
BYU.  No excess heat was seen in the closed cell, Pd-LiOD system.  But neutrons
were seen at about the rates (very small) reported by our group in Nature.
A thoroughgoing statistical analysis was performed on these data.  No tritium
was seen beyond that which could be accounted for by electrolytic enhancement.
 
The second study for heat -- and correlated nuclear products - was performed
by Prof. Douglas Bennion.  He died in a plane accident last year, and his
results will not likely be published.  He found no excess heat in his
high-current density experiments, closed cells.
 
The current experiments searching for xs heat -- and correlated nuclear
products if any (got the point?)  -- are under the direction of Prof. Lee
Hansen, who with me and others wrote the paper
"Is reported "excess heat" due to nuclear reactions?", available in pre-print
form.  Here we discuss further some of the issue treated hurriedly here.
 
Finally, a response to Dieter.  While I'm irritated at Jed for the rumors,
I find your uncritical linking of our neutron work with the xs heat claims
equally annoying (re - your discuss of "Why is CNF such a ragbag?" dated
today, 3-3-93).  There is not one elephant here, except in the uncritical
mind.  Geofusion and other evidences for low-level nuclear reactions are
a different beast (I agree its existence is not yet proven).  The blind men
will do better in their efforts if they recognize that there are different
animals here:
1- Excess heat claims, without associated nuclear products.
2- Claims of abundant tritium and helium, without associated nuclear energies,
    no secondary x-rays or neutrons.
and
3- Claims of low-level neutron and charged-particle emissions, *with*
   MeV energies, and even at ballpark-related rates.  (May also
   correlate with natural fusion in the earth, if true.)
 
The third animal might even be recognizable as a consistent beast, unless
it is confused with animals (1) and (2), uncritically.  Huizenga and Close
make the distinction -- why can't you?
 
(An old sore, Dieter.  Please re-think this.)
 
Also, Dick, you attack the charged-particle experiments saying that all
use silicon-sruface barrier detectors, sensitive to photons, etc.  The energy
peaks are not so easy to dismiss, esp. when Cecil uses a foil to slow some
of the particles and gets *two* peaks.  Also the BYU detector for Charged
particles uses plastic and glass scintillators viewed by a PMT, not Si
detectors.  Please look again, in the AIP Proc. of the BYU meeting (1990).
 
I hope this is coherent today, terribly rushed just now.
 
People seem just to reiterate their old,
set opinions.  Doesn't data affect your views?  We're still looking for xs
heat and nuclear products, both.  I vote that animals 1 and 3 above are
chimeras.  Number 3 -- I think is a real beast.  Hard to ride just now, too.
 
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.03 / Don Schiewer /  CF or not CF/That is (NOT) the (my) ?
     
Originally-From: schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF or not CF/That is (NOT) the (my) ?
Date: 3 Mar 93 13:04:53 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

I've been following the posts on cold fusion on this group.
I got some layman books on the subject ("Fire from Ice" and
"Too Hot to Handle").
 
My layman conclusion is that something IS happening in the CF
experiments which IS useful energy.  Why is there still no agreement?
 
Is it because the excess energy is not always produced and people
don't want to acknowledge it until it is *OR* is the arguement that
the excess energy measurements are all in error?
 
What about neutrons? Most experiments seem to find these.
 
Also, am I correct in thinking that most decently equipped
University Labs could perform this experiment?  I might try it...
 
Is it a money thing?  Is it an ego thing?  I don't understand.
 
--
Don Schiewer   | Internet  schiewer@pa881a.inland.com    | Onward Great
Inland Steel   | UUCP:     !uucp!pa881a.inland!schiewer  | Stream...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschiewer cudfnDon cudlnSchiewer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 /  /  Dictating to nature
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dictating to nature
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993 15:41:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell informs me that, "You cannot dictate to nature that there
shall be neutrons because your theory demands it."  To this I add, AMEN!
Now, Jed, it is time to heed your own advice.  You, and all cold fusion
advocates, cannot dictate to nature because your wishful thinking demands
it.  Nature puts some very real constraints on what can and does happen
in the realm of nuclear reactions.  I don't have to construct a theory
that goes beyond some very simple and basic conservation laws in order
to assert that cold fusion as it is presently portrayed in every
summary I have seen is an illogical and indefensible mess.  The time
is well past for anyone who is inclined to do so to construct a theory
for the processes they claim have been observed.  I assert that it
has not been done because it can't be done.  Have you got a counter
arguement?  I offer you a challange for a new game with two very simple
rules.  "Nuclear reactions" by my definition involve protons, neutrons,
and electrons as the known constituant particles and the sum of the
number of protons and the number of neutrons is to be conserved.  In
addition energy conservation applies.  Within these constraints you
have complete freedom to suggest any possible nuclear reaction as the
source for the heat you claim is produced.  My claim is that neither
you (nor anyone else) can put forth a candidate reaction(s) that has
not already been disproven by the experimental observations that you
have defended as valid or at least not expressed a doubt about.
Should your "theory" pass this first test my fallback position is that
there are simple experimental tests that would confirm or deny any
new reaction proposal put forward.  Cold fusion is in a very tight
corner.
 
As an aside, I would like to ask those discussing the PF video whether
the possibility of degassing of the hot cathode as contributing to
the violent bubbling can be ruled out.  In otherwords, is the assertion
that the loading doesn't change during the 10 minutes of "boiling" on
solid ground?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Is it a money thing?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is it a money thing?
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 01:49:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones, the man with the world's largest CF reactor (a volcano) writes:
 
     Rothwell posted [a rumor]...  He later retracted, but left the story
     unfinished."
 
Retracted? I retract nothing. I said there was a rumor running around. There
still is. Whenever anyone tells me "Steve got heat," I send 'em a copy of
Steve's note to me denying it. Also, I left the story completely "finished"
and up-to-the-minute. I published exactly what he said: they thought they had
heat, but it turned out to be recombination. That happens. You have to watch
your anode to cathode surface area proportions, and don't put them too close
together, plus you should never trust a result unless it is significantly
greater than I*V.
 
 
Don Schiewer asks:
 
     "Am I correct in thinking that most decently equipped University Labs
     could perform this experiment?  I might try it..."
 
Sure! No problem. Do you have two years of free time on your hands? I can send
you free Pd or Ni. All you have to do is renounce your family, your friends,
your fortune, and agree to spend the next 24 months staring at oscilloscopes,
computers, and electrochemical cells. A small price to pay! You get to be on
the cutting edge. Watch out it doesn't cut *you*.
 
Don also asks "why is there still no agreement?" He asks:
 
     "Is it a money thing?  Is it an ego thing?"
 
Money? Yes! Megadollars. Gigadollars. Ego? Yes! Mega-egos. Giga-egos. And
that's not all! Add: hubris, human nature, folly, fear of the unknown, fear of
the new, scientific illiteracy, people who jumped to conclusions in 1989 and
shoved their foot permanently down their throats, people who published
fraudulent data and don't want to admit it, people who have spent their lives
trying to do it the hard way and can't stand the thought that they just wasted
30 years, and people who are so stupid they don't understand how thermometers
work.
 
Yes, it is quite a noxious brew. But this is how the world works, and how it
always has worked. New ideas and discoveries always cause turmoil and
disruption, and human tragedies large & small. It is the price we must pay for
progress, because we are only human, and we have feelings, emotions & souls.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Jeff Driscoll /  bubbles, constant current
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!frisbee.prime.com!jdriscol (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: bubbles, constant current
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 01:49:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
I saw the video and it certainly looked like boiling, the bubbles
were large, they were not small bubbles.
 
from Hagelsteins "SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD
FUSION" describing P&F's cell
>.......The cathode is charged at
>    intermediate current densities at temperatures below 50 Deg. C for
>    several days, and then the current is stepped up. Due to the
>    relatively low thermal loss of the cell and calorimeter, the cell
>    temperature rises, but the loading is maintained.  This rise
>    improves the excess power
>    generation, which in turn drives the temperature higher; the
>    positive feedback leads to very high excess power generation and
>    vigorous boiling.
>
>    .......  Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D[2]O were
>    boiled away
>    during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average
>    *iv* input power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as
>    follows: The heat of vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol
>    at 100 Deg. C, and 2.5 moles of heavy water corresponds to 102.5
>    kJ; the energy lost during this time in the calorimeter (primarily
>    radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input electrical *iv* energy during this
>    time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy produced is the output energy
>    (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy (22.5 kJ), or 86.7 kJ. The
>    production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes corresponds to an excess power
>    of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85.
 
 
Hagelstein does not write it, but the power needed over a 10 min period
to boil the water away is 144.5 watts + 37.5 watts = 182 watts, if the
above numbers are correct. There are further interesting calculations
in the article on how these numbers translate to 203 eV/atom.
 
from Steven Jones Article 4483 :
>  .....Dick, please note that Pons used *constant current* in his
> video-cells (I think you assumed >otherwise in a post).
 
If P&F are using a constant current device,  they could set the voltage
maximum (limit) to a value that would let at most some upper limit of wattage
into the cell.  That is you can set the current  at some value and also
set an upper limit for the voltage therefore the power has a limit
(P = V*I).
 
Quick comments on constant current devices:
 
If you want constant voltage of say 3 volts, all you have to do is set
the maximum  constant current limit to a high enough value, for example
.5 amps, and if the resistance does not  drop below some value, then
the supply acts as a constant voltage source ( the current should be
set to the maximum that you would ever want it to be)
 
If you want constant current, then set the voltage to some high value
(choose a limit that is the maximum you would ever want it to be) and
if the resistance does not increase above some value, the power supply
will act as a constant current device.
 
Comments about the P&F boiling video:
 
I have no idea what the voltage was used in the boiling water video but
I will use Tom Droege's example.
 
P = V * I
P = V^2 /R
P = I^2 *R
 
If the constant current device is set to 3 amps and the resulting
voltage is 12 volts across the anode and cathode then 36 watts are
going into the cell.  The resistance (effective resistance?) is
therefore R = V/I =  12/3 = 4 ohms.  If this resistance increases to
4.111 because of the boiling or whatever then the voltage increases to:
V = I*R = 3 * 4.111 = 12.333 volts and the power is P = V^2/R =
12.3333^2/4.111  = 37 watts.
 
For this example, assume that the voltage limit was set at 12.333 volts
and the current limit was set at 3 amps.  This would mean that the
current stays at 3 amps when the voltage is below 12.333 volts
(implying that the resistance is less than 4.111 ohms ).  The voltage
can increase until it reaches 12.333 volts.  At that point the current
decreases if the resistance increases (I = V/R). If the resistance
increases at this point, the power goes down, it does not remain
constant (because P = V^2/R, and V is constant).  The table that
follows shows this, if the resistance R  between the  anode and cathode
increases due to boiling, the power and current change in the following
ways.
 
V(volts) R(ohms) I(amps)    P(watts)
 9.0      3      3           27
12.333    4      3           36
12.333    4.111  2.999       36.999
12.333    7      1.761       21.728
12.333    10     1.233       15.210
12.333    20      0.616       7.605
(The resistance increases during boiling because current is being
carried by charged particles, the negatively charged Oxegen atom can't
reach the positively charged anode if a bubble is in the way - [someone
correct me if I am wrong])
 
The P&F cell averaged 37 watts, so they probably started out at higher
that 37 watts and finished less at less than 37 watts.  A data
acquisition system can can easily measure the current by measuring the
voltage across a resistor with known resistance.  There is almost no
way that P&F could have measured the power going into the cell
incorreclty.
 
from Steven Jones Article 4483:
>Need I remind you that many outspoken claimants -- including A.
>Takahashi of Japan and P&F in their boiling cell videos -- use open
>cells?  Regarding the latter, I would observe that a silicate or borate
>or aluminate resistive coating formed on the cathode would result in
>heating and boiling preferentially at the cathode, Dieter.   So that
>boiling at the cathode does not necessarily evidence nuclear reactions
>there.  This is an hypothesis that we are pursuing here to account for
>xs heat *bursts*, without nuclear origins, you see.  Dick, please note
>that Pons used *constant current* in his video-cells (I think you
>assumed otherwise in a post).  Thus, a resistive coating on the cathode
>would indeed result in higher power into the cell.  A Japanese
>researcher who wishes to remain anonymous claims that he has found in
>experiments that he can achieve boiling in cells in this way.  We are
>checking this assertion  -- a hypothesis that occurred to Prof. Lee
>Hansen here independently.  Note that Pons did *not* show any H2O
>control cells in his video.  Why not?  It looks suspicious indeed.
 
I understand that one point you are making is that there would be more
boiling at the cathode for some reason.  Is it because there would be
more nucleation sites for vapor bubbles to form (due to a rougher
surface or something) ?
 
Since the video shows water being boiled away, it does not make a
difference if there is a resistive coating on the cathode.  If it takes
182 watts to boil the water away  and 37 watts are going in then where
is the other energy coming from?  Some sort of storage system?  If so,
the battery companies should be interested in this.  I doubt splashing
of water outside the test tube is going to explain the excess heat.
Since (182 - 37)/37  = 4.9, then for every cubic centimeter of water
boiled away legitamately, 4.9 cc would have to splash outside of the
test tube. P&F would have noticed this.
 
Lets get the results from the anonymous Japanese researcher.  How
much energy does he have to put into a 50 cc test tube and
boil all the water away in 10 minutes (and also when there is
electrolysis)?
 
In short I think there is very low probability that P&F are making
bad measurements.  Also, they are not lying because they could fool
people for only so long, and certainly not fool other scientists
whose company is giving them money.
 
In Article 4476  Brian Rauchfuss writes:
>rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM  Brian Rauchfuss at Hewlett-Packard,
>
>>In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM [Jed] writes:
>>
>>6. Some of the fluid may have left the test tube in droplets, and not
>> as vapor. Not with such a tall test tube, and I am sure they thought
>> of that, and tested for it. (Quite sure, actually). In any case, how
>> much fluid might be leaving in this fashion? What percent? They are
>> getting between 300% and 1000% excess heat, so there could be
>> substantial errors in their calorimetry, and the results would stand
>> anyway. In a deep test tube, boiling cannot carry off 2 parts liquid
>> water for 1 part vapor; a 10:1 ratio is even more out of the question.
>> Boiling might carry off some amount of water, but nowhere near that
>> much!
>>
>If steam is visible then it has suspended droplets in it.  The height of the
>testtube will not make a large difference, most of the liquid will escape.  I
>do not know what percentage of "wet steam" is steam vs. suspended droplets.
 
The height of the test tube does make a difference, but not in the
calculation of energy to boil away water.  As soon as the
bubble breaks the surface it is vapor (as opposed to microscopic
droplets which is steam).  The vapor turns to steam only when something
cools it like the surrounding air.  If you have a short test tube and
a wide opening, then the vapor will turn to steam closer to the
surface of the water than if you have a long test tube with the same
size opening.  It still does not make much difference.  As long as the
steam or vapor leaves the cell, it still takes a certain amount of
energy (in the above case, 182 watts for 10 minutes).
 
If water is physically knocked out of the cell by
boiling then it should not be counted.  In that case 49 ml of
water is boiled away instead of 50 (or whatever).
 
nod sivad response to someone else:
>You've come to the right group.  We've determined without a shred of doubt
>that there are two kinds of people in the world: slope skulled fumble
>fingered "scientists" using toy chemistry sets to "prove" the existence of
>cold fusion and the close minded establishment nazis who are
>attempting to quash them.  There is no middle ground.  Please inform me
>which group you are a member of so I can add you to the appropriate hate mail.
 
put me in the slope skulled fumble fingered "scientists" group.
I will have some high quality light water results over the
next 3 months with my toy chemistry set ( although expensive).
 
I have thermistors for temp measurement and an 8 channel data
acquisition device.  I have a 6 cubic foot water bath to put the one
pint thermos bottles in.  Magnetic stirrirs stir each cell.  I have 6
constant voltage channels and 1 constant current channel.  Eventually I
will be using pulsed power (Mills suggestion) input and a constant
temperature bath.
 
 
I've had one cell going for 20 days but I don't have many data points
because I was using a digital thermometer and had to write the data
down (I have about 25 data points between days #10 and #19).  Even with
this,  If  I assume no recombination (big assumption, but other people
say they don't get recombination), then I am getting between 40 and 80
percent excess heat (based on total energy into the anode/cathode).   I
don't expect anybody to believe this based on my limited measurements,
but as soon as I use the data acquisition device, the data should be
reliable in my opinion (I will rely on other people to find out if
there is recombination) .
 
 
             Jeff Driscoll
 
home 617 878 1806
work 617 275 1800 x3717
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjdriscol cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Is it a money thing?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is it a money thing?
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 01:49:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones, the man with the world's largest CF reactor (a volcano) writes:
 
     Rothwell posted [a rumor]...  He later retracted, but left the story
     unfinished."
 
Retracted? I retract nothing. I said there was a rumor running around. There
still is. Whenever anyone tells me "Steve got heat," I send 'em a copy of
Steve's note to me denying it. Also, I left the story completely "finished"
and up-to-the-minute. I published exactly what he said: they thought they had
heat, but it turned out to be recombination. That happens. You have to watch
your anode to cathode surface area proportions, and don't put them too close
together, plus you should never trust a result unless it is significantly
greater than I*V.
 
 
Don Schiewer asks:
 
     "Am I correct in thinking that most decently equipped University Labs
     could perform this experiment?  I might try it..."
 
Sure! No problem. Do you have two years of free time on your hands? I can send
you free Pd or Ni. All you have to do is renounce your family, your friends,
your fortune, and agree to spend the next 24 months staring at oscilloscopes,
computers, and electrochemical cells. A small price to pay! You get to be on
the cutting edge. Watch out it doesn't cut *you*.
 
Don also asks "why is there still no agreement?" He asks:
 
     "Is it a money thing?  Is it an ego thing?"
 
Money? Yes! Megadollars. Gigadollars. Ego? Yes! Mega-egos. Giga-egos. And
that's not all! Add: hubris, human nature, folly, fear of the unknown, fear of
the new, scientific illiteracy, people who jumped to conclusions in 1989 and
shoved their foot permanently down their throats, people who published
fraudulent data and don't want to admit it, people who have spent their lives
trying to do it the hard way and can't stand the thought that they just wasted
30 years, and people who are so stupid they don't understand how thermometers
work.
 
Yes, it is quite a noxious brew. But this is how the world works, and how it
always has worked. New ideas and discoveries always cause turmoil and
disruption, and human tragedies large & small. It is the price we must pay for
progress, because we are only human, and we have feelings, emotions & souls.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / Loren Petrich /  The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 4 Mar 1993 20:51:08 GMT
Organization: LLNL

 
        The title of this article refers to the problem of
concentrating deuterium from natural sources so that it can be used in
fusion reactions.
 
        Successful fusion releases about 1 MeV or so per atom, and the
concentration of D in seawater is about 10^-5, which yields about 10
eV/atom for each atom in "natural" water. An electron-volt is the
amount of energy needed for a unit charge to go up one volt in
potential, so the energy would be enough to make a hydrogen ion go up
a potential difference of about 10 volts. This is cutting it awfully
close to chemical reaction energies; chemical batteries are all about
a volt or so.
 
        How to separate? Diffusion of hydrogen molecules would be
_very_ efficient, since the molecular masses are:
 
p+p = 2 amu
p+D = 3 amu
D+D = 4 amu
 
The gas diffusion velocity is about sqrt(kT/m), implying that pp would
be about 22% faster than pD. By comparison, the differential for
uranium (U235 vs. U238) is 0.63%.
 
        Preparing hydrogen from water requires electrolysis, which
gets close to the 10 eV limit mentioned. One can avoid that by doing
diffusion on water itself. The gas diffusion velocity difference is
about 2.7%, which is only 4 times better than for uranium separation.
There is the problem of oxygen isotopes p+D+O16 is as heavy as
p+p+O17, though in liquid water, the hydrogens are rapidly reshuffled.
 
        Centrifuging? I'm not sure about the energetics of that
process, though it could conceivably do better than the 10 eV limit.
Inside the chamber, the isotopes would separate as:
 
[D]/[p] = exp(-1/2*(dm)*r^2*w^2/kT)
 
where dm is the mass difference, r is the distance from the spin axis
and w (omega) is the rotation rate. For success, dm*r^2*w^2 >~ kT,
which is 300 K or 0.03 eV. If friction can be kept down, then
centrifuging could work.
 
        Laser activation? When deuterons replace protons, the
vibration-mode energies (IR frequency) go down significantly, and the
electronic-mode energies (optical frequency, about 1 eV), go _up_ a
bit, about dm(nucleus)*m(electron)/m(nucleus)^2, which is about 10^-3.
So with a finely tuned laser, it might be possible to dissociate p,
but not D. However, the efficiency might not be very high, and the
necessary energy/atom is close to the 10 eV limit.
 
        Has this question been analyzed in detail in the
fusion-engineering literature?
 
 
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / mitchell swartz /  why the cf coverup?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: why the cf coverup?
Date: 4 Mar 93 21:54:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In world sci.physics.fusion [{Re Censorship}; 5344,
  3/3/93; ID:<9303021728.AA08292@suntan.Tandem.com>]
  Frank  Close
    <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
       states:
 
===  "I too abhor censorship. .... People should be free to
===  write whatever they wish and let others judge them
===  by it."
       [Frank  Close, {Re Censorship};  3/3/93]
 
   Frank is correct.  This statement supports the essence of
 freedom of the press.   Frank, do you know why papers on cold
 fusion, and papers criticizing bad "negative" papers on cold
 fusion are censored from some major mainstream scientific
 journals?  I just spoke with another author whose preprint,
 looking quite important, was simply zapped.  Many readers
 of this net know of more, and might want to add a few
 examples.
 
   Since you abhor censorship, perhaps you might comment.
 
 
===   "If Mr Lo, or anyone, wishes to write a theory paper
=== that is already inconsistent with data, or that
=== has consequences that are ruled out by data, that is fine
=== by me. ...   It was in this sense that I asked do we need
=== to consider Lo's paper."
       [Frank  Close, {Re Censorship};  3/3/93]
 
 
   Frank, is every paper on d-d theory ruled out?  because of
  too few neutrons?   difficulty in collecting and isolating
  the ash?
 
  We definitely need to "consider" all papers.
 
  Also, please reflect upon what is meant by "consider".
Although America created and maintains Freedom of the Press,
the scientific language, originated in your country, and
used upon this very channel, I submit proves that even a
skeptic-to-the-bone ought "consider" such paper.
 
 "Consider" is derived from "consideren" (French) and
                               "considerare (Latin)".
 
   This is a very nice word for cold fusion because they mean:
 
 >>>>> too observe the stars (as in: sidus=star in latin).
 
   From Webster's (ibid):
     consider -  1. to think about with care or caution
 
  Therefore Frank, by Webster's denotation, "consider" is
 perfect even for a die-hard-skeptic, because "caution" is
 required.   Lo's paper [which I have unfortunately not had
 the time to peruse or read  ;(  ] is related to this field,
 and should be listed.   The English language suggests that
 we use consideration.
 
  Dieter Britz and Hal Fox do a great service by continuing to
 provide these timely updates (even though many overburdened
 of us are still way behind on the fastly growing body of
   papers).
 
     Mitchell Swartz
          mica@world
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / mitchell swartz /  less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: less than a picogram
Date: 4 Mar 93 21:55:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [3/3/93; 5355; Subject: Heat?
                          Neutrons?Charged particles?]
Steven Jones  (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes:
 
===  "we insist that commensurate nuclear products must
===    accompany any nuclear reaction, with quantities
=== given precisely by the experimentally proven relation:
===
===       delta-mass  equals  delta-energy/(square of light ===
                                             speed).
===
=== This is not theory.  Nor does it mean that a tiny yield of
===  neutrons or charged particles must imply that alleged xs
===  heat is nuclear in origin:  there is a strict equality in
===  this relation that tells us how much nuclear ash must
 === accompany heat from nuclear reactions."
 
    Excuse me, Steve. But this equation presumably refers to
 the derivation of  d(E=mc2), and reasonably assumes that
 c is a constant  (so the term 2cm dc becomes trivial).
 
 So, let's plug in to see what it results
            (oh-oh numbers again).  c2, very big, yields
  (and please correct me if this incorrect)
 
    1 joule = (1 watt*1 second) =  1.1  x  10^-14 grams.
 
   This means that if fusion worked (100% efficient, and
 ignoring all kinds of other stuff in this gendanken analysis)
  that - for 1 watt * 1 second - the total mass would have to
  decrease by a not too big amount.
 Actually, I dont have a scale of this magnitude here, but
 presumably you are much better equipped.
 
   Do you think some skeptic feel that the mass goes up,
 similarly to the generation of "ash"-ash in Earth's
 atmosphere (eg. the burning of magnesium leads to more mass
 in the ash)?
 
   Also, how does E=mc2, or its partial derivative, demand
either enough neutrons to "kill" everyone in the room,
or necessarily ash?   Helium-4, tritium, and the other
reported particles (neutronpenic radiations on occasion)
are good candidates for ash.
 
 
===  "To me, this lack of x-rays is stronger evidence against
===   nuclear reactions ......
===  "The Pd k-alpha line at 21 keV is penetrating and should
===  have been seen if the heat were indeed nuclear in
===  origin.  But the line is absent.  (Period, Jed.)"
 
  Steven, 21 keV radiation is not terribly penetrating.
Below are the relevant mass attenuation coefficients which
are taken from Dunster (UK AEA) of Al, water and tissue at
about 21 keV.  I am taking the info from a graph so
I dont believe too many significant digits.
  Palladium has a much higher absorption than aluminum because
this is the photoelectric region with absortion being greatly
predicated on Z,
 although I am not near my reference desk to provide the exact
 ratio (perhaps you have it).
 
   Columns 5 and 6 are the derived (cf. table) linear
attentuation coefficients.  There doesnt seem to be much
of an irradiated beam surviving at 1 cm in water or metal.
   Perhaps this energy is not too penetrating for normal
 laboratory dimensions, unless anticipated in the set-up.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------
|          |mu/rho |  rho  |  mu   |N(1mm) |   N(1cm)    |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|          |       |       |       |       |             |
 --------------------------------------------------------
| ALUMINUM |  3.6  |  2.7  | 9.72  | 0.38  |  0.000060   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|  WATER   |   8   |   1   |   8   | 0.45  |  0.000335   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|  TISSUE  |  6.5  |  1.2  |  7.8  | 0.46  |  0.000410   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|          |       |       |       |       |             |
 --------------------------------------------------------
 
     Mitchell Swartz
          mica@world
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / mitchell swartz /  solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: solid state fusion
Date: 4 Mar 93 21:56:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 In sci.physics.fusion [<00968F6D.7F322B80.909@dancer.nscl.
      msu.edu>; 5357, 4 Mar 1993]
  Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; ub-gate.UB.com! nscl01.nscl.msu.edu! blue]
 states:
 
=== "Mitchell went on to suggest that my emphasis on lack of
=== neutron detection over looks  the requirement "that neutrons
=== **** must **** be generated in one ... of these reaction(s)
=== in a solid."  I have no quarrel with the obvious fact that
=== there are nuclear reactions that do not involve the emission of
=== neutrons but the notion that nuclear reactions are somehow
=== different when they occur in a solid is nothing more than
=== a cold fusion myth.
 
   First, please inform as to where is the evidence that neutrons
 (at plasma-fusion rates), or any of the emissions which the
 skeptics rigidly proclaim must be there, must be generated in a
 solid?
 
   Second, physics in a solid is well-known to be astonishingly
 different for properties of gas (including but not limited to
 alkali halide defects, piezoelectricity, pyroelectricity,
 antiferromagentic materials, ferroelectrics, Mossbauer effect,
 electrets, Brillouin zones, polyvalent ion exchange,
 p-n junctions, &tc).
 
    Therefore, these hypotheses involving potential differences in
 the solid state are possible gateways to theory compatible with
 known observations.   Until your proof is available to the
 contrary, we submit  that the possibility that solid-state
 reactions may not be all a priori understood by "plasma"-type
 thinking is a reasonable and not a "myth".
 
 
===   "Some of the ideas that had been put forward early in this
===  game were directed toward finding a solution to the
=== "no neutron" problem, but nothing ever come of them in
===  terms of a coherent theory
 
   Physics and facts continue  whether vicinal organic
life can recognize or explain them. (As in the falling tree in the
empty forest).
   The epibenthic tube worms at 7000 feet off Baha dont need us,
 our physics, or even old Sol.
   (Steve - you think they are living off your hypothesized
 effects?)
   In fact, closer to home, one just needs to look at medicine
 where the particles (ie. organs like heart, liver) under
 consideration are on the size of centimeters, not nuclear size.
  Humans totally misconstrued the role, nature, and function of the
 organs of the human body for millennia.
  Again note, as in the present case, that lack of research did
 lead to less than optimal understanding, and worse claimed many
 few victims who had trepidation to explore where others, myopic,
and paralyzed, would not venture.
 
 
===  "At some point you will simply have to accept the fact
===   that nuclear reactions don't become unobservable
===   just because they occur in a solid.  While they
===   may be alternatives to neutrons as the signature
===   of a nuclear reaction, there will still be a signature
===   of some kind.  As long as there are no ashes to be found,
===   cold fusion is in doubt."
 
   Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
 and phonon emission, and helium-4.
   What are you looking for: hot dogs? plasma-fusion levels?
  I dont mean to be terribly facetious but there are so many
 reports as of today that it is not clear what you are looking
 for, except that one interpretation is that it appears to be
 anything that is not there.
 
   Furthermore, the signatures are significant.  When they occur
they even appear to be of two types (regular anomalous and
 irregular (or burst) anomalous).
 
   Dick, nuclear reactions are observable only if they emit or
 create changes which are detectable, at intensities above the
 noise level, and are in a system to distinguish them from other
 interference.
   So far many of the "negative" papers have insufficient
 sensitivity, protocol, loading, time, etc.
   Some when reexamined have possibly affirmative data.
   From the less likely point of view, if Dr. Matsumoto's
 reported black holes are real perhaps some of the ashes are
 not accessible.
 
     Mitchell Swartz
          mica@world
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / Loren Petrich /  If Cold Fusion Was Real...
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If Cold Fusion Was Real...
Date: 4 Mar 93 22:51:18 GMT
Organization: LLNL

 
        If Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion was real, then there
would be an interesting world of possibilities.
 
        The hydrogen fusion reactions are:
 
        D + D -> T + p
        D + D -> He3 + n
        D + D -> He4 + (gamma)
        D + T -> He4 + n
        D + He3 -> He4 + p
 
        [The reaction that produes a photon (gamma) is about 10^-8 as
fast as the two preceding ones, which are at approximately equal speeds]
 
        The fusion reactor would produce tritium and neutrons. The
tritium may be controlled by keeping the reaction chambers well
sealed, while the neutrons would have to be shielded against.
Furthermore, absorbed neutrons may produce radioactive isotopes. So
cold fusion, like hot fusion, does not completely solve the problem of
radioactive materials presented by nuclear fission.
 
        Where will the reaction energy be deposited? The charged
particles will deposit their energy in the electrodes, where the cold
fusion presumably occurs. So the electrodes will have to have a
special coolant system to keep them from heating the surrounding water
too much; the surrounding water is where the D and T come from, and
should be kept from boiling away.
 
        On the other hand, the neutrons will travel out from the
electrode, and will get scattered until they are absorbed by some
nucleus. The mean free path for neutron scattering sets a lower limit
on the size of the shielding. Furthermore, some way must be had for
neutrons' energy to be recovered, since it is about 3/8 of the total
from kinematics and the branching fraction. Heat is the simplest way
to recover the energy, while an alternative is to set up lots of solar
cells, which would be powered from the ionization produced by a
neutron being scattered. However, an enormous volume would be needed,
which would discourage the solar-cell option.
 
        In summary, a cold-fusion reactor would have to be at least
the size of a small nuclear-fission reactor, and it would produce
energy in the form of low-grade heat, again much like a nuclear
reactor. It would therefore be good for building heat and electricity,
and perhaps also vehicle propulsion, the latter two applications
courtesy of a turbine or piston-engine steam cycle. Applications would
be constrained by the necessity of a good heat sink, either an
abundance of water or a large volume of radiator.
 
        The only vehicles that it would be practical to power with a
cold-fusion reactor are ships, which float in a good heat sink, and
possibly locomotives, which may be big enough for the necessary
radiator space. The latter is a cute idea: cold-fusion steam
locomotives. The locos could be either direct-drive, like the familiar
kind of steam loco, or steam-electric in the fashion of
diesel-electric locos. Airplanes, however, would be out of the
question, since cold-fusion heat would be too low-grade for operating
a jet engine from.
 
        With an abundance of electricity and low-grade heat, how would
that change our energy economy? "Too cheap to meter" is probably
excessively optimistic, as it was for nuclear fission, but let us
suppose that cold fusion _is_ relatively cheap. Those in cold climates
would welcome an abundance of heat; it would cut down their fuel
bills. Electricity may become a common source of high-grade heat, such
as the heat of an electric arc, making it more common in industrial
processes, such as metal refining. It can also make hydrogen
production by electrolysis more economical, which is good, since
hydrogen burns cleanly and it can burn at high temperatures. It is
also useful as a chemical-synthesis feedstock:
 
        C + 2H_2 -> CH_4
 
and the like, which can result in fuels with a higher boiling point
than 20 K (a major drawback of hydrogen). Hydrogen may also be a
byproduct of concentrating deuterium; "light" hydrogen would be left
behind in abundance is a hydrogen-gas process is used.
 
        Transportation is a major user of energy, a large fraction of
which goes to fuel cars in some of the more "advanced" nations of the
world, especially the United States. Abundant electricity would make
electric cars more practical, thought that would require improved
batteries. Fuel-cell cars powered by hydrogen or methane or methanol
are another possibility; the fuel cells supply electricity for the
cars' electric motors. This kind of car also has the nice property of
being completely "clean", with the possible exception of a
methanol-fueled one, which should be convenient in crowded urban
areas. Trucks and buses could also use batteries and/or fuel cells;
this would make them much quieter and less of a noise nuisance. There
is also the benefit of improved handling, since the acceleration and
braking can be made to vary smoothly.
 
        And what would become of the oil, gas, and coal industries?
They would suffer rather badly from the competition. These fossil
fuels would likely survive mainly as chemical feedstocks. Coal would
get hit the worst, since it is mainly used to generate electricity.
Oil and gas would do somewhat better, at least initially. Natural gas
would have competition from hydrogen, while oil would probably do the
best for awhile, or at least as long as it takes to equip large
numbers of cars with electric or fuel-cell propulsion.
 
        Any comments?
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 / Paul Dietz /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 4 Mar 93 22:03:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1n5q3s$9rm@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 
 
>       The title of this article refers to the problem of
> concentrating deuterium from natural sources so that it can be used in
>  fusion reactions.
 
 
Loren, you are advised to consult the literature on heavy water
production.  This has been done on an industrial scale for decades.
 
The natural concentration of deuterium in seawater is (mole fraction)
1.5 x 10^-4, a factor of 15 larger than the figure you stated.
 
Industrial deuterium separation is mostly done by chemical
methods.  For example, the equilibrium constant of the reaction
 
        H2O + HDS <-->  HDO + H2S
 
is strongly dependent on temperature.  The heavy water plant at
Savannah river, for example, was (is?) designed to produce > 100 tons
of heavy water per year by this method.  Hydrogen sulfide was bubbled
through water at 30 C and 120-140 C in a cascade.  Note that most of
this energy input is low grade heat, which can be cogenerated.  This
process brings the deuterium up to 15%, and represents the lion's
share of the cost.  From 15% to 90% was done by vacuum distillation of
water, and from there to high purity by electrolysis.
 
How much energy is there in 100 tons of heavy water?  Assuming we just
discard without reaction the helium-3 and tritium, this is roughly 2
MeV/atom, or about 2 exajoules.  Current US primary energy consumption
is roughly 100 exajoules/year.
 
As of 1979, heavy water was selling in the US for about $100/lb.
At this price, deuterium cost is a negligible fraction of the
cost of power from a fusion powerplant.
 
        Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Ad aspera /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 5 Mar 93 00:14:57 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

In article <1n5q3s$9rm@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) wrote:
 
>       Has this question {how to economically obtain large amounts
> of D} been analyzed in detail in the fusion-engineering literature?
 
A good question.  I was until recently a bit puzzled about how
one would actually get from the much-publicized handwaving
about "seawater" to D ready to inject.
 
I haven't read about the problem and its solutions (no pun
intended, and not much of a pun made) very extensively, but
plainly some attention has been paid to it.  J. Raeder et al.
have this among other things to say about the subject in
_Controlled Nuclear Fusion:  Fundamentals of its Utilization
for Energy Supply_, Chichester:  John Wiley & Sons (1986), p.278:
 
     In general, deuterium is recovered from water...
     Deuterium recovery is closely linked with that
     of heavy water (D2O) which has developed on a
     large scale over the last decade to supply
     large quantities for the heavy water moderated
     natural uranium reactor.  {Remember, they were
     writing in the early 80s; I don't know the status
     of that capability these days. -jc}  Of the
     many methods available -- distillation, electro-
     lysis, chemical isotope exchange -- the last is
     favoured by the more recent large capacity
     installations.  As regards recovery of deuterium
     alone, hydrogen isotope exchange in the H2/NH3
     system (hydrogen/ammonia) is especially favoured
     as D2 occurs first before further combustion
     converts it to D2O (See Refs. 34 and 35 for the
     theory involved.  This process can be linked
     with an ammonia synthesis plant {the manufacture
     of ammonia being a significant industry -jc},
     thus making sufficiently large amounts of
     deuterium available (a 1,000 MWe fusion power
     plant consumes about 0.25 kg deuterium per day
     on full load).
 
     They go on to guesstimate a price of about
     US $2,000 per kg of D2 -- extrapolating from
     D2O prices circa 1979 and a bunch of other
     factors.
 
The references are:
 
34.  Weizel, W.: _Lehrbuch der theoretischen Physik_, 2nd
edition, Berlin, Goettingen, Heidelberg (1955), vol. 1, p. 58.
{Sorry, can't tell you any more about that one --  yo no
spriechen me no Deutsch -jc}
 
35.  Chen, F.F., _Introduction to Plasma Physics_, 1st edition,
New York, London {publisher?} (1974), p. 26.
 
Cheers,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / mitchell swartz /  less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: less than a picogram
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 00:35:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5363; Subject:less than a picogram;
Message-ID: <C3Dwwo.LEn@world.std.com>; 3/4/93]
 
  Regarding the actual transmission of incident 21 keV
radiation impinging upon matter.
 
 The single sentence describing the table, re: the derivation
of the columns was in error and should have read:
 
   "Columns 5 and 6 are the decimal transmission of
an incident beam (scattering ignored) derived from
(cf. table) linear attentuation coefficients which are
listed in column 4."
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------
|          |mu/rho |  rho  |  mu   |N(1mm) |   N(1cm)    |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|          |       |       |       |       |             |
 --------------------------------------------------------
| ALUMINUM |  3.6  |  2.7  | 9.72  | 0.38  |  0.000060   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|  WATER   |   8   |   1   |   8   | 0.45  |  0.000335   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
 
  My apology for the incorrect posting.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Heat? Neutrons? Charged particles?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat? Neutrons? Charged particles?
Date: 4 Mar 93 21:56:03 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
This is basically a re-posting of my contribution last evening, primarily done
to correct significant typographical errors made in haste.
But I have added other comments as
well.  This posting responds to recent postings
by Jed, Dieter and Dick Blue, and earlier observations by Tom Droege.
 
 
Rothwell posted "delicious rumors" to the effect that we had seen "excess heat"
in experiments at BYU -- ah, the irony!  He later retracted, but left the
story unfinished.  (I could not respond until today due to challenging teaching
duties this term.)
 
Searches for possible piezonuclear fusion were initiated at
BYU shortly after the publication of our first paper in the field in March
1986, *seven* years ago:
C.D. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen
molecules," J. Physics G 12:213-221 (1986).
 
Our searches for natural fusion in the earth, geofusion, began at the same
time.  This research had nothing to do with Pons and Fleischmann whatsoever,
we did not even hear about their work until Sept. 1988, 2.5 years after our
first publication!
 
To date, we still find absolutely no evidence linking our work to the claims
of "excess heat" in electrolytic cells made vociferously by FPH.  Three groups
at BYU have undertaken to look for xs heat, as has been done by many others of
course.  A difference is that we do *not* assume that if xs heat is real, then
it must be nuclear in origin.  Rather, we insist that commensurate nuclear
products must accompany any nuclear reaction, with quantities given precisely
by the experimentally proven relation:
      delta-mass  equals  delta-energy/(square of light speed)
    or,  /\m  = /\E/c2.
 
This is not "mere" theory.  Nor does it mean that a tiny yield of neutrons or
charged particles must imply that alleged xs heat is nuclear in origin:  there
is a strict equality in this relation that tells us how much nuclear ash *must*
accompany heat from nuclear reactions.  Since the scale of nuclear reactions is
MeV (millions of electron volts energy), we find that a watt of xs power would
require about a *trillion* nuclear reactions per *second* -- with accompanying
nuclear debris (*required* by delta-mass, that is, the protons and neutrons
must be re-arranged to extract nuclear energy, which means beaucoup new nuclei
of some sort).  MeV-scale debris striking metal atoms in the lattice must also
excite these, resulting in secondary X-rays, again beaucoup X-rays for one
watt of excess power (if indeed nuclear in origin).
 
Therefore, in all of the xs heat searches here, we also have looked for
neutrons or x-rays or gamma-rays.  Secondary x-rays should certainly accompany
nuclear reactions at the levels required to correlate quantitatively with xs
heat claimed; but *NO ONE* has shown an x-ray spectrum that correlates with
xs heat production.   To me, this lack of x-rays is stronger evidence against
nuclear reactions as the basis of alleged xs heat than is the paucity of
(not lack of, Dick) neutrons.  For while d-d- fusion produces neutrons, other
nuclear reactions do not.  But all nuclear reactions release energy which, in
a lattice, must produce secondary x-rays.  In particular,
the Pd k-alpha line at 21 keV is
penetrating and should have been seen (for cells with Pd cathode)
if the heat were indeed nuclear in
origin.  But the line is absent.  (Period, Jed.)  Heat alone is *not*
sufficient to establish the presence of nuclear reactions; debris (nuclear ash)
and secondaries (x-rays, neutrons from tritons impinging on deuterons, etc.)
are required owing to the MeV-scale energies involved in nuclear reactions.
(The scale is set by the strength of the nuclear force.)
 
To us, the fundamental question as regards heat is *not*
   Is the heat real?
but rather,
   Is the heat nuclear in origin?
 
It is the paucity of x-rays as well as neutrons, charged particles and so
on that tells us, compellingly we believe, that the "xs heat" is *not* nuclear
in origin.
 
So what is the heat? Some at BYU are in fact pursuing this question.  (The
nuclear group helps with x-ray, neutron, etc. searches.)  We have found,
consistent
with Tom Droege's repeated warnings, that in *open* electrolytic cells, we can
find xs heat -- when assumptions are made that the H2 and O2 leave the cells
without recombination, carrying water vapor in saturation.  When we measure
the evolving gasses and transported vapor, without assumptions about these,
we have consistently found heat balance, that is, *zero* excess heat.
 
Need I remind you that many outspoken claimants --
including A. Takahashi of Japan and P&F in their boiling cell videos --
use open cells?  Regarding the latter, I would observe that a silicate
or borate or aluminate resistive coating formed on the cathode would result
in heating and boiling preferentially at the cathode.   So that boiling
at the cathode does not necessarily evidence nuclear reactions there.
(Beware of your assumptions, Jed and Dieter.)     This
is a hypothesis that we are pursuing here to account for xs heat *bursts*,
without nuclear origins, you see.
 
Dick,
note that Pons used *constant current* in his video-cells (I think you assumed
otherwise in a post).  Thus, a resistive coating on the cathode would indeed
result in higher power into the cell.  A Japanese researcher who wishes to
remain anonymous claims that he has found in experiments that he can achieve
boiling in cells in this way.  We are checking this assertion  -- a hypothesis
that occurred to Prof. Lee Hansen here independently.  Note that Pons did
*not* show any H2O control cells in his video.  Why not?  It looks suspicious
indeed.
 
The results of the first heat (and nuclear product) search at BYU was published
in Fusion Technology, 18:669-677 (1990), by Profs. Harb, Pitt and Tolley of
BYU.  No excess heat was seen in the closed cell, Pd-LiOD system.  But neutrons
were seen at about the rates (very small) reported by our group in Nature.
A thoroughgoing statistical analysis was performed on these data.  No tritium
was seen beyond that which could be accounted for by electrolytic enhancement.
 
The second study for heat -- and correlated nuclear products - was performed
by Prof. Douglas Bennion.  He died in a plane accident last year, and his
results will not likely be published.  He found no excess heat in his
high-current density experiments, closed cells.
 
The current experiments searching for xs heat -- and correlated nuclear
products if any (got the point?)  -- are under the direction of Prof. Lee
Hansen, who with me and others wrote the paper
"Is reported "excess heat" due to nuclear reactions?", available in pre-print
form.  There we discuss further some of the issue treated hurriedly here.
 
Finally, a response to Dieter.  While I'm irritated at Jed for the rumors,
I find your uncritical linking of our neutron work with the xs heat claims
annoying also (re - your discuss of "Why is CNF such a ragbag?" dated
today, 3-3-93).  There is not just one elephant here to be probed by the
groping blind men, except in the uncritical lumping of dissimilar research
efforts together.  It is this obfuscating linking of unrelated research which
generates the "ragbag" you then complain about.
 
**Eschew obfuscation**
 
  Geofusion and other evidences for low-level nuclear reactions are
a different beast (I agree its existence is not yet proven).  The blind men
will do better in their efforts if they recognize that there are different
animals here; I identify three:
 
1- Excess heat claims, without associated nuclear products or secondary
    X-rays in quantities to satisfy /\m = /\E/c2, by many orders of magnitude.
2- Claims of abundant tritium and helium, without associated nuclear energies,
    and a lack of secondary x-rays and correlated neutrons.
and
3- Claims of low-level neutron and charged-particle emissions, *with*
   MeV energies, and even at rates which agree in a broad sense (a few
   orders of magnitude.  Since a triggering mechanism for the putative
   phenomenon alludes us, such variations in rate seem unsurprising.)
   (May also correlate with natural fusion in the earth, if true.)
 
The third animal might even be recognizable as a consistent beast, unless
it is confused with animals (1) and (2), uncritically.  Huizenga and Close
make the distinction -- why can't you?
 
(An old sore, Dieter.  Please re-think this.)
 
Also, Dick, you attack the charged-particle experiments saying that all
use silicon-sruface barrier detectors, sensitive to photons, etc.  The energy
peaks are not so easy to dismiss, esp. when Cecil uses a foil to slow some
of the particles by placing a foil moderator over half of the detector
and gets *two* peaks.  Also the BYU detector for charged
particles uses plastic and glass scintillators viewed by a PMT, along with
pulse digitization (to give pulse energy, shape and timing information) not Si
detectors.  Please look again, in the AIP Proc. of the BYU meeting (1990).
 
I hope this is coherent today, terribly rushed just now.
 
People seem just to reiterate their old,
set opinions.  Doesn't data affect your views?  We're still looking for xs
heat and nuclear products, both.  Inconsistency in claims suggests to me that
animals 1 and 2 above are
chimeras.  Number 3 -- I think may be a real animal:  hard to ride and tame just
now, admittedly.  But different detectors have provided results with a
degree of self-consistency that suggests that a real phenomenon may underly the
observations.  I'm not sure yet.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Mar3.175549.471@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar3.175549.471@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 93 21:57:56 GMT

cancel <1993Mar3.175549.471@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / mitchell swartz /  pico corrx.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: pico corrx.
Date: 5 Mar 93 01:21:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  To Steve and those following my posting,
  the water mass absorption was off by a factor of 10.
  I will never answer three posts at a time again.
 
  I need a vacation.  Have fun.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------
|          |mu/rho |  rho  |  mu   |N(1mm) |   N(1cm)    |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|          |       |       |       |       |             |
 --------------------------------------------------------
| ALUMINUM |  3.6  |  2.7  | 9.72  | 0.38  |  0.000060   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
|  WATER   |  0.8  |   1   |  0.8  | 0.92  |  0.449329   |
 --------------------------------------------------------
 
  Best wishes.
 
    Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / John Logajan /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 5 Mar 1993 05:21:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) says:
 
>J. Raeder et al.
>_Controlled Nuclear Fusion:  Fundamentals of its Utilization
>for Energy Supply_, Chichester:  John Wiley & Sons (1986), p.278:
>
>     ...hydrogen isotope exchange in the H2/NH3
>     system (hydrogen/ammonia) is especially favoured
>     as D2 occurs first before further combustion
>     converts it to D2O
 
Hey-oh!  Why in the world would D2 ever occur?  I mean, the chance of a
D in a sea of H ever finding another D seems astoundingly unlikely to me.
Nor do I understand by what inherent force two D's would express a preference
for each other's company.  Am I mis-reading the above implication?
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 /  /  Neutrons, triggers, charged particles, etc.
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrons, triggers, charged particles, etc.
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 01:39:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My recent posts have generated several responses to which I will
attempt brief replies:
 
For Steve Jones:  You suggest that I had assumed something about the
operating mode of the PF boiling water experiments, but in fact I am
totally puzzled by the reports on their experiments, have made no
assumptions, and have been asking questions to see if anything about
those experiments makes sense.  Clearly, if they are operating in the
constant current mode as a cell boils dry the applied voltage must
rise to the compliance limit of the supply and the power input rises,
rather than falling as someone had suggested.  I believe that the
voltage is likely subject to wild fluctuations during this process,
and I don't think we have seen anything to assure us that input power
is being correctly measured under those conditions.  I should have
said that the power rises until the supply reaches its voltage limit
and then falls as the constant current cannot be maintained - very
messy indeed.
 
For Steve also:  The charged particle results suffer from extreme
lack of reproducibility even though there have been several cases
where sharp peaks that have all the characteristics of good quality
data have been observed in rather singular occurances.  Take for
example the data shown by Cecil, et al. in their fig. 5 p. 379.
That figure shows "peaks" occuring in various runs which indicate
energies scattered between 0.5 and 10 MeV.  In terms of the
energy loss indicated by the "2-foil" difference, the majority
of the peaks lie between the lines for alphas and tritons, i.e.
the data is not really consistant with either.  With reference
to the Chambers, et al. experiments they got a sharp peak twice
when their detector was looking down the  throat of an ion
source, but when they put the detector at 90 deg the results
changes dramatically.  Also their attempt at particle identification
gave an ambiguous result.  I agree that these a provocative results,
and I would claim that they can be dismissed out of hand.  My
assertion  --oops.  Let me start again.  I agree that these are
provocative results, and I wouldn't claim that they can be dismissed
out of hand.  My assertion is that none of these experiments are
of a quality that establishes the existance of anything but some
unexplained events.
 
For Mitchell Swartz:  In defending the notion that my claims about
nuclear reactions are based on "plasma-type" thinking you state
that " Physics in a solid is well known to be astonishingly different",
and then you list a number of atomic phenomena that have no connection
to nuclear reactions whatsoever.  In each of these cases the phenomena
is well understood on the basis of models involving lattice spacings,
interaction energies, and the quantum mechanics of atomic electrons.
The domain is well defined in size, energy scale, and fundamental
interactions.  Now we move to an entirely different size scale, a
different set of interactions, and a different energy scale.  But
you want to assert that I am the one who doesn't recognize differences
of domain that have profound influence on what can possibly occur!
In only one of your examples is there a linking between nuclear and
atomic phenomena, and it is an example you should study well because
it illustrates some very specific limitations as to how a system
involving interations at the electron volt level can alter a nuclear
process.  Note well that the Mossbauer effect is observed only for
gamma transistion energies that are "low" on the scale of most
nuclear transistion energies and furthermore that the effect is
seldom, if ever, a 100% thing, i.e. some of the gamma rays are
still emitted as if from a free nucleus.  Until there is a rethinking
of quantum perturbation theory, it makes no sense to expect the
total suppression of nuclear decays involving several MeV energies
by perturbing interactions at the eV level.  I can give you lots
of slack (even though I don't believe it really happens) to invent
new and wonderful perturbations on nuclear processes, but I don't
accept the notion that such perturbations can result in making
normal decay processes into "forbidden" processes.  That is what
I say is pure myth.
 
Good candidates for ash:  Some of you continue to cite the reported
observations of 4He and tritium as "good candidates" for evidence
of nuclear reactions.  The problem with the experiments involving
these reaction products is given in one word:  COMMENSURATE!  If
a carefully done, absolutely correct experiment involves the quantitative
determination of a reaction product at a level many orders of magnitude
bellow the level required to be commensurate with the observed "heat",
the said reaction product is not the result of the process responsible
for the heat.  It is just an artifact.  The reaction process producing
the heat still has to be producing some other ash in commensurate
quantities.  Thus simple logic tells use that all the positive results
to date rule out, absolutely, the possibility that reaction which
produce 4He or tritium are responsible for the heat.  Your positive
indication is in fact a clear negative result.  The more experiments
fail to produce evidence for an ash the more certain it is that
cold fusion is a dead duck.
 
Triggers:  One feature of cold fusion results that is still very
poorly defined is what influences reaction rates.  Compare the
situation to normal chemistry or to nuclear reactions.  If deuterium
is the fuel and the reaction can occur only at certain lattice sites
then it follows that the reaction rate would depend in some fashion
on how many deuteriums get put into the right configuration in the
proper lattice sites.  In that context how would you make sense out of
the notion that changes in concentration of D20 in H2O by many orders
of magnitude make small, but significant changes the reaction rate?
In light of the rather confusing data set on what influence the
reaction rate for cold fusion, proponents opt for the idea of a trigger
condition that once satisfied enables the reaction.  I believe
that this notion is difficult to flesh out in any meaningful way.
Try to construct a model for your trigger.  What kinds of things
come to mind?  In light of the recent discussion of PF results,
something with a temperature dependence suggests itself, but one
of the "successful" experiments sticks to a controlled temperature
approach.  Anybody got any ideas as to what influence reaction rates
and how?  My notion is that cold fusion data is a load of bunk with
a lot of random behavior wrapped up with wishful thinking.  Has
anyone got a better model which describes the data?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 /  /  Steam
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steam
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 01:39:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steam and a reply to Jeff Driscoll
 
Before we go off the deep end into a mass of confusion, let us get some
definitions straight about steam.  I am using "Marks Mechanical Engineers
Handbook, Eighth Edition.
 
Marks (p4-22) is careful to talk about "Vapors" (Not steam which name is
wrongly ascribed to the white fog coming off the spout of the teakettle.
Steam is properly water vapor, and as such is not visible.  The white stuff is
condensed water droplets.  From Random House, The American College Dictionary
steam 1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.)  In the paragraph
"General Characteristics of Vapors" Marks defines various states of vapor,
which I will try to outline below.  He starts with the statement "Let a gas be
compressed at constant temperature; then, provided this temperature does not
exceed a certain critical value, the gas begins to liquefy at a definite
pressure, which depends upon the temperature.  (Note this is the opposite of
what we are considering - what happens when heat is added to a liquid at
atmospheric pressure causing some of it to change to vapor.)
 
Then some definitions are created relating to the pressure volume curve which
I cannot reproduce here.
 
"saturated vapor" The condition of temperature and pressure where part or all
of the vapor has condensed to liquid.
 
"quality of the mixture" Refers to the fraction of the vapor that is in the
vapor state as compared to the condensed state i.e. 100% is all vapor.
 
"superheated vapor" Refers to the condition where the temperature is above
that where none of the vapor is in the condensed state.
 
"critical state" Refers to a temperature and pressure where there is no
difference between the vapor and the liquid state.  Not to worry, it takes
place at 3206.2 psig and 700 F.
 
As near as I can make out, "saturated" refers to the amount of vapor, not the
amount of water droplets.  (my tendency would be to think of vapor "saturated"
with water droplets)
 
Consider the problem of generating superheated or 100% vapor in say a
teakettle or a cell.  A bubble of vapor starts to form at the hot surface.
The inside of the bubble immediately starts to cool, as the vapor radiates to
the colder surrounding liquid.  The bubble breaks loose and rises to the
surface where it "pops" releasing a saturated vapor of less than 100%.  This
saturated vapor makes its way out of the cell, and thus the assumption that
the heat of vaporization is required is incorrect.
 
Jeff Driscoll writes:  "The height of the test tube does make a difference,
but not in the calculation of energy to boil away water.  As soon as the
bubble breaks the surface it is vapor (as opposed to microscopic droplets
which is steam).  The vapor turns to steam only when something cools it like
the surrounding air.  If you have a short test tube and a wide opening, then
the vapor will turn to steam closer to the surface of the water than if you
have a long test tube with the same size opening.  It still does not make much
difference.  As long as the steam or vapor leaves the cell, it still takes a
certain amount of energy (in the above case, 182 watts for 10 minutes)."
 
There are lots of problems with Jeff's statement above.  Nomenclature aside,
Jeff assumes that a bubble breaking the surface is 100% vapor.  This is likely
not true.  Further, as the vapor leaves the cell it will lose heat on the way,
causing it to carry more and more condensed water.  Remember the droplets are
not seen until they get to a size comparable to the wavelength of light
(someone check me on this).  So just because there is that famous gap between
the spout and the white cloud on the teakettle does not guarantee that the
exiting gas carries no water droplets.
 
As I have said before, the only way to be sure of the energy in the vapor is
to superheat it on the way out.  That way you can be sure that it carries no
condensate.  But it would be quite hard to do in practice.  Thus my
recommendation for a second calorimeter to measure both the quantity of liquid
which leaves the cell, and the quantity of heat carried with it.
 
Jeff writes:  "... , then for every cubic centimeter of water boiled away
legitamately, 4.9 cc would have to splash outside of the test tube.  P&F would
have noticed this."
 
Very hard to do Jeff, it is hard to just look and tell the percentage of
condensed water in vapor.  It is going to look like the stuff coming out of
the spout of the teakettle.  You would have to measure it.
 
Jeff also says: "In short I think there is very low probability that P&F are
making bad measurements.  Also, they are not lying because they could fool
people for only so long, and certainly not fool other scientists whose company
is giving them money."
 
Aside from immediately wanting to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, or some
Applied Logic stock, I will admit to more than once trying to determine the
motivation of P&F.  So while I work away in my basement, there are P&F in
plush digs in the south of France.
 
Jeff writes: "The P&F cell averaged 37 watts, so they probably started out at
higher than 37 watts and finished less at less than 37 watts.  A data
acquisition system can can easily measure the current by measuring the voltage
across a resistor with known resistance.  There is almost no way that P&F
could have measured the power going into the cell incorreclty."
 
Are your sure that you don't want to buy some Applied Logic stock Jeff?  I can
think of a lot of ways.  First the cell is very noisy while boiling.  There is
a large capacitive component to a cell, so you have to watch out that E*I
gives the correct answer.  Current is not so easy to measure under these
conditions.  Remember there is a big transient while the current is jacked up.
There is my experience with the common mode rejection of the current
amplifier.  This type of artifact could very easily produce a big current
error at high current.
 
There is a rumor going around that the way P&F initiate a boil off incident is
to pulse the cell with a very high current for a few minutes.  During this
pulse, a lot of the cell contents could leave the cell as partially saturated
vapor.  The intense boiling would make it very hard to estimate the starting
contents of the cell for the boil off.  Then even more vapor could leave
unsaturated during the boil off.  So until I get a complete description of the
experiment, and not just a flashy video, I will not take the boiling cell
experiment seriously.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / Frank Close /   censorship; open and closed; and ignoring theories
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  censorship; open and closed; and ignoring theories
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 01:39:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Schwarz asks me why papers are "censored" by certain journals.
 
I had decided not to get into debates about matters peripheral to the
only question that matters to me, namely whether there is a nuclear (sic)
fusion reaction at work. However, you have asked me a direct question.
 
You use the word censorship: do you mean that paper(s) submitted for
publication have been rejected by the editor following peer review or do
you mean something more sinister?
 
If the former, then what makes you think that your experiences are any
different from those of the rest of us? All who publish in the scientific
literature have at some time or other have had a paper turned down, or a
request for funding rejected. Every few weeks one or other members of my
group here comes to me and moans about some referee's comments and seeks
advice on what to do about it. Like it or not that is the
way that peer review works; we are all angry when our hard work is rejected.
 
I am not happy that *anonymous* referees can hold sway over one's
publication but I also accept that the publishers of journals should
have the right to decide what they do or do not publish. This is a thin
line admittedly but "censorship" seems, to me, too highly coloured a
description. You live in the land of the free; you are free to submit
elsewhere. And if your paper leads to a Nobel Prize, then good for the
kudos of the journal that had the foresight to publish and
you can then embarrass the former journal who turned you down.
(There are precedents for this BTW)
 
When I spoke at MIT two years ago, certain of Gene Mallove's acolytes
accused *me* of censoring, by having only presented what they perceived as
negative aspects of CNF. I chose to speak on what I wished and to be judged by
it. Others have said that "Too Hot To Handle" censored out positive results.
Does every speech, pamphlet or book have to be anodyne? I present my views and
Gene Mallove has presented his very different ones. They are there in the
literature for anyone to read and make up their own minds.  If you want to
hear Gene Mallove's alternative views you are free to invite him and to listen.
 
There has been much criticism of Nature (the journal that is) in this regard.
Some people claim that Nature has a policy of rejecting *any* positive paper.
I cannot say if this is or is not the case, but origins of their negative
feelings about CNF are easier for me to understand. Note that Nature's
staff have a rather unique perspective on the episode for they have seen
what you Mitchell and most people have not seen, namely the original 3-24-89
manuscripts, figures, referee's questions, responses to those questions,
changes in figures, and subsequent appearance and publication in another
journal of a version that contradicted the above. I have now seen that full
correspondence myself (with Martin Fleischmann's approval); any historian
in the future who wishes to understand the origins of the "polarisation of
attitudes" (a phrase from FP et al 1991) should seek sight of those papers
which are not in the Cornell archive.
 
Nature holding onto those papers is not censorship; FP could publish
them as an open letter if they felt that it was to their advantage.
Conversely, is it "censorship" by FP not to allow sight of their
original logbooks so that my published claims could be denied by them?
No; that is their choice. However it does go against claims made elsewhere
on this net that FP have made available their data to any who seek it.
 
 This has gotten rather far from your original question
but there seems to be a sensitivity to supposed censorship; first Dieter
Britz suggests that Jed Rothwell is more interested in PR and that this net
is for science and within days he is being accused of seeking to "censor"
Jed. Now you ask me to comment on censorship by journals. This is an open
forum; letters from editors to you (or whoever) are the writer's
copyright but the recipient is owner. If you have documents that support
your belief in censorship, publish them yourself along with the relevant
paper. Let others decide whether the editor or the author is the loser.
 
 
I spent a year of my life intensively chasing original documents on the
1989 CNF claims. I have other work to do now so I cannot do the same
checking on unattributed claims, but you can help me. What exactly is
supposedly at fault with the Harwell experiments? You do not mention them
by name but you know very well that there is an attempt by FP to reinterpret the
Harwell data as being positive support for CNF. Mallove states in his book
that Harwell cells were run at too low a current; substantiate this claim
by citing which cells in the Harwell puiblished table you base this case on.
 
When you do, please distinguish the FP-set up from the isothermal studies.
The Harwell results show a tanatalising similarity to what Steve Jones has
recently posted. Harwell's paper notes that in the FP-set-up they *may*
have seen imbalance at the 2-sigma level but that as no individual datum
exceeded that they suspect that it is more likely that there is no real
effect at work. They next repeated the experiments with more sophisticated
calorimetry  in which event they had thermal balance. Their
conclusion is that FP open cells are inherently unreliable; Tom Droege
has posted much education here. One of the features is that one must
beware of sloping baselines; Tom showed once how important this can be and
MIT had to correct for this - it did not make a big effect in their case
but excited Gene Mallove enough to cry "fraud".
 
You ask if we should disregard any theory of dd.
 
Not necessarily. If someone has a theory that elevates dd fusion to a level
that produces watts, AND gives no neutrons, tritons or helium at levels
commensurate with those watts then I will consider it. Lo's is a 1989
paper - he is in Australia and I know and talked with him in 1990 at around
the same time I met Oliphant (who was astonished to learn that he had
been referenced by Fleischmann as having seen cold fusion in 1934
with Rutherford. AS pointed out in Too Hot To Handle the Oliphant Rutherford
work was dd -> pt at 20keV which is, in temperature terms, hotter than
the sun).
 
 Lo's theory is eliminated by the *totality* of phenomena. He will either
have to give it up or modify it. Similar remarks, in my opinion, apply
to Schwinger et al. It is no longer sufficient to come up with a way of
enhancing the *conventional* dd fusion rate because that will leave you
with *conventional* remnants; hiding the radiation by fiat (Mitchell; is your
Latin up to it? :-) ) leaves the ash. None of these "conventional" (!)
theories includes the erosion of hadronic matter and so they are stuck with ash.
You may invent reasons why the relative strengths of the pathways change, as
Schwinger has argued (for helium) - but *if* there is no helium at the required
level then you have to modify your theory.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 /  /  New Run cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Run cell 4A4
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 01:39:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If all goes well this weekend, I will set up and start cell #4A4.  We will
try to arrange for the P&F high heat start up.  But we cannot get to the P&F
values.  We will have a more complex catalyst arrangement so that we can
stand higher peak currents.  There will also be something to prevent water
vapor from leaving the cell.  I put my money where my mouth is.   The last
week of calibration has produced a nice calorimeter constant.  Should be good
to about 5 mw rms (one sigma).
 
We will charge at 4 C and run at 30 C.  Any last minute suggestions.  You have
about an hour?
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Chuck Sites /  Electron Screening
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electron Screening
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 04:27:54 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
In discussing heavy electron screening, Dieter writes:
 
> And I still think that a rate of 1E11 fusions/dd-pair/s is stated for muon
> catalysed fusion. I can wait until Thursday for the answer, no problem.
 
Dieter and fellow net friends,
 
    Well it's Thursday, so here is the reply :-).
 
   I consider the Koonin paper, "Enhancement of Cold Fusion rates by
Fluctuations", as turing point to the acceptability (non-acceptability
if you wish) of the P&F effect having a nuclear origin in the form of
a direct D+D interaction.  Atually with all the discussion on P&F's
video tape, Peter Hagelstien's really interesting review, this may be
some what of a let down, because I'm thinking more in terms of
anomolous nuclear effects alla Jone's work and not excess heat. I
don't think Koonins work really applies to P&F. However, it still has
a large bearing on some of the anomolous nuclear emissions seen in
many of the CF experiments.  For example, cavitation causes a large
numbers of electrons to be liberated as raptures in a material ionizes
the surfaces of the speration. Cavitation induced fusion effects like
fracto-fusion, and perhaps sono-fusion, may be a consiquence of the
screening effect. In the Kamiokande work of Isida and Jones, I think
this is what we are seeing.
 
   "How can electrons get heavy?"  Well, ha, lets say they don't. Lets
say instead, a focused channel of several hundreds of electrons passes
between a D pair, just like a hydrated-metal should at the onset of
cavitation.  Assume it's not a pair of D's, but more likly, two
interacting groups of D globs stuck at two oposite sides of D bloated
lattice intersituals just before a lattice fracture occurs.  If the
electron channel is dense enough between the pairs, what you have is a
good enviroment that enhances the possibility of a nuclear interation
by lowering the Coulumb barrier through electron density! Not mass. It
follows then by my argument, that high loading proceeded by high
current discharge might cause the conditions for a small nuclear
emissions signature.  As you can see, I don't consider the effective
mass of an electron as enhancing the fusability of a pair of D's in
an isolated insident. I think its far more important in events like
fractures where there are fluctuations in charge densities.
 
   Fractures are one of those mundain areas that only a material
scientist would love.  But with all the importance placed on the
lattice of hydrated metals, the dynamic effects of a hydration induced
fractures should not be ignored as a potential source of fluctuations
leading to low level fusion rates.  Two types of fractures exists that
are somewhat dependent on the material:  brittle fractures and ductile
fractures. It's interesting that the most commonly used metals in CF,
Titanium and Palladium, are opposites in this regard.  Ti tends
to form brittle fractures and Pd tends to form ductile fractures.
It is sort of interesting to generalize this to Kamiokande data
where the Ti chips tended to produce counts in multiples, and
Pd in singles.  The energy released by a surface crack, U_e is given
by Griffith as,
 
                        2     2
                    pi c rho_n
     Delta U_e = - ------------
                       2 Y
 
where c = crack depth, rho_n is the applied stress, and Y is Young's
modulus. Energy is also consumed in forming a new crack, U_s, and this
is given by,
 
     Delta U_s = 2 c gamma
 
where gamma is the energy per unit area.  This disipation of energy
eventually stops crack fromation where d(U_e + U_s)/dc = 0.  In the
case of hydrated metals the fugacity is important in the description
of the applied stress rho_n.  I currently know of no way to calculate
this given the effects of hydration as the source of applied stress.
Still I can not see how this discription of a cavitation can be ignored
in the ignored in the description of fracto-fusion, and with some
modifiactions sono-fusion.
 
  Tom Drouge had one Pd cell I examined that was "split open like hot
dog".  Actually thats not a bad discription, all though the scales a
bit off (it's about the size of a Tic-Tac), and I would add
over-cooked to the discription.  The cell is finely milled and a
Platinum wire about the same diameter as striped wire wrap was
inserted into a snugly fit pre-drilled hole. The fracture was caused
by a difference in expansion of the deuterated Pd and the Pt wire.
Thats evident from the radial seperation of the crack which was about
2.5 degrees.  The cell is 0.55cm lenght by 0.2cm diameter.  The
fracture is 0.5cm in lenght and has a depth of 0.09cm.  The area of
the fracture is 2 * 0.045cm^2.  Given Avogardo's number, the number of
Pd atoms involved in the top three angstrom (approx 2 lattice layers)
of the fracture surface depth is 9.33e13 (assuming Pd106). If the
loading factor was 0.8, the number of deuterons involved in the
cavitation is 7.38e13!  If one considers the number of bonds broken in
an fcc structure its at minimum (8 * 9.33e13)/4. (2 lattice layer * 2
surface faces and ignoring any kind of fractal dimensionality).  So in
Tom's fractured electrode, at least 1.87e14 Pd-Pd bonds were broken in
the fracture.  Stochimetrically there are at least that number of
electrons flying around. By the same argument, the number of free
deuterons should be 7.38e13 / 4 = 1.845e13.  So let me get to the
point of all this.  The number of liberated electrons to liberated
deuterons during a fracture is at least 10 to 1!  What we have during
a fracture is an electron heavy, highly kenetic plasma that is easily
the source of some small fusion signatures.
 
   It doesn't take much head scratching to see how electron screening
could effect the fusion rate from fractures in highly dueterated Pd.
Titanium is different. Deuterated Titanium allows a higher loading
factor but fewer crystal bond, (it's bcc instead of fcc), but those
bond are stronger than Pd.  One would expect a fracture of this metal
to deposit a higher kenetic energy to the deuterons and electrons
released in the fracture, but have a smaller electrons/deuteron ratio
during fracture process.  My guestimate is 6 to 1 but with a
corrispondingly higher kinetic energy from the Ti's brittle
metal nature. As you can see I'm just considering the plasma
created from a fracture of deuterated metals. I say nothing about
about the precursor to the rupture. This is where I think Koonin's
paper has a lot to say.
 
Koonin suggested a modification to the equation that describes the
potential of Coulumb barrier between D+D and D+p. Basically the
modifiaction included electron screening plus flucuations, ala phonon
energy and other dynamic effects can enhance fusion rate estimate for D
in solids.  The classic screened Coulumb interaction energy is given by
 
                  2
         Z_1 Z_2 e
 U(r) = ----------  + U_s(r)  where U_s(r) is the screening potential
             r
 
Koonin adds to this a fluction parameter that, IMHO, fits the
the potential created in fractures and cavitation. (Ie. U_e
mentioned earlier). This is described adding a second degree of
freedom, zeta, for other kenetic forces and fluctuations that
modify the charge potential.  This gives:
 
                        2
              Z_1 Z_2 e
 U(r;zeta) = ----------  + U_t(r;zeta)
                  r
 
where U_t is combined screening and fluctution enhancments to
the reduction of the Coulumb barrier. I think you can see
what a tremendous effect this can have on fusion rates.
 
Anyway, it's an angle worth looking at.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dieter, first let me say thank you for the CNF bibliography. It seems
to get better and better, and for me, is an invaluable reference.
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Heating to boiling at the interface?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Heating to boiling at the interface?
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:57:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
 
>>say you must get as high as you can, preferably above 0.9. Are we blind men
>>feeling at small bits of a hitherto unknown monster from outer space? Have
>>people simultaneously stumbled on a multitude of entirely new processes? Or
>>is it - the simplest explanation - all pathological?
 
>Is pathological science truly the "simplest" solution...or merely the
>most cynical?  I agree your explanation is more likely than a monster from
>outer space or a multitude of entirely new processes, but there may be
>still simpler explanations.  And let's remember the simplest explanation
>isn't *always* correct.
...
>In other words, I share your doubts, but not your certainty.
 
Certainty? What certainty? You are quite right, the simplest solution may
not be the right one, and I didn't say so. I did not leave out "the
all-important question mark".
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Heat? Neutrons? Charged particles?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Heat? Neutrons? Charged particles?
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:57:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>We have found, consistent
>with Tom Droege's repeated warnings, that in *open* electrolytic cells, we can
>find xs heat -- when assumptions are made that the H2 and O2 leave the cells
>without recombination, carrying water vapor in saturation.  When we measure
>the evolving gasses and transported vapor, without assumptions about these,
>we have consistently found heat balance, that is, *zero* excess heat.
 
This is very interesting, and I hope you publish it. It would not be just
another negative report, but a positive contribution, to dispell
misconceptions about the credibility of excess heat from open cells.
 
>Need I remind you that many outspoken claimants --
>including A. Takahashi of Japan and P&F in their boiling cell videos --
>use open cells?  Regarding the latter, I would observe that a silicate
>or borate or aluminate resistive coating formed on the cathode would result
>in heating and boiling preferentially at the cathode, Dieter.   So that boiling
>at the cathode does not necessarily evidence nuclear reactions there.  This
>is an hypothesis that we are pursuing here to account for xs heat *bursts*,
>without nuclear origins, you see.
 
I didn't mention resistive layers on the electrodes, but you are right. It is
also quite conceivable - due to the very different processes taking place at
cathode and anode - that you might get such a layer at the cathode and not at
the anode, and the boiling at the cathode would then mimick a nuclear excess
heat. I am glad that it was you who pointed this out, and not me...
 
 
>Finally, a response to Dieter.  While I'm irritated at Jed for the rumors,
>I find your uncritical linking of our neutron work with the xs heat claims
>equally annoying (re - your discuss of "Why is CNF such a ragbag?" dated
...
>1- Excess heat claims, without associated nuclear products.
>2- Claims of abundant tritium and helium, without associated nuclear energies,
>    no secondary x-rays or neutrons.
>and
>3- Claims of low-level neutron and charged-particle emissions, *with*
>   MeV energies, and even at ballpark-related rates.  (May also
>   correlate with natural fusion in the earth, if true.)
 
>The third animal might even be recognizable as a consistent beast, unless
>it is confused with animals (1) and (2), uncritically.  Huizenga and Close
>make the distinction -- why can't you?
 
>(An old sore, Dieter.  Please re-think this.)
 
Sorry, Steve, but I have explained this before. Within the broad area of what
is called "cold fusion" for want of a better term, one can of course make such
distinctions, and it may well turn out that you are the only one with a real
effect under your hands - maybe. Until the dust settles, your beast looks like
being part of that single monster. I am sorry that this annoys you.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Dieter Britz /  RE: If Cold Fusion Was Real...
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: If Cold Fusion Was Real...
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 14:57:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
 
>        If Pons-Fleischmann-type cold fusion was real, then there
>would be an interesting world of possibilities.
...
>        In summary, a cold-fusion reactor would have to be at least
>the size of a small nuclear-fission reactor, and it would produce
>energy in the form of low-grade heat, again much like a nuclear
>reactor. It would therefore be good for building heat and electricity,
 
No no no, Loren. Don't you remember Pons and his tea water heater? Back in (I
think) 1990, he was photographed smiling besides a thing about the size of a
large thermos bottle, a CNF water heater. You don't need huge reactors, mate,
you can clearly have any scale from thermos to huge, no worries.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 /  /  Advice to Don Schiewer
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Advice to Don Schiewer
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 01:39:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First, we welcome all Bozos on to this bus.  So climb abord and have at it.
You don't need a big lab, or much fancy equipment.  But first I would do a
little more reading.  Call up the last six months or so of this stuff.  Get
the ICCF2 (Como cold fusion meeting) proceedings and read them.  Read the
cold fusion stuff in the last year or so of Fusion Technology.  Then pick
an experiment and go for it.  I recommend either the "Original" brand P&F
experiment, or the Takahashi version of it.
 
But don't plan to look for neutrons.  Even if you find them no one will beileve
you unless you glow.  Then it won't make much difference.
 
You will spend a few thousand dollars.  You need D2O at about 500-600 per
liter.  You need platinum wire unless you want to do Mills, which is the
cheaper experiment to do, then you still need some kind of platinized anode.
You will soon have a basement full of power supplies, chillers, water piping,
and computers to read it all out.  But I recommended it to watching TV, though
it requires about a five order of magnitude greater attention span.
 
"Why is there still no agreement", you ask.  Because there is no reproducable
experiment.  That is not quite correct, there are plenty of reproducable
*negative* experiments, but no recipe that can be passed around that all will
agree is positive. (Note the "all will agree").
 
Don't be put off by the quantum mechanics, or any of the theory.  There is no
theory that is even close to explaining any of this.  Some will say because
there is nothing to explain.  There is only experiment.  The trick is to find
a repeatable experiment before someone else does.  Then there will be glory.
You are not far behind the rest of us.  But be warned again, that there may
be nothing to find.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Mike Jamison /  Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **clo
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ** GAMMA SHIELDING **clo
Date: 5 Mar 93 18:08:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Mar2.233842.17149@Princeton.EDU>, jsm@phoenix.Princeton.
DU (John Scott McCauley Jr.) writes...
>In article <1993Mar2.135849.6141@wkuvx1.bitnet> mcgufbd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>[on gamma shielding]
>>As far as I know, you would need a material with an incredibly high Z
>>number and with a big cross-section for the type of gamma-rays emitted
>>from whatever you are "fusioning" together.  Even with this type of
>>material, you would need a LOT of it so as to reduce the intensity of
>>the radiation.  For we all know that gamma-rays do not lose energy
>>when traveling through lead, just intensity.
>>
>
>A big problem with fusion devices is activation of the device from fusion
>radiation. So one tries to make the device and shielding from materials that
>have low activation cross sections and whose activation byproducts have
>short half-lives. One GW of fast neutrons is mind-boggling destructive and
>even 1 GW of gamma rays is also nasty.
>
>Most of the gammas from neutronic fusion reactions are from neturon capture
>such as the n + p -> d + gamma reaction that makes a 2.2 MeV gamma.
>If you just stick to aneutronic reactions, then you no longer worry too
>much about neutron shielding. However, you probably will get lots of
>gammas from charged fusion products hitting the walls, bremsstrahlung,
>and runaway electrons.
>
>Unfortunately, the higher the Z, the longer the half-life. Don't have nuclear
>data handy but 10 m of Al might be as good as 1 m of Pb in terms of shielding.
>However, it might take a week for the Al-based shield to decay to safe levels
>and 10,000 yrs for the Pb-based shield to decay.
 
According to "Nuclear Reactor Engineering" (Glasstone & Sesonske) the
attenuation of Pb(minimum) is ~0.5, where I(x) = I(0) e^(ux), u = attenuation
coefficient.  It bottoms out at about 5 MeV.  Al, on the other hand, has an
attenuation coefficient of < 0.1 at 5 MeV.  Also, the attenuation coef. of
Pb *increases* for more energetic gammas.  At 10 MeV, u = ~0.6 for Pb, and
0.06 for Al.  (See p. 53 for the graph)
 
So, if you're running a d-t reactor, giving 17 MeV per fuse (?14? MeV of
which comes out as a gamma) you may want to use lead.
 
Besides, if you think of the radioactive lead isotope as "fuel" rather than
"waste" you might just want to use it in a fission reactor...
 
Someone posted that the energy of a gamma isn't reduced as the gamma goes
through the absorber.  This appears to be a false statement, because one of
the attenuation mechanisms is pair production - electron:positron pairs.
So a high energy gamma *will* lose energy, in ~1.02 MeV chunks, as it travels
through an absorber (according to the above book, pair production is the
dominant absorption form at very high energies - 10's of MeV/gamma)
 
Of course, pair production won't happen with "low energy" gammas (less than
1.02 MeV is a given :) )
>
>       Scott
>
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  jbatka@desire. /  Open system Energy balance?
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Open system Energy balance?
Date: 5 Mar 93 17:27:53 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

Please forgive me for this potentially naive question.  I've been reading
the group for >1 year now and this has not become appearant.
 
How do experimenters using open systems differentiate between liquid
loss from vaporization, dissociation, and wet steam?  If one counted
all liquid loss as due from dissociation then this implies a much
greater generation of heat then that from vaporization.  Likewise
liquid loss due to complete vaporization would carry away much more
heat then losses due to wet (liquid H2O particles) being lost.
 
I realize that for the most part the dissociation is only counted as
occuring due to the electric current and not from heat, is it a well
known function of current and voltage (Diss = f(I,V))?
 
Are there similar functions of liquid loss due to dry water vapor
versus wet steam based upon temperature (and pressure)
(H2Odry / H2Owet = f(T,P))?
 
Thanks for any enlightenment,
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | 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 minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjbatka cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  collins@jaguar /  runaway release and recombination
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: runaway release and recombination
Date: 5 Mar 93 13:40:46 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

(Apologies for the empty post)
 
There has been a lot of discussion about a video of an experiment by
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann appearing to show an electrochemical cell
boiling off, as amplified in Peter Hagelstein's excellent summary of the
Nagoya conference.
 
The cell is open to the atmosphere and, as I understand it, the Pd cathode
is not completely submerged if for no other reason than that there is very
turbulent roiling (possibly boiling) of the electrolyte.  The possibility
immediately comes to mind that the reported heat release could be caused
by a fairly abrupt elimination of hydrogen (deuterium or protium) from the Pd
lattice with the Pd surface acting to recombine the hydrogen with oxygen,
producing water with a significant heat release.  The purpose of this
submission is to describe how this may happen and to evaluate the amount
of heat which is released.  Apologies if I missed submissions by others
in which these points may have already been made.
 
First, Pd is an excellent recombiner.  Back in spring 1990, my student Steven
Parry (MS, 1990) and I carried out experiments using closed cells to detect
excess heat production (Pd cathode, Pt anode, 0.1M LiOD, teflon cells, etc.)
We saw no excess over the input electrical power within our 1% precision
of measurement in over 2500 hours of measurement.  We used very fine Pd
wires within cells to recombine the deuterium and oxygen gasses.
 
Anecdotally, we tried at one point to measure deuterium loading by weighing
a Pd cathode just after removing it from the cell.  The cathode became
"too hot to handle" within seconds, scorching a weighing paper underneath.
Obvious to us, deuterium was diffusing out of the Pd, recombining with
oxygen at the surface and heating the Pd bar.  Such "release and
recombination" might also be occurring in PF's cells.
 
"Release and recombination" is a runaway process, in which the heating of the
Pd should lead to greater hydrogen release, to greater heating, and so on.
This becomes clear if we consider the phase diagram of H in Pd.  Below, I
have tabulated H/Pd loadings during desorption of protium at one atmosphere
(the diagram is quite similar for D/Pd):
 
 ------------------------
Temperature     H/Pd            Note that the loading has a large and abrupt
 ------------------------       fall as the temperature increases above
  20 C          0.72            about 150 C.  This means that nearly all
  70 C          0.66            the hydrogen in the lattice will be released
 120 C          0.60            when Pd(H) is heated above 150 C.
 160 C          0.10
 200 C          0.03            [from, Wicke and Brodowsky, in Hydrogen in
 300 C          0.02            Metals II, editors G. Alefeld and J Voelkl
 ------------------------       (Springer, 1978), figure 3.4, page 81.]
 
 
"Release and recombination" process can sporadically release a significant
amount of heat.  Let's calculate the heat release for deuterium (the result
for protium would be very similar).  For the calculation, we use the
enthalpy of formation of D2O in gaseous form from D2 and O2 gasses, equal to
249 kJ/mole.  Assuming an initial loading of 0.72, corresponding to
5 x 10^22 atoms of deuterium per cm^3 of Pd, there will be a heat release
of 10.1 kJ per cm^3 of Pd.  This is enough heat to raise 6 cm^3 of D2O
electrolyte to the boiling point and to vaporize it, again per cm^3 of
Pd.  The heating rate depends on the time over which the release takes
place, which is affected by thd diffusion rate of H in Pd, for example.
Assuming "release and recombination" is complete over 10 minutes, the
average excess heat generated is about 17 watts per cm^3 of Pd.
 
This enthalpy production rate is, of course, nowhere near Hagelstein's estimate
of 3682 W/cm^3, but others have called that estimate into serious question,
such as Tom Droege who proposed that violent roiling or boiling should help to
remove electrolyte mechanically.  The point I wish to emphasize here is that a
runaway release and recombination process leads to a significant, readily
measured heat release and to what may be a violent eruption of gas from the
electrodes during the release.  This process may explain in part observations
made on the FP video as well as on sporadic heat releases observed by others.
Of course, if the cathode temperature remains below 150 C, then the hydrogen
loading should remain stable, but few if any researchers are measuring
cathode temperatures.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins            Internet: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
Department of Physics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  collins@jaguar /  cancel <1993Mar5.120901.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar5.120901.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 93 13:42:06 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

cancel <1993Mar5.120901.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Mar5.150356.479@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar5.150356.479@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 93 15:32:02 -0700

cancel <1993Mar5.150356.479@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Clarification (response to M. Swartz)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarification (response to M. Swartz)
Date: 5 Mar 93 15:48:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Oops, I need to clarify something in my posting on "X-rays and nuclear ash:
Where's the beef?" (March 5, 1993)
 
Mitchell pointed out that 1 w of excess power would mean a mass *change* of
10-14 g in the sample, which is too small to measure by a mass scale.
What I am trying to say is that this change in mass comes about, if nuclear
reactions are occurring to make the xs heat, due to rearrangements of
protons and neutrons in nuclei.  That is, new nuclei are synthesized with
less mass than the reactants had.  The "delta-mass" = (mass reactants) minus
(mass products) = (energy released)/c^2.  This equality tells us how much
nuclear ash (products) to expect.
 
The corresponding rate of nuclear product synthesis
is *trillions* per second (of that order of magnitude) for nuclear reactions
producing one watt of power, as explained I think correctly in my earlier
post.  So we look for the nuclear ash, and concomitant secondary X-rays,
not for a change in mass per se.
 
It is the absence of sufficient products and X-rays (as a probe for the
occurrence of nuclear-scale reactions) that tells us that alleged heat is not
nuclear in origin.    --   Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  X-rays and nuclear ash: where's the beef?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays and nuclear ash: where's the beef?
Date: 5 Mar 93 16:05:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitchell Swartz correctly points out ("Less than a picogram", March 4, 1993)
that   1 joule = 1 watt x 1 second = 1.1 x 10^-14 grams ( x c^2),
based on E = mc^2.
 
He then comments:  "Actually, I don't have a scale of this magnitude here,
but presumably you are much better equipped."
 
Who says we have to use a mass scale?  Goodness, we have much more sensitive
detectors than that.  Surely my comments regarding our
detectors make clear that we are capable of detecting neutrons and charged
particles at low-levels, a few to tens per hour are easily seen.
 
Look at it this way, Mitchell.  A *change* of 10^-14 grams due to nuclear
reactions means that *trillions* of nuclear products have been produced,
Whether neutrons or helium nuclei -- *whatever* -- are produced, the nuclear
"ash" constitutes a *very large* quantity of particles.
 (One could postulate direct mass to
"energy" conversion, as in annihilation.  Even such a far-fetched mechanism for
xs heat would produce copious particles or gamma rays, and secondary x-rays.)
 
Let's be more rigorous to see what a problem the missing particles are (if one
asserts as some do strongly, that alleged xs heat is nuclear in origin):
 
Reaction                             Reaction rate for 1 watt xs power
 
d+d -->  p(3 MeV) + t(1MeV)          1.16 trillion/sec
    -->  3He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45MeV)  1.55 trillion/sec
 
p+6Li --> 4He (1.7MeV) + 3He(2.3MeV) 1.56 trillion/sec
d+6Li --> Two 4He (11.2MeV each)     0.28 trillion/sec
 
d+d --> 4He + "heat" (23.8MeV)       0.26 trillion/sec.
 
The last reaction is fanciful, corresponding to "theories" that the
heat of the fusion reaction is somehow absorbed by the lattice rather than
being carried by the alpha particles (4He).  I have argued in
"Nuclear reaction in deuterided solids versus excess heat claims," Fusion
Technology 20:915-923 (Dec. 1991)  that this putative process fails to
conserve momentum (the lighter masses must pick up most of the energy)
among other problems.  If the last reaction is posited, still the helium
ash must be present in large quantities.
 
If the second reaction above were involved, a lethal dose of neutrons is
quite possible.  All (realistic) reactions involve fast-moving charged-
particle products, which will produce copious quantities of X-rays in
the metal lattice in which the reactions allegedly occur, assuming just a
watt of xs power.  But *NO ONE* has found an x-ray spectrum pointing to
such secondary x-rays being produced in FPH-type cells.
 
Other nuclear reactions could be cited, but in all cases the energy (Q)
released is of order millions of electron volts (MeV) so that the rate
of particle production for correlated power ("excess heat") output can
be found using (Q in MeV):
  (6.24 x 10^12) / Q   reactions / second per watt of power.
 
The bottom line is that the number of nuclear products which arise from
nuclear reactions must be commensurate with heat released, which follows
inescapably from Q = delta-E = delta-m/c^2,
where delta-m = (mass reactants) - (mass products).
 
If the xs heat at the level of mw or so  is indeed nuclear in origin, then
where are the commensurate debris?  Even if we take the last reaction above,
where the energy of the reaction is somehow absorbed directly by the lattice,
still we must have beacoup helium-4 produced.  How much?  Consider the 100MJ
claimed by A. Takahashi and others of late, then a simple calculation shows:
 
100MJ by last reaction above produces also 2.6x10^18 helium-4 atoms
   /6.022X1023 atoms/mole   X 22.4 liter/mole
  = 1 ml of He gas at STP.
(100MJ requires the presence of about 1 ml of 4He as a waste product.
All nuclear reactions produce ash, and in commensurate quantities.)
 
Man, that is a lot of gas, trivially measurable.  Yet no one has seen this.
Nor enough neutrons, tritium, x-rays -- by many orders of magnitude. And many
have looked hard, for years.
 
Hence, one is forced, I think, to refrain from claiming that the alleged
xs heat is nuclear in origin.
 
 
Mr. Swartz also suggests that x-rays from Pd may not be such a sensitive test
after all.  I maintain that they do provide a crucial test, and that the
failure to see the  characteristic x-rays of excited Pd atoms (or Ni atoms
for a Ni-cathode cell, etc.) is strong evidence that any heat-producing
reactions are not in fact nuclear.
 
The details are written up in some detail in a submission of our group to
the Nagoya proceedings, available on request.  Let me provide an illustrative
example:
 
Consider d-d fusion at a rate of about 10^11 events / sec, or about 0.1 watt
in 1 mm diam Pd wire, 3 cm long, with the x-ray detector 3 cm from the wire
so that the average path of x-rays through D2O is 2 cm and through glass 2mm.
We have written a monte-carlo program to handle the x-ray generation and
transport in this case (easily modified to handle other geometries, etc.),
which shows:
     5.86 x 10^5 k-alpha x-rays leave the Pd surface each second
Transmission through D2O is 0.31, through glass is 0.38.
Solid angle factor is 0.00774 (would improve dramatically if detector were
  brought closer to Pd.  Mitchell is correct that cell design is important.)
Detector efficiency is 0.115 (based on detector at BYU, portable and offered
for use with those claiming xs heat.  Taken to Takahashi's lab in Oct 1992,
but cells were not then producing xs heat, he said.)
 
We find in this example that 60 K-alpha x-rays per second are detected.
This rate is about 100 times above the sensitivity limited imposed by
typical backgrounds.
 
In short, with a little effort, x-rays are readily seen, if they are present.
(See our paper referenced above for details on a reliable, x-ray spectrometer
that is both portable and operates at room temperature.)
 
Let me phrase this as a firm challenge to those who claim xs heat:
look for x-rays using a spectrometer (no, x-ray film will not give enough
information nor compelling data).  If you find none -- and no one has to date
-- then admit that the xs heat is not nuclear.  Until then, do not go around
claiming that "the xs heat must be nuclear since it is too large to be
anything else."
 
I've done my homework on X-rays, Mitchell.  Now its your turn.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Mar5.152948.480@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar5.152948.480@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 93 16:05:34 -0700

cancel <1993Mar5.152948.480@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / Ben Weiner /  Re: less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Ben "benny da slug" Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: less than a picogram
Date: 6 Mar 93 02:27:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    1 joule = (1 watt*1 second) =  1.1  x  10^-14 grams.
 
>   This means that if fusion worked (100% efficient, and
> ignoring all kinds of other stuff in this gendanken analysis)
>  that - for 1 watt * 1 second - the total mass would have to
>  decrease by a not too big amount.
> Actually, I dont have a scale of this magnitude here, but
> presumably you are much better equipped.
 
Here's another number: the mass of a proton = 1.67 x 10^-24 grams.
That's pretty small, huh?  In fact it's ten orders of magnitude
below your "small" number above.  To get one joule one would have
to somehow annihilate on the order of 10^10 protons.  (A small
fraction of a mole, but an awfully large number of reactions to
occur without any detectable byproduct such as neutrons, gammas, etc.)
 
Of course that's not how one ordinarily gets energy out of nuclear
reactions - you don't annihilate protons, but rather fuse nuclei,
or something, liberating nuclear binding energy.  Binding energies
of light nuclei are on order 10 MeV.  One joule is 6.3 x 10^18 eV.
So you figure (optimistically) about 10^11 reactions to get a joule
of output heat.
 
>   Do you think some skeptic feel that the mass goes up,
> similarly to the generation of "ash"-ash in Earth's
> atmosphere (eg. the burning of magnesium leads to more mass
> in the ash)?
 
>   Also, how does E=mc2, or its partial derivative, demand
>either enough neutrons to "kill" everyone in the room,
 
Please see above.
 
A Curie is 3.7 x 10^10 disintegrations/second. so reactions that produced
on order one live reaction product (neutron, beta, gamma) per reaction
would have about 10 Curies of activity per watt of heat.  I have worked
with a 1 Curie thermal neutron source, and a 50 milliCurie beta source.
They are not things you play around with.  Let alone leave running in a
lab for days or months - we are talking about the kind of source where
you leave Geiger counters with built-in sirens around the lab so that
you hear about any leakage _right away_.  Otherwise, bye-bye genes,
if not life.
 
As other people with greater expertise than I have stated, if you want to
explain excess heat with nuclear reactions, these reactions must be
completely and totally _invisible_.  Your intuition about what is a
"small" mass, does not apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbweiner cudfnBen cudlnWeiner cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / mitchell swartz /  mass not necessarily ash
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: mass not necessarily ash
Date: 6 Mar 93 15:43:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5382; 5 Mar 93; {Subject: Clarification};
   Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) says:
 
===  "Mitchell pointed out that 1 w of excess power would mean
===   a mass *change* of 10-14 g in the sample, which is too
===   small to measure by a mass scale.   What I am trying to
===   say is that this change in mass comes about, if nuclear
===   reactions are occurring to make the xs heat, due to
===   rearrangements of protons and neutrons in nuclei.  That
===   is, new nuclei are synthesized with less mass than the
===   reactants had.  The "delta-mass" = (mass reactants)
===   minus (mass products) = (energy released)/c^2.  This
===   equality tells us how much nuclear ash (products) to
===   expect."
 
 Steve, what I am trying to point out is that if you invoke
 general relativity, that is:  E= mc2  or some derivative of
 it, it appears that a dE implies a dM, ie. loss of mass.
 
   When we look at this equation, a loss of mass means only
 that.   Not necessarily "ash" (by the equation, since
 open-minded people do not rule it out).
         Not necessarily any demanded product by this eq.
  If you know how to derive your claims from E = mc2,
  then please let us know.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / mitchell swartz /  lookin' for the beef
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: lookin' for the beef
Date: 6 Mar 93 15:44:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5383; Subject: X-rays and nuclear
         ash: where's the beef?; 5 Mar 93]
    Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) says:
 
===  "Mitchell ... points out 1 joule = 1 watt x 1 second
===      = 1.1 x 10^-14 grams ( x c^2),based on E = mc^2.
===   He then comments:  "Actually, I don't have a scale of
===   this magnitude here, but presumably you are much better
===   equipped."
===
===   "Who says we have to use a mass scale?  Goodness, we
===   have much more sensitive detectors than that.  Surely my
===   comments regarding our detectors make clear that we are
===   capable of detecting neutrons and charged particles at
===   low-levels, a few to tens per hour are easily seen."
 
   Forgive my attempt at very late-night humor.  Typing is
 tough-enuf during those few grabbed moments.
   Steven, again, how does E=mc^2 demand other than a mass
 loss.   You and your staff do fantastic work, In fact, on
 neutron measurement: if anyone else posted that hardening
 cement might emit low level neutron, we would probably not
 blink an eye but move tongue firmly into cheek.
 
 
===  "Look at it this way, Mitchell.  A *change* of 10^-14
===   grams due to nuclear reactions means that *trillions* of
===   nuclear products have been produced, Whether neutrons or
===   helium nuclei -- *whatever* -- are produced, the nuclear
===   "ash" constitutes a *very large* quantity of particles.
===   (One could postulate direct mass to "energy" conversion,
===   as in annihilation.  Even such a far-fetched mechanism
===   for xs heat would produce copious particles or gamma
===   rays, and secondary x-rays.)
 
  Steve, you are correct. I posted the numbers here months
 ago.  Please consider the other forms of (including
 non-ionizing) radiation. Your list of products does not
 include the phonons themselves.  It appears, INMO, to rather
 list them as the raison d'etre for the putative neutrons.
 
 
===  "d+d --> 4He + "heat" (23.8MeV)       0.26 trillion/sec.
===  (This) reaction is fanciful, corresponding to "theories"
===   that the heat of the fusion reaction is somehow absorbed
===  by the lattice rather than being carried by the alpha
===   particles (4He).  I have argued in  "Nuclear reaction in
===   deuterided solids versus excess heat claims," Fusion
===   Technology 20:915-923 (Dec. 1991)  that this putative
===   process fails to conserve momentum (the lighter masses
===   must pick up most of the energy) among other problems.
===    If the last reaction is posited, still the helium ash
===   must be present in large quantities.
 
   Steven, you are probably quite close with this reaction
 which we posted, and discussed, previously.  Why does the
 process fail to conserve momentum when phonons are available
 for that role.
   Phonons (of quite a few types) are present in the metal.
   Phonons certainly exist because it gets HOT.
   Perhaps you might state exactly why they cannot conserve
 momentum?
 
===   "The bottom line is that the number of nuclear products
===   which arise from nuclear reactions must be commensurate
===   with heat released, which follows inescapably from
===   Q = delta-E = delta-m/c^2,
===  where delta-m = (mass reactants) - (mass products)."
 
    Again, Steve, where is the creation of "ash" (I love the
 images that appear in the temporal lobe of our brains)
 demanded by the above equation.
  That only specifies:   delta-m/delta-E.
 
===  "I've done my homework on X-rays, Mitchell.
===    Now its your turn."
 
   We have shown here that you appear to ignore the momentum
 carrying properties of phonons (and there are probable
 plasmons etc.) in the "ashy soup".
   So it returns to thou.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / mitchell swartz /  less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: less than a picogram
Date: 6 Mar 93 15:45:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5384: Subject: Re: less than a picogram
   Message-ID: <Mar.5.21.27.24.1993.18729@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
   6 Mar 93 02:27:24 GMT
 bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Ben "benny da slug" Weiner) says:
 
===  "Here's another number: the mass of a proton = 1.67 x 10^-24
===   grams.That's pretty small, huh?
 
  Sure Ben.  Although it is massive compared to an electron
  (a la Born-Oppenheimer) and many many other things.
 
===  >   Also, how does E=mc2, or its partial derivative, demand
===  >either enough neutrons to "kill" everyone in the room,
===
===   "Please see above. (and)
===   "A Curie is 3.7 x 10^10 disintegrations/second. so reactions
===   that produced on order one live reaction product (neutron,
===   beta, gamma) per reaction would have about 10 Curies of
===   activity per watt of heat.  I have worked with a 1 Curie
===   thermal neutron source, and a 50 milliCurie beta source.  They
===   are not things you play around with.  Let alone leave running
===   in a lab for days or months - we are talking about the kind of
===   source where you leave Geiger counters with built-in sirens
===   around the lab so that you hear about any leakage _right
===   away_.  Otherwise, bye-bye genes,  if not life."
 
   Ben is right about these "ionizing radiation" sources. Other
ionizing radiation sources are dangerous too (eg. dumped cobalt
radiotherapy irradiators melted into metal scrap heaps in less
developed countries).
   But, not all radiation is ionizing.
   Also, there are levels of ionizing radiation that are not bio-
 significant (given the ability of living systems to have evolved
 in, and survive in, a mildly "hot" background).
 
   The question, predicated upon the equation, remains unanswered.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / mitchell swartz /  censorship means closed
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: censorship means closed
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 15:46:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion  [5385; Subject:  censorship; open
 and closed; and ignoring theories; 6 Mar 1993]
  Frank Close says:
 
===  "You use the word censorship: do you mean that paper(s)
===   submitted for publication have been rejected by the
===   editor following peer review or do you mean something
===   more sinister?
 
   Frank, we have all had a papers published, but they are
 either accepted or rejected.   Papers in this field are
 rejected because the field is said to "not exist".
  So since that is not "normal" peer review, what is left in
 your decision tree?
 
 
===   When I spoke at MIT two years ago, certain of Gene
===   Mallove's acolytes accused *me* of censoring, by
===   having only presented what they perceived as negative
===   aspects of CNF. I chose to speak on what I wished and
===   to be judged by it. Others have said that "Too Hot To
===   Handle" censored out positive results.   Does every
===   speech, pamphlet or book have to be anodyne?
 
  Frank, I was there at MIT two years ago, fortunate to
attend that lecture.  It is true only finger-pointing was
allowed.  It is also true that the day was "Technology Day".
  Finger pointing is neither science nor technology.
 
 
===  "Tom Droege has posted much education here. One of the
===   features is that one must beware of sloping baselines;
===   Tom showed once how important this can be and MIT had
===   to correct for this - it did not make a big effect in
===   their case but excited Gene Mallove enough to cry
===   "fraud".
 
   Frank, you are right about Tom.
   But by MIT do you possibly mean the Phase-II Plasma
 Fusion Center experiment and paper, Frank?   MIT is a big
 heterogeneous institution.  Do you have some comment on a
 base-line in that paper? or on another?
 or how it was (or may have been) "corrected"?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / mitchell swartz /  good candidates for ash
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: good candidates for ash
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 15:47:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In world sci.physics.fusion [5387; Subject: Neutrons, triggers,
 charged particles, etc.; Sat, 6 Mar 1993]
  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) says:
 
=== "For Mitchell Swartz:  In defending the notion that my claims
===   about nuclear reactions are based on "plasma-type" thinking
===   you state that " Physics in a solid is well known to be
===   astonishingly different" ....
===   I don't accept the notion that such perturbations can result
===  in making normal decay processes into "forbidden" processes.
===  That is what I say is pure myth.
 
  Dick, what you said was:
 
=== "I have no quarrel with the obvious fact that
=== there are nuclear reactions that do not involve the emission of
=== neutrons but the notion that nuclear reactions are somehow
=== different when they occur in a solid is nothing more than
=== a cold fusion myth.
 
  Is it the theoretical problem with decay processes or
        any possible theory?
 
===   "Good candidates for ash:  Some of you continue to cite the
===   reported observations of 4He and tritium as "good candidates"
===   for evidence of nuclear reactions."
 
   Agreed.
 
===  "The problem with the experiments involving these reaction
===   products is given in one word:  COMMENSURATE!"
 
  When all the pathways are known, when the equipment is capable
of sensitively capturing, storing, detecting and discriminating
the "ash" (and in the case of 4He isolating the equipment as
well), this hypothesis will be tested in many labs.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.06 / John Logajan /  Re: X-rays and nuclear ash: where's the beef?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays and nuclear ash: where's the beef?
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 93 18:16:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Steven E. Jones writes:
>heat of the fusion reaction is somehow absorbed by the lattice rather than
>being carried by the alpha particles (4He).  I have argued in
>"Nuclear reaction in deuterided solids versus excess heat claims," Fusion
>Technology 20:915-923 (Dec. 1991)  that this putative process fails to
>conserve momentum (the lighter masses must pick up most of the energy)
 
I don't think this, of necessity, violates conservation of momemtum.
 
For instance, a 10 kilogram block of aluminum picks up less kinetic energy
than a one kilogram block of gold in an elastic collision between the two,
despite the fact that aluminum atoms are less massive than gold atoms.
 
You cannot arbitrarily define the limits of the mass/object in question to
determine a conservation quantity.  You have to account for all natural force
exchanges before the limits of the mass/object are truely defined.
 
In the case of the putative elastic collision, above, the 10kg mass and the
1kg mass can often seperate *before* all the shockwave echoes have returned
from "interogating" the entire mass distribution of either object.  The
collision is over and no more energy is exchanged, yet the actual mass of
each object was not yet determined by the time the interaction ended.   One
might wonder how conservation of momentum can be conserved, after the fact,
as it were.
 
[Hint: When the late arriving shockwave echoes return to the point of contact
origin, they have nowhere to dump their energy, so they reflect yet again, back
and forth -- the object "rings" with the excess energy.  Energy in excess of
that needed to conserve momentum is dissapated in this way as internal random
motion -- heat.
 
By the way, if someone doubts that collisions can end before all the mass
of both objects is interogated, let them bounce a ball off the floor of
where they are sitting and then let them argue that in the fraction of a
second that the ball was in contact with the floor, shockwave echoes could
reach and return from all points around the earth.]
 
The point of all this is that one has to consider the "effective" size and
mass of an object in momemtum conservation, and not arbitrarily defined
subdivisions.
 
--
- 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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / John George /  White House INTERNET Address?
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: White House INTERNET Address?
Date: 7 Mar 93 01:34:16 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

Does anyone in this newsgroup know if the White House has an
INTERNET address? Is there any other E-mail address for them?
Compuserve, maybe?
 
                                        THANKS IN ADVANCE,              JLG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / John George /  Can't We All Just Get Along? -- R. King
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can't We All Just Get Along? -- R. King
Date: 7 Mar 93 02:52:01 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

This paraphrase of Rodney King's remarks about the L.A. riots pretty well
fits my feelings about the negative comments flying around this newsgroup of
late. I thought this was an educational newsgroup, not a flame-mail hangout!
It's always unpopular ideas and speech that need protection.
 
I have been following this group for over 2 months now. I have learned from
both 'slopes and nazis'. Privately, some people on both sides have recommended
that I contact people on the other for more information. Everyone has been
most cordial and responsive to me. I THANK YOU ALL!
 
Tom Droege, I'm ecstatic that your 'volunteer' appeared! Dying to hear the
details when you get'em.  Jed Rothwell, keep those figurative cards and letters
coming! I'd especially like to know details of how to get a copy of the video
you mentioned.  SRI, I'd like to volunteer to help you! To All others: Thanks
for your emails! Let's stretch our brains and have a little fun!
 
I'd like to call on everyone to remember that disagreements and even incomplete
or pseudo science need not make us less than respectful of each other as
people. I want to hear you all and make up my own mind. I learn things just
trying to decipher the techno-speak and that's why I'm here.
 
Whether CF turns out to be the best thing since fire, or a hoax, I will be
glad I have had the privilege of TALKING, LISTENING AND LEARNING from some
great people! Let's not forget that we are the beneficiaries of the greatest
explosion of human and scientific progress the world has ever seen! This only
comes when we're talking, NOT fighting. I'd bet that not much human progress
is being made in Bosnia right now! So, let's get back to the interchange of
ideas and stop the wrangling!
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Dictating to nature
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dictating to nature
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 17:34:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, fusion@zorch.FC.HP.COM writes:
 
> Should your "theory" pass this first test my fallback position is that
> there are simple experimental tests that would confirm or deny any
> new reaction proposal put forward.  Cold fusion is in a very tight
> corner.
 
It is true that Cold fusion _theorists_ are in a very tight corner.  This is
not the same as saying that the mysterious heat doesn't exist.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 21:49:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
 
>      They go on to guesstimate a price of about
>      US $2,000 per kg of D2 -- extrapolating from
>      D2O prices circa 1979 and a bunch of other
>      factors.
 
Two estimates, one of $220/kg and one of $2000/kg, using
the same process to extract the D!  Which is the correct
answer?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.05 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 17:59:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    Second, physics in a solid is well-known to be astonishingly
>  different for properties of gas (including but not limited to
>  alkali halide defects, piezoelectricity, pyroelectricity,
>  antiferromagentic materials, ferroelectrics, Mossbauer effect,
>  electrets, Brillouin zones, polyvalent ion exchange,
>  p-n junctions, &tc).
 
To a nucleus (held together by the strong force), a solid looks nearly
identical to a gas, and there is no reason I know to expect that nuclear
reactions in a solid would be different.
 
>    Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
>  and phonon emission, and helium-4.
 
These ashes have never been found to match the amount of heat generated.
There is still no explaination for either the heat or the ashes, they certainly
don't explain each other!  (though they are good clues for people looking for
explanations)
 
>    Dick, nuclear reactions are observable only if they emit or
>  create changes which are detectable, at intensities above the
>  noise level, and are in a system to distinguish them from other
>  interference.
 
The level of heat pretty much would require changes above the noise level if
they are detectable at all.  Nuclear reactions produce fast moving particles
which produce X-rays which are very easily detectable.  If there is a good
theory using nuclear reactions which does not produce fast particles or a way
to slow them down without a big splash, I have not seen it (except maybe the
"neutrinos take most of the energy away" theory, and the "Twist of a Ribbon").
 
>      Mitchell Swartz
>           mica@world
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / John Kreznar /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 7 Mar 93 05:24:47 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1n5q3s$9rm@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 
>       The title of this article refers to the problem of
> concentrating deuterium from natural sources so that it can be used in
> fusion reactions.
 
>       How to separate?
 
>       Has this question been analyzed in detail in the
> fusion-engineering literature?
 
In ``Chemical and Biological Studies with Deuterium'' by Joseph J.
Katz, Thirty-Ninth Annual Priestley Lectures, The Pennsylvania State
University, 1965, we read:
 
        _Production of Heavy Water_
 
        The concentration of D2O in natural waters varies from 0.0156%
        in sea water to 0.0139% in fresh water.  The extraction of the
        one pound of D2O present in approximately five tons of
        ordinary water is by no means a simple technical problem.  A
        variety of isotope separation procedures is available, but the
        method of choice today is based on chemical exchange of
        hydrogen between hydrogen sulfide and liquid water.  At low
        temperatures, deuterium tends to concentrate in the water,
        while at elevated temperatures it concentrates in the gaseous
        H2S....  [Details and drawing omitted. -jek]
 
        Many hundreds of tons of D2O can now be produced per year.
        The raw material is available in unlimited amount, and the
        technological problems of extraction have all received
        practical answers.
 
In ``Hydrogen: Production and Marketing'', W. Novis Smith and Joseph
G. Santangelo, eds, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 116,
1979, we read:
 
        _Deuterium Separation_
 
        Most hydrogen storage alloys show similar absorption/
        desorption properties for hydrogen and deuterium.
        Occasionally, however, the hydride and deuteride show
        substantially different plateau pressures.  An example is
        V[anadium], shown in figure 16.  This offers a possible
        technique of fractionally separating deuterium from ``natural
        H2'' (0.015% D).  Deuterium is used in heavy water reactors
        and will be the fuel of the future fusion reactor.  In
        addition to V, TiNi has shown promise as a deuterium
        separation alloy.
 
--
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Pd can be hazardous!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd can be hazardous!
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 00:23:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Gary Collins reports
 
"...we tried at one point to measure deuterium loading by weighing a Pd
cathode just after removing it from the cell.  The cathode became 'too hot
to handle' within seconds, scorching a weighing paper underneath. Obvious to
us, deuterium was diffusing out of the Pd, recombining with oxygen at the
surface and heating the Pd bar... "
 
I have heard of this happening at MANY OTHER SITES, and I have been cautioned
by people like Bockris to handle loaded palladium with extreme care. Anyone
working in this field should please take notice of the fact that highly
loaded palladium does this often, and it can happen quite suddenly; out of
the blue, as it were, when Pd is exposed to air. This is DANGEROUS STUFF,
so please be careful. On the other hand, some Japanese researchers I know did
safety tests, deliberately exposing highly loaded Pd to open flames,
blowtorches, electric sparks and other hazards. They report that it would
"glow for a while" but they saw no explosions, meltdowns or other unexpected
events.
 
I would not recommend you remove a loaded cathode from a working cell under
any circumstances for two reasons: 1. it can be dangerous; 2. it will almost
certainly be contaminated and ruined by the handling.
 
However, to my knowledge, this recombination effect cannot happen when Pd is
under water, or surrounded by water vapor. A few days after the SRI accident
occured, Bockris told me that he expected the proximate cause was a bit of
Pd exposed to oxygen gas in the cylander. He thought that during handling
the water might have sloshed around, and exposed a tiny piece of the cathode.
As I recall, this is not what happened, but I don't remember and I don't have
the report at hand. I believe, however, that I asked Bockris whether he
thought it was possible for a runaway degassing heat effect to occur
underwater, or surrounded by water vapor in a boiling cell. I knew about the
runaway effect, and I knew that P&F cells often reached boiling. As I recall,
he said there was no danger of this. He mentioned that Fleischmann had
expressed concerns about the SRI work and protocals, and that Fleischmann had
urged all workers to do open cell work because it is safer. Fleischmann knew
Riley personally, and was deeply upset by the accident.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / mitchell swartz /  solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: solid state fusion
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1993 13:57:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5400;5 Mar 1993; Subject: solid state fusion
Brian Rauchfuss (rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
 
===   "To a nucleus (held together by the strong force), a solid
===   looks nearly identical to a gas, and there is no reason
===   I know to expect that nuclear reactions in a solid would
===   be different."
 
   Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
 until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
 The rest was then begun to be explained.
 Also effective mass and size were found to be different for
 the electron, as compared to what was "well-known" for a gas.
 
  Regarding the nuclei: Although it is twenty years since I
did a Mossbauer resonance experiment, such expts show two ways
that nuclear reactions and physics are different in a solid.
 
  * First, take the emission.  In a gas, the emitted gamma-ray of
an excited nucleus is slightly less because of recoil, by
an amount (am I still right here (it's your equation), Steve?)
 
               Erecoil = Eo^2/2Mc^2
 
   where Eo is the nuclear excitation energy, and M the atomic
mass.
 (If we actually do a Mossbauer expt. we also throw in the term:
  Eo*Vx/c  [where Vx is the velocity creating the Doppler shift])
 
    In the solid ("perfect"-solid first) the result is different.
Theoretically, it is a distribution of energies the width of
which is described by Lorentzian emission of:
 
                                 1
         omega(E) =  --------------------------
                      [1 + 4*[tau*2*pi*(E-Eo)]^2
                              ---------------
                                    h^2
 
   where tau is the excited state lifetime.  In this case the
bandwidth is determined by the uncertainty principle.  This
shows one difference.  The actual case in a solid however adds
in the phonons too, well beyond the scope or my time.
 
  ** Second, take the solid state monopole shift caused by the
s-electron densities at the nucleus.  Certainly the solid
produces chemistry not the same as a gas, and therefore
the chemistry is reflected in the monopole shift of the Mossbauer
effect.  For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science,vol 144, 253-259 (64).
 
   Here thus are two examples of nuclear reactions being
different in a solid --- different because the lattice does
 (at least weakly) exert its effect upon the physics.
 
===  >  Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
===  >  and phonon emission, and helium-4.
===   "These ashes have never been found to match the amount of heat
===   generated."
 
    At least we agree there are products created.
    Brian, do these ever appear de novo (helium-4 and tritium)
 without  nuclear reactions?
   Consider:  IF the levels are presently not consistent with
 amount of putative nuclear reactions, it can mean that there
 are other pathways **or**  that the experiments are not collecting
 all the product(s) (in addition to other possibilities).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: 7 Mar 1993 20:25:07 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:    First, please inform as to where is the evidence that neutrons
:  (at plasma-fusion rates), or any of the emissions which the
:  skeptics rigidly proclaim must be there, must be generated in a
:  solid?
 
Forty years of laboratory nuclear physics *experiments with solid targets*
and fusion experiments and the damn Sun shows that the nuclear physics is
the same. Energy, momentum, lepton number and baryon number are conserved,
solid or not.  Hydrogen weapons and inertially confined fusion experiments
compress the fusion fuel to nearly Fermi degenerate density, much more than
any ordinary solid.  The nuclear physics is the same.
 
You don't need a plasma to have fusion, remember.  Cyclotrons have
accelerated deuterium into hydrogen/deuterium rich *solid* targets for aeons.
 
: Brian Rauchfuss (rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
:
: ===   "To a nucleus (held together by the strong force), a solid
: ===   looks nearly identical to a gas, and there is no reason
: ===   I know to expect that nuclear reactions in a solid would
: ===   be different."
:
:    Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
:  until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
:  The rest was then begun to be explained.
:  Also effective mass and size were found to be different for
:  the electron, as compared to what was "well-known" for a gas.
 
Electromagnetic interactions are long-range.
 
:    Second, physics in a solid is well-known to be astonishingly
:  different for properties of gas (including but not limited to
:  alkali halide defects, piezoelectricity, pyroelectricity,
:  antiferromagentic materials, ferroelectrics, Mossbauer effect,
:  electrets, Brillouin zones, polyvalent ion exchange,
:  p-n junctions, &tc).
 
Of course.  But nuclear physics really isn't.
 
:     Therefore, these hypotheses involving potential differences in
:  the solid state are possible gateways to theory compatible with
:  known observations.
 
Barely.
 
Electronic energy differences(differences between solids & gas) are
O(1eV)/atom.  Nuclear energies are MeV's per atom.  I'm sure the
perturbations of the solid state upon nuclei have been measured, but they
are slight.
 
:   Regarding the nuclei: Although it is twenty years since I
: did a Mossbauer resonance experiment, such expts show two ways
: that nuclear reactions and physics are different in a solid.
 
 
The famous Mossbauer effect is one non-trivial change that occurs in a solid
lattice.  In this case, though the *nuclear reaction proceeds identically*;
the difference is that sometimes the nuclear recoil is effectively
surpressed.  Energy and momentum are STILL conserved though, and
MeV energy particles have to squirt out.
 
This doesn't inhibit the radiation at all, quite to the contrary the
characteristic radiation comes out in an extremely clear thin line.
 
In any case, this effect, famous as an *exception*, still doesn't
change the basic facts of the nuclear reaction.
 
:   ** Second, take the solid state monopole shift caused by the
: s-electron densities at the nucleus.  Certainly the solid
: produces chemistry not the same as a gas, and therefore
: the chemistry is reflected in the monopole shift of the Mossbauer
: effect.  For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
: Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science,vol 144, 253-259 (64).
 
Do you mean different from a FULLY ionized iron atom?  Sure.  But
different from what you'd call "iron vapor"?  Hardly.  Also, take
into account that the Mossbauer effect make possible very precise
measurements of *small effects*.
 
And how would you surpress *ALL* the radiation? Maybe one kind or
another, but there are *so* many different things that ought to happen
with fusion.  You can measure *individual reactions products* with
nuclear measurements, long before you could see any macroscopic heating.
That's why nuclear measurements are so much more convincing.
Real fusion would have "pegged the needle".
 
Re excess heat:  How much 'excess heat' per atom would be calculated
if the thing acted as a heat pump?  Remember heat pumps can act
as heaters and give out >100% input power in in heat somewhere.
 
Suppose you installed your air conditioner in your house backwards,
so that the hot side was inside.  Turn the thing on, and wait for
a long time.  "Wow!  Excess heat, just from pumps, pistons, fans and
Freon!  And it's 20,000 eV per atom!"   Open cells seem to generate
excess heat, and closed cells don't.
 
What's the common way to guard against this experimentally?
 
A 'CF'-device generating heat connected to generator connected back
to the inputs, running for a long long time, might be a convicing
experimental demonstration of excess heat.
 
If an honest experiment were to demonstrate that, yes, that would
definitely turn things around.
 
: ===  >  Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
: ===  >  and phonon emission, and helium-4.
: ===   "These ashes have never been found to match the amount of heat
: ===   generated."
:
:     At least we agree there are products created.
 
How are you not sure that these are actually *created*, rather than
being contaminations whose concentrations are enhanced by the reaction.
In fact, the lack of the radiation products that accompany reactions
known to produce such effects would predispose one to believe that
scenario over that of nuclear fusion.
 
:     Brian, do these ever appear de novo (helium-4 and tritium)
:  without  nuclear reactions?
:    Consider:  IF the levels are presently not consistent with
:  amount of putative nuclear reactions, it can mean that there
:  are other pathways **or**  that the experiments are not collecting
:  all the product(s) (in addition to other possibilities).
 
So, are CF cells intense neutrino sources?  At the presupposed level
of heat, there would probably be enough neutrinos to even be measurable.
And how would one conserve lepton number and charge without making
concomitant quantities of ordinary measurable high-energy products?
 
Please remember that nuclear physics is an _experimental science_, and that
the accepted methods, techniques and principles have had to hold up for
50 years of experimental work.
 
And if the effect were not nuclear but some sort of odd chemistry,
wouldn't there be EVEN MORE ASHES?
 
:      Mitchell Swartz
:           mica@world
 
--
-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".
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: lookin' for the beef
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: lookin' for the beef
Date: 7 Mar 1993 21:11:27 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:
:    In sci.physics.fusion [5383; Subject: X-rays and nuclear
:          ash: where's the beef?; 5 Mar 93]
:     Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) says:
:
: ===  "Mitchell ... points out 1 joule = 1 watt x 1 second
: ===      = 1.1 x 10^-14 grams ( x c^2),based on E = mc^2.
: ===   He then comments:  "Actually, I don't have a scale of
: ===   this magnitude here, but presumably you are much better
: ===   equipped."
: ===
: ===   "Who says we have to use a mass scale?  Goodness, we
: ===   have much more sensitive detectors than that.  Surely my
: ===   comments regarding our detectors make clear that we are
: ===   capable of detecting neutrons and charged particles at
: ===   low-levels, a few to tens per hour are easily seen."
:
:    Forgive my attempt at very late-night humor.  Typing is
:  tough-enuf during those few grabbed moments.
:    Steven, again, how does E=mc^2 demand other than a mass
:  loss.
 
Conservation of lepton number, conservation of baryon number,
conservation of momentum, and conservation of charge.
 
Suppose a Deuterium just vanished away.  You just can't do that,
because that doesn't conserve the above things.  So you need
some nuclear/particle reaction to do so.  All of those result
in measurable high-energy radiation and ash.
 
: ===  "d+d --> 4He + "heat" (23.8MeV)       0.26 trillion/sec.
: ===  (This) reaction is fanciful, corresponding to "theories"
: ===   that the heat of the fusion reaction is somehow absorbed
: ===  by the lattice rather than being carried by the alpha
: ===   particles (4He).  I have argued in  "Nuclear reaction in
: ===   deuterided solids versus excess heat claims," Fusion
: ===   Technology 20:915-923 (Dec. 1991)  that this putative
: ===   process fails to conserve momentum (the lighter masses
: ===   must pick up most of the energy) among other problems.
: ===    If the last reaction is posited, still the helium ash
: ===   must be present in large quantities.
:
:    Steven, you are probably quite close with this reaction
:  which we posted, and discussed, previously.  Why does the
:  process fail to conserve momentum when phonons are available
:  for that role.
 
Energy of reaction is MeV's.  Phonons have much much smaller energies,
therefore you need to create many of them, therefore your 'effective mass' for
the heat/phonons must be large.
 
To conserve energy and momentum, that means that the small particle
will get nearly all of the energy.  This is how firearms work, and
your favorite Mossbauer effect:  the small particle gets all the energy.
 
A charged nucleus with MeV's of energy will zoom through lots of
atoms, knocking out core electrons.  When the higher level electrons
decay to fill the gap they will release many X-rays.
 
Here's the problem.
 
Suppose you had 1000kg of high explosive, like our friend in New Jersey.
 
Can you use it to heat your building, and cause no other measurable
effects?
 
No.
 
If you set off a bomb, there will be lots and lots of very
fast fragments, light, radiation, heat, sound waves and lots and lots
of chemical ashes produced in the reaction.  People will notice.
 
The bomb energy is too concentrated in one place to be released without
other effects.
 
The ratios of nuclear energies to `phonon energies' is FAR larger
than for chemical explosives.
 
:    Phonons (of quite a few types) are present in the metal.
:    Phonons certainly exist because it gets HOT.
:    Perhaps you might state exactly why they cannot conserve
:  momentum?
:
 
: ===   "The bottom line is that the number of nuclear products
: ===   which arise from nuclear reactions must be commensurate
: ===   with heat released, which follows inescapably from
: ===   Q = delta-E = delta-m/c^2,
: ===  where delta-m = (mass reactants) - (mass products)."
:
:     Again, Steve, where is the creation of "ash" (I love the
:  images that appear in the temporal lobe of our brains)
:  demanded by the above equation.
:   That only specifies:   delta-m/delta-E.
 
How do you change m without creating ash or radiation?
 
: ===  "I've done my homework on X-rays, Mitchell.
: ===    Now its your turn."
:
:    We have shown here that you appear to ignore the momentum
:  carrying properties of phonons (and there are probable
:  plasmons etc.) in the "ashy soup".
 
No he didn't. That was the point of his statement "this putative
process fails to conserve momentum (the lighter masses must pick
up most of the energy) among other problems."
 
--
-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:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / mitchell swartz /  solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: solid state fusion
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1993 21:30:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5403; 3/7/93; Sub: Solid state fusion]
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; Institute for Nonlinear Science,
   University of California, San Diego (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu)
   writes:
 
===   "Forty years of laboratory nuclear physics *experiments with
===    solid targets* and fusion experiments and the damn Sun shows
===    that the nuclear physics is the same."
 
   Perhaps you have managed to actually do an experiment of the sun
 in your lab (as opposed to measure its output).  In any case are you
 saying that all physicists agree as to solar physics?  We have it
 all down pat?  with no questions left, no disagreement between
 scientists?
 
 
===  "The famous Mossbauer effect is one non-trivial change that
===   occurs in a solid lattice."
 
  Well, then we agree.  Furthermore, if there is one change, there can
  be others.  The existence theorem may be applicable here.
 
 
===  "This doesn't inhibit the radiation at all, quite to the contrary
===  the characteristic radiation comes out in an extremely clear thin
===  line."
 
  The radiation is hardly clear, but it is emitted characterized by a
 spectrum with a quite narrow bandwidth.  The bandwidth, using the
 denominator of the energy is:
 
                (  deltaE/E circa 10^-11 ).
 
 
===   "And how would you surpress *ALL* the radiation? Maybe one kind
===   or another, but there are *so* many different things that ought
===   to happen with fusion.  You can measure *individual reactions
===   products* with nuclear measurements, long before you could see
===   any macroscopic heating.   That's why nuclear measurements are
===   so much more convincing.   Real fusion would have "pegged the
===   needle".
 
     No one is suppressing anything.  Phonons are included as
 radiation (along with secondary infrared and microwave emission).
 Only if ionizing radiation was emitted would it "peg the needle"
 of a detector looking for "ionizing radiation".
 
 
===   "Re excess heat:  How much 'excess heat' per atom would be
===   calculated if the thing acted as a heat pump?
 
   This is mere hand-waving.  There is no evidence of any heat pump
 here.     State your case if you can prove it exists.
 
 
===  "How are you not sure that these are actually *created*, rather
===  than being contaminations whose concentrations are enhanced by
===  the reaction."
 
  A good question, Matt.  The careful investigators do that two ways.
  They measure the dynamic change over time.  Also they do control
 experiments.  That the changes, and control experiments, suggest de
 novo products leads thinking individuals to believe a scenario of
 nuclear fusion ought be considered.
 
 
===   "So, are CF cells intense neutrino sources?  At the presupposed
===   level of heat, there would probably be enough neutrinos to even
===   be measurable."
 
      We remain waiting patiently.
  Please inform as to where is the evidence that neutrons, or
  neutrinos   (at plasma-fusion rates), or any of the emissions which
  the  skeptics rigidly proclaim must be there, must be generated in a
  solid?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / mitchell swartz /  solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: solid state fusion
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1993 21:50:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5404; 3/7/93; Sub: Solid state fusion]
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; Institute for Nonlinear Science,
   University of California, San Diego (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu)
   writes:
 
=== : (H)ow does E=mc^2 demand other than a mass loss.
===
===  "Conservation of lepton number, conservation of baryon number,
===  conservation of momentum, and conservation of charge."
 
   Please teach us how these well-known conservation principles
 are derived directly from E=mc^2, like you claim.
 
 
===  How do you change m without creating ash or radiation?
 
   make a dE .  Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
                Nobody said there was no radiation.
                     Heat is radiation.
 
          eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: 7 Mar 1993 23:51:28 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:
:    In sci.physics.fusion [5404; 3/7/93; Sub: Solid state fusion]
: Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; Institute for Nonlinear Science,
:    University of California, San Diego (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu)
:    writes:
:
: === : (H)ow does E=mc^2 demand other than a mass loss.
: ===
: ===  "Conservation of lepton number, conservation of baryon number,
: ===  conservation of momentum, and conservation of charge."
:
:    Please teach us how these well-known conservation principles
:  are derived directly from E=mc^2, like you claim.
 
They're not.
 
But they're still part of reality.
 
: ===  How do you change m without creating ash or radiation?
:
:    make a dE .  Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
:                 Nobody said there was no radiation.
:                      Heat is radiation.
:
:           eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...
 
And this comes back to SK's point.  If you believe in energy
conservation, the number of He atoms need be proportional to the
heat purportedly explained by this reaction.
 
And as explained before, this reaction requires that the 4He nucleus
speeds off very quickly, which would knock core electrons out and
cause characteristic X-ray radiation.
 
How about this task:  suppose you zap an inner core electron out.
Can you get the rest of them to "decay" into this free level
*without* emitting ionizing radation, but somehow 'transferring
it all to the lattice phonons?'
 
And hell, that should be easy, that's only keV's, and not MeV's.
 
 
Remember this phrase : "40 years of laboratory nuclear physics
experiments in solid targets".
 
--
-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:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 01:50:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5407; Sub: solid state fusion; 3/7/93]
 Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
= : === : (H)ow does E=mc^2 demand other than a mass loss.
= : ===  "Conservation of lepton number ...of baryon number,
= : ===  conservation of momentum, and conservation of charge."
= :    Please teach us how these well-known conservation principles
= :  are derived directly from E=mc^2, like you claim.
=
= "They're not.
=  But they're still part of reality."
 
  Then you were hand-waving and probably should not use that
 to support your argument.
 
                  --------------------------
 
= :           eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...
=
=   "And as explained before, this reaction requires that
=   the 4He nucleus speeds off very quickly, which would
=   knock core electrons out and cause characteristic
=   X-ray radiation."
 
  Why?  We apologize for having missed said explanation.
   Why must 4He "speed off" if other things can conserve momentum?
   or is this a derivation from E=mc^2 again.
 
=  Remember this phrase : "40 years of laboratory nuclear physics
=  experiments in solid targets".
 
   OK, it is remembered, although shadowed by more substantial
quotes.  Nonetheless, it is now in computer storage, hippocampal
storage (oh how i wish those polyploid cells lasted longer),
and shared by devotees of this channel (to the degree that they
might exist)  But isn't this more hand-waving?  Solid target?
 40 years?  I have irradiated people with malignant tumors for
 more than a decade. (and the 100th anniversary of radiation therapy
 for solid tumor treatment is approaching)
 Their tumors (and surrounding normal tissue) were solid targets.
 So?   What does it prove?  It doesn't help my arguments either.
 
  Will the skeptics substitute math and logic for handwaving?
  The moon did not prepare us for Io.  By the time we get there
  cold fusion may be technology improving the power density.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Frank Close /   Re:E=mc 2, ash and special relativity
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Re:E=mc 2, ash and special relativity
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 14:52:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re: E=mc 2 and Mitchell Swartz confusion:
 
Your discussion with Steve Jones and others is based on a fundamental flaw.
You write DeltaE = Delta m *c 2 and question why this implies ash.
First you must specify what you refer to by "E".The equation as written
is not well defined.
There are actually TWO equations at work which, taken together, imply ash.
 
(1) TOTAL energy is conserved.
Delta E = 0 (ZERO) *if E refers to the TOTAL energy*
 
(2) The *form* of that energy can change (eg P.E. into K.E.)
If E refers to a *particular component* of the total energy, such as the
REST MASS of the participants, then it can change. But if the rest masses
change, then the participants must have changed. e.g. If you input d+d and
output 4He.
 
So it is the Delta E(TOT) = 0 and Delta E(mass) = Delta (m)c 2 that
*together imply ash*. The *form* of that ash depends on the nature of
the process - nuclear or electronic (please note "electronic" which I believe
is a more precise definition than "chemical"). The *amount* follows from
the equation once you have specified the process.
 
Also note that *Special* relativity, not General Relativity, is sufficient.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Jed Rothwell /  ICCF3 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF3 Proceedings
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:22:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion will be
published in April, 1993 by:
 
Universal Academy Press, Inc.
PR Hogo 5 Bldg.
6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo
Tokyo 113
JAPAN
 
Telephone numbers as dialed from the U.S. are:
 
Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232
Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932
 
The price of the Proceedings is 22,000 Yen (U.S. $188).
 
- Jed Rothwell * CFRA * Tel: 404-451-9890 * Fax: 404-458-2404
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Jed Rothwell /  Not a heat pump
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not a heat pump
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:22:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Matt Kennel writes:
 
"Re excess heat:  How much 'excess heat' per atom would be calculated if the
thing acted as a heat pump? ... What's the common way to guard against this
experimentally?"
 
To guard against this, make certain that the calorimeter bath is
substantially hotter than the ambient room temperature, so that heat always
flows from the cell to the bath, and then to the environment. Furthermore,
you should carefully monitor the bath temperature, as well as the cell
temperature, and test the rate at which the bath loses heat to the
environment.
 
There is no mechanism that would allow heat to go from a room at 20 C, into a
bath at 30 C, and then into a cell at, say, 45 C. This would violate the
second law of thermodynamics, because regardless of what may be going on the
cell, it cannot "reach outside the glass" and grab the heat from the bath.
Heat cannot of itself go from one body to a hotter body. In order to transfer
heat uphill (from bath to cell) you would have to have some physical
mechanism, that is: liquid or gas that flows from the bath to the cell. The
cell wall acts as a barrier to prevent that.
 
In other words, all heat pumps, including airconditioners, require some
physical mechanism to transfer the heat -- to get around the second law --
and there is no physical transfer of anything between the cell and the bath.
 
 
"Open cells seem to generate excess heat, and closed cells don't.
 
This is incorrect. There are many, many reports of closed cells generating
excess heat, both with Pd D2O and Ni H2O. The best example is the McKubre
work, which employs closed cells in, "thermodynamically closed and
intentionally isothermal systems" (Proceedings of the Second Annual Conf. p.
442).
 
However, even with an "open" cell, you can still make certain that the cell
is thermally isolated from the environment, and you can make certain that all
heat flows out of the cell, and not in. In addition to the bath and cell
temperature, you must also monitor the gas temperature and pressure, and make
certain that the gas always flows out of the cell, not in. This is good idea
in any case, because it guards against including accidental recombination in
the total excess energy. Measuring gas with great accuracy can be very tricky,
but it is dead simple to be sure that flow is positive (all out, none in).
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 /  /  Safety Alert
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Safety Alert
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:22:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

CAUTION ** SAFETY NOTICE ** CAUTION
 
Charged Palladium Can Be a Fire Hazard
 
Jed Rothwell commented on this in a recent note.  I would like to second his
comments.
 
After ending the run of cell 4A3, the cell sat on the bench for a day or so.
Then I opened it up and examined it while doing other things.  I attempted to
remove the cathode, but it was stuck.  Not wanting to mark it up with pliers,
I looped a piece of Nylon fish line over the cathode, with plans to pull it
out from between the Teflon supports.  At this point I was called to the
phone.  When I returned to the cell, an hour or so later, the fish line was
melted into two pieces, and there was a glob of melted nylon on the surface of
the cathode.
 
Note that on a previous occasion, a cathode that had been exposed on the bench
for at least a week, was put into a baggie.  Later it was found to have melted
its way out.
 
For the most part, my old cathodes are stored in the cells where they ran,
under the electrolyte.  This seems to be a good storage place.
 
Exposed cathodes should be considered a fire hazard.  They seem to especially
like to melt common plastic materials.  There is no indication that this is
anything but chemistry.  Perhaps some of the experts would like to comment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 /  /  Exposed Film
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Exposed Film
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:22:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There have been a number of publications where film was exposed by placing a
cathode on film.  You may recall, that my brother and I did a similar
experiment.  We wrapped film around a cell, and found images around it of
various thicknesses of metal absorber (shim stock) placed between the cell and
the film.  My brother then did the same experiment a thousand miles away from
my cell near Denver, and got similar results.  Conclusion, film is sensitive
to heat and pressure (well known).
 
Now what if a cathode outgasses a little D2, which reacts with the plastic
of the film, and produces a little hot spot?  Seems to me this would produce
the images that some have published.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 /  /  Beginning Status, Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beginning Status, Cell 4A4
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:22:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #0 Cell 4A4
 
We have started a new run with a 1 cm by 1 cm by 1 mm highly polished
palladium cathode prepared by Ed Manning.  It is a beautiful little mirror.
 
We added a heated catalyst chamber on top of the old cell for 4A4.  There is
also a large trap so that we can run in P&F pulse mode with reduced water
vapor loss.  There are still glass tubes inside the cell containing catalyst.
We know these do not have enough capacity at very high currents.  Thus the
second catalyst chamber outside the cell but inside the calorimeter.  The
tubing is arranged so that condensate from the external catalyst can be sucked
back into the cell by brief operation at low current (which should produce a
vacuum in the cell).
 
The week of calibration produced several mysteries.  Sometimes there are jumps
in the calibration that make no sense at all.  Prior to removing the cell, we
ran reverse for several days, then at zero cell current for several days and
generated a calorimeter constant of 8.200 watts, +\- 0.010 watt (without
actually computing it from all the data).  I then removed the cell.  The cell
was replaced by resistor dummy loads which were operating at zero watts as was
the cell.  This then came to a calorimeter constant of 7.860 watts, +\- 0.01
watts.  Nothing I did could budge it from this calibration.  Now I have the
new cell in the calorimeter.  It has come back to 8.200 watts +\- 0.010 watts
(These error limits are quite conservative, but I have actually not done the
computation.  It is more like 10 mw peak to peak variation over 10 hours which
would be a smaller error).
 
Note that these numbers indicate that a cell operating at zero current puts
out 0.340 watts of "cool" compared to a resistor dummy.  I don't believe it
and you should not either.  This is a 4% plus change.  I have taken heroic
efforts to make the calorimeter appear the same whether or not it contains a
cell.  There are six layers of heat shielding and five insulating spaces
between where the cell is located and the outside world.  It if very hard to
imagine how the calorimeter can see the difference between a cell in place and
the resistor dummy.  There are elaborate electronic controls that I can bore
any skeptic with.  Yet something appears to be different.
 
So to everyone out there who says that calorimetry is a "piece of cake" you
just have to read simple thermometers, I say baloney!  It is a tough business.
I have not been so careless as to have been bitten by common errors.  Note
that quiescent cell 4A4 matches cell 4A3 to one part in a thousand.  But it is
only one part in 25 to the resistor dummy which should give the same result!
 
Other than the calibration mystery, everything went well when we put in the
new cell and brought it up to the previous calibration point.  Agreement to at
least 0.1%.  Then it was taken down to 4 C from the calibration point of 30 C.
This checked to about 2% to a similar but not identical operating point for
cell 4A3, so things were beginning to look good for a heat of charging
experiment.  But now there is a gas leak.  So I will have to open everything
up and try to fix it.  Then I will either have to start back down from 30 C or
have a questionable calibration there.  Every step takes several days.
Eventually, I just run, and accept the limitation.  That is why it is so hard
to get a good experiment done.  Again, there is a reason for the simple cells
used by P&F.  I still hope that I can get off one high accuracy experiment
that will tell me more than all of the hundreds of P&F low accuracy
experiments.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 /  /  Fundamentals, at last!
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fundamentals, at last!
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:22:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In recent days a number of fundamental problems with the notions that
cold fusion advocates have been clinging to have been given an airing,
and I hope a few issues are getting laid to rest at long last.  Just
in case the message isn't sinking in I will answer some of the questions
even though others may already have done so.
 
<<A loss of mass means only that.>> ??? Definitely not the case.  Atomic
and subatomic systems exist only in states of well-defined mass.  A loss
of mass is ALWAYS link to a change of state, and it is my assertion that
these changes are easily detected.  Experiments on cold fusion have
failed at the 100% level to demonstrate any changes in the states of
the nuclear matter so there is no question that cold fusion is occuring
but is somehow being hidding.
 
<<Is it the theoretical problem with decay processes or any possible
theory?>>  The way the word "theory" has been bandied about has left
the impression that perhaps all that is needed is for some clever
person to reinvent quantum mechanics and cold fusion will fit right in.
It is not so simple because there is a huge body of knowledge with lots
of experimental observations that are just as valid as anything new,
and you have to integrate the whole collection into a new theory.
We know lots about what effects an atomic lattice can have on a nuclear
reaction.  This is not unexplored territory.  Simply put a small inter-
action can only have small effects in perturbing a process which is
the result of a much stronger interaction.  Big dominates over little!
It is just that simple.  So all the talk about nuclear reactions in
a solid being completely different is just a myth.  There has never
been any likelyhood that anyone would comeup with a way to alter
nuclear reaction branching ratios, significantly, or to suppress
the emission of energetic gamma rays.
 
<<When all the pathways are know.>>  This seems to indicate that is
is quite reasonable to have a multitude of different nuclear reaction
processes contributing to the generation of surplus heat.  I think
this is at odds with all the assertions that cold fusion occurs
only when some very special conditions are achieved, one of the
recuring claims of those who have to explain away the nonreproduc-
ibility that has characterised cold fusion.  But there is little
reason to make a big point of that since no one has suggested even
one pathway that is consistant with the experimental data.  Having
the possibility for more pathways isn't going to help the cold
fusion cause.
 
<<Do helium and tritium ever appear de novo?>>  The answer is, yes.
Helium is present in the atmosphere and can be stored and/or released
by laboratory glassware.  The primary problem with most of the claims
for helium detection is that the experiments are not well executed and
the "helium signal" may not involve any helium at all.  As for the
tritium, this stuff is present in some level in the D2O, has been
found as a contaminant in Pd metal in at least one case, and is generally
detected at levels much above these backgrounds only in experiments
that are carried out in laboratories that have large ammounts of
tritium nearby.  Poor laboratory hygene can have the result that
tritium gets moved around so that it comes to contaminate the
cold fusion experiment.  Those who have claimed positive results for
the detection of helium and/or tritium will defend their results
against charges that contamination is responsible, but at the levels
reported it really becomes a side issue.  The proper interpretation
of all these reports is that since the levels  of helium and tritium
detected are far too small, the results as far as cold fusion is
concerned are all 100% negative!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Jed Rothwell /  Still not a heat pump
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still not a heat pump
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 01:23:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
In my previous message ("Not a heat pump") I forgot to mention a critical
part of the diagram: there is a cooling loop running through the cell. You
actually measure the cell temperature by measuring the flow, input and
output temperatures. Be sure the water in the hose stays mixed (use beads).
 
Other recommended ways to do this: with a metal cell, monitor the cell wall
temperature. With a "static" calorimeter, where you just measure the
electrolyte temperature directly, put a stirrer or bubbler to make sure there
are no thermal gradients.
 
I recommend using all methods simultaneously. What harm?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Bruce Dunn /  Deuterium in water
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterium in water
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 16:12:45 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> John E. Kreznar writes:
>
>         The concentration of D2O in natural waters varies from 0.0156%
>         in sea water to 0.0139% in fresh water.
>
 
 
1)  I presume that the higher concentration in sea water is due to a
concentration effect involving differential evaporation from the ocean.  Is
there any information on the D2O concentration in evaporative lakes such as
the Dead Sea?
 
2)  The quoted figure is for D2O.  Is this what is actually extracted by
current processes?  I would presume that DHO is much more common in water
than D2O.  Is this correct?  If so, the mixture of hydrogen isotopes
generated by electrolysis with "ordinary water" must include the contribution
from DHO as well as from D2O. Can DHO be recovered and used as a source of a
D + H mix which could be further fractionated?
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Ad aspera /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 8 Mar 1993 16:31:45 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

In article <7600037@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>,
rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) asks:
 
> Two estimates, one of $220/kg and one of $2000/kg, using
> the same process to extract the D!  Which is correct?
 
Paul Dietz was quoting a $100/lb. price for D20 (heavy water)
as of 1979.  The $2000/kg figure that I quoted from Raeder, also
based on the 1979 heavy-water price, was for fusion-quality D2.
It incorporates  large coefficients of fudge because of some
uncertainties,e.g., whether further purification would be
required and whether government-regulated heavy-water production
affords a valid look at its true cost.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  relativity and ash
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: relativity and ash
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 18:04:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In sci.physics.fusion [5412; 3/8/93]
 Frank Close; 3/8/93 says:
 
     Re: Frank Close's confusion on E = mc^2 and energy
                                       conservation:
 
===  "Your discussion with Steve Jones and others is based on
===   a fundamental flaw.   You write DeltaE = Delta m *c 2 and
===  question why this implies ash.   First you must specify
===  what you refer to by "E".   The equation as written is
===  not well defined."
 
   Frank - 1) The equation was posted by Steve, although
              E=mc^2 is pretty well-known.   Therefore he
              should "specify" since my questions were
              directed to ** his ** posting. Any question of
              poor definition is thus directed in the wrong
              direction.
 
           2) E = energy
 
 
===  "There are actually TWO equations at work which,
===   taken together, imply ash.
===  (1) TOTAL energy is conserved.
===  Delta E = 0 (ZERO) *if E refers to the TOTAL energy*
===  (2) The *form* of that energy can change
          (eg P.E. into K.E.)
===  So it is (these) that *together imply ash*.
 
   Please simply derive them by linking them.
 
   Presumably   E(total) = E (mass)  + E(everything else)
 
   So if one goes down the other goes up.
 
   So, where is the "ash" derived?   The mass changes from
   the equation if the energy changes.   If E(tot) is fixed
   then it goes from one compartment to another.  No proof
   of derivation of ash from (1) and (2) above as of yet.
 
 
===   "The *form* of that ash depends on the nature of the
===   process - nuclear or electronic (please note
===   "electronic" which I believe is a more precise
===   definition than "chemical"). The *amount* follows from
===  the equation once you have specified the process.
 
    Frank, the denotation goes thus:
    after Webster [ibid].
 
   "ash  - 1) the solid residue left when combustable material
             is thoroughly burned or is oxidized by chemical
             means
          2) fine particles of mineral matter from a volcanic
             vent
          3) the remains of the dead human body after
             cremation or disintegration
          4) something that symbolized grief, repentance, or
             humiliation
          5) deathly pallor"
 
  OK?  chemical means.  thoroughly burned.
       About #2 speak to Steve.
       Are the skeptics seeking repentance?
 
  Given the definition, "ash" itself is a language subterfuge
a priori presuming chemical reaction (cf. Webster, vide supra)
 
 
 Also, Frank, the other question remains unanswered.
 
--===  "Tom Droege has posted much education here. One of the
--===   features is that one must beware of sloping baselines;
--===   Tom showed once how important this can be and MIT had
--===   to correct for this - it did not make a big effect in
--===   their case but excited Gene Mallove enough to cry
--===   "fraud".
--
--   "Frank, you are right about Tom.
--   But by MIT do you possibly mean the Phase-II Plasma
-- Fusion Center experiment and paper, Frank?   MIT is a big
-- heterogeneous institution.  Do you have some comment on a
-- base-line in that paper? or on another?
-- or how it was (or may have been) "corrected"?"
 
   Best wishes.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: less than a picogram
Date: 8 Mar 93 18:25:33 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <C3Dwwo.LEn@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
     ... regarding some statements by Steve Jones ...
 
>    1 joule = (1 watt*1 second) =  1.1  x  10^-14 grams.
>
>   This means that if fusion worked (100% efficient, and
> ignoring all kinds of other stuff in this gendanken analysis)
>  that - for 1 watt * 1 second - the total mass would have to
>  decrease by a not too big amount.
> Actually, I dont have a scale of this magnitude here, but
> presumably you are much better equipped.
 
This conclusion is a common difficulty encountered by people confronting
nuclear measurements whose main experience is with chemistry.  One does
not measure the "ash" in these experiments by observing sub-picogram
changes in the mass of the apparatus.  No one has the required
sensitivity in that sort of equipment.  One detects the individual
atoms (or neutrons) and/or the radiation coming directly from the
reaction.  It is hard to convey how sensitive these detection systems
can be, but one example would be that the element with Z=109 was
found by identifying a single nucleus and observing its decay.
 
>   Also, how does E=mc2, or its partial derivative, demand
>either enough neutrons to "kill" everyone in the room,
>or necessarily ash?   Helium-4, tritium, and the other
>reported particles (neutronpenic radiations on occasion)
>are good candidates for ash.
 
True, although a proton comes out with tritium and will cause X-rays,
and normally He-4 is accompanied by a very high energy gamma ray.  Only
an exotic never-before-seen reaction would explain He-4 without that
gamma ray, and then the number of He-4 detected would have to be in
a particular proportion to the heat found at all times during the
experiment.  There is no room to slip around these limits.
 
However, the main point you seem to miss (based on later dialog with
Jones) is that the mass does not change in some arbitrary way.  The
conservation of baryon number (which if you found was not true would
be a bigger deal than any heat you saw) requires that the number of
protons and neutrons (total) not change.  Thus the changes in mass
are due to changes in the binding energy of neutrons and protons in
the various nuclei involved, and this makes it straightforward to
predict the number and properties (energy/momentum) of the byproducts
of a particular reaction.  The masses (binding energies) of all of
the nuclei involved are known very accurately.  It is a simple
calculation to work out what detectable products would come out of
any proposed model for the reactions involved in a cold fusion process.
 
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: less than a picogram
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 20:41:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5414; Sub: Re: less than a picogram
Message-ID: <12242@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>; 3/8/93]
  Jim A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
=== >    1 joule = (1 watt*1 second) =  1.1  x  10^-14 grams.
=== >
===   "This conclusion is a common difficulty encountered by
=== people confronting nuclear measurements whose main
=== experience is with chemistry.  One does not measure
=== the "ash" in these experiments by observing
=== sub-picogram changes in the mass of the apparatus.
===  No one has the required sensitivity in that
=== sort of equipment.  One detects the individual
=== atoms (or neutrons) and/or the radiation coming
===  directly from the reaction.  It is hard
=== to convey how sensitive these detection systems
=== can be, but one example would be that the element
=== with Z=109 was found by identifying a single
===  nucleus and observing its decay."
 
   First - the emission spectroscopies are no big deal,
in that they do not prove the knee-jerk denunciations of
all the positive findings by the apparently less
than well-read skeptics.
 
   Second, no one said that was how detection ought to be
performed.   Said equation was being used to disprove or
challenge or to discuss the positive results.  Therefore,
such logic always ought be examined closer.
 
     Third, furthermore, given all the positive findings with
cold fusion, if you believe in Z=109 on such paucity,
then perhaps the skeptics should revise immediately their
opinions.
 
=== > "Also, how does E=mc2, or its partial derivative, demand
=== >either enough neutrons to "kill" everyone in the room,
=== >or necessarily ash?   Helium-4, tritium, and the other
=== >reported particles (neutronpenic radiations on occasion)
=== >are good candidates for ash.
===
=== "True, although a proton comes out with tritium and
===  will cause X-rays, and normally He-4 is accompanied
=== by a very high energy gamma ray.  Only
=== an exotic never-before-seen reaction would
=== explain He-4 without that gamma ray, and then the
=== number of He-4 detected would have to be in a
=== particular proportion to the heat found at all times
=== during the experiment.  There is no room to slip
=== around these limits."
 
   Jim, you have a good open mind.  "Normally". We like that.
   We also agree on the product detection if, and only if,
     all pathways are included, and the fact that materials
     may act as sinks for the products.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Loren Petrich /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 8 Mar 1993 20:46:40 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <338@ininx.UUCP> jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) writes:
>In article <1n5q3s$9rm@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
:       How to separate? [p and D]
 
>In ``Chemical and Biological Studies with Deuterium'' by Joseph J.
>Katz, Thirty-Ninth Annual Priestley Lectures, The Pennsylvania State
>University, 1965, we read:
 
        [On separation by H2S <-> H2O hydrogen interchange; low temps,
D in the water and high temps, D in the H2S...]
 
>In ``Hydrogen: Production and Marketing'', W. Novis Smith and Joseph
>G. Santangelo, eds, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 116,
>1979, we read:
 
        [Adsorption by metal alloys...]
 
        I guess I mis-remembered about the natural concentration,
which is 1.5*10^-4 in (Earth) water. Given about 1 MeV/reaction, this
would imply 100 eV/source atom for separation breakeven, which is a
lot easier.
 
        Has anyone estimated the total energy input needed? For the
H2O <-> H2S reaction, I presume that a source of and a sink for
low-grade heat, and electricity to circulate the fluids, are all that
is necessary.
 
        For the metal-adsorption reaction, one would need electricity
to perform the electrolysis to produce H2, and that would require
about an eV or two per source atom. Also, the metal/alloy, probably in
a fine powder, would have to be cooled to adsorb the hydrogen and then
heated to desorb it, with much the same requirements of a low-grade
heat source/sink as before.
 
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Mike Jamison /  Re: less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: less than a picogram
Date:  8 Mar 1993 16:53 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <C3Dwwo.LEn@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes...
>
>  In sci.physics.fusion [3/3/93; 5355; Subject: Heat?
>                          Neutrons?Charged particles?]
>Steven Jones  (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes:
>
>===  "we insist that commensurate nuclear products must
>===    accompany any nuclear reaction, with quantities
>=== given precisely by the experimentally proven relation:
>===
>===       delta-mass  equals  delta-energy/(square of light ===
                                             speed).
>===
>=== This is not theory.  Nor does it mean that a tiny yield of
>===  neutrons or charged particles must imply that alleged xs
>===  heat is nuclear in origin:  there is a strict equality in
>===  this relation that tells us how much nuclear ash must
> === accompany heat from nuclear reactions."
>
>    Excuse me, Steve. But this equation presumably refers to
> the derivation of  d(E=mc2), and reasonably assumes that
> c is a constant  (so the term 2cm dc becomes trivial).
                                ^^^^^^
Shouldn't the derivation be: dE/dt = d(mc2)/dt, and since we're assuming
c is constant, we get:
 
dE/dt = (c2) * dm/dt, with *no* derivative of c with respect to anything?
 
Interesting to note that the math doesn't care if m changes or if c changes.
What does happen in a universe that has c changing and m remaining constant?
(Remember that non-Euclidean geometry came from someone assuming that there
are no such things as parallel lines.  This is similar, and perhaps already
has been worked out).
 
>
 
[All those number things deleted :) ]
 
>     Mitchell Swartz
>          mica@world
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Mike Jamison /  More Deuterium questions
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Deuterium questions
Date:  8 Mar 1993 17:02 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

All of the postings so far have asked how to get concentrated amounts of
D by "filtering" seawater.  I've been asking myself for some time about
another way of doing this - basically, *making* Deuterium from Hydrogen.
I'm not talking p + p => D + energy, but something like:
 
(extra neutron from fission reactor) + h => d + energy
 
Since you get about 2 MeV per created d, vs. 200 MeV per fission, the total
energy supplied by the reaction will only be about 1% of what you're now
getting from a fission reactor.  Also, the reactors we use need all of their
neutrons (almost) to keep going (I think - not actually sure, since the
secondary reactions can also produce neutrons).
 
Perhaps a fission reactor that produces N times as many neutrons as it needs
(where N is hopefully a large integer) could be constructed, using plain old
light water as a neutron moderator *and* a source of energy *and* a source
of deuterium.  Perhaps it's just way too dangerous.  Any thoughts on this?
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Loren Petrich /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: 9 Mar 1993 00:59:34 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <C3Iur9.60v@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  In sci.physics.fusion [5400;5 Mar 1993; Subject: solid state fusion
>Brian Rauchfuss (rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
 
$   "To a nucleus (held together by the strong force), a solid
$   looks nearly identical to a gas, and there is no reason
$   I know to expect that nuclear reactions in a solid would
$   be different."
 
>   Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
> until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
> The rest was then begun to be explained.
> Also effective mass and size were found to be different for
> the electron, as compared to what was "well-known" for a gas.
 
        That's because a valence/conduction electron interacts with a
whole lot of similar electrons, which produces a _very_ nontrivial
problem to solve. Many-body quantum mechanics is _not_ easy, and if
you don't believe me, try doing it yourself. Not just in the Hartree
approximation (particles interact with others treated only _en masse_
and not individually), or even in the Hartree-Fock approximaiton
(exchange effects added), but also with correlations factored in.
 
>  Regarding the nuclei: Although it is twenty years since I
>did a Mossbauer resonance experiment, such expts show two ways
>that nuclear reactions and physics are different in a solid.
 
        [Explanation deleted...]
 
        The Mo"ssbauer experiment results from a nucleus transmitting
its recoil momentum to an entire crystal, which it does in a
well-understood way. That explains the seeming recoillessness of
Mo"ssbauer-effect emission.
 
>  ** Second, take the solid state monopole shift caused by the
>s-electron densities at the nucleus.  Certainly the solid
>produces chemistry not the same as a gas, and therefore
>the chemistry is reflected in the monopole shift of the Mossbauer
>effect.  For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
>Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science,vol 144, 253-259 (64).
 
        So what? That's just the difference between (nucleus + any
electrons) and an isolated nucleus. Solid-state physics has nothing to
do with this effect, since atom-interaction energies are <~ 1 eV, much
less than nuclear energies.
 
>   Here thus are two examples of nuclear reactions being
>different in a solid --- different because the lattice does
> (at least weakly) exert its effect upon the physics.
 
        Too weakly to cause such effects as neutron- or gamma-less
fusion, as should be evident by plugging in fusion-reaction numbers
into the Mo"ssbauer recoilless-fraction equation.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  less than a picogram
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: less than a picogram
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 07:10:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5417; Sub: Re: less than a picogram
<8MAR199316531371@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>; 8 Mar 1993 16:53 EDT]
 
  Mike Jamison [(ADF))edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov]  writes:
 
==  >    Excuse me, Steve. But this equation presumably refers to
==  > the derivation of  d(E=mc2), and reasonably assumes that
==  > c is a constant  (so the term 2cm dc becomes trivial).
==                                 ^^^^^^
==  "Shouldn't the derivation be: dE/dt = d(mc2)/dt,
==  and since we're assuming c is constant, we get:
==
==  dE/dt = (c2) * dm/dt, with *no* derivative of c with respect to
==  anything?
==
==  "Interesting to note that the math doesn't care if m changes
==  or if c  changes. What does happen in a universe that has c
==  changing and m remaining constant?  (Remember that
==  non-Euclidean geometry came from someone assuming that
==  there are no such things as parallel lines.  This is
==  similar, and perhaps already has been worked out)."
 
 
   Mike, you are correctly repeating exactly what I posted.
   First, please consider multiplying both sides of the eq. by the
    differential in time:  dt
 
   Then you get  dE= d(mc^2)     So we agree.
 
   Let's apply commutation principles and the chain rule
     to the differential
 
     where:   d(mc^2) = c^2*dm + m*2*c*dc
 
   Then you get  dE= d(mc^2) = c^2*dm + m*2*c*dc
 
   Again, we agree that if c is a constant then the second term
   goes to zero.
 
   Then you get  dE= d(mc^2) = c^2*dm      (c = constant).
 
   If c somehow does change, like you wisely consider,
 it must be left in the equation the way it was correctly posted.
 
              ----------------------
 
   The error of ignoring terms in the differential is common
to those who fail to consider electromechanical or continuum
electrodynamic principles.
 
   For example    Q = CV  therefore   d Q/dt = I = C * dV/dt
 
   Right?
   Wrong.  There is that second term, called: the speed voltage.
 
       I = d (CV)/dt  therefore = C * dV/dt  +   V * dC/dt
 
                                     ^               ^
                                     |               |
                                classical          speed
                                  term            voltage
 
   The first term is always considered in elementary electrostatics,
 while the second can give rise to dramatic errors in equipment
which is mechanically insecure, or which has changes in the physical
 parameters which change C (ie. the capacitance based upon
the real part of the complex dielectric permittivity * A/width for
 the typical parallel plate capacitor)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  fundamentals in c.f.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fundamentals in c.f.
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 07:11:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5425; Sub: Fundamentals, at last!
Tue, 9 Mar 1993; Dick Blue writes:
 
 
===  "Experiments on cold fusion have failed at the 100%
===  level to demonstrate any changes in the states of the
===   nuclear matter so there is no question that cold fusion
===   is occuring but is somehow being hidding."
 
  Any reader can scan the Hagelstein report below and
 determine just how "failed at 100%" this really is. I am
 not sure what a "hidding" is.
 
 
===   Big dominates over little!   It is just that simple.
===  So all the talk about nuclear reactions in a solid being
===  completely different is just a myth.  There has never
===  been any likelyhood that anyone would comeup with a way
===  to alter nuclear reaction branching ratios,
===  significantly, or to suppress the emission of energetic
===  gamma rays.
 
    Except with Goliath and David. It is just that simple.
  Cold fusion appears to be just that way.  You have given
  no proof that it must follow your handwaving.
 
 
===  When all the pathways are know.>>
===  "This seems to indicate that is is quite reasonable to
===  have a multitude of different nuclear reaction processes
===  contributing to the generation of surplus heat.
 
  Is there one reaction in plasma fusion?  Do you claim that?
  (or to quote a famous physicist:  is there one leaf on
     the tree?)
 
 
===  <<Do helium and tritium ever appear de novo?>>
===  The answer is, yes. Helium is present in the atmosphere
===  and can be stored and/or released by laboratory
=== glassware.
 
   We dont think so.  You may not be qualified to
 judge any helium experiment.  Contamination in shallow, or
 less than  shallow, traps is contamination - not de novo
 production.  If one trys to understood the kinetics better
 one might see ways to distinguish contamination from de novo
 production.
 
 
===  "The primary problem ...  is that the experiments
===   are not well executed and the "helium signal" may not
===   involve any helium at all.  As for the tritium, this
===   stuff is present ....  a contaminant ...  Poor
===   laboratory hygene ...
===  "The proper interpretation of all these reports is that
===   since the levels  of helium and tritium detected are far
===  too small, the results as far as cold fusion is concerned
===   are all 100% negative!
 
    See Exhibit 1 below.  This is comment by handwaving.
  These assertions frankly have not been supported by
  either the dynamical data, or by history.
 
  Consider:
 
 [In recent days a number of skeptics have ignored the flood
 of experimental data.  As one example consider the following,
 which is the first portion of Peter Hagelstein's paper
 on the Nagoya conference.  Because it answers this posting
 and corroborates the  facts (and because I get many calls
 asking for it) - here it is.
  Furthermore, there have been more conferences. More papers.
  Any reader should scan at least the first portion of the
 Hagelstein paper given below.  It is just one
 exhibit.  The evidence is growing.  However
 anyone who can read and think can decide for themselves.]
 
===================
 
 
 
   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
 
                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts
 
 
                =============================
 
 
                   Posted by: Jed Rothwell & Mitchell Swartz
                     with permission from Prof. Hagelstein.
 
  Two Notes and Comments regarding the SUMMARY:
 
  "Prof. Hagelstein sent me this document in "Latex" format.
   I converted it to Word Perfect, and then to 80 column ASCII,
   with the following conventions:
 
  -  Superscripts, including footnote numbers, are shown between curly
    brackets: {4}He
  -  Subscripts are shown between square brackets: D[2]O
  -  Italics are marked by asterisks: *ab initio*
  -  Greek letters and symbols are spelled out: sigma, mu, Deg."
          Jed Rothwell [Cold Fusion Research Advocates (404) 451-9890]
 
 
     "Last month on January 16, at the MIT IAP all-day seminar on cold
  fusion Prof. Hagelstein gave a fantastic detailed presentation on this
  subject which left the participants in the auditorium in rapt attention.
  He has graciously allowed his full work and insight of the
  Third International Conference to be uploaded herefollowing to Internet.
 
    "Incidentally, at that IAP meeting, I took a survey near the end, and
  of the nearly 80+ people questioned (8 hours after starting), about 3 in
  every 4 attendees read, or had otherwise received info form, the postings
  on sci.physics.fusion.  I submit that the proportion was a surprising
  barometer for this field, and the influence of, and interest in, the net."
 
    "Thanks are in order especially to Peter Hagelstein for this paper, but
  also to Jed Rothwell (and daughter Naomi) for working it into a
  format consistent with facile presentation on, and to, this net."
 
    "This posting is made at the request of those who could not download
  the 125 kilobyte file.  That file has been divided into two portions
         - PART I (below), and PART II (which will follow)."
                     Mitchell Swartz [JET Technology (617) 239-8383]
 
 
==================  PART I (of II) ========================================
 
        SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                ON COLD FUSION (ICCF3) IN NAGOYA
 
 
                         Peter L. Hagelstein
                         Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                         Research Laboratory of Electronics
                         Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
 
                         ABSTRACT
 
    We review highlights of the international cold fusion conference that was
held recently in Nagoya, Japan. Excess heat results in heavy water
electrolysis experiments constitute the observations with the most important
potential applications. Experiments in gas phase systems exhibit fast particle
and gamma emission that make progress toward elucidating mechanisms. The
evidence in support of a light water heat effect has improved.
 
 
                              INTRODUCTION
 
    The Third International Cold Fusion Conference took place in Nagoya,
Japan between October 21 and October 25, 1992. Over 300 attendees
participated, listening to about 27 oral presentations and looking over
roughly 80 poster papers. Many people have asked me about the conference, and
rather than repeating the same things over and over again, I thought that it
would be useful to put my thoughts down on paper as a more efficient method of
communication.
 
    Given the near complete absence of cold fusion sessions in more
traditional physics and chemistry meetings, the international conferences
represent about the only chance for people in the cold fusion field to get
together and learn about what has happened lately. The international
conferences, starting with the Salt Lake City conference in 1990, followed by
Como, Italy in 1991, and now Nagoya, Japan in 1992, have been and continue to
be the most important sources of reliable and relevant information in the
field; an important meeting was also held at BYU in 1990 which focused on
nuclear products. The field is advancing pretty rapidly these days, and since
publications tend to lag with more than a year's delay, the conferences and
conference proceedings play a key role in the field. The next international
conference was originally scheduled to take place in Hawaii in November, 1993;
I understand that it may be delayed until December.
 
    The results presented at this conference were overall technically much
stronger than last year's conference, and benefitted by a very strong showing
from the Japanese contingent. I will first itemize what I thought were some of
the most interesting new experimental results presented at the conference.
 
    I admit to having numerous biases. One bias is that I believe the
observations of excess power are ultimately the most important, both
scientifically and technologically. Another bias is that I favor results which
in my view help to elucidate reaction mechanisms.
 
    Following the discussion of significant positive results, I review
abstracts and presentations of negative results. Coming from the theory end of
the field, I felt that it was appropriate for me to survey the theory papers
which were presented (in the following section); in this case, it was possible
to include a larger fraction of the papers submitted. Having my own theory as
to the origin of the effect, I warn the reader that my discussion of theory
necessarily carries a bias in favor of my world view; it is my hope that this
discussion will be useful in spite of this bias. Almost as interesting in some
cases as what was presented, was what was not presented; a discussion of work
that was absent is presented before the summary and conclusions.
 
    For a review as long as this one, there are many issues and many details,
most of which I have made a serious attempt to get right. I would hope that I
will not make enemies of those whose work I did not include (which at this
point will include about half of all papers submitted). This review was
constructed from preprints, notes, memory, and discussions with many people in
the field -- should the reader note errors or misconceptions, I would
appreciate corrections.
 
 
                              SURVEY OF POSITIVE RESULTS
 
1.  S. Pons{1,2} described briefly recent results obtained at the
    Japanese-funded IMRA laboratory in Sophia Antipolis, France. During the
    Como meeting (July, 1991), Pons and Fleischmann had announced that they
    were able to obtain very high levels of excess power production (on the
    order of 1000 Watts/cm{3}) corresponding to a factor of 10 power gain, and
    that they had done so 11 times.
 
    Part of their research since then has focused on defining a procedure
    that would improve on the reproducibility of this very high power effect
    (at Como, they had announced that complete reproducibility had been
    attained on achieving consistent excess power at lower levels). At
    Nagoya, Pons reported that this had been accomplished; that very high
    levels of heat production (more than 1 kilowatt/cm{3}) were now obtained
    reproducibly accompanied by a factor of 4 power gain.
 
    The key to the new results included some advances that they outlined. One
    such improvement involves the observation that the excess power
    generation increases at higher temperatures. The cathode is charged at
    intermediate current densities at temperatures below 50 Deg. C for
    several days, and then the current is stepped up. Due to the relatively
    low thermal loss of the cell and calorimeter, the cell temperature rises,
    but the loading is maintained. This rise improves the excess power
    generation, which in turn drives the temperature higher; the positive
    feedback leads to very high excess power generation and vigorous boiling.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann perform their calorimetry using open cell systems,
    which have the advantage of being cheaper and more accessible, and allows
    them to do more experiments at a time. The particular method of
    calorimetry which they have developed was motivated in part by the
    existence of the positive feedback described above -- Pons and
    Fleischmann are able to achieve good calorimetric precision with
    time-varying electrolyte levels, cell temperatures and cell voltages.
    Most others have sought in their work to maintain either constant
    temperature or power, or else require the presence of steady-state
    conditions in their system to obtain accurate results. Very few groups
    have so far taken advantage of such sophisticated methods to obtain
    excess power values from their raw data; no other groups have yet
    reported the ability to obtain reproducibly the high power and boiling
    mode reported by Pons and Fleischmann.
 
    It was pointed out by Pons that the calorimetry could be checked during
    the very high excess power burst by measuring the time taken to boil away
    the electrolyte, and using a knowledge of the heat of vaporization to
    compute the total energy and hence power generation. He presented the
    results of this analysis for one cell, which he said was in agreement
    with the calorimetric results.
 
    Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D[2]O were boiled away
    during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average *iv*
    input power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as follows: The
    heat of vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol at 100 Deg. C, and
    2.5 moles of heavy water corresponds to 102.5 kJ; the energy lost during
    this time in the calorimeter (primarily radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input
    electrical *iv* energy during this time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy
    produced is the output energy (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy
    (22.5 kJ), or 86.7 kJ. The production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes
    corresponds to an excess power of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85.
 
    The volume of the cathode was given to be 0.0785 cm{3}, which was noted by
    many (this volume was in error, as will be commented on shortly). The
    average excess power claimed during the boiling episode was 144.5 Watts,
    which would correspond to 1841 W/cm{3}.
 
    The cathode geometry was given by Pons to be cylindrical, with a diameter
    of 2 mm and a length of 1.25 cm. I note that this geometry does not
    correspond to the volume quoted by Pons above -- a rod of these
    dimensions would have a volume of 0.03927 cm{3}, which is almost precisely
    a factor of 2 smaller than the volume given during Pons talk. Pons has
    confirmed that this smaller volume is correct (the correct value appears
    in their conference proceeding{2}). I will continue my discussion here
    using the corrected power per unit volume, which is 3682 W/cm{3}.
 
    The anomalous excess energy production in this experiment is
    considerable, as can be calculated. In 1 minute, 8.7 kJ of excess energy
    is produced. At a density of 12.02 g/cm{3} and an average mass of 106.42
    amu, pure Pd contains 6.8 X 10{22} atoms/cm{3}. The total number of atoms
    in the cathode is 2.7 X 10{21}, or 0.0044 moles. In 1 minute, the excess
    energy production is 1.96 MJ/mole, which corresponds to 20.3 eV/atom of
    Pd. This number is greater than can be accounted for by a chemical
    explanation for the effect. After 10 minutes, the cathode has produced
    203 eV/atom.
 
    In the absence of current flow, film-boiling limits the heat flow from
    the cathode at cathode temperatures higher than about 120 Deg. C; the
    maximum heat flux from the rod under these conditions is limited to I
    think somewhere near 125 Watts/cm{2}. The surface area of the cathode,
    including the top and bottom, is 0.85 cm{2}, which leads to an observed
    average heat flux of about 170 Watts/cm{2}. This number is comparable to,
    but greater than my version of the film-boiling limit given above, and
    was a potential cause for concern.
 
    Pons and Fleischmann have considered this effect, and have found
    experimentally that the presence of current flow delays the onset of
    film-boiling to higher temperatures and higher heat fluxes. In their
    conference proceeding, they claim{2} to have observed heat transfer rates
    during electrolysis in separate experiments which are between 1-10
    kW/cm{2}. I consider this result to be very important.
 
    The cathode gets very hot in these experiments. Pons and Fleischmann have
    observed the Kel-F supports at the base of the cathodes to melt, from
    which the presence of temperatures in excess of 300 Deg. C are inferred.
    A direct measurement of the cathode temperature is currently problematic;
    Pons is currently interested in practical proposals as to how to do this
    without impacting the electrochemistry.
 
    A common misunderstanding often occurs in the discussion of the results
    of Pons-Fleischmann experiments which is of interest here. It is
    sometimes argued that the energy production during a short event can be
    disregarded, since there may exist energy storage mechanisms which could
    have been collecting energy at a low level for a long period of time. For
    example, the total energy output from this experiment would not be very
    much larger than the total input energy if no heat excess had occurred
    prior to the boiling event (1 watt-day = 86.4 kJ). This type of argument
    seeks to make palatable the notion that since the total energy excess
    measured over days is small compared to the input (and hence there might
    exist a signal to noise problem in the measurement), the measurement can
    be dismissed. As discussed above, this type of argument completely misses
    a key implication of the experiment -- specifically, that there exists no
    known physical mechanism which could store the energy observed to be
    released during the boiling episode.
 
    It is true of this experiment as well as of others to be described below,
    that no products or "ashes" of the heat have been found and verified that
    are commensurate with the energy production. This will be discussed
    further below.
 
2.  M. McKubre{3,4} described experiments done at SRI during the past several
    years. They have developed closed cell flow calorimeters, which are
    ideally *first principle* calorimeters (which means that the heat flow
    out of the cell goes into the flowing water coolant, and the power
    generation is determined by measuring the mass flow rate and output to
    input flow temperature difference, with no calibration required). They
    have succeeded in reducing the conduction losses (which are not first
    principle contributions) down to the order of one per cent, and then they
    calibrate the Fick's law constant associated with the conduction losses.
    Overall, the SRI calorimeters achieve a relative accuracy in the
    calorimetric measurements which is on the order of a few tenths of a per
    cent.
 
    The SRI group reported the development of a procedure at Como that
    appeared to yield excess heat essentially every time, and this method is
    described in the Como conference proceedings. Highlights of these
    experiments were discussed. A significant advance that was pioneered by
    the SRI group was described: it consisted of the addition of aluminate or
    silicate to the electrolyte, which caused the formation of a colloidal
    surface layer that passed light ions (deuterium, lithium, boron,...) and
    shielded the surface from impurities; this procedure improves the ability
    of the Pd rod to maintain a high loading ratio.
 
    Two distinct modes of excess power generation were observed; one in which
    the excess power occurs at relatively low levels (1%-50%) and responds to
    changes in current density (they have observed 38 occurrences of this
    mode, lasting hours to many days), and one that is characterized by much
    higher relative power levels (up to 350% excess) and appears to be
    insensitive to changes in current (this mode has been observed 3 times,
    lasting many hours).
 
    For the first mode of heat generation, SRI finds that the excess power
    rises linearly with current above a threshold current density (which is
    on the order of 100-200 mA/cm{2}). A graph illustrating this appears in
    their conference proceeding.{4} This is in apparent contrast with the Pons
    and Fleischmann results, which showed a possible quadratic component to
    the increase above threshold current. Discussion during the meeting
    pointed to the fact that the SRI experiments are run at constant
    temperature, while the temperature of the Pons and Fleischmann cells
    increase when excess heat is produced.
 
    Mckubre presented a graph of excess power production as a function of
    fractional deuterium loading as determined from resistance ratio
    measurements. This dependence was found to increase roughly parabolically
    above a loading of 0.85 (*P[xs]*~(x-0.85){2}) up to loadings near 0.95,
    which is as high as had been achieved during their C1 experiment.
 
    The group has spent considerable effort chasing down and quantifying
    uncertainties in the SRI experiments, and are now able to assign
    meaningful error bars to essentially all quantities measured and inferred
    in their experiments. The result of this analysis yields rather high
    sigma numbers on the excess power measurements (in excess of 50 sigma on
    some of the best data analyzed so far).
 
    Their largest power numbers correspond to on the order of 15 W/cm{3}; it
    would take a small number of hours of running at this level to defeat a
    chemical storage explanation. Their highest excess total energy numbers
    have reached 200 MJ/mole of Pd, which corresponds roughly to 2 KeV per Pd
    atom; this level of excess energy production cannot be of chemical
    origin.
 
3.  K. Kunimatsu{5,6} of IMRA JAPAN Co. in Sapporo presented results on their
    heavy water electrolysis experiments. A number of things struck me as
    being interesting about this talk, aside from the fact that this is one
    of the first presentations of anything from this group at a conference at
    which I have managed to be. This effort appears to have a great deal of
    resources and some nontrivial technical expertise. They reported excess
    power measurements as a function of loading (where the loading was
    determined through measurements of the deuterium gas pressure in the
    cell), and arrived at essentially the same dependence of excess power on
    loading fraction as SRI, but with the cut-off shifted down by a few
    points relative to the SRI results (from a D/Pd ratio of 0.85 inferred
    from a resistance ratio measurement, down closer to 0.83 determined from
    measurements of the D[2] gas pressure{6}). The peak excess power occurs
    when the current density is greater than 100 mA/cm{2}, and the peak excess
    power which appears on the graph in Ref. 6 is about 35%.
 
    The IMRA experiments differed qualitatively from the SRI and
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments in that they were run in fuel-cell mode.
    Conventional Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments are run such that
    D[2] gas is generated at the cathode and O[2] gas is generated at the
    anode. IMRA has developed a pressurized cell in which deuterium reactions
    occur at the anode. Cells operating in fuel-cell mode have been developed
    in the past, however, this is the first time that I am aware that a
    Pons-Fleischmann cell has generated excess power sufficiently reliably
    while operating in such a mode to produce relatively high quality excess
    power data of the sort presented.
 
    This group seems to have good people, good funding, and much expertise.
    They presented several poster papers on studies of excess power
    generation, and the absorption of hydrogen and deuterium in palladium
    cathodes{7-10} I think that we will be hearing much more from them in the
    future.
 
    I note that a positive correlation between loading and excess heat
    production in a Pd/D modified Pons-Fleischmann experiment was reported by
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno in a poster paper.{11,12}
 
4.  Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
    described experiments that I thought were very important.
 
    The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
    metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
    400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current). Apparently this group has had
    considerable experience with glow discharges and is aware of several
    tricks that help to preserve the surface of the cathode which helps to
    attain very high loading (a D/Pd ratio of more than 1).
 
    Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
    considered. Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
    cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
    distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
    temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
    gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
    cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission). Excess power
    production at the level of tens of watts is observed; their best result
    out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing a power gain of a
    factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume, the resulting power
    generation rate is quite high; the highest values are on the order of
    3000 watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy production observed to
    date exceeds 20 kJ.
 
    After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
    emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec in
    some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier work
    was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
    type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
    appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance
    of 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of
    30 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
    discharge.
 
    After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up to
    10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). The gamma emission was studied
    using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
    recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
    detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
    at 511 keV. An example of an anomalous gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in
    a recent publication{16}.
 
    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma spectrum
    returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the identified
    lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines originating
    from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where *Z*=46 for
    Pd, were observed).
 
    A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is emitted
    from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used for
    detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in some
    experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched off
    which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
    fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
    inside the discharge chamber.
 
    A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks were
    observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12 MeV
    and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as determined
    through measurements with different barrier thicknesses.
 
5.  There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two electrodes
    inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure (4-13 torr).
    A thin (1 micron) metallic layer of the electrode material (for example,
    Pd) was deposited on the interior of the glass bulb. The glow discharge
    current was less than 100 mA; an anomalous current was observed with an
    average value of 1 A, and excursions up to 10 A. A D/Pd ratio of 0.5-0.8
    was claimed to have been obtained.
 
    Substantial neutron emission (13-330 neutrons/sec) was observed, and the
    energy spectrum was resolved with a recoil proton fast neutron
    scintillation spectrometer. The resulting neutron spectrum contained both
    2.0-2.5 MeV neutrons, and broad emission between 2.5-7.0 MeV; most of the
    emission occurred above 2.5 MeV.
 
    Neutron emission was also recorded from metals chosen at random, and the
    signal strength varied with metal according to the order Pt, Nb, W, Pd,
    Ag, Cu, Mo and Fe. The fluence observed from the D/Pt system was 1.2 X
    10{4} neutrons/sec.
 
    The energy spectrum of the neutron emission for these metals was also
    observed. In the case of the D/Pt emission shows broad emission up to
    about 8 MeV, decreasing generally with increasing neutron energy, and
    with a number of possible peaks appearing.
 
    Intense gamma spectra were also observed with a NaI scintillation counter
    during the experiments; the gamma ray yield was about ten times that of
    the neutron yield. The gamma spectrum of D/Nb showed lines at tens of
    KeV, 3.4 MeV and 5.8 MeV, and some unresolved emission below 7 MeV.
 
    These experiments seem to me to be similar to the experiment described in
    1989 by Wada.{21} Another experiment of this sort was reported by Tazima,
    Isii and Ikegami, and also by Jin, Zhang, Yao and Wu, at the Como
    conference.
 
6.  E. Yamaguchi of NTT presented a paper{22,23} on {4}He production from a PdD
    foil that is sandwiched by gold and MnO[x]. I think of the NTT research
    labs as being the ATT Bell Labs of Japan, which has an excellent
    technical reputation. This paper attracted considerable interest in the
    Japanese media, and there were reports that the price of the NTT stock
    climbed as a result. The NTT stock climbed a bit more than 10%; Morrison
    pointed out in his review that the stock went back down to its
    pre-announcement value within a few days.
 
    In the experiments that he reported, a current of 0.5-0.8 A/cm{2} is
    applied perpendicularly to the sandwich. The foil produces heat at a
    level of 0.5-5 Watts for about 1000 seconds (this is the case whether the
    foil is PdD or PdH), and then explosively outgasses. At the peak of the
    outgassing, the samples undergo substantial plastic deformation which
    lasts for about 10 seconds. During his presentation, it was not obvious
    whether the temperature rise observed was being claimed as anomalous or
    not. If the foil is deuterated, these phenomena are accompanied by {4}He
    emission.
 
    Yamaguchi previously reported at the BYU conference very high levels of
    neutron emission from this system at a 10{6} neutrons/second. The
    experiments described at Nagoya included only helium, heat, and fast
    charged particle detection.
 
    The {4}He emission is monitored using an expensive high resolution mass
    spectrometer that is capable of distinguishing between {4}He and D[2]
    signals, as was demonstrated. A minor peak in the data appears near the
    expected HT mass position, and Yamaguchi claimed that this signal
    indicated the presence of HT (Claytor notes in his trip report that the
    HT signal, if real, would imply a "radiological hazard (> 10 Ci)."). The
    H[2]D trimer is more massive than D[2] and does not interfere with the
    {4}He measurement.
 
    Yamaguchi sees {4}He in his mass spectrometer when he uses PdD, and he
    sees no {4}He when he uses PdH. Yamaguchi stated that the amount of {4}He
    was "consistent with the heat," but if he gave figures for the amount of
    {4}He produced, I missed them. Given that heat occurs for PdH runs as well
    as for PdD runs, it is not clear what the statement means. Hopefully this
    issue will be clarified at a later date.
 
    When asked whether the {4}He is due to contamination, Yamaguchi argued
    that it is not in the D[2] gas used, it is not in the metal, and the
    vacuum system being used is a high quality system of the type used in
    semiconductor research that will hold a 10{-6} torr vacuum for a month
    without pumping.
 
    Yamaguchi also sees 3 MeV protons and fast alphas at 4.5-6 MeV using two
    identical systems based on silicon detectors (Canberra
    Si-SSD:PD-450-19-700-AM; active area=4.5 cm{2}, active thickness = 700
    mu). Protons were observed at 3 MeV, and were attributed to the *p+t*
    branch of the *dd*-fusion process. Significant emission was observed
    between 4.5-6.0 MeV; by comparing signals with and without an intervening
    7 mu foil, these signals were identified as being due to either alphas or
    {3}He nuclei. The total number of fast particles detected was a few
    hundred per experiment.
 
    The experiment which Yamaguchi and Nishioka have constructed looks very
    impressive; I got the impression that the helium measurement capability
    was relatively new. I think that the {4}He signals are real, but I am less
    convinced yet that it has been made through an anomalous effect. The
    strongest argument in support of it being genuine is the rather strong
    time-correlation of the {4}He signal with the temperature excursion of the
    foil.
 
    The NTT group has been active for years, and by now I think that the
    basic anomalies which they observe are likely to be right. The new result
    presented at Nagoya is the helium measurement, which I will be more
    comfortable with after Yamaguchi and Nishioka have had more experience
    exploring. I look forward to more results from this group.
 
    I note that the first significant claim for substantial {4}He production
    in Pons-Fleischmann electrolysis experiments were made at Como by Miles
    and coworkers at China Lake. Previous negative results had been obtained
    in searches for helium in the cathode; Miles and coworkers claimed the
    observation of {4}He in the gas stream. Miles presented a paper at
    Nagoya{24} which gave an update of the group's recent efforts, which have
    been hindered by an inability to obtain significant excess heat.
 
    Bockris reported at Nagoya{25} observations of {4}He above background (by
    factors of 2-100) that accompanied tritium production (described below);
    the helium was analyzed by thermal expulsion and mass spectroscopy.
 
7.  S. Isagawa et al from the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy
    Physics (the KEK collaboration) reported their results on experiments
    involving searches for heat, tritium and neutrons in Pons-Fleischmann
    cells.{26,27} I was impressed that the KEK was working at all in this area,
    and even though they have apparently had an effort at some level since
    1989, it appeared to me from their presentation that they have more or
    less just gotten started.
 
    Most of their results to date are negative, and it appears that they are
    confident that they are going to get the expected (that is, null)
    results. Of the possible excess heat events that they have observed so
    far, they have been able to rule out all but one as being due to known
    (non-anomalous) causes. Neutron emission is mostly not observed, but they
    have one event at 3.5 sigma of excess neutron emission (23 q 7
    neutrons/sec) recorded over nine hours from one PdD cell after 20 hours
    of electrolysis.
 
    Although their results to date have little impact on the field, should
    they continue, their contributions could be and should be substantial in
    time. One thing that this group would be able to do which few other
    groups in the field are as well suited to do to bring on board the
    physics community. Positive results obtained at the KEK would stir
    interest in other physics laboratories as almost no other result. The
    physicists have written off Pons and Fleischmann, so they are free to
    ignore the claim of kilowatt/cm{3} reported at the conference; but if the
    KEK gets 10% heat power at 10 Watts/cm{3}, I would bet that every physics
    lab on the planet will likely be pulling out their electrochemistry sets
    again.
 
8.  T. P. Perng of National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan described
    observations of excess power from molten salt electrolysis experiments as
    part of a paper on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann experiments.{28} Although
    I did not recall seeing it, and I have no notes of it, numerous friends
    at the conference mentioned it to me (including Liaw). I also received a
    preprint of this work.
 
    Liaw and coworkers at the U. of Hawaii described at the last two
    international cold fusion conferences experiments using molten salt
    electrolysis with Pd and Ti anodes in a LiCl-KCl eutectic saturated with
    LiD. At Como, the group reported the observation of excess power at a
    level of about 10 times the input electrochemical power in Pd (up to a
    30% increase over electrochemical plus heater power), with an energy gain
    reported as about 1 GJ/mole Pd or 6 MJ/mole D[2]. The Pd anode volume was
    0.040 cm{3}, so that the excess power per unit anode volume is about 250
    watts/cm{3}.
 
    This result was important because the power excess was so large relative
    to the electrochemical input power, and because the temperature excess
    was on the order of a hundred degrees centigrade, which would have the
    potential for efficient energy extraction.
 
    Little progress has so far been reported toward a reproduction of the
    Liaw experiment. Perng described results from an experiment performed to
    provide a confirmation of the Liaw experiment; the power excess claimed
    was on the order of 2-5 times the input power.
 
    The preprint{29} from C. M. Wan et al consists of an abstract and copies
    of 11 figures, from which I will attempt to give an account of the work.
    Following Liaw, the palladium electrode is used as an anode (instead of a
    cathode as is done in conventional Pons-Fleischmann experiments),
    immersed in a KCl-LiCl eutectic saturated with LiD. The anode dimensions
    are 6 mm diameter and 5 cm length. The molten salt sits in an aluminum
    container which serves as the cathode. The temperature is sensed using a
    thermocouple embedded in a quartz tube which is placed in the molten salt
    in the general vicinity of the Pd anode. A Ni-Cr alloy resistive wire
    heater (encased in quartz) is wrapped around the cell, within a ceramic
    fiber insulator. Nearby is a {3}He neutron detector with a 0.01% detection
    efficiency.
 
    From the figures and the abstract, it is clear that a time-dependent
    excess neutron signal appears following 200 hours of electrolysis, at
    twice background (background is 5.51 q 0.44 cpm) corresponding to 800
    neutrons/sec. This neutron signal is rather clearly correlated with the
    excess power production which is time-dependent and rises to about 10
    watts. Given the large anode volume, this level of excess power
    corresponds to about 7 watts/cm{3}. The associated temperature excursions
    are about 25 Deg. C, with one excursion up to 50 Deg. C.
 
    The abstract quotes power gains of 5 to 108 for the 6 mm Pd rod which is
    5 cm long, and power gains of 8 to 560 from a 4.5 mm diameter rod. These
    numbers are very high and represent excesses in comparison with
    electrochemical power rather than total input power; I think that the
    highest numbers correspond to modest excess powers observed at low input
    current level.
 
    There was an abstract from the National Tsing Hua University by Yuan et
    al that described a molten salt experiment;{30} I do not know whether this
    paper was presented. I suspect that this paper may not have been
    presented, and that Perng was reviewing results obtained by his
    colleagues.
 
9.  There were several papers on attempts at replicating the Takahashi
    experiment that captured the attention of the Japanese press earlier this
    year. A. Takahashi described earlier this year obtaining tremendous
    excess heat in a heavy water electrolysis experiment that ran at an
    average of 1.7 output power over input power for about two months.{31,32}
    The total excess enthalpy generated was claimed to be about 2250 MJ/mole
    Pd (more than 20 KeV per Pd atom), which is one of the highest claims to
    date from this type of experiment. Following Takahashi's announcement,
    many laboratories attempted a replication.
 
    Takahashi's experiment is similar in many ways to the classical
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments with some variations. A Pd foil from Tanaka
    Kikinziku Kyogo (Tanaka Precious Metals Co.) with dimensions 2.5 cm X 2.5
    cm X 1 mm is used for a cathode instead of a rod. The electrolyte volume
    is very large (700 cc of D[2]O with 0.3 M LiOD). An innovation of
    Takahashi is the use of a time-varying current which alternates between a
    high mode (4-5 amps) and a low mode (0.2-0.4 amps) every six hours.
 
    Takahasi's calorimeter is an open cell flow calorimeter, where water from
    a chiller is flowed through a coil inside the cell, and the power is
    determined from a knowledge of the mass flow rate and the input-output
    temperature difference. An advantage of this type of calorimeter design
    is that it is able to function at near constant temperature when high
    power is applied to the electrochemistry. The temperature was monitored
    using teflon coated thermocouples at the inlet, outlet, and cell
    interior. The cell was calibrated before and after the run in the initial
    experiment, and the calibration lines were approximately reproduced.
 
    The total input energy for the initial experiment was 250 MJ, the total
    output energy measured was 410 MJ, leading to an excess of 160 MJ.
    Takahashi's excess power level claimed was 32 watts averaged over two
    months, with excursions to 100-130 watts. The cathode volume is 0.625
    cm{3} (0.0706 moles), so that the average power density is 51 watts/cm{3}
    and peak excursions are 160-208 watts/cm{3}. As discussed above, a
    chemical explanation of the effect (barring other systematic errors) is
    defeated in less than half an hour at the high excess power levels.
 
    Attempts at replication had varying degrees of success, but no one has
    been able to reproduce the very high power levels claimed by Takahashi.
    In the reproduction which Takahashi reported at Nagoya, the excess
    average power was 8 watts, with excursions to 15 watts.
 
    Takahashi's method comes with the recommendation that it is a potentially
    technically easier experiment than other experiments which have been
    reported. It is less exacting in the rigorous electrochemical purities
    required as compared to the SRI experiments; the cathodes from Tanaka
    metals are readily available to workers in the field, in contrast to the
    Johnson-Matthey cathodes employed by Pons and Fleischmann. The system is
    in principle relatively cheap to set up; Mallove{33} described a version
    of the Takahashi experiment which was built up using about $10K of
    hardware funds.
 
    Storms at LANL is claiming excess heat from a Tanaka batch 1 foil, and no
    heat from a batch 2 foil.{34} The anomalous power from the first foil was
    more than 20%. The batch 2 foil suffered an increase in internal volume
    on loading, which Storms suggested might be used as an indicator of
    whether a cathode was suitable for heat experiments. No one has reported
    a success with a batch 2 foil that I am aware -- batch 3 appears to be
    free of this problem.
 
    Celani{35,36} described efforts to reproduce the Takahashi experiment at
    his laboratory in Frascati. Experiments were run in an open cell flow
    calorimeter using two Tanaka metals batch 1 cathodes, one Tanaka batch 2
    cathode, and one IMRA batch 1 cathode. Positive results were obtained
    with the Tanaka batch 1 rods (at 8% and 25% peak power excess) and with
    the IMRA rod (12% peak excess). No excess power was observed with the
    Tanaka batch 2 cathode. Blank experiments were performed where a gold
    cathode sheet was substituted for the Pd cathodes, and no excess was
    observed. A correlation between high loading and excess heat was noted;
    small amounts of excess tritium were reported for the runs which gave
    excess heat.
 
    Oyama{37} reported a 2.4% excess energy, which is small, but was measured
    with much smaller error bars; a light water blank showed no excess.
 
10. Tritium production was discussed by several groups. The existence of such
    an effect is interesting because it constitutes an additional signature
    of the presence of a nuclear phenomenon; tritium cannot be made
    chemically. An additional feature of many tritium experiments is that the
    tritium is not accompanied by neutron emission (neutron/tritium ratios of
    10{-7} - 10{-9} have been reported). The *dd*-fusion reactions would
    produce neutrons and tritons in roughly equal amounts, so that the
    observations imply either a new mechanism or else a very significant
    modification of the fusion reactions. Possibly more significant is that
    14 MeV neutrons from *d-t* fusion reactions would be expected from
    secondary reactions if the tritium nuclei were created with MeV-level
    kinetic energy. The very low neutron to tritium ratios claimed imply a
    very low triton energy (below 10-15 keV), sufficiently low to be
    inconsistent with all but the most exotic reaction mechanisms.
 
    At Como, strong presentations of tritium production were made by Will,
    Claytor, Lanza, Szpak. Will has not been active in the field during the
    past year, and did not attend the Nagoya conference; Lanza has continued,
    but was not able to attend this year; Szpak has continued, but was also
    not present at Nagoya.
 
    Claytor{38} (whose work impresses me) described further experiments on
    tritium production in which a stack of alternating layers of palladium
    and silicon is placed in deuterium gas at over 10 atmospheres, and a
    pulsed current is passed through the stack. Reproducible tritium
    production is claimed at levels of 0.02-0.2 nCi/hr (1.1 X 10{6} - 1.1 X
    10{7} tritium atoms/second). Advances which the LANL group has made during
    the past year includes: reduction of background tritium, improvement in
    detection sensitivity, improvement in reproducibility at higher tritium
    generation rates, and the innovation of working with stacks using Pd
    built up from powder. Upper limits on neutron emission can be placed from
    their work as reported at Como of 4 X 10{-9} neutrons/second; the {3}He
    neutron detector which they have used (which I saw during a recent visit
    there) has a roughly similar efficiency for 14 MeV neutrons as for 2.45
    MeV neutrons (the detector is more sensitive at 2.45 by a factor of 1.5
    according to Menlove).
 
    Bockris{25} described two tritium experiments at Nagoya. In one
    experiment, a reproduction of the Szpak-Boss experiment described at Como
    was attempted. Szpak codeposited Pd on either a Cu or Ni substrate from
    PdCl[2] in D[2]O containing 0.3 N LiCl; continued electrolysis resulted in
    tritium production. The Pd was observed to plate out during the first 6-8
    hours, and excess tritium would be detected about 10 hours later. The
    experiment Bockris reported involved codeposition of Pd on gold, and
    tritium production was observed to start as soon as 10 hours after the Pd
    deposition, and production up to 3 times background was observed. This is
    the first successful confirmation of the Szpak experiment of which I am
    aware. Bockris did not obtain the high degree of reproducibility claimed
    by Szpak.
 
    I note that Miles also described{24} attempts to reproduce the Szpak
    experiment, and reported the observation of a modest tritium increase,
    but "not clearly beyond levels expected for electrolytic enrichment due
    to isotopic separation factors."
 
    Much more spectacular are the results reported by Bockris of Chien's
    experiments on tritium production in a Pd electrolysis experiment where
    massive amounts of tritium (more than 10{15} atoms) were observed. This
    report is very significant because it represents a new claim for very
    high levels of excess tritium.
 
    Early on, reports of very high levels of tritium were reported to have
    been observed at Texas A&M, corresponding to production rates on the
    order of 10{10} tritium atoms/cm{3} or higher. These experiments were
    clouded by charges of fraud (this charge was apparently investigated by a
    panel hired by Texas A&M, and not substantiated), and by the observation
    of high levels of tritium contamination in Pd claimed by Wolf (found by
    dissolving Pd rods in acid, and then performing scintillation counting on
    a neutralized version of the resulting solution). Similar experiments
    reported by Cedzynska (differing in that the distillate of the solution
    was analyzed by scintillation counting) failed to show contamination at
    the high levels reported by Wolf, and in addition found that false
    positives could occur when the solution was not first distilled.
 
    Subsequently, much more stringent controls were done to attempt to defeat
    the insidious tritium contamination claimed by Wolf, and new post-Wolf
    experiments were reported in which anomalous tritium production has been
    claimed. Except for experiments reported by BARC, most new claims have
    involved tritium production rates many orders of magnitude below those of
    the initial claims (the new claims generally ranged from 10{4} - 10{6}
    tritium atoms/second). The significance of the Chien experiments is that
    the tritium production rate claimed by Chien (in a post-Wolf experiment)
    are some of the first to approach the very high early (pre-Wolf)
    experimental claims. Much care was taken to avoid possible contamination:
    samples from the same rod were dissolved in aqua-regia, and the resulting
    solution distilled, and then analyzed using a scintillation cocktail
    following the method described by Cedzynska at Como.
 
    Chien's earlier experiment was carried out at the Institute of Nuclear
    Energy Research in Lung-Tan, Taiwan. The palladium cathodes used were 1.0
    cm in diameter, and 1-2 cm long; Pt wire wrapped around at a distance of
    4 mm was used for the anode. Electrolysis was carried out in heavy water
    with 0.1 M LiOD; tritium assay was done with a scintillation cocktail.
    Solutions exhibiting high tritium activity were sampled at the time of
    the experiment (10/89), and then resampled 10 months later (8/90) in
    order to observe the tritium decay from the sample. Tritium generation
    rates of 10{6}-10{9} atoms/second were determined, lasting for a total of
    20-30 days. The numbers claimed by Bockris at Nagoya{25} for the Texas A&M
    version of the experiment correspond to about 10{7} atoms/sec/cm{2} of
    surface area, in experiments with a 3-6 cm{2} surface area.
 
11. V. A. Romodanov gave an oral presentation in the theory panel at
    Nagoya.{39} Romodanov's command of the English language was imperfect; he
    read from his paper for more than 20 minutes in a thick Russian accent.
    Essentially no one with whom I talked understood the point of what he
    said, and his abstract did not particularly add to the information
    content. Given that his talk occurred in the theory section, and given
    that his theory appeared to be largely classical fusion modified somewhat
    by lattice effects, no one was expecting that a major experimental result
    was buried in his presentation. Two things about his talk raised flags
    for me, indicating that I should try to follow up if possible. One was
    that he was from Luch, which is the same place Kucherov is from...and I
    was very impressed by Kucherov's results. The second thing that I recall
    was that there was a table giving some very high tritium numbers; at the
    time I thought they were theoretical estimates because they were so
    large.
 
    Romodanov handed me a preprint{40} which explained in rather clearer
    English what was the content of his talk. I will focus on what I consider
    to be the single most important part of his presentation, which if true,
    is of fundamental importance. Romodanov described the results of glow
    discharge experiments which appear to have been done on a system very
    similar to that discussed by Kucherov (see above in this review).
    Romodanov and his colleagues focused on the detection of tritium produced
    in glow discharge experiments in Pd and in other metals.
 
    The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas at 100-200 torr, with an
    applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V, and a current of 3-4 A (a wide
    range of operating conditions are described in the paper, and the numbers
    I have chosen appear on one table -- I am not completely certain from the
    paper that the tritium generation was done with these parameters).
    Various cathode metals were used, including Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W; as
    disks with a diameter of 13 cm and a thickness between 500 mu and 1 mm,
    or rods of 0.5-2 cm diameter. The cathode temperatures were measured to
    be between 970 Deg. K and 1670 Deg. K, with only minor (15% or less due
    to anomalous self-heating effects).
 
    Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 10{9} atoms/second
    were measured in the different metals under various conditions. The
    largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in Nb at 1170 Deg. K,
    corresponding to an increase in tritium activity in the deuterium gas of
    2.3 X 10{4}. The neutron emission was measured in these experiments with a
    "radiac instrument RUP-1," which appears to be a scintillator with silver
    activated ZnS dispersed in transparent plastic (sounds similar to the
    detector used by Kucherov), and a neutron to tritium ratio of 1.8 X 10{-7}
    was obtained.
 
12. R. Notoya from Hokkaido University brought a light water demo that was
    set up and operated in the hallway of the conference{41}. The demo
    consisted of two cells: in one cell was a resistive heater, and in the
    other cell was a nickel cathode immersed in a light water K[2]CO[3]
    electrolyte, similar to the method of R. Mills and colleagues.{42}
    Notoya's method differs from Mill's method in that (1) the Notoya cathode
    is made of porous nickel, and the Mills cathode is plain nickel; and (2)
    Mills uses an intermittent current, while Notoya uses a constant current.
 
    The resistive heater was driven at 2.1 Watts electrical *iv* input; the
    electrolysis cell was driven so that the joule heating in the cell was
    also 2.1 Watts. The *iv* input into the electrolysis cell is actually
    higher by about 30%, but since electrolysis is occurring with a Faradaic
    efficiency near unity, the power ending up inside the cell is matched as
    long as no recombination occurs in the space above the electrolyte. The
    live cell ran higher by about 15 Deg. centigrade than the blank, as could
    be inspected visually by observing alcohol thermometers immersed in both
    cells. Notoya claims that the light water cell temperature implies a
    factor of about 3 more net power input, or roughly 6 watts of heating
    present.
 
    This was interesting for a number of reasons. This was the first live
    demonstration of excess heat production at a cold fusion conference that
    I am aware of. I have always thought that live demos would start to show
    up at conferences and at presentations, but I had figured that the first
    ones would be heavy water demos. I thought that it was significant that
    Notoya's system works well enough for her to be willing to bring it as a
    demo at a major international conference.
 
    Many of the "established" workers in the field who have put in
    substantial effort on heavy water Pons-Fleischmann cells and have
    observed heat simply do not believe that a heat effect can be observed in
    light water. Among other arguments that can be heard is that if the
    effect is either nuclear or is fusion, it must involve deuterium. Others
    in the field argue that the light water claims are simply due to sloppy
    experimental work. Independent of the correctness of the various
    assertions, it is almost humorous to find senior members of the cold
    fusion community sounding very much like their critics and tormentors of
    1989.
 
    The first reports of heat from light water experiments were actually from
    Pons and Fleischmann early on in 1989; when I last spoke with Fleischmann
    about light water experiments about a year ago, he was firm in his
    conviction that it was not possible to get excess heat from a light water
    cell.
 
    R. Mills, who is the originator of this particular Ni/K[2]CO[3]
    experiment, has no previous reputation or standing as an electrochemist,
    calorimetrist or physicist. He rejects the notion of cold fusion as due
    to nuclear effects completely (in fact, he does not wish to associate
    himself with the cold fusion community, and does not consider his effect
    to be related in any way to cold fusion), and has developed his own
    theory as to why his experiment works; his theory is based on the
    proposed existence of orbitals of hydrogen that lie below the 1*s* level.
    An explicit assumption in the Mills and Farrell theory is that the
    electronic charge distribution in hydrogenic states consist of charged
    shells of infinitesimal thickness. In order for this proposal to be
    correct, quantum mechanics must be incorrect (which Mills believes -- he
    offers his theory as a replacement for quantum mechanics). There have
    been no observations of such states, and the existence of such states
    would likely not be consistent with the observed stability of atoms as
    atoms.
 
    Reproductions of the Mills experiment have been reported previously.
    Noninski{43} published positive results from his experiments; Noninski
    views his experiment as a verification of the work of Fleischmann and
    Pons, who state explicitly (in a 1989 patent application) the possibility
    of excess heat in a light water cell with Ni as a cathode material. Mills
    was apparently unaware of Fleischmann and Pons patent application and its
    relevance.
 
    Confirmations of the Mills light water experiment have also been reported
    by Srinivasan,{44,45} and Bush and Eagleton.{46} Notoya and her laboratory
    come with good reputations; her confirmation of the Mills experiment
    (complete with demo) is probably the most significant endorsement of the
    light water excess heat results standing.
 
    Notoya's demo is an open cell system. It operates at a sufficiently high
    excess power that recombination or other effects that would make an open
    cell system perform differently from a closed cell would not change the
    essential result even if the recombination and other secondary effects
    were taken into account incorrectly or ignored. You can put your finger
    on the tubes Notoya's demo to convince yourself that a very significant
    temperature difference occurs. This was also claimed for the Mills
    experiment, as well as for other experiments reproducing the Mills
    result.
 
    During the conference and afterwards, a virtual firestorm of controversy
    arose concerning the difference in wires that were attached to the live
    cell and to the blank. A student of Steve Jones suggested that since
    smaller diameter wires were used on the blank, that the reduced voltage
    drop across the resister could account for the difference. After the
    conference, Notoya replaced the offending wires, and reported essentially
    no difference in the resulting blank temperature.
 
    Notoya's demo was brought to the US and set up at MIT during the first
    week of December. During the day and a half before her presentation at
    MIT, the live cell and resistive blank ran at very nearly identical
    temperatures, consistent with no excess power production. Notoya
    attributed this to contamination of the nickel cathodes. After her visit,
    she returned to Japan and set up her demo in a laboratory in Tokyo where
    excess heat was observed. A few days later, she was back at MIT,
    attempting for a second time to demonstrate excess power production.
    During this visit, a temperature excess was seen during electrolysis of
    the second cathode tried. According to Notoya, the initial temperature
    differential in this case corresponded to a 100% power excess.
    Subsequently, a persistent excess of about 4 Deg. C was observed, which
    she said corresponded to a 30% power excess (the reduction in fractional
    excess was attributed by Notoya to contamination).
 
    The persistent excess power which Notoya obtained at MIT was about 0.75
    Watts, and the cathode volume was about 0.05 cm{3}, leading to a volume
    averaged excess of 15 Watts/cm{3}. At Nagoya, the cell ran at a 4 Watt
    excess, corresponding to 80 Watts/cm{3}. She claims that she has observed
    a maximum of 200 Watts/cm{3} excess. A few hours of operation at 15
    Watts/cm{3} is sufficient to defeat a chemical explanation, which was done
    at MIT. The power excess demonstrated at Nagoya would defeat a chemical
    explanation in tens of minutes, and the cell ran for many hours.
 
    Little is known about loading ratios (H/Ni) while heat is produced; no
    information is available about potassium loading in the Ni; there is
    apparently an alkaline intermetallic layer formed which is at least
    several hundred Angstroms thick which may play a role. Nothing is known
    about the temperature sensitivity of the effect; Notoya observes the
    excess power to be essentially linear in applied current down to her
    lowest values (50-100 mA, and about 1 cm{2} geometric area at MIT; the
    high current levels approach 1 amp).
 
    Notoya obtains her best results with cathodes which have an extremely
    high area ratio (real area to geometric area), and she uses cathodes with
    an area ratio of several thousand (and a reduced density of about 6
    gm/cm{3}). The effect is apparently extremely sensitive to contamination,
    especially to oils. She observes an increase of 20% in calcium
    concentration (near 20 ppm) in the electrolyte, which she believes may be
    anomalous.
 
    I do not think that there is yet any particular contradiction between the
    light water experiments of the Mills type and the light water blanks in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments. The light water blanks in Pd/H experiments
    run in a H[2]O/LiOH electrolyte give zero excess power in most everyone's
    blank experiments these days; the Mills experiment uses a Ni cathode with
    a H[2]O/K[2]CO[3] electrolyte. These are really very different systems. In
    any event, in time any connections between the two systems will be
    clarified.
 
    Based on Notoya's work, the evidence in support of a light water effect
    has improved significantly. The effect which she observes is so great
    that there appears to be no simple explanation for it.
 
    So is there a light water heat effect? At this point, I am not yet sure
    one way or another. On the plus side: (1) the effect is large, (2) looks
    to be nuclear given the excess heat numbers, and (3) can be reproduced.
    On the minus side (from my point of view): (1) the effect has been
    studied by a relatively small number of groups for a relatively short
    time, (2) the effect appears to be somewhat insensitive to choice of
    electrolyte (claims{41} of heat production have been made for experiments
    which have used other alkali-carbonates such as Li[2]CO[3], Na[2]CO[3] and
    Rb[2]CO[3]) and to some degree the choice of cathode (positive results
    were reported{47} for Ni, Ag, Au and Sn electrodes). The reason which I am
    uncomfortable with the insensitivity of the effect to cathode and
    electrolyte comes from potential difficulties associated with finding a
    reaction mechanism that would show such an insensitivity.
 
    The experimentalists have grown used to the idea that deuterium gives
    anomalies and hydrogen does not; the theorists who believe in fusion
    mechanisms are comfortable with positive effects in deuterium and
    negative effects in hydrogen. A light water heat effect causes
    consternation in both camps; it would be exceedingly difficult to
    reconcile with a fusion mechanism.
 
    The neutron transfer model which I have been looking at (described
    briefly below) needs a neutron donor (usually deuterium) and an acceptor
    nucleus, and therefore has somewhat fewer constraints; nevertheless, I do
    not relish the prospect of attempting to explain an apparently general
    light water heat effect where the nuclei present are widely different
    from one cell to another. An experimental determination (and
    confirmation) of the ashes in any of these experiments would of course
    greatly improve the situation.
 
    As a result, I am not yet sure that there is a light water effect. I will
    be surer one way or another when more confirmations (or
    non-confirmations) are reported. I will be surer when Notoya, who has
    worked on her experiments only since last August, has had more time to
    think about her experiments and to improve them. I will also be surer in
    time after the cold fusion community has had more time to study and to
    evaluate the experiment.
 
13. The successful production of significant excess energy must give rise to
    ashes of one sort or another. It is not currently known what reactions
    are occurring; consequently, it is not obvious what ashes are to be
    expected. Energy excesses in the range of 1 MJ to 10 MJ have been
    reported in several experiments; we will consider briefly the
    implications of excess power generation, both per joule and for a 10 MJ
    total excess.
 
    Conventional *dd*-fusion reactions producing 10 MJ would yield more than
    10{19} neutrons, and a roughly equal number of tritium atoms. Pons and
    Fleischmann's recent measurements{48} of the neutrons produced from their
    cells yield 5-50 neutrons per joule, low by more than 10 orders of
    magnitude from what would be predicted for conventional *dd*-fusion.
    Tritium is not produced in their experiments, with a limit which is
    probably on the order of 10{4} tritium atoms per joule; low by at least 8
    orders of magnitude.
 
    It has been suggested that the {4}He branch of the *dd*-fusion reaction is
    somehow favored, and several searches for {4}He have been made. The
    conventional {4}He branch yields a 24 MeV gamma, which is not observed
    when heat is produced. The reaction energy would have to go elsewhere to
    be qualitatively consistent, and many in the field believe that energy
    transfer to the lattice occurs. Many measurements have been performed
    seeking {4}He in the cathode after the experiment; my impression is that
    it is simply not there quantitatively by many orders of magnitude.
 
    There have been some efforts seeking {4}He in the gas stream produced
    during electrolysis; Miles focused the attention of the community on this
    issue last year at Como when he claimed the observation of {4}He which at
    its highest levels might account for roughly 10% of the excess energy.
    Scaramuzzi and De Ninno{11,12} described a new cell, calorimeter plus
    helium detector with which they plan to attempt a confirmation; other
    groups are acquiring mass detection capability for similar studies. The
    measurements of Yamaguchi{22,23} described above has also raised interest
    in helium detection.
 
    I would think that by next year's conference, that there will be a
    consensus by many groups established on whether substantial helium is
    produced or not.
 
    If the pragmatic point of view is adopted that whatever reaction is
    occurring is not constrained by theoretical preconceptions, then the
    search for the ashes is generalized considerably to include possible
    isotopic shifts or anomalies, and the possible production of elements or
    isotopes not initially present.
 
    A large number of studies have been reported at the international
    conferences in which the cathode surface has been analyzed for the
    presence of trace elements. Due to the nature of electrochemical
    deposition in real systems, quite a long list of surface contaminants are
    found at significant levels, hopelessly complicating any straightforward
    *ab initio* experimental search.
 
    The number of nuclei which is sought is on the order of 10{12} per joule
    (or 10{19} per MJ), which either helps or hurts depending on the point of
    view. Present in large quantities are D, O, Pd, Li, and H. Determining a
    relative isotope shift between deuterium and hydrogen is generally deemed
    not to be feasible, given the presence of hydrogen as a ubiquitous
    universal contaminant. Isotope shifts in oxygen are not currently
    predicted by anyone in the field, and have never been studied in
    Pons-Fleischmann experiments to my knowledge.
 
    The first serious claim of possible isotope shifts in heavy elements with
    which I am familiar was made by Rollison at the NSF/EPRI workshop in 1989
    (Rollison subsequently had to back down from her claim -- see the
    proceedings of the Salt Lake City conference). The glow discharge
    observations described by Kucherov{13-16} and the Chinese group{17-20} imply
    isotope shifts in Pd and other metals.
 
    The production of 10 MJ of energy in a Pd cathode (containing 0.1 mole of
    Pd) would give rise to modifications of the Pd isotope distributions
    (assuming Pd were fuel) at the 0.0002 level, assuming arbitrarily 5 MeV
    per reaction. The prospect of proving this experimentally if it is in the
    bulk is judged to be impractical. If the reactions occur near the
    surface, then the numbers improve; the "noise" associated with natural
    isotopic separation also increases. Searches for such surface isotope
    shifts have been reported, and continue to be performed; such searches
    for now remain in the background of the field.
 
    Lithium appears to be required for heat production in Pons-Fleischmann
    experiments, although it is unknown whether it plays any nuclear role.
 
    Thompson, formerly of Johnson-Matthey, reported{49} that the lithium on
    the surface of a Pons-Fleischmann cathode that had been involved in
    heat-producing experiments showed a depletion of {6}Li relative to the
    natural abundance (down to about 4%). Pons and Fleischmann had reported
    (in the Salt Lake proceedings) that the lithium which they had used was
    initially enriched in {6}Li (11%); Thompson noted this in his talk,
    quoting an initial concentration of 9-11%, but said the Johnson-Matthey
    group did not have a before to compare with their after.
 
    During the questions following Thompson's talk, McKubre noted that the
    Johnson-Matthey analysis only looked at the surface, and that any lithium
    present in the bulk might provide an internal reference. Thompson said
    that he thought that this suggestion could be tested. The conference
    proceedings from Johnson-Matthey states that no lithium is detected in
    the bulk,{50} which would imply that it will not be possible to establish
    an internal reference retrospectively.
 
    The amount of lithium present in a cathode is an interesting question.
    Gozzi reported last year the results of studies to determine Li loading
    in Pd during electrolysis, and found the very high number of 5% by
    monitoring the Li lost from the electrolyte. I questioned him at the
    conference (he presented{50} some nice positive results from his torus of
    cells where he monitors for heat, neutrons, tritium, helium, and I think
    gammas; unfortunately, I am lacking sufficient documentation of his
    results to present more details in this review), since several papers
    presented at each of the international conferences showed per cent level
    surface concentrations which fall rapidly on the micron scale into the
    bulk of the cathode (an exception to this was the measurements presented
    by Nakada{51} et al showing lithium profiles with significant lithium in
    20-30 microns). Lithium concentrations were measured by Myamoto et
    al,{52,53} who obtain Li/Pd ratios between 3 X 10{-4} and 3 X 10{-3}. I
    suspect that the Li/Pd ratio is probably sensitive to cathode properties,
    to the electrochemistry and loading time; one possible explanation of the
    long loading time required for Pons-Fleischmann cells, and remarked on
    explicitly by McKubre,{2} was that extra time beyond the deuterium loading
    time required to see the heat effect might be due to a necessity to
    achieve significant loading of another species, such as lithium or other
    light interstitials.
 
    I note here that energy production at the level of 100 MJ/mol would yield
    an observable (2%) isotope shift in lithium if the lithium concentration
    were at the 1% level, and if the bulk lithium did not substitute with
    lithium in the electrolyte. The numbers are worse if the electrolyte
    lithium is included, but not so bad to prohibit a measurement.
    Unfortunately, very few groups are currently pursuing the lithium isotope
    shift problem; I consider it to be an important question, especially in
    light of the initial Johnson-Matthey positive measurement.
 
14. B. Stella{54} presented a poster that I passed by twice; the title talks
    about the "stimulated emission of neutrons," that is of course impossible
    -- neutrons are fermions, and can of course not participate in stimulated
    emission. The third time by, Stella grabbed me and walked me through his
    poster (for which I am thankful, otherwise I would have missed it).
 
    In essence what the experiment consists of is taking a Pons-Fleischmann
    cell, putting it inside a 40 % efficient neutron detector underground in
    the Gran Sasso INFN laboratory, and directing an incident neutron beam
    (of about 30 neutrons/sec) with a substantial thermal component at the
    cell. Fast (2.45 MeV) neutrons are measured originating from the cell,
    and a gain of about 2 fast neutrons for every incident neutron is
    claimed.
 
    After talking to him, I was given to understand that for 30 neutrons/sec
    input that 60 or more neutrons/sec were measured (taking into account the
    neutron detector efficiency). I asked if the ratio held up at a higher
    input flux, and he said that they had done experiments up at 500/sec
    incident, with the same basic neutron gain (but that their neutron
    detector suffered from saturation problems at such a high flux).
 
    I asked whether the effect was reproducible. Stella said that they had
    done two runs (each run takes about a week to do) so far, and that they
    hoped to be able to do some more in the near future.
 
    I note that a neutron gain of 2 would be a very important result, if
    true, with rather important implications. I note also that this report of
    two observations (with a modest signal relative to noise) is the first in
    which such an effect has been claimed, and that no reproductions from
    either this group or any other group has been made.
 
====== end of Part I (Part II to follow) =====
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 13:36:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In Xref: sci.physics.fusion [5419; solid state fusion; 3/9/93
 Loren I. Petrich [lip@s1.gov]  writes:
 
===  > Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
===  > until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
===  > The rest was then begun to be explained.
===  "The Mo"ssbauer experiment results from a nucleus
===  transmitting its recoil momentum to an entire crystal,
===  which it does in a well-understood way. That explains
===  the seeming recoillessness of  Mo"ssbauer-effect emission."
 
   The Mossbauer experiment uses the narrow peak of the emission
(deltaE/E ca. 10^-11) to examine slight differences at the
nucleus ** caused ** by the s-electrons.  The metal atoms
in two different (chemically different - eg. alloy) samples
form a pair (one metal emits, the other absorbs).  There is a
slight difference called the "monopole shift".  The very
slight difference in E between them is actually made up by
Doppler shift by moving one of the samples slowly.
For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science, vol 144, 253-259 (64).
 
 
=== "So what? That's just the difference between
=== (nucleus + any electrons) and an isolated nucleus."
 
  Loren, it goes back to the point. The claim was that in a lattice
the physics is always the same as in a gas or a plasma.
  It is thus shown to be: not.
 
 
=== >   Here thus are two examples of nuclear reactions being
=== >different in a solid --- different because the lattice does
=== > (at least weakly) exert its effect upon the physics.
===
===  Too weakly to cause such effects as neutron- or gamma-less
===  fusion,as should be evident by plugging in fusion-reaction
===  numbers into the Mo"ssbauer recoilless-fraction equation.
 
  Could you please show us how "plugging in fusion-reaction
numbers into the Mo"ssbauer recoilless-fraction equation"
proves cold fusion cannot be "neutron- or gamma-less".
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Jed Rothwell /  Forty years? That's nothing!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Forty years? That's nothing!
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 15:42:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Matt Kennel remarked:
 
"Forty years of laboratory nuclear physics *experiments with solid targets*
and fusion experiments and the damn Sun shows that the nuclear physics is the
same."
 
Yes, well 200 years of calorimetry show that the conservation of energy is
the same, the specific heat of water is the same, and that is it is possible
for the Toyota Motor Company to measure 30 watts in, 100 watts out with
absolute confidence.
 
Forty years is *nothing* compared to what we have on our side. Nuclear physics
had not been discovered yet when calorimetry was already a cut and dry
science. You have a choice: you can throw away thermodynamics, chemistry &
calorimetry; or you can say that the branching ratios might be a special case
that only apply to plasma, but evidently not to condensed matter. Which do
you choose? Do we throw away the last 200 years, and the whole basis of
modern science, or do we suppose that a minor theory in minor part of modern
physics might need revision?
 
As far as this "commensurate ash" business goes, I suggest you read up on
recent experiments at NTT, Hokkaido and elsewhere that showed fully
commensurate helium-4. Some doubts about the NTT work were expressed last
fall by Nate Hoffman at Rockwell, but when I last talked to him he seemed
satisfied by the extensive follow-up work, and the clarifications offered by
Yamaguchi. In recent months, Yamaguchi has had his system carefully checked
out for helium contamination by third parties. There is no evidence that
contamination played any role in the experiments, and no evidence whatsoever
that his glass portholes contain any helium.
 
Furthermore, since the volume of chemical ash commensure with a given amount
of heat would be about a million times larger than the nuclear ash, the lack
of ash is FAR more supportive of the "not chemistry" school of thought. It is
far more likely that tiny amounts of nuclear ash have been overlooked than
that several kilograms of chemical ash have escaped our notice. For one thing,
there is no place in those closed cells to put several kilograms (that is
literally how much would be created in some experiments). The boiling cell
experiment of P&F would have created visible, macroscopic chemical changes in
the cathode if that had been a chemical reaction. There were no such changes;
chemical changes have NEVER been found, in any successful CF experiment.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Jeff Driscoll /  vapor energy
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!clipper.prime.com!jdriscol (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: vapor energy
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 15:42:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
(I would have posted this as a follow up to Droege's reply
but I was missing a file .  I'll get it straightened out eventually.)
 
 
I have not measured the amount of energy to boil away water, but I still
think what I wrote is basically correct.  Except that saturated vapor,
pure vapor, and condensed vapor are better terms to use than "steam".
 
Tom Droege writes:
>Consider the problem of generating superheated or 100% vapor in say a
>teakettle or a cell.  A bubble of vapor starts to form at the hot surface.
>The inside of the bubble immediately starts to cool, as the vapor radiates to
>the colder surrounding liquid.  The bubble breaks loose and rises to the
>surface where it "pops" releasing a saturated vapor of less than 100%.  This
>saturated vapor makes its way out of the cell, and thus the assumption that
>the heat of vaporization is required is incorrect.
 
I will use an example to try to explain my position.  I do not work
with boiling water.  I have a mechanical engineering degree and I have
taken thermodynamics.  I am trying to come up with reasons
that might push heat calculations one way or the other.
 
in the following example, use the following numbers:
 
101350 Pascals (N/m^2) = atmospheric pressure
   980 Pascals (N/m^2) = increase in water presure 10 cm below surface of water
101350 Pascals (N/m^2) = vapor pressure of water at 100 deg C
102330 Pascals (N/m^2) = vapor pressure of water at 100.25 deg C (approximately)
                         (I chose this pressure because it is approximately
                          equal to atmospheric pressure plus 10 cm of water
                          pressure)
 
 
I know that P&F's video show vigorous boiling and all sorts of sloshing
around and that there is less pressure as the water level goes down. I
also realize that they are using D2O instead of H2O. Let me put that
aside and comment on the energy to produce vapor and condensed vapor.
 
The things written below generally apply.  There are some things that I
do not know and some of the comments assume equilibrium.
 
Excluding superheating effects, a bubble forms when the vapor pressure
of the water exceeds the the total pressure at that location.  At 10 cm
below the surface, atmospheric pressure plus the pressure of the water
above it prevents water from boiling until the water reaches 100.25
deg C.  It takes a tiny bit less  energy 2256.3 vs 2257.0 Joules per
gram of water  to produce a bubble at 10 cm below the surface compared
to at the surface (yes, less energy, I double checked).
 
The bubble will collapse in size if on the way up, it encounters cooler
water (which it will at the beginning of boiling).  It will  collapse
because  it will lose energy to the surrounding liquid.  It may collapse
entirely or it may collapse to a fraction of its original volume.  But
as it collapses, where does the vapor go?  The H2O molecule does not
form tiny microscopic droplets in the center of the bubble, that would
imply that something is cooling the bubble throughout its entire
volume.  For it to collapse, more H2O molecules must be passing from
the vapor side to the liquid side than are going the opposite way.
 
So, by the time the bubble reaches the surface, it either is a
superheated vapor or it is saturated vapor.  In other words, it is not
condensed vapor with tiny microscopic droplets (microscopic droplets
being defined as  pure liquid water, not individual H2O molecules).
 
Saturated vapor can be defined as the following:  a vapor that is
cooled to a temperature at which the individual H2O molecules just
begin to condense.   Any further attempt to extract energy (cool) will
result in the water vapor condensing.
 
The individual molecules can clump together and form tiny microscopic
droplets or they can stick to a wall and form water drops on the wall.
The energy liberated per cm^3 is the same for tiny microscopic droplets
as is for condensate that forms on the wall, 2257.0 joules per cm^3
(you would have to get a few zillion microscopic droplets so that when
you put them together with no spaces between them, you get 1 cc of
water which is one  gram of water) It works exactly the in reverse,
if you had 1 gram of microscopic droplets and you wanted to vaporize
them, you would need 2257.0 joules.
 
 
Assume the bubble leaves the surface and it quickly turns to
microscopic droplets ( microscopic droplets which  look like white
colored "steam", are liquid water and  not pure vapor which are individual
molecules) .  The reason that it turned to microscopic droplets is
because something cooled it from the *outside*, for example the
surrounding air.  The air picks up this energy and carries it away.
 
As long as that microscopic droplets of *condensed* water  leaves the
container, it is counted as vaporized water and therefore 2257.0
joules per cm^3. If it does not leave and re-enters the liquid, then
it has to be boiled twice.
 
Someone might say "The energy liberated when the vapor condensed into
tiny droplets went into the air and this air then was used to heat the
top of the liquid which means that you are using the same energy twice
because the droplets left the testube." No, this would not work.  Any
energy that makes it back into the water came from excess energy that
the vapor had when the bubble first left the liquid surface.  (Excess
energy is the energy above the amount needed to vaporize it, in other
words superheated vapor).   Any bubbles that do leave as superheated
vapor result in under estimated energy calculations because that is
energy that left the system without being counted.
 
If any of the water condenses on the surface of the test tube and then
trickles back into the testube would have to be "boiled" twice and that
would lead to an underestimation of the energy produced.
 
Any water droplets, no mater how small that are knocked out of the
testube should not be counted as being boiled away.  If a tiny
droplet gets kicked up and is carried away (because the gasses and
vapors are flowing out of the cell) it should not be counted.
 
Here is how I would decrease the amount of "unboiled" droplets
from leaving the cell.
 
Since the droplets are being carried by a flow of condensed vapor and
pure vapor, I would decrease the velocity of the gasses. The droplets
should fall back in.  The best hope is to prevent the larger droplets
from leaving.  If the testube opening is 2 cm in diameter I would pass
the gasses through a sphere whose diameter is 5 cm and whose surface
temperature is 100 deg C.  If the surface temp is increased to above
100 degrees C then energy is being added to the vapor flow.  If the
surface is below 100 deg C then the flow will  condense onto the
surface and trickle back into the test tube and it would have to be
boiled  again.  It would be complicated, but you could flow 100 deg
saturated steam over the outside of this sphere. That would keep it at
100 deg C.  To make saturated vapor, pass superheated vapor through a
condenser and partially condense it, any vapor that emerges is
saturated.
 
 
             Jeff Driscoll
 
h 617 878 1806
w 617 275 1800 x3717
 
jdriscol@frisbee.Prime.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjdriscol cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Electron Screening
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Electron Screening
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 15:42:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) in Digest #808:
 
>In discussing heavy electron screening, Dieter writes:
>> And I still think that a rate of 1E11 fusions/dd-pair/s is stated for muon
>> catalysed fusion. I can wait until Thursday for the answer, no problem.
>Dieter and fellow net friends,
>    Well it's Thursday, so here is the reply :-).
 
Chuck, you definitely have the record for name mangling. In one posting,
we have Hagelstien, Jone (as in Jone's), Coulumb, Tom Drouge and Avogardo.
But I liked your
>Fluctuations", as turing point to the acceptability (non-acceptability
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Very apt, for a computer group.
 
{:]     Sorry, mate, I can't help myself. Some scientists do make jokes.
 
Your reply has, I think, some problems, but I hope someone who knows more
physics than I do will address them. You try to get around the necessity for
heavy (enhanced-mass) electrons, by letting them run in crowds. Intuitively,
I feel that this gives you a Coulomb repulsion problem, i.e. between those
electrons. So I don't tend to believe in bunches of either deuterons or
electrons. Someone knowledgable please comment. As usual, though, Chuck, a
good try.
 
And thanks for
 
>Dieter, first let me say thank you for the CNF bibliography. It seems
>to get better and better, and for me, is an invaluable reference.
 
I like your good-natured postings, mate, never a word of abuse.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Pd can be hazardous!
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Pd can be hazardous!
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 15:42:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
in Digest #814:
 
>I have heard of this happening at MANY OTHER SITES, and I have been cautioned
>by people like Bockris to handle loaded palladium with extreme care. Anyone
 
>However, to my knowledge, this recombination effect cannot happen when Pd is
>under water, or surrounded by water vapor. A few days after the SRI accident
>occured, Bockris told me that he expected the proximate cause was a bit of
>Pd exposed to oxygen gas in the cylander. He thought that during handling
>the water might have sloshed around, and exposed a tiny piece of the cathode.
>As I recall, this is not what happened, but I don't remember and I don't have
>the report at hand. I believe, however, that I asked Bockris whether he
 
Bockris knows what is what. The way I read the report, a flap of teflon sealed
a pressure valve and pressure built up in the cell. Then, Riley moved it, and
tilted it, exposing the cathode to a pressurised mix of D2 and O2.
 
This reaction is of course also the reason that a Pd cathode must be covered
up where it sticks out into the cell headspace, or else it acts as a
recombiner - that is, if you don't want recombination, i.e. an open cell. In
the first P&F cell, both D2 and O2 exited through the same hole that had the
Pd rod - a sure recipe for recombination, and this alone could explain the
"excess heat" of those first experiments, in which zero recombination was
assumed. Later, they started covering the rods.
 
Kreysa, in 1989, wrote about a burn he made in a lab table, by simply placing
a deuterium-charged Pd rod on it, in air. This was to show that a lot of heat
can be stored (the famous 4 MJ in fact) in such a rod, and released quite
quickly. This made me wonder how people manage to measure the D-loading by
allegedly taking the cathode out, wiping it and weighing it. Maybe the speed
with which this reaction runs depends on the nature of the electrode surface.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Baloney Yourself
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Baloney Yourself
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 01:13:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege writes:
 
"So to everyone out there who says that calorimetry is a "piece of cake" you
just have to read simple thermometers, I say baloney!  It is a tough
business."
 
If you do it the hard way it is tough. If you do the easy way, it is easy.
Now Look Here Tom:
 
You are trying to measure to the nearest 0.01 watts. THAT'S HARD. I can
measure to the nearest 1.0 watts. That is 100 times easier. Understand?
 
Making and using a magnifying glass is easy. Making and using a scanning
electron microscope is hard. You are trying to manufacture and use a scanning
electron "heat microscope" in your basement. I am content to use a magnifying
glass. I don't need 0.01 watt accuracy to measure 30 watts of heat.
 
Calorimetry accurate to the nearest 1.0 watts has been in existance for well
over 100 years, and it is absolutely, positively, simple, reliable and a
piece of cake. As Bockris told me years ago:
 
     "I CALLED IN THE BEST CHAP IN THE STATE OF TEXAS TO CHECK MY CALORIMETER
     -- ONE CAN NEVER BE TOO CAREFUL. HE LOOKED AT IT AND ASKED ME HOW MUCH
     HEAT I WAS TRYING TO MEASURE. I SAID A WATT OR TWO. HE LAUGHED AND SAID
     I DIDN'T NEED HIM, BECAUSE ANY CALORIMETER IN THE WORLD CAN MEASURE
     THAT."
 
(Bockris speaks in capital letters -- I hold the phone a couple of
centimeters away from my slightly deaf left ear and I hear him loud & clear.)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 /  /  Slow down, Mitchell, please.
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Slow down, Mitchell, please.
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 01:14:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would request that Mitchell Swartz slow down the rate at which
multiple posts of the same assertions are sent so that we can try to
deal with the issues in sufficient depth to get somethings cleared up.
In particular it is not necessary to repost Peter Hagelstein's review.
I have received three copies already, and it is archieved for anyone
who didn't get the first, second, or third time.  I did read it the
first time around and will reread anything you insist is particularly
significant.
 
Now to pick on one of your arguments.  One issue that needs clarification
is the question of whether and how lattice interactions can alter nuclear
reaction processes.  I believe your most resent post in this regard
included something like the following: "The claim was that in a lattice
the physics is always the same as in a gas or plasma.  It is thus shown
to be: not."  You use the Mossbauer effect as the counterexample which
"disproves" the claim as you state it.  In clarification let me state
that the claim never has been that the physics is always the same in
every detail.  You have one counter example and I could give you some
more.  We can all agree that there are situations where nuclear reaction
processes are altered by the matrix in which the reacting nucleus is
situated.   It doesn't follow, however, that nuclear reactions that
take place in a lattice can necessarily be totally different in every
conceivable manner and degree.  There is a knowledge base which can
be brought to bear on this question.  There are ways of estimating
the nature and the scale of possible effects on nuclear decays.
 
A detailed discussion of this issue can best be carried out in the
context of some specific proposal.  It is essential, I think, for
those who advocate that lattice effects make it impossible to use
normal nuclear physics techniques to evaluate cold fusion experiments
to make a detailed hypothesis of the reaction process they are
considering and the means by which it gets modified.  If you can
offer no specific hypothesis the argument is over and you loose.
The burden of proof always lies with those who are making the
unorthodox assertions.  My assertion is that the fusion of deuterium
will always result in the emission of neutrons.  This assertion
is supported by a vast body of knowledge and experimental facts
which include the data from muon-catalyzed fusion, for example.
What have you got by way of a single theory or example that shows
that lattice effects can alter neutron emission rates to the
degree required to bring experimental observations on cold fusion
into a logically consistant pattern?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 /  /  The P&F Boiling Cell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The P&F Boiling Cell
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 01:14:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

"Furthermore, no bulk water was leaving the cell -- explicitly stated by Pons
during his presentation."  Gene Mallove, private message to me 25 Feb 93.  I
assume Gene is correct in his quote of Pons as he was there.
 
My discussion has provoked a more informed discussion by Jeff Driscoll.   I
agree with most of what he has so nicely posted about what happens to water
when it boils.  I was wrong on a number of concepts.  For a solution, we
disagree somewhat as to technique but we are both trying to get at the same
problem.  I would superheat the exiting vapor to make sure it did not contain
condensed droplets.  He would lower the exiting gas velocity to try to limit
the size of particle that the vapor could carry.
 
Note that Jeff says:  "The best hope is to prevent the larger droplets from
leaving."  This does not sound like "no bulk water was leaving..." to me!
 
Jeff knows better.  Jeff further states "It would be complicated, ..." and
continues to try to think up ways to guarantee that the exiting vapor would be
saturated.
 
But no "complication" was observed in the video of the P&F boiling cell.
 
My point was, and still is, that it would be quite hard to guarantee that the
exiting vapor is saturated.  Old fashioned turbine plants had this problem.
Not a problem with piston engines but water droplets eroded turbine blades so
superheaters were invented (also for efficiency reasons).
 
My proposal for superheating the exiting gas is based on instrumentation
experience.  The error caused by a tiny fraction of water in the steam is much
larger than the error caused by miss-measuring the exiting vapor temperature.
This is due to the very large heat of vaporization of water.  So I prefer to
superheat and to live with the temperature error problem.  Furthermore, I just
don't know how to measure the water content of vapor.  That is I don't know
how to do it without condensing it in a second calorimeter.
 
Gary Collins has posted a nice table which shows that "the loading has a large
and abrupt fall as the temperature increases above about 150 C."  Also thanks
to Gary as one more person who has observed the safety problem with charged
Pd.
 
I note that the recently leaked secrets of P&F about how to get a boiling cell
include a high cathode current pulse which raises the cathode temperature
above 180 C for "up to 3 minutes".
 
It seems to me that the pieces to decode the P&F boiling cell demonstration
are beginning to fall into place.
 
1) Run a long time with vigorous electrolysis so that it is hard to be sure of
the liquid content of the cell.  All those bubbles fill a lot of space so that
the amount of liquid in the cell is over estimated.
 
2) Blast the cell with high current.  While the heat added is not so large,
the cathode gets hot and loses its loading which contributes to high vapor
velocity leaving the cell.  During this pulse, most of the cell contents leave
as liquid, but this fact is obscured by all the bubbling.
 
3) Now the constant current supply takes over and puts lots of heat into the
liquid to keep it boiling.  The liquid has already left, but this is hard to
detect, so while the E*I*t product is probably measured correctly, the cell
heat during the boil off is over estimated because the liquid has already left
the cell.  Just like the Amazing Randi would do it if he wanted to fool us!
 
I look forward to publication by P&F of a paper which will show that the
experimental concerns expressed above have been considered and that all my
criticisms are unfounded.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Exposed Film
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Exposed Film
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 06:44:22 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
 
>There have been a number of publications where film was exposed by placing a
>cathode on film.  You may recall, that my brother and I did a similar
>experiment.  We wrapped film around a cell, and found images around it of
>various thicknesses of metal absorber (shim stock) placed between the cell and
>the film.  My brother then did the same experiment a thousand miles away from
>my cell near Denver, and got similar results.  Conclusion, film is sensitive
>to heat and pressure (well known).
 
>Now what if a cathode outgasses a little D2, which reacts with the plastic
>of the film, and produces a little hot spot?  Seems to me this would produce
>the images that some have published.
 
If so, then what is being seen are hot spots.  That in itself may be a
useful tool in understanding the heating effect. The autoradiographs
done by  M. Srinivasan et al. are somewhat hard to interpret, but they
do show lines in a random pattern (a pattern similar termites in wood)
which is indicative of localized heating or localized charged particle
emmission. (Perhaps fracture lines?). Srinivasan claims in his paper
that the effect it not due to heat but charged particle emissions.
Considering the films exposure, if it was a D-chemical reaction with
emulsion then the whole film should be fogged, and they are not.
The termite pattern is the important effect, not fogging as I
see it.  Perhaps one of the resident emulsion experts might
comment as to the potential sources of the pattern.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
[1] M Srinivasan et al. AIP Conference Proceedings #228. Provo UT. 1990
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 / Stephen Behling /  Re: vapor energy
     
Originally-From: sxb@fermi.cray.com (Stephen Behling)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: vapor energy
Date: 9 Mar 93 13:19:11 CST
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

 
 
  Several recent posts discuss boiling water and the effects of liquid
being transported with the steam.  I just want to point out that there
is a large amount of information on these phenomena in the literature.
Some of the key phrases include: two-phase flow, boiling heat transfer,
and entrainment and de-entrainment during reflood.  The entrainment work
was done at atmospheric pressure.
 
   Much of this work came out of the nuclear reactor safety studies
performed for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1970s).  The problem
that prompted the research was computing how long it takes to refill a hot
nuclear core following an accident.  When full, no futher damage would
occur.  How rapidly it fills determines whether any damage could occur in
the first place.  The entrainment of liquid by the steam (produced by
boiling on the hot core surfaces) had a significant effect on the
computed water levels.  It also strongly effects the energy balance
computations.
 
   If I remember correctly, thermal nonequilbrium effects were also quite
important, mostly for the heat transfer--but in nuke studies one often had dry
surface temperatures much greater than saturation temperature (beyond the
DNB point, in fact).  This may not be the case for the boiling processes
under discussion in this group.
 
   I would suggest three points:
 
        1.  You gotta track entrained liquid to get a good mass and
            energy balance.
 
        2.  The heat transfer rate from a hot surface into liquid can vary
            but several orders of magnitude as conditions change from liquid
            conduction to nucleate boiling to vapor conduction.  Nucleate
            boiling has (by far) the largest heat transfer rate.
 
        3.  You can get 90% of your heat transfer answers looking at
            macroscopic phenomena.  Only when that is solid, does it pay
            to worry about the microscopic problems of nucleation sites
            and the mechanics of bubble formation.  (This is all fun, but
            cumbersome.)
 
  -steve behling
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensxb cudfnStephen cudlnBehling cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
Date: 9 Mar 93 17:41:02 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <930309033540_72240.1256_EHL86-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
>
> As far as this "commensurate ash" business goes, I suggest you read up on
> recent experiments at NTT, Hokkaido and elsewhere that showed fully
> commensurate helium-4. Some doubts about the NTT work were expressed last
> fall by Nate Hoffman at Rockwell, but when I last talked to him he seemed
> satisfied by the extensive follow-up work, and the clarifications offered by
> Yamaguchi. In recent months, Yamaguchi has had his system carefully checked
> out for helium contamination by third parties. There is no evidence that
> contamination played any role in the experiments, and no evidence whatsoever
> that his glass portholes contain any helium.
 
 The above is misinformation:  I spoke to Nate Hoffman just a few days ago,
and he said the helium found by Yamaguchi of NTT could well be contamination
coming from glass in Yamaguchi's system.  In particular, Nate pointed out that
the glass windows had been exposed to air and to helium, both of which would
load helium into the glass.  He pointed out to me differences in H2 and D2
which could give readings for D2 but not H2:  e.g., 4He lies on the shoulder
of D2 in Yamaguchi's mass spectrometer, raising any 4He peak (unlike H2).
Nate's point is that while he cannot prove contamination, yet the levels of
4He claimed by Yamaguchi are consistent with contamination coming from glass,
and as long as glass is present as a reservoir for helium, Yamaguchi's claims
are at best ambiguous.
>
> Furthermore, since the volume of chemical ash commensure with a given amount
> of heat would be about a million times larger than the nuclear ash, the lack
> of ash is FAR more supportive of the "not chemistry" school of thought. It is
> far more likely that tiny amounts of nuclear ash have been overlooked than
> that several kilograms of chemical ash have escaped our notice. For one thing,
> there is no place in those closed cells to put several kilograms (that is
> literally how much would be created in some experiments). The boiling cell
> experiment of P&F would have created visible, macroscopic chemical changes in
> the cathode if that had been a chemical reaction. There were no such changes;
> chemical changes have NEVER been found, in any successful CF experiment.
> - Jed
 
If it's not nuclear and it's not chemical, it must be ... wrong.  We certainly
haven't ruled out all alternatives to nuclear origins.
 
In any case, if the alleged xs heat is nuclear in origin, then show me
the X-rays from Pd (the 21KeV k-alpha line will do) or from nickel (7.4 keV
line) and stop this endless stream of words.  (Please see my post earlier today
"X-rays as critical test of claims.")
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  X-rays as critical test of claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as critical test of claims
Date: 9 Mar 93 17:25:10 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Mitchell Swartz's questions about
 Q (heat released) = delta-m * c^2, where delta-m = (mass reactants) - (mass
products)
have been answered by Jim Carr, Frank Close, Matt Kennel and Dick Blue
in some detail and I will not repeat the arguments here.
If I had expressed the equation above (as posted in a clarification)
rather than as delta-E/c^2 = delta-m (as I did once)  this would probably
have saved a lot of pointless discussion about differentiating E=mc^2.
 
In any case, the discussion has been useful if we now generally agree that the
equation above is applicable to testing "cold-fusion" claims
and that, along with conservation of baryon number and total energy,
these experimentally well-established principles require that
   nuclear products or "ash" or "debris" *must* be
   present in amounts *commensurate* with the heat released Q.
It appears that Mitchell agrees with this.  But he speaks of other pathways
where the debris may be hiding, so I will move on to this point.
 
*Neutrinos* were raised as one carrier of energy that would be virtually
undetectable.  This argument fails flat when one realizes that the postulated
neutrinos would also escape the electrolytic (or other) cell without depositing
the xs heat claimed.  The same problem applies to postulated GeV-scale
particles -- many *might* escape undetected, but by the same token they would
not heat the cell.  Thus, the presence of heat in the cell already is a
detector-signal telling us that any particles created (or better, synthesized),
are of *short* range, for they have deposited their heat locally.
 
Now we can take the next logical step, which is that such particles as they
slow from MeV energies (postulating nuclear reactions again) will ionize atoms
--experiments show that this is how energetic particles lose much of their
energy in matter.  Next step, the ionized atoms will emit photons.  Indeed,
from experiments with particles carrying MeV energies impinging on various
materials, we have learned experimentally that the excited atoms release
x-rays characteristic of the element, e.g., the k-alpha x-ray of palladium
is 21 keV, of nickel is 7.4 keV.  I chose the two common cathodes where
nuclear reactions alledgedly produce xs heat (Pd and Ni).
 
In my posting on 5 Mar 1993 ("X-rays and nuclear ash:  Where's the beef?"),
I presented the results of a montecarlo calculation which shows that large
numbers of x-rays are emitted and could easily be detectable *IF* the basis
of the alleged xs heat were indeed *nuclear*.
 
This argument is completely general.  I assert that
X-rays must be present if reactions
are producing measurable quantities of xs heat by *any* pathway, as long
as the reactions are MeV-scale, i.e., nuclear in origin.  We do not require
deuteron-deuteron fusion, although this could be a possibility, and if it
occurs at rates needed for xs power generation, then secondary X-ray
production is both copious and calculable.
 
We have developed a portable X-ray *spectrometer* that operates at room
temperature and is small enough that it can be placed adjacent to or even
*inside* an electrolytic cell.  (Described in our paper to Nagoya proceedings,
available on request.)  Therefore, there is little excuse to *not* look for
X-rays.  At the Nagoya meeting, I challenged researchers-- in particular,
Pons, McKubre and Takahashi were challenged -- to look for X-rays
or to let us bring our portable, intrusive detector to do so.  Only Takahashi
responded favorably, but on the day we visited his laboratory, his cells
were not producing xs heat, I understood.  At least he agreed one should look.
In a fax to me, he said:
"Due to the slowing down of high energy charged particles which should be
produced from excess heat cell, if it were nuclear, we should observe
intense X-rays.  I agree with you."  (Oct. 14, 1992)
 
On the other hand, to claim xs-heat-by-nuclear-reactions while
declining to look for X-rays is, to me, bad science.
 
The fact remains:  *no one* has shown an x-ray spectrum showing the
characteristic line of excited of Pd (or Ni, in the case of a nickel cathode).
To me, this is the strongest argument *against* a nuclear origin of the
alleged xs heat at present.
 
Neutrons at the levels we are claiming are indeed difficult to observe, as
Tom Droege recently pointed out again.  In any case, I see *no* connection to
putative xs heat production.   But X-ray *spectrometers* are
neither too expensive nor difficult to use.
Our portable version complete with portable PC and
multi-channel analyzer board and software) cost about $4,000.  It's easy to
use, too.  Yes, we're continuing to look for X-ray lines from electrolytic
cells -- tomorrow we'll begin with the Ni/H2O cell.  Nothing yet. Period.
 
Tom and Chuck Sites recently provided caveats agains using X-ray film,
which is sensitive to mechanical and chemical effects which produce artifacts.
Experiments performed here some time ago by students and myself have
demonstrated these problems.  Moreover, Srinivasan of BARC in India published
a paper about a year ago in which he showed that X-ray film shows
"fogging" when exposed to either Pd-deuteride or Pd-hydride.  He warned in
that paper that these new results implied that his earlier claims of X-ray
production by Pd-deuteride due to nuclear effects were in considerable doubt,
taken as they were with X-ray film.  I will dig up the paper if there is
interest; it was published in an Indian journal.  The students here repeated
Srinivasan's experiments with Pd-D and Pd-H and found fogging of x-ray film
just as he reported.  The same grave caveats apply I think to other work
with X-ray film, such as that of S. Szpak et al. of Naval Research Labs.
 
Mitchell, I am not interested in playing semantic games about the meaning
of "ash", nor discussions regarding differentiation of E=mc^2.  I urge you
to move on with me to the discussion of X-rays as a critical test of
claims that xs heat generation is nuclear in origin.
 
I conclude with this challenge which I myself am also pursuing:
Look for X-rays using a spectrometer (not X-ray film), in cells which
purportedly produce xs heat.  If you find none -- and no one has to date --
then admit that the xs heat is not nuclear.  Until then, do not claim that
"the xs heat must be nuclear since it is too large to be anything else."
 
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.08 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 17:57:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
>  until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
 
Well what can I say?  I am ignorant, but I try not to be myopic.
 
> ===  >  Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
> ===  >  and phonon emission, and helium-4.
> ===   "These ashes have never been found to match the amount of heat
> ===   generated."
>
>     At least we agree there are products created.
>     Brian, do these ever appear de novo (helium-4 and tritium)
>  without  nuclear reactions?
 
External sources are possible, but particular experiments would have to
be examined to see if these were taken into account.
 
>    Consider:  IF the levels are presently not consistent with
>  amount of putative nuclear reactions, it can mean that there
>  are other pathways **or**  that the experiments are not collecting
>  all the product(s) (in addition to other possibilities).
 
In general, the nuclear products are three or more orders of magnitude less
than that needed to explain the heat.  This would imply *thousands* of
pathways (or hundreds if the researchers are missing 90% of the products, which
seems unlikely).  Or that the mysterious paths which are generating nuclear
products are much less important than the mysterious path which is generating
the heat.  The heat is apparently unexplained, and the occasional nuclear
particle only deepens the mystery by implying that there are other processes
going on.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Still not a heat pump
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still not a heat pump
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 15:41:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
By back channels, a couple of people suggested to me that a CF device might
be something like a Peltier device (or other heat pump), which would allow it
to move heat up against the thermodynamic barrier, from the bath, into the
cell.
 
You people are missing the point: in order to defeat the calorimeter, you
would have to put the Peltier device into the *walls* of the cell. Glass or
metal cell walls do not constitute a Peltier device. Even if a CF device was
a heat pump, we never leave any part of the CF device outside the cell. CF
devices never look like miniature airconditioners, with one part sticking
out of the cell wall! A CF device is completely contained in the cell; it is
always suspended in the middle, away from the walls and away from the cooling
loop. The only thing a "heat pump CF device" can do is move heat around
INSIDE the cell and create thermal gradations. That would not make any
difference, because the cooling loop will eventually remove whatever heat it
finds and the Delta-T will reflect the average correctly over time. You can
picture this as something like a refrigerator sitting in the kitchen with the
door left open; it will heat up the kitchen, and cause thermal gradations
within the kitchen, but it cannot reach outside the walls of the house to
bring heat in. If you ran an enormous cooling loop through the kitchen, the
Delta-T would show heat evolving from the refrigerator motor, but the heat
pump effect would be cancelled out. (People with children will have no
trouble envisioning the effects of a refrigerator door left open.)
 
With other types of calorimeter, a "heat pump CF device" would be defeated
by the stirrer or bubbler, or by Srinivasan's never fail method: "gently
shake the cell."
 
(Tom Droege, by the way, HAS a Peltier device in the walls of his calorimeter.
But it is supposed to be there! That's what he uses instead of cooling loop,
you might say.)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / Dieter Britz /  RE: vapor energy
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: vapor energy
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 15:41:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!clipper.prime.com!jdriscol (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
in Digest #821:
 
>Excluding superheating effects, a bubble forms when the vapor pressure
>of the water exceeds the the total pressure at that location.  At 10 cm
>below the surface, atmospheric pressure plus the pressure of the water
>above it prevents water from boiling until the water reaches 100.25
>deg C.  It takes a tiny bit less  energy 2256.3 vs 2257.0 Joules per
>gram of water  to produce a bubble at 10 cm below the surface compared
>to at the surface (yes, less energy, I double checked).
 
... etc - a very interesting description of what happens in a boiling cell.
But what is the bottom line? What has been the point of this discussion? The
point was made originally by Frank Close, and was eventually taken up by CNF
enthusiasts. Frank pointed out that it takes a lot of energy to vaporise the
contents of a F&P-type CNF cell, so F&P ought not to be talking about a few
doubtful excess watts but instead ought to be shouting about the boiling off.
 
At the time, it seemed to be assumed that the water did indeed leave the cell
in the form of dry vapour. Per mole of water (the figures for heavy water are
similar within a factor of 2 or so, which is good enough here), that would
imply - taking Jeff's figure of 2257 J/g - about 40 kJ. I believe the cell
had about 3 moles water in it (?), so let's call that around 120 kJ. If this
happens in the space of 10 min (?), that would be 200 W, an impressive figure
and certainly well above the input to the cell; all coming from that little
Pd wire.
 
It was Tom Droege who put the spanner in the works: the assumption that the
water leaves the cell as dry vapour might be wrong. Jeff's description does
not tell us how much leaves the cell as vapour, how much as water droplets.
One thing is pretty sure: SOME of that water went out as water, carried along
with "steam". Such water droplets would need just a tiny extra bit of energy
to make them jump out of the water; let's call that zero. So the bottom line
is this: we have a continuum of possibilities ranging from
1) all water leaves as dry vapour, implying a total heat of 120 kJ or 200 W;
2) all water splashes out as droplets, total heat close to zero, zero W.
 
We simply do not know, from what we have been told, just where in that
continuum we lie.
 
I have said nothing about how hot that little Pd wire would get, what with
something up to 200 W being dissipated from it. This could of course be tested
by putting a Pd wire of the same size into a beaker of water, and passing an
appropriate current through the wire, so that the i*V (V across the wire)
matches the excess power in P&F's cell. Are you game, John Logajan? You'd
need quite a few Amps, I'd say.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / Dieter Britz /  RE: The boiling cell
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The boiling cell
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 15:42:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Much has now been written about this cell of P&F's, boiling "dry" on a video.
A couple of things have been nagging at me throughout the discussion. For one
thing, how come it boils dry? Is the Pd wire that is supposed to be doing the
trick, lying flat along the very bottom of the cell? Or is it, as I visualised
it, hanging with its axis vertical? If so, there would come a point where the
current would cut off and the Pd is no longer in contact with water, leaving
some of it at the cell bottom. Does this happen?
The other thing is that there is not pure heavy water in the cell, but an
electrolyte - presumably the trusty 0.1M LiOD, or whatever. As the water
boils off as pure dry vapour, this gets left behind, and the soup gets thicker
and thicker. At some point, the stuff will crystallise out or form a thick
gel if it's like NaOH. Any sign of this happening? As the soup's volume goes
down, there would be lots of splashes on the now dry cell wall above it.
These should certainly crystallise and show up as white patches. John Logajan,
try to boil a test tube full of, say, 0.1M LiOH dry by heating it at the
bottom. You'll certainly see patches of this sort. Keep your hands away from
the top of the tube, though; despite P&F's assurances of dry vapour, I am
sure there'll be lots of LiOH-loaded splashes around. If your little Pd
wire doesn't explode when you try to put 200 W through it (my earlier
suggestion), you could use that as the heater. Just kidding, John, you have
more sense than that, I know.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 /  /  D2/H2 in Pd
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!sybil.risc.rockwell.com!mwk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2/H2 in Pd
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 05:50:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Regarding recent discussion on determining the quantity of D2 in Pd,
our past experience shows that a quite effective method for determining
the quantity of D2 in Pd entails placing the Pd under a volumetric
cylinder immediately after removing the polarization.  The degassing is
sufficiently slow such that nearly quantitative estimate of the D2
can be made from the volume of gas (assumed to be ideal and corrected for
partial pressure of water).
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmwk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Jed Rothwell /  What are the alternatives?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What are the alternatives?
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 05:51:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Me: "Some doubts about the NTT work were expressed last fall by Nate Hoffman
at Rockwell, but when I last talked to him he seemed satisfied by the
extensive follow-up work, and the clarifications offered by Yamaguchi. In
recent months, Yamaguchi has had his system carefully checked out for helium
contamination by third parties..."
 
Steve Jones: "The above is misinformation:  I spoke to Nate Hoffman just a
few days ago..."
 
It is not misinformation. When I talked to Nate, he seemed satisfied to me.
Perhaps my impression was wrong, or perhaps he changed his mind. In any case,
I have heard that Yamaguchi had his system carefully checked by third
parties, so if Nate Hoffman thinks there is helium in Yamaguchi's glass, he
is wrong.
 
 
Steve also wrote: "If it's not nuclear and it's not chemical, it must be ...
wrong.  We certainly haven't ruled out all alternatives to nuclear origins."
 
I am not sure what this means. This use of ellipsis is confusing.
 
I myself have long maintained that CF is either nuclear, or a brand-new,
mystery source of energy, heretofore never seen on earth: something like
microscopic black holes, zero point energy, shrinking hydrogen, or what-have-
you. If Steve Jones agrees that CF might be something brand new, I have no
quarrel with him. The only thing I insist on is that we cannot ignore
experimental evidence, and we cannot go back to 1989 any more. When CF was
first discovered, there were four possible explanations for it:
 
1. An experimental error
2. Chemistry
3. Nuclear (fission or fusion)
4. A brand new mystery; something completely unknown to science
 
The first two possibilities have been eliminated by careful, widespread
replication at high power levels with good instruments. Of the remaining
possibilities, 3 is much more conservative than 4. Since I am a very
conservative, skeptical person, I suppose 3 is right.
 
Perhaps Steve will tell us which category the CF heat falls into? Is there
some other category I have not thought of? If Steve thinks that CF falls in
category 3 or 4, perhaps he can share his thoughts a bit more specifically
about what he suspects CF is. Hagelstein described 8 or 9 theories, under
"Theory Papers." Does Steve have any thoughts to add to Hagelstein's review?
 
Let me say though, that if Steve wants to shove CF heat back into categories
1 or 2, then he is fighting the whole history of calorimetry, and trying to
ignore everything we know about conservation of energy, thermodynamics, and
the importance of replicated evidence to the scientific method. You cannot
trash 200 years of basic science in order to defend a mere 40 years of
limited, unfinished work in plasma fusion. The laws of thermodynamics have
been around a lot longer than the branching ratios, they have been proven
*far* more conclusively. If anything is wrong, or needs revision; or if any
theory must now be relegated to the status of "a special case," I am certain
that it will be the newer, less fundamental, less important, and less proven
20th century theories. The branching ratios will fall long before you can
prove that the specific heat of water is incorrect by a factor of 10.
 
I myself do not expect that anything is wrong with any current scientific
theory; I expect that CF will be explained in accordance with all known laws
and previous theories to everyone's satisfaction. I think that Hagelstein and
most of the other theorists would agree with me.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / mitchell swartz /  x-rays and cf
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: x-rays and cf
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 16:40:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5436; Sub: X-rays as critical test; 9 Mar 93
      Message-ID: <1993Mar9.172510.494@physc1.byu.edu>
  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
===   "Mitchell Swartz's questions about
===   Q (heat released) = delta-m * c^2, where
===   delta-m = (mass reactants) - (mass products) have been answered
===   by Jim Carr, Frank Close, Matt Kennel and Dick Blue
===   in some detail and I will not repeat the arguments here.
 
   First: Steve, you have now changed the equation.  What is
above is not what you posted, and to which we took the time to
reply.    Here then is your actual equation, to wit:
 
    ***  From past internet posting:
=== "Other nuclear reactions could be cited, but in all cases
===  the energy (Q) released is of order millions of
===  electron volts (MeV) so that the rate of
=== particle production!for correlated power ("excess
=== heat") output can be found using (Q in MeV):
===   (6.24 x 10^12) / Q   reactions /
===                       second per watt of power.
=== "The bottom line is that the number of nuclear products
=== which arise from nuclear reactions must be commensurate
=== with heat released, which follows inescapably from
=== Q = delta-E = delta-m/c^2,
===    where delta-m = (mass reactants) - (mass products)."
    [From S. Jones (From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
     Message-ID: <1993Mar5.160509.483@physc1.byu.edu>
          Date: 5 Mar 93 16:05:09]
 
     Is Q heat? or is it energy released?
 
   Second, neither Jim, Frank, nor Matt answered the questions.
Frank said that he did not even understand what you meant by "E".
  Now we are less certain as to what you mean by Q.
 
 
===  "If I had expressed the equation above (as posted in a
===  clarification) rather than as delta-E/c^2 = delta-m
=== (as I did once)  this would probably have saved a lot of
===  pointless discussion about differentiating E=mc^2."
 
   Perhaps not.  First of all, the new equation above (with heat
    suddenly taking the place of energy) may be wrong.
 
    1) It assumes all energy released is Q (heat released)
    2) If you want ash, you explicitly left it out of the
         above equation which now only discusses heat.
 
 
===   "I assert that X-rays must be present if reactions
===  are producing measurable quantities of xs heat by
===  *any* pathway, as long as the reactions are MeV-scale,
===  i.e., nuclear in origin."
 
  Could you prove said assertion, which has been at the basis of our
taking the time to respond to you and asking?
 
 
===    "The fact remains:  *no one* has shown an x-ray spectrum
===  showing the characteristic line of excited of Pd (or Ni,
===  in the case of a nickel cathode).  To me, this
===  is the strongest argument *against* a nuclear origin of
===  the alleged xs heat at present."
 
   When we couldn't photograph the back side of the moon,
 presumably the moon "did not exist" by this logic.
   Steve, come on. where is the proof that it must exist
    (vide supra).
 
 
===    "Tom and Chuck Sites recently provided caveats against
===  using X-ray film, which is sensitive to mechanical
===  and chemical effects which produce artifacts."
 
    As a Board-certified radiologist too, I suggest you
consider:  If we used your techniques our imaging, diagnostic,
 (yes, and therapeutic) prowess, sensitivity, selectivity, etc.
  would be void.  All sensitive recording devices can be tripped
  erroneously.  That is why we do many controls, standards tests,
  etc.  Do you realize how many chest films, IVPs, CAT scans would
  be not performed  using this bizarre fear.
    Sir, radiologists do a fine job.   The images are real,
  and believe it or not, after decades "mechanical and chemical
  effects" are no big deal. Why superior x-ray techniques are
  older than computerized-check-out-counters at grocery stores.
 
 
===    "Mitchell, I am not interested in playing semantic
===  games about the meaning of "ash", nor discussions
===  regarding differentiation of E=mc^2.  I urge you to move
===  on with me to the discussion of X-rays as a critical
===  test of claims that xs heat generation is nuclear in origin."
 
   We agree.  Please provide the proof if you really have it.
   [Also please note, by the request for the mathematics or proof
    demonstrating the requirement, we do not challenge it
    a priori.
 
 
===    "Until then, do not claim that "the xs heat must be nuclear
===  since it is too large to be anything else."
 
  Steve, We checked all the postings.  It appears that I
 never said anything like that.  Believe it or not, the
 closest my w.p. came in a hunt was to your own posting,
   Here it is, to wit:
 
===   "If the xs heat at the level of mw or so  is indeed
=== nuclear in origin, then where are the commensurate debris?"
    [From S. Jones (From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
    Message-ID: <1993Mar5.160509.483@physc1.byu.edu>
          Date: 5 Mar 93 16:05:09]
 
   Steve, since that was not my claim, we request that you please
  maintain factual clarity.  And that is not semantics.
 
     Our best wishes.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / mitchell swartz /  information on cf
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: information on cf
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 16:41:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Organization: Sci.physcs.fusion/Mail Gateway;10 Mar 1993]

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5439; Subject: Slow down, Mitchell, please.
Message-ID: <0096941E.B5355760.2242@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Organization: Sci.physcs.fusion/Mail Gateway;10 Mar 1993]
 
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue] writes:
 
===   "I would request that Mitchell Swartz slow down the rate
===   at which multiple posts of the same assertions are sent so that
===   we can try to deal with the issues in sufficient depth to
===  get somethings cleared up. In particular it is not necessary
===  to repost Peter Hagelstein's review.   I have received three
===  copies already, and it is archieved for anyone who didn't get
===  the first, second, or third time.  I did read it the first time
===  around and will reread anything you insist is particularly
===  significant."
 
  Dick.  First, we receive many requests by e-mail from as
far away as Australia to re-post, and second, the post was simply
appropriate given your statement.
 
  Don't state that there is no evidence for "cold fusion",
   and we wont post the evidence to balance this net with the truth.
 
  Since the Hagelstein paper contains ** so ** much proof for,
and of, the existence of cold fusion, we can understand your
(and the other skeptics' discomfort).
 
  OK?  no more hand-waving by skeptics.  No more need to reply.
    People read Internet and want to know.  They want access to the
    facts.  The posting reviews what is happening.
 
  OK. For now let's just call the Hagelstein paper ...  how
    about: Exhibit 1.
 
  Do you have a problem with the rate with which information
 is corrected?   A planet inhabited by sentient people probably
 wants errors corrected fast.
 
 
===  "The burden of proof always lies with those who are making the
===  unorthodox assertions."
 
  Excellent. Any comments on Exhibit 1.  The skeptics are the
 "unorthodox" given Exhibit 1.  Per Dick Blue: The burden of proof
  is on the skeptics given Exhibit 1.
 
 
===    "My assertion is that the fusion of deuterium will always
===   result in the emission of neutrons."
 
  May we again respond with Exhibit 1.  And also offer a quote
   from Dick Blue:
 
    "If you can offer no specific hypothesis the argument is over
   and you loose (sic)."
      [after Dick Blue; NSCL@MSU]
 
  Where is you hypothesis (we also allow theory, experiment, mathematical
 logic, ....) to overcome Exhibit 1.  If not, the argument is over,
and the skeptics appear to lose.
 
   Best wishes.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / mitchell swartz /  solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: solid state fusion
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1993 16:42:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5442; 8 Mar 1993; Sub: Re: solid state fusion
        Message-ID: <7600038@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
 
Brian Rauchfuss (rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
 
== >    Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
== >  until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
==
==  "Well what can I say?  I am ignorant, but I try not to be myopic."
 
  Self-depreciation, real or imagined, we submit hardly gets one free
from the skeptics' own torrent of illogic.
  The quote to which the above, removed from context, was referring
was to history (we, as in our history) and not you.
 
  It also refers to pre-transistor times (oh, to have the time to get
 those 6146s heated up). Unless you are claiming time travel too?
 
 
== > ===  >  Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
== > ===  >  and phonon emission, and helium-4.
== > ===   "These ashes have never been found to match the amount of heat
== > ===   generated."
== >
== >     At least we agree there are products created.
== >     Brian, do these ever appear de novo (helium-4 and tritium)
== >  without  nuclear reactions?
==
===   "External sources are possible, but particular experiments
===   would have to be examined to see if these
===   were taken into account.
 
  Brian, external sources may be possible but they are neither "de novo"
 nor a product of a putative reaction, are they?  External sources are
 contamination.  One must account that sinks and sources exist for these
 (of which there are many - including but not limited to surfaces,
     binding within contaminants, lattice sites,
     Frenkel defects, Schottky defects, f centers possibly, ... ).
 
 
===  "In general, the nuclear products are three or more
===  orders of magnitude less than that needed to explain the
===  heat.  This would imply *thousands* of pathways (or hundreds
===  if the researchers are missing 90% of the products,
===  which seems unlikely).  Or that the mysterious paths
===  which are generating nuclear products are much less important
===  than the mysterious path which is generating the heat.
===  The heat is apparently unexplained, and the occasional
===  nuclear particle only deepens the mystery by implying that
===  there are other processes going on.
 
   First, we thus agree that nuclear products have been produced.
   One interpretation is that we agree that such data suggests
   that cold fusion is real, as corroborated by such products.
 
   Second, if there is a "three orders of magnitude" difference
   (out of circa 10^11 to 10^16 or whatever) then one should
   think of reasons for the difference.
 
  Your missive correctly notes the existence of external sources.
  We note: "a good emitter is a good absorber".
 
   Therefore note that said source sites are: shallow traps
     (some not so shallow).
  Such traps may be empty and the fill-up of such traps may also
account for the difference.  This fill-up is not considered in your
above paragraph, but remains well-known.
 
   Best wishes.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / John Logajan /  Re: The boiling cell
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The boiling cell
Date: 10 Mar 93 18:48:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
>I have said nothing about how hot that little Pd wire would get, what with
>something up to 200 W being dissipated from it. This could of course be tested
>by putting a Pd wire of the same size into a beaker of water, and passing an
>appropriate current through the wire, so that the i*V (V across the wire)
>matches the excess power in P&F's cell. Are you game, John Logajan? You'd
>need quite a few Amps, I'd say.
 
From my life experiences with small masses of hot metal in water (molten
aluminum, molten solder, etc) I've found that metals quickly reach the
"ambient" temperature of the surrounding water.  If the metal is much
hotter than the water boiling point, or if the metal is being fed by an
energy source, local boiling will result, and the rate of boiling will
be in proportion to the temperature differential between the metal and
the water.  Therefore it is fairly safe to say that small metal mass causing
local water to boil is within a few degrees of the boiling point of water --
after a few seconds of (equilibrium) running time.
 
For small metal masses and dimensions, the practical equilibrium time is
measured in seconds.  It is only when you get to larger masses and dimensions
of metals that equilibrium times have to be measured in tens of seconds or
even minutes.  The thickness of the metal then begins to dominate as a form
of "insulation."
 
As far as getting a piece of wire to dissipate 200 W, that would indeed
require a large current.  Power dissipation is related to I^2*R.  Since R
(resistance) is very low in most wires, I (current) has to be fairly high.
I would guess (without knowing the diameter of the Pd wire in question)
that most lab power supplies could not drive 200 W into a "shorted" wire.
They would current limit due to internal impedance long before they could
develop 200 W externally.
 
If you want to produce 200 W externally (which certainly requires a robust
power supply in any event) it would be best to use a slightly higher load
resistance -- large enough to pull the current requirements down out of
the limit range, yet small enough no to force the voltage requirements up
into the limit range.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / Loren Petrich /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: 10 Mar 1993 19:54:58 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <C3MJ4F.I9H@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Xref: sci.physics.fusion [5419; solid state fusion; 3/9/93
> Loren I. Petrich [lip@s1.gov]  writes:
 
:  > Ignorance creating myopia was true of semiconductors
:  > until coherence and periodicity were found to be important.
:  > The rest was then begun to be explained.
:  "The Mo"ssbauer experiment results from a nucleus
:  transmitting its recoil momentum to an entire crystal,
:  which it does in a well-understood way. That explains
:  the seeming recoillessness of  Mo"ssbauer-effect emission."
 
>   The Mossbauer experiment uses the narrow peak of the emission
>(deltaE/E ca. 10^-11) to examine slight differences at the
>nucleus ** caused ** by the s-electrons.
 
        That's not what everybody else thinks that the Mo"ssbauer
effect is. Check some nuclear or solid-state physics textbook
sometime.
 
        Furthermore, the 1s-electrons are always there for all except
hydrogen atoms, since it takes much more energy to move them around
that it does to move a valence electron around.
 
... The metal atoms
>in two different (chemically different - eg. alloy) samples
>form a pair (one metal emits, the other absorbs).  There is a
>slight difference called the "monopole shift".  The very
>slight difference in E between them is actually made up by
>Doppler shift by moving one of the samples slowly.
>For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
>Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science, vol 144, 253-259 (64).
 
        Better check those papers again. That does not sound like the
Mo"ssbauer effect to me.
 
: "So what? That's just the difference between
: (nucleus + any electrons) and an isolated nucleus."
 
>  Loren, it goes back to the point. The claim was that in a lattice
>the physics is always the same as in a gas or a plasma.
>  It is thus shown to be: not.
 
        Not _exactly_. But actually pretty close, since nuclear
energies are much greater than atomic ones. I guess I had better check
on the Mo"ssbauer effect more closely.
 
: >   Here thus are two examples of nuclear reactions being
: >different in a solid --- different because the lattice does
: > (at least weakly) exert its effect upon the physics.
 
:  Too weakly to cause such effects as neutron- or gamma-less
:  fusion,as should be evident by plugging in fusion-reaction
:  numbers into the Mo"ssbauer recoilless-fraction equation.
 
>  Could you please show us how "plugging in fusion-reaction
>numbers into the Mo"ssbauer recoilless-fraction equation"
>proves cold fusion cannot be "neutron- or gamma-less".
 
        Certainly. First of all, the only way that D-D fusion can be
guaranteed to be neutronless and gammaless is if the D + D -> He4 +
(phonons) rate can be enhanced to much greater than the D + D -> He3 +
n or the D + D -> T + p rates (both pretty much the same).
 
        The reaction would be:
 
        D + D -> He4* -> He4 + (phonons)
 
        where He4* is an excited state, and the phonons are quantized
lattice-oscillation modes.
 
        The maximum energy of a phonon is approximately)
h*(max.freq.), where the maximum frequency is:
 
        (sound velocity)/(lattice separation),
 
        which is a fraction of an electron-volt for many lattices. To
release 20 MeV, at least 10^8 phonons would have to be emitted into
the lattice in a _very_ short time, a time _much_ shorter than the
time needed to emit a single gamma photon or to split into (T,p) or
(He3,n). And has anyone _ever_ presented a credible mechanism for
doing _that_?
 
        The Mo"ssbauer effect is irrelevant because (if I remember
correctly) the energies are usually much less, meaning that only a
much smaller number of lattice phonons will be created.
 
 
 
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  Re: solid state fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid state fusion
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 00:46:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In sci.physics.fusion [5450; Sub: Re: solid state fusion
10 Mar 1993; Message-ID: <1nlh2i$hos@s1.gov>
Loren Petrich [aka "the Master Blaster"; lip@s1.gov] writes:
 
===  "Furthermore, the 1s-electrons are always there for
===  all except hydrogen atoms, since it takes much more energy
===  to move them around that it does to move a valence
===  electron around."
 
  Really?  Are you saying that the higher s-orbitals
  (the posts did not say "1-s") do not mix with hybridization
  to the p (or far more interesting d) orbitals?
   We submit the energy of the system goes down by such mixing.
 
 
 
== >For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
== >Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science, vol 144, 253-259 (64).
==
===  "Better check those papers again. That does not
===   sound like the Mo"ssbauer effect to me."
 
   Are you confusing Mossbauer spectroscopy vs Mossbauer
effect vs. Mo"ss-something? Do you have a reference?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
Date: 10 Mar 93 15:04:38 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Mitchell Swartz asks, "Is Q heat? or is it energy released?"  He also asks
that I prove my assertion that "X-rays must be present if reactions are
producing measurable quantities of xs heat by *any* pathway, as long as the
reactions are MeV-scale, i.e., nuclear in origin."
 
The questions are related, for nuclear reactions release energy in the
form of energetic (MeV-scale) particles.  As these slow down in a material
(e.g., palladium nearby), they excite atoms which leads to X-rays as the atoms
de-excite, and finally the energy degrades to random kinetic energies in the
bulk material, i.e., heat.  The processes by which
charged particles slow in matter are well-studied, and I suggest a
reference such as Emilio Segre's Nuclear Physics (title approximate).
 
Charged particles are present in all nuclei, and must, by charge conservation,
be present in both reactants and product nuclei.
 
For further proof, I would
cite PIXE, Proton Induced X-ray Emission, which involves materials analysis
using characteristic X-rays emitted when a beam of approx. 3-MeV protons
impinge on a material.  X-rays are abundantly produced.  We have a PIXE device
here at BYU; the phenomenon is well known and routinely used.  I asked an
experienced user of PIXE (Prof. G. Jensen) whether it would be possible
to slow copious
(since we are postulating xs heat production at > milliwatt levels) MeV-scale
particles in matter without production of X-rays.  He said it was impossible.
Experiments show this.
 
I perceive that more explanation of Q as used in nuclear physics may help,
and so I quote from a physics text by Halliday & Resnick (Fundamentals of
Physics, 1988, p. 162-163):
 
"Mass and energy are related by what is certainly the best-known equation in
physics namely
     E = mc^2,                 (26)
in which E is the energy equivalent of mass m and c is the speed of light. ...
 
In applying equation 26 to reactions between particles, we find it convenient
to rewrite it as
     Q = delta-m * c^2        (27)
in which Q (called simply the Q of the reaction) is the energy released (or
absorbed) in the reaction and delta-m is the decrease (or increase) in the mass
of the particles as a result of the reaction.  If the reaction is nuclear
fission, less than 0.1% of the mass initially present is transformed into
other forms of energy."
 
Experiments demonstrate that the Q of fission or fusion reactions comes out
not as "heat" per se = random motions of bulk material, but rather as
kinetic energy
of the reaction products initially, as follows also from conservation of
energy and momentum requirements.  This is an important point.
 
Again, as the energetic particles slow
in a material ultimately producting heat, X-rays are generated which are
characteristic of the material in which the products slow down.  (If the
material shows xs heat due to nuclear reactions, this shows that the material
has slowed the energetic debris of the reactions.)
Thus, secondary X-rays will accompany the xs heat *if* nuclear (MeV-scale)
reactions are the cause of the xs heat.
 
So where are the characteristic X-rays?  Their presence or absence provides a
compelling test as to whether claimed xs heat is nuclear in origin.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as Critical text/Re to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Jones
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 04:12:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5452; Sub: X-rays as critical test/re to
 Swartz; Message-ID: <1993Mar10.150438.497@physc1.byu.edu>; 10 Mar 93]
 
  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
===  "(N)uclear reactions release
===  energy in the form of energetic (MeV-scale) particles.  As
===  these slow down in a material (e.g., palladium nearby),
===  they excite atoms which leads to X-rays as the atoms
===  de-excite, and finally the energy degrades to random
===  kinetic energies in the bulk material, i.e., heat."
 
   True. However, we like listing all possible interactions.
  Therefore please also add in Bremsstrahlung if they are charged.
 And the fact that the secondary ionizing radiation generates
 photoelectrons, Compton scattering, and if the energy is sufficient,
 pair production.
 
 
===    "Experiments demonstrate that the Q of fission or fusion
===  reactions comes out not as "heat" per se = random
===  motions of bulk material, but rather as  kinetic
===  energy of the reaction products initially, as follows
===  also from conservation of energy and momentum requirements.
===  This is an important point."
 
   Steve is right by correcting Q to its original meaning.
   However, in a solid we remain patiently waiting for proof
  that the phonons, or other, cannot handle (some of) the momentum
  as Steve states.
 
 
===   "Again, as the energetic particles slow in a material
===  ultimately producting heat, X-rays are generated
===  which are characteristic of the material in which the
===  products slow down."
 
   First Bremsstrahlung is a continuous spectrum.
 
   Second, for certain particles (eg. electrons above 50 MeV) it
    dominates over any ionization.
 
   Third, consider the Compton scattering which teaches
    more about anisotropy than material properties (the absorption
    is not even a function of Z - as opposed to photoelectric which
    goes up as Z^4 and pair production which goes as Z.
 
   Fourth, to the degree that phonons, or other, can handle
the momentum, we submit there ought be even fewer putative
"energetic particles (to) slow" to begin with.
 
 
===  "So where are the characteristic X-rays?  Their presence
===  or absence provides a compelling test as to whether claimed
===  xs heat is nuclear in origin."
 
  As discussed meticulously above, we respectfully submit
that although by your argument characteristic x-rays
  [ ** and we submit photoelectrons, and Bremsstrahlung, and
 (depending upon    energies) pair production or even
 triplet production (check    the four-vector yourself, Steve) **]
     herald interactions of fast-moving particles with matter,
 your arguments about the "absolute necessity" of x-rays with cold
 fusion appears to rest upon, and have a weakness in, its a priori
 need for fast-moving particles.
 
  After all, Steve, extrapolation of such an argument
might lead to the banning of helium balloons.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
Date: 11 Mar 1993 08:36:07 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
: Again, as the energetic particles slow
: in a material ultimately producting heat, X-rays are generated which are
: characteristic of the material in which the products slow down.  (If the
: material shows xs heat due to nuclear reactions, this shows that the material
: has slowed the energetic debris of the reactions.)
: Thus, secondary X-rays will accompany the xs heat *if* nuclear (MeV-scale)
: reactions are the cause of the xs heat.
:
: So where are the characteristic X-rays?  Their presence or absence provides a
: compelling test as to whether claimed xs heat is nuclear in origin.
 
To amplify:  nuclear reactions occur at a scale that's a "point" compared
to interatomic distances.  By general principles, this
means you're going to end up with radiation.
 
You have 20 MeV's of energy at that point.    No matter what form it's
in, it can't escape faster than the speed of light.
 
So there's this expanding light sphere of influence surrounding the
reacting nucleus.  Whatever's in that sphere *must* have a net energy
increase of 20Mev's or so.  This sphere encounters only
a few particles at a time.
 
There are only a finite number of particles in this sphere, therefore
they must have energies a substantial fraction of MeV's.   This is far
larger than any type of atomic binding energies, therefore they will
no longer be bound.
 
Thus either they will escape the area and be externally detectable
or interact with the rest of the atoms.
 
In any case, you will have a small number of particles with lots of energy
per reaction.  This always produces radiation of some sort.
 
: --Steven Jones
 
There are some scenarios for CF, or rather induced nuclear reactions in
electrochemical cells, in that consistently detectable levels of nuclear
products and radiation will be produced, but not consistent with reported
calorimetry.
 
Heat with *NO* radiation cannot be nuclear, but heat with some radiation
*might* be, but with new mechanisms.
 
The prospect remains that heat measurements might be in error, or
understanding of the thermodynamics of the macroscopic system might be in
error.
 
In any case focusing on the nuclear products would be preferable, as it
might be more likely to reveal the mechanism.  Nuclear measurements have the
advantage that their measured properties come "beamed out" right from the
source of the reaction, whereas there's no such easy way to examine detailed
thermodynamical properties from the outside.
 
The general reader should note though, that production of nuclear products
and reactions, given electrical power, is not obviously a practical
source of energy, or necessarily the source of the reported excess heat.
 
Consider that doctor's x-ray machines take electrical power in, and produce
measurable x-rays.  I believe that there may even be neutron sources
that can be switched on and off.
 
What was that work reported by that Russian group, that found characterisitic
Palladium x-rays?  Were they from the Kurchatov Institute?
 
Bizzare question time:
 --------------------
Could a low kinetic energy positron sit inside a heavy
nucleus for a long time?
 
Could electrochemical "pressure" cause a proton to become a neutron?
 
--
-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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Jones
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Jones
Date: 11 Mar 1993 08:58:12 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:    Steve is right by correcting Q to its original meaning.
:    However, in a solid we remain patiently waiting for proof
:   that the phonons, or other, cannot handle (some of) the momentum
:   as Steve states.
 
Think about energy.  20Mev's.  This comes from some point.  Phonons
are simply the quantized vibrational states of the nuclei in the lattice.
I.e. the motion of the nuclei.  They're not some new physical particle,
really.  It's the difference between sound and light: sound is a wave
in a physical medium, light is a wave 'on its own'.  Same with their
particles representations.
 
At the time of this nuclear interaction,
essentially only a few particles can possess this energy: the nucleus
or any of its spewed out prticles.
 
A single nucleus with MeV's of energy is going to completely break
free of its wimpy lattice bonds and slam around, producing copious
x-rays.  In that process phonons get produced, certainly, but only
after the nucleus has zoomed around.
 
:   As discussed meticulously above, we respectfully submit
: that although by your argument characteristic x-rays
:   [ ** and we submit photoelectrons, and Bremsstrahlung, and
:  (depending upon    energies) pair production or even
:  triplet production (check    the four-vector yourself, Steve) **]
:      herald interactions of fast-moving particles with matter,
:  your arguments about the "absolute necessity" of x-rays with cold
:  fusion appears to rest upon, and have a weakness in, its a priori
:  need for fast-moving particles.
 
Where do YOU put 20Mev's of energy, without making fast particles?
"Phonons" doesn't count, because that really means, "kinetic energy of
the nucleus".  A 20MeV nucleus is still going to do lots of damage
and make radiation.  How are you going to transfer that energy to
10^8 atoms from one without causing radiation?
 
In reality, of course, because of the need to conserve momentum as
well as energy, the lighter particles in the reaction will end up
with most of the energy.  This means they will go even FASTER than
the nucleus would with the same energy.
 
All nuclear reactions, weak or strong, produce energy localized at a small
place.
 
:   After all, Steve, extrapolation of such an argument
: might lead to the banning of helium balloons.
 
Huh?
 
--
-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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.10 / Jason Corley /  Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
     
Originally-From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
Date: 10 Mar 93 18:13:37 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

From 1951 to 1958, the United States government sponsored Project
Sherwood, which coordinated fusion research at several universities.
It made significant progress in it's seven-year run, but was then
cut off.
 
I have read all the references I could find to this, including the
recollections of one directly involved in it, but I can't figure out
why it was canceled.  Can anyone help me on this?  Posting or email
is fine.
 
 
--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did.  I said I didn't
 know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason "corleyj@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Was Here But Isn't Anymore
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencorleyj cudfnJason cudlnCorley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as critical test
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as critical test
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 13:47:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5456; Sub: Re: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
         11 Mar 1993; Message-ID: <1nmtloINNql6@network.ucsd.edu>]
Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu   a.k.a.
             mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu]  writes:
 
===  "To amplify:  nuclear reactions occur at a scale that's a "point"
===  .....   interact with the rest of the atoms."
 
  A reasonable discussion for fusion in a plasma, but this a fusion
in a solid.  There is no evidence that the reactions are not coherent,
that the reations occur a "a 'point'" as Matt claims.
 
  As asked before, but still without an answer:  How do you know
   this physics must occur similar to your preconceived
   notions in a gas or plasma?
 
 
===  "In any case, you will have a small number of particles
===  with lots of energy per reaction.  This always produces
===  radiation of some sort."
 
   We better take our batteries behind some barriers, eh?
 
 
===  "Heat with *NO* radiation cannot be nuclear, but heat with
===   some radiation *might* be, but with new mechanisms.
 
    Heat consists phonons and infrared photons.    Heat is radiation.
          Ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation.
        Nonionizing radiation is nonionizing radiation.
  You might even want to throw in molecular rotations (microwave spectra)
       too, Matt.
 
 
===   "Consider that doctor's x-ray machines take electrical
===  power in, and produce measurable x-rays.  I believe that
=== there may even be neutron sources that can be switched on and off.
 
  We don't know any radiologists with office switchable neutron sources
despite your belief.  Further we are not quite sure what they would
do with it.  In the United States although we use ionizing radiation,
ultrasound (non-ionizing), magnetic resonance, and positron-emitters
for imaging, and electrons, protons, and ionizing radiation for
for therapy, not much is done with neutrons.  They had been used to
treat brain tumors with boron but the results were less than optimal
years ago.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  phonons need a lattice
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: phonons need a lattice
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 13:49:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [5457; Sub: X-rays /Re to Jones
  11 Mar 1993 ;Message-ID: <1nmuv4INNql6@network.ucsd.edu>
Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu   a.k.a.
             mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu]  writes:
 
 
===   "Phonons are simply the quantized vibrational states
===  of the nuclei in the lattice.  I.e. the motion of the
=== nuclei.  They're not some new physical particle, really.
===   It's the difference between sound and light: sound is a
=== wave in a physical medium, light is a wave 'on its own'.
===   Same with their particles representations."
 
   Very good.  The lattice.
   Phonons are elastic waves which traverse a crystal.
   cf: Born, M "Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices" ('54)
    or Brillouin, L. "Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures"
          (McGraw 1946)
 
 
===  "Phonons" doesn't count, because that
===  really means, "kinetic energy of the nucleus".
 
   Are they of the nucleus or crystal periodic lattice?
   Phonons may count.  Phonons mean the lattice.
   You have not provided proof that the reactions occur as
   you hypothesize.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Frank Close /   Energy conservation
     
Originally-From: Frank Close <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Energy conservation
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 14:54:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Mitchell: you are perpetuating, in my opinion, a sterile debate about
dictionary definitions and etymology, combined with your repeated
questions about E=mc2 and requests that people explain how it implies
"ash" (if you wish to be pedantic, you defined ash, I used quotes,
"ash", and specified "nuclear". English is a living language. It is possible
that Webster's have yet to update their definitions to include the newspeak
e.g. "cold fusion" in my dictionary is defined as nuclear but seems to be
used increasingly liberally in some quarters).
 
This is your/our personal problem and has nothing to do with the reality
or otherwise of cold nuclear (sic) fusion. Perhaps your best tactic might be
to read some basic textbooks, think about them and if you still do not
understand, ask questions of someone at MIT. I have seen at least three
answers to you on this net which would explain to the average undergraduate
so I wonder why you are having so much apparent difficulty.
 
You also insist that I specify which MIT expt Mallove cited as fraudulent.
I only know of one that Mallove has "finger pointed" so far. You are cited
by Mallove as having played a part in this exposure:
 
"Mitchell Swartz has performed optical scanning and computer processing
of the Plasma Fusion Center data proving beyond doubt that the data were
mishandled"
 
It is indeed impressive that you have been able to discover
a fraud in experiments  performed by a team of professional
scientists when your postings to this net reveal so much confusion about
some aspects of science  central to the issue. You seem more interested in
arguing or in appealing to a dictionary to show that one word here or there
has a fine difference in meaning to you than in addressing  the
mainstream questions;  indeed there is an intriguing similarity to earlier
postings by Jed Rothwell. As Jed's postings showed a keen mind, even if I
disagreed with much of them, I think you are posting your own material.
I find it disturbing, or perhaps revealing, that you are party to
accusing some MIT scientists of fraud in an area where you have, apparently,
meagre understanding of basic principles. Or do you dissociate yourself
from Mallove's statement?
 
Yes, I was aware that you were at MIT for my talk and that you are closely
associated with Gene Mallove and Jed Rothwell. Mallove is the same who
promoted CLUSTRON SCIENCES CORPORATION whose resolution of
the observed absence of nuclear reaction products is that a proton and
deuteron combining at room temperature can "release 4 X 931MeV or 3.72GeV of
energy which sends the (produced) 3He nucleus out of the cell at high energy",
and that a proton and tritium produced 4He with energy release of "6 X 931MeV
or 5.59GeV". These quotes come from a paper bearing Mallove's name, they are
published under the logo of Clustron Sciences Corporation, and they
violate the conservation of energy. Is a deception being played on the
gullibility of potential investors or is Mallove unaware of some basic science
or merely misguided?  This does raise questions about his credentials for
judging the scientific merits of an MIT experiment that claimed a thermal
balance, and for his claiming that they reached this conclusion fraudulently.
 As Gene Mallove is aware of this net and is able to communicate (at least with
Tom Droege) perhaps Gene and his collaborators can explain to us here:-
 
********************************************************************
How is it that the collision of 1H,2H at room temperature,
with a total energy (the E=mc2 Mitchell) of less than 3 GeV can liberate
energy of 3.7GeV, and how do 1H,3H with total less than 4Gev
liberate 5.6GeV  as claimed while maintaining conservation of energy?
 
  A scientific answer on this question rather than a political statement
on some other matter would be appreciated by me and be enlightening
perhaps for any who may have invested in Clustron Science Corporation.
**************************************************************************
 
Mallove has published lies about me on this net via Jed Rothwell, and
elsewhere. He has never responded to my questions. I asked you some questions
concerning your allegations about Harwell and you have not answered them. But
you seem to insist that I am compelled to answer *your* questions about MIT.If
you are seriously interested in establishing the credentials of the MIT
work whose supposed "fraud" was confirmed (according to your
colleague Mallove) by your analysis of their data, come clean and
spell it out here.
If you are interested seriously in fraud as distinct from merely making
PR, then please dont be coy. Contact Luckhardt at MIT, spell out to him
your criticisms and then have the answers published here. Let everything
be out in the open. Let people decide. I can only repeat what he/others
told me in answer to my questions. Their answers satisfied me but you
should get them from the horse's mouth.
 
 
Dieter Britz raised the question of PR and Jed Rothwell. We are not naive.
Fusion Facts, Clustron Science Corp, are going to prosper better in an
environment where CNF is perceived to be a viable world energy source and
these people, at least, have a stake in this.If you can keep this myth
of cold nuclear fusion alive then good luck to you, but let us at least
recognise their associations when we read what Dieter identified as PR.
Dieter did not ask for censorship, it was others who distorted his message;
he merely drew attention to what was,to many people, rather obvious and
seems to have touched a nerve in that Jed's posts  calmed and you have
opened up, like some alter Jed.
 
 
 It is hype and a game isnt it Mitchell as I cant believe that one of
the prime exposers of an MIT scientific fraud concerned with energy
transfer appears to be so unable to understand basic principles of that very
subject. Or does this perhaps explain how you were mistaken?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 /  /  Replies to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 15:23:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If your object is to overwhelm the opposition by repeating yourself
endlessly, so be it.  I will only suggest that approach is not constructive
and does not further your cause.  As an alternative, I have suggested
to Jed Rothwell in the past that you should work to refine your case by
pointing out the strongest examples of positive cold fusion results and
being prepared to engage in a dialogue on specific points rather than
just continuing to be obtuse about such basics as the implications of
energy conservation.
 
Are you really as confused as you seem to be about the link between
heat production and comensurate reaction products?  Whether it is
chemistry or physics the chain of reasoning is basically the same.
You start with the "fuel" as an assembly of matter in a given initial
state with a definite initial total energy.  You end with the "ash" after
that matter is transformed by a reaction into a final state which also
has a definite total energy.  The difference between the initial energy
and the final energy is the energy released.  If we agree that the
process can be described by a subdivision to a microscopic scale and
to a large number of identical processes on identical bits of matter,
it follows that the number of these identical processes must scale
in proportion to the total energy release for the assembly.  Can you
sign off on this and quit haggling over E = mc2?
 
Dick Blue
MSU@NSCL
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Our understanding of thermodynamics
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Our understanding of thermodynamics
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:12:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Matt Kennel gets the heart of the matter when he writes:
 
     "The prospect remains that heat measurements might be in error, or
     understanding of the thermodynamics of the macroscopic system might be in
     error."
 
Matt has pinpointed what it would take for disprove CF. You must go back and
demonstrate conclusively that:
 
     The second law is wrong; heat CAN go by itself from cooler bodies to
     hotter bodies;
 
     The specific heat of water is incorrect by a factor of 3, possibly 10;
 
     The heat of vaporization is wrong;
 
These things were first measured in the 18th century, and they have been
measured again and again, with ever-increasing reliability and accuracy since
then in thousands upon thousands of experiments, in laboratories ranging from
junior high school to the National Bureau of Standards.
 
Remember, you are not looking for a minor, 0.02% mistake in the specific heat
of water. The value given in any textbook is: 4.2 joules per gram degrees C.
You must prove that this is wrong; and that the real value varies at random
between 0.4 and 40.0. You must explain why it varies at random, and why nobody
has ever noticed this.
 
If you skeptics want to make a serious case, you must begin by disproving the
calorimetry of people like Bockris, McKubre, Fleischmann, Enyo, Notoya,
Ikegami, Storms, Forsley, and several hundred others. Contrary to what the
skeptics say, cold fusion IS based upon theory. It is solidly based upon our
understanding of how heat and electricity work. That understanding has been
around for so long, and is so certain in our minds, that we forget it is
"merely" theory. If you want to disprove cold fusion, you must begin by
showing that James Watt, Sadi Carnot, J.P. Joule and many thousands of other
18th, 19th and 20th century scientists have been disastrously & inexplicably
wrong, and that the answers & theories they devised are all off by a factor of
three or more.
 
If you cannot disprove thermodynamics, here is another approach you might
take. Prove this:
 
     Electricity cannot be measured -- 30 watts might be 100; there is no way
     to distinguish between them; all milliwatt, watt, and multiwatt
     instruments, meters, and oscilloscopes manufactured during the last 200
     years have been drastically wrong and utterly useless.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  Pd Outgassing
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd Outgassing
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:12:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Whoever (sybil.risc.rockwell) posted that you can remove a cathode and place
it under a volumetric cylinder to measure the absorbed gas is likely misled.
 
We have observed a very wide variation in the rate of outgassing.  Some samples
have lost 10% or so just on the reduction of current in a few seconds.  Others
show little or no change.  We have slight evidence that the samples that most
freely loose gas are the ones which seem to show CNF.  So removal and weighing
would (in our opinion) likely point at the wrong candidates.
 
The note further does not say how all the gas is persuaded to be removed.
Moore sites a case where a sample held significant amounts of gas for over
13 years.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  Second try to type an address
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Originally-From:        FNALD::DROEGE       11-MAR-1993 13:03:37.48
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Second try to type an address
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:12:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:        FNALD::DROEGE       11-MAR-1993 13:03:37.48
To:     SMTP%"fusion%zorch.sf-bay.org"
CC:     DROEGE
Subj:   Film
 
Mitchell Swartz tells us that x-ray film is a good tool.  I agree.  I was just
pointing out a caution in the use of film.
 
When a piece of charged Pd is placed on a piece of film, and the film shows
exposure on development, then the exposure may be due to radiation.  It may
also be due to D outgassing being catalyzed on the film surface and the
resulting hot spot producing an exposure.  Note that this could happen a very
long time (many years) after charging with D or H.  I do not see at the moment
any good way to sort out these two (there are others) possibilities.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  Status #1 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #1 Cell 4A4
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:12:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #1 Cell 4A4
 
Each day I thank the lord for 5-minute epoxy.  The calorimeter was opened up
and liberal amounts of epoxy seemed to fix the leak.  It was then put back
together and stabilized at 4 C.  The cathode was then charged from zero
current with a slow ramp which increased 2 ma per hour.  No gas change was
seen.  The power balance was close enough to zero so that we could not say for
sure whether the cathode was charging, but under the slow ramp, the
calorimeter error is similar to the expected energy balance change.  After a
while, we opened the calorimeter again and found that during the epoxy patch
operation the outlet tube had been pinched, so it was impossible for the
excess oxygen to make it to the syringe.  This was not a problem during
earlier runs because we did not have the catalyst and trap connected above the
cell.  NOW we have a way to check for this.  Slowly our start up check list
grows like that of a 747 before take off.
 
So sadly we do not have an absorption measurement for this run.
 
We note that after both of the above openings, the calorimeter balance came
right back to where it was, approximately 4.20 +/- 0.01 watts.  The reason for
the different balance point at 4 C and 30 C is that at the lower temperature
the thermoelectric devices are less efficient (larger effect) and the
calorimeter gains more heat (smaller effect) from the environment.
 
After charging we moved up the the 30 C operating point.  Now we are close to
the 7.860 calibration point.  I cannot understand why the calorimeter can have
two different calibration points where each is quite stable, but will have to
assume that it is a yet to be found artifact.  The most suspicious cause is
that the thermoelectric devices somehow change their gain with a temperature
change.  The next calorimeter will always run the TED at constant temperature
because of this.
 
Therefore, just because my calorimeter reads 340 mw of "anomalous heat", does
not mean that I believe it.  This could be caused by something that happens
when the calorimeter is opened up.  What would it take for me to think there
was "anomalous heat", you ask?  I am not sure, but a lot of measurements would
have to tie together, and then I would have to be able to do it again.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Jim Bowery /  The Droege Boiling Cell Video Challenge (send money)
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Droege Boiling Cell Video Challenge (send money)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:12:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
 
>It seems to me that the pieces to decode the P&F boiling cell demonstration
>are beginning to fall into place.
 
[ a description of how Tom thinks P&F might be producing their "boiling cell"
]
 
>I look forward to publication by P&F of a paper which will show that the
>experimental concerns expressed above have been considered and that all my
>criticisms are unfounded.
 
And I look forward to Tom Droege running a cell under the scenario he
claims may have produced the boiling cell illusion thereby producing his
own "boiling cell video".  This particular "replication" of P&F's recent
results would be significant enough that I'm willing to donate
$100 toward this experiment.  One string is attached to this grant
from The JimBo Science Foundation:  I get one of the first copies
of "The Droege Boiling Cell Video" and honorable mention of The Foundation
in the credits.  I promise to give this video a place of honor in my
VHS collection right along side Tucker: A Man and His Dream.
 
Where do I send my check, Tom?  How much more money do you need to
proceed to test your hypothesis?
 
PS: Others should have an interest in helping Tom attempt to produce
this video:
 
Frank Close, you want to discredit P&F?  Jed Rothwell, you want Tom to
put up or shut up?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  Proof that phonons can or can't do it
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl00.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof that phonons can or can't do it
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:12:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz keeps demanding proof that his ideas don't offer a
way to hid nuclear reaction products, but he offers nothing to support
anything he proposes.  If you insist on absolute proof, proof beyond
all doubt, there is very little point in discussing any issue.  We have
to recognize that we are limited to considerations as to how resonable
a given proposition is relative to alternatives when they are evaluated
in the light of all the evidence available.  I can't prove that phonons
can't handle (some of) the momentum, as you put it.  I can, however, make
a strong case for saying it doesn't happen to the degree required to
support the pro cold fusion case.  First off in order to invoke this
mechanism at all you have to have a recoil momentum due to the emission
of a photon or a particle from a reaction site.  A fact which you must
not overlook is that there are really two objects carrying momentum
involve here.  In the case of the Mossbauer effect they are a gamma
ray photon and the emitting nucleus.  In that case the phonons
"handle" only the momentum of the recoil.  The gamma photon leaves the
scene and is detectable outside the lattice at essential the same rate
as if the decay had been from a free nucleus.  The conditions for the
phonons to take up the recoil momentum clearly involve the degree to
which there is a match between the possible phonon spectrum and the
momentum of the recoil.  Proof that the phonons can't handle the
recoil need consist of nothing more than the assertion that there is
a mismatch between the two.  So what do you find wrong with this argument?
 
Now, let me also note that you have let a modifier slip into your
line.  You ask for proof that phonons can't handle (SOME OF) the
momentum.  Are you now admitting that your phonon thing can't possibly
be absolute?  A partial suppression mechanism doesn't really get you
off the hook does it?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: The boiling cell
     
Originally-From: wolff@liberator.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The boiling cell
Date: 11 Mar 93 12:50:49 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>As far as getting a piece of wire to dissipate 200 W, that would indeed
>require a large current.  Power dissipation is related to I^2*R.  Since R
>(resistance) is very low in most wires, I (current) has to be fairly high.
>I would guess (without knowing the diameter of the Pd wire in question)
>that most lab power supplies could not drive 200 W into a "shorted" wire.
>They would current limit due to internal impedance long before they could
>develop 200 W externally.
 
Right. We did a similar experiment at highschool Use a 100:1 (actually 600:6)
transformer. Put the 600 windings into the 220 (as it is over here in Europe)
and you have around an ampere running through: 220W. At the other side
you get a reasonably stable 2.2 volts, that runs at around 100A. It fries
a 2mm diameter nail in about 10 seconds.
 
                                                Roger.
--
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783643 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Swartz
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Swartz
Date: 11 Mar 93 01:36:03 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In article <C3pIDF.70G@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>
>   In sci.physics.fusion [5452; Sub: X-rays as critical test/re to
>  Swartz; Message-ID: <1993Mar10.150438.497@physc1.byu.edu>; 10 Mar 93]
>
>   Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
> ===  "(N)uclear reactions release
> ===  energy in the form of energetic (MeV-scale) particles.  As
> ===  these slow down in a material (e.g., palladium nearby),
> ===  they excite atoms which leads to X-rays...
>
>    True. However, we like listing all possible interactions.
>   Therefore please also add in Bremsstrahlung if they are charged.
 
For light nuclei with energies of a few MeV's, bremsstrahlung will be
inconsequential compared with x-ray production.
 
>  And the fact that the secondary ionizing radiation generates
>  photoelectrons, Compton scattering, and if the energy is sufficient,
>  pair production.
 
>
>
> ===    "Experiments demonstrate that the Q of fission or fusion
> ===  reactions comes out not as "heat" per se = random
> ===  motions of bulk material, but rather as  kinetic
> ===  energy of the reaction products initially, as follows
> ===  also from conservation of energy and momentum requirements.
> ===  This is an important point."
>
>    Steve is right by correcting Q to its original meaning.
>    However, in a solid we remain patiently waiting for proof
>   that the phonons, or other, cannot handle (some of) the momentum
>   as Steve states.
>
 
Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on a solid
with an energy of several MeV.  They penetrate, losing energy gradually by
ionization and elastic collisions with nuclei, coming to rest at some
distance within the solid known as the range.  Computations of ranges
are readily available which are in excellent accord with measured ranges
(see, for example, the TRIM program by J. Ziegler at IBM Watson Labs
and coworkers.)  These computations use conventional views of particle
interactions in solids.  If there existed some anomalous mechanism by
which any significant amount of momentum (and energy) of the impinging
nucleus could be tranferred to phonons, these computations would be
in error.  Since they are not, I think one can simply forget about
these ideas of coherent transfer of energy to the lattice.  There is
no reason why nuclei impinging on a surface, or once inside, should
not also experience any such coherent transfers.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins, Washington State University:   collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  Energy conservation
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy conservation
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 21:06:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [world 5462; Sub:  Energy conservation
Message-ID: <9303111231.AA25447@suntan.Tandem.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 1993
Frank Close
   <ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
 
===  "Mitchell: you are perpetuating, in my opinion,
===  a sterile debate about dictionary definitions
===  and etymology, combined with your repeated questions
=== about E=mc2 and requests that people explain how it
=== implies "ash" ...
 
  Frank:
     Neither cold fusion, debate, nor quests for better understanding
are sterile.  "Stone-walled" skeptics ignore four years of new
technology.  That's OK.  But don't expect everyone else to accept
it based upon hand-waving.
 
                  ---------------------------
 
===  "Perhaps your best tactic might be to read some basic textbooks,
===   think about them and if you still do not understand,
===   ask questions of someone at MIT."
 
     Tactic? And what is ** your ** "tactic", Frank?
  If you can't argue the facts, knock the messenger, eh?
 Readers of this forum, may look back to see who had trouble
 recognizing the E in E=mc^2  (in Prof. Jones' equation):
===  "First you must specify what you refer to by "E".The equation
===   as written is not well defined.
   [Frank Close; Message-ID: <9303081025.AA24734@suntan.Tandem.com>
                Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1993 14:52:55 GMT]
    Res Ipse Loquitur.
 
                  ----------------------------
 
===  "I only know of one that Mallove has "finger pointed" so far.
===  You are cited by Mallove as having played a part in
===   this exposure"
===
===     "Mitchell Swartz has performed optical scanning and
===  computer processing of the Plasma Fusion Center data proving
===  beyond doubt that the data were mishandled"
===
===    It is indeed impressive that you have been able to discover
===  a fraud in experiments  performed by a team of professional
===  scientists .......  I find it disturbing, or perhaps revealing,
===  that you are party to accusing some MIT scientists of fraud in
===  an area where you have, apparently, meagre understanding
===  of basic principles. Or do you dissociate yourself from
===  Mallove's statement?
 
  NOTA BENE:
 
   First, the above quote describes what may be Dr. Mallove's
 interpretation.  Furthermore, the quote says "mishandling"
 and not "fraud", doesn't it?  It appears that you are unable,
 or unwilling, to describe what is before our eyes.
 
   Second, I did not say what you have just falsely accused me.
  Your statement is libel.  Your statement is patently
  untrue but is apparently made as an inflammatory misstatement
  upon, and an apparent abuse of,  Internet.
 
   Frank, we demand an immediate public apology from you.
 
                  ----------------------------
 
===  "Mallove has published lies about me on this net via
===   Jed Rothwell, and elsewhere. He has never responded to
===  my questions."
 
   What do you possibly want from me about this?
   Settle it with them, or seek counsel with a social worker.
   Furthermore, given the above,  you had better resolve your
   own public misstatements immediately.
 
                  ----------------------------
 
===  "I asked you some questions concerning your allegations
===   about Harwell and you have not answered them."
 
   Really? Where?  We have reviewed the record.  What is the
    basis of this new misstatement?  Confabulation?
  Confusion?  Fever?   What "allegations about Harwell"?
     What you said and what I said was:
 
--===  "Tom Droege has posted much education here. One of the
--===   features is that one must beware of sloping baselines;
--===   Tom showed once how important this can be and MIT had
--===   to correct for this - it did not make a big effect in
--===   their case but excited Gene Mallove enough to cry
--===   "fraud"."
--  [Frank Close; Message-ID: <9303051751.AA09785@suntan.Tandem.com>
--           Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 01:39:52 GMT]
 
To which was responded:
 
--   "Frank, you are right about Tom.
--   But by MIT do you possibly mean the Phase-II Plasma
--   Fusion Center experiment and paper, Frank?   MIT is a big
--   heterogeneous institution.  Do you have some comment on a
--   base-line in that paper? ...   Best wishes."
 
   Harwell?  One who makes so many misstatements is on quicksand
accusing others of such.
 
                  ----------------------------
 
===  "Fusion Facts, Clustron Science Corp, are
===    going to prosper better in an environment where
===   CNF is perceived to be a viable world energy source
===   and these people, at least, have a stake in this."
 
   Good for them.  So what?  Seems the income from your book might
   do better with cf "dead".  Do you have any friends who might
   benefit if cold fusion was "kept down"?
 
                  ----------------------------
 
===  "It is hype and a game ... (attack) .. "fraud"
===   (another false attribution by Close)
 
  We submit: To ask questions and seeks answers and encourage
 truth, to avoid censorship and encourage others to participate,
 to try to reason by mathematics and physics and logic using
 the clarity of the word, is no "game" but is human.
    To avoid questions and to discourage the truth is to play
 a "game".
 
   Who practices hype, Frank?  You have made an ad hominem
attack and blatant misstatement.   Please act like a gentleman, to
the degree that you are, and correct it immediately.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Craig Humphrey /  Info on Power Generation.
     
Originally-From: Craig.Humphrey@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Craig Andrew Humphrey)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.mat
rials,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Info on Power Generation.
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 21:09:48 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington. New Zealand

 
Hi.  This is probably going to all the wrong groups, so flame me if you have to.
 
I have to to a case study on Power Generation, with a bunch in my tutorial.  So
I'm after just about anything on Power Generation:
 
 history, inventors, research, space, solr, wind, thermal, etc.
 
You name it I'm after it.  If you don't have it can yo upoint me in the right
direction.
 
For myself in particular, I'm after the Solar, Wind, Tidal and Space areas.  Plus
anything that might come up in the future.
 
Any help at all will be appreciated.  Preferably by private e-mail.
 But I will  follow the groups I post this to.
 
Thanks
 
Later'ish
Craig
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| chumphre@comp.vuw.ac.nz                    | The above opinions in no way |
| HUMPHREY_C@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz              | represent those of any sane, |
| Craig.Humphrey@stargate.actrix.gen.nz      | normal person, I hope!       |
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenHumphrey cudfnCraig cudlnHumphrey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: X-rays as critical test
     
Originally-From: mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as critical test
Date: 11 Mar 1993 22:29:19 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:
:   In sci.physics.fusion [5456; Sub: Re: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
:          11 Mar 1993; Message-ID: <1nmtloINNql6@network.ucsd.edu>]
: Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu   a.k.a.
:              mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu]  writes:
:
: ===  "To amplify:  nuclear reactions occur at a scale that's a "point"
: ===  .....   interact with the rest of the atoms."
:
:   A reasonable discussion for fusion in a plasma, but this a fusion
: in a solid.  There is no evidence that the reactions are not coherent,
: that the reations occur a "a 'point'" as Matt claims.
 
In so far as nuclear products are not observed you are correct.
If nuclear reactions are not involved, then it's not necessary to suppose
reactions energy production at femtometer scales.
 
If it's a nuclear reaction, on the other hand, then it must be so.  The
mediating particles for strong and weak interactions are massive, and
therefore the interactions have small and finite ranges.  This range is
much much much smaller than atomic scales.
 
It's too bad, because if nuclear reactions had ranges only 10
or 100 times larger, we'd probably have working fusion machines by now.
 
On the other hand, stars might burn themselves out faster and we wouldn't
be here.
 
:   As asked before, but still without an answer:  How do you know
:    this physics must occur similar to your preconceived
:    notions in a gas or plasma?
(How do you know that thermodynamics must occur similarly to your preconceived
notions in a steam engine?)
 
Because nuclear physics has been experimentally observed and characterized
in many solid and gaseous and plasma configurations.  No such coherent
nuclear effect has ever been observed. (NO: the mossbauer effect is
not an issue here: the nuclear products are still created at nuclear scales
and energies.  The long-range electromagetic forces though, alter the
recoil.)  The theory, that quantitatively explains many features of many
experiments, has no place for long-range nuclear reactions.
 
If it's long-range and coherent, it's not nuclear reactions, as is
presently understood.  It's about as easy to fit long-range nuclear
reactions into the the present body of knowledge as to fit violoations
of the laws of thermodynamics.  So i guess I'd call it Pons physics,
for lack of a better name.
 
If you want to suggest fundamentally new physics, then I guess I can't
argue with you, but getting too much heat in one type of experiment
is hardly going to prove it. Consider what it took to get quantum mechanics
accepted:  many "prima facie" experiments with unequivocal results:
 
1) photoelectric effect, 2) atomic transition spectrum 3) electron diffraction
4) stern-gerlach experiment etc.
 
: ===  "In any case, you will have a small number of particles
: ===  with lots of energy per reaction.  This always produces
: ===  radiation of some sort."
:
:    We better take our batteries behind some barriers, eh?
 
If you had 10 million volt batteries, yeah i'd shield them too.
 
:
: ===  "Heat with *NO* radiation cannot be nuclear, but heat with
: ===   some radiation *might* be, but with new mechanisms.
:
:     Heat consists phonons and infrared photons.    Heat is radiation.
:           Ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation.
:         Nonionizing radiation is nonionizing radiation.
:   You might even want to throw in molecular rotations (microwave spectra)
:        too, Matt.
 
Let me rephrase: radiation with characteristic energies on the
same order as the reaction.  As MeV is >> keV >> ev, this
is always ionizing.  Clearly other radiation will be produced as well.
 
: ===   "Consider that doctor's x-ray machines take electrical
: ===  power in, and produce measurable x-rays.  I believe that
: === there may even be neutron sources that can be switched on and off.
:
:   We don't know any radiologists with office switchable neutron sources
: despite your belief.  Further we are not quite sure what they would
: do with it.
 
I wouldn't get near one myself.  I didn't necessarily mean medical
applications.
 
 
CF can survive with some nuclear products, but not with absolutely none.
 
--
-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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  Replies to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 00:35:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In  world sci.physics.fusion [5463; Sub: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Message-ID: <0096957A.89C164E0.2700@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>; 3/11/93]
 
   Dick Blue  (MSU@NSCL) writes
 
===   "You start with the "fuel" as an assembly of matter
===   in a given initial state with a definite initial total energy.
===  You end with the "ash" after that matter is transformed by a
===  reaction into a final state which also has a definite total energy."
 
   Considering that helium-4 and some minor tritium and very very
few (neutronpenic quantities of) neutrons are included in the present
short list of good candidates for "ash", we are in good agreement here.
 
 
===  "The difference between the initial energy and the final
===   energy is the energy released. ...   Can you sign off
===  on this and quit haggling over E = mc2?
 
   Dick.  Isn't E=mc^2 is old stuff?
   Your equation, we respectfully submit, aught be augmented by the
  very masses (*c^2) of before and after, the latter of which, we believe,
  you call "ash".  We like "products", because "ash" necessarily implies
  a chemical reaction.  Moreover "ash" is totally inapplicable because
  there are cases where the ash weighs more than the fuel (eg. magnesium).
 
    Dick Blue's equation:  Einitial - Efinal = energy released
 
    Is not a more correct equation that which considers the total energy,
thereby requiring the difference between the final and initial masses
(multiplied by that c^2 term).
 
   Einitial - Efinal = energy released + [c^2*{(final.masses)-(init.masses)}]
 
    <----- Blue's equation ----------->        <- products->   <- fuel -->
 
 
   Dick, we agree with more dialogue on specific points, scientific points.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as Critical text/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Collins
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 01:04:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion Article-I.D.: jaguar.1993Mar11.093603.1
     Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Swartz; 11 Mar 93
 
 Gary S. Collins (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
 
===  "Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on
===   a solid with an energy of several MeV."
 
 
   Good comments.  The configuration of an impacting beam
(driven by a linear accelerator, betatron, cyclotron, van de Graff,
 etc.) is not the same as that described for cold fusion, is it?
 
 
===   " ...  Computations of ranges are readily available which are
===   in excellent accord with measured ranges (see, for example,
===   the TRIM program by J. Ziegler at IBM Watson Labs and coworkers.)
===   These computations use conventional views of particle
===   interactions in solids."
 
  Gary, are there any adjustable coefficients in the software, or the
equations from which it is derived?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Collins
Date: 12 Mar 1993 01:17:11 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:
:   In sci.physics.fusion Article-I.D.: jaguar.1993Mar11.093603.1
:      Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Swartz; 11 Mar 93
:
:  Gary S. Collins (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
:
: ===  "Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on
: ===   a solid with an energy of several MeV."
:
:
:    Good comments.  The configuration of an impacting beam
: (driven by a linear accelerator, betatron, cyclotron, van de Graff,
:  etc.) is not the same as that described for cold fusion, is it?
 
What do you mean by 'configuration?'
 
What, is, then, the 'impacting beam as described for cold fusion?'
 
--
-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:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Collins; 12 Mar 1993]
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 02:01:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In world sci.physics.fusion:5470; ID: <1nooanINN1u7@network.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Collins; 12 Mar 1993]
 
Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu] writes:
 
=== ":  The configuration of an impacting beam
===  : (driven by a linear accelerator, betatron, cyclotron, van de Graff,
===  :  etc.) is not the same as that described for cold fusion, is it?
===
===   "What do you mean by 'configuration?'
===
===   "What, is, then, the 'impacting beam as described for cold fusion?"
 
  Thank you, Matt.    The description of "nuclei (which) impinge
(up)on a solid with an  energy of several MeV" implied to
us the eventual contact between  moving nuclei and a "target".
 I presumed that the use of the plural, "energetic nuclei",
described by Gary implied a beam.
 
===  "Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on
===   a solid with an energy of several MeV."
           [Gary S. Collins (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)]
 
   Perhaps I was wrong.   This might also be important because
   some of calculations to which Gary referred may be Eulerian
    rather than Lagrangian.
 
 
   By "configuration", I meant the following.
 
   Webster [ibid.]  "configuration": relative arrangement of parts
 
   An impacting beam is usually not in a wet atmospheric-pressure
      extremely alkaline environment, is it?
 
   What has been described throughout the world since 1989 involves
the relative arrangement of alkaline heavy water off the surface of
palladium as the overvoltage is increased sufficiently. The reactions
then occur within the palladium, with the deuterons in the palladium,
and not out of it (as when "nuclei impinge").
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Is "cf-heat-is-nuclear" falsifiable?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is "cf-heat-is-nuclear" falsifiable?
Date: 11 Mar 93 16:30:23 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed:  "It is not misinformation.  When I talked to Nate, he seemed satisfied
to me.  Perhaps my impression was wrong, or perhaps he changed his mind.
In any case, I have heard that Yamaguchi had his system carefully checked by
third parties, so if Nate Hoffman thinks there is helium in Yamaguchi's glass,
he is wrong."  (11 March)
 
Your impression was wrong, and you ought to see what in you mindset causes
you to interpret/present notions in a way favorable to your "cause."  To find
out truth requires a dedication to truth above other concerns.
 
Yesterday, I spoke to Nate and read to him your posting.  To say the least,
he was upset with it.  Based on his careful review of the Yamaguchi data,
he maintains that there was indeed helium present in the glass.  He cannot
imagine what gave you the impression (from him) that he was "satisfied" that
Yamaguchi's glass contained no helium.
 
Recall that at the Nagoya meeting
following Y's talk, Nate stood up and asked "Is there any glass in you system?"
To which Y replied "NO".  Later, Nate learned that there were three glass
windows in the system,  -- each 5cm thick! --
which were exposed to HELIUM during a calibration.
There must be He in the glass therefore.  Moreover, Nate found a sign of
He in a run where Y claimed there was no He present -- in plots obtained from
Y.    Glass is like a sponge for helium -- read discussions in Close's or
Huizenga's books on this.
 
To assume that the helium was created via fusion
rather than coming from contamination in the glass is an old blunder.  Nate
has played an important role in showing that claims of helium-generation in
Pons and Miles/Bush (NRL, China Lake, California) experiments suffered the
same mistake.  The press has exacerbated the poor science by spreading news
of helium-creation when in each case contamination was present.   The FPH
claim of helium production in electrolytic cells was retracted in May 1989.
 
If helium was generated by fusion in Y's experiment, then why did his
charged-particle detector pick up such few counts (less than 100 as I recall)?
The amounts of helium-4 present in Y's mass spec. were much larger.
Nate showed that the amounts of helium-4 found were consistent with what
glass contamination could provide.  Obviously, he cannot prove that
contamination is the culprit.  But as long as these large quantities of glass
are present as in Y's expt., then Y cannot rule out contamination and claim
that the presence of helium proves d-d fusion occurred.  Y's results are, at
best, ambiguous.
 
Your insistence that Y's helium must have been produced in the face of the
facts of glass being present in abundance along with the paucity of charged
particles shows unscientific credulity.  What is your game, sir?  Is money
involved or are you truly dedicated to truth?
 
 
Jed:  "Perhaps Steve will tell us which category the CF heat falls into?
Is there some other category I have not thought of?"
 
Yes:  faulty assumptions, in many cases.  As we continue our experiments on
"CF heat" here, we find that many sources of error arise esp. if unfounded
assumptions are made.  We have written a paper on pitfalls, available on
request.
 
An example:  a paper claiming xs heat in a Ni/H2O cell "rejects" the
possibility that H2 + O2 recombination could be important, stating:
"It is well known, however, that nickel is a poor catalyst of oxygen
reduction"  "Note also that the absence of appreciable H2(D2) + O2
recombination has been noted by a number of investigators, even in systems
that contain metals (e.g., palladium) that are known to be good catalysts
of that reaction."
 
At the same time, this paper admits:  "The problem of recombination is a
crucial one in this study (note again that the excess heat here is calculated
after subtracting 1.48V), however, and it deserves special attention in any
further experiments."
 
Relying on the assumption that recombination is small, the paper then finds
xs heat.  Experiments here also with Ni/H2O/K2CO3 show that
the recombination effect is
large, as I have previously reported.  Recently, such a cell produced a little
over 100% xs heat, assuming no recombination.  Then recombination was
inhibited and the excess heat dropped to negative-few-percent.  Next we
will assess whether the recombination occurs at the Ni cathode or rather at
the Pt anode.
 
One *assumes* effects are unimportant at one's peril, which
can clearly lead to erroneous conclusions.  Systematic errors ultimately
cannot *all* be ruled out.  Therefore, to demonstrate the occurence of nuclear
reactions, it does *not* suffice to say "we have ruled out all other
possibilities" or "the heat is so large it must be nuclear."  Rather, a clear
nuclear signature, such as *sufficient* neutrons or gammas or alphas --
carrying the identifying MeV energies for nuclear reactions -- must be shown.
I have argued that if copious X-rays are found,
characteristic of the metal in which the reactions allegedly occur,
then this is strong evidence for nuclear reactions.  But the sword cuts both
ways:  if copious X-rays are not found, then the xs heat is *not* nuclear in
origin.  The test for X-rays, I propose, is a crucial experiment.
 
Those who (like Mr. Swartz) argue that perhaps neither X-rays nor sufficient
nuclear ash will be found, for various obscure reasons, are suggesting then
an hypothesis that is not falsifiable.  An unfalsifiable hypothesis fits into
the class defined by Irving Langmuir as "pathological science."
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  X-rays as critical test/Mossbauer Effect
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  X-rays as critical test/Mossbauer Effect
Date: 11 Mar 93 17:16:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
1.  To Matt Kennel:  The Russian experiment you mention which starts with
"K" is that of Kucherov (a scientist), not Kurchatov (I've been there, but
Kucherov does not work there).  Kucherov is with the "Scientific Industrial
Association 'Lutch'" according to his paper (in front of me now).
 
The Kucherov paper makes *no* mention of X-ray detection, Matt.
 
2.  OK, Mitchell, I'll respond to questions about momentum conservation,
and the related notion of some parallel between lattice-heating ideas and
the Mossbauer effect (ME).  An aside:  I appreciate Matt Kennel and Frank
Close and others jumping in for this educational process since I have
severe time constraints until mid-April.
 
Let us first compare the Mossbauer effect with the lattice-heating idea, that
is, the notion that energy from nuclear reactions which occur in a metal
lattice can couple to the lattice, or to lattice electrons collectively (e.g.,
Preparata), so as to heat the lattice without production of observable
energetic nuclear debris.
 
Mossbauer Effect                             Lattice-heating notion
 
Of order  10 keV energy                      Of order 1-10 MeV energy
 
Excited nucleus lifetime approx. 10^-7s      Excited He nucleus (e.g.) 10^-22s
 
Negligible energy transfer to lattice        Enormous energy transfer to lattice
 (essentially momentum transfer only)        /collective "super-radiant"(Prep.)
                                             state of electrons:  MeV's!
 
Approx. 1% of gammas at best, experience     Non-observation of sufficient
Mossbauer effect                             energetic particles by many orders
                                             of magnitude requires approx. 100%
                                             of nuclear reactions to transmit
                                             energy released to lattic, rather
                                             than to nuclear debris
 
Starting to see the problems?
 
The point that energy transfer to the lattice is essentially zero during
a Mossbauer transition is a most significant difference with respect to
"super-radiance" (Preparata) and related lattice-heating models.
Momentum must be conserved, which along with energy conservation,
requires that most of the
energy must go with lighter particle(s).  This is the case in the Mossbauer
effect where a gamma recoils against a massive lattice-- nearly all
of the energy is carried by the emitted gamma.  The same must happen in
nuclear reactions:  synthesized nuclear particles (e.g., alpha) must carry
much kinetic energy.  In the case of an interaction with a metal, the lattice
is much more massive than the emitted particle.  In particular, this would
hold in the case of presumed helium or tritium nucleus formation by a nuclear
process with "lattice interaction."  The lighter nuclear product, not the
massive lattice, must carry nearly all the energy.  But then the lattice
does not pick up the energy except as the nuclear debris particles slow
in it, which produces X-rays in abundance.
 
Hence, conservation of momentum and energy do not support the notion of
the lattice picking up the energy in a nuclear reaction, rather than the
nuclear products.  The Mossbauer effect in no way supports such notions.
 
Several MeV are released in nuclear reactions.  You correctly point out that
one can expect Bremstrahlung and pair production, etc., as the nuclear debris
slow in the metal in which the reactions allegedly occur.  But these must
in turn produce excitation of the metal atoms (e.g. Pd cathode), which will
in turn produce characteristic X-rays, e.g., 21keV k-alphas for Pd.  Note that
room backgrounds are sufficient to induce measurable k-alpha X-rays in Pd by
fluorescence (sorry, don't have the Phys. Rev. reference at my fingertips),
so nuclear reactions at milliwatt levels *must* produce abundant X-rays.
Where are they???
 
Experimental evidence is against the presence of X-rays or other
products of secondary reactions (such as 14 MeV neutrons from triton+deuteron
reactions) in quantities needed to correlate with xs-heat claims, by many
orders of magnitude.  Hence I conclude that there is no connection
between claimed xs heat and nuclear reactions.
 
Do you agree that the presence or absence of X-rays is a critical test for
the presence or absence of nuclear reactions (in a metal lattice)?
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: x-rays and cf
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: x-rays and cf
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 15:57:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    We agree.  Please provide the proof if you really have it.
>    [Also please note, by the request for the mathematics or proof
>     demonstrating the requirement, we do not challenge it
>     a priori.
 
It is not up to Steve to prove a negative.  Science relies on the person
proposing something new proving that it exists, not on everyone else proving
it doesn't.
 
I respectfully request that you propose a method by which nuclear reactions can
proceed without either producing Mev level particles or a method of
thermalizing these particles without producing X-rays.  (Or any other method
of getting Mev level reactions and avoiding X-rays).
 
>    Steve, since that was not my claim, we request that you please
>   maintain factual clarity.  And that is not semantics.
 
Do you have a theory on the origin of the heat?  That is what we should be
discussing.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: information on cf
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: information on cf
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 16:19:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
> ===    "My assertion is that the fusion of deuterium will always
> ===   result in the emission of neutrons."
>
>   May we again respond with Exhibit 1.  And also offer a quote
>    from Dick Blue:
>
>     "If you can offer no specific hypothesis the argument is over
>    and you loose (sic)."
>       [after Dick Blue; NSCL@MSU]
>
>   Where is you hypothesis (we also allow theory, experiment, mathematical
>  logic, ....) to overcome Exhibit 1.  If not, the argument is over,
> and the skeptics appear to lose.
 
You seem to have some confusion on the meaning of hypothesis: "an explanation
that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested".  A hypothesis should not
overcome "Exibit 1", it should explain it.
 
Most skeptics seem to lean towards "experimental error, fuzzy thinking and
wishful thinking".  I personally do not feel this fits (too many confirmations
with drastically different experimental setups), but neither does "fusion or
other well known nuclear process".
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.11 /  schlichting@pa /  Crystal lattice Strain?
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crystal lattice Strain?
Date: 11 Mar 93 16:45:12 CDT
Date: 11-march-1993
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

 
Date: 11-march-1993
 
A question to "those practiced in the art":
 
I hope Jed, Terry, Deiter, John or Steve would respond to this.
 
It is concievable that some energy may be stored in the deformation of the
crystal lattice structure of the cathod material.   If H2 or D2 loadings are
infact approaching Pd/H of 1.0.
 
I could imagine that the matrix lattice would be strained during the loading
process and later return the strain energy in the form of heat as the atoms
again seek the lower (unstrained) state.
 
As there has been considerable discussion about the "mechanism" for
excess heating in certain experiments I propose this simple mechanism.
I really don't think this would explain all that has been noticed I
was just curious if anyone has looked at the crystaline strain as a
possibility.
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschlichting cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: X-rays as critical test of claims
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: X-rays as critical test of claims
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:38:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>demonstrated these problems.  Moreover, Srinivasan of BARC in India published
>a paper about a year ago in which he showed that X-ray film shows
>"fogging" when exposed to either Pd-deuteride or Pd-hydride.  He warned in
>that paper that these new results implied that his earlier claims of X-ray
>production by Pd-deuteride due to nuclear effects were in considerable doubt,
>taken as they were with X-ray film.  I will dig up the paper if there is
>interest; it was published in an Indian journal.  The students here repeated
 
There is interest; I can't find anything from Srinivasan on this in my list,
so yes, please.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Dieter Britz /  Please explain
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please explain
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:38:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been a lot of heated discussion lately about nuclear ash, x-rays,
etc, motivated by claims that there is evidence for excess heat from nuclear
processes, without accompanying radiation. The skeptics' arguments are a bit
narrow, mostly confining themselves to known reactions with their known
products, and the TB's come back with fine points refuting specifics. This
sort of approach will never lead us anywhere. By now, we all clearly
understand the significance of E=mc**2, differentiated or not, and we know
that the problem boils down to explaining how the energy from a fusion
reaction (whichever fusion reaction that may be) is supposed to be absorbed
purely as heat in the metal lattice, as opposed to what happens in a thin
plasma.
 
It is time to have a close look at two strong contenders for a theory to
explain these claims. Hagelstein has such a theory, and so does Schwinger. As
long as these two heavyweights stand in the wings, complaints by the skeptics
will be hand-waved away with vague reference to them. It does me no good to be
told about a book on the Moessbauer effect, since it will probably not make
(for me anyway) the connection to the situation in CNF experiments. There are
some knowledgable physicists out there: how about explaining, in simple
language, just what Hagelstein and Schwinger are saying? In particular, I'd
like to see all the assumptions that are made, and get some idea how justified
they are. I know that Schwinger proposes p-d fusion, which would mean
commensurate amounts of (3)He, not found by anybody. Does Hagelstein have a
better theory, with nothing commensurate being produced? Someone please tell
us. Then we might get this discussion back to something more than semantics
and PR rhetoric.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: information on cf
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: information on cf
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:38:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 
>  In sci.physics.fusion [5439; Subject: Slow down, Mitchell, please.
>Message-ID: <0096941E.B5355760.2242@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>Organization: Sci.physcs.fusion/Mail Gateway;10 Mar 1993]
>Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue] writes:
...
>===  get somethings cleared up. In particular it is not necessary
>===  to repost Peter Hagelstein's review.   I have received three
>===  copies already, and it is archieved for anyone who didn't get
>===  the first, second, or third time.  I did read it the first time
...
I agree with Dick; that Hagelstein quote was not necessary. If you do that
again, Mitch, I'll quote McElwaine... I am SURE that LARSON can explain IT
all.    {:].
 
>  Dick.  First, we receive many requests by e-mail from as
                 ^^
>far away as Australia to re-post, and second, the post was simply
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>appropriate given your statement.
 
"We"? Is this the royal plural? You/y'all are using it a lot. I suppose this
means Mallove+Rothwell+Swartz? As Dagwood used to say "Hey, where do you get
this 'we' stuff from?".
 
And "as far away as Australia"? Don't you know this is ELECTRONIC mail, so
that distances are irrelevant? Or are you amazed that even Australians are
computer literate? Being Australian, We are not amused.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 796 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 796 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:38:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello there,
 
the trickle trickles on. We see a new material in the Kaliev et al paper, one
of a range of compounds. I am not sure what the authors are suggesting is
happening to the "natrium", which they say can be replaced by hydrogen; nor
do I understand (and I suspect the authors do not, either) the significance of
the current passed through the sample. Certainly, this current does not imply
a loss of that much Na, then replaced by H or D from the gas. They do claim to
have seen repeated high neutron emissions, about 6 times the background,
everytime they let some D2 in again; as well as when they pump it out again.
Nonequilibrium rears its head again. They do not say whether they tried it
with hydrogen, although they do say that they observe heating with both
isotopes. I suppose this means no neutrons with hydrogen - maybe. The paper,
written in Phys. Lett. was not edited very well, hence the use of words like
"natrium" etc. Strange. Referees are normally asked not to pay attention to
language, but the editor should and normally does.
The Japanese paper, describing a sensitive neutron monitor, might excite the
neutron people, or it might not. I don't know how good 0.022 n/s background
is.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 12-Mar-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 796
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaliev KA, Baraboshkin AN, Samgin AL, Golikov EG, Shalyapin AL, Andreev VS,
Golubnichiy PI;                                  Phys. Lett. A 172 (1993) 199.
"Reproducible nuclear reactions during interaction of deuterium with oxide
tungsten bronze".
** This team used Na(0.9)WO(3), which has mobile alkali metal (Na+) ions,
which can be replaced by H or D ions, either electrochemically of from the gas
phase. Into a stainless steel chamber were placed a monocrystalline
Na(0.9)WO(3) plate, 10*10*2 mm, contacting a tungsten anode, and another
tungsten piece served as cathode. The chamber was evacuated to 1E-06 to 1E-05
mm Hg, and the sample heated to 720-760 C. A voltage of 500-1000 V was then
applied between the two electrodes and the current recorded, for 1-5 h. A
total charge of 0.1-1 C was thus passed. The current was switched off, the
electrodes allowed to cool, and H2 or D2 allowed into the chamber up to a
pressure of 1 mm Hg. From this moment on, neutrons were monitored with two
independent blocks of four counters each, of the SNM-42 type, with total
efficiency 1.4%. After 10 min, the chamber was reevacuated, and more gas led
in, repeating this cycle 15 times, monitoring neutrons and sample temperature
all along. The neutron flow increases sharply every time gas is introduced,
and decays again within 10-20 min. A smaller but still significant increase is
seen upon evacuating. Sample temperature also increases upon the introduction
of both H2 and D2 gas. If the neutrons come from d-d fusion, this roughly
translates into a fusion rate of 2E-18/s/dd-pair.                Oct-92/Jan-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kawarabayashi J, Takahashi H, Iguchi T, Nakazawa M;
J. Fac. Eng., Univ. Tokyo B XLI(4) (1992) 595.
"Low level neutron detection system for cold-fusion".
** A new detector system is described for the low level neutrons emitted by
cold fusion experiments. The system uses a new digital waveform analysis
technique to suppress noise and to resolve bursts of piled-up pulses. (3)He
proportional counters were used, 8 within the measuring space, which was
surrounded with polyethylene blocks. Processing of the signals included
pulse height analysis, discrimiation, plus digital waveform analysis. The
lowest observable neutron level was 0.022 n/s.                        Apr-92/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  Dialogue with Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dialogue with Mitchell Swartz
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 20:57:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, we are beginning to get somewhere!  My intent when I wrote the
equation:  Initial Energy - Final Energy = Energy Release was to include
all masses even though I didn't make that explicite.  As a nuclear
physicist I do it that way routinely since I deal with systems that
undergo significant changes in mass.  As to the use of the word "ash"
I will stop using it and switch to "reaction product(s)" or just "products".
 
Let me next answer two of your questions, even though they weren't addressed
to me.  To support his (and my) contention that the processes by which
energetic charged particles lose energy when penetrating matter, Gary Collins
made reference to the work of J. Ziegler as contained in a computer program
called TRIM.  You ask: "Are there any adjustable coefficients in the
software, or equations from which it is derived."  The answer to your
very perceptive question is, yes.  There are some adjustable parameters
involved because the Ziegler work is partially based on make empirical
adjustments to achieve better fits to experimentally determined energy
loss rates and ranges than is possible by using "pure" theory.  That is
to say that the level of the approximations that are used for the
theoretical modeling of the process, in combination with the shortcomings
of our knowledge of electron binding energies and the details of such
processes as electron capture and loss by the penetrating ions, make it
impossible to match experimental data to better than say 5 to 10%
accuracy unless you make some adjustments in parameters.  So what is
the significance of all this to cold fusion?  Basically, the energy
loss process is something that has been studied in great detail and
is understood as well as we understand the details of the underlying
interactions with atomic electrons.  Gaps in our knowledge of details
do, however, leave inaccuracies in the theory at the level of a few
per cent.
 
Next question: "The configuration of an impacting beam is not the
same as that described for cold fusion, is it?"  Well, if anyone
has given a detailed description of the "configuration" that results
in cold fusion I missed it and would appreciate a review from your
perspective.  My perspective is that of accelerator-induced reactions
in which a target nucleus at rest is struck by a nuclear projectile
that has been accellerated to sufficient kinetic energy that there
is the possibility of a collision in which the target and projectile
will get close enough together to interact strongly.  The motive for
using this method is that it is known to be required to get reactions
at an observable rate, a requirement that is well understood as being
due to the Coulomb repulsion that works to keep two nuclei apart.
It is so elementary and easy to comprehend that we nuclear types have
trouble understanding how hard it is to convince cold fusion advocates
of the dominant role electrostatic forces play in the limiting of
rate of nuclear reactions at thermal energies.  If it weren't so
nuclear processes would be setting off little reactions in all sorts
of solids since the beginning of time and we would live(?) in a
much different universe.  The one example that comes to mind in
which reaction rates are not limited by the Coulomb barrier are reactions
induced by neutrons.  Still there is a requirement that the neutron
move toward the target, and there is an "angular momentum" barrier
to be considered.  However, since cold fusion advocates tend to
want to downplay any possible role for neutrons we need not consider
them further. :-)
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 797 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 797 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 02:46:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello there,
 
a dribble following the trickle of yesterday. I thought you might like the
item below, hot off the press. Another China Lake paper, and it looks like a
quality positive. Errors have been carefully considered, and helium-4 has been
found correlated and roughly commensurate with excess heat. No neutrons were
detected by the insensitive method used, but the dental film was fogged, which
COULD mean x-rays. A P&F-style control, in the form of a failure, was also
provided; i.e. they tried with another, new, Pd rod, and got zero excess heat.
This seems to show that their method worked, and that their former excess heat
was not an artifact. I believe these are new results.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 13-Mar-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 797
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miles MH, Hollins RA, Bush BF, Lagowski JJ, Miles RE;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99.
"Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O
electrolysis using palladium cathodes".
** Two standard CNF electrolysis cells, test-tube shaped, were placed in a
water cooling bath, which functioned as heat detector. The electrolyte was 18g
of 0.2M LiOD or LiOH in heavy or light water, resp. The Pd cathode was a 0.63
cm dia., 1.1 cm long cylinder, surrounded by a Pt/Rh (80:20%) wire spiral as
anode. The heat response time constant was about 30 minutes. Helium was taken
from the effluent gases, and great care was taken to avoid contamination. The
helium detection limit was estimated at 1-2 ppb, and analysis was done
elsewhere, by high-res. MS, able to distinguish (4)He from D2. Indium and gold
foils, as well as dental x-ray film, were also mounted around the cells to
detect neutrons or (the film) any radiation. Excess power was calculated with
subtraction for the electrolysis power consumed, and evolved gas checked with
the assumption that no recombination took place. Excess heat was found, at up
to 27% (a peak value), but remaining positive for long periods. Large excess
heat values were accompanied by large (4)He peaks, and small excess heat by
small (4)He peaks. Thus, excess heat and (4)He detections were correlated, in
roughly commensurate quantities. Controls with light water produced neither
excess heat nor helium. No (3)He was found in any experiments. Some dental
films registered radiation exposure, but the metal foils showed no activation.
This sets the neutron emission limit at <1E05 n/s. Tritium assay of the final
electrolyte showed some increase but electrolytic enrichment could not be
ruled out as its cause. Subsequent experiments with new Pd cathodes failed to
reproduce the excess heat and dental film exposures. Errors were carefully
examined but considered insufficient to explain the positive results. The
experiment is consistent with the (4)He reaction being the major fusion
branch.                                                          Mar-92/Mar-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Crystal lattice Strain?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Crystal lattice Strain?
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 02:46:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
 
>It is concievable that some energy may be stored in the deformation of the
>crystal lattice structure of the cathod material.   If H2 or D2 loadings are
>infact approaching Pd/H of 1.0.
 
>I could imagine that the matrix lattice would be strained during the loading
>process and later return the strain energy in the form of heat as the atoms
>again seek the lower (unstrained) state.
 
>As there has been considerable discussion about the "mechanism" for
>excess heating in certain experiments I propose this simple mechanism.
>I really don't think this would explain all that has been noticed I
>was just curious if anyone has looked at the crystaline strain as a
>possibility.
 
>Mark Schlichting
 
This has been proposed, Mark. See, e.g., AbuTaha AF; J. Fusion Energy 9(3)
(1990) 345, "Cold fusion - the heat mechanism", where just this effect is
considered as sufficient explanation. I think there was some subsequent
discussion in this group, the consensus being that the effect is not
sufficient after all. I think you can get an upper limit of the available
energy from this deformation from the following argument: Pd, upon being
loaded with deuterium, expands by about 16% in volume. If you were to somehow
prevent this expansion, then you'd have stored the equivalent energy to that
which you'd need to compress PdD by 14% (roughly). So look up the figures for
compressibility and do a PV-type calculation. This would be the upper limit.
In fact, the metal does expand, so there would be only a small fraction of
strain energy remaining. I think you'll find, either way, that this is not the
source of the excess heat claimed by some.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  What is Exhibit #1?
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl00.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is Exhibit #1?
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 20:58:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since Mitchell Swartz has made Exhibit #1 the center piece in his case
for cold nuclear fusion, I guess I should respond by reminding him what
that document is and what it is not.  Exhibit #1 is a summary of presentations
at a recent conference prepared by Peter Hagelstein.  There is no critical
evaluation of any of the experimental results, and there is little discussion
of the areas in which different experiments have obtained results that are
not strictly compatible.  No matter who performs a given experiment and
no matter what their previous experience in making similar measurements may
be, it always remains a possibility that a given experimental result is
in error.  Whenever it is possible for someone else to point to specific
aspects of the experimental method or conditions underwhich the measurements
are made that are questionable, the validity of the data has to be recognized
as being in doubt.  The fact that Peter Hagelstein summarizes a set of
experimental results has no effect on the validity of those results.  We
ought to be ready to move beyond Exhibit #1.  Indeed we skeptics already
have, and I would say significant reasons to doubt the results of
Yamaguchi and of Pons and Fleischmann have been brought forth in this
forum.  I haven't seen any very convincing counter arguements that can
be used to build a rock solid defense for either of these specific experi-
ments.  There are certainly other results included in Exhibit #1 that
are also somewhat shakey, as indeed are many cold fusion positive results.
In answer to the question that Jed Rothwell might pose, "Can 100 calorimeters
all be wrong?", my reply would be, "YES".  Four years of cold fusion
research demonstrates that quite well.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Ego interfering with good judgement
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ego interfering with good judgement
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 20:58:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones writes:
 
     "Yesterday, I spoke to Nate and read to him your posting.  To say the
     least, he was upset with it.  Based on his careful review of the
     Yamaguchi data, he maintains that there was indeed helium present in the
     glass...
 
Poor Nate! He is a fine fellow, and I am sorry to hear he is upset. However he
is wrong. He does not know what he is talking about, and neither do you. Both
of you have a tendency to get upset when you are wrong. Too bad! In your case,
it is because you have let your ego and your jealousy towards Pons and
Fleischmann overwhelm your common sense. You have decided, for example, that
your sigma 3 results mean something but McKubre's sigma 90 results mean
nothing. You have decided that Bockris, Fleischmann, and several hundred
others are incapable of performing a simple heat measurement that any
scientist on earth could have done with confidence back in 1860.
 
You are a fine scientist, and a good person, and I wish you could untangle
this jealousy from your ideas, because I feel that to find out truth requires
a dedication to truth above other concerns and emotions.
 
 
Also, please stop rattling on about recombination in a Ni cell, and when you
quote Noninski's paper, please cite it correctly. Your statements about
recombination are all nonsense, as anyone knows. Obviously, when the excess
heat is 20 times greater than the total input (I*V), recombination cannot be
an issue. I have always said that with any open cell, results should not be
taken seriously until you exceed I*V by a comfortable margin, and leave any
possibility of recombination far behind.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  /  Send no money ...
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Send no money ...
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 20:58:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Bowery offers $100 if I can generate a replication of the P&F boiling cell
video.  Wow!  Money is a red flag to an old capatilist like me, and I
instinctively go for it!  But I have resisted all offers so far, and I resist
yours, Jim.  I take great pleasure in maintaining my independence, so your
$100 is safe.  To funding agencies out there, I could be bought, but it would
take about 0.5 M and it would have to be done through the Fermilab management.
Then I would only agree to spend half of the effort doing things like
"proving" that the P&F boiling cell was PR.  The rest would go for my own
experimental program, and a couple of people so I could get more done.  So as
the old joke goes, there is no question but that I am a whore, we are just
negotiating the price.
 
I am looking for a positive "anomalous heat" result.  This means that I am not
particularly interested in "proving" that this or that experiment is in error.
(It is a waste of time anyway, as it is generally difficult to prove a
negative result.)  My criticism is designed to encourage better experimental
technique.  I want to see P&F do a good experiment, and to show that they have
been diligent in looking for possible error.
 
While I do not accept money, help is a different matter.  A number of you are
helping, but I could always use more.  From time to time I get a suggestion
that is very hard for me to do.  Things like hoods, or chemical sinks, or even
an assortment of common chemicals are not in my basement.  UPS works great,
and it is possible for you to do something at your nice facility and ship the
result to me in a day or two.  On the other hand, if radiation measurement
ever is called for I could instrument a physics experiment like we were doing
20 years ago with no problem.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 /  /  Status #2 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #2 Cell 4A4
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 02:15:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #2 Cell 4A4
 
A Small Result
 
We have been running what amounts to a McKubre style P&F experiment.  We ramp
up to 500 ma per sq cm from 50 ma per sq cm over about four hours.  We hold a
while at 50 and 500 ma.  Before ramping up, we add about 100 ppm of aluminum.
The ramps are at irregular intervals, depending on when I am home to perform
the critical operations.
 
This cell uses the highly polished cathode prepared by Ed Manning.  Thank you
Ed.  During the last down ramp, the gas system lost 15+ cc.  We think that
this means the cathode outgassed 30+ cc of D2.  We note that 1/1 loading for
this 0.1 cc cathode would amount to 126.8 cc of D2.  This loss then amounts to
a 0.24 change in D/Pd loading.  This process goes in both directions.  On the
next cycle, the cathode is gaining a similar amount of gas.  There is also
some indication that there is a small net gas loading gain for each cycle.
 
We also advise those who would remove and weigh cathodes to determine loading
that when the current is dropped suddenly, we lose gas at a rate of about 10
cc per minute.  It may be lost even faster, but that is the maximum rate that
the gas servo can track.
 
We note the strong measures taken on this run to prevent accumulation of
unrecombined D2 and O2.  Besides the catalyst in glass tubes in the cell,
there is a very large amount of heated catalyst in a container above the cell
but inside the calorimeter.
 
To the best we can find in the many log books, this is the largest change in
loading we have seen from varying the current.  It is certainly larger than on
the last run where we also added aluminum.
 
While I understand that the diffusion rate favors D2 over H2, steady breathing
might still remove more H that was accumulated during fabrication than is
reabsorbed from the relatively pure electrolyte, and thus increase the D/H
ratio of the absorbed gas.
 
A preliminary conclusion is that a highly polished surface aids in the
absorption of D2.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Replies to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Replies to Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 02:46:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 
>   Dick.  Isn't E=mc^2 is old stuff?
 
Indeed, Mitch, it is - and I for one am getting tired of your trotting it
out as Exhibit no. 1, both plain and differentiated. Believe me, we are all
familiar with it, and those who were not before, are now. Further, when you
write
 
>  you call "ash".  We like "products", because "ash" necessarily implies
>  a chemical reaction.  Moreover "ash" is totally inapplicable because
>  there are cases where the ash weighs more than the fuel (eg. magnesium).
 
you (plural) are exposing your ignorance of things nuclear (despite your being
a radiologist). That in itself is no bad thing, but you are thus in a weak
position to make technical points about nuclear science. You might prefer
"products" and that is OK with me.
 
I think the term "ash" was first introduced in this group by Poul Koloc and at
the time I, a humble chemist, thought he must be making one of his jokes. I
was quickly informed that this is in fact a common bit of nuclear jargon. Now
Mitch, you don't need to drag out your Webster, it will not tell you how this
word is used by nuclear scientists. "Ash" to them means the products of a
reaction. The ash of d-d fusion is a mix of protons, tritium, (3)He, and a
tiny bit of (4)He. Changing the branching ratios changes the proportions of
the components of this ash. If you propose another nuclear reaction, there
still needs to be ash appropriate to that reaction. If the reactants do not
lead to new products, then the reaction is a null reaction with no release of
energy. What Steven Jones, Frank Close, Dick Blue and others are trying to get
across to you is that you cannot have these large amounts of excess heat -
i.e. energy release - without some kind of ash being produced at the same
time. Now some kinds of ash might be hard to detect and you might want to
argue that (but I suggest you leave that to someone who knows physics). E.g.,
if the reaction really were p-p fusion from the small H-content of the heavy
water, the ash would be deuterium, indistinguishable from the large amount
present in the first place. Or, as others have suggested, if it is fusion with
the Pd nuclei (even more miraculous, I am told), you'd get a slight shift in
the Pd isotope distribution. Isotopes you should know all about, Mitch, right?
Such a shift might, again, be hard to detect. These scenarios, though, that
lead to hard-to-detect ash, are all less likely than the original proposal of
plain old d-d fusion. No matter how much people are now arguing that CNF may
not be that very reaction, the fact is that most TB's still do believe in it,
since they are still searching for helium and tritium, and in fact tell us
that they have been found. We are not convinced, that's all. I'll be posting
(today) another China Lake paper reporting helium correlated with excess heat.
 
Mitch, the onus is not on anybody to disprove CNF, you are dead wrong there.
If you want governments or shareholders to shell out money for it, then the
onus is on you to show why they should. You can do this only by a clear
and convincing indication that there is something to it. Hundreds of
Believers, or some rich Japanese outfits throwing a few crumbs, just in case
- that's not good enough, mate.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Posting
     
Originally-From: Eugene Mallove <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!76570.2270>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Posting
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 02:46:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
         I haven't paid too much attention to this forum, but recent
statements by Frank Close and Steven Jones made me think that a small (and
necessarily incomplete) corrective to their disinformation was in order. My
attitude about this forum is that I'm glad it exists, though I find little
technical use for it. There is much more useful information in Fusion
Technology, Fusion Facts, other technical journals, unpublished reports, and
above all in daily discussions with scientists and technologists who are
deeply committed to the field.  History will show that the main importance of
this forum was that of a historical archive -- or "garbage trap" -- in which
negativists like Close, Blue, and Jones will have meticulously documented
their clouded thinking and outrageous assertions. I am delighted that this
audit trail exists so that they will *never* be able to suggest -- as I
imagine they will try to -- that they all along believed that excess heat
unexplainable by chemistry was real,  but that they were just waiting for more
refined experiments to be done until they believed it!
 
        This is not, of course, to disparage the many fine postings by those
who are seriously searching for the truth about the scientific basis of cold
fusion phenomena. I also find the continuing saga of "1001 Nights in Tom
Droege's Basement" to be delicious -- even amusing -- counterpoint to the
claptrap from Jones and Close, although I must say that from Tom's remarks
about the P&F boiling cells I think he is losing touch with reality down in
that tinkerer's paradise. Jed Rothwell's postings are also welcome. No, Frank,
Jed is not one of my "acolytes," as you call them. Jed is his own man, you can
be sure of that. He has ten times more native intelligence and common sense
about science than Close and Jones combined. But golly, I wish I really did
have an acolyte to help me with all the cold fusion related business that is
now at hand!
 
        Let me straighten out the record about Dr. Close, who has long cast
himself in the role of some kind of "guardian of purity" for the house of
science. Recently in his American Scientist review of Huizenga's book (for
which a response letter from me will appear next month), Frank called upon the
scientific community to rid its house of the cold fusion virus. His exact
words: "Do we regard this fiasco with detached resignation, or express more
strongly our dissatisfaction with the deceptions, exaggerations and ethically
disoriented presentations that stimulate vast diversion of international
resources?...If science does not ensure that its house is in order, who will?"
 
        There you have it. Let it be clear to all. Close (and Huizenga) isn't
trying to find out the truth about the puzzling phenomenon of excess energy
and low-level nuclear effects, nor has he ever tried.  His drive all along has
been to kill the whole "pathological" field. To do this he routinely deals in
deception with *his* "ethically disoriented" presentations. An example came
only last summer on British television (Channel 4). Close said about
Fleischmann and Pons's experiments: "Now if, indeed, there is something going
on of a chemical nature and if that is, indeed, what they're beginning to
think from what I'm hearing, then I encourage them in that direction."
Fleischmann and Pons have never, ever suggested any such thing and Close knows
it, but he was only too willing to distort their views for his disinformation
purposes. Just prior to that remark we had a sample of Close's arrogant
certainty about the new phenomenon: "What I am absolutely certain of is that
the original claims that were made for nuclear power from test tubes are *not*
for real." Suit yourself, Frank, about that opinion, but leave the record
straight about what Fleischmann and Pons really think cold fusion is -- a
nuclear process.
 
        We had another outstanding example of Close's integrity in the spring
of 1991. On Boston's Channel 2 (WGBH) television news program by John
Hashimoto, Close's telephone-overlay statement was: "What chance for test tube
fusion? With regards to solving the world's energy supplies,  *absolutely
zero*; With regards to there being a significant nuclear phenomenon in there,
*absolutely zero*; With regard to the possibility of making a new form of
storage battery -- *possible.*"    Yet at his lecture at the MIT Plasma Fusion
Center about a week later (June 7, 1991), his response to several inquiries
about the purpose of his lecture, "An Expose on Cold Fusion," Close professed
that his purpose was only to establish the historical facts and ethical
aspects of the Pons and Fleischmann research, *not* whether or not a real new
phenomenon exists.  Frank Close often masquerades as a chronicler of science
history, but his clear intent is to crush cold fusion science. He has failed
miserably; it is *he* who will be crushed by the overwhelming weight of
evidence. Those in Japan, the US,  China, Russia, Italy, and elsewhere who are
working on cold fusion will not be defeated by his devious, hysterical
screams. Frank is finished. He's history.
 
        Some time ago Close wrote that he was glad that some "meat" had
finally appeared on the net -- Peter Hagelstein's Nagoya report. That remark
was incredibly disingenuous, because Hagelstein's report is the kind of meaty
material that has abounded in the cold fusion field since 1989, and which
Close has been completely ignoring and disparaging. Even in "praising" those
of contrary views, Close has no shame.
 
        Now to the matter of my raising the question of scientific misconduct
in the 1989 MIT PFC calorimetry experiment, which was reported as a "null"
result in the Journal of Fusion Energy. For those who are new to this issue,
you should know that in August, 1991, I filed a compendious formal request to
the President of MIT, Charles Vest, to investigate numerous questions of
scientific misconduct connected with PFC experiments, *as well as* the false
assertions in May 1989 by Professor Ronald Parker, then head of the Plasma
Fusion Center, about his interview on cold fusion with Boston Herald reporter,
Nick Tate. Those false assertions by Parker came close to instantly costing
Tate his job, but fortunately Tate had an audio tape of the interview to prove
that it was Parker who was deceitful; thus he kept his job. This was the
interview in which Parker said, "I'll give you a quote, it's scientific
schlock." He used the word "fraud" five times in the interview and at one
point said, "So what are you going to do with this, Nick, what you're hearing
is we think it's a scam, right?" Parker has denied all of this, even though we
all know that audio tapes do not lie. When you're running a billion dollar
program and you never get turned down for funding, I guess you can get pretty
bold.
 
        My full request for an investigation and its attachments run over 100
pages, so I'm not about to rehash the whole business here. Anyone who wants a
copy is welcome to write to me and receive it, if you are willing to pay
copying and postage charges. Suffice it to say that President Vest abrogated
his responsibility and did not properly investigate my allegations. These
allegations stand. The allegations regarding the data mishandling are
completely confirmed, in my view, by the analytical work of Dr. Mitchell
Swartz. Dr. Swartz, however, did  *not* use the word "fraud" in his analysis,
which was published in Fusion Facts in August, 1992. However, any reasonable
person reading his analysis can conclude nothing else than that a serious case
of data massaging and misreporting occurred in that experiment -- i.e. fraud.
Had this experiment involved the HIV virus and not the cold fusion
"pathological science" virus, official committees would long since have drawn
and quartered those responsible. Too bad, we may have to wait a few more years
for that.
 
        One of the last people to write to Vest (unsuccessfully) about his
"inquiry," was physicist Dr. Charles McCutchen of NIH, who holds no firm view
one way or the other about cold fusion. McCutchen has had a hand in helping to
reveal hanky panky in experiments in the medical field. This, in part, is what
he wrote to President Vest on  March 19, 1992, and which he has given me
permission to quote: "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 the hot fusion people would prefer to see. It
might have been chance, but it might not."
 
        The last act in the charade of the MIT data mishandling was the
proliferation of multiple data sets to represent the same experiment! Read
Mitch Swartz's report, see for yourself. There were 16 authors of the original
MIT PFC cold fusion experiment report. Only *one* from that team has his name
on a mysterious additional report on the experiment, which was written in
1992.  This report brazenly grabs even more "wiggle room" for the data
massagers.
 
        Now for Steve Jones, who endlessly demands to be dissociated from the
work of Pons and Fleischmann, even while attending scientific meetings in
Japan and elsewhere, where the nuclear effects *and* excess heat are taken as
part of a unified phenomenon (as well they should be). Poor Steve, he is like
the "man without a country" -- despised by many negativists, bitterly detested
by some at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center for having "pushed" Pons and
Fleischmann into "premature" disclosure.  Yet Steve Jones is also not
appreciated in the cold fusion field by those working on excess heat. They
resent his pronouncements against excess heat, which he has made his hallmark
from the earliest times. Jones demands to be shown x-rays as proof of excess
heat, if it has a nuclear origin. He knows full well that there are theories
involving nuclear reactions that do not require said x-rays. So what's your
game Steve? Disinformation? Does Steve think he can dictate to nature how it
should work? Does he think that all newly discovered phenomena work the way he
was taught in school? Transport Steve Jones back to 1911 and he would be
denying that superconductivity could exist because it violated Ohm's law.
 
        Yes, the more I see of Steve's antics, the more I think that history
*will* largely dissociate him from Fleischmann and Pons -- to his later
regret. It will not be Steve who will get credit for the discovery and
resolution of a new energy source. He can talk about geophysical theories
until he is blue in the face; he has been warring against valid calorimetry
from Day One. Even though he once perhaps hoped to win a Nobel prize for his
neutron work, there will likely be no such prize for Steve. He doesn't believe
it now, but he will someday realize that he shot himself down.
 
        Another bone to pick with Jones. He thinks that only *his* view of the
world should get funding and that he should get funding for helping others to
debunk excess heat. Jones disparages those who see technologically useful
applications for cold fusion and who seek funding for such developments. Fine
Steve, just stop knocking on the doors of those who *are* seeking to foster
cold fusion technology!
 
        Let me end by summarizing where I think things stand. Excess energy
has now been confirmed in both heavy water and light water electrochemical
systems. It is at a level that cannot possibly be explained by chemistry.
Nuclear products have also been observed and confirmed in such systems and
related hydrided metal systems. These products have not been found *so far*
to be present in amounts that are commensurate *by conventional theory* with
the excess energy. New theories will have to be put forth to explain these
facts. These theories *may* build upon the already well-established physical
laws -- quantum mechanics and nuclear physics as they are known today. Peter
Hagelstein's theory is one such example. Alternately, radically new theories
may be required to explain the now well-established data. The more innovative
theories that are put forth to address this enigma, the better. I remain
confident that people like Close and Huizenga, who have ridiculed others for
putting forth radical theories -- hydrons, shrunken hydrogen atoms, zero point
energy, antimatter, or something else -- will, as Einstein said, be
"shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."  Richard Feynman did Einstein one
better when he said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."
Close and Jones will be regarded in due time as among the most ignorant
"experts" in the history of science.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 01:29:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C3r8Gz.C1M@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) writes:
 
>The lack of chemical ash supports all schools of thought that predict
>lack of chemical ash.  One of these schools, the one you were
>referring to, says that the effect is nuclear and does not involve
>chemistry.  Another school says that the effect is neither chemistry
>nor nuclear, but error.  The lack of chemical ash supports both of
>these schools equally.  Trying to claim that the lack of chemical ash
>somehow makes it *more* likely that fusion is occurring than that
>there is an error is silly.  It supports both hypotheses equally.
 
As I said in a previous message -- if the heat is being generated by a
combination of recombination of D2 from the Pd and O from the surrounding
atmosphere and the various and rather sizable errors possible there would
be plenty of chemical "ash" but it would be detectable in the background
of D2O.
 
It would seem that the less proof of CNF the more strident the claims
of CNF.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment
Date: 12 Mar 93 14:07:07 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Yes, Mitchell, there is another paper by Karabut, Kucherov and Savvatimova
of the Scientific Industrial Association LUTCH, published in Physics Letters A:
170: 265-272 -- thanks for calling my attention to this, published in November
1992 and I had not seen it.  The paper I quoted from yesterday (3-12-93)
has a different title and, as I said, makes no mention of X-ray measurements.
This latest does discuss X-rays; let's see what it says.
 
The experiment involves glow discharge (100-500 V) in deuterium (3-10 Torr)
with a cathode of palladium, for most of the results presented.  X-ray
detection is performed with X-ray film and with a Ge-Li detector.  Neither
would be a detector of choice for an X-ray spectrum around 21 keV (the Pd
k-alpha line).  Although
no energy spectrum is provided in the paper, the statement is made "The
characteristic X-ray lines of palladium can be clearly seen around 20 keV."
I find it difficult to assess the reliability of this remark when the
supporting spectrum is not presented:  How much noise is present in the
detector at this energy?   Are the "lines of palladium" of the correct
relative intensities, and do the widths reflect correctly the resolution of
the detector?  I would ask such questions if asked to review the paper, and
would not recommend publication until the supporting spectra were provided.
 
Fig. 8 in the paper shows "X-ray diffraction spots on an X-ray film" the
caption says.  But when I showed the figure to a colleague, Prof. Van Fleet,
he remarked that he saw nothing recognizable as a diffraction pattern:  a
"hodgepodge" he called it.
 
In table 2, the claim is made that the X-ray intensity for E<30 keV is of
order 10^4 s-1, based on:  "The X-ray intensity was evaluated by densitometry
of the exposed films."  How crude!  Why use densitometry when a spectrum from
a Ge-Li is allegedly available?  Why not use a better detector for this energy
range, like SiLi?  How was the densitometer/intensity calibrated?
 
A bit of history:  I have met Dr. Kucherov a number of times and sought
information so that we could repeat his experiment here.  Two students and I
last year spent considerable time setting up and running this experiment, as
closely as we could replicate it with information available.  Similar expts.
were done by Prof. Kevin Wolf (Texas A&M) and Prof. Ed Cecil (Colorado SM).
The results:  none of us saw ANY evidence for nuclear reactions in these
experiments, no charged particles and no neutrons (at the few per hour level).
Nothing.
Kucherov et al. claimed "up to 10^7 neutrons/second" in the first paper I
have (don't know if published; this appears to be a pre-print), and the Phys.
Lett. paper claims "neutrons with an energy up to 17 MeV could be seen."
These are remarkable claims, I know of no one who has seen anything like this.
In particular, neutrons having 17 MeV are far out, really.
 
Likewise, the charged particle energies are wild:  "Charged particles with
energies up to 18 MeV ... were seen."  (Karabut et al., Phy. L. cited above.)
 
A possible explanation is offered in the conclusion of the paper:
"Palladium fission products even with a high energy will have small paths in
the cathode material and the alphas can be by-products."  (p. 272, Phy. L.)
 
Palladium Fission**Fleischmann suggested this during a visit here long ago,
late 1989 I think.  (Frank, you've heard this suggestion surely.  Can you make
any sense of it?)      Sorry, I can't help being puzzled.
 
There's more.  The paper states that "All excessive heat results and
the largest nuclear product fluxes were achieved with
specially treated palladium."
I asked Kucherov precisely what
"special" treatment was used:  He said he would *not* answer.  So here we
have a published paper in which "specially treated palladium" is important,
but the treatment is not described,
but no one can replicate it since the treatment procedure is withheld!  This
is science?  (Not that we haven't seen this before by those claiming xs heat.)
 
 
Look, I've got to get back to work.  Mitchell, I and Gary Collins and Matt
Kennel and others have explained why X-rays will accompany nuclear reactions
if these indeed produce measurable xs heat in metals.  Now please answer my
question:
 
"Do you agree that the presence or absence of sufficient X-rays
is a critical test for
the presence or absence of nuclear reactions (in a metal lattice)?"
 
If you (and others) agree to this test, then I think we have found at last
a way to resolve the question "is claimed xs heat due to nuclear reactions?"
 
This is what I am driving at:  a crucial experiment.
 
On the other hand, if you cannot agree to a crucial experiment (X-rays or
some other test), then the hypothesis that "xs heat must be nuclear in origin"
is unfalsifiable  --  it cannot be proven false to you.  I maintain that an
unfalsifiable hypothesis is a member of the class identified by Langmuir
as "pathological science."  But I may have misunderstood you:  perhaps you
agree that there *is* a crucial experiment, one that can in principle overthrow
the notion that the xs heat is nuclear.
 
I await your answer.
 
-- Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 / Olivera Kesler /  Re: Info on Power Generation.
     
Originally-From: olivera@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Olivera E. Kesler)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.mat
rials,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Re: Info on Power Generation.
Date: 13 Mar 93 02:29:42 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I would also be very interested to hear about any info on various forms of
energy generation, particularly new technologies relating to solar, wind,
OTEC, tidal, geothermal, etc. energy generation, and how new or advanced
materials can play a key role in their development.  Please post any replies
to the net or to my email account.  Thank you!
 
-Olivera
olivera@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenolivera cudfnOlivera cudlnKesler cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
Date: 12 Mar 93 19:39:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

In 1957 or 1958 fusion research was de-classified. The program became the
wide world some of us are still in. (Much inertial-confinement research
remained--still remains?--classified, largely because the same simulation
techniques and quite a lot of the same hardware was used in bomb research
and development.)
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 /  UJ92@DKAUNI2.B /  Re: White House INTERNET Address?
     
Originally-From: UJ92@DKAUNI2.BITNET
Originally-From:  "Clinton/Gore '92" <soc-politics@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
Originally-From: Clinton-HQ@campaign92.org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,soc.politics
Subject: Re: White House INTERNET Address?
Subject: CLINTON: Mailbox unattended from 12/22 to 1/4
Subject: CLINTON: Mailbox unattended from 12/22 to 1/4
Date: 13 Mar 1993 08:13:56 +0100
Date:    Sun, 20 Dec 92 06:47
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:32:47 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab

 
> From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: White House INTERNET Address?
> Date: 7 Mar 93 01:34:16 GMT
> Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA
> Lines: 6
>
> Does anyone in this newsgroup know if the White House has an
> INTERNET address? Is there any other E-mail address for them?
> Compuserve, maybe?
>
>                                         THANKS IN ADVANCE,              JLG
>
Hi!
I've found following  message in the SOC.POLITICS newsgroup:
========================================================================
Message-ID: <"92-12-20-06:47:45.76*RZ45"@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
Date:    Sun, 20 Dec 92 06:47
Originally-From:  "Clinton/Gore '92" <soc-politics@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
To:               $SOPOL@DKAUNI2.BITNET
Subject: CLINTON: Mailbox unattended from 12/22 to 1/4
 
Path: rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!think.com!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!
hri.com!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
Originally-From: Clinton-HQ@campaign92.org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,soc.politics
Subject: CLINTON: Mailbox unattended from 12/22 to 1/4
Message-ID: <1992Dec20.033247.24366@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:32:47 GMT
Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 29
Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Xref: rz.uni-karlsruhe.de misc.activism.progressive:10005 soc.politics:59
 
Season's Greetings and Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!
 
Thank you for your messages to the Office of the President-elect.
This mailbox will be unattended from December 22, 1992 until January 4th,
1993.  Please try again after January 4th.  If you prefer, you may send
hardcopy messages to the address below:
 
   The U. S. Mail address for the Clinton/Gore Transition Team is:
 
        Office of the President-Elect
        Atkins Building
        105 West Capital Street,  Suite 400
        Little Rock,  Arkansas   72201
 
        Telephone: (501) 374-3322
 
 
Regards,
Jock Gill
Public Access Email
Office of the President-Elect
75300.3115@compuserve.com
 
 
Distribution:
  Clinton Volunteers >internet:clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org
  Clinton News >internet:c-news-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Economy >internet:clinton-economy-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Foreign >internet:c-foreign-distr@campaign92.org
 
 ==================================================================
 And this was the whole message. I hope you can extract the requiered
 information of it.
             Bye,   Alberto
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ALBERTO ARBELO, ALIAS: ALBA OR DULCINEA
    EARN/BITNET:    UJ92@DKAUNI2.BITNET
    INTERNET:       UJ92@RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
    X.400:          UJ92@IBM3090.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DBP.DE
    +++  E-MAIL ME ... +++
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenUJ92 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays; CF; Corrxn re: Kucherov paper
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays; CF; Corrxn re: Kucherov paper
Subject: X-rays as Crit Test/Corrxn to Jones
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 07:13:57 GMT
Date: 12 Mar 93 15:27:54 GMT
Date: 12 Mar 93 14:07:07 -0700
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In world sci.physics.fusion:5508; 12 Mar 93; Sub: X-rays:
the Kucherov expt; ID: <1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
===  "Yes, Mitchell, there is another paper by Karabut,
===  Kucherov and Savvatimova of the Scientific Industrial
===  Association LUTCH, published in Physics Letters A: 170:
===  265-272 -- thanks for calling my attention to this,
=== published in November 1992 and I had not seen it."
 
  Your welcome.  Glad I could correct that for Matt and the
  other followers of this net.
 
===  [Steve Jones' review of Kucherov]
===  "This latest does discuss X-rays; let's see what it says.
===  ...  X-ray detection is performed with X-ray film and
===  with a Ge-Li detector. Neither would be a detector of
===  choice for an X-ray spectrum around 21 keV (the Pd
===   k-alpha line).
===   ....     I find it difficult to assess the reliability
===   ....  would not recommend publication until
===  the supporting spectra were provided.  ...  when I showed
===  the figure (8 to) Prof. Van Fleet ...  he saw
===  nothing  recognizable as a diffraction pattern:
=== a "hodgepodge" he  called it. ...   "The X-ray intensity
===  was evaluated by densitometry of the exposed films."
===   How crude!"
 
  Also, Steve we are dumbfounded you were able to retrieve,
  review, and dismiss it in near record short time.
  Here is the actual data.
 
Steve Jones notified and corrected re: Kucherov paper by post
Subject: X-rays as Crit Test/Corrxn to Jones
Message-ID: <C3s8AK.G4B@world.std.com>
Date: 12 Mar 93 15:27:54 GMT
 
Steve Jones posts his final dismissal of Karabut and Kucherov
Message-ID: <1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Date: 12 Mar 93 14:07:07 -0700
 
  The Flash would be jealous.
 
 
===    "I have met Dr. Kucherov a number of times and
=== sought information so that we could repeat his
=== experiment here.  Two students and I last year
=== spent considerable time setting up and running
=== this experiment, as closely as we could replicate
=== it with information available. ....    The results:
=== none of us saw ANY evidence for nuclear reactions
=== in these experiments, no charged particles and no
=== neutrons (at the few per hour level). Nothing."
===                        ***
=== "There's more. ...    I asked Kucherov precisely what
=== "special" treatment was used:  He said he would *not*
===  answer."
 
  Steve, exactly when did you learn about his "x-ray work"?
 
 
===   "I and Gary Collins and Matt Kennel and others have
===   explained why X-rays will accompany nuclear reactions if
===   these indeed produce measurable xs heat in metals."
 
  We submit that you have not explained why this must occur
for reactions in a solid, nor have either of you addressed the
questions with specificity.  If you have, then I apologize and
then you should have no trouble giving the message-ID(s) that
you posted to which we failed to respond.
 
 
===  "Now please answer my question:
===  "Do you agree that the presence or absence of sufficient
===  X-rays is a critical test for the presence or absence of
===  nuclear reactions (in a metal lattice)?"
 
  I will try:
   The presence or absence of X-rays is a critical test for
  the presence or absence of X-rays either from, or secondary
   to, reaction(s) in a metal lattice.
 
 
===  "This is what I am driving at:  a crucial experiment."
 
  Steve, I was trained as an experimentalist not a
 theoretician.  There a many more good experiments then there
    are crucial experiments.
 
 
===  "On the other hand, if you cannot agree to a crucial
===  experiment (X-rays or some other test), then the
===  hypothesis that "xs heat must be nuclear in origin" is
===  unfalsifiable  --  it cannot be proven false to you.  I
===  maintain that an unfalsifiable hypothesis is a member of
===  the class identified by Langmuir as "pathological
===  science."
 
  Wrong.  Science and life went on before people, Steve.
  Therefore, no allosaurus, no stegasaurus, etc. ever agreed
  to any crucial experiments of anything.  Therefore by your
  strange logic, all hypotheses in prehistory were "unfalsifiable",
and therefore all science was "pathological".
 
   The logic is: not. ("twisted" to use '60s terminology)
   There is a vale of effort here  to link cold fusion to
 "pathological", so much so the logic has finally burst.
 
    We submit that those who censor, those who dismiss new
 technology with handwaving, those that interfere with the
 rights of others to learn and/or develop new technology
 are exhibiting the "pathological" behavior.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.14 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays & CF: more on Kucherov
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays & CF: more on Kucherov
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 16:50:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5473); Sub: Re:  X-rays as critical
 test/Mossbauer Effect; ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) had stated:
 
--===  "The Kucherov paper makes *no* mention of X-ray detection, Matt."
--===   [S. Jones, Message-ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>]
--
-- "To Matt:  Notwithstanding Mr. Jones comments, perhaps the paper
--  you want, Matt,is A.B. Karabut, Ya Kucherov and I.B. Savvatimova
--         (see Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265-272)"
--  Given that it is really in front of me, let me type part of
--      the abstract:
--  "New results ..glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry ...
--   characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. ..."
                [mica@world <C3s8AK.G4B@world.std.com>]
 
 In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5508; Sub: X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment
Message-ID: <1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
===  "Yes, Mitchell, there is another paper by Karabut, Kucherov and
===   Savvatimova ...    This latest does discuss X-rays ...
 
  First, your discussions and dismissal of this paper contain significant
 errors.  These include, but may not be limited to, your discussion of
the "diffraction spots".   I will for balance ** briefly ** cite
(OK Dieter?) Peter Hagelstein's review of this work.   The original
 reference has been cited above.  The actual interpretation is left for the
 reader, with my comments only in one area.
 
             ---------------------------------------
 
=== "The experiment involves glow discharge (100-500 V) in deuterium
=== (3-10 Torr) with a cathode of palladium, for most of the results
=== presented.  X-ray detection is performed with X-ray film and
=== with a Ge-Li detector.  Neither would be a detector of choice
=== for an X-ray spectrum around 21 keV (the Pd k-alpha line).
===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
   Peter Hagelstein may provide a clearer description based upon
his reading of the paper and any additional information received at
Nagoya and Kucherov's other papers (which Steve Jones states he has,
but which this author sadly does not):
 
  "Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
  described experiments that I thought were very important.
  The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
 metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
 400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current).  ... The gamma emission was studied
 using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
 recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
 detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
 at 511 keV."    ...
   "Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
 cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
 distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
 temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
 gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
 cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission)."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
   Conclusion:  Two parallax viewpoints.  However, there may have been
   four detectors for gamma emission not counting x-ray film.
   What did they show?
 
===  "Although no energy spectrum is provided in the paper, the statement
===  is made "The characteristic X-ray lines of palladium can be
=== clearly seen around 20 keV."
===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
  What is Peter's perspective:
 
    "Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
 considered.
 Excess power  production at the level of tens of watts is observed;
 their best result  out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing
 a power gain of a  factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume,
 the resulting power  generation rate is quite high; the highest values
 are on the order of 3000  watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy
 production observed to  date exceeds 20 kJ."
    "After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
 emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec
 in some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier
 work was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
 type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
 appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance of
 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of 30
 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
 discharge."
    "After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up
 to 10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). ...   An example of an anomalous
 gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in a recent publication{16}.
    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma
 spectrum returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the
 identified lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines
 originating from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where
 *Z*=46 for Pd, were observed)."
    "A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is
 emitted from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used
 for detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in
 some experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched
 off which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
 fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
 inside the discharge chamber."
    "A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks
 were observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12
 MeV and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as
 determined through measurements with different barrier thicknesses."
                 [Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
 
    What irks me most is the dismissal of the x-ray image in Figure 8 by
what appears to be a self-serving attempt to compare it to what it is not.
 
===  "Fig. 8 in the paper shows "X-ray diffraction spots on an X-ray film"
===  the caption says.  But when I showed the figure to a colleague,
=== Prof. Van Fleet, he remarked that he saw nothing
=== recognizable as a diffraction pattern:  a "hodgepodge" he called it.
===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
   Was it really a "diffraction pattern"?  Is that what Prof. Van Fleet was
told?   Attention is directed to the paper which states:
 
   "To determine the spatial distribution of the gamma emission we used
 RT-1V X-ray films with lead screens. ...  Using the same X-ray film with
 aluminum and lead screens X-rays with diffraction spots can be seen
 (fig. 8)." [from  Karabut & Kucherov, Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265)]
 
   So.  The x-ray film had different materials in front of it and was used
to record the "spatial distribution of the gamma emission".
   What then actually is a "diffraction pattern"?
 
  A diffraction pattern is an image created on x-ray film from a periodic
material which is irradiated by an incident beam (usually monochromatic).
We thought you were aware of solid-state physics but refer you to Chapter
2 of Charles Kittel "Solid State Physics", Wiley Press which discusses
the fundamentals you need to understand crystal structure, fourier analysis
reciprocal lattice vectors, diffraction conditions, etc.
 
  FACT: Figure 8 was not a "diffraction pattern".  The paper states
 that it was used to study "spatial distribution", and Kucherov et alia
 were clever enough to add filters to harden the incident x-rays.
 
  Final FACT:  Kucherov et alia's experiments were apparently
 confirmed at least twice as described in the Hagelstein paper.
  I would not dare to repost it, but direct the interest reader to
  section 5:
 
   "There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two
    electrodes inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure
    (4-13 torr)."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
   and, of course, to section 11:
 
  "V. A. Romodanov... The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas
 at 100-200 torr, with an applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V,
 and a current of 3-4 A.  Various cathode metals were used, including
 Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W.
     "Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and
 10{9} atoms/second were measured in the different metals under
 various conditions. The largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in
 Nb at 1170 Deg. K, corresponding to an increase in tritium activity
 in the deuterium gas of 2.3 X 10{4}."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
   It is hoped that this laborious update corrects information for readers
   of sci.physics.fusion.    Best wishes,
 
       Mitchell  Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  Re: information on cf
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: information on cf
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 18:37:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In world sci.physics.fusion:5494 [Sub: RE: information on cf
   Message-ID: <69B68AEDDE1F2059E9@vms2.uni-c.dk>; 3/12/93]
 
 Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes:
 
===  "I agree with Dick; that Hagelstein quote was not
===   necessary. If you do that again, Mitch, I'll quote
===   McElwaine... I am SURE that LARSON can explain IT all.
 
   I am sorry to have reposted it. And you can be certain that
  your threat was received with the expected chill.    {;]
 
 
===   "We"? Is this the royal plural? You/y'all are using it a
===   lot. I suppose this means Mallove+Rothwell+Swartz?
 
   Sir, we are JET Technology.  It does not mean what you suppose:
    "Mallove+Rothwell+Swartz".  Neither Jed Rothwell, whom I believe
    that I have met twice at MIT, nor Dr. Eugene Mallove are
    working with JET Technology.
 
   BTW: Gene wrote an excellent book which I recommend to those
       who want to learn what cold fusion is, what it is about,
       and why I (and others -- can't use "we" no more, eh?) get
        flammed for asking simple logical questions.
           (FIRE FROM ICE [Wiley Press (91}).
 
        We hope Gene does an update on the cold fusion story
   because he is good accurate historian, a good scientist trained
   at MIT, and knows this field as thoroughly as it gets.
 
     ** The above does not dismiss the great job Dieter and Hal Fox
            and George Miley and many others are doing.
 
   Thank you very much for the opportunity for clarification.
 
     Mitchell
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Mitchell R Swartz                 JET Technology
    mica@world.std.com                    (617) 239-8383
    [standard disclaimer}
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Pd Outgassing
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pd Outgassing
Date: 12 Mar 93 10:03:53 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <930311125240.23800aa3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, fusion@zorch.ogi.edu writes:
> Whoever (sybil.risc.rockwell) posted that you can remove a cathode and place
> it under a volumetric cylinder to measure the absorbed gas is likely misled.
>
> We have observed a very wide variation in the rate of outgassing.  Some samples
> have lost 10% or so just on the reduction of current in a few seconds.  Others
> show little or no change.  We have slight evidence that the samples that most
> freely loose gas are the ones which seem to show CNF.  So removal and weighing
> would (in our opinion) likely point at the wrong candidates.
>
> The note further does not say how all the gas is persuaded to be removed.
> Moore sites a case where a sample held significant amounts of gas for over
> 13 years.
>
> Tom Droege
 
Tom's idea that the amount of retained hydrogen can be very variable is
indeed supported by known properties of the Pd/H2 system.
 
Under one atmosphere of pressure of hydrogen and at room temperature,
the equilibrium loading of protium in palladium is about 0.72 atoms of
hydrogen per atom of palladium (and very similar for deuterium).
Below, from the same source from which I drew the table of loadings
as a function of temperature (also under 1 atm of H2), I tabulate the
equilibrium loadings (in the atomic ratio H/Pd)  at 20 C under different
H2 pressures.
 
 ---------------------------------
H2 pressure (atm)     H/Pd
 ---------------------------------
        10              0.78
        3               0.75
        1               0.72
        0.3             0.70            [E. Wicke and H. Brodowsky, in
        0.1             0.67            Hydrogen in Metals II, eds.
        0.03            0.65            G. Alefeld and J. Voelkl
        0.01            0.62            (Springer, 1978), fig.3.4, p. 81.]
        0.005+          0.60
        0.005-          0.1
        0.003           0.04
 ---------------------------------
 
As can be seen, there is an abrupt drop in loading as the H2 pressure
drops below 0.005 atmospheres.  In order to hope to measure H/Pd loading
accurately by the evolution of gas from a charged sample, experimentalists
may need to make significant efforts to keep H2 in the atmosphere
or liquid the cathode at the low levels necessary.  Heating the cathode
would help, of course.
 
Perhaps loading can be measured best by purposefully recombining the H2
emitted from the cathode with O2 in the air and measuring the heat output!
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State University
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
Date: 12 Mar 93 10:11:01 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <C3r6y1.6Cp@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
> ...
>    What has been described throughout the world since 1989 involves
> the relative arrangement of alkaline heavy water off the surface of
> palladium as the overvoltage is increased sufficiently. The reactions
> then occur within the palladium, with the deuterons in the palladium,
> and not out of it (as when "nuclei impinge").
>
 
Could you elaborate on this model which you have?
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State University
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / L BATTIN /  P&F Cold Fusion as a Signal (was: Re: X-rays as critical test)
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Cold Fusion as a Signal (was: Re: X-rays as critical test)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 21:12:18 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

 
Insert smileys liberally throughout the following....
 
In article <1noeg0INNd35@network.ucsd.edu>,
mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes...
 
>mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>:
>:   In sci.physics.fusion [5456; Sub: Re: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
>:          11 Mar 1993; Message-ID: <1nmtloINNql6@network.ucsd.edu>]
>: Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu   a.k.a.
>:              mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu]  writes:
>:
>: ===  "To amplify:  nuclear reactions occur at a scale that's a "point"
>: ===  .....   interact with the rest of the atoms."
>:
>:   A reasonable discussion for fusion in a plasma, but this a fusion
>: in a solid.  There is no evidence that the reactions are not coherent,
>: that the reations occur a "a 'point'" as Matt claims.
>
>In so far as nuclear products are not observed you are correct.
>If nuclear reactions are not involved, then it's not necessary to suppose
>reactions energy production at femtometer scales.
>
>If it's a nuclear reaction, on the other hand, then it must be so.  The
>mediating particles for strong and weak interactions are massive, and
>therefore the interactions have small and finite ranges.  This range is
>much much much smaller than atomic scales.
>
>It's too bad, because if nuclear reactions had ranges only 10
>or 100 times larger, we'd probably have working fusion machines by now.
>
>On the other hand, stars might burn themselves out faster and we wouldn't
>be here.
 
This made me recall the book "The Gods Themselves" by the late Good Doctor,
Isaac Asimov.  Those of you who have read it will recall that it too dealt
with a phenomenon which seemed to violate the Laws of Physics As We Know
Them.  So, this has prompted me to ask the participants this question:
If you could explain the excess heat by postulating a _minimal_ (and apparently
_temporary_) violation of the "Laws of Physics" within the electrolytic cell,
_which_ law (or laws) would you choose and how much violation would it take?
Have any of you thought about just how curious are some of the similarities
between the fictional events in that book and present-day Cold Fusion history?
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 21:47:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion [Sub:Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins]
   [Message-ID: <1993Mar12.101101.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>; 12 Mar 93]
Gary S. Collins writes:
 
===  "Could you elaborate on this model which you have?"
 
  Gary, I am not sure which model you mean.   We have several.
  The Quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading was
published (Fusion Technology, 9/92, 296-300) and frankly
the equations are simply not transferrable to this medium to the
best of my knowledge.
 
  There were two questions to you.
 
===  "Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on
===   a solid with an energy of several MeV."
          [Gary S. Collins <1nooanINN1u7@network.ucsd.edu>
 
  To Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu]
I had no clear answer:
 
   "I presumed that the use of the plural, "energetic nuclei",
    described by Gary implied a beam. ...
    Perhaps I was wrong.   This might also be important because
    some of calculations to which Gary referred may be Eulerian
    rather than Lagrangian."
 
    Which was it?  Also,
 
===  "...  Computations of ranges are readily available ...
===  the TRIM program by J. Ziegler at IBM Watson Labs and coworkers.)
===  These computations use conventional views of particle
===  interactions in solids." (Article-I.D.: jaguar.1993Mar11.093603.1)
 
  Gary, are there any adjustable coefficients in the software, or the
equations from which it is derived?   Thank you.
 
  Interesting comments on loading Pd as function of atmosphere.
     What happens very close around .005?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  RETURN of the DACTYLON
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RETURN of the DACTYLON
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 22:31:30 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Well, that was short lived -- but BOY did I enjoy my vacation from this place.
 
My thanks to those of you (there were quite a few) who let me know that it's
not always the most vocal members of the group that count.  Your feedback
was unexpected and appreciated more than you may realize.
 
I hope to be posting some miscellaneous "just for grins" items over the next
week or so, time permitting.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  dialogue with Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: dialogue with Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 23:46:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In sci.physics.fusion:5500; Fri, 12 Mar 1993
Message-ID: <0096964A.3CB8F8E0.3047@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
 Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
===  "OK, we are beginning to get somewhere! ...  My intent
===   to include all masses   ...  As to the use of the word
===   "ash" I will stop using it and switch to "reaction
===   product(s)" or just "products"."
 
   Agreement.
 
===  "Gary Collins made reference to the work of J. Ziegler
===  (and) ... TRIM.  ...  There are some adjustable
===  parameters involved ...  the level of the approximations
===  ....  make it impossible to match experimental data to
===  better than say 5 to 10% accuracy unless you make
===  some adjustments in parameters.  So what is the
===  significance of all this to cold fusion?"
 
   Most of my experience in such calculations, when both set-up
and other errors were included but limited, when compared with
measurements were circa 7%.
 
   As to its significance to cold fusion: Gary brought it up.
   Please see his post.  My interest dealt with the weaknesses
 in  such software when either scattering, large beam area, or
   3D are incorporated.
 
 
===  "If it weren't so nuclear processes would be setting off
===   little reactions in all sorts of solids since the
===   beginning of time and we would live(?) in a much
===   different universe."
 
  Good point.  Liked your example.  Here is another example,
 in addition to your "neutron" suggestion.
 
  We live in an oxygen atmosphere. One-fifth anyway, right?
 
  Oxygen is spin-forbidden from "setting off little reactions"
which would create havoc.   All other molecules are singlet in
 their ground state.  However, thank G d, in its triplet
 ground state, molecular oxygen is a diradical with its two
 outer electrons split between degenerate antibonding
   (pi*+, pi*-) orbitals.  The result is that oxygen must
 [uniquely to nearly all other molecules] attain an excited
 singlet state ** before ** it can accept an electron.
 
  Lucky for us, eh?  It means that O2 doesn't "set off little
 reactions" everywhere.  That is great because spontaneous
 combustion would leave the Internet deserted
       (at the least  :)
 
  It also means there are now two (2) examples.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 / mitchell swartz /  What is Exhibit #1?: Re to Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is Exhibit #1?: Re to Blue
Date: 13 Mar 93 00:16:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In world sci.physics.fusion:5501; Sub: What is Exhibit #1?
Message-ID: <9303121641.AA07032@suntan.Tandem.com>; 3/12/93
  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
===  "Since Mitchell Swartz has made Exhibit #1 the center piece
===   in his case for cold nuclear fusion, I guess I should
===   respond by reminding him what that document is and what it
===   is not."
 
  Dick,  if I was the scientific prosecutor to prove the case
 "for cold fusion", or for "who" did "what" to cold fusion,
 Exhibit #1 would not be the centerpiece.  It was however the
 simplest way to correct any who says:"Cold Fusion doesnt exist".
 
 
===  "Exhibit #1 is a summary of presentations at a recent
===   conference prepared by Peter Hagelstein. ...    The fact
===  that Peter Hagelstein summarizes a set of experimental
===  results has no effect on the validity of those results."
 
  That is true.  Dick, there sure were an awful lot of
 positive papers, weren't there though.  Now how do you skeptics
 plan to  "brush them all off"?
 
 
=== "We ought to be ready to move beyond Exhibit #1.  Indeed we
===  skeptics already have, and I would say significant reasons
===  to doubt the results of Yamaguchi and of Pons and
=== Fleischmann have been brought forth in this forum.
===  ....     In answer to the question that Jed Rothwell might
===  pose, "Can 100 calorimeters all be wrong?", my reply would
===  be, "YES".  Four years of cold fusion research demonstrates
===  that quite well."
 
  Let us get this straight.   Your argument consists of the
  following:     Everyone else is wrong.  ....
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  cf - corr. to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cf - corr. to Jones
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:26:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5472);Sub: Is "cf-heat-is-nuclear"
  falsifiable?   Message-ID: <1993Mar11.163024.498@physc1.byu.edu>]
 Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
===  "Those who (like Mr. Swartz) argue that perhaps neither
===   X-rays nor sufficient nuclear ash will be found, for various
===  obscure reasons, are suggesting then an hypothesis that is not
===  falsifiable."
     [Mr. Steven Jones <1993Mar11.163024.498@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
   We don't know who you mean.  If you perceive it might be me, Mr. Jones,
then let me please refresh your memory:
 
  First, I asked why the skeptics demanded that neutrons must be there.
=== "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?"
 
    I also asked why ** you ** asserted that the x-rays must be there.
:===   "I assert that X-rays must be present if reactions
:===  are producing measurable quantities of xs heat by
:===  *any* pathway, as long as the reactions are MeV-scale,
:===  i.e., nuclear in origin."
:        [Steve Jones; Sub: X-rays as critical test; 9 Mar 93]
: "Could you prove said assertion, which has been at the basis of our
:  taking the time to respond to you and asking?"
 
   Your attention is thus drawn to the simple fact that the record shows
that I did NOT say: "neither X-rays nor sufficient nuclear will be found".
 
  To the contrary: consider that we pushed this net into
  quantitative-mode regarding how much product might be expected in
  present reported power levels.
 
  We take umbrage with this continued confusion.
 
 
===  "An unfalsifiable hypothesis fits into the class defined by
===  Irving Langmuir as "pathological science."
    [Mr. Steven Jones <1993Mar11.163024.498@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
  Although uncertain what "unfalsifiable hypothesis" is
     (? "the sun wont rise tomorrow", the following stands true if your
quote is.
   In fact, Steve, since you have been asked for the explanation of
** your ** requirement for 'neutrons'  and 'x-rays' and so far have
not provided such for cold fusion within a lattice, then actually
your hypotheses must "fit into the class defined by Irving Langmuir as
"pathological science"[after Mr. Jones<1993Mar11.163024.498>].
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as Crit Test/Corrxn to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as Crit Test/Corrxn to Jones
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 15:27:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5473); Sub: Re:  X-rays as critical
 test/Mossbauer Effect; ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) states:
 
===  "1.  To Matt Kennel:  The Russian experiment you mention which
===  starts with "K" is that of Kucherov (a scientist), not
===  Kurchatov (I've been there, but Kucherov does not work there).
===  Kucherov is with the "Scientific Industrial Association '
===  Lutch'" according to his paper (in front of me now).
===
===  "The Kucherov paper makes *no* mention of X-ray detection, Matt."
     [S. Jones, Message-ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
To Matt:  Notwithstanding Mr. Jones comments, perhaps the paper
  you want, Matt,is A.B. Karabut, Ya Kucherov and I.B. Savvatimova
         (see Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265-272)
 
  Given that it is really in front of me, let me type part of
      the abstract:
 
  "New results for glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry are presented
   In separate experiments a heat output five times exceeding the input
   electric power was observed. ... Charge particles with energies
   up to 18 MeV and an average energy of 2-4 MeV were seen.  Beams of
   gamma-rays with energies of about 200 keV and a characteristic
   X-ray radiation were registered. ..."
 
 
   "*no* mention of X-ray detection" vs. "characteristic X-ray
          radiation were registered".   You decide.
 
To Steve: Thank you for the very interesting comments.
    We will consider them.  However,Mossbauer phenomena were cited
 only as an example of how the lattice makes physics more interesting.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Jones
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Jones
Date: 12 Mar 93 14:34:49 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <C3pIDF.70G@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
>===  "(N)uclear reactions release
>===  energy in the form of energetic (MeV-scale) particles.  As
>===  these slow down in a material (e.g., palladium nearby),
>===  they excite atoms which leads to X-rays as the atoms
>===  de-excite, and finally the energy degrades to random
>===  kinetic energies in the bulk material, i.e., heat."
>
>   True. However, we like listing all possible interactions.
>  Therefore please also add in Bremsstrahlung if they are charged.
 
This is getting absurd.  Bremsstrahlung is irrelevant for the particles
and energies considered here.  It decreases as the paricle mass increases
(and we are talking about A>1 in many cases here) and as the energy
decreases (and we are only talking about a few MeV here).  Please do
your homework or, as is more likely, stop jerking us around if you
actually have some clue about what you are writing.
 
> And the fact that the secondary ionizing radiation generates
> photoelectrons, Compton scattering, and if the energy is sufficient,
> pair production.
 
And all of the above would generate additional X-rays and so forth
(exactly as Steve described), all of which are detectable.  The
last one you list is only important if there are those 20 MeV photons
rattling around, and the signal would be seen rather easily.
 
 
>   First Bremsstrahlung is a continuous spectrum.
>
>   Second, for certain particles (eg. electrons above 50 MeV) it
>    dominates over any ionization.
 
So you do know something about what you speak.  Are you then suggesting
that there should be 50 MeV electrons produced in these experiments?
Highly unlikely given "MeV scale" reactions, and highly unlikely the
other effects of these electrons (characteristic X-rays from the
material they hit -- why did you leave that one out?) and the hard
X-rays from brehmsstrahlung would be missed in the experiments that
have been done.
 
 
You clearly believe that 20 MeV of energy generated in a volume of a few
fm^3 can be shared equally at the eV level among millions of atoms in
a lattice with a volume of a few (mu-m)^3 with interatomic bindings of
the atoms nearest the decay of a few eV.  This is quite an extrapolation
from the limits we know from the Mossbauer effect.  At the same time,
you require that this branch driven by electromagnetic interactions
dominate over two other decay modes that are driven by the strong
interaction and occur on time scales of less than 10^{-20} seconds.
I think the burden of proof is on the person who claims to see this,
and the burden is quite clearly to detect the other product (He-4) in
direct proportion to the heat produced, every time heat is produced.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: information on cf
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: information on cf
Date: 12 Mar 93 15:14:47 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <7600040@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
(Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
>
>Most skeptics seem to lean towards "experimental error, fuzzy thinking and
>wishful thinking".  I personally do not feel this fits (too many confirmations
>with drastically different experimental setups), but neither does "fusion or
>other well known nuclear process".
 
Ah, but "too many confirmations with drastically different experimental
setups" is exactly the problem.  A "different" experiment does not
"confirm" another experiment unless there is a clear and quantitative
theoretical prediction (or postdiction for that matter) between the two.
 
What we need is reproducibility: the *same* result with the *same*
well-described setup.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  Disc. on Phonons
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Disc. on Phonons
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 17:43:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In world sci.physics.fusion:5479; (Sub: Proof that phonons
can or can't do it) ID: <9303112126.AA29928@suntan.Tandem.com>
Fri, 12 Mar 1993]   Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
===  "Mitchell Swartz keeps demanding proof that his ideas
===   don't offer a way to hid nuclear reaction products,
===   but he offers nothing to support anything he proposes."
 
 Dick:  Don't know what a "hid" is.
 Do not remember sharing my ideas with you, although some
poignant questions have been asked (many of which remain
unanswered) regarding some of the theories posted on this net.
 
  However, one of my theories on isotope loading was
peer-reviewed and published. (Fusion Technology, vol. 22,
9/92; pp 296-300).  Attempts were made to support each
assumptions therein.  Any questions?
 
  To respectfully reiterate: Here I requested why the skeptics
 demanded neutrons at quantities where "everyone in the room
 (dies)".  The basis for this was extrapolations were
 used from plasma to solid state.   Any response?
 
 
===  "If you insist on absolute proof, proof beyond all doubt,
===  there is very little point in discussing any issue."
 
  We would settle for ANY proof - except mere handwaving.
  We encourage: any proof.    Last time, your equation was
examined, considered and  corrected with the addition of two
terms.  Any comments on that?
 
 
===  "A fact which you must not overlook is that there are
===  really two objects carrying momentum involve here.
===  In the case of the Mossbauer effect they are a gamma ray
===  photon and the emitting nucleus.
 
  Really?  After this, I am signing off on Mossbauer.
 It was mentioned only to show one example where the lattice
 makes a difference.
 
   We submit that it is slightly more complicated, and
that there may be more than "two objects".
 
  The sample, two photons (in the case of Fe-57 which was
discussed in the original post), and a cobalt-57 to iron-57
conversion by electron capture are used.
 
      Co-57
   ___________ (half-life 270 days)
               \
                \
                 \
                 _\|     Fe-57
                 ________________________    137 keV
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                    \|/       |
                 _____________| __________    14.4 keV
                        |     |
                        |     |
                       \|/   \|/
                 _________________________    stable
 
   The initial excited level of 137 keV decays either way
but only the 14.4 had significant levels of recoilless
emission as I remember.
 
   No more Mossbauer or M"oss-whatever.  OK? It was presented
to demonstrate only that reactions can be unanticipated in
the solid state, when based upon plasma- or gas-thinking.
 
 
===   "I can't prove that phonons can't handle (some of) the
===   momentum, as you put it. ...  Now, let me also note that
===   you have let a modifier slip into your line."
 
   Many of our minds remain open, and the modifiers are a
"barometric" clue to that.  What is sought is only open
discussion about science, based upon facts, and an attempt
at mathematics.
 
   Best wishes.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / mitchell swartz /  info on cf (def. hypothesis)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: info on cf (def. hypothesis)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 17:44:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
   On Sub: Re: information on cf; Message-ID: <7600040@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
 Thu, 11 Mar 1993
   Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot; rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
 
===  "You seem to have some confusion on the meaning of
===  hypothesis: "an explanation that accounts for a set of facts
===  and can be tested".
 
  Is there confusion?  and who has it?
  "hypo"   (from the Greek - hyp)   : under, below, less than usual
  "thesis" (from the Greek - thesis): a setting, a placing, a putting
 
 combined together as in Webster's [ibid]:
 
    hypothesis:   A tentative assumption made in a way to test
                  (its) logical or empirical consequences.
 
 
===  "A hypothesis should not overcome "Exhibit 1", it should
===  explain it."
 
  Thank you.  We agree.  It will take many hypotheses, and
many of them probably wrong, to account for all that data supporting
the existence of what has been come to be termed: cold fusion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 / David Seghers /  fusion@zorch posters, please ID at top!
     
Originally-From: seghers@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion@zorch posters, please ID at top!
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 02:08:40 GMT
Organization: HP Response Center Lab

A request from an interested bystander:  Those using fusion@zorch
please ID yourselves at the *beginning* of your article.  I realize
all the grammar books say to sign your letters at the end, but I
keep getting a few screens into a post an begin to wonder whose
viewpoint I am supposed to follow, then having to wait until I
read 15 more screens until I find out.
 
It's not that I don't want to read (or wade, as the case may be)
through this stuff!  Those of you who post via fusion@zorch have
a *lot* of great and interesting stuff to post.  It's just that
when you say "When Tom's (or Jed's, or Dick's or...) criticism
of my work is examined in the light of Steve's excellent work..."
it's a get help to know who the poster is!  Especially when you
might be caught up in the heat of battle and forget to sign at all.
All we know at that point is that someone at fusion@zorch is mad
at someone else at fusion@zorch!
 
Now that that's out of my system, keep up the great work, *all* of
you.  And good luck with the latest run, Tom!  I hope this is *it*.
 
 
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.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenseghers cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.12 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Achilles' Heel of Fusion as an Energy Source
Date: 12 Mar 93 20:54:50 GMT

In <1n5q3s$9rm@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
 
 
>       Preparing hydrogen from water requires electrolysis, which
>gets close to the 10 eV limit mentioned. One can avoid that by doing
>diffusion on water itself.
 
But when you have finished with the depleted H, you combine it with
some O and get your 10 ev back (same with the enriched D too for that
matter).
 
Well, accoding to thermodynamics you do not get it all back - how good
are fuel cells in this regard?
 
 
--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506                            Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 / Charles Pooley /  Re: runaway release and recombination
     
Originally-From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: runaway release and recombination
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 19:54:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

 
Gary Collins a while back raised a very good point--that of oxidation
of H or D loaded palladium by molecular oxygen.  The hydrogen in palladium
is so reactive that it does react on exposure to oxygen.  This was observed
in the earliest times with experiments with palladium.  Also, it might
be worth noting that D is significantly more reactive than H (basis of
some isotope separation experiments).
 
From almost the beginning of all this, I suspected that, as electrolysis
goes on, molecular O2 will dissolve in the water, and circulate over to
the cathoce, there to react with the H or D in it.   And that a way to
check for this would be to carefully measure the liberated O2 and see if
no more than 4.0000000 faradays are required per mole of O2.  If there is
O2 'missing', the possibility of the missing O2 remaining in solution and
reacting (non-electrochemically) at the cathode has to be taken seriously.
 
It just might check out that the quantity of 'excess heat' may check with
that which would be released from the quantity of 'missing' O2....
 
That the 'heat released' are often seen as sporatic would not be suprising,
as G. Collins noted, there are thermal runaway processes which would tend
to make the oxidation not steady...
 
What do upu all think?
 
--
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenckp cudfnCharles cudlnPooley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
Date: 13 Mar 93 14:33:03 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <C3spv1.Jov@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   In sci.physics.fusion [Sub:Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins]
>    [Message-ID: <1993Mar12.101101.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>; 12 Mar 93]
> Gary S. Collins writes:
>
> ===  "Could you elaborate on this model which you have?"
>
>   Gary, I am not sure which model you mean.   We have several.
 
The particular model to which you alluded in your posting.  A qualitative
description, at least, would be appreciated by myself and, no doubt, others.
 
>   There were two questions to you.
>
> ===  "Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on
> ===   a solid with an energy of several MeV."
>           [Gary S. Collins <1nooanINN1u7@network.ucsd.edu>
>
>   To Matt Kennel [mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu]
> I had no clear answer:
>
>    "I presumed that the use of the plural, "energetic nuclei",
>     described by Gary implied a beam. ...
>     Perhaps I was wrong.   This might also be important because
>     some of calculations to which Gary referred may be Eulerian
>     rather than Lagrangian."
>
>     Which was it?  Also,
>
> ===  "...  Computations of ranges are readily available ...
> ===  the TRIM program by J. Ziegler at IBM Watson Labs and coworkers.)
> ===  These computations use conventional views of particle
> ===  interactions in solids." (Article-I.D.: jaguar.1993Mar11.093603.1)
>
>   Gary, are there any adjustable coefficients in the software, or the
> equations from which it is derived?   Thank you.
 
The computations describe the statistical behavior of a "beam" of particles
impinging on a solid.  Some coefficients which go into the calculations
are empirical averages.  For example, the energy needed to displace a host
atom, which depends on the orientation of the crystal lattice relative to
the incoming particle.
 
But these are details.  The TRIM calculations are based on two mechanisms:
that ions lose energy by exciting electrons near their path (impulsive
Coulomb force) and that nuclei may make elastic (Coulomb) collisions.
This classical physics is sufficient to predict with excellent precision
the ranges and straggling of ions in solids (as long as ions do not "channel"
down specially aligned lattice rows.)   Significant energy loss by novel
mechanisms is out of the question.
 
>   Interesting comments on loading Pd as function of atmosphere.
>      What happens very close around .005?
 
The hydrogen flows in or the hydrogen flows out.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | Internet: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.13 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment
Date: 13 Mar 93 06:52:04 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In article <1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> ...
> "Do you agree that the presence or absence of sufficient X-rays
> is a critical test for
> the presence or absence of nuclear reactions (in a metal lattice)?"
>
 
Steve has in my opinion persuasively argued the case that x-rays of
the cathode's host metal are a necessary byproduct of nuclear reactions.
This would apply whether the reactions take place inside the cathode or
at its very surface.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | Internet: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.14 / mitchell swartz /  x-ray as a test (cont.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: x-ray as a test (cont.)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 01:49:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.14 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as test (cont.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as test (cont.)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 01:54:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
In article <1993Mar13.143303.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>; Sub: Re: X-rays as
 Critical Test/Re to Collins]
 Gary S. Collins (collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
 
===  "Could you elaborate on this model which you have?"
 
   Gary, one reference was listed to the isotope loading model.
   Your comments are, of course, appreciated.
   If there is something of interest, please specify the posting, but
   please understand the my questioning others model's does not
   signify either acceptance or rejection of such.
 
 
===  "The (TRIM) computations describe the statistical behavior of
===  a "beam" of particles impinging on a solid.  Some coefficients which
===  go into the calculations are empirical averages."
 
   Thank you.  Are scattering, the 3D issues, and wide beam width
 included?  Furthermore, if simple exponentials are used with
 coefficients obtained from known measurements, then perhaps the
 math doesn't really "prove" the physical model, but emulates the
 physical parameter(s) measured as a function of depth in a simple
 object.
 
 
== >   Interesting comments on loading Pd as function of atmosphere.
== >      What happens very close?
===  "The hydrogen flows in or the hydrogen flows out (around .005
===   hydrogen atmospheres)."
 
  Do you think the curve is sigmoidal, hyperbolic?  Do you have other
thoughts, because much of the interesting data was between only
two of your points.
 
 
  In his next post, G. Collins says:
===  "Steve has in my opinion persuasively argued the case that x-rays
===  of the cathode's host metal are a necessary byproduct of
===  nuclear reactions.  This would apply whether the reactions take
===  place inside the cathode or at its very surface.
     [Message-ID: <1993Mar13.145204.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>]
 
  That's interesting.  Prof. Jones' says that you argued the case.
 
===   "I and Gary Collins and Matt Kennel and others have
===   explained why X-rays will accompany nuclear reactions if
===   these indeed produce measurable xs heat in metals."
        [S. Jones; Message-ID: <C3tG3A.9pn@world.std.com>]
 
  We submit that actually none of you have explained why this must
 occur for reactions in a solid.  You have cited well-known physics
 of a different configuration of plasmas and of beams in near vacuums
 which impinge upon a solid.
 
  The question(s) asked have not been addressed with specificity.
  If you have, then I apologize and then you should have no trouble
  giving the message-ID(s) that you posted to which we failed to respond.
 
  Best wishes,
 
    Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.14 / Stanley Kameny /  Re: Internet addresses for The White House
     
Originally-From: stan@valley.UUCP (Stanley L. Kameny)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Internet addresses for The White House
Date: 14 Mar 93 03:20:51 GMT

Here are current Internet addresses for The White House on compuserve
and AOL.
 
     75300.3115@Compuserve.com
     CLINTONPZ@AOL.COM
 
% from the guy in charge of e-mail there:
     Jock Gill
     Electronic Publishing
     Public Access E-mail
     The White House
     Washington, D.C.
 
PS: Include your U.S. mail return address in your message if you want a
reply.
 
Stan Kameny
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstan cudfnStanley cudlnKameny cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / John Logajan /  China Lake results, ack!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: China Lake results, ack!
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 03:37:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

> Miles MH, Hollins RA, Bush BF, Lagowski JJ, Miles RE;
> J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99.
 
> Excess power was calculated with
> subtraction for the electrolysis power consumed, and evolved gas checked with
> the assumption that no recombination took place.
      ^^^^^^^^^^      ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Ack!  Why even bother to publish?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / mitchell swartz /  Replies to Britz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Britz
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 07:17:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In article Subject: RE: Replies to Dick Blue;
  Article <68BDD270B3BF2041A5@vms2.uni-c.dk> Mon, 15 Mar 1993
        Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-- >   Dick.  Isn't E=mc^2 is old stuff?
-- ===  "Indeed, Mitch, it is - and I for one am getting tired of your
-- === trotting it out as Exhibit no. 1, both plain and differentiated.
-- === Believe me, we are all familiar with it, and those who were not..."
 
  Dieter, if you want to be a more accurate historian please try
     a scosh harder to keep your facts straight.  "Exhibit 1" in
     my conversations with any skeptic with hand-waving who
     states "CF doesn't exist" is Peter Hagelstein's Nagoya summary.
 
  "Einstein/E=mc^2"  was first brought up, to my knowledge, re: thou.
 
==  "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?"
        [From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
        Subject: Re: Something I didn't know
        Message-ID: <1992Dec16.225551.8955@netcom.com>
        Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:55:51 GMT]
 
  "Einstein/E=mc^2"  was second brought up by: Steve Jones.
 
===  "we insist that commensurate nuclear products must
===    accompany any nuclear reaction, with quantities
=== given precisely by the experimentally proven relation:
=== delta-mass  equals  delta-energy/(square of light
===                                              speed).
=== This is not theory."
  Steven Jones  (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) [3/3/93; 5355;
        Subject: Heat? Neutrons?Charged particles?]
 
  It was also used by moi to correct Dr. Blue's equation which
he later pointed out had not explicitly taken it into consideration.
 
  If the "royal" you (as you Eurofolks say since we got no royalty here
in the USA) use it E=mc^2, please use it right.  Don't claim it supports
your theories when you can't derive them from it.
    As a corrolary, if one can't handle the equations,
 or their differentials, stay away from the  "blackboard"
           -- just kidding, Dieter  :)     (all are encouraged)
 
 
===  "you (plural) are exposing your ignorance of things nuclear (despite
===   your being a radiologist). That in itself is no bad thing, but you
===  are thus in a weak position to make technical points about nuclear
===   science. You might prefer "products" and that is OK with me."
 
  Who has been ignorant has been documented in the record.
  If you diehard-skeptics want to avoid difficult questions that's ok.
  It teaches that rest of us upon what such theories are constructed.
 
 
===  "I was .. informed that ("ash") is in fact a common bit of nuclear
===  jargon. Now Mitch, you don't need to drag out your Webster, it will
===  not tell you how this word is used by nuclear scientists."
 
  I remind you that when you attack the credentials of any poster
(a possibly risky gambit) instead of arguing the question or defending your
 assertions, then you are acting like a (stereotypical-rabid lawyer void
 of either the facts or the law on his/her side.
 
  I am quite familiar with the nuclear connotations of the term "ash".
  I am still learning about the denotations.
  The fact remains that "ash" has obvious "chemical" implications as
    pointed out in the denotations.
 
 
===  "What Steven Jones, Frank Close, Dick Blue and others are trying
===   to get across to you is that you cannot have these large amounts
===   of excess heat - i.e. energy release - without some kind of ash
===  being produced at the same time."
 
  Dieter, a check of the record, shows from my posting that not
 only was I familiar with ash, but calculated that ash produced on this
   net accompanied by a table (only 3 rows provided below) last year:
 
==  "It is instructive to consider with this standardized and
==  normalized ash rate an alternate derivation from Frank's.
==    Because an electron volt is about 1.6 x 10 ^-16 Joules,
==   each Watt-minute requires  60/1.6 x 10**13  reactions/per MeV
==                                                 per reaction
== the expected energy gain of CF (that is, total energy
==  released per reaction [QT]).
==    "The reasonable range of QT would therefore be 3 to 24 MeV per
==  reactions producing putative ash.
==   So, dividing into the above equation yields
==     1 Watt-minute --->   1.7 to 12.5 x 10 ** 13 reactions."
== ----------------------------------------------------------
== | QT |  REACTION NUMBER  |         TYPICAL RANGE         |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 1  | 6,250,000,000,000 |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 2  | 3,125,000,000,000 |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 3  | 2,083,333,333,333 |    Advanced D-D fuel cyles"    |
 ----------------------------------------------------
                [after M. Swartz]
 
   Thanks Dieter.  Just wanted to clarify.   Best wishes.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / Dieter Britz /  Magnesium gets heavier?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magnesium gets heavier?
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 14:48:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Several times, in the context of the "ash" discussion AND (amazingly) in the
context of Einstein's mass-energy equation, Mitchell Swartz has referred to
the "fact" that magnesium gets heavier when burned, producing ash. You
remember your school chemistry incorrectly, Mitch, and this magnesium stuff
has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, except as a forum for you
to once again make the point that you use "ash" in a different way than
nuclear people do. To remind you of what you had in school, when Mg burns,
the reaction is 2Mg + O2 --> 2MgO and naturally, the resulting chemical ash,
the white, flaky MgO, weighs more than the Mg you started with, since it has
had oxygen added to it. To say that "the Mg gets heavier" is misleading, and
E = mc^2 has no relevance here at all. The MgO weighs exactly as much as the
Mg and O2 that produced it, put together.
 
You have to face the fact, Mitch, that specialists use words in special ways,
having agreed among themselves on their meanings. Thus, "turbulence" is used
by most people to loosely describe any kind of chaotic flow, whereas
turbulence specialists have a much narrower definition for it. Analytical
chemists get the shudders when people interchange the words "accuracy" and
"precision", which mean much the same to the Person in the Street. P&F got
nuclear people's hackles up because they used, in their first paper, the word
IGNITION (referring to the rod that "exploded" or something); to nuclear
people this suggests an H-bomb or the like, rather than the chemical burning
that P&F presumably (?) meant and in the paper's context, it was a bad choice
of the word. You can't go barging in and say that you "prefer" some other word
to the one used by the specialists; your personal preference will not matter
one bit to them - or to us here.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  /  O2
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: O2
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 01:18:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Charles Pooley is worried about keeping track of the O2.  We do that in
our experiment - at least we keep track of the gas volume.  As reported
here many times, O2 is lost over time.  We do indeed see events that we
interpret as re-combination at the cathode.  We also see the formation
of "yellow crud" Platinum - Oxygen compounds that slowly eat up the anode.
In fact, after four runs, the present cell will be retired, as the anode is
too pitted for continued use.
 
John Logajan concludes that Miles did not do a good experiment from the
statement:
 
"
"Excess power was calculated with
subtraction for the electrolysis power consumed, and evolved gas checked with
the assumption that no recombination took place."
 
I read it the other way, John, i.e. that the evolved gas measurement verified
that there was no recombination.  Perhaps Dieter can clarify what the paper
says.  But says Tom, tongue in cheek, it is obvious that the heat pulses that
are caused by recombination of oxygen on the cathode cause release of He from
the glass cells.  Then the runs without heat pulse would obviously not produce
He.
 
Garry Collins writes:  Perhaps loading can be measured best by purposefully
recombining the H2 emitted from the cathode with O2 in the air and measureing
the heat output."
 
We do that Gary, both ways, but it is hard.  On the charging end, one way is
to go from constant reverse power to constant forward power in a null balance
calorimeter.  Then the energy loss corresponds to the difference between the
energy required to disassociate the D2O and the absorption energy of the D2
into the Palladium.  The reverse can be done at the end of the run.  But
every way is hard.  Best bet would to run reversed at the end untill gas
evolution is slow enough to take the cathode out and weigh it.  Meanwhile,
there is an oxide layer forming on the cathode which will have to be removed
and weighed??  Hopefully the gas system saved the left over oxygen from the
absorption phase, so it is there when you need it.  But it is not as it has
gotten together with the Pt over these long runs, so more needs to be added.
There is some fraction of the D2 loading that really wants to stay, and I think
the only way to measure that is after a high temperature cook out in an inert
gas.  This all does not mention little problems like how do you design a cell
that is leak tight that also lets you remove and weigh the cathode.  Somewhere
this means a connector that is all Pt and does not make intermittant contact.
 
P&F have designed this whole thing just to aggrivate us.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  /  Everyone else is wrong (?)
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Everyone else is wrong (?)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 01:18:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz  reads me as asserting that everyone else is wrong.
That is not strictly what I have been asserting.  What I have said is
that a large number of "positive" cold fusion results that have been
put forward over the years are quit probably wrong.  For example, most
early experiments done with simple, open calorimeters were clearly
subject to systematic errors that are larger that the effect that was
claimed.   Then the positive results were seldom reproducible which
opens the way for generation of positives by postselection from a
collection of mixed results.  All the negative runs are just set
aside.  To this day it is difficult to get a clear picture of what
effects are being produced with a high degree of reproducibility
and what results are based on a few selected "good" runs.
 
The second rather obvious fact that cannot be ignored is that not
all the experiments reporting positive results are done very well.
In particular I have noted that many of the measurements which
include detection of nuclear reaction products are poorly done.
In this regard, however, I think it is the lack of consistency
between various results that does most to indicate that something
is clearly not right about many of these experiments.  For
example, how does one explain the experiments that have results
as follows: (1)Heat and 4He but no tritium, (2) Heat and tritium
but not 4He, (3) Heat and neither 4He nor tritium?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  /  More answers for MItchell
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More answers for MItchell
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 01:19:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<<My equation was considered and corrected... Any comments?>>
 
My equation was "correct" as written, but you chose to misinterpret
it.  In any case my point remains as I stated it.  Energy conservation
plays a very important role in determining what we can resonably expect
to be emitted from a given nuclear reaction process and indeed what
quantity of a given reaction product is to be expected.  When the
quantity detected fails to reach those expectations by several orders
of magnitude that result must be given some significance.  The mere
assertion that solid state or lattice effects change things is a
very weak excuse for not accepting the implications of not being able
to provide evidence for commensurate reaction products.
 
<<Why skeptics demand neutrons at quantities where everyone in the
<<room dies.  The basis for this were extrapolations... from plasma
<<to solid state.
 
Let me start by correcting your assertion that my thinking has its basis
in "plasmas".  This is not the case.  My understanding of nuclear reaction
processes has less to do with plasmas and more to do with two-body
interactions as induced by accelerated beams of nucleons incident upon
solid targets.  As I pointed out in another post, such investigations
give a very clear picture of the role the Coulomb interaction between
nuclei plays in limiting nuclear reaction rates.  That is a very simple
fact, and I haven't seen a single word by anyone and anytime that suggests
how incorporating nuclei in a solid lattice is going to make large changes
in the Coulomb interaction.  Second feature of nuclear reactions is that
once two nuclei do get close enough to interact, the strong interaction
comes to dominate the reaction process.  Hence, branching ratios are not
going to be strongly influenced.  Unless and until someone presents a
very strong counterargument,  the argument that the fusion of two deuterons
will result in the emission of a neutron roughly 50% of the time stands.
The fact, accepted by believers and skeptics alike, is that neutrons are
not emitted at nearly that expected rate.  The conclusions stands, whether
you like it or not, that the fusion of deuterons has not been demonstrated
in any cold fusion experiment to date.  The only option left is to
propose some other reaction.
 
<<Theory of isotope loading... Any questions?  >>
 
Yes!  In a nut shell, what is your "theory of isotope loading?"  Are you
playing with the idea that the missing reaction products are hidden amoung
the various isotopes of paladium?  Tell me specifically what you consider
the initial and final nuclei involved, and I will tell you why your reaction
can't be so easily hidden.
 
<<Signing off on Mossbauer... the lattice can make a difference. >>
 
I have granted you that the lattice can make a difference.  It is just that
the differences are most certainly insignificant in relation to cold fusion
and the lack of observations of reaction products.  The Mossbauer effect
clearly illustrates the kind of limits that surely must be recognized.
Lattice effects have to be more in the nature of small perturbations on
what the nominal reaction process would produce.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  /  Answer to Mitchell's question about energy loss
     
Originally-From: ub-gate.UB.com!nscl01.nscl.msu.edu!blue
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answer to Mitchell's question about energy loss
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 01:19:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue responding to Mitchell Swartz's assertion that:
 
<<  None of you have explained why this must occur for reactions in a
<<  solid.
 
The essence of the argument for cold fusion being a nuclear reaction
process is that there must be a significantly larger energy release per
event than is possible for chemistry.  It follows that the desired
reaction process must produce reaction products with initial kinetic
energies that are large relative to binding energies for atoms in a
solid lattice.  In order for such events to result in a heating of
the lattice the reaction products must interact with the lattice and
have their energy transfered to the lattice.  This process has been
studied and is understood.  Most of the energy is transfered by
collisions of the energitic ions with atomic electrons, and many of
these collisions are sufficiently violent to produce inner shell
vacancies.  It follows that X-rays are produced.  Now you assert
once again that somehow we are applying a model that is inappropriate
to cold fusion.  Not so!   Consider the following.  Suppose I have
a radioisotope in a solid lattice which decays by emitting an energetic
charged particle.  This particle moves through the solid in precisely
the same way the product of a cold fusion reaction would.  In fact
if you want to be specific and consider 4He as a product of a cold
fusion reaction I would say its behavior would be quite similar to
that of an alpha particle emitted by a decay within the solid.  It
is known territory.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Scott Mueller /  Re: fusion@zorch posters, please ID at top!
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion@zorch posters, please ID at top!
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 04:51:33 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

 
In article <10130002@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM> seghers@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.
OM (David Seghers) writes:
>A request from an interested bystander:  Those using fusion@zorch
>please ID yourselves at the *beginning* of your article.
[...]
>All we know at that point is that someone at fusion@zorch is mad
>at someone else at fusion@zorch!
 
The posting script has been modified to keep more of the original
author information and keep it in the proper format.
 
However, the article's From: line is and always has been something
other than fusion@zorch.  I note that you're from HP, well-known for using
mutilated software (notes), and I suppose that it's possible that HP's
news-notes gateway is mangling the headers.  If that's the case, complain
to your newsadmin.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 / mitchell swartz /  Magnesium gets heavier?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magnesium gets heavier?
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 21:36:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In article Message-ID: <67640EFDDE3F2058B4@vms2.uni-c.dk>
      [Subject: Magnesium gets heavier?";  Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993]
  Dieter Britz <ub-gate.UB.com!kemi.aau.dk!BRITZ> writes
 
===   "Several times, in the context of the "ash" discussion
=== AND (amazingly) in the context of Einstein's mass-energy equation,
=== Mitchell Swartz has referred to the "fact" that magnesium gets heavier
=== when burned, producing ash."
 
  Dieter, your accuracy (vide infra) grows dim.  Did I say "magnesium gets
 heavier"?   Let's check the record:
 
====   "the burning of magnesium leads to more mass in the ash ..."
            [mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz);Message-ID:
              <C3Dwwo.LEn@world.std.com> Date: 4 Mar 1993]
 
  The record shows your allegation is false. The put-down you have
   delivered thus appears moot, but its delivery remains instructive.
 
 
===  "E = mc^2 has no relevance here at all."
 
     Au contraire, as posted previously:
 
  "1 joule = (1 watt*1 second) =  1.1  x  10^-14 grams.
   "This means that if fusion worked (100% efficient, and
    ignoring all kinds of other stuff in this gendanken analysis)
    that - for 1 watt * 1 second - the total mass would have to
    decrease by a not too big amount."
     [mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz);Message-ID:
        <C3Dwwo.LEn@world.std.com> Thu, 4 Mar 1993]
 
   That you feel that E=Mc^2 has no relevance to fusion perhaps speaks
 volumes.  Also,  I did not say "magnesium is the ash".
 
   "Ashes reported include tritium, charged particles, photon
        and phonon emission, and helium-4."
     [mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)Message-ID:
       <C3Dwxz.LKD@world.std.com>Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1993]
 
 
===   "Analytical chemists get the shudders when people interchange
===  the words "accuracy" and "precision", which mean much the same to
=== the Person in the Street."
 
  Briefly, from Websters [ibid.]:
 
   accuracy:  freedom from mistake or error
   precision: adapted to extremely accurate measurement, or
                low tolerance in manufacture.
 
   From the latter, some people, in my experience, have confused precision
to mean "reproducibility".   Maybe.  But given the errors you have
made regarding my posts, a few more misstatements and there will be
enough statistical evidence to demonstrate that your reproducibility
remains much higher than your accuracy.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays as test (cont.)
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as test (cont.)
Date: 15 Mar 93 04:42:18 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In article <C3uvy8.DAw@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
> In article <1993Mar13.143303.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>; Sub: Re: X-rays as
>  Critical Test/Re to Collins]
>  Gary S. Collins (collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
>
> ===  "Could you elaborate on this model which you have?"
>
>    Gary, one reference was listed to the isotope loading model.
 
I would appreciate very much receiving a reprint of that article since the
journal is not in our library.  But the intent of my question was to
elicit a description of your model in this discussion group, which I and,
no doubt, others would genuinely appreciate.
 
> ===  "The (TRIM) computations describe the statistical behavior of
> ===  a "beam" of particles impinging on a solid.  Some coefficients which
> ===  go into the calculations are empirical averages."
>
>    Thank you.  Are scattering, the 3D issues, and wide beam width
>  included?  Furthermore, if simple exponentials are used with
>  coefficients obtained from known measurements, then perhaps the
>  math doesn't really "prove" the physical model, but emulates the
>  physical parameter(s) measured as a function of depth in a simple
>  object.
 
As I think you may know, the calculations are based on the Coulomb interaction
between charges, leading to energy losses of fast-moving ions in solids
by ionization of atoms and by elastic collisions with nuclei.  The TRIM
calculations are based on widely accepted, conventional ideas, and are
widely used by scientists and technologists who do ion implantation.
They describe the range and straggling of ions passing through matter
quantitatively.  If there existed other, unconventional mechanisms by which
significant amounts of energy might be lost, then the calculations would
not work very well (which is not the case).  I do not wish, nor am
fully able, to address your very detailed questions just above.  Instead,
I think the burden rests on you to demonstrate that the calculations
are erroneous, if you so feel.
 
(A correction:  the authors of the TRIM code are J. Biersack, W. Eckstein
and J. Ziegler.)
 
> == >   Interesting comments on loading Pd as function of atmosphere.
> == >      What happens very close?
> ===  "The hydrogen flows in or the hydrogen flows out (around .005
> ===   hydrogen atmospheres)."
>
>   Do you think the curve is sigmoidal, hyperbolic?  Do you have other
> thoughts, because much of the interesting data was between only
> two of your points.
 
What interesting data do *you* have in mind.  Could you share it with us?
 
>   That's interesting.  Prof. Jones' says that you argued the case (for
>   x-rays as a signature of nuclear reactions in condensed matter.)
 
No, I didn't argue the case, but find it very persuasive.
 
Best regard, Mitchell.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State University
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Matt Kennel /  Radiation and cold fusion (on a rampage with the library computer)
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radiation and cold fusion (on a rampage with the library computer)
Date: 16 Mar 1993 07:08:50 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:
:    In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5473); Sub: Re:  X-rays as critical
:  test/Mossbauer Effect; ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>
:  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) states:
:
: ===  "1.  To Matt Kennel:  The Russian experiment you mention which
: ===  starts with "K" is that of Kucherov (a scientist), not
: ===  Kurchatov (I've been there, but Kucherov does not work there).
: ===  Kucherov is with the "Scientific Industrial Association '
: ===  Lutch'" according to his paper (in front of me now).
: ===
: ===  "The Kucherov paper makes *no* mention of X-ray detection, Matt."
:      [S. Jones, Message-ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>]
:
: To Matt:  Notwithstanding Mr. Jones comments, perhaps the paper
:   you want, Matt,is A.B. Karabut, Ya Kucherov and I.B. Savvatimova
:          (see Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265-272)
:
:   Given that it is really in front of me, let me type part of
:       the abstract:
 
OK I have the full abstract here...
 
1. Karabut, A.B.; Kucherov, Ya.R.; Savvatimova, I.B.
     Nuclear product ratio for glow discharge in deuterium.
   Physics Letters A, 9 Nov. 1992, vol.170, (no.4):265-72.
     Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: New results for glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry are presented.
     In separate experiments a heat output five times exceeding the input
     electric power was observed. The result for the charged particle spectrum
     measurement is presented. Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and
     an average energy of 2-4 Mev were seen.
 
Nuclear energies, note.
 
 
     Beams of gamma-rays with energies
     of about 200 keV and a characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. The
     summed energy of the registered products is three orders short of the
     values needed to explain the calorimetric results.
 
 
A mere factor of 10^3 short!  That's certainly alot better than billions
or trillions.
 
From the same group...
 
5. Karabut, A.B.; Kucherov, Ya.R.; Savvatimova, I.B.
     [Nuclear reactions at the cathode in a gas discharge].
   Pis'ma v Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fizika, June 1990, vol.16, (no.11-12):53-7.
   Translation: Soviet Technical Physics Letters, June 1990, vol.16,
   (no.6):463-4.
     Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: The authors present data on the realization of a nuclear reaction at
     the cathode in a gas discharge in a deuterium medium. In the experiments
     with the palladium cathode, the average neutron flux increased sharply with
     the discharge current, and they observed characteristic 'packets' of pulses
     over the background of the average signal. The duration of the pulse
     packets was 10/sup -4/-10/sup -2/ s, and the packets might contain from a
     few to approximately= 10/sup 3/ pulses. The packets appeared at random
     times. On the basis of the time distribution of the neutron flux, they
     suggest that because of degradation of the surface layer of the cathode
    there is a certain limit to the total number of nuclear reaction events per
     unit surface area. For palladium they estimate this to be 10/sup 8/-10/sup
     10/ n/cm/sup 2/. From measurements of the heat liberated at the cathode,
     they conclude that the temperature rise is related to the increase in the
     intensity of the neutron radiation at a constant discharge current. The
     measured maximum neutron flux per unit area of the palladium cathode was
     approximately= 10/sup 7/ n(cm/sup 2/.s).
 
 
***
This library computer is pretty interesting.
I'm going to go through some various keyword searches and see what
I find.  I'm going to ignore most conference proceedings in favor
of actual journal articles, and also ignore the many null-nuclear-result
papers.
 
It seems that not even
Pons and Fleishmann believe in cold fusion without radiation:
***
 
17. Pons, S.; Fleischmann, M.
      Concerning the detection of neutrons and gamma -rays from cells containing
      palladium cathodes polarized in heavy water.
    Nuovo Cimento A, June 1992, vol.105A, ser.2, (no.6):763-72.
      Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: It is shown that neutrons generated in cold fusion cells can be
     detected following thermalization by means of high-resolution spectroscopy
     of the gamma -rays generated by the (n, gamma ) reaction in light water. It
     is further shown that to achieve this characterization it is essential to
     use data analysis procedures which do not discriminate against the
     steady-state or quasi-steady-state generation of neutrons in the cell.
 
***
A japanese group that doesn't find neutrons:
***
43. Ono, H.; Takahashi, S.; Morisaki, H.; Yazawa, K.
      [Absorption and desorption of hydrogen and deuterium into palladium].
    Bulletin of the University of Electro-Communications, Dec. 1991, vol.4,
    (no.2):235-42.
      Language:  Japanese.
      Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: Electrolyses of 0.1M LiOH-H/sub 2/O and 0.1M LiOD-D/sub 2/O solutions
     using a Pd cathode and Pt anode have been performed. The change in the
     surface morphology of Pd electrodes has been investigated with a scanning
     electron microscope after every thousand coulombs of charge. After
     deuterium absorption the surface morphology changes dramatically showing
     crater-like structures, whereas the surface change by hydrogen absorption
     is only slight. A neutron detector has been placed near Pd rods well soaked
     with deuterium gas in a closed glass bulb with a high voltage discharge
     between the rods; no evidence of fusion has been observed, neutron flux
     never exceeding the background level.
 
***
note the difference in physical appearance with deuterium.  There may be
thermodynamical and structural differences with D vs H; but does that
necessarily imply nuclear effects?
 
 
Now look at this next one.  Cavitation is mentioned.  (Who was
taling about this before?)
***
 
47. Lipson, A.G.; Lyakhov, B.F.; Deryagin, B.V.; Kudryavtsev, V.N.; and others.
      [Reproducible neutron emission during combined action of cavitation and
      electrolysis of a titanium cathode surface in heavy-water electrolytes].
    Pis'ma v Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fizika, Nov. 1991, vol.17, (no.21-22):33-7.
    Translation: Soviet Technical Physics Letters, Nov. 1991, vol.17,
    (no.11):763-5.
      Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: The poor reproducibility of the results is a perennial problem in
     studies of anomalous nuclear effects in metal-deuterium systems (in
     particular, during electrolysis). The problem arises because the surface
     behavior of titanium and palladium specimens varies with the preparation of
     the specimens, the density of defects, and the extent to which the
     experimental conditions depart from equilibrium. It has been shown that
     weak time-dependent emission of neutrons occurs in deuterium-containing
     materials subject to cavitation. It is also known that electrolysis can
     enhance the effects of cavitation (cavitational erosion of a vibrating
     rod). In addition, electrolysis causes a titanium deuteride (TiD/sub x/)
     film to form rapidly on the surface of a titanium vibrator, and the film
     interacts with cavitation bubbles (jet formation with collapse of
     microscopic bubbles). Each of these processes should intensify the nuclear
     reactions. The authors therefore investigate the possibility of enhancing
     the neutron emission through the combined effects of cavitation and
     electrolysis on a titanium cathode in electrolytes based on heavy water.
 
****
A design palladium bona-fide fusion machine, with predicted neutron rates
at 10^12 per second.  Still not an energy source.  How much fissile
plutonium could you make with such a device?
****
 
60. Uhm, Han S.; Lee, W.M.
      High-dose neutron generation from plasma ion implantation.
    Journal of Applied Physics, 15 June 1991, vol.69, (no.12):8056-63.
      Pub type:  Practical; Theoretical or Mathematical.
 
Abstract: Based on theoretical estimation, a simple new scheme to generate
     high-dose, steady-state neutrons is presented. This new high-dose neutron
     source makes use of the plasma ion implantation, which consists of a
     cylindrical palladium rod saturated with deuterium atoms and immersed in a
     deuterium or tritium plasma. The plasma is contained by a grounded
     conducting chamber. The palladium rod is connected to a high-power
     modulator, which provides a series of negative-voltage pulses. During these
     negative pulses, deuterium or tritium ions fall into the palladium rod and
     collide with the deuterium atoms in it, initiating fusion reactions and
     emitting neutrons. This neutron device will be portable, reliable and
     almost free from radiation hazards except for the neutrons themselves. For
     reasonable system parameters allowed by present technology, the authors
     find from a theoretical calculation that the average neutron production
     rate (dN/dt)=2.3*10/sup 12/ s/sup -1/ for D-T reaction, which may be more
     than enough for most applications. The average neutron production rate for
     D-D reaction is two order of magnitude less than for D-T reaction.
 
****
Another thermodynamical consideration for experimenters:
****
 
64. Kim, Y.E.
      Time-delayed apparent excess heat generation in electrolysis fusion
      experiments.
    Modern Physics Letters A, 20 April 1991, vol.6, (no.12):1053-60.
      Pub type:  Theoretical or Mathematical.
 
Abstract: In many electrolysis fusion experiments, excess heat, tritium, and
     neutron production have been reported as intermittent bursts. These burst
     phenomena are described in terms of a surface reaction mechanism involving
     hysteresis of deuterium solubility in palladium as a function of the metal
     temperature. Excess heat generation is shown to be attributable to a
     hitherto neglected time-delayed chemical process due to the solubility
     hysteresis of deuterium in palladium. Negative results of no apparent
     excess heat generation from light-water electrolysis experiments is
     attributed to the fact that the solubility hysteresis of hydrogen occurs at
     a higher temperature range than that for deuterium. Apparent excess heat
     generation is expected to be also observable in blank electrolysis
     experiments with light water at higher pressures.
 
***
nuclear energy/ heat energy only 10^-3 here, again:
Now, wouldn't D+T fusion rather than D+D bridge that gap?
***
163. Gozzi, D.; Cignini, P.L.; Petrucci, L.; Tomellini, M.; and others.
       Evidence for associated heat generation and nuclear products release in
       palladium heavy-water electrolysis.
     Nuovo Cimento A, Jan. 1990, vol.103A, ser.2, (no.1):143-54.
       Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: In a galvanostatic experiment of charging deuterium in a palladium
     cathode, nuclear and thermal effects were found. A sintered palladium
     electrode shaped as a parallelepiped was used. After six days of
     electrolysis at 200 mA/cm/sup 2/, a simultaneous emission of neutrons,
     tritium excess in the electrolytic solution and temperature rapid increase
     were observed. During the event which lasted four minutes, the authors
     estimated an emission of 7.2.10/sup 5/ neutrons while the electrode
     temperature reached 150 degrees C. Excess of tritium was evaluated to be
     (2.14+or-0.04).10/sup 11/ atoms. If the energy released as heat, 176 J, is
     compared with the energy associated to the d+d reactions, 0.1 J, three
     orders of magnitude are still defective. Electrode characterization after
     the events is reported.
 
***
And now a very interesting paper.  Rather old by now.  What has
been happening since?  Message: real cold fusion is possible and heat
may not have anything to do with it.
***
 
164. Arata, Y.; Zhang, Y.-C.
       Achievement of intense 'cold' fusion reaction.
     Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B (Physical and Biological
     Sciences), Jan. 1990, vol.66, (no.1):1-6.
       Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: In the issue of whether or not cold fusion actually occurs, the
     authors have obtained fruitful results and indisputable proof. The Pd
     cathode of large size was activated by repeating intensive absorption and
     explosive exhaust of deuterium compulsively due to the powerful 'on-off
     effect' to induce both intense 'mobility' and a huge innerpressure of
     deuterium within the Pd cathode. It was found that this characteristic
     played an important role in achieving 'cold' fusion. A considerable number
     of neutrons far beyond the background level, sometimes reaching 10/sup 8/
     n/s or more, were detected. The phenomena were observed 10 times in one
     month, and the period was 30 minutes for the shortest and 40 hours for the
     longest. The total number of neutrons generated was estimated to be 10/sup
     13/ numbers for 40 hours at the maximum, and it would be difficult to
     consider any other process than the nuclear fusion by D-D reaction. It was
     also discovered that the large amount of excess heat produced during
     electrolysis was not due to 'unobserved nuclear fusion' proposed by
     Fleischmann and Pons (1989), but due to 'reaction heat' produced by the
     intense absorption and explosive exhaust of the deuterium into and out of
     the Pd.
 
***
more real nuclear products.  Old paper.
***
 
215. Durocher, J.J.G.; Gallop, D.M.; Kwok, C.B.; Mathur, M.S.; and others.
       A search for evidence of cold fusion in the direct implantation of
       palladium and indium with deuterium.
     Canadian Journal of Physics, June 1989, vol.67, (no.6):624-31.
       Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: A high concentration of deuterium atoms was implanted into palladium
     and indium targets by means of a 60 keV, 100 mu A D/sub 2//sup +/ beam. The
     motivation was to simulate the Utah electrolysis experiment in a
     nonequilibrium situation not involving heavy water as the intermediate
     material. The assumption was that the formation of a high concentration of
     deuterium nuclei in the surface region of the target material was a
     prerequisite for the demonstration of the so-called 'cold fusion' effect.
     In experiments performed at the Accelerator Centre of the University of
     Manitoba, significant neutron production was observed for palladium and
     indium targets into which an excess of 10/sup 19/ deuterons were implanted.
     Despite some initial surprise at the flux of neutrons generated at such low
     energies, the numbers observed seem consistent with known fusion cross
     sections and warm fusion calculations.
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Ego interfering with good judgement
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ego interfering with good judgement
Date: 15 Mar 93 14:06:44 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

  {Steven Jones replying to Jed Rothwell}
 
In article <930312170718_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256> writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Steve Jones writes:
>
>      "Yesterday, I spoke to Nate and read to him your posting.  To say the
>      least, he was upset with it.  Based on his careful review of the
>      Yamaguchi data, he maintains that there was indeed helium present in the
>      glass...
>
> Poor Nate! He is a fine fellow, and I am sorry to hear he is upset. However he
> is wrong. He does not know what he is talking about, and neither do you. Both
> of you have a tendency to get upset when you are wrong. Too bad! In your case,
> it is because you have let your ego and your jealousy towards Pons and
> Fleischmann overwhelm your common sense.
 
I am not sure that Rothwell's unproven, vituperative statements deserve a
response, but I suppose that some comments are in order.
 
1.  Nate was upset that you cited him as seemingly "satisfied" with the
Yamaguchi claims of helium production --he found your remark
to be terribly misleading
("horrendous" was the response from him when I read him your original posting--
not because you said he was wrong.
 
2.  Can you prove that Nate is wrong?  His work on showing flaws in claims
of Pons and Fleischmann regarding helium production, also of Mel Miles et al.,
is well known (see e.g. Huizenga's book) and I think compellingly done.
3.  You seem so sure of your psychoanalysis of me.  You hardly know
me, and I have never said that "ego" and "jealousy" were important motivators
here.  So how do you know?
 
  In my own soul-searching, I do not find these factors to
be so important as you suggest.  In fact, Jed, I pity Pons and Fleischman for
their juggling of data (see Close's book e.g.) and use of lawyers to threaten
my colleague Michael Saloman of the U. of Utah and others
 -- I am not jealous of FP.
 
Jed:
>You have decided, for example, that your sigma 3 results mean something but
>McKubre's sigma 90 results mean nothing.  You have decided that Bockris,
>Fleischmann, and several hundred others incapable of performing a simple heat
>measurement that any scientist on earth could have done with confidence back
>in 1860.
 
What a lot of baloney!  It's hard to know where to begin to counter all these
misleading remarks.
Our original paper in Nature found >4 sigma, this was followed by the Los
Alamos Nat. Lab./BYU report in which we found neutron production at the >10
sigma level.
 
The question to me is no longer statistics, but systematics, for *BOTH*
neutrons and heat.  No, I do not believe 100% my own results to represent
fusion neutrons.  The fact that we found a signal at approx. 2.5 MeV with a
sensitive neutron spectrometer is persuasive, but not yet compelling.
We are still  looking for prosaic explanations, or for a
trigger of neutron production so that we can study the "phenomenon" and
eliminate nagging doubts that what we are seeing (in different labs, etc.)
might be some type of noise.
 
Contrary to your statement that I "have decided that McKubre's sigma 90
results mean nothing," I am open-minded also about McKubre's claims of xs heat,
while at the same time
strongly challenging the notion that this xs heat is nuclear in origin. (Note
that his xs heat is around 30%, if I remember correctly.)
 
  Unless and until he (or someone else) shows *commensurate*
primary nuclear products or secondary X-rays, as I have
argued in detail over the months here, I do not accept the claim that the
xs heat is nuclear in origin.
 
> You are a fine scientist, and a good person, and I wish you could untangle
> this jealousy from your ideas, because I feel that to find out truth requires
> a dedication to truth above other concerns and emotions.
>
What jealousy?   Certainly a mixed compliment.
>
> Also, please stop rattling on about recombination in a Ni cell, and when you
> quote Noninski's paper, please cite it correctly. Your statements about
> recombination are all nonsense, as anyone knows.
 
What did I misquote?  In what way are my statements "all nonsense?"
Saying "as anyone knows" is a poor substitute for scientific comment.
 
>Obviously, when the excess
> heat is 20 times greater than the total input (I*V), recombination cannot be
> an issue. I have always said that with any open cell, results should not be
> taken seriously until you exceed I*V by a comfortable margin, and leave any
> possibility of recombination far behind.
>
> - Jed
>
Not long ago, you suggested that 30% xs heat would be a threshold for
believability, as I recall.  We found about 100% xs heat, until we folded in
the effects of recombination of hydrogen and oxygen, then we found *zero*
xs heat.  Now you're talking about "20 times" -- please show me in the Noninski
paper I quoted where this number is stated.
 
Noninski stated "It is well known, however, that nickel is a poor catalyst of
oxygen reduction..." [p. 165] and "rejected" this possibility as an explanation
for xs heat observed in a Ni/H2O cell [p. 166] while at the same time stating:
"The problem of recombination is a crucial one in this study (note again that
the excess heat here is calculated after subtracting 1.48 V), however, and it
deserves special attention in any further experiments."[p. 166, Fusion
Technology 21:163, March 1992.]  He goes on with this cryptic remark:  "The
problem of recombination (and the other calorimetric problems) preferably
should not be solved by studying the effect in a closed cell with a
recombiner."  -- Tom Droege certainly feels the calorimetry is not "simple"
and has given us good reason to worry about "open cell" results and claims
of simplicity.  (1860, Jed? -- who?)
 
What we have done is to address the recombination question with a series of
experiments, and we found that recombination of H2+O2 accounts for the 100%
xs heat we found while ignoring recombination (as Noninski did).
 
Where is the "nonsense" in all this, "as anyone knows"?  If "anyone" knows it
to be nonsense, then why did Noninski state "the problem of recombination of
recombination is a crucial one in this study"?
 
Jed, I have better things to do than to counter your repeated misleading and
unkind remarks.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as test (cont.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as test (cont.)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 04:30:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Article-I.D.(jaguar.1993Mar15.124218.1); Sub: Re: X-rays
      as test (cont.); 15 Mar 93
  Gary S. Collins (collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
 
> ===  "Could you elaborate on this model which you have?"
 
  Unfortunately the work has been unfunded due to the pendulum
  against cold fusion.  Reprints were an unattained luxury in 1992.
  Complain to your library.   Seems a high class institution
    ought subscribe to Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts.
 
 
=== "I think the burden rests on you to demonstrate that the (TRIM)
===   calculations are erroneous, if you so feel."
 
   I don't think, nor did I say, they are erroneous.  They are fairly
   good approximations.  What I said was:  to make a mathematical
   model (with adjustable  parameters) does not necessarily prove
   the hypothesized "physics".  Whether such depth dose calculations
   have anything to do with cold fusion presents an equivalent
   burden of course.
 
 
===  "What interesting data do *you* have in mind.
 
   Data circa the 1/2-filled levels.
 
   Best wishes.
    Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / mitchell swartz /  Errors on all sides
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errors on all sides
Subject: Everyone else is wrong (?) 16 Mar 1993 01:18:54 GMT
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 04:31:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <009698E0.5CC355C0.3580@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Everyone else is wrong (?) 16 Mar 1993 01:18:54 GMT
Dick Blue writes:
 
===  "What I have said is that a large number of "positive" cold fusion
===  results that have been put forward over the years are quit
===  probably wrong."
 
   Some quite probably are.  Same with the "negatives" too, however.
 
 
===  "For example, most early experiments done with simple,
===  open calorimeters were clearly subject to systematic errors that
===  are larger that the effect that was claimed."
 
   The ones we find most interesting are where all the "systematic
     errors" are "positive".
 
 
===   "Then the positive results were seldom reproducible which
=== opens the way for generation of positives by postselection from a
=== collection of mixed results.  All the negative runs are just set
=== aside."
 
   I am not sure what you mean, Dick.  You have not exactly set
aside the "negatives" if you call them "seldom reproducible".  Right?
Furthermore, one possible danger of such logic/thinking is to ignore the
  study of earthquakes because of the negligible reproducibility.
 
 
===  "The second rather obvious fact that cannot be ignored is that not
===  all the experiments reporting positive results are done very well."
 
   Same for the "negatives".   Why dont you knock them?
   Best wishes.
 
    Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
Date: 16 Mar 1993 05:52:57 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott) writes:
: In 1957 or 1958 fusion research was de-classified. The program became the
: wide world some of us are still in. (Much inertial-confinement research
: remained--still remains?--classified, largely because the same simulation
: techniques and quite a lot of the same hardware was used in bomb research
: and development.)
 
True. It's more than just the same simulation techniques and hardware:
it's a similar mechanism.  Or at least that's what's been revealed so far.
 
Who knows how much knowledge that would be useful for civilian ICF
has been held back?  Is still being held back?
 
Upon the invention and validation of the H-bomb concept (whatever exactly it
is), many very experienced physicists were astonished at its originality and
physical principles.  Totally different from fission, where the possibility
of chain reactions was completely obvious from the outset "to the casual
observer", as the phrase now goes.  (so much so that they knew that
the Hiroshima bomb would work already back in 1942, and they never bothered
to test it before using it.)
 
(Are there other countries besides US and USSR
known to have full fusion weapons? i.e. tritium-boosted fission weapons
don't count)
 
Are there *still* very profound secrets locked up in our weapons of
extreme destruction?
 
: --
: 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
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Matt Kennel /  Heavy water and radiation.
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy water and radiation.
Date: 16 Mar 1993 07:13:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
Assuming that one does in fact observe nuclear products in a heavy-water
cold fusion experiment:
 
Might it be the result of good-old nuclear fission?  How much Uranium
is there typically in Palladium that you buy?  After all doesn't Canada
use heavy water to moderate its reactors?
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Steffen Helbing /  What is the subject in this group?
     
Originally-From: PPH087@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Steffen Helbing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is the subject in this group?
Date: 16 Mar 93 10:25:11 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

 
Hallo everybody,
 
I found this newsgroup named 'sci.physics.fusion' and was very interested
because I'm involved in this topic, too.
But while reading several articles, I found that almost all deal with
COLD fusion. So my question is:
Is there some discussion about magnetic confined plasmas, too
or should the name of this newsgroup be 'sci.physics.fusion.cold' ?
 
Steffen Helbing
Institute of Plasma Physics
Research Center Juelich (KFA)
Germany
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPPH087 cudfnSteffen cudlnHelbing cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / mitchell swartz /  Radiation & CF: re: On Rampage
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radiation & CF: re: On Rampage
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 12:37:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1o3ue2INN519@network.ucsd.edu>; 16 Mar 1993
   Sub: Radiation and cold fusion ( with the library computer)
 Matt Kennel  (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu on a rampage) writes:
 
--  "Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and
--      an average energy of 2-4 Mev were seen.
--  Karabut, A.B.; Kucherov, Ya.R.; Savvatimova, I.B.
--   Physics Letters A, 9 Nov. 1992, vol.170, (no.4):265-72.
--
==       "Nuclear energies, note."
 
     Presumably the authors mean the kinetic energy
    above the rest mass energy, right?  If the "charged particles"
    were nuclear then they mean the kinetic energy of
    charged nuclear particles.  Incidentally, please note that this
    is a different configuration from that described by F+P.
 
 
===  "A mere factor of 10^3 short!  That's certainly alot better
===  than billions or trillions."
 
  True.  Do you accept that nuclear products occur with cold fusion?
and they have been detected commensurate to within 0.1%, like you state?
 
 
--  "After deuterium absorption the surface morphology changes dramatically
--   showing crater-like structures, whereas the surface change by hydrogen
--   absorption"  Ono, H.; Takahashi, S.; Morisaki, H.; Yazawa, K.
--   Bull U of Electro-Communications, Dec. 1991, vol.4, (no.2):235-42.
--   Language:  Japanese.
==  " ***
==  "note the difference in physical appearance with deuterium.  There may
==   be thermodynamical and structural differences with D vs H; but does
==   that necessarily imply nuclear effects?"
 
  I can't read Japanese.  Although you have done a good service to
have found more papers, this is  a few abstract sentences.
 Do structural changes "imply nuclear effects"?   These particular
changes are well-known. Such differences are much more complex than
your simple "D vs H" comment indicates, because with just "D" they may be
 used to help distinguish between "good" and "bad" pieces of palladium.
 
 
--  "Arata, Y.; Zhang, Y.-C.; Achievement of intense 'cold' fusion
--   reaction.  Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B (Physical
--   and Biological      Sciences), Jan. 1990, vol.66, (no.1):1-6.
==
===       "more real nuclear products.  Old paper."
 
  One update, Matt, is: Reproducible "Cold" Fusion Reaction Using a
                                             Complex Cathode
                                   Yoshiaki Arata and Yue-Chang Zhang
                           Fusion Technology vol 22, sept 92, page 287
 
  Good luck on your rampage.  -  Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 15:15:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
 
who cites
>In article <C3r6y1.6Cp@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
>>    What has been described throughout the world since 1989 involves
>> the relative arrangement of alkaline heavy water off the surface of
>> palladium as the overvoltage is increased sufficiently. The reactions
>> then occur within the palladium, with the deuterons in the palladium,
>> and not out of it (as when "nuclei impinge").
and asks
>Could you elaborate on this model which you have?
 
This gives me a leg in to a comment about the new China Lake paper. Now I did
call it a quality positive, and I am not going back on that; but it does
present one problem. The paper found amounts of (4)He roughly commensurate
with excess heat measured at the same time. My problem is that the helium was
found in the gas evolved. Now why would that be? Most people assume that if
there be cold fusion, it be taking place within the Pd. The China Lake people
clearly believe that the normally insignificant branch, d + d --> (4)He + 23
MeV is the major one. Now we know that at the temperatures in a CNF cell, He
is quite immobile in Pd, so how come it is seen in the evolved gas? If it is
true, then the hitherto unknown process yielding the excess heat should be a
surface, or very near-surface effect. If so, the recipe is clear: don't use
chunky Pd cathodes, use ones with a large surface like a long fine wire or
thin foil. This would also have the advantage - if high loading is indeed the
secret - that you get high loading quickly.
 
On the other hand, we're not talking about Pd, but about PdDx, and I have not
seen anything about the mobility of He in that. Does anyone know?
 
The alternative to a surface effect is, of course, helium contamination...
but as I say, it seems to be a quality paper, and the authors went to some
care to eliminate errors.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 01:01:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Poor Steve Jones can dish it out, but he cannot take it.
 
Okay, let me just address a few of these comments:
 
"Can you prove that Nate is wrong?  His work on showing flaws in claims of
Pons and Fleischmann regarding helium production, also of Mel Miles et al., is
well known (see e.g. Huizenga's book) and I think compellingly done."
 
Can you prove Nate is right? I have talked to Miles extensively. I have talked
to Yamaguchi and people working with him, and I read their follow-up paper. I
think both groups know what they are doing, and both have eliminated any
reasonable possibility of helium contamination from glass. You and Nate
disagree. Fine. But it isn't your experiment so M&Y know better than you, and
you don't even know as much about it as me, so I say you don't know what you
are talking about. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings, because you are
both Jolly Good Fellows.
 
Actually, you should both stop pretending it hurts your feelings, because you
are hard-boiled professional scientists, not ninnies, and not Rebecca of
Sunnybrook Farm. Turn off the act. This maudlin self-pity looks silly in a
middle-aged man. If what I say really upsets you, it is because you know darn
well that I am right, and you are wrong.
 
 
 
"You hardly know me, and I have never said that "ego" and "jealousy" were
important motivators here.  So how do you know? ... In my own soul-searching,
I do not find these factors to be so important as you suggest."
 
A man is not necessarily the best judge of his own emotions and motivations. I
know you well enough. I have been in business and politics for many years, and
my experience has taught me to judge other people's words and actions, and to
understand their motivations, both conscious and subconscious. Of course,
nobody can ever be *certain* about any psychological reaction, in anyone --
not even himself, or his own wife. But to me, your behavior is transparent; I
cannot think of any cause for this behavior but jealousy and professional
rivalry. Let me explain:
 
The evidence for excess heat is massive. It includes things like:
 
     Boiling water with only one-third to one-tenth of the measured power in
     needed to sustain boiling.
 
     Flow calorimetry in 200 experiments, with 40 positives at sigma levels as
     high 90.
 
     Temperature Delta-T differences between calibrated points and excesses
     ranging from 6 C to 250 C.
 
     Power gains ranging from 1:1.2 to 1:20 (2.5 watts in, 50 out).
 
This evidence is overwhelmingly and obvious. It is based upon tried-and-true
instruments, and laws of science that were settled in the early 1800's. If
this was any other field of science, you and every other scientist on earth
would instantly agree that this proof is conclusive.
 
Therefore, your continued "skeptical opposition" to this massively replicated
evidence is nothing but pathological foolishness. It is as if you claimed that
high temperature superconductors cannot exist; the moon does not cause tides;
airplanes cannot fly; or animals do not evolve. It is irrational. When an
otherwise rational, thinking person suddenly flies off on a tangent, loses all
sense of judgement, and begins making preposterous, untenable statements -- as
you are doing -- it is always because his emotions have overcome his
intellect. He has become blind to elementary facts and first principles. I
have seen many people do this: IBM "big iron" salespeople who told me that
microcomputers would never hurt them; men and women employed at failing
companies, where dozens of employees are fired every week, who assure me that
"I will never be fired!;" and, most sadly, sick people at death's door who
told me that they would live for decades more.
 
When a person's interests are threatened, or a person's world view is in
danger, he will often resort to absurd, chaotic, psychological "defense
mechanisms," rationalizations, and other attempts to evade the truth. It is
human nature. In your case, I can tell that you are basically an open-minded,
curious person who normally does not mind new ideas. You are generally open to
the idea of CF, but you irrationally oppose the heat, which is *by far* the
simplest to detect, most widely replicated, and best proof. The heat is "the
principle signature of reaction" as Fleischmann says.
 
Finally, I know from your writing and manner of speech that you are an
ambitious, proud person. There is no harm in that. I also know that you want
scientific glory and recognition more than you want money, or any other
reward. This is a terrible weakness. I am a capitalist; I trust that greed
will purify a man's actions, and keep him pointed solidly towards the light of
truth. *Money* does not care about your ego. You can only make money if you
are correct, just as an engineer can only build a bridge if he is correct. The
lust for recognition, on the other hand, often becomes a siren song of
misdirection and confusion, because it depends upon public opinion, which is a
fickle, undependable standard. Money is a more objective litmus test.
Manufacturers never make money selling products that don't exist, or don't
work. Nothing on earth teaches true from false; correct from mistaken; and
practical from impractical better than the marketplace. You can never fool the
customers for long.
 
You yourself have said that if the heat is real, then Pons and Fleischmann
must be right, and you must have been wrong all these years. What does all of
this add up to? Only one thing in my judgment: you are jealous and terrified,
and you will grab any straw, or believe any nonsense -- no matter how absurd
and unscientific -- in order to avoid facing the truth.
 
 
 
"Contrary to your statement that I 'have decided that McKubre's sigma 90
results mean nothing,' I am open-minded also about McKubre's claims of xs
heat, while at the same time strongly challenging the notion that this xs heat
is nuclear in origin. (Note that his xs heat is around 30%, if I remember
correctly.)... Not long ago, you suggested that 30% xs heat would be a
threshold for believability, as I recall..."
 
It does not matter whether the heat is at 30%, 3,000% or 0.0003%. You need
only satisfy two conditions:
 
1.   The heat must continue long enough to exceed the bounds of chemistry.
     Even if it is at a very low percent, if it goes on long enough, it cannot
     be chemical. A lump of radioactive material might radiate heat at a very
     low level, it might be much cooler than a burning lump of coal. However,
     the radioactive material goes on radiating heat day after day, for
     centuries, and therefore we know it is not chemical. The percent of heat
     can make no difference in deciding whether the heat is chemical or
     nuclear.
 
2.   The signal to noise ratio must be high enough so that we can be certain
     the heat is real. McKubre has the best instruments on earth, and a closed
     cell, so his 30% is better than 3,000% would be in a second-class
     laboratory. The "threshold of believability" depends upon the
     experimental technique, the sensitivity and quality of the instruments,
     and the skill of the worker. McKubre excels in all of these areas, so I
     would never hold him to the "30% standard." I would sooner question
     Bockris's ability to measure a watt!
 
     My "30% standard" only applies people who run open cell Ni experiments
     without measuring the effluent gas, like you. If you close the cell,
     increase input power to 10 watts, and get a precision calorimeter, then
     even a 0.5 watt 5% excess will be a definite positive.
 
Your words "strongly challenge" do not mean anything. What can you challenge?
The second law of thermodynamics? The specific heat of water? Do you think a
match can burn for a week? What do you think CF is, zero point energy? It
would be uncharacteristic of you to believe a "far out" explanation like this.
The conservative explanation is that since CF cannot be chemical, it is most
probably nuclear.
 
 
 
"Where is the 'nonsense' in all this... [recombination discussion]"
 
I repeat: Your statements about recombination are nonsense, as anyone knows.
Recombination can only explain the heat up to the level of I*V (full power
in). When the heat exceeds this level, as it has in hundreds of Ni and Pd
experiments, then recombination can make no difference whatsoever.
Furthermore, there are many closed cell experiments with both Ni and Pd, in
which recombination cannot matter.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Steam
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steam
Date: 16 Mar 1993 09:29 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <930305133831.20800a24@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.
nal.gov!DROEGE writes...
>Steam and a reply to Jeff Driscoll
>
[Much interesting stuff deleted]
 
>There are lots of problems with Jeff's statement above.  Nomenclature aside,
>Jeff assumes that a bubble breaking the surface is 100% vapor.  This is likely
>not true.  Further, as the vapor leaves the cell it will lose heat on the way,
>causing it to carry more and more condensed water.  Remember the droplets are
>not seen until they get to a size comparable to the wavelength of light
>(someone check me on this).  So just because there is that famous gap between
 
OK, I did.  I've got a Mie scattering program which I used to get intensity
as a function of "droplet" size, for 400 nm (blue) light.
 
Intensity for a 200 nm diameter droplet appears to be about the same as for
larger droplets.  At 20 nm, the intensity of blue light drops by ~3 orders
of magnitude, and for 2 nm droplets, there's another 2 order of magnitude
drop in intensity.
 
the intensity of red light (780 nm) is reduced quite a bit more than the
intensity of blue light for this range of droplets (if anyone's interested,
I'll run the program for red light, or, better yet, send you a copy).
 
This implies that droplet size can be measured using a white light source,
separating the reflected light into its components and measuring the intensity
of each component.  Also, it implies that, using the "teakettle" example,
as droplets go from invisible -> visible, there should be somewhere where
they're blue.  I've never seen this, but then again, I've never looked for
it, either.
 
>the spout and the white cloud on the teakettle does not guarantee that the
>exiting gas carries no water droplets.
 
[More stuff deleted, in the interest of saving space.]
 
>Tom Droege
>
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays as test (cont. some more)
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as test (cont. some more)
Date: 16 Mar 93 10:10:45 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

(Gary Collins replies to Mitchell Swartz)
 
In article <C3ysII.DA0@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   Unfortunately the work has been unfunded due to the pendulum
>   against cold fusion.  Reprints were an unattained luxury in 1992.
>   Complain to your library.   Seems a high class institution
>     ought subscribe to Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts.
 
Unfortunately, my library is not as well funded as I would like.  Seems a
high class institution ought to be able to afford an occasional reprint.
Since that is not the case, would you be willing to send me a copy, and
what would be your price?   I am surprized by your attitude.  This discussion
group could be a free (and widely read) vehicle for you to disseminate your
results more broadly.
 
>
> ===  "What interesting data do *you* have in mind.
>
>    Data circa the 1/2-filled levels.
 
What data is that?
 
Best wishes,
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
Date: 16 Mar 93 10:37:36 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

(Gary Collins comments on Dieter Britz's statement about He diffusion in Pd)
 
In article <6689860C59BF20879C@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> ...
> This gives me a leg in to a comment about the new China Lake paper. Now I did
> call it a quality positive, and I am not going back on that; but it does
> present one problem. The paper found amounts of (4)He roughly commensurate
> with excess heat measured at the same time. My problem is that the helium was
> found in the gas evolved. Now why would that be? Most people assume that if
> there be cold fusion, it be taking place within the Pd. The China Lake people
> clearly believe that the normally insignificant branch, d + d --> (4)He + 23
> MeV is the major one. Now we know that at the temperatures in a CNF cell, He
> is quite immobile in Pd, so how come it is seen in the evolved gas? ...
 
Your statement that He is immobile in Pd at room temperature may well
be wrong, Dieter.  In high-purity copper, which as you know has the same
crystal structure as Pd, researchers I know at the University of Konstanz
showed that He diffuses already at 25K   [see "Migration of Helium Atoms in
Copper at 25 K", Th. Wichert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 726.]
Since Pd has a larger lattice parameter than Cu, I would expect diffusion
of He in Pd to occur at least as readily.
 
Thus, the China Lake results may not address the question of where the
nuclear reactions take place (if anywhere).
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays as test: re to Collins
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays as test: re to Collins
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 21:00:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   (Mitchell Swartz replies to Gary Collins)
 
  In Message-ID: <1993Mar16.101045.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
16 Mar 93Subject: Re: X-rays as test (cont. some more)
  Gary Collins (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
 
==   "Unfortunately, my library is not as well funded as I would like.
==   Seems a high class institution ought to be able to afford an
==   occasional reprint.  Since that is not the case, would you be willing
==  to send me a copy, and what would be your price?
 
   Gary, if you send me by e-mail your address then I will xerox the
      article and send you a copy.
     Try to have, and enjoy, a little humor; my sister is up in Wash.   ;)
 
 
==   "I am surprized by your attitude."
 
  First, we are astonished you think there is funding for cold fusion.
       Do you have any in Washington state?
  Second, we opted for data acquisition equipment for cf experiments
   instead of reprints.  Is that an attitude?
  Third, the TBs, and the rest of us with open-minds, have been savaged
     and  ** you're surprised by anyone's attitude?!
  Please e-mail me the address, good correspondent, and we'll leave it
    to the postman.
        [More science with a dash less hostility would do wonders
                for this net].
 
 
===  "This discussion group could be a free (and widely read) vehicle for
===  you to disseminate your results more broadly."
 
   I'm new here, and still unfamiliar with the technology.
   I'm clueless as to importing laTex or other high-level equation
     language here.
   But thank you anyway.
     Best wishes.     - Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Paul Karol /  Mossbauer, lattices, and CNF
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mossbauer, lattices, and CNF
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1993 16:18:31 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I must be misunderstanding something about lattice effects in CNF and the
absence of a standard nuclear reaction signature in CNF experiments.  There
seems to have been several references to the Mossbauer Effect where the
lattice causes behavior not usually ascribable to reactions among isolated
species.  However, even in a good Mossbauer system, only 5-10% of the gamma
intensity is involved, yet with the cold fusion lattice explanation(s), 100%
of the conventional branches have been suppressed.  Is the Mossbauer Effect
nevertheless being cited as an example where lattice effects explain the
(near) *total* disappearance of previously dominating processes?  Or, as
I stated in opening, have I mislead myself?
 
Paul J. Karol
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / John Logajan /  Re: O2
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: O2
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 93 21:01:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
>John Logajan concludes that Miles did not do a good experiment from the
>statement:
>"Excess power was calculated with
>subtraction for the electrolysis power consumed, and evolved gas checked with
>the assumption that no recombination took place."
>
>I read it the other way, John, i.e. that the evolved gas measurement verified
>that there was no recombination.  Perhaps Dieter can clarify what the paper
>says.
 
I can see this interpretation.   Assuming Dieter was precise in his usage,
I now agree that this latter interpretation makes more sense.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Heavy water and radiation.
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy water and radiation.
Date: 16 Mar 1993 22:26:23 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
:
: Assuming that one does in fact observe nuclear products in a heavy-water
: cold fusion experiment:
:
: Might it be the result of good-old nuclear fission?  How much Uranium
: is there typically in Palladium that you buy?  After all doesn't Canada
: use heavy water to moderate its reactors?
 
I looked up my nuclear physics textbook, and saw that yes, deuterium
moderated reactors run on natural uranium.
 
So here's a proposal to you experimenters: make cathodes out of uranium and
palladium, and maybe have a neutron initiator.
 
Perhaps this would be a compact and easy design for a fission
reactor.  It ought to be safe too, as if it gets too hot the deuterium
will outgass and therefore stop the reaction.
 
Would there also be a possiblity for substantial fusion enhancement of the
reaction?
 
After all, only the very highest-energy tails of a thermal distribution
participate in fusion.  As a result you need very high temperatures
to get good fusion rates.
 
So if you can somehow make a markedly non-equilibrium distribution, and
preferentially excite fusion fuel at the high-end of the energy distribution
you could have high fusion rates without having to make a large investment
of overall energy.
 
And how better to do that than fast 200Mev fat charged particles
slamming around all over the place? :-)
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
Date: 16 Mar 93 21:21:57 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <1993Mar13.012957.2821@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <C3r8Gz.C1M@efi.com> chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>> ....  One of these schools, the one you were
>>referring to, says that the effect is nuclear and does not involve
>>chemistry.  Another school says that the effect is neither chemistry
>>nor nuclear, but error.  The lack of chemical ash supports both of
>>these schools equally.  Trying to claim that the lack of chemical ash
>>somehow makes it *more* likely that fusion is occurring than that
>>there is an error is silly.  It supports both hypotheses equally.
>
> ...
>It would seem that the less proof of CNF the more strident the claims
>of CNF.
 
I seem to have been misunderstood.  I am *not* making claims, strident
or otherwise, for CNF.  Perhaps I should explain my last sentence in
more detail.  The only "support" given for either hypothesis by the lack
of chemical ash is that the hypothesis is not contradicted.  Jed was
implying that the lack of chemical ash gave special support to the
nuclear hypothesis.  This is what I was flaming him for.  My previous
post was not intended to make any comment whatsoever on CNF.
 
By the way, Mitchell Swartz, you are now on my kill list.  Even I can
tell that you are either uninformed and stupid, or deliberately
writing things you know are wrong.  And your debating style is almost
a stereotype from alt.[sex flame etc] flame wars.  Either way, I don't
care to waste my time on your postings.  I wish you hadn't found this
group.
--
"7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity."
                        -- _Turbo C Reference Guide Version 2.0_
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-286-8581
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The McKubre ICCF3 Paper
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The McKubre ICCF3 Paper
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 01:02:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Carol White was nice enough to send me a pre-print of the McKubre ICCF3 paper.
At $180, I will probably not buy the proceedings.  There is plenty of opinion
expressed here, so don't expect cool scientific analysis.  This is also long.
It is an attempt to help those of you who have not spent thousands of hours
observing these experiments to gain some insights into what is significant.  I
regret that this media has not yet progressed to the point where I can include
the curves.  Some of you out there can push to make this happen.
 
The paper ends with the statement: "Approximately 70 hours after the excess
power event described here, an accident occurred which caused termination of
the experiment.  The cause of this accident is discussed in a paper published
elsewhere in these Proceedings."
 
It is quite clear that McKubre did not get much experimental work done in
1992.  He no doubt spent the entire year filling out paper work.  A lesson to
all.  I always tell my group, please be careful, I don't want to spend the
rest of my life filling out paper work that describes things like what I am
going to do to prevent a student from sticking his hand up inside the Marchant
and pushing divide.  (I once actually had a student do this.)  Somehow, this
seems to get across better than other safety slogans.
 
This paper does not contain the detail of the ICCF2 paper, but that is OK as
McKubre has now established (with me) that he is capable of designing and
operating a high quality experiment.  There is no evidence that this
experiment has been any less carefully performed, the detail is just not here.
 
Of great interest are figures 3,4, and 5.  Figure 3 shows input power to the
cell.  Figure 4 shows cell voltage and current, and figure 5 shows D/Pd ratio,
excess power, and measurement uncertainty.
 
A picky point, but while all three figures show time on the x axis, the x
scale factor of the three is slightly different, so it is hard to compare
simultaneous events.  I know this is not an artifact of the xerox path to me
because the title printing lines up exactly.  I am just paranoid enough to
propose that McKubre did this on purpose to make comparison difficult.  A few
minutes with an adjustable xerox machine and I have the three lined up on top
of each other.
 
But first the construction the cell makes clear (to me) that this was a scale
up attempt.  McKubre abandoned his use of 2 mm rod which had previously been
one of the things he held constant.  The design is also unique in that it uses
sheet Pd as the anode.  The cell uses an inner and an outer Pd anode cylinder
with the cathode a zig-zag of one mm pd between them.  So the scale up attempt
was to use a much longer (36 cm active length), smaller diameter cathode.
McKubre also thinks loading is very important.  Thus the attempt to center the
cathode between two large area anodes.
 
But the scale up effort clearly failed.  The maximum excess power is 1.6 watts
or so for a cell power of 45 watts.  A mere 3.5% compared to much higher
reports from his other experiments.  Still, it is of order 20 times his
reported two sigma error.  So the experiment is significant if there is not
some systematic error.  But note that I don't care about power levels.  Only
those trying to wow investors into coughing up bucks care about them.  Science
(to first order) only cares that there is some mysterious source of heat.  A
milliwatt is plenty if it has no explanation.
 
If you have not actually performed these experiments, you will wonder about
the various changes of operating conditions.  Remember that these experiments
go on for thousands of hours, and mostly nothing happens.  It is very hard not
to "do something" in order to initiate an event.  Thus when I look at the
various operating point changes done here by McKubre, I can almost "feel" what
he is doing.  I will try here to describe what I think he is doing.  It is
likely that McKubre is not going to confide his ideas to us, but after looking
at a lot of these experiments, and doing them myself, I can possibly
interpret the operating point changes.  There is a hint in this experiment
that McKubre is beginning to develop an operating procedure.  It is a shame
that the data for hours 0 to 300 is missing.  It would tell me a lot.
 
There is a lot of comparative detail in figures 3, 4, 5, so we will use
the "Perrot" criteria to look for the devil!
 
The data presentation starts at hour 300.  McKubre says: "Prior to 300 h,
either statistically significant quantities of excess power were not produced,
or complete calorimetric data were not obtained..."  Yeah!, Mike, you don't
want to tell us your charging strategy.  Too bad, if a previous ramp up in
current was done (as in previous McKubre experiments) then we could use the
comparative data between the two runs to argue that the later "anomalous heat"
was real.  No data, no comparison.  I consider this a deliberate omission.  He
knows that knowledgeable analysts would want to see it.  It is not here for
some reason.
 
The first data on the curve is at very low current.  Possibly 10 ma per sq cm.
If the entire charging was done at this rate it would be a very interesting
strategy.  But we are not told.  So much for being able to replicate McKubre.
During the 10 or so hours shown at this low current there is a very nice zero.
The drive is then ramped up to 37 ma per sq cm over 6 hours.  Why pick this
time to ramp up the current?  To me, I notice that the D/Pd ratio (McKubre
measures resistance) has been decreasing.  Perhaps they turned up the current
because they feared that the cathode would unload.
 
As I would expect, the excess power dips below zero during the ramp.  This is
because it takes a while for the calorimeter (it's time constant) to know that
power has been added.  During this time there is more computed power into the
calorimeter  than is measured by the temperature rise of the output cooling
fluid.  After the current has reached the new value, the calorimeter is
operated there for about 77 hours.  (To those who wonder how I can get such
readings from the curves, I am using a dial caliper to measure points.)  First
it settles to a 2 sigma value over the earlier base line.  I would not
consider this to be too exciting, as it might be some artifact of the drive
power change.  Then over this time it wanders around a bit, ending over the
last 20 hours of this period with an "anomalous power" up ramp to about the 5
sigma level.  This looks quite significant to me.  I would sure like to see
hour 0-300 to see if there was anything earlier like this, but it really does
look like the most significant item in this data.  (Albeit quite small
compared to later data.)
 
Now in the middle of what looks like an exponential increase in the "anomalous
heat" level, they change operating conditions.  Why in the world??  The reason
seems to be that while the heat level has been going up, the D/Pd ratio has
been decreasing, and seemed to be starting a sharp drop.  Looks like 0.83 is
magic to McKubre and he apparently does not want to see loading go below that
level.  In fact he is willing to interrupt an impressive trend to prevent it.
So at hour 390 McKubre starts another up ramp at 5 ma per sq cm per hour.
There is first an expected dip to near zero "anomalous heat" caused by the
calorimeter time constant, then the "anomalous heat" tracks the current ramp.
This is quite disturbing.  It is very suggestive that the "anomalous heat" is
an artifact of the changing current.  I again emphasize the importance of
presenting ramp data where no "anomalous heat" is seen.  McKubre did this at
our meeting in Washington, but not for this paper.  On the other hand, an up
ramp tends to under state the "anomalous heat" as the output heat constantly
lags behind the input electrical power.  There is also a tiny reduction in
"anomalous heat" due to the gas absorption which takes place during this time.
 
For this experiment McKubre has an extra heater wrapped around the cell.  The
general scheme is to crank the heater up a few watts, then as heat is added by
changing the cell conditions, to crank down the heater so there is constant
E*I power into the cell.  Under these conditions, it is possible to run out of
heater power to crank down, and this happens several times.  Seven increases
in heater power (and one decrease?) are noted.  Each one produces a transient
and confuses the data for a while, but generally I think it is a good scheme.
It is likely that McKubre under estimated the amount of power that eventually
would be required, or he would have started at a much higher heater power
level, or the heater has limited capacity.  Thus while there are periods of
constant E*I power level into the cell, there are a half dozen different power
levels during the course of the experiment.  But at least at the 350 to 450
hour period, there is a period of constant E*I power which shows an increase
in "anomalous heat".
 
There are two more periods where the current was ramped up, ending with 200
hours at 600 ma per sq cm.  It is harder here to guess the reason for starting
the ramps, since the loading was high.  Perhaps McKubre was attempting to
persuade the cell to produce a higher level of anomalous heat.  In any case
there seems to have been no attempt to go above 600 ma.  This seems to be an
agreed upper limit of useful current in many papers.
 
Near the end of the run, at 720 hours or so, there was a period where there
are large spikes of "anomalous heat", and even an "anomalous cold" spike.
During this period there were downward spikes in the cell voltage.  A simple
explanation is that there is an increase in the electrolyte temperature with
the "anomalous heat" and that this reduces the cell potential.  But it could
be something even more interesting taking place in the cell.  Note that with a
closed loop system, by analog devices as I do it, or by McKubre's presumed
closed loop through the Mac, it is very hard to figure out what is going on.
Often up is down.  Just beware.  But all the little detail devils go in the
right direction.  The heater power, the electrochemical power, the "anomalous
heat", the voltage, and the current all show what I expect.
 
The experiment was apparently ended when the available heater power was again
exhausted.  We all know what happened next.  As a tribute to Andrew Riley I
would like to say that this looks like a very nice experiment.
 
But is it really science?  Sorry, guys, you can show boiling cells, or very
nice experiments like this one, and it is not science until you make an honest
effort to present all the details that will allow a replication.  The details
are not here.  There is plenty of reason for me to believe that important
things, like the charging strategy, have been left out.  Still I appreciate
whatever is presented.  I just wish there were a classification system for
meetings like:
 
Type A Paper: The presenter is doing the best job he can to tell you
              everything that is known to be required for replication.
 
Type B Paper: The presenter is knowingly withholding information which you
              will find necessary for replication.
 
Looks like a type B paper to me.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Surface, near surface or bulk?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Surface, near surface or bulk?
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 04:51:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz raises a key issue, which was much debated at Nagoya. Everyone in
the business should pay close attention to this:
 
"Most people assume that if there be cold fusion, it be taking place within the
Pd...  How come [helium] is seen in the evolved gas? If it is true, then the
hitherto unknown process yielding the excess heat should be a surface, or very
near-surface effect. If so, the recipe is clear: don't use chunky Pd cathodes,
use ones with a large surface like a long fine wire or thin foil. This would
also have the advantage - if high loading is indeed the secret - that you get
high loading quickly."
 
I have no idea what the answer is, and most people at the conference shrugged
their shoulders when I asked. I feel it would very good for the field if someone
could design experiments to find out. This question: "surface or bulk?" was one
of the key issues that had to be addressed early in the transistor era, before
progress could be made. Here are some clues:
 
Thin film works. Not much bulk there. Thin film on silver works particularly
well. Some people are speculating that the interface between the two metals is
the spot to watch.
 
The Arata and Zhang work that was *just now* cited by Mitch uses a high surface
area cathode. If this is replicated, it would point towards a surface reaction
I think. A person I know hopes to test a sintered "spongy" Pd cathode soon.
 
The Ni reaction is clearly on the surface.
 
As Dieter points out, helium in the gas points to a surface reaction. I know two
other workers who have recently detected commensurate helium in the gas, but
nothing in the cathode. (Sorry to report unpublished stuff like this... Learn
Japanese and wait a year and you will see it.)
 
Here is the Voice Of Authority: After the Pons lecture, one of the first
questions that came up was "surface or bulk?" Fleischmann stepped up to the mike
and answered with great finality, "Bulk." There were several seconds of silence;
if you listened carefully, you could hear 350 people thinking, "Oh! Really?"
 
Bockris thinks it is neither surface nor bulk, but in microscopic voids. (As far
as I know he still thinks that.) They better be very microscopic voids, because
if you can see cracks in a Pd cathode, it will not work.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Richard Schultz /  Nature (the journal) and Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nature (the journal) and Cold Fusion
Date: 17 Mar 1993 01:57:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <9303051751.AA09785@suntan.Tandem.com> Frank Close
<ub-gate.UB.com!ib.rl.ac.uk!FEC%VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK> writes:
 
>There has been much criticism of Nature (the journal that is) in this regard.
>Some people claim that Nature has a policy of rejecting *any* positive paper.
>I cannot say if this is or is not the case, but origins of their negative
>feelings about CNF are easier for me to understand. Note that Nature's
>staff have a rather unique perspective on the episode for they have seen
>what you Mitchell and most people have not seen, namely the original 3-24-89
>manuscripts, figures, referee's questions, responses to those questions,
>changes in figures, and subsequent appearance and publication in another
>journal of a version that contradicted the above.
 
It seems to me that the problem with Nature's editorial attitude toward claims
of cold fusion is the contrast with it's attitude toward other borderline
claims.  For instance, in the mid-70's, Nature published a paper
that "demonstrated" Uri Geller's psychic powers.  More recently, they published
a paper "proving" that a 10^-128 M solution (i.e. >100 orders of magnitude
less concentrated then the impurities present in the water) could show
effects from the solute.  If I recall correctly, at least one or maybe both
of the papers were published along with a disclaimer regarding editorial
doubts about their validity.
 
Now I happen to be strongly on the side of the people who think that the CF
claims are (to be charitable) mistaken.  I was at both the initial news
conference and at Pons's subsequent departmental seminar and the bogosity of
his claims was fairly apparent even then (I say this because he put up slides
with unbalanced nuclear equations on them).
 
Nonetheless, I think that any reasonable person would have to agree that the
odds of CF being true are much greater than those of papers that Nature has
already published.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: 17 Mar 1993 05:09:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
: The conservative explanation is that since CF cannot be chemical, it is most
: probably nuclear.
 
This doesn't necessarily follow.
 
You can just as easily say, and honestly believe,
that since CF cannot be nuclear, it is most probably chemical or erroneous.
 
If you believe experiments, we observe excess heat 30% more than we should.
Assuming a null result, we violate thermodynamics (or at least our
understanding of it in this complicated system, including the
experimental apparatus) by that much.
 
No chemical means can store that much.
 
Assuming our thermodynamical experiments are correct, we turn to nuclear
explanations.  In this case we violate our understanding of nuclear physics
by a few to tens of orders of magnitude, in the lack of nuclear products
made.
 
Why is our understanding of this particular thermodynamics considered
more sacred than our understanding of this particular nuclear physics?
 
You can either say, 1) thermo measurements and theory are right and
nuclear M&T is wrong, or 2) thermo measurements and
theory is wrong and nuclear M&T is right.
 
I don't see the evidence conclusively favoring #1 over #2, and so
I don't think it at all unscientific to believe in #2.  Even if #1 turns
out to be right.
 
In fact, most physicists would bet on #2 first, until reasonable nuclear
explanations are invented and experimentally proven.
 
Why?  Essentially, because of the magnitudes involved, and the
characteristics of possible sources of error.  In the thermodynamical
experiment, there's always lots of chemicals and heat and mass motion
floating around and to get the final number you have to end up subtracting
all sorts of large quantities.  True no chemical means could store the energy
excess reported, but small accounting errors can accumulate.  No I don't
think most experimenters are dishonest here, but there may be subtleties that
we haven't found yet.  There may even be new physics or chemistry that isn't
yet known.
 
On the other side, there is the hypothesis that the excess heat is nuclear.
The reason physicists are not inclined to favor this is that the experiments
are much closer to "null experiments", in that either you get a huge signal
or you don't.  (yes, I know it's not really that simple always...)
 
By general principles you can figure out how many nuclear products
you need to get for a given amount of energy.  The problem is, that
by the very nature of nuclear physics, the particular macroscopic arrangement
of elements (i.e. the particular system) has very little effect on this
fact.   This is basic as a result of the energies involved.  So it's
very hard to figure out a way for this particular system to work differently
from all the other nuclear systems that have been studied over the years
(all of which support the previous assertion).  Compounded with that is
the fact that the violation of previous knowledge that you need to explain
is so much tremendously larger.
 
So to believe in new nuclear processes is really tough to swallow, because
   1) you have much less leverage to change things
and
   2) you need to change things so much more
 
 
Thermodynamical measurements give nearly a single scalar number, whereas
nuclear measurements give a wide variety of information about all sorts of
different products and energies.
 
 
Given no known nuclear mechanism, or even reproducible nuclear experiments,
the thermodynamical experiments need to be totally critical.  I'm sorry
but 30% excess heat doesn't yet qualify, no matter how well the experiment
appears to be done.  What you need is excess _work_: i.e. a battery
that puts out lots of power for months.  You need a working engineering
product.  That's much more of a 'null experiment'.  Something that doesn't
need fancy calibration, accounting, or analysis to tell if it's working.
Nature takes care of that.  If the excess it is in fact truly as large
as you state, this ought not to be difficult.
 
It would be *wonderful* if it were really made, and physicists would
all of a sudden get very excited.  Because there might be some very
interesting new physics involved. As well as being mildly useful in its
own right. :-)
 
: - Jed
 
By the way, I assume that the thermodynamical experiments are done in the
dark, just to make sure that light absorption plays no role...this is
correct?
 
--
-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:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 06:49:41 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Ie: Jed
 
>Poor Steve Jones can dish it out, but he cannot take it.
 
>Okay, let me just address a few of these comments:
 
>"Can you prove that Nate is wrong?  His work on showing flaws in claims of
>Pons and Fleischmann regarding helium production, also of Mel Miles et al., is
>well known (see e.g. Huizenga's book) and I think compellingly done."
 
>Can you prove Nate is right? I have talked to Miles extensively. I have talked
 
Dear Jed,
 
     I know you are a great supporter of CF, but why don't you just shut
up while your ahead. If anything these endless personal attacks on
Dr. Jones are leading you to stupidity.  This second guessing another
persons personality does not belong here or anywhere in a forum for
science discussion.  Think next time you write those prose.  Let's
prove what nature has to offer and dump the background noise.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck SItes
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / John Logajan /  In defense of egos
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In defense of egos
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 09:20:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

There have been some apparent ongoing collisions of egos here, which have in
turn generated some pejoratives against the presence of egos in the field
of science.
 
To this I say, "Feed the egos!"
 
As far as I can tell, every human being has an ego.  It is therefore presumed
to be a good thing to have.   Egos are the prime motivator.  There would be
no science, no human progress at all, without egos.  You cannot divorce
egos from human activity, for that activity will then cease to be.
 
Steve Jones has an ego which motivates him to do Steve Jones work.  Tom
Droege has an ego which motivates him to do Tom Droege work.  Jed Rothwell
has an ego which motivates him to do Jed Rothwell work.  Etc etc etc
 
Most of us have adopted the adult attitude that all our works are inspired,
as if from atop Mount Olympus, in service to all of mankind.  A more honest
appraisal comes from our youth, when we aspired to greatness for its own
sake -- "I'm want to discover something great and be as famous as Albert
Einstein."
 
Thank heavens our youthful motivation has remained, despite our current
fashionable dishonesty about its true nature.  We may paint our true faces
with pretty makeup, but as the planets in their courses, the ego continues
to fulfill its role in the flow of the universe.
 
And the most fantastic thing of all is that in a clash of egos, it is each
ego alone that gets to determine how much damage it has sustained, or if it
has sustained any damage at all!  Bruised egos are self-inflicted.  Just
say no!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Black holes?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Black holes?
Date: 16 Mar 93 19:30:51 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitchell, I have a question for you.  In a posting of yours on March 4,
1989, ("Solid State Fusion" it was entitled), you stated:
 
"if Dr. Matsumoto's reported black holes are real perhaps some of the
ashes are not accessible."
 
Note that you used "ashes" but later objected when others used the term.
 
My main question is to ask that you explain what you meant by the above:
Do you attach any credence to the black-holes--cold-fusion connection?
If not, why did you mention this theory?
In this model, would not X-rays be produced as matter entered the black hole?
Why does not the entire lattice, etc., etc., get "gobbled up" by the
alleged black holes in the lattice?
 
Please explain yourself.
Best Hopes,
Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
Date: 16 Mar 93 19:13:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

  (Contribution from Steven Jones/BYU)
 
I apologize that the debate with Mitchell Swartz is becoming multi-level
and may be hard to follow.
Let me therefore begin by summarizing salient points:
1.  The Kucherov experiment was repeated in three places -- BYU, Texas A&M
(K. Wolf) and Colorado School of Mines (E. Cecil)-- with null results in all
cases.  We saw *nothing* like what Kucherov et al. reported:  no neutrons, no
X-rays, no charged particles.  In the case of neutrons and charged particles,
we had sensitivity such that a tens of particles per *hour* should have been
detectable.  Kucherov et al. claimed up to 10^7 neutrons per *second* .
2.  In the Kucherov paper, no X-ray energy spectrum is provided at all.  We
need this to evaluate the reliability of the claimed results.
3.  It was the paper that claimed that Fig. 8 represented "diffraction" spots.
I commented that Prof. Van Fleet here, an expert in the field, found nothing
showing that "diffraction" was involved.
4.  The fact that Kucherov + 2 others at the "Scientific Industrial Association
LUTCH" used germanium detectors with quoted high precision for gammas
 at around 0.5 to 1 MeV,
as Mitchell cites from Hagelstein's review, does *not* mean that the detectors
will have adequate efficiency or low-noise level at 21 keV (where the palladium
k-alpha line should occur).  H. says that at 511 keV, their detectors had only
10{-3} efficiency.  This efficiency is already 2 orders of magnitude less than
SiLi or photodiode detectors for ca. 20 keV X-rays.
  For Ge detectors and 20 keV X-rays, I would
anticipate that contributions to the count rate from electronic noise and
charge collection would make unambiguous determination of the Pd K-alpha line
very difficult.  What Kucherov et al. have to do is to show the full energy
spectrum so that one can judge their data.  (Recall that FPH failed originally
to show their full spectrum for gammas, which resulted in much confusion --
see Frank Close's book regarding this mess.)
 
5.  The experiment in China which you cite as "confirming" the Kucherov expt.
used high voltages, 7-11 kilovolts, enough to generate hot fusion at the
low-levels they reported.  Thus, this expt. does not "confirm" cold fusion
claims of Kucherov et al.
6.  It is true that initially last week I forgot that Kucherov tried to
measure X-rays, and this was not included in the paper (pre-print) that I first
found and reported on here.
7.  The X-ray rate claimed by Kucherov et al. was obtained as follows:
 
"The X-ray intensity was evaluated by densitometry of the exposed films."
I do not trust the accuracy of this method, particularly when X-ray films
show fogging around palladium containing either hydrogen or deuterium.
This is an important point:  EITHER HYDROGEN or deuterium in Pd will generate
fogging or spots on X-ray film.
__Dieter:  you asked for the reference for this.  It is a paper by none other
than Srinivasan et al. at BARC:  Indian Journal of Technology, 29:571-578,
Dec. 1991.
 
8. The Kucherov claims of charged particles with up to 18 MeV and neutrons up
to 17 MeV are, to me, great cause to doubt their claims.  How do they explain
such high energies?  These energies are, in particular, impossible from
d-d fusion.   (Matt:  I agree with you that there may be valid nuclear
phenomena in deuterided solids that have nothing to do with xs heat claims.
Still, one must be very careful to scrutinize experimental claims.  I do not
find that the Kucherov experiment bears up under close scrutiny, for the
reasons I have given here and in my 12 March posting on this subject.
I should add that Dr. Vladimir Tsarev, who reviewed Russian expts. on
cold fusion at Nagoya mtg., also reported that he doubted the Kucherov et
al. claims.  This report resulted in an angry though non-specific
retort from Kucherov at that meeting.)
 
9.  All this discussion regarding the Kucherov claims, while interesting,
has managed to side track the thrust of the earlier discussion, so that Mitchell
*still* has not responded to my oft-repeated question:
 
  "Do you agree that the presence or absence of sufficient X-rays is a critical
test for the claim that xs heat is nuclear [not necessarily d-d fusion]
in origin?"
 
My reason for posing this question generally is to find a way to pin down
the "moving target" provided by those who once said that the xs heat was due
to d-d fusion (hence the term "cold fusion"), but when sufficient neutrons
were *not* found -- as we showed very early at BYU -- then they moved to
unspecified "nuclear" reactions.  The nuclear products may hide, they say--
they don't know just what reactions may be involved.
But X-rays as by-products accompanying nuclear reactions (enough to produce
measurable heat) in a
lattice cannot be hidden, I assert.   (I am waiting for reasons to the
contrary from Mitchell or any others).  Hence my challenge of a critical test.
 
Back to Mitchell:  I have reviewed postings over the last several weeks and
find that I, Dick Blue, Gary Collins, and Matt Kennel in particular have
repeatedly shown
why X-rays must accompany *nuclear* reactions in a metal lattice.  I am not
willing to re-post these here.  We've repeated ourselves enough.
However, I will add one other
point:  to calibrate X-ray detectors, we often use metals with radioactive
elements embedded in the metal.  X-rays are clearly seen in this situation, by
excitation (including fluorescence),
*showing* that not just *beam* particles impinging on a metal from its exterior
produce X-rays.  We are *not* limited by a perspective of plasma or "hot"
fusion.
 
Now for those who would like some of the background of the above comments,
here is the last posting of Mitchell to me:
In article <C3w1FI.FK3@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com
(mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>    In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5473); Sub: Re:  X-rays as critical
>  test/Mossbauer Effect; ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>
>  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) had stated:
>
> --===  "The Kucherov paper makes *no* mention of X-ray detection, Matt."
> --===   [S. Jones, Message-ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>]
> --
> -- "To Matt:  Notwithstanding Mr. Jones comments, perhaps the paper
> --  you want, Matt,is A.B. Karabut, Ya Kucherov and I.B. Savvatimova
> --         (see Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265-272)"
> --  Given that it is really in front of me, let me type part of
> --      the abstract:
> --  "New results ..glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry ...
> --   characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. ..."
>                 [mica@world <C3s8AK.G4B@world.std.com>]
>
>  In [(world sci.physics.fusion:5508; Sub: X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment
> Message-ID: <1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
> ===  "Yes, Mitchell, there is another paper by Karabut, Kucherov and
> ===   Savvatimova ...    This latest does discuss X-rays ...
>
>   First, your discussions and dismissal of this paper contain significant
>  errors.  These include, but may not be limited to, your discussion of
> the "diffraction spots".   I will for balance ** briefly ** cite
> (OK Dieter?) Peter Hagelstein's review of this work.   The original
>  reference has been cited above.  The actual interpretation is left for the
>  reader, with my comments only in one area.
>
>              ---------------------------------------
>
> === "The experiment involves glow discharge (100-500 V) in deuterium
> === (3-10 Torr) with a cathode of palladium, for most of the results
> === presented.  X-ray detection is performed with X-ray film and
> === with a Ge-Li detector.  Neither would be a detector of choice
> === for an X-ray spectrum around 21 keV (the Pd k-alpha line).
> ===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
>
>    Peter Hagelstein may provide a clearer description based upon
> his reading of the paper and any additional information received at
> Nagoya and Kucherov's other papers (which Steve Jones states he has,
> but which this author sadly does not):
>
>   "Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
>   described experiments that I thought were very important.
>   The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
>  metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
>  400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current).  ... The gamma emission was studied
>  using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
>  recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
>  detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
>  at 511 keV."    ...
>    "Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
>  cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
>  distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
>  temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
>  gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
>  cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission)."
>                  [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
>
>    Conclusion:  Two parallax viewpoints.  However, there may have been
>    four detectors for gamma emission not counting x-ray film.
>    What did they show?
>
> ===  "Although no energy spectrum is provided in the paper, the statement
> ===  is made "The characteristic X-ray lines of palladium can be
> === clearly seen around 20 keV."
> ===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
>
>   What is Peter's perspective:
>
>     "Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
>  considered.
>  Excess power  production at the level of tens of watts is observed;
>  their best result  out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing
>  a power gain of a  factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume,
>  the resulting power  generation rate is quite high; the highest values
>  are on the order of 3000  watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy
>  production observed to  date exceeds 20 kJ."
>     "After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
>  emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec
>  in some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier
>  work was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
>  type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
>  appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance of
>  1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of 30
>  cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
>  discharge."
>     "After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up
>  to 10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). ...   An example of an anomalous
>  gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in a recent publication{16}.
>     Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma
>  spectrum returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the
>  identified lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines
>  originating from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where
>  *Z*=46 for Pd, were observed)."
>     "A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is
>  emitted from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used
>  for detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in
>  some experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched
>  off which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
>  fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
>  inside the discharge chamber."
>     "A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks
>  were observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12
>  MeV and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as
>  determined through measurements with different barrier thicknesses."
>                  [Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
>
>
>     What irks me most is the dismissal of the x-ray image in Figure 8 by
> what appears to be a self-serving attempt to compare it to what it is not.
>
> ===  "Fig. 8 in the paper shows "X-ray diffraction spots on an X-ray film"
> ===  the caption says.  But when I showed the figure to a colleague,
> === Prof. Van Fleet, he remarked that he saw nothing
> === recognizable as a diffraction pattern:  a "hodgepodge" he called it.
> ===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
>
>    Was it really a "diffraction pattern"?  Is that what Prof. Van Fleet was
> told?   Attention is directed to the paper which states:
>
>    "To determine the spatial distribution of the gamma emission we used
>  RT-1V X-ray films with lead screens. ...  Using the same X-ray film with
>  aluminum and lead screens X-rays with diffraction spots can be seen
>  (fig. 8)." [from  Karabut & Kucherov, Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265)]
>
>    So.  The x-ray film had different materials in front of it and was used
> to record the "spatial distribution of the gamma emission".
>    What then actually is a "diffraction pattern"?
>
>   A diffraction pattern is an image created on x-ray film from a periodic
> material which is irradiated by an incident beam (usually monochromatic).
> We thought you were aware of solid-state physics but refer you to Chapter
> 2 of Charles Kittel "Solid State Physics", Wiley Press which discusses
> the fundamentals you need to understand crystal structure, fourier analysis
> reciprocal lattice vectors, diffraction conditions, etc.
>
>   FACT: Figure 8 was not a "diffraction pattern".  The paper states
>  that it was used to study "spatial distribution", and Kucherov et alia
>  were clever enough to add filters to harden the incident x-rays.
>
>   Final FACT:  Kucherov et alia's experiments were apparently
>  confirmed at least twice as described in the Hagelstein paper.
>   I would not dare to repost it, but direct the interest reader to
>   section 5:
>
>    "There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
>     similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
>     created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two
>     electrodes inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure
>     (4-13 torr)."
>                  [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
>
>    and, of course, to section 11:
>
>   "V. A. Romodanov... The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas
>  at 100-200 torr, with an applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V,
>  and a current of 3-4 A.  Various cathode metals were used, including
>  Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W.
>      "Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and
>  10{9} atoms/second were measured in the different metals under
>  various conditions. The largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in
>  Nb at 1170 Deg. K, corresponding to an increase in tritium activity
>  in the deuterium gas of 2.3 X 10{4}."
>                  [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
>
>    It is hoped that this laborious update corrects information for readers
>    of sci.physics.fusion.    Best wishes,
>
>        Mitchell  Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
>
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Albert Chou /  Re: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
     
Originally-From: albert@thunder.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Project Sherwood: The US Gov't Research Into Controlled Fusion
Date: 17 Mar 93 06:29:39 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <1624@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
>wide world some of us are still in. (Much inertial-confinement research
>remained--still remains?--classified, largely because the same simulation
 
Yes, at least some remains classified.  I've talked to people who said they
weren't able to discuss certain things while talking about ICF.
 
Al
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  CLOSE@HEP.DURH /   1. Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: CLOSE@HEP.DURHAM.AC.UK
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  1. Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:46:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From Frank Close: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
 
Mitchell Swartz has requested an apology from me and also questioned
my reference to Harwell.
 
1.Harwell. I have been consulted by the chief scientist at Harwell in
connection with claims that the Harwell data have been "misanalysed" and
that they actually "confirm" FP heat production though no explicit details
of the "misanalysis" have been specified. Something you posted
suggesting that some "negative" experiments were wrong made
me think you were aware of this, even though you made no mention of Harwell
by name, and that you might be able to shed some light on the explicit
criticisms. Apparently you can not but the request is there for anyone who can.
 
2.MIT "mishandled" data and accusations of fraud.
 
Eugene Mallove has circulated his paper, including the cited reference to
you, widely and it has been in the public domain since Fall 92.
His thesis is that a team at MIT has been involved in a fraud; Mallove
makes no secret of that; his talk (advertised on this net), his write-up (from
which I took the quotation) and now a posting by him here make that
abundantly clear. He is not concerned about innocent "mishandling" of data.
 
If someone with whom I had close contact used my work as prime source
material to promote claims of fraud and I did not share their
conclusion, I would want to dissociate myself from it. It was in this
context that I raised this issue on the net after you twice asked me to
specify which MIT team was being referred to.
 
Have you objected to Eugene Mallove at his use of your work as
promotional material for his accusations of fraud against scientists at MIT?
As a reasonable person do you agree with Mallove's claim that
"any reasonable person reading (Swartz') analysis can conclude nothing
else than that a serious case of data massaging and misreporting
occurred in that expt-- i.e.fraud"?
 
Answers to these questions could help to clarify your precise role in
this affair. The use of your work has made you a party but I do not wish to
suggest that you are a *willing* party nor that you have *personally* accused
anyone at MIT of fraud. If such an interpretation has caused you distress
then I apologise and unreservedly so if the answer to the first
question above is "yes".
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCLOSE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Dieter Britz /  RE: China Lake results, ack!
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: China Lake results, ack!
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:46:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
 
>> Miles MH, Hollins RA, Bush BF, Lagowski JJ, Miles RE;
>> J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99.
>
>> Excess power was calculated with
>> subtraction for the electrolysis power consumed, and evolved gas checked with
>> the assumption that no recombination took place.
>      ^^^^^^^^^^      ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
>Ack!  Why even bother to publish?
 
Let's be fair, John. We might (we do) have our doubts about the accuracy of
open-cell calorimetry, but if they show evidence that no recombination took
place (which they did, by checking that the right amount of gas came out),
then they can legitimately subtract that I*1.54 component, in order to
calculate their excess heat. I believe you can get something like 3-5%
accuracy with that. I am very doubtful of claims of 0.1%, buttressed with
magic words like Kalman filtering and Marquardt fitting, but this paper seemed
OK and didn't make extravagant claims. Jed says he knows about results where
the excess heat by far exceeds this correction, but I have not seen any of
that published. For the modest 27% Miles et al found, they needed to correct
for that lost power.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  CLOSE@HEP.DURH /   2. Question to E.Mallove on Energy Conservation
     
Originally-From: CLOSE@HEP.DURHAM.AC.UK
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  2. Question to E.Mallove on Energy Conservation
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:50:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
>From Frank Close: Question to E.Mallove
 
I am glad that at last Eugene Mallove has surfaced following my
questioning about his association with Clustron Science Corporation and
his promotion of a theory that violates energy conservation. Dr Mallove
posted much but omitted to say anything to encourage us about CSC. I repeat
here my question, the answer to which may have interest beyond this
network.
 
QUESTION TO EUGENE MALLOVE D.Sc.
 
  You have promoted CLUSTRON SCIENCES CORPORATION and, as resolution of
the observed absence of nuclear reaction products, propose that a proton and
deuteron combining at room temperature can "release 4 X 931MeV or 3.72GeV of
energy which sends the (produced) 3He nucleus out of the cell at high energy",
and that a proton and tritium produced 4He with energy release of "6 X 931MeV
or 5.59GeV". These quotes come from a paper bearing your name, they are
published under the logo of Clustron Sciences Corporation and I claim
that they violate the conservation of energy.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
How is it that the collision of 1H,2H at room temperature,
with a total energy of less than 3 GeV can liberate
energy of 3.7GeV, and how do 1H,3H with total less than 4Gev
liberate 5.6GeV  as claimed while maintaining conservation of energy?
 
(For information: a proton's energy at rest is 0.938GeV; the deuteron and
triton are, within one percent, 2 and 3 times this respectively).
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
   According to news reports Clustron Science Corporation is involved with
venture capitalists and has investors. You are described (8/92) as Vice
President for Research, though I do not know if you still hold that position.
Do you believe that energy is conserved? If so, then please answer my question
or show where I am wrong in asserting that your claims violate this principle.
 
As the Brightsen-Mallove paper is part of your more general involvement in the
advocacy of of cold fusion and appears under the logo of Clustron Science
Corporation, I believe that my question has some interest.
 
  A scientific answer on this question rather than a political statement
on some other matter would be appreciated by me and be enlightening
perhaps for any who may be investing in Clustron Science Corporation or
who receive lobby material from you in your advocacy of cold nuclear fusion
power.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCLOSE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  CLOSE@HEP.DURH /   3. Replies to E.Mallove
     
Originally-From: CLOSE@HEP.DURHAM.AC.UK
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  3. Replies to E.Mallove
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:55:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From Frank Close: Reply to Eugene Mallove
 
Rather than address the question of energy conservation and Clustron
Science Corporation Eugene Mallove has made several accusations in
his posting of last weekend.
 
During the last two years Eugene Mallove has made several comments about my
role, and also that of Dr Huizenga, in the cold nuclear fusion episode.
Some of these have been on this net; others have been in written material
that have been widely distributed. I encourage all who are interested
in forming a more complete picture of cold fusion sociology to request
copies from Dr Mallove. It is perhaps instructive that Dr Mallove chooses
to use insulting adjectives in questioning the competence of leading scientists
while he is also prepared to advocate fanciful energy violating processes in
his own work. Here I respond to the most recent piece from the vanguard of
the cold fusion power lobby insofar as it concerns me personally.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *
Re: Frank Close as "guardian of purity for the house of science".
 
It will be a sad day for science and society if dishonesty becomes a norm.
That is my personal opinion but I would hope that it is in the unwritten
constitution of others.
 
I care about the responsibility of scientists in "massaging" or
"misreporting" data "i.e. fraud" (quoting Mallove). I have openly
challenged anyone to produce evidence that contradicts the chronology or
material reported by me in Too Hot To Handle or public presentations.
I presume that Dr Mallove has researched the cold fusion episode thoroughly.
If he can show that my assertions about the reporting of experiments in Dr
Pons' Utah lab are untrue, or if he can contradict the evidence that I have
on audio tape ("we know audio tapes do not lie" - Mallove), then I welcome
him publishing his evidence here. If he can produce none or chooses not to
respond, let his silence be heard on this episode as loudly as his criticisms
elsewhere.
 
>From Gene Mallove's anger at MIT for what he perceives as "fraud" it appears
that we share similar axioms on ethics even if we disagree on their status
in different collaborations. Thus it is unfortunate that, rather than facing
up to the serious issues raised by me, Dr Mallove prefers to invent attacks
on my integrity and perceive me as out to destroy *all* work on hydrogenated
metals. Most in the field are scientists of high integrity but there is
also a fringe of nonsense and charlatanism. I am against the latter.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * *
Re FP, Chemistry and Close on Channel4 (UK):
Mallove writes "F and P have never suggested (chemistry) and Close knows it - -
he is only too willing to distort their views for disinformation purposes"
 
Everything after the first seven words is an invention of Dr Mallove.
 
(1) Jed Rothwell already made this point and I answered this on the net on
Jan 18th. Your innuendo is therefore behind the times, though as you state
that you have not paid much attention to this forum, your research into my
position may be incomplete.
 
 When Channel 4 interviewed Fleischmann at his home on 8/25 or 26 they gained
the impression that he was open to some non-nuclear process which they
understood to be chemical. The next day they interviewed me and they asked
me to comment on what they believed to be "news". I did so. I stated clearly
"*If* FP have etc" in order that it not be thought that I was making some
claim on their behalf.
 
I invite you to contact Channel 4 and verify the above for yourself.
I recall that last year I invited you to call David Worledge of EPRI and
correct false statements that you posted about me on this net. You have never
done so. Instead you add to your inventions about me.
 
(2)At Martin Fleischmann's press conference on August 27 after the
Channel 4 news interview with me had been recorded but before transmission,
MF claimed that it was a *nuclear* process. As Channel 4 kept both his
remarks and mine in their news bulletin, this created some confusion.
Martin Fleischmann was pressed by me at the PC and eventually agreed that
4He must be looked for and that the "ash" (he used that word) must be
found commensurate with any heat.
 
If indeed "FP think (watts of power are from) a nuclear process" (as E Mallove
claims - can we assume that you speak correctly for them Gene?) then I am
happy for that to be on the record. I am sure you will also wish to place
on record MF's comments about 4He and ash. You will also be aware that he
does not accept that claims of heat with ordinary water support his nuclear
belief.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re Boston Channel 2 and Close at MIT:
 
 I fail to see any contradiction between my answers to a direct question
from Channel 2 on the status and future of cold *nuclear* fusion (FP type)
as a power source, and my talk at MIT which was addressed to exposing the
differences between FP's reported claims and their actual measurements.
 
I stand by the answers that I gave to channel 2. The discussion following
my MIT talk ran to 55 minutes; I do not have transcripts even though I
understood that you would provide one in return for having taped the occasion.
If you have some specific point to raise on which you wish me to make an
answer "to be held before me on judgement day", make it here.
 
* * * * * * *  * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * *
 
Re American Scientist: I invite net readers to study my article, and any
replies, in their entirety and not the selected quotes posted by Gene Mallove.
 
* * * * * *  * * * *  * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re understanding of cold nuclear fusion.
 
You open with remarks about me and others saying that we must never be
able to suggest "as I imagine they will try to - that they all along
believed that excess heat unexplainable by chemistry was real but were
waiting for more refined experiments until they beleived it"
 
"I imagine" is the relevant piece here. I too am delighted that you have
now added to this "garbage trap" your position on cold fusion with both
heavy and light water so that it can be "archived" in future.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And finally: "Frank is finished. He's history".
 
Here you are right (I hope). We now approach the 4th anniversary of
the Utah press conference. My hope now is that I can concentrate on my
research group and not be periodically called up by media, administrators
and politicians for consultation on this business.
 
 But before I leave I look for a response, Dr Mallove, to my question
about Energy Conservation and the Brightsen-Mallove paper. If you continue
to be at the vanguard of the cold nuclear fusion energy lobby, it is
important  that there be no ambiguity about your position on
energy conservation.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCLOSE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Scott Mueller /  Retraction re: fusion@zorch posters
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Retraction re: fusion@zorch posters
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 16:01:38 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

In a recent posting, I blaster HP's news configuration.  It turns out from
information received from other sources that the style of From: line being
emitted by the gateway known as 'fusion@zorch' was being dropped at some
sites.  I had not ever accounted for this possibility, believing instead
that if the header line was that badly incorrect that it would cause the
entire article to be dropped, and as I could never verify that the latter
had happened, I made the assumption, now seen to be invalid, that there
were no significant problems with the headers as the had been.
 
I have modified the gateway software to generate the more correct format
of user@host, and this should eliminate the 'fusion@zorch' problem cited
a few days ago.
 
Thanks for reading.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / Dieter Britz /  How does it boil?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How does it boil?
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 04:06:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A week or so ago, I posted a comment on the boiling cell of F&P, asking some
questions. A few people have either seen the video of that cell boiling (dry)
and others have might have seen the real McCoy. So please
1. Does it boil dry?
2. Is the cathode wire, which provides the heat, lying flat on the cell
   bottom or hanging above it?
3. Are there LiOD splatter spots on the walls, especially near the end?
4. Is there maybe a skungy residue near the end?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science is FILO
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 04:07:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Matt Kennel grabs the bull by the horns, and spells out the quandary in exact
terms:
 
     "Why is our understanding of this particular thermodynamics considered
     more sacred than our understanding of this particular nuclear physics?
 
     You can either say, 1) thermo measurements and theory are right and
     nuclear M&T is wrong, or 2) thermo measurements and theory is wrong and
     nuclear M&T is right.
 
     I don't see the evidence conclusively favoring #1 over #2, and so I don't
     think it at all unscientific to believe in #2.  Even if #1 turns out to
     be right.
 
     In fact, most physicists would bet on #2 first..."
 
This is VERY IMPORTANT, so let's go over the answers carefully:
 
Thermodynamics is "more sacred" because it is more fundamental, older, and FAR
more tested and proven than nuclear physics. As a general rule, when
scientific theories have to be revised, the oldest, best proved theories stay,
and the new ones are modified. Science generally works on a First In Last Out
(FILO) basis.
 
Let me spell this out carefully:
 
Conventional calorimetry is based upon two things: the second law of
thermodynamics, and the specific heat of water (not the heat of vaporization).
Both of these go back to the early 1800's, both have been tested in countless
thousands of experiments, and both are fundamental to all of modern physics
and chemistry.
 
Furthermore, if you want to revise these two sufficiently to explain CF, you
cannot get away with a tiny, marginal revision. You cannot show, for example,
that the specific heat of water varies by 0.0001% under some conditions of
pressure and temperature. (Actually, I suppose it probably does). No indeed,
you have to show that it is off by a factor of 10! You have to show that it
wanders around at random in certain electrochemical cells, and you have to
reconcile this fact to the knowledge that the specific heat of water has NEVER
been observed to change by this magnitude in ANY OTHER calorimetric system
since the dawn of modern science. That is a difficult task.
 
Getting back to the first point, thermodynamics and specific heat are deep
within the foundations of modern science, whereas nuclear M&T are not. Nuclear
M&T just arrived on the scene, and has only been done extensively in plasmas,
not condensed matter. If you pull out the pillars of thermodynamics; if you
suddenly determine that the specific heat constant is drastically wrong, you
shake down the whole house of science! Everything goes, from Lavoisier and
Watt, up to the present day. Revising nuclear M&T slightly, around the
margins, for a special case in condensed matter is a minor operation compared
to this.
 
I doubt that "most physicists would bet on #2 first." If they do, however,
they will stand alone in this world, because I guarantee that every single
chemist, thermal engineer, industrial engineer, biologist, biochemist,
electrochemist, factory technician, oven designer, farmer, food scientist,
airconditioner technician, and every other human being who understands and
uses thermodynamics will stick with the older, more proven science of the 18th
century. If you are going to change the specific heat of water by a factor of
10, your have a tough row to hoe.
 
Cold fusion is proven. It is fact. It is based upon theories and laws of
science that are far more solid, and far more tested than any Johnny-come-
lately 20th century nuclear science. It is based up instruments, theories and
laws that were tried-and-true "old hat" 50 years before x-rays were even
discovered. The presence or lack of x-rays can never make one iota of
difference to the reality of cold fusion. X-rays may ultimately help define
what the origin of the heat is, but nothing will ever make that heat evidence
go away, and nothing will ever bring the heat back down 5 or 6 orders of
magnitude, to put it into the range of chemistry. You cannot put the Genie
back in the bottle. You must explain it, you cannot dismiss it.
 
Furthermore, you cannot do what Steve Jones is attempting to do: separate the
heat from the other evidence (tritium, neutrons and so on). This is a gross
violation of Hume's casualty and of Ockham's razor. The non-chemical heat and
the nuclear products appear together, as often as sunlight and warmth, or
smoke and fire. It is absurd to suggest that there is no causal relationship
between them. There simply MUST BE some complex casualty at work. It flies in
the face of logic, science, and common sense to suggest that they are not
related, and not mutually supportive. Both are indisputable evidence of a
nuclear or other non-chemical reaction.
 
 
Matt also says: "True no chemical means could store the energy excess
reported, but small accounting errors can accumulate."
 
This is incorrect. Most CF experiments are not subject to small accounting
errors. They generate watts of heat, or tens, or hundreds of watts. There can
be no "small accounting error" when measuring such gross, large quantities. A
60 watt excess is as clear and obvious as a 6 million watt excess would be.
Any ordinary laboratory scale designed to measure up to 10 kg can measure 1
kilogram of weight, plus minus a few grams. No "small accounting error" could
possibly make 1 kilogram look like 2 kilograms on that scale; you could not
generate such a large error even if you tried. Any ordinary calorimeter
designed to measure up to 10 watts can measure 1 watt with the same kind of
assurance your laboratory scale measures 1 kilogram. A 1989 style CF
experiment that generates only milliwatts of heat could be subject to small
accounting errors.
 
 
Matt asks:
 
"By the way, I assume that the thermodynamical experiments are done in the
dark, just to make sure that light absorption plays no role...this is
correct?"
 
Some cells are in darkness, some are in ordinary light, and some are in bright
lights to allow time-lapse video pictures. It makes no difference whatsoever.
With ordinary calorimetry, you cannot even measure the effects of light, and
it NEVER, EVER contributes 60 watts, or even one watt.
 
 
Try this experiment Matt: Put 100 ml of water in a test tube, with a mercury
thermometer. Put the test tube in dark room for an hour, and check the
temperature. Now move it to the brightest room in your house, and focus enough
light on it to allow a nice, clear video picture. Does the temperature of the
water rise measurably? Perhaps it does, but it will not go up from 45 C to
boiling, the way P&F's or Forsley's did. If that could happen, people in
television studios would be cooked and killed by the light, because after all,
people are made out of water. I might enjoy watching some of these late night
talk show hosts get cooked by the klieg lights, but I assure you it never
happens.
 
Please remember that CF is not a tiny, marginal effect. Do not try to
"explain" it by pointing to tiny, marginal things like light on water.
Remember: you have a device 12.5 mm X 3 mm -- the size of a small nail -- and
it is generating so much heat, it boils away a small cup of water in 10
minutes. Take an ordinary nail, and heat it over your stove until it is red
hot, and then drop it into a small cup of water. It will cool down almost
instantly, and the water temperature will hardly rise at all. That gives you a
sense of the magnitude of the reaction.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  Mossbauer, lattices, and CNF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mossbauer, lattices, and CNF
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 17:28:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      (Mitchell Swartz responds to Paul Karol)
 
  In Message-ID: <0fdYEby00UhWQ6Rkhp@andrew.cmu.edu>; 3/16/93
                        Subject: Mossbauer, lattices, and CNF
     Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
===  "There seems to have been several references to the Mossbauer
===  Effect where the lattice causes behavior not usually ascribable
===   to reactions among isolated species."
 
  It was cited as an example of the existence of unusual behavior
   in at least one lattice-coupled-species which was  not ascribable
   to reactions among the isolated form of said species.
 
 
===  "However, even in a good Mossbauer system, only 5-10% of the gamma
===  intensity is involved, yet with the cold fusion lattice
===   explanation(s), 100% of the conventional branches have been
===   suppressed.  Is the Mossbauer Effect  nevertheless being cited as an
===  example where lattice effects explain the (near) *total* disappearance
===   of previously dominating processes?"
 
  Very well stated.  True, nearly true, and no.
  Clearly, another explanation remains needed for the
   near-total disappearance of neutrons and apparently-peri- or
     sub-commensurate levels of other products.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  an1060@anon.pe /  SuperStrings
     
Originally-From: an1060@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SuperStrings
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 15:55:23 GMT
Organization: Anonymous contact service

 
 
 
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.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
*IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update@anon.penet.fi for details.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenan1060 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  Forty years? That's nothing
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Forty years? That's nothing
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 19:47:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

(Mitchell Swartz responds to Chris Phoenix)
 
  In Message-ID: <C403CL.6Jo@efi.com>; Date: 16 Mar 93;
                 Sub: Re: Forty years? That's nothing!
Chris Phoenix   (chrisp@efi.com) writes:
 
===   "By the way, Mitchell Swartz, you are now on my kill list.
===   Even I can tell that you are either uninformed and stupid,
===   or deliberately writing things you know are wrong.  And your debating
===  style is almost a stereotype from alt.[sex flame etc] flame wars.
===  Either way, I don't care to waste my time on your postings.  I wish
===   you hadn't found this group."
===   --
===  "7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity."
===         -- _Turbo C Reference Guide Version 2.0_"
 
  Chris,  I failed to follow your other shots at people but ought
        probably give closer attention now.
 
  What do you mean by a "kill list" [Mr. Chris Phoenix  chrisp@efi.com,
                                            415-286-8581]?
 
   You seem to be a man of quite high refinement who
 confesses to enjoying "alt.[sex-flame-wars" and is keen to repeatedly post
  "the resonant frequency of a chicken skull" [empty? full?
 beta-lathyritic?].   I am "thrilled" that you are really getting to
 "know" all there is to know about greasy poultry parts.
    [Sounds like a real brain trust - are you gov't funded?]
 
   Your post declares you uninformed and sophomoric.
   On the other hand, my posts contained reasonable questions and were
 grounded in science.
 
   Since you question my science ability let me take this time to calculate
  the estimated  resonant skull frequency of our resident
  expert-on-chicken-skulls and alt-sex-flame-wars: Chris Phoenix.
 
 
  1)  We assume you will provide no details as to the chicken(s) you have
been sequestering, or your own medical records.
 
  2)  We assume the resonant frequency goes as sqr(K/M).  Please check
 an elementary mechanics book (Hooke's and Newton's laws) if you have
 questions.
 
       K is the spring constant, and M is the mass.
           (we will ignore E=mc^2 terms, OK?).
 
   Mp is the mass of Chris' Phoenix's skull and Mc the chicken's skull.
 
  3)  We assume Chris' data is correct for the resonant frequency of one
chicken skull cavity.  Chris also failed to give the details of
 dispersions, sex, age, nutritional status, genotype, variability and
systematic errors, possible copper deficiency, or even the presence of
 beta-aminoproprionitrile which does make a difference.
 
  4)  Let's assume that  Mp/Mc=100 since I am neither a farmer nor care
to inquire.  Also this ratio makes the square-root easy and is probably
 right within an order of magnitude.
 
  5)  Let's assume also simple mechanics, linear relaxations, and for
 simplicity lets make K the same for the two different species.
 
 
  Resonant frequency chicken skull = omega-c = sqr (K/Mchicken) * A = 7 Hz
 
 estimated resonant requency
   of Chris Phoenix skull =  omega-cPhoenix = sqr (K/Mphoenix) * A
 
      est. omega-cPhoenix =  sqr (K/Mchicken) * 1/10 * A
 
  That gives an estimate as 0.7 Hz as the resonant frequency of Dr. Chris
   Phoenix's skull.  Not very accurate, but you must admit that it was
   non-invasive.
 
  Best wishes on your next chicken pot pie.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / David Seghers /  Re: fusion@zorch posters, please ID at top!
     
Originally-From: seghers@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion@zorch posters, please ID at top!
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 01:37:28 GMT
Organization: HP Response Center Lab

Thanks very much for looking at this, and you are probably correct
that the problem is with our news reader.  What's weird is zorch is
the only machine this happens with.  Oh well, I will try to find the
right person in HP to fix this...  and they'll change it just for me.
(I've always been good at wishful thinking!)
 
Thanks again for maintaining this access!
 
David Seghers
 
*********************************************************************
My opinions are my own, and no one else's!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenseghers cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Mike Jamison /  Re: White House INTERNET Address?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: White House INTERNET Address?
Date: 17 Mar 93 20:44:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1ns1jk$7ud@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, UJ92@DKAUNI2.BITNET writes...
>
>> From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
>> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>> Subject: White House INTERNET Address?
>> Date: 7 Mar 93 01:34:16 GMT
>> Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA
>> Lines: 6
>>
>> Does anyone in this newsgroup know if the White House has an
>> INTERNET address? Is there any other E-mail address for them?
>> Compuserve, maybe?
>>
>>                                         THANKS IN ADVANCE,              JLG
>>
>Hi!
>I've found following  message in the SOC.POLITICS newsgroup:
>========================================================================
>Message-ID: <"92-12-20-06:47:45.76*RZ45"@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
>Date:    Sun, 20 Dec 92 06:47
>From:  "Clinton/Gore '92" <soc-politics@DKAUNI2.BITNET>
>To:               $SOPOL@DKAUNI2.BITNET
>Subject: CLINTON: Mailbox unattended from 12/22 to 1/4
>
>Path: rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!think.com!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!
>hri.com!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
>From: Clinton-HQ@campaign92.org (Clinton/Gore '92)
>Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,soc.politics
>Subject: CLINTON: Mailbox unattended from 12/22 to 1/4
>Message-ID: <1992Dec20.033247.24366@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
>Date: 20 Dec 92 03:32:47 GMT
>Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
>Followup-To: alt.activism.d
>Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
>Lines: 29
>Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
>Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
>Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
>Xref: rz.uni-karlsruhe.de misc.activism.progressive:10005 soc.politics:59
>
>Season's Greetings and Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!
>
>Thank you for your messages to the Office of the President-elect.
>This mailbox will be unattended from December 22, 1992 until January 4th,
>1993.  Please try again after January 4th.  If you prefer, you may send
>hardcopy messages to the address below:
>
>   The U. S. Mail address for the Clinton/Gore Transition Team is:
>
>        Office of the President-Elect
>        Atkins Building
>        105 West Capital Street,  Suite 400
>        Little Rock,  Arkansas   72201
>
>        Telephone: (501) 374-3322
>
>
>Regards,
>Jock Gill
>Public Access Email
>Office of the President-Elect
>75300.3115@compuserve.com
>
>
>Distribution:
>  Clinton Volunteers >internet:clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org
>  Clinton News >internet:c-news-distr@campaign92.org
>  Clinton Economy >internet:clinton-economy-distr@campaign92.org
>  Clinton Foreign >internet:c-foreign-distr@campaign92.org
>
> ==================================================================
> And this was the whole message. I hope you can extract the requiered
> information of it.
>             Bye,   Alberto
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>    ALBERTO ARBELO, ALIAS: ALBA OR DULCINEA
>    EARN/BITNET:    UJ92@DKAUNI2.BITNET
>    INTERNET:       UJ92@RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
>    X.400:          UJ92@IBM3090.RZ.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DBP.DE
>    +++  E-MAIL ME ... +++
 
 
The March 1st, 1993 Government Computer News gives the following addresses
for White House:
 
Compuserve:  75300,3115
 
America Online:  Clinton PZ
 
For Internet, the address:
 
clinton-info@campaign92.org
 
is given as an address for "signing up" for info.  According to the article:
 
"We only publish to subscribers," and "We don't want to inundate people.
A lot of it's pretty mundane, but if you're interested, you get it quickly."
 
Guess I don't have to add any comments to that :-)
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Going to Japan
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Going to Japan
Date: 17 Mar 93 14:58:23 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,
I depart for Japan where I will discuss muon-catalyzed fusion (primarily)
early Saturday March 20.  So I will not be available to comment on the net
from March 19 until about March 30.
My thanks to those who have provided supportive or insightful comments.
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Mar17.144059.514@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar17.144059.514@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 93 15:09:31 -0700

cancel <1993Mar17.144059.514@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to E. Mallove/No X-rays?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to E. Mallove/No X-rays?
Date: 17 Mar 93 15:33:19 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

{Steven Jones responding to Eugene Mallove}
 
Eugene Mallove writes:
"Jones demands to be shown X-rays as proof of excess heat, if it has a nuclear
origin.  He knows full well that there are theories involving nuclear reactions
that do not require said x-rays.  So what's your game, Steve?"  ("Posting", 15
March 1993)
 
Indeed, there are theories positing "no X-rays associated with nuclear
reactions inside metals" that I (and others) have challenged
openly on this net, providing reasons for not accepting those "theories."
Perhaps you would like to respond?  Perhaps you should pay more attention to
what has recently been said here?  Just because a few have put forth theories
does not mean that those theories are correct or that we must refrain from
critically examining their ideas.
 
Two papers provide published reasons why I disagree with these "theories" you
mention:
1.  "Nuclear reactions in deuterided solids versus excess heat claims,"
Fusion Technology 20: 915-923 (Dec. 1991).
2.  "Current issues in cold fusion research:  heat, helium, tritium and
energetic particles," Surface and C. Tech. 51:283-289 (1992).
 
My game is a search for the truth of the matter.  Read my publications before
you assume otherwise.
 
While we're communicating, Eugene, please explain your claim of the existence of
"strong presumptive evidence that the basis for the excess power may be
nuclear", and particularly in the case of light-water experiments.  To me,
"presumptive" is contradictory to "strong evidence".  Which is it?
(The quotation comes from your book, page 253.)
 
--Steven Jones
 
P.S. --  Article #2 above details reasons why helium-production claims of the
China
Lake group (mentioned recently again by Dieter) are *not* solid.  Note in
particular that studies showing probable helium contamination in the
*glass* vessels used by the China Lake group, were performed by Dr. Nate Hoffman
et al. at Rockwell International.  It seems that my reminders of such
research irks some, but the fact remains that Hoffman et al. concluded that
contamination was the probable cause of the helium measured by the China
Lake team.  Hopefully the China Lake group (like Yamaguchi and others) will
welcome the careful checking by others and refine their measurements.  That
is the process of science. -- SJ
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Mar17.150843.516@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar17.150843.516@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 93 15:33:48 -0700

cancel <1993Mar17.150843.516@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Chuck Sites /  cancel <1993Mar17.064941.19726@coplex.com>
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar17.064941.19726@coplex.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 22:13:52 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

cancel <1993Mar17.064941.19726@coplex.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook FarmREAD/NEXT
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook FarmREAD/NEXT
Date: 17 Mar 93 09:47:50 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

(Gary Collins comments on Jed Rothwell's diatribe)
 
In article <930316191607_72240.1256_EHL82-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
> ...
> When a person's interests are threatened, or a person's world view is in
> danger, he will often resort to absurd, chaotic, psychological "defense
> mechanisms," rationalizations, and other attempts to evade the truth. ...
 
Such distasteful contributions as this do not belong in this discussion
group or anywhere else I can think of.  Jed ought to be ashamed of himself.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / mitchell swartz /  Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 04:47:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   (Mitchell Swartz responds to Steven Jones)
 
   In [Message-ID: <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>; Sub: Re:
      Kucherov/Followup to Swartz]   Steven Jones writes:
 
  Steve.  Thank you for the detailed scientific response.
 
===   "1.  The Kucherov experiment was repeated in three places ..."
 
    All right.  When my desk is clean, I will review all the available data
    and papers, think about it, and comment.  I agree with your
    comments on efficiencies, and importance of full energy spectrum
    and calibration curves.  This deserves more time when available.
    If you can make any of the additional papers available I would
    greatly appreciate it.
 
 
===  "3.  It was the paper that claimed that Fig. 8 represented
===  "diffraction" spots.  I commented that Prof. Van Fleet here, an expert
===   in the field, found nothing showing that "diffraction" was involved."
 
   Who is not answering a question, Steve?  This is fundamental is it not?
   Was the x-ray pattern a "diffraction patttern" thereby representing:
          -- reciprocal space ---
 
    or was it a spatial recording thereby representing:
          -- actual space ---
 
    Maybe I am way off, what with translational problems and the fact
   that this field is hypercomplex, but was it  an actual space
   autoradiograph or a Fourier series reciprocal space diffraction pattern
   obtained with the palladium sample irradiated by a second incident beam?
 
   The paper makes the spatial (actual) space imaging seem what was done:
 
>    "To determine the spatial distribution of the gamma emission we used
>  RT-1V X-ray films with lead screens. ...  Using the same X-ray film with
>  aluminum and lead screens X-rays with diffraction spots can be seen
>  (fig. 8)." [from  Karabut & Kucherov, Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265)]
 
   Steve, since you spoke with him, and apparently copied his experiment
    which was it?  Could you let us know, please?  Does Prof. Van Fleet
    do autoradiography or Laue spectroscopy, etc.?
 
 
===   "5.  The experiment in China which you cite as "confirming" ... "
 
    The post read "apparently confirmed".  You are correct about the
       differences in configuration.  Apparent means: "open to view".
       That is what was reported.  I have not personally confirmed the
       reports.  Thank you for the opportunity to correct this.
 
 
===  "7.  The X-ray rate claimed by Kucherov et al. was obtained as
===   follows: "The X-ray intensity was evaluated by densitometry of
===  the exposed films."
 
   I know some people here hate it when differentials or dimensional
   analysis are corrected but:
    The rate would be the derived intensity
       [(sic) actually time-integral of the processed exposure]
         divided by the machine time (assuming linear output).
 
 
===  "8. The Kucherov claims of charged particles with up to 18 MeV and
===   neutrons up to 17 MeV are, to me, great cause to doubt their claims.
===    How do they explain such high energies?  These energies are, in
===   particular, impossible from d-d fusion."
 
      Can't speak for them.  But one evolving internal model is:
 
      d + d +? + ?d + ------>  He-4 + phonons +  ..
 
      as one possible explanation.   As my postings mentioned from 1992
    Q may be >22 MeV which could be consistent with these reports if it
    were true, couldn't it?  Only the relevant part of the 1992 table is
    below:
 
==         CALCULATION OF STANDARD ASH PRODUCED
==  "It is instructive to consider with this standardized and
==  normalized ash rate an alternate derivation from Frank's.
==    Because an electron volt is about 1.6 x 10 ^-16 Joules,
==   each Watt-minute requires  60/1.6 x 10**13  reactions/per MeV
==                                                 per reaction
== the expected energy gain of CF (that is, total energy
==  released per reaction [QT]).
==    "The reasonable range of QT would therefore be 3 to 24 MeV per
==  reactions producing putative ash.
==   So, dividing into the above equation yields
==     1 Watt-minute --->   1.7 to 12.5 x 10 ** 13 reactions."
== ----------------------------------------------------------
== | QT |  REACTION NUMBER  |         TYPICAL RANGE         |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 1  | 6,250,000,000,000 |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 2  | 3,125,000,000,000 |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 3  | 2,083,333,333,333 |    Advanced D-D fuel cyles"    |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 20 |  312,500,000,000  |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 22 |  284,090,909,091  |    Putative D-D reactions     |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 25 |  250,000,000,000  |    Catalyzed 3He reactions    |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 28 |  223,214,285,714  |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== Disclaimer:  These numbers were generated with only 2 significant
==   figures, and should be ignored beyond that.
==        # [60,000 joules/ QT=22]
==           = .28 * 10 ^ 12  =  1.4 * 10 ^ 16.
==                      [M. Swartz  1992]
 
 
==   "Do you agree that the presence or absence of sufficient X-rays is a
==  critical test for the claim that xs heat is nuclear [not necessarily
==  d-d fusion] in origin?"
 
     The presence or absence of X-rays is a critical test for
     the presence or absence of X-rays either from, or secondary
     to, reaction(s) in a metal lattice.
 
   Steve, you keep trying to push me on this.  An electron beam from
     a linear accelerator (my favorite are 4 to 25 MeV) can
     generate x-rays if it does impinge  upon a target, but it does not
     imply nuclear origins.  Does it?
 
 
===  "Back to Mitchell:  I have reviewed postings over the last several
===   weeks and find that I, Dick Blue, Gary Collins, and Matt Kennel in
===  particular have repeatedly shown why X-rays must accompany *nuclear*
===  reactions in a metal lattice."
 
   I respectfully disagree.  You gave many good examples which
 generate x-rays.  The did not prove it necessarily must occur in
 a lattice, if it begins in a lattice.
  Since I enjoy mathematical derivations I looked
 forward seeing how you derived this from E=mc^2 as your past post
 indicated; or for any derivation at all as re: cold fusion.
 
   Best wishes.
 
     Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / mitchell swartz /  black holes?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: black holes?
Date: 18 Mar 93 04:48:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

(Mitchell Swartz replies to Steven Jones)
 
  In Message-ID: <1993Mar16.193052.511@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Black holes?,  Steve Jones wrote:
 
=--  'if Dr. Matsumoto's reported black holes are real perhaps some of the
=--   ashes are not accessible.'
===  "Note that you used "ashes" but later objected when others used the
===   term."
 
   I have used the word "ash" many times before.  For example,
 when I calculated the expected ash-production rate:
 
==  "It is instructive to consider with this standardized and
==  normalized ash rate an alternate derivation from Frank's.
==    Because an electron volt is about 1.6 x 10 ^-16 Joules,
==   each Watt-minute requires  60/1.6 x 10**13  reactions/per MeV
==                                                 per reaction
== the expected energy gain of CF (that is, total energy
==  released per reaction [QT]).
==    "The reasonable range of QT would therefore be 3 to 24 MeV per
==  reactions producing putative ash.
==   So, dividing into the above equation yields
==     1 Watt-minute --->   1.7 to 12.5 x 10 ** 13 reactions."
== ----------------------------------------------------------
== | QT |  REACTION NUMBER  |         TYPICAL RANGE         |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 1  | 6,250,000,000,000 |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 2  | 3,125,000,000,000 |                               |
== -----------------------------------------------------
== | 3  | 2,083,333,333,333 |    Advanced D-D fuel cyles"    |
 ----------------------------------------------------
                [after M. Swartz 1992]
 
   As I became more aware of the denotations of "ash", my hope has been to
       share this knowledge with this most erudite group.
   I am not objecting, but pushing for ever more informative and
       descriptive terms.
 
 
=== "Do you attach any credence to the black-holes--cold
===   -fusion connection?"
 
  If you could elaborate more on the connection, if any, perhaps I, or we,
could respond.  Dr. Matsumoto appears to be a dedicated writer, doesn't he?
 His articles appear almost every month in Fusion Technology.   I have not
 fully either integrated, nor explained, his purported results, although
 I am fortunate to have a few enlarged photographs.
 
 
===    "If not, why did you mention this theory?"
 
   Mainly to include all that had been published (which I had read).
 
 
===    "In this model, would not X-rays be produced as matter entered the
===    black hole?"
 
    Good point.  Have you told Prof. Matsumoto about your sensitive equip.?
 
 
===    "Why does not the entire lattice, etc., etc., get "gobbled up" by
===     the alleged black holes in the lattice?"
 
  Good question, Steve.  Please direct to Prof. Matsumoto and let us know
      his response.  He does cover some of this in his articles but
      I remain in no position to speak either for him and/or his work.
 
  Best wishes.
 
    Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.17 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: 17 Mar 93 20:00:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

>Manufacturers never make money selling products that don't exist, or don't
>work. Nothing on earth teaches true from false; correct from mistaken; and
>practical from impractical better than the marketplace. You can never fool
>the customers for long.
 
Oh come, now, Jed! This is obvious bullshit. Fast operators have been
making money selling both awful and non-existent products since the dawn of
time. All it takes is a smooth, capable tongue and a generous supply of
chutzpah. Just make sure of your escape route.
 
(A good read: The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible!, by Otto Bettman.)
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / Dieter Britz /  Mobility of He in Pd
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mobility of He in Pd
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 14:55:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Orig. Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins
 
>(Gary Collins comments on Dieter Britz's statement about He diffusion in Pd)
 
>In article <6689860C59BF20879C@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>> ...
>> My problem is that the helium was found in the gas evolved. Now why would
>> that be? ...
>> Now we know that at the temperatures in a CNF cell, He
> is quite immobile in Pd, so how come it is seen in the evolved gas? ...
 
>Your statement that He is immobile in Pd at room temperature may well
>be wrong, Dieter.  In high-purity copper, which as you know has the same
>crystal structure as Pd, researchers I know at the University of Konstanz
>showed that He diffuses already at 25K   [see "Migration of Helium Atoms in
>Copper at 25 K", Th. Wichert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 726.]
>Since Pd has a larger lattice parameter than Cu, I would expect diffusion
>of He in Pd to occur at least as readily.
 
>Thus, the China Lake results may not address the question of where the
>nuclear reactions take place (if anywhere).
 
Yes, and the statement could well be right. Offhand, I can't remember exactly
where, but I have read in several places that He is as good as immobile in Pd,
and requires temperatures around 1000 K to start to come out. I'll pursue
this. Meanwhile, maybe you have access to a recent book by one Laesser (i.e.
La"sser) called "Tritium and Helium 3 in Metals", Springer, 1990. The nearest
source to me seems to be in London, a bit hard to get. I suspect this book
will have some information.
 
As to Cu, the above argument would also imply, would it not, that Cu should
absorb a lot of hydrogen? Which it doesn't. I really must get hold of Fukai's
book, the most recent on hydrogen in metals.
 
Another question, however, might be the mobility of helium in Pd deuteride;
this could, in principle, be quite different from the pure metal, not to
mention all the cracks and voids in it. Still, it would have been more
satisfactory if the China Lake people had sent their Pd rods for He analysis
at the end as well (and tritium, of course; although this IS mobile in the
stuff, diffusion is still a rather slow process, as evidenced by the long
charging times needed for chunky Pd cathodes).
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Blue. Req for your proof
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Blue. Req for your proof
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 04:21:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <00969B4C.D0AE44E0.5199@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: Special Pleading; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
===   "Mitchell Swartz's question(s me why) I don't "knock the negatives,
===  too."  My reply is that while I have never bothered to say so,
===  there are clearly several experiments show no cold fusion that
===  contribute little or nothing to the argument.  There is,
===  however, no particular significance in that because this is not
===  an opinion poll in which positives and negatives are counted to
===  get a net vote of yea or nay."
 
    Are there two good "negative" experiments you will hang
      your "hat on" and put on the "chopping block"?  One free of
      all criticism?
 
 
===   "You repeatedly assert that the failure of the various confirming
===   measurements has no significance simply because some unspecified
===   effect suppresses all observables that have been proposed."
 
  Did not say that.  All good experiments have significance.  They may
    not confirm your theory, but each is important if well done.  Also,
    I think theory must match experiment.
 
 
===  "I say there should be lots of neutrons.  You say not."
 
  Half correct.  I say: Where is your proof that there "must be lots
     of neutrons"?
 
 
===  "Steven Jones says there should be lots of X-rays.  You say no reason
===   to expect X-rays."
 
  Half correct.  I say: Where is your proof that there "must be X-rays".
 
 
===   "I say nuclear reaction processes are well understood in all types of
===   matrices, and you pretend solids are uncharted territory."
 
    I do not claim to know everything.  Do you?   Who could have
  predicted we would be here today a decade ago?
 
    In fact, all the metallurgy, materials science, electrochemistry,
  thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, physics, and chemistry did
  apparently not prepare us for what is happening in CF.
    That does not mean than any of the above must be wrong, but there are
  uncharted territories.   This week visible bacteria were reported found
  in the Red Sea.   Last year that was unthinkable.   Last decade so were
  the worms on the ocean floor.   And those were just living systems.
  Given that diversity alone, do you really think you know all? I don't.
 
    Best wishes.
 
        Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Blue. Req for your proof
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Blue. Req for your proof
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 05:19:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C44C3x.5uw@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <00969B4C.D0AE44E0.5199@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>   Subject: Special Pleading; Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993
>Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
>
>===   "Mitchell Swartz's question(s me why) I don't "knock the negatives,
>===  too."  My reply is that while I have never bothered to say so,
>===  there are clearly several experiments show no cold fusion that
>===  contribute little or nothing to the argument.  There is,
>===  however, no particular significance in that because this is not
>===  an opinion poll in which positives and negatives are counted to
>===  get a net vote of yea or nay."
>
>    Are there two good "negative" experiments you will hang
>      your "hat on" and put on the "chopping block"?  One free of
>      all criticism?
 
     It's pretty obvious where this is heading, but this is science,
     not law.  There will never be a 'definitive' negative experiment
     in this case since even the proponents seem to agree we are dealing
     with a mysterious effect.  There's always you forgot to put
     in salt (a), or you failed to use current (b), or you failed to
     account for unobservable reaction pathway (c), or you failed to perform
     it during full moon (d) or you failed to wave crucifix (e).
     Life is not long enough to control all the possible observables.
 
     The focus should certainly remain on 'positive' experiments,
     at least until everyone tires of doing or discussing them.
     Negatives don't tell us much except that people could be doing
     the positives wrong.  This is true of all experiments, and
     we should have known that already.
 
>    In fact, all the metallurgy, materials science, electrochemistry,
>  thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, physics, and chemistry did
>  apparently not prepare us for what is happening in CF.
>    That does not mean than any of the above must be wrong, but there are
>  uncharted territories.   This week visible bacteria were reported found
>  in the Red Sea.   Last year that was unthinkable.   Last decade so were
>  the worms on the ocean floor.   And those were just living systems.
>  Given that diversity alone, do you really think you know all? I don't.
 
     Bacteria in the Red Sea?  Just living systems?  Why do you
     find the presence of life anywhere on or in the crust surprising?
     I wouldn't even be shocked by bacteria in the upper mantle.
     I think you've stretched the 'uncharted territory' substantially.
     What you're asking is to find Atlantis in the middle of New York City.
 
     I'd find that quite shocking.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / L BATTIN /  Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 17:30:31 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>,
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes...
>  (Contribution from Steven Jones/BYU)
>
>I apologize that the debate with Mitchell Swartz is becoming multi-level
>and may be hard to follow.
>Let me therefore begin by summarizing salient points:
 
And, in true Internet style, let me run off at a tengent to one of your
points  [ :-) ]
 
[snip, snip...]
 
I would like to pick a minor nit about one of your points.
 
>8. The Kucherov claims of charged particles with up to 18 MeV and neutrons up
>to 17 MeV are, to me, great cause to doubt their claims.  How do they explain
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>such high energies?  These energies are, in particular, impossible from
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>d-d fusion.
 
I would have thought that, properly speaking, if the Kucherov paper is not
a theoretical paper, but, rather, a report of experimental results,
they would _not_ be under any obligation to "explain" their observations.
 
Although, when reporting any anomalous results, it would be _nice_ to try
and present an explanation, the report of results should stand or fall on
its own merits as an observation, not on whether the observers are good
theoreticians.
 
If I simply report that, under conditions A I see phenomenon B, your surprise
at the occurance of B (due to your better understanding of the currently
accepted theories applicable to condition A) has _no_ bearing on whether or
not B actually occured.  The only criterion that _will_ judge the validity of a
new observation is the answer the question, "Did you _really_ see what you
thought they saw?"
 
This question is properly answered by looking in detail at the methodology
used, not by comparing the "Seen" with theory.  This makes it harder to
rigorously "debunk" pathological work, (and for a layman makes it almost
impossible sometimes.)
 
Thus, people adopt such shortcuts as underlined above.  I just wanted to point
out that the undelined above _is_ a shortcut and is not , technically,
a "point" for _or_ against Kucherov.  It's merely a re-wording of "Hey!
What the heck is going on here? This isn't what I'd have expected!"
Whether this is lightning striking or just a flash in the pan will depend
on how good the observation was, not its likelyhood.
 
 
_Gene Battin
battin@vemnus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / L BATTIN /  Re: Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 18:25:49 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <C42InC.Jut@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes...
>   (Mitchell Swartz responds to Steven Jones)
 
[snip, snip...]
 
>
>   In [Message-ID: <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>; Sub: Re:
>      Kucherov/Followup to Swartz]   Steven Jones writes:
>
>
>===  "3.  It was the paper that claimed that Fig. 8 represented
>===  "diffraction" spots.  I commented that Prof. Van Fleet here, an expert
>===   in the field, found nothing showing that "diffraction" was involved."
>
>   Who is not answering a question, Steve?  This is fundamental is it not?
>   Was the x-ray pattern a "diffraction patttern" thereby representing:
>          -- reciprocal space ---
>
>    or was it a spatial recording thereby representing:
>          -- actual space ---
 
You left out a _third_ possibility:
 
     was it a bad recording, thereby representing
           --error space ---
 
The mechanism that generates such errors has been described more than once
now, and you seem to want to ignore it.  Why is that?
 
 
[snip, snip...]
 
>
>   I respectfully disagree.  You gave many good examples which
> generate x-rays.  The did not prove it necessarily must occur in
                                ^^^^^
> a lattice, if it begins in a lattice.
 
Science does not, and _can_ not "prove" ANYTHING.
For further elucidation of this point, I refer you to the last 10 zillion
or so posts in talk.origins.
 
Just thought you'd like to know.
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / L BATTIN /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 19:00:59 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <1632@lyman.pppl.gov>,
bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott) writes...
>>Manufacturers never make money selling products that don't exist, or don't
>>work. Nothing on earth teaches true from false; correct from mistaken; and
>>practical from impractical better than the marketplace. You can never fool
>>the customers for long.
>
>Oh come, now, Jed! This is obvious bullshit. Fast operators have been
>making money selling both awful and non-existent products since the dawn of
>time. All it takes is a smooth, capable tongue and a generous supply of
>chutzpah. Just make sure of your escape route.
>
>(A good read: The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible!, by Otto Bettman.)
 
The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth", the
Marxist thinks its some sort of dialectic of history, the Monarchist thinks
the King can decree it, and the Religionist looks for a relevation; but only
the Scientist bothers to listen to Nature's own voice....
 
Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / mitchell swartz /  Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science is FILO
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 21:34:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  (from Mitchell Swartz re: minor correction)
 
  In Message-ID: <930317172528_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM>
    Subject: Science is FILO     Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993
Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com)  writes:
 
===   "Conventional calorimetry is based upon two things: the second
===    law of thermodynamics, and the specific heat of water (not the
===    heat of vaporization)."
 
   Jed, I respectfully submit that good calorimetry may require
the consideration of the heat of vaporization as follows.
 
     One must know the barometric pressure and the relative
     proportions of H2, D2, O2, etc. (dynamically to distinguish
                          amounts of "new" from "old" gas, as well)
 
    Second, although it has not been corrected for in the vast majority
    of posts watched here,  the vapor pressure of water must be
    subtracted in all calculations from the barometric pressure.
 
      eg. for light water at 37C this amounts to circa 47 torr.
 
     Does not the vapor pressure of water (light or heavy)
        depend on the ratio of the heat of vaporization and kB*T?
 
  Perhaps this was not reflected directly in your readings, but should
   it not be considered in the final calculations?
 
 
   I like your FILO rule-of-thumb.  Time to check the history books again.
 
    Best wishes.
 
                  Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Beware the 23rds of March
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beware the 23rds of March
Date: 18 Mar 93 14:21:07 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

A few notes from the March 1993 issue of "Fusion Facts" (Hal Fox) may be
of interest:
 
1.  M. Miles and B. Bush (China Lake) abstract of paper to Nagoya mtg.
proceedings states:  "Progress relating to helium measurements have been
hindered by difficulties in obtaining large excess power effects."
Meaning that they had not seen reportable excess heat for many months
prior to the Nagoya meeting:  Miles admitted this as I recall
 and showed only old results at the meeting.
 
2.  B. Yann Liaw et al. (U. Hawaii, Molten salt electrolysis), from
authors' abstract:  "The amount of 4He dected was not commensurate with the
excess heat according to known reaction mechanisms. ... Because the level of
helium content was small in magnitude, the possibility of
atmospheric contamination cannot be dismissed completely."
One appreciates their candor.
 
3.  Congressman Dick Swett (D-New Hampshire) stated to Energy Subcommittee of
the House Science, Space and Technology Committee (printed in Congressional
Record) on Feb. 16, 1993:
"I am particularly interested, however, in a field which is commonly referred
to as cold fusion.  Back in 1989, cold fusion first hit the media when
Pons and Fleischmann made their startling announcement....The DOE issued a
negative report, and cold fusion research has been languishing, at leat in this
country, ever since.  ...Japan has launched a substantial research effort, and
in this country, [EPRI] (respresented on today's panel) has undertaken a $12
million cold fusion research effort....I have recently received letters...
from Dr. Edmund Storms, a scientist at Los Alamos.. Another is from a
constituent of mine, Dr. Eugene Mallove... Both letters address the need for
increased government attention to cold fusion.
"Not being a scientist, I'm not in a position to evaluate the technical merit
of recent cold fusion research.  It does seem to me, however, that there exists
sufficient factual evidence to warrant another comprehensive scientific review
of cold fusion..."
"The mere possiblility that there may exist a new source of energy that
used water as a fuel
makes it too important to pass up."
 
We've heard the last argument about as often as "the heat is so large that it
cannot be chemical -- it must be nuclear."  I advise against selling your oil
wells just yet.
 
4.Internat. symp. on new energy:
April 15-18, Radisson Hotel, Denver
Topics:  Zero-point evergy
         Vortex mechanics
         Cold fusion
         Scalar wave theory
         Transmutation of elements
         N-machines
Examples of papers to be given:
      "Atomic energy balance of water using water as a new energy source,"
  by S. Meyer
      "Generation of cosmic energy and matter from absolute space (vacuum)"
  by P. Tewari.
      "The basics of Zero-point energy technology" by Moray King.
      "The dandelion puff principle based upon point energy creation physics"
  by M. Rodine
      "Cold fusion" by John Bockris.
      "Impact of cold fusion and other enhanced energy systems," by Hal Fox
      "Radioisotopic energy conversion utilizing a solid-state contract [sic]
  potential difference cell," P. Brown
      "Precision spark injection business opportunity," R. McAlister.
 
I wonder whether Jed Rothwell, Mitchell Swartz or Eugene Mallove will attend
the meeting and can report to us?
 
5.  From a letter from Jed Rothwell in same issue:
"It is only a matter of time before prototype cold fusion power generators are
demonstrated for all the world to see.  Gene Mallove and I have been hard at
work every day, conducting research, distributing information to researchers
and interested members of the public.  Many of our friends have achieved great
success; some have achieved high reproducibility, and others have 'boil-off
events' and other dramatic proof of the cold fusion effect. ... More workers
have measured clear, uninterrupted heat, particularly with the nickel-based
systems in light water. ...
 
"This year, there are signs that Congress is at last waking up. ..."
"When the fourth anniversary of the announcement comes, I expect there will be
some very positive publicity for cold fusion, particularly in the U.K."
 
Beware the 23rds of March.
 
Contributed by Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Mar18.134641.522@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Mar18.134641.522@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 93 14:22:14 -0700

cancel <1993Mar18.134641.522@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 23:29:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <C43Kwx.LoI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
  Thu, 18 Mar 1993; Subject: Re: Kucherov/ f.u. to Jones
Gene Battin (battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu) writes:
 
=== > Was the x-ray pattern a "diffraction patttern" thereby representing:
=== >          -- reciprocal space ---
=== >
=== > or was it a spatial recording thereby representing:
=== >          -- actual space ---
===
===    "You left out a _third_ possibility:
===
===     "was it a bad recording, thereby representing
===            --error space ---
===
===  "The mechanism that generates such errors has been described more
===   than once now, and you seem to want to ignore it.  Why is that?"
 
  Gene, you are correct.  There could be error.  And in either space.
 
   The question is: was it an autoradiographic image +/- error space
 
              or a reciprocal space diffraction pattern
                                              +/- error space.
 
  This does not excuse the fact that the possibility of errors were not
     included explicitly as you correctly point out.
 
  However, errors usually (to my knowledge) occur along with the
    measurement of some parameter.   You need an axis.  In this case:
 
              centimeters -or-   reciprocal centimeters.
 
     They are as dissimilar/but-linked as frequency and time.
 
                               Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Larry Wall /  the necessity of X-rays
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the necessity of X-rays
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 00:05:56 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

I don't believe we understand the relationship between the strong force
and the other forces sufficiently to make any categorical statement
purporting to constrain the locality of nuclear reactions, forever and
ever, amen.
 
Or have you guys come up with a TOE lately that I haven't heard about?
I might settle for a GUT.  Even a numerically tractable QCD would be
helpful in a pinch...
 
No?  Well then, we're all just arguing from statistics, aren't we?
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / Dieter Britz /  Dr. Swartz astonished
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Swartz astonished
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 15:13:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) (in reply to Gary
Collins):
 
>  First, we are astonished you think there is funding for cold fusion.
>       Do you have any in Washington state?
 
Here we (i.e. we readers, not just me) hear an echo of earlier complaints
about the lack of funding for CNF research; indeed, some have said that there
is no funding at all in the USA.
 
The above statement by Mitch made me realise where this myth might come from.
Now Mitch, you have said you are a radiologist, and your language shows clear
signs of a medical preoccupation (no, don't ask for proof, it doesn't matter).
First of all, there IS funding for CNF research in the USA. E.g. Miles et al,
who recently produced the China Lake paper, did not work in their kitchen, in
fact they acknowledge financial support from the Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division (Independent Research Funds) and the Robert A. Welch
Foundation. Since USA researchers, in order to do any work at all, must
attract grants, one may safely assume that in fact close to all the papers
on CNF from US labs have been funded in some way; and that amounts to quite
a bit of money.
 
What I have understood, from Mitch's remark, is that grants are being applied
for by people who would normally not get such grants, because they are not
seen to be within their area of expertise. Now, if I were to be asked to
referee a grant proposal for an electrochemical project, coming from a
radiologist, I would, at the very least, have my strong doubts. Granting
agencies do not tend to fund enthusiastic gentleman amateurs. Similarly, I
would be knocked back if I applied for money for a project within radiology,
no matter how sensible my proposal might be (it wouldn't be). No-funding
complaints have come from Jed Rothwell as well, who is no doubt a very
competent computer scientist (I think) or translator, and clearly an all-round
bright person - but neither a trained nuclear scientist nor an electrochemist.
If he has applied for research grants in CNF, I can understand why he might
have had problems (maybe he has not applied).
 
I am not trying to say that CNF is especially favoured; clearly it is not. I
remarked somewhere that Bockris, being Bockris, will always get whatever he
asks for, but have been told that this is not true for CNF research, even in
his case. What I don't like is the exaggerated statements seeming to say (or
in fact directly saying) that there is NO CNF funding to be had in the USA.
Because it isn't true.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Pathological Science Indeed
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pathological Science Indeed
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 01:36:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Bruce Scott recommends a superb book, "The Good Old Days, They Were
Terrible!," by Otto Bettman. This is available from the Smithsonian Museum
Bookstore.
 
Bruce comments: "Fast operators have been making money selling both awful and
non-existent products... Just make sure of your escape route."
 
Of course! But you did not read what I said. I phrased it very carefully:
 
     You can never fool the customers for long.
                                      ^^^^^^^^
As you say, when they find out you are a crook, you have to skip town. A scam
cannot last for long. The longest running scam in history is the Hot Fusion
program, which has been going on 40 years, and is expected to take another 50
years. But it has only continued because they are duping the government.
Private industry would never touch anything like HF with the fag end of a
barge poll. Look around, there is not a single private company willing to risk
HF research, but there are dozens of Japanese companies doing CF.
 
 
Dieter Britz asks about the video. If I had a copy, I would send him one, but
I don't. I will call up and hassle the people who make copies.
 
 
Gary S. Collins considers my statements about elementary psychology wicked,
distasteful and rude. Gary apparently grew up in the Victorian era, long
before Freud, when people thought it was sinful to think logically and
analytically about human emotions and thought processes. He says:
 
     "Such distasteful contributions as this do not belong in this discussion
     group or anywhere else I can think of..."
 
A remarkable throwback to 1850!
 
Let me point out something about this so-called cold fusion "debate," vis-a-
vis psychology. Since 1989, the "skeptics" have ascribed all positive results
to a phenomenon they call "pathological science." They assert that all
positive cold fusion results have nothing to do with science, and everything
to do with the imaginations, illusions, and the psychology of the workers. In
other words, it is the skeptics who have framed *this entire debate*, from the
first day, as a matter of psychology, rather than science.
 
This pseudo-psychology, this endless nonsense about "pathological science" is
a distasteful contribution that does not belong to any serious scientific
discussion. The "skeptics" like Mr. Collins, who make these statements, are
avoiding the scientific issues. They substitute emotionality, innuendo, and
character assassination for rationality and scientific logic. It is *they*,
not I, who are abusing the traditions of science, and misusing our precious
knowledge of human psychology.
 
I assert that there is practically no such thing as "pathological science."
Langmuir was not a psychologist, and not a historian of science, and his
thesis was greatly exaggerated and fundamentally flawed. At no time in the
history of science has any effect been measured in widely replicated
experiments, at high signal-to-noise ratios, but in the end found to be a
mistake. This cannot happen. It would violate the whole basis and principle of
experimental science. The nonsense about "pathological science" is based upon
a gross misreading of history, and gross ignorance of the scientific method.
It is being used as a shield, or a hiding place, to avoid the issues, and to
pretend that experimental evidence is not the key to scientific truth.
 
I assert that I know far more about psychology than these so-called "skeptics"
and that I am a far better judge of human nature than they are. If they are
going to go on, month after month, year after year, asserting that cold fusion
is based upon a psychological illusion in our minds, then I *certainly* have
the right to turn the tables, and point out that they suffer from incredible,
inexplicable, irrational illusions themselves, so they have no business
pointing fingers at us.
 
I assert that the only pathology in the field of cold fusion is that exhibited
by those bigoted, foolish, scientifically illiterate people who insist that
the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, who insist that calorimetry
does not exist, that the specific heat of water can vary by a factor of 10,
that a match can burn for a week, and that sigma 90 results mean nothing. This
is the worst pathology in the history of science.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Thermo vs Nuclear Measurements
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermo vs Nuclear Measurements
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 01:36:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell would have us think that thermodynamic experiments are better
because we have been doing them longer.  Wrong, Jed.
 
Suppose we take n grams of Radium and mix it in a ton of horse manure.  We
can choose to determine n by measuring the heat or the radiation evolved.
 
Note that the energy we are looking for is the same, as all the radiation
eventually shows up as heat.  (In a properly designed apparatus).
 
I submit that any freshman physics student could design an experiment to
determine n by nuclear means.
 
I doubt that any thermodynamic experiment could be designed to detect the
heat.
 
We have done nuclear experiments at the 10E38 (guess on proton decay) level,
about 10E2 is the best we can do with heat.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Special Pleading
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Special Pleading
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 01:37:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The question as to how we should assess the various "positive" and
"negative" cold fusion results clearly divides the believers from the
skeptics.  One illustration of that fact is Mitchell Swartz's question
to me ask why I don't "knock the negatives, too."  My reply is that
while I have never bothered to say so, there are clearly several experi-
ments show no cold fusion that contribute little or nothing to the
argument.  There is, however, no particular significance in that because
this is not an opinion poll in which positives and negatives are counted
to get a net vote of yea or nay.  The issue is the establishment of
cold fusion as a real phenomena involving a specified reaction or
set of reactions as the source of heat.  If the phenomena is real it
follows that some degree of replication should be possible, both within
one laboratory following a given protocol and at other laboratories
which follow the same protocol.  It also follows that it should be
possible predict other confirming observations and subject these
predictions to confirming tests in further related experiments.
It is in this latter regard that various "negative" results have
been most telling.  The advocates of cold fusion have adopted a
particular defensive posture which is a form of special pleading.
You repeatedly assert that the failure of the various confirming
measurements has no significance simply because some unspecified
effect suppresses all observables that have been proposed.  I
say there should be lots of neutrons.  You say not.  Steven Jones
says there should be lots of X-rays.  You say no reason to expect
X-rays.  I say nuclear reaction processes are well understood in all
types of matrices, and you pretend solids are uncharted territory.
We say nuclear reactions produce energetic ions which move through
the lattice and lose energy through collisions with electrons, and
you make some weird assertion about things being different for
ions starting in the lattice as opposed to those that come from
outside.  None of what you say has anything to support it beyond
something equivalent to: "It could happen!"
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Role of systematic errors
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Role of systematic errors
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 01:37:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a recent reply to me Mitchell Swartz makes the comment:
 
<< The ones we find most interesting are where all the 'systematic' >>
<< errors are 'positive'."                                          >>
 
I am not at all sure what this was intended to mean, but I think I see
in it a hint of some flawed thinking that may underlie some peoples
point of view with regard to experimental errors.  All the talk about
sigmas and how many sigmas a given measurement is away from zero has
meaning only within the context of certain statistical assumptions.
If you believe that a given measurement is part of an ensemble of results
that (should the measurement be repeated a sufficient number of times)
would fall in a gaussian distribution of width sigma centered about
the measured value as the best estimate of the correct outcome of the
experiment,  how many sigmas the result is from zero may seem like
a measure of how unlikely it is that zero is the true correct outcome.
Obviously this overlooks the possibility that there is a systematic
bias that keeps all the measurements on the positive side of zero.
Clearly a small sigma relative to the measured positive value does
nothing to insure that the positive result is nothing but an artifact
resulting from a faulty experiment.  There is no assurance whatsoever
that there exists a set of measurements with a negative bias that
is a match for a given positively biased results.  Hence it would
seem to me that Mitchell has admitted that he has selected as
true a set of experiments which has the positive bias.  In that
world cold fusion is clearly whatever you chose to make it.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Date: 18 Mar 1993 16:25:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930317172528_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>As a general rule, when scientific theories have to be revised, the oldest,
>best proved theories stay, and the new ones are modified.
 
Is that why Einstein's Special Relativity necessitated a major revision of
Newton's 17th Century Gravitation, but not of Maxwell's 19th Century
Electricity and Magnetism?  (I mean a revision of the fundamental equations,
not the abandonment of the necessity of the "lumeniferous ether".)
 
>Most CF experiments are not subject to small accounting
>errors. They generate watts of heat, or tens, or hundreds of watts. There can
>be no "small accounting error" when measuring such gross, large quantities. A
>60 watt excess is as clear and obvious as a 6 million watt excess would be.
 
If this is true, then why not do the obvious experiment?  Charge up a cell.
Then disconnect the cell from all outside sources of energy and allow the
energy output from the cell to recharge the batteries.  If you can do that
and still produce excess heat, then people may start taking your claims more
seriously.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / L BATTIN /  Re: Pathological Science Indeed
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Science Indeed
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 04:18:26 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <930318173827_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Bruce Scott recommends a superb book, "The Good Old Days, They Were
>Terrible!," by Otto Bettman. This is available from the Smithsonian Museum
>Bookstore.
>
>Bruce comments: "Fast operators have been making money selling both awful and
>non-existent products... Just make sure of your escape route."
>
>Of course! But you did not read what I said. I phrased it very carefully:
>
>     You can never fool the customers for long.
>                                      ^^^^^^^^
 
Jed, even ol' Abe Lincoln hisself disagreed with you here.
 
>As you say, when they find out you are a crook, you have to skip town.
 
One wishes this were true.  Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence
that it isn't.  Jed, you should look up the history of "scams" sometime.
Here are just a couple of counter-examples to your statement, and anyone
familiar with the topics discussed in the group sci.skeptic can give you
plenty more:
 
1. Astrologers have been in business for _centuries_.   In spite of
their "science" being regularly debunked, and even occasionally outlawed,
they just keep coming back...and people keep paying for their services.
 
2. Any number of millenialistic religions show an actual _increase_ in
membership after their erroneous "predictions" of the end-of-the-world
don't pan out.  Some of these (and their descendants) are _still_ going
strong.
 
>                                                                        A scam
>cannot last for long. The longest running scam in history is the Hot Fusion
>program, which has been going on 40 years, and is expected to take another 50
>years.
 
As mentioned above, there are plenty of on-going scams that have been around for
a lot longer than this.
 
>        But it has only continued because they are duping the government.
 
For someone who doesn't like net-propagated rumors which can ruin his
reputation, you sure don't seem sensitive to the reputation of the
many fine physicists you are labelling as perpetrators of fraud here.
 
>Private industry would never touch anything like HF with the fag end of a
>barge poll. Look around, there is not a single private company willing to risk
>HF research, but there are dozens of Japanese companies doing CF.
 
I thought Prometheus (the "commercial fusion in the 90's" people) was a private
company.  Am I wrong?  Are they scam artists?  I never got that impression
from what I've seen on the net; but perhaps you could convince me I'm wrong...
 
>
>
>Dieter Britz asks about the video. If I had a copy, I would send him one, but
>I don't. I will call up and hassle the people who make copies.
>
>
>Gary S. Collins considers my statements about elementary psychology wicked,
>distasteful and rude. Gary apparently grew up in the Victorian era, long
>before Freud, when people thought it was sinful to think logically and
>analytically about human emotions and thought processes. He says:
>
>     "Such distasteful contributions as this do not belong in this discussion
>     group or anywhere else I can think of..."
>
>A remarkable throwback to 1850!
 
What happened in 1850 that got you all upset?
 
>
>Let me point out something about this so-called cold fusion "debate," vis-a-
>vis psychology. Since 1989, the "skeptics" have ascribed all positive results
>to a phenomenon they call "pathological science."
 
They certainly have a right to do so, particularly if they have done the
hard work of actually verifying that the claims of cold fusion are
artifacts of bad technique.  If they are wrong, only good technique will
counter their arguments.
 
>                                                   They assert that all
>positive cold fusion results have nothing to do with science,
 
"And now my straw man will sing a tune for you all..."
 
As the wicked witch said, "How about a little FIRE, scarecrow?"
 
***FLAME MODE ON***
 
Wrong.  Noone has asserted this, in these words.  You are warping
the whole discussion here.  The skeptics are denying that what you have
_are_ "positive cold fusion" results.  When you present them with
_real_ positive results, they are a lot more polite...witness Dieter's
"quality positives".  Where has it been claimed that _these_ are
figments of the imagination?  Put up a reference, or shut up.
 
>                                                              and everything
>to do with the imaginations, illusions, and the psychology of the workers. In
>other words, it is the skeptics who have framed *this entire debate*, from the
>first day, as a matter of psychology, rather than science.
 
The task of judging unusual claims is _always_ partly a matter of psychology,
since the search for errors had better take into account the amazing ability
of the human mind to fool itself.
 
>
>This pseudo-psychology, this endless nonsense about "pathological science" is
>a distasteful contribution that does not belong to any serious scientific
>discussion.
 
Jed, you really _need_ to take a look in sci.skeptic sometime, so that you can
be disabused of these silly objections.
The ability to recognize "pathologies" is extremely important to the working
scientist/experimenter, and increasingly important to the responsible citizen.
Of course, if little social "slip-ups" like Auschwitz don't bother you, put
your head back in the sand and let the self-proclaimed "experts" call the
shots.  Whatever you do, _don't_ look for "pathological science". -NOT!
Sorry Jed, we've learned from our mistakes.
 
>             The "skeptics" like Mr. Collins, who make these statements, are
>avoiding the scientific issues. They substitute emotionality, innuendo, and
>character assassination for rationality and scientific logic. It is *they*,
>not I, who are abusing the traditions of science, and misusing our precious
>knowledge of human psychology.
>
>I assert that there is practically no such thing as "pathological science."
 
Then you are sadly disillusioned.
 
>Langmuir was not a psychologist, and not a historian of science, and his
>thesis was greatly exaggerated and fundamentally flawed.
 
Even if true, so what?
As if Langmuir is the be-all and end-all of skeptics.  Have you met
the Amazing Randi?  Have you had the pleasure of debating with Robert
Schaeffer, over on sci.skeptic?  Have you looked at any issues of
The Skeptical Inquirer?  Ever read anything by Martin Gardner?
The list goes on and on, Jed.  And all these guys are cranks, right?
 
>                                                          At no time in the
>history of science has any effect been measured in widely replicated
>experiments, at high signal-to-noise ratios, but in the end found to be a
>mistake. This cannot happen.
 
This is also simply wrong.  You may not be aware of it, since it's not often
mentioned in the simplified histories of science preferred by laymen, but the
N-ray fiasco did NOT involve just _one_ mistaken observer, in _one_ isolated
lab.  N-rays were most definitely "replicated" "widely", with high signal-
to-noise ratios.  If you want to make sweeping statements like the above,
at least get them _right_!
 
>                              It would violate the whole basis and principle of
>experimental science.
 
As mentioned above, it _does_ happen, and it _doesn't_ have the effect you'd
like it to have.  What _would_ violate the principles of experimental science
would be to abandon critical (IE, skeptical) thought, which you seem to
favor.  Jed, I work "feeding" experimentalists.  I've been doing it for
15 years now.  I assure you, from my own personal observations of, and
discussions with experimenters over that 15 year period that you are way
off-base in asserting that pathological science doesn't exist.
Avoiding the possibility of pathologies is their bread and butter, Jed.
 
>                      The nonsense about "pathological science" is based upon
>a gross misreading of history, and gross ignorance of the scientific method.
 
Jed, your words condemn you out of your own mouth.
 
>It is being used as a shield, or a hiding place, to avoid the issues, and to
>pretend that experimental evidence is not the key to scientific truth.
 
Please take any conspiracy theories to a more appropriate forum, such as
alt.conspiracy.
BTW, the skeptics aren't hiding.  P&F _are_ hiding, somewhere in France,
I believe...
 
>
>I assert that I know far more about psychology than these so-called "skeptics"
>and that I am a far better judge of human nature than they are.
 
Thanks to the efforts of people like Randi, skeptics are becoming _quite_
good at judging human nature...perhaps better than you'd like...
 
>                                                                 If they are
>going to go on, month after month, year after year, asserting that cold fusion
>is based upon a psychological illusion in our minds, then I *certainly* have
>the right to turn the tables, and point out that they suffer from incredible,
>inexplicable, irrational illusions themselves, so they have no business
>pointing fingers at us.
 
It's a shame you haven't done so.  Instead we see a post full of erroneous
claims cited on your say-so alone.
 
>
>I assert that the only pathology in the field of cold fusion is that exhibited
>by those bigoted, foolish, scientifically illiterate people who insist that
>the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, who insist that calorimetry
>does not exist, that the specific heat of water can vary by a factor of 10,
>that a match can burn for a week, and that sigma 90 results mean nothing. This
>is the worst pathology in the history of science.
 
It's easy to construct a straw man.  Flaming one down is so simple.  Insulting
one is also a neat trick.  It's a shame that your targets are the empty set.
 
>
>- Jed
 
***FLAME MODE OFF***
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / L BATTIN /  Re: Special Pleading
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Special Pleading
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 06:00:20 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <00969B4C.D0AE44E0.5199@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes...
 
[good stuff deleted]
[snip, snip...]
 
>We say nuclear reactions produce energetic ions which move through
>the lattice and lose energy through collisions with electrons, and
>you make some weird assertion about things being different for
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ions starting in the lattice as opposed to those that come from
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>outside.  None of what you say has anything to support it beyond
 ^^^^^^^^
>something equivalent to: "It could happen!"
>
 
FWIW-
There are things called, (I believe), radio-haloes.  They show that
ions starting internally behave as expected by current theory.
Claims that there are problems with Polonium haloes are mistaken.
You can read talk.origins for a while, and this is sure to come up.
It may even be in some FAQ.
 
Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Reply to Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Blue
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 13:21:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

(Mitchell Swartz to Dale Bass)
 
  In Message-ID: <C44Erq.J4t@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>; 3/19/93
                      Sub: Re: Reply to Blue. Req for your proof
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
=== >      Are there two good "negative" experiments you will hang
=== >      your "hat on" and put on the "chopping block"? One free of
=== >      all criticism?
===  "It's pretty obvious where this is heading, but this is science,
===   not law.  There will never be a 'definitive' negative experiment
===   in this case since even the proponents seem to agree we are dealing
===   with a mysterious effect."
 
   Science requires at least the honesty, logic, and observation that
   law (ought) use(s).
   Therefore, given the above, there seems to be no "negative"
    paper that you are comfortable with.
 
 
===  "There's always you forgot to put in salt (a), or you failed
=== to use current (b), or you failed to account for unobservable
===  reaction pathway (c), or you failed to perform it during full moon
=== (d) or you failed to wave crucifix (e).  Life is not long enough to
=== control all the possible observables."
 
  No one makes a perfect (or "crucial", OK Steve?) experiment the
  "first" time.  Could you be stretching it a little here, Dale?
  However it is true that most sincere researchers examine papers as to
    what      - salt concentration
              - current  etc.   they used,  or
              - reaction pathways they purport.
 
 
===   "Bacteria in the Red Sea?  ...   find the presence of life
===    anywhere on or in the crust surprising?"
 
  Dale, the post said: "visible bacteria".
 
-  "This week visible bacteria were reported found in the Red Sea."
    [mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz); <C44C3x.5uw@world.std.com>]
 
           Best wishes.
 
           -   Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 04:05:50 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930317172528_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>
> Most CF experiments are not subject to small accounting
> errors. They generate watts of heat, or tens, or hundreds of watts. There can
> be no "small accounting error" when measuring such gross, large quantities. A
> 60 watt excess is as clear and obvious as a 6 million watt excess would be.
>
 
If this is the case, why not just invite a group from NIST to come on over
and analyze the setup.  Seems like that could provide rapid validation
for CF. Thats the criteria that is usually applied to other
``novel'' schemes of producing energy.
 
If things are as cut and dried as you say, its odd that CF has been
languishing for 4 years now. Especially with the supposed intense
work going on in Japan and France.
 
Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific community
of the reality of CF? Or is it still _remotely_ possible that no
fusion is occuring?
 
--
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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Two significant negatives
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two significant negatives
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 15:32:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz ask me to list two experiments with negative outcomes
as far as cold fusion is concerned that I would be willing to hang my
hat on.   There have been so many I don't no where to begin. (GRIN)
 
Let me pick as my number one most significant negative, the measurements
by Prof. Mike Salamon of the U of Utah where he placed a large NaI
detector under the bench where Prof. Pons claimed to have a working
cell.  This experiment set very tight limits on what nuclear reaction
processes could possibly be occurring or even could have occurred when
the detection electronics were off.  Of equal importance subsequent
events showed something about the character of Prof. Pons and the
quality of the research that started the whole cold fusion frenzy.
 
For number two, I suggest the ongoing work of Tom Droege who, through
his online descriptions of experiments as they occur has demonstrated
that "simple" calorimetry is subject to numerous systematic errors,
errors which clearly can be playing a role in most of claimed positive
results currently under discussion.
 
Those are my picks, Mitchell.  I have not heard any valid, sound criticism
of either of these experiments.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Bill Page /  Request for info on Aluminum in CF
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request for info on Aluminum in CF
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 22:08:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Can anyone tell me the origin of the idea of adding Aluminum to the
electrolyte of the D2O/Palladium cells?  Hagelstein states that the "SRI
Group" pioneered the technique of adding aluminate (Al2O3) or silicate
(SiO2) that causes the formation of a colloidal surface layer which
  1) passes light ions
  2) shields the surface from impurities
  3) improves the ability of the Pd to maintain high loading ratios
 
Is this something really new, or was this effect known before in
electrochemistry?
 
I have carried out some calorimetric measurements of excess heat with
aluminum cathodes [Ref: A. Wasserman, Fusion Tech. vol 21, p168, Mar
1992].  An aluminum oxide surface layer is already naturally present in
this case.  In searching the literature, I have so far found very little
useful information on this aspect of aluminum in electrolysis, in spite
of the otherwise voluminous studies of well known electrolytic processes
for aluminum refining and anodic treatment.
 
What is the physical/chemical explanation of the claimed ability of a
colloidal surface layer to pass light ions?  Has the formation of such a
surface layer been verified?  E.g.  Photometric studies.  What is the
layer's exact chemical composition?  (Al2O3.(HOH)n? Al(OH)3?)  Is there a
chemical reaction with the electrolyte?  What is the role (if any) of
aluminum hydride (AlH3)?  What effect does the layer have on electrical
resistance/current densities?  To what extent do Al ions migrate into the
Pd lattice?
 
"Colloidal" does imply that it is not in solution in the electrolyte, but
both the oxide and hydroxide would likely be dissolved by the alkaline
LiOH electrolyte. Apparently many aluminum compounds do form interesting
polymer chains, perhaps this is the basis for the surface layer.
 
What is the relative effectiveness of the use of silicate versus
aluminate at increasing the loading factor and/or observed excess heat?
 
In any case, I would greatly appreciate any help anyone can offer in
researching this subject.  Are there specific SRI or other publications
that describe current work in this area?
 
Thanks.
 
Bill Page
70047.3047@compuserve.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Jed Rothwell /  N-Rays
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: N-Rays
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 22:08:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Gene Battin writes:
 
     "The N-ray fiasco did NOT involve just _one_ mistaken observer, in _one_
     isolated lab.  N-rays were most definitely "replicated" "widely", with
     high signal-to-noise ratios.  If you want to make sweeping statements
     like the above, at least get them _right_!"
 
Gene, if you want to make sweeping statements like that, at least get them
_right_! Everything you said about N-Rays is nonsense. Here is an essay I
wrote about them back in December 1991. The situation has changed
considerably since then; the proof of cold fusion is much more solid:
 
I thank Mr. Kimbrogh for citing the Scientific American N-Ray paper ("The N-
Ray Affair" vol. 242 #5, p. 168.) I got hold of a copy, I was very impressed,
and now I am Petitioning Congress to support N-Ray research. No! Wait! That
was a joke.
 
Now, here are some facts from that article which I think show the vast
difference between N-Rays and CF. Very briefly: N-Rays were 'discovered' in
1903 by a distinguished French physicist Rene Blondlot. It was a mistake, not
a hoax. A few others got into the act right away, another scientist, and
spiritualist. After a while, others joined. In the first half of 1903 four
papers were published. "In the first half of 1904 the number had risen to
54." (I do not know if this is cumulative or if it means the 6 month total).
 
Then on September 29, 1904 Nature published an article by the American
physicist R. W. Wood that immediately debunked the whole thing, and nothing
was ever heard of the idea again. Now, let me point out just a few of the
major differences between this story and the history of CF. Space limitations
do not allow me to do justice to the subject:
 
There was not widespread opposition N-Rays; people thought it might be true.
Whereas, many top scientists ruthlessly attacked P&F just as soon as they
announced. This is well documented, and I have a filecabinet drawer full of
attacks, some of them made within hours of the announcement.
 
The number of N-Ray articles peaked at 54 (or perhaps that was the cumulative
total). Storms alone cites 359 articles, and this is not a complete listing
by any means (for one reason, Storms does not read Japanese.) Some of Storm's
references are negative, but I count them anyway, because I presume the 54 N-
Ray articles may include some negatives, and after all, a good negative
analysis is as valuable as a positive one, because it sets the limits and
helps define the phenomenon.
 
One visit, from one physicist, brought down the N-Ray house of cards. CF has
survived dozens of skeptical visits and attempts to debunk it, ranging from
the honest, well thought out criticism of the Japanese IEEE meetings to the
scurrilous, slanderous attacks of Taubes on Bockris's work. There have been
literally hundreds of attacks on CF, and no major CF scientist has withdrawn
any major part of their work, except (as often noted here) in 1989 P&F
quickly admitted that their Neutron work was no good. The only important CF
work that has been proven conclusively wrong are the negative experiments at
CalTech, MIT and Harwell.
 
N-Rays were difficult to detect; workers claimed that they were seeing
something right at limits of detectability. The best CF workers claim to be
getting 3 to 10 times more heat out than they put in; they claim to measure
tritium 10,000x background, and so on. They are saying it is easy to detect,
not hard. This might mean they are: 1. Right; 2. Liars, or; 3. Incompetents
who do not know how to read their instruments; but in any case, they claim a
much higher signal-to-noise ratio than Blondlot did.
 
N-Rays fell apart abruptly in late 1904, but the research did not die out
right away, there were still some going on in '05. As late as '06 Blondlot
was still saying "the phonomena are much too delicate [for a simple
demonstration]." Quite a contrast to P&F. A year or so after their discovery,
they demonstrated it to one of the world's toughest, most knowledgable
corporate R&D departments, and they secured carte blanche R&D money.
 
[Additional note 1993: the CF phomenon is now so robust, you can see a
demonstration boiling cell -- with instrumentation of course -- but one that
is so obvious that an electrochemist can tell it is non-chemical heat even
*without* seeing the instrument data. You can tell by looking!]
 
There was no long term corporate R&D in N-Rays. There *were* excellent
corporate R&D labs in 1903, by the way. Whereas, by 1991, most CF research
was sponsored by EPRI, Japanese megacorporations, or the Japanese government.
 
CF has lasted 3 years, and grows stronger each month. N-Rays abruptly
disappeared after 18 months.
 
In conclusion, I would say that the N-Ray affair and CF have nothing in
common.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Britz is full of baloney
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz is full of baloney
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 22:08:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz, who is not in the United States and apparently has never talked
to any U.S. cold fusion researcher, keep posting this preposterous mix of
nonsense and lies:
 
 
"Since USA researchers, in order to do any work at all, must attract grants,
one may safely assume that in fact close to all the papers on CNF from US
labs have been funded in some way; and that amounts to quite a bit of
money..."
 
The money does not amount to a hill of beans. All of the research was done
years ago, the money stopped around 1991. Most of the equipment was simply
lying around in the labs, or it was paid for out of pocket by the researchers
themselves. Last summer, Storms ran an experiment with palladium supplied for
free by the Japanese corporation Tanaka Kikinzoku. There are a few, scattered
experiments going on in various labs using what one researcher called "the
fumes of funding left over from other projects."
 
 
"E.g. Miles et al, who recently produced the China Lake paper, did not work
in their kitchen, in fact they acknowledge financial support from the Naval
Air Warfare Center Weapons Division..."
 
The work was done years ago. There has been no public funding since then, and
they have not been able to perform any experiments. The only private money is
from EPRI, and as far as I know, it has gone exclusively to SRI (a fine
choice, but I wish they could support a few others as well.)
 
 
"What I have understood, from Mitch's remark, is that grants are being
applied for by people who would normally not get such grants, because they
are not seen to be within their area of expertise..."
 
You "understand" nothing of the sort. You made that up. Mitch never said
anything like that, and neither did I. To my knowledge, the only people who
have applied for grants are those working in the National Labs or University
Depts of Electrochemistry or Nuclear Chemistry.
 
 
"If he [Jed] has applied for research grants in CNF, I can understand why he
might have had problems (maybe he has not applied)."
 
Well, at least this bit of nonsense is hedged. No, I have not applied for any
research grants. I give my money to other people who do CF. I am not the
least bit qualified to receive grants for scientific research of this nature.
 
There is no funding for CF in the United States. There is no support for CF
in the United States. In fact, what we have here is a McCarthyite reign of
terror, lead by liars, traitors, fools, and scientific illiterates. The
situation was best described by Julian Schwinger:
 
      "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:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Let theory be your guide
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let theory be your guide
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 22:08:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I sense from several on the net a tendency to down play the significance
of theory and a rather simplistic attitude toward experimental results.
This, I believe, overlooks the fact that even the simplest of measurements
involve implicite assumptions as to the nature of the process being
studied and the way in which the parameters of the system under investigation
are expressed in the response of the instrumentation employed.  We start
with a simple electrolysis of water, something I did as a kid before I
had a clew as to what was actually happening.  You set the dial on a
constant current supply and measure a voltage and a temperature, do a
simple calculation, and like magic you have cold fusion because your
calculation says there is much more heat coming out than the power going
in.  Do this over again and you have reproducibility.  Publish it!
 
There is a flaw, however, in that "theory" says cold fusion of
deuterons will produce neutrons which clearly aren't there.  Which am
I to believe?  The experimental result obtained by credible scientists
doing an experiment so simple it could have been done 100 years ago, or
a measurement involving the black arts of nuclear physics?  The argument
from the cold fusion advocates has never varied.  In their view it
is only a theory that says cold fusion will produce neutrons.  Yes, but
in the same sense it is only a theory that all calorimeters and all
electrochemists applied to any system under any condition will lead to
a correct result.  You have to have a "theory" about how your experiment
works in order to organize the observations and interpret them.  You
have to have a "theory" about the processes under investigation in order
to assure that the effect you say you are observing is indeed influencing
the measurements you make.  Until there is at least a sketch of a notion
of what the reaction process is,  calorimetry will not establish cold
fusion as a fact.  The fact that four years of cold fusion experiments
as not resulted in a single "theory" for the reaction process is probably
more significant as a negative than most of the experiments performed
to date.
 
As a prime example, consider the recent claims for the observation of
particles at energies of 17-18 MeV from a glow discharge experiment.
My "theory" says this is extremely unlikely to be a valid observation.
That theory is based on the energy release available from any possible
two-body nuclear reaction.  You see the masses of every possible
combination of nuclear matter that is stable enough to be present
initially in the system under study are all "known".  I have a little
blue book in my desk drawer that list them all.  Try every combination
possible and you will learn that the possible energy release is generally
limited.  There are very few ways to produce 17-18 MeV particles.  They
all fall into a small set of possible reactions.  I don't believe the
experiment in question could possible be producing 17-18 MeV particles.
My conclusion therefore, is the experiment is faulty.  That is, of
course, a conclusion based on theory.  If you want to counter an
argument based on that theory, you should have a theory of your own
as to what reaction is releasing 17-18 MeV particles.  Anyone who
contends that the measurement must be true because it is an
observation hasn't considered how truly indirect that observation
is and howmany ways false signals can be generated that can mask
or distort the observation.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Jed Rothwell /  The scientist's conceit
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The scientist's conceit
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 22:08:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Gene Battin comments:
 
     "The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth", the
     Marxist thinks its some sort of dialectic of history, the Monarchist
     thinks the King can decree it, and the Religionist looks for a
     relevation..."
 
There is a VERY IMPORTANT difference between capitalism, marxism, and
monarchism. Capitalism actually works. It is the best system yet invented,
far ahead of whatever is in second place. Marxism and monarchy, by contrast,
were horrible mistakes, and they are dead and buried. Furthermore, capitalism
compels us to seek the truth. Without truth & enlightenment, you cannot build
bridges, factories, or power generators.
 
Gene goes on with a typical scientist's conceit: "but only the Scientist
bothers to listen to Nature's own voice...."
 
Right. Sure. Only scientists. Plus engineers. And farmers. Also, doctors,
computer programmers, cooks, industrial planners, carpenters, artists,
bakers, airplane pilots, mothers, teachers, and every other human being on
earth who works with his hands and deals with tools, and with physical
objects.
 
Science has contributed a great to human happiness & wisdom. I am all in
favor of science, both practical and theoretical. But scientists do not have
God's own private telephone number. They are not the only ones who learn
directly from nature. Nearly everyone else does that too. Furthermore, the
contributions of science would never have amounted to anything without the
brilliance, imagination and courage of the engineers and businessmen who
actually put scientific discoveries to practical use.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
Date: 19 Mar 93 14:30:11 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>, by jonesse@physc1.byu.edu:
> "The X-ray intensity was evaluated by densitometry of the exposed films."
> I do not trust the accuracy of this method, particularly when X-ray films
> show fogging around palladium containing either hydrogen or deuterium.
> This is an important point:  EITHER HYDROGEN or deuterium in Pd will generate
> fogging or spots on X-ray film.
> __Dieter:  you asked for the reference for this.  It is a paper by none other
> than Srinivasan et al. at BARC:  Indian Journal of Technology, 29:571-578,
> Dec. 1991.
 
Just out of curiosity; how does "palladium containing either hydrogen
or deuterium" fog X-ray film? Do titanium or nickle containing either
hydrogen or deuterium have the same effect?
 
How close does the palladium have to be to have this effect on X-ray
film? What kinds of barriers were placed between the palladium and the
X-ray film? What other chemicals were present?
 
                                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:
cuddy19 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Pathological Science Indeed
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Science Indeed
Date: 19 Mar 93 10:39:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
>Look around, there is not a single private company willing to risk
>HF research, but there are dozens of Japanese companies doing CF.
 
Look at *all* the boundary conditions. (1) HF is expensive, CF is cheap.
Therefore, if it is a black hole, CF has at least provided its sponsors
with an affordable tax write-off which also makes good PR: "Look! We are,
too, funding basic energy science!" No wholly private concern could afford
useful research in HF, except in riding the coattails of government funding
(and then they are no longer wholly private, but then niether is anyone
else in today's real world; doubt me? go set up your factory and accept
funding from no-one whose funding chain reaches up to the government).
 
The PR disaster of HF (hot fusion, for non-aficionados) was caused by the
fact that it was populated by people who didn't understand turbulence (even
in the heuristic sense of a Komolgorov cascade), and who thought that the
only problem to be solved was MHD stability. If heat and particle transport
were in fact due solely to collisional processes, we would have had fusion
many years ago. It was only in the years around 1970 when temperatures on
the tokamak in Moscow were high enough (ie, collisional processes weak
enough) to see that this was not to be. Now it appears that fusion will
indeed be possible, but with much larger machines than thought before, and
not, certainly not, as cheap as thought before. It will be useful only when
fossil fuels are scarce enough, or their environmental damage sufficient to
cause them to be curtailed by other mechanisms, that their price soars
beyond the financially acceptable. But that is only the physics story. The
other severe problem with HF is turning out to be wall-loading: the power
output sufficient to build a reactor is too great for present-day divertor
plate materials. But that is a technological problem and is for guys like
you to solve.
 
Jed, when you build a CF cell and run motors from it I will instantly
transform into a believer. Failing that, I must see a physical system which
makes sense to me, and I haven't yet. All these wild schemes which violate
known physics (like Clustron's) are no stimulus for one's credulity.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Charles Pooley /  holy water
     
Originally-From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: holy water
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 16:16:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Has anyone tried holy water yet?  I'm serious!  Ask your priest for some,
or take a turkey baster to church and sneak a little.   For heavy water,
you'll have to take some ordinary D2O in and have it blessed or whatever
they do to make it holy.
 
In the efforts to make a CF demonstration happen, we can't overlook
anything, can we?
--
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenckp cudfnCharles cudlnPooley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / L BATTIN /  Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kucherov/Followup to Swartz
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 16:46:08 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <1993Mar19.143011.4627@hal.com>,
bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes...
>From article <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>,
>by jonesse@physc1.byu.edu:
>> "The X-ray intensity was evaluated by densitometry of the exposed films."
>> I do not trust the accuracy of this method, particularly when X-ray films
>> show fogging around palladium containing either hydrogen or deuterium.
>> This is an important point:  EITHER HYDROGEN or deuterium in Pd will generate
>> fogging or spots on X-ray film.
>> __Dieter:  you asked for the reference for this.  It is a paper by none other
>> than Srinivasan et al. at BARC:  Indian Journal of Technology, 29:571-578,
>> Dec. 1991.
>
>Just out of curiosity; how does "palladium containing either hydrogen
>or deuterium" fog X-ray film? Do titanium or nickle containing either
>hydrogen or deuterium have the same effect?
>
>How close does the palladium have to be to have this effect on X-ray
>film? What kinds of barriers were placed between the palladium and the
>X-ray film? What other chemicals were present?
>
 
And something I've wondered:  Is this a mechanism similar to the process
of "hypering" film, used by astronomers?  I know it's done with hydrogen,
and increases the film's speed, but that's all I know.
 
Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Larry Wall /  Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 17:25:21 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <C43MIF.1H8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
: The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth", the
: Marxist thinks its some sort of dialectic of history, the Monarchist thinks
: the King can decree it, and the Religionist looks for a relevation; but only
: the Scientist bothers to listen to Nature's own voice....
 
What a lovely oversimplification.  And what a pity it has almost nothing
to do with what this newsgroup is supposedly about...
 
ObFusion: Terry's Twist of Ribbon predicts that you will find little ash
except heat.  Obviously it's simple to measure heat (laugh or cry here).
So are there any other predictions of Twist that are testable?  Does Twist
predict any epiphenomenal nuclear effects of the magnitude people think
they're seeing?
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / mitchell swartz /  Two Significant Negatives
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two Significant Negatives
Date: 19 Mar 93 18:04:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
   (Mitchell Swartz responding to Dick Blue's choices of the
   two best "Negative experiment to disprove cold fusion")
 
      In Message-ID: <00969BC1.D3C69A40.5299@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
      Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993;  Subject: Two significant negatives
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
===   " ... my number one most significant negative, the measurements
=== by Prof. Mike Salamon of the U of Utah where he placed a large NaI
=== detector under the bench where Prof. Pons claimed to have a working
=== cell."
 
   You place one-half of all the skeptics basis against CF on
   a large NaI detector under where Prof. Pons claimed to have a working
   cell.   Was that working previously? or at that very time?
       What was the "NaI detector" looking for?  calorimetry? He-4?
 
=== "This experiment set very tight limits on what nuclear reaction
=== processes could possibly be occurring or even could have occurred when
=== the detection electronics were off."
 
   Any experimenter who claims to collect data when the "detection
 electronics were off" may have squarely delivered an autocastrating blow
 to their logic/believability.
 
 
==  "Of equal importance subsequent
=== events showed something about the character of Prof. Pons and the
=== quality of the research that started the whole cold fusion frenzy."
 
   Sorry.  To act like a scientist is to look at the experiment.
  If you place "equal importance" on anything else, again there is dilution
  of the logic/believability.
 
 
=== For number two, I suggest the ongoing work of Tom Droege who, .."
 
  That's it?  The second half of the skeptics'-key foundation is:
     a  possible time-paradox.
  Tom Droege's work is ** "ongoing" ** (I think) as you note.
 
  [I cannot, and will not, speak for him (and hope he has comments).]
 
   However, I do note the possibility of one coincidence if his work
 is continuing.   Tom?
 
     Quaerie for CF-trivia-maniacs and CF-Historians:
       Was there previously ever a "party" for skeptics which occured
        before another experiment was concluded?
 
 Dick, I (we?) are delighted the dialogue has concentrated on science
      again.  and hope to hear more on those ?s re: your first choice
      for best evidence against cold fusion.
 
     Best wishes.
                        - Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Richard Schultz /  A Significant Negative (was Re: Two Significant Negatives)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Significant Negative (was Re: Two Significant Negatives)
Date: 19 Mar 1993 18:37:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <C45E7L.D4w@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com
(mitchell swartz) writes:
 
# In Message-ID: <00969BC1.D3C69A40.5299@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
# Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
#
## "Of equal importance subsequent events showed something about the character
## of Prof. Pons and the quality of the research that started the whole
## cold fusion frenzy."
#
# Sorry.  To act like a scientist is to look at the experiment.
# If you place "equal importance" on anything else, again there is dilution
# of the logic/believability.
 
Let's imagine the following scenario:
 
Scientist A reports a result.
 
Scientist B reports that he cannot reproduce Scientist A's result.
 
Scientist A's lawyer threatens to sue Scientist B.
 
Who (A or B) is acting like a scientist?  Extra bonus points for naming the
real life Scientist A.  Hint:  Scientist B is Michael Salomon.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Blue
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Blue
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 19:28:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C4514J.38v@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>(Mitchell Swartz to Dale Bass)
>
>  In Message-ID: <C44Erq.J4t@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>; 3/19/93
>                      Sub: Re: Reply to Blue. Req for your proof
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>=== >      Are there two good "negative" experiments you will hang
>=== >      your "hat on" and put on the "chopping block"? One free of
>=== >      all criticism?
>===  "It's pretty obvious where this is heading, but this is science,
>===   not law.  There will never be a 'definitive' negative experiment
>===   in this case since even the proponents seem to agree we are dealing
>===   with a mysterious effect."
>
>   Science requires at least the honesty, logic, and observation that
>   law (ought) use(s).
>   Therefore, given the above, there seems to be no "negative"
>    paper that you are comfortable with.
 
     That, of course, is not the point.  When examining a putative
     phenomenon of unknown etiology, it is very difficult (read, impossible)
     to rule out all possible causes.  So all negatives are subject
     to the criticism that 'they didn't do it right'.  I've heard
     that about nearly every 'negative' in this regard, and the criticism
     is quite right.  They may have done it wrong.  However, it
     is pointless to select a negative 'to hang one's hat on'
     since criticism of the prospective phenomenon relies on
     the positives, not the negatives.
 
     In law, the logic is quite different, and 'prove it can't happen'
     is a very useful concept.  In science, if you go with
     that you might as well assume that the universe was created
     ex nihilo 6000 years ago, and the 'anomalous heat' is yet
     another miraculous occurrence.  The wonderful thing is that that explains
     everything without science at all, and you can never show
     it's wrong (it doesn't seem to be very predictive, but you can't
     have everything).
 
>===  "There's always you forgot to put in salt (a), or you failed
>=== to use current (b), or you failed to account for unobservable
>===  reaction pathway (c), or you failed to perform it during full moon
>=== (d) or you failed to wave crucifix (e).  Life is not long enough to
>=== control all the possible observables."
>
>  No one makes a perfect (or "crucial", OK Steve?) experiment the
>  "first" time.  Could you be stretching it a little here, Dale?
>  However it is true that most sincere researchers examine papers as to
>    what      - salt concentration
>              - current  etc.   they used,  or
>              - reaction pathways they purport.
 
     Okay.  What causes the phenomenon, and how can I repeat it?
 
     The point is that you cannot tell me these things, and
     presumably similar experiments apparently show very different
     results in the hands of different (and competent) researchers.  So,
     the 'cause' is either a) improper experimental controls (occurs even
     with the best researchers) or b) some uncontrolled variable.  If it's
     a), it may be quite difficult to rule out b).  And if it's b),
     it may be difficult to find the variable since it could be
     something as odd as, say, the solar cycle.  Again, life is not
     long enough to rule out all possible uncontrolled variables.
 
>===   "Bacteria in the Red Sea?  ...   find the presence of life
>===    anywhere on or in the crust surprising?"
>
>  Dale, the post said: "visible bacteria".
 
     I read it.  Why don't you answer the question?  Why would
     you find the presence of life anywhere on or in the crust suprising?
     The presence of life in any form at any place on the crust
     is not stunning, and there is a big difference between the surprise
     at finding a species in a certain place and the surprise of
     finding a 500 lb. silicon-based organism swimming along side the
     whales at Sea World.
 
     The presumably submolecular deposition of MeV
     quantities in macromolecular lattices would be stunning.
     I await, with interest, the repeatable experiment.
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Two Significant Negatives
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two Significant Negatives
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 19:43:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C45E7L.D4w@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   (Mitchell Swartz responding to Dick Blue's choices of the
>   two best "Negative experiment to disprove cold fusion")
 
[stuff deleted that was not crucial to my point]
 
>=== "This experiment set very tight limits on what nuclear reaction
>=== processes could possibly be occurring or even could have occurred when
>=== the detection electronics were off."
>
>   Any experimenter who claims to collect data when the "detection
> electronics were off" may have squarely delivered an autocastrating blow
> to their logic/believability.
 
     Is the assertion that he 'did it wrong?'
 
>=== For number two, I suggest the ongoing work of Tom Droege who, .."
>
>  That's it?  The second half of the skeptics'-key foundation is:
>     a  possible time-paradox.
>  Tom Droege's work is ** "ongoing" ** (I think) as you note.
 
     Looks to me here like the undercurrent is that he has 'done it wrong'
     heretofore, though he may 'get it right' before the end.
 
     By the way, isn't it a bit cheap to ask for two examples and
     then refer to each as one half of the 'skeptics' case'?  I'm sure
     one could dig up scores of negatives to lower the 'score',
     but what's the point?  The pat response will always be that they've
     'done them wrong', so the case rests on the positives.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Dick Jackson /  Natoya Demo Followup
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Natoya Demo Followup
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 20:52:58 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

 
Last Autumn Dr. Natoya took her desk top demo system to MIT. It did
not work because the electrodes had been contaminated by oil. I seem
to remember that she promised to arrange for a good demo system to
be provided to MIT. Was this follow-up ever done?
 
I always thought that this (very simple) demo system was a good model for
analysis.  If the claimed result is valid the true believers have won
going away.  If some experimental goof-up were confirmed, it might shed
some light into other (laboratory grade) anomalous heat producing systems.
(I remember the controversy about the fine wire and resistive heating, I
am assuming that this was corrected and that the claimed effect still
work as claimed.)
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 19:18:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (Gene Battin) writes:
>The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth"...
>...but only the Scientist bothers to listen to Nature's own voice....
 
False dichotomy.  To be a capitalist is not to exclude oneself from being
a scientist, nor vice verse.
 
In any event, Capitalists seek not absolute "truth" in the market, but
rather, the expression of subjective value, which they then try to service
in exchange for other subjective values.
 
I know some people like to proclaim that they have a scientific basis for
their own particular set of values, but I am singularly unimpressed by the
"proof of truth" that they've been able to show in support thereof.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Paul Karol /  Re: A Significant Negative (was Re: Two Significant Negatives)
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Significant Negative (was Re: Two Significant Negatives)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 16:45:14 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 19-Mar-93 A Significant
Negative (was.. by Richard Schultz@garnet.b
>Let's imagine the following scenario:
>
>Scientist A reports a result.
>
>Scientist B reports that he cannot reproduce Scientist A's result.
>
>Scientist A's lawyer threatens to sue Scientist B.
>
>Who (A or B) is acting like a scientist?  Extra bonus points for naming the
>real life Scientist A.  Hint:  Scientist B is Michael Salomon.
 
If the implication is that Scientist A is not acting like a real
scientist, it as a flawed conclusion.  Scientist A's lawyer is not
acting like a real scientist.  Anyone surprised?
 
PJK
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Science is FILO quantified
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO quantified
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 23:23:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In Message-ID: <1993Mar19.040550.2402@math.ucla.edu>
   Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93; Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Barry Merriman (barry@math.ucla.edu) writes:
 
=== "Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific
===    community of the reality of CF?"
 
   I am not asking for trouble, but a good question by Barry
deserves a sincere scientific look.  And he is a mathematician.
Skeptics: This requires you suspending your disbelief as to the
  existance of CF.  If you are reticent substitute another theory/idea.
 
 
    ***  A  Quick Calculation of CF Information Diffusion  **
 
  Let's model the scientific community as an RC circuit.  Yes,
  there is an inductive component (especially considering this is CF)
  but, please folks, you gotta start somewhere, and Barry asked that
  reasonable question.
 
       Resistance against Flow of Information
 
 ---------------/\/\/\/\/\-------------|
                                       |
                    R                  |
                                       |         Q =  Number of scientists
                                       |
                           -------------------------
                                                          C
                           -------------------------
                                       |
                                       |
                                       |
 --------------------------------------|
 
    Is  Number of Scientists  10^7 OK?     ??
 
    Then C = Q / V   But what is the potential.
 
  Let's model V as the potential of 1 (one) truth.
 
  Therefore  C = 10^7/truth
 
    Tau =  RC  (again ignore inductance in this simple model)
 
    Now  R might be inversly proportional to the number of
     channels of information available ( Yeah for Internet! )
 
    so     R =  R1 * (1/#channels)
 
           C =  10^7/truth
 
           Tau = RC = about 4 years  (certainly within an order of
                                         magnitude)
 
     Let's say people are awakening now.  Therefore  Tdiffusion = 4 years.
     Seems reasonable and comparable to what happened with Galileo
       (eh, Jed?  - within a factor of 2).
 
        so    R = 12.6  truth-sec/person
 
  Changing this to an admittance the derived estimate seems to be:
 
      ca.  4.8 persons/truth-minute.   Not a very fast rate.
 
     But this assumes the information diffusion is
    linear, and when the news breaks it will more likely be sigmoidal
    or some other cooperative configuration.
 
  SUMMARY:  Increase the number of pathways.
                  or the power of the truth.   (hmmmmm.....)
 
  Any thoughts Barry, or the other CF-historians or mathematicians?
 
                                                - Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
Date: 19 Mar 93 23:24:15 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

_____________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: The following may be a repeat.  Our file system maxed out as I sent
the first copy and I could not tell whether it was sent out or not.  I also
appended a P.P.S after noticing a decidedly wrong impression I may have left.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Hi folks,
 
[A quick response just to prove I really am back online...  :)  ]
 
In article <1993Mar19.172521.23763@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com
(Larry Wall) writes:
 
> ObFusion: Terry's Twist of Ribbon predicts that you will find little ash
> except heat.  Obviously it's simple to measure heat (laugh or cry here).
> So are there any other predictions of Twist that are testable?  Does Twist
> predict any epiphenomenal nuclear effects of the magnitude people think
> they're seeing?
 
Clarification:  Twist is a _farfetch_, or what I'd call a "conditional theory
arrived at through process of elimination."  If no one ever proves through
universal at-will reproducibility that excess non-nuclear, non-chemical heat
is real, I would personally recommend that all parties should view Twist as
one of most assinine pieces ever sent out over this network.  It's got some
interesting points in it (e.g., the prediction of atomic band formation),
but I have zero intent of defending the overall conclusion in the absence of
universal at-will reproducibility of non-chemical, non-nuclear excess heat.
 
If on the other hand exess heat of the type best implied by the infamous
nuclear-clean Pd cube "vaporization" incident of Pons and Fleischmann
should prove undeniably reproducible at some point, then I don't back off
even an inch from anything I said in Twist.  You are converting entire atoms
into energy, and the only place where I see even a glimmer of a sufficiently
ill-defined region in QM to permit such nonsense is to violate the Born
interpretation of wavefunctions for one or more quite exotic, relatively rare
configurations.  That's not exactly a prediction -- it really is more of an
elimination.  Twist was born of a dead-serious attempt on my part to try and
_disprove_ the possibility of clean excess heat, not prove it.  Whether the
gentle reader wishes to believe that or not is their business.  But I assure
you it is quite true, and if you look at some of the blistering critiques of
"cold fusion" theories I posted during the same general time period in which
I began work on Twist, I think you will begin to see what I mean.
 
 
At any rate, the simplest possible prediction set implied by Twist is that
highly discontinuous (that is, multi-node) wavefunctions of atoms are not
stable and will cause violations of any of the particle conservation laws
_except_ for those linked to the long-range structure of space (that is,
mass/energy conservation, charge conservation, and spin conservation).
 
This would imply that you could very definitely get nuclear products simply
by setting up the wavefunctions in the right way.  I have seen no indication
that anyone is paying attention to wavefunction configurations in excess
heat experiments, so this remains an uncontrolled and largely unexplored
variable, at least according to what has been said in public.
 
But by analogy the strongest proposal for producing very obvious particle
products from exotic wavefunctions would be to duplicate the polyacetylene
effect that leads to "splitting" of the wavefunctions of electrons dropped
(doped) into the polyacetylene chain.  In polyacetylene an electron is
unstable with respect to decomposition into two charged solitons (or, more
accurately, a kink/antikink pair.)   The  kink and antikink then move away
from each other, with each quasiparticle carrying half of the original
electron charge along with it. (To be precise, spin degeneracy doubles the
electron count and normally keeps the half-charge of a "split" wavefunction
from being externally visible.)
 
[Everybody follow that?  :)  ]
 
Anywho, once you began manipulating atomic wavefunctions at that or a
comparable level of detail, you'd be able to validate/invalidate Twist
just about ad infinitum, and there would be no ambiguity at all about what
was happening.  Your reaction products would depend directly on the size
(mass), charge, and spin of the isolated wavefunction nodes, giving a
spectrum of particle ranging over:  protons/neutrons;  various medium mass
particles;  electrons/positrons (and resulting gammas);  high-energy
photons (potentially continuous specturm low-end gammas and xrays); low-
energy photons and heat.  All synchronized quite nicely and predictably
with how you set up your discontinuous atomic wavefunctions.
 
For "uncontrolled" experiments I suspect most of the above could be aptly
summarized by saying that: "Some experiments may give you low levels of
a downright weird range of several kinds of radiation, while other ones
won't give you a noodlin' thing except heat."
 
Examples of "weird?"  Well, an asymmetrical two-node split of a deuteron
wavefunction would probably give a loose, low-energy neutron plus neutrinos
plus a wide range of EM going up into the X-ray and possibly gamma range.
The slow neutron would be picked up by some nearby nucleus and give off
a nice, hot gamma typical of such absorptions (and thus easily recognized,
if not explained).  You'd get tritium if a D grabbed the neutron, and (yes)
transmutation of oxygen or palladium if they picked up the neutron first.
Pretty weird stuff, but also pretty specific if you knew what to look for.
 
 
In short, IF IF IF IF IF IF someone can prove that there really is such
a think as non-nuclear, non-chemical excess heat (I for one ain't convinced
yet), then you probably won't need to fret about predictability just because
the _first_ thing ever seen was clean heat.  With the right setup you would
quite likely be able to produce just about anything at all, including some
particles that currently can be produced only in expensive accelerators.
 
And again I warn you:  ALL of the above conversation is contingent on the
reality of excess heat, and blithering nonsense in its absence.  I am much
more willing to speak in this kind of curious "conditionalese" because I
am not a physicist and have no appreciable reputation in the subject to be
concerned about, and because hypothetical reasoning is an integral part of
some of my ideas about how one should reason about very difficult and
apparently self-contradictory problems in logic.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -  For new readers who don't know some of the hidden agendas, please
        don't take the rather childish trashings of Steven Jones seriously.
 
        Dr. Jones is probably one of the best and most honest physicists
        currently participating in this group (there are many others of
        course), and his reputation was earned through hard work, not self-
        declaration and mutual back-patting.
 
        I never had the good fortune to meet Dr. Richard Feynman in person,
        but I have studied his writings (both personal and physics) in
        rather great detail.  He was a very clear thinker, for which reason
        my respect for him is especially profound.  Of the pro-"something"
        authors currently active in this group, Dr. Jones is almost without
        a doubt the _only_ one that I can even picture a thinker like Dr.
        Feynman as taking seriously.  Others who invoke Dr. Feynman's name
        in defense of their own work (while simultaneously attacking others
        in a needlessly personal fashion) are doing a grave disservice to
        the memory of this remarkable physicist and human being.
 
...............................
 
P.P.S - Wow, until I just now re-read it I did not realize how much that
        last paragraph comes over as whack against _everyone_ in this group
        except Dr. Jones.  That was _not_ my intent... honest!
 
        My thought had been something more in the line of "of the active
        authors who are trying to develop a theoretical framework."  It
        never occurred to me that my phrasing also sounded like a whack
        against Tom Droege, Dieter Britz, and others who have added so
        much high-quality time and work to the group.  Sorry ya'll.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Fogging of X-ray films with PdH or PdD
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fogging of X-ray films with PdH or PdD
Date: 19 Mar 93 13:22:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Mar19.143011.4627@hal.com>, bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> From article <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>, by jonesse@physc1.byu.edu:
>> "The X-ray intensity was evaluated by densitometry of the exposed films."
>> I do not trust the accuracy of this method, particularly when X-ray films
>> show fogging around palladium containing either hydrogen or deuterium.
>> This is an important point:  EITHER HYDROGEN or deuterium in Pd will generate
>> fogging or spots on X-ray film.
>> __Dieter:  you asked for the reference for this.  It is a paper by none other
>> than Srinivasan et al. at BARC:  Indian Journal of Technology, 29:571-578,
>> Dec. 1991.
>
> Just out of curiosity; how does "palladium containing either hydrogen
> or deuterium" fog X-ray film? Do titanium or nickle containing either
> hydrogen or deuterium have the same effect?
>
> How close does the palladium have to be to have this effect on X-ray
> film? What kinds of barriers were placed between the palladium and the
> X-ray film? What other chemicals were present?
>
>                               Bob P.
 
I'm curious too, Bob, and with students have pursued these experiments in our
copious
free time.  We have found, as did Srinivasan et al., that Pd or Ti loaded with
H or D produces fogging.  Ni has not been tried to my knowledge, but should
work I suppose.  (We'll try this -- but after my trip to Japan.)
Barriers:  we used mylar, about 2 microns thick -- and still
got fogging.
How far?  Up to about 2 mm, still the fogging occurs (takes hours).  Thus,
contact of hydrided foil with the film is _not_ required.
 Other chemicals:  air or hydrogen seem to be needed.  We and
Srinivasan found the effect went away in vacuum; also when we used helium.
This suggests a chemical effect involving hydrogen.  But:
 
Srinivasan also found that thermoluminescent dosimeters also showed "activity,"
and these (he says) are not sensitive to chemical reduction.
 
In any case, the inability to obtain a signal in a vacuum makes the effect
appear to be chemical -- hydrided foil removed from vacuum (no fogging) then
tried in air
showed fogging, we found, so it is not just that hydrogen all left the foil
in the vacuum environment.
 
Srinivasan warned that the fogging means that his earlier claims of tritium
production in deuterided foils, using autoradiography as a detection method,
are subject to re-interpretation.
 
I would enjoy feedback on this -- very much -- but I'm leaving tomorrow early
for Japan.  Can we resume this discussion about March 30?  (Sorry.)
I enjoy the puzzle posed by these data.
 
Try it yourself:  we used 25 micron thick Pd foil, degassed in vacuum at
about 500C, then exposed to 1 atm H2 or D2 while cooling for 1-2 hours.
Then place the foil (typically 1X2 cm) over X-ray film -- we used glass
microscope slides sometimes to keep the PdH from touching the film:
 _____------_______
glass  PdH  glass  :  on top of X-ray film.
Also we tried a Pd rod approx. 2mm diam X 2cm, and got distinct fogging.
No fogging with Pd before hydriding.  Scratching surface of PdH makes fogging
darker, we found.
Let sit near the film for at least 24 hours.  Ti-hydride takes several days
of exposure to get fogging.  I still think the fogging is chemical in origin,
but the work continues.
Srinivasan (and we also) found fogging each time.
 
I hesitate to post this now that I'm leaving, persuaded that you guys will
ask dozens of questions.  Sorry--gotta leave.  Let's pick up the thread in
ten days perhaps.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  P.S. to fogging of X-ray films
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P.S. to fogging of X-ray films
Date: 19 Mar 93 13:37:13 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

P.S. relating to the X-ray film fogging:
1. The Pd hydride must face the emulsion side of the X-ray film to get fogging.
2. These experiments lead me to strongly warn against using X-ray film
to test the presence of nuclear reactions in "cold-fusion" type experiments.
For these, I have argued that X-ray spectrometers should be used to perform
the critical experiments, along with other sensitive particle detectors.
3."No X-rays and charged particles were observed by SiLi and surface barrier
detectors respectively..."  Srinivasan hypothesizes electrons as the cause
of the fogging.(Quote from Rout et al. Indian J. Tech., 29:571-578, 1991)
 
I assert that these experiments will bear the scrutiny you guys are
sure to impose.  Let me return to expected comments after my trip.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: N-Rays
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N-Rays
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 00:26:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930319163527_72240.1256_EHL39-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>CF has lasted 3 years, and grows stronger each month. N-Rays abruptly
>disappeared after 18 months.
 
     As little as I like the label 'pathological science' for any
     research (I think it is has very limited predictive power and
     is only useful as a bludgeon), I seem to recall that research on
     N-rays continued in France for many years after 1904
     (into the 20's seems to ring a bell).  Blondlot died in 1930,
     still unrepentant I seem to remember.
 
     I think you'll also agree that there is a substantial
     quantitative difference in funding potential between something
     with the potential for producing power, and something with
     no obvious immediate application.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Science is FILO quantified
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO quantified
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 01:02:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C45szA.75J@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  In Message-ID: <1993Mar19.040550.2402@math.ucla.edu>
>   Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93; Subject: Re: Science is FILO
>Barry Merriman (barry@math.ucla.edu) writes:
>
>=== "Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific
>===    community of the reality of CF?"
>
....
>    ***  A  Quick Calculation of CF Information Diffusion  **
>
>  Let's model the scientific community as an RC circuit.  Yes,
 
     This is quite amusing.  I prefer modeling it as a large ice-cream
     cone, once you've eaten all the ice-cream, you're left with a soggy
     shell.  Or how about a ball of cotten candy, big and fluffy, but as soon
     as your tongue touches it, it melts away (must be dinnertime).
 
     By the way, I don't think an RC circuit is what you're looking for
     when discussing 'diffusion', and I think you're after 'revelation'
     more than diffusion.
 
>  SUMMARY:  Increase the number of pathways.
>                  or the power of the truth.   (hmmmmm.....)
 
     Too many cooks spoil the soup?  Veni, vidi, vici?  E pluribus unum?
 
     This whole thing is easily demonstrated by hooking a cell up
     to a load and a fuel cell.  Let it power itself while it runs a lightbulb
     (lightbulb may be omitted to taste, but it's better theatre).
     That should be fairly easy,  especially if the boys over in France have
     made the process as repeatable as seems to be rumored.  The fact that
     they apparently have not done so leaves us with two options,
     a) they cannot or b) they can, but for proprietary reasons, they
     aren't going to share it with us.  If it's b), I fully understand,
     and we will know in the course of time.  If it's a), I begin to
     have deep doubts about either the information or the phenomenon.
 
     If the phenomenon is as blatent as is claimed, this would
     be a very very easy task.  If it had been me, I would have pulled
     that stunt as soon as I could, and make critics choose between the
     second law and the reality of the phenomenon.
 
     In any case, it sure beats modeling the scientific community as an
     RC circuit.
 
                              dale bass
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / L BATTIN /  Re: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 03:21:23 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <1993Mar19.172521.23763@netlabs.com>,
lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes...
>In article <C43MIF.1H8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>: The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth", the
>: Marxist thinks its some sort of dialectic of history, the Monarchist thinks
>: the King can decree it, and the Religionist looks for a relevation; but only
>: the Scientist bothers to listen to Nature's own voice....
>
>What a lovely oversimplification.  And what a pity it has almost nothing
>to do with what this newsgroup is supposedly about...
 
What a lovely example of quoting out of context.  And what a pity it makes
it so easy to warp the intended meaning.
 
My "lovely oversimplification" above was a response to one of Jed's typical
rants about how the marketplace is the best means of determining Scientific
Truth.
 
I made it simple in the hopes that people who have a hard time dealing with
complex issues might grasp it more readily...Apparently I didn't make it
simple enough...
 
As I have pointed out in a separate post, numerous counter-examples of this
idea are available, so numerous in fact, that I find it hard to believe
any rational person would actually propose such ideas seriously.
 
What a pity you didn't make use of the bandwidth you seem to care about
by addressing the actual point.  And if you don't think that point is
worth addressing, then what the heck are you doing wasting public bandwidth
bitching about it?  An email to the "offending" person would have been
more in keeping with your position, if it isn't just vapid posturing.
 
Someone who is unwilling or unable to follow the line of reasoning in a
"thread" is hardly the person you would want judging the context of an
entire newsgroup.  Your application for net.police is denied.
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Paul Houle /  Re: Pathological Science Indeed
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Science Indeed
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1993 06:51:27 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

In article <930318173827_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>I assert that there is practically no such thing as "pathological science."
>Langmuir was not a psychologist, and not a historian of science, and his
>thesis was greatly exaggerated and fundamentally flawed. At no time in the
>history of science has any effect been measured in widely replicated
>experiments, at high signal-to-noise ratios, but in the end found to be a
>mistake. This cannot happen. It would violate the whole basis and principle of
>experimental science. The nonsense about "pathological science" is based upon
>a gross misreading of history, and gross ignorance of the scientific method.
>It is being used as a shield, or a hiding place, to avoid the issues, and to
>pretend that experimental evidence is not the key to scientific truth.
 
        Can you tell us specifically why Langmuir is wrong?  I think that
Langmuir has brought out a number of cases where well-trained scientists have
made very serious mistakes,  and even does a good job of giving us danger
signs that are indicative of pathological science.  We can find many examples
of real phenomena (or generally accepted as real),  that may fit one of his
criteria,  such as nuclear magnetic resonance under certain conditions.
However,  I feel that they are good heuristics to use practically.
 
>I assert that I know far more about psychology than these so-called "skeptics"
>and that I am a far better judge of human nature than they are. If they are
>going to go on, month after month, year after year, asserting that cold fusion
>is based upon a psychological illusion in our minds, then I *certainly* have
>the right to turn the tables, and point out that they suffer from incredible,
>inexplicable, irrational illusions themselves, so they have no business
>pointing fingers at us.
 
        I've met people who have hallucinated some pretty intense things.  Not
just the people who take acid and have their visual centers filled with
random data,  but people who seriously believe that they have the power to
control the weather,  etc.  As such,  people have a great deal of ability to
delude themselves.  Why the motivation?  Isnt't it obvious?  The person who
learns to unleash nearly unlimited power from simple water will get fame and
fortune.  It is a hell of a way to get a better job,  get gads of money,  even
if you never actually produce anything that works.
 
        Joseph Newman is a 'fringe' inventor who periodically travels the
country looking for investors to fleece.  He of course believes that his
miracle motor is going to unleash unlimited amounts of gyro power from
copper atoms.  I met Joe when he tried to get $2 million from a group of
real estate investors from Albuquerque.  Although his self-deception was
remarkably clear,  so many of the people involved were blinded by lust for
money,  anger with present job situations,  etc,  and got sucked into his
fantasy.  It seems to me that cold fusion should incite the same passions.
 
>I assert that the only pathology in the field of cold fusion is that exhibited
>by those bigoted, foolish, scientifically illiterate people who insist that
>the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, who insist that calorimetry
>does not exist, that the specific heat of water can vary by a factor of 10,
>that a match can burn for a week, and that sigma 90 results mean nothing. This
>is the worst pathology in the history of science.
 
        I hope that you're not an experimentalist Jed -- only an
experimentalist can understand how many ways there are to screw up even a
seemingly simple experiment.  I can think of many ESP experiments that got
10+ sigma,  yet it is just so amazing that they aren't replicatable.
Similarly,  almost every paper I've seen on the subject of cold fusion seemed
to have been written by people who took some acid before writing them.  Not
only have I seen P&F try four complicated ways to figure out the breakeven
percentage of their cells,  and avoid the simple and correct way,  but I've
sent email to John Farrel trying to get a copy of his paper -- and he tells
me to go buy a book for $25.  He then has the nerve to ask me to explain the
theory of relativity to him.  Said book is also supposed to explain everything
in physics;  which just seems to be another sign of crackpotism to me.  And
gee,  this guy has a job teaching chemistry at a liberal arts college.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / L BATTIN /  Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 03:47:29 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <1993Mar19.191813.17718@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes...
 
>battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (Gene Battin) writes:
>>The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth"...
>>...but only the Scientist bothers to listen to Nature's own voice....
>
>False dichotomy.  To be a capitalist is not to exclude oneself from being
>a scientist, nor vice verse.
 
So what - neither does being a Catholic - but _that_ can't be used to
support the idea that the Pope determines what is or isn't "true" in
a Scientific sense.  You are assuming that I was trying to make a dichotomy
in the first place.  In the original post, in material you have deleted,
Jed was asserting that a free marketplace could determine the truth
about some scientific question (or an equivalent idea).  This is refuted in
all kinds of ways, and _my_ quote is an attempt to place this mistaken
idea in what I think is its proper context.  You may recall that Marxists
in the ex-Soviet Union thought that Marxism could pronounce on the truth of
things like Biology and Physics, (not to mention Music and the Arts) to the
extent  that they are still recovering from the damages such ideas caused.
 
Kings, Religious figures and (in Jed's case) Capitalists have also
wrongly thought their doctrines had some bearing when it comes to deciding
what is or isn't scientifically true.  All my quote did was to point
this out, claim it's a mistaken goal, and indicate just _where_ scientific
truth _actually_ comes from (Nature.)  When constructing this quote,
I left out such formulations as "Captalists who are mistaken think...",
since I (perhaps wrongly) thought that people would read my quote in context
and realize just _which_ Capitalist I had in mind, and just _what_ it was
he had said.  A silly idea _can_ be responded to with a "frivolous"
"oversimplification" (as another detracter put it), if the idea is silly
enough.
 
Taking statements out of context seems to be the Usenet way, so I guess
I was wrong...
 
>
>In any event, Capitalists seek not absolute "truth" in the market, but
>rather, the expression of subjective value, which they then try to service
>in exchange for other subjective values.
 
Please try to understand this:  I _don't_ disagree that that is exactly
correct in describing what Capitalists _should_ seek, _but_ as long as there
are some Capitalists (such as Jed appears to be) who think that the market
_can_ deliver absolute (or even scientific) truth,  there is a neccesity for
little reminders like my quote above.
 
Similarly, the Marxist who replies to my quote with 'The Marxists seek
not absolute "truth" in the struggle of the classes, but rather, the
expression of historical forces' is _also_ quite right, but it sure didn't
prevent people from elevating a crank like Lysenko to high scientific
office in the name of Marxism.
 
If you can't see that, IN ITS CONTEXT, my quote was a warning against
making such erroneous usages of our various "ists" and "isms", then
I can't help you.   I have email that indicates that _others_ had
no such problems...
 
This is the second post I have responded to that took the quote out of
its context.  I have the opinion that people who do so are not really
interested in the original topic, and I want them to understand that I
have no interest in trying to defend it as an absolute item, since it
_wasn't_.
 
This is the last I have to say about my little quote out of its original
context.
 
>
>I know some people like to proclaim that they have a scientific basis for
>their own particular set of values, but I am singularly unimpressed by the
>"proof of truth" that they've been able to show in support thereof.
 
Well, _this_ succeeds in turning the original point on its head!
 
Jed claims to have a particular set of values (Capitalist) which provides a
basis (survival in the market) for judging scientific truth.
 
Context really doesn't matter, does it?
 
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / L BATTIN /  Re: N-Rays
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N-Rays
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 04:40:28 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <930319163527_72240.1256_EHL39-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Gene Battin writes:
>
>     "The N-ray fiasco did NOT involve just _one_ mistaken observer, in _one_
>     isolated lab.  N-rays were most definitely "replicated" "widely", with
>     high signal-to-noise ratios.  If you want to make sweeping statements
>     like the above, at least get them _right_!"
>
>Gene, if you want to make sweeping statements like that, at least get them
>_right_! Everything you said about N-Rays is nonsense.
 
I said N-rays were widely seen.  Do you deny that they were seen in multiple
labs in France?  Or do the facts not come into it?
 
>Here is an essay I
>wrote about them back in December 1991. The situation has changed
>considerably since then; the proof of cold fusion is much more solid:
>
>I thank Mr. Kimbrogh for citing the Scientific American N-Ray paper ("The N-
>Ray Affair" vol. 242 #5, p. 168.) I got hold of a copy, I was very impressed,
>and now I am Petitioning Congress to support N-Ray research. No! Wait! That
>was a joke.
>
>Now, here are some facts from that article which I think show the vast
>difference between N-Rays and CF. Very briefly: N-Rays were 'discovered' in
>1903 by a distinguished French physicist Rene Blondlot. It was a mistake, not
>a hoax. A few others got into the act right away, another scientist, and
>spiritualist. After a while, others joined. In the first half of 1903 four
>papers were published. "In the first half of 1904 the number had risen to
>54." (I do not know if this is cumulative or if it means the 6 month total).
 
Well, if this doesn't qualify as multiple "replications" I don't know what
could.
Again, you condemn yourself out of your own mouth.
 
[snip, snip...]
 
>
>N-Rays were difficult to detect;
 
You never specified what you meant by "high signal to noise", so I took
the liberty of interpreting it as I saw fit, in apparently true
Usenet style.
 
"Difficult to detect" is not isomorphic to "low signal to noise ratio".
 
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mobility of He in Pd
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mobility of He in Pd
Date: 19 Mar 93 12:36:19 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

(Gary Collins comments again on the issue of He mobility in Pd
raised by Dieter Britz)
 
In article <650F699554BF200AA8@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
>>Your statement that He is immobile in Pd at room temperature may well
>>be wrong, Dieter.  ...
>
> Yes, and the statement could well be right. Offhand, I can't remember exactly
> where, but I have read in several places that He is as good as immobile in Pd,
> and requires temperatures around 1000 K to start to come out. I'll pursue
> this. Meanwhile, maybe you have access to a recent book by one Laesser (i.e.
> La"sser) called "Tritium and Helium 3 in Metals", Springer, 1990. The nearest
> source to me seems to be in London, a bit hard to get. I suspect this book
> will have some information.
 
Concerning release at about 1000 K or higher, it is well known that He atoms
bind very strongly with vacancies in metals (unlike hydrogen atoms).  Roughly
speaking, this is because the overlap of the filled K shell of He with
conduction electrons in a metal costs energy.  Thus, He atoms prefer to sit
in a lattice vacancy, void, or outside the surface.  The strong trapping of
He atom in open spaces in a metal has led to development of "thermal helium
desorption spectroscopy" (THDS).  As an example of the method, He atoms may be
implanted in a metal, diffuse and then trap at locations such as vacancies.
The sample is then heated in vacuum, with He being liberated at characteristic
temperatures which depend on the binding enthalpy of He with the trap center.
The release from the trap centers is followed by rapid diffusion to the surface
and desorption, with the He detected (I believe) using a simple leak-detector-
type mass spectrometer.  Thus, the binding enthalpy is high, but the migration
enthalpy may be very low.
 
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that He is produced by a nuclear
reactions inside metals.  Then the nature of the reaction will be important.
If the reactions produce energetic charged particles, such as protons,
tritons, or helium, then they can normally be expected to displace atoms as
they slow down, thereby creating vacancies.  Many vacancies will be produced
per reaction product particle, so that much of the helium produced will
trap in the vacancies.  There would be a lot of helium left in the metal,
although some small fraction might escape immediately to the surface.
On the other hand, if one postulated some novel reaction which produces
helium with energies less than about 1 keV, then vacancies would not be
produced and much of the helium might desorb immediately from the metal.
 
Sorry, I can't help you about Laesser's book.  I haven't seen Fukai's book, but
he is a very clear writer.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / L BATTIN /  Re: The scientist's conceit
     
Originally-From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The scientist's conceit
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 05:05:47 GMT
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU

In article <930319191559_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Gene Battin comments:
>
>     "The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth", the
>     Marxist thinks its some sort of dialectic of history, the Monarchist
>     thinks the King can decree it, and the Religionist looks for a
>     relevation..."
>
>There is a VERY IMPORTANT difference between capitalism, marxism, and
>monarchism. Capitalism actually works.
 
Not for deciding what is or isn't scientifically "true", Jed.
 
I would like to engage in a small Socratic dialogue with my
friend, Simplicio:
 
Simplicio:  Capitalism is the best system yet invented, because it compels
            us to seek the truth...
 
Gene: Simp, ol'd pal, do you buy the newspaper?
 
Simplicio:  Why, yes I do, Gene, and it's a wonderful illustration of my
            point.  Any paper that tried to print untruths and lies will
            eventually lose its readership, thereby losing its income, and
            in a Capitalistic system will be replaced by a better newspaper.
 
Gene:  (looking at the Horoscope page) I'm a "Taurus".  In _my_ paper it says
       that I'm going to win an important argument today.  What sign are you?
 
Simplicio: (thinks for a bit, scratching his head) ...uh, Gene, would
           you mind if I modified my thesis a bit?
 
>It is the best system yet invented,
>far ahead of whatever is in second place. Marxism and monarchy, by contrast,
>were horrible mistakes, and they are dead and buried. Furthermore, capitalism
>compels us to seek the truth. Without truth & enlightenment, you cannot build
>bridges, factories, or power generators.
 
You are confusing the fact that Capitalism is happy to USE science, when
it so desires, with the idea that such use denotes ownership.
In this respect, Capitalism is a like a whore, and will climb into bed with
ANYONE it thinks it can make a profit from.  Armand Hammer used to do quite
well dealing with the Marxists, I recall...
 
Capitalism compels us to seek illusion.  Without illusion, Hollywood is dead.
Who makes the more money (the Capitalistic measure of success) in our
Capitalistic system, Jed, your typical science researcher or Movie Stars?
 
>
>Gene goes on with a typical scientist's conceit: "but only the Scientist
>bothers to listen to Nature's own voice...."
>
>Right. Sure. Only scientists. Plus engineers. And farmers. Also, doctors,
>computer programmers, cooks, industrial planners, carpenters, artists,
>bakers, airplane pilots, mothers, teachers, and every other human being on
>earth who works with his hands and deals with tools, and with physical
>objects.
 
And, when they do, they are acting in a Scientific manner.
 
>
>Science has contributed a great to human happiness & wisdom. I am all in
>favor of science, both practical and theoretical. But scientists do not have
>God's own private telephone number.
 
You're right, here, Jed.  They DO have a working relationship with Mother
Nature, though.  It's called "the scientific method".  You should learn about
it someday.  There's a reason it _isn't_ called "the Capitalistic method",
you know.
 
>                                     They are not the only ones who learn
>directly from nature. Nearly everyone else does that too.
 
And, in so far as they use the method of "observation, frame hypothesis,
test hypothesis, repeat" they are being Scientists, Jed.  You got
a problem with that?
 
>                                                           Furthermore, the
>contributions of science would never have amounted to anything without the
>brilliance, imagination and courage of the engineers and businessmen who
>actually put scientific discoveries to practical use.
 
Whether science's contributions get put to use has little to do with
their "validity" as "truth", Jed.  Please put Superstring theory to practical
use right now, I want to know if its scientifically valid.
 
I've yet to meet the man who can honestly say that he has NEVER violated
one or another of the 10 commandments.  That doesn't detract from their
"truth" either.
 
"truth" is not equal to "practical utility"
 
So much for THAT non-sequitor.
 
Rewarding Movie Stars, channelers, astrologists, and a million other various
purveyors of the unreal so much more than, say, Astronomers, tells me all I need
to know about whether Capitalism intrinsically has anything to do with the
search for scientific truth, Jed.
 
By the way, your's is the first post I've seen so far to complain about
my quote which actually took it in the context I intended.
Thank you.
 
-Gene Battin
battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbattin cudfnL cudlnBATTIN cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Pathological Science Indeed Not
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Science Indeed Not
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 06:09:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Mar19.065127.21742@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <930318173827_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>>I assert that there is practically no such thing as "pathological science."
>>Langmuir was not a psychologist, and not a historian of science, and his
>>thesis was greatly exaggerated and fundamentally flawed. At no time in the
>>history of science has any effect been measured in widely replicated
>>experiments, at high signal-to-noise ratios, but in the end found to be a
>>mistake. This cannot happen. It would violate the whole basis and principle of
>>experimental science. The nonsense about "pathological science" is based upon
>>a gross misreading of history, and gross ignorance of the scientific method.
>>It is being used as a shield, or a hiding place, to avoid the issues, and to
>>pretend that experimental evidence is not the key to scientific truth.
>
>       Can you tell us specifically why Langmuir is wrong?  I think that
>Langmuir has brought out a number of cases where well-trained scientists have
>made very serious mistakes,  and even does a good job of giving us danger
>signs that are indicative of pathological science.  We can find many examples
>of real phenomena (or generally accepted as real),  that may fit one of his
>criteria,  such as nuclear magnetic resonance under certain conditions.
>However,  I feel that they are good heuristics to use practically.
 
     The whole concept is flawed (as recently applied).  Any
     phenomenon of unknown etiology at the edge of detection could
     well have many of same 'symptoms'.  I think recently the
     promotion of the concept of pathological science has been
     used as a scimitar to slice opponents without the necessity
     of using actual scientific arguments.   It is no coincidence
     that Langmuir's article showed up in Physics Today in October
     of 1989.  I don't think they could have put it in sooner if
     they had decided to do so in April.
 
     For completeness, I'll list the 6 criteria (Physics Today, Oct. 1989)
 
         1) The maximum effect that is observed is produced by
            a causitive agent of barely detectable intensity, and
            the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent
            of the cause.
 
         2) The effect is of such a magnitude that remains close to the
            limit of detectabiliyt, or many measurements are necessary because
            of the very low statistical significance
 
         3) There are claims of great accuracy.
 
         4) Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
 
         5) Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the
            moment.
 
         6) The ratio of supporters to critics rises up somewhere near 50%
            and then falls gradually to oblivion.
 
     Now, criterion 5) is worthless for much of anything, since
     that's the way new fields are defended.  Wavelike solutions to
     Maxwell's equations were defended in this manner for many years
     before they were actually found.  And for 'cold fusion', many
     of the ad hoc excuses have become de rigueur.  So, are they now
     ad hoc?   The number of supporters in criterion 6) is
     simply Langmuir's guess about several episodes prior
     to 1950 and seems arbitrary.  In any case, I would be surprised
     if there were ever enough 'supporters' for 'cold fusion' to have
     passed any such criterion.  The firestorm from physicists began
     immediately (i.e. 'science by press converence', a laughable
     criticism from those who enjoy PPPL's).  As for the rest, one can almost
     feel their basis in scintillation counting and parapsychology.
 
     Honestly, for 'cold fusion' only 4) really applies.  The main claims
     are not subtle.  As far as I know, the main claims do not rely
     on barely measurable quantities of heat, and I know of no one
     claiming superhuman accuracy (though, of course, debates as
     to accuracy are entirely appropriate).  And, 4) is no crime.
     Without violations of 4), we'd not have wavelike solutions
     of Maxwell's equations, special relativity, quantum mechanics
     or suborbital 747's.
 
     In fact, Jones' results for neutron generation seem to fit
     more relevant categories than the 'anomalous heat'.  They seem
     to be following detection limits quite closely.  However,
     I have never seen the term 'pathological science' applied to them,
     and rightly so.
 
     It appears to me that Langmuir was just pointing out that
     human foibles affect human experimentation.  This is true, but
     it is also true that human foibles affect human criticism.
     So, it seems more useful to discuss experimental technique
     than to wave 'pathological science' over peoples' heads like a club.
 
     Judging by the use of Langmuir's 'menu' in several scientific
     episodes since the 60s, it seems like his menu is only
     useful for allowing the victors to spit on the graves of
     the vanquished (yes, not only was it wrong, it was *pathological*).
     This does not seem proper.  Let's figure out if the experiments
     are repeatable, by all means, but save the pseudo-sociology
     for the social scientists.
 
>       I've met people who have hallucinated some pretty intense things.  Not
>just the people who take acid and have their visual centers filled with
>random data,  but people who seriously believe that they have the power to
>control the weather,  etc.  As such,  people have a great deal of ability to
>delude themselves.  Why the motivation?  Isnt't it obvious?  The person who
>learns to unleash nearly unlimited power from simple water will get fame and
>fortune.  It is a hell of a way to get a better job,  get gads of money,  even
>if you never actually produce anything that works.
 
     Are you talking about PPPL?
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.19 / Steve Ratcliffe /  Electrode shape.
     
Originally-From: steve@root.co.uk (Steve Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrode shape.
Date: 19 Mar 93 18:44:04 GMT
Organization: UniSoft Ltd., London, England

In <6689860C59BF20879C@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
[ Under subject: Re: X-rays as Critical Test/Re to Collins ]
>surface, or very near-surface effect. If so, the recipe is clear: don't use
>chunky Pd cathodes, use ones with a large surface like a long fine wire or
>thin foil. This would also have the advantage - if high loading is indeed the
>secret - that you get high loading quickly.
 
I seem to remember that when F&P first announced their claims that they
warned against using electrodes with a square cross-section (or probably
pointed shapes in general) because the reaction was too violent and so was
potentially dangerous.
 
At the time I thought that this suggested a near-surface effect; perhaps
the loading was increased along the corner edges or something.
 
Does anyone use square cross section electrodes now?  If not it may be
worth a try, especially if they can think of any good reason why it may
make a difference.
 
Is there any effect in ordinary electrochemisty that depends
on electrode shape?
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnRatcliffe cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.21 / Jim Bowery /  Re: send no money
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: send no money
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 00:44:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege said:
>Jim Bowery offers $100 if I can generate a replication of the P&F boiling
cell
>video.
 
I actually said:
>I'm willing to donate $100 toward this experiment.
 
I offered this money up front, asked Tom how much he would need to pursue
his own hypothesis and I solicited others to chip in to achieve that amount.
This is funding, not a prize award contingent on success, as Tom
erroneously stated.  Further, it would not take any $500,000 funding for Tom
to pursue his own hypothesis, as he later implies, and he knows it.
 
Tom said:
>I take great pleasure in maintaining my independence, so your
>$100 is safe.  To funding agencies out there, I could be bought, but
 
Tom here reveals he did understand the difference between a "prize"
and "funding"...
 
...but in addition I actually said:
>One string is attached to this grant
>from The JimBo Science Foundation:  I get one of the first copies
>of "The Droege Boiling Cell Video" and honorable mention of The Foundation
>in the credits.
 
I can't accept that Tom actually believes the above request for honorable
mention in the video credits (clearly made in jest) would amount to a loss
of his independence.  Similarly I can't accept that Tom actually believes
merely
accepting grant money to pursue his own hypothesis -- particularly in the
spirit of good sportsmanship in which the grant was offered -- would reduce
his independence.  In any case the phrase "I could be bought, but" is
quite out of place here.
 
Other, more plausible interpretations of Tom's response reflect negatively
on Tom's character.  If any of these are true, I am disappointed.
 
If, on an off chance, Tom's posture toward my offer arises from some
third party's misrepresentation of my statements or actions, I would
appreciate knowing who this party is and what they have said/written.
 
>it would
>take about 0.5 M and it would have to be done through the Fermilab
management.
>Then I would only agree to spend half of the effort doing things like
>"proving" that the P&F boiling cell was PR.  The rest would go for my own
>experimental program, and a couple of people so I could get more done.
...
>I am looking for a positive "anomalous heat" result.  This means that I am
not
>particularly interested in "proving" that this or that experiment is in
error.
 
If it weren't for P&F, Tom would never have begun his work.  If P&F were
shown to be charlatans Tom would cease his own experiments.  Tom's
hypothesis about P&F's boiling cell, if shown to be accurate by his
own work, would be significant evidence that P&F were charlatans.
Such evidence would be as significant as any Tom has produced thusfar.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.21 / Jim Bowery /  P&F's Greatest Contribution
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F's Greatest Contribution
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 00:45:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If P&F are right about "excess heat", they will free independent innovators
in this country from the largest single impediment to the advancement of the
human condition:  The fraudulent "science" establishment that has inverted
incentives for technical progress over the course of the cold war.
 
That would be P&F's main contribution to human welfare.
 
May the wheels of the gods will grind more rapidly toward history's
judgement in this and related affairs.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Electrode shape.
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrode shape.
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 16:58:52 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

steve@root.co.uk (Steve Ratcliffe) writes:
>I seem to remember that when F&P first announced their claims that they
>warned against using electrodes with a square cross-section (or probably
>pointed shapes in general) because the reaction was too violent and so was
>potentially dangerous.
 
Oh No! I can't resist!  Its seems obvious, does it not, that a pyramid
shape is indicated!  Probably the exact scale dimensions of the pyramid
of cheops.  It sharpens razor blades, keeps bananas from spoiling, and
prevents x-rays from coming out of anamolous heat producing cold fusion
reactions!
 
Tom needs to do a Takahasi style experiment with a thin paladium plate
covered with little pyramids.  Maybe it needs to be oriented in the
right direction too!  :-) :-)
 
True believers forgive me I'm just joking (but I want Tom to try it.
as well as a paladium van-de-graf generator immersed in heavy water). :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Electrode shape.
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrode shape.
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 17:08:01 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

If natural geo-fusion is true then the effect can't really be a surface
effect can it?  It can't really be an effect that occurs at the border
between two types of solid metal either (palladium/silver).  I'd like to
get Steve Jones comments on bulk vs surface effect given his natural
fusion hypothesis.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / John Logajan /  Re: The scientist's conceit
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The scientist's conceit
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 18:04:54 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (Gene Battin) writes:
 
>>>The Capitalist thinks that the marketplace can find the "truth"...
>>>...but only the Scientist bothers to listen to Nature's own voice....
>>
>>False dichotomy.  To be a capitalist is not to exclude oneself from being
>>a scientist, nor vice verse.
 
>Taking statements out of context seems to be the Usenet way ...
 
A truck load of context doesn't rescue imprecise expression of this sort.
Neither does blaming Jed for being the first to err.  Your statement is false
as it stands, regardless of other considerations.
 
>as long as there are some Capitalists (such as Jed appears to be) who think
>that the market _can_ deliver absolute (or even scientific) truth,  there is
>a neccesity for little reminders like my quote above.
 
There is never a "necessity" for false dichotomies.
 
 
And then Gene offers us these words of wisdom:
 
>Capitalism is a like a whore, and will climb into bed with ANYONE it thinks
>it can make a profit from.
 
You mean like your mother who owns a few shares of G.E.?  Or your sister who
runs a flower shop?   Exactly which whores are you talking about?
 
>Capitalism compels us to seek illusion.
 
Egads.
 
I don't know what you think capitalism means, but it is generally understood
to mean the ownership of the means of production by the individual.
 
Just because your mother is part owner of G.E., (i.e. a capitalist) it doesn't
follow that she is willing to climb into bed (figuratively or literally) with
anyone from whom she thinks she can make a profit.  Or that she is unable to
thereafter distinquish reality from illusion.
 
I can see that you hate capitalism, but it is equally apparent that your
reasons for doing so are very, shall we say, confused.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / J Lewis /  Re: The scientist's conceit
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The scientist's conceit
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 19:19:18 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930319191559_72240.1256_EHL71-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>                   ...                                monarchy, by contrast,
>were horrible mistakes, and they are dead and buried.
God save the Queen.
 
Actually, some of the most successful capitalist countries have
been monarchies - the U.K. (once the greatest capitalist power),
the Netherlands, and so forth.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / J Lewis /  Re: Pathological Science Indeed Not
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pathological Science Indeed Not
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 20:22:30 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930318173827_72240.1256_EHL60-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>I assert that there is practically no such thing as "pathological science."
 
I suppose, then, that we should follow Robert McElwaine and study
Cold Fusion in Petunias, rather than in Palladium!
 
No contentious calorimetry or high-energy particle measurements are
necessary!! Only a good analytical balance.
 
...Gee, I wonder if I could get some of the very able Japanese
horticulturists interested ...
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Larry Wall /  Re: holy water
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: holy water
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 21:38:31 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <1993Mar19.161603.14062@netcom.com> ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley) writes:
: Has anyone tried holy water yet?  I'm serious!  Ask your priest for some,
: or take a turkey baster to church and sneak a little.   For heavy water,
: you'll have to take some ordinary D2O in and have it blessed or whatever
: they do to make it holy.
:
: In the efforts to make a CF demonstration happen, we can't overlook
: anything, can we?
 
If what you're looking for is symbolic success, may I suggest that it is
more usefully approached from the success angle than the symbolic angle.  :-)
 
The purpose of symbolism is, of course, to get people to jump to
conclusions.  And we know that jumping to conclusions is a survival
skill.  Moreover, it's in the interest of the survival of the species
that we jump to conclusions at differing rates.  We will integrate your
input, each in our own way, and go on from here.  Some of us might even
survive.
 
:-)
 
Seriously, to answer your question, I can think of any number of things
worth overlooking.  To its credit, this newsgroup does tend to be
success-oriented rather than symbol-oriented.  Unfortunately, what
we're most successful at is tearing each other to shreds.  In the
search for truth, we do occasionally need to overlook each other's
character flaws.  Lord knows we've all got plenty of 'em.  (One of mine
is blathering on and on...but if you ask me a rhetorical question, you
can expect a rhetorical answer...)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Larry Wall /  Re: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Welcome Back Terry  (Was: Response to Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 22:10:13 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <C4654A.s7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
: My "lovely oversimplification" above was a response to one of Jed's typical
: rants about how the marketplace is the best means of determining Scientific
: Truth.
 
Fighting fire with fire, eh?
 
: Someone who is unwilling or unable to follow the line of reasoning in a
: "thread" is hardly the person you would want judging the context of an
: entire newsgroup.  Your application for net.police is denied.
 
Nah, you take me too seriously.  I'm just a net.gadfly.  If occasionally
I bite someone where they're sensitive, I expect to get slapped around...
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Science is FILO quantified
     
Originally-From: mbk@gibbs.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO quantified
Date: 20 Mar 1993 23:26:43 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:      Let's say people are awakening now.  Therefore  Tdiffusion = 4 years.
:      Seems reasonable and comparable to what happened with Galileo
 
Let's get this straightened out here.  Educated renaissance folks
looked through his 'scope, and saw the phases of Venus.  They
were convinced.  T = 5 seconds.
It took a little longer, but they could follow the orbits of Jupiter's
satellites over a few weeks.
 
The Roman Catholic Church, even in the 16th century, was hardly known
as a guiding light of brilliantly innovative advancement.  The story
of Galileo's travails is remebered precisely because the evidence was
unequivocal.  (CF isn't).
 
General Relativity, by far the most singularly unusual and brilliant
theory of the century (radiation free nuclear reactions is
NOTHING compared to nonlinear warping of spacetime)
was confirmed in a year or two by a famous
experiment.  (QM, on th eother had, was needed to explain 20 years of
utterly clear-cut experiments.)
 
More recently, who would have believed in a superconductor with
Tc = 90K?
 
Nobody.  Totally ridiculous, and impossible according to the theory.
 
But sure enough, people followed Chu's formula and it worked.  Confirmation
took a week.
 
(They still don't have a good theory, although previous tries have
 been shot down over the years with more experimental results)
 
:                                                 - Mitchell Swartz
 
--
-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:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.21 / mitchell swartz /  Let theory be your guide
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let theory be your guide
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 00:50:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <00969BC8.77362500.5319@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
      Fri, 19 Mar 1993 22:08:46 GMT; Subject: Let theory be your guide
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
===   "There is a flaw, however, in that "theory" says cold fusion of
===   deuterons will produce neutrons which clearly aren't there."
 
   Theories which don't reflect repeated experimental results are
       probably flawed, right?
 
 
===  "The argument from the cold fusion advocates has never varied.  In
===   their view it is only a theory that says cold fusion will produce
===   neutrons."
 
  Cold fusion is reflected in the cornucopia of experimental results.
  The skeptics' theories appear to thus have the integrity of
    a recently-pierced inflated balloon.
 
 
===  " The fact that four years of cold fusion experiments has not resulted
===  in a single "theory" for the reaction process is probably more
===  significant as a negative than most of the experiments performed to
===  date."
 
  Incorrect. There are lots of theories.  Theories of loading,
   calorimetry, lattice physics, coherence, etc. etc.
  "Not a single theory" at best reflects an empty cupboard where books
      and papers should sit, doesn't it?
 
 
===   "As a prime example, consider the recent claims for the observation
===  of particles at energies of 17-18 MeV from a glow discharge
===  experiment. My "theory" says this is extremely unlikely to be a valid
===  observation."
 
   Your theory is already flawed as shown above.  Other theories exist.
   Even several of my past postings show unproven but potential pathways.
 
 
===   "My conclusion therefore, is the experiment is faulty.  That is, of
===  course, a conclusion based on theory."
 
  Excuse me.  Consider:  Your theory versus -
                             EXPERIMENTS as in hundreds.
 
   They each prove your theory is flawed.  Together:   p<.001
 
   Dick, by the way, may we have the answers to the questions?
 
--  "Where is your proof that there "must be lots of neutrons"?
-- [mica@world; Reply to Blue. Req for proof; <C44C3x.5uw@world.std.com>]
 
  and
 
===   " ... my number one most significant negative, the measurements
=== by Prof. Mike Salamon of the U of Utah where he placed a large NaI
=== detector under the bench where Prof. Pons claimed to have a working
=== cell."
      [Dick Blue  <00969BC1.D3C69A40.5299@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>]
 
--  "You place one-half of all the skeptics basis against CF on
--  a large NaI detector under where Prof. Pons claimed to have a working
--  cell.   Was that working previously? or at that very time?
--      What was the "NaI detector" looking for?  calorimetry? He-4?"
--            [mitchell swartz) <C45E7L.D4w@world.std.com>]
 
     Best wishes.
                                        - Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.21 / mitchell swartz /  Science is FILO (quantified)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science is FILO (quantified)
Date: 21 Mar 93 01:07:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In Message-ID: <1og97jINNl2b@network.ucsd.edu>: 20 Mar 1993 GMT
                          Subject: Re: Science is FILO quantified
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
===   "Educated renaissance folks looked through his 'scope, and saw
===    the phases of Venus.  They were convinced.  T = 5 seconds.  It
===    took a little longer, but they could follow the orbits of
===    Jupiter's satellites over a few weeks."
 
  Two points.
 
 1)   A clear Jovian view required "his 'scope", or a good
      working equivalent.  Same would work here.
 
 2)  5 seconds?  Perhaps several weeks of careful notetaking (weather
     permitting) and a fortnight of thought.
     Same here.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Roger McCain /       job for Honors physics major
     
Originally-From: MCCAINRA@DUVM.BITNET (Roger A. McCain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      job for Honors physics major
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 03:59:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I am the director of the Honors Program at Drexel University. Please
respond directly to my e-mail address, MCCAINRA@DUVM.BITNET, as I do not
monitor this net. Drexel is committed to "cooperative education" -- all
science and engineering majors are expected to do three six-month
periods of employment in their major fields as part of a five-year BS.
This is a bit tricky for students in "pure-science" fields such as
physics. I would be most grateful for any leads to find a job in some
physics-related area for a Physics major in the Honors Program I
administer. He is a sophomore (5 quarters complete) with a 3.6+ average,
has taken Honors mathematics for two years and Honors physics. The job
could start as soon as April 5, or as soon as possible thereafter, and
continue as late as mid-September. Anyone got any ideas? Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenMCCAINRA cudfnRoger cudlnMcCain cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.21 / Jonathan Grad /  Re: The scientist's conceit
     
Originally-From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The scientist's conceit
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 19:28:27 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department

 
FLAME ON
 
In article <C46BCr.8K1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>
>Simplicio:  Capitalism is the best system yet invented, because it compels
>            us to seek the truth...
 
Actually, those who argue the above are IMHO mistaken. Capitalism
does not compel us to do that.  The beauty of capitalism, as in pure
capitalism, is that it minimizes the extent of interactions that
come directly or indirectly via the threat of force.
Note: In no way am I implying that Gene agrees or disagrees with
the comment of his character 'Simplicio'.  For more details about
'simplicio' see gene's previous post - and other standard disclaimers.
 
 
>
>You are confusing the fact that Capitalism is happy to USE science, when
>it so desires, with the idea that such use denotes ownership.
>In this respect, Capitalism is a like a whore, and will climb into bed with
>ANYONE it thinks it can make a profit from.  Armand Hammer used to do quite
>well dealing with the Marxists, I recall...
 
Yeah, speaking of whores, I am reminded of the scientific establishment
- those scientist that will get in bed with any government official
to milk every last dollar they can from the government to pay for their
'research'.
 
>
>Capitalism compels us to seek illusion.  Without illusion, Hollywood is dead.
>Who makes the more money (the Capitalistic measure of success) in our
>Capitalistic system, Jed, your typical science researcher or Movie Stars?
>
 
Don't tell me, let me guess - science does not require illusion.
I can't think of any researcher that has ever tried to get grant
money by making outrageous claims about the importance of his/her
research. Oh no, never!
 
And while we are talking about who makes more money, ask yourself
whether you are part of the 'problem'.  I certainly know many
scientists who would rather pay ten dollars to go to a baseball
game than to attend a lecture by a scientist in a field other than
their own.
 
FLAME OFF.
 
 
BTW, now for a comment about CF since this is a CF group.
I have enjoyed reading the postings here. Like many others
here, I certainly hope CF is real and can produce an inexpsenive
energy source.  I am waiting for convincing evidence, as in a
working prototype energy source.
 
jonathan grad
grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengrad cudfnJonathan cudlnGrad cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.21 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Fogging of X-ray films with PdH or PdD
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fogging of X-ray films with PdH or PdD
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 19:30:04 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
> I'm curious too, Bob, and with students have pursued these experiments in
> our copious free time.  We have found, as did Srinivasan et al., that Pd or
> Ti loaded with H or D produces fogging.  Ni has not been tried to my
> knowledge, but should work I suppose.  (We'll try this -- but after my trip
> to Japan.)
> Barriers:  we used mylar, about 2 microns thick -- and still got fogging.
> How far?  Up to about 2 mm, still the fogging occurs (takes hours).  Thus,
> contact of hydrided foil with the film is _not_ required.
>
>  Other chemicals:  air or hydrogen seem to be needed.  We and Srinivasan
> found the effect went away in vacuum; also when we used helium. This
> suggests a chemical effect involving hydrogen.
 
 
        I routinely do autoradiograpy with X-ray film to pick up extremely
low levels of beta emmissions from chromatograms which have 32P labelled
spots on them.  The autoradiography process (as you might guess) is subject
to numerous artifacts.  Here are some suggestions for further experiments,
based on my experience.
 
1)  Space the foil about 2 mm away from the film (using microscope slides as
noted) and arrange for a small fan to blow air through the 2 mm gap.  If
there is a diffusible species causing the fogging, blowing air through the
gap should reduce the effect, with the reduction strongest on the "upwind"
side of the experiment.  If the effect remains unaltered, it is difficult to
imagine a chemical effect.  Note that humidity is a variable in handling
X-ray film - in very dry conditions, static electricity discharges can cause
marks on the film.
 
2) Try putting an "X" with black marker pen on the mylar, and see if it shows
up on the film.  It is possible that what is reaching the film is light,
produced by some chemiluminescent or phosphorescence reaction.  This is a
common problem in autoradiography as some materials have light activated
phosphorescence (Kleenex lint for example). We put this effect to our
advantage by marking chromatograms with phosphorescent ink, which leaves
black alignment marks on the film.
 
3)  Try an X-ray "intensifying screen" (a solid plastic-like scintillator
sold in sheets, which is used to increase the sensitivity of X-ray film by
converting nuclear hits into flashes of light).  This is a bit of a
long-shot. Arrange the material in the order:
 
Metal foil  :  X-ray film  :  intensifying screen
 
        Any radiation penetrating the X-ray film and hitting the screen will
cause the screen to give off light which exposes the film from the screen
side.
 
        To borrow an intensifying screen, ask around your biochemistry
department - they are frequently used in imaging radioactively labelled DNA
which has been separated by electrophoresis.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Bradley Sherman /  Supreme Court Votes 5-4, Cold Fusion a Hoax
     
Originally-From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Supreme Court Votes 5-4, Cold Fusion a Hoax
Date: 22 Mar 1993 03:46:52 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, a genome database for forest trees

 
As this group should be more properly named "A bunch of guys
arguing about the nature of Science and Tom Droege doing some"
I thought it not inappropriate to mention the "Bendectin case."
 
Bendectin was a drug sold by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals from
1956-1983.  Parents of two children (two different families)
born with stunted limbs are suing the company claiming that the
drug, prescribed for morning-sickness, is responsible.
 
A California appeals court threw the case out on the grounds
that the only good science is "generally accepted" and published
in peer-reviewed journals. Scientists, including Stephen Jay
Gould, are filing briefs (unconcerned with the drug) questioning
the validity of the appeals court finding.  The various arguments
will not sound novel to readers of this newsgroup.
 
The Supreme Court will be hearing the case starting 30 March 1993.
 
Facts above are from a story on pages 62-64 of the 22 March 1993
_Newsweek_ --having bought the magazine only to read about the case,
I now remember why I stopped reading these news weeklies about 1973.
True believers will no doubt enjoy the stories of the tribulations
of Hans Krebs and Barbara McClintock. There is a tad more detail
in the rag, but a visit to a good Law library is probably more in
order than a visit to the newstand.
 
    --Brad Sherman (bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov)
 
Putting on your shoes, start with the right foot; washing your
feet, with the left.
    --Pythagoras
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Peter Tattam /  A small aside.
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A small aside.
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:45:10 GMT
Organization: Psychology Department, University of Tasmania

This probably doesn't belong here, but maybe it does...  judge for yourself.
 
I just thought that I would relate an experience of mine to demonstrate some
of the psychology of experimentation.  Please note that this in no way
reflects the standard of experimentation in our department, just a small
private thing of my own.
 
Here in the Psychology Dept, we collect EEG data.  If anyone has ever done
EEG work, they will know that it is virtually impossible to pick out the
signal from the noise. In the pursuit of different ways of analysing data, I
collected a few minutes of data from my own head at several points at much
higher rate than normal in the hope of testing out a theory of mine.  I was
hoping to do some correlation of the high frequency pulses in an attempt to
locate the source of the neural activity.  Well, I collected this data and
ran it through some digital filters and found some quite surprising
correlations. I found quite a number of little spikes which I was sure
looked just like what I wanted.  They also correlated in time too...
 
Since I only had a small amount of data to work with, I decided to write an
on-line display program which would display the data as it was being
collected applying the appropriate digital techniques to plot the position
of the EEG pulses in two dimensions.  This of course generated a fair bit of
interest among the researchers here.... not to mention a few sideways looks
as I hooked myself up to the apparatus. :-)
 
Well the display was interesting to say the least. It resembled the center
of a galaxy, with the diameter depending on the amount of neural activity I
was doing,   nothing else, no correlations, no localizations nothing...
 
You can imagine my disappointment in not finding what I hoped.. neat little
bundles of activity localized on the screen.
 
So I thought to myself...  there must be something wrong with the initial
data that looked so promising.  ...  so I went to collect a bit of null
data.  Guess what.... the same pulses without anybody hooked up.  And they
had a regular period of .... you guessed it..... 100Hz.... I was observing a
strange artifact of the A/D converter.  The funny thing was that they came
and went in an unpredictable manner.  Now these artifacts weren't obvious
until you looked really carefully for them.  Sometimes they were there and
sometimes not.  It was a strange aliasing effect that would modulate as the
phase of the power supply and the computer's crystal locked clock drifted in
and out.  It really did look like some kind of EEG signal.
 
So after cleaning up the hardware, I collected some more data.  Clean as a
whistle.
 
With some better data, I tried to apply my theory but by then it was obvious
that it wasn't going to work.
 
While my theory was impractical for the data I was looking at, what I found
interesting was the psychological aspect of the discovery process.  I was
*really* sure I had stumbled onto some unknown technique which had real
possibilities for making a difference in the field I was working in.  I
found that I was especially blind to the obvious because of my enthusiasm (
and maybe pride).  The fact that the artifacts looked exactly like what
I wanted to see also really caught me.
 
Also noteworthy is the fact that it has discouraged me from further work in
this area.  Looking back now, I can see that perhaps there may still be hope
in some of my ideas.  I just probably need to approach it in a different
manner.
 
Reading some of the experiments in this news group reminded me of my
experiences so I thought I'd share them with you all.  Hope it has been
helpful.
 
Peter
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Tattam                                    International Phone 61-02-202346
Programmer, Psychology Department           Australia     Phone   002-202346
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Pathological Science Indeed
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Pathological Science Indeed
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 14:47:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
 
>Dieter Britz asks about the video. If I had a copy, I would send him one, but
>I don't. I will call up and hassle the people who make copies.
 
Well, thanks (if only for the thought); I would like to see that. What is
more, we might soon be buying a video monitor to watch it with. I would of
course refund you the expense.
 
 
>I assert that the only pathology in the field of cold fusion is that exhibited
>by those bigoted, foolish, scientifically illiterate people who insist that
>the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed, who insist that calorimetry
>does not exist, that the specific heat of water can vary by a factor of 10,
>that a match can burn for a week, and that sigma 90 results mean nothing. This
>is the worst pathology in the history of science.
 
When I assess what I see as evidence, it is - as yet - too thin for me to
consider the nuclear hypothesis plausible. As you know, science rarely has
"proof", it has only plausibility. You, Jed, are solidly convinced by a body
of evidence. This body of evidence might be persuasive or not, but someone
like me has never seen it, because much of it is secret. All I have to go on
is my modest list of quality positives, and that is not enough. We can't
abandon our critical faculties and believe in something just on the say-so of
this or that person. As we skeptics have said many times: we need real
evidence, in the form of reproducible, fully specified experiments, not just
enthusiastic rumour. If that evidence is produced, even the toughest critics
of CNF like Huizenga would be convinced. The problem lies not with the
critics, it lies with the lack of evidence.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  NaI sees all and remembers some
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NaI sees all and remembers some
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 15:14:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In spite of what Mitchell Swartz says, I feel that my two selected
negatives stand and I still have all my vitals!  Readers note:  Nothing
was said by way of scientific criticism of the Salamon result.  Instead
MS has to ask what a NaI scintillator could have detected.  Had there
been anything present, the NaI would have responded to gamma rays.  At
the time Pons and Fleischmann had claimed that they had detected 2.25 MeV
gammas from neutron capture in hydrogen.  Salamon blew that claim out
of the water.  His detector would have also responded to the GeV particles
that some crackpots asserted could have explained the missing evidence
for nuclear reactions.  His detector would have responded to the gamma
cascades that would result from the transfer of neutrons into palladium
nucleii, thus disproving that idea even before anyone has gotten up
nerve enough to do more than hint at the possibility.  His detector would
have responded to the 23 MeV gamma resulting from the direct fusion of
two deuterons into 4He.  This is but a sample.  If tomorrow someone were
to suggest some other nuclear reaction as the primary source of surplus
heat, Prof. Salamon could reexamine his data and likely set a limit
on the rate for that reaction.
 
Now for the fun part.  How does NaI remember events which occur when the
electronics is off?  It is simple.  If neutrons are being released in a
reaction process, those neutrons are subject to some degree to capture in
any and all materials in the path of the neutrons.  This includes the
NaI crystal itself.  Some of the captures result in the formation of
radioisotopes with decay rates slow enough that evidence for the capture
is preserved in the NaI spectrum observed some time after the capture
events.  Prof. Salamon could set a firm upper limit to the number of
neutrons that had reached his detector during the interval in which
the detection electonics was off.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Jim Bowery
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jim Bowery
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 02:03:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sorry, Jim, I did not mean to offend.  My real point, is that I am single
mindedly persuing heat in the "cold fusion" experiments.  I do not need
any money to do so, but I do need help.  So money, whether prizes or
funding, are not of much interest.
 
I do note that a tiny prize (series of prizes) did wonderful things for
human powered flight research, to name only one item.  So the offer of
a prize is greatly appreciated.
 
So I make a counter offer.  I will match your $100, then let us take the money
and buy a suitable trophy.  To be given to the first person to design a cold
fusion experiment that can be replicated.
 
That is what is needed in this field.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Jed Rothwell /  Should be easy?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Should be easy?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 02:03:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Barry Merriman asks:
 
"Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific community of the
reality of CF?"
 
Answer: Most of the important scientific community is already convinced. The
scientific community that matters is in Japan, because that is where things
new things are built, and interesting technology happens. The U.S. is a
conservative, technological backwater, incapable of producing even simple
things like televisions, CD ROMS, laser printers, machine tools and microwave
ovens. U.S. scientists count for nothing, because they contribute nothing. You
might as well worry about scientific opinion in Brazil or Bolivia.
 
It will take about 5 years to convince the U.S. of the reality of CF. That is
how much time it took to convince our scientists of the existence of the
airplane (1903 - 1908) and the transistor (1949 - 1954).
 
 
Cameron Randale Bass comments:
 
"This whole thing is easily demonstrated by hooking a cell up to a load and a
fuel cell.  Let it power itself while it runs a lightbulb... That should be
fairly easy,  especially if the boys over in France have made the process as
repeatable as seems to be rumored."
 
Why should it be fairly easy? Who says? I know exactly what problems they
face, and it seems dreadfully hard to me. Was it easy to make the first
incandescent lightbulb? No, it took dozens of the world's best scientists and
engineers *years* of "teeth grinding," backbreaking, work. They had to invent
a whole host of things before they could even begin, like a vacuum pump far
better than any other in existence. Was it easy to make the first transistor?
How about the first airplane, the first record player, the first microwave
oven, the first computer? Is it easy to make these things now? Yes, we can
produce a million lightbulbs a day. The first one took 15 years, and defeated
some of the best scientific minds, like Siemens.
 
How about HTSC? Do we see any practical, industrial uses for these
superconductors yet? It has been about 5 years. I don't see any mass-market
products yet. Where are the prototype HTSC based motors and other technology
we were promised?
 
 
"The fact that they apparently have not done so leaves us with two options,
a) they cannot or b) they can, but ... they aren't going to share it with
us..."
 
Or, c. it is taking about as long as any other invention.
 
Right from the beginning of CF there has been an utterly daffy, a-historic
argument against it which one might summarize: "only easy things exist." The
argument was, if you cannot replicated it based upon a couple of phone calls,
or an e-mail or two, it must not exist. I would dearly love to see the
"skeptics" who believe this nonsense replicate any of the following items from
an e-mail description:
 
* My mother-in-law's melon rind pickles
* A proper souffle
* A wooden pencil with graphite that writes clearly, and does not crumble
* A small, working Pascal compiler
* A fax machine
* An HTSC
 
One well know skeptic once told me, "anyone can make an HTSC. Why, they sell
them from a catalog!" I told that to the fellow who sells them from the
catalog, and he had a good He said, "if he thinks it's that easy, tell him to
give it a try. I have been at it for years, and a heck of a lot of mine fail
for no reason that I can understand. It is 'easy' if you are a good
metallurgist and you have a top-notch lab, and lots of patience. Otherwise, it
is impossible."
 
We have heard these same daffy arguments so often before, from people who
never actually tried to make anything new, different, or difficult in their
lives. Yes, it is easy to do a textbook experiment. No, it not easy to invent
the stuff they will later write in those textbooks. No, four years is not a
long time for basic development, it is the blink of an eye. People who expect
finished results in 4 years are as naive and misguided as the reporter who
denigrated the incandescent light, the telephone and the record player 3 or 4
years after these products were invented. He wrote, in the New York Graphic:
 
     "When the phonograph was invented and the telephone was paraded before
     the admiring public, promises of magical results were lavishly made. How
     signally they have failed of perfection everyone now knows."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #3 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #3 Cell 4A4
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 02:03:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #3 Cell 4A4
 
This run is at a little over 300 hours.  The magic time for McKubre.  We have
been doing a very slow saw tooth.  The last few ramps up have been at 5 ma per
sq cm per hour.  We then hold at the top at various currents, then suddenly
drop down to (usually) 50 ma per sq cm.
 
We observe that the calorimeter does not (and should not) stay in balance
during the ramps.  While ramping up, the servo is responding to the old value
of cell E*I, while we are measuring the increased value.  Thus the calorimeter
balance during the ramp up is in the direction of negative "anomalous heat".
During the step down the ramp up energy loss is regained within the accuracy
of the calorimeter.
 
Now that several of these long ramps have been performed, we know about what
the balance should be at each point on the ramp.  Note that there is an
acceleration component to the balance since both the cell voltage and current
are increasing.  Thus while the current is increasing at a constant rate, the
calorimeter balance point negative "anomalous heat" increases with cell
current.  At this very slow current ramp rate, this value varies from about -
10 mw at 50 ma per sq cm cell current to 50 mw at 150 ma per sq cm cell
current.
 
Last night when the cell current was in the vicinity of 150 ma per sq cm, the
negative cell balance started to decrease.  By 2:30 AM when I gave up watching
it was down to 0.  This morning, however, it was back to the expected -50 mw
balance point.  A glance at the printed record indicates that about 450
unexpected joules were seen during the 2 1/2 hour period when the balance left
the expected track.  An interesting observation is that the excess heat
started when the cathode suddenly absorbed 3.2 cc of D2.  This caused a kink
in the integral energy balance plot which had previously been sloping downward
at a -50 mw rate.  There were several after absorptions, and each of these
also produced a kink in the integral energy plot until it was in balance after
the last one.  The catalyst temperature thermometer verified the gas
absorption by dropping in temperature.  Note that the 3.2 cc step absorption
represents a loss of 40 joules from missing recombination if there is no heat
of absorption.  This should have been quite visible.  Not only was there no
missing heat, but during the next calorimeter time constant about +40 joules
appeared.  This would require either a very high heat of absorption, or
something else??
 
Another interesting feature seen is small cell voltage drops during times when
excess heat was being accumulated.  These are also noted in P&F data and
McKubre data during periods of "anomalous heat".  It is all very hard to
unscramble.  Note that if the cathode got hot, it would lower the cell voltage
because the electrolyte is more conductive at higher temperatures.  But this
means the cell power goes down so the cell should get cooler.  So black is
white, hotter is colder, and hanging a servo on the whole mess makes it really
counter intuitive.
 
We remind you that sadly we have no idea of the loading for this run.  However
if we assume it is near .75 at the low current value, then it is near .9 at
the event above.  This is not a bad assumption since most cathodes will load
to .75 D/Pd at low current.
 
I also remind you that this is all not very significant.  One sigma is of
order 10 mw.  But the error goes up when we start discussing a moving target.
So I would rate this as about a 1-2 sigma event.  Nothing to be too excited
about.  But if later bigger bumps appear, I will be able to say that they
started here.
 
Still, it is very encouraging to be able to match up some of the things I can
see in these experiments with little "Perot devil detail" from P&F and
McKubre.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Thanks to Bruce Dunn
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks to Bruce Dunn
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 02:03:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Every so often, someone who knows how to do something useful to this effort
puts up the word.  Thank you Bruce Dunn for a nice one page write up on how t
to do autoradiography.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Proof?  You want proof?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof?  You want proof?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 02:04:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz asks for proof that deuteron fusion must result in the
emission of lots of neutrons.  Your problem, MItchell, is that you
don't recognize proof when it's staring at you.  Basically all that is
required of me is to inform you that when it is energetically posible
for neutron emission to occur in a nuclear reaction process, neutron
emission does occur unless there is some other emission process that
is more highly favored.  It is a known experimental fact that is not
the case for deuteron fusion.  The burden of proof is on your shoulders
if you are to assert that deuteron fusion is occuring under altered
conditions that have not been specified.  Where is there a theory
of any sort to support your position?  Indeed what is your position
as far as what reaction is occuring?  Please be specific.
 
Please stop wasting our time with your assertion that I placed
"one-half of all the skeptics basis against CF" on the Salamon
experiment.  I did nothing beyond accepting your challange to
name two experiments.  Now I await your reply as to why those
experiments aren't valid demonstrations that cold fusion is not
occuring as claimed.  I note that you have not made an effort
to discredit either of the measurements I chose.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Richard Schultz /  Better than N-Rays
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Better than N-Rays
Date: 22 Mar 1993 16:11:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
Actually, I think that the "polywater" affair of the late 60's/early 70's
is an even better example of "pathological science" (as defined by Langmuir)
than N-Rays, and certainly is more relevant to the cold fusion episode as
well.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / MARK HUNT /  Plasma particle accelerators
     
Originally-From: mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma particle accelerators
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:42:06 GMT
Organization: Hunt Technologies

 
Does anyone know of anymore progress being made on plasma particle accelerators?
I know that in a test experiment that an accelerating field of 10 million volts
per cubic centimeter of plasma was reached. If anyone has info on PPA's can they
email me ? Thanks
 
-Mark
mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmahunt cudfnMARK cudlnHUNT cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Supreme Court Votes 5-4, Cold Fusion a Hoax
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Votes 5-4, Cold Fusion a Hoax
Date: 22 Mar 93 18:58:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>A California appeals court threw the case out on the grounds
>that the only good science is "generally accepted" and published
>in peer-reviewed journals. Scientists, including Stephen Jay
>Gould, are filing briefs (unconcerned with the drug) questioning
>the validity of the appeals court finding.
 
Courts are routinely called upon to render judgements in which the information
needed to arrive at the correct decision is IMPERFECT.
 
By nature of the definition of "imperfect information" nobody is good at it,
and nobody can be good at it.  Therefore courts are no better at deciding
things in the face of inperfect information than any other organization or
individual.
 
The actual purpose of the courts, then, is to provide a single voice for the
ultimate decision -- so as to bring closure to incidents and events of
contention.
 
In the above issue, the court is simply trying to put a little predictability
into the decisions it is called on to make so that members of society have
a reasonable expectation of the various legal consequences of their actions.
 
Science and scientists are not so motiviated.  A scientist does not, and
I argue, should not, have to reach a conclusion in the face of imperfect
information.  A scientist may rightly, I think, defer reaching a conclusion
until the quality of the information available to him improves.
 
In this light, it can be seen that the missions of courts of law and
the research of scientists are quite different animals with quite different
considerations.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Hal Lillywhite /  Lawsuit Science (was A Significant Negative)
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lawsuit Science (was A Significant Negative)
Date: 22 Mar 93 20:27:16 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <QfeXvee00UhWQ76nIc@andrew.cmu.edu> pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics.fusion: 19-Mar-93 A Significant
>Negative (was.. by Richard Schultz@garnet.b
 
>>Let's imagine the following scenario:
 
>>Scientist A reports a result.
 
>>Scientist B reports that he cannot reproduce Scientist A's result.
 
>>Scientist A's lawyer threatens to sue Scientist B.
 
>>Who (A or B) is acting like a scientist?  Extra bonus points for naming the
>>real life Scientist A.  Hint:  Scientist B is Michael Salomon.
 
>If the implication is that Scientist A is not acting like a real
>scientist, it as a flawed conclusion.  Scientist A's lawyer is not
>acting like a real scientist.  Anyone surprised?
 
Wrong!  The lawyer is only acting on behalf of his client.
Scientist A is the person who makes the decision to sue or not to
sue.  If he decides to use the courts to supress unfavorable data he
is guilty of bahavior most scientists would consider reprehensible.
Such behavior mitigates directly against the freedom of research and
publication necessary to science as it is done today.
 
True, a lawyer may try to pursuade someone to sue, but the ultimate
responsibility lies with the person who makes the decision, in this
case "Scientist A."
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.22 / Ad aspera /  Re: Plasma particle accelerators
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Plasma particle accelerators
Date: 22 Mar 1993 14:19 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>Does anyone know of anymore progress being made on plasma particle
>accelerators? I know that in a test experiment that an accelerating
>field of 10 million volts per cubic centimeter of plasma was reached.
 
You're probably referring to the work at UCLA (by the Dawson
group, I'll venture at the risk of putting my toes where my
tongue is).  The article below is quoted from PHYSICS NEWS,
a mailing list from the American Institute of Physics, makers
of WHAT'S NEW and FYI.
 
As I recall, Discover Magazine mentioned the work, along with
some other exotic (and embryonic) accelerator technologies, a
year or two ago.
 
Note the dimensions and the cautious wording in these papers.
Most of these alternative accelerator technologies are almost
literally tabletop science at present.  Extrapolate v. take
risk, go out on a limb; syn. dream.  :)
 
Happy browsing,
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
PN> ULTRAHIGH-GRADIENT ACCELERATION OF INJECTED
PN> ELECTRONS using laser-driven plasma beat waves has been
PN> demonstrated for the first time by scientists at UCLA (C.E.
PN> Clayton et al., 4 January 1993 Physical Review Letters;
PN> contact Chandrasekhar Joshi, 213/825-7279).  Using two laser
PN> beams at slightly different wavelengths (10.59 and 10.29 microns),
PN> the UCLA researchers create a beat pattern in a hydrogen plasma.
PN> This causes electrons in the plasma to be pulled toward and then
PN> away from the hydrogen nuclei; the resulting relatavistic wave
PN> propagates through the plasma, providing, in effect, a surf of
PN> high electric fields capable of accelerating particles.  A
PN> separate beam of 2.1-MeV electrons, injected into the plasma
PN> chamber in the direction of the plasma wave, was accelerated
PN> across the 10-mm interaction zone up to an energy of at least
PN> 9.1 MeV, for an effective gradient of 0.7 GeV/m.  Scaled up to
PN> a size of hundreds of meters or more, such an acceleration
PN> scheme would greatly reduce the size-to-energy ratio of future
PN> particle accelerators.  No previous plasma-wave experiment had
PN> demonstrated acceleration with externally injected electrons.
PN> (Science, 5 Feb. 1993).
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / mitchell swartz /  Does NaI see all? no
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does NaI see all? no
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 00:59:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

(Mitchell Swartz responds to Dick Blue)
 
     In Message-ID: <00969E1F.3EED1CE0.5740@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
     22 Mar 1993; Subject: NaI sees all and remembers some
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
===   "Instead MS has to ask what a NaI scintillator could
===  have detected.  Had there been anything present, the NaI
===  would have responded to gamma rays. ...   His detector would
===  have responded to the gamma cascades that would result from
===  the transfer of neutrons into palladium nucleii ...  If
===  neutrons are being released in a reaction process  .. (s)ome
===  of the captures result in the formation of radioisotopes with
===  decay rates slow enough that evidence for the capture is
===  preserved in the NaI spectrum observed some time after the
===  capture events."
 
  Thank you, Dick.   You have now proven that there is not a scintilla
 of evidence backing the skeptics' logic.
 
 
 1)  First, per the above you have admitted that the equipment, even if
 it was properly prepared and optimized, would have detected
  ionizing radiation only.
 
    Not heat.  Not helium.
 
  Good scientists learn early the importance of measuring the correct
 parameter (like distance, temp., etc).  Why have you chosen an
 experiment which examined neither of the reported two major products of
 cold fusion?
 
  Such a choice suggests there is no need to do a serious scientific
 criticism  of the technique.
 
 
 2)  Second, regarding the neutrons:
  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.
 
 
 3)  Third, for those who are unaware of the unusual properties of the
 alkali halides interacting with ionizing radiation (both with respect
 to the scintillatory properties cited above, and the interesting
 ionization-radiation-induced optical and conduction properties)
 references include:
 
    "Irradiation Effects in Materials" Roman Smoluchowski
      in "Molecular Science and Molecular Engineering"
         Arthur R. von Hippel, MIT Press
 
  Also, really good scintillation crystals include thallium-activated
       NaI as well as cesium iodide and cesium bromide.
  For neutrons, europium-activated lithium bromide has been used.  Other
 materials showing these properties include include zinc sulfide, and a
 variety of organics like naphthalene and anthracene.
 
 
 4) Finally, Dick, if you prove that neutrons are important in the first
 place (which you, uh, have not done as yet) then an careful analysis of
 the experiment will follow.
 
  But here is one starter question to get the ball rolling:
  Dick, if neutrons were anticipated, why was europium-activated lithium
 bromide not used?  Send more details if you can answer #1 and #2, ok?
 
 
  SUMMARY:  If one does not measure what an experimental setup is
 purported to produce, then one has not really the ability to claim that
 experiment is "negative".
 
                                 -   Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Does NaI see all? no
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does NaI see all? no
Date: 23 Mar 1993 01:14:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <C4BHFA.AqD@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
> 1)  First, per the above you have admitted that the equipment, even if
> it was properly prepared and optimized, would have detected
>  ionizing radiation only.
>
>    Not heat.  Not helium.
>
>  Good scientists learn early the importance of measuring the correct
> parameter (like distance, temp., etc).  Why have you chosen an
> experiment which examined neither of the reported two major products of
> cold fusion?
 
I have in front of me a "preliminary note" from J. Electroanal. Chem.,
vol. 261 (1989), pp. 301-308, by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
entitled "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium."
 
On page 306 of said paper, there is a figure (Fig. 1) with a caption
"gamma ray spectrum recorded above the water bath containing the rod cathodes.
Measurements carried out with a sodium iodide crystal scintillation
detector and a Nuclear Data ND-6 High Energy Spectrum Analyzer."  In the
errata (in which they added a third author), F&P corrected the y-axis of
the reported spectrum, but not the spectrum.
 
From this I conclude that (a) F&P reported gamma rays as a product of "cold
fusion"; (b) they used a NaI detector to detect these gamma rays; (c) that
Salomon (who knew what he was doing) used the *same* detector on the *same*
experiment and was unable to reproduce the claims made in the paper.
 
One cannot, of course, extrapolate from a single data point, but in this case
at least, it appears that Mitchell Swartz has at best a limited idea of what
he is talking about.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Should be easy?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Should be easy?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 04:14:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930322203633_72240.1256_EHL55-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Barry Merriman asks:
>
>"Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific community of the
>reality of CF?"
>
>Answer: Most of the important scientific community is already convinced. The
>scientific community that matters is in Japan, because that is where things
>new things are built, and interesting technology happens. The U.S. is a
>conservative, technological backwater, incapable of producing even simple
>things like televisions, CD ROMS, laser printers, machine tools and microwave
>ovens. U.S. scientists count for nothing, because they contribute nothing. You
>might as well worry about scientific opinion in Brazil or Bolivia.
 
     I hate it when that happens.  Consigned to the backwaters, when
     all of the good stuff is going on in Japan...
 
>Cameron Randale Bass comments:
>
>"This whole thing is easily demonstrated by hooking a cell up to a load and a
>fuel cell.  Let it power itself while it runs a lightbulb... That should be
>fairly easy,  especially if the boys over in France have made the process as
>repeatable as seems to be rumored."
>
>Why should it be fairly easy? Who says? I know exactly what problems they
>face, and it seems dreadfully hard to me. Was it easy to make the first
>incandescent lightbulb? No, it took dozens of the world's best scientists and
>engineers *years* of "teeth grinding," backbreaking, work. They had to invent
>a whole host of things before they could even begin, like a vacuum pump far
>better than any other in existence. Was it easy to make the first transistor?
 
     Well, because electrolysis makes hydrogen and oxygen, and
     the hydrogen and oxygen can be combined to make electricity
     in the fuel cell.  And because the heat claimed is a substantial
     fraction (sometimes more if I read the numbers right)
     of the input energy.
 
     What's the engineering challenge here?
 
>"The fact that they apparently have not done so leaves us with two options,
>a) they cannot or b) they can, but ... they aren't going to share it with
>us..."
>
>Or, c. it is taking about as long as any other invention.
 
     You might be able to retreat to that if the effect were
     very sporadic, faint and you had no real idea under what conditions it
     occurred.  So which is it, do you have a repeatable, unambiguous
     phenomenon in which case my observation stands, or do you have
     a sporadic, questionable phenomenon in which case I question the
     existence of the phenomenon?
 
>Right from the beginning of CF there has been an utterly daffy, a-historic
>argument against it which one might summarize: "only easy things exist." The
>argument was, if you cannot replicated it based upon a couple of phone calls,
>or an e-mail or two, it must not exist. I would dearly love to see the
>"skeptics" who believe this nonsense replicate any of the following items from
>an e-mail description:
 
     Balderdash.  Good scientists are naturally suspicious of experimental
     results.  I will admit that there was a certain unfair criticism
     that continues to this day, and I have said so before.
     However, criticism of extremely unexpected experimental
     results is not wrong, it is required.  And it does not
     seem like any experiments of which I have heard have met the challenge
     of unambiguous confirmation.
 
>We have heard these same daffy arguments so often before, from people who
>never actually tried to make anything new, different, or difficult in their
>lives. Yes, it is easy to do a textbook experiment..
[stuff deleted]
 
     You've got it quite backwards.   Most experiments are difficult.
     The experimenters must explain to us why
     they have not made any mistakes in this apparently very difficult
     experiment (your words).  By now, I'm beginning to suspect
     substantial experimental error.
 
     This is silly anyway.  The magnitude of the claimed effect is
     not small.  The effect seems to occur quite regularly in
     certain labs.  It seems like a simple matter from the parameters
     bandied about to produce a cheap stunt that would convince the world.
 
>the stuff they will later write in those textbooks. No, four years is not a
>long time for basic development, it is the blink of an eye. People who expect
>finished results in 4 years are as naive and misguided as the reporter who
>denigrated the incandescent light, the telephone and the record player 3 or 4
>years after these products were invented. He wrote, in the New York Graphic:
>
>     "When the phonograph was invented and the telephone was paraded before
>     the admiring public, promises of magical results were lavishly made. How
>     signally they have failed of perfection everyone now knows."
 
     I note that a) the quotation is perfectly correct,
     and b) no one doubted the existence of the telephone.
 
     This isn't a question of failed expectations, this is the magical
     mystery phenomenon.  Pseudo-sociology is no defense for
     scientific ambiguity.
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.20 / John Moore /  Re: Status #2 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #2 Cell 4A4
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 04:18:47 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.fnal.gov!DROEGE writes:
 
]This cell uses the highly polished cathode prepared by Ed Manning.  Thank you
]Ed.  During the last down ramp, the gas system lost 15+ cc.  We think that
]this means the cathode outgassed 30+ cc of D2.  We note that 1/1 loading for
]this 0.1 cc cathode would amount to 126.8 cc of D2.  This loss then amounts to
]a 0.24 change in D/Pd loading.  This process goes in both directions.  On the
]next cycle, the cathode is gaining a similar amount of gas.  There is also
]some indication that there is a small net gas loading gain for each cycle.
Just a note...
  Back when I was actively looking into this, I got hold of a good review
of hydrogen/deuterium in palladium research. It showed that repeated
charging and discharging of an electrode changed the thermodynamics of
the adsorbtion, implying structural changes in the metal lattic. Perhaps
it is creating internal cavities or even surface bubbles. It would be
interesting to have a metallurgist take a look at your electrode after
this (although one could probably tell you what to expect - they do this
sort of thing all the time with steel, for example).
 
--
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:
cuddy20 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / mitchell swartz /  Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 12:48:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

(Mitchell Swartz replies to Dick Blue, who remains unable to supply proof
 that cold fusion must result in the emission of "lots of neutrons")
 
      In Message-ID: <00969E64.927D45C0.5911@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
                23 Mar 1993; Subject: Proof?  You want proof?
    Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
 
=== "Your problem, MItchell, is that you don't recognize proof when it's
===   staring at you."
 
  Dick, the problem with your position is, given Exhibit 1 (Peter
    Hagelstein's Nagoya Summary), or any of the other compendia of
    reported experimental results, the failure to recognize the
    proof surrounding your stone-walled position.
 
 
===   "Basically all that is required of me is to inform you that when it
===   is energetically posible for neutron emission to occur in a nuclear
===   reaction process, neutron emission does occur unless there is some
===   other emission process that is more highly favored."
 
   Although you are not required, you seem to have nearly all options
 covered with that, including wisely  the possibility of neutronpenic cold
 fusion.
 
 
===  "It is a known experimental fact that is not the case for deuteron
===   fusion."
 
   True.   .... in, and for, conventional systems with which you were
                familiar before 1989.
 
 
===  "Where is there a theory of any sort to support your position?"
 
    Given the cornucopia of experimental data (eg. cf. Exhibit 1), we
 submit that it is you who need a good theory (or better yet, magic wand)
 to disprove (or erase) the scores of papers reporting positive result(s).
 
    Best wishes.       Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 / Chuck Sites /  Cold He4 Fusion: critical questions
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold He4 Fusion: critical questions
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 08:51:41 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
    Fusion in a solid without detectable high-energy radiation?
D+D->He4 + Phonons?  He4 as the major D+D branch for nearly 100% of
the D+D reactions?  Dr. E. Mallove, Dr. M. Swartz, and J. Rothwell
want us to accept the affirmative to these questions as an
explanations to Dr.s Pons and Flieschmann's boiling cells video and
the presumed excess heat it shows. I haven't seen it, but from all of
the contributions presented here, I get the distinct impression that
it a qualitative result.  Not quantitative.  All one can say with
certainty, then, is the cells boiled. I think Tom Droege's method
(long low energy charge period, 3 min.  high voltage pulse, followed
by a period of high IV boiling) is as good of an explanation as I've
heard.  Still , it is an important result and does suggest that
the cells are hot indeed.
   There have been a number of well done experiments that implicate
He4 as nuclear ash from a reaction that Dr. Swartz describes
as d+d+?d+...-> He4 + ...   Without reciting the blow-by-blow
descriptions of how the He4 measurements could be mistaken, let's note
the other real possibility; The He4 is an experimental artifact.  It is
well know the He diffuses into glass, and deuterium gas will flush it
out. See Dieter's CF Bibliography for the reference papers.
   Ok... I have an open mind to cold fusion and can accept that He4 is
the ash, but first I need a provocative reason for the He4 to be there
as the result of fusion reaction, instead of some more mundain
explanations.  So show me a good theoretical argument for the
following:
 
[1]  How is the D+D fusion branching ratio forced totally to He4?
 
[2]  How does the D+D -> He4* state couple to the lattice to
     dissipate it's energy?  What makes He4* -> He4 + phonons
     instead of He4* -> He4 + gamma?
 
[3]  If the answer to question 2 is kinetic energy, then how do
     you explain why the 21KeV x-ray line that Dr. Jones rightly
     argues for is not present?  If it's not kinetic, then
     answer question 2.
 
   The catch 22 question needs to be answered with some authority.
Obviously there are effects in the solid state environment that
could have potential ramifications on nuclear physics, (Ex. with the
coupling of the nuclear excited state to lattice excitation energies,
and the hydrogen banding effect Terry and I have described) but if
you want to persuade us, do it right.
 
    It is interesting to note what G. Collins says about He4 sticking
to the Pd lattice.  He points out that to remove He4 from Pd requires
heating the cell to 1000C, and that the He4 1s electrons are shared
with the Pd conduction electrons. In some respects this would seem
to favor the idea that He4* -> phonon since there is some electronic
coupling between the Pd lattice, and the He4 atom.  Still, the He4
nucleus has 24MeV [from D(D,He4)gamma] of energy to unload, and there
is a time constraint as to how long He4 remains excited. I can not see
how that huge amount of localized energy can get dissipated.
   Now, there is one theory paper I read, "Can 'Solid-State' Effects
Enhance the Cold Fusion Rate", by A.J Leggett and G. Baym, pre-print,
April 1989 and published in Nature, who sites the lack of Pd/He4
binding as proof that a fusion rate of 10E-23 f/s is too high and
estimate.  Their argument is that because Pd/He4 binding is so low,
the prototype He4 (ie:D+D) would have no mechanism to form.  A quote
from the abstract:
 
"In this note we point out that within the framework of the lowest-
order Born-Oppenheimer approximation a very severe constraint is
imposed on *all* such enhanced screening mechanisms in solids in
equilibrium by observable behavior of a He4 atom in the metal in
question; and that unless the latter is quite anomalous, no
enhancement of the Coulomb barrier penetration ... is possible in
solids in equilibrium."
 
   Dieter may be interested in re-reading this one, because they are
arguing against electrons screening enhancements, and specifically the
suggestion that quasi particle electrons of large effective mass can
effect the screened potential for D+D in Pd.  If G. Collins is right,
then this paper argues that, D+D will be enhanced by screening
effects. Just the opposite of what they where apparently arguing.  Of
course this kind of enhancement still does not exclude the production
of neutrons, so questions 1,2 & 3 are still unresolved for xs-heat
by cold He4 fusion.
 
   As I said earlier, I have an open mind, and I don't want to toss
out some critical questions with at least a minor attempt to answer
them. Sort of the reverse of "Far-Fetching".  Some speculation is in
order here because I think there are potential paths that can be
pursued, and besides, its fun.
   Can the weak D+D->He4*->He4 + energy fusion path be forced to occur
nearly 100% of the time in a solid system?  The only mechanism that
I can think of that could possibly produce that effect, is if the
a Bose particle condensate forms between D pairs.  This would have
the effect of forcing the condensate particles to remain in a like
spin state.  This might be tricky to do, but imagine that a lattice
configuration forms like:
 
     ^
     |      +--+     +--+    +--+     +--+    +--+   where a=Pd Lattice
  E  |  DD  |  |  DD |  | He |  |  DD |  | DD |  |           potential
     |      |  |     |  |   4|  |     |  |    |  |         b= Intersituals
     +---------------------------------------------
            < a>< b >
 
  The D pairs in an intersitual forms a pseudo-He4 Bose particle, which
upon fusing, alters the branching ratio to maintain the Bose character.
Bose particles have the interesting property to want to collect at
a like lower energy state. Since He4 is the lowest energy state,
will the pseudo-He4 ... condense?  Can hydrogen band quantum effects
influence the cold fusion branching ratio, or even the reaction
rate?  It seems possible to me but there are problems. Indeed, this
implies and would require that the pseudo-He4(s) condense to a
super-fluid in the lattice.  It has been suggested that the hydrogen
band state might be super-fluid so there is some weight to this argument.
However, I don't think it's been shown experimentally yet. The only
indication of a super-fluid state I can think of is if D/Pd diffusion
rates are abnormally high.
   Ok, so how can one unload the localize energy of a DD reaction
to the lattice without imparting it by MeV kineticaly excited He4's
ripping  through the lattice?  The best guess I can come up with is
that as the condensate is created and the hydrogen band state is formed,
the Bose band acts as an extended single quantum system such that the
energy is never localized.  That's about as far as I can take the idea.
T. Chubb and S. Chubb have published a theory on a similar line of
thought that describes this process better than I can here.
   What objections are there to this?  Condensates of He4 occurs normally
at around 4 degrees K. But if the lattice constrains, or even removes, the
thermal motion of He4 and pseudo-He4s in the intersituals, it might
condense.  The energy released by the fusion reaction is the difficult
question.  I think it would be very touchy to maintain the source of
the reaction, if the lattice is vigorously agitated by the reaction
itself.  But by another argument this might enhance the reaction rate
of sights several hundred lattice spacings away.  So go figure.
 
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Shooting at a moving CF target
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shooting at a moving CF target
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 15:48:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My answers to the Mitchell Swartz quiz.
Question #1: "Why have I chosen an experiment which examined neither
of the reported two major products of cold fusion?"  The answer, obviously,
is that at the time Prof. Salamon made his measurements the major products
of cold fusion were still very much in doubt.  Pons and Fleischmann had
claimed that their cells were producing neutrons.  Since that would have
been unequivocal evidence for a nuclear reaction process,  measurements
proving or disproving their claim were clearly significant.  It is only
after the result of that measurement, and many other similar measurements,
that you and other cold fusion advocates have come to deny that neutron
measurements have any bearing on the question.  The Salamon measurement
thus forces you to admit that cold fusion does not produce ionizing
radiation.  If you agree with that statement we can move on to another
level in this debate.
 
Question #2:  I have read your post twice and still fail to find a
question #2.  Instead you inform us that you suggested the use of the
word "neutronpenic" as applicable to cold fusion.  I don't see that
coining a word does anything to clarify the issue, but if it gives you
a thrill, enjoy it for whatever it is worth.  What I would like to
clear up on this issue is whether you believe neutron emission plays
any role in the cold fusion reaction, or whether it is just some kind
of artifact or the result of experimental error in those cases where
CF experimenters have claimed to have detected neutrons in correlation
with heat or anticorrelated with heat.  In short enlighten us as to
what significance, if any, neutron measurements are thought to have
in CF research.
 
Question #3:  After a lecture on possible scintillating crystals that
could be selected for the detection of ionizing radiation or neutrons,
you suggest that Lithium Bromide would have been the proper choice if
neutron detection were considered significant.  I don't know how you
come to that conclusion, nor why you bother with it since your claim
seems to be neutron measurements aren't very important.  Let me take
this opportunity to inform you that when it comes to neutron detection
you are venturing onto my turf, and for starters, if you assert that
lithium bromide would be a good choice, I challenge you to find 5
references in which that material has been used for neutron detection.
There are too many alternatives that are more readily available and
in more common routine use for lithium bromide to be given consideration.
 
Summary: Quoting MS:  " If one does not measure what an experimental
setup is purported to produce, then one has not really the ability
to claim that experiment is 'negative'"  This overlooks the fact
that the list of things that cold fusion does not produce is the
direct result of the outcomes of numerous negative experiments.  Trying
to determine what cold fusion does produce has clearly been a matter
at shooting at a moving target, but at last we are getting a straight
answer - from you at least.   You are now asserting that the main
products of cold fusion are heat and 4He!  Let's go with that then.
Do you agree that measurements which produce heat but no helium must
then be in error?  Please prepare a list of all the measurements that
have provided positive results for both of the main products.  I
have the feeling it is a short list.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Paul Karol /  "Neutronpenic" events
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Neutronpenic" events
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 11:04:31 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I have seen mention of "neutronpenic" (neutron-poor) events in
discussing CNF.  Let me play referee for a moment.  There is a
pretty-well established idea in psychology that when a person or a group
of persons do not understand some concept, perhaps because a theory does
not yet exist, they give that concept a name.  The existence of a
"scientific" label gives the concept an undeserved aura of authenticity
and implies more substance than actually exists.
 
So, what is the basis of neutronpenic events other than to classify the
unexpected and the unexplained?
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Jim Carr /  Re: Does NaI see all? no
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does NaI see all? no
Date: 23 Mar 93 15:57:16 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <C4BHFA.AqD@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>(Mitchell Swartz responds to Dick Blue)
>
> 1)  First, per the above you have admitted that the equipment, even if
> it was properly prepared and optimized, would have detected
>  ionizing radiation only.
 
"admitted" I really like that.  Mitchell, you argue like a creationist.
 
I would challenge you to find a single physicists or chemist that would say
that a NaI detector would be used for anything other than the detection of
ionizing radiation.  Your argument here is totally specious.
 
A radiation detector was used because it had been claimed by P&F that the
experiment being monitored was producing copious amounts of ionizing
radiation in the form of gamma rays from n+p capture in water.  (Happy
Anniversary!) The detector was used to test this claim, and no other.
The choice of NaI gives high efficiency at the sacrifice of resolution,
and was perfectly reasonable given the claims that had been made.
 
> 4) Finally, Dick, if you prove that neutrons are important in the first
> place (which you, uh, have not done as yet) then an careful analysis of
> the experiment will follow.
 
He  does not have to prove this.  The claim that neutrons were important
was made this very day, four years ago, by Pons and Fleischman.  This
experiment disproves that claim.
 
 
     Happy 4th Anniversary, everyone!
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / mitchell swartz /  neutronpenic events
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutronpenic events
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 18:04:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <AffnID600WBKA2_pIO@andrew.cmu.edu>
        23 Mar 1993; Subject: "Neutronpenic" events
Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
 
===  "I have seen mention of "neutronpenic" (neutron-poor) events in
=== discussing CNF.  ... what is the basis of neutronpenic events other
===  than to classify the unexpected and the unexplained?"
 
  It was made to both classify and ** quantify **.  There are clearly not
 commensurate levels of neutrons with any of the positive reports on CF.
  There have been some who claim that all such reactions are "aneutronic".
 
  Hoever, even reading posts made here leads to the possibility that very
low levels may be generated in some unusual circumstances.  To distinguish
this third level located between the "normal" (ie. read classical
 commensurate-) levels  and the aneutronic level [but putting the amount
 close to, but not identical to, the aneutronic level], neutronpenic seemed
 a reasonable alternative.
 
   Perhaps you have a finer distinguishing label?
 
      Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / John Logajan /  Re: "Neutronpenic" events
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Neutronpenic" events
Date: 23 Mar 93 21:25:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Karol) writes:
>There is a
>pretty-well established idea in psychology that when a person or a group
>of persons do not understand some concept, perhaps because a theory does
>not yet exist, they give that concept a name.
 
Most stuff coming out of modern psychology is of dubious predictive value,
and this case is no exception.  In fact, *ALL* abstract human thought is
processed in symbolic form, and so for convenience sake, most re-occuring
concepts get assigned specific symbolic representations.
 
Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz has written extensively on the semantic basis
of psychiatry with its power to insult and manipulate rather than illuminate.
 
In other words, beyond the statistcal data of psychology, it is about as
useful a science as the study of bigfoot or crop circles.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / mitchell swartz /  Does NaI see all?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does NaI see all?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 22:04:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

         In Message-ID: <12363@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
         23 Mar 93    Subject: Re: Does NaI see all? no
Jim A. Carr <jac@scri.fsu.edu> writes:
 
===   "I would challenge you to find a single physicists or chemist that
===   would say that a NaI detector would be used for anything other than
===  the detection of ionizing radiation.  Your argument here is totally
===   specious."
 
  Well actually, Jim, the argument dealt only with the fact that these
 detectors are not ** most ** sensitive to what may be the most likely
 products of these CF reactions.
 
  However, notwithstanding the above, given the enjoyments and benefits of
 a good scientific challenge:
 
     NaI (alkali halide) crystals can be used for use many purposes other
 than "detection of ionizing radiation". Hmmmm.. How about these few uses.
 
   1) Detection of corpuscular matter including electrons,
 which can produce f-centers (vide infra), and
 
   2) Detection of corpuscular matter including protons, which also produce
 f-centers and changes in elastic modulus (vide infra), and
 
   3) when used between two electrodes, and illuminated by an orthogonal
 optical beam:  Detection of electrons steaming out of an electode as
 prebreakdown conditions mount [by the use of photoactivation of said
 electrons within shallow energy traps located at the f-centers].
 
   4) since the index of refraction is 1.7745 the real part of the relative
 complex permittivity is: 3.15
 
 n^2  =  e'   =  k'
         _
         e0     where e' and e0 are the real permittivities
               of dielectric constants of the NaI and vacuum respectively.
 
 
    so if the material is put between two poled electrodes, the NaI will
 enable the detection of linear deformations through the speed voltage
  which I already described in a past posting
    ( Q = d/dt[CV] =  CdV/dt + V dC/dt )
                                 ^
                                 |
                           speed voltage.
 
  Jim, I hope these four begin to suggest some other uses to creative
 physicists, chemists, and engineers, &tc., who certainly can expand this
 list.            [ Let's continue,  paperweight  ..               ]
 
  Thank you, Jim. Best wishes and Happy 4th Anniversary to you too!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Britz is full of baloney
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Britz is full of baloney
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 15:14:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
 
>Dieter Britz, who is not in the United States and apparently has never talked
>to any U.S. cold fusion researcher, keep posting this preposterous mix of
>nonsense and lies:
 
>"Since USA researchers, in order to do any work at all, must attract grants,
>one may safely assume that in fact close to all the papers on CNF from US
>labs have been funded in some way; and that amounts to quite a bit of
>money..."
 
>The money does not amount to a hill of beans. All of the research was done
>years ago, the money stopped around 1991. Most of the equipment was simply
>lying around in the labs, or it was paid for out of pocket by the researchers
>themselves. Last summer, Storms ran an experiment with palladium supplied for
>free by the Japanese corporation Tanaka Kikinzoku. There are a few, scattered
>experiments going on in various labs using what one researcher called "the
>fumes of funding left over from other projects."
...
>"What I have understood, from Mitch's remark, is that grants are being
>applied for by people who would normally not get such grants, because they
>are not seen to be within their area of expertise..."
 
>You "understand" nothing of the sort. You made that up. Mitch never said
>anything like that, and neither did I. To my knowledge, the only people who
>have applied for grants are those working in the National Labs or University
>Depts of Electrochemistry or Nuclear Chemistry.
 
>"If he [Jed] has applied for research grants in CNF, I can understand why he
>might have had problems (maybe he has not applied)."
 
>Well, at least this bit of nonsense is hedged. No, I have not applied for any
>research grants. I give my money to other people who do CF. I am not the
>least bit qualified to receive grants for scientific research of this nature.
 
>There is no funding for CF in the United States. There is no support for CF
>in the United States. In fact, what we have here is a McCarthyite reign of
>terror, lead by liars, traitors, fools, and scientific illiterates. The
>situation was best described by Julian Schwinger:
 
This is a preliminary response to Jed's posting. Unlike Jed, I will keep calm
and civil. I will follow this up, when I get the information I need. For the
moment, let me make a few points:
 
1. In science, although we do have conferences, where we greatly benefit from
   talking to one another, it is not essential to talk to researchers. Jed is
   a business man, and as such uses the phone to do his work. In science, we
   read publications. There are a lot of electrochemists whom I have never
   talked to on the phone, but whose work I know very well. I don't have to be
   in the USA to know all this. I suggest, Jed, that if the team at the Niels
   Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, that has been trying to confirm cold fusion,
   had in fact confirmed it (they did not), then you would have no hesitation
   in adding this to your evidence, even though you are not in Denmark and
   have not talked to them on the phone. Just as you do not hesitate to call
   me a liar, not having met me or talked to me, etc.
2. I did not tell lies. It is remotely possible that I wrote nonsense - if,
   for example, it is true - as Jed maintains - that there is no funding at
   all for cold fusion research in the USA; but lies it was not. Please
   moderate your language, Jed, it takes away from your reputation, which I
   know you are very concerned about.
3. I think you misunderstood the thrust of my posting. I was not trying to
   denigrate Mitch Swartz or you. At the time, all I knew about Mitch was that
   he is a radiologist and owns (?) a company called, I think, Jet Technology.
   In a posting, he asked someone (I don't have the exact words here) whether
   there was cnf money in Washington State. This reasonably led me to think
   that he had himself applied for such money, without success. I then went on,
   without being snide in any way, to suggest that he would not normally get
   research money. Knowing now that he is more than a radiologist, I yet still
   maintain that. This made me think that when you, Jed, state that there is
   no money for cnf, you are basing that on the lack of success of people
   like Mitch or yourself. OK, I take your point that you yourself have not
   in fact asked for any; I didn't know that before, and my "hedging" as you
   put it, was quite reasonable. The proper response to all this is to correct
   me. The improper response is to call me a liar.
More on this later.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Electrode shape.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Electrode shape.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 15:15:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: steve@root.co.uk (Steve Ratcliffe) (FD 865):
 
>I seem to remember that when F&P first announced their claims that they
>warned against using electrodes with a square cross-section (or probably
>pointed shapes in general) because the reaction was too violent and so was
>potentially dangerous.
 
>At the time I thought that this suggested a near-surface effect; perhaps
>the loading was increased along the corner edges or something.
 
>Does anyone use square cross section electrodes now?  If not it may be
>worth a try, especially if they can think of any good reason why it may
>make a difference.
 
>Is there any effect in ordinary electrochemisty that depends
>on electrode shape?
 
F&P's idea was not that a square electrode might be dangerous, but a chunky
one, i.e. one with a largish volume and small surface area. Clearly, they
thought the effect was a volume effect. Later, they got results which
suggested a surface effect. This has not, as far as I know, led them to
redesign their experiment in the obvious way - but who knows what they are
doing now?
 
Electrode shape will in general - i.e. in conventional electrochemistry -
affect the current distribution. A square, blocky electrode will have large
current densities at the sharp edges and smaller cd's elsewhere. Often, this
is undesirable, in electroplating, for example, and tricks are invented to
even out the distribution. I believe that the Takahashi cell was designed to
favour an even current distribution all over the electrode. I would have used
a cylinder instead of a flat plate. The idea behind this is that you want to
compress deuterium into the Pd, so you ought to maybe press
(electrochemically) equally all around.
 
Getting more technical, say you are operating galvanostatically (at controlled
current), and have an electrode with an uneven current distribution. There is
a known current-density/potential relation, and it is quite nonlinear. At the
microscopic surface elements, different current densities thus mean different
electrode potentials. If the "electrochemical compression" of deuterium into
palladium (or whatever) is indeed due to this potential, then clearly this
scenario will give you uneven compression, and you might squeeze deuterium in
at one place, and let it out at another, which might work against high
loadings. Some workers regard high loadings as essential.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.23 / Dieter Britz /  This group
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: This group
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 15:15:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In FD 866, we have two items I want to comment on:
 
lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
 
>To its credit, this newsgroup does tend to be
>success-oriented rather than symbol-oriented.  Unfortunately, what
>we're most successful at is tearing each other to shreds.
 
I disagree. The shredders are, I think, a small albeit shrill minority. Most
of us want simply to know things, to correct misapprehensions, or to
provide new information. On the whole, this is a pretty friendly group.
 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>A truck load of context doesn't rescue imprecise expression of this sort.
 
A lot of recent to-and-fro has been dominated by a childish sort of "But you
said...", quoting exact words, and focussing on these, rather than on the
message, which in most cases is obvious. Remember, John, that most posters
type in their stuff on the fly, some of them clearly directly from keyboard
to the group. I use an editor, and check what I send out, which is why you
don't see too many typos in my stuff. Others do not choose to be so careful.
Don't be too hard on them, John, and don't demand ultimate precision of
expression. Chuck Sites gets the prize for name mangling and spelling, but he
has posted some of the more interesting items, which is what counts.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  An Ultrasonic Experiment with D2O and Pd
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An Ultrasonic Experiment with D2O and Pd
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 01:13:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We finally got around to looking at D20, Pd, and Ultrasonics
 
A 50 ml polycarbonate centerfuge tube (Cole Parmer L-0760329-60) was mounted
beneath a sonic disruptor (Tekamar model 10-0544-000).  This is the type of
device designed to break up cells for DNA experiments.  A geiger counter (Cole
Parmer L-08990-50) was placed with it's window 10 cm away from the centerline
of the bottom of the cell.
 
A five minute count was now taken with the geiger counter facing the empty
tube.  The count was 86.
 
The sonic disruptor was now tuned, and operated during a second five minute
count.  The count was 75.
 
The cell was now filled with 20 ml of room temperature (23 C) D2O (Aldrich
Chemicals 99.5%).  In the bottom of the cell was placed a new 1 cm by 1 cm by
1 mm Palladium plate which was cut from a coin bar (Engelhard), pressed into
shape in an ultra high pressure hydraulic press, and polished to a mirror like
surface using a succession of abrasives ending with fractional micron grit.
 
The sonic disruptor head was inserted into the cell so that it was
approximately 1 cm below the surface of the D20 and directly facing the square
Pd plate below through several cm of D2O.
 
The sonic disrupter was now turned on and a second five minute count was
taken.  In this configuration, the cavitation is intense.  Very large sound
pressure (vicinity of 20 KHz from the horn dimensions) must be assumed at the
surface of the Pd plate.  By the end of the five minute count period the
contents of the cell was boiling, and some liquid was lost (3 cc).  The count
was 93.
 
The experiment was now repeated with the Pd plate from the last run.  This
plate differed in that it does not have the polished finish.  It was operated
in a McKubre type experiment about 1600 hours.  This resulted in the same
boiling action as the previous experiment.  The count was 96.
 
We conclude that for this simple experiment intense ultrasonic excitement of a
D2O-Pd interface does not produce radiation detectable by a geiger counter
with either new and thus uncharged Pd or used with unknown residual D content.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Polywater
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Polywater
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 01:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Richard Schultz recommended polywater as an example of "pathological
science." I agree, this is a much better than N-Rays, and it is superbly
documented in the book: "Polywater," by Felix Franks, MIT Press, 1981.
 
A careful reading of the book shows that there is no similarity between the
polywater episode and cold fusion. I think the main differences are:
 
     Polywater was very "difficult to detect," and was claimed to required
     great skill and highly sophisticated instruments to see, whereas cold
     fusion is absurdly simple to detect (you can see the effects of it with
     the naked eye in the P&F cell).
 
     Polywater remained a marginal effect, whereas a CF reactor has greater
     power density than a conventional fission reactor.
 
     Polywater never attracted industrial R&D money.
 
     Polywater scientists were never certain in their own minds about whether
     the effect was real, whereas CF scientists after about 1990 got such a
     clear signal that all doubts were put to rest.
 
 
Dick Jackson asks how Notoya and the MIT work is doing. Both are coming along
fine. I hope to have something to report in the next few months. Notoya has
been running herself ragged doing demos in Japan. I just talked to her last
night about one she did on Friday at the Electrochemical Society Meeting. She
was one of six speakers, and the only person there with a live demonstration.
I will post a short report when I get her paper, the newspaper clippings, and
when I hear the details from the fellow who actually took the heat
measurements and read them out to the audience. He was a grad student she had
never met before. He used a much better pair of thermometers than she usually
carts around -- mercury thermometers certified to the nearest 0.05 C.
 
I gather she got an hour and a half of nothing, she changed out the
electrolyte, and then she got a 2 C delta T for about an hour. Not bad. I
wish she could pull off another Nagoya demonstration, but as she says, "we
have learned this does not travel well. At least we got an 'inadvertent' one-
and-a-half hour 'control run' with no heat, which contrasted nicely with the
2 C."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 15:48:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
 
>(Mitchell Swartz replies to Dick Blue, who remains unable to supply proof
> that cold fusion must result in the emission of "lots of neutrons")
 
>   Although you are not required, you seem to have nearly all options
> covered with that, including wisely  the possibility of neutronpenic cold
> fusion.
 
 
>    Given the cornucopia of experimental data (eg. cf. Exhibit 1), we
> submit that it is you who need a good theory (or better yet, magic wand)
> to disprove (or erase) the scores of papers reporting positive result(s).
 
Excuse me butting in here, Dick and Mitch, but I want to make a couple of
comments.
 
First, on the word "neutronpenic", an unfortunate coining in any case, it has
phallic overtones. Be that as it may, the "penic" bit is meant to express a
low emission. How low, Mitch? If the neutrons are out of proportion by about
10 orders of magnitude, then if "penic" implies 1% or even 0.1%, those labs
getting excess heat would still be flooded with neutrons, and a lot more
besides. So you'll now define it to mean 1E-10 times expected from those
outdated, pre-1989 theories. You may as well join F&P and say "aneutronic".
 
It is true that if you TB's were able to demonstrate excess heat, then
theories denying that possibility would indeed go on the scrap heap, but those
theories will not be abandoned without very solid proof, because these
stick-in-the-mud theories are solidly founded and verified solidly by
unambiguous experiments. Furthermore, it would help the cause of CNF TB's to
themselves suggest a good replacement theory to explain aneutronic excess
heat. I have asked for someone to outline for us, in simple terms, the
Hagelstein and Schwinger theories, that might be candidates. How about it? No
takers as yet. I am really interested. Please no waffle about a
Moessbauer-like effect.
 
Let me put this discussion of theories into another perspective, by a couple
of historical examples. Darwin proposed gradual evolution over a long time. He
was essentially right, we now know, except for some fine details. He lacked,
however, a theory for the mechanism. There was good evidence all around but it
was not really until a good theory appeared (genetics), that Darwin's proposal
became pretty hard to refute. His opponents had no theory either, just the
strong belief that he was wrong. Another case was Wegener and continental
drift. He more or less just suggested it. Stephen J. Gould points out that the
skeptics of the time were quite right, there was little in the way of proof.
This came fairly recently, and we now have the mechanism of plate tectonics,
well documented by observation, to make continental drift hard to refute. In
both cases, it was not the theories of the opposition that had to lose out, it
was the constructive theories of the proposers that clinched the matter. What
is worse for cold fusion, here we do have well entrenched theories, verified
by hundreds, yes hundreds of experiments, that make cold fusion very
improbable. So, what is badly needed is a constructive theory from its
proposers to explain it, not complaints that "it could be true, couldn't it,
and you can't prove that it can't".
 
Lastly, Mitch, you and Jed go on about this cornucopia of evidence for excess
heat, anyone can measure it with a thermometer (although it is very very
difficult and you must possess certain secrets). Now, as you know, I have read
just about all cnf papers, and have extracted a rather small list of quality
positives from them, which again I could reduce to about 4-5, if I were less
kindly. This I admit IS evidence, but it is hardly a cornucopia. So Mitch,
you have my bibliography of published papers, which are all accessible to
anyone who wants to see them (unlike some conference reports or preprints or
confidential communications), so how about giving us a list of those papers that
comprise this cornucopia? What do you regard as solid evidence? Don't quote
McKubre, or F&P's rumored results (in excess of 1000W/cm^3, wow, that should
be no problem at all to make a demo with!), in other words, not secret and
therefore (to us) useless results but openly published ones. Give us a list.
 
If your evidence is based on confidential stuff, then you couldn't reasonably
ask us to believe it, could you? In such a case, we could only wait for that
unequivocal demo, that WORKS on demand...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Jed Rothwell /  An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An infamous liar
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 01:11:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter Britz wrote:
 
     "Jed is a business man, and as such uses the phone to do his work. In
     science, we read publications. There are a lot of electrochemists whom I
     have never talked to on the phone, but whose work I know very well. I
     don't have to be in the USA to know all this. I suggest, Jed, that if the
     team at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, that has been trying to
     confirm cold fusion,had in fact confirmed it (they did not), then you
     would have no hesitation in adding this to your evidence, even though you
     are not in Denmark and have not talked to them on the phone. Just as you
     do not hesitate to call me a liar, not having met me or talked to me,
     etc."
 
 
For the record, first:
 
I would not *think* of taking any result seriously unless it has been:
 
     1. Widely replicated; and,
 
     2. I have a full paper, or actual experimental raw data. I never take
     anyone's word for anything. Dieter knows nothing about business. To a
     businessman, paper is the only thing that matters. A written contract or
     a legal agreement is real, words on the telephone signify nothing. All
     business transactions must be in writing.
 
I do not "add things to evidence." I have no "list," and in fact, I very
seldom discuss specific results. I never mention any results in public, or on
this network, unless I have written permission from the experimenter, or
unless the results are published in a scientific journal, newspaper or
magazine.
 
 
 
Second:
 
I have never met Dieter, but I know for a fact that he is a notorious liar &
character assassin, and that nobody should ever trust a word he says. I have
the proof of it in writing.
 
Just last week he published these absurd statements about the funding of CF
research in the U.S. Last year, he made an inept and blatant attempt to
destroy my reputation, and the reputation of Dr. Notoya, by publishing *in*
*writing* in this forum, utterly impossible lies about us. The year before
that he attacked Dr. Farrell. His recent portrayal of Pons & Fleischmann was
outrageous. I have no idea how many other people he might have slandered, or
what other lies he might have spread. He has communicated with me privately
from time to time, and in every case, he has twisted the truth, and written
such outrageous, pathological lies that I sense he has no idea what is truth,
and what is imagination; or what is opinion, and what is fact. For example, he
wrote to me:
 
     "Now you tell me you were in Atlanta during that ill-fated demo of
     Notoya's. At the time, you told us you carried her gear into a truck for
     her..."
 
Naturally, I never told him (or anyone else) any such thing. I was in Nagoya
the whole time. What I said was that I was not in Hokkaido, and never have
been in my life; I was not there when she assembled the demo cells, and I had
no idea she was going to bring them.
 
I am sorry I find it necessary to post messages like this, but I feel that I
should warn the readers away from this charlatan. Furthermore, I cannot let
him attempt to shred my reputation. I cannot allow this portrayal of me to
stand unchallenged: I would *never* believe a mere verbal report on the
telephone; I would *never* accuse him (or anyone else) of being liar unless I
had written evidence. It is a cardinal rule of business that you must never
make a strong statement in writing about a specific individual unless you have
evidence you think can stand up in court.
 
I suppose that some of what Deiter writes is true, but since the reader can
never be certain what is what, I recommend that everyone ignore him
completely.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 / Frank Smith /  Re: Pd Outgassing
     
Originally-From: fsmith@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Frank Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pd Outgassing
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:38:20 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <930311125240.23800aa3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ub-gate.UB.com!fnald.f
al.gov!DROEGE writes:
>Whoever (sybil.risc.rockwell) posted that you can remove a cathode and place
>it under a volumetric cylinder to measure the absorbed gas is likely misled.
>
>The note further does not say how all the gas is persuaded to be removed.
>Moore cites a case where a sample held significant amounts of gas for over
>13 years.
 
I would suggest that the best way to determine the D content of a palladium
electrode is to apply the reverse process to charging the electrode in the
first place. What is necessary is to anodize the palladium at a potential
slightly positive to a standard hydrogen electrode; we know that the potential
of a palladium electrode with hydrogen content such that the alpha and beta
phases are both present is about 50 mV positive to the standard hydrogen
electrode. So it is necessary to use a potentiostat holding the Pd potential
at about + 100 or 150 mV versus the SHE: measure the current flowing until it
drops to very low values. Then integrate the current-time curve and you have
an electrical measure of the H or D inside the Pd. Too positive a potential
will result in oxidation of the Pd and care should be taken in choosing the
electrolyte in which to desorb the hydrogen - probably sulfuric acid would
be O.K. Of course there may be some loss of D via the formation of gaseous
D2 simultaneous with the electrochemical desorption, but this will probably
be small.
 
I would expect the current to be very large at first (there will be a small
error due to double layer charging) and fall to a plateau value depending
on the physical shape of the specimen of Pd (and of course its size). Then
the current will gradually fall to close to zero.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenfsmith cudfnFrank cudlnSmith cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Polywater
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Polywater
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 19:59:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930323210238_72240.1256_EHL64-3@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Richard Schultz recommended polywater as an example of "pathological
>science." I agree, this is a much better than N-Rays, and it is superbly
>documented in the book: "Polywater," by Felix Franks, MIT Press, 1981.
>
>A careful reading of the book shows that there is no similarity between the
>polywater episode and cold fusion. I think the main differences are:
>
>     Polywater was very "difficult to detect," and was claimed to required
>     great skill and highly sophisticated instruments to see, whereas cold
>     fusion is absurdly simple to detect (you can see the effects of it with
>     the naked eye in the P&F cell).
 
      While I agree about polywater, how can one 'see' the differences
      between boiling from 'anomalous heat' generation in or around
      an electrode and boiling from strongly exothermic outgassing
      at the electrode?  Or even boiling from changes in electrolysis
      current?
 
      By the way, I'm still waiting for the characterization of
      phenomenon as either strong and repeatable or strongly
      unrepeatable.
 
                           dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.24 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 24 Mar 93 16:50:13 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
                 RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STARWARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
 
               In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
          proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
          defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) BASED ON
          RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY.
 
               Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians
          could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I.
          research and development program.
 
               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started
          deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in
          September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since
          that time.  It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE
          BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS.
 
               In this article I will describe the Russian system as it
          developed from 1977 to 1983, and give several examples of how
          it was used during that period.  But first I will try to
          convince readers of the credibility of my main source of
          information about it.
 
               My main source is articles published in a weekly
          legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN REPORT (WR), of Brookfield,
          Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 45, zip 53005), written by the late Dr.
          Peter David Beter, a well-respected Washington, DC attorney,
          Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
          international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
          much of his information from associates in the CIA and other
          intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of
          many of the things happening or being planned behind the
          scenes.  They believed that at least limited public exposure
          might delay and ultimately prevent the worst of those things,
          such as NUCLEAR WAR and NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP, from taking
          place.
 
               Dr. Beter started appearing on local radio and TV talk
          shows, but soon found himself being BANNED from them, as a
          result of government THREATS to cancel broadcast licenses.
          So he started producing monthly one-hour cassette tapes and
          sending them to a growing list of subscribers.  From June 21,
          1975 until November 3, 1982 he recorded eighty (80) "Dr.
          Beter Audio Letters", plus eight "Audio Books", and three
          special topic tapes.  On September 1, 1977 Wisconsin Report
          started publishing transcripts of those Audio Letters.
 
               Based on information from his sources, Dr. Beter
          PREDICTED the bombing of the Marines in Beirut A FULL YEAR
          BEFORE IT HAPPENED, WARNING that the U.S. Pentagon and the
          Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING TO DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT in
          order to try to get Americans angry at the Arabs and generate
          public support for PLANNED military action against them.  He
          reported the impending assassination of Anwar Saddat of Egypt
          SIX DAYS BEFORE IT HAPPENED.  And Dr. Beter predicted what he
          called the "retirement" of Leonid Brezhnev one week before
          Brezhnev officially "died", [note that the word "retirement"
          was used for the TERMINATION OF REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie
          "Blade Runner"], and his quick replacement with Andropov
          which occurred only three days after the "death" of Brezhnev,
          to the surprise of all government and media analysts.
          Subscription application and renewal forms for Dr. Beter's
          tapes would usually say, "Subscribe to the Dr. Beter Audio
          Letter and watch the news start making sense."
 
 
 
          RUSSIA'S SPACE TRIAD OF STAR WARS WEAPONS
 
               In September 1977 the Russians started launching MANNED
          killer satellites, called "COSMOS INTERCEPTORS", armed with
          CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons, into earth orbit, (12-15-77
          WR; and Dr. Beter Audio Letter (AL) #27, Topic 1). By April
          1978 there were about THREE DOZEN of them, and they had
          FINISHED DESTROYING all American spy and early warning
          satellites, (5-18-78 WR, and AL #33, Topic 2).
 
               On September 27, 1977, in what Dr. Beter called "THE
          BATTLE OF THE HARVEST MOON", a Cosmos Interceptor in Earth
          orbit used a NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM to wipe out a secret
          American laser-beam base nearing operational status in
          Copernicus Crater on the Moon, (11-3-77 WR; and AL #26, Topic
          1).  The Russians quickly deployed their own military bases
          on the Moon, the second leg of their space triad, starting on
          October 4, 1977, with seven EXTREMELY POWERFUL charged-
          particle beam weapons BASES on the near side of the Moon and
          three support bases on the far side, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29,
          Topic 1).
 
               The first test of the Moon base weapons occurred on
          November 19, 1977, ironically at about the same time as the
          release of the first "Star Wars" movie with its "death star"
          weapon.  The Russians were aiming at the eye of a cyclone
          near India.  But they miscalculated the deflection of the
          beam by the Earth's magnetic field, and the beam struck the
          ocean too close to the shore causing a TIDAL WAVE that killed
          many people, (2-9-78 WR; and AL #29, Topic 1).  A blast of
          charged-particle beams from two or more of the Russian Moon
          bases fired in quick succession would create the DESTRUCTIVE
          EFFECT OF A HYDROGEN BOMB on its target.
 
               The third leg of Russia's triad of space weapons is the
          "COSMOSPHERES".  The first-generation Cosmospheres were
          weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover
          against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by
          rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40
          miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with
          CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less
          powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with
          "PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING" (PRF) which tunes in to the
          actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and canNOT be
          jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave
          BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.
 
               In late 1977 and early 1978, there was a strange rash of
          giant AIR BOOMS along the east coast of the United States and
          elsewhere.  These air booms were NEVER satisfactorily
          explained, by either the government, the scientific
          establishment, or the news media.  They could NOT be
          positively identified with any particular Super Sonic
          Transport plane (SST) or other aircraft, and indeed they were
          MUCH LOUDER than aircraft sonic booms.  The giant airbooms
          were actually caused by Russian Cosmospheres firing CHARGED-
          PARTICLE BEAMS down into the atmosphere in a DEFOCUSED MODE
          (spread out) for the purpose of announcing their presence to
          the WAR-MONGERS in the United States Pentagon, (2-9-78 WR;
          and AL #29, Topic 1).
 
 
               The main purpose of any "Star Wars" defense system is to
          protect a country against nuclear attack.  During the weekend
          of January 20, 1980, Russian Cosmospheres accomplished such a
          mission.  A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE against Russia by the then
          BOLSHEVIK-CONTROLLED United States was being started with a
          total of 82 special secret aircraft that can sneak up to a
          country's shoreline under water, surface, change
          configuration, take off, and fly at treetop level to their
          targets.  Dr. Beter describes part of the action in his Audio
          Letter #53, recorded on January 21, 1980: "At that point the
          real action got under way, in the Caspian Sea and off
          northern Norway.  The Subcraft, with Israeli pilots, were on
          their way.  They were traveling under water on the first legs
          of their attack missions....
 
          "Late Saturday night, Washington time, a coded signal was
          flashed to the Subcraft to continue as planned.  By that
          time, the northern contingent of Subcraft were in the White
          Sea.  The southern contingent had reached the north end of
          the Caspian Sea.  It was already daylight, Sunday morning,
          the 20th, for the Subcraft contingents.  Their orders were to
          wait out the day under water, out of sight; then, after
          nightfall, they were to continue their steady approach to get
          close to their targets.  The Subcraft were maintaining strict
          radio silence.  They were also deep enough under water to be
          invisible from the air to either the eye or radar, yet they
          were also hugging the shoreline in water too shallow for
          Russian sonar to pick them up.  And their infrared signatures
          were negligible as the result of extensive development.  In
          short, by the standards of Western technology, they were
          undetectable.  But in AUDIO LETTER No. 42 I revealed Russia's
          master secret weapon.  It is called "Psycho-energetic Range
          Finding" or PRF.  It is unlike sonar and similar techniques.
          PRF tunes in to the actual atomic signature of a target, and
          there is no method known by which PRF can be jammed.
 
               "By deploying their Navy to the Arabian Sea, the
          Russians are pretending to be fooled by the Bolshevik
          distraction with the aircraft carriers.  In this way they
          encouraged the Bolsheviks to launch the Subcraft toward their
          targets.  They waited until the Subcraft were far away from
          their bases and out of sight of the Bolsheviks, who are
          directing the American first-strike operation.  But the whole
          time they were being tracked by Cosmospheres overhead using
          PRF, and shortly after 1:00 A.M. yesterday morning Eastern
          Standard Time the Cosmospheres began firing their Charged
          Particle Beam Weapons.  There were 10 Subcraft in the White
          Sea.  Each disappeared in a blinding blue white water spout
          of steam, smoke, and fire.  In the north end of the Caspian
          there were 19 Subcraft--they, too, met the same fate.", (2-7-
          80 WR; and AL #53, Topic 3).
 
 
               The 3rd-generation Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
          deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
          Shuttle mission.  They significantly interfered with that
          MILITARY mission, in ways which were successfully covered up
          by NASA using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
          "Capricorn I", (5-7-81, 5-14-81, and 5-21-81 WR; and AL #64,
          Topics 1-3).
 
               Jumbo Cosmospheres are much larger than the 1st-
          generation models, and use ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION instead
          of rocket thrusters to move around.
 
               For about two years after Dr. Beter stopped recording
          his Audio Letters in November 1982 (because of heart
          trouble), his distributor, Audio Books, Inc., published some
          newsletters titled "NewsALERT", using information passed on
          to them by Dr. Beter or received directly from his sources.
          A special supplementary issue, dated March 26, 1984,
          describes how Russian Jumbo Cosmospheres captured two
          communication satellites right after launch from U.S. Space
          Shuttle Mission #10, found anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles
          mounted on one of them, and dumped both satellites into
          useless orbits.  NASA had fun TRYING to explain two-in-a-row
          failures of a highly reliable PAM-D satellite booster.
 
               Russia's offer to share their "Star Wars" defense system
          with the rest of the world might also extend to SCIENTIFIC
          SPACE EXPLORATION.  For example, the United States is
          planning to send two unmanned flyby and sample-return space
          missions to a comet.  These missions would cost BILLIONS of
          dollars, take fifteen years from now to complete, and could
          FAIL in DOZENS of ways.  A Russian Jumbo Cosmosphere could
          complete a MANNED version of such a mission in a matter of
          MONTHS, if they have not already done so, since these
          Cosmospheres can accelerate continuously.
 
               Note that the United States has announced a deal to
          purchase at least one SPACE REACTOR from Russia.  Now you
          know what the Russians originally developed and used them
          for.
 
 
 
               ALL 80 Dr. Beter Audio Letters have been digitized by
          Jon Volkoff at email address "eidetics@cerf.net" and are
          available from him or from several FTP sites where he has
          sent them.  I especially recommend Audio Letters #64, 74, 40,
          53, 54, 55, 45, 46, 47, 48, 78, 79, and 80.
 
 
 
               For more information, and answers to your questions,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES.
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmcelwre cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Chuck Sites /  Re: This group
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: This group
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 04:23:21 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>expression. Chuck Sites gets the prize for name mangling and spelling, but he
>has posted some of the more interesting items, which is what counts.
 
I humbly accept this prize. :-)
 
Have Fun,
Chuc Stites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / John Marvin /  Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
     
Originally-From: jsm@fc.hp.com (John Marvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 09:26:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu wrote:
:
 
:                  RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STARWARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
:
 
I hate to admit it, but I actually enjoyed this one. Especially the part
about the moon bases.
 
        John Marvin
        jsm@fc.hp.com
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMarvin cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Nick Maclaren /  Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
Date: 25 Mar 93 11:49:02 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

I have rec.humor.funny just following comp.physics.fusion in my .newsrc
and, as you can expect, I thought that I was in the wrong newsgroup!
I think that the existence of 'microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING weapons' might
explain a great deal about this series of postings.
 
However, he reminds me about a question that I would be interested in an
answer to (for curiosity only, incidentally).  If you charge up a 1 micron
diameter lump of lithium hydride and sling it at a solid object at 1% of
light speed, how much of it would fuse?  I assume very little but, if not,
could it also be used for power generation?
 
 
Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Dieter Britz /  A "thank you" to the man behind the scenes
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A "thank you" to the man behind the scenes
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 14:30:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A sizeable proportion of the regular readers of and posters to this group use
the Digest mode, that is, receive items bunched up in packets, by email, and
post to the group through the listserv program. As well, these Digests are
archived. All this is handled by Scott Hazen Mueller, the man behind the
scenes. Some of us (on the listserv side) have just been notified of a minor
change in the operation, and it brings to my mind the fact that Scott is, in
fact, very much in the background. I take this occasion to say that this
service to us is very much appreciated. For most of the 3.5 years I have been
active in this group, I would have had no access to it, if not for Scott's
listserv work.
 
Thank you, Scott.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An infamous liar
Date: 25 Mar 93 14:46:14 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <930324221212_72240.1256_EHL69-1@CompuServe.COM>,
by 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell):
 
> I have never met Dieter, but I know for a fact that he is a notorious liar &
> character assassin, and that nobody should ever trust a word he says. I have
> the proof of it in writing.
 
Jed, you've just lost what little credibility you had left.
 
                                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:
cuddy25 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Heiner Biesel /  Re: An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An infamous liar
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 18:11:33 GMT
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
...[deleted]...
 
>I have never met Dieter, but I know for a fact that he is a notorious liar &
>character assassin, and that nobody should ever trust a word he says. I have
>the proof of it in writing.
 
...[and on in the same vein]...
 
Jed, I know neither you nor Dieter personally, nor do I have any personal
stake pro or con CF, but when I contrast your postings with his I find him
to be consistently less angry and abrasive, and more careful in his language.
 
You do a disservice to your cause by the scattershot attacks you post here.
 
Regards,
       H. Biesel
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbiesel cudfnHeiner cudlnBiesel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / John Logajan /  Re: An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An infamous liar
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 19:20:06 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
[ Improprietous stuff deleted ...]
 
Jed, Jed, Jed.  My granny used to tell me to avoid forcing people to take
sides, as, she said, I might not like the outcome.
 
>I suppose that some of what Deiter writes is true, but since the reader can
>never be certain what is what, I recommend that everyone ignore him
>completely.
 
This is hardly unique to Deiter -- all human interactions are shrouded in
the veil of potentially imperfect information.   We can't ignore everybody.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Rogers Huw /  Re: Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: rogersh@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp (Rogers Huw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 04:50:33 +0000
Organization: NEC Corporation, Tokyo

In article <930317172528_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Matt Kennel grabs the bull by the horns, and spells out the quandary in exact
>terms:
>
>>"Why is our understanding of this particular thermodynamics considered
>>more sacred than our understanding of this particular nuclear physics?
>
>>You can either say, 1) thermo measurements and theory are right and
>>nuclear M&T is wrong, or 2) thermo measurements and theory is wrong and
>>nuclear M&T is right.
>
>>I don't see the evidence conclusively favoring #1 over #2, and so I don't
>>think it at all unscientific to believe in #2.  Even if #1 turns out to
>>be right.
>
>>In fact, most physicists would bet on #2 first..."
>
>This is VERY IMPORTANT, so let's go over the answers carefully:
>
>Thermodynamics is "more sacred" because it is more fundamental, older, and FAR
>more tested and proven than nuclear physics. As a general rule, when
>scientific theories have to be revised, the oldest, best proved theories stay,
>and the new ones are modified. Science generally works on a First In Last Out
>(FILO) basis.
 
I am no scientist, but I cannot believe anyone with any science can
write this.
 
If I am certain of one thing, it is that thermodynamics is a derived
theory, and nuclear physics (relativity + quantum mechanics) is
fundamental. Thermodynamics is a theory of averages, not of fundamental
particles or fields. There is no question as to which is more reliable.
 
I am undoubtedly going to get flamed for this, but that is my understanding
of the the de facto situation - if physicists had to choose between
thermodynamics and nuclear physics then there wouldn't be much debate
about which one to rehash.
 
In many ways, thermodynamics is more suspect precisely because it is so
much older. Your FILO assertion is provably false - all the great
advances in science have been to subsume earlier theories (proven correct
within the limitations of accuracy of their time) in more general frameworks
leading to more accurate new theories that then replace the old.
Thermodynamics is probably the most obvious candidate for such treatment in
modern science.
 
>Conventional calorimetry is based upon two things: the second law of
>thermodynamics, and the specific heat of water (not the heat of vaporization).
>Both of these go back to the early 1800's, both have been tested in countless
>thousands of experiments, and both are fundamental to all of modern physics
>and chemistry.
 
Fundamental to all of modern physics and chemistry? Thermodynamics is
derived (perhaps incorrectly) from the fundamentals of most modern physics
and chemistry.
 
>Cold fusion is proven. It is fact.
 
If only.
 
        -Huw
--
 
               DISCLAIMER: Any and all opinions expressed above
               are mine and have nothing to do with my employer.
 
[ Huw Rogers  Communications Software Engineer, NEC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan ]
[ Email: rogersh@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp  Fax: +81-3-5476-1005  Tel: +81-3-5476-1096 ]
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrogersh cudfnRogers cudlnHuw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / mitchell swartz /  Shooting at moving targets (cont)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Shooting at moving targets (cont)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 04:34:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

(Mitchell Swartz responds to Dick Blue)
 
      In Message-ID: <00969F2D.BCE57F20.6163@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
      24 Mar 1993; Subject: Shooting at a moving CF target
    Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) writes:
 
=-- Question #1: "Why have I chosen an experiment which examined neither of
=--  the reported two major products of cold fusion?"
===   "The answer, obviously, is that at the time Prof. Salamon made his
===  measurements the major products of cold fusion were still very much in
===  doubt.  Pons and Fleischmann had claimed that their cells were
===   producing neutrons."
 
  Historically, F&P may have made a mistake with respect to the neutrons.
    But why continue to use that error as a proof against CF?
        [You don't throw out the grad student with the good  thesis
         just because of a bad chapter, do you?]
 
 
===  "Since that would have been unequivocal evidence for a nuclear
===   reaction process,  measurements proving or disproving their claim
===   were clearly significant."
 
  Agreed.  However, apparently this logic is not valid if CF is real and
 copious neutrons are not produced.   How can it not be folly to cling to
 such an experiment that was planned flawed (albeit retrospectively)?
 
 
===  "It is only after the result of that measurement, and many other
===  similar measurements, that you and other cold fusion advocates have
===  come to deny that neutron measurements have any bearing on the
===   question."
 
  Wrong again it appears.   Neutrons have been an issue since March 1989.
  I am astonished when the skeptics link disparate people on various
 locations (separated by thousands of miles in some case), or presume what
 others think/claim.
 
 
===  "The Salamon measurement thus forces you to admit that cold fusion
===  does not produce ionizing radiation.  If you agree with that statement
===   we can move on to another level in this debate."
 
   Only if the Salamon measurement was sensitive, selective, and
   correctly tuned to the emitted radiation(s) if any,  and -- of course -
   if the cell was active.
 
   As you were asked before:
 
--  "You place one-half of all the skeptics basis against CF on
--  a large NaI detector under where Prof. Pons claimed to have a working
--  cell.   Was that working previously? or at that very time?"
--            [mitchell swartz) <C45E7L.D4w@world.std.com>]
 
  In summary, Question #1 remains unanswered.
 
 
 
===  "Question #2:  I have read your post twice and still fail to find a
===    question #2."
 
 
  Oppps.  This was my error.  I apologize for it disturbing you so as
  to warrant more flaming.
 
     [I also made another error (of many) in a subsequent post:
    like the Q=CV   when I inadvertently erased the beginning of a line.
          -I = d/dtQ=d/dt[CV] = ... speed voltage]
          ---------                                 <----- erased
 
   Sorry Dick.  It is human to err.   Who makes errors?
                         .  Maybe even the skeptics do?
 
 
===  "Instead you inform us that you suggested the use of the word
===   "neutronpenic" as applicable to cold fusion.  I don't see that
===  coining a word does anything to clarify the issue, but if it gives you
===  a thrill, enjoy it for whatever it is worth."
 
    Neutronpenic was reasonably based upon well-known universally used
    word derivations, as for example:
 
    'neutropenic'    meaning --> weak in white blood cells (granulocytes).
                                 or having low (from the expected)
                                 levels
 
    The entire medical and biological communities have no trouble with
    the word: neutropenic.  It is useful and has clear meaning.
 
    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].
 
  In summary, "neutronpenic" (neutron-poor)  was made to both classify and
 ** quantify **.  There are clearly not  commensurate levels of neutrons
  with any of the positive reports on CF. There have been some who claim
 that all such reactions are "aneutronic".
 
  However, even reading posts made here leads to the possibility that very
low levels may be generated in some unusual circumstances.  To distinguish
this third level located between the "normal" (i.e. read classical
 commensurate-) levels  and the aneutronic level [but putting the amount
 close to, but not identical to, the aneutronic level], neutronpenic seemed
 a reasonable alternative.
 
  THRILL?! -  If I palpated a constricted tortuous artery of diminished
 caliber with sufficient flow rate so as to create turbulence (we will
 forego the non-dimensional parameters which describe this, OK Dieter?),
 then I would feel a "thrill".
 
  Language is used as symbology (I think, John) to help us poor folk
 describe whats'a-happening in front of our eyes.   Language should be
 fluid, adaptable, and grow.    Is that double-plus-ungood, Dick?
 
 
==== "What I would like to clear up on this issue is whether you believe
==== neutron emission plays any role in the cold fusion reaction, or
==== whether it is just some kind of artifact or the result of
==== experimental error in those cases where CF experimenters have
==== claimed to have detected neutrons in correlation with
==== heat or anticorrelated with heat.  In short enlighten us as
==== to what significance, if any, neutron measurements are thought to
==== have in CF research."
 
   Too broad a question.  Depends upon the experiment.  They are too
   diverse in configuration for any blanket statement.  Don't you think?
 
 
===  "Question #3:  After a lecture on possible scintillating crystals that
===  could be selected for the detection of ionizing radiation or neutrons,
===   you suggest that Lithium Bromide would have been the proper choice if
===  neutron detection were considered significant."
 
   OK I admit being old and tempted to use older technologies.
   Also please note  that the post was to discuss the doping with Europium
 and other materials:
 
---   "good scintillation crystals include thallium-activated
---    NaI as well as cesium iodide and cesium bromide.
---    For neutrons, europium-activated lithium bromide has been used."
 
  Your attention is directed to the wording which says: "has been used",
rather than "would have been the proper choice" as you claim.
 
 
===   "I don't know how you come to that conclusion, nor why you bother
===  with it since your claim seems to be neutron measurements aren't very
===   important."
 
   Neutron measurement is very important.  However, we disagree because I
 believe that theories ought to take into consideration what was measured
 (that is, attempting to integrate all good experiments).
 
 
====  "Let me take this opportunity to inform you that when it comes to
====  neutron detection you are venturing onto my turf, and for starters,
====  if you assert that lithium bromide would be a good choice, I
====  challenge you to find 5 references in which that material has been
====  used for neutron detection".
 
    Do your own work.  Lithium bromide, thallium- and europium-activation
    are well-known.  You really claim you have never seen a reference
    regarding either activation or alternate materials? ?
    If you claim they have never been referenced, then you might be
    dancing on shaky ground, collapsing with a dictionary (again), which
    cites this on page 1154 [Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics and
     Nuclear Engineering, R.I. Sarbacher, Prentice-Hall (1959)].
 
 
===  "There are too many alternatives that are more readily available and
===   in more common routine use for lithium bromide to be given
===   consideration."
 
   The pharmaceutical industry uses that argument too.  The argument
  however does not remove that occasional advantages of materials outside
  of "common routine" ( "vulgar") use.
 
 
===  "Do you agree that measurements which produce heat but no helium must
===   then be in error?"
 
   Not necessarily.
   First, many good calorimetric measurements do not examine helium.
   Second, there may be more than one reaction in CF.
   Third, the poise and efficiency of the system may vary from set-up to
     set-up.
   Fourth, any one experiment may have error with or without helium,
    and with or without heat.
 
 
=== " Please prepare a list of all the measurements that have provided
===  positive results for both of the main products.  I have the feeling it
===  is a short list."
 
  Exhibit 1 seems quite large, does it not?  Please tell us what is wrong
   with the score of oral presentations and 4-score poster papers.
  Dick, there is part I of your list.
 
      Best wishes.
 
               Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / mitchell swartz /  Proof? Theories dont disprove expt.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof? Theories dont disprove expt.
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 04:35:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <6049ADE2EC1F205DA4@vms2.uni-c.dk>
    24 Mar 1993; Subject: RE: Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
Dieter Britz (alias britz@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
 
==== " First, on the word "neutronpenic", an unfortunate coining in any
====  case, it has phallic overtones."
 
  Dieter, although, some of you may be fixated on various parts of your
  bodies there is no such overtone.
 
    Neutronpenic was reasonably based upon well-known universally used
    word derivations, as for example:
 
    'neutropenic'    meaning --> weak in white blood cells (granulocytes).
                                 or having low (from the expected)
                                 levels of such white blood cells
 
    The entire medical and biological communities have no trouble with
    the word: neutropenic.  It is useful and has clear meaning.
    [Also I have never heard any of them get flushed over the series
     of four letters, reminding them to remark about male genitalia
     like might be the penchant here of some.   I am unsure of the
     interpretation, but more female input to the net could not hurt.]
 
    In any case, as stated before:
    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].
 
  In summary, "neutronpenic" (neutron-poor)  was made to both classify and
 ** quantify **, and be consistent with scientific word use.
 
 
===  " Be that as it may, the "penic" bit is meant to express a low
=== emission. How low, Mitch? If the neutrons are out of
=== proportion by about 10 orders of magnitude, then if "penic"
=== implies 1% or even 0.1%, those labs getting excess heat would
=== still be flooded with neutrons, and a lot more besides. So
=== you'll now define it to mean 1E-10 times expected from those
=== outdated, pre-1989 theories. You may as well join F&P
=== and say "aneutronic"."
 
  That is not accurate.  Chewing gum is aneutronic, Dieter.
                         Many things are aneutronic.
 
  I am less certain around volcanos or even some curing cements now.
    These may be neutronpenic if any incremental increase in neutrons
   occurs (below "plasma-levels"); these are thus not aneutronic.
 
 
=== "it would help the cause of CNF TB's to themselves suggest a good
===  replacement theory to explain aneutronic excess heat.... Please no
===  waffle about a Moessbauer-like effect"."
 
  Working on it.  We agree again.   Possibly neutronpenic excess heat.
 
  Also re: Mossbauer     NOTA BENE: it was only presented to show the
                                  existence of a possibility of other
                                  then gas/plasma effects
                                  (see Existence Theorem)
 
      Best wishes.
 
               Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.25 / Bruce Scott /  Re: An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An infamous liar
Date: 25 Mar 93 20:41:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Jed, I suggest strongly that your problem is that you cannot take some of
the things you routinely dish out.
 
Your "character assasination" of Steven Jones, for example.
 
I like at least 80 per cent of your posts, Jed, but this kind of thing is
not among them.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / Jed Rothwell /  Politeness counts
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Politeness counts
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 20:12:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Bob Pendleton tells me that I have lost all credibility because I chose to
object when I was accused of fraud, lying and extreme gullibility. I would
dearly love to see how Bob would react if Dieter Britz was to accuse Bob
Pendleton rigging experiments and publishing lies!
 
H. Biesel says that he finds Dieter "consistently less angry and abrasive, and
more careful in his language."
 
So, Mr. Biesel, if you publicly slander someone, and publish infamous,
damaging lies about him, it is perfectly okay, just as long as you couch your
lies in polite, non-abrasive language. Right? But if the accused party fights
back, and says he is not a fraud, liar or dupe, that's ba-a-a-a-d, because it
sounds so nasty when people say things like that. Right?
 
 
Moving on to a more pleasant subject, Rogers Huw suggests that thermodynamics
might just go out the door after all. By extension, I suppose that the
specific heat of water might be wrong by a factor of 10. He thinks the
physicists might stick with plasma physics and vote to override entropy & the
last 200 years of experimental observations. I would be curious to see a vote
on this.
 
Rogers also makes a more interesting, plausible comment:
 
     "If I am certain of one thing, it is that thermodynamics is a derived
     theory, and nuclear physics (relativity + quantum mechanics) is
     fundamental."
 
I would say that thermodynamics were originally derived, in the early 1800's,
from experimental observation, rather than theory. After that, I suppose a
theoretical framework was built up to support the first and second laws, but I
don't know. It would be very nice if someone versed in the history of science,
and in modern day thermodynamics would comment.
 
Rogers' other point is interesting, and food for thought. Let me paraphrase,
or summarize that point of view in very simplistic terms: QM deals with little
tiny particles, whereas things like thermodynamics, and the laws relating to
gas pressure, temperature and expansion deal with large masses of atoms or
molecules. Since big things are made of little things, the laws explaining the
large scale behavior of can be derived from the laws pertaining to small
scale. So, the small-scale laws are more "fundamental" and therefore, more
solid, closer to the certainty, and so on... Perhaps this is an over-
simplification, but I think that many physicists would agree in general terms.
This has been the guiding principle of science for a long time, and because of
these relationships, physics was called "the queen of sciences." Perhaps,
though, this is no longer quite as valid as it used to be. When the scale gets
small enough, somewhere down around quarks (maybe?) perhaps any number of
different "small scale physics" might satisfy and explain the actions of large
scale phenomena, and maybe it no longer matters so much just how things fit
together Way Down There. Chemists and biologists tell me that they don't deal
with anything smaller than an atom and electron, and it is all the same to
them how things work below the atomic level. They have an agenda, of course:
they would like to see some of those Super Collider Giga Dollars come into
*their* fields, instead of going into physics.
 
He also says:
 
     "...all the great advances in science have been to subsume earlier
     theories (proven correct within the limitations of accuracy of their
     time) in more general frameworks leading to more accurate new theories
     that then replace the old."
 
I think this is correct. The point is, however, thermodynamics has been proven
correct within the limitations of accuracy of all instruments up to the
present day. We have no reason to think that thermodynamics and calorimetry
work everywhere, with everything, except certain metals saturated with H or D.
These "limits of accuracy" are precisely what makes us so certain that the
specific heat of water is not wrong by a factor of 10.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  He* to 1000 phonons?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He* to 1000 phonons?
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 21:07:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites has ask the right questions as to how viable is the notion
that 4He and heat are the principle products of cold fusion.  Basically
it is an idea that just won't fly because there is no obvious way to
couple the energy of an excited 4He nucleus to lattice phonons.  Even
if you can figure out how to get two deuterons to fuse, you then have
nothing but the excited 4He sitting essentially at rest in the lattice.
The only theory I have to call upon to justify that statement is
conservation of linear momentum.  If the 4He emits something, it will
be ionizing radiation.  If the 4He does not emit something there is
no link to the lattice phonons.  In case you think Peter Haggelstein
is going to come riding to the rescue to save cold fusion, reread
the Exhibit #1 carefully.  I think you can sense a subtle change
in the Hagglestein point of view as to what kinds of processes can
be called upon to account for the lack of detectable radiation.
As an aside, I still am awaiting a list of all the experiments where
heat and lots of helium have both been observed.  I can only think
of 3 possibles, and that won't fill any cornucopia.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / R Schroeppel /  volcanic tritium measurements?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: volcanic tritium measurements?
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 22:39:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
(mainly to Steve Jones)
Any results from the people trying to measure tritium at the Chilean volcano?
Do they also look for He3?
 
(and a quick "Thanks, Scott" to SHM.)
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Electrode --> VOLUME/SURFACE reaction Zones
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrode --> VOLUME/SURFACE reaction Zones
Date: 26 Mar 93 04:34:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <bugs.732647281@netsys.com> bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) writes:
>If natural geo-fusion is true then the effect can't really be a surface
>effect can it?
 
Yes it STILL CAN be a surface effect .. well certainly in the laboratory.
For example if we have CF occuring between two fusionable species -- say
deuterium and Li(6) and begin putting them into the metal through
electrolysis, then one may only diffuse into the surface in the time
the other has saturated the total metal lattice. When the outer surface
density of the slow diffusing fusion fuel is high enough cf could take
place .. at least sporatically -- BUT it's confined to the SURFACE.
There would be much non-uniformity in the reactions due to impurity
wall crude and Li(7) contaminates etc., .
 
Now in the deep earth case, a quantites of various titanium family
metals could be loaded with Li(6) by virtue of volcanism, deep core
circulations and tektonics(?).  Here Jones is the expert.  But I
could envision scenarios where mechanical and chemical processes
could concentrate family metal elements and even isotopes of
hydrogen in distinct and separate clumps here and there.
 
Consider an enhanced li(6) loaded (premixed) vein of palladium existed
and then came in contact with a high density of enhanced deuterium
bearing substrate. Fairly rapid enhanced deuterium flooding of the
metal paladium ore could take place; and under high pressure the GIVEN
cold fusion reactions would take place THROUGHOUT THE VOLUME of the
Li6/D saturated palladium ore.
 
>It can't really be an effect that occurs at the border
>between two types of solid metal either (palladium/silver).   .. .
 
Probably not.  Silver (or Gold) doesn't suck on deuterium that much.
 
In conclusion ... who knows as long as it's not burning a hole through
the concrete.  When the output gets that high maybe someone will
figure out how the power levels  can be enhanced /cc.     :-)
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Date: 26 Mar 93 04:48:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Mar19.040550.2402@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.
du (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific community
>of the reality of CF?
 
About as long as it will take the CF community to spend one tenth of
the money spent to date on hot fusion.
 
I guess the tokamak community wouldn't kick about that paultry
time period --- considering their projections to "commercial success"
 
                                   :-)
 
Depressing  .. isn't it.  I mean from both sides.
 
What's a FILO?
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / Larry Wall /  Re: Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proof? Theories dont disprove experiment.
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 16:38:33 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <6049ADE2EC1F205DA4@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
: First, on the word "neutronpenic", an unfortunate coining in any case, it has
: phallic overtones.
 
That doesn't bother my classical ear near so much as the use of a
noun modifier does.  Ick.  Why not "neutropenic" or "neutronopenic"?
This is sounder linguistically too, since an "n" will evenutally turn to
an "m" before a "p".  Impossible, you say?  Implausible?  Too important
to be impiously impertinent about?
 
Do we really want people saying "neutrompenic" in 100 years?  Horrors...
 
On the other hand, by common usage "aneutronic" already tends to mean
"doesn't produce neutrons except sorta by accident."  Besides, it's two
letters easier to type, which is after all the overriding consideration.  :-)
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.26 / Larry Wall /  Re: An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An infamous liar
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 18:07:16 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

Jed, in person you are doubtless an honest, loving and intelligent human
being, but your rhetorical style isn't conveying this.  You need to hone
your writing skills so that we don't get the mistaken impression that:
 
        You hold grudges forever.
 
        You love to argue (and argue, and argue) more than anything else.
 
        You continually use hyperbole, but can't stand for anyone else
        to do so.
 
        You don't understand cultural differences in communication style,
        despite being bicultural yourself.
 
        You switch tactics faster than an irrational cultist of the
        door-to-door variety.
 
I've been reading this newsgroup from the very beginning, Jed.  There are many
people whose integrity shows through in their writing.  Yours does not.
 
Don't get me wrong.  I'm pretty gung ho about CF myself.  That's not
the issue in this note.  The issue here is that many of your "enemies"
are reacting as much to your form as to your content.  Most of your
travails are self-induced, and you don't appear to realize it.
 
If you like, I'll be glad to run some of your articles past my writing
group for a critique.  The first thing they'll tell you is that
statements containing "never" and "always" are usually false, and are
used more often to win arguments than to win friends.
 
Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.28 /  hdgarner@acs.h /  Re: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
     
Originally-From: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
Date: 28 Mar 93 22:28:47 -0600
Organization: Harding University

In article <1993Mar25.114902.10656@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
(Nick Maclaren) writes:
>I have rec.humor.funny just following comp.physics.fusion in my .newsrc
>and, as you can expect, I thought that I was in the wrong newsgroup!
>I think that the existence of 'microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING weapons' might
>explain a great deal about this series of postings.
>
That article did seem a bit outlandish, but if the Russians did have those
types of weapons in orbit and bases on the moon would the government of the
United States allow us Americans the freedom to such information. If the
Russians had 10 bases on the moon would that would be quite a humiliation
the the U.S. space program, and such information would probably not be
released publically. Well, I'm not saying that the aforementioned article
is true or false, but it would be quite dificult to prove or disprove unless
you have flown on the space shuttle or went to the moon.
 
 
 
********************************************************************************
* Harry Garner                          hdgarner@acs.harding.edu   <<Preferred *
* Computer Science / Physics                                                   *
* Harding University, Searcy, AR USA    hgarner@sun1.hu.edu                    *
********************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhdgarner cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 / Joshua Levy /  Re: An infamous liar
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An infamous liar
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 04:52:16 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <930324221212_72240.1256_EHL69-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>I never mention any results in public, or on
>this network, unless I have written permission from the experimenter, or
>unless the results are published in a scientific journal, newspaper or
>magazine.
 
A few days ago you posted a rumor that Steve Jones had gotten a positive
result in a CF experiment; Dr. Jones immeadiately posted that the rumor
was false.
 
Where was this work published, or who gave you written permission to
post it?  Or, was this not a "result".
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 / Dieter Britz /  Correction: Liaw et al.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction: Liaw et al.
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 10:36:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
My abstract of the Liaw, Tao and Liebert paper in Fusion Technol. 23 (1993)
98, has an error, pointed out to me by Prof. Liebert himself. I write that a
melt of LiH is used, and it should have been LiD. This has been corrected and
will appear when I next update the archived files.
 
Another thing, not pointed out by Prof. Liebert (who does not blow his
trumpet), is that I have unjustly criticised his team's definition of excess
heat, which they calculate to be up to 1512%. I had not read the paper as
carefully as I should and thought that they had related the excess to the
power absorbed by the electrolysis. In heavy water, this is, as you remember,
I*1.54 W. Table 1 in their 1991 paper (J. Electroanal. Chem. 319, p.161) has a
colum headed by "Electrochemical power /W" and I thought that this was the
absorbed power. However, I now realise that this is the total applied
electrochemical power to the cell, i.e. I*V, with V the cell voltage. More
power is of course supplied as plain heat, to keep the LiD molten (at around
400 degC). This extra heat would seem to degrade the accuracy you can expect
from the calorimetry, but it would, I think, be unreasonable to expect the
team to add it to "power applied". As it is, they do not subtract the power
absorbed by the overall electrochemical reaction, so their results are in a
sense comparable with those of Belzner et al, which I have repeatedly praised
for that.
 
Having written all this, I am glad that I already had this 1991 paper in my
"quality positives" list.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 12:32:40 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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 cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 / Jed Rothwell /  No grudge
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No grudge
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 18:25:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Larry Wall writes:
 
"You [Jed] need to hone your writing skills so that we don't get the mistaken
impression that: You hold grudges forever."
 
I do not hold grudges. It is not my nature, and I have no time for them.
However, in recent weeks, Dieter Britz has publicly and privately published
damaging lies about me, so I am forced to respond. I must respond instantly
and forcefully, or my friends may start believing these outrageous slanders.
My enemies are likely to believe them anyway, but that does not matter. I do
not want my contacts in Japan and elsewhere to think that I am gullible fool,
or that I was claiming to be in Atlanta on Oct. 21, 1992.
 
I am quite sure Dieter would *love* to have my contacts think that, because he
is taking steps to see to it they do. He sometimes puts his messages in polite
sounding "scholarly" terms, but poison is poison. Don't be fooled by it.
 
If he shuts up and stops monkeying around trying to hurt my reputation, I will
be happy to shut up too. I don't need this kind of trouble. He can argue
technical points all he wants (I don't give a darn about that). Just don't
send written messages like: "Jed does fraudulent experiments," "Jed believes
experimental results without written proof" or "Jed says he was never in
Nagoya."
 
I would advise all readers never to say anything like that about *anyone*,
even if you think it is true. Not unless you have written proof & reliable
witnesses, good enough to stand up in court. I am not likely to sue some two-
bit slanderer, unless I lose a bunch of money in a deal that is called off
because of a specific lie that can be traced back to a specific individual.
I would not bother, but other people might. That's a bit of free legal advice
from a non-lawyer.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #4 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #4 Cell 4A4
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 19:42:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #4 Cell 4A4
 
This run is at a little over 450 hours.  We have been doing a very slow saw
tooth.  The last few ramps up have been at 5 ma per sq cm per hour.  We then
hold at the top at various currents, then suddenly drop down to (usually) 50
ma per sq cm.
 
We have observed a few more of the positive "anomalous heat" bumps described
in the last status report.  These seem generally to occur at night.  The
suspicion is that they are somehow related to the time of day.  Remember, I
watch the ambient temperature closely, so it is not a simple function of
temperature.  But something with a 12 hour time lag would be hard for me to
detect, as I sleep some and attend work some.
 
A few more ramps and I will plot heat balance versus current density (per Cal
Poly Bush).
 
All in all, we have a long term limit on possible "anomalous heat" of 100 mw
per cc.  The short term limit, which does not rule out chemistry, is 500 mw
per cc.  This compares to the 1000 watt per cc rumored to have been achieved
by P&F.  Upper limit fans (Douglas R. O. Morrison) take note.
 
The cleaner I get, the better I control the experiment, the more accurate I
make the apparatus; the fewer bumps and anomalies I see!
 
What does this sound like to you, Douglas Morrison?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / Henry Bauer /       THANKS TO SCOTT
     
Originally-From: BAUERH@VTVM1.BITNET (Henry Bauer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      THANKS TO SCOTT
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 01:26:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I heartily second Dieter's "Thank you" to Scott for making this forum
available to us.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBAUERH cudfnHenry cudlnBauer cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
Date: 29 Mar 93 15:30:14 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Mar28.222848.1078@ualr.edu> hdgarner@acs.harding.edu writes:
>
>In article <1993Mar25.114902.10656@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
>(Nick Maclaren) writes:
>>I have rec.humor.funny just following comp.physics.fusion in my .newsrc
>>and, as you can expect, I thought that I was in the wrong newsgroup!
 
 (so do I; I need the break sometimes)
 
>That article did seem a bit outlandish, but if the Russians did have those
>types of weapons in orbit and bases on the moon would the government of the
>United States allow us Americans the freedom to such information. If the
>Russians had 10 bases on the moon would that would be quite a humiliation
>the the U.S. space program, and such information would probably not be
>released publically. Well, I'm not saying that the aforementioned article
>is true or false, but it would be quite dificult to prove or disprove unless
>you have flown on the space shuttle or went to the moon.
 
Not true.  This is not the first time we have seen this particular item
from McElwaine posted in this (inappropriate) newsgroup, and this matter
has been discussed before.  You assume that only NASA and the US Air Force
have radios.  Since the earliest days of the space program, there have
been many amateurs in many countries listening to the coded and uncoded
transmissions from Soviet and American space probes.  Amateurs have built
antennas and processors to recieve US weather satellite photos directly
from space.  Amateurs in Europe were the source for many stories about
the Soviet coverup of several deaths early in their manned space program.
 
Now, granted, those JUMBO COSMOSPHERES could be hiding the radio transmissions
to and from the far side of the moon, but it is hard to imagine a scheme
where one party receives signals and no one else does.  A conspiracy of
silence that includes JPL and similar organizations in every country on
earth is a pretty big conspiracy.
 
I wonder if each of those 10 bases has been assigned to an independent
republic now?  Do the Ukrainians and Latvians have one too?   ;-)
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 / Jim Carr /  Re: Science is FILO
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Date: 29 Mar 93 15:41:30 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <199303250441.AA11027@ccsmail.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp> rogersh@ccs.m
.nec.co.jp (Rogers Huw) writes:
>
>In article <930317172528_72240.1256_EHL49-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com writes:
>>
>>>"Why is our understanding of this particular thermodynamics considered
>>>more sacred than our understanding of this particular nuclear physics?
>>
>>Thermodynamics is "more sacred" because it is more fundamental, older, and FAR
>>more tested and proven than nuclear physics. As a general rule, when
>>scientific theories have to be revised, the oldest, best proved theories stay,
>>and the new ones are modified. Science generally works on a First In Last Out
>>(FILO) basis.
>
>I am no scientist, but I cannot believe anyone with any science can
>write this.
>
>If I am certain of one thing, it is that thermodynamics is a derived
>theory, and nuclear physics (relativity + quantum mechanics) is
>fundamental. Thermodynamics is a theory of averages, not of fundamental
>particles or fields. There is no question as to which is more reliable.
 
Well, I am a nuclear physicist, and although I disagree with the FILO
statement (these days it is more like LILO in some fields), I would not
call nuclear physics all that fundamental.
 
However, it is Statistical Mechanics, not thermodynamics, that is the
fundamental idea.  After all, you can derive the light quantum using
the methods of stat mech.  I draw the line once you start getting into
chemical potentials in thermodynamics.  Nothing fundamental in that.
Similarly, QCD is a fundamental theory of particles and fields whereas
nuclear physics is the result of a very messy many-body problem with
strong forces.
 
Reliability has more to do with other things: how data are related by
the models used and how extensive that data is for the system being
questioned, plus the nature and size of statistical and systematic
errors that enter the experiments used in the field.  It is in this
last area that nuclear physics holds an edge in the precision of the
measurements that can be made under controlled circumstances.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: 29 Mar 93 21:15:43 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I call the gentle reader's attention to Discover magazine, Apri '93 issue,
pages 10 and 11.  Under "Physics" you will find an informal but interesting
summary of Seth Putterman's recent work in sonoluminescence.
 
In the article sonoluminescence is described in terms of shock waves that
compress and heat an air-filled void to form a very hot plasma that radiates
primarily in the UV region.  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a change in the
diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
 
I would invite any interested readers are invited to read the article for
themselves, and perhaps to comment on it here.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Terry Bollinger's Address
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry Bollinger's Address
Date: 29 Mar 93 22:34:24 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Someone asked me in passing about what my address is should they wish to send
something to me be honest-to-gosh real mail.  This reminded me that I haven't
published such an address for some time in this group, so here 'tis.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
  _____________
  Work Address
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Terry Bollinger
  Advanced Switching Laboratory
  1525 Walnut Hill Lane
  Irving, TX 75038
 
  EMAIL: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
  VOICE: 214 518-3538
    FAX: 214 518-3499
 
  _____________
  Home Address
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Terry Bollinger
  2416 Branch Oaks Lane
  Flower Mound, TX 75028
 
  PHONE: 214 539-3897 (unlisted)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 01:00:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Mar29.211543.21101@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>In the article sonoluminescence is described in terms of shock waves that
>compress and heat an air-filled void to form a very hot plasma that radiates
>primarily in the UV region.  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
>50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a change in the
>diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
 
     Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
     the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
     5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5.  For a specific heat
     ratio of 7/5 (diatomic polytropic gases), it's about 20.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: 30 Mar 1993 02:17:57 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: In article <1993Mar29.211543.21101@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: >
: >In the article sonoluminescence is described in terms of shock waves that
: >compress and heat an air-filled void to form a very hot plasma that radiates
: >primarily in the UV region.  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
: >50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a change in the
: >diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
:
:      Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
:      the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
:      5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5.  For a specific heat
:      ratio of 7/5 (diatomic polytropic gases), it's about 20.
 
Can you explain what you mean here?
 
If you're thinking about using sonic cavitation to induce fusion, remember
that you have to either confine the plasma for a long time without
letting it cool, or compress the bejezzus out of it, in order to get
significant fusion power.
 
Tokamaks use the first principle, and you need strong magnetic fields
to do so, and it's still not easy.  ICF and weapons use the second
method.  In these cases, the inward velocity of the ablator+plug is
a goodly fraction of "c", and the maximum density approaches
Fermi degeneracy, and the input power is, uh, rather nontrivial, not to
mention the flux.
 
Keep in mind,everyone, that if it's fusion that you're after, fusion power
(given density and temp) scales as the volume, but cooling by contact with
walls scales as the surface area (and thus the flux at the walls increases
with size, and therefore radiation damage) Therefore, big is required, and
this is why ITER is going to be huge and expensive.  As far as we know, you
can't make a small tokamak that sucessfully burns self-sufficiently.  (thanks
D.K.@pppl)
 
So, assuming progress based on conservative designs, fusion plants will
be huge and expensive, but produce buttloads of power.
 
It's not clear whether given economic and political factors this is an
advantage or disadvantage, though I'd tend a bit towards the latter.
 
:                            dale bass
 
--
-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 cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 04:45:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1p8akl$r95@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>: In article <1993Mar29.211543.21101@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>: >
>: >In the article sonoluminescence is described in terms of shock waves that
>: >compress and heat an air-filled void to form a very hot plasma that radiates
>: >primarily in the UV region.  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
>: >50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a change in the
>: >diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
>:
>:      Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
>:      the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
>:      5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5.  For a specific heat
>:      ratio of 7/5 (diatomic polytropic gases), it's about 20.
>
>Can you explain what you mean here?
 
     Yes.  I took the assertion to be that there would be a 10^6
     compression ratio as the shock went from 50 microns radius down
     to 0.5 microns radius.  I was just pointing out that the shock travels
     *through* the fluid.  It does not compress a fluid like a solid piston.
     The maximum density estimates (rho is the time-varying density,
     rho_0 is the initial density) are obtained from a similarity solution
     of a spherical imploding shockwave and occur for the
     shock completely focussed at the center of the sphere.  We can
     consider them limiting values here.
 
     When you start talking about compression radios of 10^6 in unconfined
     fluid processes, alarm bells should be going off.
 
>If you're thinking about using sonic cavitation to induce fusion, remember
>that you have to either confine the plasma for a long time without
>letting it cool, or compress the bejezzus out of it, in order to get
>significant fusion power.
 
      I'm not, and it's not clear to me what 'plasma' means in this system.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 803 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 803 papers, 117 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 08:34:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
 
A motley collection, some of it unreadable (by me), but I do me best. I have
little excuse for putting the Azumi paper in the main body, as it makes no
attempt to do a cold fusion experiment - but what is that? It refers to the
right papers (FPH-89, Jones+), putting it in the right context anyway, and
does at least address the question of mechanical and acoustic effects upon
loading Pd with hydrogen (not deuterium). In the event, they make much out of
the sound of bubbles coming off, which I would have thought was obvious. Hm.
 
Bashko et al (not Rashko, as CA has it, caught them again, ho ho), the team
from Kharkov, went on a quest for neutrons but found only noise. Byung wrote
what I take to be a smallish review, in Korean. Another review was written by
A. Takahashi, famous for his high-loading cell. Sun et al write (in English)
about positron lifetime experiments in PdD, and find some fairly obvious
things but more interestingly, that at least part of the deuterium is in the
form of deuterons, which has been discussed a bit here. Finally, Wu et al,
this time in Chinese, describe some round holes they found by the SEM
technique on the metal surface, with the appearance of melting, and this,
together with a few charged particles, is taken as evidence of an anomalous
nuclear process.
 
Finally, we have a critical review (to put it mildly) of Huizenga's book by
HH Bauer, who is both an electrochemist and science philosopher (and a s.p.f
lurker). When I read that book, I felt uncomfortable at what I called
Huizenga's ultra-hard position; well, HHB finds a lot more wrong with it, upon
thorough analysis.
DK Ross's review of the Como proceedings is a sort of minireview of cold
fusion itself, and worth a read. It seems he was at one time trying to verify
cold fusion, but finds that in the UK, funds for such research have been hard
to get since the furore died down a few months after F&P-day.
 
          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Mar-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 803
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azumi K, Ishiguro S, Mizuno T, Seo M;    J. Electroanal. Chem. 347 (1993) 111.
"Acoustic emission from a palladium electrode during hydrogen charging and its
release in a LiOH electrolyte".
** A Pd plate was mounted tightly coupled to a microphone in a 0.1 M LiOH
solution in normal water, and the sound emissions collected. Time traces of
these emissions showed that they peaked markedly when gas was being evolved,
both at the cathodic and anodic potential scale ends. Power spectra showed
that during cathodic charging, there were other acoustic components besides
those due to hydrogen bubbles, and these were tentatively ascribed to metal
cracking.                                                        Apr-92/Apr-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bashko VA, Vit'ko VI, Goncharov IG, Zelenskii VF, Kovalenko GD, Krivoruchko SM,
Ranyuk YuN, Tarasov IK;
Vopr. Atom. Nauk Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povrezhden. Radiats. Materialoved.
2(56) (1991) 54.
Note: Chem. Abstracts (117:199600) has "Rashko" as the first author, and this
will probably be the entry in the CAS database.
"Study of the nuclear fusion reaction in palladium by the emission of neutrons
upon electrolysis".
** This team from Kharkov undertook essentially a pure neutron search, from a
CNF electrolysis, using two Pd cathodes, one of 182 g and the other 38 g, of
chunky cylindrical shape and charged with 0.23 A/cm^2 and 1 A/cm^2, resp. The
experiment runs stretched over many days, individual runs lasting 4-5 days.
The cell was alternately placed within, and outside the detection volume with
1-hour periods of time. Several figures show neutron counts for these periods.
An array of 14 (3)He neutron counters was divided into two sets of 7 and the
detections treated by analogue and digital means. Careful statistical data
reduction led to the conclusion that nothing other than noise was observed.
                                                                      Jun-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byung JH;                Hwahak Kwa Kongop Ui Chinbo 30 (1990) 86 (in Korean).
"Cold nuclear fusion".
** The paper is entirely in Korean. The following was recognisable: "LiOD",
"cocktail" (suggesting the Jones paper), "ion beam", the three d-d fusion
branches as equations, and that of the p-d reaction; "branching efficiency",
"100 mA/cm^2", the applied cell power equation with I*1.54 correction,
"scintillation counter", "background", "cosmic rays", "(3)He", "(4)He", "DOE",
"(Cold Fusion Panel to the Energy Research Advisory Board)", "cluster", "Wall
Street Journal", "photonuclear", "(microcrack)", "10^4-10^6 V/cm". Assumed to
be a review of the field.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun D-L, Lei Y-Q, Chen Y-L, Wu J, Wang Q-D, Lu X-N;
Chinese Sci. Bull. 37 (1992) 1073.
"A study of existing forms of deuterium in palladium by positron lifetime
spectroscopy".
** It is of value to know what form deuterium takes in palladium deuteride.
Positron lifetime spectroscopy can produce some information. The authors did
such an experiment, and conclude that (1) electrochemical loading of Pd with
deuterium causes increases in the density of dislocations and vacancies, and
(2) that part of the deuterium exists in the Pd lattice as D+ ions and that
this prevents nuclear fusion by simple electron screening.       Dec-90/Jul-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takahashi A;  Kaku Yugo Kenkyu 68(4) (1992) 360 (in Japanese, English abstr.).
"Cold fusion research: Recent progress".
** Review of three years' accumulated cold fusion work, observing weak neutron
emission, tritium generation with anomalous n/t ratios, charged particle
emission with anomalies, (4)He generation, excess heat, and anomalous D/Pd
loading. Some of these suggest a nuclear process, but the relationship between
excess heat and nuclear products is not yet clear. 14 refs.           Jul-92/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wu B, Jin S, Shang F, Yao D, Ding Y, Yao J, Yao P;
Gaojishu Tongxin 1(9) (1991) 1 (in Chinese, English abstract).
"The SEM observation of palladium-deuterium system after the gas discharge
process".
** "The palladium-deuterium system after the gas discharge process was
observed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A species of round hole
1-200 micron in diameter with a melting boundary was found on the cross
section of the sample on which the nuclear track had been detected by CR-39
detector. This phenomenon may be the trace of a high temperature and high
pressure burst caused by some anomalous localised nuclear process under
certain experimental conditions" (Direct quote from the English abstract).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Comments, file cnf-cmnt:
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bauer HH;                                    J. Sci. Exploration 6 (1992) 395.
Book review: "Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century", J. Huizenga.
** Science philosopher and electrochemist H.H. Bauer reviews Huizenga's book.
Bauer begins with the statement that cold fusion, like the magnetic monopole
or gravity waves, is yet to be verified, and no concensus has been reached.
Huizenga's book presents an occasion to discuss cold fusion claims, but is
wrong in many ways. While being valuable in giving an account of the DOE
investigation, the book fails to be as up-to-date as it could be, is dogmatic
and one-sided, partisan, shallow, offensively personal, and uses innuendo.
Scientists in general and Huizenga in particular do not know much about the
history of science but feel free to cite it nevertheless. Huizenga's
invocation of pathological science is inappropriate and his history
superficial, writes Prof. Bauer.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross DK;                                 J. Electroanal. Chem. 347 (1993) 474.
Book Review: "The Science of Cold Fusion". Proceedings of the Second Cold
Fusion Conference, Como, June 29-July 4, 1991.
** DK Ross, from Salford University, UK, reviews these conf. procs. He himself
has done (unpublished) work in cold fusion, and here muses on the pathological
science aspect of the filed - rejecting that label. There is a good summary of
the problems with cold fusion results, and with some of the attempts at an
explanation, such as the invocation of the Moessbauer effect, or Preparata's
theory. Ross notes that chances of funding for cold fusion projects in the UK
are zero. Ross also notes that the claims that cold fusion is a third world
phenomenon are false. He concludes that the evidence is hard to dismiss but
that reproducibility must be achieved.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / Dieter Britz /  CNF Funding
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Funding
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 10:10:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
The question of funding for cold fusion research, by recognised researchers,
has been discussed here. I have done some emailing around, and found out some
interesting things. Before I did this, my feeling was - as I have said several
times - that there are a lot of smallish projects scattered over the USA and
funded in the normal way, mainly by NSF. I assumed this from the fact of the
considerable number of cnf papers from US researchers, together with being
told that in the USA, you must have research grants even to get pencils and
paper. It seems that I was wrong, in a complicated way.
 
Altogether, I got information from or about 7 people or organisations. The
first interesting thing is that in a couple of cases, there is insecurity (I
had thought of using "fear", but it is too strong); so I may not quote my
sources, just their situation in general. In one case, a researcher (who has
had positive, and good, results) has had to skim off "normal" funding, i.e.
provided for other, uncontroversial work, and hopes to get away with doing
this for a while longer. Steven Jones expects to run out of funds for cnf
soon, having so far existed on a patchwork of various sources, all running
dry. EPRI has provided some money (especially to McKubre, of course). Then
there are those people working within large organisations like national labs;
some of these have not gotten any grants specifically for cnf, but have been
able to scrape together some discretionary money, more or less by the good
will of the place they work in.
 
I mentioned insecurity; the above example is fear of discovery of this
skimming. In another case, it's the opposite: there is a nuclear expert who
has been silenced by his organisation, which appears to support cnf research
on the sly. This expert was initially asked for his opinion on certain
research proposals, but his answers were not welcome. The work went ahead
against his advice, and he no longer gets asked; I may not quote him.
 
Lastly, I asked the opinion of a friend who has spent a year in NSF,
administering grants. He is no longer very close to NSF but has the feeling
that there have not been many grant applications to that body, for cold fusion
research. He believes that NSF would treat each case on its merits, not
according to some special directives against cold fusion, thought to exist.
 
So, IS there funding for cold fusion research in the US? One of the sources
(the skimmer) says that the statement that "there is NO money" is true within
the noise level. I take it he has applied, and been knocked back, so this
contradicts my ex-NSF friend. As he (the skimmer) gets "normal" grants, it is
not his qualifications that are the problem. However, the fact of the many
discretionary fundings - on the sly in some cases - give some degree of lie to
"no funding". The situation, as so often, is complex. It is also a shame. The
reality or otherwise of cold fusion has not been established; there is no
concensus, as Prof. Bauer says. Therefore, there is good reason openly to fund
a number of smallish studies of the phenomenon. Making it a tabu research
subject, as seems to be the case to a large extent, will only help continue
the division between extreme TB's and ultraskeptics, and obscure the facts.
 
All of the above refers to scientists doing research. I leave out completely
the commercial world of cold fusion. This is presumably self-financing. Some,
like Hal Fox (Fusion Facts), are making money already, from publication. There
are a number of companies now, some of which (to go by FF) must have
considerable money, from somewhere. Hal Fox mentions in FF three companies
that have pledged millions to CNF, and were in fact going to present a working
demo at the end of 1992. This must have seen some delays, as we have not heard
of such a demo yet.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.29 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Date: 29 Mar 93 17:29:59 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
 
Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER #64 of 80
 
Digitized by Jon Volkoff, email address eidetics@cerf.net
 
"AUDIO LETTER(R)" is a registered trademark of Audio Books,
Inc., a Texas corporation, which originally produced this tape
recording.  Reproduced under open license granted by Audio
Books, Inc.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R), 1629 K Street N.W.,
Washington, DC  20006
 
   Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter.  Today is April 27,
1981, and this is my AUDIO LETTER No. 64.
 
   "T minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...We've gone for main engine
start.  We have main engine start."  (Engine noise takes over for
some two seconds) "...liftoff of America's first Space Shuttle,
and the Shuttle has cleared the tower."  (Then again the roaring
noise on the AUDIO LETTER tape.)
 
   And that's how it all began, my friends, just two weeks
ago--Sunday, April 12, 1981.  After years of delay, America's
first attempt to launch a space shuttle into orbit had finally
begun.
 
   In days gone by, the voice of "Mission Control" has always
been a familiar hallmark of American manned flights into space.
In the early days, beginning with "PROJECT MERCURY", the voice
was that of Col. John (Shorty) Powers.  Later, during the
"APOLLO" program there were other voices; but regardless of who
it was, that familiar voice of "Mission Control" would always
stay with us throughout each space flight--that is, until this
time.  This time the voice of Mission Control, up until the
moment of launch, was that of NASA spokesman Hugh Harris.  The
last words Harris spoke as the voice of Mission Control were the
words you just heard: "The Shuttle has cleared the tower."
 
   Television cameras followed the Shuttle as it climbed higher
and higher on a column of steam and smoke.  For another 30
seconds or so, we were allowed to hear the slowly fading roar of
the Shuttle's rocket engines.  Then the sounds from Mission
Control abruptly changed.  Exactly 45 seconds after lift-off,
"live" audio from Mission Control was terminated.  In its place
NASA began feeding the radio and television networks an elaborate
tape recording, which had been prepared far ahead of time by
NASA.  The change-over from "live" audio to the NASA tape
recording sounded like this: (First, loud roaring for 10 seconds,
abruptly fading, then into a steadily increasing-in-loudness
humming-roaring for some 10 seconds.)  "4-34...?"  "Roger."
(More of the roaring sound.)
 
   Just 45 seconds after lift-off, the falsified NASA coverage of
the flight of the "Columbia" began.  We were still able to see
the Columbia by way of long-distance television cameras for
another minute and a half, but the sounds we were hearing were no
longer "live."  They were the sounds of the special NASA tape
recording.  For the first minute or so of the tape recording, we
heard nothing but the sound effects simulating conversation
between the Shuttle and NASA-Houston.  Then, for the first time,
we heard the anonymous new voice of Mission Control.  It was no
longer the familiar live voice of Hugh Harris, but the recorded
voice of someone else.  For added realism, the new voice was
interrupted in turn by the recorded voice of the alleged capsule
communicator Daniel Brandenstein.  It sounded like this: (first a
high-pitched screech followed by) "One minute 45 seconds, coming
up on go-go-go."  "Columbia, you're negative seats."  "That
call-up says that, Columbia, the altitude is too high for
ejection seat use."
 
   By that point the shuttle Columbia was more than 20 miles
high, and climbing fast.  Everything was going according to plan
so far, so the things we were hearing on the tape recording
corresponded to what we were seeing.  We could still see the
Shuttle on our TV sets, but it had dwindled to nothing more than
three bright spots dancing in the distant sky.
 
   The last thing that you and I were able to see and verify for
ourselves about the Shuttle was the separation of those two giant
solid-rocket boosters.  A little over two minutes after liftoff,
we were able to watch the boosters, two burning bright spots,
break off to each side.  That left only the single tiny flame of
the Shuttle itself, gradually fading into invisibility.  Several
seconds later the NASA tape recording caught up with what we had
already seen, and said the boosters had separated.  Moments later
the tiny bright dot of the Shuttle faded from our screens.  It
was too far away for the television cameras to follow any longer.
We had had our last look at the real space shuttle Columbia!
 
   In AUDIO LETTER No. 62 two months ago, I gave an advance alert
about the secret military mission of the space shuttle Columbia.
At that time I made public what the mission was really all about.
I was also able to reveal what to expect in the falsified NASA
coverage of the mission.
 
   The falsified coverage was designed to accomplish two
purposes.  First, to completely hide the military nature of the
mission; and second, to make sure the mission looked like a total
success, no matter what might happen in secret.  As I detailed in
AUDIO LETTER No. 62, the Bolsheviks here in the federal
government are depending heavily on the Space Shuttle Program to
get ready for a nuclear war against Russia.
 
   The falsified NASA coverage of the mission of the space
shuttle Columbia was carried out exactly according to plan.  I
revealed this plan two months ago.  There were the standard brief
cockpit scenes made by techniques which I will describe later.
Just to make it look good, it was spiced up by telling us that a
few non-critical tiles had fallen off.  Otherwise we were told
over and over how perfectly the Columbia was performing.
 
   Four days ago on April 23, a news conference about the flight
was held in Houston, Texas, by the alleged two astronauts, John
Young and Robert Crippen.  The entity called John Young summed up
the flight in words that were more meaningful than most people
suspected.  Referring to the falsified flight which we followed
on television, he called it, quote: "...even better than normal."
And so it was, my friends.  The Bolsheviks who now control NASA
bent over backwards to paint the image of an abnormally perfect
shuttle flight.  Meanwhile the actual Shuttle mission, which was
carried out in secret, did not go according to plan.  After the
Shuttle disappeared from our television screens, the flight
continued for barely four more minutes before disaster struck.
The Columbia never even reached earth orbit!
 
   My friends, I believe you have both the right and the need to
know what happened to the space shuttle Columbia two weeks ago.
I believe you deserve to know, in detail, how and why the truth
was hidden from you.  The stakes involve nothing less than the
very survival of our land and our way of life.
 
   My three special topics for this AUDIO LETTER are:
 
Topic #1--THE ADVANCE PREPARATIONS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION
Topic #2--THE ABORTED FLIGHT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE "COLUMBIA"
Topic #3--THE NASA COVERUP OF THE "COLUMBIA" DISASTER.
 
Topic #1--There is an old saying that "Seeing is believing."  For
that reason, television has become the No. 1 tool of deception in
America today.  Through television we are made to see things we
do not understand so that we will believe things that are not
true.  If television were used honestly and constructively,
television could be a great force for good.  Instead, it's used
continually to hoax, deceive, and mislead us.  Video-taping makes
events which took place weeks or months ago look as if they were
taking place "live" right before our eyes.  Computer editing
enables scenes to be spliced together to create completely
artificial images that look real.  Special effects of all kinds
enable these television hoaxes to be very convincing indeed.
 
   Two years ago I described one major television hoax in detail
in AUDIO LETTER No. 44.  That hoax involved no less than the NBC
television news program "Meet the Press."  Now we have been
treated to another great television hoax, and this one was the
granddaddy of them all.  In terms of sheer deception, this was
the "Meet the Press" hoax, "Guyana", and SKYLAB all rolled into
one.  This was the hoax coverage of the first flight of the space
shuttle Columbia.
 
   To begin with, we were led to believe that until two weeks ago
no space shuttle had ever left the earth's atmosphere and gone
into space.  We were also led to believe that the very first
space flight by a shuttle had to be an orbital flight, instead of
something less extreme.  To make matters still worse, NASA swore
up and down that this very first flight, pushing the Shuttle to
its limits, just had to have men aboard.  At one point even John
Young himself was quoted to this effect very widely in the
controlled major media.  For example, two months ago on February
15, the New York Times carried a big article about the Shuttle.
Quoting from the article: "Mr. Young said, to have conducted an
unmanned orbital flight of the Shuttle first would have added
perhaps $500,000,000 to project costs, and meant another year's
delay."  Statements like that were cooked up purely to explain
away the many things that did not add up about the announced
plans for the Columbia's flight.  Many people believe these
explanations, but they were just a litany of lies.
 
   For example, time after time during the television coverage of
the alleged flight this month, John Young's earlier statement was
totally contradicted.  Authoritative spokesmen pointed out over
and over that the astronauts control the Shuttle by telling
computers aboard the Shuttle what they want.  The computers then
do all the actual activation and control of the Shuttle--and, in
an emergency, the Shuttle can fly itself into orbit, re-enter,
and even land itself without help from the pilots.  So much for
all those lies NASA told us about an unmanned first flight being
impossible.
 
   The real reason astronauts were aboard the first orbital
flight was the one I revealed in AUDIO LETTER No. 62.  It was a
military mission, and the astronauts had to be aboard to carry it
out.  NASA told us that the flight this month was only a test
flight with the cargo bay practically empty.  But the cargo bay
of the Columbia was not empty.  It carried a laser-armed Spy
Satellite equipped with special shields to protect it against
Russian space weapons.  "But wait a minute", you say.  "They
showed us live pictures from space and you could see that the bay
was empty."  No, my friends, not "live" pictures but video tapes.
The pictures with the doors closed were taken inside a training
mock-up of the shuttle that is carried inside a specially
modified Boeing 747.  The pictures with the doors open were taken
on the ground inside a darkened hangar.  Then these scenes were
combined by video tape editing techniques with video tapes of the
earth taken from orbit years ago.  The final product was what you
saw on television.  It was not what it appeared to be, but
"seeing is believing."
 
   My friends, the next time you see a replay of those scenes
with the Shuttle doors open, supposedly in space, there is a
telltale clue to look for.  Look at the shadows visible inside
the open cargo bay.  Shadows in space tend to be sharp and harsh
because there is no air to soften and diffuse them.  The shadows
we saw in the video tapes on television were softer because they
were not made in space.  Also, look at the angle of the shadows.
The earth is shown floating straight overhead, and it is all in
daylight.  Look at the slant of the shadows inside the open cargo
bay, then ask yourself: "Where is the light coming from to make
shadows like that?"
 
   The impossible shadows which we saw in the Shuttle bay video
tapes are just one small example of the many discrepancies in the
NASA hoax.  More to the point, NASA has pretended that the
Columbia flight this month was the very first shuttle flight into
space.  We are supposed to believe that the only previous shuttle
operations were a few gliding tests launched from mid air by
another modified 747.  Nothing could be more ridiculous or more
untrue.
 
   There is one very obvious question about the Space Shuttle
Program which NASA has always managed to side step.  Somehow no
one ever quite dares to ask it.  The question is: Why wasn't the
space shuttle "Enterprise" the first to be sent into orbit?
After all, the Enterprise made its public debut nearly four years
ago in the summer of 1977.
 
   To all outward appearances, the Enterprise looks almost
identical to its sister ship, the Columbia.  The differences
between the two are so subtle that you would never notice them
unless you knew exactly what to look for.  The engines of the
Enterprise look just like the engines of the Columbia.  The
Enterprise is also covered with the same system of thermal tiles
as the Columbia, so again, the question is: Why wasn't the
Enterprise sent into orbit long ago?  Why did NASA wait three
years and more to launch the Columbia instead?  The answer, my
friends, is that the Enterprise was designed to be a training
ship for shuttle astronauts.  It is not meant for orbital flight.
Instead, it is specially equipped to make shorter, suborbital
flights into space.  In effect, it can do everything short of
going into earth orbit.  It can climb to orbital altitudes as
high as 125 miles before dropping back to earth.  This enables
astronauts to practice working in weightlessness for up to five
and one-half minutes at a time.  It also allows astronauts to
practice landing the shuttle, slowing down from speeds of around
5,000 miles per hour.
 
   The Enterprise is exactly like its sister ships in the crew
compartment and cockpit.  What makes the Enterprise radically
different is the cargo bay area.  The Enterprise cannot carry
cargo because the bay area is taken up by rocket fuel tanks.  The
tanks of the Enterprise can hold well over 100,000 pounds of
rocket fuel when fully loaded.  To make a suborbital hop into
space, the Enterprise is perched on top of a modified Boeing 747
known as the "Launch Aircraft."  Inside the 747 there are
technicians with instruments and support equipment for the
shuttle.  The shuttle Enterprise is loaded with rocket fuel, and
then the 747 takes off.  At an altitude of around 40,000 feet,
the shuttle is launched.  The launch techniques are derived from
the old days of the X-15 Research Airplane and others before it.
The Enterprise is released from its mounts, rises up, and then
falls back behind the 747.  As soon as it is clear of the 747,
the Enterprise starts its rocket engines and zooms upward at a
steep angle.  After a minute or so the rockets shut off, and the
Enterprise is left to coast upward to its peak altitude and then
drop back toward earth.  From the moment the engines shut off
until the shuttle begins re-entering the atmosphere five or six
minutes later, the astronauts inside are weightless.
 
   Astronauts Young and Crippen made more than half a dozen
training flights like this aboard the Enterprise before they
lifted off aboard the Columbia at Cape Canaveral.  That is why
they were so ready to go all the way into orbit.  They had
already done everything else that was necessary to work their way
up to it.  Of course, other training was necessary to work their
way up to those suborbital flights aboard the Enterprise.  For
one thing, they spent many hours in the detailed replica of the
shuttle which is housed inside a modified Boeing 747.  The
"Flying Mock-Up", as it is called, is a simulator designed to
acquaint astronauts with shuttle operation as realistically as
possible.  One of its advantages is that it can even provide
periods of weightlessness of up to about 45 seconds.  The 747
pilot does this by flying a precise arc through the air called a
"parabolic trajectory."  It's an old technique developed a
quarter century ago to help astronauts get accustomed to
weightlessness.
 
   All of these things and more were originally conceived and
developed for purely technical reasons, but they are being kept
secret from you because the Bolsheviks who now control NASA have
turned them into tools of deception against you and me.  Lately,
publicity about the Space Shuttle Program has been focused on
three geographic locations.  One is the launch site for orbital
missions, Cape Canaveral, Florida.  Another is Edwards Air Force
Base, California.  The third is that old stand-by, the NASA
Manned Space Flight Center in Houston, Texas.
 
   As always, we are being distracted from paying serious
attention to the one area that is most important of all.  It is
the missing link, the true nerve center of the entire Space
Shuttle Program.  My friends, I'm talking about the White Sands
Missile Range in southern New Mexico.
 
   Most people today rarely give a second thought to White Sands.
Few people remember that White Sands is where America's Space
Program got its start after World War II.  Captured German V-2
rockets were taken to White Sands to be studied and test fired.
After the V-2s, there were American rockets, the Navy's Viking
series, and others.  They were launched, rocketed upward into the
fringes of space, and came back to earth--all within the
boundaries of the vast White Sands Missile Range.  One time a
missile got out of control, veered south, and almost destroyed a
small Mexican town when it crashed to earth; but that incident
was a dramatic exception to the normal situation.  Most of the
time, no one outside White Sands even knew when rockets were
launched.  Recently the public has been made aware of the vast
wide-open spaces that constitute Edwards Air Force Base in
California.  For comparison, White Sands is so huge that it would
hold nearly 100 Edwards Air Force Bases!
 
   White Sands, my friends, is the training base for space
shuttle pilots; and since late 1977 it has also become much more.
It is the geographic key to the secret military missions which
are now the central focus of the Space Shuttle Program.  The
Shuttle Program today is being managed in a way that is far
different from the original plans.  In August 1977 we were shown
early gliding tests of the training shuttle Enterprise.  The plan
of NASA was to drum up public support for the Shuttle Program,
just as they had done a decade earlier in the Moon Program.
 
   In AUDIO LETTER No. 26 I detailed how the Apollo Program, the
biggest military program in American history, was disguised as a
peaceful scientific venture.  In the same way, the original plan
was to bathe the military Shuttle Program in the glare of
deceptive publicity.  In the process we would have learned about
the suborbital space capability of the Enterprise.  Even the
crucial White Sands would have received more publicity.
 
   What changed it all was the secret "Battle of the Harvest
Moon" in space September 27, 1977.  This secret space battle,
which I made public that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 26, took place
barely one month after the first gliding tests of the space
shuttle Enterprise.  Russia's military take-over of space was
under way!
 
   Only the next month, October 1977, a newly operational Russian
Cosmos Interceptor shot down SKYLAB.  SKYLAB, along with its crew
of five American astronauts secretly aboard, died in a giant
fireball over the United States.  I reported on SKYLAB's fate
that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 27, and also revealed that NASA
was initiating a prolonged cover-up of what had happened.  NASA
wanted everyone to forget about that mysterious headline-making
fireball, so they pretended that SKYLAB was still in orbit but
sinking unexpectedly.  NASA used stories about the space shuttle
as part of their SKYLAB cover-up.  They pretended that perhaps
the shuttle would come along in time to save SKYLAB.  As I
reported then, that was a double lie by NASA.  First, SKYLAB
could never be saved because it had already been destroyed.
Second, the United States was in no position at that time to
launch the shuttle or anything else of a military nature into
space.  Russia was deploying her secret new Space Triad of
advanced manned space weapons.
 
   America's previous military control of space had been totally
shattered by Russia.  Our military base on the moon had been put
out of action in the "Battle of the Harvest Moon."  Russian
Cosmos Interceptors had started sweeping the skies clear of
American Spy Satellites, and Russian hovering electrogravitic
weapons platforms, the Cosmospheres, were making headlines by
creating enormous air booms along the East Coast and elsewhere.
All of these things took place just as America's Space Shuttle
Program was getting off the ground.
 
   The result was a complete reorganization of the Shuttle
Program.  The old plans to bathe it in continuous publicity were
thrown out.  The Bolsheviks here, who have replaced the
Rockefeller cartel in many areas of power, cast a net of secrecy
over all these new military plans.  We were never told about many
of the capabilities of the training shuttle Enterprise, and we
were never told about the many things which are going on at White
Sands in the military Shuttle Program.  By keeping these things
secret from us, the Bolsheviks here have placed themselves in a
powerful position to deceive us.
 
   We have never been told about the modified NASA 747 which
carries a complete replica of the crew quarters and cargo bay of
a shuttle.  Therefore we are unaware that this airplane,
originally intended for training, has become a Bolshevik tool of
deception against us.  When we saw video tapes of astronauts in
the simulated Shuttle cockpit, we naturally thought it was the
real thing.  Seeing a notebook float in mid air for a few seconds
next to the astronauts, we were supposed to think: "They are
weightless because they are in orbit."  We were given no clue
that these moments of weightlessness had taken place months
earlier in a 747 flying a controlled arc through the air.
Likewise, we were shown one or two episodes of the astronauts
moving around the cabin, obviously weightless for up to three or
four minutes.  What we were not told is that these scenes had
been video-taped months earlier during suborbital space hops by
the training shuttle Enterprise.
 
   Many of my listeners have called or written with the same
observation about the first of these episodes shown the day of
the launch.  We heard the alleged "live" conversation of Young
and Crippen, and yet, in the television picture, they were not
moving their lips.  They had merely posed for the camera during a
suborbital flight months earlier, and they recorded the sound
track we heard only days before the launch.
 
   While NASA may have fooled you and me about the Space Shuttle,
they did not fool the new rulers of Russia.  They learned last
fall what the flight of the Columbia was really all about; and,
my friends, when the Columbia was launched two weeks ago, the
Russians were ready and waiting!
 
Topic #2--A month before the shuttle "Columbia" blasted off from
Cape Canaveral, the two astronauts who were to ride in it held a
news conference in Houston.  The day was March 9, 1981.
Astronaut Robert Crippen caught the attention of the reporters
when he said:
 
  "I think the odds, with the way we've designed the mission
right now, are that we will probably come home early."
 
Then he added, quote:
 
  "As far as John and I are concerned, if we get up and get down,
it's a success."
 
Those words of astronaut Crippen about a short mission were more
accurate than most people realized.
 
   The real mission plan, which I had already made public in
AUDIO LETTER No. 62, was for a short mission.  The astronauts
were supposed to get into orbit and deploy the military satellite
from the Columbia's cargo bay very quickly, then they were to
return to Earth--not aboard the Shuttle but in a special re-entry
capsule.  Two days later they were supposed to land the disguised
shuttle "Enterprise" at Edwards Air Force Base as the final act
in the falsified drama staged for our benefit.
 
   In AUDIO LETTER No. 62 I described the military purpose of the
mission in detail.  For the first time in three years the
Pentagon was hoping to get a Spy Satellite into orbit that could
not be shot down immediately by Russia.  I also outlined
important features of the flight plan which had been conceived
for the Columbia.  Now I want to give you more details about that
and tell you how it turned out because, my friends, the
Bolsheviks here in the Government are now planning to try it
again with a second shuttle flight presently scheduled for the
fall of this year 1981.
 
   Knowing what happened this time, I believe you will be far
better prepared to see through it all next time.  If you can
think back to American space launches of the past, you may have
noticed something very unusual about the launch of the Columbia.
In the past, manned space launches from Cape Canaveral have
always been made toward the southeast, toward the equator, but
not this time.  The Columbia was launched to the northeast, away
from the equator.  The reason for this, my friends, was the
secret space reconnaissance mission of the Columbia.
 
   In its public news releases, NASA told everyone that Columbia
was launched into a 44-degree orbit--that is, it would never go
further north or south than 44 degrees above and below the
equator.  But the actual orbit chosen for the Columbia was a
69-degree orbit.  A 69-degree orbit was chosen because it would
take the Columbia, and the Spy Satellite inside it, all the way
north to the Arctic Circle and beyond.  That is the kind of orbit
that is necessary if a spy satellite is to fly reconnaissance
over Russia.
 
   The northeast launch of the Columbia was done in order to
enable the Spy Satellite to start gathering data over Russia only
minutes after the Columbia reached orbit.  These days time is of
the essence in any attempt to spy on Russia.  Every American spy
satellite launched at Russia during the past three years has been
blinded or shot down before gathering much data.
 
   The secret flight plan for the Columbia was completely
different from what NASA claimed in public.  The plan called for
Columbia to be launched on an initial northeast course in the
general direction of Bermuda, then roughly 2-1/2 minutes after
launch, Columbia was to begin an unorthodox course change--a wide
sweeping turn into the north.  This unprecedented curving launch
was intended as an evasive maneuver.  Planners of the Columbia
mission believed this would enable Columbia to sneak past any
Russian Cosmospheres that might be waiting overhead.  Still
accelerating on its curving course, the Columbia was supposed to
pass about 100 miles east of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
Roughly 200 miles east of Washington, D.C., the Shuttle's main
engines were to cut off.  After coasting in silence for a few
seconds, the fuel tank was scheduled to cut loose as the Columbia
passed 100 miles east of New Jersey.  For the next two minutes
the Shuttle and its fuel tank were to be coasting onward past the
east tip of Long Island, over Boston, and onward toward Maine.
During that time the Shuttle was supposed to maneuver away from
the fuel tank, using small maneuvering jets.  Finally, just as
the Columbia passed over New Brunswick, Canada, the flight plan
called for the orbital maneuvering engines to be fired.
Somewhere over the Labrador Sea, flying upside-down, the Columbia
was scheduled to reach earth orbit.  As soon as it did so, the
flight plan called for astronauts Young and Crippen to go to work
fast.  In less than 10 minutes time they were supposed to open up
the cargo bay doors and turn on the sensors of the Spy Satellite
resting inside.  As they did these things, the Columbia was to be
racing over the south tip of Greenland, out over the middle of
the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland, above the
Arctic Circle, and then dipping back southward toward northern
Norway, Finland, and Russia.  According to the flight plan, the
Columbia was scheduled to cross the Russian border just south of
the strategic Kola Peninsula.  The time: a mere 22 minutes, 42
seconds, after lift-off from Cape Canaveral.  At that moment
initial reconnaissance over Russia was to be under way.  The Spy
Satellite inside the cargo bay, even though not yet deployed,
would have had a perfect view downward through the open doors of
the upside-down Shuttle.
 
   The Columbia was intended to fly over a course across Russia
that began just west of the strategic White Sea in extreme
northwestern Russia.  From there the planned course of the
Columbia was to take it southeastward over some 2500 miles of
strategic Russian territory.  During the first minute alone, the
Satellite was expected to see parts of the highly sensitive Kola
Peninsula, the White Sea, including the super secret submarine
yards at Archangel and the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.  The Shuttle was
also to pass near Kazan, one of the bases of Russia's flying ABM
system.  This system, as I revealed a year ago in AUDIO LETTER
No. 54, uses charged particle beams carried by supersonic TU-144
transports.
 
   Toward the end of the first pass over Russia the Spy Satellite
was expected to gather data on two more of Russia's four
Cosmodromes--those of Baikonur and Tyura-Tam.  In between,
numerous other war targets were also to come under scrutiny.  The
Spy Satellite in the Columbia's cargo bay was expected to see all
that during its very first pass over Russian territory.  It would
all take only 8-1/2 minutes!  Then the Columbia would have
crossed the border with Afghanistan, heading toward India.
Barely 10 minutes later, the Spy Satellite was to be radioing its
data down to the American receivers at Diego Garcia in the Indian
Ocean.
 
   That was the plan, my friends.  The Bolshevik military
planners here were confident that their Spy Satellite would get
at least this planned first look at Russia.  They were sure that
Columbia's curving launch and the short time involved would
prevent Russia from thwarting the mission.  Columbia took off
from Cape Canaveral at 7:00 A.M. Eastern Time, that Sunday
morning.  By 7:23 Columbia was expected to be over Russia
already.  By 7:31 Columbia was expected to be leaving Russian
skies, and by 7:45 that Sunday morning the military planners
expected to have their first reconnaissance data from Russia.
 
   The plan sounded plausible, my friends, but the Bolsheviks
here are falling victim to the very Intelligence gap which they
themselves created in America years ago.  Russian Intelligence
agents were able to learn the general outlines of the Columbia
mission plan some six months ago.  Fully one month before the
public roll-out of the Columbia at Cape Canaveral last November,
the Russian Space Command was studying the problem.  There was no
question about one thing: The Columbia's mission could not be
allowed to succeed.  Given even a shred of up-to-date
reconnaissance data, the Bolsheviks in America are determined to
set off nuclear war.  Even so, there was a question about the
best way to spoil the Shuttle mission.  Several possibilities
were considered, including sabotage or simply blasting the
Columbia out of the sky.  All were rejected because they shared
one weakness.  Each alternative would halt one shuttle mission,
but it would not stop the Shuttle Program as a whole, and
Russia's goal is to completely shut down the Space Shuttle
Program.
 
   At last they hit upon the solution.  What was needed was a
Space Age version of the famous U-2 incident of two decades ago.
In the waning days of the Eisenhower Administration, Russia had
publicly accused the United States of invading its air space with
spy flights.  That was before the era of Spy Satellites, and
invading other countries' air space was a serious charge in the
eyes of the world.  American spokesmen tried to defuse the
growing furor while carefully avoiding a definitive denial of the
charges; but the Russians kept it up.  Finally President
Eisenhower became so exasperated that he flatly denied, in
public, that America was flying spy planes over Russia.  That was
exactly what the Russians were waiting for.  The Russians
promptly did what American Intelligence specialists thought they
could not do--they shot down a high-flying U-2 on a flight over
Russia.  The name of the CIA pilot, the late Francis Gary Powers,
filled the headlines world-wide overnight.  The Russians had made
a liar of the President of the United States!  A summit had been
scheduled between President Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev, but
the Russians icily called it off.
 
   The Russian Space Command proposed to the Kremlin that the
shuttle Columbia be made the focus of a similar incident.  All
that was necessary was that the Columbia be made to crash land in
Russia reasonably intact.  Having protested continuously about
the military nature of the Shuttle Program, Russia would be able
to stun the world by proving it.  They would put the crashed
Shuttle on public display together with its nuclear-powered,
laser-firing Spy Satellite.  The Kremlin liked the plan, and
agreed to it.  To further emphasize the parallels with the 1960
U-2 incident, Russia has recently proposed a summit with the
United States.  The plan was to withdraw the summit proposal in
protest after shooting down the Columbia.
 
   The Russian Space Command went to work several months ago to
get ready.  They were faced with a tall order to bring down the
Columbia on Russian territory without totally destroying it.  As
recently as a year ago it would have been an impossible task, but
now Russia has a new space tool to do the job.  It is a third
version of the Russian levitating weapons platform, the
Cosmosphere.  They are called "Super Heavies" by the Russian
Space Command.
 
   The Russian Super Heavy Cosmospheres are still considered
experimental.  Even so, the Russians have already built seven of
them.  They are mammoth machines, the largest flying machines
ever built.  In terms of volume, they are even bigger than the
biggest zeppelins of the 1930's.  They can carry a pay load of
more than 50 tons, far more than our own space shuttle; and they
are equipped with powerful electromagnetic propulsion which can
take the Cosmosphere all the way to orbital speed.  In short, my
friends, the jumbo Cosmosphere is Russia's space shuttle.  It is
still experimental, but it is operating already.
 
   In order to carry out their attack on the space shuttle
Columbia, Russia's entire fleet of seven jumbo Cosmospheres were
made ready.  Five were outfitted with special grappling equipment
to enable them to seize a very large object in space.  The other
two were outfitted with neutron particle beam weapons.  These
weapons are the same type as were used in the "Battle of the
Harvest Moon" in September 1977.
 
 
   At 7:00 A.M. Sunday morning, April 12, the rocket engines of
the space shuttle Columbia roared to life.  Moments later the
giant solid boosters were fired, and the Columbia took off fast.
As it climbed, it rolled around and started leaning into its
flight path toward space.  As we watched on our television sets,
it rapidly dwindled off into the northeast.  We watched as the
solid boosters separated and peeled away to each side.  Moments
later the Columbia vanished from the screen.
 
   The television scene shifted to the alleged Mission Control in
Houston.  It was the old familiar scene with rows of Mission
Controllers intent on their consoles.  Up in front the NASA
computer-controlled map started tracing the alleged course of the
Columbia.  According to the map, Columbia was heading out over
the Atlantic toward Bermuda; but at that moment, free of the
solid boosters, Columbia was already starting its long sweeping
curve to the north.  One-hundred-fifty miles east of Charleston,
South Carolina, Russia's fleet of 7 jumbo Cosmospheres were
hovering high over the ocean.  As the space shuttle approached on
its elaborate curving path, the Cosmospheres started speeding up
to intercept it.  The Shuttle was already flying upside-down with
the huge fuel tank on top.  The two Cosmospheres armed with
neutron beams closed in on the Columbia from below and slightly
behind, where they could not be seen by Young and Crippen.  The
other five jumbo Cosmospheres with their grappling equipment flew
in formation above and well behind the fuel tank to be out of the
line of fire.  The Cosmospheres paced the Shuttle until it
reached a predetermined altitude and speed.
 
   Then the armed Cosmospheres opened up with their neutron
beams.  Firing at point-blank range, each Cosmosphere fired just
two bursts from its beam weapon.  The first salvo flooded the
cockpit area and an area near the engines in the rear.  Young and
Crippen died instantly, the neutron radiation having totally
disrupted all activity of their nervous systems, brains, eyes,
and hearts.  At the same time the Shuttle's engines shut down.  A
fraction of a second later, the second salvo flooded neutron
radiation into the nose and an area beneath the cargo bay.  These
shots were calculated to derange and shut down the Columbia's
flight computers--that is, all the computers except one.  The
Russians wanted the backup computer to take over and do its
job--that is, make an emergency automatic re-entry and crash
landing in Russia.  They anticipated that it would do so because
the backup computer is heavily shielded against radiation.  The
shielding is a material more efficient than lead.  It is gold!
The Russians expected that the "Gold Computer", as it is known in
certain circles, would take over after the engines shut down.
Sure enough, within 10 seconds after the engines shut down, the
fuel tank, still a third full, was automatically cast loose.  The
Gold Computer was now flying the Shuttle.  The five jumbo
Cosmospheres with grappling equipment fastened onto the fuel
tank.  Then, using their powerful electromagnetic propulsion,
they veered away with the tank.  From its northeasterly course,
the tank was swerved around over the North Atlantic in a great
arc until it was heading southeast instead.  The Cosmospheres
then accelerated to orbital speed and cast the fuel tank loose.
 
   Three years ago the first Cosmospheres had sent a message by
way of enormous air booms along America's East Coast.  Now
Russia's newest Cosmospheres were using the Shuttle fuel tank to
send a chilling new message to America's Bolshevik war planners.
 
   Meanwhile the armed Cosmospheres followed the Columbia itself.
Having had its engines shut down prematurely, the Columbia was
well below orbital speed.  Instead it was following a ballistic
path, just like an ICBM, into the heart of Russia.  It looked as
though the Russian plan was going to work, but then the
unexpected happened!
 
   One of Columbia's deranged computers apparently started
working again.  The brief shut-down had thrown it out of
synchronization with the Gold Computer, so the two computers
apparently did not communicate with one another.  As the Columbia
passed over the border of Russia, it was flying right-side-up
instead of upside-down under control of the Gold Computer.  But
the other computer opened up the cargo bay doors right on
schedule.  As the Shuttle began to re-enter over Russia, hot air
flooded the cargo bay.  Heat sensors in the Spy Satellite
detected the heat build-up, which was programmed into the
Satellite's computer as a sign of "attack damage."  Finally, the
temperature built up to a critical point, activating a
self-destruct circuit in the Satellite.  The Spy Satellite
exploded, blowing the Columbia apart.
 
   The Russians had hoped for a crash landing in recognizable
form.  Instead, the Columbia ended up in wreckage strewn along a
line some 85 miles long in central Russia southeast of the City
of Kazan.  As it turned out, neither the Bolsheviks here nor the
Russians got what they wanted.  The Bolsheviks did not get their
reconnaissance data, and the Russians did not get a recognizable
space shuttle to show the world.  That leaves the stage set for
another "try" by both sides later this year.
 
Topic #3--Sunday, April 12, 1981, was the 20th anniversary of the
first manned flight into space.  It was the anniversary of the
first orbital flight by a Russian cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin.  It
was also a day of total disarray among the Bolshevik masters of
America's Space Shuttle Program.
 
   Less than eight minutes after launch that Sunday morning they
knew something had happened to the Columbia.  You and I were
still hearing the sound effects of a seemingly successful flight,
courtesy of the NASA tape recording from Houston.  But the
military controllers at White Sands, who were following the real
flight, were hearing nothing at all.  Columbia had suddenly gone
totally silent.
 
   At 7:45 A.M. the news got worse.  Columbia had failed to
arrive over the Indian Ocean on schedule.
 
   Before the morning was out, there was still more bad news.
NORAD was tracking the fuel tank of the Shuttle.  It was not
supposed to be in orbit at all--but there it was, in an orbit
that looked impossible.
 
   That evening, Sunday April 12, the Shuttle's fuel tank
re-entered over the Gulf of Mexico just south of Louisiana.  The
tank had ruptured but there was still a sizeable amount of liquid
hydrogen and oxygen inside.  When the tank re-entered it heated
up and set off an enormous explosion, creating a giant cloud at
the fringes of space.  Gold plating, which is used extensively in
the shuttle fuel tank because of its heat transfer properties,
was vaporized and scattered through the cloud.  The result was
the same as when gold is added in tiny quantities to stained
window glass--a brilliant pinkish-red color.  The giant pink
cloud, with chunks of the ruined fuel tank flashing in the sun,
created headlines as it passed to the northeast over Louisiana
and Mississippi.  Meanwhile, Government spokesmen tried to
pooh-pooh it all as, quote "a natural phenomenon."
 
   The Bolsheviks here still are not quite sure what happened to
the Columbia, but they do know that as far as Space is concerned,
the Shuttle Program is their only hope.  They have three more
orbital shuttles hidden away at White Sands, and they intend to
launch them all no matter what the odds may be, so the NASA
cover-up of the Columbia disaster went right on according to
plan.
 
   Two years ago I first revealed the existence of man-made
genetic replicas of human beings.  I was widely disbelieved and
condemned at the time, just as I knew I would be.  But they do
exist, and once again they have been pressed into service before
our eyes.
 
   Tuesday morning, April 14, genetic replicas called
"Synthetics" of the late astronauts John Young and Robert Crippen
were readied at White Sands.  They were programmed to take a
computerized ride on the training shuttle "Enterprise."  The
Young and Crippen entities boarded the Enterprise, which was
mounted on top of the launch 747.  After rocket fuel was loaded
for the shuttle, the 747 took off and headed west, avoiding
commercial air traffic.  The launch 747 headed out over the
Pacific until it was several hundred miles west of Los Angeles.
Then it turned back toward the east toward the California coast.
On television we were told that the non-existent Columbia was
re-entering from orbit.  Meanwhile the "Enterprise", re-labeled
"Columbia", cut loose from the 747 and fired its rockets.  It
sped up to a speed of nearly 6,000 miles per hour, then we
watched it as it made that dramatic race in from the sea to a
precise computer landing at Edwards Air Force Base.  It was all
timed to agree as closely as possible with the official NASA
timetable.
 
   Even so, a technical mistake was made that morning and as a
result we were told that the Shuttle would land six minutes
early.  My friends, in space flight, six minutes might as well be
a year.  Six minutes in orbit corresponds to nearly a 2,000 mile
error in the location of the Shuttle, but on TV nobody bothered
to question it.  They all just smiled and said, "Isn't it a
lovely day to watch the Shuttle."
 
   After the dramatic Shuttle landing, former astronaut Gene
Cernan expressed surprise on ABC television.  He said the Shuttle
simply did not look scorched enough for a ship that had
re-entered from orbit.  Likewise, when the synthetics called
Young and Crippen emerged, they did not act like men who had been
weightless for two days.  Instead they bounded down the access
steps and pranced around with restless energy, but no one
questioned it.  After all, we had seen the Shuttle landing for
ourselves; and as that old saying goes, "Seeing is believing."
 
   Now it's time for my Last Minute Summary.
 
   My friends, the score in America's Space Shuttle Program is
now "One down and three to go."  Three more shuttles like the
Columbia are waiting their turn in the desert at White Sands.
Each will have the name "Columbia" painted on its side.  The real
Columbia is now dead, along with its crew; but thanks to these
mechanical clones, the Columbia will live again in the public
eye.
 
   I have given you as many details as time will allow about the
Columbia disaster and its cover-up by NASA.  The point of it all
is not whether Russia is ahead or America is ahead in the Space
race.  The point is that we are being deceived.  We are being
given a false sense of security and a false sense of confidence.
We are being led like sheep to slaughter into nuclear war and
Bolshevik dictatorship.
 
   If we choose to believe their lies, then they will succeed,
they will destroy our way of life, and enslave the few of us who
survive their war.  OR, we can learn to do as our Lord Jesus
Christ taught us to do long ago.  We can learn to look for the
truth, cherish the truth, and believe the Truth.  If we do that,
my friends, then we will always be free.
 
   Until next month, God willing, this is Dr. Beter.  Thank you,
and may God bless each and every one of you.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmcelwre cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 15:43:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Nice comments so far on the Putterman summary.  But has anyone actually
read the article yet?  That would be much safer than going by what I said,
which was intended strictly to pique interest.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / John Logajan /  Re: CNF Funding
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Funding
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 17:37:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>there is good reason openly to fund a number of smallish studies of the
>phenomenon. Making it a tabu research subject, as seems to be the case
>to a large extent, will only help continue the division ... and obscure
>the facts.
 
I'm sure this phenomena has been studied extensively as it is not just
a problem with CNF.  On a recent TV network news "magazine" program
(One1Hour) they questioned the narrow funding of AIDS research in which
nearly all of the funds go to the assumption that HIV is the one and only
cause of AIDS.  Although there is rather powerful evidence that there are
other cofactors, money to study the magnitude of these cofactors is simply
not available.  The government has ordained "the" research path, and not
unexpectedly, it is vigorously defended by funding recipients.
 
When one of the proponents of the government view was asked to comment on
quotes from a non-government-view scientists, he terminated the interview!
He wasn't even willing to consider questioning of the government view.
 
This scenario of government funding is followed more often than not.
I believe it is the nature of the beast and cannot be corrected, since
the nature of government is politics and the forces that drive politics
are not scientifically based.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.27 / daniel herrick /  A question from a lurker
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A question from a lurker
Date: 27 Mar 93 12:41:21 EST

My undergraduate minor in physics is almost thirty years old, so be
gentle with me.
 
I've been lurking here, on and off, for over a year.  I understand most
of the language.  I keep coming back because of strong enthusiasm for
reading the kinds of things that Tom Droege shares with us and the
discussions around them.  The storm around Professor Jones has caused
him to teach me a few things, too.
 
The question:
 
Comparing the long time descriptions of Droege's work with the detailed
descriptions of the P&F video leads me to this scenario (below) that no
one seems to pay any attention to.  What am I missing?
 
Droege tells us that he pours energy into a cell for weeks at a time.
Assuming that P&F do the same thing, their violent excess heat episodes
could just be some of that pent up energy bursting out of a marvelously
capacious storage mechanism.
 
I get the impression that the output of the excess heat episode is being
compared with the steady state energy going into the cell during the excess
heat episode, ignoring the energy poured in during the preceding week.
 
The answer, I'm sure, lies in the fact that I am eavesdropping on a
community that has a common set of things that everybody knows so nobody
bothers to say them when I am listening; so please fill in this hole in
my education.
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  re: CNF Funding
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: CNF Funding
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 20:58:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Mar30.173720.15703@ns.network.com>
John Logajan logajan@ns.network.com) [Subject: Re: CNF Funding] writes:
 
=== "I'm sure this phenomena has been studied extensively as it is not
=== just a problem with CNF.  On a recent TV network news "magazine"
=== program (One1Hour) they questioned the narrow funding of AIDS research
=== in which nearly all of the funds go to the assumption that HIV is
=== the one and only cause of AIDS. ....
=== "When one of the proponents of the government view was asked to
=== comment on quotes from a non-government-view scientists, he
=== terminated the interview! He wasn't even willing to consider
=== questioning of the government view.
===
=== "This scenario of government funding is followed more often than
=== not.  I believe it is the nature of the beast and cannot be
=== corrected, since the nature of government is politics and the
=== forces that drive politics are not scientifically based."
 
   John, the interesting similarity is noted.
   This appears to be again like fractals.  It repeats on different
   levels, as well as in different scenarios.
 
   But science is systematized knowledge, and some aspects of politics
   certainly seems to try to thrive on systematized knowledge.
   Perhaps there are other (self-serving?) reasons to prevent examination
   of alternate pathways.
 
                             -   Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.31 / Jed Rothwell /  Fax troubles / Taubes
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fax troubles / Taubes
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 15:16:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The Proceedings of the Third International Conference will be available in a
few weeks from Universal Academy Press, Inc. For some reason, we have been
having trouble reaching them by fax and phone from overseas. I got through
twice, but several times I got a recorded announcement saying the number could
not be reached from the NKK central office. So, you might find it easier to
write to them:
 
Universal Academy Press, Inc.
PR Hogo 5 Bldg.
6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo
Tokyo 113
JAPAN
 
Telephone numbers as dialed from the U.S. are:
 
Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232
Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932
 
 
 
Random House plans to publish a book by Gary Taubes soon. The title is "Bad
Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion." Taubes is a
journalist who goes around falsely accusing scientists like Bockris of fraud,
and saying nasty things about Steve Jones, according to a message Steve posted
a few months ago.
 
I asked Random House for 32 review copies. I sent them a list of some of the
major Japanese corporations and government agencies now doing CF work, and
said I would send the review copies to the chief scientists in these locations
to check for scientific accuracy. After all, there might be a tiny bit of
scientific accuracy in the book -- you never know -- but I would not bet on
it. We will check at ppb levels. I look forward to reading this book.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.31 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Cosmospheres
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cosmospheres
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 21:16:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Marvin said "I hate to admit it, but I actually enjoyed this one." about
the last nutty post.  See what that got us, John.  Looks like there are dozens
of these available to us if we show the slighest interest.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.31 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Palladium Price
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium Price
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 23:24:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Does anyone know why the price of Palladium has been going up the last several
days?  Up $6 since I last noticed.  Yesterday's close at $112.25.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / John Marvin /  Re: Cosmospheres
     
Originally-From: jsm@fc.hp.com (John Marvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cosmospheres
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 09:44:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: John Marvin said "I hate to admit it, but I actually enjoyed this one." about
: the last nutty post.  See what that got us, John.  Looks like there are dozens
: of these available to us if we show the slighest interest.
 
: Tom Droege
 
But I enjoyed the Cosmospheres one also. :-)
 
Seriously, considering the number of groups this guy posts to, I would be
quite surprised if he spent much time reading news to look for responses.
I don't think this guy is one of those "If we don't encourage him, he will
go away" types.
 
Does anyone know if Robert McElwaine writes this stuff himself, or does he
just relay this stuff from various paranoid organizations? Obviously the
articles claim that the stuff is forwarded, but considering the content,
I have no reason to trust anything in the articles.
 
        John Marvin
        jsm@fc.hp.com
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMarvin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Cosmospheres
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Originally-From: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Master Blaster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cosmospheres
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 15:26:51 GMT
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 93 08:30:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Organization: I never am

Hi folks,
 
In article <930331145001.20a03bc5@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
> John Marvin said "I hate to admit it, but I actually enjoyed this one."
> about the last nutty [McElwaine] post.  See what that got us, John.  Looks
> like there are dozens of these available to us if we show the slighest
> interest.
 
The following is a posting from another group that provides some useful
background on what (relatively little) is known about this net.annoyance.
 
Readers of this group should not feel singled out.  McElwaine posts to any
group for which there appears to be even a remote chance of annoying readers
into a response, so he is not specifically making fun of or satirizing any
one group.  (Whether he is actually serious about any of his postings is very
much open to question; no one really knows.)  Mostly gnoring him and trying
not to take offense seems to a reasonable and possibly helpful approach.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.03.27 / Master Blaster /  McElwaine FAQ
     
Originally-From: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Master Blaster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <733221025snx@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 93 08:30:25 GMT
Organization: I never am

 
McElwaine Frequently Asked Questions.
 
****
Please Read and then place in your Kill File.
****
 
 
Hi - welcome to the McElwaine FAQ  Version 1.0  by  Master Blaster.
 
March 1993
 
SUMMARY
=======
 
Information on who and what McElwaine is, McElwaine postings,
frequented newsgroups, use of CAPITALISATION, cited references,
what you should and shouldn't do in response.
 
 
<0.0> who is Robert E. McElwaine?
<1.0> how do I know it's a McElwaine post?
<1.1> what is his method of distributing information?
<1.2> when did the postings start?
<1.3> what newsgroups have been targeted?
<1.4> what topics have been covered?
<1.5> what should I do after reading a McElwaine posting?
<1.6> what references do the postings use?
<1.7> is McElwaine an official representitive of his university?
<1.8> how do I get in touch with McElwaine?
<1.9> FTP sites.
<2.0> What is wrong with the postings?
 
 
* * *
 
<0.0> who is Robert E. McElwaine?
 
Robert E. McElwaine from the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire is an "Internet
Legend".  He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Eau Clair and
spends a lot of his time posting articles to the network.
 
He is not a server program or a group of people as some have suggested.
 
 
<1.0> how do I know it's a McElwaine post?
 
McElwaine postings have a distinct flavour.  To identify one you don't even
need to look at the header.  The following article attributes will help
identify a McElwaine posting:
 
i)   A header mentioning how this article relates to the newsgroup OR how
     the author has been persecuted in past years for posting it.
 
ii)  CAPITALISED WORDS spread amongst the text for emphasis.
 
iii) The following signature:
 
 
          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
 
iv)  The use of $ to replace the letter S, as in BAR-CODE-$CANNER$ or Jew$.
 
 
<1.1> what is his method of distributing information?
 
McElwaine posts to many newsgroups.  Mostly he posts to groups that have some
sort of connection with the contents of the posting.  Occasionally he posts
an article to a group with a name which appears in the contents of his article;
for example, an article on SDI (Star Wars defence) was posted to
rec.arts.sf.starwars.
 
His postings are all individual - almost never cross-posted.  In this respect
alone he is taking up a lot of network bandwidth.
 
Usually he posts articles with a "header" targeted at the particular group
the article is in.  The header points out IMPORTANT information contained
in the article of interest to readers of that newsgroup.
 
 
<1.2> when did the postings start?
 
McElwaine started posting at or before August 1991.  Since then his
postings have become more frequent.  He now posts at least once a week to
some groups.
 
 
<1.3> what newsgroups have been targeted?
 
Numerous groups have been the target of McElwaine postings:  sci.space,
sci.astro, alt.atheism, rec.arts.starwars, alt.religion.computers, sci.energy,
alt.consciousness, alt.magick, alt.pagan, misc.misc, sci.space.shuttle,
sci.physics, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies, sci.math, sci.optics,
sci.physics.fusion, sci.research, sci.environment, soc.culture.british,
alt.folklore.urban, talk.rumors, alt.bizarre, rec.arts.movies, alt.dreams,
alt.out-of-body, rec.arts.startrek.*, rec.gardens.
 
[more information needed]
 
 
<1.4> what topics have been covered?
 
McElwaine covers many topics including religion, science, social issues,
cultural issues and psuedo-science.
 
The majority of people in the newsgroups disagree with the information given
in the articles.
 
[more information needed]
 
 
<1.5> what should I do after reading a McElwaine posting?
 
You have a number of options including posting a flame, mailing a flame,
giving critical comment, throwing yourself out of a window or doing nothing.
 
It is suggested that **ignoring** his posting is the best course of action.
 
McElwaine thrives on comments and flames about his articles because he
then knows that people have read them.
 
Very few people have ever had success with mailing McElwaine.  One person
mailed him and received a lot of his articles in reply.  Abuse or reasoning
meets with a stoney silence.
 
Most likely he is lonely (because of his extreme views) and likes to
receive mail (even if it is abuse).  The amount of mail he receives is
unknown but is probably quite high.
 
There is one case, to my knowledge, of McElwaine no longer posting to a
group.  It was due to the participants in the newsgroup ignoring the
posting.
 
 
<1.6> what references do the postings use?
 
McElwaine uses several references:
 
i)   The Peter Beter Audio Letters.
ii)  The Wisconsin Report.
iii) Published books and reports.
iv)  Other sources not cited.
 
i)   Dr Peter Beter's Audio Letters were made between June 21 1975 and
     November 3 1982.  Overall there were 80 made.  They contain various
     "predictions" and other sensationalist reports.
 
ii)  The Wisconsin Report is a weekly legislative newspaper containing
     more of the same types of information that the Beter Tapes do.
     Most likely because Dr Beter wrote for the Wisconsin Report.
 
iii) Published works include:
 
       "The Secret Life of Plants"  - <author unkown>
       "The Structure of the Physical Universe" - Dewey Larson.
 
iv)  Other sources are probably used by McElwaine but no references
     are given.
 
 
<1.7> is McElwaine an official representitive of his university?
 
No, he most certainly is not.  It would appear that there is even a
"standard disclaimer" that is posted if people ask about McElwaine.
His ideas and comments are purely his own and not those of his department
or university.
 
The system administrator at McElwaine's machine refuses to reply to mail
concerning McElwaine.  (One theory is that the sysadmin IS McElwaine).
 
 
<1.8> how do I get in touch with McElwaine?
 
Send mail to mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu.  The chances of a reply are small.
It is suggested that you don't bother.
 
 
<1.9> FTP Sites?
 
There are supposed to be various FTP sites that contain the Beter Tapes.
As yet, we don't know where they are.
 
There are currently no FTP sites with the McElwaine articles on them.
 
 
<2.0> What is wrong with the postings?
 
Although Mr McElwaine has every right to post articles to the network,
regardless of their content, he is doing it in a continuously obnoxious
way.
 
The content is not in question.  It is the method of distribution that is.
 
 
* * *
 
The above information was collected by the author of this FAQ from McElwaine
postings, followups and mail I have received on McElwaine.
All opinions expressed are entirely those of the author.  The information
is, as far as I know, correct at the time of printing.
 
Thanks to all those readers who have responded with information.
 
Any further information is gladly accepted.
 
This information may be copied and freely distributed.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencam cudfnMaster cudlnBlaster cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / Patrick Tepesch /  Searching for an explanation.
     
Originally-From: pdt@athena.mit.edu (Patrick D Tepesch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Searching for an explanation.
Date: 1 Apr 1993 17:20:49 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I have a question regarding the phenomenon being discussed in this
forum.  I will NOT refer to this phenomenon by its common name due to
the negative feelings this term can generate.  I will just call it UIP
for unexplained interesting phenomenon.  I will explain my
assumptions, ask my question and then hope to get some feedback.
 
Definition:  UIP is the physical mechanism(s) which generates the
'excess heat' measured in some electrochemical cells.  The order of
magnitude of the power generated during the events is NOT explained by
'normal' chemical reactions.
 
Assumption #1:  The accuracy of calorimetric experiments, which have
been carried out for many years to measure heat generated by chemical
reactions is sufficient.  Inaccuracies in these measurements will not
be used to explain UIP unless it can be proved that EVERY experiment
which has shown UIP is in error.
 
Assumption #2:  We want to understand what is going on.
 
Question: Shouldn't we seek an explanation (theory) for UIP regardless
of what the nature of the phenomenon is?
 
If we did find a theory, it should help us understand when the
observations will be made and why in some experiments excess heat is
not found.  Clearly, some people think this will be a useful technology
for power generation and/or energy storage, and I think if they produce
useful products that improve the world we are all better off.  I also
think that it will be truly difficult to do this unless we understand
what is really going on.  So, let's find the explanation!
 
Patrick Tepesch
Room #13-5137
Materials Science and Engineering Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA  02139
Office phone: (617) 253-8127  email:  pdt@mit.edu
           --------------------> EL!! <--------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpdt cudfnPatrick cudlnTepesch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Seen on page 13...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Seen on page 13...
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 16:44:57 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <C4t83n.Ho6@csn.org> rjn@teal.csn.org (Robert J. Niland) writes:
 
> Famed metallurgist Dr. Y. Geller today cut the ribbon ...
> The new CNF generators will not go on-line immediately.  Turn-on
> awaits completion of the neighboring 250 Mw oil-fired plant that
> is used to "prime" the CNF generators.
 
I love April 1!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Cosmospheres
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cosmospheres
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 19:47:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>McElwaine uses several references:
>i)   The Peter Beter Audio Letters.
 
If Peter rhymes with eater, then Beter must too.
 
This gives us (phonetically) Peter Beater.   Nuff said.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / John Cobb /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: 1 Apr 1993 20:08:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <C4oG4s.659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|>In article <1993Mar29.211543.21101@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
|>>
|>>In the article sonoluminescence is described in terms of shock waves that
|>>compress and heat an air-filled void to form a very hot plasma that radiates
|>>primarily in the UV region.  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
|>>50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a change in the
|>>diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
|>
|>     Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
|>     the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
|>     5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5.  For a specific heat
|>     ratio of 7/5 (diatomic polytropic gases), it's about 20.
|>
|>                           dale bass
 
Yes but ------
 
Here you've assumed that you can still describe the liquid using a fluid
approximation, but as you know, the fluid equations (take your pick of
your favorite set of lfuid equations, Navier Stokes for ex.) is only an
approximation a Kinetic Theory (Boltzmann, Vlasov, Fokker-Planck, etc ---
again take your pick). The Q to ask is what is the collision length in these
critters. IF its larger than your bubble size, then the gross motion will
lead to a distribution function that is inwardedly directed (a self-colliding
beam). In such a case you need to re-examine all the intuition that you
have developed that relies on the distribution function being near
Maxwellian.
 
just a note from someone who's dropped of the edge.
 
john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Trigger Magazine
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trigger Magazine
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 19:42:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
     There is a Japanese monthly technical magazine called "Trigger" which is
published by Nikkei Industrial (Nikkei Sangyo). The March, 1993 edition, Vol.
12, No. 3 is, "a special edition on the COLD FUSION REVOLUTION" (Bold
headlines on the front cover.)
 
     This is a superb source of information, and I urge everyone who can read
Japanese to get it. Here is a quick look at the Table of Contents:
 
6    Special interview Hideo Ikegami, by S. Tahara
12   On the front lines of cold fusion research, by T. Fukami
16   Document: Four years after "A sun in a test tube" is revealed, by T.
Fukami
21   Creative front runner: A burned hand proved the existence of cold fusion!
NTT Basic Research Lab's Senior Researcher Eichi Yamaguchi, by K. Kobayashi
26   A reporter tone deaf to high-tech looks at cold fusion: will cold fusion
become the source of clean energy in... 100 years!?!, Y. Miyagawa [This
article is kind of cute.]
30   A review of keywords and concepts relating to "nuclear energy," N.
Hashimoto
 
     Pages 4 and 5 show a greatly enlarged close up of Yamaguchi's hand
wearing a surgical glove, holding a post-experimental run spoon shaped Au-Pd-
MnO plate. The bold black on red text on page 4 says:
 
     "Special Edition. COLD FUSION REVOLUTION. Was it the greatest discovery
     in the history of twentieth century science and technology? Or just a
     mistake? ...cold fusion, the scientific mystery, has now became the
     target of serious, large scale scientific research, as the consensus of
     opinion is reached: 'no mistake about it, something is happening.' At the
     same time, some skeptics hang on to the opinion that 'the heat cannot be
     explained by the reaction products.'
 
          If it can be perfected, hopes now run high that it will become the
     ultimate energy source. This month, we zero in for a close look at just
     what this mysterious source of energy is, and we take an in-depth look at
     the researchers on the front lines."
 
     The caption on page 5 says (among other things), "...the surface
temperature of the plate goes over 100 C, and gas is liberated into the
vacuum. This gas is shown to be helium 4, which proves that a fusion reaction
is occurring."
 
     This is a serious, technical magazine, so the articles get right down to
brass tacks. If you have been following the cold fusion story closely, you
will not find any great surprises here, but it is nice to see organized
information in one place. Fukami's articles are particularly thoughtful,
accurate and detailed. For example, on p. 12 he writes:
 
     "...while Drs. Fleischmann and Pons demonstrated the most excess heat,
     McKubre has shown some of the most remarkable replicability, and
     Takahashi has succeeded in generating the longest running high heat
     reaction. In other words, the research is progressing on several fronts
     simultaneously, although not in an even fashion...
 
          While others have shown significant results, I think it is fair to
     say that the overall leaders in the field as a whole are still F&P...
     They have achieved power densities of several kilowatts per cubic
     centimeter... These power levels would be immediately usable in
     industrial applications, if it were not for the difficulty they
     experience sustaining the reaction. Their longest high heat run to date
     only lasted for several hours. Most of the time, power density is in the
     range of 10s of watts. Intensive, systematic research is now being
     conducted to clarify exactly what conditions are needed to sustain the
     high heat indefinitely...
 
          F&F's cathode is not 100% palladium. It is... an alloy containing
     carefully controlled amounts of silver, cerium, lanthanum, and tiny,
     trace amounts of lithium-6... Crystal grain size is also carefully
     controlled to a range of 10 to 14 microns..."
 
     Page 18 has rather scathing descriptions of MIT's R. Parker, Nature
Magazine, and former Pres. Arima of Tokyo U., who was Japan's leading skeptic
and is now thankfully retired. It points out that most cold fusion experiments
take a long time to load and begin generating heat, but the experiments done
under Arima lasted only a short time. It points out that successful workers
like McKubre and Okamoto had to work day and night for years before they were
finally able to achieve success, whereas the skeptics dismissed the whole
business "in the first weeks of the controversy." Page 18 also features a nice
photo showing one of Japan's leading HF & CF G.O.M. sound asleep in the front
row of a recent CF conference.
 
     The Ikegami interview is full of interesting tidbits, including a
complete listing of the NHEP membership and lead researcher names. It gives
the reader a good sense Ikegami's thinking and policies. It is vintage Hideo.
He is a forceful, dynamic person, who never hesitates to call a spade a spade.
He is charming and forthright as usual. He touches on the history of cold
fusion, mentioning some of the work in the '30's; he praises the Russian
program; he explains the ongoing planning at MITI; and describes the
"scenario" needed to develop practical applications.
 
     The Yamaguchi interview gets into the nitty gritty. It explains how they
have been applying MOS computer chip manufacturing techniques to CF R&D. It
includes a lot of personal details about Yamaguchi, and descriptions of his
earlier work in semiconductors.
 
     The glossary starting on page 30 is great for people like me. It has
exact definitions and kanji for words like "nucleon" & "nuclide;" and it
includes a brief history of NIFS, JT-60, a cutie-pie illustration, etc. (In
case you are wondering, the cutie-pie is saying "so far guys, we can pull it
off with a magnet or a laser..." and she is aiming that laser beam at the JT-
60, which is a telling motion, in my opinion).
 
     I wish I had time to translate more of this Great Stuff, and the many
other documents coming to me from Japan.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / Robert Niland /  Seen on page 13...
     
Originally-From: rjn@teal.csn.org (Robert J. Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Seen on page 13...
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 14:54:58 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

Dateline 01 Apr 93,  Pathogoya, Japan
 
Famed metallurgist Dr. Y. Geller today cut the ribbon at the
official opening of the world's first commercial cold nuclear
fusion (CNF) power plant.
 
The 100 megawatt facility was constructed on an aggressive
schedule, although some critics have said that a smaller scale
demonstration plant would have been wise.  The plant director,
however, was quoted as saying "our test tube results satisfy us
that this method of power generation can be scaled to any size".
 
The new CNF generators will not go on-line immediately.  Turn-on
awaits completion of the neighboring 250 Mw oil-fired plant that
is used to "prime" the CNF generators.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrjn cudfnRobert cudlnNiland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / John Cobb /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: 1 Apr 1993 20:32:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1p8akl$r95@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt
Kennel) writes:
|>If you're thinking about using sonic cavitation to induce fusion, remember
|>that you have to either confine the plasma for a long time without
|>letting it cool, or compress the bejezzus out of it, in order to get
|>significant fusion power.
I agree. I don't see any connection, beyond superficial similarity between
sonoluminescence and fusion.
|>
|>Tokamaks use the first principle, and you need strong magnetic fields
|>to do so, and it's still not easy.  ICF and weapons use the second
|>method.  In these cases, the inward velocity of the ablator+plug is
|>a goodly fraction of "c", and the maximum density approaches
|>Fermi degeneracy, and the input power is, uh, rather nontrivial, not to
|>mention the flux.
|>
 
There are other high density cases besides bombs and ICF.
 
For example, a neat idea is put forward by Barnes and Turner [Physics of
Fluids B Vol. 4 p. 3890 (Dec. 1992)] where a spinning non-nuetral penning
trap plasma can be compressed enough, in principle, to achieve breakeven.
Moreoever this is a steady state operation. The idea is that you have particles
which execute radial oscillations with zero angular momentum. Thus each
particle
goes throught that origin. Therefore, near the origin the density is really
high.
 
|>Keep in mind,everyone, that if it's fusion that you're after, fusion power
|>(given density and temp) scales as the volume, but cooling by contact with
|>walls scales as the surface area (and thus the flux at the walls increases
|>with size, and therefore radiation damage) Therefore, big is required, and
|>this is why ITER is going to be huge and expensive.  As far as we know, you
|>can't make a small tokamak that sucessfully burns self-sufficiently.  (thanks
|>D.K.@pppl)
|>
 
This paragraph only applies to Magnetic Fusion Energy. It certainly doesn't
apply to ICF, Inertial Electrostatic confinement concepts or some other
innovative (i.e. way out) ideas. [I say "way out" not because they are
expounded
by kooks, but because they are radically different approaches and usually have
not seen much experimentation, at least not yet.]
 
|>It's not clear whether given economic and political factors this is an
|>advantage or disadvantage, though I'd tend a bit towards the latter.
 
Again this only applies to magnetic confinement concepts. I'm inclined to
agree with you that for MFE diffusion coefficients imply viability only
for plants with power of 1 GigaWatt or more and hugh capital costs. In fact
I'm convinced enough that I would bet that I will never see commercial fusion
power from a TOKAMAK in my lifetime, but then again that's a sucker bet because
I can never collect :>.
 
|>--
|>-Matt Kennel                  mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
 
-john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 22:01:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1pfi4hINNhg5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexa
.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <C4oG4s.659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|>In article <1993Mar29.211543.21101@asl.dl.nec.com>
>terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>|>>
>|>>In the article sonoluminescence is described in terms of shock waves that
>|>>compress and heat an air-filled void to form a very hot plasma that radiates
>|>>primarily in the UV region.  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
>|>>50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a change in the
>|>>diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
>|>
>|>     Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
>|>     the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
>|>     5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5.  For a specific heat
>|>     ratio of 7/5 (diatomic polytropic gases), it's about 20.
>|>
>|>                           dale bass
>
>Yes but ------
>
>Here you've assumed that you can still describe the liquid using a fluid
>approximation, but as you know, the fluid equations (take your pick of
>your favorite set of lfuid equations, Navier Stokes for ex.) is only an
>approximation a Kinetic Theory (Boltzmann, Vlasov, Fokker-Planck, etc ---
>again take your pick). The Q to ask is what is the collision length in these
>critters. IF its larger than your bubble size, then the gross motion will
>lead to a distribution function that is inwardedly directed (a self-colliding
>beam). In such a case you need to re-examine all the intuition that you
>have developed that relies on the distribution function being near
>Maxwellian.
 
     It doesn't really matter in what I was saying.  The fluid
     approximation works fine around the time a shock should be
     shed from the inwardly collapsing fluid surface.  It also works
     fine for a distance as the shock travels inward.
 
     In any case, I have a hard time seeing a situation in this system
     that could result in a 'self-colliding beam'.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Palladium Price
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium Price
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 05:18:59 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>Does anyone know why the price of Palladium has been going up the last several
>days?  Up $6 since I last noticed.  Yesterday's close at $112.25.
 
All the precious metals are rallying slightly.  The gold stocks are really
moving now.  North American and South African gold mining stocks are up
about 20% since January.  I think its a combination of the Russian situation
and a perception that Clinton's window to do a last-chance fix on the deficit
is being wasted.  I expect the metals to continue to move slowly higher,
although there will be a lot of jumps both ways.
 
Best lock in all the palladium you'll need for 93 now!!
 
------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Droege's latest results
     
Originally-From: barry@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's latest results
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 06:21:33 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics

In article <930329132047.20a0579e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> The cleaner I get, the better I control the experiment, the
more accurate I
> make the apparatus; the fewer bumps and anomalies I see!
>
> What does this sound like to you
 
 
It sounds like cold fusion works by standard paranormal
mechanisms. That evidence dissapears with increased controls
is the classical signature of paranormal effects. Your
experiments
should be taken as confirming that CF is a valid paranormal
phenomena.
 
By the way: since you have a bigger stake than most in this
enterprise: what are your personal criteria for deciding when
to stop working on CF?
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Preloading hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Preloading hypothesis
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:29:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Daniel Herrick comments:
 
"Droege tells us that he pours energy into a cell for weeks at a time.
Assuming that P&F do the same thing, their violent excess heat episodes could
just be some of that pent up energy bursting out of a marvelously capacious
storage mechanism."
 
No, this is impossible. This is sometimes called the "preloading" hypothesis,
in which the energy is pushed into the nooks and crannies of the Pd (more
seriously, into the electron bonds).
 
Preloading can play no role in the CF energy balance, because there are sharp
limits to how much any mechanical and/or chemical storage any system can
hold. A short while after a CF cell begins producing excess heat, the total
energy generated by the cell exceeds all possible storage mechanisms. Even if
a cell appeared to "preload" for a year, it would still actually be able to
store only 15 minutes worth of energy, at typical output power levels. You
can think of "preloading" as a process kind of like soaking a sponge in
kerosene. After a while, the sponge is saturated, and it cannot absorb any
more chemical fuel. You can soak if for an hour, or for a year, but when you
ignite it, it will only burn for 20 minutes, and it will generate the same
amount of heat regardless of how long you soaked it previously.
 
An actual CF device is typically the size of a postage stamp or a small nail.
Suppose you were to make an object this size out of the most chemical-energy
dense commonly available material, something like paraffin. Then, imagine you
set fire to the object. Ask yourself how long it would burn, and how much
water the flame might boil away. Better yet, don't ask yourself, burn a small
section of a candle and find out. You will soon realize that a mass the size
of a small nail cannot possibly generate enough heat to boil away a test tube
of water.
 
I am not aware of any chemical fuel which is significantly more energy-dense
than kerosene, paraffin or other hydrocarbons. There are fuels that burn more
intensively, and some that burn at higher temperatures, but I do not think
there are any that hold, say, 10 times more energy per gram of fuel.
 
 
"I get the impression that the output of the excess heat episode is being
compared with the steady state energy going into the cell during the excess
heat episode, ignoring the energy poured in during the preceding week."
 
Your impression is incorrect. No serious experimenter "ignores" any data; all
energy put into the system is accounted for, as accurately as the instruments
allow.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: CNF Funding
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Funding
Date: 2 Apr 93 15:09:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

John Logagan wrote:
 
  "When one of the proponents of the government view was asked to comment
   on quotes from a non-government-view scientists, he terminated the
   interview!  He wasn't even willing to consider questioning of the
   government view."
 
I suggest this is mostly out of fear, rather than such things as arrogance
or a "conspiracy of silence".
 
  "This scenario of government funding is followed more often than not.
   I believe it is the nature of the beast and cannot be corrected, since
   the nature of government is politics and the forces that drive
   politics are not scientifically based."
 
I absolutely agree with this. It is responsible for the problems I often
rant about in "hot fusion" research, and that is as true within the
mainstream as it is with respect to the fringe. We have this problem
because the vaunted "free market" has abdicated from basic research, citing
"market pressures" of one sort or another. In short, we most likely have
this problem because we are a social organisation of humans.
 
[PS: Do not cite this or that company supporting this or that fringe as
support of basic research. Continuous, long-term support is what I mean.]
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Trigger Magazine
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trigger Magazine
Date: 2 Apr 93 15:18:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

>   Arima of Tokyo U., who was Japan's leading skeptic
>   and is now thankfully retired.
 
Jed, is this your perspective towards non-believers (are we to become foul
infidels)? I would rather think you would like your adversaries to stick
around and share in the debate. Ikegami seems to be of the former type,
shoving Morrison away from the mike rather than answer his points or see
them answered. I might be less skeptical if I saw less of this.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Droege's latest results
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's latest results
Date: 2 Apr 1993 16:10:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Apr2.062133.4875@midway.uchicago.edu> barry@zaphod.uchic
go.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <930329132047.20a0579e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>> The cleaner I get, the better I control the experiment, the
>> more accurate I make the apparatus; the fewer bumps and anomalies I see!
>> What does this sound like to you?
>
>It sounds like cold fusion works by standard paranormal
>mechanisms. That evidence dissapears with increased controls
>is the classical signature of paranormal effects. Your
>experiments should be taken as confirming that CF is a valid paranormal
>phenomena.
 
In addition, cold fusion only seems to work for True Believers -- much as
do paranormal phenomena.  In that case, the argument goes, it's because
skeptics paranormally cause the experiments to fail.  I don't know what the
argument is here.
 
Traditionally, one of the basic methods of differentiating science from
pseudo-science is the ability of skeptics to reproduce the results of the
believers.  Which is why relativity and QM became accepted so quickly.
 
So my question is are there any "skeptics" (i.e. people who started the
experiment to prove it wouldn't work) who are now "believers" in the case
of Cold Fusion?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / John Cobb /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: 2 Apr 1993 18:40:17 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <C4truD.MMq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|>In article <1pfi4hINNhg5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
|>>In article <C4oG4s.659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
|>>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|>>|>In article <1993Mar29.211543.21101@asl.dl.nec.com>
|>>terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
|>>|>>
 
terry:
 
|>>|>>In the article sonoluminescence is described ...
|>>|>>  The change in diameter that is quoted is from
|>>|>>50 microns to about 0.5 microns, or a factor of 100.  (Such a
change in the
|>>|>>diameter would imply a volume compression ratio of about 10^6.)
|>>|>
 
dale:
 
|>>|>     Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
|>>|>     the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
|>>|>     5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5. ...
|>>|>
|>>|>                           dale bass
|>>
 
john:
 
|>>Yes but ------
|>>
   1316 Re: Droege's latest results
schultz@garnet.berkeley.|>>Here you've assumed that you can still
describe the liquid using a fluid
|>>approximation, but ... the fluid equations
|>>[are] only an
|>>approximation a Kinetic Theory ...
|>>The Q to ask is what is the collision length in these
|>>critters. IF its larger than your bubble size, then the gross motion will
|>>lead to a distribution function that is inwardedly directed (a
self-colliding
|>>beam). In such a case you need to re-examine all the intuition that you
|>>have developed that relies on the distribution function being near
|>>Maxwellian.
|>
 
dale again:
 
|>     It doesn't really matter in what I was saying.  The fluid
|>     approximation works fine around the time a shock should be
|>     shed from the inwardly collapsing fluid surface.  It also works
|>     fine for a distance as the shock travels inward.
|>
|>     In any case, I have a hard time seeing a situation in this system
|>     that could result in a 'self-colliding beam'.
|>
|>                            dale bass
 
john again:
 
I disagree, it does matter. When one works with fluids one is used to
treating shocks as discontinuities. Physcially, however, shocks are of
finite width. Physical quantities have large gradients within the shock.
Thus from a distance they look like discontinuities. Usually the shock
width is on the order of a collision mean free path (although in some plasma
systems you can get pre-acceleration in front of the shock and many other
effects). Now for very high adiabatic-like compression, it is possible that
the collision mean free path may become larger than the entire bubble since the
temperature will be very high. If this is the case, it becomes nonsense to
talk about a "shock" as a discontinuity. The fluid approximation breaks down.
You may need to go back to a kinetic theory.
 
If you are limiting yourself to talking about the mathematical behavior of
fluid equations, you are correct in saying that it doesn't matter, but
if you want to consider the physics of sonoluminescence, then you may
need to reach beyond fluid theories and there it may matter.
 
There's another example where this same problem arises. It involves determining
the flow past space vehicles in near-space environments (like re-entry). There
also, the width of the shock-wave may be larger than the entire spacecraft.
They are  tought problems. Weird things can happen.
 
-john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Should be easy?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Should be easy?
Date:  2 Apr 1993 14:27 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <930322203633_72240.1256_EHL55-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Barry Merriman asks:
>
>"Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific community of the
>reality of CF?"
>
>Answer: Most of the important scientific community is already convinced. The
>scientific community that matters is in Japan, because that is where things
>new things are built, and interesting technology happens. The U.S. is a
>conservative, technological backwater, incapable of producing even simple
>things like televisions, CD ROMS, laser printers, machine tools and microwave
>ovens. U.S. scientists count for nothing, because they contribute nothing. You
>might as well worry about scientific opinion in Brazil or Bolivia.
 
Jed, I believe television, microwave ovens, CD ROMS, laser printers and
machine tools were all _invented_ in the U.S.  We just have a hard time
building them for reasonable prices, supposedly, according to the bean
counters.
>
>It will take about 5 years to convince the U.S. of the reality of CF. That is
>how much time it took to convince our scientists of the existence of the
>airplane (1903 - 1908) and the transistor (1949 - 1954).
>
It really would only take *1* experiment - where the output of the cell is
used to provide *enough power* to run the cell and have a little leftover for
something useful.  The caveat here is that the skeptics can examine the
cell, to make sure it really *does* produce excess power (note that some
scams of perpetual motion machines appeared quite convincing, until the
machines were examined and found to have things like hidden motors and
batteries).  From what you and others have said, this should be possible
*now*.  Why has such a simple experiment not been performed yet.
>
>Cameron Randale Bass comments:
>
>"This whole thing is easily demonstrated by hooking a cell up to a load and a
>fuel cell.  Let it power itself while it runs a lightbulb... That should be
>fairly easy,  especially if the boys over in France have made the process as
>repeatable as seems to be rumored."
>
>Why should it be fairly easy? Who says? I know exactly what problems they
>face, and it seems dreadfully hard to me. Was it easy to make the first
>incandescent lightbulb? No, it took dozens of the world's best scientists and
>engineers *years* of "teeth grinding," backbreaking, work. They had to invent
>a whole host of things before they could even begin, like a vacuum pump far
>better than any other in existence. Was it easy to make the first transistor?
>How about the first airplane, the first record player, the first microwave
>oven, the first computer? Is it easy to make these things now? Yes, we can
>produce a million lightbulbs a day. The first one took 15 years, and defeated
>some of the best scientific minds, like Siemens.
 
Thermal engines have efficiencies in the range of 30%, motors/generators
over 90%.  So, using an efficient steam engine/generator combinationgives
an engineering breakeven of about: Eth = 1/(.3 * .9) = 3.7
 
The amount of energy the CF cell would need to produce to keep itself running
with the above setup would be about 3.7 times the power required to run it.
 
I believe Dale Bass proposes using a fuel cell to convert the 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O
will still need to have some supplemental energy supplied by conversion of
heat into electricity - H/O fuel cells are "only" about 60% efficient.
 
Since claimed excess heat is in the 4 to 10 times input (*without* compensating
for electrolysis) this experiment *should* be easy to perform.
 
From the little I remember of thermodynamics, Emax <= (Tsource - Tsink)/Tsink.
 
Since the CF cells produce fairly low temperature heat (from what I've read
here, anyway) the Tsink would have to be lowered to something way below room
temperature, and some sort of Freon type fluid used to run the engine/generator
combo.  You still aren't talking about something ultra-sophisticated.
 
Note that this isn't a flame.  I'd really like to see this experiment done.
>
>How about HTSC? Do we see any practical, industrial uses for these
>superconductors yet? It has been about 5 years. I don't see any mass-market
>products yet. Where are the prototype HTSC based motors and other technology
>we were promised?
 
There are ideas out there.  I *have* seen HTSCs work, with my own beady eyes.
You've probably seen the same demo - a magnet above a HTSC, levitating, as it
were.  The demo I've outlined above would, IMHO, be the CF equivalent of
HTSC mag-lev.  TB's would be vindicated, skeptics convinced and the rest
of us, uh, could get back to work :)
>
>
>"The fact that they apparently have not done so leaves us with two options,
>a) they cannot or b) they can, but ... they aren't going to share it with
>us..."
>
>Or, c. it is taking about as long as any other invention.
>
>Right from the beginning of CF there has been an utterly daffy, a-historic
>argument against it which one might summarize: "only easy things exist." The
>argument was, if you cannot replicated it based upon a couple of phone calls,
>or an e-mail or two, it must not exist. I would dearly love to see the
>"skeptics" who believe this nonsense replicate any of the following items from
>an e-mail description:
>
>* My mother-in-law's melon rind pickles
>* A proper souffle
>* A wooden pencil with graphite that writes clearly, and does not crumble
>* A small, working Pascal compiler
 
That one's easy - just send the .asm code with the .doc file for the params.
used for the Assembler :-)
 
>* A fax machine
>* An HTSC
 
Probably easier than the others you listed, except the compiler.
>
>One well know skeptic once told me, "anyone can make an HTSC. Why, they sell
>them from a catalog!" I told that to the fellow who sells them from the
>catalog, and he had a good He said, "if he thinks it's that easy, tell him to
>give it a try. I have been at it for years, and a heck of a lot of mine fail
>for no reason that I can understand. It is 'easy' if you are a good
>metallurgist and you have a top-notch lab, and lots of patience. Otherwise, it
>is impossible."
>
>We have heard these same daffy arguments so often before, from people who
>never actually tried to make anything new, different, or difficult in their
>lives. Yes, it is easy to do a textbook experiment. No, it not easy to invent
>the stuff they will later write in those textbooks. No, four years is not a
>long time for basic development, it is the blink of an eye. People who expect
>finished results in 4 years are as naive and misguided as the reporter who
>denigrated the incandescent light, the telephone and the record player 3 or 4
>years after these products were invented. He wrote, in the New York Graphic:
>
>     "When the phonograph was invented and the telephone was paraded before
>     the admiring public, promises of magical results were lavishly made. How
>     signally they have failed of perfection everyone now knows."
>
>- Jed
>
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Should be easy?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Should be easy?
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 20:32:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>Jed Rothwell) writes...
>>The US is a
>>conservative, technological backwater, incapable of producing even simple
>>things like televisions, CD ROMS, laser printers, machine tools and microwave
>>ovens. U.S. scientists count for nothing, because they contribute nothing.
>
>Jed, I believe television, microwave ovens, CD ROMS, laser printers and
>machine tools were all _invented_ in the U.S.  We just have a hard time
>building them for reasonable prices, supposedly, according to the bean
>counters.
 
The overal reality of this is a thing of great beauty.  Entire cultures and
nations are becoming technologically advanced producers with the time constant
of change being less than a decade.
 
Japan is struggling against competition from South Korea, and now, in turn,
South Korea has risen its standard of living and standard of expectations
high enough that it is also no longer the lowest priced labor, and so faces
competition from other Asian neighbors.
 
(An interesting "control" group is North Korea in which the blessings of
planned economies have delivered them 1/6th the standard of living enjoyed
by their southern counter-parts.)
 
So this pattern is instructive -- massive industrialization of poorer
societies paid for by a short period of low (compared to industrialized
nations) aggregate wages, but then once a toehold is gained in the modern
marketplace, rising living standards.  And then the wave of change moves
on to the next country.
 
It isn't then a loss for the US or a loss for Japan or a loss for Korea,
it is just the particular phase of technological development they are in.
 
Neither the US nor the Japanese nor the Koreans are in a state of
technological decline.  And if someone trys to tell you different, there
is a good probability they have a brand of snake oil they are selling.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Discover Apr '93 on Seth Putterman
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 21:46:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1pi1ahINNnt5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexa
.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <C4truD.MMq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>|>>|>     Only if it were a piston.  The limiting value of rho/rho_0 for
>|>>|>     the spherically imploding shock for specific heat ratio of
>|>>|>     5/3 (monatomic gases) is about 9.5. ...
>|>>|>
>|>>|>                           dale bass
>|>>
>
>john:
>
>|>>Yes but ------
>|>>
>   1316        Re: Droege's latest results
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.|>>Here you've assumed that you can still
>describe the liquid using a fluid
>|>>approximation, but ... the fluid equations
>|>>[are] only an
>|>>approximation a Kinetic Theory ...
>|>>The Q to ask is what is the collision length in these
>|>>critters. IF its larger than your bubble size, then the gross motion will
>|>>lead to a distribution function that is inwardedly directed (a
>self-colliding
>|>>beam). In such a case you need to re-examine all the intuition that you
>|>>have developed that relies on the distribution function being near
>|>>Maxwellian.
>|>
>
>dale again:
>
>|>     It doesn't really matter in what I was saying.  The fluid
>|>     approximation works fine around the time a shock should be
>|>     shed from the inwardly collapsing fluid surface.  It also works
>|>     fine for a distance as the shock travels inward.
>|>
>|>     In any case, I have a hard time seeing a situation in this system
>|>     that could result in a 'self-colliding beam'.
>|>
>
>john again:
>
>I disagree, it does matter. When one works with fluids one is used to
>treating shocks as discontinuities. Physcially, however, shocks are of
>finite width. Physical quantities have large gradients within the shock.
 
     The point is and was that the density ratio is limited by
     the limiting value attained by treatment as a fluid.  We don't
     need kinetic theory to provide an estimate of the attainable
     shock-induced compression.
 
     I also cannot imagine a situation in a fluid under an atmosphere or two
     sound pressure, where the distribution could get so skewed
     as to make a 'self-colliding' beam.
 
>Thus from a distance they look like discontinuities. Usually the shock
>width is on the order of a collision mean free path (although in some plasma
>systems you can get pre-acceleration in front of the shock and many other
>effects). Now for very high adiabatic-like compression, it is possible that
>the collision mean free path may become larger than the entire bubble since the
>temperature will be very high. If this is the case, it becomes nonsense to
>talk about a "shock" as a discontinuity. The fluid approximation breaks down.
>You may need to go back to a kinetic theory.
 
     Yes, but we were talking about compression.  If you smear the shock,
     you just lower the compression.  And shocks work perfectly well
     in rarefied gases too, just a bit differently.
 
     I think we're talking past one another.  I don't disagree with the
     thrust of what you're saying, though I do think it would be
     very difficult to analyze a situation where the local Knudsen number
     (ratio of the mean free path to a characteristic dimension) is
     large in a fluid.  For one thing, it would be a clearly nonequilibrium
     situation.
 
     For another thing, the Knutsen number for, say, hard sphere gases
     does not directly depend on temperature.  It depends only on density.
     So, in the case we're discussing I really cannot
     imagine a situation where the mean free path
     gets larger than the bubble unless the 'bubble' is very small,
     in which case we're going to need molecular dynamics anyway.
 
>If you are limiting yourself to talking about the mathematical behavior of
>fluid equations, you are correct in saying that it doesn't matter, but
>if you want to consider the physics of sonoluminescence, then you may
>need to reach beyond fluid theories and there it may matter.
 
     I was limiting myself to discussing the compression due to shock
     behavior.  Detailed description of the phenomenon itself may require
     something of molecular dimensions since it is radiating
     on molecular dimensions.  But, that is a more difficult
     problem than just an estimate of limiting density owing to
     shock formation.
 
>There's another example where this same problem arises. It involves determining
>the flow past space vehicles in near-space environments (like re-entry). There
>also, the width of the shock-wave may be larger than the entire spacecraft.
>They are  tought problems. Weird things can happen.
 
     Yes, but you've got a rarefied gas there.  Here you probably don't.
 
                                   dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.04 / David Burnette /  MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: david@sunworld.com (David Burnette)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MAGPIE
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1993 03:12:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings.
 
On page 88 of last week's Economist (March 27th - April 2nd) is an
article called "The Big Squeeze" about an experiment at Imperial
College, London that will attempt to create a form of matter 10,000
denser than "normal" matter, matter so dense, the article says, that
even x-rays cannot pass through it, etc.
 
The gist of the experiment is to send a massive electric current
through a fine fiber of frozen hydrogen. According to the article, the
hydrogen will immediately be blown into a plasma, that will be
contained by an intense magnetic field generated by the current
flowing through the fiber. The experiment is called MAGPIE
(Mega-Ampere Generator for Plasma Implosion Experiments).
 
The article describes a phenomenon of "radiative collapse", which will
cause the plasma to radiate energy and collapse, causing it to radiate
more energy and collapse still further, finally reaching a degenerate
state. This seems to be the stuff of (hopefully) controlled nuclear
fusion. Has anyone heard of this experiment or similar ones? Can
anyone elaborate on the feasibility of such a concept?
 
Thanks.
 
David Burnette
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnBurnette cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Palladium Price
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium Price
Date: 3 Apr 93 12:37:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <930331162805.25201241@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Does anyone know why the price of Palladium has been going up the last several
>days?  Up $6 since I last noticed.  Yesterday's close at $112.25.
>
>Tom Droege
 
The value of Palladium (and Platinum) often tends to vary with the
value of the NIKKI (Japanese Stocks), although delayed a bit in time.
When the NIKKI is moving up brokers tend to make money.  In Japan,
Palladium future's contracts seem to be a favorite place into which
"winnings" are switched.
 
After a string of heavy down days in the NIKKI DOW, the price of
Palladium is likely to come down because trading brokers often cover
their NIKKI trading margin losses by selling their Palladium positions
on the Metals Exchanges.   Of course, before you take the plunge, you
might want to double check the medium to long range performance charts.
 
Palladium in Japan is associated with a positive sense (???), -- maybe
it's a kind of good luck metal.
 
              If this trading tip makes you big bucks,
                     be sure to donate the usual
                     five percent commission fee
               to an advanced fusion research project.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.03 /  Mark /  Re: Should be easy?
     
Originally-From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Should be easy?
Date: 3 Apr 1993 21:57:09 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <930322203633_72240.1256_EHL55-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>The U.S. is a conservative, technological backwater, incapable of producing
>even simple things like televisions, CD ROMS, laser printers, machine tools
>and microwave ovens...
 
No assessment of the US is complete until it takes me into account.
 
Give me enough money, and I'll make you the best damned laser printer on this
planet.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmarkh cudlnMark cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Former Skeptics
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Former Skeptics
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 09:24:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Schultz asks:
 
     "My question is are there any 'skeptics' (i.e. people who started the
     experiment to prove it wouldn't work) who are now 'believers' in the case
     of Cold Fusion?"
 
Yes, there are such former skeptics. I have met hundreds of them. In 1989, they
had never heard of cold fusion. In 1990 they did not believe it existed.
However, they performed experiments, replicated the effect at very high signal
to noise ratios, so now they firmly believe it exists. They have make hundreds
of public statements, and published dozens of peer-reviewed articles saying
exactly this: "I did not believe this at first, I performed an experiment, and
now I am certain it is real." These people are the top scientists and decision
makers at:
 
The Ministry of International Trade & Industry
The National Institute for Fusion Science
Osaka University
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Toyota
Hitachi
Toshiba
Mitsubishi
NTT
...and 80 or 90 other major Japanese R&D institutions.
 
Other well known former skeptics include Dr. Heinz Gerischer, and Dr. Martin
Fleischmann, two of Europe's leading electrochemists. Dr. Fleischmann is a
Fellow of the Royal Society, President of the International Electrochemical
Society (1970 - 1972), author of over 200 papers, winner of the U.S.
Electrochemical Society's Palladium Medal, and one of the most skeptical, level
headed, and brilliant scientists I have ever had the privilege of meeting. He
is now senior researcher for Technova, and chief advisor to the Ministry of
International Trade & Industry, Government of Japan.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Jed Rothwell /  A stand alone demo
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A stand alone demo
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 09:24:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Several people who are ignorant of the problems in building and operating
CF cells have said that a "self-sustaining" stand alone generator should be
built in the near future in order to "convince the skeptics." Some people
have pointed out well known, elementary facts about carnot efficiency
limitations and heat-energy conversion, and said that since CF cells have
exceeded these limitations, it should now be possible to build a stand
alone generator. For example, Mike Jamison comments:
 
     "The amount of energy the CF cell would need to produce to keep itself
     running with the above setup would be about 3.7 times the power
     required to run it."
 
This discussions ignore the many well-known practical and engineering
limitations and problems now bedeviling CF workers. It is one thing to be
able to do produce a self sustaining reaction *in* *theory*, it is another
thing entirely to produce such a reaction in reality. The latter requires
many years of hard work, millions of dollars in equipment, testing, and
engineering, and patience. It is nearly as difficult and time consuming as,
say, producing a new model laser printer, or an improved automobile
collision impact detector and air bag safety system. In other words, this
is the kind of project that takes a few years; you cannot expect it to be
done overnight. On the other hand, it is nowhere near as difficult or
expensive as producing a new computer microprocessor.
 
There are several problems in building a "self sustaining" CF power
generator:
 
The conversion technology. You have many limitations here. Conventional
steam turbines which are very efficient, but you cannot build a tiny,
efficient one suitable for a table-top demo. You would have to use
something like a thermoelectric generation chip instead, which is not very
efficient.
 
Power gain and carnot efficiency. A small CF cell at about 90 C would
require a 1:10 input to output ratio. A cell at 600 C might work at 1:4,
but this would require pressurization, which makes cost & complexity
skyrocket. Instead of using a glass or steel test tube, you are forced to
develop a specialized, heavy duty, custom built engine block. Naturally,
such engine blocks will be needed in the near future as reliable cells
become available, but to build one now would be putting the cart before the
horse.
 
Physical size. CF cathodes the size of postage stamps generally produce
between 0 and 70 watts. A CF cathode the size of a shoebox would produce
between 0 and 70,000 watts (I suppose). It would be a menace. No sane
person would build one. This must wait until we can understand and control
the reaction.
 
Control. This is the key. As I said, when most workers turn on a cell, we
cannot predict with certainty whether it will work or not, and we do not
know how big a reaction it will create. It is very much like setting off
small Chinese firecrackers. Some don't work at all; some go "fssst..."; and
some go "BANG!" You cannot possibly make a reliable, practical power
reactor with a source of energy this unpredictable. P&F are far ahead of
the others in this field in solving this problem. They can be certain that
their cell will turn on, but they are still working to insure a 100%
controllable, sustained reaction.
 
Transferability. It is one thing to make a reaction occur in a carefully
monitored, visible test tube after a week of careful coaxing. It is another
thing entirely to make one work on demand in a steel engine block that was
bolted closed a month before.
 
We are making rapid, certain progress towards solving the problems I have
touched upon here. In a few years we certainly will be able to make a
stand-alone table-top power generator. The problems that need to be solved
are well defined, and increasingly well understood. They are being solved
in a methodical, analytical, scientific fashion, and as everyone knows,
science always works in the end. There can be no question that a CF
generator is possible, because prolonged, high power, high temperature CF
reactions have been observed in hundreds of experiments, in many different
laboratories.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  CF results can be wrong
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF results can be wrong
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 09:24:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Patrick Tepesch restates the basic case that is being made to support CF
as follows:
 
<<  Assumption #1:  The accuracy of calorimetric experiments which have
<<  been carried out for many years to measure heat generated by
<<  chemical reactions is sufficient....  Inaccuracy... will not be
<<  used to expalin UIP unless it can be proved that EVERY experiment
<<  which has shown UIP is in error.
 
In order to validate this type of reasoning, I think there are some
other conditions that have to be met before we can come to an understanding
as to what is the "accuracy" refered to in this quote.  Perhaps the
first step, as I have often suggested, is to simply drop from further
consideration many of the experiments that have been reported because
either they are quite possibly flawed or because their result is not
particularly significant to deciding the question.  Having thus reduced
the set of experiments to a more managable number we can then begin
to look at those features of the experiments that may possibly have
some bearing on an assessment of the accuracy.  Let me admit right
up front that I do not buy the arguments that, in general calorimetry
is so simple and straightforward, so all UIP (CF under a new label)
measurements can be put under some blanket error limit such as +/-
a watt or a joule or 10% or whatever you choose.
 
What do I see as possible indications that these measurements are
not as accurate as claimed.  Lack of reproducibility was (and still
is) often mentioned in this context.  The early measurements very
often reported the UIP in only 1 of 8 or 1 of 10 attempts.  Many
attempts  led to 100% failures.  As a result it became part of the
lore that reproduction requires that certain known (or unknown)
conditions must be satified before an experiment can succeed.  I
submit that this remains an area where lack of solid information
is too typical of the reports on a given series of experiments.
Just how many unreported failures are there, even from those
experimenters that are claiming high levels of reproducibility?
In any case it is basically a false argument to select a few
results showing UIP and attribute a high degree of accuracy to
those results while ignoring the measurements that differ by
much more than that stated accuracy from selected "correct"
results.
 
Beyond the question of the gross reproducibility aspects of the
experiments lies yet another indication that perhaps all is not
well with many of these measurements.  I refer to the fact that,
even in those cases where there is some degree of reproducibility
in the sense that some UIP is seen in most runs, the details of
the effect and its dependence on experimental variables
are still very much chaotic.  The effects seen vary in every way
imaginable.  If you pick on set of features as being well established
as showing the true nature of the UIP, there is most certainly another
set of data supporting different or contradictory features.  This
has been most evident with regard to the detection of reaction
"products" such as 4He, tritium, or neutrons.  The fact that
the experiments fail to control the observable outcome with regard
to these details is an indication that the accuracy of the
measurements may be limited in a significant, though not recognized
manner.
 
Inaccuracy, as a possible explaination for all the UIP resulting
from calorimetric measurements remains a very strong possibility
largely because there is some little agreement between experiments
correction so little agreement between experiments with regard
to details.  As long as every UIP has its own particular set of
features, then each experiment must stand on its own with no true
reproducibility yet having been demonstrated.  Under those
circumstances I doubt that it is meaningful to assign any level
of accuracy to the measurement.   As long as all measurements
showing the UIP have only one common feature, i.e. the UIP,
they clearly can be part of an ensemble of measurements with
a statistical spread that extends from zero to the max UIP.
What then is the "accuracy" of a measurement from within this
ensemble?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Droege's latest results
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's latest results
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 11:16:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) in FD 886:
 
>So my question is are there any "skeptics" (i.e. people who started the
>experiment to prove it wouldn't work) who are now "believers" in the case
>of Cold Fusion?
 
An interesting question, with several kinds of answers. I don't believe there
are any experimenters as such, that have had such a conversion. This is no
doubt because an initial skeptic will set the level of result that will be
convincing, rather high, and CNF being what it is, results being - except for
some exceptional labs - marginal at best, it is easy for a skeptic to decide
that the result is not sufficient. There have been some papers where slight
positive results have been deemed a probable error (I can't remember right
now which), or reported with a bit of hedging, usually like "More work is
needed". But noone has been knocked flat by incontrovertible evidence, without
trying for it.
 
Non-experimenters with (partial) conversions there have been. Eugene Mallove
says he is one of these, being initially skeptic but later compelled by the
evidence - as he sees it - to believe in cold fusion. Schwinger might have
been skeptical, and then came up with a theory that accounts - I think - for
the non-appearance of hard radiation (I am still waiting for someone to
explain this theory to us). Among electrochemists, the most celebrated
quasi-conversion is that of Gerischer, as eminent as you can get in the field.
He was apparently persuaded at the Como meeting, at least to the extent that
he no longer categorically denies the possibility of cold fusion.
 
I guess the bottom-line answer to the actual question is "no".
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / C Harrison /  How to search the Britz biblio with WAIS
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunsite.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to search the Britz biblio with WAIS
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:58:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This message describes how to search through Dieter Britz's bibliography
using WAIS (Wide Area Information Server -- pronounced "wayz").
 
1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...
 
    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source">
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>
 
2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
    On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
 
3.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the
    directory-of-servers.
 
    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Comments on return from Japan
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on return from Japan
Date: 2 Apr 93 18:12:40 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
It's nice to be back from Japan.  Tomorrow I leave for Sante Fe (conference
on muon physics) and Los Alamos; a quick note is all I can offer at this time.
Thanks to all who have expressed support and encouragement--like Terry--
this means much to me at this time.  (I think a reply by me to Mr. Rothwell
would not be necessary at present.)
 
1.  The Japanese I spoke to are very interested in the question of cold fusion.
A. Takahashi certainly believes his claimed xs heat is coming from d+d+d and
d+d+d+d reactions (3- and 4-body nuclear reactions!).  He showed me arguments
as to why d+d --> 4He could NOT provide the xs heat claimed; I may post his
arguments at another time.  At a symposium in Kobe, I gave a talk on cold
fusion, following Takahashi's talk.  I was amazed that he cited cluster-
impact fusion (already retracted by the BNL group) as supportive of cnf,
and named Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M as one who observed cf tritium production
(Wolf has long since retracted his claim, noting tritium contamination in
his Pd rods.  However -- Wolf does not retract his claims of 2.5 MeV *neutron*
production.)
 
Actually, Takahashi is I think the only one I spoke to on this trip that
argued for xs-heat- by-nuclear-reactions.
At the muon meeting, several asked me about cold fusion,
from Russia, U.S.A., and Japan, France -- all indicated skepticism regarding
xs-heat being nuclear in origin.  Most felt the jury is still out regarding
small nuclear effects in deuterided materials.
 
2.  Leaving Japan, I traveled to U. Hawaii where I visited my friend Prof.
Gary McMurtry.  Yes, Richard Schroeppel, there is now data showing tritium
in the magmatic water arising from Pacaya volcano in Central America, and
from Kilaeua and Mt. St. Helens; the tritium data from Galeras volcano in
Colombia is still being analyzed.
 
Can I share with you my concern at the way the McMurtry/Goff paper on volcanic
tritium is being handled?  I hope I'm not overstepping bounds here; I would
appreciate readers' insights regarding what I consider to be unfairness in
the review process of this fine paper, and what might be done about it.
 
Gary showed me the three reviews of the paper on volcanic tritium -- certainly
a thoroughly-researched paper including nearly three years of data-collection
at 3 volcanos along with exhaustive analysis to eliminate possibilities of
rain-water contamination and prosaic (decay and fission-based) explanations of
the tritium seen.  One review was enthusiastic, encouraging publication.  The
second review was supportive also, with suggestions for improvements -- the
normal sort of thing.
 
The third review was caustic, amazing.  The reviewer (anonymous) stated right
off that the paper smacked of "voodoo" and of "creationism - cold fusion".
The quoted words were used by the reviewer -- I am not making this up.
I assure you, no mention of voodoo or creationism was made in the paper nor
is justified.  If the review had been posted here, you guys would have had
a hayday tearing it apart.  But no such peer review of the review is in effect,
unfortunately, and ... I cannot say the final decision by the journal, but
you can guess, can't you?
 
What can we do?  We work for years trying to sort out our data as we feel
an obligation to do (I have been in the very same boat as the geophysicists).
Then our work is sent to reviewers -- the journal can pick skeptical reviewers,
you must know -- and the work is ill-treated.  In many cases without
opportunity for appeal, even when the review is itself shown to be faulty.
Where can we publish, other than minor journals?  Is this a power play by
--who?-- in order to stifle the "voodoo" research?  To discourage
funding through traditional pathways?  I have been terribly discouraged the
last few days.
 
I am not speaking here of an off-the-wall paper.  This is carefully
researched-- I wish you could read it and see for yourselves, but someone
does not want you to have this opportunity evidently.
 
I resent profoundly having such work thrown in the same barrel as
hyped-up claims, and trashed.  The term "cold fusion" was not used in the
paper, although fusion in the earth was mentioned as a *possible
explanation* of the data, after contamination and conventional explanations had
been thoroughly checked.
 
Perhaps you have an idea?  I have defended the peer-review system before,
but peer-review on the open net would clearly be better...but how to do?
I still
reject the use of popular media to spread unpublished claims; this is not
a scientifically useful option in my opinion.  Nor is the use of lawyers
to threaten  a reasonable approach.  Publish electronically and let *you*
have a crack at peer-reviewing?  At least then the journal does not get
to pick reviewers known to be biased.  (I do not know that this is the case in
this instance, mind you.)
 
 
3.  Dick Blue is correct that the Salamon et al. study is well done.  Note that
FPH claimed originally neutron production at 10^4 n/sec.  The Salamon paper
set an upper limit of 1 n/s, while observing the FPH cells.  Please recall
that the FPH neutron-detection claims (in their 1989 paper) were retracted
in Nature 339:667, after critical analysis of their gamma-ray plots by the
MIT group.
However, the upper limit of Salamon is too high to contradict the claims by
the BYU team.  This is the case with many "negative" experiments, such as
the Cal Tech and Chalk River efforts, but not of all experiments.  Our original
Nature paper claimed neutron production at a *maximum* of 0.4 n/s, an average
of 0.06 n/s.
 
We are still scrutinizing our results, and feel an obligation to do our best
to find out what we did (and are doing) wrong to see neutron-like signals, or to
provide compelling evidence for our claims.  We are now adding a
charged-particle detector to fit *inside* our neutron detector (scintillation
counter + 3He-filled proportional counter tubes, with delayed coincidence
required).  Large cosmic-ray veto paddles are employed in a deep-underground
location.  All pulses are digitized to provid shape and area information for
each pulse along with fast timing.  We're nearly there in terms of sensitivity
and noise-rejection, we think.  Stay tuned.  I will not predict the results of
the next and final generation of experiments, except to promise to publish
the results whatever they turn out to be --  that is, *if we can publish*.
 
4.  Thanks heartily to Bruce Dunn for insightful remarks regarding using
X-ray films to study fogging induced by hydrogen-loaded metals.  We will try
these experiments, I hope soon.  I would like to ask for your expert opinion
on the results of "dental film" exposures in the Miles et al.(China Lake)
expts. (J. Electro. Chem. 346:99 (1993)).
Note that they warn "clear regions are due to
a peeling away of the emulsion rather than non-exposure due to some water
seepage into this film" without warning of possible artifacts caused by
such seepage.
 
They still use glass flasks and claim helium
production, BTW.  I do not think that compelling evidence for helium
*production* can be seriously made when glass, known to cause He contamination,
is present.  The same problem remains in the Yamaguchi experiments.  Prof.
Nagamine of Japan told me of his amazement at the continued claims of Y,
who in a recent pre-print did not even mention the abundant glass used in the
apparatus for his experiments.
Definitive experiments require that known sources of error be
eliminated, and that redundant detectors be employed simultaneously.
 
Best Regards to all,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.04 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Comments on return from Japan
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on return from Japan
Date: 4 Apr 1993 22:54:20 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
: Dear Colleagues,
:
: Can I share with you my concern at the way the McMurtry/Goff paper on volcanic
: tritium is being handled?  I hope I'm not overstepping bounds here; I would
: appreciate readers' insights regarding what I consider to be unfairness in
: the review process of this fine paper, and what might be done about it.
:
: Gary showed me the three reviews of the paper on volcanic tritium -- certainly
: a thoroughly-researched paper including nearly three years of data-collection
: at 3 volcanos along with exhaustive analysis to eliminate possibilities of
: rain-water contamination and prosaic (decay and fission-based) explanations of
: the tritium seen.  One review was enthusiastic, encouraging publication.  The
: second review was supportive also, with suggestions for improvements -- the
: normal sort of thing.
:
: The third review was caustic, amazing.  The reviewer (anonymous) stated right
: off that the paper smacked of "voodoo" and of "creationism - cold fusion".
: The quoted words were used by the reviewer -- I am not making this up.
: I assure you, no mention of voodoo or creationism was made in the paper nor
: is justified.  If the review had been posted here, you guys would have had
: a hayday tearing it apart.  But no such peer review of the review is in effect,
: unfortunately, and ... I cannot say the final decision by the journal, but
: you can guess, can't you?
:
: What can we do?
 
How about writing a very polite letter to the journal editor, explaining
your situation.  This last review didn't sound like it objected on many
authentic scientific grounds, and your colleagues may argue to the editors
that they find it unlikely that two out of three reviewers subscribe to
"voodoo" and "creationism".
 
We once got two absolutely divergent reviews on a paper; we complained (but
nicely) and the editor sent the paper, both reviews, and our reply and
changes to a new third reviewer who said it was fine, and it got published.
 
: Best Regards to all,
: Steven Jones
 
cheers
--
-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:
cuddy4 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MAGPIE
Date: 4 Apr 93 15:35:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

There is a proposal of this sort in Los Alamos, but as far as I know it has
gone the way of all the other alternative concepts: in /dev/null.
 
It is called a high-density z-pinch, which means they fire a huge current
(some MA into a X-sect of some tens of microns) down a wire, hoping that
the magnetic field produced by the current will compress the wire down upon
its axis in a stable way. Hence the name z-pinch: think in cylindrical
coordinates; the current and the wire are in the z-direction and the
resulting magnetic field is in the phi-direction. Since the length of the
wire is much longer than its radius, the thing is modelled with
one-dimensional fluid equations. The independent variables are r and t; the
dependent variables are density, temperature, radial velocity, and
solenoidal magnetic field (B_phi). Check out a nice article in Journal of
Computational Physics: A Glasser, JCP, vol 85, p 159 (1989).
 
I hope somebody builds this. It looks to be a lot cheaper than conventional
fusion devices, if a number of technical problems can be solved.
 
MAGPIE is the British version (I don't know to what extent they have EC
funding).
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Searching for an explanation.
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Searching for an explanation.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 01:18:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, pdt@athena.mit.edu (Patrick D Tepesch) writes:
 
> Assumption #1:  The accuracy of calorimetric experiments, which have
> been carried out for many years to measure heat generated by chemical
> reactions is sufficient.  Inaccuracies in these measurements will not
> be used to explain UIP unless it can be proved that EVERY experiment
> which has shown UIP is in error.
 
This is not the normal process of science.  The experimentor must prove that
his experiment does not contain an error to the satisfaction of the outside
scientists; since after all, he knows his experiment the best.
 
In general, critics proving that EVERY experiment has an error is impossible;
in most cases the critic has only enough information to point out possible
problems in individual cases.
 
> Assumption #2:  We want to understand what is going on.
>
> Question: Shouldn't we seek an explanation (theory) for UIP regardless
> of what the nature of the phenomenon is?
 
Certainly!  At the moment, there does not seem to be any good theories to
explain "UIP", but a good one would help us know where to look.
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Answers to various questions
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answers to various questions
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:53:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Barry Merriman thinks CNF is a valid paranormal phenomena.  Did you think
I would not have paranormal controls Barry?  To another question, I will
keep working as long as it is fun, and I continue to make progress in the
measurement of heat.  There are plenty of improvements to yet be made, and
CNF experiments are good test vehicles.
 
Daniel Herrick worries that energy is somehow stored up in a cell.  We try to
keep an energy balance from the start of the run.  For example, loading the
Pd with D results in an apparent heat loss.  So does heating up the inside of
the calorimeter.  We expect to see these losses, and also expect to get the
heat back at the end of the run when we attempt to return to the starting
conditions.  A recent check at 500 hours on the current run indicated that
our balance was good to 2 mw over the 500 hours or 3600 joules.  Some
experiments have reported megajoules per cc, or 100000+ joules for our
0.1 cc experiment.  If we saw that kind of excess heat we could measure it
to a few percent.
 
Thanks to Paul Koloc and Mark Hittinger for info on Palladium.  I still have
five one oz bars.  At the present rate that will last until the year 2000.
The Japanese seem to like Palladium because it is shiny, but not too shiny.
They use it a lot for wedding rings.  Still the Pd/Pt price ratio seems to
have changed a lot, and I don't see the reason for it.
 
Jed Rothwell says that F&P material is not pure Pd.  I understand the game.
But at least I always have a winning strategy as I am selling water machines,
and I would not even be in the business without CNF.  But more and more P&F
look like a con game.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / R Schroeppel /  rejected volcanic tritium paper
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: rejected volcanic tritium paper
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:08:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

(to Steve Jones, re rejected volvanic tritium paper)
 
If your goal is a publication credit, then Matt Kennel's suggestion
is very reasonable.
 
If you don't need the pub credit:  Post the whole lot to an appropriate
preprint bulletin board, along with a 1 paragraph cover letter saying
"The American Journal of Footronics rejected the following paper,
on the basis of these three reviews; here's the original paper as submitted,
the three reviews, and the AJF rejection letter.  The paper has been
revised to include suggestions from the first two reviewers, and is
available from xxx@zzz.edu."  You'll need to include postscript files
for the graphs, etc. so anyone can judge the merits.  (I hope you
don't have photos.)
 
It's possible that reviewer three will choose to speak up, which should
enrich the discussion.  In any case, the information will be public.
The editor of AJF will explain about being at the mercy of his reviewers.
The AJF will preserve its reputation as a safe place for solid,
uncontroversial work.  We observers will sigh that we have so spend so
much effort sorting the wheat from the chaff in unsafe publications,
when we would prefer to have our thoughts predigested for us.
 
I'd like to see the paper posted here, too.  I'm still wondering how
you can be so sure you've excluded ground water, but I learn something new
everyday.
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Searching for an explan.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Searching for an explan.
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:31:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <7600041@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>; Subject: "Re: Searching for
 an explanation"; 5 Apr 1993,    Brian Rauchfuss writes:
 
==> "Assumption #1:  The accuracy of calorimetric experiments, which have
==> been carried out for many years to measure heat generated by chemical
==> reactions is sufficient.  Inaccuracies in these measurements will not
==> be used to explain UIP unless it can be proved that EVERY experiment
==> which has shown UIP is in error."
==             [pdt@athena.mit.edu (Patrick D Tepesch)
==
==  "This is not the normal process of science.  The experimentor must
==   prove that his experiment does not contain an error to the
==   satisfaction of the outside scientists; since after all, he knows his
==   experiment the best."
 
 
   Experimenter(s) must prove that the experiment works.
   Most (perhaps all) experiments have errors within them.  Set-up
   errors.  Systematic errors.   Design errors.    Calibration errors.
 
   Only through the work (force * distance) does the knowledge appear
    to set up a better experiment(s).
 
   Consider some beautiful glass-crafting-process a thousand (2?) years
ago.   The presence of the glass (a true "ash" of the chemical process)
proves the "existence" of the process.  However, was the experiment without
error.   I doubt it.   Also, if other did not know the conditions of the
furnace and glass-precursor constituents, the "skeptics" might also be
unable to reproduce the glass.   Would it matter that there were errors
in the primitive glass-fabricating process?   Would it matter that
the "skeptics" remained frustrated?
 
                           ---
 
   Patrick remains correct in that the accuracy of the calorimetry,
if performed correctly, stands -- albeit to the degree of care attended to
each experiment.
 
   Patrick appears logically correct WRT "EVERY experiment".
   Perhaps some of the famous "negative" experiments, which stand like an
   invincible ivory-tower  TRIPOD "proving" CF does not exist, have errors
   themselves?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / mitchell swartz /  CF results can be wrong
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF results can be wrong
Subject: CF results can be wrong; 5 Apr 1993
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:33:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <0096A878.7CF0DBE0.8538@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: CF results can be wrong; 5 Apr 1993
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
==  "Patrick Tepesch restates the basic case that is being made to support
==   CF as follows:
==
== <<  Assumption #1:  The accuracy of calorimetric experiments which have
== <<  been carried out for many years to measure heat generated by
== <<  chemical reactions is sufficient....  Inaccuracy... will not be
== <<  used to expalin UIP unless it can be proved that EVERY experiment
== <<  which has shown UIP is in error.
==
== In order to validate this type of reasoning, I think there are some
== other conditions that have to be met before ... an understanding
== as to what is the "accuracy" refered to in this quote.  Perhaps the
== first step, as I have often suggested .. to simply drop from further
== consideration many of the experiments that have been reported because
== either they are quite possibly flawed or because their result is not
== particularly significant to deciding the question."
 
 
   Dick, it is obvious that Patrick does not restate the basic case, but
  merely questions how skeptics can "simply drop from further
   consideration...." all "positive" experiments.
 
   He may not be aware that this is what some "skeptics" do when confronted
 with science.   Deny.   In those skeptics' 2-dimensional mind the
 Earth remains "flat" and the best thing to do is to push all those
"positive" or "uncomfortable" experiments away ---- right over the edge.
 
   Denial.   Why?   Not sure.           Meanwhile here is a
   proposed sign of the "skeptic": [offered, not by a TB, but one
                                   with an open mind; with apologies to the
                                   original author]
 
 
  First skeptic:  "First, let's kill all the "positive experiments".
 
  Second skeptic:  "A good start."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: Should be easy?
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Should be easy?
Date: 5 Apr 93 17:33:58 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <2APR199314272439@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.
ov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
> [Talking about building a self-perpetuating CF machine to prove CF works]
>
>From the little I remember of thermodynamics, Emax <= (Tsource - Tsink)/Tsink.
>
>Since the CF cells produce fairly low temperature heat (from what I've read
>here, anyway) the Tsink would have to be lowered to something way below room
>temperature, and some sort of Freon type fluid used to run the engine/generator
>combo.  You still aren't talking about something ultra-sophisticated.
 
Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds like you're talking about making an
unlimited cold pool available to the CF device.  Couldn't you then
build a heat engine using room temperature as the hot side and the
cold pool as the cold side, without using CF at all?
 
If you ran the CF device in a refrigerated room with *no* access to
the outside that would be a convincing demo, but if you just plunked
the cooling radiator into an icebox and left the rest of the machine
on your desk I wouldn't be convinced.
--
"7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity."
                        -- _Turbo C Reference Guide Version 2.0_
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-286-8581
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MAGPIE
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 19:51:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1674@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
 
>It is called a high-density z-pinch, which means they fire a huge current
>(some MA into a X-sect of some tens of microns) down a wire, hoping that
>the magnetic field produced by the current will compress the wire down upon
>its axis in a stable way.
 
If you can find a good source at Physics International in San Leandro, CA
they could probably give you all of the possible information on this sort of
thing. It seems to me that I built one of these machines in the late '60's
there. Since this is the '90's and there aren't any power stations using this
principle I would assume that the results never got any better than the
negative results we experienced.
 
At one time, the man to talk to was Dr. Ian Smith.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Comments on return from Japan
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on return from Japan
Date: 5 Apr 93 20:04:39 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Apr2.181240.549@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>Can I share with you my concern at the way the McMurtry/Goff paper on volcanic
>tritium is being handled?   ....
 
>Gary showed me the three reviews of the paper on volcanic tritium -- certainly
>a thoroughly-researched paper including nearly three years of data-collection
>at 3 volcanos along with exhaustive analysis to eliminate possibilities of
>rain-water contamination and prosaic (decay and fission-based) explanations of
>the tritium seen.  One review was enthusiastic, encouraging publication.  The
>second review was supportive also, with suggestions for improvements -- the
>normal sort of thing.
>
>The third review was caustic, amazing.  The reviewer (anonymous) stated right
>off that the paper smacked of "voodoo" and of "creationism - cold fusion".
>The quoted words were used by the reviewer -- I am not making this up.
 
I believe you.  A colleague here just got back a report on a "rapid
communication" sent in 3 months ago.  The same week he got the report
on a very long paper sent in just 2 weeks earlier.  It is probably to
your advantage that the reviewer was overly extreme in his/her comments.
An mathematician told us of a real classic at lunch the other day: "This
paper fills a well-deserved void in the literature."
 
>I assure you, no mention of voodoo or creationism was made in the paper nor
>is justified.  If the review had been posted here, you guys would have had
>a hayday tearing it apart.  But no such peer review of the review is in effect,
>unfortunately, and ... I cannot say the final decision by the journal, but
>you can guess, can't you?
>
>What can we do?   ...
 
Well, I would make the corrections noted by referee B and (perhaps) make
some small change in the text where they discuss the possible sources of
such an effect.  Then write a carefully measured reply to the editor that
emphasizes referee A and B.  The only thing I would say about C is to
apologize that "we really do not understand the reaction of C; we must
have made some poor choice of words that led to a misinterpretation of
our list of possible explanations as a definite endorsement of one of
them" (and have made some minor change that you can point out to the
editor as your attempt to eliminate the misunderstanding).
 
I suppose one could be stronger, and express your outrage that C ignored
the sound experimental work done and reacted emotionally to a single word,
but it is probably best to get such an idea across to the editor in your
comments about A and B.  That is, I would say that "We are pleased that
A and B agree that our experimental work is sound ... etc etc ... and
that the paper should be published".
 
I do not know the journal involved, but in Phys. Rev. that other review
would be seen by A and B in the second round if the revised version is
sent out again.  Thus, Cs review gets reviewed, but C remains anonymous.
 
This is an old problem.  There was a long series of letters in Physics
Today about 10 or 15 years ago on just such questions.  Should the
author be able to insist that the paper be published and give the
referee an opportunity to include a (signed!) commentary that comes
out as part of the original article?  This would actually be a plus
for certain controversial subjects -- since one would not have to wait
for a Comment much later on -- and would force the referee to be honest
as is the case in the Phys. Rev.  Comment/Comment-in-Reply system.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Bruce Scott /  Re: A stand alone demo
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A stand alone demo
Date: 5 Apr 93 20:15:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
"Physical size. CF cathodes the size of postage stamps generally produce
between 0 and 70 watts. A CF cathode the size of a shoebox would produce
between 0 and 70,000 watts (I suppose). It would be a menace. No sane
person would build one. This must wait until we can understand and control
the reaction."
 
Jed, I disagree with this. First, if you are producing 70 watts you can
light a light bulb or heat up someone's coffee. Even if it is only done
once, that would be such a leap that many dirty infidels like me would join
the faith. I really do not believe that people are doing this successfully
under the cloak of secrecy. I will believe it when I see it. Second, if
people really thought they would produce 70kW with one of these things they
would build a remote facility and demonstrate it. That they haven't leads
me to doubt your claim.
 
As you say, science is always right in the end. In this I have the greatest
faith. When your colleagues show such effects, even at the level of
Edison's first pathetic light bulbs which caused most to doubt him, they
will convince many people. The showmanship is not worth much (although I
must say it is and has been most entertaining) until this is done.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.05 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: A stand alone demo
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A stand alone demo
Date: 5 Apr 93 19:44:36 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <930404164525_72240.1256_EHL46-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> [Reasons why a CF generator can't be built right now]
>Physical size. CF cathodes the size of postage stamps generally produce
>between 0 and 70 watts. A CF cathode the size of a shoebox would produce
>between 0 and 70,000 watts (I suppose). It would be a menace. No sane
>person would build one. This must wait until we can understand and control
>the reaction.
 
Excuse me, Jed, where did this come from?  Surely it is possible to
build a cathode half the size of a shoebox, or even a quarter the
size.  As excuses go, this one is pretty useless.
 
I suppose someone at some time suggested that if you used a cathode
"the size of a shoebox" you could build a CF generator.  So I suppose
I should give you tentative credit for rebutting an actual idea,
rather than assuming you thought this up as an excuse.  But if this is
true I can only enourage you to think more about what you write, and
maybe even re-read it for content.
 
And please, please don't point out that a cathode one-quarter the size
of a shoebox might still put out 17,500 watts...
 
--
"7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity."
                        -- _Turbo C Reference Guide Version 2.0_
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-286-8581
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Comments on return from Japan
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Comments on return from Japan
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 09:54:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>Can I share with you my concern at the way the McMurtry/Goff paper on volcanic
>tritium is being handled?
...
>The third review was caustic, amazing.  The reviewer (anonymous) stated right
>off that the paper smacked of "voodoo" and of "creationism - cold fusion".
...
>What can we do?
 
In line with several others, I agree that referee C is playing into the
authors' hands. The best response is a strongly worded rebuttal, as well as
some give to referee B, who might even have been helpful, as referees often
are. A colleague of mine here submitted a paper, describing some work that was
a bit unusual (not exactly controversial). It got rubbished by a referee who
is the guru in the field, but in this case did not know what he was talking
about (he usually drops enough hints to identify himself). My colleague, after
getting over his shock and depression, wrote a beautiful rebuttal, ending with
the sentence "The paper should be published exactly as it is" - and the editor
then accepted it.
 
My feeling is always that, having submitted a paper, if you yourself are sure
it is a good paper, if it gets rejected, write a rebuttal as a first step.
Only if the editor or referee proves inflexible, try for another journal. This
is better for your self-respect than changing to the other journal straight
away. It may of course happen that you wrote a poor paper without enough
thought (I have done this). Then the referee reminds you of that, and the
proper repository is the waste basket (I did that, too). I take it that this
is not the case here, so: go for the strong rebuttal.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / Chuck Sites /  Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 04:53:56 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
On Cold He4 Fusion (or D+D-> He4 + 1000 phonons), Dick writes:
 
> Chuck Sites has ask the right questions as to how viable is the notion
> that 4He and heat are the principle products of cold fusion.  Basically
> it is an idea that just won't fly because there is no obvious way to
> couple the energy of an excited 4He nucleus to lattice phonons.
 
Dick Blue is correct.  I do have deep reservations accepting the little
experimental evidence of He4 as the ash from excess-heat cold fusion
experiments.  The problem is not limited to just the experimental
difficulties of measuring He4 in a D2 based system, but also
theoretically how to disapate the energy of the reaction without
creating other more easily measured ash and products. Ignoring
those facts, I wonder how feasible my little bit of speculation
appears.  My little bit of helium induced speculation:
 
>>   Can the weak D+D->He4*->He4 + energy fusion path be forced to occur
>> nearly 100% of the time in a solid system?  The only mechanism that
>> I can think of that could possibly produce that effect, is if the
>> a Bose particle condensate forms between D pairs.  This would have
>> the effect of forcing the condensate particles to remain in a like
>> spin state.  This might be tricky to do, but imagine that a lattice
>> configuration forms like:
>>
>>      ^
>>      |      +--+     +--+    +--+     +--+    +--+   where a=Pd Lattice
>>   E  |  DD  |  |  DD |  | He |  |  DD |  | DD |  |           potential
>>      |      |  |     |  |   4|  |     |  |    |  |         b= Intersituals
>>      +---------------------------------------------
>>             < a>< b >
>>
>>   The D pairs in an intersitual forms a pseudo-He4 Bose particle, which
>> upon fusing, alters the branching ratio to maintain the Bose character.
>> Bose particles have the interesting property to want to collect at
>> a like lower energy state. Since He4 is the lowest energy state,
>> will the pseudo-He4 ... condense?  Can hydrogen band quantum effects
>> influence the cold fusion branching ratio, or even the reaction
>> rate?  It seems possible to me but there are problems. Indeed, this
>> implies and would require that the pseudo-He4(s) condense to a
>> super-fluid in the lattice.  It has been suggested that the hydrogen
>> band state might be super-fluid so there is some weight to this argument.
>> However, I don't think it's been shown experimentally yet. The only
>> indication of a super-fluid state I can think of is if D/Pd diffusion
>> rates are abnormally high.
>>
>>    Ok, so how can one unload the localize energy of a DD reaction
>> to the lattice without imparting it by MeV kineticaly excited He4's
>> ripping  through the lattice?  The best guess I can come up with is
>> that as the condensate is created and the hydrogen band state is formed,
>> the Bose band acts as an extended single quantum system such that the
>> energy is never localized.  That's about as far as I can take the idea.
>> T. Chubb and S. Chubb have published a theory on a similar line of
>> thought that describes this process better than I can here.
 
   I think the speculation I presented is the only reasonable way to
influence the branching ratio of DD fusion.  Cold fusion, unlike hot,
relys almost exclusively on quantum-mechanical tunneling, and thus
starts with near zero center of mass momentum.  If one influences the
angular momentum of the precursor Ds, say by introducing it into an
environment like an He4 superfluid, the branching ratio of the D+D
might be influenced.  DD in liquid He4 is unlikely to fuse, and is
would probably have a fusion rate of far less than the 10E-64 f/s,
Horowitz, Koonin and others have calculated for DD gas. (Perhaps muon
catalyzation in this type environment might show the influence of a
bose condensate on the branching ratio.) However, because metals can
influence the fusion rate probability by mechanisms like electron
screening, banding mechanisms and other skeems, could doping the metal
with He4 before deuteration influence the reaction product and perhaps
the rate? I think it's a good, solid physics question. Experimentally,
Ying & Schultz tried something like this a year or so back by
initiating an PdD excess heat event with an alpha-emitter.  I think
thats way too weak of a mechanism, but they did *claim* to see a
repeatable excess heat effect.  Maybe doping the metal with He4 as
it's cast might help.
 
   Dick recognizes the main problem with all this He4 stuff.  Even the
best skeem for creating fusion in solids to create excess-heat must
answer the question; how to dissipate the energy of the highly
localized, and highly energetic excited nucleus.  The mechanism used
in hot fusion is to transfer the energy kinetically by Coulomb forces
through collisions.  Within metals, there are far more Coulomb
interactions with the fusion products than with a plasma gas system.
So overall it looks like a very efficient environment to dissipate the
energy of a fusion reaction by heat. However, while it looks good,
that tiny He4* nucleus has 24MeV to unload!  And if our knowledge of
the excited He4 nucleus is right, it must emit 24MeV in one giant
quantum step to it's ground state.  This rules out transferring the
energy piece-wise to the surrounding lattice electrons individually.
 
  I am not so sure about how the conduction band reacts though. Since
it is an extended metallic quantum state in which the DD reaction
takes place, it might be able take the energy.  I think the energy
dissipation problem could be resolved if the interaction of a hydrogen
band with the electron conduction band was better understood.  The
hydrogen band effect is relatively new physics, having only been
demonstrated a year or so ago.  If that effect exists and occurs
inside metals, the coupling of the excited He4 to the metal's electron
conduction band might come about by simply increasing the area of
interaction.  This requires further discussion.
 
A band state is a volume extended probability state, such that
overlapping position and momentum probabilities influenced by a
periodic potential creates a single quantum state.  The forces on a
band state, due to the overlap, will be distributed if the interaction
causes a quantum band state change.  If we have two band states of
differing particle types and energies, the interaction should be like
that of the individual consituant particles interacting, but unlike
the energies of a normal atomic states, the energies are distributed.
The most obvious force between a hypothetical hydrogen band and the
electron conduction band of a metal is a direct Coulomb band to band
interaction.  This might show up as anomalies of conductivity in
hydrated semiconductors and specifically hydrated materials on the
transition edge of being semiconductors, insulators, or conductors.
Anyway, getting to point.  It may be that He4* is delocalized as well
in the pseudo- He4 condensate, and is coupled to electron band state.
The energy of an in-band DD reaction has a really good chance of
dissipating the energy as phonons and infrared photons, if a
condensate restricts the energy to certain band energies.
 
It's probably a weak argument but there are hopefully a few
interesting ideas there.
 
Have Fun: Inhale helium and talk like a duck,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / Jed Rothwell /  More astoundingly stupid comments
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More astoundingly stupid comments
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 14:59:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Let's see here... we have such a batch, I hardly know where to begin.
 
Dieter Britz:
 
     "Among electrochemists, the most celebrated quasi-conversion is that of
     Gerischer, as eminent as you can get in the field. He was apparently
     persuaded at the Como meeting, at least to the extent that he no longer
     categorically denies the possibility of cold fusion."
 
Here is an extract from Gerischer's report to the German Government, written
in October, 1991:
 
     "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...
 
          The fact that, in the Republic of Germany this work has been
     inhibited is no longer justified.  It could, later on, be regarded as a
     very unfortunate gap in German research when compared with the present
     activity in other countries and particularly in Japan."
 
 
Dieter again:
 
     "I guess the bottom-line answer to the actual question is "no"." [There
     have been no conversions from skeptic to believer.]
 
Apparently, Dieter has never heard of Japan, which is the second most powerful
nation on the face of the earth. Here is a description of the "conversion" of
Japan's leading CF scientist, Hideo Ikegami as described in the New York
Times, Nov. 17, 1992:
 
     "Hideo Ikegami was directing a Japanese research project in [hot] nuclear
     fusion in 1989 when news came from the U.S. [of cold fusion]... When
     Japan's Ministry of Education asked him to divert 10 percent of his
     project's budget to support researchers wanting to explore the new 'cold
     fusion,' Dr. Ikegami refused.
 
          'At the time I thought something like this must be alchemy,' he
     recalled. But Dr. Ikegami, a professor at the National Institute for
     Fusion Science here, eventually agreed to give up 2 percent of his
     project's budget to explore the new phenomenon. Now he is doing cold
     fusion research himself and has become an avid organizer of the Japanese
     effort that is among the most active in the world."
 
Ikegami, along with one of the other 1000+ scientists now working in the
field, began as a skeptic. The reason why these scientists now believe CF is
real is because they have performed experiments and measured the effect at
high signal to noise rations, and because unlike the "skeptics" they
understand that replicated experimental evidence spells scientific truth.
 
 
Richard Blue:
 
     "Perhaps the first step, as I have often suggested, is to simply drop
     from further consideration many of the experiments that have been
     reported because either they are quite possibly flawed..."
 
The calorimetry in most CF experiments is impeccable. Some CF experiments,
like those of McKubre, set the standard for calorimetry; this is the best work
in the long history of calorimetry. For four years we have been waiting for
people like Richard to tell us what is wrong with this calorimetry. Neither
he, nor any other so-called "skeptic" has *ever* offered a single viable,
rational, reasonable objection to any one of these experiments. Instead, he
and the other have offered a series of daffy, absurd, unscientific,
nonsensical "ideas" like:
 
     "A 60 ml/min flow of water might cause multiwatt heat because of 'water
     friction'" - Richard
 
     "McKubre's experiments were repeated successfully too many times. This is
     a sign of compulsive behavior." - Richard again
 
     "Heat will of itself transfer from a cooler body to a hotter body." - Tom
     Droege
 
     "You cannot measure the heat of vaporization with ordinary laboratory
     equipment, like a deep test tube. People have been doing it this way for
     200 years, but they must have all been mistaken." - Tom again.
 
     "If you leave your refrigerator door open, it will cool down your
     kitchen." - Any number of people who do not understand what a 'heat pump'
     is.
 
Nonsense "suggestions" like this have no role to play in a rational,
scientific debate. Because there can be no rational objection to the
calorimetry, the "skeptics" spout nonsense like this instead of confronting
the truth. If a supporter of CF was to post "ideas" as lamebrained as these,
the so-called skeptics would come down on him like a ton of bricks, but when
"skeptics" post these "ideas" they are met with golden silence from the others
in their camp. The skeptics have a double standard:
 
     "An objection to a CF experiment, no matter how ludicrous, is probably
     correct and deserves the utmost respect. If it is wrong, keep quiet about
     it, don't hurt our side."
 
     "Any CF experiment is wrong, no matter how well done it is, no matter how
     many times it is repeated successfully, no matter how high the signal to
     noise ratio. We don't have to give a reason, we just know it is wrong."
 
 
Tom Droege:
 
     "Jed Rothwell says that F&P material is not pure Pd.  I understand the
     game. But at least I always have a winning strategy as I am selling water
     machines, and I would not even be in the business without CNF.  But more
     and more P&F look like a con game."
 
Apparently, Tom thinks that if you do original, interesting work in CF
metallurgy, that constitutes a "con game." Or perhaps he thinks that if you
publish details of this work in an important Japanese technical magazine
that's a con game. Or perhaps he thinks that if you do experiments that
actually work, and then publish detailed descriptions of those experiments,
that is a con game.
 
It has never been a secret that P&F have been experimenting with alloys and
with controlled grain size. If other readers want to know the details of
Japanese industrial R&D, I suggest you learn to read Japanese. The only "con
game" in CF are attitudes and the statements like this one from Tom. P&F have
acted honorably, and followed the rules from day one. They are releasing far
more information than you would expect from a private industrial R&D program.
They have never "conned" anyone about anything. Every important statement and
discovery they have announced has been replicated and has been proved correct
in all important respects.
 
Statements like Tom's are outrageous, factually incorrect, and uncalled for.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  How many watts will fit in a shoe box.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How many watts will fit in a shoe box.
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 19:33:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Or angles on the head of a pin.  Jed, I estimate that you are off at least
an order of magnitude in your guess of how many mm thick postage stamp
cathodes would fit in a shoe box.  The Japanese have apparently tried large
cathodes.  The NHK film showed several that (to an experienced eye) had
obviously been run.
 
In any case, it only takes one experiment that you can tell me how to
perform, and that produces as little as one watt per cc.  Then I will
convince the world.
 
To all you out there who want a closed loop light bulb demo, or what not, I
say it ain't necessary!  All that is needed is a repeatable experiment that
produces a few mw of "anomalous heat" and we will have a new field for
study.
 
BTW (another code word) what the heck is UIP?  I thought I was following this
discussion, but someone (possibly Jed or Mitchell - I skim them pretty fast)
has slipped in a new term on me!
 
That should be angels in the first line, but possible the number of angles
on the head of a pin is a more interesting problem.  Hmm.  The more I type
the more typos I make.  Better quit.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / Jed Rothwell /  The infidel speaks
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The infidel speaks
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 19:33:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Bruce Scott says:
 
     "...if you are producing 70 watts you can light a light bulb or heat up
     someone's coffee. Even if it is only done once, that would be such a leap
     that many dirty infidels like me would join the faith. I really do not
     believe that people are doing this successfully under the cloak of
     secrecy. I will believe it when I see it. Second, if people really
     thought they would produce 70kW with one of these things they would build
     a remote facility and demonstrate it. That they haven't leads me to doubt
     your claim."
 
First of all, it is not a bit secret. These results came out in a peer
reviewed Japanese journal of physics. If it was secret, I would never mention
it. I know lots of secrets, and the reason I know them is because I keep my
mouth shut. I only reveal secrets when they will damage my enemies, when it
serves my political purposes, and when the people who reveal the secrets ask
me to get them published.
 
Second, the 70 watt was not a constant flow, it was a kind of "fluttering peak
power" for an hour or so. It was more like the "Bang!" of a firecracker than
the steady heat of a burning lump of coal. P&F's output is plenty hot, 100%
predictable, and much steadier, but even that fluctuates significantly, which
makes it impractical to generate electricity with a small scale device.
 
Finally, the people at Toyota, for example, don't give a darn whether you
believe them or not, so they are in no hurry to demonstrate a working model of
anything. They have oceans of money, and they LOVE having no competition in
the U.S., so they would be very happy if you and every other American
scientist would continue to disbelieve the obvious, clear cut calorimetric
data. That way, they get the whole enchilada, and nobody will ever be able to
claim, "the Japanese kept this secret!" We have mountains of documentation,
newspapers (including the New York Times), videos and other proof showing that
the Japanese were extraordinarily open, generous, and willing to share the
data, and tell the U.S. all about it. People like you, however, demand
impossible proof. You demand to see a demo, even though a cursory look at the
literature will reveal dozens of reasons why a demo is unfeasible, unworkable,
and would be a waste of precious time and engineering talent at this stage.
 
Why aren't you satisfied with calorimetry? It has worked perfectly well since
the time of the French Revolution. If this kind of calorimetric data was
presented to describe a newly discovered chemical reaction, not one scientist,
anywhere on earth, would have any doubt whatsoever that the data was correct
and accurate enough to justify the conclusion. As Peter Hagelstein said:
 
     "Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy
     skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate
     closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has
     been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that
     positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the
     reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough.
     I have heard some skeptics saying that a commercial product is the next
     hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be
     justified. This is simply not right."
 
I know what game you are playing. It is called: "move the goal posts another
100 yards every time they get close to scoring." This is the same nonsense we
saw back in 1908 when the Wrights demonstrated the airplane. "Okay," the so-
called skeptics said, "it flys. But it will never carry a passenger, and it
will never be practical."
 
As I said, the Japanese are off the hook. When the Shit Hits The Fan, it will
be entirely the fault of the U.S. "skeptics." After all, Toyota broadcast a
film on the BBC demonstrating absolutely 100% certain proof of the existence
of cold fusion, and proof that it is not a chemical reaction. They have
invited dozens of scientists to see the experiments, they have invited other
film crews. How much more public can they get? They have published loads of
details about their experiment, they send out brochures and promotional videos
describing their equipment and the metallurgy that Tom Droege thinks is a
"scam." They have done far, *far* more than any corporation would normally do
to show you and the rest of the world exactly what they are up to, and exactly
how it works. If you choose to ignore this, if you choose to pretend that
elementary thermodynamics do not exist -- hey, that's your problem, and your
responsibility. When Toyota and Hitachi blow us out of the water, it will be
your fault, because they have been telling us everything all along, offering
to help us replicate it, and offering to tell the DoE about it.
 
By the way, Toyota, Pons, Fleischmann and I agree on many things, but we do
not share exactly the same agenda. I am much more anxious to see the U.S. wake
up and regain its sanity than they are. The information they have made public
has been an enormous help to me in my efforts to promote CF. I thank them very
much for this extraordinary, unprecedented openness and generosity; I have
never seen a major corporation act in such a socially responsible, open
fashion. However, let me make it clear that they do not support my efforts,
they are not always happy with my efforts, and they certainly would never want
me to claim I speak for them!
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  More nuclear physics data, in case
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More nuclear physics data, in case
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 21:59:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In case anyone still believes CF involves nuclear reactions and that
nuclear reaction data is relevant to CF, I have a paper to offer for
inclusion in Dieter's bibliography:
 
"Measurement of branching ratios of low energy deuteron-induced nuclear
reactions on 2H, 6Li, and 10B,"  F. E. Cecil, H. Lui, J. S. Van, and
G. M. Hale, Phys. Rev. C47,1178(1993).
 
Abstract:  We have measured the branching ratios 2H(d,p)3H/2H(d,n)3He,
6Li(d,p)7Li/6Li(d,alpha)4He, and 10B(d,p)11B/10B(d,alpha)8Be between
c.m. energies of 3 and 15 keV, 20 and 135 keV, and 58 and 142 keV, re-
spectively.  Our measurements of the 2H-d reaction are in good agree-
ment with R-matrix calculations of the branching ratio.  We find no
enhancement of the (d,p) branches of those reactions at the lowest
observed energies.  Implications of our findings to recent claims of
anomalous production of heat from deuterium-metal systems are
presented.
 
Basically, these data indicate that branching ratios extrapolated
from higher energies are still very much on track as the energy
is pushed to lower values.  There is no hint of any unexpected
change as a function of energy alone so it still appears that there
ought to be 10^12 neutrons, more or less, for each watt of power
produced by d+d reactions.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Use of "" by Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Use of "" by Jed Rothwell
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 23:41:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell seems to have only a vague idea of how to use the symbol "".
Jed, you use quotes ("") to mark out and exact copy of something I wrote or
said.  They should not be used to mark out your interpretation of what I
wrote or said.  While no one would get upset over a typo or two in a quote,
a complete change of meaning would have some call you a liar.  I, however
do not call you a liar.  I just think you need to enhance your quotation
skills.
 
Meanwhile, some may detect thaty I am turning sort of negative on the
prospects for CNF.  I have been studying the McKubre preprint from the
Nagoya meeting.  It is really suspicious that the "anomalous heat" tracks
the current ramp so closely.  This is also seen in some of the runs from
the Como proceedings.  Fortunately I have some of the same apparatus that
is used by McKubre and can attempt to reproduce what I believe is the
problem.  My theory is that it is the problem pointed out by Garwin at
Santa Fe, and repeated by me (using Garwin's view graph) at Salt Lake City.
 
In a noisy environment one must be very careful in measuring E and I for
the computation of power by E*I.  It is clear to me that the cells get
noisy both with time and current density.  Now as the cell is ramped up
after a long run there is a wonderful opportunity to mis measure the power
as the cell becomes noisy.  A lot depends on exactly how the meter works.
I have the same Keithley meter as used by McKubre.  A little test will tell
if it reads the right thing to under measure the power.
 
Meanwhile, at 700 hours or so, the present run sees nothing, to within
100 mw per cc, a factor of 200 or so below the typical P&F claim.
 
Tom Droege]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Humorous weapons (was McElwaine's latest)
Date:  6 Apr 1993 13:07 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Mar25.114902.10656@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.u
 (Nick Maclaren) writes...
>I have rec.humor.funny just following comp.physics.fusion in my .newsrc
>and, as you can expect, I thought that I was in the wrong newsgroup!
>I think that the existence of 'microwave BRAIN-SCRAMBLING weapons' might
>explain a great deal about this series of postings.
 
That, or all those unshielded multi-megawatt russian reactors we haven't
seen flying around.
>
>However, he reminds me about a question that I would be interested in an
>answer to (for curiosity only, incidentally).  If you charge up a 1 micron
>diameter lump of lithium hydride and sling it at a solid object at 1% of
>light speed, how much of it would fuse?  I assume very little but, if not,
>could it also be used for power generation?
 
I don't have any idea of how much of it would fuse, but was interested in
the fact that the fuel used in H-bombs is a solid (LiD, I think).  Interesting
article in the latest Popular Science (March '93, cover story).
 
Taking your idea one step farther:
 
Imagine a single-component "plasma", comprised of clumps of LiD particles.
The particles are travelling in opposite directions, (as in the Migma
reactor).  The biggest problem will probably be the charge to mass ratio
of the clump - it must be large enough that F = qV X B provides a useful
amount of force, but small enough that the clump stays together.  Also,
accelerating the clump to a fraction of c would require a huge potential
difference:
 
If we assume a charge to mass ratio of 0.001 (0.1% ionization) the equivalent
voltage would be 1,000 times larger than for a fully ionized particle.
Actually, that's more of an engineering problem than anything else.
 
Ditto for the B field required to confine the "plasma" - though the reactor
can be made sufficiently large to compensate for this.
 
An application that might be a lot more interesting is ion propulsion -
Heavy ionized atoms (currently Xenon gas) are accelerated through a potential
(about 1,500 volts, I believe) to produce thrust - about 0.5 Newtons in the
largest engines.  As I understand it, the biggest problem with current ion
engines is the erosion of the grid used for developing the accelerating
potential.  Perhaps "clumpy" ions would give better thrust, with little or
no more erosion... (I know a few people working on ion engines at LeRC, if
anyone's interested).
 
To reach scientific breakeven with clumpy fusion:
 
Assume input power = 20 keV per atom, output per fuse = 2 MeV (to make the
math easy :-) )
 
Looks like you'd need 2% fusion per clump (2 atoms @ 20 keV --> 1 atom +
2 MeV).
>
>
>Nick Maclaren
>University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
>New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
>Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
>Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
>Tel.:   +44 223 334761
>Fax:    +44 223 334679
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 /  RUDEN /  Re: MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: ruden@essvax.plk.af.mil ("RUDEN, EDWARD")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MAGPIE
Date: 6 Apr 93 13:43:00 MDT

w.r.t:
 
| Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
| Subject: MAGPIE
| Message-ID: <9304040019.AA06959@SunWorld.COM>
| From: david@sunworld.com (David Burnette)
| Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1993 03:12:30 GMT
| The article describes a phenomenon of "radiative collapse", which will
| cause the plasma to radiate energy and collapse, causing it to radiate
| more energy and collapse still further, finally reaching a degenerate
| state. This seems to be the stuff of (hopefully) controlled nuclear
| fusion. Has anyone heard of this experiment or similar ones? Can
| anyone elaborate on the feasibility of such a concept?
 
Imploding (Z-pinching) extruded frozen deuterium fibers has been the subject of
experiments at Los Alamos (J. Shlacther, et. al.) and Navel Research
Lab (J. Sethian, et. al.) for the last several years.  Many interesting
preliminary results where reported, by high energy scaling was never
complete.  The experiments are not presently funded.
 
Edward L. Ruden, Phillips Laboratroy, USAF
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenruden cudlnRUDEN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Comments on return from Japan
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on return from Japan
Subject: Re: Comments on return from Japan
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 17:28:16 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Subject: Re: Comments on return from Japan
 
Hi folks,
 
In <1993Apr2.181240.549@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu says:
 
> Can I share with you my concern at the way the McMurtry/Goff paper on volcanic
> tritium is being handled?  I hope I'm not overstepping bounds here; I would
> appreciate readers' insights regarding what I consider to be unfairness in
> the review process of this fine paper, and what might be done about it.
>
> Gary showed me the three reviews of the paper on volcanic tritium -- certainly
> a thoroughly-researched paper including nearly three years of data-collection
> at 3 volcanos along with exhaustive analysis to eliminate possibilities of
> rain-water contamination and prosaic (decay and fission-based) explanations of
> the tritium seen.  One review was enthusiastic, encouraging publication.  The
> second review was supportive also, with suggestions for improvements -- the
> normal sort of thing.
>
> The third review was caustic, amazing.  The reviewer (anonymous) stated right
> off that the paper smacked of "voodoo" and of "creationism - cold fusion".
> The quoted words were used by the reviewer -- I am not making this up.
> I assure you, no mention of voodoo or creationism was made in the paper nor
> is justified...
 
Interesting.  It's been over 2000 years since the principles of fair argument
were first stated back in ancient Greece, yet simple examples of how _not_ to
follow them still show up in journals devoted to disciplines of science such
as physics, where poor, bewildered amateurs such as myself might have assumed
that good logic would be a prerequisite.
 
The logic of the third reviewer can be roughly summarized as follows:
 
   o  "I do not have any particular objections to their data and reasoning,
       but want anyone reading this to know that the authors are disgusting
       charlatans ("voodoo"), religious fanatics ("creationism"), and are
       trying to hoodwink the public with false physics ("cold fusion").
 
   o  "Please do not examine their data, no matter how meticulously it has
       been prepared or how much work was put into it, because the authors
       are _so_ disgusting that you really shouldn't have to bother."
 
   o  "By way of proof I note that the data they have prepared does not fit
       my understanding of known theory, and thus is clearly wrong.  That
       no one has ever examined this issue so closely from an experimental
       perspective is irrelevant, because that data contradicts what I think
       -- and since _I_ am not a disgusting person, that settles it and at
       the same time firmly proves the charge of voodoo (i.e., the practice
       of magic instead of science)."
 
   o  "By way of proof I also suspect that the reader knows, just as I do,
       that the people involved here have know connections both to Mormonism,
       and 'cold fusion' types.  They probably even go to Sunday School and
       buy palladium stock, so... guilt by association and supposition, QED!"
 
What fascinates me about this is that such a review even made it out.  I
know a couple of editors in my own discipline of software pretty well, and
I honestly suspect that with them a review like that would have gotten the
_reviewer_ canned, not the paper.  Most editors aren't very pleased with
that kind of input, as it is patently nonsense to anyone who must look first
at the _language_ of the argument.  It just makes the editor's job harder.
 
The recommendations from others about writing to the editor were good, and
the only thing I might add is that it might not hurt to be very clear about
how decidely unscientific the use of emotionally charged words and phrases
(vs. examination of the data) is in such a review.  An editor who is doing
their job may very well agree, and toss out the review instead of the paper.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. - Steve: Hang in there.  Someone usually don't get that upset by a data-
       intensive paper unless a part of him really _does_ believe it may be
       true -- and the rest of them finds that prospect so upsetting that
       he can no longer look at the data objectively, but must instead find
       a reason to disregard it.  That third reviewer may have inadvertently
       have given the paper the best recommendation of any of reviewers.
       (But don't let him know, or he might go into apoplexy!)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Comments on return from Japan
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on return from Japan
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 22:52:05 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Apr6.172816.13762@asl.dl.nec.com> I wrote:
 
> Interesting.  It's been over 2000 years since the principles of fair argument
> were first stated back in ancient Greece, yet simple examples of how _not_ to
> follow them still show up in journals devoted to disciplines of science such
> as physics, where poor, bewildered amateurs such as myself might have assumed
> that good logic would be a prerequisite...  ;-)
 
                                         ^^^^^^^^
Hmm.  There _really_ should have been a smilely at that end of that paragraph,
as I wasn't particularly meaning to start a software-vs-physics feud this week.
(Maybe next week??)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.06 / Bruce Scott /  Re: MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MAGPIE
Date: 6 Apr 93 16:10:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

I had posted:
 
   It is called a high-density z-pinch, which means they fire a huge
   current (some MA into a X-sect of some tens of microns) down a wire,
   hoping that the magnetic field produced by the current will compress
   the wire down upon its axis in a stable way.
 
and Thomas Kunich responded:
 
   If you can find a good source at Physics International in San Leandro,
   CA they could probably give you all of the possible information on
   this sort of thing. It seems to me that I built one of these machines
   in the late '60's there. Since this is the '90's and there aren't any
   power stations using this principle I would assume that the results
   never got any better than the negative results we experienced.
 
 
This was also my impression until a year or so ago. It seems that some
believe that some of the MHD problems can be resolved using specific
initial conditions and current ramping procedures, and that the current can
be ramped much faster than thought before. That is all I (think I) know.
The people at Los Alamos most certainly think they can get somewhere with
this, and that it was premature to write it off.
 
Alan Glasser's paper mentions that MHD theory results in stability against
the sausage (interchange) modes if the pressure profile can be kept smooth.
He goes on to state that the high-density z-pinch (HDZP) is better able to
do this than the early experiments in which a diffuse gas was used instead
of a frozen fiber--the gas was obviously in contact with the outer vessel
wall at the start, prohibiting a clean ramp-up phase. I suggest perusing
his reference list. Glasser's paper is in Journal of Computational Physics
(1989), vol 85, p 159. The main journal citation for the HDZP is to
J D Sethian et al, Phys Rev Letters (1987), vol 59, p 892; that to the MHD
theory is to P Rosenau, R A Nebel, and H R Lewis, Phys Fluids B (1989), vol
1, p 1233.
 
As you can see, this is recent stuff, and the protagonists are most likely
very familiar with the results you mention.
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The infidel speaks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The infidel speaks
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 11:36:45 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930406183402_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Toyota, Pons, Fleischmann and I agree on many things, but we do
> not share exactly the same agenda. I am much more anxious to see the
> U.S. wake up and regain its sanity
 
 
Why? If CF is so simple that it only requires ~$10M/yr and a few chemists
to have full fledged, succesful R&D program, and apparently doesn't require
unduly novel techniques, how could we really get behind? Once they
unveil the demo reactor, we just develop our own, and so it takes
us an extra 3 years. We wouldn't have any need for the product on a shorter
timescale than that anyway. I assume most other major countries would
take a similar approach, rather than bother to become dependent on Japan
for the technology.  I mean, its not like they are building an SSC
and we have to decide wether to join them or build our own.
 
Part of the point is, even if there were suddenly a new source of
*free* energy, it would still take a couple years to get it on line.
So the fact that the new source has a development time constant
of a couple years is not such a big deal. And we are talking
essentially free energy here, in the sense that no countries
would have monopoly on the ingredients needed (unlike oil, coal , nuke).
 
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Dieter Britz /  PS to: Re: Droege's latest results
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PS to: Re: Droege's latest results
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:44:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I want to add a PS to what I wrote in answer to
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) in FD 886:
 
>So my question is are there any "skeptics" (i.e. people who started the
>experiment to prove it wouldn't work) who are now "believers" in the case
>of Cold Fusion?
 
I wrote, as the last sentence,
 
>I guess the bottom-line answer to the actual question is "no".
 
Please note that I meant the question as it stood, i.e. I am talking (as
Richard was) about experimenters becoming believers on the basis of
experiments they did. I know of noone in this category, but stand ready to be
corrected. People like Gerischer or Ikegami (whom I did not name), if we can
call them believers, became so on the basis not of their own experiments,
but of others'.
 
Happy Easter eggs to y'all.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Moving goal posts?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moving goal posts?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:44:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell asserts that skeptics "move the goal posts another 100 yards"
each time CF research has provided convincing evidence in support of the
effect.  Let us consider the specific suggestion that the detection of
reaction products is crucial to deciding the CF issue.  This "goal post"
has certainly been in place right from the beginning, and it has been
the corner stone of the case made by many of the most well known skeptics.
Pons and Fleischmann recognized the need for direct evidence of a nuclear
reaction in their failed effort to provide that evidence.  I suspect that
most scientists involved in CF research acknowledge the need for at
least some form of analysis aimed at determining reaction product yields.
The need for this kind of data is, and always has been, solidly established;
and indeed there is a significant body of data.  The problem for CF advocates
is that they don't want to acknowledge the one logical conclusion that
is the best match for the data.  The evidence clearly indicates that cold
fusion does not occur, at least not at the claimed power levels.  The
goal posts are right where they have always been, Jed, and all you team
has ever come up with is lots of big talk and fancy foot work.
 
P.S.  I am guilty of propogating the UIP label, although I didn't introduce
      it.  As I recall it stood for Unidentified Interesting Phenomenon.
      It really isn't any more better than CF, so I'll stay with CF and let
      UIP pass from the scene along with neutronpicnic or whatever that was.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  70 watt firecrackers or fizzles
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 70 watt firecrackers or fizzles
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 14:32:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwells latest missive has some beautiful CF doublespeak in it
that just has to be given a closer examination:
 
< "It was more like the 'Bang!" of a firecracker than the steady heat >
< of a burning lump of coal.  P&F's output is plenty hot, 100% predictable,
< and much steadier, but even then that fluctuates significantly,     >
< which makes it impractical to generate electricity with a small scale >
< device."
 
In this brief passage we have Jed's acknowledgement that the "70 Watts"
attributed to some CF device isn't really going to light a light or
even heat a cup of coffee, but where does the next sentence take us?
First we get a very positive assessment of P&F's output: "plenty hot",
"100% predictable", "much steadier".  Then we get what I suspect is
closer to the truth: "fluctuates" and "impractical".  In summary it
would seem that CF research has advanced to the point where it can
perhaps heat a demitasse of coffee or at least splatter it out of
the cup (provided of course you take your brew deuterated).
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Dieter Britz /  Does an open fridge cool the room?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does an open fridge cool the room?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 14:32:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Apparently Tom Droege posted something to the effect that if you leave a
fridge door open, the room will get cooler; and he is thought to be wrong.
This is an old fallacy alright, but Tom's statement is nevertheless correct,
as stated.
 
Let's close the fridge first, and go back to the time when we first turned it
on. The room is like a calorimeter, with some extra heat from the back of the
fridge, where the heat (and a bit extra) comes out that was taken from the
inside, and the room thus establishes a new (higher)  equilibrium temperature,
dissipating that heat at some steady rate. If you like, we have established a
partitioning of the room into an overall hotter partition (outside the
fridge), and an overall cooler one (inside the fridge). In any case, the room
is a bit warmer than it was before we put in and turned on the fridge. Now
open the fridge. The fridge's insides warm up while the room cools down a
little - still not quite down to the pre-fridge time but lower. So Tom is
right. He does know his calorimetry.
 
The old fallacy is, of course, the idea that you can use a fridge as an air
conditioner. The room, with an open fridge working in it, would be a little
warmer than without it. We all know about that; certainly Tom does.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Jed Rothwell /  A humorous paraphrase
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A humorous paraphrase
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 23:41:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege objected to my humorous paraphrase of his statements. I think the
reader can tell at a glance that Tom would never actually say:
 
     "Heat will of itself transfer from a cooler body to a hotter body."
 
This is a precise negation of the second law of thermodynamics. If Tom was to
say that, we would assume it was a joke. What he actually said was:
 
     "Superman would have a tough time seeing into my cell there are so many
     radiation shields.  But you can sure see the P&F cells, and there are
     four of them in the box together all likely talking to each other. I
     could not see any radiation shields between the cells.  Someone out there
     that knows might look up how good water is as an infra red radiation
     shield..."
 
I gather this is not a joke. What Tom is postulating here is that a cell at
one temperature can "talk to" another cell, zap it with infrared radiation,
and raise the temperature of the other cell. Certainly, if you put a cell at
90 C next to a cell at 40 C, the hot one will heat up the cooler one, and
perhaps infrared radiation plays a role. However, you cannot drive up the
temperature of one cell to boiling by stealing heat via radiation from other
cells which are below boiling. That is a violation of the second law. Infrared
radiation cannot possibly explain what the video shows: one cell boiling, the
others quiescent (either below boiling, or turned off.)
 
In other words, Tom's statement boils down to same meaning as the first
sentence. It is an obvious, gross violation of elementary physics.
Unfortunately, so are all of his other "objections" to the P&F experiment, as
are his "objections" to the experiments of Takahashi, McKubre and me (for that
matter). All of his objections -- the "miniature storms" the "steam carrying
off water" scenario -- all are preposterous, and without merit. So are the
"objections" from Richard Blue, Frank Close and the other crackpot "skeptics"
who are attempting to prove that calorimetry does not exist.
 
I can see only two possible reasons why anyone would post such appallingly
ignorant comments as these people post: either they are intellectually sloppy;
or they are ignorant of the fundamentals of physics.
 
If *I* was to post statements as abysmally stupid as these, a zillion
"skeptics" would leap out of the woodwork, accuse me of not knowing anything
about science, and tell me to stop cluttering up the network. Tom, however, is
in the good graces of the "skeptics" so not one of them bothered to point out
that you cannot transfer heat by radiation from one body to a hotter body, and
you cannot running cells electrically in series, with one cell turned off.
Here we have a distinguished audience of learned professors, Close, Britz,
Blue, and so many others, and NOT ONE OF THEM noticed or mentioned the fact
that poor old Tom made these terrific blunders in his "analysis" of P&F.
 
The reader might wonder, "why on earth does it take a humble computer
programmer like Jed to point these things out, when so many distinguished
scientists read these notes?" The answer is really very simple once you grasp
the double standard:
 
     Any positive evidence about CF is false, no matter how high the signal to
     noise ratio.
 
     Anything negative about CF is true. It does not matter how stupid the
     "negative" statement is, it is accepted as gospel without question or
     examination by people who have the chutzpa to call themselves "skeptics."
 
 
There are many other double standards at work in this field. Recently, for
example, we have seen poor Steven Jones moaning about his friend's paper being
rejected. Of course, this happens to all CF papers, all letters about CF, and
any news item about CF. In October, Nature magazine gleefully said that
Yamaguchi did not have a paper, or even an abstract. On the day their reporter
wrote that, in a nearby city, Yamaguchi was handing out abstracts and copies
of his paper during a major International Conference. Nature refuses to print
letter after letter from different scientists showing a gross error in the
Lewis work at CalTech. As Nobel Laureate 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."
 
Steve, unfortunately, has a double standard too. He thinks it is perfectly
okay for him to unfairly attack P&F, and for him to ignore experimental proof
of excess heat 3 to 5 orders beyond chemistry. He thinks it is okay to dismiss
the work of hundreds of scientists as "a mistake." But, when someone treats
*him* that way, or his friends that way... he gets upset about how unfair and
cruel the world is! What a pity! If Steve and the other pseudo-skeptics would
look in the mirror, they would see exactly the same unfair, intolerant,
unscientific attitudes they condemn in other people.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  How many watts will fit in a shoe box.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How many watts will fit in a shoe box.
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 15:39:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <930406135410.20601e8f@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
     Subject: How many watts will fit in a shoe box.
     Tom Droege [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov] writes:
 
===  "Or angles on the head of a pin.  Jed, I estimate that you are off at
===  least an order of magnitude in your guess of how many mm thick
===  postage stamp cathodes would fit in a shoe box."
 
    Order of magnitude isn't bad, considering ....
 
    Also, it's to Jed's credit to even try to calculate such things.
 
    Some physics teacher's I've been lucky enough to listen to
     have stated that to be within a factor of (+/-10) is not
     too bad for a theoretical calculation.
 
     Why some here have been off by 10^12 or more.    ;)
 
 
===  "BTW (another code word) what the heck is UIP?  I thought I was
===  following this discussion, but someone (possibly Jed or Mitchell -
===  I skim them pretty fast) has slipped in a new term on me!"
 
   UIP is just another code name for COLD FUSION.
   UIP was coined by Patrick Tepesch.
 
   Why a new name? Apparently the skeptics (not Patrick, who is open-minded)
  have bashed cold fusion so long that the "negative vibes" have hit their
  own work.
 
   Fact is:  COLD FUSION is pretty descriptive given the tritium, helium4,
               and other products at the temperatures observed.
 
      Good luck, Tom on your work.
 
                                       Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 15:41:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In <1993Apr7.113645.25341@math.ucla.edu>; Sub:"Re: The infidel speaks"
   Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) writes:
 
==> "Toyota, Pons, Fleischmann and I agree on many things, but we do
==> not share exactly the same agenda. I am much more anxious to see the
==> U.S. wake up and regain its sanity"
==    [<930406183402_72240.1256_EHL58-1@CompuServe.COM>; Jed Rothwell]
== "Why? If CF is so simple that it only requires ~$10M/yr and a few chemists
== to have full fledged, succesful R&D program, and apparently doesn't require
== unduly novel techniques, how could we really get behind?"
 
    Barry, development of successful technology would probably exceed
    these putative levels.  Jed may have been speaking of initial funding
    levels to secure the early technologic advantage.
 
 
==  "Once they unveil the demo reactor, we just develop our own, and so it
==  takes us an extra 3 years."
 
   To do what?  Buy the reactors?   Intellectual property lost means
     jobs and more lost.   And as a corrollary: the balance of trade falls.
        Given the net losses, 3 years lost is probably a lot
                                                  more than "3 years lost".
 
 
==  "We wouldn't have any need for the product on a shorter
==     timescale than that anyway."
 
    Must be warm in LA, Barry.  We've had a long Winter here in NE.
      Also: Energy remains the major industry.
 
 
== "its not like they are building an SSC
== and we have to decide wether to join them or build our own."
 
  Unlike cold fusion technology, SSC provides no obvious product, does it?
 
     How many jobs are involved?   Will it effect the balance of trade? How?
 
     As much as I enjoy beam technology and the relativistic physics
   that results, one parallax point of view at this time is relevance to
   people.
                Best wishes.
                                 Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  Moving goal posts?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moving goal posts?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 15:42:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <0096AAB0.C2F4FD80.9604@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
       Subject: Moving goal posts?
   Dick Blue [NSCL@MSUD] writes:
 
===  "I suspect that most scientists involved in CF research acknowledge
===   the need for at least some form of analysis aimed at determining
===  reaction product yields."
 
   Agreed, along with methods to make the reactions more efficient,
              safer, .....
 
 
===  "The problem for CF advocates is that they don't want to acknowledge
===  the one logical conclusion that is the best match for the data."
 
  The problem for CF skeptics is that they don't want to acknowledge any of
    the experimental evidence.
 
 
==  "UIP label ...  isn't any more better than CF"
 
    Except for the brutal attempt at English, we agree again.
 
    Best wishes on your "neutronpicnic".
 
                                 Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 18:38:19 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C54E8q.Dzx@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>   Unlike cold fusion technology, SSC provides no obvious product, does it?
 
 
The tone of your posts suggests your pretty sure CF is for real.
How about giving me 10:1 odds in my favor, on a $100 dollar bet:
 
I say the following will not happen:
 
within the next year, it is conclusively demonstrated to the
scientific community at large that "CF" produces watt-level
excess heat, resulting from nuclear reactions.
 
Care to take that bet? If not, what odds would you accept.
If no such bet, perhaps you'd better rethink your advocacy.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Sea Wasp /  Re: Does an open fridge cool the room?
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does an open fridge cool the room?
Date: 7 Apr 93 19:21:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <551B51EF34BF20273A@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>The old fallacy is, of course, the idea that you can use a fridge as an air
>conditioner. The room, with an open fridge working in it, would be a little
>warmer than without it. We all know about that; certainly Tom does.
 
        Actually, you CAN use a frige as an air conditioner. Both are
heat pumps.
 
        All you have to do is put the heat exchange coils on the other side
of a wall. So knock a hole in your wall, put the fridge's back OUTSIDE,
seal well, and you have a combination refrigerator and air conditioner!
 
 
                                Sea Wasp
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 20:34:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Apr7.183819.28679@math.ucla.edu>
      Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
   Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) writes:
 
==  "The tone of your posts suggests your pretty sure CF is for real."
 
     There certainly are lots of papers discussing much interesting
   positive work in this field.  These positive papers stack several
   linear feet on my desk.   Your post suggests that all those
   researchers, all those reports, are: simply totally wrong.
 
 
==  "How about giving me 10:1 odds in my favor, on a $100 dollar bet"
 
    I do not have a history of gambling.
   But: Benjamin Franklin mentioned that to know the
    "value" of money "go and borrow some".  So let's continue.
 
   Are you willing, Barry, to give 10:1 odds in favor to one against you
    that within the next year, an experiment will be performed,
    or described, which conclusively demonstrates that "CF" can produce
    watt-level excess heat, resulting from nuclear reaction or reactions.
 
     [Ignoring for now the problem of "conclusive", do you care to take
      that bet? or perhaps you'd ought rethink your skepticism.]
 
                                     Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Bhagirath Joshi /  Use of CF to neutralize Radio active waste
     
Originally-From: bjoshi@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Bhagirath Joshi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Use of CF to neutralize Radio active waste
Date: 7 Apr 93 16:47:53 GMT
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, MA

Dear CF netters:
 
        I would like to suggest alternate research path for CF studies.
 
        The reason for this is that we have many ways to generate energy, we
don't need one more way to produce energy. What we need is a method to
neutralize nuclear by products coming out of Nuclear reactors.
Imagine if you could neutralize those high energy producing radi
active unstable elements, by
merely mixing them with som catalyst.
 
        Don't you think the world will be a better place than.
 
Bhagirath Joshi
 
p.s. I posted similar thing three years ago and exchanged ideas with Dr. Barry
 about use of plasma (high temperature ) to treat non nuclear waste.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbjoshi cudfnBhagirath cudlnJoshi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Patrick Tepesch /  Death of UIP.
     
Originally-From: pdt@athena.mit.edu (Patrick D Tepesch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of UIP.
Date: 7 Apr 1993 21:08:43 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Yes, I am guilty of coining the term UIP (Unexplained Interesting
Phenomenon), but I think the point of my message was missed.  It seems
there are some (or maybe many, or maybe a majority of) people who
believe that there is no interesting science in the experiments
discussed under the heading cold fusion (UIP or whatever).  I guess
what I really want to know is:
 
Are there people who think all of the experiments reported so far
under this heading are in error and that there is nothing interesting
to be discovered here? (1)
 
Why? (2)
 
Why are people so hostile about this subject? (I have received email
in which all those now reporting positive results are accused of
committing fraud to keep their funding) (3)
 
I am not a believer or a skeptic (mostly because I really haven't
studied the subject closely) -- I am just curious and surprised by the
way people react to this subject.
 
Patrick Tepesch
 
Please do not send me email directly in response to this message.  It
was meant to stimulate *public* discussion, so please post responses
to sci.physics.fusion.  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpdt cudfnPatrick cudlnTepesch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / John Logajan /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 20:09:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> Intellectual property lost means jobs and more lost.  And as a corrollary:
> the balance of trade falls.
 
This may be the popular wisdom, but it happens to be untrue.  There really
is no such thing as a trade imbalance.
 
I think people (and the snake oil salesmen politicians and other dishonest
interest groups intentionally) confuse the loss of specific individual's
(specific) jobs with a net loss of jobs within that country's economy.
 
This is demonstrably false.  I personally may lose my job to a Japanese
competitor, but it is no different to the nation I live in than if I had
lost my job to a local competitor.  In either case, the competitor now
gets the consumer dollar (instead of me) which he then turns around and uses
to buy products or services for himself (instead of for me.)  The chain
of the transactions involved may be somewhat convoluted, but unless one
party insists on giving away labor for nothing (and who would complain
about trading partners like that!), trade will always balance.
 
So while I may have a personal stake in ensuring a certain form of employment
exists for me, the nation as a whole is always best served by having the
labor find the most efficient provider -- foreign or domestic.
 
These ideas date back to the time of Adam Smith (200 or so years ago)
David Ricardo (100 years or so ago) and are held by all of the Nobel Prize
winners in economics in the last 20 years or so (Hayek, Friedman, Coase,
Baker, Buchannan, Stigler, etc.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 21:25:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C54rtn.7nM@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>==  "How about giving me 10:1 odds in my favor, on a $100 dollar bet"
>
>    I do not have a history of gambling.
>   But: Benjamin Franklin mentioned that to know the
>    "value" of money "go and borrow some".  So let's continue.
>
>   Are you willing, Barry, to give 10:1 odds in favor to one against you
>    that within the next year, an experiment will be performed,
>    or described, which conclusively demonstrates that "CF" can produce
>    watt-level excess heat, resulting from nuclear reaction or reactions.
>
>     [Ignoring for now the problem of "conclusive", do you care to take
>      that bet? or perhaps you'd ought rethink your skepticism.]
 
     I love sucker bets,  no 'described' in some foreign-language
     tech report.  I've seen telekinesis 'described', conclusively
     demonstrating to the satisfaction of the demonstrator that it
     exists.  For real fun, I've got a thousand dollars that says that
     there will not be ten kilowatts of line power in excess of
     input power being generated for an american or
     japanese utility by the process described above
     in seven years.  But you have to show your cojones by
     taking the bet 1:1, a hundred bucks is not worth the
     hassle of remembering.
 
     Eliminates the subjective nature of the bet, don't you think?
     Gives 'em plenty of time to work out the 'bugs', but not so
     much time that I grow old waiting for my money.
 
     I'll be ready to set up the trustee account, but I'm not holding
     my breath ...
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of UIP
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 21:43:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1pvfsrINNicc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
     Subject: Death of UIP, Patrick Tepesch [pdt@athena.mit.edu] writes:
 
=== "Yes, I ...(coined) the term UIP (Unexplained Interesting Phenomenon)"
 
     IMHO, Patrick, that should read "Phenomena".
 
 
===  "I am just curious and surprised by the way people react to
===   this subject."
 
   [Both to the subject and to the people who reasonably scientifically
   investigate these phenomena:] As are many who are not "skeptics".
 
               Best wishes.
                                 Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 22:02:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Apr7.200956.14117@ns.network.com>
    Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
   John Logajan  (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
==  "> Intellectual property lost means jobs and more lost. ...
==   > the balance of trade falls."
==
==   "This may be the popular wisdom, but it happens to be untrue."
 
  John, thank you for correcting my error.
    Since my background is science and not economics, I appreciate
       the correction.
 
   Is this supply and demand not a zero-sum "game"?
     It had seemed to me that if an entire country pays only royalties for
  all products but receives no apparent benefit for the
  incremental loss of such (eg. in the way of jobs, education, new
  businesses, new intellectual property, etc.), then the value of that
  society's money must fall by an equivalent amount.
 
    Best wishes.
                 -  Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
Date: Wed,  7 Apr 93 02:12:02 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Chuck,
  Could you explain to a novice why that excited He4 nucleus must release
its enrgy in a SINGLE step?
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Death of UIP
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 23:08:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C54v11.Gqo@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>===  "I am just curious and surprised by the way people react to
>===   this subject."
>
>   [Both to the subject and to the people who reasonably scientifically
>   investigate these phenomena:] As are many who are not "skeptics".
 
      Don't you think this is a bit overplayed?  I am speaking as
      one who was appalled at the unprofessional initial reaction to P&F's
      press conference by certain groups of people.  I also listened
      to every second of the very early meeting at Los Alamos
      (indeed, it is still on tape downstairs) on this phenomenon
      trying to determine for myself whether it was true.   I read
      any number of papers on this in the hope that it was true.   I was
      more than willing to give the researchers the benefit of the
      doubt and did at the time.  Indeed, a colleague of mine and
      I discussed the feasability of centrifugation for
      more economical separation of deuterium (centrifugation was
      my field at the time).
 
      However, as the years go on, it seems that the only ones shouting
      are prosletyzers with semi-religious conviction.  The same mammoth
      claims are rumored, but they lose their stature after years of
      similar claims.  And there's always another 'secret ingredient'.
      It's becoming very familiar.
 
      I guarantee that nearly everyone that is still here from the beginning
      (and there still seem to be a number of people who are)  wanted
      cold fusion to be happening.   There would be little point for
      'skeptics' to hang around nailing yet another ton of nails in
      the coffin.  However, by now you also have to realize that a number of
      us are scientists, and we are going to insist on fairly rigorous
      and unequivocal scientific evidence.
 
      It is unfortunate that it does not seem to be happening, but
      no amount of vapid argumentation will make it happen.  No amount of
      propaganda will make it true if it's not.
 
      So spare us the implicit criticism.  There are many of us still who
      wish it were happening.  However, wishes are not science.
 
      If you want to play, please play on the field of science,
      not the field of dreams.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Robert Panoff /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 03:27:19 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois

What an bizarre twisting of reality checks we have here! This is Barry's
original "bet"
 
>I say the following will not happen:
>
>within the next year, it is conclusively demonstrated to the
>scientific community at large that "CF" produces watt-level
>excess heat, resulting from nuclear reactions.
 
And THIS is what Mitch responds with:
 
>>
>>   Are you willing, Barry, to give 10:1 odds in favor to one against you
>>    that within the next year, an experiment will be performed,
>>    or described, which conclusively demonstrates that "CF" can produce
>>    watt-level excess heat, resulting from nuclear reaction or reactions.
 
Heck, I could probably DESCRIBE such an experiment now, one which
demonstrates that "CF" "CAN PRODUCE" watt-level excess heat.  But what
a world of difference between that and PERFORMING the experiment that
PRODUCES the target heat level. That is what is giving skeptics
fits.  They want to see what HAS BEEN done, what IS BEING produced.
Many feel that the original P&F problem was that they equated what they
felt they "could do" (maybe with enough time and money) with what they
in fact "did".
 
Bizarre.  Expected, but bizarre, nonetheless.
 
Bob Panoff
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrpanoff cudfnRobert cudlnPanoff cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Closed cell nickel?
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Closed cell nickel?
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 21:42:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

 
There is a symposium occuring in Denver this month on "New Energy":
 
"Including hydrogen fuel usage, "over unity" and "free energy" machines, Scaler
wave theory, magnetic motors, vortex mechanics, cold fusion, electrostatic
generators..."
 
Quite a range of topics, from hydrogen fuel to free energy machines!  I wonder
know how one is to create an energy source from an electrostatic generator.
 
Cold fusion in included, and a diagram of a closed nickel-based cell with a
recombiner in included.  Does anyone know of a group which is doing closed
nickel?  As far as I was aware, all the nickel-based groups were using open
cells.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / John Logajan /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 07:53:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  It had seemed to me that if an entire country pays only royalties for
>  all products but receives no apparent benefit for the
>  incremental loss of such (eg. in the way of jobs, education, new
>  businesses, new intellectual property, etc.), then the value of that
>  society's money must fall by an equivalent amount.
 
There certainly is a loss associated with the "dumbing down" of a nation
(assuming the premise.)  But the loss will show up as a *reduction* in
foreign trade rather than an imbalance in trade.
 
Consider a newly discovered primative pacific island civilization
(Gilliganians.)  They subsist on wild pineapples, coconuts, and bananas.
Now they might be fascinated by VCRs, microwaves, color TVs, washing machines,
etc, but trade between them and us is unlikely because they have nothing to
offer us in return for our products.
 
Clearly we have the technological lead (by a wide margin) over the
Gilliganians, but still no trade imbalance arises -- because trade is either
very small or non-existant.
 
As the Gilliganians become educated in the ways of modern technology, they can
more and more become players in the global marketplace.  So there certainly is
a benefit associated with technological knowhow.  But this is true regardless
of whether one considers just foreign trade or internal trade.  So it's not
primarily a foreign trade issue (though it impacts foreign trade.)
 
However, as David Ricardo pointed out over 100 years ago, (in his principle
of comparative advantage) each country will have its own strengths and
weaknesses and, hence, each country will be better at some tasks than at
others.  Global efficiency is then maximize when each country goes with its
strengths and foregoes production in its areas of weakness.  It is better not
to attempt to produce all things -- the theory of specialization writ large.
 
In other words, just because a specific technology moves offshore, it is not
necessarily an indication of technological decline.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Death of UIP
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:33:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Mitchell Swartz guggleth:
>=== >Verily forsooth I did say:
>=== >Not so verily forsooth he did say:
>=== >=== "I am just curious and surprised by the way people react to
>=== >=== this subject."
>=== >=== [Both to the subject and to the people who reasonably scientifically
>=== >=== investigate these phenomena:] As are many who are not "skeptics"."
>=== >===
>=== >===     "Don't you think this is a bit overplayed?"
>
>  I did not write much of which you incorrectly attribute to me.
>  Please try a little more veracity, Dale.    Verily?  Foorsooth?
 
     Wrongo budwud.  The words including and after '[Both to the ...'
     are *yours*.   The preceeding words are you quoting up an
     attribution level.  Yours ends before my "Don't you think ..".
 
     I can't help the misleading way your software seems to stack some
     things, and I don't feel like further correcting your attribution
     hierarchy.
 
     Verily forsooth.
 
                              dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.07 / Robert Eachus /  Re: MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: eachus@dr_no.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MAGPIE
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 21:01:28 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     My understanding is that starting with a solid wire permits a
much more uniform distribution of matter in the initial plasma.  (The
sausage instabilities start in thinner areas.)  The trick is making
very uniform wires out of frozen hydrogen.  The faster ramping is
to prevent the plasma from diffusing before the peak.  These things
(z-pinches) have always been "the faster the better."
 
     I don't quite understand the part about the "gas was obviously in
contact with the outer vessel..."  I thought that wall-stabilization
helped in the initial stages.  Does this have something to do with the
pinch not separating evenly from the walls?
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 19:33:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <C569w8.F1t@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
      Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
   Cameron Randale Basscrb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
== "Mitchell Swartz writeth foreldlesslethly:
== >Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writeth verily
== forsooth:
==   >===  "I notice you didn't take either Barry's or my bet."
 
  Cameron or Dale, your signal to noise ratio is very low. You inaccurately
  quote what was not said, and then act like a dilitante, remaining
  apparently unable to contribute a clear salient response.
 
                            Best wishes anyway.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of UIP
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 19:35:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <C56BB7.Fov@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
      Subject: Re: Death of UIP
    Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
==  "Mitchell Swartz guggleth:
== >=== >Verily forsooth I did say:
== >=== >Not so verily forsooth he did say: ......
 
    You appear to be becoming reproducibly inaccurate.
    You also seem to knock some serious scientific postings on at least
    sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics (following the EM thread).  Why?
 
    As stated before: simply please try a little more veracity, Dale.
                      Verily?  Foorsooth?  I (and we - OK, Dieter?)
                             don'teth talketh liketh thateth. .
 
 
==  "Wrongo budwud.  The words including and after '[Both to the ...'
==   are *yours*.   The preceeding words are you quoting up an
==   attribution level.  Yours ends before my "Don't you think ..".
==   I can't help the misleading way your software seems to stack some
==   things, and I don't feel like further correcting your attribution
==   hierarchy."
 
       Your accuracy: not.    Your responsibility: denial.
 
  Fact is that your word processor and your software are probably
     yours and yours alone.     Budwud?  Substituting child-speak
     probably hardly approaches that which you could be.
 
                      Best wishes.      Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: The infidel speaks (response by Scott to Rothwell)
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The infidel speaks (response by Scott to Rothwell)
Date: 8 Apr 93 18:55:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Jed,
 
1. I applaud your attitude towards confidential information.
 
2. Didn't know your 70 watts were intermittent; you didn't say that. What
is P&F's sustained, repeatable output?
 
3. I know Toyota don't care whether I believe them. Neither should you. I
am a computational physicist working on turbulence in inhomogeneous
environments. As such, I am useful to the magnetic fusion community. I am
not in any way useful to those working on CF, since I have backgrounds in
solid state physics, chemistry, and calorimetry commensurate with a
beginning student. Regarding CF, I am a spectator, and I will cheer if I
see the things I have already mentioned. I do not get excited about stuff
on the limits of detectability. I take the same attitude towards dark
matter, for example.
 
4. Re (3), do not expect me to drop what I am doing and run to your side.
It does not work that way in science.
 
5. I would never be convinced of any counter-intuitive results unless the
experimenters jumped blindfolded through hoops of my choosing. We just had
a case like this in tokamak physics. On D-III-D (tokamak at General
Atomics, San Diego), Tim Luce has measured *inward* heat flux in the
electrons during experiments with auxiliary heating which is localised away
from the center (in minor radius terms)--don't worry about thermodynamics,
electrons and ions are in collisional exchange, and due to the ions the
*total* heat flux is always outward, commensurate with the Ohmic heating in
the center. This was very counter-intuitive, and many people refused to
believe it for some time. However, people laid down hoops for Tim to jump
through, changed the goalposts, etc, until when further experimentation by
Tim did all the tricks people could think of asking, the results came to be
accepted. This has taken about 20 months. Pretty normal as far as science
goes. In some other cases the story is not as good as this. We are under
intense pressure to "explain" the so-called H-mode, when plasma confinement
improves by a factor of two or so under auxiliary heating, and the
gradients get steeper at the edge. The response has been to concoct a
simple theory and then argue hard enough for the experimental results to
fit it. People believe in the emergence of an ExB shear flow at the edge to
do this; never mind that ASDEX (here at Garching) has solid negative
evidence for the shear flow until *after* the transition. Collective
delusion works when people want to believe. This story may still be right,
but someone needs to explain why Holzhauer's results on ASDEX went the way
they did. Pretty hard, since ASDEX was mothballed two years ago! But the
will to believe has overcome nearly everyone's native skepticism, since a
group of infuential people have been ramming this story down the rest of
the field. My interpretation of what I heard from Morrison at the Nagoya CF
meeting was that Ikegami and others wanted to believe, and Ikegami resorted
to physically removing Morrison from the mike. As I said before, *not* very
stimulating to the credulity. Jed, you need to explain this action,
especially if you want to present Ikegami as an honest former skeptic who
got convinced.
 
6. You have not accused me of any negativity towards funding of CF
experiments; that is good, since I have not expressed any. I would share
your displeasure at the inability of Droege- and Jones-like experiments to
receive funding at the low level they need. This stuff is cheap; there is
no reason for it to be refused because of fashion, belief, or other
pre-conceived notion. I spend my days fighting that crap in the magnetic
fusion community (my computational results are for 2D slab geometry but may
be applicable further; I accept the suspension of judgement until I can get
the resources to run them in 3D, but not the widespread belief that the
situation will be different because of some vague belief that the 2D/3D
difference in neutral fluids is somehow transferrable to a magnetised
plasma). I will jump through hoops because that is my responsibility; my
only objection is to the "closing of questions" before I get the chance to
do it. I use this same position vis-a-vis CF: It is Ikegami's and others'
responsibility to satisfy the--even moving--demands of the skeptics, but I
agree with them that the community at large is wrong in denying that there
is still some strange stuff worth investigating. I think it is safe to
expect that the techniques of calorimetry with electronics (electronics are
part of the system, of course) will be improved by the exercise, and that
alone justifies low-level funding, in my view.
 
 
I think that's enough for now. Tell me what you think.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: A humorous paraphrase
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A humorous paraphrase
Date: 8 Apr 93 19:20:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

It was posted:
 
"Let me respond to this call to arms, and point out that your analysis
ignores the fact that N bodies of temperature T can in fact
raise one body to a temperature greater than T."
 
I think you'd better elaborate. You may be confusing "E" with "T".
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: MAGPIE
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MAGPIE
Date: 8 Apr 93 19:35:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Robert Eachus posted:
 
>My understanding is that starting with a solid wire permits a
 much more uniform distribution of matter in the initial plasma.  (The
 sausage instabilities start in thinner areas.)  The trick is making
 very uniform wires out of frozen hydrogen.  The faster ramping is
 to prevent the plasma from diffusing before the peak.  These things
 (z-pinches) have always been "the faster the better."
 
I understood faster ramping was to get the plasma into a self-similar state
before sausage instabilities got a chance to grow (the initial stages are
shocky). The self-similar state is supposed to be stable (see the
references I posted earlier). Having a solid wire does two other things:
(1) no contact with the walls (see below), and (2) higher initial density
so a compression gets you past solid densities where you don't need much of
a tau to get n tau over 10^14.
 
>I don't quite understand the part about the "gas was obviously in
 contact with the outer vessel..."  I thought that wall-stabilization
 helped in the initial stages.  Does this have something to do with the
 pinch not separating evenly from the walls?
 
There's much more to plasma physics than just MHD. Problems include early
recycling and impurities which radiate. The edge must have been very dirty
in those experiments; it's bad enough even in a divertor tokamak.
 
 
OK, I've said all I know, hit those refs!
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Death of UIP (really my daddy's bigger than your daddy)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Death of UIP (really my daddy's bigger than your daddy)
Date: 8 Apr 93 22:22:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Gugglething continueth:
>I write verily forsooth:
>==  "Mitchell Swartz guggleth:
>== >=== >Verily forsooth I did say:
>== >=== >Not so verily forsooth he did say: ......
>
>    You appear to be becoming reproducibly inaccurate.
>    You also seem to knock some serious scientific postings on at least
>    sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics (following the EM thread).  Why?
>
>    As stated before: simply please try a little more veracity, Dale.
>                      Verily?  Foorsooth?  I (and we - OK, Dieter?)
>                             don'teth talketh liketh thateth. .
 
     Ack, ack.  Thou hast woundeth my person exceedingly gravely.
 
     However, I rest secure in the knowledge that my daddy could
     beat up your daddy.
 
     Any day.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / mitchell swartz /  Death of UIP (really ... )
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of UIP (really ... )
Date: 9 Apr 93 00:01:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
    In Message-ID: <C56rHu.LFF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Death of UIP (really my daddy's bigger than your daddy)
  Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
===  "Gugglething continueth:  ...  (more nonsense)
===   >I write verily forsooth:   ...
===  "Ack, ack.  Thou hast woundeth my person exceedingly gravely.
===       However, I rest secure in the knowledge that my daddy could
===       beat up your daddy.
===       Any day."
 
   Since you continue to avoid science, interrupt other people's reasonable
conversations with your wide-bandwidth sophomorisms, and quote falsely
creating needless poor signal-to-noise ratios,  please note that I hereby
sign off on your present continuing drivel or anything connected with
the Branch Bassians.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of UIP
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 11:58:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <C54yxE.FMC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Death of UIP
    Cameron Randale Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
===  "I am just curious and surprised by the way people react to
===   this subject."
===   [Both to the subject and to the people who reasonably scientifically
===   investigate these phenomena:] As are many who are not "skeptics"."
===
===         "Don't you think this is a bit overplayed?"
 
 No.  No matter what your putative claims it is clear that they involve
  others and not either the science itself, nor those that investigate
  these phenomena.
 
 
====   "However, as the years go on, it seems that the only ones shouting
====   are prosletyzers with semi-religious conviction.  The same mammoth
====   claims are rumored, but they lose their stature after years of
====   similar claims.  And there's always another 'secret ingredient'.
====   It's becoming very familiar."
 
  It does appear to a reader here that the skeptics have a "semi-religious"
conviction since rather than parry any "positive" paper, they just
"dismiss" them on sight.
 
  Also consider: if "similar claims" appear then it sounds that many people
(or groups) are reproducing the effect.
 
  Also, if "secret ingredients" are needed, it may explain part of
the difficulty.  It also has a historical similarity to most technologic
breakthroughs (even the production of glasses which I think may have begun
                       the patent process [in Italy].
 
                    - Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 11:59:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Apr8.032719.10248@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
     Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     Robert Panoff (rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu) writes:
 
=== "I could probably DESCRIBE such an experiment now, one which
=== demonstrates that "CF" "CAN PRODUCE" watt-level excess heat.  But what
=== a world of difference between that and PERFORMING the experiment that
=== PRODUCES the target heat level."
 
  Robert, could you please give an example to clarify this.  Thanks.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 12:00:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Apr8.075342.17897@ns.network.com>
     Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
   John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
===  "There certainly is a loss associated with the "dumbing down" of a nation
=== (assuming the premise.)  But the loss will show up as a *reduction* in
=== foreign trade rather than an imbalance in trade."
 
   John, thank you for correcting this economic issue.
 
   Therefore: "loss of CF" may effect a reduction in foreign trade.
   By whatever description surely this may be less than optimally beneficial.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 18:15:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It just doesn't pay to be subtle here.  For example, on March 23 I posted a
message which deep in the text mentioned that a "cold fusion" cell boiled.  No
one even noticed.  (Not quite true, I got one private message from someone who
understood what I was saying and asked a very perceptive question - It is for
those that I make these posts.)
 
Some time ago I posted some critical material on the Pons Flieschmann boiling
cell experiment.  I pointed out that the four cells in the container would
"talk to each other".  I did this in the context of pointing out that it was
not a very good experiment and that it would be hard to figure out heat
balances.
 
Jed Rothwell then published some absolute garbage with quotes around it and
with my name attached as if it was something I wrote.  You should all know by
now that Jed cannot be trusted to quote correctly, as he has done this a
number of times in this media.  Makes you wonder about those "hundreds" of
replications in Japan, doesn't it?
 
Jed jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that the colder cells caused
the one cell to boil.  I did not say that Jed.  What I did say was that the
experiment **** as presented **** had many problems, so that it was not
conclusive.
 
What bothers me is that a number of you have picked up this quote as if true
and commented about it.  So I am associated with absolute garbage thinking.
 
"A select case statement is a procedure used by lawyers to determine who they
will next represent" - Jed Rothwell.  There Jed, I have returned your slander.
 
Now Jed, of "open the refrigerator door to cool the room" fame.  I will give
you something to think about.
 
Place two cells in an enclosure such as the Pons and Fleischmann video.  Let
cell A be at 40 C and cell B at 80 C.  I say to one and all.  There is heat
flow from cell A to cell B (from the colder cell to the hotter one for those
who cannot read symbolism).
 
The above is a carefully worded statement.  It is true.  Some of you out there
will agree with me because you can read, and do not jump to conclusions about
what I have said.  Others may think the statement violates all the rules of
thermodynamics.  It does not.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  I would be the last to claim that my thinking is always correct.  One of
the main reasons for making these posts is to clean up my sloppy thinking.  I
have some hopes that one or two of you will read what takes hours to prepare
and point out error.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Why single steps?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why single steps?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 22:39:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul L. Schauble asks the question, "Why must 4He release energy in
a single step?"
 
I suppose the starting point for answering that has to be the fact that
within the energy range relevant to discussions on this forum 4He can
exist only in its ground state or in a quasistate in a continuum which
is unbound with respect to breakup into two nuclei.  Furthermore none
of the possible products of that breakup: protons, neutrons, deuterons,
3H, 3He, have any bound excited states that could serve as intermediate
states in a two-step decay process.  Under these circumstances, if
some form of transition process is allowed, the fastest process allowed
is going to win.  Making a transition in a single step is the fastest
because big energy steps win over smaller energy steps.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Death of UIP
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 13:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C55yLw.5rr@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>Verily forsooth I did say:
>Not so verily forsooth he did say:
>===  "I am just curious and surprised by the way people react to
>===   this subject."
>===   [Both to the subject and to the people who reasonably scientifically
>===   investigate these phenomena:] As are many who are not "skeptics"."
>===
>===         "Don't you think this is a bit overplayed?"
>
> No.  No matter what your putative claims it is clear that they involve
>  others and not either the science itself, nor those that investigate
>  these phenomena.
 
     The point is, he said dryly, that these are not *my* claims.
     And no amount of dodge and parry on your part is going to increase the
     likelyhood of the claims being true.
 
     Thou must putteth up or shutteth up.  Thy dodges groweth
     wearisome; thy 'secret incredients' art verily mystical
     and witchlike.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 13:24:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C55ynJ.5xx@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     Robert Panoff (rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu) writes:
>
>=== "I could probably DESCRIBE such an experiment now, one which
>=== demonstrates that "CF" "CAN PRODUCE" watt-level excess heat.  But what
>=== a world of difference between that and PERFORMING the experiment that
>=== PRODUCES the target heat level."
>
>  Robert, could you please give an example to clarify this.  Thanks.
 
     Here's a good but possibly subtle example:  I notice you didn't
     take either Barry's or my bet.
 
     It's amazing how quickly money separates wind from mountain.
 
                           dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  Death of UIP
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Death of UIP
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 14:29:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

       In Message-ID: <C562AA.Cp7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
       Subject: Re: Death of UIP
   Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU)
 
=== "In article <C55yLw.5rr@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com
===  (mitchell swartz) writes:
=== >Verily forsooth I did say:
=== >Not so verily forsooth he did say:
=== >=== "I am just curious and surprised by the way people react to
=== >=== this subject."
=== >=== [Both to the subject and to the people who reasonably scientifically
=== >=== investigate these phenomena:] As are many who are not "skeptics"."
=== >===
=== >===     "Don't you think this is a bit overplayed?"
=== >
=== > No.  No matter what your putative claims it is clear that they involve
=== >  others and not either the science itself, nor those that investigate
=== >  these phenomena."
 
  I did not write much of which you incorrectly attribute to me.
  Please try a little more veracity, Dale.    Verily?  Foorsooth?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 14:31:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <C562KH.Cu5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
===  "I notice you didn't take either Barry's or my bet."
 
  Since I explicitly stated that I do not gamble, your
   observation seem unremarkable.  Your conclusion is therefore also
   incorrect, given that setting.
 
   Perhaps you should take the odds suggested and offer them globally
   to others who do indulge.
 
                                   Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Nick Haines /  Re: A humorous paraphrase
     
Originally-From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A humorous paraphrase
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 15:05:41 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

Jed Rothwell doesn't seem to understand Tom Droege's objection. He
says his use of quote marks is justified because the phrase he
concocts to put inside them is `humourous paraphrase' of Tom Droege's
original statement. Well, that might be a justification in whatever
strange language Jed Rothwell speaks, but the use of quote marks in
English is a very well defined thing. They may only be used if the
contained text is a direct quotation. Otherwise (if, for instance, one
is wishing to expose an implication, or infer a belief of the writer),
one must use another mode.
 
If Jed Rothwell wishes to communicate with users of English language,
he would do well to learn English. Note that this will not prevent him
from continuing his hobby of potentially libellous hyperbole: English
is a language admirably suited to hyperbole.
 
To make the point, here's a `humourous paraphrase' for us all to put
in our sigs. Note the hyperbole :-)
 
- Jed Rothwell thinks that quantum physics is all complete bullshit. -
 
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennickh cudfnNick cudlnHaines cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 16:02:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Mitchell Swartz writeth foreldlesslethly:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writeth verily forsooth:
>
>===  "I notice you didn't take either Barry's or my bet."
>
>  Since I explicitly stated that I do not gamble, your
>   observation seem unremarkable.  Your conclusion is therefore also
>   incorrect, given that setting.
 
     What's the gamble if the wind that has been blowing long
     and hard is backed by a hurricane?
 
     Your convictions are showing, grasshopper...
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: A humorous paraphrase
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A humorous paraphrase
Date: 8 Apr 93 08:50:31 PDT

In article <930407205243_72240.1256_EHL56-1@CompuServe.COM>, on 7 Apr 93 23:41:37 GMT,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>
>In other words, Tom's statement boils down to same meaning as the first
>sentence. It is an obvious, gross violation of elementary physics.
>
>If *I* was to post statements as abysmally stupid as these, a zillion
>"skeptics" would leap out of the woodwork, accuse me of not knowing anything
>about science,
 
Let me respond to this call to arms, and point out that your analysis
ignores the fact that N bodies of temperature T can in fact
raise one body to a temperature greater than T.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Barry Merriman /  Bets (was Re: "Re: The infidel speaks")
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bets (was Re: "Re: The infidel speaks")
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 23:37:23 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C565nq.7G@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>
>    Perhaps you should take the odds suggested and offer them globally
>    to others who do indulge.
>
 
Actually, I did that three years ago, even better---I recall that
I gave 100:1 odds _in favor of the believers_, for $1 dollar bets
(so I could lose $100 to their $1), on the bet that CF would "come
true" within two years. The two years expired a year ago, but to be
generous I didn't try to collect yet, because P&F were touting brand new
results at the time.
 
I will probably call in those bets when the present wave of enthusiasm
dies out.
 
(By the way: I haven't forgotten those of you who took the bet...)
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Death of UIP (really ... )
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Death of UIP (really ... )
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 00:48:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

The final guggle?:
>
>   Since you continue to avoid science, interrupt other people's reasonable
>conversations with your wide-bandwidth sophomorisms, and quote falsely
>creating needless poor signal-to-noise ratios,  please note that I hereby
>sign off on your present continuing drivel or anything connected with
>the Branch Bassians.
 
     And your little dog too ...
 
                            dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Does an open fridge cool the room?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does an open fridge cool the room?
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 01:34:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <551B51EF34BF20273A@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>The old fallacy is, of course, the idea that you can use a fridge as an air
>conditioner. The room, with an open fridge working in it, would be a little
>warmer than without it. We all know about that; certainly Tom does.
 
Dieter, you missed the rather obvious: If I turn on my refrigerator
it heats the room slightly while cooling the inside considerably. At
this point it reaches a point of stability. But the room doesn't. It
is now warmer than the surrounding space and it radiates until it
reaches temperature equality.
 
If I open the refrigerator door at this point the room cools down to
a point below where the experiment started.
 
Time waits for no man. :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Hmmm...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hmmm...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 03:36:16 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Is it my imagination, or is this group getting a bit weirder even than usual?
 
I am most curious to see further Critiques Both Pro and Con on excess heat.
That is, assuming Dale can stop guggling grasshoppers for a while...  :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 03:47:19 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
 
>Chuck,
>  Could you explain to a novice why that excited He4 nucleus must release
>its enrgy in a SINGLE step?
 
Well actually you have me. What we I was talking about was the reaction
 
D + D -> He4*
  He4* -> t + p
  He4* -> He3 + n
  He4* -> He4 + gamma.
 
He4* to He4 + gamma is actually a pretty rare state change. What I was
trying to argue was, if this weak branch was responsible for the excess
heat of cold fusion, the mechanism for distributing the energy needs to
be described. Normally He4* would hit resonance at the t+p and He3 + n.
In the skeem I'm talking about, the He4 state is externally effected
to force a transition from He4* to the He4 ground state by the influence
of the Bose condensation process.  Thus the reason for the one 24MeV
quantum step to the nuclear ground state.  The He4* transition to
t+p and He3+n energetically favored, but I'm speculating external
quantum influences can alter those ratios.
 
Have Fun
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / John Logajan /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 22:58:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
>===  "There certainly is a loss associated with the "dumbing down" of a nation
>=== (assuming the premise.)  But the loss will show up as a *reduction* in
>=== foreign trade rather than an imbalance in trade."
 
>   Therefore: "loss of CF" may effect a reduction in foreign trade.
>   By whatever description surely this may be less than optimally beneficial.
 
Ah, but there are at least two other possible conclusions:
 
1.) CF may be an illusion, and therefore time spent studying it is (as
    economists call it) an opportunity loss -- an expediture of resources
    that could otherwise have been put to use elsewhere.
 
2.) CF may be valid, but Japan might be the more efficient producer of CF.
    In which case, efforts to duplicate the work in the US also result in
    opportunity losses to more efficient uses of resources.
 
The information collection problem to resolve such questions is so
intractibly complex that these sorts of questions can never really be
answered -- and therefore make a weak basis upon which to justify a
particular course of action.
 
The most powerful lesson to be learned from a study of economics is just
what it is that economics CANNOT tell us, or more broadly, what are some of
the limits to human knowledge.
 
To a large extent, the pursuit of knowledge involves a gamble, a roll of the
dice.  We certainly ought to be intellectually free to roll the dice for
ourselves, to weight the perceived risks with the perceived rewards, but it
is quite another matter to insist on rolling the dice for other people, or
through intellectual fraud, convince them to roll the dice based upon bad
information.
 
Attempting to justify CF, then, on non-supportable economic arguements is
to wander in the direction of disinformation.  And that is my sole reason
for constantly pointing out the limits of economic (i.e. human) knowledge
in this forum.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Barry Smith /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 06:39:09 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research, Portland Oregon

>Mitchell Swartz writeth foreldlesslethly:
>   Since I explicitly stated that I do not gamble
 
I fail to understand; do you have some source of certainty?
 
:)
 
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Jed Rothwell /  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter from Miles
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 14:16:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter, with a note: "Please post
[this] on e-mail and let me know of any response. I have not been following e-
mail here."
 
If you would like to respond to this letter, please e-mail your comments
directly to me, or simply mail them to Dr. Miles. I do not always get a chance
to read messages posted here. If you would like copies of the documents
referred to herein, please contact Dr. Miles or me.
 
 
                                Department of the Navy
                                Naval Air Warfare Center
                                Weapons Division
                                China Lake, CA 93555-6001
 
Professor Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
 
Dear Professor Jones:
 
     Enclosed is a reprint of our recent Journal Publication regarding excess
power and helium measurements. This manuscript was subjected to the normal
review process, and our six control samples apparently satisfied the referees
and editor regarding any questions concerning helium contamination of these
experiments.
 
     It is very difficult to explain how helium contamination could only occur
in experiments that were producing excess power and not in any of the control
experiments. If you can explain this, then please let me know. This is
precisely the reason that we ran the control experiments.
 
     Please note my discussion of the errors in the N. Lewis calorimetry (Cal
Tech work) on pp. 114-116.
 
                                Sincerely
 
                                [Signed]
                                DR. MELVIN H. MILES
                                Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
                                NAWCWPNS Fellow
 
Copy to:
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
Mr. Jed Rothwell
Dr. Nathan Hoffman
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Jed Rothwell /  Arcane versus easy proof
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Arcane versus easy proof
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 16:23:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Bruce Scott published a good example of an arcane, difficult problem in
science that took a surprisingly short 20 months to settle. I won't quote the
whole thing, but just to remind people of the flavor of it:
 
     "On D-III-D (tokamak at General Atomics, San Diego), Tim Luce has
     measured *inward* heat flux in the electrons during experiments with
     auxiliary heating which is localized away from the center (in minor
     radius terms)--don't worry about thermodynamics, electrons and ions are
     in collisional exchange, and due to the ions the *total* heat flux is
     always outward, commensurate with the Ohmic heating in the center..."
 
There is a WORLD of difference between this sort of claim, and the claims of
the CF scientists. This is evidently a complex, tricky experiment, that
requires extremely complex instrumentation, and arcane knowledge of the field.
It is a subtle effect. CF, on the other hand, hardly requires any instruments
at all. Sometimes you can see the boiling water, and the only instrument you
have to trust is the power measuring equipment. The proof of CF is based upon
simple, old fashioned calorimetry, which (as I have often pointed out) has
been an exact science since the time of the U.S. Civil War. Dr. Luce's work
depended upon the performance of one of the most up-to-date complex
instruments on earth, the D-III-D. CF scientists prove the existence of
massive excess heat using instruments as simple as mercury thermometers.
Furthermore, they have already leaped through hoop after hoop after hoop, as
Peter Hagelstein described.
 
 
Bruce also writes:
 
     "My interpretation of what I heard from Morrison at the Nagoya CF meeting
     was that Ikegami and others wanted to believe, and Ikegami resorted to
     physically removing Morrison from the mike."
 
This interpretation of events is utterly incorrect. Ikegami did not remove
Morrison or anyone else from any mike. The session was running late, so after
Morrison finished his talk, Ikegami gavelled the session to formal close,
cutting short the formal question and answer session. He asked the people who
wanted to continue the debate to move to the front of the room. He did this
for two reasons:
 
1. Most of the audience needed to vacate at once, and get to poster sessions
and other meetings that were supposed to have started already.
 
2. The NHK cameramen asked that people who wanted to make comments come under
the bright lights at the front of the room.
 
Ikegami and the other session chairmen often asked speakers to wind up
quickly, or cut off the question and answer period in order to keep the
meetings on schedule. I approve 100%. Everyone there was scheduled up to his
or her eyeballs with meetings, and when things fall 30 minutes behind, the
next thing you know they are an hour or two behind, and you are late for
supper. Morrison was interrupted at one point for a minute or two by that
loudmouth Italian, so he got 10 or 15 minutes extra, which is entirely
appropriate. But it would not be proper form to keep all 350 people chained in
their seats given the tight schedules we were all operating under. Naturally,
anyone who was interested in the extended discussion, and who could spare the
time, was welcome to stay and listen. This happened many other times during
the conference, with other speakers, and it is quite the normal procedure
during any formal conference or lecture.
 
Let me add my opinion of Morrison's talk. He must have submitted the abstract,
which is silly, bad science, but I guess the meeting organizers accepted it so
naturally it was okay and I would have no objection to his giving the talk he
outlined. However, during his talk, he went off on a tangent and started
spouting the silliest, most unscientific nonsense I have ever heard in a
formal scientific lecture, best summarized by Peter Hagelstein:
 
     "At issue in Morrison's discussion is whether there occur, or do not
     occur anomalies (heat, particles, etc.) in deuterated metal systems.
     Taking a vote by counting the number of published papers pro or con is
     certainly one way of deciding the issue; most others at the conference
     who argued for or against presented the results of an experiment or else
     the results of a theoretical model...
 
     Whether the excess heat effect is real or not is a matter that either has
     been, or else will be, settled by experiment; not by counting papers or
     by discussing pathological science."
 
I think that Morrison and the other "skeptics" who make these absurd
statements are not doing science. They are engaged in a form of religion, or
superstition. I don't think it is appropriate to allow them to spout this
nonsense at a serious, scientific conference. After all, a "creationist" would
never be allowed to make a one hour speech during a biology conference. The
National Geographic Society would never let the president of the Flat Earth
Society give a talk during one of their major conventions. And the A.M.A.
should not license faith healers, or allow them to address its conventions. I
am all in favor of free speech, but if a crackpot like Morrison wants to talk,
let him buy his own soapbox, let him do a poster session, or organize his own
"rump session" during the conference, the way the alchemists did. I should not
be forced to pay to hear his craziness. A formal physics conference should
only include presentations from people who are qualified and have a reasonable
minimum understanding of the laws of nature and the scientific method.
Morrison shows no signs of either attribute, so in retrospect, he was a very
poor choice of speaker.
 
The field of cold fusion has been plagued by unprofessional, unscientific
crackpots for too long. It is time we get real, and toss them out, starting
with the most notorious: Close, Huizenga and Morrison. These people do not
even understand how thermometers work, and they apparently think that a match
can burn for a week. They are not scientists, they have not done any
experimental or theoretical work in the field, so they should have no role in
it, and people should not pay any attention to what they say. I am open
minded, and I believe in free speech, but I am also a severe skeptic and
critic, and I cannot stand hearing people who call themselves "scientists"
ignore conservation of energy, thermodynamics, and other fundamentals. These
people must be severely criticized. In this forum they are not criticized,
they are worshipped, and their statements are taken as the holy grail, because
of the "double standard."
 
 
Bruce asked me to describe the intermittent 70 watts of Takahashi versus
steady output of P&F. I find this virtually impossible to do without graphics.
I suggest he should wait a few weeks and look at the latest P&F paper in the
Nagoya Proceedings, and check out the Takahashi graphs in the Int. J. Applied
Magnetics in Materials (not sure when last year, I only have the manuscript).
For that matter, look at the McKubre graphs, or see P&F in Fire from Ice, p.
217. The best solution to the intermittency is to get better control by
loading the entire lattice evenly, and keeping it loaded (they are gradually
succeeding at this). As an alternative, perhaps it will be possible to scale
up to a much larger multi-cathode device with unpredictable performance, where
one cathode "flows" while another "ebbs." The situation at present is very
similar to problem of running a steam engine by burning wet, rotten firewood.
One piece of burning wet firewood spits, smokes, flares and goes out, yielding
extremely unpredictable levels of heat. But a large mass of wet firewood might
yield a predictable average. Perhaps you can imagine someone trying to run a
steam engine by tossing those unpredictable Chinese fire crackers under the
boiler. It might work! But it would be an engineering nightmare, and I think
it is better to do things right, solve the scientific mysteries first, and
make a 100% safe, controllable, commercially useful motor.
 
 
Tom Droege, I see, can dish it out, but he cannot take it. Poor fellow, he is
a good egg, and he will recover soon.
 
 
Someone here with the moniker "CSYSPCN" has never heard of the second law of
thermodynamics. No, N number of bodies cannot heat up another body to a
temperature hotter than themselves. You can put all N-zillion bodies together
into one big lump the size of the planet Earth, and then set that lump right
next to a stone, and those N-zillion bodies will not heat up that stone any
hotter than they themselves are (on average). Go ahead, try it: take a stone,
put it on the ground and see whether the other stones, rocks, trees and other
bodies that constitute the planet earth heat up the stone. It never happens,
unless there is some form of heat pump involved, which requires work, which is
equivalent to heat.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  How Do You Do That?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How Do You Do That?
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 17:39:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN) writes:
 
"... tact that N bodies of temperature T can in fact raise one body to
a temperature greater that T."
 
I give up.  How do you do that?  I assume there is no heat sink - i.e. body
of lower temperature than T around.  Of course if the N bodies are not at
exactly the same temperature then we can do it.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  This is an appropriate discussion here because the whole acceptance of
the CNF experiments depends on calorimetry which in turn depends on some
understanding of thermo.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Barry Merriman Bets
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Barry Merriman Bets
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 18:15:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Barry Merriman gave 100 to one odds with a two year payoff.  It was a 50/1
bet with me on the long negative side with bj (well known theorist) that
got me started on all of this.  In any case, if bj thought it might be
possible, it was worth me taking a stab at it.  Never has any man worked
harder than I to lose $100.  But I won as there was a 1 year limit.  Would
be happy to take more bets on the negative side if the true beilevers have
any money.
 
It turned out to have been a wonderful bet, as I got a lot of help from bj
who wanted to win his $100.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Jed Rothwell /  No bets needed
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No bets needed
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 19:53:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I have noticed a discussion here about betting on the existence and future
usefulness of CF. I disapprove of gambling, and I don't think any of us needs
to demonstrate his or her commitment in this fashion, because I think we have
already committed ourselves far more seriously than a mere bet might
demonstrate.
 
I have certainly put my money where my mouth is: I have invested, and lost, 10s
of thousands of dollars in CF, and I expect to lose many more before this thing
pans out. That is what I do for a living, so it is no skin off my teeth. It is
not a gamble or a bet, unless you call it a bet when farmer plants corn and
hopes for a good growing season.
 
The leading "skeptics" are gambling far more than I am. They have bet their
reputations, their careers, their children's jobs, and the economic and military
security of the nation. By conducting a vicious witch hunt to root out all
research, by banning all papers, letters and news of CF, they have raised the
stakes higher and higher, so now they cannot afford to stop, or back down, or
admit they have been wrong all along.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Jeff Driscoll /  refrigerator doors
     
Originally-From: jdriscol@frisbee.prime.com (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: refrigerator doors
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 21:26:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
>From Jeff Driscoll,  jdriscol@frisbee.prime.com
 
 
from Dieter Britz:
>Apparently Tom Droege posted something to the effect that if you leave a
>fridge door open, the room will get cooler; and he is thought to be wrong.
>This is an old fallacy alright, but Tom's statement is nevertheless correct,
>as stated.
>
>Let's close the fridge first, and go back to the time when we first turned it
>on. The room is like a calorimeter, with some extra heat from the back of the
>fridge, where the heat (and a bit extra) comes out that was taken from the
>inside, and the room thus establishes a new (higher)  equilibrium temperature,
>dissipating that heat at some steady rate. If you like, we have established a
>partitioning of the room into an overall hotter partition (outside the
>fridge), and an overall cooler one (inside the fridge). In any case, the room
>is a bit warmer than it was before we put in and turned on the fridge. Now
>open the fridge. The fridge's insides warm up while the room cools down a
>little - still not quite down to the pre-fridge time but lower. So Tom is
>right. He does know his calorimetry.
>
>The old fallacy is, of course, the idea that you can use a fridge as an air
>conditioner. The room, with an open fridge working in it, would be a little
>warmer than without it. We all know about that; certainly Tom does.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------
 
I think this is incorrect.
 
Put the room with the fridge inside of a larger room which is at a
constant 70 deg C.  There would then be a large room at constant 70 deg C
with a smaller room inside it which has, for example, 100 watts of electrical
power going into it to power the fridge's compressor.
 
To simplify things, I will use the following assumptions:
1.  The compressor uses 100 watts continuously no matter what the
 temperature the condenser is at (heating coils or coils in contact
 with the room air) or no matter  what the temperature the evaporator
 is at (the cooling coils or the coils in contact with the air inside
 of the fridge). In reality, a compressor would use different amounts
 of energy if the temperature of the condenser or evaporator change.
 (a house refrigerator, I think, uses about 2 kilowatts when it is running,
  and it runs intermittently) (it also uses up the most energy of any appliance
 in an average house if I remember correctly).
 
2. The larger room will have to be cooled in order to keep it at 70 deg
 constant.  (you have energy going into the smaller room, so at
 steady state it dissapates heat energy to the larger room at exactly the same
 rate that electrical enters the small room, if you assume that no energy is
 being stored in the small room).
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
At steady state, the inside of the fridge is very cold, there is 100 watts
of electricity going into the refrigerator inside a small room, the small
room dissapates 100 watts to the larger room, and somehow the larger room is
cooled so that 100 watts leaves it so that it is kept at 70 degrees.
 
All of a sudden, the door of the fridge opens, and from what Dieter essentially
says, the small room now dissapates something less than 100 watts to the
larger room because, as he says, it is at a slightly lower temperature.
 
I think that that when the fridge door is opened, the room
temperature of the small room stays exactly the same temperature it was before
the fridge door was opened.  If it didn't, then the room would dissapate
something other than 100 watts and that  would mean that there was some
sort of energy storage happening (or energy release  from some
type of energy storage that had occurred earlier if the room
became hotter when the door opened).
 
from Dieter:
> Now
>open the fridge. The fridge's insides warm up while the room cools down a
>little - still not quite down to the pre-fridge time but lower. So Tom is
>right. He does know his calorimetry.
 
Tips for anyone trying to figure any of this out.
In a thought experiment, it is valid to have a refrigerator that continuously
uses 100 watts, and that does continuously pump X amount of energy from the
cold side to the hot side no matter what the temperature of the cold and hot
side are (or in other words, no matter if the door is opened or closed).
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
This is strictly Thermodynamics First Law,
 
energy in + energy generated  = energy out + energy stored
 
energy in        = electrical energy into the small room = 100 watts
energy generated = energy generated by the small room     = 0 watts
energy out       = energy dissapated by the small room   = 100 watts
energy stored    = energy stored in the small room      = 0 watts
 -----------------------------------------------------------
The fridge continuously pumps X amount of energy from the cold side to
the hot side, lets assume it to be 300 watts (I  think that  3 to 1 ratio
is typical).  If the door is open, 300 watts still go from the cold
side to the hot side, it just so happens that the inside of the
fridge is warmer, the room temperature does not change at all.  Picture it
this way, energy is flowing from the hot coils behind the fridge,  to
the cold coils inside the fridge. With the door closed, the energy has
to first travel through 2 inches of insulation before reaching the
cold coils.  With the door open, the energy just flows straight to the
cold coils by way of  conduction, radiation and convection through
the air.
 
 
       Jeff Driscoll
 
jdriscol@frisbee.prime.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjdriscol cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / L Norrgard /  Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
     
Originally-From: vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
Date: 9 Apr 93 16:53:36
Organization: cripples the mind.  Not recommended.

In article <930408122606.22e008c3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Place two cells in an enclosure such as the Pons and Fleischmann video.  Let
> cell A be at 40 C and cell B at 80 C.  I say to one and all.  There is heat
> flow from cell A to cell B (from the colder cell to the hotter one for those
> who cannot read symbolism).
>
> The above is a carefully worded statement.  It is true.  Some of you out there
> will agree with me because you can read, and do not jump to conclusions about
> what I have said.  Others may think the statement violates all the rules of
> thermodynamics.  It does not.
 
Well, as yet another hacker following this, it's not hard for me
to see why your statement is true, even while it doesn't seem to be so
at the first glance.
  You left out a crucial piece of information in that statement,
namley that the heat flow in the opposite direction is bigger.  To a
programmer, leaving that out makes the statement false or just flawed.
So, I'd write this off as a culture clash.
 
> Tom Droege
 
-- vinsci
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenvinsci cudfnLeonard cudlnNorrgard cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Sea Wasp /  One more silly idea about neutrons...
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One more silly idea about neutrons...
Date: 9 Apr 93 13:38:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

 
        This idea may have been mentioned before; if so, forgive me
for re-asking it.
 
        Is it POSSIBLE that somehow the neutrons involved are being
CAPTURED by the Palladium or something else involved in the reaction?
I know that normally there are radioactive byproducts of such things,
but I also know that there are several elements which have several
stable isotopes, so a neutron capture might convert one stable
isotope to another. (I don't know if Palladium is one of the metals
with multiple stable isotopes -- my CRC isn't handy right now).
 
        Just another bizarre and probably ridiculous idea from
 
 
                                        Sea Wasp
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  this & that
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: this & that
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 14:48:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
REGARDING DROEGE'S RECENT OBSERVATIONS
 
Just to comment on it:  Tom's observation that the better the instrumentation,
the less the effect is a very nice one.  Based on that observation I'm now
inclined to say that the P&F recipe is pretty much nonsense, and that they
have no idea at all what does or does not do whatever they claim happened.
 
Tom has provided information that finally makes me strongly inclined to lower
the value of experiments such as the Scott et al series I've mentioned from
time to time.  Tom's message seems to be that sigma measurements of very low
levels of heat are doggone gollywumpus dangerously unreliable when you are
talking about a dynamic gazinta/gasouta electricity+heat system over a period
of weeks or even months.  Sounds like a pretty decent observation to me, and
I'm inclined to take it at face value.
 
(Peace, Jed, I have a right to my own opinion.  Plus I'm nothing but a poor,
bewildered computer type anyway.  Save your ammo for someone else.)
 
Thus I'd place the whole thing back on ground zero, which to me is this:
A cube of Pd unexpectedly went BOOM! in a relatively low-energy experiment
involving deuterium, water, and a bit of electricity.  Absolutely no real
indication of commensurate radiation for a nuclear explanation, of course.
Normal indicators of stupidity and/or fraud were not readily apparent, as
the poor bewildered fellows at first genuinely seemed to think that their
results would be replicated easily at many sites within a week or two.  I
guess a motive of some kind of very involved long-range plot to capture Jap-
anese funding could be proposed if you like that sort of thing.  (I don't.)
 
But was there ever really anything else anyway?  All of what P&F came out
with after that incident was pretty well patent nonsense (emphasis on the
word "patent", get it heh heh?) that tried to explain a single bizarre
incident for which they had no real explanation.
 
Is a cube of Pd exploding and/or vaporizing 4 years ago worth worrying about?
It's certainly not worth all the nonsense about "cold fusion" when there were
never any of the proper indicators (such as the radiation deaths of all the
experimenters, among other things) to make one think such a thing.
 
Whether the Pd Blooey Cube is worth worrying about at all is up to the gentle
reader.  I take P&F at their word that it really did happen, pretty much
without qualification.  I take very little of what P&F have said or done
since as being of much consequence to anyone but story writers and venture
capitalists, as P&F have shown no ability to replicate the only the one and
only result they ever had that really counted -- the Pd Blooey Cube.  (Recall
that I'm now discounting all of the other low-level sigma-significance stuff
based on Tom's observations that sigma significance disappears convergently
as the measurement quality of the experiments are refined.)
 
 
REGARDING DROEGE'S TESTS OF THE AUDIENCE
 
Shame on you, Tom.  You are trying to derive data from a very poor sampling,
as most people on this net simply take what you say at face value and leave
it at that.  You seem to expect everyone to start slathering because Tom
Droege has reported Boiling Water.  When they don't, you scold them all.
 
Shame on me, too.  Tom mentioned this experiment to me before he mailed it
out, and I at first encourged him to go ahead and give it a try.  I backed
off the next day because I didn't like the deceptive overtones of putting
out a trickily worded description of a real experiment just to see how
people would react.  No one reacted, and I thought that was the end of it.
 
If you want to test people, Tom -- especially when the audience consists
largely of people who have had nothing but admiration and respect for all
of your work -- then why not just say so up front, and ask what your many
friends in this group think about it?
 
 
REGARDING ONE OF DALE BASS' EARLIER ACCUSATIONS
 
Hey Dale, in one of your postings a few weeks ago I got a more than passing
impression that you were accusing me of having gotten my prediction that
colder temperatures might lead to stronger sonoluminescence by reading the
existing literature.  I did not, of course -- but did I read that wrongly,
or were you really trying to say such a thing?  I'd hate to accuse you of
a cheap shot if that was not what was intended.
 
You comments (apart from the nice references, of course) were mostly blah
blah blah stuff and not worth bringing up at this late date, but suggesting
falsification of sources is something I take a bit more seriously.  Did I
misundertand you, or not?
 
 
REGARDING THE PUTTERMAN INTERPRETATION OF PLASMA SONOLUMINESCENCE
 
Aw shucks, would you believe I'm still utterly unrepentant in supporting
the idea that _maybe_ a plasma interpretation is pretty darned plausible?
 
While inputs from fellow non-physicist amateurs in sonoluminescense such
as Dale are appreciated and given due consideration, of course, I'm just
so doggone iggy-norant in the subject that I'm not easily swayed.  So Dale,
_when_ are you going finally going to wise up to the wisdom of and beauty
of the HICCUP concept and concur with Tom Droege's ealier assessment that
I should be nominated for a Nobel Prize for my Ultra Cavitation piece???
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold He4 Fusion: more speculation
Date: 8 Apr 1993 23:54:06 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
: Chuck,
:   Could you explain to a novice why that excited He4 nucleus must release
: its enrgy in a SINGLE step?
 
Perhaps not ALWAYS single steps, but generally large steps.
 
Suppose you tried to release energy in many many small bunches.
 
How can you do that?  First of all, you will have to create only
particles with small or zero masses.  So really, only neutrinos and
photons.  Otherwise, the only way would be to create lots of
electron/positron pairs (nuclear excitation energies are tens of MeV's,
nowhere near enough to make protons, or even muons).  But then,
a very clear 511keV x-ray should be visible as the positrons thermalize
and annihilate in the metal. (This is old physics, BTW).
 
Suppose you created huge shower of neutrinos.  OK, it's unlikely because
of the small strenght of the weak interaction.    But this doesn't help
explain excess heat, because the neutrinos will completely escape with
no interaction.
 
So you're left with photons.  The transition rates for various final
states (de-excited nucleus + emitted particles/radiation) are given by
Fermi's golden rule.
 
First of all the transition rate for multi-photon processes are surpressed
significantly compared to single photon processes because the smaller
matrix element.(more and more photon wave functions have to overlap just
right)  Thermal energies are 1/40 ev at room temperature, and
we have say 10 MeV's to get rid of.  So that's a 400 million photon
process.  Homie don't think so.  Not to mention the much smaller density
of states (the other part of the Fermi formula) at lower energies.
 
:     ++PLS
 
--
-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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
Date: 9 Apr 93 11:22:26 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

In article <930408122606.22e008c3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
[Text deleted for brevity]
>
> Place two cells in an enclosure such as the Pons and Fleischmann video.  Let
> cell A be at 40 C and cell B at 80 C.  I say to one and all.  There is heat
> flow from cell A to cell B (from the colder cell to the hotter one for those
> who cannot read symbolism).
>
 
Tom,
 
You are, as you know, absolutely correct (and I did realize this when I
read you comments in the original post on this subject).  However, for
the thermodynamically impaired, from Krieth and Black's Basic Heat Transfer
(notice correct use of quotes) "The quantity of energy leaving a surface
as radiant heat depends upon the absolute temperature and the nature of
the surface.  A perfect radiator, or blackbody, emits radiant energy from
its surface at a rate q, given by
 
    q = sigma * A * T^4"
 
It says nothing about the surrounding conditions.  But as everyone
here seems to already "know", heat does not flow from cold objects to
hot ones.  This is WRONG thinking.  Heat does flow from lower thermo-
dynamic states to higher ones.  However, heat also flows from the higher
states back into the lower ones.  The NET heat flow, which is what many
readers assumed Tom was talking about, IS from the
"hot" objects to the "cold" ones.
 
The NET heat flow from one object to another is given by
 
    q = sigma * A1 * F1-2 * (T1^4 - T2^4)
 
q   = heat flow
A1  = radiating area of first object
F1-2= modulus radiating the emissivities and geometries of the two objects
T1  = surface temperature of first object
T2  = surface temperature of second object
 
What this means is that if you have a cell generating heat at some value
Q and surround it with 90 C water, the CF cell will possess a higher
temperature then if you surround it with 20 C water.
 
'nough said,
--
 
   Jim Batka  | 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 minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
 
PS  Everyone feel free to flame me.  I promise I will only respond to
technical questions and won't respond to personal attack.  There is enough
of this going on already in sci.physics.fusion.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjbatka cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: this & that
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: this & that
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 16:34:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr9.144833.6213@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>REGARDING ONE OF DALE BASS' EARLIER ACCUSATIONS
 
     Accusation?  I thought it was a pretty calm statement of
     fact considering the irritation.
 
>Hey Dale, in one of your postings a few weeks ago I got a more than passing
>impression that you were accusing me of having gotten my prediction that
>colder temperatures might lead to stronger sonoluminescence by reading the
>existing literature.  I did not, of course -- but did I read that wrongly,
>or were you really trying to say such a thing?  I'd hate to accuse you of
>a cheap shot if that was not what was intended.
 
     Don't know where you would have gotten that from, I was basically
     telling you to *read* the literature.  Oh well.
 
     Here, I'd be more than happy to refresh your memory:
 
Me:
>Terry:
>>(By the way:  In HICCUP I predicted that adding glycerin and chilling the
>>water should increase the intensity of the sonoluminescence.  They do.
>>So how's _your_ record of experimental predictions for sonoluminescence?)
>
>     In water, sonoluminescence reaches a maximum at 13C, and declines
>     to 1/8 that value at 1C (Taylor and Jarman, Br. J. Appl. Phys
>     Ser. 2, 1:658 (1968)).  In addition, surface tension/vapor pressure
>     variations of sonoluminescence have been examined for
>     over 30 years (c.f. Jarman, Proc. Phys. Soc. 73:628 (1959)).
 
     I was merely pointing out that you are *wrong*.  Snotty too, but
     mostly wrong.
 
     I was also pointing out that there's not much point in making
     blind physical predictions for things that have already been investigated
     in the literature.  You don't seem to realize that this is *not*
     a new field.  There has been a rather recent advance in the
     ability to study detailed motions as the result of the 'stable'
     variety of sonoluminescence, but people have been working on this
     for nearly 50 years.
 
>You comments (apart from the nice references, of course) were mostly blah
>blah blah stuff and not worth bringing up at this late date, but suggesting
>falsification of sources is something I take a bit more seriously.  Did I
>misundertand you, or not?
 
     No, I was suggesting you were *wrong* and ignorant of the literature.
 
>Aw shucks, would you believe I'm still utterly unrepentant in supporting
>the idea that _maybe_ a plasma interpretation is pretty darned plausible?
>
>While inputs from fellow non-physicist amateurs in sonoluminescense such
>as Dale are appreciated and given due consideration, of course, I'm just
 
     You're free to take what I say or leave it, but
     let me simply point out that I am not an amateur when it comes
     to fluid phenomena specifically including sonoluminescence.  It might
     have been that assumption that got you into trouble before.
 
>so doggone iggy-norant in the subject that I'm not easily swayed.  So Dale,
>_when_ are you going finally going to wise up to the wisdom of and beauty
>of the HICCUP concept and concur with Tom Droege's ealier assessment that
>I should be nominated for a Nobel Prize for my Ultra Cavitation piece???
 
     Gee-willikers, Terry buddy.  Bob McElwaine has already gotten
     my nomination this year.
 
     Maybe next year.
 
                         dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Arcane versus easy proof
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arcane versus easy proof
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 19:06:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930409154113_72240.1256_EHL54-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>The field of cold fusion has been plagued by unprofessional, unscientific
>crackpots for too long. It is time we get real, and toss them out, starting
>with the most notorious: Close, Huizenga and Morrison. These people do not
>even understand how thermometers work, and they apparently think that a match
>can burn for a week. They are not scientists, they have not done any
>experimental or theoretical work in the field, so they should have no role in
>it, and people should not pay any attention to what they say. I am open
>minded, and I believe in free speech, but I am also a severe skeptic and
>critic, and I cannot stand hearing people who call themselves "scientists"
>ignore conservation of energy, thermodynamics, and other fundamentals. These
>people must be severely criticized. In this forum they are not criticized,
>they are worshipped, and their statements are taken as the holy grail, because
>of the "double standard."
 
     This is getting quite tiresome.  If the phenomenon actually
     exists as advertised, who cares what Close, Huizenga and Morrison,
     think?
 
     All the proponents must do is demonstrate a repeatable unambiguous
     experiment to get most of us to 'believe'.  No amount of invective,
     no amount of cajoling, no amount of berating is going to make it
     true if it's not.
 
     In any case, my guess is that it won't be but so long before
     the money-men say 'put up or shut up'.  I'm certainly willing
     to wait patiently for that verdict either way.  But by now,
     I'm willing to bet what that verdict will be.
 
>Bruce asked me to describe the intermittent 70 watts of Takahashi versus
>steady output of P&F. I find this virtually impossible to do without graphics.
 
     At a loss for words?  I'm shocked, he said dryly.
 
     By the way, I'll avoid pointing out two physical errors in
     the succeeding paragraphs so maybe the persecution complex will
     subside somewhat.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / mitchell swartz /  "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1993 20:43:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

         In Message-ID: <1993Apr8.225836.25285@ns.network.com>
         Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
      John Logajan  (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
== > Therefore: "loss of CF" may effect a reduction in foreign trade.
== > By whatever description surely this may be less than optimally beneficial.
==
==  "Ah, but there are at least two other possible conclusions:
==  1.) CF may be an illusion, and therefore time spent studying it is
==  (as economists call it) an opportunity loss -- an expediture of resources
==  that could otherwise have been put to use elsewhere.
==
== 2.) CF may be valid, but Japan might be the more efficient producer of CF.
== In which case, efforts to duplicate the work in the US also result in
== opportunity losses to more efficient uses of resources."
 
   John, good points.  However, even if 2.) is true, then given the very
low risk/benefit ratio, there is no reason to not fund this technology.
 
  Also: even if 3.) is true, because of the iniate creativity of the
scientists in the US, there is the potential loss of cross-fertilization
to all.
 
   Risk/benefit ratio ought determine this matter (similar to AIDS
research and that story on DAY 1 two weeks ago).
 
   Given that ALL the funding is put in a very limited number
of baskets (eg. hot fusion or anti-HIV-III-directed research), then this
is an inefficient use of resources to the degree the initial premises
are flawed(.
 
 
== "Attempting to justify CF, then, on non-supportable economic arguements
==  is to wander in the direction of disinformation."
 
   I doubt one can justify any science (whether it examines a real
or non-real phenomenon) on such argument, and did not mean to convey that.
 
   However given the real problems facing real people who are impacted
by such (needs for energy and health) we ought very carefully consider
where our pooled money and efforts are going.
   Also, as individuals, we ought consider that one avenue with "blinders"
may have risk since we (as part of Gaia) face real energy needs (or in the
case/analogy to AIDS discussed above, a real problem).
   People should put their heads and ideas and wallets together to solve
these vital problems now.
                                   - Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
Date: 9 Apr 1993 22:16:16 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
: In article <930408122606.22e008c3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
: >
: > Place two cells in an enclosure such as the Pons and Fleischmann video.  Let
: > cell A be at 40 C and cell B at 80 C.  I say to one and all.  There is heat
: > flow from cell A to cell B (from the colder cell to the hotter one for those
: > who cannot read symbolism).
: >
: {individual vs. net flow}
 
: The NET heat flow, which is what many
: readers assumed Tom was talking about, IS from the
: "hot" objects to the "cold" ones.
 
There's another aspect, too.  Is this a closed system?
 
Is any work being applied?  If so, then there can still be a *net*
heat flow from cold to hot.
 
Is that what the point was?
 
Given those 4 P&F cells, if all were running with power being applied
to them, the total thermodynamics is rather, nontrivial if you allow
heat flow, mass, flow.
 
--
-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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: No bets needed
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No bets needed
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 93 23:27:31 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930409191716_72240.1256_EHL45-4@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
 
> they have raised the
> stakes higher and higher, so now they cannot afford to stop, or back down, or
> admit they have been wrong all along.
>
 
Could not the same be true of the believers?
 
Besides, skeptics usually come around once positive evidence builds up.
Believers, however, are free to gone on forever believing, since no one can
ever disprove things to their satisfaction. I mean, once we have CF hot water
heaters on sale at Sears, there wont be anymore skeptics. But if CF
doesn't exist, I'm sure there will still be a pool of believers well
into the future. Look at dowsing...
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Refrigerator problem simplified
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Refrigerator problem simplified
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 16:37:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Will those Gentle Readers now struggling with the Refrigerator Problem please
simplify it by making the following assumption:
 
The fridge is turned off long before the experiment begins. The temperatures
inside, outside the fridge, and ambient room temperature in the kitchen are
all equal. This is very important, otherwise you will have an apparent loss
of energy.
 
Also, let us use a pretend fridge with a small, steady state 100 watt
compressor.
 
Okay? Here is how it works:
 
1. Calibrate kitchen calorimeter before you begin.
 
2. Turn on power to fridge. Excess energy appears to be generated for a
while, as inside of fridge gets cold, and water in ice try freezes. The
calorimeter shows 100 watts going in kitchen, 110 coming out, 600 joule per
minute generation. The 600 joules are being dumped out of the fridge into the
cooling coils in back of the fridge.
 
3. Steady state reached. Inside of fridge gets as cold as it is going to get,
ice is all frozen. Heat leaks in at a steady pace, and is dumped out the back
via the cooling coils. 100 watts goes in to kitchen, 100 watts comes out.
 
4. Open fridge door. A blast of cool air comes out, the ice begins to melt.
You see a net deficit of heat in the kitchen as whole. (This effect is what
makes small children think you can cool the kitchen by leaving the door
open). 100 watts goes in, 90 watts comes out. 600 joules appear to be
swallowed up by the kitchen, but...
 
5. Not for long! Eventually, all the ice melts, and the inside of the fridge
reaches just about the same temperature as the room. The compressor keeps
humming, transferring heat from the inside of the fridge to the coils in the
back. That heat scurries right around to the front of the fridge where it
goes right back in again, round and round.
 
6. Hey! The amount of energy "gained" in step 2 equals the amount "lost" in
step 4. Whaddya know? Surprise, surprise. No net gain, no loss, everything
balances to within the limits of your calorimeter.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / Jed Rothwell /  From one programmer to another
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: From one programmer to another
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 16:37:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Terry, a fellow computer programmer type, made the following suggestion:
 
     "Tom's observation that the better the instrumentation, the less the
     effect is a very nice one.  Based on that observation I'm now inclined to
     say that the P&F recipe is pretty much nonsense, and that they have no
     idea at all what does or does not do whatever they claim happened."
 
Okay, let's try that on for size. Here is the story. Not only am I a
programmer, but for 13 years I was in charge of hiring programmers. I quickly
found that there is no way to predict whether a person really knows anything
about programming, because even people with degree in computer science from
Georgia Tech sometimes turned out to be dimbulbs. Therefore, I devised a
simple examination, with six questions. One of them, for example, was to take
a list of time durations expressed as ASCII strings, hours and minutes:
 
01:02
00:53
02:18
 
Convert them to numeric values, add up the hours and minutes, and print the
total. I let the programmer applicants use any computer language they wanted
(I had several loaded onto the machine). I let them use all the programming
manuals I had. You would be surprised how many people were incapable of
converting strings to numbers, and how many others thought the answer should
be 03:73.
 
Now let me show how this relates to CF. Back in 1989, P&F announced that they
had worked very hard for many years on a tricky experiment, and they had
finally achieved results. They warned that the experiment looked easy, but it
took expert knowledge, and repeated effort, to do it. It is kind of like
writing a recursive algorithm, okay? N. Wirth makes it looks easy. Fleischmann
said it was "relatively easy" but he meant that if you are a world class
electrochemist, and you knock yourself out for 3 years, you will probably get
it. Now, as everyone well knows, sixty-zillion physicists, chemists, and
plasma physicist ignored everything Fleischmann said, then and afterwards, and
assumed that they could learn electrochemistry over the weekend, jumped to do
the experiment, and made six-hundred-zillion foolish mistakes. So, nobody got
any reaction except for a handful of people like Bockris, who knew what he was
doing. And the rest all dismissed it as mistake. The likelihood of their
success was about as great as the likelihood of a group of electrochemists
succeeding in a plasma physics experiment after one weekend (infinitely small;
completely unlikely). It is like expecting that a person who read one book
about Pascal 20 years ago as an undergrad, and never wrote a program, will
come in and pass my programmer test in flying colors.
 
Okay, so after that brouhaha, several hundred real electrochemists got to work
seriously, and a few hundred plasma physicists like Ikegami decided to learn
how to do electrochemistry. As Ikegami said to me, it takes a couple of years
to get the know-how to do this experiment, but you learn after a while. For
two years after the announcement, McKubre and his staff of Top Notch, World
Class electrochemists struggled, worked, experimented over and over and over
again, doing hundreds of runs, and getting no effect at all. They were
discouraged, but in the great tradition of science, they went on, day and
night, month after month. Finally, after two years of teeth grinding work,
they began to succeed. McKubre is widely know as one of the most brilliant
electrochemists of his generation. (My g-g-generation! He once aspired to play
rock music.)
 
As I said, this effort belongs in the great tradition of science and
technology. Without people like McKubre, civilization would not exist.
Remember that the most brilliant scientists on earth worked for 15 years, from
the mid 1860's to the late 1870's, just to produce the humble, ordinary
incandescent light. The kind of lightbulb we produce by the millions now.
Remember that most of those experts got discouraged, and declared that it
could never be done.
 
Okay, so McKubre gets it after 150 experiments. Ikegami gets it. Mizuno,
Takahashi and Srinivasan get it... Gradually the number of people who report a
successful replication at a high signal to noise ratio increases. Gradually
the techniques improve. Miliwatt excesses in 1989 become one or two watts by
1991. By 1992, the best people are up to 10 to 100 watts, some at a steady
state. By now, hundreds of people have seen the effect, at Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Hokkaido, at Los Alamos, in people's basements all over the U.S...
Some workers are using fairly simple calorimeters, but many of the Japanese
and Italians, and the people at SRI are using superb equipment, FAR better
than Tom Droege's gadget (better, but also thousands of times more expensive
than his gadget). Suddenly, out of left field, the Ni light water stuff
appears... only a dozen or so really top notch people have replicated above
30%, and they are still struggling, but it is looking better every day.
 
Where do we stand? We have given this "programmer test" -- this "can you do
it?" examination -- to several thousand people worldwide, and somewhere around
1000 of them have turned in a positive answer. They say "Yes, I see tritium,
neutrons, Yes, I see heat." A few, of course, have been working the whole time
but they see nothing. Included among them are Tom Droege, poor chap. Tom never
follows the instructions, he is forever using some "specially prepared
cathode" like the one he has now, with some kind of deposition on it to make
an extra smooth surface. I have told him a hundred times to contact Bockris or
someone to get help with the chemistry, to use only glass, and to follow the
instructions *exactly*, and to follow them *exactly* 100 times in a row,
because replicability with ordinary Pd is low. I pass out pieces of the stuff
to experimenters all over the U.S., and I know that only a few succeed,
usually after several runs. Only one has had a major high-heat boil off event,
as far as I know. But I don't think Tom has followed my advice. And why should
he? As he often says, it is his experiment and if he feels like using
specially prepared cathodes, he will. What harm? Why not? The only problem is
that there is no likelihood whatsoever that he will ever get a positive
result. It is like someone trying to make up his own recipe for a gourmet
dubish torte, who has never seen, smelled, or tasted one. It is like trying to
make a transistor by randomly combining various metals with silicon. The
chances of hitting it at random are a million to one against you. Furthermore,
Tom has only been able to do a handful of runs. Maybe 10 or 20? Perhaps not
even one-tenth as many as McKubre had to do before he got *anywhere*, and
McKubre had been doing electrochemistry every day for 30 years before he even
started.
 
So what is the obvious conclusion? You hand out a programmer test to 1000
people, you get back 990 answers ranging from okay to brilliant (McKubre &
P&F). You get back 10 blank sheets, from people who did their best, but could
not answer the questions. You are looking at ONE BLANK TEST from ONE PERSON
who can't hack it, and you are telling us that the other 990 people must be
cheating. "They must be wrong," you say, "apparently, there is no way to solve
this problem."
 
Suppose we turn the clock back to 1909, when 50 or 60 people knew how to build
airplanes that flew, and several hundred were still trying to get off the
ground. What is your conclusion? That man can't fly?
 
You are ignoring all of the data, and all of the experiments, except one. This
is the most irrational, unscientific, most foolish approach to finding the
truth that I have ever heard of in my life. You are not the only one though;
all of the so-called "skeptics" do this, so don't feel too bad.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / mitchell swartz /  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter from Miles
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 13:17:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <930409134203_72240.1256_EHL50-1@CompuServe.COM>
    Subject: Letter from Miles
    Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) writes:
 
==  "Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter ...
==
==--  "... our six control samples apparently satisfied the referees and
==--  editor regarding any questions concerning helium contamination
==--  of these experiments.
==--     It is very difficult to explain how helium contamination could
==--  only occur in experiments that were producing excess power and not
==--  in any of the control experiments. ...  DR. MELVIN H. MILES"
 
 
  Jed.   Thank you, and Dr. Miles, for sharing this letter.
 
    The implications, in the torrent of positive papers (albeit
stiffled in their flow as discussed in sci.physics.fusion) are significant.
 
    Dr. Miles' (and his staff) work is a great contribution.
    Also, the non-scientific banter of the "skeptics" dismissing such work
is incrementally, thereby, again eroded.
 
         Could you, for reference and completeness, please cite the
         journal and the date of the letter, if possible?
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / mitchell swartz /  No bets needed
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No bets needed
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 14:44:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Apr9.232731.24295@math.ucla.edu>
     Subject: Re: No bets needed
 Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) writes:
 
== > "they have raised the
== > stakes higher and higher, so now they cannot afford to stop, or back
== > down, admit they have been wrong all along."
== >  [<930409191716_72240.1256_EHL45-4@CompuServe.COM> (Jed Rothwell)]
==
==    "Could not the same be true of the believers?"
 
  True of TBs, but not scientific-believers, or scientific-explorers, ... ,
or the general public whose judgement may actually be more fluid than
either a TB or a TS (true skeptic).
 
 
==  "...  once we have CF hot water heaters on sale at Sears, there wont
==  be anymore skeptics.
==  But if CF doesn't exist, I'm sure there will still be a pool of
==  believers well into the future. Look at dowsing..."
 
  The opposite is true with the true skeptic.
 
  Consider lunar exploration and its denial by such people.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No bets needed
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No bets needed
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 15:25:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C59vMp.B9D@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>==  "...  once we have CF hot water heaters on sale at Sears, there wont
>==  be anymore skeptics.
>==  But if CF doesn't exist, I'm sure there will still be a pool of
>==  believers well into the future. Look at dowsing..."
>
>  The opposite is true with the true skeptic.
>
>  Consider lunar exploration and its denial by such people.
 
     My, my, how time flies; I hadn't realized that it was time
     again for the 'Straw Man Olympics'.  Rest assured, however, that
     your entry will receive the consideration it's due.  I was especially
     fond of the implicit definition of 'true skeptic'.  It was
     inspirational, truly a masterpiece.
 
     However this is not alt.moon.green.cheese, so why don't
     we discuss your mechanism for fusing deuterium in a palladium
     lattice without producing copious amounts of detectable radiation?
     I'm more than willing to patiently peruse even faintly
     evangelical thoughts on the situation as long as they are
     cogent and coherent.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / Robert Panoff /  Re: Refrigerator problem simplified
     
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refrigerator problem simplified
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 19:29:59 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois

In article <930410161618_72240.1256_EHL38-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Will those Gentle Readers now struggling with the Refrigerator Problem please
>simplify it by making the following assumption:
>
>The fridge is turned off long before the experiment begins. The temperatures
>inside, outside the fridge, and ambient room temperature in the kitchen are
>all equal. This is very important, otherwise you will have an apparent loss
>of energy.
>
>Also, let us use a pretend fridge with a small, steady state 100 watt
>compressor.
>
>Okay? Here is how it works:
 
(delete the intermediate steps)
>
>5. Not for long! Eventually, all the ice melts, and the inside of the fridge
>reaches just about the same temperature as the room. The compressor keeps
>humming, transferring heat from the inside of the fridge to the coils in the
>back. That heat scurries right around to the front of the fridge where it
>goes right back in again, round and round.
>
>6. Hey! The amount of energy "gained" in step 2 equals the amount "lost" in
>step 4. Whaddya know? Surprise, surprise. No net gain, no loss, everything
>balances to within the limits of your calorimeter.
>
 
But that is not the steady state. You still have the compressor plugged
into the wall.  It (the heat) may come out of the fridge but (assuming
a well-insulated kitchen) it stays in the kitchen. The temperature is
rising in the kitchen, and it is not a "round and round" game.  True,
the compressor is transferring heat from the inside of the fridge to
the coils in the back, but it is also transferring heat from OUTSIDE
the kitchen to INSIDE the kitchen since the compressor is plugged into
the wall.
 
Bob Panoff
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrpanoff cudfnRobert cudlnPanoff cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / Cameron Bass /  From a fluid dynamicist to a programmer
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: From a fluid dynamicist to a programmer
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 20:21:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930410161750_72240.1256_EHL38-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Okay, so McKubre gets it after 150 experiments. Ikegami gets it. Mizuno,
>Takahashi and Srinivasan get it... Gradually the number of people who report a
>successful replication at a high signal to noise ratio increases. Gradually
>the techniques improve. Miliwatt excesses in 1989 become one or two watts by
>1991. By 1992, the best people are up to 10 to 100 watts, some at a steady
>state. By now, hundreds of people have seen the effect, at Tokyo Institute of
>Technology, Hokkaido, at Los Alamos, in people's basements all over the U.S...
 
     Okay, I'd be interested in the repeatable 'steady-state' '100 watt'
     results, whatever that means.  It might be nice if you first
     explained what 'steady-state' and '100 watt' mean to you.
     Also, since there are 'some', I'm sure you could
     tell me the experimental conditions, including calorimeter configuration,
     electrical forcing, and electrode size and condition as well as some
     details of the experimental results.  References as well as
     the group obtaining such results would be nice too, but I'd prefer
     they be in a European language.  If they're not, I'm sure we can
     work something out.  Even in the unlikely event several are in
     Japanese language conference publications, I'm sure you'll take
     the time to explain in some detail these very very important results.
 
     I'm really quite curious how the existence of such results is consistent
     with the assertion that there is some engineering difficulty associated
     with a cheap stunt that would 'convince the world', but I'm sure
     that will become clear with some experimental details.
 
>So what is the obvious conclusion?
 
     I don't know, I'm waiting patiently for a description of the 100 watt
     steady-state experiments.  I'm sure I'll not be disappointed.
 
>You are ignoring all of the data, and all of the experiments, except one. This
>is the most irrational, unscientific, most foolish approach to finding the
>truth that I have ever heard of in my life. You are not the only one though;
>all of the so-called "skeptics" do this, so don't feel too bad.
 
     Au contraire, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have an
     intense desire to hear some details about those 100 watt steady
     state experiments to which you referred above.  Your familiarity
     with such experiments is appreciated, and I will appreciate experimental
     details.  And please, don't leave out any important expermental
     conditions or parameters of which we should be aware.
 
     I wait with great anticipation.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / Bruce Liebert /  Fourth Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fourth Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 20:47:24 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

I received the following information this week and thought that this may
be of interest to some on this newsgroup.
 
Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-4)
 
Background
Four years of intensive investigation have uncovered a wide variety of
unexpected phenomena occurring in condensed matter under ambient
conditions.  Promoted largely by the possibility of a nuclear origin, the
reality, mechanism, independence, and ultimately, significance
of these processes is a subject of continued debate.  The phenomena in
question and their associated disciplines include excess power
generation, nuclear product formation, electrochemical studies of
deuterated metal systems, solid-state physics of metal matrices,
coherent processes, behavior of gas-metal systems, and improved precision
calorimetric techniques.
 
Objective
The purpose of this conference is to promote the broadest discussion of
the scientific aspects of these condensed matter phenomena.
 
Who Should Attend
Participation is open to all interested scientists and technologists.  In
particular, the following are encouraged to attend:
        Nuclear and solid-state theoreticians
        Advanced energy technologists
        Long-range utility planners
 
Call for Abstracts
Two-page abstract due:  September 10, 1993
Author notification:  October 10, 1993
Those wishing to present papers should submit two copies of an abstract
containing the title of the presentation, contact author,
affiliation(s), etc. to S. Crouch-Baker, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood
Avenue, Menlo Park, CA  94025.  Mark these submissions
"ICCF-4 Abstract."
 
Abstracts should be no more than two 28 x 21 cm pages (8 1/2 x 11")
including figures and tables; 10-point type, single-spaced.  A bound
volume of abstracts will be produced for distribution to attendees at the
conference, so abstract submittal in magnetic form is
encouraged (Macintosh users:  Word 4.0+, System 7; PC users:  Word 4.0+;
magnetic media will not be returned).  Also, those submitting
abstracts in magnetic form should include two hard copies.
 
Technical Information
Tom Passell, EPRI, (415) 855-2070
Michael McKubre, SRI, (415) 859-3868
 
December 6--9, 1993
Hyatt Regency Maui
Lahaina, Hawaii
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------
 
Conference Organization/Preliminary Agenda
The conference will be cochaired by Dr. T. O. Passell (EPRI) and Dr. M. C.
H. McKubre (SRI).  An organizing committee has been formed
with individual responsibility in the following designated areas.  The
International Advisory Committee will be announced shortly.
 
T. Claytor                      (LANL)          Nuclear Measurements
S. Crouch-Baker                 (SRI)           Proceedings
P. Hagelstein                   (MIT)           Theory
B. Liaw                         (U. Hawaii)     Site Organization
M. McKubre                      (SRI)           Calorimetry (cochair)
R. Nowack                       (ONR)           Administration
T. Passell                      (EPRI)          Administration (cochair)
D. Rolison                      (NRL)           Materials, Fundamentals
 
The proposed agenda is as follows:  Morning sessions will be devoted to
one keynote presentation and a number of shorter, invited
presentations.  Afternoon presentations will be divided into a number of
thematically organized parallel sessions to accommodate the
anticipated number of presentations.  Papers reporting the results of
simultaneous measurements of different kinds are particularly
encouraged.  Subject areas to be covered include:
        Materials and Fundamentals
        Calorimetry
        Nuclear Measurements
        Solid-State Theory
        Electrochemical Studies
        Safety Issues
 
Logistical and Registration Information
Linda Nelson
Conference Coordinator
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743
(415) 855-2127
Fax (415) 855-2041
 
(other info on exhibits, posters, registration, accommodations, and late
cancellations and no-shows have not been included here--BEL)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.10 / mitchell swartz /  cf information channels
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cf information channels
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 22:05:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <C4HC0I.2p5@prometheus.UUCP>
   26 Mar 93Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion;  Subject: Re: Science is FILO
Paul M. Koloc writes:
 
--> "Just how long is it going to take to convince the scientific community
-->  of the reality of CF?"
===
=== "About as long as it will take the CF community to spend one tenth of
===  the money spent to date on hot fusion."
 
   What ever the amount of time, perhaps it shall now be less.
 
   Now this system was simulated by me previously as an "RC circuit".
 
       Resistance against the Flow of Information
 
 ---------------/\/\/\/\/\-------------|
                    R                  |
                                       |       Q =  Number of scientists
                                       |
                           -------------------------
                                                         C
                           -------------------------
                                       |
                                       |
 --------------------------------------|
 
     "Now  R might be inversly proportional to the number of
      channels of information available ( Yeah for Internet! )
      SUMMARY:  Increase the number of pathways ... "
    [mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz); <C45szA.75J@world.std.com>]
 
  After much thought, the limitation may be, in part, information
  pathways (channels), and therefore a new pathway was opened.
 
          --------------------------------------------------
 
  An announcement of:
 
     **   A NEW PATHWAY for INFORMATION TRANSFER re: COLD FUSION  **
 
    In March 1989 electrochemically induced nuclear fusion reactions were
 reported, but were initially very difficult to reproduce.   By 1993 many
 experiments demonstrated that anomalous processes occur in  some palladium
 samples which have been highly loaded with deuterium,  as well as other
 systems.
 
    On the 4th Anniversary of the Cold Fusion announcement, a new
         periodical devoted to this field was launched.
 
    COLD FUSION TIMES is entirely dedicated to novel research and
                      developments in the field.
 
   This august group is specifically alerted because contributors of
     relevant and timely papers (and a few more potential peer-reviewers)
     are sought.   Although the theme of the COLD FUSION TIMES is, and will
     be, science and engineering topics, some historical, business, and
     other similar interests will be included, and are therefore also
     invited.
 
                              - Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
  ======================================================================
 COLD FUSION TIMES
 P.O. Box 81135
 Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts  02181
 
[initially published quarterly. annual subscription rate $50.00,
 single issues $16.00; extra postage charge outside
 North America of $8.00 per year.]
 ** Any user of Internet (by simply supplying their e-mail address)
    may also take 30% off the subscription received before June 1, 1993.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.11 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Some neutron capture but not 100%
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some neutron capture but not 100%
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 15:37:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sea Wasp asks, "Is it possible for neutrons to be captured?" to which
the answer is obviously yes.  However, getting from there to something
that could have a significant bearing on CF would take several 'far
fetches' ( to borrow one of the best terms ever invented for application
to the CF debate).
 
To cover just a bit of basic neutron physics,  the probability for
neutron capture is high for neutrons of thermal energy, but then
generally decreases with increasing neutron energy.  For most of
the nuclear reactions ever suggested as contributing to CF energy
production the neutrons are produced at too high an energy for
capture in the Pd to account for the loss of more than some tiny
fraction of the neutron flux.  In a word, neutrons, if produced
are going to escape from the sample to where relatively standard,
simple methods could have and would have detected them by now.
This question is no longer at issue.  There are no significant
numbers of neutrons being produced.
 
If, however, you insist on reviving the "far-fetch" game; what
kind of mechanism would you invoke?  The favorite ones tend to
involve lattices and coherence.  In that context I have to
point out that the what looks like a regular lattice of Pd
atoms as far as electromagnetic interactions are concerned is
really a very irregular array of various Pd isotopes as far as
how it appears to the passing neutrons.
 
Still the possibility gets mentioned that CF heat may involve
reactions that involve the transfer of neutrons into Pd nucleii,
a process that is assumed to be somewhat more difficult to
detect than reactions involving the actual release of free neutrons.
That approach to hiding the reaction process isn't really a
viable option either as a simple examination of the energetics
can demonstrate.  No matter how it gets done, putting an additional
neutron into a Pd nucleus gives that nucleus a certain minimum
excitation energy that it will have to dump on a rather short
time scale.  To pull a number out of my hat, it is of the order
of 5 MeV.  Generally speaking that energy will get released as
a cascade of gamma rays energetic enough to be detected, and
at energies characteristic of a given isotope.  Before you
cry "lattice effects" see the paragraph above.
 
Just as for the neutrons, there is solid evidence that CF does not
result in the production of copious quantities of gamma rays.
There are rumors about (or maybe even claims for) the detection
of characteristic gamma rays.  Unfortunately the energies don't
match those for Pd isotopes, but rather are attributed neighboring
elements.  In any case the rates are far too low.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 20:47:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Robert Panoff forgot step 1 of my instructions: "calibrate your kitchen." He
writes:
 
     "You still have the compressor plugged into the wall.  It (the heat) may
     come out of the fridge but (assuming a well-insulated kitchen) it stays
     in the kitchen..."
 
Right. If it does that, you have yourself a gigantic "passive calorimeter."
It works okay, but it is hard to calibrate. I recommend a flow calorimeter
design. Try a couple hundred feet of garden hose in the kitchen, and loads of
insulation in the walls and covering the window. Run water through the hose
(slowly!), and watch your delta-T water temperatures. In other words, get the
heat out of the kitchen via the hose and measure it as it comes. Keep other
heat leaks to a minimum, and be sure to calibrate, calibrate & calibrate in
advance, even though this is a "first principle" calorimeter and does not
need calibration in theory.
 
Don't try this at home folks. This is just a whimsical description of a
gigantic, impractical calorimeter. Use a little-bitty one if you really wanna
do this.
 
Robert also got confused here: "The temperature is rising in the kitchen, and
it is not a 'round and round' game."
 
Ah, I meant that *some* of the heat is going from the coils in back of the
fridge, around to the front, into the compressed gas and out the back again.
Round and round. Naturally, the heat from the motor is either building up to
the calibrated point (passive calorimeter), or going out the garden hose
(flow calorimeter). The only heat you will detect coming out the garden hose
is the 100 watts (6000 joules per minute) from the motor. Shut that fridge
door again and you will get another burst of "anomalous heat." Don't let it
fool you! It will not exceed the limits of chemical/mechanical storage. You
will not get megajoules per mole of refrigerator mass. If you do, you got a
CF device cooking in there, not a fridge.
 
 
Cameron Randale Bass says:
 
     "I'm sure you could tell me the experimental conditions, including
     calorimeter configuration, electrical forcing, and electrode size and
     condition as well as some details of the experimental results..."
 
I sure could! But I am not going to. Read the literature. I recommend the
McKubre paper, and the stuff from P&F. You will find all kinds of stuff in
Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts, which ranges in quality from sublime to
gorblimey. You can sort it out with practice.
 
     "I don't know, I'm waiting patiently for a description of the 100 watt
     steady-state experiments.  I'm sure I'll not be disappointed."
 
Perhaps you will be disappointed. Read the P&F paper in the Proceedings of
the Third Annual Conference. Watch the video. You will see conclusive proof
that the reaction is steady state (a lot more than most, anyway), and that it
is producing in the range from 60 to 100 watts excess. What you will not find
is exactly how to manufacture a cathode that does the same thing. That is a
trade secret that cost Toyota several millions of dollars to figure out and
they will NOT publish it in the open literature. Intel will give you the
Pentium instruction set, they will tell you how fast it runs, but they aren't
going to hand out the blueprints or let competitors wander around watching
the production lines. They do not want to make life easier for the reverse
engineers. If you want the secret of P&F's metallurgy, you will have to hire
60 to 100 Top Guns and put them to work for several years. You gotta pay to
play. That is how private industry works.
 
If you don't like that, go start a company and hand out all your secrets for
free. You will go broke in a week! It is like running a restaurant and
letting all customers eat for free.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 22:37:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930411201430_72240.1256_EHL46-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Robert Panoff forgot step 1 of my instructions: "calibrate your kitchen." He
>writes:
>
>     "You still have the compressor plugged into the wall.  It (the heat) may
>     come out of the fridge but (assuming a well-insulated kitchen) it stays
>     in the kitchen..."
>
>Right. If it does that, you have yourself a gigantic "passive calorimeter."
>It works okay, but it is hard to calibrate. I recommend a flow calorimeter
>design. Try a couple hundred feet of garden hose in the kitchen, and loads of
>insulation in the walls and covering the window. Run water through the hose
>(slowly!), and watch your delta-T water temperatures. In other words, get the
>heat out of the kitchen via the hose and measure it as it comes. Keep other
>heat leaks to a minimum, and be sure to calibrate, calibrate & calibrate in
>advance, even though this is a "first principle" calorimeter and does not
>need calibration in theory.
 
     Great, a description of how to turn my kitchen into a
     40,000 lb. calorimeter.
 
     What I'd like to hear about are the '100 watt' 'steady-state'
     experimental results.  That seems much more interesting.
     Please provide us with some details of those experiments if
     you would be so kind.  Perhaps you could also include a
     description of what '100 watt' and 'steady-state' mean to you.
 
>     "I'm sure you could tell me the experimental conditions, including
>     calorimeter configuration, electrical forcing, and electrode size and
>     condition as well as some details of the experimental results..."
>
>I sure could! But I am not going to. Read the literature. I recommend the
>McKubre paper, and the stuff from P&F. You will find all kinds of stuff in
>Fusion Technology and Fusion Facts, which ranges in quality from sublime to
>gorblimey. You can sort it out with practice.
 
     Why am I not surprised?   However, don't you think time actually
     discussing results is time better spent than discussing the
     feasibility of turning one's kitchen into a wading pool, or
     plowing into Tom Droege for not having 'positive' results?
 
>     "I don't know, I'm waiting patiently for a description of the 100 watt
>     steady-state experiments.  I'm sure I'll not be disappointed."
>
>Perhaps you will be disappointed. Read the P&F paper in the Proceedings of
>the Third Annual Conference. Watch the video. You will see conclusive proof
>that the reaction is steady state (a lot more than most, anyway), and that it
>is producing in the range from 60 to 100 watts excess. What you will not find
 
     From the video?  How do I obtain visual calibration, and
     how long *is* that video?  Anyway, I'll patiently
     trudge on.  What is the input power, i.e. what fraction of input power
     is the excess?  How is the current being applied?  I seem to remember
     that the cell is open to the air, is my memory correct?
     What is the size of the electrode?  Are the evolved gases collected?
     How is the device being calibrated?  How long is the excess power
     in a 'steady-state' condition?  What is the ratio of total input energy
     over the entire experiment to total output energy over the
     entire experiment?
 
>If you don't like that, go start a company and hand out all your secrets for
>free. You will go broke in a week! It is like running a restaurant and
>letting all customers eat for free.
 
     Well I tell you, in my neck of the woods, if someone plays
     'I've got a secret' for a long while, we start thinking there ain't
     none.
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 / Todd Green /  Re: From one programmer to another
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: From one programmer to another
Date: 12 Apr 93 13:59:38 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <930410161750_72240.1256_EHL38-2@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
(much stuff deleted)
 
>For two years after the announcement, McKubre and his staff of Top Notch, World
> Class electrochemists struggled, worked, experimented over and over and over
> again, doing hundreds of runs, and getting no effect at all. They were
> discouraged, but in the great tradition of science, they went on, day and
> night, month after month. Finally, after two years of teeth grinding work,
> they began to succeed. McKubre is widely know as one of the most brilliant
> electrochemists of his generation.
 
Jed, in the ACCF1 proceedings it clearly shows that McKubre et. al. were getting
XS heat in May of 1989. In fact, the first two experiments they tried (P1 and
P2) both worked! So, I don't think there was a long history of failure and
frustration before their success. Although I think the McKubre work is
excellent, I seriously doubt that your last sentence is accurate either.
 
 
-----
todd
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Hmmm...
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Date: 9 Apr 93 15:57:00 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1993Apr9.033616.29850@asl.dl.nec.com>, by terry@asl.dl.nec.com:
> Is it my imagination, or is this group getting a bit weirder even than usual?
 
I wouldn't say "weirder" (note, proper use of quotation marks!) but, I
would say that the silliness level introduced by the Bass and Swartz
Show is getting a little out of hand. Though it did have me chuckling
all over my keyboard this morning.
 
In the spirit of "and your little dog too" I just want to remeind
people that "We're not in Kansas anymore."
 
                        Some where over the rainbow
 
                                        Bob P.
 
P.S.
 
But definitely south of Kansas :-)
 
--
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 cudlnPendleton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.09 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Re: The infidel speaks"
Date: 9 Apr 93 16:08:31 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <1993Apr8.225836.25285@ns.network.com>, by logajan@ns.netwo
k.com (John Logajan):
 
> 2.) CF may be valid, but Japan might be the more efficient producer of CF.
>     In which case, efforts to duplicate the work in the US also result in
>     opportunity losses to more efficient uses of resources.
 
Am I the only one out here that thinks that if CF is valid then the
changes that it will cause in the world will be so large that any
discussion of lost trade caused by importing CF equipment is pretty
much meaningless?
 
Compared to the collapse of the oil, gas, and coal industries, the
cost of importing CF generators is very small. Also, does anyone
really believe that patents will be respected if "national security"
(any nations) is at risk?
 
                                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 cudlnPendleton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 / David Toland /  Re: Does an open fridge cool the room?
     
Originally-From: det@sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does an open fridge cool the room?
Date: 12 Apr 1993 16:43:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc.

In article <tomkC570DM.Dt9@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> Dieter, you missed the rather obvious: If I turn on my refrigerator
> it heats the room slightly while cooling the inside considerably. At
> this point it reaches a point of stability. But the room doesn't. It
> is now warmer than the surrounding space and it radiates until it
> reaches temperature equality.
>
> If I open the refrigerator door at this point the room cools down to
> a point below where the experiment started.
 
Up until now, you have stated *nothing* about the environment outside
of the room (kitchen).  You apparently are immersing the kitchen in an
isothermic external environment, with poor insulation between the kitchen
and the external environment.  You are also assuming that the temperature
of the isothermal environment is lower than the temperature of the kitchen,
as you've assumed a steady state where the closed refrigerator supplies
heat at the same rate it leaks out of the kitchen.
 
If the experiment is done in a well-insulated kitchen, the temperature of
the room must increase, by the second law of thermodynamics.  No matter
how much you handwave, the head emitted at the rear of the refrigerator
is greater than the heat removed from the interior.  When the refrigerator
door is opened and the air is all mixed, the temperature of the room
is higher than beforehand.
 
For an environmental temperature outside the kitchen close to that of
the kitchen, the situation changes little.  The overall temperature
change in the kitchen must be less than the temperature difference
between the components of the refrigerator subsystem and the room,
so the heat flow from the room must be less than the heat flow into
the kitchen from the refrigerator considered as a single source.
 
Yes, there are complications when the kitchen is not thermally isolated
from its surroundings, but these can be modelled as well by a heat
flow diagram.  Energy flow must balance, heat can only flow from
higher to lower potential (temperature), and many of the same laws
used in electric circuits can also be applied to thermal circuits.
 
--
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(Dave Toland)              |  that doon with."
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendet cudfnDavid cudlnToland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: this & that
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: this & that
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 18:19:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi ya'll,
 
In case any of you were wondering what all that with Dale Bass was about,
let's just say I was establishing testing our communications protocol.  It
went splendidly, and I thank Dale (genuninely!) how he chose to respond.
 
TWO AMIABLE CHALLENGES TO DALE
 
Regarding the 50 years of literature on sonoluminescence:  Dale, if you've
found a reference that looks like a solid explanation of how sonoluminescence
works, wow, I think there are a _lot_ of folks on this net who would love to
here it.  Not to mention Nature, Science, and a variety of other journals.
I'm not just poking fun, either; there have certainly been more than a few
cases where an old, obscure paper turned out to be right in the long term.
 
If you've got some good old-time candidates for explaining sonoluminescence,
perhaps you could share them with us?
 
Also, if you have constructed a personal theory of how sonoluminiscence
works and would like to test it out on a notoriously critical group, why
not put _that_ out and see what happens?  There are enough physicists (and
grasshoppers?) to ensure you a good, blistering review and many suggestions.
 
50 YEARS?
 
A final general note:  I did a pretty exhaustive search on both PdH chemistry
and solid state quasipaticles back a couple years ago.  PdH goes back 60 years
or more, two -- and wow, was I _un_impressed by how little real progress had
been made on questions as simple as what the difference between the alpha
and beta phases was at the atomic level.  Lots of hunches, guesses, cute sort-
of theories, a strong tendency to follow the latest trend of whatever the
time period was, some decent experimental data of various types, some very
impressive looking computer simulation outputs that in many cases probably
weren't worth the paper they were printed on (GIGO, you know), and in some
cases a nasty habit of quoting old references to bolster weak arguments, when
in some cases the references quoted were decidedly weaker than than the
articles that quoted them!...
 
Yes Dale, I do know a little about 50 year old subtopics and mysteries in
physics, and I found it out by spending a fairly humoungous amount of personal
time at the Library of Congress.  And indeed, that is precisely why I tend
to be very _un_impressed when I'm told that 50 years of physicists have been
working on a problem.  If they have it down so pat, where's the solution?
 
> No, I was suggesting you were *wrong* and ignorant of the literature.
 
Thank you, thank you.  Your humble apology is muchly appreciated!  :)
 
> Gee-willikers, Terry buddy.  Bob McElwaine has already gotten my nomination
> [for the Nobel Prize] this year.  Maybe next year.
 
Hey!  No fair!  I thought you gave him the Top Grasshopper and Key Budwud
nomination, not the NP nomination!
 
Oh well, sigh, sigh I say.  Unless Steven Jones succeeds in pulling a low-
level rabbit out of his SL testing hat, I guess I'll remain NP incomplete.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 / mitchell swartz /  this & that
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: this & that
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 19:49:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Apr12.181934.2431@asl.dl.nec.com>
   Subject: Re: this & that
Terry (terry@asl.dl.nec.com) writes:
 
== "In case any of you were wondering what all that with Dale Bass was
==  about, let's just say I was establishing testing our communications
==   protocol.  It went splendidly, and I thank Dale (genuninely!) how he
==  chose to respond."
 
   Terry, some of his stuff is so darn goofy that we have been wondering.
Thank you for the enlightenment.
Could you possibly send your telecommunication protocol to me?  We could
decrypt some of his less obvious postings.
 
   [ "His little dog"?  could that have been code for a cathode?
     Virginia?  Kansas?  Snow White?  reply to alt.lost in space?  :)  ]
 
==  "I did a pretty exhaustive search on both PdH chemistry
== and solid state quasipaticles back a couple years ago.
==  PdH goes back 60 years or more .."
 
   What was the earliest reference you found?
 
   BTW.   Do you work for NEC?  They appear to have filed an application
                                for a cold fusion patent.
 
                    Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: How do you do that
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How do you do that
Date: 12 Apr 93 12:13:33 PDT

A few days ago, in a discussion of a setup containing four cells,
one of which was boiling.  I understood Jed to make the observation
that to suggest that the three cooler cells could raise the
temperature of the warmer cell was prima faci evidence of
scientific incompetence.
 
I responded that N cooler bodies could "boil" a hotter body.
 
In private corespondence, several people have asked me how.
 
I probably should have kept my mouth shut,  My knoledge of physics
is that of an interested observer,  It's not an area in which
I claim expertice.  However, here is the thought experiment which
apparently lead me astray:
 
Consider a system containing N + 1 potential energy sources.
 
First we turn on the one, and assume that it comes to equilibrium
at boiling less one pico degree.
 
Next we turn on one of the N other sources at some value which
would have resulted in it's coming to equilibrium at some
temperature less than the original.
 
It seems to me that the first source will now have more
incident radation than when the new source wasn't powered, and
thus will be warmed by the presence of this aditional energy source
in the system.  Thus my possibly erronius assumtion that for
some value of N, the first would be warm'd to boiling by the
presence in the system of N energy sources of temperature less
than boiling.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: this & that
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: this & that
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 21:19:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr12.181934.2431@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi ya'll,
>
>In case any of you were wondering what all that with Dale Bass was about,
>let's just say I was establishing testing our communications protocol.  It
>went splendidly, and I thank Dale (genuninely!) how he chose to respond.
 
     I'm still wondering what it was about.
 
>TWO AMIABLE CHALLENGES TO DALE
>
>Regarding the 50 years of literature on sonoluminescence:  Dale, if you've
>found a reference that looks like a solid explanation of how sonoluminescence
>works, wow, I think there are a _lot_ of folks on this net who would love to
>here it.  Not to mention Nature, Science, and a variety of other journals.
>I'm not just poking fun, either; there have certainly been more than a few
>cases where an old, obscure paper turned out to be right in the long term.
 
     You missed the point.  There have been any number of experimental
     papers demonstrating physical phenomena, in addition to quantitative
     theoretical discussions of the phenomena.  The absence of a
     solid explanation does not mean that any old handwaving discussion
     constitutes a model; a real model must incorporate
     and account for the experiments of the past.
 
>If you've got some good old-time candidates for explaining sonoluminescence,
>perhaps you could share them with us?
 
     No, I've got a 'new' one.  Shock induced luminescence.
     I've got a preprint around here somewhere from a couple of
     guys up north.  One name eludes me, but the other is Harvey Greenspan
     at MIT.
 
     Unfortunately, with the current state of the world, I can't
     find it right now, but it rather nicely elucidates the initial
     stages of the inwardly-moving shock shed from the inwardly-moving
     vapor-liquid interface.  Judging by some of Putterman \etal's
     work, I'd think this is heading in the right direction.   I'll
     send you a copy if I can locate it, or you can write Greenspan
     yourself if you feel like it.
 
>Also, if you have constructed a personal theory of how sonoluminiscence
>works and would like to test it out on a notoriously critical group, why
>not put _that_ out and see what happens?  There are enough physicists (and
>grasshoppers?) to ensure you a good, blistering review and many suggestions.
 
     Thanks for the offer, I may take it up sometime.   I doubt, however,
     that anyone here would be as critical as I would be for myself.
 
>Yes Dale, I do know a little about 50 year old subtopics and mysteries in
>physics, and I found it out by spending a fairly humoungous amount of personal
>time at the Library of Congress.  And indeed, that is precisely why I tend
>to be very _un_impressed when I'm told that 50 years of physicists have been
>working on a problem.  If they have it down so pat, where's the solution?
 
     The point is not that physicists 'have it down pat', but
     that certain standards must be met by models, and that in modeling,
     one should be cognizant of the experiments that came before.
     If one makes the mistake of thinking a half century of physicists,
     chemists, and fluid dynamicists were stupid, then one may find that
     one is embarassed quite frequently.  I'm usually *impressed*
     by 50 year old problems, not *unimpressed* by 50 years of people working
     on them.  I think you'll find, if you look, that some pretty
     ingenious and interesting experiments have been done in the last
     fifty years.
 
     Now it is true that there are experimental results that may be invalidated
     by the appropriate theory, but many of the experimental results
     are useful in problem formulation.  Also, there is a substantial
     difference between theory and handwaving.  You have not, to my knowledge
     presented a theory.  There are no dynamics, no mechanisms for
     light production, indeed no formulation at all. Indeed, if I had
     hit a colleague with 'seems to violate the second law', he would
     have come back with either, 'here's the entropy, and it's
     just fine, dunderhead', or 'you seem to be right, back to the
     drawing board'.  In your case, I'd bet figuring out the entropy
     for various surface configurations for a given simple intermolecular
     potential would not be that difficult.
 
     However, it's quite difficult to properly discuss things that
     are not formulated.  At a minimum, your assumed intermolecular
     potential must give the fluid fluid-like behavior in the initial
     stages of your 'wedge-out' and the surface phenomena must be correct,
     and then it must not violate things like conservation of energy,
     and the second law, and then finally, there must be a quantitative
     way of determining that actual fluids actually behave that way.
 
     To make the point a bit clearer, you have said at least once that
     you wouldn't 'back off' of your 'Twist of Ribbon model' under certain
     circumstances.  However, there's nothing to back off from.  It's
     fluid and can match many many potential situations.
     Simply using the term 'band structure' would be like me
     saying 'cooper pairing' and taking credit for whatever high-tc
     theory eventually falls from the sky.  The secret of modeling is
     in quantification.  Most of us can come up with hundreds of
     off-the-wall explanations for everything from the solar neutrino
     flux to granola.  For example, it is 'possible' that any fusion 'seen' in
     Pd-D systems is the result of random Coulomb barrier penetration.
     However, a simple look at quantum theory and previous experimental
     results indicates that that is highly highly unlikely.
     So we can't take credit until we provide
     quantification that fits the phenomenon.
 
>Oh well, sigh, sigh I say.  Unless Steven Jones succeeds in pulling a low-
>level rabbit out of his SL testing hat, I guess I'll remain NP incomplete.
 
     Actually, people like Putterman, Barber, Crum etc. are giving
     us a fairly good experimental basis to discuss sonoluminescence
     from a rather detailed perspective.  I expect we will shortly
     have many pieces of the detailed puzzle.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.12 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: this & that
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: this & that
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 23:01:38 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

Hi folks,
 
In article <C5Dz38.KtA@world.std.com>
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   What was the earliest reference you found?
 
About 1930 I think.  Also one of the best ones.  A lot of the later stuff
was less complete as it got picked up as an _occassional_ PhD topic.
 
> BTW.   Do you work for NEC?  They appear to have filed an application
> for a cold fusion patent.
 
Jokes aside -- is this serious?  Can you or anyone else provide any more
details and/or confirmation of this?
 
NEC has solid-state work of which I know no more than those of you who read
about it in magazines -- e.g., some of their nanotubule work.  This is the
first I've ever heard about any direct (or indirect, for that matter) "cnf"
work at an NEC location.  Most intriguing...
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Tom Simonds /  Starlite
     
Originally-From: tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
Originally-From: ANDY LIDDIARD                Refer#: NONE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Starlite
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 03:23:32 GMT
Date: 04-11-93 (07:01)             Number: 33357
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

=======================================================================
 BBS: Channel 1(R) Communications [ATI 2400 v.
Date: 04-11-93 (07:01)             Number: 33357
Originally-From: ANDY LIDDIARD                Refer#: NONE
  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
Subj: New invention                  Conf: (14) Science
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
(not reproduced in full due to copyright)
 
                WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
 
          Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
 
                     by John Mcghie
 
A former Yorkshire hairdresser has baffled military and scientific
establishments across the world by producing a magical piece of
plastic that is so tough it can withstand the heat of a nuclear
explosion.
 
Experiments at the Ministry of Defence's Atomic Weapons
Establishment at Foulness, Essex, and by NATO scientists at the US
missile range at White Sands, New Mexico, have shown that the
substance withstood simulated nuclear flashes which generated
temperatures of more than 1000 degrees C.
 
The tests' results, published tomorrow for the first time in
_International Defence Review_, published by Jane's, are leading
chastened scientific communities on both sides of the Atlantic to a
strange and humbling conclusion: that an English inventor without a
degree tinkered around in his laboratory for a few years to stumble
on a secret for which nuclear physicists had spent decades
searching.
 
Once dismissed as a crank with a plastic bee in his bonnet, Maurice
Ward now finds himself the toast of the military - industrial
complexes of Britain and America with the polymer he calls Starlite.
 
[...]
 
Nobody, least of all Mr. Ward, really knows how Starlite works (only
selected members of his family know the full ingredients), but the
properties which his mysterious plastic displays are impressively
self-evident.
 
Mr. Ward first brought them to public notice three years ago on
BBC's _Tomorrow's World_ programme when he coated the shell of a raw
chicken's egg with his substance. Despite blasting the egg with an
oxyacetyline welding torch, it remained uncooked, undamaged and
could be handled with bare fingers immediately afterwards.
 
[In MoD laser tests] In October 1990, 0.25 mm thickness of Starlite
contained the energy of the equivalent of 75 nuclear flashes for 30
seconds.
 
But whatever Starlite - a name thought up by Ward's 8 year old grand
-daughter, Kerry - is subjected to, it remains undamaged. Only
minute pockmarks are discernible on the plastic coating. The energy
hurled at the polymer does not bounce off but is absorbed and
diffused at extrordinary speeds through a process which scientists
are still grappling with.
 
[...]
 
Mr. Ward is now being advised by Professor Sir Roland Mason, until
1983 the MoD's chief scientific advisor, who sees the transition
between civilian and military applications for Starlite as a
"seamless robe". He envisages the first uses for the aircraft and
maritime markets and claims it could easily be employed on space
vehicles. "Maurice is very enthusiastic and sometimes speaks
scientific cobblers, but there is no doubt that this is really the
most remarkable material," he says. The MoD has only said that the
material could have "interesting potential".
 
[...]
 
[Mr. Ward said] "After one test at Cavendish [Cambridge University's
lab, where Rutherford first split the atom] the other day, one of
their chaps said to me that the results were so beyond what he had
expected that there had to be a computer error. We looked again but
there wasn't. Now he believes me."
 
[...]
 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Exciting stuff, vindicating Feyerabend's philosophy in _Against
Method_, if I may say so. Any comments?
 
 Andy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
                                   notes01%clstr.pnl.ac.uk@ukc.ac.uk
 
 * SLMR 2.1a #112 * -273.15o Celsius, 0K?
---
 * O.L.E.F. BBS.  London UK. +44-81-882-9808
 * PostLink(tm) v1.01  OLEF (#181) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentsimonds cudfnTom cudlnSimonds cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / mitchell swartz /  this & that
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: this & that
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 04:45:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Apr12.230138.5576@asl.dl.nec.com>
     Subject: Re: this & that
  Terry Bollinger (terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com) writes:
 
== > BTW.   Do you work for NEC?  They appear to have filed an application
== > for a cold fusion patent.
==
== "Jokes aside -- is this serious?  Can you or anyone else provide any more
== details and/or confirmation of this?"
 
  Terry, this is no joke.   Their first CF patent application of which I am
 aware is reported to be Japanese filing 9151794 (date 7/19/89).
  Perhaps you could let us know how many others there are?
 
  The entire lists are available in Fusion Facts and the Cold Fusion Times.
 
                Best wishes.
                               Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 93 08:51:38 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C5EK39.9F2@world.std.com> tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
writes:
>
>                 WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
>
> A former Yorkshire hairdresser has baffled military and scientific
> establishments across the world by producing a magical piece of
> plastic that is so tough it can withstand the heat of a nuclear
> explosion.
 
I'll believe it when I see it. Obviously no solid material can absorb
more energy than the binding energy of its atoms and remain intact---so
its not clear to me how this stuff could be a surprisingly good heat shield,
far beyond what folks could imagine. And it would also have to be a good
thermal conductor, which would be easy to measure.
 
The article notes its received serious testing for over 2 years now.
Why no applications yet, then?
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / John Marvin /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: jsm@fc.hp.com (John Marvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: 13 Apr 93 10:39:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO

Tom Simonds (tsimonds@world.std.com) wrote:
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
:    --------------------------------------------------------------------
: From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
: (not reproduced in full due to copyright)
 
:                 WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
 
:           Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
 
:                      by John Mcghie
 
 
Is "The Observer" truly a reputable paper, or is it more like the National
Enquirer here in the U.S.? The article claims that some tests were done
at White Sands on this stuff. Has anyone reading this group ever heard
of this stuff?
 
        John Marvin
        jsm@fc.hp.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjsm cudfnJohn cudlnMarvin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: 13 Apr 93 12:16:01 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <C5F4AA.D9w@fc.hp.com>, jsm@fc.hp.com (John Marvin) writes:
|> Tom Simonds (tsimonds@world.std.com) wrote:
|> : From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
|> : (not reproduced in full due to copyright)
|>
|> :                 WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
|>
|> :           Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
|>
|> :                      by John Mcghie
|>
|>
|> Is "The Observer" truly a reputable paper, or is it more like the National
|> Enquirer here in the U.S.? The article claims that some tests were done
|> at White Sands on this stuff. Has anyone reading this group ever heard
|> of this stuff?
 
It is a reputable paper, but is not guaranteed to recognise nonsense from
science (even when such a distinction is possible).  They will ask apparently
reputable scientists for comment, but you know what can happen ....
 
If the MOD have been looking at it for two years, and nothing further has
been heard, that is only to be expected.  If it is useful, it will be an
Official Secret - if not, it will be an Unofficial Embarrassment.  In either
case, the results will be kept very quiet.
 
 
Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Still not the JJAP
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still not the JJAP
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 14:36:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Cameron Randale Bass, feeling impatient, asks:
 
     "What I'd like to hear about are the '100 watt' 'steady-state'
     experimental results.  That seems much more interesting. Please provide
     us with some details of those experiments if you would be so kind. "
 
Great! Glad you are interested. Read the Hagelstein paper, and the P&F paper
in the upcoming Proceedings of the Third Annual CF Conf. It should be a
knockout.
 
 
     "Perhaps you could also include a description of what '100 watt' and
     'steady-state' mean to you."
 
100 watts is approximately how much heat a 100 watt incandescent light
radiates (I believe the photons carry off only a few percent). Steady state
means it wavers up and down much less than the graph of P&F's data shown on
page 217 of Fire From Ice. Looking at McKubre's data on p. 435 of the Second
Conf. proceedings, I would say it was about as steady as that.
 
 
Me: "Read the literature... You can sort it out with practice."
 
You: "Why am I not surprised?"
 
You are not surprised because you have read my earlier messages. As I have
stated a thousand times, I am not the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics; I
do not do people's homework for them; and I do NOT quote or summarize people's
results very often. I think that is a terrible idea. Scientists go to a great
deal of trouble to write and publish papers. A paper tells you the whole story
in careful detail, with graphs and schematics. Whenever I, or anyone else, on
the network here tries to describe this work in summary, we end up writing a
mish-mash caricature, and we leave out vital details. If you have McKubre's
paper, and you want to discuss some detail the beads he uses to mix the
cooling water, fine. You have the diagram before you, I have the diagram
before me, and we will not get confused about the nitty-gritty. If you have
never seen a schematic of his calorimeter, don't ask me to describe it.
 
The network is fine place for informal banter and opinions, and whimsical
statements about 40,000 lb calorimeters, but it is NOT the right place to get
an education in the fundamentals of CF. You asked a serious, reasonable
question; you want to know about:
 
     "experimental conditions, calorimeter configuration, electrical forcing,
     and electrode size..."
 
So, I gave you a serious answer: look it up in the appropriate places. Read
Fire from Ice. Do not settle for a fragmentary report from me, or from anyone
else. That is not how to do science.
 
 
"How do I obtain visual calibration [from the P&F video]?"
 
Estimate the number of O2 bubbles on the anode. Observe carefully, and you
will see the number has not increased markedly from time 1, days before the
boiling event, to time 2, when the water around the cathode is boiling
vigorously. This tells you that the electrical input is approximately the same
in both time 1 and 2. In the closeup shot, observe the imbalance between the
small number of fine electrolysis O2 bubbles on the anode and large numbers
water vapor (boiling) bubbles on the cathode. If the boiling was caused by
electrical energy (joule heating), both the anode and the cathode would have
large number of electrolysis bubbles on them, and since they look to be
approximately the same size, I think they would both be hot enough to boil the
water. If you have seen small anodes and cathodes at different levels of
electrolysis (10 watts, 50 watts, 100 watts), you will get a clear impression
from this video that the level of electrolysis is about where they say it is.
 
Naturally, this is only a rough approximation; it is not intended to replace
the computer data showing power in. It is physical evidence that confirms what
the instruments say. I like to see multiple sources of evidence all pointing
in the same direction.
 
 
"What is the input power, i.e. what fraction of input power is the excess?
...What is the size of the electrode?"
 
Again, I advise you to read the Hagelstein paper or the proceedings.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 804 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 804 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 15:45:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
It's slow going and here are just two items. The Granada team from Argentina
have published their results before, and here give full details of their
neutron detection gear, without any new results. Maybe they are lacking funds
too. They are the people who went underwater to a neutron background 1/70 that
above water, and got fewer neutrons by about the same factor, as have others.
These sorts of results could be taken as evidence that cold fusion is
stimulated by background radiation - or that it is just noise. Take your pick.
 
There is another patent appl., again talking about metals "adsorbing"
hydrogen. Maybe they really mean it, and are talking about a surface effect,
involving adsorbed deuterium. Can Japanese all be unaware of the difference
between adsorption and absorption? Or are these patents all going through the
same translator (CA's?) ? This is of course just a minor quibble.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 13-Apr-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 804
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer RE, Patino NE, Florido PC, Gomez SE, Granada JR, Gillette VH;
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A324 (1993) 501.
"Neutron detection system for extremely low count rate. Calculation,
construction and employment in search for 'cold fusion'".
** A paper written for those who want to measure the extremely low-level
neutrons thought to emanate from cold fusion experiments, but who are not
specialists in the field of neutron measurement. The aims were high efficiency
and reliability, as well as rejection of background noise. Therefore, the
(3)He proportional counter was used, which however restricts a detailed energy
analysis. Design calculation dictated a ring of 18 detectors, arranged as
three clusters of six each. The tubes were kept at 10 atm helium pressure.
High voltage leads were covered with paraffin melted onto them to prevent
humidity problems. Pulse shape discrimination and an anticoincidence stage
helped to guard against background. Measurements with a blank or no cell
established a background of about 0.1 counts/s. No new results are reported,
but previously reported results are summarised. These indicate a low-level
neutron emission from cold fusion electrolyses.                  Dec-91/Feb-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Patents, file cnf-pat:
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watanabe M, Baba M;           Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04,157,395, 19-Oct-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 118:111708 (1993).
"Electrodes for cold nuclear fusion".
** "An electrode for cold nuclear fusion consists of a D-adsorbing metal or
alloy, and a metal or alloy which has a different quality (e.g. hardness or
thermal-expansion coeff.). Examples of the metals are Pd and stainless steel".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Jed Rothwell /  A taste of my own medicine
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A taste of my own medicine
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 15:45:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Todd Green, and some people close to SRI, pointed out to me that my version
of the early history of CF is incorrect. This is very interesting. The
Japanese press, and some Japanese scientists, reported that McKubre had
trouble for "two years." Yet, just as Todd says:
 
     "in the ACCF1 proceedings it clearly shows that McKubre et. al. were
     getting XS heat in May of 1989. In fact, the first two experiments they
     tried (P1 and P2) both worked! So, I don't think there was a long
     history of failure and frustration before their success."
 
See! This is a perfect example of me not taking my own medicine. As I said to
Mr. Bass, you have to go back to original sources. Read the papers from the
scientists themselves, and do not read summaries on the network, or
journalistic interpretations. If you want an overview, read Hagelstein's
paper, Fire From Ice, or the Storms paper in Fusion Technology, "Review of
Experimental Observations About The Cold Fusion Effect." All three of these
were written with meticulous care.
 
Now, the *interesting* part about my mistake is: McKubre reports
"unaccounted, and statistically significant heat excesses have been observed
on more than 40 occasions." (MIT lecture notice). And elsewhere (somewhere I
can't find at this second), I read that he did 200 experiments. So, I took
this as about 40 out of 200, and I thought this verified the Japanese
journalists' story. I will try to get to the bottom of this someday. I wish
that I could have attended his MIT lecture.
 
Also, my original point still stands: CF is a lot harder than it looks. For
example, problems in maintaining high loading are mind boggling; the surface
chemistry is incredibly complex; and contamination is a real big threat,
because electrolysis leads to electroplated crud on the cathode. Electroplating
is a great way to permanently bond all kinds of substances to a metal surface,
and a splendid way to seal off metal and keep everything, including deuterium,
from permeating into it. It works like a galvanized bucket.
 
As I pointed out, in the weeks after the 1989 announcement, Bockris soon
confirmed the excess heat. In private messages people have asked me to point
out that so did Huggins and several other electrochemists. I don't know the
exact number of people who verified the heat in the early months. This is
minor detail, of interest to historians of science only, but someday it would
be fun to ferret out.
 
 
Todd goes on to say:
 
     "Although I think the McKubre work is excellent, I seriously doubt that
     your last sentence is accurate either. [That McKubre is one of the Top
     Guns in electrochemistry]"
 
Oh, I think he is! Naturally, this is a subjective judgement, but here's why
I think so:
 
His paper in the second conf. proceedings shows a mind-blowing level of
precision, care, and concern for accuracy and error checking. I have seen a
lot of CF papers. I cannot judge the nuclear work, but I can tell when
someone is doing a great job at calorimetry, or an okay job, or a terrible
job. McKubre did a stellar job.
 
Both EPRI and SRI hire only the best. EPRI is a world class organization that
is LOADED with money, and which does every last little thing with incredible
care, concern, and professionalism. At least, everything that I have seen
from them, which includes CF stuff, and some studies about electric power,
environment, and the Three Mile Island reactor accident.
 
When he talks, everyone else in the room suddenly shuts up and listens, like
in that old TV advertisement for a stock broker. Seriously, even Bockris and
Fleischmann take his pronouncements very seriously. He seems to know
electrochemistry in enormous detail, his responses to questions at the
meetings strike me as full of dazzling detail -- although let me hasten to
say that I am not qualified to judge the science at this rarified level. It
looks to me like his peers respect him enormously.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Jed Rothwell /  More on Miles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Miles
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 18:00:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Somebody asked me the date of the letter from Mel Miles, and the document he
refers to in the last paragraph, "Please note my discussion of the errors in
the N. Lewis calorimetry (Cal Tech work) on pp. 114-116."
 
Okay, it just got here by mail. The letter date was March 31, 1993. The
article is:
 
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (NAWC), B.F. Bush and J.J. Lagowski (U.T.),
"Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O
electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry,
346 (1993) 99 - 117.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / D Morrison /  Morrison and Nagoya
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch (Douglas R. O. Morrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison and Nagoya
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 00:16:15 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

    The statements made by Mr. Rothwell in his submission on 9th April may
need some additional commments.
    He gave a description of what happened at the end of my talk, where
Dr. Ikegami walked over and without any comment or excusing himself, removed my
microphone from my jacket and the battery from my pocket. Now Mr. Rothwell
appears to consider this normal. Everyone that learns of this considers it
highly abnormal and no one has ever heard of such of thing. They usually
add that they consider it extremely rude and ill-mannered and that this
was a most un-Japanese thing to do as generally they have found Japanese
people to be very polite. As you tell us that you have great experience of
Japan, perhaps you can tell us if this is normal Japanese behaviour?
    You say that ending a meeting without discussion afterwards when it is
running late is normal and "This happened many other times during the
conference, with other speakers". Well maybe, but normally the Chief
Organiser of the conference delegates such responsibilty to the two Chairmen
and they act responsibly (including any private comments that he may make to
them) - but they are in charge. But Dr. Ikegami completely ignored his two
Chairmen even though they were entirely competent (one was Steve Jones).
This is unusual and unless I missed it, did not happen at any other time
during the conference (or any other conference that I have attended), but
maybe Mr. Rothwell would like to quote a few examples to justify his statement.
   Further it is unusual for the Chief Organiser to take the microphone and
battery and announce that the speaker has made an "unscientific talk". Do you
say that this also was normal? And is this in keeping with traditional
Japanese politeness to ignore the Chairmen and make such a statement?
    You also quote Dr. Hagelstein as saying that that "Whether the excess heat
effect is real or not, is a matter that either has been or else will be, settled
by experiment; not by counting papers or by discussing pathological science."
Now there are two points about this. Firstly I carefully did not at any time
use the words "Pathological Science" in my talk. Secondly my talk contained many
other points apart from noting such statistical things as that no experiment
has found any evidence for X-rays which Steve Jones says is one of the best
tests of most theories. Statistics (counting papers) does have uses.
     To illustrate that my talk contained many experimental comments, will
post it again. Have been particularly interested to note that when I posted it
previously, there was an absence of comments. My review of the Nagoya conference
was quite different from Dr. Hagelstein's in that my review was experimental
while his was a theoreticists. It is useful for an unbiassed observer to read
these two reviews. One difference that he will note is that Dr. Hagelstein's
review was very uncritical - he does not face up to the major problem of the
Conference - for three years it has been said that the excess heat was fusion
of deuterium with deuterium and this was confirmed by the absence of excess heat
when normal light hydrogen was used. Now at Nagoya some five groups reported
that excess heat was found with light hydrogen alone - you do not need
deuterium! Now Dr. Hagelstein has not faced up to what conclusion to draw
from this. Does it mean it is not fusion? and then it should not be called
"Cold Fusion". and then it means that all the previous experiments which
used light hydrogen as a control, were wrong? Or, second alternative, does it
mean that all the experiments using light hydrogen are wrong? and if so why?
      Also when I posted earlier a report of the General Electric paper
that Fritz Will was an author of, there was an absence of comments
although it was a most important paper. It said two things. Firstly
that they had made many measurements on Cold Fusion and found nothing.
Secondly they had studied very carefully the Fleischmann and Pons work and
their analysis - they found the work of Fleischmann and Pons to be seriously
flawed. Fleischmann and Pons replied but did not answer the criticisms but
wrote about other things. This General Electric paper is a major one and the
absence of comment is most revealing.
 
       Best Wishes,
 
                Douglas R. O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmorrison cudfnDouglas cudlnMorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / D Morrison /  Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch (Douglas R.O. Morrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 00:21:22 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

[This is a repost of DROM's CFU #7 from the Nagoya conference.  \scott]
 
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 provided a wonderful thermo-
electric device which is very accurate and which Mallove incorporated in the
calorimeter in addition to ordinary thermocouples (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 - they have an excellent chance of being the first to discover
the missing top quark. 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:
cuddy14 cudenmorrison cudfnDouglas cudlnMorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Henry Bauer /       What's in a cliche?
     
Originally-From: BAUERH@VTVM1.BITNET (Henry Bauer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      What's in a cliche?
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 00:22:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
What's in a cliche??
 
"Cold fusion" has come to be used as a cliche, usually as an exemplar of
something like Loch Ness monsters. But there's at least one reference to
it in the sense of something entirely surprising AND SUBSTANTIALLY
CORRECT:
 
>From SCIENCE, 259 (19 March 1993) 1691: "Three years ago, researchers from
Vical, a startup San Diego biotechnology company, presented some
surprising data . . . -- so surprising that one of those present wondered
whether they were witnessing the 'biological equivalent of cold fusion.' .
. . . and now, on page 1745, they report that naked DNA can indeed work as
a vaccine . . . . "
 
Perhaps this folk wisdom is prescient?
 
|===================================================================|
|     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 cudenBAUERH cudfnHenry cudlnBauer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 14:34:23 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

In article <C5EK39.9F2@world.std.com> tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes:
>Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
                                     ^^
Could be an extra "1" here.
 
>                WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
>
>          Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
 
The Observer used to be a very respectable paper and as far as I know
still is. However the story reads like a jokey parody to me.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: 13 Apr 1993 12:41 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <C5EK39.9F2@world.std.com>, tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes...
>=======================================================================
> BBS: Channel 1(R) Communications [ATI 2400 v.
>Date: 04-11-93 (07:01)             Number: 33357
>From: ANDY LIDDIARD                Refer#: NONE
>  To: ALL                           Recvd: NO
>Subj: New invention                  Conf: (14) Science
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
>(not reproduced in full due to copyright)
>
>                WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
>
>          Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
>
>                     by John Mcghie
>
>A former Yorkshire hairdresser has baffled military and scientific
>establishments across the world by producing a magical piece of
>plastic that is so tough it can withstand the heat of a nuclear
>explosion.
 
The data following this statement make it unclear.  i.e. any material can
withstand the heat of a nuclear blast, if placed a sufficient distance from
the blast sight.
>
>Experiments at the Ministry of Defence's Atomic Weapons
>Establishment at Foulness, Essex, and by NATO scientists at the US
>missile range at White Sands, New Mexico, have shown that the
>substance withstood simulated nuclear flashes which generated
>temperatures of more than 1000 degrees C.
 
If 1,000 C is the actual temperature withstood, is 1,000 C really all that
remarkable.  Many old ashtrays were made of "Bakelite".  I don't have any
data for it, but I'd guess it would withstand at least 500 C temperatures.
 
Barry Merriman (?sp?) writes that the binding energy between atoms sets the
theoretical limits for the maximum temperature a material can withstand.
I believe this is correct (there was a thread on this in sci.energy, in
conjunction with flywheels).
 
Assuming a BE of 2 eV, we get a theoretical maximum temperature of:
 
298K/0.025 eV * 2 eV = 23,840K, or about 23,540 C.
 
Looks like there's lots of room for improvement in any material we care to
name.
 
I believe diamond has a BE of ~6 eV, or ~70,000K equivalent.  Heck, if we
could get diamond to hold together at *that* temperature, we'd be able to
use it for high-density high-temperature fusion, no need for magnetic
confinement.
 
>
>The tests' results, published tomorrow for the first time in
>_International Defence Review_, published by Jane's, are leading
>chastened scientific communities on both sides of the Atlantic to a
>strange and humbling conclusion: that an English inventor without a
>degree tinkered around in his laboratory for a few years to stumble
>on a secret for which nuclear physicists had spent decades
>searching.
 
The military can be pretty quiet.  If this guy did invent this, there's a
good chance it's already been done, but kept quiet.  Then again...
>
>Once dismissed as a crank with a plastic bee in his bonnet, Maurice
>Ward now finds himself the toast of the military - industrial
>complexes of Britain and America with the polymer he calls Starlite.
 
i.e. - he's going to become one rich dude.
>
>[...]
>
>Nobody, least of all Mr. Ward, really knows how Starlite works (only
>selected members of his family know the full ingredients), but the
>properties which his mysterious plastic displays are impressively
>self-evident.
>
>Mr. Ward first brought them to public notice three years ago on
>BBC's _Tomorrow's World_ programme when he coated the shell of a raw
>chicken's egg with his substance. Despite blasting the egg with an
>oxyacetyline welding torch, it remained uncooked, undamaged and
>could be handled with bare fingers immediately afterwards.
 
The shuttle's tiles exhibit similar properties.  Don't know that an egg
wouldn't get cooked when protected by them, though...
>
>[In MoD laser tests] In October 1990, 0.25 mm thickness of Starlite
>contained the energy of the equivalent of 75 nuclear flashes for 30
>seconds.
 
It's impossible to calculate the intensity or time-average power of the
incident beam from the above description.  The flashes could contain
Terawatts of power/cm^2 for femtoseconds, which translates to ~0.001 Joules
per pulse per cm^2, or a total of ~0.075J/cm^2 in three seconds, or
0.025 watts per cm^2 for three seconds (or, in other words, "big deal") or
there could be a significant amount of power being dumped into the plastic.
Perhaps the wavelength of the incident beam is such that there's nearly 100%
reflection, so the material isn't absorbing nearly as much energy as believed.
 
Again, there's no way to tell from the above description.
>
>But whatever Starlite - a name thought up by Ward's 8 year old grand
>-daughter, Kerry - is subjected to, it remains undamaged. Only
>minute pockmarks are discernible on the plastic coating. The energy
>hurled at the polymer does not bounce off but is absorbed and
>diffused at extrordinary speeds through a process which scientists
>are still grappling with.
>
>[...]
>
>Mr. Ward is now being advised by Professor Sir Roland Mason, until
>1983 the MoD's chief scientific advisor, who sees the transition
>between civilian and military applications for Starlite as a
>"seamless robe". He envisages the first uses for the aircraft and
>maritime markets and claims it could easily be employed on space
>vehicles. "Maurice is very enthusiastic and sometimes speaks
>scientific cobblers, but there is no doubt that this is really the
>most remarkable material," he says. The MoD has only said that the
>material could have "interesting potential".
 
Application depends on the strength of the material, as well as its resistance
to high temperatures.  Space applications will demand that it is lioght weight.
The aforementioned shuttle tiles are light and extremely heat resistant, but
are not the actual airframe of the vehicle (they're way too fragile).
>
>[...]
>
>[Mr. Ward said] "After one test at Cavendish [Cambridge University's
>lab, where Rutherford first split the atom] the other day, one of
>their chaps said to me that the results were so beyond what he had
>expected that there had to be a computer error. We looked again but
>there wasn't. Now he believes me."
>
>[...]
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Exciting stuff, vindicating Feyerabend's philosophy in _Against
>Method_, if I may say so. Any comments?
 
I'd guess most of what Tesla did falls under this description.
>
> Andy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
>                                   notes01%clstr.pnl.ac.uk@ukc.ac.uk
>
> * SLMR 2.1a #112 * -273.15o Celsius, 0K?
>---
> * O.L.E.F. BBS.  London UK. +44-81-882-9808
> * PostLink(tm) v1.01  OLEF (#181) : RelayNet(tm) Hub
>
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 19:03:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C5CC6x.5wE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     What I'd like to hear about are the '100 watt' 'steady-state'
>     experimental results.  That seems much more interesting.
>     Please provide us with some details of those experiments if
>     you would be so kind.  Perhaps you could also include a
>     description of what '100 watt' and 'steady-state' mean to you.
 
Dale, a lie told welll and often is often mistaken for the truth by those
without the past history. Jed, it would appear, prefers this method of
scientific research.
 
If there is CNF and people are duplicating it on unmistakable terms then
where are the CNF commercial products? This, in the end, proves the lie
beyond any mistakes.
>
>     Well I tell you, in my neck of the woods, if someone plays
>     'I've got a secret' for a long while, we start thinking there ain't
>     none.
>
I think that this is well enough said.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 19:50:50 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

In article <tomkC5FrLp.26M@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>If there is CNF and people are duplicating it on unmistakable terms then
>where are the CNF commercial products?
 
Although I am normally a skeptic I think you are jumping too far ahead on
this one.  To me the best evidence that there is something is the
continued funding of P & F after several years by their Japanese
investors.  It would be amazing if these investors did not A. hear those
people shouting "Pathology" and "Scam!" and B. periodically hold reviews
by knowledgable outside consultants.
 
If all this DOES turn out to be a lot of hot (air?), these investors are
going to look the most foolish of all.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: this & that
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: this & that
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 19:34:12 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <C5E396.BJ5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> | If you've got some good old-time candidates for explaining
> | sonoluminescence, perhaps you could share them with us?
>
> No, I've got a 'new' [candidate for explaining sonoluminescence].  Shock
> induced luminescence.  I've got a preprint around here somewhere from a
> couple of guys up north.  One name eludes me, but the other is Harvey
> Greenspan at MIT ... it rather nicely elucidates the initial stages of
> the inwardly-moving shock shed from the inwardly-moving vapor-liquid
> interface.  Judging by some of Putterman \etal's work, I'd think this
> is heading in the right direction.   I'll send you a copy if I can locate
> it, or you can write Greenspan yourself if you feel like it.
 
Thanks for the offer.  And yes, if it's no big hassle I'd definitely like
to get a copy of the Greenspan preprint.  My home mailing address (more
convenient for me) is given at the end of this posting.
 
You mentioned this work before, and it sounds intriguing.  Does the paper
get into any proposed mechanisms for photon emission, or does it focus more
on the shedding of the proposed shock wave?
 
> ... I think you'll find, if you look, that some pretty ingenious and
> interesting experiments have been done in the last fifty years.
 
Yes, this is certainly the case for Pd(D,H).  My admiration for one Russian
author (sorry, I'm drawing a blank & don't have the file online - <Boesky>?)
on various metal hydrides is profound.  This fellow was (is?) truly an expert
in novel hydride chemistry, far more so than some of the folks who have
seemed intent on claiming such a title.  His name & a couple of papers are
mentioned in the "Twist of Ribbon" references, which Dieter has on-line.
 
Claudio Rebbi at Boston Universty is easily my most admired author on the
fascinating subject of solitons, although these days he claims no particular
expertise in what's going on in this area, and is involved with other things.
He and Roman Jackiw both wrote (and coauthored) some nice articles related
to charge fracturing.  (I don't know if Roman Jackiw is even still alive --
does anyone out there know?)
 
> ...You have not, to my knowledge presented a theory [on sonoluminscence].
> There are no dynamics, no mechanisms for light production, indeed no
> formulation at all.  Indeed, if I had hit a colleague with 'seems to
> violate the second law', he would have come back with either, 'here's
> the entropy, and it's just fine, dunderhead', or 'you seem to be right,
> back to the drawing board'.  In your case, I'd bet figuring out the entropy
> for various surface configurations for a given simple intermolecular
> potential would not be that difficult.
>
> However, it's quite difficult to properly discuss things that
> are not formulated.  At a minimum, your assumed intermolecular
> potential must give the fluid fluid-like behavior in the initial
> stages of your 'wedge-out' and the surface phenomena must be correct,
> and then it must not violate things like conservation of energy,
> and the second law, and then finally, there must be a quantitative
> way of determining that actual fluids actually behave that way.
>
> To make the point a bit clearer, you have said at least once that
> you wouldn't 'back off' of your 'Twist of Ribbon model' under certain
> circumstances.  However, there's nothing to back off from.  It's
> fluid and can match many many potential situations.
> Simply using the term 'band structure' would be like me
> saying 'cooper pairing' and taking credit for whatever high-tc
> theory eventually falls from the sky.  The secret of modeling is
> in quantification.  Most of us can come up with hundreds of
> off-the-wall explanations for everything from the solar neutrino
> flux to granola.  For example, it is 'possible' that any fusion 'seen' in
> Pd-D systems is the result of random Coulomb barrier penetration.
> However, a simple look at quantum theory and previous experimental
> results indicates that that is highly highly unlikely.
> So we can't take credit until we provide
> quantification that fits the phenomenon.
 
Interesting comments, noted and appreciated.  The best response would be
an updated UC draft, I think, rather than to debate your points.
 
> | Oh well, sigh, sigh I say.  Unless Steven Jones succeeds in pulling a low-
> | level rabbit out of his SL testing hat, I guess I'll remain NP incomplete.
>
> Actually, people like Putterman, Barber, Crum etc. are giving
> us a fairly good experimental basis to discuss sonoluminescence
> from a rather detailed perspective.  I expect we will shortly
> have many pieces of the detailed puzzle.
 
I fully concur, and am looking forward to seeing their results.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: this & that
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: this & that
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 19:36:08 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

And the promised address:
 
    Terry Bollinger
    2416 Branch Oaks Lane
    Flower Mound, TX 75028
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: 13 Apr 1993 20:36:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
: In article <tomkC5FrLp.26M@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: >If there is CNF and people are duplicating it on unmistakable terms then
: >where are the CNF commercial products?
:
: Although I am normally a skeptic I think you are jumping too far ahead on
: this one.  To me the best evidence that there is something is the
: continued funding of P & F after several years by their Japanese
: investors.  It would be amazing if these investors did not A. hear those
: people shouting "Pathology" and "Scam!" and B. periodically hold reviews
: by knowledgable outside consultants.
 
Didn't they run away from Utah, after just such an event?
 
More seriously. Obviously I don't know whether or not secret experiments
and techniques give large positive results, both heat and nuclear.
I hope they do.
 
But if they stay secret, then it's OK for the rest of the scientific
community to say "Considering we haven't been able to reproduce it
successfully, and stiff theoretical objections, we won't be sure it's
real until we see a product."
 
If that's what the game is, OK.
 
: Dick Jackson
 
--
-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:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / rob fernie /  Hot fusion success in England
     
Originally-From: rob@argon.gas.uug.arizona.edu (rob w fernie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion success in England
Date: 13 Apr 93 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

I remember hearing about someone holding a Hot Fusion reaction for
a couple seconds in England a couple years ago. I'm sorry for
bringing up something that all of you have probably discussed to
death, but would really like to learn the details of this.
 
Email would be great. Perhaps a FAQ contains the information I want?
For anyone kind enough to reply, keep in mind that I am a Physics
undergrad.
--
+-----------------------------------+ The cosmic religious feeling is   +
| Rob Fernie                        | the strongest and noblest motive  |
| rob@gas.uug.arizona.edu           | for scientific research.          |
+-----------------------------------+       -- Albert Einstein --       +
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrob cudfnrob cudlnfernie cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 23:10:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Apr13.195050.10985@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
 
>Although I am normally a skeptic I think you are jumping too far ahead on
>this one.  To me the best evidence that there is something is the
>continued funding of P & F after several years by their Japanese
>investors.  It would be amazing if these investors did not A. hear those
>people shouting "Pathology" and "Scam!" and B. periodically hold reviews
>by knowledgable outside consultants.
 
Well, Dick, I think that I started out as a semi-believer. Then after
reading Jed Rothwell's many and varied comments, then those of Swartz
and a few others I noticed the underlying theme was that there were people
(somewhere) that were achieving results of such magnitude that _NO_
_QUESTIONS_ could be brooked.
 
This is the surest sign of BS I've ever known. So I went from interested
observer to skeptic to disbeliever on the weight of evidence _not_
presented by believers, not evidence presented by skeptics.
 
f there is one sure way of proving something of this nature it is to
produce a commercial product. Need we mention that people claim to have
complete knowledge of this 'process' for over 5 years and we haven't even
seen a creditable duplicable experiment?
 
This isn't science, it's a joke being played on us.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 00:11:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <tomkC5FrLp.26M@netcom.com>
   Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
  Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
=BASS>   " (demands) ....   Perhaps you could also include a
=BASS>   description of what '100 watt' and 'steady-state' mean to you."
==  "Dale, a lie told welll and often is often mistaken for the truth by
==  those without the past history. Jed, it would appear, prefers this
==  method of scientific research."
 
   Can we get along?                        (after Rodney King)
 
   This is hauntingly similar to a previous attempt to yank Jed's chain.
 
=DBASS> "It might be nice if you first
=DBASS>  explained what 'steady-state' and '100 watt' mean to you."
=DBASS>        ( ...  endless demands ...)
 
       The rest of us are fully aware what Jed means by "steady-state"
  and "100 watts".   Any real fluid dynamicist or continuum
  electromechanic would certainly know, too.  Do vorticies are effect
  thinking?
                        - Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 00:12:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <tomkC5G325.Lrz@netcom.com>
      Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
  Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
==THK "Well, Dick, I think that I started out as a semi-believer.
==THK Then after reading Jed Rothwell's many and varied comments, then
==THK those of Swartz and a few others I noticed the underlying theme was
==THK that there were people (somewhere) that were achieving results of
==THK such magnitude that _NO_ _QUESTIONS_ could be brooked."
 
   Tom, your statement is not totally comprehensible, but may also be simply
      just incorrect.
   In fact, a whole serious of questions have been asked.
   Discussions were made (or attempted).
   In view of this, your "interpretation" reveals the possibility of a
     palpable memory problem in either the grey or silicon matter.
 
                                     Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Calibrate your sociopathology
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your sociopathology
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 01:16:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Someone named (mitchell swartz) writeth:
>
>=BASS>   " (asks) ....   Perhaps you could also include a
>=BASS>   description of what '100 watt' and 'steady-state' mean to you."
>==  "Dale, a lie told welll and often is often mistaken for the truth by
>==  those without the past history. Jed, it would appear, prefers this
>==  method of scientific research."
>
>   Can we get along?                        (after Rodney King)
>
>   This is hauntingly similar to a previous attempt to yank Jed's chain.
 
     We might get along better if we start discussing the experiments
     rather than negatively characterizing the parentage of those who dare
     question the results.  One must be clever to pull that off
     successfully.
 
>=DBASS> "It might be nice if you first
>=DBASS>  explained what 'steady-state' and '100 watt' mean to you."
>
>       The rest of us are fully aware what Jed means by "steady-state"
>  and "100 watts".   Any real fluid dynamicist or continuum
>  electromechanic would certainly know, too.  Do vorticies are effect
>  thinking?
 
     You may be, but I am not.  100 watts is a tiny perturbation on 10^7
     watts, and 'steady state' might imply zero rms deviation
     for a year.  On the other hand, 100 watts out to 0.2 watts in
     might be '100 watts' and 25% rms deviation for fifteen minutes
     might be 'steady-state'.   And on the third hand, '100 watts'
     could be 1 watt heat and 99 watts calculational correction.
 
     If you have answers, feel free to supply them, but it seems
     pointless and evasive to criticize the questions without answering
     them.
 
     By the way, on what page of y'all's hymnal is it written 'Thou
     shalt neither asketh nor answerth questions that mayeth have a chance of
     gettingeth to the heart of matters?'
 
 
                             daleth basseth
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Calibrate your ducks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your ducks
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 01:25:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Mr. (mitchell swartz) ducketh and dodgeth:
>      In Message-ID: <tomkC5G325.Lrz@netcom.com>
>      Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
>  Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
>
>==THK "Well, Dick, I think that I started out as a semi-believer.
>==THK Then after reading Jed Rothwell's many and varied comments, then
>==THK those of Swartz and a few others I noticed the underlying theme was
>==THK that there were people (somewhere) that were achieving results of
>==THK such magnitude that _NO_ _QUESTIONS_ could be brooked."
>
>   Tom, your statement is not totally comprehensible, but may also be simply
>      just incorrect.
>   In fact, a whole serious of questions have been asked.
>   Discussions were made (or attempted).
 
     You are completely correct.  In fact I asked a whole 'serious'
     just the other day and got no answers.  I must have asked
     them four or five times now.
 
     Of course, I guess I'd be doing dodge and parry too if I were afraid of
     being skewered.
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrate your sociopathology
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your sociopathology
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 03:07:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <C5G8vs.JyE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Subject: Re: Calibrate your sociopathology
"Dale" Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) fabricates:
 
=BASS> "We might get along better if we start discussing the experiments
=BASS>  rather than negatively characterizing the parentage of those who dare
=BASS>  question the results."
 
  You are continuing to fabricate.
  All deviations from science to "parentage" began with ** you ** .
 
  Attention is directed to the proof of this, apparent in your posting in
 sci.physics.fusion.
 
=BASS> "Gugglething continueth:  ...  (more nonsense)
=BASS>  >I write verily forsooth:   ...
=BASS> "Ack, ack.  Thou hast woundeth my person exceedingly gravely.
=BASS>  However, I rest secure in the knowledge that my daddy could
=BASS>  beat up your daddy.
=BASS>            Any day."
=BASS>
=BASS>     Message-ID: <C56rHu.LFF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
=BASS>  Subject: Re: Death of UIP (really my daddy's bigger than your daddy)
=BASS>   Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU)
 
 
  This was even corroborated by your postings in sci.physics.
 
=BASS>  "But my daddy can still beat up your daddy, nyah."
=BASS>
=BASS>    Message-ID: <C59qJs.5I@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
=BASS>  Subject: Superluminal DNA regulation and lack of understanding thereof
=BASS>  Cameron Randale Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU)
 
   Were those experiments?   QED
 
                  Best wishes.          - Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrate your ducks
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your ducks
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 03:22:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <C5G9BA.K30@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Re: Calibrate your ducks
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) continues:
 
==DB "You are completely correct."
 
   Thank you.  I asked a series of serious questions and you
   have simply (like some "skeptics") ignored them all.
 
  Astonishingly, you instead respond with "talk" of "over the rainbow",
 the seven dwarfs, "the sun may be roses", "fish may be fleeced",
 Kansas, Snow White, undecipherable nonsense,  Howdy Doody,
   alt.paranet.paranormal (etc.), "my parking space",
 "Glugleth hears a Hoo", wildebeests, goats, tinmen, grasshoppers,
  your little dogs, and on and on.   And all accompanied by silly demands.
 
   On the positive side, it was reported that these words are actually
code for very serious science you are conducting.
  Since there is reported to possibly be a telecommunication protocol
program to fix this (?cryptodictionary), we eagerly await its receipt to
sort your many enigmas out.
                             Best wishes.
                                           - Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / J Lewis /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 03:54:48 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <tomkC5G325.Lrz@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com writes:
 
>reading Jed Rothwell's many and varied comments, then those of Swartz
>and a few others I noticed the underlying theme was that there were people
>(somewhere) that were achieving results of such magnitude that _NO_
>_QUESTIONS_ could be brooked.
>
>This is the surest sign of BS I've ever known. So I went from interested
>observer to skeptic to disbeliever on the weight of evidence _not_
>presented by believers, not evidence presented by skeptics.
 
I concur.
 
I find Rothwell and Schwartz utterly convincing.
 
In the negative sense.
 
Vapourware.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / D Arthur /  New energy from vacuum, where to find it?
     
Originally-From: siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New energy from vacuum, where to find it?
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 00:38:21 GMT
Organization: Grayhawk Public Access Unix (Waffle), 515/277-6753

 
 
 A magazine out of Arkansas called Magnus magazine has a
 letter in its March or April 93 issue that is supposed
 to contain a new energy invention of some sort.  Please
 post the contents or where to get the contents and e-mail
 direct with it as well.  Thanks in advance.
 
 
--
siproj@grayhawk.rent.com (D. R. Arthur)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensiproj cudfnD cudlnArthur cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Calibrate your daddy
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your daddy
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 04:41:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

A person with a weak daddy, (mitchell swartz) proposeth:
>
>=BASS> "We might get along better if we start discussing the experiments
>=BASS>  rather than negatively characterizing the parentage of those who dare
>=BASS>  question the results."
>
>  You are continuing to fabricate.
>  All deviations from science to "parentage" began with ** you ** .
 
       Is it possible to 'deviate' from science if one didn't begin there?
 
       And my mommy can beat up your mommy too.
 
>=BASS> "Gugglething continueth:  ...  (more nonsense)
>=BASS>  >I write verily forsooth:   ...
>=BASS> "Ack, ack.  Thou hast woundeth my person exceedingly gravely.
>=BASS>  However, I rest secure in the knowledge that my daddy could
>=BASS>  beat up your daddy.
>=BASS>            Any day."
>
>  This was even corroborated by your postings in sci.physics.
>
>=BASS>  "But my daddy can still beat up your daddy, nyah."
>=BASS>
 
      My daddy can *still* beat up your daddy, nanny, nanny, poo-poo.
 
      Of course, that just means you again avoided answering my questions.
      What does 'steady-state' mean, and what does '100 watt' mean?
      If I ever get answers to those, we can go from there.
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Calibrate your calibration of calibrated duck calibrations
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your calibration of calibrated duck calibrations
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 05:04:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

My old pal (mitchell swartz) evadeth thusly:
>
>==DB "You are completely correct."
>
>   Thank you.  I asked a series of serious questions and you
>   have simply (like some "skeptics") ignored them all.
 
     You mean questions about what 'steady-state' means, and what
     '100 watts' means, and what electrical forcing the system experiences,
     and the calorimeter configuration, and the excess power to
     input power ratio and various applicable timescales, and
     a bunch of other things?
 
     A little hint: questions are those things with question marks
     at the end.
 
>  Astonishingly, you instead respond with "talk" of "over the rainbow",
> the seven dwarfs, "the sun may be roses", "fish may be fleeced",
> Kansas, Snow White, undecipherable nonsense,  Howdy Doody,
>   alt.paranet.paranormal (etc.), "my parking space",
> "Glugleth hears a Hoo", wildebeests, goats, tinmen, grasshoppers,
>  your little dogs, and on and on.   And all accompanied by silly demands.
 
     Oh, you mean questions?  I refer the right honourable gentleman
     to the answer you gave some moments ago.
 
>   On the positive side, it was reported that these words are actually
>code for very serious science you are conducting.
>  Since there is reported to possibly be a telecommunication protocol
>program to fix this (?cryptodictionary), we eagerly await its receipt to
>sort your many enigmas out.
 
     Not a chance, bunny-boy.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Dieter Britz /  Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Languagepenision
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 07:01:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 896:
Under the subject: Moving goal posts?
 
>    Except for the brutal attempt at English, we agree again.
 
Mitch old mate, if you try for a cheap shot by scrutinising people's postings
for typos, you invite others to scrutinise your own. I didn't decline the
invitation and found the following, among your own text:
 
FD 896:
>    Some physics teacher's I've been lucky enough to listen to
 
>     How many jobs are involved?   Will it effect the balance of trade? How?
 
>      that bet? or perhaps you'd ought rethink your skepticism.]
 
FD 899:
>  quote what was not said, and then act like a dilitante, remaining
 
I trust I don't have to point out the errors.
 
It is only a couple of weeks ago that I wrote that many contributors do not
care to comb their text for typos etc before posting. This is of secondary
importance; we (most of us) are here for the science, and language just has to
convey the message, with or without typos. What we (most of us) are not here
for is flame wars. If you enjoy that sort of thing there are news groups
specifically for that, I believe. In this group, flame wars poison the air and
stifle discussion, when people give up in disgust.
 
Let's get back to fusion.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Dieter Britz /  STOP!
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: STOP!
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 07:46:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
As the person who stupidly started this fridge sideline, I take it upon me to
try to put an end to it. I should have known better. I think that the way I
presented it, it was correct - but I didn't foresee all the possible external
conditions and the possibility of steady state vs transient etc, and maybe I
was even wrong in what I wrote. On top of all that, it seems that Tom did not
even write what he was said to have written; I should not have trusted that
'citation' of his 'words'. Be that as it may, let's get back to fusion -
remember?
 
The essential point was Tom's assertion that a thermostat bath with four cnf
cells in it is poor design. He said that there would be cross-talk between
the cells. I see nothing wrong with that statement. As I wrote, Tom does know
his calorimetry, and has thought more about that subject than anyone else
here. As it happens, he seems now to be out of favour with those who throw
their hats in the air at every positive result, but revile as incompetent,
nasty and underhand those who get negative results or fail to throw their
own hats.
 
Science works by evidence, not by mouthfroth. I liked Bruce Scott's example in
FD 899. He didn't say so, but the chances are that his man Tim Luce doubted
his own results, and put himself through all those hoops. Most real scientists
do that, just as a good computer programmer checks a new program, even though
it appears to work the first time (at least, I do that). When a real scientist
gets an interesting and new result, he/she is maybe a little elated, but then
gets suspicious - could there be an error? Look at Paneth and Peters in 1926.
Even after they published, they looked for errors, and found them. For some
reason, CNF has attracted a lot of gentleman amateurs who froth at the mouth
at the mere thought that there might be error. It must be said that CNF has
also attracted ultraconservatives who do the same at the thought that there
might be something to it... Me, I want to see more science, less froth.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Dieter Britz /  The NEC patent(s?)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The NEC patent(s?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 12:52:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 908:
 
>== > BTW.   Do you work for NEC?  They appear to have filed an application
>== > for a cold fusion patent.
>==
>== "Jokes aside -- is this serious?  Can you or anyone else provide any more
>== details and/or confirmation of this?"
 
>  Terry, this is no joke.   Their first CF patent application of which I am
> aware is reported to be Japanese filing 9151794 (date 7/19/89).
>  Perhaps you could let us know how many others there are?
 
>  The entire lists are available in Fusion Facts and the Cold Fusion Times.
 
>                Best wishes.
>                               Mitchell
 
Mitch, are you being rhetorical or coy here? Are you not associated with CFT,
and could provide this information? It seems to me it was you who posted the
info on this blatt only the other day. Do you, or do you not, at least have
access to it?
 
Anyway, I combed my patents file, and found this one, which matches the date
and part of the number:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nishiyama I, Nanbu Y;           Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 03 51,794, 19-Jul-89
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 115(20):217010 (1991).
"Cold nuclear fusion apparatus".
** "The app., equipped with a device for heavy-H2O electrolysis, is
characterized in that the cathode of the device is formed at a
graphite-alkali-metal interlayer compd. (e.g. C8K)" (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
My entry does not carry the employer, so I can't tell whether this is a "NEC"
patent. Maybe I should have done this all along, but it's a bit hard to go
back and do it now, and anyway I don't take these patents very seriously. Who
does? Hagelstein's patent lawyer doesn't, apparently, or he would have removed
the letter to FLorence and Sam on p. 48 {:] (I am not kidding, y'all, just
smiling). Anyway, There are no further patents by Nishiyama or Nanbu in my
list, which doesn't mean NEC has no other patents out. So if you know, Mitch,
tell us.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Chris Phoenix /  Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
     
Originally-From: chrisp@efi.com (Chris Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Close that refrigerator door" - Mother
Date: 14 Apr 93 02:48:35 GMT
Organization: Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

In article <VINSCI.93Apr9165336@nic.nic.funet.fi> vinsci@nic.funet.fi
(Leonard Norrgard) writes:
>In article <930408122606.22e008c3@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>> Place two cells in an enclosure such as the Pons and Fleischmann video.  Let
>> cell A be at 40 C and cell B at 80 C.  I say to one and all.  There is heat
>> flow from cell A to cell B (from the colder cell to the hotter one for those
>> who cannot read symbolism).
>  You left out a crucial piece of information in that statement,
>namley that the heat flow in the opposite direction is bigger.  To a
>programmer, leaving that out makes the statement false or just flawed.
>So, I'd write this off as a culture clash.
 
No, it's not a culture clash.  The information was left out because in
calorimetry it's assumed that everything loses heat.  The radiant heat
flow from B to A is the same as the radiant heat flow from B to an
equivalent volume of vacuum.  Of course, A will absorb the heat
whereas the vacuum won't, but the original point was not concerned
with the heating-up of A by B, but rather the heating-up of B by A.
 
A more important point left out is the temperature of the water bath.
If the water bath is at 40 C then cell A's presence makes no
difference.  But I think it can be assumed that the water bath is
cooler than either cell.
 
Cell A radiates heat.  Allowing the heat from cell A to hit cell B
will cause cell B to be hotter than if cell A were not "visible."
 
In summary, the "heat flow in the opposite direction" is the same
whether or not cell A is present.  So we don't have to talk about it
in considering what difference cell A's presence makes to cell B.
Since cell A radiates heat, its presence does add heat to cell B,
whereas its absence obviously would not (assuming it would be replaced
by something cooler, ie the water bath).
--
"7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity."
                        -- _Turbo C Reference Guide Version 2.0_
 
Chris Phoenix, chrisp@efi.com, 415-286-8581
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchrisp cudfnChris cudlnPhoenix cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrate your daddy
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your daddy
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 11:28:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

       In Message-ID: <C5GICr.MnC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
       Subject: Re: Calibrate your daddy
    Cameron Randale Bass composes and writes:
 
==BASS>  "And my mommy can beat up your mommy too."
==BASS>  "My daddy can *still* beat up your daddy, nanny, nanny, poo-poo."
 
  Since you are unable, or unwilling, to contain either yourself and
the rest of the Branch Bassians, I am signing off on your utter goofiness.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Languagepenision
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 11:39:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <4FD5CF58747F205F43@vms2.uni-c.dk>
     Subject: Languagepenision
  Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
== " I didn't decline the invitation and found the following (typos),
==  among your own text:"
 
   Thank you, Dieter for pointing these out.  (No comment on your
    subject title, but the word was "neutronpenic".)
 
==  "Let's get back to fusion."
 
   Here's a vote for that!
                               Best wishes.    -  Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 15:32:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Tom Simonds (tsimonds@world.std.com):
 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
> (not reproduced in full due to copyright)
 
>                 WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
 
>           Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
 
 
          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
{:]
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Something to Think About
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Something to Think About
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 22:57:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

*************************************************************************
                A QUESTION FOR ALL TO PONDER
 
Anyone who looks at the available positive "anomalous heat" experiments
will likely notice an increase in noise during "anomalous heat" events.
 
I ask you all, does the "anomalous heat" cause the cell to be noisy, or
does an increase in cell noise cause the measurement of "anomalous heat"?
 
Tom Droege
*************************************************************************
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Getting back to basics
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting back to basics
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:18:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If we can shut the fridge and let the molds continue to eat the leftovers,
agree that our moms and dads aren't going to risk their peace and comfort
to do battle over cold fusion, and reassess where the issue stands;
perhaps we can improve the signal to noise level to the point where this
stuff is worth reading.
 
Douglas Morrison's repost of his Nagoya Conference summary makes a
resonable starting point for determining what really is left to
discuss about positive results.  Take the work of Mike Mckubre, for
example, since his results have long been embraced by CF enthusiasts.
My understanding is that in summary the most resent SRI results
yield an average excess heat in the 1 to 4% range.  It seems to
me that this result is far different from the 100% number of
uncertain origin.  We all agree that McKubre's experiments were
carefully done, but are there any examples involving careful
calorimetry and more spectacular results?
 
Second issue that has been kicked around but never answered has to
do with the correlated observation of helium and excess heat.
Some people seem to think this is a rock solid scientific fact, but
where is the evidence?  Only two specific experiments have ever
been mentioned as far as I know.  These are the Yamaguchi ion
bombardment of a sandwich and the China Lake electrolysis work.
 
>From the DOM summary, I get the impression that most of the
long-time advocates of CF giving the invited talks generally had
little new to offer and many have toned down their claims in
subtle but significant ways.  Even Pons and Fleischmann have
gone from a video showing a rather large cathode to videos
showing very tiny cathodes in tiny cells boiling tiny ammounts
of water (and no real data).
 
Has there been any progress in this field?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Jim Bowery /  Senate Bill 646
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Senate Bill 646
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:18:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I sent this over a week ago and it hasn't shown up on fusion digest yet,
so here it is again:
 
103rd CONGRESS
1st Session
 
S. 646
 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
 
 
Mr. Johnston introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
 
A BILL
 
To establish within the Department of Energy an international
fusion energy program, and for other purposes.
 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED,
 
 
SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE
 
This Act may be cited as the "International Fusion Energy
Act of 1993".
 
 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS.
 
(a) Findings.-- Congress finds that--
(1) fusion energy has the potential to be a safe,
environmentally attractive, secure and economically affordable
source of energy;
(2) the United States Department of Energy's magnetic fusion
energy program has made significant progress toward realizing
fusion as a viable source of energy;
(3) other industrial nations have also invested in
significant magnetic fusion energy programs;
(4) an integrated program of international collaboration
will be necessary for continued progress to demonstrate the
scientific and technological feasibility of magnetic fusion
energy;
(5) there is international agreement to proceed with the
engineering and design of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor to prove the scientific and technical
feasibility of fusion energy and to lead to a demonstration
reactor;
(6) the United States should focus the Department of
Energy's magnetic fusion energy program on the design,
construction and operation of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor;
(7) the continuation of an aggressive fusion energy program
requires the Department of Energy, industry, utilities, and the
international fusion community to commit to the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor as soon as practicable; and
(8) an effective U.S. fusion energy program requires
substantial involvement by industry and utilities in the design,
construction, and operation of fusion facilities.
 
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to --
(1) redirect and refocus the Department's magnetic fusion
energy program in a way that will lead to the design,
construction and operation of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor by 2005, in cooperation with other
countries, and operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by
2025;
(2) develop a plan identifying the budget, critical path,
milestones and schedules for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor;
(3) eliminate from the Department of Energy's magnetic
fusion energy program those elements that do not directly support
the development of the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor or the development of a fusion demonstration reactor; and
(4) select a candidate host site within the United States
for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and to
identify the steps necessary to lead the selection of the
final host site by the international community.
 
(c) Definitions.
(1) "Department" means the United States Department of
Energy;
(2) "ITER" means the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor; and
(3) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the United States
Department of Energy.
 
 
SEC. 3. INTERNATIONAL FUSION ENERGY PROGRAM.
 
(a) Program.-- The Secretary shall redirect and refocus the
Department's magnetic fusion program in a way that will lead to
the design, construction and operation of ITER by 2005 and
operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by 2025.  The
Department's magnetic fusion program shall be referred to as the
ITER program and shall be carried out in cooperation with the
international community.
 
(b) Requirements.-- In developing the ITER program, the
Secretary shall --
(1) establish as the main focus of the
Department's magnetic fusion energy program the
development of ITER;
(2) provide for the development of fusion
materials and other reactor components to the extent
necessary for the development of a fusion demonstration
reactor;
(3) eliminate those components of the megnetic
fusion energy program not contributing directly to
development of ITER or to the development of a fusion
demonstration reactor;
(4) select a candidate host site within the United
States for the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor;
(5) negotiate with other countries involved in
ITER to select a final host site for ITER and to agree
to construct ITER as soon as practicable;
(6) provide for substantial U.S. industry and
utility involvement in the design, construction and
operation of ITER to ensure U.S. industry and utility
expertise in the technologies developed; and
(7) provide for reducing the level of effort in
the ITER program to the levels prescribed in section
4(b)(2) in the event the ITER program is terminated in
accordance with subsection (g).
 
(c) Management Plan--
(1) Within 180 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and implement
a mangement plan for the ITER program.  The plan shall be
revised and updated biannually.
(2) The plan shall --
     (A) establish the goals of the ITER program;
     (B) describe how each component of the
Department's ITER program contributes directly to the
development of ITER or development of a fusion
demonstration reactor;
     (C) set priorities for the elements of the
Department's ITER program, identifying those elements
that contribute directly to the development of ITER or
to the development of a fusion demonstration reactor;
     (D) provide for the elimination of those elements
of the magnetic fusion energy program not contributing
directly to the development of ITER, or to the
development of fusion materials or other reactor
components that are necessary for the development of a
fusion demonstration reactor;
     (E) describe the selection process for a proposed
host site within the United States for ITER;
     (F) establish the necessary steps that will lead
to the final selection of the host site for ITER by the
countries involved in the ITER program by the end of
1995;
     (G) establish the necessary steps that will lead
to the design, construction and operation of ITER by
2005 and operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by
2025;
     (H) establish a schedule and critical path,
including milestones, and a budget that will allow for
the design, construction and operation of ITER by 2005
and operation of a demonstration fusion reactor by 2025;
     (I) provide mechanisms for ensuring substantial
industry and utility involvement in the design,
construction and operation of ITER;
     (J) set forth any recommendations of the Secretary
on --
          (i) the need for additional legislation
     regarding the ITER program; or
          (ii) the possibility and desirability of
     accelerating the design and construction of ITER
     or the development of a fusion demonstration
     reactor; and
     (K) provide for reducing the level of effort in
magnetic fusion to the levels prescribed in section
4(b)(2) in the event the ITER program is terminated in
accordance with subsection (g).
 
(d) International Agreements.--
(1) The Secretary may negotiate or enter into agreements
with any country governing the design, construction and
operation of ITER or facilities related to ITER.
(2) The Secretary shall seek to enter into agreements with
other countries to share in the cost of the facilities and
components of the ITER program that contribute to the design,
construction or operation of ITER or to the development of a
fusion demonstration reactor.
 
(e) Report on ITER Negotiations.-- The Secretary shall submit
an annual report to the Congress on the status of Negotiations
with other countries regarding ITER.  The report shall --
(1) identify the issue to the negotiated with other
countries involved in the ITER program;
(2) identify impediments to reaching agreement on a
host site for ITER, or on issues related to the construction
or operation of ITER;
(3) identify the steps needed to reach agreement on a
host site for ITER or on issues related to the construction
or operation of ITER;
(4) establish the timetable for agreement related to
the siting, operation and construction of ITER;
(5) assess the likelihood of reaching agreement on a
host site for ITER and on issues related to the construction
or operation of ITER; and
(6) set fort the Secretary's recommendation on whether
a special negotiator should be appointed to carry out
negotiations on behalf of the United States with the
countries involved in the ITER program.
 
(f) Certification.-- Prior to seeking funds for construction
of ITER, the Secretary shall certify to the Congress that there
is agreement in place or there is a substantial likelihood
agreement will be reached with the countries involved in ITER on
the siting, construction and operation of ITER.
 
(g) Termination.--
(1) The Secretary shall report to Congress if the Secretary
determines that --
(A) ITER is no longer essential to the development of a
fusion demonstration reactor;
(B) no agreement can be reached on the final host site
for ITER;
(C) no agreement can be reached on the final design of
ITER or on issues realted to construction of ITER; or
(D) there is an insufficient commitment to the final
ITER design by U.S. industry and utilities.
(2) Within 30 days of submission of the report under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall initiate the termination
of the ITER program.
(3) In the event the Secretary terminates the ITER
program, the Secretary may continue to carry out research in
magnetic fusion, but only at the levels authorized in
section 4(b)(2).
 
 
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
 
(a) Limitation on Appropriations.-- No more funds may be
appropriated to carry out the purpose of this Act than the
amounts set forth in subsection (b).  This Act shall be the
exclusive source of authorization of appropriations to support
any activities of the Secretary relating to magnetic fusion
energy.
(b) Appropriations.--
(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
for carrying out the purposes of this Act $350,000,000 for
fiscal year 1994, $390,000,000 for fiscal year 1995,
$475,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and suc sums as may be
necessary thereafter.
(2) In the event the Secretary terminates the ITER program,
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$50,000,000 for 1994, $50,000,000 for 1995 and $50,000,000
for 1996 for activities relating to magnetic fusion energy.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  The NEC patent application(s?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The NEC patent application(s?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 16:04:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <4FA6CDBEF41F206E81@vms2.uni-c.dk>
     Subject: The NEC patent(s?)
  Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
=ms   "(NECs') first CF patent application of which I am
=ms   aware is reported to be Japanese filing 9151794 (date 7/19/89).
=ms   Perhaps you could let us know how many others there are?"
==
==        "Mitch, are you being rhetorical or coy here?"
 
  Actually, neither.   Although the partial lists are available, they do
not provide much information.   Also, it was not clear if NEC did file
for more patent applications since the lists remain preliminary.
 
  Since some of the Japanese companies, that have filed
international applications in this field, have filed more than half a
dozen applications, my hope was that Terry (if he does work at NEC)
might provide update.
 
    In any case, thank you for your update on this matter, Dieter.
 
                                          -   Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hot fusion success in England
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion success in England
Date: 14 Apr 93 16:12:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

The experiment to which you refer was a "normal" run with a heated,
confined deuterium plasma. During the "shot" (as these are called) a beam
of tritium particles was turned on. (An important method of auxiliary--over
and above the resistive heating of a current-carrying plasma--heating is to
fire beams of neutral particles into the plasma; this also fuels it to a
minor extent.) The tritium particles indeed underwent fusion with the
deuterium. For an energy input rate of 18 MW, 1.7 MW of power was liberated
through fusion reactions. An important consideration is that both figures
refer to energy at the plasma, eg, 18MW is the power actually received by
the plasma and not that used to run the beams. Further, *no* energy was
extracted, either as heat in a heat engine or as electricity. This was a
physics experiment, so the numbers have relevance for the physical
conditions of the plasma, and not for effiency considerations of a
power-producing device. The primary physical significance of the experiment
was that no radical degradation of confinement [*] was observed when the
tritium beams were turned on (that is, over and above the degradation you
always get when you heat with beams). This was important since both the
basic physics of confinement and the effects of high-energy (by our
standards!) alpha particles are not yet understood.
 
If you want to take a cynical stance, there were two important PR
considerations: (1) This was really the first controlled fusion of any sort
involving deuterium and tritium, so people could blare on about "1.7 MW of
fusion power produced" and score big points just before some major funding
decisions in both the US and in Europe. But really, controlled fusion
between deuterium particles has been going on (but at the 10s to 100s of
milliwatt levels) ever since people went to deuterium rather than normal
hydrogen in most tokamak experiments, for which there are various technical
reasons. (2) The tokamak on which the experiments were performed--JET-- was
scheduled for shut-down for two years for some upgrading, and Princeton's
TFTR (no, I do *not* work at Princeton, or even in the US program!!) was
and is scheduled for a major series of D-T experiments starting this Fall:
1000 shots many of which involve 50-50 D-T mixes. JET wanted to beat them
to the punch and make a bang which might ring for those two years. Make no
mistake, fusion is very political, too political in fact.
 
[*] Confinement is quantified in terms of a time: thermal energy content
divided by the energy input rate in steady state.
 
The reference for the JET experiments is
 
JET Team, Nuclear Fusion (1992) vol 32, no 2, p 187;
----, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion (1992) vol 34, no 13, p 1749.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: The NEC patent application(s?)
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The NEC patent application(s?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 18:17:06 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <C5HDz9.H8F@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com
(mitchell swartz) writes:
 
> | [Dieter Britz]: Mitch, are you being rhetorical or coy here?
>
> Actually, neither.   Although the partial lists are available, they do
> not provide much information.   Also, it was not clear if NEC did file
> for more patent applications since the lists remain preliminary.
>
> Since some of the Japanese companies, that have filed international
> applications in this field, have filed more than half a dozen
> applications, my hope was that Terry (if he does work at NEC) might
> provide [an] update.
>
> In any case, thank you for your update on this matter, Dieter.
 
Yes, I work for a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC, which is called NEC
America, Inc.  I am in the Advanced Switching Laboratory, where we do
nothing but develop advanced telecommunications software products and some
telecommunications chip design.  I am about as far removed from any solid-
state work at NEC as is possible within the company, and have no idea at
all what if anything NEC is doing in palladium anomolies.  the patent
mentioned (thanks Dieter!) looks pretty meaningless to me, just another
one of the "patent everything!" mania that occurred shortly after the
original announcement by P&F.
 
There are other NEC people who read this group, and frankly some of them
might be better situated than me to track down any such work.  I'd really
rather not wrack up a big phone bill calling Japan for topics totally
unrelated to what I actually do for a living.
 
 
(Ya'll come to CIPS in Calgary on April 29 if you want to hear me talk on
my _real_ work in software development methods and processes!)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -  My "communications protocol" was a light-hearted refences to email
        _etiquette_, not "secret codes."  Let's not overly surreal, please.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Ron Carter /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 19:15:18 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

>Originally-From: Tom Simonds (tsimonds@world.std.com):
>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
>>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> From "The Observer", London, Sunday 11th April 1993.
>> (not reproduced in full due to copyright)
>
>>                 WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
>
>>           Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
 
Guess the wire services have picked it up as well; the following from
today's (14 APR 93) Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado, USA):
 
A British inventor has astounded the military and scientific world
by producing a type of plastic so tough it can withstand the heat
of nuclear explosions, the _International Defense Review_ reported.
Businessman Maurice Ward, a former hairdresser with no university
training, started experimenting with plastics 20 years ago before
stumbling on the kind of secret nuclear physicists dream of.  Tests
by military research in Britain and the United States have shown
the substance can withstand temperatures of more than 18,030 degrees.
Experts think the compound Starlite could be used to protect aircraft
from fires and to coat space shuttles.
 
End of article.
 
Makes me feel good about my own `uneducated' research.
--
Ron Carter \ Director \ Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
 CSCI \ Denver, CO USA \ "A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never
  rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu \ go back to its original dimensions."  -Holmes
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrcarter cudfnRon cudlnCarter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / J Lewis /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 20:00:03 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <13APR199312415902@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>In article <C5EK39.9F2@world.std.com>, tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes...
>>
>>                WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
>>
>>Establishment at Foulness, Essex, and by NATO scientists at the US
>>missile range at White Sands, New Mexico, have shown that the
>>substance withstood simulated nuclear flashes which generated
>>temperatures of more than 1000 degrees C.
>
>If 1,000 C is the actual temperature withstood, is 1,000 C really all that
>remarkable.  Many old ashtrays were made of "Bakelite".  I don't have any
>data for it, but I'd guess it would withstand at least 500 C temperatures.
 
I would call 1,000 C "mildly remarkable."  Most plastics are pretty wimpy
by 100 C, and even Teflon isn't much use beyond 200 C, if I remember correctly.
I doubt that Bakelite would withstand red heat for long.  By these standards,
1,000 C is remarkable.  On the other hand, graphite and amorphous carbon sublime
at about 3,600 C at 1 atm;  a couple of other refractories (ZrC, TaC)
melt at about the same temperatures (3,540 C and 3,880 C respectively).
By THOSE standards, 1,000 C is tame.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 19:45:23 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>>This is the surest sign of BS I've ever known. So I went from interested
>>observer to skeptic to disbeliever on the weight of evidence _not_
>>presented by believers, not evidence presented by skeptics.
 
>I concur.
>I find Rothwell and Schwartz utterly convincing.
>In the negative sense.
 
   Me too.  I'll probably quit wasting time even skimming this group.
 
   --AES
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 20:46:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) writes:
>the substance can withstand temperatures of more than 18,030 degrees.
>Experts think the compound Starlite could be used to protect aircraft
>from fires and to coat space shuttles.
 
As I understand physics (not much) there are at least two forms of "heat."
Radiative and vibrational.
 
I suspect that Starlite is a good reflector of radiative heat based upon the
applications given.  However, it would have to be a good insulator if it
was expected to protect aircraft and space shuttles from molecular vibrational
heat.
 
Therefore it is less amazing that a reflector can withstand "high temperature"
radiation.  It is not unusual for megawatt laser beams to bounce off
aluminized surfaces.  Starlight might just be a good infared reflector.
 
But aluminum itself will melt at a fairly low temperature (1200 deg or so.)
And so too might Starlight.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Dick Jackson /  Evidence for C.F. (was Re: Calibrate your kitchen)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evidence for C.F. (was Re: Calibrate your kitchen)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 23:16:20 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

In article <1993Apr14.194523.23955@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.
DU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>>I find Rothwell and Schwartz utterly convincing.
>>In the negative sense.
>   Me too.  I'll probably quit wasting time even skimming this group.
 
Rothwell and Schwartz have nothing to do with it. The people who claim to
have it big are operating as for-profit, private organizations and
cloaking themselves in secrecy. Before we laugh too hard, consider their
paymasters - they are presumabley being re-convinced by these secret
results, or else they are unbelievably(?) dumb.
 
I am optimistic about the outcome: either we have spectacular houses of
cards whose fall will elicit a great deal of schadenfreude, or there will
be some new physics. Its win-win.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Something to Think About
     
Originally-From: mbk@legendre.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Something to Think About
Date: 15 Apr 1993 01:11:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
: *************************************************************************
:                 A QUESTION FOR ALL TO PONDER
:
: Anyone who looks at the available positive "anomalous heat" experiments
: will likely notice an increase in noise during "anomalous heat" events.
:
: I ask you all, does the "anomalous heat" cause the cell to be noisy, or
: does an increase in cell noise cause the measurement of "anomalous heat"?
:
: Tom Droege
: *************************************************************************
 
I don't understand:  what would cause sound to be created in the cell
(do you mean in the electrolyte?) that makes "anomalous heat"?
 
--
-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:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 00:26:56 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

Douglas,
 
In your review of the Nagoya meeting, you write in Section 8.  NEXT COLD
FUSION CONFERENCE - SCIENTIFIC MEETING:
 
"[The Fourth Cold Fusion conference] is unlikely to be sponsored by the
University of Hawaii as the University which initially took some
responsibility for the patents based on Cold Fusion claims of some of
their employees, organized a committee to investigate these claims
and has now given up their interest in these patents."
 
This was not true the first time you posted this and it is not true now.
 
Please post a retraction.
 
Since you seem to be aware of the deliberations of the University of
Hawaii Patent Committee, you should also be aware that such matters
are confidential.  Therefore, even if what you wrote was true (which it
isn't) posting confidential discussions is irresponsible.
 
You undermine your credibility with the rest of your review--could that
have something to do with the fact that no one responded to your
previous posting?
 
Aloha,
 
Bruce Liebert
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Languagepenision
Date: 14 Apr 93 16:34:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

To Mitchell Schwartz:
 
To Dieter's remarks I might add that scrutinising the English of a
non-native speaker to score points is an egregious no-no on Usenet. Please
clean up your act.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / nod sivad /  Re: StarBrite
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: StarBrite
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 93 16:04:44 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

Interesting.  One day after reading about Starbrite here, I heard a
news report on WTOP radio (Baltimore, Md.) concerning the new plastic.
Not to be outdone by the British media, our intrepid reporters
are claiming a resistance to 10,000 C, not a paltry 1000 C.
 
I can't wait until this news hits the National Inquirer.  "Starbrite
resists nuclear blast of 100,000 C (that's one billion degrees
Fahrenheit).  Elvis stunned."
 
                                        me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Languagepenision
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 12:57:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
 
>To Mitchell Schwartz:
 
>To Dieter's remarks I might add that scrutinising the English of a
>non-native speaker to score points is an egregious no-no on Usenet. Please
>clean up your act.
 
Mitch was having a go at Dick Blue, whom I suppose to be a true blue native
speaker of English. Even if he had meant me, don't worry, ich bin ein
Australier, although my English might have got a bit stilted, what with living
here, far from home and speaking something else entirely most of the time.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.14 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Morrison and Nagoya
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison and Nagoya
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 22:58:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, morrison@vxprix.cern.ch (Douglas R. O. Morrison) writes:
 
>     To illustrate that my talk contained many experimental comments, will post
>it again.  Have been particularly interested to note that when I posted it
>previously, there was an absence of comments.  My review of the Nagoya
>conference was quite different from Dr. Hagelstein's in that my review was
>experimental while his was a theoreticists.  It is useful for an unbiassed
>observer to read these two reviews.  One difference that he will note is that
>Dr.  Hagelstein's review was very uncritical - he does not face up to the major
>problem of the Conference - for three years it has been said that the excess
>heat was fusion of deuterium with deuterium and this was confirmed by the
>absence of excess heat when normal light hydrogen was used.  Now at Nagoya some
>five groups reported that excess heat was found with light hydrogen alone - you
>do not need deuterium!  Now Dr. Hagelstein has not faced up to what conclusion
>to draw from this.  Does it mean it is not fusion?  and then it should not be
>called "Cold Fusion".
 
When Dr. Hagelstein was talking about theories, it seemed clear that he did not
believe that fusion was responsible for the excess heat results.  Taking the
results at face value, it seems that heat has been seen in hydrogen/nickel
systems and deuterium/palladium systems.  I am not aware of any results in
hydrogen/palladium systems.  Dr. Hagelstein seemed to be taking this into
account when looking at the different theories.
 
> ... and then it means that all the previous experiments
>which used light hydrogen as a control, were wrong?  Or, second alternative,
>does it mean that all the experiments using light hydrogen are wrong?  and if
>so why?
 
Without a workable theory to guide us, it is difficult to say if any
experiments were wrong.  Hopefully, the additional information they provide
will help explain the effect.
 
 
>      Also when I posted earlier a report of the General Electric paper
>that Fritz Will was an author of, there was an absence of comments
>although it was a most important paper. It said two things. Firstly
>that they had made many measurements on Cold Fusion and found nothing.
>Secondly they had studied very carefully the Fleischmann and Pons work and
>their analysis - they found the work of Fleischmann and Pons to be seriously
>flawed. Fleischmann and Pons replied but did not answer the criticisms but
>wrote about other things. This General Electric paper is a major one and the
>absence of comment is most revealing.
 
It was an interesting paper, especially the analysis of P&Fs experiment.
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The "noise" has it!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The "noise" has it!
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 13:55:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I believe Tom Droege asks a key question the significance of which
has never been addressed in any cold fusion paper I have read.
 
<<  Does "anamolous heat" cause the cell to be noisey, or does the
<<  increase in noise cause the measurement of "anamolous heat"?
 
Simply put, all those expert electrochemists are using techniques
that are proven for systems that are quasistatic.  Calibrations are
all done DC, and hours of data are logged showing no anamolous heat
until something happens.  The most notable feature of what happens
is the system under investigation stops being quasistatic.  It is
the key feature that the experimenter has been waiting for!  If
Mother Nature doesn't make enough noise why not introduce some more
to drive the system and enhance the effect as per the Takahashi
method?  Then if you don't have enough confusion you drive the system
over the edge, boil the electrolyte, melt plastic, or even burn up
a chunk of the laboratory.  By golly, that ought prove all those
skeptics are wrong!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Jed Rothwell /  Dick is now a believer!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick is now a believer!
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 15:33:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Dick Blue has now finally admitted that fusion is real, and beyond
chemistry. What a wonderful conversion! Here is his confession, folks:
 
     "Take the work of Mike Mckubre, for example, since his results have long
     been embraced by CF enthusiasts. My understanding is that in summary the
     most resent SRI results yield an average excess heat in the 1 to 4%
     range.  It seems to me that this result is far different from the 100%
     number of uncertain origin.  We all agree that McKubre's experiments were
     carefully done, but are there any examples involving careful calorimetry
     and more spectacular results?"
 
Dick may not even realize that he has joined "our camp," but both he and
Morrison have. Both say they agree that McKubre is careful, and I presume they
think he is right to within, say, 1%. He claims 0.1% accuracy, and this is
documented in exhaustive detail in the paper, so I guess both Dick and Doug
will admit that he is within an order of magnitude of his claims. (If they
will not admit that, perhaps they would be kind enough to explain why.)
 
So, we all agree he has heat, right?
 
Okay, first of all, Dick got the facts screwed up, as usual. It is not in the
"1 to 4% range." Dick should try reading the paper next time:
 
     "For the thermodynamically closed and intentionally isothermal systems
     described here, output power was observed to be as much as 28% in excess
     of electrochemical input power or 24% above the known total input power.
     When excess power was present, it was more typically in the range of 5 -
     10%, in a calorimeter that was accurate to +/- 0.1%." (p. 442,
     "Proceedings of the II Annual Conference On Cold Fusion," (1991),
     "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System.)
 
Okay, we all know that what is dramatic about cold fusion is not the heat per
se, it is the cumulative, integrated heat over time. CF is exactly like
radioactivity was when it was first observed in the 19th century. What puzzled
scientists then was not that rocks of radioactive ore, or more purified
samples, could emit heat. A lump of coal will emit far more heat than an
impure sample of any fissioning material. No, what puzzled scientists back
then was the fact that the samples *kept* *on* radiating heat and other forms
of energy, long after the fuel in them should have been exhausted. The exact
same thing is true of CF. The astounding thing about CF is not the percent of
heat generated, and not the absolute temperature, and not the level of heat
per cubic centimeter. No, it is the total integrated amount of energy that
comes from the samples, compared to the size of the sample. We have seen it
come to megajoules per mole, and nobody has every seen the uppermost limits. A
tiny piece of material, typically no larger than an ordinary match, will
radiate heat at the same level as a smoldering or burning match, and keep
radiating that heat for hours, days, and even months at a time. As everyone
knows, a chemical match that is smoldering or burning exhausts all of the fuel
and goes out after a few minutes.
 
I am sure both Dick and Doug understand this. (Although I have never seen
either one of them admit they understand it, come to think of it.) I am sure
Dick is just kidding us when he McKubre's results are not "spectacular." They
are every bit as spectacular as the Madam Curie's results were.
 
Now, then. Since we all agree that McKubre's work is accurate, let us have a
look at how much integrated energy he measured. Here are the numbers:
 
     "1.08 MJ, or 45.1 MJ/mole or (approx) 450 eV/atom normalized to the Pd
     lattice or to the deuterium in the palladium at a presumed loading of
     (approx) 1."
 
So, that settles it! Not chemical. And it is one of the most SPECTACULAR
results in the history of science. You cannot ask for anything more
spectacular than that, can you? I mean, what difference does it make whether
it is 450 eV, or 4 million eV? It exceeds the limits of chemistry, right? That
would be down around 20 eV. Right? Or does any "skeptic" out there know of
some chemistry I have not heard of? Is there some chemistry that generates 20
times more heat than any fire, and leaves no detectible chemical ash, even at
parts per billion?
 
And, of course, as I am sure everyone realizes including Dick and Doug, if you
let one of these cells run on for a couple of months, the integrated energy
goes higher and higher, because they work just like that Everready Bunny: they
keep going and going. So, if McKubre has just been patient, and if he didn't
need to turn off the machine and try another palladium sample, he could have
let one sample run on and it would be up to 4,000 eV, or 40,000 eV per atom by
now. But, proof is proof, there is no need to do that.
 
Welcome aboard, Dick! By the way, if you actually read the literature someday,
you will find hundreds of other "examples involving careful calorimetry and...
spectacular results." Start with Pons and Fleischmann.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / mitchell swartz /  Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Languagepenision
Subject: Moving goal posts?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 12:54:46 GMT
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:44:19 GMT]
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1695@lyman.pppl.gov>   Subject: Re: Languagepenision
Bruce Scott (bscott@lyman.pppl.gov) states:
 
== "To Dieter's remarks I might add that scrutinising the English of a
== non-native speaker to score points is an egregious no-no on Usenet."
 
   Dear Prof. Scott:
   Your comment is welcomed.  It is inappropriate here.
   Lets do some homework here, OK?
 
    First, examining your citation (of Dieter's citation) it is
  apparent that only one comment was made (see below for the actual citation).
 
   Second, who exactly was this "non-native" speaker of English?
     Let's see -----  Why it was:  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU)     !!!
 
        I did not know that English was Dick's second language.
        I did not know that Dick Blue is a "non-native speaker".
        Thank you for the information.
 
  Since Dick Blue speaks so well (vide infra) this has never been apparent.
 
  Now let's analyze Dick Blue's work to see how well this non-English
speaker is actually doing.   To be scientific, Dieter's (and therefore
your) cited quote was run through a lexicon checker (details below).
  [I make no claims on the program, or on the rationality of his quotes
      cited below).]
 
   Here are the results:    LEX analysis of your cited quote of
                            "non-native speaker" Dick Blue NSCL@MSU)
   Gunning-Fog index: 12
   Flesch index:      69
   Flesch grade level  8
   Kincaid index:      8
   Number of polysyllabic words (3+)  34
   Average word length 1.4 syllables
   Number of words     264
 
 LEX final analysis:
  "Except for special words, this document could be understood by an average
 high school senior."
       ----------------------------------------------------
 
   Given that Dick Blue is not a native English-speaker (as you assert)
   he has therefore done very well indeed.
   He should (and his English tutors) be congratulated for
   his thorough mastering of English.  Where is Dick actually from?
   Did he work with you?
                          Best wishes.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
 
   P.S. Attention is also directed to the fact that the title of your letter,
  and the text within the citation (by Dick Blue), mocks my use of English
  (vis a vis neutronpenic).   Is it OK for you?
 
=====================================================================
              index to analysis and references below:
=====================================================================
 
 1. the actual quote
 2. the actual context in which it was made
 3. lex analysis of blue's comment
 4. the lex program
 
=============== the actual quote:
 
==ms "In Message-ID: <0096AAB0.C2F4FD80.9604@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
==ms        Subject: Moving goal posts?
==ms    Dick Blue [NSCL@MSUD] writes:
==ms
==ms
==db  "UIP label ...  isn't any more better than CF"
==ms     Except for the brutal attempt at English, we agree again.
 
============= The entire quote in context to see how well Dick Blue
    (NSCL@MSU), a "non-native speaker", has been doing =============
 
[From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Moving goal posts?
Message-ID: <0096AAB0.C2F4FD80.9604@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:44:19 GMT]
 
=db "Jed Rothwell asserts that skeptics "move the goal posts another 100 yards"
=db each time CF research has provided convincing evidence in support of the
=db effect.  Let us consider the specific suggestion that the detection of
=db reaction products is crucial to deciding the CF issue.  This "goal post"
=db has certainly been in place right from the beginning, and it has been
=db the corner stone of the case made by many of the most well known skeptics.
=db Pons and Fleischmann recognized the need for direct evidence of a nuclear
=db reaction in their failed effort to provide that evidence.  I suspect that
=db most scientists involved in CF research acknowledge the need for at
=db least some form of analysis aimed at determining reaction product yields.
=db The need for this kind of data is ... solidly established;
=db and indeed there is a significant body of data.The problem for CF advocates
=db is that they don't want to acknowledge the one logical conclusion that
=db is the best match for the data.  The evidence clearly indicates that cold
=db fusion does not occur, at least not at the claimed power levels.  The
=db goal posts are right where they have always been, Jed, and all you team
=db has ever come up with is lots of big talk and fancy foot work.
=db
=db P.S.  I am guilty of propogating the UIP label, although I didn't introduce
=db       it.  As I recall it stood for Unidentified Interesting Phenomenon.
=db   It really isn't any more better than CF, so I'll stay with CF and let
=db   UIP pass from the scene along with neutronpicnic or whatever that was.
---  The lexicon checker (see below) ran through the above citation ---
========= the LEX program =============================================
 
  LEX is a program by Jeff Sullivan, available on Fred Fish disks (I think)
  which performs a number of useful functions on a text file.  As Jeff
  states in the accompanying docs:
 
  "It ... performs 3 readability algorithms on the document.  The
three algorithms, and their meaning, are:
 
The Gunning-Fog index:  the number equals the approximate level of
schooling (in years) needed to understand the document.
 
The Kincaid index is similar to the Gunning-Fog index in its
interpretation.
 
The Flesch index and Flesch Grade Level indicators:  The Flesch index is
inversely proportional to the difficulty of the document; the lower the
scale, the harder the document.  It is based on a 1-100 scale.  The Flesch
grade level indicator is again analogous to the other two.
 
The usefulness of three different indices is to compare their agreement.
The closer their agreement, the more reliable the measure (they all use
different algorithms, but usually come out pretty close)."
======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  sci.physic.research moderators
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.physic.research moderators
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 16:23:59 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <C5GICr.MnC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> A person with a weak daddy, (mitchell swartz) proposeth:
  ...
> And my mommy can beat up your mommy too.
  ...
> My daddy can *still* beat up your daddy, nanny, nanny, poo-poo.
 
 
SIDENOTE: Dale Bass is one of five moderators in sci.physics.research.  One
of his key duties is to permit only impersonal, scientifically sound postings
to be distributed on that group.  The sci.physics.research group is decently
illustrious, with moderators from the following organizations:
 
    For the Massachussetts Insititute of Technology (MIT):
      Dr. John Baez             baez@guitar.ucr.edu
 
    For the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL):
      Dr. Bill Johnson          mwj%beta@LANL.GOV
 
    For the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute (SCRI):
      Dr. Jim Carr              jac@scri1.scri.fsu.edu
 
    For the University of Texas - Arlington (UTA):
      Lee Sawyer                sawyer@utahep.uta.edu
 
    For the University of Virginia (UV):
      Cameron Randale Bass      crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
 
 
The dichotomy of moderating one group to help keep scientifically irrelevant
comments and materials from being posted, while simultaneously posting such
materials to a topically related group, is intriguing.  Dale Bass' technical
comments have been appropriate for the most part.  Must they be accompanied
comments and materials that are so noticeably at odds with the excellent
objectives of the sci.physics.research charter?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  CSYSPCN /  Form over content.
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Form over content.
Date: 15 Apr 93 17:14:11 GMT

I have always felt that posts addressing spelling, grammer, etc.,
whether directed at non-native english speakers or not, implied that
the poster found dealing with the substance of the message too
difficult, and thus was reduced to content free comments about
the form the ideas where expressed in.
 
This has always seemed to me to be a counter productive method of
registering your opposition.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / J Lewis /  Re: sci.physic.research moderators
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.physic.research moderators
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 19:00:36 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Apr15.162359.5386@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
 ...
>    For the University of Virginia (UV):
>      Cameron Randale Bass     crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
>
>
>The dichotomy of moderating one group to help keep scientifically irrelevant
>comments and materials from being posted, while simultaneously posting such
>materials to a topically related group, is intriguing.
 
He is demonstrating his commitment to freedom of the Net and his personal
opposition to censorship [I suppose -  :-)  ].
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / bui xuan /  Re: sci.physic.research moderators
     
Originally-From: bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (bui tho xuan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.physic.research moderators
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 19:39:43 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <1993Apr15.162359.5386@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> ..... bunch of stuff...
>
>SIDENOTE: Dale Bass is one of five moderators in sci.physics.research.  One
>of his key duties is to permit only impersonal, scientifically sound postings
>to be distributed on that group.  The sci.physics.research group is decently
>illustrious, with moderators from the following organizations:
>...more stuff
>
>The dichotomy of moderating one group to help keep scientifically irrelevant
>comments and materials from being posted, while simultaneously posting such
>materials to a topically related group, is intriguing.  Dale Bass' technical
>comments have been appropriate for the most part.  Must they be accompanied
>comments and materials that are so noticeably at odds with the excellent
>objectives of the sci.physics.research charter?
 
Is this really necessary?  A person can be serious at one job/responsibility,
and yet be non-serious at other things.  If this group (i.e., sci.fiz.fusion)
is not moderated, Mr. (Dr.?) Bass is within in right to be witty/silly/whatever
 
An observer
 
TXBui.  Mat. Sci. Dept. U of Illinois. bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbleep cudfnbui cudlnxuan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  collins@jaguar /  Another Nagoya Conf. Review
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another Nagoya Conf. Review
Date: 15 Apr 93 03:32:06 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

 
A review of the Nagoya conference has appeared in  "Scientific Information
Bulletin" volume 18, number 1, January-March 1993, from the Office of Naval
Research Asian Office, (document NAVSO P-3580).  This is not a regular
publication, but a conference review distributed to ONR researchers and
other interested parties.  It is--
 
"The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion:  Scrutiny, Iinvective
and Progress", by Victor Rehn and Iqbal Ahmad, pages 81-90.  (Dr. Rehn is
liaison scientist with the ONR Asian Office in Tokyo, while Dr. Ahmad is
director of the Army Research Office Far East.)
 
The review is quite optimistic.  Here is a portion of the abstract:
 
"... In Asia, scientists from Japan, Peoples Republic of China, India, Russia,
and Taiwan have reported strong and compelling evidence that excess heat is
produced spontaneously in this and other systems, and is accompanied with the
weak emission of nuclear particles that are normally assoiciated with deuterium
nuclear-fusion reactions. ...  However, a huge discrepancy remains between the
magnitude of excess power generation reported and the amount of energy released
by the associated countable nuclear-reaction events.  ...  Among many suggested
theoretical eplanations, none as yet has claimed quantitative or even
qualitative agreement with all aspects of experiment."
 
Some even more positive statements are made within:
 
"Perhaps the clearest scientific fact, at this time, is the hardest for
physicists to accept:  nuclear reactions apparently do occur in deuterium-
loaded Pd, Ti, and probably in other solids."
 
If anyone wishes to make a lengthier synopsis of this review for the group, I
will be happy to mail or fax a copy.  I unfortunately don't have the time to
do so myself.  Please e-mail me a personal message.
 
I have been away from the group for about a month (conference, proposal, etc.)
and apologize if there have been postings addressed to me to which I have
not responded.  Send a personal note and I will respond.  Thank you,
Mitchell Swartz, very much for sending me the copy of your paper.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencollins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Cameron Bass /  Irrevelevancy and the pursuit thereof
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Irrevelevancy and the pursuit thereof
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 18:37:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr15.162359.5386@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>In article <C5GICr.MnC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>> A person with a weak daddy, (mitchell swartz) proposeth:
>  ...
>> And my mommy can beat up your mommy too.
>  ...
>> My daddy can *still* beat up your daddy, nanny, nanny, poo-poo.
>
>
>SIDENOTE: Dale Bass is one of five moderators in sci.physics.research.  One
>of his key duties is to permit only impersonal, scientifically sound postings
>to be distributed on that group.  The sci.physics.research group is decently
>illustrious, with moderators from the following organizations:
>
.... deleted...
>    For the University of Virginia (UV):
>      Cameron Randale Bass     crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
>
>
>The dichotomy of moderating one group to help keep scientifically irrelevant
>comments and materials from being posted, while simultaneously posting such
>materials to a topically related group, is intriguing.  Dale Bass' technical
>comments have been appropriate for the most part.  Must they be accompanied
>comments and materials that are so noticeably at odds with the excellent
>objectives of the sci.physics.research charter?
 
     There are a couple of things wrong here, I'll respond to
     several.
 
     First, I do not moderate any newsgroup *for* or even with the consent
     of the University of Virginia.  I suspect other moderators of Usenet
     newsgroups feel similarly.  Also, I do not post either for or with the
     consent of the University of Virginia.
 
     Second, there are only four moderators of the specific group
     you mentioned.
 
     Third, my comments on other groups have no bearing on moderation
     tasks I may or may not choose to engage in.  If you have a problem
     with my my performance in such activities, please
     feel free to mention them in the appropriate forum.  It's a voluntary
     task that I attempt to do with impartiality.  However,
     comments on performance are always appreciated and considered.
 
     Fourth, do not mistake colour for intent, nor seriousness for
     content.  My response to assault is different (and hopefully
     a bit more humourous) than most, and I will continue using that
     idiom to respond when appropriate as I have for the many years I've
     been around Usenet (going on a decade now).
 
     Fifth, I notice you deleted every scrap of technical content
     from my posting quoted above.
 
     Sixth, I believe UV might be in Vermont.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: sci.physic.research moderators
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.physic.research moderators
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 22:53:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <C5JIMM.4E9@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
(bui tho xuan) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> | SIDENOTE: Dale Bass is one of five moderators in sci.physics.research...
> | Dale Bass' technical comments have been appropriate for the most part.
> | Must they be accompanied comments and materials that are so noticeably
> | at odds with the excellent objectives of the sci.physics.research charter?
>
> Is this really necessary?  A person can be serious at one job/responsibility,
> and yet be non-serious at other things.  If this group (i.e., sci.fiz.fusion)
> is not moderated, Mr. (Dr.?) Bass is within in right to be witty/silly/
> whatever.
 
Dale Bass is not a PhD, but he quite probably has about one to two orders
more of solid technical knowledge than most technical and scientific PhD's
I've met.  He absolutely has every right to post whatever he likes in this
and any other unmoderated group.  Whether silly or serious, I read every-
thing he posts to this group carefully, _because_ I respect his opinion.
 
Is there a real net.etiquette issue here, or not?  Your guess is as good
as mine.  This is, after all, a medium where very few codified rules of
behavior exist.  Most of us, myself included, prefer to keep it that way.
 
...
 
Technical issue:  Tom Droege has asked one of the most interesting questions
I've seen in a while on the group, and Dick Blue gave a good response.  I'm
most curious to see what the "pro" side has to say.  (I'm also hoping that
it will be in a _concise_ form, but for some reason I'm dubious...  :)
 
On the "pro" side, has anyone yet tried summarizing whatever it is that Dr.
Hagelstein has been proposing?  I keep seeing weird tangental references to
it, but don't know what it is he's up to this day.  (Maybe he doesn't either,
heh heh??)
 
Better yet:  Dr. Hagelstein, if your out there, how about an update?  Just
about everyone _but_ you and P&F had have something to say here at one time
or another...  :)  (And by the way, you STILL haven't claimed your chocolate.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Irreverant Irrevelevancy
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Irreverant Irrevelevancy
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 00:34:16 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <C5JFqr.629@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> Sixth, I believe UV might be in Vermont.
 
Sigh.  Dale dale dale -- and here after I went on about your broad range of
expertise in technical issues.
 
I have a UV light right here in my closet, and it clearly states that it
was manufactured in Bronx, New York, not Vermont.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Irreverant Irrevelevancy
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Irreverant Irrevelevancy
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 01:33:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr16.003416.10551@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <C5JFqr.629@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>> Sixth, I believe UV might be in Vermont.
>
>Sigh.  Dale dale dale -- and here after I went on about your broad range of
>expertise in technical issues.
>
>I have a UV light right here in my closet, and it clearly states that it
>was manufactured in Bronx, New York, not Vermont.
 
     A light in the tunnel...
 
     You could work on pacing, but I think you're beginning to get it.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / mike thompson /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: parsec@iowegia.dsm.ia.us (mike thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 09:21:06 CDT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

jsm@fc.hp.com (John Marvin) writes:
 
> Tom Simonds (tsimonds@world.std.com) wrote:
>
> :                 WONDER PLASTIC BAFFLES WORLD
>
> :           Home-lab invention shields atomic blast
>
> :                      by John Mcghie
>
>
> Is "The Observer" truly a reputable paper, or is it more like the National
> Enquirer here in the U.S.? The article claims that some tests were done
> at White Sands on this stuff. Has anyone reading this group ever heard
> of this stuff?
 
'As It Happens', of Kanook broadcasting, covered it last night.  I'm inclined
to discount it as journalistic hyperbole...  This new 'blend of 21 polymers',
was supposedly detailed in 'Jane's Defense Weekly'.  Some of you have access to
libraries that can afford to subscribe to it.  Would someone please scan, OCR,
& upload it?
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenparsec cudfnmike cudlnthompson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 05:38:16 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <1993Apr13.195050.10985@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
>
>If all this DOES turn out to be a lot of hot (air?), these investors are
>going to look the most foolish of all.
>
 
This has already happened once.  The people of Utah (via their state
government) sunk 4.5 (or was it 5) million dollars into CF.  The result
was no change in the status of cold fusion.  Depending on how you
do budgets, this is about 45 person years of work.  With all that money,
they could not even reproduce the P&F work.
 
BTW: This may explain why there is little funding of CF in the USA.
Everyone looked at this Utah cold fusion center, and thought:  they
had 4.5 million, and were right next to P&F themselves, yet they
could not even reproduce the P&F work.  If they can't why do we think
we can?  Actually, you could argue that this failure is the ultimate
in CF failures.  They had money, drive, true believers, and P&F
themselves, and made no forward progress in CF.  More than that,
they could not even reproduce P&F original work.
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 /  schlichting@pa /  Basic Facts and some Questions.
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Basic Facts and some Questions.
Date: 15 Apr 93 15:38:01 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

 
Hello gentle-people;
 
I thought that I would try to add some facts and possibly some news
to this forum.  I am sorry to report that this forum has some how gotten
a little personal with some 'mud slinging' etc.
 
Here is my attempt to bring some fact and some science back into the
discussion.  You are asked to add to this discussion.
 
I would like to start from a metallurgical point of view; (this is my
area of expertice)  The material that comprises the cathod material has
been under discussion.  I think that some readers might enjoy some
interesting facts about this material.
 
Taken from my CRC 73rd edition, 1992-93
 
Palladium (Pd)  Atomic # 46
                Atomic wt.  106.42
 
A silver white metal with a Face Centered Cubic (fcc) crystaline structure.
the (a) = 0.38902 nm at 20 C.
 
density = 12.02 Mg/m**3  (mega-grams per cubic meter) a Mg = a metric ton.
specific gravity = 11.4
Melting point = 1552 C
Boiling point = 2970 C
 
The pure metal is insoluble in cold or hot water, is soluble and
can be attacked by aqua regia, HNO(3), sulfuric acid and
hydrocloric acid.
 
Palladium does not tarnish in air like silver does, but at elevated
temperatures (say greater than about 425 C) will slightly oxidize.
Pd is less corrosion resistant than Platinum but more so than
silver.
 
Palladium was discovered in 1803 and was named after an asteroid
discovered about the same time (Pallos) Gr. Pallas, goddess of
wisdom (Something that this forum seems to lack at times) The
Discoverer was Wollaston.
 
Pd is found with Platinum and other metals of the Platinum group including
Nickle.  Pd is the least dense and lowest melting point of the Pt group.
When annealed it is soft and ductile.
 
Pd has the unusuall property of absorbing 900 times its volume of
hydrogen. (note..other metals in this group also exibit this property)
Possibly forming Pd(2)H or possibly Pd(4)H(2) it is not known if these
compounds exist in this state or not.
 
Hydrogen readily diffuses through heated Pd, this provides a means of
purifying the gas.  (Sulfur in the gas greatly reduces this ability..)
 
Finely divided Pd is a good catalyst (like Pt) and is used in
hydrogenation and dehydrogenation reactions.
 
It is alloyed and used in jewelery. White gold is an alloy that has been
decolorized with addition of Pd.  These days the major uses of Pd are
in electrical contacts (due to corrosion resistance) dentistry,
watchmaking, and surgical instruments.
 
Pd may be beaten (like gold) into sheets as thin as 1/250,000 in thick.
 
ASM Metals Handbook 9th edition 1979;
 
Typical alloy elements are Au, Pt, Ag, Ir, Cu, Rh, Ni, and Ru.  These
alloys exibit low electrical resistance.
 
Alloying with lower melting metals significantly increases hardness
and some make the matrix quite brittle.
 
The annual production of Pd is about 7 - 9 cubic meters.  Mostly
from the Nickle producers. (I'm not exactly sure why the price has
moved upward lately... Could be the interest we're showing or possibly
some electrical consumer has bought a large amount. )
 
For those of you who wish to know more....Just ask and I'll type in some
more when I've got the time....or You can go to the library.
__________________________________________
 
Thought I would include some information about Hydrogen.
 
Also taken from and earlier edition of th CRC.
 
The ordinary isotope is H (called protium)
 
in 1932 (2)H  or deuterium was discovered
in 1935 and unstable isotope, tritium was discoverd it has a half-life
of 12.5 years.
 
You can manufacture Hydrogen in a number of ways.  Electrolysis of water
or by passing steam through a hot carbon bed, cracking nat. gas etc.
 
Hydrogen gas is actually a mixture of two kinds of molecules. ie.
an  -ortho, and  -para type.  These differ by the spins (direction ?)
of the electrons and the nuclei.  (I didn't know this)
 
At room temperature Hydrogen gas is 25% of the -para type and the
balance is -ortho.
 
The  -ortho form cannot be prepared in pure form. The physical properties
are different.  The melting and boiling points of the -para form
is 0.1 C lowere than for the normal mixture.
 
__________________________________
 
Some questions ;
 
How does Hydrogen or Deuterium locate itself in the Pd matrix (lattice)?
Does a molecule form ie.  Pd(2)H or Pd(4)H(2) ?
 
Does H or D just fill the void between the lattice planes in the Pd
crystal?
 
Some Metallurgists like to think of Hydrogen (or D) as a metal.  Is it
possible that H or D participates in the metallic bond of the crystal
lattice ?
 
If we ask the right questions,  we may get to "the right answers".
 
Mark Schlichting
Supervising Engineer
AISI/DOE Direct Steelmaking Project
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschlichting cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrate your kitchen
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrate your kitchen
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 12:54:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Apr16.053816.11322@homespace.mtview.ca.us>
      Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
   Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us) writes:
 
==jl "The people of Utah (via their state government) sunk 4.5
==jl (or was it 5) million dollars into CF.  The result was no change
==jl  in the status of cold fusion."
 
    Did you obtain, or read, the final report of that funding?
   (Also what % do you think went to legal fees vs. research.)
 
==jl  "This may explain why there is little funding of CF in the USA."
 
   Joshua, to the contrary, you should examine the final multivolumed
  report and consider the following from the final report of the effort
  which you cite.
 
  "Cold fusion work continues in many countries ...  The occurrence of
nuclear reactions in deuterium-loaded solids, such as palladium and
titanium can no longer be reasonably denied.  Reproducibility of some of
the phenomena appears to be in hand, enabling more systematic scientific
work to be pursued.      ......
        "Several government laboratories are continuing their work on cold
fusion, among them most notably are Los Alamos National Laboratories, The
Naval Research Laboratory, The Naval Underwater Systems Command and The
Naval Weapons Center. Significant positive results have been obtained in
each of these laboratories.  ... Over 100 groups from more than 12
countries have now reported on various types of evidence for the occurrence
of nuclear reactions in deuterium-loaded metals or compounds. This includes
evidence for excess heat, tritium, neutrons, x-rays or gamma rays, helium
or charged particles."
    [after F. Will; Final Report National Cold Fusion Inst.(1991)]
 
                          Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Is this simple enough?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is this simple enough?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 13:32:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since at least one reader is having difficulty (pardon the four syllable
word) reading my posts I will try to keep them simpler.  I was taking
note of the fact tha McKubre's results as reported by Douglas Morrison
could be described as showing an average excess heat in the 1 to 4
percent range.  I used the word "careful" in describing the perceived
quality of the SRI experiments.  I did not describe the McKubre
results as being "accurate".  My thinking, to make it as clear as I
possibly can, is that careful measurements may fail to be accurate.
 
A careful measurement may fail to be accurate because there is an
undetected systematic error.  If our aim is to reconcile the conflicting
experimental evidence relating to cold fusion each experimental result
must be evaluated as possibly being subject to systematic error.  In
this regard, I think it is significant to note that the magnitude
of the error needed to bring the McKubre data into agreement with
all the nuclear reaction data is only 1 to 4 percent.
 
As to the issue of my race, creed, or country of origin I will
leave my true identity cloaked in mystery as long as possible.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Clarification on ********
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarification on ********
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 17:03:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel reminds me that there are two kinds of noise.  I was referring to
*electrical* noise in my which comes first post.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / Frank Close /   Appeal for information about a lost news flash.
     
Originally-From: FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Appeal for information about a lost news flash.
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 18:55:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A few months ago Jed Rothwell announced that there would be a major splash
about CF in the UK media around the 4th anniversary (23 March). I need
information about the above and by next weekend (Friday 23rd).
 
I have seen no such item in press or TV and suspect that there has been
no such story, at least  in the mainstream UK media. I have been unable to
find anyone here who has come across any such story and it is my
impression therefore that no such news story transpired. If my impression
is wrong then I ask Jed, or anyone, to tell me where the promised story
appeared. This is a serious enquiry and I look for a serious answer. Thank you.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / Paul Karol /  Re: Is this simple enough?
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this simple enough?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 13:11:36 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I agree with Dick Blue's distinction between "careful" and "accurate".
Two relevant examples come to mind.  One was Fairbank's careful studies
of magnetically levitating niobium spheres a number of years ago from
which it was thought that fractionally charged particles (quarks) had
been found.  The other is the more recent work out of Brookhaven
National Lab on sub-barrier cluster fusion using accelerated D2O
clusters.  Both examples were reproducebale and performed with utmost
care by experienced researchers with outstanding reputations.  Both seem
to have become non-effects.
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Languagepenision
Date: 15 Apr 93 15:31:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Mitchell,
 
Due to the inanity of the running battle between you and Dale Bass (I agree
with your position on its silliness[*], but why did you continue with it
after twice giving him the last word?), I have missed a few messages.
 
I incorrectly believed that you were trying to take advantage of Dieter.
 
I apologise for the mistake.
 
[*] but note that both you and Jed have avoided his questions concerning
the operational definition of "staedy state", and a description of the
experiment. I do not tell people to "read the literature" when they post
asking for details of the JET D-T experiments, for example. Not everyone
has access to J Analyt Chem.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Dick is now a believer!
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick is now a believer!
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 19:10:52 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>Now, then. Since we all agree that McKubre's work is accurate, let us have a
>look at how much integrated energy he measured. Here are the numbers:
>
>     "1.08 MJ, or 45.1 MJ/mole or (approx) 450 eV/atom normalized to the Pd
>     lattice or to the deuterium in the palladium at a presumed loading of
>     (approx) 1."
>
>So, that settles it! Not chemical. And it is one of the most SPECTACULAR
 
   For CF supporters, a primary hypothesis in this experiment is that
the integrated energy is coming from the small sample of palladium, or
from the deuterium loaded into that sample.
 
   However, what is directly and unequivocally measured in these
experiments is _not_ the heat or energy generated in the comparatively
small Pd sample; but rather the heat or energy that is generated or
delivered -- the energy that somehow appears , _somewhere_ inside a
substantially larger apparatus containing other fluids, glasses,
metals, etc. etc.  That is really _all_ that is measured.
 
   Maybe this heat comes from the Pd sample, as CF optimists would
like to conclude.  However, maybe it instead comes from somewhere
else, from some (chemical or metallurgical?) process elsewhere inside
the whole apparatus, which has not been recognized or identified.  In
any event, _where_ _inside_ the apparatus the heat comes from is not
directly and specifically measured, only hypothesized.
 
   Before a conservative physicist can be convinced that the heat must
be coming from some new, previously unrecognized, theoretically
uncertain CF process (which seems to violate existing strongly held
physical laws), I think this hypothetical conservative physicist will
want to be _experimentally_ convinced that the heat could not be
coming from some overlooked effect elsewhere in the apparatus.
 
   So the question is: If you take the _entire_ apparatus, basically
out to where the measuring wires come in,* and include all gases and
liquids and solids that are in or flow through the heated part of the
apparatus during the entire run,-- then what is the energy in MJ/mole
or eV/atom?  So long as that number is still small, the skepticism of
the conservative types is not likely to be allayed.
 
   --AES
 
* Let's not get into arguments over exactly what constitutes the
"entire apparatus" -- but certainly any fluids contacting the Pd
electrode, the container holding those fluids, any other electrodes,
and the total amount of any fluids or gases flowing through those
regions have to be counted.
 
(No personal email replies pls; newsgroup posts only.)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Languagepenision
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Languagepenision
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 20:16:47 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1696@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
 
> Mitchell,
>
> Due to the inanity of the running battle between you and Dale Bass (I
> agree with your position on its silliness[*], but why did you continue with
> it after twice giving him the last word?), I have missed a few messages.
 
I believe you may be referring to Dale's responses to two postings made by
me, not Mr. Swartz.  It was grumpy day.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  No xs heat found at NCFI
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No xs heat found at NCFI
Date: 16 Apr 93 14:03:31 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <C5KuI8.77w@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
 
>       In Message-ID: <1993Apr16.053816.11322@homespace.mtview.ca.us>
>       Subject: Re: Calibrate your kitchen
>    Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us) writes:
>
> ==jl "The people of Utah (via their state government) sunk 4.5
> ==jl (or was it 5) million dollars into CF.  The result was no change
> ==jl  in the status of cold fusion."
>
>     Did you obtain, or read, the final report of that funding?
>    (Also what % do you think went to legal fees vs. research.)
>
> ==jl  "This may explain why there is little funding of CF in the USA."
>
>    Joshua, to the contrary, you should examine the final multivolumed
>   report and consider the following from the final report of the effort
>   which you cite.
>
>   "Cold fusion work continues in many countries ...  The occurrence of
> nuclear reactions in deuterium-loaded solids, such as palladium and
> titanium can no longer be reasonably denied.  Reproducibility of some of
> the phenomena appears to be in hand, enabling more systematic scientific
> work to be pursued.      ......
>         "Several government laboratories are continuing their work on cold
> fusion, among them most notably are Los Alamos National Laboratories, The
> Naval Research Laboratory, The Naval Underwater Systems Command and The
> Naval Weapons Center. Significant positive results have been obtained in
> each of these laboratories.  ... Over 100 groups from more than 12
> countries have now reported on various types of evidence for the occurrence
> of nuclear reactions in deuterium-loaded metals or compounds. This includes
> evidence for excess heat, tritium, neutrons, x-rays or gamma rays, helium
> or charged particles."
>     [after F. Will; Final Report National Cold Fusion Inst.(1991)]
>
>                           Best wishes.
>                                              Mitchell
 
I have before me the 3 volumes of the NCFI (U. Utah report), and I think
Joshua Levy's comments are essentially correct.  That is, the NCFI team,
working with Pons&Fleischmann at least some of the time indeed *failed* to
reproduce the xs heat claims of P&F.  Note that the extract selected by
Mitchell Swartz (above) refers to work at places *other* than NCFI.
 
Let's consider what the report says about the xs heat work at NCFI itself:
 
"A total of 16 calibrations at 100, 200 and 400 mA have been carried out on two
typical Fleischmann-Pons type calorimteric cells...Although the data scatter
considerably, temperature dependence of the cell constants indicated that heat
loss involves a combination of radiation and conduction.
 
...no evidence of excess power beyond experimental uncertainty was observed,
 
but one cell subsequently operated at 800 mA and showed an apparent power-surge
of ~1W (25%) for 2 hours."
 
(From summary, p. 3-3, volume 3 of NCFI report.)
 
Regarding the latter "heat burst", the body of the report explains:
"We did not obtain a successful calibration of cell 1 at this current level
[800 mA], but, in the early hours of the morning when it was unattended,
it underwent a small power excursion as shown in Fig. 4 during which the
temperature rose ~4 C for almost 2 hours and then subsided.  Using
cell constants from lower temperature, the indicated excess power was
the order of 1 W or 25%.  The cell was turned off shortly thereafter, and it is
hard to assess the importance of the observation."  (p. 3-7, vol. III, NCFI)
 
Note the problems mentioned which can give rise to questionable xs heat
measurements.
 
More from the NCFI report on work done *at NCFI* :
"Between Oct 11 and Nov 5, 1989, we carried out at series of 8 calibration
measurements on each of two typical F-P calorimetric cells with the double
objective of determining the temperature dependence of the cell constants and
making an independent estimate of measurement reproducibility.
 
The cells... were believed to be giving no excess power.
 
Baths, electronics, data recording, and experimental protocol (except for some
minor differences noted below) were those described by F-P as used in their
previous work and in in their subsequent matrix experiments."  (p. 3-3, NCFI)
 
I would ask Mitchell Swartz to find an unqualified claim of xs heat production
anywhere in the NCFI final report, on work done at NCFI.  I find none.
Thus, I agree with Joshua Levy:  $5 million was spent at a dedicated "cold
fusion" laboratory (the NCFI) with the help of P&F, and the FPH claims
of xs heat production were *not replicated*.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Comments on return from Sante Fe
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on return from Sante Fe
Date: 16 Apr 93 15:28:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Gentlemen and Ladies (surely there must be *some* ladies reading this net):
 
1. It's good to be back from an interesting meeting on Low-energy Muon Science
held at Sante Fe.  The bad news:  LAMPF will be shutting down, possibly as
early as fall 1993.  The good news:  our muon-catalyzed fusion experiments
(we have approved beam time at LAMPF) will probably be pursued at the
Dubna accelerator.  Many of the LAMPF-mu-c-f experimenters including myself
are part of this new collaboration, which firmed up at the Sante Fe meeting.
 
It is most unfortunate that medium-energy physics will suffer greatly in the
U.S. : LAMPF is the only pion and muon factory in the country.
 
2.  Sincere appreciation to those who commented on the treatment of the
paper on emissions of significant tritium from volcanoes (based on my posting
about 2 weeks ago).  The consensus was that the authors should modify the
paper -- they will probably "sanitize" it by removing all references to
fusion as a possible explanation for the anomalous tritium seen at 3 volcanos--
and re-submit to the same journal.  Your comments have been sent to the
authors; especial thanks to the following who provided useful remarks:
 
Terry Bollinger, Jim Carr, Dieter Britz, Matt Kennel and Carl Ijames.
 
3.  Based on my skimming of recent postings, I think it appropriate to remind
all (particularly Rothwell and Swartz) that the existence of claims of xs heat,
even by careful workers, does not mean that the heat is necessarily nuclear
in origin.  What is needed is the simultaneous observation of heat production
and nuclear products which *quantitatively correspond* to the heat claimed.
No one has done this; I will in a subsequent posting review the
handful of experiments (I count just
3 or 4) which made a stab at such a quantitative correspondance, but failed.
 
I am happy to report that Akito Takahashi in Japan and Ed Storms (recently
retired from Los Alamos National Lab.) have added X-ray spectrometers to their
experiments which purportedly produce xs heat.  Secondary X-rays, as I have
argued for some time, would provide evidence for MeV-scale (i.e., nuclear)
reactions in metals, even when the particular reactions involved are said to be
unknown.  By the same token, the absence of such X-rays provides compelling
evidence that the xs heat claimed is not nuclear in origin.
 
(Paper by BYU team D. Buehler et al. in Nagoya proceedings, "Is reported
"excess heat" due to nuclear reactions?")    At the Nagoya
meeting last year, I challenged those claiming xs heat production to look
for concomitant X-ray production as a crucial test.  I will be interested to
hear whether McKubre and Pons and other vocal persons will look for X-ray
production in their cells, as challenged.
 
(The absence of sufficient neutrons already *clearly* shows that the xs heat is
not
due to normal d-d fusion, cold or otherwise.  I believe the BYU group was the
first to demonstrate this, and to announce our conclusion.  Unfortunately,
some persons have twisted our results to suggest these support the claims of
xs heat production by cold fusion reactions!  What nonsense!)
 
 I reiterate:  the claims of observations of energetic (MeV-scale) particles
at levels millions of times to small to provide measurable heat do *not*
support the contention that claimed xs heat is nuclear in origin.  But even
at low levels, nuclear reactions in deuterided metals as studied at BYU since
1986 would be interesting.  Moreover, if such a discovery is confirmed,
significant geophysical puzzles (such as the emanation of helium-3 from
volcanos) may find answers.
 
I have in front of me the Final Report of the
(now defunct) National Cold Fusion Institute once at the Univ. of Utah.  The
report concludes:  "The possibility that the excess heat is not of nuclear
origin can not presently be ruled out." (p. 1-16, volume 1 summary)
 
I have a fax from Hideo Ikegami (the Nagoya conf. chair who cut off Douglas
Morrison, to my shock and dismay) that says that there is no evidence that the
claimed xs heat is nuclear in origin -- stated after the Nagoya meeting with
its boiling P&F cells, McKubre's results, etc.
 
4.  Oh, yes, McKubre:  He has looked for helium and other possible products
of nuclear reactions, and has found *none*.  He is not included in the list
of those few who, like P&F, claimed products commensurate with heat.  (I hasten
to remind you that P&F claimed helium-4 production in 1989, but by May 1989
retracted those claims publicly.  Close's book provides details; I wonder if
Mallove's book does?  I don't recall seeing this in Mallove's book.)
 
What else could account for the xs heat claims of Mike McKubre?
Here I rely on the critical, expert eye of my calorimetrist colleague, Prof.
Lee Hansen of BYU, who was also at the Nagoya meeting and studied the McKubre
experiment carefully (particularly during the poster session).  He noted two
problems to me during the meeting:
 
1.  The calorimeter has resistive heaters to maintain a constant temperature
of circulating water which are located on the outer walls of a large vessel
containing water.
It is possible that warm pockets of water (I would call these thermals) could
form then travel through the heat sensors providing the appearance of "heat
bursts".
2.  The system uses flow through an orific, set just above the turbulence point
to mix a circulating coolant.  The temperature of the coolant is measured in
the flow.
Hansen worried that changes could result in the flow, causing inaccurate
temperature readings.
 
(I have been unable to reach Prof. Hansen today to get more details on his
objections to the McKubre methods, but he was certainly not convinced.  His
comments on what is needed for believable measurements of xs heat production
by calorimetric methods are included in our contribution to the Nagoya
proceedings, cited above.)
 
No, Dick Blue and others are correct:  just finding heat does not prove
a nuclear origin.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Steven E. Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.17 / mitchell swartz /  findings of NCFI
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: findings of NCFI
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 00:05:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Apr16.140331.570@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: No xs heat found at NCFI
  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
==jl "The people of Utah (via their state government) sunk 4.5
==jl (or was it 5) million dollars into CF.  The result was no change
==jl  in the status of cold fusion."
             \/\/\/
           [Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)]
==sj "I have before me the 3 volumes of the NCFI (U. Utah report), and I think
==sj Joshua Levy's comments are essentially correct.  That is, the NCFI team,
==sj working with Pons&Fleischmann at least some of the time indeed *failed* to
==sj reproduce the xs heat claims of P&F."
==sj  .... (Let's consider what the report says) ....
==sj  one cell subsequently operated at 800 mA and showed an apparent
==sj  power-surge of ~1W (25%) for 2 hours."
==sj  (From summary, p. 3-3, volume 3 of NCFI report.)
==sj "I would ask Mitchell Swartz to find an unqualified claim of xs heat
==sj   production anywhere in the NCFI final report, on work done at NCFI."
==sj   I find none."
 
  Thank you Steve.  Welcome back.  May I please respond to your comment,
     and then reask my previous ones.
 
  Please note that Joshua did not say "xs heat production was replicated".
 
  When Joshua Levy mentioned "status of cold fusion", I took that to mean
the condition of its disciplines, including chemistry, physics,
gas reactions, electrochemistry, metallurgy, engineering (including
calorimetry, mass transfer, and loading).
  My examination of those documents cited has indicated the appearance
of progressive methodical movements of this technology in all of those areas.
I therefore respectfully disagree with you.
 
  Perhaps unlike you, my impression of science is that it is usually gradual
with small increments from hard work, instead of idealized sudden massive shifts
from a special "critical" experiment to which you sometimes refer.
 
  In my opinion, the final report was a major incremental advance improving
the status of cold fusion.  Each meeting, paper, posting, patent application,
discussion, experiment, etc. has also contributed [albeit with a spectrum
of their usefulness].
 
                           -------
 
  Steve, before you left, there was a discussion of some x-ray papers
and associated radiographic images, dealing with either real-space or
reciprocal-space.  The pertinent unanswered portions are listed after
this post.  Thank you.
 
                       Best wishes.
 
                                Mitchell Swartz
 
 
     ============================================================
 
                [from previous post)
   In [Message-ID: <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>; Sub: Re:
      Kucherov/Followup to Swartz]   Steven Jones writes:
===   "1.  The Kucherov experiment was repeated in three places ..."
    If you can make any of the additional papers available I would
    greatly appreciate it.
 
===  "3.  It was the paper that claimed that Fig. 8 represented
===  "diffraction" spots.  I commented that Prof. Van Fleet here, an expert
===   in the field, found nothing showing that "diffraction" was involved."
   Who is not answering a question, Steve?  This is fundamental is it not?
   Was the x-ray pattern a "diffraction pattern" thereby representing:
          -- reciprocal space ---
    or was it a spatial recording thereby representing:
          -- actual space ---
    Maybe I am way off, what with translational problems and the fact
   that this field is hypercomplex, but was it  an actual space
   autoradiograph or a Fourier series reciprocal space diffraction pattern
   obtained with the palladium sample irradiated by a second incident beam?
 
   The paper makes the spatial (actual) space imaging seem what was done:
=    "To determine the spatial distribution of the gamma emission we used
=  RT-1V X-ray films with lead screens. ...  Using the same X-ray film with
=  aluminum and lead screens X-rays with diffraction spots can be seen
=  (fig. 8)." [from  Karabut & Kucherov, Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265)]
   Steve, since you spoke with him, and apparently copied his experiment
    which was it?  Could you let us know, please?  Does Prof. Van Fleet
    do autoradiography or Laue spectroscopy, etc.?
    ===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.17 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on return from Sante Fe
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on return from Sante Fe
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 00:05:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Apr16.152811.571@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Comments on return from Sante Fe
  Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
==sj "The consensus was that the authors should modify the
==sj paper -- they will probably "sanitize" it by removing all references to
==sj fusion as a possible explanation for the anomalous tritium seen at 3
==sj  volcanos--  and re-submit to the same journal..
==sj                        ***
==sj I think it appropriate to remind all (particularly Rothwell and
==sj Swartz) that the existence of claims of xs heat,
==sj even by careful workers, does not mean that the heat is necessarily nuclear
==sj in origin."
 
    Thank you, Steven.   This posting is about differential lists.
 
     When an experiment is done, a good scientist thinks of all
     possibilities that could explain the observation(s).
 
     When you remove "all references to fusion as a possible explanation"
  so as to "sanitize" your paper, is there not an incremental deviation
  away from good science?     (The price of political correctness?)
 
     Incidentally, my previous postings actually calculated the expected
  ash for a nuclear origin to cold fusion; but thank you for the reminder
  anyway.
         Best wishes and good luck on your paper.
 
                                              Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Excess heat not nuclear in origin
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess heat not nuclear in origin
Date: 16 Apr 93 16:19:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
I found the statement of Hideo Ikegami, referred to in my previous posting,
which I should quote:
"there has been no evidence that the alleged excess heat [is of] nuclear
origin."
 
This is the heart of the matter, not "is the heat real?" but rather:
 "Is claimed xs heat due to nuclear reactions?"
 
I hope *this* will get through to the Rothwell-types, coming from Ikegami,
but I rather doubt it will just yet.
 
I also found a statement from a fax to me from Akito Takahashi (10-14-92):
 
"Due to the slowing down of high energy charged particles which whould be
produced from excess heat cell, if it were nuclear, we should observe intense
X-rays.  I agree with you."
(This in response to my challenge to him to look for X-rays in his alleged
heat-producing cell, using a sensitive X-ray spectrometer.)
 
Prediction:  Takahashi will look but not find X-rays commensurate with the heat
production in his cells.  He will then look for and find the source of the
putative xs heat (not nuclear).
 
There are several problems with Takahashi's calorimetry, as I have posted
earlier here.  He is a nuclear engineer, not a calorimetrist.
But I think he and others will have to check for the *absence*
of sufficient secondary X-rays or nuclear products before they will seriously
scrutinize
their claims for faulty assumptions (e.g., no D2+O2 recombination in the cell,
adequate controls and stability, etc.).  After all, 'McKubre is careful and
he sees heat, right?-- so ours must be real heat, too.'  I find strong
nationalism as a motivator in communications with Takahashi.
 
So far, *no one* has shown an X-ray spectrum demonstrating the presence of
characteristic secondary X-rays which must accompany nuclear reactions
occurring in a metal, if the claimed xs heat is nuclear in origin.  To me, this
is damning evidence against the notion that xs heat arises from nuclear
processes.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.16 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 23:43:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Since you wanted some comments, here are mine:
 
In sci.physics.fusion, morrison@vxprix.cern.ch (Douglas R.O. Morrison) writes:
 
>                      COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
>
>          THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE.
>
>              Held in Nagoya, 21 to 25 October 1992.
 
>    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.
 
S. Jones has claimed that they only observed radioactivity during the curing
of the cement, which is certainly not an expected results from normal
radioactivity.
 
>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.
An impressively high repeatability.
 
>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.
 
Only to those believers who stick to the original theory of "incredibly high
equivalent pressure is causing D-D fusion".  This theory is very hard to
defend, and many  people have abandoned it.
 
> However Dr. Takahashi can explain it (neutron results going down as heat goes
> up) 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.
 
Nicely understated!
 
>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.
 
True, but the theories we developed on earth using only local phenonema were
not sufficient to explain new evidence seen under these different conditions.
We had to expand the theories and sometimes completely revise them as new
realms were explored.  It is possible that "Cold Fusion" is exploring a new
realm that will need new theories to explain both already known and new
evidence.
 
> ... (showing the problems with d-d fusion as an explaination of CF) ...
> Dr. Preparata intervened and loudly said the speaker was
> insulting us, this was an academic lecture and was all well known.
 
Though this was very rude, I think it is true that the problems with d-d fusion
are well known, and further exploration of this is beating a dead horse.
Unfortunately, many people have "remarkable theories" like this, apparently
because of lack of anything else.
 
>    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.
 
The number of new results reported at this conference seems to argue against
this conclusion.  Perhaps the descrepency can be explained:  Dieter seems to
draw most of his papers from Europe and the US, where cold fusion research has
been discouraged in the last year or so.  Many of the new results are coming
from Japan and are published in Japanese journals, which seem under-represented
in Dieters bibliography (I realize that Dieter has made an effort to get the
important Japanese results).
 
> Again most careful workers do not find any Cold Fusion effects.
 
It is difficult to say this without insulting your audience!
 
>     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.
 
Remember that if you split the experiments into palladium and nickel types, the
palladium people find results with D, and the nickel people find results with
both.  I cannot give a clear reason why a nickel environment should be so
different, but at least the idea is no more wild than many others that have
been proposed.
 
>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.
 
Since it is impossible to prevent other people from doing poor experiments, the
key is to focus on good ones.  Possibly a fruitful avenue would be to look at
any good positive experiments that can be found and either try to duplicate
them or improve them further.
 
> 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.
 
See my discussion above.
 
> 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.
 
An unusual way to calculate probablilities!
 
> 5. AFTER MORRISON'S TALK
> (discussion of believers reaction to talk)
 
I am not sure I agree that your meta-analysis can be taken to disprove cold
fusion, but it is unfortunate that people cannot act more professionally.
 
> Dr Preparata came with his two acolytes and started attacking in a
> very loud voice - interestingly enough none of his comments were scientific
 
"acolytes"?
 
> 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.
 
This is yet another example of a unique experiment that shows intriguing
results.  Too bad that so many of them are unique, i.e. not replicated.
 
>      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.
 
Is there any combination of results that have not been reported (except
X-rays)?
 
>   (4) Some of those claiming fusion with light water also claimed to have
> observed transmutation - the alchemists dream!
 
Actually they are claiming excess heat from light water.  Transmutation is a
possible explanation.  Why do you refer to transmutation as "the alchemists
dream"?   It isn't uncommon in nuclear experiments, though usually at a small
rate.
 
>   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.
 
My understanding was that there was still a heat difference when the clip was
moved.
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.11 / Jason Cooper /  ** HELP ON PROJECT **
     
Originally-From: lord@tradent.wimsey.com (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ** HELP ON PROJECT **
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 93 18:32:29 PDT
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

If anybody would like to help me with a project (mostly for fun) that I'm
doing, I have a problem that you may be able to help with.  I'm sure that
anybody who could help me would be familiar with Lawson's Criterion, but
I'll say what it is anyways.  According to this, in any system where
fusion is to occur,
 
nt > 3 * 10^14
 
Where n is the density (in atoms / cubic centimeter) and t is the time
they are at that density, as I understand it.  Now my problem is this:  I
am performing a theta pinch on reaction mass going through a pinch that
can be MAX 5 metres long, and it's going at .01c (at the lowest; it will
with any luck get very close to the speed of light).  Now, I have two
questions, but if you can help me beyond them, PLEASE help.  1. Does this
same criterion apply to _all_ fusions (C catalyzed, P-P, etc)?  If so, is
there a way to allow the protons (and C added at the lower velocities)
which would otherwise be spending only 1/600,000 s in the pinch generated
by coils which encircle a diameter of quite possibly around 400 m?
 
Again, ANY help is appreciated.  Please reply by mail to:
 
    lord@tradent.wimsey.com
 
Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlord cudfnJason cudlnCooper cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.17 / Jed Rothwell /  What Ikegami thinks
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Ikegami thinks
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 18:40:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Steve Jones says he has a fax from Ikegami saying just what Ikegami thinks of
cold fusion. So do I! I've got faxes in Japanese and English too. However,
there is nothing special about this. Ikegami is a blunt, outspoken person,
and an very important scientist, so his views are no secret; they are a
matter of public record. You don't have to get a fax from him to find out
what he thinks, because in the past year he has authored two front page
stories in the Asahi newspaper, he has written a full page opinion piece in
the Japanese edition of Scientific American, he appeared in an extensive
interview on NHK (Japanese National Television), and he was interviewed in-
depth in Nikkei's technical magazine "Trigger."
 
So his opinions are no mystery. I agree with everthing he says, 100%. We see
eye to eye. Here is exactly what he thinks, from the "Trigger" interview,
translated by me:
 
Tarara (interviewer): Can we say, then, that P&F did not set out to discover
"cold fusion" per se, in a "nuclear fusion" experiment?
 
Ikegami: That would completely inaccurate. Indeed, if you read their original
paper, you will see that they claimed, "When we loaded palladium with
deuterons, we got an unexpected, incredible burst of heat."
 
     In short, from a test tube the size of a small glass, they got many
megajoules of heat. Perhaps "many megajoules" does not ring a bell with the
reader, so let me explain: for example, consider a common large lead acid
battery, the kind you use in an automobile to start the engine. That battery
holds about a megajoule of energy, which it can output in the form of
electricity. So, what we had in the P&F experiment was many times that amount
of energy coming from a piece of palladium about the size of a cigarette
butt, inside of a glass test tube...
 
Tahara: The energy equivalent of a couple of dozen automobile batteries.
 
Ikegami: In the first experiments reported by P&F, they measured energy
exceeding the limits of chemistry by three orders of magnitude. There was no
way they could explain that, so they decided to call it "cold fusion" and
they wrote in the first paper that it *might just be* a new form of a nuclear
reaction. That preliminary conclusion was blown out of proportion as if it
was a pronouncement that they had definitely achieved conventional nuclear
fusion, but the truth of the matter was that they never made any claim
remotely like that.
 
Tahara: And, that lead to the 1989 brouhaha. After that, at physics
conferences and elsewhere, skeptical opposition to the discovery grew and
grew. Why is that?
 
Ikegami: In their first paper, four years ago, P&F described the experiment
in simple terms: put a piece of palladium into a test tube, and perform
electrolysis. To a scientists, that sounds incredibly simple, like a high
school level experiment. Actually, there were inquiries from publishers who
wanting the exact details, in order to include the experiment in high school
textbooks.
 
Taraha: After that, at laboratories all over the world, scientists tried to
replicate the work. Why didn't they get the same results?
 
Ikegami: Because a lot of them decided right up front that the phonomenon
couldn't exist. The scientists figured that those guys, P&F, must have made
some outrageous mistake; or perhaps P&F were just talking without thinking;
or maybe even committing fraud, or just plain lying.
 
Tahara: Yet recently, a number of scientists have said, 'wait a second, maybe
it is real after all. Maybe it is possible.' The mood has changed.
 
Ikegami: Right. The scientists who jumped on to the bandwagon in 1989 got no
immediate results, so they quickly lost interest and quit.
 
     But, there were some people who felt that something might just be going
on. They felt there was something strange about this system that needed
investigation. The truth is, I was one of those people. While many people
were saying 'it's all a lie, just a big lie,' there were also a large number
of people who measured an effect and declaired, "I have seen it too."
 
     We began to feel that perhaps it was not such a difficult experiment
after all, because there was growing crowd of people who claimed to have seen
the effect. How could so many people perform a relatively simple experiment
and be wrong? If *that* could happen, it would certainly be a shocking blow
to the scientific method!
 
Tahara: So, you yourself continued doing a variety of experiments in this
field.
 
Ikegami: And, as I did, I gradually learned the key points and critical
techniques needed to make the experiment work. I realized that although the
experiment is simple *in principle*, in actual practice, it requires
considerable skill. I gradually developed the know how required to perform
the experiment and replicate the results originally described by P&F.
 
Tahara: What kinds of problems did you experience along the way?
 
Ikegami: For example, their is the palladium material. Normally, it is fairly
easy to push deutrons into palladium until the loading ratio is in the range
of 60% to 70%. But, getting beyond that loading ratio, up to 90% to 100% is
very difficult indeed. You can try all kinds of methods: deuterium gas
loading, electrolysis... at best you will likely push the ratio up 80%. But,
the excess heat reaction does not occur at only 80% loading.
 
Tahara: 80% is not high enough?
 
Ikegami: No, it is not enough. Suppose the loading just happens to go over
80% during an exeriment. You will suddenly see some heat, but the loading may
fall off again abruptly, so the heat may go away. So, during that period you
see what is now called "cold nuclear fusion," but it comes and goes. If you
do not even manage to achieve that high level of loading, you never see
anything.
 
Tahara: Did P&F just happened to get lucky, and by coincidence the loading
went over 80%?
 
Ikegami: Yes, I think that's about the size of it. I have spoken to them, and
my impression is that at the beginning, they were not fully aware of how
critical this problem is.
 
Tahara: If you follow certain procedures, will the loading go over 80%?
 
Ikegami: Yes.
 
Tahara: How about your own experiments; have you seen heat?
 
Ikegami: Yes, we have seen heat. However, the problem is to establish formal
proof that the heat is caused by nuclear fusion per se. We have seen things
which can only come from a nuclear reaction, like neutrons, helium
production, or energetic alpha particles, or high energy protons. Things like
that can only come from nuclear reactions, never from chemical reactions.
 
     However, we can still never explain the large volume of heat we have
observed as a product of ordinary nuclear fusion.
 
Tahara: Perhaps it is not a fusion reaction, perhaps it is some other
reaction.
 
Ikegami: It could be another type of reaction.
 
Tahara: What else is there, besides fusion?
 
Ikegami: I can't think of any other reaction, yet at the same time, the case
for ordinary fusion is weak.
 
Tahara: The conditions are not all met then?
 
Ikegami: Right, the conditions needed to prove it is fusion are just not met.
The proof is not all in yet.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.17 / Jed Rothwell /  What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Clarke thinks
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 19:34:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I posted an extended section of an interview which outlined Ikegami's view of
cold fusion. That message appeared to go off into cybernetic never-never
land, so if it does not show up, I will post it again. Please let me know if
you get a garbled version and would like to see the whole thing.
 
Another well know scientist has recently made a number of public speeches and
statements about cold fusion: Dr. Arthur C. Clarke. C.B.E. Clarke is a
scientist and science writer who lives in Sri Lanka. He is a Fellow of King's
College, London; Chancellor, International Space University; and Chancellor,
University of Moratuwa. On March 26, 1993, he addressed the Pacific Area
Senior Officer Logistics Seminar (PASOLS), which met in Columbo, Sri Lanka.
His talk was titled, "2001: The Coming Age Of Hydrogen Power." The audience
included Adm. Larson, Commander In Chief of the Pacific Fleet, Lt. Gen.
Stackpole of the Marines, and leading officers of the military forces from
many other countries, including Australia, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, the
Philippines, Sri Lanka, and others.
 
He sent copies of the address to a number of prominent journals like the
Scientific American, to Fusion Facts, and to various friends and colleagues,
including me. He asks that we not publish the full paper "except for short
quotes" because, he says, "I intend to work it up for a more general audience
as soon as I get round to it." Clarke and Peter Hagelstein are the two
busiest people I know, so it may be quite a while before he gets round to it.
Because he asked me not to "publish" it, I will not upload the whole thing.
On the other hand, he circulated many copies, so I have mailed hardcopies to
people who have asked to see it. I relay his request: Please do not publish
the entire text in a newspaper or journal. If you wish to publish it, please
contact Clarke.
 
He is a master of English prose, and this is a gem of a speech. I hate to
quote just part of it, because it hangs together so splendidly. It is hard to
know which part is most compelling. I believe the heart of the message is
here:
 
     "It is now beyond serious dispute that anomalous amounts of energy are
     being produced from hydrogen by some unknown reaction. The term 'cold
     fusion' - 'C/F' - has stuck because no one can think of anything better.
     However, the sceptics who originally pooh-poohed the whole thing did
     have a very good point. If it really _was_ fusion, the experimenters
     should be dead! Where were the neutrons and gamma ray and tritium and
     helium - the lethal 'ashes' such a reaction should produce? Well, they
     have now been detected - but in quantities far too small to account for
     the energy liberated. The theoretical basis for C/F is therefore still a
     major mystery - as was the energy produced by radio-activity and uranium
     fission when they were first discovered."
 
     [From a letter to Vice President Gore, quoted in the speech:]
 
          "Whatever the source of the energy - which I am sure will be
     elucidated in the fairly near future - the sixtyfour trillion dollar
     question is: (1) is this merely a laboratory curiosity of no practical
     importance, or (2) can it be scaled up for industrial and perhaps even
     domestic use?
 
          If No (2) is correct, the consequences are immeasurable. It would
     mean essentially the end of the 'Fossil Fuel Age', and an era of cheap,
     clean power. The environmental benefits would be overwhelming; at the
     very least, concern with CO2 build-up and acid rain would vanish."
 
 
A personal note from JR: I agree 100% with Clarke in all important details,
just as I do with Ikegami.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Jim Bowery /  Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 02:39:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

CHANGING DIRECTIONS IN FUSION RESEARCH NEEDS
 
BY ROBERT L. HIRSCH
 
BEFORE THE DOE F.E.A.C.
 
March 5, 1993
 
 
It is my view that DOE should accelerate some of the changes in program
direction that have been initiated recently.
 
 
I feel strongly that the world needs fusion power.  It's potential is
enormous.  However, it's development challenges are incredibly complex,
as this audience well knows.
 
 
To optimally develop any technology, early, tight coupling to the
marketplace is needed.  That was a major lesson of the 1980's in
virtually all areas of technology development.
 
 
In electr power generation, the client today is the electric utilities,
who know the marketplace better than anyone else.
 
* Utilities haven't been seriously involved in fusion for a very long
time, if ever.
 
* Utilities know the realities of building and operating real power
generators in the real world better than any other entity.  They or
people with their kind of practical, pragmatic orientation will
ultimately evaluate fusion's viability.
 
* Don't confuse "utilities" with "industry."  Industry is often
motivated by near-term contracts, and, even if contractors know
better, they are unlikely to criticize for fear of losing contracts
or contract opportunities.
 
* Anne Davis has already asked for utility advisors to assist her,
and she will have access to the Fusion Working Group that we are
organizing under EPRI.
 
 
The utilities have learned and are learning many harsh realities
today, particularly in nuclear.
 
* Nuclear power in the U.S. is not growing; it is in fact having to
deal with significant negative pressures.
 
* Today's nuclear problems include the following:
 
  - High O&M costs;
  - Need for expensive capital investments;
  - Very high levels of detailed regulation;
  - No acceptable means for radwaste disposal;
  - Very high decommissioning costs;
  - Lower cost alternative electric generation options.
 
* The lessons and realities of nuclear power as viewed by many of the
utilities that own them are different than many of you may realize.
 
 
While I fully expect a number of nuclear's problems will be solved
before the advent of fusion, the concerns about complexity, management
of radioactivity, high levels of regulation and costs will continue
in my view.  There should not be the slightest doubt that they will
be problems for fusion also.  Public acceptance will be a big problem
for fusion that shouldn't be forgotten either.
 
 
Consider the characteristics of DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors
as currently envisioned.  They will be extremely complex, highly
radioactive, likely to be highly regulated, and costly.
 
* Even if DT tokamak or laser fusion reactors had the same capital
costs as a fission reactor (an enormous challenge), fusion reactors
would lose out to advanced fission reactors, which are a reliable,
known quantity.
 
 
As you know, EPRI has recently reestablished a small fusion program.
Let's consider some of what has come out of that effort thus far.
 
* A fusion panel study has provided some excellent guidance, softly
delivered so as to minimize trouble.
 
* Some of the very few fusion-knowledgable utility people that
I have spoken with indicate that none of them believes that tokamak
or laser fusion reactors, as currently envisioned, would be
acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
 
Let me turn to materials.  As you know, there are some enormous
materials problems related to DT fusion.  Accordingly, you have
impaneled a materials study recently.  The facts seem to be:
 
* There are no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors.
 
* If you select stainless steel, you will have to effectively
rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
reactor of the same power level.
 
* If you want to develop a low activity material, it will be
very costly and very time consuming, and you are likely to still
have to rebuild the reactor every 5-10 years, that is unless some
of these liquid or powder wall proves viable.
 
 
And then there's ITER.  If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned,
aren't acceptable, can ITER be possibly justified?
 
* If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
 
* If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and
the fusion program could collapse.
 
 
So what to do?  I urge the DOE to accelerate changes that have
already been started:
 
* Get serious utility oversight ASAP.  Anne Davis has already asked
for utility help, but this won't be easy to arrange.
 
* You recently restarted an alternate concept program.  I urge you
to scale up appropriate alternate concepts R&D as fast as you can.
"Appropriate alternate concepts" refers to concepts that hold
promise of working on the higher fusion fuel cycles and providing
more attractive fusion power systems.
 
 
Don't stop tokamak or laser-fusion research, but cut them back
and reorient them in more acceptable directions.
 
 
Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction,
large quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials development.
 
 
I've talked to many in the fusion community in recent years.  While
those people don't construct the need for change the same way that
I have, their conclusions are often remarkably similar to what I have
just outlined.
 
 
I urge you to accelerate your changes and to reach out to the
utilities for guidance and eventual partnership.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Editor's note:  Robert L. Hirsch was largely responsible for starting the
tokamak program in the U.S.  For several years, he has been trying to get
the DOE fusion program to demphasize the tokamak and pursue compact,
aneutronic technologies, recommending Paul M. Koloc's Sphereomak and
Robert W. Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Fusion as superior alternatives
to the tokamak.  The DOE's fusion program has gone in the opposite
direction despite Hirsch's efforts.  The fusion program is now in danger
of cancellation.  Hirsch currently heads the Electric Power Research
Institute's fusion energy branch in Washington D.C.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 /  morrison@vxpri /  The University of Hawaii and 4ICCF.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The University of Hawaii and 4ICCF.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 02:40:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dear Bruce,                                            16 April 1993.
   As a former colleague of you at the University of Hawaii, I was rather
surprised at your open letter to me on the net. If you had something serious
and disagreable to say, thought you would have taken the precaution (and the
politeness) to check privately first.
    I do not want to trouble you but you publically posted;
1. That when I wrote that the University of Hawaii had decided to give up
their interest in the patent claims based on the work of yourself and Bor Liaw,
"this was not true the first time you posted this and it is not true now".
2. That this was confidential and I was "irresponsible".
    All this sounds pretty bad and I am sorry that you posted it publically.
You say "you undermine your credibility with the rest of your review" -
this  would be a worry, though I would hope readers of my various Email
offerings would not make a judgement on one isolated incident rather than
judging the thousands of facts that I have quoted and tried to be careful about.
It is important to make global judgements and not extrapolate from one
incident to an entire ensemble. However since you seem to feel that the
particular question is so important, please excuse my replying to the same
audience to which you made your accusations.
    There is a memorandum from your close collaborator Bor Liaw which says;
"Mr. Nathan Yuen, Intellectual Property Manager of the OTTED notified me
about the University's intent to abandon its rights on our international cold
fusion patents. Although regretable, I respect his office's business decision".
    The memo dated June 30, 1992, is not marked confidential. In fact the word
"confidential" seems absent in general.
    In your posting you add "Please post a retraction." This sounds like the
style of a few True Believers. I do not wish to behave like them and do not
ask or require you to post a retraction. Let's just forget it all.
    Usually when there is an open Scientific meeting in Hawaii, the University
is a sponsor - would this the first time it has not sponsored a meeting which
claims to be open and scientific?
        Hope to see you in December at a Scientific meeting in Hawaii where
we both can present Scientific papers.
 
            Aloha,
 
                Douglas.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Pigs with wings
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pigs with wings
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 03:21:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
A number of skeptics have offered the usual hypothetical objections to the
existence of calorimetry. As always, these "objections" boil down to
statements that if calorimetry did not work, it would not work. We start with
Dick Blue, who writes about McKubre:
 
     "A careful measurement may fail to be accurate because there is an
     undetected systematic error."
 
Okay, Dick show us the systematic error. You and the other skeptics have had
four years to find this hypothetical error; the experiment is described in
exhaustive detail. Where is it?
 
Also, Dick posted this gem:
 
     "I think it is significant to note that the magnitude of the error needed
     to bring the McKubre data into agreement with all the nuclear reaction
     data is only 1 to 4 percent."
 
And if pigs had wings, they could fly, too. But pigs don't have wings, and
McKubre's error rate is then than 0.1%. So this hypothetical "let's pretend"
statement is useless and meaningless.
 
 
Anthony E. Siegman writes:
 
     "Maybe this heat comes from the Pd sample, as CF optimists would like to
     conclude."
 
Like to conclude? No, actually, visual observations and calorimetric
temperature data make it absolutely certain that the cathode is the source of
the heat.
 
     "However, maybe it instead comes from somewhere else, from some (chemical
     or metallurgical?) process..."
 
Chemical and metallurgical processes that generate this much energy always
produce macroscopic changes. Given the amount of energy generated by the
cells, you could easily detect these changes with the naked eye, or by smell,
and you could *certainly* detect them with a laboratory test. No chemical
changes have been observed, not even at ppm levels. There is not one shred of
evidence that suggests a chemical source of energy. I will grant that only a
handful of CF experiments have been able to detect commensurate helium nuclear
ash, but by the same token, no CF experiment has ever detected any chemical
ash of any sort, at any level remotely commensurate with anything. Chemistry
is ruled out far more conclusively than nuclear energy.
 
 
Steve Jones yet another absurd science fiction scenario that attempt to write
off calorimetry. He reports that Hanson believes "heat bursts" might explain
McKubre's data. A cursor examination of McKubre's data shows that the heat
stays positive far too long for that heat to hide in the palladium, so Hanson
speculates that the heat is coming from the resistive heaters used to maintain
the constant temperature of the circulating water. This ignores the fact that
McKubre measures the power going into those resisters, and takes it into
account.
 
Steve also writes: "Hansen worried that changes could result in the flow,
causing inaccurate temperature readings." The flow is measured to the nearest
0.01 grams, with timing to the nearest 0.01 seconds. Given this accuracy,
there is no possibility of an error large enough to account for the excess
heat.
 
 
Steve Jones also quite unnecessarily states:
 
     "I think it appropriate to remind all (particularly Rothwell and Swartz)
     that the existence of claims of xs heat, even by careful workers, does
     not mean that the heat is necessarily nuclear in origin."
 
I agree 100%. That is exactly what Ikegami and I have been saying all along.
It might be something even stranger than nuclear energy, like zero point
energy. The only thing that I am certain of, and the only thing that I have
EVER asserted is:
 
1. It is real; not experimental error
 
2. It is not chemical (unless Mills is correct and you call that chemistry)
 
If Steve thinks it might be ZPE, that's fine with me. If he wants to claim it
is a mistake, he is only kidding himself. If he thinks it is chemical, then he
believes a match can burn for a week without generating any chemical ash,
which is preposterous.
 
I wish the skeptics would stop wasting everyone's time with this kind of
nonsense. What is the point of making up nursery stories about test tubes that
talk to one another, and decide to ignore the second law of thermodynamics?
This is science, not a nursery tale. Why do "skeptics" post science fiction,
and useless, empty, hypothetical ramblings? Why do they pretend that
calorimetry might not work, or that water will boil at 40 C in one atmosphere?
They remind of Anna Russell's song: "Things would so different, if they were
not as they are."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.17 / mitchell swartz /  Is this simple enough?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is this simple enough?
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 21:59:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <0096B1C2.627F9AA0.10599@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: Is this simple enough?
  Dick Blue (blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) writes:
 
==dblue   "... McKubre's results as reported by Douglas Morrison
==dblue   could be described as showing an average excess heat in the 1 to 4
==dblue    percent range."
 
  Was Dr. McKubre's reported "average excess heat" in the "1 to 4 percent
  range" during the active phase of the experiment?   Hmmmmm. Let's see.
  Attached are three reviews.  One by Dr. Morrison, one by Dr. Hagelstein
  each of the Nagoya conference, and a review (by this author; previously
  published in FUSION FACTS) of his MIT lecture at about the same time.
 
  These reviews are attached in full below for the diligent and interested
reader, but for easy comparison, the appropriate excerpts are now presented.
 
=ms "His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess thirty-eight times.
=ms  These were in the range of 1-30% above input power.  The irregular
=ms                           \/\/\/\/
=ms  anomalous heat "bursts", generating >300% excess power, were found to
=ms  initiate spontaneously, but much more rarely, three times."
=ms   ["Dr. Michael McKubre's EPRI talk at MIT [9/24/1992]", by M. Swartz]
 
 
=ph  "Two distinct modes of excess power generation were observed; one in which
=ph   the excess power occurs at relatively low levels (1%-50%) and responds to
=ph                                                   \/\/\/\/
=ph   changes in current density (they have observed 38 occurrences of this
=ph   mode, lasting hours to many days), and one that is characterized by much
=ph   higher relative power levels (up to 350% excess) and appears to be
=ph   insensitive to changes in current (this mode has been observed 3 times,
=ph   lasting many hours)."
=ph          ["SUMMARY OF ICCF-3" by Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein]
 
 
=dm  "Peak excess heat observed for a short period of time = 350%
=dm    Average excess heat during bursts = 2 to 50%"
=dm                                        \/\/\/\/
=dm   ["THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE", D. Morrison]
 
 
   One conclusion:  If this level of accuracy is characteristic of the
  diligence with which such "data" is presented, then there appears
  to be a possible need for a warning label.    ;)
 
                             ---------------
 
==dblue  "As to the issue of my race, creed, or country of origin I will
==dblue   leave my true identity cloaked in mystery as long as possible."
 
   The question was neither about race, nor creed, nor country of
 origin, but as to whether English was your native language.  By your
 repeated avoidance, it is clear that you do profess that English is not your
 native language.   Please, therefore, accept my apology for any discussion
 of your use of your "non-native" English language.
 
                      Best wishes.
                                           Mitchell Swartz
 
 
  ========== THREE REVIEWS OF DR. MCKUBRE'S WORK ========================
 
 1 - McKubre's EPRI talk at MIT [9/24/1992] by Mitchell Swartz,
 2 - SUMMARY OF ICCF-3 by Peter Hagelstein,
 3 - THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE by Douglas Morrison
 
                  ---------------------------------
 
   ** Dr. Michael McKubre's EPRI talk at MIT  [9/24/1992] *
         by Mitchell Swartz [excerpted from FUSION FACTS (1992)]
 
    "Dr. Michael McKubre of EPRI presented a summary of his laboratory's
 experimental work to the MIT community on September 24, 1992 in another
 talk sponsored by Profs. Smullin and Hagelstein of the Department of
 Electrical Engineering.    Their laboratory, in a meticulous series of
 experiments using alkaline LiOD solutions with palladium cathodes, have had
 further corroboratory evidence supporting excess enthalpy of two types -
 baseline and burst.
 
    Dr. McKubre discussed the roles of aluminum (and silicon), as an in-situ
 gelatinous (possibly amphoteric) layer upon the cathode.  Although the
 method by which this increases the likelihood of successful generation of
 baseline excess heat remains less than clear, the aluminum-modified cathode
 in their hands is reported to create a "relatively causal, reproducible"
 system.  His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess thirty-eight
 times.  These were in the range of 1-30% above input power.  The irregular
 anomalous heat "bursts", generating >300% excess power, were found to
 initiate spontaneously, but much more rarely, three times.
 
   The energy generated during the prolonged experiments was >45 MJ/mole Pd.
  The excess power density was about 200 watts/cc of palladium.
  No excess heat was observed for light water.
 
   The skeptics again advanced the concept of systematic errors and Dr.
 McKubre responded that all of his laboratory's  measurements which
 demonstrated significant deviations from the control were characterized by
 'positive' excess heats.  This is to be considered because if systematic
 errors are an etiology, given the large number of experiments showing a
 significant effect, then to the degree that such systematic error(s) would
 be important, one of them ought to have created a result with a 'negative'
 excess heat."
 
                   ----------------------------
 
   SUMMARY OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION
                     By: Peter L. Hagelstein,
 
2.  "M. McKubre{3,4} described experiments done at SRI during the past several
    years. They have developed closed cell flow calorimeters, which are
    ideally *first principle* calorimeters (which means that the heat flow
    out of the cell goes into the flowing water coolant, and the power
    generation is determined by measuring the mass flow rate and output to
    input flow temperature difference, with no calibration required). They
    have succeeded in reducing the conduction losses (which are not first
    principle contributions) down to the order of one per cent, and then they
    calibrate the Fick's law constant associated with the conduction losses.
    Overall, the SRI calorimeters achieve a relative accuracy in the
    calorimetric measurements which is on the order of a few tenths of a per
    cent.
 
    The SRI group reported the development of a procedure at Como that
    appeared to yield excess heat essentially every time, and this method is
    described in the Como conference proceedings. Highlights of these
    experiments were discussed. A significant advance that was pioneered by
    the SRI group was described: it consisted of the addition of aluminate or
    silicate to the electrolyte, which caused the formation of a colloidal
    surface layer that passed light ions (deuterium, lithium, boron,...) and
    shielded the surface from impurities; this procedure improves the ability
    of the Pd rod to maintain a high loading ratio.
 
    Two distinct modes of excess power generation were observed; one in which
    the excess power occurs at relatively low levels (1%-50%) and responds to
    changes in current density (they have observed 38 occurrences of this
    mode, lasting hours to many days), and one that is characterized by much
    higher relative power levels (up to 350% excess) and appears to be
    insensitive to changes in current (this mode has been observed 3 times,
    lasting many hours).
 
    For the first mode of heat generation, SRI finds that the excess power
    rises linearly with current above a threshold current density (which is
    on the order of 100-200 mA/cm{2}). A graph illustrating this appears in
    their conference proceeding.{4} This is in apparent contrast with the Pons
    and Fleischmann results, which showed a possible quadratic component to
    the increase above threshold current. Discussion during the meeting
    pointed to the fact that the SRI experiments are run at constant
    temperature, while the temperature of the Pons and Fleischmann cells
    increase when excess heat is produced.
 
    Mckubre presented a graph of excess power production as a function of
    fractional deuterium loading as determined from resistance ratio
    measurements. This dependence was found to increase roughly parabolically
    above a loading of 0.85 (*P[xs]*~(x-0.85){2}) up to loadings near 0.95,
    which is as high as had been achieved during their C1 experiment.
 
    The group has spent considerable effort chasing down and quantifying
    uncertainties in the SRI experiments, and are now able to assign
    meaningful error bars to essentially all quantities measured and inferred
    in their experiments. The result of this analysis yields rather high
    sigma numbers on the excess power measurements (in excess of 50 sigma on
    some of the best data analyzed so far).
 
    Their largest power numbers correspond to on the order of 15 W/cm{3}; it
    would take a small number of hours of running at this level to defeat a
    chemical storage explanation. Their highest excess total energy numbers
    have reached 200 MJ/mole of Pd, which corresponds roughly to 2 KeV per Pd
    atom; this level of excess energy production cannot be of chemical
    origin."
 
                   ----------------------------
 
         THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COLD FUSION CONFERENCE.
            morrison@vxprix.cern.ch (Douglas R.O. Morrison)
 
"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."
 
         ---------------- end of reviews -----------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: A stand alone demo
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A stand alone demo
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 00:54:45 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Jed Rothwell writes:
>
> Several people who are ignorant of the problems in building and operating
> CF cells have said that a "self-sustaining" stand alone generator should be
> built in the near future in order to "convince the skeptics."
>
> [Jed says: "not so easy"; list of practical difficulties deleted]
 
 
 
  A demonstration to convince skeptics should not have to resort to
calibration factors, correction for electrolysis losses and arguments about
the amount of power required to give boiling in a laboratory cell.  I think
that most people would accept a working CF hot water heater as an adequate
demonstration of the effect.  This is essentially nothing more than a
scaled-up flow calorimeter, and CF advocates repeatedly tell us that while
the mechanism may not be understood, calorimeters clearly show anomolous
heat.
 
  The amount of hot water which can be produced for a given level of
electrical power through resistance heating is well defined.  If a
demonstration CF water heater on a long term basis were to put out twice as
much hot water as an equivalent apparatus using the same amount of power and
resistance heating, an anomolous heat effect would be difficult to dismiss.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Starlite
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starlite
Date: 18 Apr 1993 00:46:18 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1993Apr17.122049.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, amconn01@ulkyvx.l
uisville.edu writes:
=Check this out (from a reputable newspaper)
                ...
=Exciting stuff, vindicating Feyerabend's philosophy in _Against
=Method_, if I may say so. Any comments?
 
Even "reputable" newspapers are notorious for lousy science reporting.  The
material you quoted made absolutely no distinction between temperature and
heat, for example.  Why not summarize the article from _International Defence
Review_?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Excess heat not nuclear in origin
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess heat not nuclear in origin
Date: 18 Apr 1993 01:26:28 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
: So far, *no one* has shown an X-ray spectrum demonstrating the presence of
: characteristic secondary X-rays which must accompany nuclear reactions
: occurring in a metal, if the claimed xs heat is nuclear in origin.  To me, this
: is damning evidence against the notion that xs heat arises from nuclear
: processes.
 
 
A historical "what if":
 
What if Pons and Fleischmann had claimed to observe excess heat in the amounts
that they did, but did not report any nuclear products.
 
Would it be 'big' today?
 
I suspect not, and a very large part of scientists initial excitement was
about the prospect for nuclear reactions, and not just heat.
 
: --Steven Jones
 
I still think somebody should try a cathode with a Uranium/Palladium
mixture. :-)
 
--
-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:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 93 04:39:42 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930417190950_72240.1256_EHK33-2@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> Another well know scientist has recently made a number of public speeches and
> statements about cold fusion: Dr. Arthur C. Clarke.
 
Uhhh, isn't he essentially a science fiction writer?
 
Clark says:
 
>
>      "It is now beyond serious dispute that anomalous amounts of energy are
>      being produced from hydrogen by some unknown reaction.
 
So he has ruled out any chance of experimental error or misinterpretation?
Pretty good for a science fiction writer. Why can't Tom Droege seem
to do as well...
 
 
>      The theoretical basis for C/F is therefore still a
>      major mystery - as was the energy produced by radio-activity and uranium
>      fission when they were first discovered."
 
As for polywater, N-rays, morphogenic fields, water-memory (Benveniste),
etc.
 
 
This sounds like yet another person who has decided CF is "true", and is
just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Says more about the person
than the phenomena.
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Todd Green /  Re: Comments on return from Sante Fe
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on return from Sante Fe
Date: 18 Apr 93 14:39:14 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1993Apr16.152811.571@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
(some stuff deleted)
 
> What else could account for the xs heat claims of Mike McKubre?
> Here I rely on the critical, expert eye of my calorimetrist colleague, Prof.
> Lee Hansen of BYU, who was also at the Nagoya meeting and studied the McKubre
> experiment carefully (particularly during the poster session).  He noted two
> problems to me during the meeting:
>
> 1.  The calorimeter has resistive heaters to maintain a constant temperature
> of circulating water which are located on the outer walls of a large vessel
> containing water.
> It is possible that warm pockets of water (I would call these thermals) could
> form then travel through the heat sensors providing the appearance of "heat
> bursts".
 
I think it unlikely that McKubre et al. can't design a water bath that is free
from large temperature gradients. In their paper they say the bath temerature is
controlled to +/- 0.003 deg C and it appears to be well stirred. With modern
PID type controllers it is possible to maintain the temperature of the water
bath to within +/- 0.001 deg C with a sensible arrangement of the temperature
sensor, heating and cooling units and the stirrer.In addition, the cooling
water for the calorimeter is sourced directly from the bath and is measured
at the inlet with two RTDs. Any temperature gradients would be seen by these
sensors, and presumably they would check that the inlet sensors are measuring
the same temperature as the bath thermistors. The raw data supplied in the
SRI/EPRI accident report certainly shows that the inlet  cooling water
temperature was rock steady for hundreds of hours. Another important point is
that the XS heat usually switches on when the current is ramped. It would
appear unlikely that a thermal transient in the bath would repeatedly
synchronize with a current ramp to generate bogus XS heat.
 
> 2.  The system uses flow through an orific, set just above the turbulence
point
> to mix a circulating coolant.  The temperature of the coolant is measured in
> the flow.
> Hansen worried that changes could result in the flow, causing inaccurate
> temperature readings.
 
Poor mixing of the cooling water passing over the outlet sensors can lead to
erroneous results but McKubre et al. seem to be aware of this and have taken
precautions. They report the use of fluidised beds of glass beads, perforated
metal plates or a simple Venturi to ensure that the water is thoroughly mixed.
The fact that they have run a dozen cells (P3 - P11,P13,P18) which produced
zero XS heat for hundreds of hours strongly suggests, to me at least, that
these experiments are free of significant systematic errors.
 
> No, Dick Blue and others are correct:  just finding heat does not prove
> a nuclear origin.
 
Dr. Jones will be pleased that McKubre et al. now appear to be looking for
XS heat *and* doing nuclear measurements. A pre-print by Smedley et al. shows
the design of their new cell which has a feature labelled "fiber-optic probe
for X-rays". I assume this is part of some kind of X-ray detector.
 
--
todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Dick is now a believer!
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick is now a believer!
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 93 03:12:21 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> Heat ... somewhere inside the apparatus...
 
I recall a discussion involving Tom Droege about analyzing his electrolyte for
peroxides. I don't recall a result posted. What happened?
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: Pigs with wings
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pigs with wings
Date: 18 Apr 93 08:23:55 PDT

In article <930418024942_72240.1256_EHK34-2@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>
>I wish the skeptics would stop wasting everyone's time with this kind of
>nonsense. What is the point of making up nursery stories about test tubes that
>talk to one another,
 
Jed, it is always tempting to assume that the other person's task is
strait forward.
 
What would you think of me, if I came to you with a couple of hundered
K lines of code and told you that it was bug free.
 
What if I told you that I knew there were bugs, but that I had
tested it in all conceivable environments, with all conceiveable
inputs and you could bet the future of the human race on it's
behaving correctly in all real-world situations?
 
Well that's the sort of accuracy that science strives for.  It's easy
for you to say: "Calorimetry works", but when a proceedure is producing
results which appear to contradict understandings which are at least
as well validated as the calorimic proceedures themeselves, you
must allow us to include "unknown errors in the callorimetry" with
"unknown nuclear or chemical processes"
 
Programming is a well understood diciplin, so the next time you find
yourself saying: "It is abolutely rediculous to question the
accuracy of:" please consider if you would consider yourself
rediculous for questioning the correct functioning of something
the size of MVS or SDI in an environment that is acknoledged to be
both new and strange.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: What Ikegami thinks
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Ikegami thinks
Date: 18 Apr 1993 17:02:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930417173750_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
#. . .So his opinions are no mystery. I agree with everthing he says, 100%. We
#see eye to eye. Here is exactly what he [Ikegami] thinks, from the "Trigger"
#interview, translated by me. . . .
#
#Tarara (interviewer): Can we say, then, that P&F did not set out to discover
#"cold fusion" per se, in a "nuclear fusion" experiment?
#
#Ikegami: That would completely inaccurate. Indeed, if you read their original
#paper, you will see that they claimed, "When we loaded palladium with
#deuterons, we got an unexpected, incredible burst of heat." . . . .There was
#no way they could explain that, so they decided to call it "cold fusion" and
#they wrote in the first paper that it *might just be* a new form of a nuclear
#reaction. That preliminary conclusion was blown out of proportion as if it
#was a pronouncement that they had definitely achieved conventional nuclear
#fusion, but the truth of the matter was that they never made any claim
#remotely like that.
 
This is not the first time I have pointed out the following, but it seems to
bear repeating.  In their first paper (J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 261,
pp. 301-308 (1989)), Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have *observed products
of nuclear reactions*, viz. beta particles from tritium and gamma rays.  I
refer the interested reader to Figure 1 of this paper, which, amazingly
enough, is entitled "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium."
Therefore, the claim that P&F only claimed excess heat and only suggested
fusion as a possibility is simply untrue.  In fact, they stated in this paper
that "evidently, it is necessary to reconsider the quantum mechanics of
electrons and deuterons in such host lattices."
 
So either Ikegami was not telling the truth, he was misquoted, or the interview
was mistranslated.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: What Ikegami thinks
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Ikegami thinks
Date: 18 Apr 1993 19:23:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1qs1ig$25m@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
 
>In their first paper (J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 261,
>pp. 301-308 (1989)), Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have *observed products
>of nuclear reactions*, viz. beta particles from tritium and gamma rays.  I
>refer the interested reader to Figure 1 of this paper, which, amazingly
>enough, is entitled "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium."
 
I meant to say that the paper, not the figure, was entitled "Electrochemically
induced. . . ."  Just to make it clear.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 18 Apr 1993 20:06:27 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
: * If you select stainless steel, you will have to effectively
: rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
: times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
: reactor of the same power level.
 
Many times the amount of radioactivity?   No way.  I think
the figure is something like a couple of orders of magnitude less.  In
any case, the half-life is also much much less.
 
Radioactive waste is a great kind of pollution: it goes away by itself.
 
Also remember that utility companies won't be picking up the tab when
our global climate bifurcates and falls into a new attractor.
 
: And then there's ITER.  If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned,
: aren't acceptable, can ITER be possibly justified?
:
: * If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
: likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
 
The two are not exclusive, in principle.  But I agree that alternate
concepts ought to be explored, and they aren't.
 
: * If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
: there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and
: the fusion program could collapse.
 
Is it less defensible than the SSC or the whatever the hell the
space station is going to be or tobacco subsidies?
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 01:18:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <1993Apr16.152811.571@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> ... just finding heat does not prove a nuclear origin.
 
 
Hi folks,
 
About three years ago I did a fair bit of looking into a curious farfetch
of which I was quite fond.  I did not follow it up at the time due to claims
of excess heat that seemed well in excess of what this idea might provide,
and because I was unconvinced that a key premise (that some PdHx compounds
could be highly insulating) had much chance of being valid.  However, since
there has been more talk about the non-nuclear possibilities lately, I think
it might not hurt to bring this one up again.
 
If someone would like to look into this idea farther, please let me know
and I'll see if I can dig up some of my old palladium hydride references
that seemed relevant to this idea.  Those references (most of which are
included in Dieter's on-line copy of my Twist references) have influenced
the way I present the idea below, but are not really critical to the basic
concept of self-structuring.
 
There are no references on the self-structuring idea itself because I used
no references to formulate it.  I would ask the Gentle Reader please not be
overly hard on me for that, as I only offer it here as a source of food for
a group that has been at this for quite a while now.
 
If anyone out there has a reference or is familiar with any related issues
in capacitor theory, could you perhaps be so kind as to post it here?  For
example, is it possible that the concept of self-structuring as I describe
it below is related to the very high capacity, slow-discharge capacitors
that have been on the market for about a decade now, since such capacitors
are supposed to have an almost molecular-level charge storage structure?
I simply don't know, but would cheerfully "pass the buck" to such earlier
work if someone out there could tell me where to look.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                       SELF-STRUCTURING CAPACITORS
 
                            Terry B. Bollinger
                              April 18, 1993
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
The purpose of this article is to suggest that a combination of properties
in multi-phase solid (or possibly even liquid) materials could in principle
lead to the formation of self-structuring capacitors when those materials
are subjected to a constant electrical potential over an extended period of
time.  This self-structuring process would consist of growth of a fractally
complex sheet of the insulating phase of the material within one or more of
the conductive phases of the material.  The total energy capacity of such a
self-structuring capacitor would grow in proportion to the increase in the
total surface area of its fractally convoluted insulating phase.
 
It is unclear whether or not materials of the type proposed actually exist,
although the multi-phase compound palladium hydride meets at least some of
the necessary prerequisites and might merit further investigation.
 
 
PREREQUISITES
 
Imagine a solid (or conceivably liquid) material with these properties:
 
 1) It has at least two phases, one of which is conductive to electrical
    current, and the other of which is highly insulating to current.
 
 2) The conductive phase, which I will arbitrarily call the alpha phase,
    is a three-dimensional (volume-occupying) phase.
 
 3) The non-conductive phase, which I will arbitrarily call the beta phase,
    is a two-dimensional phase that can exist only in the form of a sheet
    or surface, rather than as a truly three-dimensional volume.  I will
    therefore refer to the beta phase as "beta sheets" below, with the
    understanding that these sheets are embedded within the alpha phase.
 
 4) The boundary between the alpha and beta phases is highly mobile.  That
    is, the activation energy needed to shift the location of the beta sheet
    is quite small (e.g., only slightly higher than thermal energy levels.)
 
 5) In the presence of an electrical potential, a smooth electrical gradient
    across the alpha phase is unstable with respect to the formation of an
    abrupt discontinuity due to the formation of a beta phase sheet.  That
    is, the following transformation is energetically favorable:
 
         _________________                       _________________
        |                 |                     |        #        |
       ||                 ||                   ||        # <- beta||
       ||                 ||       __|\        ||        #        ||
   (+)=||      alpha      ||=(-)  |__  >   (+)=|| alpha  #  alpha ||=(-)
       ||                 ||         |/        ||        #        ||
       ||                 ||                   ||        #        ||
        |_________________|                     |________#________|
 
 
       V| _               |                    V| _  _  _         |
        |    -  _         |                     |        \        |
        |          -  _   |                     |         \       |
        |                -|                     |          -  -  -|
        |_________________|                     |_________________|
 
 
    Note that the above scenario is related to the property known as "self
    healing" in electrolytic capacitors.
 
 6) The prerequisites for indefinite growth in the size (area) of a beta
    sheet over time are available within the medium.  For example, if the
    beta phase has different component proportions from the alpha phase,
    easy segregation of the components needed to form the beta phase must
    must be possible throughout the medium.  (Since the medium is assumed
    to be a solid, this is not necesssarily a trivial requirement.)
 
 
THE SELF-STRUCTURING CAPACITOR CONCEPT
 
When the above prerequisite properties (especially 4, 5, and 6) of a solid
state material are combined, the instability mentioned in 5 should not end
with the formation of a simple "flat" beta sheet.  Instead, the initial beta
sheet should become indefinitely convoluted as the beta sheet moves and grows
in an effort to neutralize the potential difference between the two alpha
phases, with the energy for the beta sheet growth provided by the potential
difference across the material:
 
         _________________                       _________________
        |        #        |                     |    ____#        |
       ||        #        ||                   ||(+)#_________ (-)||
       ||        #        ||       __|\        ||   __________#   ||
     ==||  (+)   #   (-)  ||==    |__  >     ==||  #__________    ||==
       ||        #        ||         |/        ||    _________#   ||
       ||        #        ||                   ||   #____         ||
        |________#________|                     |________#________|
 
 
The structure on the right is significantly closer to being electrically
neutral than the one on the right, and in the presence of a freely mobile,
easily extended beta phase it should be the energetically favorable form.
 
This would clearly be only the beginning of the beta-separated intermixing,
and in fact the structure on the right should exhibit fractal growth.  That
is, the beta surface should be come increasingly convoluted at every size
scale until the entire material is filled with an extremely fine-grained
mixture of + or - alpha phases separated by the insulating beta phase.
 
 
ENERGY STORAGE IN HIGHLY CONVOLUTED ALPHA/BETA PHASES
 
However, no amount of convolution can fully neutralize a sustained potential
across the material, so that the entire +/- alpha/beta phase mixture will
also store electrical energy in the fashion of a capacitor.  As for any type
of capacitor, the key factors in determining total energy storage will be:
 
 a) The thinness of the beta sheet
 
 b) The total surface area of the beta sheet.
 
If the beta phase described above is both highly insulating and very thin,
then such a material could potentially store substantial amounts of energy.
The total amount of energy that could be stored should be proportional (up
to some saturation point) to the length of time over which a potential has
been applied to the medium.  Thus the total energy capacity of a self-
structuring capacitor that has only been subjected to a field gradient for
only a short period of time would be low to very low because of the small
total area of its beta sheet.  In contrast, if a self-structuring capacitor
were subjected to a consistent voltage gradient until fractal growth of the
beta sheet reached saturation (presumably when the details of the fractal
structure became comparable to the thickness of the beta sheet), then the
very large and fine-grained structure of its beta sheet should be able to
support energy densities well beyond those of ordinary capacitors.
 
 
INSTABILITY UNDER DISCHARGE CONDITIONS
 
One of the assumptions in the above discussion is that the beta sheets are
formed in the presence of a field gradient.  However, unless there is a
substantial hysteresis effect, this also implies that the same sheets would
be unstable once that potential has been removed.  For a fully charged
capacitor, the stored potential itself would for some period of time help
preserve the beta phase insulating layer.  At some point, though, charge
leakage would allow a puncture to form at some point on the beta sheet.
 
Once puctured, the resulting rapid local drain of the stabilizing field
gradient would cause rapid "dismantling" of the entire beta sheet in a
process not unlike puncturing a balloon.  The net result of such a scenario
would be a catastrophic release of the stored charge of the medium over a
very short period of time.  Depending upon the physical properties of the
medium, this could mean anything from rapid heating to an outright explosion.
 
To be stable agains this type of scenario, the insulating beta phase would
need to be stable even in the absence of an electrical potential.  In any
case, the possibility of catastrophic energy release would need to be taken
into account with any medium that met the criteria for self-structuring.
 
 
PALLADIUM HYDRIDES AS CANDIDATES FOR SELF-STRUCTURING CAPACITORS
 
Palladium hydride is an intriguing materials that appears to have at least
some of the characteristics required for self-structuring capacitors.  It
has two phase, called alpha and beta in the PdHx literature, that show some
similarities to the correspondingly named alpha and beta phases proposed for
self-structuring capacitor media.  In (I believe) the Aston papers in Dieter
Britz's on-line copy of my PdHx references, an interesting and relevant idea
for how the alpha and beta phases are formed at the atomic level is that the
beta phase is ultimately a set of molecular-level sheets of stochiometric
PdH (PdH2?), which would be stable only in in the form of two dimensional
sheets.  Since hydrogen is highly mobile in palladium, mobility and growth
of such molecular level sheets would be easily accommodated.  Externally,
the growth of a highly convoluted stochiometric beta sheet would show up
at an increase in the level of saturation of the overall volume of the
palladium until it approaches a near-stochiometric level.
 
On the negative side, this is only one of many PdHx beta structrures that
have been proposed over the decades, and I am not aware of any definitive
work that shows which (if any) of the various proposals is correct.  Also,
there is not reason to think that such molecular-level sheets would be even
modestly insulating with respect to conduction by electrons, since electrons
should easily tunnel through such very thin barriers.  A plausible electron
conduction mechanism would seem to require much thicker beta phase barriers,
and those barriers would have to have exceptional (and probably inexplicable)
insulating properties.
 
On the positive side, the presence both of hydride ions and mobile protons
complicates the conductivity issue.  This could make a closer examination
worthwhile, either experimentally or through detailed quantum approximations.
 
 
WHY PROTON-DOMINANT CONDUCTION WOULD HELP
 
One scenario that would probably greatly strengthen the case for palladium
hydride as a self-structuring capacitor medium would be proof that protons
(or deuterons) are the _primary_ charge carrying species within PdHx media.
 
While it has been know for some time that protons or deuterons participate
in PdHx conduction [3], I do not know of any experimental evidence that
they are dominant over electrons in carrying charge.  Proton or deuteron
conduction mechanisms would greatly bolster the case for PdHx as a self-
configuring medium because it is far easier to see how a very thin layer of
H-saturated (stochiometric) PdH could provide a substantial energy barrier
to a proton (versus an electron).  An electron would simply tunnel through
any atomically thin barrier, so that the insulating layer would necessarily
have to be quite thick to have much chance of preventing such leakage.  This
in turn would greatly lower the potential energy capacity of such a system,
both by increasing the thickness of the insulating layer and limiting the
total fractal surface area possible.
 
Another advantage of protons being the main charge carriers in PdHx is that
once protons have been stopped at a stochiometric PdH barrier, they would
immediately become "construction materials" for adding to the growth and
further convolution of the stochiometric insulating layer.
 
 
CORRELATIONS WITH EARLY "COLD FUSION" REPORTS
 
The single most infamous "cold fusion" incident reported four years ago by
Drs. Pons and Fleischman was the "vaporization" of a Pd cube that had been
loaded with deuterium for an extended period of time [4].  The incident took
place overnight, shortly after the voltage potential to the cell containing
the palladium cube as one of its electrode had been reduced to roughly half
of what it had been during the preceding weeks of deuterium charging.
 
This scenario is surprisingly compatible with the growth and subsequent
catastrophic discharge (due to reduction of the external potential) of a
postulated self-structuring capacitor based on alpha and beta phases of
palladium.  I did some calculations on this once and frankly am dubious
that a high enough level of energy storage could be achieved actually to
"vaporize" the palladium, but the similarities of the original palladium
cube scenario and the postulated behavior of a self-structuring capacitor
under similar circumstances remain intriguing.  A sufficiently high energy
density and rate of discharge might at least be capable of causing either
localized melting or other physical damage to such a palladium cube.
 
 
REFERENCES
 
 1. On PdHx beta as a stochastic, mobile, convoluted sheet:  See (I think)
    my Aston PdHx references in Dieter Britz' electronic archives.  (Alas,
    these days Dieter seems to have better on-line access to my own materials
    than I do... :)  )
 
 2. Basic capacitor theory:  The McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and
    Technology.  Excellent for miscellaneous look-ups and basic formulae.
 
 3. I think its in the Britz archives, and is one of the older references.
    (I'll be updating this reference list, obviously!)
 
 4. The original and now rather infamous Pons and Fleischmann paper on the
    finding of "cold fusion" in an electrolytic cell containing Pd and heavy
    (deuterium) water.  My copy is buried somewhere.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (typos)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (typos)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 01:36:40 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Apr19.011803.7313@asl.dl.nec.com> I just noticed a couple of
places where I said "potential" when I meant to say "potential difference."
(I may also have said "field gradient" when I should have said "field.")
 
I thought I'd cleaned those up, then saw them in the posted version.  Sorry.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
Date: 19 Apr 1993 05:37:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
:
:                        SELF-STRUCTURING CAPACITORS
:
: The purpose of this article is to suggest that a combination of properties
: in multi-phase solid (or possibly even liquid) materials could in principle
: lead to the formation of self-structuring capacitors when those materials
: are subjected to a constant electrical potential over an extended period of
: time.  This self-structuring process would consist of growth of a fractally
: complex sheet of the insulating phase of the material within one or more of
: the conductive phases of the material.  The total energy capacity of such a
: self-structuring capacitor would grow in proportion to the increase in the
: total surface area of its fractally convoluted insulating phase.
 
How does this explain energy storage?
 
All capacitors I've seen have two leads, but there's only one on a Palladium
cathode.  What do you connect to what?
 
And if you thought batteries had lousy energy densities.....
 
: WHY PROTON-DOMINANT CONDUCTION WOULD HELP
:
: One scenario that would probably greatly strengthen the case for palladium
: hydride as a self-structuring capacitor medium would be proof that protons
: (or deuterons) are the _primary_ charge carrying species within PdHx media.
 
Now that would be a trick.
 
: Another advantage of protons being the main charge carriers in PdHx is that
: once protons have been stopped at a stochiometric PdH barrier, they would
: immediately become "construction materials" for adding to the growth and
: further convolution of the stochiometric insulating layer.
 
I still don't get it.  Why would PdH even be insulating?
 
Kwik Kwiz 4 Kids: has Pd saturated with hydrogen ever not looked shiny?
 
Even if you did manage to get many regions of insulating and conductive
materials, how do you connect all the conductive materials of
one side together, separated by an insulator, and then all the conductive
materials of the other side together?
 
Kwik Kwiz 4 Kids #2:  drop a pinch of iron filings in a cup of olive oil.
Did you make a capacitor?
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  bearpaw /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:27:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>> Another well know scientist has recently made a number of public speeches and
>> statements about cold fusion: Dr. Arthur C. Clarke.
>
>Uhhh, isn't he essentially a science fiction writer?
 
"Essentially", Dr. Clarke is many things, as Jed Rothwell pointed out.  One
of those things is a science fiction writer.  Another of those things is a
very respected scientist.  Another of those things is a scientist who can
write well enough about science that many "lay-people" can get some
understanding of what's going on.  I'm reasonably sure he is many other things
that aren't particularly relevant (sp?) to the subject(s) at hand.  What's
your point?
 
Uhhh, aren't you essentially a net-poster?
 
bearpaw
 
========================================================================
|  bearpaw@world.std.com                                               |
|  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.                             |
|   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.               |
|   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever |
|   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X           |
========================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Jed Rothwell /  CF is simpler than SDI
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF is simpler than SDI
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:58:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
CSYSPCN asks me:
 
     "What would you think of me, if I came to you with a couple of hundred K
     lines of code and told you that it was bug free."
 
I would compile it and test it rigorously with different sets of sample data.
If it appeared to work correctly, here is what I would NOT do:
 
I would not spend the next four years playing silly games, and making up all
kind of absurd, impossible, science fiction reasons to "explain away" the
performance of the program. I would not say things like, "perhaps the computer
chips are talking to one-another, and conspiring to produce just the right
answer in thousands of different runs, on hundreds of computers." Cold fusion
experiments that generate massive heat are relatively easy to evaluate. They
are *far* easier check then 100 K line computer programs! Calorimetry is
fundamentally simple; although, of course, the ramifications and details can
get hairy. The "skeptics" offer "explanations" that fly in the face of long
established scientific laws and common sense. Instead of offering carefully
thought out, reasonable, tested hypothesis, they give us scientific schlock.
 
CSYSPCN also offers an idea which *is* thought out and reasonable, but
incorrect. He (or she) asks, would you:
 
     "...consider yourself ridiculous for questioning the correct functioning
     of something the size of MVS or SDI..."
 
These things are highly complex and problematic. SDI has not even been built
(except for some components), so there is no actual test data to refer to. CF,
by contrast, has been replicated thousands of time by now, in hundreds of
different labs. Furthermore, the methods used to measure CF heat are not
highly complex. On the contrary, calorimetry is dead simple; it is based upon
laws of science that were established 150 to 200 years ago, and upon
instruments that were well understood and extremely accurate by the mid 1800s.
Some aspects of CF are new & strange. Some are difficult, like measuring
loading. But the proof of CF -- calorimetric measurements of heat -- is old,
and easy to understand. The conclusions that proof forces upon us are mind
boggling.
 
Finally, CSYSPCN suggests that, "programming is a well understood dicipline."
I disagree! It is still in its infancy; it is more an art than a science. When
it has been around for 100 years, perhaps it will be well understood.
 
 
Richard Schultz disagrees with Ikegami's reading of the original P&F paper.
Shultz says the title of the paper is "Electrochemically induced nuclear
fusion of deuterium," and that settles it. The contents of the paper, and the
statements of both Pons and Fleischmann, both in 1989 and afterwards at MIT,
the Royal Society, the International Conferences... these things apparently
make no difference to Mr. Schultz. The title say it all, and anyone who
disagrees with what Mr. Schultz thinks the title says is lying. He says:
 
     "So either Ikegami was not telling the truth, he was misquoted, or the
     interview was mistranslated."
 
I would be happy to mail a copy of the original to anyone who has any doubts
about the accuracy of the translation. It should not be difficult to find
someone capable of translating Japanese into English. I have heard Fleischmann
speak on several occasions, and I have read his papers, and I assert that he
has hypothesized the reaction is due to fusion, and he *thinks* it *might just
be* nuclear fusion, but he is far too good a scientist to declare
unequivocally that it must be fusion, per se. Ikegami has it exactly right.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Signature of systematic errors
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Signature of systematic errors
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 18:15:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If there were a sure way to detect systematic errors in every experiment
there wouldn't be so many examples of "new" results that eventually have
to be retracted.  McKubre makes some assertion to the effect that lack
of negative excess heat values indicates there are no unsuspected sources
of error.  I don't believe that argument can be given much weight.  Very
often a systematic error goes unrecognized until there are two sets of
data that bear on the same question but which are not subject to the
same errors.  For example, the recently resolved question of the existance
if a "17 keV" neutrino where only measurements of the beta spectrum made
with a silicon detector showed the effect.  Measurements made with a
magentic spectrometer did not show the effect, clearly giving a clue
that the silicon detector measurements were suspect.
 
With regard to CF, only calorimetry shows the effect.  Analytical
measurements fail to reveal any positive evidence, clearly indicating
the need for a very careful search of experimental artifacts in the
calorimetric results.  Since the McKubre measurements were most often
cited as being carefully done yet still showing a positive effect, it
is natural that they be considered in some detail.  As a starting point,
I feel that the size of the observed effect should be noted.  In this
case we seem to fall into a shouting match as to which description of
the results is most significant.  Since the assertion that "it can't
be chemistry" is based on the total integrated excess heat, I think
it makes some sense to make note of the size of that integral relative
to input.  The integrated excess is only 1 to 4 percent.  If there is
a systematic bias toward the positive side, it need not be very large
in relation to the kinds of accuracy assigned to calorimetry.  The
fact that there are large peak values of excess isn't really very
important  except that it tempts the experimenter to make an incorrect
assessment of what the effect being observed really is.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Clarke's credibility
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarke's credibility
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 18:46:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see someone here took a crack at A.C. Clarke's credibility as a scientist,
saying, "Uhh... isn't he essentially a science fiction writer?" I find this
evaluation hilarious. This is a lot like saying:
 
     "T.H. Huxley was essentially a biology teacher."
 
     "Asimov wrote some S.F. and one or two unimportant general reference
     books about science, too."
 
     "Dyson is a writer who knows some physics."
 
...Uhh, didn't these people influence the course of science, outside of their
immediate teaching activities and research? Yup, they sure did.
 
I suppose it would be fair to say that Clarke did not do much technically
after he "invented" geosynchronous communications, and published the seminal
papers describing this field in "Wireless World" and elsewhere in the 1940's.
However, he has been plenty busy. He is a productive person. He accomplishes
more important, real work every year than most people do in a lifetime. I
consider him one of the best and most influential teachers and shapers of
science, and one of the best general science writers in history. His judgment
is superb, and his knowledge encyclopedic.
 
Also -- on a personal note -- although he sometimes comes across as having a
large ego (his biography says that in his youth he was nicknamed "Ego"), in
person he is quite modest, and well aware of his own limitations. He makes no
claim to understand every advanced areas of physics. Unlike some other
scientists I know, he is always willing to admit ignorance. He has often told
me, "[this or that] is over my head."
 
I realize that CF should not be settled on the basis of a popularity contest.
Schwinger, Clarke, Gerischer, Ikegami and hundreds of other prominent,
important scientists have looked at the data and determined that CF is real,
and I am confident that any other scientist who makes a serious, impartial
study of the literature will agree with them. However -- let me make this
clear -- nobody should "believe in CF" just because these other people do!
That would be crazy. When respected scientists take something seriously, that
is a strong signal that you should take it seriously too. It is very important
to respect the opinions and judgment of others. But you must never take what
they say on faith. It is ESSENTIAL that you read the literature yourself, look
at the facts, and make up your own mind!
 
One other key thing to remember is that Schwinger, Clarke et al, have actually
taken the trouble to read the literature. They cite it in their papers. You
will find dozens, even hundreds of prominent, respected scientists who will
denounce cold fusion at the drop of a hat, and say it is all bosh and
nonsense. However, if you challenge these people, and ask them questions, you
will quickly discover that they have not read the literature, they know
nothing about the experiments, and they can point to no data or evidence to
back up what they say. Therefore, their opinions are not worth a plugged
nickel. You might as well as the cop on the corner whether CF is real or not.
A distinguished professor who has never read McKubre's paper has no business
stating any opinion about CF. The only honest thing he can say is "I am not
familiar with the field."
 
There is also a tiny minority of "skeptics" who have read the papers, but who
still denounce CF. These are crackpots like Frank Close, who think a match can
burn for a week. They are zealots, like the "creationists" or "Flat Earth
Society" members; their beliefs have nothing to do with rationality, logic, or
experimental evidence. I think it is best to ignore them.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 15:06:24 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1qtdqk$brh@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
 
> All capacitors I've seen have two leads, but there's only one on a Palladium
> cathode.  What do you connect to what?
 
        (+)                        (-)                        (+)
       __|_                         |                         _|__
       |Pt|                         |                         |Pt|
       |  |                     ____|____                     |  |
       |  |\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/|# alpha-#|\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/|  |
       |  |                    | #     # |                    |  |
       |  |                    |   # #<--+-- beta             |  |
       |  |                    |Pd       |                    |  |
       |  |      D2O (+)       |  alpha+ |       D2O (+)      |  |
       |  |                    |_________|                    |  |
       |  |                                                   |  |
       |__|                       D2O (+)                     |__|
 
 
> And if you thought batteries had lousy energy densities...
 
Some of the battery-like capacitors I mentioned have Joule-level storage
capacities in fairly small (hand-held) packages.  Hardly monstrous, but
certainly enough to cause at least minor heat fluctuations.
 
Also, don't forget that the rate of release of the stored energy is relevant,
too.  Most batteries deliver their energy slowly and are therefore unlikely
to cause an explosion.  Capacitors are potentially capable of releasing their
energy over a very short period of time, making the possibility of a damaging
release of energy substantially higher.
 
As for _major_ heat storage -- well, why do you think I let this one sit for
so long?  Nonetheless, I did once do some calculations on this one and the
bottom line was that if you could assume molecular-sized insulation layers
(hmph!), you could get some dadgum good energy storage.
 
 
> | WHY PROTON-DOMINANT CONDUCTION WOULD HELP
> |
> | One scenario that would probably greatly strengthen the case for palladium
> | hydride as a self-structuring capacitor medium would be proof that protons
> | (or deuterons) are the _primary_ charge carrying species within PdHx media.
>
> Now that would be a trick.
 
Proton conduction in Pd has been established for decades.  Furthermore, as
heavily loaded PdHx is a lousy electrical conductor, this question is not
as simple as it might seem.  The proton conduction mechanism may not be
the dominant mechanism, but it is clearly an _important_ mechanism.
 
 
> I still don't get it.  Why would PdH even be insulating?
>
> Kwik Kwiz 4 Kids: has Pd saturated with hydrogen ever not looked shiny?
 
Hmmm...  Turning it around, why would you think H saturated Pd _is_ shiny?
 
As best I can recall from what I've read, high levels of H darken the surface
of Pd and generally make it crumbly and _less_ metallic in appearance.  Also,
and again it's just as best I can recall of the top of my head, I'm pretty
sure that PdHx _declines_ in conductivity as H levels increase.  In very thin
films at very high saturations, PdHx becomes very light absorbing -- so much
so that it is hard to explain with ordinary electron absorption mechanisms,
so that some kind of reaction of the H itself with light may need to be
invoked.  (Ref: Look up the thin-film ref in the Britz list.)
 
 
> Even if you did manage to get many regions of insulating and conductive
> materials, how do you connect all the conductive materials of
> one side together, separated by an insulator, and then all the conductive
> materials of the other side together?
>
> Kwik Kwiz 4 Kids #2:  drop a pinch of iron filings in a cup of olive oil.
> Did you make a capacitor?
 
Eh??  Tell me how olive oil an iron filiings meet my six highly persnicketty
prerequisites for _self-structuring_ and I'll try answer that one.
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Mike Jamison /  Re: ** HELP ON PROJECT **
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ** HELP ON PROJECT **
Date: 19 Apr 1993 12:09 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <u5DV2B1w165w@tradent.wimsey.com>, lord@tradent.wimsey.com
(Jason Cooper) writes...
>If anybody would like to help me with a project (mostly for fun) that I'm
>doing, I have a problem that you may be able to help with.  I'm sure that
>anybody who could help me would be familiar with Lawson's Criterion, but
>I'll say what it is anyways.  According to this, in any system where
>fusion is to occur,
>
>nt > 3 * 10^14
 
There's a bit more to this.  There is what's known as the activation energy
in this equation:
 
Pt = [n1n2 <sigma * v> W]t = 3/2(n1 + n2)kT,
 
where P = power out, W = energy per reaction.  From"Fusion Reactor Physics":
 
"For the D-T reaction at kT of 10 keV, and with n1 = n2 = n, the above crit-
erion yields nt ~ 1e14 sec/cm^3", or, with a density of 1e14/cm^3, 1 second
is required for "breakeven".
 
>
>Where n is the density (in atoms / cubic centimeter) and t is the time
>they are at that density, as I understand it.  Now my problem is this:  I
>am performing a theta pinch on reaction mass going through a pinch that
>can be MAX 5 metres long, and it's going at .01c (at the lowest; it will
>with any luck get very close to the speed of light).  Now, I have two
>questions, but if you can help me beyond them, PLEASE help.  1. Does this
 
Uh, oh, a HOT fusion guy doing experiments in his basement.  Tom Droege,
watch out!!! :-)
 
>same criterion apply to _all_ fusions (C catalyzed, P-P, etc)?  If so, is
                                        ^^^
Is 'C' = to "Carbon"???
 
There are various limitations on the Lawson criteria.  For example, the
calculation is performed using the assumption that the fuel's velocity
distribution is Gaussian in nature.  "Fusion Reactor Physics, principles
and technology" by Terry Kammash, Ann Arbor Science (the book I have access
to is copyrighted 1975, you can probably get a newer version) has a good
description in the first few chapters.
 
I suspect that you'll end up deriving a model for your system.  You may
want to model it before going to the plumbing store and buying all that
pipe, the electrical store for all that wire, etc. :-)  then again, it's
always fun to build something, even if it doesn't work...
 
>there a way to allow the protons (and C added at the lower velocities)
>which would otherwise be spending only 1/600,000 s in the pinch generated
>by coils which encircle a diameter of quite possibly around 400 m?
>
>Again, ANY help is appreciated.  Please reply by mail to:
>
>    lord@tradent.wimsey.com
>
>Thanks.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 14:58:37 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C5qD9I.H4t@world.std.com> bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>
> >Uhhh, isn't he essentially a science fiction writer?
>
> "Essentially", Dr. Clarke is many things, as Jed Rothwell pointed out.  One
> of those things is a science fiction writer.
 
> Another of those things is a
> very respected scientist.
 
I'm not aware of this.
 
> I'm reasonably sure he is many other things
> that aren't particularly relevant (sp?) to the subject(s) at hand.  What's
> your point?
 
Exactly that! He is many things that are *not relevant to the
subject at hand*. Is he:
 
(1) an expert in nuclear physics and instrumentation
 
(2) an expert in electrochemistry
 
(3) an expert in fusion physics
 
(4) conducting experiments in CF or related fields
 
If not, then his opinion doesn't have one iota of bearing
on the significance of CF phenomena.
 
>
> Uhhh, aren't you essentially a net-poster?
>
 
No, I'm essentially a scientist doing reasearch on fusion. I spend
about 5% of my spare time perusing the net.
 
--
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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:42:36 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi ya'll,
 
In article <1993Apr19.145837.27828@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
> Exactly that! [Arthur C. Clark] is many things that are *not relevant to
> the subject at hand*. Is he:
>
> (1) an expert in nuclear physics and instrumentation
>
> (2) an expert in electrochemistry
>
> (3) an expert in fusion physics
>
> (4) conducting experiments in CF or related fields
>
> If not, then his opinion doesn't have one iota of bearing
> on the significance of CF phenomena.
 
Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
else -- and proved it graphically on national TV by simply dipping a piece
of O-ring material into a glass of cold water!
 
He was, after all, many things that were *not relevant to the subject at hand*
in investigating the Challenger disaster.  Why, he never even worked _one day_
at any O-ring manufacturing facility -- and was certainly not a chemist!!  :)
 
                                Apabistia,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: Basic Facts and some Questions.
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basic Facts and some Questions.
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 23:16:10 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <1993Apr15.153801.1@pa881a.inland.com> schlichting@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>
>from the Nickle producers. (I'm not exactly sure why the price has
>moved upward lately... Could be the interest we're showing or possibly
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
I heard last week that Garrett has perfected a way to use Pd in
automobile catalytic converters (Just before they'll no longer be
needed :-) ).
 
--
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:
cuddy18 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Paul Houle /  Re: Pigs with wings
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pigs with wings
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 18:12:25 GMT
Organization: Electrical Eng. Dept. - New Mexico Tech

In article <930418024942_72240.1256_EHK34-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>A number of skeptics have offered the usual hypothetical objections to the
>existence of calorimetry. As always, these "objections" boil down to
>statements that if calorimetry did not work, it would not work. We start with
>Dick Blue, who writes about McKubre:
 
        I am curious about your scientific background,  Jed -- you certaintly
don't seem to have spent that much time in the lab;  otherwise you would
know about Murphy's law,  and about how sometimes,  despite the incredible
efforts of very careful and talented people such as McKubre,  you can still
screw up an experiment,  especially if it involves somewhat complex
apparatus as a flow calorimetry system.
 
        Now sure,  McKubre's system is alot simpler than the proposed
superconducting super collider or your average tokamak,  but anyone who has
been following Tom's work in this group would see that calorimetry has a
large number of fine points;  and human beings do make mistakes.  The fact
that the excess heat is only about 4% overall just makes me feel suspicious
that it might be some sort of error.  If it was something like 100% and done
to the same level of rigor,  I would be very impressed.
 
        I may have come across as being very skeptical in some of my previous
posts,  and I am.  I have seen some things in the cold fusion community that
do appear to be danger signs for pathological science.  However,  this doesn't
prove that cold fusion is pathological;  I do try to keep an open mind,  and
I would be very impressed if some of the people who can do it very
"repeatably" would actually explain to the rest of us how they do it,  and
have other people repeat it,  and I would be impressed to see baseline
excess heat anomalies that are large enough that there is little question
of unrecognized systematic error.  A good solid 100% over baseline that
can be repeated in different labs would make me a believer.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  bearpaw /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 19:21:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>In article <C5qD9I.H4t@world.std.com> bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
>> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>>
>>
>> >Uhhh, isn't he essentially a science fiction writer?
>>
>> "Essentially", Dr. Clarke is many things, as Jed Rothwell pointed out.  One
>> of those things is a science fiction writer.
 
>> Another of those things is a
>> very respected scientist.
>
>I'm not aware of this.
 
Again, what's your point?
 
>> I'm reasonably sure he is many other things
>> that aren't particularly relevant (sp?) to the subject(s) at hand.  What's
>> your point?
>
>Exactly that! He is many things that are *not relevant to the
>subject at hand*. Is he:
>
>(1) an expert in nuclear physics and instrumentation
>
>(2) an expert in electrochemistry
>
>(3) an expert in fusion physics
>
>(4) conducting experiments in CF or related fields
>
>If not, then his opinion doesn't have one iota of bearing
>on the significance of CF phenomena.
 
Ahhh!  Now these are the questions that should have been asked in the first
place.  I really haven't the faintest idea what his credentials are regarding
(1) - (4).  I just wanted to point out that being, among other things, a
"science fiction writer" is irrelevant to the topic.  Being such does not have
any real bearing on a person's expertese or lack thereof on any specific topic.
 
>> Uhhh, aren't you essentially a net-poster?
>>
>
>No, I'm essentially a scientist doing reasearch on fusion. I spend
>about 5% of my spare time perusing the net.
 
Good!  Then your input is probably worth paying attention to - certainly
more so than my own (at *least* on these specific issues).
 
bearpaw
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Input Power Measurement
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 20:37:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

*************************************************************************
                A QUESTION FOR ALL TO PONDER
 
Anyone who looks at the available positive "anomalous heat" experiments,
or does an experiment, will likely notice an increase in noise during
"anomalous heat" events.
 
I ask you all, does the "anomalous heat" cause the cell to be noisy, or
does an increase in cell noise cause the measurement of "anomalous heat"?
 
*************************************************************************
 
The above message is repeated, slightly edited, to emphasize where I believe
the problem to be in the measurement of "anomalous heat" in Pd/D2O systems.
 
Tod Green has posted a nice defense of the McKubre output power measurement.
I agree with Tod, Mike McKubre does a nice job measuring heat output from his
test cells.  I think the mixing is done well, and the scale system is cute.
My problem is with the input power measurement.
 
The McKubre ICCF3 pre-print covers only the experiment Mike calls C1.  He may
have discussed other results at Nagoya, but the paper covers a single one.  It
is my belief that this experiment was an attempt at a scale up experiment.  It
is also my belief that it produced apparent excess heat sooner than expected,
and the amount was below expectations.
 
>From the pre-print: "The excess energy produced during the time period of
interest was 1.2 +/- 0.3 MJ or approximately 4.3 MJ cm-3 of palladium cathode.
During this period, the total input electrochemical and heater energies were
36.3 +/- 0.07 and 12.6 +/- 0.3 MJ, respectively."
 
As I see it, this is 2.4% excess heat, and the reader can decide their own
error limits from the above.
 
The "time period of interest" from the above is 300 - 780 hours.  Prior to 300
hours, from the paper, there was no significant excess heat.
 
Between the ICCF2 publication, and the ICCF3 pre-print, a lot of information
can be pieced together about the McKubre experiment.  I have also had a
conversation with Mike recently where I learned that he does have his meter
set on DC with a four minute measurement interval, and several other pieces of
information not in the paper which help to understand his technique.  In
general, it is the best technique that I have seen in this field.
 
Dick Blue worries about systematic errors, and I do too.  The 2.4% is not very
much.  There may be a systematic error somewhere to find.  I am looking at the
exact way that the input power is measured.  The plan is to convert my present
measurement scheme so that it takes a lot of data for a while on the present
run.  Then I can analyze the data several ways.  One way will be a simulation
of the McKubre measurement scheme.  The second will be my present scheme which
sometimes shows small amounts of "anomalous heat".  The third way will be to
do it right.  ExH I remind you all is the way to correctly measure power.  My
prediction is that the first way will show moderate "anomalous heat", the
second way will show a small amount, and the third will show none.
 
The problem is that McKubre uses a DC meter to measure the input power with a
four minute measurement period.  The constant current supply used is quite
fast.  Over time, and with increasing current the cells become noisier.  I
observe that the "anomalous heat" shown by McKubre tracks the cell current
very closely.  To me, this looks like the result of cell noise increasing with
current.  McKubre points out that the loading also increases with current.
Looks to me, Mike, that the current is a better fit.  A DC meter looking at
the current measures a constant current, while there may be a significant AC
component.  Another way to look at this is that there are two types of power
input into the experiment, a DC power and a "noise" power.  McKubre measures
only the DC component.  To his credit, McKubre has considered the noise
component, and his determination is that it is negligible.
 
There is the added complication in experiment C1 in that there are two input
power supplies.  One is set to provide constant current to the cell.  The
other is set to hold the input power to the cell constant by driving a
balancing heater.  Thus as the cell voltage goes up over time and at constant
current, the balancing heater is backed off.  Such a system solves one problem
while introducing another.  It makes the power level easier to measure by
removing the time varying component of the input power, but introduces more
noise as the two supplies "fight" each other - an unavoidable consequence of
the scheme.
 
The result of these arguments is that there is no question whatever that the
DC measurement technique used by McKubre under measures the cell input power.
The only question is by how much.  McKubre says it is negligible.  I think I
better run an experiment and see.
 
As I have cleaned up my experiment, there are fewer and fewer "anomalous heat"
events.  It is very interesting that the type of error I am studying
 
              *********** always ************
 
results in an under-measurement of the input power.  I cannot emphasize the
*always* too much.  As those of you who have followed these posts know, I have
constantly asked two questions.
 
1) Why is it that almost all my experiments show varying small amounts of
"anomalous heat"?
 
2) What is it that causes the "anomalous heat" to appear only after long
running?
 
The present theory, that the input power is under-measured as the cell gets
noisier over time and current level seems to answer both questions.
 
As an example of my clean up, early this year I replaced two unregulated power
supplies with two regulated ones.  I know in the past I have assured you that
all my power was highly regulated.  I previously considered these supplies to
be regulated, as they were inside highly regulated servo loops.  They were
highly regulated for DC, that is their long term average was great.  But fast
transients could get through.  Since I replaced these supplies with linear
regulated supplies, I no longer see the pulses of "anomalous heat" that I used
to see from time to time.  So it appears that a line transient would translate
through the system as an under-measurement of input power and a pulse would be
seen.
 
To me it looks like Mike McKubre is constantly improving his technique.  He is
also seeing smaller amounts of power.  Possibly he will join me after a while
in the conclusion that there in nothing here to measure.  But we both have
some work yet to do.  The present indication is that McKubre is getting set up
to measure radiation.  Let's get the heat right Mike, then possibly you can
save money on the nuclear measurement equipment.
 
I would like to point out that McKubre did not intend for his paper to be
available before the publication of the proceedings.  It was leaked to me.  I
have no idea what the correct ethics should be today.  In my field, (IEEE NSS)
we have always gone to the conference with camera ready mats and pre-prints to
pass out.  Following this policy, I took a stack of pre-prints to Salt Lake
City, and sent a stack to Como.  So in my field, the conference proceedings
are mostly a matter of record.  We always get the good stuff before the
proceedings come out.  Certainly the original P&F paper made it around the
world at lightning speed, though I got the Jones paper first.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Anthony E. Siegman
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Anthony E. Siegman
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 22:00:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

AES worries whether we carefully consider the entire apparatus.  I do my
best, and get at almoste everythin on your list, and a few items that are
not.  We not only consider out to where the measuring wires come in but
make sure that the losses in the wires inside the calorimeter is assigned
to power inside the calorimeter, and losses outside to outside.  Then we
have a shell in a shell in a shell.  And all are at exactly ( to the best
we can do ) the same temperature.
 
But then we do not measure any "anomalous heat".  Or very little.  Dick
Blue is right to distigguish between "careful" (precise) and "accurate".
That is the essence of this problem.  What are the systematics.
 
I call my group at Fermilab the Partical Instrumentation Group.  Everyone
else calls us the PIG's.  At least one of us PIG's flys a sail plane.
So us PIGs have wings and fly.  And who knows if McKubre's real error is
greater than the stated error.  He may have missed something.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Jed Rothwell /  5% does not equal 0.1%
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 5% does not equal 0.1%
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 23:24:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue writes about McKubre:
 
     "...If there is a systematic bias toward the positive side, it need not
     be very large in relation to the kinds of accuracy assigned to
     calorimetry."
 
The accuracy assigned to McKubre's calorimetry is greater than 0.1%. In 1991,
the excess heat was "typically in the range of 5% to 10%" and as high as 28%.
A 5% error would be FIFTY TIMES GREATER than the stated 0.1% error level!
 
This stated error level is carefully and thoroughly documented in the
paper. If anything, it is conservative.
 
What does "not very large in relation to the... accuracy" mean? Does Richard
think that there is not much difference between a 0.1% error and a 5% error?
Can you read, Richard? Did you ever learn simple arithmetic?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.18 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Dick is now a believer!
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick is now a believer!
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 20:44:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
>    For CF supporters, a primary hypothesis in this experiment is that
> the integrated energy is coming from the small sample of palladium, or
> from the deuterium loaded into that sample.
>
> ...
>
>    Maybe this heat comes from the Pd sample, as CF optimists would
> like to conclude.  However, maybe it instead comes from somewhere
> else, from some (chemical or metallurgical?) process elsewhere inside
> the whole apparatus, which has not been recognized or identified.  In
> any event, _where_ _inside_ the apparatus the heat comes from is not
> directly and specifically measured, only hypothesized.
 
The main problem with this explanation is that there are so few chemicals in
large amounts in the apparatus that could explain the heat.  D2O is very
common, glass or teflon for the beaker, a little lithium, a little palladium.
There is not a lot of choices for reactions:
 
D2O reacting with the beaker?  We would have seen this in other experiments.
 
Lithium reacting with the beaker?  Probably not enough lithium.
 
A "secret ingredient" reacting with something else?  If there is a "secret
  ingredient" then we don't know enough about the experiment to evaluate it!
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / mitchell swartz /  What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 14:32:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <C5qD9I.H4t@world.std.com>, Sub: Re: What Clarke thinks
bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
 
=>> (re:  Dr. Arthur C. Clarke)  Uhhh, isn't he essentially a science
=>>     fiction writer?
==  "Essentially", Dr. Clarke is many things, as Jed Rothwell pointed out.
==   One of those things is a science fiction writer.  Another of those
==   things is a very respected scientist."
 
  Arthur C. Clarke, b. 1917, graduated King's College (London), and was
  an RAF flight leutenant in charge of the "first experimental
  ground-controlled-approach radar in England".  He received a degree,
  with First Class Honors, in physics and pure and applied mathematics.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / T Neustaedter /  cmsg cancel <1qurfe$1sf@transfer.stratus.com>
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1qurfe$1sf@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: 19 Apr 1993 19:24:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 18:59:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr19.174236.16325@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi ya'll,
>
>In article <1993Apr19.145837.27828@math.ucla.edu>
>barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>> Exactly that! [Arthur C. Clark] is many things that are *not relevant to
>> the subject at hand*. Is he:
>
>Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
>Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
>exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
>else -- and proved it graphically on national TV by simply dipping a piece
>of O-ring material into a glass of cold water!
>
>He was, after all, many things that were *not relevant to the subject at hand*
>in investigating the Challenger disaster.  Why, he never even worked _one day_
>at any O-ring manufacturing facility -- and was certainly not a chemist!!  :)
 
     Feynman was apparently fed the 'cause' by those *with* sufficient
     expertise who could not speak for themselves, apparently including
     the bit about sticking it in cold water.
 
     Engineers working on the project, including those who opposed the launch
     that morning, knew damn well what the most likely failure modes were,
     especially in the cold.  Just observing on television that morning,
     I was concerned that a sheet of ice would break off the external tank
     at high speed and clip the line.
 
     Feynman was many things, but he was a mouthpiece in the aforementioned
     circumstance, and possibly not a very bright one since the person
     who fed him the information could have been using him for dishonest
     purposes.  The source wasn't dissembling, but one must always
     be careful about making important statements about areas outside
     one's expertise.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Self-Structuring Capacitors (an old farfetch)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:42:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1qtdqk$brh@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>All capacitors I've seen have two leads, but there's only one on a Palladium
>cathode.  What do you connect to what?
 
I would be very interested in finding out how you think that an electrolysis
cell works with only a single lead.
 
>And if you thought batteries had lousy energy densities.....
 
Capacitors have very good energy to weight ratios. If the leakage problem
could be solved they might even be the solution to the electic car power
storage problems. (Might, say I -- there are other problems.)
 
>I still don't get it.  Why would PdH even be insulating?
 
The suggestion would appear to be that palladium, _like_tantallum_, can
be placed in such an arrangement that it will 'build' itself into a
storage capacitor. Tantallum capacitors of this type are available
over-the-counter and are one of the most commonly used capacitors these
days.
 
>Kwik Kwiz 4 Kids #2:  drop a pinch of iron filings in a cup of olive oil.
>Did you make a capacitor?
 
This 'farfetch' appears to me to be just that -- a farfetched and highly
unlikely idea. But if you don't understand the principles of the idea why
comment on them? This seems as bad as Jed Rothwell's not understanding
someone else's post that the cells could be operating in some manner as
a heat pump. And then trying to 'educate' us in Peltier theory.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: 19 Apr 93 20:59:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: In article <1993Apr19.174236.16325@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: >Hi ya'll,
: >
: >Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
: >Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
: >exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
: >else -- and proved it graphically on national TV by simply dipping a piece
: >of O-ring material into a glass of cold water!
 
That's exactly the kind of simple demo that's necessary to completely
convince people of 'cold palladium power'.  A net work machine that works
for a long time, for example.
 
: >He was, after all, many things that were *not relevant to the subject at hand
: >in investigating the Challenger disaster.  Why, he never even worked _one day_
: >at any O-ring manufacturing facility -- and was certainly not a chemist!!  :)
:
:      Feynman was apparently fed the 'cause' by those *with* sufficient
:      expertise who could not speak for themselves, apparently including
:      the bit about sticking it in cold water.
 
:      Feynman was many things, but he was a mouthpiece in the aforementioned
:      circumstance, and possibly not a very bright one since the person
:      who fed him the information could have been using him for dishonest
:      purposes.
 
But Feynman was hardly the type to believe technical assertions without
checking them out himself.  Simple but insightful physical reality checks
come to mind.
 
That's why he dipped the O-ring in the ice water.
 
(And I bet he also hunted around alot himself to try to get to the
 truth of the matter).
 
:                             dale bass
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: 19 Apr 1993 23:41:12 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
:<a whole bunch of really technical nitty gritty points about measuring
: devices>
 
Jed, do you now see why skeptics think a "work engine" is necessary
to be completely convicing?  A 'null test' that doesn't depend on accounting.
 
Calorimetry may be 19th century science, but back in the 19th century
they had systematic errors, and they still have them today.  It's
getting better, certainly.
 
But why are the best measurements reporting smaller and smaller excess?
 
What exactly IS the "secret" to get 100% excess long term?
 
--------
 
Yes, you are right: skeptics are demanding tougher proof than in other
areas.
 
But is this unexpected?
 
Scientific experience has shown that extraordinary experimental results,
without the shred of any coherent scientific explanation, combined with
seemingly contradictory other experimental results, are usually wrong.
(Remember, there was, in fact, some reasonably coherent (but extraordinary)
 explanation, namely Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of
 Deuterium, but other experimental evidence seems to rule that out too).
 
Experimental results that seem to make sense, and are supported by
other experimental results and theory, are usually right.
 
These are also true meta-experimental facts.  (In fact, if they weren't true
that would mean that our science isn't working.)
 
: Tom Droege
 
Too bad we can't find the systematic error that is hiding 10^9 radiation
products per second.
 
I'm serious.  It would have been wonderful.
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: 20 Apr 1993 01:27:35 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
: In article <1993Apr19.174236.16325@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: > Hi ya'll,
: >
: > In article <1993Apr19.145837.27828@math.ucla.edu>
: > barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
: >
: > > Exactly that! [Arthur C. Clark] is many things that are *not relevant to
: > > the subject at hand*. Is he:
:
: > Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
: > Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
: > exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
: > else
:
: Actually, feynman's hypothesis was that it was an engine failure,
: which is why he wrote a detailed chapter in the report on his investigations
: of the engines.
:
: He was tipped off to the O-ring problem by a general on the panel,
: who in turn had been tipped off by some engineer from within NASA.
: All feynman did was popularize the point for them.[refer to the
: story in his book "What do You Care..."]
:
: > Why, he never even worked _one day_
: > at any O-ring manufacturing facility -- and was certainly not a chemist!!  :)
:
: Yes; and as the story shows, it helps to have an expert on the
: inside telling you what is really going on. On his own, feynman
: had gone in the wrong direction.
 
I bet that before he started on this project, Feynman didn't even know
that there was in fact an O-ring in the thing anyway.  I'd never heard
of the term before, myself.
 
He wasn't ashamed to learn  science from somebody else if he actually
was learning *science*.
 
I thought the main point of his story was this:  there was a whole debate
among the engineers and management about what the O-rings had to do with
anything.  There were memos written back and forth, underling to superior
and back, arguments, quotations of one study, counter arguments of another,
and basically a whole lot of ass-covering bureaucratic bovine scatology.
 
Feynman went to the heart of the issue by demonstrating a five minute
experiment that cut through the mumbo-jumbo and halted most of those
arguments.
 
It wasn't that he personally found the problem, but that he had no tolerance
for those who were covering up rather than trying to find the problem.
 
: --
: Barry Merriman
: UCLA Dept. of Math
: UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
: barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
:
:
 
--
-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:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / mitchell swartz /  Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Input Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 04:53:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

           In Message-ID: <1qvdao$9s8@network.ucsd.edu>
           Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
 Matt Kennel (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
 
==  "But why are the best measurements reporting smaller and smaller excess?"
 
  This may be an incorrect statement.  If the reported excess powers
are divided by the amount of palladium present, then when the announcement
was made in "the March" the level was (I think) circa 20 Watts/cm^3.
 
  That peak excess power density has increased until at present reports
in the range of 1000 to 2000+ Watts/cm^3 are more common.
 
  Matt, this may be "non-linear" reporting not mapped to the progressive
increase in power densities reported.  Also, the measurements are getting
better.
            Best wishes.
                                  Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 02:33:08 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1qvji7$9s8@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
writes:
> I thought the main point of his story was this:  there was a whole debate
> among the engineers and management about what the O-rings had to do with
> anything.  There were memos written back and forth...
 
The point of is story was simply: lack of communication between
engineers and management.
 
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Repost of COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 7.
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 07:55:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) in FD 924:
[...]
>The number of new results reported at this conference seems to argue against
>this conclusion.  Perhaps the descrepency can be explained:  Dieter seems to
>draw most of his papers from Europe and the US, where cold fusion research has
>been discouraged in the last year or so.  Many of the new results are coming
>from Japan and are published in Japanese journals, which seem under-represented
>in Dieters bibliography (I realize that Dieter has made an effort to get the
>important Japanese results).
 
This might give the impression - whether intentionally or not - that I give
more attention to European/US papers, and to some extent disregard Japanese
ones. This is decidedly not the case. Check the bibliography and you'll find
quite a few of these. I find the papers in the journals I read regularly, such
as the electrochemical and analytical journals, and the rest by scanning
Chemical Abstracts and Physical Abstracts. These abstracts are quite impartial
and cast their nets widely. So if you find relatively few Japanese papers,
this means that few are published. Yet we are told of frenetic activity on the
cold fusion front in Japan; maybe they want to keep it to themselves.
 
My impression is generally that the most startling results, e.g. excess heat
at hundreds of %, rather than the ho-hum 10-20% seen in published papers, are
told of at conferences but not published. This is in fact why the skeptics
remain skeptics; they want to see well documented and peer-reviewed evidence,
not enthusiastic rumours. This makes sense, and noone should complain.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Is this simple enough?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Is this simple enough?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 08:33:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 927:
 
>=ms "His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess thirty-eight times.
>=ms  These were in the range of 1-30% above input power.  The irregular
>=ms                           \/\/\/\/
>=ms  anomalous heat "bursts", generating >300% excess power, were found to
>=ms  initiate spontaneously, but much more rarely, three times."
>=ms   ["Dr. Michael McKubre's EPRI talk at MIT [9/24/1992]", by M. Swartz]
 
Some of you seem to be forgetting that there is a lot of convection in these
cells, and thus large fluctuations.
I did a little experiment: I happen to have a file of random numbers with a
Gaussian distribution. I took 100000 of these, and found that 1225 stuck out
to 3 sigma, and - wait for it! - 48 stuck out to 4 sigma!! I think if I took
the whole sequence (10^6 numbers) I'd even get some at 5 sigmas. This is
definitely nuclear, you'll agree.
 
To be fair, and getting back down to Earth, McKubre and others have said that
while they see positive heat events, they don't seem to see negative ones.
This argues against an interpretation in terms of mere statistical
fluctuations; and I would like someone to do a probability density
distribution of these temperature sample sequences, it might throw some light
on the experiments. In any case, we should still keep in mind that peaks of
themselves are not enough evidence. The paper by Oyama et al is a crass
example of the misuse of peaks. They had two thermometers (and knew how to
read them), one higher up in the cell than the other. The higher up one showed
higher temperatures, so they chose this one for measurements. They showed a
trace of temp vs. time, clearly showing large random fluctuations; they also
showed a table of peak values read off that trace, converted to % excess
heat... This one did not make it into my list quality positives {:]. In case
you were wondering.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: What Ikegami thinks
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Ikegami thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 08:53:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) in FD 928:
 
>This is not the first time I have pointed out the following, but it seems to
>bear repeating.  In their first paper (J. Electroanal. Chem., vol. 261,
>pp. 301-308 (1989)), Pons and Fleischmann claimed to have *observed products
>of nuclear reactions*, viz. beta particles from tritium and gamma rays.  I
>refer the interested reader to Figure 1 of this paper, which, amazingly
>enough, is entitled "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium."
>Therefore, the claim that P&F only claimed excess heat and only suggested
>fusion as a possibility is simply untrue.  In fact, they stated in this paper
>that "evidently, it is necessary to reconsider the quantum mechanics of
>electrons and deuterons in such host lattices."
 
I more or less agree with you here, and have said so myself. However, to be
quite fair, and to give due credit for willingness to learn, P&F did later
write (FPALH-90) that the original title had "an all-important question mark"
missing after "fusion of deuterium" in the original title. If you believe
this, then the scenario is that they had their doubts right from the start; if
you don't but want to be fair, then the scenario is that they originally were
motivated by the thought of nuclear fusion of deuterium, thought they had
found it, and later started having doubts. I don't find this reprehensible.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 20:52:47 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1qurfe$1sf@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com
(Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
 
> Dr. Feynman didn't figure it out. He was lead on by General Kutina (sp?)
> who felt it would be politically hazardous to his health to bring it up
> himself. He was rather chagrined when he wrote about this later on.
 
This is quite correct, and is nicely documented in Feynman's second of
two autobiographical books ("What Do You Care What Other People Think?")
 
The whole politics behind this seemingly classic Feynman stunt are actually
very complicated.  The information was originated by some techy types down
in the trenches, then on to the general you mentioned, with Feynman finally
quite literally serving as a front man for something of which he really
knew very little.  (Chalk one up for Barry Merriman's comment about Clarke,
I guess, when you look at it that way.  I knew I should have picked on the
non-geologist -- was it Wegener? -- who first proposed continental drift!)
 
By the way, his second autobiography is a "must read" for Feynman fans.
It's decidely more personal than his first one, and explains a few more
aspects of why he was the way he was -- from his disappointment at never
being able to answer his father's questions about light and electrons, to
how his his suppression of his feelings about his first wife's death may
have "done somthing" to himself emotionally.  (If you read in Genius about
some of his subsequent relations with other women, you may begin to get
some idea of what that cryptic comment by Feynman himself may have meant.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 22:55:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1qv3rm$5a3@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>:      Feynman was apparently fed the 'cause' by those *with* sufficient
>:      expertise who could not speak for themselves, apparently including
>:      the bit about sticking it in cold water.
>
>:      Feynman was many things, but he was a mouthpiece in the aforementioned
>:      circumstance, and possibly not a very bright one since the person
>:      who fed him the information could have been using him for dishonest
>:      purposes.
>
>But Feynman was hardly the type to believe technical assertions without
>checking them out himself.  Simple but insightful physical reality checks
>come to mind.
>
>That's why he dipped the O-ring in the ice water.
>
>(And I bet he also hunted around alot himself to try to get to the
> truth of the matter).
 
     As I said, I believe he dipped the thing in cold water
     because that demonstration was suggested to him.
     He would have had no independent way to verify the potential failure
     modes of a system as complex as a space shuttle; I can think of many
     ways to mislead a credulous physicist with very real phenomena that
     have nothing to do with the actual failure.  Imagine if someone
     from, say, Morton Thiokol had fed Mr. Feynman technical information
     with the express purpose of blaming Rockwell's subsystems.  He
     would have been completely helpless in determining probability
     of such failure modes, and I can imagine rigged demonstrations of equal
     impact involving other subsystems.
 
     To suggest that he would have had any idea about such things
     independent of the technical staff associated with the shuttle is
     naive.  And I believe he was quite embarassed later
     at the way he allowed himself to be used.
 
     Though the episode was resolved appropriately, it is still a
     cautionary tale about trusting one's credulity when well outside
     one's area of expertise.
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 23:07:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr19.205247.18538@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>In article <1qurfe$1sf@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com
>(Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>
>> Dr. Feynman didn't figure it out. He was lead on by General Kutina (sp?)
>> who felt it would be politically hazardous to his health to bring it up
>> himself. He was rather chagrined when he wrote about this later on.
>
>This is quite correct, and is nicely documented in Feynman's second of
>two autobiographical books ("What Do You Care What Other People Think?")
 
     I'm confused.  If you knew this, what possible meaning is to be derived
     from your initial posting stating that Feynman 'exactly nailed the
     cause ... months before anyone else'.
 
     Were you trying to say that Arthur Clarke is willing to make public
     pronouncements in an area in which he probably knows doodly squat?
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 00:01:06 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Apr19.174236.16325@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi ya'll,
>
> In article <1993Apr19.145837.27828@math.ucla.edu>
> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
> > Exactly that! [Arthur C. Clark] is many things that are *not relevant to
> > the subject at hand*. Is he:
 
> Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
> Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
> exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
> else
 
Actually, feynman's hypothesis was that it was an engine failure,
which is why he wrote a detailed chapter in the report on his investigations
of the engines.
 
He was tipped off to the O-ring problem by a general on the panel,
who in turn had been tipped off by some engineer from within NASA.
All feynman did was popularize the point for them.[refer to the
story in his book "What do You Care..."]
 
> Why, he never even worked _one day_
> at any O-ring manufacturing facility -- and was certainly not a chemist!!  :)
 
Yes; and as the story shows, it helps to have an expert on the
inside telling you what is really going on. On his own, feynman
had gone in the wrong direction.
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 01:05:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Apr19.174236.16325@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
>Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
>exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
>else -- and proved it graphically on national TV by simply dipping a piece
>of O-ring material into a glass of cold water!
>
While I appreciate your hyperbole, can you tell me if Dr. Feynman ever
supported a theoryless rumor ridden supposition that stood without support
for over five years, while it's supporters offered not a lick of reproducable
evidence?
 
As I recall, Dr. Feynman liked magic because he liked to be fooled, but he
always tried to see the trick behind the magic. CNF True Believers don't.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.19 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 19 Apr 93 13:11:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

From the letter by Robert Hirsch:
 
>* If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
>likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
 
This has already happened as a result of JET and TFTR. It will, of course,
get worse with ITER.
 
Other comments:
 
The high-density imploding Z-pinch should have been added to the list of
promising alternative concepts.
 
The real problem is not so much over-reliance on the tokamak concept, but
over-centralisation of effort. A shift to new concepts will not cure the
diseases which afflict fusion until this problem is redressed. In
particular, the current emphasis on posturing and advertising must be
reduced (I speak of the inordinate number of committee meetings and
repetitive workshops here.)
 
 
All in all, I agree whole-heartedly with the content of Dr Hirsch's letter,
suspect many others in fusion do so as well, and add my name to the list of
those within mainstream fusion who are deeply concerned about the
misdirection and threatened demise of fusion as a physics community of the
first rank, and who call for the re-establishment of alternative concepts.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Rusty Perrin /       An Article
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      An Article
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 00:03:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

*** Resending note of 04/20/93 21:16
I saw this posted on the Discussion of Fraud in Science conference, and
thought that it might be of interest here.
 
 ----------------------
 
                  An Article Worth Considering
 
 
                  \Douglas, Jack D. "Betraying Scientific Truth,"
Society 30 (November/December, 1992), pp. 76-82.\
 
     Here is a wonderful commentary among several other wonderful
commentaries in this magazine's 30th anniversary issue. This is not
merely a time for celebration but also a time for consideration of the
major issues of our day. Just so, there is an article of professional
concern to sociologists entitled "A Disinvitation to Sociology," by
Peter Berger, the enthusiastic author of a 1960s noteworthy publication,
An Invitation to Sociology. In his new article, Berger suggests that he
could no longer propagandize as he once did for this profession.
Interesting! And here is Jack D. Douglas suggesting that the freshet of
dishonest scientists, suing and being sued by bureaucrats, is a major
consideration of this age.
 
     Douglas insists on distinguishing exogenous deviance in science
from endogenous deviance in science. Thus, there are sins and
misbehaviors of various types committed by men and women who happen to
be "scientists": the anatomist kills his girl friend; the chemist cheats
on his income taxes. These miscreants have little or nothing to do with
the kind of deviance Douglas, or SCIFRAUD, is concerned with: deviance
which affects science itself. And, of the deviants who affect science
itself, Douglas is focused on deliberate falsification.
 
     As Douglas sees it: "Scientific deviance consists of all those acts
that violate the recognized, fundamental rules of truth of can
reasonably be expected to lead to such violations (negligence). But
these can only be dealt with adequately by systematic analysis of
ostensive definition, that is, by what are known as the concrete cases,
the precedents in law." (p. 78)
 
     Douglas continues: "The crucial point... is that science is what
social scientists call a 'calling,' a priestly profession really, in
which the cause is assumed to serve a greater cause, one with which the
professor of the faith identifies the very self, so there is no real
conflict between self and cause. The self is not lost in a political
cause. The self is made transcendent, more whole. The scientist, then,
must above all serve the ultimate cause of science, which is truth. 'You
must love and serve the truth above all else.' In somewhat more mundane
legal terms, truth seeking is the fiduciary responsibility of the
scientists (and, of course, of the humanistic scholar as well). The
scientist has the legal duty of serving the cause of the whole truth
regardless of anything else." (p. 78)
 
     Douglas suggests that deviance in science is generally seen
involving "minor delicts, or misdemeanors against the whole truth" and
he sees various forms of these as: failure to seek out the negative
instance. "Social scientists in our age of political passions have
succumbed in great masses to the temptation to hide from negative
instance, especially from those that run counter to the passions of the
mobs, the bureaucrats, and the massive police armies."
 
     The second most frequent is "bending" the truth and "fudging." His
examples: "The scientist who believes an experiment must be redone to
get the 'right' results, without publishing the 'wrong results of the
earlier experiment, is hiding the whole truth. The scientist who shifts
the window, such as the starting or cut-off date for the data, in order
to get significant results, or privately declares a negative instance
irrelevant without revealing this fact to the readers, or increases (or
decreases) the number of cases (the 'n') to magically produce
significant results is fudging or worse. (p. 78)
 
     "The misdemeanant almost always takes only little steps into
violating the rule and tends to drift into greater deviance, ever more
serious violation of the rules of science, rather than leaping into
it..."
 
     But then, Douglas suggests, there are "heinous cases" which have
grown in number over the last decade. "Some of this is probably due to
the publicity effect... but that is only part of an explanation. There
does seem to have been a real explosion and, while the evidence
preponderantly makes it clear that there is no great wave of heinous
deviance, it is highly likely that we are only seeing the tip of an
iceberg -- not the tip of a continent, but of a dangerous iceberg
nevertheless." (p. 79)
 
     Douglas examines the "bad apple" explanation and its variant which
suggests that this generation of scientists are greedier than previous
generations. The difficulty: human nature has not changed much in recent
years. He looks at the "explosive growth in science" suggestion and has
it that growth itself is probably not the point as "Scientific
disciplines are always exploding without producing concomitant
proliferation of heinous scientific crimes or erosion of general
standards of enforcement.
 
 
          The explosion that made the crucial difference was
     the explosion of big science, of massive bureaucracies
     of higher education, of big labs and mega-grants run by
     scientific tsars with great power over the hordes of
     scientific serfs whom they administer as hired-hand
     researchers. We are all aware of the arguments in
     favor of big science; we have heard them endlessly
     since the success of the Manhattan Project. Today
     gigantic projects are at work in almost all the
     politically hot areas of science, ranging from immense
     elementary particle accelerators to huge, but more
     decentralized projects such as the attempt to map the
     human genome. Big science has become the accepted
     political wisdom of the age, as can be seen in
     everything from "mega-versities" to space shuttles and
     space stations.
          Any balanced weighing of the evidence will reveal
     that the costs have been far greater than the gains.
     As Root-Bernstein has argued in his history of the
     natural science Discovering, most creative scientists
     today strongly insist that their work was done at
     almost no expense and almost always alone. Suffice it
     to note that the great breakthroughs, such as the
     recent discoveries of superconductivity at higher
     temperatures, have been made by tiny science and by
     creative deviants, not by big science tsars in the
     great university palaces. After all is said in favor
     of big science that can be validly said, it comes down
     to scientific careerism, the syndrome of gigantism seen
     in all ears of massive government powers.
          Regardless of those more complex considerations,
     it is clear that big science has severely eroded the
     deep sense of community spirit, of team morale, and of
     mentor-apprentice identification which were the heart
     of scientific creativity for centuries. (p. 80)
 
          By progressively killing the heart of science --
     the love of truth which bound together this worldwide
     community of natural priests--big bureaucratic science
     has produced an explosion of scientific deviance, a
     growing betrayal of truth that is the corruption of the
     soul of science...
          The heart of science, communion with the truth, is
     inspired by loving friendship, by collegial team
     morale. These rest firmly and necessarily on trust and
     openness. Repression of scientific deviance by means
     of secret informants, secret investigation, secret
     police powers, and so on, will quickly drive the
     deviants underground. But it will generate both a
     powerfully alienated subculture to defeat the
     controllers and a severe erosion of the remaining heart
     of science. (p. 81)
 
 
     To Douglas, there must be a rediscovery of the joys of humility,
community and team spirit in which modern science was born. His is not a
plea for anything less.
 
 
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        + A. C. Higgins +
        + SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
        + E-mail: ACH13@ALBNYVMS; ACH13@UACSC1.Albany.edu +
        + Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
        + SCIFRAUD@ALBNYVM1 +
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Ray Casterline /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: rcas@sequoia.lle.rochester.edu (Ray Casterline)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 13:09:25 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Laboratory for Laser Energetics

I would just like to make it know that there are other gov't funded
fusion projects besides Tokamak.  I am currently involved in a project
to upgrade the Omega laser here at the U or R from a 24 beam 2KJ laser
to a 60 beam 30KJ one.  This laser is to be used for inertial confinement
fusion research and, it is being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
Regards,
Ray Casterline
Sr. Software Engineer - Omega Upgrade
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrcas cudfnRay cudlnCasterline cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 14:41:07 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Apr20.201410.12539@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
> If Clarke means by ["2001: THE COMING AGE OF HYDROGEN POWER"] CF,
> then I think he is getting senile, or at least quite fantastic.
 
What I know of Arthur C. Clarke is this:
 
 o  He is a bad loser at ping-pong.  I have that from a fellow who was
    a friend of the Clarke family in Sri Lanka.
 
 o  He is perfectionist.  He can't seem to leave his own stories alone,
    even when they are excellent, and seems to have an overpowering
    compulsion to re-write his original versions.
 
 o  He really did seem to come up with the concept of geosynch satellites
    well before anyone else did.  That alone should win him a place in
    _science_ history.  Discarding such forsight simply because he was
    also a science fiction writer simply would not be right.
 
    (He also proposed "space elevators," a totally wild concept that quite
    recently took an abrupt turn towards the general direction of reality
    with the discovery of fairly easy-to-make carbon nanotubules.)
 
 o  Saying he's senile because he's supporting the same thing that a lot of
    relatively young, hard-nosed business types in Japan and other places
    are also backing with big bucks strikes me as decidely unsporting.
 
 
Does Arthur C. Clarke's opinion matter?
 
To me that depends far more on how much he has researched the matter and
how well-thought out his arguments are -- not on how well-known he is and
whether or not he is old enough for labels such as "senile" and "just a
science fiction writer" to stick.
 
I haven't seen a whit of what he wrote, so I simply withhold judgement for
the moment.  It's very possible I will disagree with what he says, but I'd
rather _see it_ first.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -  Bravo for Douglas Morrison's defense of one of the all-time greats
        in physics, Dr. Richard Feynman.  He was a truly extraordinary man,
        and I would have liked very much to have had a chance to meet him
        before he passed away.
 
        From having read a lot of his work, my own guess is that Feynman
        would have absolutely blistered much of the early excess heat "cf"
        work as mysticism of the worst possible sort.  Also, as Dr. Morrison
        aptly states, Dr. Feynman quite likely would have placed a very
        different spin on how the history of excess heat "cf" unfolded, due
        mainly to his extraordinary ability to explain complex matters in
        simple terms.  Far, far too many people have a very blurry image
        of nuclei as somehow being on the "same" scale as atoms, and at the
        very least I suspect Dr. Feynman would have tried to make it very
        clear that you don't just jostle a few atoms around and expect them
        to suddenly produce all sorts of nuclear reactions.
 
        In short, Dr. Feynman was not terribly tolerant of sloppy thinking,
        and my oh my was there ever plenty of that to be beheld back in
        those early days.  (Some might observe that not all of it has
        disappeared yet, heh heh!)
 
        (What would he have done to my Twist of Ribbon?  Probably burned it
        to a crisp in about 30 seconds by pointing out _why_ there could not
        possibly be a quantum theory violation of the type I proposed in it
        without producing massive contradictions in some other aspect of
        very well established physical theory.  And he would have explained
        it in terms that an admitted non-physicist like me could have easily
        understood.  So I wait and keep reading.  Sigh.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 20:30:40 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <tomkC5rCCK.F9B@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
   > While I appreciate your hyperbole, can you tell me if Dr. Feynman
   > ever supported a theoryless rumor ridden supposition that stood
   > without support for over five years, while it's supporters offered
   > not a lick of reproducable evidence?
 
   Tom, are you at all familiar with Dick Feynman's career?  Several
times he has jumped WAY out into left field, with no external support,
either theoretical or experimental, and decades later Feynman was the
accepted gospel.  Heard of Feyman diagrams?  Initially a "trick" for
understanding particle conservation in reactions by assuming that an
antiparticle was a "real" particle travelling backwards in time.
 
    As another answer to your question, QUARKS.  When the first papers
on quarks appeared, almost everyone thought they were a joke.  In fact
there was a joke about cold fusion when it first hit the public, that
it was the last and greatest of Dick Feynman's jokes on the physics
establishment.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  The Moore Effect
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Moore Effect
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 19:43:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
Lee Droege, who is Tom Droege's behind-the-email-scenes partner and brother,
has dredged up a truly remarkable reference on the subject of capacitance in
PdHx.  This one was for me a real jaw-dropper, as I had not previously come
across any data at all about capacitance in PdHx, and certainly was not
expecting to see one that describes effects of this magnitude.
 
 
THE MOORE REFERENCES
 
The reference is old, dating back to the heyday of PdHx research back in the
1930s.  I haven't seen the full text of it yet, but will be scratching around
for at UTA as quickly as I can get there.  Some of the quoted figures sound
pretty wild, but I'll have to take a closer look before making a judgement.
 
The document was published both as a 1939 Princeton dissertation and as
three separate publications by both G.A. Moore and D.P. Smith.  Each of the
publications addresses hydrogen occlusion and diffusion in a different metal:
 
Ni: G.A. Moore and D.P. Smith, "The Occlusion and Diffusion of Hydrogen in
    Metals: Part I." Transactions of the Electrochemical Society, 71 345-64
    (1937).
 
Fe: G.A. Moore and D.P. Smith, Technical Publication No. 1065 (1939), by the
    American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.
 
Pd: G.A. Moore, "The Occlusion and Diffusion of Hydrogen in Metals: Part III.
    The comportment of the Palladium - Hydrogen System Toward Alternating
    Electric Current."  Transactions of the Electrochemical Society, 75 (1939).
 
 
Here is a quite striking excerpt from the conclusions section of Part III,
"The comportment of the Palladium - Hydrogen System Toward Alternating
Electric Current":
 
   "The most direct and decisive evidence of the present experiments
    may be briefly summarized thus:
 
     1) The electrostatic capacity, to be expected if hydrogen is distributed
        through a rift network in the metal, is present in large amount, and
        increases under the conditions which must augment the quantity of
        rift hydrogen.  The well-hydrogenated wire is moreover a very
        concentrated condenser, having a capacity equal to that of an
        ordinary electrolytic condenser of one million times its volume, as
        accords with the existence of plates of large area, placed together,
        the walls of narrow rifts."
 
Tom mentions that the conclusion goes on to make 5 more points, including a
statement that 2800 relative volumes of H was measured.  The document also
quotes a loading factor for PdHx of x=2.3, which many of you will recognize
as being an extraordinarily high.
 
 
SOME VERY PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
 
The first thing I should note is that even in this short set of information
about the Moore work, two of the figures should cause alarm.  I've already
mentioned the x=2.3 figure; many folks would claim that anything approaching
0.9 should be viewed very skeptically.  I do not know what to make of this.
 
The second jaw-dropper is the comment about a well-hydrogenated Pd wire
having a "capacity equal to an ordinary electrolytic condensor with
one million times its volume."
^^^^^^^^^^^
Yikes!  This "Moore Effect" is truly an _excess_ of bounty, as I would have
been delighted to see something about a Pd wire showing capacitive effects
merely _equal_ to an electrolytic capacitor -- at least for starts!
 
This is measured under AC current, of course, and thus does not necessarily
mean that the wire can hold a charge for very long.  Nonetheless, if the
above figure were to be taken at face value (?), you are basically talking
about a stump-stupid piece of wire somehow acquiring capacitance values many
orders of magnitude larger than those carefully manufactured into the best
available capacitors of that time period.  If I'm not just totally misunder-
standing the quote (entirely possible, as I freely admit), it certainly
sounds as though there could be some degree of self-structuring in how the
H2 rifts are being formed.
 
And in fact, if you take the beta phase I mentioned for self-structuring to
be equivalent to very thin _reversible_ rifts filled with H2, the idea of a
palladium-based self-structuring capacitor starts looking very interesting
indeed.  With H2 rifts, you don't have to grasp at straws to explain why
palladium hydride should be highly insulating.  The key then becomes whether
the energy required to close or move such a rift is small enough to allow
highly convoluted H2 rift sheets to form, as described in the six criteria
for self-structuring that I gave the other day.  Hard to say at the moment,
but certainly worth some further investigation.
 
All in all, a very, very interesting reference, and one that you will be
hearing more about, I think.  My profound thanks for Tom and Lee for finding
this one and forwarding the information on to me.  I'll keep you all updated.
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 20:52:11 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Apr18.043942.16537@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
   > Uhhh, isn't he essentially a science fiction writer?
 
   There are cheap shots, but this takes the cake!  About like
attacking Benjamin Franklin's work on electricity because he was a
also a politician.  (Actually, Clarke has done a lot to create a
nation in Sri Lanka, and he certainly has created their educational
system almost from whole cloth.)  Clarke's 1946 paper on communication
satellites launched (ouch!) the field, and was just one of his many,
many contributions to the field of communications and control systems.
During World War II he worked on using radar to land planes in adverse
conditions.  I just finished reading his new book on submarine
cables...
 
   Whether or not you agree with Clarke, his opinion will carry a lot
of (justified) weight with Al Gore.
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: The University of Hawaii and 4ICCF.
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The University of Hawaii and 4ICCF.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 20:14:45 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

Douglas,
 
I can now see where you were misled in stating that the University of
Hawaii "has now given up their interest in these patents." in
Section 8 of your Review of the Nagoya conference.
 
From your Review, Section 8:
"[The Fourth Cold Fusion conference] is unlikely to be sponsored by the
University of Hawaii as the University which initially took some
responsibility for the patents based on Cold Fusion claims of some of
their employees, organized a committee to investigate these claims
and has now given up their interest in these patents."
 
 
In your response to my objections you cited an internal memo from Dr. Liaw
which says:
 
"Mr. Nathan Yuen, Intellectual Property Manager of the OTTED notified me
about the University's intent to abandon its rights on our international
cold fusion patents."                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                          (emphasis mine)
 
If you relied on this memo (I have no idea how you came into possession of
it since it wasn't addressed to you) you must have overlooked the word
"international".  You must also have assumed the University did, in fact,
abandon its rights on its cold fusion patents--it didn't.
 
Those are the facts.  You might want to make corrections to your Review
for your own records.
 
When I read your Review last December, I could not understand why you
would publicly post news about patent issues at the University
(twice) without checking with me or Dr. Liaw first, since we are the
primary source of information.  If you had checked with me, I would
have been able to correct your misunderstanding about the patent situation
before it was posted here.  As you said so well "If you had something
serious and disagreeable to say, thought you would have taken the
precaution (and the politeness) to check privately first." Indeed.
 
That said, I should not have mixed my personal comments, which appeared in
the second half, with the statements of facts in the first
part of my posting.  This should have, as you suggested, been done
privately and for this I apologize.  Peace.
 
 
Finally, you ask a question:  "Usually when there is an open Scientific
meeting in Hawaii, the University is a sponsor - would this (be)
the first time it has not sponsored a meeting which claims to be open and
scientific?"
 
As you know, Hawaii is an awfully attractive place to hold meetings, even
SCIENTIFIC meetings.  We get more than our fair share.  I can only recall a
single international (open) scientific meeting in my field that was
sponsored by the University--I'm sure you remember the 8th World Hydrogen
Energy Conference in June 1990.
 
The Electrochemical Society will be here (again) next month even though
the last meeting in 1987 wasn't sponsored by the University of Hawaii.  It
will be the largest ever meeting of the Society (breaking the previous
attendance of the last ECS meeting held in Hawaii in 1987) as a result of
cosponsorship by The Electrochemical Society of Japan and with the
cooperation of The Japan Society of Applied Physics.  I think that the
Electrochemical Society would disagree with anyone who might suggest that
it will not be open and scientific because it is not sponsored by the
University of Hawaii.
 
Aloha,
 
Bruce
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 21:55:19 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <C5tC8B.ArD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
  > Why do people keep saying things like this?  It is my understanding
  > that the 'demonstration' was *not* his idea.  Please feel free to
  > correct me if I misread the situation or else stop implying he was
  > not a mouthpiece for others.
 
    The fact that the booster design required that the O-ring expand
during the first few seconds after ignition was well known, as was the
fact that there had been problems on earlier low temperature (for
Florida) launches.  There was a lot of flaming back and forth about
the performance of the actual material.  As Feynman documents he went
to the meeting where he could get his hands on a piece of the actual
material used equipped to determine for himself what the elasticity at
the approximate launch temperature was.  Once he performed the
experiment, then he showed the other members of the committee.
 
  >                               There is no way for him to have
  > 'checked' the conclusion that the demonstration implied, so he
  > was at the mercy of those who were talking to him.  The pliability
  > of that o-ring could have had absolutely nothing to do
  > with that accident.  I doubt he did detained thermal studies of the
  > solid-boosters to determine if the thermal mass of the fuel combined
  > with solar heating at that time of day kept the o-rings warm enough.
 
    I'm sorry you feel that ANY analysis was needed.  At the time of
the launch there was still ice on the boosters, thus the booster
temperature had to be near or below freezing.
 
  > Nor probably did he do detailed studies the effect of impinging hot
  > gases on the pliability of the o-rings.
 
    These had already been done.  Impinging hot gases were a no-no as
they rapidly eroded the O-rings, allowing exactly the situation that
occured.  The O-rings needed to be flexible enough that they tracked
the deformation of the clevis joint.
 
  >     This was a talented man, not a god.  He made mistakes like the
  > rest of us.  Excessive credulity is a mistake.  He apparently
  > lent his prestige to something that he could not check.
 
    He DID check, then he reported his results.  The novelty was
figuring out how to do the key experiment while sitting on a very
political investigating panel.  (And where he knew that he could get
his hands on the sample, but couldn't take it out of the room.) If he
had squeezed the sample of the O-ring with the pliers and it rapidly
returned to its original shape when released, he could have abandoned
this line of inquiry.  But when cold, it behaved more like putty than
rubber.  He was lending his prestige to a very simple repeatable
experiment which he had just performed.  If the elasticity was within
a few percent of the necessary figure, finger pointing could have gone
on for a long time.  But this was not even close.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 21 Apr 93 17:27:00 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
     Paragraphs 12 and 13 below refer to atomic FUSION:
 
 
                            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, ("Amazing
          Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,
          and front cover), 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 are $3.00 each from the
          U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try
          getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your
          local public or university library's inter-library loan
          dept..]
 
               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
          motor of inventor Joseph Newman [see SCIENCE, 2-10-84, pages
          571-2.], 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.  [ It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY! ]
 
               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 at the China Lake
          Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of
          chemist Melvin Miles, 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 Dr. 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$.
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (patents, articles, books).
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmcelwre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 21 Apr 1993 11:57 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <m0nlZ2X-00001UC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...
[stuff deleted...]
 
 
>If the history of the Tokamak vs alternates, the shuttle vs expendibles,
>the SSC vs novel alternatives and the space station vs commercially
>developed space facilities are any guide, in practice it isn
 
Commercially developed space facilities???  When it becomes commercially
profitable for private companies to develop their own:
 
1)  Boosters/HLVs
2)  Space stations
3)  Space habitats
4)  Fusion reactors
 
What do you think will happen?  As far as I know, there isn't anything
keeping *any* U.S. company from building its own space station, except the
return on investment.  The same goes for fusion reactors.  Why should any
sane company sink lots of bucks into something as iffy as any of the above
(note:  don't think they could not do so, if they saw *profit* in any of the
above:  Ford sunk $6 billion into developing a damn car - the Taurus.  GM
managed to *lose* $21 billion last year, and *they're* still around.  If
you believe these companies "can't afford" to do this kind of research,
you're fooling yourself.  They just see no reason to do so, when the good
old gov't *is*, in a rather misdirected, muddled, but progressive, way).
 
Since I'm involved with SSF, I do see some wasteful things a'goin on.  But,
it can be argued that at least there is *some* return on the measly $12 billion
NASA gets each year, as compared to, say, the total lack of a return, or
anything measured in the positive sense, with, as any example, the WELFARE
program.  All I get back from it is the feeling that 10% of my gross pay
goes to support a large number of, for lack of a better word, people.
 
0.3% of my gross pay goes to support NASA, another 10% to support the military,
0.03% to fusion, etc.
 
Sure would be nice if, when it came time for taxes, we were able to choose
where those taxes are to be spent.  Guess where mine would go.
 
>unrealistic to expect the government to behave itself with regard
>to diversity of thought in the most critical technologies.
 
The "problem" with the government is that it isn't a single entity.  It has
no real goal, other than to make sure its domain is cared for.  Hell, the
government is really just a figment of our imagination,
 
The question is :  How do we go about changing its direction so that it
benefits us more than it does now (remember, way back when, the gov't *did*
have a goal - to keep us more or less civilized.  OK, we're more or less
civilized).
 
How do we go about getting our tax dollars to work for us (I'm not kidding
here, I don't know anything about law, besides the basic "you're not supposed
to kill anybody who disagrees with you", etc, stuff).  How do we get our
tax money to go to projects like Paul Koloc's Plasmak, and other fusion
projects?
 
Am I the only ignorant one on the net???  (Perhaps.  If so, just e-mail me
directly).
>
>>: * If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
>>: there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and
>>: the fusion program could collapse.
>>
>>Is it less defensible than the SSC or the whatever the hell the
>>space station is going to be or tobacco subsidies?
 
To figure out what the SSF is going to be, we read the newspaper and change
our design to accomodate it :-) (just kidding).
 
>
>Yes.  It is less defensible than just about any conceivable activity
>when, as those working in the field have witnessed, private investors
>are discouraged from supporting alternative concepts (dropped by the
> politics of the government program) by those whose chief claim to
>credibility is the fact that they possessed sufficient political
>savvy to beat out others in the competition for federal fusion
>dollars.  When federal fusion dollars are used to suppress all
>diversity in the public AND private sectors, the economic multiplier
>of those dollars is a very large negative number.
 
How can the gov't. suppress other programs?  By not giving money to the
private sectors?  In other words, investors have to put their own necks
on the line, rather than the neck of the general public (Gateway - Cleveland's
new stadium, is a good example of investors getting the general public to
 
finance their pet project.  I'd rather invest in ITER that Gateway).
>
>Bruce Scott writes:
>>The high-density imploding Z-pinch should have been added to the list of
>>promising alternative concepts.
>
>In a 1986 speech, Hirsch listed a number of such concepts.  I point
>out Koloc's Spheromak and Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Fusion as
>examples supported by Hirsch mainly because Koloc is a participant
>in this group and Bussard's IEF is Hirsch's real agenda.
 
Do you have any more details on Bussard's IEF???  I take it that the Plasmak
is a derivative of the Spheromak?  I've seen a write-up on Bussard's compact
toroidal reactor, can't remember the name for it though.
 
>
>>The real problem is not so much over-reliance on the tokamak concept, but
>>over-centralisation of effort.
>
>What is over-reliance on one technical approach if not an over-
>centralization of effort?  The time has come for the tokamak folks to
>find private financing or shift to new technial approaches.
 
Perhaps the international part of ITER could be considered the "private
financing", subsidised a bit by the U.S.?
 
>
>>All in all, I agree whole-heartedly with the content of Dr Hirsch's letter,
>>suspect many others in fusion do so as well, and add my name to the list of
>>those within mainstream fusion who are deeply concerned about the
>>misdirection and threatened demise of fusion as a physics community of the
>>first rank, and who call for the re-establishment of alternative concepts.
>
>Although the cynic in me tends to discount all tokamak supporters,
>I'll admit that it took some courage for you to say what you just
>did.
 
Well, if it's a choice between working on *some* fusion program that isn't
a Tokamak, or not eating...  (I'm not flaming anyone here.  One of my
co-workers at Keithley Instruments used to say "it's all the same" about the
work we did.  In other words, the engineering is the same, whether it's on
a multimeter or a PC based data acquisition system.  I'd guess that from
Dr. Scott's point of view, a plasma is a plasma, whether it's generated in
a Tokamak or a Plasmak or...)
>
>
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: 21 Apr 93 16:03:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Apr20.201410.12539@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <C5sMwH.JFs@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
>writes:
>> (*)  More on his experience and perspective, and cold fusion,
                                                    vvvvvvvvvvv
 
Do you know this, or is this what you think or hope?
 
>>      will be available in his future publication entitled
>>               "2001: THE COMING AGE OF HYDROGEN POWER".
>
>If Clarke means by this CF, then I think he is getting senile, or
>at least quite fantastic.
 
Most of you seem to be ignoring the fact that certain cirles have
long held that Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for many applications - e.g.
in automobiles, where the only polution is from the steam generated
by combustion.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / mitchell swartz /  What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 18:19:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <tomkC5to47.KAq@netcom.com>
  Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
=>If Clarke means by this CF, then I think he is getting senile, or
=>at least quite fantastic.
=
==tk "The last time I heard Clarke speak it was via satellite from his home
==tk on Sre Lanka. He has sounded quite senile for some time in my view.
==tk Not to denigrate his past work, but he has never been someone to hold up
==tk as a "Scientist", he has always been more of a writer from day one."
 
   Tom, would it not be unfortunate if the last refuge of "skeptics" was
ad hominem attacks.
   First, such comments ought be directed to alt.brick-toss-tactics.libel
rather than sci.physics.fusion.
 
   Second, such are inconsistent with the evidence.   Senility is
progressive to all.  This may be linked to the inexorible neuron decline
which begins after ca. age 4.  The locus of phase-space points towards your
own attractor may show much more senility than Prof. Arthur C. Clarke
based upon the impaired recognition capabilities and secondary logic
displayed here.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / mitchell swartz /  Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 18:20:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <m0nlZ2X-00001UC@crash.cts.com>
  Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
==mk "Matt Kennel writes:
==mk >Radioactive waste is a great kind of pollution: it goes
==mk  away by itself.
          [Message-ID: <1qvdao$9s8@network.ucsd.edu>; Matt Kennel]
 
==jb  "So do most carcinogenic compounds."
 
 Whew... Be careful.  According to this logic there is therfore no problem(s)
           with contamination, corrosion, loss of, or inaccessible, records,
           leakage, induced radioactivity, faded giants, dull swords,
           broken arrows, discarded cobalt irradiators, sunken nuclear
           submarines, .... ,
 
   We need more serious accuracy here.  (and better quantitation).
 
   DDT was underestimated.  New awareness has surfaced again just this week.
   The failure to accurately and adequately understand, and control,
     important materials should not be repeated.
 
 
==jb  "The real issue is the time-integrated risk."
 
  The real issue is the ratio:
                                  time-integrated risk
                                 -----------------------
                                 time-integrated benefit
 
 
==jb   "With high specific radioactivity and
==jb  large masses, the advantages of a "short" half-life are
==jb  relatively small compared to most toxic."
 
   May not be so.  O15-positron emission tomography, for example, is used
to evaluate soft tissue sarcomata for the bulk metabolic parameters (eg.
regional blood flow).  With a half-life of minutes, this material can be
confined, controlled, and safely utilized yielding a very big advantage.
 
            Best wishes.
                                      Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / mitchell swartz /  What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 18:20:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <13671@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
   Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Arnold Frisch (Tektronix Laboratories; arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM) writes:
 
=ms (*)  More on his experience and perspective, and cold fusion..
==
==  "Do you know this, or is this what you think or hope?"
 
     Know it.  Hope it is expanded.  Think it is very very good.
 
     Best wishes.
                                   Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 17:38:38 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Apr21.144107.11917@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> P.S. Bravo for Douglas Morrison's defense of one of the all-time greats
>       in physics, Dr. Richard Feynman.  He was a truly extraordinary man,
>       and I would have liked very much to have had a chance to meet him
>       before he passed away.
>
 
 
I agree totally. However, I think the subtle lesson to be learned from
Feynman's popular books (Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care...)
is that being *known as* a super genious is mostly due to selective
recall, chance and a dash of self-promotion. For example, most of
his fantanstic lock picking abilities were just luck, plus him acting
like it wasn't. And similarly throughout many of his other escapades.
I think he was trying to make the point that being a magical genius
is really just an image---the true inside story is often rather ordinary.
I think we all have had experience with this sort of thing---we do
something others consider relly clever, but we know it was really
rather straightforward.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 02:57:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9304201117.AA29695@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
>RICHARD FEYNMAN                                               20 April 1993.
>      There has recently been a discussion about the dangers of a non-expert
>making pronouncements about subjects on  which he has little expertise.
>Clearly there are dangers. However the discussion about Richard Feynman was
>rather disturbing perhaps because people had not met him nor read his works.
 
      I got the impression that most of the people discussing him
      had 'read his works'.  And, is it necessary to have met him to
      discuss things he wrote about himself?
 
      I do credit him greatly for telling us about this situation.
      Most people would not have done so.
 
>    He was an extraordinary man in several ways. He would talk to people who
>were experts and ask many questions. After some time, often hours, he
>would know more than the expert. And because of Dick's incredibly wide
>knowledge, the expert would often have found that he too had learnt
>something. The discussion could last hours because Dick had a determination
>to learn everything, not just a superficial understanding.
 
      That's wonderful, but grasp of a system as complex as the
      shuttle is not gained in discussions lasting hours, even days, even
      weeks.  And it is a bit scary to consider the implication here.  Do you
      honestly think I could select an extrordinarily talented
      engineer, and drop him into your lab for a couple of days of intensive
      discussion, and he would know more than those who worked there
      for years?  That may happen with some people, but there are
      a large number of rather extraordinary people in this world
      who never happened to receive sufficient publicity to attain
      Feynman's popularity.   I don't know about you, but I'd hate to
      watch a world famous physicist walk into my place of work, spend
      a couple of days talking to me about my work, have him leave and
      forever be credited with having 'discovered' something he
      durn well didn't.
 
      In any case, I think it is unbecoming to canonize physicists,
      though it does seem to be a trend again.  I thought we could
      have left it at Einstein, Newton and Galileo and various lesser
      'saints'.
 
>    Thus with the Challenger enquiry, he looked in all directions and tried to
>talk to all people. The words "all" and "everything" are very important in
>understanding Feynman. He was very fast and had a great memory. So when
 
       Do you know how many critical subsystems the shuttle has?
       Or how about how many engineers the project employs at
       NASA, contractors and subcontractors?
 
       Don't you just cringe when you see unqualified words like
       'all' and 'everything'?
 
>discussing a subject with an expert, he would often look at it from new
>and unexpected angles. Thus he told me that before publishing, he spent a lot
>of time checking and trying to prove himself wrong by looking at a
>problem from different angles. Thus if he had a problem in quantum mechanics,
>he would repeat the calulation using classical physics, and if he obtained a
>different result, would then work to see exactly where the difference came from.
>If the difference did not come from a difference between quantum mechanics
>and classical theory, then he would check further until he understood - or he
>would not publish. If only there were more people like him.
>    Another facet of his genius was his ability to explain his conclusions in
>a way and at a level that the audience would understand. This is what he did
>with his O-ring demonstration, his report and in his book.
 
     Why do people keep saying things like this?  It is my understanding
     that the 'demonstration' was *not* his idea.  Please feel free to
     correct me if I misread the situation or else stop implying he was
     not a mouthpiece for others.  There is no way for him to have
     'checked' the conclusion that the demonstration implied, so he
     was at the mercy of those who were talking to him.  The pliability
     of that o-ring could have had absolutely nothing to do
     with that accident.  I doubt he did detained thermal studies of the
     solid-boosters to determine if the thermal mass of the fuel combined
     with solar heating at that time of day kept the o-rings warm enough.
     Nor probably did he do detailed studies the effect of impinging hot
     gases on the pliability of the o-rings.
 
     This was a talented man, not a god.  He made mistakes like the
     rest of us.  Excessive credulity is a mistake.  He apparently
     lent his prestige to something that he could not check.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 08:37:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel writes:
>jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>: * If you select stainless steel, you will have to effectively
>: rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
>: times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
>: reactor of the same power level.
>
>Many times the amount of radioactivity?   No way.  I think
>the figure is something like a couple of orders of magnitude less.  In
>any case, the half-life is also much much less.
 
If we're going to take someone's word for it (ie: just have them pull
 "figures" out of the air without reference) I would tend to trust
the founder of the Tokamak program over a random individual.  Fortunately,
we don't need to rely on appeals to authority here (except insofaras the
 fusion program is, in fact, a political rather than technical program,
 which is why I bothered to invoke an appeal to authority in my message
 title).  An article in Science appearing sometime in the mid-70's goes
into some detail about the activated stainless steel casing disposal
problem.  It was that article that guided me away from a career in
"plasma physics" (which as degenderated into a field more appropriately
"the study of idiosyncracies of tokamak plasmas").  Unless you go to
very compact designs, an approach which has now been abandoned by the
tokamak program.  In any case, the activated stainless steel problem
is moot if, as seems likely, the tokamak wouldn't work anyway.
 
>Radioactive waste is a great kind of pollution: it goes away by itself.
 
So do most cacinogenic compounds.  The real issue is the time-
integrated risk.  With high specific radioactivity and large masses,
the advantages of a "short" half-life are relatively small compared
to most toxic.
 
>Also remember that utility companies won't be picking up the tab when
>our global climate bifurcates and falls into a new attractor.
 
>: * If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
>: likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
>
>The two are not exclusive, in principle.  But I agree that alternate
>concepts ought to be explored, and they aren't.
 
If the history of the Tokamak vs alternates, the shuttle vs expendibles,
the SSC vs novel alternatives and the space station vs commercially
developed space facilities are any guide, in practice it isn
unrealistic to expect the government to behave itself with regard
to diversity of thought in the most critical technologies.
 
>: * If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
>: there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and
>: the fusion program could collapse.
>
>Is it less defensible than the SSC or the whatever the hell the
>space station is going to be or tobacco subsidies?
 
Yes.  It is less defensible than just about any conceivable activity
when, as those working in the field have witnessed, private investors
are discouraged from supporting alternative concepts (dropped by the
 politics of the government program) by those whose chief claim to
credibility is the fact that they possessed sufficient political
savvy to beat out others in the competition for federal fusion
dollars.  When federal fusion dollars are used to suppress all
diversity in the public AND private sectors, the economic multiplier
of those dollars is a very large negative number.
 
Bruce Scott writes:
>The high-density imploding Z-pinch should have been added to the list of
>promising alternative concepts.
 
In a 1986 speech, Hirsch listed a number of such concepts.  I point
out Koloc's Spheromak and Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Fusion as
examples supported by Hirsch mainly because Koloc is a participant
in this group and Bussard's IEF is Hirsch's real agenda.
 
>The real problem is not so much over-reliance on the tokamak concept, but
>over-centralisation of effort.
 
What is over-reliance on one technical approach if not an over-
centralization of effort?  The time has come for the tokamak folks to
find private financing or shift to new technial approaches.
 
>All in all, I agree whole-heartedly with the content of Dr Hirsch's letter,
>suspect many others in fusion do so as well, and add my name to the list of
>those within mainstream fusion who are deeply concerned about the
>misdirection and threatened demise of fusion as a physics community of the
>first rank, and who call for the re-establishment of alternative concepts.
 
Although the cynic in me tends to discount all tokamak supporters,
I'll admit that it took some courage for you to say what you just
did.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 07:14:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Apr20.201410.12539@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>If Clarke means by this CF, then I think he is getting senile, or
>at least quite fantastic.
 
The last time I heard Clarke speak it was via satellite from his home
on Sre Lanka. He has sounded quite senile for some time in my view.
Not to denigrate his past work, but he has never been someone to hold up
as a "Scientist", he has always been more of a writer from day one.
 
He actually claimed that his sequels to 2001 were his best work. I will
leave it to those who (like me) have read most of his work to judge.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Please, someone read my last posts.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please, someone read my last posts.
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 07:29:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930420124739.20602504@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>No fancy math needed, Dieter.  If you use a DC meter to measure the voltage
>and current, and compute the input power by E*I, the input power will *always*
>be under measured.  This is because the noise component heats the cell too,
>but the DC meter does not measure it.
 
This isn't real obvious Tom. A better explaination might be that the
power entering the cell may be computed with the calculation of
 
V^2*R
 
so that fluctuations of power above the baseline DC _always_ add
more power to the system than equal amplitude negative deviations
subtract.
 
You are completely right Tom, noise by it's very nature will always add
more power to the circuit rather than extract it. Any system that doesn't
take the noise power into account is courting criticism.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #5 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #5 Cell 4A4
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 22:56:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #5 Cell 4A4
 
The run was at 1010 hours this morning.  After several very slow (100 hour)
saw tooths, we went back to a current point (420 ma per sq cm) that always
seemed to show a little "anomalous heat".  Indeed, it is now sitting at about
+30 mw average.  The net heat over the entire run averages to about 13 mw.
With an estimated error of 10 mw one sigma, none of this is very significant.
 
I am slowly developing a theory as to how one can get apparent "anomalous
heat" bumps, and at particular currents, like were reported by Bush of Cal
Poly.  It was this type of "bump" from the last run with the first calorimeter
that caused me to build a new design.
 
For "true believers" it is not a pleasant theory.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / mitchell swartz /  What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Clarke thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 17:50:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <pete.735309874@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
  Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Peter Alexander Merel (pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) writes:
 
==ms >  Arthur C. Clarke, b. 1917, graduated King's College (London), and was
==ms >  an RAF flight leutenant in charge of the "first experimental
==ms >  ground-controlled-approach radar in England".  He received a degree,
==ms >  with First Class Honors, in physics and pure and applied mathematics.
==
==  "As I recall he is credited with inventing the geostationary satellite, too,
==   but that doesn't make him impartial or oracular. Fine writer though."
 
    Peter, the issue was whether he had scientific credentials.  He does.
 
    His satellite (1945) was envisioned as being manned and filled with tons of
 vacuum tubes and supporting power supplies, with engineering support
 on board!  He states in his manuscript (*) that he did not anticipate
 them to be the size of an oil drum.
 
(*)  More on his experience and perspective, and cold fusion,
     will be available in his future publication entitled
              "2001: THE COMING AGE OF HYDROGEN POWER".
 
   Short excerpts of this future publication will appear, for those
   who are interested or sentient, in the next issue of COLD FUSION TIMES.
 
                     Best wishes.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / mitchell swartz /  5% does not equal 0.1%
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 5% does not equal 0.1%
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 19:37:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

       In Message-ID: <colin.42@physci.uct.ac.za>
       Subject: Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
Henderson, C, Colin, (HNDCOL002; colin@physci.uct.ac.za) writes:
 
==ch "Jed, if I write:
==ch
==ch     1.23 +/- 0.02 (systematic) +/- 0.50  J (say),
==ch                                 does this mean anything to you?
==ch
==ch "This is how most experimental measurements should be written,
==ch with both systematic and random uncertainties present."
==ch                      ***
==ch "You cannot add the errors together, even in quadrature, because
==ch  systematic and random errors are orthogonal."
 
  What is 0.50 J (say)?
  Also, one line appears to indicate that your equation
 "is how most experimental measurements should be written", but the second
 line indicates one should not "add the errors together, even in quadrature,
  because systematic and random errors are orthogonal."
 
  Could you please clarify and reconcile them?
                                                   Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 20:25:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C5sMt8.J5H@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement,
>    Message-ID <C5ronz.5Fq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
> Cameron Randale Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU)  writes:
>
>==ms  "...  when the announcement was made in "the March" the level was
>==ms  (I think) circa 20 Watts/cm^3.
>==ms  That peak excess power density has increased until at present reports
>==ms  in the range of 1000 to 2000+ Watts/cm^3 are more common."
>
>==db  "Since I can't seem to find the initial P&F paper in the mess around
>==db   here, I'll have to rely on memory.  I remember claims of
>==db   1000 W/cm^3 from the first, so suggestion that the claims
>==db   have 'increased' seems incorrect."
>
>    Dale:
>             Comments more appropriate for a grasshopper.
>
>             From the paper (p.304):
>
>   "(b) Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode"
>
> [M. FLEISCHMANN, S. PONS, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of
>           Deuterium", J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301 (1989)]
 
     I'd think 10^3 exceeds 10.  What do you think, grasshopper?
     Try checking some of the other tables/figures.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 20:14:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C5sMwH.JFs@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
> (*)  More on his experience and perspective, and cold fusion,
>      will be available in his future publication entitled
>               "2001: THE COMING AGE OF HYDROGEN POWER".
 
If Clarke means by this CF, then I think he is getting senile, or
at least quite fantastic.
 
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  More on X-rays and xs heat claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on X-rays and xs heat claims
Date: 20 Apr 93 16:59:01 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,                                      April 20, 1993
 
I was pleased to hear from Todd Green that McKubre has added a probe
for X-ray detection.  He joins Akito Takahashi who told me in March
he had just acquired an X-ray detector for his experiments.  As I argued
at the Nagoya meeting (and here), X-rays provide a critical experiment
for the presence -- or absence -- of nuclear reactions in putative heat-
producing cells.  As the claims shift from d-d fusion origins for the heat
to unidentified nuclear reactions, secondary X-rays (e.g., the 21 KeV k-alpha
line for palladium) become a crucial test of the claim of nuclear origins.
The absence of X-rays (above background), I predict, will induce these
gentlemen to re-examine heat-due-to-nuclear-reaction claims.
 
A small group here has followed our own guidelines and looked for both Pd
and Ni X-rays in
electrolytic cells -- and found none.  And 120% excess heat was seen in our
Ni-K2CO3-H2O cells, when they *assumed* that no recombination was taking place
at the electrodes.  However, when they separated the evolving H2 and O2 gases,
and inhibited recombination at the electrodes, then the xs heat dropped to
zero.  Recently, the BYU students (and Prof. Hansen)
involved in these expts bubbled O2 next to
the Ni cathode, and immediately "xs heat" was produced.  They conclude that
recombination effects must *not* be neglected.  Many workers assume that
recombination effects are negligible.  Perhaps when X-rays are found missing,
these researchers will finally check such assumptions -- which can clearly
contribute to systematic errors.
 
A question for the group from Prof. Hansen:  are people satisfied that McKubre
has taken into account recombination on the electrodes?  Just having a
recombiner present is not enough, since the amount of recombination there and
on the electrodes may vary, changing the heat distribution in the cell, and
heat-flow patterns.
 
I remain concerned, Todd, that McKubre claims large heat "bursts" while
obtaining only 1-4% average xs power overall.
 M. Swartz says "anomalous heat "bursts", generating > 300%
excess power, were found to initiate spontaneously" -- this seems to be
uncorrelated to current ramps, but appears consistent with thermal
transients.
 
I have checked my notes also on claims in 1989 and found that P&F did refer
to "fusion."  And they did claim large heat outputs using the same sized
cathodes as used in the original experiments.  An article in the Ogden (Utah)
Standard Examiner of July 9, 1989 states:
 
"Pons and Fleischmann say that by using palladium rods inside electrically
charged platinum coils immersed in deuterium-rich heavy water, they have
produced fusion that generated more than 100 times the energy needed to
trigger the reaction. ... Yet the electrode used in the newest experiment
is the same size as those in the original tests..."
 
There was also comment here recently that a demonstration water heater would
be convincing evidence of "cold fusion."  This reminded me of an article in
the July 8, 1989 Deseret News (SLC, UT) which shows a color picture of Pons
next to "a device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water
requirments of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B. Stanley
Pons." {p. B-1} ' "It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but
it certainly could provide them with hot water year-round," said Pons, who
said he's always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could
happen this fast.' {p. B-1}
 
I showed an overhead transparency of this article at the March 1990 cold fusion
conf. in SLC following Dr. Pons' talk and asked about the status of this
cold-fusion "water-heater."  He declined to answer directly.  But I learned
from newsreporter Fitzgerald (SLC Tribune)
that the claims regarding this water-heater had been abandoned.
 
It is worth re-iterating also that the NCFI spent nearly $5 million
of Utah taxpayers' money trying to
replicate the xs heat claims of P&F.  In the end, they made no unqualified
claims of xs heat production, as I quoted from the NCFI final report in a
previous posting.  Soon after this report and the demise of NCFI and the
exhaustion of Utah-taxpayer funding, Pons left Utah for good.
 
Any correlated claims of X-rays and xs heat yet?  Just a couple of expts, but
*none* which show an X-ray energy spectrum.  For example, Miles et al. at China
Lake show dental X-ray film exposures, but these they note have spots caused
by exposure to liquids.  The Kucherov et al. paper (Phys. Lett A 170 (1992)
265) shows a film with, they say, "diffraction spots" {Fig. 8}.  Sorry,
Mitchell, I have no additional information regarding these "diffraction spots."
I think that space imaging was done, but the paper is not clear.  (I have
not been able to ask Prof. Van Fleet today, but I believe he does mostly
Laue spectroscopy.)   Nor do the Russians show an energy spectrum.  Why not?
It's not clear.
 
As I have mentioned before, X-ray films are subject to artifacts from various
sources.  I checked, BTW, more on the Srinivasan observations that even Pd-H
causes X-ray film fogging.  We have found that the fogging occurs even when
1.2 micron mylar is placed between the Pd hydride (H or D works) and the
emulsion of the film, but a 1mm thick clear glass slide stops the fogging
completely.  This suggests that the fogging is *not* caused by visible light
(chemiluminescence) as suggested by Bruce Dunn.  (Thanks for the
suggestion.)
 
Therefore, X-ray *spectra* are needed for *compelling* tests.
No one who has looked has found anything more than a *low-level* signal
caused by Pd fluorescence stimulated
by room backgrounds.  (We see this with just a piece of Pd placed against the
detector, without any deuterium added, or hydrogen, over tens of hours
exposure.)  I am very hopeful that McKubre, Takahashi and Storms will
look soon for X-rays as tell-tale indicators
of nuclear reactions.  Of course, I think based on our expts that
(sufficient) X-rays will not be found.  But we'll see.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
P.S.  Taking my family on a trip to California tomorrow during a school
break -- will return April 27.  See you then.
 
P.P. S.  Terry:  the resistance of Pd rises as H (or D) is added, reaching
twice the unloaded resistance when the d/Pd ratio reaches about 0.7.  Then
the resistance begins to fall as the loading increases more.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 05:31:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C5rMwt.JBw@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>
>==  "But why are the best measurements reporting smaller and smaller excess?"
>
>  This may be an incorrect statement.  If the reported excess powers
>are divided by the amount of palladium present, then when the announcement
>was made in "the March" the level was (I think) circa 20 Watts/cm^3.
>
>  That peak excess power density has increased until at present reports
>in the range of 1000 to 2000+ Watts/cm^3 are more common.
 
     Since I can't seem to find the initial P&F paper in the mess around
     here, I'll have to rely on memory.  I remember claims of
     1000 W/cm^3 from the first, so suggestion that the claims
     have 'increased' seems incorrect.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Please, someone read my last posts.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please, someone read my last posts.
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 18:01:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes:
 
"To be fair, and getting back down to Earth, McKubre and others have said that
while they see positive heat events, they don't seem to see negative ones.
This argues against an interpretation in terms of mere statistical
fluctuations; and I would like someone to do a probability density
distribution of these temperature sample sequences, it might throw some light
on the experiments."
 
No fancy math needed, Dieter.  If you use a DC meter to measure the voltage
and current, and compute the input power by E*I, the input power will *always*
be under measured.  This is because the noise component heats the cell too,
but the DC meter does not measure it.
 
Don't you all get a little suspicious when McKubre and I always report a little
"anomalous heat" - or a lot it the case of McKubre.  Here is an possible
systematic to explain it.  But everyone seems very quiet about this theory.
 
To convince me, McKubre is going to have to measure his input power by a
different technique.  I will suggest a way to do it better in a few days.
With this prodding, McKubre can no doubt figure it out for himself, as he
has done a very good job of making measurements so far.
 
I know we all wanted this to be true.  I for one have a very large investment
in it being true.  But here is a very likely systematic source, and it better
be investigated.  Jed, because McKubre judges his error to be 0.1% does not
make it true.  It could be 0.01% or 100%.  It all depends on whether he missed
a systematic.
 
Again, as I have improved my technique, my results have gotton smaller.  The
same would hold true for McKubre since his last (ICCF3) result is smaller than
previous results.  As I remember, this was also true for Huggins, and some
others.  Hmmm!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Let Tom Droege sort it out
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let Tom Droege sort it out
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 23:04:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As far as understanding possible systematic errors in the McKubre
measurements, Jed Rothwell is clearly a lost cause.  Rather than my
trying to explain that error estimates are only estimates based on
known sources of error,  why don't we just cool it while Tom investigates
the AC power plus DC power problem?  I think he is onto something.
In relation to the "noise" generating "excess heat", if we accept
as established truth that the effect is seen only at high loadings
(greater than 0.93 perhaps) and throw in the possibility that at
PdD is a very unstable at those loadings;  just maybe we can begin
to pull together some kind of model.  I see the ingredients being
the unstable PdD taking up and dumping energy to produce the
noise that screws up the power measurements.  I actually saw a
model calculation of the PdD lattice that said at a loading of
1.0 the lattice should totally fall apart.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 /  morrison@vxpri /  Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 00:03:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

RICHARD FEYNMAN                                               20 April 1993.
      There has recently been a discussion about the dangers of a non-expert
making pronouncements about subjects on  which he has little expertise.
Clearly there are dangers. However the discussion about Richard Feynman was
rather disturbing perhaps because people had not met him nor read his works.
    He was an extraordinary man in several ways. He would talk to people who
were experts and ask many questions. After some time, often hours, he
would know more than the expert. And because of Dick's incredibly wide
knowledge, the expert would often have found that he too had learnt
something. The discussion could last hours because Dick had a determination
to learn everything, not just a superficial understanding.
    Thus with the Challenger enquiry, he looked in all directions and tried to
talk to all people. The words "all" and "everything" are very important in
understanding Feynman. He was very fast and had a great memory. So when
discussing a subject with an expert, he would often look at it from new
and unexpected angles. Thus he told me that before publishing, he spent a lot
of time checking and trying to prove himself wrong by looking at a
problem from different angles. Thus if he had a problem in quantum mechanics,
he would repeat the calulation using classical physics, and if he obtained a
different result, would then work to see exactly where the difference came from.
If the difference did not come from a difference between quantum mechanics
and classical theory, then he would check further until he understood - or he
would not publish. If only there were more people like him.
    Another facet of his genius was his ability to explain his conclusions in
a way and at a level that the audience would understand. This is what he did
with his O-ring demonstration, his report and in his book.
    The question was raised as to what Feynman would have thought of Cold
Fusion? Maybe I can try and answer that having some experience - in 1976 gave
a lecture on Pathological Science and discussed with him for several hours
both before and after my talk (though mainly about physics) and he gave a
short talk after I had finished, agreeing and adding some of his own
experiences. I am sure he would have been extremely interested in Cold Fusion
and he would have studied it intently after the 23rd March Press conference.
He would have seen the obvious contradictions and fallacies very quickly.
Also he would have expressed them so clearly that the Cold Fusion saga would
have probably tailed off more quickly.
     An example. The original Fleischmann and Pons paper says that an
overpotential of 0.8 eV can be obtained readily. "The astronomical magnitude
of this value can be appreciated readily; attempts to attain this level via
the compression of D2 (step iv) would require pressures in excess of 10 E 26
atm." And in his lecture at CERN on 31st March, Fleischmann said that the
calculation of fugacity gave 10 E 27 atmospheres. With the wonderful charm of
his lecture and everyone's desire to have this wonderful, ecologically sound
new source of energy, disbelief was suspended and criticism muted. However
suspect that Feynman would have said "10 E 27 atm but that would have blown the
Palladium rod apart if it was a real pressure as suggested". To give an idea,
this would collapse atoms to neutrons - a neutron star would have been created!
    Could anyone please tell me - Have Fleischamnn or Pons ever withdrawn this
claim that is so obviously based on a fundamental misunderstanding?
    At CERN in 1989, people were impressed when Fleischmann said "If there is
anything wrong with this, I will be the first to tell it". I was told this was
the sign of a truely great scientist. Has Fleischmann withdrawn this?
Or the neutron claims? Or the tritium claims? Would appreciate if someone
could please give me the references to these three subjects, as they seem
to be missing from my files.
    Have read that Fleischmann and Pons have withdrawn their claim to have
observed helium (as quoted by Walling and Simons who had been told by Pons and
Hawkins). Could anyone please give me the reference to where they withdrew
this helium claim?
         Have a Nice Tomorrow,
                                 Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Peter Merel /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 12:44:34 GMT
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  Arthur C. Clarke, b. 1917, graduated King's College (London), and was
>  an RAF flight leutenant in charge of the "first experimental
>  ground-controlled-approach radar in England".  He received a degree,
>  with First Class Honors, in physics and pure and applied mathematics.
 
As I recall he is credited with inventing the geostationary satellite, too,
but that doesn't make him impartial or oracular. Fine writer though.
 
--
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpete cudfnPeter cudlnMerel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF is simpler than SDI
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF is simpler than SDI
Date: 20 Apr 93 15:42:34 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930419152830_72240.1256_EHK30-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>                              ...                         Calorimetry is
>fundamentally simple; although, of course, the ramifications and details can
>get hairy.
 
Solid state detectors are fundamentally simple, but look at the final
explanations for the various "signals" of a 17 keV neutrino.  All sorts
of surprising little things, different things in different experiments,
conspired to give the *same* mass signal.  Not the first time, not the
last, and the reason for a certain basic skepticism amongst scientists.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / Henderson Colin /  Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (Henderson, C, Colin, HNDCOL002)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 13:56:37 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <930419225057_72240.1256_EHK49-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
>Richard Blue writes about McKubre:
 
>     "...If there is a systematic bias toward the positive side, it need not
>     be very large in relation to the kinds of accuracy assigned to
>     calorimetry."
 
>The accuracy assigned to McKubre's calorimetry is greater than 0.1%. In 1991,
>the excess heat was "typically in the range of 5% to 10%" and as high as 28%.
>A 5% error would be FIFTY TIMES GREATER than the stated 0.1% error level!
 
>This stated error level is carefully and thoroughly documented in the
>paper. If anything, it is conservative.
 
>What does "not very large in relation to the... accuracy" mean? Does Richard
>think that there is not much difference between a 0.1% error and a 5% error?
>Can you read, Richard? Did you ever learn simple arithmetic?
 
 
Jed, if I write:
 
1.23 +/- 0.02 (systematic) +/- 0.50  J (say), does this mean anything to you?
 
This is how most experimental measurements should be written, with both
systematic and random uncertainties present.  It's a hell of a lot easier to
determine random uncertainties, so most experimentalists do this and
assume (often with good cause) that the systematic errors are negligible.
You cannot add the errors together, even in quadrature, because systematic
and random errors are orthogonal.  So if an experiment reports a result with
just one uncertainty tagged on, one assumes that it is the random
uncertainty. One is thus free to make assumptions about the systematic
uncertainty  if the experimenters have been at all vague in their
reasoning why the systematic uncertainty is negligible.  At least, this is
how it works in nuclear physics.
 
I can't say much about it, but
some calorimetry experts seem to be unhappy about McKubre's systematic error
analysis, and as he hasn't supplied a number for it, they are quite
entitled to say there might be a 5% systematic error.  I await Tom's triple
experiment to fix a properly measured number to this uncertainty.
 
But then this is all old hat to this group, so PLEASE stop lumping
uncertainties together. It's very tedious.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencolin cudfnHenderson cudlnColin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.20 / mitchell swartz /  Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Input Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 17:48:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement,
    Message-ID <C5ronz.5Fq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 Cameron Randale Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU)  writes:
 
==ms  "...  when the announcement was made in "the March" the level was
==ms  (I think) circa 20 Watts/cm^3.
==ms  That peak excess power density has increased until at present reports
==ms  in the range of 1000 to 2000+ Watts/cm^3 are more common."
 
==db  "Since I can't seem to find the initial P&F paper in the mess around
==db   here, I'll have to rely on memory.  I remember claims of
==db   1000 W/cm^3 from the first, so suggestion that the claims
==db   have 'increased' seems incorrect."
 
    Dale:
             Comments more appropriate for a grasshopper.
 
             From the paper (p.304):
 
   "(b) Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode"
 
 [M. FLEISCHMANN, S. PONS, "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of
           Deuterium", J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301 (1989)]
 
                                            -  Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 22:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <EACHUS.93Apr21165519@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>  >                              There is no way for him to have
>  > 'checked' the conclusion that the demonstration implied, so he
>  > was at the mercy of those who were talking to him.  The pliability
>  > of that o-ring could have had absolutely nothing to do
>  > with that accident.  I doubt he did detained thermal studies of the
>  > solid-boosters to determine if the thermal mass of the fuel combined
>  > with solar heating at that time of day kept the o-rings warm enough.
>
>    I'm sorry you feel that ANY analysis was needed.  At the time of
>the launch there was still ice on the boosters, thus the booster
>temperature had to be near or below freezing.
 
     Good engineers are very careful about jumping to untoward conclusions.
     The booster did *not* have to be at or below freezing.  Do you
     happen to know the thermal conductivity of the solid fuel?
     Show me that it equilibrated at or below freezing during the
     time it had to cool down.  The thing is huge and it was insulated to
     an extent by the aforementioned ice hanging from it.
 
     Keep in mind also that things had warmed a bit as well before the launch.
     Please calculate for me the thermal conditions of the seals
     *at launch*.
 
     This was not as trivial a problem as some seem to think.
     There had been other problems with the solid boosters as
     well as problems with the SSME's that could well have been
     the primary difficulty.  In this instance, jumping to conclusions could
     have left more dead astronauts.
 
>  > Nor probably did he do detailed studies the effect of impinging hot
>  > gases on the pliability of the o-rings.
>
>    These had already been done.  Impinging hot gases were a no-no as
>they rapidly eroded the O-rings, allowing exactly the situation that
>occured.  The O-rings needed to be flexible enough that they tracked
>the deformation of the clevis joint.
 
      Nor did he do them.  However, how did Mr. Feyman know that
      thermal conditions a couple of seconds after launch did not
      sufficiently heat the o-rings without degredation that they
      again appropriately performed the task allotted?
 
>  >    This was a talented man, not a god.  He made mistakes like the
>  > rest of us.  Excessive credulity is a mistake.  He apparently
>  > lent his prestige to something that he could not check.
>
>    He DID check, then he reported his results.  The novelty was
>figuring out how to do the key experiment while sitting on a very
>political investigating panel.  (And where he knew that he could get
>his hands on the sample, but couldn't take it out of the room.) If he
>had squeezed the sample of the O-ring with the pliers and it rapidly
>returned to its original shape when released, he could have abandoned
>this line of inquiry.  But when cold, it behaved more like putty than
>rubber.  He was lending his prestige to a very simple repeatable
>experiment which he had just performed.  If the elasticity was within
>a few percent of the necessary figure, finger pointing could have gone
>on for a long time.  But this was not even close.
 
      As I will keep repeating, I believe the 'demonstration' was not
      his idea, it was suggested to him.  The novelty was not his.
 
      It's interesting that Feynman's 'defenders' in this instance
      don't seem to account for Feynman's apparent chagrin regarding
      this episode.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Is this simple enough?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is this simple enough?
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 01:29:57 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
>Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 927:
 
>>=ms "His laboratory reports generating this baseline excess thirty-eight times.
>>=ms  These were in the range of 1-30% above input power.  The irregular
>>=ms                           \/\/\/\/
>>=ms  anomalous heat "bursts", generating >300% excess power, were found to
>>=ms  initiate spontaneously, but much more rarely, three times."
>>=ms   ["Dr. Michael McKubre's EPRI talk at MIT [9/24/1992]", by M. Swartz]
 
>Some of you seem to be forgetting that there is a lot of convection in these
>cells, and thus large fluctuations.
>I did a little experiment: I happen to have a file of random numbers with a
>Gaussian distribution. I took 100000 of these, and found that 1225 stuck out
>to 3 sigma, and - wait for it! - 48 stuck out to 4 sigma!! I think if I took
>the whole sequence (10^6 numbers) I'd even get some at 5 sigmas. This is
>definitely nuclear, you'll agree.
 
>To be fair, and getting back down to Earth, McKubre and others have said that
>while they see positive heat events, they don't seem to see negative ones.
>This argues against an interpretation in terms of mere statistical
>fluctuations; and I would like someone to do a probability density
>distribution of these temperature sample sequences, it might throw some light
>on the experiments.
 
The argument that heat pulses in McKubre's experiments are due to convection
sound like the old argument, N. Lewis argument 'shaken not stired'.  I
guess if the sampling frequency is low, and the sample time is fast, he
might hit a few statistical bubbles of convective heat.  Unfortunatly I
don't have the McKubre paper so I can comment on the details, but if
he is as good of an experimenter as he sounds, I'm sure that was
pretty much taken into account.  Mixxing is certainly an area where
a source of error can be introduced as I've found out in my own
basement experiments.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 /  morrison@vxpri /  Repost of Cold Fusion Update No. 7.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Repost of Cold Fusion Update No. 7.
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 11:38:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dear Bruce,                                             22 April 1993.
            I thought our little discussion which you chose to make in public,
was finished. However you added;
"I could not understand why you would publically post news about patent issues
at the University(twice) without checking with me or Dr. Liaw first since we
are the primary source of information. If you had checked with me I would
have been able to correct your misunderstanding about the patent situation
before it is posted here. As you said so well "If you had something serious
and disagreeable to to say, thought you would have taken the precaution
(and the politeness) to check privately first." Indeed."
    Guess this does need a last comment.
    Well, actually I did check. At Nagoya after it was announced that the
4th Conference would be in Hawaii, I spoke to your colleague, Dr. Liaw,
and said I was surprised because the University was giving up its patents.
He replied "You seem to know everything" which I interpreted as a classical
response imply agreement. We then chatted a bit longer.
     Thanks for your other information.
 
    As you say "Peace".
 
               Aloha,
 
                        Douglas.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Peter Card /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter J Card)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 10:11:23 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

On the one hand, if we admit Arthur C. Clarke`s authority as a science writer,
we should also admit that of Isaac Asimov ( actually, most of Asimov`s
prodigious output was science fact, "popularising" science, so he ought
to rate a bit higher ). And in the last of Asimov`s science columns in
F&SF magazine, he dismissed CF out of hand as non-science.
 
On the other hand, Clarke`s 2nd(?) Law is of direct relevance. To paraphrase,
"When an elderly but distinguished scientist proclaims that something is
impossible, he is almost certainly wrong"
( he did not of course have Asimov in mind when he wrote that!!)
 
And on the gripping hand, if there is a real physical effect, it will
eventually be demonstrated to everyone`s satisfaction. Appeals to
authority will become irrelevent. But its a big "if".
--
__._____.___._____.__._______________________________________________________
__|_. ._| ._|_._._|__| Peter Card, Joint European Torus, Abingdon
    | | | |_. | |    | Oxfordshire OX14 3EA UK. tel 0235-464867 FAX 464404
    | | |  _| | |    | email pjc@jet.uk or compuserve 100010,366
  ._| | | |_. | |    | It wasnt me. It was the others. They made me do it.
--`--~'-+---+-+-+----+-------------------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpjc cudfnPeter cudlnCard cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Mike Jamison /  Rant & rave mode = off
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rant & rave mode = off
Date: 22 Apr 1993 10:07 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

OK, this has nothing to do with fusion, right from the start.  But, I find
the discussion of Feynman & SRBs (solid rocket boosters) rather interesting.
 
A friend of mine, who worked for a NASA contractor back in the Apollo days,
said something like this about the shuttle accident:
 
"If every engineer's concern was taken into accuont during a launch, there
would *never* be a launch."  In the case of the shuttle, in other words,
there are possibly several out-of-tolerance warnings for every launch.
 
In other words, the thing is so complex that the probability of everything
being within acceptable limits is quite low.
 
Remember the study that was performed after the Challenger accident:  The
probability of another catastrophic accident is about 1 in 80.  One catastrophe
involves a bird being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so all things can't
even be taken into account.
 
Space exploration is dangerous.  Once we accept that fact, we'll get more
done in space.  If we don't accept that fact, the next Challenger type
accident (whether from an O-ring or a bird) will probably shut down our
manned space program.
 
BTW, the engineers who "blew the whistle" on the O-ring could have suggested
a few alternatives to just scrubbing the launch - the simplest one I can
think of is taking a torch out to the SRBs and warming the O-rings to the
proper temperature (OK, maybe an electric blanket or something like that,
not a torch :-) ).  Would this have changed the outcome?  Did said engineers
suggest such alternatives (I don't know, wasn't privvy to the goings on at
the time).
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Henderson Colin /  Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
     
Originally-From: colin@physci.uct.ac.za (Henderson, C, Colin, HNDCOL002)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
Date: 22 Apr 93 09:54:31 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

 
Mitchell writes:
 
>==ch
>==ch     1.23 +/- 0.02 (systematic) +/- 0.50  J (say),
>==ch                                 does this mean anything to you?
>==ch
 
>  What is 0.50 J (say)?
 
Sorry, I wanted to give my numbers some units, and " J (say)" meant I
arbitrarily assigned Joules to my numbers.  I'm sorry about the lack of
clarity.
 
Let's try again:
 
The heat output (for example) is:
1.23 +/- 0.02 (systematic) +/- 0.50 (random) J
 
i.e. we have two types of errror connected to our result.  We don't add them
together because they are different things, and it is instructive to the
reader of the paper to see both.
 
>  Also, one line appears to indicate that your equation
> "is how most experimental measurements should be written", but the second
> line indicates one should not "add the errors together, even in quadrature,
>  because systematic and random errors are orthogonal."
 
>  Could you please clarify and reconcile them?
>                                                   Thanks.
 
I'm not sure why the above two sentences are irreconcilable.   What I was
trying to say is that a lot of papers quote only the random uncertainty, and
explain in the text in some way or other that the systematic uncertainty is
much smaller.   As Dick Blue said earlier, this is often not the case, and
there is often some source of errror overlooked, which is very difficult to
detect, and often only comes to light only when a different measurement of
the same physical quantity is performed.
 
If the random and systematic uncertainties are comparable, then it is very
instructive to see both, and a small random uncertainty, which might be
carefully and correctly measured, does *NOT* necessarily mean that the
systematic uncertainty in the experiment is also small.
 
i.e. 0.1% might just as well be 5%. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencolin cudfnHenderson cudlnColin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Ad aspera /  Re: Rant & rave mode = off
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rant & rave mode = off
Date: 22 Apr 1993 15:15:46 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

In article <22APR199310070615@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) wrote:
 
> Space exploration is dangerous.  Once we accept that fact, we'll get more
> done in space.  If we don't accept that fact, the next Challenger type
> accident (whether from an O-ring or a bird) will probably shut down our
> manned space program.
 
Accepting the inherent hazards of an activity is courage.
 
Blundering into unforeseen hazards is learning.
 
Ignoring warnings and forging ahead with much to be lost and
disproportionately little to be gained is foolishness.
 
See what I'm getting at?  Driving is a useful activity, but
you do it differently or even "scrub the mission" if you
see that one of your tires is bald.  Other analogies may be
found throughout life:  you balance the risk against the
benefit, and, by implication, you take a clear look at both.
 
Sure, space exploration is dangerous.  It always will be, and
anybody who thinks otherwise is cruisin' for a bruisin.'  But
a smart *engineering* culture always stays aware of the "risk
envelope," so to speak, and behaves accordingly.
 
>"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen,
>but thinking what no one else has thought"
>                                               -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
 
"It was an EXPEDITION, madam.  Adventures are the result
of poor planning."
      -Adm. Byrd (apocryphal)
 
Regards,
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / J Lewis /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:39:30 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Apr21.173838.22101@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>...
>However, I think the subtle lesson to be learned from
>Feynman's popular books (Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care...)
>is that being *known as* a super genious is mostly due to selective
>recall, chance and a dash of self-promotion. For example, most of
>his fantanstic lock picking abilities were just luck, plus him acting
>like it wasn't.
 
Surely not.  A great deal of hard work and determination, plus the occasional
shrewd insight, more into human nature than into locks, were required.
The few Great Men that I have met (Feynman unfortunately not among them)
have impressed me more for their tremendous energy and drive than
for their considerable intellectual powers.
 
>And similarly throughout many of his other escapades.
>I think he was trying to make the point that being a magical genius
>is really just an image---the true inside story is often rather ordinary.
 
1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, and a smidgen of luck.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / mitchell swartz /  Rand & rave mode = off
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rand & rave mode = off
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 20:22:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <JTCHEW-220493080027@b50-afrd4.lbl.gov>
      Subject: Re: Rant & rave mode = off
Joe {from the People's Republic of Berkeley"; JTCHEW@lbl.gov) writes:
 
=mj "Space exploration is dangerous.  Once we accept that fact, we'll get more
=mj done in space.  If we don't accept that fact, the next Challenger type
=mj accident (whether from an O-ring or a bird) will probably shut down our
=mj manned space program."
      [article <22APR199310070615@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> Mike Jamison]
==
==  "Accepting the inherent hazards of an activity is courage."
 
   That would make the stealing of lifeboats from children "courageous"
if there is a risk at being at sea as the ship sinks nearby.  It would
make the less courageous of any two paths "courageous" because of an
"awareness" of a hazard.  Perhaps the calculus is more complicated.
 
   Joe, how about:  Courage is:
 
    "the mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand
     danger, fear, or difficulty"    [Webster, ibid.]
 
 
==  "Blundering into unforeseen hazards is learning."
 
   Learning requires survival of the blunder, its sequelae, and the
    sentient cognition to glean (and remember) something therefrom.
 
                            Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Rand & rave mode = off
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rand & rave mode = off
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:10:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C5wJ9t.33D@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <JTCHEW-220493080027@b50-afrd4.lbl.gov>
>      Subject: Re: Rant & rave mode = off
>Joe {from the People's Republic of Berkeley"; JTCHEW@lbl.gov) writes:
>
>=mj "Space exploration is dangerous.  Once we accept that fact, we'll get more
>=mj done in space.  If we don't accept that fact, the next Challenger type
>=mj accident (whether from an O-ring or a bird) will probably shut down our
>=mj manned space program."
>      [article <22APR199310070615@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> Mike Jamison]
>==
>==  "Accepting the inherent hazards of an activity is courage."
>
>   That would make the stealing of lifeboats from children "courageous"
>if there is a risk at being at sea as the ship sinks nearby.  It would
>make the less courageous of any two paths "courageous" because of an
>"awareness" of a hazard.  Perhaps the calculus is more complicated.
 
     Marvelous reasoning.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Rant & rave mode = off
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rant & rave mode = off
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 23:39:51 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <22APR199310070615@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
  > A friend of mine, who worked for a NASA contractor back in the Apollo days,
  > said something like this about the shuttle accident:
 
  > "If every engineer's concern was taken into accuont during a launch, there
  > would *never* be a launch."  In the case of the shuttle, in other words,
  > there are possibly several out-of-tolerance warnings for every launch.
  ...
 
    The most important event in the chain had nothing to do with the
shuttle at all.  The head of NASA was on admistrative leave while a
very bogus ethics charge was being resolved.  (No one involved in the
case thought that he had anythong to do with the wrongdoing, but since
Beggs had been a director of the company at the time, government
ethics rules made it impossible for him to perform his job at NASA.)
So for the first time in a long time, we had a manager not an engineer
at the top.
 
     A procedure started by George Low was that, before a manned
launch, he would call the key engineers get there opinions on these
"worry" issues and decide whether or not to launch.  Any engineer
could and would pull the plug if the situation changed substantially,
but basically they communicated their worries to George and got on
with the job.
 
     Beggs followed this legacy, but on the fatal day, he wasn't
there.  Administrators in the chain of command (and at Thiokol)
suppressed the bad news, and the acting adminstrator didn't know where
to get the straight scoop, and wouldn't have been able to evaluate it
if he had.
 
  > BTW, the engineers who "blew the whistle" on the O-ring could
  > have suggested a few alternatives to just scrubbing the launch -
  > the simplest one I can think of is taking a torch out to the SRBs
  > and warming the O-rings to the proper temperature (OK, maybe an
  > electric blanket or something like that, not a torch :-) ).  Would
  > this have changed the outcome?  Did said engineers suggest such
  > alternatives (I don't know, wasn't privvy to the goings on at the
  > time).
 
     They did. More importantly lots of engineers gave essentially the
same answer: don't launch with ice on the boosters.  Unfortunately,
for other reasons, by morning this amounted to don't launch.  (I won't
go into all the complex schedule interactions, but any further delay
would have required the launch to be delayed for weeks. Remember that
several weather delays had already left the Challenger on the pad
longer than any previous ready-to-launch shuttle.)  Incidently, part
of the problem was that ice in the clevis joints could expand them, so
it was the combination of freezing rain and low temperatures that was
considered dangerous.
 
     As to changing the outcome, you are really into guessing here.
Just protecting the clevis joints against moisture earlier would
probably have resulted in a successful launch.  (If the joint had
lasted a few seconds longer, the SRBs would have been jettisoned as
the burnthrough occured.)
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 22:27:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <EACHUS.93Apr21155211@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>   (attacking Arthur C. Clarke) About like
>attacking Benjamin Franklin's work on electricity because he was a
>also a politician.  (Actually, Clarke has done a lot to create a
>nation in Sri Lanka, and he certainly has created their educational
>system almost from whole cloth.)  Clarke's 1946 paper on communication
>satellites launched (ouch!) the field, and was just one of his many,
>many contributions to the field of communications and control systems.
>During World War II he worked on using radar to land planes in adverse
>conditions.  I just finished reading his new book on submarine
>cables...
>
While Arthru C. Clarke has been working on the educational system
in Sri Lanka (a rather out of the way nation if you can even find it
on the map) he certainly hasn't been performing experiments of any
sort in cold fusion. As a mater of fact, whatever his credentials,
he isn't an experimentalist. This is not to detract anything from him.
 
However, if, as has been reported here, he has taken cold fusion with
such seriousness that he has commented favorably on it we must question
where he has gotten _his_ information on it.
 
Let's just mention in passing what someone else had considered to be an
intelligent suggestion of his -- a space elevator (skyhook as I recall).
It is true that the material to build this can be conceived, yet the
strongest theoretical material (and need I point out that actual materials
are generally an order of magnitude less strong) is still an order of
magnitude weaker than necessary? And as I recall the calculations _only_
considered hanging weight? It didn't consider aerodynamic, orbital or
centrifigal loadings?
 
The point here is that Arthur C. Clarke may very well have some very
interesting ideas. But so does Terry. And I warrant that Terry's ideas
on CNF are bound to be more likely to be on the track.
 
Arthru C. Clarke has made his entire fame from 'farfetches'. In many of
these cases he has been forced to take others words for whether something
works or doesn't work without looking into the details himself. Since
he was successful at so many I would suggest that he has become too
complacent and naive concerning CNF (_IF_ he is supporting it.)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Barry Merriman /  feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 04:42:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C5wBpv.qJ@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.173838.22101@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
> >...
> >However, I think the subtle lesson to be learned from
> >Feynman's popular books (Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care...)
> >is that being *known as* a super genious is mostly due to selective
> >recall, chance and a dash of self-promotion.
>
> Surely not.  A great deal of hard work and determination, plus the occasional
> shrewd insight, more into human nature than into locks, were required.
 
>
> 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, and a smidgen of luck.
 
Well, his best lock picking story---and the one that did the most
to spread his reputation---is when he went to show his buddy
his new algorithm (for trying _all possible combos quickly_), and
accidently hit the combination on the second or third try. The onlookers
thought he had some brilliant picking method.
 
Now, do you call that a smidgen of luck?
 
His second best story is how he kept the combos of the safes
that he was able to obtain while the doors were open, and then
when someone needed such a safe cracked, he would pretend to work
on it, but really just use the combo he had determined previosuly.
 
Is that 99% perspiration?
 
To reduce it to your ingredients, I'd say *looking* like a genius
is 50% inspiration, 50% luck, and a smidgen of perspiration.
 
 
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  No, it is not V^2*R!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No, it is not V^2*R!
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 14:34:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege has revealed a significant flaw in the method Mike McKubre
has been using to determine the power input for his CF experiments.  From
at least one response it is very clear that there is much confusion about
the measurement of one of the most basic quantities in these experiments.
This is so important, even I (grin) get a bit nervous when trying to state
this correctly.  I believe I am correct in saying that the instantaneous
power input can be given as the product  i(t)*v(t).  The determination
of the electrical energy delivered involves the integration of this
product over a finite time interval.  The problem that has perhaps not
been recognized is the fact that the time dependences of i and v can,
a generally are, completely different.  It becomes an essential part
of designing a CF experiment that the methods used to measure i and v
and to determine the integral of their product be matched to the actual
time characteristics for the process under investigation.
 
As Tom has correctly pointed out, making the two measurements with
a DC voltmeter is not guaranteed to give the correct result.  Hence
there is serious doubt that McKubre's careful measurements are
accurate.  One way of dealing with the problem is to use Fourier
analysis to describe the time dependence of i and v and to
determine the power input as a function of frequency.  In that
context it is possible to define a load impedence in terms of
resistive and reactive components.  Only if the load is purely
resistive will i and v have the same time dependence.  In the
case of cold fusion the first guess would be that the load is
capacitive.  (See Terry's recent post about the Moore effect.)
 
Actually, I suspect that there is a further possible hitch that
may limit the applicability of the notion of a load impedence or
at least require giving it some careful thought.  Basically the
problem stems from the need to separate reversible processes from
irreversible processes.  I want to pose this as a question to
see if the electrochemists clear up some aspects of this problem.
My question basically has to do with how one recognizes the d
difference between an electrochemical cell that is rechargable
and an electrolytic capacitor of huge capacitance.  Your thoughts?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 17:37:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ray Casterline writes:
>I would just like to make it know that there are other gov't funded
>fusion projects besides Tokamak.  I am currently involved in a project
>to upgrade the Omega laser here at the U or R from a 24 beam 2KJ laser
>to a 60 beam 30KJ one.  This laser is to be used for inertial confinement
>fusion research and, it is being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
It would be more accurate to say there is one other technical approach
funded by DoE:  laser inertial confinement.  The laser work started as
classified weapons research. I don't know what is going on with the
current laser work.  Perhaps you would care to update us on its prospects
vs funding requirements to achieve those prospects over some specified
time?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 17:37:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

mitchell swartz writes:
>jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>==mk "Matt Kennel writes:
>==mk >Radioactive waste is a great kind of pollution: it goes
>==mk  away by itself.
>          [Message-ID: <1qvdao$9s8@network.ucsd.edu>; Matt Kennel]
>
>==jb  "So do most carcinogenic compounds."
>
> Whew... Be careful.  According to this logic there is therfore no problem(s)
 
>           with contamination, corrosion, loss of, or inaccessible, records,
>           leakage, induced radioactivity, faded giants, dull swords,
>           broken arrows, discarded cobalt irradiators, sunken nuclear
>           submarines, .... ,
 
Swartz all but states that my comment was something other than a reductio
ad absurdum.  But to those with decent reading comprehension, the following
semantic hair-splitting proves he knew better.
 
>==jb  "The real issue is the time-integrated risk."
>
>  The real issue is the ratio:
>                                  time-integrated risk
>                                 -----------------------
>                                 time-integrated benefit
 
Why would he perform such a flip-flop?  The only answers I can come
up with reflect poorly on Swartz's character.  I find this distressing
as I am usually sympathetic with Swartz's comments.
 
>==jb   "With high specific radioactivity and
>==jb  large masses, the advantages of a "short" half-life are
>==jb  relatively small compared to most toxic."
>
>   May not be so.  O15-positron emission tomography, for example, is used
>to evaluate soft tissue sarcomata for the bulk metabolic parameters (eg.
>regional blood flow).  With a half-life of minutes, this material can be
>confined, controlled, and safely utilized yielding a very big advantage.
 
At least this comment has some reasonable content, except for the fact
that the context of this discussion was the activation of stainless
steel (in the tokamak), which is orders of magnitude away from the
present example.  Therefore even this comment serves mainly to promote
pointless debate/argument.
 
If Swartz has nothing better to do than to waste our time, I know of
some good match making services in the former Soviet Union that could
provide him with much more pleasant and ultimately fulfilling ways to
spend his life.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 17:37:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Jamison writes:
>
>In article <m0nlZ2X-00001UC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes...
>>If the history of the Tokamak vs alternates, the shuttle vs expendibles,
>>the SSC vs novel alternatives and the space station vs commercially
>>developed space facilities are any guide, in practice it isn
>
>Commercially developed space facilities???  When it becomes commercially
>profitable for private companies to develop their own:
>
>1)  Boosters/HLVs
>2)  Space stations
>3)  Space habitats
>4)  Fusion reactors
 
As chairman for the Coalition for Science and Commerce, I've been the
the principle lobbyist for the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 and
for the launch voucher provision of the Rep. George Brown's
commercialization bill which was passed last year.  I, and those who
have helped in these legislative efforts, have done this at considerable
sacrifice while fighting people who, like you, are paid out of our
pockets.  We don't pay you to insolently oppose our efforts to create
incentives for you.  You oppose our efforts not simply because you prefer
the security of government funding to the challenge of market incentives --
you are so ethically bankrupt that you don't see the conflict of interest
inherent in taking our money and then competing with us in the political
arenas that concern the conditions under which you will be given more
of our money.  Of course, NASA doesn't have a monopoly on ethical
bankruptcy, as can be seen from the behavior of the DoE fusion
community when we have attempted to introduce legislation to reform
that program with market incentives.
 
>What do you think will happen?  As far as I know, there isn't anything
>keeping *any* U.S. company from building its own space station, except the
>return on investment.
 
And that was to be taken care of by a $600M market guarantee under the
late Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldridge with government anchor
tenancy for the Industrial Space Facility.  I lobbied for support of
this proposal along with Baldridge's Office of Commercial Space back
in 1987-88.  NASA vigorously opposed our efforts and eventually won.
 
See the most recent Space News for a revival of the idea of a commercially
developed space facility.
 
(BTW:  The CDSF would have been flying experiments by now were it not
 for NASA's opposition to the creation of these commercial incentives.)
 
>If
>you believe these companies "can't afford" to do this kind of research,
>you're fooling yourself.  They just see no reason to do so, when the good
>old gov't *is*, in a rather misdirected, muddled, but progressive, way).
 
You make my point quite well.  The government is the biggest monopoly
of them all, accountable only to the political process.  When those
receiving government funds can fight back via the political process,
as opposed to via raw competitive technical performance, no one, not IBM,
not GM, dares to compete.  Just ask George Koopman, founder of American
Rocket Company who raised millions in private capital to develop
hybrid rocket technology that NASA dropped in the 60's, only to have
his suppliers harrassed with threats of terminated contracts by NASA,
have his competitors given money by NASA to put him out of business
and then keep the results of that funding out of the hands of AMROC.
Oops... sorry, you CAN'T ask him...  he's dead.  Ok, ask Gerald Bull
who actually started building an aerospace cannon which NASA and the
DoD rejected -- driving him into the hands of third world powers.
Oops, sorry, he's dead too.  Ok, then since Baldridge is dead too,
let's go ask his Office of Commercial Space, which Baldrige set up to
promote the Commercially Developed Space Facility.  Oops.. sorry,
the current director is Scott Pace who, when he was Chairman of the
Legislative Committee of the "grassroots" National Space Society (and
 also a Rand employee) blocked our efforts to activate grassroots
support for Baldridge's CDSF back in 1988 because, as Sandra Adamson,
a Space Station Freedom contractor and comember of the Legislative
Committee virtually screamed at me over the phone (paraphrasing but
 not exaggerating): "I work on the Space Station Program and CDSF
would threaten it!"
 
>Sure would be nice if, when it came time for taxes, we were able to choose
>where those taxes are to be spent.  Guess where mine would go.
 
I wouldn't mind if you were able to specify that all your tax money were
to go to SSF or ITER or whatever.  What I mind is you taking time to
post messages via your government-funded access to this network to enhance
the climate of government-funded political intimidation against those
who would seek to give you and your managers appropriate incentives.
 
And by that I DON'T mean incentives to pull all your contractors together
to run mass-media ads in support of SSF, nor incentives to fly lots of
people to Washington to make up politically acceptable excuses for
failure to perform.  We've had quite enough of those incentives for the
last few decades, thank you very much.  We've had so much of those
incentives that the fusion program and SSF are both reaching the
point of no return.  You want help?  Then stop opposing our efforts
to reform your programs.
 
>The "problem" with the government is that it isn't a single entity.  It has
>no real goal, other than to make sure its domain is cared for.
 
No, the "problem" is that we expect such an entity to accomplish goals
for us rather than simply establish incentives for us to accomplishment
goals.
 
>Hell, the
>government is really just a figment of our imagination,
 
You have quite the nerve saying such a thing just after April 15th.
Just more of the government-funded insolence that allows you to say most
of the things you have been saying.
 
Leave the politics to people who aren't likely to receive a paycheck
from the programs being discussed.
 
Be ethical.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Jed Rothwell /  The dangers of space travel
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The dangers of space travel
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 22:54:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
JTCHEW writes:
 
"Sure, space exploration is dangerous.  It always will be, and anybody who
thinks otherwise is cruisin' for a bruisin.'"
 
It will not always be dangerous. Eventually, it will become safe and routine.
When Columbus crossed the Atlantic by ship, and when Lindberg flew over it by
airplane, they faced terrible risks. When I crossed, it was safer than taking
a bath, which is good, because otherwise I would have stayed home. Someday, in
the distant future, a young lady living in Australia will commute every day to
a high school for gifted musicians located on the far side of the moon. She
will travel by herself, in perfect safety, doing her homework, in an
automatically piloted spacecraft. She will think nothing of it, and it will
never occur to her that she uses more energy every month than we, her
ancestors, used in a lifetime.
 
Each of us now commands powers, medicine, and tools that would appear God-like
to our distant ancestors. This young lady will make us look primitive.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / J Lewis /  Re: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 19:25:45 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Apr23.044246.11021@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <C5wBpv.qJ@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
>writes:
>> In article <1993Apr21.173838.22101@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
>(Barry Merriman) writes:
>> >...
>> >However, I think the subtle lesson to be learned from
>> >Feynman's popular books (Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care...)
>> >is that being *known as* a super genious is mostly due to selective
>> >recall, chance and a dash of self-promotion.
>>
>> Surely not.  A great deal of hard work and determination, plus the occasional
>> shrewd insight, more into human nature than into locks, were required.
>
>>
>> 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration, and a smidgen of luck.
>
>Well, his best lock picking story---and the one that did the most
>to spread his reputation---is when he went to show his buddy
>his new algorithm (for trying _all possible combos quickly_), and
>accidently hit the combination on the second or third try. The onlookers
>thought he had some brilliant picking method.
>
>Now, do you call that a smidgen of luck?
Aha!  but I never quantified "smidgen"!  His algorithm was obviously
good enough to show off - to make him look good - or he would never have
demonstrated it to his buddy.  Getting the combo _that quickly was just
the icing on the cake.
>
>His second best story is how he kept the combos of the safes
>that he was able to obtain while the doors were open, and then
>when someone needed such a safe cracked, he would pretend to work
>on it, but really just use the combo he had determined previosuly.
>
>Is that 99% perspiration?
Well, taking the combos while his workmates weren't looking, and
keeping track of them, is more perspiration than the other two ingredients.
Again, consider his account of how patiently he cultivated the friendship
of the person he thought was a REAL expert lockpick [his "buddy" you refer
to above? I've forgotten and don't have the books available at the moment].
>
>To reduce it to your ingredients,
   The first two are Edison's, I believe
>I'd say *looking* like a genius
>is 50% inspiration, 50% luck, and a smidgen of perspiration.
With respect, I still think that self-promotion takes a lot of hard work
(as does lock-picking, which in my limited experience has to be one
of the dreariest pastimes ever conceived).
 
Apologies to other readers that this discussion isn't about
fusion - but then, not many articles to sci.physics.fusion are.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Ad aspera /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 23 Apr 1993 20:20:06 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

> It would be more accurate to say there is one other technical approach
> funded by DoE:  laser inertial confinement.
 
And heavy-ion inertial confinement (same principle, but you
drive the target with heavy-ion beams instead of lasers).  The
induction-accelerator flavor of heavy-ion IFE is our bag; send
me E-mail if you'd like a summary report of what we're doing.
Basically, a <$50M proposal is on the table for an FY95
construction start on the next series of experiments (the
validation review is Tuesday -- wish us luck!.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / daniel herrick /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: 23 Apr 93 15:58:38 EST

In article <tomkC5wp1E.Cxq@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
Arthur C. Clarke definitely invented the geosynchronous communication
satelite.  He used the pages of Astounding/Analog to explain over several
months why he did not have a patent on it.  Interesting stuff.  Of course,
even if he had obtained a patent, the seventeen year life of a patent
would have expired before he could collect any royalties.
 
> Let's just mention in passing what someone else had considered to be an
> intelligent suggestion of his -- a space elevator (skyhook as I recall).
 
This is very unlikely to be a Clarke invention.  The first communication
I saw on it was an article in Science sometime in the 1965-1975 period
that I was a member of AAAS.  The editors published it with an apology,
saying it wasn't really what they considered suitable for the journal
but the calculations were done carefully and seriously.  A few weeks
later they printed, without comment (as I remember it) a letter from
a consular official of the USSR government seriously claiming that
they had priority on the idea.  The original article in Science proposed
diamond as the only material they could conceive of meeting the
requirements.
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 23:39:06 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <C5yBAx.I6q@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
writes:
> In article <1993Apr23.044246.11021@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
> >Well, his best lock picking story---and the one that did the most
> >to spread his reputation---is when he went to show his buddy
> >his new algorithm (for trying _all possible combos quickly_), and
> >accidently hit the combination on the second or third try. > >
> >Now, do you call that a smidgen of luck?
 
> Aha!  but I never quantified "smidgen"!  His algorithm was obviously
> good enough to show off - to make him look good - or he would never have
> demonstrated it to his buddy.  Getting the combo _that quickly was just
> the icing on the cake.
 
You are stetching here...as I recall, with his efficient means of
trying all possible combos, he could open any safe in 8 hours, with
a mean time of 4 hours. That he got one in a minute is about 100
standard deviations out of the ordinary. I'd call that a lot of luck.
 
I continue to maintain that Feynmans wide *reputation* as a genius
had more to do with his personality and showmanship, than hard work
or innate genius. On the other hand, his accomplishments in physics
are more an indication of his actual mental ability, since you can't
fool nature.
 
--
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 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.24 / mitchell swartz /  Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 03:59:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <m0nmRM4-0000ayC@crash.cts.com>
    Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
 Jim Bowery) jim@pnet01.cts.com) writes:
 
=>==mk "Matt Kennel writes:
=>==mk >Radioactive waste is a great kind of pollution: it goes
=>==mk  away by itself.
=>          [Message-ID: <1qvdao$9s8@network.ucsd.edu>; Matt Kennel]
=>==jb  "So do most carcinogenic compounds."
=>
=> Whew... Be careful.  According to this logic there is therfore no problem(s)
=
=>           with contamination, corrosion, loss of, or inaccessible, records,
=>           leakage, induced radioactivity, faded giants, dull swords,
=>           broken arrows, discarded cobalt irradiators, sunken nuclear
=>           submarines, .... ,
=
==jb  "Swartz all but states that my comment was something other than a reductio
==jb ad absurdum."
 
   1)  It was Earth Day; a time to reflect.
 
   2)  My comments were about the "Radioactive waste" as a "great kind
   of pollution" and not your comment as can be seen from the diverse
   examples of the quote.   My hope was that you also supported such.
 
   In fact, having gone back and reread your paragraph I am in agreement
   with you, including the "activated stainless steel problem".
        [cf.Jim Bowery) <m0nlZ2X-00001UC@crash.cts.com>]
 
 
=>==jb   "With high specific radioactivity and
=>==jb  large masses, the advantages of a "short" half-life are
=>==jb  relatively small compared to most toxic."
=>
=ms=>   May not be so.  O15-positron emission tomography ....
=ms=> confined, controlled, and safely utilized yielding a very big advantage.
=
==jb "At least this comment has some reasonable content, except for the fact
==jb that the context of this discussion was the activation of stainless
==jb steel (in the tokamak), which is orders of magnitude away from the
==jb present example.  Therefore even this comment serves mainly to promote
==jb pointless debate/argument."
 
      Jim, there may have been an impedance mismatch here   :)
 
      The radiation-induced corrosion effects in shielding, structural,
and support materials (stainless steel was your example I thought) was the
issue.  My post may have drifted because of the above cited example involving
risks as you cited.     Thought I was concurring with you, with the
minor correction of the half-life aspect.
 
                        Thank you for your comments.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.24 /  te_s227@neptun /  Hot Fusion - a suggestion?
     
Originally-From: te_s227@neptune.kingston.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion - a suggestion?
Date: 24 Apr 93 09:03:52 BST
Organization: Computing Services, Kingston Polytechnic

                  Fusion Power? - a Suggestion
 
 
 
Man  has  long thought of unlimited  energy  from  nowhere.  More
recently  we have thought of the possibility of  obtaining  power
from Hydrogen fusion as the sun does.
 
According  to theories developed by Physicists over the  last  40
years, the conditions for the reaction to start and be continued,
realised in the hydrogen bomb, are very high temperature and high
pressure.  In  the  sun this is realised by self gravity  but  to
reproduce this in the laboratory on earth we need to contain  the
hot gas and compress it. The gas is so hot that the atoms are all
ionised and the temperature is so high that material bodies would
not be able to survive the heat. The only container yet suggested
is  the magnetic bottle.  So far this has failed to  support  the
plasma for more than a few milliseconds.
 
I  propose  that the plasma be heated and contained by  the  same
principle  of  the  RF heater,  well known  in  labs.  The  radio
frequency  currents  circulate  in a coil and the  rf  energy  is
absorbed  by  the  hydrogen gas and it  becomes  a  plasma.  This
conducts  electricity  and thus the currents in  the  plasma  are
repelled  by the currents inducing them and thus by  winding  the
coil round a torus the plasma can be contained.
 
I  have done a simple experiment with an RF heater and a tube  of
low pressure air,  and by looking at the gas in the tube I  could
see  the thin line of glowing ionised gas down the centre of  the
tube. It was compressed as the power level was increased.
 
My  feeling from simple calculations indicate that the  frequency
needs to be around 100Khz and the power several hundred kilowatts
to  heat and compress the gas sufficiently to cause reactions  to
take place.
 
The  next  step  is  to consider  how  the  energy  generated  by
thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei ( to form helium )  might
be extracted.  It occurs to me that the power might be  collected
directly from the plasma by electromagnetic methods.  The reason-
ing  is  as followes:  As the rf current increases in  the  first
quarter  cycle of the wave it compresses and heats the  gas  this
causes  reactions  to increase in rate and the gas  opposes  this
change,  as  the next quarter cycle of the current continues  the
gas  expands  "helping" the current.  This means that  energy  is
transferred from the plasma to the current.  In this way oscilla-
tion  may be maintained if the power from the plasma  is  greater
than the power required to heat the gas.  This extra power  comes
from the nuclear reactions in the gas.
 
I  cannot calculate the mathematics of the process,  but it  must
obey the laws of physics.  The connection between the gas and the
currents is similar to the "parametric amplifier" where a  change
in  a  parameter  such as capacitance at  the  correct  frequency
amplifies  an electrical signal.  In this case the  parameter  is
inductance  and this changes as the plasma changes its volume  as
the plasma is a conductor of electricity.
 
I  hope  this article is of interest to  others,  and  if  anyone
would like to try to build one as a commecial enterprise I  would
be  most  interested.  As  I  have  no  capital  my  interest  is
theoretical.
 
Chris. Strevens, 4 December 1988.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudente_s227 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 23 Apr 93 19:26:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

I had written
 
>>The real problem is not so much over-reliance on the tokamak concept, but
>>over-centralisation of effort.
 
And Jim Bowery replied:
 
>What is over-reliance on one technical approach if not an over-
>centralization of effort?  The time has come for the tokamak folks to
>find private financing or shift to new technial approaches.
 
I meant, that even within the tokamak world, too much of the effort
gets channeled in too few directions. "Bandwagon science" is a real
problem, not just with putting everyone on the tokamak, but also with
putting everyone (almost) into gyro-fluid or gyro-kinetic ion approaches.
Lots of people doing the same problem the same way, and pressure from the
funding source to keep it that way.
 
>>All in all, I agree whole-heartedly with the content of Dr Hirsch's letter,
>>suspect many others in fusion do so as well, and add my name to the list of
>>those within mainstream fusion who are deeply concerned about the
>>misdirection and threatened demise of fusion as a physics community of the
>>first rank, and who call for the re-establishment of alternative concepts.
 
>Although the cynic in me tends to discount all tokamak supporters,
>I'll admit that it took some courage for you to say what you just did.
 
You would be right if I worked in the US. Here, it really helps that Europe
is not all one country. I do get support for my views here.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.24 / mitchell swartz /  Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Watts Steady-state
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 18:13:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Apr14.173100.23735@scott.skidmore.edu>
     Subject: Re: Calibrate your daddy
 david atkatz datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu) writes:
 
==da  "Now, will you  please answer the questions: (1) What, precisely
==da   is meant by "100 watts" in the context of the experiment, and
==da  (2) What, precisely, is meant by "steady-state," in the
==da  same context."
 
   David:   This conversation to which you refer was originally between
Jed Rothwell and Dale Bass.  Jed, to whom this question was asked, answered.
For background, first see the references, then I will augment below.  OK?
 
----- BACKGROUND -----------      Question to Jed and Response
 
==jr  Cameron Randale Bass, feeling impatient, asks:
==cb   "What I'd like to hear about are the '100 watt' 'steady-state'
==cb    experimental results.  That seems much more interesting. Please provide
==cb    us with some details of those experiments if you would be so kind. "
==
==jr  "Great! Glad you are interested. Read the Hagelstein paper, and the
==jr  P&F paper in the upcoming Proceedings of the Third Annual CF Conf. It
==jr  should be a knockout."
==
==cb    "Perhaps you could also include a description of what '100 watt' and
==cb    'steady-state' mean to you."
==
==jr  "100 watts is approximately how much heat a 100 watt incandescent light
==jr  radiates (I believe the photons carry off only a few percent).
==jr  Steady state means it wavers up and down much less than the graph of
==jr  P&F's data shown on page 217 of Fire From Ice. Looking at McKubre's
==jr  data on p. 435 of the Second Conf. proceedings, I would say it
==jr  was about as steady as that."
    [Jed Rothwel; Subject: Still not the JJAP; 13 Apr 1993 14:36:19 GMT;
      Message-ID: <930413135345_72240.1256_EHL54-1@CompuServe.COM>]
 
      ========================================================
 
   In that background, David:
 
   100 Watts to me is the power required to perform work at a rate
 of 100 joules per second.
 
   The product of the potential across (volts) and the current through
 (amperes) an electrical load is defined as the input power consumed in watts.
 
    However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.  There is a
  Poynting vector, whose direction (unknown) will be ignored for
  simplicity,  here.
 
   Steady state has several definitions, a few which are listed here:
 
   The condition of a system during which parameters are essentially
 constant, that is: after initial transients and secondary (and higher order)
 fluctuations have all damped out.
 
   However, in periodic systems, steady state indicates that the motion
(or other parameter) is also a periodic quantitity.
 
   In electrical currents, steady state usually indicates an amplitude of
that current which is time invariant.
 
   Why the interest?
                           Best wishes.
                                            -  Mitchell
P.S.  Good references include:
     "Electromechanical Dynamics" Woodson, Melcher (Wiley)
     "Electromagnetic Energy Transmission and Radiation"
           Adler, Chu, Fano (Wiley)
     "Continuum Electromechanics" Melcher (MIT Press)
     "Applied Electromagetism" Shen, Kong (Brooks)
     "Classical Electrodynamics" Jackson (Wiley)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 20:21:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C602Mx.DoE@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     In Message-ID: <1993Apr14.173100.23735@scott.skidmore.edu>
>     Subject: Re: Calibrate your daddy
> david atkatz datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu) writes:
>
>==da  "Now, will you  please answer the questions: (1) What, precisely
>==da   is meant by "100 watts" in the context of the experiment, and
>==da  (2) What, precisely, is meant by "steady-state," in the
>==da  same context."
>
>   David:   This conversation to which you refer was originally between
>Jed Rothwell and Dale Bass.  Jed, to whom this question was asked, answered.
 
     No he didn't.  And you continue to evade below.
 
     Your your unwillingness to answer a direct question
     *in context* is very interesting.  I'd think you'd do better
     to just ignore it than play dance and spin with the question.
 
>   In that background, David:
>
>   100 Watts to me is the power required to perform work at a rate
> of 100 joules per second.
 
     Context matters.  In this case, '100 Watts' is a small fraction
     of input power.
 
>    However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.  There is a
>  Poynting vector, whose direction (unknown) will be ignored for
>  simplicity,  here.
 
     Direction?  You've utterly confused yourself with the definition
     of 'flux'.
 
>   Steady state has several definitions, a few which are listed here:
>
>   The condition of a system during which parameters are essentially
> constant, that is: after initial transients and secondary (and higher order)
> fluctuations have all damped out.
...
>   In electrical currents, steady state usually indicates an amplitude of
>that current which is time invariant.
>
>   Why the interest?
 
     I'm sure it's because the question has never been answered
     by a couple of 'proponents'.
 
     However, again context matters.  'Steady state' in this case
     means 'that average we assume while everything bounces
     around'.  The time '300 hours'ish is significant, and
     the observation that the current measurements are taken
     using DC means at intervals of four minutes is very significant.
     My reading of the paper involved did not expose the
     four minute interval, an interesting oversight considering that
     among the initial scientific criticisms were the observations
     that power readings should be taken continuously and
     that possible transient waveforms should be investigated.
 
     I was actually stunned that Mr. McKubre was apparently not doing so.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / mitchell swartz /  Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Watts Steady-state
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 01:16:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <C608JK.5zJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
===ms   "100 Watts to me is the power required to perform work at a rate
===ms  of 100 joules per second."
=
=db     "Context matters.  In this case, '100 Watts' is a small fraction
=db       of input power."
 
   Mr. Bass asserts that the definition of 100 Watts depends on the context.
   This seems unlikely because such would wreak havoc with the
      International Standards.
 
 
===ms   "However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.  There is a
===ms   Poynting vector, whose direction (unknown) will be ignored for
===ms  simplicity,  here."
===
==db   "Direction?  You've utterly confused yourself with the definition
==db      of 'flux'."
 
  Dale declares a lack of knowledge of the definition of power,
      which is defined by the Poynting theorem, as
 
                         d                        ->  ->
            P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
                         dt
 
  where P is the Power delivered to a volume,  Pd is the power dissipated,
 
    We and Wm are the stored electric, and magnetic, field energies,
   and the integral (with the dot product) represents electromagnetic
 
                                            ->               ->  ->
   energy transmission through free space.  S is a vector =  E x H
   called the Poynting vector.
 
  The theorem can be found in any elementary text, such as
    e.g. page 14 in "Electromagnetic Energy Transmission and
          Radiation" Adler, Chu, Fano (Wiley).
 
 
===ms "Steady state has several definitions, a few which are listed here:
===ms  The condition of a system during which parameters are essentially
===ms  constant, that is: after initial transients and secondary (and higher
===ms  order) fluctuations have all damped out.
===ms  In electrical currents, steady state usually indicates an amplitude of
===ms  that current which is time invariant."
==
==db      " 'Steady state' in this case means 'that average we assume
==db           while everything bounces around'."
 
        Novel.         [Guess we're just not in Kansas anymore again  ;)
 
                   -  Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state (was Re: Pining for the Fiords)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (was Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 08:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C60M6r.yK@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     In Message-ID: <C608JK.5zJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>     Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state
> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>===ms   "100 Watts to me is the power required to perform work at a rate
>===ms  of 100 joules per second."
>=
>=db     "Context matters.  In this case, '100 Watts' is a small fraction
>=db       of input power."
>
>   Mr. Bass asserts that the definition of 100 Watts depends on the context.
>   This seems unlikely because such would wreak havoc with the
>      International Standards.
 
     'In context', *in context*, _in context_, {\bf in context}.
 
     As I have patiently explained before, '100 watts' is not very
     impressive on its own if the input power is 500 terawatts.
     On the other hand, if the input power is 500 picowatts, it's
     pretty impressive.  Elaboration on this and other contexts
     is provided in some detail in previous postings that you've ignored.
 
     But of course you probably already know that, and this is just
     a pointless attempt to dodge and parry.
 
>===ms   "However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.  There is a
>===ms   Poynting vector, whose direction (unknown) will be ignored for
>===ms  simplicity,  here."
>===
>==db   "Direction?  You've utterly confused yourself with the definition
>==db      of 'flux'."
>
>  Dale declares a lack of knowledge of the definition of power,
>      which is defined by the Poynting theorem, as
>
>                         d                        ->  ->
>            P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
>                         dt
 
     You've utterly confused yourself, my boy.  A hint: You might want to
     look up the terms 'vector' and 'scalar' *before* you use
     them again in a sentence.  I think you'll find that quite helpful.
 
     And you've once again ignored the question.  Fish or cut bait.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / Jim Bowery /  And Then There's Bandwagon Science
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 16:41:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce Scott writes:
>... even within the tokamak world, too much of the effort
>gets channeled in too few directions. "Bandwagon science" is a real
>problem, not just with putting everyone on the tokamak, ...
>Lots of people doing the same problem the same way, and pressure from the
>funding source to keep it that way.
 
Given the the dismal track record of "bandwagon science", why do you
think there is "pressure from the funding source to keep it that way" ?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 07:00:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Douglas Morrison (morrison@vxprix.cern.ch) writes in FD 935:
 
>     An example. The original Fleischmann and Pons paper says that an
>overpotential of 0.8 eV can be obtained readily. "The astronomical magnitude
>of this value can be appreciated readily; attempts to attain this level via
>the compression of D2 (step iv) would require pressures in excess of 10 E 26
>atm." And in his lecture at CERN on 31st March, Fleischmann said that the
>calculation of fugacity gave 10 E 27 atmospheres. With the wonderful charm of
>his lecture and everyone's desire to have this wonderful, ecologically sound
>new source of energy, disbelief was suspended and criticism muted. However
>suspect that Feynman would have said "10 E 27 atm but that would have blown the
>Palladium rod apart if it was a real pressure as suggested". To give an idea,
>this would collapse atoms to neutrons - a neutron star would have been created!
>    Could anyone please tell me - Have Fleischamnn or Pons ever withdrawn this
>claim that is so obviously based on a fundamental misunderstanding?
 
Their only real error consists in giving this number units of pressure, giving
the impression that it is so many atmospheres. I don't believe Fleischmann is
unaware of the error, he being one of the leading electrochemists in the
world. I am a little concerned about the 0.8 V figure; they do not say how
they measured it, and this is in fact nontrivial. However, if it was indeed
0.8 V, then there is some argument for using the Nernst equation and thus
arriving at a FUGACITY  of 10^26 or so. Electrochemists who know a thing or
two are divided on this. One, who is a leading expert on electrochemical
thermodynamics, told me that this is a misapplication of the Nernst equation,
confusing kinetics with thermodynamics. I can, however, think of other
nonequilibrium situations where I would have no scruples in using the
equation. Bockris, on the other hand, defends not only its use in this way,
but also states that the thus-calculated fugacity is in fact equivalent to the
same magnitude of pressure within the body of the PdD. He (and coauthor)
reckon that although the wall pressure might be only about 10^4 atm, this is
not the same as particle-particle interaction away from the walls. The figure
of 10^4 atm equivalent pressure, interestingly enough, comes from a 1970's
paper by Bockris and coauthor, who point out the very steep relationship
between fugacity and pressure at high pressures, and conclude that in metal
hydrides the pressure gets up to this figure (10^4 atm) and causes brittle
fracture - which of course also happens to PdD during its expansion by 16% as
it absorbs hydrogen (or deuterium).
 
So the answer is no, they have not really retracted the figure, although they
have, somewhere, I believe, said that it is a fugacity. And it is not a
fundamental misunderstanding but a controversy.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 07:31:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) in FD 939:
 
>Most of you seem to be ignoring the fact that certain cirles have
>long held that Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for many applications - e.g.
>in automobiles, where the only polution is from the steam generated
>by combustion.
 
This is a fond myth, like so many in the alternative energy scene,
unfortunately (I am all for alternative energy). It is true that if you burn
hydrogen with oxygen, all you get is heat and water. But you normally burn
hydrogen with air, which contains a lot of nitrogen. Unless you take care to
somehow lower the temperature of burning, quite a bit of that nitrogen will
oxidise as well, and you get a NOXious byproduct, i.e. NOx, a mixture of
various stoichiometries of nitrogen oxides. Lowering the temperature can be
done and you thereby reduce the production of NOx. But the point is that is
an oversimplification to say that burning hydrogen is 100% clean. It may still
be about the best we can come up with. Bockris has been one of the leading
proponents of what he calls the hydrogen economy, since about the 1970's. I
was also told once that it is cheaper to push hydrogen through a pipe than
electricity through a cable; can anyone out there confirm or deny this?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Chuck Harrison /  Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Input Power Measurement
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 12:31:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Tom Droege has recently commented on electrical power measurement in
general and McKubre's work in particular.  I add my thoughts as follows:
 
FLUCTUATING (AC) COMPONENTS OF POWER
  When both current (I) and voltage (V) are fluctuating, the product
  <I> * <V> will usually differ from the average power <P> = < I * V >.
  ( <X> represents the time-averaged or "DC" value of X .  ) This
  point has been made many times on this net.  However, as McKubre
  mentions explicitly in the ICCF2 paper (and as has also been
  discussed here by Tom and others), "As long as the voltage noise ...
  [is] random, no unmeasured rms heating can result under constant
  current control." That is, if I is constant, then < I * V > = I *
  <V>.  The requirement of "random" voltage noise is related to the
  fact that measurements were made intermittently.  Clearly, if the
  fluctuations were time-correlated with the measurement cycle, bias
  errors could occur.  No correlation, no bias.  (In fact, that's
  effectively the definition of correlation.)
 
  In order to obtain constant current, McKubre used a Kepco BOP 20-20M
  laboratory power supply.  Kepco rates the output impedance of this
  unit (in constant-current mode) as 0.2 uf || 36 kohm.  The -3dB
  bandwidth is rated at 2.0 kHz (in both current and voltage modes).  If
  the cell voltage noise is at low frequency (say a few hundred Hz or
  less), the supply is "fast" enough to keep the current very nearly
  constant.
 
  It has been stated on the net that measuring a fluctuating input
  power with DC instruments will always underestimate the true power.
  This is not true.  The AC power transfer can be in the same direction
  as the DC (as is usually assumed - giving rise to the above
  statement), or in the opposite direction; it depends on the relative
  phases of the I and E fluctuations.  (A common "backwards" example:
  an old-fashioned "passive" telephone, with a carbon microphone [that
  is, a fluctuating resistance load] draws DC power from the central
  office, but transmits AC power in the opposite direction.) In the
  case of a laboratory power supply operating with high frequency load
  fluctuations, the truth of the matter depends not only on the load and
  frequency, but also on the dynamics of the current-control feedback
  circuits in the supply; experimental measurements are advisable.
 
  Tom Droege hopes to simulate McKubre's measurement with his apparatus.
  I suspect it will be difficult to evaluate the two phenomena which
  could theoretically interfere with the accuracy of the < I * E >
  measurement: (1) imperfect constant-current behavior of the Kepco
  supply, and (2) unexpected correlation between the fluctuations and
  the intermittent measurement cycle.
 
THE POYNTING VECTOR E X H
  Tom reminds us indirectly that the "network" model embodied in
  Kirchoff's Laws (i.e.  [1] all currents are confined to wires, [2] no
  wire loops surrounding fluctuating magnetic fields) is an
  approximation.  But as far as metrology goes, measuring the electric
  (E) field and magnetic (H) field in adequate time and space detail to
  compute an energy flux would make Tom's nuke instrumentation look
  like kid stuff.  No, E x H is _not_ the "right" way to make the
  measurement.
 
  However, _thinking_ "E x H" opens my eyes to other possibilities.
  Specifically, under fluctuating voltage conditions is any power
  radiated into free space? (My gut says "yes, but not enough to
  notice".) If wires carrying fluctuating current into and out of the
  calorimeter form a loop surrounding other conductors (e.g.  an
  aluminum vessel wall) eddy currents can be induced; does the
  resulting heat belong inside or outside? (Twisted pair wiring
  virtually eliminates this problem.)
 
Finally, one way to reduce the fluctuation problem:  put the power
supply (or rather, the regulator stage which maintains constant cell
current) inside the calorimeter.  Use a shunt regulator (inside the
calorimeter, again) to maintain constant terminal voltage, and an
external fixed-current source to drive the whole mess.  Now the
electrical power entering the calorimeter is truly steady state -- the
electronics inside form an automatic "balance heater".  All the AC
fluctuations are inside the box so they don't affect heat balance.
 
 Sorry to run on so long, folks.  - Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Dieter Britz /  RE: No, it is not V^2*R!
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: No, it is not V^2*R!
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:56:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu in FD 943:
 
>Tom Droege has revealed a significant flaw in the method Mike McKubre
>has been using to determine the power input for his CF experiments.  From
[ snip snip]
>resistive and reactive components.  Only if the load is purely
>resistive will i and v have the same time dependence.  In the
>case of cold fusion the first guess would be that the load is
>capacitive.  (See Terry's recent post about the Moore effect.)
 
If you can hold your horses for a bit, Dick, Tom and I are thrashing out this
very issue right now. Sometime soon, we should have something to say about it.
We do now agree that this is an artifact that will add some hidden power to
the cell. But we want to do better than wave the hands.
 
>Actually, I suspect that there is a further possible hitch that
>may limit the applicability of the notion of a load impedence or
>at least require giving it some careful thought.  Basically the
>problem stems from the need to separate reversible processes from
>irreversible processes.  I want to pose this as a question to
>see if the electrochemists clear up some aspects of this problem.
>My question basically has to do with how one recognizes the d
>difference between an electrochemical cell that is rechargable
>and an electrolytic capacitor of huge capacitance.  Your thoughts?
 
Here I can say that this is not a relevant issue, as far as I can see. Nor is
capacitance, although Terry would prick his ears if he knew how much capacity
an electrochemical double layer has (if he doesn't know this already). At the
interface Pd/electrolyte, you have a pretty pure capacitor due to the
electrical double layer, but it has become massively leaky due to the Faradaic
(i.e. electrochemical) process going on in parallel with it. This process can
be taken (roughly) to be a large conductor. Overvoltages are around 1 V or so,
and overall cell voltages seem to be in the range 10-20 V, I believe. So the
cell impedance can be assumed to be dominated by the electrolyte resistance,
which is indeed a pure resistance. The nature of the electrochemical process -
whether reversible or not, or what frequency dependence it has - has little to
do with calorimetry here.
 
For Terry's ears: the double layer capacity is of the order of 20-40 uF/cm^2
and if you could pack a lot of double-layers into the body of the PdD, then...
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Jed Rothwell /  A man obsessed, who knows not what is wa
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A man obsessed, who knows not what is wa
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:45:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Cameron Randale Bass, who apparently never took junior high school physics,
has become obsessed with a question:
 
     "Now, will you please answer the questions: (1) What, precisely is meant
     by '100 watts' in the context of the experiment, and  (2) What,
     precisely, is meant by "steady-state," in the same context."
 
As Mitch and I pointed out, 100 watts is the same in the context of any
experiment. It is an instantaneous measure of a power level, typically heat or
electricity. If a toaster draws 5 amps on a 110 volt line, that means it
consumes 550 watts of electricity. If it averages this level of power
consumption for one minute, it will generate 33,000 joules of heat, or 7,920
calories. Does that help?
 
"Steady state" was defined very well by Mitch, I have nothing to add.
 
Mr. Bass suffers from a poor memory, plus a paroxysm of confusion compounded
by utter ignorance of the field, and an inability to read such basic
information as the Hagelstein paper we uploaded -- what? -- three times? Bass
thinks McKubre reported 100 watts excess. McKubre did not; to my knowledge he
generally puts in 3 watts and gets out 4 typically, but occasionally a "high
heat" burst of 9 or 10 watts. I remarked that P&F reported roughly 30 watts
in, 100 watts out. Mr. Bass apparently missed 5th grade fractions and
percentages, because he thinks that 100 is a small fraction of 30, or an even
smaller fraction of 3:
 
     "Context matters. In this case, '100 Watts' is a small fraction of input
     power."
 
Now, let me admit that I too am guilty of sloppy reporting here. My notes from
P&F's lecture, in my indescribably messy handwriting, read:  "30 w in, >100 w
out!" Yet, since last fall, I have had the accurate details in Peter's paper
sitting right here:
 
     "Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D2O were boiled away
     during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average iv input
     power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as follows: The heat of
     vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol at 100 C, and 2.5 moles of
     heavy water corresponds to 102.5 kJ; the energy lost during this time in
     the calorimeter (primarily radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input electrical iv
     energy during this time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy produced is the
     output energy (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy (22.5 kJ), or 86.7
     kJ. The production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes corresponds to an excess
     power of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85."
 
Does that help?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 21:43:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue has collected all his courage and has stated that the correct way to
measure energy is:
 
            1)   Integral (v(t) * i(t)) dt
 
I agree that this would do a pretty good job.  But I too, consider this such a
tough problem that I am also very cautious about what can be stated.  For one,
the cell being measured is a non-linear device.  (By non-linear I mean that
superposition does not hold.  I think this kills most of the tricks engineers
use - from delta-wye transformations to Thevenin's theorem.)  Dick can correct
me, but I think that this negates using classical analysis.  The cell cannot
be modeled as a set of R's and C's, since the R's and C's are changing with
time, current, temperature, and who knows what else.  Thee are also voltage
offsets that depend on direction, and diode like things.
 
There is another serious problem.  None of us to my knowledge measure
everything at exactly the same time.  We measure:
 
            2)   Integral (v(t) * i(t+k)) dt
 
Where k is +/- some fraction of the sampling interval.
 
As I recall from my brief encounter (left analysis class to join Navy) with
analysis, this turns it into a really nasty problem.  With hyperbolic?
solutions?
 
Dick, correct me, but when you say "Basically the problem stems from the need
to separate reversible processes from irreversible processes." it seems to me
this is just another way to state that this is a non-linear problem, and our
standard analysis does not apply.
 
1) should still give a correct energy measurement, but it is important to
understand exactly what the meter reads.  It is clear that instantaneous not
average readings must be made.  Most of the reported "positive" results have
been made using average reading meters.
 
I suppose I should (modestly) remind you all that I have brought up this topic
several times before, most recently last December.  The new thought is to
again realize the problem associated with the use of average reading DC
meters.  Some of you may remember a discussion which concluded that sampling
faster than the Nyquist limit would likely give a correct result.  I am not
even sure of this, when we consider a non-linear system.  How about it Dick?
 
To those waiting for me to do a definitive negative experiment, I point out
that this is not possible.  McKubre or P&F can shoot down their own
experiments, I cannot.  Saturday I spent a little time with the present
experiment where I increased the sampling rate at the expense of the number of
samples averaged for each variable.  The noise went up, but the small amount
of anomalous heat that the experiment was indicating was reduced.  So by more
closely following the Nyquist criteria, the "anomalous heat" indicated was
lessened.  Hmmm!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 21:57:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C62565.Att@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <C61y9L.4KF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>      Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (is Re: Pining for the Fiords)
> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>=db  "You seem more than willing to trot out stock (and wrong)
>=db     definitions"
>
>  Ok, give yours. Both Jed and myself, independantly, took the "bait"
> apparently wasting out time.  Now you, Dale Bass, please define "100 watts"
> and "steady-state".   ---     Thorough and without the child-speak.
 
     Certainly.  '100 Watts' apparently means calculated excess heating
     less than 5% of input power, calculated using a problematic
     DC sampling once every four minutes for runs on the order
     of a hundred hours.  'Steady-state' apparently means a current level at
     which the rms deviations in current are somewhat less than
     50% but may well be 5% of 'average' current.
 
     Since I've now defined those terms several times from my perspective, in
     the context of the experiments, I'm sure you'd be more than
     willing to discontinue hip, hop and evasion and either
     provide the knowledge I seek, or get off the pot.  Neither Jed nor
     you have ever provided an answer.
 
>  Or do you really stand by:
>==db   " 'Steady state' in this case means 'that average we assume
>==db      while everything bounces around'."
>  [Message-ID: <C608JK.5zJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,  C. Randale Bass]
>
> Put your own definitions on the "chopping-block" should you obtain the
> courage [more likely you'll dazzle us with your metaphors and gibberish,
>          and in your own words, "dodge, dodge, dodge, twist, twist, twist,
>          evade, evade, evade"].
 
     I certainly stand by it, and around it, and on it.  Look at
     McKubre's graphs.  Smooth is not exactly the way I'd characterize
     them unless taking some average.
 
     However, I note again that you seem willing to discuss this
     endlessly without ever offering an answer in context.
 
>===Swartz    However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.  There is a
>===Swartz  Poynting vector, whose direction (unknown) will be ignored for
>===Swartz  simplicity,  here.
>==ms                      d                       ->  ->
>==ms        P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
>==ms                      dt
>==ms where P is the Power delivered to a volume,  Pd is the power dissipated,
>==ms We and Wm are the stored electric, and magnetic, field energies,
>==ms and the integral (with the dot product) represents electromagnetic
>
>   OK?  You say this equation is wrong.  Where?   If you can describe
>     the vector contribution (through the dot product over the enclosed
>     area) better, try it?      You try to define it.
....
>   So you say the Poynting theorem is also invalid (please state reason),
>   or is it just context dependant, too (please state reason, with example).
 
      No, you're wrong.  Not the equation.
 
      I'd think this would be getting pretty embarassing by now.
      However, in the spirit of patient enlightenment, you might want
      to re-read your less than illuminating 'Swartz: However, the power
      is not simply a scalar quantity.'   (Hint:  your equation defines
      power as 'simply a scalar quantity').
 
>   BTW, you say the definition of 100 watts power is dependant upon context,
>  give a few.   If other parameters vary (where have we heard "mass" and "time"
>    interlinked, hmmmm) upon context, please give us less educated people
>    a few (at least one) example.
 
      I already have.  In the context of measuring 100 terawatts,
      100 watt perturbations would go unnoticed.
 
      I notice you have not offered a similar definition *in context*.
 
      Flip, flop and fly.
 
>==db      "The world may never know
>==db                              dale bass"
>
>     The world will know you by the your answers, so you might dispense with
>  the brick-toss tactics and try a more serious reply.  Have a good day.
 
      My guess is that most of the rather limited world still reading
      this already knows us both by our answers.
 
      Verily.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / mitchell swartz /  Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Watts Steady-state
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 00:25:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <C627np.6F1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) defines "watt"
  and "steady-state" thusly:
 
=db    "'100 Watts' apparently means calculated excess heating
=db     less than 5% of input power, calculated using a problematic
=db     DC sampling once every four minutes for runs on the order
=db     of a hundred hours."
 
 
=db      "'Steady-state' apparently means a current level at
=db     which the rms deviations in current are somewhat less than
=db     50% but may well be 5% of 'average' current."
 
                         ?
                             "Let proof speak"
               [after Wm. Shakespeare, Cymbeline, 1609-10,III.i]
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state (was Re: This Parrot is dead)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (was Re: This Parrot is dead)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 02:22:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C62EIo.E3n@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) defines "watt"
>  and "steady-state" thusly:
>
>=db    "'100 Watts' apparently means calculated excess heating
>=db     less than 5% of input power, calculated using a problematic
>=db     DC sampling once every four minutes for runs on the order
>=db     of a hundred hours."
>
>
>=db      "'Steady-state' apparently means a current level at
>=db     which the rms deviations in current are somewhat less than
>=db     50% but may well be 5% of 'average' current."
>
>                         ?
>                             "Let proof speak"
>               [after Wm. Shakespeare, Cymbeline, 1609-10,III.i]
 
      Yes, now *I've* defined it for myself a number of times.
 
      "Et tu?"
                [before Wm. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, 1599ish, III(i).]
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Self-Structuring Capacitors, Part II
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self-Structuring Capacitors, Part II
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 05:51:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
Here is some further elaboration of the fractal self-structuring capacitor
draft theory for your consideration.  It has migrated from "farfetch" to
"draft theory" due to a lack of any really wild miracles being required to
make its basic premises reasonably self-consistent.
 
In this part I develop a rather different mode of presenting the dynamics
of transition metal hydrides in the presence of an electrical current.  The
approach is to treat the transition metal hydride problem as being closely
parallel to the way in which Group I metals other than hydrogen (that is,
Li, Na, K, and Ce) dissolve in liquid ammonia to form deep blue and bronze
colored solutions.  In ammonia solutions the Group I metals behave much like
single-atom "salts" of the formula M+/e-.  The M+ is a normal cation species,
while the isolated electrons behave (surprisingly) as distinct anion species.
 
Thus while it is unusual for an electron to behave as a distinct chemical
species, it is not unprecedented.  Viewing the dissolution of hydrogen into
various as a similar transformation of neutral hydrogen into charged H+
(proton) and e- (electron) species permits the seemingly mysterious effects
of such hydrides in the presence of an electrical current to be viewed more
as a special case of electrolysis of a similar Group I "salt" (hydrogen)
into M+ and e- species within a solvent that is solid, rather than liquid.
 
The solid nature of the transition metal solvent and the very different mode
of stabilization of the electron species of course complicates this simple
analysis, but not to the degree one might expect.  For example, in this way
of analyzing such systems much of the peculiar behavior of concentrated
"beta" phases of transition metal hydrides are viewed primarily as being a
result of reaching a level of saturation at which neutral hydrogen begins
precipitating out of and redissolving into the solid-state solvent.  Since
such precipitates would be electrically insulating, their interaction with
a current across the solid-state solvent could become quite complex.
 
While this analysis does not prove the existence of fractal self-structuring,
it does show how such a model matches the six criteria for self-structuring
to a rather remarkable degree.  This suggests that the concept of fractal
self-structuring could be analyzed not only through carefully controlled PdHx
experiments, but also by building fairly straightforward computer simulations
and possibly through experiments in more tractable (e.g., transparent) media.
 
I think a real paper is merited by all of this, although with my minimal free
time for this hobby it may take me some time to write one.  Relevant postings
posted in this group will be referenced in any such paper, of course, and in
some referenced and quoted in detail.
 
If self-structuring capacitors prove valid, then Tom and Lee Droege could
probably write the single most interesting paper and pivotal paper on the
subject.  They have done some very meticulous work on details of current/
voltage/hydrogen-evolution behaviors in palladium hydride.
 
Perhaps more importantly, if the Moore Effect proves to be real I would
guess that Tom and Lee would have a doggone good chance of being the first
ones to reproduce convincingly the P&F "meltdown" event that started this
whole thing rolling four years ago.  I remain dubious the self-structuring
idea could produce _that_ much of an effect -- the needed energy densities
just seem too high -- but if the Moore Effect is as reported back in 1939,
then I must admit that all bets are off until an organized effort by some
of the more experienced PdHx experimenters can be made to replicate and
observe the Moore Effect in detail.
 
Patents?  Well, I dunno, and I'm not personally interested.  While the idea
of molecular or near-molecular capacitors may not be as earth shaking as
massive excess heat, it's not exactly a trivial materials concept, either.
I'd say go for it if you're into that sort of thing and feel you have found
some data that goes beyond the discussion to date.
 
Dick Blue's intriguing observation about similarities and differences of
a very large capacitor and a simple resistive D.C. load is a nice example
of how different perspectives give different insights on this kind of
"farfetch."  I had been focusing so much on the mechanical level of how
a large insulating film might form and convolute that I simply not thought
to stop and look at it from the viewpoint of loads, currents, and voltages.
 
Thanks Dick!  I hope you and Tom, who I suspect has been looking closely
at those same kinds of issues, will continue looking at how such ideas might
relate both to Tom Droege's and McKubre's published data.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                        SELF-STRUCTURING CAPACITORS
              Part II: Ionic p+/e- in Solid-State Solvents
 
                              April 25, 1993
                            Terry B. Bollinger
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
In an earlier draft article [1] I proposed six prerequisites for formation
of self-structuring capacitors.  In this part I will present a somewhat
novel way of understanding non-stochiometric (non-integer-ratio) solutions
of hydrogen in transition metals as ionic solutions of p+/e- in a solid-
state solvent, and show how such a perspective is related to the earlier
six prerequisites for fractal self-structuring of an insulating phase.
 
This rough model appears would appear to be amenable to computer simulation,
an approach that might prove to be the simplest and most convincing approach
to testing the fractal self-structuring hypothesis.  By emphasizing common
themes of all ionic solutions, it may also help suggest ways to perform
fractal self-structuring experiments with systems that are transparent to
light or in other ways easier to work with than palladium hydride systems.
 
Based on the discovery by Lee and Tom Droege of a 1939 reference by C.A.
Moore [2] indicating very high capacitance levels in properly prepared PdHx
systems (the Moore effect), I will assume below that the insulating, sheet-
like "beta" phase sheets I proposed earlier are probably equivalent to the
very thin, sheet-like "precipitation defects" that are described below.
 
 
HYDROGEN IN PALLADIUM AS IONIC p+/e- IN A SOLID-STATE SOLVENT
 
Although rare, solutions in which isolated electrons behave as a distinct
chemical species have been know in chemistry for many decades.  The best
known and most accessible examples of such electron-as-anion systems are
the deep blue and bronze colored solutions that result when one of the
alkali metals (lithium, sodium, potassium, or cesium) is dissolved into
anhydrous liquid ammonia [3].  In such ionic solutions the metal atom
can be understood as a "salt" composed of two ions (e.g., Na+/e-), with
both the metallic cation and the free-electron anions kept from rejoining
each other because of highly polar ammonia molecules that surround them
to form stable charged coordination complexes.
 
Although hydrogen is nominally a member of the alkaline metal family, its
single electron is far more tightly bound than those of the other alkaline
metal family members.  Thus while an equivalent "ionic salt" dissolution of
neutral hydrogen into H+/e- (or equivalently, p+/e-) can be proposed, no
such effect is found when hydrogen is added to liquid ammonia.
 
However, it turns out that there exist a wide range of solid-state media
in which the coordination isolation of e- by ammonia can be replaced by
stabilization of free electrons in "sea" of highly delocalized electrons
(that is, by the band structure of a metal).  These solid-state solvents
of hydrogen are transition metals that form weakly bound, non-stochiometric
(i.e., non-integer-ratio) hydrides when treated with hydrogen.  Examples of
such solid-state hydrogen solvents include a metals such as nickel, silver,
titanium, copper, tantalum, niobium, and (especially) palladium [4].
 
The identifying characteristic of "ionic" solutions of hydrogen in metals
is that when they are "electrolyzed" (that is, when a voltage difference
is established across them, hydrogen is evolved at the negative electrode
(anode) [5].  While such behavior is typical for electrolysis of acids, it
is more surprising in metals.  Nonetheless, it can be understood when such
solutions are understood as simply as more exotic examples of the same
general class of ionic phenomena demonstrated by solutions alkali metals
in liquid ammonia.  The exceptionally small size of the proton and its
ability to tunnel through many metal lattices [6] provides it with enough
mobility to enter into a solid-state solution and still retain significant
mobility, while the powerful attraction of a metallic crystal lattice for
delocalization of free electrons provides the additional energy incentive
needed to help overcome the strong proton/electron bond of hydrogen.
 
 
SATURATION AND PRECIPITATION
 
All ionic solutions are subject to precipitation of the original compound
if the solution becomes supersaturated.  If hydrogen in metals such as
palladium is in fact an example of an "ionic" solution, then similar effects
of saturation and precipitation should be expected.  And indeed, the more
highly saturated "beta" phases of many of the metals that dissolve hydrogen
non-stochiometrically have been shown through methods such as nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) and neutron irridation to contain molecular
hydrogen in their lattices.
 
 
DIFFICULTIES OF PRECIPITATION WITHIN SOLID-STATE SOLVENTS
 
However, precipitation in a solid-state solvent is greatly constrained by
the mechanical inflexibility of the medium.  The formation of a hydrogen-
filled void or fissure within the solid solvent requires additional energy
to overcome both the strong internal bonding of the metal atoms and the
overall mechanical pressure of the metal lattice.  Excessive precipitation
and (especially) repeated cycling of this mechanically damaging process of
precipitation thus would inevitably cause severe damage to both the local
and overall crystal structure of the metal.  This is consistent with the
effects of extreme hydrogen loading in metals such as palladium.  Such
loading tends to destroy both the overall form and the internal crystal
structure of palladium metal [7].
 
In general, these constraints would mean that the most stable precipitate
structures ("defects") will be the ones that least damage the structure of
the metal lattice, at least in the early stages of precipitation.  Also,
the difficulty of creating and expanding such defects within a strongly
internally bonded metal lattice should make it energetically favorable for
the hydrogen to occupy such defects at much higher densities than would
normally be expected for gaseous hydrogen.  Densities comparable to solid-
state hydrogen may be plausible if the saturation of the p+/e- solution is
sufficiently high.  For this reason the hydrogen in precipitation will be
informally assumed to behave more like a solid than a gas, although exact
data on this possibility would require careful experimental examination of
the hydrogen voids known to exist in palladium at high saturation levels.
 
The precipitate structures which would add the least bond-disruption and
mechanical stress to the surrounding metal lattice are (from least to most
disruption): very small (e.g., single-molecule) point precipitates; linear
forms; and very thing sheets.  Large volume-displacing voids should occur
only after there has been enough overall disruption of the crystal lattice
to result in significant local cracking and breaking of crystals.  Spherical
voids are unlikely due to the very high energies required to symmetrically
displace the metal atoms.  Irregular crack-like voids would be more likely,
and even those should form only after the entire piece has undergone severe
precipitation stress.
 
At least for the lower-cost point, line, and sheet precipitation defects,
the formation of precipitates should be reversible.  However, they should
also demonstrate increasingly large degrees of hysteresis as the damage to
the overall metal structure becomes increasingly hard to reverse.  Hysteresis
in this case means that as the degree of p+/e- saturation is lowered back to
where the precipitate should nominally be expected to return into solid-state
solution, it may instead dissolve only with difficulty and therefore linger
longer than would otherwise be expected.
 
 
ELECTROLYSIS-INDUCED SATURATION INSTABILITIES IN SOLID-STATE IONIC SOLUTIONS
 
The possibility of point, line, and sheet precipitation defects in highly
saturated transition metal solutions of hydrogen has one consequence that
is notable when discussing "electrolysis" of such solutions.  This is that
such sheets should be orders of magnitude more insulating than the metallic
lattice surrounding them, as the protons and electrons of the molecular
hydrogen will remain tightly bound as long as the "dissolving" effects of
the metal lattice are held in check through saturation of the p+/e- solution.
 
Thus when transition metal solutions of hydrogen undergo "electrolysis," the
formation of point, line, and sheet precipitation defects cannot simply be
ignored.  Such defects will alter both the geometry of internal electrical
fields, and the flow of both the p+ and e- charge carriers.  Such defects
should have a particularly profound impact on p+ (proton) charge carriers,
since unlike very light electrons the protons will be highly unlikely to
tunnel through even a single molecular layer of H2.
 
The remainder of this article is devoted to looking at what some of these
impacts of precipitation defects might be on the electrolysis of a solid-
state "ionic" solution of H2.
 
 
SATURATION IN THE VICINITY OF PRECIPITATION DEFECTS UNDER ELECTROLYSIS
 
The diagram below shows a generalized example of a transition metal "ionic
hydrogen" solution undergoing electrolysis:
                    _________________________________  _
       Cathode    ||           e-->             e--> ||p|     Anode
                  || e-->          <--p    <--p      ||p|
         (-) -----||        <--p        e-->         ||p|----- (+)
     (e- source   ||   e-->        <--p         <--p ||p|  (p+ source
      & p+ drain) ||_________________________________||p|   & e- drain)
 
An important feature of the above setup is that the anode source is shown
not just as a drain for electrons, but as a _source_ for protons.  This
can be accomplished in a real experiment by simply immersing the intended
anode end of the transition metal bar into a weak acid (such as water) and
placing the "real" anode some distance away in the acid bath.
 
Dual charge carrier sources help preserve the symmetry of flow between the
opposing p+ and e- carriers.  It also provides a simple, intuitive approach
to controlling the degree of saturation of the p+/e- solution within the
metal.  Over time, such an arrangement should make it possible to increase
or decrease p+/e- saturation simply by increasing or decreasing the current
density flowing through the dual-source setup.  Because the charge carriers
are in effect forcibly "injected" into the system using the energy provided
by the voltage difference, such a setup should be capable of giving levels
of p+/e- concentration well beyond the level needed to form H2 precipitates.
 
 
INITIAL FORMATION OF H2 PRECIPITATE STRUCTURES
 
When the p+/e- solution becomes sufficiently saturated due to electrolytic
injection of protons and electrons, comparatively low-energy point, line,
and sheet precipitation defects should begin to form within the transition
metal lattice.  Having the lowest possible energy, point defects should be
the first to form.  However, if the p+/e- concentration remains well above
saturation, these point defects will inevitably begin to grow into more
complex structures.  Since a point defect represents an existing "break"
in the metal lattice, it will always on average be easier to add additional
hydrogen molecules to that existing defect than to create entirely new
point defects at other locations.  Lines and (eventually) sheets of hydrogen
molecules thus should eventually be formed spontaneously if the current
density (p+/e- concentration) is maintained at a sufficiently high level
over an extended period of time.
 
 
DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF CURRENT FLOW ON DEFECT GROWTH
 
The impact of isolated point and line defects on the overall flow of p+
and e- carriers in a three-dimensional should be minimal, at least until
they reach a sufficient density to begin interfering with current flow.
However, the formation of sheet defects is more significant, since they
will be capable of significantly altering the flow of e- and (especially)
p+ charge carriers when they are roughly perpendicular to the current flow:
 
                            e --------------->
 
                              <--------------- p
                                   ->(*)<-.
                            e ----'   H2   \
                                      H2    \
                                      H2     - p
                                      H2
                            e --.     H2
                                 \    H2
                                  \   H2   --- p
                                   ->(*)<-'
                            e --------------->
 
                              <--------------- p
 
What is notable about this kind of redirection of a nominally smooth flow of
charge carriers is that it has the effect of increasing p+/e- concentration
around the periphery of the sheet defect, as indicated by the asterisks (*)
on the diagram.  This increase in concentration a the periphery of a sheet
defect is a direct consequence of the enforced flow of the charge carriers
due to electrolysis, and it adds to an existing tendency of the sheet defect
to extend itself in a crack-like fashion by growing at the periphery instead
of in the middle.
 
 
SOLUTE BISECTION VIA MERGER AND GROWTH OF DEFECT SHEETS
 
This simple analysis leads to a strong suspicion that once a sheet defect
that is roughly perpendicular to the axis of current flow, it will have a
distinct tendency to continue to extend itself in a direction largely at
right angles to the current flow.  Furthermore, if there are multiple sheet
defects orthogonal to the current flow, a similar analysis leads to the
conclusion that the edges of such sheets will tend to grow towards each
other and eventually merge into a single (possibly quite ragged) sheet.
 
The logical conclusion of this process (at least for a sufficiently smooth,
relatively flawless solid-state solvent) is bisection of the medium by a
very thin H2 defect sheet that should noticeably reduce current flow:
                    _________________________________  _
       Cathode    ||           e--> H2          e--> ||p|     Anode
                  || e-->          H2 <--p   <--p    ||p|
         (-) -----||        <--p    H2  e-->         ||p|----- (+)
     (e- source   ||   e-->     <--p H2         <--p ||p|  (p+ source
      & p+ drain) ||________________H2_______________||p|   & e- drain)
 
The formation of such bisecting defect sheet should be predeeded by a
gradual drop in current density, and a commensurate increase in voltage
drop across the solid-state solute.  Looking for this scenario, especially
in small, monocrystalline cylinders of solute metal, would in fact provide
a particularly telling piece of experimental evidence for the formation of
such bisecting defect sheets.
 
 
SELF-HEALING OF BISECTING DEFECT SHEETS
 
Very closely related to the above discussion of growth and merger of defect
sheets in ionic hydrogen solutions is the effect of "self-healing" of holes
or incomplete parts of a bisecting defect sheet.  Any such hole that either
exists or forms during electrolysis of the solid solute will tend to quickly
seal itself as both the e- and p+ charge carriers selectively move towards
the location of the hole.  From the practical standpoint of whether or not
a true bisecting sheet can form this property is of considerable importance,
since it means that a "perfect" solid solute medium is not necessarily a
prerequisite for the formation of a complete bisecting sheet.  Obstructions
will in general simply be bypassed as the defect sheet forms either before
or after the obstruction, and omissions within "clean" media will simply
be filled in as charge carriers move selectively toward that region.
 
 
DEFECT SHEETS AS CAPACITORS
 
Bisecting defect sheets should behave as impressive capacitors, due mostly
to their extraordinary thinness and the presence of two (e- and p+) charge
carriers.  In particular, true molecular-level capacitors are extremely
unlikely if electrons are the only charge carriers, since electrons masses
are so low that they will simply tunnel through any barrier as thin as a
single molecule.
 
Withe both e- and p+ charge carriers in a solid-state solute, the situation
becomes a good deal more complicated and in general more favorable towards
extremely thin insulating sheets.  The key difference is that protons, in
contrast to electrons, are too heavy to have much probability of tunneling
across even a single-molecule-thick insulating barrier.  Even the thinnest
possible H2 defect sheet thus should provide a highly impermeable layer to
the movement of proton charge carriers.
 
Leakage across a bisecting defect sheet thus should consist primarily of
electrons tunneling across the H2 barrier and combining with p+ to form
atomic and molecular hydrogen.  However, this type of leakage is not as
straightforward as it might seem at first glance, since the following factors
will tend to preserve the very thin structure of the sheet defect:
 
   o  Tendency of the metal lattice to "redissolve" any isolated H or H2
   o  Energy cost of disrupting any additional local metallic bonds
   o  Energy cost of opposing the mechanical pressure of the metal lattice
   o  Energy cost of doubling the distance between + and - charge layers
 
The last of these costs should not be overlooked, since for molecular-level
separations the cost of separating charges by even one additional molecule
will be substantial.  Collectively, these effects should tend to preserve
the two-dimensional structure of the defect sheets rather strongly.
 
At least initially, a more likely consequence of capacitor leakage due to
electron tunneling will be to "squeeze in" any new hydrogen molecules that
form into the existing defect space, until an unusually high two-dimensional
density of hydrogen molecules is reached.  Depending on the energetics of
the system, densities in the same general range as solid molecular hydrogen
could conceivably be obtained in this fashion.  There will always be an upper
limit on these densities, however, as any exceptionally high two-dimensional
pressures would eventually either cause the lattice to buckle or the defect
to spread laterally.
 
The final equilibrium between preservation of capacitive charge and leakage
due to electron tunneling will depend on the detailed characteristics of the
metal and the dynamics of electrolysis.  However, it is likely that such a
system would be impressively higher in electrical capacity per unit of sheet
defect than would be any conceivable electron-only sheet capacitor.
 
 
CAPACITIVE STABILIZATION OF DEFECT SHEETS
 
The above analysis implies that detailed structure of a fully charged,
bisecting sheet defect would look something like this:
 
                           p+    p+ H-H e- e-
            p+                p+ p+ H-H e-  e-          e-
                      p+      p+ p+ H-H e-       e-         e-
                           p+    p+ H-H e- e-
                              p+ p+ H-H e-    e-     e-
                 p+          p+  p+ H-H e-  e-
                           p+    p+ H-H e-     e-       e-
                      p+      p+ p+ H-H e- e-       e-
                          p+     p+ H-H e-   e-
              p+             p+  p+ H-H e- e-              e-
 
The axial orientation of the hydrogen molecules is simply assumed, but is
consistent with both high two-dimensional densities within the defect sheet
and limited polarization of the nuclei and electron clouds of H2 molecules
when subjected to a strong field.
 
A notable feature of the above structure is that is at least to some degree
self-stabilizing.  In particular, the increased density of protons and
electrons on either side of the defect layer have the effect increasing
the concentration of the p+/e- solution in the vicinity of the layer.  This
effect is especially true on the anode (p+) side of the sheet defect, where
the potential for tunneling by electrons from the other (cathode) side keeps
the layer immersed in a pool of "virtual" hydrogen atoms that are prevented
from forming only by the energetically unfavorable conditions provided by
the solid-state solute.
 
Stabilization of the cathode (e-) side would be less pronounced, but should
still exist because the high density of electrons should make dissolution
of H2 molecules into p+ and p- energetically unfavorable.
 
 
DEFECT SHEETS AS PHASE-CHANGE "WAVES" IN THE PROTON CURRENT
 
Regardless of the net effectiveness of the mechanisms mentioned above for
stabilizing the sheet defect and lowering leakage, some degree of leakage
should be expected.  If the rate at which protons reach the sheet defect
is comparable to this leakage rate, then the result should be a net flow
of protons through the sheet defect via this sequence of changes:
 
    p+  +  e- [via tunneling] --> H
    H + H --> H2' [anode side]
    H2'' --> 2p+ + 2e- [cathode side]
 
In effect the proton current would undergo a transient phase change in which
protons reaching the sheet defect would be converted by tunneling electrons
into molecular H2, which would then displace earlier H2 molecules and force
them be redissolve on the cathode side of the sheet.  Eventually all of the
sheet hydrogen would be displaced and redissolved on the cathode side, where
it would continue its journey to the external cathode.
 
 
EFFECTS OF DRIVING CURRENT PAST THE LEAKAGE RATE
 
If the proton and electron currents are driven past the point where tunneling
leakage permits passage of the incident proton waves, an increase in proton
concentration will begin to build up on the anode side of the bisecting defect
sheet.  This in turn will increase the pressure for adding additional hydrogen
into the existing sheet defect.
 
If the sheet defect is already at its maximum two-dimensional density and
lateral extent, this added pressure will in general result either in expansion
of the defect into a true three-dimensional void -- that is, into an actual
physical crack in the solvent media -- or in growth of the total physical area
of the sheet through convolution.
 
Convolution, or "folding" of the sheet so that it takes up a larger total
area within the solid solvent, can occur only if the sheet is sufficiently
mobile within the solid state solvent.  In effect the hydrogen molecules must
be capable of "slipping around" transition metal atoms without permanently
disrupting their positions in the metallic lattice, and also without losing
the overall coherence of the defect sheet and its ability to insulate.
 
While this is not an easy requirement, the view that the defect sheet is
actually a phase-change wave in a constantly moving proton current makes this
type of displacement of the sheet more plausible.  In particular, motion in
the direction of the p+ source (anode) should be possible through formation
of new H2 molecules on the anode side of the wave, and subsequent dissolution
of the older H2 molecules on the cathode side of the wave.  The difference
in this process from the one described earlier is that instead of displacing
the older H2 molecule, the newly formed one would maintain its new position
on the anode side of the wave.
 
Such a sequence suggest both that convolution of the sheet defect should be
possible at least for some transition metals and dynamics, and that the best
direction for convolution to take place may be from the cathode side towards
the anode side.  This would in term imply that for if the objective of an
experiment is to produce a highly convoluted capacitor sheet, it might be
preferable to try to form the original bisecting sheet defect as close as
possible to the external cathode.  The sheet defect would then presumably
convolute itself through accretion and phase conversion of protons arriving
from the anode.  Initial bisection should presumably take place at modest
current densities, while for convolution the system should be driven at
high amperage for an extended period of time.
 
 
SUMMARY
 
In this part a number of models and implications have been derived by viewing
the transition metal hydride problem as a solid-state solvent containing an
"ionic" p+/e- form of hydrogen.  Overall, this provides a model of such
systems that is certainly consistent with the know erratic behavior of such
systems when they are driven by a current.  Furthermore, it suggests a variety
of way in which experiments and possibly simulations might be performed to
test the premises described here.
 
If validated, these ideas would help explain the Moore Effect that was first
reported in 1939, and possibly more recent reports of unusual energy releases
from palladium hydride and deuteride systems.
 
 
REFERENCES
 
  (Later, gaters:  It's after midnight, I have to dig them up, and I've got
  to work this morning...)
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenterry cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Dieter Britz /  PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PS on the boiling cell
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 08:12:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A point has just occurred to me (on the cycle ride home, where I do a lot of
my thinking, being alone with myself). One of the pieces of evidence thought
to be significant with that video of a cell that boiled dry was that there
was greatest activity (bubbling etc) around the cathode. The argument was that
if the heating was simply ohmic, then you would expect about the same at both
electrodes. So this extra activity around the Pd cathode showed that there
was something extra happening there, possibly a hitherto unknown nuclear
effect.
I just remembered that the cathode - if I have this right - is a smallish
wire, while the Pt anode is a large mesh or plate. If so, then a large part
of the total electrolyte resistance will be concentrated around that cathode
wire, and you would expect most of the ohmic heating to take place there. SO
the mere fact of lots of bubbles at the cathode does not in itself support
CNF; you need numbers, such as the input power, electrolyte volume etc.
 
I have not had a good answer either to the question whether the cell boils
quite dry, and if so, why. The cathode is presumably not lying flat on the
cell bottom, so it would be cut off from contact with the electrolyte some
time before all of it boils away. It would then presumably glow red hot and
this, too, should be seen in the video. Does it?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Power to McKubre!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power to McKubre!
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 14:31:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In addition to responses from Tom Droege and from Dieter, I have received
several comments privately which bear on the question of whether the
McKubre method correctly determines power input.  The more that gets
said about this issue the more I tend to agree with Tom that the
assorted complexities make this an extremely difficult system to
analyze.  I had not thought about the nonlinearity explicitely nor do
I know what that rules out as far as simplifying assumptions.  Dieter
touches on the question of the bilayer at the cathode surface, which
is an aspect of McKubre's method that is different.  I am thinking of
the added Al and/or Si that are supposed to form a protective layer
to keep impurities away.  What does that do to the electrical charact-
eristics of the cell, and how well controlled is the effect through
long runs in a closed system?
 
What do I think is known about these systems?  (1)The stored energy,
either in reversible chemical processes or capacitance, is large and
subject to partial release and takeup. (2)The effect is generally
accompanied by strong fluctuations of cell voltage.  (3)Experiments
showing the effect involve sampling rates that are too slow to
satisfy Nyquist so they are making implicite assumptions about
errors averaging to zero.  Under these circumstances I think that
a set of measurements all made by exactly the same technique could
well have a hidden error.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / mitchell swartz /  Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Watts Steady-state
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 15:27:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <C6177J.AsB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (was Re: Pining for the Fiords)
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
===ms   "100 Watts to me is the power required to perform work at a rate
===ms  of 100 joules per second."
==db     "Context matters.  In this case, '100 Watts' is a small fraction
==db       of input power."
=ms   "Mr. Bass asserts that the definition of 100 Watts depends on the context.
=ms   This seems unlikely because such would wreak havoc with the
=ms     International Standards."
 
=db      "'In context', *in context*, _in context_, {\bf in context}."
 
  We disagree.   You, and your followers, believe power (and presumably
  other variables) is defined differently in different contexts.  Your
  postings can hereafter be weighed by that knowledge.   Especially
  enjoyed was your humorous definition of "steady state".
 
   [If David Atkatz has a question regarding a particular experiment
 in the cornucopia of positive experiments discussed by Peter Hagelstein
 (or others) from the Nagoya conference (or others), a simple specification
 or clarification might enable Jed (to whom the question was originally
 asked), or some other, to answer.]
 
 
=db    "As I have patiently explained before, '100 watts' is not very
=db  impressive on its own if the input power is 500 terawatts.
=db  On the other hand, if the input power is 500 picowatts, it's
=db  pretty impressive.  Elaboration on this and other contexts
=db  is provided in some detail in previous postings that you've ignored."
 
      We disagree again.  The critical issue was, is, and will be:
    Is there excess power out exceeding the power input.
      That is what makes cold fusion, and the sequelae of technologies,
      interesting.
    100 milliwatts versus a 10 megawatts capacity involve scaling issues.
 
 
=ms                          d                        ->  ->
=ms             P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
=ms                          dt
=db     " ... You might want to look up the terms 'vector' and 'scalar'
=db    *before* you use them again in a sentence.
 
      This time why don't *you* look them up, OK?
  Also, given that 'vector' and 'scalar' were not used in a single sentence,
  then perhaps, young man, you should know that the "thing" with an equal
  sign is an equation, not a "sentence".  Best wishes.
                                                         Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state (is Re: Pining for the Fiords)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (is Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 18:34:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C61pLv.EK4@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>=db      "'In context', *in context*, _in context_, {\bf in context}."
>
>  We disagree.   You, and your followers, believe power (and presumably
>  other variables) is defined differently in different contexts.  Your
>  postings can hereafter be weighed by that knowledge.   Especially
>  enjoyed was your humorous definition of "steady state".
>
>   [If David Atkatz has a question regarding a particular experiment
> in the cornucopia of positive experiments discussed by Peter Hagelstein
> (or others) from the Nagoya conference (or others), a simple specification
> or clarification might enable Jed (to whom the question was originally
> asked), or some other, to answer.]
 
     Not so fast. you seem to have evaded the question yet once again.
     You seem more than willing to trot out stock (and wrong)
     definitions, so I'm sure you'd be more than willing to
     answer the simple questions as they relate to simple
     experiments.  Or are we to get even more dodge, dodge, dodge,
     twist, twist, twist, evade, evade, evade?
 
     By the way, I hadn't realized I had followers.  I must ask for
     donations more often.
 
>===Swartz    However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.  There is a
>===Swartz  Poynting vector, whose direction (unknown) will be ignored for
>===Swartz  simplicity,  here.
>
>=ms                          d                        ->  ->
>=ms             P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
>=ms                          dt
>=db     " ... You might want to look up the terms 'vector' and 'scalar'
>=db    *before* you use them again in a sentence.
>
>      This time why don't *you* look them up, OK?
>  Also, given that 'vector' and 'scalar' were not used in a single sentence,
>  then perhaps, young man, you should know that the "thing" with an equal
>  sign is an equation, not a "sentence".  Best wishes.
 
      Obviously you're still quite confused.  However,
      the fact that you apparently do not know how to differentiate
      power from flux, a scalar from a vector, or sentences from equations
      is really not important for the purposes
      of this discussion.  (Hint: Apparently you should look again
      at your sentences and your equation *before* you look up the
      terms 'vector' and 'scalar' before you use them in a sentence.)
 
      What *is* important is continued evasion of the two questions
      you seem more than willing to talk around without answering.
      To wit, 'What does "100 watts" mean to you in the context
      of the trumpeted experiments' and 'What does "steady state"
      mean to you in the context of the trumpeted experiments'.
 
      The world may never know.
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.25 / mitchell swartz /  Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Watts Steady-state
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 21:03:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <C61y9L.4KF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
      Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (is Re: Pining for the Fiords)
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
=db  "You seem more than willing to trot out stock (and wrong)
=db     definitions"
 
  Ok, give yours. Both Jed and myself, independantly, took the "bait"
 apparently wasting out time.  Now you, Dale Bass, please define "100 watts"
 and "steady-state".   ---     Thorough and without the child-speak.
 
  Or do you really stand by:
==db   " 'Steady state' in this case means 'that average we assume
==db      while everything bounces around'."
  [Message-ID: <C608JK.5zJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,  C. Randale Bass]
 
 Put your own definitions on the "chopping-block" should you obtain the
 courage [more likely you'll dazzle us with your metaphors and gibberish,
          and in your own words, "dodge, dodge, dodge, twist, twist, twist,
          evade, evade, evade"].
 
==ms                      d                       ->  ->
==ms        P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
==ms                      dt
==ms where P is the Power delivered to a volume,  Pd is the power dissipated,
==ms We and Wm are the stored electric, and magnetic, field energies,
==ms and the integral (with the dot product) represents electromagnetic
==ms                                             ->               ->  ->
==ms    energy transmission through free space.  S is a vector =  E x H
==ms    called the Poynting vector."
 
=db   "Obviously you're still quite confused.  However,
=db   the fact that you apparently do not know how to differentiate
=db   power from flux, a scalar from a vector, or sentences from equations
=db   is really not important for the purposes
=db   of this discussion."
 
   OK?  You say this equation is wrong.  Where?   If you can describe
     the vector contribution (through the dot product over the enclosed
     area) better, try it?      You try to define it.
 
   So you say the Poynting theorem is also invalid (please state reason),
   or is it just context dependant, too (please state reason, with example).
 
   BTW, you say the definition of 100 watts power is dependant upon context,
  give a few.   If other parameters vary (where have we heard "mass" and "time"
    interlinked, hmmmm) upon context, please give us less educated people
    a few (at least one) example.
 
==db      "The world may never know
==db                              dale bass"
 
     The world will know you by the your answers, so you might dispense with
  the brick-toss tactics and try a more serious reply.  Have a good day.
 
                                                  -  Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Ad aspera /  Re: The dangers of space travel
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The dangers of space travel
Date: 26 Apr 93 23:30:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

JC>>Sure, space exploration is dangerous.  It always will be, and anybody who
JC>>thinks otherwise is cruisin' for a bruisin.'"
 
JR>It will not always be dangerous. Eventually, it will become safe and routine.
 
I'll compromise by agreeing, partially -- it will become safER.
However, space travel is qualitatively different from any of
its earthly analogues in one very important way:  it is done
in an environment *utterly* incapable of supporting life after
something goes badly wrong.  There is no space equivalent
of swimming to shore or even coming down by parachute.
 
Someday, perhaps, paying customers will undertake space flight
with no more thought than today's airline passengers, and this
will be fairly justifiable -- a 747 *is* safer than a Ford
Trimotor.  But this safety is achieved by engineers and pilots
and many other classifications of people who are aware of the
dangers and do their jobs accordingly.  When one of them blows
it big time -- and sometimes all it takes is one! -- hundreds
of safe, confident passengers are identified by dental records.
 
Even after <foo> technological advances, space travel will be
no safer than is permitted by the operations and management
culture behind it.  Which kind of brings us full circle to the
discussion of the Challenger disaster and its managerial root
causes, I believe.
 
And still keeps us away, at least superficially, from discussing fusion.  :)
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / mitchell swartz /  What Bockris thinks (was: What Clarke thinks)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Bockris thinks (was: What Clarke thinks)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 23:25:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        In Message-ID: <4665D16E50FF20DED8@vms2.uni-c.dk>
        Subject: Re: What Bockris thinks (was: What Clarke thinks)
   Dieter Britz BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
==dbritz "Bockris has been one of the leading proponents of what he calls
==dbritz the hydrogen economy, since about the 1970's. I was also told once
==dbritz that it is cheaper to push hydrogen through a pipe than electricity
==dbritz through a cable; can anyone out there confirm or deny this?"
 
   Ignoring the additional "wiring", safety, distributions, nonlinearities,
 creation and storage of electric power or hydrogen, etc.,
   it will be interesting to read how one can equalize the load
 impedances (to the flow resistances) to make this come out correctly on an
 energy basis.       [What diameter pipe vs. resistance of wire?]
 
    [This was probably a previous FAX somewhere on sci.energy  ;)  ]
 
   Dieter, good comments on NOx.   Best wishes.
                                                    - Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A man obsessed, who knows not what is wa
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A man obsessed, who knows not what is wa
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 23:15:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930426203042_72240.1256_EHK54-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) who continues to evade the question:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Cameron Randale Bass, who apparently never took junior high school physics,
>has become obsessed with a question:
>
>     "Now, will you please answer the questions: (1) What, precisely is meant
>     by '100 watts' in the context of the experiment, and  (2) What,
>     precisely, is meant by "steady-state," in the same context."
>
>As Mitch and I pointed out, 100 watts is the same in the context of any
>experiment. It is an instantaneous measure of a power level, typically heat or
>electricity. If a toaster draws 5 amps on a 110 volt line, that means it
>consumes 550 watts of electricity. If it averages this level of power
>consumption for one minute, it will generate 33,000 joules of heat, or 7,920
>calories. Does that help?
 
     No.  Which '100 watt' experiment are you talking about, and
     what is the input power, and for how long was it applied, and
     how long did the '100 watt' excess last, and how did they control
     for exothermic evolution of deuterium at the electrode as the
     electrolyte boiled off?
 
     '100 Watts' is *not* the same if it's insignificant and down in
     the noise.
 
>"Steady state" was defined very well by Mitch, I have nothing to add.
 
     I'm stunned, he said dryly.
 
>Mr. Bass suffers from a poor memory, plus a paroxysm of confusion compounded
>by utter ignorance of the field, and an inability to read such basic
>information as the Hagelstein paper we uploaded -- what? -- three times? Bass
>thinks McKubre reported 100 watts excess. McKubre did not; to my knowledge he
>generally puts in 3 watts and gets out 4 typically, but occasionally a "high
>heat" burst of 9 or 10 watts. I remarked that P&F reported roughly 30 watts
>in, 100 watts out. Mr. Bass apparently missed 5th grade fractions and
>percentages, because he thinks that 100 is a small fraction of 30, or an even
>smaller fraction of 3:
 
     Not so fast buckaroo.  '100 Watts' was *your* generic characterization
     of positive results.  I have since been using it as the generic
     term when I inquired as to a) which experiments and b) what
     the input power is and c) what are the experimental details.
 
     Since the McKubre results were offered by you as justification
     of your comments, am I now to assume that 1 Watt is what you meant
     by '100 Watts'?  Or is it 9 Watts?  Or is it some other number
     in some other context?
 
     This is the problem with the continual evasion.
 
>     "Context matters. In this case, '100 Watts' is a small fraction of input
>     power."
>
>Now, let me admit that I too am guilty of sloppy reporting here. My notes from
>P&F's lecture, in my indescribably messy handwriting, read:  "30 w in, >100 w
>out!" Yet, since last fall, I have had the accurate details in Peter's paper
>sitting right here:
>
>     "Pons stated that 2.5 moles (close to 50 cc) of D2O were boiled away
>     during a time of about 10 minutes, during which time the average iv input
>     power was 37.5 watts. The numbers can be checked, as follows: The heat of
>     vaporization of heavy water is about 41 kJ/mol at 100 C, and 2.5 moles of
>     heavy water corresponds to 102.5 kJ; the energy lost during this time in
>     the calorimeter (primarily radiative) is 6.7 kJ. The input electrical iv
>     energy during this time is 22.5 kJ. The excess energy produced is the
>     output energy (102.5 + 6.7 kJ) minus the input energy (22.5 kJ), or 86.7
>     kJ. The production of 86.7 kJ in 10 minutes corresponds to an excess
>     power of 144.5 watts, and a power gain of 3.85."
>
>Does that help?
 
       Sure, your definition of 'steady state' is now 10 minutes.
 
       And did Mr. Pons and Mr. Fleishman happen to calculate the
       effect of the exothermic emission of deuterium from the
       lattice at high loading while the electrolyte was boiling away?
       As I have patiently explained to you before, you can easily
       see this phenomenon if the power is turned off.  Simple
       electrical changes in the electrode could act similarly.
       And how many times did our good friends abroad sample the
       voltage (and current) during those 10 minutes.
 
       This is the problem with continued evasion of the original
       questions.   It's now taken me dozens of messages to determine
       that a) 'steady state' means 'bursts' for 10 minutes,
       and b) '100 Watts' means 3 watts in and 4 watts out for
       several hundred hours, sampled at four minute intervals.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / John Cobb /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 26 Apr 1993 23:56:03 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <1705@lyman.pppl.gov>, bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott) writes:
|>From the letter by Robert Hirsch:
 
Oh, we're talking about Hirsch. From the Subject line I thought that perhaps
Sakharov or Artsemovich were talking from beyond the grave. :>
 
|>
|>>* If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
|>>likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
|>
|>This has already happened as a result of JET and TFTR. It will, of course,
|>get worse with ITER.
 
Those interested in this thread my find David Montgomery's letter to the editor
in the latest issue of Issues in Science and Technology.
 
basically my read of what he says is as follows. He is writing in answer to an
article published last year that advocated abandoning the U.S. fusion effort
because it requires a 30 year, ~1G$/yr committment for success which cannot
occur in the present political climate. Montgomery's comment is that the root
of the problem is that the U.S. and DOE prematurely committed to the TOKAMAK
and thus converted Magnetic Fusion Research to an energy program from a
research program. His words are better than my paraphrasing.
 
enjoy.
 
|>--
|>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
 
So Bruce, what's up. Everytime I see you post, it seems to go through a
different routing. Very curious.
 
-john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 00:00:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930426163342.2080783e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Dick Blue has collected all his courage and has stated that the correct way to
>measure energy is:
>
>            1)   Integral (v(t) * i(t)) dt
>
>I agree that this would do a pretty good job.  But I too, consider this such a
>tough problem that I am also very cautious about what can be stated.  For one,
...
>There is another serious problem.  None of us to my knowledge measure
>everything at exactly the same time.  We measure:
>
>            2)   Integral (v(t) * i(t+k)) dt
>
>Where k is +/- some fraction of the sampling interval.
>
>As I recall from my brief encounter (left analysis class to join Navy) with
>analysis, this turns it into a really nasty problem.  With hyperbolic?
>solutions?
 
     It depends on the functions, but since only the sample is known,
     assumptions as to the form must be made.  I assume that most people
     just take k = 0 and procede accordingly.  Whether this is accurate
     or not is another matter, and the only solution is to actually
     sample them at the same sufficiently high rate with k=0.
 
>I suppose I should (modestly) remind you all that I have brought up this topic
>several times before, most recently last December.  The new thought is to
>again realize the problem associated with the use of average reading DC
>meters.  Some of you may remember a discussion which concluded that sampling
>faster than the Nyquist limit would likely give a correct result.  I am not
>even sure of this, when we consider a non-linear system.  How about it Dick?
 
     Yes, it will.  For the purposes of this discussion, the sampling
     theorem applies to arbitrary functions.  Choosing the correct
     limit might be a bother, but I suspect that four minutes isn't
     it.
 
>To those waiting for me to do a definitive negative experiment, I point out
>that this is not possible.  McKubre or P&F can shoot down their own
>experiments, I cannot.  Saturday I spent a little time with the present
 
      Absolutely.  In any case, I still find it rather stunning that they are
      still not sampling frequently, especially since that was one of the
      main initial criticisms of the experiments.  I seem to recall this
      being mentioned about both the Huggins and P&F experiments.
 
      Am I completely off the mark, or are there not high rate
      computer acquisition systems for this kind of measurement?
      I'd think at least the boys abroad could afford such equipment.
 
>experiment where I increased the sampling rate at the expense of the number of
>samples averaged for each variable.  The noise went up, but the small amount
>of anomalous heat that the experiment was indicating was reduced.  So by more
>closely following the Nyquist criteria, the "anomalous heat" indicated was
>lessened.  Hmmm!
 
      The 'noise' going up may be an indication that something dirty
      is afoot at higher frequencies.  Do you happen to have raw data at
      both the 'high' and the 'low' sampling rate that you can loan me?
      I may have time in a couple of weeks to play around with
      aliasing and spectral properties.
 
                           dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Allan Duncan /  Re: No, it is not V^2*R!
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No, it is not V^2*R!
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 05:14:02 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <0096B749.D47177A0.11476@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, by blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu:
> Tom Droege has revealed a significant flaw in the method Mike McKubre
> has been using to determine the power input for his CF experiments.  From
> at least one response it is very clear that there is much confusion about
> the measurement of one of the most basic quantities in these experiments.
> This is so important, even I (grin) get a bit nervous when trying to state
> this correctly.  I believe I am correct in saying that the instantaneous
> power input can be given as the product  i(t)*v(t).  The determination
> of the electrical energy delivered involves the integration of this
> product over a finite time interval.  The problem that has perhaps not
> been recognized is the fact that the time dependences of i and v can,
> a generally are, completely different.  It becomes an essential part
> of designing a CF experiment that the methods used to measure i and v
> and to determine the integral of their product be matched to the actual
> time characteristics for the process under investigation.
 
If I am unsure of what "time dependence" I am dealing with I grab a CRO
and look at it (all the way up to 350MHz) for voltage, and for current
if appropriate.  Things like gas discharges etc may have a negative resistance
region that can give rise to appreciable AC current components from a DC
supply, and should always be checked.  Once this is done, some idea can
be gained of how frequently the V and I need to sampled to get a good
energy estimate.  Instantaneous V * I is always the instantaneous power
flow (it might be negative, don't forget).
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:
cuddy26 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Chuck Sites /  CNF Update#7 (another correction needed)
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Update#7 (another correction needed)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 07:52:32 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

   Here we go again. Douglas Morrison, has sent out a new, revised,
version of his review of ICFC3. I always enjoy reading his material
because the content is good and the question he raises are usually key
focal points for criticism of an experiment or paper.  However, I
noticed he still likes to lump together the total live time for the 80
various experiments performed by S. Jones and H. Menlove at Kamiokande
as a statistical argument that nothing was seen.  Yet a few of the
individual experiments do justify the claims of Jones to a factor.
(They are also close to the more liberal theoretical predictions of S.
Koonin from what I see).  This was discussed in-depth here several
months ago.  I find it somewhat surprising that this experiment is
still cited as in conflict with the earlier modest claims of Jones &
Menlove.  Specifically Douglas failed to mention the purpose of
Kamiokande, "to find a trigger mechanism of cold fusion" (Quote from
Dr. Jones), and that there was a battery of 80 different experiments
squeezed into the 2400Hrs live time. It's a dubious statistic and
somewhat deceptive to the casual reader.  For example, one point of
contention is that uranium contamination might have caused the
neutron counts seen in the pressurized D gas experimental runs. Yet,
later elemental analysis was carried out showing that uranium
contamination was no where near the amount Dr. Isihda calculated as a
potential source of the anomalous neutron counts for those runs.  This
certainly makes cold nuclear fusion the most probable explanation for
these results.
 
   Thats just one example where a point of contention exists between
the experimental work as it reads in print, and the summary of it in
Morrison's notes.  I noticed Bruce Dunn got a bad rap too, so how many
more are there?  If these are examples, I just wonder how many more of
the higher quality reports from ICFC3 are tainted by the lack of a few
pieces of critical information in this review.
 
Just calling it like I see it.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CNF Update#7 (another correction needed)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Update#7 (another correction needed)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 11:13:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr26.075232.4401@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>   Here we go again. Douglas Morrison, has sent out a new, revised,
>version of his review of ICFC3. I always enjoy reading his material
>because the content is good and the question he raises are usually key
>focal points for criticism of an experiment or paper.  However, I
>noticed he still likes to lump together the total live time for the 80
>various experiments performed by S. Jones and H. Menlove at Kamiokande
>as a statistical argument that nothing was seen.  Yet a few of the
>individual experiments do justify the claims of Jones to a factor.
>(They are also close to the more liberal theoretical predictions of S.
>Koonin from what I see).  This was discussed in-depth here several
>months ago.  I find it somewhat surprising that this experiment is
>still cited as in conflict with the earlier modest claims of Jones &
>Menlove.  Specifically Douglas failed to mention the purpose of
>Kamiokande, "to find a trigger mechanism of cold fusion" (Quote from
>Dr. Jones), and that there was a battery of 80 different experiments
>squeezed into the 2400Hrs live time. It's a dubious statistic and
>somewhat deceptive to the casual reader.  For example, one point of
>contention is that uranium contamination might have caused the
>neutron counts seen in the pressurized D gas experimental runs. Yet,
>later elemental analysis was carried out showing that uranium
>contamination was no where near the amount Dr. Isihda calculated as a
>potential source of the anomalous neutron counts for those runs.  This
>certainly makes cold nuclear fusion the most probable explanation for
>these results.
 
     Just one question.  What is the ratio of the number of neutrons
     expected based on the original results of Jones \etal
     to the number actually 'seen' in the experiments at Kamiokande?
     Is the number below a hundred?
 
     I seem to remember the original results were near the detector
     limits.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 11:06:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr26.074145.4309@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>      My guess is that most of the rather limited world still reading
>>      this already knows us both by our answers.
>
>>      Verily.
>
>>                            dale bass
>
>    Yeah we do, and you should be kicked out the moderators of
>sci.physics.research.  That group is so ill conceived you have to come
>over here to demonstrate your apparent bull-shit arrogance.  A
>Crack-pot index indeed!@ How about a science index. I guess that
>concept is too heavy for you.
 
      My dear Mr. Sites, may I suggest the decaf?
 
>   First Dr. Swartz is right. A 100W xs is a 100W xs regardless if its
>a deviation in a trillion Watts system. If you can measure it
>consistently then something is there (period). And a lot of good
>scientists are claiming something is there my friend.  Second, from
>what I've read, analyzed, and seen a 30% excess is not uncommon.  5%
>is very common. Take the Takahashi experiments for example.  Here we
>have raw-data easily 30% beyond IV when the effect starts up, and
>assuming every thing is recombined!  If you would like, I'll repost
>my analysis.
 
     But with Takahasi, the definition of 'steady state' begins
     to come into play.  How often are the electrical measurements
     taken, and what is the rms deviation of current and voltage
     about the nominal forcing at 'start up'?  How are higher frequency
     AC transients accounted for or excluded?  Also, since you seem to have
     some access to raw data, could you provide a power
     spectral density of the autocorrelation of the current,
     voltage, and i*v power over the relevant 'active' timespan?
     I'd be very interested in the characteristic behavior of the three spectra
     out near the nyquist cutoff.  You see, I have this hunch.
 
     Feel free to repost your analysis, but please include relevant
     experimental details such as the sampling rates as well as rms deviations
     of input voltage, current and computed power.
 
>Oh well.  I'll bet I get a flame tommarrow.
 
     I doubt it, I usually fight fire with spam.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 5% does not equal 0.1%
Date: 26 Apr 93 15:12:26 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930419225057_72240.1256_EHK49-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>The accuracy assigned to McKubre's calorimetry is greater than 0.1%. In 1991,
>the excess heat was "typically in the range of 5% to 10%" and as high as 28%.
>A 5% error would be FIFTY TIMES GREATER than the stated 0.1% error level!
 
Here is the problem.  Notice that you do not quote the numbers as being
'typically in the range of 5.3% to 9.8%' but rather "5% to 10%".  You
are already increasing the error from 0.1% to 1% in the implied number
of significant figures.
 
But let us suppose that a series of otherwise identical experiments
gave results that were 4.9%, 5.7%, 6.2%, 7.8%, 8.3%, 9.5%, and 9.8%
(just making up a few numbers).  Clearly the numbers do not reproduce
at the 0.1% level expected from the precision of the measurement
apparatus.  This leads one to do an error analysis that gives an
average result of (7.5 +/- 1.8)%.  Thus the real uncertainty in any
measurement is closer to 2% rather than 0.1%.
 
Now I chose numbers all between 5 and 10.  "Typically" would usually
imply that there were also some zeros, and you state that there were
some large numbers as well.  Could even have been some negative numbers
I suppose.  Use of such values would imply a larger error, so it is
not so far fetched to look at those data as having a 5% uncertainty.
 
The point is that the data themselves are telling you that there are
some uncertainties in the experiment that are quite a bit larger than
the apparent precision of an individual measurement.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 16:48:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4665D16E50FF20DED8@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>Lowering the temperature can be
>done and you thereby reduce the production of NOx. But the point is that is
>an oversimplification to say that burning hydrogen is 100% clean. It may still
>be about the best we can come up with.
 
There is also the point that lowering the combustion temperature reduces
the amount of power available from the hydrogen fuel. Perhaps to the point
where other fuels are more efficient.
 
I agree that hydrogen fueled generation has much to offer, but it isn't
available for free.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / g wisniewski /  polyneutrons
     
Originally-From: wisniews@iat.holonet.net (george r wisniewski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: polyneutrons
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 17:44:59 GMT
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access System: 510-704-1058/modem

 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwisniews cudfngeorge cudlnwisniewski cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / John Cobb /  Re: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
     
Originally-From: johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
Date: 27 Apr 1993 00:10:10 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

In article <m0nn9N3-0000ZdC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim
Bowery) writes:
|>Bruce Scott writes:
|>>... even within the tokamak world, too much of the effort
|>>gets channeled in too few directions. "Bandwagon science" is a real
|>>problem, not just with putting everyone on the tokamak, ...
|>>Lots of people doing the same problem the same way, and pressure from the
|>>funding source to keep it that way.
|>
|>Given the the dismal track record of "bandwagon science", why do you
|>think there is "pressure from the funding source to keep it that way" ?
|>
|>
Now this is an easy chestnut. Put yourself in the position of a funding agency
reviewer. Where do you place your emphasis, on chancy, uncharted territories or
on more concrete, but perhaps less ambitious goals. Remember that
breathing down
your back is congress, or your private foundation who wants to see results. Do
you take the 10% chance for a home run or the 70% chance for a base hit?
The reviewer
doesn't call it "bandwagon science", he calls it prudence. In isolation, he is
correct, but when taken together it becomes lemming dynamics. So and so at
university of _____ got a neat result using ____, so let's fund 4 or 5 more
grants to do that. Then innovation gives way to repitition. Of course this
is a natural and recognized tendancy that funding agenceis have tried to
grapple with before. However, Bruce's point is that when you have focussed a
program as tightly as the Office of Fusion energy has, this lemming problem
is increased. I agree.
 
-john w. cobb
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / William Hawkins /  Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Measurement
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 23:03:46 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

The crude figure below shows the electrical circuit of an unknown unit
under test, which happens to be inside a calorimeter.  The lead wire
resistance is not negligible, because calorimeters use fine wire to
reduce the amount of heat that they conduct through the boundary of
the volume being measured for temperature change.  The resistance is
shown evenly divided between two external resistances and two that are
internal.  A power supply S is in series with the circuit, which has
a current meter A.  Voltmeter V is connected to the lead wires right
at the boundary of the calorimeter.  When power is calculated as VxI,
all of that power is dissipated within the calorimeter, in Rint and
the Unknown.  The power dissipated in Rext can be ignored, as it is
outside of the calorimeter boundary.  All of the current measured by
meter I flows through the Unknown, except for the incredibly tiny
(but known) amount drawn by the voltage measurement.
 
                          Supply         Amps
                      +----[ S ]---------( I )----+
                      |                           |
                      \                           \
               Rext/2 /   +-------( V )-------+   / Rext/2
                      \  /        Volts        \  \
                      / /                       \ /
                      |/                         \|
    Temp    **********|***************************|**********
    ( T )   *         |                           |         *
       \    *         \                           \         *
        \   *  Rint/2 /          A     B          / Rint/2  *
         \  *         \          |     |          \         *
          \ *         /          |     |          /         *
           \*         |          |     |          |         *
            \         +----------+{ U }+----------+         *
            *\                                              *
            * \                  Unknown                    *
            *  \                                            *
            *   \                                           *
            *************************************************
 
                               Calorimeter
 
Now, the items for discussion:
 
1) As shown, power will be dissipated in Rint that has nothing to do
with what is going on in the Unknown.  It will require more heat to be
released by the Unknown than actual breakeven.  If the voltage taps are
brought right to the Unknown's terminals, A & B, then the power from
Rint allows the Unknown to show breakeven without actually achieving it.
(Yes, I know this is irrelevant if the Unknown generates many times the
VxI power that went into it, but the charging times are so long ... )
 
2) The PostScript drawing of Tom's calorimeter that I've seen shows
that the thickness of the calorimeter boundary is not insignificant.
How do you decide where to put the voltage taps, to divide internal
from external?
 
3) Reality check - is Rint significant?  If it is, and the voltage taps
are only at A & B, you could get significant "excess" heat.  Of course,
taps at both the boundary and U will eliminate the uncertainty, except
for that component of U that is effectively lead wire resistance.  Some
wire electrodes have this, but it does not give false heat because it
is inside the voltage taps.
 
4) In the early days of CF, experimenters would subtract a voltage from
the measured voltage before calculating power input to the calorimeter.
This voltage had to do with the materials being electrolyzed, I think.
My experience has been that VxI, as shown above, completely defines the
power that one would expect to see dissipated in the calorimeter, no
matter how many energy sources or Zener diodes it contains, neglecting
unusual effects like fusion.  Has the voltage subtraction been dropped,
or is it still being used?
 
5) Point 4 does require a dissipating unknown.  If it were a capacitor,
and S was capable of constant current, then VxI would show an increasing
power input without corresponding heat from the calorimeter.  Eventually
S would reach its voltage limit, and the current (and power) would go
to zero.  But you'd be left with a charged capacitor.  The only way to
get it to generate heat within the calorimeter would be to short the
external terminals.  This would produce a measurable external current,
which hasn't been mentioned so far.  Do experimenters report seeing
more power measured by VxI than is seen by the calorimeter in some
stage of the "charging" process?  Internal breakdown of the capacitor,
perhaps started by a "surge" of current, would cause the energy to be
released without an external short circuit.
 
There was some discussion of qualifications a while back.  Four years
of reading this group qualifies me as a lurker. :-)  I also have a BS
in Mechanical Engineering from MIT in 1960, and a lifetime career in
industrial process measurement and control.
 
bill@rosemount.com  Minneapolis, MN    Phone (Voicemail) 612 895 2085
 
 
P.S.
How do you pronounce Droege?  Is the 'g' soft, as in 'fudge', or is
it hard, like the Polish closed sandwich 'piroge'?
 
P.P.S.
I read everything I see in sci.physics.fusion, but I don't think that
our newsfeed delivers everything that is out there.  If you'd really
like me to see your response, please email it as well as posting it.
Email works fine, if you can get to uunet.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / mitchell swartz /  Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 01:11:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <930426163342.2080783e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
    Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
 Tom Droege [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov] writes:
 
==  "Saturday I spent a little time with the present experiment where
==  I increased the sampling rate at the expense of the number of samples
==  averaged for each variable.  The noise went up, but the small amount
==  of anomalous heat that the experiment was indicating was reduced.  So
==  by more closely following the Nyquist criteria, the "anomalous heat"
==  indicated was lessened.  Hmmm!"
 
   OK, Does your measured excess power in the control experiments also
     decrease, too, when you adopt this increased sampling rate?
 
   Why would only Pd/LiOD,D2O/Pt cells be effected?   Does it just effect
    CF cells, or all cells in your lab; or does it effect all
    electrochemical cells everywhere?
 
   Could you please state again the bandwidth of your meters? (I apologize
                                                if this was already posted)
 
   Were you using RMS or TRMS (true rms) meters?
   Did you take a spectrum analysis?  What did you find?
 
   Exactly how many watts of power do you really estimate are leaking into
   your Pd/D2O(?) cell from this putative "new" source?
 
   Were/Are these many watts of power also leaking into your control cell,
   too?           Thanks.
                                           Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / J Lewis /  Re: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: feynman's genius  (was Re: What Clarke thinks)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 01:15:32 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Apr23.233906.19982@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <C5yBAx.I6q@news.ucs.mun.ca>
court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
>writes:
>> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu  (Barry Merriman) writes:
>> >Well, his best lock picking story ... is when he went to show his buddy
>> >his new algorithm (for trying _all possible combos quickly_), and
>> >accidently hit the combination on the second or third try. > >
>> >Now, do you call that a smidgen of luck?
>
>> Aha!  but I never quantified "smidgen"!  His algorithm was obviously
>> good enough to show off - to make him look good - or he would never have
>> demonstrated it to his buddy.  Getting the combo _that quickly was just
>> the icing on the cake.
>
>You are stetching here...as I recall, with his efficient means of
>trying all possible combos, he could open any safe in 8 hours, with
>a mean time of 4 hours. That he got one in a minute is about 100
>standard deviations out of the ordinary. I'd call that a lot of luck.
 
100 sd's eh!  Numbers, damned numbers ... wish I had the ability
of some of the regulars here to argue black is white ... maybe
the Poynting vector would help ..... nope ..... OK, I'll have to bite
the bullet, and call that a BIG smidgen!! :-)
>
>I continue to maintain that Feynmans wide *reputation* as a genius
>had more to do with his personality and showmanship, than hard work
>or innate genius. On the other hand, his accomplishments in physics
>are more an indication of his actual mental ability, since you can't
>fool nature.
 
I agree, actually.  It is curious and somewhat depressing
how some physicists (and other
scientists no doubt) - Einstein, Feynman - are widely known,
to the point of being popular icons, while others - say J. Willard
Gibbs, Wolfgang Pauli, and David Hilbert[*] - are known only to
the professionals, despite their great achievements.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, NF
 
[*] I included Hilbert primarily because he nearly beat Einstein
to GR, and for "Courant and Hilbert".
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Chuck Sites /  cancel <1993Apr26.074145.4309@coplex.com>
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Apr26.074145.4309@coplex.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:46:31 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

cancel <1993Apr26.074145.4309@coplex.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Chuck Sites /  An apology to Dale, and why I hate moderated groups.
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An apology to Dale, and why I hate moderated groups.
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 05:08:13 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

 
    Late last night I posted a flame against Dale Bass that I would like
to apologize for, both to Dale and this group.  First sci.physics.research
is a pretty good group; the scholars whose posting have made it through
the silly moderation really do know their subjects, and it is *they* who
make the group not the moderators.  From the various complaints in
sci.physics I would say the moderation of s.p.r is slowing the dissipation
of material, stifling good debate and removing the criticality that comes
from question and answer.  I am not much of a fan of moderation
specifically in sci groups for those reasons.  I understand the reason for
moderation of s.p.r , but there has got to be better method. The best
moderated group I know of is sci.virtual-worlds. The moderation is loose,
informative, and useful.  Or if you would like to make the group more of a
science journal of unpublished work, how about requiring everything be
posted in Latex and moderate it lightly.  The whole pseudo-review thing in
s.p.r is not doing anything useful and might be detrimental to some of the
student types.
 
   I guess that is half the reason for the gripe. The other half comes
from this "My daddy can beat up your daddy" type provocation I seen over
the past months. Since this is a non-moderated group, some poking and
prodding and jabs are to be expected, specifically when one considers CF
is as controversial as it is.  But this consistent annoyance is like a
moscito buzzing in ones ear. Eventually you swat at it.  This is what I
did.  Anyway, to get the point, I apologize for *my* arrogance in the last
post.  Lets make this debate a little more fun and argue the science
details.
 
HAve Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hot Fusion - a suggestion?
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion - a suggestion?
Date: 26 Apr 93 20:21:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Since your proposal is just another confined plasma with magnetic
shear, it is just as likely as the tokamak to bleed energy profusely, and
thus will be prone to the same problems.
 
To say more I will have to see a design.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  LARSONIAN Physics
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LARSONIAN Physics
Date: 26 Apr 93 12:21:12 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
     As indicated in the following article, the sun and stars do NOT generate
energy by atomic "fusion".
 
 
                      LARSONIAN Physics and Astromomy
 
               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, compressibility
          and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of
          matter.
 
               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)
 
               All but the last of these books were published by North
          Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and
          should be available via inter-library loan if your local
          university or public library doesn't have each of them.
 
               Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available
          from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS),
          1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the
          organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.
          They have other related publications, including the quarterly
          journal "RECIPROCITY".
 
 
 
          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 in May 1989.  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 other 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 one-dimensional 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 and why 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.
 
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS).
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                       Robert E. McElwaine
                                       B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmcelwre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 19:17:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930426031858_73770.1337_EHA45-1@CompuServe.COM> 73770.1337@c
mpuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>
>Tom Droege has recently commented on electrical power measurement in
>general and McKubre's work in particular.  I add my thoughts as follows:
>
>FLUCTUATING (AC) COMPONENTS OF POWER
>  When both current (I) and voltage (V) are fluctuating, the product
>  <I> * <V> will usually differ from the average power <P> = < I * V >.
>  ( <X> represents the time-averaged or "DC" value of X .  ) This
>  point has been made many times on this net.  However, as McKubre
>  mentions explicitly in the ICCF2 paper (and as has also been
>  discussed here by Tom and others), "As long as the voltage noise ...
>  [is] random, no unmeasured rms heating can result under constant
>  current control." That is, if I is constant, then < I * V > = I *
>  <V>.  The requirement of "random" voltage noise is related to the
>  fact that measurements were made intermittently.  Clearly, if the
>  fluctuations were time-correlated with the measurement cycle, bias
>  errors could occur.  No correlation, no bias.  (In fact, that's
>  effectively the definition of correlation.)
 
      For McKubre's experiments, the Nyquist cutoff for the
      timeseries that defines voltage is apparently about 0.002 Hz.
      There could well be systematic power contributions beyond this.
 
      It's still not clear to me why he isn't trying to acquire the
      voltage 'continuously'.  Taking measurements every four minutes
      and then assuming that the 'noise' is white and additive with
      RMS zero for all frequencies including those beyond 0.002 Hz strikes me
      as wishful thinking.  And why wish when one can measure?
 
>  Tom Droege hopes to simulate McKubre's measurement with his apparatus.
>  I suspect it will be difficult to evaluate the two phenomena which
>  could theoretically interfere with the accuracy of the < I * E >
>  measurement: (1) imperfect constant-current behavior of the Kepco
>  supply, and (2) unexpected correlation between the fluctuations and
>  the intermittent measurement cycle.
 
     There seems to be an easy way, just take measurements more often of both
     instantaneous current and voltage.  Anything above a
     couple thousand samples a second might be interesting,
     but the faster your power supply responds, the more often you're
     going to want to go with the samples.
 
                           dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / g wisniewski /  polyneutrons
     
Originally-From: wisniews@iat.holonet.net (george r wisniewski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: polyneutrons
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 17:50:20 GMT
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access System: 510-704-1058/modem

 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwisniews cudfngeorge cudlnwisniewski cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 26 Apr 93 22:43:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <m0nmQPz-0000NhC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes...
>Mike Jamison writes:
>>Commercially developed space facilities???  When it becomes commercially
>>profitable for private companies to develop their own:
>>
>>1)  Boosters/HLVs
>>2)  Space stations
>>3)  Space habitats
>>4)  Fusion reactors
>
Jim Bowery writes:
 
>As chairman for the Coalition for Science and Commerce, I've been the
>the principle lobbyist for the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 and
>for the launch voucher provision of the Rep. George Brown's
>commercialization bill which was passed last year.  I, and those who
>have helped in these legislative efforts, have done this at considerable
>sacrifice while fighting people who, like you, are paid out of our
>pockets.  We don't pay you to insolently oppose our efforts to create
>incentives for you.  You oppose our efforts not simply because you prefer
>the security of government funding to the challenge of market incentives --
>you are so ethically bankrupt that you don't see the conflict of interest
>inherent in taking our money and then competing with us in the political
 
I take it "you" = NASA, in this case.  I may be bankrupt, but I'm not
unethical.
 
I've also worked in the commercial marketplace before.
 
 
>arenas that concern the conditions under which you will be given more
>of our money.  Of course, NASA doesn't have a monopoly on ethical
>bankruptcy, as can be seen from the behavior of the DoE fusion
>community when we have attempted to introduce legislation to reform
>that program with market incentives.
 
Er, Jim, if you want to see a lack of ethics, check out some of the private
industry that's funded by government contracts (more on this in a bit).
 
 
>
>>What do you think will happen?  As far as I know, there isn't anything
>>keeping *any* U.S. company from building its own space station, except the
>>return on investment.
>
>And that was to be taken care of by a $600M market guarantee under the
>late Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldridge with government anchor
>tenancy for the Industrial Space Facility.  I lobbied for support of
>this proposal along with Baldridge's Office of Commercial Space back
>in 1987-88.  NASA vigorously opposed our efforts and eventually won.
 
I was working at Keithley Instruments during that time-frame.  So, I had
nothing to do with it.  Had you won, I probably still would have been working
here, but on something more interesting than SSF...
>
>See the most recent Space News for a revival of the idea of a commercially
>developed space facility.
 
OK, will do.  I've seen a lot of weird ideas for SSF lately.  An uneasy
feeling, because, I don't work for NASA.  I work for a NASA contractor, which
generally equates to the same thing, except when the work runs low.  Guess
who hits the unemployment line first.
 
>
>(BTW:  The CDSF would have been flying experiments by now were it not
> for NASA's opposition to the creation of these commercial incentives.)
 
I could argue that SSF would have been flying experiments by now, if it had
been given a single center as its primary, without this "equal pieces to
all centers" stuff.  The single center would be able to design the system
in-house (like in the Appollo days - NASA did the prototyping, contractors
built more).
 
Unfortunately, we have Level II, which has authority but no money, and the
centers (LeRC, MSFC and JSC) which have money but no authority.  I think
there's a disconnect somewhere... :-)
 
>
>>If
>>you believe these companies "can't afford" to do this kind of research,
>>you're fooling yourself.  They just see no reason to do so, when the good
>>old gov't *is*, in a rather misdirected, muddled, but progressive, way).
>
>You make my point quite well.  The government is the biggest monopoly
>of them all, accountable only to the political process.  When those
>receiving government funds can fight back via the political process,
>as opposed to via raw competitive technical performance, no one, not IBM,
>not GM, dares to compete.  Just ask George Koopman, founder of American
 
I don't know if you know the SSF prime contractors are, but, since you've
mentioned IBM:
 
Work package 1:  Marshall Space Flight Center
 
Prime contractor = Boeing
 
Work package 2: L.B. Johnson Space Center
 
Prime contractor = McDonnell Douglas
  MDSSC subcontractor = IBM
 
Work Package 4: Lewis Research Center
 
Prime contractor = Rocketdyne
 
Various sub contractors include Honeywell, Lockheed, Loral, etc.
 
These guys ain't missing out on the money, count on it.
 
>Rocket Company who raised millions in private capital to develop
>hybrid rocket technology that NASA dropped in the 60's, only to have
>his suppliers harrassed with threats of terminated contracts by NASA,
>have his competitors given money by NASA to put him out of business
>and then keep the results of that funding out of the hands of AMROC.
>Oops... sorry, you CAN'T ask him...  he's dead.  Ok, ask Gerald Bull
>who actually started building an aerospace cannon which NASA and the
>DoD rejected -- driving him into the hands of third world powers.
>Oops, sorry, he's dead too.  Ok, then since Baldridge is dead too,
>let's go ask his Office of Commercial Space, which Baldrige set up to
>promote the Commercially Developed Space Facility.  Oops.. sorry,
 
Sounds like a lot of dead people.  I'm afraid to ask what they died of...
Uh, what did they die of?
 
>the current director is Scott Pace who, when he was Chairman of the
>Legislative Committee of the "grassroots" National Space Society (and
> also a Rand employee) blocked our efforts to activate grassroots
>support for Baldridge's CDSF back in 1988 because, as Sandra Adamson,
>a Space Station Freedom contractor and comember of the Legislative
>Committee virtually screamed at me over the phone (paraphrasing but
> not exaggerating): "I work on the Space Station Program and CDSF
>would threaten it!"
 
Actually, the SSF program threatens itself.  Seems that people have a funny
idea of how to save money - they think re-design is the answer.  Of course,
we're only building *one* SSF, so most of the money is going into the design
and re-designs, *not* the actual hardware that may or may not end up in
space.
 
>
>>Sure would be nice if, when it came time for taxes, we were able to choose
>>where those taxes are to be spent.  Guess where mine would go.
>
>I wouldn't mind if you were able to specify that all your tax money were
>to go to SSF or ITER or whatever.  What I mind is you taking time to
>post messages via your government-funded access to this network to enhance
>the climate of government-funded political intimidation against those
>who would seek to give you and your managers appropriate incentives.
 
I can also access this network via freenet, which is probably in some way
government funded also.  All I need is a modem for my PC, access is free.
The company I work for pays me by the hour, so I have no real problem with
accessing the net during business hours.  i.e.  the time is mine, you aren't
paying for it.  Guaranteed.
 
As far as intimidation goes, (correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that
NASA has threatened to pull contracts from companies that were eyeing a few
private corporations for doing business with.
 
I believe this is illegal, and could have been used against NASA at that
time.  Perhaps it was too costly for the private companies to consider
putting up a fight.
 
Let me shed a little light on the "other side of the story":
 
I don't know if you're familiar with the finite element modelling programs
that have pretty much been developed by NASA:  NASTRAN, of which PATRAN is
a derivitive.
 
Now, NASA developed a prototype finite element modelling program, *gave* it
to a private company.  That company "polished" the program, and now *sells*
it to NASA and private industry.
 
Perhaps NASA didn't want to see the same thing happen with the other tech-
nology it developed.  Perhaps there was a personal conflict between the
parties concerned.  I hadn't heard this story before, and wasn't old enough
to care back in the '60's.
 
Anyway, I am not trying to intimidate, not sure how you got to that point
from my post.
>
>And by that I DON'T mean incentives to pull all your contractors together
>to run mass-media ads in support of SSF, nor incentives to fly lots of
>people to Washington to make up politically acceptable excuses for
>failure to perform.  We've had quite enough of those incentives for the
>last few decades, thank you very much.  We've had so much of those
>incentives that the fusion program and SSF are both reaching the
>point of no return.  You want help?  Then stop opposing our efforts
>to reform your programs.
 
I don't.  To my knowledge, I've never been given the choice, one way or the
other.  I'd be happier, though, if NASA were able to do its own reforming.
There are a lot of people who would enjoy reforming the program.  They'd
enjoy being able to be engineers and scientists again, as opposed to glorified
paper pushers.  Unfortunately, their hands are tied, as are their managers'
hands, etc.
 
Will your legislation fix this?
 
>
>>The "problem" with the government is that it isn't a single entity.  It has
>>no real goal, other than to make sure its domain is cared for.
>
>No, the "problem" is that we expect such an entity to accomplish goals
>for us rather than simply establish incentives for us to accomplishment
>goals.
 
Like actually repairing roads, rather than just charging us for them?
Makes sense to me.  I'd really like to see something done with that 28% of
my wages going to the feds.  To say nothing of the state & city...
 
>
>>Hell, the
>>government is really just a figment of our imagination,
>
>You have quite the nerve saying such a thing just after April 15th.
>Just more of the government-funded insolence that allows you to say most
>of the things you have been saying.
 
OK, I'll concede here.  Didn't make much sense to me, but I'd already
pushed the return key...
 
I don't think anyone could've imagined what we've got today, starting way
back 217 years ago...
 
>
>Leave the politics to people who aren't likely to receive a paycheck
>from the programs being discussed.
 
Uh, that means I'd have to trust their ethics.  Might put me out of a job,
but, as my officemate says "I was looking for a job when I found this one".
Still, I'd hate to see NASA canned.  Revamping would be great, but to have
it completely abolished would be a mistake, IMHO.
 
>
>Be ethical.
 
I am.
>
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
Date: 26 Apr 93 20:32:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

From me:
 
>>... even within the tokamak world, too much of the effort
>>gets channeled in too few directions. "Bandwagon science" is a real
>>problem, not just with putting everyone on the tokamak, ...
>>Lots of people doing the same problem the same way, and pressure from the
>>funding source to keep it that way.
 
From Jim Bowery:
 
>Given the the dismal track record of "bandwagon science", why do you
>think there is "pressure from the funding source to keep it that way" ?
 
I think it's because they think they'll just muddle through. They'll build
it big enough to reach ignition, cook up a story, and the biggest shot will
(maybe) win a Nobel prize. I'm not really sure about that. It depends on
how convincing the confinement story sounds in the end. My prediction is
that poorly-resolved computations will come "close enough" so that when
really sound work is done later someone with connections will be able to
claim to have done it first. The really sound work will not only win no
prize, it will be forgotten. Everyone will be happy, happy, and will think
a great scientific advance has been made. In this culture of advertisement
the worms go to the loudest birds (who publish 400+ papers) who scream
first.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Date: 26 Apr 93 20:50:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Chuck,
 
Dale is not the only one reading this stuff who is exasperated by
Mitchell's failure to answer the question at hand. He shows that by
degeneration, but though I or David A will not do that we are (I think)
just as exasperated.
 
I want to see a definition something like this:
 
The input power, defined as P_in(t)=I_in (t)* V_in(t), where I and V are
the current and the voltage, was measured continuously as a function of
time. The output power, defined similarly as P_out(t)=I_out (t)* V_out(t),
was measured in the same fashion. The system was judged to reach a steady
state when the averages of P_in and P_out over intervals of M minutes did
not vary by more than the scatter, dP_in and dP_out, respectively. Average
and scatter are respectively defined as
 
    aP_in(t)=M^{-1} \int_{t-M/2}^{t+M/2} dt' P_in(t)
 
    dP_in(t)=M^{-1} \int_{t-M/2}^{t+M/2} dt' [P_in(t)-aP_in(t)]^2
 
and similarly for P_out. Here, aP denotes the average of P. Excess power is
defined as DP=aP_out-aP_in.
 
 
Purely hypothetical, of course. This is the way I present results from my
turbulence code. Unlike the case for many other authors, there is *no*
confusion about what I mean by "average" and "scatter", nor is there any
about the significance of the difference between any two averaged
quantities.
 
I suspect what Dale wants is a complete definition, in context as is the
case in this example, of the terms which are being bandied about. I want to
know them, too. I will not accept advice to look at the Journal of Analytic
Electrochemistry. I want a precise definition of the above sort, from the
horse's mouth, in a self-contained way.
 
Mitchell, we all know what power means in terms of energy and time. Your
responses to Dale are just as unprofessional as his comments about
chipmunks and your Daddy. Please answer my question as stated above, if you
are sure of the significance of "excess power".
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining for the Fiords)
Date: 26 Apr 93 20:53:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Sorry folks, I wish I had a DM for every time I made this mistake:
 
In the definition of dP, the right-hand side should appear under a
square-root sign.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / mitchell swartz /  Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Watts Steady-state
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 12:02:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1721@lyman.pppl.gov>
  Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining
for the Fiords)   Bruce Scott (bscott@lyman.pppl.gov) writes:
 
==  "Dale is not the only one reading this stuff who is exasperated by
==  Mitchell's failure to answer the question at hand."
 
  Once again for those to whom English is a followable language:
  The question was asked of Jed.  My past post did already show the reference.
    Fact is: Dale was harassing Jed [in Dale's usual M.O.].
 
  Second, I did try to answer the question.  Also, like you I tried to be
   quantitative (often a rather limited commodity on this channel).
 
= "I want to see a definition something like this:
=  "The input power, defined as P_in(t)=I_in (t)* V_in(t), where I and V are
= the current and the voltage, was measured continuously as a function of
= time. The output power, defined similarly as P_out(t)=I_out (t)* V_out(t),
= was measured in the same fashion. The system was judged to reach a steady
= state when the averages of P_in and P_out over intervals of M minutes did
= not vary by more than the scatter, dP_in and dP_out, respectively. Average
= and scatter are respectively defined as
=
=    aP_in(t)=M^{-1} \int_{t-M/2}^{t+M/2} dt' P_in(t)
=
=    dP_in(t)=M^{-1} \int_{t-M/2}^{t+M/2} dt' [P_in(t)-aP_in(t)]^2
=
= and similarly for P_out. Here, aP denotes the average of P. Excess power is
= defined as DP=aP_out-aP_in."
 
  Thank you for continuing the quantitative effort.   See below.
 
 
==  "I suspect what Dale wants is a complete definition, in context as is the
==  case in this example, of the terms which are being bandied about.
 
  Again, Dale was harassing Jed (which he would also do on sci.physics,
  or sci.physics.research if the chance was available).  Dale "wants"
  but has been "weighed and found wanting".
 
==  " I want a precise definition of the above sort, from the
==  horse's mouth, in a self-contained way."
 
   Perhaps you should ask the "horse", or Dale since he seems to be
   ubiquitous and omniscient.  Since most of his comments were delirious,
   or at best paraidiotic,  I am not even certain what paper or experiment
   this all referred to, although it was somewhere in the Hagelstein summary
   of the many Nagoya papers.
 
==  "Mitchell, we all know what power means in terms of energy and time."
 
  If you think you can do better, try it.   Not all of us are of
   the "hot fusion" calibre but we try sometimes anyway.
 
 
==   Your responses to Dale are just as unprofessional as his comments about
==  chipmunks and your Daddy.
 
   Hardly.  My answers were professional, and devoid of chipmunks,
     "over the rainbow", Snow White, elves, dwarfs, babytalk,
     and the other "cute" Bassian references which began each tireing
     episode.   {Did/does Bass do this only here, and only with my
     posting?  (Hardly. check sci.physics or sci.physics.research).}
   Dale "wants"  but has been "weighed and found wanting".
 
==   "Please answer my question as stated above, if you are sure of the
==  significance of "excess power".
 
  There was absolutely no question in your post.
  However, instantaneous excess power is generally defined as
    (using your simplifications)
 
  Pexcess(t) = P_out(t) - P_in(t)
 
          = [I_out (t)* V_out(t)] - [I_in (t)* V_in(t)]
 
  or as a percentage:
 
          Pexcess (t) =  [P_out(t) - P_in(t)]
                         ------------------   x 100   (%)
                             P_in(t)
 
 
            Pexcess = [I_out (t)* V_out(t)] - [I_in (t)* V_in(t)]
                      -------------------------------------------   (%)
                               [I_in (t)* V_in(t)]
 
      Best wishes.
                           -  Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Paul Karol /  Re: polyneutrons
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: polyneutrons
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 09:21:42 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.26 / Jason Cooper /  Re: The dangers of space travel
     
Originally-From: lord@tradent.wimsey.com (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The dangers of space travel
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 18:28:45 GMT
Organization: TradeNET Corporation. International Trade and Commerce.

NOTHING is safe.  Take some of the more "normal" things in our everyday
lives.  Driving, for instance.  TENS OF THOUSANDS die every year (maybe
more) in automobile accidents.  Surely THIS isn't safe.  Routine, yes.
But the bottom line here is, routine does _not_ equal safe.
 
                                                Jason Cooper
 
EMAIL replies welcome!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlord cudfnJason cudlnCooper cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Peter Hamer /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: pgh@bnr.co.uk (Peter Hamer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: 27 Apr 1993 16:19:46 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, England.

In article <930426163342.2080783e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Dick Blue has collected all his courage and has stated that the correct way to
>measure energy is:
>
>            1)   Integral (v(t) * i(t)) dt
>
>I agree that this would do a pretty good job.  But I too, consider this such a
>tough problem that I am also very cautious about what can be stated.  For one,
>the cell being measured is a non-linear device.
 
I'm new to the discussion, so may be missing a lot, but I cannot see what the
technical difficulty is. Why not measure the instantaneous power directly?
 
Put a small resistor in series with the cell ...
 
           R
     --+--VVVV--+--[cell]-+---
       |        |         |
        <--v1-->
        <-------v2------->
 
Then multiply v1 by v2 with an operational amplifier to give the instantaneous
power input. Integrating v1*v2/R gives the nett power input to the system
(cell plus resistor).
 
You can, of course, look at v1*v2/R over time for non-DC effects.
 
Regards, Peter
 
Obviously if the resistor is outside the calorimeter measure v2 across the cell.
 
You could also measure the current via a laser/photo-diode combination, but might
need to linearise the signal. The sort of thing they use for photo-isolation of
equipment.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpgh cudfnPeter cudlnHamer cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Jed Rothwell /  The uncertainty lies in the technique
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The uncertainty lies in the technique
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 19:51:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jim Carr writes:
 
     "But let us suppose that a series of otherwise identical experiments gave
     results that were 4.9%, 5.7%, 6.2%, 7.8%, 8.3%, 9.5%, and 9.8% (just
     making up a few numbers).  Clearly the numbers do not reproduce at the
     0.1% level expected from the precision of the measurement apparatus.
     This leads one to do an error analysis that gives an average result of
     (7.5 +/- 1.8)%.  Thus the real uncertainty in any measurement is closer
     to 2% rather than 0.1%."
 
I disagree. I would say: "clearly the number show that the experiments are NOT
IDENTICAL." Conditions may be identical as far as the experimenters know, but
clearly they have missed something. They are overlooking some essential
parameter. This is a typical circumstance in groundbreaking scientific
research; you *think* conditions are identical, because you do not yet
understand how the system works. Later on you find that something you never
bothered to control, or never imagined could be a problem, was playing hob
with the results.
 
Let me relate an example of this, that I heard a few days ago from Fred Mayer.
Fred built one of the first successful inertial confinement laser fusion
devices. People working at a National Laboratory attempted to replicate his
work, and got nowhere for quite a long time. As far as anyone could tell, the
devices and procedures in both locations were exactly the same; the best
diagnostic instruments revealed no differences, yet Fred got a nuclear
reaction in one place, and they got a puff of hot air. Fred looked into the
problem and discovered that the Nat. Lab. laser had a "dirty leading edge;"
that is, it did send a sudden, clean "bolt" of laser light into the pellet,
but it would start off with very low levels of energy, and gradually work its
way up to a full blast of energy. By the time the full blast arrived, the
pellet was already vaporized. Fred did not go into the details, but this must
have been happening on a very small timescale (picoseconds? -- I have no
idea), so it was mighty difficult to catch. They did not have equipment or
techniques to determine the problem at first, or the imagination, so they
*thought* all conditions were the same, but they were wrong.
 
This sort of thing happens all the time in science and in R&D.
 
 
Jim concludes:
 
     "The point is that the data themselves are telling you that there are
     some uncertainties in the experiment that are quite a bit larger than
     the apparent precision of an individual measurement."
 
The uncertainty is not in the data, and not in the instrument. It is in the
technique, because cold fusion is terra incognito. Instrument uncertainty is
eliminated by extensive calibration and testing.
 
Finally, a minor note here, Jim criticized me for not preserving the
significant decimal places in my quotation. That was a direct quote from the
paper. I expect this is minor issue of English style, or perhaps a New Zealand
style of prose. You may be certain McKubre is a fanatic for accuracy, and
there is no sloppiness in his work.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 19:51:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Harrison has made a number of points about power measurement.  In
particular he points out that an old fashioned telephone converts DC to AC
which is transmitted back along the input wires.  I agree, and wish further to
point out that this is a ***non-linear*** device.  I think that all devices
that make such a conversion must be non-linear.  I could add a common radio
transmitter to Chuck's telephone.  Note that in my post I was very wary about
non-linear devices.  My recollection (from the dim past) is that complex
analysis (Fourier transforms, LaPlace transforms, etc.) works only for linear
systems.  But I am aware that it is sometimes "fixed up" to work with
components like diodes.  (Let's see if I can remember what makes a linear
function - finite and all derivatives must be finite? - I think that the
definition of continuous, linear has I believe that requirement and more - a
first degree equation.)
 
When I was at MIT, I was very fortunate to take Gardner's transient analysis
course.  His view on physical systems has stuck with me, and helped me to
analyze many real problems.  From "Transients in Linear Systems", Gardner and
Barnes. (1942)
 
"... This principle of adding solutions found under such conditions is called
the "principal of superposition."
 
Briefly, then, it is the simplicity and consequent additive properties of
linear mathematical systems that make possible their complete solution with
relative ease.
 
In contrast to the ease of handling linear mathematical systems, consider the
difficulty of treating meathematically those physical systems that are
basically nonlinear, i.e., those systems that cannot be represented by linear
mathematical systems without loss of their essential characteristics.  The
principal elements of such physical systems are nonlinear.  Examples are coils
with magnetic cores, resistors of lightning arrestors (or cold fusion cells -
TFD), and vacuum tubes used as oscillators.  A complete mathematical treatment
of complicated physical systems containing such elements is extremely
difficult and in most instances impractical.
 
Nonlinear systems are harder to treat mathematically because their behavior is
more complicated than the behavior of linear systems.  The elements do not
possess the characteristic additive properties of linear elements; in other
words, the principle of superposition does not apply.  Without these additive
properties the use of series expansions leads to much greater complication.
Systems of equations can no longer be treated by the efficient mass-production
methods of matric algebra.
 
The practical methods available for analysis of nonlinear systems are inexact
and complicated.  They are graphical and hence rough, or require machines.[Bu-
2] (reference Bu-2 is to V. Bush's differential analyzer a wonderous machine
of pulleys, gears, and ball disk integrators.)"
 
Of course this was written in 1942, and Gardner did not have a Sun or a 486 on
his desk as he would today.
 
When Pons and Fleischmann, McKubre, and others measure power by E*I (DC) they
are, I believe, assuming a linear system.  It may be that a real constant
current source can be factored out, but I would have to see a quality
derivation.
 
Therefore, they do not have a valid measurement of input power.
 
Therefore, they do not have an experiment.   QED
 
Chuck's scheme of putting a shunt regulator in the calorimeter is a nice idea
and looks like a good starting point.  In fact, I like it a lot.  It solves
many tough problems.  But I think we need both a series and a shunt regulator.
The series regulator is used to control the cell voltage or current, then the
shunt regulator can be controlled to regulate constant calorimeter input
current.  That way we can keep both the voltage and current into the
calorimeter constant.
 
There are likely many other good schemes.  My current preference (for
practical reasons) is to make simultaneous measurements of E and I at a
sampling rate above the Nyquist limit.  But as I said before, there is the
possibility that this does not work on a non-linear system.  Please step
forward, some expert.
 
Many of us (myself included) thought that a constant current supply would
protect us from this problem.  In the ACCF1 paper Lee and I said:
 
                                "Power is
computed by taking the mean of the voltage
readings and multiplying it by the mean of
the current readings.  Power is also
computed by taking the product of the
instantaneous readings and then taking the
mean of these products.  With either ideal
constant voltage or constant current
operation of the cell these computations
are mathematically equivalent.  However,
with real current sources differences are
possible.  The ratio of these computations
is recorded as the Garwin number and is
used as an indication of the quality of
the power measurement."
 
Unfortunately we dropped this nice computation in the present series of
experiments to save time and array space.  It was a mistake.  We did see small
variations of the Garwin number.  These did increase over time and with noise.
The only reason that I can think of for removing it from our data computation
was that I got a bout of truebelieveritis.
 
This says:
 
P = sum(e1*i1+e2*i2+e3*i3 ... en*in)/n = i* sum (e1+e2+e3+ ... en)/n if i
constant.
 
This then implies that it is OK to use an average reading (DC) meter to
measure e.
 
But factoring out that i requires (I suspect) a linear system to be valid.
We know that this is not a linear system since the cell resistance varies with
time.  Just look at any experiment.  Now I am well aware (before Chuck fires
back) that in the practical case, the constant current supply should work
pretty good.  My old math training is coming back, and I am looking at the
limits.  I am very suspicious that there is an invalid assumption here.
 
Chuck was also nice enough to give us some of the specs on the BOP series
supplies which I did not have.  We look at the specs, see a 2 KHz bandwidth
and assume that must be plenty fast enough for a cell that we are sampling at
once every four minutes (McKubre).  I look at a real cell and see many sharp
(millisecond) voltage jumps.  These are a few hundred millivolts with my
(purposefully set below the Nyquist limit for my 1 minute samples.) very slow
constant current supply.  I know they are volts with a fast current supply.  I
have now done several modest sampling rate experiments and find that
increasing the sampling rate and improving the alignment between the E and I
samples reduces my very tiny "anomalous heat" measurement.  My suspicion is
that if I were to operate like McKubre, that I would see more "anomalous heat"
and that improving the sampling technique would make it go away.  Note that
this cell voltage noise seems to take a long time to develop.  Just like the
"anomalous heat".  We will get to it eventually.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 20:41:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First, I want to say that Chuck Harrison has his inside the calorimeter scheme
right.  I read it too quickly and missed the outside constant current source.
But I would likely do it my way anyway.  I still like his idea.
 
It was never intended that anyone attempt to implement an ExH scheme.  Still,
I think the old fashioned two coil wattmeter would do a better job than most
workers seem to be doing in the measurement of power, even if it is likely
to be only a 1% device.  It is about as close to an ExH scheme as one can get.
 
While I do not think that time correlated sampling is a problem for anyone, I
have seen rather large bipolar power bumps which were due to a temporary lock
between the cell voltage ramps and the sampling period.  But they should and
do average to zero.
 
But Chuck is right.  I must modify my ***always*** to *almost always*.  I
think the conditions of the *almost* are pretty special, and are not likely to
think the conditions of the *almost* are pretty special, and are not likely to
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Jed Rothwell /  The last word in steady states
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The last word in steady states
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 20:41:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Cameron Randale Bass, who has a genius for introducing confusion and chaos
into a discussion, read the paragraph from the Hagelstein paper and commented
to me:
 
     "Sure, your definition of 'steady state' is now 10 minutes."
 
10 minutes was a period of time in a particular experiment during which the
electrolyte boiled away. Stan and Peter used this experiment to illustrate
some aspects of the reaction. The duration of an experiment has nothing to do
with whether that experiment exhibited a "steady state" -- nothing at all!
Duration is one thing, variance within that duration is another. You might
have an unstable 10 minutes followed by a rock steady hour. I cannot imagine
how Cameron managed to confuse these two unrelated items.
 
Anyone who wishes to know how steady P&F's reactions are should read P&F's
published papers. No doubt, Cameron will accuse me of "evading the issue" by
suggesting that he go read the papers and do his homework. He expects me to
spoon feed him every detail. Apparently, it never occurs to "skeptics" like
Cameron that it is possible to find out things by yourself.
 
Ten minutes was a nice handy period for this experiment, and for this
illustrative video, but many, many CF reactions go on longer than that.
According to Trigger magazine, P&F have achieved high heat reactions lasting
"several hours" [suu jikan]. I expect to be hearing more recent news from Stan
this week, perhaps he will offer details.
 
To those who have been asking: the 3rd Conf. Proceedings have still not
arrived here.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Getting to the Problem
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting to the Problem
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 23:26:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I now have two observations about CNF experiments:
 
1) As the experimenters do higher quality experiments (McKubre, me) the
observed "anomalous heat" decreases.
2) As more detail is known about an experiment problems can be found with
the measurement.  (again McKubre, me)
 
In response to Dale Bass, I am somewhat embarassed to admit that I built a
high speed data system of the type he desires, and then did not use it
properly.  This will be corrected in the near future, then I hope to take
dale up on his offer and send him some data.  Possibly this will keep him at
his terminal doing analysis instead of carrying on correspondence.
 
What I would like to do now, is plan an experiment.  First the data system
chacteristics.  We use a Crystal CS4016 A/D chip.  This converts in 20 us, but
it is a charge input device and takes a very narrow bite out of the input
signal.  Noise in the whole system is such that we are good to 13 or 14 bits
for a single sample.  We run now taking the mean of 100 samples and achieve
a resolution (precision) of about 1 in 100,000. The current program takes
6400 measurements every minute.  This takes about 10 seconds.  We will not
do quite so well taking individual samples as I pause a while when switching
the multiplexer to a new channel.
 
There are 4 voltages and 5 currents which make up the vital elements of the
calorimeter balance.  The odd current is the refrigerator current which is
supposed to be a constant, but I read it and correct for its instantaneous
value.  I would always want to read at least one of the reference voltages
into any data set, as one wants to be able to quickly recognize garbage.  My
first inclination is to read E,I pairs, but perhaps the order makes no
difference.  In any case the readings will be separated by a couple of
milliseconds using the present channel switching pause.  But perhaps I can
reduce that to a hundred microseconds or so, then we get down to how long
it takes the faithful old 286 to perform about 20 instructions in QUICKBASIC.
I can hear the groans.  So we might be able to read the ten items in a few
ms, this should get us to 10 samples a second or so with nice pauses between.
 
Seems like we would need many times 4 minutes worth of such data to be able to
compare McKubre's analysis with an "ideal" analysis.
 
There is also the problem of where to set the constant current bandwidth.  My
plan was to make it long compared to 1 minute, but it could have been changed
during one of the many explorations for oscillations.  I can likely set it
over a very wide range as it is run by a great amplifier.  But determining the
loop gain is another matter, so we will have to agree on terms somewhere If
I am to operate under agreed conditions.
 
OK, this should be enough for some of you to start thinking about an experiment
to compare a real cell to theory.  I will do something whether or not any of
you respond.  But it would be nice to have some participation.  There are
many other problems, like where to put all this data.  The machine only has
a 20 mb disk, and its directory is in terrible shape after 4 years of
continuous operation and many power failures.  I presently have to boot it
up from DOS.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Watts Steady-state
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 17:50:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C655Gu.Ax1@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Message-ID: <1721@lyman.pppl.gov>
>  Subject: Re: Watts Steady-state (will be yet again Re: Pining
for the Fiords)   Bruce Scott (bscott@lyman.pppl.gov) writes:
>
>==  "Dale is not the only one reading this stuff who is exasperated by
>==  Mitchell's failure to answer the question at hand."
>
>  Once again for those to whom English is a followable language:
>  The question was asked of Jed.  My past post did already show the reference.
>    Fact is: Dale was harassing Jed [in Dale's usual M.O.].
 
     ha-rass \he-'ras, 'har-es\ vt (1993)
         1:  To ask inconvenient questions repeatedly while
             attaining little or no substantive response.
 
>  Second, I did try to answer the question.  Also, like you I tried to be
>   quantitative (often a rather limited commodity on this channel).
 
     an-swer \'an(t)-ser\ n (1993)
         1:  To continually evade, tapdance, hop, skip and bop
             around a question.
 
     quan-ti-ta-tive \'kwa^:n(t)-e-,ta^-t-iv\ adj (1993)
         1:  Wrong.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 22:54:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930427142404.2360083c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>There are likely many other good schemes.  My current preference (for
>practical reasons) is to make simultaneous measurements of E and I at a
>sampling rate above the Nyquist limit.  But as I said before, there is the
>possibility that this does not work on a non-linear system.  Please step
>forward, some expert.
 
      For the reasons that you state (nonlinearity and higher
      frequency response), it may be difficult a priori to decide what
      an appropriate nyquist limit is, but the sampling theorem works with both
      linear and nonlinear functions.  Anything above 0.002 Hz in
      the frequency domain will be lost if one samples at 4 minutes.
      As a general impression, I wouldn't really be comfortable unless
      I was sampling frequently enough to get to the principal harmonics of
      power supply response (unless, of course, the 'anomalous heat'
      disappears long before that (humor to be inferred)).
 
      In any case, there is a great difference between solving a
      nonlinear equation and sampling a nonlinear system.  In a sense,
      the system has already done the hard part by solving itself for
      you. With that, we can play by the rules of the sampling theorem
      and assert loosely that we lose the frequency behavior
      outside a certain range if we take a certain sample.
 
      I guess you could consider this a psuedo-expert opinion
      since we play with these sorts of things all the time in a nonlinear way
      in turbulence theory.
 
>Many of us (myself included) thought that a constant current supply would
>protect us from this problem.  In the ACCF1 paper Lee and I said:
>
>                                "Power is
>computed by taking the mean of the voltage
>readings and multiplying it by the mean of
>the current readings.  Power is also
>computed by taking the product of the
>instantaneous readings and then taking the
>mean of these products.  With either ideal
>constant voltage or constant current
>operation of the cell these computations
>are mathematically equivalent.  However,
>with real current sources differences are
>possible.  The ratio of these computations
>is recorded as the Garwin number and is
>used as an indication of the quality of
>the power measurement."
 
>This says:
>
>P = sum(e1*i1+e2*i2+e3*i3 ... en*in)/n = i* sum (e1+e2+e3+ ... en)/n if i
>constant.
>
>This then implies that it is OK to use an average reading (DC) meter to
>measure e.
>
>But factoring out that i requires (I suspect) a linear system to be valid.
>We know that this is not a linear system since the cell resistance varies with
     But it's more complicated than that.  Both computations are subject to
     the sampling error inherent in either taking the average or
     taking the instantaneous reading.  Let's take four minute samples.
     Above 0.002 Hz, one gets essentially no contribution in either
     measurement.  So if there is a significant contribution at, say, 60 Hz,
     one would never see it, no matter how one averaged the readings.
     Such a contribution might integrate to a nonzero value.
 
>back) that in the practical case, the constant current supply should work
>pretty good.  My old math training is coming back, and I am looking at the
>limits.  I am very suspicious that there is an invalid assumption here.
 
     In such a nonlinear system, there is going to be a characteristic
     response by the power supply that invalidates <I*V> = I <V>
     in a certain frequency range.  So, if one wants to attain all the
     relevant harmonics of possible forcing, the task is made more difficult,
     in a sense, by getting a faster power supply.  I'd think that
     the best bet is to look at spectral power density for a well-sampled
     system, and actually see if the high frequency components are important.
 
>Chuck was also nice enough to give us some of the specs on the BOP series
>supplies which I did not have.  We look at the specs, see a 2 KHz bandwidth
>and assume that must be plenty fast enough for a cell that we are sampling at
>once every four minutes (McKubre).  I look at a real cell and see many sharp
>(millisecond) voltage jumps.  These are a few hundred millivolts with my
>(purposefully set below the Nyquist limit for my 1 minute samples.) very slow
>constant current supply.  I know they are volts with a fast current supply.  I
      What is the nyquist limit you are considering here?  It may well be
      that the 2 kHz response of the power supply is inducing some A*2Khz
      harmonic or subharmonic response in the voltage that is significant.
      Another thought I had is some sort of 'breathing' instability that
      is faster than 0.5 Hz.
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: 27 Apr 93 15:15:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

I'm replying to this part of John Cobb's post via post, since I don't want
any paranoids to get any weird ideas.
 
>So Bruce, what's up. Everytime I see you post, it seems to go through a
>different routing. Very curious.
 
We are just getting on the net from Garching, so I now post mostly from
here. However, I post to sci.astro and sci.physics.fusion from PPPL, and
alt.sci.planetary and sci.space from the unc bbs. It all depends on who
subscribes to which groups.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hardly the last word in steady states
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hardly the last word in steady states
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 23:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930427201536_72240.1256_EHK35-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Cameron Randale Bass, who has a genius for introducing confusion and chaos
>into a discussion, read the paragraph from the Hagelstein paper and commented
>to me:
 
     It's only confusing you because you continue to tapdance and
     avoid defining what you mean by '100 Watts' and 'steady-state'
     in the context of the assertions you made in a much earlier
     posting.
 
     Chaos, I take partial credit for.  I enjoy a good laugh now and again.
 
>     "Sure, your definition of 'steady state' is now 10 minutes."
>
>10 minutes was a period of time in a particular experiment during which the
>electrolyte boiled away. Stan and Peter used this experiment to illustrate
>some aspects of the reaction. The duration of an experiment has nothing to do
>with whether that experiment exhibited a "steady state" -- nothing at all!
 
     I ask a couple of questions and you first assert that context does
     not matter, and now you've only told me what it is *not*.
     Well, until you are willing to tell me what 'steady-state' is, I'm
     going to assume it involves a 10 minute duration.
 
     This is one difficulty with refusal to define what something *is*
     rather than what it is *not*.  *You* used the words in the process of
     denegrating the scientific credentials of others, I did not make them
     up.  Surely you are willing to play by the same rules everyone
     else uses and answer the questions *in context* *in a
     definite and scientific way*.
 
     Anything else continues to be evasion.
 
>Duration is one thing, variance within that duration is another. You might
>have an unstable 10 minutes followed by a rock steady hour. I cannot imagine
>how Cameron managed to confuse these two unrelated items.
 
     'Steady-state' surely involves a definition of duration.
     This is one difficulty with refusal to say what something *is*
     rather than what it is *not*.
 
>Anyone who wishes to know how steady P&F's reactions are should read P&F's
>published papers. No doubt, Cameron will accuse me of "evading the issue" by
>suggesting that he go read the papers and do his homework. He expects me to
>spoon feed him every detail. Apparently, it never occurs to "skeptics" like
>Cameron that it is possible to find out things by yourself.
 
     I'm more than willing to read the papers.  However, *you* made assertions
     that have never even been defined, much less substantiated.
 
>Ten minutes was a nice handy period for this experiment, and for this
>illustrative video, but many, many CF reactions go on longer than that.
>According to Trigger magazine, P&F have achieved high heat reactions lasting
>"several hours" [suu jikan]. I expect to be hearing more recent news from Stan
>this week, perhaps he will offer details.
 
     This is worse than not answering, referencing an offhand comment
     in a magazine.  I have no idea what 'high heat' is, I have no
     idea what 'several hours' means, and I have no idea if that
     is 'steady state', and from past performance I don't
     expect to hear anything substantial from Pons through you.
 
     Geez, either say 'I'm just not going to answer', or answer.
     The dodgeball is getting boring.
 
                                dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Gregory Bloom /  Fracto-Fusion speculation
     
Originally-From: gbloom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gregory Bloom)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fracto-Fusion speculation
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 23:52:11 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.

 
I was wondering whether any experiments have been done which look for
fusion events in fracturing substances when they are carrying high
electrical currents?  I envision an experiment involving Pd or perhaps
graphite (hoping for a more planar fracture), where a rod is loaded
with deuterium and a large current is passed through it while tension
is applied, causing the rod to fracture.  I picture the fracture
causing a large electric field which propagates along with the fracture,
concentrating on the last point of connection.  Some of the deuterium
will be stripped of electrons, and the positively charged nuclei might be
tempted to follow the rush of electrons toward the last point of electrical
connection.  If a metal rod were tempered by applying mechanical tension
while hot, and allowing this tension to decrease as the rod cools, the
bonds on the outside of the rod might be more strained than those of the
center.  This might help a developing fracture to advance toward the
center of the rod, where deuterons might collide in a high temperature
environment as the current has been squeezed to a single point.
 
I write software for a living, so please forgive any hopelessly naive
notions revealed here.
 
Gregory Bloom
gbloom@nyx.cs.du.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengbloom cudfnGregory cudlnBloom cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / bui xuan /  electron microscopy of CF samples (question)
     
Originally-From: bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (bui tho xuan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: electron microscopy of CF samples (question)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 03:25:22 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

 
 
Is there any microscopy (transmission, scanning, or other) work
on the Pd samples after they've reported positive?
What is the "normal" post mortum examination of these samples?
I'd appreciate any references, reviews, or gossip.
Preferably, references!
 
Being a microscopist working on radiation damage, I figured I ought
to stick to what I know :-)
 
Thanks.
 
Tho X. Bui.  bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbleep cudfnbui cudlnxuan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Dieter Britz /  Pushing H2 through pipes
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pushing H2 through pipes
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 08:53:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In FD 946, I casually and imprecisely mention that I had heard that it is
cheaper to push hydrogen through a pipe than electricity through a wire.
Well, Richard Altstatt corrects me (privately), telling me that because of its
lower heat value, hydrogen is more expensive to push than natural gas, that it
leaks more, reacts with most metals and can be explosive, like natural gas.
 
I knew about hydrogen embrittlement of metals, but I guess you "simply" (?)
need to choose the material you make the pipes out of. And hydrogen is lighter
than natural gas, so would it not be easier to push? I don't know.
The imprecision: what is meant by my reference is pushing through a pipe an
amount of hydrogen that, when burnt, yields the same amount of heat energy
as some amount of current being pushed through its conductor.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 12:32:06 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 23:44:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In sci.physics.fusion, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    OK, Does your measured excess power in the control experiments also
>      decrease, too, when you adopt this increased sampling rate?
>
>...
>
>    Were/Are these many watts of power also leaking into your control cell,
>    too?           Thanks.
>                                            Mitchell
 
Good Lord!  When C.  Bass was looking for some details on positive experiments,
you wouldn't give it to him, but look at the amount of detail you want on this
experiment!
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Hysteria about McKubre
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hysteria about McKubre
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 14:00:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I have noticed a lot of hysterical nonsense here centered around allegations
that McKubre only measures power once every four minutes. Let me dampen the
excitement, and suggest that before anyone else writes that, or comments on
it, you try reading McKubre's paper first. Here is what it says:
 
      "Input power was determined for both the cell and the heater as a
      product of two measured voltages normalized by a precalibrated
      resistance. Voltages were measured use a Keithley 195A 5-1/2 digital
      multimeter with 0.01% dc volt accuracy and 0.015% resistance accuracy.
      Resolution was 1 ppm (ohm) and 10 ppm (dcV). Each 5-1/2 digit
      measurement was averaged 32 times before being recorded. Resistance
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      standards were calibrated periodically against NIST traceable standards
      using NIST traceable calibration instruments yielding an accuracy of
      (approx) 0.1%"  (Proc. II Annual Conf. On CF, p. 426)
 
It is standard operating procedure to take a quick series of readings, and
record an average. Now, it does not say here that measurements were performed
four minutes apart, but let us take that as a given. You can tell by looking
at the graphs that the "32 average points" are not taken at one per minute,
(or 1 every 4 minutes), because there are far more than 2 recorded points per
hour. So, let us just assume that McKubre is using the tried and true,
standard method of taking 32 quick readings, every four minutes. This
technique is every bit as reliable as taking a constant stream of readings
every few seconds, and averaging each group of 32. The four minute gap makes
no difference, because the cell cannot read the computer's mind, and know
when to fluctuate, and when to behave.
 
Furthermore, I am quite sure that Mike & his people would have enough sense
to check all 32 numbers occasionally, and to look at the mean and extreme, as
well as the average. Anyone who has ever processed a byte of data would have
enough sense to do that. I have seen plenty of CF experimental data, and I am
sure they find no great spread in those 32 near instantaneous values. There
are no chaotic short term random fluctuations in CF, except for the wild,
uninformed speculation that is posted here.
 
I am also certain that Mike knows how to use an oscilloscope.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Hydrogen in pipes
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrogen in pipes
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 17:37:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz reports comments about:
 
"...hydrogen is more expensive to push than natural gas, that it leaks more,
reacts with most metals and can be explosive, like natural gas.
 
I knew about hydrogen embrittlement of metals..."
 
Years ago I read about a scheme to upgrade or improve existing pipelines to
allow hydrogen, by retrofitting with some sort of plastic inner layer in the
pipe. The other day the gas company came to my street and dug several small
holes, including one in my front yard. They fitted a plastic sleeve,
essentially a smaller, flexible pipe, inside the existing gas feed coming into
my house. They said it was a program to reduce leaks and replace gas pipes
without digging up the whole neighborhood. They did not have to dig a trench
to the house, and it did not take them long to slide the new pipe inside the
old. It reduces the diameter a little bit, but that makes no noticeable
difference in the gas flow.
 
 
Dale Bass said that the quote I cited from "Trigger" magazine is merely "an
offhand comment in a magazine." This is incorrect. Trigger is a serious
technical magazine, published by Nikkei, and I am certain the information in
it comes from the horse's mouth. Trigger does not print "offhand" comments,
any more than the Japanese Edition of Scientific American does. The S.A., by
the way, carried a superb guest editorial by Hideo Ikegami, in the January
edition.
 
 
Tom Droege claims that:
 
"As the experimenters do higher quality experiments (McKubre, me) the observed
'anomalous heat' decreases."
 
This is factually incorrect. It may be true of Tom, but is it not true of
McKubre, Pons and Fleischmann, Kunimatsu, Ikegami, Storms, De Ninno, Celani,
Mizuno, Srinivasan, or any other experimenter I have ever hear of.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  E-Mail Overload
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: E-Mail Overload
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 18:31:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sorry, everyone, but I am in E-Mail overload.  Last night I stayed to try
to answer everyone, but messages kept coming in faster thatn I could compose
answers.  If I gave a short answer, or if your message was ignored, try me
again in a few weeks.  Right now my focus is to try to set up a good
experiment to study the power measurement.
 
But I would like to encourage some new posters by a short response.  William
Hawkins went to a lot of trouble to study calorimetry errors.  We do the best
we can to divide inside from outside.  In the end, the remaining uncertainties
are solved by calibration experiments.  The problem is to design a calibration
experiment that looks like a real cell run.  Not so easy.
Yes, we detect the energy loss due to the charging process.  Droege rimes logy
the o is long.  Unless you are high German.
 
Mitchell Swartz asks a bunch of questions about what experiments we have run.
No really good ones yet.  We do not see any anomalous heat in the calorimeter
heater experiments.  We have always seen a little "anomalous heat" in the D2O
experiments.  The H2O experiments are inconclusive.  But our power measurement
scheme is much fancier than anyone else's.  It could be even beter if we focus
on power measurement.  The plan is to take the current cell, which has been
running about 1200 hours, and to measure it's power very carefully by our high
speed sampling scheme.  We will then be able to take this data, and compute
the best possible power, and also comput power like McKubre and P&F.  Then we
shall see.
 
Peter Hamer suggests "put a small resistor in series with the cell...".
Remember what we are studying is the possibility that P&F and others have
somehow made a bad measurement.  BTW, you need an operarional multiplier to
get the product.  Some of us know how to do it with amplifiers, but it is
a very obscure art.  That is also my reason for suggesting the old fashioned
two coil wattmeter.  The problem is that multipliers are not very good, and we
can do a much better calculation by measuring the current and voltage with
high speed ADC's and doing the multiplication in the computer.  But we have to
do it right, and so far no one, not even me who knows better, have been doing
it right.  Tom Kunich also made a similar suggestion.  Basically good ideas
both, but very hard to do to better than 1%.
 
Dale Bass worries about the 4 minute samples missing 60 Hz components.  That is
one thing that P&F and McKubre do right with their Keithley meters.  These
meters have very little response to 60 cycles.  Many db down.  Errr. Possibly
I see what you mean.  You could put a hundred watts of 60 cycles into the
cell and the Keithley would measure about 10 nanowatts (because it is a square
term and the two 80 db rejections would add).  But this is unlikely because
this would be taken out by any reasonable calibration experiment.  All the
more reason to think very carefully about calibration experiments.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:40:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <1705@lyman.pppl.gov>, bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott) writes:
>|>From the letter by Robert Hirsch:
>
>Oh, we're talking about Hirsch. From the Subject line I thought that perhaps
>Sakharov or Artsemovich were talking from beyond the grave. :>
 
Touche :)
 
(It's good to see someone with this sort of historical knowledge.)
 
>Those interested in this thread my find David Montgomery's letter to the
editor
>in the latest issue of Issues in Science and Technology.
>
>basically my read of what he says is as follows. He is writing in answer to
an
>article published last year that advocated abandoning the U.S. fusion effort
>because it requires a 30 year, ~1G$/yr committment for success which cannot
>occur in the present political climate. Montgomery's comment is that the root
>of the problem is that the U.S. and DOE prematurely committed to the TOKAMAK
>and thus converted Magnetic Fusion Research to an energy program from a
>research program. His words are better than my paraphrasing.
 
There has been a flurry of such articles recently.  One of them was in the
Congressional Quarterly Review.  The bandwagon is teetering on the brink.
I don't think anyone will have to try to push it over.  Thanks to the
carefully cultivated insolence of those in charge of the fusion program,
the bandwagon is going to roll off the cliff by itself.
 
If they had any wisdom left after all the government-funding-induced
synaptic weight decay, they'd be indiscriminately pounding down the doors
of all the "crazy" inventors they've been carefully ignoring for all these
years so as to evenly divvy up the current budget of the fusion program
among them on the "off-chance" that one of them might not have been all
that crazy and could show significant progress within a year.  Of course,
they'd have to make all those guys move into the districts of key
Congressmen, but that would be the least of their problems.
 
Funny thing is, its highly probable that if they did such a scatter-shot
approach with just one year's fusion budget, they'd set fusion technology
forward 30 years compared to their own projections.
 
They really have nothing to lose anyway -- they just don't know it yet.
 
The fact that the current environment doesn't send them into such panic
behavior indicates we're unlikely to have to deal with the current fusion
program management much longer.  They're committing political suicide.
 
It is, after all, the only honorable course of action left them.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:40:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a tour de force of insolence, muddled thinking and poor reading
comprehension, compounded by the ethical integrity of a mongoose in
heat and a historical shallowness rivaled only by Homer Simpson,
edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
>Jim Bowery writes:
>
>>pockets.  We don't pay you to insolently oppose our efforts to create
>>incentives for you.  You oppose our efforts not simply because you prefer
>>the security of government funding to the challenge of market incentives --
>>you are so ethically bankrupt that you don't see the conflict of interest
>>inherent in taking our money and then competing with us in the political
>
>I take it "you" = NASA, in this case.
 
It is quite clear from my repeated use of "government-funded" as opposed to
"NASA" that I am refering to anyone who has a conflict of interest when
they engage in political activity in support of their own funding streams
(that is to say, they participate in conflicts of interest in the political
 activities and are, therefore, unethical)
 
>I may be bankrupt, but I'm not unethical.
 
Not only are you unethical, you are obtuse.  But then ignorance is bliss --
especially when you want to maintain deniability -- possibly to yourself
as much as to others.
 
>I've also worked in the commercial marketplace before.
 
So had Lennin and Marx.
 
>Er, Jim, if you want to see a lack of ethics, check out some of the private
>industry that's funded by government contracts (more on this in a bit).
 
Oh, you mean contractors like yourself?
 
Hello?
 
Is any of this getting through the limbic noise and registering at
your neocortex?
 
>>And that was to be taken care of by a $600M market guarantee under the
>>late Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldridge with government anchor
>>tenancy for the Industrial Space Facility.  I lobbied for support of
>>this proposal along with Baldridge's Office of Commercial Space back
>>in 1987-88.  NASA vigorously opposed our efforts and eventually won.
>
>I was working at Keithley Instruments during that time-frame.  So, I had
>nothing to do with it.
 
Oh, right.  My mistake.  I thought you had.  I'm really glad to see
such disciplined and articulate intellects are the recipients of the
funds from the largest civilian government technology program.
 
>>(BTW:  The CDSF would have been flying experiments by now were it not
>> for NASA's opposition to the creation of these commercial incentives.)
>
>I could argue that SSF would have been flying experiments by now, if it had
>been given a single center as its primary, without this "equal pieces to
>all centers" stuff.  The single center would be able to design the system
>in-house (like in the Appollo days - NASA did the prototyping, contractors
>built more).
 
And people in the Russia wouldn't be having such a hard time of it if
they had just worked a little harder to make GOOD socialists be in charge
and make GOOD central plans.
 
They only gave the goddamn idea 70 years, after all.  Why not another
70 years just to make sure central planning REALY FOR SURE AND WITHOUT
A DOUBT can't be made to work?  I know...  the answer is easy:  The
citizenry is a bunch of ungrateful worthless scum who won't get behind
the GOOD socialists and support them in their efforts to make socialism
work.
 
I know.
 
>Unfortunately, we have Level II, which has authority but no money, and the
>centers (LeRC, MSFC and JSC) which have money but no authority.  I think
>there's a disconnect somewhere... :-)
 
Yeah, like between historic evidence of central planning's effectiveness
and our scientist's ability to apply their scientific reasoning skills
to that evidence.
 
>>You make my point quite well.  The government is the biggest monopoly
>>of them all, accountable only to the political process.  When those
>>receiving government funds can fight back via the political process,
>>as opposed to via raw competitive technical performance, no one, not IBM,
>>not GM, dares to compete.  Just ask George Koopman, founder of American
>
>I don't know if you know the SSF prime contractors are, but, since you've
>mentioned IBM:
>
>Work package 1:  Marshall Space Flight Center
>
>Prime contractor = Boeing
>
>Work package 2: L.B. Johnson Space Center
>
>Prime contractor = McDonnell Douglas
>  MDSSC subcontractor = IBM
>
>Work Package 4: Lewis Research Center
>
>Prime contractor = Rocketdyne
>
>Various sub contractors include Honeywell, Lockheed, Loral, etc.
>
>These guys ain't missing out on the money, count on it.
 
Right, and they WON'T miss out on it so long as they don't try
to do anything that might rock the boat (like come up with a quick
 cheap way to do microgravity experiments and report to the NASA
 inspector general and/or file suit when NASA HQ refuses to
 fulfill their statutory obligation to the taxpayers and gives such
 technical routes due consideration).
 
>>Rocket Company who raised millions in private capital to develop
>>hybrid rocket technology that NASA dropped in the 60's, only to have
>>his suppliers harrassed with threats of terminated contracts by NASA,
>>have his competitors given money by NASA to put him out of business
>>and then keep the results of that funding out of the hands of AMROC.
>>Oops... sorry, you CAN'T ask him...  he's dead.  Ok, ask Gerald Bull
>>who actually started building an aerospace cannon which NASA and the
>>DoD rejected -- driving him into the hands of third world powers.
>>Oops, sorry, he's dead too.  Ok, then since Baldridge is dead too,
>>let's go ask his Office of Commercial Space, which Baldrige set up to
>>promote the Commercially Developed Space Facility.  Oops.. sorry,
>
>Sounds like a lot of dead people.  I'm afraid to ask what they died of...
>Uh, what did they die of?
 
>From NASA "Political Operations Manual" control number 37-357cjsc page 23
section title "Standard Responses to Paranoid Conspiracy Theories":
 
"Koopman died in a single car accident on a desert road.  But he was a
known wild driver so we can rule out foul play.  The Isreali Mossad
assassinated Bull after Bull began working for muslim sweethearts like
Sadam Hussein.  But Bull shouldn't have gone to work for guys like
that in the first place so he was asking for it.  Baldridge died when
his the horse he was riding reared and threw him off at a public event.
But horses do that sort of thing and Baldridge was too old to be playing
cowboy."
 
There.  Feel better?
 
>>I wouldn't mind if you were able to specify that all your tax money were
>>to go to SSF or ITER or whatever.  What I mind is you taking time to
>>post messages via your government-funded access to this network to enhance
>>the climate of government-funded political intimidation against those
>>who would seek to give you and your managers appropriate incentives.
>
>I can also access this network via freenet, which is probably in some way
>government funded also.  All I need is a modem for my PC, access is free.
>The company I work for pays me by the hour, so I have no real problem with
>accessing the net during business hours.  i.e.  the time is mine, you aren't
>paying for it.  Guaranteed.
 
Good for you.  I wonder how the "free time" budget of those under
government funding has fared compared to the rest of the working
population over the last decade or so.
 
>As far as intimidation goes, (correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that
>NASA has threatened to pull contracts from companies that were eyeing a few
>private corporations for doing business with.
>
>I believe this is illegal, and could have been used against NASA at that
>time.  Perhaps it was too costly for the private companies to consider
>putting up a fight.
 
Koopman had just filed suit against NASA (which could have opened up
 discovery procedures) when he was killed.  For some reason, his
successors didn't pursue the matter and instead stopped their launch
program altogether, preferring to find a "strategic partner" in one
of their large competitors instead.
 
[story about sleaze-ball private company deleted]
>Perhaps NASA didn't want to see the same thing happen with the other tech-
>nology it developed.  Perhaps there was a personal conflict between the
>parties concerned.  I hadn't heard this story before, and wasn't old enough
>to care back in the '60's.
 
AMROC was started in the mid 80's.  It did advanced hybrid rocket
development on its own funds.  NASA hadn't done anything in hybrids at
all for 20 years.  It would seem that any intellectual property, ethical
or moral claim to hybrid rocket motor technology by NASA had long since
expired.  NASA didn't originate hybrid rocket technology and AMROC's
technical advances were genuine.
 
But that's not the real point here is it?
 
You conveniently change the subject and raise red herrings so we don't
pay attention to the fact that if NASA had any legitimate problem with
AMROC, they would have gone through the Justice Department -- not
intimidation of contractors and anticompetitive funding patterns.
 
Congratulation, Mr. Jamison.  Your mangers must be very proud of your
ability to confuse politically critical and embarrassing issues.  Your
paycheck is assured, regardless of how you perform during "work hours."
 
>>point of no return.  You want help?  Then stop opposing our efforts
>>to reform your programs.
>
>I don't.
 
Yes you do.  When you talk about using central planning instead of
establishing appropriate incentives you make yourself part of the problem.
 
>>Leave the politics to people who aren't likely to receive a paycheck
>>from the programs being discussed.
>
>Uh, that means I'd have to trust their ethics.
 
When you advocate more security or more government money for yourself,
over the objections of people who are paying those funds, there is no
issue of "trust" here -- it is an a priori fact that the public trust
has been violated -- by you.  If you have to trust my ethics as a
taxpayer, then I say, "Ain't life grand?"
 
>Might put me out of a job,
 
Exactly.
 
>>Be ethical.
>
>I am.
 
QED
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Jim Bowery /  Re: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And Then There's Bandwagon Science
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:40:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <m0nn9N3-0000ZdC@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim
>Bowery) writes:
>|>Given the the dismal track record of "bandwagon science", why do you
>|>think there is "pressure from the funding source to keep it that way" ?
>|>
>Remember that
>breathing down
>your back is congress,
 
Congress has given billions to hot fusion while projected times to
completion accellerate toward the horizon.  Same with the space
station and any of a number of other big science programs.  Seems
to me the scientists would get the message after awhile -- congress
tolerates virtually infinite technical incompetence while punishing
only when the appearance TO THE PUBLIC gets so bad that they can't
cover up the program's mismanagement any longer.
 
>or your private foundation who wants to see results.
 
Oh, like Keck and that worthless, low-risk telescope of theirs?
Or the Rothschilds funding of Seymour Cray and that gallium arsenide
technology of his that the DoD's billions haven't been able to get
to work for the last 15 years?  Shall I continue?  ;-)
 
>grants to do that. Then innovation gives way to repitition. Of course this
>is a natural and recognized tendancy that funding agenceis have tried to
>grapple with before.
 
The solution to the problem is to:
 
1) Put more of the decisions in the hands of inventors, proven successful
        by the evidence of their patent royalty streams.  To do this:
    a) Stop taxing technology royalties that go to individual inventors.
    b) Let government science funding be dispersed to scientists via the
            authority of inventors, that authority being proportionate
            to their current royalty streams.
2) Let private concerns enjoin the government from competing with their
        private technology investments and recover damages that result
        from anticompetitive funding of technology by the government.
 
Of course, inventors are the bane of bureaucrats in both the public
and private sectors -- bureaucrats who are much more likely to
influence political action than nerdy, head-in-the-cloud inventors
who think a new contraption is far more interesting than a political
dog-fight.  The bureaucrats would rather see their own science and
technology programs terminated than see those insubordinate
independent inventors be empowered in any substantial way.
 
That being the case, it may be the best we can do is continually push
for the termination of all government science and technology programs
and the promulgation of such a moral principle to future generations.
 
 
Bruce Scott writes:
>>From Jim Bowery:
>
>>Given the the dismal track record of "bandwagon science", why do you
>>think there is "pressure from the funding source to keep it that way" ?
>
>I think it's because they think they'll just muddle through. They'll build
>it big enough to reach ignition, cook up a story, and the biggest shot will
>(maybe) win a Nobel prize. I'm not really sure about that. It depends on
>how convincing the confinement story sounds in the end. My prediction is
>that poorly-resolved computations will come "close enough" so that when
>really sound work is done later someone with connections will be able to
>claim to have done it first. The really sound work will not only win no
>prize, it will be forgotten. Everyone will be happy, happy, and will think
>a great scientific advance has been made. In this culture of advertisement
>the worms go to the loudest birds (who publish 400+ papers) who scream
>first.
 
In other words, the incentives are all there to engage in political
action disguised as technical development and/or scientific research.
 
This is a direct consequence of the funding sources being within
a political entity like the government.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hysteria about McKubre
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hysteria about McKubre
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:00:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930428132713_72240.1256_EHK20-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>I have noticed a lot of hysterical nonsense here centered around allegations
>that McKubre only measures power once every four minutes.
 
     You're right, quite hysterical, a veritable laugh riot.
 
>Let me dampen the
>excitement, and suggest that before anyone else writes that, or comments on
>it, you try reading McKubre's paper first. Here is what it says:
>
>      "Input power was determined for both the cell and the heater as a
>      product of two measured voltages normalized by a precalibrated
>      resistance. Voltages were measured use a Keithley 195A 5-1/2 digital
>      multimeter with 0.01% dc volt accuracy and 0.015% resistance accuracy.
>      Resolution was 1 ppm (ohm) and 10 ppm (dcV). Each 5-1/2 digit
>      measurement was averaged 32 times before being recorded. Resistance
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      standards were calibrated periodically against NIST traceable standards
>      using NIST traceable calibration instruments yielding an accuracy of
>      (approx) 0.1%"  (Proc. II Annual Conf. On CF, p. 426)
 
 
     However, even giving him credit for all thirty two samples, and assuming
     that the sampling is done at at equal intervals over a four minute timespan,
     that only raises the cutoff to 0.066 Hz.  Of course, since he's averaged
     them by unknown means for an unknown duration, it's difficult to tell.
     I'll also note that the purpose of an averaging procedure is to knock out
     higher frequency 'noise'.  When I read this paper the first time,
     I assumed that the data was being obtained very rapidly.
 
     This just shows the importance of defining one's terms.
 
>hour. So, let us just assume that McKubre is using the tried and true,
>standard method of taking 32 quick readings, every four minutes. This
>technique is every bit as reliable as taking a constant stream of readings
>every few seconds, and averaging each group of 32. The four minute gap makes
>no difference, because the cell cannot read the computer's mind, and know
>when to fluctuate, and when to behave.
 
      This is the problem with investigating the psychology of such cells
      rather than the physics.  Above the nyquist cutoff, one gets
      essentially no information.  If the integrated waveform is
      nonzero above 0.07 Hz, one might never know it.
 
>Furthermore, I am quite sure that Mike & his people would have enough sense
>to check all 32 numbers occasionally, and to look at the mean and extreme, as
>well as the average. Anyone who has ever processed a byte of data would have
>enough sense to do that. I have seen plenty of CF experimental data, and I am
>sure they find no great spread in those 32 near instantaneous values. There
>are no chaotic short term random fluctuations in CF, except for the wild,
>uninformed speculation that is posted here.
 
     On the other hand, I am not sure.  It says nowhere that they attempted
     faster sampling and integration to determine the effect of sampling
     rate.  When I read the paper the first time, I was *sure* that they
     were sampling fast enough.
 
     In any case, please feel free to provide us with information to
     limit our uninformed speculation.  Phrases like 'I am sure' don't
     inspire as much confidence as the actual numbers and sampling
     rates and averaging procedure and actual 'spread' of the instantaneous
     data.
 
>I am also certain that Mike knows how to use an oscilloscope.
 
     It will be interesting to hear what Mr. McKubre thinks.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:37:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <19930428.101425.417@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Dale Bass posted:
>>     As I will keep repeating, I believe the 'demonstration' was not
>>     his idea, it was suggested to him.  The novelty was not his.
>>
>>     It's interesting that Feynman's 'defenders' in this instance
>>     don't seem to account for Feynman's apparent chagrin regarding
>>     this episode.
>         What is the basis for these statements.  The only regrets
>about the episode expressed in WDYCWOPT is that Feynman had tested
>his demo beforehand instead trying it for the first time on live TV.
 
      I cannot locate the basis, so I'll have to defer to the statements
      in WDYCWOPT.  In that light, I retract the above statements including
      the assertion that the 'demonstration' was not his idea.
 
      This does not, however, affect the argument that such a person
      could have been misled by nonbenign anonymous 'experts' at NASA, contractors,
      subcontractors, the military.  Please don't mistake what actually happened
      for what could have happened.
 
      Also recall that this discussion started with the implication that this
      episode represented a case where 'nonexpert' performed an investigation
      that determined facts that 'experts' would not have.  It is clear, however,
      that several 'experts' already had good ideas as to the cause, and had
      managed to funnel them to the 'nonexpert' mouthpiece.  I have
      wondered if Mr. Feynman, in his quest to be the wondrous mystical
      'safecracker', did not perform a disservice to the investigation by
      neglecting to tell us from whence he was being fed information at the time.
      After all, the given reason for anonymity did not have to be the actual
      reason.
 
      It turned out to be an extremely minor disservice, but it did not have
      to be, and it should be a cautionary episode for those who find themselves
      in similar situations.
 
                                     dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hydrogen in pipes
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 21:00:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930428165227_72240.1256_EHK41-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Dale Bass said that the quote I cited from "Trigger" magazine is merely "an
>offhand comment in a magazine." This is incorrect. Trigger is a serious
>technical magazine, published by Nikkei, and I am certain the information in
>it comes from the horse's mouth. Trigger does not print "offhand" comments,
>any more than the Japanese Edition of Scientific American does. The S.A., by
>the way, carried a superb guest editorial by Hideo Ikegami, in the January
>edition.
 
      I don't derive immense technical satisfaction from 'high heat' and
      'a couple of hours'.  Certainly if 'Trigger' is a technical magazine,
      these would qualify as offhand comments.  They'd even be offhand
      comments in Newsweek.
 
      By the way, Scientific American prints 'offhand comments' all the time;
      they've got two sections full of them.
 
                                    dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Doug Roberts /  Re: Good works
     
Originally-From: roberts@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good works
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 21:57:56 GMT
Organization: LANL A-DO/SA

In article <1993Apr28.150240.16867@nosc.mil> farris@nosc.mil (Russell H. Farris) writes:
 
           Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward said or wrote
   something to the effect that
 
       "All good work is done contrary to the wishes of management."
 
           Does anyone know the exact quote, and the context in which
   it was uttered/written? Thanks
 
See my attached .signature.
--Doug
--
 
==================================================================
Douglas Roberts                |
Los Alamos National Laboratory | All good work is done in defiance
dzzr@lanl.gov                  |  of management. -- Bob Woodward
(505)667-4569                  |
==================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenroberts cudfnDoug cudlnRoberts cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / mitchell swartz /  PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PS on the boiling cell
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 21:53:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Apr28.125434.592@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: PS on the
 boiling cell,  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
==sj  "A constant-current supply also means that should a resistive coating
==sj  form on the cathode (as we suspect from our studies at BYU), then the
==sj  voltage and power  INPUT to the cell must rise to compensate.  This
==sj  added heat is then dissipated near the cathode and might lead to boiling
==sj  there."
 
   Steven, if this were true then please consider the following.
   If the INPUT power to the cell rose as you describe, would
   not the measured excess power (assuming it remained constant) actually
   decrease when calculated as a percent of the input?
 
   With the denominator increasing, the excess power would thus fall.
 
          Pexcess (t) =  [P_out(t) - P_in(t)]
                         ------------------   x 100   (%)
                             P_in(t)
 
 
       Also, what do you estimate the thickness of these layers are, based
   upon your studies at BYU.
 
    Given  R= rho * L
             -------   a reasonable lumped parameter calculation could
                A         then follow.
                                               - Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Ad aspera /  Re: Good works
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good works
Date: 28 Apr 1993 22:21:11 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

> "All good work is done contrary to the wishes of management."
 
An overstatement, though a clever one.  The relationship
between good work and management is neither as strong or
causal as the MBAs like to think, nor as weak or causal
as the toilers in the trenches would have it.
 
Management isn't a science; it's an art occasionally
enlightened by quantitative metrics.  Some organizations,
and some individual managers, are more perverse than others,
but to some extent they all grope around in the dark just
like we do.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 20:26:37 EDT

         Dale Bass posted:
>     This does not, however, affect the argument that such a person
>     could have been misled by nonbenign anonymous 'experts' at NASA, contractors,
>     subcontractors, the military.  Please don't mistake what actually happened
>     for what could have happened.
 
>     Also recall that this discussion started with the implication that this
>     episode represented a case where 'nonexpert' performed an investigation
>     that determined facts that 'experts' would not have.  It is clear, however,
>     that several 'experts' already had good ideas as to the cause, and had
>     managed to funnel them to the 'nonexpert' mouthpiece.  I have
>     wondered if Mr. Feynman, in his quest to be the wondrous mystical
>     'safecracker', did not perform a disservice to the investigation by
>     neglecting to tell us from whence he was being fed information at the time.
>     After all, the given reason for anonymity did not have to be the actual
>     reason.
 
>     It turned out to be an extremely minor disservice, but it did not have
>     to be, and it should be a cautionary episode for those who find themselves
>     in similar situations.
 
       You are correct that the original post by terry:
>Jolly good!  You know, along a similar vein, I always thought the late
>Dr. Richard Feynman was sticking his nose in the wrong place when he
>exactly nailed the cause of the Challenger disaster months before anyone
>else -- and proved it graphically on national TV by simply dipping a piece
>of O-ring material into a glass of cold water!
       is nonsense (as was pointed out earlier).  There was no great
mystery to be solved, the cause was pretty obvious.  His ice water
demo could also be criticised as grandstanding.  That said I do not
understand the animosity towards Feynman apparent in your posts.  I
do not believe it would have been at all easy to sell Feynman a phony
accident cause.  I also believe his contribution to the accident in-
vestigation was very valuable and that he was an excellent choice to
serve on the commision.  Nasa with its "experts" had come up with an
accident probabilty of 10**-5 a figure that the "nonexpert" Feynman
correctly characterized as ludicrous.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjbs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Congressional hearings on fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Congressional hearings on fusion
Date: 28 Apr 93 14:28:38 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
 
I have just heard that Ed Storms, recently retired from Los Alamos National
Lab and an avid CF-heat advocate, is testifying this week before a
U.S. congressional committee.  Evidently the committee is exploring funding
for "hot" fusion, and called Ed to speak to the issue of "cold" fusion.
 
Would appreciate further information on this matter.
Also, any comments on how the highly-publicized CF-heat claims are affecting
funding for hot fusion in the U.S. or elsewhere?
 
Thanks,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: References to F&P's retractions?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: References to F&P's retractions?
Date: 28 Apr 93 14:23:03 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9304201117.AA29695@dxmint.cern.ch>, morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
>                                                20 April 1993.
 
>     The question was raised as to what Feynman would have thought of Cold
> Fusion? Maybe I can try and answer that having some experience - in 1976 gave
> a lecture on Pathological Science and discussed with him for several hours
> both before and after my talk (though mainly about physics) and he gave a
> short talk after I had finished, agreeing and adding some of his own
> experiences. I am sure he would have been extremely interested in Cold Fusion
> and he would have studied it intently after the 23rd March Press conference.
> He would have seen the obvious contradictions and fallacies very quickly.
> Also he would have expressed them so clearly that the Cold Fusion saga would
> have probably tailed off more quickly.
>      An example. The original Fleischmann and Pons paper says that an
> overpotential of 0.8 eV can be obtained readily. "The astronomical magnitude
> of this value can be appreciated readily; attempts to attain this level via
> the compression of D2 (step iv) would require pressures in excess of 10 E 26
> atm." And in his lecture at CERN on 31st March, Fleischmann said that the
> calculation of fugacity gave 10 E 27 atmospheres. With the wonderful charm of
> his lecture and everyone's desire to have this wonderful, ecologically sound
> new source of energy, disbelief was suspended and criticism muted. However
> suspect that Feynman would have said "10 E 27 atm but that would have blown the
> Palladium rod apart if it was a real pressure as suggested". To give an idea,
> this would collapse atoms to neutrons - a neutron star would have been created!
>     Could anyone please tell me - Have Fleischamnn or Pons ever withdrawn this
> claim that is so obviously based on a fundamental misunderstanding?
>     At CERN in 1989, people were impressed when Fleischmann said "If there is
> anything wrong with this, I will be the first to tell it". I was told this was
> the sign of a truely great scientist. Has Fleischmann withdrawn this?
> Or the neutron claims? Or the tritium claims? Would appreciate if someone
> could please give me the references to these three subjects, as they seem
> to be missing from my files.
>     Have read that Fleischmann and Pons have withdrawn their claim to have
> observed helium (as quoted by Walling and Simons who had been told by Pons and
> Hawkins). Could anyone please give me the reference to where they withdrew
> this helium claim?
>          Have a Nice Tomorrow,
>                                  Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
1.  10 E 27 atm:  I have no information that P&F have withdrawn this tall tale.
 
2.  Neutron claims:  The P&F claims of neutron production were based on
observation of a gamma line purportedly generated by (thermal) neutron capture
in H2O.  Frank Close and the boys at MIT (R. Petrasso et al.) did the
detective work to show that this claim was bogus.  (See Close's book THTH,
chapters 9 and 15.)  Frank was able to show that the original gamma spectrum
presented at Harwell on March 28, 1989 by Fleischmann had the mystery peak
at 2.5 MeV.  3 days later at CERN, Fleischmann showed the SAME data points,
but with the energy scale shifted so that the peak appeared at 2.2 MeV --
where the peak should be if neutrons had really captured on protons in water.
(Note:  even if 2.5 MeV neutrons had been produced by d-d fusion, the gamma
energy would be 2.2 MeV after the neutrons thermalized and captured in water.
Frank explains the evident confusion in the F&P claims on this bit of
nuclear physics.)   The peak appears at 2.2 MeV in their original J.
Electroanal. Chem. paper, 1989.
 
The MIT group published a challenge on the gamma measurements:  R. Petrasso
et al. Nature 339:183 (1989).  P&F responded [Nature 339:667, June 1989]
and now the gamma peak in question was back at 2.5 MeV!  Thus, they
acknowledged, this peak did NOT correspond to neutron capture in water.
Their claims of neutron production via cold fusion were thus retracted.
(There were other problems with the F&P gamma peak, whatever its energy:
the peak was narrower than the resolution of the NaI detector allowed,
and the Compton edge was missing entirely.)
 
*Very surprised you seem to have forgotten about this, Douglas.  Hope others
have not forgotten.  In any case, the matter is thoroughly recorded in the
Nature correspondances of Petrasso and F&P, and in Close's book.*
 
In view of this history, it would be most inappropriate to credit P&F with
discovery of neutrons emitted by deuterided materials,
should the BYU work on neutron production in deuterided
materials (which began in May 1986 and was independently published) be finally
verified.  While most of the interest in CF appears to have shifted to xs
heat production via nuclear (not necessarily d-d fusion) reactions, we and
a few others around the globe continue to search  for a trigger for neutron
and charged-particle production in deuterided materials and inside the earth.
 
3.  Tritium:  3H build-up of 41 dpm/ml (contamination in D2O used by P&F)
to 141 dpm/ml as claimed by P&F originally (J. Electroanal. Chem. 263:187
(1989) errata) can by explained by electrolytic enhancement (see Bosch,
Blaser, etc.) -- although I do not know that FPH ever retracted their claim.
 
4.  Helium:  helium-4 claims by Pons/Walling were retracted publicly
by P&F at the Los Angeles meeting of the Electrochemical Society on May 8, 1989.
 
 
In this regard, it is worth noting that McKubre has searched for but not found
ANY evidence of nuclear products associated with xs power production in his
cells.  In particular, he has not found any tritium or helium.
 
--Steven E. Jones        28 April 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Sticking my neck out
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sticking my neck out
Date: 28 Apr 93 16:26:14 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Still trying to catch up with posts made over the past week:
 
Chuck Sites is correct that some of the Kamiokande results were consistent
with earlier published results of the BYU/Los Alamos National Lab experiments.
These issues were rather thoroughly discussed last fall when Douglas
Morrison first posted his review of the Nagoya meeting, and I will not
re-post all of my arguments from that time.  [I have these saved on paper only,
not electronically, unfortunately.]
 
I will briefly quote from my Japanese colleague's thesis, and answer Dale
Bass's question regarding Kamiokande rates relative to our earlier papers:
 
"Some burst neutron emissions were observed especially from the electrolytic
cells.  The even rate (about 0.06 bursts per hour) was comparable to that of
of Menlove et al (1990), but the maximum multiplicity was only limited to
four (source neutron of about 11, Fig. 7-2)."  (T. Ishida thesis, p. 69)
 
Recently, in experiments in our underground lab in the nearby Wasatch
mountains, I will say that we have seen small bursts repeatedly again.  In
this context, a burst is defined as two or more detected neutrons seen within
a time window of 320 microseconds.  We have checked that the time distribution
of detected neutrons (relative to a prompt pulse generated in a plastic
scintillator inside our segmented helium-3-type detector) matches the time
distribution expected for our detector system.  All pulses are digitized
using LeCroy fast waveform digitizers; noise is excluded.  Large scintillator
paddles are used to actively veto cosmic-ray events.  Unfortunately I cannot
describe our system in much more detail now.
 
In our quest for a trigger for neutron production, we have recently returned
to the following (built in 1989 by BYU grad. student David Buehler):
a thin metal wire is wound in a helix then suspended in a stainless steel
cylinder.  The cylinder is evacuated while the wire is electrically heated,
then back-filled with D2 (H2 for the control runs).  By measuring the
change in resistance of Pd wire, we evaluate the d/Pd loading ratio -- it
typically reaches 0.7.  By then applying a current to the loaded wire, the
deuterium (or H2) is driven out.  Significantly, most of the neutron events
occur when the deuterium is driven out of Pd-D.  The observed event rate
above background is about 0.15 bursts/hr, which is tantamount to the burst
rate obtained in the Los Alamos/BYU experiments and comparable to that seen
at Kamiokande.  The system has the advantage of simplicity over electrolytic
loading approaches.
 
I realize I'm sticking my neck out in presenting these preliminary data in
this way.  But I seek counsel:  should we
 
1-  Add a charged-particle detector (silicon surface-barrier detector) to
our system and look for neutrons and charged-particles *simultaneously*
OR
2-  Seek to scale up the yield in using just the sensitive neutron-detector
system by itself?
OR
3-  Run the experiment in our neutron spectrometer to get neutron-energy
information (requires a larger yield by a factor of about 5)?
 
Option 1 limits the size of the sample we can look at, decreasing our
chances of success in a finite period of time.  (We have enough funding to keep
going until the end of 1993, approx.)
Yet a simultaneous measurement of different particles
would, I think, be compelling evidence.  The energy info on the charged
particles would tell us much about what is happening (if effect is real).
Option 2 would allow us to see the effect (if it is real!) in less sensitive
detectors, including others' detectors.  (This detector is about 16% efficient
for 2.5 MeV neutrons, with a background of only about 0.45 uncorrelated
neutrons per *hour*.  Only the Kamiokande has better sensitivity, and it is
not currently available.)     Option 3 repeats our original work in that
the neutron spectrometer is used (but much less sensitive than the helium-3
type counter).
 
Howard Menlove (colleague at Los Alamos) and I disagree on the
next step to take, so I'm open for reasoned advice.
 
With regard to uncorrelated neutron emissions, the maximum rate seen at
Kamiokande was 3.6 neutrons per hour, comparable to the max rate seen here
with the Pd-D wire during deuterium expulsion:
"We have found a clear random neutron emission from the portland cement
mixed with D2O at the level of 1 * 10^-3 neutron / second, which is, however,
difficult to explain based on radioactivity contamination in the cement"
(T. Ishida thesis, p. 70  -  Kamiokande experiment report).
 
We have also seen neutrons here during the curing of cement prepared with
D2O at this level, but the uncorrelated neutron emission rate with the
Pd-D wire is somewhat larger, at about 0.003 n/second.
 
These rates are smaller than the rate cited in our 1989 Nature paper which
was 0.06 n/second (average, and looking at the "raw" source rate without
scaling by deuteron-pairs present, metal mass, etc -- since we do not
find a justification for a scaling rule) -- but by less than a factor of
100, Dale.
 
Am I *sure* that we have seen neutrons from d-d fusion at room temp. without
muon catalysts?  No.
But I am encouraged by the apparent correlation of both correlated (burst) and
uncorrelated signals with deuterium expulsion from the Pd deuteride.  A trigger
at last? Maybe.
 
Finally, I warn again that our results are far too small to support claims
of power production in P-F-type electrolytic cells -- by a factor of trillions.
There is just no connection.
 
--Steven E. Jones   April 28, 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sticking my neck out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sticking my neck out
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 02:51:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr28.162614.595@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
[detailed description deleted]
>
>We have also seen neutrons here during the curing of cement prepared with
>D2O at this level, but the uncorrelated neutron emission rate with the
>Pd-D wire is somewhat larger, at about 0.003 n/second.
>
>These rates are smaller than the rate cited in our 1989 Nature paper which
>was 0.06 n/second (average, and looking at the "raw" source rate without
>scaling by deuteron-pairs present, metal mass, etc -- since we do not
>find a justification for a scaling rule) -- but by less than a factor of
>100, Dale.
 
     Thanks, it's refreshing to get a detailed answer, to the point and
     in context.  I haven't been having much luck at that recently
     (humour implied).
 
     So my  the raw, unscaled 'ratio' would be from 1 to around 20.
     Just for my own edification, what were the statistics on the
     on the 1989 results and the Kamiokande results?
 
     And for what it's worth, I'd try to jack up the yield and get
     spectral information.  Possible characterization of a reaction
     pathway would seem to be a more promising tack than getting
     more readings of unknown etiology.
 
     Again, thanks for the answers.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Cameron Bass /  cmsg cancel <C67yC6.4sq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <C67yC6.4sq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 02:52:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

This message was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: What Clarke thinks
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Clarke thinks
Date: 27 Apr 1993 20:03:06 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <4665D16E50FF20DED8@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
:
: >Lowering the temperature can be
: >done and you thereby reduce the production of NOx. But the point is that is
: >an oversimplification to say that burning hydrogen is 100% clean. It may still
: >be about the best we can come up with.
:
: There is also the point that lowering the combustion temperature reduces
: the amount of power available from the hydrogen fuel. Perhaps to the point
: where other fuels are more efficient.
 
 
: I agree that hydrogen fueled generation has much to offer, but it isn't
: available for free.
 
 
Think "fuel cells".  Very very little pollution, powered by hydrogen.
There's more to life than combustion.
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: 27 Apr 1993 20:08:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
:   However, _thinking_ "E x H" opens my eyes to other possibilities.
:   Specifically, under fluctuating voltage conditions is any power
:   radiated into free space? (My gut says "yes, but not enough to
:   notice".)
 
Yup. At low frequencies like this EM radiation is negligible, but...
 
 
: If wires carrying fluctuating current into and out of the
:   calorimeter form a loop surrounding other conductors (e.g.  an
:   aluminum vessel wall) eddy currents can be induced; does the
:   resulting heat belong inside or outside? (Twisted pair wiring
:   virtually eliminates this problem.)
 
Inductive coupling is not.
 
:  Sorry to run on so long, folks.  - Chuck
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 93 12:27:20 EDT

         A number of people have posted accounts of this at varience
with the account given in "What Do You Care What Other People Think"
Richard P. Feynman, 1988, W.W. Norton, New York (henceforth WDYCWOPT).
It should be noted that this is "as told to Ralph Leighton" and appeared
after Feynman's death.
         Barry Merriman posted:
>Actually, feynman's hypothesis was that it was an engine failure,
>which is why he wrote a detailed chapter in the report on his investigations
>of the engines.
...
>Yes; and as the story shows, it helps to have an expert on the
>inside telling you what is really going on. On his own, feynman
>had gone in the wrong direction.
         This is incorrect.  WDYCWOPT (p. 132)  "I was hot on the trail
of the booster rocket so I said, "I'll have to put off the main engines
until later, when I have more time."  WDYCWOPT (p. 181)  "So I made up
a game for myself: "Imagine that something else had failed-the main en-
gines for instance-and we were making the same kind of intensive inves-
tigation as we are now: would we discover the same slipping safety cri-
teria and lack of communication?""
         Dale Bass posted:
>    As I said, I believe he dipped the thing in cold water
>    because that demonstration was suggested to him.
>    He would have had no independent way to verify the potential failure
>    modes of a system as complex as a space shuttle; I can think of many
>    ways to mislead a credulous physicist with very real phenomena that
>    have nothing to do with the actual failure.  Imagine if someone
>    from, say, Morton Thiokol had fed Mr. Feynman technical information
>    with the express purpose of blaming Rockwell's subsystems.  He
>    would have been completely helpless in determining probability
>    of such failure modes, and I can imagine rigged demonstrations of equal
>    impact involving other subsystems.
>
>    To suggest that he would have had any idea about such things
>    independent of the technical staff associated with the shuttle is
>    naive.  And I believe he was quite embarassed later
>    at the way he allowed himself to be used.
 
             In WDYCWOPT (p. 146) Feynman indicates he thought up the
ice water idea himself.  Suggesting Morton Thiokol could have pointed
him at Rockwell is silly.  It was obvious at this point that problem
was with the right booster rocket.  In any case Morton Thiokol had no
particular expertise in Rockwell's systems.
         Dale Bass posted:
>    Why do people keep saying things like this?  It is my understanding
>    that the 'demonstration' was *not* his idea.  Please feel free to
>    correct me if I misread the situation or else stop implying he was
>    not a mouthpiece for others.  There is no way for him to have
>    'checked' the conclusion that the demonstration implied, so he
>    was at the mercy of those who were talking to him.  The pliability
>    of that o-ring could have had absolutely nothing to do
>    with that accident.  I doubt he did detained thermal studies of the
>    solid-boosters to determine if the thermal mass of the fuel combined
>    with solar heating at that time of day kept the o-rings warm enough.
>    Nor probably did he do detailed studies the effect of impinging hot
>    gases on the pliability of the o-rings.
>
>    This was a talented man, not a god.  He made mistakes like the
>    rest of us.  Excessive credulity is a mistake.  He apparently
>    lent his prestige to something that he could not check.
         His book says the demonstration was his idea.  The point was
Nasa had no idea what "warm enough" was.  The pliabilty of the O rings
was obviously relevant to the safety of the joint.
         Dale Bass posted:
>    Good engineers are very careful about jumping to untoward conclusions.
>    The booster did *not* have to be at or below freezing.  Do you
>    happen to know the thermal conductivity of the solid fuel?
>    Show me that it equilibrated at or below freezing during the
>    time it had to cool down.  The thing is huge and it was insulated to
>    an extent by the aforementioned ice hanging from it.
 
>    Keep in mind also that things had warmed a bit as well before the launch.
>    Please calculate for me the thermal conditions of the seals
>    *at launch*.
        This is all besides the point.  Nasa launched without doing any
of this although they had been warned that cold could adversely affect
the seals.  This was stupid even if they had gotten away with it which
was the point Feynman was making.
         Dale Bass posted:
>     Nor did he do them.  However, how did Mr. Feyman know that
>     thermal conditions a couple of seconds after launch did not
>     sufficiently heat the o-rings without degredation that they
>     again appropriately performed the task allotted?
        Again besides the point since relying on such an effect
would clearly be idiotic.
         Dale Bass posted:
>     As I will keep repeating, I believe the 'demonstration' was not
>     his idea, it was suggested to him.  The novelty was not his.
>
>     It's interesting that Feynman's 'defenders' in this instance
>     don't seem to account for Feynman's apparent chagrin regarding
>     this episode.
         What is the basis for these statements.  The only regrets
about the episode expressed in WDYCWOPT is that Feynman had tested
his demo beforehand instead trying it for the first time on live TV.
                           James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjbs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Russell Farris /  Good works
     
Originally-From: farris@nosc.mil (Russell H. Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good works
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 15:02:40 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA

        Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward said or wrote
something to the effect that
 
    "All good work is done contrary to the wishes of management."
 
        Does anyone know the exact quote, and the context in which
it was uttered/written? Thanks
 
 
Russ Farris                            farris@marlin.nosc.mil
Decision Support and AI Branch         AUTVON:      553-4129
NRaD Code 444                          Voice: (619) 553-4129
271 Catalina Blvd                      FAX:            -4149
San Diego, Calif 92152-5000                               ^
"As for Gunnar I cannot speak, but his halberd is home!"  Njal's
Saga                                                  Njal's Saga
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenfarris cudfnRussell cudlnFarris cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell
Date: 28 Apr 93 12:54:34 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <4597485FB11F20F738@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> A point has just occurred to me (on the cycle ride home, where I do a lot of
> my thinking, being alone with myself). One of the pieces of evidence thought
> to be significant with that video of a cell that boiled dry was that there
> was greatest activity (bubbling etc) around the cathode. The argument was that
> if the heating was simply ohmic, then you would expect about the same at both
> electrodes. So this extra activity around the Pd cathode showed that there
> was something extra happening there, possibly a hitherto unknown nuclear
> effect.
> I just remembered that the cathode - if I have this right - is a smallish
> wire, while the Pt anode is a large mesh or plate. If so, then a large part
> of the total electrolyte resistance will be concentrated around that cathode
> wire, and you would expect most of the ohmic heating to take place there. SO
> the mere fact of lots of bubbles at the cathode does not in itself support
> CNF; you need numbers, such as the input power, electrolyte volume etc.
>
> I have not had a good answer either to the question whether the cell boils
> quite dry, and if so, why. The cathode is presumably not lying flat on the
> cell bottom, so it would be cut off from contact with the electrolyte some
> time before all of it boils away. It would then presumably glow red hot and
> this, too, should be seen in the video. Does it?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I have pictures of the Pons/Fleischmann boiling cells taken from the NHK
(Japanese TV) program on cold fusion.  There appears a structure at the bottom
of each of the 4 boiling cells that obscures the bottom region, so that I
cannot tell whether the cells boil "dry."  I see no evidence that any of the
cathodes "glow[s] red hot."
 
Remember the argument posted earlier (from BYU Prof Lee Hansen, originally
I think) that
a high-resistance coating could form on the cathodes during cell operation,
which would increase the ohmic heating near the cathodes.  The coating
could come from silicates (from the glass test tubes), or from aluminates
or borates if these were added to the cell (as McKubre does to his cells--
he has added both Al and B).
 
With regard to the very interesting explanation of xs heat being pursued by
Tom Droege, note that he said:
"Many of us (myself included) thought that a constant current supply would
protect us from this problem [non-linear power input]."  (April 17 posting.)
 
It is interesting that for the P&F boiling cells,
a constant current supply was used.  Thus, the problems identified by Tom
most likely apply to the P&F cells (among other problems).
A constant-current supply also means that should a resistive coating form on the
cathode (as we suspect from our studies at BYU), then the voltage and power
INPUT to the cell must rise to compensate.
This added heat is then dissipated near the cathode and might lead to boiling
there.
 
--Steven Jones (back again)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hardly the last word in steady states
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hardly the last word in steady states
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 19:22:22 GMT
Organization: American Association of Unanswered Questioners

In article <C677u3.KG0@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <C6614B.Ksu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>    Subject: Re: Hardly the last word in steady states
>Cameron Randale Bass [crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>==  "It's only confusing you because you continue to tapdance and
>==   avoid defining what you mean by '100 Watts' and 'steady-state'
>==   in the context of the assertions you made in a much earlier
>==   posting."
>
>   Jed fully defined them.  And so did I.
 
     "No, y'all did not", he said patiently.  You provided the SI
     definition of watt and some incorrect information about the
     vector nature of power.  I'd be more than appreciative if
     y'all would provide y'all's definition of '100 Watts' and
     'steady-state' in the context of the assertions that Mr. Rothwell
     was making at the time I started asking these heretofore
     unanswered questions.
 
     Ta ta.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Jim Bowery /  U.S. Tokamak Program Founder's Original IEF Paper
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: U.S. Tokamak Program Founder's Original IEF Paper
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 03:49:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For those who want to see what Robert Hirsch (founder of U.S. Tokamak
 program) is advocating these days, a good place to start is his original
paper published back in 1967.  Here is the first few sections of that
paper:
 
Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement ofIonized Fusion Gasses
 
by Robert L. Hirsch
ITT Farnsworth Research Corporation, Fort Wayne, Indiana
 
Received 13 March 1967; in final form 19 June 1967
Journal of Applied Physics Volume 38, Number 11
 
 
Abstract
 
The nonmagnetic, inertial-electrostatic confinement of ionized
gases in spherical geometry is discussed theoretically, and
associated experiments are described.  Assuming monoenergetic
ion and electron distribution functions, the Poisson equation
for bipolar currents is solved numerically.  The results indicate
spatially periodic solutions which represent the alternate
formation of virtual anodes and virtual cathodes.  Particle
pressures are found to vary approximately as the inverse square
of the radius and extremely high electric fields are indicated.
Near the center of the spherical cavity, there exists a high-
density, high-energy region, which may be of controlled fusion
interest.
 
The experimental apparatus consists of a hollow spherical cathode
concentrically placed within a spherical anode on which six ion
guns are located.  Steady, reproducible operation up to -150kV and
60mA yields a copious neutron emission, a part of which originates
from a luminous spherical region within the cathode.  After crowbar
of the main power supply, approximately 10**16 particles are released
from within the cathode.  This number is significantly greater than
the 10**12-10**14 ions/cm**-3 calculated from the fusion rate.  The
difference is attributed to the formation of two or more virtual
anodes.  A bremsstrahlung collimation study indicates a spatially
periodic emission pattern, suggesting the formation of at least
two virtual anodes, the outer of which is about 2.5 cm in diameter.
No instabilities have been observed.
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION
 
Over thirty-five years ago Farnsworth(1) noted the existence of
a localized glow at the center of a spherically symmetric, high-
vacuum multipactor tube.(2)  He later reasoned that radially focued
electron currents were producing a space-charge potential well in
the hollow anode cavity.  This well was confining and concentrating
ions which were produced from residual gas.
 
Although the operation of the multipactor tube has not been studied
in detail, the concept of confinement in a dynamically produced
potential well has received further consideration.  In the mid-1950's
Farnsworth suggested that this technique might be utilized to
confine and concentrate ions into a small volume where an appreciable
number of nuclear fusion reactions could occur.  At that time ITT
initiated a modest program to investigate this technique of fusion-gas
confinement.  The results of recent theoretical and experimental
efforts are presented below.
 
II. BACKGROUND
 
The phenomena of space-charge and particle trapping in potential wells
are well known.  Child(3) investigated space-charge effects in a plane-
parallel diode, after which Langmuir and his co-workers(4) studied other
electrode configurations.  Arbitrary initial conditions have been
considered.(5,6)  The extension to bipola currents in plane geometry
was made by Langmuir,(7) Muller-Lubeck,(8) and Howes.(9)  Studied of
cesium diodes(10) and electrostatic propulsion devices(11) have further
expanded our understanding of these problems.
 
The classic work of Burnstein, and Kruskal(12) has shown that a variety
of distribution functions are compatible with the formation of
electrostatic potential wells containing trapped particles.  Recently,
Berk(13) and Drummond(14)  have suggested that the unstable two-stream
system relaxes to a quasistable potential well.  Their work indicates
possible stability in other two stream configurations.
 
Tuck, Elmore, and Watson(15) analyzed a fusion device based upon
particle confinement in spherical potential wells produced by circulating
electrons.  Their model assumed a spherically symmetric system in which
electrons were radially directed towards the center at which a plasma
was assumed to exist.  Their analysis indicated that such a system would
require prohibitively high power inputs to be of thermonuclear interest,
and, furthermore, it would probably be unstable.(16)  Subsequently,
Tuck(17) expressed interest in a system wherein ions were substituted
for electrons, but did not pursue the subject.  Rasor(18) independently
became interested in this method of trapping fusion gasses and performed
an analysis which was not published.  Lavrentyev(19) considered the case
of symmetric-ion and electron injection in plane and spherical geometry.
Employing arbitrary distrubution functions, he solved Poisson's equation.
His solutions exhibited potential wells for various distrubiton functions
of interest, i.e., parabolic, Gaussian, and Maxwellian.  He did not,
however, carry his analysis so far as to detail the shapes of the
potentials.
 
III.  THE CONCEPTUAL PICTURE
 
In order to facilitate an understanding of this particular approach, it
is worthwhile constructing a conceptual model based on the essence of the
theoretical results.  Consider a spherical cathode concentrically
surrounded by a spherical anode [Fig. 1(a)].  The cathode is assumed to
be ion permeable, electron emissive on its interior surface only, and
impermiable to electron flow into the interelectrode space.  The anode
is assumed to be uniformly ion emissive, and all ions are emitted to
be uniformly ion emissive, and all ions are emitted with zero kinetic
energy.  Assume that all particle motions are radial, i.e., neglect
scattering.
 
For the case of finite ion current and zero electron current, an ion
space charge will develop within the cathode.  At steady state this
space charge will decelerate all incoming ions and cause them to reverse
their motions at a finite radius r(0).  These ions will then be
accelerated outwards and will again be decelerated in the interelectrode
space.  In this manner a deep potential well is produced and maintained
by circulating ions.  The associated potential distrubtion can be
calculated from a simple extension of the Langmuir-Blodgett(4) analysis
of electron flow between spherical electrodes.  This potential is shown
in [Fig. 1(b)]  The potential at r(0) is that of the anode so that the
shell at r(0) may be considered a virtual anode, i.e., it is a charge-
saturated region from which ions are emitted in an outward direction.
 
For D+ ions at voltages and currents of thermonuclear interest, the
cathode to virtual anode-radius ratios are shown in Fig 2.  Although the
currents in the 10**4-10**5 range appear high for a reasonable radius
ratio, i.e., 10 to 10**3, it must be borne in mind that a highly open
real cathode (90-95%) will permit many ion transits before loss to the
cathode structure.  For example, an external current of only 50 mA would
be required for a circulatory current of 500 mA in a cathode permitting an
average of ten ion transits (round trips).  If this ion model could be
realized experimentally, it would exhibit a negligible fusion rate, since
the ion density is low where the ion energy is high, i.e., near the
cathode.
 
If now electrons are permitted to flow from the cathode, they would be
accelerated by the virtual anode towards the center of the tube.  Once
inside the virtual anode, they would be decelerated by their own space
charge, and they would form a virtual cathode at r(vc)<r(0).  This
negative space charge will cause ions from the virtual anode to be
accelerated towards the center while also decreasing the radius of the
virtual anode.  In this manner a series of virtual electrodes can form,
creating successively denser regions of high ion kinetic energies.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / mitchell swartz /  Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 13:16:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <7600046@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
      Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
   Brian Rauchfuss (rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
 
==ms "OK, Does your measured excess power in the control experiments also
==ms  decrease, too, when you adopt this increased sampling rate?
==ms  Were/Are these many watts of power also leaking into your control
==ms  cell, too?"
 
== "Good Lord!  When C.  Bass was looking for some details on positive
==  experiments, you wouldn't give it to him, but look at the amount of
==  detail you want on this experiment!"
 
  You are quite wrong.  Apparently your world does change in "the blink
of an eye."  I answered.  Jed answered.  Mr. Bass apparently refuses to read
even when such reference(s) is(are) available.
 
  Also, please note that these questions were not directed to him, since
there is no evidence yet that he has a serious non-sophomoric scientific
background as based upon his own postings.
                                               Best wishes.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / mitchell swartz /  Pushing H2 thorugh pipes
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pushing H2 thorugh pipes
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 14:22:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <44C8381D8E5F20FFF6@vms2.uni-c.dk>
   Subject: Pushing H2 through pipes
 Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) write:
 
== "And hydrogen is lighter than natural gas, so would it not be easier
==  to push? I don't know."
 
  Dieter, the resistance to flow may be due to viscosity.  A gas
viscosity table follows.  Good point re: embrittlement.  The density might
be important if the reservoirs were located below the users, however.
 
                                          Best wishes.
                                                       Mitchell
 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
   Table of Gas viscosities (based in part upon CRC)
 
          --------------------------------
          |   GAS    |  Temp  |Viscosity |
          -------------------------------
          |          |  (C)   |micropoise|
          -------------------------------
          |   CO2    |   15   |   146    |
          -------------------------------
          |   air    |   0    |   171    |
          -------------------------------
          |   air    |   18   |   183    |
          -------------------------------
          |  helium  |   0    |   186    |
          -------------------------------
          |  helium  |   20   |   194    |
          -------------------------------
          | hydrogen |   0    |    84    |   ****
          -------------------------------
          | hydrogen |   21   |    88    |   ****
          -------------------------------
          | nitrogen |   11   |   171    |
          -------------------------------
          | nitrogen |   27   |   178    |
          -------------------------------
          |  oxygen  |   0    |   189    |
          -------------------------------
          |  oxygen  |   19   |   202    |
          -------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 13:49:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C673JI.7GB@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   Brian Rauchfuss (rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) writes:
>
>== "Good Lord!  When C.  Bass was looking for some details on positive
>==  experiments, you wouldn't give it to him, but look at the amount of
>==  detail you want on this experiment!"
>
>  You are quite wrong.  Apparently your world does change in "the blink
>of an eye."  I answered.  Jed answered.  Mr. Bass apparently refuses to read
>even when such reference(s) is(are) available.
 
     To the contrary, the questions were never answered.  They were evaded,
     pointedly misinterpreted, dodged, ducked, hopped, skipped and jumped.
 
     They remain, still, unanswered.  I suspect they will remain forever
     unanswered.  Such simple questions, such momentous avoidance.
 
>  Also, please note that these questions were not directed to him, since
>there is no evidence yet that he has a serious non-sophomoric scientific
>background as based upon his own postings.
 
      Wanna explain again about the 'vector nature' of power, grasshopper?
 
      People who live in tapioca houses shouldn't farm ants.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / mitchell swartz /  Hardly the last work in steady states
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hardly the last work in steady states
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 14:49:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <C6614B.Ksu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Hardly the last word in steady states
Cameron Randale Bass [crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
==  "It's only confusing you because you continue to tapdance and
==   avoid defining what you mean by '100 Watts' and 'steady-state'
==   in the context of the assertions you made in a much earlier
==   posting."
 
   Jed fully defined them.  And so did I.   If you knew more science than
    tapdancing you too might respond with something serious.
 
==  "I ask a couple of questions and you first assert that context does
==   not matter, and now you've only told me what it is *not*."
 
   Your egotistical demands are childish, and only made to stop serious
     discussions.   Do you really represent the U. of Virginia?
 
==  "This is worse than not answering, referencing an offhand comment
==   in a magazine."
 
   Jed did answer, Mr. Bass.  You might try to grow up and act your age,
    and not your pH.       If you continue this way you ought post an
    emissions label with your missives.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Date: 28 Apr 93 17:53:48 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
          (Book Review):
 
 
          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed,
          hardcover.
 
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries.
 
               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988).
 
               Most books and journal articles on the subject of
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual
          validity.
 
               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements
          they contain.
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE,
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of
          space and time:
 
               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME.
 
               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN.
 
               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES,
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation
          ready for those also.
 
               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the
          sacred doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists,
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter,
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure),
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles,
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc.,
          used to maintain them.
 
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters,
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of
          SINGLE stars.
 
               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME).
 
               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against
          observations that contradict their theories would find
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE
          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly
          at random.
 
               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann,
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists,
          astronomers, and astrophysicists.
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (Larson's BOOKS).
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmcelwre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Dieter Britz /  STOP!
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: STOP!
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 07:58:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dale and Mitch, I wish there were an editor, as in Nature, who at some point
firmly says "This correspondence is now closed". I think we others have lost
the thread long ago, and I think you, Dale, realise it, too, as you write
 
>      My guess is that most of the rather limited world still reading
>      this already knows us both by our answers.
 
Verily indeed. And Mitch, I have a feeling you have lost yourself, since your
equation
 
>  Pexcess(t) = P_out(t) - P_in(t)
 
>          = [I_out (t)* V_out(t)] - [I_in (t)* V_in(t)]
 
seems to assume that both input and output powers are measured as an I*V
product. Remember what this is about? You were talking about cnf calorimetry,
where you compare the power input into the cell, integral of I*V, with the
HEAT that comes out, measured by a temperature somewhere.
 
This is one reader who has long since started groaning at the sight of yet
more postings on that thread; in fact, they look more and more like McElwaine
postings to me. So please stop; it is in any case not getting either of you
anywhere.
I suppose now someone will say I am trying to censor you.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Chuck Sites /  Re: CNF Update#7 (another correction needed)
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Update#7 (another correction needed)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 05:57:18 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     Just one question.  What is the ratio of the number of neutrons
>     expected based on the original results of Jones \etal
>     to the number actually 'seen' in the experiments at Kamiokande?
>     Is the number below a hundred?
 
>     I seem to remember the original results were near the detector
>     limits.
 
>                            dale bass
 
Dale asks how the early neutron estimates of Jones89 compares to Kamiokande.
Well from a totally skeptical point of view, it is 0.4 n/s from 1 in 14 for
the mother earth soup, compared to 0.000071 n/s estimated in the K4 Ti/gas
experiment (1 od 87) with photo-tube hits of 29 or better.  Actually
this is an under estimation because the predicted Cherenkov radiation of
2.5MeV neutrons in the Kamiokande bath is between 24 to 29 nhits, and in
the data I've used earlier assumes a >=29.  In this run, the reported
values are 0.000069 n/s nhits >=24, 0.000052 n/s nhits >=27, and 0.000071
n/s, for a total 0.000192 n/s. Additionally in this run, there were 4 burst
emissions in a run lasting 608.4 hours. Since the gas experiments are more
easily comparable to Mallove's appartus, let me note that Mallove's modest
claim is 0.05 to 0.2 n/s for random emission lasting from 5 to 17 hrs, from
a series of experiments were 14 of 42 samples showed activity.
 
While this does not seem to be a good comparison, the science question
with cold nuclear fusion is not how many neutron/second are emmitted, it's
how many fusions/sec/DD occur.  The claim is 1E-28 f/s/DD for the Jones
level.  Using K4 as an example, the random emmission from 300gm Ti is
0.000192 n/s in 608.4 hrs. This gives 420 events.  Ti is 47.9 gm/mole
and at 6.02E26 atoms/mole there are 3.77E27 Ti atoms. Titanium can load
up to 2x but assume K4 loading was 0.5 giving 1.88E27 D's. (assuming all
are paired DD devide this by two. This is unlikely I know, but that would
make this calculation look better wouldn't it)  The number of events/DD is
420/9.42E26 = 4.46E-25 events/DD.  Given the live time of 2518776 secs,
the fusion rate in K4 is a minimum of 2.04E-31 fusion/s/DD. Since the
event meassured are only the neutron branch of DD, the rate is really
4.08E-31 f/s/DD. Thats a factor of 30 better than Horowitz calculated
for DD hydrogen metal and is comparable to some of Koonin's more liberal
estimates for DD fusion in metals.
 
 This simple argument is a underestimate, as it assumes all Ds are paired
which is not a real representation of how D interacts in metals. The
interaction rate is far less, and the times for interaction is smaller.
The factor of three difference between 1E-28 and 1E-31 could easily
be madeup in mechanics of Ti/hydration.  I'll look into electrolysis
experiments tommarrow.
 
Fave Fun,
Chuck SItes
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.28 / Jim Carr /  Re: The uncertainty lies in the technique
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The uncertainty lies in the technique
Date: 28 Apr 93 18:59:39 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930427190738_72240.1256_EHK32-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>I disagree. I would say: "clearly the number show that the experiments are NOT
>IDENTICAL." Conditions may be identical as far as the experimenters know, but
>clearly they have missed something.
 
Agreed.  And an error analysis based on the scatter in the measured
values is a way of quantifying how important that missing something
is to the conclusions being made from the data.
 
>Jim concludes:
>
>     "The point is that the data themselves are telling you that there are
>     some uncertainties in the experiment that are quite a bit larger than
>     the apparent precision of an individual measurement."
>
>The uncertainty is not in the data, and not in the instrument. It is in the
>technique, because cold fusion is terra incognito. Instrument uncertainty is
>eliminated by extensive calibration and testing.
 
I said the uncertainties are in the experiment, you say they are in the
technique.  Not much difference here either, since the technique can
be as important as the instruments.  Calibration helps, but they must
be used in a controlled fashion to give results that reproduce at the
same level as the instrumental precision and calibration would lead
one to expect.
 
>Finally, a minor note here, Jim criticized me for not preserving the
>significant decimal places in my quotation. That was a direct quote from the
>paper. I expect this is minor issue of English style, or perhaps a New Zealand
>style of prose. You may be certain McKubre is a fanatic for accuracy, and
>there is no sloppiness in his work.
 
Sorry.  I reread my words, and I should have said "the numbers you quote"
rather than implying they were your numbers.  The point remains that
McKubre, being a fanatic for accuracy, knew better than to include
more significant figures than are really significant when summarizing
his results.
 
I want to take this opportunity to be very clear that I am not really
criticizing McKubre for this.  In fact, the way he summarizes his numbers
is quite laudable.  Most experimenters are fanatics for accuracy, and
quite a few really can't resist putting that extra significant figure
in their tables after working so hard on the problem.  They cannot
stand to round off 1.372 +/- 0.013 to 1.37, even in a discussion in
the text when it is evident from the scatter of the data around the
expected smooth curve that the value is really more like 1.4 +/- 0.3.
What I was trying to do was clarify the precision-accuracy discussion
with an example tied to the numbers under discussion.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Nick Zdunic /  Is ther a FAQ
     
Originally-From: zdunic@cs.curtin.edu.au (Nick Zdunic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is ther a FAQ
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 09:53:04 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

Is there a FAQ for this newsgroup.
 
Is there a conglomeration of information on Cold Fusion available.
 
Tell me if you know, I'm an info-freako.
 
 
--
Nick Zdunic
School of Computer Science
Curtin University of Technology
Kent Street Bentley
Western Australia 6102.
Internet:  zdunic@cs.curtin.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenzdunic cudfnNick cudlnZdunic cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Sticking my neck out
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sticking my neck out
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 11:12:37 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Apr28.162614.595@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
wrote:
> In our quest for a trigger for neutron production, we have recently returned
> to the following (built in 1989 by BYU grad. student David Buehler):
> a thin metal wire is wound in a helix then suspended in a stainless steel
> cylinder.  The cylinder is evacuated while the wire is electrically heated,
 
> 2-  Seek to scale up the yield in using just the sensitive neutron-detector
> system by itself?
 
> --Steven E. Jones   April 28, 1993
 
This option would be the fastest to explore, and if larger signals are
detected then you can move on to the less sensitive detectors.  The first
changes which suggest themselves are to try thicker wire of the same length
to see if there is a volume effect, or to use the same wire and increase
the length as much as practical.  At this point you are still so close to
the detection limits of your apparatus that any increases in neutron
production will go a long way towards getting peoples confidence (I
hesitate to use "belief" on this newsgroup).
 
Best of luck.
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:41:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) in FD
954:
 
>      Am I completely off the mark, or are there not high rate
>      computer acquisition systems for this kind of measurement?
>      I'd think at least the boys abroad could afford such equipment.
 
We can all afford such equipment. The problem is no doubt data volume. One
should be sampling at about 10 kHz. Experiments last for days, and one day is
just under 100000 s. That makes it of the order of 10^9 sampling times.
Someone as conscientious as Tom would sample many paramaters at each sample
point, so that makes it up to 10^10 data numbers per day. Do you see the
problem? Even the boys abroad would feel the pinch with space on hard disks.
Let alone processing all that data, "at the end of the day".
 
The answer might be to store data at the McKubre rate of once every 4 min,
but during those 4 min to sample at 10  kHz, and process the 3*10^7 or so
numbers on line. Some of the data could no doubt be low-pass filtered as is
and sampled only every 4 minutes, and some of the processing could perhaps be
done by logic hardware. I think it's feasible, or at least worth a thought.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak Program Founder Rejects Tokamak
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:41:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In Fusion Digest 960;  jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes (in response
to Mike Jamison)
 
>>I've also worked in the commercial marketplace before.
>So had Lennin and Marx.
 
I enter with some trepidation this argument between you two philosophical
heavies (not being sure what the hell you are on about), but my biography of
Marx indicates that the man never did do a scrap of useful work in his life,
let alone something commercial. About "Lennin" I am not so sure but I doubt it
very much. The above, nor even the fact that Marx, by all accounts was a very
unpleasant person, does not invalidate some of his interesting ideas. I did
say "some".
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 809 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 809 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:41:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
GREETINGS, EARTHLINGS!
We have an attempt at a theory (Hora et al, working at UNSW, Australia), and
they are happy with their (and Preparata's) model. Not so Tsarev, who surveys
recent work, and finds all theories wanting, even fracto-, although he regards
this as the best. I don't know whether he knows about the Hagelstein theory;
by now (post-Apr-92), he surely does. I feel that he at least takes cnf
seriously, i.e. does not dismiss it, but remains critical. Storms reports his
efforts at finding excess heat, and it is a good paper reporting good work. He
is restrained in his conclusions and does not himself claim positive results,
although at least one run seemed to show a fair excess at the highest current
density. This will not please the ardent believers, but he is being straight.
Zelenskii et al, in two contiguous papers in Voprosy report recent work. In
one lot, they fractured metal deuterides by shooting them; without finding any
neutrons to speak of. In another, they use a greatly improved cp detector and
temperature cycling of metals deuterated by an ion beam, and again find
nothing significant. They even used a tritium-saturated Ti sample. They
conclude that although they find nothing, this does not exclude cnf at some
lower level than they can detect. True.
Then we have a couple of commentaries. The NS anonymous one is a bit snide,
ranking cnf with sleight-of-hand. Whom were they thinking of, I wonder? The
Editor of the Am. J. Phys. might have been expected to say something about his
(or his journal's) attitude to cold fusion, and he even says that the reader
might expect this, but uses it only as an occasion to make a point about
science education in general.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-Apr-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 809
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hora H, Kelly JC, Patel JU, Prelas MA, Miley GH, Tompkins JW;
Phys. Lett. A 175 (1993) 138.
"Screening in cold fusion derived from D-D reactions".
** Motivated by earlier experimental work by Prelas et al in 1990, this paper
looks at the model of PdD as a dense plasma, with moving ionised deuterium
particles, screened from each other both by the swimming electrons and those
around the metal nuclei. This model differs from those which consider the
deuterons essentially fixed in place. It is found that d-d pairs at an energy
of 2.33 eV would, by screening, behave as if they were at 470 eV; i.e. there
is fusion enhancement due to the screening. Preparata's similar model also
offers an explanation for anomalous branching ratios. These models explain
steady cold fusion, where neutrons and (4)He are generated, but an alternative
explanation for cold fusion in bursts is needed. These must be associated with
phase transitions in the metal deuteride. Neutron swapping with the metal
(Pd + d --> Rh + (4)He, or Ni + p --> Co + (4)He) is proposed.   Dec-92/Apr-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storms E;                                       Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 230.
"Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell
using palladium sheet".
** An isoperibolic calorimeter was constructed and here used with a Pd cathode
in the form of a sheet about 0.5 mm thick and about 6 cm^2 area (similar to
that used by Takahashi). The calorimeter was of the closed kind, using a
recombination catalyst, and with a cooling coil, the measurement being the
temperatures at inlet and outlet. A Pt mesh placed around the cathode served
as anode. The electrolyte was 0.3M LiOD in heavy water. There were extra
thermocouples at two levels within the cell itself, as a check against
gradients in temperature; calibrations proved these not to be significant.
Also, an additional Pt plate, similar to the Pd cathode, was used as a
control, and cell power showed about 3% scatter or 1 W at 35 W input. At this
input, excess heat was not claimed unless exceeding the 1W level. The sealed
cell allowed, initially, the measurement of deuterium loading by D2 pressure;
this became inaccurate later due to some artifact. A loading of about 0.82 was
achieved. One cathode showed slight excess heat at 0-2 W, then went up to a
maximum of 7.5 W (20%) when the catalyst was renewed; this only at the highest
current, 2.5 A. The other cathode never showed excess heat. The excess heat
was judged to be coming from the Pd plate.                       Jul-92/Mar-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA;                                      Sov. Phys. Usp. 35 (1992) 842.
"Anomalous nuclear effects in solids ("cold fusion"): questions still remain".
** Tsarev looks at recent results, writing in Apr-92 and drawing (of
necessity) mainly on preprints or conference talks. He begins by noting that
both the skeptics and proponents have shown strange behaviour. He also points
out that some accepted phenomena have had a rough start; e.g. the Lagrange-
Hamilton method in particle theory. A survey of excess heat, neutron, tritium
and helium measurements indicates that the most reliable results are those for
neutrons at the Jones-level. All other experiments have problems or faults,
and results are in doubt, at least. Of all the theories proposed, the most
plausible appears to be the accelerator models, i.e. fractofusion. These, too,
have their problems, however.                                    Apr-92/Oct-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelenskii VF, Rybalko VF;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povredzh. Radiats. Mater. 2(56)
(1991) 46.             (In Russian).
"Studies of neutron emission by mechanical destruction of Ti and Pd samples,
saturated with deuterium".
** Samples of Ti, about 40 g mass, were shot at by a high speed steel
projectile, reducing them to granules. There was a group of samples with the
stoichiometric D/Ti ratio at 1.8..2, and another group, at 0.3..0.8. Neutrons
were detected by 2 BF3 tubes at 20 cm from the targets. Neutrons were looked
for over a period up to 1500 s after each shot. Controls were run, without the
Ti. Out of a number of runs, no significant neutrons were observed.   Jun-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelenskii VF, Rybalko VF, Morozov AN, Pistryak SV, Tolstolutskaya GD,
Kulish VG;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povredzh. Radiats. Mater. 2(56)
(1991) 48.             (In Russian).
"Preliminary results of the second series of experiments on cold fusion".
** More results from ion beam (D2+) bombardment of Pd and Ti targets,
saturated from the gas phase, and one case of Ti saturated with tritium gas,
with charged particle (cp) detection, greatly improved (by 2 orders of
magnitude in sensitivity). Bombardment was sustained for 10^5 s at 25 keV
(20 keV for the TiT sample) and 20-30 uA/cm^2. Additionally, the samples were
cycled in temperature down to liquid N2 and up to room temp. No cp's were
found, setting an upper fusion limit at 1.5E-22 fus/dd-pair/s. Cold fusion was
thus not found, but not excluded either.                              Jun-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Comments, file cnf-cmnt:
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous;                                       New Scientist 10-Apr-93, p.3.
"Gotcha!"
** No, several surprising bits of news were not April Fool jokes, despite
being in that issue of NS. There were a lot of phone calls, which raised some
questions. Alluding to A.C. Clarke, NS writes that magic might turn into plain
old science; which might explain why the US House of Reps. once more listened
to pleas to put money into cold fusion research. Had they waited one more
week, writes NS, it could have been an April Fool joke.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romer RH;                                         Am. J. Phys. 60 (1992) 1067.
"Editorial: Cold fusion".
** Romer muses on a course he was giving on energy and entropy to a varied
lot of students, at the time the cold fusion news broke in 1989. He watched
the cold fusion affair and became concerned, and here writes about, the
knowledge scientists acquire on the side, about how to get grants, how they
are decided on, reviewing, pork-barrelling, promotion and tenure, etc. He
regrets that nonscience majors who may end up in responsible positions in
government, and may have taken a general course such as the one Romer gave
(and presumably gives), have no feeling for these peripheral issues.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  The average of 32 averages is...?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The average of 32 averages is...?
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:41:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As chance would have it, I just reread the passage from the first McKubre
paper minutes before Jed Rothwell posted it as proof that MM could not
be making a mistake.   There is no information about how the 32 samples
are processed so we really can conclude nothing from the fact that
32 samples are taken.  It is one of those little gems that lend an air
of very careful experimentation without really providing anything of
substance.  Consider the fact that a DC digital voltmeter is all by
itself doing some form of averaging.  I leave it to the reader to
determine precisely what that means.  Now if 32 readings are made in
quick succession with such an instrument, what can be learned about
the time dependence of the input signal?  I can't really answer that
question without knowing how the readings are spaced, but assuming
they are spread over the 4 minute interval that sets the rate at
8 per minute or 0.13 Hz.  Only if the bandwidth of the DVM is greater
than this will the 32 samples provide any useful information about
the frequency content of the input signal.  Then, assuming that
there is some information content to be derived from the samples,
what is done with that information?  If all that is recorded is the
average of 32 samples the sampling serves no purpose beyond reducing
the bandwidth employed in the measurements.  Reading between the
lines, I would say the experimenter is more intent on reduction of
errors in the reading of DC values than in determining the AC content.
If McKubre were concerned with the AC content, shouldn't we assume
that the issue would receive some mention in a detailed description
of the experimental method?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell
Date: 29 Apr 93 15:25:28 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <C67rHI.97C@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1993Apr28.125434.592@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: PS on the
>  boiling cell,  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
> ==sj  "A constant-current supply also means that should a resistive coating
> ==sj  form on the cathode (as we suspect from our studies at BYU), then the
> ==sj  voltage and power  INPUT to the cell must rise to compensate.  This
> ==sj  added heat is then dissipated near the cathode and might lead to boiling
> ==sj  there."
>
>    Steven, if this were true then please consider the following.
>    If the INPUT power to the cell rose as you describe, would
>    not the measured excess power (assuming it remained constant) actually
>    decrease when calculated as a percent of the input?
>
>    With the denominator increasing, the excess power would thus fall.
>
>           Pexcess (t) =  [P_out(t) - P_in(t)]
>                          ------------------   x 100   (%)
>                              P_in(t)
>
>
>        Also, what do you estimate the thickness of these layers are, based
>    upon your studies at BYU.
>
>     Given  R= rho * L
>              -------   a reasonable lumped parameter calculation could
>                 A         then follow.
>                                                - Mitchell Swartz
 
The problem is that we have a video tape but very little in the way of
numerical information to work with.  I am suggesting that a silicate (or
aluminate or borate) layer may have built up on the electrode(s) in the
P&F boiling cell, increasing internal resistance in the cell.  Then with
a constant current source, the power input indeed rises such that boiling
may ensue.  As far as I know, P&F have not provided "xs power" numbers
with which this assertion can be checked.  Note that an *average* power
input is *not* sufficient here -- in view of the problems identified
by Tom Droege.    In short, the boiling cell video without accompanying numbers
showing the actual input power as a function of time in no way confirms
the presence of nuclear reactions.  Note that Pons did *not* show light
water control cells at all in his video presentation of boiling cells.
 
The thickness of the layer depends on the amount of silicates (etc.) present
in the electrolyte.  The amount of silicates coming from glass test tubes,
for example, increases with increasing temperature in the cell.  Thicknesses
of the order of mm are reported to me.
 
You and Jed seem to have the ability to communicate with Pons  -- why don't
you ask him to demonstrate why my hypothesis to explain his boiling cells
won't hold water?
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input Power Measurement
Date: 29 Apr 1993 21:46:32 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
: When Pons and Fleischmann, McKubre, and others measure power by E*I (DC) they
: are, I believe, assuming a linear system.  It may be that a real constant
: current source can be factored out, but I would have to see a quality
: derivation.
 
 
: There are likely many other good schemes.  My current preference (for
: practical reasons) is to make simultaneous measurements of E and I at a
: sampling rate above the Nyquist limit.  But as I said before, there is the
: possibility that this does not work on a non-linear system.  Please step
: forward, some expert.
 
I don't think that this is a problem, provided you really do measure
E and I fast enough.
 
It is incorrect, of course, to model the system in terms of some
frequency dependent "transfer function" in the Fourier or Laplace domain.
 
: Many of us (myself included) thought that a constant current supply would
: protect us from this problem.  In the ACCF1 paper Lee and I said:
 
: This says:
:
: P = sum(e1*i1+e2*i2+e3*i3 ... en*in)/n = i* sum (e1+e2+e3+ ... en)/n if i
: constant.
:
: This then implies that it is OK to use an average reading (DC) meter to
: measure e.
:
: But factoring out that i requires (I suspect) a linear system to be valid.
 
No, I don't think it's linearity, just assumption of constantcy.
 
Work = integral (E(t)*I(t)) dt
 
Average "Power" over some time interval  =
 
  = 1/T integral(0..T) (E(t)*I(t)) dt
 
:
: Tom Droege
:
 
--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Hysteria about McKubre
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hysteria about McKubre
Date: 29 Apr 1993 22:02:29 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
:       This is the problem with investigating the psychology of such cells
:       rather than the physics.  Above the nyquist cutoff, one gets
:       essentially no information.  If the integrated waveform is
:       nonzero above 0.07 Hz, one might never know it.
 
Actually it's wrapped by aliasing
around in the frequency domain back "in band".
 
However, if you're trying to compute some other quantity, namely
I(t)*E(t), each of which is being measured this way, because this
is a nonlinear operation, the bandlimited measured versions of
I(t), and E(T) , call them I*(t), E*(T) do not multiply out to the same
number.
 
In other words,
 
integral (t=0..T) I(t)*E(t) dt  .ne.  integral (t=0..T) I*(t)*E*(t) dt
 
The quantity on the right is the input work, as we measure it in the
laboratory. The quantity on the left is the actual input work that's
important in the physics.
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  More on Kamiokande and BYU results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Kamiokande and BYU results
Date: 29 Apr 93 13:20:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
To Chuck:
I was amused by your citing "Mallove" (author of "Fire from Ice", a true
blue TB) as the source of neutron emission data in your recent posting
("Re:  CNF update#7 (another correction needed)").  The actual first author
is of course Menlove, a neutron-measurement expert and Fellow at Los
Alamos National Lab.  While Mallove might be flattered by the confusion,
I suspect Howard Menlove would not be amused.
Ref:  H.O. Menlove et al. (including me), "Measurement of Neutron Emission
from Ti and Pd in Pressurized D2 Gas and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion
Energy 9:495-506 (1990).
 
Now, you go to some lengths in discussing the random (uncorrelated) neutron
emissions from the gas-loaded Ti samples at Kamiokande.  In my view, these
results were not statistically significant.  For randoms, only the cement
prepared with D2O gave a statistically significant signal at Kamioka.
For bursts (correlated neutrons), both the D2+ Ti gas-loaded samples and
the electrolytic cells with D2O gave significant yields, as described in
Ishida's thesis which I sent you a copy of.
 
Also, you endeavor to calculate "how may fusions/sec/DD occur."  As I have
explained here in the past, we made such an estimate in our original Nature
paper in order to have a basis for comparison with possible natural fusion
processes in the earth (producing helium-3, tritium, etc. inside the earth).
However, when comparing laboratory experimental data, I now assert that
simply comparing neutrons/second is the most reasonable approach, along with
an indication of the samples involved.  This is because we do *not* know
with what variable the neutron yield may scale  -- is it mass, or surface area,
or rate of change of deuterium loading, ... ?  We don't know, and therefore
we don't know what to scale with.
 
 
For Dale:
You're welcome, for the answers.
With regard to statistics:
Our 1989 Nature paper claims a statistical significance of approximately five
standard deviations.  (Nature 338:737-740 [1989])
In response to numerous questions, we re-analyzed the original data set,
and published the results in correspondance to Nature, vol. 343:703-704
(1990).  We found:  "By examining the correlation coefficient between the
[fit] parameters A and D, we find that a 5 sigma increase in the background
would be required to remove the significance of the gaussian peak."
 
Importantly, "Both the position and width of this feature are consistent with
those expected for 2.5-MeV neutrons deteced in the BYU neutron spectrometer,
based on calibrations with neutrons of known energy."  The statistical
significance of this agreement is difficult to evaluate, but the
agreement certainly adds to our argument that the peak represents neutrons
generated by d-d fusion (at *very* low levels).  Without this agreement,
we would not have published.  It was later, I admit, that we found that
we could only very rarely produce such an effect.  Hence our several years
of trying different approaches, searching for a trigger to produce neutrons
in a controlled way.  Without this, we have lingering doubts about our early
results despite the statistics and the fact that the peak appears at 2.5 MeV.
Whether we have found at last a way to trigger the neutron emissions, as
I expressed hope in my last posting, is the object of our current research
efforts in our laboratory deep in the Wasatch mountains.  This is harder
to pin down than I ever expected in 1989.
 
The statistical significance of results from the Kamiokande expt. are given
by Ishida in his thesis as follows:
Neutron bursts from electrolytic cells:  "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."
 
For the D2-gas-loaded cells, "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 ppm (microgram per gram) level uranium
contamination in the Ti chips.  A sample measurement of the same
Ti gave the upper limit of 1 ppm for uranium  (recent measurement:  0.14 ppm
in Ti and less than 0.01 ppm in stainless steel)."  (Ishida p. 69)
The probability that these bursts could be due to uranium contamination
was calculated by the Japanese team, subsequent to Ishida's thesis, as
approx. 4 10^-4.
 
For random neutron emissions from the cement+D2O during curing, the stat.
sig. was calculated after Ishida's thesis -- after we had studied the
backgrounds generated by U and Th in the cement  We found that deuteron photo-
disintegration caused by the gammas from Tl-208, a Th daughter, was the
most significant source of background neutrons.  Fission and d(alpha,n)
contributions were small.  The most
difficult feature to explain in these data is the time-dependence:  the
yield dropped in each of 4 cases, after the cement+D2O was cured
(in some cases by warming to 80 C for days).
 
Alan Anderson studied these data independently from our collaboration, at
the request of EPRI.  I will summarize briefly (very) from his report:
"The motivation for the experiment was the hypothesis that the neutron rates
before curing are due to an 'anomalous' nuclear reaction triggered by the
chemistry of setting deuterided cement.  The null hypothesis, however, would be
to assume that *all* the signal could be attributed to gammas, which implies
that the signal should be proportional to the total D2O in the sample, and to
the flux of sufficiently energetic gammas from radionuclides in the sample.
The interaction length of the gammas ensures that the signal should be
insensitive to the spacial distribution of the constituents.  {Describes
how quantities of D2O, also U and Th were measurements.  Describes analysis
approach.}  Table 6.1 shows the results of a fit to these data and the
resulting CL which corresponds to one chance in 1.5 million that the data
satisfy the null hypothesis."
 
Dr. Anderson next explores possible systematic errors.  Assuming a 50%
error in the amount of D2O present in the cement after curing (which is too
large), he finds "only brings the CL to 1/200 which is still unlikely."
He notes:  "A prosaic explanation for these data should therefore be prepared
to explain this time dependence in the neutron production rate for these
cements."
 
Despite these conclusions, I should add that Anderson expresses caution:
"The CL must also be compared to the probability that the experimental
hypothesis [fusion] is acceptable, which is far smaller according to many
estimates.  ...the experimental hypothesis ... has not hertofore been
buttressed by theoretical support adequate to allow computation of the
approriate probabilities.   ... The real difficulty with these experiments is
that no solution to the repeatability problem has been found, possibly because
none exists, but also possibly because it entails a very unusual sequence of
events."  (A. Anderson report, 2 Feb. 1993)
 
So, we are searching for a trigger, and an explanation.  Surely
theoretical modelling would be accelerated by the finding first of a means
to trigger neutron emissions and the data set this finding would allow us
to generate.
 
You see our problem.
 
Respectfully,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Jed Rothwell /  More crazy assumptions
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More crazy assumptions
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:32:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Cameron Randale Bass writes:
 
     "However, even giving him credit for all thirty two samples, and
     assuming that the sampling is done at equal intervals over a four minute
     timespan...
 
Why on earth would you "assume" any such thing? That's absurd! Would *you*
put all 32 samples spaced at equal intervals? That is a crazy way to do it,
it defeats the whole purpose, and it flies in the face of common practice. As
I pointed out in the previous message, the standard way to do these things is
take 32 readings very quickly and average them, because this gives you
"virtual coverage" of the entire period. It is common knowledge that a burst
of quick readings, followed by a fixed pause, followed by another burst of
readings is almost as accurate as continuous readings. I have the Keithly
Metrabyte catalog, which describes the VIEWDAC data collection software, and
it looks to me like it supports things like this automatically. The boards
certainly support rapid sampling rates. I assume that McKubre simply pointed
with his mouse and clicked on a standard collection option. Why on earth
would he select evenly spread out samples, which is the most inaccurate,
worst possible way of doing it!?! I presume that McKubre selected a very
quick burst, in order raise the cutoff to a level that would guarantee his
target of 0.1% accuracy.
 
 
Cameron continues:
 
     "...that only raises the cutoff to 0.066 Hz.  Of course, since he's
     averaged them by unknown means for an unknown duration, it's difficult
     to tell."
 
It is not a bit difficult to tell. Write to him and ask. His address is right
on the paper.
 
There is no reason on earth to think that he arbitrarily picked the lowest
possible cutoff level of 0.066 Hz. Nobody with experience in collecting any
kind of computer data would make such a stupid mistake!
 
 
     "It says nowhere that they attempted faster sampling and integration to
     determine the effect of sampling rate. "
 
And it doesn't say they didn't, either. The paper does not report every
single procedure, calibration and cross check performed by this group of
workers over 2 years. The paper would be hundreds of pages long if it did. I
cannot imagine anyone would be so stupid they would *not* try a variety of
sampling rates. I did CF experiments for a total of two months, and I tried
this during the first hour. Anyone with any sense does that!
 
     "When I read the paper the first time, I was *sure* that they were
     sampling fast enough."
 
You have not seen a single *scrap* of evidence that contradicts your
preliminary conclusion. I am certain you were right then, and I am certain
that nobody here, and nothing in the paper, has given you any reason to doubt
your initial conclusion. You are making up all kinds of hysterical nonsense
to dissuade yourself of your initial common sense conclusion. You are
dreaming up all kinds of improbable "worst case" scenarios, and assuming that
McKubre made every drastic amateur error imaginable, like not varying the
collection rate, and not checking with an oscilloscope periodically. All you
have to do is glance at his paper, and you will see that he is not the kind
of person who makes those types of glaring, simple minded errors. If you
really want the facts in detail, for goodness sake contact McKubre. I must
warn you though, he is very busy and he frequently forgets to answer his
mail.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Sticking my neck out
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Sticking my neck out
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:55:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
>Still trying to catch up with posts made over the past week:
 
Welcome back, from wherever you were.
 
>Chuck Sites is correct that some of the Kamiokande results were consistent
>with earlier published results of the BYU/Los Alamos National Lab experiments.
>These issues were rather thoroughly discussed last fall when Douglas
>Morrison first posted his review of the Nagoya meeting, and I will not
>re-post all of my arguments from that time.  [I have these saved on paper only,
>not electronically, unfortunately.]
 
1. Note the favourable remarks by Tsarev on the Kamiokande work, in his review
   in Sov. Usp., just gone into the bibliography.
2. I notice frequently that people do not seem conscious of the fact of the
   archives kept up by Zorch. I am not saying, Steve, that you should go and
   retrieve your earlier comments, I am just taking this opportunity to remind
   everybody that everything that goes on here is archived and can be
   retrieved at the drop of an ftp. If you can find it, that is. There is now
   no more description on those files than the FD number and the date. That's
   not bad though. With a bit of practise and use of wildcarding, you can
   reduce the flood of stuff you get with the dir command.
 
>I realize I'm sticking my neck out in presenting these preliminary data in
>this way.  But I seek counsel:  should we
>
>1-  Add a charged-particle detector (silicon surface-barrier detector) to
>our system and look for neutrons and charged-particles *simultaneously*
>OR
>2-  Seek to scale up the yield in using just the sensitive neutron-detector
>system by itself?
>OR
>3-  Run the experiment in our neutron spectrometer to get neutron-energy
>information (requires a larger yield by a factor of about 5)?
 
Good stuff! Tom Droege-style science in the making. As for me, I most miss
correlations in this field, so I'd like option 1. Thank you in advance {:]
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Jed Rothwell /  Statistics
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Statistics
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 21:08:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
People who understand statistics pointed out to me that with a random stream
of data, if all you want is an average value, taking 32 evenly paced "shots"
of a data stream, summing them, and dividing by 32 is as accurate as crowding
them together in groups. If short term random fluctuations occur, you are
bound to hit one from time to time, which will drive the average up. However,
what I had in mind was something a little more complicated. If I was McKubre,
I would program the computer to scan at a very high speed and to save all 32
numbers in a separate file if the extreme value is much larger than normal.
That way, if a short fluctuation occurred, you might be able to save a nice
hi-res "snapshot" of it. Also, if the fluctuation turned on and stayed on for
a second or two, the averaged data point would stick out like a sore thumb
above the others on a graph, showing that something was wrong. If you smoothed
out one high data point with 31 other numbers from other seconds, the average
point would only stand above the line a short distance.
 
In any case, there are no input fluctuations, so this is all a moot
discussion. We have been doing this for four years, and everyone knows by now
that very short term input power fluctuations do not exist. However, it never
hurts to guard against them; a power supply might break, I suppose.
 
Dieter Britz pointed out the reason people save average values, and the reason
we do not sample a thousand times a second and save every point: disk space is
limited. Also, while it is good idea to guard against fluctuations, and
periodically check with an oscilloscope, there is no need to have gigabytes of
data just to prove random fluctuations don't exist. A 10 minute sample of high
resolution data from a hot cell proves the point just as surely as 10 hours or
10 days of data would. There is no need to beat the question to death. It
cannot be that during the occasional ten minute test segment, the heat is
real, and in all other untested segments, it is caused by input power
fluctuations.
 
 
In a note to Jim Carr, I phrased this very poorly:
 
"The uncertainty is not in the data, and not in the instrument. It is in the
technique..."
 
He responded, reasonably enough:
 
"I said the uncertainties are in the experiment, you say they are in the
technique..."
 
Let me try again, and spell it out exactly. After four years of intense
research in hundreds of different labs, we are now absolutely certain that the
instruments are correct, the data is accurate. The experiments really *are*
producing wildly different excesses, like 5%, 8%, 6%, 10%, 28%, 5%... Since
all sources of instrument error have been carefully tested for and ruled out,
these differences *must* be caused by:
 
     Uncontrolled, unknown experiment parameters, in some cases, or;
 
     Known, uncontrollable circumstances. For example, if the Pd keeps loading
     and deloading, the heat will turn on and off. You can watch it happen,
     and know it is happening, but that does not mean you know how to fix the
     problem.
 
There is zero possibility that the instruments in every single CF experiment
are lying. There is no possibility that McKubre's and P&F's 300% percent high
heat excess is actually 0%. In fact, there is no possibility that what McKubre
calls his "typical" 5 to 10% excesses are actually 0%.
 
Obviously, the purpose of the research is to learn how to control all
parameters, and to keep the 300%+, 1000 watt/cc high heat reaction going
indefinitely. Workers are making rapid, certain progress, and the
unpredictability will soon be a thing of the past. When P&F or EPRI (or
whoever it is) finally solves the last remaining problems, they will scale up,
build a generator, and begin putting OPEC out of business. The track records
of the researchers prove that it is only a matter of time before the last
trouble is shot, and the reaction becomes completely controllable and
predictable. CF will be at least as predictable as the heat from burning coal,
which also fluctuates in ways that are not necessarily 100% controllable.
 
 
Dieter Britz, back in his "blue sky" mode, writes this fantastic nonsense:
 
     "Storms reports his efforts at finding excess heat... He is restrained in
     his conclusions and does not himself claim positive results, although at
     least one run seemed to show a fair excess at the highest current
     density. This will not please the ardent believers, but he is being
     straight."
 
Yes, Ed is straight. But, yes, he does claim positive results, and he is
*quite* *certain* there is excess heat. I have spoken to him on many
occasions, the last time on Monday, and he has never expressed any doubts
whatsoever. If I am an "ardent believer" then let me say as a representative
of that group that no experiment during 1992 in North American pleased me more
than Ed's. Here is what his paper says; the reader can judge Ed's certainty,
(and the reader might wonder what planet Dieter comes from):
 
     Abstract: "One sheet produced a steady increase in excess power that
     reached 7.5 watts (20% of input power) before the study was
     interrupted..."
 
     "When apparent excess heat was observed, various tests were made to
     determine if it might be an artifact of the measurement. Two artifacts
     were observed... These defects do not affect the data reported here."
 
     Conclusion: "Two pieces of palladium sheet from different batches were
     studied. One produced excess power for awhile and the other did not."
 
     - Storms, Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 230, "Measurements of excess heat
     from a Pons-Fleischmann-type... cell..."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  It is no theory!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It is no theory!
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 23:43:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The cold fusion believers have so degraded the word "theory" that
any wild hair up the spout can pass and get recorded as something we
should consider seriously.  Come on!  Consider the latest "theory"
additions to the bibliography where in reactions such as Pd + d ->
Rh + 4He are suggested.  Elementary nuclear physics using only
energy conservation will tell you that these ideas can't get to
first base without more "far-fetching" than we have any reason to
consider.  What standards does the CF community hold to anyway?
 
Pick your Pd isotope and add its mass to that of the deuteron.
Compare to the sum of the masses of the Rh isotope and 4He.  I
picked 105Pd leading to 103Rh and I calculate an energy release
of 10 MeV.  So where does that energy go?  I say it goes to
kinetic energy of the 4He or excitation energy of 103Rh which
results in gamma emission.  A 10 MeV alpha is going to produce
X-rays! (See S. Jones on that.)  Now suppose you use your
far-fetch tokens to kill off those two easily detected signals.
How about the reaction proceeding through other Pd isotopes?
Here the fun begins.  Every other possible Pd isotope will
lead to a radioactive Rh product.  Let see you far-fetch your
way out of that!
 
Any editor of a scientific journal that allows that kind of
stupidity to pass as a serious explaination for cold fusion
ought to have his crayons taken away for at least a week.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Sticking my neck out
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sticking my neck out
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 03:40:48 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In an article in sci.physics.fusion, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>2. I notice frequently that people do not seem conscious of the fact of the
>   archives kept up by Zorch. [...] I am just taking this opportunity to remind
>   everybody that everything that goes on here is archived and can be
>   retrieved at the drop of an ftp.
 
Just to head off a possible misinterpretation of Dieter's statement here, the
archives to which he is referring are *kept up by* Zorch but are not in fact
*kept on* Zorch, but rather on vm1.nodak.edu.  Please see Dieter's recent
regular posting on how to access the cold fusion archives via FTP.
 
If you don't have FTP access, I can from time to time fill an email request
by hand from the Zorch archives.  Please do not make such requests casually,
as it is quite time-consuming for me to retrieve postings from months prior
to the current one.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Hysteria about McKubre
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hysteria about McKubre
Date: 29 Apr 1993 12:52 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <930428132713_72240.1256_EHK20-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>I have noticed a lot of hysterical nonsense here centered around allegations
>that McKubre only measures power once every four minutes. Let me dampen the
>excitement, and suggest that before anyone else writes that, or comments on
>it, you try reading McKubre's paper first. Here is what it says:
>
>      "Input power was determined for both the cell and the heater as a
>      product of two measured voltages normalized by a precalibrated
>      resistance. Voltages were measured use a Keithley 195A 5-1/2 digital
>      multimeter with 0.01% dc volt accuracy and 0.015% resistance accuracy.
>      Resolution was 1 ppm (ohm) and 10 ppm (dcV). Each 5-1/2 digit
>      measurement was averaged 32 times before being recorded. Resistance
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      standards were calibrated periodically against NIST traceable standards
>      using NIST traceable calibration instruments yielding an accuracy of
>      (approx) 0.1%"  (Proc. II Annual Conf. On CF, p. 426)
 
I believe the 195A will take a maximum of 60 measurements per second at 5 1/2
digit resolution - 4 1/2 digits can go to 1,000/sec, if I remember my specs.
right.  (I should say Keithley's specs., I didn't work on this meter).
 
I don't believe the 195 had the ability to multiply two voltage measurements
together, so McKubre must be doing that *after* taking the (averaged)
measurements.  So, the V(t) * I(t + k) is taken over about 1/2 second, every
4 minutes, if I'm reading this experiment right.  It sin't clear if k = 1/2
second or 1/60 second.  This depends on the setup (I suspect it's 1/60)
 
Jed,
 
The problem with these measurements, as Tom Droege points out, is that you
can take the 195A, in DC mode, stick a resistor into a wall outlet, and
measure 0 volts across the resistor (quite well, in fact, due to the 60 Hz
rejection, designed into the meter).  You can also take two resistors, one
equivalent to the "cold fusion" cell, the other a small shunt resistor in
series with it, and get 0 V across the "cell", 0 V through the shunt (across
the shunt, actually, equivalent to 0 A through the cell) and conclude that
no power is being dissipated by the resistor.
 
Trusting your measurements, you grab the resistor, only to find that the
measurements were *wrong*.
 
the arguments are that constant current supplies *really are* constant
current, and the cell voltage varies very slowly.  Unfortunately, constant
current power supplies do not supply constant current, when the load resistance
varies too quickly.  The output of a constant current or voltage supply is
controlled by a control system (in the above case, either a simple propor-
tional, or proportional-integral loop).
 
Compare the supply to your car's cruise control.  You're going along at
a constant 55 mph, on the highway.  The cruise control keeps you at this
speed with no problem.  You now encounter a hill (equiv. to load resistance
increasing).  Your speed drops somewhat (current decreases) and then goes
back to its preset (integral in PI loop makes up for increased load, so
current goes back up to where it's set).  Now, you reach the top of the hill,
and start going down the other side.  Your speed increases to somewhat over
55 (current goes above preset, due to the load decreasing.  The integral
term is too large) and drops back down, as the integral term decreases.
You reach the bottom of the hill, level out, and are again going too slow,
until the integral part of the PI loop can again adjust.
 
How fast the adjustment is made depends on the power supply.
 
As Tom Droege has repeatedly stated, these experiments are not easy.
>
>It is standard operating procedure to take a quick series of readings, and
>record an average. Now, it does not say here that measurements were performed
>four minutes apart, but let us take that as a given. You can tell by looking
>at the graphs that the "32 average points" are not taken at one per minute,
>(or 1 every 4 minutes), because there are far more than 2 recorded points per
>hour. So, let us just assume that McKubre is using the tried and true,
>standard method of taking 32 quick readings, every four minutes. This
>technique is every bit as reliable as taking a constant stream of readings
>every few seconds, and averaging each group of 32. The four minute gap makes
>no difference, because the cell cannot read the computer's mind, and know
>when to fluctuate, and when to behave.
 
the problem here is called "aliasing", and is actually used to advantage in
digital scopes, for *periodic* waveforms.  There is no reason to believe a
CF cell has any periodicity.  In other words, there is no reason to believe
the power will be at (avg) + (delta) at one interval, and (avg) - (same delta)
the next interval.
 
On the other hand, a digital scope "moves along" a waveform, measuring at a
changing offset from the start of the wave form:  M(0) = T(0), M(1) = T(N +
d/2pi), M(2) = T(2N + 2d/2pi), etc, where N = number of cycles, d = distance
into one cycle, M = measurement, and T = periodic waveform.
 
>
>Furthermore, I am quite sure that Mike & his people would have enough sense
>to check all 32 numbers occasionally, and to look at the mean and extreme, as
>well as the average. Anyone who has ever processed a byte of data would have
>enough sense to do that. I have seen plenty of CF experimental data, and I am
>sure they find no great spread in those 32 near instantaneous values. There
>are no chaotic short term random fluctuations in CF, except for the wild,
>uninformed speculation that is posted here.
 
I am not sure if it is possible to check the individual number separately,
when an *average* of 32 values is selected from the meter.  in other words,
the 195A would have to be given a command to specifically measure 32 times
in quick succession - otherwise, only the average value is accessible.
>
>I am also certain that Mike knows how to use an oscilloscope.
>
>- Jed
>
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More crazy assumptions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More crazy assumptions
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 18:54:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930429150426_72240.1256_EHK34-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>
>     "However, even giving him credit for all thirty two samples, and
>     assuming that the sampling is done at equal intervals over a four minute
>     timespan...
>
>Why on earth would you "assume" any such thing? That's absurd! Would *you*
>put all 32 samples spaced at equal intervals? That is a crazy way to do it,
>it defeats the whole purpose, and it flies in the face of common practice. As
 
     Okay, then you're back to 0.002 Hz and four minute samples and
     the fact that he samples 32 times has no consequence as far as
     sampling error goes.   This was, of course, the original point.
 
>I pointed out in the previous message, the standard way to do these things is
>take 32 readings very quickly and average them, because this gives you
>"virtual coverage" of the entire period. It is common knowledge that a burst
 
     Except for sampling error, my dear Jed, which was what we were
     talking about.  Take a sine wave with period 2 pi seconds
     and sample 14 times in a picosecond every 4 pi seconds, and
     you've got sampling error.  You can jack the 14 up to 14 million
     and you still have the same sampling error.
 
>of quick readings, followed by a fixed pause, followed by another burst of
>readings is almost as accurate as continuous readings.
 
     I'm sure you'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it.
 
>
>     "...that only raises the cutoff to 0.066 Hz.  Of course, since he's
>     averaged them by unknown means for an unknown duration, it's difficult
>     to tell."
>
>It is not a bit difficult to tell. Write to him and ask. His address is right
>on the paper.
 
     I have this odd feeling that we may be getting information faster
     than that, but I might well.
 
>There is no reason on earth to think that he arbitrarily picked the lowest
>possible cutoff level of 0.066 Hz. Nobody with experience in collecting any
>kind of computer data would make such a stupid mistake!
 
     Maybe you misunderstand.  If he's sampling 32 times equally spaced
     in four minutes (ignoring the averaging), the nyquist cutoff is 0.066 Hz,
     if he's sampling 32 times very rapidly in four minutes, the nyquist
     cutoff is around 0.002 Hz.  That is set in stone if he is doing
     simple sampling.  There's nothing he can do to increase the
     cutoff save sampling more often.  Taking 32 samples quickly every
     four minutes does not qualify.
 
>     "When I read the paper the first time, I was *sure* that they were
>     sampling fast enough."
>
>You have not seen a single *scrap* of evidence that contradicts your
>preliminary conclusion. I am certain you were right then, and I am certain
 
     Anecdotal evidence from Mr. Droege was that he was sampling every
     four minutes.  If he is, he is ruled by the sampling theorem, just
     like the rest of us.
 
>that nobody here, and nothing in the paper, has given you any reason to doubt
>your initial conclusion. You are making up all kinds of hysterical nonsense
>to dissuade yourself of your initial common sense conclusion. You are
>dreaming up all kinds of improbable "worst case" scenarios, and assuming that
>McKubre made every drastic amateur error imaginable, like not varying the
>collection rate, and not checking with an oscilloscope periodically. All you
>have to do is glance at his paper, and you will see that he is not the kind
>of person who makes those types of glaring, simple minded errors. If you
>really want the facts in detail, for goodness sake contact McKubre. I must
>warn you though, he is very busy and he frequently forgets to answer his
>mail.
 
     Geez, and I thought 'worst case scenarios' were the basis for
     experimental science.  I must go locate my rose-colored glasses.
 
                               dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: wolff@liberator.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 17:52:15 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <19930428.101425.417@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
: >         Dale Bass posted:
: >>     As I will keep repeating, I believe the 'demonstration' was not
: >>     his idea, it was suggested to him.  The novelty was not his.
: >>
: >         What is the basis for these statements.  The only regrets
: >about the episode expressed in WDYCWOPT is that Feynman had tested
: >his demo beforehand instead trying it for the first time on live TV.
 
:       subcontractors, the military.  Please don't mistake what actually
:       happened for what could have happened.
 
 
You are both "shouting" that it could have been different.....
 
I suspect that it would be very hard to mislead a very intelligent
character as Feynman.
 
Also I don't think that anybody should blame Feynman for not
performing calculations showing that the cold O-ring was what formed
the problem. These calculations should have been done by NASA,
(having a different outcome....) if NASA is unable to pop up a
"but we did calculate it, and it was ok to -10 degrees C." within
a few days, there is something wrong.
 
Also the burdon of proof is slightly lessened by the fact that
the real situation more or less proved to be able to develop into
a dangerous situation.
 
I think that one of the most serious problems was that one of those
O-rings was supposed to seal well enough, the second O-ring was
meant to be the "safety margin". It turns out that NASA was aware
that more often than not at least one of the O-rings was leaking, and
the "safety margin" was being exercised. They ignored the problem
on the basis of "nothing went wrong so far". This is inexcusable if
peoples lives are at stake.....
 
 
                                        Roger.
 
--
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783643 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Mike Jamison /  Formal apology to Jim Bowery
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Formal apology to Jim Bowery
Date: 29 Apr 1993 16:59 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Jim,
 
I formally apologize to you concerning my previous two posts.
 
Please e-mail direct to me if you plan to do any more flaming.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: More on Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Power Measurement
Date: 29 Apr 1993 21:49:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
: First, I want to say that Chuck Harrison has his inside the calorimeter scheme
: right.  I read it too quickly and missed the outside constant current source.
: But I would likely do it my way anyway.  I still like his idea.
:
: It was never intended that anyone attempt to implement an ExH scheme.  Still,
: I think the old fashioned two coil wattmeter would do a better job than most
: workers seem to be doing in the measurement of power, even if it is likely
: to be only a 1% device.  It is about as close to an ExH scheme as one can get.
 
So what exactly is an EXH two coil wattmeter?
 
And in any case, how does the power-meter used in homes work?  I saw
in the Smithsonian a model from approx 1890 that essentially looked identical
to modern versions, so it has to be simple.
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 29 Apr 93 12:14:58 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
 
                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
 
                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )
 
               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe )
 
               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" 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, (including the law
          which says that atomic fusion requires EXTREMELY HIGH
          temperatures and pressures.)
 
 
 
          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE,
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY",
          1st Edition,
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of
               Science,
          1972,
          163 Pages, Illustrated,
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638,
               Binghamton, NY  13902
 
 
          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS",
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird,
          1973,
          402 Pages,
          Harper & Row,
               New York
          [Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".  Entire book is
               FASCINATING! ]
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (the two books).
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmcelwre cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Dieter Britz /  <lost>
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <lost>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 07:38:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 957:
 
[Stuff about nonlinearity snip-snipped...]
 
>There are likely many other good schemes.  My current preference (for
>practical reasons) is to make simultaneous measurements of E and I at a
>sampling rate above the Nyquist limit.  But as I said before, there is the
>possibility that this does not work on a non-linear system.  Please step
>forward, some expert.
 
With a modest cough, I step forward. But Tom, I think you know more about
this than we others do, so how come this irrelevant talk about nonlinearity?
The problem, we now agree, is that the sort of programmable current supply
people like McKubre use will not keep the current at the desired value, if
the cell impedance has appreciable fluctuations - as it has. What McKubre
seems to have done, is to set his Kepco at the lowest bandwidth, possibly with
the expectation that this would make the current steady. In fact, to get a
steady (or precisely controlled) current, he should be setting the thing to
its highest bandwidth, so it can respond fast to changes to cell impedance.
These impedance fluctuations, at a guess, have frequency components up to a
few kHz, and this will - with the slow Kepco - cause kHz fluctuations in the
actual current, as well as cell voltage (in any case). The two will be very
closely in phase, too. "All" one needs to do to get a true estimate of the
power is to sample both current and voltage at twice the highest frequency
component of those fluctuations (the Nyquist limit), and integrate I(t)*E(t)
point-wise. Whether the I/E relation is linear or not (it is not, having the
Tafel relation) is besides the point for this calculation.
 
Since current and voltage fluctuations ARE closely in phase, one will indeed
make an underestimate of the input power, if one low-pass filters both signals
and uses the product of the filtered I and E as power. This needs to be
quantified, and will be.
 
Some of you might remember that I vigorously denied the possibility of
spurious power from noise, some time ago. At the time, I thought that all
electrochemists would use decent equipment like fast potentiostats, instead
of slowed-down current supplies. It seems I was wrong. Those of you who maybe
felt I was putting you down, sorry, folks. My mistake.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.29 / Mark Nelson /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: mnelson@eis.calstate.edu (Mark S. Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:47:26 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>       This does not, however, affect the argument that such a person
>       could have been misled by nonbenign anonymous 'experts' at NASA, contractors,
>       subcontractors, the military.  Please don't mistake what actually happened
>       for what could have happened.
>
>       Also recall that this discussion started with the implication that this
>       episode represented a case where 'nonexpert' performed an investigation
>       that determined facts that 'experts' would not have.  It is clear, however,
>       that several 'experts' already had good ideas as to the cause, and had
>       managed to funnel them to the 'nonexpert' mouthpiece.  I have
>       wondered if Mr. Feynman, in his quest to be the wondrous mystical
>       'safecracker', did not perform a disservice to the investigation by
>       neglecting to tell us from whence he was being fed information at the time.
>       After all, the given reason for anonymity did not have to be the actual
>       reason.
 
 
From my understanding about the situation, from both WDYCWOPT and Genius, this
was a very good example of someone who knew he was not an expert in the field
and made a very good effort to seek out those who were.  This was
something that was generally not done by other members of the commission.
It should also be noted that Feynman caused a lot of indignation within
the commission by having the audacity to seek out people other than those
who testified.
His efforts to seek out information that was not readily available and to
learn as much about the systems as possible during that short time is
admirable and should be remembered by others who find themselves in
similar situations.  That he acted as a "mouthpiece" is debatable.  If by
that you mean that he gave voice to concerns that had been repeatedly
expressed by many engineers, then maybe he was a mouthpiece.  Personally,
I'm not sure that is something to be looked down upon.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything you know is wrong.
 
Mark S. Nelson       nelsonm@axe.humboldt.edu      mnelson@eis.calstate.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmnelson cudfnMark cudlnNelson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Statistics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Statistics
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 06:03:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930429201841_72240.1256_EHK38-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>People who understand statistics pointed out to me that with a random stream
>of data, if all you want is an average value, taking 32 evenly paced "shots"
>of a data stream, summing them, and dividing by 32 is as accurate as crowding
>them together in groups. If short term random fluctuations occur, you are
>bound to hit one from time to time, which will drive the average up. However,
>what I had in mind was something a little more complicated. If I was McKubre,
>I would program the computer to scan at a very high speed and to save all 32
>numbers in a separate file if the extreme value is much larger than normal.
>That way, if a short fluctuation occurred, you might be able to save a nice
>hi-res "snapshot" of it. Also, if the fluctuation turned on and stayed on for
 
     But from anecdotal evidence, he is taking a reading every four minutes.
     If he is doing so, he is not sampling at a high rate (I assume that is
     what you mean by high speed).  This is also not a random stream of data.
     A physical system is driving it, and the assumption of randomness for
     various purposes may be quite untoward.
 
>a second or two, the averaged data point would stick out like a sore thumb
>above the others on a graph, showing that something was wrong. If you smoothed
>out one high data point with 31 other numbers from other seconds, the average
>point would only stand above the line a short distance.
 
     You don't have this problem at all (i.e. the extreme difficulty of
     visually selecting 'stick out like a sore thumb' in fluctuating
     data) if you simply sample frequently and use instantaneous IV
     to integrate.  At some sampling rate there will be no improvement in
     the estimate (always mindful of inevitable truncation errors induced
     by finite precision measurements).  Now McKubre may well have checked
     his numbers by integrating at a much higher rate, but we can't assume
     that.
 
>In any case, there are no input fluctuations, so this is all a moot
>discussion. We have been doing this for four years, and everyone knows by now
>that very short term input power fluctuations do not exist. However, it never
>hurts to guard against them; a power supply might break, I suppose.
 
     What do you mean?  From McKubre's Figure 7 in the Second Annual
     Conference, there seem to be high frequency (on the scale of 300 hours)
     voltage fluctuations from the time that the current was ramped up.
     I find it hard to believe that fluctuations of this nature cut themselves
     off at a scale of 1/4*2 minutes.
 
>Dieter Britz pointed out the reason people save average values, and the reason
>we do not sample a thousand times a second and save every point: disk space is
>limited. Also, while it is good idea to guard against fluctuations, and
>periodically check with an oscilloscope, there is no need to have gigabytes of
>data just to prove random fluctuations don't exist. A 10 minute sample of high
>resolution data from a hot cell proves the point just as surely as 10 hours or
>10 days of data would. There is no need to beat the question to death. It
>cannot be that during the occasional ten minute test segment, the heat is
>real, and in all other untested segments, it is caused by input power
>fluctuations.
 
     You don't have to save all the data.  If you want to save a number every
     four minutes, you do a sum over the instantaneous IV and keep that every
     four minutes.  But I do agree that a certain amount of high-rate
     data can be indicative.  I'd love to see some.
 
>There is zero possibility that the instruments in every single CF experiment
>are lying. There is no possibility that McKubre's and P&F's 300% percent high
>heat excess is actually 0%. In fact, there is no possibility that what McKubre
>calls his "typical" 5 to 10% excesses are actually 0%.
 
     This is the kind of stuff that gets you in trouble.  There is always
     a possibility that an experiment, or even all experiments are incorrect.
     Such is the nature of experimentation (and theory for that matter).
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 06:21:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr29.152533.601@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>The problem is that we have a video tape but very little in the way of
>numerical information to work with.  I am suggesting that a silicate (or
>aluminate or borate) layer may have built up on the electrode(s) in the
>P&F boiling cell, increasing internal resistance in the cell.  Then with
>a constant current source, the power input indeed rises such that boiling
>may ensue.  As far as I know, P&F have not provided "xs power" numbers
>with which this assertion can be checked.  Note that an *average* power
>input is *not* sufficient here -- in view of the problems identified
>by Tom Droege.    In short, the boiling cell video without accompanying numbers
>showing the actual input power as a function of time in no way confirms
>the presence of nuclear reactions.  Note that Pons did *not* show light
>water control cells at all in his video presentation of boiling cells.
 
     I don't even have the video, but does anyone know the actual
     volume of the Pd electrode in this experiment?
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / david ercegovic /  Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe?
     
Originally-From: rqerce@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (david ercegovic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe?
Date: 30 Apr 1993 08:31 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

A quick question, a bit off the main track of the group, but directed to
people who would know!
 
Any off hand comments on the validity of the following two numbers:
    Total Atoms in the Universe = 10**66
    Total Particles in the Univ = 10**80
 
Sincerely,  Dave
..Standard Disclaimer...I Know 'Nuttin!...rqerce.lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrqerce cudfndavid cudlnercegovic cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Keithley 195A and a Keithley 706
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Keithley 195A and a Keithley 706
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:12:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, to Mike Jamison for his informative discussion of the specs
for the Keithley 195A!  However, in considering what the limits of
McKubre's instrumentation are there is another device to be considered.
He used a Keithley 706 scanner to multiplex all the various measured
parameters to the 195A input.  In discussing maximum measureing rates
the specs for the scanner must also be considered, and that includes
consideration of how the 706 and 195A are synchronized.  As I under-
stand these things, the scanner has to be switched and the meter
input allowed to settle for an appropriate interval before the meter
is triggered.  Only if you are running well below the meter's maximum
rate can you dare let the meter free run.
 
I still am totally confused as to what making 32 measurements and
averaging is supposed to do for the accuracy of the experiment.  As
Mike pointed out, reading the meter faster than its response time
provides no information.  Averaging readings taken more slowly
is just a digital filter which is either serves no purpose or
results in a potential error.  Using the excuse of "data glut"
to justify low sampling rates in these experiments overlooks
various possible schemes for realtime processing to concentrate
recording capacity on the times when there is something to
record.  Unfortunately, even after further averaging and/or
sampling of the data stream, what gets presented in published
plots still shows lots of activity that begs for analysis at
higher sampling rates.  Wouldn't it be obviously better to
make the 32 measurements of I and of E, calculate I*E and
then average?  It would except for something Mike hints at
with his example of cruise control.  Since I is on cruise control
there is a correlation between rapid changes in E and the response
in I.  Isn't calorimetery nice and foolproof?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Random, not a sine wave
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Random, not a sine wave
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 16:58:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Cameron comments:
 
     "Take a sine wave with period 2 pi seconds and sample 14 times in a
     picosecond every 4 pi seconds, and you've got sampling error.  You can
     jack the 14 up to 14 million and you still have the same sampling error."
 
We are talking about random fluctuations. A sine wave is not random.
Naturally, if you very carefully set up AC electricity, and tune your data
collection to sample just exactly on every single peak, you will get the
wrong value. However, if the data collection is little bit out of synch... a
little too slow or too fast, you will get a good average.
 
Anyway, your example has absolutely nothing to do with the real world of CF
experiments. It is wild and useless speculation. There is no question that
slow, random fluctuations occur, but they are never anything remotely like a
regular sine wave. Also, meters and data collection boards *never* stay
exactly in synch with anything. In any real experiment, you are constantly
turning them on and off, resetting, recalibrating, and restarting, so there is
no way you could "accidentally" get in synch with a mythical sine wave every
single time you turn on the collection. You could not do that deliberately, in
the real world, not even with 10 years of practice!
 
Really, why waste your time with such barren, useless speculation? You are so
desperate to "explain away" the obvious, you call for so many impossible
miracles, that you have contorted yourself into speculating about utter
rubbish. Test tubes that talk to one another and decide to ignore
thermodynamics! It is just crazy nonsense. A cold fusion "skeptic" is a man
who will believe in any crazy nonsense rather than face the simple, obvious
truth.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Jed Rothwell /  All experiments never wrong / L'Express
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:17:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dale Bass writes:
 
     "There is always a possibility that an experiment, or even all
     experiments are incorrect."
 
No. If this was true, then science would not work. Theory can always fall, but
experiments, once replicated, last forever. They might be modified or
qualified with better instrumentation, or show to be a limited, special case,
but replicated proof of a phenomenon can never be rescinded. Nothing like that
has ever happened in the history of science. Occasionally things like "N-Rays"
appear, then disappear, but *in* *every* *case* these things are reported to
be very close to the noise, and difficult to detect. CF is miles away from the
noise, and impossible to miss.
 
As Mallove put it:
 
     "To believe that hundreds of scientists around the world have made scores
     of systematic mistakes about the nuclear and nuclear-seeming anomalies
     that they have reported is to stretch credulity to the breaking point --
     to distort the meaning of scientific evidence to absurd limits." - Fire
     from Ice, p. x
 
There are certain inalienable ground rules to science. The first one is that
when evidence is replicated a sufficient number of times, at sufficiently high
signal to noise ratios, that evidence stands. In the case of CF, the
replications (individual experiments), number in the thousands, and the signal
to noise ratio is astronomically high. In *any* other field of science, nobody
would question these results for even one second. However, people are people,
and they will always resist new discoveries. That is why newspapers,
scientific journals, the Army, and all the leading "scientific experts"
refused to believe the Wrights could fly, even when they had been flying for
five years, and even when photographs, affidavits, and articles describing the
flights had been circulating for years.
 
 
By the way, Mallove and Menlove find their names mixed up frequently, but
neither one of them seems to mind. They have similar hairstyles too... and I
bet they BOTH WILL MIND my pointing that out. (Ha, ha, ha!)
 
 
Gentle readers in France, and people who read French, should get the newspaper
article that appeared in L'Express yesterday, which I have thanks to the
kindness of M. Pons. Helas, my French ez rusty to ze point of disintegration,
so all I can offer is ze briefest of descriptions, ici:
 
It is in the "Reportage - Science" section, it has splendid photos of les Prs
Pons et Fleischmann. The title is "Fusion froide: et pourtan, ca chauffe!"
["Cold fusion: nevertheless, it heats!"]
 
It goes into great detail about their latest "remarkable results," 400%
excesses, boiling water, and so on, in "hundreds of replications." It
describes how they are "comfortably installed at Sophia-Antipolis, in France,
in a magnificent lab financed by the Japanese." It says they are looking
forward to the publication of their article in Physics Letter A next week, and
it describes the enthusiastic peer reviews of that paper by various people
like Dr. Costa, CNRS, and by Vigier, ed. Phys. Letters A.
 
One of the many interesting parts here, which I verified with someone who
really does understand French, is an interview with Dr. Jacques Dufour, of
Shell Research, (Grand-Couronne), who says he is getting better than 100%
excess heat. That's pretty respectable! Here are his comments, sans
diacritical marks: "J'obtiens a la sortie une energie double de celle que j'ai
mise a l'entree."
 
It also describes the work of Dr. Storms, at Los Alamos, who reported a 20%
excess last year.
 
It concludes by asking: "after May 3 [publication of the Phys. Let. A article]
who will dare to say that nothing is happening in P&F's thermos flasks? Who
will be able to pretend that there is no mystery in Dufours' calorimeter, or
those of the Japanese? Who will refuse to replicate these experiments, in
which perhaps are hidden the energy future of the planet?"
 
I know who! I can fax L'Express a list of people who will dare to say "nothing
is happening." At the top of the list will be the editors of New Science, who
just published the worst travesty, and the worst distortion of the truth in
the whole history of science. More on that later...
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / R Schroeppel /  fusion in cement
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion in cement
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:17:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I guess it's time to ask Steve Jones about repeatability of
the cement experiments.  Has the experiment been replicated?
As I recall, the Kamiokande folks asked you to move because
you were generating too much radiation & interfering with
their primary experiment.  Have you repeated the detections
in Utah?
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Keithley Model 195A Specs
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Keithley Model 195A Specs
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:17:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The Model 195A can take a maximum of 9 readings per second on the 51/2
digit range.  This from both the 1985 and 1991 catalog to cover what McKubre
likely has.
 
The four minutes comes from my 13 April conversation with Mike.  I think he
also said at that time that he takes 100 samples, but I did not write that
down.  The 4 minutes is in my telephone notes.  Note that he has to read at
least 4 things, two currents and two voltages.  I failed to ask if he
interleaved or took a single variable sequentially.
 
To the many who write and tell me how easy it is to measure power, you may
be correct, but at the moment I am very confused.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Conversation with McKubre
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conversation with McKubre
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 20:56:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A conversation with Mike McKubre
 
I called Mike McKubre a few minutes ago to advise him of the discussion being
carried on here and to invite him to join in.  He indicated that he is shown
this material from time to time.  He is reluctant to join in since it is too
easy to make an error and to post the wrong thing.  Then it is in writing and
hard to erase.  I appreciate his position.  Mike has indicated to me by his
work that he is a very careful and thoughtful worker.  This is furthermore his
livelyhood, unlike my own position where I can always leave to play with
water.
 
But while he doesn't much like the way this medium works, he suspects it is
the wave of the future.  So do I.
 
He has done everything I could ask to test that he is making the proper
measurement using the equipment that he has - the Model 195A Keithley meter.
He has tried various combinations of bunched and spaced readings, interleaved
and non interleaved.  While he may have seen some differences, our
conversation was cut short by the arrival of his wife to take him to a doctors
appointment.  He otherwise seemed quite willing to continue the discussion.
He is "aware of the existence of the problem" that we are discussing, and
agrees with me that "it's a complicated problem".  Nonetheless, he "still
thinks that his measurements are valid."
 
Whatever the outcome of our studies of input power measurement, McKubre is a
first class worker doing first class careful work.  If we find that there is
and error in measurement, it will be because it is a very subtle problem.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Black Hole is Coming for Me
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Black Hole is Coming for Me
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 21:20:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A black hole is coming to get me, I am pretty sure.  "the e-mail server will
be named FNAL, FNAL.GOV, and FNAL.FNAL.GOV.  It will have a DECnet address of
42.1 and a TCP/IP address of 131.225.9.1."
 
There has been a lot of mail lately, all written in a strange language, and
it is going to happen on Monday, May 1.  Possibly the right way to get to me
will be FNAL.FNAL.GOV, but that assumes I can figure out how to connect to
the right path.  So expect any mail to me to go into the black hole until I
can find the right person to tell me the one or two simple things I need to
do.
 
One message from Greg who is trying his best to tell those who have not
reached the 19th degree of priesthood what to do says "the easiest thing to
do is come Monday send mail out to all of them ..."  The hope is that then you
can figure out how to send mail to me.  But I doubt that this works for the
server, so I expect to miss FD's until I can break the code.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Ad aspera /  Re: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe?
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe?
Date: 30 Apr 1993 16:51:14 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

In article <30APR199308311189@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>,
rqerce@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (david ercegovic) wrote:
 
> A quick question, a bit off the main track of the group, but
> directed to people who would know!
 
Ah, Usenet, where NASA asks fusion researchers what's
out in space!  :)
 
Actually, you might be better off on sci.astro than here.
Be advised that you'll probably get argumentation rather
than a number, since, as I misunderstand the subject,
there has been no enduring, uniform agreement on such
fundamentally important matters as how big the thing is
or what all it's made of.
 
At best you'll come up with a set of numbers tied to
your belief in whether the universe has enough mass (in
the form of cold dark matter, undiscovered stuff, whatever)
to eventually halt its own expansion.  I'm not sure you'll
even get any three random cosmologists to agree on that.
 
You've now gone beyond the event horizon of my knowledge of
astrophysics.
 
Good luck,
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Todd Green /  Re: References to F&P's retractions?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: References to F&P's retractions?
Date: 30 Apr 93 20:10:04 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <1993Apr28.142303.593@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
> 2.  Neutron claims:  The P&F claims of neutron production were based on
> observation of a gamma line purportedly generated by (thermal) neutron capture
> in H2O.  Frank Close and the boys at MIT (R. Petrasso et al.) did the
 
and later:
 
> In view of this history, it would be most inappropriate to credit P&F with
> discovery of neutrons emitted by deuterided materials,
 
Everybody seems to have forgotten that F&P&H's evidence for neutron production
did not rely entirely on their gamma ray spectrum. On page 303 of the 1989
paper: "The neutron flux from a cell containing a 0.4 cm x 10 cm Pd-rod
electrode was measured using a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor
Type 95/0949-5." Later: "Measurements on a 0.4 cm x 10 cm diamter rod electrode
run at 64 mA cm-2 gave a neutron count 3 times above that of the background".
So, FPH did measure neutrons directly, and as far as I can tell they did
not retract these measurements. I guess most people regarded the neutron
detector used (BF3 type) as being too unsophisticated for the results to be
entirely credible, but I do mention it in the interest of historical
completeness.
 
----
todd
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Roy Hashimoto /  Re: Random, not a sine wave
     
Originally-From: hashimoto@sgi.com (Roy Hashimoto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Random, not a sine wave
Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:20:03 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <930430162836_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>[concerning attempts to explain McKubre's results with insufficient sampling]
>Really, why waste your time with such barren, useless speculation? You are so
>desperate to "explain away" the obvious, you call for so many impossible
>miracles, that you have contorted yourself into speculating about utter
>rubbish. Test tubes that talk to one another and decide to ignore
>thermodynamics! It is just crazy nonsense. A cold fusion "skeptic" is a man
>who will believe in any crazy nonsense rather than face the simple, obvious
>truth.
 
The following paragraph is tongue in cheek:
 
Really, why waste your time with such barren, useless speculation? You are so
desperate to "explain away" the obvious, you call for so many impossible
miracles, that you have contorted yourself into speculating about utter
rubbish. Fusion without fusion products that decides to ignore nuclear
physics! It is just crazy nonsense. A cold fusion "believer" is a man
who will believe in any crazy nonsense rather than face the simple, obvious
truth.
 
It works both ways here.  So far we have seen results of excess heat, but
we have no compelling explanation, no theory.  Until we do, it makes just
as much sense to look for reasons the experiment might be wrong as well
as why it might be right.  Both hypotheses seem far-fetched by advocates
of the opposing viewpoint.
 
Tom Droege will be testing his idea on his experiment.  Would you rather
that he not do this?
 
Roy Hashimoto
hashimoto@sgi.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhashimoto cudfnRoy cudlnHashimoto cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:51:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Apr30.154935.23189@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jh
.edu (nod sivad) writes:
>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>>The problem is that we have a video tape but very little in the way of
>>numerical information to work with.  I am suggesting that a silicate (or
>>aluminate or borate) layer may have built up on the electrode(s) in the
>>P&F boiling cell, increasing internal resistance in the cell.
>
>Wouldn't this happen over a long period of time, resulting in a slow
>build up of anonymous heat rather than the sudden onslaughts reported
>by CFers?
 
     I'm not sure they've ruled out gobs of deuterium coming out
     of the lattice in a short time. I note that McKubre might be able to
     tell if this is happening, but this 'burst phenomenon'
     doesn't seem to happen to him (nominal Pd electrode volume:
     ~0.35 cc).   I say this with the caveat that
     though he states in his '2nd Annual' paper from Figure 7,
     that at 303 hours 'it was clear from the resistance ratio that
     the electrode had deloaded', it seems to me that the electrode
     probably 'deloaded' in that huge voltage fluctuation that
     shows up at about 280 hours.  This doesn't seem to be
     substantially reflected in the Pd Resistance ratio until
     a discrete time at 303 hours.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Keithley 195A and a Keithley 706
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Keithley 195A and a Keithley 706
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 19:13:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <0096BCC5.23CB3EA0.12203@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
>I still am totally confused as to what making 32 measurements and
>averaging is supposed to do for the accuracy of the experiment.  As
 
      It's a cheap low-pass filter, destroying the frequency
      components we're discussing.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Random, not a sine wave
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Random, not a sine wave
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 19:29:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930430162836_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Cameron comments:
>
>     "Take a sine wave with period 2 pi seconds and sample 14 times in a
>     picosecond every 4 pi seconds, and you've got sampling error.  You can
>     jack the 14 up to 14 million and you still have the same sampling error."
>
>We are talking about random fluctuations. A sine wave is not random.
 
     We weren't talking about 'random fluctuations' we were talking about
     sampling error in a system where we have no predeterminable idea
     about the spectrum or character of the fluctuations.
 
>Anyway, your example has absolutely nothing to do with the real world of CF
>experiments. It is wild and useless speculation. There is no question that
>slow, random fluctuations occur, but they are never anything remotely like a
>regular sine wave. Also, meters and data collection boards *never* stay
 
     There is no question that rapid possibly nonrandom fluctuations
     occur looking in McKubre's data.  Give me the data at sampling rates
     rates above 0.001 Hz and I'll tell *you* if such fluctuations
     are important.
 
>Really, why waste your time with such barren, useless speculation? You are so
>desperate to "explain away" the obvious, you call for so many impossible
>miracles, that you have contorted yourself into speculating about utter
>rubbish. Test tubes that talk to one another and decide to ignore
>thermodynamics! It is just crazy nonsense. A cold fusion "skeptic" is a man
>who will believe in any crazy nonsense rather than face the simple, obvious
>truth.
 
     It's not a miracle, it's a very real phenomenon called 'sampling error'.
     There are obviously high frequency components in the measurements
     or McKubre would have not thought of averaging the 32 samples.
     Why average them when they are all the same?
 
     You know, this isn't a Baptist prayer meeting; we're supposedly
     discussing science.  I suspect you know little of science if you
     term sampling error 'crazy nonsense'.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / S Schaffner /  Re: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 22:29:22 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <930430173114_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
|> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
|>
|> Dale Bass writes:
|>
|>      "There is always a possibility that an experiment, or even all
|>      experiments are incorrect."
|>
|> No. If this was true, then science would not work. Theory can always fall, but
|> experiments, once replicated, last forever. They might be modified or
|> qualified with better instrumentation, or show to be a limited, special case,
|> but replicated proof of a phenomenon can never be rescinded. Nothing like that
|> has ever happened in the history of science. Occasionally things like "N-Rays"
|> appear, then disappear, but *in* *every* *case* these things are reported to
|> be very close to the noise, and difficult to detect. CF is miles away from the
|> noise, and impossible to miss.
 
Jed, you really don't know anything at all about science, do you?
"Experiments, once replicated, last forever"?  Have you checked the
status of the 17 keV neutrino lately?  That effect was replicated in
a series of extremely careful, independent experiments.  The experiments
had very good signal-to-noise (I forget exactly how many sigma the different
experiments claimed to be away from a null result, but the possibility of
a statistical fluctuation was negligible), and gave consistent values
both for the neutrino mass and for the amount of mixing.  They were all
wrong.  *All* of science is fallible, and that includes all experiments.
If you overlook a systematic effect in making your measurement, or make
a faulty assumption in interpreting it, you can replicate it as many
times as you want, it's still wrong.  This is why scientists are generally
skeptical of new and startling results: they can almost always be made
to disappear (the results, that is, not the scientists).
And if you want to know how, this being the case, science can still
work, try reading any book on the philosophy of science written in
the last 50 years (well, almost any -- philosophers who think science
doesn't work don't count).
 
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Power Topics
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Topics
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 22:09:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I bow to the wisdom of anyone who comes from the "Institute for Nonlinear
Science", (Matt Kennel).  Not sure, but looks like you are saying there can
be an error.
 
Several have mentioned aliasing.  I at least see periodic, saw tooth, cell
voltage.  See figure 7 of the ICCF1 paper.  I realize that this is not too
likely to be able to produce net energy indications.  But it can produce things
that look like power spikes.
 
To understand the old fashioned wattmeter, first consider the D'Arsenval (sp?)
galvonometer.  A small coil is placed in a narrow gap magnetic fiels formed by
a permanent magnet. The turns of the coil (which is on jeweled pivots) are
at right angles to the magnetic field.  The axis of the pivots is parallel
to the wire direction when in the magnetic field in the gap.  When a current
is passed through the coil, the motor law works, and their is a force on the
coil which causes it to rotate against a return force provided by a spring.
A needle on the coil provides the kind of meter used by Igor in the old
movies.  For an ammeter a few heavy turns are used.  For a voltmeter, in the
good old days, we almost allways used a one milliampere full scale meter with
1000 ohms in series for each full scale volt.
 
To make a wattmeter out of this, the fixed magnetic field is replaced by a
second coil.  One is connected to the voltage, and the other to the current.
Note that this kind of beaste drew significant power.  So there was always
a correction to be made.  Either the voltage drop in the current coil or
or the current in the voltage coil, depending on how it was hooked up.
 
The wattmeter on you house is another story.  At least one feature of this
meter is the retarding force of a conductor moving in a magnetic field -
the disk that you see moving between the magnet poles.  --- now using the
same technology as is used in dc fans and a few external coils might we
not make it run backwards ??
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Jed Rothwell /  L'Express article translation
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: L'Express article translation
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 01:04:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Sian and Chris Tinsley very kindly translated the entire L'Express article
into English. Here it is:
 
Cold Fusion - yet giving heat!
 
They must be waiting impatiently for the third of May 1993. Because on that
day, in a high-level specialist journal, "Physics Letters A' (Elsevier
Publications), one of those publications devoted exclusively to research, the
results - remarkable results - of their latest research will be unveiled.
Yes, a red-letter day for the two men. Almost a rehabilitation for those who,
four years ago, shook the world - before being effectively banned - by
announcing that they had succeeded in catching in a thermos flask a
potentially tremendous source of energy, that they had tapped in their
calorimeters and electrodes a little of the fire of the stars by producing
thermonuclear fusion reactions. The dream of modern man, in a way.
 
So today Stanley Pons, and American, ex-director of the Department of
Chemistry at the University of Utah, and Martin Fleischmann, British, ex-
professor at Southhampton University, have returned to the scene of the
crime. With reason. Max Costa, Director of the Laboratory of Interfacial
Electrochemistry at CRNS comments: "It is quite true that their paper is
clear and excellent." A professor of a national engineering college adds: "If
I gave my green light for publication, it is indeed because it is a paper of
high quality." "After this, you can't go on ignoring it," comments Professor
Jean-Paul Vigier, Research Director at CRNS and formerly professor of quantum
physics at Pierre-et-Marie-Curie University in Paris.
 
Comfortably installed at Sophia-Antipolis in France, in a magnificent
laboratory financed by the Japanese, Pons and Fleischmann, the fathers of
what has been called - perhaps wrongly - 'cold fusion,' have found it hard to
hide their satisfaction. Well may they be relaxed, they who were 'given the
finger' by so many of their colleagues, they who released a planet-wide
controversy in 1989 - on the 23rd of March, to be precise. On that day the
Vice President of the University of Utah called a press conference. For an
extraordinary pronouncement: two researchers of international standing were
announcing that they had produced energy in a very simple way. How? By
electrolysizing heavy water - where the hydrogen is partly replaced by its
close relative deuterium. The trick: one of the electrodes was palladium,
which absorbs deuterium. There, in the metallic lattice, the atomic nuclei
could come close, stick together.  So close as perhaps to fuse? Exactly,
thought Pons and Fleischmann, who were having trouble believing their
instruments. This would explain the considerable release of heat they
observed. Impossible! exclaimed the great majority of the scientific
community. Who knows? murmured others. If the two Utah trouble-makers were
right, the economic face of the world, hungry for energy, would probably
change. Ended, the industrial dependence on petroleum, coal or nuclear
energy!
 
A race to replicate began in laboratories all over the world. The results
changed things. By the beginning of 1990 the negative results of French
experiments (CEA, CNRS, College de France) and from British ones from Harwell
in Oxfordshire, seemed to deliver a final blow to a slightly mad dream. Cold
fusion went underground. Pons and Fleischmann left the U.S. And came to be
set up in Sophia-Antipolis, at the Japanese research center - IMRA - financed
by about ten companies of the Aishin group (associated with Toyota).
 
Throughout two years, hidden from the turmoil of the scientific community,
far from the media, the two men worked to refine their calorimeters, set up
apparatus, redo their measurements and choose with great care their palladium
electrodes. Today they continue, and affirm: "Yes, and the paper - reviewed
before publication by a panel of experts - proves it, we get excess heat of
400% throughout the reaction period - production of energy. With 'good'
palladium, our work is reproducible, we've done it a hundred times."
 
Pons and Fleischmann, isolated martyrs in a sea of incomprehension? Less and
less so. Others, working quietly in corners have duplicated the experiments.
With success becoming less of a surprise. For example, in March 1993 Edmund
Storms of Los Alamos Laboratory - a no less than legendary research center -
published in the journal "Fusion Technology," the official journal of the
American Nuclear Society, the results of research similar to that of the two
Don Quixotes of Sophia-Antipolis. There too was an excess energy of about
20%. In September, Jacques Dufour, a researcher at Shell, will with the
support of his company announce the results of his experiments done in 1992.
Astonishing. With a different approach. "I replace heavy water with hydrogen
or deuterium gas," explains the cheerful scientist, "I use a palladium
electrode and indeed stainless steel or nickel, and I fire sparks into the
gas. The result: I get an emission of energy twice as great as I put in. I
even see fogging of photographic film, proof of radiation."
 
Goings-on in the labs.
 
One hundred times Jacques Dufour has started his apparatus. And one hundred
times he has obtained positive results. This confirms in some ways the
results presented at the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion at
Nagoya in Japan by a group from NTT (the Yamaguchi team). In Japan, India,
and Russia they are busy in their labs. And the list of successes grows
longer. The problem is: how to explain scientifically the results? Palladium
is not the only metal chosen. Stainless steel or nickel, also gluttons for
hydrogen, "do the job" just as well. Sparks in the hydrogen or deuterium gas
will produce the same effect as electrolysis in heavy water. Some
experimenters even claim success with light water. They can't make head or
tail of it, because it is not enough to observe a phenomenon which risks
overthrowing the world economy. It needs to be understood and explained.
 
But the theory is pretty thin. Do the nuclei of deuterium or palladium really
fuse within the electrode and spit out their surplus energy as Einstein
foresaw? Nor certain. The signatures of fusion - production of tritium,
neutrons, protons, helium and radiation are fuzzy, and moreover, Pons and
Fleischmann do not even refer to them in their paper. Will quantum chemistry
play these tricks for us, and do the particular reactions between the nuclei
and electrons within the electrode let loose these puffs of energy - in the
form of weak X-rays - which in turn would favor the fusion of nuclei of
deuterium or hydrogen, as Prof. Vigier proposes? Does an unrecognized kind of
quantum interaction, which would work just as well with deuterium or
hydrogen, come into play as Jacques Dufour suggests? It really is about time
all this was settled.
 
To a large extent in France, and to a lesser degree in the U.S., work has
proceeded underground, for lack of official scientific support. Said a
spokesman of CNRS: "We have no experiment of this kind underway." Explains
Jean-Paul Babuel Peyrissac of CEA: "You have to take extreme precautions; you
can't be the laughing-stock of scientists. But it's true that something is
happening there, physical phenomena as yet not understood, which we must go
and see. We are getting underway to start an experiment which will work
within a year." Others in the same organization are not waiting for the green
light from their hierarchy. In the greatest secrecy they are busying
themselves with their calorimeters and discreetly filing patents. In chorus,
Jean-Paul Vigier and Jacques Dufour comment: "In truth, the attitude of the
great research organizations is incomprehensible. Why are they so reluctant
when the experiments are not expensive?" It is as if cold fusion smacks of
heresy and they are afraid of burning the wings of their reputations. One
example: Jacques Dufour, financed entirely by Shell, has been for a long time
looking for a lab better equipped than his own - which is at Grand-Couronne
near Rouen - to pursue his experiments. He has had a frosty reception.
Finally Prof. Jacques Floss, Director of the Nuclear Sciences Laboratory of
CNAM, opened his doors to him. "I was scarcely settled in," he says, "before
the chemists, the calorimetrists and the nuclear physicists were ready to lay
ambush. Censure, plots, all quite open."
 
After May 3, who will dare to say that nothing is happening in Pons and
Fleischmann's thermos flasks? Who will be able to pretend that there is no
mystery in the calorimeters of Dufour or in those of the Japanese? Who will
refuse to try again the experiments in which may be hidden the planet's
energy future?
 
                                    Francoise Harrois-Monin
 
[Captions: Top picture:] Yes, Professors Pons and Fleischmann have really
found a new potential source of energy. But neither they nor anyone else can
explain its origin.
 
[Diagram and table:]
 
[Diagram implies d-d fusion, and is captioned:] Energy gain obtained at IMRA,
Sophia-Antipolis - 400%
 
[Table captioned:] ...and the others:
 
Labs announcing positive results:
                                          Energy excess
Cal Poly (Pomona)                         50 - 700%
Hydrocatalysis Power                      900%
LANL                                      20%
BARC                                      20 - 70%
Hokkaido U                                200 - 300%
Osaka U.                                  70%
Shell Research (Grand Couronne)           100%
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Jed Rothwell /  How could it be subtle?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How could it be subtle?
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 02:15:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege writes:
 
      "Whatever the outcome of our studies of input power measurement, McKubre
      is a first class worker doing first class careful work.  If we find that
      there is and error in measurement, it will be because it is a very subtle
      problem."
 
This is impossible! How could a "very subtle problem" make 3 watts look like 4,
or 3 watts look like 9? If, as far as anyone can tell, the margin of error is
0.1%, how on earth could a "subtle problem" suddenly make it 50 times larger,
at 5%? The "skeptics" postulate that McKubre is making a mistake. They say his
readings are artifacts of the instruments. An error that could cause such
gigantic mistakes as this would have to be massive and glaring, not subtle. You
cannot look for subtle, tiny, milliwatt effects to explain away multiwatt
measurements.
 
Get Real!
 
 
I notice that I made an unsubtle mistake here: the name of the journal that did
an absurd hatchet job on P&F is: "New Scientist." Gene and others are working
on a report describing their outrages. Their claims are so shocking, they even
surprised Stan Pons, who is used to this sort of thing. What amazes me is that
next week "Physics Letters A" will come out, and the whole world will see that
N.S. has distorted the facts far beyond recognition. What could they be
thinking? How much longer will this charade continue?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / nod sivad /  Re: PS on the boiling cell
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 15:49:35 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>The problem is that we have a video tape but very little in the way of
>numerical information to work with.  I am suggesting that a silicate (or
>aluminate or borate) layer may have built up on the electrode(s) in the
>P&F boiling cell, increasing internal resistance in the cell.
 
Wouldn't this happen over a long period of time, resulting in a slow
build up of anonymous heat rather than the sudden onslaughts reported
by CFers?
 
                                        me
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 21:51:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930430173114_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dale Bass writes:
>
>     "There is always a possibility that an experiment, or even all
>     experiments are incorrect."
>
>No. If this was true, then science would not work. Theory can always fall, but
>experiments, once replicated, last forever. They might be modified or
>qualified with better instrumentation, or show to be a limited, special case,
>but replicated proof of a phenomenon can never be rescinded. Nothing like that
 
      Ha ha ha, you're right again, quite hysterical.  You obviously
      have some childlike belief in experimentation.
 
>has ever happened in the history of science. Occasionally things like "N-Rays"
>appear, then disappear, but *in* *every* *case* these things are reported to
>be very close to the noise, and difficult to detect. CF is miles away from the
>noise, and impossible to miss.
 
      Well with four minute samples, I'm not sure where the noise is.
 
>There are certain inalienable ground rules to science. The first one is that
>when evidence is replicated a sufficient number of times, at sufficiently high
>signal to noise ratios, that evidence stands. In the case of CF, the
 
      Bad rule.  Everyone could be miscalculating S/N ratios and
      everyone could be misleading themselves.  Statistics on sociology
      are no help in determining if this is so, only careful
      experimental technique is an aid.  But one can *never* be sure
      this is not happening, no matter what the experiment.  However it is
      difficult to tell how careful a given experiment is if one
      denies the importance of discussing them.
 
>replications (individual experiments), number in the thousands, and the signal
>to noise ratio is astronomically high. In *any* other field of science, nobody
>would question these results for even one second. However, people are people,
>and they will always resist new discoveries. That is why newspapers,
>scientific journals, the Army, and all the leading "scientific experts"
>refused to believe the Wrights could fly, even when they had been flying for
>five years, and even when photographs, affidavits, and articles describing the
>flights had been circulating for years.
 
     Straw man season again?  So soon?  Where's that ol' flamethrower?
 
>Shell Research, (Grand-Couronne), who says he is getting better than 100%
>excess heat. That's pretty respectable! Here are his comments, sans
>diacritical marks: "J'obtiens a la sortie une energie double de celle que j'ai
>mise a l'entree."
 
      For how long, under what circumstances, with what input?
 
>I know who! I can fax L'Express a list of people who will dare to say "nothing
>is happening." At the top of the list will be the editors of New Science, who
>just published the worst travesty, and the worst distortion of the truth in
>the whole history of science. More on that later...
 
     How 'bout those who are daring to ask 'What is happening?'
 
                         dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Conversation with McKubre
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conversation with McKubre
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 23:25:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930430154034.206072cc@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>He has done everything I could ask to test that he is making the proper
>measurement using the equipment that he has - the Model 195A Keithley meter.
>He has tried various combinations of bunched and spaced readings, interleaved
>and non interleaved.  While he may have seen some differences, our
>conversation was cut short by the arrival of his wife to take him to a doctors
>appointment.  He otherwise seemed quite willing to continue the discussion.
>He is "aware of the existence of the problem" that we are discussing, and
>agrees with me that "it's a complicated problem".  Nonetheless, he "still
>thinks that his measurements are valid."
>
>Whatever the outcome of our studies of input power measurement, McKubre is a
>first class worker doing first class careful work.  If we find that there is
>and error in measurement, it will be because it is a very subtle problem.
 
I think that the dangers of this medium are very much highlighted by this
string concerning _possible_ mismeasurement of input power due to noise
either in the input power itself or due to te workings of the power supplies
for the experiment consucted by McKubre.
 
People like Rothwell add their very unknowledgeable two cents worth and
those who know a little science have to start taking sides and state
that (Jed doesn't know what he's talking about or whatever).
 
What this leads up to is a conversation that starts out suggesting a
_possible_ source for errors that _could_ lead to measurements of excess
heat then ends up with everyone splitting up into two groups --
 
Those that will believe in any cold fusion experiment and those who
are sure that the source of the misunderstanding is a systematic error
in input noise measurement.
 
I would like to point out that McKubre has been lauded by most people
who know the facts as conducting good experiments. Certainly the equipment
and technique he seems to have used may leave room for questioning
whether or not he has accounted for all possible sources for error, but
I haven't seen any evidence against him either.
 
If you think that McKubre has performed his experiment incorrectly than
the way is open for you to repeat his experiment and prove his mistake.
 
Until then why don't we just say that McKubre's experiment is _still_
one of the quality positives even though there is some questions about
the total error in his measurements.
 
At this rate, who would perform any CNF experiments if it invariably leads
to the destruction of one's reputation by the non-experimenting
critics. :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe?
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe?
Date: 30 Apr 93 23:37:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <30APR199308311189@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> rqerce@lims02.lerc.n
sa.gov (david ercegovic) writes:
 
>Any off hand comments on the validity of the following two numbers:
>    Total Atoms in the Universe = 10**66
 
Sounds too small to me, by quite a lot!
 
>    Total Particles in the Univ = 10**80
 
 
Let's see, 10**14 particles per atom?
Sounds like too many per atom, but the total number may still be too small.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 / Bob Campbell /  Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
     
Originally-From: campbelr@hpcss01.cup.hp.com (Bob Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and Cold Fusion. References to F&P's retyractions?
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 23:11:02 GMT
Organization: Precision Risc Organization

>>    I'm sorry you feel that ANY analysis was needed.  At the time of
>>the launch there was still ice on the boosters, thus the booster
>>temperature had to be near or below freezing.
 
>     Good engineers are very careful about jumping to untoward conclusions.
>     The booster did *not* have to be at or below freezing.  Do you
>     happen to know the thermal conductivity of the solid fuel?
>     Show me that it equilibrated at or below freezing during the
>     time it had to cool down.  The thing is huge and it was insulated to
>     an extent by the aforementioned ice hanging from it.
 
Well, these joints are not going to be frozen from within.  The seal
is not internal.
 
Anyways, from his book, didn't he make it clear that the engineers
were indirectly telling him where to look, and that he was smart enough
to understand?
 
P.S.  To an order of magnitude I would treat solid rocket fuel like a
      car tire.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Campbell                Some times I wish that I could stop you from
campbelr@cup.hp.com         talking, when I hear the silly things you say.
Precision Risc Organization                        - Elvis Costello
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencampbelr cudfnBob cudlnCampbell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / mitchell swartz /  PS on the boiling cell/pericathodic layers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PS on the boiling cell/pericathodic layers
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 00:54:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Apr30.153955.602@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell/silicate layer
  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
== "If my guess is correct about the silicate layer forming in Pons'
==  boiling cells,  then I would expect a positive feedback loop that
==  would lead to rapid warming in the cell.  ...
==  The more silicates, the faster a silicate resistive coating forms
==  on the electrode(s) (which one depends on the silicates involved),
==  and the faster the input voltage and power rise to keep the current
==  constant."
 
  This is similar to discussions of various pericathodic, or in-situ
cathodic,  processes discussed last year, and even to your
        Message-ID: <1993Apr28.125434.592@physc1.byu.edu>,
        Sub: Re: PS on the boiling cell:
 
==sj  "A constant-current supply also means that should a resistive coating
==sj  form on the cathode (as we suspect from our studies at BYU), then the
==sj  voltage and power  INPUT to the cell must rise to compensate.  This
==sj  added heat is then dissipated near the cathode and might lead to boiling
==sj  there."
 
 
 Steven,
 
 Because of the similarities, it might be wise to consider the effect of
 these putative changes.  I posted parts of this previously, but perhaps
 missed the answer.
 
  Let one presume that the "power INPUT" does rise for any of a number of
 reasons.     For a fixed amplitude current source
 (Norton equivalent), a simple low dielectric constant layer forming
 in front of the the cathode (from gas bubbles) would be sufficent,
 or the generation of space charge polarization would suffice, etc. etc.
 Other etiologies also include the roles of aluminum, as an in-situ
 gelatinous (possibly amphoteric) layer upon the cathode, as mentioned
 last year.
 
    Nonetheless, ignoring the molecular/nuclear aspects, but
considering a lumped parameter system:
 
  Would not the excess power (assuming that it remained
  constant) actually then decrease when defined as a percent of the input?
 
   With the denominator increasing, the calculated excess power (%)
     would thus fall:
 
          Pexcess (t) =  [P_out(t) - P_in(t)]
                         ------------------   x 100   (%)
                             P_in(t)
 
  If this is correct, then the reported calculated excess powers would
thereby be lower limits to the actual resultant excess powers for each
experiment, once such putative processes began superimposing their effects.
 
                                                    Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: PS on the boiling cell/silicate layer
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PS on the boiling cell/silicate layer
Date: 30 Apr 93 16:02:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Apr30.154935.23189@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>,
ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>>The problem is that we have a video tape but very little in the way of
>>numerical information to work with.  I am suggesting that a silicate (or
>>aluminate or borate) layer may have built up on the electrode(s) in the
>>P&F boiling cell, increasing internal resistance in the cell.
>
> Wouldn't this happen over a long period of time, resulting in a slow
> build up of anonymous heat rather than the sudden onslaughts reported
> by CFers?
>
>                                       me
>
 
I like "anonymous heat"  since it certainly does not want to disclose to
anyone its identity or etiology.
 
If my guess is correct about the silicate layer forming in Pons' boiling
cells, then I would expect a positive feedback loop that would lead to rapid
warming in the cell.  It works like this.  The amount of silicates in the
electrolyte depend on the temp. -- the warmer the electrolyte, the more
silicates will enter the solution from the glass test tube walls.  The
more silicates, the faster a silicate resistive coating forms on the
electrode(s) (which one depends on the silicates involved), and the faster
the input voltage and power rise to keep the current constant.  (Pons used
a constant current source, I think there is no question on this important
point.)  The greater the input power and internal resistance of the cell,
the greater the heating, which leads to faster silicate entering from the
glass and faster silicate coating formation, and faster buildup of internal
cell resistance -- closing the loop.
 
We may get more information soon on the P&F boiling cell demonstration since
I am told that a paper by P&F will be published next week in Physics Letters A,
supported by its editor Vigier (a True Believer as became clear from his
remarks at the Nagoya meeting).  Watch for:
 
0-  How was the system calibrated?
1-  Constant current supply characteristics.
2-  Input power as a function of time -- predict will rise with time --
How often sampled, etc.
3-  Use of an H2O control cell, or some other control.
4-  Presence or absence of a reference electrode.
5-  Any measurement of X-ray spectra (I challenged Dr. Pons directly to
do such measurements, at the Nagoya meeting in Oct. 1992)?
6-  Any claim of concomitant nuclear products, such as helium-4 commensurate
with the xs heat.
7-  Any clear statement that the xs heat is nuclear in origin, fusion or
otherwise  (Pons made
no such statement during his video presentation at Nagoya).
 
We should critically examine the paper here.  Expect also a media blitz to
accompany this -- after all, much is at stake for these guys and their
Japanese sponsors.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Apr30.153955.602@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Apr30.153955.602@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 30 Apr 93 16:03:46 -0600

cancel <1993Apr30.153955.602@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.04.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: References to F&P's retractions
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: References to F&P's retractions
Date: 30 Apr 93 17:22:03 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
In article <1993Apr30.201004.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au>, tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.o
.au (Todd Green) writes:
> In article <1993Apr28.142303.593@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>
>> 2.  Neutron claims:  The P&F claims of neutron production were based on
>> observation of a gamma line purportedly generated by (thermal) neutron capture
>> in H2O.  Frank Close and the boys at MIT (R. Petrasso et al.) did the
>
> and later:
>
>> In view of this history, it would be most inappropriate to credit P&F with
>> discovery of neutrons emitted by deuterided materials,
>
> Everybody seems to have forgotten that F&P&H's evidence for neutron production
> did not rely entirely on their gamma ray spectrum. On page 303 of the 1989
> paper: "The neutron flux from a cell containing a 0.4 cm x 10 cm Pd-rod
> electrode was measured using a Harwell Neutron Dose Equivalent Rate Monitor
> Type 95/0949-5." Later: "Measurements on a 0.4 cm x 10 cm diamter rod electrode
> run at 64 mA cm-2 gave a neutron count 3 times above that of the background".
> So, FPH did measure neutrons directly, and as far as I can tell they did
> not retract these measurements. I guess most people regarded the neutron
> detector used (BF3 type) as being too unsophisticated for the results to be
> entirely credible, but I do mention it in the interest of historical
> completeness.
>
> ----
> todd
 
Frank Close provides the following insights regarding this health-monitor
type of detector:
""What Fleischmann and Pons needed was their own proof of the neutrons
and Harwell was well equipped with the necessary measuring instruments.
Fleischmann discussed radiation with them, aware that if fusion was indeed
happening in the cell there could be significant health risks although he did
seem to be feeling all right.  He then bought a healthy physics monitor to
help his neutron detection and returned to Utah with the next day,
15 February [1989].  So in the last half of February F&P had a detector
whith which they could count neutrons."     (p. 89, Too Hot to Handle)
 
 Note:  by then, my abstract regarding the BYU work on possible nuclear
reactions in deuterided solids had already been submitted to the APS, to meet
the early Feb. deadline, for an *invited* talk at the Baltimore APS meeting
in May 1989.  P&F came to BYU to examine our neutron spectrometer on Feb. 23;
we openly (naively some would say) showed them our results.  The F&P press
conf. at the U. of Utah came one month thereafter, on March 23, 1989.
 
Returning to Close's narrative (p. 89, THTH):
"By this stage they [P&F] had a 4 mm rod that was running with a 0.8 amp
current.  As the efficiency of the detector was very low (it was small and,
they estimated,  only recorded less than one in a million of any neutrons
emitted by the cell),
they counted neutrons at the cell for 50 hours.  Then they counted neutrons 50
metres away from the cell to get an estimate of the background level due to
neutrons coming from cosmic rays or the natural environment of the laboratory.
They compared the reading taken remotely with those at the cell and found that
the rate at the cell was three times that of the background.  This they decided
was evidence for neutrons coming from the cell.
 
When this became general knowledge later, there was general unease at this way
of measuring the background; the neutron flux 50 metres away from the measure
for 50 hours could be very different fhan that at the cell site, evein if the
cell had been absent, measured for a different 50 hours.  The cosmic ray flux
varies and the amounts of background neutrons from one place to another.  To
get a realistic background measurement required, at least, taking readings at
the cell site when the cell was not operating."  (Close, THTH, p 89-90)
 
Notes:
The efficiency of the health-physics monitor is about 10^-6; or 4 to 5 *orders
of magnitude* less sensitive than our neutron spectrometer or
helium-3-type counters.
 
Yamaguchi of NTT (and recent J. Wall Street fame) uses the
*same* type of health-physics monitor;
therefore, Howard Menlove of Los Alamos concluded that Yamaguchi's neutron
claims of 10^6 neutrons/sec (which sounds very high, like the claims of F&P,
but in reality this is at the sensitivity level of the counter)
should be ignored.
 
BF-3 counters of the type used by F&P and Yamaguchi are sensitive to
temperature, and can give false readings just from variations in temperature
from one location or time to another.    (This is not true for our
spectrometers or helium-3-type detectors -- we checked carefully.)
 
When Salamon et al. of the U. of Utah looked for neutrons from Pons' own cells
a few months later in the summer of 1989, none were found at the 1 n/sec level;
P&F had claimed about 40,000 n/sec in their original paper.
 
Why people continue to make highly-publicised claims with such poor detectors
-- I include here X-ray films as used in the China Lake expts. by Miles et al.
instead of X-ray spectrometers -- is difficult to understand.  You see, as
Langmuir warned, a poor detector can lead to poor conclusions.
 
--S. E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Mark Hittinger /  Measurement errors
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measurement errors
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 03:14:51 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

If it is truly noise, and sampling rates then why would your bias be towards
a slight amount of "anomolous heat" Tom?
 
(Obviously it is nature's way of keeping you in the game for smaller and
smaller returns....)
 
Basically what I wind up with in my mind is the picture of a noise
probability distribution that has a buldge in the "excess heat" side of
the axis and missing space on the "anomolous cold" side.  Why would
some of the noise be missing?  Is there a "strange attractor" on the
other side of the axis?  Just blue skying here.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Feynman; Lithium hydride
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Feynman; Lithium hydride
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 05:12:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Just back from a nice conference in Calgary, Canada.  My it was nice to see
snow-capped mountains again!  We have a definite shortage of those in Dallas.
 
Re: The astonishingly dragged-out aftermath of my comment on Feynman and the
O-rings.  Yes, I was wrong, and should have pulled in Wegener (whatever, you
know, the continintal drift guy) instead of Feynman.  Feynman came to mind
because I remembered a Scientific American article after his death that said
is was a "classic" example of Feymman's _very real_ ability to get to the
heart of issues that were often outside of his own discipline.  "Genius" has
some pretty good examples.
 
Odd now about folks now seem to go on about how Feynman got too much "good
press" and others didn't.  I don't seem to recall seeing that claim until
Gleickman decided to target him for a popular book -- long after Feynman
had passed on, I might note.  Feynman always named his _own_ books in a
light-hearted and quite self-depricating fashion.  I reeealy don't think
he would have been very happy with Gleickman for picking the title "Genius,"
and quite probably would have told him in no uncertain terms what he could
Gleickman could do with that title.  It just wasn't Feynman's style.  He
had plenty of faults, but pompous reliance on past reputation -- almost a
hazard of the trade among Nobel Laureate physicists -- wasn't one of them.
 
That same SciAm editorial emphasized how Feynman often turned down chances
to speak at fancy conferences, but loved to take up offers to speak at high
schools to try and fire them up with enthusiasm for physics.  Feynman really,
truly loved physics -- and he wanted others to see the beauty of it, too.
 
Gleickman did not really understand Feynman very well, although he did an
outstanding job of collecting materials on him.  That's too bad, because it
leaves an incomplete image in which it is all to easy to pass off the very
real cleverness of Feynman as nothing more than simple tricks.  No trick I've
ever seen can create something like the Feynman Lectures, which are where you
truly see how encompassing and incredibly creative Feynman's mind really was.
Nor can it produce the elegance of his insights on how a "simple" translation
of the bloated coordinate space equations of Schwinger into momentum space
could produce a huge simplification that made such calculations workable.
 
.....
 
I earlier proposed that if sheet defect hydrogen in palladium could act as
a capacitor, it would probably be under very high pressure due to the indirect
impact of electrons tunneling across the layer.
 
So I wonder...  if the layer _is_ under high pressure, isn't there a problem
with a case like the one below?
 
                                   (-)
                             ----------------
                             |              |
                blowout! <-- H2            H2 --> blowout!
                             |  H2  H2  H2  |
                             |              |
                             -----------------
                                   (+)
 
This could be hard to fix.  A simple coating wouldn't help much -- the H2
pressure would just peel the layer away from the Pd surface, unless it was
very tightly bonded.
 
But here's an interesting point:  LiH is a salt-like, insulating compound.
And I have no figures on its solubility in palladium, but it almost certainly
is going to be a _lot_ more mobile than any of the other Group I elements,
which are simply too large and heavy.  Like hydrogen (p+), Li+ will should
be attracted towards the anode if it moves at all.
 
So I wonder -- is there any chance at all that this could happen?
 
                                   (-)
                             ----------------
                             |              |
                             |LiH        LiH|
                             |  H2  H2  H2  |
                             |              |
                             -----------------
                                   (+)
 
LiH is destroyed by water, of course, but an anodic environment could help
re-create and then stabilize it.  And if the Li+ is just a tad soluble in
palladium, the layer could perhaps form just _beneath_ the surface.
 
Surface effects.  Extreme surface sensitivity.  Li necessary, but chemically
very similar elements such as Na and K useless.
 
Hmm.  Does any of that sound familiar?
 
All nothing but a bunch of "if"s, of course, but I find it intriguing that at
least _some_ kind of case for Li can be made in this scenario.  The lithium
link in claims of excess heat have always been especially mystifying.
 
.....
 
Dieter:  Hey, thanks!  Nice figure on the electrical double layer, and yes
indeedy it gets very interesting if you start folding things up...
 
BTW:  My references to obscure items such as Na in NH3:  I read a lot.  Makes
it easy to dredge up facts, but tricky to re-attach them to a book at times.
The Na/NH3 ref dates back to late grade school / early high school, probably
from an old edition of Enc. Britannica.  Hopefully it's also in my more recent
edition of the same.  I'll find a current reference to it somewhere.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Conversation with McKubre
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conversation with McKubre
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 04:45:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tomkC6BL29.1Hy@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>Until then why don't we just say that McKubre's experiment is _still_
>one of the quality positives even though there is some questions about
>the total error in his measurements.
>
>At this rate, who would perform any CNF experiments if it invariably leads
>to the destruction of one's reputation by the non-experimenting
>critics. :-)
 
     Good point.  You are quite right that we are speculating on
     *possible* errors, and likely subtle ones at that (c.f. the
     statment of Tom Droege).   Experiments in
     any field are difficult to perform, and this field seems
     especially fraught with difficulties.
 
                        dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Eugene Mallove /  Submission
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 05:47:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                1
 
 
Submitted to "Fusion Digest" computer bulletin-board by Eugene F. Mallove, May
1, 1993:
 
        The geniuses of New Scientist, whether by incompetence or design --
probably a bit of both, have published a journalistic travesty against cold
fusion research with an article by William Bown. The piece in the 1 May 1993
issue (page 6)  is remarkable for its nearly *complete* distortion of facts
about the scientific paper by Fleischmann and Pons in Physics Letters A (Vol.
176, 1-12, May 3, 1993). I have a preprint of the Fleischmann and Pons
article. The NS article gives a 100% incorrect impression that Fleischmann and
Pons discuss in their article excess powers only "up to 2 watts per cubic
centimeter of palladium." In fact, the very first sentence of the F&P
article's abstract clearly states, "We present here one aspect of our recent
research on the calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system which has been concerned with
high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (greater than 1 kilowatt per
cubic centimeter) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the
electrolyte solution."
        The title of the New Scientist article is a dead give-away: "Frosty
reception greets cold fusion figures." The immediate question is: *Who* is
giving the "frosty reception"? Why, of course, none other than those two
paragons of open-mindedness, Douglas Morrison of CERN and David Williams of
Harwell Laboratory! With the exception of out-of-context  and thus *distorted*
remarks by Jean-Pierre Vigier, an editor of Physics Letters A, there are no
quotations from cold fusion researchers who agree that cold fusion is a real,
spectacular new energy generating process with attendant nuclear products (so
far detected only at relatively low levels), all of which must be explained.
Vigier is in the latter camp. All we are allowed to hear from Vigier is "The
fusion ashes --neutrons, tritium, and so on -- are not there in sufficient
amounts. It's not fusion." Journalist Bown then writes, "Vigier has not
allowed Fleischmann and Pons to use the word 'fusion' in their paper." Not
*allowed* them! This is another distortion. The F&P article is titled,
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity." It focuses entirely on calorimetry of cells that go to boiling;
the article was not intended to discuss the nuclear physics of what might be
going on in the Pd.
        The lead paragraph of the NS article says that the F&P paper "shows
conclusively that their test-tube experiments generate energy as intense as
that found in nuclear reactors." But the rest of the article *deliberately*--
no other word may be as accurate -- mocks Pons and Fleischmann when it makes
no mention of cells going to boiling and the F&P evidence that power at a
level of several kilowatts per cubic centimeter of Pd has been observed. It
makes Fleischmann and Pons seem like buffoons who have no idea of the
magnitude of the power density of nuclear reactor fuel rods.
        The article's worst, most mind-boggling distortion, however, is the
selective use of a single graph from the F&P paper (Figure 10). New Scientist
portrays a cartoon of this graph that covers *only a few hours of the first
half day* of the operation of a cell which eventually runs for about 19 days
and then boils! Then in New Scientist we have David Williams pontificating
(allegedly on the basis of this graph), "This paper shows it is a much smaller
effect than was at first suggested." The paper shows *nothing* of the kind!
        Furthermore, the graph give the highly misleading impression that all
there is to this experiment is a few hours of "absorption of deuterons by
palladium" (before 43,250 seconds into the run), followed by "generation of
extra power?" Journalist Bown writes that David Williams "...points out that
the power generated by this process is less than that produced by the process
dominating the left side, which is due to absorption of deuterium ions into
the palladium electrodes --a known chemical process." That's patent garbage,
whether it comes from Williams second-hand or from Bown first hand. Will the
real perpetrator of this slander please step forward?
        Pathological anti-science propagandist Douglas Morrison was not the
author of the New Scientist travesty, but he got in his licks. Since his name
is so prominently embedded in this article, and the article is so demonstrably
distorted, I wonder whether Morrison will write a letter of complaint to New
Scientist? Probably not. The negative character of the piece is probably all
he cares about. Morrison's so-called "review" of the Third International
Conference on Cold Fusion in Nagoya was, in my view, a highly biased
distortion. I find it increasingly apparent that Morrison is a hatchet man
like Frank Close and John Huizenga.  Journalist Bown gives Morrison the final
condescending, idiotic word: "It is natural to hope that Fleischmann and Pons
are not completely wrong. But the more careful the experiment, the smaller the
effect which has been found. And the really careful experiments find
absolutely nothing." I find that we have done a careful experiment with
Douglas Morrison & Company for the past four years, and we can definitely say
that there is absolutely nothing to them.
        Fleischmann and Pons characterize their overall experiment thus (page
10 of the article), ''...[excess power density] remains relatively constant at
about 20 watts per cubic centimeter for the bulk of the experiment, followed
by a rapid rise to about 4 kilowatts per cubic centimeter as the cell boils
dry." During the boil-off phase they calculate an excess power generation rate
of 144.5 watts. Input power is stated as 37.5 watts. Since the cathode is
0.0392 cubic centimeters, they calculate their specific excess power to be
about 3700 watts per cubic centimeter.
        The last paragraph of the Physics Letters A paper may be of interest
to heat-transfer experts and those contemplating technological applications of
this phenomenon:
        "We conclude once again with some words of warning. A major cause of
the rise in cell voltage is undoubtedly the gas volume between the cathode and
anode as the temperature approaches the boiling point (i.e. heavy steam). The
further development of this work therefore calls for the use of pressurized
systems to reduce this gas volume as well as to further raise the operating
temperature. Apart from the intrinsic difficulties of operating such systems,
it is also not at all clear whether the high levels of enthalpy generation
achieved in the cell in fig. 12 are in any sense a limit or whether they would
not continue to increase with more prolonged operation. At a specific excess
rate of enthalpy production of 2 kilowatts per cubic centimeter, the
electrodes in the cells of fig.12 are already at the limit at which there
would be a switch from nucleate to film boiling if the current flow were
interrupted (we have shown in separate experiments that heat transfer rates in
the range 1-10 kilowatts per square centimeter can be achieved provided
current flow is maintained, i.e., this current flow extends the nucleate
boiling regime). The possible consequences of a switch to film boiling are not
clear at this stage. We have therefore chosen to work with 'open' systems and
to allow the cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current."
        Besides the Fleischmann and Pons article's focus on details of
calorimetry -- particularly calibration procedures, it contains photographs of
four cells, three of which have boiled dry, and one in the process of boiling.
There are other intriguing observations, such as mention that even after
boiling, the cell temperature remains close to 100 C for three hours. In the
first six days alone, the accumulated excess enthalpy amounted to 1.5
megajoule per mole of cathode material. That's some "chemistry"!
        For those who care about such matters, the publishing particulars of
the F&P article, as stated in their article: "Received 21 December 1992;
revised manuscript received 4 March 1993; accepted for publication 8 March
1993"
        This technical paper may be remembered as a decisive turning point in
the investigation of cold fusion. Regrettably, the New Scientist article will
be recorded as one of the most egregious journalistic mud-slinging jobs in the
history of the cold fusion controversy. The magazine owes the world of science
an apology for this gross departure from all norms of journalistic practice.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Conversation with McKubre
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conversation with McKubre
Date: 1 May 1993 20:35:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: What this leads up to is a conversation that starts out suggesting a
: _possible_ source for errors that _could_ lead to measurements of excess
: heat then ends up with everyone splitting up into two groups --
:
: Those that will believe in any cold fusion experiment and those who
: are sure that the source of the misunderstanding is a systematic error
: in input noise measurement.
:
: I would like to point out that McKubre has been lauded by most people
: who know the facts as conducting good experiments. Certainly the equipment
: and technique he seems to have used may leave room for questioning
: whether or not he has accounted for all possible sources for error, but
: I haven't seen any evidence against him either.
 
Right.  I think the point is, though, that very accurate NET power/heat
measurements are not trivial, contrary to what some might think.
 
This is what I mean about wanting a better experiment that doesn't rely on
accounting---where you don't have to subtract two large numbers and
measure the difference.
 
And this is why more physicists put their biases with the null-test nuclear
measurements than with the calorimetry.
 
OK if Pons and Fleischmann are really getting consistent 100% net total
energy excess over very long periods then it would be obvious.  And that
 
Now, is that paper in Phys Lett A really going to have ALL the information
needed to make successful replications?  Are P&F really going to tell
others how to do it?  (are they looking for nuclear products?)
 
If that happens, then things will definitely be different.
 
But in the more likely event that "we can't discuss how we do that because of
commercial secrecy" is said, then we still won't believe them until we have
a testable work engine that everyone can see and buy.  And we shouldn't.
(remember, a work engine can't be fooled by high-frequency transients or
 whatever)
 
--
-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 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Chuck Sites /  Re: More on Kamiokande and BYU results
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Kamiokande and BYU results
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 07:15:47 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
 
>To Chuck:
>I was amused by your citing "Mallove" (author of "Fire from Ice", a true
>blue TB) as the source of neutron emission data in your recent posting
>("Re:  CNF update#7 (another correction needed)").  The actual first author
>is of course Menlove, a neutron-measurement expert and Fellow at Los
>Alamos National Lab.  While Mallove might be flattered by the confusion,
>I suspect Howard Menlove would not be amused.
>Ref:  H.O. Menlove et al. (including me), "Measurement of Neutron Emission
>from Ti and Pd in Pressurized D2 Gas and D2O Electrolysis Cells," J. Fusion
>Energy 9:495-506 (1990).
 
My mistake. It was probably a Freudian slip of a sort. I suspect your
right about Dr. Menlove not being amused.  Chalk up another one of those
name errors for me Dieter, if your still keeping score.  Make that two,
I forgot Eugene. No; make that four. I did it twice! ;-)
 
>Now, you go to some lengths in discussing the random (uncorrelated) neutron
>emissions from the gas-loaded Ti samples at Kamiokande.  In my view, these
>results were not statistically significant.  For randoms, only the cement
>prepared with D2O gave a statistically significant signal at Kamioka.
>For bursts (correlated neutrons), both the D2+ Ti gas-loaded samples and
>the electrolytic cells with D2O gave significant yields, as described in
>Ishida's thesis which I sent you a copy of.
 
Thats true.  I was re-reading Ishida's thesis this morning and I thought
to myself 'Man, I couldn't have picked a more worst example.' Initially
that was my purpose for picking K4 for singles.  But as I thought about
it, K4 is so close to the background any argument based around it will
suffer the same statistical insignificance you point out.  In otherwords
the f/s rate calculation I gave Dale was probably meaningless.  I was looking
for an example in the April and July electrolysis sets that had a small
random yield and the only one I could find with a consistent (>=0) yield
was JL-6[F]. The yields in this case are comparable to K4's 1E-5 range.
Of course AP-3[F] and all the cement+d20 are quite interesting.
 
>Also, you endeavor to calculate "how may fusions/sec/DD occur."  As I have
>explained here in the past, we made such an estimate in our original Nature
>paper in order to have a basis for comparison with possible natural fusion
>processes in the earth (producing helium-3, tritium, etc. inside the earth).
>However, when comparing laboratory experimental data, I now assert that
>simply comparing neutrons/second is the most reasonable approach, along with
>an indication of the samples involved.  This is because we do *not* know
>with what variable the neutron yield may scale  -- is it mass, or surface area,
>or rate of change of deuterium loading, ... ?  We don't know, and therefore
>we don't know what to scale with.
 
The fusions/sec/DD is somewhat important for comparison to theory, which
is the only reason for my doing so.  But I can see the point you are making.
Theoretical DD cold fusion rates are static and pure, where as experimentally
in trying to initiate DD fusion in a real physical system, one can't assume
that same purity.  Anyway I hope you found the crude estimate I made
somewhat amusing for a worst case selection. I'll see if I
can find a better example.
 
Thanks Steve for pointing out the problems here.  Ishida's thesis is a
fasinating paper. Also for pointing out the E. Mallove, H. Menlove slip.
It will take me a while to live that one down.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman; Lithium hydride
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman; Lithium hydride
Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 19:00:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May1.051233.28156@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>Odd now about folks now seem to go on about how Feynman got too much "good
>press" and others didn't.  I don't seem to recall seeing that claim until
>Gleickman decided to target him for a popular book -- long after Feynman
>had passed on, I might note.  Feynman always named his _own_ books in a
>light-hearted and quite self-depricating fashion.  I reeealy don't think
>he would have been very happy with Gleickman for picking the title "Genius,"
>and quite probably would have told him in no uncertain terms what he could
>Gleickman could do with that title.  It just wasn't Feynman's style.  He
 
     How about James Gleick instead?  The same guy who wrote 'Chaos',
     the heralded story of (among other wonders) how a picture of
     the iterative divergence behavior surrounding the 'Mandelbrot set'
     is going to solve all problems in fluid turbulence.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / John Logajan /  Re: L'Express article translation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: L'Express article translation
Date: Sat, 1 May 93 17:15:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Thanks to Jed Rothwell for posting the L'Express article translated by
Sian and Chris Tinsley.
 
A couple of days ago, Tom Droege said that he felt that this internet
form of ongoing communication was the wave of research future.
 
This quote from the L'Express article reveals the reason:
 
>In September, Jacques Dufour, a researcher at Shell, will with the
>support of his company announce the results of his experiments done in 1992.
>
>The result: I get an emission of energy twice as great as I put in. I
>even see fogging of photographic film, proof of radiation."
 
Now if Mr. Dufour had been reading the Internet, he would have been informed
that there are potential alternate emulsion fogging possibilities, and he
wouldn't have brandished the word "proof" around without additional
qualifiers.
 
There are many "lurkers" on the Internet that are possibly more informed about
the nature of the CF phenomena than perhaps some of the experimentors, and many
of these lurkers are non-scientists!
 
Imagine the cross-fertilization potential if the readership of this group had
a higher ratio of participating scientists.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.01 / Karl Kluge /  Re: How could it be subtle?
     
Originally-From: kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How could it be subtle?
Date: 1 May 93 19:42:46
Organization: University of Michigan

 
In article <930501013158_72240.1256_EHK22-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
   Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 02:15:38 GMT
 
   To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
   readings are artifacts of the instruments. An error that could cause such
   gigantic mistakes as this would have to be massive and glaring, not subtle.
   You cannot look for subtle, tiny, milliwatt effects to explain away
   multiwatt measurements.
 
If the milliwatt effects are 0-mean, this is obviously true. If they aren't,
then it isn't so obvious. Ever hear of round-down fraud, Jed?
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Hydrogen in pipes
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 01:42:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <C67p1J.2n9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
  Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
==jrothwell     "Trigger does not print "offhand" comments, any more
==jr           than the Japanese Edition of Scientific American does."
 
=dbass   "Certainly if 'Trigger' is a technical magazine,
=dbass   these would qualify as offhand comments.  They'd even be offhand
=dbass   comments in Newsweek.
=dbass   By the way, Scientific Amesican prints 'offhand comments' all the time;
=dbass   they've got two sections full of them."
 
  From Webster (ibid): offhand = "without premeditation or preparation"
 
  No technical magazine, Scientific American included, is ever published
  without preparation.  It appears that Jed was correct in this matter.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Re: References to F&P's retractions
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: References to F&P's retractions
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 01:43:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Apr30.172203.605@physc1.byu.edu>
      Subject: Re: References to F&P's retractions
 Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj  "When Salamon et al. of the U. of Utah looked for neutrons from Pons'
=sj own cells a few months later in the summer of 1989, none were found
=sj at the 1 n/sec level; P&F had claimed about 40,000 n/sec in their
=sj original paper."
 
  Re: not working "a few months later"
 
  Not all palladium pieces are reported to work initially and
     some are reported to undergo considerable change during some
     of the irregular anomalous events.
 
  Was it claimed to have been working four months later?
  If not functional at that time,
    and given that the reactions are neutronpenic, so what?
 
 
=sj "Why people continue to make highly-publicised claims with such poor
=sj detectors -- I include here X-ray films as used in the China Lake expts.
=sj by Miles et al. instead of X-ray spectrometers -- is difficult to
=sj understand."
 
  As I remember you made your own retraction here after knocking both
Kucherov's published x-ray film, and radiologists around the world with a
bold stroke.  INMO there was confusion of a reciprocal
space image with a direct space (physical) image.  - Both have their uses -
The importance is that such x-ray film records can be very useful  because
they provide spatial time-integrated recordings of the x-ray distribution
when they are used appropriately.
 
  It is noted that the papers to which you refer appear to have done
experiments wherein full adequate controls were undertaken (and published
in the papers).   You wouldn't have nixed these papers if you were their
reviewer, would you?    :)
 
  If one wants to record what is in front of one, a photograph seems
more useful than a "detector" in many instances.  That's why they say:
"A single-location single-parameter, frequency-limited, bit stream is worth
a thousand words"       ;)
                                Best wishes.
                                                 Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Re: L'Express article translation
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: L'Express article translation
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 01:45:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993May1.171524.18098@ns.network.com>
     Subject: Re: L'Express article translation
 John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
== "Now if Mr. Dufour had been reading the Internet, he would have been informed
== that there are potential alternate emulsion fogging possibilities, and he
== wouldn't have brandished the word "proof" around without additional
== qualifiers."
 
  There are many qualified radiologists who know how to prepare and
take these images well.
 
  Furthermore, IMHO some of the controls which I have seen appear adequate.
 
   Best wishes.                        Mitchell
 
P.S.  Thanks also to Jed Rothwell for posting the L'Express article
           translated by Sian and Chris Tinsley.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / C Harrison /  Input Power Measurement
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunsite.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Input Power Measurement
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 05:48:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gentle readers!  This posting is so long-winded I feel compelled to give
a table of contents!
MEASUREMENT OF FLUCTUATING ELECTRICAL POWER
0. Disclaimer
1. Theory
  1.1  Linear supply, linear load
  1.2  Linear supply, fluctuating resistance load
  1.3  Error bounds
  1.4  Sampling
    1.4.1 Nyquist limit
    1.4.2 Correlations
  1.5  Additional considerations
2. Practice
  2.1  A to D converters
    2.1.1 Dual-slope integrating ADCs
    2.1.2 Successive-approximation ADCs
    2.1.3 Delta-sigma ADCs
  2.2  Direct Power Measurement
    2.2.1 Electrodynamic wattmeter (Tom's "ExH")
    2.2.2 Electronic multiplier
  2.3  RMS measurement
    2.3.1 Electrodynamic (moving iron) meters
    2.3.2 Electronic squaring
    2.3.3 Thermal (bolometer) measurement
    2.3.4 Separation of DC and AC components
  2.4  Power Supply Characteristics
    2.4.1 In band
    2.4.2 Out of band
    2.4.3 Transition
    2.4.4 Additional considerations
  2.5  Load Characteristics
3. Suggestions
  3.1  Potentiostat
  3.2  Quadruple measurement?!
    3.2.1 DC
    3.2.2 Peak detector
    3.2.3 Midband RMS
    3.2.4 HF
  3.3  Testing
  3.4  Equipment sources
4. Comment about McKubre
 
MEASUREMENT OF FLUCTUATING ELECTRICAL POWER
                                  for sci.physics.fusion    5-1-93  CH
 
0. Disclaimer
  I work as an electrical engineer by trade, so most of this commentary
  _should_ be within my field.  However, I have never worked
  specifically with electrochemical cells, or even with precision
  measurement of fluctuating-resistance loads.  In the worst tradition
  of this net, I have written this without much textbook review.  So,
  as always, I recommend that you engage your _own_ brain and library
  to evaluate this material.
 
  I realize that much of this material is elementary, for which I offer
  two rationalizations:
   (1) The audience here is broad, and some may appreciate the
       background topics;
   (2) It often pays (_me_, anyhow) to review the basics in order to
       recognize what assumptions are at work.
 
1. Theory
 
1.1 Linear Supply, linear load
 
  This situation is commonly called the "impedance matching" problem.
 
          ----[ RS ]------( I )---------[ RL ]-----
         |                         |               |
       [ VS ]                    ( VL )            |
         |                         |               |
          -----------------------------------------
 
  with [ RS ] = source resistance  [ VS ] = source voltage
       [ RL ] = load resistance
       ( I ) = load current   ( VL ) = load voltage
 
  In a _linear_ system, any two-terminal combination of resistors and
  voltage/current sources is equivalent to a single source and series
  resistor (Thevenin equivalent), so this is more general than it looks
  at first.  Let's call the ratio of load & source resistances M:
      M = RL / RS ,
  which has values between 0 and +infinity.  Then the load power is
      PL = I * VL = ( VS^2 / RS ) * M / ( 1+ M )^2 ,
  which has a maximum value of  0.25 * VS^2 / RS  when the load is
  "matched", i.e. when RS = RL and M = 1.
 
  The above paragraph applies directly to a DC circuit.  However, it
  generalizes easily to (_linear_!) AC circuits by using complex numbers
  to represent resistances ("impedances") of capacitors and inductors.
  Thevenin equivalents still work, and PL = | ( I * VL ) |  is maximized
  at the "conjugate match"  RS = RL* .  (Cogniscenti would use ZS = ZL*
  to imply that complex impedances are under discussion.)
 
  As long as the impedances are "passive" -- i.e., their real components
  are positive, power always flows from the source to the load.
  (Negative, non-passive impedances are possible!)
 
  NOTE ON LINEARITY:  Linearity has a precise definition (or several
  equivalent precise definitions ;-) ).  Linearity means
   (1) Homogeneity condition:  If all inputs (i.e. sources) are zero
       for all time, the circuit voltages and currents are also zero.
   (2) Superposition condition: If input waveform condition C is equal
       to A + B for all time, then the circuit's response to C is equal to
       the sum of the responses to A and B independently.
   (3) Scalar multiplication property: If input waveform B is equal to
       a constant k times waveform A, then the circuit's response to B
       is equal to k times the response to A (double the g'zin, double
       the g'zout).  Note that you have to multiply _all_ the input
       sources by k at the same time for this to work!  Property (3)
       actually subsumes homogeneity (1), but I like to remember them both.
  If, in addition, the relatively benign property
   (4) Time Invariance: If, over all time, waveform B is equal to
       waveform A _delayed by_ time T, the circuit response to B is
       equal to the A-response delayed by T
  holds, we have an LTI (linear time invariant) system.  "Real Math" (you
  know, with axioms and theorems) rigorously proves things like Thevenin
  equivalence for LTI systems.  So if you don't believe the results
  apply to your workbench, check the LTI assumptions!
 
1.2 Linear Supply, Fluctuating Resistance Load.
 
  This section analyzes a simplified fluctuation situation with pure
  resistances.  We revisit the load matching problem, but allow the
  value of RL to change with time.  We've trashed the LTI conditions at
  the load, but we'll assume the supply is still linear.  We'll express
  the matching ratio M as an average part plus a fluctuation:
      M = M0 + m                    M0 = < M > ; < m > = 0
  The instantaneous power is still
     PL = VS^2/RS * M/(M+1)^2 .
  We can do a Taylor expansion around M0 and find
     PL = VS^2/RS * { M0/(1+M0)^2 + m * (1-M0)/(1+M0)^3
                                  + m^2 * (M0-2)/(1+M0)^4 + ...} .
  We are interested in the average value of the power:
    <PL> = VS^2/RS * { M0/(1+M0)^2 + < m^2 > * (M0-2)/(1+M0)^4 + ...},
  where the second term drops out because < m > is identically 0.
  INTERESTING FACT #1:  the load power can increase OR decrease due to
    fluctuating resistance.  If the power source impedance is high (i.e.
    a good current source), then M0 is small (less than 2) and the load
    power _decreases_ with fluctuations.
  But this is not the whole story.  What happened to the DC measurements
  of I and V when we fluctuated RL?  Let's see:
     VL = VS * M/(1+M)               (voltage divider law)
      I = VS/RS * 1/(1+M)            (Ohm's law) .
  Do another Taylor expansion
    VL = VS * { M0/(1+M0) + m * 1/(1+M0)^2 - m^2 * 1/(1+M0)^3 + ... }
     I = VS/RS * { 1/(1+M0) - m * 1/(1+M0)^2 + m^2 * 1/(1+M0)^3 + ... }
  and a time average
   <VL> = VS * { M0/(1+M0) - < m^2 > * 1/(1+M0)^3 + ... }
    <I> = VS/RS * { 1/(1+M0) + < m^2 > * 1/(1+M0)^3 + ... }  .
  INTERESTING FACT #2:  With a fluctuating resistance load, the average
    current will _increase_, and the average voltage will _decrease_,
    regardless of the matching conditions.
  Okay, how about that bogus power we estimate by multiplying average
  voltage by average current?
    PB = <VL> * <I>
       = VS^2/RS * { M0/(1+M0)^2 + < m^2 > * (M0-1)/(1+M0)^4
                                 - < m^2 >^2 * 1/(1+M0)^6 + ... } ,
  and the estimation error is (dropping the last term)
    PB - <PL> = VS^2/RS * < m^2 > * 1/(1+M0)^4 + ...  .
  INTERESTING FACT #3:  The load power computed from average current
    times average voltage will _overestimate_ the true load power into a
    fluctuating resistance load.
  This is the _opposite_ of what most people seem to believe.  (I was
  surprised.)  So what sort of percentage error are we looking at?
   (PB - <PL>)/PL0 = < (m/M0)^2 > * M0/(1+M0)^2 ,
  where  PL0  is the load power with no fluctuation.  So a 20% rms
  fluctuation in M (or equivalently RL) makes the first factor (0.2)^2 or
  0.04.  The second factor is small for mismatched source and load, but
  has a maximum value of 0.25 for perfect matching, giving a 1%
  _overestimate_ of input power under those conditions.
 
  Final reminder:  the results derived above apply for _pure
  resistance_, with no capacitance or inductance effects included.
  Also, the ONLY nonlinearity included was the fluctuating resistance,
  and the Taylor expansions were only taken out to m^2 terms.
 
1.3  Error Bounds
 
  Ideally, the calorimetrist wants a _true_ measure of the electrical
  input power, fluctuations and all.  However, a second-best alternative
  is an _approximate_ measure of average input, along with an error
  bound.  Here we will work in the general case of arbitrary functions
  VL(t) and I(t). (Ms. Mathematician reminds us they aren't _completely_
  arbitrary -- they need a finite energy norm under an appropriate class
  of weighting functions.  The details are a little beyond me...)
 
  We express each of these as an average value and a fluctuation:
    VL(t) = VL0 + vl(t)       VL0 == < VL(t) > ; < vl(t) > == 0
    I(t) = I0 + i(t)           I0 == < I(t) >  ; < i(t) > == 0 .
  Now the true average power is
    < (VL(t)*I(t) > = < VL0 * I0  +  VL0 * i(t)  +  I0 * vl(t)
                                                  + i(t) * vl(t) >
                    = VL0 * I0 + VL0 * < i(t) > + I0 * < vl(t) >
                                                  + < vl(t) * i(t) >
                    = VL0 * I0  + < vl(t) * i(t) > .
  In other words, total power equals DC power (measured) plus fluctuation
  power.  I repeat this basic result to emphasize that it depends
  _only_ on the definition of "average", which _is_ linear.  The use of
  Linear Algebra is justified here whether or not the physical system
  is linear.
 
  The next step is mathematically rigorous if the functions vl(t) and
  i(t) are well behaved as noted above. The time average < x(t) * y(t) >
  is a scalar product (bilinear, symmetric, positive definite) and
  therefore satisfies the Schwartz inequality:
     | < x(t) * y(t) > |  <=  sqrt(< x(t)^2 >) * sqrt(< y(t)^2 >) .
  So
     | < vl(t) * i(t) > |  <=  sqrt(< vl(t)^2 >) * sqrt(< i(t)^2 >) .
  The left side of this inequality is precisely the unmeasured power.  The
  right side is the product of the rms voltage fluctuations with the rms
  current fluctuations.  [ The derivation is bomb-proof.  When you need
  confidence, this sort of thing can actually make you appreciate
  linear algebra :-).  ]
 
  This leads to a very practical approach to establishing an error bound
  on the electrical power measurement.  For example, if your
  constant-current supply is really working, you might be able to prove
  by measurement that your rms current noise was, say, 0.1 ma.  Then even
  if your cell voltage has 5V rms noise on it, you _can't_ have more than
  0.5 mW error _from this source_.  Next question, sampling.
 
1.4 Sampling
 
  Most experimenters use a single voltage meter and multiplex it
  (switch it sequentially) among a dozen or so measurement points.  This
  has cost advantages (switches are cheaper than meters) and also can
  provide good internal consistency checks in the data.  The drawback is
  that you can't be everywhere at once, and the fluctuation that happens
  when you're not looking could be important.  Here we discuss sampling
  rate (and Nyquist's criterion) and some assumptions that might be made
  about the randomness of the fluctuations being measured.
 
1.4.1 Nyquist criterion
 
  Nyquist is credited with a theorem stating (roughly) that a
  _band-limited_ signal can be completely reconstructed from a set of
  discrete-time samples if the samples are taken fast enough.  "Fast
  enough" is at the "Nyquist rate" - two samples per cycle of the
  highest frequency component in the signal.
 
  This theorem comes from "linear systems theory", but it really only
  talks about reconstructing an arbitrary waveform.  The source of the
  waveform can be a non-linear system, a random one (neutron counter?),
  chaotic, or what-not.  Nyquist doesn't care.
 
  The situation of sampling a sinewave close to the Nyquist rate is a
  bit disconcerting:
 
      ..        o.        ..        o.        ..        o.
     .  o      .  .      .  o      .  .      .  o      .  .      .
    o    .    .    .    o    .    .    .    o    .    .    .    o
          .  .      o  .      .  .      o  .      .  .      o  .
           .o        ..        .o        ..        .o        ..
 
  Here dots represent the original waveform and o's the samples.  Not
  only does it take a little work to reconstruct the original wave from
  these points, but also you have to watch out for similar-looking
  sample sequences which might come from signals a little higher than
  half the sample rate.  You're right, they _shouldn't_ be there -- we
  said this signal was band-limited.  But the point is, if you incorrectly
  assume the bandwidth, you can get "aliasing errors" that invalidate your
  analysis.  Nyquist's theorem doesn't tell you what happens if your
  signal is "almost band-limited" - there's no error estimate built in.
 
  So, other things being equal, it's always best to run a high sample
  rate.  But other things aren't equal, as we'll see in the "Practice"
  paragraphs.
 
1.4.2 Randomness and Correlation
 
  Extra disclaimer:  my random-signals math is not my best subject.
  Maybe you should just get a good textbook and skip this ;-).
 
  If a tree falls and no one hears it...
 
  Can we say _anything_ about what the signal is doing when the
  multiplexer is switched to another channel?  Well, we can't say much
  deterministically.  But if I get 100 sequential readings between 2.550
  and 2.553 volts, I might figure it's pretty unlikely that the signal
  was secretly sitting at -10 volts in the gaps between my measurements.
 
  This type of statement can be made precise.  We could say "only once
  in 10^9 experiments would a random signal of type X give a set of
  readings of type Y".  "X" and "Y" are often chosen for their
  mathematical convenience rather than from an a priori understanding of
  the experimental situation.  This is the source of endless fretting in
  experimental science.
 
  Bandlimited Gaussian white noise is the workhorse model for
  experimental statistics.  Nonetheless we can talk about correlation
  between random signals _without_ making any assumptions about
  linearity or Gaussian statistics.  Two signals x(t) and y(t) have a
  cross-covariance
    Cxy(T) = < x(t)*y(t-T) > - < x(t) > * < y(t) > .
  Strictly speaking, the first term on the right is the
  "cross-correlation", which is distinct from the cross-covariance if x(t)
  and y(t) have DC components.  Loosely, "correlation" and "covariance"
  are sometimes bandied about interchangeably. If x and y are
  "uncorrelated", or have "nothing to do with each other", the
  covariance will be zero for all T.  If x and y are identical, Cxx(T)
  (the autocovariance or autocorrelation of x) will have a peak at T=0,
  and the precise shape of the Cxx(T) function carries alot of
  information about x(t).  In fact, the frequency spectrum of the
  autocorrelation serves in the same places that the frequency spectrum
  of a deterministic signal would for linear signal analysis.
 
  The time-average operation < > above is not easy to define
  satisfactorily.  If the cross-correlation is approximated for a
  specific time interval by numerically performing the Cxy(T) sum, the
  result is called a correlogram.  In a sense (but not as strongly as
  one would like), averaging alot of correlograms or taking
  correlograms for longer intervals gets you closer to the real Cxy(T)
  function.  Of course this concept is only valid if the process is
  _stationary_: i.e. it's the same process we're seeing all the time.
 
  In general a cross-correlation between two signals reflects a causal
  link.  However this statement must be interpreted very carefully,
  especially when periodic signals are involved, and when the data
  collection time is limited.  Truly independent periodic processes will
  drift apart in phase, and over a long data-collection interval the
  correlogram will approach zero.  But, for example, two independent
  clocks will stay in phase for a long time.  (Note that two processes
  can be tightly linked causally, but still _not_ show
  cross-correlation -- for example the harmonics of an oscillator
  cross-correlate to zero with the fundamental.)
 
  Working with multiplexed measurements makes a researcher long to
  believe that the process being measured is uncorrelated with the
  multiplex switching cycle.  Proceding from this assumption, one can
  rigorously show that the sampling process provides an _unbiased_
  estimate of the process' average value.  But the lack of correlation
  is notoriously difficult to prove experimentally.
 
  One workaround for the problem of periodic signals giving false
  correlations is to use pseudorandom scheduling for the sampling
  process.
 
2. Practice
 
  O Gentle Reader, forgive the copious detail on instrumentation herein.
 
  I firmly believe that an experimenter should know as much about the
  inside of his "black boxes" as possible.  Only in this way does he
  know where to place faith and where to seek artifacts when Nature
  takes its course.
 
  Besides, it is illuminating and not rarely uplifting to see the
  work of designers and craftsmen who create those black boxes.
 
2.1 Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs)
 
  At the heart of every computerized data acquisition system sits an
  ADC, converting real-world analog voltage levels into numerical
  values.  In multiplexed systems, the input of this ADC is rapidly
  switched among dozens of input signals.  This is good; many possible
  sources of drift and uncertainty can be cancelled this way.  This is
  bad; running thirty different signals at different levels through
  shared equipment is an invitation to cross-coupling and false
  correlations.  The characteristics of the ADC go beyond basic accuracy
  to how it responds to real-world challenges of noise, crosstalk, and
  multiplexing.
 
2.1.1 Dual-slope integrating converters
 
  These slow, accurate converters have dominated the Digital Volt Meter
  (DVM) business for decades.  The principle is rather clever:  the
  input signal (unknown) is converted to a current I and used to charge
  a capacitor for a fixed time.  This puts a charge Q = I * T1 on the
  capacitor, raising it to voltage V = Q / C.  Then the input is
  switched to a negative reference current Iref which discharges the
  capacitor until it's back to zero.  That takes a time T2 = Q / Iref.
  Dividing out, we find
     T2/T1 = I / Iref .
  The measurement relies on one precision reference level (hard to get
  away from that in a physical measurement) and a ratio of two times.
  The times are obtained by counting cycles of a high-frequency quartz
  crystal, and that works pretty well.  Modern dual-slope converters add
  a few extra steps to neutralize second-order errors.
 
  An interesting feature of the integrating ADC is that the measurement
  is an excellent "boxcar" average of the input over the period T1.  T1
  is usually chozen to be an exact multiple of 100 milliseconds.  This
  provides a built in "notch filter" for 50- and 60-Hz power-line
  frequencies and their harmonics.  (Watch out if you're in the
  boondocks on generator power! :-).)
 
  Another feature of integrating converters is their excellent
  differential nonlinearity.  The design is inherently monotonic, which
  is good if you're suppressing low-level noise by averaging sequential
  readings.  We'll see how this can be a concern in
  successive-approximation ADCs, below.  However, note that there is a
  crossover between positive and negative signals that can cause a
  "flat spot" in the response.
 
  A weak spot in dual-slope ADCs is their response time.  First of all,
  it usually takes tens if not hundreds of milliseconds to make each
  measurement.  Second, these converters often take several cycles to
  stabilize on a new reading after a step change in the input.  Why?
  Well, Q = I * T doesn't describe subtle long-time-constant charge
  absorption in the capacitor dielectric.  Extra charge can be stored
  "semi-permanently" when a large 10-volt signal is being converted,
  and then it creeps out on the next cycle when the multiplexer has
  switched over to a 30 millivolt level.
 
  It's always wise to test a multiplexed system for channel-to-channel
  crosstalk by putting full-scale signals on some channels and watching
  for zero drifts on others.  In dual-slope ADC systems, you sometimes
  have to switch to an idle channel (maybe tied to zero) and convert a
  few times between each "live" channel switch.  That is, if you want
  all 5-1/2 digits!
 
  So nothing is perfect.  But with their long-term stability, robust
  concept, noise-rejecting front-end, and decades of manufacturing
  refinement, you just gotta love 'em.
 
2.1.2  Successive-approximation ADCs
 
  These are an electronic tour-de-force.  (I'll bet old-timer Tom will
  echo - "Yep, they sure were, especially when we built 'em out of
  Nuvistors" ;-).) There is an unknown voltage to measure, but you
  start with the opposite of an ADC, a Digital to Analog Converter.
  Put in a number, out comes a voltage.  Is that voltage higher than
  the unknown? If so, cut down the number.  Put in a little logic that
  does a "binary search" algorithm, and you can home in on the answer
  in a few microseconds.  Not bad.  Especially now you can buy it all
  on one IC for ten bucks.
 
  But what happens if the "unkown" changes while you're doing your
  binary search?  Oops!  Better put in a "sample-and-hold" which keeps
  the signal steady for those few critical microseconds.
 
  Successive approximation converters are pretty speedy, so you have a
  better chance of catching up with Mr. Nyquist.  But they have their
  quirks.  For example, their performance depends on dozens of
  precisely matched resistor values on that IC.  If one is a little bit
  off, it looks to be farther from 1.000 volt to 1.001 than it is from
  1.001 to 1.002.  Let the temperature change and maybe 1.001 volts
  disappears -- you can only read 1.000 or 1.002.  Differential
  nonlinearity (DNL) like this is much worse in a successive-approximation
  converter than in a dual-slope ADC (or a delta-sigma, for that
  matter).  What happens if you have a 1.000-volt signal with a few
  millivolts of noise on it going into this converter?  The DNL
  rectifies the noise and biases the reading.  If you think you're going
  to take lots of fast readings, then average them to get enhanced
  resolution, watch your step!  Check the DNL spec carefully, and think
  about the noise level you're trying to average over.  You might
  actually make things better by _adding_ noise (dithering).
 
  Successive-approximation converters' strength is also their weakness.
  Fast circuits respond to fast signals, and stray coupling from digital
  wiring in the neighborhood is dangerous.  A 1-us pulse might be buried
  in the 100-millisecond integration of a dual-slope ADC, but if the
  same pulse comes just as the "gate" closes on the sample-and-hold
  circuit, it's recorded for posterity.  Keep in mind that stray noise
  pulses from electromechanical equipment (relays, valves, motors) can
  creep in this way and lead to a mysterious statistical
  cross-correlation that will drive you nuts.
 
2.1.3  Delta-Sigma Converters
 
  I don't have much experience with these, so add your own grains of
  salt.  Crystal Semiconductor brought these to market in IC form a few
  years ago and I suspect Tom's CSxxxx is one of 'em.
 
  Here we have impressive performance by digital logic designers.  You
  can look at it as a very fast one-bit ADC.  One bit?  Yep, at each
  clock cycle it's either 1 or zero.  But the bits are coming in at 20
  million per second (I told you it was fast) so you can average quite a
  bit to increase your resolution.  Simultaneously, the measured
  signal (all those one-bit numbers) is integrated by a capacitor and
  compared to the input, so the averaging is part digital, part analog.
  By cleverly matching the digital averaging to the analog feedback
  response, the designers obtain remarkable performance.
 
  Some high-resolution versions have alot of "pipeline delay" because of
  all the digital signal processing going on inside.  The readings come
  out rapidly once the pipeline is filled, but you can't switch
  multiplex channels very fast.
 
  Since the basic process is a continuous integration, it has excellent
  DNL and noise rejection.  Early commercial parts were oriented towards
  digital audio (DAT recorders, etc) where absolute accuracy and
  stability are not prime specs.  But I think the current generation
  look like winners.
 
2.2  Direct Power Measurement
 
  There are "wattmeters", which look like they ought to solve the
  calorimetrist's problem:  two leads for I, two leads for V, and the
  meter reads watts.  Unfortunately, frequency response is likely to be
  a problem.  The general wattmeter problem -- including measuring a
  good null when the input I & V are 90-degrees out of phase -- is just
  plain hard.  But fortunately, that particular part of the envelope
  probably (?) is irrelevant to the calorimetry at hand.
 
  Also, don't forget that certifying the accuracy of these guys is tough
  -- it starts as a two-dimensional problem to map out performance ( I &
  V), plus relative phase, hairy waveforms, etc.  How do you know it's
  good to 0.1%?
 
2.2.1 Electrodynamic wattmeter (Tom's "ExH")
 
  There's a certain elegance to this classic design (My old employer had
  one with John Weston's signature on the calibration label.)
 
  For reference, a standard moving-coil (or D'Arsonval) meter -- like
  you used to see in Simpson VOM's -- has a permanent magnet field
  surrounding a tiny pivoted coil.  Current through the coil creates a
  torque by means of the Lorenz force qv x B acting on the charge
  carriers.  The total torque is proportional to coil current and to
  the (fixed) magnetic field.  A hairspring balances the torque when the
  needle points to the right place on the scale.
 
  Now suppose we replace the permanent magnet by an electromagnet, whose
  field is proportional to the input at another set of terminals.
  Voila! The multiplication implicit in the physical law (Lorenz) does
  a real-time calculation.  This is all fine but I've never seen one
  rated over 200 Hz.  I think it's just tough to avoid excess
  inductance, core losses, and all those other bugaboos of real
  electromagnetics.
 
2.2.3  Electronic multiplier
 
  A net correspondent (sorry, missed the name) mentioned direct power
  computation by using electronic multipliers.  I've seen IC spec sheets
  that suggest you ought to be able to do this at the 1% level up to a
  few MHz.  Sounds good to me.  There may well be wattmeters like this
  you can buy off the shelf.  (I'll bet audio equipment people need them).
 
  An older design of multiplier used log-antilog circuits -- your high
  school algebra at work.  They have the peculiar characteristic that
  bandwidth is signal-level-dependent.  I think these have generally
  been replaced by transconductance multipliers ("Gilbert cells").
 
  Fast multipliers sometimes have high noise floors.  When processing
  "spiky" waveforms, the "crest factor" (a sort of dynamic range measure)
  can be limiting.  You wind up operating closer to noise floor than
  you'd like, just to keep from overloading on the spikes.
 
2.3 RMS measurement
 
  RMS voltmeters solve a rather simpler problem than general wattmeters
  -- there's only one set of terminals.  If you're taking the "Error
  bound" approach I described in section 1.3, that's all you need.
 
  You can actually use two RMS measurements to get a direct power
  reading:  < ( x + y )^2 > - < ( x - y )^2 > = 4 * < (xy) > .  I think
  I once saw a bolometer RMS instrument based on this, but I can't place
  it.
 
  Certifying the accuracy of an RMS voltmeter is alot easier than
  certifying a wattmeter -- McKubre's 0.1% might be achievable.  Note
  that standard practice is to test such a meter on sinewaves and
  Gaussian noise and consider it calibrated.  You might want some more
  exotic checks for those special electrochemical waveforms!
 
2.3.1 Electrodynamic ("moving iron") meters
 
  Trivia buffs only.  Since Tom's E x H is in here, I had to mention
  moving iron.  Take that D'Arsonval wattmeter movement with the
  electromagnet field.  Replace the moving coil with a soft iron
  (laminated) salient-pole core.  The instantaneous reluctance torque in
  the core is proportional to the instantaneous squared current (you can
  do the analysis with "virtual work" - the field energy is 1/2 L * I^2
  and the inductance changes with angle).  The scale is highly
  nonlinear, but at 60 Hz by Jove it works.  It has for about a hundred years.
 
2.3.2 Electronic squaring
 
  You can use those nice multiplier IC's for squaring and
  square-rooting; you can also buy RMS converter chips designed and
  spec'd for the job.  When you buy a "true RMS" DVM these days, this is
  usually what you're getting.  A few hundred kHz BW on some, MHz on
  some good ones.  Remember, getting that MHz thru an op amp to the RMS
  chip may require attention.
 
2.3.3  Thermal (bolometer) measurement
 
  I just love this because it's the ultimate irony -- for precision
  electrical power measurement, use a calorimeter!
 
  Really.  It's usually a thermal balance setup where two matched
  resistors in a matched thermal apparatus are monitored for temperature
  difference.  The unknown (after being boosted by a flat - we hope -
  amplifier) goes to one resistor.  The other resistor is heated by DC.
  A feedback loop adjusts the DC to maintain balance.
 
  I've used one of these quite a bit (HP 3400A) and the dynamics are a
  problem if the rms value of the signal changes alot (bad overshoot).
  But the principle is simple and sound, and capable of broad bandwidth.
  Dynamic range might be a problem, but slowing down the feedback and
  letting the thermal mass carry you thru might be pretty accurate on
  those spiky cell signals.
 
2.3.4  Separation of DC and AC components
 
  Back in section 1.3, we showed that you can measure AC and DC power
  separately.  There are big accuracy advantages to doing this,
  especially if the AC components are small relative to the DC.  This is
  very likely to be the case on the current measurement for a good
  high-speed constant-current source.
 
  The DC can be blocked with a simple RC network, and there's not much
  advantage to doing more.  Ideally, your AC measurement bandwidth
  should overlap with the Nyquist-derived passband of the DC system.
  With a medium-speed converter, that's not hard.  On the other hand,
  the cutoff of a multiplexed system using a 10 sample/sec dual-slope
  ADC will be mighty low.  You can see my suggestions below.
 
2.4  Power Supply Characteristics
 
  A laboratory power supply is a bit more sophisticated that the simple
  boxes we use to run our electronic gadgets.  A good one is designed to
  respond cleanly to weird load characteristics, and has specs to show
  it.  Nonetheless, a fancy power supply with a strange nonlinear load
  is a complex, unique system.  Its details may be hard to predict.
 
2.4.1  In Band characteristics
 
  A power supply is a _feedback regulator_, which measures its output
  and corrects any errors caused by line or load disturbances.  For
  low-frequency disturbances, this feedback action is extremely
  effective and the output impedance of a constant-current supply can be
  very high.  I haven't measured one, but suppose you changed the load
  voltage by 10 V and the current changed .01 ma.  That's 1 Megohm.
 
2.4.2  Out of band characteristics
 
  At high frequencies, the feedback is no longer effective.  The output
  impedance is controlled by the characteristics of the active devices
  in the output stage of the supply and any passive filtering at the
  output.  Users of constant-voltage supplies can usually assume that
  there are a few thousand microfarads of capacitance on the output
  terminals, so high-frequency output impedance is low.
 
  A constant-current supply is different.  If the circuit was designed with
  this in mind, it can operate pretty well "open loop".  The bare
  collector of a bipolar power transistor might look like a few hundred
  ohms.  Add an emitter ballast resistor and you could be a few thousand
  ohms.  Use a "cascode" connection and I'd expect 100 K ohms is
  possible.  FETs are inherently better current sources than bipolars,
  and I think a bare drain would be give you a few thousand ohms "open
  loop".
 
  A comment on "cascode".  I see no reason why you can't install a
  common-base pass transistor external to _any_ laboratory
  constant-current supply to isolate it from signal fluctuations.  Do a
  little planning ahead:  anticipate the maximum voltage compliance
  required from the system to determine bias point, and anticipate
  minimum voltage to estimate power dissipation.  You _will_ need a
  heat sink!
 
2.4.4  Transition
 
  At the band-edge, where feedback effectiveness is falling off, is
  where the conscienciousness of the power supply designer shows.  In a
  careless design, feedback phase lags could combine with odd load
  characteristics (inductance, especially) to make an underdamped system
  with "ringing" response to load transients.   This should not happen
  in a professional design.  And who told you to put an inductor on
  there, anyhow?
 
2.4.5  Additional characteristics
 
  When I talked about high frequencies in section 2.4.3, I was thinking of
  50 kHz or so.  But what happens at RF -- MHz and up?  I haven't heard
  of electrolysis generating energy in this band (but there are always
  farfetches!).  I'd expect a normal lab supply to look capacitive at
  this range, and to act pretty passive.  If the output stage responds
  with some sort of parasitic oscillation, I'd recommend lossy
  inductors (big ferrite beads) to calm things down.
 
2.5 Load characteristics
 
  I have no background in electrochemistry.  But I have the following
  information from a lab worker at Texas A&M, so I pass it along:
 
    ------------------[ Power Source ]---------------------------
   |                                                             |
   |                                                             |
   |                                                             |
   |---[ R1 ]-----                                 ----[ R2 ]----|
   |              |                               |              |
   |     C1       |---------[ R3 ]----------------|     C2       |
    -----| |------        Electrolyte              -----| |------
 
  Electrochemical cells represent non-linear impedance.  The electrolyte
  between the two electrodes is indeed a simple resistor and its
  resistance can be roughly represented by an equation:
                       R3 = 1/k * L/A
  where L is the length of the current path, A the cross section, and k
  the specific conductance.  For the electrolyte we intend to use k ~
  0.02 ohm^-1 cm^-1; further, in our cell L ~ 0.5 cm and A ~ 5 cm^2.
 
  Each electrode can be represented by a capacitance in parallel with a
  resistance.  The value of the capacitance is about 50 uf/cm^2; and the
  parallel Faradaic resistance is given by RT/(IF), where I is the total
  current in amps, and RT/F is 0.026 V at 25 C.
 
3.  Suggestions
 
3.1 Potentiostat
 
  Many workers understand that a perfect potentiostat (I think that's
  the electrochemists' word for a constant-current supply) would
  eliminate one type of possible accounting error on electrical input
  power.  Theoretical analysis supports this.  The idea that a slow
  data-acquisition rate requires a slow constant-current supply strikes
  me as simply misguided.  A constant current supply with fast, clean
  transient response is the best tool for the job.
 
  I sincerely suggest the external cascode connection (as described in
  section 2.4.3 above).  I haven't tried it myself, though!
 
3.2 Quadruple Measurement?!
 
  I envision the task at hand in terms of
    (1) Using a near-perfect potentiostat so that DC measurements are
        theoretically sound;
    (2) Making good DC measurements; and
    (3) Providing supporting measurements to put strong brackets on
        possible error sources.
  We have discussed (1) above.
 
3.2.1  DC Measurement
 
  In my book, a carefully multiplexed dual-slope DVM is the most robust
  tool for this task.  In a long-duration experiment, where DC drifts
  could be critical, this is the most trustworthy tool.
 
  Signal components outside the passband of this system would be
  processed by other subsystems optimized for such work.
 
  A pseudorandom channel sequencing algorithm would eliminate "beat
  frequency" artifacts from periodic noise sources.  I would trade
  time-per-point for increased scan rate to the extent it did not
  degrade channel-to-channel isolation or other parameters.
 
3.2.2  Peak detector
 
  An audio-bandwidth peak-detector (perhaps based on the PMI PKD-01 IC)
  should be applied to the AC component (R-C coupled) of each cell-voltage
  and current measurement.  The detected peaks are held until polled by
  the data acquisition system.  This subsystem provides a "zero dead
  time" monitor which puts a meaningful bound on signal variance.
 
3.2.3  Midband RMS measurement
 
  The same critical cell current and voltage signals mentioned above
  should be monitored for "mid-freqency" AC components.  The system DVM
  may be able to provide this directly with an AC RMS function.
  Typically this band might cover from a few Hz up to a MHz.
 
  This protects against 100kHz - 1MHz signals which might be missed by
  the peak detectors.  At lower frequency it provides a confidence check
  on the peak detector preformance, but not as strong an error bound.
 
3.2.4  HF
 
  For the farfetchers who really suspect significant RF power transfer
  (Nikolai Tesla, come in please! :-)), I would strategically place a
  few antennae, and connect them to a scanning receiver of some sort.
  Enough power to affect the calorimetry should be hard to miss.  Just
  to be sure.
 
3.3 Testing
 
  The first thing I'd look at is the constant-current supply.  See how
  it responds to sinewave loads, load transients, actual electrochemical
  cells.
 
  The second "reality check" I'd do is to check how the DVM responds to
  large AC fluctuations imposed on a DC signal.  Make sure there's no
  residual rectification hiding somewhere.  Use a swept sinewave and
  random noise stimulation.  Include characterization with
  high-frequency AC which is overrange while making a sensitive DC
  measurement.
 
  Any complicated data acquisition system needs a thorough shakedown.
 
3.4  Equipment sources
 
  Some individuals or labs have the resources to build custom
  instrumentation from scratch.  Other times going out to buy the best
  new gear is the right approach to getting on-line quickly and without
  headaches.  I want to point out that there is a big market in used
  instruments.  For basic electrical measurements, 10-year-old gear can
  often easily meet the needed specs; don't be proud!  The market starts
  with big rental houses like Leasametric, US Instrument, Telogy, etc,
  who sell refurbished, calibrated, guaranteed equipment for around half
  price.  You may know local surplus dealers.  The best nationwide
  resource I know of in this field is the monthly
     Nuts and Volts Magazine
     430 Princeland Court
     Corona, CA  91719   Tel 800 783 4624
  When buying used equipment, always try to get the service manuals.  If
  the dealer can't find them, the big manufacturers (Tek, HP, etc) are
  pretty good about selling aftermarket service manuals, but they'll
  cost 25 or 50 bucks.  I can't tell you how much of my education has
  come from reading service manuals!
 
4.  Comment about McKubre
 
  I have read McKubre et al's paper from ICCF2 in preprint form (Thank
  you, Jed Rothwell).  While it is terse in places, there is a
  remarkable amount of detail about the apparatus and its logic.  I
  thoroughly concur with Tom's earlier comments that, on reading this
  paper, one senses a man looking for error sources and heading them
  off.  I imagine it frustrating for him to see people attacking his work
  on grounds which were clearly (although succinctly) addressed in his
  conference paper.  On the other hand, it may amuse him.
 
  There is always room for improvement in physical measurement.  I have
  only good wishes for those working to achieve it, including Tom Droege,
  Mike McKubre, and others known only by the shadows they cast.
 
 
Verbal diarrhea - a terrible affliction!     - Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: 2 May 93 21:24:07 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <19930428.101425.417@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>
>         A number of people have posted accounts of this at varience
>with the account given in "What Do You Care What Other People Think"
>Richard P. Feynman, 1988, W.W. Norton, New York (henceforth WDYCWOPT).
>It should be noted that this is "as told to Ralph Leighton" and appeared
>after Feynman's death.
 
Surprisingly (?) no one has bothered to look at or cite Feynman's own
version of the events surrounding the shuttle investigation that were
published in Physics Today, February 1988.  The article has Feynman's
byline and an editorial remark that it is essentially the same as a
version published in a Caltech alumni magazine after editting by Ralph
Leighton.  That article answers all of the questions in dispute here.
 
I also recommend that you read both the Shuttle reprot and the report
on "Apollo 205" (the fire that was the previous fatal accident in
NASA).  Both are in any depository library (most major state universities
are depository libraries), with the shuttle report under Pr (presidential
commission) and the apollo report under N (nasa commission).  There are
some interesting similarities, particularly where the coverup of the
length of time the astronauts lived is concerned, because both accidents
were actually survivable.
 
>         Barry Merriman posted:
>>Actually, feynman's hypothesis was that it was an engine failure,
>>which is why he wrote a detailed chapter in the report on his investigations
>>of the engines.
>...
>>Yes; and as the story shows, it helps to have an expert on the
>>inside telling you what is really going on. On his own, feynman
>>had gone in the wrong direction.
>
>         This is incorrect.  WDYCWOPT (p. 132)  "I was hot on the trail
>of the booster rocket so I said, "I'll have to put off the main engines
>until later, when I have more time."  WDYCWOPT (p. 181)  "So I made up
>a game for myself: "Imagine that something else had failed-the main en-
>gines for instance-and we were making the same kind of intensive inves-
>tigation as we are now: would we discover the same slipping safety cri-
>teria and lack of communication?""
 
Correct.  However, Feynman is careful to give credit to the experts for
pointing him in the correct direction, but those experts were with JPL,
not NASA or the contractors.  The Physics Today article reproduces the
first page of his notes, where the problem with the O-ring seal in the
clevis joint is basically the first thing he has written down from the
briefing he arranged at JPL the day *before* the commission met.
 
He knew about the problem with the seal at the very start.
 
What Feynman also learned is that *everyone* at the bottom knew about
the problem with the seal and *noone* at the top knew about it.  In
fact, many people at the bottom had proposed various solutions, etc
etc.  The problem was communication between engineers and management,
so he looked at the engines to see if the same problems existed there.
They did.  (1-in-200 risk from three engineers, 1-in-100000 from an
engineer turned manager)  He also looked at avionics and other computer
systems, and found that no such problems existed there.
 
>         Dale Bass posted:
>>    As I said, I believe he dipped the thing in cold water
>>    because that demonstration was suggested to him.
 
You believe wrong.  See further comments below.
 
>>    He would have had no independent way to verify the potential failure
>>    modes of a system as complex as a space shuttle; I can think of many
>>    ways to mislead a credulous physicist with very real phenomena that
>>    have nothing to do with the actual failure.  Imagine if someone
>>    from, say, Morton Thiokol had fed Mr. Feynman technical information
>>    with the express purpose of blaming Rockwell's subsystems.  He
>>    would have been completely helpless in determining probability
>>    of such failure modes, and I can imagine rigged demonstrations of equal
>>    impact involving other subsystems.
>>
>>    To suggest that he would have had any idea about such things
>>    independent of the technical staff associated with the shuttle is
>>    naive.  And I believe he was quite embarassed later
>>    at the way he allowed himself to be used.
>
>             In WDYCWOPT (p. 146) Feynman indicates he thought up the
>ice water idea himself.  Suggesting Morton Thiokol could have pointed
>him at Rockwell is silly.  It was obvious at this point that problem
>was with the right booster rocket.  In any case Morton Thiokol had no
>particular expertise in Rockwell's systems.
 
This is also clear in the Physics Today article.  The joints were a known
problem area, and it was known that one had burned through in the previous
coldest launch (53 degrees F), which is why the Thiokol engineers had
recommended not launching below that temperature.  This is probably why
the JPL people brought it up first, coupled with the fact that replays
make it very clear that the explosion did not originate in the engines.
 
By the time Feynman did his demo, the enhanced photos had been seen by
him and everyone else on the commission, so a problem with the joint
was self-evident.  However, the question of O-ring or the putty as the
real problem was not yet clear.  Feynman points out in the Physics
Today article that he was pointed in this direction by General Kutyna
of the commission.  Gen. Kutyna called him on a weekend, a cold weekend,
after working on his carburetor and asked Feynman if cold would affect
the resilience of a rubber O-ring.  The answer was obvious, and the
connection clear.  Feynman then asked NASA about it, and they gave
him technical data containing completely useless experiments (hours
rather than milliseconds were used for the measurements) and thus
wanted to do it himself.  The actual test was his own idea.
 
He also gives credit to Kutyna for helping him with his timing as to
when to do the experiment and announce its result.
 
There was nothing rigged about the demo other than he had tested it
himself prior to the meeting.  He made the analogy between the closed
commission meetings that preceded all of the open meetings -- every
hearing in Washington is "rigged" if that is your standard.  The
demo was a valid experiment concerning the effect of cold on the
ability of the O-ring to seal when the booster was deformed on ignition.
 
>         Dale Bass posted:
>>    Why do people keep saying things like this?  It is my understanding
>>    that the 'demonstration' was *not* his idea.  Please feel free to
>>    correct me if I misread the situation or else stop implying he was
>>    not a mouthpiece for others.  There is no way for him to have
>>    'checked' the conclusion that the demonstration implied, so he
>>    was at the mercy of those who were talking to him.  The pliability
>>    of that o-ring could have had absolutely nothing to do
>>    with that accident.  I doubt he did detained thermal studies of the
>>    solid-boosters to determine if the thermal mass of the fuel combined
>>    with solar heating at that time of day kept the o-rings warm enough.
>>    Nor probably did he do detailed studies the effect of impinging hot
>>    gases on the pliability of the o-rings.
>>
>>    This was a talented man, not a god.  He made mistakes like the
>>    rest of us.  Excessive credulity is a mistake.  He apparently
>>    lent his prestige to something that he could not check.
>
>         His book says the demonstration was his idea.  The point was
>Nasa had no idea what "warm enough" was.  The pliabilty of the O rings
>was obviously relevant to the safety of the joint.
 
I would add that since there was still ice on the pad, solar heating
was obviously not a big issue.  Of greater import is the fact that
the liquid fuel is very cold and affects the local environment of
the solid booster.  The failure was on the side nearest the fuel
tank, right?  Also, temps are monitored (although the monitoring
device was used incorrectly) and ice was also because of the danger
of falling ice damaging the shuttle tiles.
 
Of course, the most telling fact is that there was already a clear
relationship between O-ring erosion and temperature at launch.  All
problems occured during cold launches and none during warm ones.  The
worst damage was during the coldest launch.  I recommend that you
read the report, Dale, particularly since you are an engineer.
 
>         Dale Bass posted:
>>    Good engineers are very careful about jumping to untoward conclusions.
>>    The booster did *not* have to be at or below freezing.  Do you
>>    happen to know the thermal conductivity of the solid fuel?
>>    Show me that it equilibrated at or below freezing during the
>>    time it had to cool down.  The thing is huge and it was insulated to
>>    an extent by the aforementioned ice hanging from it.
>
>>    Keep in mind also that things had warmed a bit as well before the launch.
>>    Please calculate for me the thermal conditions of the seals
>>    *at launch*.
 
It had been quite cold all night, and there was a very cold fuel
tank nearby.  The O-ring is in direct contact with the metal can
on the *outside* of the booster, so if ice hangs from the metal one
can be pretty sure that the O-ring was at or near freezing.  Anyway,
a physicist (and certainly an engineer) tends to be pretty good at
estimating the order of magnitude of such effects without a model.
 
>         Dale Bass posted:
>>     As I will keep repeating, I believe the 'demonstration' was not
>>     his idea, it was suggested to him.  The novelty was not his.
>>
>>     It's interesting that Feynman's 'defenders' in this instance
>>     don't seem to account for Feynman's apparent chagrin regarding
>>     this episode.
 
Many people had shared ideas with Feynman, and he had shared ideas with
them.  I am sure the Thiokol engineers could have told the commission
pretty much what Kutyna and Feynman worked out, but they had not been
allowed to testify at that time.  The novelty of the experiment was
clearly his own doing, and was certainly consistent with his bent
toward the theatrical -- with the intent of getting the commission on
track and down to business, viz his frustration with its approach up
to that time.
 
Feynman was quite clear that many people used him as a conduit for
information that they could not present because of the position they
were in, but it is also clear that he performed several important
acts of synthesis in analyzing the information that came in front
of him and in following leads that were ignored by others.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All experiments never wrong / L'Express
Date: 2 May 93 21:36:51 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930430173114_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Dale Bass writes:
>
>     "There is always a possibility that an experiment, or even all
>     experiments are incorrect."
>
>No. If this was true, then science would not work. Theory can always fall, but
>experiments, once replicated, last forever. They might be modified or
>qualified with better instrumentation, or show to be a limited, special case,
>but replicated proof of a phenomenon can never be rescinded. Nothing like that
>has ever happened in the history of science.
 
That is absurd.  Any scientist would know better.  It is one of the things
we learn very early on, and to which we pay very careful attention.
 
To the contrary, the history of science, and the literature is littered
with examples of faulty experiments.  One has to look no further than
the lovely graph of measured values of the speed of light versus the
year of the measurement in old "review of particle properties" articles
to see an excellent example of a case where unknown systematic errors
were much greater than the supposed precision of the experiment.
 
There are many cases of replicated experiments giving the same erroneous
result, one being the recent 17-keV neutrino experiments.  There are
lots more cases where data are in conflict -- as in the CF examples of
experiments with and without heat.  There are also lots of numbers
accepted that have never been replicated.  Your understanding of how
science is done must be a result of a very narrow exposure or of taking
philosophers of science too seriously.
 
I am reminded of a story of an experimental colleague here who told of
an undergrad who had just started working for him one summer.  He had
asked the student to check if a particular result in a paper was
correct, and the student was incredulous that something in the published
literature might be of doubtful accuracy.  He was quickly set straight.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hydrogen in pipes
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 03:13:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6DM2I.FCM@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>==jrothwell     "Trigger does not print "offhand" comments, any more
>==jr           than the Japanese Edition of Scientific American does."
>
>=dbass   "Certainly if 'Trigger' is a technical magazine,
>=dbass   these would qualify as offhand comments.  They'd even be offhand
>=dbass   comments in Newsweek.
>=dbass   By the way, Scientific Amesican prints 'offhand comments' all the time;
>=dbass   they've got two sections full of them."
>
>  From Webster (ibid): offhand = "without premeditation or preparation"
>
>  No technical magazine, Scientific American included, is ever published
>  without preparation.  It appears that Jed was correct in this matter.
 
     Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell, when will you ever learn?
 
     From Webster's online dictionary
 
        1off-hand \'o[0xC7]f-'hand\ adv
         (1694)
         :without premeditation or preparation: EXTEMPORE <couldn't give
         the figures offhand>
 
        2offhand adj
         (1708)
         1: CASUAL, INFORMAL <a relaxed, offhand manner>
         2: done or made offhand <offhand excuses>
 
     Scientific American is full of casual, informal remarks, and
     the remark mentioned by Mr. Rothwell was also a informal remark, it
     had very little quantitative value.
 
     Don't you consider it dishonest to the point of outright
     dissembling to ignore the relevant definition (though I do
     suppose it could simply be ignorance)?
 
                         dale bass
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Hydrogen in pipes
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 04:18:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <C6DqAA.JM0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
  Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
===jrothwell     "Trigger does not print "offhand" comments, any more
===jr           than the Japanese Edition of Scientific American does."
=
==dbass   "Certainly if 'Trigger' is a technical magazine,
==dbass   these would qualify as offhand comments.  They'd even be offhand
==dbass   comments in Newsweek.  By the way, Scientific Amesican prints
==dbass   'offhand comments' all the time;
==dbass   they've got two sections full of them."
=
=ms  From Webster (ibid): offhand = "without premeditation or preparation"
=ms
=ms   No technical magazine, Scientific American included, is ever published
=ms   without preparation.  It appears that Jed was correct in this matter.
=
=db     "Mitchell, Mitchell, Mitchell, when will you ever learn?
=db     From Webster's online dictionary
=db
=db        1off-hand \'o[0xC7]f-'hand\ adv
=db         (1694)
=db         :without premeditation or preparation: EXTEMPORE <couldn't give
=db         the figures offhand>
=db
=db        2offhand adj
=db         (1708)
=db         1: CASUAL, INFORMAL <a relaxed, offhand manner>
=db         2: done or made offhand <offhand excuses>
=db
=db     Scientific American is full of casual, informal remarks, and
=db     the remark mentioned by Mr. Rothwell was also a informal remark, it
=db     had very little quantitative value.
=db
=db     Don't you consider it dishonest to the point of outright
=db     dissembling to ignore the relevant definition (though I do
=db     suppose it could simply be ignorance)?"
 
  Really?   Since you were referring to the past tense perhaps those who
   care about accuracy can note that the adverb is offhandedly; the noun
   is offhandedness.
 
  Second, "offhand" has a second definition which relates to "shooting",
      very appropriate to your missives  ;)     and that is:
 
    "shooting from a standing position without a support or rest".
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hydrogen in pipes
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen in pipes
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 06:17:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6DtAL.AnL@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>===jrothwell     "Trigger does not print "offhand" comments, any more
>===jr           than the Japanese Edition of Scientific American does."
>=
>==dbass   "Certainly if 'Trigger' is a technical magazine,
>==dbass   these would qualify as offhand comments.  They'd even be offhand
>==dbass   comments in Newsweek.  By the way, Scientific American prints
>==dbass   'offhand comments' all the time;
>==dbass   they've got two sections full of them."
>
>  Really?   Since you were referring to the past tense perhaps those who
>   care about accuracy can note that the adverb is offhandedly; the noun
>   is offhandedness.
 
     Let's see if I can put this simply enough.
 
     In my statement above, comment = noun, offhand = adjective.
     Tense has nothing to do with it.  In fact, I'm quite relaxed.
 
     May I suggest that debates about ordinary definitions and
     parts of speech are getting you nowhere?
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Round down fraud
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Round down fraud
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 14:38:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Me: "You cannot look for subtle, tiny, milliwatt effects to explain away
multiwatt measurements.
 
Karl Kluge: "If the milliwatt effects are 0-mean, this is obviously true. If
they aren't, then it isn't so obvious. Ever hear of round-down fraud, Jed?"
 
Yes, every programmer has heard of round-down fraud. This is also called the
"salami technique" because the culprit can only get away with stealing "very
thin slices" of money. That's the whole point! A milliwatt error can only
steal very thin slices of McKubre's accuracy, it cannot make 3 watts look
like 9.
 
Let's review the round-down fraud technique (and don't get your hopes up;
modern bank accounting software would never let you get away with this).
Suppose a bank has 1,000 customers, and it pays interest daily. It computes
an interest payment of $5.85 for this customer, $0.87 for that customer,
going down the list for all 1,000 people. Actually, though, it is computing
$5.8572, and $0.8711, rounding down (they always do!). However, the nefarious
programmer has arranged to transfer the $0.0072 and the $0.0011 to the last
account in the list, a Mr. Z. Zzywoski, who is actually the programmer
himself, incognito. So, how much can the programmer steal every day on
average? $5.00. That's it... five bucks. One half penny from each customer.
If he goes over that, an auditing routine will catch him. In *exactly* the
same fashion, if an error in McKubre's power measuring schemes gets too big,
some calibration, backup, or routine check with an oscilloscope is bound to
catch it. Actually, if the power supply is putting out 3 times more than it
thinks it is, I suppose it would simply blow a fuse!
 
Subtle mistakes cannot explain McKubre's results, any more than subtle
rounding errors can erase 10% interest. You have to have a 10% error, or in
the case of McKubre's high heat, a 300% error. The "skeptics" who offer
"objections" to McKubre's work should try justifying these objections in
quantitative terms. They will see that none has any merit.
 
 
People who claim that massively replicated experimental proof can vanish like
the morning dew... do not understand the fundamentals of the scientific
method. The specific heat of water will never be found wrong by a factor of
10. The laws of thermodynamics will stand unchallenged forever. Some minor,
recent discovery in particle physics is not a "massively replicated result."
Here are two facts that have been proven beyond question, and will never be
"unproven" until the very end of time:
 
     When you rub two sticks together, you get heat from friction
 
     When you load palladium with deuterium above 90%, you get massive
     amounts of heat, far more than any chemical reaction can produce.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.02 / Henry Bauer /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: BAUERH@VTVM1.BITNET (Henry Bauer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 21:16:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
            MNELSON@EIS.CALSTATE.EDU (MARK S. NELSON)
BELIEVES
 
EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.
Mark S. Nelson       nelsonm@axe.humboldt.edu      mnelson@eis.calstate.edu
 
I PREFER "JOSEF MARTIN": WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS, IS WRONG....
EXACT QUOTE:
"WHEN SOMEONE TELLS ME A THING AND I ASK FOR PROOF AND ALL I GET IS
'EVERYONE KNOWS...', THEN I FEEL COMFORTABLY ABLE TO SHRUG IT OFF"
P.46, TO RISE ABOVE PRINCIPLE: THE MEMOIRS OF AN UNRECONSTRUCTED DEAN,
BY JOSEF MARTIN (PSEUDONYM OF HENRY H. BAUER), UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
PRESS, 1988
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBAUERH cudfnHenry cudlnBauer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  vnoninski@fscv /  S.Jones' advice
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: S.Jones' advice
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 03:31:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear   Colleagues,
 
In a posting of April 30, 1993 S.Jones "advises"  the  scientific
community on what this community should  be  careful  about  with
regard to F&P's paper in Physics Letters A. The role  of  adviser
on this particular matter, however, has  been  seen  to  be  most
inappropriate for him. S.Jones has already exposed how  far  from
impressive his level of knowledge is concerning  the  essence  of
F&P's claim -- production  of  excess  energy  via  electrolysis.
Attempting  to  discuss  in  the  above  mentioned  posting   the
production of excess heat  by  the  appearance  of  silicates  is
another incorrect rumination on his part. I hope  by  now  he  at
least can already  make  a  distinction  between  hydrolysis  and
electrolysis (see S.Jones' posting of November 16, 1992) and  can
tell the anode from the cathode (see S.Jones' posting of November
13). Furthermore, S.Jones has  shown  that  he  is  ready  to  do
anything in order to serve his own interests. When criticized, he
is ready to deliberately change the figures in his own  postings.
I take the  liberty  to  remind  the  community  of  a  one  most
regrettable, though symptomatic, episode invoving him:
 
"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"
 
I would add now: If  S.Jones  really  is  interested,  like  many
others, in the discovery of F&P, and wants  to  express  opinions
about it he should first acquaint himself with some textbooks  on
the subject. Then he should  listen  carefully  to  his  teachers
Fleishmann and Pons and try to learn as much as  he  can,  rather
than take every opportunity to attack them or give bogus "advice"
about their research. While there are quite  a  few  dabblers  on
this net, even such  regularly  posting  "experimental"  results,
whose only satisfaction is to have a little chit-chat with fellow
dilletante-scientists, S.Jones' pretences go far beyong a  humble
existence as a net-poster.
 
Truly yours,
 
Vesselin Noninski                                    May 3, 1993
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: All experiments never wrong
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: All experiments never wrong
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 00:30:23 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Jim Carr writes:
>
> I am reminded of a story of an experimental colleague here who told of
> an undergrad who had just started working for him one summer.  He had
> asked the student to check if a particular result in a paper was
> correct, and the student was incredulous that something in the published
> literature might be of doubtful accuracy.  He was quickly set straight.
 
 
        Never mine the literature, how about the accuracy of what is probably
the most widely used scientific reference work in the world!  I have in front
of me the 1992 Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.  In the table "Physical
Constants of Inorganic Compounds" the density of liquid fluorine at its
normal boiling point at 1 atmosphere of pressure is listed as 1.51 grams per
cubic centimeter.  In the writeup on fluorine in the section "The Elements",
the density is listed as 1.108 grams per cubic centimeter.  The first value
is correct, the second value is wrong.  The second value is derived from
poorly performed measurements made around the turn of the century, while the
first (and correct) value was experimental determined in the 1950s.  For many
years, the handbook had the incorrect value in both places.  I about 8 years
ago I wrote the publishers.  I pointed out the error, and provided xerox
copies of source material for the correct density.  They still have the value
wrong in one place in this reference volume.  To their credit however, they
did manage to correct a second error:  for several years, the title of the
writeup in "The Elements" was "Flourine" (examine the spelling closely).
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 02:10:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <12652@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <19930428.101425.417@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>         Dale Bass posted:
>>>    As I said, I believe he dipped the thing in cold water
>>>    because that demonstration was suggested to him.
>
>You believe wrong.  See further comments below.
 
     Yes, I accepted that here several days ago.
 
>Of course, the most telling fact is that there was already a clear
>relationship between O-ring erosion and temperature at launch.  All
>problems occured during cold launches and none during warm ones.  The
>worst damage was during the coldest launch.  I recommend that you
>read the report, Dale, particularly since you are an engineer.
 
     Continuing spitting into the wind, I was suggesting
     that, a priori, the conclusions of such an investigation
     are not self-evident.  To assert that about such an investigation,
     any investigation, is wrong and potentially dangerous.
     Reading the report is unlikely to change this prudent
     approach to such work.  However, I did glance at it long ago.
 
>>         Dale Bass posted:
>>>    Good engineers are very careful about jumping to untoward conclusions.
>>>    The booster did *not* have to be at or below freezing.  Do you
>>>    happen to know the thermal conductivity of the solid fuel?
>>>    Show me that it equilibrated at or below freezing during the
>>>    time it had to cool down.  The thing is huge and it was insulated to
>>>    an extent by the aforementioned ice hanging from it.
>>
>>>    Keep in mind also that things had warmed a bit as well before the launch.
>>>    Please calculate for me the thermal conditions of the seals
>>>    *at launch*.
>
>It had been quite cold all night, and there was a very cold fuel
>tank nearby.  The O-ring is in direct contact with the metal can
>on the *outside* of the booster, so if ice hangs from the metal one
>can be pretty sure that the O-ring was at or near freezing.  Anyway,
>a physicist (and certainly an engineer) tends to be pretty good at
>estimating the order of magnitude of such effects without a model.
 
     Again, we were talking about easy, and self-evident answers.
     The point is that these are not, in a generic sense, easy
     and self-evident systems to investigate.  The original statement
     was that the o-rings *had* to be at 0C or below.  I was simply pointing
     out that they did not *have* to be, that analysis must be done
     that is best done without potentially overemphasizing one
     piece of the puzzle.
 
     Keep in mind that my remarks should be taken in a very generic sense.
     I fully agree that the investigation did not turn out badly.  Indeed,
     Feynman has won lasting fame, beyond what he already had, with the
     o-ring episode.  I know at least one person who only knows Feynman
     in this context, and there are probably many many others.  However,
     I still do not like that episode, and I think that the common
     conclusions from that episode (e.g. that someone can and often does
     come from outside the field and 'stump' and 'show up' the experts)
     are potentially injurious to such investigations in the future.
     I also do not like the idea that key conclusions in such an
     investigation are irretrievably associated a silly stunt in front of
     cameras.  Stunts are okay for coldfusion, but this is a multi-billion
     dollar piece of hardware and peoples' lives.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 05:07:50 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>==ms "OK, Does your measured excess power in the control experiments also
>==ms  decrease, too, when you adopt this increased sampling rate?
>==ms  Were/Are these many watts of power also leaking into your control
>==ms  cell, too?"
>
>== "Good Lord!  When C.  Bass was looking for some details on positive
>==  experiments, you wouldn't give it to him, but look at the amount of
>==  detail you want on this experiment!"
>
>  You are quite wrong.  Apparently your world does change in "the blink
>of an eye."  I answered.  Jed answered.
 
Bass asked direct questions.  You and Jed replied by equivicating, and
talking around the question.  If you want to call that answering, you
can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
Here is a direct question, what is your answer:
 
Has any experiment showing CF, been duplicated by an scientist different
from the one who originally made it?  By duplicated, I mean run the
same experiment, and gotten the same answer.
 
So, for example, if someone runs experiment A and gets result R1, R2, and
R3, that would not be duplicated by someone who ran experiment A and got
result R1 only.
 
To count, both results must be published (peer-review is not required).
Also, the results must be free was the well know problems which plagued
early CF experiments: using poor nuclear detectors, using a single detector,
not stirring, no null experiment, etc.
 
Joshua Levy (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  How could it be subtle?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How could it be subtle?
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 21:37:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed says "How could a 'very subtle problem' make 3 watts look like 4, or 3
watts look like 9?"
 
I suggest you read the ICCF3 paper Jed.  McKubre does not claim 9 to 3
power out to in, or even 4 to 3.  He claims (from the curves) 1.1 watt
excess out of 42.  Only 2.6% excess.  Thus my claim that McKubre's claims
are going toward zero over time.
 
Further, the curves indicate a very nice tracking between input current and
"anomalous heat".  Makes one want to look for "only" a 2.6% error.
 
I am looking, but not having great luck yet.  As I keep saying, measuring
power is tough, some even agree with me.  But measuring neutrons is even
more masochistic, that is why I stick to energy.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Linear Assumptions
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Linear Assumptions
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 22:11:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz writes: "For a fixed amplitude current source (Norton
equivalent), a simple ..."
 
One of the points I have been trying to get across in these notes is that
there are some fundamental assumptions about likearity hidden in our learning
about circuit anlaysis.
 
Can one use a "norton wquivalent" with an electrolytic cell and still be
guaranteed correct results.  I don't know.  (Woops, that is linearity above
not likearity - I was not thinking of whiskey).
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Jones list of things to watch for
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Jones list of things to watch for
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 22:35:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would like to add two items to the Jones list of things to watch for in the
P&F Physics Letters A paper.
 
8. Measurement of the weight of the boiled off cell contents to verify the
amount of D2O actually boiled away.
 
9. Measurement of the heat of condensation of the boiled off cell contents to
verify that all the contents actually vaporized.
 
BTW I notice Steven (correctly) starts his list with item zero.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  "destruction of one's reputation"
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "destruction of one's reputation"
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 23:04:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have done my best to stick to facts, and to propose reasonable, possible,
explanations.  I have also put up a lot of my own mistakes here.  No one
does experiments without making errors.  In science, the fault is not in
making errors, or even in publishing them.  The fault is in not doing your
best job to find error, or to cover it up when found.
 
When a result is claimed where most think it probable at the 10 E-46 (or
whatever it is) level, then it seems reasonable to propose like possible
errors.
 
So I do not mind proposing fairly far out error sources.  I have looked at
a few that would make even this liberal group blush.
 
So I am certainly not out to damage McKubre's reputation.  He will be OK if
he sticks to a pursuit of truth.  As will all of us.  But it is sadly true
that a bad choice of problem prevents one from gaining a good reputation.
But that is life.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Chuck Harrison's great article
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck Harrison's great article
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 23:42:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would like to congratulate Chuck Harrison for writing a great article
on power measurement.  He has hit (almost) every trick in my bag.  He even
got me on one, no Chuck not the Nuvistor, I used those. but the PMI PDK-01
sounds interesting.  I did not know it existed.
 
I will endorse Chuck's article by trying (hard) to one up him.  It seems like
it is not only those running on motor generator sets that have to worry about
frequency changes getting the frequency rejection of the dual slope meters.
During the day, the power companies sometimes allow the generators to slow
down (done net wide).  Then at some convenient low load time they pour on the
coal, and catch the clocks up.  Nice way to get a 2 AM "anomalous heat" spike.
 
One actual error.  Electrochemists call a constant current source a
"galvanostat".
 
I do not yet agree that a very high speed current source is what is wanted.  I
think that a very slow one and proper measurement (2x cutoff frequency sampling
rate) will do the trick.  But be aware, this means that the "constant current"
source is far from constant!  Seems to me, that whatever the cut off of the
constant current source is, the sampling rate has to be 2X it.  So why not set
it at 120 seconds (as I did at the start of these runs - but I found it at 5
seconds when I looked - sometimes one does stupid things) sample at 1 minute
and be done with it?  In both cases, 5 seconds and 120 seconds, I measured
a lot of zero to give me some confidence that things are working correctly.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: 3 May 93 13:15:52 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <C6FI10.J6r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     I still do not like that episode, and I think that the common
>     conclusions from that episode (e.g. that someone can and often does
>     come from outside the field and 'stump' and 'show up' the experts)
>     are potentially injurious to such investigations in the future.
>     I also do not like the idea that key conclusions in such an
>     investigation are irretrievably associated a silly stunt in front of
>     cameras.  Stunts are okay for coldfusion, but this is a multi-billion
>     dollar piece of hardware and peoples' lives.
 
I think you have missed a key element that made the demonstration important.
This was not an investigation by an FAA crash team.  Feynman was probably
the most technically expert (across the full scope of the material being
studied) person on the commission.  The chairman was a former Secretary of
State, for heavens sake.  It was a political operation (one has only to
read Feynman's scathing remarks about the "10th recommendation" to see
that) and such a demonstration was important to redirect it.  Feynman
gave a lot of credit to Kutyna for helping him with his political timing
during that meeting, and at other times, since he was particularly
lacking in any political acumen.
 
Feynman did not 'show up' the experts; rather he endeavored to get the
expert testimony out in the open.  He took on the managers.
 
In a real investigation, the investigators would have talked to the
experts rather than the managers of the experts.
 
Even so, a great deal less info about Challenger is in the public domain
than was the case for Apollo.  You will look in vain for anything but hints
that the crew survived the explosion.  There are no pictures of the (intact)
crew compartment in the report.  There was no discussion of the suvivability
of the accident -- although there was later a big effort to design and
install the devices the crew could have used to get out.  On this last
point the similarity to the Apollo accident is most striking.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: S.Jones' advice
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 15:49:08 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Terry Bollinger, dilettante par-exellance here, with a couple 'o comments:
 
In article <0096BEC8.9C92C740.9821@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
 
> I would add now: If  S.Jones  really  is  interested,  like  many
> others, in the discovery of F&P, and wants  to  express  opinions
> about it he should first acquaint himself with some textbooks  on
> the subject. Then he should  listen  carefully  to  his  teachers
> Fleishmann and Pons and try to learn as much as  he  can,  rather
> than take every opportunity to attack them or give bogus "advice"
> about their research. While there are quite  a  few  dabblers  on
> this net, even such  regularly  posting  "experimental"  results,
> whose only satisfaction is to have a little chit-chat with fellow
> dilletante-scientists, S.Jones' pretences go far beyong a  humble
> existence as a net-poster.
>
> Vesselin Noninski                                    May 3, 1993
 
 
Interesting.  Very interesting indeed.
 
You know, all that is needed, really, is for you or someone else to provide
(say on this net) a _full recipe in excruciating detail_ of how to fully
and reliably reproduce nice, _high energy_ palladium "vaporization" events
comparable to the original F&P one -- and the vast majority of us us chit-
chatting net-posting dilettantes will shut our mouths and gape in wonder.
 
This 'po li'l software type in particular would be absolutely delighted to
see such a proof of extreme excess heat via world-wide, at-will reproduction,
as I remain fully confident in my own analysis that IF IF IF IF IF such high-
energy excess heat events truly exist, then it will eventually prove to be
the case that entire atoms are being nixed out of existence via a major hole
in the Born interpretion of quantum wave functions.  This would be very much
an interesting and unexpected result both scientifically and technically.
 
So by all means, please prove all the net doubters wrong in the most
explicit, embarassing fashion possible, which is to meet this challenge:
 
    Post a very detailed, completely unambiguous recipe by which any
    adequately equipped laboratory in the world can start vaporizing
    palladium cubes at will.
 
Besides being the best way to embarass your self-defined "opponents" into
silence, I suspect that nothing less will do at this point in the game.
 
F&P originally promised reproduction of totally unambiguous heat results in
within two weeks their first announcement.  They honestly seemed to think
it would be quite easy.  It's been four years now and we're still waiting.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why some folks are getting a
tad cynical?
 
You see, alas, for some reason video tapes of boiling water with a setup
that has a couple of nice electrodes attached to it does not really seem to
impress either technicians or reporters much, especially ones familiar with
devices such as coffee makers that seem to accomplish pretty much the same
objective _without_ invoking major violations of known physics.  That may
be genuinely unfair -- you may turn out to have the best calorimetry in the
world, for example -- but what I'm trying to give you is some insight into
the _psychology_ of the situation.  Put up or shut up is the modus operandi
these days, and a lot of the excess heat advocates seem to have taken that
piece of advice in exactly the reverse sense.
 
_However_ -- if you start vaporizing palladium cubes on a regular basis, I
assure you that the world at large will start paying the attention to you
that you seem to feel you so richly merit.  And I also suspect that whatever
it is you will have found will eventually prove to be a good deal more earth-
shaking and commercially valuable than mere "cold fusion."
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -  To save time/space responding, you may wish to just check one or
        more of the appropriate items in the following list of Excuses for
        Why I Cannot Tell You How to Vaporize Palladium:
 
 
        [ ] The recipe is a trade secret.
 
        [ ] The recipe is a military secret.
 
        [ ] The recipe is a trade _and_ military secret.
 
        [ ] If boiling water is not proof enough for you, tough luck.
 
        [ ] The recipe is mine mine mine, you can't have it.
 
        [ ] You're a spy.  You're all spies.  Why do you keep FOLLOWING me??
 
        [ ] Actually, I simply don't _know_ how to vaporize palladium.
 
        [ ] Other: ________________________________________________________
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Keithley Model 195A Specs
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Keithley Model 195A Specs
Date: 3 May 1993 13:20 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <930430130813.206072cc@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes...
>The Model 195A can take a maximum of 9 readings per second on the 51/2
>digit range.  This from both the 1985 and 1991 catalog to cover what McKubre
>likely has.
 
Thanks Tom, for posting the correct specs.  I was thinking of the 196, not
the 195, when I posted.
 
I was going to get a catalog from Keithley and post the relevent specs., but
since you've got the catalog already...
 
Could you post the specs on the 706, and the cards McKubre is using for the
measurements?  (Low level analog, I'd guess, or general purpose analog, and
a thermocouple card).
 
Apologies to Dick Blue and others for quoting the wrong specs.
>
>The four minutes comes from my 13 April conversation with Mike.  I think he
>also said at that time that he takes 100 samples, but I did not write that
>down.  The 4 minutes is in my telephone notes.  Note that he has to read at
>least 4 things, two currents and two voltages.  I failed to ask if he
>interleaved or took a single variable sequentially.
>
Looks like it'll take ~4 seconds per variable, either way, with 9 samples/sec
and 32 samples/variable.
 
>To the many who write and tell me how easy it is to measure power, you may
>be correct, but at the moment I am very confused.
>
>Tom Droege
>
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: S.Jones' advice
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 17:06:06 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Just so I don't needlessly confuse anyone, when I said:
 
> This 'po li'l software type in particular would be absolutely delighted to
> see such a proof of extreme excess heat via world-wide, at-will reproduction,
 
... I was referring to the case of validated _net_ high energy production,
not the enormously more mundane case possibility of stored-then-released
energy (as in the capacitance ideas I'm currently exploring).
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Richard Schultz /  Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vaporization recipe
Date: 3 May 1993 18:13:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993May3.154908.19933@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>So by all means, please prove all the net doubters wrong in the most
>explicit, embarassing fashion possible, which is to meet this challenge:
>
>    Post a very detailed, completely unambiguous recipe by which any
>    adequately equipped laboratory in the world can start vaporizing
>    palladium cubes at will.
 
It's really quite simple.  Take a whole bunch of hydrogen (or deuterium if
you'd rather).  Mix it with air so that the H2/air mixture is in a flammable
proportion.  Heat well.  Come in the next morning and your apparatus will
be vaporized, with no radiation or even scorch marks.  Voila.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 17:56:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <12655@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <C6FI10.J6r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     I still do not like that episode, and I think that the common
>>     conclusions from that episode (e.g. that someone can and often does
>>     come from outside the field and 'stump' and 'show up' the experts)
>>     are potentially injurious to such investigations in the future.
>>     I also do not like the idea that key conclusions in such an
>>     investigation are irretrievably associated a silly stunt in front of
>>     cameras.  Stunts are okay for coldfusion, but this is a multi-billion
>>     dollar piece of hardware and peoples' lives.
>
>I think you have missed a key element that made the demonstration important.
>This was not an investigation by an FAA crash team.  Feynman was probably
>the most technically expert (across the full scope of the material being
>studied) person on the commission.  The chairman was a former Secretary of
>State, for heavens sake.  It was a political operation (one has only to
>read Feynman's scathing remarks about the "10th recommendation" to see
>that) and such a demonstration was important to redirect it.  Feynman
 
    And here you have it in a nutshell.  It *should* have been
    'an investigation by an FAA crash team'.
 
    That it wasn't is the root of most of my problems.  The fact
    that Feynman probably was the most technically adept person
    on the panel is not comforting.  And I'm afraid that the next time
    the opposing logical conclusions will be either a) no technical
    people at all or b) more Nobel Laureates in Physics.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / mitchell swartz /  Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 20:55:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993May3.050750.1590@homespace.mtview.ca.us>
   Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Joshua Levy (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us) writes:
 
== "Bass asked direct questions.  You and Jed replied by equivicating, and
== talking around the question.  If you want to call that answering, you
== can, but don't expect to be taken seriously."
 
 
  My friend Joshua is incorrect.
  First, Mr. Bass has not graced me with long-term coherence, let alone a
  reasonable sensible direct question regarding any topic of discussion.
 
  Second, Jed and I have independently answered questions regarding the
  definitions both of "steady state" and "20 watts". That was where I foolishly
  entered the conversation because it did appear that Jed Rothwell was
  experiencing a Bass attack, wherein questions of definition were made.
     [You too ought post your definitions so that we can see where you stand.
      Does the definition of power change with "context" for you?
      Do you not believe in the Poynting vector, too?]
 
  Also, to apply the Standard equally, if you check the record, there remain
 several of my questions posted to the skeptics which have gone unanswered.
 Perhaps you might encourage some equal effort to the degree that such might
 exist.
 
 
== "Here is a direct question, what is your answer:
==
== Has any experiment showing CF, been duplicated by an scientist different
== from the one who originally made it?  By duplicated, I mean run the
== same experiment, and gotten the same answer.
==
== So, for example, if someone runs experiment A and gets result R1, R2, and
== R3, that would not be duplicated by someone who ran experiment A and got
== result R1 only.
==
== To count, both results must be published (peer-review is not required).
== Also, the results must be free was the well know problems which plagued
== early CF experiments: using poor nuclear detectors, using a single detector,
== not stirring, no null experiment, etc."
 
   Joshua, interesting question.  First, I am a scientist and not a
  historian to whom such question might be more appropriately directed.
   Dr. Eugene Mallove might even a have a table (or two) from his book
  "Fire from Ice" (Wiley) (and subsequent work) which shows this.
    He made a very interesting posting just yesterday, and may have
   opportunity to answer your question.
 
   Continuing with the science:  What is R1, R2, and R3?
   If a lab measured only, say neutrons, is all its work now ignored?
   If a lab did not measure, say helium, is all its work now ignored?
 
   Who judges about "problems" which "plague"?  Do you have a list now?
 
 Time for equal Standards:
  Do you know of three good negative experiments?
  Perhaps the "negatives" have never been repeated or duplicated in the same
    manner.  Have any good ones ever been duplicated?
 
  Furthermore, given some of the silly methods used in some of the
  much-touted "negative" expts., can you find two good "negative" experiments,
  free of flaws, free of inadequate loading, free of inadequate time,
  monitoring active loaded metals or alloys, even without it being repeated?
   (If they were repeated, so much the better, since now the same standard is
    applied to both sides, as it should be)
 
                  Best wishes.                      Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: Mon, 3 May 93 21:02:55 EDT

         J. A. Carr posted:
>Of course, the most telling fact is that there was already a clear
>relationship between O-ring erosion and temperature at launch.  All
>problems occured during cold launches and none during warm ones.  The
>worst damage was during the coldest launch.  ...
 
         This is not quite correct.  If we use 65 degrees F calculated
joint temperature as the division between cold and warm launches then
of the 7 previous flights with problems 4 were cold launches and 3 were
warm launches (see WDYCWOPT, p. 137, Figure 10).  A relationship with
temperature is not apparent until you note that the 17 previous flights
without problems were all warm launches.  I believe this point caused
some confusion.
         It is also a bit misleading to make too much of the temperature
relationship.  The joint was unsafe at warm temperatures as well.  It
was probably more unsafe at cold temperatures but NASA rightly did not
consider launching only in warm weather a sufficient fix.
         Dale Bass posted:
>    Keep in mind that my remarks should be taken in a very generic sense.
>    I fully agree that the investigation did not turn out badly.  Indeed,
>    Feynman has won lasting fame, beyond what he already had, with the
>    o-ring episode.  I know at least one person who only knows Feynman
>    in this context, and there are probably many many others.  However,
>    I still do not like that episode, and I think that the common
>    conclusions from that episode (e.g. that someone can and often does
>    come from outside the field and 'stump' and 'show up' the experts)
>    are potentially injurious to such investigations in the future.
>    I also do not like the idea that key conclusions in such an
>    investigation are irretrievably associated a silly stunt in front of
>    cameras.  Stunts are okay for coldfusion, but this is a multi-billion
>    dollar piece of hardware and peoples' lives.
        and also:
>   And here you have it in a nutshell.  It *should* have been
>   'an investigation by an FAA crash team'.
>
>   That it wasn't is the root of most of my problems.  The fact
>   that Feynman probably was the most technically adept person
>   on the panel is not comforting.  And I'm afraid that the next time
>   the opposing logical conclusions will be either a) no technical
>   people at all or b) more Nobel Laureates in Physics.
 
        I believe you are allowing your distaste for Feynman's actions
in this particular episode to unduly color your opinion of his overall
contribution to the investigation which I believe was highly positive.
        I do not believe it should have been a NTSB type investigation.
Such an investigation is primarily geared to finding the immediate cause
of an accident.  In the case of Challenger this was pretty obvious and
there was little likelyhood of an investigation getting it wrong.  How-
ever the root cause of the accident was political.  NASA feels compelled
to lie in order to sell its programs to Congress and then is under great
pressure to achieve the impossible.
        While the immediate technical problem which caused the accident
has (presumedly) been fixed, the more serious underlying political
problem does not appear to have been addressed.  In this sense the in-
vestigation did turn out badly.
        Finally you appear to believe for some reason that being a Nobel
Laureate is indicative of technical incompetence.  Feynman was as well
qualified as anyone to investigate the accident.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 23:13:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6Gy4t.JGw@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>Joshua Levy (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us) writes:
>
>== "Bass asked direct questions.  You and Jed replied by equivicating, and
>== talking around the question.  If you want to call that answering, you
>== can, but don't expect to be taken seriously."
>
>  Second, Jed and I have independently answered questions regarding the
>  definitions both of "steady state" and "20 watts". That was where I foolishly
>  entered the conversation because it did appear that Jed Rothwell was
>  experiencing a Bass attack, wherein questions of definition were made.
>     [You too ought post your definitions so that we can see where you stand.
>      Does the definition of power change with "context" for you?
>      Do you not believe in the Poynting vector, too?]
 
     It was '100 watts';  I'd think you'd remember that by now.
     And still there's no answer.
 
     And tell me again about 'the vector nature of power'?  I'd be glad
     to refresh your memory with your relevant quotations and equations if
     you've already forgotten.
 
>   Joshua, interesting question.  First, I am a scientist ...
 
     That's rich.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 00:04:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May3.214829.24102@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In article <1s3nbu$jms@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
>(Richard Schultz) writes:
>
>> [Terry:] ... start vaporizing palladium cubes at will.
>>
>> It's really quite simple.  Take a whole bunch of hydrogen (or deuterium if
>> you'd rather).  Mix it with air so that the H2/air mixture is in a flammable
>> proportion.  Heat well.  Come in the next morning and your apparatus will
>> be vaporized, with no radiation or even scorch marks.  Voila.
>
>The palladium cube my good man, the cube -- not the apparatus around it.
>              ^^^^                  ^^^^
>Not to mention that what you just described is the explosive destruction of
>the apparatus, not its vaporization.  "Vaporization" (or at the very least
>very thorough combustion) of such an apparatus would require some pretty
>hefty input of energy over a prolonged period of time.
>
>Palladium has a decently high melting point.  I suppose at atomic hydrogen
>torch might make fairly short work of it, but I don't recall seeing any of
>those being left on overnight in the original F&P experiment...  :)
...
>So please, dispute the original cube loss story if you wish, but let's not
>trivialize it.  The original P&F claim of disappearance of half a cube of
>palladium remains the single most interesting event in the four-year history
>of palladium excess heat anomolies.  It represents an event that is difficult
>to explain chemically when the only major items are Pd, D2O, O2, N2, and LiOD.
 
     I think his point is valid.  I've never understood the mystery
     about the cube.  Consider this rough reasoning (I'm far from
     any references save one that will help, but I'll forge on anyway):
 
     Palladium can absorb about 900 times its volume in deuterium.
     Assuming a 1 cc 'cube, that's 900 cc's of deuterium, which
     is about 0.04 mol of D or 0.02 mol of D_2.
 
     I seem to recall that roughly 250 kJ/mol_D_2 are released
     upon formation of D2O, and so the available energy just in the
     ordinary deuterium in ordinary palladium is about
     5000 J.  Of course they endeavored to pack deuterium into the
     lattice which would more than double this number.
 
     On the other hand, the specific heat of Pd is roughly 0.25 J/g K
     down at low temperature.  If we assume that this number is
     good to the melting point around 1500 C, all that is required to
     completely melt the cube is about 4500 J (Pd specific gravity is
     about 12).  However, neglecting gas outside the electrode, you already
     have probably 10000 J hanging around, ready to explode.
 
     Even ignoring the observation that it probably just exploded
     and melted without 'vaporizing', there seems to be no
     difficulty attaining sufficient heat to do what happened.  After all,
     Pd is very good at storing hydrogen, and hydrogen, in all its
     isotopes, is good at burning.
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
Date: 3 May 93 20:17:56 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
     The ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber described below has obvious potential
applications for Chemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Medical
Research, etc., allowing experiments which now can be done ONLY on the Space
Shuttle, AT GREAT EXPENSE!
 
 
                       Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Air/Spacecraft
                         or ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
 
               NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on
          U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [$3.00 per complete copy from U.S.
          Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try
          getting it via your local public or university library's
          inter-library loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
          GENERATING A SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to
          Inventor Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.
 
               In the patent, Figs. 7A and 7B are basically side views
          of a gravity-NEUTRALIZING FLYING SAUCER, or, if anchored to
          the ground, a ZERO-GRAVITY CHAMBER [which could have MANY
          possible GROUND-level applications for science, medicine,
          manufacturing, etc.].  Each oval diagram shows a motor
          spinning a central disc at a very high speed, about 28,000
          RPM, and also rotating two other discs sandwiched around the
          first disc, via gears, at a much slower speed, perhaps 2,800
          RPM, in the opposite direction.  The two outer discs have
          extensions [counter-balanced via off-center axis] that, as
          they rotate, alternately make contact with two wide
          extensions from opposite walls of the spacecraft.  The
          central disc should have shallow spiral-shaped grooves on
          both sides for air-bearings, to allow the needed very close
          contact with the two outer discs.
 
               I should clarify that each of the two outer discs has
          ONLY ONE [counter-balanced] extension, each one pointed
          opposite (180 degrees) the extension of the other disc.
 
               VERY CLOSE CONTACT must be made as the disc extensions
          slide past the wall extensions in order to conduct the
          "Kinemassic" Energy (term coined by the Inventor) from the
          discs to the walls in an ALTERNATING CIRCULATION.
 
               The most important factor making it work is that the
          discs, extensions, and outer walls of the spacecraft MUST be
          made of any material(s) in which a very large majority of the
          atoms are of isotopes having "HALF-INTEGRAL ATOMIC SPINS",
          such as copper (3/2).  All other parts, etc., should have a
          minority of such atoms.  [See the appropriate column of the
          table of isotopes in the latest edition of "The Handbook of
          Chemistry and Physics."]
 
               Experimenters should use one motor to spin the center
          disc [Start small, such as only two feet in diameter.], and a
          2ND SEPARATE motor to rotate the two outer discs, so their
          relative speeds can be varied to establish the needed
          conditions for PROPULSION of the spacecraft via "NEGATIVE
          WEIGHT" (with the spacecraft's "Kinemassic" field PUSHING
          AGAINST the earth's gravitational field, etc.).
 
 
               If we have to put up a space station, establish Moon
          bases, go to Mars, rendezvous with comets, etc., WHY DO IT
          THE HARD WAY?!
 
               Your favorite university or research company could make
          a BIG NAME for itself by making a small model of this work.
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (PATENT copy, reference book).
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                       Robert E. McElwaine
                                       B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmcelwre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / mitchell swartz /  Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 04:16:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <C6H4I6.6B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
     Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) interjects ad nauseum:
 
==dbass    "It was '100 watts';  I'd think you'd remember that by now.
==db     And still there's no answer."
 
==db    "And tell me again about 'the vector nature of power'?  I'd be glad
==db     to refresh your memory with your relevant quotations and equations if
==db    you've already forgotten."
 
  Although signed off to your silliness, the record must now stand corrected.
 
 First, it was 100 watts in one conversation, and 20 watts in another, to wit:
 
==ms  "...  when the announcement was made in "the March" the level was
==ms  (I think) circa 20 Watts/cm^3.
 [Subject: Input Power Measurement; Message-ID: <C5sMt8.J5H@world.std.com>]
 
    The error was mine, but it hardly made any difference.
  Second, you again misquote to defraud.
  Where was the term "the vector nature of power' used?  In your own quotes.
 
  Here is my actual text:
 
==ms                      d                       ->  ->
==ms        P = Pd  +    ___(We + Wm) +  integral n . S dA
==ms                      dt
==ms where P is the Power delivered to a volume,  Pd is the power dissipated,
==ms We and Wm are the stored electric, and magnetic, field energies,
==ms and the integral (with the dot product) represents electromagnetic
==ms                                             ->               ->  ->
==ms    energy transmission through free space.  S is a vector =  E x H
==ms    called the Poynting vector."
  [Subject: Watts Steady-state; Message-ID: <C62565.Att@world.std.com>]
 
  Attention is directed to the fact that you claim the Poynting vector
 does not exist, and that the definition of power is context-dependent.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "Truth fears no trial"  Thomas Fuller (1654-1734)  Gnomologica, 1732
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / mitchell swartz /  Re: S.Jones' advice
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 04:35:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993May3.154908.19933@asl.dl.nec.com>
  Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice
Terry Bollinger (terry@asl.dl.nec.com) writes:
 
==tb  "So by all means, please prove all the net doubters wrong in the most
==tb explicit, embarassing fashion possible, which is to meet this challenge:
==tb     Post a very detailed, completely unambiguous recipe by which any
==tb     adequately equipped laboratory in the world can start vaporizing
==tb     palladium cubes at will."
 
  Terry, Dr. Noninski was not talking about vaporizing cubes,
    but follwing the spirit of your comments, what about:
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski VC, Noninski CI;                       Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 364.
"Determination of the excess energy obtained during the electrolysis of heavy
water".
** Calorimetric experiments, using a bundle of thin Pd wire as cathode, and
K2SO4 in D2O as electrolyte. After "lengthy" preelectrolysis, in which the Pd
is saturated with deuterium, the cell is moved into the calorimeter. Gases
evolve into an airbag, also within the calorimeter. Very short measuring
times (electrolyses) of about 3 min, are used. During this time, the cell
temperature rose, and the rises were converted to heat produced by
precalibration. With or without recombination, most of the 10 runs reported
show some excess heat. No controls are reported, but the authors claim that
this calorimeter solves a number of problems.                    Jul-90/Mar-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski VC, Noninski CI;                       Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 579.
"Comments on 'measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma-ray emission
rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having
palladium cathodes'".
** The paper by Albagli et al, F. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 133, is commented
upon here. Albagli et al did an open-cell calorimetry comparison, and the
paper shows a drift in cell temperature, and the heat required to keep the
cell at the same temperature. They attribute this to loss of solvent. Noninski
and Noninski point out that this is not valid and that there in fact was
evidence of excess heat in that paper.                           Nov-90/May-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  [These are taken from Dieter Britz's continuing set of abstracts.]
 
  Or do these efforts amount to "nothing", too.   Did you try to reproduce
    these?  There may even be a few more.
 
               Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Dieter Britz /  RE: S.Jones' advice
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: S.Jones' advice
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 07:37:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu in FD 980:
 
>Dear   Colleagues,
 
>In a posting of April 30, 1993 S.Jones "advises"  the  scientific
>community on what this community should  be  careful  about  with
>regard to F&P's paper in Physics Letters A. The role  of  adviser
>on this particular matter, however, has  been  seen  to  be  most
>inappropriate for him. S.Jones has already exposed how  far  from
>impressive his level of knowledge is concerning  the  essence  of
>F&P's claim -- production  of  excess  energy  via  electrolysis.
[...]
>"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:
[...]
 
I find none of this reprehensible. Correcting 0.6 to 0.61 - so what?
Different precisions. Then he was later told about the complication of
Notoya's 1.5 V correction, and allowed for that. That's OK.
 
I would add now: If  S.Jones  really  is  interested,  like  many
>others, in the discovery of F&P, and wants  to  express  opinions
>about it he should first acquaint himself with some textbooks  on
>the subject. Then he should  listen  carefully  to  his  teachers
>Fleishmann and Pons and try to learn as much as  he  can,  rather
 
HIS teachers?
 
>than take every opportunity to attack them or give bogus "advice"
>about their research. While there are quite  a  few  dabblers  on
>this net, even such  regularly  posting  "experimental"  results,
>whose only satisfaction is to have a little chit-chat with fellow
>dilletante-scientists, S.Jones' pretences go far beyong a  humble
>existence as a net-poster.
 
I checked Steve's advice list in FD 974, and it seems mostly sound to me,
with the exception of the bit about a reference electrode, which cannot have
much a role here. Either you are using constant current, and don't need it,
or trying at potentiostatic control, and then you'd be fooling yourself if
you thought you were getting the right potential, at these large currents.
 
All in all, you are wrong about Steve, Dr. Noninski, and your posting is
simply a smear. I myself find Steve's vehemence in his distancing himself
from excess heat a little exaggerated, but I don't see the need to smear him
for that. Moreover, he is one of a small group of cold fusion workers, who
have kept their heads and are looking for their own errors.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 05:28:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <19930503.180312.940@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>I wrote:
>>   And here you have it in a nutshell.  It *should* have been
>>   'an investigation by an FAA crash team'.
>>
>>   That it wasn't is the root of most of my problems.  The fact
>>   that Feynman probably was the most technically adept person
>>   on the panel is not comforting.  And I'm afraid that the next time
>>   the opposing logical conclusions will be either a) no technical
>>   people at all or b) more Nobel Laureates in Physics.
>
>        I believe you are allowing your distaste for Feynman's actions
>in this particular episode to unduly color your opinion of his overall
>contribution to the investigation which I believe was highly positive.
>        I do not believe it should have been a NTSB type investigation.
>Such an investigation is primarily geared to finding the immediate cause
>of an accident.  In the case of Challenger this was pretty obvious and
>there was little likelyhood of an investigation getting it wrong.  How-
>ever the root cause of the accident was political.  NASA feels compelled
>to lie in order to sell its programs to Congress and then is under great
>pressure to achieve the impossible.
>        While the immediate technical problem which caused the accident
>has (presumedly) been fixed, the more serious underlying political
>problem does not appear to have been addressed.  In this sense the in-
>vestigation did turn out badly.
 
    In this sense, of course it 'failed', that's part of what I'm on about.
 
    And while I agree about the obvious political problems,
    I do not agree that such investigations should
    be political.  'NTSB type' investigations are perfectly capable
    of fixing procedures as well as making technical recommendations
    that are followed.
 
>        Finally you appear to believe for some reason that being a Nobel
>Laureate is indicative of technical incompetence.  Feynman was as well
>qualified as anyone to investigate the accident.
>                          James B. Shearer
 
    Not at all, but a couple of things get in the way.  Foremost among
    them is that such people have no experience with such systems
    or such investigations. However, the thought that Nobel Laureates
    generally, and theoretical physicists specifically, are
    'as qualified as anyone' to pursue such investigations is laughable.
    The NTSB itself would have been a better choice.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 05:46:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6HIJq.A6H@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  Although signed off to your silliness, the record must now stand corrected.
> First, it was 100 watts in one conversation, and 20 watts in another, to wit:
>
>==ms  "...  when the announcement was made in "the March" the level was
>==ms  (I think) circa 20 Watts/cm^3.
 
     It's *my* question about *Jed's* quotation, mon ami.   It was always
     '100 watts', efforts to lower the number notwithstanding.
 
>    The error was mine, but it hardly made any difference.
>  Second, you again misquote to defraud.
>  Where was the term "the vector nature of power' used?  In your own quotes.
 
     Here it is, verbatim, from your posting (disk space is cheap these
     days):
 
Swartz> However, the power is not simply a scalar quantity.
 
     I do agree that this could well mean that you think power is a
     tensor quantity, but that doesn't seem to help your cause.
>
>  Attention is directed to the fact that you claim the Poynting vector
> does not exist, and that the definition of power is context-dependent.
 
     Wrongo, my good friend.  And the definition of '100 Watt's *is*
     context dependent.  That is apparent by your unwillingness to
     provide context.
 
     I guess I'd be evading too if I had no 'believer-correct'
     answer to the questions.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 01:56:49 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <1993May3.050750.1590@homespace.mtview.ca.us> joshua@homespac
.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy) writes:
 
My posting was supposed to be email for mica@world.std.com.
Sorry to waste the bandwidth.
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: 4 May 93 10:21:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

>If we assume that this number is
>     good to the melting point around 1500 C, all that is required to
>     completely melt the cube is about 4500 J
 
As in the case of water, latent heat of fusion may be important!
 
 
 
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  More questions about boiling cells
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More questions about boiling cells
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 14:14:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the spirit of the Jones list, I have some questions about the Pons
and Fleischmann technique that I can't make concise enough to put in
the list.  Let me start by a comment based on my experiments with
boiling water in a microwave.  My observation is that the rate at
which water leaves the cup is a very nonlinear function of time even
though I would guess that the power input does not increase.  Now
when I try to apply that notion to the P&F boiling cells,  I start
with the notion that the current is constant, the water level drops,
the cell resistance rises (without limit?), and the power input rises.
I would be led to the conclusion that most of the power input and
most of the "vaporization" occurs near the end of the boiling
episode.  I can't really imagine what happens as the electrical circuit
is finally broken.  My question for the list is basically
 
11. How the heck do they measure anything?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Masochistic Measurements
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Masochistic Measurements
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 15:05:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege excuses his passion for calorimetry by saying that, "Measur-
ing neutrons is even more masochistic."  That may well be true at
the intenstities Steve Jones works with, but for cold fusion neutron
measurements have been a piece of cake.  Maybe it is time to remind
believers about the fantastic ratio of sensitivity between a neutron
detection experiment to determine whether cold fusion occurs and
a calorimetry experiment at the watt level.  You could do a simple
activation measurement using your body as the detector and still beat
the signal to noise ratio of calorimetry.  That is not the recommended
technique, perhaps, so maybe you need some kind of detector for real time
measurements.  Even Pons and Fleischmann were able to borrow a set up
and make a very definitive measurement, although they needed some help
to interpret the data.  Funny thing is four years later some people
still don't understand that they proved that the fusion of deuterons
was not occuring.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Dieter Britz /  Quality negatives
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quality negatives
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 15:05:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 984:
 
> Time for equal Standards:
>  Do you know of three good negative experiments?
>  Perhaps the "negatives" have never been repeated or duplicated in the same
>    manner.  Have any good ones ever been duplicated?
 
I have a list of what I consider quality papers, and the better part of that
list describes experiments with negative results. I could post this list,
but it is a little besides the point. The cnf proponents are right in one
thing: a negative experiment, no matter how flawlessly carried out, really
proves very little, if anything. If the effect is indeed something subtle,
it is possible that this flawless work has missed out on some factor either
unknown by those who get positive results, or not given away by them.
 
There are those who argue that, after 4 years, we should have replications,
the factors should by now have been pinned down. Well, maybe they are so
hard to pin down, that they haven't been. Maybe. However, given this lack of
replication, yet more flawless negatives will not do anything more for us;
we must now have some papers describing a procedure by which anyone else
with the competence can do a replication. Let us hope that the forthcoming
F&P paper in Phys. Lett. A will do this.
 
What the TB's are dead wrong about is their belief that we skeptics are out to
"get" cnf. Almost all of us would be delighted if it were true. We just
require convincing evidence, and have not seen it yet.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Jed Rothwell /  The answer will come later
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The answer will come later
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 16:59:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Terry suggests:
 
     "You know, all that is needed, really, is for you or someone else to
     provide (say on this net) a _full recipe in excruciating detail_ of how
     to fully and reliably reproduce nice, _high energy_ palladium
     'vaporization' events comparable to the original F&P one..."
 
The object of cold fusion research is to make the reaction completely
controllable and predictable. What is required is a complete, step-by-step
understanding of every aspect of the process. Nobody on earth understands it,
consequently, nobody can give a "full recipe" yet. If you read the literature,
you will see that the recipes are getting better year by year, so there can be
no question that a full recipe will appear eventually. When this research is
complete, years from now, you will be able to find all the "excruciating
detail" you want, in any textbook on the subject.
 
Terry, like so many other "skeptics," wants the answer NOW, before the work is
done. He wants to eat the bread before the wheat is fully grown, long before
the crop is harvested. This is childish, irrational and illogical.
 
People like Terry, who think the complete, correct answers are always
available right from the beginning, have never done any original, creative
work before. They think that all problems have ready-made solutions, right
there in the back of the textbook. They think that the researchers are just
kidding; they think the researchers have the solutions and recipes, but they
are just hiding them for fun. People who have actually done original
groundbreaking work and developed new products from scratch know that there
are no answers at first. God does not have a Toll-Free 800 number Tech Support
Line. Terry will have to wait for others to find the answers and write the
textbooks. It never occurs to people like Terry that someone has to actually
do real work first, and write the textbook.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  INTERESTING FACT #3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: INTERESTING FACT #3
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 19:20:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would again like to thank Chuck Harrison for a very complete discussion of
the material needed to consider problems in the measurement of power.
 
This having been said, I would like to object to the use of "FACT" in a
derivation that only expands to square terms.  As I have said before, I am
still trying to get a good picture in my head at to what goes on and how
to measure it.
 
It is enough for me to note at this point, that it is possible to make
per-cent type errors depending on the calculation chosen.  For the moment,
the sign to me is not important.
 
For me, the McKubre ICCF3 paper is the only "quality positive" "anomalous
heat" experiment that we have.  My assumption is that McKubre's technique is
getting better over time.  His result, now 2.6% (aprox.) si getting smaller
with time.  So we have to look very closely at how power is measured.  It is
not obvious to me that any of us know how to do it with enough accuracy to
make the 2.6% significant.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:12:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May4.151104.3506@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>In article <C6H6vD.Mt@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes regarding
>Richard Schultz's proposition that D2 combustion "did in" the Pd cube:
 
>> On the other hand, the specific heat of Pd is roughly 0.25 J/g K down at
>> low temperature.  If we assume that this number is good to the melting
>> point around 1500 C, all that is required to completely melt the cube is
>> about 4500 J (Pd specific gravity is about 12).  However, neglecting gas
>
>Also, in <1738@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott) comments:
>
>> As in the case of water, latent heat of fusion may be important!
>
>My assumption from what I recall seeing four years ago was that this issue
>had been pretty carefully examined, but I can't think of any specific ref
>or analysis.  I think the points that Richard Schultz and Dale Bass have
>made here certainly merit closer examination.  Occam's razor and all that,
>you know -- why build exotic capacitors IF simple rapid hydrogen evolution
>and combustion can do the trick?  (Please note the "IF"!)
>
>Has anyone any actual experimental data on this?  Nothing I have mentions
>combustive release of the hydrogen from either powder or a solid block, let
>alone from an electrolytically overloaded block.
 
     Well, deuterium is evolved fairly rapidly at the surface once the
     power is turned off.  Since a spark crossing a gap might be sufficient
     to do this by blowing the water out of the test tube, it's burn baby burn.
 
     And I don't know how carefully we did it, but I seem to recall that
     we discussed this (at length?) in 1989.  Maybe a quick perusal of the
     archives is in order.
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The answer will come later
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The answer will come later
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 19:04:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930504161609_72240.1256_EHK12-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Terry, like so many other "skeptics," wants the answer NOW, before the work is
>done. He wants to eat the bread before the wheat is fully grown, long before
>the crop is harvested. This is childish, irrational and illogical.
 
    And on the other hand, you wish to present a crayon drawing
    as a glorious wheat field, assuring us that bread is soon forthcoming.
 
    And god-forbid anyone question the fidelity of the crayon marks
    much less the existence of the field.
 
                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Simulation
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Simulation
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 22:53:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A Review and a Simulation
 
The McKubre et. al. preprint from ICCF3 raised a red flag with me.  There is
a very strong correlation between cell current and "anomalous heat".  Mike
correctly points out that there is also a strong correlation between loading
and "anomalous heat".  I agree.  But to me the current is a better match.  The
claimed heat is rather small, of order 2.6% of the cell input power.  So I
wonder (per my ACCF1 comment that Huizenga likes so much) if the results of
this experiment could be "just noise".
 
I now have a lot of experience running these cells.  I say with great
confidence:
 
1) The time ordered deviation of the cell resistance from its mean value
increases with current.
 
With somewhat less confidence I state:
 
2) The time ordered deviation of the cell resistance from its mean value at
constant current increases with time.
 
The above are attempts of a careful statement to summarize many hours of
experiments.  Another way to state it is that the cell noise as measured by
the fractional variation of voltage or current (whichever is allowed to vary)
increases with time and current.
 
Those of you that have followed these posts know that I have continually
asked: "What can it be about these experiments that causes the long time
before the appearance of heat?"  I now ask:  "Suppose it is just that the
cells become noisy over time, how will this affect the measurements?"
 
Some of us (Dieter Britz, Chuck Harrison, Dick Blue, Dale Bass, etc.) have
been thinking about what this means.  Dieter Britz has communicated to me that
he has done something similar to what I offer below.  I agree with (I think)
Dieter Britz, I don't agree with Chuck Harrison's analysis (also not sure), so
I thought I had better have a crack at it in my own duffer's way.  So why not
a simulation?  I also plan to take real data from my running cell, and this
has started with the previously reported time constant changes.
 
For the program below, E is the applied voltage.  RCC is a series resistor
used with E to simulate a current source.  RCell is the resistance of a cell
placed in series with E and RCC.  The program does one time slice where it
compares for N samples during the time slice the ratio between power computed
as the product of the means and the mean of the products.  If there is no
error Ratio should be close to 1.  I leave you to run the program to find out
if it is.  The interesting parameters to change are the series resistance
(RCC) and the fractional change of the cell resistance.
 
I will be the first to admit that this simulation may not correctly match
reality.  On one side, the noise that I simulate is rather large.  But I have
seen rather large noise.  Also, this program has a small value for the current
source resistance.  On the other side, an infinite speed current source is
assumed.  Any real current source will change the answer.  But in which
direction?
 
This is a program you all can run.  It is in (Ugh!) QuickBASIC, but I am sure
that most of you can translate it into some real language like C, Cobol,
Pascal, Snobol, or Lisp.
 
RCC = 10  'The series resistor simulating a current source
E = 20  'The applied voltage (makes no difference to the ratio)
N = 1000 'The number of samples
ESum = 0 ' init everything
ISum = 0
PSum = 0
FOR i = 1 to N  'the BASIC for-next loop for those who have never seen one
RCell = 4 + 12 * (RND(3)) 'RND(x) gives a random number between 0 and 1
'this means RCell varies between 4 and 16 ohms - a little large I admit,
'but then I assume infinite speed
ECell = E * (RCell / (RCC + RCell)) 'the cell voltage
ICell = E / (RCC + RCell) ' the cell current
ESum = ESum + ECell 'add up the voltage samples
ISum = ISum + ICell 'add up the current samples
PSum = PSum + (ECell * ICell) 'add up the instantaneous power increments
NEXT i
PSum = PSum / N  'mean instantaneous power
PSumA = (ESum * ISum) / N^2 'mean power using average E and I
PSumR = PSumA / PSum 'ratio of mean power to instantaneous power
Print "RCC = "; RCC; "PSum = "; PSum; "PSumA = "; PSumA; "Ratio = "; PSumR
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 21:48:29 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1s3nbu$jms@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
 
> [Terry:] ... start vaporizing palladium cubes at will.
>
> It's really quite simple.  Take a whole bunch of hydrogen (or deuterium if
> you'd rather).  Mix it with air so that the H2/air mixture is in a flammable
> proportion.  Heat well.  Come in the next morning and your apparatus will
> be vaporized, with no radiation or even scorch marks.  Voila.
 
The palladium cube my good man, the cube -- not the apparatus around it.
              ^^^^                  ^^^^
Not to mention that what you just described is the explosive destruction of
the apparatus, not its vaporization.  "Vaporization" (or at the very least
very thorough combustion) of such an apparatus would require some pretty
hefty input of energy over a prolonged period of time.
 
Palladium has a decently high melting point.  I suppose at atomic hydrogen
torch might make fairly short work of it, but I don't recall seeing any of
those being left on overnight in the original F&P experiment...  :)
 
Please keep in mind that whatever my doubts about everything that has gone
on since, I've yet to see any really profound reason to doubt the infamous
overnight disappearance of half a cube of palladium four years ago in the
labs of Pons and Fleischmann.  Alas, because they set up the experiment in
hopes of finding "fusion", P&F immediately transcribed that event into their
hopes and dreams and _made it_ into fusion, quite apart from whether it
actually bore even the foggiest resemblance to real deuterium fusion.  Their
understanding of such events was so abysmally poor at the time that they did
not even seem to realize that any real event of the type they were initially
assuming would have left them dead as doornails from radiation poisoning.
 
So please, dispute the original cube loss story if you wish, but let's not
trivialize it.  The original P&F claim of disappearance of half a cube of
palladium remains the single most interesting event in the four-year history
of palladium excess heat anomolies.  It represents an event that is difficult
to explain chemically when the only major items are Pd, D2O, O2, N2, and LiOD.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 15:11:04 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <C6H6vD.Mt@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes regarding
Richard Schultz's proposition that D2 combustion "did in" the Pd cube:
 
> ... I've never understood the mystery about the [disappearance of half of
> the original Pons and Fleischmann palladium] cube.  Consider this rough
> reasoning (I'm far from any references save one that will help, but I'll
> forge on anyway):
>
> Palladium can absorb about 900 times its volume in deuterium.  Assuming a
> 1 cc 'cube, that's 900 cc's of deuterium, which is about 0.04 mol of D or
> 0.02 mol of D_2.
>
> I seem to recall that roughly 250 kJ/mol_D_2 are released upon formation
> of D2O, and so the available energy just in the ordinary deuterium in
> ordinary palladium is about 5000 J.  Of course they endeavored to pack
> deuterium into the lattice which would more than double this number.
>
> On the other hand, the specific heat of Pd is roughly 0.25 J/g K down at
> low temperature.  If we assume that this number is good to the melting
> point around 1500 C, all that is required to completely melt the cube is
> about 4500 J (Pd specific gravity is about 12).  However, neglecting gas
> outside the electrode, you already have probably 10000 J hanging around,
> ready to explode.
>
> Even ignoring the observation that it probably just exploded and melted
> without 'vaporizing', there seems to be no difficulty attaining sufficient
> heat to do what happened.  After all, Pd is very good at storing hydrogen,
> and hydrogen, in all its isotopes, is good at burning.
>
>                               dale bass
 
 
Also, in <1738@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott) comments:
 
> As in the case of water, latent heat of fusion may be important!
 
 
My assumption from what I recall seeing four years ago was that this issue
had been pretty carefully examined, but I can't think of any specific ref
or analysis.  I think the points that Richard Schultz and Dale Bass have
made here certainly merit closer examination.  Occam's razor and all that,
you know -- why build exotic capacitors IF simple rapid hydrogen evolution
and combustion can do the trick?  (Please note the "IF"!)
 
Has anyone any actual experimental data on this?  Nothing I have mentions
combustive release of the hydrogen from either powder or a solid block, let
alone from an electrolytically overloaded block.
 
....
 
Michael Swartz:  Just to make sure I've been clear on one point:  I don't,
and never have, done even the simplest type of "cold fusion" experiment at
home, at work, or in collaboration with anyone anywhere.  My interest in
this group is in styles of reasoning, conditions for effective collective
reasoning (or more the lack thereof), and also a simple, genuine affection
for physics.  Any emotional involvement I may have had in times past with
being "right" about something in all of this has pretty much evaporated by
now, and my only real interest is to see some resolution of points I have
tagged as "probably valid but not well explained."  While it would be nice
to see a new energy source, I'd also be quite satisfied to see that the
final explanation is "the PdHx cube caught fire" -- IF such a simple idea
can really explain the partial destruction of such a cube.
 
Now, as for that genuinely interesting list of papers you pulled up from
Dieter's bibliography:  Have any of them been replicated repeatedly?  At
multiple sites?  By different sets of researchers?
 
For any papers that deal with modest percentage-wise heat outputs over long
periods of time, I quite frankly find Tom Droege's recent line of thinking
about convergence towards a non-result for all low-percentage-of-input-energy
heat results to be several orders of magnitude more convincing than the
counterarguments I'm seeing here.  Those have tended towards sophomoric
attempts to suddenly "dump" Tom Droege now that he has stated some pretty
specific reasons for doubting the McKubre results.  This is unimpressive.
 
I doubt if anyone has tried as sincerely as Tom Droege to find verifiable
excess heat.  But like the poor fellow assigned by the LDS church a decade
or so ago to translate the then recently found Pearl of Great Price papyrus,
Tom seems to be doomed to excommunication from the excess heat community if
he finds anything _but_ the required excess heat Pearl of Great Price in his
efforts.  I for one tip my hat to Tom because he is both willing to entertain
Novel Ideas at his table, and also to toss them out into the snow if they
prove to scallawags without substance.
 
It's not easy to toss out an entertaining house guest.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -  An "oops" and apology to Dieter:  Without thinking carefully about
        it I responded publically to a private comment he made to me about
        how he was surprised that I had ever heard of Na/NH3 systems, which
        are usually something that only electrochemical types (e.g., Dieter)
        are very familiar with.  So if my comment about "where do I get such
        stuff" seemed a bit cryptic, it's because it was only half of an
        off-hand conversation about Terry's tendency towards the eclectic.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More questions about boiling cells
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More questions about boiling cells
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:18:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <0096BFE9.F999F4A0.12619@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>In the spirit of the Jones list, I have some questions about the Pons
>and Fleischmann technique that I can't make concise enough to put in
>the list.  Let me start by a comment based on my experiments with
>boiling water in a microwave.  My observation is that the rate at
>which water leaves the cup is a very nonlinear function of time even
>though I would guess that the power input does not increase.  Now
 
     You should know that heating in an ordinary microwave is
     highly nonuniform and time-dependent, especially when using water,
     and the power input of a home microwave may vary substantially as well
     depending on the microwave.  Electrolytic heating is, in general,
     far more uniform and 'well-behaved'.
 
>11. How the heck do they measure anything?
 
     I'm with you here.  I cannot imagine how they get good numbers during
     'boildown'.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:00:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1738@lyman.pppl.gov> bscott@lyman.UUCP (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>If we assume that this number is
>>     good to the melting point around 1500 C, all that is required to
>>     completely melt the cube is about 4500 J
>
>As in the case of water, latent heat of fusion may be important!
 
     Thanks, I knew I'd forget something important doing it off the cuff.
     Anyone have latent heat numbers for Pd at atmospheric pressure?
     However, even if it's around 20 kJ/mol, that only adds about 2000 J to
     the unit 'cost' per cc.
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  te_s227@neptun /  RE Hot Fusion: A suggestion?
     
Originally-From: te_s227@neptune.kingston.ac.uk
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE Hot Fusion: A suggestion?
Subject:    Re:    Hot   Fusion   -a    suggestion?
Date: 4 May 93 21:30:01 BST
Date:  26 Apr 93 20:21:29  GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Kingston Polytechnic

X-NEWS:      neptune      sci.physics.fusion:      4725
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:    Re:    Hot   Fusion   -a    suggestion?
Message-ID: <1719@lyman.pppl.gov>
Date:  26 Apr 93 20:21:29  GMT
References: <1993Apr24.090352.1@neptune.kingston.ac.uk>
Reply-To:
bscott@lyman.UUCP    (Bruce   Scott)    Organization:    Princeton
University, Plasma Physics Laboratory Lines: 10
 
Since your proposal is just another confined plasma with  magnetic
shear,  it  is  just  as likely as the  tokamak  to  bleed  energy
profusely, and thus will be prone to the same problems.
 
To say more I will have to see a design.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scot                           The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik   odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de             -- W Gibson
 
The principle of my design differs from the ZEETA geometry that I
have read about and also from the TOKOMAK which I am not familiar
with.  The difference is that the current in the toriodal coil is
radio frequency and the plasma is contained by the repulsion that
induced currents experience from the exciting current.   This  is
used in rf heaters where the heated substance is suspended by the
induction currents repulsion alone.
 
There is no poloidal field!
 
In a coil there is a magnetic field inside if rf current flows in
it, so any conductor inside will be repelled by the coil.  If the
magnetic force is constant across the diameter then the  position
taken  by  the internal conductor will be arbitary,  but  if  the
magnetic  field  inside varies across the diameter then  it  will
take  up  a  position  where the  minimum  field  is  felt.   The
calculation  below shows that the field is a minimum at  the  mid
line of the coil,  both in the straight case and in the  toroidal
case.
 
This means that any conductor will tend to position itself  along
the midline of the coil.
 
A plasma is a conductor,  so it will therefore tend to sit  along
the mid line of the coil.  If the plasma were to deviate it would
experience a resoring force toward the centre.
 
This is quite different fromt the "pinch" attempted in the  other
designs involving dc current.
 
Theory and calculations start here.
 
Theory for straight solenoidal coil
radius rt, position of measurement point r0
distance of current element from mid point of coil= d
angle of current element from y axis = psi
current element is at pint p2(rt*sin(psi),rt*cos(psi),d)
measurment point is at poinr p1(0,r0,0)
tangent to coil at current element =d(p2)/d(psi)=tp
tp=(rt*cos(psi),rt*sin(psi),0)
p1p2=(rt*sin(psi),tr*cos(psi)-r0,d)
angle of current element to p1 = chi
cos(chi)=tp.p1p2/|tp||p1p2|
normal to tangent=tpXp1p2=np
angle of normal to z axis is sigma
cos(sigma)=np.(0,0,1)/|np||(0,0,1|
separation=|p1p2|
rem to calculate magnetic flux
delta_psi=2:pi=3.1415926
rt=0.01:delta_d=0.5
A=pi*4E-12:i=1000
total_force=0
delta_l=pi*delta_psi*pi/180
open "O",#1,"E:\transfer\mag_str.dat"
print"Coil diameter 2cm length 10cm current 1000A/m"
print"No loss in induced current in surface layer of plasma"
print#1,"Coil diameter 2cm length 10cm current 1000A/m"
print#1,"No loss in induced current in surface layer of plasma"
print" "
print tab(10);"Mag Flux Wb/M^2";tab(30);"pressure Pa";
print tab(50);"Dist from Centre m"
print#1," "
print#1,tab(10);"Mag Flux Wb/M^2";tab(30);"Pressure Pa";
print#1,tab(50);"Dist from Centre m"
for r0_l=-9 to 9 step 1
        r0=0.1*rt*r0_l
   for d_l=-5 to +5 step delta_d
                d=0.01*d_l:rem convert to metres
        for psi_deg=0 to 359 step delta_psi
            psi=psi_deg*pi/180
                        gosub find
                        gosub force
                        total_force=total_force+f
        next
   next
        print tab(13);" ";
        print using "#.#####^^^^";total_force;
        print tab(29);" ";
        print using "#.#####^^^^";total_force*i;
        print tab(59);" ";
        print using "#.##^^^^";r0
        print#1,tab(13);" ";
        print#1, using "#.#####^^^^";total_force;
        print#1,tab(29);" ";
        print#1, using "#.#####^^^^";total_force*i;
        print#1,tab(59);" ";
        print#1, using "#.##^^^^";r0
 
        total_force=0
next
 close #1
end
force:
        f=A*i*delta_l*sin_chi*delta_d*cos_sigma/sep_sq
return
find:
rem find sin_chi
cos_chi_sq=(rt*rt*cos(psi)*sin(psi)+rt*sin(psi)*(rt*cos(psi)-r0))^2
div=rt^2*((rt*sin(psi))^2+(rt*cos(psi)-r0)^2+d^2)
cos_chi_sq=cos_chi_sq/div
sin_chi=sqr(1-cos_chi_sq)
rem find cos_sigma
cos_sigma=rt*cos(psi)*(rt*cos(psi)-r0)-(rt*sin(psi))^2
div=sqr((d*rt)^2+(rt*cos(psi)*(rt*cos(psi)-r0)-(rt*sin(psi))^2)^2)
cos_sigma=abs(cos_sigma/div)
rem find sep_sq
sep_sq=(rt*sin(psi))^2+(rt*cos(psi)-r0)^2+d^2
rem end of find
return
rem End of program 1
results
Coil diameter 2cm length 10cm current 1000A/m
No loss in induced current in surface layer of plasma
 
         Mag Flux Wb/M^2     Pressure Pa         Dist from Centre m
              .61532E-02      .61532E+01                   -.90E-02
              .42838E-02      .42838E+01                   -.80E-02
              .37295E-02      .37295E+01                   -.70E-02
              .34790E-02      .34790E+01                   -.60E-02
              .33345E-02      .33345E+01                   -.50E-02
              .32404E-02      .32404E+01                   -.40E-02
              .31764E-02      .31764E+01                   -.30E-02
              .31351E-02      .31351E+01                   -.20E-02
              .31112E-02      .31112E+01                   -.10E-02
              .31033E-02      .31033E+01                    .00E+01
              .31112E-02      .31112E+01                    .10E-02
              .31351E-02      .31351E+01                    .20E-02
              .31764E-02      .31764E+01                    .30E-02
              .32404E-02      .32404E+01                    .40E-02
              .33345E-02      .33345E+01                    .50E-02
              .34790E-02      .34790E+01                    .60E-02
              .37295E-02      .37295E+01                    .70E-02
              .42838E-02      .42838E+01                    .80E-02
              .61532E-02      .61532E+01                    .90E-02
Theory of program 2
angle of current element round toroid =delta
psi2=angle of current element round tube
psi1 angle of measurment point round tube
rt radius of tube, r0 radius to measurement point
rmid radius from z axis (of toroid) to mid line of toroid
p1 point of measurement=(0,tmid+r0*cos(psi),r0*sin(psi))
p2 pos of current element
=((rmid+rt*cos(psi2))sin(delta),(rmid+rt*cos(psi2))cos(delta),rt*sin(psi2)
np=tpXp1p2
cos(sigma)=np.(1,0,0)/|(1,0,0)||np|
cos(chi)=tp.p1p2/|tp||p1p2|
separation=|p1p2|
Program 2 for toroid
rem to calculate magnetic flux
delta_psi=2:pi=3.1415926
rt=0.01:rmid=0.075
A=pi*4E-12:i=1000
total_force=0
delta_l=pi*delta_psi/180
rmid=0.075:delta_delta_deg=10:delta_psi_deg=10
delta_delta=delta_delta_deg*pi/180
delta_d=delta_delta*rmid
open "O",#1,"E:\transfer\mag_tor.dat"
print"Coil diameter 2cm on torus 7.5cm dia current 1000A/m"
print"No loss in induced current in surface layer of plasma"
print#1,"Coil diameter 2cm on torus 7.5cm in dia current 1000A/m"
print#1,"No loss in induced current in surface layer of plasma"
print" "
print tab(10);"Mag Flux Wb/M^2";tab(30);"pressure Pa";
print tab(44);"Angle   Dist from Centre m"
print#1," "
print#1,tab(10);"Mag Flux Wb/M^2";tab(30);"Pressure Pa";
print#1,tab(44);"Angle  Dist from Centre m"
for psi1_deg=0 to 90 step 45
        psi1=psi1_deg*pi/180
for r0_l=-9 to 9 step 1
        r0=0.1*rt*r0_l
   for delta_deg=-180 to 170 step delta_delta_deg
        delta=delta_deg*pi/180
        for psi2_deg=0 to 350 step delta_psi_deg
            psi2=psi2_deg*pi/180
                        gosub find
                        gosub force
                        total_force=total_force+f
        next
   next
        print tab(13);" ";
        print using "#.#####^^^^";total_force;
        print tab(29);" ";
        print using "#.#####^^^^";total_force*i;
        print tab(46);
        print using "###";psi1_deg;
        print tab(59);" ";
        print using "#.##^^^^";r0
        print#1,tab(13);" ";
        print#1, using "#.#####^^^^";total_force;
        print#1,tab(29);" ";
        print#1, using "#.#####^^^^";total_force*i;
        print#1, tab(46);
        print#1, using "###";psi1_deg;
        print#1,tab(59);" ";
        print#1, using "#.##^^^^";r0
 
        total_force=0
next
next
 close #1
end
force:
        f=A*i*delta_l*sin_chi*delta_d*cos_sigma/sep_sq
return
find:
sep1=(rmid+rt*cos(psi2))*sin(delta)
sep2=(rmid+rt*cos(psi2))*cos(delta)-(rmid+r0*cos(psi1))
sep3=rt*sin(psi2)-r0*sin(psi1)
tp1=rt*sin(psi2)*sin(delta)
tp2=rt*sin(psi2)*cos(delta)
tp3=rt*cos(psi2)
rem find cos_sigma
cos_sigma=tp3*sep2-sep3*tp2
div=sqr((tp3*sep2-sep3*tp2)^2+(sep3*tp1-sep1*tp3)^2+(sep1*tp2-sep2*tp1)^2)
cos_sigma=abs(cos_sigma/div)
rem find sin_chi
cos_chi_sq=(tp1*sep1+tp2*sep2+tp3*sep3)^2
div=(tp1^2+tp2^2+tp3^2)*(sep1^2+sep2^2+sep3^2)
cos_chi_sq=cos_chi_sq/div
sin_chi=sqr(1-cos_chi_sq)
rem find sep_sq
sep_sq=sep1^2+sep2^2+sep3^2
rem end of find
return
rem End of program 2 text
 
Results of prog 2
Coil diameter 2cm on torus 7.5cm in dia current 1000A/m
No loss in induced current in surface layer of plasma
 
         Mag Flux Wb/M^2     Pressure Pa   Angle  Dist from Centre m
              .88852E-05      .88852E-02       0           -.90E-02
              .45886E-05      .45886E-02       0           -.80E-02
              .35780E-05      .35780E-02       0           -.70E-02
              .30457E-05      .30457E-02       0           -.60E-02
              .27771E-05      .27771E-02       0           -.50E-02
              .26012E-05      .26012E-02       0           -.40E-02
              .24749E-05      .24749E-02       0           -.30E-02
              .24008E-05      .24008E-02       0           -.20E-02
              .23703E-05      .23703E-02       0           -.10E-02
              .23522E-05      .23522E-02       0            .00E+01
              .23465E-05      .23465E-02       0            .10E-02
              .23656E-05      .23656E-02       0            .20E-02
              .24317E-05      .24317E-02       0            .30E-02
              .25457E-05      .25457E-02       0            .40E-02
              .27118E-05      .27118E-02       0            .50E-02
              .29847E-05      .29847E-02       0            .60E-02
              .35258E-05      .35258E-02       0            .70E-02
              .45448E-05      .45448E-02       0            .80E-02
              .88683E-05      .88683E-02       0            .90E-02
              .88386E-05      .88386E-02      45           -.90E-02
              .47493E-05      .47493E-02      45           -.80E-02
              .35921E-05      .35921E-02      45           -.70E-02
              .30614E-05      .30614E-02      45           -.60E-02
              .27664E-05      .27664E-02      45           -.50E-02
              .25965E-05      .25965E-02      45           -.40E-02
              .24814E-05      .24814E-02      45           -.30E-02
              .24029E-05      .24029E-02      45           -.20E-02
              .23670E-05      .23670E-02      45           -.10E-02
              .23522E-05      .23522E-02      45            .00E+01
              .23508E-05      .23508E-02      45            .10E-02
              .23801E-05      .23801E-02      45            .20E-02
              .24475E-05      .24475E-02      45            .30E-02
              .25488E-05      .25488E-02      45            .40E-02
              .27143E-05      .27143E-02      45            .50E-02
              .30083E-05      .30083E-02      45            .60E-02
              .35333E-05      .35333E-02      45            .70E-02
              .46924E-05      .46924E-02      45            .80E-02
              .87916E-05      .87916E-02      45            .90E-02
              .88610E-05      .88610E-02      90           -.90E-02
              .45503E-05      .45503E-02      90           -.80E-02
              .35415E-05      .35415E-02      90           -.70E-02
              .30035E-05      .30035E-02      90           -.60E-02
              .27352E-05      .27352E-02      90           -.50E-02
              .25693E-05      .25693E-02      90           -.40E-02
              .24507E-05      .24507E-02      90           -.30E-02
              .23820E-05      .23820E-02      90           -.20E-02
              .23582E-05      .23582E-02      90           -.10E-02
              .23522E-05      .23522E-02      90            .00E+01
              .23582E-05      .23582E-02      90            .10E-02
              .23820E-05      .23820E-02      90            .20E-02
              .24507E-05      .24507E-02      90            .30E-02
              .25693E-05      .25693E-02      90            .40E-02
              .27352E-05      .27352E-02      90            .50E-02
              .30035E-05      .30035E-02      90            .60E-02
              .35415E-05      .35415E-02      90            .70E-02
              .45503E-05      .45503E-02      90            .80E-02
              .88610E-05      .88610E-02      90            .90E-02
 
End of text
 
Chris Strevens.
Kingston University,
Canbury Park,
Kingston,
surrey,
KT2 6LA,
England.
 
E-mail: cstrevens@kin.ac.uk
 
Beginning of mag_coil.uue a uuencoded,  zipped GEM .IMG file of  a
diagram of a coil wound as indicated above with angles, lines and
points labelled to assist theory above.
 
-------------Cut here--------------------------------------------
table
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?
@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_
begin 644 mag_coil.zip
M4$L#!!0    (  )3I!J$8.6S;A4  #"    ,    34%'7T-/24PN24U'Y=W?z
MC^1&7@#P<KNQ6SJ?[1,O;M:W'L0_X' <:I1A9QYYO#^ACZ#-RYVP1,0U:-BMy
M9:-9'J)T>)L1H.%/8!\B\19'&\WRT,KQF(<(?$ETO$2A#R'4)YIMOM^JLEU5x
M=KOMZGF 6^=VQNUQ?]I=KA_?*I=]Q"(3^#>RWK'>&5'K _H#<L?+:R_^_Q>]w
M_'44W3L7R9V+ ;UKL??RVHO58K?M.#E&#'Y*[UBTV\K'K[QHW7DZ$H_<M4A>v
M>[%<_"/$M'7'W=I<S-KVL_Y[8RX6;?NY?W4??MJVD9BW[9=,6+/@FHA6JW@Zu
ML?/@V4NC8[0WM&6_=$)R;V7VK5WR!YN\L5\V(87W\JF1Z,"_B6Y:Q80LO/R%t
MD<BSLF;:^82<!LMGR]Q C,7OR>:?ZHTNE$+?(WV6ICBK5^M,[8#H$$-1*H1Us
M[>##NFLJOE.OAM6:!Z)-#<6OZM63:BW&7I"A:'U2KY]7:Q&*N9EHO]LFSC!-r
M3<76JC4EP<Y07+MG^1Z1%B:B=17LVJK6C$QL.C<0K764?/6H?#6&7",*\IQ,q
MK-Q(O$J3<15Q3^I8 ,4B,Q+GIV,[%Z_LW%T^XZL%'/ Z-1+S;%PU-';A>2_Xp
M:@YB-C,1?[$IQE5C>%*)%HII9")2*Q_7M4]6B=14A&]*QU4-23+WO9>T$F>Go
MQF)5LZ;U5A!/+XQ$%]XJRJ$EB9@YXZ^-1!_>*JK6D29Z*R/1@[>*JG6LB=\Vn
M$Y--L!%5ZZ06X:C'UO)](_$,1/Z?%]:B@^)/'2/Q3^'K!1OIOW4IDF\<+-^#m
MQ9]@C8/OBUS9W<#F"V=/)-@M?HDB%L.R@$3"W 9;UUKC9XFT2'F=CONFWG[1l
M8F+*1%IO]@F*-E1-I.1@R=-RK4.T7]!2M*3-'J;C(R%F&W*QW2RRB\V67"S2k
M!:[N%]V/49Q)W[H6_TV(Z0J.;N6EJQ5\\17\@G\=XA,0HZA5?/$4*CLN+M+\j
M@HF+5;KM%H,G^?CB$58^D=PEBC$_?OSB"25<]%(XN L0O16L=8H)R<</(T\_i
M1G@QMNG'#(3C(ILXOUAXJYAL%HO%:K'H2,<W23&>MXNN'OCLZ>!HXO?('$2_h
M3?1[AE*:^!,4?2S T;DF>K68PBDA/!>FN))VB#\GT!:R:#:BFAA+QYB1E1#)g
MJOL8K5NR$.+O$4V<E>+F(DNWGY/%Y@)7O2W\V"_:[Y.%NV&5^!NZF%W\/A=7f
M.7SKKR'CK' UPA\=HD<V(&*P\]NZ6#Q\6X@+$%?D D6VNN@071#']YF8ZF+^e
MPYT0O10*"EFAZ*7S+?S8+_HQ^6R<4&QHE+V@H/]:_NCMG+W8;!9;.-<7JPN^d
M"C_VBW%$/A^[N:6+\,+]J#CE8EYOS[7731'JB-78DD1>\>UP*7H&XJHX0Y$4c
MN@@O[/],D'WES(>)V<SZ=$PVV,_@HJ@"4FL+V12/T<Z'B45JW8XAU2M1E(C9b
M(VPL\(,.EVU5S%/K$FI<$"U%/*-,I(./T?XBM9YAM*<=8_ 9*<6!Z6C3/_GRa
MJ2*R=+37424>7E013L&7/X<37,CYT=H28Q%.MOWDW;>^P<Y&+3XBQXASUWJ7z
M^&]]<1Y68D*/%3^!"&+^6T4I!@4Y3G3()U#ASJMTM%EL=I?BEAPO?@5B5HJ/y
M^>:8B;:)6#CDCT!,A9@(P^,B,1!S161GY7CQG4JTJX'6X\3?@::0BUNBBNZQx
MXN-ZL\]$QU \Q>(-Y;$\*[@X1XDQ%]\NR-V*MA++'2=Z*'K;N;S99:)_C'BFw
M]JYL/E1C*/KP_K/578H.L=V-=U>BQ<5-U"K&)B)UX"SL2$-DK6MD*K(H!X;=v
MI.K0,A4MAN4V@=["7/TD,E9&H8<<H_L5I%H4D+G]Y=-O7N1B>UYV:8>+[F8$u
MXLRE<\>Z_..B/-*\['8/%O-7!,44AB_MCR]__%8A_E# YCY#"@V1[!PNXO#Et
M#Y]^_;!$YKJXZBD&>2FN"_=%_J/J&)E8&(CK4B08)$M3*#(4<P.15.)9H6Q/s
M=?&BCW@FB]II0%$9L_?ZB$Z'.$.12ALV?42O0XQP,R5]%DF,.L28;1XJ=J6Cr
M#YO-KOCL$W&S<XR8Z:(+FWTCL>#B7!?M?$1.C<1Y)1;*=JL8D<618J[NEXWZq
MC#WN$X,6,1WUG=;45SP=J3W"<)"(?2[O5MTO&:D3I7J+&1=SXGVJ[N?^Y7UBp
M)*8H8D_3URI 2[O\-5QT/M=VU&8_#!-G(+J?:3MJI7JX:.L5X,A0G*&XAMK:o
M7G>+45\QXB*%*X?=XJZW")4,&T&RBDXQV.4#1)N-276*9Q!PK?N)L0TB&XG+n
M.\1@MPMW^XY2$^$ZZ\AM;5$DT=X53CA/7O44Z2@Y))YMB!]FY''11_2ALCYMm
M;:-JT8:#B\,9^WU8=*P<\K;3*29P;+,0PORSHH](<LC;3MK5 N"AI2'$"_:Vl
MEU@$V#IW7,AC5[Z82%HO\.M74\@Z8*/<^\7'E(G8UKJ;PR*$X ]@%+GC,C"Ok
M0K+0P;+]N(]X]HJL+M+]W8(@QY_S\!8#-OZB6Z3)?Y!5G,[WBGS>P?S7;\E%j
MU*Q/FB*4Z!$?Y=ZS6#SIYO"M'T:EWRGF(.8=G2L1FY>B&/CK$ F*79VKA/_Zi
M\>Z6B7;13^SH7/&(WGH5GN47^)4W9+W9K+O$ YTK<2H>%Z%[QO9Z8%U?7U]Uh
MB8VND+KP9 PHIB,[1\&37UY?;[K$1E=(71)QH"@RW?[9DZM?TBYQIG=<U(4Eg
MX_V8B3Q$W:PW46<Z'NAFL/?^K. BV^]4S^:ZV-W-8!&?/>+YD9_!0-^G.?NAf
MJYOA4I>R(94YJWMBMNF V-TI\/$F YP^EK'Z$;]V(]$;LTA8_+AO.0UH;F,9e
MY34N^]KK0R(==8P4+;R/Z7?S6L0]%P=$*Q_)HS!Q6LA_+6!VSA_B"FNY^,ANd
M?$ DT'&1BO4LD\NXG7NWO$^,K2LN>?-D-T2UXY(JM;E+@R6/SS$"8']OGNR&c
MJ'8S5!%.M4@VB%+8[TGS9#=$M9NABI!D]C_PHPT++I-&O=(0W2_DFGZ6RNDXb
M@ZO YVS-_FM^9#CI(CL@JMV,>"L?P6Z;B<$*6US5Q5-S>D!L#Q3$A[W:C@2Xa
M$V'S"51%A\2]I=JV_]%=>X*^M^.16=1X0U,<[16?939EO0X(1D,+1ZW:+ML,z
M$*U/"YO-+[1VV)_AX2.,56KW$PT0R39W"SP>C,Y"=ND4 >(4QN*?Y?Y;^!N'y
M<<+R\LW7LP>9L?@7U,/)NBQ0P?1DH<RKZ.',6/QWRJHEMQ B:QC_)7H8FXK6x
M2S[<S" 4V2FYC1[ZIJ+]C++6]:(462-X>_K -15=B#_?(Z(98/D2;2B6:H9Lw
MBGL7WUM;7GF5G>=T_'&NU6<#Q-A;C+SRYC,FLLKV1*O/!H@S+X9I0Z)B8"+Kv
M,H=:?39 S&)_XI1M'Q]5P)PYT2XX#!#GD8NQR5H2L6K4+XH,$(O(_GNGG/[ u
M16P'1UH#VU^T\@@O,8FFCXOXPM(NTO47;1J1M5.^.Q2?@H1:Y_8779@<N'#+t
M5D6,]V"BGJM9O+_HD-D(AC$6BHBO3M2Q]_ZB3]*Q[Y:Y68@Q6U4*37\Q)K.)s
MZY1O#LN/81FR,!)G,-W0OBR33(@N%S,C,251:-V6IU6(^ ':-;7^8D:B$_)?r
MOBIB(HS48MA?+%!\%->BC2%*T2@T_<4<IQO>G\G'F+,4U I-;Q&^7TR)7YZ#q
M,/B[9]C.X"=098"HMPCGP*/UG(W0^]<7>*MD3/1BV%N$-WV;U$,=H?<;3,3(p
M2BV&O46'I=9WN9CLUE[$1$Q!M1CV%GWVOWN\OMVA^/)9SK/XB5(,>XL>>_<9o
MJRB23376C-\W5'KDO44X!=\B(C]"&%R*>'1JP>XM0EOR+4I^Q'+>1AH/Y^+<n
M0(2,]QU*MIANUEH2"Z)=VNXM0F7PFSG98+IA%JK$C&@C1+W%#.\LL7 XGT45m
MH73L:E716YQ#3LY@"&I=5MQBB5C!C@S$ L296V#+<BJ+O!C&!F(.^R8PJA[Sl
MV*02?29ZPT5,/QK\#T5A+8M8[9S+U5EOD6)RO<!JAA6Y2G29Z)B*-A8[6Q$Qk
M.YV8B#8.GN(!63D+24/IHT!T#426[3"YUFQ@HA9SUJ4;+KK5G*%%K(B$BW2Pj
MZ%1SAN)3@#,FLAJ](.K=C /$"2\:_@9$/GS!G(RH=S/V%?TJX';7>+?'%JM>i
MEGHI4>]F["MZ+.GPR"#SP&4"=H,+RS,SEA[#Q;CJ9L 77&W3%/M;+!WYC-!Bh
ML!BQKM <5]=L[OY*^BQE>+JO.*L[5S A?K&(JZDN'E&'T/N**1-S<5!R?O2Ug
M2ER("1LDCZI]8,(4SF5S9+'L4OJJZ+ JMR$Z4?E#[$.K<\F7C(D45]U2'$GBf
MK"$F 0F2FR"!G\$EK"\3'_Y['UXQ!5.^[$BSGRB.2?D!5&H62G%Z3:>7T^MKe
M"M<)+J=T>OV>,[UT8+.X9L!%MEK5C_PN('N?>(/BS14)0$SH]*84EPVQJL-Yd
M6N(AMXI7!,2KB(!Q"3^O/"'R>X\PWU1AXD)H)_R0J=IT5>*2!/;U,H)C?++$c
M=/2"Z=)>!M,;OE^.R2_.5-FZGE?BN=1TM>3'A+0LN11N^T+D1X_)>D D>T7Qb
M-I>+5O6GO6*9NNSBHMJQMV11Q(PC6?3;1">2<7@E97#>%'H5C^)8%AU=A)Q,a
M((/#&7DS('Y"$LCN)%DFTR4M1:DCQ*.]\J:T0FU>A0CYFF(NCZR/< 5R.&1Sz
MV%!F<"Z67V+!Q+)HSUO%X"JAF,N#X,,;2;R:+MM$7OV>R**KBYBW,9=;U\^Oy
MB"R*#&XKHL_$<UFTF\<8$,C@D'[/(:M/:0+9G=K+*! 9W%;B3I>)5+S*6L5#x
MBZUTH^&(PRH[XM;P6-'"WL?HD(C%$[.ITWJ?@RI"]@FK[-@I.N7*(7$!QD05w
MJ29B71TL'?CEMS[<RE7%&(Q0$2U=Q!P>L4H<<DV+Z*BB#\9)MP@U-PVFETF'v
M* _"N&"<ER]F:G!6YG#6PEQ&F+,O]XKS\B5>L:B(J%4,KI>0JP.HMX.@AVCEu
M87W+;KMX:-%$L@Y'=RPNPO$=BW$XN6/1#T--S >*OB:ZX8DLRD%N3Y$'S;5Ht
M?W!>K<='B$7UVOIG*O_-6,SK#;\@1XG?:XI_7J[8.[%LAXCW:W&G+UNC8_1Js
MJ/X0Z:]MXOVRO8U$O<N:/5^\N-_\UK][2+Q':A$7'K&4H7U+.O[@D#A]/PANr
M@C<)_'CC?:C/,6)) JC3(1(7[U+%#^K5]OPXO81:_,E'4(]?/X>:G$4L4%=:q
ME[A"6O)C70AY*6P1@^NKX$.HQZ\_Y.(-C9++0!*54CC2Q4:YO@=A\]7T.?84p
M;F 5 Q2XB1A#<2[JY7K<$*DFW@^")U?!<PKAW;T @AV,6"*HTY]")([[ZG7/o
MY*!(E/"[&8GK8MA'[%QT\>2@&,GOQ87MX>\5SWN(CFJR/9R](CTH0MS]?!E@n
M_.TGR9*RH 6[G&7(XJACJY8\KWG6&E- ;GX#IJ*QV!8Z<5;9Y;PBLEA%*2-9m
M;(]2IC>7W[^Y$6+ @Q;L<B[;Q7%#;,1FTRLGB2(>?U]:=,H.%[J<Y4=KL=FDl
M*9)&.MI_$[#X.Y@^O6%!"^MRECE3BQ_#PV*Y*%TW*:-KXDE_<=]BJP,FYYK8k
MTE<0.<_A>;J<<G,9JV(UO$%EL;OWX50BK+F^KXIEFEC*//MY:Y\+.I>09P)Xj
M'L<;R^D-9F_(.(Y3%1JUSS5JBHU^(73<+ S$0;PN<SJ51+5?..XG!ES\_C[1i
MDAZ<IXA%:_\:.Y=<3*:5Z#J^*I9#!Z$BYNT]=CQ&J+,#<B]@V7OZ=$GLF[^Mh
M1'E4 3L>NM@ZJM"Y*.)Y4S0<2RD/A,IBY^B,4P4GO,-I01<[K@ZDNAB*'0])g
MI$2Y^%&+/-QQB%2)PRCD5#Q$JI#$D2+R<;/&*!=D[YL;Z&7>)'6'$RMRN/V3f
M[S>7QLW&JDA:1^(@>SO3)Q!-7)*JP\G&5VQ'$D7AG?01X8B<*&!BU>'$BKS*e
MY'/I@FVHB*YVH:NLPZD%W4P(?BY)V>%D%;GKB?.;U:.NK!]<BWM&72&^LZ^"d
MI77]M.IP4LSI529/I4O YZ3'6+-86@<*)3'G[U%$KU/<O\SJ\7#6#Z[%V'"$c
M/:I#TI$J\D[<?+ 8:]VX6IP97JGPM-DBM9B:7Y^9R.E?B]G1UY!T<:Z&/097b
MSG2Q,!1=[8D M9BSYGJX6%^!U$0K5P. @5=)G::(1W=N<I64-X9NBTB.NS9,a
M&R*_/&,BYOA&JRDZ3#2X(LZ;KCHC5Z)/Y'9WB%BP>K%HB#&1XY<AXKR^!*F(z
MD1('#A%9W%E7%95H/D.#1=OU.T/ID\9FLTC8V&J=7I58Z)/BALS&D9[S6HNYy
M\6R<6'UD2BF*JS^%@<B;/%<7^70*HUE-O%FNBF$I'C'SBH<.U5O#^H/J8&.8x
MR&L$HHL>VVPT@XV'B=4I*,4C9MGQBZ%5QBO%V5%S"_&DSC0Q8R?,,Q'Y94$2w
M:V)QQ(S*C#$MLS['IK,^>332,C-U8CHSE5<5=SE[EA?LEAF^H>D,7UX,RS>'v
MU<=HA7" R(MARTSI<].9TJ(8-F=S:S<L]!=Y.-*<<6YI=_GT%T6A:<R*'QG/u
MBN>!8G/F_MAXYCZV)=@C7$LB)NK$_.X"WHZ*>VBY*&9_F-X!P=OZQET:)^9Wt
M:? (1YP:)K);<L[5(C-$Q#.:\YN/A<AF\%&UR P1>;,G'MW#1#PQMGZ+V !1s
M3!XA#RH1[<8S[@:(8L(QJ>8_LN\_T9_--D 4TX,YA&(BZ-A8S,3<OZT0V:V-r
M<_T)8$-$/J=>NXN-ZC=!#A%C?DC$73.1W=J(!UT8B^5L)OEN0*FA,! QE["Vq
M7KIC,>IQQ^+^!=_*!BG@66W?$7=5GO2XJW+_@A4#;U+J.S_S'G=^=BQX<L\Yp
M+D"L.J LQHO"3,3L(\('T7)AKQ RSVR5F8F8?2:*B*\*?!![:B;ZI.JT"S'Eo
MF2>-#$5V0QB5Q9QOE&]8'B2R=G NB5ABL-J=S0W3D96W6!+C\I]TP_(PL9IZn
M+,0Y.7QG?/?"@IZB$EGY6Q\ELMJZGH^+:UH],51D+:M=B7/2XRD(W0L/>@HAm
MLB]]\$D-!Q:6:/>%R%+U]$B1!3WB;A=^W_7F2)$/1@?L6ARS>(1QA"CN!W\$l
MXEF)'R>*)W"PYZ6PM0?D2+%\IJ)5/OMI<[18CNJ7O;CB:-$M%+%EVN!043QMk
MIQ0//VWG\/) %JW-'8CB[KU0?G&<*![.QL4>3U;JL;"G/XG(?G,G(O__9F%Bj
MGR=4]5EVI6CU>8I6GR59"S$I[DAD,4]8QS['BW@+)(J/UW<F8C :PMV?Y,Y$i
M>/+<)GS<\\ES/9<!3\?KN_1_@E_O)22OO?A_5"2OO?C:BZ^M^+]02P$"%@44h
M    "  "4Z0:A&#ELVX5   P@   #            "          34%'7T-/g
<24PN24U'4$L%!@     !  $ .@   )@5        f
 e
end
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudente_s227 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  gsteckel@vergi /  Re: Chuck Harrison's great article
     
Originally-From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel -
Sun BOS Hardware CONTRACTOR)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chuck Harrison's great article
Date: 4 May 1993 21:06:58 GMT
Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, MA (617) 332-9252

In article <930503181958.23c020a5@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I would like to congratulate Chuck Harrison for writing a great article
>on power measurement.  He has hit (almost) every trick in my bag.  He even
Yes.  Good stuff!
 
>I do not yet agree that a very high speed current source is what is wanted.  I
>think that a very slow one and proper measurement (2x cutoff frequency sampling
 
I see a problem here: we don't _know_ the noise (non-constant V & I)
exists.  Why not characterize it?
 
What about broadband spectrum analyzers on both voltage and current?
You'd probably need 2: 1 from dc-50KHz or so, from someone like
Audio Precision (accurate to .01% or better over that range, with
data down to -120 dB or better), and one from 50KHz->light.  Dunno
who makes the 'best' ones these days (HP, Tek, ??).
 
This technique is used by people detecting bugs both in circuits
and in embassies.
 
The spectrum analyzers have very accurate sampling A/Ds and
filters (or equivalent for UHF & above), followed by analysis.
The data compression is impressive!
 
Advantages: put a quantitative number on the maximum error due
to sampling.  Once the spectrum of noise is identified, less $$
equipment may be applied and a strategy for accurate measurements
designed.
 
Disadvantages: needs careful interpretation of data, equipment $$$.
 
You should be able to rent/borrow/beg for a few days, though.
--
        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:
cuddy4 cudengsteckel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Melting Cubes
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Melting Cubes
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 20:49:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

     In 1989, the discussion in alt.fusion apparently centered about whether
     desorption of deuterium from the highly loaded electrode could
     melt the electrode (i.e. not combustion).  It is unfortunate
     that the archives do not contain messages before 16 April 1989
     (and I suspect they do not contain all of them after that date either,
     propagation of the alt subnet being what it is) since
     the conversation apparently started then.
 
     Anyway, below is me from 16 April 1989.  My change in attitude is quite
     interesting, and I have no idea where I obtained heats of desorption
     at high loading and the specific heat of the Pd-D system,
     the numbers I have now area bit lower, the old ones may be
     more accurate since I was very interested in this at the time but
     I'm a bit suspicious that the C_p and the heat of absorption
     are the same number to the precision given.  The numbers may
     have come from 'The Palladium-Hydrogen System' by Lewis, but
     I don't have time to look right now.
                                          2
     (by the way, in the succeeding blurb  H is deuterium)
 
Bass from 1989 writes:
>Once again, Pons and Fleischmann melted an electrode....
>
>     ... A simple back of the envelope calculation shows
>     that the exothermic reaction of the desorption of deuterium
>     could not cause a high enough rate of heating to melt the
>     cathode.
>
>                            2                 2                2
>     Heat of absorption of   H ~ 8000 cal/mol  H = 33600 J/mol  H
>
>                                 3
>     density of Pd  =~ 12 gm / cm
>
>                                                        2
>     specific heat of Pd-D system = C  = 33.6 J/deg mol  H
>                                     p
 
***** I have no idea where I picked up numbers on the
     heat capacity of the Pd-D system based on D, all my notes
     from this time are in storage or gone.  Most of the
     stuff having to do with 'coldfusion' is gone. *****
 
>     largest Pons and Fleischmann rod volume is 1.3 cm
>                                                            2
>     If we liberally assume that the Pd lattice soaks up 2   H
>     per Pd then the largest rod ingests ~ 0.3 mol of deuterium.
 
***** note the ridiculous loading *****
 
>     Also assume for grins that the rod starts at 400K.
>                   2
>     If all of the  H flees the lattice simultaneously, we can determine the
>     change in temperature via
>
>                  C  delta T = delta Q
>                   p
>
>                                        2            2
>                  delta Q = 33600 J/mol  H * 0.3 mol  H = 10,800 J
>
>
>      So
>
>                 T - 400K = (1 / 33.6) * 10800
>
>      or
>
>                 T ~= 500 K
 
***** should be around 700 K with these numbers, but the C_p may be
     a bit high, judging by the only other number I have right now for
     unloaded palladium *****
 
>      which is still not enough to melt the Pd electrode.  Note that
>      we have assumed instantaneous desorption which is not realistic
>      even for Pd-H.  I think that we are going to have to be more creative
>      than just lattice energy to explain this one....
 
     In retrospect, if the coefficients are correct we can add
     maybe 1000 J from this mechanism to the available heating
     for deuterium coming out of the lattice.
 
     In any case, some of the old articles are quite amusing to
     read.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Amusing quotation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Amusing quotation
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 21:16:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

     Continuing this blast from the past, I got rather a big kick
     out of another posting of mine from 4 May 1989.  I'll leave
     the name of the original poster out to minimize the chance of getting
     ribbed mercilessly, if he's even still reading.
 
Bass (1989):
>Unnamed poster:
>>F & P have caused many man-years of effort to be wasted.  Scorn is
>>an appropriate response.  So is pity.
>>
>
>     Save your pity.  The electrochemists do not need it.
>
>                         dale bass
 
     Looking back, I may have been wrong about the pity thing
     (humour implied).
 
                         dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / J Lewis /  Re: The answer will come later
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The answer will come later
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 21:31:41 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930504161609_72240.1256_EHK12-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Terry suggests:
>
>     "You know, all that is needed, really, is for you or someone else to
>     provide (say on this net) a _full recipe in excruciating detail_ of how
>     to fully and reliably reproduce nice, _high energy_ palladium
>     'vaporization' events comparable to the original F&P one..."
>
>The object of cold fusion research is to make the reaction completely
>controllable and predictable. What is required is a complete, step-by-step
>understanding of every aspect of the process. Nobody on earth understands it,
>consequently, nobody can give a "full recipe" yet. If you read the literature,
>you will see that the recipes are getting better year by year, so there can be
>no question that a full recipe will appear eventually. When this research is
>complete, years from now, you will be able to find all the "excruciating
>detail" you want, in any textbook on the subject.
>
>Terry, like so many other "skeptics," wants the answer NOW, before the work is
>done. He wants to eat the bread before the wheat is fully grown, long before
>the crop is harvested. This is childish, irrational and illogical.
 
In an earlier posting, the same person has said,
 
>... science always works in the end. There can be no question that a CF
>generator is possible, because prolonged, high power, high temperature CF
>reactions have been observed in hundreds of experiments, in many different
>laboratories.
 
 and again,
 
> ... CF,
>by contrast, has been replicated thousands of time by now, in hundreds of
>different labs. Furthermore, the methods used to measure CF heat are not
>highly complex. On the contrary, calorimetry is dead simple; ...
 
It is, of course, understandable that much remains to be worked out before
CF can be industrially viable (although full comprehension of the details
of a process is not necessary for its applicability); but given the many
successes cited above, surely a _full recipe, even for a somewhat
_half-baked product, might be made available to satisfy Terry?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / J Lewis /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 22:05:31 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <C6HLv8.46A@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <19930503.180312.940@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
 ...
>>        I believe you are allowing your distaste for Feynman's actions
>>in this particular episode to unduly color your opinion of his overall
>>contribution to the investigation which I believe was highly positive.
>>        I do not believe it should have been a NTSB type investigation.
>>Such an investigation is primarily geared to finding the immediate cause
>>of an accident.  In the case of Challenger this was pretty obvious and
>>there was little likelyhood of an investigation getting it wrong.  How-
>>ever the root cause of the accident was political.  NASA feels compelled
>>to lie in order to sell its programs to Congress and then is under great
>>pressure to achieve the impossible.
>>        While the immediate technical problem which caused the accident
>>has (presumedly) been fixed, the more serious underlying political
>>problem does not appear to have been addressed.  In this sense the in-
>>vestigation did turn out badly.
>
>    In this sense, of course it 'failed', that's part of what I'm on about.
>
>    And while I agree about the obvious political problems,
>    I do not agree that such investigations should
>    be political.  'NTSB type' investigations are perfectly capable
>    of fixing procedures as well as making technical recommendations
>    that are followed.
>
>>        Finally you appear to believe for some reason that being a Nobel
>>Laureate is indicative of technical incompetence.  Feynman was as well
>>qualified as anyone to investigate the accident.
>>                          James B. Shearer
>
>    Not at all, but a couple of things get in the way.  Foremost among
>    them is that such people have no experience with such systems
>    or such investigations. However, the thought that Nobel Laureates
>    generally, and theoretical physicists specifically, are
>    'as qualified as anyone' to pursue such investigations is laughable.
>    The NTSB itself would have been a better choice.
>
>                           dale bass
 
Is it perhaps Feynman's lack of an iron ring that is biting you?  Feynman
had an exceptionally broad background, as detailed in Gleick's biography
and his own autobiographical sketches.
He had a responsible position in the Manhattan Project, which was comparable
in size and complexity with the Space Shuttle project (I would think that
each of the major subcomponents of the Manhattan Project was comparable to
the Space Shuttle).  Oppenheimer seems to have used him as a troubleshooter,
for example in setting up the Hanford River plant.  All in all,
Feynman should have had an excellent idea of how a large project works, and
the "nose" to sense when something was wrong.
 
I have had no experience with "forensic engineering", but remember a long
conversation I once had with a forensic chemist.  He emphasized that
there were few general rules in that field; each case was unique;
evidence was never complete and was often corrupted; and what was needed
was a thorough understanding of basics, and a good imagination in applying
them to the specifics of each situation.  The only way to learn forensic
chemistry was to do it.
 
 
There lurks about your posting, Mr. Bass, a classificatory rigidity which
bites ME.  I feel, and I may be misinterpreting, that for you a "Nobel
Laureate" is that and nothing more, that a "theoretical physicist" does
that and nothing more, and could never fix his own car or paint a picture
or whatever.  Crash investigation is undoubtedly some variety of engineering
and I feel that you think that unless a person has gone through the
appropriate ceremony and become a P.E., that person had best have nothing
to do with such investigation.  Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 / Ad aspera /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: 4 May 1993 16:52 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

Why Feynman?  Irrespective of his technical expertise, let me say
that there's a time and place for the blue-ribbon panel in addition
to the peer-review panel consisting of specialized experts.
 
As I recall (and these are my own words, not those of any official
report) the root cause of the Challenger disaster was a flaw,
presumably since repaired, in the shuttle program's management
culture.  Feynman really nailed that one with his famous "for nature
cannot be fooled" comment.  His personality had force and his name
carried weight -- a couple of nonphysical attributes, badly needed
in this instance, that are not necessarily possessed by just anybody
who happens to have the engineering credentials to analyze an accident.
 
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Chuck Harrison's great article
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chuck Harrison's great article
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 00:27:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1s6ltj$efl@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.
OM (Geoff Steckel - Sun BOS Hardware CONTRACTOR) writes:
 
>I see a problem here: we don't _know_ the noise (non-constant V & I)
>exists.  Why not characterize it?
>
>What about broadband spectrum analyzers on both voltage and current?
>You'd probably need 2: 1 from dc-50KHz or so, from someone like
>Audio Precision (accurate to .01% or better over that range, with
>data down to -120 dB or better), and one from 50KHz->light.  Dunno
>who makes the 'best' ones these days (HP, Tek, ??).
>
I have it on the best of authority (none other than Jed Rothwell) that
there is _no_ noise in the system at all. He tells me that McKubre looked
at the input power with an oscilloscope and found nothing but DC. :-)
 
Actually, I think that Tom Droege was speaking about a _MUCH_ slower
AC than you're thinking of. I have no doubt that the sort of current
supplies being used are pretty quiet. Yet the bubbling and possible
insullating layers that can form and reform could cause resistance changes
in bursts that are beyond the capability of the supplies to regulate.
I would think that it would look like 'popcorn' noise and so would
probably be difficult to measure with a spectrum analyzer. There is
also the other natural sources of noise in the regulators and of
course there is also possible noise interference in the measuring
equipment. This last is a very common source of noise in experiments
because very often the leads and interconnecting wiring on experiments
is crudely done because experimenters are looking for gross effects
and this measuring noise is invariably of low order (McKubre's 2.6%
is a pretty low order result though.)
 
But Tom Droege has stated here that McKubre is careful in his work if not
completely forthcoming in his documentation. I accept Tom D's assessment
since he knows the man personally.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  P&F neutrons; X-rays as crucial test of nuclear origin of xs heat
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F neutrons; X-rays as crucial test of nuclear origin of xs heat
Date: 4 May 93 18:18:07 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Sometimes the discussion with Mitchell Swartz seems never-ending.  But I
think some new insights may emerge, so I will try again:
 
In article <C6DM5B.FHs@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>       In Message-ID: <1993Apr30.172203.605@physc1.byu.edu>
>       Subject: Re: References to F&P's retractions
>  Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
> =sj  "When Salamon et al. of the U. of Utah looked for neutrons from Pons'
> =sj own cells a few months later in the summer of 1989, none were found
> =sj at the 1 n/sec level; P&F had claimed about 40,000 n/sec in their
> =sj original paper."
>
>   Re: not working "a few months later"
>
>   Not all palladium pieces are reported to work initially and
>      some are reported to undergo considerable change during some
>      of the irregular anomalous events.
>
>   Was it claimed to have been working four months later?
>   If not functional at that time,
>     and given that the reactions are neutronpenic, so what?
>
 
Actually, Pons claimed the cell was working a "few months later," BUT
ironically only when Salamon's detectors had lost power.  With double irony,
Salamon et al. were able to show that their NaI detector was sensitive to
nuclear particles even when turned off; that is, latent
radioactivity should have been left in
the NaI itself which would show up when they turned the power back on.
But *nothing* showed up in the detector:  there was just *no* latent "image"
of nuclear effects during the time Dr. Pons claimed xs heat!  Oops.
 
There is an even stronger refutation of the initial neutron claims by Pons,
Fleischmann which comes from their *own* detector.  This was pointed out by
R. Petrasso et al. in Nature correspondance, 339:667-669 (29 June 1989):
 
"we find no evidence for the emission 2.22-MeV neutron-capture-on-hydrogen
gamma-rays from the water bath surrounding their heat-producting cell.
Quantitatively this can be interpreted as imposing an upper bound of 400
neutrons/sec for the production of neutrons.  This limit is a factor of 100
times smaller than the neutron rate Fleischmann et al. claim to have
actually observed [ref. J. Electro. Chem. 261:301, 1989]."
 
Interesting, isn't it?  P&F first claimed to see neutrons at 40,000/sec. in
two counters, a crude health-physics monitor, and a water bath viewed by a
NaI counter.  They claimed that the latter gave a signal at 2.2 MeV in their
original paper as published, but when challenged by Petrasso et al. P&F
retracted
this claim and admitted that the peak was instead at 2.496 MeV. {Fleischmann
et al. Nature 339:667, 29 June 1989}  But then Petrasso takes this a step
further, using the *absence* of the 2.22 MeV peak in their published spectrum
from the NaI crystal, which was after all taking data *at the time* when
the electrolytic cell was
supposedly generating xs heat via fusion reactions.  (At that time, P&F claimed
it was *fusion*.)   By the *absence* of the
2.22 MeV signal, which P&F admitted finally, Petrasso et al. were able to
set an upper limit on neutron production *during the xs heat period*
of 400 n/s, or 1% of the neutron rate claimed by P&F.  Ooooooooops.
 
>
> =sj "Why people continue to make highly-publicised claims with such poor
> =sj detectors -- I include here X-ray films as used in the China Lake expts.
> =sj by Miles et al. instead of X-ray spectrometers -- is difficult to
> =sj understand."
>
>   As I remember you made your own retraction here after knocking both
> Kucherov's published x-ray film, and radiologists around the world with a
> bold stroke.  INMO there was confusion of a reciprocal
> space image with a direct space (physical) image.  - Both have their uses -
> The importance is that such x-ray film records can be very useful  because
> they provide spatial time-integrated recordings of the x-ray distribution
> when they are used appropriately.
>
>   It is noted that the papers to which you refer appear to have done
> experiments wherein full adequate controls were undertaken (and published
> in the papers).   You wouldn't have nixed these papers if you were their
> reviewer, would you?    :)
>
>   If one wants to record what is in front of one, a photograph seems
> more useful than a "detector" in many instances.  That's why they say:
> "A single-location single-parameter, frequency-limited, bit stream is worth
> a thousand words"       ;)
>                                 Best wishes.
>                                                  Mitchell
 
I did not "knock ... radiologists around the world".  With regard to a
"retraction", perhaps you are referring to the
fact that I found that the Kucherov paper I originally cited had no ref. to
X-ray film measurements (as I correctly stated), but another about which I
later learned about did show on X-ray photograph.  (This was months ago on
this net.)  Of course, this was a
different paper (not grounds for a retraction).
However, I have no interest in getting embroiled in an argument with you
about semantics.  None whatsoever.  ("Neutronpenic" indeed.)
 
Kucherov did not show X-ray films of any controls.  The Miles et al. dental
X-ray films show damage due to "peeling away of the emulsion"  (Miles et al.
J. Electro. Chem 346: 99, 1993) .  X-ray films are clearly subject to
artifacts and damage in the environment of these experiments,
as admitted by Miles and discussed previously here.
 
On the other hand, X-ray spectrometers provide *quantitative* data regarding
the *energy* of the X-ray source.   (The *intensity* data is important, too.)
Spectrometers are much harder to fool that
X-ray film, I assert, with regard to the detection of the presence or
absence of nuclear reactions in electrolytic cells.
 
IF nuclear reactions are occurring in Pd at
a rate sufficient to produce xs heat, then copious X-rays characteristic of
excitations in Pd must be present -- as I have been arguing for a long time,
on this net for over six months.  Others have joined the chorus calling for
such tests, including recently John Logajan.
 
It is with acute disappointment (but not surprise)
that I read about the most recent P&F paper,
"The signatures of fusion - production of tritium, neutrons, protons, helium
and radiation are fuzzy, and moreover, Pons and Fleischmann do not
even refer to them in their paper."   (From L'Express article translation)
 
This is a sad state of affairs.
 
Note that McKubre has looked for nuclear products such as helium and tritium,
and has found *no evidence* for these.  It is not enough to argue that he
is doing careful experiments, to infer that the small amount of xs heat he
is seeing is nuclear in origin.
 
Using dental X-ray films (Miles, Szpak, Dufour, Srinivasan, etc.),
 geiger counters (Miles et al., P&F, Bush),
claiming helium production when glass is present in the system (Miles,
Yamaguchi, P&F early on, also Paneth & Peters in late 1920's),
using health-physics (BF-3 type) monitors for neutron detection (Yamaguchi,
P&F early on) --
get serious, guys!  The hour is late. Use energy-sensitive detectors, good
ones.  We may even let you use ours.  Ask.
A straightforward X-ray spectrometer system is cheap (we built a portable
one for < $6 K and demonstrated it at the Nagoya meeting) and reliable,
and available from us for reasonable studies.  So there is really no excuse
for not accepting our challenge to look for X-rays with a good X-ray
spectrometer.
 
And unless and until you find serious evidence that there are nuclear
products or by-products (such as X-rays) corresponding *quantitatively* with
xs heat claimed, stop pretending that the "heat must be nuclear" .
 
-- Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 01:24:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6Iw18.Knx@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis) writes:
 
>There lurks about your posting, Mr. Bass, a classificatory rigidity which
>bites ME.  I feel, and I may be misinterpreting, that for you a "Nobel
>Laureate" is that and nothing more, that a "theoretical physicist" does
>that and nothing more, and could never fix his own car or paint a picture
>or whatever.  Crash investigation is undoubtedly some variety of engineering
>and I feel that you think that unless a person has gone through the
>appropriate ceremony and become a P.E., that person had best have nothing
>to do with such investigation.  Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you.
 
     Okay, you've just had a billion dollar piece of hardware
     blow up.  You've got a number of people dead.  Is this time for
     on-the-job training?  Should we pack the panel with a bunch of
     people who have never done such things before?  After all, that's
     what they did.  And it has nothing to do with ceremonies, there
     are any number of competent people on the planet, but to assert
     that a certain physicist is 'just as qualified as any other
     person' seems incorrect.  There are people who do such stuff for
     a living.
 
     Further, can you imagine a member of the NTSB getting out in front of the
     cameras and demonstrating a stunt that *he* says shows the cause
     of the accident long before the investigation is finished?
     Even further, the NTSB affects change in a multibillion dollar industry
     without having many famous people hanging around.  All that is necessary
     is the observation that politics, including playing to the cameras,
     is detrimental to accident investigations.
 
     I fully realize that there are people will continue to think Feynman
     a hero for the episode that we're discussing, but I do not share
     that opinion.  It seems to me to be the antithesis of how such an
     investigation should proceed.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / J Lewis /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 04:11:54 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <C6J58y.7ss@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Okay, you've just had a billion dollar piece of hardware
>     blow up.  You've got a number of people dead.  Is this time for
>     on-the-job training?
As shuttle disasters are fortunately uncommon, the investigators,
whoever they are, are going to have to train themselves on the job
to a degree.  I don't know of any University that has a course on
"Analysis of Catastrophic Failures in Space Shuttles."  Does NASA?
 
>       Should we pack the panel with a bunch of
>     people who have never done such things before?  After all, that's
>     what they did.
Politics, dirty politics.  Well, we had a crash a few years ago of
an airliner in Gander, Newfoundland, which you might have heard about
because it killed about 200 American servicemen returning from the Middle
East.  The crash has been ruled an accident but there have been allegations
that a bomb was involved, and that the experienced investigators knew
only too well that their political masters did not want that possibility
seriously explored.
 
>       And it has nothing to do with ceremonies, there
>     are any number of competent people on the planet,
 
I would say that, because of the dearth of shuttle disasters, there are
NO competent people on the planet, competent in the way that one
would expect an experienced team of air crash investigators to be.
 
>        All that is necessary
>     is the observation that politics, including playing to the cameras,
>     is detrimental to accident investigations.
 
I strongly agree.
>
>     I fully realize that there are people will continue to think Feynman
>     a hero for the episode that we're discussing, but I do not share
>     that opinion.
Nor do I.  I think that he was put in as a "token techie", found he
could do some good, and did it.  People are not heroes for doing their
duty!  Feynman was part of a media circus, so he played the part of
a circus performer.
 
>       It seems to me to be the antithesis of how such an
>     investigation should proceed.
 
I strongly agree.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More questions about boiling cells
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More questions about boiling cells
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 18:18:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3F3204AAAD5F2159D4@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) in
>FD 987:
>>In article <0096BFE9.F999F4A0.12619@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>>>blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>[...]
>>>11. How the heck do they measure anything?
>
>>     I'm with you here.  I cannot imagine how they get good numbers during
>>     'boildown'.
>
>Once again, "let's be fair": I haven't heard that they even tried to get
>numbers from the boiling cell, it was a demo to show the tremendous amount of
>energy coming from that little Pd wire. One might legitimately throw quite a
>bit of doubt on this boiling cell, but we can't criticise them for something
>they presumably didn't do. I still wonder why it should boil DRY. Noone who
 
    I guess the point would be that if they don't have good measurements
    the enthalpy calculations could be misleading or worthless since the
    power input would be unknown.  Basically, if that wire is on the
    edge between nucleate and film boiling, I can see massive rapid transients
    occuring in the power input since you're taking away electrolyte
    contact from the 'wire' (quotes because I do not know the electrode
    volume, nor have I ever seen the demo).  Imagine the reaction of a
    constant current supply as the electrode contact with the electrolyte
    goes to zero.
 
    So if they did do measurements, I don't know how they did good ones.
    And if they didn't, I don't know how they make the claims of massive
    enthalpy production.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 /  crb7q@watt.sea /  Pd heat of fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.virginia.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd heat of fusion
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 18:25:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

    Jake Blanchard was kind enough to mail me the following:
 
>> My little book on the elements (appropriately entitled "The Elements")
>> gives
>>
>> delta H fusion = 17.2 kJ/mol
>>
>> for palladium.  Also,
>>
>> delta H vap = 361.5 kJ/mol
 
     So the 20 kJ/mol that I assumed was about right for order of
     magnitude calculations.
 
                              dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 18:39:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930505140404_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Here is an interesting thought: Nowadays, if you want to make a lightbulb, you
>start by going to the MIT library and getting an armload of textbooks. As
>everyone knows, thousands of lightbulbs are manufactured every day; it is a
>"cut and dried" process. However, I expect that if the average reader of this
>forum was to set out to make one from scratch with ordinary laboratory
>equipment, he or she would spend many frustrating months breaking glass,
>trying to master the technique. Most jobs are harder than they look.
 
     This is a joke, right?  Get some tungsten wire, a very thick
     glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a power supply and one can make a perfectly
     operational but crappy 'bulb' in minutes.  Technique comes in
     to making the glass very thin, making the light acceptable
     and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen
     right off the bat.  Even better than that, one can probably
     find stuff in an 'ordinary laboratory' supply room to make something
     in neon.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: 5 May 93 20:17:57 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930505140404_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
...........
>Naturally, you cannot do CF as well as Pons and Fleischmann can, because they
>have tons of money, tons of practice, and they are years ahead of you.
...............
 
It seems to me that whatever they do, it's not CF - otherwise they
would long ago have died from the neutron dose.  Furthermore, I
question whether they do anything well - with the possible exception of
raising money from hopeful outsiders.  P & F have repeatedly claimed
that they would soon show some marvelous thing that could be quickly
put to use by the public - like water heaters, but neither I nor anyone
else has seen a convincing demonstration.  If you are convinced, Jed,
then I have some bridges I would like to show you.
 
 
..........
>There have been some calls here for a full disclosure of P&F's technique. I
>would like to remind readers that describing corporate trade secrets in
>detail, in the open literature, would probably violate criminal statues, and
>would certainly be insane.
 
I fail to see how this would violate criminal statutes, unless the
corporate trade secrets were the property of someone else who didn't
want them known.  In any case, if there really was something there,
they would have applied for patents - trade secrets are very difficult
to keep if there is real interest by others.
 
 
Anyway, I don't understand why P & F are so interested in making
converts - at this point.  If they really know what they are doing,
they should just make water heaters and get filthy rich.  That will
convert all the skeptics without even trying.
 
Oh, and Jed, please don't send me any mail about this, I am tired of
being called an idiot by you.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 22:57:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <13738@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
    Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Arnold Frisch [Tektronix Laboratories; arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM] writes:
 
== "It seems to me that whatever they do, it's not CF - otherwise they
==  would long ago have died from the neutron dose."
 
   As was discussed here, and in a copious literature, CF simply
 does not produce copious quantities of neutrons.
   The CF reactions are neutronpenic in the vast majority of cases.
 
   Therefore the  "death by neutron dose" illogic, as has previously been
promulgated by skeptics who have conducted a less than thorough reading of
the literature, is inappropriate.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: 5 May 1993 23:13:55 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
: There have been some calls here for a full disclosure of P&F's technique. I
: would like to remind readers that describing corporate trade secrets in
: detail, in the open literature, would probably violate criminal statues, and
: would certainly be insane. This is the real world, after all. Expecting Toyota
: to describe the exact metallurgy of the cathode is like expecting Intel to
: hand over the blueprints for the Pentium processor; it is completely absurd
: and out of the question.
 
Actually if you want a patent, that's exactly what you're required to
do.
 
No.
 
People can buy 486's. Even though Intel doesn't give out its
secrets, we can at least verify to our own satisfaction that it
gets 10 SpecMarks or so, and don't believe in Marketing Mips.
 
If Intel claimed that their Sextium got 5 billion Specmarks and only used
two microwatts of power running at fifteen hertz, I think it wouldn't be
unreasonable to say "we'll belive it when we can buy it."
 
: - Jed
 
--
-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:
cuddy5 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: More questions about boiling cells
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More questions about boiling cells
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 11:33:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) in
FD 987:
 
>In article <0096BFE9.F999F4A0.12619@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>>blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu writes:
[...]
>>11. How the heck do they measure anything?
 
>     I'm with you here.  I cannot imagine how they get good numbers during
>     'boildown'.
 
Once again, "let's be fair": I haven't heard that they even tried to get
numbers from the boiling cell, it was a demo to show the tremendous amount of
energy coming from that little Pd wire. One might legitimately throw quite a
bit of doubt on this boiling cell, but we can't criticise them for something
they presumably didn't do. I still wonder why it should boil DRY. Noone who
has seen the video can tell me whether it actually does. And whether there
are the expected gobs and splatters of salt near the end, and just where that
wire is, and does it get red hot as it gets exposed to the air, etc. I am
trying to get a Euro-TV-compatible copy of this famous tape, to see for
myself.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Bruce Hoult /  A Simulation
     
Originally-From: Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Simulation
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 23:22:17 +1300 (NZDT)

Tom Droege writes:
> ESum = ESum + ECell 'add up the voltage samples
> ISum = ISum + ICell 'add up the current samples
> PSum = PSum + (ECell * ICell) 'add up the instantaneous power increments
> NEXT i
> PSum = PSum / N  'mean instantaneous power
> PSumA = (ESum * ISum) / N^2 'mean power using average E and I
> PSumR = PSumA / PSum 'ratio of mean power to instantaneous power
 
 
I know this was just a simple example program, but I'm wondering whether it's
worth doing something a little more sophisticated than just adding up the
instantaneous samples to get the integral under the power curve.
 
Have you considered using something as simple as Simpson's rule?  Instead of
adding all the samples, calculate the sum p(1) + 4*p(2) + 2*p(3) + 4*p(4) +
2*p(5) + ... + 4*p(n-2) + 2*p(n-1) + p(n) and then dividing by 3(n-1).
 
This views the samples as being instantaneous at the boundaries between periods,
where the value being measured varies continuously during the time between
samples.  It implicitly fits a series of parabolic curves to the samples, and
integrates the area under those curves.
 
Perhaps this extra work isn't needed, but it's only a *little* extra work, and I
dont think it can hurt...
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBruce cudfnBruce cudlnHoult cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 14:02:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Before y'all go off even further into speculations about the vaporised Pd
cube of F&P, here is what they say in their paper:
 
"...a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point 1554 C), part
of it vapourised, and the cell and contents and part of the fume cupboard
housing the experiment were destroyed".
 
This is not the same as saying that the whole cube vaporised. In Table 1,
where they summarise results, the cube is described as measuring 1 x 1 x 1 cm
and there is a capitalised warning next to it, saying WARNING! IGNITION?
which nuclear people take to mean nuclear ignition, as in a nuclear bomb.
Whether this was intended or not, only F&P can tell.
 
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes in FD 987:
 
>Has anyone any actual experimental data on this?  Nothing I have mentions
>combustive release of the hydrogen from either powder or a solid block, let
>alone from an electrolytically overloaded block.
 
Well, Kreysa, Marx and Plieth, report in J. Electroanal. Chem. 266 (1989)
437, exposing a 0.1 * 1 * 2 cm sheet of Pd, charged with deuterium, to air
on a piece of wood, and it scorched it. Repeating this, but now laying the
sheet onto two glass rods, they measured a temperature rise to 418 C within
74 s, and calculate that this corresponds to a heat flow density of about
180 W/cm^3. So, yes, something along these lines has been tried. The
conclusions the authors reached can be and have been argued about.
 
For those who still want to make their own calculations, my lovely little book
"The Elements" by John Emsley gives you delH(fusion) of Pd = 17.2 kJ/mol and
delH(vap) = 361.5 kJ/mol. The first figure agrees fairly well with that given
by the Gmelin Pd volume, written in 1941 (how could anyone write a book like
that at such a time??), (16.2 kJ/mol) but the second deviates considerably
from it (460). I assume Emsley is more up to date. I mention this only in
case some of you look this up in Gmelin and get confused.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Jed Rothwell /  First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: First, read the literature
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 14:36:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
J. Lewis asks:
 
"It is, of course, understandable that much remains to be worked out before CF
can be industrially viable (although full comprehension of the details of a
process is not necessary for its applicability); but given the many successes
cited above, surely a _full recipe, even for a somewhat _half-baked product,
might be made available to satisfy Terry?"
 
Yes, of course. As I said in my first message:
 
     If you read the literature, you will see that the recipes are getting
     better year by year, so there can be no question that a full recipe will
     appear eventually.
 
It is all there, you just have to read the papers, do your homework, and
practice your technique. If you can learn, say, gourmet French cooking, or
surgery, then I am sure you can read the literature and learn how generate CF
heat at a modest 20% to 70% excess. I know many, many people who have
succeeded in doing so, albeit usually after months of practice. The job is
hard, but far easier than making an incandescent lightbulb was in 1878, when
Edison and his people had to reinvent the vacuum pump, and cross hundreds of
other technical hurdles.
 
Here is an interesting thought: Nowadays, if you want to make a lightbulb, you
start by going to the MIT library and getting an armload of textbooks. As
everyone knows, thousands of lightbulbs are manufactured every day; it is a
"cut and dried" process. However, I expect that if the average reader of this
forum was to set out to make one from scratch with ordinary laboratory
equipment, he or she would spend many frustrating months breaking glass,
trying to master the technique. Most jobs are harder than they look.
 
Naturally, you cannot do CF as well as Pons and Fleischmann can, because they
have tons of money, tons of practice, and they are years ahead of you. They
are not going to tell you exactly how to replicate their best results, because
that information cost Toyota many millions of dollars, and it is worth
billions of dollars. EPRI and SRI -- both world class R&D organizations --
have spent many millions, and they are still miles behind P&F, so obviously,
it is not an easy task.
 
There have been some calls here for a full disclosure of P&F's technique. I
would like to remind readers that describing corporate trade secrets in
detail, in the open literature, would probably violate criminal statues, and
would certainly be insane. This is the real world, after all. Expecting Toyota
to describe the exact metallurgy of the cathode is like expecting Intel to
hand over the blueprints for the Pentium processor; it is completely absurd
and out of the question. Any businessman with an ounce of sense knows that.
Frankly, the sales literature from IMRA goes into more detail than I expected,
and more than I think is wise.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Violating statues
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Violating statues
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 15:51:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I just uploaded yet another hilarious spell check induced malapropism. This
should earn me the 1993 award for hilarious computer assisted mistakes
(someone should collect these in a book):
 
     "describing corporate trade secrets in detail... would probably violate
     criminal statues"
 
I meant "statutes" as in "laws." I expect that violating statues, like the
ones in Central Park NYC, is illegal too, and mighty embarrassing if the
police catch you in the act.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 18:00:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick points out that with the accepted branching ratio, it is easy to
measure neutrons.  That is true.
 
By the time we started serious work, early June of 89, it was already obvious
that Pons and Fleischmann were not glowing in the dark.  So the choice was
either a tough neutron measurement or a tough calorimetry measurement.  Being
in high energy physics, and actually having worked on a neutron experiment,
E-272 at Argonne, (but a high energy one) I was able to run around and try to
borrow (steal) appropriate equipment.  It quickly became obvious that my
basement would not hold everything, even if I did succeed in "borrowing" it.
 
A quick experiment with a thermoelectric cooler, and some old heat sinks from
the parts cabinet revealed that I had a chance at beating the standard
calorimetry.  So there was no question in my mind as to path.  The calorimetry
path was a win-win path, even if "cold fusion" was a dud, the calorimetry
might prove to be a winner.  With neutrons there was little hope for "cold
fusion" and no hope of becomming a world class expert in neutrons.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / p thieberger /  Re: A Simulation
     
Originally-From: thieber@bnlux1.bnl.gov (peter thieberger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simulation
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 12:21:40 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

What do you mean  "(Ugh!) QuickBASIC" ?! Now with fast PCs, programming
time and effort is the bottleneck and QuickBASIC is superior to anything
else, 95% of the time!
 
About simulations, it seems to me that a hardware simulation would be even
better and could perhaps also calibrate the experiment. I propose the
following:
 
1) Place a second cell in series with the main cell and make them as
identical as you can from the thermostatic point of view. This way you
have identical instantaneous currents in both cells.
 
2) Inside the second cell place an electronically variable resistor (i.e.
transistors, etc.) and regulate this impedance so as to keep the voltage
across the second cell identical to the instantaneous voltage across the
first one.
 
If you do this, the input power to both cells will remain the same
regardless of noise. Observed power differences will then be solely due to
gas evolution, chemical changes or anomalous heat.
 
I'll be happy to try and come up with some more detailed electronic
suggestions if you think this is worthwhile doing.
 
=======================================================================
| Peter Thieberger, BNL| INTERNET: PT@BNL.GOV     | 516 282 4581(work)|
| Physics Dep.Bldg.901A| BITNET:THIEBERGER@BNLCL1 | 516 286 0934(home)|
| Upton NY,  11973     | COMPUSERVE:  72371,312   | 516 282 4583(FAX )|
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenthieber cudfnpeter cudlnthieberger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A Simulation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simulation
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 18:03:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2819488936@hoult.actrix.gen.nz> Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz
(Bruce Hoult) writes:
>
>Have you considered using something as simple as Simpson's rule?  Instead of
>adding all the samples, calculate the sum p(1) + 4*p(2) + 2*p(3) + 4*p(4) +
>2*p(5) + ... + 4*p(n-2) + 2*p(n-1) + p(n) and then dividing by 3(n-1).
>
>This views the samples as being instantaneous at the boundaries between periods,
>where the value being measured varies continuously during the time between
>samples.  It implicitly fits a series of parabolic curves to the samples, and
>integrates the area under those curves.
>
>Perhaps this extra work isn't needed, but it's only a *little* extra work, and I
>dont think it can hurt...
 
     It might be interesting, but a priori I'm not sure we're justified in
     making the assumptions that Simpson's rule implies.  It seems
     better to sample more frequently rather than make additional functional
     assumptions about the data.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 5 May 93 18:58:55 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
                 Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
 
               In February 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
          proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
          defense shield (with "Starwars"-type weapons) BASED ON
          RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY.
 
               Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians
          could possibly have that would be of value for the S.D.I.
          research and development program.
 
               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started
          deploying an OPERATIONAL "Starwars" defense system in
          September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since
          that time.  It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE
          BEAM and NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS.
 
               In this article I will describe the Russian system as it
          developed from 1977 to 1983, and give several examples of how
          it was used during that period.  But first I will try to
          convince readers of the credibility of my main source of
          information about it.
 
               My main source is articles published in a weekly
          legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN REPORT (WR), of Brookfield,
          Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 45, zip 53005), written by the late Dr.
          Peter David Beter, a well-respected Washington, DC attorney,
          Doctor of Jurisprudence, and expert and consultant in
          international law, finance, and intelligence, who received
          much of his information from associates in the CIA and other
          intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of
          many of the things happening or being planned behind the
          scenes.  They believed that at least limited public exposure
          might delay and ultimately prevent the worst of those things,
          such as NUCLEAR WAR and NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP, from taking
          place.
 
               Dr. Beter started appearing on local radio and TV talk
          shows, but soon found himself being BANNED from them, as a
          result of government THREATS to cancel broadcast licenses.
          So he started producing monthly one-hour cassette tapes and
          sending them to a growing list of subscribers.  From June 21,
          1975 until November 3, 1982 he recorded eighty (80) "Dr.
          Beter Audio-Letters" (AL), plus eight "Audio Books", and
          three special topic tapes.  On September 1, 1977, Wisconsin
          Report started publishing transcripts of those Audio-Letters.
 
               Based on information from his sources, Dr. Beter
          PREDICTED the bombing of the U.S. Marines in Beirut A FULL
          YEAR BEFORE IT HAPPENED, WARNING that the U.S. Pentagon and
          the Israeli Mossad were CONSPIRING TO DELIBERATELY ARRANGE IT
          in order to try to get Americans angry at the Arabs and
          generate public support for PLANNED military action against
          them, [AL #78, #79, and #80 (11-3-82).].  He reported the
          impending assassination of Anwar Saddat of Egypt SIX DAYS
          BEFORE IT HAPPENED, [AL #68 (9-30-81) and #69.].  And Dr.
          Beter predicted what he called the "retirement" of Leonid
          Brezhnev one week before Brezhnev officially "died", [Note
          that the word "retirement" was used for the TERMINATION OF
          REPLICANTS in the 1982 movie "Blade Runner".], and his quick
          replacement with Andropov which occurred only three days
          after the "death" of Brezhnev, to the surprise of all
          government and media analysts, [AL #80 (11-3-82).].  He could
          "predict" these events because we was INFORMED about the
          PLANS to carry them out.  Subscription application and
          renewal forms for Dr. Beter's tapes would usually say,
          "Subscribe to the Dr. Beter Audio-Letter and watch the news
          start making sense."
 
 
 
          RUSSIA'S SPACE TRIAD OF STAR WARS WEAPONS
 
               In September 1977 the Russians started launching MANNED
          killer satellites, called "COSMOS INTERCEPTORS", armed with
          CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons, into earth orbit, [12-15-77
          WR; and AL #27, Topic 1.].  By April 1978 there were about
          THREE DOZEN of them, and they had FINISHED DESTROYING all
          American spy and early warning satellites, [5-18-78 WR; and
          AL #33, Topic 2.].
 
               On September 27, 1977, in what Dr. Beter called "THE
          BATTLE OF THE HARVEST MOON", a Cosmos Interceptor in Earth
          orbit used a NEUTRON-PARTICLE BEAM to wipe out a secret
          American laser-beam base nearing operational status in
          Copernicus Crater on the Moon, [11-3-77 WR; and AL #26, Topic
          1.].  The Russians quickly deployed their own military bases
          on the Moon, the second leg of their space triad, starting on
          October 4, 1977, with seven EXTREMELY POWERFUL charged-
          particle beam weapons BASES on the near side of the Moon and
          three support bases on the far side, [2-9-78 WR; and AL #29,
          Topic 1.].
 
               The first test of the Moon base weapons occurred on
          November 19, 1977, ironically at about the same time as the
          release of the first "Star Wars" movie with its "death star"
          weapon.  The Russians were aiming at the eye of a cyclone
          near India.  But they miscalculated the deflection of the
          beam by the Earth's magnetic field, and the beam struck the
          ocean too close to the shore causing a TIDAL WAVE that killed
          many people, [2-9-78 WR; and AL #29, Topic 1.].  A blast of
          charged-particle beams from two or more of the Russian Moon
          bases fired in quick succession would create the DESTRUCTIVE
          EFFECT OF A HYDROGEN BOMB on its target.
 
               The third leg of Russia's triad of space weapons is the
          "COSMOSPHERES".  The first-generation Cosmospheres were
          weapons platforms that were ELECTRO-GRAVITIC (could hover
          against gravity), ATOMIC POWERED, horizontally positioned by
          rocket thrusters, somehow invisible to radar beyond about 40
          miles (perhaps from a radar-absorbing coating), armed with
          CHARGED-PARTICLE BEAM weapons (at least a hundred times less
          powerful than those in the Moon bases), equipped with
          "PSYCHO-ENERGETIC RANGE FINDING" (PRF) which tunes in to the
          actual ATOMIC SIGNATURE of a target or object and canNOT be
          jammed, and some of them were also armed with microwave
          BRAIN-SCRAMBLING equipment.
 
               In late 1977 and early 1978, there was a strange rash of
          giant AIR BOOMS along the east coast of the United States and
          elsewhere.  These air booms were NEVER satisfactorily
          explained, by either the government, the scientific
          establishment, or the news media.  They could NOT be
          positively identified with any particular Super Sonic
          Transport plane (SST) or other aircraft, and indeed they were
          MUCH LOUDER than aircraft sonic booms.  The giant airbooms
          were actually caused by Russian Cosmospheres firing CHARGED-
          PARTICLE BEAMS down into the atmosphere in a DEFOCUSED MODE
          (spread out) for the purpose of announcing their presence to
          the WAR-MONGERS in the United States Pentagon.  [2-9-78 WR;
          and AL #29, Topic 1.].
 
 
               The main purpose of any "Star Wars" defense system is to
          protect a country against nuclear attack.  During the weekend
          of January 20, 1980, Russian Cosmospheres accomplished such a
          mission.  A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE against Russia by the then
          BOLSHEVIK-CONTROLLED United States was being started with a
          total of 82 special secret aircraft that can sneak up to a
          country's shoreline under water, surface, change configura-
          tion, take off, and fly at treetop level to their targets.
          Dr. Beter describes part of the action in his Audio-Letter
          #53, recorded on January 21, 1980: "At that point the real
          action got under way, in the Caspian Sea and off northern
          Norway.  The Subcraft, with Israeli pilots, were on their
          way.  They were traveling under water on the first legs of
          their attack missions....
 
          "Late Saturday night, Washington time, a coded signal was
          flashed to the Subcraft to continue as planned.  By that
          time, the northern contingent of Subcraft were in the White
          Sea.  The southern contingent had reached the north end of
          the Caspian Sea.  It was already daylight, Sunday morning,
          the 20th, for the Subcraft contingents.  Their orders were to
          wait out the day under water, out of sight; then, after
          nightfall, they were to continue their steady approach to get
          close to their targets.  The Subcraft were maintaining strict
          radio silence.  They were also deep enough under water to be
          invisible from the air to either the eye or radar, yet they
          were also hugging the shoreline in water too shallow for
          Russian sonar to pick them up.  And their infrared signatures
          were negligible as the result of extensive development.  In
          short, by the standards of Western technology, they were
          undetectable.  But in AUDIO-LETTER No. 42 I revealed Russia's
          master secret weapon.  It is called "Psycho-energetic Range
          Finding" or PRF.  It is unlike sonar and similar techniques.
          PRF tunes in to the actual atomic signature of a target, and
          there is no method known by which PRF can be jammed.
 
               "By deploying their Navy to the Arabian Sea, the
          Russians are pretending to be fooled by the Bolshevik
          distraction with the aircraft carriers.  In this way they
          encouraged the Bolsheviks to launch the Subcraft toward their
          targets.  They waited until the Subcraft were far away from
          their bases and out of sight of the Bolsheviks, who are
          directing the American first-strike operation.  But the whole
          time they were being tracked by Cosmospheres overhead using
          PRF, and shortly after 1:00 A.M. yesterday morning Eastern
          Standard Time, the Cosmospheres began firing their Charged
          Particle Beam Weapons.  There were 10 Subcraft in the White
          Sea.  Each disappeared in a blinding blue white water spout
          of steam, smoke, and fire.  In the north end of the Caspian
          there were 19 Subcraft--they, too, met the same fate.".  [2-
          7-80 WR; and AL #53, Topic 3.].
 
               The 3rd-generation Russian JUMBO COSMOSPHERES were first
          deployed in April 1981, in parallel with the first U.S. Space
          Shuttle mission.  They significantly interfered with that
          MILITARY mission, in ways which were successfully covered up
          by NASA using techniques similar to those shown in the movie
          "Capricorn I".  [5-7-81, 5-14-81, and 5-21-81 WR; and AL #64,
          Topics 1-3.].
 
               Jumbo Cosmospheres are much larger than the 1st-
          generation models, and use ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPULSION instead
          of rocket thrusters to move around.
 
               For about two years after Dr. Beter stopped recording
          his Audio-Letters in November 1982 (because of heart
          trouble), his distributor, Audio Books, Inc., published some
          newsletters titled "NewsALERT", using information passed on
          to them by Dr. Beter or received directly from his sources.
          A special supplementary issue, dated March 26, 1984,
          describes how Russian Jumbo Cosmospheres captured two
          communication satellites right after launch from U.S. Space
          Shuttle Mission #10, found anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles
          mounted on one of them, and dumped both satellites into
          useless orbits.  NASA had fun TRYING to explain two-in-a-row
          failures of a highly reliable PAM-D satellite booster.
 
               Russia's offer to share their "Starwars" defense system
          with the rest of the world might also extend to SCIENTIFIC
          SPACE EXPLORATION.  For example, the United States is
          planning to send two unmanned flyby and sample-return space
          missions to a comet.  These missions would cost BILLIONS of
          dollars, take twenty years from now to complete, and could
          FAIL in DOZENS of ways.  A Russian Jumbo Cosmosphere could
          COMPLETE a MANNED version of such a mission in a matter of
          MONTHS (if they have not already done so), since these
          Cosmospheres can accelerate continuously.
 
               Note that the United States has announced a deal to
          purchase at least one SPACE REACTOR from Russia.  Now you
          know what the Russians originally developed and used them
          for.
 
 
 
          THE DR. BETER AUDIO-LETTERS
 
               ALL 80 Dr. Beter Audio-Letters (about 50 KB each) and an
          Overview (about 75 KB) have been digitized by Jon Volkoff at
          "eidetics@cerf.net" and are available from him and from some
          FTP sites where he sent them.
 
 
               Jon Volkoff states: "I know of two ftp sites (there are
          a few "gopher" servers too) as follows:
 
               uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53),
                  under /pub/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter
 
               ftp.uu.net (192.48.96.9),
                  under /doc/political/umich-poli/Beter.Audio.Letter ."
 
 
               I especially recommend Audio-Letters #64, 74, 40, 53,
          54, 55, 45, 46, 47, 48, 78, 79, and 80, and the Overview.
          ALL of these will fit on a SINGLE 3-1/2-inch disk formatted
          for 720 KB.
 
               Audio-Letter #64 is about the "STS-1 DISASTER/
          /COVERUP".  Audio-Letter #74 is about the "SECRET PURPOSE of
          the Falklands War", and includes IN-VISIBILITY Technology and
          a Russian NEUTRON BOMB.  Audio-Letter #40 is about the
          "MILITARY PURPOSE of Jonestown Mass-MURDER".
 
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES.
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmcelwre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Vaporization recipe
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vaporization recipe
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 23:38:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In going back over an earlier posting, I was very unimpressed by my own
total lack of regard for a rather large group of people:
 
> But like the poor fellow assigned by the LDS church a decade or so ago...
                                           ^^^
Unless the book I read was inaccurate or flat-out wrong, the episode I
described in that analogy really did happen -- a scholar was assigned a
task and eventually excommunicated over the results -- but the above is
nothing less than a prejudicial slap against _all_ LDS members.
 
Having whacked other people on this net for just that type of assinine
exposition, what do I see myself doing?  The same thing, that's what.
 
Be it know that I've had several friends over the years from the LDS, and
they have in all cases been some of the most honest and high-integrity
people I've met.  That may be a small sampling  (about six or seven I'd
guess), but it's a conspicuous and (I think) a pretty significant one.
 
My sincere apologies to anyone (LDS or not) for having dredged up very
misleading, "group-abusive" analogy.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -  I also remain adamant that "excommunicating" Tom Droege would be
        about the silliest thing the excess heat advocates could do.  Ply
        him with specifics on how to _get_ excess heat, and I think you
        will be a whole lot more successful in getting a good response.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.05 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: 5 May 93 23:47:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C6Kt3t.Bvu@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <13738@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
>    Subject: Re: First, read the literature
>Arnold Frisch [Tektronix Laboratories; arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM] writes:
 
>== "It seems to me that whatever they do, it's not CF - otherwise they
>==  would long ago have died from the neutron dose."
 
>   As was discussed here, and in a copious literature, CF simply
> does not produce copious quantities of neutrons.
>   The CF reactions are neutronpenic in the vast majority of cases.
 
You assume a lot more than has been put into evidence.  Nobody really
knows what a "CF" reaction is - or if there is such a thing as what you
call a "CF" reaction.  Besides that, there is the problem that what you
and P&F, and Jed, call a "CF" reaction, has a way of re defining itself
by the day, or even by the hour.  So don't go preaching to me about
logic.  I'll know it when I see it.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 03:04:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <13739@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
     Subject: Re: First, read the literature
  Arnie Frisch (arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM) writes:
 
===af  "It seems to me that whatever they do, it's not CF - otherwise they
===af  would long ago have died from the neutron dose."
===
==ms   "As was discussed here, and in a copious literature, CF simply
==ms   does not produce copious quantities of neutrons.
==ms   The CF reactions are neutronpenic in the vast majority of cases."
==
=   "You assume a lot more than has been put into evidence.  Nobody really
=  knows what a "CF" reaction is - or if there is such a thing as what you
=  call a "CF" reaction.  Besides that, there is the problem that what you
=  and P&F, and Jed, call a "CF" reaction, has a way of re defining itself
=  by the day, or even by the hour.  So don't go preaching to me about
=  logic.  I'll know it when I see it."
 
  What is CF?   CF is what the people who work in it: do.
     CF is reasonably defined by the people theorizing, working, building
       and speaking in the field.
 
  CF is described in Fusion Technology, Fusion Facts, the Cold Fusion Times,
    and other fine periodicals, and in books including Fire from Ice and
   Cold Fusion Impact.  The Proceedings each year have been quite impressive
   too.  Wouldn't you agree?   How many have you read?
 
   Consider your claim that "(CF) has a way of re defining itself by the
 day, or even by the hour."  Let's see, ...
   Do you have any evidence of either redefinition by either they "day" or
  "hour"?   We'll know it when we see it.   ;)
 
                                      Best wishes.
                                                      Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: 6 May 1993 04:32:37 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: In article <930505140404_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
: >
: >Here is an interesting thought: Nowadays, if you want to make a lightbulb, you
: >start by going to the MIT library and getting an armload of textbooks. As
: >everyone knows, thousands of lightbulbs are manufactured every day; it is a
: >"cut and dried" process. However, I expect that if the average reader of this
: >forum was to set out to make one from scratch with ordinary laboratory
: >equipment, he or she would spend many frustrating months breaking glass,
: >trying to master the technique. Most jobs are harder than they look.
:
:      This is a joke, right?  Get some tungsten wire, a very thick
:      glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a power supply and one can make a perfectly
:      operational but crappy 'bulb' in minutes.
 
When was tungsten refining practiced on a commercial scale?
 
:  Technique comes in
:      to making the glass very thin, making the light acceptable
:      and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen
:      right off the bat.  Even better than that, one can probably
:      find stuff in an 'ordinary laboratory' supply room to make something
:      in neon.
 
"cold fusion" or "energy from deuterium electrochemistry" or whatever need NOT
be immediately produced at 7.5 cents/kWh.  $10000 / kWh is fine, as long
as it's real work and reproducible.
 
There is a difference between convincing scientific demonstration and
economic commercial viability.
 
The first STILL has not been done, and remember that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof.  (Because most exraordinary
claims are usually wrong.  Scientists are "bayesian" and assign
non-constant prior probabilities.)
 
:                               dale bass
 
I'm still guessing my pet theory: that any nuclear effects, if there, are
due to uranium impurities, and so try an experiment with UPd+D2.  (heavy
water moderates Canada's natural uranium reactors) It might
be an easy & simple fission reactor, if nothing else.
 
-- -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:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A Simulation
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simulation
Date: 6 May 1993 04:34:39 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
:      It might be interesting, but a priori I'm not sure we're justified in
:      making the assumptions that Simpson's rule implies.  It seems
:      better to sample more frequently rather than make additional functional
:      assumptions about the data.
 
In our business (analysis of observed data from nonlinear systems) our feeling is:
 
Oversample like hell.  Buy big hard drives.
 
:                              dale bass
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 04:49:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6L4Jn.KB5@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   Consider your claim that "(CF) has a way of re defining itself by the
> day, or even by the hour."  Let's see, ...
>   Do you have any evidence of either redefinition by either they "day" or
>  "hour"?   We'll know it when we see it.   ;)
 
    You know, this reminds me a bit of the 'conversations' Francis Ford
    Coppola and Dennis Hopper had on the set of Apocalypse Now on
    whether one could 'forget' one's lines if one never learned them
    in the first place.
 
    In this vein, I heartily agree that there can be no 'redefinition'
    if there has been no definition.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 06:08:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1sa4d5$jqt@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>: In article <930505140404_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>: >
>: >Here is an interesting thought: Nowadays, if you want to make a lightbulb, you
>: >start by going to the MIT library and getting an armload of textbooks. As
>: >everyone knows, thousands of lightbulbs are manufactured every day; it is a
>: >"cut and dried" process. However, I expect that if the average reader of this
>: >forum was to set out to make one from scratch with ordinary laboratory
>: >equipment, he or she would spend many frustrating months breaking glass,
>: >trying to master the technique. Most jobs are harder than they look.
>:
>:      This is a joke, right?  Get some tungsten wire, a very thick
>:      glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a power supply and one can make a perfectly
>:      operational but crappy 'bulb' in minutes.
>
>When was tungsten refining practiced on a commercial scale?
 
     Don't know.  However, Jed seemed to think that this was hard now.
 
     As luck would have it, though, I just today acquired a
     11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1910).
     Looking up Tungsten in my new toy reveals that commercial
     production had been occurring since at least 1903.
 
     And while I'm here, leads on an 8th, 9th or 10th edition would be
     most appreciated, leather greatly preferred.
 
>:  Technique comes in
>:      to making the glass very thin, making the light acceptable
>:      and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen
>:      right off the bat.  Even better than that, one can probably
>:      find stuff in an 'ordinary laboratory' supply room to make something
>:      in neon.
>
>"cold fusion" or "energy from deuterium electrochemistry" or whatever need NOT
>be immediately produced at 7.5 cents/kWh.  $10000 / kWh is fine, as long
>as it's real work and reproducible.
>
>There is a difference between convincing scientific demonstration and
>economic commercial viability.
>
>The first STILL has not been done, and remember that extraordinary
>claims require extraordinary proof.  (Because most exraordinary
>claims are usually wrong.  Scientists are "bayesian" and assign
>non-constant prior probabilities.)
 
     I think we're on the same page here.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A Simulation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simulation
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 06:12:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1sa4gv$jqt@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>:      It might be interesting, but a priori I'm not sure we're justified in
>:      making the assumptions that Simpson's rule implies.  It seems
>:      better to sample more frequently rather than make additional functional
>:      assumptions about the data.
>
>In our business (analysis of observed data from nonlinear systems) our feeling is:
>
>Oversample like hell.  Buy big hard drives.
 
     In mine (fluid dynamics), we're praying there will come a day when
     hard drives are big enough.
 
                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: More questions about boiling cells
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More questions about boiling cells
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 06:40:09 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <0096BFE9.F999F4A0.12619@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl01.ns
l.msu.edu writes:
>>In the spirit of the Jones list, I have some questions about the Pons
>>and Fleischmann technique that I can't make concise enough to put in
>>the list.  Let me start by a comment based on my experiments with
>>boiling water in a microwave.  My observation is that the rate at
>>which water leaves the cup is a very nonlinear function of time even
>>though I would guess that the power input does not increase.  Now
 
>     You should know that heating in an ordinary microwave is
>     highly nonuniform and time-dependent, especially when using water,
>     and the power input of a home microwave may vary substantially as well
>     depending on the microwave.  Electrolytic heating is, in general,
>     far more uniform and 'well-behaved'.
 
Infact, the process of desolving materials in microwave heated H2O
acts very strangly compaired to thermally heated H2O.  Take a ceramic
cup of water and heat it in a microwave oven for a minute (not boiling),
and then add a spoonful of sugar.  Give it one or two good stirs and start
tapping on the cup with the spoon. Next try the same experiment only
with the water heated from a stove top oven nice and slow.  It's quite
a different  effect, and one that demonstrates a few properties of atomic
and chemical physics in a macro-system.
 
Humm, maybe its time to microwave a few cement+D2O samples.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Linear Assumptions
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear Assumptions
Date: Thu,  6 May 93 02:32:13 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Tom Droege writes:
 
> Mitchell Swartz writes: "For a fixed amplitude current source (Norton
> equivalent), a simple ..."
>
> One of the points I have been trying to get across in these notes is that
> there are some fundamental assumptions about likearity hidden in our learning
> about circuit anlaysis.
>
> Can one use a "norton wquivalent" with an electrolytic cell and still be
> guaranteed correct results.  I don't know.  (Woops, that is linearity above
> not likearity - I was not thinking of whiskey).
>
> Tom Droege
 
I believe the answer to your question is clearly NO.
 
I've been seeing remarks about high-frequency noise affecting measurements
mentioned on this newsgroup off and on for years. It's usually dismissed with
some comment about lack of mechanism for generating such frequencies.
 
For some reason, the current discussion has been bothering me. Finally, while
I was driving home this evening, it clicked.
 
There is a characteristic found in some electrolytic cells and electric arcs
called negative resistance. An increase in current flow reduces the voltage
across the cell. Back in college I did some work with electric discharges
and had to deal with the problem.
 
Why is this significant? Simply because if you connect a negative resistance
to a power source, you can get an oscillator. The frequency will be determined
by the characteristics of your power supply, if you're luck, or by the stray
capacitance and inductance of your wiring, if you're not. The frequencies
might be anything from low audio up to RF. This oscillation might be strong
enough to destroy some power supplies.
 
The simple fix is to connect a ballast resistor in series with the cell/arc,
keeping the leads between the cell and the ballast short.
 
Tom, I'm not sure if this should be addressed to you because you've not seen
excess heat. But I'd love to see someone who is seeing heat in a closed
calorimeter modify their experiment by adding a ballast resistor *inside the
calorimeter*.
 
Otherwise, I think monitoring the cell for non-DC signals is an excellent
idea. I don't think your ADC will be fast enough to do it. I'd suggest a
high-pass filter feeding an op amp feeding an alarm. This isn't quantative,
bit it's cheap. And if the alarm goes off, you know what to look for next.
 
    ++PLS
 
P.S. I probably shouldn't give this as authoritative. It's been many years
since I've looked at this stuff.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Jed Rothwell /  Backwards, as usual
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Backwards, as usual
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:01:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Arnie Frisch writes:
 
"It seems to me that whatever they [P&F] do, it's not CF - otherwise they
would long ago have died from the neutron dose."
 
You have that backwards, Arnie: Whatever CF is, it does not create fatal
doses of neutrons. In science, you define the phenomenon according to the
data.
 
 
"Anyway, I don't understand why P & F are so interested in making converts -
at this point."
 
They are not interested in making converts.
 
 
"If they really know what they are doing, they should just make water heaters
and get filthy rich..."
 
They are working for Toyota Motor Company and the Ministry of International
Trade and Industry, they have a spectacular lab, they are living in villas in
the south of France, which is one of the ritziest locations on earth, and
they offered the State of Utah many millions for the patent. I would say they
have already become rich, but there is nothing filthy about getting rich.
 
 
Matt Kennel points out that if you want a patent, you are required to reveal
all details of an invention. He forgot a very important point: if you reveal
the details in advance of filing for a patent, you are automatically
disqualified. As I said, if P&F or EPRI was to reveal the details of their
latest CF work, I would consider that criminally insane. It is absolutely
imperative that the details be kept secret until the research reaches
fruition, and an airtight patent can be filed. It takes months -- sometimes
years -- to work up a good patent.
 
The "latest information" that you can get from any company, about any
product, is always years behind today's R&D. Intel is already working on
their next processor, Ford always has a newer car on the drawing board. They
will not tell you a single detail about either product. No company ever
releases information about R&D work in progress at this moment.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 810 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 810 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:25:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
ATTENTION GOODLIFE!
I am off for the weekend (public holiday here on Friday), so I'll fire off
what I have. Just one paper, from Italy, and it seems good work. This shows
once again, you might say, that when workers lower the sensitivity, the effect
also goes down. However, previously they got 2.5 sigma neutrons above
background; now, with more sensitive gear, they get up to 5.4 sigma, at the
right energy of 2.5 MeV. They also comment that results can vary with the
nature of the metal. I get the feeling this team know what they are doing.
 
Then we have an article from an Italian magazine, where Preparata and Del
Guidice describe their theory of long-range effects in water, and relate this
to both cold fusion and homeopathy (i.e. the Benveniste claims of a few years
ago). This seems clearly way-out to me. Experts in water structure do talk
about long-range effects, but by long they mean more than just neighbouring
molecules. The standard view is short-lived bits and pieces of
quasicrystalline clumps of water, continually breaking up by thermal
buffeting, and reforming. Being a popular article, it does not explain what
this Preparata-Guidice model has to do with cold fusion.
Then we have the New Scientist piece by Bown, a sort of sneak preview,
complete with figure, of the forthcoming (or forthcome for some) paper of F&P.
This is the piece which so incensed Mallove a few days ago, when he wrote a
rebuttal that I think was longer than the piece itself. Well, we know that
both New Scientist and Nature have decided to ridicule cold fusion. True
Believers can console themselves with the thought that one day, when All Is
Revealed, these journals will have a lot of egg on their faces. If.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 6-May-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 810
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Botta E, Bressani T, Calvo D, Feliciello A, Gianotti P, Lamberti C, Agnello M,
Iazzi F, Minetti B, Zecchina A;
Il Nuovo Cimento 105A (1992) 1663.
"Measurement of 2.5 MeV neutron emission from Ti/D and Pd/D systems".
** Report of an improved series of experiments, using both Ti and Pd, loaded
with deuterium from the gas phase. Blanks with hydrogen were also run. With
both metals, thousands of minutes worth of neutron measurements were taken.
Background measurements were also taken. The detector was a time-of-flight
neutron spectrometer, two blocks of plastic scintillators. The authors point
out that the Ti, covered as it is with oxide, does not absorb D2 or H2 unless
heat treated, which they did. Temperature-time curves showed phase transitions
for low-loaded Ti (x=0.7), but not for highly loaded Ti (1.8). Both metals,
initially in the form of sponge (Ti) or small pellets, broke down. Subtraction
of the average background in two slightly different ways clearly showed an
excess of neutrons at around 2.5 MeV with the metal deuterides at about 4-5
sigma (Ti) and 2 sigma (Pd) but not with the hydrides. The neutron flux was
about 1/10 of that found by this team previously, at (Ti) 0.1 n/s/g, and (Pd)
0.02 n/s/g. No bursts were found.                                Apr-92/Nov-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments, file cnf-cmnt:
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borella G;                          Panorama 18-Apr-1993, p. 166 (in Italian).
"Uova d'aqua". (Egg of water).
** A popular article, describing the latest theory of Prof. Preparata, Milano,
and coworker Del Guidice, as well as the persons themselves. Water, they point
out, is quite anomalous. They suggest the existence of egg-like clumps and
long-range cooperative properties in water, even at ambient temperatures. They
then suggest that this may have bearing on cold fusion, as well as support the
claims by Benveniste a few years ago, who claimed a kind of structural memory
in water, and was ridiculed, especially by the journal Nature, in which his
paper appeared.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bown W;                               New Scientist no. 1871, May 1 1993, p.6.
"Frosty reception greets cold fusion figures".
** A commentary prompted by the news that "next week", there will appear a new
paper by F&P in Physics Letters A. Bown comments that scientists who have
attempted a replication of the effect have concluded that it is chemical, if
anything, and of little use in any case. One of the journal's editors, Vigier,
is quoted as saying that it is not fusion, as fusion products - neutrons,
tritium etc - are lacking. The graph shown from the paper shows excess heat,
after deuterium charging, of about the same magnitude as the heat of
deuteration. This is less than claimed previously. Fleischmann himself is said
to be unsure whether the effect is nuclear, but thinks it could be a new
fusion process. Morrison and Williams are quoted as skeptical.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Rusty Perrin /       Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: First, read the literature
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 00:06:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes that to make a light bulb, you would need to get
armloads of literature from MIT, spend months in the lab, and so forth.
 
Dale Bass replies that it is not that tough, and can be done with some
not terribly uncommon lab materials, albeit the quality will not be up
to GE's standards.
 
All this reminds me that I made a light bulb for a science fair using a
mayonnaise jar, some piano wire, and a couple of six volt batteries. (No
vacuum.) I was either 5 or 6 years old at the time. (Note, I did not
visit the MIT laboratory, but I am pretty sure I got help from my Mom.)
So, Dale is right, it is not all that hard to make a working light bulb.
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 14:28:05 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <C6Kt3t.Bvu@world.std.com>
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
> As was discussed here, and in a copious literature, CF simply does not
> produce copious quantities of neutrons.  The CF reactions are neutronpenic
> in the vast majority of cases.
>
> Therefore the  "death by neutron dose" illogic, as has previously been
> promulgated by skeptics who have conducted a less than thorough reading
> of the literature, is inappropriate.
 
hmmmmm...  why does the word "tautology" come to mind? ("tautopenic??"  :)  )
 
....
 
Re: Jed Rothwell's comments:  Chortle!  (A word originally taken from the
poem Jabberwocky, I might add.  Like mimsey and borogrove and snicker-snack,
it intended to be a complete nonsense term in the poem -- "He chortled in
his joy" -- and only later was it assigned its current meaning of a sort
of a sort of suppressed chuckle.
 
I liked Jabberwocky.  Didn't you?)
 
....
 
A serious challenge:  Whatever happened to the 1 inch cube of palladium
described in the original Pons and Fleischmann article?
 
Where is it now?  Has it ever been photographed or described in detail?
Was any further analysis done on it?
 
Would Drs. Pons and Fleischmann be willing to submit this or some piece of
this very important piece of evidence to any external group -- say some
group with very good analysis and microscopy tools?  Even at this late of
a date, there would almost certainly be something to be learned from a
closer look at this crucial artifact.
 
Can anyone (e.g., Dr. Mallove in particular, since he has had a lot of
discussions with Dr. Pons and Fleischmann) update us on what has become
of this very interesting piece of history?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -  Dale Bass: Nice quicky analysis of the H2 heat issue -- thanks!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION
Date: 6 May 93 18:57:18 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
 
                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )
 
               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe )
 
               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" 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, (including the law
          which says that atomic fusion requires EXTREMELY HIGH
          temperatures and pressures.)
 
 
 
          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE,
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY",
          1st Edition,
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of
               Science,
          1972,
          163 Pages, Illustrated,
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638,
               Binghamton, NY  13902
 
 
          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS",
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird,
          1973,
          402 Pages,
          Harper & Row,
               New York
          [Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".  Entire book is
               FASCINATING! ]
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (the two books).
 
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmcelwre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: fusion in cement
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion in cement
Date: 6 May 93 17:22:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <199304301748.AA04253@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, rcs@cs.arizona
edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> I guess it's time to ask Steve Jones about repeatability of
> the cement experiments.  Has the experiment been replicated?
> As I recall, the Kamiokande folks asked you to move because
> you were generating too much radiation & interfering with
> their primary experiment.  Have you repeated the detections
> in Utah?
>
> Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>
 
It's a fair question.
We are in the middle of these measurements.  We are still
trying to find a parameter that relates directly to the neutron observations.
We tried fast-setting cement + D2O four times in our most sensitive detector.
The results were similar to those obtained at Kamiokande (four times)
for the first three samples, that is,
neutron yields were higher during the curing time, falling
after the sample had cured quite thoroughly.  This time dependence is difficult
to explain conventionally, as due to deuteron photodisintegration for example,
(e.g., due to gamma emissions from thallium-208, a radon daughter)
since the rate should remain rather constant independent of curing if due
to radioactive contamination.  The fourth sample is just beginning; too early
to report.  We have also run 4 cement + H2O samples with no neutron emissions
evident, and two samples of calcium oxide (one component of cement) with
D2O steam applied (also null).
 
In order to find a possible correlation between some experimental variable
and neutron emissions, we plan a series of runs in which three major
parameters will be varied:
1-  Temperature of curing cement (e.g., cooling will retard curing)
2-  Addition of curing accelerator or not
3-  Cement type (in particular, fineness of cement particles).
 
The parameter space is large, and each sample run requires about 3 weeks.
Therefore, we will use a statistical selection of variable combinations in
an effort to find a response curve more quickly.
 
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / bui xuan /  Request for references on microstructure studies in CF
     
Originally-From: bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (bui tho xuan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request for references on microstructure studies in CF
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 00:44:27 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

 
 
Hi.
 
A while back I posted a request for references on electron microscopy
studies of CF samples that produced excess heat.  I didn't get any
leads; and my computer searches were not fruitful.
 
Is there any published microstructure work on these samples such
as Auger, SIMS, SNMS, RBS, EDAX, etc. that anyone knows of?  What
do these experimenters do with their samples after they finished?
 
Thanks for your help.
 
Tho X. Bui.  Mat. Sci. Dept. U of Illinois.  bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbleep cudfnbui cudlnxuan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  Dr. Storms' CF Lecture at MIT
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Storms' CF Lecture at MIT
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 02:19:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Cambridge, Massachusetts                             5/6/93
 
            Dr. Edmund Storms' Lecture at MIT
 
  sponsored by the Department of Electrical Engineering
                          and Computer Science
 
   Dr. Edmund Storms (Los Alamos National Laboratory) began his
 lecture at MIT demonstrating further support to the fact that
 CF, and the heat generated, are real.
 
   He examined the "skeptics" most frequent "reasons" to dismiss
 cold fusion, and explained the confusion behind each "claim".
   He suggested calling the reactions CANR (for Chemical Assisted
 Nuclear Reactions).
   After reviewing the state-of-the-art in cold fusion he
 presented and discussed his own results.
 
   These results include the further defining the two types of
 palladium samples.    Some work.  Some do not work.   Although
 it is well-known that many palladium samples simply do not work,
 wisdom is knowing which is which.
 
   The ability to distinquish palladium samples which properly
 function depends in part upon noting that the good electrodes do
**NOT** increase in volume as much inactive pieces upon
   loading.   Dr. Storms' data supports this criterion.
 
   From the FUSION TECHNOLOGY paper (3/93, Volume 23, p230),
 "Measurement of Excess Heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type
    Electrolytic cell using Palladium Sheet":
 
    "The first [active] sheet contained 0.8% excess
     volume after having been deloaded from its
     maximum deuterium/palladium (D/Pd) ratio of 0.82
     to 0.73, and the second [inactive] sheet contained
     13.5% excess volume while at its maximum ratio of 0.75."
 
 
   Brief summary: The excess heats were 20% (of input power)
     with a peak of 7.5 Watts excess.  The equipment included
 sealed calorimeters, stirred, with a spatial distribution of
 temperature sensors.  The distributed cluster of temperature
 probes confirmed that the heat output was from the cathode.
 
  This lecture completed another year of CF seminars arranged by
 Profs. Smullin and Hagelstein.   Like the others, this seminar
 was well attended.   This time, no negative comments were made.
  With the relative absence of hot fusioneers, the distribution
 of scientists seemed  displaced towards metallurgists, material,
 environmental, energy, and CF scientists.
                                                   M. Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: More questions about boiling cells
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More questions about boiling cells
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 18:43:00 GMT
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.

chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
>Infact, the process of desolving materials in microwave heated H2O
>acts very strangly compaired to thermally heated H2O.  Take a ceramic
>cup of water and heat it in a microwave oven for a minute (not boiling),
>and then add a spoonful of sugar.  Give it one or two good stirs and start
>tapping on the cup with the spoon. Next try the same experiment only
>with the water heated from a stove top oven nice and slow.  It's quite
>a different  effect, and one that demonstrates a few properties of atomic
>and chemical physics in a macro-system.
 
>Humm, maybe its time to microwave a few cement+D2O samples.
 
I guess if there is a lesson to be learned in Cold Fusion, it's how to
post a retraction!  It seems I've been doing this a lot lately.  I tried
my own experiment and there is no difference.  Sorry folks.  Still, the
way microwaves heat and the ordinary stove top heats is quite different,
an can activate some chemical reactions.  On example that comes to mind
is the rapid curing of epoxy in microwaves.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 /  mcelwre@cnsvax /  FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
     
Originally-From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 6 May 93 18:56:36 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

 
 
     Paragraphs #12 and #13 of the following article describe two types of COLD
FUSION:
 
 
                            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, ("Amazing
          Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,
          and front cover), 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 are $3.00 each from the
          U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try
          getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your
          local public or university library's inter-library loan
          dept..]
 
               A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
          Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
          motor of inventor Joseph Newman [see SCIENCE, 2-10-84, pages
          571-2.], 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.  [ It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY! ]
 
               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 at the China Lake
          Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of
          chemist Melvin Miles, 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 Dr. 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$.
 
 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (patents, articles, books).
 
 
               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
 
 
                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics, UW-EC
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmcelwre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 14:33:09 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

I wrote:
>== "Here is a direct question, what is your answer:
>==
>== Has any experiment showing CF, been duplicated by an scientist different
>== from the one who originally made it?  By duplicated, I mean run the
>== same experiment, and gotten the same answer.
>==
>== So, for example, if someone runs experiment A and gets result R1, R2, and
>== R3, that would not be duplicated by someone who ran experiment A and got
>== result R1 only.
>==
>== To count, both results must be published (peer-review is not required).
>== Also, the results must be free was the well know problems which plagued
>== early CF experiments: using poor nuclear detectors, using a single detector,
>== not stirring, no null experiment, etc."
 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) replied:
>
>   Joshua, interesting question.  First, I am a scientist and not a
>  historian to whom such question might be more appropriately directed.
 
I would have assume that a scientist would be up on current research in
the field.
 
>   Dr. Eugene Mallove might even a have a table (or two) from his book
>  "Fire from Ice" (Wiley) (and subsequent work) which shows this.
 
I've read this book; it was the first CF book I read.  Working from
memory (the book is packed for a move), I do not remember such a table.
There are long lists of "confirmations", but little (or no) mention
of duplication.
 
>   Continuing with the science:  What is R1, R2, and R3?
 
It doesn't matter: heat, helium, neutrons, tritium, X-rays, anything.
 
>   If a lab measured only, say neutrons, is all its work now ignored?
>   If a lab did not measure, say helium, is all its work now ignored?
 
It is not a question of measuring, it is a question of duplication.
Any lab which duplicates an experiment from another other lab counts.
(Acutally, I would prefer heat and one (or more) nuclear measure, but I will
accept any exactly duplicated experiment.)
 
>   Who judges about "problems" which "plague"?  Do you have a list now?
 
The net. If you post a few experiment pairs, we can see.
 
> Time for equal Standards:
>  Do you know of three good negative experiments?
>  Perhaps the "negatives" have never been repeated or duplicated in the same
>    manner.  Have any good ones ever been duplicated?
 
Ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is on the positive experimentors,
not the negative, here is my quickly list of good negatives.  (Remember
that all my books are packed for a move): Harnwell, NCFI (Utah), CalTech,
MIT.  Note that all of these people did the same experiment (P&F 1) and
got the same result (no excess heat, no neutrons).  They have all published
their results (I think); some were even peer-reviewed, as I remember.
 
I'm looking foward to your list of CF experiment pairs, one of which
duplicates the experiment and the result of the other.
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Linear Assumptions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear Assumptions
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 12:50:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <80927@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
 
>some comment about lack of mechanism for generating such frequencies.
>
>For some reason, the current discussion has been bothering me. Finally, while
>I was driving home this evening, it clicked.
>
>There is a characteristic found in some electrolytic cells and electric arcs
>called negative resistance. An increase in current flow reduces the voltage
>across the cell. Back in college I did some work with electric discharges
>and had to deal with the problem.
>
>Why is this significant? Simply because if you connect a negative resistance
>to a power source, you can get an oscillator. The frequency will be determined
>by the characteristics of your power supply, if you're luck, or by the stray
>capacitance and inductance of your wiring, if you're not. The frequencies
>might be anything from low audio up to RF. This oscillation might be strong
>enough to destroy some power supplies.
 
    There are also physical phenomena that might cause dynamic oscillations.
    The first that comes immediately to mind are some kind of 'breathing
    instability' with deuterium cyclically in and out of the electrode
    at the surface changing the characteristics of the load.  This
    might augment the slower electrical changes that are evident.
    Another phenomenon that might cause dynamic oscillations lies in
    the observation that if the electrode is in a boiling fluid the
    electrolyte contact with the electrode is not constant.
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Linear Assumptions
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear Assumptions
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 16:54:12 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <80927@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
 
   > There is a characteristic found in some electrolytic cells and
   > electric arcs called negative resistance. An increase in current
   > flow reduces the voltage across the cell. Back in college I did
   > some work with electric discharges and had to deal with the
   > problem.
 
   I've done a lot of work with arcs also.  In my case primarily (so
called) carbon arcs, xenon arcs DC and pulsed, and blown plasma arcs
with many different gas mixtures.
 
   > Why is this significant? Simply because if you connect a negative
   > resistance to a power source, you can get an oscillator. The
   > frequency will be determined by the characteristics of your power
   > supply, if you're luck, or by the stray capacitance and
   > inductance of your wiring, if you're not. The frequencies might
   > be anything from low audio up to RF. This oscillation might be
   > strong enough to destroy some power supplies.
 
   Let me refine the last statement slightly first:  This effect is
occaisonally strong enough to damage electric utility substations.
True negative resistance in a circut is an inherently unstable
situation.  Negative impendance is instantly explosive.  One key word
here is circut.  If there is a transformer providing isolation from
the line, the effects manafest themselves in the circut only, and the
transformer contributes a lot of impedence.  I have seen an 80-pound
transformer leap upward (only an inch or two) due to induced magnetic
field effects.
 
   Now on to the oscillation.  Take a "simple" circut, containing a
transformer, possibly additional inductance, a capacitor, and an arc.
Find the frequency at which the energy storage of the inductance, the
capacitor an the arc are the same.  Measure the current through the
arc.  Nice smooth curve.  Measure the voltage across the arc.  Not
only is there no relation to the current, but you I could get
components in the MegaHertz range at thousands of volts.  Oops!
Integrating current times voltage should give you total power, but I
never managed it.
 
   > The simple fix is to connect a ballast resistor in series with
   > the cell/arc, keeping the leads between the cell and the ballast
   > short.
 
   This will stabilize the arc, but it is now a much different beast.
 
   > Otherwise, I think monitoring the cell for non-DC signals is an
   > excellent idea. I don't think your ADC will be fast enough to do
   > it. I'd suggest a high-pass filter feeding an op amp feeding an
   > alarm. This isn't quantative, bit it's cheap. And if the alarm
   > goes off, you know what to look for next.
 
   Very good suggestion.  If negative resistance effects are occuring,
the only way to measure power is going to be to put the entire power
supply in the calorimeter and measure the input to the power supply.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Jim Deans /  Re: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe
     
Originally-From: deans@cae.ppd.ti.com (Jim Deans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Total Atoms and Particles in the Universe
Date: 6 May 1993 21:27:36 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.

I think George Gamow did that one years back in "123 Infinity". As I recall it
was based on the fact that gravitational force was not infinite everywhere
and this implied a finite particle count.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendeans cudfnJim cudlnDeans cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 23:24:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993May6.143309.15418@homespace.mtview.ca.us>
    Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Joshua Levy (joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us) writes:
 
== "Has any experiment showing CF, been duplicated by an scientist different
=== from the one who originally made it?  By duplicated, I mean run the
=== same experiment, and gotten the same answer.
=== To count, both results must be published (peer-review is not required).
=== Also, the results must be free was the well know problems which plagued
=== early CF experiments: using poor nuclear detectors, using a single detector,
=== not stirring, no null experiment, etc."
==
=ms   "Joshua, interesting question.  First, I am a scientist and not a
=ms  historian to whom such question might be more appropriately directed."
=
=  "I would have assume that a scientist would be up on current research in
=  the field."
 
  "A man (or woman) has got to know his limitations"  (after "Dirty" Harry
                                                        Callahan)
 
   Seems Eugene Mallove would know more.  I asked him today at Edmund Storms
    CF lecture at MIT to address this, and think that he may.
 
  Also, do you admit that "positive" CF papers have been throttled in major
   publications, as discussed here and elsewhere.  This does imply that the
   denominator might be limiting.
 
 
=ms   "Dr. Eugene Mallove might even a have a table (or two) from his book
=ms  "Fire from Ice" (Wiley) (and subsequent work) which shows this."
=
=  "I've read this book; it was the first CF book I read.  Working from
=  memory (the book is packed for a move), I do not remember such a table.
=  There are long lists of "confirmations", but little (or no) mention
=  of duplication."
 
   Is confirmation not duplication?   Did you read the papers cited in
    Mallove's book?   Perhaps after you unpack....
 
   Is not the production of cold fusion by several methods, using several
  types of good calorimetry, even more confirmatory of CF?
 
 
=ms   "If a lab measured only, say neutrons, is all its work now ignored?
=ms   If a lab did not measure, say helium, is all its work now ignored?"
=
= "It is not a question of measuring, it is a question of duplication.
= Any lab which duplicates an experiment from another other lab counts.
= (Acutally, I would prefer heat and one (or more) nuclear measure, but I will
= accept any exactly duplicated experiment.)"
 
  OK,  how about Drs. Takahashi and Storms' experiments for the first double
      pair?  Have you examined these papers?
 
 
=ms  "Do you know of three good negative experiments?
=ms  Perhaps the "negatives" have never been repeated or duplicated in the same
=ms    manner.  Have any good ones ever been duplicated?"
=
=  "Ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is on the positive experimentors,
=  not the negative, here is my quickly list of good negatives.  (Remember
=  that all my books are packed for a move): Harnwell, NCFI (Utah), CalTech,
=  MIT."
 
  Are you kidding?   Some of those studies are in serious question.
                     Seems the skeptics have no basis after all.
 
          Best wishes.
                          Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
Date: 6 May 93 18:43:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <0096BEC8.9C92C740.9821@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>,
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
>
> In a posting of April 30, 1993 S.Jones "advises"  the  scientific
> community on what this community should  be  careful  about  with
> regard to F&P's paper in Physics Letters A. The role  of  adviser
> on this particular matter, however, has  been  seen  to  be  most
> inappropriate for him. S.Jones has already exposed how  far  from
> impressive his level of knowledge is concerning  the  essence  of
> F&P's claim -- production  of  excess  energy  via  electrolysis.
>  When criticized, he is ready to deliberately change the figures
> in his own postings.
> I take the  liberty  to  remind  the  community  of  a  one  most
> regrettable, though symptomatic, episode invoving him:
>
> "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 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"
>
> I would add now: If  S.Jones  really  is  interested,  like  many
> others, in the discovery of F&P, and wants  to  express  opinions
> about it he should first acquaint himself with some textbooks  on
> the subject. Then he should  listen  carefully  to  his  teachers
> Fleishmann and Pons and try to learn as much as  he  can,  rather
> than take every opportunity to attack them or give bogus "advice"
> about their research. While there are quite  a  few  dabblers  on
> this net, even such  regularly  posting  "experimental"  results,
> whose only satisfaction is to have a little chit-chat with fellow
> dilletante-scientists, S.Jones' pretences go far beyong a  humble
> existence as a net-poster.
>
> Truly yours,
>
> Vesselin Noninski                                    May 3, 1993
>
 
 
In this blast from the past (quoting a posting of nearly six months
ago), Noninski fails to report responses, especially that of my student
who made the measurements of Notoya's cell in question.  First from
the graduate student David Buehler, who went with me to the meeting
in Nagoya, looked closely at the demonstration electrolytic cell
presented publicly there by Dr. Notoya, and
observed that the wires entering the control cell were
much thinner than those entering the "nuclear" (Nickel cathode/H2O)
cell (hence accounting at least in part for the higher temperature of
the Ni/H2O cell ):
 
"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 on the resistive cell.  This was all explained with signs in
front of the two cells.  The control cell would have been meaningless if
it used the same voltage and current as the nickel cell."  (Posted by
David Buehler about 18 November 1992)
 
The 1.5 V correction was not "dreamed up" by me as Noninski unfairly
charges.
Unless Noninski is calling the student a liar, he will accept his explanation.
It is according to the facts.  Noninski's charge that I changed "at will,
according to his own needs, the figures he is posting"  and that these
figures were "dreamed up"   (see above) has no basis in
fact as I have repeatedly posted on this net, in November and again in
mid-January 1993 when he last brought up his false charge (without
responding to my response at that time.)  I advise him to cease these
groundless and ad hominem attackes.
 
Dieter Britz remembers this earlier exchange and correctly responds to
Noninski's charges:  "[Jones] was later told about the complication of
Notoya's 1.5 V correction and allowed for that.  That's OK."
Dieter concluded:  "All in all, you are wrong about Steve, Dr. Noninski,
and your posting is simply a smear."  [  Dieter, 4 May 1993]   Thanks,
Dieter, and also Terry, for remembering this episode and speaking up.
 
I find Noninski's charge that I changed the numbers to include the 1.5 V
(or 1.48 V to cite better precision)
correction "at will" to be unreasonable, since this correction is in fact
what Notoya used, and since *he himself used the same correction* as we
find in his paper "Excess heat during the electrolysis of a light water
solution of K2CO3 with a nickel cathode"  (note:  the same type of cell
as used by Dr. Notoya!):
 
"The electrolysis heat power was calculated as P(el) = (E(el) - 1.48) I(el),
where E el is the applied electrolysis voltage,
Iel is the electrolysis current (the term "electrolysis power" is used here
for convenience, denoting only the power contributing to the joule heating
effect during the electrolysis),
and 1.48 V is the isoenthalpic voltage...          { <-- This is the factor
                                          I initially misunderstood in posting
                                   Buehler's measurements, but corrected soon.
The resistor heater power was calculated as
P sub-h = I sub-R  E sub-R, where I sub-R denotes the resistor current
and E sub-R denotes the resistor voltage.  ...
 
Electrolysis voltage and current were measured by two Keithley 169 multimeters,
and the resistor voltage and current were measured by Extech 380198 and
Micronta 22-185A multimeters with 0.01 V and 0.001-A accuracy, respectively."
   (Above quoted from V.Noninski paper in Fusion Tech. 21:163 {1992})
 
Does Dr. Noninski really mean to suggest that Dr. Notoya did not correct for
the 1.48 V * I which went into electrolysis?  If he knows that she did this,
just as he did in similar experiments, then why does he accuse me of
a misleading change of data, rather than a simple correction (when a
misunderstood communication from D. Buehler was corrected) to fit the facts?
 
Tom Droege and others have commented on problems with measuring power in
the way Noninski uses; I will not comment further on Noninski's possible
systematic errors from the "Droege effect."
 
However, I will remind readers that I have posted at length recently that
expts conducted here in since January 1 at BYU
with a Ni - H2O - K2CO3 cell have shown that the
1.48 V * I correction is problematical, in that it assumes that no
recombination of H2 and O2 occurs in the cell so that the electrolysis power
is subtracted from the input electrical power.  This is an assumption which
Noninski makes, explicitly:
"It is well known, however, that nickel is a poor catalyst of oxygen
reduction... these possibilities were rejected ...
Note also that the absence of appreciable H2 (D2) + O2 recombination
has been noted by a number of investigators"  {quoting from Noninski
Fusion Tech. paper cited above}
He goes on:
"The problem of recombination is a crucial one in this study (note again
that the excess heat here is calculated after subtracting 1.48 V), however,
and it deserves special attention in any further experiments."  (same paper)
 
Perhaps we are close to understanding why Noninski attempts to smear me.
 The BYU team working with a light-water -K2CO3-Nickel cell
 found repeatedly about 100% excess heat when calculating
the way Noninski prescribed (quoted above), that is, ignoring H + O
recombination.  Another BYU student (Jonathon Jones; no relation to me)
was able to inhibit H + O recombination
in the cell, as I have posted earlier -- then the xs heat dropped to zero.
 
In recent work, this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of about
120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption, of course).
  Thus, we get
xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
cannot be ignored!
 
The BYU team studying these cells intends to publish and expose the error
of ignoring recombination in calculations of xs heat in these cells.
Does Dr. Noninski have any studies of his own which show that recombination
is unimportant?  We find that it is.
 
Oh, yes. One more question for Dr. Noninski.  How does he account for the
xs heat in *light* water cells as he claims?  What does he think of the Mills-
Farrell - Kneizys theory which attempts to explain this based on "shrunken"
hydrogen atoms?  {see Fus. Tech. 20:65 , 1991}
 
--Steven Jones
 
P.S.  I'd rather have Droege and Britz and Lee Hansen as teachers regarding
calorimetry and the subtleties of electrolytic cells rather than P&F
anyday.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 04:19:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993May6.184311.612@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
==sj  "In this blast from the past (quoting a posting of nearly six months
==sj ago), Noninski fails to report responses, especially that of my student
==sj who made the measurements of Notoya's cell in question.
==sj                                 *****
==sj  Perhaps we are close to understanding why Noninski attempts to smear me.
==sj  The BYU team working with a light-water -K2CO3-Nickel cell
==sj  found repeatedly about 100% excess heat when calculating
==sj  the way Noninski prescribed (quoted above), that is, ignoring H + O
==sj  recombination."
 
   How could he know last year about your recent work?  Seems to violate
    causality.
 
==sj "Tom Droege and others have commented on problems with measuring power in
==sj the way Noninski uses; I will not comment further on Noninski's possible
==sj systematic errors from the "Droege effect.""
 
   The term "systematic error" is like a magic-wand in the hands of
   the "skeptics".      [We are aware you have an open mind    ;)
 
    Could this be defined better.  Which systematic error?  Of what
    magnitude?  Why was it not in the control cells?
   Which Droege effect? (there have been a few hypotheses
                     posted so i apologize for losing track)    Thanks
 
 
==sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
==sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of about
==sj 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
==sj of course).      Thus, we get
==sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
==sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
==sj cannot be ignored!"
 
  Did the 120% continue?    Did other gas produce any effect?
 
  Was it a function of loading?   or current through the cell?
 
  Are you stating that recombination accounts for ALL of the reported
excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?
 
  Are you stating that recombination on "the nickel cathode" accounts for
  ALL of the reported excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?
 
  or do you now declare that you have generated excess heat in the
nickel-H2O excess heat experiments.   (or other).
 
      Best wishes.                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / William Hawkins /  Re: Linear Assumptions
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear Assumptions
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 04:59:23 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <80927@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>The simple fix is to connect a ballast resistor in series with the cell/arc,
>keeping the leads between the cell and the ballast short.
>
>Tom, I'm not sure if this should be addressed to you because you've not seen
>excess heat. But I'd love to see someone who is seeing heat in a closed
>calorimeter modify their experiment by adding a ballast resistor *inside the
>calorimeter*.
 
Well, Paul, I tried a few questions about measurements in a calorimeter
a week or so ago, and drew no responses, except for the essential
answers from Tom (thanks).  Either what I asked was too elementary for
discussion, or it was too factual to start an argument.  You have had
an interesting idea, so I'll try to start an argument.
 
The purpose of the ballast resistor is to make the _net_ resistance
of the loop positive, so that oscillation does not occur.  It does
not matter if it is inside or outside the calorimeter.  You do need
to control L and C in the neighborhood of the negative resistor
lest it manage to oscillate in a local loop.
 
But even if you did get significant oscillations, they would
radiate power away from the cell, raising the amount of heat that
the unknown process had to generate to pass breakeven.
 
The possibility exists that violent oscillations would severely
distort normal I and E measurements, but ballast resistors and
adequate filtering can eliminate that effect.
 
No, the thing that is worrisome about constant current supplies
is that they can deliver power to the increased resistance
between an electrode and the electrolyte as surface film effects
change.  That power _will_ be measured by the calorimeter.  The
question is, will the increased input power be measured as well.
 
Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Linear Assumptions
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear Assumptions
Date: Fri,  7 May 93 01:28:35 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> ...destroy utility substations
 
Well, I only worked with little arcs   ;-)
 
For a quick example of an oscillator exploiting the negative resistance
effect, look up tunnel diodes. I seem to recall the electrolytic equivalent
uses aluminum in an alkaline solution, and involves forming an impure and
poreous AlOH layer on the electrode. Rather like a semiconductor. Also look
at some of the old, like 1930s, literature on electrolytic transistors.
 
You know, I didn't realize it until I typed it, but that description looks
awfully familiar.  Reminds me of a cold fusion cell. I wonder....
 
   ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  What is confirmation?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is confirmation?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 14:19:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The issue of confirmation of cold fusion results has been hanging around
for a very long time and never seems to get the attention it deserves, so
here goes. [grin]
 
In a more orderly attempt to investigate a phenomena, one should start
with an hypothesis and design an experiment to test that hypothesis.
The outcome of the experiment should then be analyzed within the logical
context of the original hypothesis.  If the original CF hypothesis had
been merely that the electrolysis of a dilute LiOD solution in D2O with
a Pd cathode for an unspecified extended period results in the appearance
of anomalous heat in a random and unpredictable manner, the replication
requirements could be satisfied by similar episodes which are equally
random and unpredictable.
 
I believe, however, that replications of the form described above leave
the subject in a rather unsatisfactory state.  Progress toward an
understanding of the CF phenomena requires that more complex and detailed
hypotheses be formulated and tested experimentally.  At each step the
requirements for meaningful replication must also be refined.  This
refining process could have taken several forms:  the search for reaction
products, the establishment of scaling laws, improvements in cathode
materials, extension to other chemical systems, etc.
 
Now, four years into this business, it seems we are still counting the
simple replications of "excess heat" and failing to note that none
of the replications match in any significant additional details.
In fact, flat out contradictions abound when you attempt to pull
all the data from "positive" experiments together.  To pick on
but one example, consider the question as to whether helium is
the long-missing reaction product.  There certainly have been
experiments in which excess heat is seen, but for which analyses
for helium gave negative results.  The same situation applies to
tritium and to neutrons.  There is even the Takahashi claim that
neutrons are anticorrelated with excess heat.
 
To quote the Master, "In science, you define the phenomena according
to the data."  In light of the above I would suggest that the
data may lead to a definition of the phenomena that is far different
from the one the Master had in mind.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Jed Rothwell /  So, we all agree
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: So, we all agree
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 16:17:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I am pleased to see that so people have agree with my "lightbulb" analogy:
 
Matt Kennel (?):
 
     "Get some tungsten wire, a very thick glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a
     power supply and one can make a perfectly operational but crappy 'bulb'
     in minutes."
 
Dale Bass:
 
     "Technique comes in to making the glass very thin, making the light
     acceptable and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen right
     off the bat."
 
Rusty Perrin:
 
     "...it is not that tough, and can be done with some not terribly uncommon
     lab materials, albeit the quality will not be up to GE's standards... All
     this reminds me that I made a light bulb for a science fair using a
     mayonnaise jar, some piano wire, and a couple of six volt batteries. (No
     vacuum.)
 
 
Naturally, I knew that. I was talking about making a reasonably bright one
that would last for hours, the way P&F's cells do. We all know that you can
replicate the "incandescent" effect, but you cannot do it as well as GE can.
If you want to make an "operational but crappy" lightbulb, it is not hard, but
if you want a bright one to last 1000 hours, you have your work cut out for
you. You would have to practice all summer to get close. Ask any GE engineer,
and I am sure you will find it is a lot harder than you imagined. You will
also find that she will *not* tell you exactly how it is done, and she will
not reveal the details of the automatic bulb production and testing machinery,
because that is a trade secret, like the details of any other high-tech
machine. If you are a physicist here, you would no doubt conclude that since
the details are a trade secret, GE light bulbs don't work.
 
EXACTLY the same situation applies to CF, only on a different scale of
difficulty. Gene & I have been passing out free samples of Pd from Tanaka
Kikinzoku. Many of the scientists who get them report positive results. If you
want to do CF you have to commit yourself to stick to it for 6 months or maybe
2 years. You have to work carefully, full-time in a properly equipped, clean
lab. It is almost certain that you will eventually get an "operational but
crappy" CF cell. Of course, it will not be up to Toyota's standards, any more
than your handmade lamp will rival GE's mass produced lamp. But you *will* see
20% to 70% excess heat.
 
The scale of difficulty is the vast, important difference between incandescent
lamps and CF. Lamps are old, cut and died technology. The mistakes were made
and the techniques worked out 120 years ago, so even a child can do it, as
Rusty relates. CF is brand new. Anyone who tries it is very likely to make
Dozens of Really Stupid Mistakes, analogous to using spaghetti as a filament,
or not pumping out the vacuum enough in a light bulb. Nobody knows the rules
yet. There are no textbooks, just hundreds of fragmentary, contradictory
reports from the field, written by other people who are still struggling to
replicate their own experiments. Dale can tell us what the technique is for
making bulbs, but nobody on earth can say what works for CF; that is exactly
what we are struggling to find out! It may well be that some of the
"recommended" recipes and techniques are actually counterproductive, and will
later be revealed as mistakes. That is a common occurrence in new technology,
new experimental medical techniques, and other groundbreaking research. Long
after it becomes a science, you can look back and see the mistakes, just as we
now see that Edison was wrong to bet on DC long distance transmission, and
Westinghouse was right with AC. At the time, it was not clear.
 
It is every bit as difficult to make a CF cell in 1993 as it was for Edison to
make a lightbulb in 1878. Make no mistake about that! Edison had a staff of
the best people on earth, and tons of money from J.P. Morgan, but they had to
sweat blood during those long months in 1878. CF is the same: it is a brutal,
step-by-step battle, but the outcome is foreordained. There can be no question
that in the end, we *will* understand the reaction, we *will* control it, and
it will be commercialized. It is too close to success now to turn back or give
up. It may take many more years of slogging on, but P&F's work demonstrates
that power reactors power density is possible. Furthermore, CF is will far
easier, far faster, infinitely cheaper, and far more practical than the Hot
Fusion reactor ever would have been. HF will die, along with wind power,
solar, and the other also-rans.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: So, we all agree
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So, we all agree
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 20:11:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930507153329_72240.1256_EHK61-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>I am pleased to see that so people have agree with my "lightbulb" analogy:
>
>Matt Kennel (?):
>
>     "Get some tungsten wire, a very thick glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a
>     power supply and one can make a perfectly operational but crappy 'bulb'
>     in minutes."
>
>Dale Bass:
>
>     "Technique comes in to making the glass very thin, making the light
>     acceptable and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen right
>     off the bat."
>
>Rusty Perrin:
>
>     "...it is not that tough, and can be done with some not terribly uncommon
>     lab materials, albeit the quality will not be up to GE's standards... All
>     this reminds me that I made a light bulb for a science fair using a
>     mayonnaise jar, some piano wire, and a couple of six volt batteries. (No
>     vacuum.)
>
>
>Naturally, I knew that. I was talking about making a reasonably bright one
>that would last for hours, the way P&F's cells do. We all know that you can
>replicate the "incandescent" effect, but you cannot do it as well as GE can.
>If you want to make an "operational but crappy" lightbulb, it is not hard, but
>if you want a bright one to last 1000 hours, you have your work cut out for
>you. You would have to practice all summer to get close. Ask any GE engineer,
>and I am sure you will find it is a lot harder than you imagined. You will
>also find that she will *not* tell you exactly how it is done, and she will
>not reveal the details of the automatic bulb production and testing machinery,
>because that is a trade secret, like the details of any other high-tech
>machine. If you are a physicist here, you would no doubt conclude that since
>the details are a trade secret, GE light bulbs don't work.
 
     This is ridiculous.  In a couple of hours, I could probably make
     one that lasts far longer than any GE puts out.  'Crappy' has
     a bunch of connotations, a big one for an engineer is that it's
     going to cost hundreds of times what it costs GE.  Another
     is that while the second one may last 15,000 hours, the first and
     third may last but 200 hours.   The 'difficulty'
     is manufacturing technology, not the basic phenomenon.
     That is unambiguously repeatable in your own home.
 
     Admirable attempt to change the point, but you've worn out the analogy.
 
                                dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  What is confirmation?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is confirmation?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 20:31:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <0096C246.6E157E40.13136@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
      Subject: What is confirmation?
  Dick Blue (blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu, NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
==  "In a more orderly attempt to investigate a phenomena, one should start
==   with an hypothesis and design an experiment to test that hypothesis."
 
  True.  F&P's work was tested and repeated by Takashi and Storms and
    many others.   That appears to be one confirmation of cold fusion.
 
 
== "Now, four years into this business, it seems we are still counting the
== simple replications of "excess heat" and failing to note that none
== of the replications match in any significant additional details."
 
  Not true.  Read some literature.  Helium.  Tritium.  Heat.  and
               rarely even a very few (neutronpenic levels) of neutrons.
 
 
== "In fact, flat out contradictions abound when you attempt to pull
==  all the data from "positive" experiments together."
 
   The positive experiments actually tend to support each other.
 
  In contrast, most of the "negative" experiments do not even stand alone.
 
   The only contradiction is that all of the hundreds of "positive"
    experiments contradict, and thereby expose, the militant "skeptics".
 
 
==  "To pick on but one example, consider the question as to whether
==  helium is the long-missing reaction product.  There certainly have
==  been experiments in which excess heat is seen, but for which analyses
==  for helium gave negative results."
 
  When the experiments are properly performed there is helium-4.  And it is
   correlated with the excess heat.   Also, most experimenters are not
   equipped to rule out the generation of helium because it permeates
   everything and is present at large ambient concentrations as I posted
   here last year in detail.
 
  Also, there are quality papers which, when the dissemination of CF papers
    is not throttled, will show excellent helium correlations with
    excess heat.
 
   But then a true "skeptic", such as yourself, purports to ignore all
    "positive", or supportive, experiments anyway.       ;)
 
 
==  "To quote the Master, "In science, you define the phenomena according
==  to the data." "
 
  Whoever your Master is, please notify her/him that it is the data
    - if taken well, converted to useful information, and not corrupted -
       which defines the phenomena.
 
   Also, the present information is that cold fusion appears real, has been
  confirmed in several configurations, has been tested by several
  respectable calorimetries, and is more complicated that first thought.
 
                               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 20:32:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <1748@lyman.pppl.gov>
          Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
  Bruce Scott (bscott@lyman.UUCP) writes:
 
==   "Mitchell, this is a bit selective, to be polite. The positives you list
==   are also "in serious question"."
 
  Bruce,
          What is selective?   If not now, when?   If not these, which?
 
      Re: positives - I began with one pair.  Takahashi and Storms.
 
          Notwithstanding the marvelous work of the people you cite,
   where is the problem(s) with these "positive" papers which confirm
   the existence of cold fusion?  (especially the second)
 
       If you claim some error, please clearly state what it is,
          indicate what is its magnitude,
          why it did not effect the control expts,
          whether only palladium/LiOD-D2O/platinum
             (+/- nickel/H2O-various/platinum) systems are effected,
          &/or if all electrochemists, physicists and electrical engineers
          ought be notified (to correct any of their past publications).  :)
 
               Best wishes.
                                         Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 20:52:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C6Mp0z.CE8@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>  Also, do you admit that "positive" CF papers have been throttled in major
>   publications, as discussed here and elsewhere.  This does imply that the
>   denominator might be limiting.
 
There are literally thousands of ways that successful CNF experiments (and
by the way, _unsuccessful_ CNF experiments are also not published with equal
regularity) can be published. There are uncounted publications that don't
require peer review. And if all else fails, publication could be in the public
media such as this very conference. This argument is specious to say the least.
>
>   Is confirmation not duplication?   Did you read the papers cited in
>    Mallove's book?   Perhaps after you unpack....
 
Confirmation of excess heat _is_not_ duplication. I thought that
tries athe term duplication could be found in any dictionary. If one person
tries an experiment and obtains 50% excess heat and another tries the
same experiment and reports 5% excess heat this is possible confirmation
but _not_ duplication.
 
>   Is not the production of cold fusion by several methods, using several
>  types of good calorimetry, even more confirmatory of CF?
>
Is not this confirmation of measurement error?
>
>=  Ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is on the positive experimentors,
>=  not the negative, here is my quickly list of good negatives.  (Remember
>=  that all my books are packed for a move): Harnwell, NCFI (Utah), CalTech,
>=  MIT.
>
>  Are you kidding?   Some of those studies are in serious question.
>                     Seems the skeptics have no basis after all.
 
Hmm, interesting. Questions raised about negative experiments null their
results. Questions raised about positive experiments reinforce their worth.
 
I must say, you have a rather unique scientific outlook.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 21:09:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C6n2o5.5xA@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     In Message-ID: <1993May6.184311.612@physc1.byu.edu>
>     Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
>=sj "Tom Droege and others have commented on problems with measuring power in
>=sj the way Noninski uses; I will not comment further on Noninski's possible
>=sj systematic errors from the "Droege effect.""
>
>   The term "systematic error" is like a magic-wand in the hands of
>   the "skeptics".      [We are aware you have an open mind    ;)
>
>    Could this be defined better.  Which systematic error?  Of what
>    magnitude?  Why was it not in the control cells?
>   Which Droege effect? (there have been a few hypotheses
>                     posted so i apologize for losing track)    Thanks
>
>
>=sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
>=sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of about
>=sj 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
>=sj of course).      Thus, we get
>=sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
>=sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
>=sj cannot be ignored!"
>
>  Did the 120% continue?    Did other gas produce any effect?
>
>  Was it a function of loading?   or current through the cell?
 
Is this just my imagination or is Mr. Swartz asking for the definition
of "steady state" and the context in which it's measured? Is it possible
that after not wanting to answer those self same questions posed by Blue
and Bass that he thinks that they are important to account for any
opposition to positive CNF experiments?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What is confirmation?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is confirmation?
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 21:23:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C6oBp7.C00@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>  Not true.  Read some literature.  Helium.  Tritium.  Heat.  and
>               rarely even a very few (neutronpenic levels) of neutrons.
 
Which literature specifically Mitchell?
 
>  When the experiments are properly performed there is helium-4.  And it is
>   correlated with the excess heat.   Also, most experimenters are not
>   equipped to rule out the generation of helium because it permeates
>   everything and is present at large ambient concentrations as I posted
>   here last year in detail.
 
Are you telling us that you are more capable of measuring He4 than McKubre?
Or is it that you're saying that you're more capable of telling us
which experimenters are capable of measuring it? How are experiments that
"properly perform" analysis for He4 done in your opinion?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 22:30:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <tomkC6oCnJ.38t@netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
 Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
==>  "Also, do you admit that "positive" CF papers have been throttled in major
==>   publications, as discussed here and elsewhere."
==
== "There are literally thousands of ways that successful CNF experiments (and
== by the way, _unsuccessful_ CNF experiments are also not published with equal
== regularity) can be published."
 
   Really?  Seems there are a handful of journals which touch the issue.
   Fusion Technology will not even call them "articles".
 
     Nature and Science are reported to return each confirmatory
        paper regarding cold fusion.  I have seen some of the
          manuscripts.  We have read one recent letter about such
          here on this net.
 
 
==  "Confirmation of excess heat _is_not_ duplication. I thought that
==  tries athe term duplication could be found in any dictionary. If one person
==  tries an experiment and obtains 50% excess heat and another tries the
==  same experiment and reports 5% excess heat this is possible confirmation
==  but _not_ duplication."
 
      OK, Tom.    Seems a reasonable discrimination.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  P&F Phys. Let. A paper review, Part I
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Phys. Let. A paper review, Part I
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 18:16:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART I
 
This part will consider the section of the paper dealing with boiling cells.
The printed paper is not yet available, so these comments are based on a
multiply faxed pre-print which makes many of the smaller figures illegible.
 
The following quote is from section 4, with subscrips etc. deleted due to
limitations of this keyboard, and some reformatting to make up for the lack
of italics.  A large secton has been copied rather than brief exerps in order
to give an unbiased flavor of the paper to those who have not seen it:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"4. A further simple method of investigation the thermal balances for the
cells operating in the region of the boiling point.
 
It will be apparent that for cells operating close to the boiling point, the
derived values of Q and of k' become sensitive to the values of the
atmospheric pressure (broadly for theta > 97.5 C see fig. 10b).  It is
therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive
evaporation/boiling of the D2O.  The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse
video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronized with
the temperature-time and cell potential-time data.  Figures 8a and 8b give the
records of the operation of two of a set of four such cells.  Figure12, a
still taken from the video recordings, shows the last cell being driven to
boiling, the first three having boiled dry.
 
As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings
at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably
accurate estimates of the cell contents.  We have chosen to time the
evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this
allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in
the region of the boiling point.  The enthalpy input is estimated from the
cell potential-time record, the radiative output is accurately known
(temperature measurements become un-necessary!) and the major enthalpy output
is due to evaporation of the D2O.  We illustrate this with the behavior of the
cell (figs. 8b, 12).
 
Calculation. (all = are shown as approximate by the authors, TFD)
Enthalpy input: By electrolysis, (ECell-1.54)*(Cell Current) = 22500J
Enthalpy Output: To ambient = k'[(374.5)^4-(293.15)^4]*600 s = 6700 J
                 in vapour = (2.5 mol *41kJ/mol) = 102500 J
Enthalpy balance:  Excess enthalpy = 86700 J
Rate of enthalpy input:  By electrolysis, 22500 J/600 s = 37.5 W
Rate of enthalpy output: To ambient, 6600 J/600 s = 11 W
                         in bapour, 102500 J/600 s = 171 W
Balance of enthalpy rates: Excess rate = 144.5 W
                           excess specific rate = 144.5 W / 0.0392 cm^3
                                                = 4700 W cm ^-3
 
We note that the excess rate of energy production is about four times that of
the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific
excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder
reactors.  We also draw attention to some further important features: provided
satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the
experiments is high; following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting
of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged
periods of time (fig. 11), furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at
the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300 C."
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of quotation.
 
This is only an excerpt from the paper, but it does provide material for
discussion.  This reviewer poses the following questions:
 
1) How much D2O is in the cell when it starts to boil?
 
"As it is possible to repeatedly reverse an run forward the video recordings
at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably
accurate estimates of the cell contents."
 
This reviewer has looked at the video tape from the NHK program, and spaced it
forwards and backwards the specified repeatedly.  I do not believe it possible
to judge the fullness of the cells within a factor of 3.  Particularly around
the half full stage.  There a lot of bubbles in the liquid.  How are they
taken into account?  The cell is bubbling and  roiling, and the contents are
pulsing up and down in the tube.  It would seem to be possible to learn to
judge the contents within a factor of two or so by (somehow) stopping the cell
at various stages of the boil off and measuring the contents.  There is no
discussion that indicates that this was done.
 
2) How much power is put into the cell during the boil off period?
 
This reviewer can find nothing in this paper about the data collection
system.  It is presumed that the Keithley 199 system mentioned in the ACCF1
proceedings is still in use.  This has a maximum reading rate of 9 readings
per second on the 5 1/2 digit range when controlled by the IEE-488 bus as
indicated in the proceedings paper.
 
There can be no doubt that the cell impedance changes wildly during boil off.
The video tapes show conditions that are likely to result in very large cell
resistance changes.  It is suggested that interested readers run the
previously posted simulation with a 10/1 resistance variation in order to
generate an estimate of the possible error from this source.
 
This reviewer again proposes that it is very difficult to make accurate
measurements on a rapidly changing system such as this.  The Kiethly system
should be used on the true RMS range if there is any hope of an accurate
reading.  There is no indication that this was done.
 
3) How much electrolyte is converted to saturated steam, and how much leaves
   the cell as water droplets?
 
Strangely this is not even discussed in the text.  At the bottom of page 9 is
found the following note:  "In addition to electrolysis, the loss of D2O from
the cells proceeds only by a continuous , smooth flow of vapor through a vent
in the top of the cell."  The drawing of the cell shows a simple open vent
pipe, just above the surface of the liquid.  The video tape broadcast by NHK
shows the cell contents clumping up and down.  Large bubbles form and burst.
Surely some of the bubbles rise up near the vent tube and pieces are ejected
through it.  Apparently, and incredibly, Pons and Flieschmann do not even
consider this possibility as there is no correction in the calculation for it.
Experience in a steam electric utility indicates that it is very difficult to
produce 100% saturated steam.  This experiment demands a measurement of steam
saturation if it is to be taken at all seriously.
 
4) Does the calorimeter constant stay constant during the boil off?
 
This reviewer has speculated that the cell constant changes during the run.
One control on this is heat pulses used for calibration.  During experiments
run by this reviewer, mirror surfaces have been observed on cell parts likely
caused by either Pd or Pt disolved during long electrolysis.  Such a deposit
on the inside wall (not in the vacuum space) could change the calorimeter
constant in the direction of "anomalous heat" (It reflects more incident
radiation therefore it must be a poorer radiator, therefore the cell constant
is larger than previously measured.)  It is recognized that this is a
speculation.  During boil off, however, it is a significant possibility.  As
the electrolyte evaporates from the cell (remember the run starts with the
cell half full - a lot of electrolyte has already evaporated) it will leave a
coating on the inner wall in the space above the liquid.  This coating is
bright white and likely a good reflector.  There is no time during boil off
for calibration pulses.  The experiment is beyond control during the boil off.
 
While this reviewer considers that any of the above points could explain the
boil off "demonstration" of this paper, this reviewer proposes that it is more
likely a combination of several of the above effects.  Just letting the liquid
level drop slightly below the normal level, as would be caused by a brief high
current pulse (as elsewhere mentioned as a way to trigger a boil off event)
might initiate a run away condition through mechanism 4).  1) and 3) cause
over estimation of the energy produced.  2) causes under estimation of the
power actually put into the cell.  4) helps (and Douglas Morrison's cigarette
lighter effect) to explain the long time that a cell stays hot after a boil
off.
 
This description is so lacking in controls and calibrations that
"demonstration" is much more appropriate to this author than "experiment".  An
experiment would have controls, we do not find appropriate ones.  An
experiment would consider likely sources of error, these "experimenters" do
not trouble themselves by considering likely error sources.
 
It is wondered why there is so little new data in this paper.  Yet again good
journal space is used up by a discussion of the calorimetry calculations.  One
curve Figure 1 (upper) is straight out of the summary by Fleischmann in ICCF2.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Cell Characteristics.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell Characteristics.
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 18:33:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Paul Schauble for confirming that Norton does not like a non-linear
cell.  You bet a cell displays a negative resistance, and I have reported it
here on a number of occations.  When first seen, I did exactly what you
suggested, and put a large series resistor on a *passive* power supply (nothing
but a transformer, diode, and capicator).  Still say the saw tooth effect that
was reported in ACCF1.
 
I know my ADC is not fast enough to take good readings.  (It does do 16 bits
in 20 microseconds).  So I listen to the good Dr. Nyquist, and *slow* down
the rest of the system so that the sampling theorem give a correct result.
 
Thanks also to Dale Bass and Robert Eachus for entering this importent
discussion.  But Robert, while putting more stuff in the calorimeter is a good
suggestion - properly done it does not even take more stuff, slowing down the
servo also works.
 
We have an alarm of the type suggested by Paul Schauble.  It is simply an RMS
calculation of the last n (50) power input data points measured.  This gives
a nice measurement of the cell noise.  I will confirm to all that this noise
measurement increases with current *and* time!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 19:22:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell says: "Is not the production of cold fusion by several methods, using
several different typws of good calorimetry, even more confirmatory of CF?"
 
You bet!  That is why I have always resisted following some exact formula that
has proven to be successful by someone else.  Implement the idea, then a
positive result is much more valuable.  By this definition, then the
Takahashi/Storms pair is a good example.  But I also have problems with both
experiments.  So I would like to see them repeat their results a few more times
and with improving technique.  I have tried very hard to make it a triad.  So
did Mallove and Rothwell.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Garth Edwards /  isotopes of Pd
     
Originally-From: garthe@cs.athabascau.ca (Garth Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: isotopes of Pd
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 00:10:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
If "cold fusion" is affecting the nuclei of Pd, then a good test
might be to ascertain the isotopic composition of the
Pd before the experiment and compare it with the Pd isotopic composition
after the experiment. If there is even a small shift in isotopic ratios then
something is happening with the nuclei. If no shift is observed then odds are
"cold fusion" is not nuclear.
 
Garth Edwards
Faculty of Science,
Athabasca University,
Athabasca, Canada.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengarthe cudfnGarth cudlnEdwards cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: 7 May 93 13:45:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

>  Are you kidding?   Some of those studies are in serious question.
>                     Seems the skeptics have no basis after all.
 
Mitchell, this is a bit selective, to be polite. The positives you list are
also "in serious question". In fact, that question has been discussed in
great detail in recent weeks in this newsgroup. Moreover, from Tom Droege
we have a possibility of a prosaic explanation of the "excess heat" which
would entirely reconcile it with the observed lack of fusion products or
evidence. Until Tom's points on the noise, current, and excess heat are
refuted by further experimentation by McKubre and others, or until Steven
Jones's conditions concerning the spectrum of X-rays are met, there is no
reason to believe that the prosaic explanation is incorrect.
 
Perhaps you would like to go into as much detail on the questions
concerning the validity of the experiments you say are in question, or are
without basis. Please do not bother to give Mallove as a reference. After
reading his last two posts, I have to say his credibility is zero.
 
Before Jed or like jumps in with statements concerning corporate culture as
pertains to emerging science, let me say that such things are irrelevant
until the above concerns are answered or until the sort of working models
he thinks are unfairly requested become available.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 22:32:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <tomkC6oDF2.495@netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
  Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
==sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
==sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of about
==sj 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
==sj of course).      Thus, we get
==sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
==sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
==sj cannot be ignored!"
=
=ms  "Did the 120% continue?    Did other gas produce any effect?
=ms   Was it a function of loading?   or current through the cell?"
=
==tk  "Is this just my imagination or is Mr. Swartz asking for the definition
==tk   of "steady state" and the context in which it's measured?"
 
   Tom:  This must be your imagination on TGIF.   The question was about
     Steven Jones' report of experiments in his lab (or nearby) of
     diatomic oxygen gas "bubbled" over the cathode.   That is what is says.
     My questions were about that.   (Do you really see "steady state"?)
 
          Best wishes.
                          Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Tom Droege
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 23:04:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <930507140512.2540089e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
     Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) says:
 
==ms  "Is not the production of cold fusion by several methods, using
==ms  several different typws of good calorimetry, even more confirmatory
==ms   of CF?"
=
=  "You bet!  That is why I have always resisted following some exact
= formula that has proven to be successful by someone else.  Implement the
= idea, then a positive result is much more valuable.  By this definition,
= then the Takahashi/Storms pair is a good example.  But I also have problems
= with both experiments.  So I would like to see them repeat their results a
= few more times and with improving technique.  I have tried very hard to
= make it a triad."
 
  Did you already post the "problems" with the Storms paper?
 
  Hopefully you will succeed in your set-up.
 
    re: such, how much expansion have your cathodes undergone on loading?
 
                                     Best wishes.
                                                       Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.06 / Paul Houle /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: 6 May 93 05:41:08 GMT
Organization: Electrical Eng. Dept. - New Mexico Tech

In article <C6KH5H.A0J@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     This is a joke, right?  Get some tungsten wire, a very thick
>     glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a power supply and one can make a perfectly
>     operational but crappy 'bulb' in minutes.  Technique comes in
>     to making the glass very thin, making the light acceptable
>     and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen
>     right off the bat.  Even better than that, one can probably
>     find stuff in an 'ordinary laboratory' supply room to make something
>     in neon.
>
 
        Of course,  it wasn't possible to make a tungsten wire in Edison's
days.  It took a good amount of research to figure out how to make them
using power metalurgy.  Tungsten is just not ductile enough to draw.
 
        Of course,  one can very easily test the principle of the light
bulb with that equipment,  and the principle was well known before Edison,
I mean nobody could deny that it was possible to get light by running
electricity through a filament in an evacuated envelope before Edison did
his work.  It's just that it took alot of trying to find a material which
was practical (a carbon filament made from a charred hair).
 
 
 
--
Welcome to the Aramcheck Network,  Internet Gateway to VALIS
************************************************************
Join Lum's Stormtroopers today!
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: 7 May 1993 23:31:11 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin) writes:
: Jed Rothwell writes that to make a light bulb, you would need to get
: armloads of literature from MIT, spend months in the lab, and so forth.
:
: Dale Bass replies that it is not that tough, and can be done with some
: not terribly uncommon lab materials, albeit the quality will not be up
: to GE's standards.
:
: All this reminds me that I made a light bulb for a science fair using a
: mayonnaise jar, some piano wire, and a couple of six volt batteries. (No
: vacuum.) I was either 5 or 6 years old at the time. (Note, I did not
: visit the MIT laboratory, but I am pretty sure I got help from my Mom.)
: So, Dale is right, it is not all that hard to make a working light bulb.
 
Remember, for light bulbs, the hard part was NOT making bright light
with electricity.  (scientific demonstration).
 
The hard part was finding the proper materials and procedures
that would result in a long life and reliability and economic viability.
 
Namely a light bulb that would be better than gas torches, which can
work pretty damn well.
 
For "CF" we're still at the first stage; everybody's not yet convinced
it really glows.
 
: Rusty
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy7 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
Date: 7 May 93 17:37:23 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <C6n2o5.5xA@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <1993May6.184311.612@physc1.byu.edu>
>      Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
>  Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
> ==sj  "In this blast from the past (quoting a posting of nearly six months
> ==sj ago), Noninski fails to report responses, especially that of my student
> ==sj who made the measurements of Notoya's cell in question.
> ==sj                                 *****
> ==sj  Perhaps we are close to understanding why Noninski attempts to smear me.
> ==sj  The BYU team working with a light-water -K2CO3-Nickel cell
> ==sj  found repeatedly about 100% excess heat when calculating
> ==sj  the way Noninski prescribed (quoted above), that is, ignoring H + O
> ==sj  recombination."
>
>    How could he know last year about your recent work?  Seems to violate
>     causality.
 
My response was, of course, to his RE-posting of a six-months old post.  The
recent re-posting was made on or about May 3, 1993, just a few days ago.
Incidentally, I have at least twice before posted BYU grad. student Dave
Buehler's open and clear explanation of the facts -- but Dr. Noninski has
never responded to this.  Instead, he has just re-posted this old and
invalid complaint as if Buehler and I had never responded.
 
You really should post more than you selected above.  I went on to say that
the xs heat was found to be due to H2 + O2 recombination in the cell,
a heat-producing reaction assumed to be insignificant by both Notoya and
Noninski.  The recent BYU work demonstrates that recombination is significant
and cannot be ignored.
 
> ==sj "Tom Droege and others have commented on problems with measuring power in
> ==sj the way Noninski uses; I will not comment further on Noninski's possible
> ==sj systematic errors from the "Droege effect.""
>
>    The term "systematic error" is like a magic-wand in the hands of
>    the "skeptics".      [We are aware you have an open mind    ;)
 
Open mind, but not empty mind I hope.
 
>
>     Could this be defined better.  Which systematic error?  Of what
>     magnitude?  Why was it not in the control cells?
>    Which Droege effect? (there have been a few hypotheses
>                      posted so i apologize for losing track)    Thanks
>
The systematic error arises from ignoring hydrogen-oxygen recombination in the
cell, which contributes to heat and is thus mistakedly taken as anomalous xs
heat.  (It is assumed by Notoya and Noninski and others that the H2 and O2
leave the cell without recombining, thus removing (1.48V * Input current)
from the cell.  It is this assumption which leads to erroneous xs heat, which
I would call a systematic error in this context, to be kind.)
We have shown that the recombination effect can lead to apparent xs heat of
about 120%.
The control cell uses a resistor, no electrolysis, in both the Notoya and
Noninski cases.  This is indeed the problem -- there is no need for the
1.48 * I correction for their "controls" .  What would one use for a proper
control when light water is reacting (allegedly)  -- perhaps heavy water?
I think these guys are in grave difficulty in providing a convincing
control.
On the Droege effect, I'm certainly not planning to summarize his cogent
remarks, nor those of Jim Carr, Dieter, Dick Blue, Charles Harrison and
others.  You'll have to study this for yourself.  At least they have provided
the literature for you directly on the net, which is better than Jed and
you frequently do.
>
> ==sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
> ==sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of about
> ==sj 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
> ==sj of course).      Thus, we get
> ==sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
> ==sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
> ==sj cannot be ignored!"
>
>   Did the 120% continue?    Did other gas produce any effect?
>
>   Was it a function of loading?   or current through the cell?
>
 
We are still working on these natural questions.
 
>   Are you stating that recombination accounts for ALL of the reported
> excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?
>
Not necessarily.  But the workers who ignore such effects (like Notoya and
Noninski) do so at the peril of publishing misleading results.
 
>   Are you stating that recombination on "the nickel cathode" accounts for
>   ALL of the reported excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?
>
>   or do you now declare that you have generated excess heat in the
> nickel-H2O excess heat experiments.   (or other).
 
I have already answered these questions above:  not necessarily, and no.
>       Best wishes.                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
>
 
 
Have a nice weekend, everyone!  It's beautiful here in the mountains this
spring -- abundant rainfall has made it so.
 
-- Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: First, read the literature
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First, read the literature
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 00:32:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May6.054108.1052@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <C6KH5H.A0J@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     This is a joke, right?  Get some tungsten wire, a very thick
>>     glass bulb, a vacuum pump and a power supply and one can make a perfectly
>>     operational but crappy 'bulb' in minutes.  Technique comes in
>>     to making the glass very thin, making the light acceptable
>>     and making the bulb last a while, but the effect is seen
>>     right off the bat.  Even better than that, one can probably
>>     find stuff in an 'ordinary laboratory' supply room to make something
>>     in neon.
>>
>
>       Of course,  it wasn't possible to make a tungsten wire in Edison's
>days.  It took a good amount of research to figure out how to make them
>using power metalurgy.  Tungsten is just not ductile enough to draw.
 
     Of course Jed's point was that one needed armloads of books
     and a bunch of time to do such a thing *now*.  My point was
     that you'd probably need more time wrangling with the stock
     clerk than setting up the demonstration.
 
     I also wish to point out that millions of words arguing the
     sociology of discovery or the pathology of science will never
     help us decide if 'anomalous heat' exists.  So let's leave
     Edison and polywater to the historians.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
     
Originally-From: wolff@zen.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Feynman and the space shuttle.
Date: Sat, 08 May 1993 09:03:51 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: I would add that since there was still ice on the pad, solar heating
: was obviously not a big issue.  Of greater import is the fact that
: the liquid fuel is very cold and affects the local environment of
: the solid booster.  The failure was on the side nearest the fuel
: tank, right?  Also, temps are monitored (although the monitoring
: device was used incorrectly) and ice was also because of the danger
: of falling ice damaging the shuttle tiles.
 
Yes. Now what did NASA do with the figures that they got from monitoring
the temperatures? Nothing. If they __had__ looked at them they'd known
earlier that the figures were wrong. Also if they had looked they'd noticed
temperatures that were way below the real ones, so they should have
cancelled the launch much earlier than actually required.
 
Anyway, one of the big points that Feynman wanted to make is that information
on dangerous situations is not correctly handeled within NASA.
 
                                        Roger.
 
--
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 litre V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783643 or +31-15-142371
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Measure before boiling
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measure before boiling
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 13:35:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege writes:
 
"This reviewer has looked at the video tape from the NHK program, and spaced
it forwards and backwards the specified repeatedly.  I do not believe it
possible to judge the fullness of the cells within a factor of 3.
Particularly around the half full stage."
 
The NHK program showed only a tiny fragment of the video, after the boiling
began. Furthermore, the NHK crew shot a picture of the wide screen video in
the lecture hall. Tom is seeing a home VCR copy of a broadcast copy of a copy
shot from a wide screen projection of a copy converted from European to
Japanese/U.S. standards of copy made at the lab. If he can tell anything at
all from this, it is a miracle. It is perfectly ridiculous to depend upon
such a poor quality video to make a judgement.
 
Furthermore -- as I have said many times before -- it is a little difficult
to measure the water level once the rapid boiling begins, but it is *dead*
*simple* to measure it just before the onset of boiling. Tom has not even
seen that phase of the film, because NHK did not show it, so he does not know
what I am talking about. Measuring the water level during the sedate
electrochemical stage of the reaction is about as difficult as measuring
Sprite (soft drink) in a test tube. The bubbles above the water level are
clearly distinguishable from the electrolyte.
 
Furthermore, even if we grant Tom is correct for the sake of argument, and
the figures are off by a factor of 3, the cell *still* would have generated
far more energy than any possible chemical reaction: about 70 eV per atom of
Pd, I believe.
 
Tom's claim is an absurd red-herring. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.
Neither do any of the other statements in his critique, but I don't have time
to dispose of them. It is all stuff and nonsense.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 /  vnoninski@fscv /  H2+O2 recombination
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H2+O2 recombination
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 18:35:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
Any impartial observer would have been able to notice so far that
in his activities to discredit the achievements of  F&P  for  his
own  endorsement  S.Jones  has  engaged  himself   in   practices
inexcusable for a professional scientist. Not  only  that  he  is
ready to change, *after being criticized*  (note  the  emphasis),
crucial numbers, according to his own  interests,  but  tends  to
involve  as his advocates or  accept  the  advocacy  of  his  own
students, supporters and some obvious dilletants.
 
Even further astonishment causes his unsuspectedly low  level  of
understanding of the  matter  under  discussion.  Several  recent
facts, which I have already pointed out, make one begin to wonder
whether S.Jones really knows what he is  talking  about.  In  his
posting of May 6, 1993 there is a further  confirmation  of  that
conclusion. Indeed, in this posting S.Jones writes:
 
"Another student ... was able to *inhibit* (underlining  mine  --
VN) H + O recombination in the cell, as I have posted earlier  --
then the xs heat dropped to zero"
 
S.Jones should be advised, however, that since no excess heat was
observed when H2 + O2 recombination was inhibited then the  H2  +
O2 recombination cannot be taken as an explanation of the  excess
heat in the cases when apparent excess heat is observed.
 
As I have mentioned in some of my recent publications the H2 + O2
recombination is a serious problem which, as well as  many  other
problems, I will certainly address in my  future  papers  in  the
peer-reviewed archival literature. I  would  like  to  note  that
problems such as this should not be commented about in a  casual,
hobby-like manner with the aim  to  denounce  "scientifically"  a
field of investigation. A real scientist  should  always  feel  a
deep internal responsibility and should always be ready to learn.
As I pointed out before,  if  S.Jones  really  is  interested  in
expressing opinions in the field he  should  take  some  time  to
study, as much as he can, the subject and should listen carefully
to his teachers Fleischmann and Pons. Also, a real scientist will
never use a medium like this,  unrestricted  by  peer-review,  to
immediately post uncritically just anything that  is  on  his/her
mind.
 
Truly yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                                    May 8, 1993
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Steve Jones is mistaken
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones is mistaken
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 18:35:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones posted the following mistaken information:
 
"I went on to say that the xs heat [in Ni cells] was found to be due to H2 +
O2 recombination in the cell, a heat-producing reaction assumed to be
insignificant by both Notoya and Noninski.  The recent BYU work demonstrates
that recombination is significant and cannot be ignored."
 
Notoya and Noninski do NOT, repeat NOT, "assume" that the H2 + O2
recombination is insignificant. Both of them measure the gas flow coming out
of the cell, and both find that it is in the expected range. Measuring gas
flow, by the way, can be very tricky. People who wish to do it are well
advised to consult with an expert, like Notoya or Noninski. Remember that the
cell is hot, and the gas cools down and contracts before it goes through the
flowmeter. Gas flowmeters are a lot trickier and more expensive than liquid
flowmeters.
 
Steve says he pumped H2 gas through the cell and saw an increase in heat. This
is a well known technique to enhance the CF reaction, and it helps many other
electrochemical reactions too, but it can be tricky. It is very important to
monitor the temperature of the incoming gas (of course!), and you definitely
MUST calibrate in advance with a gas flow. Also, be certain you use only high
quality, ultrapure H2 gas, at a rock steady incoming flow rate. Notoya
recommends you turn it on an leave it on the whole time, at a small flow rate;
don't overdo it. Naturally you must calibrate with electrolysis as well as a
resistance heater; if you use a separate cell or cells for this, for safety's
sake I recommend you run run exactly the same volume of H2 gas through all
calibration cells and CF cells.
 
Finally, Steve ignores a STUPENDOUSLY LARGE OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT IS STARING HIM
IN THE FACE: Notoya, Noninski, Mills, Srinivasan and many others who have
replicated this experiment get more heat than I*V; total power in.
Recombination cannot cause more heat out that the total electric power in. Let
me repeat that, with emphasis: THE TOTAL POWER OUT EXCEEDS I*V! As I have
said, many, many, many, MANY times, there have been scattered reports of
recombination in Nickel cells, and Notoya warned her readers about this (as I
dutifully reported here). If you get recombination, use a bigger anode, and
move the anode farther away from the cathode. In any case, it is not safe to
declare any definite excess until you are comfortably above I*V, and well out
of the noise. Another good technique is to use a recombiner, like Robert Bush
does, and don't let any H2 or O2 gas out of cell.
 
I have relayed this information to Steve Jones about Notoya's warnings of
recombination and about looking at total I*V excess only. I have done that
countless times, both here and in private e-mail. Steve is playing dumb and
pretending he has not heard this from me and from others. It is very silly of
him to do that, he is not kidding anyone. Perhaps he has trouble reading
English, I should write him a note in Japanese.
 
 
Steve also made a staggering, absurd, incredible "accusation" of sorts, when
he told Mitch Swartz:
 
"At least they have provided the literature for you directly on the net, which
is better than Jed and you frequently do..."
 
In my opinion, about the only hard news on this net, and the only "real
numbers" about other people's research come from Mitch and me (increasingly
less often). We were the ones who posted Hagelstein's paper, and I personally
deserve a medal for dragging it out of Peter, who wanted to spend the rest of
the century improving it. That paper was full of hard information, and I
constantly draw upon it. Every week or so, some dope here on the network asks
a question like "how big was the cathode in the P&F cell?" Since the size and
geometry of the cathode were in the Hagelstein paper, I never bother to answer
stuff like that. Mitch has aleady uploaded the paper 3 or 4 times, and I
uploaded the part describing the cathode. I learned a long time ago that there
is no point in doing other people's homework for them. It is like Steve Jones:
you tell him FIFTEEN TIMES IN A ROW TO USE I*V, but he pretends he never
heard. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
 
The only other person who regularly contributes "hard information" about other
people's experiments is Dieter Britz, with his ongoing bibliography. I advise
readers to ignore the comments, but collect the text, because it very handy,
especially to people like me who cannot spell worth a darn.
 
I find these comments particularly galling after Steve has repeatedly refused
to tell us how much power he is putting into his cell! All this vague talk
about "100% this" and "120% that" isn't exactly "hard information." Steve: Get
to the point. How much power are you putting in, and how much is coming out? I
would not be surprised if you have a nice little excess there, although it is
possible you have botched the experiment (lots of people do).
 
Speaking of botching the Ni CF experiment, Srinivasan has recently warned
workers not to put steel or stainless steel probes or other objects in the Ni
cells for extended periods. Apparently, iron will slowly poison the reaction.
 
 
Paul Houle has apparently read a history book or two, and he reports that
Edison, "took a lot of trying to find a material which was practical (a carbon
filament made from a charred hair)." I don't think it was hair... but I have
returned that book I had on the subject to the library. I highly recommend it:
"A Stroke of Luck." Finding the right filament was a key breakthrough, but it
is important to remember that it was only one of dozens of problems they
solved. For example: they purchased the best vacuum pump money could buy,
found it wasn't good enough, and improved on it; they purchased the best
dynamo (generator) money could buy, and then built a far better one (one of
the first models of which can be seen in the Electrical Engineering Dept. Bld.
at MIT); they investigated ways to put electric wires underground and on
poles, found they were not good enough, and invented better ones; and then
they move all of this radically new technology out of the lab, into mass
production, and into lower Manhattan in the space of a few years. This was R&D
at a breakneck speed that would be unheard of today. The only examples that I
can think of that come close are the development of the atom bomb which was
done in 4 years with massive government help, and the development of cold
fusion, which has been done on a shoestring, and has now had some serious
support by Toyota in France for about 2 years now. It is likely to lead to the
first prototype generator in 2 or 3 more years.
 
Some people have suggested that it is silly to dwell up the history of
Edison's work, or the Wrights, or the development of the transistor when
discussing CF. These people appearently never learned G. Santayana's dictum,
so they are busy repeating the mistakes of past "skeptics" who "knew" Edison
and the Wrights were crackpot frauds, and who "knew" that the transister
would never replace the vacuum tube. These people do not understand the
messy, unpredictable, appearent contradictions that always accompany new
discoveries. They think everything comes out neatly the first time, 1, 2,
3... just like it shows in the textbooks.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: Measure before boiling
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Measure before boiling
Date: 8 May 93 09:03:11 PDT

In article <930508132408_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>
>Tom's claim is an absurd red-herring. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.
>- Jed
>
 
I get really tired of Jed's judgements of scientific merit.  Tom made
an observation about the probable error bars on a measurment given
the data that is available to him.  That seems scientific to me.
 
Jed, perhaps you could confine yourself to saying that in your
oppinion Tom's estimate of probable error is incorrect, and that
even if it is correct, any effects associated with that error are
down in the "noise" as far as the conclusions drawn from the effect?
 
I try hard to remain open to arguments from both sides of this debate
but your style of commenting sure makes me want to be avoid being
seen as a member of your "group".
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Measure before boiling
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Measure before boiling
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 18:48:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930508132408_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Tom Droege writes:
>
>"This reviewer has looked at the video tape from the NHK program, and spaced
>it forwards and backwards the specified repeatedly.  I do not believe it
>possible to judge the fullness of the cells within a factor of 3.
>Particularly around the half full stage."
...
And then Jed ends with:
>Tom's claim is an absurd red-herring. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.
>Neither do any of the other statements in his critique, but I don't have time
>to dispose of them. It is all stuff and nonsense.
 
     This is bad business, this grabbing quantitative boiling data
     from videotape.  To assert that criticism of that has
     'no scientific merit' indicates that one might not know what
     'scientific merit' is.  And just so you don't get confused enough to
     dispute this, my dissertation is on boiling flow in cryogenic deuterium.
 
     I'm just curious, Jed.  Is there any criticism of 'coldfusion'
     experiments that *is* valid?  Or should we just all don the
     robes and begin self-flagellation immediately?
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Cell Characteristics.
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cell Characteristics.
Date: Sat,  8 May 93 13:23:26 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Tom Droege writes:
 
> RMS calculation of the last  50 data points...
 
If your ADC has a 20 microsecond aperature, then you have a high frequency tha
is, at best, 50 kHz. I'm not convinced that's good enough. I'd personally
perfer to see something with a much higher cutoff.
 
You should be able to build an HF detector with an op-amp and a few extra part
Perhaps two amps if you want to do it right. Wire the output to an extra chann
on your ADC and log this.
 
Either that, or put a tuned circuit in the power leads close to the cell. That
should capture any oscillations and constrain them to the frequency of the
tuned circuit. You can keep that low enough that your ADC will work.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Edison
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edison
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 20:59:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930508181717_72240.1256_EHK19-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Paul Houle has apparently read a history book or two, and he reports that
>Edison, "took a lot of trying to find a material which was practical (a carbon
>filament made from a charred hair)." I don't think it was hair... but I have
>returned that book I had on the subject to the library. I highly recommend it:
>"A Stroke of Luck." Finding the right filament was a key breakthrough, but it
>is important to remember that it was only one of dozens of problems they
...
>at a breakneck speed that would be unheard of today. The only examples that I
>can think of that come close are the development of the atom bomb which was
>done in 4 years with massive government help, and the development of cold
>fusion, which has been done on a shoestring, and has now had some serious
>support by Toyota in France for about 2 years now. It is likely to lead to the
>first prototype generator in 2 or 3 more years.
 
     What happened, I wonder, to the 'coldfusion' water heater of Pons
     from 1989?  I don't recall there being any mention of the necessity of
     corporate support to bring that to fruition.   And what happened to
     the $5 million that the state of Utah was generous enough to pony
     up?
 
     In any case, I've got a thousand dollars that says that there will be no
     working 'generator' three years hence.  Oh darn, I forgot, you don't bet.
 
     How prudent of you.
 
     I do think, however, I'll save this in a file marked README.1996.
     I've been sitting here four years already; what's another three to
     have the opportunity to serve crow sandwiches?
 
>Some people have suggested that it is silly to dwell up the history of
>Edison's work, or the Wrights, or the development of the transistor when
>discussing CF. These people appearently never learned G. Santayana's dictum,
>so they are busy repeating the mistakes of past "skeptics" who "knew" Edison
>and the Wrights were crackpot frauds, and who "knew" that the transister
>would never replace the vacuum tube.
 
     I don't recall the brothers Wright suggesting that detailed examination
     of their flyer was unscientific, nor do I recall John Bardeen railing
     against 'skeptics' of potential technologies derivable from
     his and others' work.
 
     In any case, the technological developments of the past are
     absolutely no guide for or against this 'phenomenon' unless you
     want to recognize that previous nuclear theory and experiments
     weigh heavily against fusion in such systems.
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: H2+O2 recombination
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2+O2 recombination
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 21:06:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <0096C333.6CBD6BA0.21018@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU> vnoninski@fscva
.fsc.mass.edu writes:
[reordered a bit for more effective presentation]
>Dear Colleagues,
...
> Also, a real scientist will
>never use a medium like this,  unrestricted  by  peer-review,  to
>immediately post uncritically just anything that  is  on  his/her
>mind.
 
and
 
>Any impartial observer would have been able to notice so far that
>... S.Jones  has  engaged  himself   in   practices
>inexcusable for a professional scientist... but  tends  to
>involve  as his advocates or  accept  the  advocacy  of  his  own
>students, supporters and some obvious dilletants.
 
and then
 
>Even further astonishment causes his unsuspectedly low  level  of
>understanding of the  matter  under  discussion.  Several  recent
>facts, which I have already pointed out, make one begin to wonder
>whether S.Jones really knows what he is  talking  about.
 
     So what does this make you?  One of Jones' students or supporters?
 
     Or just an obvious dilettante?
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: isotopes of Pd
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: isotopes of Pd
Date: 8 May 1993 21:55:06 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

garthe@cs.athabascau.ca (Garth Edwards) writes:
:
: If "cold fusion" is affecting the nuclei of Pd, then a good test
: might be to ascertain the isotopic composition of the
: Pd before the experiment and compare it with the Pd isotopic composition
: after the experiment. If there is even a small shift in isotopic ratios then
: something is happening with the nuclei.
 
Hmm.  Using this criterion rigorously would imply that deuterium production
and uranium enrichment need nuclear reactions to work.
 
: Garth Edwards
: Faculty of Science,
: Athabasca University,
: Athabasca, Canada.
:
 
--
-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 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / mitchell swartz /  Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 00:22:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu.
     Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
  Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
====sj of course).      Thus, we get
====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
====sj cannot be ignored!"
=sj     "We have shown that the recombination effect can lead to
=sj        apparent xs heat of about 120%."
 
  Steven, does this 120% excess you see require an extrinsic tank
    of molecular oxygen, or is this the same oxygen in the electrochemical
    cell (or vicinal volumes) generated during the reaction?
 
    (or do you think these people have a hidden tank of oxygen  ;)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / mitchell swartz /  isotopes of Pd
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: isotopes of Pd
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 00:37:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <m0nraXN-000p0eC@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
   Subject: isotopes of Pd
 Garth Edwards (garthe@cs.athabascau.ca) writes:
 
==  "If "cold fusion" is affecting the nuclei of Pd, then a good test
== might be to ascertain the isotopic composition of the
== Pd before the experiment and compare it with the Pd isotopic composition
== after the experiment. If there is even a small shift in isotopic ratios then
== something is happening with the nuclei. If no shift is observed then odds are
== "cold fusion" is not nuclear."
 
  to which in Message-ID: <1sha7q$2c8@network.ucsd.edu>
 Matt Kennel (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu) responds:
 
== "Hmm.  Using this criterion rigorously would imply that deuterium production
==  and uranium enrichment need nuclear reactions to work."
 
  Really?!   "deuterium production".
 
          I thought the last production lot of deuterons
          was the BIG BANG.   Now a "star-stuff" physicist either claims
          new information of a second source or  new
          production capabilities in California
                          ! [ "Nonlinear" no doubt.  ;)
          Natt, please expand or update and correct me. Thanks.
 
 
     Regarding "enrichment", just consider the isotopes.  Many of them
  are simply unstable (see below).  Therefore Garth stands correct.
  Seems that it would be very "non-linear" thinking indeed
  to have them made de novo, and then have a "skeptic" claim enrichment.
 
   Also since the normal distributions are well-known (see below),
   even if there were only isotopic shifts amongst them, it would be simple
  to analyze the ENTIRE sample and remove the effect of regional
   inhomogeneities.  OK?
 
     So Garth's implication appears correct in that new isotopes or
   isotope shifts would herald the presence of recent nuclear reactions.
 
  Also, there have been reports of silver and rhodium generated, as well as
    the isotopic changes of palladium.   Would there be "non-linear" methods to
     explain these too?  Please provide.
 
     These changes are important "sensors" of nuclear reactions.
 
                                    Best wishes.
                                                   Mitchell Swartz
                                                   (mica@world.std.com)
 
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
  Below is the actual Palladium isotopic table, with the distributions
 
               |   here  and
              \|/
               |     <-- Lifetimes --------------------------------->
 
   The rightmost two columns are calculated and have only two significant
   figures at most.     Most of the data is from the CRC tables.
     Any corrections or updates would be most welcome.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|At.# |At. we| -%-  | sec | min |hour | day | seconds  |      yrs      |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd |  98  |      |     | 17  |     |     |   1020   |  0.00003232   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd |  99  |      |     | 22  |     |     |   1320   |  0.00004183   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 100  |      |     |     |     |  4  |  345600  |  0.01095140   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 101  |      |     |     | 8.4 |     |  30240   |  0.00095825   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 102  |0.0096|     |     |     |     |  STABLE  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 103  |      |     |     |     | 17  | 1468800  |  0.04654346   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 104  |0.1097|     |     |     |     |  STABLE  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 105  |0.2223|     |     |     |     |  STABLE  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 106  |0.2733|     |     |     |     |  STABLE  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 107  |      | 22  |     |     |     |    22    |  0.00000070   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 107m |      |     |     |     |     |   --->   |    7000000    |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 108  |0.2671|     |     |     |     |  STABLE  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 109  |      |     |     |13.47|     |  48492   |  0.00153662   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 109m |      |     | 4.7 |     |     |   282    |  0.00000894   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 110  |0.1181|     |     |     |     |  STABLE  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 111  |      |     | 22  |     |     |   1320   |  0.00004183   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 111m |      |     |     | 5.5 |     |  19800   |  0.00062742   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 112  |      |     |     | 21  |     |  75600   |  0.00239562   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 113  |      |     | 1.4 |     |     |    84    |  0.00000266   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 114  |      |     | 2.4 |     |     |   144    |  0.00000456   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|46Pd | 115  |      | 45  |     |     |     |    45    |  0.00000143   |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Edison
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Edison
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 06:51:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C6q7ML.2p5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     I do think, however, I'll save this in a file marked README.1996.
>     I've been sitting here four years already; what's another three to
>     have the opportunity to serve crow sandwiches?
 
Dale, you seem to have missed the salient points of the True Believers
creed: no proof is ever enough to disprove THE belief.
 
After all, there are still people around that will tell you how a Fish
Carburetor will give you 150 mpg. And that the oil companies conspired
to buy up the patents and hide the Great Discovery. (Hey, can't _anyone_
apply for and receive _any_ patent without a military security hold?)
This despite detailed drawings of the thing in several magazines of
the time and more or less complete knowledge of it's workings.
 
(Jed Rothwell says)
>>These people appearently never learned G. Santayana's dictum,
>>so they are busy repeating the mistakes of past "skeptics" who "knew" Edison
>>and the Wrights were crackpot frauds, and who "knew" that the transister
>>would never replace the vacuum tube.
>
>     I don't recall the brothers Wright suggesting that detailed examination
>     of their flyer was unscientific, nor do I recall John Bardeen railing
>     against 'skeptics' of potential technologies derivable from
>     his and others' work.
>
>     In any case, the technological developments of the past are
>     absolutely no guide for or against this 'phenomenon' unless you
>     want to recognize that previous nuclear theory and experiments
>     weigh heavily against fusion in such systems.
 
Jed suggests that vacuum tubes are replaced. Apparently he is out of the
loop here as well.
 
Glen Curtis was able to build a flyable airplace simply by making a quick
visual inspection of the Wrights flyer. Were there anything to CNF we
can bet that any electrochemist would be onto the trick immediately seeing
the P&F experiment. Instead we see highly proficient scientists finding
nothing at all or findings in the noise band.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: 8 May 93 21:38:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>  Bruce Scott (bscott@lyman.UUCP) writes:
 
>==   "Mitchell, this is a bit selective, to be polite. The positives you list
>==   are also "in serious question"."
 
>  Bruce,
>          What is selective?   If not now, when?   If not these, which?
>
>      Re: positives - I began with one pair.  Takahashi and Storms.
>
>          Notwithstanding the marvelous work of the people you cite,
>   where is the problem(s) with these "positive" papers which confirm
>   the existence of cold fusion?  (especially the second)
>
>       If you claim some error, please clearly state what it is,
>          indicate what is its magnitude,
>          why it did not effect the control expts,
>          whether only palladium/LiOD-D2O/platinum
>             (+/- nickel/H2O-various/platinum) systems are effected,
>          &/or if all electrochemists, physicists and electrical engineers
>          ought be notified (to correct any of their past publications). :)
 
I believe these points have been discussed in sufficient detail by Steven
Jones and Tom Droege, to the tune of several thousand lines each.
 
>
>               Best wishes.
>                                         Mitchell
 
Ebenfalls. (Following is line fodder for this newsreader.)
 
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
 
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Cell Characteristics.
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cell Characteristics.
Date: Sun,  9 May 93 02:28:20 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

One other thing about negative resistance oscillations. They only happen with
the cell operating in a relative narrow current range. Outside of that range
the cell presents a normal positive resistance, although probably still
nonlinear.
 
So if your operating point misses the negative resistance region, you see
nothing.
 
However, if you ramp the current from below this region to above it, then the
cell will be in the negative resistance region somewhere along the ramp and
you will see whatever results.
 
So this speculation predicts that, IF excess heat is due to measurement error
resulting from a cell operating in the negative resistance regime, THEN
ramping the current is more likely to show excess heat than operating at
a constant current.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / Jed Rothwell /  Not Boiling!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not Boiling!
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 14:45:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dale Bass, confused as ever, writes:
 
     "This is bad business, this grabbing quantitative boiling data
     from videotape..."
 
FOR GOODNESS SAKE! WOULD SOMEBODY OUT THERE PLEASE READ MY DARN MESSAGES!
 
Get this Dale: it is NOT BOILING when you measure the water level. Do you
understand plain English? Let me put it in Japanese: mada waite imasen.
Wakanai uchi ni hakaru wake desu.
 
This is so simple, so obvious! Why on earth is anyone beating this smelly
dead horse dragged in here by Tom Droege. There is no reason to measure the
water when it is boiling, because all you have to do is rewind the damn tape
to a point a few minutes before the onset of boiling, where the water level
is plain as a pikestaff.
 
Why do you "skeptics" continual repeat these nonsensical assertions? Can't
you stop and THINK for a second before you open your mouth?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Jed Rothwell /  How to disprove CF
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to disprove CF
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 02:12:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dale Bass is the latest person to ask how to disprove CF calorimetry:
 
     "I'm just curious, Jed.  Is there any criticism of 'coldfusion'
     experiments that *is* valid?"
 
This is *very* simple! I have outlined exactly what you need to do, but I
don't mind repeating this, because it is a good exercise for you skeptics to
confront old man reality.
 
CF calorimetry is no different from any other calorimetry, so if you want to
show that it does not work, just demonstrate conclusively that every
scientific experiment since 1799 has been off by a factor of four, and that
the entire basis of modern chemistry and electrical measurements is haywire,
but nobody ever noticed. Here are some recommended approaches:
 
     Prove that the specific heat of water and the heat of vaporization are
     wrong by a factor of at least 3, and better yet 10.
 
     Prove that water boils at 45 C, at 1 atm.
 
     Prove that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, and that heat can
     of itself go from a 45 C cell to a 100 C cell.
 
     Prove that it is impossible to measure direct current electricity with
     ordinary laboratory equipment to within 300%. Be sure to contact Keithley
     when you crack this problem! They will pay you millions.
 
     Show how to build an electric device that, when attached to an ordinary
     DC power supply, somehow fools the power supply into delivering an extra
     300% or 400% of electrical power in irregular bursts so short and sharp
     that they cannot be detected with ordinary equipment. You have to do this
     without burning up the wires, naturally; and without showing any sharp
     fluctuation in heat. Go ahead and design a circuit; simulate it. Don't
     waste your time trying to build one though, because it can't be done.
 
     Prove that is impossible to measure the water level of electrolyte in a
     test tube during 35 watts of electrolysis. You cannot do it to within a
     factor of three according to some people around here, who have obviously
     never seen 35 watts of electrolysis going on in a test tube. (I have seen
     this, so don't try to sell *me* this nonsense).
 
It's a piece of cake! As soon as a skeptic can convince me on any of these
points, I will admit calorimetry does not work after all. Not only that, but
you will win 10 Nobel Prizes for any one of these accomplishments.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Oops, O2 not H2!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oops, O2 not H2!
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 04:27:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Looking through recent messages, I see maybe Steve Jones said he is bubbling
oxygen through the Ni CF cell, not hydrogen. Oops, sorry I mixed that up! Many
people suggest H2 gas to keep the cathode free of oxidation (plus I gather it
also mechanically scours away gunk). I have never heard of bubbling O2 gas. I
should think it would promote oxidation, which clobbers the reaction.
 
People working with precision metal surfaces in areas unrelated to CF have
told me that oxidation is a constant problem. A non-CF electrochemist
mentioned that if you remove his specially made cathode from the water, and
wave it in the air for minute, you can actually see a blackish film of
oxidation form, which is a nuisance to get rid of. (Try bubbling it with H2
overnight.) Years ago someone else who used to build vacuum tube radar parts
told me that a brief exposure to oxygen would wreck them.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 14:27:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1752@lyman.pppl.gov>
     Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
  Bruce Scott  (bscott@lyman.pppl.gov) writes:
 
==ms  "Re: positives - I began with one pair.  Takahashi and Storms.
==ms
==ms           Notwithstanding the marvelous work of the people you cite,
==ms   where is the problem(s) with these "positive" papers which confirm
==ms    the existence of cold fusion?  (especially the second)
==ms
==ms        If you claim some error, please clearly state what it is,
==ms           indicate what is its magnitude,
==ms           why it did not effect the control expts,
==ms           whether only palladium/LiOD-D2O/platinum
==ms              (+/- nickel/H2O-various/platinum) systems are effected,
==ms           &/or if all electrochemists, physicists and electrical engineers
==ms       ought be notified (to correct any of their past publications). :) "
 
==  "I believe these points have been discussed in sufficient detail by Steven
== Jones and Tom Droege, to the tune of several thousand lines each."
 
     Where?   When?   Message-ID?   Otherwise, it is difficult
     even for some of us who are trying to follow your ideas
     to weigh them accurately.
 
     If there is no response, we can assume you take it that Dr. Storms'
  work does confirm and expand upon F&P and T.
 
    Re: the ubiquitous new "systemic errors":
 
  Bruce, some of these ?'s have been asked before, but remain unanswered.
 
       o    What is its magnitude?
       o    Does it effect the control expts., too?
       o    Are only palladium/LiOD-D2O/platinum systems effected?
 
                             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.08 / Paul Houle /  Re: Steve Jones is mistaken
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones is mistaken
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 20:28:11 GMT
Organization: Electrical Eng. Dept. - New Mexico Tech

        Another big difference is that the light bulb didn't really involve
any new physics.  I mean,  people were playing around with electricity,  so
they knew about Ohm's law and I^2*R heating.  They also knew about
black-body radiation,  although the theory wasn't completely fleshed out.
As such,  the light bulb did not contradict any of the physics known at the
time.
 
        Cold fusion does;  if there really is excess heat,  we are going to
need some very new physics to explain it.  Also,  the fact that the information
about it is so limited and propreitary is going to prevent many of us from
taking it seriously.  I personally feel that you're wasting your time persuing
this Jed,  but it's your right to do it,  and I could be wrong.  I think
that time will tell.
 
--
Welcome to the Aramcheck Network,  Internet Gateway to VALIS
************************************************************
Join Lum's Stormtroopers today!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / J Lewis /  Re: So, we all agree
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: So, we all agree
Date: Sun, 9 May 1993 20:17:49 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <C6oArM.1B4@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 ...
>>machine. If you are a physicist here, you would no doubt conclude that since
>>the details are a trade secret, GE light bulbs don't work.
>
>     This is ridiculous.  In a couple of hours, I could probably make
>     one that lasts far longer than any GE puts out.
 
Indeed you could.  I once ordered a light bulb of soda glass from the
glassblower where I was working; the only complication was that it
was to be sealed to a pyrex gas analysis train, so that little sleeves
of various glasses were necessary to match the thermal expansion of the
soda glass to that of the pyrex.  It took the glassblower
a couple of hours, maybe less, and he probably dinged my then boss about
$50 for it (since he made a great fuss about the glasses of graduated
thermal expansion coefficients he may have charged $100).  That's really
the point.  Any competent glassblower can make a good light bulb;  they do
much more difficult things as a matter of routine.  What GE does do that
a competent glassblower cannot is make and distribute a light bulb for a
buck.
 
into
>     a bunch of connotations, a big one for an engineer is that it's
>     going to cost hundreds of times what it costs GE.  Another
>     is that while the second one may last 15,000 hours, the first and
>     third may last but 200 hours.   The 'difficulty'
>     is manufacturing technology, not the basic phenomenon.
>     That is unambiguously repeatable in your own home.
 
Indeed.  The immense effect of mass markets + investment in manufacturing
technology on price and quality is not as widely appreciated as it should be.
That is where Japan's great strength lies;  despite assertions to the
contrary, Japan (despite many fine accomplishments) is not comparable
to the U.S. in pure science, and probably not in most areas of applied
science and engineering.  But Japan excels in the effort and skill which
they expend on manufacturing, particularly for mass markets.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.09 / chris sampson /  How Too
     
Originally-From: csam@iowegia.dsm.ia.us (chris sampson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How Too
Date: Sun, 09 May 93 08:27:17 CDT
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP

I am interested in attempting to build my own hydrogen fusion
machine and I was wondering if anyone out there could tell me how
much hydrogen what temp stuff like that especially details on
magnetic compression.
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudencsam cudfnchris cudlnsampson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Not Boiling!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not Boiling!
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 05:27:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930509141412_72240.1256_EHK25-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Get this Dale: it is NOT BOILING when you measure the water level. Do you
>understand plain English?
 
Jed, why is it that _you_ do not understand the very simple questions
asked by Tom Droege and which _anyone_ with a basic education in
science would immediately understand?
 
Is it somehow foreign to you that in order to tell what the energy entering
the electrolyte means, first you must know how much electrolyte is there
at any particular time?
 
Perhaps you ought to write that in Japanese since it isn't getting through
to you that knowing how much you start with doesn't add a lot to discussion
after _some_ of it is pulled off as deconstituted gases, steam and droplets.
 
>This is so simple, so obvious! Why on earth is anyone beating this smelly
>dead horse dragged in here by Tom Droege. There is no reason to measure the
>water when it is boiling, because all you have to do is rewind the damn tape
>to a point a few minutes before the onset of boiling, where the water level
>is plain as a pikestaff.
>
Jed, wouldn't it be wise to try and understand what the heck people are
asking before you give answers?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 /  ced@aviion.iro /  eps9 program
     
Originally-From: ced@aviion.iroe.fi.cnr.it
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: eps9 program
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 12:44:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

========================================================================
==                                                                    ==
==   EPS 9 - TRENDS IN PHYSICS      Firenze, September 14-17, 1993    ==
==                                                                    ==
========================================================================
 
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
 
    The Italian Physical Society (SIF) is pleased to invite you to the
ninth General Conference of the European Physical Society EPS 9 - TRENDS
IN PHYSICS, which, after twenty five years, will be held again in Firenze.
    We expect a record attendance to celebrate the jubilee of the EPS,
which was founded in Florence in 1968!  We especially encourage the
attendance of our many young colleagues and students.
    The organizers have done their best to arrange an interesting
scientific program and to organize pleasant social events.  There is no
need to present the city of Florence.  Its historical buildings and
churches, its squares and streets and its celebrated museums are among
the biggest treasures of human culture.
 
    Looking forward to seeing you in Firenze in September!
 
R.A.Ricci   President of the Italian Physical Society and
            Chairman of the Conference
E.Brezin    Chairman of the International Program Committee
V.Tognetti  Chairman of the Local Organizing Committee
 
=======================================================================
 
         LOCATION OF THE CONFERENCE AND PROGRAM
 
    The 9th EPS General Conference will be held at the Palazzo dei
Congressi, Piazza Adua 1, just outside the main railway station of
Firenze (named S. Maria Novella). The Conference sessions will run from
Tuesday, September 14 in the morning until Friday, September 17 in the
afternoon. The General Conference will follow the EPS Quantum
Electronics Conference (September 10-13) and will be followed by the EPS
Liquid Conference (September 18-22).
    The scientific program, as arranged by the International Program
Committee, consists of 17 plenary lectures by eminent speakers, 24
special symposia and poster sessions. The subjects have been carefully
selected to highlight important recent advances in all branches of
physics. The scheduling of plenary lectures and parallel symposia is not
yet final. The definite program will be sent to all those who register
for the conference.
 
=======================================================================
 
         PLENARY LECTURES
 
W. Buckel, Karlsruhe (D)
        On the responsibility of scientists to the public
        (Cecil Powell Memorial Lecture)
F.T. Arecchi, Firenze (I)
        Space-Time Chaos and Topological Defects in Optics
G. Charpak, Geneva - CERN (F)
        From Detector Physics to Medical Applications
C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Paris (F)
        Laser Cooling and Trapping of Atoms
P.G. de Gennes, Paris (F)
        4000 Years of Polymer Research
J. Ellis, Geneva - CERN (UK)
        Known and Unknown Matter
Y. Imry, Rehovot (IL)
        Mesoscopic Disordered Systems
W. Krtschmer, Heidelberg (D)
        Fullerenes and Fullerites: New Forms of Carbon
S.B. Luitjens, Eindhoven (NL)
        Recent Developments in Storage Density of
        Magnetic Optical Recording
J. Mason, London (UK)
        The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming
A. Pais, New York (USA)
        History of Physics
G. Parisi, Roma (I)
        Immunological Networks
M.J. Rees, Cambridge (UK)
        The Emergence of Structure in the Universe
H. Rohrer, Zrich (CH)
        The Dawn of Nanometer Age
C. Rubbia, Geneva - CERN (I)
        (To be announced )
P.J. Twin, Liverpool (UK)
        Superdeformed Nuclei
D.J. Wallace, Edinburgh (UK)
        Physics with Supercomputers
P. Wyder, Grenoble (CH)
        Physics in High Magnetic Fields
 
=======================================================================
 
         PARALLEL SYMPOSIA
 
 1. Physics with Synchrotron Radiation.
               Chairman: Prof. M. Altarelli, Grenoble (F)
 2. Optics and Interferometry with Atoms.
               Chairman: Prof. A. Aspect, Orsay (F)
 3. Quantum Wells and Semiconductors.
               Chairman: Prof. G. Bastard, Paris (F)
 4. Interplay between Particle Physics and Astrophysics.
               Chairman: Prof. E. Bellotti, Milano (I)
 5. History of Physics.
               Chairman: Prof. F. Bevilacqua, Pavia (I)
 6. Inertial Fusion.
               Chairman: Prof. R. Bock, Darmstadt (D)
 7. Soft Matters: Polymers, Liquid Crystals, Aerogels.
               Chairman: Prof. P. Pieranski, Orsay (F)
 8. Local Probes: STM.
               Chairman: Dr. U. Drig, Rschlikon (CH)
 9. Femtosecond Spectroscopy.
               Chairman: Prof. G. Gerber, Freiburg (D)
10. Liquid-Glass Transition.
               Chairman: Dr. T. Geszti, Budapest (H)
11. Exotic Nuclei.
               Chairman: Prof. P. Gregers-Hansen, Aarhus (DK)
12. Magnetic Multilayers.
               Chairman: Dr. P. Gruenberg, Jlich (D)
13. Fluid Surfaces.
               Chairman: Prof. W. Helfrich, Berlin (D)
14. Flux Physics.
               Chairman: Dr. P.H. Kes, Leiden (NL)
15. Standard Model and beyond.
               Chairman: Prof. C. Kounnas, Geneva (CH)
16. Non-ideal Plasmas.
               Chairman: Dr. W.D. Krft, Greifswald (O)
17. Optics and Quantum Mechanics.
               Chairman: Dr. D. Lenstra, Amsterdam (NL)
18. Physics in a Changing World.
               Chairman: Dr. E.W.A. Lingeman, Amsterdam (NL)
19. Low Dimensional Systems and Mesoscopic Systems.
               Chairman: Dr. P.C. Main, Nottingham (UK)
20. Collisions of Multiply Charged Ions with Surfaces and Gases.
               Chairman: Prof. R. Morgenstern, Groningen (NL)
21. Accelerators, Storage Rings.
               Chairman: Dr. M. Prom, Saclay (F)
22. Statistical Mechanics: Rigorous Results, 2D Systems.
               Chairman: Prof. M. Rasetti, Torino (I)
23. Heavy Ions.
               Chairman: Prof. H.J. Specht, Heidelberg (D)
24. Quantum Fluids.
               Chairman: Prof. S. Stringari, Trento (I)
 
=======================================================================
 
         CONTRIBUTED PAPERS
 
(To be received before MAY 15, 1993)
 
    Contributions related to any aspect of the 24 special symposia
listed above are solicited: the proper symposium chairman will determine
acceptance.  However, due to space limitations, each registered author
should not present more than one contributed paper.
    Contributed papers accepted for the conference will be mostly
presented as posters; prior to the conference, a very limited number of
them could be elected for oral presentation, depending on time
availability in the proper symposia. Authors must explicitly communicate
if they do not want their paper to be considered for oral presentation.
    Each day one hour will be devoted to poster sessions; poster
presentations will consist of well-prepared visual materials about the
work, posted on a designated board (1 m width, 1.5 m height), with the
author available to present details and answer questions during the
entire poster session.  Title and author(s) of the poster should be
displayed in large characters on top of the display board.  Posting of
review papers or preprints is strongly discouraged.
    A prospective author must submit a camera-ready abstract and the
"APPLICATION FORM" reported below, to be received by May 15, 1993, at
the following adress
 
     EPS 9
     Prof. A.M. Cartacci
     Dipartimento di Fisica
     Universit di Firenze
     Largo E. Fermi 2
     I-50125 Firenze, Italy.
 
    The text of the abstract must fit within a box of 16.5 cm width and
11.2 cm height, and must be written clearly, with properly sized
lettering, since it has to be reduced to 70% for publication in the
Abstracts Booklet. The title must be written in capital letters in the
first row, the author names are followed by the address, and the name of
the author who will present the work at the conference is underlined.
    The abstract should explain clearly the purpose and scope of the
work and the new results obtained. Attaching of figures is possible, of
course within the same box, taking into account that the significant
details must survive after a reduction to 70%. Abstracts that do not
comply with these requirements are not eligible for publication in the
Abstracts Booklet.
 
=======================================================================
 
         EXHIBITS
 
    During the conference industrial and book exhibitions will be held.
For this, adequate, easily accessible space is available. Interested
companies should contact the delegated members of the local organizing
committee, who are Dr. S. De Curtis (book exhibitions) and Dr. A.
Marchionni (industrial exhibitions), at this address: Dipartimento di
Fisica, Universit di Firenze, Largo E. Fermi 2, I-50125 Firenze, Italy;
telefax: 39 55 229330; phone: 39 55 2298141; e-mail: eps9@fi.infn.it.
 
=======================================================================
 
         REGISRATION AND CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
 
    Please complete the "REGISTARTION FORM" reported below and return
it before May 15, 1993 to the Conference Secretariat:
 
     O.I.C. - M.P.
     Via La Marmora 24
     I-50121, Firenze, Italy
 
    Receipt of the registration form and payment will be acknowledged by
a return letter. Upon presentation of this letter at the registration
desk, participants will receive their conference documents and badge.
    The following registration fees in italian Lire (itl) apply for the
conference (between brackets are the amounts due for late registration):
 
 *  Individual Ordinary Members     itl 260,000  (300,000)
 *  Members of National
    or Collaborating Societies      itl 300,000  (350,000)
 *  Non-Members                     itl 380,000  (450,000)
 *  Students                        itl 100,000  (120,000)
 *  Accompanying persons            itl  50,000  ( 70,000)
 
    Please also note that an extra amount of itl 15,000 will be charged
for those registrants who pay the conference fee at the registration
desk, which will be opened from 15:00 until 19:30 of September 13, and
during the Conference.
    All regular participants will receive an Abstracts Book at
registration and the Proceedings after the Conference. Student
registrants will receive an Abstract Book but no copy of the
Proceedings. Reduced fee for students will be applied only to people
born after 1-1-1962, and upon production of an introduction letter from
their departments. The Proceedings, containing the contributed  papers
of plenary and invited talks, will be published by the European Physical
Society and mailed about January, 1994.
 
=======================================================================
 
         ACCOMMODATION
 
    The Organizing Committee is making a great effort to reserve a
suitable number of accommodations for the attendants at the Conference.
The deadline for hotel reservation, to be made by the "ACCOMMODATION
FORM" reproduced below, is May 15, 1993. As Florence is always full of
tourists, especially in September, it may be very difficult to find an
accommodation with shorter notice.
 
List of hotel rates
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reservation deposit
1st class    Single room  ITL 240000                   ITL 255000
             Double room  ITL 340000                   ITL 355000
2nd class    Single room  ITL 100000-140000            ITL 155000
             Double room  ITL 150000-220000            ITL 235000
3nd class    Single room  ITL  62000- 80000            ITL  95000
             Double room  ITL  94000-125000            ITL 140000
Student Residence Hall (only twin rooms)
             Single bed   ITL  32000                   ITL  47000
             Twin room    ITL  64000                   ITL  79000
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
=======================================================================
 
         GENERAL MEETING OF THE EPS ORDINARY MEMBERS
 
The general meeting of the EPS Ordinary Members (OM's) will be held on
Tuesday, September 14, 1993 at 17:00. All IOM's participating in the
conference will receive an entrance card. Members of category 4B
(National Societies) are entitled to delegate one representative. Those
who desire to become OM's will receive an entrance card after filling in
an application form and paying their first annual membership fee. The
agenda of the General Meeting will be published in Europhysics News and
in the third circular that will be sent to registered participants.
 
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
 
         APPLICATION FORM FOR A CONTRIBUTED PAPER
 
Title   ___________________________________________________________
Authors ___________________________________________________________
Related to the Symposium number _____, entitled ___________________
_________________________ (please choose from the above list of 24),
to be / not to be  considered for oral presentation.
 
Name    ________________________________    Titles ____________________
Address ________________________________
        ________________________________    Phone _____________________
        ________________________________    Fax   _____________________
        ________________________________    E-mail ____________________
        ________________________________    Signature _________________
 
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
 
         REGISTRATION FORM
 
 
Family name    ____________________________
First name     ____________________________
Address ___________________________________
        ___________________________________    Phone ___________________
        ___________________________________    Fax   ___________________
        ___________________________________    Signature _______________
 
 
    I have payed the registration fee of ITL ______________
   a) by the encloed bank or cashier cheque n. _____
      to the order of EPS 9 General Conference - TRENDS IN PHYSICS
or
   b) by bank draft to the order of EPS 9 General Conference - TRENDS
      IN PHYSICS, on account n. 17339 (one-seven-three-three-nine),
      Cassa Risparmio Firenze, Agenzia 1 (one), Viale Matteotti 20/r,
      Firenze, Italy (photocopy enclosed).
 
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
 
         ACCOMMODATION FORM
 
I would like to reserve (plese check the required accommodation):
 
a)  ______ single room / _____ double room   in a ____ class hotel.
 
b)  ______ one bed in the Student Residence Hall
      I would like to share the room with ______________________
 
c)  ______ twin room in a Student Residence Hall
 
Name _________________________________      Male / Female _______
Date of arrival    ___________________
Date of departure  ___________________
 
 
    I have payed the reservation deposit of ITL ______________
   a) by the encloed bank or cashier cheque n. _____
      to the order of "OIC WAY srl".
or
   b) by bank draft to the order of "OIC WAY srl", on account n. 12862
      (one-two-eight-six-two), Cassa Risparmio Firenze, Agenzia 1 (one),
      Viale Matteotti 20/r, Firenze, Italy (photocopy enclosed).
 
Date ______________________            Signature _____________________
 
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
Stefano Cerreti                 E_mail ced@iroe.iroe.fi.cnr.it
Servizi di Rete
Area ricerca CNR Firenze        ph- +55 39 4325-203 fax +55 39 410893
Iroe Cnr Firenze                via Panciatichi 64 50127 Firenze
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenced cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Word wars with Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Word wars with Swartz
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 13:52:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From past experience, I will say that it is unlikely the M. Swartz will
make a specific reply to a specific question, but here goes anyway.
 
Is it not a fact that detailed checks for the production of 4He in the
original Utah Pons and Fleischmann experiments all gave a null result?
If we combine that fact with your statement that, "When experiments are
performed properly there is helium-4." must we not conclude that by
your standards the P&F experiments were not properly done?
 
I know you keep saying I should read the literature, but can't you just
give me a little hint as to which experiments establish the production
of helium as an essential feature of the CF reaction?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Scaling laws and cold fusion experiments
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scaling laws and cold fusion experiments
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 14:29:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One basic approach to trying to arrive at an understanding of a new
phenomena is to study how it scales with changes in various system
parameters.  Pons & Fleischmann, in their initial series of experiments
 attempted to determine whether the heat production scaled with cathode
volume or with surface area.  They were never really able to provide
a clear answer to even that simple question.
 
In their most recent paper, P&F make a point of comparing the enthalpy
production per unit volume to that of a nuclear reactor.  It is a
comparison that has limited validity unless some form of scaling law
is established for the phenomenon under investigation.  I suggest that
we examine the present series of P&F experiments with an eye toward
what effects are likely to be enhanced by their choice of relatively
small cathode size.
 
The methode of calorimetry employed by Pons and Fleischmann has some
scaling properties that ought to be examined as well as does the
phenomena under study.  If you were to design a calorimeter most
subject to error due to variations in heat transfer coefficients,
would you make its volume larger or smaller than "normal"?  If
you wanted to maximize the effect of recombination during electrolysis
would you increase or decrease cell size?  If you wanted to reduce
the likelyhood that a system remains in thermal balance with its
surroundings to you make it larger or smaller?  If you want to
increase the potential effects of large thermal excursions do
increase or decrease the thermal mass of the system?
 
Is it just possible that the experimental design by Pons and
Fleischmann is such that several potential sources of error
are enhanced by the downsizing of their samples?  Tom Droege
has already noted that the second series of McKubre experiments
used larger samples and obtained a smaller effect relative to
input power.  I think there is something to be learned by
studying the scaling effects on various CF experiments, and
it may just be that Pons and Fleischmann already know that
boiling a teaspoon of water is alot easier than heating enough
water for a cup of tea.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Jed Rothwell /  More Edison...
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Edison...
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 14:51:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Paul Houle writes:
 
"Another big difference is that the light bulb didn't really involve any new
physics.  ...people were playing around with electricity, so they knew about
Ohm's law and I^2*R heating.... As such, the light bulb did not contradict any
of the physics known at the time."
 
The scientists back in 1878 did not imagine that a high resistance filament
could exist, and they did not think that a vacuum could be maintained over a
long period of time. There was nearly universal agreement that Edison was a
fraud and a lunatic, even though he had already established himself as one of
the world's greatest inventors, with 158 patents including the phonograph.
Here are some of the things the experts said (from the book "A Streak of
Luck," R. Conot; plus I have seen many of these elsewhere):
 
William Siemens, who had worked on electric lighting for a decade, declared:
"Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as being unworthy
of science and mischievous to its true progress." (p. 129)
 
Professor Henry Morton, who knew Edison personally, lived nearby, and could
have driven his buggy over any time to see the lights on poles outside the
lab, "felt compelled 'to protest in behalf of true science.' The results of
Edison's experiments, he asserted, were 'a conspicuous failure, trumpeted as a
wonderful success. A fraud upon the public.'"
 
The "prestigious" Professor Du Moncel said, "One must have lost all
recollection of *American hoaxes* to accept such claims. The sorcerer of Menlo
Park appears not to be acquainted with the subtleties of the electrical
science. Mr. Edison takes us backwards."
 
A letter in Scientific American attacked the light bulb and the newly improved
dynamo, saying it would be "almost a public calamity if Mr. Edison should
employ his great talent on such a puerility."
 
Edwin Weston, a respected arc light specialist called Edison's claims, "so
manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric
circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of
electrical machines." (p. 162)
 
The reaction Europe was even more negative, and the "English Mechanic" journal
declared "all anxiety concerning the Edison light may be put to one side. It
is certainly not going to take the place of gas."
 
...it goes on and on. The record is very clear on this, and indeed on almost
every other invention and breakthrough in history, including things like the
humble zipper. These things always meet with hostility and irrational
resistance from established experts and vested interests. The inventions are
eventually demonstrated in ways far beyond question, but the experts go on for
years and years denying the obvious. Edison strung up lights, but nobody
believed him except J.P. Morgan (the man with the money; the only person who
mattered). P&F demonstrate a gain of 4, power density of 3700 w/cc, and nobody
believes them except Toyota (the men with the money again).
 
 
Thomas H. Kunich writes:
 
"in order to tell what the energy entering the electrolyte means, first you
must know how much electrolyte is there at any particular time..."
 
This is pure, unadulterated, 100%, bunk. You do *not* have to know the amount
of electrolyte at "any particular time." All you have to know how much there
is before the boiling starts. Nothing else matters. You know exactly how much
there is when the boiling stops: zero. Since the boiling does not falter, and
the cell does not cool down and reabsorb any heat during the process, the
process is 100% exothermic. Remember that funny little rule: you cannot
transfer heat into the cell, unless it co-o-o-ls down cooler than the bath.
Look at the data, look at the video, you will see it is hotter than the bath
the whole time. If a car drives from New York to Washington, you do not have
to know exactly where it was the whole time to know that it went 250 miles.
 
 
Tom also drags out this dead horse:
 
"_some_ of it is pulled off as deconstituted gases, steam and droplets."
 
This is absurd nonsense. Go get yourself a tall Dewar test tube, like P&F
used. Put a resistance heater in it, and try boiling away water. Use the
numbers from that simple experiment to compute the heat of vaporization. You
will find that the number agrees closely with the published figures. It is not
off by a factor of four. Tom Droege and others have suggested all kinds of
made-up, hypothetical, ludicrous reasons why it might be off by a factor of
four, but that does not change reality one tiny bit. Plus we have seen other
nonsense like the Steve Jones hypothesis that there might be a millimeter of
crud on the cathode, and resistance might be very high. A quick glace at the
data and video shows that there is *not* a millimeter of crud, resistance is
*not* rising, and furthermore, I have never seen or heard of any CF cathode
with any kind of buildup like that.
 
If I was a foot taller, 20 years younger, well coordinated, and I understood
the rules of the game, I might be a basketball player. However, since none of
those four conditions are met, I am not a basketball player, okay? Meaningless
hypothetical statements serve no purpose.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Aviation A-history
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aviation A-history
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 22:40:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas H. Kunich wrote a fantastic statement here: "Glen Curtis was able to
build a flyable airplane simply by making a quick visual inspection of the
Wrights flyer."
 
Hey, look I am not any kind of expert on early aviation. But I happen to know
that *this* is wacky a-historic nonsense. Curtis worked for *years* to reverse
engineer the Wrights, and by the time he got off the ground in an actual
controlled flight there were dozens of detailed descriptions, photos,
"underground articles" and tons of other material floating around about the
Wrights. Aviation people in the know, like Chanute and Bell had as much detail
on the Wrights as I have on P&F.
 
Furthermore, they flew rings around Curtis! They beat the pants off of him!
 
The thing to remember is that the Wrights were scientists. Everyone else,
including Curtis and Langley, was just tinkering around blindly with no theory
and no data to guide them. More than anything else, the airplane was an
*intellectual* achievement of the first magnitude, and a triumph of applied
science, in the form of the wind tunnel, which they invented. Any fool could
assemble an airplane, once they showed exactly to do it, just as any lab
assistant in the Nice France lab can generate megajoules of heat per mole. As
Kelly wrote:
 
     "The world... is not fully aware of all the tedious, grueling scientific
     laboratory work they had to do before flight was possible. Important as
     was the system of control... it would not have given them success without
     their wind-tunnel work.
 
     With little money... it was much cheaper to rectify mistakes on paper
     than after the idea was put into material form... They could not afford
     to spend much more money on apparatus built according to unreliable
     data." p. 77, 78
 
 
"Were there anything to CNF we can bet that any electrochemist would be onto
the trick immediately seeing the P&F experiment. Instead we see highly
proficient scientists finding nothing at all or findings in the noise band."
 
Good Grief! Let's get back to history here, shall we? In 1908, FIVE YEARS
after the Wrights flew, not a single person, anywhere on earth, had come close
to replicating them. The most "proficient" scientists in the world -- people
like Curtis and Bleriot -- could barely get off the ground! They had no
control and no lift at all; they were hardly better off than the 19th century
pioneers. They were floundering around, they did not even know where to begin.
Even with the detailed data from the Wrights, every single one of them bungled
it! Admittedly, Curtis was ahead of the also-rans, but not by much, and only
because he was particularly proficient at stealing information, like so many
microcomputer software experts are today. He was friends with Bell and
Selfridge, who were confidants of the Wrights.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Hiding behind Count Rumford's cloak
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hiding behind Count Rumford's cloak
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 22:58:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In one of his more absurd postings Jed Rothwell asserts that
"CF calorimetry is no different from any other calorimetry, so if you
want to show that it does not work..."
 
The notion that "calorimetry as a general experimental technique
either works all the time, every time or does not work is so
simple minded that it is difficult to know how to phrase a rebuttal.
Let's just say that any technique has its limitations, and the
art of experimental science is in the recognition of the possibility
that those limits aren't always obvious to even experienced workers
in a given field.  Certainly one cannot make the arguement that
Yamaguchi's detection of 4He must be a correct result just because
Rutherford detected much lower levels of 4He 80 years ago.  In
fact if Yamaguchi had read Rutherford's papers he would know why
his results are quite possibly in error.    Most of the calorimetry
employed in CF experiments is so crude that long lists of possible
sources of error can be prepared, and that has been done.  There
have been detailed analyses of selected landmark experiments to
point out specific shortcomings of methods employed in CF
research.  Nothing about CF research is automatically true just
because Count Rumford was able to make a correct deduction from
a crude observation on water boiling in a cannon barrel as the
barrel was being bored.  The remarkable thing is to see equally
crude methods employed for cold fusion research.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Dilettante Doodlings
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dilettante Doodlings
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 16:53:26 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Haven't been following as closely as I perhaps should, but hear are a few
miscellaneous Dilettante Doodlings:
 
 
  Droege Effect -- Tom, I'm baffled a bit on one point.  Are you suggesting
                   any specific mechanism for the ratty behavior, or just
                   (quite plausible sounding) premise that systems driven
                   to extremes tend to get ratty?  I ask in part because I
                   would think that other responses -- e.g., a simple _loss_
                   of some behavior -- might also seem plausible.
 
                   Also, if there was any intended link between any of that
                   and your capacitance (Moore Effect) reference, it went
                   completely over my head, possibly in part because I have
                   not been reading closely.  Apart from capacitance per se,
                   it would at least seem that dropping a lot of hydrogen
                   in the structure could sure clutter things up, so I guess
                   there could be a linkage.  Do you have any hypotheses of
                   this or some other effect (e.g., extensive fracturing) as
                   a possible culprit for the noise increase?
 
 
  LDS "excommunication" --  T.B. Error!  The fellow I mentioned in passing was
                   _not_ excommunicated.  His name was Dee Jay Nelson, and he
                   was asked to translate a papyrus (uncovered in 1967) that
                   was Joseph Smith's source for the Book of Abraham in the
                   Pearl of Great Price (one of three main LDS scriptures).
                   Nelson resigned from the LDS, bitterly and with acrimony,
                   stating out in his resignation letter that his translation
                   of the papyrus (which was totally unrelated in any way to
                   any of the contents of the Book of Abraham) was supported
                   by three independent Egyptologists.
 
                   LDS history was yet another one of my hobbies at one time.
                   I've probably read more about some aspects of LDS history
                   than many of its members, although I've never been (and
                   never will be) in any way associated any of the several
                   Joseph Smith-derived churches such as the LDS or RLDS.
 
 
  Dr. Noninski --  I didn't notice any precise recipe for vaporizing palladium
                   from you.  So... you don't have one after all, I take it?
 
                   What _do_ you have that is easily reproducible by any well-
                   equipped laboratory?
 
                   Jed appeared to hit about four of the items on my suggested
                   checklist of excuses as he meandered around his inability
                   to come up with anything.  I think (?) he finally settled
                   on "trade secret" as the best.  (But at least he _tried_!)
 
                   You seem a bit entranced by the presence of cheerfully
                   admitted dilettantes such as myself on this net.  Sorry,
                   me bucko, but _you_ are dabbling in _our_ medium here,
                   not vice-versa.  If you can't take a few pointed questions
                   as a clue that some folks here would honestly _like_ for
                   you or others to succeed, I am truly sorry.
 
                   Finally, Dr. Noninski writes:
 
                   > Also, a real scientist will never use a medium like
                   > this, unrestricted by peer-review, to immediately post
                   > uncritically just anything that is on his/her mind.
 
                   I tip my hat to you for such a stark display of honesty!
                   We cheerfully await your _next_ unrestricted-by-peer-review
                   posting to this medium of whatever is on your/your mind.
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: H2+O2 recombination
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2+O2 recombination
Date: 10 May 93 18:17:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

>Also, a real scientist will never use a medium like this, unrestricted by
>peer-review, to immediately post uncritically just anything that is on
>his/her mind.
 
So, Dr Noninski, what do you think you're doing?
 
I find such attempts to silence others quite reprehensible, indeed.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: 10 May 93 18:40:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Mitchell Swartz writes:
 
>     Where?   When?   Message-ID?   Otherwise, it is difficult
>     even for some of us who are trying to follow your ideas
>     to weigh them accurately.
 
>     If there is no response, we can assume you take it that Dr. Storms'
>  work does confirm and expand upon F&P and T.
 
Legalistic BS, all of it. I told you the authors, you can look for them.
I assumed you have been following the running discussion, since you are a
frequent poster yourself (more than I). I will not do your work for you.
 
Droege and Jones have done well enough to satisfy me, an outsider. But do
not expect me to go into detail on my own, outside my field. This type of
conduct is more becoming a lawyer than a scientist. I usually get it from
NRA morons. Sorry for the sharpness if it gets to you, but I have no
patience for this type of stuff. Again: Do Your Own Work Yourself!!
 
>    Re: the ubiquitous new "systemic errors":
 
>  Bruce, some of these ?'s have been asked before, but remain unanswered.
 
>       o    What is its magnitude?
 
Droege's posts are full of answers to this. Jones has told us that taking
re-combination into account turned a positive into a null. I assume that
this can be done to a 120 pct positive, if I read Jones's post right. You,
an electrochemist, should be able to do that, too. Droege has told us that
noise is correlated with both current and run-time. I wouldn't think it
prudent to report a result until and unless that had been tracked down. It
is just not careful enough, by my standards. Little revelations like this
are good reason to remain skeptical.
 
>       o    Does it effect the control expts., too?
>       o    Are only palladium/LiOD-D2O/platinum systems effected?
 
Both good questions. I have seen no teport on whether this can also be the
case with the light hydrogen experiments. Jones needs to clear that up, and
his last week worth of posts indicate that he has already got onto it.
 
I will be honest with you now. I find it hard to believe you've really
missed all this. It is why I suspect you of legalistic games. These really
do piss me off. Keep pressing with your questions and leave the crap to
others. Don't expect me to remain calm if you mush upon my mind.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Not Boiling!
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not Boiling!
Date: 10 May 93 18:43:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
>There is no reason to measure the water when it is boiling, because all
>you have to do is rewind the damn tape to a point a few minutes before the
>onset of boiling [...]
 
Jed, I understand Tom to report that F and P do not give this number in the
paper (pre-boiling water level). Tom was talking about the time-dependent
water level during boiling.
 
I have copied the paper but my group leader took it. I will see it tomorrow.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Sampling rate and CF
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:34:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1754@lyman.pppl.gov>
     Subject: Re: Sampling rate and CF,
  Bruce Scott (bscott@lyman.pppl.gov) writes:
 
=====    "Re: the ubiquitous new "systemic errors":
=====       o    What is its magnitude?"
==
==bs  "Droege's posts are full of answers to this. Jones has told us that
==bs   taking re-combination into account turned a positive into a null.
==bs   I assume that this can be done to a 120 pct positive, if I read
==bs   Jones's post right."
 
  From Message-ID: <1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>
  =ms  "Are you stating that recombination accounts for ALL of the reported
  =ms   excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?"
  =
  =sj  "Not necessarily.  But the workers who ignore such effects (like
  =sj  Notoya and Noninski) do so at the peril of publishing misleading
  =sj  results."
              [Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu, 7 May 93]
 
  Also, is that with a separate tank of oxygen?     Waiting to find out.
 
      Regarding the questions:
          A quick summary sentence will often help.
          This is a pretty prolific channel.  When possible I have actually
               looked up citations, and have tried to contribute a few
               bytes here and there.
          If the reference was known, I wouldn't have asked.
 
                              Best wishes, Bruce.       Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Matt Kennel /  Re: More Edison...
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Edison...
Date: 10 May 1993 22:50:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
: This is pure, unadulterated, 100%, bunk. You do *not* have to know the amount
: of electrolyte at "any particular time." All you have to know how much there
: is before the boiling starts. Nothing else matters. You know exactly how much
: there is when the boiling stops: zero. Since the boiling does not falter, and
: the cell does not cool down and reabsorb any heat during the process, the
: process is 100% exothermic.
 
The question remains:  how much boiled and how much spewed out in
droplets without boiling.   If it's "vigorous" boiling, then it
might be alot.
 
: Remember that funny little rule: you cannot
: transfer heat into the cell, unless it co-o-o-ls down cooler than the bath.
 
Unless you expend work somewhere.  I think you are.
 
: Look at the data, look at the video, you will see it is hotter than the bath
: the whole time. If a car drives from New York to Washington, you do not have
: to know exactly where it was the whole time to know that it went 250 miles.
 
Let's get this analogy straight.  You're trying to see what the fuel
efficiency of this car is.  You put in 10 gallons of gas.  Car starts
in New York.  Car ends up in Washington.  250 miles.  And you only
used 1 gallon of gas.  Wow 250 miles per gallon!
 
But of course you drove your car onto a rail flatbed in Newark and
it rode the train to washington, so you only really "drove" 20 miles.
 
That's the problem.
 
 
: - Jed
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Patrick Smith /  P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: 10 May 93 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: Paramax, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
I think I've stumbled upon a theoretical explanation substantiating
the cold fusion interpretation of the excess heat claims of P&F, and
it's so simple that I'm amazed it's been thus far overlooked.
 
Setting aside the question of whether or not the "(P&F) Effect"
is real, let's assume that, indeed, it is, and that the excess heat is
derived from dd fusion with He(4) "ash":
 
                    d + d ----> He(4) + Q (heat),
 
and see where this leads.  The two salient features of this reaction
are:
 
(1) A fusion rate enhanced by many orders of magnitude;
 
(2) The lack of detectable radiation.
 
Now Steve Jones, Dick Blue, and others, have argued persuasively that
the nuclear physics of d-d interactions in a Pd lattice are relatively
unaffected by the surrounding atomic physics, and this seems to be
confirmed by muon catalyzed fusion in condensed matter.  So I'm forced
to conclude that the statistics of the d-d interaction are changed in
such a way that the mutual coulombic repulsion is overcome
*spontaneously*.
 
It has occured to me that this seems to imply a Temporary Reversal of
the Second Law of Thermodynamics inside the Pd lattice!!!!!
 
Now, before you all break out into sarcastic strictures, consider the
case: Cars don't ordinarily roll uphill without power, and deuterons
don't often come close enough to each other to fuse without tremendous
pressure.  But what if they did???  What if, inside a Pd lattice, the
Second Law were suspended temporarily, and deuterons spontaneously
absorbed enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion, thus
enhancing the dd fusion rate by many orders of magnitude?  Well, for
one thing, the resulting excited helium-4 nucleus would be
meta-stable, and only as the ``reversal'' wore off would it gradually
de-excite!!!  No radiation!  Not even characteristic Pd X-rays from
ricocheting alpha particles!  In other words, everything can be
explained by a single miracle -- and an old one at that -- hence
admirably passing the Bollinger criterion!!!
 
And now for the question: Are Pons & Fleischmann and others trying to
patent the most subtle PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE ever?
 
-Patrick
 
PS:  Look for me in Stockholm.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 00:28:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I have mentioned the fact that the heat of vaporization is a known constant
and that water boils at 100 C at 1 atm. As everyone knows, you can climb a
mountain and drink a nice cup of boiling tepid tea (yuch). P&F were not
working at exactly one atmosphere, they measured atmospheric pressure at 0.966
bars, and the Proceedings paper goes into a rather long, detailed -- and to
me, bewildering -- discussion of what the boiling would look like if the
pressure was 0.953, which it wasn't, so why talk about it? I find figure 9
confusing, too. The "cell dry" pointer is directly above "cell 1/2 full"
pointer, but neither of them means "this is the mark for seconds after
experiment starts" (165000). They mean "specific excess heat at 1/2 full" and
"specific excess heat at empty."
 
Pons and Fleischmann use wonderfully simple calorimeters and very complex
calorimetry. The title says it all: "from Simplicity via Complications to
Simplicity." This paper shows that when a real expert does his homework, the
performance of a static calorimeter can be reduced to first principles too,
just like a flow calorimeter. Write enough detailed, careful equations, and
you can predict, simulate, or keep track of every joule. Technically, they do
not require the calibration curve shown in the paper. As I read it, the
calorimetry does not *depend* upon calibration, but the calibration *confirms*
the first principle computation.
 
Naturally, that means that the equations are bursting with terms and
constants, some of which I have never even heard of. Fortunately, they write
subtitles, so you can follow the bouncing ball underneath, and sing along with
them:
 
     "change in the enthalpy content of the calorimeter = enthalpy input due
     to electrolysis - enthalpy content of the gas stream + excess enthalpy
     [if there is any; this is what you solve for!] + calibration pulse - time
     dependent heat transfer coefficient * (effect of radiation + effect of
     conduction)"
 
Anyone have any argument with that? Did you know that a calibration pulse
requires the use of the Heaviside unity function, in order to get it *exactly*
right?
 
I find it hilarious that Steve Jones and others dismiss this kind of work as
bad calorimetry. It sounds like some two-bit modern painter saying Rembrandt
didn't know what he was doing.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / C Harrison /  Bibliography on wais
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunsite.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography on wais
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 05:25:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This message describes how to search through Dieter Britz's bibliography
using WAIS (Wide Area Information Server -- pronounced "wayz").
 
1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...
 
    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source">
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>
 
2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
    On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
 
3.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the
    directory-of-servers.
 
    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Cell Characteristics.
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cell Characteristics.
Date: 10 May 1993 09:52 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <81062@cup.portal.com>, pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes...
>Tom Droege writes:
>
>> RMS calculation of the last  50 data points...
>
>If your ADC has a 20 microsecond aperature, then you have a high frequency tha
>is, at best, 50 kHz. I'm not convinced that's good enough. I'd personally
 
Actually, due to the demon Nyquist, it's 25 kHz (*at least* two samples per
period are required.  Rule of thumb is more like 10 samples per period, to
get a nice representation of the waveform.  Someone else (can't remember who
) posted a nice graph of a sine wave being sampled at slightly more than two
samples per period.  The straight-line reconstruction of this would look
more like a poorly drawn triangle wave than a sine wave.)
 
>perfer to see something with a much higher cutoff.
>
>You should be able to build an HF detector with an op-amp and a few extra part
>Perhaps two amps if you want to do it right. Wire the output to an extra chann
>on your ADC and log this.
 
According to the Analog Devices catalog (correct specs. this time, have the
catalog right in front of my face :-) ) the AD532 Multiplier has a maximum
error of +/- 1% or less (AD532K).  Settling time to 2% is 1 microsecond,
1% amplitude error typically 75 kHz, with a 1000 pF load.
 
The frequency response graph shows the thing good to ~800 kHz, with a purely
resistive load.  Note that even when the signal starts to roll-off, some
form of compensation can be applied to boost it - or it can be characterized
for a bunch of input frequencies >800 kHz, and, in conjunction with a simple
frequency counter, compensation can be applied digitally, though I can see
a few problems with this.
 
>
>Either that, or put a tuned circuit in the power leads close to the cell. That
>should capture any oscillations and constrain them to the frequency of the
>tuned circuit. You can keep that low enough that your ADC will work.
 
Tom hints that he does such things.
 
>
>    ++PLS
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: P&F Phys. Let. A paper review, Part I
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Phys. Let. A paper review, Part I
Date: 10 May 93 15:04:38 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930507125703.2540089e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART I
 
 
 
>This reviewer again proposes that it is very difficult to make accurate
>measurements on a rapidly changing system such as this.  The Kiethly system
>should be used on the true RMS range if there is any hope of an accurate
>reading.  There is no indication that this was done.
>
>3) How much electrolyte is converted to saturated steam, and how much leaves
>   the cell as water droplets?
>
>Strangely this is not even discussed in the text.  At the bottom of page 9 is
>found the following note:  "In addition to electrolysis, the loss of D2O from
>the cells proceeds only by a continuous , smooth flow of vapor through a vent
>in the top of the cell."  The drawing of the cell shows a simple open vent
>pipe, just above the surface of the liquid.  The video tape broadcast by NHK
>shows the cell contents clumping up and down.  Large bubbles form and burst.
>Surely some of the bubbles rise up near the vent tube and pieces are ejected
>through it.  Apparently, and incredibly, Pons and Flieschmann do not even
>consider this possibility as there is no correction in the calculation for it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is almost as if P & F have devised an "experiment" whose dynamics
are so complex as to make it as difficult as possible to analyze.
 
Surely, if one wanted to irrefutably demonstrate something, he would
try to design an experiment with as few variables as possible - and
attempt to make those variables easily measurable.
 
When I see what I see here, I want to walk away from P & F - ignore
this publication, it's not good science , it's a sham!
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / mitchell swartz /  Word wars with Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Word wars with Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 16:44:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <0096C499.25062B00.13302@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: Word wars with Swartz
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) "wars" on:
 
=  "From past experience, I will say that it is unlikely the M. Swartz
=   will make a specific reply to a specific question, but here goes anyway."
 
  Wrong.  Also the record indicates that it is you, and a few of your
     fellow-skeptics who don't answer those questions that tend to erode
     apparent nonacademic and pejorative actions.
 
==  "Is it not a fact that detailed checks for the production of 4He in the
==  original Utah Pons and Fleischmann experiments all gave a null result?"
 
  Since you seem so certain, could you please give a reference,
     and the ** time ** between measurement and reported activity of cathode.
 
== "If we combine that fact with your statement that, "When experiments are
== performed properly there is helium-4." must we not conclude that by
==  your standards the P&F experiments were not properly done?"
 
  Double plus skeptic-think.   All experiments can be done better
      (given the knowledge that accrues with effort) the second
       time around.  P&F have taught the world how to make cold fusion.
 
       The most important thing not properly done was allowing the
            incorrect reporting that these reactions are "easy".
 
 
==  "I know you keep saying I should read the literature"
 
     True.  A good idea.  Even the Dick Blue would be helped by
                                  such diligence.     ;)
 
       Best wishes.
                      Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / mitchell swartz /  Scaling laws and cold fusion experiments
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scaling laws and cold fusion experiments
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 16:45:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <0096C49D.E2D02600.13304@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
     Subject: Scaling laws and cold fusion experiments
 Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
==  "One basic approach to trying to arrive at an understanding of a new
== phenomena is to study how it scales with changes in various system
== parameters.          ..."
== "In their most recent paper, P&F make a point of comparing the enthalpy
== production per unit volume to that of a nuclear reactor.  It is a
== comparison that has limited validity unless some form of scaling law
== is established for the phenomenon under investigation."
 
      Dick, we are quite surprised at your error.
 
    Could the skeptics of cold fusion be sooo blinded and desperate so as,
     in their efforts to "knock" all, to make: a mistake.
 
   Dimensional analysis simply need not play a role here.
 
   One could merely use N reactors instead.
 
   Then again, it could, with sufficient engineering and material
            science, scale up directly.
 
                                               Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Bob Lewandowski /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 04:39:07 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <440015A64D3F210D62@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) in FD
>954:
>
>>      Am I completely off the mark, or are there not high rate
>>      computer acquisition systems for this kind of measurement?
>>      I'd think at least the boys abroad could afford such equipment.
>
>We can all afford such equipment. The problem is no doubt data volume. One
>should be sampling at about 10 kHz.
 
Why?
 
I must be missing something in this whole sampling rate business. Aren't
the power sources in these experiments supplying DC energy only? If this
is the case then a narrow band _loss-less_ low pass filter placed between
the power source and the cell will limit the bandwidth of the voltage and/
or current fluctuations due to variations of load impedance presented to
the power supply by the cell. A high quality, large valued, low leakage
capacitor would be a good start. By monitoring the voltage and current
between the power supply and the filter the sampling requirements can be
easily reduced to a few Hz, or less. The need for highly coincident timing
of voltage and current samples is also greatly reduced by bandwith
limiting.
 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 
--
            Bob Lewandowski
    Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM
     Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368
      UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew
  U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 279G / Everett WA  98206
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblew cudfnBob cudlnLewandowski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Not Boiling!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not Boiling!
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 06:58:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930509141412_72240.1256_EHK25-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dale Bass, confused as ever, writes:
>
>     "This is bad business, this grabbing quantitative boiling data
>     from videotape..."
>
>FOR GOODNESS SAKE! WOULD SOMEBODY OUT THERE PLEASE READ MY DARN MESSAGES!
>
>Get this Dale: it is NOT BOILING when you measure the water level. Do you
>understand plain English? Let me put it in Japanese: mada waite imasen.
>Wakanai uchi ni hakaru wake desu.
 
    According to quoted sections of P&F's article, 'this current flow
    extends the nucleate boiling regime'.  How did they determine this?
    50 cc is not very large, do they give estimates of entrainment and
    superficial vapor velocity?  Where do they get them from?
 
    In English, 'This is bad business, this grabbing quantitative boiling
    data from a videotape'.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How to disprove CF
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to disprove CF
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 07:03:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930510014046_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dale Bass is the latest person to ask how to disprove CF calorimetry:
>
>     "I'm just curious, Jed.  Is there any criticism of 'coldfusion'
>     experiments that *is* valid?"
>
>This is *very* simple! I have outlined exactly what you need to do, but I
>don't mind repeating this, because it is a good exercise for you skeptics to
>confront old man reality.
[hyperbole deleted]
 
     Not my question, but I didn't expect much.
 
     So I guess the answer is that no criticism thus far offered
     is valid and the only possible criticisms will involve mistakes
     in physical and transport properties.
 
     Very enlightening.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Request for references on microstructure studies in CF
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Request for references on microstructure studies in CF
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 14:42:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: bleep@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (bui tho xuan):
 
>Is there any published microstructure work on these samples such
>as Auger, SIMS, SNMS, RBS, EDAX, etc. that anyone knows of?  What
>do these experimenters do with their samples after they finished?
 
I have collected the following articles which have what I call post-mortem
studies of electrodes used for cold fusion experiments. I hope you know how
to find them in the archived bibliography:
 
Adler+ 90; Besenbacher+ 90; Blagus+ 89; Blaser+ 89; Bullock+ 90; Collins+ 90;
Dalard+ 89; Divisek+ 89; Foglio+ 90; Julin + Bursill [91]; Kumar+ 91;
Matsumoto T 91.p567; Mebrahtu+ 89; Morrey+ 90; Mukhopadhyay+ 90; Murr 90;
Myers+ 90; Ono+ 92; Rolison+ 90,91; Sevilla+ 91; Ulman+ 90; Williams+ 89.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: isotopes of Pd
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: isotopes of Pd
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 14:42:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: garthe@cs.athabascau.ca (Garth Edwards) in FD #1002:
 
>If "cold fusion" is affecting the nuclei of Pd, then a good test
>might be to ascertain the isotopic composition of the
>Pd before the experiment and compare it with the Pd isotopic composition
>after the experiment. If there is even a small shift in isotopic ratios then
>something is happening with the nuclei. If no shift is observed then odds are
>"cold fusion" is not nuclear.
 
and
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD #1006, kindly provides a large
table of Pd isotopes, and adds
 
>     Regarding "enrichment", just consider the isotopes.  Many of them
>  are simply unstable (see below).  Therefore Garth stands correct.
>  Seems that it would be very "non-linear" thinking indeed
>  to have them made de novo, and then have a "skeptic" claim enrichment.
...
>  Also, there have been reports of silver and rhodium generated, as well as
>    the isotopic changes of palladium.   Would there be "non-linear" methods to
>     explain these too?  Please provide.
 
 
There are two studies I know of that have looked for isotope changes. One is
by Donohue et al [1991], the other by Rolison and O'Grady [1991]. These are
careful pieces of work, and I accept their conclusions, which are that nothing
of significance was found. True, R+O'G found  some Ag and Rh, but these could
be accounted for by conventional explanations. Occam's razor again; take the
less way-out explanation.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Review P&F Pys. Lett. Part II
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review P&F Pys. Lett. Part II
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 18:41:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART II
 
This part will continue the consideration of the section of the paper dealing
with boiling cells.  Readers are referred to part I for background.
 
In a discussion of this paper, Douglas Morrison has reminded this author of
the "cigarette lighter" effect.  A rod of Palladium charged with Hydrogen was
once used as a cigarette lighter.  When such a rod is exposed to the air,
Hydrogen diffuses out and is catalyzed by the Palladium with the Oxygen in the
air and the rod becomes hot enough to light a cigarette.
 
The previous discussion is now continued:
 
5)  What happens in the boiling cell when the rapid boiling exposes the
cathode?
 
Near the end of the video, the cell contents can be observed to "clump" up and
down in the dewar.  Note that once the rapid boiling and roiling starts, it is
likely that the cathode becomes exposed to the Deuterium, Oxygen, Vapor
atmosphere.  This must happen when the water level drops below the top of the
cathode, and likely happens much sooner due to all the turbulence.  When this
does happen, there is likely to be a small explosion.  Such explosions are
observed in the NHK video.  There are sudden jumps up in the cell contents.
It is likely that when these happen that there is a large expulsion of
unvaporized liquid from the cell.  This is not considered by Pons and
Fleischmann in the discussion.  Loss of un-vaporized liquid causes over
estimation of the heat produced by the reaction.
 
6)  What happens when the "cigarette lighter" effect continues after the cell
boils dry?
 
>From the paper: "... furthermore, the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the
base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300 C."  We
suffer from lack of detail as to how the gas exhaust from the cell is handled.
Pons and Fleischmann also note that the cell stays hot a long time after it
boils dry.  If the gas is simply vented to the atmosphere as the drawing
indicates, then even after the Deuterium - Oxygen content of the cell is
exhausted, the "cigarette lighter" effect could continue for some time from
oxygen diffusing back into the cell from the vent.  This would surely explain
the melted Kel-F.  The long time the cell stays hot could be explained by a
combination of things.  4) from Part I of this discussion points out that the
calorimeter constant likely changes to a less radiative value due to the
Lithium Oxide coating that must be deposited on the inside of the cell after
boil off.  First the cathode catalyzes all the Deuterium and Oxygen in the
cell.  Later Oxygen is drawn in with the air replacing the burned cell
contents and burns with Deuterium diffusing out of the cathode.  This
continues until all the available Deuterium is burned.  Continuous heating
plus a highly reflective coating allow the cell to stay hot for a long period
of time without implying "anomalous heat".  Note that the coating must be
there.  Implying otherwise means that the Lithium leaves with the vapor.  It
can only do that if it is dissolved in liquid, and this means that unvaporized
liquid is leaving the cell.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Jed Rothwell /  PhDs from K-Mart?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PhDs from K-Mart?
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 19:41:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I do not normally share comments that people send me by private e-mail, but I
got such a killer-diller, that I shall report it briefly, in disguise. Someone
wrote me a message beginning:
 
     "From what I could piece together from your article..."
 
My mystery correspondent is trying to understand the P&F paper from the
occasional messages posted by me, Tom Droege, and others. This means that he
knows nothing about the work. How can ANYBODY understand a paper he has not
read?!? This fellow feels qualified to write me a number of half-witted
comments and severe "criticisms" about a paper he admits he has not seen! I
have never heard anything so presumptuous in my life.
 
 
Then I noticed this garbage from Arnold Frisch:
 
     "It is almost as if P & F have devised an 'experiment' whose dynamics are
     so complex as to make it as difficult as possible to analyze... When I
     see what I see here, I want to walk away from P & F - ignore this
     publication, it's not good science, it's a sham!
 
Frisch cannot *possibly* have read the paper either, because if he had, he
would know that the dynamics are breathtakingly simple -- in principle --
especially in the first phase (18 days) before the boil-off event, when you
get megajoules of excess heat. The simplicity is enhanced by silvering on the
top portion of the test tube. What on earth does "when I see what I see
here..." mean? What have you seen here? Any graphs? Any equations? Any
comprehensive description of the experiment? What can anyone "see" here?
 
 
What is with you people, anyway? Did you get your science education a the K-
Mart discount store? What the hell does it mean to "piece together" an
impression of an experiment? There is a paper in Physics Letters A. You must
read that paper before you are qualified to make *any* *comment* about it.
Period. In science, you do not "piece together" vague impressions from rumors
and passing comments made by other people who have done their homework.
 
I complained about Nagoya Proc. Fig. 9 (# 10B in Phys. Let). If you have not
seen Fig. 9, how on earth can you make any rational assessment of what I said?
Obviously, I was addressing those in the audience who have that figure sitting
in front of them. The rest of you should shut up and wait until you get a
copy. You have no business making firm judgements, positive or negative.
 
Questions and tentative opinions are fine. If you frame a comment in terms
like: "it seems to me..." or "perhaps I misunderstand, but there might be a
weakness here..." -- that's kosher. The other day Steve Jones indicated that
he is bubbling a nickel CF cathode with oxygen gas. I *suggested* that might
be counter-indicated. I did not categorically state it is a bad idea; I just
offered a cautious opinion. I have not seen any formal report from Steve, so I
have no reason to think he is getting any oxidation, or that O2 is causing any
problem whatsoever. I presume he knows what he is doing. However, I suggest
that perhaps sometime he might want to try H2.
 
 
I find it incredible that people who call themselves scientists would have the
chutzpa to post messages -- or even private e-mail -- seriously criticizing a
paper they have not even seen.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Did Mitchell Swartz answer my question?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did Mitchell Swartz answer my question?
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 19:52:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As I predicted, Mitchell Swartz did not answer a simple direct question
about the early history of CF research.  Instead he ask for references
where the answer may be found.  I may be wrong, but I believe that you
will find information about the analyses of P&F cathodes in the
proceedings of the first anniversery CF conference.  If you have
the earlier summaries of cold fusion research by Douglas Morrison,
I am sure you can find some information on that question.  As I
find time, I will try to reread some of that material.
 
>From the way Mitchell words his question, it would appear that he
doubts the validity of testing for helium at some time and place
removed from the end of CF experiment.  Does that doubt extend
to measurements that claim helium "positives"?  By the way I am
still at a loss to understand how helium production has become
so firmly established as an essential feature of cold fusion.
I have heard of claims of a correlation between helium and
excess heat, but dare we use the word commensurate?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  "resistance is *not* rising"
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "resistance is *not* rising"
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 21:35:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On the basis of Jed Rothwell's evaluation of the recent P&F publication
it seems that in spite of the rapid boiling to dryness the resistance of
the P&F cell is not rising.  I find this to be a very remarkable bit of
data.  I suppose the rising Li ion concentration offsets that falling
contact area between electrolyte and electrodes, but  at some point it
must end.  There just has to be one of those Heaviside steps in cell
resistance as the cell boils dry.  Could it be that Pons and Fleischmann
simply failed to measure correctly the rapid rise in resistance and
the corresponding rise in input power?
 
The other remarkable feature of the P&F calorimetry, at least as
reported by Jed, is that no calibration is required!  The heat
loss rate from the cell is determined by a "first principle
computation."  I hope Jed has that all wrong.  Otherwise I will
simple have to conclude that something, somewhere has gotten
totally off the trolley.  For your information, Jed, there simply is
no such thing as a first principle computation of heat transfer that
could have any bearing on the issue at hand.  Either Pons and Fleischmann
do a very complete set of calibration measurements for their
calorimeters, or you can flush their data down the tubes as being
less than worthless.  You see, Jed, calorimetry may be very simple
in concept, but it really depends on some rather poorly defined
processes.  Heat transfer across boundaries is an extremely complex
problem.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 22:43:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes:  "You do *not* have to know the amount of electrolyte
at "any particular time."  All you have to know how much there is before the
boiling starts.  Nothing else matters.  You know exactly how much there is
when the boiling stops: zero."
 
Unfortunately, Jed, P&F have designed their cell so we do not know how much
liquid is in the cell when the boiling starts.  The water level is hidden
behind the silvered part of the Dewar.  See figure 2 of the Physics Letters A
paper.  That is one reason that they measure from the "half full" point.  The
video tape shows some calibration lines that are likely used for the half
full measurement.  But how much liquid is in a cell that is at one of the
calibration marks when it is full of bubbles and vapor?  I don't know.  I don't
think P&F know either.  But it is convenient for them to claim a certain
amount of fill.  That way they can claim "anomalous heat'.  But it does not
look like a measurement to me.  It is more of a guess.  So you are plain wrong
Jed, you do have to know the amount of electrolyte at "any particular time".
You have to know it at two particular times, and the time interval between the
times or you do not have a measurement.  P&F do not have a measurement, they
have a guess.  I for one will write Physics Letters A and suggest that they
get a review process that does not publish guesses.
 
Jed further writes:  "Meaningless hypothetical statements serve no purpose."
They do serve a purpose Jed.  P&F have published a paper missing most of the
detail and discussion that would allow reasonable evaluation of their
technique.  Since they have not seemed to have learned how to write a paper in
four+ years, it is time for some of us to point out to them what is missing.
At first, it is my practice to assume that workers know what they are doing,
and that missing detail was performed according to standard practice.  When
years go by, and none of the criticisms have been met, I change and assume the
everything not disclosed was done in the *worse* possible way!  So P&F, write
good papers, include the important detail, or I for one will assume that
anything not specifically covered was not measured.
 
Mitchell Swartz asks what I found wrong with the Storms and Takahashi papers.
Storms had 1/2 of a positive run.  Then something broke and the run was
terminated.  He then made a second null run.  What bothers me is that this
meant that Storms did not have an end of run calibration.  I am not happy
unless I have calibrations at each end of an experiment that make senst.
As for Takahashi, looking at the chart recordings provided by Jed Rothwell, I
was able to do a transient analysis.  Basically I used the rise and fall time
of the curves as an independent measurement of the heat flow.  This analysis
was consistent with zero.  Both of these discussions were covered here.  I
will look them up Mitch, if you desire.
 
To Patrick J. Smith, who has a wonderful "single miracle" theory, I ask
"how are miracles ordered?"  Is a 42 miracle event any less likely than a
single miracle event?  Why?  Give me a proof!  See, my math training comes
out from time to time.
 
Jed Rothwell writes:  " ... paper goes into a rather long, detailed -- and to
me bewildering -- discussion of what the boiling would look like if the
pressure was 0.953, which it wasn't, so why talk about it?  I find figure 9
confusing, too.  The "cell dry" pointer is directly above "cell 1/2 full"
pointer, but niether of them means "this is the mark for seconds after
experiment starts" (165000). ..."
 
Well Jed, at least you are honestly trying to read the paper.  I too am
bewildered.  Not so much by little things like the caption for figure 9 says
that it plots lower bound heat transfer for "three different periods", and
then shows only two.  For the early papers, I gave allowance to P&F for
such sloppy editing.  But not now.  This paper did not have to be hurried.
The process gives them plenty of time to discover that a caption does not
make sense.  How did the editors miss a caption that says "three" but then
shows a) and b).  Perhaps this will clear up when I have a copy that I can
read better, but I don't see how.
 
No, what bewilders me is that after all this time, P&F are still publishing
anecdotal examples.  More like flying saucer reports than description of
an experiment.
 
Jed further writes:  "Pons and Fleischmann use wonderfully simple calorimeters
and very complex calorimetry.  The title says it all: "from Simplicity via
Complications to Simplicity."  This paper shows that when a real expert does
his homework, the performance of a static calorimeter can be reduced to first
principles too, just like a flow calorimeter.  Write enough detailed, careful
equations, and you can predict, simulate, or keep track of every joule.
Technically, they do not require the calibration curve showen in the paper.
As I read it, the calorimetry does not *depend* upon calibration, but the c
calibration *confirms* the first principle computation."
 
Wow! Jed, you really dig that flute music!  I long ago learned to appreciate
sitting down at a lunch table with some famous physicist, and asking for an
explanation of some complex topic.  The good ones adjust their exlanation to
my level, they do not attempt to dazzle me with complex calculations.  In
face, I have long noted that the "high powered" physicists do not talk to
*each other* in complex mathematics.  The P&F computation is not so complex
on the scale of things, it is just inappropriate and unnecessary.
 
To Mike Jamison, I have tried not to hint.  The current source presently
has a 120 second time constant.  Until last week it had a 5 second time
constant.  A 120 second time constant implemented the "easy" way would
use a 1 ohm resistor and a 120 farad capacitor.  You might just squeeze all
the parts in a 3 bedroom ranch.  But I do it electronicly, and it is done
with a 10 megohm resistor and a 2.2 microfarad capacitor.  And don't bother
me that that does not give a 120 second time constant.  It is in a loop with
other gain elements.  So I measured it.  I actually have some AD532's in my
parts box.  Also about 5 other similar devices.  I am very cautious about
their use.  The problem is that they change gain with signal amplitude.  Very
tricky to understand them in a closed loop system.
 
Arnold Frisch writes:  "It is almost as if P&F have devised an "experiment"
whose dynamics are so complex as to make it as difficult as possible to
analyze."  Now why would they do that, Arnold?  Hint: P&F like life in the
south of France.
 
Arnold further writes:  "When I see what I see here, W want to walk away from
P&F - ignore this publication, it's not good science, it's a sham!"
 
I second you Arnold.
 
This paper has one advantage.  We now know P&F by their work.  This is an
"important" paper in an "important" (at least it was) publication.  By their
work you wil know them.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Bruce Scott /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: 11 May 1993 13:15:51 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Patrick, your post was a joke, of course (Stockholm, right?).
 
But you neglect to mention the third salient feature of the d + d reaction:
helium ash. As we have heard from Jones and others, production of helium
even if we suspend disbelief concerning contamination from glass, is not
near to being commensurate with the excess heat which is being claimed.
 
One can imagine scenarios to avoid the gammas [*], but not the He.
 
[*] crazy solid-state ones to be sure, but not a priori impossible
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: 11 May 93 07:26:46 PDT

Jed,  you appear to cite an example of irrelevant detail taken to
extrodinary precision, and an extrodinary reliance on mathematical
modeling as evidence of high quality.
 
If these attributes were isolated from the current discussion and
placed in some completely irrelevant context, they whould sound more
characteristic of a shell game than of scientific elegance.
 
I'm always leary of mathematical models as a possible source of error.
I've been bit by the devil in the details too often to consider
elaborate modeling such as you describe to be an asset.  At best it
means that the reader has a LOT of work to do checking the analysis.
 
The P&F paper may be excelent, but I think you've chosen the wrong
attributes to get excited about.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: 11 May 93 15:41:52 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930510215211_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
................
>Naturally, that means that the equations are bursting with terms and
>constants, some of which I have never even heard of. Fortunately, they write
>subtitles, so you can follow the bouncing ball underneath, and sing along with
>them:
>
>     "change in the enthalpy content of the calorimeter = enthalpy input due
>     to electrolysis - enthalpy content of the gas stream + excess enthalpy
>     [if there is any; this is what you solve for!] + calibration pulse - time
>     dependent heat transfer coefficient * (effect of radiation + effect of
>     conduction)"
>
>Anyone have any argument with that? Did you know that a calibration pulse
>requires the use of the Heaviside unity function, in order to get it *exactly*
>right?
>
>I find it hilarious that Steve Jones and others dismiss this kind of work as
>bad calorimetry.
...........
..............
 
You must have a strong masochistic streak.
 
I repeat; it almost appears to me that P & F have devised an experiment
with as much complication as they could possibly manage, in order to
make it more difficult for others to refute their results.
 
It seems to me that their responsibility, if they are competent
scientists, is to publish work that is as easy to confirm as possible,
or else to not publish.  Instead, it appears that they have published
something that is calculated to be as controversial as possible,
without having the possiblity of having it confirmed or refuted.
 
Again, if they are so smart, why don't they just get rich and not
publish anything.  According to Jed, they are light years ahead of us,
so they don't need us anyway!
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / nod sivad /  Re: How to disprove CF
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to disprove CF
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 18:25:31 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

Jed writes:
 
>     Show how to build an electric device that, when attached to an ordinary
>     DC power supply, somehow fools the power supply into delivering an extra
>     300% or 400% of electrical power...
 
Konbanwa, Jed-san.
 
There, it's been almost two decades since I lived in
Japan, and he'll have to forgive my spelling, but I think I can serve
as a intermediary between Jed and the great unwashed.
 
Jed-san, Tom Droege is exploring just this avenue, not quite as you
expressed it, but close enough for us neutrals.  His results should be
interesting.
 
Wakalimaska?  Ah...that looks wrong.  I shouldn't try this without a Japanese
dictionary.  Can we switch to French instead?  C'est mieux pour moi.
 
 
                                                me
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 15:05:26 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <2220@giga.slc.paramax.com>
p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith) writes:
 
> I think I've stumbled upon a theoretical explanation substantiating
> the cold fusion interpretation of the excess heat claims of P&F, and
> it's so simple that I'm amazed it's been thus far overlooked...
  ...
> It has occured to me that this seems to imply a Temporary Reversal of
> the Second Law of Thermodynamics inside the Pd lattice!!!!!
  ...
> ... In other words, everything can be explained by a single miracle -- and
> an old one at that -- hence admirably passing the Bollinger criterion!!!
>
> And now for the question: Are Pons & Fleischmann and others trying to
> patent the most subtle PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE ever?
>
> -Patrick
>
> PS:  Look for me in Stockholm.
 
Avast ye corporate companion of Bob Munck & Company!  I've heard the story
of how they had to move some of you fellas to salty domains just to keep
people working on your object-oriented operating system long enough to
_learn_ it!  No Stockholm for you, just more more more object classes...
 
Alas, pert nar everyone has forgotten the _second_ part of the Farfetch
game, which is to _stomp on your proposed miracle until there is nothing
left but dust!_.  The Far'ing is fun, it's the Fetch'ing thats painful... :)
 
....
 
I blew it again.  This is my absolute _last_ posted comment on this topic:
 
You _cannot_ resign from the LDS.  You must be excommunicated -- otherwise,
as far as the LDS is concerned, you are still a member.  The Dee Jay Nelson
resignation letter to the LDS thus must have been a resignation from his
post as translator, rather than from the LDS itself.  However, considering
the bitter tone and very blunt language of the letter, I rather strongly
suspect that proper excommunication followed shortly thereafter.
 
No more postings on this subject, but if anyone out there knows the details
of this intriguing piece of recent history, a _private_ email (I've already
wasted enough bandwidth on this decidely off-topic subject) would be most
appreciated.  I find LDS history absolutely fascinating, and some of highly
interesting stories I've recieved by personal email have rekindled my old
interest in this subject.  At one time I even considered researching a book
on the subject, but there are so many out now that there would probably be
no real point in such an exercise.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
.......
 
P.S. -- Could the person who posted that excellent question about increases
        in probability of fusion due to delocalization of hydrogen in the
        palladium lattice please remind me who you are?  I have you emails
        off on tape and cannot recall your name/email.
 
        I've rephrased your question in terms of a generalized issue of how
        to "reconfigure" many-particle wavefunctions, and sent it out on
        another group (sci.physics.research) in hopes that someone may be
        able to provide some insights on some of the odd questions it seems
        to raise.  Quite apart from any "cold fusion" connection, it does
        seem to present a curious sort of many-particle Bell's paradox, and
        I hope someone will follow up on it with an explanation.  (I'm not
        holding my breath, however!)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / mitchell swartz /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 17:42:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1so8u7INNgv6@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
    Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
  Bruce Scott (bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de) writes:
 
== "Patrick, your post was a joke, of course (Stockholm, right?).
==  But you neglect to mention the third salient feature of the d + d reaction:
==  helium ash. As we have heard from Jones and others, production of helium
==  even if we suspend disbelief concerning contamination from glass, is not
==  near to being commensurate with the excess heat which is being claimed."
 
   FACT: Good emitters are good absorbers.   Materials can remove
     the helium as well as provide extrinsic non-de-novo helium-4.
 
   FACT: There are reports, the good Dr. Jones' comments notwithstanding,
    which claim near commensurate levels in some systems, and other
    reports which tie the helium-4 with the excess heat.
 
   Now: if helium-4 does appear (even in non-comensurate levels since
    there might be MORE THAN ONE PATHWAY) what are the implications?
 
     o  1.  nuclear reactions appear to be occuring in "cold fusion".
 
==  "One can imagine scenarios to avoid the gammas [*], but not the He."
==  [*] crazy solid-state ones to be sure, but not a priori impossible
 
   Bruce, many researchers report ionizing radiation which (depending
    on the origin, and probably reflected in the energy spectrum) may be
    gamma rays or x-rays from the ACTIVE electrodes.
 
      What are the implications here?
 
     o   2.  Such ionizing radiation may support number 1 above.
 
  The presence of tritium, excess heat generated beyond the storage properties
of all materials involved, and other newer signatures, all appear to
corroborate that cold fusion -- and the technologies spun from it --
   provide new areas of physics undreamt of only ten years ago.
 
                             Best wishes.
                                                 Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 17:43:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <2764@tekgen.bv.tek.com>
      Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
 Arnold Frisch (arnief@sail.labs.tek.com) writes:
 
==  "I repeat; it almost appears to me that P & F have devised an experiment
==  with as much complication as they could possibly manage, in order to
==  make it more difficult for others to refute their results."
 
  Which experiment was that?   The paper from Nagoya?   One of their
   others?  The new May '93 Physics Letters A?
 
  Apparently some of the skeptics have no difficulty refuting anything at
  all since some have not even read the papers.  Other misrepresent what is
  in them.   Did you read all these papers?
 
==  "It seems to me that their responsibility, if they are competent
==  scientists, is to publish work that is as easy to confirm as possible,
==  or else to not publish."
 
  Does Tektronix Labs publish everything?   Selective perhaps?
  Also one can publish an experiment that is not easy to reproduce because
    the materials involved are not all identical and some even change over time.
 
==   "Instead, it appears that they (F&P) have published
==  something that is calculated to be as controversial as possible,
==  without having the possiblity of having it confirmed or refuted."
 
  Silly comment.  Having had the fortunate opportunity to read their
   papers and one prepublication: Not.  You stand incorrect from this parallax
   point of view.   But then maybe you can support your claim, ok?
     Which recent paper supports any of what you claim?
 
==  "Again, if they are so smart, why don't they just get rich and not
==  publish anything."
 
  I guess the rest of us are lucky that they have (and others) persevered
  and not taken that approach.
 
  Thought Tektronix Laboratories, producer of some of my favorite
   equipment,  had more open-minded, creative people.
 
                           Best wishes.                Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / mitchell swartz /  Hiding behind Count Rumford's cloak
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hiding behind Count Rumford's cloak
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 17:41:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <0096C4EB.48DB7920.13500@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: Hiding behind Count Rumford's cloak
  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) purports:
 
==dblue "Most of the calorimetry employed in CF experiments is so crude
==dblue  that long lists of possible sources of error can be prepared,
==dblue   and that has been done.  There have been detailed analyses of
==dblue   selected landmark experiments to point out specific shortcomings of
==dblue   methods employed in CF research."
 
  For those who might take this seriously, here is a balancing thought:
   Most of the calorimetry employed in experiments purporting to disprove
   cold fusion were crude and in some cases: worse.
 
     There have been detailed analyses of the putative
 "negative-landmark" experiments which have demonstrated specific and
  general shortcomings of the methods employed in anti-CF "research".
 
  Re: the scores of positive papers dismissed with the now boiler-plate
  "magic-skeptic-wand":
 
   The calorimetry is impressive in many cases, and improving.
   Cold fusion has been corroborated by several types of calorimetry.
 
    If there is really any "long" list of possible sources of errors, again
   you are asked what are they, what is their magnitude, and to please note
   whether these "errors" exist in the controls too, or in other systems.
 
  [Question to historians:
    Given the widespread corroboration of cold fusion,
    why did this all happen?  Could the militant-skeptics have (had) a
    possible interest, conflict-of-interest, or vested interest? ?  ?]
 
                                                    Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / T Neustaedter /  Re: PhDs from K-Mart?
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PhDs from K-Mart?
Date: 12 May 1993 01:01:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

*fume*
 
In article <930511173326_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> I do not normally share comments that people send me by private e-mail
 
You should keep it that way, Jed. I read this newsgroup, but I normally
don't post. I've occasionally commented on some of the postings privately
to individuals via email.
 
> but I got such a killer-diller, that I shall report it briefly, in disguise.
 
Don't bother. It was I. Let it not be said that I refused to stand behind
one of my flames. Even if it _was_ intended for one individual rather than
the net as a whole.
 
> My mystery correspondent is trying to understand the P&F paper from the
> occasional messages posted by me, Tom Droege, and others.
 
No. I commented on Jed's ravings on the subject. I tried to piece together
what he was saying about the P&F article, since he didn't bother to provide
a reference (doesn't matter - I'm an hour away from the nearest library
that carries Phys Rev A. I doubt I could spare the time today to drive in
to photocopy the article in question.) My understanding of P&F's methods
come from the various articles I've seen in print over the past five
years - not from a specific article that Jed was quoting from.
 
I did comment was that P&F seem to have engaged in great efforts to
calculate what they weren't measuring, and it wasn't clear that their
efforts were reasonable. In my neck of the woods, we call this technique
"hand-waving" or "bury them with bullshit". Provide details down to the
seven-sigma level of many types of slightly related information, and nobody
will notice that critical information is only known to an order of magnitude.
 
I also commented that open-cell calorimetry is so inaccurate as to be
useless, which I happen to know from personal experience (ask me sometime
about nitro-organic compounds and my relations with a certain fire dept...
I had made an error of only a few percent.)
 
My last comment was that he was bitching about Steve Jones criticizing
P&F's methods with regards to calorimetry. As I recall, P&F are both
electrochemists, not thermodynamicists. And even if they were, nobody is
above criticism. Everyone makes mistakes. Even fundamental ones.
 
> What is with you people, anyway? Did you get your science education a the K-
> Mart discount store?
 
Truer than you might know, Jed. If I'd known that K-Mart sold Ph.D.s, I
woulda bought one. I'm not a scientist and I never claimed to be one.
I can spel engineer, thus I are one. I _would_ normally expect you to
be the last person to throw stones (glass houses, and all that).
 
This is a discussion group, which means that we discuss comments posted to
this medium. If you want an environment that consists entirely of people who
have read all the literature on the subject (and have access to the articles
you quote without your bothering to provide a reference), I suggest you limit
yourself to refereed journals. Certainly don't bother posting comments to the
network, because you'll get people commenting on what you post, independent
of more complete information being available elsewhere.
 
> What the hell does it mean to "piece together" an
> impression of an experiment? There is a paper in Physics Letters A.
 
So why didn't you either quote the article (so we didn't have to guess at
what you were driving at), or provide a reference to it? I assumed it was
a paper not available to the general public, so you didn't bother (I would
qualify Fusion Tech and Fusion Facts as not available due to their poor
distribution and yearly subscription price).
 
What I knew of P&Fs methods was that they were not measuring the temperature
of the outgoing gas stream, nor the chemical composition, nor the volume/mass.
This means they don't know what was leaving their cell - if they've changed
their methods, that's news to me. Your comments did not imply otherwise.
 
> I complained about Nagoya Proc. Fig. 9 (# 10B in Phys. Let). If you have not
> seen Fig. 9, how on earth can you make any rational assessment of what I said?
 
Actually, Jed. I long ago ceased to make any rational assesment of your
comments. I occasionally comment (to you, in private) on your more blatant
flames, when I happen to stumble over them. I usually avoid wasting everyone
else's time, but your public insulting attitude pissed me off.
 
My apologies to the rest of you.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       Stratus Computer
         tarl@sw.stratus.com    Marlboro, Mass.
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / T Neustaedter /  Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: 12 May 1993 01:21:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <930510215211_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> [... P&F paper:]
>      "change in the enthalpy content of the calorimeter = enthalpy input due
>      to electrolysis - enthalpy content of the gas stream + excess enthalpy
>      [if there is any; this is what you solve for!] + calibration pulse - time
>      dependent heat transfer coefficient * (effect of radiation + effect of
>      conduction)"
>
> Anyone have any argument with that?
 
As I commented before, I don't have easy access to Phys Letters A, let alone
know when in the last five years this article was published. Since Jed has
gotten my ire up, will someone who has easy access to the article answer
the following three questions?
 
How are they measuring
    1) the enthalpy content of the gas stream
    2) time dependent heat transfer coefficient
    3) Enthalpy input due to electrolysis
 
To measure the first, presumably they would have to measure the mass/volume
of the gas stream, the chemical composition, and the temperature. Are they?
Or are they doing something niftier (like using a closed cell?)
 
I have no idea how to measure the second without enclosing the apparatus
inside a dewar flask and measuring the end temperature of a bath. If they
have a glass apparatus standing in open air (as in their original experiments)
they will have this coefficient change as droplets form/evaporate/slide off
above the water line, and they will have it change as the water level
changes. Both changed conduction and changed transparency to radiation.
With turbulent boil-off, both effects will show rapid changes. What have
they changed that they think they can measure this?
 
The third measurement has been discussed to death in this group recently,
showing many ways that naive measurements of voltage and amperage can be
misleading. Particularly in a turbulent boil-off situation, where resistance
is changing on an extremely rapid scale. I can think of ways to get around
this, but I haven't seen evidence that P&F are applying such controls.
Are they? If so, what methods are they using?
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       Stratus Computer
         tarl@sw.stratus.com    Marlboro, Mass.
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:40:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2769@tekgen.bv.tek.com>
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Arnie Frisch arnief@sail.labs.tek.com) writes:
 
== "Just as I expected, if you can't attack the statement, attack
==   the stater."
 
   Is that not what you are doing with P&F?
 
   Did you read the papers?   [Asking you to explain your claim,
                               or to find out if you are familiar with
                               the papers is not an attack!  is it?]
 
   Also I said that I liked Tektronix Laboratories products; hardly
     an attack, eh?
                                               Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Did Dick Blue answer my question?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did Dick Blue answer my question?
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:41:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <0096C59A.42907FC0.13632@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: Did Mitchell Swartz answer my question?
 Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) attacks:
 
== "As I predicted, Mitchell Swartz did not answer a simple direct question
== about the early history of CF research.  Instead he ask for references
== where the answer may be found."
 
  Dick Blue, quick to attack anyone with an open mind displayed here,
  now has attacked my request for information about his own postings.
  We are not all as omniscient as you, Dick.       \/\/
   [You have been so secretive,  perhaps you will tell us more of yourself]
 
== " I may be wrong, but I believe that you
==  will find information about the analyses of P&F cathodes in the
==  proceedings of the first anniversery CF conference.  If you have
==  the earlier summaries of cold fusion research by Douglas Morrison,
==  I am sure you can find some information on that question."
 
   Does Douglas Morrision's earlier work(s) show the similar errors
  which have been pointed out here by several people regarding his more
   recent missives?
 
==  "From the way Mitchell words his question, it would appear that he
==  doubts the validity of testing for helium at some time and place
==  removed from the end of CF experiment.  Does that doubt extend
==  to measurements that claim helium "positives"?
 
  All experiments have their validity predicated on how, when, and what
 \/\/
  was done.  Reciprocity.  Which brings us to the obvious:
 
   Some of the few past very recent questions posed to Dick Blue:
 
  "What was the time between measurement and activity of cathode?
 (Was it correct that) Dimensional analysis simply need not play a role?
  If there is really any "long" list of possible sources of errors, again
   you are asked what are they, what is their magnitude, and to please note
   whether these "errors" exist in the controls too, or in other systems."
 
       As predicted, Dick Blue did not answer the questions.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:42:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <930511170838.24607924@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
     Subject: Various Replies
 Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) writes:
 
== "Mitchell Swartz asks what I found wrong with the Storms and Takahashi
==  papers.  Storms had 1/2 of a positive run.  Then something broke and
== the run was terminated.  He then made a second null run.  What
bothers me is == that this meant that Storms did not have an end
of run calibration."
 
   Tom, at Edmund Storms' recent lecture at MIT (last week)
 he stated that his xperiments had calorimetry calibrations by two
 independant methods done before, during, and after the experiments.
 
   Perhaps my notes are erroneous.  Perhaps he meant something else.
   Is your data from him?
                            Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Questions for Dr. Noninski
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Dr. Noninski
Date: 11 May 93 13:48:27 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Questions for Dr. Noninski:
 
In my response to you on May 6, 1993, I asked a number of questions which,
if you respond, could add light to the discussion about possible anomalous
xs heat in light-water cells of the type you use.  In your response to me,
you did not address these questions.  Therefore, I post them again, with
numbering to assist in the exchange.
 
1.  "Does Dr. Noninski really mean to suggest that Dr. Notyoa did not correct
for the 1.48 V * I which went into electrolysis?"
 
2.  "If he does know that she did this, just as he did in similar experiments,
then why does he accuse me of a misleading change of data, rather than a simple
correction (when a misunderstood communication from D. Buehler was corrected)
to fit the facts?"
 
3.  "Does Dr. noninski have any studies of his own which show that
recombination is unimportant?"
[Please provide reference where published.]
 
4.  "One more question for Dr. Noninski.  How does he account for the xs heat
in *light* water cells as he claims? --What does he think of the Mills-Farrell
- Kneizys theory which attempts to explain this based on "shrunken" hydrogen
atoms?  {See fus. Tech 20:65, 1991}"
 
 
With regard to questions 1&2, note that Jed Rothwell, associated with Dr.
Notoya in her light-water/nickel demonstrations, posted on this net that the
BYU grad. student Dave Buehler and I were correct, that is, that Dr. Notoya
did have higher input voltage on her electrolysis cell (by the 1.48 V
associated with electrolysis) than on her control cell which contained a
resistor.  (Correct me if I'm wrong on this, Jed.  Here's your chance.)
Certainly you would not use the epithets of "student" or "obvious dilletant"
(from your 8 May posting) on your colleague Jed Rothwell!
This is one reason why your untrue charge that I "dreamed up" this
correction -- which you also use [Ref.:  V. Noninski, Fusion Technology
21:163 (1992)]  -- is so unreasonable.  But here's your chance
to clear yourself.
 
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
 
P.S.  If you use the net primarily for ad hominem attacks on "students"
and "dilletants", which to some degree we all are, rather than for a free
exchange of information, then I agree with you:  the net is not for you.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  srgxbhh@grv.gr /  RE: Aviation A-history
     
Originally-From: srgxbhh@grv.grace.cri.nz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Aviation A-history
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 18:50:23 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Ltd., New Zealand.

In Article <930510192831_72240.1256_EHK36-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
[heaps deleted]
>Good Grief! Let's get back to history here, shall we? In 1908, FIVE YEARS
>after the Wrights flew, not a single person, anywhere on earth, had come close
>to replicating them.
 
Last I heard, New Zealand was on Earth in the early 1900s. I assume
you have not heard of the NZer Pearce whose claim to controlled,
manned powered flight was recognised by the Royal Aeronautical
Society. His timing was very close to the Wright brothers. Deep
discussion of frivolous examples already pollutes s.p.f, so I
apologise for this example.
 
   Bruce Hamilton          srgxbhh@grv.grace.cri.nz
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensrgxbhh cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.10 / Paul Houle /  Re: How to disprove CF
     
Originally-From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to disprove CF
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 20:56:03 GMT
Organization: Electrical Eng. Dept. - New Mexico Tech

In article <930510014046_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>     Prove that the specific heat of water and the heat of vaporization are
>     wrong by a factor of at least 3, and better yet 10.
 
        ...
 
>     Prove that it is impossible to measure direct current electricity with
>     ordinary laboratory equipment to within 300%. Be sure to contact Keithley
>     when you crack this problem! They will pay you millions.
 
        Yes,  but wasn't McKubre only talking about a 4% excess?  In which
case we only need a 4% source of systematic error.
 
        Also,  so far as Joeseph Newman's miracle motor goes,  I've observed
it completely befuddling common measurement devices such as home wattmeters,
even the point of making them run backwards.  Some pretty weird things can
happen when you're trying to measure weird systems.
 
 
 
--
Welcome to the Aramcheck Network,  Internet Gateway to VALIS
************************************************************
Join Lum's Stormtroopers today!
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhoule cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Bruce Scott /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: 11 May 1993 20:20:29 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Mitchell Swatrz writes:
 
   "FACT: Good emitters are good absorbers.   Materials can remove
     the helium as well as provide extrinsic non-de-novo helium-4."
 
Is this your proposal for a resting place for He4 products? If so, then
people can just run long enough until the glass can take no more He4.
Eventually, this could be checked in arbitrarily tight detail. So do it!
 
   "FACT: There are reports, the good Dr. Jones' comments notwithstanding,
    which claim near commensurate levels in some systems, and other
    reports which tie the helium-4 with the excess heat."
 
I just got a nice reference via e-mail, and one that didn't shout. But I have
_no_ access to J Analyt Chem. For others out there, the reference is Miles,
et al, J Analyt Chem 346 (1993) 99-117. Could someone please comment on this
paper and give some numbers? It is claimed that they see He4 at a level
consistent with d + d --> He4 and their excess heat to within a factor of 5.
The e-mail did not say whether the observation of He4 correlated in time
with the excess heat. Nor did it say whether the He4 was too much or too
little. I reserve judgement until I see all of that. It is also claimed
that the He4 was seen with D2O but not with H20. Anyone with further
comments? Et tu, Mitchell?
 
   "Now: if helium-4 does appear (even in non-comensurate levels since
    there might be MORE THAN ONE PATHWAY) what are the implications?"
 
Either He4, or T, or He3 must be seen in the right quantity. Add them up
and the numbers must match. I admit the possibility of strange branching
ratios but I most certainly stand on baryon and charge conservation. And
if the excess heat results from fusion, this must add up in _all_ the
experiments.
 
   "Bruce, many researchers report ionizing radiation which (depending
    on the origin, and probably reflected in the energy spectrum) may be
    gamma rays or x-rays from the ACTIVE electrodes."
 
Negative. Steven Jones, helped by a radiologist whose name I forget now, has
correctly pointed out why film is not a good diagnostic. We all await the
results using X-ray spectrometers.
 
 
I strongly think you are jumping to conclusions which are premature in the
extreme. I expect scientists to be more careful than that. (Of course, we
have that in hot fusion as well, and you've already seen me complain about
it.)
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
Date: 11 May 93 20:42:26 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C6vIL3.46w@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>      In Message-ID: <2764@tekgen.bv.tek.com>
>      Subject: Re: Not 1 atm exactly, 0.966 bars
> Arnold Frisch (arnief@sail.labs.tek.com) writes:
>
>==  "I repeat; it almost appears to me that P & F have devised an experiment
>==  with as much complication as they could possibly manage, in order to
>==  make it more difficult for others to refute their results."
..............
>  Thought Tektronix Laboratories, producer of some of my favorite
>   equipment,  had more open-minded, creative people.
 
 
 
 
Just as I expected, if you can't attack the statement, attack the stater.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Robert Eachus /  Maybe F&P have something?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maybe F&P have something?
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 23:35:03 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Taking neither a TB or a skeptic look at the recent F&P work,
there are two possible conclusions:
 
     1) The position expressed by Arnold Frisch that this experiment was
designed to obscure and confuse.
 
     2) The phenomena under investigation takes place only during
phase changes--and this setup has lots of them.  Boiling of the water,
crystallization of the solute, and (presumably) alpha to beta in the
palladium due to outgassing.  I would call this a huge farfetch,
except for other evidence of nuclear activity during phase changes.
 
     Worth checking?
 
           Maybe...
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Review P&F Pys. Lett. Part II
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Review P&F Pys. Lett. Part II
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 22:42:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Outstanding, Dr. Droege, simply outstanding.
 
In article <930511131845.25602f4c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
> In a discussion of [the new Pons and Fleischman paper], Douglas Morrison
> has reminded this author of the "cigarette lighter" effect.  A rod of
> Palladium charged with Hydrogen was once used as a cigarette lighter...
 
> ... Note that once the rapid boiling and roiling starts, it is likely that
> the cathode becomes exposed to the Deuterium, Oxygen, Vapor atmosphere...
 
> ... If the gas is simply vented to the atmosphere as the drawing indicates,
> then even after the Deuterium - Oxygen content of the cell is exhausted,
> the "cigarette lighter" effect could continue for some time from oxygen
> diffusing back into the cell from the vent.  This would surely explain
> the melted Kel-F...
 
> The long time the cell stays hot could be explained by a combination of
> things...  First the cathode catalyzes all the Deuterium and Oxygen in
> the cell.  Later Oxygen is drawn in with the air replacing the burned cell
> contents and burns with Deuterium diffusing out of the cathode.  This
> continues until all the available Deuterium is burned...
 
 
Based on this brief but marvelously direct and straightforward analysis by
Tom Droege, my more-than-passing impression is that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann
have irreversibly shot themselves in the foot by publishing this new paper.
 
Far from proving their original heat to have been extra-chemical, they seem
to have developed an experimental arrangement that nicely plops the whole
issue smack back into the trivially chemical -- catalytic H2/O2 combustion.
Indeed, it rather looks like they may have created their once-promised "cold
fusion" hand warmer after all.  Only it works just like the regular variety...
 
If accurate, Tom Droege's analysis is particularly devastating because of
_who_ wrote the paper -- the very same pair of folks who first announced that
it could not possibly be chemical in nature.  While I would expect a lot of
additional debate on this one, I would also be very surprised to see anything
that truly rescues this new experiment.  The main trick in the magic show
appears to have just been let out of the bag, and I'm no longer convinced
that there's anything left in said bag but a bit of wind.
 
Ask yourself honestly:  If all the "CF" hype had never happened, and a grad
student came to his professor some melted plastic in an open cell filled
with a rod that was both loaded with H2 and known for catalytic oxidation,
how do you think that student's career would go if he decided to claim that
the melted plastic was proof that deuterons were violating all known laws
of nuclear physics by fusing together with lots of heat, but no radiation?
 
Occam's razor really is not such a bad idea in such cases, I think.
 
.....
 
By the way:  What DID happen to that stupid 1-inch cube of Palladium, hmm?
 
Doesn't _anyone_ have any info on it at all?
 
.....
 
Based on a lot of confidence in Tom Droege, I hereby and pleased to announce
the termination of the "Twist of Ribbon" farfetch.  It was based 100% on the
presumption of excess heat being real, and I no longer believe that such
phenomena have sufficent plausibility to keep that particular Farfetch open.
 
In short:  Sorry, me buckos, but you will get no further hypothesizing of
major quantum violations from here, as I see no evidence of a need for them.
 
(Could delocalization or atomic banding _without_ any QM violations still be
relevant to very-low-level _conventional_ fusion?  Hmm.  Hard to say.)
 
.....
 
Re: Low-level Jones et al radiation:  No impact as best I can figure it.
 
You can doubt the Jones data, surely, but it would be a major understatement
to say that he never claimed any link to mysterious no-radiation heat.  Some
of what Jones et al have published remains intriguing.  I have this sneaking
suspicion that he may yet wind up having the last chortle.
 
Or maybe not.  But it should be interesting to watch, even if it takes years
before a one or the other side throws in the towel on that one.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: How Too
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How Too
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 23:35:01 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <78aa4B1w165w@iowegia.dsm.ia.us> csam@iowegia.dsm.ia.us (chris
sampson) writes:
> I am interested in attempting to build my own hydrogen fusion
> machine and I was wondering if anyone out there could tell me how
> much hydrogen what temp stuff like that especially details on
> magnetic compression.
 
I suggest that you work your way up to this project by first
building your own Superconducting Super Collider.
 
:-)
--
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 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Eugene Mallove /  Posting of Fusion Energy Hearing
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Posting of Fusion Energy Hearing
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:00:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A report by Eugene F. Mallove (Cold Fusion Research Advocates)
on the Fusion Energy Hearing in Congress of May 5, 1993:
 
*** Cold Fusion and Alternative Fusion Are High Points ***
                   of Fusion Energy Hearing
 
        The Subcommittee on Energy of the House Space, Science,
and Technology Committee met on May 5, 1993 to discuss the status
and funding of fusion energy. The hearings began at 1:30 pm in
the Rayburn House Office Building (Room 2318) and lasted to 6:00
p.m. with only a few 15-minute breaks for votes on the House floor.
 
        The hot fusion program was the focus up to about 4:00 pm,
with the hot fusion ranks again coming to ask for further hundreds
of millions to continue their work. After that, the heretofore
outcasts -- cold fusion and aneutronic hot fusion -- was the subject.
So for the first time since the House Science, Space, and Technology
hearing of April 1989, cold fusion really received an open airing
before an important congressional committee. After the very positive
reception at this meeting, it appears to this observer likely that
further Congressional exploration of cold fusion research will
occur. The "ice has been broken," with Congress showing that it
is can no longer be intimidated by the foolish mockery of cold
fusion by the scientific establishment.
 
        Testifying for cold fusion was Dr. Edmund Storms of Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Adding to the cold fusion  case --
low-temperature energy extraction from water -- was Dr. Randell
Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, who presented his outlook
and revealed new experimental achievements.  During this "Alternative
Programs" session, Dr. Bogdan Maglich of Advanced Physics Corporation
presented a strong defense of his helium-3-deuterium collider scheme
and attacked DOE's tokamak program. Dr. Klaus Berkner of Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, who spoke about heavy ion inertial fusion
during this "Alternative Programs" session must have felt very
out of place on this panel of heretics;  by the standards of the
mainline hot fusion program he was a heretic too.
 
        The hot fusion part of the meeting was chaired by Congresswoman
Marilyn Lloyd (D- Tennessee), but because Lloyd's schedule, Congressman
Dick Swett (D- New Hampshire) chaired the "Alternative Programs"
session.  The order of the meeting:
 
*Panel One* -- Opening Comments:
 
Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy, DOE
Dr. Harold Forsen, Senior VP for Research and Development, Bechtel
     Corporation, Washington, D.C.
 
*Panel Two* -- TOKAMAK Programs
 
Dr. Paul-Henri Rebut, Director, ITER (International Thermonuclear
      Experimental Reactor), San Diego Co-Center, LaJolla, CA
Dr. Charles Baker, ITER, US Home Team Leader, Oak Ridge National        Laboratory
Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 
*Panel Three* -- Alternative Programs
 
Dr. Klaus Berkner, Associate Laboratory Director, Operations, Lawrence
 Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich, Chief Scientist, Advanced Physics Corporation,   Irvine, CA
Dr. Edmund Storms, Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Randell L. Mills, Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, Lancaster, PA
 
         Defining the spirit of the session, Congresswoman Marilyn
Lloyd said in her opening remarks, "..our fusion program may be
entering a state of reassessment. This, in part, may be the result
of not having produced a fusion energy plant. Or maybe it's because
we are all becoming more aware of the pressure on federal research
funds."
 
        Dr. N. Anne Davies's prepared statement acknowledged the
magnetic fusion program's objective of a "Demonstration Power Plant"
by about 2025 and an "operating commercial power plant" by about
2040.  Notice that the hot fusion people never say just "by 2025"
or "by 2040." It's always "by about...20XX" The FY 1994 budget
request, Davies said was $347.6 million, supporting four program
elements: conducting D-T experiments at Princeton in the TFTR,
participating in the engineering design phase of ITER, initiating
the detailed design of the TPX (another proposed machine for Princeton),
and continuing a base program of physics and technology support.
 
        Dr. Davies's prepared statement, loaded with ponderous
bureaucratese, says at one point: "The Operating Expenses request
also provides $9.2 million in Program Direction funds for the salaries,
benefits, travel and other expenses associated with 81 full-time
equivalents required to administer the Fusion Energy program by
the Headquarters staff and those at DOE Field Offices; and $4.9
million in the Planning and Projects subprogram to support the
program's legal obligation to the Small Business Innovation Research
Program." Just a fraction of that administrative overhead would
fund a much needed cold fusion research effort in universities
and small businesses.  Another farce of the current DOE fusion
program: the published SBIR requests as they now stand are written
up to explicitly exclude cold fusion proposals.
 
        The other hot fusioneers who followed Davies reiterated
what their leader had said, but there were some revealing gems
-- explicit warnings NOT to be diverted by other non-tokamak hot
fusion concepts. An example was a part of the testimony of Dr.
Harold Forsen of Bechtel Corporation: "I worry very much about
not getting on with the D-T fueled tokamaks at the expense of too
much second guessing of what might be cheaper, smaller or fueled
with more exotic, remote fuels." The U.S. hot fusioneers plan to
spend  an "estimated" $450 million between 1992 and 1998 on "Engineering
Design Activities," which are then to be followed "if the [international
 parties agree," by a seven-year construction phase so that ITER
could begin to operate in 2005.
 
        Congressman Harris Fawell of Illinois diplomatically showed
his impatience with the hot fusion program. He read the following
statement into the record:
 
        "Madam Chairman, I share your view that the fusion program
may be entering a state of reassessment. And, in fact, this reassessment
may be long overdue.
 
        I was particularly struck by the recent remarks of Dr.
Robert L. Hirsch at the March 5, 1993 meeting of DOE's Fusion Energy
Advisory Committee. Dr. Hirsch, who was once head of DOE's magnetic
fusion energy program and is now a Vice President of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) made the following observations:
 
* DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors as currently envisioned
will be extremely complex, highly radioactive, likely to be highly
regulated, and costly.
 
* Even if DT or laser fusion reactors had the same capital costs
as a fission reactor -- an enormous challenge -- fusion reactors
would lose out to advanced fission reactors, which are a reliable,
known quantity.
 
* None of the very few fusion-knowledgeable utility people he had
spoken with believes that tokamak or laser fusion reactors, as
currently envisioned, would be acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
* There are some enormous materials problems related to DT fusion.
There are no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors.
In the absence of development of a low activity material -- a very
costly and time consuming undertaking -- you will have to effectively
rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
reactor of the same power level.
 
* And then there's ITER. If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned,
aren't acceptable, can ITER possibly be justified?
        -If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion
and will likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate
concepts.
        -If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public
debate, there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported
and the fusion program could collapse.
 
        Dr. Hirsch closed his remarks with several recommendations including:
 
* Scale-up of alternate R&D concepts as fast as possible.
 
* Don't stop tokamak or laser fusion, but cut them back and reorient
them in more acceptable directions.
 
* Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction,
large quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials development.
 
        Madam Chairman, I don't pretend to be a fusion energy expert
-- I'm a refugee from the liberal arts -- but when someone with
Dr. Hirsch's knowledge, background, and stature makes such observations,
I believe they deserve serious consideration, and I expect today's
witnesses to address them.
 
        I am also concerned about other aspects of the planned
fusion energy program, including:
 
* The role of, and the need for, a new proposed tokamak device,
TPX, for which the DOE budget documents provide neither a cost
estimate, a time schedule, nor an understandable rationale of why
it is so important.
 
* The introduction of tritium into the TFTR later this year --
not only will this be done in a heavily populated area, raising
safety and other environmental concerns -- but it will also require
expensive decontamination and decommissioning of the machine. Is
the science we will get worth this cost, or would it be more cost-effect
ve to rely on JET, which has already used tritium?
 
* Finally, the continued operation of other tokamaks, including
Alcator C-Mod and the DIII-D tokamaks, in this budget climate means
that we cannot afford to pursue promising alternate concepts. Are
we really getting our money's worth from them?
 
        All that being said, Madam Chairman, I look forward to
hearing these concerns addressed by today's witnesses."
 
****END of Congressman Fawell's statement.****
 
        Dr. Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation,
whose heat-producing experiments with  ordinary water-nickel-potassium
carbonate cells are increasingly highly regarded in the cold fusion
field made his presentation. His colleague Robert M. Shaubach of
Thermacore, Inc. accompanied Mills but did not make a presentation.
 
        Mills's opening remarks concisely summarized what the Lancaster,
PA effort is all about:
 
        "Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (HPC) has an extensive
theoretical and experimental research program of producing energy
from light-water electrolytic cells. HPC and Thermacore, Inc.,
Lancaster, PA are cooperating in developing a commercial product.
(Thermacore is a well respected defense contractor and its expertise
is in the field of heat transfer.) Presently, all of the demonstration
cells of HPC and Thermacore produce excess power immediately and
continuously. Cells producing 50 watts of excess power and greater
have been in operation for more than one year.  Some cells can
produce 10 times more heat power than the total electrical power
input to the cell. A steam-producing prototype cell has been successfull
 tested. The source of excess energy in NOT from fusion or other
nuclear reactions. Energy is released in a catalytic process whereby
the electron of the hydrogen atom is induced to undergo a transition
to a lower electronic energy level than the 'ground state' as defined
by the usual model of th
 
 
 
 
 
e atom. The lower energy states of hydrogen have been identified
in nature. HPC and Thermacore are conducting other experiments
to demonstrate that this lower-energy form of hydrogen is the 'ash'
of heat producing cells. A summary of the technology follows...."
 
        "The [original] experiment has been scaled up by a factor
of one-thousand, and the scaled-up heat cell results have been
independently confirmed by Thermacore, Inc. Patents covering the
compositions of matter, structures, and methods of the HydroCatalysis
process have been filed by HPC worldwide with a priority date of
April 21, 1989. HPC and Thermacore are presently fabricating a
steam-producing demonstration cell."
 
        Dr. Mills continued with a further elaboration of the benefits
of HPC's technology, as well as a discussion of possible evidence
for the existence of below ground state hydrogen atoms. At one
point the statement says, "The Mills theory predicts exactly the
spectral observations of the extreme ultraviolet background emission
from interstellar matter (given by Eq.(1) with n1 and n2 being
fractions), which characterize dark matter, and HPC is conducting
further verification of data that demonstrates that the lower-energy
form of hydrogen is the 'ash' of heat producing cells."
 
        Of course, many cold fusion people who accept the Mills
excess heat experimental claims do not accept Dr. Mills's theory
and are inclined to believe that other forms of ash -- nuclear
ash -- may be arising from the deuterium in ordinary water. There
is also the question about whether sodium carbonate electrolyte
also facilitates the heat reaction -- Bush and Eagleton say it
does, the Indians at BARC say it does.  Mills, on the other hand,
says that sodium carbonate electrolyte doesn't give rise to excess
heat, a fact that he says supports his catalytic theory.  (By his
own assertions, Dr. Mills has, in effect, presented this sodium
versus potassium issue as a potential Achilles heel of his theory.)
 
        Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory read
his prepared statement into the record.  His statement might be
viewed as fairly "mainline" cold fusion thinking, with a few exotic
twists that will likely further enrage the folks who think that
high-energy nuclear physicists have a monopoly on wisdom about
possible nuclear reactions.
 
        Dr. Storms's statement:
 
        "Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity
to present new and important results about a phenomenon that has
been conventionally called 'Cold Fusion.' Starting with the work
reported in 1989 by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, many observations
have indicated that it is apparently possible to initiate nuclear
reactions in certain metals near room temperature and that these
reactions result in significant heat production as well as various
nuclear products.
 
        I am not speaking for the Los Alamos National Laboratory
on this subject because policy in this area has not yet been formulated.
The Laboratory does not want me to pre-empt this process.
 
        Nevertheless, a careful and extensive examination of available
information as well as personal research has convinced me and many
other scientists that this phenomenon is real and, I believe, may
have important consequences to the U.S.
 
        Much skepticism and frustration resulted from lack of reproducib
lity during early experiments. For this and other reasons, many
scientists still believe that positive results are not possible.
However, the phenomenon is now reproducible using a variety of
techniques. Excess heat production has occasionally approached
useful levels and the many postive results are now described in
a variety of peer reviewed scientific journals and conference proceeding
. In addition, the phenomenon has been demonstrated under many
conditions including those employed in conventional physics. However,
a satisfactory explanation and much supporting information are
still lacking.
 
        Accumulated evidence is now so persuasive that it would
be convincing to most people if we were discussing any other field.
Indeed, the evidence is sufficient to cause the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) to support work ($4M/year) at SRI and
at Texas A&M University where positive results have become increasingly
reproducible. The company called Technova (Japan) is sufficiently
impressed by the evidence to equip a large laboratory in France
for the use of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann. They can now produce
power densities (1000 watt/cm3 Pd) that exceed those in a nuclear
reactor (100 watt/cm3 UO2).  A growing number of companies in the
U.S.a re showing interest in the field. interest in India, China,
Italy, and Russia is also expanding.  An increasing number of positive
results as well as new ways to initiates the reaction have been
reported. Support has been especially strong in Japan where MITI
has recently committed $24 million to be added to other large sources
of funding. Indeed, Japan is now leadi
 
 
 
 
 
ng the field in understanding this remarkable phenomenon. We are
once again in the position where a major discovery made in the
US is being developed in Japan.
 
        If this were just another example of conventional science
being slow to accept new ideas, you might be advised to wait for
nature to take its course. However, I believe this phenomenon is
of such potential importance that it would not be prudent to wait.
I may not be able to convince you of these conclusions in the brief
time I have.  There is now a significant collection of published
papers, books, and reviews available for review. Some detailed
sources of information are part of the written testimony.
 
        One might ask what consequences might result if only a
fraction of these assertions is true?
        FIRST, the theory of electron structure in a metal and
its interaction with the atomic nucleus needs to be reexamined.
I would expect such a reexamination to produce even more useful
insights.
        SECOND, experiments indicate *a strong potential* for creating
energy that has no identified pollution or significant radioactivity,
and is essentially inexhaustible.
        THIRD, some speculate there is a *possibility* of converting
harmful radioactive isotopes into nonradioactive elements at room
temperature using properly constructed electron environments. Consequent
y, one of the troublesome aspects of fission energy might be eliminated.
 
        The phenomenon will eventually be understood and useful
devices will be constructed. While this process is evolving, the
current absence of U.S. policy is inhibiting development of a vital
legal and intellectual property infrastructure. At the present
time. very few scientists in the U.S. have a competent understanding
of the field. Because this field is so new and complex, training
people will not be an easy or rapid task. in addition, the U.S.
patent office is not issuing patents in the field while this limitation
does not exist in other countries. As a result, control of the
technology is slipping away on these two important fronts. A modest
amount of support now can have a  significant impact on reducing
both problems without the need to shift major priorities before
the potential of the phenomenon is better understood.
 
        I would like to recommend three actions.
 
        First, a panel of open-minded technical experts be appointed
to evaluate recent results.
 
        Second, in the interim, it is prudent to provide some resources
in view of the increasing activity of other countries. This money
would extend the understanding of this complex field and help train
a larger number of scientists in its subtleties. Efficient use
of these limited resources could be achieved by supporting laboratories
that have reported positive results in the past.
 
        Third, encourage the Patent Office to start issuing patents in the field.
 
        Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information
to the committee's attention."
 
**** END of Dr. Storms's testimony ****
 
        Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's lengthy testimony lashed out at
the DOE's narrow-minded fusion energy program and defended his
brand of aneutronic fusion energy. He defined "aneutronic fusion"
 as fusion which  "burns nonradioactive fuels, produces 100 times
less neutron radiation, 1000 times less radioactive waste and 2-3
times less heat pollution than the conventional fusion." Maglich's
company, Advanced Physics Corporation,  is the lead member of the
USA-Russia Research Consortium, S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic
Fusion Energy.  The consortium consists, he said of 12 member organizati
ns. Some of the American members of the Consortium are: the University
of California at Irvine, Academic Lead Member; Advanced Reactor
Group of Professor L. Lidsky, Nuclear Engineering Department of
MIT; General Electric Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady, NY. The
Russian membership consists of six major institutes involving 138
scientists. Its Lead Member is the nuclear weapons center Chelyabinsk-70
 whose 42 scientists have decided
 
 
 
 
 
 to convert from military to peaceful research by developing aneutronic
fusion technology.
 
        Some excerpts from Dr. Maglich's testimony:
 
        "Large development programs acquire institutional and psychologi
al momentum, and change much more slowly than our understanding
of the facts. As a result, the DOE fusion energy program has taken
no cognizance of modern scientific developments, nor has the DOE
taken necessary steps to encourage the development of successor
programs."
 
        "Billions of dollars of taxpayers money would be saved
and dozens of years of national economic development would be shortcut
by making the national fusion program recognize that scientific
tests within the past five years (1988-93) supported by theoretical
calculations strongly point to the feasibility of making the fusion
reactor COMPACT."
 
        "Tests in two tokamaks carried out independently in 1988-89,
show that ultra hot fuel does NOT behave 'anomalously' -- which
would require a gigantic reactor -- but behaves 'classically' --
which implies a SMALL reactor. .... Independently, measurement
in the new type of small fusion reactor known as SELF-COLLIDER,
published in Physical Review Letters of January 18, 1993 show how
ultra hot ions of 10 billion degrees can be made STABLE in a miniature
reactor whose volume is 100 cc."
 
        "As a result of a series of experiments with compact models
of aneutronic fusion reactors, our research consortium is now only
3 years away from proving once and for all that a nonradioactive-fuel,
nonproliferating, aneutronic fusion energy reactor is feasible."
 
        "Aneutronic fusion research involves a modest fixed cost.
Because the devices are small, the cost of an experiment is in
the $3-5 million range, and the cost of an entire scientific test
is in the $30 million/3 years range. The system consists of two
parts: injector and self-collider reactor. Proof of principle can
be tested on a time scale of 3 years. If successful, this new fusion
reactor could become commercially available 5-10 years thereafter,
depending on plant size."
 
        "DOE cannot afford not to pursue the new laboratory measurements
coupled to the Air Force-supported computer simulations indicating
the feasibility of fusion reactors burning non-radioactive-fuels
--(mixture of nonradioactive helium-3 and deuterium, as opposed
to that of radioactive tritium and deuterium)."
 
        "For the past 30 years, the US DOE has systematically refused
to fund any research on non-radioactive-fuel fusion as a matter
of policy. Its support has been narrowed to one type of fuel and
one type of reactor. This is in clear violation of the letter of
the law and congressional intent as set forth in the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486 of 10/24/92). The first fusion
goal mandated by the Law is 'a broad based fusion energy program.'
The law also gives priority to environmentally clean energy technologies
and to programs in which private industry participates 20% or more.
The current DOE radioactive fuel program has reserved only $500,000
out of the $340 million, or 0.1%, of the Magnetic Fusion Energy
Budget for alternate fusion energy option. Nonradioactive fuel
fusion research would be a small part of this 0.1%."
 
        "An institution can never be made to compete with itself
-- which would be the case if this program is administered by the
present Office of Fusion Energy of DOE. To facilitate the development
of such law-mandated, fusion ecotechnology effort, the Congress
should direct the Department of Energy to split the present Office
of Fusion Energy into:
 
* OFFICE OF NONRADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY; and
* OFFICE OF RADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY (ITER); and
* That separate budgets be sought for the two offices, with the
goal that, over the next three years, at least 50% of the fusion
budget be allocated for non-radioactive fuel fusion."
 
        "It had become increasingly clear that the problems associated
with tritium based fusion would be nearly insurmountable in a commercial
device. Power plants burning deuterium-tritium fuel would necessarily
be large, radioactive, highly toxic (beryllium), highly flammable
(lithium), complex, and because of low power density, very expensive
per unit of electricity generated. Tokamak could be made marginally
economical only if it breeds and sells plutonium -- which is incompatibl
 with the US nonproliferation policy."
 
        "In spite of these facts, the fusion program has changed
little since the 1960's, even though many of the assumptions that
appeared reasonable at the time have been found, in the course
of 30 years, to be invalid. The goal became not to develop a commerciall
-viable, environmentally benign fusion-powered electric source,
but rather to prove that the original decision to build a DT-burning
tokamak reactor was the only possible decision."
 
**** END of Dr. Maglich's selected statements ****
 
        So, with the testimony of Mills, Storms, and Maglich, the
Subcommittee members received an eye-opening education on the possible
future direction of the Fusion Energy program.  There could well
emerge from this hearing and others that will surely follow, much
more openness to alternate approaches. Congress being the ponderous
creature it is, this may take some time, but given the spirit of
the May 5th hearing, I would not even rule out limited funding
in FY '94 for the non-tokamak concepts that were discussed --including
cold fusion. It seems to me that the hot fusion program is in very
big trouble at this hour. It may only manage to survive via its
considerable political momentum, which is getting to be less and
less as Congressmen increasingly examine the facts.
 
        To summarize the significance of the May 5, 1993 Fusion Energy Hearing:
 
1. The hearing was the first time since the late April 1989 House
Science Space and Technology Committee hearing that cold fusion
had received an extensive public review before Congress.
 
2. It was noteworthy that cold fusion and hot fusion were discussed
at the same forum -- a landmark event.
 
3. We now have *at least* three Congressmen who are solidly open-minded
about cold fusion, as demonstrated by the May 5 lines of questioning:
Congressman Swett of New Hampshire, Walker of Pennsylvania, and
Fawell of Illinois. Dick Swett, as his post-hearing press release
indicates, has become decidedly pro-active.
 
4. The top aides of the HSST Committee appeared to be very interested
in doing what they could in the future to help investigate cold
fusion. This from conversations directly after the four hour hearings.
 There is considerable interest in helping Mills, in particular,
get a working device evaluated at a national laboratory. There
is further interest in having an eventual demonstration perhaps
even in the Congressional offices!
 
5.  The hot fusion people were not very well received. This was
the same old stale stuff: promises, promises, promises, with not
much new concrete to report -- except that Princeton has 200 Curies
of tritium on site and they are just dying to contaminate the hell
out of the TFTR tokamak when they start their D-T testing in September.
Congressman Fawell and Walker gave the HF boys (and gal!) a hard
time. Fawell challenged them with the recent public words of Robert
Hirsch. Hirsch thinks the D-T program is going nowhere. In these
tight budget times I think Congress is going to scrutinize HF much
more closely. If CF works out the way many expect it to in the
coming year, I think there is a serious chance that Congress will
reduce HF funding, and may completely kill it for FY '95.
 
6. The HF people acted as though CF did not exist. They made no
acknowledgement of it as an issue, nor were they asked about cold
fusion. One wonders what they could or would have said. They have
not been following the experiments, so presumably they would have
had nothing to say other than "beware, it's pathological science."
 
7. There may be extremely promising fallout from these hearings.
there may even be a shot at getting some cold fusion funding approved
for FY '94. I think there will be a symbiotic effect between (A)
the accepting atmosphere in Congress, (B) new experiments and scientific
papers being and soon to be reported-- particularly all the light
water work, and (C) increased media attention.  The whole situation
is unstable.
 
8. It is coincidentally fortunate that Dr. William Happer will
be gone from DOE by the end of May. With Happer no longer there,
cold fusion will have a much better time. Happer was without question
one of the most bigoted anti-cold fusion ideologues in DOE, as
the revealed record of his statements and actions will increasingly
show.
 
        Perhaps when this is all resolved, Congress should consider
holding a "Heavywatergate" hearing, with William Happer and John
Huizenga the prime targets of investigation, to find out how DOE
so maligned and botched the exploration of a revolutionary new
area of science.
 
        To get to this point, Cold Fusion Research Advocates, played
a not insignificant role. As did other individual cold fusion investigat
rs and supporters, CFRA submitted a statement that was entered
into the May 5th Hearing record. It follows:
 
Cold Fusion Energy:
 Real and Revolutionary
 
 Statement of Cold Fusion Research Advocates
for the Subcommittee on Energy of the
 House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
May 5, 1993
 
Represented by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell of
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Chairman Lloyd and members of the Subcommittee:
 
        We are pleased to submit this statement and attached references
on the rapidly expanding field of cold fusion research and development.
Cold Fusion Research Advocates is an informal international association
of scientists and engineers who are involved in cold fusion research.
Our group includes physics Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, engineer
and author Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, and top scientists from China,
India, Italy, Japan, Russia, and other countries.  We wish to alert
you to the present great and increasing vitality of this field,
despite the faltering steps of the early, preliminary work that
was reported in 1989.
 
        Energy-producing "cold fusion" has not yet been explained
at the atomic level, but it is no less real for want of a generally
accepted explanation. Quite simply, cold fusion -- like hot fusion,
which you have also heard about today -- is a way to get stupendous
energy from water, albeit with very low accompanying radiation.
Cold fusion does that now in completely reproducible experiments
at SRI International and at many other laboratories. The heat that
is released in cold fusion reactions can be thousands of times
what could possibly be explained by conventional chemistry; and
nuclear products have also been observed, generally at low levels.
Whatever the phenomenon turns out to be, there is no doubt that
it exists and is revolutionary.  Prototype cold fusion home heating
units are widely expected to emerge this year or next. Electrical
power generation by cold fusion will follow soon thereafter, with
the likelihood of automotive and perhaps aircraft propulsion by
cold fusion within a decade.
 
        Cold fusion is being developed vigorously in Japan. The
Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion was held last October in
Nagoya. The Fourth International Conference will be held in Hawaii
on Maui, December 6-9, 1993, sponsored by the Electric Power Research
Institute (see meeting announcement, Attachment #1). We suggest
that Congress act on our request for cold fusion research funding
long before the December conference, but this Subcommittee should
certainly send representatives to the Hawaii meeting.
 
        If there were any remaining doubts about the significance
of cold fusion, the Nagoya conference last October has erased them.
Submitted with this statement are highly positive technical evaluations
of the Nagoya meeting by Professor Peter Hagelstein of MIT (Attachment
#2), by members of the U.S. Office of Naval Research in Japan (Attachmen
 #3), and the U.S. Army Research Office in the Far East (Attachment
#4).
 
         Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, the U.S. discoverers of cold
fusion, are now lavishly funded in a 40,000 square foot laboratory
with a large staff near Nice, France. Their funding comes from
Technova, a research and development think tank closely connected
with Toyota Motor Company. At present, well over 100 laboratories
around the world have obtained positive cold fusion results of
one kind or another. Drs. Fleischmann and Pons have been able to
boil away their electrochemical solution from their cells in minutes.
The energy release from their tiny palladium-silver cathodes is
over three kilowatts per cubic centimeter -- higher power density
than a conventional fission power plant fuel rod. Shocking even
to long-time cold fusion researchers, the cold fusion heat effect
has now been found to occur in certain electrochemical systems
that use ordinary distilled water and nickel, not heavy water and
palladium. Reactors that produce tens of watts of excess heat for
months on end have now been demonstrated by severa
 
 
 
 
 
l companies in Lancaster, Pennsylvania -- Hydrocatalysis Power
Corporation and Thermacore.
 
        So far ahead has research gone since 1989, that a new review
by the Federal government is now mandatory. Funds should be set
aside promptly for a comprehensive re-evaluation of cold fusion
science and technology by an impartial body of scientists -- perhaps
a study commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. So voluminous,
overwhelming, and convincing is the evidence for cold fusion today,
that this review could not fail to mandate urgent research efforts
by DOE and other U.S. science agencies. But even before that review,
based on the work in Japan and elsewhere, the Congress should approve
funding consistent with the potential large magnitude of the possible
energy, economic, and environmental benefit. It would be a very
costly mistake for the U.S. if an unwarranted negative view were
to prevail and other countries developed this technology.
 
        What is happening in Japan? In the Autumn of 1991, the
Ministry of International Trade and Industry organized a research
consortium of ten major Japanese corporations to advance research
in cold fusion. Prior to this, only the Ministry of Education was
involved in this research. This consortium is called "The New Hydrogen
Energy Panel" (NHEP). In the spring of 1992, as the activities
of the Panel became widely known, Japanese newspapers reported
that five other major Japanese corporations asked to be included.
 
        In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billion
yen ($24 million) program to advance cold fusion research. This
money will be spent on special expenses within the national laboratories
 such as travel and extra equipment purchases beyond the usual
discretionary levels. That sum does not include the money, salaries
and overhead, which come out of separate budgets, and it does not
count any research in the private sector, which we know to be substantia
. In fact, the corporate members are expected to contribute at
least $4 million more to the fund, for a total of $28 million.
Both MITI and NHEP members emphasize that this fund is flexible,
and can be expanded.
 
        Please examine the recent letter to Chairperson Lloyd from
Dr. Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science in
Nagoya (Attachment #5). Dr. Ikegami writes, "Cold fusion phenomena
have been suggesting to me, as a fusion plasma physicist, their
relation to 'hot' fusion in many ways, which should not be disregarded."
But most important is his view, so characteristic of the internal
cooperation that characterizes Japan: "Just as I am convinced that
despite the many problems associated with 'hot' fusion to produce
a workable fusion reactor within one-hundred years from now, we
must continue to support this line of research; so I believe the
same to be true concerning 'cold' fusion."
 
        We hope you will heed, in particular, the testimony of
Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who is an
outstanding cold fusion researcher and reviewer of the entire field.
We attach his recent letter to Congressman Dick Swett of New Hampshire
(Attachment #6). Finally, if you would like to get a non-technical
overview of the cold fusion question and what it might mean for
our world, please read the wonderful essay by Dr. Arthur C. Clarke,
which he recently delivered in a speech to over 100 military officers
in the Pacific area: "2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power" (Attachmen
 #7). We think that Arthur C. Clarke will be proved right once
again as a technological prophet.
 
        We leave you with this thought: Cold fusion research is
not "Big Science" -- it does not need massive installations, just
relatively small-scale dedicated work at national laboratories,
universities, and in private industries, which are already beginning
to enter the field in the U.S., despite discouragement from officialdom.
Cold fusion does, however, require the talents of top scientists
and engineers, combined with sophisticated analytical instrumentation.
The federal laboratories are well-equipped to support cold fusion
research. They are floundering in search of a new mission now that
the Cold War has ended. Cold fusion research could well become
a major mission for scientists at these laboratories.
 
        Cold fusion energy development, however, will dominantly
be the territory for private industry. There is no need for massive
government investment. But government must smooth the path for
private efforts.
Is it really possible that a revolutionary energy technology has
been inappropriately cast aside in the U.S.? That is exactly what
has happened, as scientific and engineering developments will show.
This need not be true any longer. For the economic and environmental
well-being of the nation, we ask you to become aware of the facts
about cold fusion and help us fund American research. We will answer
any questions that you may have. Thank you for giving us the opportunity
to bring this crucial energy technology initiative to your attention.
Our group stands ready to conduct special briefings for interested
Members of Congress who wish to find out more about this extraordinary
energy technology.
 
References:
 
1.  Announcement by EPRI of the "Fourth Annual Conference on Cold       Fusion."
2. "Summary of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion
in     Nagoya," by Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT
3. "The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion: Scrutiny,
       Invective, and Progress," By Drs. Victor Rehn and Iqbal
Ahmad   for the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Japan
4. "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: A Report on
       the Third International Meeting on Cold Fusion" by Dr. Iqbal
   Ahmad for the U.S. Army Research Office (AMC) - Far East
5. Letter of April 22, 1993 to Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd from
Dr.     Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science,
     Nogoya, Japan.
6. Letter to Congressman Dick Swett by Dr. Edmund Storms of Los
        Alamos National Laboratory, April 10, 1993.
7. Speech by Arthur C. Clarke to the Pacific Area Senior Officers
      Logistics Seminar (PASOLS), March 29, 1993, "2001: The  Coming
Age of Hydrogen Power."
 
For additional information, please contact:
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates, 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court
- Suite 312F, Chamblee, GA 30341; Phone: 404-451-9890; Fax: 404-458-2404

 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Jed & some questions.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed & some questions.
Date: 11 May 93 14:28:38 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
From Jed Rothwell's posting "Steve Jones is mistaken" (8 May 1993):
 
Jed:  "Notoya and Noninski do NOT, repeat NOT, "assume" that the H2 + O2
recombination is insignificant."
 
Contrast this with the following from a summary of Noninski's paper by
Dieter Britz, who provides a valuable and I think fair service of reviewing
so many relevant papers for us:
"Noninski VC;   Fusion Technol. 21 (1992) 163.
**The Mills & Kneizys scenario;  Noninski has visited the Franklin and Marshall
College where Mills and Farrel work, and carried out a confirmation experiment.
He points out in the introduction that Pons, too, initially reported excess
heat from H2O solutions. ...
The extent of the 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."  --reposted here by M. Swartz on 4 May 1993
 
With regard to Dr. Notoya, I did not see any recombiner nor means to measure the
evolving gasses at her demonstration in Nagoya.  Looked like she assumed that
recombination was insignificant to me.  So how do you say otherwise?  Please
clarify.
 
We find in experiments here that recombination *is* significant. Ignoring this
effect may lead to erroneous claims of "excess heat".   A student
working on this project will post numbers from this experiment in a few days;
including the information about power input, etc.
 
Jed:  "Steve says he pumped H2 gas through the cell and saw an increase in
heat etc."
That was oxygen, not hydrogen.  You say you read the post carefully?
Note to Mitchell:  the oxygen for this particular test I reported on came
from a gas bottle external to the cell.  Jonathon will discuss this in his
report which is nearing completion.
 
Jed:  "Finally, Steve ignores a STUPENDOUSLY LARGE OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT IS
STARING HIM IN THE FACE:  Notoya, Noninski, Mills, Srinivasan and many others
who have replicated this experiment get more heat than I*V; total power in.
Recombination cannot cause more heat out than the total electric power in.
Let me repeat that, with emphasis:  THE TOTAL POWER OUT EXCEEDS I*V!"
 
Please provide REFERENCES ALONG WITH QUOTED OR PARAPHRASED RESULTS
(now you've got me doing it) for each of the 4 you
named above and say 3 of the "many others" who show that "THE TOTAL POWER
EXCEEDS I*V!"
Please do not fail to reply.  In your same 8 May posting, I remind you of
your boast:
Jed:  "About the only hard news on this net, and the only "real numbers" about
other people's research come from Mitch and me..."
 
I'll be waiting for the evidence.
 
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May11.142221.625@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May11.142221.625@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 11 May 93 14:29:36 -0600

cancel <1993May11.142221.625@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
Date: 11 May 93 17:57:25 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <930409134203_72240.1256_EHL50-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
> Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter, with a note: "Please post
> [this] on e-mail and let me know of any response. I have not been following e-
> mail here."
>
>
>                                 Department of the Navy
>                                 Naval Air Warfare Center
>                                 Weapons Division
>                                 China Lake, CA 93555-6001
>
> Professor Steven E. Jones
> Department of Physics and Astronomy
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
>
> Dear Professor Jones:
>
>      Enclosed is a reprint of our recent Journal Publication regarding excess
> power and helium measurements. This manuscript was subjected to the normal
> review process, and our six control samples apparently satisfied the referees
> and editor regarding any questions concerning helium contamination of these
> experiments.
>
>      It is very difficult to explain how helium contamination could only occur
> in experiments that were producing excess power and not in any of the control
> experiments. If you can explain this, then please let me know. This is
> precisely the reason that we ran the control experiments.
>
>      Please note my discussion of the errors in the N. Lewis calorimetry (Cal
> Tech work) on pp. 114-116.
>
>                                 Sincerely
>
>                                 [Signed]
>                                 DR. MELVIN H. MILES
>                                 Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
>                                 NAWCWPNS Fellow
>
> Copy to:
> Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
> Mr. Jed Rothwell
> Dr. Nathan Hoffman
>
 
 
Miles et al., I believe, is the only group to claim quantitative correspondance
of xs heat and helium, along with X-rays.  McKubre, P&F, Noninski, etc.--do
not do so.    Hence a response is in order.  My
reply benefits from hearing Dr. Miles answer questions at the Nagoya
conference in Oct. 1992 and at a BYU colloquium in July 1991 and at a meeting
in Snowbird, Utah in August 1992.  Published references used here:
1.  M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes,"  J. Electrolanal.
Chem.  346 (1993) 99-117.
2.  M.H. Miles et al., "Heat and helium production in cold fusion experiments,"
Conf. Proc., "The Science of Cold Fusion," Bressani, Del Giudice and Preparata,
eds., 363-372, 1991.
3.  B.F. Bush et al., "Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold
fusion experiments," J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271-278.
4.  M.H. Miles et al., J. Electroanal. Chem 296 (1990) 241-254.
 
A juxtaposition of these papers reveals that they are about the same, taking
3 and 4 together;
most of the graphs and tables come from data taken in 1990 in all four papers.
 
Why so little new?
"Subsequent [to Dec. 1990] experiments using new palladium electrodes in D2O+
LiOD (0.2M) failed to produce any excess enthalpy, dental film exposure or high
count rate periods with the Geiger-Muller detector. ... This experiment
illustrates the reproducibility problem in cold fusion investigations."
   ;-)  *yes the paper really says that*
[ref.1]  and, "Further work relating to helium measurements has been
hindered by difficulties in obtaining the excess power effect."  [ref. 1]
 
DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR DETECTORS
 
Miles [ref. 1]:  "Indium (d=0.25 mm, 2.2 g) and gold (d=0.5mm, 14 g)
foils mounted at the surface of the electrochemical cells were used in attempts
to detect any sustained neutron emission rates of 10^4 neutrons /s or higher.
A neutron survey meter (Ludlum model 15) was always kept close to the water
bath containing the two electrochemical cells.  A Geiger-Mueller (GM) alpha-
beta-gamma detector with a thin end window (Ludlum model 44-7) was positioned
about 20 cm from the tops of the electrochemical cells and connected to a
scaler ratemeter (ludlum model 2200) and a printer (Casio HR-8A).
Dental X-ray film (Kodak Ultra-speed, DF-58) placed near the outside surface
of the electrochemical cells was also used to detect any radiation."
 
Such detectors provide no energy information about any nuclear emissions;
quantitative information is sparse.  As discussed here previously by myself,
Dick Blue and others, reliable spectrometers are needed at this stage of
experimentation.
 
But what of results?  "No activation of indium or gold foils was detected in
this study."  Surprised?  "There were generally no responses significantly
above the background levels for the neutrons survey meter, but the GM detector
gave several periods of unexplained high count rates. ... Recent experiments
with the GM detector placed much closer (5 cm) to the Pd/D2O+LiOD cells have
shown sporadic periods of elevated counts that are apparently triggered by
changes in the electrolysis conditions." [ref. 1]
No numbers are given,
no plots, no supporting information with which to judge these claims about
the GM detections.  This reflects poor reporting practice.
 
Tritium:  "It is still not possible to rule out electrolytic enrichment
or variations in the tritium content of the D2O used  as possible
explanations."  [ref. 1]
 
X-rays:  "Results of dental film exposure are shown in Fig. 7"  [ref. 1] --
identical to dental films shown in Fig. 2 of ref. 2.  "The film that was
wrapped around the outside of the electrolysis cell A and hence closest to the
palladium showed the greatest exposure." [ref. 2]  "Clear regions are due
to a peeling away of the emulsion rather than non-exposure." [ref. 1 and ref.
2, identical wording.]  The latter is an admission of problems associated with
the dental X-ray film method.  Others, including artifacts caused by exposure
to pressure and humidity, have been identified elsewhere (I think most of these
have been covered on the net).  Note that the dental films were "positioned
within the distilled water contained in the secondary (gap) compartment."
[ref. 1]  One control film shows fogging around edges; I maintain
this one film is an inadequate control.
 
As I have said before regarding such crude techniques:  Get serious.
I now challenge Dr. Miles, as I have Stan Pons and others, to use a sensitive
X-ray spectrometer to assess the presence or absence of X-rays, and to obtain
*quantitative* information regarding energy and intensities of any
X-rays present.
Dr. Miles is not in a position now to say that X-rays may not be found, since
he has already published claims of X-ray detection (using dental films)
at least twice.
 
I will even offer to Dr. Miles to let him use our portable, small X-ray
spectrometer, described previously on this net, with or without a BYU operator
attached.  Actually, the spectrometer is probably easier to use and certainly
easier to unambiguously interpret than dental X-ray films.
 
This is a serious challenge.  I have made it openly to all who, like Miles,
claim on sparse evidence that the xs heat they report is nuclear in origin.
To date, no one has published an X-ray spectrum correlated with xs heat claims.
Where are the X-rays, gentlemen?
 
ON EXCESS HEAT
 
No data plots show heat in D2O cells during the first 12 days:  "The
first 12 days are not shown in Fig. 1 due to several shut-downs of the
electrolysis to correct leaks in the gas collection system.  No significant
excess enthalpy effects were observed in the first 10 days."  [ref. 2]
 
Please, we'd like to see the charging period for ourselves and make our
own judgments about "excess enthalpy."  In particular, show the data so that
we can see whether there is *negative* heat excess during the charging, as
appears in R. Huggins data for instance (shown here some months ago).
 
-->  I must sign off for this evening, but will return to the discussion of
the Miles et al. claims tomorrow.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: How Too
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How Too
Date: 12 May 93 03:36:11 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

: In article <78aa4B1w165w@iowegia.dsm.ia.us> csam@iowegia.dsm.ia.us (chris
: sampson) writes:
: > I am interested in attempting to build my own hydrogen fusion
: > machine and I was wondering if anyone out there could tell me how
: > much hydrogen what temp stuff like that especially details on
: > magnetic compression.
 
First, assume a spherical nuclear explosion.
 
--
-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:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  vnoninski@fscv /  letter to New Scientist
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: letter to New Scientist
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 06:24:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
This is the text of the letter I sent today to the Editor of  New
Scientist:
 
Dr. Alun Anderson, Editor
New Scientist
New Science Publications
ICP Specialist Group
King's Research Tower
Stamford Street
London SE1 9LS
GREAT BRITAIN
 
Dear Dr. Anderson,
 
This letter is to advise you that the commentary of the presented
figure in  the  article  "Frosty  reception  greets  cold  fusion
figures" [1] is incorrect. The production of excess power in  the
left side of the figure is mistakenly attributed by D.Williams to
be "due to the absorption of deuterium ions  into  the  palladium
electrode". As it is quite evident from the figure, the  trivial,
if at all, chemical (or  physical)  process  taking  place  there
consumes rather than produces energy.  More  importantly,  as  is
seen from Fig.10 of [2] the  figure  commented  in  your  journal
concerns only one part of the whole experiment  reported  by  the
authors. According to the  entire  Fig.10  of  [2]  the  produced
(specific) excess power is orders of magnitude greater than  that
initially  claimed  by  the  authors.  Therefore,  the  statement
D.Williams makes that "[t]his paper (paper [2] -- remark mine VN)
shows it is a much smaller effect than was at first suggested" is
untrue.
 
REFERENCES
 
1. Bown W., New Scientist, 1 May 1993, page 6.
 
2. Fleischmann M., Pons S., Physics Letters A, _176_, 1 (1993).
 
Sincerely yours,
 
 
Vesselin Noninski
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 07:32:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) in FD 1013:
 
>In article <440015A64D3F210D62@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>We can all afford such equipment. The problem is no doubt data volume. One
>>should be sampling at about 10 kHz.
 
>Why?
 
>I must be missing something in this whole sampling rate business. Aren't
>the power sources in these experiments supplying DC energy only? If this
>is the case then a narrow band _loss-less_ low pass filter placed between
>the power source and the cell will limit the bandwidth of the voltage and/
>or current fluctuations due to variations of load impedance presented to
>the power supply by the cell. A high quality, large valued, low leakage
>capacitor would be a good start. By monitoring the voltage and current
>between the power supply and the filter the sampling requirements can be
>easily reduced to a few Hz, or less. The need for highly coincident timing
>of voltage and current samples is also greatly reduced by bandwith
>limiting.
 
You are indeed missing something: the whole discussion of the last few weeks
on this topic, that's what. All of it is of course available in the fusion
archives at the vm1.nodak.edu node by ftp, but for you, a brief precis of the
problem:
 
The kind of programmable power supply as used by McKubre and set to its LOWEST
bandwidth by him for some reason, together with the undisputed fact (i.e.
undisputed even by the staunch defenders of all positive results) that the
electrolysis cell has large cell resistance fluctuations going up into the kHz
range, mean that this Kepco supply will not deliver a constant current. The
current will fluctuate at those same kHz-range frequencies, and so will the
total cell voltage. If you then go and calculate the mean power from samples
taken at long intervals (e.g. 4 min) from filtered signals, you certainly
underestimate power going into the cell. This is not under dispute, and it
seems McKubre has missed an error source. I have said several times that he -
and everybody using these Kepcos - should set the Kepco at its HIGHEST
bandwidth, to ensure a controlled current.
 
Having said this, I also need to say that at this time, we do not know the
magnitude of the error, so McKubre's results, even at the small long-time
value of 2-3% excess, just might be OK. This needs to be determined. But
certainly, there is an error source that has to be quantified. Now McKubre,
judging from what I have seen of his writing, is a sober and honest fellow,
who does not throw his hat into the air at the slightest wiggle of excess
heat, and grabs his trumpet; like Steve Jones, he looks for errors, wanting to
make sure he has something real. I also hear that he now lurks in this group,
so I expect he is working on this problem.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Posting of Fusion Energy Hearing
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Posting of Fusion Energy Hearing
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 09:14:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1015:
 
>A report by Eugene F. Mallove (Cold Fusion Research Advocates)
on the Fusion Energy Hearing in Congress of May 5, 1993:
>
>*** Cold Fusion and Alternative Fusion Are High Points ***
>                   of Fusion Energy Hearing
 
>        The Subcommittee on Energy of the House Space, Science,
and Technology Committee met on May 5, 1993 to discuss the status
and funding of fusion energy. The hearings began at 1:30 pm in
the Rayburn House Office Building (Room 2318) and lasted t>
>        The hot fusion program was the focus up to about 4:00
pm, with the hot fusion ranks again coming to ask for further hundreds
of millions to continue their work. After that, the heretofore
outcasts -- cold fusion and aneutronic hot fusion -- wa>
 
First of all, Gene, could you format this properly, please, and send it again,
without chopping off the line ends? I feel I am missing a lot of this
interesting report. You seem to have superlong lines.
 
Secondly, while one can easily agree about the futility of yet more hot fusion
research (and I do agree), swallowing lots of money and not looking like ever
paying it back; this does not mean that these large sums of money, or indeed
even a largish portion of them, should instead go into cold fusion. There has
been, I thought, some agreement here that cold fusion, being (at best) at the
moment in an exploratory phase, should be researched by a number of smallish
groups around the world, and funded moderately. A large effort, as was
attempted at Utah, yielded nothing. So what is needed is a liberalisation of
grants for this sort of research. People like Jones, Liebert and McKubre
should be able to get normal grants, such as from the NSF. So your Congress
should not vote a huge effort, but exert pressure on the NSF to be fair to
CNF research proposals, treat them the same as all others. A few tens of k$
will go a long way with a small project.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Dick Blue does answer!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue does answer!
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 14:45:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since Mitchell Swartz wants to ask questions, I'll answer some of them
to the best of my ability.
 
With reference to the analysis for helium in palladium cathodes, MS
asks, " What was the time between measurements and the activity of
the cathode?"
 
Clearly, in most cases, the analysis was done at a time and place
removed from the site of the electrolysis activity.  I have not
heard of any attempts at "on line" analysis for helium production
in electrolysis experiments.
 
When MS in effect asks if "errors exist in control?" the answer is
obviously  yes.  In fact one of the most difficult aspect of
experiment design is often the selection and execution of control
measurements.  In the case of D2O electrolysis, the use of H2O
as a control was so obvious that many came to believe that it
was the essential control.  However, there are some well known
difference between D2O and H2O with regards to transport properties
for example.  There is also a problem in considering H2O as
the control for the palladium system in light of claims that H2O-
nickel also produces excess heat.
 
Finally in response to my comments relating to scaling of
CF results,  MS asks "Dimensional analysis simply need not
play a role?"
 
I suppose that in a strict sense dimensional analysis need not play
a role.  If the excess heat produced is not dependent on any
experimental parameters subject to the control of the experimenter,
then nothing can be learned by changing those parameters.  Come
to think of it, that may not be a bad model for describing cold
fusion results.  I think your on to something there, Mitchell.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Bandwidth limiting vs. constant current
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bandwidth limiting vs. constant current
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 15:12:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob Lewandowski makes an interesting proposal relating to the use of
input filtering on a CF cell to reduce the bandwidth of the signals that
must be monitored.  I hope some of you who are better versed in this
subject will pick up on this question.  As I see it there is a
potential conflict between the desire to run the electrolysis in
the constant current mode for power input and the use of extensive
filtering.   As Tom Droege noted, the appearance of "excess heat"
is correlated with large fluctuations in cell parameters.  The
maintenance of a constant current clearly requires a dynamic regulator
and maybe even a ballast resister.  Certainly changes in the nature
of the power input circuit, included added filters is an interesting
subject to explore.
 
Harking back to the McKubre experiments,  I have two questions.
(1)Is he still using several calorimeters in series with a single
current source?  If so, isn't that just compounding the "noisey"
signal problem?
(2)As I recall one feature of a Bipolar Operational Powersupply,
BOP for short, is that the feedback loop can be diddled with.  Do
we know whether McKubre runs his straight out of the box as a
voltage programmed current source?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Responses to Steve Jones' questions
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Responses to Steve Jones' questions
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 16:13:15 GMT
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:00:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones posted a lot of evasive nonsense, in an effort to beat a horse
which has been dead for well over a year. He wants to prove that the workers
do not even claim the total power coming out of Nickel cells exceeds I*V!
Also, that they do not measure gas evolution. If Steve was saying "they are
wrong" I could understand it, but for him to deny they even *claim* these
things is wacky! What is the point, Steve? Any fool can dig up their papers
and postings, and show that you are pulling our leg. Why bother?
 
 
Steve starts off with this hilarious old red herring:
 
"With regard to Dr. Notoya, I did not see any recombiner nor means to measure
the evolving gasses at her demonstration in Nagoya."
 
As I said here -- ABOUT ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES!!! -- Notoya's experiment
is back in the lab at Hokkaido. The Nagoya demo was just that: a demo, not a
formal experiment. If you want to know about the experiment, you have to read
her paper in the Nagoya Proceedings, or read the description of her M.I.T.
lecture which I posted here. She said:
 
"In my cell, I checked to be sure that the hydrogen and oxygen gasses were not
recombining. I used a flow of the hydrogen gas through the cell at 1.6ml/min
(+-0.1 ml) to mix the electrolyte. With electrolysis at 0.7 amperes, the
temperature of the electrolyte was 54 deg. C, and the flow rate coming out the
cell was found to be 10 ml/min. This amount roughly equals the total gas flow
predicted to occur with the gasses evolved from electrolysis. Where the
temperature is 54 deg C, gas should evolve at 8.2 ml/min; this, combined with
the gas used for mixing, comes to 9.8 ml/min."
 
 
The experiments of Randy Mills are described in the literature, and here is
what John Farrell reported:
 
"Originally-From: ames!ACAD.FANDM.EDU!J_FARRELL
Sub: Re: A Mixture of Responses
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:00:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
 
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."
 
Let's go over that again, Steve. It says:
 
"VxI; **no** subtraction for H2 and O2 production." Got it?
 
 
Bush's experiments are described in the literature. They use a recombiner,
which eliminates the issue. I recommend that approach, but you have to pick
the recombiner material carefully. Mills does *not* recommend that approach,
and he is an expert, so take my advice with caution. I reported here exactly
what type of recombiner Bob is using, because some people asked me. I do not
feel like digging through my notes at this time. If you want to know, call him
yourself.
 
 
Srinivasan's Nagoya paper, graphs and other publications all show very clearly
that his excess is sometimes beyond I*V (although not in every case):
 
"...if the applied voltage is more than 2.96 V, (as in most of our
experiments) in order to generate an apparent excess power of say 50% the
recombination fraction has to be more than 50%. Thus excess heat margins of
50% or more measured in some of our experiments, particularly in the low power
range, cannot be explained away on the basis of recombination effects."
 
 
I reported all of this on the network, many times. Unlike the "skeptics"
however, I do not keep repeating myself indefinitely. I will tell you once,
and tell you twice, but if you will not listen, I will not tell you thrice.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Terry Bollinger
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Terry Bollinger
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:33:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes "Outstanding, Dr. Droege, simply outstanding."
 
I hasten to point out that the idea that Terry likes was Douglas Morrison's.
I have been reviewing a note that Douglas is preparing on this topic.  As
happens in these cases, I believe I took an idea of Dourlas's and expanded
it.  My main idea (I think) is that when the cathode is exposed the "cigarette
lighter" effect would caus a small explosion, and blow water out of the
dewar.  Looks to me that is just what is happening in the video.
 
Thus I wanted to put up my idea.  I apologize to Douglas R. O. Morrison for
being too fast on the trigger.
 
When there is interchange of ideas, wonderful things happen.  It is not always
easy to tell what idea belonged to whom.  But what Terry likes clearly belongs
to Douglas.
 
The other idea that I had during this interchange, was that the cell constant
would change as the cell contents evaporated, and a white coating was left on
the inside of the cell.  Thus my hurry to "publish".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  morrison@vxpri /  Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 17:33:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                                                                     DM-93/3.
5th DRAFT - Scientific Comments Welcomed.                           6 May 1993.
 
   COMMENTS ON CLAIMS OF EXCESS ENTHALPY BY FLEISCHMANN AND PONS
                  USING SIMPLE CELLS MADE TO BOIL
 
                     Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
    M. Fleischmann and S. Pons [1] have published in Physics Letters A
a communication entitled "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity
via complications to simplicity". There they claim evidence for the production
of excess enthalpy of greater than one kW per cc of Palladium in a Pd-D2O
system. They comment that this is comparable with the rates obtained in a fast
breeder reactor. They note that the reproducibility is high. In this letter
serious doubts are expressed about this claim and the methods used to derive it.
    Essentially they perform electrolysis in a transparent test tube which is
open so that the gases and vapour can escape freely. The cathode is a small
rod of palladium of 0.2 cm diameter and 1.25 cm length giving a total volume
of 0.039 cm3. There are three stages.
   For the first stage a moderate current is used for electrolysis. It is
noted that at short times the heat transfer coefficient decreases - this they
ascribe to the heat of absorbtion of hydrogen ions in the lattice.
   In the second stage the current densities are raised to increase the
temperature above 50 C - this with D2O. Finally, in stage three, the cells are
driven to boiling point. A complicated (non-linear regression) analysis [2]
is employed and it is calculated that there is excess enthalpy generated in
the lattice, the amount calculated increasing steeply with time (and
temperature).
    In the third stage the behaviour near and during boiling is observed
using a video camera. From this video, the time for the cell to go from about
half-empty to dry, is taken - more precisely the amount of liquid boiled off
is estimated over the final 10 minutes before the test tube was declared dry.
A new simple calculation is made in which the enthalpy input is calculated as
             (cell voltage - 1.54 V).(cell current)
and the enthalpy output is taken as composed of two terms, the energy radiated
and the heat resulting from the vapourization of the D2O remaining in the cell
600 seconds before it is dry (this latter term is dominant). It is this simple
calculation that gives the highest values claimed, namely "the excess rate of
energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input" and that
the excess specific rate is 3.7 kW per cc of Palladium.
    There are several major problems with this calculation.
    First is that the "cigarette lighter effect" has been forgotten. In the
last century it was difficult to make reliable matches to light cigarettes.
A reliable smokeless lighter was invented which consisted of a rod of
palladium into which hydrogen had been introduced under pressure. This
caused the lattice of the palladium to expand and thus stored energy.
To light a cigarette, the top of the rod was uncovered; some hydrogen
escaped releasing some of the stress and thus releasing energy which
resulted in a small rise in temperature of the end of the rod. Palladium is a
catalyst of hydrogen and oxygen which burn to give water plus energy. The
palladium now slightly heated, catalyzes the escaping hydrogen and the oxygen
of the air and the resulting heat of combustion which is mainly deposited on
the surface of the rod, raises its temperature. This temperature rise releases
more hydrogen which is catalyzed by the still more efficient hot palladium,
and so on until the tip of the rod is so hot that the cigarette can be lit.
The reliability of this system is high.
    In the simple calculation used for stage three, a significant effect is
omitted, of the heat produced by the catalytized recombination of the hydrogen
with the oxygen. The oxygen is released from the anode by electrolysis, and
towards the end when the cell is about dry, from the air. There is no mention
in Fleischmann and Pons's paper of any attempt to measure the amount of oxygen,
deuterium and water in the gases and vapours leaving the test tube.
    In the Fleischmann and Pons paper, it is noted as a further demonstration
result, that "following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting
of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for
prolonged periods of time (fig.11); furthermore the Kel-F supports of
the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature
must exceed 300 C." This dramatic effect cannot be explained by Fleischmann
and Pons as being due to electrolysis since there is no liquid and
no electrolysis. However it is exactly what would be expected with the
"cigarette lighter effect" where the hot palladium rod continues to catalyze
the interaction of the hydrogen which is slowly escaping from the rod,
with oxygen from the air.
    It might be expected that this effect would occur also with normal water,
H2O, being used instead of heavy water, D2O, but no description is given in the
paper of any results of tests of the stage three boiling using normal water,H2O.
    An interesting confirmation of this using electrochemistry was reported
by Kreysa, Marx and Plieth [3]. They write "We have to report here that as we
removed the deuterium-loaded palladium sheet from the cell and laid it on the
table it did burn a scald into the table. One can still argue that this was
due to deuterium fusion. Therefore we loaded the palladium sheet cathodically
with hydrogen using an electrolyte containing only normal water (no enriched
heavy water) and laid it on to a piece of wood where it also burnt a scald."
They say it releases 147.3 kJ per mole D. "The principle of flameless
catalytic combustion of hydrogen" - the official name of the 'cigarette lighter
effect' - "is used in catalytic hydrogen burners (D. Behrens (ed)
Waserstoffetechnologie - Perspektiven fur Forschung und Entwicklung, Dechema,
Frankfurt/M 1986)." To be more quantitative they laid a hydrogen-loaded
sheet of palladium on to glass rods and "measured, after an incubation time
of 15 s, a temperature rise of the palladium from 20 to 418 degres within
74 seconds." The 15 second delay is the time during which the gradual escape of
hydrogen releases a small amount of energy from the lattice, thus heating the
palladium sufficiently for it to become an efficient catalyst. They estimate
a heat flow of 35.9 W and a heat flow density of 179.6 W/cm3".
    It may be noted that Fleischmann and Pons used an exceedingly small piece
of palladium, 0.04 cm3, which works well as a catalyst, but which means that
after catalyzing a larger volume of heavy water, the power calculated is
apparently larger than with Kreysa et al. because the volume of palladium is
so small. Should Drs. Fleischmann and Pons wish to test their previous
conclusions [1], it would be interesting if they were to describe experiments
where they repeated their published experiment but with a substantially larger
amount of palladium and a relatively small volume of D2O.
    Secondly, there is the assumption that ALL the liquid present in the tube
600 seconds before dryness, was boiled off. That is none of it was carried out
as a liquid, from the test tube. Now the video shows that there is highly
turbulent motion. And as Kreysa et al. [3] showed, 74 seconds after the
palladium becomes dry, temperatures of a few hundred degrees can be reached.
Thus it is reasonable to expect that with such a chaotic system, some fraction
of the liquid is blown out of the test tube as liquid and therefore should not
be counted. The existence of such a fraction is omitted from the simple
Fleischmann and Pons calculation. And no attempt to measure this fraction is
described.
    Thirdly, the input enthalpy is taken as the current multiplied by the
(cell voltage - 1.54V). It is not explained how these quantities are measured.
This is crucial as when the cell is boiling vigorously, the impedance must
be fluctuating strongly. Thus the current will have both an AC and a DC
component. If only the DC component were measured, then the input enthalpy
would be underestimated. A detailed description of the current and voltage
measuring systems showing their fast response characters is needed, but is not
presented.
    Since these three important aspects of the experiment have been omitted,
it is not possible to say whether or not excess enthalpy has been observed in
the last 600 seconds to dryness (stage three).
    There are two important problems with stage two.
    Firstly, a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to
allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made. This method of Fleischmann
and Pons [2] has been carefully studied by Wilson et al. [4] who state that
"they significantly over-estimate the excess heat.......an additional
significant overestimate of excess energy occurs when the calibration is made
above 60 C". Now stage two is mainly above 50 C and rising to 100 C. Further
Wilson et al. write "Because of the paucity of experimental details in their
publications, it has been difficult to determine quantitatively, the effect of
calibration errors." A reply by Pons and Fleischmann [5] did not address the
main questions posed by Wilson et al.
     Secondly, it may be noted in fig. 8 of ref 1, that the cell voltage rises
as the temperature rises and that as 100 C is approached, the voltage rises more
and more steeply. Experience by the GE group [6] was that in operating similar
open cells over many hours, they also noticed a rise in cell voltage with time.
They attributed this effect as being due to some of the escaping gases carrying
some Lithium with them. As the level of the electrolyte is maintained by
adding fresh D2O (but not any lithium salt), the concentration of lithium
in the electrolyte decreases with time and the voltage rises. This was proved by
atomic absorption analysis, that the cell resistance had risen (causing higher
voltage due to the constant current mode operation) due to loss of lithium
which was caused by sputtering of electrolyte droplets up the gas outlet tube.
This may be considered confirmation that even at moderate temperatures, the
outlet stream contains liquids as well as gases as discussed for stage three
when the temperature was much higher and the boiling much more vigorous.
It may be concluded that claims of excess enthalpy in stage two have not
been established.
     The overall conclusion is that many important factors have been neglected
so that it has not been established that excess enthalpy was observed.
    The experiment and some of the calculations have been described as "simple".
This is incorrect - the process involving chaotic motion, is complex and many
calibrations and corrections are needed. The calculations have been made to
appear simple by incorrectly ignoring important factors. It would have been
better to describe the experiments as "poor" rather than "simple". A true
"simple" experiment is one where corrections and calibrations can be reduced
to a minimum. This can be achieved in calorimetry by using a closed cell and by
enclosing the cell in a series (eg three) baths which are each kept at constant
temperature. The cell is kept at a higher temperature than the innermost bath
so that if any excess enthalpy is produced, the heating of this bath can be
reduced thus measuring simply the excess. Since this is a null measurement
system, there is little need for complicated corrections. It is to be regretted
that in the nine and a half years (the last four years well-funded) that
Fleischmann and Pons say they have been working on this [7], that they have
employed such a simplistic open-cell system.
     It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help of many friends, in particular
D. Britz, F. Close, T. Droege, R. Garwin, and S.E. Jones.
 
REFERENCES
[1]. M.Fleischmann and S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993)1.
[2]. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, M.W. Anderson, L.J. Li, and M. Hawkins,
     J. Electroanal. Chem. 287(1990)293.
[3]. G. Kreysa, G. Marx, and W. Plieth, J. Electroanal. Chem. 268(1989)659.
[4]. R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil, and F.G. Will,
     J. Electroanal. Chem. 332(1992)1.
[5]. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 332(1992)33.
[6]. General Electric group of ref. 4. priv. comm.
[7]. Press release, University of Utah, 23 March 1989.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmorrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Rusty Perrin /       Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 18:32:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz writes: "...appear to corroborate that cold fusion --
and the technologies spun from it -- provide ...."
 
What are some of the technologies that have been spun off from CF?
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #6 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #6 Cell 4A4
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 20:53:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #6 Cell 4A4
 
The run is just a little over 1500 hours as I write.  I am torn between
stopping the run to measure the cell noise with various current source
bandwiths, and just running as long as I can.  Yesterday was spent dodging
bullets as Jennifer went out to cut the grass, found the gas powered mower
would not start (she had put too much oil in it) and then got out the old
electric mower and blew random breakers.  I do not complain about anyone
willing to cut the grass, I just stand aside and improve the UPS unit.
 
It is now the transition between the heating and cooling season in Illinois,
and this produces large temperature variations, even in my basement.  This
(until off line corrections) gives me a 20 mw RMS calorimeter.  Still, it is
measuring zero.
 
So I am really itching to make the noise measurements as I have a disagreement
with Dieter Britz as to whether it is better to set the bandwidth high or low.
We do not disagree on the substance of the measurement as near as I can tell,
it is only where it is better to run a real cell.  For sure, the next power
failure will end this run, but it is hard for me to turn off a run that has
gone so long without failure.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  How experiments are (should be) done.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How experiments are (should be) done.
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:53:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From my 10 Feb. 92 post: "No need to run longer, better stop and look for
the error. (in MKF)."
 
Terry Bollinger writes (11 May):
 
"Alas, pert nar everyone has forgotten the _second_ part of the Farfetch
game, which is to stom on your proposed miracle until there is nothing
left but dust!_. The Far'ing is fun, it's the Fetch'ing thats painful... :)"
 
At least some of us know how to play this game.  Go for a wild result, but
when you actually get it, try like hell to destroy the result!
 
P&F get an "A" in Far, but an "F" in Fetch.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Tarl Neustander
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Tarl Neustander
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 22:36:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tarl Neustander admits to making mistakes (sounds like exciting ones), and
asks a few questions.  Not sure anyone so humble belongs here.
 
First the Physics Letters A paper is the v 176 May 3, 1993.  It had (yesterday)
not yet made it to the Fermilab library, so I am working from a multipass fax
which makes the subscripts illegible.
 
You ask:
 
How are they measuring
1) the enthalpy content of the gas stream
2) time dependent heat transfer coefficient
3) Enthalpy input due to electrolysis
 
1) They do not even bother to measure the condensed vapor.  They just blow
it off.  They have a video camera watching the cell, and some lines marked
on it.  When they judge it to be "half full" they note the time.  When they
judge it to be empty, they again note the time.  There is no mention of a
thermometer in the gas stream, and there is not one shown on the drawing.
They do not mention anything about collecting and measuring what comes out
of the cell.
 
2) There is what appears to be a once a day calibration pulse.  Then there is
five pages of analysis that tells us all how good it is.  They use a glass
Dewar in a constant temperature bath.  The top is silvered so that the level
variations between fillings to make up for electrolysis losses do not change
the calorimeter constant.  You might wonder how the once a day calibration
pulse checks on changes to the calorimeter constant as the cell goes from
full to empty, and as deposits from the evaporated electrolyte form on the
inside cell wall.  This over ten minutes or so.  Possibly, the Kalman filter
solves this problem, and all those calculations repeated in every paper helps
too.  But I do not understand it.
 
3) This is just volts and amps. Everybody knows how to measure those, so they
do not bother to include any details.  So you have to go back to earlier
papers, but they do not include any detail there either.  But at least at
one time they were using a Keithley model 199 data system.  It can take
9 measurements a second.
 
Now in case you have a problem with the measurement scheme of 1) I quote from
the paper:  "As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video
recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make
reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents."  Err, P&F, would you
care to put an error limit on that?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 22:56:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz wonders about the calibration of the Storms experiment.  A
modest search did not turn up the Storms paper, so I will have to go it from
memory.  We all do calibrations all the time.  In a way these experiments are
just one continuous calibration.  Ed's paper described two experiments.  The
first appeared to show "anomalous heat", the second did not.
 
The first experiment was terminated for some reason, I remember that the
recombiner quit working.  In any case, in the middle of showing "anomalous
heat" the run was stopped and the apparatus taken apart.  At least for me
when something like this happens, I have no way to detect a drift from
"anomalous heat".  What is desirable, is to be able to get the "anomalous
heat" production to stop by some means, like reversing the cell current.  Then
a result is more believeable.  So I classify Ed Storms work as interesting
and await a replication.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
Date: 12 May 93 20:17:13 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <9305121620.AA25977@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
>
>                                                                     DM-93/3.
>5th DRAFT - Scientific Comments Welcomed.                           6 May 1993.
>
>   COMMENTS ON CLAIMS OF EXCESS ENTHALPY BY FLEISCHMANN AND PONS
>                  USING SIMPLE CELLS MADE TO BOIL
>
>                     Douglas R.O. Morrison.
>
 
This so thoroughly destroys their credibility that I have difficulty
believing their funding will continue.  I also note, with gratification,
that Morrison describes the conditions as chaotic - mirroring my comment
about the complex dynamics of what is happening in that test tube.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:44:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

       In Message-ID: <1993May11.175726.628@physc1.byu.edu>
       Subject: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
   Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
= "X-rays:  "Results of dental film exposure are shown in Fig. 7"  [ref. 1] --
= identical to dental films shown in Fig. 2 of ref. 2.  "The film that was
= wrapped around the outside of the electrolysis cell A and hence closest to the
= palladium showed the greatest exposure." [ref. 2]  "Clear regions are due
= to a peeling away of the emulsion rather than non-exposure." [ref. 1 and ref.
= 2, identical wording.]  The latter is an admission of problems associated with
= the dental X-ray film method.  Others, including artifacts caused by exposure
= to pressure and humidity, have been identified elsewhere (... most of these
= have been covered on the net).  Note that the dental films were "positioned
= within the distilled water contained in the secondary (gap) compartment."
= [ref. 1]  One control film shows fogging around edges; I maintain
= this one film is an inadequate control.
= As I have said before regarding such crude techniques:  Get serious."
 
  Prof. Jones:
    Were not aware you a board certified radiologist.
    One gets the impression that some of the other net-"radiologists" may
be making comments without even seeing the paper and/or without reasonable
knowledge of the field.
 
    I have figure 2 (ref. 2; M.H. Miles et al., "Heat and helium production
  in cold fusion experiments," Conf. Proc., "The Science of Cold Fusion",
  Bressani, Del Giudice and Preparata, eds., 363-372, 1991.) in front of me.
 
    There are five films, are there not?  Three (3) control films are present
    showing activity of the film (see control film labelled "70 kV,
             7 mA, 0.5 sec".  Also there is one with no exposure, and in
             addition an experimental control.
 
    These appear to be good papers.
 
 What do you get out of these chronic put-downs of everyone else's work.
   "Even a wise man can learn from a fool"  (attribute temp. forgotten)
 
   The controls are reasonable and not clearly described by you.
 When we last attempted to discuss Kucherov's x-ray image one of your esteemed
radiology consultant appeared unable or unwilling to recognize a reciprocal-
space image from a simple autoradiograph.  Perhaps she/he was misinformed.
  Who are your radiology consultants for these claims, please?
  Any Board certified in radiology?
 It appears your missive may simply be designed to add further insult
 towards radiologists and radiation scientists around the world.
    [How timely.  The Radiology Centennial begins in '95]
 
    With adequate controls and with full accounting of the
     physics (not always done), X-ray film is a good method of
    documenting active electrodes.  X-ray films have been used effectively.
    Any reader of this net, wishing to know what is really going on, ought
     to get a recent reference, or just take a glance at figure 2 in ref. 2.
 
                                  Best wishes.
                                                   Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Dick Blue does answer!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue does answer!
Subject: Dick Blue does answer!
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:46:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <0096C631.127D5820.13733@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Dick Blue does answer!
Dick Blue (blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) retorts:
 
===  "When MS in effect asks if "errors exist in control?" the answer is
===  obviously  yes."
 
  Thank you.  If the host of putative errors also exist in a matched
  control, then so what?  You have not even proven that some of
  the hypothesized errors exist.
  After all that knocking of good papers and diligent researchers,
  we find that they effect both control and test systems.   One
  implication leads one to ponder: "why?".
 
 
===   "However, there are some well known
===  difference between D2O and H2O with regards to transport properties
===  for example."
 
  There are differences often not considered including intra- and
intermolecular deuteron/proton transport, detailed stereoconstellations,
and proton/deuteron transport through the electrode/double layer. So what?
 
  Despite the obfuscation, the growing set of experimental papers support
 that scientists rethink cold fusion now.
 
 
===  "Finally in response to my comments relating to scaling of
===  CF results,  MS asks "Dimensional analysis simply need not
===  play a role?"
===  I suppose that in a strict sense dimensional analysis need not play
===  a role."
 
  Thank you.  but your apology ought go to F&P.
 
 
===   "If the excess heat produced is not dependent on any
===  experimental parameters subject to the control of the experimenter,
===  then nothing can be learned by changing those parameters.  Come
===  to think of it, that may not be a bad model for describing cold
===  fusion results."
 
   Loading is one very important parameter.  Do you really read
  much literature on this subject?  Or do you make up these criticisms
  randomly?
                         Best wishes.
                                           Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 21:47:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9305121734.AA26026@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Rusty Perrin [U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET] writes:
 
==  "Mitchell Swartz writes: "...appear to corroborate that cold fusion --
==  and the technologies spun from it -- provide ...."
=
=   "What are some of the technologies that have been spun off from CF?"
 
  Rusty, please read FUSION TECHNOLOGY, COLD FUSION TIMES, FUSION FACTS, etc.
    for starters for background.   There are so many that my comments
    would do a disservice.
 
    However, in addition to better knowledge of alloys,
                      calorimetry, theoretical models, molten salt systems,
                      gas discharge systems, nuclear emulsion recordings,
                      nickel and titanium, and other metal systems
                      and possible transmutations, the field has generated
                      in only four short years, many inventions and
                      improvements which herald more in the "pipeline".
 
      Imagine if there had been a positive supportive atmosphere.
 
                                Best wishes.
                                                Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Jon Webb /  Re: PhDs from K-Mart?
     
Originally-From: webb+@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PhDs from K-Mart?
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 20:41:15 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1spi8d$a38@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com
(Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
 
   that carries Phys Rev A. I doubt I could spare the time today to drive in
                ^^^^^^^^^^
 
Note: the publication is Physics Letters A, not Physics Review A.  --
J
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnJon cudlnWebb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: 12 May 1993 21:43:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <9305121734.AA26026@suntan.Tandem.com> U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET
(Rusty Perrin) writes:
 
>What are some of the technologies that have been spun off from CF?
 
Well, there have been major advances in fertilizer technology as a direct
result of CF. . .
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Reply to Terry Bollinger
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Terry Bollinger
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 22:05:53 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <930512114418.27c011f8@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger writes "Outstanding, Dr. Droege, simply outstanding."
>
> I hasten to point out that the idea that Terry likes was Douglas Morrison's.
> I have been reviewing a note that Douglas is preparing on this topic...
 
My apologies to both parties.  I of course noted (and included) Dr. Morrison's
name in that posting, but did not realize he was preparing his own posting on
this topic.  Dr. Morrison's posting looks highly interesting, and I look
forward to reading it in detail.
 
Incidentally, I note that at least in terms of the posting record within this
group, the first person to re-remind folks about the combustion possibility
was (I think) Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu), who was trying
to come up with a simple way to explain the infamous partial disappearance
of the Pons/Fleischmann 1-inch palladium cube.
 
Dale Bass then came up with some highly interesting points and figures on
the same subject, including some observations about loss of water due to
sparking, and dredged up some nice data from back in the early days of the
sci.physics.fusion debate.  I suspect that really helped accelerate interest
in the combustion possiblity.
 
I don't know whether any of those Schultz/Bass postings helped prompt Douglas
Morrison, Tom Droege, an Steven Jones to re-examine the new Pons/Fleischmann
Physics Letters A paper from the catalytic combustion viewpoint, but if they
did, perhaps a short explanation of the unusual "conversational" inputs into
Dr. Morrison's paper might be appropo.  Up until the Schultz entry, my best
recollection is that combustive explanations had just about been totally
ignored for nearly three years, even among "cf" critics.
 
I would also note that Tom Droege's work on converging disappearance of the
extra-chemical results probably helped a great deal in creating a renewed
incentive to re-examine the combustion issue.  As long as it was _accepted_
(at least implicitly) that the heat was extra-chemical in magnitude, I think
a whole lot of us (critics included) had blinders on with regard to the
otherwise obvious possibility that the heat was due to ordinary combustion.
 
.....
 
Does it sound like I'm giving a sort of obituary report for excess heat?
 
You bet I am.  All subsequent experiments on excess heat were based on the
premise that _somehow_ the original P&F experiment was a valid indicator
of clean, chemical-like heat at levels far in excess of anything possible
through chemistry.  The combination of:  a) Tom Droege's high-quality work
on systematic calorimetry measurements and  b) The Morrison et al re-analysis
of the new P&F paper in terms of simple catalytic combustion mechanisms has
now done (in my poor, bewildered heh heh opinion) some very serious damage
to the original premise on which _all_ such experiments have been based.
 
So it's a clean slate, folks, at least if you insist on using the sort of
dependency-of-premises logic that I'm very fond of in this kind of analysis.
Excess heat is a do-do in my book, as of yesterday.  Find it again and you
had better have a reeeeeeaaaal good set of data and general explanation as
to why it's not chemical, as the chances of _accidentally_ finding a real
extra-chemical clean heat effect based on an initially false finding is
about the same as finding a way to convert lead to gold based on an invalid
recipe from a medieval alchemist's textbook.  The fact that at least one or
two of those alchemists may have honestly may they had succeeded in creating
gold from lead _does not_ significantly increase the chances that _you_ will
succeed in doing it using similar recipes, does it?  Caution is advised!
 
[BTW:  "False" in the preceeding paragraph simply means in my personal scheme
of things that the P&F results at present have such a low rating in my totem
pole of plausibility that concepts derived _from_ those results are weighted
nearly at zero.  It does _not_ mean that I'm totally closed to some unique
input that might increase the weight of the P&F initial experiment.  But
boy, it would need to be a dilly of a data point.]
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Patrick Smith /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: 12 May 93 18:02:16 GMT
Organization: Paramax, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
Bruce Scott wrote:
> But you neglect to mention the third salient feature of the d + d reaction:
> helium ash. As we have heard from Jones and others, production of helium
> even if we suspend disbelief concerning contamination from glass, is not
> near to being commensurate with the excess heat which is being claimed.
 
To be sure, P&F Effect advocates present something of a moving target.  But
if there is one dominant claim, it is the reaction
 
                    d + d ----> He(4) + Q (heat).
 
At least, this is what Mitchel Swartz is claiming.  But, I wrote:
 
> Setting aside the question of whether or not the "(P&F) Effect"
> is real, let's assume that, indeed, it is, and that the excess heat is
> derived from dd fusion with He(4) "ash":
 
Note that I made the *assumption* that this is what takes place, and
then worked backwards to argue that if the fusion rate is augmented by
many orders of magnitude while the normal decay pathways are suppressed
by many orders of magnitude as well, then the posited reaction may
very well violate the second law of thermodynamics.  In that event,
the P&F effect would have something in common with perpetual motion
devices.
 
Along this same line of thought, the Hagelsteinian ``collective,
coherent'' effects strike me the same way.  Extending the arguement to
the above posited reaction, some force must "pump" deuterons into an
excited He(4) state, and then tend to keep them there; i.e., the
states must be meta-stable.  Of course, resonant modes will become
evident in any material which is being driven hard enough.  But the
lack of an external driving force implies that the "collective,
coherent" forces must stem from the Pd lattice itself.  In effect, the
highly randomized and fluctuating fields within the lattice must
conspire to produce highly coherent effects.  To put it differently, a
very ordered effect must arise from very randomized thermal, or
phonon, lattice motion (even ignoring the problem of coupling to the
lattice).  Stating that such events are unlikely is thermodynamically
equivalent to saying that there are many more ``randomized states''
available than there are coherent states, and consistently selecting
from a set of highly improbable states on a mass scale contradicts the
second law.
 
Also, Terry Bolinger wrote:
> Alas, pert nar everyone has forgotten the _second_ part of the Farfetch
> game, which is to _stomp on your proposed miracle until there is nothing
> left but dust!_.  The Far'ing is fun, it's the Fetch'ing thats painful... :)
 
Actually, since the conclusion was an apparent contradiction to the
second law, I thought that part was pretty well taken care of.  But
seriously, it appears to me that the d + d ---> Q + He(4) reaction
*is* very close to a contradiction of the second law.  I may follow
this up a bit.
 
Finally, Tom Droege wrote
> To Patrick J. Smith, who has a wonderful "single miracle" theory, I ask
> "how are miracles ordered?"  Is a 42 miracle event any less likely than a
> single miracle event?  Why?  Give me a proof!  See, my math training comes
> out from time to time.
 
Ok, I'll concede that 42 small miracles might well be more believable
than thwarting the second law of thermodynamics.  Maybe the Bolinger
Criterion should be modified to a weighted sum of miracles ;-)
 
-Patrick
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Chuck Harrison /  At the bookstore
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: At the bookstore
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 03:56:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I was at a large new/used technical bookstore last week and encountered
  Bockris, Conway, Yeager (eds.), _A Comprehensive Treatise of
Electrochemistry_,
   Plenum.  (10 volumes).
It gives some context to Dieter Britz' self-effacing "Bockris has
_forgotten_ more electrochemistry than I know".  Not only was the volume of
material (a couple of shelf feet) overpowering, but also the price; I
didn't buy it.  Just what Dr. N would expect from us dilletantes!  But at
least I now know the difference between a potentiostat and a galvanostat.
 
What I _did_ pick up was a nice Dover edition (kudos, as always, to Dover
for their prices) of
  W. Jones and N.H. March, _Theoretical Solid State Physics_ (2 vols),
Dover, NY,
    1985.  (Reprint of 1973 edition by Wiley & Sons).
It seems well written, but I expect to take a year or so to plow through
it.  My question to fellow netters is this:  since the book is twenty years
old, do you know of any specific parts that are now considered _wrong_?  If
so, I'd appreciate a note.  I'm not so concerned right now about
_additional_ things that have been worked out since 1973; just hidden goofs
in Jones & March.  Thanks much.
 
Cheers,   -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Re-Posting For Clarity -PLEASE CHECK FORMAT!
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re-Posting For Clarity -PLEASE CHECK FORMAT!
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 03:56:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

**I am resubmiting this posting because several individuals have
told me that for some reason they are getting truncation of sentences
and are eager to get the whole story. Here goes again:
 
A report by Eugene F. Mallove (Cold Fusion Research Advocates)
on the Fusion Energy Hearing in Congress of May 5, 1993:
 
*** Cold Fusion and Alternative Fusion Are High Points ***
                   of Fusion Energy Hearing
 
        The Subcommittee on Energy of the House Space, Science,
and Technology Committee met on May 5, 1993 to discuss the status
and funding of fusion energy. The hearings began at 1:30 pm in
the Rayburn House Office Building (Room 2318) and lasted to 6:00
p.m. with only a few 15-minute breaks for votes on the House floor.
 
        The hot fusion program was the focus up to about 4:00 pm,
with the hot fusion ranks again coming to ask for further hundreds
of millions to continue their work. After that, the heretofore
outcasts -- cold fusion and aneutronic hot fusion -- was the subject.
So for the first time since the House Science, Space, and Technology
hearing of April 1989, cold fusion really received an open airing
before an important congressional committee. After the very positive
reception at this meeting, it appears to this observer likely that
further Congressional exploration of cold fusion research will
occur. The "ice has been broken," with Congress showing that it
is can no longer be intimidated by the foolish mockery of cold
fusion by the scientific establishment.
 
        Testifying for cold fusion was Dr. Edmund Storms of Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Adding to the cold fusion  case --
low-temperature energy extraction from water -- was Dr. Randell
Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, who presented his outlook
and revealed new experimental achievements.  During this "Alternative
Programs" session, Dr. Bogdan Maglich of Advanced Physics Corporation
presented a strong defense of his helium-3-deuterium collider scheme
and attacked DOE's tokamak program. Dr. Klaus Berkner of Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, who spoke about heavy ion inertial fusion
during this "Alternative Programs" session must have felt very
out of place on this panel of heretics;  by the standards of the
mainline hot fusion program he was a heretic too.
 
        The hot fusion part of the meeting was chaired by Congresswoman
Marilyn Lloyd (D- Tennessee), but because Lloyd's schedule, Congressman
Dick Swett (D- New Hampshire) chaired the "Alternative Programs"
session.  The order of the meeting:
 
*Panel One* -- Opening Comments:
 
Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy, DOE
Dr. Harold Forsen, Senior VP for Research and Development, Bechtel
     Corporation, Washington, D.C.
 
*Panel Two* -- TOKAMAK Programs
 
Dr. Paul-Henri Rebut, Director, ITER (International Thermonuclear
      Experimental Reactor), San Diego Co-Center, LaJolla, CA
Dr. Charles Baker, ITER, US Home Team Leader, Oak Ridge National        Laboratory
Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 
*Panel Three* -- Alternative Programs
 
Dr. Klaus Berkner, Associate Laboratory Director, Operations, Lawrence
 Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich, Chief Scientist, Advanced Physics Corporation,   Irvine, CA
Dr. Edmund Storms, Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Randell L. Mills, Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, Lancaster, PA
 
         Defining the spirit of the session, Congresswoman Marilyn
Lloyd said in her opening remarks, "..our fusion program may be
entering a state of reassessment. This, in part, may be the result
of not having produced a fusion energy plant. Or maybe it's because
we are all becoming more aware of the pressure on federal research
funds."
 
        Dr. N. Anne Davies's prepared statement acknowledged the
magnetic fusion program's objective of a "Demonstration Power Plant"
by about 2025 and an "operating commercial power plant" by about
2040.  Notice that the hot fusion people never say just "by 2025"
or "by 2040." It's always "by about...20XX" The FY 1994 budget
request, Davies said was $347.6 million, supporting four program
elements: conducting D-T experiments at Princeton in the TFTR,
participating in the engineering design phase of ITER, initiating
the detailed design of the TPX (another proposed machine for Princeton),
and continuing a base program of physics and technology support.
 
        Dr. Davies's prepared statement, loaded with ponderous
bureaucratese, says at one point: "The Operating Expenses request
also provides $9.2 million in Program Direction funds for the salaries,
benefits, travel and other expenses associated with 81 full-time
equivalents required to administer the Fusion Energy program by
the Headquarters staff and those at DOE Field Offices; and $4.9
million in the Planning and Projects subprogram to support the
program's legal obligation to the Small Business Innovation Research
Program." Just a fraction of that administrative overhead would
fund a much needed cold fusion research effort in universities
and small businesses.  Another farce of the current DOE fusion
program: the published SBIR requests as they now stand are written
up to explicitly exclude cold fusion proposals.
 
        The other hot fusioneers who followed Davies reiterated
what their leader had said, but there were some revealing gems
-- explicit warnings NOT to be diverted by other non-tokamak hot
fusion concepts. An example was a part of the testimony of Dr.
Harold Forsen of Bechtel Corporation: "I worry very much about
not getting on with the D-T fueled tokamaks at the expense of too
much second guessing of what might be cheaper, smaller or fueled
with more exotic, remote fuels." The U.S. hot fusioneers plan to
spend  an "estimated" $450 million between 1992 and 1998 on "Engineering
Design Activities," which are then to be followed "if the [international
 parties agree," by a seven-year construction phase so that ITER
could begin to operate in 2005.
 
        Congressman Harris Fawell of Illinois diplomatically showed
his impatience with the hot fusion program. He read the following
statement into the record:
 
        "Madam Chairman, I share your view that the fusion program
may be entering a state of reassessment. And, in fact, this reassessment
may be long overdue.
 
        I was particularly struck by the recent remarks of Dr.
Robert L. Hirsch at the March 5, 1993 meeting of DOE's Fusion Energy
Advisory Committee. Dr. Hirsch, who was once head of DOE's magnetic
fusion energy program and is now a Vice President of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) made the following observations:
 
* DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors as currently envisioned
will be extremely complex, highly radioactive, likely to be highly
regulated, and costly.
 
* Even if DT or laser fusion reactors had the same capital costs
as a fission reactor -- an enormous challenge -- fusion reactors
would lose out to advanced fission reactors, which are a reliable,
known quantity.
 
* None of the very few fusion-knowledgeable utility people he had
spoken with believes that tokamak or laser fusion reactors, as
currently envisioned, would be acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
* There are some enormous materials problems related to DT fusion.
There are no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors.
In the absence of development of a low activity material -- a very
costly and time consuming undertaking -- you will have to effectively
rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
reactor of the same power level.
 
* And then there's ITER. If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned,
aren't acceptable, can ITER possibly be justified?
        -If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion
and will likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate
concepts.
        -If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public
debate, there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported
and the fusion program could collapse.
 
        Dr. Hirsch closed his remarks with several recommendations including:
 
* Scale-up of alternate R&D concepts as fast as possible.
 
* Don't stop tokamak or laser fusion, but cut them back and reorient
them in more acceptable directions.
 
* Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction,
large quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials development.
 
        Madam Chairman, I don't pretend to be a fusion energy expert
-- I'm a refugee from the liberal arts -- but when someone with
Dr. Hirsch's knowledge, background, and stature makes such observations,
I believe they deserve serious consideration, and I expect today's
witnesses to address them.
 
        I am also concerned about other aspects of the planned
fusion energy program, including:
 
* The role of, and the need for, a new proposed tokamak device,
TPX, for which the DOE budget documents provide neither a cost
estimate, a time schedule, nor an understandable rationale of why
it is so important.
 
* The introduction of tritium into the TFTR later this year --
not only will this be done in a heavily populated area, raising
safety and other environmental concerns -- but it will also require
expensive decontamination and decommissioning of the machine. Is
the science we will get worth this cost, or would it be more cost-effect
ve to rely on JET, which has already used tritium?
 
* Finally, the continued operation of other tokamaks, including
Alcator C-Mod and the DIII-D tokamaks, in this budget climate means
that we cannot afford to pursue promising alternate concepts. Are
we really getting our money's worth from them?
 
        All that being said, Madam Chairman, I look forward to
hearing these concerns addressed by today's witnesses."
 
****END of Congressman Fawell's statement.****
 
        Dr. Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation,
whose heat-producing experiments with  ordinary water-nickel-potassium
carbonate cells are increasingly highly regarded in the cold fusion
field made his presentation. His colleague Robert M. Shaubach of
Thermacore, Inc. accompanied Mills but did not make a presentation.
 
        Mills's opening remarks concisely summarized what the Lancaster,
PA effort is all about:
 
        "Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (HPC) has an extensive
theoretical and experimental research program of producing energy
from light-water electrolytic cells. HPC and Thermacore, Inc.,
Lancaster, PA are cooperating in developing a commercial product.
(Thermacore is a well respected defense contractor and its expertise
is in the field of heat transfer.) Presently, all of the demonstration
cells of HPC and Thermacore produce excess power immediately and
continuously. Cells producing 50 watts of excess power and greater
have been in operation for more than one year.  Some cells can
produce 10 times more heat power than the total electrical power
input to the cell. A steam-producing prototype cell has been successfull
 tested. The source of excess energy in NOT from fusion or other
nuclear reactions. Energy is released in a catalytic process whereby
the electron of the hydrogen atom is induced to undergo a transition
to a lower electronic energy level than the 'ground state' as defined
by the usual model of th
 
 
 
 
 
e atom. The lower energy states of hydrogen have been identified
in nature. HPC and Thermacore are conducting other experiments
to demonstrate that this lower-energy form of hydrogen is the 'ash'
of heat producing cells. A summary of the technology follows...."
 
        "The [original] experiment has been scaled up by a factor
of one-thousand, and the scaled-up heat cell results have been
independently confirmed by Thermacore, Inc. Patents covering the
compositions of matter, structures, and methods of the HydroCatalysis
process have been filed by HPC worldwide with a priority date of
April 21, 1989. HPC and Thermacore are presently fabricating a
steam-producing demonstration cell."
 
        Dr. Mills continued with a further elaboration of the benefits
of HPC's technology, as well as a discussion of possible evidence
for the existence of below ground state hydrogen atoms. At one
point the statement says, "The Mills theory predicts exactly the
spectral observations of the extreme ultraviolet background emission
from interstellar matter (given by Eq.(1) with n1 and n2 being
fractions), which characterize dark matter, and HPC is conducting
further verification of data that demonstrates that the lower-energy
form of hydrogen is the 'ash' of heat producing cells."
 
        Of course, many cold fusion people who accept the Mills
excess heat experimental claims do not accept Dr. Mills's theory
and are inclined to believe that other forms of ash -- nuclear
ash -- may be arising from the deuterium in ordinary water. There
is also the question about whether sodium carbonate electrolyte
also facilitates the heat reaction -- Bush and Eagleton say it
does, the Indians at BARC say it does.  Mills, on the other hand,
says that sodium carbonate electrolyte doesn't give rise to excess
heat, a fact that he says supports his catalytic theory.  (By his
own assertions, Dr. Mills has, in effect, presented this sodium
versus potassium issue as a potential Achilles heel of his theory.)
 
        Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory read
his prepared statement into the record.  His statement might be
viewed as fairly "mainline" cold fusion thinking, with a few exotic
twists that will likely further enrage the folks who think that
high-energy nuclear physicists have a monopoly on wisdom about
possible nuclear reactions.
 
        Dr. Storms's statement:
 
        "Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity
to present new and important results about a phenomenon that has
been conventionally called 'Cold Fusion.' Starting with the work
reported in 1989 by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, many observations
have indicated that it is apparently possible to initiate nuclear
reactions in certain metals near room temperature and that these
reactions result in significant heat production as well as various
nuclear products.
 
        I am not speaking for the Los Alamos National Laboratory
on this subject because policy in this area has not yet been formulated.
The Laboratory does not want me to pre-empt this process.
 
        Nevertheless, a careful and extensive examination of available
information as well as personal research has convinced me and many
other scientists that this phenomenon is real and, I believe, may
have important consequences to the U.S.
 
        Much skepticism and frustration resulted from lack of reproducib
lity during early experiments. For this and other reasons, many
scientists still believe that positive results are not possible.
However, the phenomenon is now reproducible using a variety of
techniques. Excess heat production has occasionally approached
useful levels and the many postive results are now described in
a variety of peer reviewed scientific journals and conference proceeding
. In addition, the phenomenon has been demonstrated under many
conditions including those employed in conventional physics. However,
a satisfactory explanation and much supporting information are
still lacking.
 
        Accumulated evidence is now so persuasive that it would
be convincing to most people if we were discussing any other field.
Indeed, the evidence is sufficient to cause the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) to support work ($4M/year) at SRI and
at Texas A&M University where positive results have become increasingly
reproducible. The company called Technova (Japan) is sufficiently
impressed by the evidence to equip a large laboratory in France
for the use of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann. They can now produce
power densities (1000 watt/cm3 Pd) that exceed those in a nuclear
reactor (100 watt/cm3 UO2).  A growing number of companies in the
U.S.a re showing interest in the field. interest in India, China,
Italy, and Russia is also expanding.  An increasing number of positive
results as well as new ways to initiates the reaction have been
reported. Support has been especially strong in Japan where MITI
has recently committed $24 million to be added to other large sources
of funding. Indeed, Japan is now leadi
 
 
 
 
 
ng the field in understanding this remarkable phenomenon. We are
once again in the position where a major discovery made in the
US is being developed in Japan.
 
        If this were just another example of conventional science
being slow to accept new ideas, you might be advised to wait for
nature to take its course. However, I believe this phenomenon is
of such potential importance that it would not be prudent to wait.
I may not be able to convince you of these conclusions in the brief
time I have.  There is now a significant collection of published
papers, books, and reviews available for review. Some detailed
sources of information are part of the written testimony.
 
        One might ask what consequences might result if only a
fraction of these assertions is true?
        FIRST, the theory of electron structure in a metal and
its interaction with the atomic nucleus needs to be reexamined.
I would expect such a reexamination to produce even more useful
insights.
        SECOND, experiments indicate *a strong potential* for creating
energy that has no identified pollution or significant radioactivity,
and is essentially inexhaustible.
        THIRD, some speculate there is a *possibility* of converting
harmful radioactive isotopes into nonradioactive elements at room
temperature using properly constructed electron environments. Consequent
y, one of the troublesome aspects of fission energy might be eliminated.
 
        The phenomenon will eventually be understood and useful
devices will be constructed. While this process is evolving, the
current absence of U.S. policy is inhibiting development of a vital
legal and intellectual property infrastructure. At the present
time. very few scientists in the U.S. have a competent understanding
of the field. Because this field is so new and complex, training
people will not be an easy or rapid task. in addition, the U.S.
patent office is not issuing patents in the field while this limitation
does not exist in other countries. As a result, control of the
technology is slipping away on these two important fronts. A modest
amount of support now can have a  significant impact on reducing
both problems without the need to shift major priorities before
the potential of the phenomenon is better understood.
 
        I would like to recommend three actions.
 
        First, a panel of open-minded technical experts be appointed
to evaluate recent results.
 
        Second, in the interim, it is prudent to provide some resources
in view of the increasing activity of other countries. This money
would extend the understanding of this complex field and help train
a larger number of scientists in its subtleties. Efficient use
of these limited resources could be achieved by supporting laboratories
that have reported positive results in the past.
 
        Third, encourage the Patent Office to start issuing patents in the field.
 
        Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information
to the committee's attention."
 
**** END of Dr. Storms's testimony ****
 
        Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's lengthy testimony lashed out at
the DOE's narrow-minded fusion energy program and defended his
brand of aneutronic fusion energy. He defined "aneutronic fusion"
 as fusion which  "burns nonradioactive fuels, produces 100 times
less neutron radiation, 1000 times less radioactive waste and 2-3
times less heat pollution than the conventional fusion." Maglich's
company, Advanced Physics Corporation,  is the lead member of the
USA-Russia Research Consortium, S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic
Fusion Energy.  The consortium consists, he said of 12 member organizati
ns. Some of the American members of the Consortium are: the University
of California at Irvine, Academic Lead Member; Advanced Reactor
Group of Professor L. Lidsky, Nuclear Engineering Department of
MIT; General Electric Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady, NY. The
Russian membership consists of six major institutes involving 138
scientists. Its Lead Member is the nuclear weapons center Chelyabinsk-70
 whose 42 scientists have decided
 
 
 
 
 
 to convert from military to peaceful research by developing aneutronic
fusion technology.
 
        Some excerpts from Dr. Maglich's testimony:
 
        "Large development programs acquire institutional and psychologi
al momentum, and change much more slowly than our understanding
of the facts. As a result, the DOE fusion energy program has taken
no cognizance of modern scientific developments, nor has the DOE
taken necessary steps to encourage the development of successor
programs."
 
        "Billions of dollars of taxpayers money would be saved
and dozens of years of national economic development would be shortcut
by making the national fusion program recognize that scientific
tests within the past five years (1988-93) supported by theoretical
calculations strongly point to the feasibility of making the fusion
reactor COMPACT."
 
        "Tests in two tokamaks carried out independently in 1988-89,
show that ultra hot fuel does NOT behave 'anomalously' -- which
would require a gigantic reactor -- but behaves 'classically' --
which implies a SMALL reactor. .... Independently, measurement
in the new type of small fusion reactor known as SELF-COLLIDER,
published in Physical Review Letters of January 18, 1993 show how
ultra hot ions of 10 billion degrees can be made STABLE in a miniature
reactor whose volume is 100 cc."
 
        "As a result of a series of experiments with compact models
of aneutronic fusion reactors, our research consortium is now only
3 years away from proving once and for all that a nonradioactive-fuel,
nonproliferating, aneutronic fusion energy reactor is feasible."
 
        "Aneutronic fusion research involves a modest fixed cost.
Because the devices are small, the cost of an experiment is in
the $3-5 million range, and the cost of an entire scientific test
is in the $30 million/3 years range. The system consists of two
parts: injector and self-collider reactor. Proof of principle can
be tested on a time scale of 3 years. If successful, this new fusion
reactor could become commercially available 5-10 years thereafter,
depending on plant size."
 
        "DOE cannot afford not to pursue the new laboratory measurements
coupled to the Air Force-supported computer simulations indicating
the feasibility of fusion reactors burning non-radioactive-fuels
--(mixture of nonradioactive helium-3 and deuterium, as opposed
to that of radioactive tritium and deuterium)."
 
        "For the past 30 years, the US DOE has systematically refused
to fund any research on non-radioactive-fuel fusion as a matter
of policy. Its support has been narrowed to one type of fuel and
one type of reactor. This is in clear violation of the letter of
the law and congressional intent as set forth in the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486 of 10/24/92). The first fusion
goal mandated by the Law is 'a broad based fusion energy program.'
The law also gives priority to environmentally clean energy technologies
and to programs in which private industry participates 20% or more.
The current DOE radioactive fuel program has reserved only $500,000
out of the $340 million, or 0.1%, of the Magnetic Fusion Energy
Budget for alternate fusion energy option. Nonradioactive fuel
fusion research would be a small part of this 0.1%."
 
        "An institution can never be made to compete with itself
-- which would be the case if this program is administered by the
present Office of Fusion Energy of DOE. To facilitate the development
of such law-mandated, fusion ecotechnology effort, the Congress
should direct the Department of Energy to split the present Office
of Fusion Energy into:
 
* OFFICE OF NONRADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY; and
* OFFICE OF RADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY (ITER); and
* That separate budgets be sought for the two offices, with the
goal that, over the next three years, at least 50% of the fusion
budget be allocated for non-radioactive fuel fusion."
 
        "It had become increasingly clear that the problems associated
with tritium based fusion would be nearly insurmountable in a commercial
device. Power plants burning deuterium-tritium fuel would necessarily
be large, radioactive, highly toxic (beryllium), highly flammable
(lithium), complex, and because of low power density, very expensive
per unit of electricity generated. Tokamak could be made marginally
economical only if it breeds and sells plutonium -- which is incompatibl
 with the US nonproliferation policy."
 
        "In spite of these facts, the fusion program has changed
little since the 1960's, even though many of the assumptions that
appeared reasonable at the time have been found, in the course
of 30 years, to be invalid. The goal became not to develop a commerciall
-viable, environmentally benign fusion-powered electric source,
but rather to prove that the original decision to build a DT-burning
tokamak reactor was the only possible decision."
 
**** END of Dr. Maglich's selected statements ****
 
        So, with the testimony of Mills, Storms, and Maglich, the
Subcommittee members received an eye-opening education on the possible
future direction of the Fusion Energy program.  There could well
emerge from this hearing and others that will surely follow, much
more openness to alternate approaches. Congress being the ponderous
creature it is, this may take some time, but given the spirit of
the May 5th hearing, I would not even rule out limited funding
in FY '94 for the non-tokamak concepts that were discussed --including
cold fusion. It seems to me that the hot fusion program is in very
big trouble at this hour. It may only manage to survive via its
considerable political momentum, which is getting to be less and
less as Congressmen increasingly examine the facts.
 
        To summarize the significance of the May 5, 1993 Fusion Energy Hearing:
 
1. The hearing was the first time since the late April 1989 House
Science Space and Technology Committee hearing that cold fusion
had received an extensive public review before Congress.
 
2. It was noteworthy that cold fusion and hot fusion were discussed
at the same forum -- a landmark event.
 
3. We now have *at least* three Congressmen who are solidly open-minded
about cold fusion, as demonstrated by the May 5 lines of questioning:
Congressman Swett of New Hampshire, Walker of Pennsylvania, and
Fawell of Illinois. Dick Swett, as his post-hearing press release
indicates, has become decidedly pro-active.
 
4. The top aides of the HSST Committee appeared to be very interested
in doing what they could in the future to help investigate cold
fusion. This from conversations directly after the four hour hearings.
 There is considerable interest in helping Mills, in particular,
get a working device evaluated at a national laboratory. There
is further interest in having an eventual demonstration perhaps
even in the Congressional offices!
 
5.  The hot fusion people were not very well received. This was
the same old stale stuff: promises, promises, promises, with not
much new concrete to report -- except that Princeton has 200 Curies
of tritium on site and they are just dying to contaminate the hell
out of the TFTR tokamak when they start their D-T testing in September.
Congressman Fawell and Walker gave the HF boys (and gal!) a hard
time. Fawell challenged them with the recent public words of Robert
Hirsch. Hirsch thinks the D-T program is going nowhere. In these
tight budget times I think Congress is going to scrutinize HF much
more closely. If CF works out the way many expect it to in the
coming year, I think there is a serious chance that Congress will
reduce HF funding, and may completely kill it for FY '95.
 
6. The HF people acted as though CF did not exist. They made no
acknowledgement of it as an issue, nor were they asked about cold
fusion. One wonders what they could or would have said. They have
not been following the experiments, so presumably they would have
had nothing to say other than "beware, it's pathological science."
 
7. There may be extremely promising fallout from these hearings.
there may even be a shot at getting some cold fusion funding approved
for FY '94. I think there will be a symbiotic effect between (A)
the accepting atmosphere in Congress, (B) new experiments and scientific
papers being and soon to be reported-- particularly all the light
water work, and (C) increased media attention.  The whole situation
is unstable.
 
8. It is coincidentally fortunate that Dr. William Happer will
be gone from DOE by the end of May. With Happer no longer there,
cold fusion will have a much better time. Happer was without question
one of the most bigoted anti-cold fusion ideologues in DOE, as
the revealed record of his statements and actions will increasingly
show.
 
        Perhaps when this is all resolved, Congress should consider
holding a "Heavywatergate" hearing, with William Happer and John
Huizenga the prime targets of investigation, to find out how DOE
so maligned and botched the exploration of a revolutionary new
area of science.
 
        To get to this point, Cold Fusion Research Advocates, played
a not insignificant role. As did other individual cold fusion investigat
rs and supporters, CFRA submitted a statement that was entered
into the May 5th Hearing record. It follows:
 
Cold Fusion Energy:
 Real and Revolutionary
 
 Statement of Cold Fusion Research Advocates
for the Subcommittee on Energy of the
 House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
May 5, 1993
 
Represented by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell of
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Chairman Lloyd and members of the Subcommittee:
 
        We are pleased to submit this statement and attached references
on the rapidly expanding field of cold fusion research and development.
Cold Fusion Research Advocates is an informal international association
of scientists and engineers who are involved in cold fusion research.
Our group includes physics Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, engineer
and author Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, and top scientists from China,
India, Italy, Japan, Russia, and other countries.  We wish to alert
you to the present great and increasing vitality of this field,
despite the faltering steps of the early, preliminary work that
was reported in 1989.
 
        Energy-producing "cold fusion" has not yet been explained
at the atomic level, but it is no less real for want of a generally
accepted explanation. Quite simply, cold fusion -- like hot fusion,
which you have also heard about today -- is a way to get stupendous
energy from water, albeit with very low accompanying radiation.
Cold fusion does that now in completely reproducible experiments
at SRI International and at many other laboratories. The heat that
is released in cold fusion reactions can be thousands of times
what could possibly be explained by conventional chemistry; and
nuclear products have also been observed, generally at low levels.
Whatever the phenomenon turns out to be, there is no doubt that
it exists and is revolutionary.  Prototype cold fusion home heating
units are widely expected to emerge this year or next. Electrical
power generation by cold fusion will follow soon thereafter, with
the likelihood of automotive and perhaps aircraft propulsion by
cold fusion within a decade.
 
        Cold fusion is being developed vigorously in Japan. The
Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion was held last October in
Nagoya. The Fourth International Conference will be held in Hawaii
on Maui, December 6-9, 1993, sponsored by the Electric Power Research
Institute (see meeting announcement, Attachment #1). We suggest
that Congress act on our request for cold fusion research funding
long before the December conference, but this Subcommittee should
certainly send representatives to the Hawaii meeting.
 
        If there were any remaining doubts about the significance
of cold fusion, the Nagoya conference last October has erased them.
Submitted with this statement are highly positive technical evaluations
of the Nagoya meeting by Professor Peter Hagelstein of MIT (Attachment
#2), by members of the U.S. Office of Naval Research in Japan (Attachmen
 #3), and the U.S. Army Research Office in the Far East (Attachment
#4).
 
         Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, the U.S. discoverers of cold
fusion, are now lavishly funded in a 40,000 square foot laboratory
with a large staff near Nice, France. Their funding comes from
Technova, a research and development think tank closely connected
with Toyota Motor Company. At present, well over 100 laboratories
around the world have obtained positive cold fusion results of
one kind or another. Drs. Fleischmann and Pons have been able to
boil away their electrochemical solution from their cells in minutes.
The energy release from their tiny palladium-silver cathodes is
over three kilowatts per cubic centimeter -- higher power density
than a conventional fission power plant fuel rod. Shocking even
to long-time cold fusion researchers, the cold fusion heat effect
has now been found to occur in certain electrochemical systems
that use ordinary distilled water and nickel, not heavy water and
palladium. Reactors that produce tens of watts of excess heat for
months on end have now been demonstrated by severa
 
 
 
 
 
l companies in Lancaster, Pennsylvania -- Hydrocatalysis Power
Corporation and Thermacore.
 
        So far ahead has research gone since 1989, that a new review
by the Federal government is now mandatory. Funds should be set
aside promptly for a comprehensive re-evaluation of cold fusion
science and technology by an impartial body of scientists -- perhaps
a study commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences. So voluminous,
overwhelming, and convincing is the evidence for cold fusion today,
that this review could not fail to mandate urgent research efforts
by DOE and other U.S. science agencies. But even before that review,
based on the work in Japan and elsewhere, the Congress should approve
funding consistent with the potential large magnitude of the possible
energy, economic, and environmental benefit. It would be a very
costly mistake for the U.S. if an unwarranted negative view were
to prevail and other countries developed this technology.
 
        What is happening in Japan? In the Autumn of 1991, the
Ministry of International Trade and Industry organized a research
consortium of ten major Japanese corporations to advance research
in cold fusion. Prior to this, only the Ministry of Education was
involved in this research. This consortium is called "The New Hydrogen
Energy Panel" (NHEP). In the spring of 1992, as the activities
of the Panel became widely known, Japanese newspapers reported
that five other major Japanese corporations asked to be included.
 
        In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billion
yen ($24 million) program to advance cold fusion research. This
money will be spent on special expenses within the national laboratories
 such as travel and extra equipment purchases beyond the usual
discretionary levels. That sum does not include the money, salaries
and overhead, which come out of separate budgets, and it does not
count any research in the private sector, which we know to be substantia
. In fact, the corporate members are expected to contribute at
least $4 million more to the fund, for a total of $28 million.
Both MITI and NHEP members emphasize that this fund is flexible,
and can be expanded.
 
        Please examine the recent letter to Chairperson Lloyd from
Dr. Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science in
Nagoya (Attachment #5). Dr. Ikegami writes, "Cold fusion phenomena
have been suggesting to me, as a fusion plasma physicist, their
relation to 'hot' fusion in many ways, which should not be disregarded."
But most important is his view, so characteristic of the internal
cooperation that characterizes Japan: "Just as I am convinced that
despite the many problems associated with 'hot' fusion to produce
a workable fusion reactor within one-hundred years from now, we
must continue to support this line of research; so I believe the
same to be true concerning 'cold' fusion."
 
        We hope you will heed, in particular, the testimony of
Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who is an
outstanding cold fusion researcher and reviewer of the entire field.
We attach his recent letter to Congressman Dick Swett of New Hampshire
(Attachment #6). Finally, if you would like to get a non-technical
overview of the cold fusion question and what it might mean for
our world, please read the wonderful essay by Dr. Arthur C. Clarke,
which he recently delivered in a speech to over 100 military officers
in the Pacific area: "2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power" (Attachmen
 #7). We think that Arthur C. Clarke will be proved right once
again as a technological prophet.
 
        We leave you with this thought: Cold fusion research is
not "Big Science" -- it does not need massive installations, just
relatively small-scale dedicated work at national laboratories,
universities, and in private industries, which are already beginning
to enter the field in the U.S., despite discouragement from officialdom.
Cold fusion does, however, require the talents of top scientists
and engineers, combined with sophisticated analytical instrumentation.
The federal laboratories are well-equipped to support cold fusion
research. They are floundering in search of a new mission now that
the Cold War has ended. Cold fusion research could well become
a major mission for scientists at these laboratories.
 
        Cold fusion energy development, however, will dominantly
be the territory for private industry. There is no need for massive
government investment. But government must smooth the path for
private efforts.
Is it really possible that a revolutionary energy technology has
been inappropriately cast aside in the U.S.? That is exactly what
has happened, as scientific and engineering developments will show.
This need not be true any longer. For the economic and environmental
well-being of the nation, we ask you to become aware of the facts
about cold fusion and help us fund American research. We will answer
any questions that you may have. Thank you for giving us the opportunity
to bring this crucial energy technology initiative to your attention.
Our group stands ready to conduct special briefings for interested
Members of Congress who wish to find out more about this extraordinary
energy technology.
 
References:
 
1.  Announcement by EPRI of the "Fourth Annual Conference on Cold       Fusion."
2. "Summary of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion
in     Nagoya," by Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT
3. "The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion: Scrutiny,
       Invective, and Progress," By Drs. Victor Rehn and Iqbal
Ahmad   for the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Japan
4. "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: A Report on
       the Third International Meeting on Cold Fusion" by Dr. Iqbal
   Ahmad for the U.S. Army Research Office (AMC) - Far East
5. Letter of April 22, 1993 to Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd from
Dr.     Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science,
     Nogoya, Japan.
6. Letter to Congressman Dick Swett by Dr. Edmund Storms of Los
        Alamos National Laboratory, April 10, 1993.
7. Speech by Arthur C. Clarke to the Pacific Area Senior Officers
      Logistics Seminar (PASOLS), March 29, 1993, "2001: The  Coming
Age of Hydrogen Power."
 
For additional information, please contact:
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates, 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court
- Suite 312F, Chamblee, GA 30341; Phone: 404-451-9890; Fax: 404-458-2404

 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Posting
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Posting
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 05:17:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz should know that we cold fusion people are NOT asking for large
sums of federal money -- just a small fraction of the HF level of funding. We
realize that there will soon be so much private money in the field that we
won't need much money at all from Uncle Sam, but it would be nice if serious
scientists were not routinely attacked and forced to go underground within
various federal labs and at universities. Those who choose to work in Federal
facilities should be accorded the rights of scientists exploring any other
puzzling phenomenon that MIGHT have a large payoff.
 
We are also asking that DOE cease its very real WAR against cold fusion and
that the US Patent Office not insult CF applicants by sending out newsclips of
1989 negativism while ignoring the positive results that have accumulated
since then, as well as ignoring the PROVED flaws in the MIT, Caltech, and now
Harwell work. Yes, Dieter, Harwell is about to sink like a stone, but I will
go no further than that -- NO COMMENT till it happens, and it will!
 
Now that Happer is soon to be gone from DOE, we may get at least the cessation
of hostilities from that rogue, incompetent agency.
 
You say, Dieter, that "cold fusion, being (at best) at the moment in an
exploratory phase.." Wrong! Cold fusion is now in the DEVELOPMENT phase. You
don't have to believe that, and I know you won't, but it IS. The sacred gates
of your bibliography are no indication whatsoever of the reality and vitality
of this field. It is HOT fusion that is in the "exploratory" phase and soon
enough it will be in a non-phase, i.e. dead. I'm glad you agree that this
money is being squandered, although we have different views about WHY it is
being squandered. In fact, without CF being real, I would be one of the
biggest boosters of HF (although NOT of the tokamak program) -- and I
certainly was in the past an HF booster, before I realized that CF is indeed a
spectacular energy source.
 
I think you are, Dieter, living in a complete fantasy world, much as I am sure
you think I inhabit such a world. I recently saw your posting that included
this assertion: "What the TB's are dead wrong about is their belief that we
skeptics are out to 'get' cnf. Almost all of us would be delighted if it were
true. We just require convincing evidence, and have not seen it yet." I don't
know which skeptics you are talking about, but I have seen very few -- apart
from you and once-upon-a-time Tom Droege -- who evidenced such a "hope" for
cold fusion. Cold fusion has been assualted by armies of scoundrels. If you
don't recognize them as such, too bad. I have had more close contact with
these bigots than you can imagine, and I will record, catalog, and immortalize
their every misdeed in BOOK II, which I hope to write after dealing with much
more important business -- CF development. Your big blue-ones --if they are
blue -- will open wide when you see the filth and perfidy of these villains in
print. AND, you will read about this nastiness when you will finally have been
made to understand what we have been talking about all along in this
phenomenon.
 
So 'me boy,' go right on thinking that this is some grand genteel tea party,
at which we are all expected to play by gentlemanly rules, some of which you
presume to lay down. It ain't. The science bigots made the game dirty. Read
page 121 of Leon Lederman's recent "God Particle" book. Now there's a science
bigot for you! He knows nothing about cold fusion -- the latest findings, but
opens his big fat mouth just the same and lets garbage come out. His Nobel
prize means nothing. He's a science bigot, like Feshbach of MIT, just the
same.
 
By the way, the main difference between "TB's" (as you and Jones et al call
us) and "skeptics" is that virtually all TB's didn't believe CF at all for a
long time -- and even now find it rather unsettling, albeit true. "Skeptics,"
on the other hand, have mostly "disbelieved," from the first several weeks
after the Utah announcement onward, They haven't changed their anti-scientific
straw-man approach to science since that time.
 
        - Eugene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Bruce Scott /  Re: PhDs from K-Mart?
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PhDs from K-Mart?
Date: 12 May 1993 14:16:25 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

>"hand-waving" or "bury them with bullshit". Provide details down to the
>seven-sigma level of many types of slightly related information, and nobody
>will notice that critical information is only known to an order of magnitude.
 
F and P are in good company here. This tactic has been a favourite among
turbulence theorists for many years. J B Taylor once demanded that each
paper in the field have a big red arrow in the margin at the appropriate
line, saying "The Swindle Occurs Here". This got a lot of laughs but no
real reaction. It continues as before. Sometimes there are no real errors,
just a lot of moving some terms to the right side, labelling them and provid-
ing "insightful" commentary, then moving some of them back over to the left
side and providing more commentary, etc. Other times you really are buried
in innocuous bullshit as the real swindle is taken. This usually involves
some logical inconsistency, the unveiling of which takes much more time than
it took the author to write the paper; meantime he has written several more,
so he can say he has had some 100s of "peer reviewed scientific papers" to
his credit. I call this technique "obscurantism" after a description of
its widespread use in anthropology reminded me of what I often see in
turbulence theory (not by everyone, but quite often nonetheless).
 
It seems to be a sickness of "competitiveness" in science in general, and it
is not limited to any given field. I talk about turbulence theory only
because that's what I see every day.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 / Ad aspera /  Re: Posting of Fusion Energy Hearing
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Posting of Fusion Energy Hearing
Date: 12 May 1993 17:01:13 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

In article <930511223521_76570.2270_BHA49-1@CompuServe.COM>,
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) wrote:
 
EM> Dr. Klaus Berkner of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who spoke
EM> about heavy ion inertial fusion during this "Alternative Programs"
EM> session must have felt very out of place on this panel of heretics;
EM> by the standards of the mainline hot fusion program he was a
EM> heretic too.
 
"Brave new world, that has such heretics in it"!  Klaus is,
historically, a mainstream fusion guy of the neutral-beam-
injector persuasion.  The Accelerator and Fusion Research
Division here, which reports to him, contains both the heavy-
ion IFE program and the MFE program.  The latter is geared
up to design an accelerator for a next-generation NBI system
should ITER want beams.
 
Thanks for the posting; any chance of getting hold of the
complete testimony?
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Dieter Britz /  The F&P paper
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The F&P paper
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 09:18:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have now read the paper by Fleischmann and Pons, Physics Letters A 176
(1993), p.118, and have a few comments. I will include the paper in a
forthcoming Update to the bibliography, but as this paper has excited so much
speculation, I want to add my separate comments.
 
First of all, I am not sure whether to take the paper seriously; it seems to
be written by a committee. Some of the language could well be Fleischmann's,
there are English spellings like "vapour" and so on, but elsewhere the
English is so bad I doubt that it could be Fleischmann's OR Pons's. As in the
sentence "The reason why (k'r)11 is a lower bound is because...". Worst of
all, the very last sentence in the paper cannot be written by an
electrochemist: "We have therefore chosen [...] to allow the cells to boil to
dryness before interrupting the current". This to me is the greatest mystery
of the paper.
 
However, if we are to take the paper seriously, we look seriously at details.
It is not a paper, as Tom Droege wrote, in the sense of reporting new results
with the customary details. The information of cathode size comes incidentally
from the caption to Fig.1; we are never told what the cathode is made of.
There is mention of "Pd rod", and later reference to "Pd-based cathodes". So
if you expect at last to find out what they use to get their excess heat, you
won't find out here. They do say that the good source of Pd is Johnson and
Mathey PLC, and that a cathode that cracks during electrolysis is no good.
 But many papers are discussions, assuming (referring to) previous papers,
so this, too, is not necessarily a bad thing. The essence of the paper is
that it reports tremendous excess heat, up to 4 kW/cm^3, and cells that
boiled dry (the plural is used), presumably powered by this excess heat. How
reliable is this?
 
Both Tom Droege and Douglas Morrison seek the source of excess heat in the
burning of the deuterium as it comes out of the Pd rod, when it emerges from
the solution as that evaporates. To burn, you need oxygen, and here we are in
trouble - i.e. Tom and Douglas are, I am afraid. If we assume (we are taking
the paper seriously for the moment) that no air is being blown into the cell,
then all we have available, at most, is the oxygen previously generated by
electrolysis. There is a vent at the top of the cell (all the water, and gas,
leaves through it), so we should assume that no outside air, or anyway very
little, can get in. I say "at most", because in fact, the evaporation of the
water would carry a lot of the oxygen (and deuterium) gas out with it, so
what follows is a maximum estimate: The cell is about 50 ml volume, about half
of it oxygen, i.e. 25 ml, or about 1 millimole (mmol) at 1 atm. The Pd rod of
volume 0.04 cm^3, assuming a loading of about 1, and knowing that Pd has a
molar volume of about 10 cm^3, contains 4 mmol of deuterium or 2 mmol of D2
gas as it comes out. This needs 1 mmol O2 to burn, and that's what we have.
But to assume that this can go on for hours is asking a bit much, I think.
What is more, from the enthalpy of formation of water (close to 300 kJ/mol),
this gives us 600 J of heat, a piddling amount compared to the excess heat
claim. Add to this the probable fact that there is much less oxygen in the
cell. The answer thus lies elsewhere.
 
The trouble with the F&P papers is that they are very hard to read and check.
Not only do they go in for complex differential equations, they then do not
specify precisely just how they solve them. The paper of 1990, FPALH-90,
provides the most detail. In that work, 5 independent parameters are fitted
to the data by a nonlinear fit. In the present paper, the equation has two
unknown quantities as far as I can see: M0, the molar water equivalent of the
cell, and the radiative heat transfer coefficient k', described in various
ways. I am not clear about how the other parameters have gone out since 1990.
And then, the M0 parameter also disappears somewhere between equation (1) and
(5), the latter being a difference equation; it seems that the assumption is
made that the dT/dt (T, "theta", = temp; t = time) term, that is, the slope of
cell temperature with time, is the same before and at the end of the
calibration pulse, which I do not believe. With the loss of this unknown
parameter, they are able to explicitly calculate k', and provide a nice graph
of its development with time, converging to a steady value. I am not convinced
it's that easy.
 
How much excess heat was there? Well, up to the time of boiling, the graph in
Fig. 10b shows a fairly steady 20 W/cm^2. F&P then make a new calculation,
using the rate of boiling (back to "simplicity"), and from this get the
figure 3.7 kW/cm^3. So you might say that their subtle and sophisticated
model, with Marquardt fitting and allusions to Kalman filtering, yields an
excess of 20 W/cm^3, and the boiling dry calculation, made on the back of an
envelope, yields the larger figure.
 
I have my reservations about this boiling cell. The 20 W/cm^3, although with
its faults, is reasonably credible, and in fact not unimpressive. The hidden
assumptions, such as the applicability of purely radiative heat transfer,
constant M0 and constant k' with varying temperatures, etc, have been
justified fairly well in FPALH-90, but there is much missing detail, and one
is entitled to have one's doubts. The boiling off, with the current still on
even when there is no more electrolyte, has to be a joke. I don't think we
can come up with conventional explanations of all this (such as the cigarette
lighter effect). Some of you will say it's cold fusion, obviously. But
(almost) all the theories and hypotheses say that you need high loading to get
it. When the Pd rod is exposed, the loading goes down; in fact, at 4 kW/cm^3,
that rod, no longer cooled by electrolyte, should be very hot, and all the
deuterium will diffuse out quickly. So why does this not quench cold fusion?
No, the paper expressly says that the cells remain at high temperatures for
prolonged periods of time. I don't have the answers.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
Date: 12 May 93 16:17:07 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Recently Dick Blue and Mitchell Swartz have been asking about helium-4
measurements in the P&F cathodes; evidently a reference is needed.
 
The matter is thoroughly discussed in John Huizenga's book, "Cold Fusion:
The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" on pages 129 - 137.  He provides
details and references, the most prominent seems to me to be:
Fusion Technology 18 (1990) 659.  He concludes:
 
"The whole helium-4 fiasco can be safely summarized with considerable
confidence; no helium was found in the cathode of the [P&F] active cell above
the background level.  This conclusion followed also from several searches
for the 23.8 MeV gamma ray from the d+d --> 4He + gamma (23.8 MeV) reaction.
All these searches were negative including measurements made in Pons own
laboratory by a University of Utah physics group headed by Mike Salamon
[Nature 344 (1990) 401]."
 
I had hoped to return to a discussion of xs heat and helium-4 claims made by
Miles et al. at China Lake today, esp. since Bruce Scott and others have
alluded to this claim recently.  Due to research (which comes first), this
will have to wait another day.
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Dieter Britz' comment
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dieter Britz' comment
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 13:48:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,
 
I would encourage you to read Dieter Britz's comments of May  13,
1993 concerning the burning of hydrogen.
 
Truly yours,
 
Vesselin Noninski
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 814 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 814 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 13:48:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all Seekers of The Truth,
here the promised update with the latest F&P in it, plus a few others. I have
already said my piece about the FP-93 paper. Filimonov invokes solitons and
shock waves, plus what I think is a very doubtful statistical argument, to
make CNF probable and in the right ball park. Lipson et al seem to be revoking
their fracto-fusion hypothesis, because they say that this is improbable in a
conductor. They write a waffly paper about supercondensates being The Answer;
the arguments are handwavy and I do not know where they get the numbers from.
The Chinese paper is in Chinese and all I could get out of it was from the
English abstract. In the text, I recognise the names Fleischmam, Pons,
Coulomb (many times), Palleschi, Feng, and Born and Oppenheimer; not much
else.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 13-May-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 814
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filimonov VA;                         Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 37(6) (1992) 689.
"Cold nuclear fusion: Its possibility in principle and means of realization".
** The movement of a deuterium soliton is coherent with the palladium
antisoliton, and the deuterium shock compression is coherent with the shock
rarification of the Pd sublattice; these cause Pd atom displacements much
greater than thermal vibrations. Self organisation of a system of particles
makes it easy for them to go to higher energies than the probability
calculated from the individual jumps up the sub-levels. So energy may be
passed from excited Pd atoms to deuterons, thereby enhancing fusion rates, and
Filimonov calculates a rate of 4E06 fusion acts/s at a loading (D/Pd) of 0.3.
To optimise the cnf rate, Filimonov suggests coating the electrode with Pd
black, use of an alkaline electrolyte to raise the cathode potential, and to
promote a longitudinal potential gradient along the electrode for
nonequilibrium.                                                       ?/Jun-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleischmann M, Pons S;                           Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 118.
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity".
** Without providing much experimental detail, this paper focusses on a series
of cells that were brought to the boil and in fact boiled to dryness at the
end, in a short time (600 s). The analysis of the calorimetric data is once
again described briefly, and the determination of radiative heat transfer
coefficient demonstrated to be reliable by its evolution with time. This
complicated model yields a fairly steady excess heat, at a Pd cathode of 0.4
cm diameter and 1.25 cm length, of about 20 W/cm^3 or around 60% input power
(not stated), in an electrolyte of 0.6 M LiSO4 at pH 10. When the cells boil,
the boiling off rate yields a simply calculated excess heat of up to 3.7
kW/cm^3. The current flow was allowed to continue after the cell boiled dry,
and the electrode continued to give off heat for hours afterwards.
                                                                Dec-92/May-93.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Kutsnetsov VA, Sakov DM, Deryagin BV;
Dokl. Akad. Nauk 323(6) (1992) 1097 (in Russian).
"Yield of nuclear fusion products from absorption of elastic energy in
deuterated metals".
** An explanation is sought for the source of energy, about 5-10 keV, required
for deuterons to overcome their mutual repulsion, in a metal deuteride. The
authors state that in a conducting medium, acceleration to these energies (by
the fracto-mechanism) is improbable. The present theory involves
supercondensates, i.e. small volumes with high energy, supplied by external
forces such as vibration (the Ti vibrator, ultrasonics, cavitation), or
internal phase transitions. Feynman diagrams are invoked, as well as phonons,
and the model seems to explain observed results reasonably well, both for the
Ti vibrator and electrolysis.                                         Nov-92/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ma Y, Yang H, Dai X;     Nucl. Fusion Plasma Phys. 12 (1992) 171 (in Chinese).
"A theoretical study of the possibility of cold nuclear fusion in condensed
matter".
** (From the English abstract:) A strongly couple cold plasma model of cold
fusion. Strong Coulomb screening and micro-heat analysis show that the fusion
rate is insensitive to temperature and density of deuterium ions, but
sensitive to the screening correction factor of the total deuterium ions. For
certain values of this factor, cold fusion may be detectable.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The F&P paper
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The F&P paper
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 12:56:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <38FEE048B17F21D5C1@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>Both Tom Droege and Douglas Morrison seek the source of excess heat in the
>burning of the deuterium as it comes out of the Pd rod, when it emerges from
>the solution as that evaporates. To burn, you need oxygen, and here we are in
>trouble - i.e. Tom and Douglas are, I am afraid. If we assume (we are taking
 
     Wouldn't it be more likely that there is just much more electrical
     power being blown into the cell by greatly increased voltages as
     the electrolyte contact with the electrode goes to zero as
     the electrode goes into film boiling?  I have not been able to
     see the paper yet, since it has not arrived here, but I seem to
     recall discussion of their using a constant current supply.
     If they sample as the voltage ramps up (or even worse, if they
     never take samples during the boiling), they are likely to far
     underestimate total power delivered.
 
     Is there any discussion of power calculation and sampling rates?
     That seems to me to be extremely important.
 
>is entitled to have one's doubts. The boiling off, with the current still on
>even when there is no more electrolyte, has to be a joke. I don't think we
 
     If it's not a joke, it may be a hideous clue that they
     were getting massive voltages and corresponding power input
     near the end of the 'boiloff', I'd love to know how they were
     measuring them.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Morrison's critique
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison's critique
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 14:21:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Douglas Morrison posted a long analysis of the last 11 minutes of Pons and
Fleischmann's experiment. He forgot to mention that the cells all generate
massive excess heat before the third state. In fact, they generate many times
more excess heat than any possible chemical reaction can produce. The excess
heat begins early in the run, and increases continually throughout the
experiment. There is no drop off, and no possible way the cells could be
"recharged." Just before the boil-off event, the excess has reached a power
level of 20 watts, in one example.
 
Morrison does mention another stage 2 experiment from 4 years ago, and he
cites the mistaken analysis of this done by Wilson et al., but he tiptoes
around the examples here, in this paper.
 
Even if we were to buy Morrison's preposterous analysis -- that the boil off
analysis is flawed -- the rest of the paper stands, and the excess heat is
real. The obvious question is: if the heat from the first week or two is real,
and obviously non-chemical, why should the heat from the last 11 minutes be
chemical?
 
Morrison's critique was a classic example of obfuscation and deliberate
distortion.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on the D.R.O.Morrison Paper
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on the D.R.O.Morrison Paper
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 13:48:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        In Message-ID: <9305121620.AA25977@dxmint.cern.ch>
        Subject: Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
   Douglas R.O. Morrison teaches:
 
==     "In the third stage the behaviour near and during boiling is observed
== using a video camera.   .......It is this simple
== calculation that gives the highest values claimed, namely "the excess rate of
== energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input" and that
== the excess specific rate is 3.7 kW per cc of Palladium."
                               \/\/\/
==                      ***  (elsewhere in the paper)
==     "An interesting confirmation of this using electrochemistry was reported
== by Kreysa, Marx and Plieth [3]. They write "We have to report here that as we
== removed the deuterium-loaded palladium sheet from the cell and laid it on the
== table it did burn a scald into the table. One can still argue that this was
== due to deuterium fusion. Therefore we loaded the palladium sheet cathodically
== with hydrogen using an electrolyte containing only normal water (no enriched
== heavy water) and laid it on to a piece of wood where it also burnt a scald."
== They say it releases 147.3 kJ per mole D."
                        \/\/\/
 
 Dr. Morrison:
 
   Could you please be so kind as to inform us as to where you are
submitting your manuscript for publication.
 
   These are some comments which ought to be added in supplement thereafter.
 
   How about a closer and critical examination of these values which
    are widely separated in Douglas' document.   And time to include
    some quantitation.
 
         Let's actually compare these two quantities.
 
                 F&P  --->   3.7 kW /cc palladium
 
                 KMP  --->   147 kJ per mole D.  (after Morrison)
 
   Lets say the optimal loading is close to 1.  Makes the calc's easy, too.
 
      Note that KMP describe an energy density released.
 
      Note that F&P describe a power density.
 
      Time to put this skeptic-hypothesis squarely on the "chopping block"
   and calculate it out.
 
=========== Calculation of the Corrected Power Densities ===========
 
    Over how much time was the "147.3 kJ per mole D" released so that
 actual power densities can be calculated.   Then we can determine the
 incremental power density of the F&P effect.  For example, lets say
 100 seconds.  The paper, on page 440 states:
 
  "we measured a temperature rise of the palladium from 20C up to 418 C
   within 74 s after an incubation time of 15 s.".
 
    So, 100 seconds is not unreasonable.  It sure makes the math easy.
    Also again assume loading is 1. (*, see below)
 
     Pwr(KMP) = 1.47 kW per mole D  for ca. 100 seconds
 
     Pwr(F&P) = 3.7  kW per/cc palladium   for much longer
 
   Lets take the density of palladium as 12. g/cc
 
   With an atomic weight of 106.4  we get
 
         106.4/12  = 8.87
 
  Now to compare the two equally at a full loading (*, see below):
 
    Pwr(F&P) =>   ca. 32  kW per/mol palladium   for much longer than 100 sec.
 
    Pwr(KMP) =>   ca.  1.5 kW per mole D         for ca. 100 seconds
 
 
  Thus the corrected incremental power density of the F&P effect is
    derivable from the difference, assuming an overlap exists to begin with,
    and assuming the simple approximations.
 
 
     corrected Pwr(F&P) =  Pwr(F&P) - Pwr(KMP)
 
    corrected Pwr(F&P)  =  ca. 3.3  kW per cm3 palladium
 
                 (over the 100 or so seconds that the other effect may
                  be significant)
 
  Conclusion 1 - The putative "new" effect is small in comparison to the
                  reported excess power densities of cold fusion.
 
  Conclusion 2 - The minor "new" effect appears to be unimportant in a very
                 short time.
 
  Implication - This derived correction, or the simple ratio of the two
          numbers (vide supra) appears to make the "new-improved" argument
          of the skeptics: evaporate.
 
  (*)  Also, regarding your cited paper: Did Kreysa et al. measure and
 record or just "assume" the loading?
 
     Hope some of these comments might clarify.
 
                               Best wishes.
                                              Mitchell Swartz
                                             (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Eugene Mallove /  PART ONE - Re-Posting
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PART ONE - Re-Posting
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 14:34:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

**THIRD POSTING, this time in TWO PARTS, because that will solve the line
cut-off problem that arose from submitting the entire file. I am submitting
this posting AGAIN because several individuals have told me that they are
STILL getting truncation of sentences and are eager to get the whole story.
 
 
                                *****PART ONE*****
 
A report by Eugene F. Mallove (Cold Fusion Research Advocates) on the Fusion
Energy Hearing in Congress of May 5, 1993:
 
*** Cold Fusion and Alternative Fusion Are High Points ***
                   of Fusion Energy Hearing
 
        The Subcommittee on Energy of the House Space, Science, and Technology
Committee met on May 5, 1993 to discuss the status and funding of fusion
energy. The hearings began at 1:30 pm in the Rayburn House Office Building
(Room 2318) and lasted to 6:00 p.m. with only a few 15-minute breaks for votes
on the House floor.
 
        The hot fusion program was the focus up to about 4:00 pm, with the hot
fusion ranks again coming to ask for further hundreds of millions to continue
their work. After that, the heretofore outcasts -- cold fusion and aneutronic
hot fusion -- was the subject. So for the first time since the House Science,
Space, and Technology hearing of April 1989, cold fusion really received an
open airing before an important congressional committee. After the very
positive reception at this meeting, it appears to this observer likely that
further Congressional exploration of cold fusion research will occur. The "ice
has been broken," with Congress showing that it is can no longer be
intimidated by the foolish mockery of cold fusion by the scientific
establishment.
 
        Testifying for cold fusion was Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos
National Laboratory. Adding to the cold fusion  case -- low-temperature energy
extraction from water -- was Dr. Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power
Corporation, who presented his outlook and revealed new experimental
achievements.  During this "Alternative Programs" session, Dr. Bogdan Maglich
of Advanced Physics Corporation presented a strong defense of his
helium-3-deuterium collider scheme and attacked DOE's tokamak program. Dr.
Klaus Berkner of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who spoke about heavy ion
inertial fusion during this "Alternative Programs" session must have felt very
out of place on this panel of heretics;  by the standards of the mainline hot
fusion program he was a heretic too.
 
        The hot fusion part of the meeting was chaired by Congresswoman
Marilyn Lloyd (D- Tennessee), but because Lloyd's schedule, Congressman Dick
Swett (D- New Hampshire) chaired the "Alternative Programs" session.  The
order of the meeting:
 
*Panel One* -- Opening Comments:
 
Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy, DOE
Dr. Harold Forsen, Senior VP for Research and Development, Bechtel
Corporation, Washington, D.C.
 
*Panel Two* -- TOKAMAK Programs
 
Dr. Paul-Henri Rebut, Director, ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor), San Diego Co-Center, LaJolla, CA
Dr. Charles Baker, ITER, US Home Team Leader, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 
*Panel Three* -- Alternative Programs
 
Dr. Klaus Berkner, Associate Laboratory Director, Operations, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich, Chief Scientist, Advanced Physics Corporation,
Irvine, CA
Dr. Edmund Storms, Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Randell L. Mills, Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, Lancaster, PA
 
         Defining the spirit of the session, Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd said
in her opening remarks, "..our fusion program may be entering a state of
reassessment. This, in part, may be the result of not having produced a fusion
energy plant. Or maybe it's because we are all becoming more aware of the
pressure on federal research funds."
 
        Dr. N. Anne Davies's prepared statement acknowledged the magnetic
fusion program's objective of a "Demonstration Power Plant" by about 2025 and
an "operating commercial power plant" by about 2040.  Notice that the hot
fusion people never say just "by 2025" or "by 2040." It's always "by
about...20XX" The FY 1994 budget request, Davies said was $347.6 million,
supporting four program elements: conducting D-T experiments at Princeton in
the TFTR, participating in the engineering design phase of ITER, initiating
the detailed design of the TPX (another proposed machine for Princeton), and
continuing a base program of physics and technology support.
 
        Dr. Davies's prepared statement, loaded with ponderous bureaucratese,
says at one point: "The Operating Expenses request also provides $9.2 million
in Program Direction funds for the salaries, benefits, travel and other
expenses associated with 81 full-time equivalents required to administer the
Fusion Energy program by the Headquarters staff and those at DOE Field
Offices; and $4.9 million in the Planning and Projects subprogram to support
the program's legal obligation to the Small Business Innovation Research
Program." Just a fraction of that administrative overhead would fund a much
needed cold fusion research effort in universities and small businesses.
Another farce of the current DOE fusion program: the published SBIR requests
as they now stand are written up to explicitly exclude cold fusion proposals.
 
        The other hot fusioneers who followed Davies reiterated what their
leader had said, but there were some revealing gems -- explicit warnings NOT
to be diverted by other non-tokamak hot fusion concepts. An example was a part
of the testimony of Dr. Harold Forsen of Bechtel Corporation: "I worry very
much about not getting on with the D-T fueled tokamaks at the expense of too
much second guessing of what might be cheaper, smaller or fueled with more
exotic, remote fuels." The U.S. hot fusioneers plan to spend  an "estimated"
$450 million between 1992 and 1998 on "Engineering Design Activities," which
are then to be followed "if the [international] parties agree," by a
seven-year construction phase so that ITER could begin to operate in 2005.
 
        Congressman Harris Fawell of Illinois diplomatically showed his
impatience with the hot fusion program. He read the following statement into
the record:
 
        "Madam Chairman, I share your view that the fusion program may be
entering a state of reassessment. And, in fact, this reassessment may be long
overdue.
 
        I was particularly struck by the recent remarks of Dr. Robert L.
Hirsch at the March 5, 1993 meeting of DOE's Fusion Energy Advisory Committee.
Dr. Hirsch, who was once head of DOE's magnetic fusion energy program and is
now a Vice President of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) made the
following observations:
 
* DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors as currently envisioned will be
extremely complex, highly radioactive, likely to be highly regulated, and
costly.
 
* Even if DT or laser fusion reactors had the same capital costs as a fission
reactor -- an enormous challenge -- fusion reactors would lose out to advanced
fission reactors, which are a reliable, known quantity.
 
* None of the very few fusion-knowledgeable utility people he had spoken with
believes that tokamak or laser fusion reactors, as currently envisioned, would
be acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
* There are some enormous materials problems related to DT fusion. There are
no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors. In the absence of
development of a low activity material -- a very costly and time consuming
undertaking -- you will have to effectively rebuild your fusion reactor every
5-10 years and dispose of many times the amount of radioactivity that would
come from a fission reactor of the same power level.
 
* And then there's ITER. If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned, aren't
acceptable, can ITER possibly be justified?
        -If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
        -If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and the fusion
program could collapse.
 
        Dr. Hirsch closed his remarks with several recommendations including:
 
* Scale-up of alternate R&D concepts as fast as possible.
 
* Don't stop tokamak or laser fusion, but cut them back and reorient them in
more acceptable directions.
 
* Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction, large
quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials development.
 
        Madam Chairman, I don't pretend to be a fusion energy expert -- I'm a
refugee from the liberal arts -- but when someone with Dr. Hirsch's knowledge,
background, and stature makes such observations, I believe they deserve
serious consideration, and I expect today's witnesses to address them.
 
        I am also concerned about other aspects of the planned fusion energy
program, including:
 
* The role of, and the need for, a new proposed tokamak device, TPX, for which
the DOE budget documents provide neither a cost estimate, a time schedule, nor
an understandable rationale of why it is so important.
 
* The introduction of tritium into the TFTR later this year -- not only will
this be done in a heavily populated area, raising safety and other
environmental concerns -- but it will also require expensive decontamination
and decommissioning of the machine. Is the science we will get worth this
cost, or would it be more cost-effective to rely on JET, which has already
used tritium?
 
* Finally, the continued operation of other tokamaks, including Alcator C-Mod
and the DIII-D tokamaks, in this budget climate means that we cannot afford to
pursue promising alternate concepts. Are we really getting our money's worth
from them?
 
        All that being said, Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing these
concerns addressed by today's witnesses."
 
****END of Congressman Fawell's statement.****
 
        Dr. Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, whose
heat-producing experiments with  ordinary water-nickel-potassium carbonate
cells are increasingly highly regarded in the cold fusion field made his
presentation. His colleague Robert M. Shaubach of Thermacore, Inc. accompanied
Mills but did not make a presentation.
 
        Mills's opening remarks concisely summarized what the Lancaster, PA
effort is all about:
 
        "Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (HPC) has an extensive theoretical
and experimental research program of producing energy from light-water
electrolytic cells. HPC and Thermacore, Inc., Lancaster, PA are cooperating in
developing a commercial product. (Thermacore is a well respected defense
contractor and its expertise is in the field of heat transfer.) Presently, all
of the demonstration cells of HPC and Thermacore produce excess power
immediately and continuously. Cells producing 50 watts of excess power and
greater have been in operation for more than one year.  Some cells can produce
10 times more heat power than the total electrical power input to the cell. A
steam-producing prototype cell has been successfully tested. The source of
excess energy in NOT from fusion or other nuclear reactions. Energy is
released in a catalytic process whereby the electron of the hydrogen atom is
induced to undergo a transition to a lower electronic energy level than the
'ground state' as defined by the usual model of the atom. The lower energy
states of hydrogen have been identified in nature. HPC and Thermacore are
conducting other experiments to demonstrate that this lower-energy form of
hydrogen is the 'ash' of heat producing cells. A summary of the technology
follows...."
 
        "The [original] experiment has been scaled up by a factor of
one-thousand, and the scaled-up heat cell results have been independently
confirmed by Thermacore, Inc. Patents covering the compositions of matter,
structures, and methods of the HydroCatalysis process have been filed by HPC
worldwide with a priority date of April 21, 1989. HPC and Thermacore are
presently fabricating a steam-producing demonstration cell."
 
        Dr. Mills continued with a further elaboration of the benefits of
HPC's technology, as well as a discussion of possible evidence for the
existence of below ground state hydrogen atoms. At one point the statement
says, "The Mills theory predicts exactly the spectral observations of the
extreme ultraviolet background emission from interstellar matter (given by
Eq.(1) with n1 and n2 being fractions), which characterize dark matter, and
HPC is conducting further verification of data that demonstrates that the
lower-energy form of hydrogen is the 'ash' of heat producing cells."
 
        Of course, many cold fusion people who accept the Mills excess heat
experimental claims do not accept Dr. Mills's theory and are inclined to
believe that other forms of ash -- nuclear ash -- may be arising from the
deuterium in ordinary water. There is also the question about whether sodium
carbonate electrolyte also facilitates the heat reaction -- Bush and Eagleton
say it does, the Indians at BARC say it does.  Mills, on the other hand, says
that sodium carbonate electrolyte doesn't give rise to excess heat, a fact
that he says supports his catalytic theory.  (By his own assertions, Dr. Mills
has, in effect, presented this sodium versus potassium issue as a potential
Achilles heel of his theory.)
 
        Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory read his prepared
statement into the record.  His statement might be viewed as fairly "mainline"
cold fusion thinking, with a few exotic twists that will likely further enrage
the folks who think that high-energy nuclear physicists have a monopoly on
wisdom about possible nuclear reactions.
 
        Dr. Storms's statement:
 
        "Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present
new and important results about a phenomenon that has been conventionally
called 'Cold Fusion.' Starting with the work reported in 1989 by Drs. Pons and
Fleischmann, many observations have indicated that it is apparently possible
to initiate nuclear reactions in certain metals near room temperature and that
these reactions result in significant heat production as well as various
nuclear products.
 
        I am not speaking for the Los Alamos National Laboratory on this
subject because policy in this area has not yet been formulated. The
Laboratory does not want me to pre-empt this process.
 
        Nevertheless, a careful and extensive examination of available
information as well as personal research has convinced me and many other
scientists that this phenomenon is real and, I believe, may have important
consequences to the U.S.
 
        Much skepticism and frustration resulted from lack of reproducibility
during early experiments. For this and other reasons, many scientists still
believe that positive results are not possible. However, the phenomenon is now
reproducible using a variety of techniques. Excess heat production has
occasionally approached useful levels and the many postive results are now
described in a variety of peer reviewed scientific journals and conference
proceedings. In addition, the phenomenon has been demonstrated under many
conditions including those employed in conventional physics. However, a
satisfactory explanation and much supporting information are still lacking.
 
        Accumulated evidence is now so persuasive that it would be convincing
to most people if we were discussing any other field. Indeed, the evidence is
sufficient to cause the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to support
work ($4M/year) at SRI and at Texas A&M University where positive results have
become increasingly reproducible. The company called Technova (Japan) is
sufficiently impressed by the evidence to equip a large laboratory in France
for the use of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann. They can now produce power densities
(1000 watt/cm3 Pd) that exceed those in a nuclear reactor (100 watt/cm3 UO2).
A growing number of companies in the U.S.a re showing interest in the field.
interest in India, China, Italy, and Russia is also expanding.  An increasing
number of positive results as well as new ways to initiates the reaction have
been reported. Support has been especially strong in Japan where MITI has
recently committed $24 million to be added to other large sources of funding.
Indeed, Japan is now leading the field in understanding this remarkable
phenomenon. We are once again in the position where a major discovery made in
the US is being developed in Japan.
 
        If this were just another example of conventional science being slow
to accept new ideas, you might be advised to wait for nature to take its
course. However, I believe this phenomenon is of such potential importance
that it would not be prudent to wait. I may not be able to convince you of
these conclusions in the brief time I have.  There is now a significant
collection of published papers, books, and reviews available for review. Some
detailed sources of information are part of the written testimony.
 
        One might ask what consequences might result if only a fraction of
these assertions is true?
        FIRST, the theory of electron structure in a metal and its interaction
with the atomic nucleus needs to be reexamined. I would expect such a
reexamination to produce even more useful insights.
        SECOND, experiments indicate *a strong potential* for creating energy
that has no identified pollution or significant radioactivity, and is
essentially inexhaustible.
        THIRD, some speculate there is a *possibility* of converting harmful
radioactive isotopes into nonradioactive elements at room temperature using
properly constructed electron environments. Consequently, one of the
troublesome aspects of fission energy might be eliminated.
 
        The phenomenon will eventually be understood and useful devices will
be constructed. While this process is evolving, the current absence of U.S.
policy is inhibiting development of a vital legal and intellectual property
infrastructure. At the present time. very few scientists in the U.S. have a
competent understanding of the field. Because this field is so new and
complex, training people will not be an easy or rapid task. in addition, the
U.S. patent office is not issuing patents in the field while this limitation
does not exist in other countries. As a result, control of the technology is
slipping away on these two important fronts. A modest amount of support now
can have a  significant impact on reducing both problems without the need to
shift major priorities before the potential of the phenomenon is better
understood.
 
        I would like to recommend three actions.
 
        First, a panel of open-minded technical experts be appointed to
evaluate recent results.
 
        Second, in the interim, it is prudent to provide some resources in
view of the increasing activity of other countries. This money would extend
the understanding of this complex field and help train a larger number of
scientists in its subtleties. Efficient use of these limited resources could
be achieved by supporting laboratories that have reported positive results in
the past.
 
        Third, encourage the Patent Office to start issuing patents in the
field.
 
        Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to the
committee's attention."
 
**** END of Dr. Storms's testimony ****
 
        Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's lengthy testimony lashed out at the DOE's
narrow-minded fusion energy program and defended his brand of aneutronic
fusion energy. He defined "aneutronic fusion"  as fusion which  "burns
nonradioactive fuels, produces 100 times less neutron radiation, 1000 times
less radioactive waste and 2-3 times less heat pollution than the conventional
fusion." Maglich's company, Advanced Physics Corporation,  is the lead member
of the USA-Russia Research Consortium, S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic Fusion
Energy.  The consortium consists, he said of 12 member organizations. Some of
the American members of the Consortium are: the University of California at
Irvine, Academic Lead Member; Advanced Reactor Group of Professor L. Lidsky,
Nuclear Engineering Department of MIT; General Electric Corporate R&D Center,
Schenectady, NY. The Russian membership consists of six major institutes
involving 138 scientists. Its Lead Member is the nuclear weapons center
Chelyabinsk-70, whose 42 scientists have decided to convert from military to
peaceful research by developing aneutronic fusion technology.
 
        Some excerpts from Dr. Maglich's testimony:
 
        "Large development programs acquire institutional and psychological
momentum, and change much more slowly than our understanding of the facts. As
a result, the DOE fusion energy program has taken no cognizance of modern
scientific developments, nor has the DOE taken necessary steps to encourage
the development of successor programs."
 
        "Billions of dollars of taxpayers money would be saved and dozens of
years of national economic development would be shortcut by making the
national fusion program recognize that scientific tests within the past five
years (1988-93) supported by theoretical calculations strongly point to the
feasibility of making the fusion reactor COMPACT."
 
        "Tests in two tokamaks carried out independently in 1988-89, show that
ultra hot fuel does NOT behave 'anomalously' -- which would require a gigantic
reactor -- but behaves 'classically' -- which implies a SMALL reactor. ....
Independently, measurement in the new type of small fusion reactor known as
SELF-COLLIDER, published in Physical Review Letters of January 18, 1993 show
how ultra hot ions of 10 billion degrees can be made STABLE in a miniature
reactor whose volume is 100 cc."
 
        "As a result of a series of experiments with compact models of
aneutronic fusion reactors, our research consortium is now only 3 years away
from proving once and for all that a nonradioactive-fuel, nonproliferating,
aneutronic fusion energy reactor is feasible."
 
        "Aneutronic fusion research involves a modest fixed cost. Because the
devices are small, the cost of an experiment is in the $3-5 million range, and
the cost of an entire scientific test is in the $30 million/3 years range. The
system consists of two parts: injector and self-collider reactor. Proof of
principle can be tested on a time scale of 3 years. If successful, this new
fusion reactor could become commercially available 5-10 years thereafter,
depending on plant size."
 
        "DOE cannot afford not to pursue the new laboratory measurements
coupled to the Air Force-supported computer simulations indicating the
feasibility of fusion reactors burning non-radioactive-fuels --(mixture of
nonradioactive helium-3 and deuterium, as opposed to that of radioactive
tritium and deuterium)."
 
        "For the past 30 years, the US DOE has systematically refused to fund
any research on non-radioactive-fuel fusion as a matter of policy. Its support
has been narrowed to one type of fuel and one type of reactor. This is in
clear violation of the letter of the law and congressional intent as set forth
in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486 of 10/24/92). The first
fusion goal mandated by the Law is 'a broad based fusion energy program.' The
law also gives priority to environmentally clean energy technologies and to
programs in which private industry participates 20% or more. The current DOE
radioactive fuel program has reserved only $500,000 out of the $340 million,
or 0.1%, of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Budget for alternate fusion energy
option. Nonradioactive fuel fusion research would be a small part of this
0.1%."
 
        "An institution can never be made to compete with itself -- which
would be the case if this program is administered by the present Office of
Fusion Energy of DOE. To facilitate the development of such law-mandated,
fusion ecotechnology effort, the Congress should direct the Department of
Energy to split the present Office of Fusion Energy into:
 
* OFFICE OF NONRADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY; and
* OFFICE OF RADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY (ITER); and
* That separate budgets be sought for the two offices, with the goal that,
over the next three years, at least 50% of the fusion budget be allocated for
non-radioactive fuel fusion."
 
        "It had become increasingly clear that the problems associated with
tritium based fusion would be nearly insurmountable in a commercial device.
Power plants burning deuterium-tritium fuel would necessarily be large,
radioactive, highly toxic (beryllium), highly flammable (lithium), complex,
and because of low power density, very expensive per unit of electricity
generated. Tokamak could be made marginally economical only if it breeds and
sells plutonium -- which is incompatible with the US nonproliferation policy."
 
        "In spite of these facts, the fusion program has changed little since
the 1960's, even though many of the assumptions that appeared reasonable at
the time have been found, in the course of 30 years, to be invalid. The goal
became not to develop a commercially-viable, environmentally benign
fusion-powered electric source, but rather to prove that the original decision
to build a DT-burning tokamak reactor was the only possible decision."
 
**** END of Dr. Maglich's selected statements ****
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Eugene Mallove /  PART TWO Fusion Hearing
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PART TWO Fusion Hearing
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 15:00:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                                ***PART TWO***
                of Eugene Mallove's Fusion Hearing Report
 
        So, with the testimony of Mills, Storms, and Maglich, the Subcommittee
members received an eye-opening education on the possible future direction of
the Fusion Energy program.  There could well emerge from this hearing and
others that will surely follow, much more openness to alternate approaches.
Congress being the ponderous creature it is, this may take some time, but
given the spirit of the May 5th hearing, I would not even rule out limited
funding in FY '94 for the non-tokamak concepts that were discussed --including
cold fusion. It seems to me that the hot fusion program is in very big trouble
at this hour. It may only manage to survive via its considerable political
momentum, which is getting to be less and less as Congressmen increasingly
examine the facts.
 
        To summarize the significance of the May 5, 1993 Fusion Energy
Hearing:
 
1. The hearing was the first time since the late April 1989 House Science
Space and Technology Committee hearing that cold fusion had received an
extensive public review before Congress.
 
2. It was noteworthy that cold fusion and hot fusion were discussed at the
same forum -- a landmark event.
 
3. We now have *at least* three Congressmen who are solidly open-minded about
cold fusion, as demonstrated by the May 5 lines of questioning: Congressman
Swett of New Hampshire, Walker of Pennsylvania, and Fawell of Illinois. Dick
Swett, as his post-hearing press release indicates, has become decidedly
pro-active.
 
4. The top aides of the HSST Committee appeared to be very interested in doing
what they could in the future to help investigate cold fusion. This from
conversations directly after the four hour hearings.  There is considerable
interest in helping Mills, in particular, get a working device evaluated at a
national laboratory. There is further interest in having an eventual
demonstration perhaps even in the Congressional offices!
 
5.  The hot fusion people were not very well received. This was the same old
stale stuff: promises, promises, promises, with not much new concrete to
report -- except that Princeton has 200 Curies of tritium on site and they are
just dying to contaminate the hell out of the TFTR tokamak when they start
their D-T testing in September. Congressman Fawell and Walker gave the HF boys
(and gal!) a hard time. Fawell challenged them with the recent public words of
Robert Hirsch. Hirsch thinks the D-T program is going nowhere. In these tight
budget times I think Congress is going to scrutinize HF much more closely. If
CF works out the way many expect it to in the coming year, I think there is a
serious chance that Congress will reduce HF funding, and may completely kill
it for FY '95.
 
6. The HF people acted as though CF did not exist. They made no
acknowledgement of it as an issue, nor were they asked about cold fusion. One
wonders what they could or would have said. They have not been following the
experiments, so presumably they would have had nothing to say other than
"beware, it's pathological science."
 
7. There may be extremely promising fallout from these hearings. there may
even be a shot at getting some cold fusion funding approved for FY '94. I
think there will be a symbiotic effect between (A) the accepting atmosphere in
Congress, (B) new experiments and scientific papers being and soon to be
reported-- particularly all the light water work, and (C) increased media
attention.  The whole situation is unstable.
 
8. It is coincidentally fortunate that Dr. William Happer will be gone from
DOE by the end of May. With Happer no longer there, cold fusion will have a
much better time. Happer was without question one of the most bigoted
anti-cold fusion ideologues in DOE, as the revealed record of his statements
and actions will increasingly show.
 
        Perhaps when this is all resolved, Congress should consider holding a
"Heavywatergate" hearing, with William Happer and John Huizenga the prime
targets of investigation, to find out how DOE so maligned and botched the
exploration of a revolutionary new area of science.
 
        To get to this point, Cold Fusion Research Advocates, played a not
insignificant role. As did other individual cold fusion investigators and
supporters, CFRA submitted a statement that was entered into the May 5th
Hearing record. It follows:
 
Cold Fusion Energy:
 Real and Revolutionary
 
 Statement of Cold Fusion Research Advocates
for the Subcommittee on Energy of the
 House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
May 5, 1993
 
Represented by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell of
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Chairman Lloyd and members of the Subcommittee:
 
        We are pleased to submit this statement and attached references on the
rapidly expanding field of cold fusion research and development. Cold Fusion
Research Advocates is an informal international association of scientists and
engineers who are involved in cold fusion research. Our group includes physics
Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, engineer and author Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, and
top scientists from China, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, and other countries.
We wish to alert you to the present great and increasing vitality of this
field, despite the faltering steps of the early, preliminary work that was
reported in 1989.
 
        Energy-producing "cold fusion" has not yet been explained at the
atomic level, but it is no less real for want of a generally accepted
explanation. Quite simply, cold fusion -- like hot fusion, which you have also
heard about today -- is a way to get stupendous energy from water, albeit with
very low accompanying radiation. Cold fusion does that now in completely
reproducible experiments at SRI International and at many other laboratories.
The heat that is released in cold fusion reactions can be thousands of times
what could possibly be explained by conventional chemistry; and nuclear
products have also been observed, generally at low levels. Whatever the
phenomenon turns out to be, there is no doubt that it exists and is
revolutionary.  Prototype cold fusion home heating units are widely expected
to emerge this year or next. Electrical power generation by cold fusion will
follow soon thereafter, with the likelihood of automotive and perhaps aircraft
propulsion by cold fusion within a decade.
 
        Cold fusion is being developed vigorously in Japan. The Third Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion was held last October in Nagoya. The Fourth
International Conference will be held in Hawaii on Maui, December 6-9, 1993,
sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (see meeting announcement,
Attachment #1). We suggest that Congress act on our request for cold fusion
research funding long before the December conference, but this Subcommittee
should certainly send representatives to the Hawaii meeting.
 
        If there were any remaining doubts about the significance of cold
fusion, the Nagoya conference last October has erased them. Submitted with
this statement are highly positive technical evaluations of the Nagoya meeting
by Professor Peter Hagelstein of MIT (Attachment #2), by members of the U.S.
Office of Naval Research in Japan (Attachment #3), and the U.S. Army Research
Office in the Far East (Attachment #4).
 
         Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, the U.S. discoverers of cold fusion, are
now lavishly funded in a 40,000 square foot laboratory with a large staff near
Nice, France. Their funding comes from Technova, a research and development
think tank closely connected with Toyota Motor Company. At present, well over
100 laboratories around the world have obtained positive cold fusion results
of one kind or another. Drs. Fleischmann and Pons have been able to boil away
their electrochemical solution from their cells in minutes. The energy release
from their tiny palladium-silver cathodes is over three kilowatts per cubic
centimeter -- higher power density than a conventional fission power plant
fuel rod. Shocking even to long-time cold fusion researchers, the cold fusion
heat effect has now been found to occur in certain electrochemical systems
that use ordinary distilled water and nickel, not heavy water and palladium.
Reactors that produce tens of watts of excess heat for months on end have now
been demonstrated by several companies in Lancaster, Pennsylvania --
Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation and Thermacore.
 
        So far ahead has research gone since 1989, that a new review by the
Federal government is now mandatory. Funds should be set aside promptly for a
comprehensive re-evaluation of cold fusion science and technology by an
impartial body of scientists -- perhaps a study commissioned by the National
Academy of Sciences. So voluminous, overwhelming, and convincing is the
evidence for cold fusion today, that this review could not fail to mandate
urgent research efforts by DOE and other U.S. science agencies. But even
before that review, based on the work in Japan and elsewhere, the Congress
should approve funding consistent with the potential large magnitude of the
possible energy, economic, and environmental benefit. It would be a very
costly mistake for the U.S. if an unwarranted negative view were to prevail
and other countries developed this technology.
 
        What is happening in Japan? In the Autumn of 1991, the Ministry of
International Trade and Industry organized a research consortium of ten major
Japanese corporations to advance research in cold fusion. Prior to this, only
the Ministry of Education was involved in this research. This consortium is
called "The New Hydrogen Energy Panel" (NHEP). In the spring of 1992, as the
activities of the Panel became widely known, Japanese newspapers reported that
five other major Japanese corporations asked to be included.
 
        In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billion yen ($24
million) program to advance cold fusion research. This money will be spent on
special expenses within the national laboratories, such as travel and extra
equipment purchases beyond the usual discretionary levels. That sum does not
include the money, salaries and overhead, which come out of separate budgets,
and it does not count any research in the private sector, which we know to be
substantial. In fact, the corporate members are expected to contribute at
least $4 million more to the fund, for a total of $28 million. Both MITI and
NHEP members emphasize that this fund is flexible, and can be expanded.
 
        Please examine the recent letter to Chairperson Lloyd from Dr. Hideo
Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science in Nagoya (Attachment #5).
Dr. Ikegami writes, "Cold fusion phenomena have been suggesting to me, as a
fusion plasma physicist, their relation to 'hot' fusion in many ways, which
should not be disregarded." But most important is his view, so characteristic
of the internal cooperation that characterizes Japan: "Just as I am convinced
that despite the many problems associated with 'hot' fusion to produce a
workable fusion reactor within one-hundred years from now, we must continue to
support this line of research; so I believe the same to be true concerning
'cold' fusion."
 
        We hope you will heed, in particular, the testimony of Dr. Edmund
Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who is an outstanding cold fusion
researcher and reviewer of the entire field. We attach his recent letter to
Congressman Dick Swett of New Hampshire (Attachment #6). Finally, if you would
like to get a non-technical overview of the cold fusion question and what it
might mean for our world, please read the wonderful essay by Dr. Arthur C.
Clarke, which he recently delivered in a speech to over 100 military officers
in the Pacific area: "2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power" (Attachment #7).
We think that Arthur C. Clarke will be proved right once again as a
technological prophet.
 
        We leave you with this thought: Cold fusion research is not "Big
Science" -- it does not need massive installations, just relatively
small-scale dedicated work at national laboratories, universities, and in
private industries, which are already beginning to enter the field in the
U.S., despite discouragement from officialdom. Cold fusion does, however,
require the talents of top scientists and engineers, combined with
sophisticated analytical instrumentation. The federal laboratories are
well-equipped to support cold fusion research. They are floundering in search
of a new mission now that the Cold War has ended. Cold fusion research could
well become a major mission for scientists at these laboratories.
 
        Cold fusion energy development, however, will dominantly be the
territory for private industry. There is no need for massive government
investment. But government must smooth the path for private efforts.
Is it really possible that a revolutionary energy technology has been
inappropriately cast aside in the U.S.? That is exactly what has happened, as
scientific and engineering developments will show. This need not be true any
longer. For the economic and environmental well-being of the nation, we ask
you to become aware of the facts about cold fusion and help us fund American
research. We will answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for giving
us the opportunity to bring this crucial energy technology initiative to your
attention. Our group stands ready to conduct special briefings for interested
Members of Congress who wish to find out more about this extraordinary energy
technology.
 
References:
 
1.  Announcement by EPRI of the "Fourth Annual Conference on Cold
Fusion."
2. "Summary of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion in
Nagoya," by Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT
3. "The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion: Scrutiny,
Invective, and Progress," By Drs. Victor Rehn and Iqbal Ahmad   for the U.S.
Office of Naval Research, Japan
4. "Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: A Report on        the
Third International Meeting on Cold Fusion" by Dr. Iqbal        Ahmad for the
U.S. Army Research Office (AMC) - Far East
5. Letter of April 22, 1993 to Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd from Dr.     Hideo
Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science,    Nogoya, Japan.
6. Letter to Congressman Dick Swett by Dr. Edmund Storms of Los         Alamos
National Laboratory, April 10, 1993.
7. Speech by Arthur C. Clarke to the Pacific Area Senior Officers
Logistics Seminar (PASOLS), March 29, 1993, "2001: The  Coming Age of Hydrogen
Power."
 
For additional information, please contact:
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates, 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court - Suite 312F,
Chamblee, GA 30341; Phone: 404-451-9890; Fax: 404-458-2404.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Horse's Patootyism -- mea culpa!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Horse's Patootyism -- mea culpa!
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 15:03:59 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <38FEE048B17F21D5C1@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> Both Tom Droege and Douglas Morrison seek the source of excess heat in the
> burning of the deuterium as it comes out of the Pd rod, when it emerges from
> the solution as that evaporates. To burn, you need oxygen, and here we are
> in trouble - i.e. Tom and Douglas are, I am afraid... [Dieter dares to bring
> a bunch of _numeric_ quantification into the analysis!]...  What is more,
> from the enthalpy of formation of water (close to 300 kJ/mol), this gives
> us 600 J of heat, a piddling amount compared to the excess heat claim. Add
> to this the probable fact that there is much less oxygen in the cell. The
> answer thus lies elsewhere.
 
Gee whiz, Dieter, what's the big idea bringing in _numeric_ quantification
of the cigarette lighter effect?  And we were having such FUN, doggone it!
 
Dieter's dead right of course.  A poorly quantified dismissal is every bit
as dangerous as a poorly quantified report of a result.  Sloppy does not fix
sloppy, and I and (dare I say it?) some other folks may have let enthusiasm
for this well-presented _possibility_ override numerically quantified caution.
 
Lesson for yours truly?  Shut up and _read the paper first_ instead of going
by second hand info about its contents.  Sigh.  Yes, Jed, you are exactly
right on on that point.  [Ouch, that was _painful_...  :)  ]
 
No more dilettanting on this one for me.  Any further comments I may have on
the new P&F paper will come _solely_ from my own reading of it, followed by
some reference digging.  Until then, I cheerfully admit to having been a
horse's patootey on this one, and in effect retract (at least for now) my
gradiose dismissal of All Things Excessively Warm and Wonderful.
 
(BTW:  Where IS the partial 1-inch palladium cube, gents?)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Dr. Eugene Mallove:  MUST you do that?  Dieter in effect just gave
        a really nice piece of supportive analysis for the P&F case, yet
        one or two postings earlier you once again went after him as if
        he was CF Arch Enemy Number One.  I really don't think he is.
 
        Too much ad hominem has frazzled the nerves of a lot of people on
        this group.  I would suspect that the irritation it induces also
        helps lead to the just the kind of jumping-too-fast-to-broad-
        conclusions that I just committed.
 
 
P.P.S - Dale Bass: How do you feel on whether there is any quantification of
        the cigarette effect idea that might replicate the overt behavior
        of the P&F experiment?  You seem to have some pretty good figures
        on it.  Can it be done?  If so, how?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Carl Ijames /  Re: The F&P paper
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The F&P paper
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 15:41:26 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <38FEE048B17F21D5C1@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter
Britz) wrote:
[munch]
>
> I have now read the paper by Fleischmann and Pons, Physics Letters A 176
> (1993), p.118, and have a few comments. I will include the paper in a
> Both Tom Droege and Douglas Morrison seek the source of excess heat in the
> burning of the deuterium as it comes out of the Pd rod, when it emerges from
> the solution as that evaporates. To burn, you need oxygen, and here we are in
> trouble - i.e. Tom and Douglas are, I am afraid. If we assume (we are taking
> the paper seriously for the moment) that no air is being blown into the cell,
> then all we have available, at most, is the oxygen previously generated by
> electrolysis. There is a vent at the top of the cell (all the water, and gas,
> leaves through it), so we should assume that no outside air, or anyway very
> little, can get in. I say "at most", because in fact, the evaporation of the
> water would carry a lot of the oxygen (and deuterium) gas out with it, so
> what follows is a maximum estimate: The cell is about 50 ml volume, about half
> of it oxygen, i.e. 25 ml, or about 1 millimole (mmol) at 1 atm. The Pd rod of
> volume 0.04 cm^3, assuming a loading of about 1, and knowing that Pd has a
> molar volume of about 10 cm^3, contains 4 mmol of deuterium or 2 mmol of D2
> gas as it comes out. This needs 1 mmol O2 to burn, and that's what we have.
> But to assume that this can go on for hours is asking a bit much, I think.
> What is more, from the enthalpy of formation of water (close to 300 kJ/mol),
> this gives us 600 J of heat, a piddling amount compared to the excess heat
> claim. Add to this the probable fact that there is much less oxygen in the
> cell. The answer thus lies elsewhere.
[munch]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Your assumption that no outside air can enter against the outflow of water
and gas is only true before the cell boils dry.  Then air will certainly
begin to diffuse in, perhaps even be 'sucked' in by a partial vacuum caused
by steam condensing inside the tube.  Combustion would keep the oxygen
level in the tube low but since one water molecule is released for each
oxygen consumed there is no pressure differential.  It is quite possible
that a diffusion-limited process could require hours to consume all the
deuterium in the rod.  However, you are right that 600 J is too small to
completely explain the excess heat (I believe that no cold fusion
experiment should be completely explained, else we would be able to form a
final answer :-)).
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / mitchell swartz /  No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 16:20:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993May12.161707.632@physc1.byu.edu>
    Subject: No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) states:
 
==sj  "Recently Dick Blue and Mitchell Swartz have been asking about helium-4
==sj measurements in the P&F cathodes; evidently a reference is needed.
==sj
==sj The matter is thoroughly discussed in John Huizenga's book, "Cold Fusion:
==sj The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" on pages 129 - 137.  He provides
==sj details and references, the most prominent seems to me to be:
==sj Fusion Technology 18 (1990) 659.  He concludes:
==sj
==sj "The whole helium-4 fiasco can be safely summarized with considerable
==sj confidence; no helium was found in the cathode of the [P&F] active
==sj  cell above the background level."
 
 
    Not quite, Prof. Jones.  If the book makes that statement then
  the book appears to be incorrect because how could one
  expect to see He-4 levels above the "background level" in any non-fully
  prepared experiment.
 
     As I have posted previously :
 
=========  Subject: signal to noise (helium) reconsidered =========
           Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:37:59 GMT
 
  "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."
 
     [from Usenet 4617; mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)]
 
      ==============================================
 
   Steven,  in summary, this argument thus appears barren.
 
                               Best wishes,
 
                                             Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Ad aspera /  Re: PART TWO Fusion Hearing
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PART TWO Fusion Hearing
Date: 13 May 1993 17:24:00 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

In article <930513142706_76570.2270_BHA21-1@CompuServe.COM>,
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) wrote:
 
> 6. The HF people acted as though CF did not exist. They made
> no acknowledgement of it as an issue, nor were they asked
> about cold fusion. One wonders what they could or would have
> said. They have not been following the experiments, so
> presumably they would have had nothing to say other than
> "beware, it's pathological science."
 
Either that or they simply refrain from discussing something
so far outside their area of expertise. You're putting words
into other people's mouths; they may not like the taste.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / nod sivad /  Re: Reply to Terry Bollinger
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Terry Bollinger
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 17:36:41 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>Does it sound like I'm giving a sort of obituary report for excess heat?
>You bet I am.
 
Now cut that out.  This has been my favorite newsgroup for some time now,
please don't bury it yet.  I'll have to go back to reading
technical newsgroups that actually have something to do with my job.
 
It's been fun looking over Tom Droege's shoulder as he performed
experiments, and I've enjoyed the repartee.  We've been lucky enough to
have had some really first class people from all over the world come
together to discuss a hot topic.  And some of them even knew what they
were talking about. ;-)
 
Anyway, the funeral knell for a nuclear mechanism has been ringing for
some time.  I've hoped for a while that the non-nuke experimenters
like Mills might still have a chance of pulling this off.  Several reputable
scientists have lambasted his (and Farrells?) theory, so it has a good chance
of being correct.  And even if the theory is incorrect, what about his results?
Tom Droege looked into this some time ago and thought he'd found the
problem with their method, but I wonder what he thinks about their latest
results.  How about it Tom?  What do you think of the rather
hefty power gains Mills is currently claiming?  Could he, too, be
a victim of non-constant constant-current supplies?
 
We hear all the time about P&F, but seldom about Mills.  Has he published
anything yet? If the details are available, I would love to watch over Tom's
shoulder as he gave it a try.  (Easy for me to say, eh, Tom?)
Whatever happened to Farrell, who used to keep us updated on this work?
 
                                                me
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / nod sivad /  Re: Re-Posting For Clarity -PLEASE CHECK FORMAT!
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re-Posting For Clarity -PLEASE CHECK FORMAT!
Date: 13 May 93 18:26:38 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
 
NOTE:
 
I ran this throught a formatting program to get rid of the
long lines.  Now everyone can read it.  I am reposting it
without permission, but the intent to promulgate seems clear.
 
                                        me
 
 
**I am resubmiting this posting because several individuals have told
me that for some reason they are getting truncation of sentences and
are eager to get the whole story. Here goes again:
 
A report by Eugene F. Mallove (Cold Fusion Research Advocates) on the
Fusion Energy Hearing in Congress of May 5, 1993:
 
*** Cold Fusion and Alternative Fusion Are High Points ***
           of Fusion Energy Hearing
 
The Subcommittee on Energy of the House Space, Science, and
Technology Committee met on May 5, 1993 to discuss the status
and funding of fusion energy. The hearings began at 1:30 pm
in the Rayburn House Office Building (Room 2318) and lasted
to 6:00 p.m. with only a few 15-minute breaks for votes on
the House floor.
 
The hot fusion program was the focus up to about 4:00 pm,
with the hot fusion ranks again coming to ask for further
hundreds of millions to continue their work. After that, the
heretofore outcasts -- cold fusion and aneutronic hot fusion --
was the subject. So for the first time since the House
Science, Space, and Technology hearing of April 1989, cold
fusion really received an open airing before an important
congressional committee. After the very positive reception at
this meeting, it appears to this observer likely that further
Congressional exploration of cold fusion
research will occur. The "ice has been broken," with Congress showing
that it is can no longer be intimidated by the foolish mockery of
cold fusion by the scientific establishment.
 
Testifying for cold fusion was Dr. Edmund Storms of Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Adding to the cold fusion  case
-- low-temperature energy extraction from water -- was Dr.
Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, who
presented his outlook and revealed new experimental
achievements.  During this "Alternative Programs" session,
Dr. Bogdan Maglich of Advanced Physics Corporation presented
a strong defense of his helium-3-deuterium collider scheme
and attacked DOE's tokamak program. Dr. Klaus Berkner of
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who spoke about heavy ion
inertial fusion during this "Alternative Programs" session must have
felt very out of place on this panel of heretics;  by the standards
of the mainline hot fusion program he was a heretic too.
 
The hot fusion part of the meeting was chaired by
Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd (D- Tennessee), but because
Lloyd's schedule, Congressman Dick Swett (D- New Hampshire)
chaired the "Alternative Programs" session.  The order of the
meeting:
 
*Panel One* -- Opening Comments:
 
Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy, DOE Dr.
Harold Forsen, Senior VP for Research and Development, Bechtel
Corporation, Washington, D.C.
 
*Panel Two* -- TOKAMAK Programs
 
Dr. Paul-Henri Rebut, Director, ITER (International
Thermonuclear       Experimental Reactor), San Diego Co-Center,
LaJolla, CA Dr. Charles Baker, ITER, US Home Team Leader, Oak Ridge
National        Laboratory Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, Director,
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 
*Panel Three* -- Alternative Programs
 
Dr. Klaus Berkner, Associate Laboratory Director, Operations,
Lawrence  Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich,
Chief Scientist, Advanced Physics Corporation,   Irvine, CA Dr.
Edmund Storms, Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Dr.
Randell L. Mills, Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, Lancaster, PA
 
 Defining the spirit of the session, Congresswoman Marilyn
 Lloyd said in her opening remarks, "..our fusion program may
 be entering a state of reassessment. This, in part, may be
 the result of not having produced a fusion energy plant. Or
 maybe it's because we are all becoming more aware of the
 pressure on federal research funds."
 
Dr. N. Anne Davies's prepared statement acknowledged the
magnetic fusion program's objective of a "Demonstration Power
Plant" by about 2025 and an "operating commercial power
plant" by about 2040.  Notice that the hot fusion people
never say just "by 2025" or "by 2040." It's always "by
about...20XX" The FY 1994 budget request, Davies said was
$347.6 million, supporting four program elements: conducting
D-T experiments at Princeton in the TFTR, participating in
the engineering design phase of ITER, initiating the detailed
design of the TPX (another proposed machine for
Princeton), and continuing a base program of physics and technology
support.
 
Dr. Davies's prepared statement, loaded with ponderous
bureaucratese, says at one point: "The Operating Expenses
request also provides $9.2 million in Program Direction funds
for the salaries, benefits, travel and other expenses
associated with 81 full-time equivalents required to
administer the Fusion Energy program by the Headquarters
staff and those at DOE Field Offices; and $4.9 million in the
Planning and Projects subprogram to support the program's
legal obligation to the Small Business Innovation Research Program."
Just a fraction of that administrative overhead
would fund a much needed cold fusion research effort in universities
and small businesses.  Another farce of the current DOE fusion
program: the published SBIR requests as they now stand are written up
to explicitly exclude cold fusion proposals.
 
The other hot fusioneers who followed Davies reiterated what
their leader had said, but there were some revealing gems --
explicit warnings NOT to be diverted by other non-tokamak hot
fusion concepts. An example was a part of the testimony of
Dr. Harold Forsen of Bechtel Corporation: "I worry very much
about not getting on with the D-T fueled tokamaks at the
expense of too much second guessing of what might be cheaper,
smaller or fueled with more exotic, remote fuels." The U.S.
hot fusioneers plan to spend  an "estimated" $450 million between
1992 and 1998 on "Engineering
Design Activities," which are then to be followed "if the
[international] parties agree," by a seven-year construction phase so
that ITER could begin to operate in 2005.
 
Congressman Harris Fawell of Illinois diplomatically showed
his impatience with the hot fusion program. He read the
following statement into the record:
 
"Madam Chairman, I share your view that the fusion program
may be entering a state of reassessment. And, in fact, this
reassessment may be long overdue.
 
I was particularly struck by the recent remarks of Dr. Robert
L. Hirsch at the March 5, 1993 meeting of DOE's Fusion Energy
Advisory Committee. Dr. Hirsch, who was once head of DOE's
magnetic fusion energy program and is now a Vice President of
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) made the
following observations:
 
* DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors as currently envisioned will
be extremely complex, highly radioactive, likely to be highly
regulated, and costly.
 
* Even if DT or laser fusion reactors had the same capital costs as a
fission reactor -- an enormous challenge -- fusion reactors would
lose out to advanced fission reactors, which are a reliable, known
quantity.
 
* None of the very few fusion-knowledgeable utility people he had
spoken with believes that tokamak or laser fusion reactors, as
currently envisioned, would be acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
* There are some enormous materials problems related to DT fusion.
There are no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors. In the
absence of development of a low activity material -- a very costly
and time consuming undertaking -- you will have to effectively
rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
reactor of the same power level.
 
* And then there's ITER. If tokamak reactors, as currently
envisioned, aren't acceptable, can ITER possibly be justified?
-If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and
will likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for
alternate concepts.  -If what ITER represents is seriously
considered in public debate, there is a high probability that
ITER will not be supported and the fusion program could
collapse.
 
Dr. Hirsch closed his remarks with several recommendations
including:
 
* Scale-up of alternate R&D concepts as fast as possible.
 
* Don't stop tokamak or laser fusion, but cut them back and reorient
them in more acceptable directions.
 
* Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction,
large quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials
development.
 
Madam Chairman, I don't pretend to be a fusion energy expert
-- I'm a refugee from the liberal arts -- but when someone
with Dr. Hirsch's knowledge, background, and stature makes
such observations, I believe they deserve serious
consideration, and I expect today's witnesses to address
them.
 
I am also concerned about other aspects of the planned fusion
energy program, including:
 
* The role of, and the need for, a new proposed tokamak device, TPX,
for which the DOE budget documents provide neither a cost estimate, a
time schedule, nor an understandable rationale of why it is so
important.
 
* The introduction of tritium into the TFTR later this year -- not
only will this be done in a heavily populated area, raising safety
and other environmental concerns -- but it will also require
expensive decontamination and decommissioning of the machine. Is the
science we will get worth this cost, or would it be more
cost-effective to rely on JET, which has already used tritium?
 
* Finally, the continued operation of other tokamaks, including
Alcator C-Mod and the DIII-D tokamaks, in this budget climate means
that we cannot afford to pursue promising alternate concepts. Are we
really getting our money's worth from them?
 
All that being said, Madam Chairman, I look forward to
hearing these concerns addressed by today's witnesses."
 
****END of Congressman Fawell's statement.****
 
Dr. Randell Mills of Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation, whose
heat-producing experiments with  ordinary
water-nickel-potassium carbonate cells are increasingly
highly regarded in the cold fusion field made his
presentation. His colleague Robert M. Shaubach of Thermacore,
Inc. accompanied Mills but did not make a presentation.
 
Mills's opening remarks concisely summarized what the
Lancaster, PA effort is all about:
 
"Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (HPC) has an extensive
theoretical and experimental research program of producing
energy from light-water electrolytic cells. HPC and
Thermacore, Inc., Lancaster, PA are cooperating in developing
a commercial product. (Thermacore is a well respected defense
contractor and its expertise is in the field of heat
transfer.) Presently, all of the demonstration cells of HPC
and Thermacore produce excess power immediately and
continuously. Cells producing 50 watts of excess power and greater
have been in operation for more than one year.  Some
cells can produce 10 times more heat power than the total electrical
power input to the cell. A steam-producing prototype cell has been
successfully tested. The source of excess energy in NOT from fusion
or other nuclear reactions. Energy is released in a catalytic process
whereby the electron of the hydrogen atom is induced to undergo a
transition to a lower electronic energy level than the 'ground state'
as defined by the usual model of the atom. The lower energy states of
hydrogen have been identified in
nature. HPC and Thermacore are conducting other experiments to
demonstrate that this lower-energy form of hydrogen is the 'ash' of
heat producing cells. A summary of the technology follows...."
 
"The [original] experiment has been scaled up by a factor of
one-thousand, and the scaled-up heat cell results have been
independently confirmed by Thermacore, Inc. Patents covering
the compositions of matter, structures, and methods of the
HydroCatalysis process have been filed by HPC worldwide with
a priority date of April 21, 1989. HPC and Thermacore are
presently fabricating a steam-producing demonstration cell."
 
Dr. Mills continued with a further elaboration of the
benefits of HPC's technology, as well as a discussion of
possible evidence for the existence of below ground state
hydrogen atoms. At one point the statement says, "The Mills
theory predicts exactly the spectral observations of the
extreme ultraviolet background emission from interstellar
matter (given by Eq.(1) with n1 and n2 being fractions),
which characterize dark matter, and HPC is conducting further
verification of data that demonstrates that the lower-energy form
of hydrogen is the 'ash' of heat producing cells."
 
Of course, many cold fusion people who accept the Mills
excess heat experimental claims do not accept Dr. Mills's
theory and are inclined to believe that other forms of ash --
nuclear ash -- may be arising from the deuterium in ordinary
water. There is also the question about whether sodium
carbonate electrolyte also facilitates the heat reaction --
Bush and Eagleton say it does, the Indians at BARC say it
does.  Mills, on the other hand, says that sodium carbonate
electrolyte doesn't give rise to excess heat, a fact that he
says supports his catalytic theory.  (By his own
assertions, Dr. Mills has, in effect, presented this sodium versus
potassium issue as a potential Achilles heel of his theory.)
 
Dr. Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory read his
prepared statement into the record.  His statement might be
viewed as fairly "mainline" cold fusion thinking, with a few
exotic twists that will likely further enrage the folks who
think that high-energy nuclear physicists have a monopoly on
wisdom about possible nuclear reactions.
 
Dr. Storms's statement:
 
"Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity to
present new and important results about a phenomenon that has
been conventionally called 'Cold Fusion.' Starting with the
work reported in 1989 by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, many
observations have indicated that it is apparently possible to
initiate nuclear reactions in certain metals near room
temperature and that these reactions result in significant
heat production as well as various nuclear products.
 
I am not speaking for the Los Alamos National Laboratory on
this subject because policy in this area has not yet been
formulated. The Laboratory does not want me to pre-empt this
process.
 
Nevertheless, a careful and extensive examination of
available information as well as personal research has
convinced me and many other scientists that this phenomenon
is real and, I believe, may have important consequences to
the U.S.
 
Much skepticism and frustration resulted from lack of
reproducibility during early experiments. For this and other
reasons, many scientists still believe that positive results
are not possible. However, the phenomenon is now reproducible
using a variety of techniques. Excess heat production has
occasionally approached useful levels and the many postive
results are now described in a variety of peer reviewed
scientific journals and conference proceedings. In addition,
the phenomenon has been demonstrated under many conditions
including those employed in conventional
physics. However, a satisfactory explanation and much supporting
information are still lacking.
 
Accumulated evidence is now so persuasive that it would be
convincing to most people if we were discussing any other
field. Indeed, the evidence is sufficient to cause the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to support work
($4M/year) at SRI and at Texas A&M University where positive
results have become increasingly reproducible. The company
called Technova (Japan) is sufficiently impressed by the
evidence to equip a large laboratory in France for the use of
Drs. Pons and Fleischmann. They can now produce power
densities (1000 watt/cm3 Pd) that exceed those in a
nuclear reactor (100 watt/cm3 UO2).  A growing number of companies in
the U.S.a re showing interest in the field. interest in India, China,
Italy, and Russia is also expanding.  An increasing number of
positive results as well as new ways to initiates the reaction have
been reported. Support has been especially strong in Japan where MITI
has recently committed $24 million to be added to other large sources
of funding. Indeed, Japan is now leading the field in understanding this
remarkable phenomenon. We are once
again in the position where a major discovery made in the US is being
developed in Japan.
 
If this were just another example of conventional science
being slow to accept new ideas, you might be advised to wait
for nature to take its course. However, I believe this
phenomenon is of such potential importance that it would not
be prudent to wait. I may not be able to convince you of
these conclusions in the brief time I have.  There is now a
significant collection of published papers, books, and
reviews available for review. Some detailed sources of
information are part of the written testimony.
 
One might ask what consequences might result if only a
fraction of these assertions is true?  FIRST, the theory of
electron structure in a metal and its interaction with the
atomic nucleus needs to be reexamined. I would expect such a
reexamination to produce even more useful insights.  SECOND,
experiments indicate *a strong potential* for creating energy
that has no identified pollution or significant
radioactivity, and is essentially inexhaustible.  THIRD, some
speculate there is a *possibility* of converting harmful
radioactive isotopes into nonradioactive elements at room
temperature using properly constructed electron environments.
Consequently, one of the troublesome aspects of fission
energy might be eliminated.
 
The phenomenon will eventually be understood and useful
devices will be constructed. While this process is evolving,
the current absence of U.S. policy is inhibiting development
of a vital legal and intellectual property infrastructure. At
the present time. very few scientists in the U.S. have a
competent understanding of the field. Because this field is
so new and complex, training people will not be an easy or
rapid task. in addition, the U.S. patent office is not
issuing patents in the field while this limitation does not
exist in other countries. As a result, control
of the technology is slipping away on these two important fronts. A
modest amount of support now can have a  significant impact on
reducing both problems without the need to shift major priorities
before the potential of the phenomenon is better understood.
 
I would like to recommend three actions.
 
First, a panel of open-minded technical experts be appointed
to evaluate recent results.
 
Second, in the interim, it is prudent to provide some
resources in view of the increasing activity of other
countries. This money would extend the understanding of this
complex field and help train a larger number of scientists in
its subtleties. Efficient use of these limited resources
could be achieved by supporting laboratories that have
reported positive results in the past.
 
Third, encourage the Patent Office to start issuing patents
in the field.
 
Thank you for the opportunity to bring this information to
the committee's attention."
 
**** END of Dr. Storms's testimony ****
 
Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's lengthy testimony lashed out at the
DOE's narrow-minded fusion energy program and defended his
brand of aneutronic fusion energy. He defined "aneutronic
fusion"  as fusion which  "burns nonradioactive fuels,
produces 100 times less neutron radiation, 1000 times less
radioactive waste and 2-3 times less heat pollution than the
conventional fusion." Maglich's company, Advanced Physics
Corporation,  is the lead member of the USA-Russia Research
Consortium, S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic Fusion Energy.
The consortium consists, he said of 12 member
organizations. Some of the American members of the Consortium are:
the University of California at Irvine, Academic Lead Member;
Advanced Reactor Group of Professor L. Lidsky, Nuclear Engineering
Department of MIT; General Electric Corporate R&D Center,
Schenectady, NY. The Russian membership consists of six major
institutes involving 138 scientists. Its Lead Member is the nuclear
weapons center Chelyabinsk-70, whose 42 scientists have decided
to convert from military to peaceful research by developing
aneutronic fusion technology.
 
Some excerpts from Dr. Maglich's testimony:
 
"Large development programs acquire institutional and
psychological momentum, and change much more slowly than our
understanding of the facts. As a result, the DOE fusion
energy program has taken no cognizance of modern scientific
developments, nor has the DOE taken necessary steps to
encourage the development of successor programs."
 
"Billions of dollars of taxpayers money would be saved and
dozens of years of national economic development would be
shortcut by making the national fusion program recognize that
scientific tests within the past five years (1988-93)
supported by theoretical calculations strongly point to the
feasibility of making the fusion reactor COMPACT."
 
"Tests in two tokamaks carried out independently in 1988-89,
show that ultra hot fuel does NOT behave 'anomalously' --
which would require a gigantic reactor -- but behaves
'classically' -- which implies a SMALL reactor. ....
Independently, measurement in the new type of small fusion
reactor known as SELF-COLLIDER, published in Physical Review
Letters of January 18, 1993 show how ultra hot ions of 10
billion degrees can be made STABLE in a miniature reactor
whose volume is 100 cc."
 
"As a result of a series of experiments with compact models
of aneutronic fusion reactors, our research consortium is now
only 3 years away from proving once and for all that a
nonradioactive-fuel, nonproliferating, aneutronic fusion
energy reactor is feasible."
 
"Aneutronic fusion research involves a modest fixed cost.
Because the devices are small, the cost of an experiment is
in the $3-5 million range, and the cost of an entire
scientific test is in the $30 million/3 years range. The
system consists of two parts: injector and self-collider
reactor. Proof of principle can be tested on a time scale of
3 years. If successful, this new fusion reactor could become
commercially available 5-10 years thereafter, depending on
plant size."
 
"DOE cannot afford not to pursue the new laboratory
measurements coupled to the Air Force-supported computer
simulations indicating the feasibility of fusion reactors
burning non-radioactive-fuels --(mixture of nonradioactive
helium-3 and deuterium, as opposed to that of radioactive
tritium and deuterium)."
 
"For the past 30 years, the US DOE has systematically refused
to fund any research on non-radioactive-fuel fusion as a
matter of policy. Its support has been narrowed to one type
of fuel and one type of reactor. This is in clear violation
of the letter of the law and congressional intent as set
forth in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486 of
10/24/92). The first fusion goal mandated by the Law is 'a
broad based fusion energy program.' The law also gives
priority to environmentally clean energy technologies and
to programs in which private industry
participates 20% or more. The current DOE radioactive fuel program
has reserved only $500,000 out of the $340 million, or 0.1%, of the
Magnetic Fusion Energy Budget for alternate fusion energy option.
Nonradioactive fuel fusion research would be a small part of this
0.1%."
 
"An institution can never be made to compete with itself --
which would be the case if this program is administered by
the present Office of Fusion Energy of DOE. To facilitate the
development of such law-mandated, fusion ecotechnology
effort, the Congress should direct the Department of Energy
to split the present Office of Fusion Energy into:
 
* OFFICE OF NONRADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY; and * OFFICE OF
RADIOACTIVE-FUEL FUSION ENERGY (ITER); and * That separate budgets be
sought for the two offices, with the goal that, over the next three
years, at least 50% of the fusion budget be allocated for
non-radioactive fuel fusion."
 
"It had become increasingly clear that the problems
associated with tritium based fusion would be nearly
insurmountable in a commercial device. Power plants burning
deuterium-tritium fuel would necessarily be large,
radioactive, highly toxic (beryllium), highly flammable
(lithium), complex, and because of low power density, very
expensive per unit of electricity generated. Tokamak could be
made marginally economical only if it breeds and sells
plutonium -- which is incompatible with the US
nonproliferation policy."
 
"In spite of these facts, the fusion program has changed
little since the 1960's, even though many of the assumptions
that appeared reasonable at the time have been found, in the
course of 30 years, to be invalid. The goal became not to
develop a commercially-viable, environmentally benign
fusion-powered electric source, but rather to prove that the
original decision to build a DT-burning tokamak reactor was
the only possible decision."
 
**** END of Dr. Maglich's selected statements ****
 
So, with the testimony of Mills, Storms, and Maglich, the
Subcommittee members received an eye-opening education on the
possible future direction of the Fusion Energy program.
There could well emerge from this hearing and others that
will surely follow, much more openness to alternate
approaches. Congress being the ponderous creature it is, this
may take some time, but given the spirit of the May 5th
hearing, I would not even rule out limited funding in FY '94
for the non-tokamak concepts that were discussed --including
cold fusion. It seems to me that the hot fusion
program is in very big trouble at this hour. It may only manage to
survive via its considerable political momentum, which is getting to
be less and less as Congressmen increasingly examine the facts.
 
To summarize the significance of the May 5, 1993 Fusion
Energy Hearing:
 
1. The hearing was the first time since the late April 1989 House
Science Space and Technology Committee hearing that cold fusion had
received an extensive public review before Congress.
 
2. It was noteworthy that cold fusion and hot fusion were discussed
at the same forum -- a landmark event.
 
3. We now have *at least* three Congressmen who are solidly
open-minded about cold fusion, as demonstrated by the May 5 lines of
questioning: Congressman Swett of New Hampshire, Walker of
Pennsylvania, and Fawell of Illinois. Dick Swett, as his post-hearing
press release indicates, has become decidedly pro-active.
 
4. The top aides of the HSST Committee appeared to be very interested
in doing what they could in the future to help investigate cold
fusion. This from conversations directly after the four hour
hearings.  There is considerable interest in helping Mills, in
particular, get a working device evaluated at a national laboratory.
There is further interest in having an eventual demonstration perhaps
even in the Congressional offices!
 
5.  The hot fusion people were not very well received. This was the
same old stale stuff: promises, promises, promises, with not much new
concrete to report -- except that Princeton has 200 Curies of tritium
on site and they are just dying to contaminate the hell out of the
TFTR tokamak when they start their D-T testing in September.
Congressman Fawell and Walker gave the HF boys (and gal!) a hard
time. Fawell challenged them with the recent public words of Robert
Hirsch. Hirsch thinks the D-T program is going nowhere. In these tight
budget times I think Congress is going
to scrutinize HF much more closely. If CF works out the way many
expect it to in the coming year, I think there is a serious chance
that Congress will reduce HF funding, and may completely kill it for
FY '95.
 
6. The HF people acted as though CF did not exist. They made no
acknowledgement of it as an issue, nor were they asked about cold
fusion. One wonders what they could or would have said. They have not
been following the experiments, so presumably they would have had
nothing to say other than "beware, it's pathological science."
 
7. There may be extremely promising fallout from these hearings.
there may even be a shot at getting some cold fusion funding approved
for FY '94. I think there will be a symbiotic effect between (A) the
accepting atmosphere in Congress, (B) new experiments and scientific
papers being and soon to be reported-- particularly all the light
water work, and (C) increased media attention.  The whole situation
is unstable.
 
8. It is coincidentally fortunate that Dr. William Happer will be
gone from DOE by the end of May. With Happer no longer there, cold
fusion will have a much better time. Happer was without question one
of the most bigoted anti-cold fusion ideologues in DOE, as the
revealed record of his statements and actions will increasingly
show.
 
Perhaps when this is all resolved, Congress should consider
holding a "Heavywatergate" hearing, with William Happer and
John Huizenga the prime targets of investigation, to find out
how DOE so maligned and botched the exploration of a
revolutionary new area of science.
 
To get to this point, Cold Fusion Research Advocates, played
a not insignificant role. As did other individual cold fusion
investigators and supporters, CFRA submitted a statement that
was entered into the May 5th Hearing record. It follows:
 
Cold Fusion Energy:
Real and Revolutionary
 
Statement of Cold Fusion Research Advocates for the Subcommittee on
Energy of the
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology May 5, 1993
 
Represented by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove and Mr. Jed Rothwell of Cold
Fusion Research Advocates 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Chairman Lloyd and members of the Subcommittee:
 
We are pleased to submit this statement and attached
references on the rapidly expanding field of cold fusion
research and development. Cold Fusion Research Advocates is
an informal international association of scientists and
engineers who are involved in cold fusion research. Our group
includes physics Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, engineer
and author Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, and top scientists from
China, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, and other countries.  We
wish to alert you to the present great and increasing vitality
of this field, despite the faltering steps of the
early, preliminary work that was reported in 1989.
 
Energy-producing "cold fusion" has not yet been explained at
the atomic level, but it is no less real for want of a
generally accepted explanation. Quite simply, cold fusion --
like hot fusion, which you have also heard about today -- is
a way to get stupendous energy from water, albeit with very
low accompanying radiation. Cold fusion does that now in
completely reproducible experiments at SRI International and
at many other laboratories. The heat that is released in cold
fusion reactions can be thousands of times what could possibly
be explained by conventional
chemistry; and nuclear products have also been observed, generally at
low levels. Whatever the phenomenon turns out to be, there is no
doubt that it exists and is revolutionary.  Prototype cold fusion
home heating units are widely expected to emerge this year or next.
Electrical power generation by cold fusion will follow soon
thereafter, with the likelihood of automotive and perhaps aircraft
propulsion by cold fusion within a decade.
 
Cold fusion is being developed vigorously in Japan. The Third
Annual Conference on Cold Fusion was held last October in
Nagoya. The Fourth International Conference will be held in
Hawaii on Maui, December 6-9, 1993, sponsored by the Electric
Power Research Institute (see meeting announcement,
Attachment #1). We suggest that Congress act on our request
for cold fusion research funding long before the December
conference, but this Subcommittee should certainly send
representatives to the Hawaii meeting.
 
If there were any remaining doubts about the significance of
cold fusion, the Nagoya conference last October has erased
them. Submitted with this statement are highly positive
technical evaluations of the Nagoya meeting by Professor
Peter Hagelstein of MIT (Attachment #2), by members of the
U.S. Office of Naval Research in Japan (Attachment #3), and
the U.S. Army Research Office in the Far East (Attachment
#4).
 
 Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, the U.S. discoverers of cold
 fusion, are now lavishly funded in a 40,000 square foot
 laboratory with a large staff near Nice, France. Their
 funding comes from Technova, a research and development
 think tank closely connected with Toyota Motor Company. At
 present, well over 100 laboratories around the world have
 obtained positive cold fusion results of one kind or
 another. Drs. Fleischmann and Pons have been able to boil
 away their electrochemical solution from their cells in minutes.
 The energy release from their tiny palladium-silver cathodes
is over three kilowatts per cubic centimeter -- higher power density
than a conventional fission power plant fuel rod. Shocking even to
long-time cold fusion researchers, the cold fusion heat effect has
now been found to occur in certain electrochemical systems that use
ordinary distilled water and nickel, not heavy water and palladium.
Reactors that produce tens of watts of excess heat for months on end
have now been demonstrated by several companies in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania -- Hydrocatalysis Power
Corporation and Thermacore.
 
So far ahead has research gone since 1989, that a new review
by the Federal government is now mandatory. Funds should be
set aside promptly for a comprehensive re-evaluation of cold
fusion science and technology by an impartial body of
scientists -- perhaps a study commissioned by the National
Academy of Sciences. So voluminous, overwhelming, and
convincing is the evidence for cold fusion today, that this
review could not fail to mandate urgent research efforts by
DOE and other U.S. science agencies. But
even before that review, based on the work in Japan and elsewhere,
the Congress should approve funding consistent with the potential
large magnitude of the possible energy, economic, and environmental
benefit. It would be a very costly mistake for the U.S. if an
unwarranted negative view were to prevail and other countries
developed this technology.
 
What is happening in Japan? In the Autumn of 1991, the
Ministry of International Trade and Industry organized a
research consortium of ten major Japanese corporations to
advance research in cold fusion. Prior to this, only the
Ministry of Education was involved in this research. This
consortium is called "The New Hydrogen Energy Panel" (NHEP).
In the spring of 1992, as the activities of the Panel became
widely known, Japanese newspapers reported that five other
major Japanese corporations asked to be included.
 
In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billion yen
($24 million) program to advance cold fusion research. This
money will be spent on special expenses within the national
laboratories, such as travel and extra equipment purchases
beyond the usual discretionary levels. That sum does not
include the money, salaries and overhead, which come out of
separate budgets, and it does not count any research in the
private sector, which we know to be substantial. In fact, the
corporate members are expected to contribute at least $4 million
more to the fund, for a total of $28
million. Both MITI and NHEP members emphasize that this fund is
flexible, and can be expanded.
 
Please examine the recent letter to Chairperson Lloyd from
Dr. Hideo Ikegami of the National Institute of Fusion Science
in Nagoya (Attachment #5). Dr. Ikegami writes, "Cold fusion
phenomena have been suggesting to me, as a fusion plasma
physicist, their relation to 'hot' fusion in many ways, which
should not be disregarded." But most important is his view,
so characteristic of the internal cooperation that
characterizes Japan: "Just as I am convinced that despite the
many problems associated with 'hot' fusion to produce a
workable fusion reactor within one-hundred years
from now, we must continue to support this line of research; so I
believe the same to be true concerning 'cold' fusion."
 
We hope you will heed, in particular, the testimony of Dr.
Edmund Storms of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who is an
outstanding cold fusion researcher and reviewer of the entire
field. We attach his recent letter to Congressman Dick Swett
of New Hampshire (Attachment #6). Finally, if you would like
to get a non-technical overview of the cold fusion question
and what it might mean for our world, please read the
wonderful essay by Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, which he recently
delivered in a speech to over 100 military officers in the
Pacific area: "2001: The Coming Age of
Hydrogen Power" (Attachment #7). We think that Arthur C. Clarke will
be proved right once again as a technological prophet.
 
We leave you with this thought: Cold fusion research is not
"Big Science" -- it does not need massive installations, just
relatively small-scale dedicated work at national
laboratories, universities, and in private industries, which
are already beginning to enter the field in the U.S., despite
discouragement from officialdom. Cold fusion does, however,
require the talents of top scientists and engineers, combined
with sophisticated analytical instrumentation. The federal
laboratories are well-equipped to
support cold fusion research. They are floundering in search of a new
mission now that the Cold War has ended. Cold fusion research could
well become a major mission for scientists at these laboratories.
 
Cold fusion energy development, however, will dominantly be
the territory for private industry. There is no need for
massive government investment. But government must smooth the
path for private efforts.  Is it really possible that a
revolutionary energy technology has been inappropriately cast aside
in the U.S.? That is exactly what has happened, as scientific and
engineering developments will show. This need not be true any longer.
For the economic and environmental well-being of the nation, we ask
you to become aware of the facts about cold fusion and help us fund
American research. We will answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to bring this crucial energy
technology initiative to your attention. Our group stands ready to conduct
special briefings for interested Members of Congress who wish to find
out more about this extraordinary energy technology.
 
~References:
 
1.  Announcement by EPRI of the "Fourth Annual Conference on
Cold       Fusion." 2. "Summary of the Third International Conference
on Cold Fusion in     Nagoya," by Professor Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT
3. "The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion:
Scrutiny,        Invective, and Progress," By Drs. Victor Rehn and
Iqbal Ahmad   for the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Japan 4.
"Anomalous Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: A Report on
the Third International Meeting on Cold Fusion" by Dr. Iqbal    Ahmad
for the U.S. Army Research Office (AMC) - Far East 5. Letter of April
22, 1993 to Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd from Dr.     Hideo Ikegami of
the National Institute of Fusion Science,      Nogoya, Japan.  6.
Letter to Congressman Dick Swett by Dr. Edmund Storms of Los
Alamos National Laboratory, April 10, 1993.  7. Speech by Arthur C.
Clarke to the Pacific Area Senior Officers       Logistics Seminar
(PASOLS), March 29, 1993, "2001: The  Coming Age of Hydrogen Power."
 
For additional information, please contact:
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates, 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court -
Suite 312F, Chamblee, GA 30341; Phone: 404-451-9890; Fax:
404-458-2404.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
Date: 13 May 93 11:28:39 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
In article <C6xoEo.ECr@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>        In Message-ID: <1993May11.175726.628@physc1.byu.edu>
>        Subject: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
>    Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
> = "X-rays:  "Results of dental film exposure are shown in Fig. 7"  [ref. 1] --
> = identical to dental films shown in Fig. 2 of ref. 2.  "The film that was
> = wrapped around the outside of the electrolysis cell A and hence closest to the
> = palladium showed the greatest exposure." [ref. 2]  "Clear regions are due
> = to a peeling away of the emulsion rather than non-exposure." [ref. 1 and ref.
> = 2, identical wording.]  The latter is an admission of problems associated with
> = the dental X-ray film method.  Others, including artifacts caused by exposure
> = to pressure and humidity, have been identified elsewhere (... most of these
> = have been covered on the net).  Note that the dental films were "positioned
> = within the distilled water contained in the secondary (gap) compartment."
> = [ref. 1]  One control film shows fogging around edges; I maintain
> = this one film is an inadequate control.
> = As I have said before regarding such crude techniques:  Get serious."
>
>   Prof. Jones:
>     Were not aware you a board certified radiologist.
>     One gets the impression that some of the other net-"radiologists" may
> be making comments without even seeing the paper and/or without reasonable
> knowledge of the field.
>
>     I have figure 2 (ref. 2; M.H. Miles et al., "Heat and helium production
>   in cold fusion experiments," Conf. Proc., "The Science of Cold Fusion",
>   Bressani, Del Giudice and Preparata, eds., 363-372, 1991.) in front of me.
>
>     There are five films, are there not?  Three (3) control films are present
>     showing activity of the film (see control film labelled "70 kV,
>              7 mA, 0.5 sec".  Also there is one with no exposure, and in
>              addition an experimental control.
>
>     These appear to be good papers.
 
Fig. 2 in the Conf. Proc. may be hard to get hold of for some readers; the
*same* photos appear as Fig. 7 in J. Electroanal. Chem 346 (1993) 99-117,
and I encourage Bruce Dunn and other seasoned observed to look at these
closely.  I have had some experience with X-ray films as I have said before,
but claim I am still learning.  Clearly, as Bruce Dunn has said, such films
are sensitive to mechanical pressures and to humidity.  Hence, artifacts
are possible.
 
As Dick Blue has been trying to explain to you, Mitchell, choice of proper
controls is difficult yet crucial to correct interpretation of experimental
data.  In this instance, Miles et al. claim only one "control", in this sense:
"The control film was immersed in distilled water for the same time and
showed only scattered exposure due to background radiation."  (Conf. Proc.
p. 367.)  They claim just one "control", and I maintain this is insufficient.
Besides, it does, as they say, show some "exposure."  They do not quantify the
intensity nor the energy of the X-rays on the control film -- nor make a
quantitative comparison with the two films exposed to the D2O cells.  Nor do
they show dental X-ray films for more than two D2O cells.  I would like to
see *all* the data, not just selected films.
 
The film processed without exposure at all and the black film exposed to an
intense X-ray source are clearly *not* "controls" for their D2O films.  Calling
them controls as you do above in your posting suggests that you need to re-
think what is a proper control (Dick Blue is right; read his treatise on this
again my friend).  In any case, the Miles et al. papers claim only one
"control", as I stated in my posting.
>
>  What do you get out of these chronic put-downs of everyone else's work.
>    "Even a wise man can learn from a fool"  (attribute temp. forgotten)
>
 
The scientific method involves thoughtful criticism and questioning, which
I endeavored to provide.  Remember, my posting of comments was in response
to a direct letter to me by Miles asking for same, and posted here
at Miles request.
 
>    The controls are reasonable and not clearly described by you.
>  When we last attempted to discuss Kucherov's x-ray image one of your esteemed
> radiology consultant appeared unable or unwilling to recognize a reciprocal-
> space image from a simple autoradiograph.  Perhaps she/he was misinformed.
>   Who are your radiology consultants for these claims, please?
>   Any Board certified in radiology?
>  It appears your missive may simply be designed to add further insult
>  towards radiologists and radiation scientists around the world.
>     [How timely.  The Radiology Centennial begins in '95]
>
>     With adequate controls and with full accounting of the
>      physics (not always done), X-ray film is a good method of
>     documenting active electrodes.  X-ray films have been used effectively.
>     Any reader of this net, wishing to know what is really going on, ought
>      to get a recent reference, or just take a glance at figure 2 in ref. 2.
>
>                                   Best wishes.
>                                                    Mitchell
>
 
Why your insistence that X-ray film is adequate?  I offered to Miles the use
of our X-ray spectrometer -- this will give both X-ray energy and line-intensity
information.  As such, the X-ray spectrometer is much more reliable and useful
in providing a quantitative description of what is (or is not) occuring in
these cells.
 
Will you also justify his use of a Geiger-Mueller detector and a health-physics
neutron monitor?  This is the data we get from the Miles paper (cited above,
J. Elec. Anal.) from the use of these crude monitors:  "There were generally
no responses significantly above the background levels for the neutron survey
meter,  but the GM detector gave several periods of unexplained high count
rates." (p. 108)  Nothing more.  No numbers, no plots.  What do the authors
mean by "generally no responses significantly..."?  Can we see the data please?
Do the GM detector readings (may we see them?)  correlate with xs heat?
 
No, it's high time to get spectrometers and quantitative
information, and sensitive particle detectors.
   If nothing else, Miles et al. need to check their claims with
a different kind of detector -- such as an X-ray spectrometer.
 
Let Miles speak for himself, does he accept the challenge to look for X-rays
with a sensitive X-ray spectrometer, to get reliable intensity and energy
information?
 
--  Steven Jones
 
P.S.  The scientific method is such that it helps scientists
avoid the remarkable human tendency to self-deception.  Re-checking and
questioning and critiques by other scientists are part of this process to
sort out the truth.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  morrison@vxpri /  Comments on Draft 5 of Comments on Fleischmann and Pons's paper.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Draft 5 of Comments on Fleischmann and Pons's paper.
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 23:10:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

             COMMENTS ON DRAFT 5.
 
Dear Colleagues,                                       13 May 1993.
                Thank you for your first round of comments on my 5th draft.
I will pay attention to them in writing the 6th draft.
    The paper of Fleischmann and Pons continually causes one to ask more and
more questions as time goes by, but it is difficult to find the answers
in their paper - see below.
    Let us try and walk through the crucial parts of the paper.
    We consider two cells with 0.1 M LiOD as in fig. 8.
 
STAGE 0 for 3 and 9 days they receive a current of 0.2 A and are
calibrated/refilled 1 and 7 times, resp.
 
STAGE 1. 16 days minus 14 hours at 0.5 A. They are calibrated/refilled
once per day.
 During this time, the voltage rises at first slowly and then more steeply
 and the temperature rises similarly  until the cells boil, as shown in fig. 8
 - this stage ends about 14 hours before the cells boil dry.
 
 STAGE 2. last 14 hours minus 600 seconds, before the cells boil dry.
 From fig 11, the temperature of one of cells ( that which ran for 3 hours
at 0.2 A) goes from 86 to 100 C. There is no clear sign of any
calibration/refilling. From fig. 10b, the excess enthalpy varies erratically
between about 20 and 30 W/cm3 - the calculation seems to have been made
using the non-linear regression analysis method.
 
STAGE 3. Last 600 seconds. Here the excess enthalpy is calculated in a different
and simple way, integrating over the entire 600 seconds.
     The input enthalpy is taken as
          (Cell voltage - 1.54V) times (cell current)
 
       The output enthalpy was taken as the sum of the radient heat loss
plus the heat of vapourization of the liquid in the tube (measured from
estimates of the level of the liquid taken from the video).
 
STAGE 4. during some three hours after the cell was dry, the temperature
measured stayed close to 100 C.
 
                   ANALYSIS
   In draft 5, five serious effects were considered. Here we will take them
in inverse order. They are;
 
E1. Decrease in Lithium concentration
 
E2. Errors in non-linear regression analysis
 
E3. Problems of current and voltage measuring in a vigorously boiling cell
 
E4. How much liquid is blown out with vapour?
 
E5. Cigarette lighter effect.
 
STAGES 1 AND 2. E1 - Lithium
         It appears that only D2O was added. The GE team have established that
substantial amounts of lithium are lost, being carried away with the vapour
even at the relatively low temperatures they were working at ie expect a bigger
effect as the temperature rises.
They observed that this dilution of the lithium caused a decrease in the
voltage and a rise in the temperature - and this is what Fleischmann and Pons
observed in their fig. 8.
      Thus there is a clear qualatative explanation of the exponential rise in
temperature. We can expect IMRA swiftly to measure the variation of lithium
content with time and temperature, in a systematic manner, unless they have
already done so.
 
STAGE 2. E2 - Errors in non-linear regression analysis.
    The paper by Wilson et al. is really worth studying by everyone seriously
concerned; it seems that some have not fully appreciated it. The reference is
J. Electroanal. Chem. 332(1992)1. It shows very clearly that there are errors
in the method of calculation which are so large that it is sometimes not
possible to say whether there is an excess or a deficit of enthalpy. And what
is here most important, the errors get more serious as the temperature
increases. For serious people with time, one could read the reply by Fleischmann
and Pons where it can be seen that the serious points made by Wilson et al.
are not responded to. The GE team say that F&P's reply did not required them
to modify their description of F&P's errors.
 
CONCLUSION STAGE 2 - the claims of excess enthalpy of F&P have not been
established.
 
STAGE 3. E3 - Problems of Current and Voltage measurement in last 600 seconds.
    There is no description or specific reference to the method of measuring
the voltage and current. As was first emphasised by Dick Garwin at Santa Fe
four years ago and has been discussed extensively on the net, there is a
possible serious problem with fluctuating currents if the meter cannot measure
high frequency. This problem is much more serious if the electrolyte is at or
near boiling. What does happen to the impedence? There is no indication in the
paper. Yet to determine the input power correctly, one needs to know. This is
very complicated question - again this is NOT a simple experiment.
 
STAGE 3. E4 - How much liquid is blown out in last 600 seconds?
    Some 93% of the calculated enthalpy output is given by
       (heat of vaporization) times (amount of liquid).
Thus it is essential to know the amount of liquid that is vaporized.
As can be seen from fig. 11, the thermometer indicates close to 100 C during the
entire last 600 seconds. So the boiling must be vigorous -the paper speaks
of "rapid".
   There is no description in the paper of any work to make any measurements
on this subject - for example there is no attempt to measure the enthalpy
of the out-going fluids. Again the experiment is a complicated if  one wishes
to obtain numerical results.
   It will recalled that if lithium was decisively found to be lost at low
temperature, as is confirmed by the rising voltage with time and temperature,
then the amount of other liquids carried off with the vapour must be
substantial. Note the footnote on page 126 "a continuous smooth flow of
vapour" is not generally a scientific numerical measurement.
 
CONCLUSION STAGE 3 -last 600 seconds; the claims of excess enthalpy have not
been established.
 
STAGE 4. E5 Cigarette lighter effect
     Palladium is a good catalyst to combine deuterium and oxygen, particularly
when heated. At the end of Stage 3, just before the last of the liquid goes
and the palladium is exposed, it will begin to catalyze, but as Dieter points
out, the amount of available oxygen is small and the effect is small compared to
E3 and E4. Once the last of the liquid is gone, air can enter, the oxygen can
be catalyzed with the deuterium leaking out of the palladium and raise the
temperature - this is in agreement both with the observation that the Pd support
melted, implying at least 300 C, and with the tests of Kreysa et al. who obtained
418 C. Note the fact that the thermometer stayed at 100 C, shows that it was
suspended in gas well above the palladium near the foot of the tube and could
not measure accurately the Pd temperature.
 
    OVERALL CONCLUSIONs
1. The information provided in the paper of Fleischmann and Pons is not
adequate to justify the conclusion that there is excess enthalpy whose
origin cannot be explained "in terms of chemical changes".
2. A series of five explanations are given which can explain the main
claims and observations of Fleischman and Pons. These explanations do not
require any new source of enthalpy.
 
     I would appreciate again any scientific comments on these notes so that
a sixth draft can be written next week.
 
             Best Wishes,
 
                     Douglas.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmorrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 2
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 2
Date: 13 May 93 13:18:58 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

RESPONSE TO DR. MILES PART 2:  EXCESS HEAT CLAIMS
 
Here I continue a discussion of the claims of the Miles et al. papers,
in response to a letter to me from Miles (posted here by Jed Rothwell)
asking for comments.
I will use the same numbering scheme to reference the 4 Miles et al. papers
as I used in part 1.
 
OPEN CELLS USED; RECOMBINATION CONCERNS
 
Miles et al.:  "Measurements correlating the time of excess power production
and the generation of helium in the electrolysis gas stream require the use
of open calorimetric systems."  (ref. 1)
 
It is not clear to me why "open" cells were "require[d]"; the helium analysis
was done later, and a D2+O2 recombiner would still allow helium to be
collected.
"The electrolysis gas samples collected at China Lake in the 500 ml [glass]
flasks were sent to the University of Texas for analysis by mass spectrometry."
 
Scientists on this net and elsewhere have thoroughly discussed problems
associated with use of open cells and assuming no D2+O2 recombination, and
with use of glass for helium measurements.  Miles et al. report in their 1993
paper that in recent measurements,
Miles:  "Some recombination of D2 and O2 was observed in this cell; hence
the measured excess power is too high."  [ref. 1]
This raises a host of questions:
How was recombination observed?  Are Miles et al. certain that D2+O2 was
insignificant in the earlier cells when found to be important here?
By how much was the recently measured xs power "too high" in the recent study?
From the above, can you assign a systematic error associated with assuming
zero recombination in the earlier cells?
 
Hopefully Dr. Miles will answer these questions here (since his letter was
posted here).
 
Equation 2 of ref. 1 show the relation used to calculate excess power:
 X = power out/electrolysis power  =  K *deltaTemp / [E - Ezero]*I
 
where K is the calorimetric cell "constant", E is the cell voltage and
Ezero is the thermoneutral potential, taken as 1.53 V for the D2O cells
and 1.48 V for the H2O cells.
X is given as the "daily mean value of the heat ratio." [ref. 2]
 
Unfortunately, calibrations were done with a resistor with no electrolysis
occuring, so that bubbling was absent during calibrations.  Also, calibrations
were done before and after long runs, not during.  [Tom Droege and others
have elaborated on problems with such techniques.]  Finally, cell "constants"
show large variations:  0.138 to 0.145, 0.132 to 0.138, 0.133 to 0.137 and
0.135 to 0.141 for the 4 cells (table 3 of ref. 4).
 
Let's look at some of the xs heat data; Fig. 3 of ref. 1 includes the "highest
excess power (27%) was observed on 21 October 1990 in cell B."  (Remember,
after the 1990 runs, the calorimeter was improved, but work was then
"hindered by difficulties in obtaining the excess power effect."  [ref. 1])
 
MEAN X VALUE VERSUS DAY,  END OCTOBER 1990 (INCLUDES MAX. XS POWER SEEN):
                 x
1.25
 
1.2
 
1.15
        x                 x       x   x
1.1   x     x      x   x x  x   x
                     x
1.05           x              x             x
           x                        x   x x
1.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------
    12  14  16  18  20  22  24  26  28  30  32
0.95
 
The first 12 days are never shown;  "The first 12 days are not shown in
Fig. 3 because the electrolysis was shut down several times to correct leaks in
the gas-collection system.  [Worrisome -- Jones note]
No significant excess enthalpy effects
were observed in the first 10 days." [ref. 1]  Please, let us see and judge
the data for ourselves.
 
Let's compare the D2O data above with that shown from the H2O control cell:
 
1.20
 
1.15                                         z
                                   z
1.1                             z
                                  z             z
1.05    z  z                          z  z
                                    z
1.0 -z--------------------------------------z---------------
    0  2  4  6  8  10z12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
.95                       z            z
              z z  z          z           z
.90         z               z
                 z
.85
                        z
.80                    z
 
I've plotted the data from Fig. 7 of ref. 4 as well as I could in this
medium (just one temp. probe shown out of two in cell.  Only two were used
in each cell and sometimes the lower thermistor had a higher temp.  Miles
explains:  "thermal inversions were occasionally occuring"  [ref. 4]
Why?  No further explanation nor caveats are offered.)
 
In the 1993 paper, the H2O control plot is not given.  Instead, we are told
Miles:  "The mean calorimetric values for 15 days of electrolysis are
X1 = 1.025 +- 0.02, X2 = 1.035 +- 0.03 for cell A..." ref. 4
 
One of these corresponds to the plot directly above!  It doesn't matter
which value corresponds to the plot; the point is that the quoted error bar
fails to disclose the large fluctuations seen in the xs heat for the H2O
control.  This is a point that Jim Carr and others have warned about repeatedly
on this net.  Indeed, comparison of the H2O and D2O plots I have attempted
to reproduce above show that the H2O shows up to 20% variations which is
tantamount to the largest spike in the Miles data, a 27% fluctuation.
True, the data points for the D2O cell were *all* positive -- for the data
we were shown; in terms of the fluctuations seen in the control, this is
in fact surprising.  I ask Dr. Miles to show the data for the missing first
twelve days. To reiterate:  the fluctuations in the light water cells (just
15 days of control running!) are about as large as the "signal" in the heavy
water cells, and the large fluctuations from the mean last for several days
in the light-water cells as in the D2O cells.
 
Early on, Miles et al. claimed xs heat production in the light water cells;
in the 1993 paper they retract this:  "Earlier reports of unexplained excess
heat effects in H2O+LiOH [Bush, Lagowski, Miles and Ostrom. J. Elect. Anal.
304 (2991) 271]  were due to errors related to the dental film studies."
Hmmmmmm... Really?  Among other things, this explanation provides
yet another reason to avoid the use of dental films.
 
CLAIMS OF HELIUM-4 PRODUCTION
 
-->  Will return to this tomorrow.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Responses to Steve Jones' questions
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Responses to Steve Jones' questions
Date: 13 May 93 13:41:08 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his posting "Responses to Steve Jones' questions" [May 12, 1993], Jed
Rothwell asserts:
 
"Steve Jones posted a lot of evasive nonsense, in an effort to beat a horse
which has been dead for well over a year.  He wants to prove that the
workers do not even claim the total power coming out of Nickel cells
exceeds I*V!  Also, that they do not measure gas evolution.  If Steve
was saying "they are wrong" I could understand it, but for him to deny they
even *claim* these things is wacky!"
 
Jed, you put words in my mouth then attack me for saying them.
I do *not* seek to prove that "workers do not even claim the total power
[etc.]"  nor do I "deny they even *claim* these things", as you erroneously
say.  Rather, I am asking you to lay these claims out on the table so that we
can all examine them.  I do not have access (yet) to the Nagoya proceedings, for
example, from which you quoted.
 
You still have not completed the task so that we can examine these together:
I remind you that you posted:  "Notoya, Noninski, Mills, Srinivasan and
many others who replicated this experiment get more heat than I*V."
So we still need data from Noninski and say three of the "many others" you
claim.  Once this is on the table, our discussion can begin.  You might
want to brush up on how I*V is determined in light of comments by Tom Droege,
Chuck Harrison, Dieter Britz and others recently on this net.  Also, we will
need to consider in detail how "excess power" is calculated by the people
claiming it.
 
At least you started answering some of my questions.  This is better than
V. Noninski did (so far anyway).
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May13.133720.636@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May13.133720.636@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 13 May 93 13:41:42 -0600

cancel <1993May13.133720.636@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Jones re Let. from Miles, Part I
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jones re Let. from Miles, Part I
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 23:04:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Part I:
 
     In Message-ID: <1993May13.112840.634@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Re: Reply to Letter from Miles, Part 1
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
=ms  "I have figure 2 (ref. 2; M.H. Miles et al., "Heat and helium production
=ms  in cold fusion experiments," Conf. Proc., "The Science of Cold Fusion",
=ms  Bressani, Del Giudice and Preparata, eds., 363-372, 1991.) in front of me.
=ms
=ms  There are five films, are there not?  Three (3) control films are present
=ms      showing activity of the film (see control film labelled "70 kV,
=ms               7 mA, 0.5 sec".  Also there is one with no exposure, and in
=ms               addition an experimental control."
 
 
= "Fig. 2 in the Conf. Proc. may be hard to get hold of for some readers; the
= *same* photos appear as Fig. 7 in J. Electroanal. Chem 346 (1993) 99-117,"
 
  For reference, a low resolution (75 dots per inch, B&W, GIF format)
   image of the relevant figure is appended as the next posting [we hope  ;p
 
 [If anyone wants,  I will e-mail them a higher resolution (200 dpi) image]
                      upon receipt of their e-mail request
 
= "In this instance, Miles et al. claim only one "control", in this sense:
= "The control film was immersed in distilled water for the same time and
= showed only scattered exposure due to background radiation."  (Conf. Proc.
= p. 367.)  They claim just one "control", and I maintain this is insufficient."
 
 
  They are modest.  There are three apparent controls in the picture.
  The figure (GIF format) speaks "pages" by again documenting a spatial
  image obtained over an active electrode, and by demonstrating the
  importance of full controls including assaying the activity and
  demonstrating the full exposure of a test film.
 
  Steve, could you please explain your universal denigrations of X-ray
 film as inadequate?   Please consider that these films are sensitive
 to visible light and UV too, and yet they are used daily (nights, too)
 without problems.
                              Best wishes.
 
                                                   Mitchell
  (GIF image of FIGURE 2 to follow in Part II)
     5423 bytes   --
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: 13 May 93 18:48:21 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2220@giga.slc.paramax.com> p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com
(Patrick J. Smith) writes:
>
>I think I've stumbled upon a theoretical explanation substantiating
>the cold fusion interpretation of the excess heat claims of P&F, and
>it's so simple that I'm amazed it's been thus far overlooked.
 
It wasn't overlooked.
 
It was, in fact, one of the first few things people looked at.  It is
not like there are a lot of possibilities.
 
In particular, Peter Hagelstein proposed a model based on a certain
amount of hand waving that has the energy transfered to the lattice
as heat through a coherent process that is sort of a nuclear pumped
phonon laser.
 
>It has occured to me that this seems to imply a Temporary Reversal of
>the Second Law of Thermodynamics inside the Pd lattice!!!!!
 
Now that is a new idea ....
 
It would predict that all sorts of nuclear reactions, not just d+d,
would be enhanced in a lattice.  Easily tested.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Reply to Terry Bollinger
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Terry Bollinger
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 19:24:19 GMT
Organization: Bollinger Self-Incisions Inc.

In article <1993May13.173641.18462@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | Does it sound like I'm giving a sort of obituary report for excess heat?
> | You bet I am.
>
> Now cut that out...
 
Too late!  Major autologous surgery already performed earlier today, details
at 6...  [hey, my appendix -- I _know_ it was right over there -- now where
_did_ I put that doggone thing...??  :)  ]
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 /  te_s227@neptun /  CF: why don't you.....
     
Originally-From: te_s227@neptune.kingston.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF: why don't you.....
Date: 13 May 93 21:56:22 BST
Organization: Computing Services, Kingston Polytechnic

Hi About this CF thing, why don't you just take a palladium wire and add
pure hydrogen.  This appears to be the main thing (electrolysis is a red
herring) It only produces H2 at one electrode!
 
Still perhaps I'm ignorant?
 
Chris. S.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudente_s227 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 21:42:20 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

Sorry to ask a basic question but here it is: Do P & F attempt to measure
total energy from start to finish of the "boiling cell" experiment, or
do they compare power in and out at various times? My casual reading of
Dr. Morrison's very interesting paper seems to indicate the latter. If the
first approach, then surely the energy/power from the "cigarette lighter
effect" is taken into acccount and the criticism is not justified.
 
If the latter, my mind boggles -- Dr. Morrison has if anything understated
his criticisms.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@fnal.go /  No! No! Dieter, not my mechanism.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No! No! Dieter, not my mechanism.
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:34:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes:
 
"Both Tom Droege and Douglas Morrison seek the source of excess heat in the
burning of the deuterium as it comes out of the Pd rod, ..."
 
No! No! That is only one minor mechanism.
 
My number one bet is that when the cathode is exposed, the D/O mix
*explodes* and blows large chunks of electrolyte out of the cell.
 
Something very like this can be seen when the video is observed.
 
I very well know that the cathode cannot store enough Deuterium to explain
all the heat claimed.  But oxygen diffusing back into the cell, and an
increased calorimeter constant due to a coating from the evaporated
electrolyte could explain the long after heat shown by P&F.
 
This leaves only the stage 2 to 3 heat to explain.  Given the lack of any
normal experimental detail, I presently write this off as just sloppy work
on the part of P&F.  Sorry P&F, you have had a lot of chances to write good
workman like papers, you have not done it, so I assume now that you do not
know what you are doing.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@fnal.go /  The Liaw,Tao,Liebert Paper
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Liaw,Tao,Liebert Paper
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:34:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While trying to get a readable copy of the P&F paper, I came upon the
Liaw, Tao, Liebert paper in the Jan 93 Fusion Technology.  "Helium Analysis
of Palladium Electrodes After Molten Salt Analysis"
 
Here is a real paper, written as I would expect.  It also has a positive
result.  Here the authors tell us everything that they do, and are the first
to criticize their own result.
 
>From the abstract:
 
"The interpretation of the results was complicated by a substantial morphology
difference among the samples.  Because the level of helium content was small
in magnitude, the possibility of atmospheric contamination cannot be dismissed
completely."
 
>From the conclusion:
 
"Atmospheric contamination could, however, be a source of error but is
considered unlikely.  The bulk morphological studies revealed a much higher
void density in the deuteride sample than in the blank."
 
These comments from an experiment which claims a 14 sigma positive result.
See how it is done P&F?  The rules of the game are to carefully study your
own work, and to point out all the possible sources of error.  It is important
to tell us that you thought about all the likely errors.  If a reader can think
easily of real problems that are not mentioned, then he has a right to consider
the paper to be trash.
 
Were I a funding agency, I would give some priority to continued work by LTL
I have my doubts about the rusult, but they are all due to facts openly
disclosed by LTL.  So I would encourage there work because they have convinced
me that they are seeking truth.  I would trust them to say "Woops, we found
an error".  I do not have such trust in P&F.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@fnal.go /  A Miracle
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Miracle
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:34:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART III
 
This part will continue the consideration of the section of the paper dealing
with boiling cells.  Readers are referred to part I for background.
 
          *****************************************
          * A MIRACLE DISCOVERED IN THE P&F DATA  *
          *****************************************
 
7) How can the curve of figure 11. stay flat as the cell boils dry?
 
Using the calculations of P&F on page 11 of the paper, we find that they
compute several items for the power balance during the time that the cell
contents are boiling away.
 
a) Electrolysis Power - (Ecell-1.54)*Icell / 600 seconds = 37.5 watts
b) Calorimeter Radiation - 11.2 watts @ 100 C
c) Enthalpy from Boiling - 170.8 watts
 
Estimating the scale of the curve below at 0.2 C per printer line we try to
reproduce the cell temperature curve during the boil off, figure 11.  Please,
we know we might be missing the scale by a factor of two or so:
 
 
 
100.2 C                                               ***************
100 C                        *************************
99.8 C **********************
 
                            ^cell 1/2 dry             ^cell dry
 
 
Now during the time that the boil off is occurring, there is according to P&F:
 
        170.8 + 11.2 - 37.5 = 144.5 watts
 
generated by the "cold fusion" process.  When the cell goes dry, the
electrolysis power (supposedly) goes to zero, the boiling no longer removes
enthalpy, but the radiation stays the same (nearly) as there is no temperature
change.  This means that now 11.2 watts is being generated by the "cold
fusion" process.
 
Somehow, by what looks like a $$$miracle$$$ to me, the "cold fusion" process
switches seamlessly from 144.5 watts to 11.2 watts just as the cell runs dry
without the slightest transient being shown on the curve of figure 11.
 
To those who spend all their time at terminals, and have thus somewhat lost
track with reality, I point out that water in the cell works very hard to hold
it at constant temperature.  i.e. it vaporizes and takes all that heat of
vaporization away in the process.  When the last of the water goes, it is like
releasing the lid on a Jack in the Box.  The temperature is going to jump up.
The fact that it does not, implies that there is a sudden drop in input power
that exactly matches the rate at which water previously boiled away.
 
Please, don't try to argue that the reason there is a switch in power is that
the cathode is suddenly uncovered.  The cathode must gradually uncover.
Indeed it can be seen to do so in the video.
 
There is much more to be observed.  I will give you only one miracle at a time,
as otherwise the faith of the "true believers" might be overloaded.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  P&F analyses
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F analyses
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:34:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have not received the P&F paper as yet so I will not comment on it
directly.  It seems to me, however, that Dieter Britz has hit closest to
the mark given what others have reported about the paper.  The only flaw I
see in his analysis is that he did not take into account that the loss of
H2 from the PdH is endothermic.  My analysis goes as follows:
 
 
PdH2 (solid)  =  Pd (solid)  + H2 (gas)   deltaHo  = 200 kJ/mole
 
H2 (gas)  +  0.5 O2 (gas)  =   H2O (liquid)     deltaHo  = -286 kJ/mole
____________________________________________
 
PdH2 (solid)  +  0.5 O2 (gas)  =   H2O (liquid)  + Pd (solid)   deltaHo  =
-86 kJ/mole
 
(Note: I could not find the standard enthalpy of formation of PdH (solid)
but I'm reasonably sure that it would not affect the result significantly.)
 
The Pd electrode has an initial volume of 0.039 cm^3.  The density of Pd is
12.0 g/cm^3.  The MW of Pd is 106.42.  Thus, there are 4.4 x 10^(-3) moles
of Pd present.
 
0.039 mL  x  (12.0 g/mL)  x  (mole/106 g)  =  4.4 x 10^(-3)
 
Assuming that PdH(0.8) is formed, there are 3.5 x 10^(-3) moles of H in the
solid.  Thus, 1.8 x 10^(-3) mole H2O can be formed.
 
3.5 x 10^(-3)  x (one mole H2O/ 2 mole H)  = 1.8 x 10^(-3) mole H2O formed.
 
Finally,
 
1.8 x 10^(-3) mole H2O  x  (86 kJ released/mole H2O)  =  0.15 kJ released
 
Thus, I get around 150 J released, whereas Dieter get about 600 J released.
 No matter.  Dieter is correct, either of these is piddling compared to the
excess heat claim.  For example, 150 J will evaporate about 0.066 g of
water.
 
150 J  x (mole H2O/40,700 J) x (18 g/mole)  =   0.066 g H2O
 
(Using Dieter's 600 J would, obviously, yield 0.26 g H2O vaporized.)
 
Conclusion:  If you are counting on the heat released by burning O2 (with
the H released from the PdH) to evaporate significant amounts of water
--forget it!
 
150 J will, of course, heat the Pd significantly.  If all of the 150 J is
released to the Pd (unlikely) and if none is radiated once absorbed, and
given that the heat capacity of Pd is 39 J/(degree mole)--
 
150 J  x   (degree mole/39 J)  x  (1/(4.4 x 10(-3) mole))  =  874 degrees
 
Take your choice.  You have about 150 J to work with.  Use them sparingly.
 
*************
 
By the way, the formation of solid Li2SO4 is slightly endothermic.
 
Li+(aqueous)   deltaHo of formation =  -278 kJ/mole
 
(SO4)2-(aqueous)   deltaHo of formation =  -908 kJ/mole
 
Li2SO4(solid)   deltaHo of formation =  -1,434 kJ/mole
 
Thus,
 
2 Li+(aq) + (SO4)2- (aq)  =  Li2SO4(solid)  deltaHo  = +30 kJ/mole
 
I don't know the exact volumes or concentrations, but assuming 50 mL and a
concentration of 0.3 moles/Liter.
 
30,000 J/mole x (0.3 mole/L) x 0.050 L  =  450 J
 
In other words. about 450 J would be *absorbed* in the conversion of the
Li2SO4 from the dissolved state to the solid, crystalline state.  (This,
too, is piddling compared to the excess heat claims.)
 
**************
 
Two notes to Morrison.
 
(1) You make the assumption that if P&F get the same effect with H2O (as
opposed to D2O) that your "cigarette lighter effect" is proven.    Consider
this possibly--the excess heat is real; the excess heat is *not* caused by
fusion.  Think about it.  (P&F are in a real bind on this one.  But you
ought to consider another rationale for why they are not using H2O as a
control.)
 
(2)  Using a larger mass of Pd is OK, but the excess heat is released in a
process that occurs at the *surface*.  Try to maximize the surface area.
 
 
Best regards to all,
 
John Farrell
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 23:05:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

GIF87a0I    ,0I{  )Km# 4Z 3^<{ bH f     &jJ6nGrLWv gzNw~
 D"q L* L&s      J'T*u
Mj7\.w Gd2y N+Wl6{ Kgt[v/Srz?/p8HXhx  (8HXhx( 9IY9      I" Iw9ay9:Xi!)
 Z       @       !)z: :a:j s     KD h[AZA:0kiIkG\ \2l   @[\ | }R=w|
 })=b+r   .n0 mCg !
J@O^ ~Z !}|g  V}|tgnE@}gVM3g*_*@|:3 {
B|b&VrxT> _nX292a       xd<@tfo`K_OqDr L KP\    t#3 D1~ yX  f8v:.&  >HtJo*,
)
  (Rj%.:z WCl2 - EjriF3]zLu7g= ,Ab}ZW^Jxx*z5 QoC)<> IlI !  ;8mc+
 oNcK34<? ] FRqCV '[)Ex , I Of|,z3U %<6 2.o0]ho5n$) 9q`r[-<6reFc
.93n>?VM\]{e);5M<{[;gAT}RIY|1bR R {?q+x<0}: nMo\qV g }g]zoH&OQqIgXyo
w '$]v  =eW}b= eu]U7e7rW0XJ~]B MB]8!  Q\8ZMu^    :~w +6)&hVQX#is46Y~I:(
`eZ  X ! y!w"yV T        f6#8F}y 3   r T ) GOu  8] ^^ `
9 _v$Nv^ .V8bzQ&)bmZVgylYiV e` C x>r 'o:i6\ P4*i a"
)`L %  gY! yYd "
w[S; x {%8"*LC^ f,-*iLY0z  Zz ? hd 7
&# I*G+C D,*QBU)6`"(cn-};  J[eJi{b :Z8H2!R;N i (j}(--iV+"  Akd="]Z.4
 {o 'E+&D 2Eo G&<gFyg_){i+ c/gd"FqXN k 2'Lo.~mf @ )u 7|1' y1Z 2
> k[c}!-*4$FKt@K6lNL3^&:"yHB"Jf,$Acfz2Pt-+5(b;9 "R ;( CT 7\V$|a]{v
uCsmMU>c%=.Edz&tO 9*{ f  }  r7/wsJ7!)Td%JfHng]GDkfni[xUf^\]j=Cz.b)&#~y
X y{j]&.v!%[-7Y a[JE*Y3OL 3,,P
>P;ybL|\n e$5) B[{LyF2|:s  q]1n 5 iASv4wY,A199R 'tU OhT:fRAhu(M)+
u7|~'@1. 0c@#f(N"ckfy<gwg/.2++9@4C3 ."0(D6B;D K%*!-MKJ!*,?QR{7@FF0@$CVWU
?TT JJ 594DE- YRab
GX^X.BXgg") >$  7L0[i/'4kOoAc   rbsas`V[N,      fvhyhoPue
h \]7N1l4aB J t b#A
X#zr"Q )- d4B(EQ`3  09[JC )  ,Aqc3 1eVEk
&3nhXt&hG2 L~Y29r'J$gXzy OL(Q   E8V6+ xz`T?} .ZLZa2      6
jZV\OnQw4  &t
sP  tvM6"3 R)&%wm{oa*pDh$WG  o  #Il=% E? l qES  O=hX)VdBb<6 `A!
jmv)%TV +&^EoR5I]*Gmg;_H.+:yo$?AE^ 8si\ \9Bt BiW}ty+kiXe 0&[o3A{}
vr  ~Kc<,4s   @~P
o>y4sL Iti$?|h+N5 . :l~ f6p
BP(DNAJ6) B [9r@io Pr:#DhT1* MLJ'm:; q$l1Bc`<3,mCc:k#GrjrqJqj0g.
       -#k){QI,U,I:w*'> 0<2H# q*0#2,<Hr N0lr.M hSRCAbt37C [/#x
"dHIplmMF\kiG `0 ,kJ<4C\l4: k0;o
mRmYl=.?  6<?uMPQ QSQ8  R?3u5TR2O]SV6 KR[EkJFD<}  _kth<q MS%4l4YA
 / ;# ?kMn+Z3W:aB75Bcp2nqJ%Hta        ]VgM7 ogw^Y,P @lW= Q`cMiXtB*o=
 l+      $vD20~Qb )$F{dfkU ay+}(U  -e
3 ,gM d5J 1&rG
 K.g y^Y  VS^   xx
M _Z L'CeQd, k8 o* _OZ,YB ;V    F.U gk ^6WQ !U@%'v[o@vNn@ ^.QS
|fN#}[ig?Wm PF%a qQ*~(K! <]E7_na/e[r t\V,O|qJiQFnl V3rTU/C |.BP!O[][
\|[&J >kZ  |rD      ih>C;w>A$/ {DQW&}kLsn sd5 <xb`jr{ "-vV  q|{Pz!8
%y")J +{BckE(xtq9q Fq3QPg$ JSqi| jQ!Z t2Zl4j} C/&8 uvQ_C rkwld)y9//nx}Xo
J!1AUd2yq16:,:FR@BP i=!&RIz~v~RF*IX
*x9j61  N QZ> %HmzzFpV ^  +WesZ<m>2J rfU:&{jg(+3 p ]|lenn{/w'2'
_=K)V;CHk?cbw I!m 9BJQ97JG>  6sx 7 Z,j&0? EU|8-"A{z7N\ K @/=yy
$@ |& e/j@Z1 MdN DwlK    (aR*9<dshp;(r13()  hAqI  */'bm%mZp-jbzHnS8
n`D&.>m{&EJ V>~ U]Tga.r V|{7Lc a;+PWA   6sUd+ UAUGJ1 !9.{ 4;RFF3KL!hA18m
{=i1p7/ G:L8rY{e1y9u T OG|]uqm43\7ZyLhMM{O c<nvq|#/M^=}o& S [}vz~
Vif{HR " {O!$Go   Bav-, ZQw2  v`|"D3  alX"        jJstx" / L=2"Q"
7bF^#(WW9& Wk)Y$ q8bL6 WbD.i$ v M *2yQI*xErxM&e>b( Pzxay\
Yf%I1y We.Eo I WnzGH Ozsg       fuv
 <ye'  2 S . ed)
)Q lh%&# 6YV }yP urZ*)Aqd$ X& )  +m3
Fz6F*,;&+d +$WrZ,1G"k$ I2{#/.5 -/OJ[-5Wb -6[r[-,Tz .8 [.9g" .:k2[.;oB
/<sR[/=wb /tg,tOzXh p:D^ v         n|iY 07WGN,#8(AlT  RLX s 1H
u .7 62J j 2p.S52L~^sKS-(YL`aC/I}h:3Pz& C#-R<?O*Oj VT0|/S@  4?JkLPG&"'5X
7ksuf  NZ/{uCk-]u\
,[5 <wPbydn]@g=sTi  1_
#w^d M)
#sc&.{yODE{7}v  =8R M6ed0([h  N/"enui|
M dn=Nhe*=vYZ$7 *G^;loD:b/x^zJBw :s 3/:V '/rtnfnJStToZpWO     
 {iV xaS [F@4g=yw E ,MMU m]n2d9A
FqiW^   EcQD t Mgs  N)UkU n9//kC Ies9 V/Ybt  Ommfv^^d]t 0pE/  PI0Qq
1np M!1Rr  RssSsT s 4*t55$3rRI5V {Bv2 2su6/V 67Qu   Bwwwq$Y90R:)YwZ1Zz
2: y{N-8g1<w$[{l}m | Pp=T]^, /A +~   l >{x~Y*(gF@.-4dO! R    lb:
_ u b bB VF ) HL%G@dI$") y^rY3H  ;Ma|f3
$B<9^ eh         CMlgt]O8P *@ ^N*S7ybTQV]Y -"tXL&k;d Z1{ 2};r.
Vy&I] #/* ?`c1 `PB ]LD  1RH,v0J p cs{+&Chluq\OH ^ 2te!eFC$lzCa~76g+'Z``_
m rX dvkdu y F  n ]sWdz_/G
%8a?Lw.|tT  ? {=gce#^~ uzy=3,M-l |}6,7'I ?m"    G }R o"y`kA23/QPp
)&$o +dbn:s$4 B (4 =oxP;s$CsJTaD
+        u+q    A<KB}kq? ECn"wl F^L8}`#Q AsO$odMHMH
 OA 2T2*)Cr)-F$(3{O< =:V p(7 KGCf<3&aBO4 v|3#m<J'Oq $M, ltCORMoP2>RTEb+l
?q| &JEeT I;UR[5-T]] Uc^ u,T"W\ihTW^}} :` UqQa*VXd ]6%zX %. Q@O^
=DZ:S!6R S ?nA} Eh:3[ @= MYw q 7^& )U[zgM7F6<   PY `MC5K[ {Qx`r9
!RNW *R xF[.m2]R^E8`zFXE IYY ml)Zv}Y6@jGuxa~3{-C_ = w_ G yd[f Ye{U9
U gn7Yk%D4e _58S f$^ k6i  6:lx+.Y4"6Z;VYlpDVl&C~:htVf{,<{ lwu ;c
yf:_2)a;*G: L}VHtO5X=a: sN=VsOE tRM$tSUW&u)W }XKa  vZ h}? m_]qzo;\^7S%
an4a  Wd7_^wHM"NgE  g? cl`4Q~>YY(8dA.G `g
>/.@Q= %[> C #Hx
Y BRk>m{
Otm_x.o|o 1T##i8)Nq(2   4UI'%I  TI:`0xL. 9UWw `&(i-3M wTJ|]>l7% Y # 'IPkf
    ^'pm%h|NWnCOu zL {PJ~ $  rK+Z   45  59:MfD    /<.yi+ XGt&<YvH+
G ;W[P8X]=,^FB?&7Mi' }J#QCoU auvwxy;h \ M "=SkN Vzv%|A XB 7y *`@st
 HFG  C q(H HZZN*\) $K 0c{J I3&M 8sj93'O >RJ4(Q#H vlXR)S'P#J J5*U{B/j]J5
Q [ zK6,Y3hS*]Kv!X6pc.kE.]"TVRW T]?2wbEEFOaDI+~+ 0CL>
v4yq"J1  '
g(wpC, 4eS84O
 1 &WQ\G[":B3B0 odYLF]L# sfTR>E6x:\9Y \`bm zUk/y''q1nC K[#*^mGHMM^7Q"Eq6
p9yV+vJ[ kn74aUt"J_ wX4}M zAhW`{DI}Bs%6 I%     U ^nK$uu7_os!b ;
)x /~  "^k!zW +7DG] n!6aGVmH_4 ! J/a-vbn@ IohJM ("rQ)$y @I @` _
5b  |=  2u|  P9ebTWe ~'\*qg zqFf j6y! Zhg^EzE`A_]W #R   3u7gp V)b
E0% "xL!H,G$kmGZ `v&K" hL q $j p,'# ,R9 wo v*s2^yf ::S}r  I ki
''5  ) bs  ";myX2~8)2Xy(Ne#YQ, +1     g a
G-AH6&-:}6V8ZiV$
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Horse's Patootyism -- mea culpa!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horse's Patootyism -- mea culpa!
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 22:54:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May13.150359.20758@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>In article <38FEE048B17F21D5C1@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>> from the enthalpy of formation of water (close to 300 kJ/mol), this gives
>> us 600 J of heat, a piddling amount compared to the excess heat claim. Add
>> to this the probable fact that there is much less oxygen in the cell. The
>> answer thus lies elsewhere.
>
>P.P.S -        Dale Bass: How do you feel on whether there is any quantification of
>       the cigarette effect idea that might replicate the overt behavior
>       of the P&F experiment?  You seem to have some pretty good figures
>       on it.  Can it be done?  If so, how?
 
     I doubt it for the new one.  There is no evidence that it blows
     up, and hydrogen (deuterium) tends to be very explosive.  You're
     also left with the observation that the electrode is very
     small, so there's not as much hydrogen hanging around for
     the fire as Dieter notes above.  In any case, I'd hope that they'd
     notice the cell burning.
 
     In the original experiment with the 1.3 cc cube, though, circumstances
     are different.  I would postulate that it boiled partly dry causing
     an explosion that blew the electrolyte out of the cell and then
     the deuterium evolving from the electrode burned very vigourously
     (ignited either spontaneously by the heating of the electrode as
     the deuterium escaped at high loading or ignited in the explosion)
     melting the electrode.  Since that solution is energetically possible,
     I find it likely.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
Date: Thu, 13 May 1993 23:52:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C6zMty.Buw@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>GIF87a...
 
     Don't ever do that again.  It is a complete waste time and effort.
     It is quite likely that no one will be able to use the image
     disregarding the irritation of watching control characters screw up
     the terminal emulator.
 
     To send an image, it is customary to uuencode the image and post
     that.  I'm quite sure world.std.com has uuencode, please use it.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Bruce Dunn /  How to convince a skeptic
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to convince a skeptic
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:46:23 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

I have not read the latest P and F paper (it is not yet at my library - I did
look, really I did), but can't restrain myself from jumping into the fray.
From the descriptions of the boiling cell mentioned on the net, it seems that
the most contentious issue is what happens after the cell starts boiling.  I
would like to propose a modest modification to the experimental setup which
would probably go far to clarifying what is going on.  I invite discussion as
to whether the proposed experimental setup is feasible and whether it really
would do what I think it would do.
 
1)  Get a suitable sized Styrofoam container, and fill it about half full of
water.  Weigh the container with its water.  Put the container next to the
electrolysis cell, and put your favorite thermometer in the water.
 
2) Connect the vent from the top of the electrochemical cell to a short piece
of tubing which is long enough to be plunged well under the surface of the
water in the Styrofoam container.  If you want to get fancy, the tubing can
be insulated.
 
This modification to the experimental setup should not be objectionable - the
basic electrochemical cell is completely unchanged - all that is being done
is to capture the material vented from the cell.
 
Run the experiment as done previously (remember, this is supposed to be a
repeatable effect).   While the cell is in its "non-boiling" phase, discharge
the evolved gases to the air.  Once the boiling starts, plunge the end of the
tubing into the water in the Styrofoam container.  Note the water temperature
and start your stopwatch.  As the evolved gases, steam and entrained water
droplets hit the cold water in the Styrofoam container, the steam will
condense and any entrained water will be deposited.  When the cell has boiled
dry, stop your stopwatch, remove the tubing from the Styrofoam container of
water and note the temperature of the water.  Weigh the Styrofoam container
of water again.
 
The following number can be estimated:
 
1) The amount of electrolyte in the cell at the initiation of boiling.  Since
the cell is dry at the end of the run, all the water was either expelled as
steam (or entrained droplets of liquid water) or was turned by electrolysis
into hydrogen and oxygen.  Over the relatively short boiling period,
electrolysis will not account for much of the water loss.  Steam and water
droplets are both trapped, and can be determined by the increase in weight of
the water in the Styrofoam container.  This number is likely to slightly
underestimate the electrolyte load due to electrolysis losses and loss of the
moisture content of the gases leaving the water trap, plus loss of any
splashes that escape the water trap container.
 
2) The amount of electrolyte entrained in the gas stream and expelled from
the cell without being turned into a vapor.  This can be determined by
looking for electrolyte species (lithium or sulfate) in the water trap.  If
all of the water left the cell as steam, there should be no electrolyte salts
in the water trap.  Note that such a measurement cannot tackle the problem of
whether the gas stream contains liquid water which has condensed from steam.
 
3) The amount of heat leaving the cell via the vent.  At the beginning of the
experiment, the water trap has a certain mass of water at a certain
temperature.  At the end of the experiment, the water trap has a larger
volume of water at a higher temperature.  Direct calculation, taking into
account the sensible heat of the electrolyte, will gives the number of joules
coming from the electrolysis cell.  It doesn't matter if the joules came over
in the form of steam or hot water.  Errors in the system all result in the
underestimation of the actual heat - these would include heat lost through
the tubing walls, through the walls of the Styrofoam container, in the warm
hydrogen and oxygen bubbling to the surface and exiting the water trap at
higher than the water trap temperatures and via splashes of water from the
water trap which might leave the water trap container.
 
Note that numbers 1 and 2 above are just to help understand the system.  They
are not needed to determine how much heat has left the cell.  During the
boiling phase, the cell starts at approximately 100 C, and ends at nearly the
same temperature (there is presumably a slight temperature rise as the
electrolyte gets more concentrated).  Since the cell is at nearly the same
temperature before and after the boiling phase, there are only two places the
evolved heat could have gone: by radiation, convection and conduction from
the cell surface, and by the expulsion through the vent of hot gases, hot
water, and steam.  Losses through the cell surface are stated to be much
smaller than losses through the vent and in a conservative calculation of
power output of the cell can be ignored.  If it was felt necessary, these
losses could be sharply reduced by jacketing the electrochemical cell with
insulation (a hot water jacket is probably not a good idea, as it would lead
to arguments about the possibility of the bath being hotter than the cell and
contributing energy).  The bulk of the cell's energy output goes to
generating steam (P and F view) or a messy mixture of steam and hot water
(skeptic's view).  Whichever is correct, the number of joules put out by the
cell can be directly estimated by inspection of the mass and temperature of
water in the water trap before and after the experiment.
 
 The estimate of cell energy output is straightforward and conservative.
Because of losses, the number derived will be less than the real output of
the cell.  I can't imagine a mechanism by which such a measurement would
overestimate the energy output of a cell (although of course I could be
proved wrong). For a skeptic-convincing experiment, the electrical power
going into the cell (presuming that people can agree how to measure it)
should be compared with the conservative estimate of cell power output
provided by the water trap.  No corrections should be made for electrolysis
losses or other losses of energy (the moment such corrections are applied,
discussions about the experiment immediately degenerate into arguments about
whether the corrections are appropriate in nature and magnitude).  If the
energy deposited in the water trap exceeds the electrical energy put into the
cell (again, presuming that people can agree on how to measure this
accurately), then this would be a strong piece of evidence for something
unusual happening inside the electrochemical cell.  If the excess is modest,
it would still be possible to argue that the cell has merely stored energy up
by some unknown mechanism, only to release it during the boiling phase.
However, if the excess energy exceeds the energy storage capability of
conventional chemical reactions, then we either have a new energy generation
process, or a new energy storage process (which by itself might be useful
even if the system is not a net source of energy - those who have read their
Heinlein may remember his treatment of the implications of the fictional
"Shipstone" high power density energy storage device).
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 04:08:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <C6zoz8.4KB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Subject: Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
Cameron Randale Bass  crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU)) writes:
 
==  ">GIF87a...
==     Don't ever do that again.  It is a complete waste time and effort.
==     It is quite likely that no one will be able to use the image
==     disregarding the irritation of watching control characters screw up
==     the terminal emulator.
==     To send an image, it is customary to uuencode the image and post
==     that.  I'm quite sure world.std.com has uuencode, please use it."
 
 
  My thanks to Dale Bass for directing me to correct my error.
 
  My apologies to all for my mistake.  :(
 
  The following is the corrected format [filename:   miles.uue   ]
 
======================== uuencoded GIF format =======================
begin 600 miles
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M=YJZ\R S+[K6GB>O<O1NYN[*T_14[UKPUT^)>^G6AP4>^.$3$!]3E]L?1AG
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7> :_HJ%YG V%8BQQ6+OY.Y+'-A0  #O:
 
end
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Dieter Britz /  No dissension in the camp
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No dissension in the camp
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 12:46:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Following my recent discussion of the latest Fleischmann and Pons paper, in
which I poured cold water on Douglas Morrison's and Tom Droege's explanation
of the excess heat in terms of the cigarette lighter effect, I have had quite
some private email on this, from various parties.
 
The one that concerns me and prompts this posting, suggests that Douglas
Morrison added my name at the end of his critique of the same paper, evidently
without consulting me, i.e. just for effect, or to lend credence to his views.
This flattering interpretation is incorrect. Douglas did consult me before
posting his critique, and I sent him some remarks; hence his acknowledgement
to me. I had not, at that time, made the simple calculations that I presented
in my own piece, being pressed for time with real work. All I told Douglas was
that one ought to look at the numbers, to make sure that his scenario was
realistic. It seems he chose not to do so, and had he done so, I would not
have had to pour the cold water. This oversight on his part, however, is a far
cry from dishonestly using my name for effect, etc. A novel thought in any
case, I am no eminence of any sort.
 
I have also been pointed at the Wilson et al paper, which goes into some
detail on that apparently steady 20 W/cm^3 excess heat of F&P's, which I sort
of accepted for the moment, for want of a good reason for not doing so. For
the sake of even-handedness, I should now check once again what the argument
in Wilson et al is, and report here.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Jeff Driscoll /  Flatow, NPR talk show
     
Originally-From: jdriscol@frisbee.Prime.COM (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Flatow, NPR talk show
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 12:46:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
from: jdriscol@frisbee.prime.com
 
I don't have access to sci.physics.fusion at the moment so this
may be old news.
 
About 3 weeks ago I was told that Ira Flatow of National Public Radio (NPR)
was going to do a show on Cold Fusion on his Science Friday talk show
on Friday May 14.   In the Boston Massachusetts area the show comes
on at 2pm and he usually handles one subject from 2 to 3pm and another from
3 to 4 pm.
He might have changed the date, I don't know.
This is kind of short notice, but I did not have access to email for the last
4 days.
 
 
            Jeff
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjdriscol cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Communicating with Mel Miles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@CompuServe.COM (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Communicating with Mel Miles
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 13:54:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones writes:
 
"Hopefully Dr. Miles will answer these questions here (since his letter was
posted here)."
 
I posted his letter in the network because he asked me to. I sometimes mail
him responses that I see on the network, but I do not catch every single
message. Mel does not follow the network, and he does not post messages. If
you wish to communicate with him, please write to:
 
Dr. Melvin Miles
Department of the Navy
Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division
China Lake, CA 93555-6001
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Posting
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Posting
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 13:54:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1025:
 
>Dieter Britz should know that we cold fusion people are NOT asking for large
>sums of federal money -- just a small fraction of the HF level of funding. We
>realize that there will soon be so much private money in the field that we
>won't need much money at all from Uncle Sam, but it would be nice if serious
 
No, I didn't know that, but I stand corrected. I am also happy to hear about
private money going into it. You may or may not remember that I have
consistently said that CNF should be done by small groups with moderate funds.
 
>Yes, Dieter, Harwell is about to sink like a stone, but I will
>go no further than that -- NO COMMENT till it happens, and it will!
 
Strong words, 'me boy', and I am supposed to hold my breath here. How you
propose to sink Harwell is an interesting question. Let's see how you do it.
I flatly refuse to believe that there are scientists out there who have done
worse than attempt a thorough verification, and failed, to the best of their
knowledge. I don't believe in conspiracies, generally. Why should anyone
conspire against cnf? Don't give me the hot fusion lobby bit, mate, that is
pure paranoia. What has happened is that some scientists have been forced to
attempt a verification by their bosses, and didn't have their hearts in the
job. I know one of those. SO maybe these people have not tried too hard to
find the right conditions, if such there be.
 
>You say, Dieter, that "cold fusion, being (at best) at the moment in an
>exploratory phase.." Wrong! Cold fusion is now in the DEVELOPMENT phase. You
 
So you say. I have only evidence of exploration; some doubtful verifications,
some few solid, quality positives, many negatives. And my publications
statistics tell me that most scientists have lost interest. Which is why I can
get a bit of real work done again these days - not so many papers to put into
the bibliography per week.
 
>The sacred gates
>of your bibliography are no indication whatsoever of the reality and vitality
 
Come on, Gene, you are being snide. I know that the bibliography could be a
different animal and some reckon I am going too far in my criteria for
inclusion; but on the other hand, that is also a strength of it. I note that
the believers quote it; why, I even get favourable mention in your book. That,
of course, was before I got too impartial and lost your favour.
 
>I think you are, Dieter, living in a complete fantasy world, much as I am sure
>you think I inhabit such a world. I recently saw your posting that included
>this assertion: "What the TB's are dead wrong about is their belief that we
>skeptics are out to 'get' cnf. Almost all of us would be delighted if it were
>true. We just require convincing evidence, and have not seen it yet." I don't
>know which skeptics you are talking about, but I have seen very few -- apart
>from you and once-upon-a-time Tom Droege -- who evidenced such a "hope" for
>cold fusion. Cold fusion has been assualted by armies of scoundrels. If you
 
Did you read this before posting it? Armies of scoundrels? Why do you think
most of us are here in this group? Would we stay in a group on, e.g. perpetual
motion (some say we are in one)? We are arguing real science - those of us,
that is, who are not just interested in semantic battles, or grinding
commercial axes.
 
>and I will record, catalog, and immortalize
>their every misdeed in BOOK II, which I hope to write after dealing with much
>more important business -- CF development. Your big blue-ones --if they are
>blue -- will open wide when you see the filth and perfidy of these villains in
 
I look forward to the book, and it will go into cnf-bks {:]. They are brown.
 
>So 'me boy,' go right on thinking that this is some grand genteel tea party,
>at which we are all expected to play by gentlemanly rules, some of which you
>presume to lay down. It ain't. The science bigots made the game dirty. Read
 
Huh? Where do I lay down rules? Quoting Mitch, can you give me the reference?
If I say so myself, I am not an overly self-assertive person, and I don't lay
down much at all.
 
On maltreatment of cnf I will agree with you as far as this: I have been
persuaded that there is a correlated (but I don't believe organised,
conspiring) effort to keep funding from the field; this is too bad. There are
also two journals, viz. Science and Nature, which have their doors closed to
cnf papers. So what? They are not even too appropriate to such work anyway,
and there are lots of journals, even quality journals with quality referees
like J. Electroanal. Chem. (with 30-40 cnf papers), which will accept such
work. So why beat your head at the closed doors?
 
>virtually all TB's didn't believe CF at all for a
>long time -- and even now find it rather unsettling, albeit true. "Skeptics,"
>on the other hand, have mostly "disbelieved," from the first several weeks
 
That is a generalisation, and quite untrue, I think.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Dieter Britz /  RE: No dissension in the camp
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: No dissension in the camp
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 15:29:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
When I posted my defense of Douglas Morrison's acknowledgement to me this
morning, I didn't know something I know now. It would have struck those of
you who are still awake as a bit strange that Douglas should have ignored my
tip-off about the lack of fuel for the cigarette lighter effect. I sent him
comments in two batches; the first from this machine, containing advice that
I later found he already knew anyway; the second, and main body of my advice,
after reading his 4th draft MS, on Tuesday morning. At that time, this machine
was down for maintenance and, wanting to get my comments to Douglas quickly,
I logged into another machine I have access to, and tried to "elm" from it.
It runs under (ugh!) Unix, with which I am not familiar. It was this posting
that, among some more minor things, contained the warning about the lack of
fuel. Well, you know what's coming: I fouled up, and I find just now that
this email never reached him, it bounced back to me.
 
So when he thanks me in his piece, he is being kind, thanking me just for
trying to help; he already knew what I said in the first email. He never did
get the one with the bad news. So he is not making an empty acknowledgement
for effect, as has been suggested to me, nor is he blithely ignoring my
advice. Maybe he should have chacked the numbers in any case, but this lies
outside his expertise. The same can be said for FPH, who should have made up
their minds before publishing, whether they should expected a gamma or neutron
peak at 2.22 or 2.45 MeV; it was outside their expertise, and they didn't.
One of the problems with this area: it is interdisciplinary. I could now raise
the hackles of a few people here, by continuing that thought: there have in
fact been some interdisciplinary teams attempting verifications: almost all
of them get negatives... with the exception of that mammoth Indian team.
Ah well.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@FNAL.GO /  Burning Deuterium
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Burning Deuterium
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 18:44:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Somehow everyone seems to think that I proposed that burning deuterium was
the source of the heat in the P&F boiling cells.  Someone pleas forward a
message where I wrote that.
 
The trouble is, that you all do not read carefully and jump to conclusions.  I
know I do!  I think it is a characteristic of this medium.  But there is a nice
audit trail, so it is easy to defend.
 
What I did propose, gentle readers, was a process where the energy of the
"cigarett lighter" effect could be greatly amplified!
 
When the boiling, roiling (like that word), cell exposes the cathode to the
D2 O2 mix in the cell, there is a "cigarette lighter" explosion, and come of
the liquid is blown out of the cell unvaporized.
 
My view on this is prejudiced by watching the cell video.  I can see things
happening near the end that confirm the above theory.  The entire cell contents
seem to pulse upward, just like there was a small explosion.
 
Please note above, that I do not mean that energy is amplified, it is the
effect on the P&F calculation that is amplified!  A very small amount of
energy from a "cigarette lighter" explosion, can remove a very large amount
of water from the cell and cause an even large energy calculation error.
 
Since everyone does not read everything, I will repost something like this
every time it is repeated that I think that Deuterium burning explains the
P&F energy claim directly.  It does not.  It does not.  It does not. ...
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No! No! Dieter, not my mechanism.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No! No! Dieter, not my mechanism.
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 06:16:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930513121752.20a006a5@FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnal.gov writes:
>Dieter Britz writes:
>
>"Both Tom Droege and Douglas Morrison seek the source of excess heat in the
>burning of the deuterium as it comes out of the Pd rod, ..."
>
>No! No! That is only one minor mechanism.
>
>My number one bet is that when the cathode is exposed, the D/O mix
>*explodes* and blows large chunks of electrolyte out of the cell.
>
>Something very like this can be seen when the video is observed.
 
     I'm curious enough now that the paper is out (at least I hope
     we'll have the paper soon) to want to see the video.  Does anyone
     have a early-generation copy of the video that they could be persuaded to
     copy for me?
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A Miracle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Miracle
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 06:36:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930513164927.20a006a5@FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnal.gov writes:
>REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART III
>
>          *****************************************
>          * A MIRACLE DISCOVERED IN THE P&F DATA  *
>          *****************************************
 
>Somehow, by what looks like a $$$miracle$$$ to me, the "cold fusion" process
>switches seamlessly from 144.5 watts to 11.2 watts just as the cell runs dry
>without the slightest transient being shown on the curve of figure 11.
 
     It seems like a much bigger miracle that they were able to
     keep stable electrolyte contact with the electrolyte
     boiling away and the electrode probably in film boiling at
     some point.
 
>To those who spend all their time at terminals, and have thus somewhat lost
>track with reality,
 
     This isn't reality?  I must get out more often.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / T Neustaedter /  cmsg cancel <C6zMty.Buw@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <C6zMty.Buw@world.std.com>
Date: 14 May 1993 07:55:23 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

Cancelling a posting of a binary file. This file wedges terminals, and has
been reposted in uuencoded form by the author, so there is no loss in
deleting it. The author is not familiar enough with the network to cancel
the posting himself.
 
I'm not sure what this does to the news-mail gateway, but if anyone on
the mailing list sees this, please ignore it. It merely cleans up the
usenet newsgroup a little.
        Tarl
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / T Neustaedter /  Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
     
Originally-From: tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones [Part II - GIF binary image]
Date: 14 May 1993 08:01:18 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

I've taken the liberty of forging a cancel for the binary version of
Swartz's gif file (the uuencoded version is still there). It's probably too
late for those of you on the mailing list, but it will make a big difference
for those reading the discussion via netnews on primitive terminals.
        Tarl
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / nod sivad /  Re: P&F analyses
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F analyses
Date: Fri, 14 May 93 17:42:55 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
>(1) You make the assumption that if P&F get the same effect with H2O (as
>opposed to D2O) that your "cigarette lighter effect" is proven.    Consider
>this possibly--the excess heat is real; the excess heat is *not* caused by
>fusion.  Think about it.  (P&F are in a real bind on this one.  But you
>ought to consider another rationale for why they are not using H2O as a
>control.)
 
>(2)  Using a larger mass of Pd is OK, but the excess heat is released in a
>process that occurs at the *surface*.  Try to maximize the surface area.
 
 
>Best regards to all,
 
>John Farrell
 
 
Sounds like a HINT to me. ;-)  Maybe it's time to move our focus from
CF to HC (Hot Chemistry).
 
 
                                                me
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@FNAL.GO /  I did it again
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I did it again
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:16:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gosh, there I did it again.  I just put up a subtle explanation that really
says that the cell dry marker is at the wron place on figure 11.  But everyone
is going to read that I say charged Palladium has a critical point at 100 C.
 
I should know that it does not pay with this group to point out a few facts,
and expect you all to piece together a rational conclusion.  But some do.  It
is for those that I write.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Mitchell Swartz finds helium!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell Swartz finds helium!
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 05:01:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell did a good job informing us about the helium content of the
atmosphere.  Some of us have known about that for a long time.  Now
what does that have to do with issues currently under discussion here?
First we note that the fractional helium content of the atmosphere does
not translate directly into an equivalent fractional concentration in
a Pd sample.  Careful experimental technique (with proper controls)
could establish an increase in helium content resulting from CF at
concentrations below that in the atmosphere.
 
If contamination by atmospheric helium were to be a likely cause for
a false positive in a CF experiment, it is much more likely that
the contamination would appear in evolved gases in contact for extended
periods with glass.  While I know of no data that indicates that
helium diffuses into palladium at an unusually high rate, it is well
known that helium diffuses into, out of, and through glass.  Thus it
appears to me that while atmospheric helium can in no way account
for the negative outcomes of the searches for helium in palladium
cathodes, it could cause false positives in the Miles experiments.
 
Mitchell, haven't you just shot yourself in the foot?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  What Hagelstein thinks about helium
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Hagelstein thinks about helium
Subject: What Hagelstein thinks about 4He.
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 05:01:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Subject: What Hagelstein thinks about 4He.
 
There seems to be something like a consensus forming amoung CF advocates
here abouts that says 4He is established as the reaction product by
experiment and by some blessing from theorists.  Often Peter Hagelstein's
name gets mentioned in this regard, so I think it is appropriate to
reread his views on the question.  To that end I have extracted a few
passages from Hagelstein's review of the Nagoya conference as posted on
this net by Jed and Mitchell.  The following are direct quotes, with
enough context, I hope, to convey a true sense of what was written.
 
"It has been suggested that the {4}He branch of the *dd*-fusion
reaction is somehow favored, and several searches for {4}He have
been made.  The conventional {4}He branch yields a 24 MeV gamma,
which is not observed when heat is produced.  The reaction energy
would have to go elsewhere to be qualitatively consistent, and many
in the field believe that energy transfer to the lattice occurs.
Many measurements have been performed seeking {4}He in the cathode
after the experiment; my impression is that it is simply not there
quantitatively by many orders of magnitude."
 
"There have been some efforts seeking {4}He in the gas stream
produced during electrolysis; Miles focused the attention of the
community on this issue last year at Como when he claimed the
observation of {4}He which at its highest levels might account for
roughly 10% of the excess energy."
 
"Miles presented a paper at Nagoya{24} which gave an update of the
groups recent effort, which have been hindered by an inability to
obtain significant excess heat."
 
"G. Preparata{63} has been working on theory for coherent *dd*-fusion
reactions; a major goal of the theory is to account for the heat
production by a modified *dd*-fusion reaction where the {4}He branch
dominates, and the gamma emission is replaced by energy transfer with
the lattice. .....
 
In some sense, this is a version of the "classical" cold fusion model,
which would be essentially forced somehow to be true if Fleischmann's
initial conjecture that the effect was due to fusion were accepted. I
consider this general type of model to be essentially the only game in
town if it is assumed (following Fleischmann's initial conjecture) that
the reaction mechanism must be fusion.  I spent 6 months working on it
myself in 1989."     {{Note the past tense.}}
 
"However, none of this makes the fundamental problems associated with
screening and modification of reaction pathways any easier to solve."
 
"A number of theorists, including myself, have gone away from fusion
reaction mechanisms.  The motivation for this is to avoid the
coulomb barrier (if possible) and to find reactions with signatures
that hopefully more closely match the experimental observations."
 
"I think that progress in this field is hindered by the absence of
even a rudimentary understanding of the basic reaction mechanisms
involved (there are of course theories, but to date there is no
positive experimental confirmation of any proposed theory.)  At
some point, the principal experimentalists in the field simply
must take this issue seriously."
 
If Peter Hagelstein has dropped the reaction *dd*-fusion to form
{4}He from further consideration, and (as I read him) gives little
credence to the Miles results;  why is it that some parties assert
that this issue is resolved in favor of helium as a principle
reaction product?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@FNAL.GO /  Miracle #2
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miracle #2
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 22:16:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART IV
 
This part will continue the consideration of the section of the paper dealing
with boiling cells.  Readers are referred to part I for background.
 
                ***********************************
                *    ANOTHER MIRACLE DISCOVERED   *
                ***********************************
 
Examination continues of the curve of figure 11 from the paper.
 
8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
   cell is boiled dry?
 
There is a problem reading the axis labels as the fax is still the only paper
available.  It appears that the cell remains very close to 100 C for 10000
seconds after the Cell dry label.  Note that 100 C is a likely temperature for
a water system as long as there is water present, and there is sufficient heat
input to produce boiling.  However, for a dry Dewar system to stabilize to of
order 1 C (my estimate) for three hours requires either a very good control
system or a $$$miracle$$$.  The curve shows a slight upward trend which ends
in a break in the curve after which the temperature drops precipitously.  Note
this is an open loop system.  The dewar is losing about 11.2 watts by
radiation according to the calibration used in the P&F calculation.  To
maintain constant temperature the "anomalous heat" input must be then exactly
11.2 watts.  An estimate for the dewar is 10 grams water equivalent.  This
gives 41 joules per degree change.  Thus the indicated stability to 1 C
indicates no more that a 41 joule difference between the energy in and the
energy out over 10000 seconds.  The energy out is 11.2*10000 or 112000 joules.
This means that the match between energy in and energy out is 41/112000 or
0.04%.  This would appear to require a $$$miracle$$$ to happen by chance.
 
Doing the best estimation possible with the fax, the temperature then drops 55
C in of order 600 seconds.  Using the above cell water equivalent, this is an
average of 41*55/600 or 4 watts.  This would then be consistent with the known
(11.2 watts at 100 C) cell constant.  A slight curvature can be seen in the
temperature of the fall so that this fall time can be used to verify that the
cell constant is close to that claimed by P&F.  Note that the water equivalent
cannot be much higher, or the cell would take much longer to cool off.  A
smaller value would just increase the size of the $$$miracle$$$.
 
This implies that a formerly charged (it started losing D2 when the loss of
cell contents broke the electrolytic path), dry, Palladium cathode has a
critical point at very close to 100 C where a lower temperature causes it to
produce more heat, and a higher temperature causes it to reduce heat output.
The alternative is a $$$miracle$$$.  Why should charged Palladium have any
sepcial preference for 100 C?  I leave this to those who know about such
things.
 
There is always the possibility that the "Cell dry" label is in the wrong
place.  This would explain the temperature stability.  If it is moved to the
fast cool down point, then the "anomalous heat" becomes near zero or negative.
 
It is concluded that the cell constant is within a factor of 3 or so of that
claimed by P&F by practical estimation using the information from the curve.
The stability of the cell temperature during the time between Cell dry and the
cool down is such that it defies explanation, or points to a measurement
error.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  GodTom /  DROP
     
Originally-From: gtkurdy@access.digex.net (GodTom)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DROP
Date: 14 May 1993 13:37:42 -0400
Organization: TommyVision Corporation, Washington, DC USA

 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengtkurdy cudlnGodTom cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 /  DROEGE@FNAL.GO /  There are quality positive workers.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: There are quality positive workers.
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 23:02:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As I chew on the P&F paper, it seems easy work to find problems.  But some have
done good work, and McKubre still leads the list for me.  Even if in the end
he is shot down by some subtle error, his reputation will remain untarnished
with me because of his good experimental design and careful work.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Joshua Levy /  Re: No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
     
Originally-From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No helium in P&F Pd rods: references
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 19:49:49 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

Steve Jones wrote:
>==sj The matter [He-4] is thoroughly discussed in John Huizenga's book, "Cold
>==sj Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century" on pages 129 - 137.  He
>==sj provides details and references, the most prominent seems to me to be:
>==sj Fusion Technology 18 (1990) 659.  He concludes:
>==sj
>==sj "The whole helium-4 fiasco can be safely summarized with considerable
>==sj confidence; no helium was found in the cathode of the [P&F] active
>==sj  cell above the background level."
 
Mitchell Swartz replied:
>    Not quite, Prof. Jones.  If the book makes that statement then
>  the book appears to be incorrect because how could one
>  expect to see He-4 levels above the "background level" in any non-fully
>  prepared experiment.
 
I think the Pd rods in question were from P&F.  If P&F delivered rods
which were fully prepared, then your objection is incorrect.  If P&F
dilivered rods which were not fully prepared, then they were creating
a meaningless experiment, and wasting everyone's time, and not doing
what they said they would.
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
Note: my books are still packed, so I'm still working from memory.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.14 / Bob Lewandowski /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 21:27:03 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <39D2A63CAA7F20945B@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) in FD 1013:
>
>>In article <440015A64D3F210D62@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>>We can all afford such equipment. The problem is no doubt data volume. One
>>>should be sampling at about 10 kHz.
>
>>Why?
>
>>I must be missing something in this whole sampling rate business. Aren't
>>the power sources in these experiments supplying DC energy only? If this
>>is the case then a narrow band _loss-less_ low pass filter placed between
>>the power source and the cell will limit the bandwidth of the voltage
and/
>>or current fluctuations due to variations of load impedance presented to
>>the power supply by the cell. A high quality, large valued, low leakage
>>capacitor would be a good start. By monitoring the voltage and current
>>between the power supply and the filter the sampling requirements can be
>>easily reduced to a few Hz, or less. The need for highly coincident
timing
>>of voltage and current samples is also greatly reduced by bandwith
>>limiting.
>
>You are indeed missing something: the whole discussion of the last few
weeks
>on this topic, that's what. All of it is of course available in the fusion
>archives at the vm1.nodak.edu node by ftp, but for you, a brief precis of
the
>problem:
>
 
I shouldn't have made my comments in the form of a question, but as a
statement which was their intent.  Did you read my comments at all?
 
What you are supplying to the cell is only DC, and if you do filter the
output of the power supply with a *LOSS-LESS* filter of narrow enough
bandwidth then the effects of load variation can be eliminated.  A
loss-less filter is one that by definition does not dissipate *any*
energy, it merely stores and supplies it to the varying load. A large
value (a significant fraction of a farad), very high quality, low leakage,
low dissipation factor, low ESR capacitor is what is required in this
instance. Not a trivial requirement in itself. The dynamic variations of
the load impedance of the cell are then virtually eliminated, because at
the rate of change that they represent, the capacitor is a virtual zero
impedance compared to the cell resistance. The ideal operating
conditions for a constant current supply is to drive a zero impedance
load, there is then no compliance voltage variation that compromises
the less than infinite output impedance of a real constant current supply.
It is very difficult to design a wide bandwidth constant current supply,
achieving the "infinite" output impedance over a wide bandwidth is the
hard part. It is easy to build a supply that has a 'little more than
infinite' output impedance at some frequency. That is, one that has a
'negative' output resistance at some frequency. Dynamically such a current
source has ringing and overshoot in its response to a step change in load
impedance. For inductive or resonant appearing loads it may even oscillate.
 
>The kind of programmable power supply as used by McKubre and set to its
LOWEST
>bandwidth by him for some reason, together with the undisputed fact (i.e.
>undisputed even by the staunch defenders of all positive results) that the
>electrolysis cell has large cell resistance fluctuations going up into the
kHz
>range, mean that this Kepco supply will not deliver a constant current.
The
>current will fluctuate at those same kHz-range frequencies, and so will
the
>total cell voltage. If you then go and calculate the mean power from
samples
>taken at long intervals (e.g. 4 min) from filtered signals, you certainly
>underestimate power going into the cell. This is not under dispute, and it
>seems McKubre has missed an error source. I have said several times that
he -
>and everybody using these Kepcos - should set the Kepco at its HIGHEST
>bandwidth, to ensure a controlled current.
 
The problem you describe above is exactly why passive loss less filtering
must be used to make measurements of the DC power to the load. Otherwise
you are at the mercy of the loop dynamics of the regulating loop within
the power supply, and the formidable problem of making real time
measurements of the v(t)*i(t) product.
 
With a large value capacitor across the cell, the voltage fluctuations
are much slower and the peak-to-peak variations are reduced, allowing for
lower rate measurements of the voltage and current to the cell / capacitor
combination.
 
Setting the power supply to its widest bandwidth setting does not guarantee
the constancy of the current under dynamic load variations, it depends on
the stability of the power supply under these conditions and the impedance
of the load over the entire frequency range that the regulating loop
is effective. The output current from such a power supply is extremely
difficult to transduce over a wide bandwidth. Inserting a resistor in
series with the output and measuring the voltage drop is the usual
technique. For currents in the range of 1 amp or more this is a problem.
The resistor value must be is large as the power dissipated within it at
the full load will allow. As a result it is subject to significant self
heating which introduces large temperature coefficient of resistance
variations. If a small value of resistance is used the problem becomes
one of reducing the parasitic series inductance of such a resistor.
A wire wound resistor is not suitable for such an application due to its
inductance. For a simple example of the inductance probelem,  a 1 ohm,
1 Watt resistor carbon composition resistor, with 0.5 inch leads, has an
inductance of about 30 nH. The inductive reactance is equal to the
resistance at 5MHz. Which makes it marginally suitable as a current sense
resistor at about 500kHz where its phase error is 5.7 degrees. A resistor
of the same general size with a resistance of .1 ohms would have the same
order of inductance and would be marginal at about 50kHz.  As an additional
data point, a 1/8W carbon composition resistor (total length of body and
leads about .3 in.) has an inductance of about 5nH. An additional problem
with very low value current sense resistances is that the full scale
voltage developed across them is very low. For the .1 ohm example above,
the full scale voltage at 1 amp is 100 mv, at 1/10th of full scale the
current sense voltage is 10 mv.  Thermal emfs, noise, and spurious signals
of the order 10 microvolts will produce errors and effects that are at 0.1%
of the desired output.
 
>
>Having said this, I also need to say that at this time, we do not know the
>magnitude of the error, so McKubre's results, even at the small long-time
>value of 2-3% excess, just might be OK. This needs to be determined. But
>certainly, there is an error source that has to be quantified. Now McKubre,
>judging from what I have seen of his writing, is a sober and honest fellow,
>who does not throw his hat into the air at the slightest wiggle of excess
>heat, and grabs his trumpet; like Steve Jones, he looks for errors, wanting to
>make sure he has something real. I also hear that he now lurks in this group,
>so I expect he is working on this problem.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 
Do anyone have a feel for the average resistance (V avg / I dc) of one of
these cells and the peak-to-peak voltage variations that are seen in these
experiments? Knowing this and an idea of the highest frequency components
of the voltage variations one could determine the minimum capacitor value
that might be usefull for this application.
 
---Bob
 
 
--
            Bob Lewandowski
    Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM
     Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368
      UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew
  U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 279G / Everett WA  98206
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblew cudfnBob cudlnLewandowski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Review of Taubes Book
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@CompuServe.COM (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of Taubes Book
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 05:01:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
*** The Short Life and Coming Hard Times of Bad Publishing ***
 
 
                        BAD SCIENCE: The Short Life
                    and Very Hard Times of Cold Fusion
                Random House, June, 1993, 461 pages, $25.00
                                by Gary Taubes
 
 
                A Critical Review by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
                                author of
    Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor
 
 
        The promotional flyer, the very first page of the reviewer's
"uncorrected proof" copy of Bad Science, shouts this small-minded book's
preposterous bottom line:  "In a fast-paced news-breaking account that reads
like a novel, noted science journalist Gary Taubes brings to life one of the
greatest scientific frauds of our times."
 
        Remarkably, author Gary Taubes contends that cold fusion research is a
wide-spread scientific fraud perpetrated by thousands of scientists, most of
whom are obsessed with a quest for wealth and fame from a non-existent
phenomenon. Because of his stubborn belief in this alleged *fraud*, Taubes
dismisses the continuing scientific efforts of thousands of cold fusion
research scientists and engineers in over a dozen countries and at scores of
institutions -- including the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), and numerous
corporations -- mostly Japanese, but a growing number of U.S. companies. That
accusation of globe-girdling fraud is a pretty big tale to tell, especially
when you are talking about the likes of NTT in Japan, one of the largest
telecommunications giants in the world. In late 1992 NTT announced that one of
its research groups had found a major piece evidence to support cold fusion --
helium-4 found by high-resolution mass-spectrometry.
 
        Taubes plays the old "Big Lie" routine, this time masqueraded as
science journalism. He says that the "few researchers" still working in the
field aren't motivated to acknowledge negative results, because that would
terminate their funding. Thus, he says, cold fusion promises to be "an endless
loop," a fraudulent one at that.
 
        Taubes is bold and blunt in his summation: "Within six months of the
announcement of cold fusion [on March 23, 1989], its public life had
deteriorated into a dismaying struggle against reality in which the believers
explained the insipid state of their science with all manner of causes, none
of which was as simple as the reality itself. Cold fusion -- as defined by
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, or Steve Jones, or as modified by John
Bockris or Edmund Storms or Carol Talcott, or Bob Huggins-Stanford, or
whomever -- did not exist. It never had."
 
        The Bad Science promotion says "no one was able to duplicate the
findings" of Pons and Fleischmann, and that is exactly what Taubes says in his
book.  Mr. Taubes, a science journalist who claims at least superficially to
be very thorough (he said he interviewed 260 people through November 1992),
apparently forgot to check the scores of technical papers on cold fusion that
have been published since September, 1989 in Fusion Technology, a journal of
the American Nuclear Society. He also forgot to examine many other fine
technical journals, including Physics Letters A, the Japanese Journal of
Applied Physics, half-a dozen conference Proceedings, etc., etc., etc. Just as
Bad Science  is about to go to press, Physics Letters A of May 3, 1993 has a
peer-reviewed cold fusion calorimetry paper by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann.
 
        The article describes convincing evidence of massive excess energy of
non-chemical magnitude, including reproducible boiling conditions in cold
fusion cells that generate several kilowatts of excess energy per cubic
centimeter of palladium cathode. This work was presented openly by Drs. Pons
and Fleischmann last October at the Third International Conference on Cold
Fusion in Nagoya, Japan.  Video tapes of the boiling cells were shown
publicly. Mr. Taubes wasn't there, nor was he at the Second Annual
International Conference on Cold Fusion in Como, Italy in 1991. It is highly
unlikely that Mr. Taubes will attend the Fourth International Conference on
Cold Fusion in December, 1993, which will be sponsored in Hawaii by EPRI, the
research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry.
 
        The promotional flyer of Bad Science says that Random House will send
the author on a tour to include at least New York, Washington, D.C., Salt Lake
City, and Los Angeles. The publisher plans to advertise the book, in The New
York Times (Science Times). Strange, because in the November 17, 1992 issue of
Science Times there appeared the revealing article by Andrew J. Pollack, "Cold
Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot in Japan," which elaborates the vitality of
the field, while also quoting American negativists of Mr. Taubes's ilk. Bad
Science is certainly part of that derision, as was Mr. Taubes's 1990
unsubstantiated and later disproved accusation in Science magazine that cold
fusion cells were probably deliberately spiked with tritium at Texas A&M
University. Allegations of fraud in the adulteration of cold fusion cells with
tritium are dredged up at length *again *in Taubes's sordid and tedious
account in Bad Science. A high-risk game for Mr. Taubes, one would think,
because tritium has since been found in numerous cold fusion experiments at
dozens of laboratories ranging from the Bhabha Atomic Research Center to Los
Alamos National Laboratory, to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Some
laboratories have achieved *completely reproducible* tritium generation.
 
                        *** A Simple Message ***
 
        The message of Bad Science is as simple as it is pernicious: nuclear
reactions at low energy (temperature) are impossible, therefore all the
experimental results from cold fusion experiments are either: (A) The result
of experimental incompetence or (B) Fraud. The part of the book in which we
are told what happened after the Utah announcement of March 23, 1989 is called
"Book II: A Collective Derangement of Minds."  That is another theme of
Taubes: people who came to believe that there was anything to the evidence for
cold fusion were captured by a global scientific hallucination, they were
drawn to the exciting hunt for excess heat and nuclear products and were
ensnared in mass delusion. To Mr. Taubes, it was only the "smart" fellows at
Caltech, MIT, Harwell Laboratory, and Yale, etc. who got it right,  did "good"
experiments, decided cold fusion was nonsense after they "failed" to confirm
Pons and Fleischmann, and then left the field exhausted and disgusted.
 
        Mr. Taubes tells the cold fusion saga in chronological order, but he
mysteriously manages to arrive at page 400, still not out of cold fusion's
first year! From page 400 to page 423 he covers another year to March 1991, by
page 427 Taubes is in June 1992, and then he devotes only one more page in the
"Epilogue" to everything thereafter. This is a measure of how Taubes views
cold fusion -- he thinks it lost all credibility in 1989, but it continues to
live on in some weird self-perpetuating, near-death state. Taubes calls cold
fusion "a small, however perverse, subject" and yet he almost seems to regret
that he had to relegate what would have been several hundred more pages of
main text to 40 pages of detailed chapter notes.  There Mr. Taubes places what
he calls "second or even third level of information, speculation, perspective,
and humor in which readers can delve if they choose." Taubes claims that the
"social phenomenon" of cold fusion "peaked" in May, 1989 and has gone downhill
since then. This proves that Taubes doesn't know what he is talking about. It
is certainly his *wish* to see cold fusion dead or dying, but that is not
reality.  In this death wish he is not alone; he has many compatriots in the
pack-journalism community, which is to say much of journalism. To suggest in
1993 that cold fusion is "asymptotically dying" requires enormous chutzpah or
mental confusion, or both. On both accounts Mr. Taubes is well-endowed.
 
        In his very first sentence Mr. Taubes makes two assertions and then
spends the rest of his book egregiously violating his own precepts! This is a
marvelous joke on Taubes, who is ever the glib dispenser of jibes at others,
though it will be not too much longer before Taubes realizes that the joke is
on him this time.  He writes: "The cold fusion episode teaches two lessons
that can be applied as meaningfully to journalism as to science: 1. Do your
research, because nothing is as simple as it seems. 2. Make sure you've got
the story right before you publish." Taubes neither got the story of cold
fusion right before he published, nor did he realize that cold fusion is not
as "simple as it seems." He bought hook, line, and sinker the scientific
establishment's incorrect, self-satisfied view of cold fusion as "pathological
science." That anti-scientific view was unleashed by a relatively small band
of like-minded media manipulators and negativists.
 
        Taubes confidently explains it all. He says that many cold fusion
scientists seem to have "renounced a life of science for one of faith." He
says that an atmosphere of "blind faith" pervades cold fusion. But Taubes
himself has a foolish "faith" that "all is known" about what goes on in
hydrided metal lattices, a simplistic view that boggles the mind. He has this
comment, "All those cold fusion proponents who were claiming that something
magical happens within the lattice of the palladium were strenuously
neglecting the fact that what happens in the lattice was already understood."
The hydrided palladium lattice is nothing, if not incredibly complex. It has
superconducting properties, unusual bonding characteristics, etc., which are
by no means well understood. The nuclear effects that have now unambiguously
emerged from cold fusion investigations, are an entirely new dimension of
solid state physics.
 
        Taubes has another peculiar "faith" -- faith that nuclear physicists
know that there can't possibly be anything of a nuclear character brewing
within the palladium lattice. He writes, "..the absence of neutrons strongly
implied, if one had any faith in nuclear physics, that the tritium was not
formed in the cell at all. Rather it must have come together, so to speak,
elsewhere and entered the cell in a more circuitous manner." Mr. Taubes, means
fraud -- deliberate spiking of cells at Texas A&M. What we have from Taubes is
a shocking new operating condition in science: Beware of reporting results
that in any way seem to grossly conflict with "accepted" wisdom -- especially
if the results are of a sporadic character. Because if you do report such new
findings, muck-raking "science journalists," egged on by the rigid
establishment, may accuse you of fraud.
 
                        *** Character Assassination ***
 
        Bad Science is replete with extended character assassinations. Stanley
Pons bears the brunt of much of Taubes's fury, although Steven Jones of BYU is
also mercilessly reviled. In fact, Taubes gives credence to the long suspicion
by Fleischmann and Pons that Jones "borrowed" their ideas, contrary to the
prevailing impression circulated by Frank Close and others that Fleischmann
and Pons were energized and egged-on by their initial visit to the BYU-Jones
laboratory.  Martin Fleischmann is attacked less than Pons or Jones. He fares
better, but not that much.
 
        It is very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in Taubes's
account of the University of Utah-BYU interaction, but he does build a case
that may be convincing to many people. He writes, "The evidence, oddly enough,
for Pons and Fleischmann's version of the events is persuasive." He suggests
that Jones, in effect, forced the early public disclosure by the University of
Utah as he attempted to gain credit for his own meager neutron results and
supposed origination of electrochemically induced fusion ideas. Taubes uses a
lot of strong words and phrases for Jones in this connection: "the piracy
scenario which Pons and Fleischmann later constructed," "...he [Pons] was
being robbed," rumors of "scientific larceny." Taubes notes that Jones in his
denials of misconduct, "...was the man who doth protest too much." No doubt,
Steven Jones will find much to criticize and be outraged about. Dr. Jones
apparently allowed Taubes to view his journals and notebooks, but Taubes turns
these against him.
 
        Taubes is brutal about cold fusion theorist MIT Professor Peter
Hagelstein. He says Hagelstein "concocted" a flimsy, flawed theory to explain
non-existent cold fusion. He cites an unnamed researcher who describes the
"Hagelstein myth" as a "myth of scientific creativity warring in one person
against morality.." Taubes's style is to use the words of others to disparage
those he faults. So he has MIT Professor Ronald Parker, then head of the
Plasma Fusion Center say about Hagelstein, "Some people are geniuses if you
just measure their IQ, but that doesn't necessarily make people creative, or
give people the verve to discover or be curious. So it is only a necessary
condition, being smart. It doesn't guarantee success." This is so ironic,
because Parker was one of the most obtuse, uncreative scientists in cold
fusion. Parker is a bureaucrat of the tokamak program, who defended his big
project against new ideas with the intensity and ruthlessness one has come to
expect from such people.  We read of an anonymous physicist at MIT who says of
Hagelstein's cold fusion papers that they reminded him of one of his students
in an undergraduate course "who couldn't do physics to save her life." We also
read that DOE's William Happer in the Office of Energy Research thought of
Hagelstein's ideas as "crazy, absolutely crazy."
 
        Of Texas A&M University cold fusion researcher Professor John Bockris
Taubes says:  somewhere along in his scientific career he "began propagating
flamboyant errors in lieu of good science."
 
        He cites physics Nobel laureate Norman Ramsey of Harvard as "the most
credulous" of the DOE panel members who investigated cold fusion. He says that
while Ramsey "was off hiking," panel co-chairman Huizenga had spent the summer
of 1989 poring over cold fusion reports. Ramsey, says Taubes, wanted to "go
soft" on Pons and Fleischmann.
 
        Taubes praises journalists who ignored cold fusion even in its early
days, and he mocks those who have given it any credence. To Taubes, Jerry
Bishop of The Wall Street Journal, who has written extensively about cold
fusion, is merely a "gullible" journalist who is singularly responsible for
the continuation of cold fusion research. Says Taubes, "With the help of The
Wall Street Journal cold fusion began to play like a nuclear version of the
emperor's new clothes."
 
        Bad Science is so permeated with offenses, it is difficult to catalog
them. We find sick anecdotes, such as reference to the announcement of cold
fusion falling on the sixth anniversary of Utah artificial heart patient
Barney Clark's death. Taubes revels in scatological descriptions of all
manner, such as the Caltech team's reference to Steve Jones's Mother Earth
Soup electrochemical solution as "piss-green solution with gray slag at the
bottom" or "brownish red shit with this much garbage on the bottom."
 
        There is a recurring undercurrent of inappropriate anti-Utah and
anti-religious sentiment throughout. For example, Taubes cites a literary and
cultural critic, Paul Fussell's "...general principle that no high-class
person can live in any place associated with religious prophecy or miracle,
like Mecca, Bethlehem, Fatima, Lourdes, or Salt Lake City." He mocks the
claims of cold fusion as "the discovery of salvation."
 
 
                        *** The "Good" Parts ***
 
        Taubes certainly didn't learn very much about the science of cold
fusion in his vaunted taped interviews. But his marvelous little recording
machine has gloriously preserved the bigoted, pathetic remarks of the
opponents of cold fusion research. Years before this sordid book came onto the
scene, I predicted that these revelations would help document the shallowness
of the so-called "scientists" who attacked cold fusion. It dredges up their
nastiness.
 
        DOE Cold Fusion Panel member Dr. William Happer told Taubes of an
interview he had with a Scientific American reporter a few days after the Utah
announcement: "The thing I didn't have the nerve to do was to say that just by
looking at these guys on television, it was obvious they were incompetent
boobs." Marvelous objectivity by a high-level DOE official! An apt description
of how Dr. Happer handled himself in DOE's "investigation" of cold fusion is
just that: incompetent boobery. The cold fusion scientific community can
rejoice that this high level boob has recently been given the boot at DOE. We
learn from Taubes that Happer fancies himself a "tabletop experimentalist."
Too bad he didn't take screwdriver in hand and perform cold fusion experiments
himself. He was too busy jiggling wires and finding fault with everything he
saw in his travels -- Mr. Know-it-All.  There are today professors at small
colleges who are miles ahead of Happer in their knowledge of experimental
procedures in electrochemistry and calorimetry. These scientists consistently
measure excess heat. Happer only gave other people heat.  We get from Taubes
that Happer said Bockris had "this collection of pathetic students and
postdocs." What a Wonder Man that Happer, he can tell a bunch of incompetents
on first meeting!
 
        My former MIT friend Richard Petrasso is unmasked in his hot-tempered
glory. We learn many times from Taubes that Petrasso had a "distaste for glib
bullshit," meaning the Pons and Fleischmann press conference. Petrasso's
nearly uncontrollable rage against cold fusion is evidenced in many quotes in
Bad Science. I didn't need those quotes, however; when I was at MIT I
witnessed Petrasso's seething hatred of cold fusion on many occasions. Taubes
recounts how Petrasso, in preparing his critique of Pons and Fleischmann's
neutron evidence for Nature, had to be restrained by his colleagues from
preserving highly emotional language.
 
        We already knew his public arrogance, now we meet the privately
arrogant Nathan Lewis of Caltech, who apparently initially told a colleague
that Pons and Fleischmann's experiment "wasn't worth more than one day's
effort." Taubes quotes Lewis's self-praise, "So I'm one of the people, where
you say, 'If Nate says it's right, it's right.'" Great guy that, "Nate," the
man whom Nature magazine has protected from damning technical criticism of his
1989 cold fusion paper by refusing to publish scientific correspondence from
at least three other scientists. Taubes loves Nate: "..what Lewis published
tended to be the last word." He is fond of Lewis's colorful perception that
cold fusion would be "an electrochemist's wet dream" -- IF it were true.
 
        And we learn that Lewis's soul brother at MIT, then Professor (now
Provost) Mark Wrighton, only "grudgingly decided" to attempt the Pons and
Fleischmann experiment. Taubes loves Wrighton too: "And, like Nate Lewis who
had studied under Wrighton, when Wrighton published, his papers were expected
to be definitive." Well, the 1989 MIT Plasma Fusion Center paper on  cold
fusion calorimetry for which he is a co-author is anything but "definitive" --
to put it very charitably! The incorrect analysis and data massaging on which
that paper was based is by now very well known.
 
        Thanks to Taubes we now know that physicist Michael Salamon of the
University of Utah had strong "scientific" motivations for assaulting cold
fusion research. Salamon muses that in the unlikely event there were really
something to cold fusion,  "It would be the cruelest, most unjust act of God
to bestow Stan with this. There is no one less deserving."
 
                        *** Mocking Truth and Decency ***
 
        Mr. Taubes lacks common decency. Not even the dead are safe from his
attacks. Taubes has the unmitigated gall to quote a former associate of
Stanley Pons, Kevin Ashley, concerning the death of electrochemist Andrew
Riley in the January 2, 1992 cold fusion experiment explosion at SRI: "The
worst sin of this whole affair is [Riley's] death." Dr. Riley was extremely
dedicated to the cause of cold fusion research, and like his colleague Dr.
Michael McKubre of SRI, felt it to be a subject of extraordinary importance.
One might say Andrew Riley died a hero in the quest for scientific
understanding and truth. His memory did not need either Mr. Ashley's and
certainly not Taubes's vile epitaph. But this type of gutter "journalism," is
not surprising for Mr. Taubes. A fellow science journalist for a major
metropolitan newspaper once warned the MIT News Office about Taubes: "Beware,
he's a hatchet man." Indeed, he is. After Taubes's savaging of Nobel laureate
Carlo Rubbia in his book, Nobel Dreams, one gets to know the style.
 
        Taubes has a weird theory of science. He seems to suggests that mass
delusion will feed cold fusion indefinitely. The madness will not stop. He
paraphrases DOE panelist, Alan Bard, who says  that "cold fusion research will
never end abruptly, because the tail of the distribution simply trails off
indefinitely, edging ever closer to zero, but never becoming exactly zero. The
horizon will always serve up yet another researcher, an iota farther out on
the tail, who will be capable of botching the experiment, either consciously
or unconsciously, and willing to say publicly that he has confirmed." These
will be "sloppy scientists," "bad scientists," "opportunists," and those
"working far outside their fields." Taubes actually muses whether cold fusion
"pathological science" might be like a "kind of infection like the measles,
that attacks the scientific community periodically and has to run its
predestined course."
 
        As Taubes's book amply shows, a band of scientific establishment
people in the U.S. went after cold fusion and thought they could kill it. They
failed, of course, but not before they severely curtailed cold fusion research
in this country. In 1993, cold fusion is gradually winning acceptance as new
results, new experiments, and new insights are gained about one of nature's
most startling and spectacular mysteries -- the appearance of nuclear
reactions "in the cold." Truth will overwhelm the scientific community and
authors like Taubes. It is absolutely inescapable. The era of pack-mentality
on cold fusion is coming to an end. Scientists and journalists are beginning
to come to their senses, just when Taubes thought he could be shielded and
cheered by a pack of sheep. No doubt many scientific bigots will praise Bad
Science and some journalists may wish to bless Taubes's distorted account --
as did William Broad of The New York Times in 1991, when on page one of the
Sunday Times he gave wide currency to the negative message of Frank Close's
book Too Hot to Handle. But it will be like flies landing on sticky fly-paper.
The negativists will cheer this book as they have each of the two preceding
negative accounts. In the final act, the flies and flypaper will be trashed
forever.
 
         "Men it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they
go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Just as in this Taubes quote of author Charles Mackay, cold fusion is
advancing in the scientific community one person at a time -- as the herd
madness of the anti-cold fusion camp crumbles. People are realizing that they
have been bamboozled by rampant distortion and Big Lies. Unfortunately for the
publisher and author, there is no Bigger Lie than the title of this book.
Taubes and others who write obscene, preposterous books like Bad Science, will
be among the last to come to their senses, but come they will, dragged and
screaming all the way.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Miracle #2
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miracle #2
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 01:26:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930514170410.208010d9@FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@FNAL.GOV writes:
>REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART IV
>
>This part will continue the consideration of the section of the paper dealing
>with boiling cells.  Readers are referred to part I for background.
>
>                ***********************************
>                *    ANOTHER MIRACLE DISCOVERED   *
>                ***********************************
>
>Examination continues of the curve of figure 11 from the paper.
>
>8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
>   cell is boiled dry?
>
>There is a problem reading the axis labels as the fax is still the only paper
>available.  It appears that the cell remains very close to 100 C for 10000
>seconds after the Cell dry label.  Note that 100 C is a likely temperature for
>a water system as long as there is water present, and there is sufficient heat
.....
>There is always the possibility that the "Cell dry" label is in the wrong
>place.  This would explain the temperature stability.  If it is moved to the
>fast cool down point, then the "anomalous heat" becomes near zero or negative.
 
     It seems even worse that this.  When the cell boils dry (or even when the
     cell boils down past the thermister), what are
     they measuring?  The thermister seems to be external to the cathode
     so all they've got is air to measure.  They claim they're melting
     the Kel-F support at some point, but Figure 8 and Figure 11 show
     no such temperatures, and why would they?  It would be difficult
     to get the temperature near the electrode from a temperature measurement
     in air surrounding it.  It would also be difficult to support the use
     of a temperature probe in the air outside the electrode in a dry
     cell as a quantitative measurement of anything.
 
     The interesting thing is that they see the Kel-F support melted.
     How could that have possibly happened unless they got voltages
     so high that there was arcing across the air from electrode
     to electrode?  If they don't get arcing, as soon as the cathode
     dries out, there is no more thermal input and hence no more
     boiling, so the Kel-F support stays protected by a layer of water.
     It appears the support is physically connected to the anode
     (and they say it is) which would explain the melting quite nicely.
     The anode is likely to get quite hot as arcing occurs.
 
     This is supported by their observation that they must
     turn the power off when it 'boils dry'.  If they were getting
     current flow when the cell boiled dry, they were inducing massive
     arcing voltages.
 
     I wonder if they determined when the cell went dry by that last
     sizzle of water off of the anode connected to the
     support structure?
 
     Note that 'coldfusion' in the cathode does not explain the
     support melting since the temperature in the air above
     the cathode never goes much above 100C.  If the cathode
     was hot enough to melt the support via convection/radiation across
     the air separating them, it would surely be hot enough to
     cause the thermister to register a very high temperature.
 
>It is concluded that the cell constant is within a factor of 3 or so of that
>claimed by P&F by practical estimation using the information from the curve.
>The stability of the cell temperature during the time between Cell dry and the
>cool down is such that it defies explanation, or points to a measurement
>error.
 
     It's 'coldfusion', of course (humour implied).
 
     I'm with you that it is inexplicable how the temperature in the air
     above the cathode remains nearly constant for three hours after
     boiling dry, then begins a rapid descent that is nicely
     characteristic of the cell constant.  The fact that
     the temperature profile *after* the notation that the cell has
     boiled dry looks much like one that I'd expect from a thermister
     sitting in water boiling down past it leads one to believe
     that you may be right about the improper notation on the graph.
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 / mitchell swartz /  Analysis of Dick Blue's comments
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Analysis of Dick Blue's comments
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 11:51:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <0096C7C5.29EED0C0.13991@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject:  Mitchell Swartz finds helium!
 Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) "pontificates":
 
==  "Mitchell did a good job informing us about the helium content of the
== atmosphere.  Some of us have known about that for a long time.  Now
== what does that have to do with issues currently under discussion here?"
 
  Good question, Dick.  But it is proof, like the very title of your post,
                        that you simply fabricate and are willing to do so
                        here.
 
  Let's see where this began, and who actually brought it up:
 
     In Message-ID: <0096C246.6E157E40.13136@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
     Subject: What is confirmation?
     Dick Blue (blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu, NSCL@MSU) writes:
 
  ==  "To pick on but one example, consider the question as to whether
  ==  helium is the long-missing reaction product.  There certainly have
  ==  been experiments in which excess heat is seen, but for which analyses
  ==  for helium gave negative results."
 
  So it appears that ** you ** brought it up.
 
  Now the title.  Dr. Miles found helium-4; experiments which have
been the basis of much discussion here.
  Your attribution is wrong, but consistent with your past antics here.
 
  [Dick, do you have a handicap which involves
seletive amnesia, or are your being deliberately pejorative (and worse)?]
 
 
== "First we note that the fractional helium content of the atmosphere does
== not translate directly into an equivalent fractional concentration in
== a Pd sample."
 
  Excuse me?   How novel.
  Do not all other materials come to equilibrium, and then contain some
  fraction of the atmosphere concentration (dependant upon many other
  factors such as temperature)?
  Such writing suggests that its author is either
  acting similar to those "1000 monkeys at 1000 typewriters"
  or such writing/thinking by yourself simply heralds
  an actual expertise apparently ending at a TV-channel changer.
 
== "Careful experimental technique (with proper controls)
== could establish an increase in helium content resulting from CF at
== concentrations below that in the atmosphere."
 
  Your knowledge of S/N ratios and their impact upon measurements appears
   to be dwarfed by your hubris.  Please tell us about your work and
   background, Dick.  Do you work with helium?  hot fusion?  advertising?
 
 
== "If contamination by atmospheric helium were to be a likely cause for
== a false positive in a CF experiment, it is much more likely that
== the contamination would appear in evolved gases in contact for extended
== periods with glass."
 
   Helium binds to many things.  Glass, too. It is nice to see you actually
   read one article, but you are reminded that there are many many more.
   The peculiarities of helium were reviewed in my postings last year.
 
 
==  "While I know of no data that indicates that
== helium diffuses into palladium at an unusually high rate, it is well
== known that helium diffuses into, out of, and through glass.  Thus it
== appears to me that while atmospheric helium can in no way account
== for the negative outcomes of the searches for helium in palladium
== cathodes, it could cause false positives in the Miles experiments."
 
  Well Dick, since you claim there is no massive in-diffusion of helium
 and since helium IS LINKED to excess heat in the Miles experiments which
 you cite, then those observations obviously stand.
 
  Dick, 1) Try to be more accurate for a change.
        2) In your own words: "you just shot yourself in the foot"
 
                                                Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 / Hugh Mckay /  FAQ?
     
Originally-From: mckay@ug.cs.dal.ca (Hugh Mckay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 14:50:31 GMT
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

        Sorry to intrude, but is there a FAQ for this group? If
there is, could someone please send it to me? Thanks in advance.
 
mckay@ug.cs.dal.ca
 
--
Mckay@ug.cs.dal.ca
                 "If it's stupid but works, it ain't stupid"
                 "The important things are always simple."
                 "The simple things are always hard."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmckay cudfnHugh cudlnMckay cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.15 / Jim Bowery /  The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 20:10:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes (in response to Eugene Mallove):
>I flatly refuse to believe that there are scientists out there who have done
>worse than attempt a thorough verification, and failed, to the best of their
>knowledge. I don't believe in conspiracies, generally. Why should anyone
>conspire against cnf? Don't give me the hot fusion lobby bit, mate, that is
>pure paranoia.
...
>On maltreatment of cnf I will agree with you as far as this: I have been
>persuaded that there is a correlated (but I don't believe organised,
>conspiring) effort to keep funding from the field; this is too bad. There are
 
And now Dieter Britz has joined the ranks of the scoundrels with multi-
layered sophistry.  I'll start with the inner, and most important, layer
first:
 
 
SOPHISTRY LAYER 2:  Guilt(Correlated Parasitism) < Guilt(Conspiracy)
 
This is the sophistry of the "naive German" living near a city with a
concentration camp, receiving economic benefit from the labors, and
sometimes even the gold fillings, of marginalized portions of the
population.  The vast majority of Germans were not involved in any sort
of conspiracy to work to their deaths millions of Jews (the vast majority
 of whom were equally innocent of the conspiracies they were, and still
 are, accused of).
 
As usual, the exact opposite of the sophistry is true, ie:
 
Guilt(Correlated Parasitism) > Guilt(Conspiracy)
 
It is far more difficult to detect and root-out correlated parasitism
than genuine conspiracy for the simple reason that the parasites can
always feign naive innocence.  The check shows up in the mail box.  It's
got more digits than it used to.  They're producing less, bossing around
more people, having better sex and destroying more and more.  Who knows
how it happened?  Decades later, when it is discovered that they "innocently"
suppressed technologies (or populations) that could have prevented the
loss of millions of species of plants and animals, not to mention profound
reductions in the quality of life of billions of humans, they can walk
away with their estates, several beautiful, intelligent, happy and
healthy grand-children, and a fat pension to top it all off.
 
Few ever even knew they existed and they'll die happy, if somewhat
nagged by myths of an afterlife with omniscient, omnipotent justice.
 
 
SOPHISTRY LAYER 1:  Accusation indicates paranoia.
 
Dieter knows that there is such a thing as "conflict of interest" and that
scoundrels revel in it.  All they need to do to keep reveling in the
conflict of interest is to counter accusations they are (contrary to
 SOPHISTRY LAYER 2) culpable, with their own accusations involving
"conspiracy theories" or better yet, "wild conspiracy theories".
 
But they usually leave the obvious conclusion, that the would-be defender
of ethical integrity (who is usually motivated to this defense by his
 being victimized by the scoundrel) is "paranoid", unspoken.  The sophistry
is more effective that way as it lends an aura of parental restraint to the
scoundrel.  To this extent Dieter has some personal growth left before he
can advance in the ranks of the scoundrels and become, say, a Tokamak
luminary capable of inflicting epic suffering on the world in exchange for
the personal gratification that comes from public trust and authority over
billions of dollars of taxpayer funds.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.16 / Jed Rothwell /  No conspiracy necessary
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@CompuServe.COM (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No conspiracy necessary
Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 00:43:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Dieter Britz probably wasn't kidding when he wrote:
 
"I flatly refuse to believe that there are scientists out there who have done
worse than attempt a thorough verification, and failed, to the best of their
knowledge."
 
Give us a break, please. The MIT Plasma Fusion gang saw heat, added data
points, moved others down, and published an ineptly covered up piece of fake
garbage. Look at the data, and you will reach that conclusion in about 2
seconds.
 
"I don't believe in conspiracies, generally. Why should anyone conspire
against cnf? Don't give me the hot fusion lobby bit, mate, that is
pure paranoia."
 
Give us another break! The HF people are on a cushy $500 million 110-year long
welfare spree. They have been given a license to steal from the taxpayers.
Their little boondoggle scheme will never work, not even in 110 years, and
they know that as well as anyone. They will fight tooth and nail for their
funds until the very end. It's human nature; these people are not fit for
ordinary work, so they want to stay on Gold Plated Welfare the rest of their
lives, like the farmers who get paid by Uncle Sam not to grow things. You will
notice, please, that they have not been able attract a dime of private
financing from EPRI or anywhere else. EPRI gave up on HF 15 years ago. Private
money is smarter than Gov't Pork, and private industry would not touch a
project like HF with the fag end of a barge poll. You will also note that
dozens of Japanese companies are working on CF.
 
As far as "conspiracy" goes: a conspiracy is an organized, surreptitious plot.
These people don't have the wherewithal to plot their way out of a paper bag.
There is no need to believe in conspiracies; it is perfectly obvious what
happened. A bunch of really stupid, overpaid, uncreative people are in charge
of things at the DoE and elsewhere in the Big Science Welfare Projects. They
saw P&F on TV, and concluded, like Happer, that they could judge science by
looking at people's faces. They concluded in 10 seconds that CF was all a
bunch of garbage. They were wrong, and they now know it. They are up a tree,
crowded out on a limb, vigorously sawing away at it behind them. This is human
nature. We have seen this sort of thing happen over and over throughout
history. There is nothing surprising or unusual about it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.16 / Jed Rothwell /  Area of expertise
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@CompuServe.COM (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Area of expertise
Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 01:25:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Douglas Morrison recently posted a preposterous "paper" that claimed -- in
effect -- that it is possible to boil away 45 ml of water by igniting a piece
of material 12 mm X 3 mm. Now, anyone who imagines igniting some extremely
energy dense material, like paraffin, will see at once that this is crazy
nonsense. If you burn a thin, centimeter long paraffin rod, it will only
raise the temperature of 45 ml of water a tiny bit before the fuel is
exhausted. This is intuitively obvious; a seven year old child would know it.
 
Deiter Britz defends Morrison:
 
"Maybe he should have checked the numbers in any case, but this lies outside
his expertise."
 
If this kind of elementary knowledge lies outside of Morrison's "expertise,"
then he has no business making statements about any area of science! You do
not even need to check any numbers, you can dismiss the idea at a glance,
just as you can dismiss these preposterous suggestions that a thin rod could
somehow "explode" over 10 minutes with enough force to drive 45 ml of water
out of a high test tube. It is all Absurd Bunk, Handwaving, and Grasping at
Straws to explain away the inescapable, obvious conclusion. Morrison reminds
me of Close, who told me that maybe chemistry *can* produce megajoules per
mole, and that my statements to the contrary are mere "theory prejudice."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: uuencoded GIF files - YES!
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@CompuServe.COM (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: uuencoded GIF files - YES!
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 03:01:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

With a few public-domain programs I was able to look at the
X-ray pix just fine on my PC.  Thanks, Mitchell!
 
This works very well.  When we have graphs & diagrams to
share, I encourage net posters to use this instead of struggling
vainly with ASCII plots.
 
Just a suggestion, but my vote goes with GIF over PostScript.
  -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.16 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Effect Explained (& a query)
Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 20:40:23 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <2220@giga.slc.paramax.com> p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com
(Patrick J. Smith) writes:
>
>It has occured to me that this seems to imply a Temporary Reversal of
>the Second Law of Thermodynamics inside the Pd lattice!!!!!
>
 
Putting equipartition of energy aside, Perhaps no violation is necessary--
consider a hypothetical nano-machine, say a heat pump operating at the
atomic level.  This might help explain HT superconductivity also.
 
We know biological molecules can be considered to be nano-machines in
some cases (but I don't read the sci.nano.. groups so maybe this has been
covered).
 
--
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:
cuddy16 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  Subject: The Wilson critique of F&P
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject: The Wilson critique of F&P
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 07:13:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Note: I posted this last week, but it SEEMS to have got lost. I repost after
doing some checking; I am fairly sure it did not make it the first time. If it
is a repeat, sorry.
 
 
I have now had a look at the paper by Wilson et al, J. Electroanal. Chem. 332
(1992) 1. It is a critique of the papers by Fleischmann et al, same journal
287 (1990) 298 ("FPALH-90"), and a conference paper by the same authors. The
gist of Wilson et al is that F et al make two errors:
1. they neglect the change in cell (electrolyte) resistance due to the
   calibration heating pulses;
2. they oversimplify the calculation of the effective radiative heat transfer
   coefficient to the point where evaporative effects are ignored.
The first error impacts on the calculation of the input power, and is probably
small; the second becomes more and more important as temperature goes up, and
Wilson et al, recalculating as well as they can with the available data, come
to the result that many excess heat results of FPALH-90 disappear, but not
all.
Does this apply to the present paper, F&P, Phys. Lett. A176 (1993) 118? It
seems to me it does not. The equation for the transfer coefficient includes
all the evaporative terms, so this major criticism seems not to apply any
longer. As well as this, I do not believe that the Wilson et al correction
would remove an excess of the magnitude of 0.8 W (the 20 W/cm^3); their
table shows one comparable value, 0.888 W, reduced to 0.65 W. The size of the
correction does of course depend (very much) on operating temperature. The
paper indicates that up to the time the cells started boiling, they were at
around or below 50 degC, and Wilson et al state that the evaporative effects
become serious at about 60 degC.
 
This, for the conventional part, as it were, i.e. the 20 W/cm^3 level, which
some might now consider state-of-the-art cnf excess heat. The boiling regime
is another story altogether, and Wilson et al's work - nor anybody else's -
cannot say anything about this. A calculation error in input power or neglect
of evaporation cannot boil off the contents of the cell in 10 minutes. We have
some stark choices here, and don't ask me to elaborate.
 
So do I believe it? I don't know. Throwing out (in this instance) the error
source of Wilson et al does not mean that there is not some other error.
There is still the unresolved question of correctness of input power
estimation; F&P do use a sluggish constant current supply, clearly shown in
FPALH-90. And I still have an uncomfortable feeling about the exceedingly
complex analysis procedure of F&P, necessitated by their exceedingly primitive
calorimeter. I am not convinced that Marquardt fitting and Kalman filtering
can compensate for this - but I can't be more specific than that. All of this
could become irrelevant if they come up with a demo device, more watts coming
out than going in. Or, if someone using a quality calorimeter gets clear and
unmistakable excess heat.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Miracle #2
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Miracle #2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 12:53:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNAL.GOV in FD 1038:
 
>REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART IV
>This part will continue the consideration of the section of the paper dealing
>with boiling cells.  Readers are referred to part I for background.
>                ***********************************
>                *    ANOTHER MIRACLE DISCOVERED   *
>                ***********************************
>Examination continues of the curve of figure 11 from the paper.
>8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
>   cell is boiled dry?
[...]
 
I think we need a Swartzian input here (or is that Bassian?): just how is
"dry" defined (no no, Mitch, don't run for your Websters, stay with this)?
The thermistor, according to Fig. 1 in the paper, is hanging
some distance above the Pd rod. The temperature trace in Fig. 11 passes
through the 100 degC or so, and continues to go up after a time labelled
"Cell dry"; its course is roughly what you'd expect from an electrolyte that
is getting more concentrated as its water evaporates more and more. Clearly,
"dry" means "low". Near the end, there is an upward wiggle, and then the
plunge downward, presumably immediately after the current was switched off.
This sounds reasonable. That is, the cell never does get really dry, but more
concentrated; the Pd rod is submerged the whole time, even still when the
current is switched off. Otherwise, there would be no current to switch off,
as F&P very well know. The question is then, how much water was left, how
much did in fact evaporate? And the mystery is still why F&P talk about a
current in a cell that has boiled dry. I suspect that possibly someone other
than F or P did the writing, and they didn't check it; or perhaps even that
they never saw the experiment but only its video recording. Or both of these.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 12:53:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) in FD 1038:
 
>In article <39D2A63CAA7F20945B@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>
>>Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) in FD 1013:
>>
>>>In article <440015A64D3F210D62@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>>>We can all afford such equipment. The problem is no doubt data volume. One
>>>>should be sampling at about 10 kHz.
>>
>>>Why?
[...]
 
>I shouldn't have made my comments in the form of a question, but as a
>statement which was their intent.  Did you read my comments at all?
 
Yes, Bob, I did.
 
>What you are supplying to the cell is only DC, and if you do filter the
>output of the power supply with a *LOSS-LESS* filter of narrow enough
>bandwidth then the effects of load variation can be eliminated.  A
>loss-less filter is one that by definition does not dissipate *any*
>energy, it merely stores and supplies it to the varying load. A large
>value (a significant fraction of a farad), very high quality, low leakage,
>low dissipation factor, low ESR capacitor is what is required in this
>instance. Not a trivial requirement in itself. The dynamic variations of
>the load impedance of the cell are then virtually eliminated, because at
>the rate of change that they represent, the capacitor is a virtual zero
>impedance compared to the cell resistance. The ideal operating
 
Your suggestion might be good, although as an instrumentalist I feel
uncomfortable at the thought of a capacitive load. However, we were trying to
work out what was done by McKubre. I reckon we have enough expert input on
this now. I am not going to say any more about this subject until I have more
than preliminary ideas and guess work.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  RE: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 13:34:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1041:
 
>Dieter Britz writes (in response to Eugene Mallove):
>>I flatly refuse to believe that there are scientists out there who have done
>>worse than attempt a thorough verification, and failed, to the best of their
>>knowledge. I don't believe in conspiracies, generally. Why should anyone
>>conspire against cnf? Don't give me the hot fusion lobby bit, mate, that is
>>pure paranoia.
>...
>>On maltreatment of cnf I will agree with you as far as this: I have been
>>persuaded that there is a correlated (but I don't believe organised,
>>conspiring) effort to keep funding from the field; this is too bad. There are
>
>And now Dieter Britz has joined the ranks of the scoundrels with multi-
>layered sophistry.  I'll start with the inner, and most important, layer
>first:
[Read the rest yerself].
 
Jim, you are pushing me to my philosophic limits here, but I was just able, on
rereading a couple of times, to get your drift, I think. I was specifically
addressing Eugene Mallove's charge that there are scoundrels out there,
deliberately trying to kill cold fusion. OK? This I do not believe, and I do
feel that it is a little paranoid of him. What I think he has come up against
is ultra-hard skeptics like Huizenga, who are quite implacable in their
opposition to cnf research, but out of the conviction that it is a nonsense,
not because they are in on a conspiracy.
 
I am not sure how your "naive German" ties in with all this. Who is
benefitting from the suppression of cnf? I believe that I have been
evenhanded (clearly, there are those who disagree), and have made clear that
cnf research should be given some lowish level of funding. How does this make
me a scoundrel? A tokamak luminary I am not likely to become, because I put
hot fusion in a similar category to Star Wars. Unless Poul Koloc has something
more realistic.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Miracle #2
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miracle #2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 15:02:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35B6BBAD2E9F21FB32@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
>>   cell is boiled dry?
>[...]
>
>I think we need a Swartzian input here (or is that Bassian?): just how is
>"dry" defined (no no, Mitch, don't run for your Websters, stay with this)?
>The thermistor, according to Fig. 1 in the paper, is hanging
>some distance above the Pd rod. The temperature trace in Fig. 11 passes
>through the 100 degC or so, and continues to go up after a time labelled
>"Cell dry"; its course is roughly what you'd expect from an electrolyte that
>is getting more concentrated as its water evaporates more and more. Clearly,
>"dry" means "low". Near the end, there is an upward wiggle, and then the
>plunge downward, presumably immediately after the current was switched off.
 
     Of course, they indicate that they shut the current off for those
     three hours on page 128.
 
>This sounds reasonable. That is, the cell never does get really dry, but more
>concentrated; the Pd rod is submerged the whole time, even still when the
>current is switched off. Otherwise, there would be no current to switch off,
>as F&P very well know. The question is then, how much water was left, how
 
     There are a couple of big problems with this explanation a) they say
     'dry', and b) the Kel-F support at the *bottom* of the cell melts.
     If there's still aqueous electrolyte in there, the support
     will be thermally protected and will not melt.
 
     My feeling is that they do, indeed, boil the thing dry.  And that
     there should be an ozone smell in the lab abroad.  I further wonder
     how the four cells are electrically connected to each other.
 
     Of course, if Figure 12 were a real figure we might be able to
     figure out whether it boiled completely dry or not.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Mitchell Swartz is confused. Help him.
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell Swartz is confused. Help him.
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 21:32:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To my statement:
<< First we note the fractional content of the atmosphere does not >>
<< translate directly into an equivalent fractional concentration  >>
<< [of helium] in a Pd sample.>>
 
Mitchell replies:
< Do not all other materials come to equilibrium, and then contain >
< some fraction of the atmosphere concentration.....?              >
 
The answer to that question is no.  My statement stands.  The concentration
of helium in a Pd sample is not determined by equilibration with the
atmosphere, at least not on a time scale of interest to us.  So where
have all your snide remarks gotten you, Mitchell?  Who ends up looking
like a fool?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 /  DROEGE@fnal.go /  More on the P&F Physics Letters A Paper
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on the P&F Physics Letters A Paper
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 22:38:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER - PART V
 
This part will continue the consideration of the section of the paper dealing
with boiling cells.  Readers are referred to part I for background.
 
"Tell me what were their names, boys, what were their names?  Did you have a
friend on the good Ruben James?"  -  Popular Folk Song
 
The Ruben James sank with all hands.  So far P&F appear to be sailing a row
boat. While we are told they have 30 odd experienced assistants, and a 40,000
square foot facility, only two names are on the paper.
 
9) Who are the assistants to Pons and Fleischmann?
 
>From his last conversation with Hawkins, Lee John Droege reports that he said
that he was never allowed into the back room where Pons and Fleischmann did
their work.  This is a very strange circumstance for a doctoral student.
It should be remembered that Hawkins' name went on the original paper as a
"correction".
 
Are Pons and Fleischmann still working alone in a back room at their new plush
digs in France?  Dieter Britz has looked at the language in the paper and
writes in FD 1042:  "I suspect that possibly someone other than F or P did the
writing, and they didn't check it; or perhaps even that they never saw the
experiment but only its video recording.  Or both of these."
 
With Japanese support, it would be expected that there would be assistants
around named Tanaka or Watanabe (this author's best guess of the Japanese
equivalent of Smith and Jones).  With a distinguished elder electrochemist
superior like Fleischmann, it would be very difficult for a young Japanese
post doctoral student to come up with a null result.  He would find a way to
achieve a positive result.
 
Please do not interpret the above as racist.  It is the same as saying that
Japanese baseball is different than American baseball.  It is.  For one, the
Japanese do not argue with the umpire!
 
It is interesting that the paper does not have an acknowledgement section.
Perhaps Physics Letters A has a rule against acknowledgement of the work of
others.  A review of a stack of experimental papers found on this desk
revealed that every one save P&F had someone to thank, even if it was only a
funding agency.  Experimental workers always have hard working assistants to
thank.  Someone put all that stuff seen in the video together.  This author
has not found ready built "cold fusion" set ups in any laboratory apparatus
catalog.  Why do not P&F acknowledge the existence of their assistants?
 
Perhaps it is that Pons and Fleischmann care about their assistants, and do
not want them on board when the good ship Cold Fusion sinks!
 
10) What is the purpose of the "Specific excess heat for hypothetical pressure
    0.953 bars" caption of figure 10 b?
 
This author does not understand the reasoning behind the discussion about
hypothetical atmospheric pressures.
 
It looks like this fooled Jed Rothwell.  In FD 1025 he writes:
 
"There is no drop off, and no possible way the cells could be "recharged."
Just before the boil-off event, the excess has reached a power level of 20
watts, in one example."
 
It appears that Jed Rothwell was taken in by figure 10 b.  The "actual" curve
shows 20 watts just before boil off, but this is "specific" excess heat.  For
the 0.04 cc sample this is an actual power level of 0.8 watts claimed.  The
hypothetical curve shows about 300 watts.  This would be an actual
**"hypothetical"** heat of 12 watts.  In either case, the presentation of the
data appears to deliberately intend to deceive the reader.
 
11) When is the current source turned off?
 
Dieter Britz got to this one first.  But it has been under consideration by
this author also.  It would appear from figure 8, that the voltage does not
drop to zero until the temperature drop.  From figure 8, this would indicate
that the cell voltage is over 100 volts between the time that the cell boils
dry and 3 hours later when the cell cools.  One hundred volts is enough to
sustain an arc.  This could also produce the high temperature required to melt
Kel-F.
 
12) Why is the photograph of figure 12 in color?
 
Paging through a volume of Physics Letters A, this reader did not come across
any other color photographs in a paper.  Color does not appear to add any
information.  Are all Physics Letters A photographs put in in color if
submitted in color?  The horizontal ticks about 3/5 up the cell in the picture
are what this author takes as the "1/2" fill marks.  Note that since the top
is silvered, these are about in the correct spot.  They are clearer in the
video.
 
13)  Is there a white coating on the cells after they boil away?
 
The reader can observe figure 12 to decide whether there is a white coating on
the inside surface of the cells.  Such a coating would change the calorimeter
constant of the cell during boil off.  P&F assume it is a constant.  To this
viewer, the second cell seems to have the highest coating, followed by the
third and the first.  The fourth cell is still boiling according to the
caption.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 /  DROEGE@fnal.go /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 23:34:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bob Lewandowski has put up a nice discussion and argues for a low loss narrow
bandwidth filter.  Practical considerations force us to simulate what you
want with an active device.  In a previous discuccion with someone, I figured
the capacitors would fill a three bedroom ranch house.  Some of my better
cells have dropped 6 volts a one ampere.  That is 6 ohms.  Very easily this
can get much higher.  The P&F paper shows 25 or so volts at 1/2 ampere.  It
is very non-linear, so one has to be very careful applying normal circuit
analysis.
 
To all who will listen, Chuck Harrison has made the right proposal.  Put the
regulator in the cell.  Chuck in his first posting on this said only a shunt
regulator would be required, but I see need for a series and a shunt regulator.
In either case, with proper design, it can be set up for constant power in the
calorimeter.  This makes for much easier calorimetery, and has no
disadvantages that I can see, other than one or two extra leades in the
calorimeter.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / Jed Rothwell /  6% Average!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 6% Average!
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 23:34:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
P&F's cells generate 6% excess heat, McKubre's 3%, and my car goes 0.25 miles
per hour. That's right! My office is 3 miles away, I go 6 m/day or 0.25 m/hr.
What is wrong with this picture?
 
Here is the story, from Science, Vol 260, "Pons and Fleischmann Redux," by
Ivan Amato: "The total amount of heat released over the 25-day span of the
experiment (including the boil-off period) still comes out to 6% more than
the input power could explain, notes Michael McKubre of SRI International. He
says his own experiments... have shown a 3% energy excess."
 
Hmm.... maybe Mike doesn't like competition. Maybe *this* is the source of
Tom Droege's mystifying claim that Mike is getting 3% excess, which is close
to the noise. In Atlanta, 0.25 m/hour is wa-a-a-y below the legal safe speed
limit, but I have never been pulled over by the cops, not even once! That is
because when I am in the car actually driving, I go more like 20 m/hour. When
Mike's cells actually get hot, they get between 5% and 30% excess in low heat
mode, and 300% in high heat mode. P&F's cell gets around 10% in low mode, and
400% in high heat mode. You can ignore the "loading period" because you know
that a cell cannot store megajoules per mole of chemical energy, any more
than a dish sponge can soak up Lake Michigan in one gulp. The issue is: how
long between fill-ups? How long does a cell radiate uninterrupted, easily
measured levels of heat, and what are the total joules of heat compared to
the size of the device, and considered as a percent of the input power.
That's what matters; a discussion of "6 percent this" or "3 percent that"
divorced from those realities does not tell you anything.
 
Ah, aren't statistical averages wonderful! There is great little book, which
everyone should read at least once a year (seriously!). It is titled: "How To
Lie With Statistics." This book explains why it is perfectly safe to drive at
110 m/hour on foggy, dark, rainy roads with lots of truck traffic at 5:40
a.m. -- because very few drivers get killed at that hour!
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 / John George /  ICCF4 Lahina, Hawaii
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4 Lahina, Hawaii
Date: 17 May 93 16:21:15 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I received my sign-up information for ICCF4 in Lahina, Hawaii. I do not
know how many other lurkers will be there, but I will. I hope to meet
all contributors to this newsgroup. I will post my impressions for those
of you who can not attend.
 
I would like to meet slopes (PC term for believers) and nazis (PC term for
skeptics). Will I need flame-retardant suit if recombination takes place :-)?
Hope NOT!
 
If you are planning to attend ICCF4, how about appending to this post
so that we can get together? Be sure to include your standing
slope, nazi, lurker, unknown ---  :-).
 
If you do SCUBA diving, please include that tidbit of info, as I am going
to plan a little excursion sometime during my stay and would love to have
some of you hard-working, intellectual types enjoy some of the best diving
in the world with me!
 
There is sometimes more boiling (temper) in the postings than actual results
and commentary, but the group is still better than the news blackout in the
US media.
 
I am still reading this newsgroup and hoping that we will solve the many
problems of humanity in regards to destroying our nest while we live in it.
For those of you proposing a radioactive solution to our energy needs,
contemplate the Pyramids of Egypt. They are approx 5,000 years old. We
need containment of radwaste to last 250,000 years?! How do you endow that?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  RE: Mallove review of Taubes book
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Mallove review of Taubes book
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 00:09:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I find a remarkable similarity in style between the writings of Mallove
and of Taubes even though they stand on opposite sides of the CF issue.
Neither of them seem to come very close to understanding the scientific
issues involved, and both spend far too much time savaging any of the
people that happen to be in opposition.  Note that Mallove can't pass
up this opportunity to dump on Happer, Parker, Petrasso, N. Lewis and
Wrightman in essentially the same manner that he criticizes Taubes for
doing to the heroes of the CF movement.
 
Mallove accuses Taubes of using the "Big lie" rountine, and repeats
one of the typical big lies of the cold fusion advocates.  Quoting
Mallove: "In late 1992 NTT announced that one of its research groups
found a major piece [of] evidence to support cold fusion--helium-4
found by high-resolution mass spectrometry."
 
The NTT experiment has to be one of the poorest pieces of experimentation
put forward in support of cold fusion.  The flaws in the experimental
technique are quite obvious.  Simply put the high-resolution instrument
employed was driven into an operating range where it nolonger has
high-resolution.  The data makes that perfectly clear.  However, from
the writings of Mallove and other CF advocates the fact that the
experiment was funded by a large corporation, NTT, seems to be given
much greater weight than it deserves.  Ultimately it is the quality
of the science that matters, neither Taubes nor Mallove seem to do
a very good job at addressing scientific issues.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 /  Hydrogenarian /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ATTASM@wm6.wl.aecl.ca (Hydrogenarian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 00:10:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
 
 
 
 I'm a little behind in distributing the cold fusion postings to our small
 but dynamic group of interested scientists.  The comment below comes as a
 result of reading April's postings, so please read it -- and comment! -- in
 that light.
 
 Mike Attas
 (attasm@wl.aecl.ca)
 _________________________________________________________________________
 
 14 May, 1993
 
 Re: Undetected AC heating components
 
 Further to Tom Droege's point about undetected AC heating components, one
 could monitor this by running a reference cell in series with the sample
 cell.  The reference cell would employ a wet-proofed electrical resistance
 having approximately the same running resistance as the electrolyte.
 "Anomalous" heat bursts should appear simultaneously in both cells if they
 are line-induced.  With a little ingenuity it should be possible to use the
 proportional change in heat output for the reference cell to correct for
 the "anomalous" heat seen in the sample cell.
 
 Keith Chambers
 AECL Research
 Pinawa, Manitoba
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenATTASM cudlnHydrogenarian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Scott Mueller /  McElwaine - FYI
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine
Subject: McElwaine - FYI
Subject:  McElwaine Network Access Revoked
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 04:06:46 GMT
Date: 10 May 93 12:09:49 -0600
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

Forwarded from news.admin.policy.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
 
In article <1993May16.143853.24717@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
======from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/may_16_1993 ================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.robert.mcelwaine
Subject:  McElwaine Network Access Revoked
Message-ID: <1993May10.120949.7563@cnsvax.uwec.edu>
Date: 10 May 93 12:09:49 -0600
 
On Friday, May 7, 1993 Mr. Robert McElwain's access to the Internet was
revoked by the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire.  This action was
taken because of Mr. McElwaine's refusal to abide by University of
Wisconsin - Eau Claire network usage policies, and the provisions of
policy statements issued by WiscNet and CREN.
 
The University's action was appealed by Mr. McElwaine.  The outcome of
this formal appeal process was to uphold the action of the Director of
Computing and Networking Services and to remove him from the network.
 
The University of Wisconsin Eau Claire regrets having to take this action,
but was forced to do so because of Mr McElwain's continued and persistent
refusal to abide by the stated policies.
 
Charles J. Brenner
Director of Computing and Networking Services
University of Wisconsin
167 Phillips Hall
Eau Claire, WI  54751
 
(715) 836-2030
CBRENNER@UWEC.EDU
 
=====================================
 
[Warning: Don't make announcements like this unless your legal counsel
says it's OK (e.g. the student has signed a waiver). It seems to
violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.  See Joan E.
Van Tol's _Colledge and University Student Records_, 1989.]
 
Discussion on this is centered in:
 
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (aka CAF-Talk)
alt.fan.robert.melwaine
soc.culture.french  - (In French)
 
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
 
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
 
=================
batch/may_16_1993
=================
Archives of the CAF-Talk discussion
 
=================
=================
 
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org
 
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
 
  pub/academic/batch/may_16_1993
 
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
 
send acad-freedom/batch may_16_1993
 
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Jim Bowery /  Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 05:33:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes:
>Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1041:
>
>>Dieter Britz writes (in response to Eugene Mallove):
>>>I flatly refuse to believe that there are scientists out there who have
done
>>>worse than attempt a thorough verification, and failed, to the best of
their
>>>knowledge. I don't believe in conspiracies, generally. Why should anyone
>>>conspire against cnf? Don't give me the hot fusion lobby bit, mate, that is
>>>pure paranoia.
>>...
>>>On maltreatment of cnf I will agree with you as far as this: I have been
>>>persuaded that there is a correlated (but I don't believe organised,
>>>conspiring) effort to keep funding from the field; this is too bad. There
are
>>
>>And now Dieter Britz has joined the ranks of the scoundrels with multi-
>>layered sophistry.  I'll start with the inner, and most important, layer
>>first:
[Read the rest yerself].
 
>  ...I was specifically
>addressing Eugene Mallove's charge that there are scoundrels out there,
>deliberately trying to kill cold fusion.
 
The evidence I have seen in every major technical area funded by the
government which I have investigated (space station, launch services,
 fusion, supersonic transport and high speed electronics) is that the
incentives are set up so as to reward, with authority and credibility,
those who specialize in political excellence and therefore find others,
who specialize in technical excellence, politically threatening.  The
political consequence is that the authorities in science and technology
(mainly technology) act, individually and collectively, to suppress
both technologists and their technologies.
 
They use code-words to allow their motivational/political minds to
communicate with each other without using plain english.  People with
common incentives, motivations and personal characteristics are
amazingly adept at constructing subconscious code-word dictionaries
with which to communicate political motives.
 
If you display ignorance of the code-words, as is usual with technologists
who are motivated by technical excellence, you are politically excluded.
This "code-word" phenomenon is so common in the governmental circles that
coming up with clear translations is a major activity among the more
conscious political engineers within the beltway.
 
I haven't investigated COLD fusion myself, but given the track record
of government funded technologists in general, the government-funded
hot fusion technologists in relation to noncold fusion alternatives in
specific and the time-sequence and content of attacks on cold fusion
following P&F's press conference, it is clear to me that precisely the
same phenomenon is at work there.  While I'm not ready to declare myself
a "believer" in cold fusion, I AM ready to declare myself a a firm
sympathizer with Eugene Mallove, on the basis of this phenomenon and,
in particular, his courageous resignation from MIT -- an act which
gives very strong evidence to his essential integrity.
 
If he claims people are deliberately attempting to suppress cold nuclear
fusion, I would believe him on that basis alone, let alone my own
experiences in analogous arenas.  I say that regardless of my belief,
disbelief or skepticism about cold nuclear fusion itself.
 
>I am not sure how your "naive German" ties in with all this.
 
Self-deception is one of the oldest tricks in the evolutionary book.
Read just about any book on sociobiology.  Start with "The Selfish
Gene" if you've never read anything on the subject.  My basic point
boils down to the relation:
 
Guilt(negligence)<Guilt(conscious deception)<Guilt(unconscious deception)
 
It is necessary that the first and third terms be easily confused.
The main way of discriminating between them is by looking for two
correlated factors:  1) the incentives of the circumstance and 2) the
number of people subject to these incentives.  The greater these two
factors, the more likely we are dealing with unconscious deception.
 
>A tokamak luminary I am not likely to become, because I put
>hot fusion in a similar category to Star Wars.
 
Like I said, you have some personal growth left before you can start
advancing through the ranks of technosocialists.  But you have adopted
the basic paradigm of self-interested self-deception by interpreting
conflicts of interest as innocent mistakes.  The seed of evil is
sprouting within you.  Perhaps by the time it comes to fruition,
the tokamak will be dead as an icon of deception and we'll have others
to take its place.  The Clinton/Gore "technological investment" paradigm
is fertile ground for creating these sorts of conflicts of interest.  They
also tend to drive out real private investment in technology.  You may
soon find yourself with no option but to accept employment with one or
another of the many "International X Initiatives".  I have faith in your
ability to find your niche.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: 18 May 1993 02:03:57 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

DROEGE@fnal.gov writes:
: Bob Lewandowski has put up a nice discussion and argues for a low loss narrow
: bandwidth filter.  Practical considerations force us to simulate what you
: want with an active device.
 
Well there might be another problem too.  Filters can have their
own "internal dynamics" and so can temporarily "save" and "spit out" energy.
(think 'capacitor')
 
Now if you're measuring two quantities, I(t) and V(t) and are computing
integral I(t)V(t), then filtering I(t) and filtering V(t) and then
multiplying will not get the same thing as filtering V*I directly.
 
:  In a previous discuccion with someone, I figured
: the capacitors would fill a three bedroom ranch house.  Some of my better
: cells have dropped 6 volts a one ampere.  That is 6 ohms.  Very easily this
: can get much higher.  The P&F paper shows 25 or so volts at 1/2 ampere.  It
: is very non-linear, so one has to be very careful applying normal circuit
: analysis.
 
I still don't see how adding a filter will help things, because apparently
the cell itself can do really weird shit.  Or am I misunderstanding.
 
: Tom Droege
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Review of Taubes Book
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Review of Taubes Book
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 07:53:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@CompuServe.COM (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1040:
 
>*** The Short Life and Coming Hard Times of Bad Publishing ***
 
 
>                        BAD SCIENCE: The Short Life
>                    and Very Hard Times of Cold Fusion
>                Random House, June, 1993, 461 pages, $25.00
>                                by Gary Taubes
 
 
>                A Critical Review by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
>                                author of
>    Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor
 
 
Thank you, Gene, you have at least done me the favour of giving me the name
and publisher of this book, which I have now ordered. I am interested in
finding out whether this one is as bad as you say.
 
The most devastating review of the book by Huizenga was written by H.H. Bauer;
the reference is Bauer HH; J. Sci. Exploration 6 (1992) 395, and you can read
my abstract of what he writes in the file cnf-cmnt in the archives. Without
rancour or name calling, HHB calls the book the worst that has been written,
and shows why. This detached review packs a far greater punch than the
"review" written by professional writer, Eugene Mallove. I look forward to a
real review of Taubes' book by H.H. Bauer.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Units wrong / Proceedings here
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Units wrong / Proceedings here
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 14:01:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege thought I was "taken in by figure 10 b" in the P&F paper. That's
absurd! I just got sloppy and forgot to write "w/cc." The units figure in the
figure are quite clearly labeled watts per cubic centimeter, and nobody could
possibly construe it as an effort to "take in" people. Tom got his arithmetic
right: 0.04 cc X 20 watts = 0.8 watts.
 
Tom adds: "the presentation of the data appears to deliberately intend to
deceive the reader." No, actually, it is merely slightly muddled additional
back up data to prove they were measuring air pressure correctly. With the
correct, measured air pressure curve for 0.97 bars, the curve conforms with
the observed heat and boil off performance. That's all. Nothing sinister. A
little confusing at first, but read it carefully and you will see.
 
 
I mentioned one of my all-time favorite little books: "How to Lie with
Statistics," by Darrell Huff, cute pictures by Irving Geis (Norton, 1954). 142
pages. 39th printing 1982! ISBN 0-393-09426-X.
 
 
The ICCF3 Proceedings are finally arriving. The full formal title is: "The
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion -- Frontiers
of Cold Fusion." Based on the time it took the books to get here, my guess is
that they were sent by camel train via the Silk Road from China to Europe via
Afghanistan. You can order your copy from:
 
Universal Academy Press, Inc.
PR Hogo 5 Bldg.
6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo
Tokyo 113
JAPAN
 
Telephone numbers as dialed from the U.S. are:
 
Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232
Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932
 
(Please note: some calls to the fax number get a recording saying the line is
not in service.)
 
The price of the proceedings is 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping extra:
$26.65. Ground shipping I don't know)
 
 
When you get your copy, look at the photograph of all the people on the
stairs. I am at the top, farthest away from the camera. The tall, scruffy,
dazed fellow with the beard & glasses. Wave, and I will wave back.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Older than the pyramids
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Older than the pyramids
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 14:01:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John George, at the end of a message expressing enthusiasm for ICCF4,
repeats an old cliche:
 
"We need containment of radwaste to last 250,000 years?!"
 
I submit that Mother Earth has been containing radwaste for at least that
long so it is worth considering how it has been done before making this
the issue driving our energy policies for the future.  First off consider
the physics which sets the time scale, that ominous 250,000 years.
Generally speaking we are talking here about heavy nuclei that decay by
alpha emission.  If we count up all the nuclei that have this "offensively
long half-life" how has that number been changed by man's intervention?
I believe you will find upon careful consideration that the number of
long lived radioactive nuclei on earth is essentially fixed.  Fission
converts one long-lived radio nuclide into two short-lived radio nuclides.
Neutron capture changes the half life but does not influence the
problem of long-term radwaste disposal significantly.  Just remember
that "highly radioactive" and "long-lived" never apply simultaneously
to the same nucleus.  It can only be one or the other.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 /  DROEGE@fnal.go /  When is the current turned off
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: When is the current turned off
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 18:02:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When do P&F turn off the current in the Physics Letters A paper?
 
Dale Bass says: "Of course they indicate that they shut the current off for
those three hours on page 128."
 
I read it differently Dale.  They say: "following the boiling to dryness and
the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high
temperature for prolonged periods of time."
 
They don't actually say that they open circuit the cells.  In fact, figure 8
shows that the cell voltage stays up, and does not drop down to zero until
the cell cools down.  But it is hard to say for sure.  Too bad that P&F
don't attempt a normal scientific write up.  I would preffer to read a well
documented experiment, with some redundancy in the description, so that I did
not have to employ a legal staff to weigh each word!
 
But the real mystery for me is how a dry cell holds so closely to 100 C!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.17 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Loss of part of original P&F 1.3 cc cube
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Loss of part of original P&F 1.3 cc cube
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 18:48:47 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In <C6zMAG.432@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Dale Bass writes:
 
> In the original [Pons and Fleischman early 1989] experiment with the 1.3 cc
> cube [of palladium hydride] ... I would postulate that it boiled partly dry
> causing an explosion that blew the electrolyte out of the cell and then the
> deuterium evolving from the electrode burned very vigorously (ignited either
> spontaneously by the heating of the electrode as the deuterium escaped at
> high loading or ignited in the explosion) melting the electrode.  Since that
> solution is energetically possible, I find it likely.
 
I like it.  May I suggest an even simpler variant of it?:
 
    As Dale suggests, the D2 sparked and led to direct combustion of D2
    (either catalytic or direct burning of released gas) at the PdDx cube.
    Local heating of the PdDx cube then causes an increase D2 pressure in
    an already existing internal crack or void (caused by heavy D2 loading),
    and the 1.3 cc cube literally blows apart into two pieces.  The top half
    of the brittle PdDx is either shattered as it hits another object, or
    it simply gets lost in the debris of the overall D2 explosion.
 
"Vaporization" (or melting for that matter) of the top half of such a cube
would certainly leave a different surface signature than simple splitting,
so this should be a scientifically verifiable hypothesis.
 
So again we return to that doggone nagging little question:
 
    Where IS the remnant of that historical little palladium hydride cube?
 
Perhaps a simple examination of its surface could provide some interesting
insights as to what exactly happened that day over four years ago.  And I
would surely think that Drs. Pons and Fleishmann would love to have such a
nice, simple opportunity to prove to others that they didn't just take a
trivial event and blow it way, way out of proportion.
 
So where is it?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Tom:  I still don't have a copy of the P&F paper, and therefore don't
        feel I can adequately understand your proposals regarding it.  Too
        many unresolved references about diagrams I've never seen.  But I
        take your word that I misunderstood what you really said, and I of
        course apologize for having done so.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Jed Rothwell /  P&F Physics Letters A Paper
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Physics Letters A Paper
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 21:25:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Some people who came into the discussion late asked me what P&F paper is
causing all the fuss, and one person asked me to summarize it. I don't like
the idea of summarizing papers. Here is the Abstract and a few quotes:
 
This is M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southhampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe),
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129 (the latest edition).
 
"We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of Pd-D2O
system which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy
generation (>1 kW cm^-3) at temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of
the electrolyte solution. This has lead to a particularly simple method of
deriving the rate of excess enthlapy production based upon measuring the times
required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using
time-lapse video recordings. Our use of this simple method as well as our
investigations of the results of other research groups prompts us to present
also other simple methods of data analysis which we have used in the
preliminary evaluation of these systems."
 
..and here is the "bottom line" from p. 128 for the 10 minute during boil off
[all equal signs here are wavy line "equal approx"]:
 
"Calculation: Enthalpy input: By electrolysis (Ecell-1.54) X (cell current) =
22500 J.
Enthalpy output: To ambient... = 6700 J; in vapour = (2.5 mol X 41 kJ/mol) =
102500 J
Enthalpy balance: Excess enthalpy = 86700 J
Rate of enthalpy input: By electrolysis, 22500 J/600 s=37.5 W.
Rate of enthalpy output: To ambient, 6600 J/600 s=11 W; in vapour, 102500 J/600
s = 171 W
Balance of enthalpy rates: Excess rate = 144.5 W; excess specific rate = 144.5
W/0.0392 cm^3 = 3700 cm^-3"
 
>From the Hagelstein analysis:
 
"In 1 minute, 8.7 kJ of excess energy is produced. At a density of 12.02 g/cm^3
and an average mass of 106.42 amu, pure Pd contains 6.8 = 10^22 atoms/cm^3. The
total number of atoms in the cathode is 2.7 = 10^21, or 0.0044 moles. In 1
minute, the excess energy production is 1.96 MJ/mole, which corresponds to 20.3
eV/atom of Pd. This number is greater than can be accounted for by a chemical
explanation for the effect. After 10 minutes, the cathode has produced 203
eV/atom." -- "SUMMARY OF ICCF3 IN NAGOYA" (Contact me if you don't have this).
 
There's your bottom line: 203 electron volts per atom. The absolute maximum
theoretical limits of chemistry are up at around 18 eV per atom. By the way,
this cell generated megajoules per mole in the "low heat mode" even before the
boil off event. In the first six days the accumulated excess was 1.5 MJ/mole of
Pd. Just before the boil off event, it was chugging along at 0.8 W/min: in one
minute that's 48 J/min = 10 KJ/Mole. It was ringing up another MJ per mole
every hour and a half, by my arithmetic.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Recall w/min
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recall w/min
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 21:34:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Oops! I said: "[the cell] was chugging along at 0.8 W/min..."
 
The hand once writ in CompuServe to Internet cannot be recalled, but cancel the
"/min." It's 0.8 Watts. That's 48 joules/minute. Also, yesterday I meant "mi"
(miles) not m (meters). The nitpicker's association will get after me if I
don't apologize for these things occasionally...
 
The reader might be amazed that such a careless person can write programs, but
don't forget: compilers catch every little mistake, so I concentrate on
variable names, and leave syntax minutia for the machine to catch.
 
Speaking of Internet, it has been in the New York Times twice recently: 5/15/93
Sunday Times Magazine, and 5/18/93 Science Times.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / nod sivad /  Re: 6% Average!
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6% Average!
Date: Tue, 18 May 93 18:45:32 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>Easy.  You are not driving your car during the entire time you are using to
>compute the average, but the experimenters *are* running power into their
>apparatus during the entire time used to compute the average excess heat.
 
>Really, Jed, we expect better arguments than this one from you.
 
I don't see how you can dismiss Jed's argument so easily.  Many of the CF
experiments seem to consist of intermittent "anomalous heat" events.
The power input outside of these events may be entirely irrelevant.
If so, the heat gain for these events is much higher than the average over
a long run.  To use the car example again, we don't include the
time the car was parked in a mileage calculation because we know
it isn't relevant.  An analogous situation may exist between total input power
and heat events.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / mitchell swartz /  Dick Blue is confused about Henry's law.  Help him!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue is confused about Henry's law.  Help him!
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:10:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <0096CA60.F249EA80.14254@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
     Subject: Mitchell Swartz is confused. Help him.
  Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU a.k.a. blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) opines:
 
==dblue  "To my statement:
==dblue   First we note the fractional content of the atmosphere does not
==dblue   translate directly into an equivalent fractional concentration
==dblue   [of helium] in a Pd sample."
==
==ms  "Do not all other materials come to equilibrium, and then contain
==ms   some fraction of the atmosphere concentration.....?"
==
==dblue  "The answer to that question is no. My statement stands.  The
==dblue  concentration  of helium in a Pd sample is not determined by
==dblue  equilibration with the atmosphere, at least not on a time scale
==dblue  of interest to us."
 
  You will note that the quote which you cite does state: "other materials".
  Such other materials include the heavy water which makes up a significant
  fraction of these experiments.
 
  Dick Blue attempts, therefore, to repudiate Henry's Law which stated,
      prior to Dick Blue's modifications:
 
==Henry    "The mass of a slightly soluble gas that dissolves in a
==Henry  definite mass of a liquid at a given temperature is very
==Henry  nearly directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas.
==Henry  This holds for gases which do not  unite chemically with the
==Henry  solvent."          (per CRC)
 
 
  On what basis shall we throw out Henry's law, Dick?
      Where is your data?  Thank you in advance for providing it.
 
  Please also provide the data which you infer that you have showing
that helium diffusion times are weeks or more, ok?
 
[To quote Dick Blue: "So where have all your snide remarks gotten you, Dick?"
 Such forgetting of simple physical chemistry, while pursuing
    ad hominems, heralds mucho desperation.     ;)   ]
 
                                       Best wishes.
 
                                                      Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More on the P&F Physics Letters A Paper
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on the P&F Physics Letters A Paper
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 01:25:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930517172312.20800e38@FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnal.gov writes:
 
>10) What is the purpose of the "Specific excess heat for hypothetical pressure
>    0.953 bars" caption of figure 10 b?
>
>This author does not understand the reasoning behind the discussion about
>hypothetical atmospheric pressures.
 
     It's simple.  They have not a clue as to how much boiled off and
     how much evaporated.  So the pressure of 0.953 bar is simply that
     pressure that would cause smooth evaporation of cell contents
     over roughly the last day without boiling (assuming, I guess, other
     atmospheric parameters like humidity).
 
     Of course, that is ruled out in the same paragraph by the observation
     that it didn't evaporate that quickly.
 
     The whole discussion is ridiculous because they apparently did not
     measure anything but a single pressure (given to three sig. fig.)
     for the entire 24 hour period, nor apparently do they have good
     measurements for either the time variation of liquid level or the
     two-phase region.  It's not like time variation of liquid level
     would be that difficult to measure (once it starts boiling, that's
     a different thing).
 
>12) Why is the photograph of figure 12 in color?
>
>Paging through a volume of Physics Letters A, this reader did not come across
>any other color photographs in a paper.  Color does not appear to add any
>information.  Are all Physics Letters A photographs put in in color if
>submitted in color?  The horizontal ticks about 3/5 up the cell in the picture
>are what this author takes as the "1/2" fill marks.  Note that since the top
>is silvered, these are about in the correct spot.  They are clearer in the
>video.
 
      There must be some advantage to seeing it in video since
      I couldn't make hide nor hare of the figure itself (except possibly to
      confirm that there are, in fact, 4 cells and it is 10:43).
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fleischmann, Pons and cell overpotential (long)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann, Pons and cell overpotential (long)
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 03:13:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tomkC778vp.A34@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>But for McKubre I have reservations. Palladium is not a terrible
>conductor and I think it likely that there is more than enough
>surface area to allow transfer of the power from the surrounding
>electrolyte. Certainly there are errors introduced by some of the
>sources listed by Dale Bass and Tom Droege, but limited by my
>not seeing the paper, I would think that such errors would be quite
>small.
 
     Yes, but importing hydrogen in large amounts into the lattice changes
     the electrical properties of the lattice.  And the changes are not
     static.  Any drop in the voltage tends to cause hydrogen (at high
     loadings) to want to come out of the lattice.  This might well
     change the electrical properties locally very near the surface and you get
     a weird nonlinear feedback cycle.
 
     In any case, one could show that the errors are negligible by sampling
     more often or sticking a scope on the output and showing that the
     high frequency components are negligible.  But it appears that
     McKubre is not sampling very frequently and that the voltage
     trace is, in fact, fairly 'noisy'.
 
>It should be fairly easy, knowing the surface area of the electrode,
>to calculate what order the surface masking effects should be to
>give the 2.6% excess heat McKubre reports. I think that it would
>show fairly gross amounts of electrode would need to be effected.
 
     It isn't just physical masking by gas, there are effects internal to the
     electrode that you just cannot calculate, local changes in electrical
     properties that may be sensitive to cell conditions or the weather.
 
                                dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: 18 May 1993 09:55:45 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Some passages from Jim Bowery's post:
 
"The evidence I have seen in every major technical area funded by the
government which I have investigated (space station, launch services,
 fusion, supersonic transport and high speed electronics) is that the
incentives are set up so as to reward, with authority and credibility,
those who specialize in political excellence and therefore find others,
who specialize in technical excellence, politically threatening.  The
political consequence is that the authorities in science and technology
(mainly technology) act, individually and collectively, to suppress
both technologists and their technologies."
 
Not just technology, Jim. Even purely within a very specialised area,
one method to solve a problem or the discovery of a new result can be
seen as threatening to those who have built house-of-cards positions
and now rely on them for prestige. Further...
 
"They use code-words to allow their motivational/political minds to
communicate with each other without using plain english.  People with
common incentives, motivations and personal characteristics are
amazingly adept at constructing subconscious code-word dictionaries
with which to communicate political motives.
 
"If you display ignorance of the code-words, as is usual with technologists
who are motivated by technical excellence, you are politically excluded.
This "code-word" phenomenon is so common in the governmental circles that
coming up with clear translations is a major activity among the more
conscious political engineers within the beltway."
 
This phenomenon is really obvious among analytical turbulence theorists in
tokamak fusion. If you point out logical errors or press people for precise
definitions of some of their recently-coined terms, you "just don't
understand" the brilliant work they are pursuing. The activity is not
limited to "political engineers inside the beltway"; it is also present
among mellifluent story-tellers with private lines into DOE. The problem
is obvious to anyone familiar with the sociology of science: the normal
self-checking mechanisms of the scientific method (which are its _only_
defense against subtle bullshit) are being circumvented by personal
intervention, sometimes by the most eminent people in the field. The
story of Stalin and Lysenko should be mandatory study for first-year
graduate students, in _any_ field of science, in my mind, in order to
combat this.
 
Jim, you have hit the nail absolutely dead-on. The whole problem is not
the people themselves; this is an activity of humans, and there are all
kinds of humans. The problem is that a system has been built up which
_selects_ for this type of behaviour. Those who are proficient at it rise,
and they rise for the same reasons that captains of Mafia-like organisations
rise.
 
But at other times, strong personalities who have strong integrity can
help police the system. I can say that I am lucky to be in a place where
such people are the leaders. We in this institute are telling the truth
about the problems ITER is going to face. But, then, on the downside, I can
relate the story of Dieter Pfirsch, one of the greatest plasma physicists
ever produced by Germany. He went very public about three years ago with
his reasons why the tokamak program will never produce a workable reactor.
He even opined that the program might be set up as it is (as a
fusion/fission _hybrid_) in order to preserve the usefulness (and
necessity!) of fission power. Needless to say, this was not taken so
friendly. Such a luminary as Pfirsch cannot really be suppressed, but he
can be marginalised. The result is that his group lives on, but cannot hire
anyone new (aside from post-docs). When he retires in the next two years
it will probably be absorbed into the others.
 
So at this time we tell the truth about ITER, but tread gingerly in talking
about tokamaks in general: to say that there are serious problems is OK, to
flatly state they will never work is not. The point is that when one can
really show (ie, if global, well-resolved computations make it obvious)
that the concept is fatally flawed--on _physics_ grounds--then I would
not fear standing up and saying so. The point is, you'd better be sure.
Just to make it clear: I wouldn't help myself by harping on the engineering
aspects because I know practically nothing about that (how much does
Dieter Britz know, to say it is like Star Wars?); but if I had the meat
to show it was flawed because of transport properties, then that's my
business, and I will be able and compelled to say so. If I were right, then
here I could expect to be rewarded. This last bit may be different in the US.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Units wrong / Proceedings here
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Units wrong / Proceedings here
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 15:50:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930518134849_72240.1256_EHK32-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Tom adds: "the presentation of the data appears to deliberately intend to
>deceive the reader." No, actually, it is merely slightly muddled additional
>back up data to prove they were measuring air pressure correctly. With the
>correct, measured air pressure curve for 0.97 bars, the curve conforms with
>the observed heat and boil off performance. That's all. Nothing sinister. A
>little confusing at first, but read it carefully and you will see.
 
     Yes, but were they measuring the humidity correctly?
     And did the pressure vary that day?  Was there a storm?
     Did relative humidity vary from 10% to 100% over that 'day'?
 
     The whole thing 'analysis' for Figure 10b is goofy.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: 6% Average!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6% Average!
Date: 18 May 93 15:18:28 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930517224926_72240.1256_EHK37-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>P&F's cells generate 6% excess heat, McKubre's 3%, and my car goes 0.25 miles
>per hour. That's right! My office is 3 miles away, I go 6 m/day or 0.25 m/hr.
>What is wrong with this picture?
 
Easy.  You are not driving your car during the entire time you are using to
compute the average, but the experimenters *are* running power into their
apparatus during the entire time used to compute the average excess heat.
 
Really, Jed, we expect better arguments than this one from you.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / mitchell swartz /  Older than the pyramids
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Older than the pyramids
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 23:55:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <0096CAEB.15DE1680.14274@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: Older than the pyramids
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU a.k.a. blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) writes:
 
==db  "John George, at the end of a message expressing enthusiasm for ICCF4,
==db repeats an old cliche:
==
==jg "We need containment of radwaste to last 250,000 years?!"
==
==db "I submit that Mother Earth has been containing radwaste for at least that
==db long so it is worth considering how it has been done before making this
==db the issue driving our energy policies for the future.  First off consider
==db the physics which sets the time scale, that ominous 250,000 years."
 
   Earth to Dick Blue:
   Do you really believe that there are no contaminated sites?
   Do you really believe that all streams and lakes and fields and hills
      and wildlife are as clean today with respect to plutonium and tritium
      (and DDT) before we began contributing our chemosignature to the
      environment?
 
   [Earth Day never seemed so far away.      :(
 
 
==db "I believe you will find upon careful consideration that the number of
==db long lived radioactive nuclei on earth is essentially fixed."
 
   Do you really have any, uhhhhh, proof that the number of long lived
    radioactive nuclei on the surface of earth is fixed?  How about for
    any few representative sites?
   [Given your past response, it is recommended that readers ought not hold
                             their breath or they'll turn Blue]
 
 
==db "Just remember that "highly radioactive" and "long-lived" never apply
==db   simultaneously to the same nucleus.  It can only be one or the other."
 
 Dick, more serious reading on your part might go far.
 
  Might you be confusing "high activity" of a sample for "highly radioactive"?
 
  Long physical half-life is obviously what you mean by "long-lived" (since
  with this missive you apparently were not referring to remnant CF
  scientists surviving the "neutron fury" in a room around a D2O-Pd system).  ;)
 
   If so, your teaching is incorrect.  You say: "It can only be one or
     the other."   But, it can be both since they not necessarily linked.
     A very concentrated, isotope of long half-life, sample is both.
        Why the confusion?
     Because sample activity is a function of the cohort of nuclei,
     not any one.
                           Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Carl Ijames /  Re: When is the current turned off
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the current turned off
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 19:37:25 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <930518122910.20606e88@FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnal.gov wrote:
>
> When do P&F turn off the current in the Physics Letters A paper?
>
> Dale Bass says: "Of course they indicate that they shut the current off for
> those three hours on page 128."
>
> I read it differently Dale.  They say: "following the boiling to dryness and
> the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high
> temperature for prolonged periods of time."
>
> They don't actually say that they open circuit the cells.  In fact, figure 8
> shows that the cell voltage stays up, and does not drop down to zero until
> the cell cools down.  But it is hard to say for sure.  Too bad that P&F
> don't attempt a normal scientific write up.  I would preffer to read a well
> documented experiment, with some redundancy in the description, so that I did
> not have to employ a legal staff to weigh each word!
>
> But the real mystery for me is how a dry cell holds so closely to 100 C!
>
> Tom Droege
 
I haven't read the paper yet, but one interpretation is that the cell goes
dry, open-circuits, the constant-current supply voltage rises to its
maximum, and the current falls to zero.  They just don't bother to turn the
supply off until the end of the experiment, but since no current is
flowing, no power is delivered to the cell.  Do they have any plot of
current versus time?  Also, if an arc forms (as Tom postulated in another
post) the voltage should fall, not remain at its highest level.
 
Is there liquid below the cathode?  If so, how does the cell boil "dry"?
Could a pocket of remaining liquid be refluxing in the test tube -
evaporating from the bottom, rising as vapor, and then condensing on the
thermistor and the upper portions of the test tube, to run back down the
sides to the bottom to begin the cycle again.  This would keep the
thermistor temperature constant at 100 degrees until the tube finally
really dried out via diffusion through the vent or until whatever was
producing the heat ceased.  Differences in heat production would affect the
refluxing rate but would not change the cell temperature, since there would
still be a liquid reservoir present.  This reduces the need for the
$$$miracle$$$ of constant heat production.  Maybe the error is that "dry"
is not really dry.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: 6% Average!
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6% Average!
Date: 18 May 93 20:28:50 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993May18.184532.3145@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jhu
edu (nod sivad) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>Easy.  You are not driving your car during the entire time you are using to
>>compute the average, but the experimenters *are* running power into their
>>apparatus during the entire time used to compute the average excess heat.
>
>>Really, Jed, we expect better arguments than this one from you.
>
>I don't see how you can dismiss Jed's argument so easily.  Many of the CF
>experiments seem to consist of intermittent "anomalous heat" events.
>The power input outside of these events may be entirely irrelevant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If so, the heat gain for these events is much higher than the average over
>a long run.
..................
 
 
REALLY!
 
WELL, now we have you telling us that we should not hold the CF
proponents to a real standard of energy gain.  Even the HF proponents
use "break-even" as a measure of success.
 
It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with P & F, and I have
not heard or seen what looks like proof to me.  Your suggestion, to
be charitable, would not lend credibility to any "proof" offered.
 
I guess I could just slowly charge a capacitor, and discharge it
rapidly, and I would satisfy you by heating up the resistor I
discharged it into.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / mitchell swartz /  Fig.8 of F&P paper (+ GIF figure)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fig.8 of F&P paper (+ GIF figure)
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 23:51:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In many postings there are discussions of a recent Fleischmann and
Pons paper [Physics Letters A 176 (93) 118-129].   It is recommended that
readers obtain the paper, but to boost interest here is another GIF
from the figure.  Please: This picture is no substitute for the paper,
and readers are encouraged to read further.
 
   In the first message to discuss the paper, in Message-ID:
<C73pJL.A6p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Subject: Re: Area of expertise
  Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
==bass  "Ignoring other hypotheses, my 'obvious' conclusion is that
==bass P&F are incapable of writing a good paper.  In the last 11 minutes
==bass while boiling, the *average* voltage is over 75 volts, and the peak
==bass is apparently over 100 volts.  And yet Figures
==bass 8a and 8b show no voltage over 100 even though the express purpose of
==bass those graphs in the text seems to be discussion of the last 11 minutes."
 
   This statement is a less that accurate description of what is there..
   The figure (8) is discussed in paragraph 3 on page 124.
      Here is the quote from the paper:
 
==f&p     "Figure 8a gives the overall temperature and cell potential-time data
==f&p  for the second electrode of the set.  The main objective of these
==f&p  investigation shas been to determine the conditions required to produce
==f&p  high rates of excess enthalpy generation at the boiling points of the D2O
==f&p  solutions. ...   We therefore charge the electrodes at low to
==f&p   intermediate current densities and temperatures below 50C for prolonged
==f&p  periods of time;  following this, the current densities are increased
==f&p  and the temperature is allowed to rise."
 
    To be fair to the authors (F&P), again readers are encouraged to
read the paper, what follows is the actual figure
     in UUENCODED GIF format [I tried 300 dpi B&W - hope it works....
                              Thank you Chuck Harrison for the feedback].
 
   The temperature-time and potential-time curves are discussed further
in the paper:
 [M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, Physics Letters A 176 (93) 118-129]
 
==uuencoded GIF follows === [F&P, Phys.Let.A,176(93),118; fig. 8b] =======
begin 600 fp8gif
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MK&7H^_N#H3B2I7FBJ;JRK?O"JE%Y<=S-MK[S_8;[@L(AL6@\(I-*8FY26WZ
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ME#?K[IR//8?\IDV9K8VVQ='*D\.!M&E[HUG,W[6^V^VF.7V]SU'(]0/Y^_$
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M'MSDAK_M2>*X^1FUVW0W;BF2=0>-L.FI]0UZM!;[^UU[=W_G7O6]CLO.I'$
MPIZK.P5ZG2+R(^[.^UE\-P]>SM!?TKO#=)O#_/3:"4XX[:MEK_UBW(=?%/FZ
M#4A  DQ=7OO34 202NRBJ3Q_,!3!*RE'-%7)<W5?.)9GNK:GY]9WOO?MUD\X
M)-)R*H\)1K%DF) E#BHY<H[+9J?H:P6WO^M7/":795-S6KV>>;UL7A*'+07#
M%90G*]IK5SG -XN#NY%!$[L].1?%-SB2!L='QL5)RTO,O\),SLXA)L1-OC!)
MJ:1*#=*0QA>KTQ-74$,T5*H-O=)(5EM53;\Y74*%VKPNS]7(8RQEYN9+4>=H
MZ8];6DI@/&1@8FP]^VT_;NKAC>30[-'S7Y9Q:&IR1 S47 9Y-]TSV'E.XVGT
M_G\N^N+E:C=*($"$F6)=.3AAG,-U\,+)03.073@GJ2I1+.C@GC]SU^C9&]FJ
M9+R/">.44YFRY4LJ3OH4JSAR9HJ.,'6R<0416[&+J^H4Y(AQ44V@[%QVT-=E
MWAV,2) TS+C3C#RK\++NK$4JZL.0&I12HKK5;)QW'GV-C1C6(EAW)QFQ5%O7
MY%F\S+!N_9K7DZB-3?/)U:JIK%_$K03=M9O8\6/(,>ER[4L9$%.D9 #; ME8
M76&<E2./[DS:]&F>".V8S9EUT&O1:.MQ%DI;R=)9AU&?CKW;]Y;>^S)#]]"]
M9C7?X)0):TX+5VQMEUVIMOY=O7AU/GGPQ4C^5COV1]>E==>9Z.HMW+<AH03M
MV2!X^+8GGUGVAS&0^/F5'7<M7J7Y,G"9;YCLV/OIN=#\TP^YJHPXK"P%%Y2P
M/\DH1$VZ $\9L+T*"2.F-^HF?(P\$4L,2+#,%+LIFJY8B_ ?#)DCD)X&Q9'O
MPX9"--$O$G=LBZSI5ISJ$)F(!%)(4Y+D[J@7OV@1N2:GX4^,H]+S*:[H2!K2
MQ]^B=&M+FBI[#9\Q@T%R($)2M$U-Z+YTCBF1$%SNL[7<:T9+JW1D4$XG+RCD
MP]+: Q!,+B^\B,0R#3HSE$49;;1(^[8B#9')IP8C:TX.@YM-/O44VU O _/L
ML:57O&0!-H8&Q7*Y30DMU+0G8O7434ZC8K)-#F?!-+"DWA0.4UQS/?#*7GW-
MM#A>8?3.,NOT%&*3O0)-9U@ZWWN5MTZ%777&]?C<]1MCI4W63DZK+==98JD=
M-CE*T62T#=@ <L-4-="]]CY?6\V7GW"%HO?>8V3Q-MAT.]26VE*<FM78=G6-
MU)U8'XRWR$?1?-1(\.:%$N B-*8U1G4YHH/CT03F=KB!!S0*6#[M]2J1-'6<
M.+>**<X)8Q6ET@_'C4E^UF:0-5(S4<-\ADS6@[=M+=6$ ZFT9HO9Q)EF3>TU
M.F"/^T7]]VHBMGXX9J*YEM+*.NT3^^S(>.[/ZSMC0=M15*=^>[^YZ[;[Q\2L
M+F]FM...^^X[ 1=\\%''*URUYNSV&]7! V[\\;G9?N9P&"7'3F_(P\M\\ZL%
ML;S/SS&AW$3,.:_7=-3O];QG6$/WK?34-8M]]AU77WNWT46$G7;@>/=]0=NU
M?AU42R1V_7>SD5>^RU^%OS 0<\\;V$M+BUZ^D^.OUQX.;G+GWGO#&0_/3ZBD
M_C,P H)?&')[JB<GK?;BK#?O_C\+.)*E>:*INK*M^UK1),-U2-NY)P(&KU-P
M/06.*&P8>4G&DODA J/2*351O6*SVBVWNSDR?]X1^W1LUHJ=D M-U%Z\PSOP
MN6Z'I>_Z/;_O7]&M_664#1J6Y%DA-(7(#2W"(4EV%!Y:7JIAGB1J=GI^.LZ
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M(^>K?(TR)K*(*H=SJ=BQZ=-S%7J67)9EOM:#P\9F/14-:-A-+(U3"ZTTZM_
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M+S^/ A]D8@^U_;J83@76!V ]@7\8T>MU,*'"A0P;.KR1[Z'$B>C\[3%XD=M
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KFFJNR6:;;KX)9YQRSDEGG7;>B6>>>N[)9Y]^_@EH"J""#DIHH8;Z40  .XEF
 
end
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: 6% Average!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6% Average!
Date: 18 May 93 21:16:03 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993May18.184532.3145@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jhu
edu (nod sivad) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>Easy.  You are not driving your car during the entire time you are using to
>>compute the average, but the experimenters *are* running power into their
>>apparatus during the entire time used to compute the average excess heat.
>
>>Really, Jed, we expect better arguments than this one from you.
>
>I don't see how you can dismiss Jed's argument so easily.
 
It was based on a bad analogy.  The cell is "running" whenever you are
putting power into it *unless* you have some independent way of telling
me, "ok, I will now start a power cycle by turning this knob here".  The
new P&F experiment still falls in the category of a transient event.
 
>                                                           Many of the CF
>experiments seem to consist of intermittent "anomalous heat" events.
>The power input outside of these events may be entirely irrelevant.
>If so, the heat gain for these events is much higher than the average over
>a long run.  To use the car example again, we don't include the
>time the car was parked in a mileage calculation because we know
>it isn't relevant.  An analogous situation may exist between total input power
>and heat events.
 
Heat and power are not the same thing.  Heat is energy.  Since we know that
the cell stores energy, it can also release some of the energy stored in it.
Thus the correct reference number is the amount put into the cell.  One
is always concerned that the nominal level is less than breakeven by some
few % effect you miss so the burst is just a compensation for that offset.
Similarly, it might be that some of the input energy was accounted for as
being needed to put the D into the Pd lattice, but you had better check
that it is still all there when you are done or you will need to rebalance
the books accordingly.
 
Jed's analogy is quite appropriate to the discussion of, say, whether
solar charging of an electric vehicle might be practical for him.  There
the total energy demand over a day is relevant.  I have a heat pump for
my house that takes in power and puts out heat, and it does a lot better
than a few %.  That seems like a better system for comparison if you want
to talk about turning power into heat.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / David Davies /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: 19 May 93 03:52:32 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
 
>I still don't see how adding a filter will help things, because apparently
>the cell itself can do really weird shit.  Or am I misunderstanding.
 
I've apparently missed chunks of this thread but the picture I have so far is
that the PS is usually current regulated and the cells impedence varies rapidly.
This is presumably due to a gas film developing on the electrode surfaces then
breaking up. If the power is current regulated and the impedence goes up, the
voltage will rise to try to compensate - moving into an uncertain regime that
depends on the detailed protection circuitry of the PS. Voltage regulation
would at least keep things simpler with the current droping off toward zero.
This would presumably provide a negative feedback to the surface process rather
than a positive feedback in the current regulated setup.
 
So we get to the point of digital meters and sampling times etc. Maybe an old
fashioned moving coil meter would give a useful comparison but the presence of
high frequency spikes should be checked with an oscilloscope.
 
Reminds me of my laser physics days with highly nonlinear systems producing
spiked output that can have a large energy content through their extreme amplitude
and high repitition frequency. In the CF cells it seems possible to have spike
peaks 100x the mean amplitude. They only have to take up say 10% of the time
interval to account for any of the observed effects.
 
This power measurement issue seems critical. It should be fairly simple to resolve.
 
Dave D.
 
Dave.Davies@anu.edu.au
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 08:53:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1044:
 
>...                           The seed of evil is
>sprouting within you.
 
Hey! Maybe that's why these horns are growing on my head! I was wondering.
Jim, I have a feeling I am being paid back for my remarks about Marx a few
weeks ago, that seemed to upset you so much. Don't you think you are getting
a bit personal here, and away from technical issues? In other words, lay off,
mate.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: When is the current turned off
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the current turned off
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 03:27:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930518122910.20606e88@FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnal.gov writes:
>When do P&F turn off the current in the Physics Letters A paper?
>
>Dale Bass says: "Of course they indicate that they shut the current off for
>those three hours on page 128."
>
>I read it differently Dale.  They say: "following the boiling to dryness and
>the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high
>temperature for prolonged periods of time."
>
>They don't actually say that they open circuit the cells.  In fact, figure 8
>shows that the cell voltage stays up, and does not drop down to zero until
>the cell cools down.  But it is hard to say for sure.  Too bad that P&F
 
    Yes, it's difficult to tell much from Figure 8 in this regard since
    the timescale is so compressed; each division is 138 hours and
    3 hours is only 2% of this.  However, it looks to me in Figure 8a like
    the voltage comes down before the temperature (of course one could
    equally make a case that the temperature comes down before the voltage
    since the Figure is so bad, the last few hours ride atop the graph, beyond
    human ken).  It does look to me like the temperature and
    the voltage drop together in Figure 8b, so the difference in behavior
    between the two graphs is another inexplicable mystery.
 
>don't attempt a normal scientific write up.  I would preffer to read a well
>documented experiment, with some redundancy in the description, so that I did
>not have to employ a legal staff to weigh each word!
 
    You're right about the legal staff.  Here, I'll present my
    brief.  I based my assertion on three things
    a) 'to allow the cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current'
    on page 129, b) ''following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting
    of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature
    for prolonged periods of time (fig. 11)' on page 128, and
    c) Figure 11 itself indicating that the cell remained at 100C for
    3 hours.
 
    It seemed to me that the only implication one could draw from
    b) was that cell dryness and current shut-off were nominally
    concurrent events since the 'prolonged periods of time' must
    be the three hours noted in Figure 11.  The fall time does
    takes minutes so it does not seem sufficient to be described by
    that phrase.  That it was shut off seems assured by a) and b).
 
>But the real mystery for me is how a dry cell holds so closely to 100 C!
 
     Yet another good question...
 
                        dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: When is the current turned off
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When is the current turned off
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 03:51:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <ijames-180593152207@156.40.188.218> ijames@helix.nih.gov
(Carl Ijames) writes:
>
>I haven't read the paper yet, but one interpretation is that the cell goes
>dry, open-circuits, the constant-current supply voltage rises to its
>maximum, and the current falls to zero.  They just don't bother to turn the
>supply off until the end of the experiment, but since no current is
>flowing, no power is delivered to the cell.  Do they have any plot of
>current versus time?  Also, if an arc forms (as Tom postulated in another
>post) the voltage should fall, not remain at its highest level.
 
    Then you're left with the problem that a) the cell temperature stays
    high, and b) the Kel-F support melted.  If the compliance voltage is
    not sufficient to arc across the gap (either when dry or in film boiling
    with a delta T of 200C), I see no way for the anode to melt the
    support structure.  Of course, we'd be able to make better
    statements if they had given us a clue as to *any* of the equipment
    they used.
 
    'Coldfusion' in the cathode cannot do it because the temperature
    measured above the cathode would rise (substantially) if it ever
    became hot enough to convect heat so that there is 300C at the
    base support structure.
 
>Is there liquid below the cathode?  If so, how does the cell boil "dry"?
 
    Tom or someone else has raised this question before.  Several
    people have said 'It can't', my feeling is that it did, driven by
    boiling from the very very hot anode when the cell arcs after the
    cathode loses electrolyte.
 
>Could a pocket of remaining liquid be refluxing in the test tube -
>evaporating from the bottom, rising as vapor, and then condensing on the
>thermistor and the upper portions of the test tube, to run back down the
>sides to the bottom to begin the cycle again.  This would keep the
>thermistor temperature constant at 100 degrees until the tube finally
>really dried out via diffusion through the vent or until whatever was
>producing the heat ceased.  Differences in heat production would affect the
>refluxing rate but would not change the cell temperature, since there would
>still be a liquid reservoir present.  This reduces the need for the
>$$$miracle$$$ of constant heat production.  Maybe the error is that "dry"
>is not really dry.
 
    The Kel-F support structure at the bottom of the cell, connected to
    the base of the anode melts.  They hypothesize that this would require
    at least 300C to do.  If there was electrolyte in the bottom of the cell,
    it would seem to provide a modicum of thermal protection for the
    site at the base of the anode, and certainly 300C would put the anode
    (probably Pt wire, but they don't seem to specify) into film boiling, with
    large wire-fluid heat transfer coefficients, and correspondingly
    smaller electrolyte contact.  It doesn't seem to me that this can
    occur without strong forcing.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fig.8 of F&P paper (+ GIF figure)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fig.8 of F&P paper (+ GIF figure)
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 04:07:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C78yA5.5yp@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In many postings there are discussions of a recent Fleischmann and
>Pons paper [Physics Letters A 176 (93) 118-129].   It is recommended that
>readers obtain the paper, but to boost interest here is another GIF
>from the figure.  Please: This picture is no substitute for the paper,
>and readers are encouraged to read further.
 
>  Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>==bass  "Ignoring other hypotheses, my 'obvious' conclusion is that
>==bass P&F are incapable of writing a good paper.  In the last 11 minutes
>==bass while boiling, the *average* voltage is over 75 volts, and the peak
>==bass is apparently over 100 volts.  And yet Figures
>==bass 8a and 8b show no voltage over 100 even though the express purpose of
>==bass those graphs in the text seems to be discussion of the last 11 minutes."
>
>   This statement is a less that accurate description of what is there..
>   The figure (8) is discussed in paragraph 3 on page 124.
>      Here is the quote from the paper:
 
     It's perfectly accurate.  It is also discussed on page 128 in the context
     of the enthalpy calculations for the last 11 minutes.  And as you quoted
     yourself on page 124 'The main objective of these investigations has been
     to determine the conditions required to produce high rates of excess
     enthalpy generation at the *boiling points* (emphasis mine) of
     the D2O solutions.'  Since they only reach the boiling point sometime
     around 11 minutes before the 'cell boils dry', you're barking up the
     wrong tree.
 
     Am I to take it, then, that yours is a defence of letting lines
     run off the top of graphs?  This is bad form for undergraduates,
     and these people are supposedly professional scientists.
 
>    To be fair to the authors (F&P), again readers are encouraged to
>read the paper, what follows is the actual figure
>     in UUENCODED GIF format [I tried 300 dpi B&W - hope it works....
>                              Thank you Chuck Harrison for the feedback].
 
     Absolutely, I encourage everyone interested to get the paper.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  blue@nscl01.ns /  Misapplication of Henry's law.
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misapplication of Henry's law.
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 13:59:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz quotes Henry's law as follows:
<<"The mass of a slightly soluble gas that dissolves in a definite mass >>
<< of a liquid at a given temperature is very nearly directly proportional >>
<< to the partial pressure of that gas.  This holds for gases which do not >>
<< unite chemically with the solvent."                                     >>
 
The issue under discussion was the diffusion of helium into palladium.
In considering how Henry's law applies to this case, I noted that Pd is
note a liquid and I question whether helium can be considered as being
"slightly soluble" in Pd.  That, in fact, may be the key point.  For
my reference I pick an article by G.F. Weston titled "Materials for
ultrahigh vacuum," originally published in Vacuum, vol 25, number 11/12
by Pergamon Press.  It is available to me in a book of reprints titled
"Vacuum Mechatronics" edited by Beni, Hackwood, Belinski, Shrirazi, Li,
and Karrapiah.  It is published by Artech House.
 
Now to get down to the nitty gritty facts of the matter; this is what
Weston has to say on the subject:
 
"The gas content of metals is not always attributable to the melting
process, since gasses can diffuse into most metals in the solid state.
The process is relatively slow at room temperature, and metals which
have been degassed can generally stored for periods of days without
an appreciable increase in gas content.  The diffusion, however,
increases exponentially with temperature.  The rare gases are an
exception, and do not dissolve in any metal under purely thermal
conditions, even when the metal is molten.  They can only be absorbed
if the gas atoms bombard the metal with a high energy, either as ions
or energetic neutrals."
 
Further on under the heading "Permeation of gases through metals."
Weston says:
 
"Unlike glass the diffusion takes place through the crystal lattice,
and only those gasses which are soluble in the metal will permiate
through it.  Thus, helium and the other inert gases will not permiate
through any metal even at elevated temperatures, whereas hydrogen and
oxygen with permiate to some extent through most metals."
 
Incidentally, the Weston paper also contains lots of information about
the permiation of helium through glass, the subject that started this
thread.
 
I rest my case, Mitchell.  Helium in metal is not a problem.  Helium
in glass is a problem.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Turn off switch later
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Turn off switch later
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:43:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Carl Ijames suggest that:
 
"...the cell goes dry, open-circuits, the constant-current supply voltage
rises to its maximum, and the current falls to zero.  They just don't bother
to turn the supply off until the end of the experiment, but since no current
is flowing, no power is delivered to the cell."
 
Yes, I believe that is exactly what they meant. They do not physically turn
off the power supply until sometime after the event ends.
 
 
Arnold Frisch writes:
 
"WELL, now we have you telling us that we should not hold the CF proponents to
a real standard of energy gain.  Even the HF proponents use 'break-even' as a
measure of success."
 
This is absurd. Some cells have generated continuous heat for weeks, a few at
HCP for over a year. They are *far* beyond a mere 6% total average. The only
reason P&F's overall net gain is only 6% is because they turn off the cells a
few minutes after high heat mode begins. If they continually replenished the
electrolyte, the cells would boil until kingdom come -- for years, as far as
anyone can tell.
 
The purpose of these experiments is to control the cells, and to push them
into the high heat mode on command. They have succeeded in doing this; they
can predict within a very tight timeframe exactly when that mode will turn on.
The reason they do not choose to sustain the high heat reaction indefinitely
is explained quite clearly in the paper:
 
"We conclude once again with some words of warning. A major cause of the rise
in cell voltage is undoubtedly the gas volume between the cathode and anode as
the temperature approaches the boiling point (i.e. heavy steam). The further
development of this work therefore calls for the use of pressurized systems to
reduce this gas volume as well as to further raise the operating temperature.
Apart from the intrinsic difficulties of operating such systems, it is also
not at all clear whether the high levels of enthalpy generation achieved in
the cell in fig. 12 are in any sense a limit or whether they would not
continue to increase with more prolonged operation. At a specific excess rate
of enthalpy production of 2 kilowatts per cubic centimeter, the electrodes in
the cells of fig.12 are already at the limit at which there would be a switch
from nucleate to film boiling if the current flow were interrupted (we have
shown in separate experiments that heat transfer rates in the range 1-10
kilowatts per square centimeter can be achieved provided current flow is
maintained, i.e., this current flow extends the nucleate boiling regime). The
possible consequences of a switch to film boiling are not clear at this stage.
We have therefore chosen to work with 'open' systems and to allow the cells to
boil to dryness before interrupting the current."
 
Let me add that anyone in this business who does not take that warning 100%
seriously is a crazy, suicidal fool.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Need better arguments from Jim
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need better arguments from Jim
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 14:43:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jim Carr writes:
 
"You are not driving your car during the entire time you are using to compute
the average, but the experimenters *are* running power into their apparatus
during the entire time used to compute the average excess heat... Really, Jed,
we expect better arguments than this one from you."
 
Whoa, Nellie! Read the rest of the message. You know perfectly well that the
power running in during the first week is falling right out again. The
calorimeters show a net balance of zero, no storage. More important: You
cannot store more than about 18 electron volts per atom of energy in a
chemical system. You can pour a Niagara Falls of electricity into that tiny
cathode bucket, for weeks and weeks, but when you are finished, you have only
stored one bucketful -- maybe a kilojoule.
 
"You cannot soak up Lake Michigan with a sponge in one gulp" is what I said
last time. Think about it! You cannot store megajoules of chemical energy in a
mole of material. If the process *goes* exothermic, and *stays* exothermic,
never dipping below zero, then once it passes a few hundred kilojoules per
mole, the charging period no longer matters. Also, don't tell me it is
actually falling below zero into an endothermic reaction! It is Way Too Far
above the noise for that to be the case. Heck, with the boiling, it would have
to actually stop boiling, cool down, and start up again.
 
Come on, Jim, we expect better arguments from you. Please address the issue
square on, no evasion: think "Megajoules Per Mole." What does that tell you?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Eugene Mallove /  Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:36:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        Glad that I could bring the "TT" (Taubes Travesty) to your attention,
Dieter.  I was already quite familiar with Henry Bauer's review of Huizenga's
book and agree, with minor qualification, that it is the most devastating
review of his book. The qualification is that my informal 17-page review of
Huizenga's book is in a way more devastating because it deals with the
indefensible political aspects of Huizenga's behavior as well as his
incompetent view of the nature of science -- on which Bauer and I are in
complete agreement. I'm sure Bauer's review does pack more punch for folks
like you, Dieter, who have not been directly (or by implication) assaulted or
attacked by science bigots like Huizenga, Taubes, et al.
 
        Tell me Dieter, when was the last time you were in a situation where
dozens of journalists and top members of the scientific establishment were
calling your work "fraud or incompetence," making jokes about it, and helping
to deny funding for it, etc., etc.? I think if you were in such a situation,
you woud have just a teensy, teensy, weens, bit of rancor in your defensive
assaults against insults so exemplified by the Taubes book.
 
        Just to give you a bit of your own medicine: I look forward to a REAL
bibliography of cold fusion that includes papers in proceedings as well as
other writings censored from the mainline journals. Such a bibiliogrphy would
"pack more punch" -- would come closer to the truth of what is going on in
cold fusion -- than the "bibliography" written by professional bibliogrpaher
Dieter Britz.
 
        You seem to have a very definite dual standard: it's OK for cold
fusion people to be called names, but if cold fusion people prepare precise
critiques of nasty attacks against them and at the same time throw back a few
insults, that's not good. Let's face it Dieter, you really don't like it when
the cold fusion community fights back. You'd prefer us to remain at the back
of the bus. Too bad, mate, you'll just have to get used to us being in the
driver's seat from now on.
 
        As for Dick Blue who thinks there is some kind of similarity between
Taubes and Mallove, that's the same kind of nonsense that we used to hear
vis-a-vis the U.S. and the former Soviet Union being equally bad or equally to
blame for the cold war. Dick Blue, someone said, is an acolyte's acolyte. Is
it really true, Dick, that you are an escaped character from a Disney flick? I
can think of one or more of the Seven Dwarfs who resembles your dopey
position.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / S Petersen /  HELP: looking for Li-O based crystals
     
Originally-From: IFF291@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Stephan Petersen)
Newsgroups: sci.materials,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELP: looking for Li-O based crystals
Date: 19 May 93 14:26:38 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

 
 
Hi,
 
 
I'm looking around for suppliers of the following Li-O based single
crystals:
 
        Li2O
        LiAlO2
        LiZrO3
        Li4SiO4
 
Size: 8mm diameter, 1mm thick.
Used in tritium multipliers.
 
 
If anybody has an idea on who could supply these materials or who grows
them, please drop me a line. Thanks for any hints.
 
Stephan
 
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Stephan Petersen                        | 5170 Juelich               |
| IFF (Institute of Solid State Research) | GERMANY                    |
| Research Center Juelich                 | st.petersen@kfa-juelich.de |
| P.O. Box 1913                           | IFF291@DJUKFA11            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenIFF291 cudfnStephan cudlnPetersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Turn off switch later: for safety
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Turn off switch later: for safety
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:26:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I should have stated this explicitly, but the exact reason P&F leave the
switch on after the boil off event is explained in the paragraph I quoted. It
is a safety precaution. They want to avoid film boiling. As it said, with
electrolysis, you can maintain nucleate boiling in the range of 1 - 10 kw/cc.
They want to be certain electrolysis continues until the very last second.
Since it is a safety precaution, I would make it a habit to leave the switch on
until everything cools down and you are ready to pack up the time lapse video.
 
One other small note: these "run on" CF reactions after electrolysis have been
reported by other people, and we discussed them informally at the TAMU meeting
last year. A famous example was the 50 hour 792 kilojoule reaction reported by
Mizuno in 1991.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  For whom the bell tolls
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For whom the bell tolls
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 19:19:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I thought I had posted this about a week ago, but I assume I messed it up
somehow.  So I try again.  If you get this twice--my apologies.
 
Nod Sivan writes:
>
>Anyway, the funeral knell for a nuclear mechanism has been ringing for
>some time.  I've hoped for a while that the non-nuke experimenters
>like Mills might still have a chance of pulling this off.  Several reputable
>scientists have lambasted his (and Farrells?) theory, so it has a good chance
>of being correct.  And even if the theory is incorrect, what about his results?
>Tom Droege looked into this some time ago and thought he'd found the
>problem with their method, but I wonder what he thinks about their latest
>results.  How about it Tom?  What do you think of the rather
>hefty power gains Mills is currently claiming?  Could he, too, be
>a victim of non-constant constant-current supplies?
>
>We hear all the time about P&F, but seldom about Mills.  Has he published
>anything yet? If the details are available, I would love to watch over Tom's
>shoulder as he gave it a try.  (Easy for me to say, eh, Tom?)
>Whatever happened to Farrell, who used to keep us updated on this work?
>
>                                                me
 
(1) Yes, the funeral knell for a nuclear mechanism rang a long time ago.
Morrison is beating a dead horse.
 
(2) Droege and others think the excess heat in the Ni/K2CO3 cells is from
recombination.  Noninski and other electrochemists have told them that Ni
is not a good catalyst for recombination.  Furthermore, it is difficult to
get any catalyst to perform for long periods; Mills has cells that have
been producing excess power for more than a year. Mills and others have
measured the effluent gases (you must, of course, cover exposed Pt etc).
More importantly, Mills (and possibly others) is getting mulitples of VI.
You can lead a horse to water .....
 
(3) I am convinced that several other researchers, including P&F, are
getting excess heat.  More importantly, those researchers are now 100%
convinced that they are getting excess heat.  It is difficult to untrack
good scientists when they know they are on the right track.  The nuclear
people are fighting like hell, but it is a losing battle.  It is not
nuclear; they were led on a wild goose chase.  They bet on the wrong goose.
 For some strange reason they refuse, unlike P&F, to separate the heat from
the nuclear ash.  No matter.  Experimental data will determine the outcome
of this controversy.
 
(4)  The next time you hear from Mills everything will be in order:
 
     a definitive experiment showing the excess heat
 
     the ash
 
     the theory
 
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 19:19:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce d. Scott writes:
>Some passages from Jim Bowery's post:
>
>"The evidence I have seen in every major technical area funded by the
>government which I have investigated (space station, launch services,
> fusion, supersonic transport and high speed electronics) is that the
>incentives are set up so as to reward, with authority and credibility,
>those who specialize in political excellence and therefore find others,
>who specialize in technical excellence, politically threatening.  The
>political consequence is that the authorities in science and technology
>(mainly technology) act, individually and collectively, to suppress
>both technologists and their technologies."
>
>Not just technology, Jim. Even purely within a very specialised area,
>one method to solve a problem or the discovery of a new result can be
>seen as threatening to those who have built house-of-cards positions
>and now rely on them for prestige.
 
Well, I haven't really investigated scientific areas, mainly because
the amount of money spent on actual science, as opposed to technology,
is disappearingly small.  I think the common denominator in our experiences
is the size of the field in terms of people/money.  The bigger the hill
of money, the more people are going to play king of the hill (ie: go into
 zero-sum mental modes as opposed to the essentially positive-sum mental
 modes of science/technology).
 
The only places in science they can do that sort of thing are the large
physics facilities (huge accellerators, expensive plasma research devices,
 etc. and now, things like the Hubble Space Telescope -- a political
 disaster I warned astronomers about before it went up).
 
 
>Jim, you have hit the nail absolutely dead-on. The whole problem is not
>the people themselves; this is an activity of humans, and there are all
>kinds of humans. The problem is that a system has been built up which
>_selects_ for this type of behaviour. Those who are proficient at it rise,
>and they rise for the same reasons that captains of Mafia-like organisations
>rise.
>
>But at other times, strong personalities who have strong integrity can
>help police the system.
 
This is the value of benevolent despotism -- when it works, it's grand.
But the problem is, it never works in the long term, and when it finally
does fail, you can bet the scoundrels are next in succession.  The most
benevolent thing anyone with such a strong personality can do with his
life and personal power is set up the system so that no one will ever
be in a position gather everyone on to one big bandwagon and roll them
off the cliff, as is now occuring in tokamak-land.  Feudalism only works
when you have trial by physical combat to the death.  If you have that,
it works about as well as it can.  The problem is, we now believe in
feudalism without the trial by combat, which is modern socialism.  If you
want to support people on the basis of their personal power, go find an
Arthur who has drawn the sword from the stone and help establish the sort
of impersonal system that is the horror of feudalists -- ie:  market
 incentives in the form of tax credits for fusion research ... legal
service vouchers for fusion patent holders ... loosening of the
restrictions on patenting of fusion technologies ... a trust-fund with
large prize awards for those who can establish, in court, that they
met some obvious and major milestone in one of the many hypothetical
paths to nonradioactive fusion energy...  You get the picture.... its
sort of like the King offering the hand of his daughter in marriage
to ANYONE that slays the dragon.  Incentives rather than investment should
be the government's role.
 
>So at this time we tell the truth about ITER, but tread gingerly in talking
>about tokamaks in general: to say that there are serious problems is OK, to
>flatly state they will never work is not. The point is that when one can
>really show (ie, if global, well-resolved computations make it obvious)
>that the concept is fatally flawed--on _physics_ grounds--then I would
>not fear standing up and saying so. The point is, you'd better be sure.
>Just to make it clear: I wouldn't help myself by harping on the engineering
>aspects because I know practically nothing about that (how much does
 
The engineering aspects are precisely where the tokamak fails.  As a
scientific tool, the tokamak is relatively poor.  It is but one way to
generate plasmas.  There are lots of others and we would learn a lot
more about the physics of plasmas if we spread the plasma physics
money more evenly through the various regimes of plasma that can be
created by more widely varying devices.
 
One obvious place to start is in getting a very crude understanding of
the MHD properties of lightning.  It's relatively easy to make big sparks
or set up lightning rods around Orlando.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  It's heliumpenic
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It's heliumpenic
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 15:24:56 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics

There seem to be just four or five different conversations in this
newsgroup between ordinary people and victims of TB (true belief).  One
of them goes like this:
 
Ordinary Person:  CF is neutronpenic.
TB victim:  Yes, it seems to be.
OP:  It's also x-raypenic.
TB:  So what?
OP:  It's electronpenic.
TB:  Tell it to a friend.
OP:  And it's heliumpenic.
TB:  WHAT!  That's impossible!  Liar!  Fool!  I refuse to accept it.
 
The last instantiation of this conversation occured between Micha
Swartz, a true-blue true believer or TBTB, and everybody else.  Micha
gives Henry's law:
 
>==    "The mass of a slightly soluble gas that dissolves in a
>==  definite mass of a liquid at a given temperature is very
>==  nearly directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas.
>==  This holds for gases which do not unite chemically with the
>==  solvent."          (per CRC)
 
as an explanation for his calculation:
 
>   The atmospheric prevelance of Helium is:
>
>                       5.24  +/- .004 ppM by volume (CRC)
>                      .00052 % (sea level)   [after Heslop, Inor Chem]
>
>  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.
 
Unfortunately, the "obvious" part isn't Henry's law, it's Swartz's law,
which apparently sez:
 
"The prevalence of a gas (helium) in either a liquid (water) or a solid
(palladium) equals the partial pressure of that gas."
 
The main differences between Henry's law and Swartz's law are that
 
o Swartz has "equals" where Henry has "is proportional to"
o Swartz's law applies to solids, Henry's law does not.
o Swartz's law is false, Henry's law is true.
 
The constant of proportionality in Henry's law is called the Bunsen
absorption coefficient, which for helium at 1 atmosphere dissolving 25C
water is .0087.  Against my better judgement, I will use Micha's
calculation of the helium atoms in a cc of air, which if true would
mean that the concentration of helium in water is about 10^11 atoms per
cc.
 
But what about the palladium?  In case anyone has forgotten, CF is an
electrolysis experiment, which means that positive ions go to the
cathode, negative ions go to the anode, and neutral particles die of
indecision.  The dissolved helium is in the third camp.  Rest assured
that the concentration of helium in the palladium cathodes, both before
and after most "successful" CF experiments, is very, very low compared to
what is commensurate with fusion, cold or otherwise.
 
Finally, some languagepenision.  The physics term "fusion" refers to a
nuclear reaction whose reagents are isotopes of hydrogen and whose
products are neutrons, x-rays, helium, and neutrinos.  Since CF is
neutronpenic, x-raypenic, heliumpenic, and if the pattern holds,
neutrinopenic, it isn't fusion.  That's why I've been calling it "CF"
rather than Cold Fusion.  "CF" stands for "Cathode of Fleischmann",
which refers to the device and the man, respectively.  Still the term
might cause confusion with fusion.  Here are some other possible names
for our beloved phenomenon to try to avoid this confusion:
 
CFP                 "Cathode of Fleischmann and Pons".  Might
                    well give the other guy some credit.
 
MCC                 Fleischmann's margarine and Pond's cold cream.
 
BFD                 Self-explanatory.
 
Coldfusion          Said as one word quickly, it could be
                    completely different from cold fusion.
 
Cole Phusion        It sounds the same, but it isn't!
 
Confusion           Similiar and apt at the same time.
 
Delta Airlines CF   Refers specifically to the improved technique of
(Jed Rothwell)      Notoya and others involving light water, nickel cathodes,
                    and rusty alligator clips.
 
Conestoga Wagon CF  The Pons and Fleischmann method in the same terminology.
(Jed Rothwell)
 
Elvis sightings     The King is dead, long live the King!  Cold
(Robert Park)       fusion is dead, long live cold fusion!
 
Heat!               This appelation refers to both the investigations
(Jed Rothwell)      of Tom Droege, because he is a world-class calorimetry
                    expert; and the investments of Jed Rothwell, because
                    he only cares about heat, heat means money.  Whether it
                    means making money or losing money remains to be seen.
 
XS Heat             A combination of the rock group INXS and the basketball
(Steve Jones)       team Miami Heat.  Not to be confused with excess heat.
 
Neutronpenision     My personal favorite.  A combination of neutron and
(Micha Swartz, me)  "penia", which means "weak" in some language or other.
                    Also reads "screw the neutrons", which accurately
                    describes the attitude of TB victims who don't see any.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Turn off switch later
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Turn off switch later
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:35:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930519141912_72240.1256_EHK56-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Carl Ijames suggest that:
>
>"...the cell goes dry, open-circuits, the constant-current supply voltage
>rises to its maximum, and the current falls to zero.  They just don't bother
>to turn the supply off until the end of the experiment, but since no current
>is flowing, no power is delivered to the cell."
>
>Yes, I believe that is exactly what they meant. They do not physically turn
>off the power supply until sometime after the event ends.
 
     That doesn't seem to synch with a) 'following the boiling to
     dryness and the open circuiting of the cells' and b) 'to allow the
     cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current'.
 
     Both a) and b) imply volition, that they did it on purpose, and
     that there was a current when the cell was 'dry'.  Further, depending
     on what the 'event' is a) and figure 12 seem to imply that
     the current was shut off for three hours during which time
     the cell remained at 100C as Tom has noted a number of times.
 
>Let me add that anyone in this business who does not take that warning 100%
>seriously is a crazy, suicidal fool.
 
     Anyone who deals with hydrogen and electricity without taking
     precautions is a suicidal fool.  I don't see any additional risk
     from 'coldfusion'.
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  P&F Physics Letters A Review
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Physics Letters A Review
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 22:13:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

REVIEW OF THE PONS AND FLEISCHMANN PHYSICS LETTERS A PAPER
 
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity", Martin Fleischmann and Stanly Pons  Physics Letters A 176
(1993) 118-129
 
Executive Summary:
 
The paper claims excess enthalpy of greater than one killowatt per cm^3 of
cathode.  The following points are considered in a discussion of the paper.
Items 1) and 3) are considered the likely source of the claimed heat.  Items
7) and 8) are cited as specific examples of likely experimental error.  This
writer concludes that this is a demonstration of magic, it is not an
experiment.  There is no particular evidence presented to support the claim of
"anomalous heat" in the Pd-D2O system.
 
1) How much D2O is in the cell when it starts to boil?
2) How much power is put into the cell during the boil off period?
3) How much electrolyte is converted to saturated steam, and how much leaves
   the cell as water droplets?
4) Does the calorimeter constant stay constant during the boil off?
5)  What happens in the boiling cell when the rapid boiling exposes the
cathode?
6)  What happens when the "cigarette lighter" effect continues after the cell
boils dry?
7) How can the curve of figure 11. stay flat as the cell boils dry?
8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
   cell is boiled dry?
9) Who are the assistants to Pons and Fleischmann?
10) What is the purpose of the "Specific excess heat for hypothetical pressure
    0.953 bars" caption of figure 10 b?
11) When is the current source turned off?
12) Why is the photograph of figure 12 in color?
13) Is there a white coating on the cells after they boil away?
 
 
The is a somewhat condensed version of the various posts which have discussed
the Physics Letters A paper by Pons and Fleischmann.  The paper is not in the
usual form for a scientific journal.  Particularly missing are sections on
"Experimental Procedures", "Results", "Discussion", "Conclusions", and
"Acknowledgements".  The P&F paper has an "Abstract", an "Introduction", "Some
Stuff", and "References".  They would fail if this was a high school science
fair project.  (This writer would not hold the structure against them if
something coherent was presented.)  The bulk of the paper is taken up with yet
another defense of their calorimetry calibration scheme.  While a number of
anecdotal examples of "anomalous heat" are presented, there is no coherent
presentation of any one experiment.  The following analysis thus looks at the
few specific points presented where there is enough information to look for
problems:
 
1) How much D2O is in the cell when it starts to boil?
 
>From the paper:
 
"As it is possible to repeatedly reverse an run forward the video recordings
at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably
accurate estimates of the cell contents."
 
This reviewer has looked at the video tape from the NHK program, and spaced it
forwards and backwards the specified repeatedly.  I do not believe it possible
to judge the fullness of the cells within a factor of 3.  Particularly around
the half full stage.  There a lot of bubbles in the liquid.  How are they
taken into account?  The cell is bubbling and  roiling, and the contents are
pulsing up and down in the tube.  It would seem to be possible to learn to
judge the contents within a factor of two or so by (somehow) stopping the cell
at various stages of the boil off and measuring the contents.  There is no
discussion that indicates that this was done.  There is no indication that the
boil off was condensed and its weight and energy content measured.  A complete
experiment would require that this be done.
 
2) How much power is put into the cell during the boil off period?
 
This reviewer can find nothing in this paper about the data collection
system.  It is presumed that the Keithley 199 system mentioned in the ACCF1
proceedings is still in use.  This has a maximum reading rate of 9 readings
per second on the 5 1/2 digit range when controlled by the IEE-488 bus as
indicated in the proceedings paper.
 
There can be no doubt that the cell impedance changes wildly during boil off.
The video tapes show conditions that are likely to result in very large cell
resistance changes.
 
This reviewer again proposes that it is very difficult to make accurate
measurements on a rapidly changing system such as this.  The Kiethly system
should be used on the true RMS range if there is any hope of an accurate
reading.  There is no indication that this was done.  Still, this writer
believes that most measurement systems will generate only a small error from
this effect.
 
3) How much electrolyte is converted to saturated steam, and how much leaves
   the cell as water droplets?
 
Strangely this is not even discussed in the text.  At the bottom of page 126
is found the following note:  "In addition to electrolysis, the loss of D2O
from the cells proceeds only by a continuous , smooth flow of vapor through a
vent in the top of the cell."  The drawing of the cell shows a simple open
vent pipe, just above the surface of the liquid.  The video tape broadcast by
NHK shows the cell contents clumping up and down.  Large bubbles form and
burst.  Surely some of the bubbles rise up near the vent tube and pieces are
ejected through it.  Apparently, and incredibly, Pons and Flieschmann do not
even consider this possibility as there is no correction in the calculation
for it.  Experience in a steam electric utility indicates that it is very
difficult to produce 100% saturated steam.  This experiment demands a
measurement of steam saturation if it is to be taken at all seriously.
 
4) Does the calorimeter constant stay constant during the boil off?
 
This reviewer has speculated that the cell constant changes during the run.
One control on this is heat pulses used for calibration.  During experiments
run by this reviewer, mirror surfaces have been observed on cell parts likely
caused by either Pd or Pt dissolved during long electrolysis.  Such a deposit
on the inside wall (not in the vacuum space) could change the calorimeter
constant in the direction of "anomalous heat" (It reflects more incident
radiation therefore it must be a poorer radiator, therefore the cell constant
is larger than previously measured.)  It is recognized that this is a
speculation.  During boil off, however, it is a significant possibility.  As
the electrolyte evaporates from the cell (remember the run starts with the
cell half full - a lot of electrolyte has already evaporated) it will leave a
coating on the inner wall in the space above the liquid.  This coating is
bright white and likely a good reflector.  There is no time during boil off
for calibration pulses.  The experiment is beyond control during the boil off.
 
5)  What happens in the boiling cell when the rapid boiling exposes the
cathode?
 
Near the end of the video, the cell contents can be observed to "clump" up and
down in the dewar.  Note that once the rapid boiling and roiling starts, it is
likely that the cathode becomes exposed to the Deuterium, Oxygen, Vapor
atmosphere.  This must happen when the water level drops below the top of the
cathode, and likely happens much sooner due to all the turbulence.  When this
does happen, there is likely to be a small explosion.  Such explosions are
observed in the NHK video.  There are sudden jumps up in the cell contents.
It is likely that when these happen that there is a large expulsion of
un-vaporized liquid from the cell.  This is not considered by Pons and
Fleischmann in the discussion.  Loss of un-vaporized liquid causes over
estimation of the heat produced by the reaction.
 
6)  What happens when the "cigarette lighter" effect continues after the cell
boils dry?
 
>From the paper p-129: "... furthermore, the Kel-F supports of the electrodes
at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300
C."  We suffer from lack of detail as to how the gas exhaust from the cell is
handled.  Pons and Fleischmann also note that the cell stays hot a long time
after they claim that it has boiled dry.  If the gas is simply vented to the
atmosphere as the drawing indicates, then even after the Deuterium - Oxygen
content of the cell is exhausted, the "cigarette lighter" effect could
continue for some time from oxygen diffusing back into the cell from the vent.
This would surely explain the melted Kel-F.  The long time the cell stays hot
could be explained by a combination of things.  4) above points out that the
calorimeter constant likely changes to a less radiative value due to the
Lithium Oxide coating that must be deposited on the inside of the cell after
boil off.  First the cathode catalyzes all the Deuterium and Oxygen in the
cell.  Later Oxygen is drawn in with the air replacing the burned cell
contents and burns with Deuterium diffusing out of the cathode.  This
continues until all the available Deuterium is burned.  Continuous heating
plus a highly reflective coating allow the cell to stay hot for a long period
of time without implying "anomalous heat".  Note that the coating must be
there.  Implying otherwise means that the Lithium leaves with the vapor.  It
can only do that if it is dissolved in liquid, and this means that un-
vaporized liquid is leaving the cell.
 
7) How can the curve of figure 11. stay flat as the cell boils dry?
 
Using the calculations of P&F on page 11 of the paper, we find that they
compute several items for the power balance during the time that the cell
contents are boiling away.
 
a) Electrolysis Power - (Ecell-1.54)*Icell / 600 seconds = 37.5 watts
b) Calorimeter Radiation - 11.2 watts @ 100 C
c) Enthalpy from Boiling - 170.8 watts
 
Estimating the scale of the curve below at 0.2 C per printer line we try to
reproduce the cell temperature curve during the boil off, figure 11.  Please,
we know we might be missing the scale by a factor of two or so:
 
 
 
100.2 C                                               ***************
100 C                        *************************
99.8 C **********************
 
                            ^cell 1/2 dry             ^cell dry
 
 
Now during the time that the boil off is occurring, there is according to P&F:
 
        170.8 + 11.2 - 37.5 = 144.5 watts
 
generated by the "cold fusion" process.  When the cell goes dry, the
electrolysis power (supposedly) goes to zero, the boiling no longer removes
enthalpy, but the radiation stays the same (nearly) as there is no temperature
change.  This means that now 11.2 watts is being generated by the "cold
fusion" process.
 
Somehow, by what looks like a $$$miracle$$$ to this writer, the "cold fusion"
process switches seamlessly from 144.5 watts to 11.2 watts just as the cell
runs dry without the slightest transient being shown on the curve of figure
11.
 
To those who spend all their time at terminals, and have thus somewhat lost
track with reality, it is observed that water in the cell works very hard to
hold it at constant temperature.  i.e. it vaporizes and takes all that heat of
vaporization away in the process.  When the last of the water goes, it is like
releasing the lid on a Jack in the Box.  The temperature is going to jump up.
The fact that it does not, implies that there is a sudden drop in input power
that exactly matches the rate at which water previously boiled away.
 
Please, don't try to argue that the reason there is a switch in power is that
the cathode is suddenly uncovered.  The cathode must gradually uncover.
Indeed it can be seen to do so in the video.
 
8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
   cell is boiled dry?
 
It appears that the cell remains very close to 100 C for 10000 seconds after
the Cell dry label.  Note that 100 C is a likely temperature for a water
system as long as there is water present, and there is sufficient heat input
to produce boiling.  However, for a dry Dewar system to stabilize to of order
1 C (my estimate) for three hours requires either a very good control system
or a $$$miracle$$$.  The curve shows a slight upward trend which ends in a
break in the curve after which the temperature drops precipitously.  Note this
is an open loop system.  The dewar is losing about 11.2 watts by radiation
according to the calibration used in the P&F calculation.  To maintain
constant temperature the "anomalous heat" input must be then exactly 11.2
watts.  An estimate for the dewar is 10 grams water equivalent.  This gives 41
joules per degree change.  Thus the indicated stability to 1 C indicates no
more that a 41 joule difference between the energy in and the energy out over
10000 seconds.  The energy out is 11.2*10000 or 112000 joules.  This means
that the match between energy in and energy out is 41/112000 or 0.04%.  This
would appear to require a $$$miracle$$$ to happen by chance.
 
Doing the best estimation possible with curve, the temperature then drops 55 C
in of order 600 seconds.  Using the above cell water equivalent, this is an
average of 41*55/600 or 4 watts.  This would then be consistent with the known
(11.2 watts at 100 C) cell constant.  A slight curvature can be seen in the
temperature of the fall so that this fall time can be used to verify that the
cell constant is close to that claimed by P&F.  Note that the water equivalent
cannot be much higher, or the cell would take much longer to cool off.  A
smaller value would just increase the size of the $$$miracle$$$.
 
This implies that a formerly charged (it started losing D2 when the loss of
cell contents broke the electrolytic path), dry, Palladium cathode has a
critical point at very close to 100 C where a lower temperature causes it to
produce more heat, and a higher temperature causes it to reduce heat output.
The alternative is a $$$miracle$$$.  Why should charged Palladium have any
special preference for 100 C?  Consideration of this is left to the experts.
 
There is always the possibility that the "Cell dry" label is in the wrong
place.  This would explain the temperature stability.  If it is moved to the
fast cool down point, then the time used in the calculation is greatly in
error and the "anomalous heat" becomes near zero or negative.
 
Private correspondence has indicated that some in this field think that the
"cell dry" label is in the wrong position on figure 11.  There can be no doubt
but that it is where P&F intend it to be since a second label "Cell remains at
high temperature for 3 hours" confirms it's position.
 
It is concluded that the cell constant is within a factor of 3 or so of that
claimed by P&F by practical estimation using the information from the curve.
The stability of the cell temperature during the time between Cell dry and the
cool down is such that it defies explanation, points to a measurement error or
... ?
 
9) Who are the assistants to Pons and Fleischmann?
 
"Tell me what were their names, boys, what were their names?  Did you have a
friend on the good Ruben James?"  -  Popular Folk Song
 
The Ruben James sank with all hands.  So far P&F appear to be sailing a row
boat. While we are told they have 30 odd experienced assistants, and a 40,000
square foot facility, only two names are on the paper.
 
>From his last conversation with Hawkins, Lee John Droege reports that he said
that he was never allowed into the back room where Pons and Fleischmann did
their work.  This is a very strange circumstance for a doctoral student.
It should be remembered that Hawkins' name went on the original paper as an
"Erratum".
 
Are Pons and Fleischmann still working alone in a back room at their new plush
digs in France?  Dieter Britz has looked at the language in the paper and
writes in FD 1042:  "I suspect that possibly someone other than F or P did the
writing, and they didn't check it; or perhaps even that they never saw the
experiment but only its video recording.  Or both of these."
 
With Japanese support, it would be expected that there would be assistants
around named Tanaka or Watanabe (this author's best guess of the Japanese
equivalent of Smith and Jones).  With a distinguished elder electrochemist
superior like Fleischmann, it would be very difficult for a young Japanese
post doctoral student to come up with a null result.  He would find a way to
achieve a positive result.
 
Please do not interpret the above as racist.  It is the same as saying that
Japanese baseball is different than American baseball.  It is.  For one, the
Japanese do not argue with the umpire!
 
It is interesting that the paper does not have an acknowledgement section.
Perhaps Physics Letters A has a rule against acknowledgement of the work of
others.  A review of a stack of experimental papers found on this desk
revealed that every one save P&F had someone to thank, even if it was only a
funding agency.  Experimental workers always have hard working assistants to
thank.  Someone put all that stuff seen in the video together.  This author
has not found ready built "cold fusion" set ups in any laboratory apparatus
catalog.  Why do not P&F acknowledge the existence of their assistants?
 
Perhaps it is that Pons and Fleischmann care about their assistants, and do
not want them on board when the good ship Cold Fusion sinks!
 
10) What is the purpose of the "Specific excess heat for hypothetical pressure
    0.953 bars" caption of figure 10 b?
 
This author does not understand the reasoning behind the discussion about
hypothetical atmospheric pressures.  "If the dog had not stopped to piddle, he
would have caught the rabbit." - Old Kentucky Saying.  What is the purpose of
this hypothetical pressure other than it allows them to show a graph with a
curve reading 300 watts per cc?  It has all the appearance of an un-caught
rabbit to this author.
 
It looks like this fooled Jed Rothwell.  In FD 1025 he writes:
 
"There is no drop off, and no possible way the cells could be "recharged."
Just before the boil-off event, the excess has reached a power level of 20
watts, in one example."
 
It appears that Jed Rothwell was taken in by figure 10 b.  The "actual" curve
shows 20 watts just before boil off, but this is "specific" excess heat.  For
the 0.04 cc sample this is an actual power level of 0.8 watts claimed.  The
hypothetical curve shows about 300 watts.  This would be an actual
**"hypothetical"** heat of 12 watts.  In either case, the presentation of the
data appears to deliberately intended to deceive the reader.
 
11) When is the current source turned off?
 
Dieter Britz got to this one first.  But it has been under consideration by
this author also.  It would appear from figure 8, that the voltage does not
drop to zero until the temperature drop.  From figure 8, this would indicate
that the cell voltage is over 100 volts between the time that the cell boils
dry and 3 hours later when the cell cools.  One hundred volts is enough to
sustain an arc, however Carl Ijames correctly points out that this would
likely result in a voltage dip.  Possibly very good conditions exist for an
arc if it is speculated that there is a check valve in the exhaust line and
the cell ends up with a partial vacuum.  This could also produce the high
temperature required to melt Kel-F.  Note that the paper does not actually say
the current is turned off when the cell boils dry.  From the paper p-128: "...
the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to
dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at
high temperature for prolonged periods of time ...".  To this writer this
means that "boiling to dryness" caused the cells to open-circuit, and the
constant current supply might not have been turned off at this time.
 
12) Why is the photograph of figure 12 in color?
 
Paging through a volume of Physics Letters A, this reader did not come across
any other color photographs in a paper.  Color does not appear to add any
information.  Are all Physics Letters A photographs put in in color if
submitted in color?  The horizontal ticks about 3/5 up the cell in the picture
are what this author takes as the "1/2" fill marks.  Note that since the top
is silvered, these are about in the correct spot.  They are clearer in the
video.
 
13)  Is there a white coating on the cells after they boil away?
 
The reader can observe figure 12 to decide whether there is a white coating on
the inside surface of the cells.  Such a coating would change the calorimeter
constant of the cell during boil off.  P&F assume it is a constant.  To this
viewer, the second cell seems to have the highest coating, followed by the
third and the first.  The fourth cell is still boiling according to the
caption.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this reviewer considers that any of several of the above points could
explain the boil off "demonstration" of this paper, this reviewer proposes
that it is more likely a combination.  Just letting the liquid level drop
slightly below the normal level, as would be caused by a brief high current
pulse (as elsewhere mentioned as a way to trigger a boil off event) might
initiate a run away condition through mechanism 4).  1) and 3) cause over
estimation of the energy produced.  2) causes under estimation of the power
actually put into the cell.  4) helps (and Douglas Morrison's cigarette
lighter effect) to explain the long time that a cell stays hot after a boil
off.
 
To this writer, items 7) and 8) are so incredible that they seem prima-facie
evidence that there is something wrong with the experimental data.  Most
likely the cell is not really dry, and thus the very large power measurement
is just wrong.
 
This description is so lacking in controls and calibrations that
"demonstration" is much more appropriate to this author than "experiment".  An
experiment would have controls, we do not find appropriate ones.  An
experiment would consider likely sources of error, these "experimenters" do
not trouble themselves by considering the most likely error sources.
 
It is wondered why there is so little new data in this paper.  Yet again good
journal space is used up by a discussion of the calorimetry calculations.  One
curve, Figure 1 (upper) is straight out of the summary by Fleischmann in ICCF2.
 
Someone wrote this writer: "Personally, I think that F&P are just teasing the
skeptics."  Such things have a time and a place.  The time is 1 April.  This
place would be just fine.  But please not Physics Letters A.  It is (was) a
serious journal, with a review process (it is thought) and all that.
 
Just one more reason to recognize that the old (refereed Journal) system is
obsolete.  This is the media of the future for scientific publication, and it
will take (has taken?) over.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / A McPherson /  "red mercury"
     
Originally-From: ce698@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (A. McPherson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "red mercury"
Date: 19 May 1993 15:38:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

 
i'm a chemist without any nuclear chemistry experience.  on the sci.chem
channel there have been several discussions about "red mercury", to
the effect that the term is not referring to HgO, but to a chemical
or element used in the nuclear industry.  one person has suggested
that it is an old Russian code word for plutonium.  i have also heard
a rumour that it has been used to represent Hg2Sb2O7, and that
this mercury antimony compound is used somewhere in the manufacturing
process of nuclear weapons or related materials.  this couls all
be wild fluff, but i thought i would try this channel for any
comments or insights.  there has been a TV show, for what its worth,
that also used the term "red mercury" to represent a nuclear material,
but the whole thing could be a scam as well.  any comments or
assistance would be appreciated.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudence698 cudfnA cudlnMcPherson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / nod sivad /  Re: 6% Average!
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6% Average!
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 16:45:24 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
>REALLY!
 
>WELL, now we have you telling us that we should not hold the CF
>proponents to a real standard of energy gain.  Even the HF proponents
>use "break-even" as a measure of success.
 
Hmmm.  Either I failed to state my thoughts clearly, or you were so
intent on being snide you failed to understand what I said.  Personally
I think it's the latter since what I'm saying is so self-evident it's
trivial, but I'll try to rephrase it anyway.
 
Perhaps CF requires some trigger event or condition unrelated (or mostly
unrelated) to the input power.  Until this event occurs the input
power has no effect and is irrelevant.  You might as well be applying
power to a banana as palladium, and the input power is totally irrelvant
to a power gain calculation.  So is the power used by your toaster that
morning to heat a bagel.  Of course if this trigger happens to be
100 hours of input power (or the operation of your toaster!), that power is
VERY relevant to the calculation.
 
I am NOT saying CF exists NOR am I claiming such a trigger exists, but the
episodic nature of anomalous heat events certainly implies the possibility.
 
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudended cudfnnod cudlnsivad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / J Lewis /  Re: It's heliumpenic
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It's heliumpenic
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 17:42:00 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993May19.152456.7603@midway.uchicago.edu> greg@dent.uchicag
.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>There seem to be just four or five different conversations in this
>newsgroup between ordinary people and victims of TB (true belief).  One
>of them goes like this:
>
>Ordinary Person:  CF is neutronpenic.
>TB victim:  Yes, it seems to be.
>OP:  It's also x-raypenic.
>TB:  So what?
>OP:  It's electronpenic.
>TB:  Tell it to a friend.
>OP:  And it's heliumpenic.
>TB:  WHAT!  That's impossible!  Liar!  Fool!  I refuse to accept it.
>
I would like to make one addition to your excellent list of coined barbarisms:
CF seems to be inelasticity-penic; i.e. too much d+d -> d+d for the TBers.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  Oops.
     
Originally-From: greg@dent.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oops.
Date: 19 May 93 19:02:30 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics

Oops.  I said in my calculation that the density of atmospheric helium
dissolved in water would be 10^11 atoms/cc, when it's actually
1.3 * 10^12 atoms/cc.  I dropped a zero when multiplying two numbers.
Also Micha Swartz's numbers are a slight underestimate.
 
This mistake changes everything.  Now we know why neutronpenision
researchers have failed to see 10^14 helium atoms in their palladium
cathodes:  Because the water solution has 10^12 helium atoms per cc,
and if palladium were as permeable as water, which it isn't, it would
have 10^12 helium atoms per cc in it too.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 19:45:39 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <930519151621_76570.2270_BHA46-1@CompuServe.COM>
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
 
> Glad that I could bring the "TT" (Taubes Travesty) to your attention,
> Dieter...
  ...
> Tell me Dieter, when was the last time you were in a situation where
> dozens of journalists and top members of the scientific establishment
> were calling your work "fraud or incompetence," making jokes about it,
> and helping to deny funding for it, etc., etc.? I think if you were in
> such a situation, you woud have just a teensy, teensy, weens, bit of
> rancor in your defensive assaults against insults so exemplified by the
> Taubes book...
> ...
> ... Is it really true, Dick, that you are an escaped character from a
> Disney flick?  I can think of one or more of the Seven Dwarfs who
> resembles your dopey position.
 
Hmmmm.  Not bad, really.  Angry in tone, but at least this time you were
talking _to_ Dieter.  [Methinks I'll let _Dieter_ speak for himself on how
_he_ feels about such remarks, though...  :)  ]
 
As for the Dick Blue comment -- well shucks, Dick, if there was ever a way
to get two antagonists equally and simultaneously ticked off royally at
_you_, all you need do is tell them both:  "Gee, you guys are _really_ just
alike."  I salute your daring, but plan to keep my mouth shut on that one!
 
 
Dr. Mallove -- You of all people currently participating directly in this
group should know:  Does the original 1.3 cc partially obliterated PdDx
cube still exist, or not?  If not, what exactly happened to it, and why?
Have you ever seen or examined it personally?  Can you tell us anything
about it, such as its appearance or any physical characteristics?
 
This is an old data point, but I think still a very important data point.
It is the single most unique claim ever made for large excess heat bursts,
including even those of the new P&F paper, and one that presumably would
leave a much more unique signature than (say) melting plastic.
 
Can you help us on this one?  I would very much like to see something real
come out of all of this, but if the even the most basic rules of evidence
and examination cannot be met, I _have_ to personally give this a very low
grade or weight.  That may matter very little to you, but it matters to me
-- and probably to a few other folks out there.
 
If you cannot help, could you perhaps at least respond by saying "I don't
know anything about it," or some such reply?  (Maybe you have, but if you
did I must have missed in the general deluge these days.)
 
                                Cheers,
 
P.S. -- Dale: While the Pd cube may contain a lot of energy, it _must_ be
        released slowly for either catalytic or direct D2 burning because
        you are surface limited.  I presume that could be quantified by
        having good enough data on temperature-dependent evolution curves,
        but even with an extremely rapid evolution I'd say that the chances
        are pretty good that all you will get will be either an explosion
        or a large external flame, limited by diffusion of O2 into the mix.
 
        In short, although I like it, I don't see offhand how the internal
        energy content argument can really hold for a Pd lump.  What you
        should get would presumably resemble a bunsen burner a lot more
        than a hydrogen blow torch, and I can't easily convince myself
        that you could get things hot enough that way.  Your thoughts?
 
 
P.P.S - Helium solubility in palladium:  Concurring with what Dick Blue
        mentioned:  Helium ain't just a _little_ insoluble in palladium,
        it is _extremely_ insoluble in palladium.  Keep in mind that there
        are folks out there who have stored tritium in palladium for many
        years as a helpful way of storing this dangerous gas.  Tritium
        decays into helium-3, so those groups have _excellent_ data on how
        fast the resulting He-3 diffuses out of the Pd lattice.  I've heard
        from at least two different sources that the rate of diffusion of
        He in palladium is for all practical purposes zero, zip, nada, even
        after _decades_ (!) of storage.  (One of those sources was Nathan
        Lewis in a personal conversation I once had with him after a talk.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Turn off switch later
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Turn off switch later
Date: 19 May 93 19:40:48 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C7A8rw.FHv@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <930519141912_72240.1256_EHK56-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>>
>>Carl Ijames suggest that:
>>
>>"...the cell goes dry, open-circuits, the constant-current supply voltage
>>rises to its maximum, and the current falls to zero.  They just don't bother
>>to turn the supply off until the end of the experiment, but since no current
>>is flowing, no power is delivered to the cell."
>>
>>Yes, I believe that is exactly what they meant. They do not physically turn
>>off the power supply until sometime after the event ends.
 
 
>     That doesn't seem to synch with a) 'following the boiling to
>     dryness and the open circuiting of the cells' and b) 'to allow the
>     cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current'.
 
 
>     Both a) and b) imply volition, that they did it on purpose, and
>     that there was a current when the cell was 'dry'.  Further, depending
>     on what the 'event' is a) and figure 12 seem to imply that
>     the current was shut off for three hours during which time
>     the cell remained at 100C as Tom has noted a number of times.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Has it occured to you all that each publication by P & F has served to
rouse everybody, but doesn't seem to "prove" anything.  Do any of you
wonder about why we have to argue about what they did, and when they
did it?
 
If their experimental technique and publishing style was reasonable, we
would not have to ask these questions.  I wonder if they know about the
firestorm going on in this newsgroup; whether they care, and if they
do, why they don't CLEAN UP THEIR MESS.  If they don't care, then they
shouldn't publish, they should just get rich (if they really know any
secrets) - or just shut up (if they don't.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / John George /  Re: Older than the pyramids
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Older than the pyramids
Date: 19 May 93 19:45:23 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I have received other private direct emails responding to my little
"Contemplate the Pyramids" comment in my posting about ICCF4 in addition
to your public one.
 
I am disappointed that the offer to share a diving adventure hasn't received
as much attention. After all, how can you truly appreciate what you don't
know and love? Being learned without love is what leads to the destruction
we see all around us.
 
I personally favor the plate techtonics subduction zone disposal method of
our current radwaste, which should show that I favor the enviornment without
losing my common sense. Even better that we stop making radwaste at all.
 
Nuclear waste disposal is not a trivial matter and our government has an
"Apres Moi, Le Deluge" mentality about it. Especially since, DOE is working
on the disposal method, not EPA. It is irrevelant if you come in contact
with high level waste and die quick, or have constant exposure to a low
level waste that kills you. Except that you might live long enough to
have mutated children. I also add that if the radiation is from the sun
because of a weak ozone layer, it will be small consolation to the victim.
'Messing in our nest' has to stop. I could go for a huge tax on wastes, Bill.
 
If you work in a project that generates radwaste, shame on you, until
you've cleaned up after yourself! A natural part of raising young children
is potty-training. We are a young species and I think it's time for us to
get potty-trained. How about a $500 million dollar a year project to
perfect non-poisonous power!
 
I used to work servicing  nuclear-powered fleet ballistic missile submarines,
so I am somewhat aware of nuclear waste problems, and orthodox and unorthodox
disposal methods used by military organizatons. We had many, many, many
barrels of waste aboard the ship I served on. The obsolete mentality of the
military in regard to "just follow your orders" is shown by the poor job
they have done so far in handling their wastes, nuclear or otherwise. An
article in the San Francisco Chronicle (a local newspaper) discussed how
unhappy the Navy was with a sailor that didn't think too much of throwing
plastic waste off the fantail of an aircraft carrier at sea. Bury the
messenger!
 
I also worked in an enviornmental lab which had many good people leave
to be hired on to work on cleaning up our own Chernobyl. The Columbia River
has wastes which have leaked out of the Hanford Site in Washington State.
A quick look at a map will show you a major metropolitan center which
draws drinking water from the Columbia River. It's a safe bet that there
has been little or no effort to warn the people involved! People with
cancer or birth-defects will want to sue! Think how much work will be
involved in cleaning up the mess. I imagine that planners will decide that
the image of cleaning it up is more to be desired than actually doing the
clean up. Of course, their children won't live there. Sounds Soviet does
it not?
 
I think I'll go back to contemplating some dive adventures before I
really get on the soap-box.
 
                                        THX             JLG
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: For whom the bell tolls
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For whom the bell tolls
Date: 19 May 1993 22:38:37 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
: (4)  The next time you hear from Mills everything will be in order:
:
:      a definitive experiment showing the excess heat
:
:      the ash
:
:      the theory
 
I presume that this is the famous "1/N quantum states" of Hydrogen
theory.
 
If you think that that "nuclear reactions without radiation" takes
a miracle, well this needs a ***MIRACLE***.
 
BUT... Mills&co at least are being honest scientists about the whole thing:
 
They make measurements.  They try to understand them.  They make a theory
that fits the data.  They try to analyze the implications of the theory.
 
Specifically, they believe the preponderance of experimental data that
show that CFP (cathode of fleishmann & pons) -type whatever is NOT
NUCLEAR.
 
Now, assuming novel atomic physics (= chemistry) to explain the excess
heat naturally requires even MORE ash, because the characteristic energies
are lower.
 
Is the ash Cold Dark Matter?  Why isn't it normally produced in all
the other experimental situations studied in the last 100 years with
atomic physics?  Or has it been---but it's invisible?  Is the transition
to sub-ground states superduperhyper-forbidden except in very special
circumstances?
 
Hasn't the "orbital structure" of atoms (i.e. solutions of
the schroedinger equation) been directly verified in experiment?
 
Isn't the minimum size of electronic ground states directly implied
by the uncertainty principle?
 
Can somebody fill us in on this?
 
Is it "lepton number mixing?"  Somehow "physical electron" turns into
(cos th)* electron_mass_eigenstate + (sin th)*muon_mass_eigenstate?"
 
Throwing quantum mechanics down the toilet is exceedingly bold because of
the tremendous number of its experimentally verifiable precise predictions,
especially in its relativistic incarnation.
 
 
 
 
: Best regards,
: John Farrell
 
I guess there's no harm in shooting for the moon, or at least Stockholm.
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / mitchell swartz /  Misapplication of Henry's law.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Misapplication of Henry's law.
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 22:04:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <0096CBB0.A80CEB60.14308@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
  Subject: Misapplication of Henry's law.
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu) purports:
 
==  "Mitchell Swartz quotes Henry's law as follows:
= <<"The mass of a slightly soluble gas that dissolves in a definite mass >>
= << of a liquid at a given temperature is very nearly directly proportional >>
= << to the partial pressure of that gas.  This holds for gases which do not >>
= << unite chemically with the solvent."                                     >>
==
==db  "The issue under discussion was the diffusion of helium into palladium."
 
  Incorrect.  First, the question was the continuous attempts by some of
     the "auto-skeptics" to knock the Miles experiments.
      For example:
 
 =db "Well Dick, since you claim there is no massive in-diffusion of helium
 =db  and since helium IS LINKED to excess heat in the Miles experiments which
 =db  you cite, then those observations obviously stand."
        Subject: Analysis of Dick Blue's comments
        Message-ID: <C72GxK.3C1@world.std.com>   15 May 1993
 
 
    Second, the reference which I made (having previously mentioned that
  many materials can behave like helium-sinks and helium-sources) was to
  "all other materials (other than the palladium)".  Here is the
  \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                       exact text in context:
 
  ==db  "First we note that the fractional helium content of the atmosphere does
  ==db  not translate directly into an equivalent fractional concentration in
  ==db   a Pd sample."
    Message-ID: <0096C7C5.29EED0C0.13991@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject:  Mitchell Swartz finds helium!
    Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu)
 
  =ms   "Excuse me?   How novel.
  =ms   Do not all other materials come to equilibrium, and then contain some
  =ms   fraction of the atmosphere concentration (dependant upon many other
  =ms   factors such as temperature)?"
          Subject: Analysis of Dick Blue's comments"
         Message-ID: <C72GxK.3C1@world.std.com>   15 May 1993
 
   I rest my case, Dick.  Helium in many other materials is a problem.
 
       [BTW, Dick, perhaps a better reference for you is
       "Metals Reference book", C. J. Smithells (Interscience, 1949)]
 
                          Best wishes.
                                           Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / mitchell swartz /  Kuperberg's Law
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kuperberg's Law
Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 22:29:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993May19.152456.7603@midway.uchicago.edu>
  Subject: It's heliumpenic
My good acquaintance Greg Kuperberg (greg@dent.uchicago.edu) takes time
  from his devotion to mathematics and posts the funniest missive in weeks.
 
  However, Greg misstates my posting and falsely attributes
  his "new" law to me.   Since it is all Greg's invention, the
  honor must be his.
 
 As I had said, Henry's law applies to "other" materials, wherein
   helium is soluble.  This law states for liquids:
 
  >==    "The mass of a slightly soluble gas that dissolves in a
  >==  definite mass of a liquid at a given temperature is very
  >==  nearly directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas.
  >==  This holds for gases which do not unite chemically with the
  >==  solvent."          (per CRC)
 
 
 Quoting, and correcting for attribution (Kuperbergattributionpenision?)
             directly from Dr. Kuperberg:
 
                     Kuperberg's law says:
 
"The prevalence of a gas (helium) in either a liquid (water) or a solid
(palladium) equals the partial pressure of that gas."
 
 The main differences between Henry's law and Kuperberg's law are that
   o Kuperberg has "equals" where Henry has "is proportional to"
   o Kuperberg's law applies to solids, Henry's law does not.
   o Kuperberg's law is false, Henry's law is true."
         [after G. Kuperberg [greg@dent.uchicago.edu)
         Message-ID: <1993May19.152456.7603@midway.uchicago.edu>]
 
        =====================================
 
                 Although, I do not agree with everything you say, Greg
                 you certainly have a right to post it, just please
                 keep the attribution correct. OK?
 
                       Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Eugene Mallove /  Re: Missing Pd Cube?
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing Pd Cube?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 03:02:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry writes:
 
>Dr. Mallove -- You of all people currently participating directly in this
>group should know:  Does the original 1.3 cc partially obliterated PdDx
>cube still exist, or not?  If not, what exactly happened to it, and why?
>Have you ever seen or examined it personally?  Can you tell us anything
>about it, such as its appearance or any physical characteristics?
 
Good, question, and I have known of your interest in this. However, I do not
know whether the affected cube parts exist. Next time I have a chance, I may
ask.
 
At the moment there are some other **very serious pieces** of Pd being
analyzed hither and yon for some spectacular nuclear signature CF evidence,
which *if* further substantiated -- and it looks good for this I'm told, will
end the controversy about whether nuclear reactions occur "in the cold" -- but
not necessarily whether these explain ALL of the excess heat. These pieces are
so HOT that radiological protection regulations have been invoked for said
pieces. The people involved in this testing would like to keep a lid on this
for some time longer, but many of us are losing our patience with the pace --
particularly because one of the principals has been identified as a "spoiler"
in the CF affair. It's always good when a naysayer is revealed to have a
shocking positive result! We'll give the fellow a couple more months MAX, then
we spring the goods, which are well-known to those "in the know."
 
--Gene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 / Karl Kluge /  Re: For whom the bell tolls
     
Originally-From: kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For whom the bell tolls
Date: 19 May 93 20:29:14
Organization: University of Michigan

In article <01GYD1TAMF8Y00070N@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>
>   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>   From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
>   Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 19:19:52 GMT
>
>   (1) Yes, the funeral knell for a nuclear mechanism rang a long time ago.
>   Morrison is beating a dead horse.
 
_Morrison_ is beating a dead horse? From Hagelstein's review it would appear
that belief in nuclear mechanisms is alive and well in a non-trivial segment
of the pro-CF community. Maybe I was skimming and misunderstood.
 
>   (2) Droege and others think the excess heat in the Ni/K2CO3 cells is from
>   recombination.  Noninski and other electrochemists have told them that Ni
>   is not a good catalyst for recombination.
 
According to Steve Jones, a BYU group was seeing 120% excess heat in
Ni-K2CO3-H2O cells when they assumed no recombination, said excess heat
vanishing when steps were taken to separate the evolving gasses.
 
>   More importantly, Mills (and possibly others) is getting mulitples of VI.
>   You can lead a horse to water .....
 
Has this work been published? I think people have asked for cites to >VI
results before and been told that the work had not been published.
 
Karl Kluge
 
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a physicist or electrochemist, nor do I play
one on TV...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 01:00:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930519151621_76570.2270_BHA46-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
 
>        Just to give you a bit of your own medicine: I look forward to a REAL
>bibliography of cold fusion that includes papers in proceedings as well as
>other writings censored from the mainline journals. Such a bibiliogrphy would
>"pack more punch" -- would come closer to the truth of what is going on in
>cold fusion -- than the "bibliography" written by professional bibliogrpaher
>Dieter Britz.
 
I agree, there are plenty of science fiction writers out there that need the
advertising.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 03:42:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May19.194539.8473@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>P.S. --        Dale: While the Pd cube may contain a lot of energy, it _must_ be
>       released slowly for either catalytic or direct D2 burning because
>       you are surface limited.  I presume that could be quantified by
>       having good enough data on temperature-dependent evolution curves,
>       but even with an extremely rapid evolution I'd say that the chances
>       are pretty good that all you will get will be either an explosion
>       or a large external flame, limited by diffusion of O2 into the mix.
>
>       In short, although I like it, I don't see offhand how the internal
>       energy content argument can really hold for a Pd lump.  What you
>       should get would presumably resemble a bunsen burner a lot more
>       than a hydrogen blow torch, and I can't easily convince myself
>       that you could get things hot enough that way.  Your thoughts?
 
      Hydrogen burns hotter than a bunsen burner.  And if the test tube
      was broken by the initial explosion, the rate of burning will be
      limited by how fast D comes out of the lattice.  So, enthalpy is being
      supplied by burning all over the cube and
      by D coming out of the lattice.  Also, yes, I'd think
      any burning happens at or near the surface.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Missing Pd Cube?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing Pd Cube?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 05:11:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930520024618_76570.2270_BHA43-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>Terry writes:
>
>>Dr. Mallove -- You of all people currently participating directly in this
>>group should know:  Does the original 1.3 cc partially obliterated PdDx
>>cube still exist, or not?  If not, what exactly happened to it, and why?
>>Have you ever seen or examined it personally?  Can you tell us anything
>>about it, such as its appearance or any physical characteristics?
>
>Good, question, and I have known of your interest in this. However, I do not
>know whether the affected cube parts exist. Next time I have a chance, I may
>ask.
>
>At the moment there are some other **very serious pieces** of Pd being
>analyzed hither and yon for some spectacular nuclear signature CF evidence,
>which *if* further substantiated -- and it looks good for this I'm told, will
>end the controversy about whether nuclear reactions occur "in the cold" -- but
>not necessarily whether these explain ALL of the excess heat. These pieces are
>so HOT that radiological protection regulations have been invoked for said
>pieces. The people involved in this testing would like to keep a lid on this
>for some time longer, but many of us are losing our patience with the pace --
>particularly because one of the principals has been identified as a "spoiler"
>in the CF affair. It's always good when a naysayer is revealed to have a
>shocking positive result! We'll give the fellow a couple more months MAX, then
>we spring the goods, which are well-known to those "in the know."
 
     It's not like we haven't heard such things before.  What happened to
     the Wolf results?  They seem to have disappeared from the repertoire.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Miles; Part 4 (end)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Miles; Part 4 (end)
Date: 19 May 93 10:21:13 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his letter to me (posted on this net on April 9), Dr. Miles stated:
 
"It is very difficult to explain how helium contamination could only occur in
experiments that were producing excess power and not in any of the control
experiments.  If you can explain this, then please let me know."
 
This is a question we should consider, even if the helium-4 he and coworkers
claim is only about 10^14 atoms/500 ml gas, which is small enough that contami-
nation from the air cannot be simply rule out as I explained in my previous
posting.  I should also add that the team took pains to exclude air from their
system during gas collection:  "the system was always under positive pressure
since the effluent gas was evolved through an oil bubbler."  (ref. 1 = J.
Electro. Chem 346 (1993) 99.)  Thus, most of my concern regards the likelihood
of helium permeation into the *glass* vessels used to hold effluent gases for
helium analysis, and the crudity of the quantitative analysis.
 
I find that Miles et al. do address the question of atmospheric He
contamination, but rule it out:
"Ignoring the helium-heat relationship (Table 1), the simple yes or no
detection of helium in eight out of eight experiments producing excess heat and
the absence of helium in six out of six experiments not producing xs heat (one
in D2O, five in H2O) implies a chance probability of only (1/2)^14 = 1/16,384
or 0.0061% .  Therefore atmospheric contamination does not provide a likely
explanation for our 4He measurements."  (ref. 1)
 
The statistics appear overwhelmingly convincing.  Could something be
overlooked?  I attended a lecture by Dr. Miles in which his data were
presented, and asked the following question:  had any helium measurements been
"thrown out"?  He admitted that there were two such cases, but that these had
been thrown out for good reason --
1.  Heat seen but no helium was detected at all.
    This data point was thrown out because, he said, the electrolyte was found
to be low so that the heat could have been caused by that.
2.  Helium and helium both seen (at what levels he did not say).
    This data point was also thrown out because the electrolyte was found to be
low.
 
There seems to be inconsistency here:  if the xs heat in both cases was indeed
due to low electrolyte, then the finding of He in the 2nd case implies helium
was present when it should not have been.  On the other hand, if the heat
evidences were due to fusion, then He should have been present in both cases.
In any case, the existence of these rejected measurements (even if the
experimenter thinks he has good reason) sheds considerable doubt on his claims
of a 1-to-1 correlation of heat and helium-4 detection.
 
There is more.  Two control flasks out of eleven containing boil-off from
liquid nitrogen showed helium-4.  Dr. Miles ascribed *this* helium to
contamination to air leaks which might have occurred during the shipment of the
glass flasks to the lab in Texas where the He was measured.  In their 1993
re-telling of 1990-91 data, Miles et al. admit that  "some helium was
detected in nitrogen-filled flasks and was attributed to possible flask
leakage."  [ref. 1]    Note the term "possible flask leakage" which indicates
they are not sure how the helium got into these control flasks.  Yet in his
letter to me, Miles states:
"It is very difficult to explain how helium contamination could only occur in
experiments that were producing excess power and not in any of the control
experiments."   If the nitrogen-filled glass flasks which were checked for
helium were not controls, then what were they?   The point is, the
observations of helium in some of these flasks is a red flag which clearly
casts suspicion on the nuclear origin for helium seen in D2O cell gasses.
Frankly, I am
appalled that Dr. Miles makes such strong statements as we see in his letter
(above quote) and in his papers about the connection between xs heat and helium
production in light of these "rejected" data points.
 
I saved the following from a posting on the net which seems applicable in the
present case:
"The scientist who shifts the window, such as the starting or cut-off date for
the data, in order to get significant results,
or privately declares a negative instance irrelevant without
revealing this fact to the readers, or increases (or decreases) the number of
cases (the 'n') to magically produce significant results is fudging or worse.
The misdemeanant almost always takes only little steps into violating the rule
and tends to drift into greater deviance, ever more serious violation of the
rules of science, rather than leaping into it..."
  (Would anyone knowing the author of this please let me know?)
In this regard, I ask again for the *first twelve days* of data from the cell
which on Oct. 21, 1990 produced the maximum xs heat (27%) claimed by Miles et
al. in their open calorimetric system.  [ref. 1]
 
We must all be careful to avoid such traps.  As has been
mentioned before, the scientific method can be regarded as a means of
overcoming the remarkable human tendency for self-deception.
 
There is still more.  Someone in the audience asked Dr. Miles whether he had
numbered the glass  flasks so that a possible correlation between
helium content and a particular flask could be checked.  He had *not* done
this, so such a correlation cannot be ruled out.
 
My colleague Nate Hoffman at Rockwell International told me that studies
conducted there show clearly that helium permeation through glass (whether or
not the flask contains hydrogen isotopes) is sufficiently rapid to account for
most of the helium-4 observations of Miles et al.  His question is why helium
was not found in the flasks containing hydrogen, *not* why helium was found at
lower-than-atmospheric levels in the flasks containing deuterium.
(Perhaps this is due to difference in flasks, since the flasks were not
numbered.  Also, only some of the nitrogen-filled flasks showed helium.)
 
The numbers associated with the helium-4 measurements were crude,
order-of-magnitude estimates:
"Small peaks near the detection limit of the mass spectrometer are assigned a
value of 10^12 atoms of 4He per 500 ml of effluent gases.  Medium peaks were
roughly an order of magnitude greater  while large peaks were about two orders
of magnitude above the detection limit."  [Miles et al., Proc. of Como
Conference on cold fusion, 1991]
 
"Assigned"?  "Small...medium...large peaks"?  "Roughly an order of magnitude"?
Cannot measurements be made more precisely than this?  Can mistakes be made
in making such visual evaluations?  Langmuir worried about just such things as
this.
The data points are plotted with points at 10^12,
10^13 and 10^14 4He atoms per 500 ml -- with no values in between (same ref. as
above, Como meeting).
 
In the face of all of these problems, Miles et al. make the astounding claim:
"The major gaseous fusion product in D2O + LiOD is 4He rather than 3He. ...
In summary, nuclear events with 4He as a major product occur during the
electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOD system."  {ref. 1}
 
They claim a *quantitative* correspondance of helium-4 and heat as follows:
"Although the exact nature of the reaction(s) producting the excess power
effect is not known,
the fusion process
2D + 2D -->  4He + 23.8MeV (lattice)
can be used as a basis for an estimate of helium production.  For this
reaction 1 W corresponds to a rate of 2.62 X 10^11 4He/s.  The highest excess
power observed at 528 mA (0.46W,  10/21/90 -B, Table 1) would therefore produce
5.4X10^14 atoms of 4He in the time period required to fill the 500 ml
collection flask with D2 and O2 gases (4440 s).  About 10^14 atoms of 4He were
detected, which is within experimental error of the theoretical amount."
[ref. 1]
 
We find in the same paper the admission:
"Any gamma-ray production would deposit little heat in the cell since most of
the energy would be carried off by the photon."  [J. Electro. Chem. 346 (1993):
99.]
The argument as I understand it  is that nuclear energy must be
quickly transferred to the lattice without the formation of observable gammas.
(See also their equation above used as a basis for the correlation of 4He and
xs heat quantitatively.)   A calculation shows
this notion to be outside the realms of experimentally established constraints,
such as the speed of light. [See S. E. Jones, Surf. and Coatings Tech. 51 (1992)
283-289 ]  Following a nuclear reaction, the energy released can be transferred
as virtual energy a distance limited by the speed of light and the uncertainty
principle:
 
r = ct = h-bar*c /E,
where E for nuclear reactions is of order MeV and h-bar*c = 197 MeV-fm.
Thus we find that the energy released in a posited nuclear reaction, to remain
virtual and thus transfer undetected to the lattice, can only travel a distance
of about 10^-13m, about 10-3 angstroms.  But the lattice spacing is about an
angstrom or two -- three orders of magnitude larger!  I conclude
that nuclear energy cannot be transferred unobserved to the lattice.
 
Another straightforward argument uses conservation of momentum.  The lattice is
much more massive than the emitted particle (allegedly a 4He nucleus in Miles
paper).  In order to conserve momentum, the lighter particle (alpha) must carry
the lion's share of released energy.  This is the case in the Mossbauer effect
where agamma recoils against a massive lattice.  But then the "heat" does not
go to the lattice, but rather to the emitted particle.
 
Moreover, Miles et al. claim that there is enough high-energy interaction
to give X-ray film exposure, along with "high count rates" in their
Geiger-Mueller detector [ref. 1; see my part 1 posting on the Miles experiments
for further discussion].
 
In summary, I find the claims of Miles et al. to have observed commensurate xs
heat and helium-4 and high Geiger-counter rates to be inconsistent and poorly
supported by the facts.  This is the *only* group to make such claims
to the best of my knowledge;
hence the relevance of examining these claims as we have done.)  Each piece
of their claims, as we have scrutinized them together here, is found to be
weak.  Does the assemblage of these questionable pieces somehow provide
a compelling picture in the aggregate?  I think not.
 
To quote Tarl Neustaedter (whose comments regarding the P&F paper seem
relevant to the Miles et al. papers):
"Provide details down to the seven-sigma level of many types of slightly
related information, and nobody will notice that critical information is only
known to an order of magnitude. .. In my neck of the woods, we call this
technique "hand-waving" or "bury them with [bovine manure]."  [T. Neustaedter,
12 May 1993 posting.]
 
By way of scientific courtesy, now let me offer again one means for my
colleagues to check their results:  use our portable X-ray spectrometer.
You have already claimed X-ray production, using dental X-ray films.  It is
important to check this with a sensitive spectrometer, which will also provide
energy and line-intensity information.  If X-rays are indeed present only in
the D2O-xs-heat case as you claim, then the presence *or absence* of the 21 keV
k-alpha line from palladium is critical to establish the nature of the process
which produces the xs heat.
 
Best regards,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  More on cement+D2O studies
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on cement+D2O studies
Date: 19 May 93 10:47:40 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Interesting side conversations go on via private e-mail, and I wish to post one
response to the net to keep others informed.  Paul Dietz of Rochester.edu
asked about neutron emissions from cement+D2O due to d(gamma,n)p and various
(alpha,n) reactions.  He estimated that there would be approx. 1 n from
18-O(alpha,n) per 10^4 neutrons from d(gamma,n)p.   This squares with our
calculations here that photodisintegration dominates X(alpha,n) processes
in cement+D2O.
 
To check this conclusion, we performed the following experiments.  First we
embedded thorium acetate in RTV rubber, cut this into small pieces, then spread
the pieces throughout a fresh cement+D2O mixture.  By embedding Th in rubber,
one effectively stops the alpha emissions while the 2.615 MeV gammas from the
thallium-208 daughter of Th pass with little attenuation.  (The deuteron
photodisintegration threshold is 2.2 MeV.)  Secondly, a nearly identical sample
was prepared with thorium acetate dissolved in D2O which was then added to
cement, and an equal mass of RTV chips (without embedded Th) was added in also.
The latter sample will show neutron production from both (gamma,n) and
(alpha,n) reactions in the D2O+cement.  We found:
n-rate from case 2/n-rate from case 1  =  1.02 +-0.03.
 
We conclude that deuteron photodisintegration is the dominant source of neutron
yield due to Th contamination in the cement+D2O, which contamination we
measured in three independent ways:  gamma spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and
neutron activation.  Uranium content was also measured by these methods, and
neutron yields due to U (and Th) were evaluated by deliberate addition of U and
Th to cement+D2O here in our tunnel laboratory.  A write-up on our studies is
available on request (it is too long to post on the net).
 
Best regards,
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Arguments not needed
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Arguments not needed
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 15:52:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Arnie Frisch comments:
 
     "Has it occurred to you all that each publication by P & F has served to
     rouse everybody, but doesn't seem to "prove" anything."
 
It proves their point exactly. It is an elegant paper, describing an elegant
and wonderful experiment. It demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that the
heat from CF is beyond chemistry.
 
     "Do any of you wonder about why we have to argue about what they did, and
     when they did it?
 
Answer: We DO NOT have to argue and we DO NOT have to wonder. The paper spells
out exactly what they did, and why they did it. I wrote "Yes, I believe...
they turned off the power later..." but my use of the word "believe" was
merely literary style. Actually, the paper states this fact and the reason
quite explicitly. The people who are whining and moaning about the lack of
clarity are just making a lot of useless noise.
 
     "If their experimental technique and publishing style was reasonable, we
     would not have to ask these questions..."
 
You don't need to ask these questions. If you would shut up and read the
paper, you would see at a glance that your questions and doubts are a waste of
time. The experimental technique was superb, accurate and precise. The half-
silvered Dewar is exactly the right type of ultra-simple, reliable and precise
instrument to use under the circumstances. Dieter Britz and others have
complained that it is "primitive," but in science, choosing the simplest
possible tool that does the job accurately is a mark of genius. Where a
magnifying glass does the job perfectly, dragging in an electron microscope is
stupid and counterproductive. More complex equipment would muddy up the issue.
A classically simple calorimeter is best when the heat is intense enough to
measured easily with such equipment, which it certainly is in this case!
 
These people who demand that P&F use error-prone electronic gizmos and
whirling pumps have mistaken Big Bucks and Big Machines for good science. It
is if they insist that Warhol was a better artist than Kollowitz, because he
used ultra-high-tech bright colored photo offset, and she used things like
woodcut that have not been improved upon since Durer's time. McKubre was
*forced* to use ultra-precise 0.01 gram scales to know how much water was
exposed to the heat sink (to measure his flow). P&F have no flow, and the
silvering controls the amount exposed to the heat sink *exactly* throughout
calibration, testing, and the experimental run. They don't need any pumps or
scales, they can be *certain* conditions remain stable. As they say, they
demonstrated both by computation and by actual test that the water level makes
less than 1% difference. Instead of using oh-so-clever gadgets, they used
their heads, and found an elegant solution. They sidestep the problems,
simplify, and clarify.
 
Tom Droege's critique sounded to me a someone describing Shakespeare along
these lines: "The plays are unorganized, some of them jump back and forth in
time chaotically. They are far too long by modern standards. The plots are
wildly improbable; you could not run around in disguises like that and fool
anyone -- a man seeing his wife posing as a statue would not be fooled into
thinking she really is a statue. Plus, they are full of blatant anachronisms,
like ancient Romans hearing clocks strike." All true, and all perfectly
irrelevant. Pons and Fleischmann are world class geniuses, the paper is
superb, it is of earthshaking importance. Tom's nit-picking critique is
nothing but Sour Grapes, from someone who has lost sight of the forest for the
trees.
 
Believe it or not, I have heard people criticize Shakespeare in those terms!
Some people think they can write better than the Bard, just as Tom thinks he
could do a better experiment than P&F, and write a better paper.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: For whom the bell tolls
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: For whom the bell tolls
Date: 20 May 93 15:39:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <01GYD1TAMF8Y00070N@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
.................
 
>(4)  The next time you hear from Mills everything will be in order:
>
>     a definitive experiment showing the excess heat
>
>     the ash
>
>     the theory
.........
 
 
I look forward to this refreshingly unique occurence with great
expectations.  Would that P & F pursue the same course.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Some Answers
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some Answers
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 19:52:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Some answers to few of Tom's questions:
 
"1) How much D2O is in the cell when it starts to boil?" 45 ml. It is dead
simple to measure. You can *say* it isn't, but you are looking at a fifth
generation copy of a video, which tells you nothing.
 
"2) How much power is put into the cell during the boil off period?" 22,500 J.
It is a cinch to measure DC power. As Harrison and others have shown there can
be no error on the scale you contemplate. You are going to put Keithley and
the others out of business and win a Nobel Prize if you can prove otherwise.
 
"3) How much electrolyte is converted to saturated steam, and how much leave
the cell as water droplets?" It is all steam. Try boiling water in a test tube
this size, and you find this out for yourself. Don't take my word for it.
 
"4) Does the calorimeter constant stay constant during the boil off?" Who
cares? What difference does it make? Suppose every joule that was supposed to
go out the bottom of the test tube was stopped dead and turned back by
lithium. That would reduce excess power by 6,600 J, or 8%. So what?
 
Get Real Tom! Put a number on it. Like all your other objections, this factor
doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. You are trying to "explain away"
multiwatt phenomena with milliwatt objections.
 
5... skipped
 
"6) What happens when the 'cigarette lighter' effect continues after the cell
boils dry?" Not much. Ikegami and others have exposed fully loaded Pd to
blowtorches and other extreme temperatures and effects. What would happen if
you ignited an ordinary cigarette lighter or candle this size? It would burn
for a few seconds, and go out. No big deal. Try it yourself: put a "fully
loaded" candle wick on some plastic Kel-F stuff, and ignite it.
 
7... skipped
 
"8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
cell is boiled dry?" It doesn't say that.
 
"9) Who are the assistants to Pons and Fleischmann?" What does this have to do
with price of eggs? It is None Of Your Business.
 
"10) What is the purpose of the "Specific excess heat for hypothetical
pressure 0.953 bars" caption of figure 10 b?" This demonstrates how important
it is to keep track of air pressure, and it demonstrates that they *did* keep
track of air pressure.
 
"11) When is the current source turned off?" Just like it says: after the
experiment. Can't you read plain English? Read that warning, too. It's
related.
 
"12) Why is the photograph of figure 12 in color?" Because it is not black and
white.
 
"13) Is there a white coating on the cells after they boil away?" Same answer
as # 4. Also: it depends on how much Li is in there, and how much gets pushed
up the walls by the bubbles, and on the cathode, doesn't it? It does not
amount to a hill of beans. Neither do any of your objections.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Arguments not needed
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arguments not needed
Date: 20 May 1993 18:35:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930520145659_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>It [P&F's latest experiment] demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that the
>heat from CF is beyond chemistry.
 
I don't think that anyone ever doubted that the "heat" from "CF" is "beyond
chemistry".  The question as far as I can tell is whether it is "beyond
physics" or "beyond delusion."
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Arguments not needed
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arguments not needed
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 17:50:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930520145659_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To:  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Arnie Frisch comments:
>
>     "Has it occurred to you all that each publication by P & F has served to
>     rouse everybody, but doesn't seem to "prove" anything."
>
>It proves their point exactly. It is an elegant paper, describing an elegant
>and wonderful experiment. It demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that the
>heat from CF is beyond chemistry.
 
     It's a crappy paper with lines that go off the top of graphs and
     a figure that gets my nomination for 'Worst Color Figure Ever in
     a Scientific Publication'.  There's no discussion of such
     things as a) equipment used, b) anode material, c) raw data,
     d) what 'dry' means.  And as Tom has been pointing out, Figure
     11 makes absolutely no sense if we take it as given, and if the
     'dry' indicator is in the wrong place, the 'discussion' in the paper
     seems like downright dissembling.
 
>     "Do any of you wonder about why we have to argue about what they did, and
>     when they did it?
>
>Answer: We DO NOT have to argue and we DO NOT have to wonder. The paper spells
>out exactly what they did, and why they did it. I wrote "Yes, I believe...
>they turned off the power later..." but my use of the word "believe" was
>merely literary style. Actually, the paper states this fact and the reason
>quite explicitly. The people who are whining and moaning about the lack of
>clarity are just making a lot of useless noise.
 
     It seems to me that it states the fact that they turn the current off
     after they boil to dryness.  How can you turn the current off if the
     cell has open-circuited?  The current would then already be off, and
     special mention in a paper that gives not a clue as to what
     equipment they used would be quite pointless.
 
>     "If their experimental technique and publishing style was reasonable, we
>     would not have to ask these questions..."
>
>You don't need to ask these questions. If you would shut up and read the
 
      Okay, what does 'dry' mean?  Does that mean it boils down just past
      the cathode?  Or does it mean that it boils so that there's no liquid
      in the cell?  Or does it mean something else?  Any answer you give
      creates problems for parts of the paper.
 
>like ancient Romans hearing clocks strike." All true, and all perfectly
>irrelevant. Pons and Fleischmann are world class geniuses, the paper is
>superb, it is of earthshaking importance. Tom's nit-picking critique is
>nothing but Sour Grapes, from someone who has lost sight of the forest for the
>trees.
 
      Is this the principle where if you keep repeating it, it becomes
      'true'?  Science is in the trees.  P&F have given us a crayon drawing
      of the forest and asked us to 'believe' that there are trees somewhere.
 
>Believe it or not, I have heard people criticize Shakespeare in those terms!
>Some people think they can write better than the Bard, just as Tom thinks he
>could do a better experiment than P&F, and write a better paper.
 
      I don't recall any criticism of Shakespeare in this thread.
 
      That of P&F, however, seems to be deserved.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: A problem from the real world
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A problem from the real world
Date: 20 May 93 20:05:42 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993May19.170714.653@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>A friend of mine works for a canning company which has a serious problem.
>Although this does not relate to cf, I would like to pose the problem
>generally and seek comments by e-mail (jonesse@yvax.byu.edu works well)
>in behalf of my friend.  The problem is that about 15% of a certain lot
>of canned fruit has had the tin liner on the can dissolved into the
>fruit, which ruins the fruit.  Is it possible, without opening the cans,
>to determine whether the inner Sn lining is intact?
 
 
 
 
One might try accoustic time domain reflectometry, using a transducer
in the hundred megaHertz range.  The .125 mil inner tin coating is
about 1/8 of a wavelength at this frequency, so you should be able to
see it.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May18.174934.647@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May18.174934.647@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 19 May 93 10:22:18 -0600

cancel <1993May18.174934.647@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Corrections made
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrections made
Date: 19 May 93 10:25:59 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,
I have re-posted part 4 of my reply to Dr. Miles, having made a few
corrections.  The most serious was to change 'momentum' to 'released energy'
in the statement (as corrected):  "In order to conserve momentum, the lighter
particle must carry the lion's share of released energy."
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  A problem from the real world
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A problem from the real world
Date: 19 May 93 17:07:14 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
A friend of mine works for a canning company which has a serious problem.
Although this does not relate to cf, I would like to pose the problem
generally and seek comments by e-mail (jonesse@yvax.byu.edu works well)
in behalf of my friend.  The problem is that about 15% of a certain lot
of canned fruit has had the tin liner on the can dissolved into the
fruit, which ruins the fruit.  Is it possible, without opening the cans,
to determine whether the inner Sn lining is intact?
 
Here are details:
 
      -   F  -
       -   F  -
        -   F  -  <-- layer of tin on outside of can, 0.04 mils thick
         -  F  -
         -  F -
        -  F -
      -  F <--steel 20 mils thick (0.020")
      ^inner Sn lining, 0.125 mils thick (if present)
 
I suggested using a tungsten X-ray source to penetrate the side of the can,
which would then cause X-ray fluorescence of the Sn on the inside layer
(if present).  Characteristic 25 keV Sn k-alpha X-rays could be detected
through the ends of the can, shielding out X-rays from most of the
juice+fruit using a circular lead sheet.
X-rays from the tin on the outside of the can would
have to penetrate two iron thicknesses and I calculate would be negligible
compared to Sn X-rays from the inside.  But it looks a bit marginal.
 
Any bright ideas?  If you have one that works, I'll promise a free round-trip
to BYU where I'll provide a tour of our tunnel laboratory in the Wasatch
mountains where we continue to study possible neutron, X-ray, gamma and
charged-particle emissions from deuterided materials.
 
Thanks, Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Missing Pd Cube?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing Pd Cube?
Date: 20 May 93 13:41:43 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <C7B7rz.vC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <930520024618_76570.2270_BHA43-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270
compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>>Terry writes:
>>
>>>Dr. Mallove -- You of all people currently participating directly in this
>>>group should know:  Does the original 1.3 cc partially obliterated PdDx
>>>cube still exist, or not?  If not, what exactly happened to it, and why?
>>>Have you ever seen or examined it personally?  Can you tell us anything
>>>about it, such as its appearance or any physical characteristics?
Mallove responds:
>>Good, question, and I have known of your interest in this. However, I do not
>>know whether the affected cube parts exist. Next time I have a chance, I may
>>ask.
>>
>>At the moment there are some other **very serious pieces** of Pd being
>>analyzed hither and yon for some spectacular nuclear signature CF evidence,
>>which *if* further substantiated -- and it looks good for this I'm told, will
>>end the controversy about whether nuclear reactions occur "in the cold" -- but
>>not necessarily whether these explain ALL of the excess heat. These pieces are
>>so HOT that radiological protection regulations have been invoked for said
>>pieces. The people involved in this testing would like to keep a lid on this
>>for some time longer, but many of us are losing our patience with the pace --
>>particularly because one of the principals has been identified as a "spoiler"
>>in the CF affair. It's always good when a naysayer is revealed to have a
>>shocking positive result! We'll give the fellow a couple more months MAX, then
>>we spring the goods, which are well-known to those "in the know."
Dale Bass adds:
>      It's not like we haven't heard such things before.  What happened to
>      the Wolf results?  They seem to have disappeared from the repertoire.
>
>                              dale bass
 
Now you're on target, Dale, but Kevin Wolf is correctly cautious about his
results.  He is continuing his studies of low-level nuclear reactions in
deuterided solids.  His last publication on this, as far as I know, appears
in the Proc. of the conference held at BYU in 1990, published by the AIP
as Proceedings #228 (myself, D. Worledge and F. Scaramuzzi are the editors)
in 1991.
Mallove, on the other hand, is not being careful.  In particular,
I object to the suggestion
that Pd-gamma results relate to xs heat-by-nuclear-reaction claims.
Gene's "ALL" cited above could more accurately be changed to "ANY",
particularly since the researcher involved does not claim *any* xs heat.
 
Again, Gene, my old saw:  there may be exciting and subtle nuclear effects
in deuterided Pd and other materials without ANY relationship to xs heat
claims.  I believe this is the case, based on our experiments at BYU
which go back to 1986 in this field
(our first electrolysis expt. with D2O and particle detectors began in May
1986, completely independent of P&F),
and on theoretical work (our first paper was published in March 1986, Journal
of Physics G, Van Siclen and Jones, remember?).
 
{Here I am saying "xs heat" again -- I enjoyed greatly the teasing jibes by
Greg Kuperberg on this and other buzz words we use on this net.}
 
Back to Terry's original question about the missing Pd cube:
I have spoken to Fritz Will and Haven Bergesen of the U. of Utah about this
issue.  Both had questioned Stan Pons about his Pd cube, and both were told
that the carpet had been repaired over the area where the cube had damaged
the cement.  Fritz told me he then went on his own into the room in question,
but failed to find any evidence for carpet repair or cement damage.  Pons'
student Hawkins said he did not believe the vaporizing Pd cube story.
Prof. Bergesen said he has no idea where the Pd cube remnants are -- too bad,
for perhaps they would show gamma activity?
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May17.180913.645@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May17.180913.645@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 20 May 93 13:09:33 -0600

cancel <1993May17.180913.645@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Miles&Helium; Who got shot in foot?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles&Helium; Who got shot in foot?
Date: 20 May 93 13:16:09 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues:
I originally posted this on May 17, but on checking with a distant friend
learned that it had not reached him.  Hence this re-posting with minor changes.
 
REPLY TO MEL MILES' LETTER, PART 3:  HELIUM CLAIMS
 
(Note:  Dr. Miles letter to me asking for comments was posted here by
Jed Rothwell, re-posted by me in my response, part 1 last week.  Refs.
are the same as in my part 1 response.)
 
Miles et al. make the strong claims:
"A critical issue in determining whether or not the anomalous effects that
occur during D2O electrolysis are of nuclear origin is the measurements of
nuclear products in amounts sufficient to explain the rate of excess enthalpy
generation.  Calorimetric evidence of excess power up to 27% was measured
during the electrolysis of heavy water using palladium cathodes. ...
[Excess heat claims were discussed in part 2 of my response, posted last week]
"Eight electrolysis gas samples collected during episodes of excess power
production in two identical cells and analysed by mass spectrometry showed the
presence of 4 He.  Furthermore, the amount of helium detected correlated
qualitatively with the amount of excess power and was within an order of
magnitude of the theoretical estimate of helium production based upon fusion of
deuterium to form 4 He.  Any production of 3 He or neutrons in these
experiments was below our detection limits. "  [Ref. 1, from the abstract]
{Miles et al. J. Electro. Chem. 346 (1993) 99-117}
 
And from the Conclusions of the same paper:
"The major gaseous fusion product in D2O + LiOD is 4He rather than 3He. ...
In summary, nuclear events with 4 He as a major product occur during the
electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOD system."  [ref.1]
 
Whew!  Note that d-d fusion is claimed, producing 4He ash commensurate (within
an order of magnitude) with 27% xs power claimed.
 
Now the recent discussion between Dick Blue and Mitchell Swartz sets the
stage for our scrutiny of the Miles et al. claims.   Swartz argued:
"Use Avogadro's number, and a rough and ready STP calculation puts circa
10**14 helium-4 [atoms] 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 He-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."  --M. Swartz, 13 May 1993 posting
 
Dick Blue agreed (for once) with Mitchell, noting:
"Mitchell did a good job informing us about the helium content of the
atmosphere.  Some of us have known about that for a long time. ...
...it is well known that helium difuses into, out of, and through glass.
Thus it appears to me that .. atmospheric helium ... could cause false
positives in the Miles experiments.   Mitchell, haven't you just shot yourself
in the foot?"  (D. Blue, 15 May posting "Mitchell Swartz finds helium!")
 
Mitchell responds (15 May, "Analysis of Dick Blue's comments"):
"Well Dick, since you claim there is no massive in-diffusion of helium and
since helium is LINKED to excess heat in the Miles experiments which you
cite, then those observations obviously stand.
Dick, 1) Try to be more accurate for a change.
      2)  In your own words:  "you just shot yourself in the foot"
   Mitchell "  (15 May)
 
To find out whose foot hurts, we must turn to the Miles papers.  The issue
hinges on the *amount* of He-4 claimed by Miles, and the possibility of
contamination from atmospheric helium due to presence of glass.
1.  Miles collected their gas samples in *glass* flasks for later He-4
analysis, so the presence of glass is a major concern (as Dick Blue
correctly pointed out).
 
2.  The amount of Helium-4 -- this is crucial:  is it at the
atmospheric level of 10**14 atoms per cc, or well above this?
That is, can He-4 contamination from air be ruled out because the level
in the effluent gases from the electrolytic cells is > 10**14 atoms/cc?
 
And the answer is (from the Miles papers) --
the maximum amount of helium-4 seen was:  10**14 atoms/500 cc.
 
Thus, the fraction of helium-4 detected in the *glass* flasks from open
calorimetric systems was *less* than that of the atmosphere.  The situation was
well-stated by Mitchell Swartz himself (referring to a different case, but
we now find his remarks applicable to the Miles et al. claims of He-4
production):
"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 ... is dwarfed by the helium
content in the ambient."  (M. Swartz posting, 13 May)
 
While you're tending your foot, Mitchell, may I suggest
that you ponder the words of your mouth?  Your description fits one weakness
in the Miles et al. claims remarkably well.  Hopefully this will be a "teaching
moment."
 
Incidentally, the ambient in the lab where the He-4 was measured was larger than
normal, Miles et al. observed:  "because of the use of helium-cooled nuclear
magnetic resonance instruments and helium-filled glove-boxes, in the building,
the helium content of the laboratory air can be significantly higher than 5.22
ppm and was recently measured as 10.27 +- 0.03 ppm..."  [Miles ref. 1]
Despite this obvious red flag, the Miles et al. team do not offer the caveat
that the He-4 they saw could be due to contamination from the air while stating
their strong claims cited above.  In this sense, they are remiss.
 
As Tom Droege recently pointed out, the team of Liaw and Liebert at the Univ.
of Hawaii had the scientific good sense to point out that the level of helium-4
which they found was consistent with that of the ambient; so they warned that
the possibility of atmospheric contamination could not be ruled out. This is
the better, more careful approach.  Miles et al. in ref. 1 state:
"Liaw and coworkers have reported the enhancement of 4He in palladium samples
from an electrode..." in support of their own claims.  Unfortunately, Miles et
al. failed to note in ref. 1 the caveat noted by Liaw et al. that atmospheric
contamination was a possibility in their experiments.
 
There is more to discuss regarding the helium-4 claims of the Miles et al.
papers, to which I will return when I can snag another hour.  In particular,
we will scrutinize claims of a "link" between heat and helium-4 findings.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Jones
 
 
 
(do I detect a teaching moment here?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May20.130857.654@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May20.130857.654@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 20 May 93 13:16:38 -0600

cancel <1993May20.130857.654@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 / Chunk Sites /  Re: 6% Average!
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chunk Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 6% Average!
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 06:14:23 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad) writes:
 
>arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
>Perhaps CF requires some trigger event or condition unrelated (or mostly
>unrelated) to the input power.  Until this event occurs the input
>power has no effect and is irrelevant.  You might as well be applying
>power to a banana as palladium, and the input power is totally irrelvant
>to a power gain calculation.  So is the power used by your toaster that
>morning to heat a bagel.  Of course if this trigger happens to be
>100 hours of input power (or the operation of your toaster!), that power is
>VERY relevant to the calculation.
 
I think this exemplifies the the over all problem in the field of CF.
There are some apparent heat excursions that are not so easily explained.
I personally think this is a real phenomenon and not the nonsense that
some think it is. These little bumps and bursts pose some interesting
questions to the materials and solid state scientists. Namely how is
the energy stored in these systems to cause such bursts, and an apparent
overall release of excess energy.  Anyway I agree with you comments
and just wanted to point out that are few science problems to be looked
at.  One problem that I've yet to see fully resolved is why, D2O gives
heat and bursts in Pd, and H2O in Pd does not?  If the reaction was purely
chemical there should be no difference.  This suggest either a solid
state effects or some unusual form of solid state fusion. Or both.
  I think there is enough evidence to suggest that fusion is not the
source of the heat excursions, but small levels of fusion may be a
consiquence of the processes that causes heat excursions. For example
rapid out gassing through a lattice pinch.  P&F's new paper simply
hints as to what is there.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchuck cudfnChunk cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 816 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 816 papers, 118 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 13:14:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
back to earth after the excitement of the latest F&P work, here are just two
less exciting papers. Russell Jr has previously suggested virtual dineutrons,
made from the capture of an electron by a deuteron, and here suggests that
they explain others' results. He does admit that the required triple collision
is unlikely, but turns around and says that that's why the reaction rate is so
low. Vokhnik et al tried an experiment that might interest Terry, shooting
energetic laser beams at water, causing cavitation and what all. Nothing
besides this happened, though; i.e. no neutrons.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-May-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 816
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Jr JL;                                Ann. Nucl. Energy 20 (1993) 227.
"On the nature of the cold fusion process".
** Based on reports by Chambers et al at the BYU conference in 1990, of 5.1
MeV tritons produced at Ti irradiated with a deuteron beam at 300-1000 eV,
Russell proposes that the only possible reaction to explain this is that of
a virtual dineutron (deuteron captures an electron) with two other deuterons.
This is expected to be a rare event, accounting for the low yield. It cannot
however be the source of excess heat, and cannot be the only one producing
tritium in cold fusion experiments. Logically, a more probable reaction is
that of a virtual dineutron with a single deuteron; it may be this one that
produces the heat, but somehow without energetic nuclear particles.   Sep-92/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vokhnik OM, Goryachev BI, Zubrilo AA, Kutznetsova GP, Popov YuV, Svertilov SI;
Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 55(12) (1992) 1772.
"Search for effects related to nuclear fusion in the optical breakdown of
heavy water".
** Going by the accelerator (fracture) model of cold fusion, this team
reasoned that laser breakdown of water, resulting in strong cavitation, laser
sparking and acoustic signals, should produce similar results. A ruby laser
with pulses of 20-30 mJ energy was used; the cell was placed in a 130-L fast
neutron scintillation detector. No neutrons beyond the background were
detected.                                                        Apr-92/Dec-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May20.160143.659@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May20.160143.659@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 20 May 93 16:13:50 -0600

cancel <1993May20.160143.659@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Theory of Mills & Farrell: shrinking hydrogen
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theory of Mills & Farrell: shrinking hydrogen
Date: 20 May 93 16:16:53 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

A LOOK AT THE MILLS-FARRELL THEORY OF SHRINKING HYDROGEN ATOMS
 
In article <2864@tekgen.bv.tek.com>, arnief@sail.labs.tek.com
(Arnie Frisch) writes:
> In article <01GYD1TAMF8Y00070N@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
>  J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
> .................
>
>>(4)  The next time you hear from Mills everything will be in order:
>>
>>     a definitive experiment showing the excess heat
>>
>>     the ash
>>
>>     the theory
> .........
>
>
> I look forward to this refreshingly unique occurence with great
> expectations.  Would that P & F pursue the same course.
>
>
> Arnold Frisch
> Tektronix Laboratories
>
 
Before getting too excited by Farrell and Mills (F&M) promises, it is
instructive to consider aspects of their theory, published in:
1.  R. Mills and S. Kneizys, Fusion Tech. 20 (1991) 65-81,
which refers extensively to:
2.  R. Mills and J. Farrell, _The Grand Unified Theory_, Science Press (1989).
 
I will quote from the Fusion Tech. paper:
"To remedy the shortcomings and inconsistencies of quantum mechanics,
Mills and Farrell [ref. 2 above] developed a novel theory for which the
fundamental laws of nature are shown to be applicable on all scales.
Maxwell's equations, Einstein's general and special relativity, Newtonian
mechanics, and the strong and weak forces are unified."
 
"The conversion of energy into matter requires a transition state in which the
identification of the entity as matter or energy is impossible.  From the
properties of the entity, as matter or energy, and from the physical laws and
the properties of space-time, the transition state hereafter called a
virtual orbit sphere is derived."
 
"Thus, the electron virtual orbit sphere is an LC circuit excited at the
corresponding resonance frequency of free space.  The impedance of free space
becomes infinite, and electromagnetic radiation cannot propagate.  At this
event, the
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and energy of the virtual orbit sphere are
equal to that of the photon."
 
"It is shown in Sec. III that the electron orbit sphere is a resonator cavity
that can trap electromagnetic radiation of discrete frequencies.  ... The
photons decrease the nuclear charge to 1/n and increase the radius of the orbit
sphere to na."  ["For the hydrogen atom, the radius of the ground orbit sphere
is a."]
 
"Mills and Farrell propose [ref. 2 above], however, that the orbit sphere
resonator can trap photons that increase the nuclear charge and decrease the
radius of the orbit sphere.  This occurs, for example, when the orbit sphere
couples to another resonator cavity that can absorb energy -- this is the
absorption of an energy hole.
"The absorption of an energy hole destroys the balance between the centrifugal
force and the increased central Coulombic force.  As a result, the electron is
pulled toward the nucleus.  If another allowed state that obeys the boundary
conditions is not available, the electron plunges into the nucleus."
 
[Hate when that happens.]
 
"After resonant absorption of the hole, the radius a of the orbit sphere
shrinks to a/(m+1), and after p cycles of resonant shrinkage, the radius is
a/(mp+1). ... In decaying to this radius from the ground state, a total energy
of  [(m+1)^2 - 1^2] x 13.6 eV is released."
 
End of quotations from Mills, Farrell and Kneizys.
 
Need I say more?
 
Have fun,
--Steven Jones
 
P.s.  -- This is the same Mills who recently testified regarding his "cf"
work before a U.S. House of Representative subcommittee, which is
considering fusion funding.  [Reported on this net by Gene Mallove
recently.]
Are we in trouble or what?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993May20.161255.660@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993May20.161255.660@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 20 May 93 16:17:09 -0600

cancel <1993May20.161255.660@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 04:12:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930520193110_72240.1256_EHK41-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Some answers to few of Tom's questions:
>
>"1) How much D2O is in the cell when it starts to boil?" 45 ml. It is dead
>simple to measure. You can *say* it isn't, but you are looking at a fifth
>generation copy of a video, which tells you nothing.
 
     However, they start 'measuring' at the half way point 'We have chosen
     the time to evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells
     of this type'.  How do they measure the 'last half' if it's already
     in boiling?  Or does it magically evaporate down to the 'last half'
     and commence boiling right at the half way mark?
 
>"2) How much power is put into the cell during the boil off period?" 22,500 J.
>It is a cinch to measure DC power. As Harrison and others have shown there can
>be no error on the scale you contemplate. You are going to put Keithley and
>the others out of business and win a Nobel Prize if you can prove otherwise.
 
     It's not necessarily a 'cinch' to measure *total* power during boiling.
     The electrodes may have a wildly varying electrical connection
     between them and about them.  If one electrode gets to 300C, then
     it's in film boiling and there is an aperiodic fluctuating air gap
     that the current must cross.
 
>Get Real Tom! Put a number on it. Like all your other objections, this factor
>doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. You are trying to "explain away"
>multiwatt phenomena with milliwatt objections.
 
     Get real Jed.  How can we believe such a sloppy paper?
 
>"8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
>cell is boiled dry?" It doesn't say that.
 
     Figure 11 shows explicitly that the temperature remains at about
     100C for *three hours* after the cell boils dry.  Read the paper
     Jed.
 
>"10) What is the purpose of the "Specific excess heat for hypothetical
>pressure 0.953 bars" caption of figure 10 b?" This demonstrates how important
>it is to keep track of air pressure, and it demonstrates that they *did* keep
>track of air pressure.
 
     It would be more important to actually keep track of the liquid level,
     then they wouldn't have to guess how rapidly it evaporated.
 
>"11) When is the current source turned off?" Just like it says: after the
>experiment. Can't you read plain English? Read that warning, too. It's
>related.
 
     It says after the cell 'boil to dryness'.  The experiment continues
     for at least three hours after this (c.f. Figure 11 and the text).
 
>"12) Why is the photograph of figure 12 in color?" Because it is not black and
>white.
 
     More appropriately, Why did Phys Lett A allow them to use color
     for such a worthless figure?
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: 21 May 93 06:35:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <m0nvsgR-0000hTC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Bruce d. Scott writes:
 
>The engineering aspects are precisely where the tokamak fails.  As a
>scientific tool, the tokamak is relatively poor.  It is but one way to
>generate plasmas.  There are lots of others and we would learn a lot
>more about the physics of plasmas if we spread the plasma physics
>money more evenly through the various regimes of plasma that can be
>created by more widely varying devices.
 
>>.   .     .     .      ..    . . . .. The point is that when one can
>>really show (ie, if global, well-resolved computations make it obvious)
>>that the concept is fatally flawed--on _physics_ grounds--then I would
>>not fear standing up and saying so. The point is, you'd better be sure.
>>Just to make it clear: I wouldn't help myself by harping on the engineering
>>aspects because I know practically nothing about that (how much does
 
Actually, a lot of engineering is founded in thoughtfully applied physics.
Physics? or is it the "community of physcists leaders" that carefully
avoid such things since simple engineering principles get to the viability
issue immediately.  The technique is "Don't look at the macro features,
instead concentrate on the multiplicity of micro processes.
 
Then the problem is to take the physics out of the conclusions and
present the material in a meaningful way so the average citizen can
make a rational decision on "investing taxes" or punting it over to
the private sector.
 
Let's see .. . usefully expressed  engineering principles for
evaluating commercial technology:
      If it cost too much, it won't work (commercially)
      if it takes to long to develop (excess of 10 years); it will never work
      if it is too big and complicated; it won't work
          .. .   etc.  etc.
 
Now that's what I called getting down to the bottom line applied physics.
 
>The engineering aspects are precisely where the tokamak fails.  As a
>scientific tool, the tokamak is relatively poor.  It is but one way to
>generate plasmas.  There are lots of others and we would learn a lot
>more about the physics of plasmas if we spread the plasma physics
>money more evenly through the various regimes of plasma that can be
>created by more widely varying devices.
 
>One obvious place to start is in getting a very crude understanding of
>the MHD properties of lightning.  It's relatively easy to make big sparks
>or set up lightning rods around Orlando.
 
Actually as a by-product of it's space research NASA has advanced the
triggered lightning technique by using a rocket.  In fact a BIG rocket,
a TITAN, which certainly produces a much larger number of ions and a much
larger cross section conducting vertical channel.  That lower's the
inductance of the potential lightning path, which makes for  really
snappy discharges.  Of course, the loss of a the primary launch mission
and satellite on board the lightning triggering rocket can't quite be
covered by the information gained analysing the electrically punched
holes in the nose cone or reading of the lightning induced EMP scrabbled
gimbals' programming. Still there those of us that don't pass up
any opportunity for that magic clue.
 
It turns out that as fascinating and prevalent as lightning is, it
doesn't lend itself to either safe or routine physics experimentation.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Bruce Scott /  Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Sophistry of Scoundrels
Date: 21 May 1993 13:01:28 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul Koloc's post has an error in attribution. The text from me is preceded
by two "greater than" signs:
 
>>.   .     .     .      ..    . . . .. The point is that when one can
>>really show (ie, if global, well-resolved computations make it obvious)
>>that the concept is fatally flawed--on _physics_ grounds--then I would
>>not fear standing up and saying so. The point is, you'd better be sure.
>>Just to make it clear: I wouldn't help myself by harping on the engineering
>>aspects because I know practically nothing about that (how much does
 
All other cited text is from Jim Bowery, including for example the part
directly under my name:
 
>The engineering aspects are precisely where the tokamak fails.  As a
>scientific tool, the tokamak is relatively poor. [...]
 
I admit the difficulty implied by the first statement, but go no further
because it is outside my area of expertise. Wall-loading (energy flux to
plate material) to divertor plates is in fact stated by members of my
group (J Neuhauser and others) to be the most serious constraint on ITER
design. There are dark rumours floating around that this constraint will
cause the "de-scoping" of ITER to the point that calling it a reactor (the
R in the acronym) would become inappropriate. I think this would be suffi-
cient, if it were the case, to call ITER a failure, and a "fleece" by
Jim's judgement.
 
With the second statement I heartily disagree. Even if ITER is de-scoped,
we are going to learn enough to know without having to hand-wave whether
the tokamak comcept will _ever_ work, even on physics grounds and not just
technical. The concept has many problems but it really is premature to
say definitively that it is an utter failure. We are going to learn
once and for all whether fusion by magnetic confinement is doomed, if
(and here's my prediction) ITER fails because of confinement physics
and not because of wall-loading. Given our long-term energy situation
that is an important question. ITER will give sufficient answers that
all this talking from hunches and ideology will be laid to rest.
 
Whether it is worth the price tag I leave to others. I am a scientist,
not a technologist, industrialist, or capitalist. And I don't give a
damn about all this "economic growth" ideology.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / N Redington /  Re: "red mercury"
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "red mercury"
Date: 21 May 1993 13:38:43 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

There was an article in _Science_ on red Hg a few
months ago; evidently it's a hot item on the East-
ern European black market. Ostensibly it has many
bizarre physical characteristics such as extreme
density (shades of Starlite?), and strange nuclear
properties as well. The article also says, of course,
that it doesn't exist, and that samples confiscated
in Europe were HgO.
 
Curiously, "red mercury" is also an alchemical term
for a substance used in preparing the philosopher's
stone, so the term has a long history in "nuclear
chemistry"!
 
I'd be interested in a summary of what people have
said about it on sci.chem, if you have time.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / John George /  Re: Older than the pyramids
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Older than the pyramids
Date: 21 May 93 13:41:41 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I have GREAT NEWS! I received an email privately from someone who leads me
to believe they live in the Columbia River basin and states that their water
is drawn from another area with wells as a back-up! The person felt I should
make a retraction for assuming that a large metropolis is drinking the water.
Here is a limited retraction and it makes me feel so warm and safe all over!
 
When I talked with the people going to work on the Columbia River radwaste
contamination, I was told by them that they would be working on drinking water
as well as other problems for 50 years! They lucked in and got a job for life!
The assumption I made that they were concerned about large metropolitan areas
may not be true. There may be no human communities drinking Columbia River
water at all, just animals and fish. Just plain-old dumb-luck, I guess!
 
This does not remove one curie of contamination from the river which means
that we STILL need radwaste potty-training. I would continue bet that there
are few 'radwaste contaminated' signs on the river and that somewhere there
are creatures, human or otherwise, drinking from or swimming in it. I am truly
glad that, this time, the public seems to be luckier than the wildlife.
 
Maybe it's fortunate that we are developing genetic engineering. We can make
ourselves immune to radiation. Nuclear waste leaks, irradiated food, depleted
ozone! Future humans may look like alligators because of the ozone, and have
cockroach genes to protect us from our food and water. I just get all choked
up dreaming about the wonders of our modern age, don't you!
 
Only one problem. I still have to look at the faces of my children and think
of the future being poisoned for them. Maybe making lots of money will help.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / John George /  Older than the Pyramids II
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Older than the Pyramids II
Date: 21 May 93 15:35:38 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I have GOOD NEWS! I recieved a private Email from a person leading me to
believe that the metro areas in the Columbia River basin don't draw drinking
water from the river, but use another watershed with wells as back-up.  This
person felt that a retraction was in order. This great news makes me feel just
so warm, safe and protected that I had to share it immediately!
 
When I talked with the people going to work on the Columbia River radwaste
leak, they were going to be working on water issues along with other problems
for the next 50 years. A lifetime job! A lifetime wasted! I made an assumption
that they were concerned about metro areas which could be wrong. Maybe no
creatures but animals and fish use the river and who needs them. Someone is
going to start spouting zoomie safety stats next. If we weren't guilty, we
would not be so defensive. I am so happy and proud I can tell you!
 
A true story. In the bad old days of the cold war, I heard an air raid siren
wail while driving on a freeway in DC. Knowing what I knew about the godawful
weapons we have, I shivered. (We MUST start testing them again you know! We
can probably get 100 million tons of TNT into a weapon the size of an golf
ball if we really, really, really try! What a challenge! What a thing to tell
your kids!) I was debating. Should I take my kids to shelter? Should my family
take it out there in the open and die quick and clean? I decided for them not
to take cover. Now I have that same shiver when I read the paper. If we are
such geniuses and can do all the great math I see in this newsgroup, can't we
quit making things worse and GET A REAL JOB making things better! DO IT,
damn it! We're supposed to have the brains, now where are the GUTS!
 
We are fortunate to be developing genetic engineering. We can give future
humans alligator skin because of the depleted ozone and cockroach genes to
protect from the food and water. I just get all choked up thinking about the
wonders of our modern age! The one problem is that I have to look in my
children's faces and think of their future poisoned for them. Making lots of
money doesn't seem to help. My little people still trust me to protect them.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: "red mercury"
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "red mercury"
Date: 21 May 1993 18:54:01 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington) writes:
: There was an article in _Science_ on red Hg a few
: months ago; evidently it's a hot item on the East-
: ern European black market. Ostensibly it has many
: bizarre physical characteristics such as extreme
: density (shades of Starlite?), and strange nuclear
: properties as well.
 
Extreme density and strange nuclear properties seems to imply
some sort of plutonium or uranium compound.
 
: Curiously, "red mercury" is also an alchemical term
: for a substance used in preparing the philosopher's
: stone, so the term has a long history in "nuclear
: chemistry"!
 
If it's anything, it's probably a Soviet code name for something
or another, perhaps having nothing to do with actual Hg.
 
I read somewhere about it; most people thought it was bogus, but apparently
there are some pretty high-up muckety mucks in the Russian military and
science establishment who are infurated at the theft of "critical state
secrets" &cetera.
 
One scientist hypothesized that it was a combination of chemical
explosive and fissionable material (or some chemical that could absorb
plutonium?) so as to enable an "all in one" easy
bomb.   He said something about "solving very difficult thermodynamical
problems".
 
I have no idea what means, aside from the fact that the
crux of successful bomb designs is fluid mechanics.  (That's what
the Manhattan project needed all the primitive comptuers and human
calculators for.)
 
: I'd be interested in a summary of what people have
: said about it on sci.chem, if you have time.
 
--
-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:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Older than the pyramids
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Older than the pyramids
Date: 21 May 93 15:38:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <19832@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
 
>                                                    The Columbia River
>has wastes which have leaked out of the Hanford Site in Washington State.
>A quick look at a map will show you a major metropolitan center which
>draws drinking water from the Columbia River.
 
Wrong!  While there is a major metropolitan center on the Columbia
it does *not* draw drinking water from the river.  Portland gets its
drinking water from the Bull Run Watershed on and around Mt Hood.
There are wells for back-up although they haven't been used in
recent years due to chemical contamination.
 
(I emailed this information to John.  Either he did not receive it
or did not see fit to post a correction.)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.21 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Theory of Mills & Farrell: shrinking hydrogen
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theory of Mills & Farrell: shrinking hydrogen
Date: 21 May 93 16:02:14 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993May20.161653.662@physc1.byu.edu> S. Jones writes:
>A LOOK AT THE MILLS-FARRELL THEORY OF SHRINKING HYDROGEN ATOMS
>
>In article <2864@tekgen.bv.tek.com>, arnief@sail.labs.tek.com
>(Arnie Frisch) writes:
>> In article <01GYD1TAMF8Y00070N@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
>>  J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>> .................
>>
>>>(4)  The next time you hear from Mills everything will be in order:
>>>
>>>     a definitive experiment showing the excess heat
>>>
>>>     the ash
>>>
>>>     the theory
>> .........
>>
>>
>> I look forward to this refreshingly unique occurence with great
>> expectations.  Would that P & F pursue the same course.
>>
>>
>> Arnold Frisch
>> Tektronix Laboratories
>>
>
>Before getting too excited by Farrell and Mills (F&M) promises, it is
>instructive to consider aspects of their theory, published in:
>1.  R. Mills and S. Kneizys, Fusion Tech. 20 (1991) 65-81,
>which refers extensively to:
>2.  R. Mills and J. Farrell, _The Grand Unified Theory_, Science Press (1989).
>
>I will quote from the Fusion Tech. paper:
>"To remedy the shortcomings and inconsistencies of quantum mechanics,
..............
..............
...............
.................
....................
......................
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
You will note that I said that I look forward to
the unique occurence of having one paper cover an experiment, ash, and
theory - and that I wished P & F pursued this course.
 
I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with anything they have said
or are doing.
 
I think we should have open minds on this - and that we should not
denigrate this paper in advance.
 
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / mitchell swartz /  Miles&Helium; Who got shot in foot?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles&Helium; Who got shot in foot?
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 05:07:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993May20.131609.656@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Miles&Helium; Who got shot in foot?
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "To find out whose foot hurts, we must turn to the Miles papers.  The issue
=sj hinges on the *amount* of He-4 claimed by Miles, and the possibility of
=sj contamination from atmospheric helium due to presence of glass.
=sj 1.  Miles collected their gas samples in *glass* flasks for later He-4
=sj analysis, so the presence of glass is a major concern (as Dick Blue
=sj correctly pointed out).
=sj 2.  The amount of Helium-4 -- this is crucial:  is it at the
=sj atmospheric level of 10**14 atoms per cc, or well above this?
=sj That is, can He-4 contamination from air be ruled out because the level
=sj in the effluent gases from the electrolytic cells is > 10**14 atoms/cc?
=sj And the answer is (from the Miles papers) --
=sj the maximum amount of helium-4 seen was:  10**14 atoms/500 cc.
=sj Thus, the fraction of helium-4 detected in the *glass* flasks from open
=sj calorimetric systems was *less* than that of the atmosphere.
=sj The situation was well-stated by Mitchell Swartz himself (referring
=sj  to a different case, but we now find his remarks applicable to the
=sj  Miles et al. claims of He-4 production):
=sj "it becomes obvious that this is the same order of magnitude as there are
=sj helium-4 atoms in each cc of an open system.  This obviously offers serious
=sj difficulties in using that putative "ash" as a detector in an open
=sj system.  In summary, the problem is that the production rate .. is dwarfed
=sj by the helium content in the ambient." (M. Swartz posting, 13 May)
=sj While you're tending your foot, Mitchell, may I suggest
=sj that you ponder the words of your mouth?  Your description fits one weakness
=sj in the Miles et al. claims remarkably well.
-sj  Hopefully this will be a "teaching moment."
 
  Steve.   Nice summary;   and ...  my feet remain intact.
 
           You have confirmed that the prevelance is the same order of
 magnitude as some production rates.
 
   Is there is anything to ponder at this "teaching moment"?
       Yes, and it is:
 
   Given the developments in this field, the time may come when the
  the production rate of this "ash" far exceeds those levels in the ambient.
 
                                        Best wishes.
                                                       -  Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 05:09:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message: <C7Czp7.5GF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Subject: Re: Some Answers
 Cameron Randale (Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) argues with
 Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) regarding figure 11 in the F&P paper.
 
=jr "8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
=jr cell is boiled dry?" It doesn't say that."
 
==db  "Figure 11 shows explicitly that the temperature remains at about
==db   100C for *three hours* after the cell boils dry.  Read the paper
==db   Jed."
 
  With some trepidation:  Two comments.
 
  First,  the relevant portion of the curve in Figure 11 actually
shows a slight irregular rise, culminating in a curved
peak and then falling at a faster rate thanthe initial rise.
 
  Second, my heavy-water "thin"-film hypothesis is that the observation of
a temperature "maintenance"  beyond the "boil-off" may be due to outgassing
of the intracathodic deuterons, their reactions with oxygen to form de novo
heavy water -- but only in volume adjacent to, and along, the cathodic surface.
  Therefore, although the cell is "dry", a near-constant but sufficient
volume of "thin"-film of heavy water (D2O), in this hypothesis,
 remains upon the surface of the palladium cathode.
  The thermal mass and characteristic boiling point of the heavy water
thus would act to stabilize  the observed temperature thereupon.
  If this is hypothesis is true, the temp. should deviate from 100C
when the deuterons finally outgas to levels insufficient to maintain
this partially stabilized situation.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 07:16:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7EwzF.5qt@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message: <C7Czp7.5GF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>   Subject: Re: Some Answers
> Cameron Randale (Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) argues with
> Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) regarding figure 11 in the F&P paper.
>
>=jr "8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
>=jr cell is boiled dry?" It doesn't say that."
>
>==db  "Figure 11 shows explicitly that the temperature remains at about
>==db   100C for *three hours* after the cell boils dry.  Read the paper
>==db   Jed."
>
>  With some trepidation:  Two comments.
>
>  First,  the relevant portion of the curve in Figure 11 actually
>shows a slight irregular rise, culminating in a curved
>peak and then falling at a faster rate thanthe initial rise.
>
>  Second, my heavy-water "thin"-film hypothesis is that the observation of
>a temperature "maintenance"  beyond the "boil-off" may be due to outgassing
>of the intracathodic deuterons, their reactions with oxygen to form de novo
>heavy water -- but only in volume adjacent to, and along, the cathodic surface.
>  Therefore, although the cell is "dry", a near-constant but sufficient
>volume of "thin"-film of heavy water (D2O), in this hypothesis,
 
     Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
     in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume).
 
     You must realize that they are not measuring system temperature at the
     cathode anyway; they appear to be taking it from a thermister away
     and above the cathode.  I've contended that the measurement is
     nearly meaningless after the electrolyte boils down past it (to say
     nothing of still being seemingly inexplicable).
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 08:20:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <C7F2vr.B4z@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
   Subject: Re: Some Answers
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)  writes:
 
==   "Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
==   in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume)."
 
  Dale, this indicates that you feel that the palladium cathode,
after full charging over significant periods of time ( > 10^6 seconds
in some of the figures), is able to completely deplete itself
of electrochemically loaded deuterons within a few seconds.
 
                            Best wishes.      Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 09:03:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7F5uE.Fx6@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <C7F2vr.B4z@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>   Subject: Re: Some Answers
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)  writes:
>
>==   "Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
>==   in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume)."
>
>  Dale, this indicates that you feel that the palladium cathode,
>after full charging over significant periods of time ( > 10^6 seconds
>in some of the figures), is able to completely deplete itself
>of electrochemically loaded deuterons within a few seconds.
 
     No it doesn't; it has nothing to do with that.   And,
     since I'm sure most everyone else who cares
     can read my arguments for themselves without drawing odd
     conclusions, if you're interested you can reread what I wrote.
 
                        dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 15:30:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <C7F7u4.BsE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Some Answers
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
==db   "Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
==db   in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume)."
 
==ms  "Dale, this indicates that you feel that the palladium cathode,
==ms  after full charging over significant periods of time ( == 10^6 seconds
==ms  in some of the figures), is able to completely deplete itself
==ms  of electrochemically loaded deuterons within a few seconds."
 
==db     "No it doesn't; it has nothing to do with that.   And,
==db     since I'm sure most everyone else who cares
==db     can read my arguments for themselves without drawing odd
==db     conclusions, if you're interested you can reread what I wrote."
 
  Those who have studied physics, engineering or mathematics may be aware
 of the difference between using a Lagrangian frame of reference
           (that is, e.g. following a single water molecule)
 
   and a Eulerian system (the water is modelled as a continuum,
a continuous function, from the the inner electrode to the "room").
 
   [Any student of continuum electromechanics ought understand the
mathematics, and benefits, of such a transformation in an analysis
               references in this field include:
 J. Melcher, "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press and
 H. Woodson, J. Melcher "Electromechanical Dynamics" (part III) Wiley Press.]
 
  Therefore, in the present case, given a possible additional, but
 limited, source of heavy water, and using the continuum Eulerian system,
 it is easy to understand why, and how, they may be coupled, and therefore
 it does not "have nothing to do with that".
 
                                                    - Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bauer Review of Huizenga
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 16:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1050:
 
[I am at home, the editor doesn't work as it does at work, so I won't quote
 anything]
 
Touche, Eugene. Your response made me realise that I had done exactly what I
have told others not to do: written a snide posting. Please accept my
apologies. Just as my bibliography is my baby, so your commentary on Taubes'
book is yours, and you can write it any way you feel like.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 15:51:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7FpqM.Fn2@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  Those who have studied physics, engineering or mathematics may be aware
> of the difference between using a Lagrangian frame of reference
>           (that is, e.g. following a single water molecule)
>
>   and a Eulerian system (the water is modelled as a continuum,
>a continuous function, from the the inner electrode to the "room").
>
>   [Any student of continuum electromechanics ought understand the
>mathematics, and benefits, of such a transformation in an analysis
>               references in this field include:
> J. Melcher, "Continuum Electromechanics", MIT Press and
> H. Woodson, J. Melcher "Electromechanical Dynamics" (part III) Wiley Press.]
>
>  Therefore, in the present case, given a possible additional, but
> limited, source of heavy water, and using the continuum Eulerian system,
> it is easy to understand why, and how, they may be coupled, and therefore
> it does not "have nothing to do with that".
 
     Yeah, and those who know the meaning of 'frame of reference' know
     that changing it does not change the physics.
 
     Also, those that know the meaning of a Lagrangian frame of reference
     realize that water is usually modelled as a continuum there too.
 
     My dear Mitchell, do you know the meaning of non sequitur?
 
     Ain't no water coming out of the thermister, pal (nor the cathode,
     for that matter).
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / daniel herrick /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: 22 May 93 14:51:19 EST

In article <930520193110_72240.1256_EHK41-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> Some answers to few of Tom's questions:
> "3) How much electrolyte is converted to saturated steam, and how much leave
> the cell as water droplets?" It is all steam. Try boiling water in a test tube
> this size, and you find this out for yourself. Don't take my word for it.
 
Why does this remind me of Socrates' declaration that women have fewer
teeth than men?
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 / Efraim Reis /       paper: F&P, Phys.Lett. A 176(1993)118-129
     
Originally-From: DEQXELRE@BRUFV.BITNET (Efraim Lazaro Reis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      paper: F&P, Phys.Lett. A 176(1993)118-129
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 22:37:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Would like to receive the paper of Fleischmann and Pons, Phys. Lett. A
176 (1993) 118-129. I have not this magazine on my University. Who can
help me?
My address is: Efraim Lazaro Reis ( DEQXELRE@BRUFV.BITNET )
               DEPARTAMENTO DE QUIMICA
               UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE VICOSA
               36.570-000 - VICOSA - MG - BRAZIL
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDEQXELRE cudfnEfraim cudlnReis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.22 /  LISTSERV@vm1.n /       Forward from SciFraud conference
     
Originally-From: LISTSERV@vm1.nodak.edu
Originally-From:         "Robert L. Dudley" <RDUDLEY@ARSERRC.GOV>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Forward from SciFraud conference
Date: Sat, 22 May 1993 22:37:17 GMT
Date:         Wed, 19 May 1993 15:20:52 -0400
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I saw this in another conference, and thought it might be of interest
here, especially since there are probably folks here who do not read
Nature. If this has been discussed here before, sorry but I lost a big
chunk of mail earlier this month, and apparently missed it.
*** Forwarding note from SCIFRAUD--ALBNYVM1 05/19/93 15:23 ***
Received: from GWUVM.GWU.EDU by VM1.HQADMIN.DOE.GOV (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
 BSMTP id 7642; Wed, 19 May 93 15:23:03 EDT
Received: from GWUVM.GWU.EDU by GWUVM.GWU.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP
 id 2965; Wed, 19 May 93 15:23:21 EDT
Date:         Wed, 19 May 1993 15:20:52 -0400
Reply-To:     Discussion of Fraud in Science <SCIFRAUD@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Sender:       Discussion of Fraud in Science <SCIFRAUD@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Originally-From:         "Robert L. Dudley" <RDUDLEY@ARSERRC.GOV>
Comments: To: scifraud@uacsc2.albany.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
 
Hi, I am new to this list.  I was reading the most recent issue of _Nature_
and I came acros the following article, which I qoute below, on cold
fusion.
 
Italian court wrestles with cold fusion suit, _Nature_, vol 363, 107 (may
13th issue).
 
Munich.  An italian judge trying to decide if cold-fusion advocates Stanley
Pons and Martin Fleischmann were libelled by the daily news paper _La
Republica_ has called in a technical advisor to help him understand the
scientific aspects of their work, which created an international sensation
when it was announced in 1989.  The use of a technical advisor, a new
procedure for Italy, is one of several novel features of the case, which
is being tried in a country with no legal definition of scientific fraud.
        In October 1991, Italian journalist Giovanni Pacci is alleged to
have libelled British Chemist Fleischman and Pons (Sic) by referring to
them as scientific frauds in a strongly worded review of a new translation
of Axel Kahn's book _False Profets_.  Pacci made an indirect reference to a
group of Italian scientist working on cold fusion and compared scientific
of Axel Kahn's book _False Prophets_.  Pacci made an indirect referl of science
as a 'temple of truth'.
        Although they were not mentioned by name, Giuliano Preparata, Tullio
Bressani and Emilio Del Giudice of the Institute of Physics in Milan believed
that they were identifiable and requested a retraction.  Instead _La
epubblica_
published their letters along with a defiant commentary from Pucci.  As a
result, the Italians joined Fleischmann and Pns at the beginning of last year
in suing the influential newspaper for IL8 billion (US$5 million), an unusual
action in a country wer such law suits are rare.
        The case itself does not address the issue of cold fusion, but rather
whether the scientists can just;y be accused of fraud.  Even so, the judge
decided to obtain an indenpdent assessment of the 105 'pieces of scientific
evidence' submitted by the plaintiffs and appointed Giovanni Licheri, a
physical chemist from the University of Cagliari in Sardinia, to tell him
whether the data could have been fraudulenty reported.
        Licheri has six months to form an opion on the scientific validity
of the work, a point of rancorous debate for two years after the initial
announcement in March 1989.  A first meeting took place on 28 April
involving Licheri, the five scientists who filed the lawsuit and Douglas
Morrison of CERN who was chosen as a scientific advisor by _La Repubblica_.
Morrison publishes an electronic mail newsletter that takes a sceptical
view of cold fusion.
 
 
 
I hope that you have found this item of interest
 
Bob Dudley        RDUDLEY@ARSERRC.GOV
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenLISTSERV cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.24 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 11:05:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1061:
 
>  With some trepidation:  Two comments.
 
>  First,  the relevant portion of the curve in Figure 11 actually
>shows a slight irregular rise, culminating in a curved
>peak and then falling at a faster rate thanthe initial rise.
 
>  Second, my heavy-water "thin"-film hypothesis is that the observation of
>a temperature "maintenance"  beyond the "boil-off" may be due to outgassing
>of the intracathodic deuterons, their reactions with oxygen to form de novo
>heavy water -- but only in volume adjacent to, and along, the cathodic surface.
>  Therefore, although the cell is "dry", a near-constant but sufficient
>volume of "thin"-film of heavy water (D2O), in this hypothesis,
> remains upon the surface of the palladium cathode.
>  The thermal mass and characteristic boiling point of the heavy water
>thus would act to stabilize  the observed temperature thereupon.
>  If this is hypothesis is true, the temp. should deviate from 100C
>when the deuterons finally outgas to levels insufficient to maintain
>this partially stabilized situation.
 
This hypothesis is not right. Remember, Mitch, that when a deuterium molecule
burns, the resulting water molecule is hot, shedding close to 300 kJ/mol.
On a hot Pd cathode, where this might happen, the molecule would simply
shoot off into space - unless something managed to cool it down and a lot of
these water molecules condensed to your film. You were right to have some
trepidation.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Noise
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Noise
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 17:22:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is a retraction, of sorts.
 
It would look like study by Chuck Harrison, Mike McKubre, and my own
measurements indicate that "anomalous heat" is not likely to be due to
noise, and its interaction with the measurement system.  There is a lot
more work to be done to lay this possibility to rest.  The best I have been
able to generate (in the experiment) is 0.02%.
 
I do not withdraw my suspicion that the cells develop negative resistance
characteristics after long electrolysis.  In the past, I have seen oscillations
due to this cause, and there is a strong possibility that this could give
problems to the measurement system.
 
As usual, nothing is easy about these experiments.  I give Chuck Harrison a
cheer for having a go at the simulation with SPICE.  I don't begin to know
how to model the cell.  I really suspect the cell capacitance is important,
and how the gas absorption affects the surface, and ... . But I don't begin
to know how to do it.
 
On the other hand, the experiments are getting less convincing over time.  The
McKubre experiment reported at Nagoya has too tight a relation between current
and excess heat to be believed.  The Pons and Fleischmann Physics Letters A
paper has so many problems, that it is not an experiment to me.
 
So I may fade away as I arrived, with this group discussing "red mercury".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Turn off switch later: for safety
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Turn off switch later: for safety
Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 10:18:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930519160039_72240.1256_EHK28-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>I should have stated this explicitly, but the exact reason P&F leave the
>switch on after the boil off event is explained in the paragraph I quoted. It
>is a safety precaution. They want to avoid film boiling. As it said, with
>electrolysis, you can maintain nucleate boiling in the range of 1 - 10 kw/cc.
>They want to be certain electrolysis continues until the very last second.
>Since it is a safety precaution, I would make it a habit to leave the switch on
>until everything cools down and you are ready to pack up the time lapse video.
 
     This seems goofy from a physical point of view.  Why exactly
     is nucleate boiling 'extended' by leaving the power on?
     How exactly could it go into film boiling with the power off,
     and why would that concern us (keeping in mind we've uncovered the
     cathode if we do boil to electrode noncontact)?
 
     And I'd still like to know what 'dry' means.
 
     In any case, they explicitly state that they shut the *current* off.
     Is this a mistake in the paper?
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.24 / C Franklin /  Information requested on MCF
     
Originally-From: pmxcpf@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (C.Franklin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information requested on MCF
Date: Mon, 24 May 93 13:54:12 GMT
Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham

I am a 2nd year Post-graduate maths/physics student who is researching the
transition rate of  the autoionisation reaction
                [DTm]Dee to [DTm]De + e
and have been reading this newsgroup (sporadically) for the past year and a
half and have seldom seen any mention of MCF in this group.
 
IS ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE who is working on MCF or related problems?
 
For those who don't know what MCF stands for -it is Muon Catalyzed Fusion.
 
 Please mail me at above address.
                         Chris Franklin
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmxcpf cudfnC cudlnFranklin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.24 / Jim Carr /  New F-P paper
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New F-P paper
Date: 24 May 93 17:39:40 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Well, I have finally seen the paper in Phys. Lett. A {176}, 118.  Must
have come by ship.
 
I have not had time to digest it, and it does require digesting given
its rambling approach.  For example, I could not tell if Fig. 3 came
from this experiment or the earlier one referred to in the text.  It
uses a different sized piece of Pd, so it might have nothing to do
with this new set of experiments.
 
So far, the highlight has to be that the original P&F(&H) paper is
not referenced as one of their "major" publications on the subject.
 
I find the lack of detail disturbing.  They show graphs with rapid
temperature drops that must be when they added liquid, but the amounts
added, the temperature of the added liquid, its makeup, etc etc were
not specified.  The cathode is clearly above the bottom of the cell
by quite a bit, and yet the thing boils "dry"?  This would say the
heat source is not in the cathode, if energy is transferred that well
to the liquid.  The color photo of the cells does not show any reference
scale other than the cell itself, so reproducible measurments of "half
full" (which could have been marked in many ways) would seem difficult
at best.  This picture did not convince me that anyone could make the
measurement they claimed to have made.
 
One thing I noticed that has not been mentioned is that the exhaust
port is quite small.  This would (a) effectively pressurize the cell
to a bit more than atmospheric pressure and (b) offer a means of
heat transfer to the Kel-F top so that the steam could condense to
liquid as it left the container.  If their statement means that they
could see "steam" leaving the cell, then they really don't know what
the thermal output is since only water drops are visible and they
have no way of knowing the mix of steam and water.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Information requested on MCF
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Information requested on MCF
Date: 24 May 93 17:58:45 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993May24.135412.5043@cs.nott.ac.uk>,
pmxcpf@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (C.Franklin) writes:
> I am a 2nd year Post-graduate maths/physics student who is researching the
> transition rate of  the autoionisation reaction
>                 [DTm]Dee to [DTm]De + e
> and have been reading this newsgroup (sporadically) for the past year and a
> half and have seldom seen any mention of MCF in this group.
>
> IS ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE who is working on MCF or related problems?
>
> For those who don't know what MCF stands for -it is Muon Catalyzed Fusion.
>
>  Please mail me at above address.
>                          Chris Franklin
 
Chris --
My notes on the Auger cascade of the DT-muonic molecular ion show that the
J=1,nu=1 state decays in 1.14 X 10^-10 seconds to the J=0,nu=1 state.  There
are other decay paths possible, but this is the fastest.  Of course, a
selection rule requires that J change by 1 unit.
 
Suggest you call either James Cohen (505 667 5982) or Mel Leon (505 667 5682)
for details with regard to this transition rate.  They should know of
references for
calculations; my numbers evidently come from Jim. The rate has not been measured
experimentally by our group or any other.   I'm glad to see your interest in
the problem, especially since it relates to the probability that the muon is
finally captured by the fusion-synthesized alpha-particle.  [It is this
"sticking probability" that presents the major obstacle to the use of MCF as
a useful energy source.]
 
Best Wishes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.25 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The janitor? / Who's on first? / Interesting! / Momentum space
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The janitor? / Who's on first? / Interesting! / Momentum space
Date: 25 May 1993 19:16:01 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
:                               Terry
:
:
: P.S. --       Stupid question for any physicists with a philosophical bent (a rare
:       beast these days, I might note!):
:
:       Which is the more "fundamental" representation of the current state
:       of a system -- the one that exists in coordinate/time space, or its
:       conjugate representation in momentum/energy space?
:
:       You should answer "neither" of course, but in fact most of us are
:       seriously addicted to coordinate/time space.  You are using it to
:       read this screen or piece of paper, which makes it hard to avoid!
:
:       Yet if coordinate/time space is "simpler," why is it enormously
:       easier to calculate particle interactions in momentum/energy space?
:       Isn't mathematical simplification often taken as an indication that
:       you are in some way "closer" to the real situation?
 
The Fourier transform turns differential equations into algebraic
equations.
 
When expressing a wavefunction in complex exponentials, the wavenumber
turns out to be the momentum.
 
So, put these together, and you see how some calculations become easier
in wavenumber (reciprocal) space than in physical space.
 
I don't know if this is a fundamental "reason", rather than
a rationalization.
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy25 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.25 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  The janitor? / Who's on first? / Interesting! / Momentum space
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The janitor? / Who's on first? / Interesting! / Momentum space
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 17:34:39 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
I have been remiss in answering my email.  No profound reasons, just the
usual busy-at-work/home situation.  Some quick items:
 
 
MAYBE THE JANITOR DID IT?
 
In <930520024618_76570.2270_BHA43-1@CompuServe.COM> on Thu, 20 May 1993
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
 
> Terry writes:
>
> | Dr. Mallove -- You of all people currently participating directly in this
> | group should know:  Does the original 1.3 cc partially obliterated PdDx
> | cube still exist, or not?  If not, what exactly happened to it, and why?
> | Have you ever seen or examined it personally?  Can you tell us anything
> | about it, such as its appearance or any physical characteristics?
>
> Good, question, and I have known of your interest in this. However, I do not
> know whether the affected cube parts exist. Next time I have a chance, I may
> ask.
 
Your offer is much appreciated, and I'll be interested in hearing any further
information on what exactly was the fate of this cube remnant.
 
 
In <1993May20.134143.658@physc1.byu.edu> on 20 May 93
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) writes:
 
> Back to Terry's original question about the missing Pd cube:
> I have spoken to Fritz Will and Haven Bergesen of the U. of Utah about this
> issue.  Both had questioned Stan Pons about his Pd cube, and both were told
> that the carpet had been repaired over the area where the cube had damaged
> the cement.  Fritz told me he then went on his own into the room in question,
> but failed to find any evidence for carpet repair or cement damage.  Pons'
> student Hawkins said he did not believe the vaporizing Pd cube story.  Prof.
> Bergesen said he has no idea where the Pd cube remnants are -- too bad, for
> perhaps they would show gamma activity?
 
I have seen no counters or quibbles to this, and so will assume that Dr. Pons
has no explanation for what happened to the original cube.  Hawkins clearly is
not expecting it to show up any time soon, either.  This leaves Dr. Fleisch-
mann as the only other possible source of an explanation for what happened
to this supposedly very impressive piece of evidence of a smallish nuclear
explosion once occurring in the laboratory of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann.
 
The story about recarpeting (or the lack thereof) is interesting but nearly
impossible to evaluate adequately without direct examination of the site and
very careful questioning of the persons involved.  Not to mention that after
four years any such examination might well prove meaningless anyway.
 
I am increasingly astonished at the the cavalier attitude Drs. Pons and
Fleischmann seem to have had towards basic rules of evidence and examination.
 
Contingent on Dr. Fleischmann "pulling a rabbit out of the hat" and coming up
with the cube for general examination, my weighting of the entire original
Pons and Fleischmann very-high-heat report has dropped very nearly to zero.
I many of you may recall the consequences in my style of evaluation of such
a drastic drop in the weighting of this key incident.  I am once again very
"skeptical" (unwilling to assign a high weight) to high-clean-heat reports,
although work like that of Liaw (sp?) and Liebert remain interesting for
their ability to _seriously_ self-critique themselves.
 
 
WHO'S _REALLY_ ON FIRST?
 
Again in <1993May20.134143.658@physc1.byu.edu> on 20 May 93
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) writes:
 
> ... I believe [there may be exciting and subtle nuclear effects in
> deuterided Pd and other materials without ANY relationship to xs heat
> claims], based on our experiments at BYU which go back to 1986 in this
> field (our first electrolysis expt. with D2O and particle detectors began
> in May 1986, completely independent of P&F), and on theoretical work (our
> first paper was published in March 1986, Journal of Physics G, Van Siclen
> and Jones, remember?).
 
I was aware of this publication, but had never really paid close attention
to the date and its implications.  Steven Jones et al had proposed _in print_
the concept of enhanced deuterium fusion in palladium _three years_ before
the infamous incident in the laboratory of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann.
 
This does not benefit the rating of the Pons and Fleischmann incident, either,
as it provides an alternative causal interpretation as to why Drs. Pons and
Fleischmann assigned such a strange interpretation to their reports of excess
heat in PdDx systems.  They may quite literally have been "borrowing" the
expertise of Dr. Jones et al (who _were_ nuclear specialists) and optimist-
ically applied it in a very sloppy fashion to what they _thought_ were heat
signatures of very high levels of Jones-style deuterium fusion in palladium.
 
Their interpretation was exceedingly odd because the correlation between the
heat-only signature what they reported and the class of the known nuclear
interactions for any of the materials in their experiments was very close to
zero.  Heat is, after all, only a very minor and almost incidental feature
of the many vigorous and quite unmistakable particles and residues produced
by normal fusion reactions.
 
Thus the interpretation by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann of pretty much pure heat
as deuterium "fusion" is much easier to understand if these fellows were just
highly impressed by the earlier Jones publication and so enthusiastic about
its possibilities that they simply _assumed_ that if they saw anything really
unusual in deuterated palladium that it had to be "fusion."  [Hmm... why does
the old expression about the dangers of "assuming" come to mind...?  :)  ]
 
Given their nearly total lack of understanding of nuclear reactions at the
time of their initial press releases, I would be inclined to assume (heh!)
that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann simply did not realize how asinine their
claim of deuterium fusion really was in light of the fact that they forgot
to keel over dead from radiation poisoning.  (The "clean fusion" explanations
came _after_ physicists pointed out this amusing incongruity, not before.)
 
 
QUESTION TO STEVEN JONES
 
Dr. Jones, I am curious on one point:  Do you happen to know whether Drs.
Pons and Fleischmann were familiar with your 1986 paper prior to their 1989
press release announcement of "cold fusion?"  (E.g., did they ever call you
and ask any specific questions about your 1986 work?)
 
 
NOW _THAT'S_ INTERESTING...
 
Switching topics a bit:
 
Again in <930520024618_76570.2270_BHA43-1@CompuServe.COM> on Thu, 20 May 1993
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
 
> At the moment there are some other **very serious pieces** of Pd being
> analyzed hither and yon for some spectacular nuclear signature CF evidence,
> which *if* further substantiated -- and it looks good for this I'm told,
> will end the controversy about whether nuclear reactions occur "in the cold"
> -- but not necessarily whether these explain ALL of the excess heat. These
> pieces are so HOT that radiological protection regulations have been invoked
> for said pieces.
 
WHOA!  The tone of this claim is a lot more specific than anything I'm used
to seeing on the fusion-products line.  This is genuinely interesting, Dr.
Mallove, even if it is (as Dr. Jones said) "incautious" for you to have
mentioned.  If protection regulations were actually invoked, I will assume
that we are talking something in the clickety-clack clickety-clack with an
off-the-shelf Geiger counter range here.
 
This would be an impressive and highly demonstrable claim, one orders of
magnitude easier to verify than any complex calorimetry work.  Plus you've
even given a time frame and a specific assertion that there has been enough
reproducibility to be able to pass out at least a sample or two...   Hmm!
 
Dale Bass points out the Wolf (I do recall his work) has made similar claims
in the past, and Steve Jones also points out that lots of radiation does not
a clean-excess-heat-proof make.  Quite the opposite, perhaps:  A _validated_
radiation finding where it should not be would be a very strong indicator of
some kind of very unexpected invocation of _conventional_ fusion reactions.
 
This would of course be far closer to what Jones et al proposed in print a
full three years _before_ the very badly mismatched heat/fusion claims of
Drs. Pons and Fleischmann.  (The levels of "miracle" required to trigger
significant fusion in conventional solids is pretty humongous, but it simply
pales in comparison to trying to then explain how those solids simultaneously
snatch up every iota of high energy radiation _and by-products_ and then
somehow mysteriously converts them all into heat.)
 
> The people involved in this testing would like to keep a lid on this for
> some time longer, but many of us are losing our patience with the pace --
> particularly because one of the principals has been identified as a
> "spoiler" in the CF affair. It's always good when a naysayer is revealed
> to have a shocking positive result! We'll give the fellow a couple more
> months MAX, then we spring the goods, which are well-known to those
> "in the know."
 
Curiouser and curiouser!
 
My own guess at the "spoiler" you mention would probably be Douglas Morrison,
but it's only a guess that is based more on him having reviewed your book than
anything else.
 
 
MOMENTUM/COORDINATE SPACE FARFETCHES
 
I very much look forward to seeing more information from you or others on the
group along this line.  With something solid to launch from, there could be
some pretty interesting Farfetches to be done -- with most of them probably
being along the lines of obscure aspects of how atoms interact with each
other in momentum space, and/or how they switch back and forth between being
"mostly" in coordinate space and "mostly" in momentum (band) space.
 
I would judge that this area remains the best region to Farfetch/search for
possible holes in the _understanding_ of how QM works.  (Note that I said the
understanding of QM, not its fundamental workings.  These would be Farfetches
based on the possibility of _oversight_, rather than on fundamental error.)
 
(And if nothing actually comes of the high radiation claims Dr. Mallove has
mentioned -- well, phhhhhhhhhhht goes the Farfetch!)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Stupid question for any physicists with a philosophical bent (a rare
        beast these days, I might note!):
 
        Which is the more "fundamental" representation of the current state
        of a system -- the one that exists in coordinate/time space, or its
        conjugate representation in momentum/energy space?
 
        You should answer "neither" of course, but in fact most of us are
        seriously addicted to coordinate/time space.  You are using it to
        read this screen or piece of paper, which makes it hard to avoid!
 
        Yet if coordinate/time space is "simpler," why is it enormously
        easier to calculate particle interactions in momentum/energy space?
        Isn't mathematical simplification often taken as an indication that
        you are in some way "closer" to the real situation?
 
        (It really is a dumb question, and may even have a nice, dumb
        answer -- but I don't know that dumb answer, so I'll ask anyway!)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.25 / Richard Grandy /  How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: ryg@beta.lanl.gov (Richard S Grandy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 17:45:20 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Richland

 
Reproduced without permission from Information Week (5/17/93, pg 68)
 
While electronic bulletin boards are sprouting up everywhere, most seem
to be aimed at hobbyists--soap opera updates for daytime drama fans, the
latest scores and gossip for sports buffs, and so on.  A few, however,
are intended to help researchers exchange results and ideas.
 
But according to "The Changing Culture of Research: Communications
Technologies And Knowledge Transfer," a report from the congressional
Office of Technology Assessment, those bulletin boards may be of equally
dubious value.
 
Bruce Lewenstein, an assistant professor of science at Cornell University,
studied the messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to cold fusion.
Between 1989 and 1992, more than 5,000 messages were transmitted; fully
75% were either entirely non-technical--ranging from personal gossip to
personal insults--or contained requests for existing technical information.
Only one researcher regularly posted his own experimental findings.
 
"Bulletin boards have a tendency to lead to harmless but unproductive
rambling," Lewenstein concludes.  "They can be a useful way to exchange
ideas, but the contributors have to take responsibility to keep things
on track."  That seems unlikely; while millions of people have access
to thousands of electronic bulletin boards, there is seldom a moderator,
and few messages are ever screened.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenryg cudfnRichard cudlnGrandy cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.25 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: 25 May 1993 20:21:22 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <1993May25.174520.1926@newshost.lanl.gov> ryg@beta.lanl.gov
(Richard S Grandy) writes:
>
>Reproduced without permission from Information Week (5/17/93, pg 68)
>
>...
>Bruce Lewenstein, an assistant professor of science at Cornell University,
>studied the messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to cold fusion.
>Between 1989 and 1992, more than 5,000 messages were transmitted; fully
>75% were either entirely non-technical--ranging from personal gossip to
>personal insults--or contained requests for existing technical information.
>...
 
 
I wonder if we could persuade Dr. Lewenstein (are you there?)
to place time spent at Scientific Conferences and in Faculty
Committees on a similar linear scale.  Exactly where the
information lies in forums such as this is difficult to
establish.  A Linguist reading sci.physics.fusion might
differ as to which messages were least entropic.
 
And is "assistant professor of science" a tenure-track position?
 
   --bks
 
--
Bradley K. Sherman, Dendrome Project, Institute of Forest Genetics
USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA, 94701, USA
Phone: (510)559-6437 FAX: -6440 Internet: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
Dendrome Gopher Server: s27w007.pswfs.gov port 70
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 19:30:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May25.174520.1926@newshost.lanl.gov> ryg@beta.lanl.gov
(Richard S Grandy) writes:
 
>"Bulletin boards have a tendency to lead to harmless but unproductive
>rambling," Lewenstein concludes.  "They can be a useful way to exchange
>ideas, but the contributors have to take responsibility to keep things
>on track."  That seems unlikely; while millions of people have access
>to thousands of electronic bulletin boards, there is seldom a moderator,
>and few messages are ever screened.
 
     The basic problem is threefold:
 
        1) this is necessarily an exceedingly heterogeneous environment.
        2) very few people are willing to share details on work in progress
           with its attendant blind alleys and mistakes and possibility
           of future 'rewards' with potential critics and competitors.
        3) it doesn't advance anyone's career to post here.
 
     Only vigorous and restrictive moderation changes 1), and nothing
     changes 2) and 3).
 
                       dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.25 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Momentum space / Fourier transforms
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 23:48:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1ttr9hINN4mn@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | P.S. -- Stupid question for any physicists with a philosophical bent
> | (a rare beast these days, I might note!):
> |
> | Which is the more "fundamental" representation of the current state
> | of a system -- the one that exists in coordinate/time space, or its
> | conjugate representation in momentum/energy space?
> |
> | You should answer "neither" of course, but in fact most of us are
> | seriously addicted to coordinate/time space.  You are using it to
> | read this screen or piece of paper, which makes it hard to avoid!
> |
> | Yet if coordinate/time space is "simpler," why is it enormously
> | easier to calculate particle interactions in momentum/energy space?
> | Isn't mathematical simplification often taken as an indication that
> | you are in some way "closer" to the real situation?
>
> The Fourier transform turns differential equations into algebraic equations.
 
Eh?  News to me.  If I take the Fourier transform of an exp(ix) in coordinate
space I will of course get a point in momentum space, but the inverse is also
true -- an exp(-ip) function in momentum space translates nicely into a single
point in coordinate space.  Nothing particularly biased (or differential)
about that, unless I'm totally missing something about Fourier transforms.
 
Or do you simply meant that since the solutions to some classes of differential
equations happen to be linear combinations of complex exponentials, you can
massively simplify expression and manipulation of such solutions by first
applying the Fourier transformation?  Quite true, but can your really make
that kind of equivalence between differential equations and linear complex
exponential solutions to them?
 
Could you perhaps be referring to what happens to complex exponentials after
you "decorate" them with the dynamic properties of a coordinate space wave-
function?  You do get some nice simplifications in that case, but one might
just as easily argue that the simplification is a result of the asymmetrical
dynamic properties of coordinate and momentum space, rather than the Fourier
transform per se.
 
(Being a contrary cuss, I like to talk about the dynamic properties as
belonging to the _space_ you are in, with the poor little wavefucntions
sort of stuck in there and forced to do as they are told.  Not a big deal,
really, but it does change your perspective a bit.)
 
> When expressing a wavefunction in complex exponentials, the wavenumber turns
> out to be the momentum.
 
A quick restatement of how the exp(ix) translates into a point p in momentum
space.  Yes.
 
> So, put these together, and you see how some calculations become easier
> in wavenumber (reciprocal) space than in physical space.
 
Yes.  BTW, the specific class of simplifications I was referring to are
those of QED calcualtions, in which translation of the concept of an
"interaction" (photon absorbation/emission) into momentum space makes
precise calculation of the properties of electron/photon interactions
much more feasible.  Feynman was the fella who figured that one out. I'd
say it was decidedly non-trivial, as it requires a very bizarre stretch
of our coordinate space brains to picture an "interaction" taking place
in momentum space.  He seemed and Dr. Wheeler seemed to be rather good
at that sort of thing back then.
 
> I don't know if this is a fundamental "reason", rather than
> a rationalization.
 
If I followed your points, it's a good representation of the issues.
 
 
MOMENTUM/COORDINATE SPACE SYMMETRIES AND ASYMMETRIES
 
My focus, though, is more on both the symmetries and asymmetries between
coordinate space and momentum space.  I tend to view momentum space as being
every bit as "real" as coordinate space in much the same way that QM teaches
wave/particle duality.  Only when you start accepting momentum space as being
"real" in the same sense as coordinate space, it places a rather different
twist on wave/particle duality.  In a coordinate/momentum space perspective
a "wavy" particle is still a particle, really -- it's just that it's located
_primarily_ in momentum space.  And similarly, traditional "pointy" particles
are located primarily in coordinate space.
 
But more subtly, from a momentum space perspective a particle that is "mostly"
in coordinate space looks just like a (surprise!) highly delocalized _wave_
(an exp(-ip) wavepacket) in momentum space!  This is rather counterintuitive,
but entirely consistent with the symmetry of Fourier transformation between
the two spaces.  It emphasizes that particle/wave duality is a _relative_
concept that depends strongly on whether you begin interpreting a system
from a coordinate space perspective, or from a momentum space perspective.
 
If you instead look more at measures of how much a particle is "in" one or
the other space (the Fourier transform relationship between the two spaces
makes simultaneous occupation of both spaces impossible), you get a more
symmetrical viewpoint way of looking at particle/wave duality.
 
One reason why we don't "see" in terms of momentum space is that nearly all
systems are severely delocalized in momentum space, for reasons that to me
are not entirely clear.  (I used to blame it on the different dynamics of
the two spaces, but I'm not sure whether such an argument is really valid.)
 
In other words, ordinary matter in momentum space for the most part looks
very "wavy."  About the only exception occurs in phenomena that we (some-
what arbitrarily) refer to as "quantum" effects such as electron bands,
boson condensates, and Mossbauer.  In such phenomena you begin to get some
localized of structures in momenutum space -- e.g., small crystal-like or
liquid-like collections for bands or boson condensates.  It is these little
objects that in many cases provide the conterintuitive behavior of such
phenomena, as the Fourier transform relationship of such momentum space
"objects" to real space leads to some pretty weird results.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenterry cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Wed, 26 May 93 04:25:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ryg@beta.lanl.gov (Richard S Grandy) writes:
>Bruce Lewenstein, an assistant professor of science at Cornell University,
>studied the messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to cold fusion.
 
More taxpayer funds burning a hole in somebody's pocket, I see.
 
>"Bulletin boards have a tendency to lead to harmless but unproductive
>rambling," Lewenstein concludes.
 
It has been estimated elsewhere that private e-mail converstations started
by bbs contacts exceed the latter in total network traffic volume.  What
other subtlety did he miss?
 
I'd say his "study" itself is a case of unproductive rambling.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 05:45:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ryg@beta.lanl.gov (Richard S Grandy) writes:
>But according to "The Changing Culture of Research: Communications
>Technologies And Knowledge Transfer," a report from the congressional
>Office of Technology Assessment, those bulletin boards may be of equally
>dubious value.
 
Where has the Office of Technology ASSESSMENT been all these
years as the mainline Tokamak program has been devouring all the
money for fusion and turning into a political bandwagon that
politically suppresses funding for alternate concepts?  Why couldn't
they ASSESS the viability of the Tokamak vs other technologies?
 
Where is the study of the political content of the Tokamak program?
 
Shouldn't there be SOME mention of the fact that the fusion program
was a highly politicized field long before "cold fusion" let alone
this newsgroup?  Is OTA, perhaps, engaging in discrimination against
groups that aren't currently government funded so as to quell what
small chance they might have of finding a voice midst the orgy of
Hatch Act violations going on in the current fusion program?
 
OTA has just lost any respect I might have had for its integrity, which
I'll admit, wasn't much to begin with.
 
I think a better title would be Office of Technosocialist Asses.
 
>Bruce Lewenstein, an assistant professor of science at Cornell University,
>studied the messages on an Internet bulletin board devoted to cold fusion.
>Between 1989 and 1992, more than 5,000 messages were transmitted; fully
>75% were either entirely non-technical--ranging from personal gossip to
>personal insults--or contained requests for existing technical information.
>Only one researcher regularly posted his own experimental findings.
 
Who the hell is "Bruce Lewenstein" and why did HE of all people end
up the beneficiary of OTA's funding to take, what Mark Twain
charitably termed, "statistics" on this newsgroup?
 
I used to pretty much ignore Cornell as part of the core problem
in technology, focusing more on the fusion hot spots like MIT,
Princeton, Cal Tech and UCLA.  I wonder why Cornell has decided
to come to the rescue of the scoundrels?  Is it just an Ivy League
kind of thing or is it something else?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: 26 May 1993 12:06:53 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I want to second Jim Bowery's comment.
 
First: posts on s.p.f which do contain useful information are longer than
most of the chaff. There are exceptions of course.
 
Second: If that professor would scrutinise all the wastage involved in the
Transport Task Force (there are several TTF workshops per year, all designed
to better package our collective ignorance for DoE so the latter can turn
it into obscurantist optimism when talking to the politicos) -- please do
include all the travel, lodging, and per diem expense and evaluate it in
terms of TBytes on the internet -- his results would have to be seen in a
somewhat different light.
 
In a discussion over coffee here I asked who in the US program is interacting
directly with Rebut, on ITER. The answer was several people who are nominally
physicists but who I would call DoE managers. I asked further after names
like Ron Davidson. During the discussion it casually came up that a certain
(different person, not Davidson) director in a certain lab was busy thinking
up ways to divert some of the ITER funding into his lab. So casual, so
ordinary. Pure survival, of course. You cannot expect dispassionate behaviour
when everyone's existence is in doubt. Exacerbation of tight money is
obvious.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Mike Jamison /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: 26 May 1993 09:39 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <C7LKun.Bq4@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <1993May25.174520.1926@newshost.lanl.gov> ryg@beta.lanl.gov
(Richard S Grandy) writes:
>
>>"Bulletin boards have a tendency to lead to harmless but unproductive
>>rambling," Lewenstein concludes.  "They can be a useful way to exchange
>>ideas, but the contributors have to take responsibility to keep things
>>on track."  That seems unlikely; while millions of people have access
>>to thousands of electronic bulletin boards, there is seldom a moderator,
>>and few messages are ever screened.
>
>     The basic problem is threefold:
>
>        1) this is necessarily an exceedingly heterogeneous environment.
>        2) very few people are willing to share details on work in progress
>           with its attendant blind alleys and mistakes and possibility
>           of future 'rewards' with potential critics and competitors.
>        3) it doesn't advance anyone's career to post here.
 
I'd make it 4-fold:
 
Add:
 
4)  It is very difficult and time-consuming to express any non-trivial
mathematical equation using a text editor.  Ditto for any form of picture.
 
Note to Terry Bollinger:  We actually see the Fourier transform of what we
look at.  Note that the focal point of the eye is (supposed to be) at the
retina.  Seems that nature realizes we are better off looking at Fourier
transforms than at images - better for edge detection, seeing movement (from
hungry nasty predators about to eat us).
 
We just think we see actual images...
>
>     Only vigorous and restrictive moderation changes 1), and nothing
>     changes 2) and 3).
>
>                       dale bass
>
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 13:57:23 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

>"Bulletin boards have a tendency to lead to harmless but unproductive
>rambling," Lewenstein concludes.
 
Bulletin boards and news groups are intellectual watering holes.  The
coversation at the watering hole is only part of 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.
                   <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Ad aspera /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: 26 May 1993 15:07:44 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

Since they seem to be sitting quietly in the corner going
"Aw, shucks" at the moment, let me point out that Bill Johnson
and Scott Hazen Mueller had an invited paper on this subject
in Proc. 1992 IEEE Professional Communication Conf.
 
My $0.02 on the subject is that, although the jury is still
out, netnews seems to be more significant as an electronic
water cooler for scientists than as a workspace.  Individual
threads and certain groups (whose characteristics might
include some combination of extremely narrow charters, moderation,
and limited distribution) could prove to be exceptions.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / todd spindler /  Re: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
     
Originally-From: spindler@fritillary.rsmas.miami.edu (todd spindler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
Date: 26 May 1993 15:35:59 GMT
Organization: University of Miami/RSMAS

In article <1993May25.234841.12148@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
|> In article <1ttr9hINN4mn@network.ucsd.edu>
|> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
|>
 
|> >
|> > The Fourier transform turns differential equations into algebraic equations.
|>
|> Eh?  News to me.  If I take the Fourier transform of an exp(ix) in coordinate
|> space I will of course get a point in momentum space, but the inverse is also
|> true -- an exp(-ip) function in momentum space translates nicely into a single
|> point in coordinate space.  Nothing particularly biased (or differential)
|> about that, unless I'm totally missing something about Fourier transforms.
|>
 
Perhaps he was referring to the Laplace Transform, which is used to solve ordinary
differential equations.  Fourier Transforms are commonly used for time series spectral
analysis, where the time series is mapped into frequency space and vice versa.
 
----
Todd Spindler
TSpindler@rsmas.miami.edu                 RSMAS/MPO  University of Miami
 
Let's be clear.  The planet is not in jeopardy.  *We* are in jeopardy.  We
haven't got the power to destroy the planet--or to save it.  But we might have
the power to save ourselves.
                           Michael Crichton "Jurassic Park"
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenspindler cudfntodd cudlnspindler cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  "Red Mercury"
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Red Mercury"
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 17:43:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the interest of posting something really substantial for a change, I
would like to give a report on "Red Mercury".  Woops! the butterfly just
spooked.
 
The May 22, 1993 issue of "The Economist" has a half page article on page 76
titled "Fools' mercury".  I will not type it in as we have seen it all before
in this news group.  Those of you that rush out and buy this issue will be
guaranteed to get a good magazine.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: 26 May 1993 16:31:39 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <JTCHEW-260593080321@b50-afrd4.lbl.gov>,
JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
        [snip]
|>
|> My $0.02 on the subject is that, although the jury is still
|> out, netnews seems to be more significant as an electronic
|> water cooler for scientists than as a workspace.  Individual
|> threads and certain groups (whose characteristics might
|> include some combination of extremely narrow charters, moderation,
|> and limited distribution) could prove to be exceptions.
 
For the great number of people who have acquired software and info with
lightning speed over the net, this is not a complete description.
 
It is just dying out now, but on sci.astro several people were tossing
around little tricks and pitfalls of N-body simulation that one learns
only with years of experience if one uses only textbooks. Pretty hard
to say that's not useful to the guy who started it by proposing an idea
about one or two details and asking for comment.
 
Earlier, I received from sci.math.numerical-analysis some very useful
advice on the pros and cons of linear vs quadratic finite elements
within 1 day of asking.
 
Someone needs to tell these sociologists that between all the bs one gets
on about in places like alt.conspiracy or alt.cyberpunk, one does very
often derive direct benefit from this vast information source.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Rick Matthews /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: matthews@wfu.edu (Rick Matthews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: 26 May 1993 16:40:01 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, WFU

Bradley K. Sherman writes:
>I wonder if we could persuade Dr. Lewenstein (are you there?)
>to place time spent at Scientific Conferences and in Faculty
>Committees on a similar linear scale.  Exactly where the
>information lies in forums such as this is difficult to
>establish.  A Linguist reading sci.physics.fusion might
>differ as to which messages were least entropic.
 
>And is "assistant professor of science" a tenure-track position?
 
The _Chronicle of Higher Education_ (May 19,p. A25) identifies Mr.
Lewenstein as:
 
"Assistant Professor of Communication and Science and Technology Studies."
 
Interesting that of the more than 60 sci.xxxx forums he chose the board
whose topic elicits the most passionate reactions.  Would any of this
forum's readers call this board "typical" of sci.xxxx?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmatthews cudfnRick cudlnMatthews cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Brad Woodcock /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: woodcock@cecer.army.mil (Brad Woodcock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 18:30:00 GMT
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Labs

This may not seem particularly pertinent to some (most?) of you, but I
started reading this newsgroup because the idea of cold fusion was something
I desperately wanted to believe.  Since then I have, of course, gotten a
much more realistic idea of what is going on with the idea of fusion.  I'm
not a scientist, nor have I even gone very far in science, but I have a very
acute interest in science.  This newsgroup is the only source of actually
useful, non-sensationalist information I could find on the subject of
fusion.  Now, informing "the public" certainly doesn't seem to be one of the
"jobs" of this newsgroup, but I for one have found it to be exceptionally
useful.
--
Brad Woodcock                                             The Trolls Guild
woodcock@thoth.cecer.army.mil                         "We're here to make you
brad-dorsai@nova.novanet.org                          appreciate normal people."
(217)344-0363
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenwoodcock cudfnBrad cudlnWoodcock cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Wed, 26 May 93 20:34:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

woodcock@cecer.army.mil (Brad Woodcock) writes:
>I'm not a scientist, nor have I even gone very far in science, but I have a
>very acute interest in science.  This newsgroup is the only source of actually
>useful, non-sensationalist information I could find on the subject of
>fusion.  Now, informing "the public" certainly doesn't seem to be one of the
>"jobs" of this newsgroup, but I for one have found it to be exceptionally
>useful.
 
Only Lewenstein arrogates to himself the right to define the "job" of the
newsgroup.  His laughingly shallow analysis (done obviously in a quest for
a government paycheck) counts words in some statistical meaningless way,
and then tries to pontificate expansively.  Hoo haa.
 
As Brad points out, a great many people have had their education advanced
in many areas of physics, chemistry, and logic, merely by observing the
conversations here.  I certainly know I've learned a great deal -- including
about the scientific method and how it can be misdirected from advocates
on both sides.
 
If Lewenstein thinks the newsgroup has dubious value, it is probably because
he was himself incapable of grasping the content of the messages.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / S Schaffner /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Wed, 26 May 1993 21:18:22 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1993May26.203417.8865@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
|> Only Lewenstein arrogates to himself the right to define the "job" of the
|> newsgroup.  His laughingly shallow analysis (done obviously in a quest for
|> a government paycheck) counts words in some statistical meaningless way,
|> and then tries to pontificate expansively.  Hoo haa.
 
[...]
|> If Lewenstein thinks the newsgroup has dubious value, it is probably because
|> he was himself incapable of grasping the content of the messages.
 
My goodness, what a harsh response.  I take it you've actually read the
article in question?  From what was posted of it, it didn't sound *that*
far off base: most of what is posted here, including what I'm typing at
the moment, is irrelevant to fusion research.  The newsgroup nevertheless
does seem to be useful to a few researchers in the field (well, two at least).
Whether that's good or bad depends on what expectations you have of the
group.  By the way, what's wrong with doing analysis in quest of a
government paycheck?  I do it all the time -- it's called having a job.
To be sure, that's not the only reason I do my work, but I wouldn't be
here if they didn't pay me.
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 02:46:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu> jonesj@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
>used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
>the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
>microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
>microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
>formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove.
 
This is the _proof_ positive excess heat that all of the Truew Believers
have been telling us about.
 
>When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
>of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
>the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
>excess heat was observed.
 
As my previous posts stated, the important variable in the experiment
has turned out to be oxygen. In a highly boiling experiment such
as P&F's which is purposely pulsed at extremely high power to
cause boiling, one can expect the water/electrolyte to become
saturated with oxygen.
 
>
>Some conditions that enhance recombination of H2 and O2 are
>
>     -clean electrode surfaces
>     -stirring devices that aid in the transfer of gas between
>      electrodes
>     -geometry of the cell(the closer the electrodes the better)
>     -anodizing the nickel.
>
>These are the conditions that were given to us in the "tutorial for
>beginners" to maximize "excess heat".
 
These are also conditions that enhance recombination.
 
>Mallove defined "%excess heat" in terms of power or heat rate.
>Another definition of %excess heat is the ratio of the time
>integral of excess heat rate to the time integral of the calculated
>heat rate.  A small error integrated over a long period of time
>will yield a  whoppinglarge error, which may explain some published
>results.
 
All through this conference and the published reports there has
been a rather basic premise that energy couldn't be stored in vast
enough quantities to achieve the sorts of excess heat meaurements that
have been noted. I have always found such a belief to be entirely unfounded.
 
My most hardy congratulations in finally proving Cold Nuclear Fusion
to be not cold, not nuclear and not fusion. Your experiments will
have placed the final wreath on the CNF grave.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 /  jonesj@physc1. /  700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
     
Originally-From: jonesj@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
Date: 26 May 93 16:37:14 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

After receiving a "tutorial for beginners" from Eugene Mallove and
Jed Rothwell, a group at BYU began work on the electrolysis of
light water using 0.6 M K2CO3 electrolyte and a nickel cathode and
platinum anode.  The experimental parameters given by Mr. Mallove
claimed to give readily achievable excess heat on the order of 100
to 300%.  Excess heat could be calculated using %excess = (qmeas -
qinp)/qinp where qmeas is the calorimeter output and qinp = Icell(Vcell -1.48).
1.48 is the thermoneutral potential for the electrolysis of water
and is subtracted when no recombination is assumed.
 
Recently several experiments were completed at BYU where up to 7
times the input power(qinp = Icell(Vcell-1.48)) was measured during the
electrolysis of light water with 0.6 M K2CO3 electrolyte,  400%
better than Mr. Mallove predicted.  However, the excess heat
observed can be attributed to  the recombination of the evolved
gases(H2 + O2 = H2O), eliminating the need for an appeal to a "new
fusion theory" or a "novel atomic model" to explain the results.
 
In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove.
 
When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
excess heat was observed.
 
In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48)).
The calorimetric output of the cell was, within the limits of
uncertainty, the same as the total input power to the cell(Icell*Vcell).
Thus, given the proper conditions all of the evolved gases will
recombine.
 
Some conditions that enhance recombination of H2 and O2 are
 
     -clean electrode surfaces
     -stirring devices that aid in the transfer of gas between
      electrodes
     -geometry of the cell(the closer the electrodes the better)
     -anodizing the nickel.
 
These are the conditions that were given to us in the "tutorial for
beginners" to maximize "excess heat".
 
The numbers given in this report are preliminary but representative
of the experiments done to date.
 
NOTES...
 
The definition of "%excess heat" as the ratio of excess heat rate
to calculated heat rate needs to be used appropriately.  If no
recombination of H2 and O2 is occurring the definition given in Mr.
Mallove's tutorial is appropriate.  However, if recombination is
occurring,the overvoltage of the cell will be lower, lowering Vcell,
which lowers qinp causing the numerator for the calculated "%excess
heat" to increase and the denominator to decrease, thus amplifying
the error.  Until measures are taken to insure no recombination is
occurring a different method of calculating excess heat should be
used.
 
Mallove defined "%excess heat" in terms of power or heat rate.
Another definition of %excess heat is the ratio of the time
integral of excess heat rate to the time integral of the calculated
heat rate.  A small error integrated over a long period of time
will yield a  whoppinglarge error , which may explain some published
results.
 
Respectfully,
 
Jonathan E. Jones
BYU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesj cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
Date: 27 May 93 04:06:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu> jonesj@physc1.byu.edu writes:
:
: >In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
: >used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
: >the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
: >microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
: >microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
: >formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove.
:
: This is the _proof_ positive excess heat that all of the Truew Believers
: have been telling us about.
 
Of course!  Calorimetry Is Easy 19th Century Science And There's No Possible
Way That Errors Can Produce Huge 134% Excess Heat Signals So It Must Be
True.
 
: My most hardy congratulations in finally proving Cold Nuclear Fusion
: to be not cold, not nuclear and not fusion. Your experiments will
: have placed the final wreath on the CNF grave.
 
No, it just means that it's unlikely that Cathode of Fleischmann and
Pons produces macroscopic heat from nuclear reactions. But this isn't
news.
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / John Logajan /  Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
Date: Thu, 27 May 93 04:29:18 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesj@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> Excess heat could be calculated using
> %excess = (qmeas - qinp)/qinp
> where qmeas is the calorimeter output and qinp = Icell(Vcell -1.48).
> 1.48 is the thermoneutral potential for the electrolysis of water
> and is subtracted when no recombination is assumed.
 
This is still anomalous power less than applied I*V.  This has already been
dealt with.  Even Jed has long ago recognized recombination as a problem.
 
Farrell has been claiming that Mills is producing in excess of 10 times I*V.
And so this latest result from BYU sheds no new light on Mills' and Farrell's
initial and unretracted claims.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 05:21:43 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <C7EwzF.5qt@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>>   In Message: <C7Czp7.5GF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>>   Subject: Re: Some Answers
>> Cameron Randale (Bass crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU) argues with
>> Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) regarding figure 11 in the F&P paper.
>>
>>=jr "8) How can the temperature stay constant for of order three hours after the
>>=jr cell is boiled dry?" It doesn't say that."
>>
>>==db  "Figure 11 shows explicitly that the temperature remains at about
>>==db   100C for *three hours* after the cell boils dry.  Read the paper
>>==db   Jed."
>>
>>  With some trepidation:  Two comments.
>>
>>  First,  the relevant portion of the curve in Figure 11 actually
>>shows a slight irregular rise, culminating in a curved
>>peak and then falling at a faster rate thanthe initial rise.
>>
>>  Second, my heavy-water "thin"-film hypothesis is that the observation of
>>a temperature "maintenance"  beyond the "boil-off" may be due to outgassing
>>of the intracathodic deuterons, their reactions with oxygen to form de novo
>>heavy water -- but only in volume adjacent to, and along, the cathodic surface.
>>  Therefore, although the cell is "dry", a near-constant but sufficient
>>volume of "thin"-film of heavy water (D2O), in this hypothesis,
 
>     Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
>     in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume).
 
>     You must realize that they are not measuring system temperature at the
>     cathode anyway; they appear to be taking it from a thermister away
>     and above the cathode.  I've contended that the measurement is
>     nearly meaningless after the electrolyte boils down past it (to say
>     nothing of still being seemingly inexplicable).
 
Not if the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermistor by ambiant
heating of the empty cell.  Recall D. Morrison's cigarette lighter effect.
If I understand what Michell is saying, it's this type of mechanism
that might explain the continuance of a heating effect after the
boil off mark.
 
Have Fun; Experiment!
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / William Unruh /  Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
     
Originally-From: unruh@physics.ubc.ca (William Unruh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????
Date: 27 May 1993 07:32:16 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

jonesj@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
]The definition of "%excess heat" as the ratio of excess heat rate
]to calculated heat rate needs to be used appropriately.  If no
]recombination of H2 and O2 is occurring the definition given in Mr.
]Mallove's tutorial is appropriate.  However, if recombination is
]occurring,the overvoltage of the cell will be lower, lowering Vcell,
]which lowers qinp causing the numerator for the calculated "%excess
]heat" to increase and the denominator to decrease, thus amplifying
]the error.  Until measures are taken to insure no recombination is
]occurring a different method of calculating excess heat should be
]used.
 
Even better is to make sure that all of the gasses do recombine in the
cell itself, so you can directly see if there is excess heat without
making poorly controled assumptions about recombinatin etc
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenunruh cudfnWilliam cudlnUnruh cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Dieter Britz /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 10:12:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) in FD 1066:
 
>Note to Terry Bollinger:  We actually see the Fourier transform of what we
>look at.  Note that the focal point of the eye is (supposed to be) at the
>retina.  Seems that nature realizes we are better off looking at Fourier
>transforms than at images - better for edge detection, seeing movement (from
>hungry nasty predators about to eat us).
 
>We just think we see actual images...
 
Do you have any support for this? I remember reading this a couple of years
ago in New Scientist, and it still seems like somebody's favorite but
nonsensical theory. We get actual images, i.e. 2-D projections of the 3-D
world, on our retina. Where is the image Fourier-transformed? Do we have an
on-line SFFT module in the brain (SFFT: Super-Fast...)? In any case, these
images do not have much periodicity anyway, so nothing would be gained by going
into frequency space. I think this metaphor is overstretched.
 
As for the SUBJECT topic: I'd like to second Stephen F. Schaffner's question:
have any of you spitters of venom on Bruce Lewenstein's Report actually read
the thing, or are you going by the posting you saw here? I have the feeling
that y'all are giving free rein to a common syndrome we physical scientists
have, i.e. contempt for the social sciences, a feeling that those people
don't really know or do anything useful. Since they don't need complex maths,
we think we can easily understand their subject without having any background
in it at all.
 
If you're going to bucket Lewenstein's Report and even the man himself, first
read the Report, and then tell us what is wrong with it.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 09:57:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993May27.052143.7393@coplex.coplex.com> chuck@coplex.coplex
com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <C7EwzF.5qt@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>>>  Therefore, although the cell is "dry", a near-constant but sufficient
>>>volume of "thin"-film of heavy water (D2O), in this hypothesis,
>
>>     Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
>>     in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume).
>
>>     You must realize that they are not measuring system temperature at the
>>     cathode anyway; they appear to be taking it from a thermister away
>>     and above the cathode.  I've contended that the measurement is
>>     nearly meaningless after the electrolyte boils down past it (to say
>>     nothing of still being seemingly inexplicable).
>
>Not if the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermistor by ambiant
>heating of the empty cell.  Recall D. Morrison's cigarette lighter effect.
>If I understand what Michell is saying, it's this type of mechanism
>that might explain the continuance of a heating effect after the
>boil off mark.
 
    If the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermister to 100C,
    then the cathode will certainly be far too hot to support a
    film of liquid water.  The heating at the thermister is not the only
    'problem', it's the stability of said heating as well and the
    fact that it remains around 100C.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.26 / Y Rafaelevich /  Cooperation with Russian Vacuum Society
     
Originally-From: renat@foet.isrir.msk.su (Yusupov Renat Rafaelevich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cooperation with Russian Vacuum Society
Date: Wed, 26 May 93 08:25:57 +0300
Organization: Russia State Research Institute for Information Systems

                COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA IN THE FIELD
            OF VACUUM SCIENCE, TECHNIQUE AND TECHNOLOGY.
 
        In 1992  scientists  and  specialists worked in  the field  of
vacuum technique founded Russian Scince Vacuum Society.
        In  foundation  of  this  Society  took  part  leading  vacuum
technique and technology centers of Russia. There are:
 - "VACUUMMASHPRIBOR"  in   Moscow,  "VACUUMMASH"  in  Kazan,  Science
   Research   Technology   Institute    in   Riazan,   Institute    of
   ThermoPhysics in Novosibirsk and other;
 - high   education  institutes:   Moscow  State  University,   Moscow
   Institute of  Electronics and  Mathematics, Moscow  State Technique
   University, Sankt - Petersburg State Technique University,  Saratov
   PolyTechnique Institute and other.
        General  aims  and  direct  of  Russian  Vacuum  Society  are:
underline  perspective  phenomenons,  development  of  fundamental and
applied   researches,   distribution   of   science   and    technique
achievments,  creation of  studying  and  education programms, science
seminars and conferences.
        We  are  greatly  interested  in  establishment  contacts with
specialists and scientists from other countries.
        We concerned  this creative  work as  extremely important  not
only  for   development  of   vacuum  technique,   but  in   work  for
consolidation mutual understunding  and creative activity  cooperation
beetwen our countries.
        If You are interested  in our message we  will be glad to  get
You answer. We hope to begin and widening the dialog.
 
        Sincerely Yours.
 
        Chairman of Council of Russian Vacuum Society,
        doctor of science, professor,
        rector of Moscow Institute of Electronics and Mathematics
        Dimitry V. Bikov
 
        Addressee: Russia,  109028, Moscow, Bolshoi Vuzovsky pereulok,
                   dom  3/12,  Moscow  Institute  of  Electronics  and
                   Mathematics.
        Phone:  (095) 297-9089.
        Fax:    (095) 227-2807.
        E-mail: renat@foet.isrir.msk.su
        or:     onims@miem.msk.su
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrenat cudfnYusupov cudlnRafaelevich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Jacques Amar /  recombination_results
     
Originally-From: phsjga@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Jacques G. Amar)
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: recombination_results
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 12:48:11 GMT
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:23:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

     Recently, Jonathan Jones of BYU posted an interesting article on
experiments
with light water,  a Ni cathode, Pt anode, and K2CO3 in which an amount of
`excess heat` equal to or somewhat less than the total input power V*I was
observed.
He pointed out that a serious amount of recombination must be
taking place so that a comparison of the output heat with (V-1.48)*I
is not appropriate, as confirmed by experiments in which nitrogen gas
bubbling prevented recombination.  This would appear to cast a doubt on some
claims of excess heat in which the free energy of dissociation 1.48*I was
subtracted from the input power.
 
   I am a reader of this newsgroup and would like to point out
that this does NOT appear to be the claim of Mills and Farrell.  Below is a
paragraph  from one of Farrell`s recent postings to this group which I happen
to have saved.
 
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:23:45 GMT
 
<< Recombination is a serious
complication as long as the output wattage is less than or equal to the
input wattage.  But as I reported here several weeks ago,  Mills (and
Thermacore, Inc.) was getting several times VI [typically 20 watts in, V*I
= 20 watts with no 1.48 *I correction, and 60 watts out].  Actually, those
data were several months old.  I am now free to say that more recent
experiments have 2.5 watts in and 50 watts out. Once again the 2.5 watts is
V*I (no 1.48*I correction). You are welcome to conclude that Mills is
making some sort of error--because the details of these more recent
experiments will not be published for some time (the older three-fold
increase can be achieved using procedures published previously). In my
opinion, however, no error is being made.  These measurements are difficult
at the mW level but not at the 10 W level.  Droege's calorimeter could
easily do the job, but he would have to sacrifice his recombiner.  Alas,
hard decisions. >>
 
 
      As can be seen from the quote above, the input power is claimed to be
larger than the TOTAL input power, so the results reported by J. Jones
would appear to be irrelevant to these claims.
 
Re Thomas Kunich`s comments:
 
     The claims of P&F are confined (as far as I know) to
heavy water.  Therefore, I do not understand why you or anyone would conclude
that a "negative" experiment (see Farrell`s quote above) involving Ni and
and light water would have any bearing on P&F`s experiments.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenphsjga cudfnJacques cudlnAmar cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Scott Mueller /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 12:58:52 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <1993May26.203417.8865@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>Only Lewenstein [...] shallow analysis (done obviously in a quest for
>a government paycheck) [...]
 
In defense of Bruce, his OTA grant for this study consisted of one (1) file
cabinet.  I hardly think he would have sold his soul for that...
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Sources more valuable than the network
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sources more valuable than the network
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 14:46:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Brad Woodcock writes:
 
"This newsgroup is the only source of actually useful, non-sensationalist
information I could find on the subject of fusion.  Now, informing "the
public" certainly doesn't seem to be one of the 'jobs' of this newsgroup, but
I for one have found it to be exceptionally useful."
 
There are far better sources of information about cold fusion. There is seldom
any "news" here on this newsgroup, just rehashes of the same old arguments
about energy storage, recombination and calorimetry. These questions were
settled in the literature years ago. The information here is not particularly
timely. If you read Hagelstein's paper carefully, for example, you will see
that it carefully addresses and puts to rest almost every single one of the
"skeptical" objections raised here (except for a few off-the-wall ones).
 
Here are a few good sources:
 
"Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor," (John
Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Eugene F. Mallove
 
The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion. Contact:
Universal Academy Press, Inc., PR Hogo 5 Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo
113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232, Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932. Price: 22,000
yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping: $26.65)
 
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southhampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of
the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics
Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold Fusion In Nagoya, Peter L.
Hagelstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Contact me for a copy on
diskette.)
 
"The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion: Scrutiny, Invective, and
Progress," By Drs. Victor Rehn and Iqbal Ahmad for the U.S. Office of Naval
Research, Japan
 
"Proceedings of the II Annual Conference On Cold Fusion." (June 29 - July 4,
1991); contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY
 
>From the Proceedings, I recommend: "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric
Investigations Of The D/Pd System" by Michael C. H. McKubre, et al. 25 pages.
 
Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS. Contact:
Publications Manager, The American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave,
Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back issues of Fusion Technology are available from
the APS publications office at 708-352-6611.
 
E. Storms (Los Alamos Nat. Lab.), "Review of Experimental Observations About
The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20 (Dec. 1991), 433 - 477
 
Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O. Box
48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232  Fax: 801-583-6245
 
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J.
Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.
 
Information about the Mills light water experiment. (Available from me by E-
Mail)
 
T.N. Claytor, D.G. Tuggle, and S.F. Taylor (Los Alamos Nat. Lab.) "Evolution
of Tritium from Deuterided Palladium Subject to High Electrical Currents,"
(preprint), 12 pgs.
 
 
One or two published or unpublished papers are *far* more valuable than a
year's supply of opinions from the people here on this network. This is
because most of the people here have not read the papers and have not
performed the experiments, so they have no business making any comments about
the work. They remind me of the "parachute journalists" who drop into Japan
for two months, read a couple of textbooks, and without knowing a word of
Japanese begin making blanket pronouncements about MITI and the Japanese
educational system. You should ignore the opinions of such ignorant fools. I
myself have been studying Japan and Japanese for 20 years, and I was partly
educated there, but I would *never* be so presumptuous as to make the kind of
broad statements I read in the U.S. media. These are, after all, extremely
complex subjects.
 
Also, BTW, Bruce Lewenstein's papers about cold fusion are superb. I recommend
"Testing Truisms about Science and the Mass Media: The Case of Cold Fusion,"
presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, August 7, 1991. You can contact Dr. Lewenstein at 321 Kennedy
Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Mike Jamison /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: 27 May 1993 10:36 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2DF20576D39F223E80@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes...
>
>Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) in FD 1066:
>
[My original piece of post deleted]
 
>
>Do you have any support for this? I remember reading this a couple of years
>ago in New Scientist, and it still seems like somebody's favorite but
>nonsensical theory. We get actual images, i.e. 2-D projections of the 3-D
 
"Optics" by Hecht & Zajac, Addison-Wesley, pp. 138-147, discusses the human
eye.  Yeah, they show an inverted real image of an object on the retina.
 
However, diagrams also show the image formation of a relaxed eye, with the
image taken at infinity (basically, a bunch of parallel rays).  The focal
point is at the retina.  According to "Optics", the eye's fovea is 0.3mm
in diameter, and contains ~6 to 7 million cones.  This is where we get our
detailed images.  If we take the average of white light = 550 nm (green),
the diameter of the fovea is about 550 wavelengths of light.  Not much, so
diffraction effects cannot be discounted.
 
The eye is a very complicated little device, makes for interesting reading.
 
"Optical Information Processing", by Francis T. S. Yu, Wiley-Interscience,
details "Optical Processing with Incoherent Source", chapter 8.  This is
what I'd suggest reading for more information on how the eye processes
information.  Note that actual Fourier transforms aren't formed with incoherent
light.  [Dieter, I'll continue this off-line with you, if you're intersted].
 
>world, on our retina. Where is the image Fourier-transformed? Do we have an
>on-line SFFT module in the brain (SFFT: Super-Fast...)? In any case, these
 
I'm not sure we'd need to do an inverse transform - we'd learn to live with
the transformed image.  (I hate to bring this up but:  has anyone trained
a neural net using Fourier transformed images, for pattern recognition?)
 
>images do not have much periodicity anyway, so nothing would be gained by going
>into frequency space. I think this metaphor is overstretched.
>
>As for the SUBJECT topic: I'd like to second Stephen F. Schaffner's question:
>have any of you spitters of venom on Bruce Lewenstein's Report actually read
>the thing, or are you going by the posting you saw here? I have the feeling
>that y'all are giving free rein to a common syndrome we physical scientists
>have, i.e. contempt for the social sciences, a feeling that those people
>don't really know or do anything useful. Since they don't need complex maths,
>we think we can easily understand their subject without having any background
>in it at all.
 
I'm not sure that they don't need complex math.  Psychologists, for example,
use a lot of statistical mathematics, which I tend to steer away from.
 
>
>If you're going to bucket Lewenstein's Report and even the man himself, first
>read the Report, and then tell us what is wrong with it.
 
I agree, except that the excerpt here was all that was posted.  Perhaps
someone would like to post the entire report here, along with Lewenstein's
e-mail address...
 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 
 
A thought on the after-boil-away for the P&F cell:  I haven't read/seen the
report (nor do I want to, really.  I'll trust the analyses of Tom Droege,
Dale Bass, etc.).  With that in mind, where is the thermistor located with
respect to the Pd cell?  It sounds like it's to one side of the cell, from
what I've read.  Here are my thoughts:
 
Once the thermistor is no longer immersed in water, water *vapor* condenses
on it.  As the cell boils dry, and H2 + O2 recombination takes place, the
(~100 C) water vapor formed continues to condense on the thermistor, keeping
it at ~100 C, although the Pd cell may be quite a bit hotter.  My thoughts,
for what they're worth.
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 15:27:08 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <C7oJnv.Eu4@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:
>
> In article <1993May27.052143.7393@coplex.coplex.com> chuck@coplex.copl
x.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
> >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> >
> >>In article <C7EwzF.5qt@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
> >>>  Therefore, although the cell is "dry", a near-constant but sufficient
> >>>volume of "thin"-film of heavy water (D2O), in this hypothesis,
> >
> >>     Not if the system is near 100C.  It would evaporate if nothing else
> >>     in very short order (minutes if not seconds depending on volume).
> >
> >>     You must realize that they are not measuring system temperature at the
> >>     cathode anyway; they appear to be taking it from a thermister away
> >>     and above the cathode.  I've contended that the measurement is
> >>     nearly meaningless after the electrolyte boils down past it (to say
> >>     nothing of still being seemingly inexplicable).
> >
> >Not if the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermistor by ambiant
> >heating of the empty cell.  Recall D. Morrison's cigarette lighter effect.
> >If I understand what Michell is saying, it's this type of mechanism
> >that might explain the continuance of a heating effect after the
> >boil off mark.
>
>     If the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermister to 100C,
>     then the cathode will certainly be far too hot to support a
>     film of liquid water.  The heating at the thermister is not the only
>     'problem', it's the stability of said heating as well and the
>     fact that it remains around 100C.
>
>                           dale bass
 
Isn't it possible that once the cathode is uncovered that they accidentally
have a little still going?  Water would evaporate at the cathode (or from a
pool below it), keeping its temperature lower and more constant, the steam
would rise to the thermistor and the upper part of the test tube, condense,
and run back down to the cathode.  The thermistor would read a constat
temperature, that of the condensing steam.  Some steam will escape through
the vent but the process could be stable for many minutes.  This could
happen if the cathode itself is not in good thermal contact with the walls
of the test tube.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 16:41:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In a series of serious responses to this topic:
 
  In Message-ID: <1993May27.052143.7393@coplex.coplex.com>
  Subject: Re: Some Answers
Chuck Sites  (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
 
== "Not if the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermistor by ambiant
== heating of the empty cell.  Recall D. Morrison's cigarette lighter effect.
== If I understand what Michell is saying, it's this type of mechanism
== that might explain the continuance of a heating effect after the
== boil off mark."
 
   Thanks for the comments, Chuck.   The mechanism of de novo heavy
water might explain the  maintenance at a temperature near 100C.
Two other sources of such are discussed below.
 
  However, the exiting deuterons obviously MUST decrease the
intraelectrode concentration.  Therefore, because cold fusion is not
 the recombination effect the following may be true.
 
  Although the recombination may provide a low-level heating, it must
deplete the intraelectrode concentration and therefore the process may
explain the "discontinuance" of whatever anomalous process(es) occur.
 
 
   In Message-ID: <27MAY199310360668@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>
   Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Mike Jamison (edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
 
== "A thought on the after-boil-away for the P&F cell: I haven't read/seen
==  the report (nor do I want to, really. ...   Here are my thoughts:
==
==  "Once the thermistor is no longer immersed in water, water *vapor* condenses
== on it.  As the cell boils dry, and H2 + O2 recombination takes place, the
== (~100 C) water vapor formed continues to condense on the thermistor, keeping
== it at ~100 C, although the Pd cell may be quite a bit hotter.  My thoughts,
== for what they're worth."
 
  Mike, a valid point that the effects from de novo heavy
  water production can also occur in a volume, away from the
  electrode.  Apparently  you agree that such a process might act to
  maintain temperature this way at that location.
  INMHO the relative role of each process, at each site, would depend
  on the physical configuration.
 
 
    In Message-ID: <ijames-270593111944@156.40.188.218>
    Subject: Re: Some Answers
Carl Ijames  (ijames@helix.nih.gov ss) wrote:
 
== "Isn't it possible that once the cathode is uncovered that they accidentally
== have a little still going?  Water would evaporate at the cathode (or from a
== vpool below it), keeping its temperature lower and more constant, the steam
== would rise to the thermistor and the upper part of the test tube, condense,
== and run back down to the cathode.  The thermistor would read a constat
== temperature, that of the condensing steam.  Some steam will escape through
== the vent but the process could be stable for many minutes.  This could
== happen if the cathode itself is not in good thermal contact with the walls
== of the test tube."
 
  Carl, this also seems correct.  This would be a second source for
  de novo heavy water upon the cathode (or other temperature measureing
  site, (thanks to Mike for pointing that out, see above)
 
  These processes may act in parallel with the original mechanism
 suggested to occur in the intra- and vicinal cathodic volume.  Thanks to
 Chuck, Mike, and Carl both for the comments and suggestions/corrections and
 for proving that those interested in this field can, and do, work together
 well on this bbs.
                               Best wishes.
 
                                   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Chuck Sites
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Chuck Sites
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 17:30:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck, remember that the truly amazing thing is not that cathode gets hot
and heats the thermistor, we have a mechanism for that.  The amazing thing is
that a dry cell sits very close to 100 C for three hours.  As I pointed out,
this would require a phenomenal control system.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Congratulations to Jones & Co.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Congratulations to Jones & Co.
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:12:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Congratulations to Steve Jones and Co. for doing a proper experiment on the
Mills cell.  I suppose I should ask the nasty question - "What are you using
for a control?"  That is the tricky thing, to make sure that the control used
for calibration has exactly the same calorimeter constant.  Measuring
microwatts this is not a given.
 
To those of you that wonder why I did not follow up on a similar measurement
made early last year, I point out that I am operating as an explorer.  I am
looking for an experiment that gives a positive result, and when a measurement
indicates that there is nothing, I move on.  This does not give me scientific
credit, and I am not looking for it.  For scientific credit, one must complete
even negative experiments and publish them.
 
To Thomas Kunich, the ev per atom arguments are valid.  But both the "anomalous
heat" and it's error must be integrated over time to test for significance.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Correction - Please change Steve Jones to Jonathan Jones in the
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction - Please change Steve Jones to Jonathan Jones in the
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:12:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Correction, sorry, that should be Jonathan Jones in the previous post.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / not name /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (not my real name)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Thu, 27 May 93 15:25:49 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>By the way, what's wrong with doing analysis in quest of a
>government paycheck?  I do it all the time -- it's called having a job.
>To be sure, that's not the only reason I do my work, but I wouldn't be
>here if they didn't pay me.
 
Er...that's the point.  We don't want you doing a government job, we
want you out doing a REAL job. ;-)
 
                                                me
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudended cudfnnot cudlnname cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Reply to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steven Jones
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 19:57:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu, writes
 
>Before getting too excited by Farrell and Mills (F&M) promises, it is
>instructive to consider aspects of their theory, published in:
>1.  R. Mills and S. Kneizys, Fusion Tech. 20 (1991) 65-81,
>which refers extensively to:
>2.  R. Mills and J. Farrell, _The Grand Unified Theory_, Science Press (1989).
>
>
>"The conversion of energy into matter requires a transition state in which the
>identification of the entity as matter or energy is impossible.  From the
>properties of the entity, as matter or energy, and from the physical laws and
>the properties of space-time, the transition state hereafter called a
>virtual orbit sphere is derived."
 
1.  Farrell is from F&M; Mills is from HydroCatalysis Power Corporation (HPC).
 
2.  The word is "orbitsphere" not "orbit sphere".  An orbitsphere is a
spherical wave.  Get used to it.
 
3.  I suppose that Steven Jones thinks that a photon "magically " becomes
an electron and a positron in pair production.  No.  There is a real point
in time when a transition state (virtual orbitsphere) exists whereby one
cannot tell if the entity is a photon or an electron/positron (for
example).
 
>"Thus, the electron virtual orbit sphere is an LC circuit excited at the
>corresponding resonance frequency of free space.  The impedance of free space
>becomes infinite, and electromagnetic radiation cannot propagate.  At this
>event, the frequency, wavelength, velocity, and energy of the virtual orbit
>sphere >are equal to that of the photon."
 
I'm not sure what Jones is trying to say here by extracting these
sentences.  It seems perfectly clear to me that in the transition state the
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and energy of the "photon" and the
"electron" must be equal.  How is it possible to be otherwise?
 
For example:  pair production.
 
For both matter and light
 
v = hf                          (1)
where v = velocity, h = Planck's constant, f = frequency
 
or
 
v = h (omega/2 pi)  =  (h/2 pi)  (omega)               (2)
where omega = angular frequency
 
at the moment when a photon becomes an electron(positron), that is, for the
virtual orbitsphere
 
v = c                     (3)
where c = speed of light
 
Our condition for non-radiation (the radial function must not have Fourier
components  synchronous with the speed of light), see below, leads to
 
2 pi r  = (wavelength)           (4)
where r is the radius of the orbitsphere
 
Thus, using (2), (3), and (4)
 
r  =   c/(omega)               (5)
 
Now, for the photon and the virtual orbitsphere
 
E  = (me) c^2  =  h f  =  (h/2 pi)  (omega)                (6)
where (me) is the rest mass of the electron
 
and
 
(omega)  = 2 pi (me) c^2/h                (7)
 
Thus,
 
r  =   h/(2 pi (me) c)                           (8)
 
We know that the Bohr radius, (ao) is given by
 
ao  =  h/(2 pi (me) c (alpha))           (9)
where (alpha) is the fine structure constant
 
and, therefore,
 
r =  (alpha) (ao)                                  (10)
 
Thus, at the moment of its creation the electron has a radius of 3.86 x
10^(-13) meters.
 
Now, spacetime is an electrical LC circuit with an intrinsic impedance of
 
impedance of spacetime  =  ((uo)/(eo))^.5           (11)
where uo is the permeability of vacuum and eo is the permittivity of vacuum.
 
The total capacitance of free space occupied by the transition state
(virtual orbitsphere) of radius  (alpha) (ao) is
 
C  =  (eo) (alpha) (ao)             (12)
 
 Similarly, the inductance is
 
L =  (uo) (alpha) (ao)             (13)
 
The impedance of any LC circuit goes to infinity when it is excited at the
resonance frequency.  The resonant frequency is given by
 
(omega)   =  (1/(LC))^.5            (14)
 
Thus,
 
(omega)  =     (1/(eo) (alpha) (ao)  (uo) (alpha)  (ao))^.5         (15)
 
Using the relationship
 
c  =  (1/(eo) (uo))^0.5                (16)
 
and eqn (9)
 
(omega)  =  2 pi (me) c^2/h      (17)
 
or  (me) c^2  =  h f  =  (h/2 pi)  (omega)         , same as eqn (6)
 
OK?
 
>"It is shown in Sec. III that the electron orbit sphere is a resonator cavity
>that can trap electromagnetic radiation of discrete frequencies.  ... The
>photons decrease the nuclear charge to 1/n and increase the radius of the orbit
>sphere to na."  ["For the hydrogen atom, the radius of the ground orbit sphere
>is a."]
 
1.  Yes, the electron orbitsphere is a resonator cavity.  And cavities do
absorb (or trap) specific frequencies.  That is why the absorption spectrum
is quantized (not because the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation says
so).  The energy levels are quantized for a *physical* reason:  the cavity
has a particular size and can trap particular frequencies.
2.  The electron is *not* a probability density function.  A bound electron
is a two-dimensional surface, an orbitsphere.  It *does not radiate*
because the radial function that describes it, a Dirac delta function, does
not have Fourier components synchronous with the speed of light (not
because small particles behave differently than large ones).
3.  The electric field of the trapped photon creates standing waves in the
cavity.  The "charge" of the *photon* is (-1  + 1/n) Ze.  The total charge
experienced by the electron is the sum of the nuclear charge, Ze, and the
photon component.  Thus, the *effective* nuclear charge is (1/n) Ze.  (The
equation for the electric field of the trapped photon is given in the book
and need not be repeated here.)
4.  Yes, the atom does get bigger because the *effective* nuclear charge is
smaller.  To reach a non-radiative state, once again, the final state's
radial function must not have Fourier  components  synchronous with the
speed of light.  We have shown for the hydrogen atom that this
non-radiative condition leads to r  = n(ao) where ao is the Bohr radius.
When the electron (of a hydrogen atom) is in the n = 3 state the
*effective* nuclear charge is e/3 and the orbitsphere has a radius of 3
(ao).  (The Schrodinger equation predicts 9 (ao)).
 
>"Mills and Farrell propose [ref. 2 above], however, that the orbit sphere
>resonator can trap photons that increase the nuclear charge and decrease the
>radius of the orbit sphere.  This occurs, for example, when the orbit sphere
>couples to another resonator cavity that can absorb energy -- this is the
>absorption of an energy hole.
>"The absorption of an energy hole destroys the balance between the centrifugal
>force and the increased central Coulombic force.  As a result, the electron is
>pulled toward the nucleus.  If another allowed state that obeys the boundary
>conditions is not available, the electron plunges into the nucleus."
>
>[Hate when that happens.]
>
1.  In fact, these non-radiative states exist, and the *effective* nuclear
charge is (1/n) Ze where n = 1/2, 1/3, .... and r = n(ao).  Thus, for
hydrogen atom in the n = 1/3 state, the effective nuclear charge is +3e and
the radius is (ao)/3.
2.  We are content to let the experimental data prove or disprove the
existence of these "shrunken" hydrogen atoms.  Poking fun at them is
useless.  Please explain to me, Steven, in physical terms, why n = 1 is the
lowest quantum number.  References to the solution of the Schrodinger
equation for the hydrogen atom are insufficient.  More fundamentally,
explain to me why the electron doesn't fall into the nucleus.  Explanations
such as "that's just the way it is" are rejected ahead of time.  These are
*not* explanations.  Ditto for why the electron of a hydrogen atom doesn't
radiate.
 
>Need I say more?
>
>Have fun,
>--Steven Jones
>
>P.s.  -- This is the same Mills who recently testified regarding his "cf"
>work before a U.S. House of Representative subcommittee, which is
>considering fusion funding.  [Reported on this net by Gene Mallove
>recently.]
>Are we in trouble or what?
 
Yes, Steven, you are in trouble.  You are stuck with a theory that says
that small particles obey different rules than larger ones, with *magic
numbers*, with *intrinsic* spin, with virtual particles filling all space,
with quantum numbers falling out of differential equations, with
unexplainable dualities, particles jumping around from their own free will,
with high-temperature superconductors, with nuclear-sized heat coming from
a process where no nuclear ash is observed, and with a universe that is not
only governed by probability but defies rationality.  Maxwell's equations
were based on thousands of observations over many years.  Einstein's
special theory of relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations.  And
Einstein's general theory of relativity was based on observations of
falling objects and the realization that acceleration and a gravitational
field are equivalent.  Since then, however, Schrodinger and the
"Copenhagen" view of quantum mechanics have disconnected "cause" from
"effect" and subjugated the real world to the world of mathematics.  The
"high-priests" of mathematics claim that they alone can understand the
universe and how it operates.  Well, some of us understand the mathematics
and we disagree.  We maintain that Schrodinger and Heisenberg were wrong
and we intend to prove it experimentally.  We presume that there is a
correspondence between cause and effect.  We prefer to let physical
observations rule.  The dominance of the "Copenhagen" view is about to end.
 Rationality and science are about to regain their rightful place.  I can
fully understand why you doubt these words.  Schrodinger's quantum
mechanics has been both very useful and very successful.  But, if I were
you, Steven, I would tread carefully.  These are going to be treacherous
times for the standard bearers of Schrodinger's quantum mechanics.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Some Answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some Answers
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 17:53:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7p2Dr.ApA@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In a series of serious responses to this topic:
>
>  In Message-ID: <1993May27.052143.7393@coplex.coplex.com>
>  Subject: Re: Some Answers
>Chuck Sites  (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
>
>== "Not if the cathode is hot enough to heat the thermistor by ambiant
>== heating of the empty cell.  Recall D. Morrison's cigarette lighter effect.
>== If I understand what Michell is saying, it's this type of mechanism
>== that might explain the continuance of a heating effect after the
>== boil off mark."
>
>   Thanks for the comments, Chuck.   The mechanism of de novo heavy
>water might explain the  maintenance at a temperature near 100C.
>Two other sources of such are discussed below.
>
>  However, the exiting deuterons obviously MUST decrease the
>intraelectrode concentration.  Therefore, because cold fusion is not
> the recombination effect the following may be true.
>
>  Although the recombination may provide a low-level heating, it must
>deplete the intraelectrode concentration and therefore the process may
>explain the "discontinuance" of whatever anomalous process(es) occur.
 
     The temperature remains nearly *constant* at 100C for three *hours*.
 
     Nothing prevents the cathode from getting very hot, no matter what
     is coming out of it (indeed it's getting hot *because* something is
     coming out of it) and nothing prevents evaporant from escaping the
     cell.  So we are left with explaining the delicate balance that keeps
     the thermister at 100C for three hours.  The cell is still very hot,
     and is so prone to rather rapid evaporation, and the cell contains
     far less than 2.5 mol of water no matter what the definition of
     'dry' is.  The best 'explanation' that I've yet heard is that there is
     a mistake in where the cell goes dry in the graph (but of course that
     option would make the discussion in the paper blatant dissembling).
 
     Of course, it would be helpful if P&F had given us a good indication of
     the size of the connection to the 'outside'.
 
     Alas, as with writing papers, providing experimental details does
     not seem to be their forte.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  What good is water...
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What good is water...
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 23:36:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is a reply to Chuck Harrison, Mitchell Swartz, Mike Jamison, Carl Ijames,
and all the rest who do not yet appreciate the astounding implications of the
10,000 second period of constant temperature following boiling dry of the cell
in the P&F Physics Letters A Paper.
 
First, the common sense stuff.  P&F say "the cell becomes dry" (p-126).  They
do not say damp, or humid, they do not say the cathode becomes uncovered, they
say "dry".  Everything in the paper implies that they mean dry.  They use the
entire 2.5 mole half content of the cell in the computation (p-128).  There is
no correction for liquid left in the cell.  The caption of figure 11 says
"Cell dry".  The caption of figure 10 says "Cell dry", and "Cell remains hot".
No doubt that they mean that all the liquid has boiled out of the cell.  If
not then their power computation is wrong and their heat claim is meaningless.
So they must mean "dry".  There is no percolator, there is no film, there is
no still, it is "dry".  It better be dry.  The cathode is busy melting the
Kel-F base, and any water vapor in the cell would quickly cool it off.  Hot
water vapor is a pretty good thermal conductor.  Remember, everything is in a
Dewar.  This does not explain how the cathode melts the Kel-F without the
thermistor noticing it.  A neat trick, but I did not promise that common sense
would explain the paper.
 
So much for that!
 
Now the astounding part.  From the computation on page 128 we can compute the
value of k'R*[tcell^4-tbath^4].  It is 11 watts at the indicated 374.5 k.
Changing the temperature 1 C either side of the indicated value changes the
power only about 2% either way.  This would appear to cover the range of
figure 11  between the cell dry mark and the sudden cool down.
 
What k'R*[tcell^4-tbath^4]=11 watts means is that the cell is losing heat at
an 11 +/- 0.2 watt rate as long as it is at 100 +/- 1 C.  At this point there
is not much in the cell.  The inner glass wall, a small piece of Kel-F, some
glass support rods, a little Pt, and the Pd.  I give the whole mess a 10 gram
water equivalent.  I am open to debate on this estimate, but it matches pretty
closely the curvature of the cool down part of figure 11.
 
In any case, if we are to believe the P&F calibration and all that flute
music that supports it, as long as the cell is at 100 C it is losing 11 joules
a second.  This continues for 10,000 seconds.  At this rate of heat loss, the
specific heat of the cell materials would be exhausted in 5 minutes. (But note
that this is not a possible mechanism as the heat transfer drops with the
temperature difference.)
 
Now P&F would have us believe that there is some mysterious source of heat
that keeps the cell at 100 C.  Such a source must supply exactly 11 watts,
else the cell temperature would change.  Note that it does no good at all to
postulate some water in the cell and a circulation to keep the thermometer at
constant temperature.  Such a system must cool down if we are taking heat from
it.  Note even if it is full of water (it is said to be dry), the cell would
drop a degree C every 37 seconds from the 11 watt radiation loss.  There is
nothing in the cell with a higher specific heat than water. (Is there
practical material with a higher specific heat?)
 
The only way such a system can hold constant temperature of 100 C is if it
contains water and more heat is being put into the system than is being
removed by the radiation, or if some mysterious heat input exactly matches the
heat lost from radiation.  The excess heat would then vaporize liquid which
would be lost from the vent, and the cell would stay at constant temperature.
But P&F have told us that this process has ended, and yet the balance of heat
continues to great precision (1 in 20,000 or so) for 10,000 seconds.  So the
second explanation is required.
 
In summary, the curve of figure 10 not only requires a mysterious source of
heat, but one that switches from 144 watts to 11 watts just as the cell runs
dry, without the slightest transient, then matches the cell radiation losses
exactly to one part in 20,000 for three hours.  I still call this a
$$$miracle$$$.
 
It looks to me that P&F have misplaced their "cell dry" label and there was
really 10,000 seconds between half full and dry.  In this case the power
computation is wrong, and there is no "anomalous heat".  Possibly they got
their VCR straight from Japan, and it is still set to 50 cycles or something.
Who knows, with all that spacing backwards and forwards, they could have pushed
the wrong button.
 
An old poem that my grandfather taught me:
 
What good is water when you'r dry, dry, dry?
When the temperature of your thirst is high, high, high!
Now water's all right in the washtub or bath,
But water for drinking - now don't make me laugh!
What good is water when you'r dry, dry, dry!
 
Seems to me that P&F understand the message in the above poem.  You can have
lots of water and still be dry!  After all, they are said to have thought all
this up drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels.  Perhaps they are still drinking
it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / John Moore /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 15:03:44 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
]Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) in FD 1066:
 
]>Note to Terry Bollinger:  We actually see the Fourier transform of what we
]>look at.  Note that the focal point of the eye is (supposed to be) at the
]>retina.  Seems that nature realizes we are better off looking at Fourier
]>transforms than at images - better for edge detection, seeing movement (from
]>hungry nasty predators about to eat us).
 
]>We just think we see actual images...
 
]Do you have any support for this? I remember reading this a couple of years
]ago in New Scientist, and it still seems like somebody's favorite but
]nonsensical theory. We get actual images, i.e. 2-D projections of the 3-D
]world, on our retina. Where is the image Fourier-transformed? Do we have an
]on-line SFFT module in the brain (SFFT: Super-Fast...)? In any case, these
]images do not have much periodicity anyway, so nothing would be gained by going
]into frequency space. I think this metaphor is overstretched.
 
This is really a bit silly, but here goes. The Fourier-transformer is
the lense of the eye. A lense at focus transforms "angle-space" into
"amplitude-space."
 
Not having seen the previous message, I haven't a clue what this has to do
with cold fusion!
 
 
--
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! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Robert Eachus /  Re: A problem from the real world
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A problem from the real world
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 23:21:13 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2873@tekgen.bv.tek.com> arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
   > One might try accoustic time domain reflectometry, using a transducer
   > in the hundred megaHertz range.  The .125 mil inner tin coating is
   > about 1/8 of a wavelength at this frequency, so you should be able to
   > see it.
 
   A good idea but probably a little esoteric for assembly line type
processing.   How about the following:
 
   Find the (acoustic) resonant frequency of can lids (or bottoms)
with and without the inner metal.  Pass cans under a speaker with a
tone at the correct frequency and detect which ones resonate with a
laser beam.  If the number of cans is large, this could be automated
at rates of several thousand cans/hour.
 
   Proper processing would probably require that the can lids be dry
inside, which would probably require storage a slight incline for
several hours...  (An alternative would be to insure that they were
uniformly wet.  But that seems tricky, as does trying to get a
characteristic behavior with pieces of fruit in contact with the lid.)
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reply to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Steven Jones
Date: 27 May 93 22:09:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
<stuff about some classicaloid atomic theory that I can't comprehend
 at all>
 
:
: Yes, Steven, you are in trouble.  You are stuck with a theory that says
: that small particles obey different rules than larger ones, with *magic
: numbers*, with *intrinsic* spin, with virtual particles filling all space,
: with quantum numbers falling out of differential equations, with
: unexplainable dualities, particles jumping around from their own free will,
 
free will? where did that come into anything?
 
: with high-temperature superconductors, with nuclear-sized heat coming from
: a process where no nuclear ash is observed, and with a universe that is not
: only governed by probability but defies rationality.
 
Unfortunately this theory also predicts in *quantitative detail* the
photoelectric effect, very accurate fine and hyperfine spectroscopic
transitions (how is angular momentum explained with orbitspheres?),
chemistry, nuclear reactions, heat capacities of solids, and (let's be
exotic here) the quantum Hall effect.
 
Strange things like tunneling have been observed experimentally.  Now,
this effect is used as an experimental tool (scanning tunneling microscope)
which apparently can measure atomic charge densities in materials, which
happen to correspond to solutions of the Schroedinger equation.
 
Sorry to upset you, but electrons gotta have intrinsic "spin" or something
like that because they precess in a magnetic field and you can measure
this.
 
And how did the Schroedinger equation come about?  Because electrons were
*experimentally* observed to behave like waves (electron diffraction), and
thus Schroedinger thought "if there's a wave, then what's the wave
equation?".
 
These experiments were before '28 or whenever Schroedinger & Heisenberg
did their stuff.
 
: Maxwell's equations
: were based on thousands of observations over many years.
 
As was quantum mechanics, believe it or not.
 
You have to demonstrate that your theory ALSO reproduces these well
verified experimental results in the same conditions.
 
  Einstein's
: special theory of relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations.  And
: Einstein's general theory of relativity was based on observations of
: falling objects and the realization that acceleration and a gravitational
: field are equivalent.
 
GR had the least experimental input of any modern
theory.  (As such it's quite unique)
 
:  Since then, however, Schrodinger and the
: "Copenhagen" view of quantum mechanics have disconnected "cause" from
: "effect" and subjugated the real world to the world of mathematics.  The
: "high-priests" of mathematics claim that they alone can understand the
: universe and how it operates.  Well, some of us understand the mathematics
: and we disagree.
 
Huh? cause and effect?  Who ordered that?
 
: We maintain that Schrodinger and Heisenberg were wrong
: and we intend to prove it experimentally.
 
OK.  But remember, you have to somehow explain all the classical
_experimental_ results that originally led to the development of quantum
mechanics.  If you can in fact do that, then this theory
might be taken seriously.
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / mitchell swartz /  What good is water...
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What good is water...
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 02:52:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <930527182226.2060066a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
    Subject: What good is water...
  Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) wrote:
 
== "The only way such a system can hold constant temperature of 100 C is if it
== contains water and more heat is being put into the system than is being
== removed by the radiation, or if some mysterious heat input exactly
== matches the heat lost from radiation.  ..."
 
   Tom, the presence of some melting ice in a glass of water
(at its triple point 0C) does not require a "phenomenal control" system
for the maintenance of that temperature.
 
   [if it was similarly reported, would a "skeptic" claim that it was
impossible for the (iced-)teacup to exactly balance the radiative, conductive
evaporative and other losses, including mass transfer (eg. possible spill)
so as to keep the temperature at 0C?     ;)
 
                               Best wishes.
                                              Mitchell
 
    P.S.   "Water is best" [Bath, England]
 
                                      Lucky it floats!!
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 02:40:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <C7os25.5My@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>In article <1993May26.203417.8865@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>Only Lewenstein [...] shallow analysis (done obviously in a quest for
>>a government paycheck) [...]
>
>In defense of Bruce, his OTA grant for this study consisted of one (1) file
>cabinet.  I hardly think he would have sold his soul for that...
>
I find it rather distasteful that any defense of Lowenstein should
be necessary. Such studies as he made are, and always will be, primarly
opinions. As was pointed out, the amount of e-mail generated by postings
is liable to be several times the postings. Furthermore, these private
conversations are liklely to be more technical in nature since they are
less likely to lead to being criticized by the entire reading public.
 
I think the name calling and attacks were completely uncalled for.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Congratulations to Jones & Co.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Congratulations to Jones & Co.
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 02:57:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930527122619.2060066a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>To Thomas Kunich, the ev per atom arguments are valid.  But both the "anomalous
>heat" and it's error must be integrated over time to test for significance.
 
Oh, I am quite aware of that. It is only that these experiments have been
very complicated as has been pointed out by practically everyone including
yourself. When you have these complicated setups and then leave them open
to air I don't believe you can easily spot error sources.
 
In this case, external oxygen is part of the 'excess' heat and that wasn't
taken into account in people's claim to the moles available
for reaction.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What good is water...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What good is water...
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 03:20:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7punp.LH9@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <930527182226.2060066a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
>    Subject: What good is water...
>  Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) wrote:
>
>== "The only way such a system can hold constant temperature of 100 C is if it
>== contains water and more heat is being put into the system than is being
>== removed by the radiation, or if some mysterious heat input exactly
>== matches the heat lost from radiation.  ..."
>
>   Tom, the presence of some melting ice in a glass of water
>(at its triple point 0C) does not require a "phenomenal control" system
>for the maintenance of that temperature.
 
     'Dry', the word is 'dry'. Any 'new water' is being formed
     by an exothermic process at whatever high temperature the
     at which the cathode equilibrates.  The cell is also connected with
     'outside'.  Evaporation occurs quite readily at 100C.
 
     You're going to have to do flips to convince anyone that the
     cell remains at 100C for *three hours* by a recombination
     process that's exothermic anyway when the system heating is
     presumably driven by exothermic exhaust of deuterium from the lattice.
     I'm with Tom, this is a miracle.
 
     What are you going to say when the standard explanation of this
     becomes 'The dry cell reading in Figure 11 is off by three hours'?
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 /  blue@dancer.ns /  The 100 C miracle
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The 100 C miracle
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 12:41:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege is absolutely correct!  There is no way the cell temperature
can self regulate to 100 C for an extended period after all or substantially
all of the water has left the cell.  In fact I have some doubt about the
significance of any temperature readings taken after the thermistor is no
longer immersed in water.  Then we have the assertion that at some point
a piece of Kel-F gets melted, i.e. exceeds 300 C.  What ever the source of
the heat for that process, what sustains the 200 C temperature difference
between point A and point B in a dewar flask?  My first assumption would be
that following the boiloff of most of the water, and a rise in the temperature
of the cathode, there will be a significant amount of convection and rather
turbulant conditions within the cell.  This could include some "pumping"
action as the cathode temperature rises when oxygen is available for burning
and falls as oxygen is depleted.  I don't think the facts as reported
are consistant with a sustained period of constant temperature.  Hence, my
conclusion must be that either the facts have not been correctly reported
or the temperature reading is false.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 12:41:43 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / BERNECKY R /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 12:52:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I find the following discussion on the quantum effects of superfluid
helium interesting.  My question is, can anyone on the net show that
H or D+ (or D- ?) in a transition metal will, under the proper circumstances
(TBD), become a "Bose-Einstein condensation" ?
 
from "Quantics, Rudiments of Quantum Physics", by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and Francoise Balibar, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 1990
 
Page 475
...the probability for obtaining a system of N bosons, all in the same
individual state, is N! times larger than the analogous probability for
N distinct quantons.  Thus, collective states in which all the bosons are
in the same individual state are overwhelmingly preferred: bosons 'like'
being identical. While fermions display a stubborn aloofness - true lonely
wolves - bosons exhibit a herd mentality, like the Panurgean sheep in
Rabelais.  Conversely, the probability that a system of bosons, thus
occupying identical individual states, would undergo a transition, in
which *one* of them changes states, is relatively much smaller than in
the case of distinct quantons (or in the case of fermions).  Bosonic
systems display a very strong coherence.  It is difficult to change
their state.
 
Superfluidity and quantum fluids
 
It is the coherence arising from the bosonic factorial which explains the
superfluidity of liquid helium - more precisely helium-4. This is a highly
special state of a fluid, reached at a temperature lower than about 2K, in
which the liquid no longer displays *any* viscosity.  This brings about a
horde of effects, such as the tendency of superfluid helium to come out,
all by itself, of the container holding it, creeping over container walls
by capillarity, with no friction holding it back, and other, even stranger,
thermomechanical properties.  Superfluidity is a perfect example of the
kind of rigidity which exists in a bosonic system, which is what helium-4
atoms really are.  They can only move all together.  Thus flowing liquid
helium cannot lose its energy bit by bit, like an ordinary viscous liquid,
in which interactions with the walls slow down the individual atoms and
diminish the kinetic energy of the entire fluid.  But how is it that
superfluidity shows up only at low temperatures?  The gregarious nature
of bosons, characterized by the bosonic factorial, becomes evident only
when the collective state consists of a large number of identical individual
states.  This is the case at zero temperature, where by definition the
system is in its ground state.  For mutually non-interacting bosons, this
state is obtained using N states, each one of which is identical to the
ground state, i.e. using N individual stationary states of minimum energy.
Indeed, as soon as the temperature of the system falls below a certain critical
temperature T_b, there is, among the N individual states making up the
collective state, a significant proportion of states whch are just the
(individual) ground state.
 
This phenomenon, of a macroscopic occupation of the individual state of
minimum energy, is called "Bose-Einstein condensation." Thus, a veritable
phase transition takes place below a critical temperature, which is low
enough so that almost none of the individual states appearing in the
collective state is an excited state with an energy higher than that of
the ground state.  This notion can be more explicitly stated, one again,
with the help of the Heisenberg inequalities.  In the helium fluid, having
density mu, each atom of mass m occupies an average volume
              V= m/mu                                      (7.5.14)
and may be thought of as being confined (unlike in the case of a perfect
gas) to a region having linear dimensions a, such that
             V ~ a^3                                       (7.5.15)
Now, a quanton constrained to occupy a finite spatial volume undergoes a
quantization of its energy levels.  The ground state possesses an
average kinetic energy
            e_0 = rho_ave^2/(2m)                           (7.5.16)
where rho_ave is the average momentum, related to the dimension a of the
confinement region, through the saturated Heisenberg inequality
           rho_ave*a = h     [h is Planck's constant]      (7.5.17)
This value of the energy, namely,
          e_0 = h^2/(2ma^2) = {h^2*mu^(2/3)}/2m^(5/3)      (7.5.18)
also gives the scale of energies of the various excited states of
the quanton, and in particular, the difference between the ground
states and the first excited state.  To make sure that not too many of
the occupied states are excited, it is necessary that the average
thermal energy kT, where T is the temperature, be lower than e_0/k.
We could also say that, roughly e_0 gives the temperature T_b, below
which bosonic effects appear.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Corrected equations
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrected equations
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 14:49:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In my previous post, FD 1070, equations (1) and (2) were incorrect.  The
corrected equations are:
 
For both matter and light
 
v = (wavelength) f                          (1)
where v = velocity,  f = frequency
 
or
 
v = (wavelength) (omega/2 pi)  =  ((wavelength)/2 pi)  (omega)               (2)
where omega = angular frequency
 
My apologies for any inconvenience.  I believe the rest of the equations
are OK, although I must admit I have some trouble with this medium.
 
John Farrell
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Rogier Wolff /  Re: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
     
Originally-From: wolff@liberator.et.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 13:47:42 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

todd spindler (spindler@fritillary.rsmas.miami.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993May25.234841.12148@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
: Perhaps he was referring to the Laplace Transform, which is used to solve ordinary
: differential equations.  Fourier Transforms are commonly used for time series spectral
: analysis, where the time series is mapped into frequency space and vice versa.
 
Laplace and Fourier transforms are equivalent. Take the Laplace transform
of  any function you like, and fill in "i (root -1) * omega (frequency)"
for the parameter. This gives you the fourier transform.
 
 
                                        Roger.
--
-- CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC -  Just
****   a 486 in V86 mode is like a VW buggy with a 6 liter V12 motor.  ****
EMail:  wolff@duteca.et.tudelft.nl   ** Tel  +31-15-783643 or +31-15-142371
-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ - testing
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenwolff cudfnRogier cudlnWolff cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Momentum space / Fourier transforms
Date: 28 May 93 17:21:56 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993May28.134742.5061@donau.et.tudelft.nl> wolff@liberator.e
.tudelft.nl (Rogier Wolff) writes:
.........
>
>Laplace and Fourier transforms are equivalent. Take the Laplace transform
>of  any function you like, and fill in "i (root -1) * omega (frequency)"
>for the parameter. This gives you the fourier transform.
 
 
Almost, but not quite.
 
For purposes of convergence, the integral that defines the Laplace
transform assumes a complex frequency, so that the exponential has a
non-vanishing real component in its exponent.  This defines transforms
that are undefined fof the Fourier transform.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Y Rafaelevich /  Cooperation with Russian Science Vacuum Society
     
Originally-From: renat@foet.isrir.msk.su (Yusupov Renat Rafaelevich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cooperation with Russian Science Vacuum Society
Date: Fri, 28 May 93 07:42:10 +0300
Organization: Russia State Research Institute for Information Systems

                COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA IN THE FIELD
            OF VACUUM SCIENCE, TECHNIQUE AND TECHNOLOGY.
 
        In 1992  scientists  and  specialists worked in  the field  of
vacuum technique founded Russian Science Vacuum Society.
        In  foundation  of  this  Society  took  part  leading  vacuum
technique and technology centers of Russia. There are:
 - "VACUUMMASHPRIBOR"  in   Moscow,  "VACUUMMASH"  in  Kazan,  Science
   Research   Technology   Institute    in   Riazan,   Institute    of
   ThermoPhysics in Novosibirsk and other;
 - high   education  institutes:   Moscow  State  University,   Moscow
   Institute of  Electronics and  Mathematics, Moscow  State Technique
   University, Sankt - Petersburg State Technique University,  Saratov
   PolyTechnique Institute and other.
        General  aims  and  direct  of  Russian  Vacuum  Society  are:
underline  perspective  phenomenons,  development  of  fundamental and
applied   researches,   distribution   of   science   and    technique
achievments,  creation of  studying  and  education programms, science
seminars and conferences.
        We  are  greatly  interested  in  establishment  contacts with
specialists and scientists from other countries.
        We concerned  this creative  work as  extremely important  not
only  for   development  of   vacuum  technique,   but  in   work  for
consolidation mutual understunding  and creative activity  cooperation
beetwen our countries.
        If You are interested  in our message we  will be glad to  get
You answer. We hope to begin and widening the dialog.
 
        Sincerely Yours.
 
        Chairman of Council of Russian Vacuum Society,
        doctor of science, professor,
        rector of Moscow Institute of Electronics and Mathematics
        Dimitry V. Bikov
 
        Addressee: Russia,  109028, Moscow, Bolshoi Vuzovsky pereulok,
                   dom  3/12,  Moscow  Institute  of  Electronics  and
                   Mathematics.
        Phone:  (095) 297-9089.
        Fax:    (095) 227-2807.
        E-mail: renat@foet.isrir.msk.su
        or:     onims@miem.msk.su
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrenat cudfnYusupov cudlnRafaelevich cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / William Johnson /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 20:59:39 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Joe Chew (JTCHEW@lbl.gov) writes:
>Since they seem to be sitting quietly in the corner going
>"Aw, shucks" at the moment, let me point out that Bill Johnson
>and Scott Hazen Mueller had an invited paper on this subject
>in Proc. 1992 IEEE Professional Communication Conf.
 
<Preen, preen...>  And let *me* point out that we were invited by one Joe
Chew, alias JTCHEW@lbl.gov, who was on the program committee.  I take the
liberty of reproducing the abstract of this paper:
        "We examine the interplay between electronic news systems and
        events in the controversial 'cold fusion' research during the
        period 1989-1992.  The Usenet system of bulletin-board-like
        communication is taken as a case study of how the interactions
        proceeded.  Statistics on the use of the Usenet newsgroup
        sci.physics.fusion, formed in response to cold fusion, are
        presented, as are [sic -- MWJ] demographic information on the
        use of sci.physics.fusion by authors and readers.  It appears
        that the newsgroup itself has had limited, though non-zero,
        value to cold-fusion researchers, but that researchers have
        learned of each other's activities through Usenet in some cases,
        and then interacted with each other via electronic mail.  The
        sci.physics.fusion group has been more effective as an
        information source for the lay reader."
-- all of which, IMNSHO, is completely consistent with Bruce Lewenstein's
findings as well.  Please note that I came at this from a perspective
somewhat different from Bruce's: for most of the period when I was
accumulating data on s.p.f, I *was* a cold-fusion researcher, only giving
it up when I became convinced that the last high-quality positive result
had been clearly refuted and therefore that the whole thing is a crock of
excrement.  If I reached the same conclusions as Bruce, they came from a
different starting position -- not that Bruce needs any defense from the
silly flamage that the report on his work attracted.
 
>My $0.02 on the subject is that, although the jury is still
>out, netnews seems to be more significant as an electronic
>water cooler for scientists than as a workspace.
 
With this I agree totally, except that for scientists, the water cooler
*is* a workspace; it is simply one where information is exchanged more
colloquially and collegially than in some other venues.  The question in
this case is whether the *excessively* colloquial -- dare I say "noisy" --
nature of the exchange deterred the working cold-fusion researcher from
getting involved in it.  I have a considerable body of (admittedly more or
less anecdotal) evidence suggesting that it did, not to mention the fact
that only a couple of researchers *are* still using it to report on their
results, again just as Lewenstein says.
 
--
Bill Johnson                    | "I can't stand this proliferation of
Los Alamos National Laboratory  | paperwork.  It's useless to fight the forms.
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA      | You've got to kill the people producing
(mwj@lanl.gov)                  | them." (V. Kabaidze)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / mitchell swartz /  Re: what good is water...
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: what good is water...
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 00:34:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <C7pvyH.1u9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Subject: Re: What good is water...
 Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
 
==db   "'Dry', the word is 'dry'. Any 'new water' is being formed
==db   by an exothermic process at whatever high temperature the
==db   at which the cathode equilibrates."
 
      Water is simply not 'dry'.  Several posters have mentioned
ways in which the cell could be void of solvent coupling the electrodes
in an electrochemical circuit, but where moisture could have a role.
 
 
==db "Evaporation occurs quite readily at 100C."
 
   The heat of heavy water vaporization at this temperature remains
 quite substantial, hundreds of times more calories per gram
 then to raise the temperature a single degree
                       -- and therefore quite significant.
   Not "readily" at all.
 
==db   "You're going to have to do flips to convince anyone that the
==db   cell remains at 100C for *three hours* by a recombination
==db   process that's exothermic anyway when the system heating is
==db  presumably driven by exothermic exhaust of deuterium from the lattice."
 
  Both the article did show, and yourself did state, that the temperature
was reported to rise slightly with time.  It does appear that the temperature
did remain near 100C but not "at" 100C.
                                          Best wishes.    Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / mitchell swartz /  The  100 C miracle
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The  100 C miracle
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 00:36:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In message-ID: <9305281222.AA20080@suntan.Tandem.com>
 Subject: "The 100 C miracle", Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu)
    wrote:
 
=db "Tom Droege is absolutely correct!  There is no way the cell temperature
=db can self regulate to 100 C for an extended period after all or substantially
=db all of the water has left the cell."
 
   Tom has indicated to me that he, too, finds long term burning of
deuterium as it exits from the loaded cathodes many  many hours
after electrochemical experiments. This burning reaction makes de novo
heavy water, does it not?
 
   This simple feature has been reported for all palladium electrodes
     --- even those which are inactive with respect to reported
                                          cold fusion processes.
 
=db   "Then we have the assertion that at some point
=db a piece of Kel-F gets melted, i.e. exceeds 300 C.  What ever the source of
=db the heat for that process, what sustains the 200 C temperature difference
=db between point A and point B in a dewar flask?"
 
     Was the temperature elevated either at a "point" or "sustained"?
     Would it matter to a "true-blue"-skeptic?  ....
 
 
=db  "Hence, my conclusion must be that either the facts have not been
=db  correctly reported or the temperature reading is false."
 
    Apparently, it would not matter, after all.      ;)
 
                                       Best wishes.
 
                                                    Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / Chuck Harrison /  Re:  Momentum space / Fourier transforms
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Momentum space / Fourier transforms
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 01:52:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry seeks a philosophically satisfying answer to the question, "which is more
basic, conventional space or momentum space?"
 
You may want to look into Wigner-Ville distributions.  I am working from faint
memory traces on this, but I recall it provided a way to look at conventional
space and momentum (or transform??) space as two ways of _projecting_ an
underlying "reality", which is in a space of higher dimensionality.
 
You also may want to check out wavelet transforms.  Your point of view doesn't
have to be _all_ space or _all_ momentum, it seems.  The wavelet transforms
accommodate mixed space and momentum localization.
 
I don't pretend to understand this stuff; just tossing some straws to the wind.
 
  -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: What good is water...
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What good is water...
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 01:52:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege states
> This is a reply to Chuck Harrison, Mitchell Swartz, ...
 
Tom probably meant Chuck Sites, but, heck, it's an excuse to get into the fray!
 
Tom lists two reasons to conclude that P&F believed there was absolutely no water
remaining in the cells at the "cell dry" point:
 (1) they say the word "dry" many times
 (2) on p. 128 they use 2.5 mol as the "last half" of the cell contents.
I find (1) equally consistent with a casual usage in which "dry" means one of
the alternative interpretations Tom rejects.  I found no place in the Phys Let A
article or in the (somewhat more complete) conference paper where F&P emphasised
_complete_ dryness or absence of moisture.  As far as (2) goes, it's a non-point.
F&P treat p.128 as an approximate analysis, and explicitly use the "approximately
equal" symbol with the 2.5 mol figure.
 
It is unlikely that F&P's results are either miracles or outright lies.  If we
recognize that the components of the cell are no longer anywhere near isothermal
after the electrolyte leaves, some plausible scenarios arise.
 
Suppose (speaking intentionally vaguely here) some exothermic process continues
in the bottom of the cell after the electrolysis circuit opens due to loss of
fluid.  This could continue to boil water until the level goes down to the Kel-F
support plug.  After that, residual water under the support can only be vaporized
by heat passing _through_ the Kel-F by conduction.  The melting indicates that
one side of the plug got plenty hot, but due to the low thermal conductivity of
the plastic, the water need not all have vaporized immediately.  Instead, I
expect it evaporated slowly, creating a saturated D2O atmosphere in the cell.
Water vapor then condenses on anything with a heat path to ambient, including the
thermistor.
 
> Note that it does no good at all to postulate some water in the cell and a
> circulation to keep the thermometer at constant temperature.  Such a system
> must cool down if we are taking heat from it.
 
On the contrary, such a system ("percolator", "reflux condenser", "heat pipe")
actually does a very nice job of tansferring a variable amount of heat while
holding a constant temperature.
 
So, to me, the mystery is how the heat source got into such good contact with
the Kel-F that the spacer plug melted.  Once there's a hot slug of Pd sitting on
the Kel-F plug, with a few mL of water below it, I think the fig. 11 temperature
profile is quite plausible.  Did the Pd fall off the end of the wire?
 
 - Chuck H.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / Chuck Harrison /  Wet & Dry steam - experiment
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wet & Dry steam - experiment
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 01:52:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, folks, I was holding my breath for John Logajan to do this, but he let me
down ;-).
 
There has been conjecture that F&P's "boiling cell" calorimetry is fatally flawed
because they assume that the steam leaving the cell is "dry".
 
For a skeptic to explain all the reported excess by this means, the steam would
have to be more than 75% liquid.  I figured this conjecture was accessible to
home basement testing.
 
I created localized boiling in a 26-oz mason jar with a 50-ohm power resistor.
The resistor, 3/8-in square by 2-in long, was totally submerged in 20 fl oz of
tap water.  It dissipated 100W, eventually reaching a vigorous localized
"rolling boil".  Steam passed as "...a continuous, smooth flow of vapor through
a vent in the top of the cell" (-F&P Phys Let A 176:1 p126 footnote).  I could
very faintly see the vapor jet as it emerged from the 1/4-in tube vent into a
19.3C ambient.
 
I then passed the steam thru a 6-in plastic tube to a styrofoam cup containing
66gm of water at ambient temperature.  Over the next 3-1/2 minutes, 3.76gm of
steam condensed in the cup, raising the temperature to 48.1C.  My computation
indicates about 15% wet: the steam carried 460 cal/gm of heat, compared to 540
cal/gm for "dry" steam (pure vapor).  Accuracy is probably 10% or so.
 
This doesn't prove too much.  I say probably F&P are unjustified in completely
ignoring this factor.  However, unless there's something in their cells which
dramatically pre-condenses the steam, it's not a big enough error to wipe out
their excess heat claim.
 
Cheers - Chuck H.
 
P.S. -- (For boy scientists like me)  To put a hermetic electrical feedthru
into a metal mason jar lid:
  1. Get a cheap TO-3 power transistor (e.g. 2N3055) from Radio Shack
  2. Saw the top off the transistor with a hacksaw
  3. Heat it up with a Propane torch and tin the bottom with solder
  4. Prepare jar lid with a hole; tin surface with solder
  5. Solder the TO-3 to the lid.
 -CH
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Mostly on shrunken hydrogen atoms
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mostly on shrunken hydrogen atoms
Date: 28 May 93 17:20:52 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
1.  Thanks for the many comments on the receding-tin-in-cans problem,
both on the net and privately.  We're working on this and I'll let everyone
know how this turns out.
 
2.  Jonathon Jones, who posted a summary of the work here on light water-
nickel cathode cells, is a BYU student who is no relation to me as some
might have thought.  I agree with Tom Droege and Tom Kunich and others that
Jonathon (working with others including myself to a small degree) is
doing a fine job  sorting out issues in these cells and claims
of anomalous xs heat from them.  The work is not yet finished.  Jonathon
is pursuing an idea of his that the cells under certain conditions act like
fuel cells, so that re-combination of H2 and O2 changes the voltage and
current parameters in non-trivial ways.  Ignoring these effects could in turn
exacerbate erroneous xs heat
claims the way published experimenters in the fields calculate xs heat.
Tom:  I think the best control is the cell in which recombination is inhibited,
as described by Jonathon.
 
3.  We have started a dialogue here regarding the Farrell & Mills (F&M refers
to their names in my earlier posting, not to Dr. Farrell's institution)
theory of sub-ground states in hydrogen atoms.  I realize I
may have sounded too snide in my first posting on the subject, (sorry)
and will here try to patiently address issues raised by Dr. Farrell.
 
Essentially, the F&M theory sees electrons moving in hydrogen atoms as
*particles* rather as *waves* -- this is the crucial weakness of the theory.
Hence, Dr. Mills in his report to a congressional committee on fusion on
May 5, 1993 stated:   [I'm quoting from Mallove's posting of this report,
posted May 13, 1993]
"Some cells can produce 10 times more heat power than the electrical power
input to the cell. "
[Note that Jonathon has seen 7 times more xs power than I*V, using the
Mallove formula for calculating xs power -- and he finds H2+O2 recombination
to be the source, as he explained in his posting. ]
 
"The source of excess energy is NOT from fusion or other nuclear reactions."
[Emphasis his.  On this statement, we are definitely agreed.]
[Here comes the theory:]
"Energy is released in a catalytic process whereby the electron of the hydrogen
atom is induced to undergo a transiton to a lower electronic energy level than
the 'ground state' as defined by the usual model of the atom.  The lower energy
states of hydrogen have been identified in nature."
 
Well, I doubt it, because the ground state of the hydrogen atom (as succintly
explained by Gary Collins here some weeks ago) is a MINIMUM energy state.
 
In his response to me of 27 May, Dr. Farrell states:
"We are content to let the experimental data prove or disprove the existence of
these "shrunken" hydrogen atoms.  Poking fun at them is useless.  Please
explain to me, Steven, in physical terms, why n=1 is the lowest quantum number.
References to the solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom
are insufficient.  More fundamentally, explain to me why the electron doesn't
fall into the nucleus."
[Note the classical particle picture again here in Dr. Farrell's statement.]
 
The reason is straightforward:  moving electrons (specifically in hydrogen
atoms) behave like *waves*.  This has been proven, as Matt Kennel tried also
to explain, in numerous experiments.  Moving electrons are diffracted and
show interference patterns just like other waves.  Allowing one electron at
a time to go through narrow slits still results in an interference pattern.
That's wave behavior, man.
 
Explain that in your *particle* picture.
 
The key notion in quantum mechanics (I prefer *wave mechanics*) is that all
matter shows wavelike behavior.  The 'uncertainty principle' which limits
fundamentally our ability to measure both position and momentum in the
microscopic regime , although often used only in conjunction with quantum
mechanics, in fact applies to any wavelike phenomenon.  Although the
mathematics is not terribly difficult, let me try to give a simple physical
picture:  the elecron moving in a hydrogen atom behaves like a standing wave
whose MINIMUM energy occurs in what we then call the ground (or n=1) state.
A wave (unlike like the particle picture) can only exist in motion.
 
Let's try two plots for energy in a hydrogen atom:
 
  Energy|
        |===========================Separation
        |                          +
        |                     +
        |                +
        |           +
        |         +
        |        +              classical picture, e.g., earth around sun
        |       +
        |      +
        |     +
             +
            etc.
 
      |  -
Energy|  -
      |==-============================Separation
      |    -                           -
      |     -                    -
      |     -               -
      |      -          -
      |        -      -
      |         -   -            wave picture, e.g., hydrogen atom
      |           -
      |
 
 
Because of *experimentally* verified wave behavior of matter on the microscopic
scale, there exists a MINIMUM or ground state of energy in the hydrogen atom.
The second plot is found to be the case for the hydrogen atom.
 
Look at this another way (as Gary Collins pointed out here some time ago):
for an electron to go "closer" to the proton ("shrunken" as you say) would
require INPUT of energy!   Hence, extraction of energy by "shrinking" hydrogen
atoms is absurd.  (Sorry.)
 
In more general terms, extracting energy from zero-point energy (Jed Rothwell
and others have suggested such a possibility) is impossible because of the
*wave* nature of matter.  There is a minumum energy -- we say "ground state"
or "zero point energy" for convenience -- associated with standing waves.
 
 
Now let me back up again and mention that I posit there is a weakness in the
way physics is taught on the beginning level which can easily lead to a
misunderstanding of the wave nature of microscopic matter.  We almost always
start out with particle motion -- Newtonian mechanics.  This picture is so
engrained in students that wave motion and its associated "uncertainty
principle" is completely mind-boggling and foreign, at least at first.
 
I have been teaching at BYU for eight years now, and starting next semester
we will require in the beginning course a discussion of wave behavior along
with the standard particle treatment.  Tunnelling and uncertainty relations
will be discussed.  We have selected a text that presents these ideas
unstintingly:  Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton.  I am not advertising this
text except to say that it treats waves well, and makes clear that fusion in
the sun and stars, e.g., would be *impossible* without wave-behavior
tunnelling.
 
Well, I hope this helps.  Study up on *wave* behavior, please, Dr. Farrell --
and I mean no offense by this.  A standing wave (n=1) does not "fall into the
nucleus" [your words] because it is in a *minimum* energy state.
 
Good luck,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / John Logajan /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Fri, 28 May 93 18:24:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>I find it rather distasteful that any defense of Lowenstein should
>be necessary. Such studies as he made are, and always will be, primarly
>opinions.
 
I have plenty of opinions.  How do I apply for government funding grants
to publish them?
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.28 / Pedro Freire /  looking for persons at Carnegie Mellon
     
Originally-From: pgf@hara.fct.unl.pt (Pedro Geraldes Freire)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: looking for persons at Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 16:03:05 GMT
Organization: Universidade Nova de Lisboa, PORTUGAL

 Can you help me?
 
 I'm trying to reach a couple of friends at Carnegie Mellon. They are a
couple (i.e. married) of Portuguese postgrad students. Her name is Ana
Barroso and his name is Joao Paulo Silva.
 If you know them, please send me their e-mail address or have them e-mail me.
 
 Thanks a lot.
 
 Pedro.
 
 
/--------------------------------\^/-------------------------------
Pedro Geraldes Freire             | BITNET/Internet: pgf@fct.unl.pt \
Projecto CIMTOFI                  |            UUCP: pgf@unl.uucp
UNINOVA - GRI - FCT/UNL           | Fax:   (+351) (1) 295 56 41/44 61
2825 Monte Caparica, PORTUGAL     | Phone: (+351) (1) 295 44 64 ext.1560
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpgf cudfnPedro cudlnFreire cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The  100 C miracle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The  100 C miracle
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 03:42:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7rJ1J.B36@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> In message-ID: <9305281222.AA20080@suntan.Tandem.com>
> Subject: "The 100 C miracle", Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu)
>    wrote:
>
>=db "Tom Droege is absolutely correct!  There is no way the cell temperature
>=db can self regulate to 100 C for an extended period after all or substantially
>=db all of the water has left the cell."
>
>   Tom has indicated to me that he, too, finds long term burning of
>deuterium as it exits from the loaded cathodes many  many hours
>after electrochemical experiments. This burning reaction makes de novo
>heavy water, does it not?
 
     It does not.  At 300C it makes new 'heavy vapour'.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What good is water...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What good is water...
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 03:48:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930529013348_73770.1337_EHA25-2@CompuServe.COM> 73770.1337@c
mpuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>
>So, to me, the mystery is how the heat source got into such good contact with
>the Kel-F that the spacer plug melted.  Once there's a hot slug of Pd sitting on
>the Kel-F plug, with a few mL of water below it, I think the fig. 11 temperature
>profile is quite plausible.  Did the Pd fall off the end of the wire?
 
    The support is apparently attached to the anode.  It would not
    surprise me if the anode got quite hot at some point.  This
    would save having to break off or melt some Pd.
 
    Of course, it would still be very sloppy to use the full 2.5 mol
    if there was substantial liquid still in the cell.
 
    I also still have great problems with any use of the thermister after
    the electrolyte boils down past.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: what good is water...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: what good is water...
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 03:39:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C7rIx2.Asu@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <C7pvyH.1u9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>   Subject: Re: What good is water...
> Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>==db   "'Dry', the word is 'dry'. Any 'new water' is being formed
>==db   by an exothermic process at whatever high temperature the
>==db   at which the cathode equilibrates."
>
>      Water is simply not 'dry'.  Several posters have mentioned
>ways in which the cell could be void of solvent coupling the electrodes
>in an electrochemical circuit, but where moisture could have a role.
 
     The cell was stated to have been 'dry'.
 
>==db "Evaporation occurs quite readily at 100C."
>
>   The heat of heavy water vaporization at this temperature remains
> quite substantial, hundreds of times more calories per gram
> then to raise the temperature a single degree
>                       -- and therefore quite significant.
>   Not "readily" at all.
 
     Evaporation occurs quite readily at 100C.  Especially of microgram
     quantities undergoing exothermic reactions.
 
>==db   "You're going to have to do flips to convince anyone that the
>==db   cell remains at 100C for *three hours* by a recombination
>==db   process that's exothermic anyway when the system heating is
>==db  presumably driven by exothermic exhaust of deuterium from the lattice."
>
>  Both the article did show, and yourself did state, that the temperature
>was reported to rise slightly with time.  It does appear that the temperature
>did remain near 100C but not "at" 100C.
 
     At 100C to within 2 sig figs.  This is splitting hairs Mitch baby.
 
     It's still a miracle.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Wet & Dry steam - experiment
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wet & Dry steam - experiment
Date: Sat, 29 May 93 04:53:32 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>Well, folks, I was holding my breath for John Logajan to do this, but he let me
>down ;-).
 
Sorry, work and other matters have distracted me from following in detail
the latest controversies here.
 
>P.S. -- (For boy scientists like me)  To put a hermetic electrical feedthru
>into a metal mason jar lid:
>  1. Get a cheap TO-3 power transistor (e.g. 2N3055) from Radio Shack
>  2. Saw the top off the transistor with a hacksaw
>  3. Heat it up with a Propane torch and tin the bottom with solder
>  4. Prepare jar lid with a hole; tin surface with solder
>  5. Solder the TO-3 to the lid.
 
You did us all proud, son.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.30 / C Harrison /  Mail digests on wais
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunsite.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mail digests on wais
Date: Sun, 30 May 1993 00:44:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Attention groupies:
  I have created a wais (wide area information server) database for
recent "Fusion Digests", from Jan 1 to early May 1993.  So if you
really need to know how many "My Daddy..." messages there were, we're
here to serve.
  It takes a few days for new database definition to propagate through
the "directory-of-servers" system, so you may not be able to check it
out thru your Gopher or Xwaistation quite yet.
  Cheers,  -Chuck
 
 
(:source
   :version  3
   :ip-address "152.2.22.81"
   :ip-name "sunsite.unc.edu"
   :tcp-port 210
   :database-name "fusion-digest"
   :cost 0.00
   :cost-unit :free
   :maintainer "cfh@sunsite.unc.edu"
   :description "
    This is an indexed version of the sci.physics.fusion mail digests.
    The first installation (May 29 1993) contained the digests from
    1/1/93 thru 5/4/93.  Updates (past and future) are expected.
    The mail digests were processed with a Perl script, cud.prl, which
    is available by anonymous ftp from sunsite.unc.edu in the directory
    /ftp/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion.  This script provides an
    improved headline and creates several keys which can assist in wais
    searches.  For example
      cudyr1993  year of posting    cudqt2  quarter of posting
      cudmo5     month of posting   cuddy3  day of posting
      cudfnJohn  first name...      cudlnDoe last name of originator
      cudszM     size of posting (S, M, L, XL)
   Server created with WAIS release 8 b5 on May 29 19:42:52 1993
       by cfh@calypso
The files of type dash used in the index were:
   /home3/ftp/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/fd01175-01499
"
)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion!!
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 15:13:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <27MAY199310360668@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@venus.lerc.na
a.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
>
>A thought on the after-boil-away for the P&F cell:  I haven't read/seen the
>report (nor do I want to, really.  I'll trust the analyses of Tom Droege,
>Dale Bass, etc.).  With that in mind, where is the thermistor located with
>respect to the Pd cell?  It sounds like it's to one side of the cell, from
>what I've read.  Here are my thoughts:
>
>Once the thermistor is no longer immersed in water, water *vapor* condenses
>on it.  As the cell boils dry, and H2 + O2 recombination takes place, the
>(~100 C) water vapor formed continues to condense on the thermistor, keeping
>it at ~100 C, although the Pd cell may be quite a bit hotter.  My thoughts,
>for what they're worth.
 
     Yes, the thermister appears from the diagram to be somewhat above and
     off to the side of cathode (but since it may not be a measured drawing,
     I've been taking it only as indicative).
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.30 / Greg Bishop /  Fusion Power
     
Originally-From: gt3635a@prism.gatech.EDU (Greg 'Spike' Bishop)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Power
Date: 30 May 93 17:23:17 GMT
Organization: National Association for the Free Exchange of Information

 
Hi!  I'm writing a 10 page term paper on the state of fusion research.  What
would be a few good references to use?  Also, have there been any recent events
in fusion research which would not be in any of the books?
 
I am interested in laser fusion, and fusion tokamok (sp) devices.  I heard that
the russians were way out in front on this type of research, is that true?
 
-Greg Bishop
gt3635a@hydra.gatech.edu
--
GaTech: "Designing tommorow the night before with yesterday's technology."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengt3635a cudfnGreg cudlnBishop cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.05.30 / Bradley Gould /  Let's Build a Space Ship!
     
Originally-From: blgould@panix.com (Bradley Gould)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let's Build a Space Ship!
Date: 30 May 1993 18:37:17 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

    Hi. I was hoping that title would catch your attention.  Yes, I do
propose that we build a spaceship.  And not just a more powerful rocket,
(fusion or otherwise).  I'm talking about a balls-to-the-wall, full-bore,
maximum overdrive, rip up the spaceways, rock-n-roll-it-ship!
 
    I'll tell you right now I have no qualifications for my participation
in this "project", other than a rabid curiosity and a deep sense of faith
in humanity's destiny as a star-faring race.  If you share that curiosity
and conviction, read on...
 
HISTORY:
 
    This idea has grown out of my fascination with UFOs.  I have spent a
number of years quietly compiling a body of facts regarding sightings,
dating back as far as 1549.  I have expressly avoided association with
MUFON, CUFOS, etc., to keep my research as unbiased as possible.  (I
must admit, however, that one of my prized posessions is a picture I
took of J. Allen Hynek in Brewster, N.Y. shortly before he died.)
 
    I believe our planet HAS been, and continues to be, visited by space-
craft from other races.  I further believe that these races have varying
degrees of technological expertise.  Some are dirtier (more radioactive),
than others.  Some prefer robotic investigations; others seem to prefer
the "personal touch".  (Although even these may be alien "androids",
bioengineered to avoid the danger of direct contact, and/or to present
a more "humanoid" and thus, less threatening form.)
 
    I only have a peripheral interest in CE3K issues, though.  Like an
Iron-Age Ox Cart driver confronted by a time traveller in a 68' GTO,
what I'm REALLY interested in is sitting behind the steering wheel of
that sucker!  If that means I have to humor the guy with the ignition
key, well...
 
 
THE GUY WITH THE IGNITION KEY ISSUES:
 
    Obviously, we don't have E.T. standing before us, dangling a key-
chain.  However, we DO need to consider those to whom such a project
represents a clear and unacceptable loss of control.  I don't believe
the reduction in manned spaceflights has been due solely to budgetary
constraints.  It's simply a matter of logistics.  America exists solely
because it was too costly in the long run to subjugate economically.
Our government and business leaders realize that a guy on Mars might
not exhibit the same respect for Authority that an Earth-bound citizen
with nowhere to run would.  Forget someone on Epsilon Eridani IV.
 
    Each participant to this endeavor must be in it for the jazz.  However,
I know there will be property issues at stake here.  We therefore need to
establish some legally airtight method of individual recognition for any
technologies which come out of this project.  I think we need to look
beyond the US Patent Office.  The big-boys have that whole office in their
pockets.
 
    I also realize we're talking about technologies with obvious weapons
applications.  We need to establish a secure method of communications to
protect this project from the "nihilistic set".
 
    I wish we lived in a more just and sane world, but unfortuately we
still have to look out for the parasites and sociopaths in high places.
 
 
ASSUMPTIONS:
 
While we iron out how to proceed, surrounded by the "pragmatists" described
above, I think I can suggest some directions in exploring the technologies
which have brought these craft to our little blue marble...
 
Based upon the fragments found in Las Cruces, NM I would say we have quite
a few technical issues to resolve before we can go a-wanderin'.  This is
why you will find this same message repeated in a large number of news
groups detailed below.
 
    The most interesting UFOs to me, exhibit incredible speeds and
maneuverability.  (The GTOs of the spaceways, if you will.)  I
believe that these particular UFOs manage to generate a "bubble of
relative space/time" different from ours.  This explanation would allow
the craft to be "relatively" stationary to a given set of space/time
coordinates, yet accelerating at incredible velocities relative to
another set.
 
    By creating such a bubble, two problems are solved simultaneously.
First, how do you protect a spacecraft's occupants at high speed from
G-forces and cosmic debris impact?  Secondly, how do you overcome the
inertial mass/energy penalties inherent in velocities approaching and
exceeding the speed of light (C)?
 
    The only way I can see to create such a bubble is to "suggest" to
local sub-atomic entities that they're really somewhere/when else in
relative space/time; to "con" them, if you will, into believing they
are relative to a completely different set of space/time coordinates.
 
    This "suggestive" approach to sub-atomic manipulation is a key premise
of Greg Bear's SF novel 'Anvil of Stars'. Greg postulates that there is a
"data exchange" which occurs between elemental entities along priviledged
channels which may not even exist within our universe.  In his book, he
approaches the subject from the perspective of communications and weapons
systems.  I have always thought of it in terms of propulsion systems.
 
    How would one generate such a relativity bubble?  I think, by looking
at this problem as a "perceptual" one.  I've always found the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle fascinating.  I also find Schroedinger's cat-in-the-
box problem very interesting.  If we could design a self cognizant computer
of such positional precision and certainty about it's own coordiates that
it could actually influence the Heisenberg plot of subatomic relationships
in a local radius large enough to encompass a spacecraft...
 
    This "relativity box" would have to be something very different from
any other computer developed to date.  It would need the ability to so
accurately simulate "being" somewhere/when else, that local phenomena
are forced to doubt their priveledged channel positional messages and
rewrite their own messages to conform to the simulation.  It would have
to be able to perform this subatomic slight-of-hand with absolutely no
human perceptual intervention.  The cat MUST stay in the box at all times.
 
      Were I a theorist (which I'm not), I would look at achieving a
multi-dimensional array of Permanent Standing Wave (PSW) functions to
simulate the local relational matrix and then apply another complete set
of coordinates for a totally different matrix.  I would, furthermore,
look at a "holographic" model to describe this matrix.
 
    I don't know of a computer capable of coercing sub-atomic phenomena
into rewriting their positional data streams, but I DO feel that this
is a key technology to achieving the sort of vehicular performance
reported by UFO sightings; in the same sense that contemporary computers
control the flight surfaces of high-performance jet aircraft; aircraft
which would otherwise drop out of the sky like stones.
 
(Please note that the Las Cruces UFO appeared to have crashed during a
lightning storm.  Could this have been due to computer overload?)
 
    Here are the news groups in which this message is repeated:
 
    alt.activism                            alt.cyberpunk
    alt.cyberpunk.tech                      alt.dcom.telecom
    alt.alien.visitors                      alt.fractals
    alt.hackers                             alt.individualism
    alt.privacy                             alt.rock-n-roll
    alt.security                            alt.sci.physics.acoustics
    alt.sci.physics.new-theories            alt.security.pgp
    alt.society.civil-liberty               alt.society.futures
    alt.society.revolution                  comp.ai
    comp.ai.genetic                         comp.ai.neural-nets
    comp.cog-eng                            comp.security.misc
    comp.society                            comp.software.licensing
    comp.specification                      comp.theory.dynamic-sys
    comp.theory.self-org-sys                misc.activism.progressive
    misc.entrepreneurs                      misc.int-property
    misc.legal.computing                    sci.astro
    sci.bio.technology                      sci.cognitive
    sci.cryonics                            sci.energy
    sci.engr.biomed                         sci.engr.control
    sci.fractals                            sci.geo.fluids
    sci.geo.meteorology                     sci.materials
    sci.math.symbolic                       sci.nanotech
    sci.optics                              sci.philosophy.meta
    sci.philosophy.tech                     sci.physics
    sci.physics.fusion                      sci.physics.research
    sci.psychology                          sci.skeptic
    sci.space                               talk.politics.space
 
P.S.
 
    PLEASE do not send me any E-Mail on CE3K unless you know of an E.T.
with detailed blueprints for what we're trying to achieve here.  Do NOT
send me anything you value as an intellectual property until the legal
and security issues have been resolved.
 
    If you, or someone you know, is in Public Relations, the media, etc.,
this could be very helpful in keeping the McCarthy wannabe's opening Coke
bottles with their butts instead of molesting honest, hard-working, space
cowboys like us.
 
    If you know how to set up an alt.newsgroup for this venture, please
let me know.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblgould cudfnBradley cudlnGould cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 817 papers, 127 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 817 papers, 127 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 10:16:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
it's patents day, mostly - 9 of them, and the bulk of them from EPRI, i.e.
McKubre and his gang. Read them yourself. The Japanese one by Sasao has the
distinction of using "absorbed" instead of (as again seen in the Hosono) the
customary "adsorbed". But then, USAmericans' patent English is not so hot,
either; the word "comprised" is as consistently abused as "adsorbed" by the
Japanese.
The Mengoli paper, the only one in this update, was a disappointment. They
found some intriguing things and say so, but then simply drop them. They also
did some strange things. I see no reason why they would leave a charged foil
at open circuit for one hour before measuring the loading by discharging; we
know that hydrogen will leak out. Maybe they did this in order to let H2
bubbles go away, which might cause a high loading reading. They got loadings
of 0.97 or so, which surprises me. The intriguing findings were that the
discharge (anodic) current varied greatly with LiOD concentration, and
somewhat with rotation rate with the rotating Pd disk. As they say, this last
implies a transport effect in the electrolyte as part of the discharge process
but they don't follow it up. A pity. I see the diffusion maths part of the
paper as mere dressing up, it adds very little, but admittedly looks good.
 
The trial you all know about already. Not being a lawyer, I can't see how the
newspaper can possibly win, but let's see what happens.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 1-Jun-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 817
 
 
 
Journal articles; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mengoli G, Fabrizio M, Manduchi C, Zannoni G;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 350 (1993) 57.
"Surface and bulk effects in the extraction of hydrogen from highly loaded Pd
sheet electrodes".
** The cold fusion affair has sparked interest in the "hydrogen in metals"
field. Most previous work has stayed within the low-loading regime, i.e. the
alpha phase. Fundamental questions remain: what loadings can be achieved? What
is the hydrogen diffusivity at high loading? Can the absorption- desorption
processes be controlled? Some electrolysis experiments are done here, sticking
to normal water (hydrogen). Pd foils of thickness of 0.02 cm were used, as
well as a rotating Pd disk exposed in an insulating Teflon plane. Electrolysis
was at controlled potential of -2 to -2.5 V vs. the reference electrode (SCE),
for some minutes to three days. Loading was then determined by anodic
extraction at around zero V and values of 0.97 or so were achieved. The
surprising result was that different extraction currents (at similar loadings)
were observed at different LiOH concentrations; the higher the concs, the
higher the currents. Also, different rotation rates of the disk gave different
extraction currents, indicating a solution-side process. None of this is
followed up; instead, some diffusion theory is presented and a large number of
diffusion coefficients tabulated.                                Jul-92/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments; file cnf-cmnt:
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbot A;                                     Nature 363 (1993) (13-May) p.107.
"Italian court wrestles with cold fusion suit".
** Report of the trial of the newspaper La Repubblica on charges of defamation
of Preparata, Del Guidice, Bressani, Fleischmann and Pons, who stand to gain
about US$5 million (collectively). The paper had stated that cold fusion was a
fraud. Douglas Morrison is the paper's scientific advisor, and Giovanni
Licheri that of the court.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents; file cnf-pat:
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedzynska K, Linton DC, Will FG (for U of Utah Res. Foundation);
PCT Int. Appl. WO 93 01,601, 11-Jul-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:178707 (1993).
"Method for consistent reproduction of high deuterium loading and tritium
gereration [sic] in palladium electrodes".
** "Isotopic hydrogen is electrolytically loaded into a Pd or Pd alloy
electrode by alternately charging and discharging the electrode in a plurality
of cycles, each cycle including charging the electrode with isotopic hydrogen
approx. to a satn. level and then discharging the electrode to a predetd.
retention level. The electrode can be palladized by electrodeposition of a
thin coating of Pd black, then preloaded in deuterium gas at atm. pressure,
and then transferred to an electrochem. cell where the alternate charging and
discharging takes place for a total of 4-5 times". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crouch-Baker S, McKubre MCH, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL (all for EPRI);
PCT Int. Appl. WO 93 00,684, 27-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:178706 (1993).
"Apparatus for producing heat from deuterated palladium alloys".
** "An electrolysis system for generating excess heat has a d.c. source
coupled between an anode and a cathode, with both electrodes immersed in an
electrolyte. The source drives elec. current through the electrolyte from the
anode to the cathode. The electrolyte is typically a soln. of LiOD and boric
acid in heavy water. The cathode comprises primarily of Pd to become loaded
with B and D, which substantially increases the efficiency of the excess heat
prodn. and lowers the current threshold for excess heat generation. In an
alternative version, the surface of the cathode is fabricated from an alloy of
B and Pd". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosono N (for Canon K.K.);    Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04,212,092, 09-Mar-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:156533 (1993).
"Cold nuclear fusion and thermal-energy generators".
** "Voltage is alternately applied between a pair of discharge electrodes,
>= 1 of which is made of a H-adsorbing material (e.g. Pd), which sandwich a
dielec. material and are immersed in heavy H2O, to create elec. discharge
across the dielec. material. A thermal-energy generator based on the cold
nuclear fusion exts. heat produced on the discharge electrode through
silicone, and converts n kinetic energy into thermal energy by the silicone".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKubre MCH, Rocha-Filho RC, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL, Crouch-Baker S,
Passell TO, Santucci J, (all of EPRI); PCT Int. Appl. WO 92 22,905, 11-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:156537 (1993).
"Method for producing heat from deuterated palladium".
** "Methods are described for producing heat from the interaction of D in a
metal (e.g. Pd) having a crystal lattice with roughly polyhedral spaces.
Deuterium is loaded into the metal and an elec. current is provided in the
metal to supply energy to the loaded D and allowed the interaction to occur.
The at. ratio of D to metal should be >= 0.8". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKubre MCH, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL, (all of EPRI);
PCT Int. Appl. WO 92 22,906, 11-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:156538 (1993).
"Methods for cleaning cathodes".
** "Methods for cleaning cathodes immersed in electrolytes, esp. electrolytes
contg. ambient D from D2O. The cathode is 1st driven with a pos. voltage and
current is drawn until O evolution begins to dominate D oxidation. Then, a
neg. voltage is impressed on the cathode and several mA/cm^2 c.d. are drawn
for at least a day to reform the surface of the cathode. For Pd cathodes, the
purity of the surface is further improved by heating it in a vacuum furnace,
cooling it in a D atm., etching the cooled surface in aqua regia, and rinsing
with D2O". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKubre MCH, Rocha-Filho RC, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL, Crouch-Baker S,
Santucci J, (all of EPRI);             PCT Int. Appl. WO 92 22,907, 11-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:156539 (1993).
"Methods for forming films on cathodes".
** "A method is described for forming a film on the surface of a cathode to
facilitate the loading of D into the cathode. The cathode and an anode are
immersed in an electrolyte contg. D and conducting ions, and the electrodes
are connected to a current source. The conducting ions may be formed by
inclusion of LiOD in the electrolyte. The addn. of other elemental species or
compds. to the electrolyte further promotes the film formation and enhances
the loading of D into the cathode". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKubre MCH, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL, Rocha-Filho RC (all of EPRI);
PCT Int. Appl. WO 92 22,908, 11-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:156540 (1993).
"Apparatus for producing heat from deuterated palladium".
** "App. is described for producing heat from the interaction of D in a metal
(e.g. Pd) having a crystal lattice with roughly polyhedral interior spaces.
Deuterium is loaded into the metal and an elec. current is passed through the
metal to stimulate the heat-producing interaction. The loading of D can be
enhanced by increasing the concn. of D at the metal surface through the use of
a metal container for holding electrolyte in the presence of pressurized D
gas, or through use of a thin film cathode sandwiched between 2 gas permeable
membrane anodes. Loading can also be facilitated by the formation of a film on
the surface of a metal through the use of additive species in the electrolyte
such as Al, Si, and B". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKubre MCH, Crouch-Baker S, Tanzella FL, Smedley SI, Santucci J,
Rocha-Filho RC (all of EPRI);          PCT Int. Appl. WO 93 00,683, 27-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:178705 (1993).
"Apparatus for producing heat from deuterated film-coated palladium".
** "An electrolysis system for generating excess heat has a d.c. source
coupled between an anode and a cathode. The electrolyte is typically a soln.
of LiOD in heavy water. The cathode has a surface layer that is comprised
primarily of Pd. The current flow through the cell causes the Pd to become
loaded with D. The surface layer is at least partially coated with a film that
enhances the loading of D into the layer. The film is comprised of hydrated
metal oxide-based cmpds., where the metal may be  Al, Si, B, Ba, Ca, Cu, Fe,
Li, Mg, Ni, Sc, Ti, V, Y, or Zr. The film is formed from material in the
electrolyte by the current flow. In an alternative embodiment of the
invention, the film is preformed on the surface of the cathode before
immersion into the electrolyte". (Direct quote from CA, but correcting "ba" to
"Ba").
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sasao N, Funasaka H, Uehara N (for Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development
Corp.);                        Jpn Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04,311,542, 11-Apr-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:156595 (1993).
"Manufacture of hydrogen-absorbing metal body".
** "The body is manufd. by shaping Pd, Ti, or U micrograins (<= 10 microns)
with a rubber pressing app. and sintering the compact in a nonoxidizing atm.
The metal body mayb eused as a D-absorber for "cold nuclear fusion" studies".
(Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Dieter Britz /  Self targeting?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Self targeting?
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 13:38:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have several times cast doubt on some classes of cold fusion experiments,
relegating them simply to self targeting. These are those experiments, mainly
carried out in Russia, where people aim ion or plasma beams at metal targets,
or cause electrical discharges (Penning discharges) between metal electrodes,
and measure neutrons and what have you.
 
Self targeting was apparently a popular activity in the 1950's. People aimed
deuteron beams at some hundreds of keV at a variety of metals. At first,
the deuterons are embedded in the metal and also diffuse away into the metal
bulk; after a while, there is such a high concentration of deuterium at the
metal surface, that the incoming beam hits deuterons as well as metal, and you
get fusion. The function of fusion rate vs beam energy (and intensity) seems
to me to be well quantified. I use the paper by M.T. Robinson, A.L. Southern
and W.R. Willis, J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1960) 1474, "Diffusion of deuterium in
deuteron-irradiated copper" as prime reference. This paper gives a maximum
neutron flux of about 40000 n/s for a beam with an energy of 176 keV. I can't
find the beam current but assume it to be of the order of tens of microamp.
The Russian work tends to be that many milliamps. The metal in Robinson et al
is copper; however, I reckon (correct me if I am wrong) that the main effect
of metal is how fast the impinging deuterons can disappear into the bulk; the
fusion process itself must be the same, one deuteron hitting another.
 
To put this into perspective, about the last time I mentioned my feeling that
the Russian work (I'll cite a few refs later) really is self targeting, rather
than cold fusion, someone (I think it may have been Dick Blue) wrote that at
the 1000 V or so (i.e. 1 keV), you won't get appreciable fusion, so my feeling
is not correct. I therefore wanted to calculate just how much you would get at
these sorts of energies. I asked Frank Close for advice on how to do this, and
he pointed me at the Kaye and Laby "Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants;
on p.440 (15th edition), there is some stuff on fusion rates as a function of
particle energy. I have trouble with the units employed: the approximate
equation given there is
 
<sv> = aT^(-2/3) * exp(-b*T^(-1/3)
 
(s  is "sigma", a = 0.8052*10^-22 A R^(1/3) m^(-1/2)
                b = 3(R^2/4)^(1/3)
                A = 52.6
                R = 31.39
                m = ?
T ("theta" in the tables) is in keV.
The <sv> has units of m^3/s, so is not a fusion rate as such, and since I
am unsure as to the value of m, I can't use the formula to generate absolute
fusion rates - maybe someone can. However, I have a reference point, i.e. the
results of Robinson et al, who give me their T value and the neutron flux.
All I needed to do is to take the ratio of that equation at two energies, and
a lot of constants drop out (b does not, but this is given). So:
 
<sv>(T1)/<sv>(T2) = (T2/T1)^(2/3) * exp {-b(T1^(-1/3) - T2^(-1/3)}
 
at the two energies, e.g. T1 = 1 keV,  T2 = 179 keV (Robinson+ has 179 in the
figure with the neutron numbers), gives me a ratio of 6E-06, i.e. at 1 keV
you have a bit over 5 orders of magnitudes lower fusion rate than at 179 keV.
Using their figure of 40000 n/s, this comes to 0.24 n/s. This is tantalisingly
close to what some people measure, but a lot less than what others get. If I
am right in my three orders of magnitude greater beam current in the Russian
work, we could come up to some hundreds of n/s, getting quite respectable.
 
So, what do they get? I looked up a few examples.
 
Gu et al, 1990 get about 36 n/2 min, or 0.3 n/s, with a background of 0.04;
 
Karabut et al, using a glow discharge at 500 V and 10-500 mA, get 2000 n/s
  in 1990, and around 100 n/s in 1992, but get 10000 charged particles/s.
 
Kosyakhkov et al (1990), using 8 keV and 100 mA get 4 n/s (magnetic discharge
pump); for 8 keV I calculate 750 n/s.
 
Matsumoto et al (1990), glow discharge, 50 mA, 500 V, find an excess over the
   background of 10-20 n/s;
 
Wada et al (1989), using about 1 keV (current not known) get 20000 n as one
burst. This has been explained by Kim as essentially self targeting, but now
I am not so sure he is right, too many neutrons.
 
I believe that all but the Wada+ results are within the self targeting model
as used by me here, so I think my explanation is reasonable. Note that most
of these people have not followed the advice of one of quality negatives in
this area: you must turn the beam off before measuring nuclear emissions. If
there is cold fusion, you see it only after the beam is off, otherwise self
targeting dominates.
 
Thanks to Frank Close for the reference and encouragement, and to Steve Koonin
for some helpful email.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Thermistor is not a heat sink
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermistor is not a heat sink
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 14:12:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Harrison, in trying to defend the 100 C miracle, asserts that vapor
condensing on the thermistor probe could keep it at a constant temperature
for an extended period.  I believe this would work as he suggests only
if the entire contents of the cell remained at 100 C which, as Tom Droege
pointed out, requires a very specific value of enthalpy generation within
the cell.  The melting of the Kel-F support blows that picture right out
of the water, so to speak.  Unless the whole experiment is totally
screwy, the melting occurs at the end of the boil off.  I still don't have
a clear picture how the heat gets to the anode support, if the cathode is
where the power is generated.  In any case if there is a hot source, there
should be some hot vapor.  How you keep that hot vapor from influencing the
temperature at the thermistor is a mystery to me.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Peter Tattam /  Images on Retina.
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Images on Retina.
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 13:41:18 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania, Psychology Department

I have studied just a little in this area and I think Terry is right.
 
Firstly, the optic nerve has far fewer connections than required for a full
2-D bit image to be transmitted.  From my understanding and chatting with
colleagues, it would appear that the transform which you think may be nonsense
actually takes place in the retina itself.  My memory is sketchy on
details, but I think cells which respond to light are linked together with
other cells at a distance, different distances for different spatial
frequencies.  I can't remember much more, but I would guess that a cell
group.. (or is it one cell?) would come out of the retina in a single nerve
cell.  There is also specialization of cells too.  Some cells only respond to
movement, while others respond to colour.. can't remember any other
specialization areas.  There may be less resolution for colour too, but this
would be speculation on my part.  Some information may also be frequency
encoded since presenting a grating alternating 180 degrees out of phase will
cause the grating to disappear when the right frequency is selected.  Vision
research is a fascinating area, and pushes the limits of affordable
technology.
 
Well, that covers the transmission of the image to the brain, but the most
surprising thing I have found is that the brain may be transforming the
fourier image back into a 2-D image. An experiment using monkeys has shown
that the image on the retina has a direct mapping in the brain.  It is an
experiment not for the faint hearted so I will not describe it here.
 
I know it's not relevant to this group..and I humbly apologize for wasting
your bandwidth on "irrelevant" topics. You never know, what we learn from the
way our bodies work could prove useful to other totally unrelated disciplines.
 
Just a last speculative thought...
 
Has anyone ever thought that some of these Cold Fusion experiments might be a
wierd form of detector for radiation that is unknown to traditional science?
 
Peter
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Tattam                                    International Phone 61-02-202346
Programmer, Psychology Department           Australia     Phone   002-202346
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Peter Tattam /  Images on Retina.
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Images on Retina.
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 13:58:26 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania, Psychology Department

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Tattam                                    International Phone 61-02-202346
Programmer, Psychology Department           Australia     Phone   002-202346
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Peter Tattam /  Images on Retina
     
Originally-From: peter@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Peter R. Tattam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Images on Retina
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 14:05:51 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania, Psychology Department

 
I have studied just a little in this area and I think Mike Jamison is more
correct.
 
Firstly, the optic nerve has far fewer connections than required for a full
2-D bit image to be transmitted.  From my understanding and chatting with
colleagues, it would appear that the transform which you think may be nonsense
actually takes place in the retina itself.  My memory is sketchy on
details, but I think cells which respond to light are linked together with
other cells at a distance, different distances for different spatial
frequencies.  I can't remember much more, but I would guess that a cell
group.. (or is it one cell?) would come out of the retina in a single nerve
cell.  There is also specialization of cells too.  Some cells only respond to
movement, while others respond to colour.. can't remember any other
specialization areas.  There may be less resolution for colour too, but this
would be speculation on my part.  Some information may also be frequency
encoded since presenting a grating alternating 180 degrees out of phase will
cause the grating to disappear when the right frequency is selected.  Vision
research is a fascinating area, and pushes the limits of affordable
technology.
 
Well, that covers the transmission of the image to the brain, but the most
surprising thing I have found is that the brain may be transforming the
fourier image back into a 2-D image. An experiment using monkeys has shown
that the image on the retina has a direct mapping in the brain.  It is an
experiment not for the faint hearted so I will not describe it here.
 
I know it's not relevant to this group..and I humbly apologize for wasting
your bandwidth on "irrelevant" topics. You never know, what we learn from the
way our bodies work could prove useful to other totally unrelated disciplines.
 
Just a last speculative thought...
 
Has anyone ever thought that some of these Cold Fusion experiments might be a
wierd form of detector for radiation that is unknown to traditional science?
 
Peter
 
(apologies for a recent copy of this article which I have cancelled, I
attributed the original comments to Terry rather than to Mike)
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.Tattam                                    International Phone 61-02-202346
Programmer, Psychology Department           Australia     Phone   002-202346
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpeter cudfnPeter cudlnTattam cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 15:45:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greg 'Spike' Bishop writes:
>Hi!  I'm writing a 10 page term paper on the state of fusion research.  What
>would be a few good references to use?
...
>I am interested in laser fusion, and fusion tokamok (sp) devices.
 
Yeah, I'm interested in collecting a few billion dollars with the only
concern being how I'm going to keep competing ideas from getting
any money (which ain't hard once you have a single point in government
 responsible for all fusion turf).  Unfortunately, kid, you
are a little late.  The problem is that after say 25 years or so,
technological advances keep occuring which are bringing the cost
of demonstration so low that progress in fusion technology can no
longer be suppressed, even with hundreds of millions of dollars
per year and thousands of "scientists" available to intimidate
private investors who might think about grabbing some of the enormous
profits to be made.
 
Maybe next time you read a mainstream press account of technology,
and how the government is so wonderful when it funds it, you'll
realize you've heard it all before and that its merely another
instance of Hitler's big lie theory.
 
I think the most important book you can find to document the nature
of the tokamak and laser fusion programs is one that was written a
long time ago but is still very much up to date in all fields of
technosocialism (a new breed of national socialism):
 
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
 
He pretty well lays out the essential value of "government technology
 investment for national goals" and that of propoganda in
such enterprises.
 
PS:  A.H. does emphasize the importance of "getting them while they're young".
I guess 'Spike' is a good example of how the government "fusion" program
lays its ground-work.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Quantify it. Test it.
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantify it. Test it.
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 19:29:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I see that a couple of "skeptical" bubbles have been popped in the last few
weeks:
 
Morrison suggested that burning hydrogen might have contributed significant
amounts of heat, and perhaps even melted the plastic. Other people who are
familiar with elementary chemistry quickly pointed out that the total energy
you can get from burning the maximum amount of hydrogen that can be stored in
0.004 moles of Pd is around 600 joules, whereas 86,700 joules of excess heat
evolved in the ten minute period alone, and a few million more in the days
leading up to the high heat event. Also, he forgot that the heat was positive,
the system was exothermic the whole time, so there cannot possibly be any
storage of energy.
 
Morrison also forgot that any "burning hydrogen" effect would have to be very
slow. Those 600 joules would be spread out over many hours. Hydrogen does not
all degas from Pd explosively. As Morrison pointed out, a German firm once
manufactured a cigarette lighter based on a palladium hydride. The cigarette
lighter did not explode and kill the users, it worked properly, because
hydrogen degasses slowly and at a predictable rate, especially after it falls
below 80% loading. Ikegami and others concerned with safety verified this.
 
Tom Droege suggested that the power measurements in McKubre's experiments
might be way off. When Tom tested his hypothesis, he found that the power
measurements are probably correct to within 0.02 percent. I have no doubt that
if he investigates P&F's power measuring techniques, he will find that they
too are within 0.1% error.
 
Chuck Harrison, and also some friends of mine, did some elementary experiments
with boiling water and found that: 1. Only a small fraction of the water
leaves a mason jar in the form of water droplets, perhaps 10%. With a tall,
well insulated Dewar test tube, a much smaller number of droplets reach the
top. 2. The heat of vaporization for water is correct after all.
 
We are talking about "skeptical objections" to calorimetry, not to cold fusion
per se. The fact is, if you quantify these so-called "objections," or if you
actually test them in an elementary experiment, you will see immediately that
they are without merit. Every single one of them is wrong, and I don't mean a
little bit wrong, or slightly off the mark. I mean that every objection to
calorimetry raised here over the last four years has been preposterous
nonsense, from the "friction of flowing water" (Dick Blue's masterpiece), to
the infamous "heat pump hypothesis." Tom's other hypotheses fall in this
category, for example, his idea that a thin layer of salts deposited on the
inside of the Dewar glass might radically change the Effect Of Radiation is
absurd, and even if it was true, P&F have demonstrated that only about 6% of
the heat during boiling is lost to radiation anyway, so it cannot matter.
 
Serious cold fusion scientists seldom bother to answer these so-called
"objections" because the objections are obviously wrong. "Skeptics," however,
instantly accept any statement or hypothesis that supports their position, no
matter how farfetched. They never question, they never quantify, and above
all, they never go into the lab to test their ideas, because they know that if
they did, these ideas would be revealed as sham and delusion.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on the 100 C Miracle
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on the 100 C Miracle
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 19:29:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz and Chuck Harrison seem to miss the miracle.  Mitchell
partially quotes a message from me.  He did not quote it all.  Mitchell failed
to mention that I said that complete outgassing of the Pd sample would only
provide 850 Joules, and that only if it could find (somewhere) 95 cc of O2.
I also noted that this burning could only explain 78 seeconds of the three
hours.
 
Yes Chuck, I have no problem with a percolator type effect holding the
temperature constant if there is water in the cell.  But it is supposed to
be "dry".  You only have to compute what a small difference between the
"mystery heat" and the radiative heat loss from the cell would do to any
remaining trace of water to appreciate the "miracle".
 
Note that at 100 C the radiation from the dewar is 11 watts.  Over the
10,000 seconds that the cell stays hot this means that 110,000 joules leave
the dewar.  It is very interesting that this is almost exactly the energy
required to vaporize 2.5 moles of water.  A new minor $miracle$.  Yes I
know the sign in in the wrong direction to explain the result.
 
Studying this experiment is like measuring the gread pyramid of Cheops.  Now
if I could just learn to use the data to predict the stock market!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Wet and Dry Steam
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wet and Dry Steam
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 21:26:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Nice work Chuck Harrison.  I buy your measurement that 5 - 25% of the liquid
in a boiling cell leaves as water vapor.
 
I quote from my 26 Feb 93 post on the "P&F Boiling Cell":
 
"To me this is a very naive statement on the part of Pons.  If he had said <1%
of the contents leave as water droplets, then I would still be skeptical, but
would at least consider that he has studied the problem.  "no bulk water"
implies that he has achieved something astounding."
 
Note that I have never said that wet steam explains everything.  The < 1% in
and the "I would still be skeptical", indicate that I was guessing about in
the range that Chuck measured.
 
There are so many things to be questioned about the P&F experiment, that it
is hard to figure which one to point at.  Besides the 13 items so far
listed in posts here, I have found an additional 3 that I am saving to use
when I have more informantion on the P&F experiment.
 
Possibly if you are trying a demonstration before a jury, you would design
it so that many different errors add up to a result.  That way, if one of them
is noticed, then it can be pointed out that "it is only a small error, and
cannot explain the result".
 
I take a different view.  If in science a result is claimed, and an obvious
error in technique is found which produces a small error, I would throw out
the entire result, and send the workers back to school.
 
So Chuck, just because your test indicates that it is unlikely that the claimed
300% excess heat can be explained by wet steam it does not mean that the other
claims are correct.  It just means that they are sloppy experimenters, and
that we should look carefully at everything that is claimed.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Theory of nuclear fusion in metal hydrides
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theory of nuclear fusion in metal hydrides
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 22:11:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The latest issue of Rev. of Modern Physics contains a review article
which considers nuclear fusion in a number of systems including PdD and
TiD2.  The full reference and abstract are as follows:
 
"Nuclear fusion in dense plasmas,"  Setsuo Ichimaru, Univ. of
Tokyo, RMP 65, 255 (1993)
 
The review begins by grouping the fundamental nuclear reactions into
two classifications, namely, the usual binary processes and few-particle
processes.  In the few-particle processes, the possibility of electron-
screened cold fusion is remarked.  The special features of dense plasmas
rest in the enhancement of reaction rates over these fundamental processes
due to internuclear many-particle processes.  The many particle processes
arise from a modification of the short-range correlations between reacting
nuclei and are the effects related closely to differences between
Coulombic chemical potentials before and after the nuclear reactions.
Quantum statistical-mechanical formulation of the enhancement factors is
presented.  Thermodynamic functions for various realizations of dense
plasmas, pertinent directly to the reaction-rate theories through the
screening properties and free energies, are summarized.  Those analyses
are then applied to the estimation of nuclear reaction rates in specific
examples of dense astrophysical plasmas, namely, the Sun, brown dwarfs,
giant planets, white-dwarf progenitors of supernovae, and helium burning on
the degenerate stars, as well as in those dense labortory plasmas that are
found in the inertial confinement fusion experiments, in metal hydrides
such as PdD and TiD2, in cluster-impact fusion experiments, and in ultra-
high-pressure liquid metals.  The essential similarity between the nuclear
fusion reactions in supernovae and those projected in the ultrahigh-
pressure liquid metals is particularly emphasized.  <end of abstract>
 
In the section of interest of to the CF community there is a detailed
discussion of the structures of the metal hydrides which I read as
including every possible mechanism to maximize the reaction rates.
However, when you cut to the chase, the result is:
 
"This rate implies approximately one or two d-d reactions per year
per unit volume (cm^3) of PdD."
 
I don't think your going boil much water with that.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Reply to Steven Jones, FD 1074
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steven Jones, FD 1074
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 22:11:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones, jonesse@physcl.byu.edu, writes
 
>Essentially, the F&M theory sees electrons moving in hydrogen atoms as
>*particles* rather as *waves* -- this is the crucial weakness of the theory.
>Hence, Dr. Mills in his report to a congressional committee on fusion on
>May 5, 1993 stated:   [I'm quoting from Mallove's posting of this report,
>posted May 13, 1993]
> ...
 
>"The source of excess energy is NOT from fusion or other nuclear reactions."
>[Emphasis his.  On this statement, we are definitely agreed.]
>[Here comes the theory:]
>"Energy is released in a catalytic process whereby the electron of the hydrogen
>atom is induced to undergo a transiton to a lower electronic energy level than
>the 'ground state' as defined by the usual model of the atom.  The lower energy
>states of hydrogen have been identified in nature."
 
Wrong.  Where does Mills say that the electron is a particle?  In our
theory a free electron is a plane wave, and a bound electron, say in a
hydrogen atom, is a *two-dimensional surface* described as a spherical wave
with lambda = 2 pi r.
 
>The reason is straightforward:  moving electrons (specifically in hydrogen
>atoms) behave like *waves*.  This has been proven, as Matt Kennel tried also
>to explain, in numerous experiments.  Moving electrons are diffracted and
>show interference patterns just like other waves.  Allowing one electron at
>a time to go through narrow slits still results in an interference pattern.
>That's wave behavior, man.
>
 
Yes.  An electron can be described as a wave, can be diffracted, and can
show interference patterns.  I agree.  So?
 
>The key notion in quantum mechanics (I prefer *wave mechanics*) is that all
>matter shows wavelike behavior.  The 'uncertainty principle' which limits
>fundamentally our ability to measure both position and momentum in the
>microscopic regime , although often used only in conjunction with quantum
>mechanics, in fact applies to any wavelike phenomenon.  Although the
>mathematics is not terribly difficult, let me try to give a simple physical
>picture:  the elecron moving in a hydrogen atom behaves like a standing wave
>whose MINIMUM energy occurs in what we then call the ground (or n=1) state.
>A wave (unlike like the particle picture) can only exist in motion.
 
1.  Calling it the MINIMUM state, even in capitol letters, does not make it so!
 
2.  How does the uncertainty principle make the n = 1 state the ground
state?  Besides, the uncertainty principle limits our ability to
*measure*--it does not limit nature itself.
 
 
>Look at this another way (as Gary Collins pointed out here some time ago):
>for an electron to go "closer" to the proton ("shrunken" as you say) would
>require INPUT of energy!   Hence, extraction of energy by "shrinking" hydrogen
>atoms is absurd.  (Sorry.)
 
Not correct.  As I explainded in a previous post, the effective nuclear
charge is (1/n)e.  Thus in the n = 1/3 state, the effective nuclear charge
is (3)e (and r = (1/3)ao.  When  the electron moves into a fractional
quantum number state the energy is *lowered*--just as might be predicted by
Coulomb's law.  When  the atom goes to n = 3, the effective nuclear charge
is (1/3)e; that is why the atom is larger (3 ao).
 
Steve, you are using a circular argument.  Namely, wave machanics predicts
that the n = 1 state is the ground state for the hydrogen atom; because n =
1 is the ground state, there can be no lower energy states for the hydrogen
atom.
 
Consider this:  wave mechanics *might* be wrong.  Rather than a
mathematical argument, give a physical argument for why the electron cannot
"fall" into the nucleus.
 
I agree that the n = 1 state *appears* to be the ground state.  I agree
that the electron is a wave.  I agree that the energy levels are quantized.
 But, I maintain that the equation
 
E(sub n)  = 13.60 eV (  1/(nfinal)^2  - 1/(ninitial)^2 )     eqn (1)
 
works with n = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...  .
 
>I have been teaching at BYU for eight years now, and starting next semester
>we will require in the beginning course a discussion of wave behavior along
>with the standard particle treatment.  Tunnelling and uncertainty relations
>will be discussed.  We have selected a text that presents these ideas
>unstintingly:  Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton.
 
I have been teaching quantum chemistry at F&M for 28 years.  I know
considerable detail about wave mechanics, angular momentum, raising and
lowering operators, eigenvalues, linear algebra, group theory, and so on.
We are beyond that.  We are now talking about the underpinnings of wave
mechanics.  Invoking wave mechanics to prove that the n = 1 state is the
ground state is useless; it is simply the predicted ground state from the
current wave mechanics viewpoint. I submit that the wave function for the n
= 1 state has Fourier components synchronous with the speed of light (this
is shown mathematically in the Mills text).  Therefore, the atom should
radiate.  The atoms does not radiate.  Therefore, this  n = 1 wave function
is incorrect.
 
I am attacking the very foundation of wave mechanics.  I make the assertion
that the n = 1 state is not the ground state.  I am confident that
*experimental* data will verify this assertion.  Mills' theory predicts
these fractional quantum number states.  Time and experimental data will
tell.  More immediately I am saying this:  nuclear fusion is not the only
way to get enormous amounts of heat from these "incorrectly-named" CF
experiments.  If eqn (1) is correct, this represents another source stored
energy.
 
> I am not advertising this
>text except to say that it treats waves well, and makes clear that fusion in
>the sun and stars, e.g., would be *impossible* without wave-behavior
>tunnelling.
 
It may not be true that most of the heat from the Sun is caused by fusion.
If we are correct most of the heat from the Sun is caused by transitions of
hydrogen atoms to these fractional quantum-number states.  That's why there
is a so-called neutrino problem.
 
>Well, I hope this helps.  Study up on *wave* behavior, please, Dr. Farrell --
>and I mean no offense by this.
 
Don't worry, Steven, I am neither offended (this time; but, please, no more
"study up on ..." comments) nor intimidated.  I enjoy scientific arguments.
 I hope you accept the challenge.
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Time for evidence of subgroundstate hydrogen
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Time for evidence of subgroundstate hydrogen
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 23:02:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I grow more and more impatient with Prof. Farrell's theory in the
absence of any experimental data to support said theory.  If we are
to believe the information about the excess heat production rates
achieved by the Farrell-Mills operation samples of hydrogen with
a significant fraction of the atoms in this postulated subground state
must be available.  It should then be possible by relatively simple
means to concentrate this new species of atom and/or make some clearly
definitive demonstration to justify the implied total revision of
quantum mechanics.  The fact that this has not yet been done would
seem to indicate that mere talk is valued much too highly relative
to experimental data.  Prof. Farrell should be aware of the fact
that there is much more to the quantum theory of hydrogen than simple
numerology.  Where's some proof?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 22:41:58 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Back in <1993May28.205939.5544@newshost.lanl.gov> on Fri, 28 May 1993,
mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) said:
 
> <Preen, preen...> ... I take the liberty of reproducing the abstract of
> [the invited paper by Bill Johnson and Scott Hazen Mueller in Proc. 1992
> IEEE Professional Communication Conf.] ...
>
>  "We examine the interplay between electronic news systems and events in
>   the controversial 'cold fusion' research during the period 1989-1992...
>   It appears that the newsgroup itself has had limited, though non-zero,
>   value to cold-fusion researchers, but [was] more effective as an
>   information source for the lay reader."
>
> -- all of which, IMNSHO, is completely consistent with Bruce Lewenstein's
> findings as well...  I *was* a cold-fusion researcher, only giving it up
> when I became convinced that the last high-quality positive result had
> been clearly refuted and therefore that the whole thing is a crock of
> excrement...
 
As one of those lay readers first attracted into this group by _your_ cogent
inputs, Dr. Johnson, I must say that I found the tone of your dismissal of
this group rather surprising.
 
You are not Bruce Lewenstein.  You are a physicist who played an instrumental
role in encouraging the interest of the same lay people whom you now casually
describe as conversing about "a crock of excrement."
 
This does not strike me as an entirely fair way to play the game.
 
                                Seriously disappointed,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Quantify it. Test it.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantify it. Test it.
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 21:48:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930601182445_72240.1256_EHK25-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Serious cold fusion scientists seldom bother to answer these so-called
>"objections" because the objections are obviously wrong. "Skeptics," however,
>instantly accept any statement or hypothesis that supports their position, no
>matter how farfetched. They never question, they never quantify, and above
>all, they never go into the lab to test their ideas, because they know that if
>they did, these ideas would be revealed as sham and delusion.
 
     I'm sure then you'd be happy to 'explain' to me how the Kel-F support
     melted with no contact from the cathode and no indication on the
     thermister and with electrolyte on the bottom of the cell (or with
     the cell completely dry, if you'd prefer).
 
     There are several things apparently wrong with the paper we have
     been discussing and no amount of propaganda will change that.  It is quite
     disturbing that the paper seems goofiest in exactly those areas
     where the paper includes substantial information.  On the other
     hand, the basis for most of the claims seems to be in areas
     where the paper is vague and unhelpful (e.g. in the boiling enthapy
     calculation).
 
     This is not a promising sign.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.01 / Mike Jamison /  Surf's up!
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Surf's up!
Date: 1 Jun 1993 17:55 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

OK, so the subject heading is loosly tied to the wave discussion...
 
First, it appears that I'm wrong and Dieter is right.  I checked with my
prof, who set me straight:  Far field images are Fourier transformed by the
lens in the eye.  However, far field images are Fraunhaufer diffraction
images, and are actually Fourier transforms of the real images themselves.
Hence eye's elns does an inverse transform, so we see the real image.
 
What does this have to do with fusion?:  Directly, nothing.  However, as
Steve Jones has posted, all particles exhibit proporties of waves as well
as particles - Steve used the electron in his example, discussing the M&F
theory (BTW, if an electron "falls" into a proton, a neutron results.  Since
a neutron has a mass ~700 keV > (proton + electron) it's clear that energy
must be supplied to make this happen).
 
I noted with interest that in the experiments the BYU team has performed with
PdD cells, low level neutrons were seen when the D *outgassed* from the Pd.
 
To me, this suggests that the Pd may be acting as a diffraction grating,
causing the D atoms to focus a bit, due to the particles behaving like waves.
 
I've talked with Terry Bollinger, and now Chuck Sites, about the possibility
of creating an atomic scale Fresnel lens, or more accurately, a Fresnel zone
plate.
 
I admit this idea stems from an idea one of my T/As had.  He wanted to make
a neutron lens.  I'm not sure how he was planning to do so, but my suggestion
to Terry was that a STM could be used.  Unfortunately, I don't have access
to such equipment.
 
Terry didn't think the iead would work for fusion, due to the fact that for
D's to focus, many would have to travel through the zone plate at the same
time.  I think they'd also have to be "coherent", to properly interfere.  In
other words, they'd have to be traveling at the same velocity, exactly in
phase, over some distance (the particle version of a laser!)
 
Chuck suggests the use of C60 molecules to create the zone plate, since they
would be more durable than a Pd matrix having some other element embedded
in it (Chuck suggested Cu for the zone plate material, but listed some
problems in using it with Pd).  Thanks for the suggestion, Chuck!
 
Of course, there's the problem of finding the facilities, funding, etc., none
of which I have an answer for.  If anyone does, I'd be interested in hearing
about it (it may be possible to receive a Small Business Innovative Research
[SBIR] grant for this, but I'm not sure of the restrictions that apply to
SBIRs.  I'll have to check it out).
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reply to Steven Jones, FD 1074
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Steven Jones, FD 1074
Date: 2 Jun 1993 02:55:29 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
: >The reason is straightforward:  moving electrons (specifically in hydrogen
: >atoms) behave like *waves*.  This has been proven, as Matt Kennel tried also
: >to explain, in numerous experiments.  Moving electrons are diffracted and
: >show interference patterns just like other waves.  Allowing one electron at
: >a time to go through narrow slits still results in an interference pattern.
: >That's wave behavior, man.
: >
:
: Yes.  An electron can be described as a wave, can be diffracted, and can
: show interference patterns.  I agree.  So?
 
What then are the new wave equations?
 
And how do we preserve nearly all of the present experimental results?
(Calculating things with Schroedinger wave functions has gotten many many
 exprimentally verified quantities)
 
: Consider this:  wave mechanics *might* be wrong.  Rather than a
: mathematical argument, give a physical argument for why the electron cannot
: "fall" into the nucleus.
 
Here's the most fundmental explanation of QM that I can think of:
 
If you try to confine the electron to a smaller area than 'ground', the
concomitant momentum will be higher than 'ground', because of the
Heisenberg uncertainty relation, and the energy will be larger.  The
ground state is the place where these two are balanced.
 
       dx dp >= h
 
You see that quantity there: "h".  That's what determines the minimum
energy.
 
Obviously you disagree with that, but Planck's constant has been seen
time and time again in all sorts of contexts.  E.g. black body radiation:
the spectrum is what you get with energy levels (n+1/2) h.
 
The Schroedinger equation mathemetizes this fact and lets you calculate
accurate quantities rather than order-of-magnitude estimates.
 
Naturally, the uncertainty principle IS part of the fundamental consequences
of QM.
 
I presume that your theory will have to violate this.
 
: I agree that the n = 1 state *appears* to be the ground state.  I agree
: that the electron is a wave.
 
What's the wave equation?  How does "h" come into it?
 
: I submit that the wave function for the n
: = 1 state has Fourier components synchronous with the speed of light (this
: is shown mathematically in the Mills text).
 
: Therefore, the atom should
: radiate.  The atoms does not radiate.  Therefore, this  n = 1 wave function
: is incorrect.
 
I assume you're talking about taking the wave function as a classical
charge density here.  (If not, there's no way to answer what this means.)
 
A spherically symmetric charge density does not radiate.
 
: >Well, I hope this helps.  Study up on *wave* behavior, please, Dr. Farrell --
: >and I mean no offense by this.
:
: Don't worry, Steven, I am neither offended (this time; but, please, no more
: "study up on ..." comments) nor intimidated.  I enjoy scientific arguments.
:  I hope you accept the challenge.
:
: Best regards,
:
: John Farrell
 
At least you have thought out fully the implications of what you're proposing,
and I like that.
 
It's probably wrong, but it'll be a crazy-but-honest sort-of-wrong.
 
If you can show that this theory reproduces standard QM in all but
X, Y, and Z situations (that haven't been experimentally explored until
you did it) that will make a BIG difference.
 
--
-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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Chuck Harrison /  Re:  More on the 100C miracle
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  More on the 100C miracle
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 04:42:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I suppose this thread shows we could save some net bandwidth by reading more
carefully.  If I get it right this time, Tom is saying the miracle is the
close match between heat input and output during the three-hour bake-off.  We
agree it's natural that the thermistor stays at 100C as long as there's steam
in the cell.  But let there be excess heat and the water will all leave thru
the vent, then the cell heats up; let there be a deficit from the magic value,
and the water will condense, then the cell cools down.
 
But if Tom had been reading my post carefully, he would have noticed
> If we recognize that the components of the cell are no longer anywhere near
> isothermal after the electrolyte leaves, some plausible scenarios arise.
 
The 11 watt number assumes the entire cell (below the silvered band, anyhow) is
at 100C.  I think this is an unsafe assumption.  If there is a small hot source
at the bottom of the dewar, the bottom of the dewar will get hot.  Perhaps some
residual water will evaporate and rise inside the cell until it hits something
cooler and condenses.  If the heat flux is small, this type of transport may only
reach a few mm from the heat source.  In the remainder of the cell, heat flow
will be by conduction or gas convection.  These mechanisms can support a
substantial thermal gradient.  Perhaps only the bottom cm or two of dewar are
really hot and transferring much net radiation.  The whole system sort of "self-
regulates": at high heat output, most of the dewar gets up to 100C (and some
vapor is probably lost); at low output, only the bottom zone heats up, and
"reflux condenser" action keeps virtually all the water inside.
 
I bet you could mock this up with a resistor and a little water in the bottom of
a deep test tube.  Operate in "reflux condenser" mode.  I'm guessing you'll find
that the power input required to maintain extended reflux operation (i.e. without
much fluid loss) isn't as critical as you first imagined.  No, I'm not going
down to the basement just now...
 
   -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Chuck Sites /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 05:24:31 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>Hi folks,
 
>Back in <1993May28.205939.5544@newshost.lanl.gov> on Fri, 28 May 1993,
>mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) said:
 
>> <Preen, preen...> ... I take the liberty of reproducing the abstract of
>> [the invited paper by Bill Johnson and Scott Hazen Mueller in Proc. 1992
>> IEEE Professional Communication Conf.] ...
>>
>>  "We examine the interplay between electronic news systems and events in
>>   the controversial 'cold fusion' research during the period 1989-1992...
>>   It appears that the newsgroup itself has had limited, though non-zero,
>>   value to cold-fusion researchers, but [was] more effective as an
>>   information source for the lay reader."
>>
>> -- all of which, IMNSHO, is completely consistent with Bruce Lewenstein's
>> findings as well...  I *was* a cold-fusion researcher, only giving it up
>> when I became convinced that the last high-quality positive result had
>> been clearly refuted and therefore that the whole thing is a crock of
>> excrement...
 
>As one of those lay readers first attracted into this group by _your_ cogent
>inputs, Dr. Johnson, I must say that I found the tone of your dismissal of
>this group rather surprising.
 
>You are not Bruce Lewenstein.  You are a physicist who played an instrumental
>role in encouraging the interest of the same lay people whom you now casually
>describe as conversing about "a crock of excrement."
 
>This does not strike me as an entirely fair way to play the game.
 
>                               Seriously disappointed,
>                               Terry Bollinger
 
I would like to add my agreement with Terry in this case.  Also Bill,
what *was* the last high quality work refuted and by whom was it refuted?
 
Likewise for me Terry. I'm disappointed in the lack of imagination in the
exploitation of aspects suggested in some of these experiments and
theoretical works.  There is no lack of imagination here.  Second as far as
the rewards of the group go, I will gaurantee that the players in this
group (skeptic, believer, lurkers and open minded, alike) have learned
quite abit about the various science aspects from the respective positions
made. Since Bruce Lewenstein has never participated in this group think
process, I find his whole argument political grant grabbing horse puckies,
as others have suggested.  Be sure it will probably be published in Nature.
 
Dito-ly disappointed,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Dieter Britz /  Latest update update
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest update update
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 10:02:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
in yesterday's bibliography update, I abstract the Nature piece on The Trial:
 
>Abbot A;                                     Nature 363 (1993) (13-May) p.107.
>"Italian court wrestles with cold fusion suit".
>** Report of the trial of the newspaper La Repubblica on charges of defamation
>of Preparata, Del Guidice, Bressani, Fleischmann and Pons, who stand to gain
>about US$5 million (collectively). The paper had stated that cold fusion was a
>fraud. Douglas Morrison is the paper's scientific advisor, and Giovanni
>Licheri that of the court.
 
I have been informed that I have gravely misstated the charge. The paper did
not say that cold fusion was fraud; it said that it was scientific fraud.
There seems to be a world of difference, not appreciated by me, without any
legal training whatsoever.
 
So take note: scientific fraud, not fraud.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 10:37:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1077:
 
>Greg 'Spike' Bishop writes:
>>Hi!  I'm writing a 10 page term paper on the state of fusion research.  What
>>would be a few good references to use?
...
>>I am interested in laser fusion, and fusion tokamok (sp) devices.
 
>Yeah, I'm interested in collecting a few billion dollars with the only
>concern being how I'm going to keep competing ideas from getting
...
>instance of Hitler's big lie theory.
 
...
>Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
 
Jim, the kid asked a serious question, and has a paper to write. What the hell
is the good of this sort of BS?
 
Greg, I had thought you'd get information from someone in the know, but you
got a load of propaganda instead. I have a reference for you: D.H. Crandall,
Nucl. Instr. Methods Phys. Res. B42 (1989) 409-418, "The scientific status
of fusion", a summary. Also, a few weeks (months?) ago, in either Physics
Today or something like it, there was a round-up on fusion. You could probably
work backwards from these, picking up more references. Good luck with your
paper.
 
Greg asked about fusion, which I thought was the subject of this list. Isn't
there anyone on this list who can give some serious help to him?? Or are you
all here just to bicker with each other?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Todd Green /  Re: Self targeting?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Self targeting?
Date: 2 Jun 93 18:29:25 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

In article <29EA00F78AFF2270A8@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> I have several times cast doubt on some classes of cold fusion experiments,
> relegating them simply to self targeting. These are those experiments, mainly
> carried out in Russia, where people aim ion or plasma beams at metal targets,
> or cause electrical discharges (Penning discharges) between metal electrodes,
> and measure neutrons and what have you.
>
> Self targeting was apparently a popular activity in the 1950's. People aimed
> deuteron beams at some hundreds of keV at a variety of metals. At first,
> the deuterons are embedded in the metal and also diffuse away into the metal
> bulk; after a while, there is such a high concentration of deuterium at the
 
I seem to recall that, way back in the distant past, somebody was selling a
neutron source based on the self targeting principle. As far as I remember, it
shot a deuteron beam at keV energies at a deuterated metal target (possibly
TiD2 or PdD) to produce neutrons. This device was described to me by James
Mahaffey in 1989 and I think he said that Georgia Tech had owned one. Anybody
have an idea about who manufactured these beasts and what their capabilities
where?
 
----
Todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Source of info on Tokamaks
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Source of info on Tokamaks
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:15:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Greg 'Spike' Bishop asked for information about laser fusion (inertial
confinement fusion), and tokamak fusion. A good place to get info on tokamaks
is:
 
Fusion Power Associates
2 Professional Drive
Suite 248
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
 
Tel: 301-258-0545
Fax: 301-975-9869
E-mail: CompuServe 72570,707
 
You might as well get all you can out of these people, because you are paying
for them. They are the Washington lobbyist group for the DoE's hot fusion
program. Congress throws a few hundred million each year to their members, who
then recycle a little bit back through the mill, like bread upon the waters.
 
If you want info on cold fusion, which is the kind that actually works and has
a future in energy production, contact me:
 
Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
Home: 404-458-8107
E-Mail: CompuServe 72240,1256
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Jed Rothwell /  What Blake thinks
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Blake thinks
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:52:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
"He who doubts from what he sees
Will ne'er believe, do what you please.
If the sun and moon should doubt
They'd immediately go out."
 
William Blake, from the Pickering Manuscript, 1805
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Bob Pendleton /  "bulk water" was Re: Wet and Dry Steam
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "bulk water" was Re: Wet and Dry Steam
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 14:29:28 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <930601161759.20602692@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov:
> would at least consider that he has studied the problem.  "no bulk water"
> implies that he has achieved something astounding."
 
I'm not a chemist or a physicist, but I can usually follow the
discussion that takes place here. But, every once in a while I realize
that I'm up against a bit of jargon that I do not understand.
 
Just exactly what does the phrase "bulk water" mean to an
electrochemist in this context?
 
I must admit that to me the phrase "bulk water" conjures up images of
at least buckets of water, if not rivers of it. Before reading this
discussion I never would have described the microscopic droplets of
water in wet steam as "bulk water."
 
                        Behind the jargon wall
 
                                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:
cuddy2 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / William Johnson /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 15:46:48 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1993Jun1.224158.15350@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Back in <1993May28.205939.5544@newshost.lanl.gov> on Fri, 28 May 1993,
>mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) said:
>
[ref. IPCC paper]
>>  "We examine the interplay between electronic news systems and events in
>>   the controversial 'cold fusion' research during the period 1989-1992...
>>   It appears that the newsgroup itself has had limited, though non-zero,
>>   value to cold-fusion researchers, but [was] more effective as an
>>   information source for the lay reader."
>>
>> -- all of which, IMNSHO, is completely consistent with Bruce Lewenstein's
>> findings as well...  I *was* a cold-fusion researcher, only giving it up
>> when I became convinced that the last high-quality positive result had
>> been clearly refuted and therefore that the whole thing is a crock of
>> excrement...
>
>As one of those lay readers first attracted into this group by _your_ cogent
>inputs, Dr. Johnson, I must say that I found the tone of your dismissal of
>this group rather surprising.
 
Oh, come on, Terry, cut the guff -- I consumed too much of your wife's
excellent cooking and enjoyed your hospitality too much for it to be anything
but "Bill." ;-)
 
You misunderstand what the abstract was saying.  That paper (given, again,
at Joe Chew's invitation) was part of a session exploring not cold fusion
but the use of Internet, etc., to do Useful Stuff.  The session title was
"Caffe' Cyber"...  So the question was *how* s.p.f had been used.  As of
June 1992 (when the paper was submitted) there was *very* little evidence
that much useful professional dialogue was occurring within the group itself;
Tom Droege had contributed lots of things (and was cited in the paper as an
exception to the rule), but Steve Jones, whose presence in s.p.f I for one
appreciate greatly, had not yet started to contribute, and practically
nobody else was really talking about experiments in ways that another
researcher could benefit from.  Bruce Lewenstein's statistics (themselves
based on a time period overlapping strongly with the one I looked at) back
this assertion.
 
Joe Chew's assessment of s.p.f as a "scientific watering hole" is right on
the mark, though.  Contacts made *through* s.p.f, though not necessarily
conducted *on* it, produced some useful exchanges that did benefit people
doing research; I can cite examples.  However, one should not make the
mistake of confusing those exchanges with the net.barbs directed, for
example, by Dick Blue at the other s.p.f regulars who have (ahem) ideas
about nuclear physics experiments different from Dick's.  To equate those
diatribes with "useful exchanges" allowing experimenters to do experiments
more carefully is to misunderstand severely what is involved in doing a
careful experiment.
 
>You are not Bruce Lewenstein.  You are a physicist who played an instrumental
>role in encouraging the interest of the same lay people whom you now casually
>describe as conversing about "a crock of excrement."
 
And make no mistake: the role of s.p.f in "encouraging the interest of ...
lay people" was significant.  But even as the volume, and passion, of s.p.f
discussions has risen in the last six months (an interesting phenomenon,
that), the *content* has not improved, at least as far as the researcher
is concerned.  (Partial exception again because Steve Jones is around, but
he is being drowned out by noise, and contributes some himself.  No
criticism intended.)  Nor has anything been presented lately that would
cause a non-TB physicist to believe that cold fusion is *not* a crock.
Come on, Terry -- why do you think I haven't been around here much lately?
To respond to Chuck Sites' question, the last two quality possible positives
that I know of -- Kevin Wolf's tritium and Tom Droege's heat -- were
retracted as those two guys, both of whom I respect as careful experimenters,
discovered subtle flaws in their methods.  When I hear of a positive result
that has been scrutinized as carefully as, notably, Tom has done (btw,
Jones' work is close, but not obviously "cold fusion"), I will reconsider
my position.  But don't hold your breath.
 
To return to Lewenstein: In an age when electronic interactions are being
raised to the level of presidential platforms, it makes some sense to try
to understand just how those interactions go.  Dispute his conclusions if
you wish, although I think those conclusions stand on the basis of the
evidence presented.  But don't fault him for asking the question; in the
long run, his work may be more valuable than any of the other stuff being
done via s.p.f on cold fusion.
 
--
Bill Johnson                    | "I can't stand this proliferation of
Los Alamos National Laboratory  | paperwork.  It's useless to fight the forms.
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA      | You've got to kill the people producing
(mwj@lanl.gov)                  | them." (V. Kabaidze)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  SBIRs
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SBIRs
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 18:32:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There have been a couple of mentions of SBIR's.  Mike Jamison wants to know
how to get one.
 
One of the privelages of being a senior engineer at a large DOE laboratory is
that in the spring of the year one gets calls from the DOE asking for
"volunteers" to review SBIR's.  I seem to do one or two every other year.  I
seem to have done them since about their second year of existance.  It does
not mix well with my Libertarian leanings, but I have always agreed to the
review work, because there was always the idea in the back of my mind that
I might want to try to get on one day.
 
First, what is an SBIR?  It stands for Small Business Innovation Research.
These started in 1982, and are funded by a "TAX" on the DOE research budget.
I think it is about 2%.  This makes sense doesn't it.  The government taxes
itself and give the money to the people!  I think there is a similar thing
going on an NIH.
 
To get one, you write to
 
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Research
SBIR Program Manager
Washington, D.C. 20585
 
and ask for the Program Solicitation.  This gets you a 100 page or so book.
This is chock full of forms and detailed instructions.  They are always due
early in March, and I think the book comes out late in the year, but if you
write and are a company they will put you on a list.  I think there is no
charge.
 
The first thing that you discover when reading this book, is that the
government is not interested in just any good idea related to energy, they
have specified the area where work might be done.  For example, under section
31. FUSION ENERGY SYSTEMS  we find the following: "...Excluded from this topic
is research pertaining to cold fusion, inertial comfinement fusion, and other
fusion energy concepts that are not based specifically on magnetic confinement
of plasmas.  Grant applications must address one of the following subtopics:"
 
The government in its wisdom, knows where good ideas are to be found.  After
it is made up of people like me.  The scientist who interviewed me for my job
at Fermilab is now calling me up from Washington to ask me to make reviews.  I
suppose he now has an input into what the DOE thinks is the "right" area to
conduct research.  It could as easily be me.  I suppose that if "cold fusion"
were real, and we were all doing great experiments, it would take about 5
years for it to work it's way onto the "approved" list.
 
It gets worse.
 
When I first started these reviews, the list was pretty general.  I would think
"I have some pretty good ideas, I might want to apply for one of these some
day".  I could look at the list, and find spots where I could submit almost
any of my ideas.
 
Now it appears like the special interests have gotten to the list makers.  The
classifications are so narrow, that you have to be working in a specific
technology to get a grant.  The justification that DOE uses for this is that if
the classifications were made too broad, they would get too many applications.
An idea of the narrow view is found in classification 26b.  "A current strong
need is for improved devices using the tape cartridge format for digital sro
storage."  You can guess how many can apply for that.  Of course the real need
is for lower cost mass storage, but some special interest has got to them.
 
It gets worse.
 
Gess what happens when you offer $75,000 for the first six months work and
$500,000 (half do) more if you get renewed?  You create an industry!  But the
industry is not directed to making new products and starting new businesses,
****surprise**** the industry is directed to getting SBIR grants!
 
When I was first doing these refiews, in about 84, they were quite diverse,
no one seemed to know quite what to ask for or how to fill out the forms.  Now
they are professionaly done.  They look slick.  Both the proposals that I
refiewed this time were repeat proposals, that is they had found some obsucre
technology and were "mining" it.  I have signed a secrecy agreement relating
to the content, so I cannot describe it.  The technology was strange, it was
a minor odd effect, it required conditions so impractical that there was no
probability that it would ever be commercial, and so missed what SBIR's are
supposed to be about.  But this did not prevent the applicants from making
fantastic commercial claims.  To get the idea imagine lots of lasers, micro
waves, cryogenics, chip technology, and claim to make a fast ADC.  Well the
SSC will need fast ADC's, but they will need hundreds of thousands of channels
of them, and we do not have enought XXXX(racial slur deleted) post docs to line
up all those lasers, etc..
 
So one of the proposals I reviewed had received $100,000 in previous grants.
Another about $2,000,000 so far.  One of my friends has lived off these for the
past 7 years or so.  He got so good at it, and learned so much about the
government money givers, that he found something even better than SBIRs, where
you still have to do some technical work.
 
I think it just wonderful that the government can change the way we work by
passing out money.  Now we have this wonderful new industry that "mines"
SBIRs.  I suppose they now have a lobby that will "save" this industry from
future attempts at government economy.
 
So here is another "good" government idea which has run amuck.  It seemed like
a good idea to help small business to develop new ideas into products.  But
what actually has happened is that the product has become the idea.  Milton
Friedman would not be surprised.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on SBIR's
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on SBIR's
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:02:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

You may wonder why I only seem to get to review SBIR's every other year.  Well,
the job in Washington lasts two years.  So a new guy looks around for reviewers
and finds me, as I have a senior job label.  I usually agree, assuming I know
something about the technology.  But then I actually look at waht might be done
and point out all the problems.  This usually results in a bad review, as I
have run a small business or two, and have some ideas about what constitutes a
product.
 
But the DOE really wants lots of good reviews, as it is easier then to do what
they want.  So I get crossed the list for the next year.
 
But then the following year, there is a new guy, and I am found again.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / William Johnson /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 16:09:21 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1993Jun2.052431.19443@coplex.coplex.com> chuck@coplex.coplex
com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>I would like to add my agreement with Terry in this case.  Also Bill,
>what *was* the last high quality work refuted and by whom was it refuted?
 
As noted in my response to Terry: Droege and Wolf, and in both cases, the
work wasn't "refuted" but rather retracted as the experimenters themselves
discovered errors.  I tip my hat to both; to publish a result (whether in a
journal or electronically) takes only a word processor, but to retract one
takes guts.
 
>Likewise for me Terry. I'm disappointed in the lack of imagination in the
>exploitation of aspects suggested in some of these experiments and
>theoretical works.  There is no lack of imagination here.  Second as far as
>the rewards of the group go, I will gaurantee that the players in this
>group (skeptic, believer, lurkers and open minded, alike) have learned
>quite abit about the various science aspects from the respective positions
>made. Since Bruce Lewenstein has never participated in this group think
>process, I find his whole argument political grant grabbing horse puckies,
>as others have suggested.  Be sure it will probably be published in Nature.
 
You're being too hard on Lewenstein.  Yes, the players *have* learned from
the positions.  (BTW, I will assure you from e-mail swapped with Bruce that
he *did* participate in some of the group think.  I was part of the group
that thunk with him.)  The question, though, is twofold: (1) How much of
the traffic did result in cogent statement of positions, and how much was
noise?  (2) Were the "players" that did the learning able to apply any of
the learning for purposes broader than their own personal edification --
that is, were the "players" also doing science?
 
On question 1, I see no reason to dispute Bruce's findings, and I think
they are significant; they should give one pause about the real usefulness
of universal electronic access.  (BTW, if anyone is wondering, I'm a
Democrat, and I voted for Clinton anyway...)  As for question 2, I've
previously opined that the "watering-hole" aspect of s.p.f was useful to
some extent.  However, I suspect that if you were to go out and grill the
lurkers at the watering hole, most of whom gave up on s.p.f (and cold
fusion) some time ago, you'd find that Bruce's evaluation of the
signal/noise ratio was, if anything, excessively charitable!  I certainly
find it so, at least when I wear my physicist "hat" rather than my
net.oracle one. :-)  Any lurking experimenters -- I stress "lurking" here
as opposed to the s.p.f regulars -- are invited to chime in with some
opinions on this.
 
--
Bill Johnson                    | "I can't stand this proliferation of
Los Alamos National Laboratory  | paperwork.  It's useless to fight the forms.
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA      | You've got to kill the people producing
(mwj@lanl.gov)                  | them." (V. Kabaidze)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What Blake thinks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Blake thinks
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 16:39:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930602142601_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>"He who doubts from what he sees
>Will ne'er believe, do what you please.
>If the sun and moon should doubt
>They'd immediately go out."
>
>William Blake, from the Pickering Manuscript, 1805
 
     'The most positive men are the most credulous.'
 
      Alexander Pope
 
                           dale bass
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Replies to Dick Blue and Matt Kennel
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Dick Blue and Matt Kennel
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:44:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu, writes in FD 1079
 
>I grow more and more impatient with Prof. Farrell's theory in the
>absence of any experimental data to support said theory.
 
I understand your impatience.  This whole experience has been a bit frustrating.
 
>If we are
>to believe the information about the excess heat production rates
>achieved by the Farrell-Mills operation samples of hydrogen with
>a significant fraction of the atoms in this postulated subground state
>must be available.
 
The excess heat must be recognized--regardless of the theory.
 
>It should then be possible by relatively simple
>means to concentrate this new species of atom and/or make some clearly
>definitive demonstration to justify the implied total revision of
>quantum mechanics.
 
1.  It hasn't been simple or easy.  We have submitted experimental
verification of the fractional quantum states of hydrogen and we are
currently arguing with referees.  The main argument of the referees (almost
word-for-word!)--(1) if the data are correct (and correctly interpreted)
Schrodinger's quantum mechanics is incorrect; (2)  one or two experiments
cannot upset a theory known to be correct; (3) therefore we will not
publish your manuscript.
 
2.  Other "CF" researchers have isolated the ash, but they misinterpreted
their own data.  I cannot comment further.
 
3. Isolation and identification of the "shrunken hydrogen" atoms is more
difficult than you might think.  Otherwise, it would have been identified
long ago.
 
>The fact that this has not yet been done would
>seem to indicate that mere talk is valued much too highly relative
>to experimental data.
 
1.  Although this is not true, I understand your point.  I'm sorry, you
will just have to wait a bit longer.  For my part, I'll lay low for a
while. (Recently I have been responding to (1) questions about the theory
(2) attacks on the theory.  I have not initiated any correspondence.  I'll
try to restrain myself until all is in order, but I don't intend to take
*any* guff from the QM experts.)
 
2.  Please keep in mind that the "true believers" of quantum mechanics make
totally outrageous, unfounded statements constantly.  (a) For example, ask
a TB "Why doesn't the electron radiate?"  TB's answer, "because electrons
(and other small particles) operate by different rules than larger
objects."  This is absurd!  And they don't realize it!  What is the basis
of their answer--that bound electrons don't radiate.  OK. They are not
giving a reason--they are stating a *related* fact. (b) A related example.
The radial function for the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom is
solved by postulating the boundry condition that Psi -> 0 as r -> infinity.
 And Psi^2 is interpreted as a probability density function.  Ask a TB "Is
there some probability that the electron found on a hydrogen atom in *this*
room will be found on *Mars*?  TB's answer, "Yes, but the probability will
be extremely small."  (Can you believe it????)  Where is their proof?  Have
they ever marked an electron on Earth and then found it on Mars?  Don't
they realize what they are saying?  Don't they know that the ionization
energy of the hydrogen atom is known to about nine significant figures?
How do they expect such a spread out wave to give such an exact energy?
Are they so blinded by their *faith* in the theory that they have
disconnected themselves from reality?  The Mills theory does no such thing.
 With regard to the above questions, The boundry condition is derived from
Maxwell's equations (postulated on the basis of thousands of
observations)--for non-radiative states, the charge-density function must
not possess space-time Fourier components that are synchronous with waves
travelling at the speed of light.  This is an "explanation" of why the
bound electron doesn't radiate--it can't becuase it doesn't have the
necessary frequency components to do it.  Furthermore, it leads to the
condition that lambda = 2 pi r and for the hydrogen atom that the radial
function is a spherical Dirac delata function such than r = n ao.  Thus,
the electron does not extend to Mars!  In a non-radiative state it is at an
extremely discrete (Dirac delata function) distance from the nucleus, n ao.
 Because "all" of the electron is at *this* distance, the electron
experiences a *constant* potential energy.  The atom does not
radiate--energy is conserved.  Therefore, the kinetic energy of the
electron is also constant.  Not surprising then, that the transitions
between non-radiative states and the ionization energy are so well
defined--*all* of the electron is at the same energy.  Sorry, a single
electron is *not* distributed all over the universe.  Sorry, there is a
reason why the electron does not radiate.  Sorry, there is a reason why the
electronic transitions are so discrete.  Sorry, all objects operate by the
same set of rules.  Sorry, there is a reason why the electron has spin
angular momentum.  Just because QM doesn't have the answers, and must rely
on circular arguments, doesn't mean that the answers aren't there.
Furthermore, The TBs of QM are so used to their trite answers thay have
become respectable in the scientific community.  It is time for the
doubtors of QM to prepare--the battle is beginning.
 
>Prof. Farrell should be aware of the fact
>that there is much more to the quantum theory of hydrogen than simple
>numerology.  Where's some proof?
 
Yes.  There is more to quantum theory than mere numerology.  It has been
quite successful--but it has run its course.  The proof (of the new
theory)?  Hopefully, your wait will not be too long.
 
 
 
Matt Kennel, mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu, write in FD 1080
 
>Here's the most fundmental explanation of QM that I can think of:
>
>If you try to confine the electron to a smaller area than 'ground', the
>concomitant momentum will be higher than 'ground', because of the
>Heisenberg uncertainty relation, and the energy will be larger.  The
>ground state is the place where these two are balanced.
>
>       dx dp >= h
>
>You see that quantity there: "h".  That's what determines the minimum
>energy.
 
OK. Try this.  In the n = 1/2 state,
 
1.  The radius of the orbitsphere is
 
     r = n ao or r = (1/2) ao
 
(see above: "smaller area than 'ground' "; the only problem is that the
electron is fundamentally a two-dimensional "thing" (a Dirac delta function
in r) What would Heisenberg do???).
 
2.  The wavelength is
 
     lambda = 2 pi r or lambda =  pi ao.
 
3. The linear momentum is given by the deBroglie relationship (an
experimental relationship),
 
     p = h/lambda, p = h/(pi ao)   (the linear momentum is larger in the n
= 1/2   state than in the n = 1 state!)
 
4.  The effective nuclear charge is (1/n)e or 2 e.
 
5. The potential energy is
 
     v = ((2 e) (-e))/(4 pi eo 0.5 ao)  =  (- e^2)/(pi eo ao)  = -108.8 eV
 
eo is the permittivity of vacuum
 
6.  The kinetic energy is -(1/2) V  =  (e^2)/(2 pi eo ao)  =  54.4 eV
 
7.  I also note that the kinetic energy is given by
 
      p^2/2m  =  h^2/(2m(pi ao)^2)  =  54.4 eV
 
 
As far as I can tell, force balance is achieved.  Planck's constant is
there.  The elctron has a discrete potential energy; it has a discrete
kinetic energy.  The electron has a definite position is space.  The
electron has a constant linear momentum (and a constant angular momentum,
see below).  Can you tell me if the "Heisenberg uncertainty relation" is
preserved?
 
The speed of light is an essential.  Planck's constant is essential.  The
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not essential.  It is not a rationale
for maintaining that the n = 1 state is the lowest-energy state.
 
BTW,  it is easy to show in the above example that the linear velocity of
the electron is given by  vel = h/(2 pi m r).  Thus, for n = 1/2,
 
 vel =  h/(pi m ao).
 
Therefore, the *magnitude* of the angular momentum is
 
/L/  =  m v r  =  m  (h/(pi m ao)) ((1/2)ao)  =  h/(2 pi)  = hbar
 
It is worth noting that in the Mills theory the *magnitude* of the orbital
angular momentum is *always* hbar.  This makes sense because an
electron/positron pair is produced from a photon.  The photon can be
considered as a plane wave with two counter rotating components, one with
hbar and the other with -hbar angular momentum.  Angular momentum is
conserved and both the electron and the positron have habar for the angular
momentum *magnitude*.
 
(Please don't come back with 1/2 hbar for the intrisic spin, other
projections of angular momentum, relativistic effects (which I have
neglected here).  These can be dealt with successfully but I refuse to do
it over this medium--the network.  Furthermore, for those with some
imagination, you can see (1) a physical basis is now present for spin
angular momentum, (2) a physical basis now exists for quantization of
energy--the orbitsphere is a resonator cavity, (3) a physical basis now
exists for gravity--the curvature of spacetime results from a discontinuity
of matter confined to two spatial dimensions or, if you will, the curvature
of the electron orbitsphere is the basis for the electron's gravitational
force, and (4) the energy of particles is stored in their electric (and
magnetic) fields--chemical (and nuclear) bonding occurs when the total
energy of the participating species can be lowered with the formation of
equipotential surfaces (spheres in the case of atoms; ellipsoids in the
case of H2 type species; and so on) where the motion is along geodesics and
the general condition of non-radiation is met (no space-time Fourier
components that are synchronous with the waves travelling at the speed of
light).)
 
 
Well Dick, you see my problem.  It is hard for me not to respond to these
questions and commments.  I guess it is the teacher in me.  But I'll try.
Fortunately, I'm going fly fishing for a few days.
 
Best regards,
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Henry Choy /  ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: choy@dvinci (Henry Choy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 2 Jun 1993 17:45:12 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Someone told me a fusion power plant would cost billion$. Anyone
believe this?
 
--
 
Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
 
If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing.           - unknown
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchoy cudfnHenry cudlnChoy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 18:05:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jun2.154648.3443@newshost.lanl.gov>
mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
 
> Oh, come on, Terry, cut the guff -- I consumed too much of your wife's
> excellent cooking and enjoyed your hospitality too much for it to be
> anything but "Bill." ;-)
 
Hey, no fair -- how can I keep up my huff-and-puff routine with _that_ kind
of rejoinder??  Yes, Bill, that was a nice visit.  Come by again sometime
if you are visiting the SSC, and you can meet the latest addition (Chris).
 
And yes, I deeply miss the old days of sci.physics.fusion when there was
some fairly serious dialog about physical theory, and less about politics.
 
> To respond to Chuck Sites' question, the last two quality possible positives
> that I know of -- Kevin Wolf's tritium and Tom Droege's heat -- were
> retracted as those two guys, both of whom I respect as careful experimenters,
> discovered subtle flaws in their methods.  When I hear of a positive result
> that has been scrutinized as carefully as, notably, Tom has done (btw,
> Jones' work is close, but not obviously "cold fusion"), I will reconsider
> my position.  But don't hold your breath.
 
Fair enough, and I must admit that I haven't exactly been, er, _real keen_
on excess heat lately.
 
How about the tritium-from-volcanos reports, though?  I seem to recall that
you made an entry about that yourself, and just a couple of months ago.  Do
you still feel there could be anything to that line of analysis, or not?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 /  collins@jaguar /  Oh no, hydrinoes again (was Reply to Steve Jones)
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oh no, hydrinoes again (was Reply to Steve Jones)
Date: 2 Jun 93 09:20:24 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <01GYVFGQKEKY0018CK@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>, J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
> Steven Jones, jonesse@physcl.byu.edu, writes
>
>>Essentially, the F&M theory sees electrons moving in hydrogen atoms as
>>*particles* rather as *waves* -- this is the crucial weakness of the theory.
>>Hence, Dr. Mills in his report to a congressional committee on fusion on
>>May 5, 1993 stated:   [I'm quoting from Mallove's posting of this report,
>>posted May 13, 1993]
>> ...
>
>>"The source of excess energy is NOT from fusion or other nuclear reactions."
>>[Emphasis his.  On this statement, we are definitely agreed.]
>>[Here comes the theory:]
>>"Energy is released in a catalytic process whereby the electron of the hydrogen
>>atom is induced to undergo a transiton to a lower electronic energy level than
>>the 'ground state' as defined by the usual model of the atom.  The lower energy
>>states of hydrogen have been identified in nature."
>
> Wrong.  Where does Mills say that the electron is a particle?  In our
> theory a free electron is a plane wave, and a bound electron, say in a
> hydrogen atom, is a *two-dimensional surface* described as a spherical wave
> with lambda = 2 pi r.
 
 
Where and how have the purported lower-energy states been identified?
 
 
>>The reason is straightforward:  moving electrons (specifically in hydrogen
>>atoms) behave like *waves*.  This has been proven, as Matt Kennel tried also
>>to explain, in numerous experiments.  Moving electrons are diffracted and
>>show interference patterns just like other waves.  Allowing one electron at
>>a time to go through narrow slits still results in an interference pattern.
>>That's wave behavior, man.
>>
>
> Yes.  An electron can be described as a wave, can be diffracted, and can
> show interference patterns.  I agree.  So?
>
>>The key notion in quantum mechanics (I prefer *wave mechanics*) is that all
>>matter shows wavelike behavior.  The 'uncertainty principle' which limits
>>fundamentally our ability to measure both position and momentum in the
>>microscopic regime , although often used only in conjunction with quantum
>>mechanics, in fact applies to any wavelike phenomenon.  Although the
>>mathematics is not terribly difficult, let me try to give a simple physical
>>picture:  the elecron moving in a hydrogen atom behaves like a standing wave
>>whose MINIMUM energy occurs in what we then call the ground (or n=1) state.
>>A wave (unlike like the particle picture) can only exist in motion.
>
> 1.  Calling it the MINIMUM state, even in capitol letters, does not make it so!
>
> 2.  How does the uncertainty principle make the n = 1 state the ground
> state?  Besides, the uncertainty principle limits our ability to
> *measure*--it does not limit nature itself.
 
 
This is simply wrong.  It is the behavior of the waves (or wave-particles)
themselves that is governed by the uncertainty principle.  How does one make
measurements in the world of atoms without using probes such as electrons
or photons?   Our ability to make measurements is limited by the behavior
of the world around us, that is, nature.
 
 
>>Look at this another way (as Gary Collins pointed out here some time ago):
>>for an electron to go "closer" to the proton ("shrunken" as you say) would
>>require INPUT of energy!   Hence, extraction of energy by "shrinking" hydrogen
>>atoms is absurd.  (Sorry.)
>
> Not correct.  As I explainded in a previous post, the effective nuclear
> charge is (1/n)e.  Thus in the n = 1/3 state, the effective nuclear charge
> is (3)e (and r = (1/3)ao.  When  the electron moves into a fractional
> quantum number state the energy is *lowered*--just as might be predicted by
> Coulomb's law.  When  the atom goes to n = 3, the effective nuclear charge
> is (1/3)e; that is why the atom is larger (3 ao).
>
> Steve, you are using a circular argument.  Namely, wave machanics predicts
> that the n = 1 state is the ground state for the hydrogen atom; because n =
> 1 is the ground state, there can be no lower energy states for the hydrogen
> atom.
 
 
The argument that the minimum energy of a hydrogen atom occurs when the
radius is equal to the Bohr radius is independent of any detailed solution,
(apart from knowing that the electron and proton are bound together by the
Coulomb force.)  There can thus be no lower energies for atoms with
smaller radii.  The argument is very general, as Matt Kennel has also
pointed out.
 
 
> Consider this:  wave mechanics *might* be wrong.  Rather than a
> mathematical argument, give a physical argument for why the electron cannot
> "fall" into the nucleus.
 
 
Physical evidence (better than an argument) why electrons cannot "fall"
into the nucleus:   We're all still here!
 
Why is it in your theory that hydrogen atoms within electrochemical cells,
but not elsewhere, that can be "tickled" into decaying into your fractional
quantum-number states?   Can other atoms such as carbon or oxygen shrink?
What is the trigger?  Should we beware of "waterinoes"?
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Oh no, hydrinoes again (was Reply to Steve Jones)
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oh no, hydrinoes again (was Reply to Steve Jones)
Date: 2 Jun 93 19:05:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
: Why is it in your theory that hydrogen atoms within electrochemical cells,
: but not elsewhere, that can be "tickled" into decaying into your fractional
: quantum-number states?   Can other atoms such as carbon or oxygen shrink?
 
This is important here: if hydrogen atoms have "super-low" states with
energies in the not-very-experimentally-explored hard-UV, then heavier atoms
should have super-low states in the very well experimentally explored x-ray
region.  If there were x-ray edges and transitions consistent with this, we
would have seen them.  But we haven't.  We have seen x-ray edges and
transitions corresponding to normal n=1 atomic ground states that we
calculate with the normal shcroedinger equation and uncertainty principle
with the normal value of Planck's constant, and sure enough, we see
that edge and we don't see others at higher energy.
 
And wouldn't super-low electron states lead to higher-than-expected
electron-conversion nuclear reaction rates?  But we don't
see that.
 
These are falsifiable experimental considerations.
 
Unless somehow these new states are hyper forbidden except in some
weird situations.
 
: --
: Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.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:
cuddy2 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / S Schaffner /  Re: What Blake thinks
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Blake thinks
Date: 2 Jun 93 18:51:48 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <930602142601_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
|> "He who doubts from what he sees
|> Will ne'er believe, do what you please.
|> If the sun and moon should doubt
|> They'd immediately go out."
|>
|> William Blake, from the Pickering Manuscript, 1805
|>
 
Blake was, of course, insane.  I recall one of my English professors
commenting that if most poets said "I saw an angel the other night", they would
be speaking metaphorically; when Blake said it, he meant it.  An
interesting fellow.
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / John George /  Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Value of Parallel Work
Date: 2 Jun 93 21:13:44 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

One theory that is often bantered about is that human work is somehow a
serial process. We are to believe that work is accomplished like a homing
torpedo, only one track that may meander from side to side but will (if we
are lucky) correct itself and hit the target. A good look shows us that
"backdoor, unauthorized, inefficient, unrealistic" parallelized methods
are what bring about rapid progress.
 
Actually an international "scientific water-cooler" may be the best thing to
ever hit the human race. What we need to solve the problems of humankind are
hundreds of tracks, thousands of researchers, and millions of communications
between everybody (that's right, EVERYBODY!).
 
Sea Creatures spray millions of eggs and sperm into the water to reproduce
themselves only a few times. We need to have much the same process available
to scientists. Who knows what piece of trivial piece of information triggers
the next revolution in science! The "Dark Ages" were times when religious and
political orthodoxy chained human thought.
 
It has been said that we stand on the shoulders of giants, and that is very
true. We only need the appearance of a few true genius-caliber people in a
generation to give the rest of us a life's work of improving and building
from what they give us. It is the synthesis of seemingly unrelated work
that results in many of the most useful things in our lives.
 
If you are conspiracy minded, think about the thing that would slow down the
research in any field. That's right, restrict access to information, any
information at all. Ask yourself, who would fund a study of this newsgroup
to come to the conclusion that "it isn't really useful"? What's next? Why,
of course! Shut it down in the name of protecting the taxpayer!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: More on SBIR's
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on SBIR's
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 21:08:39 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

In article <930602135105.20800471@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>You may wonder why I only seem to get to review SBIR's every other year.
>...
>and point out all the problems.  This usually results in a bad review, as I
>have run a small business or two, and have some ideas about what constitutes a
>product.
>
>But the DOE really wants lots of good reviews, as it is easier then to do what
>they want.  So I get crossed the list for the next year.
 
   Think I've had exactly the same experience.  Received a couple of
proposals to review some years back.  Replied what I thought about
each of them: (a) first or all this ain't a particularly good idea
technically, so far as I can see; and (b) I know for a fact there's
tons of venture capital money around, in fact the WSJ had an article
just last week on how there are tons of venture capital investors
chasing a limited supply of good ideas.  So, even if I'm wrong about
the merits of this idea, if it has any merit, and can be done for the
few $100K you're proposing, how come some venture capitalist isn't
picking it up?
 
   Net result: no more proposals coming to my mail box.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 22:34:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell looks at the scientific process and says "The fact is, if you
quantify these so-called "objections," or if you actually test them ... "
 
Jed comes to the conclusion that if we point out some problem in a measurement,
then study our objection and find a problem with it, that this somehow proves
the original measurement was correct.  This is just normal scientific process
at work.  We are looking for the truth, not trying to prove a position.
 
Because every one of my 13 objections to the work of P&F does not hold up to
be the entire cause of the "anomalous heat" claimed does not mean that one or
several of them will not explain it.  They could all be wrong and still the
"anomalous heat" could be explained by something else.
 
Looks like we all now agree, that there is an error associated with the
saturation level of the exiting vapor.  I never said I thought this was the
entire explanation.  I merely stated that this was one of many obvious error
sources that were not covered by P&F in their paper.  This makes me suspicious
of their technique in general.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S. Chuck Harrison I will try to reply to your explanation when I can get a
hard copy to study (some queue is stalled).  But my occam's razor looks a
little tired!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Timothy May /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 19:55:29 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Henry Choy (choy@dvinci) wrote:
: Someone told me a fusion power plant would cost billion$. Anyone
: believe this?
 
I doubt it would be that cheap!
 
 
(Not to be so flippant about this question, but just the fusion
research programs are expected to cost tens of billions. And nobody
has the foggiest idea of how to build a real fusion plant, one that
produces commercial energy. And don't forget that a billion dollars is
not longer all that much money...Intel's latest chip factory is
costing a billion, for example.)
 
 
-Tim May
--
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentcmay cudfnTimothy cudlnMay cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Replies to Dick Blue and Matt Kennel
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Replies to Dick Blue and Matt Kennel
Date: 2 Jun 1993 21:29:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
: 2.  Please keep in mind that the "true believers" of quantum mechanics make
: totally outrageous, unfounded statements constantly.  (a) For example, ask
: a TB "Why doesn't the electron radiate?"  TB's answer, "because electrons
: (and other small particles) operate by different rules than larger
: objects."  This is absurd!  And they don't realize it!  What is the basis
: of their answer--that bound electrons don't radiate.  OK. They are not
: giving a reason--they are stating a *related* fact.
 
In QM: Electrons don't radiate because you conserve energy.  But as
energy is quantized, you have to have a valid final state.  Sometimes
there is no final state with lower energy, and this is because of
the uncertainty principle.
 
No there isn't any "more fundamental" explanation, but this explanation
does explain a lot of things.
 
: (b) A related example.
: The radial function for the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom is
: solved by postulating the boundry condition that Psi -> 0 as r -> infinity.
:  And Psi^2 is interpreted as a probability density function.  Ask a TB "Is
: there some probability that the electron found on a hydrogen atom in *this*
: room will be found on *Mars*?  TB's answer, "Yes, but the probability will
: be extremely small."  (Can you believe it????)
 
Yes.
 
: Where is their proof?
 
Quantitative calculation and experimental observation of tunneling rates
and scattering and transmission across potential wells, and especially
these observations as a function of energy and size of the potential
well, i.e. resonances.
 
They all work as you'd expect calculating things with wavefunctions.
 
I don't think you can get those effects with just charge densities,
you need wavefunctions that interfere which you then take the
magnitude.
 
: Have
: they ever marked an electron on Earth and then found it on Mars?
 
No that experiment is impossible.  But tunneling experiments aren't.
 
:  Don't
: they realize what they are saying?
 
Yes.
 
: Don't they know that the ionization
: energy of the hydrogen atom is known to about nine significant figures?
 
Yes.
 
: How do they expect such a spread out wave to give such an exact energy?
 
Becuase it's an exact eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.
 
: Are they so blinded by their *faith* in the theory that they have
: disconnected themselves from reality?
 
No.  Quantum mechanics explains alot of real phenomena that they
observe.  There is some difficulty with the details of the
probabilistic structure and meanings of 'observation' and
wavefunction collapse and such, but these have little bearing
on what actually gets observed and calculated in most
experiments.
 
:  With regard to the above questions, The boundry condition is derived from
: Maxwell's equations (postulated on the basis of thousands of
: observations)--for non-radiative states, the charge-density function must
: not possess space-time Fourier components that are synchronous with waves
: travelling at the speed of light.
 
:This is an "explanation" of why the
: bound electron doesn't radiate--it can't becuase it doesn't have the
: necessary frequency components to do it.  Furthermore, it leads to the
: condition that lambda = 2 pi r and for the hydrogen atom that the radial
: function is a spherical Dirac delata function such than r = n ao.  Thus,
: the electron does not extend to Mars!  In a non-radiative state it is at an
: extremely discrete (Dirac delata function) distance from the nucleus, n ao.
:  Because "all" of the electron is at *this* distance, the electron
: experiences a *constant* potential energy.  The atom does not
: radiate--energy is conserved.  Therefore, the kinetic energy of the
: electron is also constant.  Not surprising then, that the transitions
: between non-radiative states and the ionization energy are so well
: defined--*all* of the electron is at the same energy.  Sorry, a single
: electron is *not* distributed all over the universe.  Sorry, there is a
: reason why the electron does not radiate.  Sorry, there is a reason why the
: electronic transitions are so discrete.
 
Why do electrons tunnel then?
 
:  Sorry, all objects operate by the
: same set of rules.  Sorry, there is a reason why the electron has spin
: angular momentum.  Just because QM doesn't have the answers, and must rely
: on circular arguments, doesn't mean that the answers aren't there.
: Furthermore, The TBs of QM are so used to their trite answers thay have
: become respectable in the scientific community.
 
Those trite answers DO explain many experimental results.
 
: It is time for the
: doubtors of QM to prepare--the battle is beginning.
 
: OK. Try this.  In the n = 1/2 state,
:
: 1.  The radius of the orbitsphere is
:
:      r = n ao or r = (1/2) ao
:
: (see above: "smaller area than 'ground' "; the only problem is that the
: electron is fundamentally a two-dimensional "thing" (a Dirac delta function
: in r) What would Heisenberg do???).
 
What is a free electron then?  Doesn't classical e&m have problems
with truly point charges (self energy and all that)
 
: 2.  The wavelength is
:
:      lambda = 2 pi r or lambda =  pi ao.
:
: 3. The linear momentum is given by the deBroglie relationship (an
: experimental relationship),
:
:      p = h/lambda, p = h/(pi ao)   (the linear momentum is larger in the n
: = 1/2   state than in the n = 1 state!)
 
Is the charge density time dependent?
 
Can you write out what the charge density as a function of
space and time?
 
E.g:  rho(n=1/2) = delta(r - a0/2) * F(t)
 
Can you define "p" for an arbitrary charge density?  (i.e.
what is "lambda" if it's not spherical?)
 
Here's where the crux of this arises:  classically
you can have momentum and position of a particle and
they can be independent and anything that you want.
 
Now, momentum (p) and position (charge density in space)
have been related.  How?
 
My guess to your response:  the electron will radiate
until it gets "stuck" in a state that doesn't.
 
But still, how does a classically point electron get
transformed to a spread out charge density?
 
: 4.  The effective nuclear charge is (1/n)e or 2 e.
 
How did this happen?  Is there another charge somewhere?
 
: Best regards,
: John Farrell
:
 
--
-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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / S Schaffner /  Re: Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Value of Parallel Work
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 00:38:07 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <20124@autodesk.COM>, johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
 
|> Actually an international "scientific water-cooler" may be the best thing to
|> ever hit the human race. What we need to solve the problems of humankind are
|> hundreds of tracks, thousands of researchers, and millions of communications
|> between everybody (that's right, EVERYBODY!).
|>
|> Sea Creatures spray millions of eggs and sperm into the water to reproduce
|> themselves only a few times. We need to have much the same process available
|> to scientists. Who knows what piece of trivial piece of information triggers
|> the next revolution in science!
 
And who knows what trivial piece of information, one which might have
sparked a scientific revolution, will be missed because some scientist was
reading Usenet instead of doing his work?  All information is not equal.
(Or do you also favor installing TV's in laboratories to increase our
input of trivial information?).
 
|> The "Dark Ages" were times when religious and
|> political orthodoxy chained human thought.
 
No they weren't.  They were times when the lack of strong political
structures permitted Vikings, Magyars, and assorted others to burn, loot,
and kill as they pleased; these are activities not notably conducive to
abstract thought on the part of either the looters or those being looted.
 
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Value of Parallel Work
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 03:07:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
>And who knows what trivial piece of information, one which might have
>sparked a scientific revolution, will be missed because some scientist was
>reading Usenet instead of doing his work?
 
This is a valid disadvantage.  It is the general attribute known as
opportunity cost.  Doing one thing always means giving up doing something
else.
 
None the less, we generally find that those who communicate extensively
with others tend to insist on being able to continue to do so.  It is
generally agreed that such back and forth is intellectually stimulating
to the participants and observers.
 
> All information is not equal.
 
This is a humble truth -- which is perhaps here dressed in arrogant
clothing, claiming to know in advance where the next bit of good information
is going to spring forth.  I wish it were so.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / John Logajan /  Research and Hitler
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Research and Hitler
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 23:49:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>I think the most important book you can find to document the nature
>of the tokamak and laser fusion programs is one that was written a
>long time ago but is still very much up to date in all fields of
>technosocialism (a new breed of national socialism):
>
>Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
 
Although I agree with Jim's general argument against technosocialism,
being both immoral and counter-productive, I think the reference to
Hitler is argumentively weak.
 
The problem is that Hitler said a lot of things, including reciting
the arithmetic tables.  2+2=4 is not thrown into disrepute thereby.
 
Better to show by first principles that technosocialism is immoral
because it relies on the coercive State, and then let the parallels
to Hitler draw themselves.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.02 / C Cannon /  Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
     
Originally-From: cannon@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Christopher Cannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 20:05:29 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc

In article <2936EFEF485F2285C9@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1077:
>
>>Greg 'Spike' Bishop writes:
>>>Hi!  I'm writing a 10 page term paper on the state of fusion research.  What
>>>would be a few good references to use?
>...
>>>I am interested in laser fusion, and fusion tokamok (sp) devices.
>
>>Yeah, I'm interested in collecting a few billion dollars with the only
>>concern being how I'm going to keep competing ideas from getting
>...
>>instance of Hitler's big lie theory.
>
>...
>>Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
>
>Jim, the kid asked a serious question, and has a paper to write. What the hell
>is the good of this sort of BS?
>
 
First Law of Usenet: Any discussion thread will eventually mention Hitler
or Nazis
 
--
===================
cannon@lobby.ti.com
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencannon cudfnChristopher cudlnCannon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Barry Smith /  Re: SBIRs
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SBIRs
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 06:57:49 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research, Portland Oregon

In article <930602131741.20800471@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> <marvelous stuff about "small business" and "government" in the "real world">
 
Wasn't someone just saying that this group wasn't worth reading?
 
Thanks, Tom.
 
barry@bluesky.com
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Observables in the Farrell-Mills theory
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Observables in the Farrell-Mills theory
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 12:53:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There seems to be some confusion on the part of Prof. Farrell as to
what are the physical observables in an atomic system and what he is
free to postulate.  When he asserts that electrons always have orbital
angular momentum hbar he is denying experimental results.  Angular
momentum is what it is!  When he suggests that the "effective" nuclear
charge is reduced, he indulges in empty word play.  The charge is a
scale factor in the Coulomb-interaction term of the Hamiltonian and
any resort to use of an "effective" interaction is clearly just fudging.
The signs are all there that Farrell and Mills are not ready to
accept the discipline of real science.  The fact that this bad theory
has has come to the surface in support of some shakey experimental
results says something about both the theory and the experiment.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / K Blackler /  Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (Kenneth Blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Power (term paper advice)
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 11:25:20 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <2936EFEF485F2285C9@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
>Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1077:
 
>>Greg 'Spike' Bishop writes:
>>>Hi!  I'm writing a 10 page term paper on the state of fusion research.  What
>>>would be a few good references to use?
>...
>>>I am interested in laser fusion, and fusion tokamok (sp) devices.
 
>>Yeah, I'm interested in collecting a few billion dollars with the only
>>concern being how I'm going to keep competing ideas from getting
>...
>>instance of Hitler's big lie theory.
 
>...
>>Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
 
>Jim, the kid asked a serious question, and has a paper to write. What the hell
>is the good of this sort of BS?
 
>Greg asked about fusion, which I thought was the subject of this list. Isn't
>there anyone on this list who can give some serious help to him?? Or are you
>all here just to bicker with each other?
 
If you want some propoganda (which includes technical info)
write to:
 
Public Relations Office
JET Joint Undertaking
Abingdon
Oxfordshire
England
OX14 3EA
 
and ask for the latest JET Annual Report, the
first volume of the progress report and for any brochures.
 
Hope this helps ;-)
 
KenB
--
 ______________________________________   ____________   _____________
|Ken Blackler kb@jet.uk (+44)235 464743| | __________ | |   -Fusion-   |
|JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon       | |   | |_ |   | |Energy for the|
|Oxfordshire, England. OX14 3EA        | | \_/ |_ |   | | (far) future |
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkb cudfnKenneth cudlnBlackler cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Hydrinos Again
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinos Again
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 15:46:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary Collins asks:
 
"Where and how have the purported lower-energy states been identified?"
 
This in looking for lower than one state hydrogen atoms.
 
Mills does have a reference which he disclosed to me when I had a secrecy
agreement with him.  I believe that my agreement to keep secret has long
expired, still I take such things seriously, so I will leave it to Mills or
Farrell to disclose it.
 
The reference was not convincing to me, but Mills seemed to take it very
seriously.  Unfortunately experimental physics in this area is such that it
may be some time before a better measurement is available.
 
Sorry that this is vague, it is intended to provoke Mills to put another card
on the table.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re:?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 17:12:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

No! No! No!  The billion is just for the paper to print the forms that will
have to be filled out.  The real question is what to do with the radwaste from
this "clean" energy source.  Give me nice clean fission any day.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Greg Bishop /  THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: gt3635a@prism.gatech.EDU (Greg 'Spike' Bishop)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: 3 Jun 93 15:17:42 GMT
Organization: National Association for the Free Exchange of Information

OK, I read everything I could get my hands on, which included a lot
of new and old materials, especially things on Tokamaks.  I also
happened across several books on cold fusion, and also research done
at GaTech on cold fusion.
 
The gist of what I read seems to be this:
 
1. Cold fusion does not exist.  Period.  Ponds and Fleichman were
both irresponsible in the conduct of their research, and in the way
their research was released, and neither has provided convincing
objective data and methods that will duplicate their results.  In
addition it seams that their university has become the brunt of jokes
and has had its reputation damaged their activities.
 
2. Laser fusion is not actually research for fusion power.  From what
I read it looks like this is actually an attempt by the government to
look at small hydrogen bombs while avoiding the various testing
treaties we are obliged to comply with.  Useful and interesting
research has occurred nonetheless, which might conceivably
eventually result in a process which might be harnessed for power
some time in the very distant future, but will not be practical for
most applications as it is wasteful, inefficient and the energy
produced by the apparatus appears to be hard to harness.
 
3. Tokamaks appear to be the most reasonable approach to fusion
power but very great obstacles remain.  The systems are difficult to
operate, maintain, run and improve once built.  Because of the
poorly understood physics involved in containing superheated plasma
using magnetic methods the building of new Tokamaks are presently
unlikely to be successful due to a lack of knowledge in a number of
areas before they are built (especially if the Tokamaks is of a new
design), and also due to what appears to be an inability to "tinker"
with the Tokamaks once it has been built.
 
These appear to be the main obstacles to fusion power generation in
the United States today:
 
1. Micro instabilities in the plasma - Micro instabilities in the fusion
plasma result in strong localized distortions of the magnetism of the
plasma field which result in the escape of plasma to the outside wall,
in a production reactor this type of event would be catastrophic
reactor failure as the hot plasma would burn through the reactor
wall, rupture the magnetic confinement of that area and escape.
Scientists now understand (which is a very significant improvement
in the state of the research in the late 1960's) that micro instabilities
are caused by the relative motions between the ions on the plasma,
and the electrons in it.  If the amplitude of these plasma instabilities
becomes great enough, it generates a type of turbulence and electron-
ion separations large enough to generate very high local electric
fields.  These then have the potential of bumping nearby particles
across the confining magnetic field and thus leads to enhanced
particle loss.  Such loss is now called Bohm or anomalous diffusion.
Since anomalous diffusion only weekly responds to changes in the
strength of the magnetic field, making the magnetic field stronger
does not make the problem go away to any substantial degree.  This
is in contrast to collision diffusion which response much more
readily to increased magnetic field strength.  Micro instabilities can
be surprised only when the plasma has sheer so that the field lines no
longer go in just one direction.  This is achieved by using helical
field lines to contain the plasma.  Micro instabilities with short
wavelengths relative to the sheer can not be surprised in this manner
however, and to minimize these affects it appears necessary to ensure
that the energy available to drive the instabilities should be
minimized so that if the instabilities are not stabilized, that their
amplitudes are limited to small values rather then the larger ones
which will not respond to sheer.  This problem needs more research,
but appears to offer promising solutions
 
2. Drift waves on the plasma surface - Drift waves in along the
plasma surface tend to propagate around the magnetic tours of a
Tokamaks.  This poses another serious obstacle.  Because trapped
particles have much higher collision rates then non trapped particles,
and because they are relatively localized (in that they do not cover
large distances around the Tokamaks, but rather bounce back and
forth in a wave across the path of the plasma, they are less affected
by the stabilizing effects of sheer, helical fields, etc.  Trapped
particles thus offer an efficient route for large amounts of energy in
the plasma to escape across the magnetic field.  Because as
Tokamaks get hotter and more free of collisions, collisionless drift
waves caused by resonance effects, or phase lags increase the
instability of the system dramatically.  There is some hope of
controlling the density profile to help eliminate these effects.  If the
boundary is diffuse rather then sharp, drift waves apparently tend to
be surprised.
 
3. Magnetic field strength - This appears to be another problem, but
not as severe as the first three.  Maintaining a strong magnetic field
is a considerable engineering feet.  Maintaining one which can
operate for very long periods of time, requiring little maintenance,
and being almost totally incapable of failure is a much more serious
challenge.  Catastrophic magnetic field failure will probably result in
the complete destruction of a production fusion reactor.  The advent
of micro sensors, and new technologies in computer control systems,
smart materials, and innovative techniques promises to make any
such potential problems known well in advance of such a disaster.
The loss of a multibillion dollar scientific machine must of course be
avoided at all cost.
 
4. Injection and control of the fuel and fuel exhaust - This also
appears to be an area in which considerable success has been
achieved.  No doubt better systems will emerge, but the injection
and exhaust problems which were so prominent in the 1960's appear
to have become soluble with improved fields, lasers, pellet injectors
and some spin-offs from the laser fusion projects.
 
5. Radioactivity - Radioactivity plagues fusion research issues in
ways that many of the research scientists are unaware.   Though D-T
fusion (or even T-T fusion) appear to be an order of magnitude
easier to achieve then non radioactive D-D fusion, it is the non
radioactivity of the D-D process that is fusion's greatest advantage.
Nobody wants their neighborhood fusion plant to become radioactive
over time, resulting in enbrittlement of the reactor walls, creation of
super toxic waste products that will endure for thousands of years, or
creation of enormous volumes of "low level" waste.  D-D fusion
requires higher plasma temperatures, more powerful fields and larger
Tokamaks.  In addition there is a virtually unlimited amount of
deuterium available to use, whereas lithium and tritium supplies are
expected to be no larger then the current reserves of fissile materials.
In addition, tritium is horrendiously toxic, displaces H in water and
is readily absorbed by animals and people.  Fortunately it has a short
half life of only 12 years, but the toxic dose level is small.  Some
have pointed out that if you recycled the walls of the reactor by
removing them, letting them "cool off" for a time, and then reforged
them, you could prevent the build up of the waste levels that have
plagued fission power.  This may however not be economical, as
extraction of micro impurities from the material may be difficult.
 
6. Suitable Lasers - Lasers have received much research money in
recent years, and while great advances have occurred, efficient
inexpensive laser systems with the properties that fusion researchers
require to achieve high enough temperatures for laser fusion still lie
in the future.  Several useful spin-offs from laser technology have
energized which have found application in Tokamaks design, and
further research in this area appears warranted.
 
In summary I would like to say that while research looks promising,
it does not appear that fusion power research will be practical before
the turn of the century, and probably for 10-50 years from then.
Funding does not appear to be THE major problem, despite the
vigorous complaints that it is.  Basic science in the fields of plasma
physics, materials design, magnetic fields, lasers, and other
technologies still have much development ahead of them before
efficient economical fusion reactors become possible.  Though the
costs of developing fusion power appear enormous, the potential
benefit also appears to be enormous, and more funding and research
could certainly be used to substantially reduce the outer time frame
of fusion research.  As more work is done, and as additional
scientific and technical problems are solved, it is doubtless that more
useful fusion research will emerge.
 
The three factors that would most aid fusion research that I could
identify in my research were the following:
 
1. A need for a much larger experimental Tokamaks - Some of the
problems of fusion research appear to be solely the result of the
small size of the various devices scientists have at their disposal.
Building a large research reactor would be expensive, but it is likely
that there will be large technological spin-offs and that some
problems of elementary plasma physics can be investigated and
perhaps solved through the building of a substantially larger device.
It appears that a increase in radius of from two to five hundred
percent would aid the research effort considerably.  In addition the
Tokamaks should be designed so that substantial modifications and
alterations could be made in it once it is built to prolong the useful
research life of the device.
 
2. A need for improved understanding of magnetic fields and plasma
physics - More funding to conduct basic research into the dynamics
of magnetic and plasma fields is required.  The funds should be
concentrated in a research program similar to the ones that created
the Manhattan project and the Apollo project to simply investigate
the physics and phenomena that are relevant to understanding plasma
physics.
 
3. More effective use and evaluation of proposed designs and
changes to existing Tokamaks - Along with a better understanding of
the physics involved in fusion research, better computer systems, and
research tools are required to evaluate and test various ideas and
concepts quickly.  Expenditures in this area will doubtless help
industry and foster a more vigorous fusion research program.
 
If you disagree with all or some of what I said please tell me as I am
going to finish writing my paper, and would like some reaction from
an informed audience as to whether my perceptions and beliefs on
these matters are accurate, or if I am simply whacked.
 
PS. I would like an intelligent response, not references to Mien
Kampf or other such nonsense.
 
PPS. I would like to thank those of you who responded to my initial
inquiry with lists of books, addresses of those involved in fusion
projects and fusion research, etc.
 
-Greg Bishop
 
gt3635a@prism.gatech.edu
--
GaTech: "Designing tommorow the night before with yesterday's technology."
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengt3635a cudfnGreg cudlnBishop cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Jim Bowery /  Technosocialism and Hitler
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Technosocialism and Hitler
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 18:28:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:
>Although I agree with Jim's general argument against technosocialism,
>being both immoral and counter-productive, I think the reference to
>Hitler is argumentively weak.
>
>The problem is that Hitler said a lot of things, including reciting
>the arithmetic tables.  2+2=4 is not thrown into disrepute thereby.
>
>Better to show by first principles that technosocialism is immoral
>because it relies on the coercive State, and then let the parallels
>to Hitler draw themselves.
 
Here are the reasons I chose to invoke the oft-abused "Nazi/Hitler"
example rather than arguing from the libertarian first principle:
 
First:
 
The practical destructiveness of the government's fusion
program exceeds the destructiveness of the Third Reich at least an
orders of magnitude.  The problem is the vast majority of people in
this newsgroup, let alone the world at large, are not presented with
this simple truth in a manner commensurate with its import.
 
It is, nevertheless, demonstrably true.
 
Not even feminism, "The Death of Eros" or "Sexual Suicide" are
superior to the government's fusion program in destroying things of
essential value because, as Blume and Gilder never quite understood,
it is the ascendency of negative-sum values that is primarily
responsible for transforming trust, love and synergy between genders
into paranoia, hate and conflict.  The same is true of race relations,
although erocide is much more subtly destructive than genocide.  Both
are a consequence of the neo-malthusian illusion.
 
But most important:  Even if you could magically eliminate these
negative-sum symptoms tomorrow, the real damage of the fusion
program remains in the lost opportunities of a limitless frontier --
possibly forever.  From this more rational perspective, the only real
damage of erocide and genocide is that they divert our energies away
from this potential.  The space program is second only to the fusion
program in the propogation of these evils, even though its scale and
visibility are much greater and its relation to material resource
limits is more direct.
 
I don't know how you get through the mental fog most people live in
so they understand the orders of magnitude at issue here except to
give them the only geopolitical mental-emotional connection they have
been programmed to accept by TV et al:  Hitler/Nazis etc.  I do this
fully aware that these images grossly understate the case in formal
terms.
 
 
Second,
 
The technosocialist programs are the principle of the big lie in practice,
whereby the masses are manipulated to suppress the truth via cognitive
dissonance.  They don't want to face the fact that they have been so
profoundly dupped and will assist each other in primate-politics to gang
up against the minority view if it is voiced publicly.  Again, more than
others in history, Hitler is identified with the big lie theory and its
practice.
 
The only way to counter the big lie phenomenon is to flee the mob or
to simply delare the big lie to be false -- bearing the consequences.
It is an act of kindness and generosity (some would say to the point
 of foolishness) to declare the falsity of the big lie midst the mob.
It all depends on how much one cares about the individuals that
comprise the mob and how much faith one has in their essential nature.
 
I have faith in the individuals who read this newsgroup because they
wouldn't be interested in fusion at all unless they were more
perceptive than most.  And, believe it or not, I care more about
such people than others who are "nicer" and less "antisocial" in
their manner toward them.
 
 
Third,
 
Although Hitler said all sorts of things, he didn't DO all sorts
of things.  Technosocialism was a principle of national socialism
that was followed up in practice -- with consequences that remain
in the historic record and correspond very well with the history
of technosocialism in this country:
 
Rapid initial gains followed by disaster.
 
The fact that the disaster created by technosocialism in this
country has been more subtle, profound and longer lasting than
the destruction by that ideology of Germany is, again an
unfortunate but necessary understatement of my case given the
mental fog inflicted on the vast majority of people by the
media and the government.
 
 
Fourth,
 
The first principle of "the coercive state" being the basis of
argument is stretching it a bit far for me.  I have difficulties
with the libertarian view in that it appears to, in practice,
inevitably degenerate into various forms of feudalism with, at best,
honorable trial by combat replacing the current "monopoly on
 force" held by the "coercive state".  Perhaps this "at best" is
better than the current situation and perhaps it is even optimal
as "there are no utopias."
 
While I am willing to discuss this issue off line and am open
to being convinced otherwise, I certainly don't adhere to the
libertarian first principle in a way that would allow me to argue
from it effectively or honestly.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Timothy May /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 17:28:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

 
Greg's summary is very nicely done! The Net needs more articles like
this, where people initially "waste" bandwidth (a common charge) by
asking questions or even newbie questions. But if they then summarize
what they learned, this is more than ample repayment.
 
The Net needs more of this.
 
 
Thanks, Greg.
 
-Tim May (ex-physicist who tuned-in to this group because someone told
him the Farrell-Mills stuff was being debated)
--
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentcmay cudfnTimothy cudlnMay cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Jed Rothwell /  It's calorimetry, not CF
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It's calorimetry, not CF
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 18:58:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Tom missed my point. Pons and Fleischmann did not invent calorimetry. Neither
did Bockris, Ikegami, Kunimatsu, Oyama, Srinivasan, Storms, Miles or any of
the other hundreds of people who have measured excess heat. Their experimental
techniques are tried and true, and extremely well understood. Bockris and
other experts have pointed out time after time that these instruments are know
to be accurate within a percent or two at multiwatt power levels. Naturally,
they do not work at milliwatt levels, any more than a magnifying glass works
in the domain of the electron microscope. The tools commonly used in CF
experiments are designed to measure watts, not milliwatts or picowatts, and
there can be *no question* that they work. The "objections" raised by Tom and
others are attempts to debunk calorimetry, not cold fusion. "Skeptics" claim
that the CF device acts as a heat pump, or like Tom, they come up with lists
of 13 marginal reasons, that together could not possibly cause even a 0.1%
error, and then they say "maybe all these reasons lumped together add up to a
350% error." I am not saying that Tom's "reasons" are wrong. I have no doubt
that a thin film of salts on the inside of a test tube has some effect on
performance, just as Tom asserts. No doubt, Dick Blue is right too: water
flowing freely through a pipe at one ml per second does generate some heat
from friction. However, I know from personal experience and from common sense
scientific training that you could not possibly measure these effects with
equipment designed for the multi-watt domain. You need an instrument designed
to measure 0.01 milliwatts for that. Since P&F's CF effect peaks at 144.5
watts, 0.01 milliwatt effects have no possible bearing on it. Period. You can
search until doomsday for tiny little things like that, and not even begin to
"explain away" the heat. For that matter, I could come up with a few dozen
marginal effects that cause P&F to underestimate the heat. This is a stupid
waste of time, it is like trying to explain away a nuclear bomb explosion by
thinking up reasons why the weather might enhance a chemical explosion.
 
Let us consider what P&F, Bockris, Ikegami, Forsley and all those others who
use static calorimeters actually do year after year. People who are not
familiar with these procedures must read P&F's paper and the other literature,
and you must see photographs and schematics of the equipment in order to
understand. Perhaps a brief description from me might help, though. I shall
telescope many months of grinding work described in dozens of scientific
papers into a few paragraphs. This is a mere caricature.
 
An open, static calorimeter is a basically a vessel sitting a box of water. In
P&F's case, it is a superbly designed little vessel: a half silvered, tall
Dewar sitting in a water bath, in a room where the temperatures of both the
water and the room are carefully controlled. "Thermal balances [between bath
and air] can be made to within 99.9% if this is required." This calls for
expensive, precise laboratory heating and air conditioning, and precision room
thermostats.
 
You put a precision heater and a CF device into the Dewar. You calibrate by
running electricity through the precision heater (also known as a "joule
heater"). You measure the temperature of the electrolyte with 1 watt of
electrical input, 2 watts, 3 watts, and so on. Workers also measure the
temperature at the cell walls, and at various other locations. For the last
194 years, it has been well known that the rise in temperature is proportional
to the amount of heat energy put into the system. It has been know that the
rise is linear at temperatures from about 20 C up to about 80 C.
 
P&F, Miles and other experts do more than this. They go back to first
principles and compute exactly how hot the water should get, given the physics
of the system. Again, let me emphasize that the physics of heat transfer,
radiation, conduction, evaporation and so on are *very* well understood, and
have been understood for over a century. P&F did not invent these things, but
they have demonstrated a mastery of this science unparalleled by any other
workers I have ever talked to. P&F model the behavior of the system, and then
they compare the actual behavior during precision heater calibration with the
behavior predicted by the model. They find a very close fit, which is what you
would expect, given such a long settled branch of science. There are no big
surprises left in elementary heat transfer. The inaccuracies in the model and
measurements are minuscule. This is proven fact -- the "skeptics" dispute it,
but they can point to no experiments to prove what they say, whereas I can
point to thousand and thousands over the last 194 years that prove what *I*
say.
 
The critics, here and elsewhere, have said that P&F do not understand heat
transfer and calorimetry. Robert Park, of the American Physical Society, said:
"They still can't seem to get the hang of calorimetry..." Tom Droege says it
is not an experiment. *I say* put up or shut up. Where is the mistake? You
have the equation and model, you have the data, what is wrong? I quoted the
equation here (minus all the terms which are impossible to reproduce in this
medium), and I said "does anyone have any argument with this?" Nobody does.
The model is a straightforward simulation of classical heat transfer, and it
predicts the behavior of the system with great accuracy. Therefore, it is
right. Park says the results must be "error and fraud" but he does not explain
why, he does not say what is wrong with the equations or experimental
technique, so he has no scientific basis for his statements.
 
By calibrating the calorimeter, and by modeling it, the scientists learn
precisely how it works. This allows them to say with astronomically high
confidence that if you put in 10 watts, the temperature will go up very
significantly, and if you put in 20 watts, it will climb twice as high.
Depending on how you arrange the calorimeter, you might see a temperature
difference of 5 C per 10 watts, or you might see 50 C. In any case, the
temperature rise will be unmistakable, and light years beyond any conceivable
experimental error or noise level, because 10 watts is a heck of high level of
heat generation. Actually, with decent equipment in an ordinary static
calorimeter, you can measure 0.1 watts with confidence. The skeptics have
claimed this is not true, they say that even 10 watts is hard to measure. I
assert it is dead simple, and that I have done it, Bockris has, and so have
thousands of other scientists. Those who argue that you cannot easily measure
a 10 or even 100 watt level of heat are making fools of themselves. It is
*exactly* like arguing that it is difficult to measure 10 centimeters, 100
milliliters, or 10 volts to the nearest unit. Given proper laboratory
equipment and a week of practice, any scientist can perform these tasks with
absolute confidence, because these are macroscopic quantities. Tom Droege
thinks P&F (and Jed) cannot measure 10 watts to within a few percent, because
he has spent too many years trying to measure 0.0001 watts, which is an
infinitely more difficult task. Tom has decided he will try to measure the
weight of a grain of sand. Whereas what *we* do is like trying to measure the
weight of a cupful of sand to the nearest couple of grams. Tom has
deliberately set himself a goal and a task that is horrendously difficult to
achieve, whereas P&F, Bockris, the others and I choose the ridiculously simple
task of measuring multi-watt heat.
 
You calibrate the equipment to death over many weeks. Then you run power
through the CF device. Naturally, you keep a log of the water levels,
resistance, and so on. After a few days, the temperature of the electrolyte
goes over the calibrated point. You put in, say, 3 watts, but instead of going
up to the expected, modeled, calibrated, and predicted temperature, the cell
temperature goes higher. 2% higher at first, later 5%, 20%, and finally 300%.
>From time to time, you "recalibrate on the fly" by running power through the
precision heater again, just to make sure everything is still working. The
equipment is so simple, there is no earthly reason to suppose it is *not*
still working, but you must check. Now, it is quite possible to make a mistake
measuring a 2% excess with 3 watts in. You might well confuse 0.00 watts with
0.06 watts, because 0.06 watts is close to the noise even with a good static
calorimeter. However, it is absolutely impossible to mistake 0.00 watts with
144.50 watts. Particularly when the experiment is repeated over and over
again, hundreds of times, year after year, with dozens of staff people
assisting, checking, verifying, maintaining the video and computer records,
and so on.
 
Anyone who is familiar with this kind of equipment, who has done some actual
calorimetry, will know what I am talking about. Those readers who have *not*
done any calorimetry, and *not* tried to measure a watt of heat, are well
advised to repair to your kitchens, get a pot, a cooking thermometer, and a
joule heater, and find out what I mean before posting dozens of ignorant
comments about stirring, heat pumps, recombination, and what-have-you. The
reason this "debate" has gone on 3.5 years longer than necessary is because
the "skeptics" have never tried to measure multiwatt levels of heat with
ordinary laboratory equipment (or even kitchen cooking equipment). If they
would shut up and try, they would see instantly that I am right, the equipment
is reliable, accurate and precise, and there is no earthly reason to doubt the
results reported by P&F, Bockris, Kunimatsu, Srinivasan or for that matter,
the flow calorimetry of Storms, McKubre and others.
 
 
On another subject, there has been some discussion here about the usefulness
of e-mail in science, and Lewenstein's paper. I think that science by e-mail
is a failed experiment. If the Federal Government listens carefully to
Lewenstein, it will save us a few billion dollars wasted on an electronic
highway. I am a gadget crazy computer and telecommunication nut, like Art
Clarke, but he and I agree that this stuff is overblown. I know of no cases
where serious CF work first appeared on the network, except Tom Droege's,
which represents roughly 0.01% of all serious CF work. I do not know a *single
case* where an adequately detailed description of work appeared on the
network. In every case, you need the paper to understand anything. I
personally have never met or heard from any CF scientist first on the network,
and later through established, traditional channels. You can learn more about
CF chemistry and calorimetry from reading McKubre's paper than you can learn
from reading every message that appears here for a year (including mine). I
cannot judge the content of messages relating to nuclear theory, because they
are completely over my head, but based on the sample relating to calorimetry,
I expect they are useless. I have spoken, written and met with dozens of
active cold fusion scientists world-wide. I sense that Tom Droege and Steve
Jones think this is an interesting and valuable medium, but all the other
serious CF scientists I know have told me they think this is a terrible
medium. They have expressed extreme contempt for e-mail because it is rife
with errors, and the people here are irresponsible. CF scientists have asked
me never to mention their names, work, papers, or opinions here. Most serious
CF scientists go out of their way to avoid e-mail exposure. Mel Miles asked me
to post a letter, Peter Hagelstein was kind enough to let us post his paper,
but I doubt very much I will ever get any more information authorized for
release here. Readers should realize that I have two file cabinets bursting
with recent information about cold fusion. A lot of it is marginal, but if I
could type fast enough (or scan, or translate!), I could post a dozen pages
every day of interesting stuff. The information is out there, but it is
deliberately withheld from this medium.
 
I will get back to my lecture slides and book (this message is a chunk of it),
so I won't bother you people for a couple of weeks.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Chuck Harrison
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Chuck Harrison
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 19:13:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Looks like Chuck Harrison agrees that there has to be a very good match
between power in and power out during the three hour $$$miracle$$$.  He then
argues that it can possibly be explained by a cell gradient.
 
Chuck says:
 
"The 11 watt number assumes the entire cell (below the silvered band, anyhow)
is at 100C.  I think this is an unsafe assumption.  If there is a small hot
source at the bottom of the dewar, the bottom of the dewar will get hot.
Perhaps some residual water will evaporate and rise inside the cell until it
hits something cooler and condenses.  If the heat flux is small, this type of
transport may only reach a few mm from the heat source.  In the remainder of
the cell, heat flow will be by conduction or gas convection.  These mechanisms
can support a substantial thermal gradient.  Perhaps only the bottom cm or two
of dewar are really hot and transferring much net radiation.  The whole system
sort of self regulates..."
 
First let's assume there is some residual water in the dewar (but P&F say it
is dry).  This holds the bottom of the dewar at 100C at most until the water
gives out.  The thermometer which looks to be about half way up the cell is
also at 100 C.  This gives us two points in the cell, so we can pretty well
assume that the whole cell is at 100 C and that the 11 watt radiation holds.
Under this assumption, there either has to be a lot of water in the cell, and
thus P&F have made a big error in the "boil away" heat, or there is a small
amount which then requires the $$$miracle$$$ heat balance.
 
Next let's assume that there is no water in the cell.  After all, P&F say it
is dry.  Now we assume a gradient.  The bottom is hot, the top is cold, and
the middle is at 100 C.  For practical purposes, and in spite of those 4th
powers, radiation losses are pretty linear with temperature.  So we can
assume a mean value for the cell near 100 C.  Besides using the higher order
terms would increase the radiation loss from a cell with a hot bottom and a
cold top from that of the mean value.  Without any water, it is really hard
to hold anything with a hot bottom and a cold top to just the right heat
value so that a suspended thermistor reads exactly 100 C.  This is just
another version of the $$$miracle$$$ heat balance.
 
Even if we give Chuck his "reflux condenser" it cannot generate heat.  It can
only re-distribute it.  Chuck's real point is that the calorimeter constant
changes in just the right amount to keep the cell balanced at 100 C. This is a
dangerous point to claim if support of P&F is desired.  P&F claim that the
cell is producing "anomalous heat" for many hours before the "boil away".
This is the data of figure 10.  During this time the cell is losing
electrolyte, as it is marked "Cell 1/2 full" at the start of "boil away".
This heat claim is based on a well known calibrated calorimeter constant.  If
the calorimeter constant can change later, it can change here also.  So an
argument against the $$$miracle$$$ is also an argument against the most
convincing part of the data.
 
In any of the above cases, "reflux condenser mode" does not help to explain
the $$$miracle$$$ heat balance, it can only explain a more uniform cell
temperature.
 
On the other hand, if the "Cell dry" label on figure 11 is at the wrong place,
then everything can be explained.  The "boil away" time is much longer than
that used in the computation.  This explains the constant temperature of 100
C.  There would then be no "anomalous heat".
 
So Chuck, here is an experiment for you to try.  Take a dewar like that of
P&F.  Put a heater in the bottom.  Put a thermistor half way up.  No water in
the cell.  Put the whole mess in a water bath.  Now control the heater
(without using the thermistor in a feedback loop) so that the thermistor stays
constant at 100 C to the stability of figure 11 for three hours.  You can even
try it with a little water in the cell.  I say it is a $$$miracle$$$.  If you
try the above experiment, you will say it is a $$$miracle$$$ too!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Crazy Rayburn /  Re: More on SBIR's
     
Originally-From: gt1665b@prism.gatech.EDU (Crazy Dave/David C. Rayburn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on SBIR's
Date: 3 Jun 93 18:04:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

 
     So, know some numbers of those thousands of VC's with money just
bursting out of their pockets?  Do you know any VC's who even consider support
of any high-tech, high-risk ventures?  Money may be there, but it isn't ever
just out in the open. It takes a lot of hard work to get funding for any
project (unless, of course, its in the DOE canon).
--
Crazy Dave (David C. Rayburn)           "Does the noise in my head bother you?"
at gt1665b@prism.gatech.edu                           -_The Gods Must Be Crazy_
Home of Southern-fried Deuterium Steak
My opinions are mine, do you hear me?!MINE!!!  -possessive disclaimer from hell
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengt1665b cudfnCrazy cudlnRayburn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 17:56:12 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>2. Laser fusion is not actually research for fusion power.  From what
>I read it looks like this is actually an attempt by the government to
>look at small hydrogen bombs while avoiding the various testing
>treaties we are obliged to comply with.  Useful and interesting
>research has occurred nonetheless, which might conceivably
>eventually result in a process which might be harnessed for power
>some time in the very distant future, but will not be practical for
>most applications as it is wasteful, inefficient and the energy
>produced by the apparatus appears to be hard to harness.
 
   There is much truth in the above summary, and I think it may even
be a little better than this paragraph says, IMHO.  These very large
and expensive laser fusion experiments (SHIVA, NOVA, etc.) did indeed
have a dual motivation: laser fusion power, and the testing and
calibration of the computer codes used to design atomic bombs.  The
first application was often stressed in the external publication
relations, while little or nothing was said about the second purpose,
which was nonetheless possibly the primary motivation.
 
   However, a great deal of genuine scientific and engineering effort
was also devoted to the power objective, and a great deal of genuine
basic knowledge both about fusion laser engineering and about fusion
target physics was gained.  In the overall context of what the world
spends on energy, moreover, the amount invested here was really rather
small; and the payoff, if successful, could have been enormous.
 
   If Mother Nature had been kinder and the laser fusion scientists
(and the world) had been luckier, breakthroughs might have been found,
or inventions that suddenly solved previously intractable problems
might have been found.  You can't ever tell until you try; and anyone
who compares the capabilities of the earliest lasers with what can be
done today will be reluctant to scoff at possible breakthroughs before
they happen.  So, IMHO it was a good try, though perhaps oversold at
times, and perhaps continued for too long; I'd be reluctant to
criticse it very strongly.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: 3 Jun 1993 18:48:00 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
: >2. Laser fusion is not actually research for fusion power.  From what
: >I read it looks like this is actually an attempt by the government to
: >look at small hydrogen bombs while avoiding the various testing
: >treaties we are obliged to comply with.  Useful and interesting
: >research has occurred nonetheless, which might conceivably
: >eventually result in a process which might be harnessed for power
: >some time in the very distant future, but will not be practical for
: >most applications as it is wasteful, inefficient and the energy
: >produced by the apparatus appears to be hard to harness.
:
:    There is much truth in the above summary, and I think it may even
: be a little better than this paragraph says, IMHO.  These very large
: and expensive laser fusion experiments (SHIVA, NOVA, etc.) did indeed
: have a dual motivation: laser fusion power, and the testing and
: calibration of the computer codes used to design atomic bombs.  The
: first application was often stressed in the external publication
: relations, while little or nothing was said about the second purpose,
: which was nonetheless possibly the primary motivation.
:
:    However, a great deal of genuine scientific and engineering effort
: was also devoted to the power objective, and a great deal of genuine
: basic knowledge both about fusion laser engineering and about fusion
: target physics was gained.  In the overall context of what the world
: spends on energy, moreover, the amount invested here was really rather
: small; and the payoff, if successful, could have been enormous.
:
 
Just because lasers might not do it doesn't mean that intertially
confined fusion will not work: particle beams are better for power
purposes, but not as good for bombs.
 
--
-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:
cuddy3 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / not name /  Mills/Farrell Theory
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (not my real name)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills/Farrell Theory
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 21:01:29 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
>Yes.  There is more to quantum theory than mere numerology.  It has been
>quite successful--but it has run its course.  The proof (of the new
>theory)?  Hopefully, your wait will not be too long.
 
 
I don't have the expertise to judge the Mills/Farrell Theory,
but I can read between the lines.  This man writes with the
confidence of someone who has a bombshell in the back room.
One can almost taste his excitment.  I look forward to the
experimental results.  Something tells me they will be a lot
more solid than those of P&F.  They may not have the ANSWER,
but they probably have the HEAT and ASH.
 
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudended cudfnnot cudlnname cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / S Schaffner /  Re: Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Value of Parallel Work
Date: 3 Jun 93 16:58:47 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1993Jun3.030727.28320@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
|> sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> >And who knows what trivial piece of information, one which might have
|> >sparked a scientific revolution, will be missed because some scientist was
|> >reading Usenet instead of doing his work?
|>
|> This is a valid disadvantage.  It is the general attribute known as
|> opportunity cost.  Doing one thing always means giving up doing something
|> else.
|>
|> None the less, we generally find that those who communicate extensively
|> with others tend to insist on being able to continue to do so.  It is
|> generally agreed that such back and forth is intellectually stimulating
|> to the participants and observers.
 
        I agree.  I didn't mean to suggest that Usenet is useless, any more
than I would say that chatting at lunch is useless for scientists; sometimes
it can be very fruitful indeed.  I was just objecting to what I thought was
an overly rosy picture of the splendors of free
communication.  As you say, there are costs as well.  (What actually
ticked me off about the post was its characterization of the Dark Ages;
it had nothing to do with physics, but probably colored my response).
 
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Jim Bowery /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 02:32:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

gt3635a@prism.gatech.EDU (Greg 'Spike' Bishop) writes:
[copious drivel about pseudo-technology from his term paper on "fusion"]
 
I really must apologize.  I didn't notice the "gatech" in the signature
before, or I would have realized "Spike" was already a lost cause.  I just
hope he doesn't die of AIDS before reality sinks in.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Technosocialism and Hitler
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Technosocialism and Hitler
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 09:17:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1086:
 
>The practical destructiveness of the government's fusion
>program exceeds the destructiveness of the Third Reich at least an
>orders of magnitude.  The problem is the vast majority of people in
>this newsgroup, let alone the world at large, are not presented with
>this simple truth in a manner commensurate with its import.
 
At the risk of stating the obvious: You seem to be forgetting, Jim, the sort
of destruction Hitler is usually associated with in most people's minds.
Anything else he did pales in significance.
 
Just out of curiosity, what are the lost opportunities of a limitless
frontier?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Chuck Sites /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 05:40:51 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

  It's funny that here I am making noise in a group for scientific
correspondence about an article infering the quality of the net's
science correspondence using a dubious and infered quality parameter
called Signal/Noise, and I'm posting it in the groups used for that
meassurment.  Wow if that doesn't say were the problem comes from I
don't know what does.  Simply put there is a lot of controversy in the
fusion field, and posting like these and papers like Bruce's cause it.
I can sort of understand Bruce's wanting to use this group as an
example because sci.physics.fusion is the *most* acknowledged group
from the newsnet/usenet hiarchies.  It should be too because cold
fusion is a hot topic.  Hot fusion is hot too, not from the fact
that it's proven science, but by the politics that surround it.
 
  Anyway, I know of no other group where experiments, theory,
specualtive ideas, and advocacy, are discussed and scrutinized as they
are here.  While I don't rely on it like a scientific journal, it
is none-the-less invaluable resource for understanding whats going
on and creating contacts with those on the cutting edge.  I hope
Bruce acknowledged those soft facts in his analysis.
 
  Now following the scrutinizing methodology of this group, what sort
of time frame did Bruce use for in analysis? How did it compare to
the growth of net users? What is the presidence? What is the value
of S(E=0) for B11+p?
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Carlos Lopez /  Can anyone help me?
     
Originally-From: c880060@asterix.fi.upm.es (Carlos Linares Lopez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can anyone help me?
Date: 4 Jun 93 12:01:45 +0200
Organization: Facultad de Informatica (UPM - SPAIN)

could send me something about it. I'm interested in the begining
of the research, since 1951 to the 70's.
 
        If someone could help me, please send me something to:
 
                c880060@asterix.fi.upm.es
 
                                                Thanx.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenc880060 cudfnCarlos cudlnLopez cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Where are the errors?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where are the errors?
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 14:35:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed keeps putting forth the challange, so I will respond.  The key to
this issue may well be in Jed's assertion: "There are no big surprises
left in elementary heat transfer."
 
I agree with Jed that given reasonable care with calibrations, calorimetry
on a system involving simple, elementary heat transfer should be possible
at the watt level with a precision of 10%.  However, the same techniques
applied to a system with multiple energy sources, significant energy
storage and uncontrolled rerelease, rapid fluctuations,  perturbations
due to replenishment of lost electrolyte, rapid boiling and loss of water
as wet steam and/or droplets, wide variations in electrical power input,
and a long running period during which changing conditions may invalidate
all calibrations to some degree.  Simply put, the experimental conditions
don't match the conditions underwhich simple calorimetry based on
elementary heat transfer can be relied upon.  It is probably not possible
for any skeptic to suggest to spot, after the fact on the basis of
incomplete information, a single gross error that invalidates the P&F
results.  There probably is no single error, but there is plenty of
solid evidence that suggests there are multiple problems with these
results.  What's your explanation for the 100 deg miracle?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 817 papers, 127 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 817 papers, 127 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 14:35:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
Friday again, my library day, and only one paper in Chem. Abstr., which I'll
get and report next week (branching ratios). In Science, your favourite
unbiased journal {:], I find the item below, and clear my desk by passing it
on. The comment was interesting to me because of the excess heat figures
quoted by McKubre: his 3% (so now we know what the man himself says) and F&P's
6%, the overall excess, for the length of the whole experiment. It is, of
course, a very conservative figure, including (but not emphasising) the
spectacular and controversial final 10 minutes.
 
Have a nice weekend.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 4-Jun-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 817
 
 
 
Comments; file cnf-cmnt:
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amato I;                                      Science 260 (1993) (14-May) 895.
"Pons and Fleischmann redux?"
** Report of the P&F-93 paper in Physics Lett. A. Science has asked a number
of experts for their opinions on this. Huizenga says that all P&F work shows
systematic error; McKubre says that they still have an overall 6% heat excess,
compared with his 3%; active cnf researcher Oriani finds it difficult to
assess the paper; Nathan Lewis and Petrasso of MIT find it all too familiar.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / N Redington /  Prehistory of Farrell-Mills
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Prehistory of Farrell-Mills
Date: 4 Jun 1993 14:16:28 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Am I imagining this, or is the Farrell-Mills theory
actually the re-invention of an old classical atomic
theory from the '20s, perhaps in expanded or improved
form? I am quite positive that I have at some time read
an old paper about situations in which moving charge
distributions do not radiate, the rotating shell being
one; I am relatively sure that the author went on to
suggest this effect as an explanation of stationary
states. I don't think that he actually solved the spec-
trum, however, nor do I recall anything about resonant
cavities. Has anyone else seen this paper?
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Jim Bowery /  RE: Technosocialism and Hitler
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Technosocialism and Hitler
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 17:45:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes:
>Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) in FD 1086:
>
>>The practical destructiveness of the government's fusion
>>program exceeds the destructiveness of the Third Reich at least an
>>orders of magnitude.  The problem is the vast majority of people in
>>this newsgroup, let alone the world at large, are not presented with
>>this simple truth in a manner commensurate with its import.
>
>At the risk of stating the obvious: You seem to be forgetting, Jim, the sort
>of destruction Hitler is usually associated with in most people's minds.
>Anything else he did pales in significance.
 
That's why I focus on the quantitative destructiveness of the fusion
program compared to the destructiveness of the Third Reich.
 
There are many ways to measure destruction:
 
Loss of life, loss of life-years, loss of quality of life, loss of
life-years*quality-of-life, loss of genetic diversity, loss of
cultural diversity, loss of technical knowledge, loss of economic
viability (standard of living), etc...
 
In the context of the present discussion about the government's
fusion program, it doesn't matter what measure you choose, the
orders of magnitude are such that my argument still holds.
 
I'm attempting to put things in some reasonable perspective.  The
problem is the limbic system is optimized for things on the scale
of a tribe -- not geopolitical genocide/erocide -- and most of our
"education" concerning these things is propoganda (ie: targeting
the limbic  system).
 
If asked to compare, say, the Third Reich, Stalin's purges, Mao's
purges and killing fields of Cambodia, most people would look at
you askance saying something like "Well, there really is no
comparison, is there?"  despite the fact that all four were
genocidal pogroms causing roughly the same level of destruction.
 
Rationalizations notwithstanding, this is a direct result of
media propoganda which focuses our attention almost entirely
on the Third Reich.
 
While it may be an interesting academic exercise to contemplate
why we've been propogandized in precisely this manner, it is
really far less important than the issue at hand, which is the
ongoing erocide and attendant threats of genocide caused by the
government's fusion program.
 
Genocide is the ultimate crime of force.
 
Erocide is the ultimate crime of fraud.
 
The fusion program is the centerpiece erocidal fraud.
 
It is a program which proclaims itself to be the ultimate hope
of bringing unlimited clean energy supplies to the world, thereby
undercutting terrestrial materials limits with greater recycling
and ultimately the delivery of unlimited nonterrestrial materials.
In reality its funds are used to keep private capital and public
funds away from all technical options that might actually deliver
on this hope.  The consequence is that we are presented with a
reality that belies the hope.  Our hard, real-life choices are
informed by the resulting neo-malthusian logic.
 
Thus we are subjected to mounting erocide.
 
Erocide preempts life, life-years, quality of life, genetic
diversity and economic prosperity through social oppression of
heterosexual love and reproduction (ie: fecund monogamy) within
the targeted groups.
 
Both genocide and erocide are "justified" with neo-malthusian
logic, ie: that human population growth is bad and any means,
including force and fraud inflicted by one group on another,
is a necessary evil.  The group inflicting genocide or erocide
on the other always defines "superiority" in such a way that
it can justify the outcome in Darwinian terms (although erocidal
 groups don't generally feel compelled to justify or rationalize
 their actions since fraud is, by its nature, virtually invisible
 even to the perpetrators).
 
When groups are pitted against each other in this manner, the
choice of erocide vs genocide usually favors one side over the
other, depending on their relative characteristics.  Erocide
by one group is countered with genocide by the victim group and
vis versa.  In a neo-malthusian environment, this cycle of
destruction escallates.
 
The presence of weapons of mass destruction has prevented all
out genocide in the West since WW II, therefore erocidal groups
have increasingly come to dominate Western societies.  If HIV
is an engineered pathogen, then the AIDS epidemic is the
genocidal pogrom against erocidal cultures predicted by this
paradigm.  If not, then we may be in for more violent forms
of genocide.  In any case, the neo-malthusian agenda is being
served well by both sides.
 
One of the most easily recognized, and therefore poor, examples of
erocide is the "birth control program" of recent history in China.
That program was finally abandoned when elements of free enterprise
were allowed to operate, thereby raising food production far
beyond the levels predicted possible by neo-malthusians.  It
is a testiment to the wisdom of the Chinese leadership that
they ultimately chose a positive-sum over a neo-malthusian
strategy.  This is a wisdom our leaders apparently lack.
 
A much better example of erocide is the current suppression of
heterosexual love, reproduction and quality of life in the West
among the almost 120 million white individuals born between 1950
and about 1964.  This hit white males the hardest.  This erocide
was greately assisted by white males born prior to 1950 who
benefitted economically and sexually from the greater numbers of
younger and therefore more vulnerable individuals.  These are
the same white males who are most visibly associated with the
the fusion and space programs although they weren't the origin
of the erocidal trend.
 
It is no coincidence that this erocidal phenomenon kicked into high
gear in the late 60's and early 70's, with the termination of the
Apollo program, the start of the Tokamak and Shuttle programs, the
energy crises, the start of the real-estate rush, inflation, the rise
of feminism, social programs (to be dominated by the ponsi scheme
 known as social security), gay liberation and the general souring
of the "sexual revolution."
 
That was just the time when those born in 1950 were reaching sexual
maturity and seeking to form fecund monogamous relationships.
 
Most of the 50's white males with technical dispositions gave up
on their childhood aspirations of being a "spaceman" or even their
more mature dreams of working on really important technologies.
For many, computers provided a port of refuge but it was a dead-end
in neo-malthusian terms and even a successful technical career
can be scant compensation when one's family and love relations are
ripped apart by incomprehensible but pervasive mass movements
misleading labels.  Many found moral, psychological and physical
solace readily available in the gay community.  Many more simply
became "stressed-out passive aggressives" doing violence to their
endocrine systems not to mention their relationships.  Others became
vicious competitors.  Others combined these approaches.
 
For the few 50's white males who actually went into the fusion
or space programs, they found, much to their dismay, a horrendously
politicized environment where social heirarchy was vastly valued
over technical competence.  Most bolted for the door, leaving behind
a combination of greying "scientists" and young sociopaths who
reveled in the exploitation of such a diseased situation.
 
That is the state of technosocialism today, and it is what the
pre-50's white males Clinton/Gore want to spend your money on.
 
>Just out of curiosity, what are the lost opportunities of a limitless
>frontier?
 
Habitable (multi-species) surface area constructed from the asteroids
alone is estimated to support between 25,000 and a million times as
much life as earth in an environment that is inherently positive-sum.
 
By the time we extend life to this domain (over a millenium),
technology will have advanced to the point that to even speak in
terms of conventional human life could be laughable.
 
There is a finite probability that, according to many is quite
sigificant, each decade we spend dallying in the errors of
technosocialism dramatically increases the chance that we will never
be able to realize this potential (due to critical resource limits,
 the threat of a renewed dark ages, etc).  In that case, the present
value of the opportunity is that probability times the difference
in value between the two outcomes.
 
But even if we assume we are "merely" delaying the onset of this
potential, the integrated loss of value still vastly exceeds any
loss experienced in history due to present erocide, let alone the
much smaller losses due to genocide.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Jed Rothwell /  Response to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 20:49:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue wrote:
 
     "I agree with Jed that given reasonable care with calibrations,
     calorimetry on a system involving simple, elementary heat transfer should
     be possible at the watt level with a precision of 10%."
 
With simple, off-the-shelf laboratory equipment the precision is within 1% or
2%. With the kind of equipment P&F use, I expect it is within 0.1%. 10% is
what you get with a Mason Jar, a Radio Shack power supply, and a kitchen
thermometer. Don't take my word for it -- try it yourself and find out.
 
     "However, the same techniques applied to a system with multiple energy
     sources, significant energy storage and uncontrolled rerelease, rapid
     fluctuations,  perturbations due to replenishment of lost electrolyte,
     rapid boiling and loss of water as wet steam and/or droplets, wide
     variations in electrical power input, and a long running period...
 
It has been proven, over and over again, that none of these factors makes any
significant difference. All these red-herrings and canards have been dragged
out, and all proven totally insignificant. Talking, talking and talking does
not prove anything in science: go to a laboratory, perform an experiment, and
you will see that all of these so-called "objections" are bosh & nonsense.
 
Just as an exercise though, I shall skewer a few of them for you:
 
"Multiple energy sources..." There are only two: electrolysis, and CF. It is
dead simple to solve an equation with two energy inputs, especially when
electrolysis power input can be measured to any level of accuracy you like.
 
"Significant energy storage..." There is no energy storage. None whatsoever,
except a few hundred joules (heat of formation). The whole "storage story" is
a stupid lie perpetrated ad nauseam by "skeptics." Come off it already! If
there was *any* storage, the calorimetry would reveal it. That is what
calorimetry is for.
 
"perturbations due to replenishment of... electrolyte..." These are completely
eliminated by closed cells. With open cells, they can be reduced to less than
1% by designs like of P&F's half silvered cell, as stated in the paper. In any
case they can be tracked and accounted for precisely with ease, because they
occur over periods of many days, in a very regular and predictable fashion.
 
"Loss of water as wet steam and/or droplets..." Never happens.
 
"Wide variations in electrical power input..." I challenge Dick, or any other
"skeptic," to design an electrical circuit that fools the cheapest, simplest
power monitoring equipment from Keithly by more than 2%, when that equipment
is used in the recommended fashion. It cannot be done. This is pure nonsense.
You can vary electric power any way you like; by testing with an oscilloscope
and adjusting the data collection equipment, you will catch every watt.
 
"And a long running period..." Three days? That's how long it takes to turn
on. A week or two? That's when P&F end their experiments. Is that a "long
time" for modern laboratory equipment? Pray tell, how long do you suppose a
calibration lasts, five minutes? Also, they recalibrate on the fly. That means
they verify that the calibration constant has not changed.
 
 
     "There probably is no single error, but there is plenty of solid
     evidence..."
 
There is no single error, and there is not a shred of evidence to support any
of the "objections" you raise. Go to a lab, test your ideas, and you will see
that they are *all* figments of your imagination. Raising absurd, improbable
objections is not how to do science. You have to stick within the bounds of
what is possible.
 
Dick, you don't need a computer programmer to spell out such *obvious*
fundamental scientific facts for you. You can try thinking for yourself
someday, before you type these absurdities. Why do you accept all this
nonsense as "proven fact?" Are you a skeptic, or do you just buy any
cockamamie statement about "droplets" and "long running periods?"
 
Regarding the "3 hour miracle" -- I don't understand that part of the paper. I
shall ask Stan next time I have occasion to communicate with him. I am sure
there is a simple and straightforward explanation for it. It is one small,
puzzling aspect to the paper, but there is a lot in that paper to puzzle over,
it is not an easy read.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 13:43:41 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

There doesn't seem to be any information here about Migma and or
Spheromak (SP?). Anyone have information on these an other aneutronic
or compact systems that they can send this person?
 
                                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:
cuddy4 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.03 / Scott Lurndal /  Re: Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: scott@starbase.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Value of Parallel Work
Date: 3 Jun 93 21:49:37 GMT
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <C80sFK.Izu@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stan
ord.EDU (Stephen F.
Schaffner) writes:
|> In article <20124@autodesk.COM>, johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
 
|> |> The "Dark Ages" were times when religious and
|> |> political orthodoxy chained human thought.
|>
|> No they weren't.  They were times when the lack of strong political
|> structures permitted Vikings, Magyars, and assorted others to burn, loot,
|> and kill as they pleased; these are activities not notably conducive to
|> abstract thought on the part of either the looters or those being looted.
|>
 
John is more correct.  The so-called "Dark Ages" *were indeed* a period
of time when Science, and scientific thought was banned by the Church
as heresy, punishable by death.   Clearly the crusades (responsible for
the destruction of much of what science had been done before the rise
of the Catholic church in europe viz. the sacking of the great library
at alexandria) wherein the religious and political might of the times
ran amok is a prime example.
|>
|> --
|> Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
|>      The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
|> Stanford University, or the DOE.
 
Scott Lurndal
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / not name /  Re: Technosocialism and Hitler
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (not my real name)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Technosocialism and Hitler
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 21:22:50 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
>The practical destructiveness of the government's fusion
>program exceeds the destructiveness of the Third Reich at least an
>orders of magnitude.
 
Maybe I'm just a scared rabbit but I'd rather take my chances with
the government's fusion program than the Third Reich.  The fusion
program is pretty bad but it does avoid shooting me in the head
and throwing me into a ditch.
 
Your position is so overstated you sound like a UFO-ologist.  I know
what you're trying to say, but you're saying it so poorly you're
completely ineffective.  Let John Logahan do it.  He's much better.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudended cudfnnot cudlnname cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: 100C miracle
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 100C miracle
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 04:57:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Miracle in Chuck Harrison's basement!  Test tube of water boils forever!
 
Well, not quite.  But I am vindicated nonetheless.
 
I put about 0.6cc of water in the bottom of a small (~10ml) test tube and
put in a small wirewound resistor.  With 2.4 watts into the resistor, I
obtained a continuous boil.  This power should boil away 0.6cc of water in
about 10 minutes.  But after half an hour, all the water was still there.
This was because the steam, after it bubbled out of the liquid pool, re-
condensed on the walls of the test tube, then ran back down to the pool.
The steam also condensed on a candy thermometer, which I stuck partway down
the tube.  But the thermometer only went up to 70C, probably because it conducted
heat out to the outside pretty well.
 
Then I boosted the power to 4.8 watts.  If 2.4 watts were Tom's "miracle heat
balance" point, the EXTRA 2.4 watts should have boiled off the water in the
next 10 minutes.  Not so.  The boil-condense-rundown cycle continued as before.
The "dew line" moved farther up, just about to the top rim of the tube.  The
candy thermometer went up to 90 C.  After 15 minutes, the resistor nobly gave up
its life for science.  (Not surprising: it was only rated 1/8 watt!).  Total
water loss during the experiment was less than .05cc.
 
So the "self-regulating reflux condenser" effect is demonstrated.
 
I chastise Tom Droege for his intellectual arrogance.  He took a simplified
thermal model, and found it was inconsistent with the reported data in fig. 11
of F&P's paper.  Rather than considering refinements to his thermal model, Tom
chose to derogate the reported data as incompetent presentation or possibly
fraud.  If that's your Occam's razor, Tom, I don't want to meet you in a
dark alley! ;-)
 
I would like to state clearly that I am not an F&P "partisan".  The recent
paper certainly has defects, and I'm not sure what to make of it.  But I hate
to see the authors take such abuse just for printing measured data and
stating that the cells stayed hot.  Not only that, but several others on this
net "piled on" without thinking it thru for themselves.  Jeez!
 
Cheers  -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Value of Parallel Work
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 19:14:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
 
> [The "Dark Ages"] were times when the lack of strong political
> structures permitted Vikings, Magyars, and assorted others to burn, loot,
> and kill as they pleased;
 
> "Dark Ages" refers to the period in western Europe from the end of the
> Roman empire (ca. 476 AD) to roughly 1000 AD
 
>I just think it's advisable to learn history before attempting to learn from
>it.
 
But your collectivist bias causes you to jump to the wrong conclusions.
 
It wasn't the lack of a central authority that was the problem, it was
the lack of an enabling technology (guns.)  A central authority without
access to the benefit of firearms would have been (and was) as powerless
to prevent hit and run attacks as an unarmed general populace.
 
Contrarywise, an armed general populace is quite capable of thwarting
(or inflicting staggering costs) onto roving bands of looters without
the need of a gaggle of central busybodies.
 
This is the reason the founders of the US entrusted the defense of all
liberties to the militia (all able bodied males between the ages of 17-65),
as spelled out in the Amendments to the Constitution.  They recongized
that it was an armed free citizenry that would protect and defend liberty,
and not the Leviathan State.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / S Schaffner /  Re: Value of Parallel Work
     
Originally-From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Value of Parallel Work
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 00:22:03 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1993Jun4.191456.14106@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
|> sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|>
|> > [The "Dark Ages"] were times when the lack of strong political
|> > structures permitted Vikings, Magyars, and assorted others to burn, loot,
|> > and kill as they pleased;
 
|> But your collectivist bias causes you to jump to the wrong conclusions.
 
I am amused at being accused of a collectivist bias; it's not a
pleasure I experience very often.
 
|> It wasn't the lack of a central authority that was the problem, it was
|> the lack of an enabling technology (guns.)  A central authority without
|> access to the benefit of firearms would have been (and was) as powerless
|> to prevent hit and run attacks as an unarmed general populace.
 
I'm afraid your anti-collectivist bias has led you to read something I
didn't write.  Who said anything about "central" authority?  Well-armed
local authorities (local barons) were capable, at least at times, of
preserving order -- when they weren't busy fighting each other, of
course.  That unfortunate tendency is why, in practice, most success
against the looters and the burners was the result of a fairly centralized
power.  And, contrary to your statement, they did indeed succeed much of the
time.  Consider the efforts of Alfred the Great and Henry the Fowler, or
contrast the relative order (and the resulting improvement in scholarship)
under Charlemagne with the chaos that resulted when his sons and grandsons
started fighting with one another (permitting a major Danish invasion in the
process).
Counter-examples welcome (but see my last line below).
 
|> Contrarywise, an armed general populace is quite capable of thwarting
|> (or inflicting staggering costs) onto roving bands of looters without
|> the need of a gaggle of central busybodies.
 
This was certainly not true before the advent of firearms (at least not
when the looters were professionals, which was usually the case) -- read
"The Battle of Maldon" sometime and note which side won.  What the situation
is now that firearms are widespread I do not know; I am certain, however,
that it has nothing whatever to do with the Dark Ages, which is all I
was talking about.
 
|> This is the reason the founders of the US entrusted the defense of all
|> liberties to the militia (all able bodied males between the ages of 17-65),
|> as spelled out in the Amendments to the Constitution.  They recongized
|> that it was an armed free citizenry that would protect and defend liberty,
|> and not the Leviathan State.
 
In the Constitution, perhaps.  In practice, of course, the militias had been
almost useless in combat (except at the Battle of Concord, and
perhaps that of Bunker's Hill as well -- I forget all the details).
 
I suggest we move this conversation to e-mail, if you wish to continue it.
 
--
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
        The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensschaff cudfnStephen cudlnSchaffner cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 /  collins@jaguar /  More on hydrinoes
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on hydrinoes
Date: 4 Jun 93 16:04:24 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

Gary Collins comments on the Mills/Farrell hydrino theory further, partly
in response to John Farrell's comments made in sci.physics.fusion, item 6746:
 
 
In article <01GYWO23TO1U00027L@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>, J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
> ...
>Dick Blue, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu, writes in FD 1079
>
>>It should then be possible by relatively simple
>>means to concentrate this new species of atom ...and/or make some clearly
>
> 1.  It hasn't been simple or easy.  We have submitted experimental
> verification of the fractional quantum states of hydrogen and we are
> currently arguing with referees.
 
I believe it was reported in this newsgroup that evidence was
obtained in the form of emission lines from interstellar gas which
corresponded to transitions among sub-ground states.  If they were to exist,
transitions from higher levels to the n= 1/2 level would fall in the range
from 41 to 54 eV, transitions to the n= 1/3 level from 68 to 122 eV, and,
in general, transitions to the n= 1/m level from (2m-1)*13.6 to m^2*13.6 eV.
Since the absorption coefficient for photons in the range 10-500 eV is
very large for most materials, the original data quite possible were
collected by UV or x-ray detectors on an Earth satellite.  Perhaps this is
the type of evidence to which Tom Droege alluded without being able to be
more specific.
 
Unless there is an upper limit on m= 1/n, the emission spectrum from a
cold-fusion cell should include copious quantities of x-rays, detectable
as emphasized by Steven Jones.
 
 
> 2.  Other "CF" researchers have isolated the ash, but they misinterpreted
> their own data.  I cannot comment further.
>
> 3. Isolation and identification of the "shrunken hydrogen" atoms is more
> difficult than you might think.  Otherwise, it would have been identified
> long ago.
>
>
> Matt Kennel, mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu, write in FD 1080
>
>>Here's the most fundmental explanation of QM that I can think of:
>>
>>If you try to confine the electron to a smaller area than 'ground', the
>>concomitant momentum will be higher than 'ground', because of the
>>Heisenberg uncertainty relation, and the energy will be larger.  The
>>ground state is the place where these two are balanced.
>>
>>       dx dp >= h
>>
>>You see that quantity there: "h".  That's what determines the minimum
>>energy.
>
> OK. Try this.  In the n = 1/2 state,
>
> 1.  The radius of the orbitsphere is
>
>      r = n ao or r = (1/2) ao
>
> (see above: "smaller area than 'ground' "; the only problem is that the
> electron is fundamentally a two-dimensional "thing" (a Dirac delta function
> in r) What would Heisenberg do???).
>
> 2.  The wavelength is
>
>      lambda = 2 pi r or lambda =  pi ao.
>
> 3. The linear momentum is given by the deBroglie relationship (an
> experimental relationship),
>
>      p = h/lambda, p = h/(pi ao)   (the linear momentum is larger in the n
> = 1/2   state than in the n = 1 state!)
 
 
In another recent communication to this group, you appeared to admit
that your theory is inconsistent with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
If that is the case, it seems to me that you cannot assume the deBroglie
relation to be valid.  The deBroglie relation and the uncertainty
principle are intimately related.  For example, consider an electron
confined in a one-dimensional box of width L.  The wavefunction of the
electron cannot have wavelength contributions *longer* than 2L because
of the confinement.  Using the deBroglie relation, this sets a lower
limit on the momentum p of the electron (equal to the uncertainty in
the momentum) equal to about h/2L.
 
Thus, if the uncertainty relation does not apply to the electron in
your hydrino-atom, the deBroglie relation also should not apply.
Item 3 above appears to be a very weak point in your theory, and without it
your quantization condition is gone.
 
 
> ...
> The speed of light is an essential.  Planck's constant is essential.  The
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not essential.  ...
 
> Well Dick, you see my problem.  It is hard for me not to respond to these
> questions and commments.  I guess it is the teacher in me.  But I'll try.
> Fortunately, I'm going fly fishing for a few days.
>
> Best regards,
> John Farrell
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  More questions for Farrell-Mills
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More questions for Farrell-Mills
Date: 4 Jun 93 18:30:22 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
As research here "heats up" (figuratively, of course), I find less time
for postings unfortunately.  So this will be brief.
 
Dr. Farrell pointed out that his theory assumes that the electron in a
hydrogen atom is represented by a spherical surface ("orbitsphere")
rather than by a particle (and emphatically not by a Schroedinger wave).
I appreciate the clarification, but find many problems with the spherical
surface model -- pointed comments by Terry Bollinger, Chuck Sites, Matt
Kennel, Dick Blue and others will hopefully cause Farrell and Mills and Kneizys
to reflect further on their model.
 
I would also ask for further clarification on the following from the paper by
Mills and Kneizys [ Fusion Technology 20 (1991) 65-81] :
 
"From the properties of the entity, as matter or energy, and from the physical
laws and the properties of space-time, the transition state hereafter called a
virtual orbitsphere is derived."
 
[How do you (Dr. Farrell, Mills or Kneizys) distinguish "matter" and "energy"?
For instance, what is a photon?
What are the relevant "properties of space-time" to which you refer?]
 
"Thus, the electron virtual orbitsphere is an LC circuit excited at the
corresponding resonance frequency of free space.  The impedance of free space
becomes infinite, and electromagnetic radiation cannot propagate."
 
[Huh?  Am I the only one that cannot see how an "orbitsphere is an LC circuit"?
What do you mean? ]
 
"Mills and Farrell propose [in their book "Unification of Spacetime, the
Forces, Matter and Energy] , however, that the orbitsphere resonator can trap
photons that increase the nuclear charge and decrease the radius of the orbit
sphere."
 
[Are you saying photons carry charge?  Just how can photons be trapped and alter
the nuclear charge?  Is charge conserved in such a process?]
 
"...when the orbitsphere couples to another resonator cavity that can absorb
energy -- this is the absorption of an energy hole.
[Huh?  Just what is an "energy hole"?  Thanks.]
"The absorption of an energy hole destroys the balance between the centrifugal
force  [What generates the "centrifugal force"?  Sure this is not a particle
picture?]
"and the increased central Coulombic force."
[How did absorption of an "energy hole" change the "central Coulombic force"?
I worry about charge conservation again here, etc.]
"As a result, the electron is pulled toward the nucleus.  If another allowed
state that obeys the boundary conditions is not available,
[Give an example of what you mean, please]
the electron plunges into the nucleus."
[Just what does this mean, for an electron to "plunge" into the nucleus?
You're not looking at the electron as a particle here, are you?
What happens to it?  Are charge and lepton number conserved?  Am I the only
one puzzled by these *published* remarks?]
 
{Quotes are from paper published in
Fusion Technology 20:65 by Mills and Kneizys. Brackets [] contain my
questions.}
 
Now I must say these gentlemen have been open about their work, and I
appreciate the
responses by Dr. Farrell.  Moreover, we just received here the book by Mills
et al. entitled "Unification of Spacetime, the Forces, Matter, and Energy."
It was sent graciously by Randell Mills.  The title indicates remarkable
ambitiousness, IMHO.  A first glance shows that the
Fusion Tech. paper cited above covers
the same ground.  However, the book also refers to experimental evidence --
which Tom Droege and Dick Blue recently asked about.  I gather that Mills et
al. are providing not new data but rather a re-interpretation of soft X-ray
emissions from interstellar gases.
[Bowyer, Field & Mack, Nature 217 (1968) 32; and
Labov and Bowyer Sp. J. 371 (1991) 810.)
 
More later when I have a chance to peruse
this, or better, perhaps Dr. Farrell would comment?
 
Respectfully,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Jun4.175147.685@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jun4.175147.685@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 93 18:31:02 -0600

cancel <1993Jun4.175147.685@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re: 100C miracle
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 100C miracle
Subject: Re: 100C miracle,   Chuck Harrison 73770.1337@compuserve.com) writes:
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 13:21:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <930605044417_73770.1337_EHA20-1@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: 100C miracle,   Chuck Harrison 73770.1337@compuserve.com) writes:
 
==ch "Miracle in Chuck Harrison's basement!  Test tube of water boils forever!
==ch
==ch Well, not quite.  But I am vindicated nonetheless.
==ch I put about 0.6cc of water in the bottom of a small (~10ml) test tube and
==ch put in a small wirewound resistor.  With 2.4 watts into the resistor, I
==ch obtained a continuous boil.  This power should boil away 0.6cc of water in
==ch about 10 minutes.  But after half an hour, all the water was still there.
==ch                           ***
==ch Then I boosted the power to 4.8 watts.   ...     Total
==ch water loss during the experiment was less than .05cc.
==ch
==ch So the "self-regulating reflux condenser" effect is demonstrated."
 
   Good work Chuck.  Add in the opportunity of de novo heavy water
 from the electrode (vide supra), and your experiment appears to
 have demonstrated a shifting foundation, and lack of substance,
 of this skeptics' "brick-toss-tactic".
 
                                                  Best wishes.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: 100C miracle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 100C miracle
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 13:00:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930605044417_73770.1337_EHA20-1@CompuServe.COM> 73770.1337@c
mpuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>Miracle in Chuck Harrison's basement!  Test tube of water boils forever!
>
>Well, not quite.  But I am vindicated nonetheless.
>
>I put about 0.6cc of water in the bottom of a small (~10ml) test tube and
>put in a small wirewound resistor.  With 2.4 watts into the resistor, I
>obtained a continuous boil.  This power should boil away 0.6cc of water in
>about 10 minutes.  But after half an hour, all the water was still there.
>This was because the steam, after it bubbled out of the liquid pool, re-
>condensed on the walls of the test tube, then ran back down to the pool.
>The steam also condensed on a candy thermometer, which I stuck partway down
>the tube.  But the thermometer only went up to 70C, probably because it conducted
>heat out to the outside pretty well.
>
>Then I boosted the power to 4.8 watts.  If 2.4 watts were Tom's "miracle heat
>balance" point, the EXTRA 2.4 watts should have boiled off the water in the
>next 10 minutes.  Not so.  The boil-condense-rundown cycle continued as before.
>The "dew line" moved farther up, just about to the top rim of the tube.  The
>candy thermometer went up to 90 C.  After 15 minutes, the resistor nobly gave up
>its life for science.  (Not surprising: it was only rated 1/8 watt!).  Total
>water loss during the experiment was less than .05cc.
>
>So the "self-regulating reflux condenser" effect is demonstrated.
>
>I chastise Tom Droege for his intellectual arrogance.  He took a simplified
>thermal model, and found it was inconsistent with the reported data in fig. 11
>of F&P's paper.  Rather than considering refinements to his thermal model, Tom
>chose to derogate the reported data as incompetent presentation or possibly
>fraud.  If that's your Occam's razor, Tom, I don't want to meet you in a
>dark alley! ;-)
 
     Consider yourself whether your 'model' is representative of the
     diagram shown in Figure 2.  More below...
 
>I would like to state clearly that I am not an F&P "partisan".  The recent
>paper certainly has defects, and I'm not sure what to make of it.  But I hate
>to see the authors take such abuse just for printing measured data and
>stating that the cells stayed hot.  Not only that, but several others on this
>net "piled on" without thinking it thru for themselves.  Jeez!
 
     Insulate the test tube and jack the temperature up to 100C.
     Make the cell go 'dry', and then have it remain at 100C for three
     hours without the power being on.  If you can do that, then I *will*
     be impressed.
 
     These points are important.  You must insulate the cell, put it in a
     water bath and bring the temperature somewhat above the cathode to
     100C to mimic the thermal conditions in that cell.
 
     It's unfortunate that I must leave town in a few minutes since this
     apparently bears discussion again; your model requires a sustained
     stable temperature gradient in the cell and some
     unknown forcing that was emphatically not present in the description of
     Figure 11 during those three hours.
 
     'Dry' is dry.  If the cell is 'dry', as they state very very clearly,
     then there is either a) no current or b) arcing current.  In case
     a), staying at 100C for three hours with no forcing makes little sense.
     In case b), they are simply stupid for making the observations
     made.  Also, if the cell is not 'dry', then they have no right using the
     full heat of vaporization.
 
     The idea that the cell stays full of water also completely belies
     their observation that the cell boils from 1/2 full
     to 'dry' in 11 minutes.  It seems to me that your hypothesis makes
     it even worse for P&F since they'd have to be blind as well as
     stupid.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / Eugene Mallove /  Chuck, Occam, and Taubes
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck, Occam, and Taubes
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 14:16:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        Bravo to Chuck Harrison for cutting down the maruading TD (Tom Droege)
with an elegant basement experiment! Chuck wins the Cold Fusion Underground
"Man of the Hour" award.
 
        I was particularly happy with Chuck's concise criticism of TD: "Rather
than considering refinements to his thermal model, Tom chose to derogate the
reported data as incompetent presentation or possibly fraud. If that's your
Occam's razor, Tom, I don't want to meet you in a dark alley!" Bravo again,
Chuck!
 
        Unfortunately there are more vicious marauders with sharp razors out
there than the basement boy scientist TD. One of them, the ever nasty Gary
Taubes, has a sordid book that is soon to appear (Bad Science: The Short Life
and Very Hard Times of Cold Fusion), for which I have previously entered a
modest review on this forum. Chuck's mention of Occam's razor reminded me of
the pernicious, idiotic statement that Taubes uttered some time ago to a
journalist acquaintaince of mine.  Taubes told this jounalist that the main
reason he was confident in his accusations of tritium-spiking fraud at Texas
A&M in 1989 had to do with Occam's razor!  Since in Taubes's view the
emergence of tritium at high levels in a cold fusion experiment was so far
beyond the pale of known physics, he felt justified in applying Occam's razor:
The simplest, most economical explanation was *fraud*, not a new phenomenon in
science!
 
        That thought about Occam leads to musings about thew all too pervasive
mockery of phenomena by the use of the word "miracle." If one thinks about the
many wonders of nature that have been revealed by science, it is clear that
there are thousands of phenomena, each one of which in its own time might have
been described as a "miracle" before it was understood. In many cases, the
phenomena were regarded as hoaxes before they were  understood or the evidence
had become incontrovertible, e.g. meteorites and x-rays. So, skeptics (or as I
prefer, "Non-Believers" --NB's), I would caution you against your overuse of
"miracle" to disparage aspects of experiments which you fundamentally believe
to be completely in error. You are getting into very hot water.  There is only
one "miracle" on the horizon right now: the forced consumption of masses of
crow by cold fusion NB's that will exceed their individual body weights by at
least an order of magnitude.
 
        I'll end with a final "goodie," a letter that I sent to Taubes after
his recent telephone call.  I intend this to be public record, since Taubes
intends to slander cold fusion research in wholesale fashion:
 
                1
 
 
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
Author-Engineer/Scientist-Lecturer
171 Woodhill-Hooksett Road
Bow, New Hampshire 03304
603-228-4516, Fax 603-224-5975
 
                                                                May 19, 1993
 
Mr. Gary Taubes
337 West 87th
New York, NY 10024
 
Dear Gary Taubes:
 
As you requested, I enclose a copy of my recent review of your book, Bad
Science.  It is unfortunate that you were so one-sided and blatantly incorrect
in your conclusions about cold fusion. Sooner than you can imagine, both you
and Random House will be very embarrassed by Bad Science. It was your choice
to ignore the facts -- especially new developments since 1989 and the
examination of flaws in the supposedly "negative" cold fusion experiments done
early on. You took the MIT, Caltech, and Harwell results as unassailable
experiments, and these "experts" led you astray. Had you read my book
carefully -- and you had two years to do so -- you would have been informed on
these matters. Of course you also chose to ignore and/or mock significant new
cold fusion experiments, such as the nickel-potassium carbonate-ordinary water
electrochemical systems that give excess heat AND tritium.
 
I am enclosing a signed copy of Fire from Ice  as you requested during our
telephone conversation, and I hope to receive a copy of Bad Science to add to
my library of cold fusion literature -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. I
have inscribed your copy of Fire from Ice thus: "To Gary Taubes, who got the
cold fusion story mostly wrong, from one who got it mostly right. Better luck
on your next book."
 
For your information I have also enclosed the following tiny fraction of what
I could have sent you. These will be a good starting point for a
re-examination of your views, should you wish to get serious about studying
the science and technology of cold fusion:
 
1. Order form for Frontiers of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October, 1992).
 
2. My report on the May 5, 1993 Fusion Energy hearing before the Subcommittee
on Energy of the U.S.  House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
 
3. A list of companies and institutions that participated in the Nagoya
conference.
 
4. Article by Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz (Fusion Facts, August, 1992)
"Reexamination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: 'Phase-II Calorimetry by the
MIT Plasma Fusion Center"; plus, copies of the MIT PFC excess heat data for
light water and heavy water cells --July 10, 1989 (unpublished) and July 13,
1989 (published).
 
5. Scientific correspondence by Drs. Noninski concerning the Caltech and MIT
cold fusion calorimetry experiments: "Notes on Two Papers Claiming No Evidence
for the Existence of Excess Energy...", to be published in Fusion Technology,
July 1993.
 
6. Invitation to the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Maui,
Hawaii (A nice place to be, December 6-9, 1993!)
 
Since you are a "Contributing Correspondent" for Science magazine, perhaps in
the future you might wish to investigate some of the scandals of
misinformation from MIT and Caltech that so led you astray. You should know
that the Harwell data is brought into serious question in the Nagoya
proceedings. Future publications on Harwell will be even more severe. However,
none of this sad "past history" will be as important for you to absorb as the
continuing stream of positive results and the commercial development of
abundant energy from water -- the concept that you seemed to find so amusing.
I believe you called it a "chimera." No, we will not have to wait 50 years for
the "Stan Pons Memorial Power Plant from a Glass of Water" -- or so you joked
today. Within the year, you'll see the beginnings of that technology in home
heating systems. The power plants will likely come within a decade or two.
 
                                                Sincerely,
                                                Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
 
End of E. Mallove posting.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Proof of reflux condenser effect
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof of reflux condenser effect
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 15:13:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks is due to Chuck Harrison for conduction an experiment into the
operation of a reflux condenser, but I believe Chuck misinterprets his
results as they apply to the P&F experiment.  Clearly the recycling of
the water that Chuck observed is dependent on having a heat sink where
the water can condense for it to return to the boiler.  The candy
thermometer will serve that purpose much better than will a thermistor
probe so the two are not equivalent.  The ability of the thermistor
to sink heat is quite possibly negative, i.e. it is actually a heat
source.  Secondly the effect is dependent on a temperature gradient
within the cell so that water boils at the bottom and condenses at
the top.  If all of P&F-type calorimetry is done with a single
temperature probe, the existance of such temperature gradients is
clearly bad news for their measurements.  Finally, the obvious fact
that the temperature at the thermometer depends on the power input
merely confirms what Tom Droege was saying.  You haven't disproved
anything about the 100 deg miracle.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: 100C miracle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 100C miracle
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 13:42:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C85H3E.F62@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Message-ID: <930605044417_73770.1337_EHA20-1@CompuServe.COM>
>Subject: Re: 100C miracle,   Chuck Harrison 73770.1337@compuserve.com) writes:
>
>==ch "Miracle in Chuck Harrison's basement!  Test tube of water boils forever!
>==ch
>==ch Well, not quite.  But I am vindicated nonetheless.
>==ch I put about 0.6cc of water in the bottom of a small (~10ml) test tube and
>==ch put in a small wirewound resistor.  With 2.4 watts into the resistor, I
>==ch obtained a continuous boil.  This power should boil away 0.6cc of water in
>==ch about 10 minutes.  But after half an hour, all the water was still there.
>==ch                           ***
>==ch Then I boosted the power to 4.8 watts.   ...     Total
>==ch water loss during the experiment was less than .05cc.
>==ch
>==ch So the "self-regulating reflux condenser" effect is demonstrated."
>
>   Good work Chuck.  Add in the opportunity of de novo heavy water
> from the electrode (vide supra), and your experiment appears to
> have demonstrated a shifting foundation, and lack of substance,
> of this skeptics' "brick-toss-tactic".
 
     So you are finally willing to concede that P&F are blind and stupid?
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Further comments on multiple errors
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Further comments on multiple errors
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 15:52:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell, in reply to my list of suggested error sources, confirms
much of what I have been saying.  Taking his points one by one:
 
When I suggested that multiple energy sources can make the calorimetry
more complex, Jed replies that in the P&F analysis there are only two
energy sources considered, electrolysis and CF.  My point is precisely
that in considering only these two possibilities there can clearly be
an error made if any other source contributes.  Two possibilities are
of course recombination and resistive loss in the current leads.  I
mention the latter because there is a hint that at some point P&F
push the current to a momentary high level to initiate boiling.  Do
I have that wrong?
 
On the issue of energy storage, Jed replies that there is "none,
except a few hundred joules."  Pretending that a few hundred joules
is equivalent to none is just the sort of thinking that can get you
in trouble.
 
Perturbations due to replenishments?  Jed says that with open cells
they are reduced to the 1% level.  So far Jed and I are in very good
agreement.
 
Loss of water as wet steam and/or droplets.  Here Jed makes the
assertion that it never happens.  To that I reply that you can't
make errors go away by fiat.  What is the evidence provided by
the experiment?
 
Finally we get back to the nagging question of measuring input power.
There is little I can add to what has previously been said accept
to ask what do we really know about the method employed by P&F?
I am particularly concerned with sampling rates and the correlations
between voltage, current, and temperature measurements.  If the
boiling away of the water is to be the key aspect of this experiment,
I think knowing exactly what got measured and when during that 10 minutes
is crucial.  I gather from those who have read the paper that information
on that point is limited.
 
To Jed's specific challange, that I devise a circuit that will fool
the power measurement by more than 2%, the possibilities are endless
if you give me complete freedom.  The key to the reality of CF experiments
is in Jed's statement that, "By testing and adjusting the data collection
equipment you will catch every watt."   One problem I have with CF
experiments, Jed, is that other than McKubre I have seen little evidence
that there is much testing and adjusting.   Certainly it hasn't gotten
much play in the papers written by Pons and Fleischmann.  From what
I can gather they make extensive DC calibrations, but how much
testing is done on the real systems?  How much data do they take at
higher samply rates?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / Jed Rothwell /  More notes on calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More notes on calorimetry
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 16:39:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Chuck Harrison described an interesting experiment:
 
     "I put about 0.6cc of water in the bottom of a small (~10ml) test tube
     and put in a small wirewound resistor.  With 2.4 watts into the resistor,
     I obtained a continuous boil... But after half an hour, all the water was
     still there. This was because the steam, after it bubbled out of the
     liquid pool, re-condensed on the walls of the test tube, then ran back
     down to the pool... the thermometer only went up to 70C, probably because
     it conducted heat out to the outside pretty well."
 
I would like to point out that conduction is very important in this type of
experiment. The qualities of the materials used, and the geometry, make a big
difference in what happens. A glass test tube will work one way, and a Dewar
will work differently. (For home use, a good Dewar is a simple old fashioned
vacuum thermos bottle.) The water condenses on the walls because the heat gets
out before the steam can reach the top. With a Dewar, I have heard that does
not happen, but I have not done the experiment myself. Reportedly, a good way
to "confirm" that the standard, published heat of vaporization is correct is
to boil away water in a Dewar. Two cautions: keep the top unobstructed, and
find out the local atmospheric pressure (call the Weather Bureau).
 
P&F are using a container which is not exactly a test tube, and not exactly a
Dewar either. It is a half silvered Dewar, which is complicated. I am not
capable of modeling its behavior, and I would not want to speculate on exactly
how it would work with Chuck's experiment. It is easier to understand how it
works below 100 C. It is an ideal design for that regime.
 
Every calorimeter that I have seen or read about was designed to work in a
temperature range from 20 to 80 C, with a power range of 0.1 watts to 10 watts
(easy), or, alternatively 1 watt to 100 watts (a lot harder to deal with).
Boiling away the water is an unconventional way of measuring heat. However,
P&F have to measure -- and deal with -- a very wide range of inputs, from 2
watts/cc to 3,700 w/cc. In order to detect 2 w/cc (0.09 watts), they need a
very sensitive calorimeter, yet they also want to measure a 3,700 w/cc excess
(180 watts with electrolysis) safely, without having the calorimeter explode.
I cannot imagine any flow or thermoelectric calorimeter capable of handling
this range, and a "bomb calorimeter" would have to be pressurized, which might
be extremely dangerous. There is always a trade-off between capacity and
sensitivity in a calorimeter, as in any other instrument. A laboratory weight
scale, for example, can measure a 10 kilograms to the nearest gram, or a gram
to the nearest milligram, but I don't think you could build one to measure
8024.0117 grams. If you could, it would cost a fortune -- it is the kind of
thing the Pentagon would buy. P&F came up with an elegant solution to a sticky
problem. They can handle an extremely wide range of power input, with great
precision at both ends. However, as they say, this creates unavoidable
complexity.
 
While boiling away water may not be the standard method of calorimetry, it
does have many virtues, which are described in detail in the paper. If you
understand the calorimeter in detail, and you keep track of atmospheric
pressure and other important parameters, this is a demonstrably effective
method. You do not have to worry so much about some details that normally
effect calorimetry, like electrolyte temperature. It has to be 100 C (or
close, depending on atm. pressure). The heat of vaporization of water is one
of the most carefully measured and exhaustively researched constants in all of
science. You can be certain that when water looks like it is boiling, and acts
like it is boiling, it *is* boiling, and the heat required to do that is
sharply defined, easily measured, and easily calibrated for.
 
I suspect that the "skeptics" who jump all over P&F have never done any
calorimetry, and never though about how hard it is build a reliable, simple
instrument capable of accurately and precisely measuring a wide range of
power. I suspect that if you gave a "skeptic" this assignment, he or she would
struggle for several months, and come up with a $20,000 unreliable Rube
Goldberg contraption that would be nowhere near as good as P&F's. I am certain
that any "skeptic" who tries it will suddenly develop enormous respect for
P&F. For that matter, any "skeptic" who goes into the kitchen and starts
fiddling around with Mason jars will learn more about calorimetry in a couple
of days than he or she can learn reading this forum for a year. Certainly, it
would stop people from jumping to conclusions, and from publishing
preposterous claims like Dick Blue's recent statement that modern calorimetry
is only capable of 10% accuracy.
 
Sorry to be wordy, but I would like to repeat my warning from a few days ago:
these notes of mine are a mere caricature of reality. I am deliberately
simplifying and leaving out a great deal of what I know -- and what *I* know
is a microscopic fraction of what Bockris, McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann or Pons
knows. Calorimetry is fundamentally simple: it is like sailing a boat; baking
a loaf of bread; or playing chess. You can learn to do any of those things in
an afternoon. On the other hand, if you want to sail a boat in the America's
Cup Race, or challenge Bobby Fisher in chess, you have be a World Class
Expert, with decades of experience. Pons and Fleischmann are World Class
Experts in calorimetry and electrochemistry. Fleischmann literally wrote the
book on these subjects. Readers who have not performed calorimetry should be
careful about second guessing experts and Fellows of the Royal Society who
have been doing it for 45 years. You comments are completely off base, and
they look pretty darn foolish to people like me, who know a little bit about
the subject.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Response to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Dick Blue
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 21:41:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue wrote:
 
     "Jed replies that in the P&F analysis there are only two energy sources
     [inputs into cell] considered, electrolysis and CF. My point is precisely
     that in considering only these two possibilities there can clearly be an
     error made if any other source contributes.  Two possibilities are of
     course recombination and resistive loss in the current leads...."
 
Don't twist my words, please. I never said "considered." I said there are only
two inputs, period. Not "considered" -- measured and detected. Recombination
does not occur. Here is the proof:
 
     The water level drops at the expected rate.
 
     There are no metal surfaces or other areas above the water line that
     might catalyze recombination.
 
     The anode is larger than the cathode, and it is spaced a good distance
     away. With this kind of correct geometry, recombination on anode or
     cathode does not occur. Electrochemists like P&F know how to avoid
     recombination. It is very easy to avoid; the exact causes of
     recombination, and steps needed to control it, are well understood. As I
     mentioned, Fleischmann wrote the book on electrochemistry.
 
     Even if it was occurring, recombination could not *begin* to explain the
     energy levels observed. There is far more power coming out than I*V in.
 
Resistive loss is minimal, and it can easily be measured and accounted for.
 
     "I mention the latter because there is a hint that at some point P&F push
     the current to a momentary high level to initiate boiling..."
 
Correct. Then they drop it down again. It's like you say: momentary. Do you
think the electricity hangs around after that? Do you think a 90 second pulse
of electricity permanently changes the resistance of the lead wires? How &
why? What miraculous difference could the pulse make? What is your point?
 
Do you have any other "possibilities" in mind? Is some other mysterious,
miraculous, and unnamed "other source of energy" (as you put it) entering the
system and fighting its way up the thermodynamic grade? N-Rays, maybe? An
orchestrated troop of Maxwell's demons? Trot out all your mysterious sources,
please. Don't hide your light under a bushel. You have had four years to come
up with something, and so far, you and all the other skeptics have not given
us squat.
 
Frankly, your statement is totally devoid of any scientific content. Here,
read it: "there can clearly be an error made if any other source contributes."
Yes, sure, and after four years, neither you nor anyone else has come up with
this "other source." Oh, you have made suggestion after suggestion. All your
hundreds of suggestions, including the friction of flowing water,
recombination, cells talking to one another, and now a pulse of electricity
that mysteriously & permanently changes the lead wires, have been either
egregious nonsense or marginalia many orders of magnitude too small to explain
anything! I am not even a physicist, and I can see that at a glance! One
nonsensical objection after another does not constitute science. This is
called "handwaving" and "making up physics as you go along."
 
 
     "Pretending that a few hundred joules is equivalent to none..."
 
The cell generates millions of joules of heat. I do not mean MJ per mole, I
mean megajoules. Other cells have produced hundreds of millions. Compared to
that, a few hundred joules is insignificant. Stop trying to "explain away"
millions of joules by citing effects that produce dozens, or hundreds. Stop
pretending that 600 = 100,000,000.
 
 
     "Perturbations due to replenishments?  Jed says that with open cells they
     are reduced to the 1% level."
 
Not in every open cell. P&F's cell is carefully designed to reduce these
perturbations to a level of less than 1%, as described in detail in the paper.
They designed it that way, they modeled it, and they tested it. My cell, in
contrast, showed much larger perturbations because of changes in water level.
But, as I said, these are completely regular and predictable. You have to keep
careful track of the water level in the experiment log, and you have to do
extra work in the data analysis, but you can account for them. P&F eliminated
the problem with a better design than mine.
 
 
     "Loss of water as wet steam and/or droplets.  Here Jed makes the
     assertion that it never happens.  To that I reply that you can't make
     errors go away by fiat.  What is the evidence provided by the
     experiment?"
 
Others tested for this and found no such effect. Furthermore, it is common
knowledge that you can boil water in a deep, insulated test tube, measure the
energy needed to do that, and derive the amount of energy needed to vaporize
water. It will agree closely with the published figure. Therefore, no
significant amount of water escapes 'unboiled' (as it were).
 
 
     "Finally we get back to the nagging question of measuring input power..."
 
It is only nagging you, not anyone who has ever actually tried measuring
power. Read what Chuck Harrison had to say about power supplies. Note that Tom
Droege tried a few experiments and determined that McKubre could not be making
more than 0.01% error. Now, as it happens, I do not know the details of P&F
power measuring, but I spent two months measuring electrolysis power, and
tricks like doubling the collection speed, and hooking up an oscilloscope
occurred to me in the first 15 nanoseconds of the work. Such tricks are
*absolutely fundamental* and known to every scientist, computer programmer and
automobile mechanic on earth. It is inconceivable that nobody at Toyota has
ever heard of them. You might as well suggest that it never occurs to them to
wash the Dewar test tubes between experiments.
 
Also, you cite the lack of detail in the paper about these tricks. I have seen
many detailed, first rate papers in CF that contained no information about
power measurement. Not every paper covers every single detail. You will note,
however, that every paper has an address on the first page. When you don't
understand something, or you want additional information, you are supposed to
write a letter to the person shown there. You are not supposed to assume they
made some absurd, completely avoidable blunder that any high school kid would
know about, and you are not supposed to post dozens of messages accusing them
of committing such imaginary mistakes.
 
Furthermore, P&F are not working in a vacuum (pun intended). You can not make
wild, utterly unsupported suppositions about this experiment, and ignore the
rest of the field. Mike McKubre also saw high heat. Mike -- we all agree --
measures power carefully, to within 0.01%. Okay, maybe you don't agree, but
arch-skeptic Tom Droege agrees, and he actually tested his ideas. Virtually
every other person I have talked to who understands power measuring agrees
too. Here is the point: Mike does not see any "perturbations" that might cause
P&F, or Jed, or anyone else to mismeasure the power by more than a few
percent, as long as we use some generally accepted, reasonable method. (That
is: some computerized method better than a hand held voltmeter check once an
hour; your 10% accuracy "kitchen" experimental technique).
 
The mysterious CF effect that is measured at sigma 90 at SRI is the same
effect seen in Nice, France. It is also the same effect seen by Ikegami,
Takahashi, Mizuno, Storms at LANL, and a few hundred other people. Since there
is not ONE SINGLE REPORT, anywhere, anytime, of extreme power fluctuations
that cannot be detected by ordinary means -- after four years -- then such
fluctuations don't exist! Maybe P&F do not have the world's best power
monitoring, and maybe they do. (I have heard it is excellent, but I don't know
the details.) However, it is a documented fact that McKubre, Mizuno, Kunimatsu
and several dozen other *do* have power monitoring that would vie for the
title "Best In World," and they do have the same CF effect, but they don't see
fluctuations, so there are no fluctuations. Okay?
 
I should add that a great many of the people who we all agree have good power
monitoring have been to visit Nice, France. Not one of them reported back to
me any problems or concerns with the power supplies or computers they saw.
 
The same goes for "storage." Nobody, anywhere, in four years has seen more
than a few hundred joules get stored up. In every case, the storage was due to
well known, completely understood chemical phenomena. There is absolutely no
mysterious storage going on, anywhere, and every joule that has been stored
has been accounted for. Power generation swamps the storage -- not by a little
bit, but in some cases by five orders of magnitude. Since you know that fact
as well as I do, I don't understand you bother talking about "storage." It is
a ridiculous waste of time, a transparent canard. Why bother raising
"objections" that any fool can see are 50,000 times to small to make any
difference?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.04 / John Moore /  Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How others view sci.physics.fusion
Date: 4 Jun 93 15:52:33 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
 
]You misunderstand what the abstract was saying.  That paper (given, again,
]at Joe Chew's invitation) was part of a session exploring not cold fusion
]but the use of Internet, etc., to do Useful Stuff.  The session title was
]"Caffe' Cyber"...  So the question was *how* s.p.f had been used.  As of
]June 1992 (when the paper was submitted) there was *very* little evidence
]that much useful professional dialogue was occurring within the group itself;
]Tom Droege had contributed lots of things (and was cited in the paper as an
]exception to the rule), but Steve Jones, whose presence in s.p.f I for one
]appreciate greatly, had not yet started to contribute, and practically
]nobody else was really talking about experiments in ways that another
]researcher could benefit from.  Bruce Lewenstein's statistics (themselves
]based on a time period overlapping strongly with the one I looked at) back
]this assertion.
How about the early on communications?  I remember preprints being
circulated here, and discussions of surface poisoning, hydrogen in metal
research (I put out some data gleaned from old experiments that most
of the folks weren't aware of), closed vs open system calorimeter discussions
which examined in a few days the sorts of details that the journals would
have spent years debating, and experimental interpretations. Admittedly,
after the first 3 or 4 months, the signal to noise ratio went way down.
--
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
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re: 100C miracle
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 100C miracle
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 19:20:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <C85I2I.Bu7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
  Subject: Re: 100C miracle
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) incorrectly writes:
 
===ch "I put about 0.6cc of water in the bottom of a small (~10ml) test tube and
===ch  .......    But after half an hour, all the water was still there.
===ch                           ***
===ch Then I boosted the power to 4.8 watts.   ...     Total
===ch water loss during the experiment was less than .05cc.
===ch
===ch So the "self-regulating reflux condenser" effect is demonstrated."
=        [Re: 100C miracle,   Chuck Harrison 73770.1337@compuserve.com]
=
===ms  "Good work Chuck.  Add in the opportunity of de novo heavy water
===ms  from the electrode (vide supra), and your experiment appears to
===ms  have demonstrated a shifting foundation, and lack of substance,
===ms  of this skeptics' "brick-toss-tactic".
=
===db   "So you are finally willing to concede that P&F are blind and stupid?"
 
    Since that is neither what it says, indicates, nor implies, therefore
 it is once again obvious from this posting -- another of Dale Bass's
 patented" goofy comments -- exactly who is both "blind" and who displays
 signs consistent with the other handicap to which Mr. Bass alludes in his
 false allegation.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.05 /  collins@jaguar /  Still more on hydrinoes
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still more on hydrinoes
Date: 5 Jun 93 08:53:00 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In Fusion Digest 744, Feb. 3, 1993, I discussed the optical spectra of
the hydrinos of the Mills/Farrell theory.  That discussion was in error
in that I was off by a factor of n in the energy.  Let me summarize
the assumptions of the hydrino theory, as I understand them.
 
 
NOTATION USED:
 
c       speed of light
m       rest-mass of electron
e       charge of electron
v       velocity of electron
r       radius of "orbit" of electron
p= mv   momentum  (nonrelativistic expression)
lambda  wavelength of electron
h       Planck's constant  (hbar= h/(2 pi))
Z       (unscreened) charge of nucleus (equals 1 for hydrogen)
Z'      charge of nucleus screened by something-or-other
k       Coulomb force constant in SI units (k= 1/(4 pi epsilon))
a0      Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom (a0= hbar**2/(mke**2))
Ei      ionization energy of hydrogen (Ei= m(ke**2)**2/(2 hbar**2))
 
 
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE HYDRINO THEORY:
 
1.      Electron orbits fixed nucleus in circle under a screened
                Coulomb force:   m v**2/r= kZ'e**2/r**2.
2.      There are an integer number of electron wavelengths around the
                circumference:   lambda= 2 pi r.
3.      The deBroglie relation holds for the electron:  p= h/lambda.
4.      (2)+(3) =>  mvr= hbar.   Angular momentum is independent of the
                quantum state.
5.      There is a quantization condition (from where??):  Z'= Z/n.
6.      The total energy is given by the virial theorem:  E(n)= -kZ'e**2/2r.
7.      (1)+(4)+(6) =>  (a)  r= n a0*Z.
                        (b)  v= kZ'e**2/hbar= (1/n) kZe**2/hbar;
                                (note that kZe**2/hbar= Zc/137.)
                        (c)  E(n)= -kZ'e**2/2r= -(1/n**2) Ei*Z**2.
                (In (7c), there is a factor of n from r and another from Z'.
                Thus, this expression for the mechanical energy (kinetic +
                potential) of the hydrino is formally the same as in the
                Bohr theory.)
8.      Allowed values of n are calculated in some way (??) to be
                [...3, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...].
 
 
MY COMMENTS:
 
Points (1) and (6) are consistent with classical mechanics.
 
Re (2): The equivalent condition in the Bohr theory is that
        n*lambda= (2 pi r), in which n must be a positive integer, expressing
        the simple idea that the wavefunction must be single-valued.  Why is
        only one wavelength allowed here.  How do Mills and Farrell propose to
        solve the elementary problem of an electron in an infinite well of
        width L?  Is there only one solution with lambda= 2L?
 
Re (3): The deBroglie relation should be justified for the hydrino's
        electron, in my opinion, since, as I discussed recently,
        the uncertainty principle is admittedly not obeyed.
 
Re (4): Farrell indicates that the photon in their theory has no angular
        momentum.
 
Re (5): John Farrell has posted comments about trapped photons and an LC
        circuit analogy.  This is an obscure point of the theory.
 
Re (8): The fractional quantum numbers are said by Farrell to arise out
        of a condition that frequency components move at the speed of light.
        This is also obscure.  Consider also result (7b), which indicates
        that the velocity will approach the speed of light as n decreases
        toward n= 1/137.  Thus a relativistic generalization of the theory
        is needed.  Does the condition leading to fractional quantum numbers
        hold in the relativistic case, or are the numbers only "roughly"
        equal to inverse-integers?
 
Re the whole thing:  Again, what is it in the nature of electrochemical
        cells which induces hydrogen atoms to decay out of the conventional
        n=1 ground state?  Is there a new ground-state in your theory or
        does the hydrino shrink forever?  Why aren't we all shrinking?
 
 
Clarifications by Prof. Farrell or anyone else familiar with the Mills/Farrell
theory will be greatly appreciated.
 
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.06 / Bruce Scott /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: 6 Jun 1993 14:50:44 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Jun4.134341.26761@hal.com>,
 bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
|> There doesn't seem to be any information here about Migma and or
|> Spheromak (SP?). Anyone have information on these an other aneutronic
|> or compact systems that they can send this person?
 
As far as I know, MIGMA has never been given the chance of serious
experiments; efforts to get funding continue; I do not know their
current status.
 
Speromak was tested in small machines in the early to mid 1980s. The jury
seems to have been that anoumalous transport was more severe in this
configuration than in the tokamak. But a next generation to test the
size scaling was eliminated in the general funding collapse under the
Reagan administration. (under which SDI was burning some _tens_ of times
the fusion budget--think about it)
 
Even in the old days, a necessary condition for a new concept to be tried
was successful numerical experiment concerning MHD stability. Tokamak,
RFP (reversed-field pinch), stellarator, and spheromak all passed this
test. But since anomalous transport is not well understood (the picture
is worse than recent PR leads one to believe) one cannot yet predict
performance before an experiment is built, unless it is an incremental
advance within a concept which already has copious data. Only the tokamak
satisfies this test now, so the funding agencies are more willing to
put 10 units of money into this one concept than one unit of money into
10 concepts. Science would demand the latter route; political exigency
has trapped us in the former. [*]
 
The problem is that we are paying for all those glib statements of 20
years ago. Of course, the generation who made them lives comfortably,
while the next one (mine) pays.
 
[*] We had a healthy stellarator effort here until recently; now, it
seems that efforts to fund W7-X are in serious trouble (the German
Government would rather fund the Eurospaceshuttle), and W7-X can survive
only if it becomes a joint European project. Due to ITER and the general
recession, even that is now in doubt.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.06 / Chuck Harrison /  Apology to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apology to Tom Droege
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 17:57:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hello, all.
 
In a recent posting, I "chastised" Tom.  In retrospect, I am sorry to have made
that remark publicly.  My ramblings about lapses in Tom's judgement can serve
only to embarrass him or me; they don't advance anyone's understanding.
 
I feel free to support or deride any proposed theory on its merits, and I think
Tom's "100C miracle" analysis is weak.  However, I don't want to be seen as one
who brings personal attacks into the public discussion.  That only reinforces one
the sci.physics.fusion trends which I find unattractive.
 
I apologize to you, Tom.  And I apologize to the other posters and lurkers wishing
for a "cleaner environment" on s.p.f.
 
  -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.06 / Jim Bowery /  Occam's Chainsaw Massacre
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Occam's Chainsaw Massacre
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 22:39:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>If that's your Occam's razor, Tom, I don't want to meet you in a
>dark alley! ;-)
 
The phrase that best describes such applications of Occam's Razor:
 
Occam's Chainsaw Massacre
 
Because that's what happens to the truth in such situations.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 / S Petersen /  WANTED: Li-O based crystals
     
Originally-From: IFF291@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Stephan Petersen)
Newsgroups: sci.materials,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WANTED: Li-O based crystals
Date: 7 Jun 93 07:04:29 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

 
 
Hi,
 
I posted this a couple of weeks ago, but got no answer so far. Isn't
there *anybody* who could give me a pointer? Are there companies
specializing in the supply of rare crystals who might know?
 
 ------------------------ Original message ----------------------------
 
I'm looking around for suppliers of the following Li-O based single
crystals:
 
        Li2O
        LiAlO2
        LiZrO3
        Li4SiO4
 
Size: 8mm diameter, 1mm thick.
Used in tritium multipliers.
 
 
If anybody has an idea on who could supply these materials or who grows
them, please drop me a line. Thanks for any hints.
 
Stephan
 
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Stephan Petersen                        | 5170 Juelich               |
| IFF (Institute of Solid State Research) | GERMANY                    |
| Research Center Juelich                 | st.petersen@kfa-juelich.de |
| P.O. Box 1913                           | IFF291@DJUKFA11            |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenIFF291 cudfnStephan cudlnPetersen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 / Dieter Britz /  Divided cells
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Divided cells
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 15:20:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Electrochemists have been wondering why F&P don't use a divided cell, which
would avoid the problem of recombination. These are standard in the field.
The most effective divided cell is a socalled H-cell, shaped (as the name
implies) like an H, e.g. two upright test tubes, connected near their base by
a horizontal glass tube. The cathode sits near the bottom of one upright tube,
the anode in the other. Evolved gases exit their separate ways. If you want
to make doubly sure that they don't mix, or if you want different soups in the
two halves, you can put a membrane of some sort across the middle of the cross
connecting tube. This can be anything from a coarse glass frit to an
ion-exchange membrane. I understand that such a cell would be hard to fit into
a dewar for calorimetry. You could still get much the same effect by housing
the Pt anode inside a glass tube inside the cell, the tube plugged with a frit
at its bottom. You'd have a bit more cell resistance and might have a longer
calorimetric settling time, but all the oxygen would bubble upwards and could
be kept completely away from the cathode. This way everyone would be sure that
no recombination can be taking place, and there would be no oxygen at all
available for any cigarette lighter effect, be that ever so slight a
possibility.
 
I suggest to M&F that they use this for their Ni/H2O cells. I can't see any
reason, in their theory's terms, for not doing it this way. The shrunken
hydrogens would still be there, and not get scavenged by any recombiner, and
oxygen is not believed by M&F - as far as I know - to play any role. Despite
Prof. Farrell's assurances that Ni is not a catalyst for hydrogen/oxygen
combination, there is a lot of Ni wire in their cells, I believe, and one
feels uneasy about this assumption. A divided cell would clear up this doubt.
 
I anticipate one objection: cnf cells have used a coil of Pt wire as the
anode, presumably to reduce cell resistance, and it might be considered hard
to physically isolate such a coil behind a membrane. When the cathode is a
smallish rod, most of the resistance will be concentrated around that rod.
Then, whether the anode is a large coil or another rod - maybe a bit bigger -
will not make much difference. Alternatively, if you believe that you need a
symmetric current distribution around the rod and therefore insist on an anode
coil, you could put the Pd rod into its own tube, possibly capped by a
thimble-shaped glass frit. This would still be a pretty good separator of the
gases, if not quite perfect.
 
A bonus of this sort of arrangement would be safety: lead off the two gases in
different directions, and you are safe from explosions, anyway in open cells.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  No Phone Number
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Phone Number
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 18:35:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Will Scott x who called me 6/7/93 at 11:25 AM please call again.  Was not
able to decode your where abouts from the message left.  Message said "Is
interested in your calorimeter."
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Tom Remains Arrogant about the 100 C Miracle
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom Remains Arrogant about the 100 C Miracle
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 19:20:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuch Harrison did a nice little experiment with quite expected results.  Note
that I never argued that the process he discribes does not take place.  It is
simply not relavent to the $$$miracle$$$.
 
You say about the thermometer: "... only went up to 70 C".  How close to 70 C
were you able to hold it over 3 hours by manually adjusting your power supply
Chuck?
 
I am quite familiar with the process you describe.  Remember, I am using a
vapor degreaser made from a 20 cup coffee pot.
 
For starters, I suggest that you do computations for your glass test tube, and
an equivalant Dewar.  The thermal conductivity of typical glass is about
0.3 BTU/hr-ft-F. (Like those units?)  A Dewar is a whole different ball game.
 
Your argument, Chuck, is simply not relevant to the $$$miracle$$$ of the
constant 100 C stability of a dry Dewar where the "mystery" power exactly
matches the 11 watt loss from the dewar due to radiation.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 /  blue@dancer.ns /  More on calorimetry errors
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on calorimetry errors
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 22:37:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Continuing my dialog with Jed Rothwell:
 
Jed suggests as proof that recombination does not occur an observation
that "the water level drops at the expected rate."  By that I assume he
means that the integral of the current and the loss of electrolyte have
the expected relationship.  That observation indicates only that either
both quantities are correctly measured or they are both in error.  By
that I mean that it is possible that the integral of the current is
underestimated and recombination masks the error in the expected loss
of electrolyte.  Of course this sounds a little far fetched because,
as Jed points out there are some precautions taken to reduce recombination.
My concern would be primarily with what happens during the boiling
phase of the experiment.  It would seem that the conditions that would
limit recombination more or less go out the window during the boiling.
Also take note of the fact that all bets are off as far as any test
to confirm lack of recombination once boiling sets in.
 
I mention lead resistance as a heat source not included in the two-
source analysis used by P&F to model their calorimeter.  Jed says
the current is boosted to a high level only for 90 sec to initiate
the boiling.  He then goes on with some nonsense about that 90 sec
pulse changing the characteristics of the wire.  I don't make the
assumption that that is the case.  I simply note that for 90 sec
the resistive losses in the current leads may contribute in a way
not properly modeled by P&F.
 
With regard to energy storage I think it is essential to consider
the preboiling phase of the experiment separately.  In that phase
the cell doesn't produce megajoules does it, Jed?  Then the
100 joules of stored energy is not so insignificant  in comparison
with the enthalpy generated in say 1 second.  If as little as
10 % of the stored energy is rereleased that corresponds to a
10 watt pulse not included in the two-source model.
 
As for the overall accuracy of "modern calorimetry", you misquote
me, Jed.  The subject under discussion is "simple conduction
calorimetry."  I understand that there are better methods than
those employed by Pons and Fleischmann.
 
Finally, I think we have a different perspective on what constitutes
an adequate scientific paper.  I would hope that a paper that is
supposed to be as significant as the recent P&F submission to
Physics Letters would be a reasonably complete exposition of all
the relevant facts needed to support the authors' conclusions.
I don't think of papers as mere teasers designed invoke a flood of
requests for more information.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Reples to Dick Blue and Matt Kennel
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reples to Dick Blue and Matt Kennel
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 22:37:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Had a great time fly (trout) fishing.  I am here for 1.5 days, then off for
other work.   So here goes-------
 
Dick Blue, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu, writes in FD 1084
 
>There seems to be some confusion on the part of Prof. Farrell as to
>what are the physical observables in an atomic system and what he is
>free to postulate.  When he asserts that electrons always have orbital
>angular momentum hbar he is denying experimental results.  Angular
>momentum is what it is!  When he suggests that the "effective" nuclear
>charge is reduced, he indulges in empty word play.  The charge is a
>scale factor in the Coulomb-interaction term of the Hamiltonian and
>any resort to use of an "effective" interaction is clearly just fudging.
>The signs are all there that Farrell and Mills are not ready to
>accept the discipline of real science.  The fact that this bad theory
>has has come to the surface in support of some shakey experimental
>results says something about both the theory and the experiment.
>
>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
 
Sorry, Dick.  There is no confusion on my part.
 
Consider the n = 1 orbitsphere to be a uniform mass/charge density
sphere--*kind* of like a ping pong ball or soap bubble of uniform mass
density.  Now, it can easily be shown that the moment of inertia of a ping
pong ball spinning around some axis is
 
I  = (2/3) (total mass of ping pong ball)  (radius^2)
 
*IF* the n = 1 orbitsphere were like a spinning ping pong ball (which it is
not, see below), its moment of inertia would be
 
I  =  (2/3) m ao^2
 
Now I have previously shown that, in general,
 
r = n ao   and
 
vel(sub n)  =  h/(2 pi m r(sub n))
 
Thus, for n = 1,
 
r  = ao   and
 
vel(n = 1) =   h/(2 pi m ao)
 
Now,  the angular velocity is
 
omega(sub n)  =  vel(sub n)/r
 
Thus
 
omega(n = 1)  =  h/(2 pi m ao^2)
 
Therefore, the angular momentum on the spin axis (if the orbitsphere were
like a spinning ping pong ball, which it is not)  would be
 
L  =  I omega  =  (2/3) m ao^2   h/(2 pi m ao^2)  =  (2/3) (h/2 pi) = (2/3)
hbar
 
Notice, carefully, what is being said here.  *If* the electron in a n = 1
orbitsphere was like a spinning ping pong ball, the angular momentum along
the spin axis would be (2/3) hbar or 0.667 hbar.  This is *close* to the
"correct" answer, (3/4)^0.5 hbar  or  0.866 hbar.
 
The orbitsphere, however, is *not* like a spinning ping pong ball.  For a
spinning ping pong ball the velocity (actually, speed) is a function of
distance from the spin axis (zero at the spin axis and a maximum
perpendicular to the spin axis).  For the orbitsphere, however, the
velocity (speed) is a constant (all of the electron is at the same distance
from the nucleus and the potential energy is constant, the atom does not
radiate and there is conservation of energy, therefore the kinetic energy
and *velocity* must be constant).
 
How can it be that all of the mass moves at a constant velocity when it is
spread out over a sphere at r = ao?  The short answer is that all of the
mass moves along great circles.  *If* all of the mass moved in *one*  great
circle perpendicular to the spin axis the *measured* angular momentum would
be hbar.  But it does not.  Most of the great circles are at an angle to
the spin axis and, therefore, contribute less.  It turns out that the sum
of the spin angular momentum along the spin axis (contributed by an
infinite number of the great circles) is (3/4)^0.5 hbar.  As I said, I will
not attempt to show this derivation over this medium (FD network).
Nevertheless, I hope I have given you *some idea* of how the magnitude of
the angular momentum can be hbar while the measured magnitude is  (3/4)^0.5
hbar.  (My thanks to Stern-Gerlach.)  In any case, an electron is "created"
from a photon.  If angular momentum is conserved the true *magnitude* of
the angular momentum of the electron must be hbar.
 
I am a great believer in experimental data.  If our theory disagreed with
experimental data I would toss it out.  Period.
 
 
Matt Kennel, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu, writes in FD 1084
 
>In QM: Electrons don't radiate because you conserve energy.
 
Are you saying that if it radiates energy is not conserved?  Energy is
conserved whether or not the atom radiates.  Don't you see the difference?
I'm saying that the electron does not radiate at certain radii, r = n ao
for the hydrogen atom, because the function that describes it does not have
components synchronous with the speed of light.
 
 >Quantitative calculation and experimental observation of tunneling rates
>and scattering and transmission across potential wells, and especially
>these observations as a function of energy and size of the potential
>well, i.e. resonances.
 
>They all work as you'd expect calculating things with wavefunctions.
 
 
OK.  I grant you that these calculations work out well (electron scattering
calculations of He break down at small angles as I recall).  But, I believe
extrapolating to very large distances (like here to Mars)-- reasoning that
these calculations *must* be correct--is unwise.  It suggests an
overconfidence in the theory.
 
In response to my question: How do they expect such a spread out wave to
give such an exact energy?
 
>Becuase it's an exact eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.
 
I rest my case.
 
>Is the charge density time dependent?
 
No.
 
>Can you write out what the charge density as a function of
>space and time?
 
Yes.  An observer would always "see" the same object (time independent;
non-radiative).  (The motion of the great circles, see above, is time
harmonic with frequency omega(sub n); no further explanation here--see the
book).
 
The radial function ,  R(r) = delta( r - r(sub n))
 
For example, the charge density in the n = 1 orbitsphere is  e/( 4 pi ao^2)
and the mass density = m/(4 pi ao^2).  Whereas, the charge density in the n
= 2 orbitsphere is e/(4 pi (2ao)^2)  =  e/(16 pi ao^2).
 
>Now, momentum (p) and position (charge density in space)
>have been related.  How?
 
The deBroglie relationship, lambda = h/p.
 
>My guess to your response:  the electron will radiate
>until it gets "stuck" in a state that doesn't.
 
Correct!  How sweet it is!
 
>But still, how does a classically point electron get
>transformed to a spread out charge density?
 
Who said anything about a classical point electron?  The electron is
*never* a point particle!  That is why no one has been able to measure its
size.  A free electron is a plane wave; a bound electron is a
two-dimensional surface.  The equation vel = lambda freq always holds.
 
>: 4.  (For the n = 1/2 state) The effective nuclear charge is (1/n)e or 2 e.
 
>How did this happen?  Is there another charge somewhere?
 
Yes.  Let me begin the explanation with photon absorption, say n = 1 to n = 2.
 
Resonator cavities can trap electromagnetic radiation of discrete resonant
frequencies.  For a spherical resonator cavity, the relationship between
the *photon standing wave* and the radius of the cavity is
 
2 pi r  = n lambda
 
An orbitsphere is a spherical cavity and the relationship between the
allowed *electron radii* and the electron wavelength is
 
2 pi r(sub n)  =  lambda(sub n)
 
or,
 
2 pi r(sub n)  =  n lambda(sub 1)
 
For the hydrogen atom, force balance is achieved when
 
m vel^2/r  =  Z e^2/(4 pi eo r^2)         eqn (1)
 
An electron in the n = 1 state is in force balance
 
m (vel(sub 1)^2)/(r(sub 1))  =   (Z e^2)/(4 pi eo r(sub 1)^2)       eqn (2)
 
Recall that the velocity is, in general,
 
vel(sub n)  =   h/(2 pi m r(sub n)).
 
It is easy to show that for n = 1, r = ao.  That is, we have force balance
at r = ao.
 
When an electron absorbs a photon of sufficient energy to take it to a new,
non-radiative state, r = 2 ao, 3 ao, 4 ao, ... (n = 2, 3, 4, ...) force
balance must be maintained.  Thus, the left-hand-side of eqn (2)  is
reduced by a factor of 4 (the velocity is smaller by a factor of 2 and the
radius is twice as big).
 
How can the right-hand side of eqn (1) be reduced by a factor of 4?  Well,
the radius is twice as large, r = 2 ao.  One solution for the other factor
of two would be to have an "effective" nuclear charge of 1/2.  In this
case, charge balanced would be reestablished,
 
m vel^2/r  =  Z(sub eff) e^2/(4 pi eo r^2)                 eqn (3)
 
      where   Z(sub eff)  = Z/n              eqn (4)
 
This would mean, of course, that there is some "other" charge (in all
states except n = 1)  which reduces the nuclear charge of Ze to Ze/n.
 
Is there any justification for this??????    Yes!!!!!!!!!
 
It is well known that trapped photons in resonator cavities give rise to
surface charge.  The relationship between the total electric field and the
*photon* charge density function is given by Maxwell's equation in two
dimensions:
 
n(tent) dot  (Eout  - Ein)   = sigma/eo
 
where n(tent) = the normal unit vector
            Eout =  the electric field outside the cavity
            Ein =  the electric field inside the cavity
            sigma = the surface charge density
            dot = dot product
 
(For an orbitsphere, Eout = zero, Ein = the electric field of a proton)
 
That is, one can think of the trapped photon as "creating" surface charge
or (and we prefer the or) as the electric field of the standing wave of the
trapped photon behaving as charge.  In any event, the radial electric field
of the photon at r(sub n) is given by
 
E(radial at r(sub n))  =  (-1 + (1/n))   (e/(4 pi eo r(sub n)^2))    n = 2,
3, 4, ...
 
Thus, the field of the proton and the field of the trapped photon
superimpose to give an effective charge of Ze/n.  Charge balance is
achieved at all allowed radii.  How sweet it is!
 
(BTW, the angular part of the photon's electron field is given by the
spherical harmonics, how else?  This is where the angular quantum numbers
come from in the hydrogen atom--not an intrinsic property of the electron
but from the trapped photon!)
 
(PS.  There must be some relationship between electric field and
charge--otherwise, how can a photon become an electron and a positron?)
 
I know I haven't explained an effective nuclear charge of +2e, for n = 1/2,
but first things first.
 
I hope all equations are correctly typed.  This medium has no sub or
superscripts, no Greek letters, etc.  I find it hard to recognize errors.
It is also hard to read for those who are seeing these things for the first
time.  Makes it tough for everyone.  Sorry.
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 / Chuck Harrison /  Kel F thermal characteristics
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kel F thermal characteristics
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 03:37:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some of you may be trying to make thermal models of dewars with Kel F components.
 
Some of you may not give a d***.
 
Typical Thermal Properties of 3M "Kel-F 81" Plastic from 3M literature
 
Thermal Conductivity     0.15 watt/(m*K)
Specific Heat            900 joule/(kg*K)
Heat of Fusion *         1200 joule/(kg*K)  (sic)
                         2.85 BTU/(lb*F)
 
 
Density is 2.1 - 2.13 gm/cm^3
 
Properties vary somewhat with heat treatment (amorphous <--> crystalline form).
 
* note that the Heat of Fusion numbers make no sense.  Heat of fusion for
  H2O (for reference) is 144 BTU/lb.
 
- Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Problem with divided cell
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Problem with divided cell
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 14:38:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz suggested the use of a divided cell in a CF experiment:
 
"The most effective divided cell is a socalled H-cell, shaped (as the name
implies) like an H, e.g. two upright test tubes, connected near their base by
a horizontal glass tube. The cathode sits near the bottom of one upright tube,
the anode in the other."
 
I have heard discussions of this approach, and I know some people who are
doing variations of this with a "fuel cell anode." However, I don't think the
H-cell arrangement would work, because of uneven loading. One of the key
issues in CF is to promote "even loading," that is: uniform loading over the
entire surface of the cathode. This is particularly important with Pd CF. If
the deuterons are shoved into one part of surface, or one face of a plate
cathode, and there is no electrolysis covering other parts of the surface, the
deuterons will immediately migrate across the cathode and bubble out the "dead
spots." Loading will stay down at about 60%. You have to have a uniform
electrical field all around the cathode, and it is best to have it overlap,
extending out the edges by a considerable distance. It is best to wrap the
anode all the way around. It is also important to keep the anode from being
too long and thin, because the field will be attenuated by the time it gets to
the end. A mesh solves this problem.
 
With a H-cell, only one side of the cathode would be exposed to the anode.
Perhaps a more complex "double H-cell" could be devised, but it begins to
sound like a cludge to me, and it would still allow leaks out the sides.
McKubre, Storms, Takahashi and others have told me that if you don't have
uniform coverage, you can actually see large numbers of bubbles evolving out
of parts of the surface, and there goes your loading.
 
Dieter's suggestion is an attempt to address two problems:
 
1. Recombination leading the experimenter astray (making her think she has
excess heat, greater than I*(V - 1.48), less than I*V).
 
2. Safety.
 
I think a recombiner is the best solution. However, be sure to use an open
cell anyway. Nothing should come out, but recombiners can fail at room
temperature, so just in case something decides to come out, leave a free
passage for it, and perform the experiment in a well ventilated room. Don't
worry about the slight loss in accuracy; if you cannot easily measure the
heat, you don't have enough heat to make an important claim anyway. Who cares
about marginal results near the noise? The other solution is to ignore all
results which are not way above I*V (even without a recombiner). Again,
marginal results are not important, we need clear-cut, high sigma results that
cannot be rationally disputed no matter what.
 
In any case, always be certain you blow free oxygen and hydrogen out the
window, or burn them up. Do not ignore gas evolution, because even a small
hydrogen explosion can ruin your day, or poke out your eyes with flying glass.
Also, for goodness sake, wear safety glasses.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 / Richard Schultz /  Naive questions about Farrell's mini-atoms
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Naive questions about Farrell's mini-atoms
Date: 8 Jun 1993 16:04:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
There are several aspects of the Farrell/Mills Theory I don't understand.
 
(1) Does it hold only for H atoms, only for 1-electron species (e.g. He+),
only for s-orbitals, or for all atoms?
 
(2) How does it explain p,d,f. . . orbitals?
 
(3) Given that it accepts that lambda = h/p (i.e. electrons have "wavelike"
properties"), how does it avoid the uncertainty relation between x and p
that follows immediately from the math?
 
(4) Can it explain the spectra of multi-electron atoms such as He including
why the first excited triplet state is metastable?
 
(5) Can it explain things like hyerfine splitting?
 
(6) Can it explain tunnelling effects?
 
Also, one thing Farrell keeps going on about is "how can we know the ionization
energy of H so well if the electron is not localized".  One analogy I have
heard is this.  Imagine a roller coaster (while usually in physics problems,
it's supposed to be frictionless, we can even assume there's friction with
a known coefficient of friction).  Now I can tell you *exactly* how much
energy it takes to move the roller coaster car from the bottom of the first
to the top even though I can't tell you at any given moment where the car is!
Of course this is only an analogy, but it makes the point pretty clearly that
there is a difference between measuring the height of a vertical transition and
measuring the "position" of a quantum particle in an energy well.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Continued Dialogue
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Continued Dialogue
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 20:16:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue writes:
 
     "My concern would be primarily with what happens during the boiling phase
     of the experiment.  It would seem that the conditions that would limit
     recombination more or less go out the window during the boiling."
 
Why? Says who? Boiling has no effect on recombination.
 
 
     "Also take note of the fact that all bets are off as far as any test to
     confirm lack of recombination once boiling sets in."
 
There is no reason to believe this. If the cell shows no sign of recombination
while it sits for two weeks at 45 C, why should it suddenly start recombining
at 100 C? If you think this can happen, please cite your sources in the
literature. I am sick and tired of seeing you make up new physics as you go
along, based on non-existent, non-observations.
 
Suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that by some magic, 100%
recombination begins at the same moment boiling starts. So what? What is your
point? That would only subtract a tiny fraction of the 87,700 joules of excess
heat observed during the 10 minute period. Again, you are pointing to a tiny,
marginal (and in this case, totally imaginary) effect and saying "See! 600 =
100,000,000!"
 
 
     "I mention lead resistance as a heat source not included in the
     two-source analysis used by P&F to model their calorimeter.  Jed says the
     current is boosted to a high level only for 90 sec to initiate the
     boiling.  He then goes on with some nonsense about that 90 sec pulse
     changing the characteristics of the wire.  I don't make the assumption
     that is the case.  I simply note that for 90 sec the resistive losses in
     the current leads may contribute in a way not properly modeled by P&F."
 
Why on earth is it "not properly modeled?" All the power coming into the
system is modeled! There is nothing special about the surge of electricity. It
is measured and modeled like any other input, and it does not affect the
balance or upset the bookkeeping any more than any other electricity going
into the system at any time during the experiment.
 
By the way, I made a mistake: that was supposed to be 180 seconds, not 90. The
pulse is no longer than 3 minutes, it raises the temperature of the cathode to
a temperature between 180 and 200 C.
 
 
     "With regard to energy storage I think it is essential to consider the
     preboiling phase of the experiment separately."
 
Why? Says who? Essential for what purpose? What justification do you have for
arbitrarily cutting the experiment in two for analysis? Give us a reason.
 
     "In that phase the cell doesn't produce megajoules does it, Jed?"
 
No, only half a megajoule in this case. At the end of low phase it was
producing 0.8 watts (a megajoule every two weeks). So what? Leave it like that
in low phase for 10 weeks and you get 5 MJ; in 20 weeks, you get 10 MJ.
Countless other experiments, in this lab and elsewhere, have gone on in low
phase for weeks, producing megajoules, sometimes even hundreds of megajoules.
You are trying to pull the same old stupid trick here aren't you? Ignore the
rest of the literature, ignore all the other experiments in this lab and in
all the other labs. Focus on one experiment -- this paper, fig. 10 only -- and
pretend that half a megajoule is nothing special. This particular cell
produced "only" half a meg before boiling, but that is still *far* more than
any chemical system can generate. Many hours before the end of low phase it
had reached a level of 20 watts/cc, or 20,000 watts per liter, or 1.2 MJ/liter
per minute. Gasoline generates 44 MJ per kg (about one liter). So, in the days
leading up to the boil off event, that cathode and the tiny amount of
deuterium in it generated as much energy every hour as the equivalent volume
of gasoline. It exceeded the limits of practical chemistry every hour, and it
went on, and on, and on...
 
 
     "The subject under discussion is 'simple conduction calorimetry.' I
     understand that there are better methods than those employed by Pons and
     Fleischmann."
 
Okay, bigshot: name those "better methods." What are they? Tell us how to
measure precisely and accurately any value from 0.01 watts up to 200 watts. If
it is so easy, and you know so much, share a few secrets with us. The
calorimeter used by Pons and Fleischmann is demonstrably as accurate and
precise as any other conventional water-based one in existence today. It is
quite sophisticated, and extraordinarily reliable.
 
All you are doing is making vague, useless, unscientific remarks like "maybe
there are better calorimeters" or "maybe there is some other source of heat in
the cell." You don't actually know of any better calorimeters, and you cannot
possibly tell us how or why there might be some other mysterious, magic,
unobserved source of energy is creeping into the cells.
 
Face it: You don't have any ideas at all, you are just making up phony baloney
physics as you go along. Today, a temperature of 100 C makes water recombine,
where 45 C did not. Yesterday, a pulse of electricity did not "fit the model"
(whatever that means!), or it changed the resistance of the wires. Before
that, you gave us megajoules of heat getting stored in a metal, but oddly
enough, no experiment in four years has ever detected any hint of this
storage, even though calorimeters measure endothermic reactions just as well
as they measure exothermic ones. Think about it: P&F's cell has only three
days to cram the energy in before the process goes exothermic and stays that
way for 11 days. There can be no storage after it goes over the calibrated
point. Since P&F can easily measure the heat coming out (starting at the 0.08
watts level), why can't they measure it when loads up in one-third the time? I
figure the cell has to swallow up energy at an average rate of at least 2
watts, or 50 w/cc. Where is the evidence that happened? Can you cite any other
experiment where anything remotely like that occurred? It doesn't even have to
be in CF, just tell us about a reported case of 1,000 eV per atom of chemical
energy was stored up and then released.
 
You make up this nonsense without regard for the laws of physics or chemistry,
and without reference to *any* experimental evidence, in this or any other
branch of science. You never cite the literature for anything, because you
can't! There is not a shred of evidence to support any of your Fantasies,
Fictions and Fairy Tales about recombination, energy storage, water friction,
magical, mystery, undetectable energy sneaking around, and all the rest. Now
you claim some secret method of making calorimeters. You know better than P&F!
Don't be shy, don't hide that light under a bushel. Enlighten us.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Apology accepted
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apology accepted
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 21:57:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Harrison says now: "... and I think Tom's "100C miracle" analysis is
weak."
 
OK fair enough.  All arguments tend to be weak at the beginning, let's
build it up or break it.  It seems to me to be quite fair to put up an
initial post that says "That doesn't look right to me."  Then later follow up
with "here's why."  Then still later more comples analysis as the argument
and counter argument lead to greater understanding.
 
I will admit to a certain amount of grandstanding.  Thus the use of
$$$miracle$$$.  It is designed to inflame the passions.  I find that if I
start out with a careful dry analysis, that it does not get read.  I picture
readers pressing page up.  Around the water cooler we can wave our hands or
talk louder and point.  Here something else is needed to attract attention.
 
Now lets settle down and prepare arguments about just what is happening and
how we can make sense from figure 11.
 
The key item in my miracle is still the seamless switch from 144.5 Watts of
anomalous heat before the water runs out to 11 watts of anomalous heat after
the water runs out, without the slightest temperature transient on figure 11.
I can just not imagine how this comes about.  That is if the data is correctly
presented.  If the thermister (I will go along with 1/3 to 1/4 of the way up
the cell) is under water (the cell is dry) though, everything is explained,
including the following 3 hours at constant temperature.
 
Please be assured that I do not assume a constant 171 watts of "anomalous
heat" or a constant 37.5 watts of electrolysis power during the 10 minute
"boil away".  I would assume that the radiation loss is near the 11 watts
as I assume hot vapor radiates the same as hot liquid.  Does anyone know
for sure?  Seems to me that with the dewar filled with liquid or vapor, the
walls would still be at 100 C.  At least there is that thermometer to show
that.  So it is possible that the "anomalous heat" starts at some much
higher value, then slowly goes to 11 watts as the electrolyte runs out.
But this is really the basis of my $$$miracle$$$.  Out of all the possible
changes in "anomalous heat" that might occur, why does this system pick the
only one that results in a seamless transition that produces no temperature
transient?  It still looks like a $$$miracle$$$ to me.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 / Chuck Harrison /  Kel F properties - update
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kel F properties - update
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 00:02:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Restatement with expansion & correction:  properties of 3M "Kel-F 81"
 
Specific Gravity        2.08-2.185
Melting Point           210 - 215 C
Thermal conductivity    0.15 watt/(m*K)
Specific heat           900 joule/(kg*K)
Heat of fusion          43.1 joule/gm
 
Non-wetting.  Moisture absorption essentially zero (21 days @ 25C).
 
source:  3M Kel-F Engineering Manual, Nov 1986.
3M Industrial Chemical Products tech info line:  800 541 6752
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: More on SBIR's
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on SBIR's
Date: 7 Jun 93 20:18:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <930602135105.20800471@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>You may wonder why I only seem to get to review SBIR's every other year.  Well,
>the job in Washington lasts two years.  .. .
 
>But the DOE really wants lots of good reviews, as it is easier then to do what
>they want.   ...
 
Hmmmm! you mean they have OTHER criteria ??    :-)
 
Way back we looked into SBIR from DoE as a possible startup source,
but gave up after a couple of attempts.  We picked up the impression
that the DoE had a hidden agenda, which seemed not to be to "take
SBIRs as they get them" and then utilize the SBIRs as an opportunity
to probe research into other innovattive approaches other directions.
 
Instead, it seemed the criticism was that it didn't best serve the
National Fusion Program -- what ever that was -- and also that what
we proposed couldn't possibly work with no further explanation.
Another criticism that our endeavor was too optimistic, which I
could understand from their viewpoint.  After all, they had to judge
a pretty strange new bird by the huge inertia, difficulties, and
grinding progress of their own much more complex research approaches.
 
And could you elucidate your own understandings or feelings about
" what they [the DoE really] wanted to do?? "
 
Paul
PS  another thing driving up the Palladium market is its relative
abundance compared to Pt AND that they have found a new major use
for it, namely, in vehicular catalytic converters.  As auto sales
move ahead and pollution standards tighten throughout the world,
the demand will be increasing.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 7 Jun 93 21:24:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1uiov8$cm3@access.usask.ca> choy@dvinci (Henry Choy) writes:
>Someone told me a fusion power plant would cost billion$. Anyone
>believe this?
 
A cancelled appointment.. so.
 
The DoE did one or two tokamak fusion power plant studies and that's
about the $ ball park..  well not quite, because since then the cost
of single proposed tokamak reseach vessels that are devoid of full
scale hairy energy conversion and necessary super dirty radioactivity
cleanup technology (caused by deuterium-tritium burning) was already
in the multi billions.  Now with ITER and its potential successor,
that number has moved up an order of magnitude.   So the answer is:
 
          an infinite amount won't make a tokamak
                    work commercially ..
                        so how much  ?   ..
 
will they have to spend before they finally have "had enough" and
kill the project???  Hmmm!  could be 30 to 60 billion, but, I think
it won't be much more than another 3-10 billion.  People think
smarter when times are bad.
 
Then we can really get down and develop fusion and the cost will
depend what level of aneutronic fuel we are capable of burning.
If its d-He(3), then it will be up to ten times more expensive then
say a p-Boron burner.    p-Boron 10 gigawatts may start around
5-10 billion but within 10 years the price would drop to perhaps
20% of those levels.  Fuel transportaion costs would drop by
a million or so and fuel costs could drop by three orders of
magnitude, in spite of the necessary refining purification of
the required B(11).  Fuel for a d-He(3) may only be down by 10%.
 
The power level will also determine cost as well as the type or
technique utilized to obtain fusion power.. megawatts  perhaps
MIGMA or Bussard-Hirsch-Farnsworth magnetized ES focused gizmo will
be the choice.  Fraction of Gigawatts to 100 gigawatts the PLASMAK(tm)
should work well.  The latter device will do big time propulsion
boost phase or in another mode high specific impulse thrust.  All
of these non-tokamak devices can be employed in high specific
thrust capacities ( covering a wide range of power levels).
 
And we will need those radiation free cf devices -- at least we will
-- just to charge our impulsers to kick over the PLASMAK engines
after shutdown, AND ... don't forget, some of those places out there
are cold.. so having a nice few kilowatts of rad free magic cf in
your pack could make life much more comfortable while ice-skating
across a frozen nitrogen/methane lake.  So stick with it.
 
What's nice is that ALL of the latter devices are either portable or
can deliver the power levels to lift out of any gravity field in this
system and with a sizeable payload.   Fusion can be so much more
then a stoogy old belching groaning dinosaur whose organs are a campus
of mostly single function buildings all of which are sinking slowly
into a New Jersey clay swamp.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Hydrinos and the Sun
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinos and the Sun
Date: 8 Jun 93 18:20:40 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I originally wrote my posting regarding "Hydrinoes and the Sun" with
the assumption that only 13.6 eV could possibly be available due to
electron states in the hydrogen atom.  This would allow the sun to
"burn" for only a few hundred thousand years.  Of course, this follows
an old argument by Kelvin against the chemical burning of the sun as
its source of heat.
 
I have corrected that posting since the Farrell/Mills theory allows
energy states below the *minimum*-energy ground state.  As Roy Richter
pointed out to me, the Farrell/Mills theory goes against physical
intuition, which may point to certain weaknesses in the theory, or,
admittedly, in my intuition.  Extracting energy from a *minimum* energy
state DOES go against the grain.
 
I wonder how much longer to entertain the F/M notions.  The latest is that
a "trapped" photon causes a charge on the surface of the "orbitsphere."
Somehow this is supposed to alter the nuclear charge.  I cannot see how:
for one thing,
the net field inside a spherical-shell charge distribution is zero --
if we have not strayed from 1/r^2 forces.  In my humble opinion,
which is considered extremely humble in some circles,
the photons are neutral and cannot alter the nuclear charge.
My earlier questions are to date unanswered -- perhaps
I will understand better the theory when my questions are addressed.
 
In any case, as BYU student Jonathon Jones and I have previously posted, we
can account for at least 700% excess heat which we find in expts. here,
as it is calculated by Randell Mills, Eugene Mallove and others,
by taking into account H2 + O2 recombination in the
nickel/H2O/potassium carbonate electrolytic cells.  We find no need for
hydrinos (or nuclear effects for that matter):  chemical recombination
explains the xs heat quite nicely.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrinoes and the Sun
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinoes and the Sun
Date: 8 Jun 93 20:31:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<1993Jun8.125347.696@physc1.byu.edu> Steven Jones writes:
>Maximum energy per H atom = 13.6 eV  (consistent with Farrell's eqn. 1 above)
 
13.6 eV is the energy of decay from infinity to the n=1 state.   From the
n=1 to tne n=1/2 is something on the order of 40eV.  If I recall correctly
from previous posting, states down to n=1/100 or so are speculated.  Such
an energy release for an n=1/100 is on the order of 0.5Mev -- as sort of
an upper limit from a MKF hydrino.
 
>You're off by at least 4 orders of magnitude.  Shouldn't you, Dr. Farrell,
>have done the simple calculation before making such a bold claim?
>The neutrino problem persists.
 
The MKF "maximum" is therefore five orders of magnitude greater than you
calculated.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Hydrinoes and the Sun
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrinoes and the Sun
Date: 9 Jun 1993 01:13:40 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
: HYDRINOS AND THE SUN
:
: (Note:  corrected; thanks to Dr. Richter)
:
: In reviewing Dr. Farrell's reply to me dated June 1, 1993 ("Reply to Steven
: Jones, FD 1074"), I was struck by the following bold claim by Dr. Farrell:
:
: "If we are correct most of the heat from the Sun is caused by transitions of
: hydrogen atoms to these fractional quantum-number states. That's why there is a
: so-called neutrino problem."
:
 
: <deleted calculations>
 
: 2 X 10^13 s = 6.3 X 10^5 years,
:
: total time to consume ALL the sun's hydrogen, if sun's power comes from
: shrinking hydrogen from n=1 to n=1/2 state.
:
: The sun is much older than that:  billions of years, not hundreds of thousands.
: Of course, the hydrogen can presumably shrink to the n = 1/100 level, etc.
: This points to the obvious problem faced by physicists in the early part of
: this century:  why don't all atoms just collapse, and radiate energy-- now in
: the Farrell/Mills theory?  Why does this occur just in electrolytic cells and
: in stars?   Hope Dr. Farrell will clarify this.
 
Correct:  you say in n=1,2,3...  1/2, 1/3, 1/4 classical 'orbitspheres' (?)
the charge density is such that classically, there is no radiation.
 
But of course, n=2 states DO radiate, down to the lower energy level!!
 
In QM, of course, you can calculate all these transition rates with
Fermi's golden rule.
 
I'll amplify this problem further:
 
What controls the *transition rate* between hydrogenic levels?
 
There is more to nuclear fusion in stars than just energy.  Specifically,
there is a balance between the temperature, pressure and energy production.
 
The key to this step is the p+p interaction, which proceeds slowly via
the weak force.  But this transition rate is calculable with QM!
 
If we had a different transition rate but same energy interaction, everything
would be different: stars would be different temperatures, and last
different amounts of time and be different sizes.
 
As it turns out, if you make standard models of stellar structure and of
energy production via nuclear fusion, yes, you do obtain, in significant
detail, many observed facts about the distribution and types and properties
of stars: the birth and central achievement of 20th century astrophysics.
 
Bethe got his vacation in Stockholm the old fashioned way.
 
And if you're going to give up quantum mechanics, let's start on a few
more things that you'll have to explain:
====================================
 
The number and degeneracies of atomic orbitals.  These result from detailed
solutions of the Schroedinger equation, including spin and orbital angular
momentum.  Specifically, why are there X many allowed electrons in the Nth
major energy level.  (In Mills Mechanics what's the exclusion principle?)
And then of course, the details, all experimentally confirmed, of splitting
and hybridization, all calculable from perturbation theory in the
schroedinger equation.
 
And what does this all explain, perchance?  The periodic table!!
It's hard to deny the immense importance of this.
 
And related to this, the number and strengths and *transition rates*
(calclated with Fermi's golden rule) of transitions in atomic spectroscopy.
And then, of course, the line broadening as predicted by the uncertainty
principle.
 
All experimentally observed.
 
There is more to QM than the Bohr atom, please remember.
 
BTW, thanks for taking the time to discuss this.  Unlike "CF" at least
there's something substantive to talk about.
 
--
-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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 / Paul Schauble /  Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THANKS: RE: Term Paper... with what I found.
Date: Wed,  9 Jun 93 00:02:52 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Greg Bishop writes....
 
 
And I reply...
 
A _very_ nice piece of work, Greg. Thanks a lot for posting it.
 
BTW, I think you meant 'supressed' in a couple of places where you wrote
'surprised'.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 / J Lewis /  Re: More on calorimetry errors
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on calorimetry errors
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 18:52:54 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <9306072222.AA06238@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
...
>
>Finally, I think we have a different perspective on what constitutes
>an adequate scientific paper.  I would hope that a paper that is
>supposed to be as significant as the recent P&F submission to
>Physics Letters would be a reasonably complete exposition of all
>the relevant facts needed to support the authors' conclusions.
>I don't think of papers as mere teasers designed invoke a flood of
>requests for more information.
...
 
While I share your frustration, it may have led you to push your point
too hard.  Letter journals, as you certainly know, often carry preliminary
or partial results.  Of course, principled investigators
will follow up such letters with full and complete publication as rapidly
as possible.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Hydrinoes and the Sun
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinoes and the Sun
Date: 8 Jun 93 18:53:45 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

HYDRINOS AND THE SUN
 
In reviewing Dr. Farrell's reply to me dated June 1, 1993 ("Reply to Steven
Jones, FD 1074"), I was struck by the following bold claim by Dr. Farrell:
 
"If we are correct most of the heat from the Sun is caused by transitions of
hydrogen atoms to these fractional quantum-number states. That's why there is a
so-called neutrino problem."
 
In the same posting, Dr. Farrell gives the energy of a sub-ground state as:
" E (sub n) = 13.60 eV ( 1/(nfinal)^2) - 1/(ninitial)^2)   eqn (1)  "
" works with n = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,... ."
 
OK, let's calculate how much energy from the sun can come from "shrinking"
hydrogen atoms:
 
Maximum energy per H atom = 13.6 eV  (consistent with Farrell's eqn. 1 above)
 
Power from the sun:  4X 10^26 watts
 
Hence, 1.88 X 10^44 H atoms/s must yield up their ground-state of energy of
              13.6 eV  (note that I do not accept that this energy is
available, but this is what is posited by the Mills/Farrell theory),
which amounts to 3 X 10^20 g/s of hydrogen.
 
The mass of the sun is 1.99 X 10^30 kg.  Dividing by 3X10^17kg/s of hydrogen
consumed to form shrunken hydrogen yields just
 
6.5 X 10^12 s = 2 X 10^5 years,
 
total time to consume ALL the sun's hydrogen, if sun's power comes from
shrinking hydrogen.
 
The sun is much older than that:  billions of years, not hundreds of thousands.
You're off by at least 4 orders of magnitude.  Shouldn't you, Dr. Farrell,
have done the simple calculation before making such a bold claim?
The neutrino problem persists.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Beryllium-7
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beryllium-7
Date: 7 Jun 93 23:10:58 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
I have heard that the long-duration LDEF satellite shows much more
beryllium-7 in the Van Allen belts than can be explained based on
solar-wind abundances.    Can anyone comment on this, perhaps provide
a reference?
 
Be-7 is important in the chain of nucleosynthesis in the sun and stars.
Can anyone comment on whether the abundance of Be-7 fits the standard
solar model quantitatively?
 
Thanks,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Hydrinoes and the Sun
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrinoes and the Sun
Date: 8 Jun 93 14:12:05 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

HYDRINOS AND THE SUN
 
(Note:  corrected; thanks to Dr. Richter)
 
In reviewing Dr. Farrell's reply to me dated June 1, 1993 ("Reply to Steven
Jones, FD 1074"), I was struck by the following bold claim by Dr. Farrell:
 
"If we are correct most of the heat from the Sun is caused by transitions of
hydrogen atoms to these fractional quantum-number states. That's why there is a
so-called neutrino problem."
 
In the same posting, Dr. Farrell gives the energy of a sub-ground state as:
" E (sub n) = 13.60 eV ( 1/(nfinal)^2) - 1/(ninitial)^2)   eqn (1)  "
" works with n = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4,... ."
 
OK, let's calculate how much energy from the sun can come from "shrinking"
hydrogen atoms, assuming a transition to the hypothetical n=1/2 state:
 
Energy per shrunken H atom = 3X13.6 eV  (consistent with Farrell's eqn. 1 above)
 
Power from the sun:  4X 10^26 watts
 
Hence, 6.3 X 10^43 H atoms/s must shrink
       (note that I do not accept that this energy is
available, but this is what is posited by the Mills/Farrell theory),
which amounts to 10^20 g/s of hydrogen.
 
The mass of the sun is 1.99 X 10^30 kg.  Dividing by 10^17 kg/s of hydrogen
consumed to form shrunken hydrogen yields just
 
2 X 10^13 s = 6.3 X 10^5 years,
 
total time to consume ALL the sun's hydrogen, if sun's power comes from
shrinking hydrogen from n=1 to n=1/2 state.
 
The sun is much older than that:  billions of years, not hundreds of thousands.
Of course, the hydrogen can presumably shrink to the n = 1/100 level, etc.
This points to the obvious problem faced by physicists in the early part of
this century:  why don't all atoms just collapse, and radiate energy-- now in
the Farrell/Mills theory?  Why does this occur just in electrolytic cells and
in stars?   Hope Dr. Farrell will clarify this.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Review of what Jed and I have said
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of what Jed and I have said
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 15:35:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maybe with a little less frothing at the mouth, Jed, we could keep this
a little better on a given track.  I submit that with regard to potential
errors, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment's two phases must be considered
separately.  The physical conditions are so different between boiling and
not boiling that little that can be said about one phase applies to the
other.
 
In the preboiling phase the excess heat is a rather modest 0.8 watts.  I
would contend that it is not beyond reason to suggest that possibly that
0.8 watts is the result of a systematic error.  If the input power is of
the order of 10 watts this would correspond to a relative error of 8%
and much has been written by people more closely involved in this than
I am to justify an assertion that errors of that order are possible.
As I understood your initial response to me on this question, you made
a point of saying that the P&F calorimetry had improved accuracy due
to careful modeling of the heat transfer.  I believe you said that model
involved two heat sources.  Taking you at your word I suggested that
there are other heat sources, which not being modeled correctly, could
contribute to the error.  This is not any sort of wild eyed raving about
new physics or chemistry, it is just simple logic following on what you
said.  If the modeling employed doesn't fit reality it can't be expected
to lead to more accurate calorimetry.
 
No matter how accurate the preboiling excess heat is measured once boiling
sets in there are some obvious changes to be considered.  Any assertion
that boiling doesn't effect the electrolysis significantly is contradicted
by your own remarks about uniform fields, etc.  Consider the question of
recombination.  Normally oxygen bubbles form at the anode and move upward
with minimum possible contact with the cathode, but boiling involves a
significant increase in circulation of liquids and gasses so I make
the suggestion that recombination is more likely.  Nothing you have
said seems to address that question.
 
Now I have some questions about this 3 min power input pulse that
initiates the boiling.  You say that pulse raises the cathode temperature
to 180-200 deg C.  I find this totally incompatible with the notion
of accurate calorimetry, at least during that three minutes.  First
off how is that temperature determined?  I thought the cell was
equipped with a single thermistor probe which is not in direct
contact with the cathode and which doesn't read anything different
from 100 C throughout the boiling and well after.  Secondly
I would be curious to know the time vs. temperature profile for
the cathode during the pulse and after.  Finally due we have
any information as to where the heating due to this pulse occurs.
This gets back to the question of the multiple heat sources and
a two-source model for the calorimeter.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 / Bruce Scott /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 9 Jun 1993 13:23:16 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul,
 
D-He3 will not give you aneutronic fusion. A non-negligible fraction
of the D's will go via D-D fusion, and from some 50 pct of those you
will get the 14 MeV neutron from the secondary D-T interaction.
 
p-B11 is the one you want. (You knew that already, didn't you?)
 
Lifting out of any gravity field...? Presumably, you have then found
a way to confine the plasma to get the energy while simultaneously letting
it out to get the thrust, oder?
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 9 Jun 93 16:42:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1v4o84INNej4@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching
mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes...
>Paul,
>
>D-He3 will not give you aneutronic fusion. A non-negligible fraction
>of the D's will go via D-D fusion, and from some 50 pct of those you
>will get the 14 MeV neutron from the secondary D-T interaction.
>
>p-B11 is the one you want. (You knew that already, didn't you?)
>
>Lifting out of any gravity field...? Presumably, you have then found
>a way to confine the plasma to get the energy while simultaneously letting
>it out to get the thrust, oder?
 
Bruce,
 
You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low thrust..."
This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
temperatures for high thrust applications.
 
If memory serves, Bussard's Riggatron could theoretically deliver something
like 3/4 G thrust (don't recall the size of the ship) at ?1,000? isp (specific
impulse).  In the low thrust mode ( < 0.1 G) isp went up to 10,000 or better.
 
To contrast:
 
Space shuttle main engines:  isp = 450, thrust = 500,000 lbs/engine.
Ion engines:  isp = 3,000, thrust = 0.5 Newton.
Laser propulsion: isp ~1,500 to 3,000, thrust = ?
 
NIRVA (nuclear thermal engine) isp = ~800, thrust = ?
 
Note: isp = the number of seconds one pound of fuel will give 1 pound of
thrust.
 
Paul,
 
What's the Plasmak's theoretical isp vs. thrust?
 
If you don't mind my asking, how did you eventually get funding for your
idea?
>--
>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
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Rothwell's advice / P&F paper / Hydrinos
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell's advice / P&F paper / Hydrinos
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 15:45:26 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <930608141337_72240.1256_EHK45-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> ... I don't think the H-cell arrangement would work, because of uneven
> loading. One of the key issues in CF is to promote "even loading," that is:
> uniform loading over the entire surface of the cathode. This is particularly
> important with Pd CF. If the deuterons are shoved into one part of surface,
> or one face of a plate cathode, and there is no electrolysis covering other
> parts of the surface, the deuterons will immediately migrate across the
> cathode and bubble out the "dead spots." Loading will stay down at about
> 60%...
>
> ... You have to have a uniform electrical field all around the cathode, and
> it is best to have it overlap, extending out the edges by a considerable
> distance. It is best to wrap the anode all the way around. It is also
> important to keep the anode from being too long and thin, because the
> field will be attenuated by the time it gets to the end. A mesh solves
> this problem...
>
> ... Do not ignore gas evolution, because even a small hydrogen explosion
> can ruin your day, or poke out your eyes with flying glass.  Also, for
> goodness sake, wear safety glasses...
>
> ... Again, marginal results are not important, we need clear-cut, high
> sigma results that cannot be rationally disputed no matter what...
 
 
Nice comments.  The part about marginal results being insufficient these days
is particularly apt.  If extra-chemical clean heat exists at all, high sigmas
should surely be possible.  And yes, at-will, world wide reproducibility of
such results would nicely short circuit any debates about their reality, and
would force re-examination of quite a few issues.
 
I particularly appreciate the comments about the need for uniformity of
the electrical field.  I would humbly suggest that those interested also
keep in mind the possibility that the overall uniformity and symmetry of
the palladium electrode (both of its physical form and crystal structure)
may be more relevant than has generally been recognized to date.  Just a
thought to keep in mind.
 
                                        Cheers,
                                        Terry
 
 
PS: P&F paper -- I've utterly lost interest in it and have no plans even to
    get a full copy.  To be as blunt as I can about it, I don't care doodley
    whether the heat production they describe is real or not, because if that
    is the best paper those two can write after four years and who knows how
    many bucks of international money, I'm not going to waste my time trying
    to wade through all the junky parts of it.  Energy for the masses will
    just have to wait another millenium, I guess -- or at least until Drs.
    Pons and Fleischmann learn the basic tenants of scientific writing.  Tsk.
 
 
PPS: Dr. Farrell:  What is this, dodge ball?  You seem to pick and choose
    both criticisms and experimental data as you darned well please.  I can
    explain the neutrino deficiency by trillions of little Maxwell Demons
    in the core of the sun, too, you know -- IF I choose flatly to ignore
    any comments to the effect that Maxwell Demons don't really exist.
 
    You have said that your orbitsphere is a spherical wave.  Please give
    us the wave equation (or repeat it if you would, if you have already
    given it), and then explain why it does not have infinite energy.  So
    sorry if you don't feel this is "the right medium" for such an answer,
    but shucks, a few of us just happen to think that something like 99.999%
    or more of the basic outlines of modern physics match up very well indeed
    with experimental data, and are not impressed with your fast footwork.
 
    This is the key difference in our "farfetching" style, Dr. Farrell.  My
    approach is to search for strange gaps or possible oversights in the
    fabric of physics -- a fabric for which, as a whole, I have enormous
    respect, admiration, and (especially!) _confidence_.  While my idea of
    quantum annihilation is blatantly ludicrous _in the absence of clear
    evidence for bizarre energy events in solid-state media_, I did not
    arrive at it by simply tossing Schroedinger and who knows what else out
    the window.  I did it by exploring odd nooks and crannies, and then
    verifying by extensive research at the Library of Congress that the
    nooks and crannies were sufficiently poorly explored or quantified to
    permit the _possibility_ that something unknown might exist there.
 
    _Does_ anything exist there?  That is for good experimentalists to say
    (one way or the other), not me.  But if it does, and if it goes outside
    the range of essentially conventional hot-in-cold low-level fusion ideas,
    then I stand by earlier statements that the real solution will be found
    in the behavior of highly delocalized wavefunctions extrema of a type
    that simply never been seriously explored, rather than in some kind of
    outright dismissal of all Schroedinger-derived wavefunction concepts.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 /  camerond@cc4.c /  Cell Temperature/Potential Relationship
     
Originally-From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell Temperature/Potential Relationship
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 15:30:25 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

I am puzzled by the relationships between temperature and cell potential
shown in the F&P Phys. Letters A paper.
 
In Figure 1 there is a clear inverse relationship between cell temperature
and cell potential.  The same is true in Figure 3, as the cell potential
drops when higher temperatures are suddenly achieved.
 
In Figure 4, in the short term, there is an inverse relationship between
temperature and potential for each calibration pulse, but in the long term,
as the temperature trends higher, so does the cell potential.  Similarly,
in Figure 8, as the cell temperature rises over the long term, the potential
increases.
 
Can someone explain why there is a long term inverse relationship
between temperature and potential in Figures 1 and 3, and the reverse in
Figures 4 and 8.
 
Don Cameron
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencamerond cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Hydrinoes and the Sun
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Hydrinoes and the Sun
Date: 9 Jun 93 11:40:20 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

John Logajan:  Yes, n=1/100 is possible in the Mills/Farrell theory, and
    I corrected my posting to allow for such (before getting your posting).
 
Matt Kennel:  Thanks for adding to my questions about the Mills/Farrell
    theory.  You raise several more crucial issues, such as:
    "In Mills Mechanics what's the exclusion principle?"
    "What does this all explain, perchance?  The periodic table!"
    "And related to this, the number and strengths and *transition rates*"
     --also the temperatures of stars.
 
Nice job!  We see the interconnectedness of an enormous range of experimental
data with quantum mechanics.  Mills/Farrell must replace QM while remaining
consistent with existing data, from nuclei to stars.  This is a tall order.
I hope they will respond to your questions as well as mine:  something may
be learned in the process.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Rothwell's advice / P&F paper / Hydrinos / H-Cells
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's advice / P&F paper / Hydrinos / H-Cells
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 01:57:38 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The need for a uniform field would seem to point to using a spherical
paladium electrode. Has anyone tried this?
 
And, this doesn't rule out using an H cell. I believe that you can shape
the electric field around the electrode in any fashion you wish by adding
insulating glass baffles nearby. It would probably take a computer
simulation to get the geometry right, but I think with care you could get
get the surface current flow uniform to whatever degree the experimenter
thought was sufficient.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 10 Jun 1993 10:22:01 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <9JUN199312425984@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
|> You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low thrust..."
|> This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
|> temperatures for high thrust applications.
 
You won't get that with a lukewarm plasma. High isp means high exhaust
velocity, and unless the fusion output is all in focussed charged particles
that means high temperature for a plasma.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Jeff Driscoll /  miracles and batches
     
Originally-From: jdriscol@frisbee.cv.com (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: miracles and batches
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 12:45:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
from Jeff Driscoll:
 
 
Someone has offered this before as a possible solution to the
$$$miracle$$$ but I want to repeat it so as to lessen the hype that
there is a $$$miracle$$$.  The $$$miracle$$$  is that the the inside of
the dewar stays at 100C for a long time after the water is said to boil
away.  With the water gone, the heat source should then heat the inside
of the dewar to very high temperatures.
 
A possible explanation (repeated before by someone else) is that vapor
that left the cell condenses outside of the cell at some location and
then trickles back in down the wire leading to the thermistor which is
inside of the cell.  As long as the thermistor has at least a thin film
of water on it, in can not be at a higher temperature than 100 C.
 
This $$$miracle$$$ takes little away from the fact that all of the
water has boiled away which means that a certain amount of energy was
required to do the boiling.
 
One more point that I am sure has been made before.  P&F must have made
calibration runs using either palladium that does not give "excess
heat" or maybe some other type of metal.   I have heard that they
notice that some "batches" of palladium work and other "batches"
don't.
 
If they find a strong correlation between batches that work and batches
that don't work, that is significant because  the batches that don't
work are the controls and can be used to determine if the methodology
is right.
 
Obviously none of this is new.
 
The fact that they see results from some batches and not from other
batches (not to mention the fact that some metals work and other metals
do not work) is one of the main reasons that I believe that cf is real.
 
It doesn't make a difference if water is splashing out or if the power
measurements are off by some small fraction.  One experiment boiled all
the water away and the other just sat there (although we would like the
details on how it "sat there" for the experiment published in
Physics Letters A (correct title?).
 
>From what I read here, the recent P&F report in Physics Letters A
did not have any calibration results.   I assume P&F have
reported calibration results somewhere for their other papers (I don't
have any of the P&F reports with me, otherwise I would check).
 
           Jeff Driscoll
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjdriscol cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Jed Rothwell /  One watt is a lot
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One watt is a lot
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 15:13:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue writes:
 
"In the preboiling phase the excess heat is a rather modest 0.8 watts.  I
would contend that it is not beyond reason to suggest that possibly that 0.8
watts is the result of a systematic error."
 
0.8 watt is not modest. It is a lot. Anyone reading this can verify that for
himself or herself by going to the kitchen, putting a 0.8 watt heater into 50
ml of water and measuring the temperature rise. A milliwatt is a modest level.
A watt (or 0.8 watts) is a lot. It is dead simple to measure a watt, any
scientist on earth could have done it with absolute confidence at the time of
the American Civil War. Dick Blue's statements to the contrary have no basis
in fact, as anyone who cares to perform a simple kitchen experiment will see.
There is no possible systematic error, and if there was, it would not be
repeated in thousands of experiments, over four years, in hundreds of
different laboratories using different types of equipment.
 
All of Dick's other statements are equally misguided. None of them has even
the slightest theoretical or experimental base of support. These statements
are not "a little bit wrong" or "slightly off the mark." They are completely
preposterous. Anyone with a Radio Shack power supply and kitchen thermometer
can prove they are preposterous. Dick is trying to pretend that calorimetry at
0.8 watts or 180 watts does not work. This is exactly like trying to prove
that Ohm's law is incorrect, or that white light cannot be broken into a
spectrum of colors. His statements violate rock-solid principles of physics
and chemistry that have been know since the late 18th century.
 
I am not going to bother addressing any more of Dick's "objections," except to
point out the absurdity of thinking that roiling water (by boiling) causes
recombination, when anyone can observe that magnetic stirrers and roiling
water with 100 watts of electrolysis have no such effect. Stirring,
electrolysis, boiling and other methods of mixing water cause no measurable
recombination when the geometry of the cell is correct. In a related note, I
have heard that recombiners sometimes fail at room temperature because a film
of water forms on the surface of the metal, which stops the H2 gas from
reaching the surface, which stops catalysis. When you put a recombiner in
water (liquid or vapor), it does not work very well.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Paul Koloc
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Paul Koloc
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 17:34:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul asks "could you elucidate your own understandings or feelings about
"what the [the DoE really] watned to do??"" (about the selection of SBIRs)
 
I have no idea.  What I realize is that the selection is made by people like
me, who have been drawn out of the national labs.  I have no idea how they
get them to go to Washington for two years.  I can think of no reason why my
friend would have wanted to go - other than he had spent long enough in
administration here that he wanted to get away from preparing forms for
Washington.  Hmmm!  Possibly the "get them back" principle in operation.
 
So I think that the government is bound to do it wrong, even when they get
me to do it.  (Whatever 'it' is).
 
So I would have the central government raise an Army, and set standards,
and do very little else, as it generally hurts those it sets out to help.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Jed Rothwell /  New Age science and music
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Age science and music
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 21:15:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Terry is the latest person to declare that he knows in advance the P&F paper
is so bad, he is not even going to read it:
 
     "P&F paper -- I've utterly lost interest in it and have no plans even to
     get a full copy. To be as blunt as I can about it, I don't care doodley
     whether the heat production they describe is real or not, because if that
     is the best paper those two can write...
 
This is a New Age way of doing science! Judging papers by e-mail ESP. Wow! I
can see why the nation needs that electronic highway to support this brand of
Clear Thinking. In the same open-minded, anything-goes spirit, let me offer my
music appreciation day critique:
 
 
"A Review of Mozart, 2 Piano Sonatas KV 330 & 333, played by noted Japanese
pianist Marude Usoda.
 
This recording is not up to Ms. Usoda's usual standards. I find the Allegro
moderato too hurried, mechanical and dry. She makes several obvious blunders
in the 3rd Allegretto movement. I suspect the second sonata may actually be
played by someone else, or possibly played by a committee, because it lacks
the dexterity one would expect.
 
I have not actually had a chance to hear this recording, by the way, but I
have managed to piece together this critique based upon rumors published in
the electronic network. In fact, I have not had a chance to hear any of
Usoda's recorded works, but I have it on good authority that she is all thumbs
& tone deaf. I have heard this mostly from other people who are jealous of her
professional success. Also, I don't play any instrument, and I never managed
to learn to read music."
 
 
To be as blunt as I can about it: people who think they can judge scientific
discoveries and experiments without carefully reading the original published
scientific papers are contemptible fools. The rest of us should not "care
doodley" about the ignorant opinions of such fools.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Don Cameron
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Don Cameron
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 21:58:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Don Cameron wonders about the apparent differences in figure 3 and 8 with
respect to the temperature effect on cell voltage.  (the P&F Physics Letters
A paper).
 
Figure 3 shows the expected effect.  The cell voltage goes down as the
temperature increases.  Figure 8 is a long term experiment.  Cell voltage
tends to go up over time at constant temperature.  Probably because Lithium
is lost from the electrolyte.  But at constant current and higher voltage due
to change in electrolyte characteristics, the simple dewar calorimeters of
P&F get hotter.
 
In case you had not noticed, figure 3 and figure 8 are different experiments.
As are figure 1, 4, and 5.  P&F treat you to whatever good looking data they
have in each paper whether or not it is closely related to the experiment
presented.
 
I prefer to hold the temperature of the cell constant.  Or close to it.  That
way I can possibly understand the measurement.  But P&F prefer to set up the
thermal runaway condition of figure 8.  Somehow they claim that they can
measure what is going on.  I would not know how to do it, though Jed Rothwell
says it has been easy since the Civil War.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 22:43:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul Schauble asks if spherical electrodes have been tried.  Early on, Huggins
used "Pill" shaped electrodes and claimed positive results.  The NHK video
showed a big pile of electrodes.  At least one of them looked like a 1" dia
sphere.  You bet Paul, great things could be done with programs and shaped
fields.  But the NHK video shows the cathode just hanging there at an odd
angle, and inside a not too well shaped anode.  So a well controlled field
does not appear to be important to the P&F result.  In general, electrochemists
do not go in for shaped fields, and likely it cannot even be done as we simple
folk would imagine.  All that bubbling and boiling must have a large effect on
what I would think of as the "field strength", so controlling it might not be
so easy.
 
Jeff Driscoll says "P&F must have made calibration runs using either palladium
that does not give "excess heat" or maybee some other type of metal. ..."
Possibly so Jeff, but they have not botherd to share with us the usual sort
of experiment where they show such results along side of their proposed effect.
They leave you to assume that they have done such experiments and you then say
"... is one of the main reasons that I believe that cf is real."
 
Possibly if I offer to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge you will "assume" that I
have a valid title.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Schauble Spheres / Aharanov-Bohm / Apology for getting personal
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Schauble Spheres / Aharanov-Bohm / Apology for getting personal
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 15:01:48 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
SPHERICAL CELLS?
 
In article <83107@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
 
> The need for a uniform field would seem to point to using a spherical
> palladium electrode. Has anyone tried this?
 
Interesting.  To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of _that_ high a degree
of symmetry, but it's an intriguing thought -- _if_ you can figure out a way
to do it.  Your problem, of course, is how close you can come to the idea
the idea of a cathode in the _center_ of the sphere.  I suppose an insulated
wire down a tightly fitting drilled hole would come reasonably close, but
you might get a "blowout" due to H pressure blow out.
 
More generically, I was thinking of shapes that have simple interpretations
as standing waves -- of which your sphere is most certainly an example,
and a quite good one.  I hope someone tries it.  There are forms that meet
that criterion, though, and some of those may be easier to implement given
the inherent 1-D asymmetry of a system that has current flowing through it.
 
(Interesting, a spinning pool of fluid does _not_ have any simple standing
wave interpretation -- which turns out to be why weird little quantum
vortices form in liquid helium that is spun around.  Dr. Feynman first came
up with that one, by the way, by using various visual analogies.)
 
Also, as you said, if it's not fusion, what the hey -- try ordinary hydrogen,
too.  The point is to explore, rather than to presume.  If there is anything
real and it is indeed new, you are probably _not_ going to succeed if you
insist on following the usual patterns and assumptions.
 
 
AHARANOV-BOHM EFFECT
 
Speaking of such, the Aharanov-Bohm (sp! sp!) effect nicely shows how odd
the relationships between the phase of quantum wavefunction and an electrical
potential can be.  [There is a fascinating and seminal story there, BTW.  The
electromagnetic field is the _result_ of reconciling "free" phase variables
between wavefunctions, a relationship that sort of popped up out of the blue
in the fairly early days of quantum mechanics.  The extraordinary success of
this insight in providing a simple derivation of the origin of the EM field
led to much of the focus now placed on symmetries in field unification.]
 
Anywho, one _might_ pay some attention to "fine tuning" of field strengths,
as they do have a relationship (possibly quite complex in a solid-state
system) to phase issues for quantum wavefunctions.  It could even be a quite
touchy relationship at that, with small changes being quite significant due
to their impact on rather smallish phase relationships.  Just a thought.
 
 
In all of this, I would note that there is still an absence of unequivocal
proof of anything strange going on at all, let alone massive quantities of
heat.  "Unequivical proof" means world-wide, at-will reproduction of results
that are absolutely and unequivocally inexplicable by any component of the
standard physics theory.  (It does _not_ mean "every experiment must work,"
incidentally.  If you can give instructions that _reproducibly_ lead to,
say, 1 in 100 experiments giving flatly inexplicable results, I'd say that
would meet this sort of criterion for unequivocal proof quite nicely.)
 
I remain a TB in initials only, and am a seventh-generation Bollinger County
Missourian to boot.  Show me.
 
 
TERRY DOES IT AGAIN...
 
I always feel terrible after blowing my cool with Dr. Farrell.  I admire his
audacity and commitment, but get very, very frustrated with his approach.
Sometimes that frustration boils over.
 
I specifically apologize for "getting personal" by talking about differences
in how he and I "farfetch."  Such personalizing was both uncalled for and
quite unnecessary.
 
My request for an orbitsphere wave equation still holds, however.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Schauble Spheres
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Schauble Spheres
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 21:27:39 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Jun10.150148.26121@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
wrote:
>
>
> SPHERICAL CELLS?
>
> In article <83107@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>
> > The need for a uniform field would seem to point to using a spherical
> > palladium electrode. Has anyone tried this?
>
> Interesting.  To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of _that_ high a degree
> of symmetry, but it's an intriguing thought -- _if_ you can figure out a way
> to do it.  Your problem, of course, is how close you can come to the idea
> the idea of a cathode in the _center_ of the sphere.  I suppose an insulated
> wire down a tightly fitting drilled hole would come reasonably close, but
> you might get a "blowout" due to H pressure blow out.
>
[lots of other interesting text deleted]
>                               Cheers,
>                               Terry
 
A sphere would not be difficult.  Just use a solid spherical cathode
centered in a spherical mesh anode.  The electic field lines of a mesh look
very much like those from a solid surface as long as you are at least two
"hole diameters" away.  We use several screen mesh and drilled solid plates
as electrostatic lens elements in our mass spectrometer systems where we
need high gas conductance, and they work just fine.  There would still be
one small disruption of the symmetry where an insulated wire connected to
the cathode, but how significant that would be I don't know.
 
Regards,
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Mike Jamison /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 10 Jun 1993 15:43 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1v7209INNi2c@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching
mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes...
>In article <9JUN199312425984@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
>|> You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low thrust..."
>|> This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
>|> temperatures for high thrust applications.
>
>You won't get that with a lukewarm plasma. High isp means high exhaust
>velocity, and unless the fusion output is all in focussed charged particles
>that means high temperature for a plasma.
 
I guess I should have said something like > 18,000K plasma - that supposedly
gets you an isp of about 1,500 for laser based propulsion.  It's pretty low
temperature, for fusion, though.  Aren't you all working with temperatures
in the 1,000,000K + range? (4,000+ keV range).
 
>--
>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
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / John Cobb /  fusion rockets (was cost of fusion reactors)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion rockets (was cost of fusion reactors)
Date: 10 Jun 1993 16:22:45 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1v4o84INNej4@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes,
|> In article <9JUN199312425984@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
|> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
|>
|> |> You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low thrust..."
|> |> This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
|> |> temperatures for high thrust applications.
|>
|> You won't get that with a lukewarm plasma. High isp means high exhaust
|> velocity, and unless the fusion output is all in focussed charged particles
|> that means high temperature for a plasma.
|> --
|> 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
 
There are ways around it. I saw a preprint a few years back where someone
discussed the chracteristics of a pocket engine based on Hasegawa's
Dipole Reactor scheme. The numbers looked pretty good. There are 2
tricks.
 
1) nozzle expansion. The problem is you have a hot plasma with random
motion, not directed thrust. The answer is to expand the plasma adiabatically
Then you swap presusre for flow. This is how chemical rockets do it, so
why can't fusion rockets do it also? Actually, fusion rockets have an
advantage in that the walls don't have to be material. They can be magnetic
fields. This reduces heat loads to mechanical structures and can increase
control. For example, a big problem in rocket design is to set the nozzle
small enough to get optimum thrust without choking the flow. This
optimium changes depending on fuel conditions and back pressure. It is a
real design problem to get a throat that is sturdy enough but movable
(I have a lot of respect for the guys that figured that out). For a
fusion reactor all you have to do is reprogram the capacitor banks
to control the  coil current. you can electronically control the
mirror ratio at the throat. Additionally, you can introduce some
extra gas in the exhaust to go from high Isp low thrust to low Isp
high thrust operation. moreover, if you introduce the gas judiciously,
you can use it to also protect the first wall.
 
The kicker (and I think this is probably what you were getting at
Bruce) is that you pay a big price to do this. You have to ionize
the gas you introduce into the flow. Later this gas will recombine
far downstream. So enthalpy is not conserved in the nozzle and
you will rob your rocket of a great deal of thrust. The price is
on the order of 10 Ev per particle. given that the entire particle
inventory of fusion reactors is well below a mole, if you want
sufficient thrust, then you will introduce much more mass in the
nozzle than the reactor will supply. When you work out the numbers
(try it yourself) you find that it is a major constraint. The ionization
penalty is really bad news.
 
2) Use particle's charge. Since the particles are charged you really
have a lot of options. You can use direct energy conversion processes
to get electrical energy out. This is really nice for D-3He systems
because all fusion products are charged, so you have the full 16 MeV
to work with. You can use direct energy conversion at the divertor
to recover the energy from the thermal part with near thermodynamic
efficieny. You can use a travelling wave inverse linac to recvover the
highe energy part with a projected 95% efficiency (computer models,
no expt here). Or you could leave the linac off of one end and
just direct the 14 MeV protons out the back of the rocket for a
ultra-high Isp mode (Isp= 5e6 Seconds). Of course
this is not opitimal. It is actually too large for effective thrust.
that's why the DEC possibilities are nice. you can use standard
electrostatic or plasma thrusters and dial your desired Isp. So the
beauty of a fusion rocket is not the fusion, but the high power,
high efficiency and lower waste heat. Of course you lose all of this
if you insist on using the DT fuel cycle since most energy output is
in the form of neutrons which must be thermalized to be used.
 
 
Fusion Rockets before there is a ground-based
ignition deivce. --- Now that's what I call the cart before the
horse.
 
-john w. cobb
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / Mike Jamison /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 10 Jun 1993 15:53 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2822605512@hoult.actrix.gen.nz>, Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz
(Bruce Hoult) writes...
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>> To contrast:
>>
>> Space shuttle main engines:  isp = 450, thrust = 500,000 lbs/engine.
>> Ion engines:  isp = 3,000, thrust = 0.5 Newton.
>> Laser propulsion: isp ~1,500 to 3,000, thrust = ?
>>
>> NIRVA (nuclear thermal engine) isp = ~800, thrust = ?
>>
>> Note: isp = the number of seconds one pound of fuel will give 1 pound of
>> thrust.
>
>Uh, "rection mass", not "fuel".
>
>In the SSME that's the same thing, but not in the other examples you give.
 
 
You're right for the laser, ion and NIRVA examples, but possibly not for the
fusion one.  The laser propulsion study I read used plain old hydrogen for
the reaction mass, and the local electric company for energy.
 
The ion engines switched from Mercury to Xenon for reaction mass, presumably
due to environmental protesting.  If they're ever actually used for a long
range mission, power will probably be either solar dynamic/solar electric,
or possibly a fission reactor.
 
the nuclear thermal engine uses Hydrogen, also, I believe.  The Hydrogen is
actually used to cool the reactor.  The reactor is magnetically levitated,
held in place in the center of the "combustion chamber".
 
I'd guess a linear fusion reactor would make a decent engine, since linear
reactors are inherently "leaky".  You'd only have to keep the plasma from
leaking out one end of the thing, and make sure it leaks out the other end
slowly enough to sustain the reaction...
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / J Lewis /  Re: New Age science and music
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Age science and music
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 23:39:48 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930610203615_72240.1256_EHK42-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Terry is the latest person to declare that he knows in advance the P&F paper
>is so bad, he is not even going to read it:
>
>     "P&F paper -- I've utterly lost interest in it and have no plans even to
>     get a full copy. To be as blunt as I can about it, I don't care doodley
>     whether the heat production they describe is real or not, because if that
>     is the best paper those two can write...
>
>This is a New Age way of doing science! Judging papers by e-mail ESP. Wow! I
 
 You don't need to eat all of an egg to know that it's rotten.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / J Lewis /  Re: One watt is a lot
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: One watt is a lot
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 23:43:19 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930610143649_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dick Blue writes:
>
>"In the preboiling phase the excess heat is a rather modest 0.8 watts.  I
>would contend that it is not beyond reason to suggest that possibly that 0.8
>watts is the result of a systematic error."
>
>0.8 watt is not modest. It is a lot. Anyone reading this can verify that for
>himself or herself by going to the kitchen, putting a 0.8 watt heater into 50
>ml of water and measuring the temperature rise. A milliwatt is a modest level.
 
As has been pointed out to you time and again, the statement that "a is a lot"
is meaningless in context.  A milliwatt is a huge amount of power to pump
into, let us say, a single amoeba, and a kilowatt will scarceley be noticeable
if applied to the St. Lawrence estuary.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / J Lewis /  Re: One watt is a lot
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: One watt is a lot
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 23:48:50 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <C8FJ88.HD7@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis) writes:
>In article <930610143649_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>>
>>Dick Blue writes:
>>
>>"In the preboiling phase the excess heat is a rather modest 0.8 watts.  I
>>would contend that it is not beyond reason to suggest that possibly that 0.8
>>watts is the result of a systematic error."
>>
>>0.8 watt is not modest. It is a lot. Anyone reading this can verify that for
>>himself or herself by going to the kitchen, putting a 0.8 watt heater into 50
>>ml of water and measuring the temperature rise. A milliwatt is a modest level.
>
>As has been pointed out to you time and again, the statement that "a is a lot"
>is meaningless in context.  A milliwatt is a huge amount of power to pump
 
"EXCEPT in context."  Apologies for wasted bandwidth.
 
>into, let us say, a single amoeba, and a kilowatt will scarceley be noticeable
>if applied to the St. Lawrence estuary.
>
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Dieter Britz /  December CNF meeting?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: December CNF meeting?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 07:32:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have been asked whether I know the dates etc of a cold fusion meeting in
December. I think this means Hawaii, but in any case I don't know the exact
dates and other necessary info. Is it a meeting of the Electrochem. Soc., or
a special cold fusion meeting? Are there maybe other cold fusion meetings
scheduled for this year? Any information - such as dates, addresses of the
organisers, program - is welcome. Thanks in advance.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: miracles and batches
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: miracles and batches
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 05:33:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <9306092320.AA04128@frisbee.CV.COM> jdriscol@frisbee.cv.com
(Jeff Driscoll x3717) writes:
 
>A possible explanation (repeated before by someone else) is that vapor
>that left the cell condenses outside of the cell at some location and
>then trickles back in down the wire leading to the thermistor which is
>inside of the cell.  As long as the thermistor has at least a thin film
>of water on it, in can not be at a higher temperature than 100 C.
 
This is a specious argument. _If_ the temperature in the vessel was high
enough to keep water at it's boiling point, none would condense and run
back down into the vessel. And I would defy anyone to hold a thermistor
at nearly exactly 100C for three hours in any way other than submerging it
in water and boiling that water (any way that is without a servo loop --
that is, feedback of some sort.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Dieter Britz /  Schauble's spheres and rising cell voltage
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Schauble's spheres and rising cell voltage
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 10:35:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There have been several postings about how to get an even current distribution
around the Pd cathode. We have been down that path, as Australian politicians
like to say, but once again:
there are three configurations that give you an even current distribution:
1. a sphere (the cathode) suspended in the centre of another one (the anode);
2. a wire or rod (cathode) down the axis of a cylinder (anode), all capped
   with insulating planes at the ends;
3. an insulating hollow cylinder, with a plane cathode at one end, anode at
   the other.
The first is, as someone said, impossible to realise but can be approximated
if the contact to the sphere is just a thin lead. The most practical are the
other two. The Takahashi cell is an approximation (and not a very good one)
of no. 2.
The use of baffles is pretty questionable, you'd have to design this carefully
using a time-consuming program to calculate the potential field distribution
(Laplace equation) for every geometry you think might work. On the other hand,
it wouldn't matter much whether the cell is boiling or not, potential fields
have very fast relaxation times and transport is next to immaterial.
I agree with Tom, F&P's cathode would not have a very uniform current
distribution - but neither would Takahashi's.
 
As for cell voltages, Tom is right that the short-term inverse relation
between temperature and cell voltage is expected, due to the decreased
electrolyte resistance at higher temperature; remember that the cell voltage
is dominated by the resistive voltage drop across the electrolyte. The voltage
increase at long times is harder to explain. I don't buy Tom's explanation in
terms of "lost" Li; I think he sees it being thrown out bodily together with
water (i.e. water loss by mechanical splurting, rather than as vapour). If so
then the electrolyte resistance wouldn't change, since you are removing both
LiOD and water. My guess is the accumulation of crud on the cathode, which
could then cause extra resistance around it, or perhaps even an increased
overpotential due to such accumulation.
 
None of this touches the real questions about the F&P paper. Who wrote it? As
I have said, I don't believe any electrochemist could have written it. How do
they sustain a current in a dry cell? What keeps the temperature at close to
100 C, as if there were water in the cell, when it is dry (Tom's miracle)? And
if it is at close to 100 C, where does the 300 C come from, to melt that Kel-F
support? Why is none of the 36 employees acknowledged (also due to Tom)? We
will never know, because F&P never answer questions. I faxed F to get a
reprint and as original a copy of that video as possible (offering to pay);
with no response. [Btw, I do have a copy of the paper and have read it many
times, in case anyone thinks I need the reprint in order to read the paper; I
just wanted that pretty colour plate of the boiling cells].
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Bruce Scott /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 11 Jun 1993 10:23:51 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <10JUN199315433552@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@venus.lerc.n
sa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
|> In article <1v7209INNi2c@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garch
ng.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes...
 
[In my comment, "that" refers to high specific impulse]
 
|> >You won't get that with a lukewarm plasma. High isp means high exhaust
|> >velocity, and unless the fusion output is all in focussed charged particles
|> >that means high temperature for a plasma.
|>
|> I guess I should have said something like > 18,000K plasma - that supposedly
|> gets you an isp of about 1,500 for laser based propulsion.  It's pretty low
|> temperature, for fusion, though.  Aren't you all working with temperatures
|> in the 1,000,000K + range? (4,000+ keV range).
 
I'd like to see the details on this; could you sketch it or point me
somewhere? The thermal speed of the ions in an 18,000K plasma (1.5 eV
or so) is about 10 km/sec. I can see how this might do better than
chemical rockets, but I was a little more ambitious; I want most
of that 3+ pro mille
of mc2 to go into reaction energy.
 
BTW, 1 million K is about 100 eV, about right for a tokamak edge. The 20 keV
people want in a reactor is about 200 million K.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Bruce Scott /  Re: fusion rockets (was cost of fusion reactors)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets (was cost of fusion reactors)
Date: 11 Jun 1993 10:27:15 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

John Cobb closes his nice post with these words:
 
"Fusion Rockets before there is a ground-based ignition deivce. --- Now
that's what I call the cart before the horse."
 
Well, John, we all know fusion is easy; it's just the confinement that's
hard. The correct ladder of difficulty is probably (1) bomb (2) rocket
(3) reactor, oder?
 
 
Any CF enthusiasts ready to tell me how to make rockets?
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Rothwell's advice / P&F paper / Hydrinos / H-Cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's advice / P&F paper / Hydrinos / H-Cells
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 93 21:17:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <83107@cup.portal.com> pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>The need for a uniform field would seem to point to using a spherical
>paladium electrode.
 
I believe this is more important for high potential fields, such as around
non-conductor sheathed conductors.
 
Around an immersed metal in a conducting fluid, the voltage gradient is
going to be mostly determined (me thinks) by the physical seperation
dstance between the cathode and the anode.  Since the voltage gradient
is only going to be a few volts between anode and cathode, it is highly
unlikely that geometry variations (other than electrode seperation) are
going to effect local field variations much.
 
Remember that both the anode and the cathode are good metalic conductors,
and hence, the voltage on the surfaces are going to be as uniform as
allowed by their own bulk ohmic resistance to the current flow.  At tens
of amps this could begin to become significant.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Jed Rothwell /  December CF Conference
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: December CF Conference
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 13:03:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz asked to see the EPRI CF meeting announcement again. This
originated from:
 
EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems
EVENTS (R) Conference
April, 1993
 
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION (ICCF-4)
 
Background
 
Four years of intensive investigation have uncovered a wide variety of
unexpected phenomena occurring in condensed matter under ambient conditions.
Promoted largely by the possibility of a nuclear origin, the reality,
mechanism, independence, and ultimately, significance of these processes is a
subject of continued debate.  The phenomena in question and their associated
disciplines include excess power generation, nuclear product formation,
electrochemical studies of deuterated metal systems, solid-state physics of
metal matrices, coherent processes, behavior of gas-metal systems, and
improved precision calorimetric techniques.
 
Objective
 
The purpose of this conference is to promote the broadest discussion of the
scientific aspects of these condensed matter phenomena.
 
Who Should Attend
 
Participation is open to all interested scientists and technologists. In
particular, the following are encouraged to attend:
 
     Nuclear and solid-state theoreticians
     Advanced energy technologists
     Long-range utility planners
 
Call for Abstracts
 
Two-page abstract due:  September 10, 1993
Author notification:  October 10, 1993
Those wishing to present papers should submit two copies of an abstract
containing the title of the presentation, contact author, affiliation(s),
etc. to S. Crouch-Baker, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood, Avenue, Menlo
Park, CA  94025. Mark these submissions "ICCF-4 Abstract."
 
Abstracts should be no more than two 28 x 21 cm pages (8 1/2 x 11") including
figures and tables; 10-point type, single-spaced.  A bound volume of
abstracts will be produced for distribution to attendees at the conference,
so abstract submittal in magnetic form is encouraged (Macintosh users:  Word
4.0+, System 7; PC users:  Word 4.0+; magnetic media will not be returned).
Also, those submitting abstracts in magnetic form should include two hard
copies.
 
Technical Information
Tom Passell, EPRI, (415) 855-2070
Michael McKubre, SRI, (415) 859-3868
 
December 6--9, 1993
Hyatt Regency Maui
Lahaina, Hawaii
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Conference Organization/Preliminary Agenda
 
The conference will be cochaired by Dr. T. O. Passell (EPRI) and Dr. M. C. H.
McKubre (SRI).  An organizing committee has been formed with individual
responsibility in the following designated areas.  The International Advisory
Committee will be announced shortly.
 
T. Claytor                (LANL)           Nuclear Measurements
S. Crouch-Baker           (SRI)            Proceedings
P. Hagelstein             (MIT)            Theory
B. Liaw                   (U. Hawaii)      Site Organization
M. McKubre                (SRI)            Calorimetry (cochair)
R. Nowack            (ONR)           Administration
T. Passell                (EPRI)           Administration (cochair)
D. Rolison                (NRL)            Materials, Fundamentals
 
The proposed agenda is as follows:  Morning sessions will be devoted to one
keynote presentation and a number of shorter, invited presentations.
Afternoon presentations will be divided into a number of thematically
organized parallel sessions to accommodate the anticipated number of
presentations.  Papers reporting the results of simultaneous measurements of
different kinds are particularly encouraged.  Subject areas to be covered
include:
 
     Materials and Fundamentals
     Calorimetry
     Nuclear Measurements
     Solid-State Theory
     Electrochemical Studies
     Safety Issues
 
Logistical and Registration Information:
 
Linda Nelson
Conference Coordinator
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743
Tel: (415) 855-2127
Fax: (415) 855-2041
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Nonworking cells as blanks
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nonworking cells as blanks
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 13:43:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jeff Driscoll revives an old idea that CF cells that measure zero
excess heat can serve as blanks to prove that the method is working
correctly.  Hence any cell showing a postive excess heat establishes
the effect as "real".  It's not quite so simple, Jeff.  There is
something called the fallacy of post selection.  It works like this.
You have a poorly controlled experiment such that the result comes and
goes.  Sometimes you get excess heat, and sometimes you don't.  Maybe
only one cell in eight or one in ten shows the effect.  A true believer
picks the results he likes, i.e. post selects the positives.  When a
skeptic asks about using all the data to conclude that there is no
effect, just a large fluctuating measurement errors, he is told can't
be so because we have these blank runs in which the effect was turned
off so only the errors could show up.  Our blanks show no big errors!
 
In order to have a true blank for comparison you have to select those
blanks before hand.  The blank should, ideally, behave in exactly
the same manner as the run for effect accept the effect should be turned
off.  If you don't know what the effect is, and you don't know what it
takes to turn the effect on or off it gets to be a bit tricky.  In the
CF game the first idea that came to mind is you change hydrogen isotopes
using H2O instead of D2O.  Then, obviously, if CF is a nuclear effect and
not a chemical effect, the cells running on H2O will be perfect blanks.
There are two problems with this reasoning.  Firstly the mass difference
between D and H is so large that there are chemical effects as well as
nuclear effects so H2O isn't such a perfect blank.  Then some idiots were
so rude as to claim that they could do CF with H2O only using different
chemistry.  You don't hear much about H2O blanks in CF experiments anymore.
 
Now we have the randomness of the CF results being ascribed to some subtle,
but unrecognized, differences between "batches" of palladium.  Some Pd
shows the effect and some does not.  So Jeff suggests that the bad Pd
can be used as the blanks needed to establish the accuracy of the method.
Fine idea if and only if you can preselect the bad ones, Jeff.  Since
there is no clue as to what the difference is I suppose you have to
start by running CF experiments on a collection of samples identified
as coming from different batches.  If the scores are either 100% or 0
it's easy to select the bad batches, right?  But suppose the scores for
the various batches tend to fall in the 20 to 80 % range.  Now it
becames a game of statistics.  And the temptation to do some more post
selection begins.  If a blank shows a positive effect it really should
not have been used as a blank so we will ignore that one.  If the
success rate for a batch of good Pd is low, well maybe the differences
aren't so black and white after all.
 
Getting down to basics, it is very difficult to make progress in
establishing the reality CF without: (a)some confirming measurement
of another sort such as the rate of production of a reaction product,
or (b) a theory for the process that can guide further experimentation.
Calorimetry is an indirect measurement subject to many perturbations.
 
Look at the score card.  The idea that H2O would serve as a blank has
been called into question by demonstrations of CF with H2O as the
fuel.  Data on reaction products is spotty.  There is no theory for
the process, and one of the theorists who was out front early in the
game has admitted that he sees no prospects of success along the lines
he originally proposed.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Jun8.123828.695@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jun8.123828.695@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 93 12:54:43 -0600

cancel <1993Jun8.123828.695@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 817 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 817 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 15:57:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
Once again it's Friday (that was quick), and I have a lone pat. appl. This is
an interesting one. For one thing, it is a US Pat. appl. - so at least one
made it! It might have helped that it was from a military lab... The other
thing is that these authors (sorry, inventors) have published a couple of
papers reporting the use of ion beams, but didn't get much in the way of
results (not quite nothing, either). As well, they might be thought to be
patenting self targeting here, but I have to assume that they know that the
energy economics are against them with that. I recently got a hot tip of a
good book (thanks, John Cobb!): Glasstone + Lovberg, "Controlled Thermonuclear
Reactions", Van Nostrand, NJ, 1960. This book verified the equations I used
earlier to calculate self targeting fusion cross sections at keV levels (i.e.
I used the right equations). It also says a bit about ion beams, and mentions
that you use more energy to ionise and accelerate the beam, and to ionise most
of the (hit) target, than the return from the small fusion energy yield. One
assumes, then, that Grabowski et al are banking on excess energy from cold
fusion, otherwise they are stonkered.
 
Some of you may notice a couple of papers by Burke LD and Casey JK in J.
Electrochem. Soc. 140(5) (1993) 1284 and 1292, entitled, resp., "An
examination of the electrochemical behavior of palladium electrodes in
acid/base". The first paper even has FPH-89 as a reference, mentioning that Pd
electrochemistry has been getting extra attention recently. So if you use as
criterion for a "cold fusion paper" a reference to either FPH-89 or Jones et
al 89, this would be one. The paper then goes on to say, however, that it is
not at all concerned with cnf, but is a purely electrochemical study; that the
hydrogen absorbing capacity of Pd is in fact a nuisance from their point of
view (which is Pd as a catalyst). What I am trying to say is that I am not
including these two papers in the bibliography, or letting it through the
sacred doors, as Eugene would put it. Sorry [gives push in face].
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Jun-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 817
 
 
 
Patents: file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grabowski K, Eridon J, Chambers G, Hubler G  (US Dept of the Navy);
U.S. Pat. Appl. US 823,748, appl. 22-Jan-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:221741 (1993).
"Generating high-energy nuclear reaction".
** "In a method and app. for producing an exoergic nuclear reaction (cold
nuclear fusion) a target made of solid material is positioned in a vacuum
chamber contg. D gas and having an operating pressure below atm. pressure. The
target is bombarded with a d ion beam produced by an electron cyclotron
resonance microwave plasma source". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / not name /  Smaller Government
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (not my real name)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Smaller Government
Date: 11 Jun 93 16:00:24 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>So I would have the central government raise an Army, and set standards,
>and do very little else, as it generally hurts those it sets out to help.
 
>Tom Droege
 
So many of us feel this way, why isn't it so?
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudended cudfnnot cudlnname cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: New Age science and music
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Age science and music
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 14:55:38 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <930610203615_72240.1256_EHK42-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> Terry is the latest person to declare that he knows in advance the P&F paper
> is so bad, he is not even going to read it:
>
> | "P&F paper -- I've utterly lost interest in it and have no plans even to
> | get a full copy. To be as blunt as I can about it, I don't care doodley
> | whether the heat production they describe is real or not, because if that
> | is the best paper those two can write...
>
> This is a New Age way of doing science! Judging papers by e-mail ESP. Wow! I
> can see why the nation needs that electronic highway to support this brand
> of Clear Thinking...
>
> To be as blunt as I can about it: people who think they can judge scientific
> discoveries and experiments without carefully reading the original published
> scientific papers are contemptible fools. The rest of us should not "care
> doodley" about the ignorant opinions of such fools.
 
(Heh.  Somebody get this man into a guest spot on the Rush Limbaugh program!)
 
Oh poodle-dip Jed, must you force me into a corner on _that_ P.S. also??
Like golly, man, I've _already_ had to apologize to Dr. Farrell!  [Whew!
I surely do use strong language when I get upset, don't I??...  :)   ]
 
Note on satirical polemics techniques:  Come now Jed, I'm very disappointed.
 
The ESP/New-Age part was cute, but by the end you basically just quacked back
what I said about P&F, only directed towards Yours Truly.  Unoriginal, you
know, and rather weak as a satirical technique.  Not to mention that you've
used the term "fools" to apply to so many people by now that I'm not sure
whether it carries the clout it should any more.  Here's my reply to myself:
 
  > "P&F paper -- I've utterly lost interest in it and have no plans even to
  > get a full copy. To be as blunt as I can about it, I don't care doodley
  > whether the heat production they describe is real or not, because if that
  > is the best paper those two can write...
 
  Hmm.  Most curious -- is this not the same Mr. Bollinger who adamantly
  promised that he would "state no further opinions" about this paper until
  he had _gotten a copy and read it thoroughly_?  One wonders about a style
  of thinking that so casually disregards reasonable promises to do good,
  _reasonable_ preparation before making off-the-cuff dismissals of four
  years of intensive work.  One must question, then, whether you are truly
  as "clear a thinker" as you claim, Mr. Bollinger -- or just yet another
  practicioner of polemic persuasion in the volatile medium of Email.
 
See the differences?  By relying on understatement _plus_ specific, factual
recollection of the key issue -- the fact that I'd adamantly promised to
_read the entire paper_ before stating any further opinions -- I strongly
suspect that you could have had a more effective impact on a wider range
of readers.  By getting _too_ carried away (e.g., the rather tangential
comparison to musical critiquing), you quite probably turned off and/or
bored quite a few readers who might otherwise have paid close attention
to what you were saying.
 
All in all, though, you've got some potential, so please keep up the good
work.  And anywho, you _did_ succeed in getting me to say the following:
 
BE IT KNOWN:  Althougth I'm still utterly uninterested in the new P&F paper
for reasons are quite _unrelated_ to anything said in that paper (go figger),
I will still promise to read the _whole thing_ at some point.  As their paper
has already been analyzed ad nauseum here, I really do not expect to have
anything to add to previous comments.  But who knows.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Cell Resistance Rise
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cell Resistance Rise
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 17:58:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz thinks that the cell voltage rises because something happens to
the cathode.  I think so too.  However from p-121 of the P&F Physics Letters A
paper:  " ... to evaluate these coefficients at a set of fixed times following
the addition of D2O to make up for losses due to electrolysis and/or
evaporation ..."
 
So P&F add plain D2O when they lose electrolyte.  If any Li escapes, it is
lost forever, and may cause an increase in cell voltage.  Also some does
diffuse into the cathode.  Probably too little to make a difference in the
electrolyte, but possibly it raises the cell voltage.  In my own work with
closed cells I always see an increase in voltage over time.  This has improved
with successive cells as the design is changed to discourage condensation of
electrolyte in the upper portion of the cell.  I finally bought some small
polyproplyene balls for a surface layre to try to keep the Li in, but have
not used them yet.
 
I have always thought that the Takahashi style cell was pretty good for a
uniform loading try.  Push the D into the middle of a large area plate, and
while it can get out of the edges, it must diffuse a long way to get there
and that takes a long time.  The alternative is a long rod.  Here the edge
effects are much smaller, but the stress in the rod splits it open like a
a good Danish sausage.  The flat plate can just get thicker and relieve the
stress by becomming pillow shaped.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #7 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #7 Cell 4A4
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 19:50:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #7 Cell 4A4
 
Somewhere around 7.6 mega seconds there was an extended power failure, and the
experiment was shut down.  The last several hundred hours were really a
calibration as the cell was reversed at about 1600 hours, then after a week it
was returned to forward operation.  Here is some data for a representative
five day period.  Off line corrections would improve the result (I believe).
 
Date   Accumulated   Through   One Day   Integral    One Day    Integral
1993   Joules        Joules    Drift(mw) Drift(mw)   Percent    Percent
 
5-23   0             0         -         -
5-24   766           684000    8.8       8.8         0.11        0.11
5-25   1227         1368000    5.3       7.1         0.07        0.09
5-26   1065         2053000    1.9       4.1         0.02        0.05
5-27   1206         2737000    1.6       3.5         0.02        0.04
5-28   655          3421000    6.3       1.5         0.08        0.02
 
The Accumulated Joules column is the difference between the energy into the
calorimeter as measured by the E*I*t products for all the wires into the
calorimeter, and the energy out of the calorimeter as measured by the current
in the thermoelectric cooler, time, and a calibration constant.  The Through
Joules column is the total amount of joules put into the calorimeter over the
day.  The One Day Drift computes the calorimeter drift as a mw change over
each 24 hour period.  The Integral Drift is the same computation stated as a
drift since the start of this data.  The Percent columns compare the same data
as a percent of the energy through the calorimeter.
 
The above is 24 hour data.  I print out 6 minute data.  The largest change I
could find manually scanning the print out was 21 joules in six minutes.  This
is 58 mw.  The 50 sample RMS value of the one minute power balance is
typically 16 mw.
 
This data is from the end of May in Chicago, and there were a number of
thunderstorms and other effects which caused large ambient temperature swings.
We can make corrections for these, and generally they improve the drift by
nearly an order of magnitude.
 
I would call this a 0.1% or a 10 mw upper limit experiment, and could likely
lower the limit a lot through off line calibration.  I would also call it zero
"anomalous heat".  You all may remember this is a one cm by one cm by one mm
highly polished Pd plate in a Takahashi style cell.
 
This folks, concludes this experiment.  I think it also concludes my
experimental efforts in general, unless someone can suggest something that
will inspire me to make another run.  It has been fun.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Various responses
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various responses
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 21:57:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary S. Collins, Physics,  collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu, writes in FD 1091
 
>In another recent communication to this group, you appeared to admit
>that your theory is inconsistent with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
>If that is the case, it seems to me that you cannot assume the deBroglie
>relation to be valid.  The deBroglie relation and the uncertainty
>principle are intimately related.
 
The de Broglie was proposed by Louis de Broglie in 1924 (before
Schrodinger's formulation of QM in 1926).  Electron diffraction is an
experimental fact.  Werner Heisenberg proposed his uncertainty principle in
1927.  The implication of the principle is that as one observable is
constrained to have a more precise value, its partner becomes more
ill-defined.  Heisenberg devised gedanken experiments to demonstrate the
principle.  These experiments invariably involved some sort of physical
measurement and, I believe, placed limitations on our ability to *measure*
the observables--not on the observables themselves.  In the past 30 or 40
years more and more scientists have interpreted the uncertainty principle
as an intrinsic property of the actual observable--not on our ability to
measure the observable.  This whole business have led to some logical
absurdities (to me).  For example, from P.W. Atkins, Quanta, 2nd ed. p 378,
"Thus,  although we may know the position of the particle with arbitrary
precision, we can know nothing of the particle's momentum.  As a result, it
is not possible to predict where the particle will be at the next
instance."  I could give hundreds of examples.  Now, it may be that this
is, in fact, how nature operates--but I do not think so.  In the theory
that Mills and I propose, the electron of the hydrogen atom is a very
specific and constant (and exact) distance from the nucleus (spread out
over a sphere); it has a constant (and exact) potential energy; it has a
constant (and exact) kinetic energy; it has a constant (and exact) angular
momentum; it has a constant (and exact) wavelength; it has an  exact
ionization energy.  If we are wrong, the uncertainty principle stands; if
we are correct, the uncertainty principle falls.
 
>For example, consider an electron
>confined in a one-dimensional box of width L.  The wavefunction of the
>electron cannot have wavelength contributions *longer* than 2L because
>of the confinement.  Using the deBroglie relation, this sets a lower
>limit on the momentum p of the electron (equal to the uncertainty in
>the momentum) equal to about h/2L.
>
OK.  You are using the de Broglie relationship here.
 
>Thus, if the uncertainty relation does not apply to the electron in
>your hydrino-atom, the deBroglie relation also should not apply.
 
I may have missed something here, but I don't believe that you have shown
that the uncertainty principle follows from the de Broglie relationship.
 
Steven Jones, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu, writes  in FD 1099
 
>I originally wrote my posting regarding "Hydrinoes and the Sun" with
>the assumption that only 13.6 eV could possibly be available due to
>electron states in the hydrogen atom.  This would allow the sun to
>"burn" for only a few hundred thousand years.  Of course, this follows
>an old argument by Kelvin against the chemical burning of the sun as
>its source of heat.
>
>I have corrected that posting since the Farrell/Mills theory allows
>energy states below the *minimum*-energy ground state.  As Roy Richter
>pointed out to me, the Farrell/Mills theory goes against physical
>intuition, which may point to certain weaknesses in the theory, or,
>admittedly, in my intuition.  Extracting energy from a *minimum* energy
>state DOES go against the grain.
>
>I wonder how much longer to entertain the F/M notions.  The latest is that
>a "trapped" photon causes a charge on the surface of the "orbitsphere."
>Somehow this is supposed to alter the nuclear charge.  I cannot see how:
>for one thing,
>the net field inside a spherical-shell charge distribution is zero --
>if we have not strayed from 1/r^2 forces.
 
OK.  Consider a spherical shell of negative charge.  The net field *inside*
the spherical-shell is zero.  Good.  Now, the electric field *outside* a
spherical shell is the same as that of a point negative charge at the
center of the sphere.   Now, superimpose that electric field on the
electric field of a "bare" the proton.  You now have a hydrogen atom.  The
electric field inside the orbitsphere is the same as a proton electric
field.  The electric field outside the orbitsphere is zero (the electric
field of the electron (shell) and the proton cancel).
 
I have given the following before but it is worth repeating (there was one
error which I have corrected in this posting):
 
Resonator cavities can trap electromagnetic radiation of discrete resonant
frequencies.  For a spherical resonator cavity, the relationship between
the *photon standing wave* and the radius of the cavity is
 
2 pi r  = n lambda
 
An orbitsphere is a spherical cavity and the relationship between the
allowed *electron radii* and the electron wavelength is
 
2 pi r(sub n)  =  lambda(sub n)
 
or,
 
2 pi r(sub n)  =  n lambda(sub 1)
 
For the hydrogen atom, force balance is achieved when
 
m vel^2/r  =  Z e^2/(4 pi eo r^2)              eqn (1)
 
An electron in the n = 1 state is in force balance
 
m (vel(sub 1)^2)/(r(sub 1))  =   (Z e^2)/(4 pi eo r(sub 1)^2)
eqn (2)
 
Recall that the velocity is, in general,
 
vel(sub n)  =   h/(2 pi m r(sub n)).
 
It is easy to show that for n = 1, r = ao.  That is, we have force balance
at r = ao.
 
When an electron absorbs a photon of sufficient energy to take it to a new,
non-radiative state, r = 2 ao, 3 ao, 4 ao, ... (n = 2, 3, 4, ...) force
balance must be maintained.  Thus, the left-hand-side of eqn (2)  is
reduced by a factor of 4 (the velocity is smaller by a factor of 2 and the
radius is twice as big).
 
How can the right-hand side of eqn (1) be reduced by a factor of 4?  Well,
the radius is twice as large, r = 2 ao.  One solution for the other factor
of two would be to have an "effective" nuclear charge of 1/2.  In this
case, charge balanced would be reestablished,
 
m vel^2/r  =  Z(sub eff) e^2/(4 pi eo r^2)                           eqn (3)
 
      where   Z(sub eff)  = Z/n              eqn (4)
 
This would mean, of course, that there is some "other" charge (in all
states except n = 1)  which reduces the nuclear charge of Ze to Ze/n.
 
Is there any justification for this??????    Yes!!!!!!!!!
 
It is well known that trapped photons in resonator cavities give rise to
surface charge.  The relationship between the total electric field and the
*photon* charge density function is given by Maxwell's equation in two
dimensions:
 
n(tent) dot  (Eout  - Ein)   = sigma/eo
 
where n(tent) = the normal unit vector
            Eout =  the electric field outside the cavity
            Ein =  the electric field at r(sub n)
            sigma = the surface charge density
            dot = dot product
 
(For an orbitsphere, Eout = zero, Ein = the electric field of a proton)
 
That is, one can think of the trapped photon as "creating" surface charge
or (and we prefer the or) as the electric field of the standing wave of the
trapped photon "behaving"as charge.  In any event, the radial electric
field of the photon at r(sub n) is given by
 
E(radial at r(sub n))  =  (-1 + (1/n))    (e/(4 pi eo r(sub n)^2))     n =
2, 3, 4, ...
 
Thus, the field of the proton and the field of the trapped photon
superimpose to give an effective charge of Ze/n.  Charge balance is
achieved at all allowed radii.  How sweet it is!
 
Note that the photon does not *alter* the nuclear charge (which remains +e)
but adds to the nuclear charge--such that the net "effective" charge is
+e/n.
 
Also, Steven, 13.6 eV is not the max energy from this process--see John
Logajan's response in FD 1099.  I still maintain the so-called neutrino
problem is solved.  No one has said that it occurs just in electrolytic
cells and stars.  But before you can appreciate how and why it happens at
all, you must understand the concept of "effective" nuclear charge (above)
and you must entertain the possibly of fractional quantum number states.
No sense going on until we get that straight.  Notice this, however, if
these states exist, the hydrogen atom represents an enormous amount of
*stored* energy.
 
A note to Matt Kennel:
 
Yes, I believe that I have heard of the periodic table, spin and orbital
angular momentum, singlets, triplets, electronic transitions, and so on.
Having taught chemistry for 28 years, these are things that are hard to
ignore.  We have addressed many of them--they are in the book.  I don't
intend to do it all again here.  Slowly, however, as time permits, more of
these items may be addressed here.  Thanks for your interest.
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.11 / daniel herrick /  Re: New Age science and music
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Age science and music
Date: 11 Jun 93 17:00:48 EST

In article <1993Jun11.145538.7797@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi folks,
>
>
>   Hmm.  Most curious -- is this not the same Mr. Bollinger who adamantly
>   promised that he would "state no further opinions" about this paper until
>   he had _gotten a copy and read it thoroughly_?  One wonders about a style
>   of thinking that so casually disregards reasonable promises to do good,
>   _reasonable_ preparation before making off-the-cuff dismissals of four
>   years of intensive work.  One must question, then, whether you are truly
>   as "clear a thinker" as you claim, Mr. Bollinger -- or just yet another
>   practicioner of polemic persuasion in the volatile medium of Email.
>
Nicely done, Terry.  Reminiscent of the style Rostand gives to
Cyrano de Bergerac in the duel scene where he extemporizes
rhyme about what the man who insulted his nose could have said
if he were not devoid of imagination.
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Various responses
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various responses
Date: 12 Jun 1993 00:15:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
: I have given the following before but it is worth repeating (there was one
: error which I have corrected in this posting):
:
: Resonator cavities can trap electromagnetic radiation of discrete resonant
: frequencies.  For a spherical resonator cavity, the relationship between
: the *photon standing wave* and the radius of the cavity is
:
: 2 pi r  = n lambda
 
What is the boundary condition for the fields at the surface of
the 'orbitsphere'?  Conventional resonator cavities are composed of
conducting material.  How does that work microscopically?
 
 
: It is well known that trapped photons in resonator cavities give rise to
: surface charge.
 
*If* the conducting surface of the cavity is grounded---i.e. attached
to an external supply of free charges that can move around easily.
 
If the conductor is isolated, of course, the total net surface charge will
remain constant.
 
I have no idea how a microscopic 'orbitsphere' corresponds to either of
these two cases.
 
:The relationship between the total electric field and the
: *photon* charge density function is given by Maxwell's equation in two
: dimensions:
:
: n(tent) dot  (Eout  - Ein)   = sigma/eo
:
: where n(tent) = the normal unit vector
:             Eout =  the electric field outside the cavity
:             Ein =  the electric field at r(sub n)
:             sigma = the surface charge density
:             dot = dot product
:
: (For an orbitsphere, Eout = zero, Ein = the electric field of a proton)
:
: That is, one can think of the trapped photon as "creating" surface charge
: or (and we prefer the or) as the electric field of the standing wave of the
: trapped photon "behaving"as charge.
 
**how does this happen***?  How do E fields 'behave' as charge?
(Ignore virtual pair creation at very high energies for now)
Classically E fields can *move* charge. That's what happens
on a conductor.  But create charge?
 
If you integrate:
 
  integral  rho(\vec{x}) dx1dx2dx3
 
over all space, this needs to remain constant, right?
 
:  In any event, the radial electric
: field of the photon at r(sub n) is given by
:
: E(radial at r(sub n))  =  (-1 + (1/n))    (e/(4 pi eo r(sub n)^2))     n =
: 2, 3, 4, ...
:
: Thus, the field of the proton and the field of the trapped photon
: superimpose to give an effective charge of Ze/n.  Charge balance is
: achieved at all allowed radii.  How sweet it is!
:
: Note that the photon does not *alter* the nuclear charge (which remains +e)
: but adds to the nuclear charge--such that the net "effective" charge is
: +e/n.
:
: Also, Steven, 13.6 eV is not the max energy from this process--see John
: Logajan's response in FD 1099.  I still maintain the so-called neutrino
: problem is solved.  No one has said that it occurs just in electrolytic
: cells and stars.  But before you can appreciate how and why it happens at
: all, you must understand the concept of "effective" nuclear charge (above)
: and you must entertain the possibly of fractional quantum number states.
 
Yeah. This is hard.
 
: A note to Matt Kennel:
:
: Yes, I believe that I have heard of the periodic table, spin and orbital
: angular momentum, singlets, triplets, electronic transitions, and so on.
: Having taught chemistry for 28 years, these are things that are hard to
: ignore.
 
Glad we agree on this.
 
:  We have addressed many of them--they are in the book.  I don't
: intend to do it all again here.  Slowly, however, as time permits, more of
: these items may be addressed here.  Thanks for your interest.
 
I appreciate your sincerity (and chutzpah).
 
To believe this, we need of course direct experimental evidence of
effects not predicted by QM.  (excess heat in some electrochemical cell
is very very *indirect*).
 
: Best regards,
:
: John Farrell
:
 
--
-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:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A4
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A4
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 02:09:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>This folks, concludes this experiment.  I think it also concludes my
>experimental efforts in general, unless someone can suggest something that
>will inspire me to make another run.
 
Appreciate your efforts.
 
Get that guy Mills to give you one of his working cells.  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.12 / Chuck Harrison /  The Energizer 100C Miracle
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Energizer 100C Miracle
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 04:59:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

...keeps going, and going, and going...
 
Tom Kunich writes:
> I would defy anyone to hold a thermistor at nearly exactly 100C for three
> hours in any way other than submerging it in water and boiling that water.
 
Perhaps this reveals a misconception behind some peoples' endorsement of the
"miracle" idea.  Tom K is correct that evaporation of water under 1 atm
pressure is a good way to maintain a steady temperature.  It is equally true
that condensation of steam at 1 atm pressure maintains a steady temperature.
Thus, it is not necessary for the thermistor to be immersed in water, only for
it to be
  (1) immersed in water vapor at 1 atm pressure, and
  (2) extracting heat (e.g. via conduction to ambient) from the vapor.
This pair of conditions is adequate to guarantee a 100C reading.
 
Incidentally, this effect is routinely used in the manufacture of surface-mount
electronic circuit boards.  The process is called "vapor-phase reflow soldering",
and uses apparatus just like a vapor degreaser (a bit bigger than Tom Droege's
20-quart model) partly filled with a high-boiling-temperature inert liquid.  The
liquid in the sump is heated, boils, and creates a vapor cloud in the upper part
of the tank.  A circuit board placed in this vapor cloud causes liquid to condense
on the board, heating it to a precisely known temperature (the boiling point)
regardless of the original circuit board temperature or the power input to the
sump heater (no servo necessary).  This precise temperature control is good
because it melts the solder without overheating the electronic components.
 
Back to F&P.  Of course, vapor condensing on a thermistor creates liquid water,
and then it is not absolutely correct to say the cell is "dry".  I will grant
that the "self-regulating reflux condenser" effect cannot occur in a _completely_
dry cell, and that the stable 100C temperature is indeed a $$$$$miracle$$$$$$
under that assumption.  Dictionary-thumpers may therefore consider the case
closed.
 
A small quantity of liquid water (well under 1% of the dewar's original contents),
however, is adequate to support reflux action when heated at the bottom.  If the
heat input exactly balances the radiant loss from a uniform 100C dewar surface*
(let's say 11.0 watts), we can now all envision the tiny pool of water at the
bottom of the dewar boiling off vapor, which rises thru the dewar.  Some con-
denses in the first few cm of dewar, giving up its heat of vaporization to the
dewar glass at 100C.  The remaining vapor continues up, losing some to conden-
sation at each level, keeping the dewar wall at 100C.  The last traces of hot
vapor just reach the uppermost rim of the dewar, giving up their heat there,
leaving _no_ excess vapor to escape thru the vent.  All the condensate drips
down to the pool to be re-evaporated by the mystery heat source.  As long as
the $$$$$miracle$$$$$ heat balance holds, this process will continue indefinitely.
 
A challenge to any non-dictionary-thumping believer in the "100C miracle" idea:
Write a paragraph similar to the one above, describing what happens, steady state,
when only 10 watts of heat are available to boil off the pool of water.  Describe
briefly the temperature profile along the height of the dewar (is it constant?),
and the most important heat transfer mechanism(s) (e.g. conduction, radiation,
convection, phase change) giving rise to that temperature profile.  Is any part
of the apparatus at 100C?
 
* Note:  Radiation loss from the glass dewar is directly dependent on the tempera-
ture of the inner glass tube, not the contents themselves.  The peak wavelength
for blackbody radiation at 100C is 7.8 um.  Although glass is transparent to the
eye, it is opaque (in 1-2mm thickness) to infrared radiation in the 5um to 20um
range.  Therefore heat radiated by the contents is absorbed by the glass, which
heats up, and re-radiates according to its blackbody spectrum.
 
My implicit threat:  I won't stop debunking the 100C miracle until
  (1) people stop claiming it's true, or
  (2) someone shows why it is.
Network bandwidth be d***'d!     -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.12 / Tom Simonds /  Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Collider
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 21:55:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

This is my idea of how a fusion reactor should work. I encourage any
discusion or relevant feedback on whether or not you think it would
work.
 
It is my first premise that we are all barking up the wrong tree with
these schemes for fusing elements by the application of heat. What we
should be doing is crashing the duterium together in a sort of collider,
a fusion collider.
 
Take two cyclotrons, placed side by side, so that they resemble a
figure '8.' Inject the fuel, duterium and/or tritium, into each
cyclotron in such a way that the fuel is spun around in opposite
directions, i.e. clockwise and counterclockwise. Where the cyclotrons
touch each other, the paths of the fuel intersect and the fuel is
slammed together at close to twice the speed of light.
 
Where this approach is suppose to derive it's efficiency is in the
number of collisions per second of the fuel. Say the cyclotrons are each
100 feet in diameter. A particle traveling at light speed in a circular
path 100 feet diameter will pass the same point about three million
times a second. Thus we will get three million CPS, at twice the speed
of light.
 
Probably at the point where the paths of the fuel intersect another
magnet will be used to create a kind of venturi, further speeding up the
fuel and forcing it together.
 
Tho' similar in principal to the superconducting supercollider, I'm
unaware of it's use in fusion. I invite any comments.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentsimonds cudfnTom cudlnSimonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.12 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Sophia-Antipolis
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sophia-Antipolis
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 15:35:36 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

This summer, I will be attending a conference in France, and I may have
time to visit P&F's lab at Sophia-Antipolis.
 
Has anyone on the net ever visited there before?   I would like to know if
it would be worthwhile to see it.  For instance, do they have any of the
original cells on display?  Would they give me any technical papers or
literature on the work of their lab?
 
If nothing else, I was hoping for some souvenier -- maybe a T-shirt.
("Mom and Dad went to Sophia-Antipolis, and all I got was a few Nice
Hydrinos")
 
I would also apreciate any recommendations on hotels, and directions.  I
don't actually have an address for the lab.  From the map, it looks like
it might be just North of the Cannes country club.
 
Thanks for any info,
 
-- Bob Horst  (long time CNF lurker)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Noses / Ah, that's better
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Noses / Ah, that's better
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1993 05:20:55 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
THE NOSE KNOWS
 
Dan Herrick: Thanks for the delightful literary note.  Makes me wish my nose
was bigger!
 
 
AH, THAT'S BETTER!
 
In article <01GZ9DR0AGEQ001PYZ@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
> ... In the past 30 or 40 years more and more scientists have interpreted
> the uncertainty principle as an intrinsic property of the actual observable
> --not on our ability to measure the observable.  This whole business have
> led to some logical absurdities (to me).  For example, from P.W. Atkins,
> Quanta, 2nd ed. p 378, Thus,  although we may know the position of the
> particle with arbitrary precision, we can know nothing of the particle's
> momentum.  As a result, it is not possible to predict where the particle
> will be at the next instance."  I could give hundreds of examples.
 
It began a lot earlier than the last 30 or 40 years.  It began with Dr.
Schroedinger himself, as well as (in the different mathematical formalism
of matrix mechanics) with Dr. Heisenberg.  In Dr. Schroedinger's wave
mechanics formalism, the uncertainty principle was simply an unavoidable
consequence of a well-known rule of _wave_ mechanics, a rule that was already
known when he did his formalization:
 
    The fewer crests in a wave train, the less determinate its frequency.
 
The problem is that as soon as you say "momentum is frequency" -- a point
which you do appear to agree with, if I read your points about DeBroglie
correctly -- then the above rule is a very direct _mathematical_ consequence.
 
You cannot get around it:  If _experiment_ shows "wavy behavior," then _as
is true for for any wave of any type whatsoever_, you will have to deal with
the "fewer crests, fuzzier frequency" rule as a direct consequence.
 
The precise formalism by which "fewer crests, fuzzier frequency" is known as
the Fourier transform -- the same one that all of you EE's out there know and
love from work with time/frequency domain translations.  Remember how a very
sharp electrical (or optical) pulse disperses more rapidly -- how it has more
"frequencies" when translated into the frequency domain?  This is _exactly_
the same sort of thing that is being said when you say that a particle has
a "very well known location" -- you've just said it has a very short wave
train, since a particle can always be refracted and thus always has some
degree of wave behavior.  And since the frequency has a one-to-one relation
to particle momentum, you have -- surprise! -- a whole range of possible
momenta when you Fourier tranform that particle waveform "spike" into the
frequency space of quantum mechanics -- that is, into momentum space.
 
When expressed in terms of Fourier transforms that relate two different
"versions" of a wavefunction -- one in regular space, and the other in
momentum space -- the Heisenberg principle loses its arbitrary-rule flavor
and becomes instead a very beautiful _and very precise_ piece of work.  Far
from liking uncertainty, Schroedinger was enamored with the beauty of an
infinitely precise, infinitely expanding wave -- he was quite annoyed when
Born came up with his pragmatic rule for how to interpret Schroedinger's
pretty, precise waves as some sort "quantum roulette" game in which the
whole wave magically bursts (the process has never been well quantified
even to this day) and produces a "particle."  (Read John Bell's excellent
"Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" if you want a detailed
discussion of some of these issues of wave interpretation.  Dr. Bell was
more than a little bit of a maverick himself on such things, by the way.)
 
> ... Now, it may be that this is, in fact, how nature operates--but I do
> not think so.  In the theory that Mills and I propose, the electron of the
> hydrogen atom is a very specific and constant (and exact) distance from the
> nucleus (spread out over a sphere); it has a constant (and exact) potential
> energy; it has a constant (and exact) kinetic energy; it has a constant
> (and exact) angular momentum; it has a constant (and exact) wavelength; it
> has an  exact ionization energy.
 
And again, please take note:  In saying this, you are in a very real sense
saying that there _is_ no DeBroglie wave behavior in an orbiting electron,
because you cannot _mathematically_ localize the electron around a nucleus
and simultaneously expect _no_ harmonics in the momentum=frequency domain.
 
Shucks, you don't even have to stick with Schroedinger's wave equation --
_any_ wave equation will have that problem, because you cannot create a
wave equation that does not have a Fourier translation into the frequency
domain.  And if it has been verified _experimentally_ that the DeBroglie
momentum=frequency premise is valid (as it has been), that means that the
electron will have many, many different momentums _all at the same time_
(an effect called "linear superposition," by the way).
 
A very similar argument holds in reverse, by the way.  Because the average
momentum is well-defined (but not _absolutely defined!), particle location
gets "fuzzed" when you apply the Fourier transform in the other direction.
 
I understand the great attraction of nicely visual models that make all of
this kind of behavior "go away," but such models do not, I think, do full
justice to the incredibly bizarre and profound implications of _any_ proof
that matter can, in some cases (actually a lot of them), behave like a wave.
 
....
 
My real answer to all of this will be coming along soon:  A non-mathematical
explanation of how to use and interpret Schroedinger's equation, coming soon
on a net.group near you...  :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.13 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 13 Jun 1993 16:05:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.13 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Orbitsphere Wave functions
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orbitsphere Wave functions
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1993 18:15:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger requested that I give him the wave equation for the
orbitsphere.  OK.
 
All of the following is for the hydrogen atom.
 
Also, the usual spherical coordinate system is used.
 
z = cos(theta)
x = r sin(theta) cos(phi)
y = r sin(theta) sin(phi)
 
 
The radial function is a product of a radial and an angular function.  The
radial function is a Dirac delta function.
 
R(n)  =   delta(r - r(sub n))
 
The angular function, A(theta,phi, t),  is a solution of the Laplace
equation in two dimensions (plus time).  Conservation of angular momentum
and energy allows the angular and time function to be separated.
 
A(theta,phi, t)  =  Y(theta,phi) K(t)
 
Charge is conserved.  The charge of an electron is superimposable with its
mass.  That is, the angular charge-density function is also the angular
charge-density function.
 
The angular functions are the spherical harmonics.  Specifically,
 
Y(sub s)(theta,phi)  +  Y(sub el,super m)(theta,phi)
where Y(sub s)(theta,phi), s = 1/2    =   1
 
The function Y(sub s)(theta,phi), s = 1/2    =   1 is a constant and is
called the spin function.  The function Y(sub el,super m)(theta,phi) is
called the modulation function.  Y(sub el,super m)(theta,phi) can be
positive or negative.  The sum of the two functions, however is always
positive (or zero).  That is the mass of the electron never becomes
negative and the electron charge never goes positive.
 
The charge density of the orbitsphere is the total charge, -e,  divided by
the total area, 4 pi r(sub n)^2.
 
Thus, the charge-density function, M, is
 
when el = 0
 
M  =  (-e/(8 pi r(sub n)^2))  (delta(r - r(sub n)))   (Y(sub s)(theta,phi)
+ Y(sub el,super m)(theta,phi))
 
when el is not  equal to zero
 
M  =  (-e/(4 pi r(sub n)^2))  (delta(r - r(sub n)))   (Y(sub s)(theta,phi)
+ Y(sub el,super m)(theta,phi))
 
Specifically, let's take n = 1, el = 0, m = 0, (s = 1/2):  r = ao (the Bohr
radius)
(This is the Mills/Farrell equivalent of the 1s.)
 
M(1,0,0,1/2)  =    (-e/(8 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - ao))  (1 + 1)
 
M(1,0,0,1/2)  =    (-e/(4 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - ao))
 
  You can easily plot this function in Mathematica with the following
program (you'll need Mathematica and a color monitor):
 
colors[theta_, phi_, det_] =
        Which[det <= 2, RGBColor[0.674, 0.079, 1.000]];
 
 
ParametricPlot3D[{Sin[theta] Cos[phi], Sin[theta] Sin[phi], Cos[theta],
        colors[theta, phi, 2]},
        {theta, 0, Pi}, {phi, 0, 2Pi},
        Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, Lighting -> False,
        PlotPoints-> {20, 20},
        ViewPoint->{-0.273, -2.030, 3.494}]
 
The picture will show up as a (uniform) violet sphere.
 
In any case, the charge density is uniform (at r = ao) and equal to -14.41
(C/(m^2))
 
Now, let's take n = 2, el = 0, m = 0, s = 1/2:  r = 2 ao
(This is the Mills/Farrell equivalent of the 2s.)
 
M(2,0,0,1/2)  =  M(1,0,0,1/2)  =    (-e/(32 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - 2 ao))
(1 + 1)
 
M(2,0,0,1/2)  =  M(1,0,0,1/2)  =    (-e/(16 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - 2 ao))
 
Notice that charge density is uniform (at r = 2 ao) and equal to -3.60
(C/(m^2)), one-fourth of what it was in the case of n = 1.
 
Here I choose a less intense blue to depict the smaller charge density.
(I've boxed it, but you can unbox it if you like.)
 
colors[theta_, phi_, det_] =
        Which[det <= 2, RGBColor[0.102, 0.718, 1.000]];
 
ParametricPlot3D[{Sin[theta] Cos[phi], Sin[theta] Sin[phi], Cos[theta],
        colors[theta, phi, 2]},
        {theta, 0, Pi}, {phi, 0, 2Pi},
        Boxed -> True, Axes -> True, AxesLabel -> {x, y, z},
        Ticks -> None, Lighting -> False,
        PlotPoints-> {20, 20},
        ViewPoint->{-0.273, -2.030, 3.494}]
 
 
 
Let's move on to n = 2, el = 1 and, m = 0.  r = 2 ao.
(This is the Mills/Farrell equivalent of the 2pz.)
 
M(2,1,0,1/2)  =    (-e/(4 pi (2 ao)^2))  (delta(r - 2 ao))  (1 + cos(theta))
 
M(2,1,0,1/2)  =    (-e/(16 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - 2 ao))  (1 + cos(theta))
 
Notice that the charge density varies with theta.  The charge density will
be zero at theta = pi and will be a maximum at theta = zero.  Once again,
you can visualize this with Mathematica
 
 
 
colors[theta_, phi_, det_] =
        Which[det < 0.1333, RGBColor[1.000, 0.070, 0.079],
        det < .2666, RGBColor[1.000, 0.369, 0.067],
        det < .4, RGBColor[1.000, 0.681, 0.049],
        det < .5333, RGBColor[0.984, 1.000, 0.051],
        det < .6666, RGBColor[0.673, 1.000, 0.058],
        det < .8, RGBColor[0.364, 1.000, 0.055],
        det < .9333, RGBColor[0.071, 1.000, 0.060],
        det < 1.066, RGBColor[0.085, 1.000, 0.388],
        det < 1.2, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 0.678],
        det < 1.333, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 1.000],
        det < 1.466, RGBColor[0.067, 0.698, 1.000],
        det < 1.6, RGBColor[0.075, 0.401, 1.000],
        det < 1.733, RGBColor[0.067, 0.082, 1.000],
        det < 1.866, RGBColor[0.326, 0.056, 1.000],
        det <= 2, RGBColor[0.674, 0.079, 1.000]];
 
 
ParametricPlot3D[{Sin[theta] Cos[phi], Sin[theta] Sin[phi], Cos[theta],
        colors[theta, phi, 1+Cos[theta]]},
        {theta, 0, Pi}, {phi, 0, 2Pi},
        Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, Lighting -> False,
        PlotPoints-> {20, 20},
        ViewPoint->{-0.273, -2.030, 3.494}]
 
I let the colors vary from red (low charge density) to violet (high charge
density).
 
Let's examine the n = 2, el = 1, m = 1 and m = -1 orbitspheres.  The m = 1
and m = -1 spherical harmonics are imaginary and I take linear combinations
and call them the (1,0,x) and (1,0,y) orbitspheres.  Thus,
(This is the Mills/Farrell equivalent of the 2px.)
 
M(2,1,x)  =  (-e/(16 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - 2 ao))  (1 + sin(theta) cos(phi))
 
 
colors[theta_, phi_, det_] =
        Which[det < 0.1333, RGBColor[1.000, 0.070, 0.079],
        det < .2666, RGBColor[1.000, 0.369, 0.067],
        det < .4, RGBColor[1.000, 0.681, 0.049],
        det < .5333, RGBColor[0.984, 1.000, 0.051],
        det < .6666, RGBColor[0.673, 1.000, 0.058],
        det < .8, RGBColor[0.364, 1.000, 0.055],
        det < .9333, RGBColor[0.071, 1.000, 0.060],
        det < 1.066, RGBColor[0.085, 1.000, 0.388],
        det < 1.2, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 0.678],
        det < 1.333, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 1.000],
        det < 1.466, RGBColor[0.067, 0.698, 1.000],
        det < 1.6, RGBColor[0.075, 0.401, 1.000],
        det < 1.733, RGBColor[0.067, 0.082, 1.000],
        det < 1.866, RGBColor[0.326, 0.056, 1.000],
        det <= 2, RGBColor[0.674, 0.079, 1.000]];
 
ParametricPlot3D[{Sin[theta] Cos[phi], Sin[theta] Sin[phi], Cos[theta],
        colors[theta, phi, 1+Sin[theta] Cos[phi]]},
        {theta, 0, Pi}, {phi, 0, 2Pi},
        Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, Lighting -> False,
        PlotPoints-> {20, 20},
        ViewPoint->{-0.273, -2.030, 3.494}]
 
This orbitsphere looks exactly like the (2,1,0) or (2,1,z) orbitsphere
which is rotated by pi/2.
 
 
Next, I'll give you one of the n = 3, l = 2 orbitspheres.
(This is the Mills/Farrell equivalent of the 3dxy.)
 
M(3,2,xy)  =  (-e/(36 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - 3 ao))  (1 + sin(theta)
sin(theta) sin(2 phi))
 
To visualize with Mathematica: (it is kind of fun to watch Mathematica
build these orbitspheres; it emphasizes that these structures are hollow!)
 
colors[theta_, phi_, det_] =
        Which[det < 0.1333, RGBColor[1.000, 0.070, 0.079],
        det < .2666, RGBColor[1.000, 0.369, 0.067],
        det < .4, RGBColor[1.000, 0.681, 0.049],
        det < .5333, RGBColor[0.984, 1.000, 0.051],
        det < .6666, RGBColor[0.673, 1.000, 0.058],
        det < .8, RGBColor[0.364, 1.000, 0.055],
        det < .9333, RGBColor[0.071, 1.000, 0.060],
        det < 1.066, RGBColor[0.085, 1.000, 0.388],
        det < 1.2, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 0.678],
        det < 1.333, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 1.000],
        det < 1.466, RGBColor[0.067, 0.698, 1.000],
        det < 1.6, RGBColor[0.075, 0.401, 1.000],
        det < 1.733, RGBColor[0.067, 0.082, 1.000],
        det < 1.866, RGBColor[0.326, 0.056, 1.000],
        det <= 2, RGBColor[0.674, 0.079, 1.000]];
 
ParametricPlot3D[{Sin[theta] Cos[phi], Sin[theta] Sin[phi], Cos[theta],
        colors[theta, phi, 1+Sin[theta] Sin[theta] Sin[2 phi]]},
        {theta, 0, Pi}, {phi, 0, 2Pi},
        Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, Lighting -> False,
        PlotPoints-> {20, 20},
        ViewPoint->{-0.273, -2.030, 3.494}]
 
 
Lastly, one of the n = 4, el = 3 orbitspheres.  Specifically, one of the m
= 1 and m = -1 linear combinations:
 
M(4,3)  =  (-e/(64 pi ao^2))  (delta(r - 3 ao))  (1 + 0.72618 sin(theta)
cos(phi) 5 cos(theta) cos(theta))
 
colors[theta_, phi_, det_] =
        Which[det < 0.1333, RGBColor[1.000, 0.070, 0.079],
        det < .2666, RGBColor[1.000, 0.369, 0.067],
        det < .4, RGBColor[1.000, 0.681, 0.049],
        det < .5333, RGBColor[0.984, 1.000, 0.051],
        det < .6666, RGBColor[0.673, 1.000, 0.058],
        det < .8, RGBColor[0.364, 1.000, 0.055],
        det < .9333, RGBColor[0.071, 1.000, 0.060],
        det < 1.066, RGBColor[0.085, 1.000, 0.388],
        det < 1.2, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 0.678],
        det < 1.333, RGBColor[0.070, 1.000, 1.000],
        det < 1.466, RGBColor[0.067, 0.698, 1.000],
        det < 1.6, RGBColor[0.075, 0.401, 1.000],
        det < 1.733, RGBColor[0.067, 0.082, 1.000],
        det < 1.866, RGBColor[0.326, 0.056, 1.000],
        det <= 2, RGBColor[0.674, 0.079, 1.000]];
 
ParametricPlot3D[{Sin[theta] Cos[phi], Sin[theta] Sin[phi], Cos[theta],
        colors[theta, phi, 1+.72618 Sin[theta] Cos[phi] 5 Cos[theta]
Cos[theta] - .72618 Sin[theta] Cos[phi]]},
        {theta, 0, Pi}, {phi, 0, 2Pi},
        Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, Lighting -> False,
        PlotPoints-> {20, 20},
        ViewPoint->{-0.273, -2.030, 3.494}]
 
Terry, I hope this answers your question.  I know you'll let me know if it
does not.
 
I don't understand your question about infinite energy.  I do have a
question for you, however.  The Schrodinger 1s wave function is non-zero at
the nucleus (in fact, it is a maximum at the nucleus!).  Furthermore, it is
non-zero within the whole volume of the nucleus ( r is about 10^-15
meters).  According to Coulomb's law the potential energy ought to be
-infinity here.  What's the story?
 
By the way, Terry,  I am not "farfetching".  I am not looking for strange
gaps or possible oversights in the fabric of physics.  I am going to the
very heart of QM.  And I did not "simply throw out Schrodinger."  The
Schrodinger solutions have Fourier components synchronous with the speed of
light--they cannot be correct because it is well known that the hydrogen
atom does not radiate.  The functions cited above will give the correct
energy, the correct angular momenta, and will not radiate.  Tell me, why
are they less acceptable than the Schrodinger solutions which will radiate?
 Finally, if you think I haven't done my homework on this one, you are
sadly mistaken.
 
I accept your apology.  I understand your frustration.  It was very
difficult for me to unlearn concepts that I have been working with for 35+
years.  I did not easily accept many of the ideas encountered while the
basic concepts of this theory were being hammered out.  Everything (about
this theory) cannot be easily stated over the net.  More importantly,
everything is not worked out (and we may have made some errors!).  So keep
the questions coming, but don't expect me to answer all questions.  I'll
answer those, time permitting, that I feel are *both* important and fairly
easy to do over this medium.
 
I have a mountain of work on my desk and I am going on vacation soon.  I
won't even be reading my e mail for quite a while.  Will do what I can when
I get back.
 
Best regards,
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.13 / John Cobb /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 13 Jun 1993 19:38:11 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1vfj8aINNj80@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
>one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
>thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
>they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
>thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
>in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
>for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
>--
>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
 
Bruce is correct. But there is even more bad news. If they miss you
lose 'em (unless you are very careful). Thus is pay an energy
penalty. You get +14MeV extra credit for each fusion but -(energy
of beam) for every particle that you lose. If you go the low energy
beam route at the cross-section resonance, you need an energy beam
of about 100 Kev. So you would need to get a fusion for 1 out of
every 140 particles in the beam. I don't know if you appreciate how
impossible this is, but this is an insanely high rate. It means
you would need to focus the beam so that the mean particle
separation is much less than solid matter.
 
Now if you are clever, you can try to recover the energy in an
inverse linac. This is actually a good idea. The notion is if you
took RF to accelerate the puppies, then you can revocer RF energy
in a controlled deceleration. The chestnut here is an efficieny
factor, Dou you get back 99%, 95%, 50% etc.? This turns an
insanely difficult prospect into thinkable, but it is still
not workable (or rather I haven't seen any workable ideas).
This is the same problem that is found in muon catalized fusion.
There you need a beam to create the muons. You need to get at least
enough fusions to pay this energy debt.
 
To put it another way, you've got to ante up to shoot craps at the
fusion table. If you don't consider the ante, than any game of
chance looks like a winner. But when you do, you find that you
usually end up with less money (i.e. energy) than when you started.
Colliding beams can cause some fusions, but it cannot get you
to breakeven. In magnetic fusion, you pay the price once, but the
particles stick around and have many many chances to collide.
 
john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Dieter Britz /  A small M&F comment
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A small M&F comment
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 09:01:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I don't pretend to understand the Mills and Farrell theory, so I can't
comment on it. I do note that its detractors here on this net have not read
the book by M&F; this might answer a lot of questions in advance and save
Prof. Farrell a lot of typing.
 
I allow myself a small remark, though. Prof. Farrell wrote that the theory
explains the solar neutrino problem. As I understand it, Douglas Morrison, who
is an expert on this subject, has shown rather convincingly that it is a
non-problem; i.e. that the neutrino deficit can be explained within current
theory. So it could turn out that in the light of the M&F theory, there will
be an excess solar neutrino problem.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Nonworking cells as blanks
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Nonworking cells as blanks
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 09:01:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1105:
 
>Jeff Driscoll revives an old idea that CF cells that measure zero
>excess heat can serve as blanks to prove that the method is working
>correctly.  Hence any cell showing a postive excess heat establishes
>the effect as "real".  It's not quite so simple, Jeff.  There is
>off so only the errors could show up.  Our blanks show no big errors!
...
>In order to have a true blank for comparison you have to select those
>blanks before hand.  The blank should, ideally, behave in exactly
>the same manner as the run for effect accept the effect should be turned
 
I think you are being a bit overrigorous here, Dick. I may have said something
like this myself at one time, but have thought about it and changed my mind
to some extent. We can allow as a reasonable procedure, I think, the scenario
in which the researcher finds a cathode that does not produce the effect, and
then selects that cathode as a control. Cathodes that do show an effect are
said to evince large temperature events - the excess heat, according to F&P,
comes in bursts. If this were simply measurement error, fluctuating with time,
then every cathode should show it. Having found one that doesn't, one can then
follow it in time and see whether it behaves as one's assumed error limits
predict. Critics have suggested a lot of artifacts as the explanation for
"excess heat", and all of these, as I remember, apply to nonworking cathodes
as well. So if we want to be sure that the way F&P solve those differential
equations, or use Kalman filtering (whatever it is they do), is correct, then
such a "blank" would remove some of our doubts if it showed an excess heat
staying within the stated 0.1% error band. As long as they don't select a time
series that - in retrospect - behaved that way!
The only problem remaining is that you can't test such a cathode under the
extreme conditions of a working one, such as the boiling dry of a cell. If we
were given all the details on this, we might be impressed even without a
control.
 
The reality is a bit different, though. We don't get told much at all, we are
asked to take the results on trust. Possibly F&P think they have such a good
process here, that they want to keep it to themselves, writing only mouth-
watering teasers at intervals to keep us interested. In that case, journal
editors ought to reject their papers; journals are not advertising outlets.
 
Within the year, someone wrote, all will be revealed, in the shape of a
working process. So let's wait for that.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 /  blue@dancer.ns /  28 years of teaching with no respect for experiments?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 28 years of teaching with no respect for experiments?
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 13:39:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I see one (gross understatement) big problem with John Farrell's
notion that the electron distribution in the hydrogen atom is a
spherical shell.  That charge distribution is subject to experimental
determination as is the momentum distribution.  John, your model
does not conform to experimental observations!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: miracles and batches
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: miracles and batches
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 16:28:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tomkC8FzG2.L3r@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <9306092320.AA04128@frisbee.CV.COM> jdriscol@frisbee.cv.com
(Jeff Driscoll x3717) writes:
>
>>A possible explanation (repeated before by someone else) is that vapor
>>that left the cell condenses outside of the cell at some location and
>>then trickles back in down the wire leading to the thermistor which is
>>inside of the cell.  As long as the thermistor has at least a thin film
>>of water on it, in can not be at a higher temperature than 100 C.
>
>This is a specious argument. _If_ the temperature in the vessel was high
>enough to keep water at it's boiling point, none would condense and run
>back down into the vessel. And I would defy anyone to hold a thermistor
>at nearly exactly 100C for three hours in any way other than submerging it
>in water and boiling that water (any way that is without a servo loop --
>that is, feedback of some sort.)
 
     More pointedly than this.  I defy anyone to maintain a thermister in
     a 'dry' *insulated* cell, open to the atmosphere, at 100C for three
     hours.  At rates of enthalpy input prior to 'dryness', any 'film'
     ('de novo' or not) would never be liquid water, or even saturated steam.
     (Not to mention the difficulties melting Kel-F in such an environment).
 
     P&F appear to be trying to imply that there are still strange
     and mysterious enthalpy inputs into the system, without telling us
     anything about the detailed experimental conditions and without
     giving a good interpretation of what they are 'seeing.
 
     That is getting quite tiresome.
 
                               dale bass
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Jim Bowery /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 17:32:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John W. Cobb writes:
[an interesting article on plasma/phase fusion thrust engines]
 
>Fusion Rockets before there is a ground-based
>ignition deivce. --- Now that's what I call the cart before the
>horse.
 
(Speaking strictly p-B11 HOT fusion here...)
 
I see no ground-based fusion rockets around nor do I see any ground-based
ignition devices.  I see a lot of discussion of ground-based ignition
devices for producing base-load electricity and a little discussion of
fusion rockets, despite the fact that fusion rockets are likely to be
in operation before fusion devices for electric utilities.  This is
understandable since most people assume that fusion devices for electric
utilities will, ultimately, be more important than fusion rockets.
 
That assumption is incorrect.
 
The first fusion devices, fusion rockets and plasma torches, are
likely to be the first to go into operation and the most important
devices in the long term, just as transportation and industrial-grade
heat are the primary uses of energy today and went into operation
before electric utilities.
 
Fusion rockets will provide ballistic transportation between
points on earth as well as transportation to and between points in
space at a far lower cost than currently attainable.  (Remember,
 you want the high speeds of suborbital transport not simply because
 you like to get stuff from point a to point b fast, but also because
 you are trying to amortize the capital costs of your vehicle).
The primary use of this transportation will be bulk commodities --
possibly even benefacted ore -- near points of use or refinement.
 
Plasma torches will make refinement of lower grade ores economic
and those ores will be more available also due to lower transport
costs.
 
The big problem that John Cobb doesn't really address is that in
all transportation modes EXCEPT between points in space we are
fighting earth's full gravitation and therefore would prefer
very high mass-flow rate at lift-off -- making the transition to
higher isp and lower mass-flow rate as the reaction mass we have
lofted becomes more valuable due to its potential and kinetic
energy content.
 
Something cheap and environmentally benign like water would serve
as a good boost-mode reaction mass at lift-off if simply converted
to high temperature steam.  Since the water needn't be pure in a
well designed system, ocean or fresh-water lake launches might prove
convenient, as well as providing a bit of safety margin in the event
of failure at take-off or landing.  Water launch has the added
benefit of taking advantage of the pea-shooter effect of igniting
engines underwater -- a bit like being shot out of a steam cannon,
which uses the earth itself as reaction mass (talk about high
 mass flow rate at lift-off!).
 
At higher elevations and speeds during boost, the power would
be turned up and mass-flow rate brought down so that the molecular
bonds could be cracked and SOME of the enthalpy recovered during
recombination in the bell.
 
For ballistic transporation between points on earth, these two
operating modes, in one stage, might prove sufficient.
 
However, for space systems, the MHD that Cobb describe would
become important.
 
Since reaction mass will become the limiting quantity in space
transportation and hydrogen and nitrogen will become a limiting
elements in the development of space resources, I would expect
the upper stage tanks to contain a lot of NH4 (ammonia) as
reaction mass suppliment to the lower-isp ranges of the MHD
space stage.  The tanks could be increased in size with small
tankage penalty and big gains economically due to the marketability
of NH4 in space.
 
I therefore envision a two-stage space launch system:
 
        1) High mass-flow rate 2-mode steam and hydrogen-oxygen.
                (Possibly with under-water "pea-shooter" effect
                 at lift-off -- somewhat like a sub-launched ICBM).
           This stage could also be used for ballistic transport
           to and between points on earth.
        2) A NH4-fed MHD plasma stage (similar to that described by
                Cobb but with a relatively large tank for excess
                NH4 for transport to and between points in space.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 18:04:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Simonds suggests a multi-pass fusion collider.  John Cobb and Bruce
Scott seem to answer back that a one-pass experiment is not efficient.
 
At Fermilab we store protons and antiprotons for many hours.  We run them
into each other for many passes, and using the magnetic "pinch" type of
focusing that Tom suggests.  I could check with someone, but my guess is that
most get lost to gas interactions, but then we are carefully designed to run
at very high energy, and to get as close as possible to >>one<< interaction
per crossing.
 
Suppose instead we built two "race track" devices and circulated D++?  Hmm!
I suppose that if it worked, that we would spend more energy pumping the He4
out of the vacuum chamber than was gained from the fusion.  Still, the straight
section could be very long (SLACK is over a mile?), and the bunches could
fill 50% of so of the space, so we might push up the reaction rate a lot.
Once circulating in the "race tracks" the energy required to keep the particles
going is not much.
 
But this would generate a lot of He4, and then the beam would run into that
before we could pump it out.
 
So thus the question:
 
How the heck do they expect a Tokamak to work once the chamber fills up with
all that He???
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Chuck Harrison Still Cannot See Miracle
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck Harrison Still Cannot See Miracle
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 19:12:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck, the real miracle is not that the cell stays at constant temperature,
though if I recall correctly your thermometer read 70 C while the bottom
boiled.
 
The real miracle is that in order to stay at constant temperature for three
hours, the input "anomalous heat" must match exactly the radiation loss.  A
little water does not help.  If the "anomalous heat" is slightly larger than
the 11 watt radiation loss, then it quickly boils away any water that happens
to be left over (it is dry).  If the "anomalous heat" is slightly less, the
cell cools down.
 
So I repeat, how does the mystery process which was running at 141 watts while
the cell was boiling away figure out how to change to 11 watts when the water
is gone (or mostly gone - your choice).  Chuck, you seem to know somethig about
transients in linear systems - given that the mystery process switches from
141 watts to 11 watts, how does it do so without producing a temperature
transient on the thermister?
 
So these are the $$$miracles$$$.  I hope you will think about them Chuck.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The Energizer 100C Miracle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Energizer 100C Miracle
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 16:47:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930612043110_73770.1337_EHA43-1@compuserve.com> 73770.1337@c
mpuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>
>...keeps going, and going, and going...
 
     I'm baaack...
 
     This is good, since I apparently missed all of it while I was away.
 
>Tom Kunich writes:
>> I would defy anyone to hold a thermistor at nearly exactly 100C for three
>> hours in any way other than submerging it in water and boiling that water.
>
>Perhaps this reveals a misconception behind some peoples' endorsement of the
>"miracle" idea.  Tom K is correct that evaporation of water under 1 atm
>pressure is a good way to maintain a steady temperature.  It is equally true
>that condensation of steam at 1 atm pressure maintains a steady temperature.
>Thus, it is not necessary for the thermistor to be immersed in water, only for
>it to be
>  (1) immersed in water vapor at 1 atm pressure, and
>  (2) extracting heat (e.g. via conduction to ambient) from the vapor.
>This pair of conditions is adequate to guarantee a 100C reading.
 
     I wager you cannot do it in an insulated cell (especially a 'dry'
     one, open to the atmosphere) for three hours.  You'll need to have
     a cell in which you can 'boil' dry in 11 minutes as well.  This
     implies some not insubstantial connection with the outside.
 
>dry cell, and that the stable 100C temperature is indeed a $$$$$miracle$$$$$$
>under that assumption.  Dictionary-thumpers may therefore consider the case
>closed.
 
     It's important, since 'dry' is either very little or no water.  You're
     pumping enthalpy into an insulated cell, open to evaporation and boiloff,
     and you expect that you can maintain enough gradient to keep the
     enthalpy balanced within the cell.  I don't expect to do so.
 
>A small quantity of liquid water (well under 1% of the dewar's original contents),
>however, is adequate to support reflux action when heated at the bottom.  If the
>heat input exactly balances the radiant loss from a uniform 100C dewar surface*
>(let's say 11.0 watts), we can now all envision the tiny pool of water at the
>bottom of the dewar boiling off vapor, which rises thru the dewar.  Some con-
>denses in the first few cm of dewar, giving up its heat of vaporization to the
>dewar glass at 100C.  The remaining vapor continues up, losing some to conden-
>sation at each level, keeping the dewar wall at 100C.  The last traces of hot
>vapor just reach the uppermost rim of the dewar, giving up their heat there,
>leaving _no_ excess vapor to escape thru the vent.  All the condensate drips
>down to the pool to be re-evaporated by the mystery heat source.  As long as
>the $$$$$miracle$$$$$ heat balance holds, this process will continue indefinitely.
>
>A challenge to any non-dictionary-thumping believer in the "100C miracle" idea:
>Write a paragraph similar to the one above, describing what happens, steady state,
>when only 10 watts of heat are available to boil off the pool of water.  Describe
>briefly the temperature profile along the height of the dewar (is it constant?),
>and the most important heat transfer mechanism(s) (e.g. conduction, radiation,
>convection, phase change) giving rise to that temperature profile.  Is any part
>of the apparatus at 100C?
 
     How could I?  Anyway, *you* wish to explain it, *I* consider it a miracle.
 
     Saints be praised.
 
     It is a poor, very poor, very very poor way to write papers that makes
     readers guess the experimental conditions, and guess why statements
     that are prima facie contradictory are, in fact, consistent.
 
     I stick by my assertion that P&F are blind and stupid if they did not
     see reflux condensation in their cells and interpret temperature
     measurements accordingly.  They may be a bit stupid anyway for not having
     noticed or mentioned that their thermister apparently comes out of the
     electrolyte at some point during the 'boil-off'.
 
>My implicit threat:  I won't stop debunking the 100C miracle until
>  (1) people stop claiming it's true, or
>  (2) someone shows why it is.
>Network bandwidth be d***'d!     -Chuck
 
     Then you're up a creek without a paddle, P&F having not given enough
     detail to be sure exactly what is happening.
 
     Answer me this.  Why do they thing *anything* strange is happening?
     Why did they mention this if they have so little understanding and
     control of the thermal conditions in the cell that they can be allowing
     uncontrolled enthalpy loss?  And what about that Kel-F?  How did that
     happen?
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Orbitsphere Wave functions
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbitsphere Wave functions
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 17:38:50 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <01GZBYX6GBDU000APM@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger requested that I give him the wave equation for the
> orbitsphere.  OK...
  ... [a highly detailed answer] ...
> Terry, I hope this answers your question.  I know you'll let me know if it
> does not.
 
Thanks.  Since you been kind enough to go to so much trouble entering it, I
will be going over it in detail.
 
> I don't understand your question about infinite energy.
 
Eyum.  You clearly know Fourier transforms, and seem to accept the idea that
momentum=frequency, so I don't really know how else to explain the point.
 
Perhaps reading your equations will help me find a different way to express
the concept.  You can find a variant of the argument in Vol. III of the
Feynman lectures, although I suspect you will reject that out-of-hand as
an invalid reference.  He mentions it in the context of how "squeezing" an
atom through physical pressure increases the higher-momentum harmonics by
reducing the space occupied by the atom.  By severely constricting the radial
dimension of your wavefunction, your orbitsphere does very much the same sort
of thing, and should result in _humongously_ high momentum (energy) harmonics.
 
> I do have a question for you, however.  The Schrodinger 1s wave function
> is non-zero at the nucleus (in fact, it is a maximum at the nucleus!)...
 
Not in any QM text I've ever seen.  They all show the expectation (psi*psi)
of the 1s (n=1, l=0) Schroedinger wavefunction, as being not maximal, but
very, very close to zero:
 
 
  P(r) 0.5 +         _
           |       -   -
       0.4 +     -      -
           |    -         -
       0.3 +   -            -
           |  -               -
       0.2 + -                  -
           | -                    -
       0.1 +-                       -
           |-                          -  _
       0.0 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---=-+-=---+-----+-----+-----+-
           0                             5                            10
                   r (in units of r0)
 
I'm at work, so the only volume here for a reference is "Physics for
Computer Sciece Students" by Narciso Garcia and Author Damask (Springer-
Verlag), p. 335, Figure 21-16.  (That is an excellent, well-written textbook,
by the way -- I recommend it for any non-physics technical type interested
in a to-the-point but decidely non-trivial intro to QM.) But you can find
this same exact diagram in many different QM and some chemistry texts.
 
> Furthermore, it is non-zero within the whole volume of the nucleus ( r
> is about 10^-15 meters).  According to Coulomb's law the potential energy
> ought to be -infinity here.  What's the story?
 
See above.  Nor is the potential -infinity even if you _do_ place the electron
at the nucleus, as the nucleus is very far from being a point particle.  The
10^-15 m figure is a short haul by most highway standards, but is not trivial.
 
Nor is the electron forbidden to enter the nucleus anyway.  Neutrons are too
massive to form directly from a proton and an electron, plus you are blocked
in most cases by weak force constraints an the need to dispose of 1/2 spin.
The electron can go in there if it darn well pleases, with very little direct
effect _unless_ conditions make it energetically favorable to "do something."
 
> By the way, Terry,  I am not "farfetching".  I am not looking for strange
> gaps or possible oversights in the fabric of physics.  I am going to the
> very heart of QM.  And I did not "simply throw out Schrodinger."  The
> Schrodinger solutions have Fourier components synchronous with the speed of
> light--they cannot be correct because it is well known that the hydrogen
> atom does not radiate.
 
Yes, I recall that one from your original posting neary two years ago.  You
quoted a physics journal article that discussed the problem of what, exactly,
makes an electron "jump."  It was, I believe, the presence of speed-of-light
synchronous components.  From that you derived that since Schroedinger's
equation includes speed-of-light components, that equation could not possibly
be right, as that would mean that the 1s state is capable of radiating.
 
Is that roughly correct?
 
But if that is so, isn't that exactly what you _want_ -- for the 1s atom to
radiate?  So why is the presence of these components a problem that requires
demolition of the Schroedinger framework, if you are only going to proceed to
add a mechanism for further radiative collapse anyway?
 
The other, much simpler point is that I think this argument may be mixing up
two quite distinct issues:  The question of the presence of speed-of-light
components in the wavefunction, and the separate question of _whether or not
there is a lower energy state into which the wavefunction can "collapse" if
it radiates."  The Schroedinger answer to that one is quite simple -- the
radiative event never occurs because the 1s state is the simplest, lowest-
energy superposition of states that forms a stable standing wave (given the
mass of the electron, charge of the electron and nucleus, and Planck's
constant).  There is no place else to go, so the electron doesn't, quite
independent of whether it _could_ go there.
 
In the Schroedinger model the speed-of-light components play the same role
as jiggling a cup that has a marble in it -- nothing more.  If the cup has
more than one level at which the marble can rest, sooner or later the
jiggling is going to cause it to drop.  But if it is _already at the very
bottom of the cup_, the jiggling means nothing at all, because there is no
place left for the marble to go...
 
Ah, I finally think I understand what led you folks down this path.  You are
in essense attempting to remove the jiggling by flattening the wave, and are
then assuming essentially classical radiative behavior.  No wonder you keep
bringing up resonance cavities.
 
And again my point:  I do not think you have correctly looked into the
implications of flattening that thar wave.  (And thus my adamancy about
seeing your wave equation.  Another reason to look it over carefully.)
 
....
 
Speaking of those synchonous components that travel with the speed of light,
the situation is considerably worse than that, and more bizarre.  QED (from
which both Schroedinger's and Dirac's equations can be derived as special
cases) uses diagrams of this sort:
 
 
    /|\   \         /            / - electron
     |     \_ _ _ _/
   time    / ^ ^ ^ \             _
          /         \             ^ - photon
 
        space --->
 
 
The above corresponds to a photon traveling at _infinite_ speed.
 
It gets worse.  The electrons (or photons) can also travel _backwards_ in
time, at which point they become what we call "positrons."  The same result
can be -- and was -- derived from Dirac's relativistic wave equation, which
first led to the prediction of the positron.  Special relativity plays havoc
with standard concepts of time in such diagrams.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: miracles and batches
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: miracles and batches
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1993 18:39:09 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

        A simple question for someone who has access to the notorious P and F
paper.  Is it possible to rule out the trivial explanation that the reason
that the temperature apparently remains near 100 C for a long time is simply
that P and F have use a chart recorder to record temperatures, and the graph
goes no higher than 100 C (and a bit) because that is the limit of the pen
travel?  The long period at 100 C would then be interpretable as a long
period at some undefined and not necessarily constant temperature above 100
C.
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: miracles and batches
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: miracles and batches
Date: 14 Jun 93 19:27:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <25440@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>
>        A simple question for someone who has access to the notorious P and F
>paper.  Is it possible to rule out the trivial explanation that the reason
>that the temperature apparently remains near 100 C for a long time is simply
>that P and F have use a chart recorder to record temperatures, and the graph
>goes no higher than 100 C (and a bit) because that is the limit of the pen
>travel?  The long period at 100 C would then be interpretable as a long
>period at some undefined and not necessarily constant temperature above 100
>C.
 
    It doesn't seem likely.  The temperature in Figure 11 varies to a fraction
    of a degree above 100C during the three hours of 'dryness', but it
    doesn't look like it hit the pen stops.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / J Lewis /  Re: A small M&F comment
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A small M&F comment
Date: 14 Jun 93 18:19:00 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <01GZD6BPYO6Q9PLUIO@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
writes about the Mills and Farrell theory:
...
>I allow myself a small remark, though. Prof. Farrell wrote that the theory
>explains the solar neutrino problem. As I understand it, Douglas Morrison, who
>is an expert on this subject, has shown rather convincingly that it is a
>non-problem; i.e. that the neutrino deficit can be explained within current
>theory. So it could turn out that in the light of the M&F theory, there will
>be an excess solar neutrino problem.
 
The neutrino deficit is energy-dependent.  As I understand it, the explanation
within M&F theory is simply that part of the solar luminosity is due to energy
release from formation of hydrinos and transitions of existing hydrinos to more
tightly bound hydrinos with smaller fractional quantum number.  But this
should have the effect of reducing neutrino production uniformly, i.e.
it would lead to an energy-independent neutrino deficit.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 14 Jun 1993 21:53:43 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Tom asks:
 
> How the heck do they expect a Tokamak to work once the chamber fills up with
> all that He???
 
They don't. This consideration is why Rebut wanted to run ITER in L-mode,
and now his latest proposal is to run it in a super-OH mode! The point is,
if particle confinement is too good, there is too much ash. I personally
am not convinced by the scenarios I've heard so far in which the alphas
are preferentially lost to the divertor chamber.
 
I'll say more about this when I have more time and if people want. It
is midnight now.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / John Cobb /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 14 Jun 1993 18:26:53 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Tom Droege remarks:
|> Tom Simonds suggests a multi-pass fusion collider.  John Cobb and Bruce
|> Scott seem to answer back that a one-pass experiment is not efficient.
|>
|> At Fermilab we store protons and antiprotons for many hours.  We run them
|> into each other for many passes, and using the magnetic "pinch" type of
|> focusing that Tom suggests.  I could check with someone, but my guess is that
 
Okay Tom, you caught me. I figured I was usually too wordy so I
would leave out a bit. Let me put in the numbers. The cross section peak for
DT is about 5 barnes (5e-24 cm**2) at ~100 KeV. For DD it is a little >
2 barnes at an Energy > 1 MeV -- someone might check my DD numbers, they
are off the page for me. Now lets suppose that you get N passes, on
average, around the ring before the particle is lost out of the
bunch. When the particle is lost you get s fraction of the energy back.
For a collision with a neutral, s=0, i.e. it hits the wall. Then
you can calculate the necessary focusing. By thinking a minute, you
find (keep me honest here, check it here)
 
d*d = \sigma * N * Ebeam / [Efusion * (1-s)]
 
Where Ebeam is the beam energy (50 Kev) and Efusion is ~ 14 Mev
and d is the mean particle separation.
 
So let me give you the benefit of the doubt and use generous (I think)
numbers. Let N=100,000 , and s=99%. Put in the numbers and you get, d=1.8e-9cm
or less than 1/3 of the Bohr radius. I find this requirement very tough.
Do your beam jocks think they can focus that tightly? I haven't
heard anyone I know every brag they could, no matter how many beers. :>
 
|> most get lost to gas interactions, but then we are carefully designed to run
|> at very high energy, and to get as close as possible to >>one<< interaction
|> per crossing.
 
Or you could state the problem this way. Suppose we want one interaction
per crossing, how large must N be in order to breakeven. I can't plug
in the numbers here because I don't know what beam densities you are
suggestting.
 
Neutral gas collision: You are right, this is probably a problem. In
fact the LEAR guys talk about their main limitation on the anti-proton
fountain being a need to have a really hard vacuum. But let me grant you
an arbitrarily hard vacuum. I claim that we are still screwed.
When you focus tightly, you create small volumes of concentrated naked
charge. This acts to collectively scatter the beam at the collision
sites. So your beam will degrade from the electromagnetic interactions
(I call this the soft part of Coulomb or elastic, collisions). This will
form an effective limit on some combination of N and beam density.
Don't press me for details on this because I don't have them. But
I know it is a pretty hot topic in accelerator design. Apparently,
it is a big issue for the SSC. The guy across the hall from me does
do just that. He's made a name for himself concentrating on the beam
beam interactions.
 
|>
|> Suppose instead we built two "race track" devices and circulated D++?  Hmm!
|> I suppose that if it worked, that we would spend more energy pumping the He4
|> out of the vacuum chamber than was gained from the fusion.  Still, the straight
|> section could be very long (SLACK is over a mile?), and the bunches could
|> fill 50% of so of the space, so we might push up the reaction rate a lot.
|> Once circulating in the "race tracks" the energy required to keep the particles
|> going is not much.
|>
|> But this would generate a lot of He4, and then the beam would run into that
|> before we could pump it out.
|>
|> So thus the question:
|>
|> How the heck do they expect a Tokamak to work once the chamber fills up with
|> all that He???
|>
|> Tom Droege
 
The great OZ assures you that ash buildup is not a problem.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
 
Seriously,
This is a real problem in fusion. Practically, we haven't had to worry
about it for 3 reasons:
1) no discharge really does any fusion. (except for the 3 JET shots)
   more in future. but no real build up.
2) No continous steady-state machines. Now TOKAMAKS run until they
   deplete their capacitor banks, then they stop and re-charge. The
   longest shots are < 10 seconds. Thus even if they were burning,
   they aren't turned on long enough to worry about 4He poisoning.
3) Transport sucks: In general particle confinement is poor for
   magnetic fusion devices. The average particle lifetime is small
   enough to keep the alpha particle number in the core low. This
   effect may even have a self-regulating mechanism. Fusioneers
   have been all abuzz for the last 3 years about thingies called
   Toroidal Alfven Eigenmodes. They are a neat idea. Basically the
   problem is that 4He's, or other energetic particles can excite
   an Alfven wave when the energetic particle's banana path
   resonates with an Alfven wave. When this happens, a global mode
   grows and can cause a dump of alot of the Helium inventory. While
   you might like to lose the ash, you will also dump a lot of the
   particle inventory and energy --- baby with the bathwatrer,
   very bad news.
 
Ash buildup is a real problem. It is growing in people's mind as they
face up and start to go beyond the 3 factors above
 
I've always said that worrying about ash buildup in a fusion reactor
is like worrying about having to change your phone number when you
win the lottery. If only all of my problems were such. :>
 
-john w. cobb
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 14 Jun 1993 23:55:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <C8J3KF.952@world.std.com> tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
writes:
 
>This is my idea of how a fusion reactor should work. I encourage any
>discusion or relevant feedback on whether or not you think it would
>work. . . .  Where the cyclotrons
>touch each other, the paths of the fuel intersect and the fuel is
>slammed together at close to twice the speed of light.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Am I the only one who sees a small problem here?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / Bruce Scott /  Re: A small M&F comment
     
Originally-From: bscott@lyman.pppl.gov (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A small M&F comment
Date: 14 Jun 93 18:16:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <01GZD6BPYO6Q9PLUIO@vms2.uni-c.dk>
        BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>I allow myself a small remark, though. Prof. Farrell wrote that the theory
>explains the solar neutrino problem. As I understand it, Douglas Morrison, who
>is an expert on this subject, has shown rather convincingly that it is a
>non-problem; i.e. that the neutrino deficit can be explained within current
>theory. So it could turn out that in the light of the M&F theory, there will
>be an excess solar neutrino problem.
 
Not so fast, Dieter. This is a two-sigma deficit in the PPI chain, and it
corresponds to a six-percent decrease in central temperature if it is
correct. If one considers the Sun in equilibrium, you can't swallow that
and get both the solar radius and luminosity right, with any amount of
juggling. This is Bahcall's judgement, and he is best-placed to make it.
Now, the MSW neutrino oscillation mechanism is a possible unknown knob, and
it is the one most people favor. I personally favor some sort of
yet-unexplained fluid phenomenon. We are not yet in a position to rule
either in or out. I have read Morrison's paper on this, and he does not
convince me that the Gallex result taken face-value is a non-problem. Of
course, if you are willing to move two-sigma, then it is. But I am not so
willing. Let's see more data first.
 
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbscott cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / John Cobb /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: 14 Jun 1993 19:12:02 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

Jim Bowery writes:
|>
|>
|> John W. Cobb writes:
|> [an interesting article on plasma/phase fusion thrust engines]
Thanks for the compliment Jim.
|>
|> >Fusion Rockets before there is a ground-based
|> >ignition deivce. --- Now that's what I call the cart before the
|> >horse.
|>
|> (Speaking strictly p-B11 HOT fusion here...)
 
Did I miss something? Can you tell me anything about the idea you
have in mind for a p-B11 burning reactor?
|>
|> I see no ground-based fusion rockets around nor do I see any ground-based
|> ignition devices.  I see a lot of discussion of ground-based ignition
|> devices for producing base-load electricity and a little discussion of
|> fusion rockets, despite the fact that fusion rockets are likely to be
|> in operation before fusion devices for electric utilities.  This is
|> understandable since most people assume that fusion devices for electric
|> utilities will, ultimately, be more important than fusion rockets.
|>
|> That assumption is incorrect.
Please explain.
 
Let me also explain what I meant by my little remark last time.
Most stuff I've seen on fusion rockets are on the trail of stuff
a <----> in a rocket and light it of, where <---> can be TOKAMAK,
FRC, Dipole Reactor, etc. OBviously you have a radically different
idea to fill the blank with. Anyway, what I meant was that if you
think it is an engineering nightmare to get a reactor to work
on the ground. Now think about trying to put it into space, make
it withstand multi g's and carry along all reapair parts and equipment
that it will need. That's what I mean by cart before the horse.
 
But it sounds like you have some other interesting ideas.
My apologies if I am asking you to repeat well hashed information.
I hevn't been paying good attention recently.
|>
|> ...
|> The big problem that John Cobb doesn't really address is that in
|> all transportation modes EXCEPT between points in space we are
|> fighting earth's full gravitation and therefore would prefer
|> very high mass-flow rate at lift-off -- making the transition to
|> higher isp and lower mass-flow rate as the reaction mass we have
|> lofted becomes more valuable due to its potential and kinetic
|> energy content.
 
Actually, that is what I was trying to address. I apologize for not
being clear. My remark is that natural velocities associated with
fusion has too high ispm even when you aren't near a grav. well.
you need to dilute it with some exhaust ballast, but to do so costs
a lot of energy because of an ionization penalty that lowers
efficiency. In free flight this is troublesome, but one can live with
it. However, when you are fighting a grav. field, it becomes a
concept killer. You can't just ionize the water, and if you don't
ionize it, you have trouble getting the energy transferred. Thermal
conversion is bad news, low efficiency and lots of waste heat.
That is why I pointed to a Direct energy conversion process where
you can have high efficiency and readily available electrical
energy to use for tailward directed rail guns, for example.
|>
In general I agree with what you say about needed two types of
thrust producers. One to get high thrust near a gravitating body and
another for efficient deep space movement. In general, though, I
have a tendancy to extrapolate to "Star Track" scale engineering
problems. Maybe you do also? In that limit a lot of the engineering
constraints change. I think fusion reactors fit well in such a scheme,
but that is not going to happen anytime soon. On the other hand, smaller
space station or manned mars missions will still palce a premium
on weight, size, power, etc. A fusion reactor is big and bulky. Face it,
there's a lot of energy stored in a jelly doughnut. By that I mean
a lot of chemical energy can be stored in propellant easily. That's
a hard price/performance point to beat with nuclear of fusion
propulsion in the NEAR future.
 
-john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 /  jonesj@physc1. /  Criteria for calorimetry
     
Originally-From: jonesj@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Criteria for calorimetry
Date: 14 Jun 93 18:05:27 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

This is the the paper that has been requested several times.  I hope it helps.
 
 
 
 
An outline of criteria for establishing calorimeter performance for
measurement of "excess heat" in cold fusion experiments
 
 
by Lee D. Hansen, Chemistry, BYU, Provo, UT  84602
 
 
     The calorimetrist has the responsibility to conclusively
demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the heat measurements.
Accurate heat measurement is not
simple and nothing should be assumed without good justification.  Gross
errors can occur from obscure and difficult to detect effects.
 
I.   A precise and complete description of how the calorimeter
     functions must be given together with a detailed physical
     description of the instrument.  The physical description must
     include materials and accurate dimensions for all calorimeter
     components.  The functional description must include the method
     of heat measurement and a description of the calorimeter system
     and surroundings.
 
     A.   There are only three methods of heat measurement.
 
          1.   In the heat conduction method, the temperature
               difference across a thermal path with constant
               thermal conductivity between the system and
               surroundings is measured.  This temperature
               difference is linearly proportional to the rate of heat
               flow through the path (Newton's law of cooling).
               For accurate measurement as much as possible of
               the heat flow must be through the measurement
               path.  All other heat flow paths must also have a
               constant thermal conductivity.
 
          2.   In the power compensation method, the heat rate is
               measured by the change in input power required to
               maintain a constant temperature in the calorimeter
               when the measured process occurs.
 
          3.   In the temperature change method, total heat is
               obtained by multiplying a measured temperature
               change in a known amount of material by the heat
               capacity of the material.  If the material is flowing at
               a known rate, the heat rate is obtained.
 
     B.   The calorimeter surroundings may be one of two types.
 
          1.   In isoperibol calorimeters, the surroundings are kept
               constant.
 
          2.   In adiabatic calorimeters,the temperature of the
               surroundings is kept at the same temperature as the
               calorimeter system so no heat is exchanged.
 
 
     C.   The calorimeter may interact with the surroundings in ways
          other than heat exchange.
 
          1.   The calorimeter may be open and mass may be
               transported between the calorimeter system and the
               surroundings.  An open system usually is operated at
               a constant pressure, i.e. atmospheric pressure.  At
               constant pressure heat is equatable with enthalpy.
 
          2.   A closed system is also usually a constant volume
               system where heat is equatable with total energy.
 
II.  Three kinds of experiments have been done in efforts to determine
     the "excess heat" that may be due to cold fusion.
 
     A.   Absolute heat measurements have been made by
          comparison of the heat effects of the reactions to the heat
          from an electrical heater.  To be accurate, an absolute
          measurement must meet several criteria.
 
          1.   All heat generated in the heater must be transported
               to the calorimeter system.  The amount of heat
               generated in and lost through the heater lead wires
               must be negligible or corrected for.
 
          2.   All heat transport paths between system and
               surroundings must be quantified, controlled, and
               accounted for.
 
          3.   The heat distribution in space and time produced by
               the heater must closely match that from the
               reactions.
 
          4.   Calibrations and tests must be alternated in time and
               done in approximately equal numbers.
 
     B.   Relative heat measurements have been made by
          comparison of the heat effects of the reactions in control
          (e.g. light water) and test (e.g. heavy water) systems.
          Precision is more important than accuracy in such
          measurements, thus the following criteria.
 
          1.   To assess random errors and detect any changes in
               calorimeter function, controls and tests must be
               alternated or simultaneous in time, approximately
               equal in number, and if possible done both in parallel
               and sequentially.
 
          2.   The thermal conductivities of all heat transfer paths
               must be shown to be the same for both controls and
               tests.
 
          3.   The heat distribution in space and time must be the
               same for controls and tests.
 
     C.   Some experiments have been designed to show that the
          "excess heat" effect is so large that no conceivable errors
          or chemical effects could possibly account for the results,
          and thus the observed heat must come from nuclear
          reactions.  Such experiments require verification by
          sufficient and proper controls.
 
 
III. The calorimeter output signal must be consistent with the heat
     transfer characteristics of the calorimeter.  For example the time
     constant for changes in the measured heat rate must be the same
     as the time constant for transport of heat from the calorimeter to
     the surroundings in a heat conduction calorimeter.  Proper
     functioning of temperature sensors in the calorimeter environment
     must be verified. Thermocouples are prone to errors caused by
     chemical corrosion of the junction and by stray electrical currents.
 
IV.  Finally, verify actual performance, the calorimeter must be tested
     with a reaction having an accurately known enthalpy change.
 
V.   Because all electrochemical calorimetric experiments intended to
     demonstrate "excess heat" require correction for the heat of the
     electrolysis reaction, the expected reaction must be verified and
     quantified.  Otherwise an incorrect value for the thermoneutral
     potential will be used in the correction.  For example, deposition
     of an alkali metal under a silicate coating on an electrode in
     aqueous solution is possible at cell voltages above 3 volts.  The
     thermoneutral potential for Li is about 2.9 volts, compared to 1.5
     volts for hydrogen.  An "excess heat" rate proportional to the rate
     of deposition of Li would thus be found if the reaction were
     assumed to be strictly generation of hydrogen.  The accuracy of
     the thermoneutral potential must also be assessed.  A value
     derived from a single source or type of measurement cannot be
     considered reliable.  "Excess heat" can only be proven to be
     nuclear in origin by showing that the products of the nuclear
     reaction are produced at the same time and rate as the heat an in
     amounts commensurate with the law of mass-energy
     conservation.  Until such proof exists, application of Occam's
     razor demands that "excess heat" be regarded as having its
     source in ordinary chemical reactions.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesj cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Chuck Harrison /  Re:  Energizer 100C Miracle
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@CompuServe.COM (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Energizer 100C Miracle
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 05:11:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Two correspondents have taken up the gauntlet I threw down a few days past.
 
Dale Bass is concerned about the fact that P&F's dewar is well *insulated*;
he suggests (my interpretation; he hasn't been completely explicit) that because
of this, heat loss should be very small and temperature gradients along the
height of the dewar should be negligible.
 
At cryogenic temperatures, dewars can be great insulators.  But at 100C, the
radiation across the vacuum gap is very significant -- 11 watts.  Check it
yourself with Boltzmann's constant and the dimensions of your handiest 100mL
test tube.  (F&P's paper is based largely on the observation that radiation
dominates the steady-state heat budget.)  Despite Dale's qualms, using a
"leaky" dewar is not bad practice, provided the "leak" is well characterized.
After all, what is a conduction calorimeter except a well-characterized heat
leak?
 
Furthermore, Pyrex doesn't conduct heat well; it _will_ support a nice thermal
gradient up the dewar wall with a few watts of heat flux.
 
Dale quails at modeling P&F's actual apparatus, given the paucity of data.  He
misinterprets my challenge.  I suggest you use a simplified (undergrad phys chem
level) model, much like I did, and fill in the description.  I'm not asking you
to estimate the thermal mass of the Kel-F or conductivity of the thermistor
support.  Just qualitatively describe what you think _should_ happen if a
100C reflux system in $$$perfect balance$$$ subsequently lost a tenth of its
input heat flux.
 
 
I venture that Tom Droege, after building some high-class calorimetry, has few
illusions about what *insulated* means: it means *leaks like a seive*.
 
Tom also ventures a concise answer to my challenge:
> If the "anomalous heat" is slightly less [than the 11 watt radiation loss],
> the cell cools down.
I contend that the _top_ of the dewar cools down, but the _bottom_ remains at
boiling.  Much of the interior remains at 100C.  Tom did not answer completely
enough for me to know whether he agrees or disagrees with this statement.
 
Tom also mentions the "step change" from 144 watts to 11 watts.  But we must
recall that the 144 watts came from dividing an integrated excess enthalpy of
86700 joules by an elapsed time of 10 minutes.  There is no particular reason
to think that the process was uniform during this time.  In fact, considering
the electrolyte dropping below the electrode during the last minute (?? - check
your video for us, Tom), there are many reasons to think it was _non_ uniform.
Suppose heat generation dropped off smoothly as the electrodes were uncovered.
Steam will measure 100C at the thermistor no matter how many gm/sec are passing
by.  So it looks to me as if this "step change" was cut from whole cloth by
Mr. Droege.
 
Both Dale and Tom express their displeasure at the quality of F&P's paper.  I
do not disagree.  Please do not continue to ask me to defend random parts of
F&P's publications.
 
The initial $$$miracle$$$ claims were written to imply: "Here is published F&P
data which is incompatible with ordinary thermal physics.  Therefore the
entire work is suspect."  I contend that the first sentence of that implication
is false.  Not only that, but an undergrad-level analysis of an appropriate
simple thermal model would have shown from the start that the data is plausible.
I say the $$$miracles$$$ are $$$mirages$$$; F&P's paper should be analyzed, by
those interested, in a more rational tone.
 
  ...and going, and going, and going...    -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.14 / John Logajan /  Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 22:30:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Tom Simonds suggests a multi-pass fusion collider.  John Cobb and Bruce
>Scott seem to answer back that a one-pass experiment is not efficient.
>
>Suppose instead we built two "race track" devices and circulated D++?  Hmm!
>
>But this would generate a lot of He4, and then the beam would run into that
>before we could pump it out.
 
Bogdan Maglich's Migma technique involves injecting accelerated beams of
"fuel" normal to a sculpted magnetic field.  The beam bends in the field
and finds itself intersecting over and over again the center of the
Migma cell.  These precessing orbits appear similar to the tracings of
a child's toy Spirograph, if you've ever seen them.
 
The key points are that there tend to be a lot of head on collisions at
the intersection.  Near misses, which cause course changes, merely return
again to the center from orbits forward or retro-precessed from the
original orbit.
 
Fusion "by-products" exit the scene with energies too great to be trapped
by the bending influence of the magentic field, and are decelerated and
captured in encircling apparatus.  Direct deceleration of the electrically
charged by-products is therefore possible, mostly eliminating the need for
thermal/steam cycle conversion.
 
Aggregate coulomb scattering is minimized by injecting electron beams
orthogonal to the plane of the "fuel" orbits.
 
Aneutornic (neutropenic?) fuels can be used because it is far easier to
reach the equivalent of high temperature, in the KeV or MeV of the
"fuel" beams, since the Migma concept replaces random thermal plasma motion
with directed self-colliding beams.  Therefore a Migma cell is free of most
neutron generation, and all the horrible consequences thereof.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Jim Bowery /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 08:11:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John W. Cobb writes:
>Jim Bowery writes:
>|> (Speaking strictly p-B11 HOT fusion here...)
>
>Did I miss something? Can you tell me anything about the idea you
>have in mind for a p-B11 burning reactor?
 
Basically, I don't see any of the aneutronic alternatives to p-B11
as very viable because they either aren't really aneutronic or they
rely on fuels that are quite limited.
 
>|> most people assume that fusion devices for electric
>|> utilities will, ultimately, be more important than fusion rockets.
>|>
>|> That assumption is incorrect.
>Please explain.
 
I believe I did, perhaps not very clearly, in the following statement:
 
        "...fusion rockets and plasma torches, are
        likely to be ... the most important
        devices in the long term, just as transportation and
        industrial-grade heat are the primary uses of energy
        today and went into operation before electric utilities."
 
>if you
>think it is an engineering nightmare to get a reactor to work
>on the ground.
 
...only if I rely on the approaches that have proven themselves
useless after billions of dollars of development.  Realistic
approaches will have to be much simpler to engineer.  The two
that stand out as simple are Koloc's Plasmak(tm) and the Hirsch/
Farnsworth Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (not the magnetic
 cusp version of it recently explored by Bussard under C. Fields
 at DARPA).  Both technologies have good experimental evidence to
back up their claims that if they are scaled up sufficiently,
they can burn p-B11 with quite compact systems (on the order of
 100s of megawatts/meter**3 of equipment volume).  Further, both
can be tested to determine their viability at levels of funding
well within the reach of private investors and on a very short
timescale.  Keep in mind Hirsch founded the Tokamak program and
Koloc invented the Spheromak, a system which Hirsch recommended
be pursued for its simplicity and ease of maintanence in a
commercial environment -- and which Princeton thought was good
enough, they tried to claim credit for it.
 
>Now think about trying to put it into space, make
>it withstand multi g's and carry along all reapair parts and equipment
>that it will need. That's what I mean by cart before the horse.
 
Compact and inherently simple systems tend to be much more robust
than the systems typically encountered in the history of the
government fusion program.  If the government funds it in a big
way, you can safely bet it is worthless and will never become
worth anything.  There are solid emperical and theoritical
reasons for believing this to be true.
 
>|> The big problem that John Cobb doesn't really address is that in
>|> all transportation modes EXCEPT between points in space we are
>|> fighting earth's full gravitation and therefore would prefer
>|> very high mass-flow rate at lift-off -- making the transition to
>|> higher isp and lower mass-flow rate as the reaction mass we have
>|> lofted becomes more valuable due to its potential and kinetic
>|> energy content.
>
>Actually, that is what I was trying to address. I apologize for not
>being clear.
 
OK, I re-read and now see what you mean.  My reading comprehension was
off early this morning.  I just hadn't imagined that you wanted to
use the MHD stuff in the atmosphere, even hypothetically.
 
>fusion has too high ispm even when you aren't near a grav. well.
>you need to dilute it with some exhaust ballast, but to do so costs
>a lot of energy because of an ionization penalty that lowers
>efficiency.
 
The problem you have is to get thrust and with fusion energy,
you have enough energy you can waste a lot of it to get the
thrust.  If thermal limits weren't limits at all, you simply need
to subtract the isp of hydrogen-oxygen from the isp of p-B11.
Since we're talking at least an order of magnitude difference here,
I think your concern about losing energy in cracking is misguided.
 
>...when you are fighting a grav. field, it becomes a
>concept killer. You can't just ionize the water, and if you don't
>ionize it, you have trouble getting the energy transferred.
 
When you are fighting a grav. field, all you really care about
is mass-flow rate.  Move LOTS of mass.  Agreed, right at lift-off,
the advantages of fusion over chemical aren't all that great AT
CURRENT LAUNCH RATES.  However, keep in mind that in commericial
airlines, fuel costs and vehicle amortization are on the same
order of cost.  If you can reduce fuel costs to essentially
nothing (for intra earth transport) and increase speeds by an
order of magnitude, as seems possible with ballistic trajectory,
you can afford to spend something like an order of magnitude
more than a comparable jet on each boost-phase vehicle.  There
is no doubt about the market, since you aren't relying on high
value cargo -- you are getting all your economies from low fuel
cost and high utilization rates over existing, high volume,
air transport markets.
 
If the SSTO people (like the Delta Clipper boys) would just
cut out the nonsense about hydrogen-lox to orbit and concentrate
on a kerosene-lox suborbital transport, they would have a realistic
system to commercialize.  Once in place, such a technology would
make the application of p-B11 fusion to the corresponding market
obvious to everyone.
 
I really don't think this is too futuristic to be talking about seriously.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energizer 100C Miracle
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energizer 100C Miracle
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 08:02:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930615050152_73770.1337_EHA51-1@CompuServe.COM> 73770.1337@C
mpuServe.COM (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>
>Two correspondents have taken up the gauntlet I threw down a few days past.
>
>Dale Bass is concerned about the fact that P&F's dewar is well *insulated*;
>he suggests (my interpretation; he hasn't been completely explicit) that because
>of this, heat loss should be very small and temperature gradients along the
>height of the dewar should be negligible.
 
     Actually, I discussed several things that conspire together to
     create an interesting problem of interpretation.  We're all just basically
     flapping in the breeze anyway since I see very little relevant
     experimental technique that might shed light on the  data.
 
>Dale quails at modeling P&F's actual apparatus, given the paucity of data.  He
>misinterprets my challenge.  I suggest you use a simplified (undergrad phys chem
>level) model, much like I did, and fill in the description.  I'm not asking you
>to estimate the thermal mass of the Kel-F or conductivity of the thermistor
>support.
 
     How can I?  The description, in toto, mystifies me.  That's the point.
 
>  Just qualitatively describe what you think _should_ happen if a
>100C reflux system in $$$perfect balance$$$ subsequently lost a tenth of its
>input heat flux.
 
     Again, what's the point?  There are significant problems with the
     description.  Why should we do anything more than read the paper?
     We've got at least one spot with 300C, we've got another at 100C for
     three hours, we've got a 'dry' cell, and we've got it open to the
     atmosphere, we've got it insulated, and we've got it spitting deuterium
     out of the lattice, and we may well have arcing currents, and we
     have one exceedingly poor description.
 
     I've had little success reading the minds of P&F for the last
     four years, why should I (or you) be more successful now?
 
     I have this sneaking suspicion, however, that the 'explanation' that
     will be offered for the apparent incongruities will be that the
     'cell dry' markers are in the wrong place in Figure 11...
 
     ... that is, if they offer any explanation at all.
 
>Both Dale and Tom express their displeasure at the quality of F&P's paper.  I
>do not disagree.  Please do not continue to ask me to defend random parts of
>F&P's publications.
 
     I'm confused; I thought that you were trying to defend a specific
     part of their paper.  As for me, I don't have enough information to
     sort out the contradictory claims.
 
>The initial $$$miracle$$$ claims were written to imply: "Here is published F&P
>data which is incompatible with ordinary thermal physics.  Therefore the
>entire work is suspect."  I contend that the first sentence of that implication
>is false.  Not only that, but an undergrad-level analysis of an appropriate
>simple thermal model would have shown from the start that the data is plausible.
 
     No, not at all.  There are claims in the paper that appear to be
     mutually contradictory.  I'm still not sure how you assert that
     a cell that boiled dry in 11 minutes will not lose the rest of its
     fluid rather quickly as it sits at 100C (or 300C if you prefer)
     for three hours.   Unless the thermal input just happened to conspire
     with the limited thermal gradient to produce an exact balance, this
     is unbelievable.
 
     You are discussing a *possible* scenario, not a *plausable* scenario.
     I still challenge you to boil water in an insulated test tube for
     three hours in such a way that a) a thermister hanging above the
     'remaining' water stays at 100C, and b) the water boils down from
     half full to almost empty in the first 11 minutes.
 
     If I recall your demonstrations correctly, your model a) sat at
     significantly lower than 100C, b) was uninsulated, c) experienced
     very little boiloff, d) had more than a trace of water in the
     tube at all times.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Robert Fleming /  Acceleration without radiation
     
Originally-From: nonsine@netcom.com (Robert Fleming)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Acceleration without radiation
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 09:51:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Norman H Redington (redingtn@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
> Am I imagining this, or is the Farrell-Mills theory
> actually the re-invention of an old classical atomic
> theory from the '20s, perhaps in expanded or improved
> form? I am quite positive that I have at some time read
> an old paper about situations in which moving charge
> distributions do not radiate, the rotating shell being
> one; I am relatively sure that the author went on to
> suggest this effect as an explanation of stationary
> states. I don't think that he actually solved the spec-
> trum, however, nor do I recall anything about resonant
> cavities. Has anyone else seen this paper?
 
The paper he's referring to may be:
 
        "Acceleration without radiation", Abbott and Griffiths,
        Am. J. Phys. 53 (12), December 1985, p1203
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennonsine cudfnRobert cudlnFleming cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.13 / W Shakespeare /  Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (William Shakespeare)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question from a Layman
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1993 07:44:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is there
ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
 
bill gulstad
 
--
William ("Shakespeare") Gulstad          /  So where are the C.S. babes?
wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                /  Joni Mitchell for President!
I vote, so I can complain!               /  Did you vote?  Then don't complain!
Republican is the opposite of democracy! /  Tune in, drop out, log on.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwogg0743 cudfnWilliam cudlnShakespeare cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Tom Simonds /  Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Collider
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 13:13:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     Here is how I now think a fusion collider should work. It should be
a cyclotron with the duterium or other fusionable fuel counter rotating
in it at speeds approaching light. I am satisfied that the other schemes
don't work because the colliding atoms miss each other. Counter rotating
in a circular chamber should not be that hard to accomplish.
     Fuel could be accelerated up to speed and injected into a circular
magnetically confined chamber on each side of the chamber such that it
goes around clockwise and counter clockwise. Sandwiched between magnets
located on the top, bottom, in the core and outside, it will continue
around the circular path practically forever, or until it hits, creating
helium.
 
 
  Dots Represent            .  .  <-- <-- <-- <--  Fuel In <-- <-- <--
  Containment            .            .          at 99% Speed of Light
  Magnets              .                 .
  Arranged in a      .                     .
  Circle            .                       .
                    .       Cyclotron       .
                    .                       .
                     .                     .
                       .                  .
                         .              .
                            .  .  <-- <-- <-- <--  Fuel In <-- <-- <--
 
     The ring of magnets into which the fuel is injected will not
actually accelerate it in a circle, but simply contain it as it travels
in a circle, continuously colliding and fuseing. Every particle injected
into the ring will eventually collide with another particle. Since there
is no friction in a cyclotron, it is presumed that once accelerated to
speed, the injected fuel will travel around forever.
     It's further suggested that the helium created can be separated
because it will be created in a head-on collision betweed two particles
of equal mass and speed, so the newly created particle will stop. The
faster moving unfused atoms will tend toward the outside of the ring,
while the slower moving helium moves toward the center, where it will be
drawn off into the heat exchanger.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentsimonds cudfnTom cudlnSimonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Jed Rothwell /  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter from Miles
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:40:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter, with a note: "Please post this
on e-mail." He also enclosed 36 pages of reference material.
 
If you would like to respond to this letter, I suggest you mail your comments
to Dr. Miles. If I see a response here, I might mail it to Dr. Miles, but I do
not always get a chance to read messages posted here. If you would like copies
of the documents referred to herein, please contact me.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
 
                                Department of the Navy
                                Naval Air Warfare Center
                                Weapons Division
                                China Lake, CA 93555-6001
 
 
                                IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                     3910
                                     CO2353/196
                                     9 Jun 93
 
Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Dear Jed,
 
     Please post this response to Professor Jones on E-mail:
 
     Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University has been
aggressively attacking my scientific publications involving the Fleischmann-
Pons effect (cold fusion) for almost two years and has recently accused me of
rejecting heat/helium data points and fudging my results. I highly resent such
unfounded attacks since they damage my professional integrity as a scientist
as well as reflect on the quality of research conducted at Navy laboratories.
Navy scientists are required to submit their work for review and clearance
before any manuscript can be released for publication.
 
     My problems with Professor Jones began on July 23, 1991 when I presented
an invited seminar on my research at Brigham Young University. I soon learned
that this event was more of an inquisition rather than a normal scientific
seminar. Professor Jones and his group interrupted with so many pointed
questions that it took me nearly three hours to complete my seminar. Although
I was upset with this situation, I tried my best to be patient and to answer
all their questions. It was obvious that the real intent of this group was to
find possible errors with my experiments. This was verified a few weeks later
when Professor Jones mailed out a critique of my work to other scientists
involved with this research field throughout the world. This eventually lead
to my published response to questions raised by Professor Jones regarding my
work (see reference 1). This entire episode was clearly outside the bounds of
professional decency towards an invited seminar speaker.
 
     Professor Jones has recently made false allegations regarding my work by
his statements of "rejected data points", "shifts the window", "fudging or
worse", etc.. (see reference 2). Although Professor Jones tries to use some
unknown author for several negative statements, the implications regarding my
experiments are very clear. These damaging statements by Professor Jones are
outright lies since there are absolutely no rejected helium measurements in my
recent publication (reference 3). Every data point involving heat/helium
measurements is reported. This can be readily verified by Dr. Ben Bush who did
the helium analysis at the University of Texas as well as by my detailed
laboratory notebook for these experiments. Although I remain open-minded to
possible scientific errors in our measurements, there are no rejected helium
measurements  in our experiments. Furthermore, there is no fudging of any
measurements.
 
     The two data points that I discussed with Professor Jones at Brigham
Young University in 1991 are samples 12/17/90-A and 12/17/90-B.  Both of these
data points are present in my Table I (reference 3). Professor Jones should
have known better than to raise this false accusation a second time since I
had responded to this same question previously (see reference 1, page 79).
This repeating of damaging false accusations makes me question the
professional integrity of Professor Jones. Honesty and professional decency
should be very important attributes for staff-members of a church-related
institution.
 
     Although the implications of fraud by Professor Jones is my most serious
concern, his lengthy discussions of my papers (enclosure 2) involves numerous
other examples where he has misrepresented my experiments. I will submit a
detailed listing of these additional false statements made by Professor Jones
in a future letter. Scientific discussions are important and necessary for
this controversial research area. However, any scientist who sets out to
discredit the work of another must be certain that he has the facts straight.
It does not benefit anyone to mix fact with fiction and then distribute this
to other scientists. The best format for the discussion of my work by
Professor Jones would be in a refereed scientific journal. This would help
assure that the debate would be based on reported experimental facts rather
than on misconceptions and false allegations. I hereby challenge Professor
Jones to take his allegations regarding my work to a refereed scientific
journal. If he cannot do this, he should at least get the facts straight
regarding my work or remain silent.
 
     Please take note that my initial letter to Professor Jones was in
response to reports of his constant criticism of my work on the computer
network (E-mail). I merely asked him one simple question. I certainly did not
ask him for detailed comments, criticisms, and false allegations concerning my
publications.
 
 
                                Sincerely,
 
 
                                [Signed]
                                DR. MELVIN H. MILES
                                Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
                                NAWCWPNS Fellow
 
References
(1) _21st Century Science and Technology_, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 75-80 (1992).
(2) Memorandum by Professor S.E. Jones, dated 27 May, 1993 and his E-mail
discussion of my publications.
(3) _Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry_, Vol. 346, pp. 99-117 (1993).
 
 
Blind Copies to:
C023
C0235
C02353
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: good blanks
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: good blanks
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:40:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz suggests that in my discussion on CF blanks I was being too
rigorous.  I agree that blanks which do not strictly meet my requirements
can still play a useful role in limiting the confusion that may surround
a given set of experimental measurements.  I still will defend, however,
my point that total reliance on the use of blanks to establish error
limits may involve some pit falls.
 
Consider just the question of the appearance of "bursts" in the heat
production of a CF cell.  If we accept bursts as characteristic of
excess heat production then it is natural to assume that a blank will
produce no bursts, and calorimetry with a blank will involve nice
well behaved DC measurements.  The problem with using such a blank
is that it does nothing to demonstrate that the calorimetry will
be as accurate when the bursts are present.  Obviously the measurement
problems are different for a blank with no bursts and a cell that
is showing the "effect".  So far the only experimental indication
that this effect is nuclear is based on assertions about the magnitude
of the integral of the bursts.  I think more attention needs to be
paid to running blanks that come closer to simulating the actual
conditions of the experiments showing a positive effect.  Until that
is done we can't just ignore the fact that good calorimetry tends to
show minimum effect while the claims for really large excess heat
come from experiments using cruder methods.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  How will nuclear heating show itself?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How will nuclear heating show itself?
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:40:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It just occurred to me that nuclear heating of Pd sample should have
a signature that could be used to distinguish it from some chemical
effects.  What I propose is that there should be a temperature probe
in contact with the Pd sample as well as a probe in the electrolyte.
My concern is with the fact that in many measurements claiming surplus
heat arising from bursts, the bursts were strongly correlate with
changes in cell voltage.  It has always been a mystery to me why
the effect should have a larger influence on cell voltage than it
has on temperature, unless it is purely chemical.  What I propose,
then, is that bursts associated with heat production in the Pd
sample should have a different effect on the temperature of that
sample than bursts due to strange chemistry outside the sample.
You see, back in my youth I was involved in the measurement
of heat pulses propagating along samples of metal wire 3 mm in
diameter so I know it can be done.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Synchrotron Radiation
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Synchrotron Radiation
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 18:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Simonds says:  "Since there is no friction in a cyclotron, ... "
 
Sorry Tom, there is synchrotron radiation.  Not a big problem for heavy ions
at the speed you are thinking of, but for electrons, a big problem.  A great
boost to the klystron and superconducting cavity business.  So while it is
small, there is friction in that a moving charge radiates.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Journals for Advertising
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Journals for Advertising
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 18:12:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says: "In that case, journal editors ought to reject their
papers; journals are not advertising outlets."
 
Amen, Brother Britz!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: 15 Jun 93 15:30:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C8Juty.DnD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(William Shakespeare) writes:
>Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is there
>ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
>
 
Would that it were so!
 
It depends upon who you talk to.
 
My opinion is that only very small rates of "cold fusion" have been
demonstrated conclusively; these rates are too small for measurable
heat production.
 
But if you talk to Jed Rothwell, he will tell you that I am an idiot.
He has told me that several times.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Orbitsphere Wave functions
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbitsphere Wave functions
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 15:43:28 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <01GZBYX6GBDU000APM@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger requested that I give him the wave equation for the
> orbitsphere.  OK.
>
> All of the following is for the hydrogen atom.
>
> Also, the usual spherical coordinate system is used.
>
> z = cos(theta)
> x = r sin(theta) cos(phi)
> y = r sin(theta) sin(phi)
>
>
> The radial function is a product of a radial and an angular function.  The
> radial function is a Dirac delta function.
>
> R(n)  =   delta(r - r(sub n))
>
> The angular function...
 
 
Let's hold it right there for now.  I note that we seem to be in full
agreement on a key issue:
 
    The orbitsphere model assumes a coordinate space Dirac delta function
    in the radial dimension r.
 
I have no particular quibble one way or the other with the rest of your
equations, as they are based on this initial premise that the waves are
constrained to occur _within_ a curved 2-D surface defined by the orbit-
sphere delta function.
 
However, since a delta function is itself an extreme case of a wave function,
and the density of the electron in in the orbisphere "shell" can be assumed
to be spherically symmetrical, you can calculate and integrate an energy
function for the radial dimension of the orbitsphere wavefunction.
 
This energy function would need to be modified by the addition of any further
energy contributed by the wave configuration within the 2-D curved surface,
but as it turns out, energy added in that way will be inconsequential.
 
The radial orbitsphere equation:
 
    R(n)  =   delta( r - r  )
                          n
 
... translates by the definition of a delta function into a radially
symmetrical momentum space wave function of the general form:
                                              _______________
            ip                               /  2    2    2
    a = A e                   ...where p = \/ p1 + p2 + p3
 
A wavefunction of this type has a constant expectation function:
 
                      2  ir  -ir       2          2
    P(p) = aa*  =  |A|  e   e    =  |A|  1  =  |A|
 
         = b    ...a real scalar constant
 
The integral of this simple constant expectation function is infinite, and
thus cannot be normalized.  However, normalization of the infinite radius
case can be approached with arbitrary closeness by making the expectation
constant b into an expectation function b(p0) that normalizes to 1 the
volume of a momentum space sphere of radius p0:
 
                 3
    b(p0) =  ----------
             4 pi p0^3
 
The energy density function for such a sphere is:
 
            2
           p
   e(p) = ---
           m
 
 
Combining the normalized expectation function with the energy function and
integrating over the volume of the sphere r = p0 gives this equation:
            _
           / p0                     2
           |     /     3     \  /  p  \  /       2 \
  E(p0) =  |     | --------- |  | --- |  | 4 pi p  |  dp
           |     \ 4 pi p0^3 /  \  m  /  \         /
          _/ 0
 
                    _
                   / p0
              3    |     4
        =  ------  |    p  dp
           m p0^3  |
                  _/ 0
 
                     _
                  5   | p0
             3  p     |
        =  --------   |
           5 m p0^3  _| 0
 
 
            3     2
        =  ---  p0
            5
 
Thus the total energy is proportional to the square of the radius of the
volume occupied by the (constant amplituded) wavefunction in momentum space.
 
Since a radial delta function in coordinate space translates into a constant
wavefunction of _infinite_ radius p0, the total energy of a coordinate space
delta function of the form:
 
    R(n)  =   delta( r - r  )
                          n
 
... is unavoidably infinite.
 
One can of course take the route that wave mechanics do not a apply in the
radial dimension, but this would be tremendously difficult to justify given
the translational and rotational symmetries of 3-space.  (The formalisms of
Schroedinger and Heisenberg are fully in compliance with these symmetries.)
 
....
 
With that I will give it a rest and suggest that interested parties read
the book by Mills and Farrell, which I'm sure has far more information than
Dr.  Farrell can easily type in here.  Critiques of my _own_ premises and
equations (I typed them in quickly last night) are very much welcome, but
I will probably try to avoid defending them further if at all possible.
 
I respect Dr. Farrell's approach and ability to elaborate mathematically on
his ideas _once his basic premises have been set_ -- but alas, I simply do
not concur with those premises.  I would really prefer to leave it at that
that for a while at least.  I always feel very uneasy about getting into
this type of on-line critique of a participant like Dr. Farrell, who has
gone out of his way to provide a different perspective on what is (if it is
real at all) most assuredly going to require a very different perspective
to be solved.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / John Moore /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 15:54:35 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
]Fusion rockets will provide ballistic transportation between
]points on earth as well as transportation to and between points in
]space at a far lower cost than currently attainable.  (Remember,
] you want the high speeds of suborbital transport not simply because
] you like to get stuff from point a to point b fast, but also because
] you are trying to amortize the capital costs of your vehicle).
]The primary use of this transportation will be bulk commodities --
]possibly even benefacted ore -- near points of use or refinement.
How do you deal with the radiation?  How do you make a fusion rocket
in a reasonable (small) size?
]
]Plasma torches will make refinement of lower grade ores economic
]and those ores will be more available also due to lower transport
]costs.
Not without lots of electricity to run the electromagnets!
--
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! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Orbitsphere Wave functions / errata
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbitsphere Wave functions / errata
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 16:28:32 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

Here's a quick correction to my own equations:
 
In article <1993Jun15.154328.18536@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
This equation:
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
| The energy density function for such a sphere is:
|
|            2
|           p
|   e(p) = ---
|           m
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
... Should have been:
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
| The energy density function for such a sphere is:
|
|            2
|           p
|   e(p) = ---
|          2m
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 
 
And as a result, this derivation:
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
|Combining the normalized expectation function with the energy function and
|integrating over the volume of the sphere r = p0 gives this equation:
|            _
|           / p0                     2
|           |     /     3     \  /  p  \  /       2 \
|  E(p0) =  |     | --------- |  | --- |  | 4 pi p  |  dp
|           |     \ 4 pi p0^3 /  \  m  /  \         /
|          _/ 0
|
|                    _
|                   / p0
|              3    |     4
|        =  ------  |    p  dp
|           m p0^3  |
|                  _/ 0
|
|                     _
|                  5   | p0
|             3  p     |
|        =  --------   |
|           5 m p0^3  _| 0
|
|
|            3     2
|        =  ---  p0
|            5
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...should have looked like this:
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
|Combining the normalized expectation function with the energy function and
|integrating over the volume of the sphere r = p0 gives this equation:
|            _
|           / p0                     2
|           |     /     3     \  /  p  \  /       2 \
|  E(p0) =  |     | --------- |  | --- |  | 4 pi p  |  dp
|           |     \ 4 pi p0^3 /  \ 2m  /  \         /
|          _/ 0
|
|                      _
|                     / p0
|              3      |     4
|        =  --------  |    p  dp
|           2 m p0^3  |
|                    _/ 0
|
|                      _
|                  5    | p0
|             3  p      |
|        =  ---------   |
|           10 m p0^3  _| 0
|
|
|                2
|            3 p0
|        =  ------
|            10 m
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Obviously the factor of 1/2 is not that significant, but you might note that
in the last equation I also inadvertantly left off the 1/m.  That's not a
big difference, but it show that you can could in principle approximate a
radial delta function by using a very massive particle (which would also play
havoc with your orbital radius, of course).  Such more-classical-like effects
of more massive particles are an example of the correspondence principle --
bigger or more massive quantum object should start looking more and more
"classical."
 
Incidentally, the (proposed) particle that best approximates a Dirac delta
function in coordinate space is the unified field version of the magnetic
monopole.  It's practically a point particle, yet has about the same mass as
an amoeba -- assuming that it exists at all!  And yes, it is extremely heavy
precisely because it _does_ approximate a delta function -- the higher energy
harmonics add a lot (a _whole lot_) of mass/energy to the critter.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: 15 Jun 93 16:49:21 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <C8Juty.DnD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(William Shakespeare) writes:
>Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is there
>ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
 
Of course it is a yes or no question.  The answer is *yes*.  It's
called muon catalyzed fusion.  Unfortunately it takes more energy to
create the necessary muons than we have yet been able to obtain from
the resulting fusion reactions.
 
Obviously what you really want to know is, "Is there cold fusion
along the P-F model (useful for producing energy), or perhaps on the
Jones model (real but unlikely to produce useful energy).  Again
these are yes or no questions.  Such fusion either exists or it
doesn't.  So which is it?  Ah, there's the rub.  Knowing that an
answer exists can be a far cry from knowing that answer.  Certainly
the true believers and the true disbelievers both claim they know
the answers.  However the answers they "know" disagree with one
another.  Consensus seems unlikely (and unnecessary since truth is
not determined by consensus).
 
My own opinion on the subject:
 
1.  P-F fusion:  Does not exist with 99+% confidence.
 
2.  Jones fusion:  Still quite uncertain.  I am inclined to believe
it exists but not very confident of that belief (maybe 60%
confidence).  This may be a somewhat biased opinion though I don't
think so.  (I am a BYU alumnus and would be delighted if someone
from there made a major discovery.)
 
I think in 20-30 years we will know with high confidence the answers
to both questions.  Science often takes time and we have to wait for
results to be obtained, evaluated, re-thought, re-tested...
Patience is a virtue.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / John Cobb /  Re: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 15 Jun 93 07:47:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

 
 
John Logajan Comments:
|> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
|> >Tom Simonds suggests a multi-pass fusion collider.  John Cobb and Bruce
|> >Scott seem to answer back that a one-pass experiment is not efficient.
|> >
|> >Suppose instead we built two "race track" devices and circulated D++?  Hmm!
|> >
|> >But this would generate a lot of He4, and then the beam would run into that
|> >before we could pump it out.
|>
|> Bogdan Maglich's Migma technique involves injecting accelerated beams of
|> "fuel" normal to a sculpted magnetic field.  The beam bends in the field
|> and finds itself intersecting over and over again the center of the
|> Migma cell.  These precessing orbits appear similar to the tracings of
|> a child's toy Spirograph, if you've ever seen them.
 
Thanks John Logajan for bringing this into the discussion. I hesitated
because I didn't want to appear too partial. :> I should note that MIGMA
is in some sense similar to cyclotrons colliding at the extraction
point but there are important differences.
 
The BIG POINT I have been trying to make in my comments on colliding
fusion systems is that you must consider Fokker-Planck type collisions.
For Beam systems this defocuses the beams leading to emmittance
growth. This is why the cyclotron concept becomes impossible. This
also answers Tom's last post. The fact is that the particles don't
just keep circulating around the cyclotron. Some particles fuse, but
many more particles collide in coulomb collisions (actaully infinitely
more sense the total cross section diverges). This is the point that some
people miss. Remember the Rutherford cross-section has a 1/theta^4
dependance for small angles. So the average particle will
experience a random walk of a very small step. There is a
finite statisitical time for the average particle to be deflected
90 degrees form these soft Coulomb collisions. When you work out the numbers
you find that these processes will scatter particles out of your beam
at a far higher rate than the fusion rate. This is why
the cyclotron concept is hopeless.
 
Migma is another story however. It is designed So that there are closed orbits
in a magnetic field. However if you are clever, you can design (at least
in theory) a configuration that is stationary under this collision
process. That is, for every particle that scatters from velocity V1 to
velocity V2 from these soft collision processes, there is another
particle which is scattered from V2 to V1. For the quick ones out
there you know what I am getting at. Such a distribution is simply
one that is at a local thermodynamic equilibrium. So the bottom line
is if you want a beam system to be immune to collisional degradation,
then you better choose a beam that is a Maxwellian. I'm not to up
on Maglich's stuff, but I think some of his schemes were not at equilibrium
but others were. So look close.
 
Of course I look with interest at another area that this line leads to.
Recently, Rostoker has been working on this stuff. He has found a set
of analytic 1-dimensional (and numerical 2-dimensional) solutions to
the Fokker Planck equation that can be either
Migma-like or can have a reversed field. In Migma, most orbits
go near the axis. In field reversed cases, the orbits are Large Larmour
orbits that are about the size of the device (similar to the old Astron
concept) but these orbits have betatron oscillations superimposed upon
them. Thus a particle of energy 1MeV might have 10-100 KeV of kinetic
energy in radial and axial betatron motion. Since this motion is random,
the betatron oscillations become the "beaming" that drives collisions.
 
For a cite see:
 
"Magnetic Fusion with High Energy Self-Colliding Ion Beams"
Rostoker, rahman, Maglich, Spivey and Fisher in Phys. Rev. Lett.
v. 70 p. 1818 (March 22, 1993).
 
I take pride in reading this because of the favorable conclusion
they reach about field reversed systems, which is the concept I
spend my time working on.
 
 
|>
|> The key points are that there tend to be a lot of head on collisions at
|> the intersection.  Near misses, which cause course changes, merely return
|> again to the center from orbits forward or retro-precessed from the
|> original orbit.
 
Right. This is what I meant about having a distribution which annihilates
the collision operator. On average, "near misses" don't degrade Migma and
energetic Beam Field Reversed Configurations (FRCs) like the do for
tangential cyclotrons.
 
|>
|> Fusion "by-products" exit the scene with energies too great to be trapped
|> by the bending influence of the magentic field, and are decelerated and
|> captured in encircling apparatus.  Direct deceleration of the electrically
|> charged by-products is therefore possible, mostly eliminating the need for
|> thermal/steam cycle conversion.
|>
|> ...
|> Aneutornic (neutropenic?) fuels can be used because it is far easier to
|> reach the equivalent of high temperature, in the KeV or MeV of the
|> "fuel" beams, since the Migma concept replaces random thermal plasma motion
|> with directed self-colliding beams.  Therefore a Migma cell is free of most
|> neutron generation, and all the horrible consequences thereof.
|>
As are FRC's --- preach on brother.
|> --
|> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
|> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
-john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: 15 Jun 93 18:09:39 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

>In article <C8Juty.DnD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(William Shakespeare) writes:
>>Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is there
>>ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
 
Is Shroedinger's cat dead or alive? We'll know as soon as they
open the box, but with the cold fusion box they're having trouble with
the latch.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Paul Karol /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 14:39:01 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Is there cold fusion or is there ain't?  Sure there is.  The arguments
have reduced to How much? and cover five to ten orders of magnitudes,
more or less.
 
Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Bob Lewandowski /  Re: miracles and batches
     
Originally-From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: miracles and batches
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 19:25:19 GMT
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <tomkC8FzG2.L3r@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <9306092320.AA04128@frisbee.CV.COM> jdriscol@frisbee.cv.com
(Jeff Driscoll x3717) writes:
>
>>A possible explanation (repeated before by someone else) is that vapor
>>that left the cell condenses outside of the cell at some location and
>>then trickles back in down the wire leading to the thermistor which is
>>inside of the cell.  As long as the thermistor has at least a thin film
>>of water on it, in can not be at a higher temperature than 100 C.
>
>This is a specious argument. _If_ the temperature in the vessel was high
>enough to keep water at it's boiling point, none would condense and run
>back down into the vessel. And I would defy anyone to hold a thermistor
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>at nearly exactly 100C for three hours in any way other than submerging it
>in water and boiling that water (any way that is without a servo loop --
>that is, feedback of some sort.)
>
 
If I didn't know better I would take that as a challenge.  B-)
 
What about a thermistor in an insulated container, open to the atmosphere
that has a continuous flow of steam over it? I maintain that if the
volume flow rate of the steam can supply sufficient energy to the system
to overcome the heat losses to ambient, the temperature will hold
constant at very near the boiling point at the ambient atmospheric
pressure. The excess heat is carried away in the steam vented to the
atmosphere. Reflux condensation is not necessary other than to slow down
the loss of water to the atmosphere.
 
If the above _was_ a challenge, Mr. Kunich needs to contact me to
discuss terms.   B-)  b-)
 
---Bob
 
--
            Bob Lewandowski
    Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM
     Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368
      UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew
  U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 279G / Everett WA  98206
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblew cudfnBob cudlnLewandowski cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 16 Jun 1993 00:58:00 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
: The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
: one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
: thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
: they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
: thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
: in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
: for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
 
An implicit assumption here, that the particles possess a Maxwellian
(thermal) distribution.
 
The question: is this desirable?
 
If one could "somehow" increase the fraction over thermal of particularly high
energy particles---the only ones that fuse---one could increase
the fusion rate without a necessarily large amount of increased total
energy.
 
It thus seems that 'equilibrium' might not be the way to go.
 
Any ideas for a very 'non-equilibrium' fusion reactor?
(e.g. stochastic particle acceleration via nonlinear dynamics?)
 
: --
: 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
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / BERNECKY R /  Farfetch
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Farfetch
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 03:39:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
INTRODUCTION
 
The following is a FARFETCH which aims to explain the anomolous effects
of PdD systems.  It contains much which is fundamentally correct, but
it also has "speculation", in the tradition of enjoyable science
fiction.
 
I have included many quotes [referenced by page number] from the
following work:
 
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond and Francoise Balibar, "Quantics. Rudiments of
Quantum Physics", (English translation by S.T. Ali) 1990.
Published by North-Holland,
Elsevier Science Publishing Co, Inc, 655 Ave of Amer, NY NY 10010
ISBN: 0 444 87424 0
 
Briefly, I present (some) justification for the existence of
Bosonic Wave Objects, conjecture some of their properties, and
look for evidence of them in cnf experiments.
 
 
PART ONE:   BOSONIC SYSTEMS
 
"The gregarious nature of bosons becomes evident only when the
collective state consists of a large number of *identical*
individual states." [page 475]  For 4He this occurs near absolute
zero, which is easy to understand, since all atoms are in a
ground state which means they are all in identical states. However,
the requirement for "identical individual states" does NOT
rule out higher energy states.  Consider PdH:  IF the H is at the
correct temperature, its de Broglie wavelength will coincide with
the distance between wells: "the quanton (or at least the probability
density of its presence) ceases to be "transported" as soon as the
periodicity of the carrier wave coincides with the period L...We have
here a stationary situation (in the sense in which we understand this
term in wave theory): the quanton does not progress in any sense"[p387]
Every H will be stationary within its well, and each will have
an identical wave form, [caveat: what about spin?]; all will
be in an identical (high temperature) state. IF H in Pd is in fact
the neutral atom it is a boson, and can form a bosonic system.
[second caveat: is H neutral in Pd?  There *are* lots of electrons
around if the Pd is serving as a cathode.]
 
"The probability for obtaining a system of N bosons, all in the same
individual state, is N! times larger than the analogous probability for
N distinct quantons. Thus, collective states in which all the bosons
are in the same individual state are overwhelmingly preferred: bosons
'like' being identical."[p475]  This implies that IF a group of H are
in the same state, then the system (slowly?) increases the probability
that the next H will fall into line as it grows.  The more atoms that
participate, the more likely the next atom will be incorporated into
the system. (But again, what about spin?)
 
>From the discussion on superfluid 4He:
"A quanton constrained to occupy a finite spatial volume undergoes a
quantization of its energy levels.  The ground state possesses an
average energy
 
                 E= p_ave^2/(2m)                            (7.5.16)
 
where p_ave is the average momentum, related to the dimension a of
the confinement region, through the saturated Heisenberg inequality
 
                (p_ave)(a) ~ h_bar                          (7.5.17)
                (~ means approximately equal)
 
This value of the energy also gives the scale of energies of the
various excited states of the quanton, and in particular, the
difference between the ground state and the first excited state.
To make sure that not too many of the occupied states are excited,
it is necessary that the average thermal energy kT, where T is the
temperature, be lower than E/k." [p 476]
 
Actually, equation 7.5.17 is an approximation to de Broglie's
 
               p = mv = h/lambda                             (1.1)
 
Substituting the definition of p given by 1.1 into 7.5.16:
 
              E= h^2/(2ma^2)                                 (1.2)
 
              where h is 6.626 x 10E-34 J s, and "a" is the
interstitial spacing of H in Pd. (2.85 Angstroms for octahedral sites,
1.74 A for tetrahedral sites.)  m is the mass of H 1.673 x 10E-27 kg.
 
Also we can equate the energy E to temperature using:
 
              E = (3/2) kT                                   (1.3)
              where k= 1.38 x 10E-23 J/(molecule K)
 
(The 3/2 is because we are dealing with a 3-dimensional solid)
Solve for T:
 
             T= h^2/(3kma^2)                                 (1.4)
 
With this relation we can determine the wavelength of H at a given
temperature.  More usefully, we can solve for all cases where a will
fit integrally into the Pd wells and create a stationary wave form.
 
Summary:  When H with the proper wavelength is constrained in regularly
spaced energy wells all will be in identical states and, like 4He,
will tend to form a coherent boson system.  "All for one, and one
for all!"
 
 
PART TWO:   BOSONIC WAVES
 
The following derivation presented in "Quantics", though straight
forward, is a page long, so jumping to the end:
 
" We obtain the remarkable inequality
 
             delta_N delta_phase >~ 1                      (7.6.5)
 
             [ the >~ means approximately greater than or equal]
 
between the dispersion in the number of photons in the beam and
the dispersion in its phase.  It is clear, from the ideas that have
been used, that this inequality ought to hold, at least intrinsically,
for any system of photons and, more generally, for *ANY* system of
quantons (provided that, like the monochromatic photons in this case,
they are all in the same state.)" [p 488]
 
If the number of bosons in a system is large enough, the dispersion
in their number will be large, and the phase of the system becomes
well-defined. The system can properly be described by a classical
wave.  This wave will also have a well-defined amplitude, to the
extent that delta_N/N is much less than one.  One can no longer
describe the system as a collection of classical particles, since
their number itself is not defined. [paraphrased from page 489]
 
According to the hand-waving in Part One, it is possible for H to be
collectively a bosonic system, each H in the same state, so that
the above description is applicable, including equation (7.6.5).
 
Consider H with kinetic energy e and mass-energy mc^2. The total
energy for N atoms would be
 
              E= N(mc^2 + e) ~ Nmc^2                     (2.1)
 
if the kinetic energy is small.  A dispersion delta_N in their number
equates to an energy dispersion:
 
             delta_E = delta_N mc^2                      (2.2)
 
and, hence, a characteristic time
 
          delta_t ~ h_bar/delta_E ~ h_bar/(delta_N mc^2) (2.3)
 
"In other words, the overall state of the system, characterized by
a classical wave amplitude, would exhibit temporal variations on
this delta_t scale... for pi-mesons, h_bar/mc^2 ~ 10E-24 seconds."
[p 490]
 
According to (7.6.5), large delta_N corresponds to a well-defined
phase.  A lower bound for a well-defined wave is delta_N >~ 10.
Assuming delta_N to be order 10, we calculate the characteristic
time for a bosonic system comprised of H atoms:
 
         delta_t ~ 10E-34 / (10 10E-27 10E17) = 10E-25 seconds (2.4)
 
Corresponding to this delta_t is the angular frequency w:
 
         w = delta_phase/delta_t = 10E24                       (2.5)
 
Also, note that the spatial wave length of the bosonic system
composed of, say, 10E6 atoms, would be on the order
 
                N * a ~ 10E6 10E-10 = 10E-4 m                  (2.6)
 
where a is the interstitial spacing. (Assume a 1-Dim system here)
 
 
Summary:  H can be, not merely a bosonic system such as 4He, but an
honest to goodness wave just like (sort of) "real" bosons i.e. photons.
 
 
 
PART THREE:  CHARACTERISTICS OF A BOSONIC WAVE
 
A nice synopsis of classical and quantum concepts is given in
Table 2.3:
 
"
Invariance     Classical wave-like concepts   Corpuscular   Unified
under                                         concept       quantum concept
 
Translations   Period T    Pulsation          Energy E      E= h_bar w
in time                    w = 2pi/T                     (Planck-Einstein)
 
Translations   Wavelength  Undulation         Momentum p    p = h_bar k
in space       lambda      k = 2pi/lambda                (de Broglie)
 
Rotations      Rotation a  m = 2pi/a          Component Jz  Jz = h_bar m
                           (m integral or
                            half-integral)
" [page 87]
 
Using the above relations, we can characterize a bosonic wave
object (BWO) made up of H atoms.  Eq. (2.5), given in the previous
section, defines the angular frequency
 
                w ~ 10E24                                      (3.1)
 
and, analogous to photons, the energy of each particle is
 
                E = h_bar w
                  ~ 10E-34 10E24 = 10E-10 J = 10E3 Mev         (3.2)
 
Again assuming the BWO is composed of 10E6 atoms, its spatial
wavelength is 10E-4 m and
 
               k= 2pi/10E-4 ~ 10E4 cycles/meter                (3.3)
 
with momentum
               p= h_bar k ~ 10E-34 10E4 = 10E-30 (kg m)/s      (3.4)
 
Also, the mass of the BWO is
 
               m= 10E6 atoms 10E-27 kg/atom = 10E-21 kg        (3.5)
 
Substituting the values of 3.4 and 3.5 into the relation
 
               p= mv                                           (3.6)
 
we can compute the velocity of the BWO:
 
              10E-30 (kg m)/s = 10E-21 kg v
              v = 10E-9 m/s = 10 Angstroms/sec                 (3.7)
 
This is S L O W: it would take about 4 months to travel 1 cm.
 
The velocity of the BWO is related to the inverse square of the
number of atoms comprising it.  Once it reaches say 10E7 atoms,
it is essentially stationary.  Of course, this analysis is
simplistic since the BWO may be 2-D (or even 3-D ??), which would
substantially reduce its spatial wavelength.  Nevertheless,
the qualitative conclusions hold:  these quantum objects are
BIG and SLOW, and the bigger they are, the slower they are.
 
We can speculate that once these objects form they will persist
even when the average temperature of the lattice departs from
the "temperature of formation."  This follows from the characteristic
of bosonic systems to display strong coherence.  "The probability
that a system of bosons, thus occupying identical individual states,
would undergo a transition, in which *one* of them changes states,
is relatively much smaller than in the case of distinct quantons."
[p 475]
 
However, once the temperature departs from optimum, it would become
difficult for the BWO to grow since there would be few candidate
H in the proper stationary state.  Apparently, not just any H can
join!
 
One further characteristic, which I can not quantify, is how small can
a BWO be?  It must contain enough atoms to allow a large dispersion in
their number.  There is also the added constraint of their stability.
If they are too small, they may break apart if conditions in the lattice
depart from the proper conditions.
 
To summarize, what I have postulated is that there are macroscopic
quantum objects which I call BWO - bosonic wave objects.  These
objects are more like true waves (i.e. photon waves,  aka
electromagnetic waves) than, say, electrons are.  Their "photon"
is massive, being a neutral hydrogen atom.  These BWO are big, relative
to the atomic scale, and move very slowly.  One might envision a "small"
one plowing through the lattice, nudging atoms from its path as
it goes.  Meanwhile a large BWO, due to its obesity, would be
constrained to a sedentary life.   But these objects, slow and big
though they are, have a time period on the order of 10E-25
seconds, which is comparable to the characteristic time of the
strong (hadron) force.  (Lots of reasons for doubting that such
a bizarre object could really exist!)
 
 
PART FOUR:   BOSONIC WAVE OBJECTS IN PD LATTICE
 
Using the relation given by eq. (1.4), we can generate a table
of temperatures where the various isotopes of H will have integral
wave lengths relative to the well spacing in Pd.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
octahedral sites; spacing 2.85 Angstroms (2.85 x 10E-10 m)
all temperatures in Kelvins
 
wavelengths/well    lambda (A)   T(H)     T(D)    T(T)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
     1                2.85       78 K     39      26
     2                1.425     312      156     104
     3                0.95      702      351     235
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
tetrahedral sites; spacing 1.74 Angstroms
 
wavelengths/well    lambda (A)   T(H)     T(D)    T(T)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
     1                1.74      209      105      70
     2                0.87      838      419     280
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 
By the way, these temperature calculations are very dependent on
the interstitial spacing.  Considering that Pd expands/contracts
with H loading, or when heated, or when alloyed with various species,
it is best to consider the above values to be "representative."
 
But with that caveat in mind, it is interesting to note that D
does not really have any "appropriate" wavelengths near room temperature
(in the neighborhood of 280 to 305 K).  T does, at 280 k (7 C) if it
occupies the tetrahedral sites.  And so does H, at a (sauna
room temperature) of 312 K (39 C) in the octahedral sites. But D's
best choices are 351 K (78 C) and 419 K (146 C).
 
Now this is a conundrum, if BWO's play any role in the generation
of excess heat in PdD  systems. However, if D *were* to form a BWO, it
would be a very big and hence stationary one, due the large number of D
available.  It's hard to speculate about an unknown (imaginary??)
object, but it sounds uninteresting in terms of explaining heat
production.  It would sit there, and do... nothing?
 
To say it another way, perhaps the most interesting effects would
occur when "small", relatively mobile BWO's run into each other.
 
There is H (and T) in PdD systems.  There is not much, but it seems
that we do not want much.  We would like to "incubate" a large number
of "small" (<10E6 atoms/BWO), taking care to stop their growth
before they become immobile.  We then let them wander through the
cathode.  Eventually, they collide.
 
 
 
PART FIVE:   WHEN BOSONIC WAVE OBJECTS COLLIDE
 
Let me state the hypothesis directly:  The collision between BWO's will
result in nuclear events such as fusion.  In fact, multiple effects
should be possible, because there are (at least) three different
varieties of BWO's: those based on H, D- or D+, or T.
 
Consider just two BWO(H), each of opposite spin, moving toward one
another.  First, they are massive, and have lots of momentum. Second,
we note that their constituent atoms are neutral.  Third, they are bosonic
waves, which means they can interact in the manner of waves rather than
in the manner of particles.  One, or all three points imply that these
objects will interact.  And when they interact, the strong force will
have an opportunity to exert itself on the interacting particles. This
is much different from the situation of photons interacting: no strong
force is there to disrupt things.  We should expect energy releasing
reactions to occur.  This energy would be easily distributed across the
BWO, since its characteristic time is very fast, about 10E-25 sec.  Thus,
as the strong force rearranges nucleons at the intersection of these
BWO's, the energy is distributed across their entire mass.
 
What happens next?  One possibility is that the BWO's bounce apart,
moving away at about 10E4 m/s, plowing D's atoms from their path until
they slow down.  This would convert the nuclear energy into heat. A
second possibility is that the BWO breaks apart, in spite of its strong
tendency to resist state changes.  Again, the result would be fast moving
atoms, and nuclear energy translated to heat.  What determines which
process actually occurs is the stability of these BWO's.  It would be
desirable to quantify this attribute.
 
 
PART SIX:    EVIDENCE
 
If BWO's exist, it should be possible to directly observe them in
some manner.  They are macroscopically large and they are "different"
from ordinary matter.  It would be nice to derive their physical
properties from first principles.  Some interesting questions which
come to mind are:
   Would they be visible?
   How would they react to electromagnetic radiation?
   What electrical properties do they have?
   and many more...
 
We can look for circumstantial evidence of their existence in reports
on cnf experiments.
 
TAKAHASHI
---------
Takahashi's Experiment-C:
Low-High Current alternating every 6 hours;
Pure Pd rod 2 cm diam x 3 cm long, or
Pd plate .1 cm thick 2.5 x 2.5 cm^2
excess heat about 1 watt level
A chiller is used to control cell temperature.
 
[ from page 10 of his lecture notes.]
 
Exp 86 of his C series claims to see neutrons, tritium and some heat.
At low current, this experiment runs at 23 C +/- 2 degrees. At high
current the cells operates at about 54 C +/- 2 degrees.  Obviously,
during the temperature transitions, the cell exists briefly at all
intermediate temperatures, including 39 C (312 K).  Over time it is
possible for an H based BWO to build up, adding some number of atoms
every cycle.
 
 
Takahashi's Experiment-D:
99.99% pure Pd plate: 1 mm thick 25 mm square
700 CC D20 + 0.3 mol/liter LiOD
External cooling with 20 C water (10 liters/minute)
Temperature measurement between Pd plate and water-cooling coil.
 
Ran a 20 minute cycle sawtooth-current for 7 days.
 
Ran Low-High current, alternating every 6 hours.
[ page 21 of Takahashi's notes]
 
>From page 25 of these notes, we see that the cell's temperature at
low current is about 26 C (299 K); and at high current it is about
34 C to 37 C (307 K to 310 K).  This latter temperature is close
to the calculated temperature of 312 K for H with a wavelength of
a/2; i.e. 2 wavelengths between octahedral sites. This is a nice
coincidence!
 
Also, we should note that Takahashi added about 250 cc of D2O to the
cell every week.  This had the (unintended) effect of adding H to
the system.
 
Finally, we note that Takahashi claims a total of 160 megajoules
of excess (heat) energy over the amount of energy put in during the
two month life of the experiment.
 
Summary of Expt D:
   6 hours at "temperature of formation", 6 hours off of temperature.
   This may be enough time for the BWO to grow, but not enough time
   to let it get too big.
 
   There is a relatively large supply of H since there is 700 ml
   of solution.  H is (slowly) replenished.  This slow addition
   may aid in restricting the size of the BWO's, and so allowing
   them to remain mobile.
 
 
McKUBRE
-------
[all data from "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of
the D/Pd System" McKubre, et al]
 
0.3 cm diameter x 5 cm length Pd rod 99.9% pure.
1 m LiOD
closed-cell calorimetry < 200 cc volume
long runs 1000 to 2000 hours
 
Experiment P15
hours 676 to 778
 
Temperature at inlet plenum 36.5 C
Temperature at outlet plenum 38.85 C
(Peak output temperature 39.25 C)
 
Excess heat (about 10%) started at hour 682.
 
Here again, the 38 C to 39 C is coincidentally equal to the 2 lambda
temperature of H.
 
We note that these were closed cell experiments and that no electrolyte
was added. Apparently they were run at a constant temperature (at, or
very near) the "temperature of formation" for BWO(H).  This implies
that the BWO could grow very large, except that there was a small
fixed supply of H.  We can guess that the BWO would not grow too
large due to lack of raw material.  However, operating continuously
at the correct temperature would ensure that they would develop. The
question is, how large would the BWO's become?  This experiment used
a rather large cathode, and BWO's might have a difficult time finding
one another.  Depending on their ultimate size (which determines their
velocity), and the large amount of Pd to range over, it would be
problematic whether many collisions would occur.
 
 
FLEISCHMANN and PONS
 -------------------
 
[from Physics Letters A 176 (1993) pg 118-129]
 
12.5 x 2 mm diameter Pd (or Pd-alloy) rod
about 100 ml 0.1 M LiOD of electrolyte
open cell calorimetry
 
According to Figure 8, both DEMO9_2 and DEMO9_4 operated at 30 C for
a period of three and nine days, repectively.  This temperature is
303 K and is about 9 degrees lower than the calculated 312 K for
2 lambda H.  However, it is probable that F&P are using a Pd/Ag
alloy which would have a slightly different spacing.  Assuming
that 30 C represents the temperature of formation for BWO(H), we can
calculate the distance between octahedral sites to be 2.89 Angstroms.
Also, the temperature of formation for BWO(D) [note that D must be
either D-, or D+, and NOT the neutral atom] would be 342 K (69 C) rather
than 351 K.
 
It is difficult to read the large scale graphs given in Figure 8, but
somewhere in the vicinity of 70 C the temperature of the cell rises
steeply.
 
We can interpret this data as follows:  The 30 C phase of the system is
incubating BWO(H).  These experiments use little electrolyte, and small
cathodes, and hence restrict the growth of BWO's (lack of H) and offer
a smaller area in which to range.  Some collisions can occur.  The
higher temperature phase at 69 C allows the formation of a BWO(D),
which would grow very large.  But a large stationary BWO(D) offers a
perfect target for the smaller, more mobile BWO(H) in the system. They
can not miss!
 
We might conjecture that if the system were held to 69 C by a chiller,
the BWO(D) might grow so large that many or all the BWO(H) would find
it.  The results might be messy.
 
 
 
PART SEVEN:   CONCLUDING REMARKS
 
If BWO's exist, then the essential requirement for constructing an
energy-producing system is controlling the size and number of BWO's.
If there are two few, or if they are too large, little interaction
will occur.
 
The best strategy would be one which F&P seem to be following; create
many small, mobile BWO(H)'s and then create large, stationary BWO(D)'s
to serve as targets.
 
There are many potential mechanisms for controlling the size of these
objects:  mechanical (restrict the size of the lattice), chemical,
temperature, etc.
 
Also, the same concepts appear applicable to other H absorbing metal
lattices, such as Ni.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 /  bearpaw /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 21:03:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (William Shakespeare) writes:
 
>Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is there
>ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
 
I'm afraid science don't work that way.  Speaking as a fellow layperson
(who's been lurking in this group and following along with other sources
and has some scientific training) the best answer at this time is probably
"We don't know."  (Which doesn't mean there aren't people who are convinced
one way or t'other.)  There is still a lot of research going on in various
places, there still some odd results, there's still people claiming
problems with the results and/or the reporting.
 
If you're really curious, hang around.  It can be pretty interesting at
times.  :-)
 
bearpaw
 
 ======================================================================
 |  bearpaw@world.std.com              Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.15 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 23:10:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA

/ hpfcso:sci.physics.fusion / logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
/  4:30 pm  Jun 14, 1993 /
 
>Bogdan Maglich's Migma technique...
 
Can you tell us what the state of research is regarding this technique?  Is it
in an experimental stage yet?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrauchfuss cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Dieter Britz /  Boson condensates, anyone?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Boson condensates, anyone?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 15:29:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I see a paper by RL Liboff, in Phys. Lett. A174 (1993), 317, entitled
"Feasibility of fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the ground state".
It has no cold fusion references, and seems to ignore cold fusion totally.
However, it suggests that a beam of cool deuterons, which are bosons,  can be
made to relax into the ground state and will then not only be superconducting
at some low temperature, but also - due to "wave-function overlap" - have a
useful d-d fusion rate. I can't judge whether this is at all relevant to
solid state cold fusion but it occurs to me that the sea of deuterons in PdD
might fulfill the conditions of this paper, and that the paper thus might have
a theory of cold fusion.
Anyone out there with the training to tell me whether this is true or false?
Should the paper go into the bibliography as a cnf theory, or not?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: 16 Jun 93 13:54:05 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <C8Juty.DnD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(William Shakespeare) writes:
>Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is there
>ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
 
No, it is not a yes/no question.  Very little in science is.
 
However, it would be fair to say that the answers coming in are mostly
"no" with a few "maybe" thrown in.  If you state as your criteria for
calling it *fusion* that certain well-defined nuclear products are
seen from the normal reactions originally postulated by Jones and
(independently) by P&F, then the answer is clearly "yes, quite likely,
but in very small amounts that cannot serve as an energy source".
 
The only real argument is whether there is some new physics going on
that leads to nuclear fusion with thermal energy as the output.  The
persistent claims all involve calorimetry.  The size of the claimed
effects, in absolute terms, remains tiny.  The failure to scale up
the amount of heat produced is the biggest shortcoming to date.
 
If you are interested in a nice statement about the criteria scientists
use in evaluating such claims, you might try to track down the review
that Paul Davies wrote of a new book by Jeremy Bernstein.  I just read
it last night in the new issue of "Natural History" (I think -- there is
a prarie dog on the cover, but we get too many mags to keep the titles
straight -- same mag that carries Steven J Gould's column).  He contrasts
the acceptance of the W and Z (where only 1 Z_0 was seen in the first
publication) to the rejection of cold fusion and comments on the many
crackpot theories he gets in the mail.  He emphasizes the importance of
how a new observation (and the model or theory that explains it, if one
exists) fits in with all the other observations that have been made.
The fact that subsequent experiments have seen a million Z_0's in each
of four detector systems shows what I mean above about the importance off
being able to optimize your experiment to improve the signal you claim.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Migma, was Re: Fusion Collider
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 15:57:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
>>Bogdan Maglich's Migma technique...
>Can you tell us what the state of research is regarding this technique?  Is it
>in an experimental stage yet?
 
Unfortunately, I haven't heard any real updates on Migma since about 1983,
or thereabouts.  Up to that point he had built three stages of prototypes.
I believe he had approached as close to the Lawson criteria as had any of
the other types of fusion devices then in existence.  Naturally he was
getting a lot of flak from mainline approaches that his beams would go
unstable when he got near the Lawson line, so they insisted that he be denied
funding.
 
Someone had mentioned that some military agency or other had given Maglich
some funding since I lost track in 1983, or thereabouts.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 16 Jun 1993 13:03 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <C8nzEp.8Ds@world.std.com>, tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes...
>     Here is how I now think a fusion collider should work. It should be
>a cyclotron with the duterium or other fusionable fuel counter rotating
>in it at speeds approaching light. I am satisfied that the other schemes
>don't work because the colliding atoms miss each other. Counter rotating
>in a circular chamber should not be that hard to accomplish.
>     Fuel could be accelerated up to speed and injected into a circular
>magnetically confined chamber on each side of the chamber such that it
>goes around clockwise and counter clockwise. Sandwiched between magnets
>located on the top, bottom, in the core and outside, it will continue
>around the circular path practically forever, or until it hits, creating
>helium.
>
>
>  Dots Represent            .  .  <-- <-- <-- <--  Fuel In <-- <-- <--
>  Containment            .            .          at 99% Speed of Light
>  Magnets              .                 .
>  Arranged in a      .                     .
>  Circle            .                       .
>                    .       Cyclotron       .
>                    .                       .
>                     .                     .
>                       .                  .
>                         .              .
>                            .  .  <-- <-- <-- <--  Fuel In <-- <-- <--
>
 
Problem #1:  Fuel in will have to be + ions to rotate in one direction, and
- ions to rotate in the other direction, assuming the B field is perpendicular
to the direction of travel.  Positive ions appear to be a lot easier to
creat, and I suspect, a lot easier to accelerate.
 
John Cobb has started addressing other problems with his posts - namely,
head on collisions don't happen very often, compared to near misses, which
tend to throw the ions off their paths.
 
>     The ring of magnets into which the fuel is injected will not
>actually accelerate it in a circle, but simply contain it as it travels
>in a circle, continuously colliding and fuseing. Every particle injected
>into the ring will eventually collide with another particle. Since there
>is no friction in a cyclotron, it is presumed that once accelerated to
>speed, the injected fuel will travel around forever.
>     It's further suggested that the helium created can be separated
>because it will be created in a head-on collision betweed two particles
>of equal mass and speed, so the newly created particle will stop. The
>faster moving unfused atoms will tend toward the outside of the ring,
>while the slower moving helium moves toward the center, where it will be
>drawn off into the heat exchanger.
>
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 16 Jun 1993 13:23 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1vlr6pINNfii@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes...
>bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>: The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
>: one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
>: thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
>: they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
>: thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
>: in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
>: for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
>
>An implicit assumption here, that the particles possess a Maxwellian
>(thermal) distribution.
>
>The question: is this desirable?
>
>If one could "somehow" increase the fraction over thermal of particularly high
>energy particles---the only ones that fuse---one could increase
>the fusion rate without a necessarily large amount of increased total
>energy.
>
>It thus seems that 'equilibrium' might not be the way to go.
>
>Any ideas for a very 'non-equilibrium' fusion reactor?
>(e.g. stochastic particle acceleration via nonlinear dynamics?)
 
You may recall that I posted a single-component-plasma idea ~6 or so months
ago.  This idea included the use of particle accelerators to provide mono-
energetic beams, counter-rotating, in a more-or-less toroid.  Actually, think
of a toroid, cut into eight equal arcs.  The arcs are connected together to
form an octagon, with what amount to linear reactors.  The magnetic confinement
field is in the direction of particle flow, and is higher at the ends of the
linear sections (in the arc sections).  In effect, you have eight linear
reactors connected together.  Hopefully, the near misses result in spiraling
ions, which will still travel in the direction they were injected in, albeit
a bit slower.
 
John Cobb:  No, I haven't gotten them thar single component plasma books yet,
mainly because NASA's library has no due date requirements (one has been
signed out for >1 year, the other about 9 months).  I figure I'll just buy
them.  Eventually...
 
Matt Kennel:  I've been intending to model this idea for >1 year now.  It
would help if it had something to do with my work.  Unfortunately...
 
>
>: --
>: 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
>
>--
>-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".
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / John Cobb /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 16 Jun 1993 12:45:36 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1vlr6pINNfii@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>: The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
>: one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
>: thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
>: they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
>: thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
>: in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
>: for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
>
>An implicit assumption here, that the particles possess a Maxwellian
>(thermal) distribution.
>
>The question: is this desirable?
>
>If one could "somehow" increase the fraction over thermal of particularly high
>energy particles---the only ones that fuse---one could increase
>the fusion rate without a necessarily large amount of increased total
>energy.
>
>It thus seems that 'equilibrium' might not be the way to go.
>
>Any ideas for a very 'non-equilibrium' fusion reactor?
>(e.g. stochastic particle acceleration via nonlinear dynamics?)
>
I swear, this isn't a plant, but I couldn't hope for a better one.
Thanks Matt. :>
 
The answer to your question is definitely yes. for instance, centrally
colliding Migma is just such a condition. Another example is an
energetic axis-encirling beam in an FRC (my current work). And of
course there is the idea you were probably thinking about, energetic
injected neutral beam or resonant ECRH heated components in a
TOKAMAK. but there are some relly exciting "Way out" ideas that
exploit this fact dramatically.
 
One is Hirsch's electrostatic confinement. The idea here
is your create 2 (or 3) grids at relative voltages in a spherical
configuration. Ions "fall down" the potential in r and gain enough
kinetic energy to climb up any potential that exists at small
radii. Around r=0 you get a non-equilibrium distribution where
Particles at position vector R have velocities pointins in the
- vector r direction. Of course this scheme is not in equilibrium,
but if scattering of each particle is energy conserving, then it
comes out of the well with the same energy, but just a different
angle. This might be a problem because as time went on, repeated
collisions would impart more and more angluar momentum (as measured
about the origin) so the central focus would widen and the density
would become too low. However, for the last couple of years, Krall
has been presenting an idea to get around this. As the particles
climb out of the well their kinetic energy decreases and you
can rig up the system in terms of background neutral density to
ensure that there is a better than 50% chance of a collision. If
this is the case, then you can randomize the angular momentum
around the L=0 value. The neat trick here is that you usually don't
want collisions because that will decrease the particle confinement
time and the will make ignition more difficult. What's neat is that
the \tau in the Lawson Criterion (n \tau T > some critical value)
is the Energy confinement time, not the particle confinement time.
Now in most fusion devices, \Tau_energy > \Tau_particle since each
particle carries 2/3 nkT of energy, but in this IEC stuff, the particle
that collides at large r beyond the grids, has a very low energy, so
the energy confinement time is larger than the particle confinement
time. Neat huh? of course IEC has its own set of warts like problems
with particle collisions with the electrostatic grids, etc, but it
is certainly a concept worthy of some consideration.
 
Another idea is a single component plasma. Barnes and Turner have
been working on this at Los Alamos.
By single componet plasma, I mean charges of one type trapped in
a device such as a Penning trap. They show that the plasma will
rotate with a E cross B drift in a penning trap. If you move into
a frame of reference rotating with this E cross B drift, you
find that the effective potential from an axial magnetic field
and a quadrapolar electric field (Penning trap field) gives an
effective spherical potential that can be used to set up plasma
oscillations. The neat thing is that thes oscillations are very
nonlinear, and if you look at the 1-d or 2-d versions of
the oscilations (i.e. Cigars of pancakes from a sphere) the
repulsive froce at r=0 is not so large so that you can get
momentary plasma compressions of a factor of 1000 or so.
The reference for this is: Barnes and Turner, Phys. Fl. B
v. 4 p. 3890 (1992). A follow-on idea is to change the charge
sign and look at a pure electron plasma. Then there is a virtual
electrode at r=0 that will attract ions. Therefore a small
number of ions can be trapped in a really small volume. They
call this the "fusion light bulb" idea because it can lead
to very small, low unit power devices. This is an
inherent advantage. Wheras ITER will cost 10G$ and DEMO will
be designed for something like 1 GigaWatt these will be small,
modular and cheap, and a lot less riskier financially for utilities
that are still stinging from Fission plant cost overruns. Of
course there are warts here also. There need to be pretty large
magnetic fields and large voltage drops across small distances.
 
So yes, Matt there are ideas, and in my opinion that is where the
future of commericially viable controlled fusion lies. I'm
actually quite excited about them and I hope to have the opportunity
to work on some of these concepts in the future, but that's
another story.
 
-john w. cobb
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Colliding beams fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Colliding beams fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 22:08:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The idea of using an energetic beam of particles to induce nuclear
reactions for energy production has been given serious consideration
and various schemes may still be under investigation.  It is not clear
that colliding beams would be the way to do it, however, for a variety
of reasons that others have mentioned.  There is little to be gained
by going to higher collision energies since the energy you want to
extract from the reaction process becomes smaller relative to what you
have to put in.  The only reason for increasing the collision energy
would be to increase the probability of inducing the desired reaction,
and that generally goes down as a function of energy once you exceed
the coulomb barrier energy.  However, for a beam striking a dense
(solid?) target there is some advantage to higher energies in that
the beam can penetrate through more material to increase the chance
for a nuclear reaction.
 
Sandia Labs has been building machines that produce megaamp-megavolt
pulsed ion beams, and at on point were trying to sell the idea of
doing this with lithium ions for fusion studies.  There have been
other machines proposed, but the efficiencies of most types of
accelerators is too low to make it possible to reach any kind of
break even.  Cyclotrons, for example, burn several 100 kW of RF
power to produce beam powers of a few kW max.
 
But at least while your talking about deuteron-deuteron collisions,
you may as well get the nuclear physics right.  The primary reaction
products will be neutrons, protons, 3He and T.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 16 Jun 1993 12:47:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1vlr6pINNfii@network.ucsd.edu>,
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
|> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
|> : The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
|> : one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
|> : thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
|> : they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
|> : thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
|> : in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
|> : for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
|>
|> An implicit assumption here, that the particles possess a Maxwellian
|> (thermal) distribution.
|>
|> The question: is this desirable?
 
In a plasma confined for a time long compared to the electron-(electron or ion)
collision frequency, the electrons are Maxwellian. Since electron dynamics
are what decide whether you get bulk particle transport or not, and how much
if you do (assumption: quasineutral plasma, n_e = n_i to high accuracy),
that matters. In a plasma confined for a time long compared to the
ion-ion collision frequency, the ions are Maxwellian. Now, this can be
changed if there are dynamical processes (like sustained velocity-space
dependent turbulence) which can compete with collisions. Presumably, this
is possible in this space-charge inertial fusion idea Jim Bowery tells
us about (I haven't gone to the Hirsch paper yet but I will shortly).
 
It is desirable in a confined plasma because it makes life easier. You
don't have to hunt up ways to sustain super-thermal particles (see below).
 
|> If one could "somehow" increase the fraction over thermal of particularly high
|> energy particles---the only ones that fuse---one could increase
|> the fusion rate without a necessarily large amount of increased total
|> energy.
 
High-energy particles also get lost faster (peruse the literature on
runaway confinement, eg, the review by Wooton et al in Phys Fluids B,
vol 2, 2879 for the exptl results -- beware conventl wisdom on the interps),
so the confinement will go to pot (fast particles carry the energy, too).
 
|> It thus seems that 'equilibrium' might not be the way to go.
 
One needs to specify whether one means velocity-space or configuration-
space equilibrium. Assuming you mean velocity-space equilibrium, you
have to find better ways than we now know to face the issue of selective
loss of fast particles.
 
|> Any ideas for a very 'non-equilibrium' fusion reactor?
|> (e.g. stochastic particle acceleration via nonlinear dynamics?)
 
Let's hear what John Cobb has to say on this. You can get the stochastic
particle acceleration, but you have to stop the stochasticity from losing
you all your energy.
 
Don't give up. These ideas are not as dead as the mainstream think they
are. An example of a good (configuration-space) non-equilibrium idea is
the high-density imploding z-pinch which got cancelled in 1989. Bad, bad
decision, in my mind.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / Jed Rothwell /  CF effect not "tiny"
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF effect not "tiny"
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 22:32:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jim Carr writes:
 
     "The size of the claimed [CF calorimetric] effects, in absolute terms,
     remains tiny.
 
In the laboratory in Nice, France, this effect has been replicated dozens of
times in succession, without failure, at levels of 140 watts (30 watts input)
and above. If Dr. Carr thinks that a 140 effect is "tiny" I suggest that he
perform the following experiment:
 
1.   Turn on a 150 watt incandescent bulb, and leave it on for about 30
     minutes. This will generate just a little more heat than the Nice
     experiments generally produce.
 
2.   Hold your hand a few centimeters above the bulb for one minute.
 
3.   Report back, and tell us whether you find this level of radiation coming
     out of a small object "tiny," and whether you think conventional
     scientific instruments are capable of detecting this level of heat
     production.
 
 
He also writes:
 
     "The failure to scale up the amount of heat produced is the biggest
     shortcoming to date."
 
Dr. Carr will please cite references to attempts to scale up the heat,
including both successes and failures. I am not familiar with any "failures"
in this area. As far as I know, cells have been scaled up to about 1000 watts
without difficulty. I am not aware of any attempts to scale up above this
level.
 
Let us please stick to the facts, and not make up statements about "failures"
to accomplish a task which nobody has ever undertaken. For the purposes of
scientific experimentation, there is no reason to scale up a CF device beyond
the levels now used (1 to 1000 watts), so nobody has ever tried to do it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 / John Cobb /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 16 Jun 1993 18:56:31 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1vn4p2INNicp@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>In article <1vlr6pINNfii@network.ucsd.edu>,
>mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>|> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>|> : The reason no-one tries this is that in collisions particles only get
>|> : one pass at each other, so if they miss they never fuse. In a confined
>|> : thermal bath, clouds of them are moving back and forth randomly, and
>|> : they get repeated passes at each other. Trying to put the average
>|> : thermal energy near the cross-section peak is the name of the game
>|> : in fusion in confined plasmas. [To certain lurkers: this is as true
>|> : for plasmak or tokamak as for any other design scheme.]
 
Not crucial to my post here, but let me correct my back of the envelope
estimate a few posts ago. I just looked at a paper by a friend. He
said that in these accelerator concepts that you should think
about 100 million passes (turns)*. I estimated 10,000 I think. So
when I derived a mean particle distance required of the
focus, I guess I was off by a factor of 100. Evenso, I stand
by my statement that I don't see how you can focus that tightly.
So the beam width at focus goes from an Angstrom to a micron.
 
* these numbers come from SSC numbers. Maybe some of you HEPcats
out there can tell me what they hope to be the minimum spot size
at maximum focus. I think they are looking at around 10 billion
protons per bunch, you would need more for a fusion reactor.
 
>|>
>|> An implicit assumption here, that the particles possess a Maxwellian
>|> (thermal) distribution.
>|>
>|> The question: is this desirable?
>
>In a plasma confined for a time long compared to the electron-(electron or ion)
>collision frequency, the electrons are Maxwellian. Since electron dynamics
>are what decide whether you get bulk particle transport or not, and how much
>if you do (assumption: quasineutral plasma, n_e = n_i to high accuracy),
 
Of course this doesn't apply to the single component Penning concpets of
Barnes and Turner since they don't have elextrons. In fact Barnes says
that one of the reasons they looked at single component schemes was
precisely because of the impossibility of getting around of electron
transport problems.
 
>that matters. In a plasma confined for a time long compared to the
>ion-ion collision frequency, the ions are Maxwellian. Now, this can be
>changed if there are dynamical processes (like sustained velocity-space
>dependent turbulence) which can compete with collisions. Presumably, this
>is possible in this space-charge inertial fusion idea Jim Bowery tells
>us about (I haven't gone to the Hirsch paper yet but I will shortly).
>
>It is desirable in a confined plasma because it makes life easier. You
>don't have to hunt up ways to sustain super-thermal particles (see below).
>
 
I tried to talk about some of this stuff in another post, so I will
try to not repeat. I do have an observation about how science is conducted.
When you say that it makes "life easier" to have a velocity space
equilibrium, I think you mean easier for theory (and simulation). I
know I usually do since I do theory and computation. However, this
may be a case of the drunk who lost his watch in the ditch and is looking
for it in the street under the light-pole and says "I'm looking for it
here because the light is better" Sure it is easier to do theory with
a velocity Maxwellian, but the route to fusion may not lie in that
route. I am not so sure of my history here, but didn't people used to
talk about TOKAMAKS with aspect ratios of 3 to 10. But today we find better
\beta limits for low aspect ratios (<2). Heaven knows it is tough to
deal with low aspect large elongation things like DIII-D when you do theory
or simulation. It is much messier, but there apppears to be a
payoff for doing so. Maybe there is something to be found in non-Maxwellian
velocity distributions, even if us theorists can see in that dark.
 
On the other hand, if there is interest in problems where the theory
is tough, then maybe they will want to hire more theorists. Well I
can hope.
 
>|> If one could "somehow" increase the fraction over thermal of particularly high
>|> energy particles---the only ones that fuse---one could increase
>|> the fusion rate without a necessarily large amount of increased total
>|> energy.
>
>High-energy particles also get lost faster (peruse the literature on
>runaway confinement, eg, the review by Wooton et al in Phys Fluids B,
>vol 2, 2879 for the exptl results -- beware conventl wisdom on the interps),
>so the confinement will go to pot (fast particles carry the energy, too).
>
Now this I find interesting. I'll have to look it Alan's review, I
haven't seen it yet.
 
But before I do, let me first open my mouth and show my ignorance.
What is the reason for this decreased confinement? Is it that the
energetic particles themselves cause instabilities, like the TAE
modes and fishbones? If so then I agree.
 
In fact, Wong and Krall have an article in this month's Phys. Fl. B
on counterstreaming modes in their SCIF device which is one of
these non-thermal devices. ( Phys. Fl. B. v. 5 p. 1706, June 1993)
If your nonthermal particles cause instabilities, then these ideas
flop.
 
But let me add, if you find a system where the energetic particles
don't in and of themselves excite unstable modes, you may actually
have longer confinement times for the energetic particles, for
two reasons, first the classical collision time is longer because the
energy is higher and second the scatterring off of turbulent
fluctuations are smaller because the larger gyro-radius and
banana width means that small scale (high k) turbulence gets
averaged over. Its like pushing a pendulum with natural frequency
of 1 Hz with a much higher pushing freqeuncy.
 
In fact Rostoker sells this point really hard. Looking through the
viewgaphs of one of his talks, he gives the following refs.
 
Naitou, Kamimura, and Dawson J. Phys. Soc. Japan v. 46 p. 258 (1979)
 
Barnes and Strachan Phys. Fl. v. 26 p. 2668 (1983)
 
Diamond and Biglari fromn some ISF Report SEpt. 15 1988.
 
I haven't looked at this stuff, so it is just heresay on my
part, but at least I'm giving good directions to the horse's
mouth so to speak.
 
I don't know if I believe Rostoker, but he is very convincing
when you listen to him. I mean I haven't worked it out, but
when you talk to him you feel he has no doubt and he had an
answer for all the feeble questions I could ask.
 
I would be interested in your opinion if you have the chance to
look at thme, Bruce.
 
>...
>Don't give up. These ideas are not as dead as the mainstream think they
>are. An example of a good (configuration-space) non-equilibrium idea is
>the high-density imploding z-pinch which got cancelled in 1989. Bad, bad
>decision, in my mind.
>--
>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
 
I agree with Bruce here (It's becoming quite a love fest here now
isn't it). I think it was a damn shame in 1991 when so many
interesting devices were thrown overboard in hopes that the
whole ship wouldn't sink, many of them just completed (LSX, ATF)
or 90% complete (CPRF).
 
-john w. cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: CF effect not "tiny"
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF effect not "tiny"
Date: 17 Jun 93 00:00:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930616220210_72240.1256_EHK40-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Jim Carr writes:
>
>     "The size of the claimed [CF calorimetric] effects, in absolute terms,
>     remains tiny.
>
>In the laboratory in Nice, France, this effect has been replicated dozens of
>times in succession, without failure, at levels of 140 watts (30 watts input)
>and above.......
 
 
 
 
You keep telling us about what they have done, but when they publish a
paper, it is so poorly executed that it raises more questions thn than
it answers.
 
 
From what I have seen, I would have very grave doubts about anything
published by P&F unless I observed the experiment first hand.  And
don't talk to me about video tapes.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Letter from Miles
Date: 16 Jun 93 16:54:02 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
I have just returned from trips out-of-town to find another letter here
to me from Mel Miles, posted by Jed Rothwell.  Miles says:  "These damaging
statements by Professor Jones are outright lies since there are absolutely no
rejected helium measurements in my recent publication (enclosure 3)."
 
I still have a question about this (along with other issues I raised in my
posting here which are not addressed
by the latest Miles letter), and I will respond.  However,
I must be careful:  you see, there are at least two important parts of the
letter that were not posted publicly, but which were included in this letter
which I received by mail today.
 
1.  The letter was addressed to "President Rex E. Lee, D-346, ASB,
Brigham Young University".  President Lee is the current president of BYU.
 
2.  This sentence is in my version of the letter, but was not posted:
"If this serious matter cannot be resolved by this letter, then I will have to
consider other possible actions."
 
What should I do?
 
Are we to the point in this field where scientific criticism is the basis
for lawsuits?  I certainly hope not.  I never accused Dr. Miles of lying as he
does me (above quote).
I did say:          "... the scientific method can be
regarded as a means of overcoming the remarkable human tendency for
self-deception."   (S. Jones, "Reply to Miles; Part 4", 19 May 1993 posting)
 
I worry about it in myself, too.  Is this so bad?
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Tom Simonds /  Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
Originally-From: David Thomas Croft <dtc9h@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Collider
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 03:31:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

From dtc9h@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu  Ukn Jun 16 15:14:01 1993
Return-Path: <dtc9h@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
        id AA00474; Wed, 16 Jun 1993 15:13:59 -0400
Received: from kelvin.seas.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa25141;
          16 Jun 93 15:13 EDT
Received: by kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/1.34)
        id AA18274; Wed, 16 Jun 93 15:13:53 -0400
Originally-From: David Thomas Croft <dtc9h@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
Message-Id: <9306161913.AA18274@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU>
>>
>> You posted
>>
>>
>>
>>   Dots Represent            .  .  <-- <-- <-- <--  Fuel In <-- <-- <--
>>   Containment            .            .          at 99% Speed of Light
>>   Magnets              .                 .
>>   Arranged in a      .                     .
>>   Circle            .                       .
>>                     .       Cyclotron       .
>>                     .                       .
>>                      .                     .
>>                        .                  .
>>                          .              .
>>                             .  .  <-- <-- <-- <--  Fuel In <-- <-- <--
>>
>>
>> FANTASTIC!!!!
>>
>> Ofcourse, I have comments....
>>  (1) Why not two circles as you originally suggested, making more a figure 8?
>>  (2) Why 99 % the speed of light? Let's see 200 keV is probably good enough.
>>  (3) D + D --> He + hv and I think the He will move out with a very great
>>      velocity relative to the sum of the D velocities. But...
>>  (4) F = qvXB for a moving charge in a magnetic field. So the force on the He++
>>      will be greater too.
>>  (5) A magnetic field which will contain a charged particle with velocity v
>>      will disperse like charged particles with velocity -v. So I don't know
>>      about the two way flow. There will also be a problem with keeping the
>>      D+ and He++ from becoming D and He. I suggest having the positive ions
>>      go around in one direction and the negative (ie. e-) going around in
>>      the other. The high relative velocity hopefully will keep all ionized.
>>
>>  The magnetic field along the path for the charged particles can be zero, B = 0.
>>  Off the path fields direct particles back to the path, + in one direction -
>>  in the other.
>>
>>  I really think the `experts' are too accustomed to thinking in the same way.
>>  One problem I see with the scheme though is maintaining vacuum. I'm sure there
>>  are numerous other problems too.
>>
>>  I think that some if not all of the `random' thermal energy can be directed
>>  to translational energy and sent arround the circuit using magnetic fields.
>>  The He++ should be easily seperable from the D+ by an electric field and sent
>>  through electrohydrodynamic generators.
>>
>>  POST THIS IF YOU LIKE.
>>
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentsimonds cudfnTom cudlnSimonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: CF effect not "tiny"
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF effect not "tiny"
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 07:16:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930616220210_72240.1256_EHK40-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>In the laboratory in Nice, France, this effect has been replicated dozens of
>times in succession, without failure, at levels of 140 watts (30 watts input)
>and above. If Dr. Carr thinks that a 140 effect is "tiny" I suggest that he
>perform the following experiment:
 
Tell us Jed, which laboratory is this? Is it your's? How many of these
positive experiments have you witnessed there? Why is it that these
monsterous returns are possible yet a simple paper that covers the bases
isn't?
 
No, if you think that P&F are getting these sorts of returns I strongly
suggest that you sink every penny you have into it. Stop suggesting that
the rest of us do so -- if we did you'd have less return on your money.
 
Jed, this is a completely surefire way of getting unbelievably wealthy.
You can't pass this up. And you should be trying to discourage the rest
of us so that you have a bigger stake in it.
 
>Dr. Carr will please cite references to attempts to scale up the heat,
>including both successes and failures. I am not familiar with any "failures"
>in this area. As far as I know, cells have been scaled up to about 1000 watts
>without difficulty. I am not aware of any attempts to scale up above this
>level.
 
1,000 watts is more than enough to replace the standard household water
heater. This is already a commercial product Jed. Why haven't you
sunk your life savings into it? You could put the power companies out
of business. I say go for it.
 
>Let us please stick to the facts, and not make up statements about "failures"
>to accomplish a task which nobody has ever undertaken. For the purposes of
>scientific experimentation, there is no reason to scale up a CF device beyond
>the levels now used (1 to 1000 watts), so nobody has ever tried to do it.
 
What's more, if you scale it up the measuring errors become so small that
it becomes overly plain to the fund providers that what you have is a
hoax.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 /  cheungwd@esvx1 /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: cheungwd@esvx17.es.dupont.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 08:02:51 GMT
Organization: DuPont (Opinions are those of the writer only)

In article <930614125335.20a004c0@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Tom Simonds suggests a multi-pass fusion collider.  John Cobb and Bruce
>Scott seem to answer back that a one-pass experiment is not efficient.
>
>At Fermilab we store protons and antiprotons for many hours.  We run them
>into each other for many passes, and using the magnetic "pinch" type of
>focusing that Tom suggests.  I could check with someone, but my guess is that
>most get lost to gas interactions, but then we are carefully designed to run
>at very high energy, and to get as close as possible to >>one<< interaction
>per crossing.
>
>Suppose instead we built two "race track" devices and circulated D++?  Hmm!
>I suppose that if it worked, that we would spend more energy pumping the He4
>out of the vacuum chamber than was gained from the fusion.  Still, the straight
>section could be very long (SLACK is over a mile?), and the bunches could
>fill 50% of so of the space, so we might push up the reaction rate a lot.
>Once circulating in the "race tracks" the energy required to keep the particles
>going is not much.
>
>But this would generate a lot of He4, and then the beam would run into that
>before we could pump it out.
>
>So thus the question:
>
>How the heck do they expect a Tokamak to work once the chamber fills up with
>all that He???
>
>Tom Droege
>
 
Hi,
        i am an enthusiast about MHD. Hasn't anyone thought of the possibility
of transmutation from H to He then to heavier elements. centrifugal force would
separate the heavier byproducts like the ring of saturn, then further
interactions could take place at differing layers in the collider. I am
thinking interms of the heavier interactions within certain types of stars.
eventually the byproduct would be a heavy atom or atoms. i am not familiar
with the exact chemical reaction , but only applying chaos mathematics to
solve MHD. eventually the reaction would use up the fuel but some will
be left, heavier, but at least it's like taking the most energy you could
get from the initial fuel. would appreciate a reply if this is possible.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencheungwd cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / David Dalton /  Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of ...h[E]r(T)s---> <---t[R]e(sH)
     
Originally-From: dalton@wrang.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.fractals,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.psychology,s
i.skeptic,sci.environment,can.general,bc.general,ubc.general,comp.ai.fuz
y,sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,talk.environment
Subject: Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of ...h[E]r(T)s---> <---t[R]e(sH)
Date: 17 Jun 93 07:00:57
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada

Here is a whimsical attempt to relate language, physics and life
with a punning poem with many different errors.  Try reading it
in several different ways --- I tried to weave in many language
puns, some math, chemistry and physics, compsci, and stuff about fractals,
environmental problems and mental health.  It sort of is related
to the evolution of language, the food/beer of the dominant part of the
brain, that which lies unused.  I didn't put in any details,
except the naming game that led to the poem, but people can
doubtless find your own fractal takeoff points.  Some comments
at the end.  warm dark Flames (loves) by She-mail to >dalton@geop.ubc.ca<.
I don't want to force my late night views on anyone, but they should
freely cause
                                               ---------
a belly-laugh or two.      Be[a]st red allowed  (-:~:-)
                                                   ^
                                             knife |-----substitute down \/
 
 
         THe S I's    by  preDrDRD
       ---------------------------
            (wROOFe DRAuGght]
 
 
...FrEE_Lancers' G_yNhAME G_naw f/l/NAmiss, NuNe our Never 'n MOreo oo
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     OUIow, the uni-verse, L.whee DRUInk-rD
       aura FU-syZY, G_ee, circle-T  P/ToeMa-knEE
         dense eNFanTime 'round T'Wean dark, from light
            Dis lex 'ick T-waIsted AC-Scent PR-One to M/LIce
                S/B hare, leaf is / all re but-t
             fruit loops chopped, sum bits dropped, sLaphter and PneUNs
             a par fait danSH Z\'est nu f(1)  T fore too
        Chi/me dark to light C/Home light to dark _ sea, ole Port 'eh
 
-------------
[exercise1: Define stoater (dyslexic/drunk, accent, loop chopped, bit dropped):]
       Toke a turn of a fair launchers' dance of naemis?:
STOATER(S) --->
   TOASTER ---->
      heat bread --->
         cool daerb --->
            cool darb  -->
               cool, excellent (band), hot bards --->
                                              fiery braids... Dance
            cool darBy -->
               cold steel --->
                  light [coloUred] metal --->
                      Smith's Wick, [Smithwick's] ---> DANCE...
            cool darby ram
                  smooth devil;
                     live cool;
                         live coal;
               cool to steel sheep,
                       sheep stealer
                          count sheep,
                            sleep stealer, insomniac poet...
               cool  darby rain
                  cool steel rain
                     super Conductor 'cross steel breeze,
                        light(e)ning a_cross --- the radio waves... DANtE
                           Jarre's light harp,
                              jar a [Harp] lager
                                  Harp seal
                                     widow seal
                                        card sharp
                                          TOUTer; STOUTer [Guinness]
                                      STOUTER STOATER-> eSTable dunce
                                   Vitamin ZZZ --> twist
     < z-gz? &  <<----Gaia earth-sun-night...trance
 
                have & helf,  black et tan,
                wHEY t' fur the rigged barE, tinders of nut and dew.
                   onDe leFt le femME noIre BB uRe gidde
                      all weigh fael  sLlabelLs
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
              and it may have some structure looked at through a twist/mirror.
 
 
Quick metaphilosophical comments:
    1.  SETI --- the human race has not been contacted since we have our
          arrow of time and entropy the wrong way around from the rest
          of the universe, and are not in touch with the unused majority
          of our brains.   The few humans with the proper arrow of time
          are the outcasts and mentally ill, whose numbers are increasing.
           To us, society is ok but the universe is mad, to the rest of the
           universe, we are mad and the universe (mostly dark matter)
           is all ok.
 
     2.  There are two fractal threads that are intertwined, each with
            a different arrow of time.   One thread is the dark matter
            portion, accessed during dreamtime, which is travelling
            in reverse time.   The other is that of light matter,
            which is accessed during waking hours, and which we
            are running down by "breathing" in the wrong direction.
 
Time for some sleep, then back to smaller di-fractall scales I hope.
I have more random notes if anyone wants them.   Must learn pranayama.
   i aM AN IC      a man i sea     a ma ease in
 
[substitute your own follow-up group or she-mail me if you like.
   I may add more detail soon, particularly with acoustic diffraction from
   a cylinder mapped to light inside a cylinder cavity]
 
DRD
--
David Dalton ------------------------------ >Dalton@Geop.UBC.Ca< ------
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy,                   (604) 822-2267
  2219 Main Mall, University of British Columbia      fax  822-6047
  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendalton cudfnDavid cudlnDalton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Boson condensates, anyone?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boson condensates, anyone?
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 13:49:55 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <01GZGB3GMIC29PLY9Y@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> Anyone out there with the training to tell me whether this is true or false?
 
Heh.  (Please ignore what follows, I just failed the entrance criteria!...)
 
> I see a paper by RL Liboff, in Phys. Lett. A174 (1993), 317, entitled
> "Feasibility of fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the ground state"...
> ... it suggests that a beam of cool deuterons, which are bosons,  can be
> made to relax into the ground state and will then not only be super-
> conducting at some low temperature, but also - due to "wave-function
> overlap" - have a useful d-d fusion rate...
 
This is an intriguing-sounding paper that I will be sure to look up.  But
even without looking it up, there are some questions that come to mind...
 
 1) How cool is "cool?"  There are some folks right now who are trying to use
    both laser cooling (in one lab) and another sort-of-evaporative technique
    to try to achieve boson condensates of atomic gases.  (It may have been
    H2 (protium), which is also a composite boson, rather than D2.)
 
    They are talking temperatures that _start_ in the 10^-6 K range, and they
    have yet to achieve the condensate state.  Of course a gaseous state is
    much less dense than a solid state solution, so direct comparisons may
    be risky.  (E.g., the heavier but much denser liquid He "goes condensate"
    at the astonishingly high temperature of a couple of degrees K (!!), which
    is to the best of my poor knowledge the upper limit of _atomic_ boson
    condensation phenomena.
 
    If by "cool deuterons" it is meant D instead of D2, this would be an
    intriguing twist on the idea -- but a very difficult one to implement.
    Your density would have to be very low to prevent rapid recombination.
 
 
 2) The part about "wave-function overlap" inducing higher rates of fusion
    is quite contrary to the usual interpretation of such wavefunctions, in
    which the wave model is abandoned in overly close approach of two atoms
    and a traditional gas-like model.  (Barry Merriman once gave a good
    discussion of this point a long, long time ago.)  Overlapping wave-
    functions simply _do not_ act like totally random "gases" of the items
    that are overlapping.  Instead, the energy relationships between those
    objects are maintainted, so that a full description of their relations
    as "particles" cannot be represented in just three dimensions.
 
    Still, though, this is one of those areas where it has been more of a
    "tradition" to invoke the standard particle model than a detailed proof,
    so if Dr. Liboff has some kind of specific _mathematical_ analysis of
    this kind of superposition that indicates something interesting might
    go on, I would certainly think it would be worth taking a look at.
 
    Incidentally, if the _only_ issue is whether the wavefunctions overlap
    (versus, say, same-state condensate effects ), then you really don't
    need boson condensates.  Just as fermion electrons have overlapping
    wavefunctions in metals, a similar effect should apply to media such as
    Pd that "dissolve" D2 efficiently.  The main difference is that in such
    higher-temperature overlaps the different atoms can be distinguished by
    different momenta (versus the identical momenta of condensate atoms.)
 
 
> I can't judge whether this is at all relevant to solid state cold fusion
> but it occurs to me that the sea of deuterons in PdD might fulfill the
> conditions of this paper, and that the paper thus might have a theory of
> cold fusion.
 
The main issue (_if condensation, vs. "just overlap," is critical_) is going
to be temperature, temperature, temperature.  The idea of an atomic boson
condensate forming at room temperature is to me absolutely mind-boggling,
much more so than the idea of "cold fusion" per se.  At least a ball-park
quantification of what "mind-boggling" means numerically should be possible
using the type of boson effect analysis Feynman gives in Volume III of his
lectures, for anyone really interested.  (My mind is already too boggled by
it to get my fretter fretting much over the idea.  The liquid He example is
instructive, and there are no obvious compensating factors in the D-in-Pd
case to make it appear more favorable.)
 
Chubb-Chubb would at any rate be the relevant reference for the D in Pd case,
as that is very much the approach they took if I recall correctly -- room
temperature boson condensates of D in Pd.
 
> ... It has no cold fusion references, and seems to ignore cold fusion
> totally...
 
... Meaning they may have learned the same lesson Steve Jones learned the
hard way with the tritium-from-volcanoes draft to Nature...  :)
 
> Should the paper go into the bibliography as a cnf theory, or not?
 
I'd sure vote "yes."  It's cold, it's radical, and it's (proposed) fusion.
Not to mention that is sounds like an interesting paper.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / David Dalton /  Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of the ...h[E]r(T)s..
     
Originally-From: dalton@epoch.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.fractals,sci.physics,soc.culture.celtic,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.psychology,sci.skeptic,sci.environmen
,talk.environment,talk.religion.newage,alt.meditation,alt.atheism,alt.be
r,alt.messianic,alt.paranormal,alt.sex,can.general,bc.general,ubc.genera
,comp.ai.fuzzy,alt.feminism
Subject: Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of the ...h[E]r(T)s..
Date: 17 Jun 93 06:37:51
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada

Here is a whimsical attempt to relate language, physics and life
with a punning poem with many different errors.  Try reading it
in several different ways --- I tried to weave in many language
puns, some math, chemistry and physics, compsci, and stuff about fractals,
environmental problems and mental health.  It sort of is related
to the evolution of language, the food/beer of the dominant part of the
brain, that which lies unused.  I didn't put in any details,
except the naming game that led to the poem, but people can
doubtless find your own fractal takeoff points.  Some comments
at the end.  warm dark Flames (loves) by She-mail to >dalton@geop.ubc.ca<.
I don't want to force my late night views on anyone, but they should
freely cause
                                               ---------
a belly-laugh or two.      Be[a]st red allowed  (-:~:-)
                                                   ^
                                             knife |-----substitute down \/
 
 
         THe S I's    by  preDrDRD
       ---------------------------
            (wROOFe DRAuGght]
 
 
...FrEE_Lancers' G_yNhAME G_naw f/l/NAmiss, NuNe our Never 'n MOreo oo
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     OUIow, the uni-verse, L.whee DRUInk-rD
       aura FU-syZY, G_ee, circle-T  P/ToeMa-knEE
         dense eNFanTime 'round T'Wean dark, from light
            Dis lex 'ick T-waIsted AC-Scent PR-One to M/LIce
                S/B hare, leaf is / all re but-t
             fruit loops chopped, sum bits dropped, sLaphter and PneUNs
             a par fait danSH Z\'est nu f(1)  T fore too
        Chi/me dark to light C/Home light to dark _ sea, ole Port 'eh
 
-------------
[exercise1: Define stoater (dyslexic/drunk, accent, loop chopped, bit dropped):]
       Toke a turn of a fair launchers' dance of naemis?:
STOATER(S) --->
   TOASTER ---->
      heat bread --->
         cool daerb --->
            cool darb  -->
               cool, excellent (band), hot bards --->
                                              fiery braids... Dance
            cool darBy -->
               cold steel --->
                  light [coloUred] metal --->
                      Smith's Wick, [Smithwick's] ---> DANCE...
            cool darby ram
                  smooth devil;
                     live cool;
                         live coal;
               cool to steel sheep,
                       sheep stealer
                          count sheep,
                            sleep stealer, insomniac poet...
               cool  darby rain
                  cool steel rain
                     super Conductor 'cross steel breeze,
                        light(e)ning a_cross --- the radio waves... DANtE
                           Jarre's light harp,
                              jar a [Harp] lager
                                  Harp seal
                                     widow seal
                                        card sharp
                                          TOUTer; STOUTer [Guinness]
                                      STOUTER STOATER-> eSTable dunce
                                   Vitamin ZZZ --> twist
     < z-gz? &  <<----Gaia earth-sun-night...trance
 
                have & helf,  black et tan,
                wHEY t' fur the rigged barE, tinders of nut and dew.
                   onDe leFt le femME noIre BB uRe gidde
                      all weigh fael  sLlabelLs
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
              and it may have some structure looked at through a twist/mirror.
 
 
Quick metaphilosophical comments:
    1.  SETI --- the human race has not been contacted since we have our
          arrow of time and entropy the wrong way around from the rest
          of the universe, and are not in touch with the unused majority
          of our brains.   The few humans with the proper arrow of time
          are the outcasts and mentally ill, whose numbers are increasing.
           To us, society is ok but the universe is mad, to the rest of the
           universe, we are mad and the universe (mostly dark matter)
           is all ok.
 
     2.  There are two fractal threads that are intertwined, each with
            a different arrow of time.   One thread is the dark matter
            portion, accessed during dreamtime, which is travelling
            in reverse time.   The other is that of light matter,
            which is accessed during waking hours, and which we
            are running down by "breathing" in the wrong direction.
 
Time for some sleep, then back to smaller di-fractall scales I hope.
I have more random notes if anyone wants them.   Must learn pranayama.
   i aM AN IC      a man i sea     a ma ease in
--
David Dalton ------------------------------ >Dalton@Geop.UBC.Ca< ------
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy,                   (604) 822-2267
  2219 Main Mall, University of British Columbia      fax  822-6047
  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendalton cudfnDavid cudlnDalton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / David Dalton /  Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of the ...h[E]r(T)s..
     
Originally-From: dalton@epoch.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.fractals,sci.physics,soc.culture.celtic,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.psychology,sci.skeptic,sci.environmen
,talk.environment,talk.religion.newage,alt.meditation,alt.atheism,alt.be
r,alt.messianic,alt.paranormal,alt.sex,can.general,bc.general,ubc.genera
,comp.ai.fuzzy,alt.feminism
Subject: Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of the ...h[E]r(T)s..
Date: 17 Jun 93 06:37:51
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada

Here is a whimsical attempt to relate language, physics and life
with a punning poem with many different errors.  Try reading it
in several different ways --- I tried to weave in many language
puns, some math, chemistry and physics, compsci, and stuff about fractals,
environmental problems and mental health.  It sort of is related
to the evolution of language, the food/beer of the dominant part of the
brain, that which lies unused.  I didn't put in any details,
except the naming game that led to the poem, but people can
doubtless find your own fractal takeoff points.  Some comments
at the end.  warm dark Flames (loves) by She-mail to >dalton@geop.ubc.ca<.
I don't want to force my late night views on anyone, but they should
freely cause
                                               ---------
a belly-laugh or two.      Be[a]st red allowed  (-:~:-)
                                                   ^
                                             knife |-----substitute down \/
 
 
         THe S I's    by  preDrDRD
       ---------------------------
            (wROOFe DRAuGght]
 
 
...FrEE_Lancers' G_yNhAME G_naw f/l/NAmiss, NuNe our Never 'n MOreo oo
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     OUIow, the uni-verse, L.whee DRUInk-rD
       aura FU-syZY, G_ee, circle-T  P/ToeMa-knEE
         dense eNFanTime 'round T'Wean dark, from light
            Dis lex 'ick T-waIsted AC-Scent PR-One to M/LIce
                S/B hare, leaf is / all re but-t
             fruit loops chopped, sum bits dropped, sLaphter and PneUNs
             a par fait danSH Z\'est nu f(1)  T fore too
        Chi/me dark to light C/Home light to dark _ sea, ole Port 'eh
 
-------------
[exercise1: Define stoater (dyslexic/drunk, accent, loop chopped, bit dropped):]
       Toke a turn of a fair launchers' dance of naemis?:
STOATER(S) --->
   TOASTER ---->
      heat bread --->
         cool daerb --->
            cool darb  -->
               cool, excellent (band), hot bards --->
                                              fiery braids... Dance
            cool darBy -->
               cold steel --->
                  light [coloUred] metal --->
                      Smith's Wick, [Smithwick's] ---> DANCE...
            cool darby ram
                  smooth devil;
                     live cool;
                         live coal;
               cool to steel sheep,
                       sheep stealer
                          count sheep,
                            sleep stealer, insomniac poet...
               cool  darby rain
                  cool steel rain
                     super Conductor 'cross steel breeze,
                        light(e)ning a_cross --- the radio waves... DANtE
                           Jarre's light harp,
                              jar a [Harp] lager
                                  Harp seal
                                     widow seal
                                        card sharp
                                          TOUTer; STOUTer [Guinness]
                                      STOUTER STOATER-> eSTable dunce
                                   Vitamin ZZZ --> twist
     < z-gz? &  <<----Gaia earth-sun-night...trance
 
                have & helf,  black et tan,
                wHEY t' fur the rigged barE, tinders of nut and dew.
                   onDe leFt le femME noIre BB uRe gidde
                      all weigh fael  sLlabelLs
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
              and it may have some structure looked at through a twist/mirror.
 
 
Quick metaphilosophical comments:
    1.  SETI --- the human race has not been contacted since we have our
          arrow of time and entropy the wrong way around from the rest
          of the universe, and are not in touch with the unused majority
          of our brains.   The few humans with the proper arrow of time
          are the outcasts and mentally ill, whose numbers are increasing.
           To us, society is ok but the universe is mad, to the rest of the
           universe, we are mad and the universe (mostly dark matter)
           is all ok.
 
     2.  There are two fractal threads that are intertwined, each with
            a different arrow of time.   One thread is the dark matter
            portion, accessed during dreamtime, which is travelling
            in reverse time.   The other is that of light matter,
            which is accessed during waking hours, and which we
            are running down by "breathing" in the wrong direction.
 
Time for some sleep, then back to smaller di-fractall scales I hope.
I have more random notes if anyone wants them.   Must learn pranayama.
   i aM AN IC      a man i sea     a ma ease in
--
David Dalton ------------------------------ >Dalton@Geop.UBC.Ca< ------
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy,                   (604) 822-2267
  2219 Main Mall, University of British Columbia      fax  822-6047
  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendalton cudfnDavid cudlnDalton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF effect not "tiny"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF effect not "tiny"
Date: 17 Jun 93 13:49:15 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930616220210_72240.1256_EHK40-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>Jim Carr writes:
>
>     "The size of the claimed [CF calorimetric] effects, in absolute terms,
>     remains tiny.
>
>In the laboratory in Nice, France, this effect has been replicated dozens of
>times in succession, without failure, at levels of 140 watts (30 watts input)
 
That is the laboratory of P&F, correct?
 
Their published paper did not describe any experiment with such a claim.
If they have such results and choose not to publish them, that is their
own business, but I have no way of "knowing" about such results.  The
Physics Letter describes several different experiments that all produce
in milli-watt amounts of power.
 
>He also writes:
>
>     "The failure to scale up the amount of heat produced is the biggest
>     shortcoming to date."
>
>Dr. Carr will please cite references to attempts to scale up the heat,
 
My reference is the recent Physics Letter A by Pons and Fleischman where
they state quite clearly that the (relative) gain is biggest for the
smallest samples, and where the percentage gain is not much different,
perhaps even less depending on how you choose your reference point, from
the results in their first paper.
 
I would have been quite happy to see a paper by P&F that described an
experimental protocol that could be followed and result in 100 watts out
for 30 watts input, sustained, so that there would be a reason to revive
the experimental program into CF here.  I have not seen such a paper
in any refereed journal we can get our hands on here.
 
I am still waiting, years later, to see the promised commercial water heater.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Sandra Chang /  Canadian TV show on CF
     
Originally-From: retentiv@athena.mit.edu (Sandra Chang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Canadian TV show on CF
Date: 17 Jun 1993 14:56:15 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

just viewed CBC upcoming (june 24) half-hour documentary on
The Secret Life of Cold Fusion. While it defintely put a
pro- Pons and Fleischman spin on things, it wasn't as biased
as I expected. Maddoxx, Close, and Koonin are all interviewed.
BAsic thrust: CF isn't dead b/c so  many people are still
spending money trying it.
 
Second thrust: the excess heat phenomenom is NOT fusion, but an
unspecified chemically induced nuclear reaction (????) J. Viget pushed
a two-tiered phenomenon, in which you get more excess heat and nuclear
products by dramatically increasing current. The more usual first-tier
would only provide moderate energy, he suggests--enough to do
lots of things but not enough for industry.
 
HAd some great shots of Mckubre amd P&F's labs. One thng I found
unacceptable was the show's handling of Riley's death. They allow the
viewer to believe that the energy cells were so powerful that they
exploded (They do a clever cut of a Mckubre interview to highlight
that idea). My understanding is that explosion had nothing to
do with the energy production of the cell.
 
In any case, an enjoyable half-hour romp into the bizarre world of CF
 
--jt
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenretentiv cudfnSandra cudlnChang cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Richard Schultz /  Another question about hydrinos
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another question about hydrinos
Date: 17 Jun 93 15:46:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
My last questions about hydrinos went unanswered and apparently unnoticed, but
I'm trying again anyway.
 
Let's assume that you want to prepare "sub-quantum" H atoms.  Couldn't you
simply bathe them in X-rays of the appropriate frequency?  Assuming a non-
zero transition probability (more on that later), then you start with a
huge population excess, since all of the atoms are starting from normal
quantum states.  Wouldn't the X-rays then stimulate emision down to the
appropriate "sub-quantum" state?  And you'd have an instant X-Ray laser
without having to use a messy synchroton or anything.
 
Of course, if hv for the n=1 to n<1 transition is >13.6 eV, then you'd have
a problem, but I think that's a problem that's been addressed already.
 
I admit that complex analysis is not really my bag.  But shouldn't you be
able to calculate the transition moment integral of [Psi(a)*] (x) [Psi(b)]?
(x is the electric dipole operator).  What does the integral of the product
of two Dirac deltas look like anyway?  If it blows up or is exactly zero, then
we've got a problem with the F&M theory; if it converges, then you have a
testable prediction right there.  And since it's a one-electron atom, you
should be able to solve it exactly.
 
Or am I missing something?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Two Replies
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two Replies
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 17:41:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I made a mistake and peeked at my email.  So ....
 
Terry Bollinger, terry@asl.dl.nec.com, writes in FD 1111 in response to my
question "The Schrodinger 1s wave function is non-zero at the nucleus (in
fact, it is a maximum at the nucleus!)...
 
>Not in any QM text I've ever seen.  They all show the expectation (psi*psi)
>of the 1s (n=1, l=0) Schroedinger wavefunction, as being not maximal, but
>very, very close to zero:
>
>
>  P(r) 0.5 +         _
>           |       -   -
>       0.4 +     -      -
>           |    -         -
>       0.3 +   -            -
>           |  -               -
>       0.2 + -                  -
>           | -                    -
>       0.1 +-                       -
>           |-                          -  _
>       0.0 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---=-+-=---+-----+-----+-----+-
>           0                             5                            10
>                   r (in units of r0)
 
Sorry, Terry, this is incorrect.  You have a plot of the relative
probability of the electron being in a spherical shell volume element with
radius r.  That is, your plot is
 
 4 pi r^2 (R(n = 1))^2
 
The reason this function goes to zero is *not* because the wave function
goes to zero.  This function goes to zero because the *volume element* goes
to zero as r approaches zero.
 
The Schrodinger wave function for n = 1 is
 
1/(pi^0.5)  (1/ao^1.5)  e^-(r/ao)
 
As you can see, this function is a maximum at r = 0.  My question stands.
Why isn't the potential energy, as given by Coulombs law, infinite?
Furthermore,  don't you regard it as unusual that the maximum value for the
wave function for the electron is in the center of the nucleus?
 
>Speaking of those synchronous components that travel with the speed of light,
>the situation is considerably worse than that, and more bizarre.  QED (from
>which both Schroedinger's and Dirac's equations can be derived as special
>cases) uses diagrams of this sort:
>
>
>    /|\   \         /            / - electron
>     |     \_ _ _ _/
>   time    / ^ ^ ^ \             _
>          /         \             ^ - photon
>
>        space --->
>
>
>The above corresponds to a photon traveling at _infinite_ speed.
>
>It gets worse.  The electrons (or photons) can also travel _backwards_ in
>time, at which point they become what we call "positrons."  The same result
>can be -- and was -- derived from Dirac's relativistic wave equation, which
>first led to the prediction of the positron.  Special relativity plays havoc
>with standard concepts of time in such diagrams.
 
I don't believe that anything travels backward in time.  Sorry.  Nice
science fiction--bad science.
 
>The integral of this simple constant expectation function is infinite, and
>thus cannot be normalized.  However, normalization of the infinite radius
>case can be approached with arbitrary closeness by making the expectation
>constant b into an expectation function b(p0) that normalizes to 1 the
>volume of a momentum space sphere of radius p0:
 
Why are you making the energy calculation so difficult?  The electric field
of a spherical surface is zero inside the sphere and outside the sphere
(for n = 1; r = ao)
 
EF  =  -e/(4 pi eo r^2)        r > ao
 
and the kinetic energy (which is equal to the stored electric energy) (see
Purcell, E. M., Electricity and Magnetism, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965, p
49) is
 
KE  =  E(stored electric energy)  =
 
               -(1/2) eo   INTEGRAL(r = ao,infinity; theta= 0, pi; phi = 0,
2 pi) of ((EF^2  dV)
 
 =  -(1/2) eo INTEGRAL of ((EF^2  r^2 sin(theta) dtheta dphi dr)
 
= -(e^2/8 pi eo)  INTEGRAL(r = ao,infinity) of ((1/r^2) dr)
 
=  e^2/8 pi eo ao  =  13.6 eV  =  KE (of the electron)
 
It's not hard.  Consider an electron (plane wave at r = infinity).  As it
approaches a proton 13.6 eV of stored electric energy of the electron is
annihilated and the same amount (same integral) of field of the proton is
annihilated.  That is, a total of 27.2 eV of electric field is annihilated;
the electron gains 13.6 eV as kinetic energy and 13.6 eV is radiated as a
photon.  (By the way, for those who have been following the effective
charge argument, this is related to the notion that  27.2 eV of electric
field is the equivalent of unit charge in this hydrogen-atom system.)
 
 
Matt Kennel writes in FD 1107
 
>What is the boundary condition for the fields at the surface of
>the 'orbitsphere'?  Conventional resonator cavities are composed of
>conducting material.  How does that work microscopically?
 
At this point you might want to think of the orbitsphere as a
superconductor.  As a matter of fact, this is how Mills and I got into this
business.  Mills and I were talking about superconductors--particularly,
so-called high-temperature superconductors.  I said that nature provided
superconductors at millions of degrees.  I noted that the ring electrons of
benzene travel throughout the molecule forever and encounter no resistance,
and that the electron in a hydrogen atom is a superconductor.  That got
Mills thinking about why don't these electrons lose energy (radiate).  He
remembered a concept published by one of his teachers in the graduate EE
department at MIT, Herman Haus--that accelerated charged particles radiate
if they have Fourier components synchronous with the speed of light.  We
were off and running at that point.
 
Farrell: It is well known that trapped photons in resonator cavities give
rise to
surface charge.
 
>*If* the conducting surface of the cavity is grounded---i.e. attached
>to an external supply of free charges that can move around easily.
 
A free hydrogen atom is not grounded.
 
>If the conductor is isolated, of course, the total net surface charge will
>remain constant.
 
Well, maybe or maybe not.  Depends on how you look at it.
 
>I have no idea how a microscopic 'orbitsphere' corresponds to either of
>these two cases.
 
 
>How do E fields 'behave' as charge?
>(Ignore virtual pair creation at very high energies for now)
>Classically E fields can *move* charge. That's what happens
>on a conductor.  But create charge?
 
Well, think about it.  (Don't bother to look it up somewhere--you are not
going to find the answer.)  You agree, I take it, that a trapped photon
will *move* charge.  How does the electric field of a trapped photon do
that (in a resonator cavity or in an orbitsphere)?  Answer: the electric
field of the trapped photon is *behaves* as charge.  In this case, for an
electron in the n = 2 state, the trapped photon must have its electric
field (stationary state) such that they (in effect) cancel some of the
electric field lines of the proton.  As I said before, in order to have the
centrifugal and Coulombic forces in balance the *effective* nuclear charge
must be +e/2. (Alternatively, one can think of the surface charge as being
-e for the electron and +e/2 for the trapped photon, that is, the electron
having an *effective* charge as -e/2.)  It is hard for me to ignore pair
production--an oscillating electric field becomes an electron and a
positron (not by magic I presume).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Boson condensates, anyone? / Terry does it again...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boson condensates, anyone? / Terry does it again...
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 16:23:53 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Well shoot.
 
I saw William Bernecky's very interesting looking posting yesterday, and was
interested enough that I put it off to a special file to look it over in
detail.  Only I forgot to give it a thorough initial scan...
 
I now see that it is entirely about the boson issue!  I just wanted to let
everyone know that my comments earlier today were _exclusively_ about the
Liboff paper as described by Dieter, and that I in no way meant them to be
some sort of round-about critique of (Mr./Dr.) Bernecky's posting from the
day before.  Quite the contrary -- I look forward to going over his ideas in
considerable detail, as I for one have been highly impressed by his previous
entries and all the homework he has clearly done.
 
(But far must come to fetch -- and that temperature issue won't go away very
easily during the fetching (critiquing) phase.  Bosonic farfetchers beware!)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  New Experiment Started
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Experiment Started
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 18:52:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #1 Cell 4A5
 
William R. Bernecky put up a long note.  Temperature is important.  OK, we
will try anything.  The apparatus was taken out of moth balls, and fired up.
Everything still worked.  Well, almost everything.  The old Everex has lost
its disk directory or something.  It will not load command.com, but I can
still read the program (and have many back ups) so the software was
transferred to the A disk, and I am running from there.  These new-fangled
gismos (hard disks) just don't have the stuff of those good o'l reliable
floppies.  I note the Everex disk died about the same time that Everex went
bankrupt.  And I was a stockholder!  My stockbroker then called up an noted
that the company he was recommending (Exabyte) had bought out the assets of
Everx and I should buy Exabyte.  So I did.  And it is going down.  I have had
very poor results buying electronic stocks.  It is a good thing I jumped into
Three Mile Island (at 4 1/2) and all those other nuclear disaster stocks on
which I have made a filthy profit.  On the other hand the Everex fan which
seemed to be in terminal death rattle mode two years ago has quieted down (or
stopped).
 
To all you out there running those screen saver programs, I know why you do
it, and it is not to save the screen.  The color monitor has been displaying
mostly the same numbers in the same format since about June of 89.  If I put
up a white screen, I can barely see a purple blur where the bright yellow
number sits.  Whoever engineers the screens for color monitors, I salute you.
Screen savers are an insult to the superb job of engineering done on the
screen phosphors.
 
In any case, we are now calibrating at zero cell current, and will shortly
load up the cathode and try temperature scans.
 
Thanks in advance to all who would offer help on my disk problem.  I know I
likely just need to format it.  Too many power failures at the wrong time.  I
think particlarly deadly is allowing the UPS to run down as that insures a
long period of flaky power.  I am a minimalist, and since I don't need the
hard disk (except when developing the software) I am glad to strip it out of
the system.
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / John Moore /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 16:51:14 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
]I still have a question about this (along with other issues I raised in my
]posting here which are not addressed
]by the latest Miles letter), and I will respond.  However,
]I must be careful:  you see, there are at least two important parts of the
]letter that were not posted publicly, but which were included in this letter
]which I received by mail today.
 
]1.  The letter was addressed to "President Rex E. Lee, D-346, ASB,
]Brigham Young University".  President Lee is the current president of BYU.
 
]2.  This sentence is in my version of the letter, but was not posted:
]"If this serious matter cannot be resolved by this letter, then I will have to
]consider other possible actions."
 
]What should I do?
 
I'd be tempted to ignore anyone who does this. Anyone who starts
threatening during scientific communications should not subsequently be taken
seriously (as a scientist) by anyone. Certainly such threats reduce their
credibility on the related scientific topic to zero.
 
If you want to risk it and try and keep scientific integrity in this
subject (something you should be congratulated for so far), keep on
responding like you have. He might make good on his threat, and sue you.
He'd no doubt lose (he has to prove both that you were wrong in your
statment and that you made the statement with malice), but who wants to pay
the blood-suckers.... err, I mean lawyers?
 
On the other hand, you could either sue him or prosecute him for blackmail
because he included that statement in his letter!
 
Me, I'd just ignore his childish action.
 
]Are we to the point in this field where scientific criticism is the basis
]for lawsuits?  I certainly hope not.  I never accused Dr. Miles of lying as he
]does me (above quote).
]I did say:          "... the scientific method can be
]regarded as a means of overcoming the remarkable human tendency for
]self-deception."   (S. Jones, "Reply to Miles; Part 4", 19 May 1993 posting)
 
]I worry about it in myself, too.  Is this so bad?
What you said is true and non-slanderous. Why worry about it?
 
[hint: I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied the thinking of the
despicable profession :-)]
--
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:
cuddy17 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Joshua Levy /  Re: CF effect not "tiny"
     
Originally-From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF effect not "tiny"
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 17:14:09 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>No, if you think that P&F are getting these sorts of returns I strongly
>suggest that you sink every penny you have into it. Stop suggesting that
>the rest of us do so -- if we did you'd have less return on your money.
 
In addition to Thomas Kunich's suggestions, I would also suggest that you,
and most other people on sci.physics.fusion, read the book HUCKSTERS AND
CON MEN by Nash.  It is a lot of fun to read, and very informitive as well.
It's got a chapter on "scientific" fraud.  (Which I put in quotes because
it is about using science to defaud people, not about fraud in science,
although the two are similar.)
 
Note: this posting in no way implies that I think that P&F (or anyone else)
is engaged in economic fraud.  I do think there is a lot to be learned about
human nature from reading a book on con men (and their suckers), and I think
many of those same lessions help understand the CF saga.
 
Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Minor clarification
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Minor clarification
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 21:18:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones wrote:
 
     "I have just returned from trips out-of-town to find another letter here
     to me from Mel Miles, posted by Jed Rothwell...
 
     I still have a question about this.. and I will respond.  However, I must
     be careful:  you see, there are at least two important parts of the
     letter that were not posted publicly..."
 
A minor clarification here: I posted the full, exact and complete letter that
was sent to me. Steve is apparently talking about a different version, with
additional statements in it. Steve said this in passing, but I wanted to make
it clear to all readers.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 19:11:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>Anyone who starts threatening [legal action] during scientific communications
>should not subsequently be taken seriously (as a scientist) by anyone.
 
I myself don't happen to agree that there should be libel and slander laws,
but since they do exist, one has to take some care to avoid stepping over
the line and falling within the scope of those laws -- repulsive as they
may be to some of us.  It is a political/ethical question, and not really
a scientific question.
 
Therefore the best course of action for those who want to avoid such
sticky situations is to critize the data, and not the man.  I think some
of the anti-CF camp are a little too quick to engage in slurs against
CF researchers, and then when the CF researchers respond angrily, the
anti-CF attackers feign an wounded innocense.
 
Good manners and good legal sense would suggest that one *never* engage
in ad hominem (to the man) style of argument.  Confine oneself to the
facts, and let the other person's personality speak for itself.
 
>On the other hand, you could either sue him or prosecute him for blackmail
>because he included that statement in his letter!
 
Actually, it is generally considered a *requirement* to inform people that
further questionable behavior would be met with legal action.  Otherwise
the defense can claim that you waived your rights by not asserting them
in a timely manner.  It's never blackmail, then, to threaten legal action.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Les Earnest /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 20:13:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
   2.  This sentence is in my version of the letter, but was not posted:
   If this serious matter cannot be resolved by this letter, then I
   will have to consider other possible actions."
 
   What should I do?
 
Speaking as a non-lawyer who has nevertheless both sued and been sued
(but never lost) and been an expert witness in several trials, I
recommend continuing to "tell it like it is" regardless of the price,
but make sure that you can afford it.  It is an unfortunate fact that
our legal system works fairly only for those with adequate financial
resources.  An adversary may be more tempted to try to intimidate you
if he thinks that you are not in a position to defend yourself.
 
For this reason I carry an extra $1 million in liability insurance as
a floater on top of my homeowners policy, which costs somewhere
between $100 and $200 per year.  For me that is a reasonable price to
pay to insure my freedom of speech.  Your milage may vary.
--
Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305        Fax:  415 941-3934
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  All hydrogen excited?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: All hydrogen excited?
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 22:36:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz points up yet another flaw in the Mills-Farrell hydrinoo
theory.  What is it that keeps all the hydrogen in the universe from
decaying from that metastable exited state ( -13.6 ev ) that we used
to call the ground state?  Don't tell me its because the only way you
can induce the transitions is to put the hydrogen into some particular
chemical soup.  If Mills is such a hot-shot entrepreneur he ought to
be building X-ray lasers and all sorts of good stuff as Richard
suggests.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 17 Jun 1993 17:47:19 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
: |> If one could "somehow" increase the fraction over thermal of particularly high
: |> energy particles---the only ones that fuse---one could increase
: |> the fusion rate without a necessarily large amount of increased total
: |> energy.
:
: High-energy particles also get lost faster (peruse the literature on
: runaway confinement, eg, the review by Wooton et al in Phys Fluids B,
: vol 2, 2879 for the exptl results -- beware conventl wisdom on the interps),
: so the confinement will go to pot (fast particles carry the energy, too).
 
Yes, of course; you have to check everything out.
 
My vague memory of QM seems to suggest that tunneling probabilities
(and thus fusion, right?) increases very quickly with increasing energy
once you get in the right regime; how fast does loss of the really
high energy particles screw you up?
 
: One needs to specify whether one means velocity-space or configuration-
: space equilibrium. Assuming you mean velocity-space equilibrium, you
: have to find better ways than we now know to face the issue of selective
: loss of fast particles.
 
The relevant parameter being loss of "fusible" high-energy nuclei's
kinetic energy vs. the fusion energy of such high-energy particles.
 
I understand how confinement gets even harder but I was hoping that
the exponential factors in fusion rate can get over this.
 
: |> Any ideas for a very 'non-equilibrium' fusion reactor?
: |> (e.g. stochastic particle acceleration via nonlinear dynamics?)
:
: Let's hear what John Cobb has to say on this. You can get the stochastic
: particle acceleration, but you have to stop the stochasticity from losing
: you all your energy.
 
Maybe you can tolerate an overall lower average energy (but who cares about
that?) if you have enough in the tails to increase fusion.
 
: Don't give up. These ideas are not as dead as the mainstream think they
: are. An example of a good (configuration-space) non-equilibrium idea is
: the high-density imploding z-pinch which got cancelled in 1989. Bad, bad
: decision, in my mind.
 
Politics over science, no doubt.  Just like the SSC and the space station:
I don't even consider those 'science' projects any more.
 
: --
: 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
 
--
-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:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / David Croft /  molecular dynamics
     
Originally-From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: molecular dynamics
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 20:33:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

I have a chemical engineering background and have a casual
interest in magnetic fusion. Chemical engineers sometimes
do "molecular dynamics" simulations. Can anyone give me a
good reference discusing a molecular dynamics-like simulation
of a plasma subject to a magnetic field? How are electron-proton
interactions handled? How is energy loss do to radiation treated?
How relyable are the predictions? etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendtc9h cudfnDavid cudlnCroft cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / David Croft /  fruit
     
Originally-From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fruit
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 20:24:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

A fusion question from a lay person: What is a banana and what
other fruit are plasma physicists concerned with?
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendtc9h cudfnDavid cudlnCroft cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / T Neustaedter /  Re:  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: tarl@persian.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Letter from Miles
Date: 18 Jun 1993 01:57:36 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1993Jun16.165402.710@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>[...]
>2.  This sentence is in my version of the letter, but was not posted:
>"If this serious matter cannot be resolved by this letter, then I will have to
>consider other possible actions."
>[...]
>Are we to the point in this field where scientific criticism is the basis
>for lawsuits?
 
Along with the $5e6 lawsuit going on in Italy, the above worries....
 
I think we've conclusively proven that CF generates money, regardless of
whether P&F deuterated palladium generates excess heat.
        Tarl
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Mike Jamison /  Re: fruit
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fruit
Date: 17 Jun 1993 18:51 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <C8s8p5.1sx@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes...
>A fusion question from a lay person: What is a banana and what
>other fruit are plasma physicists concerned with?
 
Baseballs.  Don't know what a banana is, apart from the fruit, but the
baseball magnets are used on the ends of linear reactors (they're called
that because the windings look like the stitching on a baseball).
 
Though I hear that funding for linear devices is (has?) winding down, so
they won't be a concern for much longer...
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Oh shoot
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oh shoot
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 06:54:27 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <01GZHIEWL1B60029I4@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
> I made a mistake and peeked at my email.  So ....
>
> Terry Bollinger, terry@asl.dl.nec.com, writes in FD 1111 in response to my
> question "The Schrodinger 1s wave function is non-zero at the nucleus (in
> fact, it is a maximum at the nucleus!)...
>
> | Not in any QM text I've ever seen.  They all show the expectation (psi*psi)
> | of the 1s (n=1, l=0) Schroedinger wavefunction, as being not maximal, but
> | very, very close to zero:
> ...
>
> Sorry, Terry, this is incorrect.  You have a plot of the relative probability
> of the electron being in a spherical shell volume element with radius r.
 
BOINK!
 
Dead right, sir, and my apologies.  I did not mean to try and slip in a fast
one, but was taking "maximal at the nucleus" as meaning "most likely to be
found there than at any other location."  It is not -- I do assume you agree
with the implications of P(r) on that point? -- but P(r) is not psi*psi,
which was what I stated.  It is the integral of psi*psi over an "onion skin"
of dr thickness, as you have described.
 
> The reason this function goes to zero is *not* because the wave function
> goes to zero.  This function goes to zero because the *volume element* goes
> to zero as r approaches zero.
 
You mean, say, as r approaches 10^-15m or so?  Again, while it is not zero,
the expectation for finding the electron _in_ the nucleus is very low indeed.
 
> The Schrodinger wave function for n = 1 is
>
> 1/(pi^0.5)  (1/ao^1.5)  e^-(r/ao)
>
> As you can see, this function is a maximum at r = 0...
 
Bonk again.  Yes, the node is located at r=0 for n=1, and as far as amplitude
goes it most definitely _is_ maximal there.  (A reference for those who are
interested: David Bohm's _Quantum Theory_, section 15.13, middle of first
paragraph -- p. 348 in the paperback edition.)
 
> ... My question stands.  Why isn't the potential energy, as given by
> Coulombs law, infinite?
 
Sorry, no bonk this time.  If you are "tolerating" Schroedinger for the sake
of argument, you can't just suddenly drop both the Born interpretation _and_
the need to integrate over the entire wavefunction just so you can say "the
_amplitude_ is maximal there -- so that is where the electron is!"  I think
you know that -- so why argue it as if you don't?
 
> Furthermore,  don't you regard it as unusual that the maximum value for the
> wave function for the electron is in the center of the nucleus?
 
Why?  It's a nice place to drop into if you happen to have a negative charge.
 
More seriously, I could try:  "Many decades of noodling around with such
electron and proton accelerators keeps coming up with data showing that you
_don't_ get infinite energy when you slam an electron into a proton."  But
would you accept such an assertion at face value, or not?  I suspect not.
 
If you _do_ accept such an assertion, then you probably already know that
the Schoedinger/Born methods of interpretation work quite nicely for coming
up with actual predictions as to what will happen in such cases.  Certainly
people like John Bell seemed to have no complaints with the fundamental
scheme -- and he literally made a living out of making such calculations.
 
> ...
>
> | It gets worse.  The electrons (or photons) can also travel _backwards_ in
> | time, at which point they become what we call "positrons."  The same result
> | can be -- and was -- derived from Dirac's relativistic wave equation, which
> | first led to the prediction of the positron.  Special relativity plays havoc
> | with standard concepts of time in such diagrams.
>
> I don't believe that anything travels backward in time.  Sorry.  Nice
> science fiction--bad science.
 
Heh!  Don't fret, I'm not entirely sure I believe in _you_ yet, either.
 
 
> | The integral of this simple constant expectation function is infinite, and
> | thus cannot be normalized.  However, normalization of the infinite radius
> | case can be approached with arbitrary closeness by making the expectation
> | constant b into an expectation function b(p0) that normalizes to 1 the
> | volume of a momentum space sphere of radius p0:
>
> Why are you making the energy calculation so difficult?  The electric field
> of a spherical surface is zero inside the sphere and outside the sphere
> (for n = 1; r = ao)...
 
Methinks I've just been leaped upon by a raging Non-Sequitor...  AIEEeeee!!
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Instead of answering me, how about addressing that nicely pointed
        question that Richard Schulz asked about about why hydrogen isn't
        a loaded X-ray laser ready to zap anyone who tickles it with an
        X-ray photon of the right frequency?  I _liked_ that one!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Albert Chou /  Re: Fusion Collider
     
Originally-From: albert@tornado.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Collider
Date: 17 Jun 93 17:18:04 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <930614125335.20a004c0@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>How the heck do they expect a Tokamak to work once the chamber fills up with
>all that He???
 
That's an interesting problem whose solution has not yet been found.  However,
it's kind of a down-the-road issue.  Tokamaks don't yet run for long enough (nor
do we know enough to be doing research in that regime) to have to worry about
helium ash.  Some people who work on fusion engineering issues do concern
themselves with the problem, but there is currently no way (to my knowledge) to
conduct much in the way of experiments.  I've heard of a few, but mostly they
dealt with just measuring the rate at which helium leaves the system.  The
results, if I recall correctly, were a bit depressing, and theory even predicts
that the heavier particles will migrate towards the center of the plasma!
 
Al
--
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
NVN:  AChou1
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Another question about hydrinos
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another question about hydrinos
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 93 22:20:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>Wouldn't the X-rays then stimulate emision down to the
>appropriate "sub-quantum" state?  And you'd have an instant X-Ray laser
 
I've wondered about this too.  Think of the implications -- you have,
with hydrogen gas, a pre-pumped laser -- just waiting for appropriate
mirrors and some man made (or background) stimulus photons.
 
With decays from n=1 to n=1/100 you've got one mean machine there!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Question from a Layman
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question from a Layman
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 07:45:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
Am going off on vacation for a week, so here's my shot at this question.
Don't take it _too_ seriously...  ( ...or should you?  }=-)>  )
 
 
On Sun, 13 Jun 1993 in <C8Juty.DnD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
wogg0743@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bill Gulstad a.k.a William Shakespeare) wrote:
 
> Could someone tell me, once an for all, is there is cold fusion or is
> there ain't?  I mean, it is a yes/no question, right?
 
 
Answer:  NO.  There is no such thing as "cold fusion."
 
 
Now for some minor qualifications to the simple answer:
 
 a) By "cold fusion" I mean _only_ the usage of the term as popularized
    by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann over four years ago at the University
    of Utah.  Muon fusion, which is "cold fusion" in the sense of not
    requiring any high temperatures to work, most definitely _does_ exist,
    but does not look promising at present for net energy production.
 
 b) There may be unknown mechanisms by which ordinary solid or liquid matter
    can uexpectedly "focus" energy to creat a very small area where the
    temperatures are high enough to accelerate fusion.  But no one knows
    what these mechanisms are, if indeed they exist at all.
 
 c) Quantum annihilation, on the other hand, does exist and is the real
    explanation the occassional odd findings such as tritium, which can
    mimic some fusion products.  Such products are merely byproducts of
    asymmetrical annihilations of deuterium atoms, as such annihilations
    can produce extremely cold, highly localized neutrons that then combine
    with any available nuclei to form tritium and other anomolies.  Also,
    since QA is inherently capable of converting mass into pure energy
    (subject only to the constraints of mass/energy, spin, and charge
    conservation), it will prove to be a decent energy source and will
    short-circuit all the fretting about "cold fusion."
 
    Developers who want to look for QA should use cylindrical systems with
    appreciable width and high axial symmetry, and should play around with
    very, _very_ slight mechanical tensions once the system has been fully
    loaded with D (for easier-to-detect neutron products) or H (trickier).
    Too thin a cylinder radius won't work -- you can't get good lateral
    wavefunction isolation that way.  Pay heed to voltages, too.
 
See ya'll after vacation!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Boson condensates, anyone?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boson condensates, anyone?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 13:26:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
 
>In article <01GZGB3GMIC29PLY9Y@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
...
>> Anyone out there with the training to tell me whether this is true or false?
 
>Heh.  (Please ignore what follows, I just failed the entrance criteria!...)
...
>This is an intriguing-sounding paper that I will be sure to look up.  But
>even without looking it up, there are some questions that come to mind...
>
> 1) How cool is "cool?"  There are some folks right now who are trying to use
>    both laser cooling (in one lab) and another sort-of-evaporative technique
>    to try to achieve boson condensates of atomic gases.  (It may have been
>    H2 (protium), which is also a composite boson, rather than D2.)
 
How cool? The beam of deuterons (please note) is at a measly 4 keV... this is
low low, for self targeting effects (especially with no target anywhere), but
I know it's not so cool. I'm just reporting the facts, man.
But please do get hold of the paper; you'll no doubt get a lot more out of it
that I can.
So you vote for the inclusion in the bibliography. Is there a second?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Bruce Scott /  Banana orbits in a tokamak magnetic field (Re: fruit
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Banana orbits in a tokamak magnetic field (Re: fruit
Date: 18 Jun 1993 13:55:38 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <C8s8p5.1sx@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
        dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
|> A fusion question from a lay person: What is a banana and what
|> other fruit are plasma physicists concerned with?
 
A banana orbit is the projection of the drift orbit taken by a charged
particle [*] in a tokamak magnetic field, onto a poloidal plane. Now,
let me define the geometry. Consider the dougnut shape of a toroid. It is
like a ring of finite thickness. The plane of the ring is called the
midplane. The centerline of the ring (what the ring would be, were its
thickness zero) is a circle of radius R. The angle along this circle,
defined from an arbitrary starting point, is called the toroidal angle.
Given the finite thickness of the ring, R is the major radius of the
torus. Taking the simplest case in which the cross section of the ring
in a plane perpendicular to the centerline is circular, the projection
of the toroidal volume onto this vertical plane is an area bounded by
a circle of radius a, the minor radius. This plane in which we are taking
the cross section is called the poloidal plane. Given the centerline
again, consider a straight line perpendicular to the midplane which
passes through the center of that circle of radius R. This line is
called the axis of symmetry. The inverse aspect ratio, a/R, is usually
taken to be small. The tokamak plasma is taken to occupy the volume
enclosed by the toroidal surface of major radius R and minor radius a.
 
Now, in a tokamak equilibrium, the magnetic field is stronger near the
axis of symmetry. In the vicinity of the plasma the strength falls off
inversely with the distance from the symmetry axis. The key point is this:
an individual magnetic field line will be wrapped helically around the
centerline at a constant distance from it (I am assuming the surfaces in
which the field lines lie to be concentrically circular; in actual fact
there are departures which scale as a/R, but I will not consider these
here). A result of that geometry is that the magnetic field strength along
the field line is not constant, and that affects particle motion.
 
Particle motion is broken down into two components: parallel and perpen-
dicular to the field lines. The parallel motion is unaffacted by the
magnetic field, but perpendicular motion feels the Lorenz force, by
which the particle is deflected in a direction perpendicular to both
its velocity and the field line (I won't worry about the sign, here).
Perpendicular to the field line, then, the particle traces out a small
circle called a gyro orbit, while parallel to the field it streams along
unaffected. The radius of the gyro orbit is proportional to the velocity
divided by the field strength and is called the gyro-radius; the angular
frequency of the orbit is proportional to the field strength and is called
the gyro-frequency.
 
[*] Now for the tricky part. During the particle's motion it is experienc-
ing differing magnetic field strength along differing places in its
orbit, and as a result the motion perpendicular to the field line is
not exactly circular. The precise motion of the particle can be broken
down into two parts again: the circular gyro-motion, which is oscillatory,
and a secular drift. This drift is called "guiding-center motion". There
is a drift due to the gradient of the magnetic field strength: the gyro-
circle is tighter on the high-field side. There is another drift due to
the curvature of the line, since the parallel motion leads to centrifugal
forces. The net result of these two drifts leads to small excursions of
the particle from the field line it "starts" on: at time t=t0 the particle
is on a given field line, and at other times it is some finite distance
away, a distance proportional to the gyroradius times the square root
of the aspect ratio of the torus, R/a. The path taken by the guiding
center motion is a three dimensional curve which follows the field line,
up to the small excursions.
 
Now, tricky part number two. We assume that the gyrofrequency is very large
compared to the frequency given by the parallel component of the guiding-
center velocity divided by R. Given this, the magnetic moment of the
particle, proportional to the square of its perpendicular velocity (not the
guiding-center drift velocity!) divided by B, is conserved to high precison.
Here, B denotes the magnetic field strength. Due to the helicity of the
field lines, the particle sees higher B on the inner side of the torus
and lower B on the outer side. A fraction of the particles, proportional
to the square root of a/R, on the outer side have enough of their energy
in perpendicular motion that in order to conserve both magnetic moment
(the perpendicular velocity must increase with B) and energy (the total
velocity must remain constant), their parallel motion must cease before
they make it to the innermost part of the field line. These particles
are called trapped particles. Their guiding-center motion is periodic,
bouncing back and forth toroidally between the two mirror points determined
by the particles' velocities and the geometry of the magnetic field.
 
Banana? Given both the drifts and the trapping of the particles due to the
inhomogeneous magnetic field, the projection of the three-dimensional
guiding-center motion onto the poloidal plane looks like a banana, and
these orbits are called banana orbits. A particle moving vertically (away
from the midplane of the torus) will drift downward, and vice-versa.
 
I apologise for the inability to do any better than this explanation
without recourse to figures.
 
Other fruit: A lemon is a bad fusion concept. A nut is somebody who
believes in it. The tokamak is looking increasingly like a lemon, and
the DoE is certainly liberally populated by nuts. If you want to be
more colorful, you may use "kumquat" for "nut".
 
A question for the onlookers: Basically every tokamak makes fusion.
Even a little one like ASDEX does it to the tune of tens of milliwatts.
JET did it to the tune of 1.7 megawatts, and TFTR will do better this
fall (of course, nobody speaks of commercial reactors unless they are
visionary or crazy). Now, given this and given Steven Jones's results
on neutrons:
 
        If a tokamak is a lemon, what does that make a P and F cell?
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: fruit
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fruit
Date: 18 Jun 1993 14:00:12 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <17JUN199318511159@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
        edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
|> Baseballs.  Don't know what a banana is, apart from the fruit, but the
|> baseball magnets are used on the ends of linear reactors (they're called
|> that because the windings look like the stitching on a baseball).
|>
|> Though I hear that funding for linear devices is (has?) winding down, so
|> they won't be a concern for much longer...
 
The machine which was supposed to actually use these magnetic coils was
MFTF-B (Mirror Fusion Test Facility B). Funding for this beast was cut
in 1987 *after* 110 million dollars [*] were spent to make the coils.
During a  tour to Livermore, I noticed they have these coils out on
display in front of the M-building (fusion), and the guide noted
sardonically that it was a monument to Geovernment wastefulness. First
they build them, then they scrap them.
 
[*] this figure was quoted orally; I don't know its veracity
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Tom Simonds /  Beam Wrapping
     
Originally-From: tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beam Wrapping
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 16:49:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

============
One of the many difficulties experienced with laser induced, or inertial
confinement fusion, is the enormous size and power of the laser
required to create hot fusion temperatures. In looking at these schemes,
it immediately struck me as odd that they would attempt to zap the
duterium fuel using a huge array of lasers shooting at it from different
angles.
 
In attempting to get closer to break even, there might be some advantage
to using a much lower powered laser. And it might not be all that hard
to do. Why couldn't just one laser be used, bounced around in such a way
that the same beam criss crossess over a very small area many times.
 
I immagin a spherical chamber with mirrors stuck all over the inside,
precisely angled so that they bounce the beam around inside the chamber
such that the same beam crosses the center of the chamber, where the
fusionable hydrogen is, many times from all different angles. Beam
wrapping, I call it, because the same beam is wrapped back on itself.
 
The laser beam has a distinct length, a beginning and an end. If the
pulse is one millionth of a second, it's a little under a thousand feet
in length. Why waste so much of it? It can be folded back on itself in a
way that would derive many times the usable energy from the same beam.
 
Immagine a sherical chamber filled with duterium. The beam enters the
chamber from one side, crosses the chamber, hits a mirror, is reflected
to another mirror, and reflected back across the chamber where it
crosses the center of the chamber a second time. At this point, you get
two lasers for the price of one. The number of times the same beam can
be reflected across the center of the sphere is limited by the length of
the impulse and the amount of energy lost to the mirrors, and the number
of mirrors.
 
Now let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the desired effect
takes place. You get some fusions in the center of the chamber. As
energy is released, it travels radially outward from the center of the
spherical chamber, where it hits a second set of mirrors. These mirrors
are arranged in such a way as to be parallel to each other.
Perpendicular to the rays of energy released, and parallel, they
capture the released energy and trap it, such that it, like the
origional laser, it's bounced back and forth, criss crossing the center
of the chamber tens of millions of times per second. The net effect is
to ignite more fuel from energy released by the fusions.
 
I presume these parallel mirrors will be convex mirrors that will focus
the released energy down to a point. As energy bounces back and forth
between the parallel mirrors, it should accumulate, growing in
intensity and feeding the released energy back into the reaction,
eventually releasing more energy than what was put into the reaction via
the laser.
 
                                                    Tom Simonds
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentsimonds cudfnTom cudlnSimonds cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Oh shoot
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oh shoot
Date: 18 Jun 1993 17:59:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Jun18.065427.18735@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>P.S. --Instead of answering me, how about addressing that nicely pointed
>       question that Richard Schul[t]z asked about about why hydrogen isn't
>       a loaded X-ray laser ready to zap anyone who tickles it with an
>       X-ray photon of the right frequency?  I _liked_ that one!
 
I had another thought about this X-ray laser business.  If I understand the
argument correctly, we never see sub-quantum H atoms because the transition
probability from n=1 to n<1 is so small that there's no spontaneous emission.
This means that the probability of spontaneous absorption (viz. getting a
subquantum H back into n=1) has to be just as small.  Which means that once
you get your collection of H atoms to lase, how do you get them back into
the n=1 state?  It makes me think of "ice-nine" in Vonnegut's novel _Cat's
Cradle_.  "Ice-nine" is a solid form of water that is stable at room
temperature; so stable in fact that any liquid water that comes in contact
with it freezes.  At the end of the novel, a piece of ice-nine falls into the
ocean, which immediately solidifies.  Now I'm worried, or rather would be
worried if I believed in sub-quantum levels of H atoms, that if you set up
this X-ray laser, all of the H atoms in the world will drop from the metastable
n=1 state in a big foom of X-rays.  What would happen then?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Jed Rothwell /  Carr is completely wrong
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Carr is completely wrong
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 19:55:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I wrote:
 
"In the laboratory in Nice, France, this effect has been replicated dozens of
times in succession, without failure, at levels of 140 watts (30 watts
input)...
 
Jim Carr responded:
 
"That is the laboratory of P&F, correct?
 
Their published paper did not describe any experiment with such a claim.
If they have such results and choose not to publish them, that is their
own business, but I have no way of "knowing" about such results.  The
Physics Letter describes several different experiments that all produce
in milli-watt amounts of power."
 
The paper described what I said: 37.5 watts average input, 144.5 excess
enthalpy out (to be precise). The bulk of the paper is devoted to the
discussion of the 144.5 watt reaction. Also, this was discussed in Peter
Hagelstein's review, which was uploaded here three times. I quote Peter:
 
     "...The average excess power claimed during the boiling episode was 144.5
     Watts, which would correspond to 1841 W/cm3... The anomalous excess
     energy production in this experiment is considerable, as can be
     calculated. In 1 minute, 8.7 kJ of excess energy is produced. At a
     density of 12.02 g/cm3 and an average mass of 106.42 amu, pure Pd
     contains 6.8 ~ 1022 atoms/cm3. The total number of atoms in the cathode is
     2.7 ~ 1021, or 0.0044 moles. In 1 minute, the excess energy production is
     1.96 MJ/mole, which corresponds to 20.3 eV/atom of Pd. This number is
     greater than can be accounted for by a chemical explanation for the
     effect. After 10 minutes, the cathode has produced 203 eV/atom."
 
Carr is utterly wrong. We are *not* talking about milliwatt reactions, these
are in the multiple watt range. I suspect he has not read the Pons and
Fleischmann paper, and perhaps not the Hagelstein paper either. Also, let me
point out that Pons and Fleischmann are not the only ones to get multi-watt
reactions. There are *many* cases of this in the literature, although no
others as dramatic as the Toyota work.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / John Cobb /  Re: Beam Wrapping
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Beam Wrapping
Date: 18 Jun 1993 13:13:41 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <C8ttEB.np@world.std.com> tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes:
>============
>One of the many difficulties experienced with laser induced, or inertial
>confinement fusion, is the enormous size and power of the laser
>required to create hot fusion temperatures. In looking at these schemes,
>it immediately struck me as odd that they would attempt to zap the
>duterium fuel using a huge array of lasers shooting at it from different
>angles.
>
>In attempting to get closer to break even, there might be some advantage
>to using a much lower powered laser. And it might not be all that hard
>to do. Why couldn't just one laser be used, bounced around in such a way
>that the same beam criss crossess over a very small area many times.
>
 
Well, I know a lot less about Inertial Confiment Fusion (ICF) than I do
about MFE, but I'll give it a crack. My understanding is that in ICF
you need the big powerful lasers because you need that much power.
It takes alot of energy to compress the fuel so quickly.
 
You also need to have many beams in order to get uniform coverage. Think
of the DT microsphere target like a water balloon. If you just push on it
with one or two fingers, you won't compress it, you need to cup your hands
and make then a full enclosure so you can compress it to a smaller
volume. In the same sense you need a very uniform, spherically converging
laser beam or the DT microshpere will "squirt" out the holes. In the
literature this is called the Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
 
OK, so given that you need a lot of beamlets, why not just take
one beam, split it up and put together some geometrical optics to
get spherically uniform illumination on the pellet? Well, theoretically,
you could. In practice however, there are practical problems. First
you need to figure out how much total energy you need to hit the pellet
with. Unfortunately, I don't know those numbers precisely, except
that they are big, really big. For instance, the big lasers at
Nova or Shiva are still too small (I think). Sooo, if we designed
a reactor with one really, really big beam and split it up we
could get the same effect as creating many just plain big beams and
guiding them independantly. The point is that if you just took an
ordinary beam and split it up, you would be lacking power. When the
illumination hit the target, it wouldn't have enough "kick" to
compress the pellet to get ignition, a sputter not a bang.
 
Practially, there is another problem. Talking about "just setting
up mirrors" is easier said than done. Suppose you have a mirror
that reflects 99.9% of the incident light (i.e. absorbs 1 part
in 1000), for a terawatt pulse, the mirror will undergo gigawatt
heating powers. Although the pulse is short, there is a significant
amount of energy deposited in the mirror. If you are not careful,
you will melt your optical elements (mirrors, lenses, etc), and even
if you are careful, the thermal loads may cause degradations in aim
and focus. So it is best to split the beams to lower power as soon as
possible (provided you still get the timing correct), so why not
just create the beams independantly in the first place? This also
makes it easier to build your lasers, i.e. 7 dwarfs are cheaper than
1 giant.
 
>I immagin a spherical chamber with mirrors stuck all over the inside,
>precisely angled so that they bounce the beam around inside the chamber
>such that the same beam crosses the center of the chamber, where the
>fusionable hydrogen is, many times from all different angles. Beam
>wrapping, I call it, because the same beam is wrapped back on itself.
>
>The laser beam has a distinct length, a beginning and an end. If the
>pulse is one millionth of a second, it's a little under a thousand feet
>in length. Why waste so much of it? It can be folded back on itself in a
>way that would derive many times the usable energy from the same beam.
>
> ...
>
 
I think there is a point you are missing here about ICF. In ICF, you
just get one shot. The chamber is dark one pico-second, and the next
it is bright with terawatts of laser light. A few nanoseconds later
the pellet has imploded and you see (feel) x-rays and neutrons flying
out from under the ablation cloud and little later you get a burst of heat.
That is, you hit the target, hard and fast, and just once. After that
natures takes its course. So you don't have a chance the reflect the
beam many times. If you try to compress a pellet that has already
been illuminated, you find that it is near impossible, You started
with a microsphere with T~300K. By the time the next beam hits it,
T>> 1E6 K. you have no hope of compressing it to a high enough
density to fuse then. Hit it when it is cold, because when it gets
hot, it has a much higher pressure to push back at you with. ICF
is not anywhere near thermodynamic equilibrium. It is about as
far out of equilibrium as you can get.
 
Why is this the case you ask? Well the I in ICF stands for "inertial"
You are trying to compress the fuel. The only thing that keeps it from
gettin' loose is that you are hitting it so fast, it can't get out of the
way. It is like the poor unfortunate soul who gets hit by a car. He will
get knocked right out of his shoes. Now if the car slows down to 5 MPH
and gently nudges him several times, it may impart, after many nudges,
the same momentum or even energy, but it won't "knock his socks off"
becuase it is happening too slow. Another analogy that perhaps will
better hit your intuition. Suppose you have 2 rockets that take
off. Both will place their cargo in orbit at the same altitude, etc.
But one rocket has a 1 second burn phase and the other has a 10 minute
burn phase. Which rocket do you want to ride in? The 10 minute one of
course because the 1 second one will pull so many g's that by the
time you reach orbit, you will be a pancake. Well in ICF you want to
hit fast and hard, so you choose short pulses with high power.
 
It's my (admittedly limited) understanding that some of the
toughest problems in ICF have little to do with the plasma but
a lot to do with creating high power, short rise time laser
pulses (Of course there are other problems that do deal with the
plasma such as laser-plasma coupling and the electron pre-acceleration
problems, But I leave those topics for someone who is competent in ICF
to explain).
 
-john w. cobb
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / J Lewis /  Re: hydrinos
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: hydrinos
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 18:00:28 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <01GZHIEWL1B60029I4@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>
J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
...
> ... My question stands.  Why isn't the potential energy, as given by
> Coulombs law, infinite?
>
Well, the proton is an extended object.  If it's approximated as a sphere
of uniform density within a radius of s (and zero outside), then I make the
electron potential out to be
 
-(3/2)e^2/s + (1/2)e^2 r^2/s^3    for r < s.
 
More complicated charge distributions lead to more complicated results, but
they're all finite at the origin.
 
> ... The electric field
>> of a spherical surface is zero inside the sphere and outside the sphere
>> (for n = 1; r = ao)...
>
 
And so the nucleus is not in a position of stable equilibrium.  In fact, NO
charge distribution on the surface of the orbitsphere will give the nucleus
a position of stable equilibrium inside (call this the Earnshaw Objection, if
you like).
 
Referring back to your statement of a few days ago that the existence
of hydrinos would solve the solar neutrino problem:  it is of course evident
that transitions to fractional states (? I mean with n<1) and from fractional
states to more tightly bound fractional states could liberate almost infinite
power, with no neutrinos.  For that matter, a Newtonian plasma of point
particles could do the same.  But Stephen Jones's calculation shows that the
n=1 to n=1/2 transition is insufficient to power the Sun for any great
length of time.  Hence a substantial fraction of the H in the Sun's core
must be present as tightly bound hydrinos (with n<<1).  Now what does this
do to the opacity?!?  I gather that hydrinos are supposed to interact rather
weakly with
EM radiation, which is why they have not as yet been unambiguously detected,
and that would imply that the opacity would be lower than for the standard
proton+electron plasma.  That in turn would imply, I think, that a partially
hydrino-powered star, of solar mass and luminosity, about 5 billion years old,
would be substantially smaller and with a higher surface temperature than
the Sun.  I think so, but stellar models are not particularly robust, i.e. they
are sensitive to details of reaction cross sections, opacity, etc., and
without doing a detailed calculation it's not easy to be sure.  You sounded
sure; have you done such a calculation?  Many people would be interested to
see it.  The Devil is in the details.
 
Because an almost infinite amount of energy could be obtained from a finite
quantity of hydrino gas, it is evident that the existence of such would
necessitate a total revision of current thinking about stellar evolution, in
particular of massive stars, and of nucleosynthesis.  That is perhaps more of
a remark than an objection, of course.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re:  Oh shoot
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Oh shoot
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 21:39:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would like to Richard Schultz and everyone else that I performed a search
for the sub state Hydrogen atoms.  The scheme was to trap them in a large
vacuum bottle, and shoot 10Kev electrons at them.  The vacuum bottle was
located under the Mills type experiment.  The idea was that the hydrinos
should drift through glass like He does.  So many would make it into the
vacuum bottle.
 
When a 10 kev electron hits a hydrino, it should ionize it.  When it regains
its electron, it is trapped in the bottle and can be detected.
 
No Hydrogen was found.
 
The whole experiment was purchased "off the shelf" for $69.95.
 
I again remind all that Mills has a reference which he claims supports the
sub state hydrogen.  I would be interested in having some of you look at it,
but as I signed a non-disclosure document, the word should come from Mills or
Farrell.  I doubt that I am legally bound any more but choose to stick to it
anyway.  My analysis is that it is not very significant.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Abraham Mantell /  Nuclear Structures Book
     
Originally-From: mantell@eta.mathlab.sunysb.edu (Abraham S. Mantell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Structures Book
Date: 18 Jun 1993 19:26:46 GMT
Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook, Dept. of Math

 
Hello,
 
I wish to sell the following book:
 
THEORY OF NUCLEAR STRUCTURE AND REACTIONS, Proceedings of the 2nd
La Rabida Summer School on Nuclear Physics, La Rabida, Huelva, Spain,
24 June to 5 July, 1985.  Ed. by M. Lozano & G. Madurga.
 
List Price:  $115   I Ask:  $70 (or best offer)
 
Please reply to:  mantell@ams.sunysb.edu
 
Thanks
 
Abe
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmantell cudfnAbraham cudlnMantell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Jed Rothwell /  What McKubre thinks
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What McKubre thinks
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 21:40:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Those who have been wondering what Mike McKubre and some other experts in
electrochemistry and calorimetry think of the Pons and Fleischmann work should
read the June 14, 1993 edition of Chemical and Engineering News. There is a
good article starting on page 38, "Latest Cold Fusion Results Fail To Win Over
Skeptics," by Ron Dagani. The article says:
 
       "...cold fusion researcher Michael C.H McKubre of SRI International in
       Menlo Park, Calif., says Fleischmann and Pons' latest paper increases his
       own 'confidence and belief' in their calorimetry results. Those results,
       he thinks, 'can be trusted quantitatively.' Electrochemist Vesselin C.
       Noninski, a cold fusion researcher... fins the paper 'quite remarkable
       and fascinating,' despite some minor reservations.
 
       "Fleischmann and Pons' figures of 3700 watts per cc of palladium is more
       specific excess enthalpy than most other groups have reported. SRI's
       McKubre, for example, says he and his coworkers have observed as much as
       200 watts per cc, although their measurements typically fall in the range
       of 10 to 30 watts per cc.
 
       "McKubre explains the discrepancy by noting that 'the effect increases
       with increasing temperature. As the temperature goes up, the power
       density increases... In his own research, which is supported by the
       Electric Power Research Institute, he adjusts experimental parameters to
       deliberately minimize the magnitude of the excess-heat effect in an
       effort to understand it...
 
       "In any case, McKubre, who is regarded as a careful investigator even by
       the skeptics, believes that Fleischmann and Pons' latest paper is very
       simple to analyze. 'If they made a mistake, it's the sort of mistake that
       a first-year university student wouldn't make. And Martin Fleischmann has
       been doing this for 40 years.'"
 
I think Mike is exaggerating here. It would not take a first year university
student. Any high school kid who can measure electricity and boil water would
catch a serious, significant error in this experiment. A person who
understands chemistry or physics can see instantly that the "skeptical"
arguments that try to disprove the P&F work are ridiculous. The so-called
"skeptics" claim that 0.004 mole of hydrogen can burn for 10 minutes and boil
away 45 ml of water; or they claim that it is impossible to measure the heat
of vaporization of water by boiling it in an insulated test tube; or that it
is impossible to measure electricity. Anyone who bothers to perform a few
simple experiments with boiling water will see that *all* of these absurd
"arguments" have nothing to do with science. They are concocted from
superstition, denial, lies, fear of the unknown, and hogwash.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / David Dalton /  cmsg cancel <DALTON.93Jun17070057@wrang.Geop.UBC.CA>
     
Originally-From: dalton@wrang.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.fractals,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.psychology,s
i.skeptic,sci.environment,can.general,bc.general,ubc.general,comp.ai.fuz
y,sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,talk.environment
Subject: cmsg cancel <DALTON.93Jun17070057@wrang.Geop.UBC.CA>
Date: 18 Jun 93 14:06:30
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada

--
David Dalton ------------------------------ >Dalton@Geop.UBC.Ca< ------
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy,                   (604) 822-2267
  2219 Main Mall, University of British Columbia      fax  822-6047
  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendalton cudfnDavid cudlnDalton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Beam Wrapping
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Beam Wrapping
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 21:02:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes:
>In looking at these schemes,
>it immediately struck me as odd that they would attempt to zap the
>duterium fuel using a huge array of lasers shooting at it from different
>angles.
 
I believe at least one scheme relies on the shockwave induced by the
laser beam impinging on the surface of a fuel "pellet."  Therefore they
desire to have laser beams hit from all sides at the same instant.
 
Your reflecting scheme would not work, therefore, because the bounced
beams would come in too asymetrically to cause converging shockwaves at
the center of the pellet, or so I guess.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / David Dalton /  cmsg cancel <1993Jun17.142526.2711@hubcap.clemson.edu>
     
Originally-From: dalton@epoch.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.fractals,sci.physics,soc.culture.celtic,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.psychology,sci.skeptic,sci.environmen
,talk.environment,talk.religion.newage,alt.meditation,alt.atheism,alt.be
r,alt.messianic,alt.paranormal,alt.sex,can.general,bc.general,ubc.genera
,comp.ai.fuzzy,alt.feminism
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Jun17.142526.2711@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 93 14:09:43
Organization: Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy, UBC, Vancouver, Canada

--
David Dalton ------------------------------ >Dalton@Geop.UBC.Ca< ------
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy,                   (604) 822-2267
  2219 Main Mall, University of British Columbia      fax  822-6047
  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendalton cudfnDavid cudlnDalton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Miles letter
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles letter
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 22:21:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In his letter to Steve Jones Dr. Miles seems to make the assertion
that the only place appropriate for comments on a publication is
in a refereed journal.  That is absurd.  Once a given paper is published
it can be and should be subject to criticism in any forum where two or
more are gathered in discussion of the topic in question.
 
Steve Jones has done us all good service in digging out some of the
questionable aspects of various CF results.  I would hope that the
President of BYU understands that letters such as the one Miles
wrote points to Steve being involved in the kind of intellectual
activity that universities are supposed to foster.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  J. Farrell answers his own question
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: J. Farrell answers his own question
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 22:38:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In his recent remarks to Terry B. concerning the maximum in the
wave function, Prof. Farrell correctly points out that psi*psi gets
weighted by the differential volume element which vanishes at r=0.
He then goes on to ask:
 
<<  "Why isn't the potential energy as given by Coulombs law,  >>
<<  infinite."
 
The answer is that one is dealing with distributed charges and the
differential volume element again comes into play.  In any case
there is nothing wrong with having the electron wave function
have a large overlap with the nucleus.  In mu-mesic atoms it
leads to some very interesting effects.
 
Quantum mechanics is too good to be abandoned for "orbitspheres"
which can not possibly conform to experimental observations
of the numerous effects that depend directly on the charge and
momentum distributions in atoms.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / John Logajan /  Smallest hydrino
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Smallest hydrino
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 22:10:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Someone wondered why sub-ground states of the hydrino couldn't continue
infinitly.  I calculated this a while back and found that the electron
orbit intersects the proton diameter at about n=1/120.  The energy released
from this decay is curiously just about 500 KeV, which is just about the
mass/energy of a free electron.  Coincidence?
 
Farrell agreed that the smallest sub-orbital was probably in the 1/100 range.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Carr is completely wrong
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carr is completely wrong
Date: 18 Jun 93 23:03:52 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930618182631_72240.1256_EHK34-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
......
........
>Carr is utterly wrong. We are *not* talking about milliwatt reactions, these
>are in the multiple watt range. I suspect he has not read the Pons and
>Fleischmann paper, and perhaps not the Hagelstein paper either. Also, let me
>point out that Pons and Fleischmann are not the only ones to get multi-watt
>reactions. There are *many* cases of this in the literature, although no
>others as dramatic as the Toyota work.
 
 
I and many others have concluded that the P & F paper is so poorly done
as to raise more questions than it answers.  If they can't figure out a
way to present their work in a clear and rational way, then they ought
to stop publishing and just get rich.  Could it be that the only way
they can get rich is to publish?  No, that can't be the answer.
 
Jed, you are beating a dead horse.  Their name may as well be mud.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Daniel Boyd /  Re: Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of the ...h[E]r(T)s..
     
Originally-From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Newsgroups: sci.fractals,sci.physics,soc.culture.celtic,sci.physics.fusi
n,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.psychology,sci.skeptic,sci.environmen
,talk.environment,talk.religion.newage,alt.meditation,alt.atheism,alt.be
r,alt.messianic,alt.paranormal,alt.sex,can.general,bc.general,ubc.genera
,comp.ai.fuzzy,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Fractal twi/pu/[n]ning and the arrows of the ...h[E]r(T)s..
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1993 23:57:06 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1993Jun17.142515.2643@hubcap.clemson.edu>
dalton@epoch.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton) writes:
> Here is a whimsical attempt to relate language, physics and life
> with a punning poem with many different errors.
 
Junk.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenboyd cudfnDaniel cudlnBoyd cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to letter from Dr. Miles
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to letter from Dr. Miles
Date: 18 Jun 93 18:16:09 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM DR. MILES, POSTED PUBLICLY HERE
June 18, 1993
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
    I have decided to follow the advice of Les Earnest and Tom Droege and
others and continue to try an open scientific discussion regarding the
experiments of Dr. Melvin Miles et al. of China Lake.  The experiments are
particularly relevant since this is the *only* group (as far as I can
tell) which claims concomitant excess power, helium-4 and X-ray production.
It's worth looking at then.
 
The current exchange on the net was started, in my view, by a letter from
Miles addressed to me, posted publicly by Jed Rothwell, in which Miles asked:
 
"It is very difficult to explain how helium contamination could only occur in
experiments that were producing excess power and not in any of the control
experiments.  If your can explain this, then please let me know. ... Please
note my discussion of the errors in the N. Lewis calorimetry (Cal Tech work)
on pp. 114-116."  (signed " Dr. Melvin H. Miles, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry")
 
I and colleagues here are trying to point out serious questions regarding
his claims of one-to-one correspondance in xs heat and helium-4 production,
from his experiments.  We also wish to discuss probable errors in *his*
calorimetry (he uses *open* cells, for instance, with significant sources of
systematic error which we have identified).  Hence followed my several-part
response to his open letter, posted here recently.
I did not intend to use ad hominem arguments and apologize
if such cropped up.  However, I continue to think that certain data of his do
not square with his conclusions and to request that what I consider
missing data be supplied.  This is a scientific criticism and I for one intend
to keep it that way.  I will bring up specifics as I respond part-by-part to
his most recent letter:
 
In article <930615133946_72240.1256_EHK25-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:>
> Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter, with a note: "Please post this
> on e-mail." He also enclosed 36 pages of reference material.
>
> If you would like to respond to this letter, I suggest you mail your comments
> to Dr. Miles. If I see a response here, I might mail it to Dr. Miles, but I do
> not always get a chance to read messages posted here. If you would like copies
> of the documents referred to herein, please contact me.
>
> - Jed Rothwell
>
>
>                                 Department of the Navy
>                                 Naval Air Warfare Center
>                                 Weapons Division
>                                 China Lake, CA 93555-6001
>
>
>                                 IN REPLY REFER TO:
>                                      3910
>                                      CO2353/196
>                                      9 Jun 93
>
> Jed Rothwell
> Cold Fusion Research Advocates
> 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
> Chamblee, Georgia 30341
>
> Dear Jed,
>
>      Please post this response to Professor Jones on E-mail:
>
>      Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University has been
> aggressively attacking my scientific publications involving the Fleischmann-
> Pons effect (cold fusion) for almost two years and has recently accused me of
> rejecting heat/helium data points and fudging my results. I highly resent such
> unfounded attacks since they damage my professional integrity as a scientist
> as well as reflect on the quality of research conducted at Navy laboratories.
> Navy scientists are required to submit their work for review and clearance
> before any manuscript can be released for publication.
>
It is at this point that Dr. Miles states in the letter I received by mail
(which is addressed to BYU President Rex E. Lee with cc to me):
>"If this serious matter cannot be resolved by this letter, then I will have to
>consider other possible actions."
  What possible actions?
 
Let's go on:
>      My problems with Professor Jones began on July 23, 1991 when I presented
> an invited seminar on my research at Brigham Young University. I soon learned
> that this event was more of an inquisition rather than a normal scientific
> seminar. Professor Jones and his group interrupted with so many pointed
> questions that it took me nearly three hours to complete my seminar. Although
> I was upset with this situation, I tried my best to be patient and to answer
> all their questions. It was obvious that the real intent of this group was to
> find possible errors with my experiments. This was verified a few weeks later
> when Professor Jones mailed out a critique of my work to other scientists
> involved with this research field throughout the world. This eventually lead
> to my published response to questions raised by Professor Jones regarding my
> work (see reference 1). This entire episode was clearly outside the bounds of
> professional decency towards an invited seminar speaker.
 
This is the first time I have heard anyone say that this was like an
"inquisition" -- now nearly two years after his seminar.  I do recall Prof. Lee
Hansen of BYU saying during the colloquium that he hoped Dr. Miles would accept
our intent to help him improve his calorimetry and other measurements, in an
effort to improve the reliability of his results.  According to my notes,
Hansen and others pointed out to Dr. Miles the following:
 
1.  The China Lake calorimeter used only two temperature probes and much of the
heat flow was not through these sensors.  The thermistor set higher in the cell
tended to have higher readings (poor stirring?  insulation problem?) although
sometimes the lower thermistor had a higher temperature.  Vermiculite was used
for much of the insulation -- which Hansen said he would recommend against --
and was in fact not well sealed against atmospheric moisture.
 
2.  The cells were *open* systems, with a constant 1.53V thermoneutral
potential *assumed* for the D2O system, 1.48 V for the H2O controls.
Much better, closed calorimeter systems are available and highly desirable.
(Our subsequent work on such systems, reported here recently, points further
at significant errors associated with such open systems.)
 
3.  Calibrations were done with a resistor in place of the palladium rod; but
then bubbling (and recombination) is absent during calibrations.  Also,
calibrations were done before and after long runs, not during.  Prof Hansen
noted that calibration "constant" fluctuations were in fact large:
0.138 to 0.145, 0.132 to 0.138, 0.133 to 0.137, and 0.135 to 0.141 in four
cells.
 
4.  Fluctuations in the excess heat meausrements for light-water cells are up
to 20%; at this level the China Lake calorimeter was not stable.  Yet the
maximum xs heat claimed in these experiments was only about 27%.  Moreover, the
fluctuations seen in the controls lasted for several days, as did the "excess
heat" in the D2O cells.  [I think this came out after the colloquium actually,
by Lee Hansen or someone else.]
 
5.  The China Lake team used dental X-ray film to look for X-rays, which is
sensitive to mechanical pressures and chemicals (including humidity) which can
give false readings.
 
I really feel that no rancor nor inquisitorial spirit was present, and that the
colloquium represented a good scientific discussion.
>
>      Professor Jones has recently made false allegations regarding my work by
> his statements of "rejected data points", "shifts the window", "fudging or
> worse", etc.. (see reference 2). Although Professor Jones tries to use some
> unknown author for several negative statements, the implications regarding my
> experiments are very clear. These damaging statements by Professor Jones are
> outright lies since there are absolutely no rejected helium measurements in my
> recent publication (reference 3). Every data point involving heat/helium
> measurements is reported. This can be readily verified by Dr. Ben Bush who did
> the helium analysis at the University of Texas as well as by my detailed
> laboratory notebook for these experiments. Although I remain open-minded to
> possible scientific errors in our measurements, there are no rejected helium
> measurements  in our experiments. Furthermore, there is no fudging of any
> measurements.
>
Ouch!  Again we see how strongly Dr. Miles feels about the heat/helium-4
correspondance.  It will be painful to change his mind, I think.  But let us
look again at what his papers say before we accept his strong accusation:
"These damaging statements by Professor Jones are outright lies since there are
absolutely no rejected helium measurements in my recent publication (reference
3)."  Let's check:
 
Ref. 3 is published in J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99-117, by M.H. Miles
et al.  I reproduce Table 1 from the paper as it is important to what follows:
 
Table 1.  Helium production during D2O electrolysis
Sample        P-ex        X(xs power ratio)  4He atoms/500 ml
 
12/14/90-A    0.52          1.20             10^14 (large peak)
10/21/90-B    0.46          1.27             10^14 (large peak)_
12/17/90-A    0.40          1.19             10^13 (medium peak)
11/25/90-B    0.36          1.15             10^14 (large peak)
11/20/90-A    0.24          1.10             10^13 (medium peak)
11/27/90-A    0.22          1.09             10^14 (large peak)
10/30/90-B    0.17          1.12             10^12 (small peak)
10/30/90-A    0.14          1.08             10^12 (small peak)
10/27/90-A    0.07          1.03             < 10^12 (no peak)
12/17/90-B    0.29          1.11             < 10^12 (no peak)
 (2 footnotes accompany the last line:  j=250mA/cm^2; all other experiments
used j=200 mA/cm^2.  Possible calorimetric errors due to low D2O solution
levels.)
 
Quick notes here:  *all* the data come from 1990 in this 1993 paper.  Accepting
Miles statement in the letter that "Every data point involving heat/helium
measurements is reported" implies that he has no new data since 1990.
The 4He measurements are order-of-magnitude estimates of "large", "medium" and
"small" peaks.  And the last line shows xs power -- actually 6th largest out of
10 -- (qualified in footnote) but with *no* indication of helium-4.
Is this mentioned in the conclusions of the paper?
We'll see.
 
 
>      The two data points that I discussed with Professor Jones at Brigham
> Young University in 1991 are samples 12/17/90-A and 12/17/90-B.  Both of these
> data points are present in my Table I (reference 3). Professor Jones should
> have known better than to raise this false accusation a second time since I
> had responded to this same question previously (see reference 1, page 79).
> This repeating of damaging false accusations makes me question the
> professional integrity of Professor Jones. Honesty and professional decency
> should be very important attributes for staff-members of a church-related
> institution.
 
*Note this is the second time Miles refers to my institution.  To what end? The
comments are mine and I take responsibility.
 
Reference 1 is from an article in 21st Century Science and Technology, the
LaRouche publication which I scarcely read (and I think it is not peer-
reviewed). There Miles explains that sample (12/17/90-A)
"was simply overlooked in
our preliminary note [J. Electroanal. Chem. 304 (1991) 271], but is presented
in our later publications. ... fusion is the likely explanation for the heat
and helium in this case. ...For materials at very high pressures, theoretical
equations suggest that cations lose their charge at 10^17 atmospheres and unite
with electrons in the plasma with the emission of neutrinos.  Since this would
neutralize the charge of deuterons, the coulombic barrier would collapse and
fusion could readily occur."
 
No comment here on this interesting theoretical point of view, but I include it
for interest.  Yes, I had missed this added data point in the later
publications, and agree that this is not a "rejected data point."
 
The 1993 J. Electroanal. Chem. paper states that "the only sample not listed in
Table 1 is 12/14/90-B because the flask broke during shipment."  I would ask
for whatever data is available for this run:  was there any excess power seen?
Is there any information on helium content?  (Probably not.)
 
But here is my major concern:  Miles has *ten* (count 'em) data runs delineated
in Table 1, yet in his conclusions he considers only nine:
"Ignoring the helium-heat relationship (Table 1), the simple yes or no
detection of helium in EIGHT out of EIGHT experiments producting excess heat
and the absence of helium in six out of six experiments not productin excess
heat (ONE in D2O, five in H2O) implies a chance probability of only (1/2)^14
= 1/16,384 or 0.0061%.  Therefore atmospheric contamination does not provide a
likely explanation for our 4He measurements."  "Our electrochemical experiments
UNAMBIGUOUSLY show a DIRECT correlation between the time of generation of excess
enthalpy and power and the production of 4He...This correlation in the
palladium/D2O system provides strong evidence that nuclear processes are
occurring in these electrolytic experiments and that helium is produced at or
near the surface of the palladium rather than deeper in the bulk metal.
In summary, nuclear events with 4He as a major product occur during the
electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOD system."  (Miles et al. 1993.  Capitals added
for emphasis.)
 
Now there are *ten* runs reported in Table 1 of this 1993 paper, but only
*nine* are discussed in the conclusions above.
Run 12/17/90-B shows more heat than
three of the runs used in the argument, but *no* helium-4.  Hence, these data
may alter and should be
included in the conclusions.  The authors mention in footnote about this run:
"POSSIBLE calorimetric errors due to low D2O solution levels"  (my capitals
again), but I maintain that the uncertainty associated with these data must be
included in the calculation of the statistical significance of the alleged
one-to-one correspondance between heat and helium-4 production.  This was not
done.  It is not enough to simply report all the data, one must include *all*
the data in statistical arguments and conclusions.  This is my concern about
evident (to me) "rejected data."  Also, the observation of helium-4 in
several of the nitrogen-filled control flasks should be brought in.  In the
1991 J. Electr. Anal. paper (304:271), the sample with "50 mTorr air in 100 ml
N2" shows "4He observed large peak, long dwell" with the conclusion "more 4He
observed than expected."  I suspect contamination is in evidence here.
Frankly, I think Dr. Miles should re-think the certainty and boldness of his
conclusions in view of these data.
 
Now I ask you, gentle reader, did I make "outright lies" as Miles alleges
in his letter, posted here publicly?
 
>      Although the implications of fraud by Professor Jones is my most serious
> concern, his lengthy discussions of my papers (enclosure 2) involves numerous
> other examples where he has misrepresented my experiments. I will submit a
> detailed listing of these additional false statements made by Professor Jones
> in a future letter. Scientific discussions are important and necessary for
> this controversial research area. However, any scientist who sets out to
> discredit the work of another must be certain that he has the facts straight.
> It does not benefit anyone to mix fact with fiction and then distribute this
> to other scientists. The best format for the discussion of my work by
> Professor Jones would be in a refereed scientific journal. This would help
> assure that the debate would be based on reported experimental facts rather
> than on misconceptions and false allegations. I hereby challenge Professor
> Jones to take his allegations regarding my work to a refereed scientific
> journal. If he cannot do this, he should at least get the facts straight
> regarding my work or remain silent.
>
 
OK, I accept the challenge to publish objections and concerns about the
Miles et al. experiments and conclusions -- and they are indeed numerous --
in a peer-reviewed journal, of my choosing.
 
It is not a question of fraud, and I do not accuse Miles of fraud.
It is a question of errors of interpretation, and probable systematic errors,
and unjustified statistical arguments -- finally of human error which the
scientific method has as its goal to avoid.
 
One point missed above:  I am concerned about "the scientist who shifts the
window, such as the starting or cut-off date for the data, in order to get
significant results, or privately declares a negative instance irrelevant
without revealing this fact to the readers, or increases (or decreases) the
number of cases (the 'n') to magically produce significant results" -- as I
QUOTED in my "Reply to Miles; Part 4" posted here 19 May 1993.  I did not
write this myself, but thought it a timely warning to us all -- if anyone knows
the author, please let me know so that I can properly acknowledge him.
Immediately after the quotation, I specified:
"In this regard, I ask again for the *first twelve days* of data from the cell
which on Oct. 21, 1990 produced the maximum xs heat (27%) claimed by Miles et
al. in their open calorimetric system."
The matter is easy to clear up, then -- just provide  (Dr. Miles)
the first twelve days of data so that I can say whether the excess power is
in fact *negative* during this initial period (as is the case with the light
water data presented.)  This is a major reason for the prodding quotation:
I would like to *see* these early data for myself.
 
>      Please take note that my initial letter to Professor Jones was in
> response to reports of his constant criticism of my work on the computer
> network (E-mail). I merely asked him one simple question. I certainly did not
> ask him for detailed comments, criticisms, and false allegations concerning my
> publications.
>
Oh, come now, Dr. Miles.  Your first letter pointed to lengthy "discussion of
errors in N.
Lewis calorimetry (Cal Tech work)"  -- surely you cannot complain when your
work also receives such criticism.
 
>                                 Sincerely,
> >
>                                 [Signed]
>                                 DR. MELVIN H. MILES
>                                 Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
>                                 NAWCWPNS Fellow
>
> References
> (1) _21st Century Science and Technology_, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 75-80 (1992).
> (2) Memorandum by Professor S.E. Jones, dated 27 May, 1993 and his E-mail
> discussion of my publications.
> (3) _Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry_, Vol. 346, pp. 99-117 (1993).
>
>
> Blind Copies to:
>
[According to the letter received by mail, Miles letter above was sent to
several people at the University of Utah, of which Miles is a graduate
incidentally, and to R. Nowak of the Office of Naval Research.]
 
Well, gentlemen and ladies, tell me what you think?
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Beam Wrapping
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Beam Wrapping
Date: 19 Jun 1993 01:51:31 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
: In article <C8ttEB.np@world.std.com> tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes:
: >============
: >One of the many difficulties experienced with laser induced, or inertial
: >confinement fusion, is the enormous size and power of the laser
: >required to create hot fusion temperatures. In looking at these schemes,
: >it immediately struck me as odd that they would attempt to zap the
: >duterium fuel using a huge array of lasers shooting at it from different
: >angles.
: >
: >In attempting to get closer to break even, there might be some advantage
: >to using a much lower powered laser. And it might not be all that hard
: >to do. Why couldn't just one laser be used, bounced around in such a way
: >that the same beam criss crossess over a very small area many times.
: >
:
: Well, I know a lot less about Inertial Confiment Fusion (ICF) than I do
: about MFE, but I'll give it a crack. My understanding is that in ICF
: you need the big powerful lasers because you need that much power.
: It takes alot of energy to compress the fuel so quickly.
:
: You also need to have many beams in order to get uniform coverage. Think
: of the DT microsphere target like a water balloon. If you just push on it
: with one or two fingers, you won't compress it, you need to cup your hands
: and make then a full enclosure so you can compress it to a smaller
: volume. In the same sense you need a very uniform, spherically converging
: laser beam or the DT microshpere will "squirt" out the holes. In the
: literature this is called the Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
 
: OK, so given that you need a lot of beamlets, why not just take
: one beam, split it up and put together some geometrical optics to
: get spherically uniform illumination on the pellet? Well, theoretically,
: you could. In practice however, there are practical problems.
 
Recent ICF research has been declassified.  The trick that they use
is this: (called "indirect drive")
 
    they do NOT directly shine lasers at the fuel pellet.
 
    Instead they vaporize a hollow shell of heavy material (lead for ICF,
    and something "else" for bombs), which then creates a gas of *x-rays*
    inside this shell, which then compresses the fuel pellet contained
    within:
 
         |
         V
      ---------
    /          \
-> |     o      |   <---   o = fuel.
    \          /
     ----------
 
        ^
        |
 
The lasers do have to come from a number of different directions, but
you do NOT need to get super-uniform irradiation.  The photons INSIDE
the chamber are much more smooth and uniform and then compress the
fuel pellet more uniformly.
 
But you are right that starting a very fast uniform implosion is necessary
and difficult.
 
: I think there is a point you are missing here about ICF. In ICF, you
: just get one shot. The chamber is dark one pico-second, and the next
: it is bright with terawatts of laser light. A few nanoseconds later
: the pellet has imploded and you see (feel) x-rays and neutrons flying
: out from under the ablation cloud and little later you get a burst of heat.
: That is, you hit the target, hard and fast, and just once. After that
: natures takes its course. So you don't have a chance the reflect the
: beam many times. If you try to compress a pellet that has already
: been illuminated, you find that it is near impossible, You started
: with a microsphere with T~300K. By the time the next beam hits it,
: T>> 1E6 K. you have no hope of compressing it to a high enough
: density to fuse then. Hit it when it is cold, because when it gets
: hot, it has a much higher pressure to push back at you with. ICF
: is not anywhere near thermodynamic equilibrium. It is about as
: far out of equilibrium as you can get.
 
Precisely.  The core of the fuel needs to be at nearly Fermi
degenerate density---i.e. white dwarf star stuff---- 1000x more dense
than *solid* densities!!
 
Which brings up the point:  what exactly IS the physical fuel that
they use in ICF experiments?  Frozen deuterium?  How do they keep it
cool?  This point was remarkably vague in the article I saw.
 
In bombs, it's Li6-D, a solid; neutrons from fission first convert Li into
T(?) preparing the way for fusion.  I don't see how that would work
here.
 
Also, what is the ablator material?  (The coating on the
fuel that is vaporized, whose recoil momentum then compresses the fuel)
 
: -john w. cobb
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 17 Jun 93 15:36:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1v4o84INNej4@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>Paul,
>
>D-He3 will not give you aneutronic fusion. A non-negligible fraction
>of the D's will go via D-D fusion, and from some 50 pct of those you
>will get the 14 MeV neutron from the secondary D-T interaction.
 
Correct and that puts it out use in open atmospheric applications.
One of those applications is boost phase lift.
 
>p-B11 is the one you want. (You knew that already, didn't you?)
 
Yes, and I think we can light it, and with a vengence.
 
>Lifting out of any gravity field...? Presumably, you have then found
>a way to confine the plasma to get the energy while simultaneously letting
>it out to get the thrust, oder?
 
It burns quickly ... in the order of milliseconds, then:
Yes, it wants to come out everywhere.  So we push on it really really
hard to get it to go out in one direction.  That bending of the
rapidly pulsed plasma stream generates a kind of retaliatory
inductive MHD power that we use to handle the recirculating power
needed to keep the system going.  p - B(11) is of course a bit tricky
to burn positively and then to do so in volumes of 100 cc or so and
at burn densities in 10 megawatt per cc densities.  Self compression
helps there, greatly.
 
But that's half the story, the other half is that the apparatus is
compact and doesn't have to mounted on bed rock or need a campus of
space.  A garage is closer to the right size.
 
Comparing the total mass of the whole tokamak system divided by its
peak power outputs (5 watts/cc from a tokamak) and then compare that
to with a few thousand kilos diluted by the tens a megawatts per cc
found in a PLASMAK system, and one can get a better gauge of which
has the best chance for the application of future fusion flight.
 
That difference to a large degree results from using pressure leverage
to advantage or as in in a main line device to great disadvantage.
Furthermore it's a much easier thing utilizing those dense thousands
of megawatts of helium blasting out of a highly compacted "cup" than
to skim off the watts and watts of heat that leak through all that
shielding on a tokamak.
>--
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott
Best
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ?Cost of commercial fusion power plant?
Date: 18 Jun 93 06:08:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1v7209INNi2c@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>In article <9JUN199312425984@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
>|> You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low thrust..."
>|> This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
>|> temperatures for high thrust applications.
 
>You won't get that with a lukewarm plasma. High isp means high exhaust
>velocity, and unless the fusion output is all in focussed charged particles
>that means high temperature for a plasma.
 
Two propulsion applications here and two technologies to handle them.
Uniquely there is an abundance of POWER so that is what gets sacrificed
for CARRIED reaction mass.
 
After all even with a restricted amount of reaction mass, increasing
the power from 20 to 100 gigawatts does push the system along by
comparison to current ion drive technology.
 
Let me say it a different way..  there is also an abundance of POWER to
mass density (power/[system mass]).   That's also important, because
before now, each watt/space kilo was precious.
 
In the first case boost mode is used -- Here in deeper gravity wells
the atmospheric gases are sucked in, fusion heated, and expanded out.
This is spectacular because the power levels are easily on the order
of the shuttle launch but without millions of lbs of fuel.  2.5 oz of
p-B to get to LEO followed by a the second mode propulsion expelling 15
tons of spent He4 on a round trip with order 1000000 # payload left
on Mars.  Note that the total mass of fusion air that was utilized
during boost was not mentioned since it was not "carried".
 
The second mode cases mass/time trade off is optimized at the expense
of power and fuel load.  Since this beast can burn 15 tons of p-B11
on a Mars trip and it's cheap stuff there is no need to sacrifice
order mega pound payloads or short (~ 2 week) trip times.  Basically
the pB burner can generate electric power very efficiently so we
have a technique for tossing "de-energized/chilled" helium out as
reaction mass.  By adding an additional factor of 3 or 4 times the
He burn mass, the trip time can be halved for the same energy.  But
that's as far as we go. If shorter times and more payload is needed,
just increase engine size to 100 gigawatt levels.  It's the easiest
thing to do.  Of course, later with a looming p-B shortage crisis
(2 millieum down the road), a CA Boron conservation program will be
put into effect, (or other earth sites will have to begin to allow
some mining operations )   :-)  .
 
That means in this second mode it is not the fusion heated plasma
that is "leaked or dumped" out directly, rather it simply produces
an efficient (inductive MHD) electric power and our PLASMAK(tm)
Hyperdrive utilizes the ash and electric power to do the rest.  But
more about this a few months.  We have to work through a few things,
before we can quote more reliable estimated numbers.  Still upper
bounds can be found assuming 95% efficiencies and p-B ion temperatures
of 300 ( electrons in cold mode).
 
The peak burn densities are 6 orders higher than tokamak, and PLASMAK(tm)
systems are far simpler and average mass densities of walls are lower.
Therefore the effective specific mass to power ratio densities reduction
of the PLASMAK(tm) over other fusion devices might be 7 or 8 orders
less.  That should get us in the ball park at least for a gala solar
system adventure.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What McKubre thinks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre thinks
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1993 06:56:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930618201231_72240.1256_EHK30-1@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>       "In any case, McKubre, who is regarded as a careful investigator even by
>       the skeptics, believes that Fleischmann and Pons' latest paper is very
>       simple to analyze. 'If they made a mistake, it's the sort of mistake that
>       a first-year university student wouldn't make. And Martin Fleischmann has
>       been doing this for 40 years.'"
>
>I think Mike is exaggerating here. It would not take a first year university
>student. Any high school kid who can measure electricity and boil water would
>catch a serious, significant error in this experiment. A person who
 
     Then please explain to me how a 'dry' cell can maintain 100C for
     three hours after an 11 minute boiloff.
 
>is impossible to measure electricity. Anyone who bothers to perform a few
>simple experiments with boiling water will see that *all* of these absurd
>"arguments" have nothing to do with science. They are concocted from
>superstition, denial, lies, fear of the unknown, and hogwash.
 
     Don't know about you, but I'm still not sure exactly what P&F did,
     what they got, and what the results mean.
 
     It is not clear from the paper, and I've lost all hope that we'll
     ever get a clear straight paper from P&F.
 
     Jed, the parrot is dead.
 
                             dale bass
 
Cleese:  He's not pinin'!  He's passed on!  This parrot is no more!  He has
         ceased to be!  He's expired and gone to meet his maker!
         He's a stiff!  Bereft of life, he rests in peace!  If you hadn't
         nailed him to the perch, he'd be pushing up the daisies!
         His metabolic processes are now history!  He's off the twig!
         He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil,
         run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!!
 
         THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.19 / B Adams /  Muon Catalysied fusion
     
Originally-From: bdoa@ukc.ac.uk (B.D.O.Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon Catalysied fusion
Date: 19 Jun 93 08:36:50
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

  Hello , does anyone here know the status of reasearch into muon catalysised
fusion. I rembember reading of an experiment at Los Alamos (I think) which
obtained about 200 fusion reactions for each muon entering a Deutrium ,Tritum
liquid mixture. What chances are the of bettering this ? for example by:-
 
Altering the pressure, density and compersition of the mixture?
 
Insursing that most of the molecules in the liquid are of DT rather than
D2 , T2?
Is this possible , what is the reaction rate of 2DT <> D2 + T2?
 
Pumping the system with X-rays at the resonant frequency for unsticking muons
from the resulting Helium nuclei?
Would the energy cost of the X-rays outway that of the resulting extra
fusion reactions?
 
Using light or magnetic fields to alter the transfer rates of muons in the
mixture?
 
Using magnetic fields to funnel cosmic ray muons into the mixture?
(OK this is very unlikely to be useful, anyone got an idea of the radius of
the funnel required to get a useful amount of muons?)
 
I am interested in any imformation on this subject, so please reply/followup.
 
Finally an idea for 23 centry energy production. Magnetic Monopole cataylsised
proton decay :-). First Catch your Monopole ....
Well it could work according to some GUT theories.
 
 
Barry Adams
A Postgraduate , nocturnal drunkard and indie kid.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbdoa cudfnB cudlnAdams cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.19 / Jim Carr /  Re: Carr is completely wrong
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carr is completely wrong
Date: 19 Jun 93 16:19:12 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930618182631_72240.1256_EHK34-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>I wrote:
>
>"In the laboratory in Nice, France, this effect has been replicated dozens of
>times in succession, without failure, at levels of 140 watts (30 watts
>input)...
>
>Jim Carr responded:
>
>"That is the laboratory of P&F, correct?
>
>Their published paper did not describe any experiment with such a claim.
>If they have such results and choose not to publish them, that is their
>own business, but I have no way of "knowing" about such results.  The
>Physics Letter describes several different experiments that all produce
>in milli-watt amounts of power."
 
Jed replies:
 
>The paper described what I said: 37.5 watts average input, 144.5 excess
>enthalpy out (to be precise). The bulk of the paper is devoted to the
>discussion of the 144.5 watt reaction.
 
>Carr is utterly wrong. We are *not* talking about milliwatt reactions, these
>are in the multiple watt range. I suspect he has not read the Pons and
>Fleischmann paper, and perhaps not the Hagelstein paper either. Also, let me
>point out that Pons and Fleischmann are not the only ones to get multi-watt
>reactions. There are *many* cases of this in the literature, although no
>others as dramatic as the Toyota work.
 
I have read the paper, and I should have been clearer in my remarks.  I
always forget there is are "lawyers" and not just scientists present.
 
It is not true that the bulk of the paper describes or discusses the
very short time that the experiment is supposed to be producing over
100 watts.  The bulk of the paper describes various experiments (not a
single experiment, and I have spent most of my time on that part: I would
really like to know if the data in Fig. 1 was taken with the apparatus
and calibrations described later in the paper, for example) that generate
less than 1 watt of power and the amount of power is inversely related to
the size of the cathode, as I stated.  The high power period occurs during
a delta-function time interval.  Further, this occurs during a time when,
apparently, the water level is below the silvered region and under thus
under conditions not covered by their cell calibration studies.
 
The power (taking all their statements at face value) is less than 1 Watt
for 25 days of running and more than 1 Watt for 0.01 days of running.  To
summarize before looking at the results in detail, the average power output
of the cell is less than 400 mW over the life of the experiment.  The power
input was around 5 or 6 Watts during this period.  The signal is thus less
than 10% of the power running around loose, requiring a 1% measurement to
get 10% accuracy in the extracted numbers.
 
I do not trust the calibration during boiling since they explicitly state
in the paper that their calibration methods are valid under conditions that
are not met during the boiling period and no calibration was done anywhere
near the operating point used during the final boiling episode.
 
To be specific:
 
 in Fig. 1 we see a 0.16 cm^3 cathode that produces between 45 and 115 mW
           over a 4 day period.  The power excess for the first 2 days and
           subsquent days is not given, and no graph of the time dependence
           of the power output is shown.  During this time, power input was
           about 2 watts.
 
           Later graphs show (for a smaller cathode) that the buildup of
           power starts about a half day into the experiment, so such a
           graph would have helped their case on the origin of the effect.
 
 in Fig. 3 we see a burst from a 0.16 cm^3 cathode that is apparently taken
           from an experiment described in a 1990 publication.  (I say
           "apparently" since the caption does not cite that paper and
           the text refers to "these bursts" in the plural that leaves
           it unclear if Fig. 3 shows a new but typical case of the type
           described earlier -- and thus taken with the equipment in Fig.
           2 -- or one from earlier work.)  No calibration or power output
           is quoted for this case.
 
 in Fig. 4 we see calibration data for a cell with an 0.022 cm^3 cathode
           operating at about 45 degrees C and 0.250 A.  The calibration
           was done with 250 mW heat pulses and the cathode was Pt rather
           than Pd.  The pulses appear to be about 6 hours (22000 s) long.
 
           Thus one would be led to trust power measurements made in this
           range of temperature, current input, and power output.  Calibration
           data under other circumstances (such as 100 degrees C at 0.5 A
           power input with the water level below the silvered region) are
           not discussed anywhere that I could find in this paper.
 
           This figure raises several questions: what is the source of the
           complex fine structure seen in the cell voltage level?  Is the
           time reference absolute relative to the later experiment or
           relative to the start of this experiment?  Has anyone seen a
           graph with such awful axis labels?
 
 in Fig. 8 we see two different experiments with an 0.039 cm^3 cathode.
           Only the experiment in 8(b) is discussed quantitatively in
           the text and only the experiment in 8(a) is shown in the
           subsequent figures.  No data is shown for the other 2 cells
           run at the same time, and no summary is given of their results.
 
           (It would have been trivial to put four curves in Fig. 10(b) so
           this is a major oversight in my opinion.  Since Fig. 10(b) already
           has in it a curve that has no relation to the experiment, there
           is clearly plenty of room for such a display with an appropriate
           time offset.)
 
           The figures also contain the info that these are from DEMO9_2
           and DEMO9_4 but both use ELECTRODE 2.  The photo shows (and the
           text describes) four cells in a single tank.  The meaning of
           this is thus far from clear -- are the times relative to a
           common start (as the text implies but does not state) or was
           the same electrode used in each cell in turn?
 
           The power output shown in Fig. 8 indicates that the cell produces
           from 60 to 100 mW when run at 0.200 A and a bit over 30 degrees
           C, the conditions used for the calibration work.  At twice this
           temperature and input current of 0.500 A we see power output in
           the 200 to 300 mW levels over a period of 16 days in both cases.
           During this time, the input power was around 5 W.
 
in Fig. 10 we can deduce that the peak power output during boiling (up to
           the cell half-full point) is 780 mW.  A power level on the order
           of 150 W is seen for a period of about 12 minutes.
 
in Fig. 11 we see that the cell temperature increases while it is boiling.
           This figure, unlike some others, is constructed so that we
           cannot see for sure where the 100 C line is in the critical
           region and the scales compress this critical time to a tiny
           area.  There is no indication anywhere of when cell boiling
           begins, only of the half-dry point.
 
in Fig. 12 we can clearly (!) see the silvered region identified in Fig. 2.
           I think (?) we can see a water level well below that region.
           There are no fiducial marks apparent that could be used to
           define the half-full level in the cell.
 
Calculations in the text determine numbers to 4 significant figures from
other numbers measured to 2 or less significant figures.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1993 20:05:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul M. Koloc writes:
>In article <1v7209INNi2c@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.d
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>>In article <9JUN199312425984@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>
>>|> You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low
thrust..."
>>|> This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
>>|> temperatures for high thrust applications.
>
>Let me say it a different way..  there is also an abundance of POWER to
>mass density (power/[system mass]).   That's also important, because
>before now, each watt/space kilo was precious.
>
>In the first case boost mode is used -- Here in deeper gravity wells
>the atmospheric gases are sucked in, fusion heated, and expanded out.
>This is spectacular because the power levels are easily on the order
>of the shuttle launch but without millions of lbs of fuel.  2.5 oz of
>p-B to get to LEO followed by a the second mode propulsion expelling 15
>tons of spent He4 on a round trip with order 1000000 # payload left
>on Mars.  Note that the total mass of fusion air that was utilized
>during boost was not mentioned since it was not "carried".
 
Paul and I haven't communicated extensively about PLASMAK(tm)-based
rocket technologies, even though we both feel that will be the most
important application of his device.  I guess that's because once
Paul delivers the PLASMAK(tm) technology, the remaining engineering
to get really extensive economic activity going in space will be
a piece of cake compared to present space technologies.  So the
details of PLASMAK(tm)-based rockets, while fun to think about,
aren't all that critical at this time.
 
However, since it IS Saturday morning, and I just got back from
body-surfing, I'm in for some fun -- so --
 
Paul, the reason I sort of like the idea of carrying water as
reaction mass for Earth lift-off is because of an intuition I've
developed working with E'Prime Aerospace Corp. on their Peacekeeper-
derived launch system which uses a steam cannon to overcome the
first few moments of inertia.  Maybe my intuition is off here because
of the orders of magnitude difference beteween chemical and fusion
power levels but here is sort of how my thought process works (or
 fails as the case may be):
 
If you use air as reaction mass, you run into the same problem they're
having with the National Aerospace Plane, which is two fold as you
get up there in altitude and speed:  1)  the air is thinner so it
is more difficult to grab enough of it to be useful it and 2) the air
is flowing by you faster so it is more difficult to use it for reaction
mass.  Now, if the drop off in usefulness of reaction mass pretty much
falls off in proportion to air density divided by speed of the air going
by, then my intuition is off and I need to do some homework in this area
(which is a certainty in any case, but remember, homework isn't fun and
 I'm having fun here).
 
If, on the other hand, you load up with water in a big steel tank, sort
of the way Bob Truax talks of doing with his chemical Sea Dragon, you
have a whole lot more mass at lift-off, but you get rid of it so fast
that the only residual problem you have to deal with is the tankage,
(which hopefully doesn't make your maximum dynamic pressure TOO bad
 thereby driving up your engineering costs).  Then the payoff in the
upper atmosphere comes in the kinetic and potential energy of the
water you've lofted that far, which can be used to 1) attain orbital
velocity and 2) deboost the launch stage and have it reenter the
atmosphere after delivering the space stage. (This presumes, of course,
 a two stage system -- one reaction-mass intensive and one power
 intensive.)
 
This may let you get by with a lower power system in your boost stage
than an air-breather, trading tankage against air-gulpage equipment.
It may also turn out to be more environmentally acceptable.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993 00:29:53 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Jim Bowery writes:
> If, on the other hand, you load up with water in a big steel tank, sort
> of the way Bob Truax talks of doing with his chemical Sea Dragon, you
> have a whole lot more mass at lift-off, but you get rid of it so fast
> that the only residual problem you have to deal with is the tankage
 
 
        I don't know exactly how the energy is going to be transferred from
the fusion reactor to the working fluid, but no matter how it is done the
engine and nozzle will have to be made out of existing materials (no
unobtainium!).  This sets some sort of upper limit on the temperature to
which the working fluid can be heated.  Rocket performance depends not only
on the temperature of the working fluid, but also on its molecular weight.
The lower the weight the better.  The best working fluid is hydrogen, with
the next being helium.  Both are deep cryogens and are a pain to use in
rockets because they have a very low liquid density, requiring heavy tanks.
Helium is also hideously expensive.  Water is very cheap, but does not have a
particularly attractive molecular weight.  The best reaction mass for a
fusion rocket in the boost phase is likely to be liquid ammonia (NH3).  This
is a liquid at room temperature, has a reasonable density, and is
inexpensive.  When heated, it decomposes as follows:  2 NH3 > N2 + 3 H2, for
an average molecular weight of 8.5.  This is substantially better than that
of water (MW 18).  For electrically powered rockets such as arcjets and
resistojets, when hydrogen is not suitable (because for example because of
its lack of long term storability), designers generally choose ammonia as the
working fluid.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / John Logajan /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 93 07:21:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>upper limit on the temperature to which the working fluid can be heated.
 
I've often pondered the idea of inducing electrical charges (ions) seeded
in the surrounding atmosphere and using physically large electrostatic fields
to repel away from them.
 
My guess was that said ions would have a larger "effective" mass than merely
the ion itself, through kinetic energy dispersal via the normal thermal
collision rate with other air molecules (10^9 collisions per second at sea
level.)
 
I realize that there is quite an energy price to pay to ionize molecules, but
water molecules, for instance, are easier to ionize than N2 or O2, and might
make a cheap "seed" source.  Other atoms and molecules are even less energy
costly to ionize.
 
The alleged benefit of ion/seeded propulsion is that the electrical force
propogates at the speed of light, and therefore, effective repulsion would
occur at earth-atmospheric travel speeds, whereas this can tax some chemical/
thermal air breathing reaction rates.
 
Here's a drawing of a hypothetical propulsion unit:
 
 
 Airflow                          (Not shown, electron charge "dump" beams)
           /\
    |      BB           ^
    |      OO           |
    v      DD       Rocket direction
           YY
 (,|,|,|,|,||,|,|,|,|,)     <--- Highly positive charged circular grid
           \/                    or concentroids "|" and positive ion
  .  .  .      .  .  .           generators ","
 .   .   .    .   .   .
.    .    .  .    .    .   <--- Positive ion "seeds" and air mixture.
.    .    .  .    .    .
 
 
 
Note that for "exhaust" distances less than the grid diameter, the repulsive
force (electrostatic field) falls off slowly.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993 15:25:57 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

John Logajan proposes electrostatic forces as a method of moving air in order
to generate thrust.  I can't judge the electrical aspects of this scheme, but
will point out that suffers from the same problem of all schemes attempting
to use air in some manner.  Much of the acceleration which needs to be done
is at velocities at which there is extreme drag and frictional heating.
Assuming that there is enough thrust to overcome the enormous drag of the
grids, they will rapidly overheat and melt.  For reference, getting to low
earth orbit involves establishing a more-or-less horizontal velocity of about
8000 m/sec.  Mach 1 in the atmosphere is roughly 300 m/sec.  The very fastest
airplanes are limited to about 1000 m/sec, at which point they have to be
made of temperature resistant alloys and suffer considerable weakening
because of the temperature involved.
 
As an addendum to my previous post suggesting ammonia as a working fluid:  I
stated that ammonia was a liquid at room temperature.  To clarify this, I am
referring to ammonia in a pressurized tank - at atmospheric pressure, ammonia
is of course a gas.
 
If you have large amounts of electrical power, the easiest way to transmit
this to the working fluid (ammonia, hydrogen or possibly air) is in a type of
engine called an arcjet.  The power is used to establish an electrical arc in
a flowing gas stream, heating it.  The heated gas is expanded out a nozzle,
generating thrust.  Extremely high temperature can be obtained.  Experimental
engines have generally used hydrogen or ammonia.  The specific impulse
(amount of thrust per unit mass flow) increases with the temperature, but at
very high temperatures the engine becomes inefficient because an increasing
proportion of the energy goes into ionization of the gas, and not into
heating it.  The ionization energy is generally not recoverable for thrust,
as the gas exits the engine too quickly for recombination to take place as
the gas cools and expands.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / Jed Rothwell /  CF experiments are in the multi-watt reg
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF experiments are in the multi-watt reg
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993 18:13:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jim Carr writes, regarding the high heat boiling condition described in the
P&F paper:
 
     "I do not trust the calibration during boiling since they explicitly
     state in the paper that their calibration methods are valid under
     conditions that are not met during the boiling period and no calibration
     was done anywhere near the operating point used during the final boiling
     episode."
 
To what extent is this calibration untrustworthy? To what extent can it be
wrong? I do not trust it as much as the low level 0.8 watt reaction
measurements either, but I am perfectly certain it is not off by 350%. It is
not enough for you to say, "this is not accurate." If you quantify your
statements and objections, if you offer plausible reasons for inaccuracy, and
if you examine specific experiment evidence from other people who have boiled
water in test tubes, you will see that a 350% error under these conditions is
absolutely impossible. As McKubre said, any mistake on that scale would be so
glaringly obvious that a first year university student would catch it
instantly. The beauty of the high-heat boiling experiment is this simplicity:
the physics and chemistry of boiling water, the heat of vaporization, and the
other main parameters have been researched in enormous detail over the last
200 years, because boiling water is the key to so many industrial processes.
The heat of vaporization is known to many decimal places, and the factors that
can affect it and change it are well understood. There is simply no leeway in
this experiment for a 350% error.
 
The "objections" and "reasons" given for a possible error of this magnitude by
the so-called "skeptics" in this forum have no scientific basis. Most of them
are pure fantasy, and those few that are actually tenable could only produce
an error of a few percent under the worst imaginable conditions.
 
 
Carr also writes:
 
     "It is not true that the bulk of the paper describes or discusses the
     very short time that the experiment is supposed to be producing over 100
     watts.  The bulk of the paper describes various experiments (not a single
     experiment...)"
 
All of the experiments reached boiling. The purpose of this series of
experiments was discover the exact conditions needed to promote the high heat
reaction. The focus of the experiments is the high heat. This was brought out
more in the lecture than the paper.
 
As I pointed out, the literature is chock full of other reports, from other
credible workers, of multi-watt reactions. What about Storms (LANL)? What
about Kunimatsu, McKubre, Srinvasan, Okamoto, Muzuno, Mills, Bush and all the
others? *Most* CF experiments are in the multi-watt regime. Look at the
evidence in its totality.
 
     "To summarize before looking at the results in detail, the average power
     output of the cell is less than 400 mW over the life of the experiment."
 
Please let us not play that silly, lawyer-like game of "averages." As I
pointed out, by that logic my car drives at 0.25 miles per hour. An "average"
over the entire experiment is meaningless. If you are going to count the two
week loading preparation needed before high heat, you might as well add in the
time it takes to manufacture the Dewar, and the time it takes the technicians
to install the computer monitoring equipment. Why not? What about the heat
needed to melt the glass for the Dewar? This is all irrelevant nonsense. The
issue is the 10 minute boiling period, and if you like, the last megajoule
generated at the 0.8 watt level the day before that. This process is
completely exothermic for nearly two weeks, so no possible energy storage can
be occurring during *this entire period*. During the 10 minute boil off, the
cell generates about 203 eV per atom of Pd. Suppose it took a year of
preloading, and the *average* power level for the entire year was 0.0000000001
watts? That would make no difference whatsoever. As Hagelstein put it:
 
     "A common misunderstanding often occurs in the discussion of the results
     of Pons-Fleischmann experiments which is of interest here. It is
     sometimes argued that the energy production during a short event can be
     disregarded, since there may exist energy storage mechanisms which could
     have been collecting energy at a low level for a long period of time. For
     example, the total energy output from this experiment would not be very
     much larger than the total input energy if no heat excess had occurred
     prior to the boiling event (1 watt-day = 86.4 kJ). This type of argument
     seeks to make palatable the notion that since the total energy excess
     measured over days is small compared to the input (and hence there might
     exist a signal to noise problem in the measurement), the measurement can
     be dismissed. As discussed above, this type of argument completely misses
     a key implication of the experiment -- specifically, that there exists no
     known physical mechanism which could store the energy observed to be
     released during the boiling episode."
 
The same statement: "there exists no known physical mechanism which could
store the energy observed to be released..." applies to *hundreds* of other
experiments performed in other laboratories. The skeptics should stop evading
this point, stop dancing around the issues, stop playing silly games with
"averages," turn off the sophistry, cut out the fantasy and the hand-waving,
and face reality. This is not chemistry, and it is not a mistake.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / John Logajan /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 93 17:26:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>John Logajan proposes electrostatic forces as a method of moving air in order
>to generate thrust.
>Assuming that there is enough thrust to overcome the enormous drag of the
>grids, they will rapidly overheat and melt.
 
Drag is indeed a major concern.  However, heating on the "grids" shouldn't
be any worse than heating on any other rocket surface.  The leading edge of
a grid should have no more heating effect than the tip of a conventional
nose cone, and the "grid" surface (if any) normal to the airflow should have
no more heating effect than that on any typical rocket body.  We know from
experience that all rockets don't melt :-) so I think we can build grids
that don't melt either.  :-)
 
In fact, the "grid" can be tipped (or totally encased) with an ablative
material.  Since the "grid" is always positively charged, the ablated particles
will also carry a positive charge and act like additional "seeds" as they
are swept into the exhaust.
 
The actual force on the "seeds" is exactly calculated with Coulomb's force
law.  The actual thrust produced on the rocket, however, depends upon
the effective mass of the "seeds", which in turn depend upon the collision
rates of air molecules.  I don't really know how to calculate the effective
mass, so I don't really know what the actual thrust might be, or whether it
is too small to be of practical use.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Only off by an order of magnitude or two
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Only off by an order of magnitude or two
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1993 18:42:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that I have confirmed my status as one of the world's worst mental
arithmetic artists when I wrote:
 
     "The issue is the 10 minute boiling period, and if you like, the last
     megajoule generated at the 0.8 watt level the day before that. . ."
 
A glance at a calculator reveals that 0.8 watts = 2880 joules per hour, or
69,120 joules per day. I think the power level for the last week was about 0.6
watts average, which comes to 362,000 joules for the week. To paraphrase Swan
and Flanders: "If God had meant us to do arithmetic, He would never have given
us the computer."
 
Of course, 69,000 Joules coming out of 0.0044 mole of Pd is way beyond the
limits of chemistry, and there are no reports of any trace of chemical ash
in any CF experiment in the literature. After four years of intensive
investigation, there is no sign that water catches on fire and burns, and no
sign of any other chemical source of energy. So, as usual, I am sloppy on the
details but right on the overall picture.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / John Logajan /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 93 17:54:18 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>engine called an arcjet.  The power is used to establish an electrical arc in
>a flowing gas stream, heating it.  The heated gas is expanded out a nozzle,
>generating thrust.
 
Since I love air-breathers ... strike an arc across air molecules passing
between the rails of a rail-gun.  Here heating is used mainly to ionize
the air, while the thrust comes from the Lorentz force of the rail gun.
 
You could have banks of air breathing rail-guns ...
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / John Logajan /  The Flying Lineaccs
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Flying Lineaccs
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 93 19:20:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Variation #57 of the air-breathing flying lineaccs:
 
       |
  Air intake
       |
       V
    ^     ^
   / \   / \
   |==   ==| <---- Positive ion seeder
   |:| . |:|
   |:|.  |<---- Hi-temp Hi-voltage electrical insulating material
   |:|   |:|
   |:| . |: <---- Concentric chargeable lineacc ribbons -- dynamically
   |:|   |:|      reconfigurable to match acceleration/velocity needs
   |:| . |:|
   |:|  .|:|
   |:|   |:|
   |:|.  |:|
   |:|   |:|
   |:| . |:|
   |:|   |:|
   |==   ==|  <---- Electron "dump"
   | \   / |
   | /   \ | <---- Mechanical and ion recombination heating recovery
   |/     \|       nozzel (if useful?)
       |
    Exhaust
       |
       V
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Pressure Confinement
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pressure Confinement
Date: 20 Jun 1993 23:30:16 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tsimonds@world.std.com (Tom Simonds) writes:
: Another scheme for enhancing the so called inertial confinement is
: pressure confinement. In this scheme, instead of relying on inertia
: alone to confine the fuel, you use ambient gas pressure. The deuterium
: micro balloon would be surrounded by gas pressure of, say, 1000 p.s.i.
 
I've never heard of this.
 
: The laser beam hits the pellet, it implodes, then it's outward travel is
: impeded when it slams into the high pressure, inert gas.
 
By then it's too late.
 
Timescales for ICF are much much smaller than equilibration
times for gas pressure effects.
 
In fact you can see this quite easily:  the appropriate equilibration
scale the gas is given by the speed of sound.  Much too slow to deal
with nanosecond scale fusion implosions/explosions.  (that's why
they use radiation pressure)
 
--
-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:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / BERNECKY R /  Farfetch products
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Farfetch products
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 01:54:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege asked me what products my *farfetch*  (i.e. all statements
are being made with "suspended disbelief") predicts.
 
We can conjecture that "ordinary" nuclear reactions occur, except that the
energy is siphoned off by the BWO before it can be released as a gamma.
 
For his current experiment, the anticipated reaction involves BWO(H) only.
A likely candidate is the PeP reaction, which produces 1.44 Mev, and D as
the "ash":
             H+e-   +   H+e-   -->  D + e- + neutrino + 1.44 Mev
 
But there is the possibility (unlikely ?) of T or He forming, depending on
how BWO's interact.  That is, constructive interference between two waves
which also happen to be composed of massive particles leaves lots of room
for speculative by-products.
 
For H and D [short-hand for BWO(H) and BWO(D)], the first-order products are
T and 3He, and about 5.4 Mev per reaction.
 
For D and D, it is the long-conjectured 4He + 24 Mev. But this reaction
should be hard to sustain since BWO(D) should grow very large very
quickly.
 
In the F&P expts, run at 60 C, it is possible that pockets of BWO(D) can
form where the local temperature is at 69 C. My best guess is that they
would grow quite large, and would be stationary.  Thus, the bet
is that the most common reactions would be the Pep and the H+D.
 
If any of this is correct, then F&P should be seeing T. We can quantify
this to an order of magnitude:
 
        about 10E11 reactions/sec x 10E6 sec  = 10E17 products
 
If this is T, this means about 100 microCuries per cc of electrolyte (before
it boils away), and a cumulative 0.01 Curies.  Have there been any indications
that they are seeing T?  If not, then we have some negative evidence for my
idea.
 
Speaking of evidence, I just noticed that figure 1 of F&P's Phys Letter A
paper indicates a heat-producing cell running in the vicinity of 39 C.
This only makes sense if the rod were pure Pd. Is there any way to verify
this?
 
I also dug up this from Ed Storm's overview:
 
[from "Review of Experimental Observations about the Cold Fusion Effect",
E. Storms, Fusion Tech Vol. 20, Dec 1991]
 
"Liaw et al. This is the first study using a fused salt of KCl + LiCl in
which LiD is dissolved. Excess heat was obtained between 400 and 460 C
using palladium or titanium as the active electrode (anode). Only Pd that
had been flame melted, which gave a porous surface, produced heat. Pd gave a
power production rate equal to 1512% excess at 692 mA/cm^2 and 460 C, a net
gain of 25.4 W from 0.498 g of Pd. Excess 4He was detected in the electrode
but not enough to account for the heat. Titanium also produced excess heat
but at a much lower rate. While Li is present in the solution, it reacts with
the Al cathode rather than with the anode. Apparently Li does not need to
be present with the D for excess energy to be produced." [p 441]
 
Here we observe that the three lambda temperature of H is 429 C (702 K),
which is midway between the reported 400 to 460 C range.  This is suggestive,
but I would like to see more accurate data.  Also, we must conjecture that
the H is introduced via LiD containing some LiH.
 
Independent of the validity of the bosonic wave idea, the published data
strongly hints of a temperature dependence.  Has anyone seen any data
to the contrary?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: What McKubre thinks
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre thinks
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 03:11:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On 19 June 1993 Dale Bass posted a challenge:
>  Then please explain to me how a 'dry' cell can maintain 100C for
>  three hours after an 11 minute boiloff
 
I point out that one quite plausible scenario has already been described
in much detail on this net (by yours truly).
 
The idea that the reported post-boil-off data somehow "defy rational
analysis" is specious.
 
_That_ parrot won't sing anymore, Dale.  Please let it rest in peace.
 
-Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / David Croft /  proton conduction
     
Originally-From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: proton conduction
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 01:35:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Electrons move through an electrical conductor at a good
fraction of the speed of light. Interaction between the
electrons and the conductor (or electrons and electrons)
heat the conductor. Supposedly, what makes a conductor are
highly delocalized electronic orbitals with closely spaced
energy levels. Are there (or what if there were) atomic
nuclei which had highly delocalized nuclear energy levels
which are closely spaced? What if the nuclear configuration
resembled the electronic configuration of a conductor? Then
there might be a proton conductor! So now if the protons move
in the proton conductor at nearly the speed of light as freely
as electrons move through an electrical conductor they may
interact. ...and there may be fusion!
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendtc9h cudfnDavid cudlnCroft cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What McKubre thinks
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre thinks
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 05:38:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930621022641_73770.1337_EHA45-1@CompuServe.COM> 73770.1337@c
mpuserve.com (Chuck Harrison) writes:
>
>On 19 June 1993 Dale Bass posted a challenge:
>>  Then please explain to me how a 'dry' cell can maintain 100C for
>>  three hours after an 11 minute boiloff
>
>I point out that one quite plausible scenario has already been described
>in much detail on this net (by yours truly).
>
>The idea that the reported post-boil-off data somehow "defy rational
>analysis" is specious.
>
>_That_ parrot won't sing anymore, Dale.  Please let it rest in peace.
 
    Your explanation requires additional problems for P&F, the largest one
    being that their understanding of their own thermal situation is
    inadequate to the point of being incompetent.
 
    In any case, I've still challenge you to maintain the situation
    described in P&F's paper in the way you've described.  Key elements
    are roughly 11 minute boiloff of half the fluid in an insulated container
    open to the atmosphere, followed by three
    hours of 100C at an unsubmerged thermister in a nearly dry cell.
    And you must maintain 100C within a degree or so the whole time.
    Use whatever source of heat you wish as long as you keep the key
    elements the same.
 
    The control system will be the tricky part since if
    you boil the remaining water too fast it will escape the cell in
    under 10 minutes and the temperature will shoot up, and if you
    don't heat it enough, the temperature will drop.
 
    Good luck.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Richard Kirk /  Nasers?
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nasers?
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 12:34:59 BST
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

Is coherent neutron emission practically possible?
 
A purified neutron-emitting isotope is a sort of inverted population:
all the nucleii are energetically capable of emitting a neutron but are
prevented by some kinetic barrier from doing so.  An incoming neutron
is capable of stimulating the nucleus to decay.
 
A-bombs use a neutron to stimulate the emission of another neutron, but
there are some important differences.  The device is usually being
assembled rather fast so you have a significant Doppler-shift of
the momentum to muck up any Mossbauer-type peak, and they use slower
neutrons which have a greater capture cross-section.
 
It is difficult to have an exact analogue with a laser because good
neutron mirrors are hard to buy, but perhaps we could have some analogue
with the last stage in a high-power laser system where a pulse is
amplified on a sigle pass through the system.  If the isotope is
crystalline the nucleii will lie on lines.  The weak nuclear force
will tend to focus nucleii travelling along the close-packed axes along
these lines.  This force would be pretty small so we would have to
cool the apparatus to a few microK to avoid it being dwarfed by thermal
effects, and we would have to put on a magnetic field to align the
nuclear spins.  But once we have done these the neutron amplification
would become anisotropic with a strong peak along the magnetic & close-
packed axis.  If we could get it anisotropic enough then the thing
might self-focus the beam along this axis to a few atomic spacings in the
crystal length.
 
If such a thing could be built I guess the 'Star Wars' crowd might have
considered it to produce predetonation in an incoming nuke.  I remember
all sorts of weird contraptions, but not this.
 
I guess it would also produce a pulse in the opposite direction.
Best stand to one side before pressing the button...
 
Cheers.
 
 
 
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: nuclear catalysis
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: nuclear catalysis
Date: 21 Jun 1993 18:00:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <C8zBCD.5y1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
 
>(2) What might happen if Fe26+ (an iron nucleus) were
>injected into H2 gas? Might fusion occur in the process
>of forming FeH2 26+?
 
I don't have the Moore tables handy, but my guess would be that if you
injected (Fe)26+ in to H2 gas you'd get (Fe)(26 - 2n)+ + n(H)+, with n
fairly respectable (around 10-12), well before you'd see any fusion.
If I remember correctly, the 26th ionization energy of Fe is in the
keV - MeV range, and it only takes about 30 eV to turn H2 into 2 protons
plus 2 electrons.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Jamie Jamison /  Electric Field Fusion
     
Originally-From: niteowl@stein2.u.washington.edu (Jamie Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electric Field Fusion
Date: 21 Jun 93 18:01:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

I remember reading in T.A. Heppenheimer's book, _The Man Made Sun_ about
someone who had been experimenting with using electric fields for confinement
rather than magnetic fields. Has anything else been done with this, the
book made it sound as if it was a promising approach that was killed due
to the fact that they couldn't get any funding for it. Also what ever happened
to the Riggatron disposable fusion reactor concept?
 
 
 
 
Jamie Jamison
niteowl@u.washington.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenniteowl cudfnJamie cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  More Replies
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Replies
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 20:01:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz,  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu, writes
 
>Let's assume that you want to prepare "sub-quantum" H atoms.  Couldn't you
>simply bathe them in X-rays of the appropriate frequency?  Assuming a non-
>zero transition probability (more on that later), then you start with a
>huge population excess, since all of the atoms are starting from normal
>quantum states.  Wouldn't the X-rays then stimulate emision down to the
>appropriate "sub-quantum" state?  And you'd have an instant X-Ray laser
>without having to use a messy synchroton or anything.
 
and Terry Bollinger concurs:
 
>P.S. -- Instead of answering me, how about addressing that nicely pointed
>        question that Richard Schulz asked about about why hydrogen isn't
>        a loaded X-ray laser ready to zap anyone who tickles it with an
>        X-ray photon of the right frequency?  I _liked_ that one!
 
OK.
 
1.  First of all you need H atoms--not H2 molecules.  Recognize that this
means that you are not starting with a huge population excess because the
standard state of hydrogen gas is H2--not H.  (The situation would be
somewhat different in a plasma.)  The nice thing about electrolysis with
either Pd or Ni is that H *atoms* are generated on the surface of the
cathode.
 
2.  You cannot use any old frequency (or energy).  If you want stimulated
emission of a H atom (not H2!) from n = 2 to n = 1 you must use the correct
frequency, E(n= 1) - E(n = 2) = h f.  Of course, you have a population
problem in this case as well.
 
3.  Now, for n = 1 to n = 1/2:
 
E(n = 1/2) - E(n = 1)  =  -13.6 -(-54.4)  = 40.8 eV.
 
Thus, the correct stimulation energy is 40.8 eV (extreme UV).  You *might*
also be able to use 27.2 eV (the same "energy hole" energy used in the
electrolysis experiments; see energy hole in point 5 below).  You might
also want to take note that the extreme UV is a difficult energy range to
work with.  Notice that the 40.8 eV will not work for the n = 1/2 to n =
1/3 transition.   Here, we have -54.4 eV - (-122.4 eV)  =  68.0 eV  --- and
so on.
 
4.  In any event, *if* you have the H *atoms* and if you hit them with the
*correct frequency* stimulated emission will occur.  Bank on it.
 
5  In the Mills/Farrell theory the n = 1 of H is still a special state (but
not the ground state).  I call the n = 1 state the "no trapped-photon
state."  It is the "natural" state of hydrogen.  In order to get to a
higher energy state, n = 2, 3, 4,.., the atom must trap a photon.  There
are potentially two ways to get to the lower energy states: (1) stimulated
emission (this requires a photon equal to the energy difference between the
current state and the next lower state); (2) an adjacent energy hole (some
atom or molecule that requires energy to make something happen--like Rb^(+)
 =  Rb^(2+) + 1 e-   27.28 eV) of 27.2 eV (or thereabouts--slight
differences can be made up through translational energies and so on).
 
6.  I have calculated (from experimental data) an upper limit for the
transition probability for the n = 1 to n = 1/2 transition, B,
 
B  < 3 x 10^(-17) per hydrogen atom per second
 
Note, once again, this is per H *atom*--not H2 molecule.  Let me make it
clear: the hydrogen in H2 molecules doesn't count;  the hydrogen in CH4
doesn't count; you must have monatomic hydrogen *atoms*.
 
Note that the value is quite small.  It is not surprising that these
transitions were not observed until someone started looking for them.  Even
then, it is tough because of the region of the spectrum involved.
Furthermore, many, if not most, of the observed transitions may be from
stimulated emission (that is why the value above is an upper limit).
 
7.  Please keep in mind that H atoms are needed for this process not H2
molecules.  This is one reason why Pd, Ni, and Ti have been found as useful
materials in this phenomenon.  Other factors fall out of this aspect: use
high surface area (lots of space between the H atoms and lots of H atoms);
low current density (don't force the H atoms off the surface); no
recombiners (forces the equilibria toward water formation).
 
8.  I have said before that electrolysis (using very particular materials;
formation of H atoms and a 27.2 eV energy hole are critical) is only one
way form these lower-energy H atoms.  Stimulated emission is another way.
There are other, and simpler, ways to do it.  Good luck--we are way ahead
of you on this.
 
 
BTW, Terry, I have become quite used to the fact that every time I attempt
to answer one question about ten new questions are formulated.  I, myself,
went through this process as the theory was being developed.  And, I have
gone through this process with a growing list of physicists and engineers.
If it looks like I am selecting questions to respond to--I am.  I select
questions based on (1) what I have worked out and/or understand about the
theory; (2)  the present state of understanding of the theory of the
audience; (3) what text is fairly easy to put into this format; (4) the
time I have available.  It looks as though you have some appreciation of my
selection process.  Others don't, but there is nothing else I can do.  The
book is now available from a publisher, but the cost is $65.00.  (I receive
no money from sale of the book.)
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Mike Jamison /  Re: fruit
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fruit
Date: 21 Jun 1993 12:19 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1vshpcINNgjp@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching
mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes...
>In article <17JUN199318511159@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>       edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
>|> Baseballs.  Don't know what a banana is, apart from the fruit, but the
>|> baseball magnets are used on the ends of linear reactors (they're called
>|> that because the windings look like the stitching on a baseball).
>|>
>|> Though I hear that funding for linear devices is (has?) winding down, so
>|> they won't be a concern for much longer...
>
>The machine which was supposed to actually use these magnetic coils was
>MFTF-B (Mirror Fusion Test Facility B). Funding for this beast was cut
>in 1987 *after* 110 million dollars [*] were spent to make the coils.
 
I hear that was also 3 weeks prior to firing it up.  it wasn't constructed
to get anywhere near break-even, but would've filled in some of the gaps in
that computer code you get to work with.  So, it's worse than just wasteful.
 
>During a  tour to Livermore, I noticed they have these coils out on
>display in front of the M-building (fusion), and the guide noted
>sardonically that it was a monument to Geovernment wastefulness. First
>they build them, then they scrap them.
 
Actuall,y not all of the setup was wasted.  I heard that at least some of
the equipment ended up at NASA LeRC, and is being used for ion/arcjet engine
tests.  Unfortunately, they only had one truck to take what they wanted,
otherwise...
 
>
>[*] this figure was quoted orally; I don't know its veracity
>--
>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
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.21 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Nasers?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nasers?
Date: 21 Jun 1993 17:09 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Jun21.123459.5161@crosfield.co.uk>, rak@crosfield.co.uk
(Richard Kirk) writes...
>Is coherent neutron emission practically possible?
 
By "coherent" do you mean "having the same energy, the same DeBroglie wave-
length, and in phase", or do you just mean "collimated", as in, "travelling
in the same direction", with approximately the same speed.  the description
following appears to suggest "collimated" more than "coherent", at least as
far as practicality goes.
 
>
>A purified neutron-emitting isotope is a sort of inverted population:
>all the nucleii are energetically capable of emitting a neutron but are
>prevented by some kinetic barrier from doing so.  An incoming neutron
>is capable of stimulating the nucleus to decay.
>
>A-bombs use a neutron to stimulate the emission of another neutron, but
>there are some important differences.  The device is usually being
>assembled rather fast so you have a significant Doppler-shift of
>the momentum to muck up any Mossbauer-type peak, and they use slower
>neutrons which have a greater capture cross-section.
>
>It is difficult to have an exact analogue with a laser because good
>neutron mirrors are hard to buy, but perhaps we could have some analogue
>with the last stage in a high-power laser system where a pulse is
>amplified on a sigle pass through the system.  If the isotope is
>crystalline the nucleii will lie on lines.  The weak nuclear force
>will tend to focus nucleii travelling along the close-packed axes along
>these lines.  This force would be pretty small so we would have to
>cool the apparatus to a few microK to avoid it being dwarfed by thermal
>effects, and we would have to put on a magnetic field to align the
>nuclear spins.  But once we have done these the neutron amplification
>would become anisotropic with a strong peak along the magnetic & close-
>packed axis.  If we could get it anisotropic enough then the thing
>might self-focus the beam along this axis to a few atomic spacings in the
>crystal length.
>
>If such a thing could be built I guess the 'Star Wars' crowd might have
>considered it to produce predetonation in an incoming nuke.  I remember
>all sorts of weird contraptions, but not this.
>
>I guess it would also produce a pulse in the opposite direction.
>Best stand to one side before pressing the button...
 
Besides SDI, what could such a device be used for?  Clearing the land to
either side of your house? :-)
 
>
>Cheers.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
>rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Richard Schultz /  Re: More Replies
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Replies
Date: 22 Jun 1993 02:01:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <01GZN816ZSIA002FDF@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
(In response to my suggestion about the sub-quantum X-ray laser)
 
>1.  First of all you need H atoms--not H2 molecules.  Recognize that this
>means that you are not starting with a huge population excess because the
>standard state of hydrogen gas is H2--not H.
 
I understand that you need H atoms.  But since you have to start *no* atoms
with n<1 and *every* atom with n=1 or greater, you have a population
excess relative to the sub-quantum levels, one being greater than zero.
 
>2.  You cannot use any old frequency (or energy). . . .
 
Understood.  That's why I talked about it in terms of an X-ray laser.
 
> 3.  Now, for n = 1 to n = 1/2:
>E(n = 1/2) - E(n = 1)  =  -13.6 -(-54.4)  = 40.8 eV.
>Thus, the correct stimulation energy is 40.8 eV (extreme UV).
 
I calculate that this is a wavelength of about 30 nm, which is not easy
without a synchrotron, but is doable.  What you do is take the output of
a near-UV dye laser and put it through a couple of Xe tripling cells.  Note
that the second one will have to be windowless (using a pulsed jet of Xe)
because LiF cuts off below about 110 nm.
 
I should also point out that a 40.8 eV photon has enough energy to turn
an H2 molecule into 2H+ + 2e- with about 10 eV to spare.  Then you could
use the 10 eV to break apart a couple more H2 molecules into atoms (the
ionization energies of both H and H2 being more than 10 eV), which would
give you a convenient source of more H atoms.  Another hint for those of
you who want to build the SDI (Schultz Doomsday Instigator).
 
>4.  In any event, *if* you have the H *atoms* and if you hit them with the
>*correct frequency* stimulated emission will occur.  Bank on it.
 
Which is why I suggested hitting them with the correct frequency.
 
>6.  I have calculated (from experimental data) an upper limit for the
>transition probability for the n = 1 to n = 1/2 transition, B,
>
>B  < 3 x 10^(-17) per hydrogen atom per second
>
>Note, once again, this is per H *atom*--not H2 molecule.  Let me make it
>clear: the hydrogen in H2 molecules doesn't count;  the hydrogen in CH4
>doesn't count; you must have monatomic hydrogen *atoms*.
 
[constant reminders that we need H atoms deleted].
 
If your theory doesn't work for H2, then I would say that your theory
has a problem.  Especially since good old QM can explain things like
X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy of (gasp) molecules.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / N Redington /  Vigier Theory
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vigier Theory
Date: 22 Jun 1993 04:36:27 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A recent C&E News reported that the reason P&F's
latest paper was published in Phys. Lett. A is that
the editor, Vigier, has a theory to explain the
phenomenon, although critics consider it "too far
out". Supposedly it involves an exotic but non-
nuclear quantum effect in tightly bound atomic or-
bitals. Does anyone know what this theory is?
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 818 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 818 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 12:43:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
before I go off on a roughly 4-week holiday, I clear my desk of the two items
below. Chatterjee has put out a number of theoretical papers on cnf, and here
makes a concrete suggestion. I suspect it is not so realistic and I can in fact
think of other ways to cram electrons into a metal, but there you are.
I mentioned the Liboff a week or so ago, and have decided against putting it
into the cnf-pap file, as it is not a cnf paper. But it's allowed through the
hallowed doors of the peripherals file, so that's where it'll rest.
 Have a nice time in the summer, whether on holidays or not.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 22-Jun-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 818
 
 
 
Journal papers: file cnf-pap
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatterjee L, Mandal S, Chakrabarty A;
Indian J. Pure Appl. Phys. 31 (1993) 131.
"Electron accumulation and reproducibility of cold fusion".
** The authors have previously suggested stochastic electron accumulation as a
possible mechanism for fusion, by momentarily increased electron screening;
Burrows has also suggested enhanced capture reaction pathways. This paper
suggests active promotion of electron accumulation, by making the Pd cathode
the negative end of a capacitor, thereby forcing a higher electron density (up
to a factor of 100) into the metal. Most suitable as dielectric is TiO2, with
its high dielectric constant. The technique would be simple to adapt to gas
charging experiments. Enhancement of fusion rates from the observed normal
rate of 1E-23 to as much as 1E-13 fusions/pair/s might be achieved, as well as
better reproducibility.                                          Oct-91/Feb-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Peripherals: file cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liboff RL;                                       Phys. Lett. A 174 (1993) 317.
"Feasibility of fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the ground state".
** Motivated by controlled thermonuclear fusion, Liboff suggests the use of a
circular or collimated beam of deuterons in the ground state. Such a beam can
be compressed by an external magnetic field, and may then form a boson
condensate; wave function overlap might favour d-d fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: CNF bibliography update (total now 818 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: CNF bibliography update (total now 818 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 13:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In the bibliography update I just sent off, in which I abstracted the Liboff
paper on boson condensates, I forgot to mention that the tie-up of this paper
with cold fusion is provided by the two papers in the file by the Chubbs,
who theorise about boson condensates in the metal deuteride matrix. I should
have expressly mentioned this in the update, although Terry has pointed out
the connection already.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Jed Rothwell /  A new standard
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A new standard
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 14:58:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Cameron Randale Bass does not understand how P&F's cell can remain at 100 C
after the boil off event. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I don't understand
that either, I find it puzzling. I am sure there is a simple, straightforward
explanation, but I am nowhere near expert enough to guess at what it might be.
There are many aspects of this paper which are over my head. On the other hand
there are many other parts which are crystal clear, and very well explained. I
find this is true of most of the first rank, seminal papers in this field:
some aspects are crystal clear, some are confusing or counter-intuitive, and
some might as well be written in Greek for all I can make of them. Science is
like that.
 
Dale rejects the entire paper because he does not understand this detail. He
assumes that because he -- Dale Bass -- cannot instantly comprehend something,
it must be garbage, fraud, a mistake, or, as he put it in his latest message:
"inadequate to the point of being incompetent."
 
This is a new standard in scientific critique. From now on, apparently, the
ground rules have shifted. For 400 years the rule has been:
 
     A good scientific paper is characterized by careful observation, accurate
     reporting, novel ideas, and a ground breaking exposure of interesting,
     puzzling, useful or new phenomena.
 
>From now on, the standard will be:
 
     Cameron Randale Bass understands this paper perfectly. He finds nothing
     in it that is new, challenging, different, counter-intuitive, and nothing
     that contradicts his preconceived idea of reality. Everything which does
     not fit the bed of his preconceptions is either cut off at the ankles, or
     stretched out to fit. There will be no statements, ideas, observations,
     or measurement techniques employed that Cameron Randale Bass does not
     already know about in detail, or which he has not approved of.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nasers?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nasers?
Date: 22 Jun 93 13:29:29 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Jun21.123459.5161@crosfield.co.uk> rak@crosfield.co.uk
(Richard Kirk) writes:
>
>Is coherent neutron emission practically possible?
 
It is if you use "coherent" in the sense physicists use the word.
 
Neutrons have spin 1/2 and are thus fermions.  This means that they
cannot occupy the same quantum state in the way that bosons (such as
photons) can.  This makes true coherent beams impossible.
 
>A purified neutron-emitting isotope is a sort of inverted population:
>all the nucleii are energetically capable of emitting a neutron but are
>prevented by some kinetic barrier from doing so.  An incoming neutron
>is capable of stimulating the nucleus to decay.
 
Sort of, but not in the sense of "stimulated emission" where the probability
of a decay increases dramatically due to the presence of additional photons
rather than just growing linearly based on the reaction cross section.
 
>A-bombs use a neutron to stimulate the emission of another neutron
 
A-bombs use a neutron to destroy a nucleus, freeing several neutrons
thereby creating a chain reaction that increases at an exponential rate.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Electric Field Fusion
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electric Field Fusion
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 15:32:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jamie Jamison writes:
>I remember reading in T.A. Heppenheimer's book, _The Man Made Sun_ about
>someone who had been experimenting with using electric fields for confinement
 
>rather than magnetic fields. Has anything else been done with this, the
>book made it sound as if it was a promising approach that was killed due
>to the fact that they couldn't get any funding for it.
 
It's called by various names but mainly Electrostatic Confinement or
Inertial Electrostatic Fusion (IEF).  Look up the paper by Robert Hirsch
published in the late 60's (don't have the reference right here) on the
results obtained by Filo Farnsworth and Hirsch under private funding just
prior to the big kick-off of the Tokamak program, which Hirsch (interestingly
 enough) was the primary founder of in the U.S.
 
Hirsch and Farnsworth achieved, in the late 60's, on a privately funded
desk-top device, a higher sustained rate of controlled hot fusion than has
been demonstrated since.
 
I have "inside" information on why IEF wasn't pursued at the time Hirsch
took control of the government fusion program and why Hirsch, at that time
but emphatically not now, apparently believed that the Tokamak was a
better bet.  All I'll say about this information is that it doesn't
reflect as badly on IEF as Hirsch's original actions would make it
appear.  Confidentiality agreements constrain what I can divulge.
 
If someone with the info who isn't constrained would come forward and
talk, it would be helpful to everyone I think.
 
Bob Bussard (Mr. Riggatron) has gone on to work on IEF under Craig
Fields at Directed Technologies Inc. in San Diego with DARPA funding.
The DARPA/Bussard device used a different technique to generate the
electrical field from the original Hirsch/Farnsworth device (magnetic
 confinement of 3D electrical rosettas rather than spherical
 electrostatic accelleration of electrons inward thorough an anode
 grid).
 
Hirsch has been pushing alternate concepts to the Tokamak such as IEF
and Spheromak, openly and actively for about 10 years now, but is
now focusing his efforts on IEF as head of EPRI's hot fusion division.
Naturally he is doing a lot of work with Bussard.  Bussard is focusing
on a device more closely related to the original Hirsch/Farnsworth
device, as is Hirsch.
 
Bussard AND Hirsch are working with George Miley at U of IL (also
 editor of Fusion Technology) and form the IEF fusion technology
axis.  I'm sure there are others I have missed but those are the
big 3 of IEF right now.
 
>Also what ever happened
>to the Riggatron disposable fusion reactor concept?
 
It was dropped at the point of a need for scaled up power supplies
as it would have required about $150million which Guccione and
his backers apparently couldn't come up with in the business
conditions at the time (Atlantic City didn't pan out the way they
 planned).  Then the McCormick Act took root in the government fusion
program and further scared private investors off, as that act
essentially promised to throw all the government resources at the
Tokamak it would take to demonstrate its commercial feasibility
within 10 years.  Guccione has since gone on record as believing
fusion must, by its enormous expense, be a government program,
although he seems to be waffling a bit from time to time when it
comes to really tiny devices such as Migma.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Victoria Simon /  Graduate Student Outreach Conference--PLEASE READ
     
Originally-From: simon_v@msupa.pa.msu.edu (Victoria Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Graduate Student Outreach Conference--PLEASE READ
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 16:37:38 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Michigan State University

                        Graduate Student Outreach Conference
                Hosted by Science Theatre of Michigan State University
                        "Where Science Takes the Stage"
 
If you or any graduate (or undergraduate) students visit schools or your
community in an effort to demonstrate the fun of science (or you have
thought about it) this is the conference for you.  I am not in charge of
this conference (simply relaying the information) so you'd have to check for
certain but I thinkthe only costs involved are a $15 registration fee and
your travel to East Lansing.  (There are a few travelgrants available for
those whose departments aren't willing to pay and provide a letter stating
that.)  Meals, room and lots of "goodies" are funded through grants.
 
REPLY BY JULY 10!!!   (If you read this after that date, feel free to contact
 us but the conference may be full.)
 
Science Theatre has been bringing science to the public for over two years
with their "put fun into science" approach.  Graduate students from the
Department of Physics and Astronomy at Michigan State University have wowed
audiences throughout Michigan with their mind-boggling demos and dramatic
stage shows.  In an effort to spread their success, Science Theatre will be
hosting a conference for graduate students July 30-August 1 in East Lansing MI.
 
The purpose of this three day conference will be to showcase the various
demonstrations and stage presentations that Science Theatre and other
outreach groups have been bringing to the public in an effort to promote
science literacy and enjoyment of science in the community and to help other
groups begin their own outreach programs.  Participants will be given
supplies and will make their own demonstrations covering everything from the
standard "quickies" to the quite unusual.
 
Other information such as how to obtain funding for outreach activities from
various agencies and institutions, where to find demonstration equipment, as
well as how to coordinate possible events for the community will also be
presented.  Limited funding is available.
 
Abstracts deadline is July 1, 1993
 
Sponsored by the William F. and Edith R. Meggars Project Award of the AIP.
 
For more information contact Danielle Casavant or Jennifer Discenna, Science
Theatre, MSU Department of Physics and Astronomy East Lansing MI 48824,
(517) 336-3680
 
Email to casavant@msupa.pa.msu.edu
or discenna@msupa.pa.msu.edu
 
You can "reply" directly to me but I will be out until June 29 and am not as
capable of responding to your questions, etc. as they are.
 
                THIS IS REALLY A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY
                        COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY SCIENCE DEPARTMENT!!!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensimon_v cudfnVictoria cudlnSimon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Nasers?
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nasers?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 16:55:25 BST
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

In article <12907@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>Neutrons have spin 1/2 and are thus fermions.  This means that they
>cannot occupy the same quantum state in the way that bosons (such as
>photons) can.  This makes true coherent beams impossible.
 
Yup.  A lot of people have been trading on my head recently.  You can get
condensations of pairs of fermions if there is some appropriate set of forces
and they can form pairs with opposed (or nearly opposed if there is a net
flow) momentum vectors.  Electrons do this in a superconductor.  However
(remembering back ten years or so) the Bardeen-Cooper-Schreiffer derivation
had the electrons contained within some boundary conditions so they could not
travel out of the ends like our neutrons.  However if you are many coherence
lengths from the end I might hope things would approximate to the bounded
flow conditions.  But I'm not gonna start wrestling with GLAG and time
dependent BCS at my age.
 
Even if you cannot get proper coherence once the beams leave the device
and only one sense of momentum vectors remains, they might still be
well collimated.
 
>>A purified neutron-emitting isotope is a sort of inverted population.
>Sort of, but not in the sense of "stimulated emission" where the probability
>of a decay increases dramatically due to the presence of additional photons
>rather than just growing linearly based on the reaction cross section.
 
Yup again.  A-bombs are put together rather quick.  If there is some
neutron Mossbauer-type peak they won't see it because of the Doppler
shift.  They also use slowed neutrons because they have a larger
capture cross-section so things aren't really the same at all.
 
That sort of reaction would be likely to happen too.  We could reduce its
influence if our isotope was a long thin wire so the off-axis stuff
leaks out the sides.
 
Phasers on stun, eh?
 
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Richard Schultz /  Re: A new standard
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new standard
Date: 22 Jun 1993 17:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930622141304_72240.1256_EHK50-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> For 400 years the rule has been:
>
>     A good scientific paper is characterized by careful observation, accurate
>     reporting, novel ideas, and a ground breaking exposure of interesting,
>     puzzling, useful or new phenomena.
 
This statement is simply incorrect, at least in my experience as a scientist.
For at least the last century, the standard for a scientific paper has
generally been that experiments are reported in such a way that another
scientist with the same equipment could reproduce the experiment.  While
P&F are hardly the only scientists who fail this standard, from my reading
of their papers, they have yet to meet it.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Richard Schultz /  More problems with hydrinos
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More problems with hydrinos
Date: 22 Jun 1993 17:27:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

I was talking about sub-quantum H with a colleague, and we came up
with something I hadn't thought about previously.
 
In article <01GZN816ZSIA002FDF@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>
>6.  I have calculated (from experimental data) an upper limit for the
>transition probability for the n = 1 to n = 1/2 transition, B,
>
>B  < 3 x 10^(-17) per hydrogen atom per second
>
>Note, once again, this is per H *atom*--not H2 molecule.  Let me make it
>clear: the hydrogen in H2 molecules doesn't count;  the hydrogen in CH4
>doesn't count; you must have monatomic hydrogen *atoms*.
 
As far as I recall, much if not most of the hydrogen in outer space is in the
form of H atoms rather than H2 molecules.  It's not clear to me if the above
is the transition probability for spontaneous or stimulated emission, but let's
assume that it's the latter.  A quick back of the envelope calculation
(which I hope I did right) says that the spontaneous emission probability
should be about 10 orders of magnitude smaller, or on the order of 10^(-20)
per H atom per year.  That's a small number, but there's a lot of H out there.
So why haven't our X-Ray and UV satellites picked up a 30 nm background from
the n=1 to n=1/2 transition?
 
I've said before that if your theory can't explain H2, it's a theory with
a problem.  But intuitively it seems to me that there has to be at least a
small amount of configuration interaction.  In other words, if you consider
the orbitals of H2 to be linear combinations of H atomic orbitals, you can
always improve the accuracy of your wavefunction by adding additional terms
for more orbitals, and so you should be able to consider at least *some*
part of the H2 wavefunction as being due to these "subquantum" levels.  And
yet QM seems to do just fine without them.
 
It also seems to me that you should be able to calculate the interaction (I
say "you" because I have better things to do with my time) between a
sub-quantum H atom and either another sub-quantum H atom or a normal H atom
along the lines of the standard MO and VB approaches to understanding the
H2 wavefunction.  These calculations should also lead to testable predictions.
Have they been done?  What do they predict?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A new standard
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new standard
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 19:03:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930622141304_72240.1256_EHK50-1@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Cameron Randale Bass does not understand how P&F's cell can remain at 100 C
>after the boil off event. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I don't understand
>that either, I find it puzzling. I am sure there is a simple, straightforward
>explanation, but I am nowhere near expert enough to guess at what it might be.
>There are many aspects of this paper which are over my head. On the other hand
>there are many other parts which are crystal clear, and very well explained. I
>find this is true of most of the first rank, seminal papers in this field:
>some aspects are crystal clear, some are confusing or counter-intuitive, and
>some might as well be written in Greek for all I can make of them. Science is
>like that.
 
     Heat transfer is my field.  However, I don't think one must be
     an expert to recognize that there are severe problems with the
     paper as written, and it's not just the fact that it remains
     at 100C for three hours while being apparently dry and melting
     Kel-F and arcing or not arcing.
 
>Dale rejects the entire paper because he does not understand this detail. He
>assumes that because he -- Dale Bass -- cannot instantly comprehend something,
>it must be garbage, fraud, a mistake, or, as he put it in his latest message:
>"inadequate to the point of being incompetent."
 
     Out of context.  I stated if reflux condensation was the reason
     the cell sat at 100C and P&F did not notice that or mention that, the
     paper was 'inadequate to the point of being incompetent'.
 
     I believe this is a defense of P&F, not an attack.
 
>>From now on, the standard will be:
>
>     Cameron Randale Bass understands this paper perfectly. He finds nothing
>     in it that is new, challenging, different, counter-intuitive, and nothing
>     that contradicts his preconceived idea of reality. Everything which does
 
     Here's the rub.  They must write papers so that we understand them.
     If they don't, we won't.  Including a whole bunch of prima facie
     contradictions does not seem to be a step in the right direction.
 
     Now, I'm perfectly willing to wait for explanations from the
     horses' mouths.  Since you apparently have contact with them, why
     don't you ask them?  I'd write, but my guess is that I'd never get
     an answer.  However, having waited this long, I wouldn't bet
     that good ones are going to be forthcoming.
 
     Of course, why do they or you care what I think or what anyone else
     thinks?  Go make a billion and rub it in everyone's nose.
 
     This one, however, I *would* be willing to bet on.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / John Logajan /  Re: More Replies
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Replies
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 19:21:00 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>1.  First of all you need H atoms--not H2 molecules.
 
Why is this?  Wouldn't it just mean one needs a different "trigger"
energy (probably less, since H+H => H2 releases energy.)
 
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>I should also point out that a 40.8 eV photon has enough energy to turn
>an H2 molecule into 2H+ + 2e- with about 10 eV to spare.
 
True, but it's not a huge population to start with, so it may be tough
to get it over the "hump."
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Bruce Dunn /  H atoms in arcjets
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H atoms in arcjets
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 20:09:00 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Richard Schultz writes:
> As far as I recall, much if not most of the hydrogen in outer space is in
> the
> form of H atoms rather than H2 molecules.
 
 
        A minor correction and note:  I previously mentioned hydrogen arcjets
in connection with how to use large amount of electrical power for rocket
thrust.  As Paul Dietz points out to me, I incorrectly stated that for very
large power inputs, the hydrogen arcjet becomes inefficient because of
ionization.  In fact, the problem is with dissociation, not ionization.
Arcjet exhaust can thus be made rich in H atoms - something to think about if
H atoms are indeed necessary for the Mills/Farrell style electron orbital
shifts to lower energy states.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.22 / Dick Jackson /  Re: More problems with hydrinos
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More problems with hydrinos
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 19:32:46 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

Richard Schultz writes:
>As far as I recall, much if not most of the hydrogen in outer space is in the
>form of H atoms rather than H2 molecules.  It's not clear to me if the above
>is the transition probability for spontaneous or stimulated emission, but let's
>assume that it's the latter.  A quick back of the envelope calculation
>(which I hope I did right) says that the spontaneous emission probability
 
It seems to only need a bit more hand waving to include "cold dark matter"
as another puzzle explained by the Mills theory, heh, heh.
 
Apolodies if this has been mentioned already.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 / J Lewis /  Re: More problems with hydrinos
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More problems with hydrinos
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 19:39:30 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Jun22.193246.23512@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
>Richard Schultz writes:
>>As far as I recall, much if not most of the hydrogen in outer space is in the
>>form of H atoms rather than H2 molecules.  It's not clear to me if the above
>>is the transition probability for spontaneous or stimulated emission, but let's
>>assume that it's the latter.  A quick back of the envelope calculation
>>(which I hope I did right) says that the spontaneous emission probability
>
>It seems to only need a bit more hand waving to include "cold dark matter"
>as another puzzle explained by the Mills theory, heh, heh.
 
It's even better than that - imagine X-ray lasing in H/hydrino gas clouds
in the early Universe - big enough clouds don't need mirrors, lasers/masers
in gas clouds are well known.  Because of the lack of pumping, these lasers
would probably be once-only, giving burst of X-rays and gamma rays, leaving
tightly-bound hydrinos (1/N =O(100)) which would hardly interact except
gravitationally - hey presto, not only is Dark Matter explained, but
also those pesky X-ray and gamma-ray bursts!  (wrong spectrum though -
tough luck :-)   )
 
>
>Apolodies if this has been mentioned already.
>
>Dick Jackson
 
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Nnewfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 / Richard Benear /  proton conduction
     
Originally-From: rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: proton conduction
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 20:06:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

If I remember correctly, the drift velocity of conduction electrons is
suprisingly slow. ( i.e. <<< speed of light)
 
richard
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrbenear cudfnRichard cudlnBenear cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #2  Cell 4A5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #2  Cell 4A5
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 23:18:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #2  Cell 4A5                                         23 June 1993
 
As you all may recall, I am attempting a test of WILLIAM R. BERNECKY's Bosonic
Wave Object theory.  This was presented in Fusion Digest #1118.
 
I came home last night to an interesting event.  Log book entries are made by
time in seconds since the run start.  The disk log also includes the date and
time (If the PC is keeping correct time) so it can all be connected when the
disk data is analyzed.
 
This is one of the most consistent events that I have had.  Many measured
variables confirm that something got hot.
 
Log entry 497230 seconds:
 
AN EVENT!  At 494830 about a 300 mw spike in POWER.  2cc of gas lost (aprox =
50 joules) 130 joule gain in JSUM.  1.8 C spike up in TCELL.  TCell was at
38.7 when it happened.  TCELL now (40 min later) at 39.04 - so even though
cell temp was decreasing, it is still above where it was for the event.  VCELL
jumped up 0.1 C (wrong, should be Volts-TFD) at event.  VPLTTEC has a nice
little negative bump.  About 40 mv good clean signal indicating something got
hot.  Very slight up bump int TPUK - about 0.02 C.  TSPL also with about a
0.02 C rise.  After about 1 hr. the gain in JSUM seems permanent.  OK only wat
to shoot it down would appear to be a very large *negative* heat of
absorption.  At least -40 joules/cc.  Seems very large.  Nothing special with
TAMB aprox 26 C and flat at time of event.  TCAT has a one degree up spike.
About a 8 minute time constant back to normal.  ICATHTR has a 2 ma step down
matching the spike up in catalyst temp.  So its resistance went up.  VCATHTR
went up 2 mv matching ICATHTR.  So this amounts to a 4 uw change, and anyway
it is in the comp.  V-A4-8 took a 0.4 volt spike down matching the power
spike.  Heat pulse in real - but "anomalous"??  No change < 1 mv in +5 Ref.  -
15 v within 1 mv.  VHTR nice 130 mv dip matching POWER.  TCEL has a very fast
rise time to peak.  One minute (sample) or less.  VCEL took longer to increase
- 3 or 4 min as did VHTR.  VPLTTEC was up in two ticks.  TCAT and GAS also up
in one tick.  ICATHTR took much longer to change .  Argues for heat in cell
rather than heat in catalyst.  But still does not rule out very large negative
heat of absorption.
 
Log entry 500530:
 
JSUM still looks like a 130 joule net gain.
 
 
Discussion:
 
This data is from ramp #4, a 13.9 hour down ramp in temperature from about 42
C to 37 C.  The cell temperature change is achieved by ramping the current
down from 600 ma to 100 ma.
 
The software plots a number of variables.  It displays the last 3 1/2 hours,
and after that I have to do analysis off line.  The last 3 1/2 hours of all 70
odd variables is kept in an array in memory, so I can pull up any of them and
examine the last 3 1/2 hours to any scale.  So when something like this
happens I spend some time poking around the various variables looking for
relationships that make the event good or garbage.
 
I always plot the instantaneous power balance POWER.  This is the sum of all
the electrical power put into the calorimeter.  Since the refrigerator removes
a constant amount of power this should be a constant.  There is normally some
noise on this signal as the servo looks at the noisy thermometer and tries to
hold the inside of the calorimeter at constant temperature by adjusting the
balancing heater.  At 100 ma cell current this is of order 15 mw rms.  This is
determined by computing the rms value of the last 50 (50 minutes) power
measurements.  At 500 ma cell current (where we are at 42 C) this noise level
is 30 - 40 mw (from memory).  At the 39 C point a likely value is 20 mw.  A
300 mw POWER signal is thus of order 15 sigma.  Very significant.  For a
period of time, it required less input power to balance the calorimeter.
 
There was a sudden drop of 2 cc in the gas measurement.  Since I measure
oxygen, this means that 4 cc of D2 left the 0.1 cc Pd cathode and were burned
on the catalyst with the disappearing 2 cc of oxygen.  This process should
produce 52 joules.  The power integral JSUM shows a gain of 130 joules.  Not a
very exact estimate, as the JSUM plot was rising because energy is gained as
the temperature decreases.  But a clear step rise in the integral.  TCELL the
thermometer in the electrolyte and TCAT the thermometer in the catalyst also
got hotter with a one minute or less step up.  Since at normal loadings, gas
loss by the cathode is endothermic, the cell should get cooler.  But there is
the possibility that it is exothermic at very high loadings.  We are at least
at 0.8 D/Pd from the gas measurement, and this from the start of this run
where we think there was residual loading from the last run.
 
A sudden 1.8 C cell temperature rise implies:
 
        30 cc D2O * 4.1 joules/cc -C * 1.8 C = 220 joules
 
But the thermometer is right over the cathode, and the entire 30 cc of the
cell contents may not share in the rise, though there is a lot of stirring
from the electrolysis.
 
Note the time constant of the calorimeter is 20 minutes.  From calibration
heat pulse experiments it takes the expected several hours to measure 99+% of
the heat injected.  The 130 joules appeared in 5 minutes or so.  It is likely
to greatly understate the net energy released.  The problem in getting a
better net energy measurement is that because of the changing temperature,
there is an apparent net gain of energy at the rate of 100 mw or so.  This has
to be subtracted to see the "real" gain, and it is further a nonlinear
phenomena so a lot of calibration and off line analysis will be required to
get it right.
 
There are a number of variables that can be studied to check if the event
makes sense.  The fact that TCAT got hotter when GAS decreased confirms that
there really was a gas release which was burned in the catalyst.  TSPL is a
thermometer in the spool piece (1" thick aluminum) which holds the cell.  Its
increase, as well as that of TPUK the aluminum plug in the mouth of the dewar
confirm that the cell got hot.  VPLTTEC is the voltage on the servoed cooler
that holds the outside of the calorimeter at the same temperature as the
inside to prevent radiation losses.  For various reasons, this voltage has the
best signal to noise ratio for short heat pulses in the calorimeter (confirmed
by calibration heat pulse experiments).  This signal had of order 20 sigma
signal indicating something got hot in the calorimeter.  I should point out
that this event is not a 20 sigma event in a sea of somewhat smaller bumps,
but a 20 sigma event in a sea of one sigma noise.
 
The VCATHTR and ICATHTR measurements are interesting.  They are the voltage
and the current in the catalyst heater.  This is a heater wound around the top
of the cell where the catalyst is located.  It serves to insure that the
catalyst is hot enough at low currents to operate reliably.  Because the
catalyst area gets hot, the resistance of this (Ni) heater increases, and the
current decreases.  Because there is some lead drop, the heater voltage goes
up.  The two items compensate each other, but even if they were in the same
direction this would amount to only a 5 mw change, and it is correctly taken
into account in the energy sum.  The interesting thing is that this is one
more confirmation that something is going on (the catalyst got hot) and that
we are sensitive enough to measure such an obscure effect.
 
The V-A4-8 signal is the servo that controls the compensating heater.  One
more indication that the servo noticed the calorimeter getting hotter and thus
backed off the heat.  Nothing special happened to TAMB the ambient
temperature.
 
The above log entry list only two of the many reference voltages, +5 and -15,
and ground potential that we measure.  These assure that nothing has run amuck
in the electronics.
 
We have attempted to study the rise times of the various signals to determine
the time sequence of events.  Data is taken at one minute intervals, and we
accumulate 400 kb a day.  Still there is not enough data for an event such as
this.  Some day we will put in a transient catcher, and trigger it on a signal
out of range.  Still, it looks to me that for this data the cell got hot
first.  Best guess is that the cathode got hot and this caused the gas loss.
It will take higher speed data to tell for sure.
 
Conclusion:
 
The cell really did get hot briefly.  Many measured variables confirm this.
It should have gotten hot, as some gas was lost, but the heat pulse appears to
be larger than the gas loss can explain.  The time sequence of events
suggests that the cell got hot first, blowing out some gas.  Nothing in this
data rules out a long term storage followed by a sudden release of energy.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S.  While no plans should be made yet, Dr. Bernecky should at least
familiarize himself with the location of Sweden.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 / John Logajan /  Re: proton conduction
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conduction
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 93 22:14:04 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear) writes:
>If I remember correctly, the drift velocity of conduction electrons is
>suprisingly slow. ( i.e. <<< speed of light)
 
Isn't that figure just the average speed, though.  I mean, given a cross-
sectional area (and therefore the density area product of the conductor)
and the current flow, you can derive the mean velocity of the electrons.
 
But the interesting question is whether they move herky jerky or in a
continuous motion in the sea of electrons in a conductor.  I don't know.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Muon Catalyzed Fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon Catalyzed Fusion
Date: 23 Jun 93 14:23:55 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <4957@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, bdoa@ukc.ac.uk (B.D.O.Adams) writes:
>   Hello , does anyone here know the status of reasearch into muon catalysised
> fusion. I rembember reading of an experiment at Los Alamos (I think) which
> obtained about 200 fusion reactions for each muon entering a Deutrium ,Tritum
> liquid mixture. What chances are the of bettering this ? for example by:-
>
> Altering the pressure, density and compersition of the mixture?
>
> Insursing that most of the molecules in the liquid are of DT rather than
> D2 , T2?
> Is this possible , what is the reaction rate of 2DT <> D2 + T2?
 
Thanks for the questions.  Most are answered in my review article in Nature,
"Muon Catalysed Fusion Revisited" in 1986 (vol. 321, pp. 127-133),
and in an article with my
colleague J. Rafelski in Scientific American, July 1987.  To be brief:
 
1.  About 150 fusions/muon were obtained under optimal conditions achieved
at LAMPF (Los Alamos) in 1985-1986 (liquid D2+T2 target, equimolar.)
 
2.  We showed that increasing density is very important to a high d-t fusion
yield, because the d-t-muo-molecular formation rate increases faster than
linearly with density (contrary to expectations when we started the work).
See also S.E. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 588 regarding this discovery.
 
3.  At least at temperatures from about 10K to 500K, muon-catalyzed fusion
cycle proceeds faster for D2 + T2 mixtures, rather than for DT, due to
a very important resonance in the d-t-muo-molecular formation rate when
a t-mu atom collides with a D2 (rather than a DT) molecule.  See the
Phys. Rev. Lett. or Sci. American articles.
 
4.  The rate of equilibration from DT (or D2+T2) to D2 + DT +T2 is rapid
at room temperature, probably tens of minutes (too fast for us to measure
easily).  However, at temperatures below 50K, the equilibration rate is slow,
around 30 hours for 1/e time.
>
> Pumping the system with X-rays at the resonant frequency for unsticking muons
> from the resulting Helium nuclei?
> Would the energy cost of the X-rays outway that of the resulting extra
> fusion reactions?
 
5.  You have addressed the bottleneck problem in the muon-catalysis cycle:
sticking of muons to synthesized helium nuclei.  The suggestion of using
11 keV X-rays (ground-state energy of muonic helium -- at least in standard
quantum mechanics, wonder what would happen to *muonic atoms* in Mills/Farrell
hydrino theory...?)    has been thorougly considered and rejecting for the
reasons you mention, plus ionization of hydrogen isotopes.  See articles in
the journal "Muon Catalyzed Fusion", probably by H. Takahashi.
>
> Using light or magnetic fields to alter the transfer rates of muons in the
> mixture?
>
6.  Yes, it may be possible using tuned lasers to enhance the resonant
formation of d-t-muo-molecules.  Unfortunately, this won't solve the alpha-
muon sticking problem.
 
> Using magnetic fields to funnel cosmic ray muons into the mixture?
> (OK this is very unlikely to be useful, anyone got an idea of the radius of
> the funnel required to get a useful amount of muons?)
>
> I am interested in any imformation on this subject, so please reply/followup.
 
7.  It's been considered and rejected.  Too few muons, too hard to collect
and cool, to form a beam.
 
> Finally an idea for 23 centry energy production. Magnetic Monopole cataylsised
> proton decay :-). First Catch your Monopole ....
> Well it could work according to some GUT theories.
>
>
> Barry Adams
> A Postgraduate , nocturnal drunkard and indie kid.
 
8.  Quark catalyzed fusion has been considered by George Zweig and others.
I think B. Price actually spoke of using magnetic monopoles to induce fusion
reactions back in the 1970's, before Luis Alvarez shot down his high-altitude
cosmic-ray experiments as evidence for monopoles.  This was when I was back
at SLAC doing my graduate research.
 
Come to think of it, here is an example
of a very good physicist (Price) who had a highly-publicized but wrong
experimental conclusion.  He seemed to recover from this all right.
Just thinking ahead... I may be wrong.  On the other hand, our evidence with
deuterium coming *out* of deuterided wires looks better as new expts. are
tried here.  Next we'll try for simultaneous registration of neutrons and
charged particles, both at high sensitivity.  Then maybe I'll be able to
convince myself and others that something interesting is going on.  Not so easy.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Cold fusion heating up/Cheves Walling's "Inside Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion heating up/Cheves Walling's "Inside Cold Fusion"
Date: 23 Jun 93 15:06:59 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

On Thursday, June 24, 1993, look for the following:
 
1.  Canadian Broadcasting Company to air a documentary on "cold fusion"
emphasizing P&F boiling-cell videos, McKubre and Ed Storms claims.
Unlike the Japanese NHK documentary of February, I understand these
claims will not be balanced by comments from "skeptics".
 
2.  Press conference in New York (Plaza Hotel, I think) with Eugene
Mallove, probably to counter Gary Taubes vituperative new book.
I had a call from National Public Radio about my views on cold fusion,
spurred by this press conference announcement.  So look for something
on public radio also.
 
3.  In next few weeks:
Promotional lectures by Gary Taubes on his book attacking almost
everyone who works on cold fusion getting "positive results."  John
Bockris and Stan Pons are attacked most bitterly, I understand.  I am
also accused, judged and executed, I understand.  In this regard,
I would like to quote from a recently-released document written by
Cheves Walling, a University of Utah chemistry professor and long-time
editor for the ACS (recently retired):
 
"In retrospect, combining what I have learned here with a detailed chronology
sent to me in April 1990 by Dr. Jones, it is hard not to conclude that the
University of Utah acted in bad faith towards BYU in the manner in which "cold
fusion" was announced.  Although they had agreed to simultaneous submission of
manuscripts to Nature on March 24, and to make no public statements on research
before that date, F&P submitted their paper on March 11, and the University
made their public announcement on March 23 without (according to the BYU
chronology) giving BYU any prior notice of either action.
 
"The justification of this course of action seems to have been the perception
that the University was in danger of being sooped on a crucially important
discovery and it was necessary to fight fire with fire.  Just who egged who on
in this belief isn't clear, but Chase Peterson has stated to me that the public
announcement was made at the insistence of Pons' lawyers. ...
 
[Note that Martin Fleischmann personally apologized to me shortly after the
May 23 press conference at the University of Utah, stating that it was
administrators at that University that pressured him into to having the press
conference.  He also stated that he felt the press conference was "unfair" to
our research group at BYU.  No one blamed BYU, except now Taubes, it seems.
Incidentally, when we at BYU learned of the impending press conference, on
March 22, phone calls were made to U. Utah President Chase Peterson, who was
called out of a board meeting, and to James Brophy, U. Utah V.P., strongly
protesting the planned press conference.  Dean Grant Mason told James Brophy
that if U. Utah went ahead with the press conf., we at BYU would interpret this
action as a "stab in the back."  (Told to me by Prof. Mason.)  Taubes tries to
blame the press conf. on BYU, I understand.  I say these were big boys,
responsible for their own actions, and we strongly opposed the press conference
approach.]
 
"What the University expected to gain by further jumping the gun, other than
edging BYU out on the ensuing publicity, remains unclear to me.
 
"The acute suspicion that BYU was attempting to "pirate" University of Utah
results, which may have motivated actions here, also appears unfounded.
From their chronology, Jones et al. had been considering "piezonuclear fusion"
since 1986 and had carried out occasional experiments including electrolysis.
They had decided to pursue this investigation more intensively in the summer of
1988, and apparently obtained the first results which they considered
statistically significant towards the end of the year.  I've not seen the F&P
proposal to DOE which Jones received to referee in September 1988, but since
I've been assured by Marvin Hawkins that the design of current F&P cells and
the collection of the data from them which make up the bulk of the F&P
preliminary paper was all done after that date, I doubt that the proposal
contained much specific data which Jones could have used.  Further, the
experimental set-ups and goals of the two groups turned out to be entirely
different.   Jones has been concerned solely with neutron detection, while F&P
have concentrated on calorimetry and heat production.  On the other hand,
simply knowing of the existence of the Utah work could have led the BYU group
to increase their efforts and accelerated their decision to publish.  This is
just the normal competition in science.  Since they recommended to Dr. Gajewski
[Director of DOE's Advanced Energy Projects Division, and in Oct. 1988]
that F&P be informed of their work, got in touch with them, and offered to
exchange information, it now seems to me that they were acting in a perfectly
proper manner.  Unfortunately, this clash with BYU proved to be only the first
example of the paranoia and suspicion which has clouded the development of
"cold fusion."  "
--Cheves Walling, "Inside Cold Fusion", dated May 27, 1992.
 
I appreciate the point of view freely expressed by this experienced and
thoughtful scientist.  There are indeed good people associated with the
University of Utah.
 
--Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Jun23.145951.723@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jun23.145951.723@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 23 Jun 93 15:08:28 -0600

cancel <1993Jun23.145951.723@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Vigier Theory/Mills&Farrell theory
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vigier Theory/Mills&Farrell theory
Date: 23 Jun 93 17:43:51 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <20628b$7pt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>,
redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington) writes:
> A recent C&E News reported that the reason P&F's
> latest paper was published in Phys. Lett. A is that
> the editor, Vigier, has a theory to explain the
> phenomenon, although critics consider it "too far
> out". Supposedly it involves an exotic but non-
> nuclear quantum effect in tightly bound atomic or-
> bitals. Does anyone know what this theory is?
 
I understand this is the "hydrino" or "shrunken hydrogen atom" theory
put forward by R. Mills and J. Farrell.  This theory has numerous problems
as I and others have argued on this net recently.  Basically, the notion
is that electrons exist in atoms in "orbitspheres" -- I quote now from
Dr. Farrell:
 
"Yes, the electron orbitsphere is a resonator cavity. And cavities do absorb
(or trap) specific frequencies.  That is why the absorption spectrum is
quantized (not because the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation says so).
The energy levels are quantized for a *physical* reason:  the cavity has a
particular size and can trap particular frequencies."
 
"A bound electron is a two-dimensional surface, an orbitsphere.  It *does not
radiate* because the radial function that describes it, a Dirac delta function,
does not have Fourier components synchronous with the speed of light..."
 
"The electric field of the trapped photon creates standing waves in the cavity.
The "charge" of the *photon* is (-1 + 1/n) Ze.  The total charge experienced by
the electron is the sum of the nuclear charge, Ze, and the photon compont.
Thus, the *effective* nuclear charge is (1/n) Ze."
 
From the Mills paper in Fusion Technology 20 (1991) 65:
"Mills and Farrell propose, however, that the orbitsphere resonator can trap
photons that increase the nuclear charge and decrease the radius of the
orbitsphere.  This occurs, for example, when the orbitsphere couples to another
resonator cavity that can absorb energy -- this is the absorption of an energy
hole.  The absorption of an energy hole destroys the balance between the
centrifugal force and the increased central Coulombic force.  As a result, the
electron is pulled toward the nucleus.  If another allowed state that obeys the
boundary conditions is not available, the electron plunges into the nucleus."
 
"... the radius at which force balcance and nonradiation are achieved is
ao/(m+1), where m is an integer.  In decaying to this radius from the ground
state, a total energy of [(m+1)^2 - 1^2] X 13.6 eV is released.  The process
is hereafter referred to as hydrogen emission by catalytic thermal electronic
relaxation (HECTER)."
 
End of quotations from Mills and Farrell -- from these you can gather the
gist of the "theory."
 
For more discussion, please see recent postings on "hydrinos", etc.  Several
of us have taken the time to explain why the theory falls flat, raising serious
questions and pointing out flaws.  Dr. Farrell has addressed some points, but
in my opinion, the theory has no clothes.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / John Logajan /  Cowboy Droege
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cowboy Droege
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 04:23:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I am attempting a test of WILLIAM R. BERNECKY's Bosonic Wave Object theory.
 
>The cell really did get hot briefly.
 
>P.S.  While no plans should be made yet, Dr. Bernecky should at least
>familiarize himself with the location of Sweden.
 
So Cattleman Bernecky says that H's form into roving herds at 39C, and Cowboy
Droege saddles up and stampedes them into each other.
 
Get along, little doggies ... yeeha!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / John Logajan /  Re: H atoms in arcjets
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H atoms in arcjets
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 06:06:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>Arcjet exhaust can thus be made rich in H atoms - something to think about if
>H atoms are indeed necessary for the Mills/Farrell style electron orbital
 
An interesting monopropellent.  If I did my conversions correctly and
using the formulas:
 
e=1/2mv^2
 
 and
 
Rocket terminal velocity = log(e)*(mass full/mass empty)* velocity of exhaust
 
I derived the exhaust velocity as:
 
Vexh = sqrt(particle eV * 2.5E8)     assuming H mass gets all the energy
 
and assuming a mass ratio of 10 for full/empty rocket fuel mass ratio,
gives log(e)(Mfull/Mempty) = 2.3
 
So we have Terminal Velocity = 2.3*sqrt(eV*2.5E8)
 
For n=1 to n=1/2 orbital decays per exhaust particle, that gives an exhaust
velocity of 100,000 mph and a terminal velocity of 230,000 mph.
 
For n=1 to n=1/120 (or so) we get an exhaust velocity of 11 million mph,
and a terminal velocity of 26 million mph.
 
Even the low sub-orbital energies give nice solar system travel speeds.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Jeff Driscoll /  Ira Flatow, NPR
     
Originally-From: jdriscol@frisbee.cv.com (Jeff Driscoll x3717)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ira Flatow, NPR
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 12:58:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
This message may be to late for some people, I have noticed that when
I post something to the net, I don't see it until 3 or 4 days later.
(I know that there is a way to automatically get postings sent to
your email address)
 
There is a possibility that Ira Flatow of National Public Radio (NPR)
will do a show on cold fusion on Friday, June 25. His show is called
"Science Friday" and can be heard on NPR radio stations.  Here in
Boston Mass, the show comes on at 2pm.  He usually covers one topic
from 2 -3pm and another topic from 3 - 4 pm.   I am not positive of of
the date, he may do the show at a later date.  I am fairly certain that
he will eventually do a show on it (I've talked to people who have
talked to the producers).
 
 
 
                  Jeff Driscoll
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjdriscol cudfnJeff cudlnDriscoll cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Mike Jamison /  Re: H atoms in arcjets
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H atoms in arcjets
Date: 24 Jun 1993 09:59 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Jun24.060656.2526@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes...
>Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>>Arcjet exhaust can thus be made rich in H atoms - something to think about if
>>H atoms are indeed necessary for the Mills/Farrell style electron orbital
>
>An interesting monopropellent.  If I did my conversions correctly and
>using the formulas:
>
>e=1/2mv^2
>
> and
>
>Rocket terminal velocity = log(e)*(mass full/mass empty)* velocity of exhaust
>
>I derived the exhaust velocity as:
>
>Vexh = sqrt(particle eV * 2.5E8)     assuming H mass gets all the energy
>
>and assuming a mass ratio of 10 for full/empty rocket fuel mass ratio,
>gives log(e)(Mfull/Mempty) = 2.3
>
>So we have Terminal Velocity = 2.3*sqrt(eV*2.5E8)
>
>For n=1 to n=1/2 orbital decays per exhaust particle, that gives an exhaust
>velocity of 100,000 mph and a terminal velocity of 230,000 mph.
>
>For n=1 to n=1/120 (or so) we get an exhaust velocity of 11 million mph,
>and a terminal velocity of 26 million mph.
 
Terminal velocity of 0.039c, eh?  Of course, it's gonna be tough trying to
stop, without any fuel left :-)  [I converted the mph to fraction of speed
of light to see if you should've worried about relativistic effects.  In
the case of 4% of the speed of light, no big deal - mass increases by
1/sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2), or 0.08%, which won't really affect your calculation].
 
>
>Even the low sub-orbital energies give nice solar system travel speeds.
 
They'd also give ground based transportation a nice boost, too.  Imagine
your car getting 10 times the gas mileage it gets now (I'm guessing 4 eV
for present gasoline chem. reactions, compared to the 40.8 eV for the n=1
to n=1/2 transition.  I think I'm being too generous with the gasoline
part - probably closer to 2 eV/atom).
 
Or, imagine an airliner that only needs 1/10th the amount of fuel now requ-
ired to go from point a to point b - e.g. a 747-400 has a maximum takeoff
weight of about 800,000 lbs., about half of which is kerosene...
 
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Jim Day
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jim Day
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 15:20:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Day sent me a message and had a question.  I haven't been able to get
any mail thru to him.  Jim, please send me you email address again.
 
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: H atoms in arcjets
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H atoms in arcjets
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 15:24:47 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> John Logajan writes:
> For n=1 to n=1/2 orbital decays per exhaust particle, that gives an exhaust
> velocity of 100,000 mph and a terminal velocity of 230,000 mph.
 
 
        This amounts to an exhaust velocity of about 45,000 m/sec in more
customary units, or a specific impulse of 4560.  Very impressive if it would
work.  Hydrogen arcjet engines have been run at up to 2000 Isp with the
inputs of huge amount of electrical power per unit thrust and poor
efficiencies, giving exhaust velocities of about 19,600 m/sec.  The best
chemical engines in common use, with hydrogen and oxygen as propellants, have
exhaust velocities of about 4,500 m/sec.  Several other varieties of
electrical engines have exhaust velocities of up to 100,000 m/sec or so (ion
engines, MPD thrusters etc.).  The problems with all these is that the
available thrust is limited by the amount of power available, and given the
mass of current power plants (reactors etc.), accelerations are very low
(typically milli G or less).
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  n=1 to n=1/2 radiation
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: n=1 to n=1/2 radiation
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 17:13:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Shultz says: "So why haven't our XRay and UV satellites picked up a
30 nm background from the n=1 to n=1/2 transition?"
 
Have you done a literature search Richard?  Mills has.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Mike Jamison /  Re: H atoms in arcjets
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H atoms in arcjets
Date: 24 Jun 1993 13:07 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <25813@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes...
>> John Logajan writes:
>> For n=1 to n=1/2 orbital decays per exhaust particle, that gives an exhaust
>> velocity of 100,000 mph and a terminal velocity of 230,000 mph.
>
>
>        This amounts to an exhaust velocity of about 45,000 m/sec in more
>customary units, or a specific impulse of 4560.  Very impressive if it would
>work.  Hydrogen arcjet engines have been run at up to 2000 Isp with the
>inputs of huge amount of electrical power per unit thrust and poor
>efficiencies, giving exhaust velocities of about 19,600 m/sec.  The best
>chemical engines in common use, with hydrogen and oxygen as propellants, have
>exhaust velocities of about 4,500 m/sec.  Several other varieties of
>electrical engines have exhaust velocities of up to 100,000 m/sec or so (ion
>engines, MPD thrusters etc.).  The problems with all these is that the
>available thrust is limited by the amount of power available, and given the
>mass of current power plants (reactors etc.), accelerations are very low
>(typically milli G or less).
 
The ion engines to which you refer have maximum thrust of ~0.5 N.  I don't
know what they weigh, but I wouldn't be surprised at 100 kg or more.  Their
specific impulse is ~3,000 using Xenon, higher with lighter elements (but
then thrust goes down).  As I understand it, one of the biggest problems is
still erosion of the grid.
 
Still, these things can run for many hours (hundreds?  not sure) before
failing.  And, they can be clustered to provide more thrust.
 
Hopefully, Paul Koloc's PLASMAK(tm) will make ion engine development moot.
The time to use them was probably back in the '60's, when they were developed.
 
>
>
>
>--
>Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Boson condensates, anyone?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boson condensates, anyone?
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 21:11:50 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Jun17.134955.9133@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
     > If by "cool deuterons" it is meant D instead of D2, this would be an
     > intriguing twist on the idea -- but a very difficult one to implement.
     > Your density would have to be very low to prevent rapid recombination.
 
     Liquid "single-H" is (somewhat) stable, and has been considered
as a rocket fuel.  The reaction H + H --> H2 + energy has the highest
ISP (by far) of any chemical fuel.  The engineering problems involve
keeping it cool WITHOUT evaporation (for obvious reasons) and
manufacturing it economically.  Single-D should be better behaved than
single-H and might be superfluid...
 
     Of course a single fusion event in liquid single-D might cause a
chain reaction as the rest of the deuterium combined to form deuterium
gas.  Hmmm...I wonder?  Naaah. The extra energy from using single-D
pellets in inertial fusion is probably not worth the agony.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: 23 Jun 93 07:13:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <m0o78OQ-00009nC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc writes:
>>In article <1v7209INNi2c@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.d
>(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>>>In article <9JUN199312425984@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>>>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>>
>>>|> You'll notice that Paul said "with higher specific impulse, low
>thrust..."
>>>|> This implies that a lot of that plasma just goes out at more "lukewarm"
>>>|> temperatures for high thrust applications.
>>
>>Let me say it a different way..  there is also an abundance of POWER to
>>mass density (power/[system mass]).   That's also important, because
>>before now, each watt/space kilo was precious.
>>
>>In the first case boost mode is used -- Here in deeper gravity wells
>>the atmospheric gases are sucked in, fusion heated, and expanded out.
>>This is spectacular because the power levels are easily on the order
>>of the shuttle launch but without millions of lbs of fuel.  ....
 
>If you use air as reaction mass, you run into the same problem they're
>having with the National Aerospace Plane, which is two fold as you
>get up there in altitude and speed:  1)  the air is thinner so it
>is more difficult to grab enough of it to be useful it and 2) the air
>is flowing by you faster so it is more difficult to use it for reaction
>mass.
 
I don't think they are using the air for reaction mass as much as for
a source of oxygen to drive their various CHEMICAL engine schemes.  So
the power of their engines will drop off and correspondingly thrust.
The PLASMAK(tm) chamber temperatures are very high and the fluid is
highly compressed, so that mixing it with atmospheric air moving at
near escape velocity will not be a problem and should result in its
good use as reaction mass.    After all the scoop will be picking
up "ram compressed" (condensed) exospheric gases.
 
>.. .
>If, on the other hand, you load up with water in a big steel tank, sort
>of the way Bob Truax talks of doing with his chemical Sea Dragon, you
>have a whole lot more mass at lift-off, but you get rid of it so fast
>that the only residual problem you have to deal with is the tankage,
>(which hopefully doesn't make your maximum dynamic pressure TOO bad
> thereby driving up your engineering costs).   ..  .
 
I don't see it as the problem you do, however, there is no question
the high reaction mass (water) technique could be used to squeeze us
into space .. if the budget isn't adequate to give us an optimal
engine configuration.   Otherwise, we will pass up the scalded duck
routine for as long as we can.
 
>This may let you get by with a lower power system in your boost stage
>than an air-breather, trading tankage against air-gulpage equipment.
>It may also turn out to be more environmentally acceptable.
 
Well, that's for the more distant future (hopefully); initially we
intend to run these first jalopies to mars with the wheels spinning.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold fusion heating up/Cheves Walling's "Inside Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion heating up/Cheves Walling's "Inside Cold Fusion"
Date: 24 Jun 93 20:48:49 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Jun23.150659.724@physc1.byu.edu> S.E. Jones writes:
>On Thursday, June 24, 1993, look for the following:
>
>2.  Press conference in New York (Plaza Hotel, I think) with Eugene
>Mallove, probably to counter Gary Taubes vituperative new book.
 
Bad timing.
 
They will probably be overwhelmed by the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
 
We will see what makes the national news and Friday's NYTimes.
 
>I had a call from National Public Radio about my views on cold fusion,
>spurred by this press conference announcement.  So look for something
>on public radio also.
 
NPR and CNN probably have the spare broadcast time to devote to this.
 
>                             ...                                 I am
>also accused, judged and executed, I understand.     ...
 
I hope you take it in good humor.
 
I have been most impressed with your approach to this whole matter,
primarily because you brought your lab notebook with you to the
invited talk at the Baltimore APS meeting and later agreed to take
your cells to Moshe Gai's lab at Yale.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 / Richard Schultz /  Re: n=1 to n=1/2 radiation
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: n=1 to n=1/2 radiation
Date: 24 Jun 1993 22:27:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930624115241.22800c3c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Richard S[c]hultz says: "So why haven't our XRay and UV satellites picked up a
>30 nm background from the n=1 to n=1/2 transition?"
>
>Have you done a literature search Richard?  Mills has.
 
I admit to having only done a cursory literature search.  After all, I do
work for a living; not very often and not very hard, but nonetheless, I've
spent too much time on this anyway.  What information I've seen (mostly from
a couple of chapters in the 1991 Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics)
indicates that the local interstellar medium is basically opaque from 44 to
912 Angstroms due to the H atoms absorbing there.  So you'd think we're being
bathed in 300 Angstrom light from all these H atoms being stimulated to
emit to the hydrino level.  In fact, none of the articles I looked at noted
any anomalous emission peaks in the UV or X-Ray background.
 
It seems to me that since it's Mills's theory it's *his* job to show *us*
the literature that indicates anomalous emission that he can explain and no
one else can.  Since the other author of the hypothesis (Farrell) posts to
this newsgroup, has had the opportunity to make that point, and has not done
so, I drew the obvious conclusion.  I admit, however, that I could be wrong.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.24 /  collins@jaguar /  No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell
Date: 24 Jun 93 08:10:17 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In Fusion Digest 1106, John Farrell responded to comments about the
hydrino theory made by Gary Collins.   I have been away at a conference
until today, and address briefly his responses.
 
-  John's point is well-taken that the uncertainty relation deals with
   the measuring process and not with properties of matter.  We only
   know what we measure.
 
-  His application of the deBroglie relation in the hydrino theory remains
   indefensible, in my opinion.  It is not enough to say that it is an
   *experimentally* proven relation.  Rather, the deBroglie relation,
   which follows naturally from quantum mechanics, needs to be
   *derived* within the constructs of the Mills/Farrell theory.  Otherwise,
   its adoption is completely ad hoc.  Without it, the theory does not
   lead to a quantization condition.
 
-  I think it is fair to suggest, as I have before, that the deBroglie
   relation and the uncertainty relation go together.  Without the one
   you can't have the other.  If the hydrino theory violates the
   uncertainty principle, then ditto the deBroglie relation.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 / John Logajan /  Re: No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 04:18:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>-  [Farrell's] point is well-taken that the uncertainty relation deals with
>   the measuring process and not with properties of matter.  We only
>   know what we measure.
 
I think you are both wrong (about the uncertainty theory.)  The "measuring
process" is based upon properties of matter.  The human observor is just
another clump of matter.  We measuring humans neither possess extra nor lack
any "observational" powers available to any other form of matter.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Farfetch products
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Farfetch products
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 04:28:54 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:
>A likely candidate is the PeP reaction, which produces 1.44 Mev, and D as
>the "ash":
>             H+e-   +   H+e-   -->  D + e- + neutrino + 1.44 Mev
 
You have this from colliding BWO(H)'s.  But is there any possiblity that
BWO(D) with entrapped H, might have a strong influence on two H's who
happen to end up in the same lattice site, surrounded on all sides by
goosestepping BWO(D)'s.  I mean, maybe they convince the two H's that they
really ought to become a D and join the bandwagon.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: 23 Jun 93 06:42:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Jun20.175418.24117@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>>engine called an arcjet.  The power is used to establish an electrical arc in
>>a flowing gas stream, heating it.  The heated gas is expanded out a nozzle,
>>generating thrust.
 
>Since I love air-breathers ... strike an arc across air molecules passing
>between the rails of a rail-gun.  Here heating is used mainly to ionize
>the air, while the thrust comes from the Lorentz force of the rail gun.
>You could have banks of air breathing rail-guns ...
>- John Logajan
 
And it might well work if you have the driven power of a few gigawatts
electric from a PLASMAK(tm) inductive generator.   that is to say, you do
need an energy source.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 /  sgspedav /  Tearing modes.
     
Originally-From: sgspedav@reading.ac.uk (sgspedav)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tearing modes.
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1993 15:25:05 +0000

 
Hello the Net.
 
Anyone out there interested in hot fusion?
Someone who has read FKR, which is
'Finite-Resistivity Instabilities of a Sheet Pinch',
by H. Furth, J. Killeen, M. Rosenbluth,
Phys. Fluids 6 (1963) 459...?
 
How does equation 22 come from equation 20?
 
-David Pearson,
 NERC Unit for Thematic Information Systems,
 University of Reading,
 Reading RG6 2AB,
 UK.
 
 sgspedav@uk.ac.rdg .
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensgspedav cudlnsgspedav cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 / Steve DeGroof /  Re: Canadian TV show on CF
     
Originally-From: Steve DeGroof  <steve@sun1.atitech.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Canadian TV show on CF
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 93 17:39:16 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

 
> >From: retentiv@athena.mit.edu (Sandra Chang)
>
> just viewed CBC upcoming (june 24) half-hour documentary on
> The Secret Life of Cold Fusion.
 
(etc)
 
> In any case, an enjoyable half-hour romp into the bizarre world of CF
 
I watched it last night. It seemed to me to be quite optimistic. Perhaps
naively so. One guy claimed that they would soon have CF power cells
the size of a large thermos generating 20kW with a cell lifetime of
10000 years. There was also a claim of tritium ash from a Russian
researcher. Er, the tritium came from the cell; the claim came from
the researcher. :^) There was also a claim (from either a Russian or
a French researcher) that high currents can cause the cell to switch
over to a more dangerous fusion reaction. They were a bit vague on that
one.
 
Anyone else see it?
 
SD
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnDeGroof cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 / Dick Jackson /  Re: fusion rockets
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion rockets
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1993 19:31:57 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

Paul M. Koloc writes:
>
>Well, that's for the more distant future (hopefully); initially we
>intend to run these first jalopies to mars with the wheels spinning.
 
In the past you've been kind enough to give us summaries of how your
Plasmak(tm) project is proceeding. Is this a good time for an update?
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 /  collins@jaguar /  Charged electric fields for Mills/
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Charged electric fields for Mills/
Date: 25 Jun 93 03:42:00 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

 
In Fusion Digest 1125, J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu discussed some aspects
of the Mills/Farrell theory.
 
> ...  Consider an electron (plane wave at r = infinity).  As it
> approaches a proton 13.6 eV of stored electric energy of the electron is
> annihilated and the same amount (same integral) of field of the proton is
> annihilated.  That is, a total of 27.2 eV of electric field is annihilated;
> the electron gains 13.6 eV as kinetic energy and 13.6 eV is radiated as a
> photon.  (By the way, for those who have been following the effective
> charge argument, this is related to the notion that  27.2 eV of electric
> field is the equivalent of unit charge in this hydrogen-atom system.)
 
 
The statement in parentheses makes no sense.  Are we to believe that
electric-field energy is equivalent to charge?
 
 
> Matt Kennel writes in FD 1107
>> ...
>> *If* the conducting surface of the cavity is grounded---i.e. attached
>> to an external supply of free charges that can move around easily.
>> If the conductor is isolated, of course, the total net surface charge will
>> remain constant.
>
> Well, maybe or maybe not.  Depends on how you look at it.
> ...
> [T]he electric
> field of the trapped photon *behaves* as charge.  In this case, for an
> electron in the n = 2 state, the trapped photon must have its electric
> field (stationary state) such that they (in effect) cancel some of the
> electric field lines of the proton.  As I said before, in order to have the
> centrifugal and Coulombic forces in balance the *effective* nuclear charge
> must be +e/2. (Alternatively, one can think of the surface charge as being
> -e for the electron and +e/2 for the trapped photon, that is, the electron
> having an *effective* charge as -e/2.)  ...
 
 
It appears that Mills and Farrell believe that photons are charged.  But
Farrell has stated variously that the nucleus is screened and has an
effective charge of +e/2 (in which case the trapped photon would have a charge
of -e/2) or, as above, that the electron has an effective charge of -e/2
(in which case the photon must have a charge of +e/2).  Well, which is it?
Or is it a dipolar charge?
 
A major manifestation of electic fields is light.  Does the "charge" which MF
attribute to electric fields cause light to be accelerated when it passes
close to a nucleus?  Such an interaction would have a profound effect on
the interaction of light with matter.  Is there any experimental evidence
for it?
 
 
Elsewhere, John Farrell has listed the wavefunctions of "electrons"
for the MF analog of the hydrogen atom, but without indicating how they
are derived.  Were these wavefunctions postulated ad hoc, or are they
obtained by solution of some wave equation?  What is the MF wave equation?
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 /  collins@jaguar /  cancel <1993Jun25.094208.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jun25.094208.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
Date: 25 Jun 93 11:34:30 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

cancel <1993Jun25.094208.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.25 /  pete /  CBC news looks at cold fusion
     
Originally-From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CBC news looks at cold fusion
Date: 25 Jun 1993 15:00 PST
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny

Hi:
 
Just stumbled over a survey article on the CBC evening news last
night looking at the current state of CF research. Gist being that
despite lots of bad press, lots of gov't and private money
around the world continues to pour in, and lots of intriguing
unexplained results keep turning up.
 
  Lots of interesting stuff, including some video of the
experimental setup at a Stanford private research lab (can't
quite remember the company name) that exploded in Jan '92,
and interviews with different folk. Vigier talked about
an experiment in Bulgaria(?) that had to be moved behind
lead shielding because of the radiation flux; P & F talked
about making a 20kW cell for home use, and claimed they'd
have their first commercial unit out possibly within a year(!);
a physicist from LANL who was doing tinkering on his own
time, or at least without any budget, said he'd detected
tritium. I wandered into the article part way through, so
there was more that I missed. Some of this may be familiar
to denizens of this group, but I haven't subscribed here for
about a year. Certainly rekindled my interest.
 
==========================================================================
We are definitely here as representatives of the     %    Pete Vincent
Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages Luminaries  % Disclaimer: all I
and Other Professional Thinking Persons, and we      % know I learned from
want this machine off, and we want it off now!       % reading Usenet.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenvincent cudlnpete cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.26 /  blue@dancer.ns /  No molecules allowed?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No molecules allowed?
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1993 19:42:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Farrell deflects many of the critical comments directed toward the
Mills-Farrell hydrino theory by trying to restrict the realm of phenomena
he is prepared to consider.  Since most hydrogen on earth is a part of a
molecule he wants to make observations based on that hydrogen off limits
for our consideration.  Likewise 40.8 eV photons are part of the VUV
spectral range which is "difficult to work with."  I would like to
point out that the dissociation of hydrogen molecules into atomic gas
is routinely achieved and said gas can even be stored in a glass bottle
with a finite lifetime.  The difficult 40.8 eV photons are available at
high intensity from a number of synchrotron light sources and, I suspect
at sufficient intensity from other sources such as an ECR plasma source.
In a word this theory could be put on some kind of solid experimental
base with some measurements that are well within reach of current
experimental science.  Prof. Farrell seems to have blinders on when it
comes to seeing ways in which his theory could be tested by experiment.
There are certainly ways other than photon emission or absorbtion to
probe the level structure, the charge distribution, the electron
momentum distribution, and the current distribution of the hydrogen
atom.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: n=1 to n=1/2 radiation
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: n=1 to n=1/2 radiation
Date: 27 Jun 1993 01:43:00 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
: In article <930624115241.22800c3c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
: >Richard S[c]hultz says: "So why haven't our XRay and UV satellites picked up a
: >30 nm background from the n=1 to n=1/2 transition?"
: >
: >Have you done a literature search Richard?  Mills has.
:
: I admit to having only done a cursory literature search.  After all, I do
: work for a living; not very often and not very hard, but nonetheless, I've
: spent too much time on this anyway.  What information I've seen (mostly from
: a couple of chapters in the 1991 Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics)
: indicates that the local interstellar medium is basically opaque from 44 to
: 912 Angstroms due to the H atoms absorbing there.  So you'd think we're being
: bathed in 300 Angstrom light from all these H atoms being stimulated to
: emit to the hydrino level.  In fact, none of the articles I looked at noted
: any anomalous emission peaks in the UV or X-Ray background.
:
: It seems to me that since it's Mills's theory it's *his* job to show *us*
: the literature that indicates anomalous emission that he can explain and no
: one else can.  Since the other author of the hypothesis (Farrell) posts to
: this newsgroup, has had the opportunity to make that point, and has not done
: so, I drew the obvious conclusion.  I admit, however, that I could be wrong.
 
There seems to be an even stronger experimental requirement:
 
X-ray edges.  Hard UV is lightly studied experimentally, but x-ray spectra
have been studied forever.  Surely this theory predicts new energy levels
for atoms heavier than hydrogen, which would naturally show up on x-ray
absorption measurements.
 
All experiment I've ever heard about is consistent with ordinary quantum
mechanics in quantitative detail.  (I did one as an sophomore, even)
 
:                                       Richard Schultz
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.27 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1993 16:20:33 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.27 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Tearing modes.
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tearing modes.
Date: 27 Jun 1993 17:47:37 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <18354.9306251525@suma1>,
        sgspedav@reading.ac.uk (sgspedav) writes:
 
|> Anyone out there interested in hot fusion?
|> Someone who has read FKR, which is
|> 'Finite-Resistivity Instabilities of a Sheet Pinch',
|> by H. Furth, J. Killeen, M. Rosenbluth,
|> Phys. Fluids 6 (1963) 459...?
|>
|> How does equation 22 come from equation 20?
 
To get (22) from (20) [note that this is not exactly ``solving'' (20);
rather, it is a way of estimating the size of the D' defined in (21)] you
re-express psi in terms of an auxiliary function times an exponential which
*rises* towards infinity (you will see why in a moment):
 
        psi = P exp(alpha x)    x > 0                                   [1]
              P exp(-alpha x)   x < 0.
 
For the x > 0 part, this gives for (20):
 
        (P'' + 2  alpha P') = exp(-alpha x) psi (F''/F)                 [2]
 
(I ignore G here). You can solve the left side simply by integrating from
zero (positive side) to infinity, since you know that P and all its
derivatives must die faster than exp(-alpha x) there (this is the reason
for the sign choice in [1] above). The values of P and P' at zero are given
in terms of psi_2 and psi'_2 since the exponential part gives unity.
Integrating [2],
 
                                     /infinity
                                    |
        psi'_2 + alpha psi_2 =   -  |   du exp(-alpha u) psi (F''/F),   [3]
                                    |
                                   /zero (plus)
 
where one of the factors of alpha on the left side has been taken up by the
re-expression in terms of psi_2 and psi'_2. Do the negative region
similarly to get a [4] similar to [3], subtract them substituting for the
definition of D', assume psi_1 = psi_2, and you get (22).
 
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / N Redington /  Re: Charged electric fields for Mills/
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charged electric fields for Mills/
Date: 28 Jun 1993 05:29:48 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jun25.114200.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>, collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
|>
||>
|>
|> Elsewhere, John Farrell has listed the wavefunctions of "electrons"
|> for the MF analog of the hydrogen atom, but without indicating how they
|> are derived.  Were these wavefunctions postulated ad hoc, or are they
|> obtained by solution of some wave equation?  What is the MF wave equation?
|>
|> --
|> Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
 
 
They are found by requiring the electronic charge distribution
to be in a classically non-radiating state. The existence of
such states is an extremely interesting piece of classical physics
which Mills and Farrell have discovered or rediscovered; it's too
bad they are advertising it as the undoing of quantum mechanics
and thus preventing everyone from seeing how interesting it really
is (but suicidal publicity is a cold fusion tradition!).
 
I think a better approach would be to do a little "alternate
history". What if Bohr had proposed the Mills-Farrell idea
instead of the solar-system atom? How would Schroedinger and
Heisenberg have developed quantum mechanics then? This might
lead to an alternate formulation of quantum mechanics, equivalent
to the present one or conceivably even encompassing it. Hydrinos
might prove an artifact of the classical aspect of the initial
model, or they might be predicted in an extended qm inspired by
Mills-Farrell but including present qm as a limiting case...
 
Now as I understand  it, their wave equation is just Laplace's
Equation. They postulate that the radial solutions are infinitely
thin spheres, distributed to fulfill the classical non-radiation
condition. The angular solutions are those of the quantum-mechanical
rigid rotor, times a harmonically varying part; this is derived
by assuming the angular part obeys Laplace subject to
     mass of electron . allowed velocity = hbar / allowed radius.
 
The charged photon thing is based on the idea that the
spherical-shell electron is a spherical waveguide and will
therefore trap discrete resonant wavelengths of light. When
a photon is trapped in the waveguide, the radius of the
"orbitsphere" jumps to a new value corresponding to the
new energy. But for the new sphere to be stable, the Coulomb
interaction and the centrifugal force must still cancel.
The centrifugal force in the new orbit goes as v(n)^2 / r(n)
that is as 1/n^3. The Coulomb force goes as 1/r(n)^2, that
is as 1/n^2. Therefore balance requires that the charge of
the nucleus Q be replaced by an effective charge Q/n.
They are not actually claiming the photon is charged, only
that trapping em radiation in an orbitsphere changes the
EFFECTIVE nuclear charge.
 
Well, that's what I could glean from the Aug. '91
Fusion Technology. I don't have the $60 + motivation
needed to buy their book.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Sunday Times (UK) article
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sunday Times (UK) article
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 14:13:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The Sunday Times (U.K.) published an excellent article about cold fusion on
June 27, 1993. It is the cover story in section 2, titled: "Nuclear
Confusion," by Neville Hodgkinson. The primary focus of the article is the
politics of CF, rather than the science, but it includes many astute
scientific comments. I do not have time to summarize it, but here is the lead-
in, and a few quotes:
 
     "In 1989, two scientists revealed a cheap energy source that would change
     the world: nuclear fusion in a bucket. Later, their findings unproven,
     they lost their jobs. But did they really get it wrong? NEVILLE
     HODGKINSON on the return of a very big idea."
 
     "Fleischmann, 65, and Pons, 50, have been set up in what is virtually a
     new scientific institute of their own -- a collection of magnificent
     laboratories purpose-built to pursue cold fusion and related research.
     The 50,000 sq ft domain lies in the tree-clad hills... 20 minutes from
     Nice, France."
 
     "Dr. Alan Bewick, a former colleague of Fleischmann's at Southampton, is
     now working as a consultant to the new institute although not on cold
     fusion. He is certain that Fleischmann and Pons have established a new
     phenomenon. 'I have not the slightest doubt that this thing works. I knew
     all its details from beginning to end. Even at its present stage it is
     capable of giving very high energy outputs per unit volume of reactor.'"
 
     "'Plenty of scientist in Japan responded just as sceptically as in
     Britain and America,' Fleischmann recalls. 'But there was a willingness
     to say: 'suppose it is true, what follows from that?''"
 
(The article does not directly state this, but the 50,000 sq. ft. laboratory
in France, and other CF labs in Japan were built by a subsidiary of the Toyota
Motor Company, which now leads the world in cold fusion R&D by a wide margin.)
 
     "The immediate [R&D] target, [Pons] says, is to produce a 10-killowatt
     generator, about the size of a domestic immersion heater, which would
     give out about eight to 10 times more energy than is put in. Pons feels a
     prototype could be ready, 'within a year.'"
 
(Please note this interview took place some time ago; by now it might be more
accurate to say "within six to eight months." A view of the 10 and 20 KW unit
prototype was shown in the CBC documentary broadcast on June 24, 1993.)
 
Here is a nice clear statement from McKubre (SRI):
 
     "...our position is that the heat is unmistakably present. We have no
     explanation for it. We can rule out the known chemistry of the system. If
     all the chemicals in the system reacted, that could account for one to
     10% of the heat we are seeing, but we know that doesn't happen because we
     are monitoring the chemistry continuously... I don't believe we are
     looking at an energy surge process, charging the system up and then
     releasing it. That would be very interesting, but the energy is too high.
     By default, we are left with a nuclear reaction. We haven't seen any
     products which could come from a nuclear reaction, but we wouldn't have
     expected to with the tools applied so far."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / Jed Rothwell /  CBC
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CBC
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 14:13:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Pete Vincent wrote a somewhat garbled account of the CBC documentary. Let me
just clarify a few points here:
 
     "...experimental setup at a Stanford private research lab (can't quite
     remember the company name)..."
 
That's:
 
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
 
SRI is one of the world's preeminent R&D labs, it is a spinoff of Stanford
University. The work at SRI is funded by EPRI:
 
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743
 
EPRI is the number one private energy R&D consortium, it a consortium run by
many U.S. electric power companies. It spends several hundred million per year
on a very wide range of programs relating to energy generation, pollution
control, and related technology. EPRI is sponsoring the Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion at Hawaii this coming December. For more information
on the conference, contact Linda Nelson, Conference Coordinator at EPRI. The
lead researcher at SRI is M.C.H. McKubre. He reported positive results in the
First, Second and Third International Conferences, in the Wall Street Journal,
and at a lecture at M.I.T. on Sept. 24, 1992. SRI's instrumentation and
calorimeter is the best in the world, and their statistical level of
confidence in the results is astronomically high.
 
 
Pete refers to:
 
     "...a physicist from LANL who was doing tinkering on his own time, or at
     least without any budget, said he'd detected tritium."
 
That's Edmund Storms, who was recently noted for his calorimetric experiments
measuring heat. He also wrote a superb review of the field. The person at LANL
who measures Tritium with great precision is Tom Claytor. I highly recommend
the following papers from Storms:
 
Storms, E. (LANL), "Review of Experimental Observation About the Cold Fusion
Effect," Fusion Technology, Dec 1991, Vol 20, No 4, pp 433-477, 5 Figs, 3
Tables, 359 Refs
 
Storms, E. (LANL),  "Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type
electrolytic cell using palladium sheet," Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 230
 
 
     "I wandered into the article [broadcast] part way through, so there was
     more that I missed...
 
Contact me for a video tape copy of the documentary.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 15:58:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu, write in FD 1142
 
>John Farrell deflects many of the critical comments directed toward the
>Mills-Farrell hydrino theory by trying to restrict the realm of phenomena
>he is prepared to consider.
 
Not quite.  I'm prepared to consider any realm.  I just don't have the time
to consider every phenomenon that every individual scientist wants
considered.  Also, I don't have expertise in every area.  Sorry, but that
is the way it is.   If you toss out the whole theory because of it--OK with
me.
 
>Since most hydrogen on earth is a part of a
>molecule he wants to make observations based on that hydrogen off limits
>for our consideration.
 
Please don't blame me for the fact that elemental hydrogen is found as a
diatomic molecule.
 
>Likewise 40.8 eV photons are part of the VUV
>spectral range which is "difficult to work with."  I would like to
>point out that the dissociation of hydrogen molecules into atomic gas
>is routinely achieved and said gas can even be stored in a glass bottle
>with a finite lifetime.
 
Baloney!  The dissociation of H2 gas is not routinely achieved.  It can be
done and is done in any catalytic hydrogenation reaction--using Pt, Pd, Ni,
and other catalysts.  But these reactions are surface reactions.  I have
never heard of keeping monatomic H in a glass bottle for any reasonable
length of time.  It can done at very low pressures and for very short time
periods.  The statement that it "is routinely achieved and said gas can
even be stored in a glass bottle with a finite lifetime" is *totally*
misleading.
 
>The difficult 40.8 eV photons are available at
>high intensity from a number of synchrotron light sources and, I suspect
>at sufficient intensity from other sources such as an ECR plasma source.
 
The vacuum UV is difficult to work with--I didn't say impossible (there is
a difference between difficult and impossible).  I consider synchrotrons
and ECR plasma sources as *difficult*.  We have looked into doing some
definitive experiments with a synchrotron.  We have to submit a proposal to
use a synchrotron; we have to wait on the proposal disposition; we have to
know exactly what we plan to do (this requires that we know how to collect
and keep the hydrinos, for example).  Our chances of getting onto a
synchrotron are slim; besides we need some spade work first. All of this is
possible, but difficult and time consuming.   We believe we are onto some
experiments (MS and PES) that are easier and just as definitive.
 
>In a word this theory could be put on some kind of solid experimental
>base with some measurements that are well within reach of current
>experimental science.  Prof. Farrell seems to have blinders on when it
>comes to seeing ways in which his theory could be tested by experiment.
>There are certainly ways other than photon emission or absorbtion to
>probe the level structure, the charge distribution, the electron
>momentum distribution, and the current distribution of the hydrogen
>atom.
 
This theory is being put on a solid experimental base.  Just because we
don't share what we are doing with you don't mean that it isn't being done.
 It is one thing to come up with an off-handed comment or suggestion on how
to identify these hydrinos and quite another to come up with an experiment
that will *actually* do the job. I remain *very interested* in ways to test
the theory. Definitively identifying these hydrinos is
difficult--synchrotron or not.
 
In summary, we intend to do it our way but we are open to suggestions.  If
you choose to reject what we doing because we refuse to consider certain
suggestions or we refuse to respond to certain criticisms or whateverQso be
it.  I will continue to respond as I see fit, and I will try to be helpful
with experiments and theoretical comments as time permits.
 
Best regards,
 
John Farrell
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / John George /  "Norman" the Boson?
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Norman" the Boson?
Date: 28 Jun 93 15:28:35 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I read Tom Droege's post about the status of his latest experimental
cell. As I read I got to wondering if perhaps Tom would like to name
one of his little bosons "Norman" as Billy Crystal named one of his
"doggies" in the recent comedy movie "CitySlickers"?
 
I really enjoyed your write-up Tom, clear enough for even lurkers to
understand. I thank you for your hard work and for sharing it with
us. I hope that it will replicate soon and with and an even larger
sigma and run.
 
Many of us out here are hoping for science to provide us with a non-
destructive solution to our energy needs. I hope this is a step along
the way.
 
Are you going to go to ICCF4 in Lahina, Hawaii? Waving Palms and Tropical
Drinks could go a long way toward lightening the load of those Chicago
winters!
 
                    THX      JLG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: 28 Jun 1993 18:45:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <01GZWSLW36HE000JMC@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
 
>In summary, we intend to do it our way but we are open to suggestions.  If
>you choose to reject what we doing because we refuse to consider certain
>suggestions or we refuse to respond to certain criticisms or whateverQso be
>it.  I will continue to respond as I see fit, and I will try to be helpful
>with experiments and theoretical comments as time permits.
 
I have already outlined one way of doing it without a synchrotron.  Admittedly,
frequency tripling isn't a lot of fun either, but it can be and has been done.
 
And if you don't like plasmas, another popular source of H atoms is the old
molecular beam trick where you dissociate something like HI or HBr.
 
I still don't understand, however, why your theory won't work for H2.  One of
the nice things about standard QM is that it predicts pretty nicely why H
atoms like to form H2 but not, say, H3.  Why can't two hydrinos interact to
form sigma and sigma-star type "molecular orbitspheres" a la standard MO
theory.  Most people are surprised when they find out that the sigma orbital
of H2 is a lot closer to a sphere than a cigar.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / mitchell swartz /  Response to Dr. Jones' response to letter from Dr. Miles
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Dr. Jones' response to letter from Dr. Miles
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 19:04:02 GMT
Date: 18 Jun 93;   Subject: Response to letter from Dr. Miles
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Jun18.181609.715@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 93;   Subject: Response to letter from Dr. Miles
Stephen Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
  "RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM DR. MILES, POSTED PUBLICLY HERE
   June 18, 1993
   Dear Colleagues ......  "
 
  The following letter is a response to that posting from
 Dr. Melvin Miles of the Department of the Navy,
 Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division,
 China Lake, California 93555-6001
 
  back to Professor Stephen Jones:
 
     ===========================================
                                       "In Reply refer to:
                                         3910
                                         C02353/219
                                         22 Jun 93
 
"This is my further response to Professor Jones.   Please post this on
 E-mail.
 
As stated in my previous letter of 8 June l993, Professor Steven E. Jones of
 Brigham Young University has made numerous false allegations concerning my
 scientific publications (References 1-4) involving the Fleischmann-Pons
 effect. My purpose for this letter is to document these false allegations
 and misconceptions. Please note that Reference 5 will establish several
 cases where Professor Jones has chosen to repeat his false allegations
 rather than accept my previous answers to his attacks.  Reference 6 is
 Professor Jones' recent attack on my work.  The false statements and
 misconceptions by Professor Jones are numbered in order of their
 appearance in Reference 6.
 
 1. In several places, Professor Jones has stated that I asked him to post
 his comments regarding my publications. This is simply not true. I only
 asked him one specific, focused question that required only a short answer.
 This illustrates that Professor Jones is misrepresenting facts even at the
 very beginning.
 
 2. Professor Jones states that my four papers (References 1-4) are all
 about the same and that the data is taken in 1990 in all four papers. This
 is false.   Reference 4 contains 1989 experiments that were completed
 before the 1990-1991 heat/helium measurements were begun.
 
 3. In several places, Professor Jones states that there was only one
 control for the dental film studies.   This is false.   As stated on page
 108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
 control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  Furthermore,
 it is stated on page 109 of Reference 1 that following experiments in
 D2O+LiOD failed to produce any excess enthalpy or dental film exposure.
  There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
 no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
 fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
 twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
 look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1.
 
 4. The comments by Professor Jones regarding D2+O2 recombination in our
 cells are misleading. As explained on page 112 of Reference 1 and pages
 370-371 of Reference 2, recombination was observed in a very different
 type of experiment (Szpak codeposition). In such experiments, the
 deposited palladium partic1es tend to break loose and collect on cell
 components above the solution level, hence recombination is not
 unexpected. As clearly stated on 101 of Reference 1, page 364 of Reference
 2, page 273 of Reference 3, and page 242-243 of Reference 4, there is no
 evidence for any recombination when a palladium rod cathode is used that
 is fully immersed in the D2O solution. Recombination can be detected by
 monitoring the D2O level in the cell and by measuring the rate of  evolution
  of D2+O2 electrolysis gases.
 
 5. Professor Jones states that calibrations were done with a resistor
 where no electrolysis occurs. This is not true. As clearly stated on page
 100 of Reference 1, "previously determined mean values of these constants
 were used".   As shown in Table 3 of Reference 4, these mean values come
 from experiments involving both Pd/D2O and Pd/H2O electrolysis as well as
 from Joule heating experiments.  Figures 1 and 2 of Reference 1 provide
 another check on these mean values. Studies before and after our
 heat/helium measurements are combined to show that no significant change
 in the cell constants occurred.
 
 6. Professor Jones claims that our cell constants show large variations. I
 disagree. As seen in Table 3 of Reference 4 the standard deviations are
 about +/- 2% for all cell constants despite the use of several different
 calibration methods. I previously answered this allegation in Reference 5
 (pages 75-76).
 
 7. Regarding thermal inversions discussed in Reference 4 (page 245 last
 two lines). Professor Jones states that "no further explanation nor
 caveats are offered". This is false.  The next three lines of Reference 4
 (pages 245-246) explain the cause of this problem and its simple
 correction (the thermistor tubes were flush with the cell top).  This
 problem and its correction were explained twice to Professor Jones in
 Reference 5 (pages 76-77). This is yet another example of Professor Jones
 repeating false allegations that were clearly explained previously. After
 this thermistor tube correction was made back in 1989, our calorimetric
 fluctuations in control studies are typically less than +/- 3%.
 
 8. Professor Jones states that the H2O control of Reference 4 (1989 data)
 is the same as the H2O control of Reference 1 (1991 data) This is totally
 false as well as impossible.  It should be obvious even to Professor Jones
 that 1991 data (see Table 2 of 1) cannot appear in a 1990 publication
 (Reference 4). His re-plotting of my H2O control is for the 1989
 experiment conducted before the thermistor tubes were made flush with the
 cell  top. The error bars have consistently been much smaller since this
 modification was made in l989.
 
 9. The calorimetric deviations due to dental film studies involved changes
 in liquid levels in the gap that were explained in Reference 1 (page 108)
 as well as earlier in Reference 5 (page 75). Professor Jones once again
 refuses to acknowledge my previous explanation.
 
10.   The most serious false allegation by Professor Jones is his statement
 that helium measurements were "thrown out".  In response to his question
 at Brigham Young University in 1991, I stated that two helium measurements
 were "left out of order" (underline added for emphasis). There is a
 tremendous difference between "left out" and "left out of order". For both
 my BYU presentation and Table 1 in Reference 2, the samples 12/17/90-A and
 12/17/90-B are left out of order of decreasing excess power and placed at
 the bottom of the table. Since these were companion samples from the two
 cells (A and B), I thought that both should be left out of order. Because
 of the criticism by Professor Jones regarding this issue (see Reference 5,
 page 79), I placed the sample 12/17/90-A back in order in my recent
 publication (Reference 1). Because the D2O level was not as low in the
 12/17/90-A sample, the electrodes in that cell never became exposed to the
 gas phase, thus recombination could not have been a factor in the measured
 excess heat. Recent studies of the effect of low D2O levels suggest the
 true X-values were likely about 1.15 for sample 12/17/90-A and 1.05 for
 sample 12/17/90-B assuming no recombination on exposed electrode surfaces
 in the latter case. This would place both samples into reasonable
 positions in Table 7 of Reference 1. A clear discussion of samples
 12/17/90-A and 12/17/90-B was given in Reference 5 (page 79). Professor
 Jones again ignores my previous answers and repeats his false allegations.
 
 11. Professor Jones states that our nitrogen-filled flasks should be
 considered as controls. I strongly disagree since the nitrogen-filled
 flasks were never connected to our electrolysis system. The purpose of
 these experiments was to check the boil-off nitrogen at China Lake for any
 possible helium contamination. These nitrogen-filled flasks were often
 shipped by air-freight while electrolysis gas samples had to be shipped by
 ground freight as explained in Reference 3 (pages 274-275). Leaks are more
 likely for air-freight shipments due to large changes in pressure. All
 nitrogen-filled flasks are reported in Table 1 of Reference 3, hence there
 are no "rejected" data points as claimed by Professor Jones. This topic
 was also discussed previously in Reference 5 (page 78).
 
 12. Professor Jones uses my term "possible flask leakage" out of context
 and states this indicates that we are not sure how the helium got into the
 nitrogen-filled flask. As seen on page 111 of Reference 1 (line 20) our
 full statement is "Our previous report of possible flask leakage could be
 explained by helium diffusion into nitrogen-filled flasks".  As I
 explained at the Nagoya meeting last October, the helium measured at the
 detection limit for one nitrogen-filled flask provides our best helium
 calibration and yields a minimum detection limit of 1 ppb rather than 0.1
 ppb for our helium
 analysis. Our helium measurements, therefore, should all be increased by
 an order of magnitude. Similar conclusions for our helium detection limit
 are discussed in Reference 5 (pages 77-78).
 
 13. Professor Jones suggests a possible correlation between the helium
 content and a particular flask. I discussed this topic previously in
 Reference 5 (pages 78-79). Briefly, a total of eight flask were used in
 the D2O experiments where 8 of 10 samples showed measurable amounts of
 helium (see Table 1 of Reference 1).   Five of these same flasks were used
 in the H2O experiments showing no helium (see Table 2 of Reference 1).
 Therefore, at least three of the flasks in the experiments had previously
 contained measurable amounts of helium in the D2O experiments.  Later
 studies of helium diffusion into these flasks show that they are all quite
 uniform.
 
 In conclusion, Professor Jones has not provided a satisfactory answer to
 my simple question.   Instead, he has descended into personal attacks and
 false allegations.  Again, I challenge Professor Jones to take his
 discussion of my publications to a refereed scientific journal. I also
 urge him to stop making false allegations and misrepresentations regarding
 my experiments.
 
                                        Sincerely,
 
                                       MELVIN H. MILES
                                    Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
                                       NAWCWPNS Fellow
 
References
1. M. H. Miles et al., J. Electroanal Chem., 346 (1993) 99-117.
2. M. H. Miles et al., in "The Science of Cold Fusion", Conf. Proc., T.
 Bressani, E. Del Giudice, and G. Preparata, editors, pp. 363-372, 1991.
3, B. F. Bush et al., J. Electroanal. Chem., 304 (1991) 271-278.
4. M. H. Miles et al., J. Electroanal. Chem., 296 (1990) 241-254.
5. "Cold Fusion  Experimenter Miles Responds to Critic" in 21st Century
   Science and  Technology. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 75-80 (1992)
6. Memorandum by Professor S. E. Jones, dated 27 May 1993 and his
   E-Mail discussion of my publications.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sunday Times (UK) article
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sunday Times (UK) article
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 19:03:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930628134159_72240.1256_EHK39-3@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>     "The immediate [R&D] target, [Pons] says, is to produce a 10-killowatt
>     generator, about the size of a domestic immersion heater, which would
>     give out about eight to 10 times more energy than is put in. Pons feels a
>     prototype could be ready, 'within a year.'"
>
>(Please note this interview took place some time ago; by now it might be more
>accurate to say "within six to eight months." A view of the 10 and 20 KW unit
>prototype was shown in the CBC documentary broadcast on June 24, 1993.)
 
     Expect a query in February of 1994, and then in June of 1994.
 
     I'll wager that the prototypes will not then be successfully operating,
     nor will they ever.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Charged electric fields for Mills
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charged electric fields for Mills
Date: 28 Jun 93 11:36:11 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <20lvkc$1k4@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, redingtn@athena.mit.edu
(Norman H Redington) replied to questions raised by Gary Collins about
hydrino wavefunctions.
 
>...
 
Thanks, Norman, for the information and insights.  If only John Farrell
would do a better job explaining the theory himself to those following this
group who have an interest in it.
 
 
> Well, that's what I could glean from the Aug. '91
> Fusion Technology. I don't have the $60 + motivation
> needed to buy their book.
 
Me neither.
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencollins cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to John George
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John George
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 21:31:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks pardner, for all the encouragement.  Been out riden the range, and
not a cow in sight.  I recken some onery snake eyed pole cat rustled em
all.
 
Uncle Tom (Droege)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 / Frank Close /   Fair comment on the Sunday Times?
     
Originally-From: FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Fair comment on the Sunday Times?
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 12:27:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed Rothwell omitted some interesting pieces from the Sunday Times article,
notably a rare statement from Pons and my comment in Too Hot To Handle
that FP had "present[ed] data that had been obtained more by enthusiasm
than by careful science". (British libel laws prevent stronger
statements; La Republica's lawyers are waiting to see what Italian
libel law allows).
 
The article also said that "[In Too Hot To Handle] Close went to great pains
to be fair". It referred to THTH as a "meticulously researched book".
Thus people who know its message may recognise irony in Pons' remark at the
close of the article.
 
Pons said "It has to be straightened out. We do owe society a complete
explanation. I would love to see it work. But I would especially love to
see Fleischmann vindicated. -  - All [of Fleischmann's reputation and
future promise] was severely interrupted because a lot of untrue [sic] things
were said.I think he's in great need of vindication. That's my own personal
wish. After that I couldn't care less".
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 / mitchell swartz /  Response to letter from Dr. Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to letter from Dr. Jones
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 12:15:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Jun18.181609.715@physc1.byu.edu>
  Date: 18 Jun 93;   Subject: Response to letter from Dr. Miles
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) wrote:
 
===  "RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM DR. MILES, POSTED PUBLICLY HERE
===     June 18, 1993
===     Dear Colleagues ......
===  5.  The China Lake team used dental X-ray film to look for X-rays,
===  which is sensitive to mechanical pressures and chemicals (including
===  humidity) which can give false readings.   ...
===
===  Well, gentlemen and ladies, tell me what you think?
===  --Steven Jones"
 
  Steven, I apologize for taking so long to respond, but have been
quite busy.  However, since you are unearthing the same old ground but have
never responded satisfactorily to my comments, they will be reposted with
the hope that this time you might so comment.
 
 You appear to have demeaned again the use of radiologic films without a
firm basis.  This has been done before.
For example, in sci.physics.fusion [5436; Sub: X-rays as critical test;
9 Mar 93; Message-ID: <1993Mar9.172510.494@physc1.byu.edu>,  you wrote:
 
===    "Tom and Chuck Sites recently provided caveats against
===  using X-ray film, which is sensitive to mechanical
===  and chemical effects which produce artifacts."
 
 to which I responded:
 
=    "As a Board-certified radiologist too, I suggest you
= consider:  If we used your techniques our imaging, diagnostic, (yes, and
= therapeutic) prowess, sensitivity, selectivity, etc.
=   would be void.  All sensitive recording devices can be tripped
=   erroneously.  That is why we do many controls, standards tests,
=   etc.  Do you realize how many chest films, IVPs, CAT scans would
=   be not performed  using this bizarre fear.
=     Sir, radiologists do a fine job.   The images are real,
=   and believe it or not, after decades "mechanical and chemical
=   effects" are no big deal."
 
  Yet you have kept on with "brick-toss tactics" without responding, to
this or any of the other comments regarding your demeaning of x-ray imaging
techniques.    As another example, corroborating this, please consider (cf.
Sub: X-rays:  the Kucherov experiment;
Message-ID: <1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>) wherein
you  wrote, in an attempt to dismiss the x-ray image in Figure 8 of
 Kucherov's paper, by comparing it to what it was not:
 
===  "Fig. 8 in the paper shows "X-ray diffraction spots on an X-ray film"
===  the caption says.  But when I showed the figure to a colleague,
=== Prof. Van Fleet, he remarked that he saw nothing
=== recognizable as a diffraction pattern:  a "hodgepodge" he called it."
===      [Steven Jones, ID:<1993Mar12.140708.501@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
 To which this author responded:
 
=  "Was it really a "diffraction pattern"?  Is that what Prof. Van Fleet was
= told?   Attention is directed to the (actual) paper which states:
=
=    "To determine the spatial distribution of the gamma emission we used
=  RT-1V X-ray films with lead screens. ...  Using the same X-ray film with
= =  aluminum and lead screens X-rays with diffraction spots can be seen
=  (fig. 8)." [from  Karabut & Kucherov, Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265)]
=
=    So.  The x-ray film had different materials in front of it and was used
= to record the "spatial distribution of the gamma emission".
=    What then actually is a "diffraction pattern"?
=
=   A diffraction pattern is an image created on x-ray film from a periodic
= material which is irradiated by an incident beam (usually monochromatic).
= We thought you were aware of solid-state physics but refer you to Chapter
= 2 of Charles Kittel "Solid State Physics", Wiley Press which discusses
= the fundamentals you need to understand crystal structure, fourier analysis
= reciprocal lattice vectors, diffraction conditions, etc.
=
=   FACT: Figure 8 was not a "diffraction pattern".  The paper states
=  that it was used to study "spatial distribution", and Kucherov et alia
=  were clever enough to add filters to harden the incident x-rays."
=       [Mitchell  Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)]
 
   Your response indicated a further denial of the difference between electrode
autoradiography and (reciprocal) diffraction patterns.
Thus, in [Message-ID: <1993Mar16.191348.510@physc1.byu.edu>; Sub: Re:
 Kucherov/Followup to Swartz]  you wrote:
 
===  "3.  It was the paper that claimed that Fig. 8 represented
===  "diffraction" spots.  I commented that Prof. Van Fleet here, an expert
===   in the field, found nothing showing that "diffraction" was involved."
 
     but then did not appear to ever respond to the followup post:
 
=    "Who is not answering a question, Steve?  This is fundamental is it not?
=    Was the x-ray pattern a "diffraction patttern" thereby representing:
=           -- reciprocal space ---
=
=     or was it a spatial recording thereby representing:
=           -- actual space ---
=  ...
=    The paper makes the spatial (actual) space imaging seem what was done:
= >    "To determine the spatial distribution of the gamma emission we used
= >  RT-1V X-ray films with lead screens. ...  Using the same X-ray film with
= >  aluminum and lead screens X-rays with diffraction spots can be seen
= >  (fig. 8)." [from  Karabut & Kucherov, Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265)]"
 
   Is not repeated destructive criticism by the skeptics just too easy when
   it need not be backed up by fact or logic?  It is hoped that a
   substantial response might be available.
 
    Best wishes.
                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                         (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 / mitchell swartz /  Re: No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 12:16:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Jun25.041808.14413@ns.network.com>,
  Subject: Re: No deBroglie for Mills/Farrell,
 John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
=== {"[Farrell's] point is well-taken that the uncertainty relation deals with
===  the measuring process and not with properties of matter.  We only
===  know what we measure.  (prev. post)}"
== "I think you are both wrong (about the uncertainty theory.)  The "measuring
== process" is based upon properties of matter.  The human observor is just
== another clump of matter.  We measuring humans neither possess extra nor lack
== any "observational" powers available to any other form of matter."
 
    John, this may be simply incorrect because physical phenomena occur
       with or without human observers.
 
     However, what humans add, and which most other forms of matter do not,
        is: "curiosity".    Curiosity drives us to carefully look closer
        at the natural phenomena.
 
     Then, and only, when we systematically organize our observations
  (which are generally non-linear compared with other "matter")
    do we then create the sciences.
 
      Best wishes.
                         Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Farrell's experiments?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Farrell's experiments?
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 14:13:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Farrell says: "Just because we don't share what we are doing with
you don't mean that it isn't being done."
 
I would have no grounds to object to that were it not for the fact that
Prof. Farrell has been making regular presentations of his theory on
this forum.  That is to say he is being selective as to what aspects of
his work he chooses to present and what he chooses to withhold from
view.  My point is that there is a vast store of experimental data
relating to hydrogen atoms that Prof. Farrell is ignoring.  We don't
have to wait for any new, but secret, experimental results to know that
"orbitspheres" are not going to pass muster.  I further object to the
"shell game" that is brought into play when anyone suggests an experimental
test that the hydrino theory is likely to fail.  All suggestions get
passed off because the hydrino isn't under that shell.  Farrell doesn't
do molecules, or atomic beams, or UVU, or atomic collisions, or electron
scattering.  To date I don't believe we have heard of any experimental
data to support the hydrino theory unless you count CF results which
claim the release of too much energy to be "ordinary chemistry".  Mills
and Farrell use that to support a claim for new chemistry, others use
it to support a claim for a new nuclear physics.  I stand by the third
alternative.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 / mitchell swartz /  Fair comment on the Sunday Times?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fair comment on the Sunday Times?
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 16:51:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9306291147.AA06889@suntan.Tandem.com>
    Subject:  Fair comment on the Sunday Times?
 Frank Close (FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK) writes:
 
 
== "Jed Rothwell omitted some interesting pieces from the Sunday Times
==  article, notably a rare statement from Pons and my comment in Too Hot
==  To Handle that FP had "present[ed] data that had been obtained more
==  by enthusiasm than by careful science". (British libel laws
== prevent stronger statements; La Republica's lawyers are waiting to see
== what Italian libel law allows).
 
== "The article also said that "[In Too Hot To Handle] Close went to
== great pains to be fair". It referred to THTH as a "meticulously
== researched book"."
 
  Frank, you omitted some interesting pieces from the Sunday Times
 article.  Also  please be careful not to dislocate your arm patting
 yourself on the back.   Your book appears woefully out-of-date as the
 full quote states and then demonstrates:
 
-->    "In Too Hot To Handle, a meticulously researched book on the affair
-->     published in 1990,..."
 
  Furthermore, the Sunday Times (27 June 1993) article continues:
 
-->      "according to Alan Bewick, other British scientists were eager
-->  to jump on to the anti-fusion bandwagon. "Of all the countries I
-->  know, the UK is the most negative towards cold fusion," he says.
-->   "A large number of scientists, not only physicists, are
-->  incredibly emotional and personal about it.
-->    "Britain could have been in the lead on this.   Martin was keen
-->  to have things done in Britain, but in the end the physics
-->  establishment went totally against. You can see why. Physicists
-->  think they have an awful lot to lose from this. They think, 'Mere
-->  chemists, dealing with something that looks like a nuclear
-->  phenomenon...' "
 
                  ***
 
-->  "Meanwhile,  three international conferences on cold fusion
-->  have taken place, but have been regarded by most Western scientists
-->   simply as conventions for "believers", The latest took place last
-->   October at Nagoya in Japan. Of 320 scientists assembled there,
-->   199 came from Japan itself, 55 from the US, 20 from Italy,
-->  11 from China, five from France, two from Germany and only one
-->   from the UK - Fleischmann."
 
-->  "The "believers" have put forward theories that might underpin
-->   the phenomenon, and have continued to report a variety of
-->  anomalous experimental results, many appearing to support the
-->  original claims. But a lack of consistency in the data has allowed
-->  sceptics to maintain that experimental errors are a more likely
-->  explanation than newly discovered physical laws."
 
-->  "As far as, 'official', science was concerned, the cold fusion
-->  episode became regarded as an unfortunate incident best
-->  forgotten. And there the matter seemed to rest - until now."
 
-->  "The past few months have seen developments which, according to
-->  Pons, are making even hardened sceptics soften their stance.
-->  "It's moving forward," he says. "The fact that you get excess
-->  heat has been pretty much verified. It has been borne out
-->  by bundreds of papers and experiments. Our own results are
-->  consistent in this, and the thermal outputs we now measure
-->  are about 100 times what we saw in early 1989"."
 
 
   Possibly the best quote at the end is thus:
 
-->    "The cold fusion story raises some major questions about
-->  the scientific establishment's openness to new ideas, and
-->  industry's willingness to fund research into them. According
-->  to Eiichi Yamaguchi, senior NTT scientist, Britain and America
-->  decided to take the easy way out of the cold fusion furore.
-->   "They don't like confusion," he says.   "They don't like
-->  basic research where only one in 10,000 experiments is successful."
 
      Best wishes.
                                     Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Originally-From: revu@midway.uchicago.edu (Sendhil "Mr. Bubbles" Revuluri)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Subject: sonoluminescence
Subject: Physics News Update #134 (6/24)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 22:22:30 GMT
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1993 22:55:00 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group

Hi folks,
 
Back from vacation & still catching up.  Thought ya'll might find this one
interesting, though.
 
(Dale, would you happen to have any more details/evaluation of this paper?
It sounds similar to the shock-wave concepts you once [still?] proposed.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Originally-From: revu@midway.uchicago.edu (Sendhil "Mr. Bubbles" Revuluri)
Subject: Physics News Update #134 (6/24)
Message-ID: <25JUN199316551755@utahep.uta.edu>
Summary: Latest Physics News Update
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Keywords: physics news interesting banana pnup
Sender: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Nntp-Posting-Host: utahep.uta.edu
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1993 22:55:00 GMT
Approved: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu
 
**********************************************************************
 
This is a "Physics News Update" distributed by Phillip Schewe of AIP
Public Information.  For those who want to receive PNUPs via email,
mail pfs2@aip.org with your address and you will be added to the
distribution list.
 
I am redistributing this with Mr. Schewe's permission.  Complaints or
suggestions about the Updates should go to him at pfs@aip.org.
 
Sendhil Revuluri (s-revuluri@uchicago.edu)
University of Chicago
 
**********************************************************************
 
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
A digest of physics news items prepared by Phillip F. Schewe, AIP
Public Information
Number 134   June 24, 1993
 
[other non-SL items deleted by Terry Bollinger]
 
AN EXPLANATION IS EMERGING FOR SONOLUMINESCENCE, the mysterious
underwater phenomenon in which air bubbles, compressed by sound waves,
implode, releasing 50-picosecond flashes of light which are up to a
trillion times more concentrated in energy than the initial sound
waves.  A new round of experiments and calculations over the last year
has done much to elucidate the details of the phenomenon.  C.C.  Wu
and Paul Roberts of UCLA propose (in the 31 May Physical Review
Letters) that the mechanism for sonoluminescence consists of spherical
shock waves generated in the collapsing bubble.  According to the
hypothesis, the shock waves travel to the bubble's center at
supersonic speeds, compressing air inside the bubble and heating it to
such high temperatures (over 5000 K) that a plasma is formed.
Electrically charged particles in the plasma release flashes of light
in the process of accelerating.  (The Sciences, July/August 1993.)
 
[other non-SL items deleted by Terry Bollinger]
 
        Sendhil Revuluri (s-revuluri@uchicago.edu)
        University of Chicago
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.29 /  dshelton@galax /  Re: Canadian TV show on CF
     
Originally-From: dshelton@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Canadian TV show on CF
Date: 29 Jun 93 16:41:44 -0700
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <9306251739.AA17625@sun1.atitech.ca>, Steve DeGroof
 <steve@sun1.atitech.ca> writes:
>
>> >From: retentiv@athena.mit.edu (Sandra Chang)
>>
>> just viewed CBC upcoming (june 24) half-hour documentary on
>> The Secret Life of Cold Fusion.
>
> (etc)
>
>> In any case, an enjoyable half-hour romp into the bizarre world of CF
>
> I watched it last night. It seemed to me to be quite optimistic. Perhaps
> naively so. One guy claimed that they would soon have CF power cells
> the size of a large thermos generating 20kW with a cell lifetime of
> 10000 years. There was also a claim of tritium ash from a Russian
 
> There was also a claim (from either a Russian or
> a French researcher) that high currents can cause the cell to switch
> over to a more dangerous fusion reaction. They were a bit vague on that
> one.
>
It occurs to me that if the Deuterium soaked Palladium gives out more or even
dangerous amounts of excess energy when a high current is passed through the
material that it would be an interesting experiment to machine a 20mm cannon
shell (say) out of the material and fire it at 4000 fps or so at a steel
target - would you get a mini H-bomb effect? Other variations would be
to compress the material with surrounding explosives or simply dump a large
capacitor through it.
 
This would make a lot cheaper nuclear bullet than the theoretical 30 gram
Californium fission bullet. Might inspire some intense research.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendshelton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.30 / BERNECKY R /  glow discharge and lattice spacing
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: glow discharge and lattice spacing
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 12:48:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From Peter Hagelstein's summary of the 3rd international
conference on cold fusion.
 
Item 4 describing Kucherov's expt:
 
"The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a
Pd (or other metal) foil ( 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in
D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a 400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA
current). Apparently this group has had considerable experience
with glow discharges and is aware of several tricks that help
to preserve the surface of the cathode which helps to attain
very high loading (a D/Pd ratio of more than 1)."
 
Item 11. V.A. Romodanov's glow discharge experiment
 
"Romodanov described the results of glow discharge experiments
which appear to have been done on a system very similar to
that discussed by Kucherov (see above in this review.)"
 
"The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas at 100-200
torr, with an applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V,
and a current of 3-4 A... Various cathode metals were used,
including Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W; as disks with a diameter
of 13 cm and a thickness between 500 mu and 1 mm, or rods of
0.5-2 cm diameter.  The cathode temperatures were measured to
be between 970 Deg. K and 1670 Deg. K, with only minor (15% or
less due to anomalous self-heating effects).
 
 "Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 10{9}
 atoms/second were measured in the different metals under
 various conditions.  The largest rate (1.7 x 10{9}) was obtained
 in Nb at 1170 Deg. K, corresponding to an increase in tritium
 activity in the deuterium gas of 2.3 x 10{4}....a neutron to
 tritium ratio of 1.8 x 10{-7} was obtained."
 
 The above data is a bit scarce, but we can make one observation
 relative to Nb.  Nb is face-centered cubic, like Pd, and has a
 nearest-neighbor distance of 2.86 Angstroms. If, like Pd, this
 spacing expands on the order 3% at high H/D loading (in
 combination with high temperature), its spacing would be
 2.94 A.  At 1170 K, H has a deBroglie wavelength of 0.736 A;
 or equivalently, the lattice provides a 4 lambda spacing between
 H.  Once again, we have circumstantial evidence that anomalous
 effects occur when the wavelength of H/D fits integrally into
 the lattice well-spacing.
 
 A set of diverse experiments argue for the causality of this
 feature:
 
        Mills, Notoya - light-water electrolysis
        Ni/H - 1 lambda spacing of H (at about 275 K?? I do
               not have reliable data here).
 
        F&P, McKubre, etc - electrolysis
        Pd/H - 2 lambda for H at 312 K.
 
        F&P - electrolysis
        Pd/D - 2 lambda for D at 351 K
 
        Liaw - fused salt electrolyte
        Pd/H - 3 lambda for H at 702 K
 
        Romodanov - glow discharge
        Pd/H - 4 lambda for H at 1170 K
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.30 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: proton conduction
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conduction
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 15:43:43 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In <C8y732.83I@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> on Mon, 21 Jun 1993 01:35:25 GMT
dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) said:
 
> Electrons move through an electrical conductor at a good fraction of the
> speed of light...
 
Such an assertion requires some careful qualification.  You are getting into
an area in which the wave nature of particles cannot be safely ignored.
 
What you are referring to is the Fermi surface "modes" of the conduction
electrons in a metal.  Because fermions (electrons in this case) cannot
simultaneously occupy both the same space (say an metal crystal) and the
exact same momentum values, delocalization of electrons in a metal lattice
causes them to "pile up" in the momentum direction, forming wave modes that
look something like this in an idealized 1-D drawing:
 
 
   Crystal surface --->  |                         |  <--- Crystal surface
                         |      _  -  -  -  _      |
                         | _ -                 - _ |
   Electron wave ----->  |-_                     _-|  Mode 1
   functions       |     |   -  _           _  -   |
                   |     |         -  -  -         |
   ("band states") |     |                         |               Higher
                   |     |      _           _      |              momentums
   (2 electrons    |     | _ -     - _ _ -     - _ |              (energies)
    per mode due   |-->  |-_         _-_         _-|  Mode 2          |
    to up/down     |     |   -  _  -     -  _  -   |                  |
    spin pairing)  |     |                         |                  V
                   |     |                         |
                   |     |  _ - _   _ - _   _ - _  |
                   |-->  |- _   _ - _   _ - _   _ -|  Mode 3
                   |     |    -       -       -    |
                   |     |                         |
                   |     |                         |
                   |     | _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ |
                   |-->  |-_   _-_   _-_   _-_   _-|  Mode 4
                   .     |   -     -     -     -   |
                   .     |                         |
                   .     |                         |
 
 
[Note: I am of using a pseudopotential model here, and am simply ignoring
lattice effects for these low-end modes.]
 
These modes are very, very similar mathematically to the modes achieved by
simply spinning a phone cord at different speeds, and are also quite close
to the way a violin string vibrates.  Higher numbers of nodes (e.g., the
mode 4 example) correspond to higher momentum values.
 
Now as it turns out, in many metals the "top level" (highest number of
nodes) in a metal reaches frequencies that correspond to a substantial
fraction of the speed of light.  It is from this that the assertion that
"some electrons travel near the speed of light in metal" is derived.  And
as long as you are talking strictly in terms of the frequency of the
wavefunction, such an assertion is more-or-less correct.  And indeed, if
the energy from such an electron were fully available (say by it falling
from the highest-mode state to the ground (Mode 1) state, you _would_ get
a nice, hot X-ray photon released.  The energy required for these states
to form is thus quite real, in the sense that it must be subtracted from
the energy gained through delocalization of conduction electrons during
the formation of a band.
 
Alas, though, it is illusory energy as long as you are talking about fermions.
 
Fermion separation into separate momentum states is protected by the same
Pauli exclusion principle that keeps matter from collapsing together in
ordinary (coordiate) space.  The difference is that in this case the "volume"
occupied by the electrons exists in momentum space, rather than coordinate
space.  But it is quite real in the sense that the momentum space volume
of the electron band is both highly incompressible and fully occupied --
there are literally no "holes" left into which hot (Fermi surface) electrons
can fall into to release their energy.
 
This inaccessible nature of Fermi surface electron energies translates into
quite trivial _attainable_ electron velocities.  These velocities come from
the quite minor differences in energy that occur at the Fermi surface of the
electron band.  It is very much as if you were at the top of a very high but
thoroughly fenced in mesa upon which you have a few quite minor knolls and
rises.  You can roll a ball (electron) off of one of those knolls (Fermi
surface states) to obtain a _slight_ increase in speed, but the really big
punch that would come from rolling the ball _off_ of the mesa itself is
quite unobtainable to you.  The Pauli exclusion fence around the mesa makes
it impossible to access the truly stupendous drops that would otherwise be
available to you.
 
> Interaction between the electrons and the conductor (or electrons and
> electrons) heat the conductor. Supposedly, what makes a conductor are
> highly delocalized electronic orbitals with closely spaced energy levels.
 
Yes -- see above.  The modes become quite closely spaced as you approach the
Fermi surface.  Conductor heating comes from the _slight_ energy differences
in electrons playing around in the Fermi surface states.
 
> Are there (or what if there were) atomic nuclei which had highly
> delocalized nuclear energy levels which are closely spaced?
 
I would most certainly say that they do.  This is a key premise of my Twist
of Ribbon document, BTW, and one that I'd say is pretty well substantiated
by tunnelling data on PdHxDy, TaOH, and other compounds.  It's just not
usually presented that way -- or at least it was not prior to about three
years ago, when I first did a pretty exhaustive literature search on the
subject.  Back then the emphasis was always on "tunneling," which can be
equivalenced to a band model with Van Hove singularities (as in quantum
dot tunneling devices in the equivalent electron mass/size scale range).
 
> What if the nuclear configuration resembled the electronic configuration
> of a conductor?
 
Again, I would quite say that they do.  Proton conduction is will established
in many transition metal hydrides, and when combined with the strong lattice
attraction many of these metals have for protons (witness the demolition of
H2 molecules on their surface), banding of some type is pert nar inevitable.
 
> Then there might be a proton conductor!
 
Yes, there are many.  In fact, most of the transition metal hydrides are
proton conductors.  I am personally fond of the analogy to the dissolution
of alkali metals in liquid ammonia, in which something like Na behaves like
a salt of the formula Na+e-.  The electron acts as an anion species!  What
is going on in transition metals appears to be much the same sort of thing,
with p+e- acting as the "salt" that dissolves into the solid-state metal.
Exceptional mobility of the proton and deuteron in such metals (via a
combination of classic tunneling and thermally assisted "hopping" tunneling)
makes such solid state solutions possible.
 
> So now if the protons move in the proton conductor at nearly the speed of
> light as freely > as electrons move through an electrical conductor they
> may interact. ...and there may be fusion!
 
Hmmmm.  Your basic premise is, I think, pretty well sound:  that is, that
some protons will be "accelerated" to higher (and _inaccessible_) energy
levels due to Fermi exclusion.
 
However, quite apart from the inaccessibility of such states, you _won't_
get velocities anywhere near the speed of light with protons.  The width
of the band in momentum space is inversely proportional to the mass of the
particle involved.  And since the proton is nearly 2000 times more massive
than an electron, the "spread" of momentums (velocities) is going to be
vastly smaller than for electrons.  You are not going to get anywhere near
the speed of light with that kind of reduction factor.
 
I should note something else, too:  This idea of band acceleration of protons
and/or deuterons was, I believe, first suggested here on the net by Chuck
Sites, perhaps two years or so ago.  I believe he looked into in some detail.
 
....
 
All in all, you've proposed an interesting exploration of some of the issues.
Thanks for submitting it!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sonoluminescence
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 19:49:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jun29.222230.22282@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Hi folks,
>
>Back from vacation & still catching up.  Thought ya'll might find this one
>interesting, though.
>
>(Dale, would you happen to have any more details/evaluation of this paper?
>It sounds similar to the shock-wave concepts you once [still?] proposed.)
 
     I haven't had much of a chance to go into details, but it looks
     pretty good as a kind of extension of the work of Greenspan
     and Nadim last year (which is, inexplicably, still seemingly not
     published anywhere).  The assumption of a van der Waals
     equation of state for all times (disregarding ionization) seems to
     be the only assumption that one might want to relax before playing
     with the model a bit more.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.06.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Mills and Farrell fail E&M
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 23:00:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have finally taken some time to try to digest the Mills-Farrell theory
(Urp!).  Although Prof. Farrell attempts to give the impression that
this is a theory with a rigorous founding in a few fundamental postulates,
I believe that when it is examined in detail it is based on some ad hoc
diddling about.
 
Clearly the theory starts with a Bohr-model picture for the n=1 state
with a point electron orbiting the proton at a constant radius a0 in
a classical 1/r potential.  That radius is determined by the De Broglie
condition which matches the wavelength ( related inversly to linear
momentum) to the orbit circumference.  [This is the only nod in the
direction of wave mechanics or quantum mechanics as far as I can see.]
No radial motion is considered (or allowed?) so there are no elliptical
orbits.  Farrell then seems to make the "nonradiative orbit" condition
the central postulate of this theory.  The Bohr theory is then
modified by invoking a superposition of "great circle" orbits on
a spherical surface.  Nothing difines this superposition except that
it is to result in a uniform spherical shell of mass and charge.  One
may wonder precisely how the "wave nature" of the electron effects
this superposition, but the possibility of interference is clearly
not considered.  This is perhaps an indication that wave mechanics
is not really being applied to this model.
 
Having constructed a very simple mechanistic model for the n=1
orbitsphere MF are hard pressed to find a consistant approach which
defines the other allowed orbits.  In order to preserve the
"nonradiative" sphere condition and the mechanical force balance
they must alter the Coulomb potential:
 
  V = - Zeff e^2 / 4pi e0 r
 
As Prof. Farrell says, "This would mean, of course, that there is
some 'other' charge (in all states) except n=1."  Here is where the
wheels start to come off the MF wagon.
 
Surely a model based on classical physics is going to conserve charge
so justifying a change in the potential is not easy.  Look carefully
at how it is done!
 
To quote Farrell further:  "It is well known that trapped photons in
a resonator cavity give rise to surface charge.  The relationship
between the total electric field and the *photon* charge density
function is given by Maxwell's equation in two dimensions....."
Look very carefully at this phrase starting with "It is well known..."
because that is where the flim-flam takes over.  What is this
surface charge in a cavity?  Isn't Farrell referring to induced
charges on a conducting surface?  Isn't this a macroscopic effect
that can be applied only where charge quantization can be ignored?
I have difficulty with the notion that a photon of unspecified
frequency is going to induce a charge on either the proton or
the electron orbitsphere.  I have difficulty with the notion
that photons provide a DC field, which seems to be the picture
Farrell presents.
 
Suppose you swallow the idea that trapped photons induce charges
inside the orbitsphere.  Won't you insist that the net induced
charge be zero?  I would then picture a polarized spherical
shell with negative charge near the proton and balancing positive
charge outside.  What would that do to the potential at the
radius of the electron shell?  Look at Maxwell one more time
Prof. Farrell.  Unless there is a change in the total charge
enclosed in the orbitsphere the potential energy does not
get altered.  Trapped photons can't do what you ask of them!
 
Suppose you swallow the idea that trapped photons produce a
net negative charge inside the orbitsphere.  Charge conservation
be damned!  What fixes the photon number and frequency and how
does that translate into field strength and induced charge.
All we have is the condition that Zeff has to be proportional
to 1/n.  It seems to be very much an ad hoc patching of the model
rather than anything derived from some fundamental postulate.
 
Now let's have some fun counting photons.  In order to undergo
a transition from n=1 to n=2 in the Bohr picture we would say
that the atom must absorb one photon with an energy matching
the difference between the two energy levels.  The required
change in charge for the MF picture requires the trapping of
one (or more?) photons into the orbitsphere.  Are these two
photons the same such that only one photon is involved?
Now consider going down from n = 1 to n =1/2.  Normally
we would look for the emission of a photon, but it takes
at least one trapped photon to effect a change in charge.
Is this a radiationless transition?  Before you say yes,
consider energy conservation.  I think the trapped photons
have to have zero energy as well as a charge.  Damned strange
photons!
 
Some other time we may consider angular momentum and magnetic
fields.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
Date: 1 Jul 1993 01:21:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <9306302254.AA29027@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>I have finally taken some time to try to digest the Mills-Farrell theory
>(Urp!).  Although Prof. Farrell attempts to give the impression that
>this is a theory with a rigorous founding in a few fundamental postulates,
>I believe that when it is examined in detail it is based on some ad hoc
>diddling about.
 
Aw, you're no fun anymore.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Mills and Farrell do angular momentum?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills and Farrell do angular momentum?
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 15:21:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the second of a series criticizing the Mills-Farrell theory of
the hydrogen atom.
 
Because Mills and Farrell are determined to restrict the orbital
frequency of the electron in a hydrogen atom to a single value they
are forced to introduce the artifact of an effective nuclear charge
which I believe must violate charge conservation.  As a second
consequence angular momentum also gives them trouble.  To quote
Prof. Farrell: "It is worth noting that in the Mills theory the
*magnitude* of the orbital angular momentum is *always* hbar.  This
makes sense because a electron/positron pair is produced from a
photon.  The photon can be considered as a plane wave with two
components, one with hbar and one with - hbar angular momentum."
 
If there is any logic contained in the above quote from Prof. Farrell
it is nothing more than an assertion that photon absorbtion and
emission never involves any nonzero angular momentum so it is
perfectly OK to never change the angular momentum of the electron
in an orbitsphere.  What we have here is a "truth" constructed
from two patently false assertions!  Of course as long as the
system being considered has spherical symmetry (by definition)
this view point is not being tested.  The real world doesn't
permit such arbitrary restrictions, however.
 
While each circular orbit has the electron with orbital angular
momentum hbar it is the orbit sphere superposition of such orbits
that is somehow going to determine the angular momentum of a
given state.  How this is to be done is only hinted at in yet
another quote: "Furthermore, for those with some imagination, you
can see (1) a physical basis is now present for spin angular
momentum."  I presume that means that the result of superposition
of a bunch of hbar orbits is magically 1/2 hbar.
 
But of course Prof. Farrell is a chemist who knows that not all
atoms a nice round balls so we get this insight:  "BTW, the
angular part of the photon's electron field is given by the
spherical harmonics, how else?  This is where the angular quantum
numbers come from in the hydrogen atom--not a intrinsic property of
the electrons but from the trapped photons."  I refer you back to
the earlier quote about photons have to counter rotating components
of +hbar and -hbar.  Prof. Farrell has thus taken the complexities
that his simple model of the hydrogen atom cannot possibly deal with
 and pushed them into the mysterous cloud of trapped photons that he
clearly is never going to deal with.
 
There are a few obvious problems with Prof. Farrells view of the
physics of electrons and photons.  An electron is an entity that
can be studied as a free particle totally independent from the
hydrogen atom and in a variety of other electromagnetic field
configurations.  That electron has intrinsic angular momentum
1/2 hbar!  You may choose to construct a model for the electron
I suppose that involves all sorts of weirdness, but for now I
assert that free electrons have angular momentum 1/2 hbar and that
doesn't go away when you bind an electron into the hydrogen atom.
Thus the total angular momentum of the orbits used to construct
an orbit sphere is either 1/2 or 3/2 hbar.  Put this atom in a
magnetic field (which breaks the spherical symmetry) and you
can find out howmany magnetic substates there are.  In fact
because the nucleus has a magnetic dipole moment you don't
even need the external field to break the degeneracy.
 
The Mills-Farrell model of the hydrogen atom is dead on arrival.
But if you want to kick the corpse around a bit more consider
the role of trapped photons in determining the energy of a state.
Remember the energy of the system has already been fixed and
calculated without including any photon energy accept indirectly
as the source of charge to modify the Coulomb potential.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 /  fron@laforia.i /  Info request
     
Originally-From: fron@laforia.ibp.fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Info request
Date: 1 Jul 1993 14:59:58 GMT
Organization: AFC Europe

I am looking for small software related to Heat and Mass Transfer,
possibly developed on PCs, that could solve some problems in this area.
 
Both commercial and non commercial stuff would be helpful.
Please answer to fron@laforia.ibp.fr or
fax to Annick Fron, AFC Europe, France
+33 92 02 86 53
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfron cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 / John George /  Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
Date: 1 Jul 93 13:58:18 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

The Stanford Research Lab in question was a lab of Stanford Research
International (SRI) doing work for the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), an arm of the US Electrical Utilities.
 
Even though there was an explosion and one death, I understand that EPRI
has actually raised their funding for CF research steadily. Hardly what
you would expect from private (as opposed to governmental which have an
imperative to spend money) research organizations if every experiment was
a fraud or quackery.
 
EPRI is involved with the 4th Annual International Conference on Cold
Fusion (ICCF4) Dec 6-9 in Lahina, Hawaii. I expect that there will be
some exciting news at ICCF4 and I want to be there.
 
If you had been on the Net recently you would have read a post from a
home-grown researcher who had a positive result that he hasn't debunked
yet. This gentleman has had criticism of other reported positives in the
past for various technical reasons involved with better experiment design,
calibration and documentation. I was especially excited by his result as
he seems to be a careful, thoughtful devotee of scientific method. Even
his critics (imagine, critics of a "critic") say he is a good egg.
 
I have been lurking on this thread for sometime and I find there is often
"more heat than light" in the discussions, and have considered "dropping
my subscription" but, damn it, I just feel there is something out there
that will solve our power needs without killing us too. CF may not be it
but the research and the interplay is exciting.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 / John Logajan /  CCT
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CCT
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 93 19:23:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I received the following description of CCT from someone this past January,
and have been waiting for him to post it publicly.  Since it`s been half
a year, I`ve decided to take the liberty of posting it for him.  I only
edited out a few words to make it for a generic audience.  Otherwise,
all words were written by the original author (not me) and he can claim
credit or not as he wishes.
 
   ===========
 
Ken Shoulders invented Condensed Charge Technology several years ago.
Beckman and Ziolkowski have recently written about his technology and found
his claims to be valid (see below).  Apparently, CCT produces micron-sized
"balls" of condensed electrons, which are stable for a very short time.
 
Now Shoulders speculates that CCT *may* overcome the Coulombic barrier
between nuclei and allow them to fuse.  He states this based on several years
of experiments where his device has produced net electric power (a
so-called over-unity device).  At first his device was frustratingly
unreliable - sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't.  Recently, he's
been able to make it work reliably when he makes sure there is a small
amount of hydrogen in the vacuum surrounding the device.  It is a gas phase
reactor, and as such (so he says), one can directly produce electric power
and bypass the production of thermal energy.  He says that one can imagine
all kinds of fusion reactions are possible, and selecting the ones that are
exothermic and that do not give any neutrons and/or gamma rays are possible.
 
BTW, Shoulders also said that one can produce CCT effects in solids using
techniques similar to those used presently by the cold fusion people.
However, he says that by doing so it does not seem possible to produce
electric power directly, as his gas phase device does.  The patent for his
device is 5,018,180, dated May 21, 1991.  CCT also has uses for much faster
electronic circuitry, ultra-miniature x-ray sources (the condensed charge
balls can be injected into tumors and when they disassemble they generate
x-rays), and high resolution, flat video monitors [all of these technologies
have been tested.]
 
The Ziolkowski paper which describes aspects of CCT is:
 
"Collective effect in an electron plasma system catalyzed by a localized
electromagnetic wave", by Richard W. Ziolkowski and Michael K. Tippett.
Phys. Rev. A, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 3066-3072.
 
Here's the abstract:
 
"The possibility of the existence of an essentially single-species plasma
state represented by a stable packet of charged particles moving collectively
through space-time is examined.  The collective plasma state is catalyzed by
a localized electromagnetic wave.  Condensation to this state is shown to
occur on a very short time scale.  The model treats the particle packet as
a warm electron plasma (fluid) and self-consistently incorporates the
resulting electromagnetic field.  Predicted characteristics of the localized
particle packet and its associated electromagnetic fields compare favorably
with recent experimental data."
 
 
And an excerpt:
 
"...Recent ultra-short-time discharge plasma experiments by Shoulders and
his co-workers have produced data that indicate the existence of a plasma
state representing a freely moving, localized packet of electrons.  This
collective plasma state has been called an electromagnetic vortex (EV) by
that group.  They have been described as tightly bound groups of negative
charges with extremely high densities.  In particular, the EV's have been
reported as follows:
 
1) to be roughly spherically symmetric with radii on the order of 1.0 um;
2) to travel at speeds on the order of 0.1c;
3) to have electron densities approaching that of a solid, on the order of
   10^20 to 10^24 per cm^3 with negligible ion content;
4) to have highly localized electromagnetic fields associated with them;
5) to tend to propagate in straight lines for non-negligible distances on
   the order of 1.0 to 10.0 mm;
6) to deflect and accelerate in experiments as though they have only electron
   characteristics;
7) to be a highly localized energy state since they release copious amounts
   of x-rays with their sudden destruction;
8) to transport in some cases (called the black EV state) without emission of
   electrons or photons;
9) and to form other quasistatic structures by coupling adjacent EV's together.
 
The principle requirement for generating these EV structures has been
reported to be a sudden creation of a very high, uncompensated set of
electronic charges in a very small volume of space;  i.e., a fast emission
process coupled to a fast switching process..."
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  What about those trapped photons?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What about those trapped photons?
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 21:03:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

By way of an introduction to this third message on the Mills-Farrell
theory, there is an old saying in my business that if a theory has
enough free parameters it can be made to fit anything.  The Mills-
Farrell theory starts off in a very tight straight jacket so to get
the needed degrees of freedom they have to introduce the "trapped
photons".  This added complexity can be justified only if it really
buys them something in the way of a better fit and finish on the
final product.  Suppose just the opposite proves to be the case.
I believe there are some significant problems with the idea of
trapped photons.
 
Prof. Farrell has given us little to go on except the qualitative
notion that the orbitsphere serves as a resonant cavity.  From that
I think we are justified in saying that the wavelength of these
trapped photons must be of the order of the radius of the cavity.
Let's use the Bohr radius a0 just to establish the scale.
 
For photons with lambda = a0,  E = h nu = hc/lambda = hc/ a0 .
 
A quick way to evaluate that is to consider the product
 
   alpha a0 = hbar^2/me^2  times e^2/hbar c  = hbar/mc  .
 
Substituting for a0  we find the photon energy is E = 2pi alpha mc^2
 
or roughly 1/20 times the rest mass energy of the electron!
 
Would you believe that photons with energies that are a significant
fraction of 20,000 eV are trapped in a system bound by 10 -100 eV
and furthermore they don't even perturb the energy of that system?
 
I suppose you can soften up those photons but then they are going
to hang outside the orbitsphere and leak away.  My god!  They whole
purpose of this excercise was to invent an atom that wouldn't radiate,
but to fix it up Mills and Farrell stuck some photons inside their
orbitsphere.  The photons are assumed to generate a charge and they
either have much too large an energy or their wavelength is too
long to fit in the orbitsphere.  The orbitsphere has no way to
account for angular degrees of freedom so those are pushed off on
the trapped photons to keep the electrons free from the taint of
intrinsic spin.  (Some of us know that free electrons with no
orbitsphere and no trapped photons have that little flaw in their
makeup.)   Prof. Farrell is proud to admit that he has no respect
for quantum mechanics.  I believe "guff" is the word he used at
one point.  But what respect has he shown for the classical physics
of Maxwell and Newton?  What respect does he have for the intelligence
of the readers of this newsgroup?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1993 19:34:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <20893@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>I have been lurking on this thread for sometime and I find there is often
>"more heat than light" in the discussions, and have considered "dropping
>my subscription" but, damn it, I just feel there is something out there
>that will solve our power needs without killing us too.
 
      Yes, it's called 'nuclear power'.  Most of my electricity comes
      from the Lake Anna (35 miles away) and Surry nuclear plants and
      I don't even feel the slightest bit sickly.
 
      I've even offered the land 15,000 feet beneath my house as a waste
      dump.  Go figure.
 
                              dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
Date: 1 Jul 1993 16:35 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <9306302254.AA29027@suntan.Tandem.com>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes...
>I have finally taken some time to try to digest the Mills-Farrell theory
>(Urp!).  Although Prof. Farrell attempts to give the impression that
>this is a theory with a rigorous founding in a few fundamental postulates,
>I believe that when it is examined in detail it is based on some ad hoc
>diddling about.
>
>Clearly the theory starts with a Bohr-model picture for the n=1 state
>with a point electron orbiting the proton at a constant radius a0 in
>a classical 1/r potential.  That radius is determined by the De Broglie
>condition which matches the wavelength ( related inversly to linear
>momentum) to the orbit circumference.  [This is the only nod in the
>direction of wave mechanics or quantum mechanics as far as I can see.]
>No radial motion is considered (or allowed?) so there are no elliptical
>orbits.  Farrell then seems to make the "nonradiative orbit" condition
>the central postulate of this theory.  The Bohr theory is then
>modified by invoking a superposition of "great circle" orbits on
>a spherical surface.  Nothing difines this superposition except that
>it is to result in a uniform spherical shell of mass and charge.  One
>may wonder precisely how the "wave nature" of the electron effects
>this superposition, but the possibility of interference is clearly
>not considered.  This is perhaps an indication that wave mechanics
>is not really being applied to this model.
>
>Having constructed a very simple mechanistic model for the n=1
>orbitsphere MF are hard pressed to find a consistant approach which
>defines the other allowed orbits.  In order to preserve the
>"nonradiative" sphere condition and the mechanical force balance
>they must alter the Coulomb potential:
>
>  V = - Zeff e^2 / 4pi e0 r
>
>As Prof. Farrell says, "This would mean, of course, that there is
>some 'other' charge (in all states) except n=1."  Here is where the
>wheels start to come off the MF wagon.
>
>Surely a model based on classical physics is going to conserve charge
>so justifying a change in the potential is not easy.  Look carefully
>at how it is done!
>
>To quote Farrell further:  "It is well known that trapped photons in
>a resonator cavity give rise to surface charge.  The relationship
>between the total electric field and the *photon* charge density
>function is given by Maxwell's equation in two dimensions....."
>Look very carefully at this phrase starting with "It is well known..."
>because that is where the flim-flam takes over.  What is this
>surface charge in a cavity?  Isn't Farrell referring to induced
>charges on a conducting surface?  Isn't this a macroscopic effect
>that can be applied only where charge quantization can be ignored?
>I have difficulty with the notion that a photon of unspecified
>frequency is going to induce a charge on either the proton or
>the electron orbitsphere.  I have difficulty with the notion
>that photons provide a DC field, which seems to be the picture
>Farrell presents.
 
The only thing I can come up with as an explanation is this:
 
The surface area of the electron orbitsphere is much larger than the surface
area of the proton, so the + portion of the photon is spread out over a
much larger area than the - portion of the photon (wave, that is).  Of course,
the electron's negative charge is also spread out over a much larger area
than the proton, so the whole thing should still be 0.
 
>
>Suppose you swallow the idea that trapped photons induce charges
>inside the orbitsphere.  Won't you insist that the net induced
>charge be zero?  I would then picture a polarized spherical
>shell with negative charge near the proton and balancing positive
>charge outside.  What would that do to the potential at the
>radius of the electron shell?  Look at Maxwell one more time
>Prof. Farrell.  Unless there is a change in the total charge
>enclosed in the orbitsphere the potential energy does not
>get altered.  Trapped photons can't do what you ask of them!
 
Actually, let's just look at the "size" the photon has to be to fit inside
the orbitsphere.  The photon's wavelength must be of order ~0.53 Angstroms,
otherwise it won't fit inside the atom.  A photon with a wavelength of 0.53 A
has an energy of:
 
E = hv = hc/lambda.  h = 4.1356E-15 eV.sec, c = 3e8 m/sec, lambda = 5.3e-11m
 
So, the energy of the trapped photon is about 23,410 eV !!!
 
And, of course, as the radius of the orbitsphere decreases, the energy of
the trapped photon must increase...
 
>
>Suppose you swallow the idea that trapped photons produce a
>net negative charge inside the orbitsphere.  Charge conservation
>be damned!  What fixes the photon number and frequency and how
>does that translate into field strength and induced charge.
>All we have is the condition that Zeff has to be proportional
>to 1/n.  It seems to be very much an ad hoc patching of the model
>rather than anything derived from some fundamental postulate.
>
>Now let's have some fun counting photons.  In order to undergo
>a transition from n=1 to n=2 in the Bohr picture we would say
>that the atom must absorb one photon with an energy matching
>the difference between the two energy levels.  The required
>change in charge for the MF picture requires the trapping of
>one (or more?) photons into the orbitsphere.  Are these two
>photons the same such that only one photon is involved?
>Now consider going down from n = 1 to n =1/2.  Normally
>we would look for the emission of a photon, but it takes
>at least one trapped photon to effect a change in charge.
>Is this a radiationless transition?  Before you say yes,
>consider energy conservation.  I think the trapped photons
>have to have zero energy as well as a charge.  Damned strange
>photons!
 
Nah, I'm not gonna say it...
 
>
>Some other time we may consider angular momentum and magnetic
>fields.
>
>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
>
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.01 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: Farrell's experiments?
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Farrell's experiments?
Date: 1 Jul 93 12:57:29 GMT

In <9306291336.AA07452@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>I would have no grounds to object to that were it not for the fact that
>Prof. Farrell has been making regular presentations of his theory on
>this forum.  That is to say he is being selective as to what aspects of
>his work he chooses to present and what he chooses to withhold from
>view.  My point is that there is a vast store of experimental data
>relating to hydrogen atoms that Prof. Farrell is ignoring.  We don't
 
I think you are being somewhat unfair to Prof. Farrell. There was a large
fuss because F & P announced things in a public venue rather than in a
refereed journal. If Prof. Farrell chooses to do it the conventional way,
then that is his decision, and you will have to be patient and wait.
 
We know he has a paper in the offing, becaes he has already posted that he
is currently fighting his referees. He seems, from his posts, to be an
honest guy (the style and quality of postings in this group varies widely,
as many have observed). Therefore, if he says he has experiments under way,
then I believe him. Again, of all the experiments he might perform, it is up
to him to choose which one to try first. He cannot tackle them all at once.
 
--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506                            Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John Logajan /  High pressure from electrolysis
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: High pressure from electrolysis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 04:26:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I was able to reach 5000 PSI in a liquid (0.6m K2CO3) filled chamber
using 250ma current at approx 15 volts, over the course of 50 minutes.
 
The chamber was actually a brass block with two threaded holes machined
in it.  One hole was fitted with a hydraulic gauge that could read
0-5000 PSI.  The other hole was fitted with an automotive spark plug
(non-resistive type!.)  The two holes were drilled at right angles to
each other and intersected at one point.  The total volume of the
two connected holes (with gauge and sparkplug installed) was on the
order of 1 cc, or thereabouts.
 
The positive voltage was connected to the brass block, and the negative
voltage was connected to the sparkplug centerwire.  (The reverse of this
tended to resist current, probably due to some chemical buildup on the
small sparkplug electrode tip.)  The electrical current was shut off when
the gauge reached its 5000 PSI limit.  Higher pressures are obviously
possible.
 
100 PSI per minute seemed to be the typical pressure build up rate.  Since
the pressure gauge probably functioned off an expansion principle, an
inevitable headspace was created in addition to any entrapped air when the
unit was wet assembled.
 
A similar unit but without a pressure gauge (and entrapped air) would
undoubtedly build up pressure at a faster rate, since headspace would only
come from expansion of the unit.
 
The pressure is now dropping (without electrical current applied) at
about a rate of 20 PSI per minute.  I measure a back EMF of about 1.0 volt
and a back current of about 1.0 ma.
 
And yes, I am aware that this was a potentially lethal experiment.
 
This has nothing to do, of course, with CNF, but it is related to
electrolysis, which is used in most CNF experiments.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: High pressure from electrolysis
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High pressure from electrolysis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 04:45:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>I was able to reach 5000 PSI in a liquid (0.6m K2CO3) filled chamber
>using 250ma current at approx 15 volts, over the course of 50 minutes.
 
>This has nothing to do, of course, with CNF, but it is related to
>electrolysis, which is used in most CNF experiments.
 
Actually, I take that back.  5000 PSI is 340 atmospheres.  If I recall
correctly, the listed H capacity of Pd is 900 times the Pd's volume.
That would be the equivalent of about 13,500 PSI.
 
These kinds of pressures could have an impact on max loading capability,
and could play a part in CNF (such as it is) conditions.
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Mark Hittinger /  Palladium prices - just a quick note
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium prices - just a quick note
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 05:01:27 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

Palladium has made a three year high and continues to move upward
along with very flakey motion in the other metals.  The experiments
are just going to get more expensive.
 
------------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Still no book?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still no book?
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 12:38:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
A number of people who ordered the Nagoya Conference Proceedings still have
not gotten copies, including me. (I am working with a xeroxed copy.) I
complained to publisher several times, and then I complained to Hideo Ikegami.
 
Ikegami was absent for a couple of weeks. When he got back yesterday, he
called the publisher and "spoke with them sharply." Then he called me and
suggested that I make a list of people who have not received their copies and
fax it to him and to the publisher. So, if you ordered the book and did not
get it, or you attended the conference and did not get your free copy, I
suggest you e-mail me your full name and the address the book is supposed to
be shipped to. I will gather up all of the responses and put them in one fax.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Not fun any more.
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not fun any more.
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 13:13:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz says its not fun any more when I start poking holes in
Mills-Farrell theory.  I known, but I was worried that some people don't
realize that it was just a game, congressperson types for example have
a hard time recognizing when it's just pretend science.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Greg Leyh /  Long arc discharges in air
     
Originally-From: leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Long arc discharges in air
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 12:35:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

 
 
 
 
  I am trying to calculate the impedance of a 35 foot arc discharge produced
by a Tesla Coil. I believe it to be an arc type discharge rather than a long
streamer since it is possible to quickly discharge a high energy capacitor
through the arc, and coil, to ground. Measurements of the capacitor discharge
current amplitude and duration would suggest a discharge path resistance of
about 9 Ohms.  Does this value seem reasonable?
i
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenleyh cudfnGreg cudlnLeyh cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 15:09:43 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
BERNECKY'S BWOs
 
I finally got a chance to read William Bernecky's entries in detail, and I
was very favorably impressed.
 
In particular, I was caught flat-footed by his BWO concept.  I had been
thinking "Uh-oh, he's going to try to create above-ground boson condensates
without considering the necessity that they _must_ fall kerplop into ground."
 
BOINK!  Terry proves to be quite short-sighted on this point, as he discovers
when he reads Mr. Bernecky's very apt discussion of the potential effects of
lattice diffraction on delocalized atomic wavefunctions.
 
The possibility of _high-temperature_ boson condensation as proposed by
Mr. Bernecky is not just interesting, it's downright persuasive -- and far
more "conventional" in its physics than it might at first sound.  I rather
doubt that anyone has ever proposed this exact concept before, though only
a literature check will tell of course.  (I do not know if Chubb/Chubb ever
took this tact, but their work should certainly be checked.  Also, again,
I would point out that Chuck Sites looked into a lot of these issues in
some detail here on this group.)
 
VAN HOVE SINGULARITIES
 
One reason why I find William Bernecky's point about possible condensation
near the lattice diffraction point is because of the well-known fermion
band effect known as the Van Hove singularity.  Van Hove singularities
occur when the wavelength of a particle and a periodic lattice begin to
"match up."  It amounts to a compression (often an extreme compression)
of the number of states per momentum range (which is called the "density
of states").  At a Van Hove singularity, the density of states nominally
goes to infinity (but in fact simply becomes a very, very large number).
 
Van Hove singularities are not _that_ big a deal as long as you are talking
_only_ about fermions.  But what William Bernecky has nicely pointed out is
that if the particles involved are actually composite _bosons_, this sort of
compression of states might very well lead to the formation of a _high
temperature_ boson condensate!
 
What is especially convincing about this is that in a Van Hove singularity,
if you switch from fermion (electron) statistics to boson (neutral H or
d+) statistics, you are going to have a hard time explaining why the states
that have been compressed together _won't_ condense.  The issue is probably
more that very few people -- possibly only Mr. Bernecky -- have stopped to
consider that point carefully, since folks don't usually go around thinking
about bosons being delocalized in metal lattices in the same fashion as
Fermi statistics  electrons.
 
MY OPINION: THIS IS WORTH LOOKING INTO!
 
This would be a very, very, interesting piece of physics in its own right,
and one that (in my humble opinion) deserves exploration quite apart from
whether or not you accept anything at all about palladium anomolies.  Also,
as Chuck Sites once pointed out to me, a March 1992 issue of Nature once
described work that indicated suface banding of hydrogen atoms in copper,
so that this is _not_ just an abstract issue.  (There have also been some
excellent recent images of electron standing waves on surfaces, looking
for all the world like pebbles dropped into a pond.)
 
One other quick comment for now to folks such as Tom Droege:  Please note
that the classic Boltzmann equation used to equivalence energy and temp
is for an ideal gas.  It's the best way to start, but I would suggest some
caution in using it as an _exact_ method for calculating an idea temp.
Also, band effects require the used of a concept called "effective mass"
that may need to be taken into account in calculating temperatures.
 
Put those together and it mostly just means that any experimentation should
really explore a fairly wide _range_ of temperatures, not just the exact
temperature indicated by the Boltzmann equation.  Just something to keep
in mind.
 
I'll have more commments later on other aspects of William Bernecky's very
nice Farfetch.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Long arc discharges in air
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Long arc discharges in air
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 16:03:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In article <leyhC9JEzH.DFM@netcom.com> leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh) writes:
>a 35 foot arc discharge produced by a Tesla Coil.
>a discharge path resistance of about 9 Ohms.  Does this value seem reasonable?
 
Yes.  It's in the range of resistance that I've seen quoted for air arc
resistance.  I imagine it doesn't vary much with lenght of arc, since long
arcs tend also to have larger cross-sectional area (of ionization.)  So the
added serial resistance of length is compensated by the reduction in
resistance of the additional parallel conduction area.  Or so I speculate.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: High pressure from electrolysis
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High pressure from electrolysis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 16:32:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>The pressure is now dropping (without electrical current applied) at
>about a rate of 20 PSI per minute.  I measure a back EMF of about 1.0 volt
>and a back current of about 1.0 ma.
 
Actually, this was only true for a few minutes.  The pressure has stabilized
at about 4100PSI (for about 12 hours, now.)  And there is no more EMF or
current flow.  My guess is that the 900PSI loss was due to recombination
of disolved gases in favorable proximity to the electrodes.  This was
rapidly (under 10 minutes) used up, and now everything is just sitting there.
 
Well at least I am sure there are no significant leaks in the system.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Palladium prices - just a quick note
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium prices - just a quick note
Date: 2 Jul 1993 18:14:43 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) writes:
: Palladium has made a three year high and continues to move upward
: along with very flakey motion in the other metals.  The experiments
: are just going to get more expensive.
 
In case anybody is wondering, I'm sure it has very little to do with "cold
fusion".  Palladium and silver are industrial metals; their prices often
move up in anticipation of speeding up economic recovery; specifically
heavy industry.
 
: ------------
: Whats back with the wrong-ups?
:
:
 
--
-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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
Date: 2 Jul 1993 18:25:22 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: VAN HOVE SINGULARITIES
:
: One reason why I find William Bernecky's point about possible condensation
: near the lattice diffraction point is because of the well-known fermion
: band effect known as the Van Hove singularity.  Van Hove singularities
: occur when the wavelength of a particle and a periodic lattice begin to
: "match up."  It amounts to a compression (often an extreme compression)
: of the number of states per momentum range (which is called the "density
: of states").  At a Van Hove singularity, the density of states nominally
: goes to infinity (but in fact simply becomes a very, very large number).
:
: Van Hove singularities are not _that_ big a deal as long as you are talking
: _only_ about fermions.  But what William Bernecky has nicely pointed out is
: that if the particles involved are actually composite _bosons_, this sort of
: compression of states might very well lead to the formation of a _high
: temperature_ boson condensate!
 
Is it still true that this effect (compression of states) still happens
with bosons, and not fermions?  I thought there are many condensed
matter effects that depend on specific fermionic statistics.
 
:
: What is especially convincing about this is that in a Van Hove singularity,
: if you switch from fermion (electron) statistics to boson (neutral H or
: d+) statistics, you are going to have a hard time explaining why the states
: that have been compressed together _won't_ condense.  The issue is probably
: more that very few people -- possibly only Mr. Bernecky -- have stopped to
: consider that point carefully, since folks don't usually go around thinking
: about bosons being delocalized in metal lattices in the same fashion as
: Fermi statistics  electrons.
 
Right.  And why is this so?  I.e. why don't we have a "free nucleon gas"
like the "free electron gas" for conduction band electrons?
 
:                               Cheers,
:                               Terry
 
It would be definitely neat if quantum bosonic effects could result in
interesting nuclear effects with dissolved nuclei.  But back to
C.F.: suppose you could get bosonic D nuclei to overlap and fuse.
Then how in hell are you going to cover up the fact?    You still have MeV's of
energy (definitely localized in that single nuclei b/c of the short range
of strong force) you have to deal with, and you still have to conserve
momentum and energy and obey relativity(no instantaneous energy propagation).
 
It's the same old problem, once you have a miracle to get the fusion, how do
you get a NEW miracle to hide it?
 
--
-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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John George /  Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: 2 Jul 93 17:53:31 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

 
In Message-ID: <C9I3p2.36K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Dale Bass writes:
 
>   Yes, it's called 'nuclear power'.  Most of my electricity comes
>   from the Lake Anna (35 miles away) and Surry nuclear plants and
>   I don't even feel the slightest bit sickly.
>
>   I've even offered the land 15,000 feet beneath my house as a waste
>   dump.  Go figure.
>
>                            dale bass
 
 
This is a perfect example of generating heat instead of light.
 
Dale's 'nuclear power' at Lake Anna must refer to a nuclear fission
power plant. I am impressed that you are willing to use your backyard
to dump your pet nuke's chamberpot. Are all your neighbors like you?
 
I am figuring now. Dale, do you live thirty-five miles up or down
wind from your nuke? Could you move in closer? If you and yours are
the only life in a thousand square miles of your pet nukes, could you
pray that the next accident occurs there instead of close to any
NON-volunteers, or, more importantly, their kids?
 
Perhaps Dale would like to be a soldier or fireman at Chernobyl. A
lot of brave people died. I don't recall reading that there were too
many political figures or academics, down there in the radcloud. They
were too busy covering their butts. And, of course, commissioning a
batch of investigations. Perhaps Dale would prefer to be the parent
of a child there. I hear there are elevated rates of cancers and blood
diseases. A great place to live and raise your kids!
 
Most people in authority (AND the worm-tongue toadies who fawn on them
AND those who want to make a quick million bucks at someone else's
expense) would prefer that it be someone else's kids. (The 'little
people', the masses, red-blooded right-thinking patriotic Americans,
... just not me or my kids.)
 
The French have taken on the job of re-encapsulating the meltdown at
Chernobyl. What went wrong with the first one? There will be employment
in a country in economic chaos. Now there is a job for you. At Three Mile
Island (it can't happen here, but it almost did) they hired lots of the
down-and-out.  Imagine bragging, 'I was a nuclear janitor' to your kids.
 
The fact remains that the nuclear fission crowd doesn't want to be fully
responsible for their actions. Ask the fisson people if they'd like to
give up their federal liability exemptions TOMORROW. If we destroy you,
your family and the whole state we're not liable to any of you little
people, we got a federal law that says so! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I get to
keep my Mercedes. I'll just vacation elsewhere. A guy just went through
a law firm in SF shooting lawyers. Go figure.
 
Get your mental and nuclear potty-training done, Dale. Then get a real
vocation doing something to clean up the mess short-sighted humans have
made. Quit mocking those interested and hopeful that we still can fix
problems and use that brain to help some of Sam Keen's real men. Read
his book, Dale?
 
CF may or may not be the answer, but the idea of truly clean power stirs
my heart. We humans need to (and can) do better. Just imagine giving $500
million in tax breaks to solar, CF, and artifical leaf production, instead
of pouring it down a rathole. I refuse to give up hope that humans can
come around, even Dale Bass.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #3 Cell 4A5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #3 Cell 4A5
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 19:59:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #3 Cell 4A5                                 1 July 93
 
Ahh! Life in the pits (an old Fermilab experssion relating to working in the
underground shielded experimental enclosures).  After one "pop" we are back to
measuring mostly nothing.  After the "pop" I made a mistake entering a
constant and instead of tracking back and forth around 39 C it tracked down to
zero current and the cathode apparently unloaded.  Recent attempts to reload
have failed, or we are not getting correct gas measurements.  The following is
from a note to Bernecky which should fill all needs to follow what we are
doing.  There is a hint that something is happening, but not in the data
below.
____________________________________________________________________________
At long last, here is some data.  First some data during the calibration part
of the run, just before turning on the current to the cell.
 
Hour      PAVG          Ambient       Corrected
9         7.991         25.47         8.006
10        7.991         25.46         8.006
11        7.989         25.61         8.006
12        7.988         25.59         8.005
13        7.994         24.79         8.000
14        8.010         24.30         8.010
15        8.006         24.46         8.008
16        8.001         24.70         8.006
17        8.004         24.18         8.002
18        8.010         24.33         8.010
19        8.007         24.46         8.009
20        8.003         24.09         8.000
 
PAVG is the power that is put into the calorimeter to keep it at constant
temperature.  There is a refrigerator removing a constant amount of power.  We
do our very best to make the refrigerator really constant and independent of
all other variables.  Lots of testing confirms this.  For the balance data I
get a mean of 8.000 and a sigma of .008.  A crude effort at fitting this data
for temperature gives 0.013 watts per C above 24.3 C, and a calorimeter
balance of 8.006 watts at 24.3 C.  Note that I am not counting on the simple
experiment above for the correction.  I have done this experiment many times
before and the above is a typical number, though a little low.  A more typical
value is 0.016, but conditions are never quite the same, so I use the 0.013.
 
Using this correction to the calibration data indicates that some improvement
can be made over the raw data as shown in the correction column.  Use of such
a correction is justified by our model of the calorimeter.  The outer shell is
not of sufficient thickness, so there is a several degree temperature gradient
across it.  Changes in ambient temperature can thus affect radiation loss or
gain of the calorimeter.
 
Note the following data was taken after the event at 497230 seconds.  The
first up/down pair is the last of a set of three taken at relatively fast
temperature change.  The last two pairs are taken at the slower rate.  These
runs continue.  Note that after losing gas for a while, the cathode has
started to absorb it again.  Time is the time in seconds since the start of
this run.  Dir is the direction of temperature change.  TCEL is the closest
print out reading to 38.7 the mid point of the temperature swing.  JSUM is the
integral joules since last reset to zero at aprox 500000 seconds.  It assumes
that the refrigerator is removing 8.009 watts from the calorimeter, and that
there is no temperature effect.  GAS is the cc of gas accumulated in the motor
driven syringe since the start of the run.  It is presumed to be oxygen and
represents 1/2 the D absorbed by the Pd.  TAMB is the ambient temperature.
PAVG is the average of the last 50 measurements of power into the calorimeter
which are taken at one minute intervals.  PCOR is the power corrected for the
temperature.  Line one for example, shows that while 8.039 watts of electrical
power were measured as input to the calorimeter, there was an additional
0.0025 watts of heat input from ambient temperature change correction.  Note
that the up/down temperature runs need to be taken in pairs.  During up
temperature swings, extra energy must be applied to heat the calorimeter
contents.  During down swings this is recovered.  The MEAN column is a simple
average of the up/down swing power.
 
Time      Dir.    TCEL    JSUM    GAS     TAMB    PAVG    PCOR    MEAN
608420    up      38.70   501.8   28.90   26.23   8.029   8.054
619220    dwn     38.69   723.2   27.84   26.63   7.884   7.914   7.984
936020    up      38.71  1866.0   18.57   26.47   7.971   7.999
990020    dwn     38.70  3450.6   16.28   27.01   7.950   7.985   7.992
1047620   up      38.71  5466.0   15.95   27.03   7.950   7.985
1101620   dwn     38.71  6289.5   22.04   26.76   7.955   7.986   7.986
1162820   up      38.70  8547.3   14.62   27.03   7.975   8.010
1216820   dwn     38.71 10041.4   13.95   26.61   7.937   7.967   7.988
1274420   up      38.71 10930.1   13.61   26.45   7.989   8.017
1328420   dwn     38.58 13209.2   17.73   27.08   7.937   7.973   7.995
 
It looks like I was mislead by the ambient temperature changes to think there
was more of a balance change than there was.  The MEAN column values are the
ones for you to watch as we collect more data.  These should be compared to
the 8.006 watt calibration data above.  8.006 watts is what should be required
to balance the calorimeter.  Any less means that there is a source of
"anomalous heat" in the calorimeter.  All things considered, I would still
want of order 100 mw indicated change to think that something was happening.
Fifty or so with all corrections would convince me to do it right.  Note that
data will come slowly, 30 hours per pair.
 
There is a large time difference between the first pair and the second two.
During this time the cell was operated reversed for a while and other things
were done to attempt to improve the gas loading.  We should assume that
anything that had built up in the first series was destroyed by this process.
 
So there is clearly nothing yet to be excited about.  There is a lot more
data than is used above.  I just read numbers off the print out that I take
in case something fails.  Should the above crude approach indicate something,
then we can work on it more.
 
I stick with my opinion that the event at 497230 seconds was something very
interesting.
 
Note that the Corrected column of the calibration data justifies my earlier "5
mw" statement, sort of.  As I said before, I just did this on a lark.  A
serious run would have calibrated for a week or two.  So for the time being,
we will have to be satisfied with something like an 8 mw sigma.
 
Note also that because I do not have enough calibration data, I had to make
some decisions about which part of the data to use.  Not good practice.  This
consisted of using all the data after I decided the turn on transient had
ended.  Again this points to designing a better experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: High pressure from electrolysis
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High pressure from electrolysis
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 19:29:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>the gauge reached its 5000 PSI limit.  Higher pressures are obviously
>possible.
 
If one liter of H2O was transformed into one liter of H2 and O2 gas, then
the pressure would be 1850 atmospheres, or 27,000 PSI -- according to my
rough calculations.  This seems to be the upper limit obtainable, then,
using the in-situ electrolysis method.
 
If you start out with no head-space, and expansion is insignificant, then
this pressure should be reached fairly quickly.  If you have significant
head-space, then this pressure will only ever be approached asymptotically,
even after you have electrolysized the entire H2O mass.  Or so it seems
to me.
 
If the H going into Pd at a loading ration of 1.0 is really H (and not H2)
then that is equivalent to a pressure of 2500 atmospheres, or 37,000 PSI.
If it is H2 (and not H) then it is at a pressure of 1250 atmospheres, or
18,500 PSI.
 
So this self-pressurizing method seems to be able to approach an external
pressure of either 75% or 150% of the 1.0 H loaded Pd (depending upon the
internal H type.)
 
Side note: If it is stored internal as H, then when it outgasses, it should
liberate a quantity of energy as it turns into H2.  Has this been noted
in the Droege experiements?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 93 19:44:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>At Three Mile Island (it can't happen here, but it almost did)
 
Risk assessment is a subjective thing, but is should be remembered that
far more people were killed in the USA in a single flood of molasses
than have died due to all USA nuclear power plant radiation accidents.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / R Schroeppel /  flame power
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: flame power
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 20:54:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes
 
> <6 line quote from Dale Bass, supporting nuclear power, deleted by rcs>
 
> This is a perfect example of generating heat instead of light.
 
> <49 line quote from John George, attacking nuclear power, suggesting
>  that Mr. Bass is <various ugly things>, deleted>
 
By "This", I assume you mean the 49 lines, right?  Surely there's
some other group where you can flame about nuclear power?
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 19:41:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <20958@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>
>In Message-ID: <C9I3p2.36K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Dale Bass writes:
>
>>   Yes, it's called 'nuclear power'.  Most of my electricity comes
>>   from the Lake Anna (35 miles away) and Surry nuclear plants and
>>   I don't even feel the slightest bit sickly.
>>
>>   I've even offered the land 15,000 feet beneath my house as a waste
>>   dump.  Go figure.
>>
>>                            dale bass
>
>
>This is a perfect example of generating heat instead of light.
>
>Dale's 'nuclear power' at Lake Anna must refer to a nuclear fission
>power plant.
 
     No, it's Virginia Power's new coldfusion plant, he said dryly.
 
> I am impressed that you are willing to use your backyard
>to dump your pet nuke's chamberpot. Are all your neighbors like you?
 
     Not my backyard, 3 miles under my house.  And I'd bet I could convince my
     neighbors too.
 
>I am figuring now. Dale, do you live thirty-five miles up or down
>wind from your nuke? Could you move in closer? If you and yours are
>the only life in a thousand square miles of your pet nukes, could you
>pray that the next accident occurs there instead of close to any
>NON-volunteers, or, more importantly, their kids?
 
     Sure, I'd move on top of it if that were convenient.  You may feel
     free to move wherever you wish.  And you may feel free to cut
     your mains if they're feeding you nuclear power.
 
>Perhaps Dale would like to be a soldier or fireman at Chernobyl. A
>lot of brave people died. I don't recall reading that there were too
>many political figures or academics, down there in the radcloud. They
>were too busy covering their butts. And, of course, commissioning a
>batch of investigations. Perhaps Dale would prefer to be the parent
>of a child there. I hear there are elevated rates of cancers and blood
>diseases. A great place to live and raise your kids!
 
     Chernobyl is not a US reactor, my friend.  Go take that up with
     our good friends in the former SU.
 
>Most people in authority (AND the worm-tongue toadies who fawn on them
>AND those who want to make a quick million bucks at someone else's
>expense) would prefer that it be someone else's kids. (The 'little
>people', the masses, red-blooded right-thinking patriotic Americans,
>... just not me or my kids.)
 
      I don't really care whether you use power or not.  Feel free to
      cut your mains.
 
>The French have taken on the job of re-encapsulating the meltdown at
>Chernobyl. What went wrong with the first one? There will be employment
>in a country in economic chaos. Now there is a job for you. At Three Mile
>Island (it can't happen here, but it almost did) they hired lots of the
>down-and-out.  Imagine bragging, 'I was a nuclear janitor' to your kids.
 
      What 'almost' happened?  Core breach?  Proper operation of the
      containment facility?
 
>The fact remains that the nuclear fission crowd doesn't want to be fully
>responsible for their actions. Ask the fisson people if they'd like to
>give up their federal liability exemptions TOMORROW. If we destroy you,
>your family and the whole state we're not liable to any of you little
>people, we got a federal law that says so! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I get to
>keep my Mercedes. I'll just vacation elsewhere. A guy just went through
>a law firm in SF shooting lawyers. Go figure.
 
     Let me see.  The nuclear industry is responsible for some guy
     shooting lawyers in SF?  Go figure.
 
>Get your mental and nuclear potty-training done, Dale. Then get a real
>vocation doing something to clean up the mess short-sighted humans have
>made. Quit mocking those interested and hopeful that we still can fix
>problems and use that brain to help some of Sam Keen's real men. Read
>his book, Dale?
 
      To dream the impossible dream ...
 
>CF may or may not be the answer, but the idea of truly clean power stirs
>my heart. We humans need to (and can) do better. Just imagine giving $500
>million in tax breaks to solar, CF, and artifical leaf production, instead
>of pouring it down a rathole. I refuse to give up hope that humans can
>come around, even Dale Bass.
 
     Nothing is 'truly clean', my friend.  That is a very naive and
     hopeless viewpoint about industrial processes.  The goal is
     to minimize 'dirt' and maximize benefit.  I can think of few
     processes that do this more clearly than fission power, especially
     in advanced reactor cycles like IFR.  Of course, you luddites managed
     to slow or stop reactor research in this country, so you could
     rail against the reactors of two generations ago, which, even then,
     were safe.
 
     I believe commercial power rates in certain parts of this country
     (notably one that just trashed a operable nuclear reactor) are
     upwards of 35 cents a kilowatt-hour during the day.  I'd bet that
     promotes 'health' in the human ecosystem, he said dryly.
     Guess what, being poor is a much greater risk to your children than
     every nuclear reactor that HAS EVER BEEN BUILT (including Chernobyl).
 
     And the smoke-belching coal-fired plants of the Ohio valley continue
     polluting my skies and killing my trees.  I sure
     look forward to another two or three hundred years of overt
     air pollution.  I bet there won't be another tree left in
     the Shenandoah National Park when we finally get rid of all the
     nuclear reactors.
 
                           dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Droege ups the dale bass offer
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege ups the dale bass offer
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 22:50:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I hereby offer to let them bury nuclear waste 3000 feet below my house.
 
Let's give people the choice of lower taxes if they live near nuclear plants
or waste sites, or land fills.  Then see where they live.  We may lose a few
lives if one of our modern wonders that make our lives easier runs amuck.  But
we kill people at the other end if we don't have things like nuclear power.
i.e. if power is too expensive, then little old ladies on fixed incomes die
of heat prostration because they can't afford to run their air conditioners.
So I opt for nuclear power, which at the moment is fission.  Bury the waste
under my house, the risk is less than not having the power, or using coal.
At the moment there are no other viable alternatives.
 
Why does Greg Leyh have all the fun.  Best I ever did with a Tesla coil was
about 3".  That was about 1947, and TV was just coming in.  Pretty soon we
got calls every time someone's picture flopped over, which was a lot with
Mad Man Muntz one knob picture control.  But I do have some ideas about how
to actually measure the current.  You need to build a very co-axial structure
and find an old 519 scope.  Would be happy to correspond on the topic.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1993 23:31:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jul2.194426.21942@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>>At Three Mile Island (it can't happen here, but it almost did)
>
>Risk assessment is a subjective thing, but is should be remembered that
>far more people were killed in the USA in a single flood of molasses
>than have died due to all USA nuclear power plant radiation accidents.
 
     Ban molasses!
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.02 / daniel herrick /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: 2 Jul 93 18:11:44 EST

In article <20958@autodesk.COM>, johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
> In Message-ID: <C9I3p2.36K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Dale Bass writes:
>
>>   Yes, it's called 'nuclear power'.  Most of my electricity comes
>>   from the Lake Anna (35 miles away) and Surry nuclear plants and
>>   I don't even feel the slightest bit sickly.
>>
>>   I've even offered the land 15,000 feet beneath my house as a waste
>>   dump.  Go figure.
>>
>>                            dale bass
>
>
> This is a perfect example of generating heat instead of light.
>
> Dale's 'nuclear power' at Lake Anna must refer to a nuclear fission
> power plant. I am impressed that you are willing to use your backyard
> to dump your pet nuke's chamberpot. Are all your neighbors like you?
>
> I am figuring now. Dale, do you live thirty-five miles up or down
> wind from your nuke? Could you move in closer? If you and yours are
> the only life in a thousand square miles of your pet nukes, could you
> pray that the next accident occurs there instead of close to any
> NON-volunteers, or, more importantly, their kids?
 
Interesting tirade.  Slightly more heat than light.
 
I'm exposing my children to a continuous radioactive fallout because
I live about ten miles more or less downwind from a coal fired powerplant.
If there were some way to trade places between Perry Nuclear and that
coal plant, we wouldn't be getting the radioactive fallout in residential
communities.  Instead, it would be hitting food growing areas.  But then
the evacuation plan for Perry Nuclear (which wouldn't be called "Perry"
Nuclear) would have to cover a lot more people.
 
> Perhaps Dale would like to be a soldier or fireman at Chernobyl. A
 
You ought to be able to bring Adolph Schicklegruber into this, somehow.
 
If you can follow the discussions of bosons and orbitspheres here, you
should be able to understand the engineering details described in IEEE
Spectrum and Scientific American about the design of containment vessels.
There is good reason to expect Chernobyl to be the typical accident at
a Russian reactor and Three Mile Island to be the typical accident at
a North American reactor.
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 04:39:49 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>Hi folks,
 
>BERNECKY'S BWOs
 
>I finally got a chance to read William Bernecky's entries in detail, and I
>was very favorably impressed.
 
Same here Terry.  It really is one of the more interesting ideas I've
seen proposed.  Unfortunatly I've been really busy over the past couple
of months due to a promotion and position change at work and haven't had
time to comment to anything.  But Mr. Bernecky's far-fetch is certainly
worth a few. I'll post a few ideas on his BWO's that I've been musing
about.  The simplicity of William' scheme for inducing condenstion in
the lattice, is to nice not to be true.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
Ps.  By the way.  I really liked your discription of proton-conduction.
     There really wasn't much I could add to that.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / John Logajan /  What's a boson
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's a boson
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 93 05:19:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I'm trying to figure out what a boson is.  Of the three physics books in
my house, only one discusses bosons, and only a short list of bosons is
given.
 
From what I understand, there are two types of objects -- bosons and
fermions.  Fermions include electrons, neutrons, protons.  Bosons
include photons, deutrons, He4.
 
Fermions have fractional spin, bosons have zero or integral spin.
 
Fermions obey the exclusion principle, bosons favor the inclusion principle.
No two overlapping fermion wavefunctions can occupy the same identical
state.  Bosons *love* to occupy the same identical state.
 
Okay, so what other objects are bosons?  H2 molecules are bosons, right?
Since their two 1/2 spins add up to either zero or one, bosonic.
 
But Bernecky claimed that H atoms (with electrons) are bosons.  Is this
because the spin of the electron is 1/2?
 
But then wouldn't D with an electron be a fermion (1 or 0 + 1/2 = 1.5 or .5)?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Droege ups the dale bass offer
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege ups the dale bass offer
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 07:20:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930702172427.21200859@fnald.fnal.gov> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I hereby offer to let them bury nuclear waste 3000 feet below my house.
 
     Good, a bidding war.  I just want it buried at least a mile under the
     water table.
 
>Let's give people the choice of lower taxes if they live near nuclear plants
>or waste sites, or land fills.  Then see where they live.  We may lose a few
>lives if one of our modern wonders that make our lives easier runs amuck.
 
     That's the motto of life, from trilobites to homosapiens,
 
                      Shit runs amok
 
     I can think of few places where shit runs more amok than in places
     like sub-saharan Africa, or India, where large numbers of people
     are poor, very poor.  On the other hand, shit doesn't run but
     so amok in a country that can afford to set aside large tracts of
     land for a spotted owl and a snail darter.  That debate would be
     laughable in India, since there aren't many trees left.  The moral of
     this story is that it's much better for the earth if we're all
     rich.  If we're rich, we can afford to limit the shit amok creating
     potential; population growth slows and we can afford to protect the
     earth.  Not many people know that there's more tree cover in
     the continental US than there was 100 years ago.  Indeed, the
     Shenandoah National Forest was farmland 100 years ago; really,
     really crappy farmland on which thousands of people scratched out
     a living.  Now, a couple of guys in the midwest grow enough food
     for all of them.
 
     Now I know all my good anti-nuke friends didn't think about
     the consequences of stopping building all nuclear plants in this
     country, but the consequences are increased poverty and increased
     pollution.
 
     And if you care about the earth, you really really really don't
     want people to be poor.
 
     That's when the rape starts, and all the laws in the world won't
     stop a billion hungry and cold people.
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 14:06:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <20958@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
 
>I am figuring now. Dale, do you live thirty-five miles up or down
>wind from your nuke? Could you move in closer? If you and yours are
>the only life in a thousand square miles of your pet nukes, could you
>pray that the next accident occurs there instead of close to any
>NON-volunteers, or, more importantly, their kids?
 
So, do you consider hydro-electric power clean and safe? Precisely what
amount of danger, expense and ecological damage are you willing to put
up with in order to turn on your TV and air conditioner?
o
>Perhaps Dale would like to be a soldier or fireman at Chernobyl. A
>lot of brave people died.
 
In the case of a catastrophic failure of a dam perhaps you would like
to be downstream?
 
>CF may or may not be the answer, but the idea of truly clean power stirs
>my heart. We humans need to (and can) do better. Just imagine giving $500
>million in tax breaks to solar, CF, and artifical leaf production, instead
>of pouring it down a rathole. I refuse to give up hope that humans can
>come around, even Dale Bass.
 
And this, in a nutshell, is what all the new people showing up with
comments on the conference is all about isn't it? "The present world
is ugly, dirty and dangerous and we want an easy way out even if it
is a dream."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 14:12:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jul2.194426.21942@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
>Risk assessment is a subjective thing, but is should be remembered that
>far more people were killed in the USA in a single flood of molasses
>than have died due to all USA nuclear power plant radiation accidents.
 
John, I think you're missing the point -- these people are against
nucular power cause it's nucular. The finer points, such as there has
been far more long term radiation released from coal fired power plants
than nuclear fission plants flys directly over their heads.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Li in electrodes?
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Li in electrodes?
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 19:55:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am back in town for one day.  Will read my email when I get back on
Tuesday.  However, I would like to know if anyone remembers an analysis by
P&F(?) showing Li in the Pd electrodes.  I think it was reported on this FD
net.  If you have a reference or remember any of the details please
write--J_FARRELL@FANDM.EDU.  Thanks.
 
John Farrell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Molasses Accident
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Molasses Accident
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1993 20:45:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
John George wrote:
 
"...more people were killed in the USA in a single flood of molasses..."
 
As I recall, that accident occured in Boston, MA, around the turn of the
century. I am trying to remember the details. Since he brought the subject up,
I think it is only fair that Mr. George Tell Us What He Knows, before my
curiousity and poor memory drive me bats.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: 3 Jul 1993 22:49:21 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: In article <1993Jul2.194426.21942@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes:
:
: >Risk assessment is a subjective thing, but is should be remembered that
: >far more people were killed in the USA in a single flood of molasses
: >than have died due to all USA nuclear power plant radiation accidents.
:
: John, I think you're missing the point -- these people are against
: nucular power cause it's nucular. The finer points, such as there has
: been far more long term radiation released from coal fired power plants
: than nuclear fission plants flys directly over their heads.
 
And *why* are people against "nucular power"?  Because it sounds like
"nucular boms" and the population doesn't see much difference between the nerd-heads
promoting nuclear power and the nerd-head Dr Strangelove types in the nuclear
military complex.  They just _know_ they're evil.
 
Will a "fusion" reactor be more acceptable?  Perhaps, if only because you can
explain that it works the same way that Mr Happy Sun works (hydrogen sounds
nifty {they say 'thermonuclear weapons' now, instead of 'hydrogen bomb'}
but uranium and plutonium sound sinister), and so it's a new kind of
"solar" power.
 
And at last, there's the final question:  is there even a forseeable shortage of
electrical generating capacity?
 
Only if there's a huge conversion to electric transportation, or hydrogen powered
vehicles (requiring electrolysis) can I see a shortage of power.
 
Me? I wouldn't mind living near a fission power plant, especially a French, or
Canadian or new "inherently safe" design.  I would be a little concerned
about a _military_ nuclear site, and I would be pretty damn worried about
living near quite a number of Russian power plants and scared shitless about
Russian military nuclear sites.  There's a Russian river so hot that
standing by the shore for 30 minutes (not ingesting!) is a lethal dose. The
chemical contamination is even more widespread (and probably the biggest
danger).
 
--
-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:
cuddy3 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.04 / Edward Lewis /  cmsg cancel <1993Jul4.012004.22628@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Jul4.012004.22628@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 01:27:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1993Jul4.012004.22628@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.04 / Edward Lewis /  EVs, ball lightning, and CF
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EVs, ball lightning, and CF
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 02:18:56 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
                                                (c) 1993 by Edward H. Lewis
 
                                                5719 S. Harper
                                                Chicago, Illinois  60637
                                                first posted Feb. 5, 1993
                                                repost,
                                                revised version, July 3, 1993
 
        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology,
Matsumoto shows an SEM photo of a tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.
He did not describe the phenomena that was photographed.  I describe
tiny BL-like phenomena in a paper that I finished writing in Dec.
1992.  This one is in the material matrix.  Unless the white lines are
an artifact of some type, most of it radiates as much as the
surrounding metal radiates, except according to a geometrical pattern,
which is very interesting.  I would say it is radiating the
electricity-light substance I described in the paper.  If the
electrolysis was discontinued when he took the SEM, then this is an
example of a material continuing to radiate after the stress is done.
This relates to the experience of many people who have stressed
materials in many ways in order to produce energy.  Tiny BL-type
phenomena is associated with the excess energy and many of the other
anomalous phenomena which people have reported.  It seems to be a
locus of anomalous phenomena.  There is now pictorial evidence that
the CF phenomena is a tiny BL-type phenomena, at least in part.
 
        In the paper that I wrote, I related ball lightning to EVs.
Not all ball lightning is luminous.  Some people have reported seeing
ball lightning that was opaque and black(1).  Ball lightning and EVs
may leave the place where they form and travel around.  They may leave
marks such as the ring traces which Matsumoto has shown.  They may
travel along surfaces and leave the long trail-like traces Matsumoto
has shown in several articles.  Matsumoto reports that such a trail
was observed associated with another apparatus.  He says that the
emulsion was located behind the glass of the container of the
apparatus and the liquid, and far away from the palladium rod.
Therefore, the EV must have traveled through the glass and the water
and the air.  Ball lightning has been reported to travel through
material such as glass and ceramic and not have any apparent effects
on the material.  Sometimes effects may be observable microscopically,
however.  Ohtsuki and Ofuruton have produced ball lightning-like
phenomena which traveled through ceramic and which apparently did not
effect the ceramic(2).  Ball lightning has also been reported to
travel though water(3).  Golka has produced ball lightning-like
phenomena in water.  Tiny BL-type phenomena are also the cause of the
holes in substances which people find.
 
        I am hoping that there can be much more research of this
phenomena, and that people will attempt to detect this phenomena.
I think it is important that those who research EVs and those who
research ball lighting and produce ball lightning-like phenomena
participate in the next CF conference.  BL researchers have had
conferences every year or every other year for several years now,
and there is an international BL conference committee.  Perhaps the
two conferences can be merged together.  Many CF researchers have
begun to be familiar with this phenomena, so they will probably be
interested in discussing BL.  An address for the International
Committee on Ball Lightning is 381 South Meridith Avenue,
Pasadena, California, 91106 U.S.A.
 
 
1. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 67.
2. Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, "Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave
Interference in Air," Nature, 350, 139 (March 14, 1991).
3. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 69.
 
 
        When I posted an earlier version of this article in February,
I received several inquiries.  I will answer them here.  An EV is a
tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.  Light and electricity
interconvert.  So I identify these.
        Happy Independence Day!
 
 
..
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.04 / mitchell swartz /  Molasses Accident
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Molasses Accident
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 02:53:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <930703201208_72240.1256_EHK33-1@CompuServe.COM>
  Subject: Molasses Accident
Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) did write:
 
==   "As I recall, that accident occured in Boston, MA,
==  around the turn of the century. I am trying to remember
==  the details. Since he brought the subject up,  I think it
==  is only fair that Mr. George Tell Us What He Knows,
==  before my curiousity and poor memory drive me bats."
 
  Jed,  hang in there.
 
  "3. THE GREAT BOSTOxN MOLASSES FLOOD
  On Jan. 15, 1919, the workers and residents of Boston's North
 End, mostly Irish and Italian, were out enjoying the noontime
 sun of an unseasonably warm day. Suddenly, with only a low
 rumble of warning, the huge cast-iron tank of the Purity
 Distilling Company burst open and a great wave of raw black
 molasses, two stories high, poured down Commercial Street and
 oozed into the adjacent waterfront area. Neither pedestrians nor
 horse-drawn wagons could outrun it. Two million gallons of
 molasses, originally destined for rum, engulfed scores of
 persons - 21 men, women, and children died of drowning or
 suffocation, while another 150 were injured. Buildings crumbled,
 and an elevated train track collapsed. Those horses not
 completely swallowed up were so trapped in the goo they had to
 be shot by the police. Sightseers who came to see the chaos
 couldn't help but walk in the molasses. On their way home they
 spread the sticky substance throughout the city. Boston smelled
 of molasses for a week, and the harbor ran brown until summer."
    [excerpt from the Book of Lists #3 (Wallace et alia)]
 
 
   From this we see 21 people were killed, the half life was
    fairly short for the contaminants.   Long term effects
    were probably negligible.
 
    Best wishes.
 
                                       Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.04 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1993 02:41:28 GMT
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 12:52:04 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi Folks,
 
     I've been lurking for the past couple of months as I've had a
number situations pop up that have diverted my attention away from the
this great forum.  The main one is the closure of the Analytical
Electron Microscopy Laboratory (AEML) at the University of Lousiville
and the lay off of the director Beverly Giammara (who happens to be my
mother, and inspired me to study science when I was a wee lad).  The
AEML was where the analysis of President Zachary Taylor remains were
examined to resolve the speculation he had been poisoned by arsenic.
It's also where I did the postmortum analysis of some of Tom's early
cells.  Professor Giammara is one of the finest scientists out there
has done so much and published so much in the fields of histochemistry
and electron microscopy techniques, I can't count them.  She was
editor of the 1989 proceedings of MRS, founder of EMSORV, was chairman
of the numerous EMSA committees, hold a patents on the silver
methinamine stain, and the "cast-a-slide", and invented rapid microwave
embedding for specimen preparation. This list goes on.  The closure
of the lab was described as a way to save some $80,000/year by the
Dean of the graduate school and Vp. of Research, Dr. Patrick Flanigan.
(it's my guess but $80,000 is about half what this guy makes a year.)
He's relatively new at the university having arrived about 1 1/2 years
ago and this is his first *initiative*?  It's really sad to say, but
this guy is just a fool who could care less about research or the
survival of advanced studies at the university.  It seems to me that
when budget cuts are imposed on a university, it's the administrator's
job to distribute and reduce the impact of those cuts, and to fight
for the continuation of existing well equipped and proven labs.  In
this case, that hasn't happened. It's obviously one more step in the
self-destruction of this university which is already in an uproar over
a proposed change in the way department chairs are selected and how
professors would be assigned either teaching or research positions.
I think the administration here could probably write a book on how to
destroy a university as they certainly seem to be gaining experience
doing it.
 
----
 
Well, let me get of this soap box and get on to matters that are
important here.  There have been alot of ideas posted over the
past month or so I've really wanted to comment on, so here goes.
(Note: When I use 'H' and hydrogen, I'm referring to the all the
hydrogen species in general, unless noted.  With 'DD' mean the
precursor to the nuclear fusion of D+D).
 
     There was a small but interesting article posted 05/28/93 by
BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) that caught my eye.
This article was a brief discussion on the process of He4 Bose-
Einstein condensation leading to He4 superfluidity.  William's
research has provided me with enough clues to further investigate a
question I raised several months back.  The question I asked was; can
the presents of He4 in a metal force a change in the cold DD fusion
branching ratios to favor He4 and potentially enhance its rates by looking
at 2D molecules confined in periodic lattice intersituals as a pseudo-He4
atom condensing to the normal He4 ground state?  This will require
a further explanation as the question is complicated. But first, let me
reprint William's post since it nicely describes the aspects about Bose-
Einstein condensation needed to understand this question.
 
============================================================================
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Message-ID: <9305271930.AA13565@suntan.Tandem.com>
Sender: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Reply-To: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 12:52:04 GMT
Lines: 78
 
I find the following discussion on the quantum effects of superfluid
helium interesting.  My question is, can anyone on the net show that
H or D+ (or D- ?) in a transition metal will, under the proper circumstances
(TBD), become a "Bose-Einstein condensation" ?
 
from "Quantics, Rudiments of Quantum Physics", by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond
and Francoise Balibar, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 1990
 
Page 475
...the probability for obtaining a system of N bosons, all in the same
individual state, is N! times larger than the analogous probability for
N distinct quantons.  Thus, collective states in which all the bosons are
in the same individual state are overwhelmingly preferred: bosons 'like'
being identical. While fermions display a stubborn aloofness - true lonely
wolves - bosons exhibit a herd mentality, like the Panurgean sheep in
Rabelais.  Conversely, the probability that a system of bosons, thus
occupying identical individual states, would undergo a transition, in
which *one* of them changes states, is relatively much smaller than in
the case of distinct quantons (or in the case of fermions).  Bosonic
systems display a very strong coherence.  It is difficult to change
their state.
 
Superfluidity and quantum fluids
 
It is the coherence arising from the bosonic factorial which explains the
superfluidity of liquid helium - more precisely helium-4. This is a highly
special state of a fluid, reached at a temperature lower than about 2K, in
which the liquid no longer displays *any* viscosity.  This brings about a
horde of effects, such as the tendency of superfluid helium to come out,
all by itself, of the container holding it, creeping over container walls
by capillarity, with no friction holding it back, and other, even stranger,
thermomechanical properties.  Superfluidity is a perfect example of the
kind of rigidity which exists in a bosonic system, which is what helium-4
atoms really are.  They can only move all together.  Thus flowing liquid
helium cannot lose its energy bit by bit, like an ordinary viscous liquid,
in which interactions with the walls slow down the individual atoms and
diminish the kinetic energy of the entire fluid.  But how is it that
superfluidity shows up only at low temperatures?  The gregarious nature
of bosons, characterized by the bosonic factorial, becomes evident only
when the collective state consists of a large number of identical individual
states.  This is the case at zero temperature, where by definition the
system is in its ground state.  For mutually non-interacting bosons, this
state is obtained using N states, each one of which is identical to the
ground state, i.e. using N individual stationary states of minimum energy.
Indeed, as soon as the temperature of the system falls below a certain
critical  temperature T_b, there is, among the N individual states making
up the collective state, a significant proportion of states whch are just
the (individual) ground state.
 
This phenomenon, of a macroscopic occupation of the individual state of
minimum energy, is called "Bose-Einstein condensation." Thus, a veritable
phase transition takes place below a critical temperature, which is low
enough so that almost none of the individual states appearing in the
collective state is an excited state with an energy higher than that of
the ground state.  This notion can be more explicitly stated, one again,
with the help of the Heisenberg inequalities.  In the helium fluid, having
density mu, each atom of mass m occupies an average volume
              V= m/mu                                      (7.5.14)
and may be thought of as being confined (unlike in the case of a perfect
gas) to a region having linear dimensions a, such that
             V ~ a^3                                       (7.5.15)
Now, a quanton constrained to occupy a finite spatial volume undergoes a
quantization of its energy levels.  The ground state possesses an
average kinetic energy
            e_0 = rho_ave^2/(2m)                           (7.5.16)
where rho_ave is the average momentum, related to the dimension a of the
confinement region, through the saturated Heisenberg inequality
           rho_ave*a = h     [h is Planck's constant]      (7.5.17)
This value of the energy, namely,
          e_0 = h^2/(2ma^2) = {h^2*mu^(2/3)}/2m^(5/3)      (7.5.18)
also gives the scale of energies of the various excited states of
the quanton, and in particular, the difference between the ground
states and the first excited state.  To make sure that not too many of
the occupied states are excited, it is necessary that the average
thermal energy kT, where T is the temperature, be lower than e_0/k.
We could also say that, roughly e_0 gives the temperature T_b, below
which bosonic effects appear.
 
========================================================================
 
  Obviously, equation 7.5.15 suggests that by constraining the a Bose
particle to a volume V~ a^3 the particle must conform to the quantiization
rules given by 7.5.18.  And 7.5.16 comes about through the collective
motion (and thus momentum) of ground state ensamble. Interesting enough,
it's the uncertinty principle applied to the ground state energy of the
bose particle that induces superfuidity (fluid motion without viscosity).
Fermi particles with thier half spin, exclude others from the same energy
state as Pauling found.  Thus, they have to be paired in order to condense
and this requires that large amount of energy has to be removed in addition
to 7.5.18, and this makes the temperature threshold to superfluidity much
smaller. While 2 degrees K is the threshold for temp for transition to
superfluidity in He4, it's something like 0.003K for He3.
 
   The question to be resolved is can a hydrated metal in certain cases,
*freeze* the embedded hydrogen species to the point of Bose/Einstein
condensation through the E/M influence of lattice constraints on the
mobility of a H/Bose type particles, and induce a special type of
condensation by means of tunneling of De Broglie wave through the
periodicity of the metal/H binding intersituals and create a bose band
state.  It's purely a quantum mechanical question and I think W. Berneky
has shown it's possible in his latest far-fetch. (Two really good posts
William. My hat is off to you). I'm so glad to read Tom is following up
on the speculation and is measuring temperatures around the Berneky predicted
wavelength / lattice spacing resonance temp.  It's even more encouraging to
hear that Tom has apparently had some success at those temps.  If Tom's
cell is doing what I think it's doing, it may prove the prediction that
the hydrogen in Pd does indeed condense under the influence of quantum
constraints of the Pd. lattice.
 
    Terry Bollinger in a recent post, answered some question from
David....  that describes proton conduction and the proton band
formation. Good job Terry. I can't really add much to it, except to
emphasize that in addition to carrying charge, the proton conduction
band is also carrying the strong force component of the participating
particles. It's the latter force that really does suggest some
puzzling questions.  In the case of a deuterium band the strong force
is tightly bound to the deuterons that make up the band, yet in a band
state, the deuterons are delocalized, and thus that force is too!
It's somewhat odd to think of a force as being delocalized but in the
case of hydrogen banding, it is.  The standard model of the strong
force is that the exchange of pions between nucleons induces a very
short range and strongly attractive force.  Within a delocalized H
band state, how does one treat this? More on this later.
 
     In the normal physics of the electron conduction band, the source
of resistance and heating is caused by the introduction of a 'dimer'
within the periodic potential.  A dimer is an anomaly in the periodic
potential of a conductive lattice that causes delocalized electrons of
the conduction band to localize. In the process, it loses some energy
which manifests in the form of heat.  This is the quantum foundation
of Ohm's law.  If we treat the hydrogen in metals in the same way as
we do for electrons (obviously with a difference in charge, and mass)
there should be quanta of energy released in the infrared and
far-infrared range.  In that simple model (what I called 'heavy heat')
I was speculating that proton conduction and proton conduction
resistance might be a hidden source of excess heating when compared
to electrode heating using the standard Ohm's law and Joules law of
heating.  This would be absolutely true if the proton conduction band
was super-conducting and has well placed dimers within the periodic
potential of the host metal's lattice.  (note: P&F use a Pd/Ag alloy,
and Ag would act as the dimer in this scheme)
 
    Given Dr. Berneky's recognition that the deBroglie wavelength of
intersitual H can be made to match the lattice spacing at specific
temperature ranges and boson condensation can be achieved in the
process, it's somewhat interesting to note that conditions for the
formation of a superconducting state are very similar.  Really the
only difference is the requirement for formation of delocalized band
states, and that can only occur in a lattice!  Within the scheme of
'heavy heat', normal electron conductivity would induce an EMF on the
superconducting hydrogen band.  Dimers that cause the collapse of the
proton conduction band, would localize the proton band by electron
capture and transform the super-conducting proton current into
momentum and cause heating.  The idea is that there really is no
energy created, but the process so efficient at converting electrical
energy to heat, it may go unnoticed when measured by electron currents
and using Ohm's law / Joule's law as the break even point for heating.
 
----
 
   Now what's really interesting to speculate about is how the nuclear
potential of hydrogen band system acts.  As I said earlier, with in a
delocalized hydrogen band there is a very short range strong force
component that is also carried through out the band, which would be
delocalized as well.  Is there an equivalent nuclear dimer with in the
H band system, and what way would it it manifest itself?  Unlike E/M
the nuclear force(s) are complex as hell in there theoretical
foundations and poorly understood in many aspects.  For example, there
currently is a raging debate on how the exotic Li11 atom can exist in
in the stable state it does. (see this past weeks 'Science' magazine).
The simplest way to view the strong force is Yakawa potential, which
comes about by the exchange of the nuclear equivalent to the photon,
the pion.  The pions come in three charge flavors, +, - and 0, and
will decay if not bound to a meason (n|p|!n|!p, etc). This limits the
range of the force to nucleus. The whole debate on the Li11 nuclear
structure is one how far does the exchange force extend in space and
whether there are other components binding the atom together. Within
the delocalized deuteron  band state, the pion exchange has to be taking
place but when the deuteron band is localized, by a dimer of some sort
with charge and and angular momentum conserved, there are three results
possible: 1. a single D atom appears, or 2. a He4 appears, or 3. (a
real far-fetch) other magic number nuclei appear.
 
    The Chubb & Chubb theory (published in the AIP #228 conference
proceedings) is interesting to explore because they also require a
Bose band condensation to induce a nuclear reaction.  Their idea, as I
follow it, is that nuclear interactions occur between nuclear bands
created within the deuteron bands, and that the collective ensemble
reduces it's collective nuclear potential by a hair-ball equation of a
Bose condensation/Gamov interaction.  There is no concept of a dimer
in there theory which is the only fault I find with it. It is a good
foundation though for understanding how a deuteron Bose band states
might interact by the strong force.
 
   Several months ago, I posted a message called 'Cold He4 Fusion',
where I was basically highly negative to He4 as the nuclear ash
of a standard D+D fusion reaction, and suggested (actually posed
as the question) can the branching ratio of DD be forced to He4
if one treats a chain intersituals DD pairs as a pseudo-He4 atom
that condenses to He4, if a He4 nuclear dimer is introduced into
a DD periodic system?  Actually I posed the question as such:
 
 > Can the weak D+D->He4*->He4 + energy fusion path be forced to
 > occur nearly 100% of the time in a solid system?
 
  This is best described graphically:
 
 >    ^
 >    |      +--+     +--+    +--+     +--+    +--+   where a=Pd Lattice
 > E  |  DD  |  |  DD |  | He |  |  DD |  | DD |  |           potential
 >    |      |  |     |  |   4|  |     |  |    |  |         b= Intersituals
 >    +---------------------------------------------
 >           < a>< b >
 >
 > The D pairs in an intersitual forms a pseudo-He4 Bose particle, which
 > upon fusing, alters the branching ratio to maintain the Bose character.
 > Bose particles have the interesting property to want to collect at
 > a like lower energy state. Since He4 is the lowest energy state,
 > will the pseudo-He4 ... condense?
 
    In the context of W. Berneky's speculation, I wonder whether all
the expected ashes from D+D cold fusion would be He4.  It would
certainly explain the general lack of neutrons seen heat producing
experiments.  Even the low level Kamiokande efforts would be misleading
if the cold fusion branching ration disproportionally favors He4 over the
other branches in a hydrated metal system.  Dr. Jones, do you have any
ideas on this?
 
Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.05 / John Logajan /  Electrolysis pressure
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrolysis pressure
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 93 15:43:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

The 5000 PSI of electrolysis gas pressure that I developed with my simple
apparatus on Thursday evening has now declined to 3800 PSI on Monday morning.
No electrical current has been applied since it reached the 5000 PSI mark.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.05 / John Logajan /  Pressure assisted CNF device
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pressure assisted CNF device
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 93 16:43:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

A (relatively) simple to construct high pressure electrolysis device for the
investigation of CNF.
 
 
         ________________ Plug-able gas vent bore holes.
        /          /
        V          V
 
       MMM        MMM
HHHHHHHvvvHHHHHHHHvvvHHHHHHH
HHHHHHH   HHHHHHHH   HHHHHHH
HHHHHH     HHHHHH     HHHHHH
HHHHHH     HHHHHH     HHHHHH
HHHHHH  M  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH  <---- Machined metal block.
HHHHHH  H  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH
HHHHHH  W  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH
HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH       <---- Chambers filled with electrolyte.
HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH
HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH
HHHHHH  |          |     <<<]  <---- Connecting bore hole with plug.
HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH  |  HHHHHH
HHHHHH^^|^^HHHHHH^^|^^HHHHHH
      WW|WW      WW|WW
        |          |    <-------- Pt anode
        |
        |  <--------------------- Pd cathode
 
       ^            ^
       |            |
 
  Gas chamber bore holes with
  hermetically sealed plugs.
 
 
Procedures and notes:
 
1.) The inner surface of the chambers might need to be coated with an
    electrically insulating paint or rubber material to prevent parallel
    current paths from generating the wrong gas in the wrong chamber.
 
2.) The loading of the Pd electrode is initially done with the top gas vents
    open.  Electrolyte is added as needed to top off the chambers.  When
    the Pd electrode has soaked up as much D (or H) as it can at atmospheric
    pressure, the vents are closed.  Electrolysis then continues.  I estimate
    that pressures of 27,000 PSI (1800 atmospheres) are approachable.
 
3.) There are several modes of operation to choose from.  Eventually
    continuous electrical current will consume all the electrolyte and
    transform it into gas.  A third chamber would be needed with metered
    gas flow into an recombiner in order to allow continuous electrical
    current to flow in addition to the high pressure regimen.
 
    I.  Continuous current (needs recombiner chamber)
        a.) Electrode immersed in electrolyte
        b.) Electrode immersed in gas
 
    II. Current off eventually
        a.) Electrode immersed in electrolyte
        b.) Electrode immersed in gas
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.05 / J Lewis /  Re: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills and Farrell fail E&M
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1993 16:44:14 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <9306302254.AA29027@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>I have finally taken some time to try to digest the Mills-Farrell theory
>(Urp!) ...
>
>Clearly the theory starts with a Bohr-model picture for the n=1 state
>with a point electron orbiting the proton at a constant radius a0 in
>a classical 1/r potential.  That radius is determined by the De Broglie
>condition which matches the wavelength ( related inversly to linear
>momentum) to the orbit circumference. ...
>...  The Bohr theory is then
>modified by invoking a superposition of "great circle" orbits on
>a spherical surface.  Nothing difines this superposition except that
>it is to result in a uniform spherical shell of mass and charge. ...
>
>Having constructed a very simple mechanistic model for the n=1
>orbitsphere  ...
 
I don't see that they have.  How does this "superposition" work?  Is the
electron divided up into "electronbits" that independently pursue different
great circle orbits?  How would that work?  Wouldn't the "electronbits"
repel or otherwise bump into each other?  If the orbital angular momentum is
to be zero, doesn't that imply that for every "electronbit" in a given great
circle orbit, there will be another electronbit in the SAME orbit but moving
in the opposite sense, thus giving net zero motion?
 
I can imagine a classical, macroscopic model in which small discrete
charged objects are constrained to move on nearly intersecting great
circles, but forces would need to be applied to keep the objects on the
great circles and to overcome their mutual repulsions.  The continuum limit
of such a thing would be a featureless bubble of electron "stuff",
supported neither by quantum nor by classical mechanics, but only by
wishful thinking.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.05 / Craig DeForest /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: 5 Jul 93 13:37:08
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
     [ typical brain-damaged anti-nucular pro-pollution Luddite rant deleted ]
 
Gee, I wish some of that vitriol could be directed towards reducing
the radioactive emissions from coal-fired plants, or the radioactive
emissions people inhale in cigarette smoke.  Or banning radioactive
smoke detectors.
 
I, too, used to share the anti-nuclear views of most of the
environmental movement.  Then I read the various pollution analyses
and risk assessments.  Then I started laughing at people like John,
who just can't seem to understand how horrible coal-fired plants are
for the environment, and how much better (and safer) properly engineered
nuclear plants are.
 
No, I wouldn't want to live next door to Chernobyl.  But then, I wouldn't
want to drive a car with no seatbelts, bad brakes, a busted steering linkage,
and a jamming throttle either!
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / John Logajan /  Pressure assisted CNF, #2
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pressure assisted CNF, #2
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 02:53:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
Another simple high pressure CNF device.
 
 
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHH            HHHH
HHHH  -----     HHHH
HHHH /     \    HHHH
HHHH |  M  |    HHHH
HHHH |  H  |    HHHH
HHHH |  W  | |  HHHH
HHHH |  |  | |  HHHH
HHHH |  |  | |  HHHH
HHHH |  |  | H  HHHH
HHHH O==|==O H  HHHH
HHHH    |    H  HHHH
HHHH^^^^|^^^^H^^HHHH
    WWWW|WWWW|WW
        |    |   <---- Pt anode (insulated to beyond testtube height.)
        |
     ^  |  <----  Pd cathode with inverted testtube
     |
Chamber bore hole
with hermetically
sealed plug.
 
1.) Unit is initially run upsidedown with plug/vent open to allow gas to
    escape and to top off chamber with electrolyte.  When Pd has absorbed
    as much H or D as it can atmospheric pressure, plug/vent is closed
    and unit is turned right side up.
 
2.) Anode (or cathode) is insulated to above test-tube height to prevent
    electrolysis from continuing to produce gas volumes that merge and
    threaten explosion.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / Jed Rothwell /  A Simple Calorimeter
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Simple Calorimeter
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 16:52:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
 
A Simple Calorimeter
 
J. Rothwell
 
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
Home: 404-458-8107
E-Mail: CompuServe 72240,1256
 
July 1, 1993  [E-Mail version.]
 
 
Abstract:
 
A simple air-cooled static calorimeter was constructed out of common household
materials, including a $0.35 plastic box, a $12 electronic thermometer, and a
cheap DC power supply. The total cost of materials for this apparatus is less
than $50. Over a 5 day testing period, it was demonstrated that this device is
capable of measuring heat to the nearest 0.1 watts with confidence.
 
 
Purpose of this Experiment
 
     Since the announcement of cold fusion in 1989 [1], a few vocal skeptics
have called into question the fundamentals of traditional, water-based
calorimetry. They have said that it is very difficult to measure a watt of heat
with ordinary equipment. On the Internet e-mail network, Blue [2] stated that,
"calorimetry on a system involving simple, elementary heat transfer should be
possible at the watt level with a precision of 10%." In a typical experiment
ranging up to about 20 watts, this implies that no more than 2 watt precision
can be expected with ordinary laboratory equipment. In contrast to this,
leading experts in the field of calorimetry, including Bockris [3] and many
others have stated that a one-watt flow of heat is macroscopic; it is so large
that it is virtually impossible to mismeasure, and that ordinary laboratory
equipment can very easily achieve 1% accuracy in this range.
 
     My 1992 work in this field [4], and the peer-reviewed published literature
demonstrate that modern calorimetry is accurate and precise enough to measure
1 watt on a scale of 0 to 20 with assurance. Above 20 watts, the heat exceeds
the limits of a small static calorimeter to measure and safely cool the sample,
so more complex methods are required. Pons and Fleischmann [5] have described
in detail a remarkably simply yet accurate and precise static calorimeter that
is ideal for an amazingly wide range of heat from 0.01 watts up to 200 watts.
 
 
The Calorimeter
 
     This apparatus was deliberately constructed out of the simplest, cheapest
materials available off the shelf at a hardware store and at Radio Shack. It
is perhaps the simplest working instrument that can be made with household
materials. While it is crude, it is constructed according to well-known
principles, so it is effective, and remarkably precise and accurate. Other
common household materials and parts were tested, including a cell made from
a plastic cup, which has an unacceptably large air-water surface area. As
expected, these configurations proved less accurate, less precise, and more of
a nuisance to work with. A long thin tube with a small air-water interface is
recommended.
 
     The instrument is very simple to operate. With a little knowledge, care
and practice, anyone can use it with confidence. It consists of three
components:
 
     A cell; a plastic box filled with water, cooled by ambient air.
 
     A heat source; a small DC power supply and an 8-ohm resistor.
 
     An electronic indoor/outdoor thermometer that simultaneously measures
     ambient air and water temperature.
 
     The power supply generates 5 pre-set voltages. The cell is filled with
room temperature water, a power level is selected. At intervals of 5 to 15
minutes, the time, ambient air temperature, and water temperature are manually
recorded, and later entered into a Microsoft Works spreadsheet to be analyzed
and graphed. The power level can be increased or decreased three or four times
in an eight hour period. The devices takes 60 to 90 minutes to stabilize at a
given power level, and an hour an half after that to take enough readings to
compute a very accurate average. The temperature of the ambient air is
subtracted from temperature of the water; this Delta T temperature indicates
the level of heat being generated by the resistor.
 
     The calibration constant of this instrument is 0.25 +- 0.02 watts per
degree C. The thermometer is demonstrably accurate to a least 0.2 C (probably
0.1, but it is difficult to test). When the airconditioning turns on and off
rapidly, water temperature changes lag behind air temperature changes, so it
becomes difficult to get a stable reading. A careful analysis of the lag, and
a sophisticated model might allow an accurate Delta T to be derived even with
unstable ambient conditions, but that would be beyond the scope of this work.
Under stable ambient air temperature conditions, when used carefully, the
instrument appears capable of measuring power in increments of 0.04 watts (0.2
C increments), by averaging many readings from a period of an hour or more, and
0.1 watt increments with can be measured with great confidence.
 
 
Detailed Description of Components
 
     The cell is a translucent white plastic case designed to hold a toothbrush
during travel (Ace Hardware, Set of Three Travel Kit). Outside dimensions are
18.5 cm X 3 cm X 2 cm. This long, narrow box stands filled with water during
the experiment. It is taped to a brick to keep it from tipping over. Standard
5 cm wide strapping tape was wrapped around the brick once, then on the second
pass it covers the bottom 5 cm of the plastic cell and holds it securely
against the brick. Presumably, the brick acts as a major heat sink in with this
configuration; a different method of holding up the plastic case would probably
change the performance of the calorimeter.
 
     After the heat source and thermometer probe are inserted into the cell,
it holds about 58 ml of water, measured with a kitchen measuring cup marked in
20 ml increments (Anchor Hocking, Oven Basics model; a manufacturer's note on
the unit says: "cooking use only," which fits the desired equipment profile
perfectly).
 
     Ordinary tap water is used. The cell is filled up to an ink mark on the
outside of the cell near the top, and kept within a few millimeters of that
level throughout the experiment. The water is drained at the end of each day,
the cell is left dry overnight.
 
     The heat source consists of an AC to DC transformer and an 8-ohm resistor.
The transformer is a Radio Shack Universal AC Power Adopter (Cat. No. 273-
1650). This unit has a switch that allows five separate pre-set voltage levels.
It is designed to substitute for batteries or transformers used in radios, CD
players and other consumer electronics. The nominal voltages are: 3.0, 4.5,
6.0, 7.5 and 9.0. Before assembling the apparatus, voltages were tested with
a 100 K-Ohm resistor. They were measured at 4.1, 5.4, 6.7, 8.1 and 9.6 volts.
 
     The wires leading to the standard, interchangeable power jacks were cut,
and the wires were soldered directly to an 8 Ohm resistor (Radio Shack 8-Ohm
20-watt Power Resistor, Non-inductive, Cat. No. 271-120). The resistor is a
white ceramic block 6 cm X 1.4 cm X 1.4 cm. Final assembly and testing was
performed in a local computer repair shop. Before final assembly, the device
was checked with a multimeter (Beckman, model 15XL). Resistance was measured
at 8.1 Ohms. Volts and amperage were measured for each of the five settings,
and wattage was computed:
 
Setting    Volts     Amps       Watts
1          2.9       0.37       1.1
2          3.7       0.46       1.7
3          4.4       0.55       2.4
4          5.0       0.63       3.2
5          5.6       0.71       4.0
 
     From time to time during the experiment, voltages were checked again with
a simple analog voltmeter (Radio Shack Micronata model 22-212B). No detectable
changes were seen. The impedance of ordinary water was also checked with that
instrument, because the resistor leads are uncovered. At the distance the leads
are separated, the resistance of water was found to be 40 K Ohm, which is so
much greater than the 8 Ohm resistor that no significant power could have
dissipated in the water.
 
     Before installing the resistor, a variety of tests and calibration
procedures were performed.
 
     A lacquered wooden chopstick was used to push the resistor into place at
the bottom of the cell. It was used from time to time to stir the liquid,
during tests to determine the effect of mixing. (A chopstick is recommended:
it is very handy for working with a small, narrow cell.)
 
     Two different electronic thermometer units were used. Both units have a
built in temperature sensor, and a temperature probe attached to a 3 meter
wire. The first unit was a Radio Shack Micronata LCD Indoor/outdoor Thermometer
(cat. no. 63-842). This has one LCD display, with a switch to read from either
the probe or the internal thermocouple. The unit was either defective, or it
was damaged during setup and configuration with another cell design, when the
probe accidently came in contact with the resistor at a high power level for
about two hours, and the temperature went over the rated range of +50 C. After
the first instrument was damaged, the probe developed an intermittent drift
problem and difficulty calibrating. For example, in ice water it registered a
temperature of 5 C. The probe was longer reliable, but the undamaged
thermocouple was used from time in an "olympic vote" style calibration
procedure, comparing it with the two thermocouples in the second, new unit. The
second unit was a Radio Shack LCD Indoor/Outdoor Twin-Display Thermometer (Cat.
No. 63-843). This model costs $8 more than the 63-842, but it is much better
for this experiment: it has two displays; it is driven by heftier batteries
(two AA batteries versus a watch-style A76); and the polling cycle and the time
to settle at a new temperature are much faster. The brochure for the smaller
63-842 says it takes 5 minutes to stabilize, and the sampling cycle is 15
seconds; the brochure for the 63-843 did not include this information, but the
device appears to stabilize in about 1 minute, and poll every few seconds.
 
     The ideal instrument for this experiment would be a simple, old-fashioned
mercury thermometer. However, these are becoming difficult to find, except for
laboratory grade ones certified to 0.1 C accuracy, which cost $150 to $200.
 
     A worker attempting to replicate this experiment is advised to observe
carefully the performance characteristics of the thermocouples, thermistors or
thermometers employed. These devices can break, drift, or harbor other nasty
surprises. It is essential that they be calibrated and observed closely. They
are described in detail here, along with some of the problems experienced, in
order to impress upon the reader two facts:
 
1.   Temperature measuring devices do not always work perfectly. Even standard,
     off-the-shelf ones can have biases, and they can develop severe instrument
     drift, as one did in this experiment.
 
2.   Any experimenter who is awake and fully cognizant of the facts, who uses
     a minimum of common sense and cross checking, will *immediately* catch any
     major errors (with these instruments, any error over 1 C). While it is
     possible for the instruments to be damaged, and to drift 5 C in a few
     hours, as one did during the course of this work, it is impossible that
     person with ordinary skills would not notice such a gross error.
 
     This second point is emphasized, because many "skeptics" claim that
instrument error is responsible for all excess heat readings in all cold fusion
experiments during the last four years. This experiment proved inadvertently
that such instrument error is trivial to detect and eliminate.
 
     The thermometers were calibrated and tested at least once a day by three
methods:
 
1.   Withdraw external probe from water, wipe it off thoroughly and test
     ambient air temperature. Place it next to main unit. External and internal
     thermocouples will come to within 0.2 C of one another in 5 or 10 minutes.
     The better quality instrument comes into equilibrium more quickly.
 
2.   Put the external probe in glass of crushed ice and water and stir
     vigorously with the chopstick every few minutes. Temperature drops to 0.3
     C - 0.6 C.
 
3.   Put the external probe in a glass of water kept at room temperature.
 
     With a thermometer capable of measuring higher temperatures, it would also
be a good idea to put the external probe into boiling water. The temperature
should approach 100 C (except at high altitudes).
 
 
Cautions Addressed to People who Wish to Replicate this Work
 
     It is essential that the worker using this apparatus take elementary,
common sense precautions to avoid inaccuracy. The instrument is not as "robust"
as a real, laboratory calorimeter. A worker setting out to deliberately get the
wrong answer would have no trouble doing that with this kind of primitive
equipment. Follow these elementary precautions:
 
     Do not let the temperature of the water exceed 45 C (with these electronic
     thermometers.)
 
     Do not place the cell in direct sunlight, or directly over a
     heating/airconditioning register. Avoid drafts, open windows, and electric
     fans.
 
     Avoid excessive humidity, which has a surprisingly large effect on the
     performance of the air-cooled cell.
 
     Do not jog or shake the device.
 
     Ordinary room or office airconditioning is sufficient for reasonable
     accuracy, but because the device is directly exposed to ambient air,
     laboratory grate airconditioning is better. Srinivasan [6], who uses air
     cooled Thermos Bottle calorimeters, warned that ambient temperature
     fluctuations are a major source of error, and recommended these
     experiments be performed in room with laboratory grade heating and
     airconditioning. A conventional water bath, with 0.01 C temperature
     control would be better still, and more convenient.
 
     Keep tabs on the weather. Do not run the experiment on extremely hot,
     cold, humid or dry days, because ordinary heating and airconditioning
     cannot completely filter out the effects of extreme weather conditions.
 
     Keep the water level in the cell filled to the same level, as precisely
     as you can.
 
     Keep the temperature probe at the same level within 0.5 cm. If you have
     trouble seeing it through the translucent plastic, use the chopstick to
     gently push it up against the wall, where it is much easier to see. There
     will probably be a measurable thermal gradient in the cell, but that is
     not a problem as long as you keep the probe at the same level, because the
     gradient will be completely predictable and consistent from one day to the
     next.
 
     Calibrate frequently. Use multiple, redundant thermometers.
 
     Remember that the cell takes about 90 minutes to come into thermal
     equilibrium, and that you can only take three readings per day. Do not
     assume the temperature has stabilized until you see at least one hour with
     no more than 0.3 C Delta-T variations.
 
     Because the settling time and response time of the device is so slow, it
     is not necessary to take readings more often then every 10 minutes; the
     device is incapable of registering changes any faster than this. It would
     smooth out ("average out") any rapid fluctuations in heat input in any
     case. A water bath gives a much better, faster, more accurate response
     rate.
 
     Remember: this calorimeter is not intended to be practical. It is very
     easy to think of ways to radically improve it. For example, one reviewer
     pointed out: "it would have seemed just as easy to place the cell in a
     bath comprised of an insulated cooler which would have maintained a more
     stable external temperature, less susceptible to air conditioning
     fluctuations..." However, an insulated cooler would have required another
     $5 of material, more table space and another $18 thermometer with probe
     for the bath, so it was judged an unnecessary frill. An $18 old-fashioned
     Thermos Bottle from Woolworth's, which is a Dewar flask in a plastic
     shell, was also rejected because it was judged an unnecessary frill, and
     also because Thermos Bottle calorimeters have notoriously long settling
     times.
 
     Record temperatures at reasonably spaced intervals. Record at least 5
     readings before computing an average. After observing this instrument for
     a day, it became apparent that readings should be taken every five or ten
     minutes. The temperature did not fluctuate much from minute to minute. It
     goes without saying that an ordinary computerized data collection system,
     or even a pen recorder, would make this experiment far more convenient and
     considerably more accurate.
 
     As a test, the instrument was placed in the worst possible environment for
a day. It was placed in front of an open window in a house with the
airconditioner turned off on a hot, muggy day in Atlanta, GA. It was subject
to occasional breezes and intermittent direct sunlight. It performed
surprisingly well. Power settings 1, 3 and 5 were tested. Interestingly, the
Delta T averaged just about 2 C greater than the calibrated average from the
controlled office environment in all three settings. (A reading 2 C above the
calibration curve equals a one-half watt error). This has not been verified
carefully, but it appears that the single greatest factor contributing to this
2 C error was humidity. Turning on the airconditioner in the evening seemed to
bring the cell close to the calibration point, even though the airconditioner
was set 4 C higher than the office, and the temperature did not drop much. The
humidity dropped rapidly. A hydrometer was not available, but on a summer
evening in Atlanta, the change can easily be felt.
 
 
A Simple Test of the Resistor
 
     Before the cell was assembled, it was noted at the very lowest setting,
1.1 watts, the heat of resistor was barely tangible to the open hand. The next
higher setting, 1.7 watts, was readily detectable. At the 4.0 watt power level,
the device grew so hot it became uncomfortable to hold. It was also observed
that the differences in the water temperatures at each setting were readily
detectible by feel. With a little practice, a person could probably become
proficient at estimating the temperature levels by feel (this is like gauging
the severity of a fever by feeling the patient's forehead).
 
     These observations may seem trivial and irrelevant, but in fact they are
*very important* counterpoints to the skeptical arguments. Skeptics should note
that a 1.1 watt power level in a small object is a tangible, macroscopic level
of heat, detectable by unaided human senses, without any instruments. The
skeptics maintain that it is difficult detect and measure this amount of heat.
They say that 1 watt might be confused with 2 watts, or 10 watts. Most
scientific instruments are capable of resolving and accurately measuring light,
electric power, and other energy levels smaller than those detectable by the
unaided senses. It stands to reason that if a person can sense an effect, than
a simple scientific instrument should also be able to detect it. Indeed, this
work demonstrates that even a simple calorimeter is about an order of magnitude
more sensitive than unaided human senses.
 
 
Results
 
     Fig. 1 [with e-mail version see Appendix] shows the Delta-T temperature
(water temperature minus ambient air temperature) for a day-long run on
6/16/93, with power dissipation settings 3, 4 and 5 (2.4, 3.2 and 4.0 watts).
The fluctuations during minutes 100 through 150 were caused by rapid
oscillation of the ambient temperature between 21.4 C and 22.8 C, caused by the
airconditioning. Fig. 2 shows that the Delta-T oscillations are caused by air
temperature changes, because air temperature rises and falls much more quickly
than water temperature. The cell takes 90 minutes to stabilize at a given power
level, or cool down to room temperature again after the power is turned off.
The air warms up and cools within 10 minutes as the airconditioner turns on and
off.
 
     The Delta T fluctuations starting at minute 250 continuing through 320 are
interesting. The temperature gradually rose through this period, until the
airconditioner thermostat was triggered at minute 320. As the air temperature
rises above 21.9 C, the cell can be seen rising along with it, then "dumping"
the heat, then rising again, in a cyclical fashion. Under perfectly stable
conditions, the cell will fluctuate between 12.2 and 12.3 C hotter than the air
with this power level.
 
     Fig. 3 shows the calibration curve. This table shows the calibration curve
computation:
 
     Watts      Average    Watts per
     Input      Delta T    Deg C
     1.1        4.46       0.25
     1.7        7.13       0.24
     2.4        9.66       0.25
     3.2        12.28      0.26
     4.0        15.20      0.26
 
     The effects of mixing the water was tested periodically by inserting
the chopstick and stirring the water gently, or occasionally, vigorously
whipping it. This caused the temperature of the water to drop between 0.2
and 0.4 C for a few minutes. After about 5 minutes the effects of stirring
vanished, and the average temperature returned to what it was before mixing.
The temperature drop might be caused by the cool wooden chopstick introduced
into the warm water, and, also, there is probably a thermal gradient in the
cell, so the stirring probably pulls up the cold water. The gradient has not
been studied carefully in the present cell configuration.
 
 
Thermometer Accuracy and Precision
 
     The three working thermometers used in this study all show temperature
to the nearest 0.1 C. They appear to be accurate to this level, and
indications are that the probes register temperature with even greater
precision; perhaps to the nearest 0.02 C. Here is the evidence to support
these statements:
 
     Accuracy is tested by leaving all three thermometers in a quiet place,
away from sunlight or moving streams of air, with the probe set on the face
of the instrument. After 5 or 10 minutes, the temperatures on all three come
to within 0.0 to 0.2 of one another. Small fluctuations appear from time to
time, occasionally differences as high as 0.3 to 0.4 are seen. One of the
units was also compared with an unsold thermometer at Radio Shack: again, it
came within 0.2 C. Furthermore, as explained above, during calibration the
probe rapidly approached 0.3 C in ice water. When four thermometers of two
different models all register the same temperature this closely, it must be
judged they are within 0.2 C of the actual temperature.
 
     The precision of the instruments appears to exceed 0.1 C. Indications
are that the probe itself is stable and sensitive enough to reach
temperatures uniform throughout the probe metal in about 0.02 C increments.
This was determined by selecting the same power levels on different days,
under stable conditions, although at different ambient air temperatures.
Several Delta T temperature readings were taken. The averages from different
days usually agreed to within 0.02 C. For example, the average for the 4.0
watt input was 15.20 C on Monday, and 15.22 C on Wednesday. It is not clear
why this happens. The display apparently fluctuates around the "actual"
reading in a seemingly random fashion, which on average turns out to be
predictable. Suppose the actual Delta T is 15.22 C. This apparently shows up
as a 15.2 difference most of the time, and 15.3 about a fifth of the time.
It cannot be a coincidence that averages from different days are so close
together. As noted above however, this precision can only be achieved by
waiting for good conditions, when the ambient temperature rises steadily at
no more than 1 C per hour in a steady pace, and the weather is more or less
the same as it was on the previous day.
 
 
A Potential Follow Up Experiment
 
     A good follow up experiment, and an obvious test of this instrument,
would be to introduce an unknown level of power into the resistor and try to
measure it by observing the water temperature. This was done inadvertently
on by flipping the power selector switch to the wrong position. (The switch
is small, and positioned underneath the power supply, which is underneath a
table). A better test would be to use a variable output power supply, and
have someone set it at random, perhaps in a double blind test. That however,
is beyond the scope, budget, and time constraints of the experiment.
 
 
Acknowledgements
 
     I wish to thank Mitchell Schwartz and Ken Hardee for valuable
suggestions and corrections to this paper.
 
 
Footnotes
 
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, & M. Hawkins, "Electrochemically induced nuclear
fusion of deuterium." J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, pp 301-308, and erratum,
263, p 187 (1989).
 
2. R. Blue, "Where are the errors?" Internet Fusion Digest Posting, June 4,
1993
 
3. J. Bockris, private communication, March 1992.
 
4. E. Mallove, C. Harrison, J. Rothwell, "Calorimetry with electrolytic cold
fusion cell based on the design of A. Takahashi," ICCF3, October 1992.
 
5. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from
simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993)
118-129
 
6. S. Srinivasan, "Tritium and excess heat generation during electrolysis of
aqueous solutions of alkali salts with nickel cathode," ICCF3, October 1992.
(This point was discussed during the lecture in greater detail than in the
paper.)
 
 
Appendix - Data Section
 
     Since e-mail does not support graphics, the entire data set from
06/16/93 is shown here in place of the figures listed above. This data can
be broken out into an ASCII file and loaded into most modern spreadsheets
conveniently. The reader might find it interesting to graph the rightmost
Delta T column. The effects of rapid fluctuations in ambient air temperature
in the morning can be seen by superimposing air temperature on the Delta T.
Please note that the data was read at irregular intervals, so an X - Y
Scatter graph is recommended.
 
 
           Elapsed   Air        Probe
Time       Minutes   Temp       Temp       Delta T
8:20       0         21.4       21.3       -0.1      Setting 3: 2.4 Watts
8:25       5         21.6       22.0       0.4
8:30       10        21.8       24.2       2.4
8:35       15        22.0       25.9       3.9
8:40       20        22.3       27.1       4.8
8:45       25        22.2       28.0       5.8
8:50       30        21.5       28.8       7.3       Quick Amb changes;
8:55       35        21.1       29.2       8.1       morning A/C
9:00       40        21.4       29.6       8.2
9:05       45        21.7       30.1       8.4
9:10       50        22.0       30.5       8.5
9:15       55        22.4       30.8       8.4
9:20       60        22.5       31.1       8.6
9:30       70        21.5       31.1       9.6
9:40       80        21.9       31.3       9.4
9:50       90        22.6       31.7       9.1
10:00      100       21.8       31.7       9.9
10:10      110       21.4       31.6       10.2
10:20      120       22.0       31.7       9.7
10:30      130       22.4       31.9       9.5
10:40      140       21.7       31.9       10.2
10:50      150       21.4       31.8       10.4      Setting 4: 3.2 Watts
10:55      155       22.0       32.2       10.2
11:00      160       22.7       32.9       10.2
11:05      165       22.6       33.3       10.7
11:10      170       22.4       33.6       11.2
11:15      175       22.0       33.8       11.8
11:20      180       21.9       33.9       12.0
11:25      185       21.8       34.1       12.3
11:30      190       21.8       34.2       12.4
11:40      200       21.7       34.2       12.5
11:50      210       21.7       33.9       12.2
12:00      220       21.6       33.9       12.3
12:10      230       21.7       33.9       12.2
12:20      240       21.8       34.1       12.3
12:30      250       21.9       34.1       12.2
12:40      260       22.0       34.2       12.2
12:50      270       22.0       34.5       12.5
13:00      280       22.3       34.4       12.1
13:10      290       22.4       34.8       12.4
13:20      300       22.5       34.5       12.0
13:30      310       22.4       34.7       12.3
13:40      320       22.4       34.7       12.3
13:50      330       22.5       34.8       12.3      Setting 5: 4.0 Watts
14:10      350       22.6       36.5       13.9
14:20      360       22.7       37.1       14.4
14:30      370       22.7       37.5       14.8
14:42      382       22.7       37.7       15.0
14:50      390       22.8       38.0       15.2
15:00      400       22.8       38.0       15.2
15:10      410       22.9       38.1       15.2
15:20      420       23.0       38.3       15.3
15:30      430       23.1       38.4       15.3
15:40      440       23.3       38.6       15.3
15:50      450       23.3       38.6       15.3
16:00      460       23.4       38.6       15.2
16:10      470       23.5       38.6       15.1
16:20      480       23.5       38.5       15.0
16:30      490       23.7       38.8       15.1
16:40      500       23.8       39.2       15.4
16:50      510       23.8       39.2       15.4
17:00      520       24.0       39.2       15.2
17:10      530       24.0       39.2       15.2
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Safety Advisory
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Safety Advisory
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 18:43:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just want to remind you all that John Logajan has told us all how to easily
make a hand grenade with simple tools found in everyone's garage.  I know
John has warned us once.  All you need to improve the product is to cut
grouves in the surface so that it blows up in many small pieces insteat of
two large ones, increasing the probability the one of them will hit some
one, as is done in the military version.  Please be careful.  John, I hope
you have your device in a cage of concrete blocks.  Just because it survived
5000 psi does not mean that it will not later decide to come apart at
3000 psi.  So be careful.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / J Lewis /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 17:18:55 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <ZOWIE.93Jul5133708@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.sta
ford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>In article <foo> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>     [ typical brain-damaged anti-nucular pro-pollution Luddite rant deleted ]
>
>Gee, I wish some of that vitriol could be directed towards reducing
>the radioactive emissions from coal-fired plants, or the radioactive
>emissions people inhale in cigarette smoke.  Or banning radioactive
>smoke detectors.
>
>I, too, used to share the anti-nuclear views of most of the
>environmental movement.  Then I read the various pollution analyses
>and risk assessments.  Then I started laughing at people like John,
>who just can't seem to understand how horrible coal-fired plants are
>for the environment, and how much better (and safer) properly engineered
>nuclear plants are.
>
...
 
I remember the era when coal-fired home furnaces were common, and
locomotives were coal-fired (Ottawa and Toronto, early 1950's).  All the
buildings were grey from soot!  Every surface out-of-doors was gritty.
Curtains in houses would become filthy in a year.  In downtown Toronto
in the mid-60's, fresh snow would become grey in 15 minutes from soot,
whether from a coal-fired electrical generator or from a municipal
incinerator was never clear to me.  Lord knows what that muck did to our
lungs - though no doubt the omnipresent sulfur dioxide was worse.
 
And Ottawa and Toronto were not bad for their day, either.
 
My first close-up view of a nuclear reactor, at Chalk River, was a
revelation - a power source could be quite and clean, and kind to
the respiratory tract.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: What's a boson
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 17:45:27 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Jul3.051946.26428@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>I'm trying to figure out what a boson is.  Of the three physics books in
>my house, only one discusses bosons, and only a short list of bosons is
>given.
 
Yep.  Not a subject treated outside of advanced QM books.
 
>From what I understand, there are two types of objects -- bosons and
>fermions.  Fermions include electrons, neutrons, protons.  Bosons
>include photons, deutrons, He4.
>
>Fermions have fractional spin, bosons have zero or integral spin.
>
>Fermions obey the exclusion principle, bosons favor the inclusion principle.
>No two overlapping fermion wavefunctions can occupy the same identical
>state.  Bosons *love* to occupy the same identical state.
 
Almost.
 
Fermions are particles with half-integral spin: 1/2, 3/2, etc.  They
get their name because such particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics
(this is a statement their properties in quantum stat mech), which
has the consequence that no two identical fermions can occupy the
same quantum state.  This says nothing about overlap or physical
location although spatial distribution of the wavefunction is one
of the factors that must be considered.  Specifically, the wavefunction
of two identical fermions must be odd under the interchange of the
coordinates of the two particles (meaning it is negative).  They
obey "anticommutation" rules.
 
Bosons are particles with integral spin: 0, 1, 2, etc.  They get their
name because they obey Bose-Einstein statistics, which has the result
that they can occupy the same quantum state.  Specifically, the
wavefunction must be even under interchange of two identical bosons.
They obey "commutation" rules.
 
These are the only two possibilities.
 
>Okay, so what other objects are bosons?  H2 molecules are bosons, right?
>Since their two 1/2 spins add up to either zero or one, bosonic.
>
>But Bernecky claimed that H atoms (with electrons) are bosons.  Is this
>because the spin of the electron is 1/2?
>
>But then wouldn't D with an electron be a fermion (1 or 0 + 1/2 = 1.5 or .5)?
 
To be precise, one would prefer to apply these rules only to point
objects which are not composites of other objects.  So quarks and
leptons are fermions and photons, gluons, and the W and Z are bosons.
Everything else is made up of these.
 
I say this because the exclusion principle for fermions can appear in
funny ways for composite particles.  At "large" distances you can treat
a proton or neutron as a single particle that acts like a fermion.
However, you will also notice a force -- in addition to any effects
from the exclusion principle, which would allow a proton and neutron
with opposite spin to be in the same place -- that is repulsive at
short distances (inside about 0.3 fm).  This is because, at short
distances, the internal structure (the fact that they are made up
of quarks) comes into play.  So the neutron and proton can have the
same spatial wavefunction and opposite spin (with phases so it is
anti-symmetric overall) but the spatial wavefunctions have a "wound"
at short radius.  The repulsion keeps them apart.
 
One sees similar things at the atomic level.  A molecule may obey
Bose statistics but they might not be able to physically overlap
because the internal structure leads to a repulsive force that
has a physical basis that includes the fact that the constituents
of the molecule are themselves fermions.
 
To summarize, a composite object will obey the appropriate spin-statistics
when treated as an object, but will be subject to forces that include the
effects required so that the constituents of the composite object will
also obey *their* spin-statistics as well.
 
Sorry if this is long and wordy, but it is not a simple subject.  One
only encounters it when dealing with microscopic models of forces at
a level deeper than first-year graduate QM.  The usual texts normally
deal with the case where everything is an ideal point particle.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: A Simple Calorimeter
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simple Calorimeter
Date: 6 Jul 1993 18:46:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930706160259_72240.1256_EHK55-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>     Do not let the temperature of the water exceed 45 C (with these electronic
>     thermometers.)
 
Mr. Rothwell seems to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to completely miss
the point.
 
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What's a boson
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 17:53:17 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In <1993Jul3.051946.26428@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) said:
 
> I'm trying to figure out what a boson is.  Of the three physics books in
> my house, only one discusses bosons, and only a short list of bosons is
> given.
>
> From what I understand, there are two types of objects -- bosons and
> fermions.  Fermions include electrons, neutrons, protons.  Bosons
> include photons, deutrons, He4.
>
> Fermions have fractional spin, bosons have zero or integral spin.
>
> Fermions obey the exclusion principle, bosons favor the inclusion principle.
> No two overlapping fermion wavefunctions can occupy the same identical
> state.  Bosons *love* to occupy the same identical state.
 
Yes -- a good summary.
 
> Okay, so what other objects are bosons?  H2 molecules are bosons, right?
> Since their two 1/2 spins add up to either zero or one, bosonic.
 
Pretty much anything that adds up to integral spin is what is called a
"composite" boson.  This includes, for example H, H2, He, and atoms or
ions of various other elements.
 
> But Bernecky claimed that H atoms (with electrons) are bosons.  Is this
> because the spin of the electron is 1/2?
 
Yes, the proton and electron spins add up to either 0 or 1 net spin, so that
the neutral H is a composite boson in either case.
 
> But then wouldn't D with an electron be a fermion (1 or 0 + 1/2 = 1.5 or .5)?
 
Exactly right.  Neutral D is _not_ a boson -- it's a fermion!  But charged D+
(d) _is_ a boson, so boson behavior by at least this D species is conceivable.
 
I'd say there is some evidence of both the charged and uncharged species
existing in Pd, and that neither case can be eliminated outright.  (There
is a list of the possible boson and fermion species towards the end of A
Twist of Ribbon, by the way -- you might want to take a glance at that.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bernecky Wave Objects (BWOs)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky Wave Objects (BWOs)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 18:17:17 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <211uiiINN5rb@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu
(Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | ... Van Hove singularities occur when the wavelength of a particle and
> | a periodic lattice begin to "match up."  It amounts to a compression
> | (often an extreme compression) of the number of states per momentum range
> | (which is called the "density of states")...
>
> Is it still true that this effect (compression of states) still happens
> with bosons, and not fermions?  I thought there are many condensed
> matter effects that depend on specific fermionic statistics.
 
The effects of the periodic lattice on (approximated) individual particle
wavefunctions is independent of whether they are bosons or fermions.  It
is due simply to diffraction effects, and will occur regardless of which
group statistics followed by a set of those particles.  The consequences
of such diffraction effects for a group of particles should differ, however,
depending on whether they follow bose or fermi statistics.
 
I have never seen this issue explicitly addressed, despite having done a
lot of literature research in this general area a couple of years ago.
That is why I find Mr. Bernecky's BWO suggestion so interesting.  His point
is simple and quite well defined, yet does not appear to be well explored.
 
> | What is especially convincing about this is that in a Van Hove singularity,
> | if you switch from fermion (electron) statistics to boson (neutral H or
> | d+) statistics, you are going to have a hard time explaining why the states
> | that have been compressed together _won't_ condense.  The issue is probably
> | more that very few people -- possibly only Mr. Bernecky -- have stopped to
> | consider that point carefully, since folks don't usually go around thinking
> | about bosons being delocalized in metal lattices in the same fashion as
> | Fermi statistics  electrons.
>
> Right.  And why is this so?  I.e. why don't we have a "free nucleon gas"
> like the "free electron gas" for conduction band electrons?
 
Sorry, I didn't qutie follow on that.  You seem to be referring to the idea
of proton banding, which I would say probably _does_ exist, even though the
scales are quite different than for electrons.  Hydrogen in palladium _does_
have some gas-like characteristics -- e.g., it's remarkably free to flow.
If by "free nucleon gas" you mean "free proton gas," I guess my reaction
would be "yes -- but so what?  you still have Columbic repulsion to keep
the nuclei nicely separated."
 
> It would be definitely neat if quantum bosonic effects could result in
> interesting nuclear effects with dissolved nuclei.  But back to C.F.:
> suppose you could get bosonic D nuclei to overlap and fuse...
 
Whoa.  The _only_ aspect of William Bernecky's farfetch that I've addressed
so far is his point about lattice diffraction effects on the _possibility_
of boson condensation.  But as you may recall, I'm also the guy who keeps
saying "boson condensation does NOT mean that there wil be any increase in
fusion probabilties."
 
This is a very _old_ quantum mechanics issue, by the way.  A system of N
particles is actually a wave in a "configuration space" of 6N dimensions, a
model that derives from the Hamiltonian antecedents of quantum theory.  You
have three dimensions of space and three of momentum for each particle in
the Hamiltonian formulation, and this means that 6N dimensions are needed
to describe any possible configuration of N particles in classical physics.
In QM this translates into a _wave_ in the 6N space, since you no longer
have discrete particles.  In its full 6N glory, the wavefunction gives very,
very low probabilities for any configuration that allowas _any two_ of the
wave components to be in the "same place" at the "same time," just as you
would expect from conventional (classical particle) analysis of such systems.
 
The only possible fudge to this that my poor little brain would be willing
to entertain is the odd situations you get into when you start mixing and
matching particle detection with reconfiguration of the 6N wavefunction.
In an earlier posting, Mr. Bernecky came up with some darned interesting
points about how such reconfigurations can get rather perplexing.  But for
the _generic_ 6N wavefunction, the idea of "bosonic overlap" is a no-start
that does not even enter into the full equation.  The apparent overlap is
really nothing more than a projection problem -- that is, you cannot map
6N dimensions into 3-D space without losing a _lot_ of information that
would otherwise let you know that classical particle separations are still
being honored, only in a more complex fashion.
 
> Then how in hell are you going to cover up the [fusion event]?...
 
Well _I'm_ certainly not going to!  I'm a stodgy old conservative.  I don't
believe in high-level cold fusion at all, except perhaps for low-level hot-
in-cold events of an entirely ordinary nuclear nature.  All I've ever come
up with is the possibility of total _annihilation_ of matter subject only
to conservation of mass/energy, spin, and charge.  None of that thar wild
"cold fusion" stuff for me, no sir!
 
> ... You still have MeV's of energy (definitely localized in that single
> nuclei b/c of the short range of strong force) you have to deal with, and
> you still have to conserve momentum and energy and obey relativity (no
> instantaneous energy propagation).
 
This is precisely why I insist that IF chemically induced nuclear reactions
of any sort are real, you MUST entertain a truly major violation of quantum
mechanics -- one that has a "trigger" so specific that it has no effect on
99.999999...% or more of all interactions that take place in the universe.
Only such a violation has any hope of giving heat without allowing you to
go back and shoot your own grandmother.  [You know, I never have figured
out _why_ one would want to implement that particular cliche, have you?
Most people, me included, happen to _like_ our grandmothers...  :)  ]
 
Such a fine trigger is a tall order, and my own bet remains that if such
things are real then the trigger is a class of special class of disjoint
wavefunctions -- and that the resulting violation of QM will be, er, a real
_humdinger_.
 
This is neither a pro not a con as to the existence of chemically induced
nuclear changes.  I'm just pointing out that you cannot easily duck the need
for something really, _really_ weird if any such effects truly do exist.
 
> It's the same old problem, once you have a miracle to get the fusion, how do
> you get a NEW miracle to hide it?
 
Quite why I like to package them together.  Once "fragmented" in a specific
way, the single presumption is that a new interpretation of the wavefunction
takes over.  It's a _totally_ assinine assumption, of course, but then there
have been results reported that are quite equally assinine when compared with
the expectations of standard physical theory.
 
One must keep one's assininities well balanced, you know.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / J Lewis /  Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nukes ARE the Answer!
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 19:24:49 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <C9r6rn.21M@news.ucs.mun.ca> I write
...
>revelation - a power source could be quite and clean ...
>
I meant, "a power source could be QUIET and clean ..."
 
Sorry for wasted bandwidth.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Safety Advisory
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Safety Advisory
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 20:16:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Just because it survived 5000 psi does not mean that it will not later
>decide to come apart at 3000 psi.  So be careful.
 
Quite right.  My actual device is quite worrisome, since the H2 and O2 are
just sitting there mixed together.  I don't really have a safe way to
vent the pressure and that is why I was hoping it would leak out.  But
it is still hovering around 3700 PSI.
 
Consider that I think it is possible to approach 27,000 PSI of H2 and O2
gas with such a device.  What happens if the H2 and O2 mix and ignite!!!!
Until it cools the internal pressure would drastically exceed the
27,000 PSI mark.  Very scary.  (Hey, maybe a way to induce CNF assisting
shockwaves into the Pd core. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 / Jed Rothwell /  A Zen Comment
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Zen Comment
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993 23:32:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Schultz made a truly Zen Bhuddist comment. I said:
 
     "Do not let the temperature of the water exceed 45 C (with these
     electronic [Radio Shack] thermometers."
 
And he responded:
 
     "Mr. Rothwell seems to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to completely
     miss the point."
 
 
Uh, Richard... to quote Mike McKubre: "the thermal capacity of water can be
taken as 4.188 +- 0.004 J g^-1 K^-1 in the interval 30 <= T <= 40 deg C." Got
that? It is about 4.2 down there at 30 C, and it is the same old 4.2 up at 30.
The calibration curve is *straight*. Got that? Not "S" shaped, not curved, not
terribly bowed, it is *straight* within a reasonable range of temperatures. It
gets a bit hairy above that, and calorimeters sure are a pain in the butt
below that. So that's why anyone with an ounce of sense designs the
experiments to keep the temperature in a reasonable narrow range as much as
possible, except P&F and who have to deal with a fantastic range of output
power from 0.01 up to 200 watts. That is a special case that calls for super
special calorimetery beyond normal. Okay?
 
There is, in short, no reason for any ordinary experimentor to let a
calorimeter go above 40 C. No reason at all. If it does, you designed the
experiment wrong. You should be using more electrolyte or a faster flow of
cooling water. Unless maybe you got a CF reaction about 100 times bigger than
you expected, which happened to Larry Forsley. Hey, if that happens: Mazeltov!
But normally we design these things to prevent extreme electrolyte or cooling
water temperature excursions. A range of 30 to 40 is a sensible, normal,
S.O.P. Do you understand? Probably not. Based on your whacko comment, I
suspect you don't have the foggiest idea what I am talking about, or what a
calorimeter looks like, or how one works.
 
Another thing: it is going to cost you another 18 bucks at Radio Shack every
time you let the temperature go over 50 and stay that way for an hour. It cost
Larry a heck of a lot more than that when his Pd went bonkers into high heat
mode unexpectedly and ate his calorimeter. He didn't mind.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Miles & Mitchell:  compelling X-ray data?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles & Mitchell:  compelling X-ray data?
Date: 6 Jul 93 13:05:44 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

6 July 1993
Dear Colleagues,
 
I have just returned from an extended vacation with my family in the mountains.
I find I owe responses to Mitchell Swartz and Mel Miles.  Here I will begin
with some thoughts about the search for compelling evidence which has occupied
my thinking for some time, in my own research on possible low-level neutron
emissions from deuterided solids.  (I will take up Miles' further allegations
point-by-point in a later posting.)  The question is:
 
What tools and procedures
are required to obtain compelling evidence for a novel phenomenon, to convince
oneself and others that the effect is real (or not),
and to ascertain its nature?
 
Now, Swartz and Miles both argue in favor of *dental X-ray film* as a tool
to provide compelling evidence, while I have repeatedly urged the use of
X-ray spectrometers.  Swartz claimed in his 29 June 1993 posting:  "you [Jones]
have kept on with "brick-toss tactics" without responding, to this or any of
the other comemnts regarding your demeaning of x-ray imaging techniques."
In an earlier posting (circa 12 May), Swartz posits:  "With adequate controls
and with full accounting of the physics (not always done),
X-ray film is a goodmethod of documenting active electrodes."
 
In truth, I have explained in past postings why I favor x-ray spectrometers
(which we use)
over dental x-ray films (as used by Miles et al.).  Let me reiterate briefly:
 
1-  Spectrometers provide rather precise information regarding the
X-ray *energies* -- a clear advantage over dental film.  For example, *if*
nuclear reactions are indeed occuring in deuterium-charged palladium as some
claim, at a rate sufficient to produce measurable heat, than abundant secondary
x-rays characteristic of palladium ought to be present.  This follows since
nuclear reactions are of MeV-scale while excitations needed to produce X-rays
are of tens of keV-scale.  Indeed, the production of X-rays by the slowing
of debris from nuclear reactions is a thoroughly-studied phenomenon.  In
particular, the presence or absence of the
21 keV k-alpha line characteristic of palladium excitation
provides a crucial test for the presence or absence of nuclear reactions in
these experiments in which nuclear reactions are said to be occuring under
unusual conditions in palladium.  (Note that reactions on the Pd surface will
also generate characteristic x-rays, though fewer than for reactions inside
the Pd bulk.)      (When nickel cathodes are used, one would look especially
for the Ni k-alpha X-ray, etc.  If certain isotopes are being produced via
nuclear transmutation, as some claim, then these isotopes must certainly
produce X-rays on formation  -- abundant if the processes are accompanied by
excess heat.)  Why not look with an energy-sensitive detector?
 
2.  The x-ray spectrometer also provides direct quantitative information
regarding the *intensities* of various energy-peaks which may be present.  This
feature would allow quantitative comparison with heat yields which would be
extremely helpful in disentangling what (if any) nuclear reactions are taking
place in the metal.
 
3.  At the very least, X-ray spectrometers are subject to different systematic
errors than dental  x-ray films, and thus would provide independent
verification of the x-ray emissions claimed by Miles using dental films.
 
Why do Swartz and Miles resist such a test???  I have offered along with my
critique of the use of relatively crude techniques such as dental films and
Geiger counters and a "neutron survey meter"(all used by Miles) to allow Miles
(and others) to use the portable X-ray spectrometer developed at BYU in their
experiments.  I thought this a generous offer, one which would
provide for a crucial test.  Frankly, I am surprised by the bitterness of
Miles' response in view of a clear desire on my part to cooperate in a
scientific verification of his claims.  I posted (11 May 1993):
 
"I will even offer to Dr. Miles to let him use our portable, small X-ray
spectrometer, described previously on this net, with or without a BYU operator
attached.  Actually, the spectrometer is probably easier to use and certainly
easier to unambiguously interpret than dental X-ray films.
This is a serious challenge.  I have made it openly to all who, like Miles,
claim on sparse evidence that the xs heat they report is nuclear in origin.
To date, no one has published an X-ray spectrum correlated with xs heat claims.
Where are the X-rays, gentlemen?"
 
And again, in my 19 May 1993 posting to Dr. Miles:
"By way of scientific courtesy, now let me offer again one means for my
colleagues to check their results:  use our portable X-ray spectrometer.
You have alread claimed X-ray production, using dental X-ray films.  It is
important to check this with a sensitive spectrometer, which will also provide
energy and line-intensity information."
 
Mitchell note:  here I did provide "fact or logic" to support my insistence
on the use of a sensitive spectrometer, despite your remark on 19 June to me:
"Is not repeated destructive criticism by the skeptics just too easy when it
need not be backed up by fact or logic?  It is hoped that a substantial
response might be available."  See above, my friend.  And please,
an offer to use the BYU spectrometer is not "destructive criticism".  Why do
you both respond to such an offer with such vituperative remarks as you have
posted here?
 
X-ray film simply cannot tell us whether *Pd* (or Ni, etc.)
excitations are occuring.   Please, accept my advice to use a spectrometer.
 
Let me agree with Swartz that x-ray film does provide spatial imaging as was
evidently done by Kucherov et al.  Of course, mechanical pressure and chemical
effects can also produce fogging or localized spots on x-ray films.  Indeed,
Miles et al. point out some problems in their published photos:
"Clear regions are due to a peeling away of the emulsion rather than non-
exposure."  (Miles et al., Como conf. proceedings, 1991).
Is this not a clear problem in the use of dental X-ray films in the China Lake
experiments?   (I am *not* saying that Mitchell Swartz would have such
problems in his radiological work in which he is no doubt expert.)
 
More later on seeking compelling evidence.
 
Respectfully,
Steven Jones
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  In search of compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In search of compelling evidence
Date: 6 Jul 93 15:21:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
In my comments on the China Lake claims of xs heat, helium-4 production, and
X-ray film darkening,
I quoted from a posting on the net regarding "shifting the window" or
"fudging".  I soon followed this with "We must all be careful to avoid such
traps."  I did not and do not claim that Dr. Miles lied.  Rather,
my comments are in pursuit of
scientific facts through dialogue and the scientific method.  I believe I am
just as pointed in scrutinizing my own work as I was in considering his.*see
below*
 
To disagree or question is not to personally attack.
 
Immediately following the quotation which obviously offended Dr. Miles so much
(see his letter posted 15 June by Jed Rothwell) I posted:
 
"In this regard, I ask again for the *first twelve days* of data from the cell
which on Oct. 21, 1990 produced the maximum xs heat (27%) claimed by Miles et
al. in their open calorimetric system.  [ref. 1]"  (my 19 May 1993 posting)
 
So far, Dr. Miles has not responded to this request.  Nor has he addressed my
concern (posted 18 June 1993):
"Now there are *ten* runs reported in Table 1 of this 1993 paper [Miles et al.
J. Electroanal. Chem. 346:99], but only *nine* are discussed in the
conclusions above.  Run 12/17/90 show more heat than three of the runs used in
the argument, but *no* helium-4.  Hence, these data may alter and should be
included in the conclusions.  ...the uncertainty associated with these data
must be included in the calculation of the statistical significance of the
alleged one-to-one correspondance between heat and helium-4 production.  This
was not done.  It is not enough to simply report all the data, one must include
*all* the data in statistical arguments and conclusions."
 
Hopefully, Dr. Miles will address these points, just as I will address his
points which I read here this morning following my return from a family
vacation.  (My detailed response will follow.)  Isn't this how this forum
is supposed to work?  With comments from others following the dialogue, as we
have heard from Dick Blue, Mitchell Swartz and others?  I find this useful as
we try to sort out what is going on in these "cold fusion" experiments.  Yes,
I make mistakes, as did (I posit) Dr. Miles when he stated this conclusion:
"The major gaseous fusion product in D2O + LiOD is 4He rather than 3He. ...
In summary, nuclear events with 4He as a major product occur during the
electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOd system."  (Miles et al., J. Electroanal.
Chem. 346 (1993): 99.)
Let's continue to try to sort this out together.
 
However, since Dr. Miles also stated in his letter posted here by Jed Rothwell:
"I hereby challenge Professor Jones to take his allegations regarding my work
to a refereed scientific journal"  -- I accept this challenge.
 
 
* In trying to determine what we at BYU needed to do in order to produce
compelling evidence for the new effect which we claimed (Nature, April 1989),
I sought the opinions of tough-minded physicists such as Charles Barnes, Steve
Koonin, and Al Mann.  And they responded; we needed to:
 
1.  Take data underground, and with cosmic-ray veto detectors, in order to
avoid confusion from cosmic-ray events; de-humidify the experimental hut in
order to avoid problems from undrground humidity;
 
2.  Use fast-waveform digitizers in order to "capture" signals for later
analysis, for noise-rejection, for fast-timing, etc.
 
3.  Routinely check backgrounds, perform calibrations, check the electronics;
 
4.  Use multiple, diverse, highly-sensitive detectors in order to scrutinize
possible effects;
 
5.  Focus on a few means of triggering neutron emissions, rather than using a
"shot-gun" approach;
 
6.  Do not give up.
 
I have tried to follow the advice, although it has taken a great deal of time
and concerted effort.  We have three detectors including a neutron-energy
spectrometer in place in our underground tunnel in the Wasatch mountains near
BYU.  All signals are being digitized, and we routinely and carefully check
backgrounds as well as perform calibrations.  I expected that these
physicists, for whom I have great respect, would advise me to stop this line of
research (low-level neutron emissions from deuterided solids, possibly also
inside the earth) -- but after reviewing my research and that of Kevin Wolf,
Ed Cecil and Howard Menlove in this
area, they instead advised patient further work.
 
We are now focussing in this work on possible neutron emissions from palladium
loaded with deuterium gas, during the expulsion of the deuterium from the
metal, as I have previously posted.  We are also looking at possible
neutron emission during ultrasound-induced cavitations in D2O environments.
(Acknowledgments to Terry Bollinger on this.)  I think I will refrain from
discussion now about our results.
 
The point:  I appreciated the tough criticisms of these physicists.  From them
(and others), I learned what needs to be done to establish the low-level effect
we claimed in 1989.  I do not look upon these people as enemies but rather
as wise if critical advisors.  And that applies to Douglas Morrison, Dick Blue,
Frank Close, John Huizenga, John Schiffer, Robert Schrieffer, David Lindley,
Kelvin Lynn and many others.  This is tough business.  We may not be correct in
our 1989 paper.  Certainly, we had not then found a "trigger" for producing
neutrons emissions on demand as I erroneously thought.
 
Guess what -- I think we're getting there finally.  But, I'm not sure until we
do more.  I will say that the evidence for small neutron bursts as found at
Los Alamos and, yes, also at Kamiokande continues to accumulate.
 
Now, I wonder whether Dr. Mel Miles can look at my criticisms and my offer for
him to use the BYU x-ray spectrometer (I also offered use of one our neutron
detectors, privately) in this same light.  Mel, your claims of heat production
correlated with commensurate helium-4 production [J. Electrolanal. Chem.
346:99] are just *not compelling*.  Do you think many will be persuaded when you
use *open* electrochemical cells?  (We have learned much about recombination
and other sources of systematic error in open cells.)  Do you think we accept
your energetic nuclear debris claims when you use Geiger counters, and neutron
survey meters?  (Much better detectors here:  accept my offer.)  Or do you
think many accept your assertion of helium-4 production (rather than helium-3
or tritium) from d-d fusion when you continue to carry your gasses in glass
vessels and report results close to the ambient 4He concentrations in air?
Finally, why not accept my challenge to use X-ray spectrometry rather than just
dental X-ray film to check your claims of X-ray production?
 
I don't understand it, Mel -- here is an opportunity to verify your results
and greatly improve your methods, but instead of accepting you turn this around
and accuse me of "outright lies" and threaten me with "further actions"
if I do not "retract."  (Letter to BYU President R. Lee dated 8 June 1993.)
 
Frankly, I don't care so much about your papers based on 1990 and earlier
xs heat and helium claims.  I am willing to help you pin this down with much
better detectors and calorimeters.  I offer this help largely because of our
mutual friend, BYU Prof. Douglas Bennion (now deceased).  Can't you see this?
 
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Bill Page /  Evidence for BWOs
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evidence for BWOs
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 12:43:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So far, the evidence presented for the existence of the Bosonic Wave
Objects hypothesised by William Bernecky in FD 1118 has been the possible
temperature dependence of CF excess heat effects.  In order to lend greater
credibility to their existence, it is desirable to find other corroborating
phenomena.  I may be able to contribute one such observation.
 
For the last few months I have been carrying out CF experiments with
simultaneous data collection on excess heat generation and ionizing
radiation.  I use differential calorimetry in a small circulated air cooler
and a sensitive G-M tube.  An identical reference cell with resitive
heating by zener diode is run in series with the test cell.  Input voltage
is regulated so that the power input to both cells is identical.  The cell
voltages, calorimeter thermisters and the G-M tube are all interfaced to a
PC for data collection.  The cathode material is Aluminum and the
electrolyte is dilute HCl in H2O.  [Ref: Electrochemical Method of Reducing
Aluminum Oxide and Producing Additional Energy, Arthur Wasserman, Fusion
Technology Vol 21 March 1992.]  Excess heat (power gain of approximately 2
over E*I) has been observed in several experiments, although the chemical
activity (corrosion) of Aluminum complicates the interpretation of these
results and deterioration of the anode (carbon) limits the duration of
operation.
 
Aluminum has several interesting properties with respect to possible CF
effects.  Although Aluminum apparently does not absorb as large a quantity
of hydrogen/deuterium as palladium, hydrogen occupies tetrahedral cites in
the lattice (except possibly at temperatures near 0 K.)  [Ref: Deuterium
location and migration in metals: Comparison of implantation and solid
solution. E. Ligeon, R. Eymery; J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 59, p.108, January
1986) Hydrogen occupies tetrahedral cites in Palladium only at high
loadings.  The electronegativity of Al contributes to very high levels of
proton charge screening. Because of a rather low migration energy, hydrogen
diffuses rapidly through the lattice.  There is also evidence that the
migration energy decreases sharply at about 300 K. (27 deg. C). [Ref: The
energetics of hydrogen in Aluminum calculated from first principles. A De
Vita, M J Gillan; J. Phys. Condensed Matter, vol 4. p 599, 1992].
 
The temperature range of the electrolysis cell in my experiments (25 to 35
deg. C) is consistent with the critical temperature predicted for BWOs
because of the interatomic spacing of the Al lattice.  My main interest in
Mr. Bernecky's theory, however is due to what I consider to be anomolous
effects in the observed ionizing radiation.
 
The mica window of the G-M tube (with wire mesh protective covering
removed) is placed immediately below the 60 ml polyethylene plastic
container of the electrolysis cell.  A very slight increase from background
(+10% at approximately 10 micro Rad/hour) may be observed during operation
of the cell rising slowly during apparent excess heat production.  More
significantly, however, during the experiment a drop in the measured
radiation (background -20%) is correlated with the start of electrolysis
and at deliberate changes in the cell current.
 
I do not know of any nuclear effects which would account for this observed
"shielding" and its correlation with cell current.  One possible
explanation might be the interaction of BWO with cosmic background gamma
photons and/or muons.  Normally these energetic particles interact very
weakly with materials of low atomic number.  Bernecky calculates that
energy is distributed easily throughout a BWO because of its very fast
characteristic time and speculates that this effect could hide the results
of fusion reactions.  This same effect would hide interactions with high
energy cosmic rays.
 
My opinion is that Mr. Bernecky's theory (far fetched though it may be) is
one of the best candidates to explain CF effects that has been constructed
to date.  The lack of any credible theoretical basis for CF has been very
deterimental to progress in this area.  I hope that other CF researchers
will follow the example of Tom Droege and design experiments which might
detect and/or utilize the predictions of BWO properties and that
theoreticians will take up the challenge to derive more of these properties
from first principles.
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Charged electric fields for Mills
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charged electric fields for Mills
Date: 7 Jul 93 05:46:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Jun28.113611.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>In article <20lvkc$1k4@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, redingtn@athena.mit.edu
>(Norman H Redington) replied to questions raised by Gary Collins about
>hydrino wavefunctions.
>
>> Well, that's what I could glean from the Aug. '91
>> Fusion Technology. I don't have the $60 + motivation
>> needed to buy their book.
 
>Me neither.
 
But this is one of the most valuable publications for the future of
fusion energy technology and engineering physics.  There aren't very
many of us left and the way things are going with the government sector
there well could be significantly fewer.  Fusion Technology needs every
bit of support it we can give it, and it is tax deductable.  Afterall
fusion power will be our key to open the solar system.
 
Let's bite the bullet fusioneers.
>--
>Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
Date: 7 Jul 93 05:51:19 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <C9I3p2.36K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <20893@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>>   .   . . . . ....   damn it, I just feel there is something out there
>>that will solve our power needs without killing us too.
 
>      Yes, it's called 'nuclear power'.  Most of my electricity comes
>      from the Lake Anna (35 miles away) and Surry nuclear plants and
>      I don't even feel the slightest bit sickly.
 
Your still but a lad.  Give some time.
 
>      I've even offered the land 15,000 feet beneath my house as a waste
>      dump.  Go figure.
 
>                              dale bass
 
You must have a hell of a spread.  And what did the geologist and
environmentalist say to that grand offer?
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Long arc discharges in air
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Long arc discharges in air
Date: 7 Jul 93 06:04:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <leyhC9JEzH.DFM@netcom.com> leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh) writes:
>  I am trying to calculate the impedance of a 35 foot arc discharge produced
>by a Tesla Coil. I believe it to be an arc type discharge rather than a long
>streamer since it is possible to quickly discharge a high energy capacitor
>through the arc, and coil, to ground. Measurements of the capacitor discharge
>current amplitude and duration would suggest a discharge path resistance of
>about 9 Ohms.  Does this value seem reasonable?
 
It depends on the energy and the pulse length.  Anything in the fraction
of a microsecond will have hot electrons 1.2ev and cold ions.  As the
ions thermalize, the electrons cool (by higher collision cross-section
and radiation) and the conductivity goes up.  If the discharge is driven
longer than a microsecond the impedence again starts to rise by virtue
of the increasing temperature of the ions.  Their temperature
(conductivity) goes roughly with the current to 3/2 power.
 
Tesla coil discharges are tricky because they fire numerous times and
each discharge will tend to follow the heated (and partially ionized)
path of the previous discharge.  Furthermore, each current spike, although
not totally "fresh" probably has characteristics or phases of both glow
and weakly ionized arc discharge.
 
This is not from a definitive study on the matter.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Li in electrodes?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Li in electrodes?
Date: 7 Jul 93 06:07:56 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <01H03ZBXNTAA0014L8@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>I am back in town for one day.  Will read my email when I get back on
>Tuesday.  However, I would like to know if anyone remembers an analysis by
>P&F(?) showing Li in the Pd electrodes.  I think it was reported on this FD
>net.  If you have a reference or remember any of the details please
>write--J_FARRELL@FANDM.EDU.  Thanks.
 
>John Farrell
 
Of more importance (to me) is the isotopic ratio of Li6/Li7.
Highest ratios are most interesting for me.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Safety Advisory
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Safety Advisory
Date: 7 Jul 93 06:14:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Jul6.201642.28710@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>Just because it survived 5000 psi does not mean that it will not later
>>decide to come apart at 3000 psi.  So be careful.
 
>Consider that I think it is possible to approach 27,000 PSI of H2 and O2
>gas with such a device.  What happens if the H2 and O2 mix and ignite!!!!
>Until it cools the internal pressure would drastically exceed the
>27,000 PSI mark.  Very scary.  (Hey, maybe a way to induce CNF assisting
>shockwaves into the Pd core. :-)
 
Well if it would ignite --  for sure we could do some real damage
driving a PLASMAK(tm) fueled with d-He(3) to ignition.    Drastically
Beautiful and with the proper mass to shape the pulse  . .. .   I didn't
know you chaps were that gutsy.
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 /  blue@dancer.ns /  The calorimetry lesson
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The calorimetry lesson
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 14:39:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell gives a good description of a "simple calorimeter" with
very complete advice concerning precautions needed to make such a
device "work".  Not only does Jed flatter me by including my name amoung
the heros of CF calorimetry, he unwittingly lends support to my
contention that simple calorimetry cannot be totally definitive in
resolving the issue of CF reality.
 
Let us examine some of the key points raised in Jed's lesson.  He
asserts that 5 days of testing demonstrates a precision for measuring
heat to 0.1 watt.  He quotes me as having said that heat of the order
of watts could be measured to 1%.  It looks like my off the cuff estimate
is well confirmed.  Thanks, Jed!
 
Some of the problem area that Jed notes are: (1) limited dynamic range,
(2) the air-water interface nuisance, (3) 60-90 min to stabilize,
(4) changes in ambient air temperature or humidy effect results, (5)
the support brick acts as a heat sink, (6)temperature probe drift,
(7)water level must be maintained, (8)thermal gradient problems,
(9)frequent recalibrations required, etc.
 
It is an impressive list of details that must be considered in order
to maintain the rather modest accuracy that Jed is claiming.  Where Jed
and I come into disagreement is when there is a claim for higher
accuracy without the practice of nearly as much care as Jed recommends.
I think that the recently published work by Pons and Fleischmann does
not stand very well in light of the precautions Jed sees as essential.
Pons and Fleischmann certainly have push the dynamic range and not
concerned themselves with changes in water level to say the least.
 
Another subtle point which Jed glosses over is the consideration of
the time constants of the device and the characteristics of the heat
source.  Fluctuations or "noise" are universal seen as characteristic
of the CF phenomena, yet Jed tests his methods in essentially a DC
manner where long periods for the calorimeter to reach stability can
be tolerated.  Jed emphasizes the averaging of at least 5 readings.
I think that practice gives him a false sense of the quality of his
data.  It just hides what is actually going on, and it certainly
can't be used to justify added a second decimal place to the quoted
data.
 
As for the input power measurements, the selected power source is
clearly much too crude for even Jed's level of accuracy.  What kind
of line and load regulation specs does Radio Shake give?  Again Jed
makes voltage and current measurements to 2 significant figures and
calculates power to 4 figures.  It does not work that way, Jed!
I haven't checked on the particular meter Jed uses, but I think we
are talking about a 2% accuracy.  Two measurements multiplied together
are then only 4% accurate so I don't think we have a 1% experiment
from that aspect.  Oh, I forgot the calibration resistance.  What is
that Jed, a 5% resistor when its dry?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Jed Rothwell /  Why P&F let it boil
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why P&F let it boil
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 15:33:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Schultz explained to me what he meant by his comment about letting the
water get over 50 C. I am not going to quote his short message (because some
people object to quoting private messages), but the gist of it is he did not
read my report or my follow-up message carefully, and he is *still not
thinking*. His question is: if -- as McKubre says, and I say -- a calorimeter
should generally be kept in the range of 30 to 40 C, then why do P&F let
their's go up over boiling? Isn't that beyond the range of reasonable accuracy
and precision?
 
This is a very important question. It has a very obvious, important, crystal
clear answer. You have to understand this issue if you are going to make head
or tail of this field, so let me go over it one more time, in detail:
 
Suppose you are given an assignment to design a conventional, water based
calorimeter that can measure any amount of heat from 0.01 watts right up to
200 watts. That means you need roughly 0.001 watt precision. How would you do
it? It is *not* easy. It is a heck of a lot more difficult than you might
think at first glance. Take an ordinary calorimeter (not P&F's). Take mine! It
works from, say, 0 to 10 watts to the nearest 0.1 watt, or 0 to 100 watts to
the nearest 1 watt (with a bigger box). In other words, you get roughly 1%
accuracy, and you can make that 1% of 10, or 1% of 100, but you cannot have it
both ways. It is a trade off: you can have a large scale, or you can have very
fine precision, but you cannot have both with ordinary equipment.
 
If P&F used a lot more electrolyte, in a much bigger Dewar, the calibration
constant would be different, and the temperature of the electrolyte would not
go up so far. They could arrange things so that when the cathode output is 180
watts, the water temperature stayed down below 50. However -- this is the key
point -- that would sacrifice precision at the low end. They would not be able
to measure the precursor effects, down there at 0.01 watts, with sufficient
precision to learn what they want to know. They are trying to sort out the
exact nature of the "precursor" or "start up" of the high heat CF reaction.
They want to know how to trigger the reaction. They want to understand the
events leading up to the high heat event, which means they need 0.001 watt
precision.
 
Now, ask yourself: what would happen if you put a 150 watt cathode in a closed
flow calorimeter? "Closed" means a cell with a recombiner -- the configuration
recommended by Huizenga recently. In order to study the low level precursor
reaction, you would have to pick a slow flow rate like McKubre's, which is 60
ml per minute. And what would happen if the cathode suddenly started
generating 150 watts excess? The cooling water and the inside of the cell
would get hotter and hotter. We know that the CF reaction increases
tremendously in intensity at high temperatures. I have little doubt that after
a short time the cell would blow up violently. A small, closed, static
calorimeter would also blow up. As I mentioned, Larry Forsley's static
calorimeter self-destructed when it got an unexpected high heat burst. The
*only* safe, reasonable, practical way to handle this is to use an open,
static calorimeter which is designed to get the heat out safely as vapor.
 
Wait! Hold it! I know that you could engineer a flow calorimeter that
automatically increases the flow by a factor of 10 if a heat event occurs.
This would cut precision by a factor of 10 during the heat event. Then if the
event stopped, it would drop back down again. However, this variable flow
gadget would be a Rube Goldberg machine, subject to all kinds of whacko
calibration problems. I expect that when the moment of truth came, something
would go wrong, it would not go into fast flow mode on time, and POW! I have
spent a lifetime fighting with overdesigned, overcomplicated, unreliable
machines. I would never trust a custom designed gadget like that. If there was
a market for these gadgets, and HP made 20,000 of them, then I might trust it.
 
This engineering problem is a heck of a lot more difficult than it appears at
first glance. P&F solved it very elegantly. They get superb precision at the
low end, and reasonable, workable precision at the extreme high end. They do
not get flying glass shards or a Rube Goldberg nightmare that cannot be
calibrated or trusted. Of course, anyone can see they don't get 0.001 watt
precision at the high end. They are counting the minutes and seconds it takes
to vaporize water. That is nowhere near as good as measuring tiny Delta T
temperature changes in a stable environment from 30 C to 40 C. That's why they
use all those squiggly "approximate" signs in the high-end computations in the
paper. However, the focus of the experiment is to explore the low end
reactions in detail. Since you cannot have it both ways, they choose a design
that offers less precision at the high end. This is a key point! The high end
is REASONABLY accurate and REASONABLY precise. All of the potential errors in
the universe do not add up to more than a few percent, or a couple of watts,
and they are getting 145 watts excess. There is absolutely, positively, no way
they are actually getting 45 watts and its all a mistake. There have been
dozens of wacky "reasons" offered here to explain away the boiling
calorimetry. I am not going to perform a boiling experiment (my toothbrush
holder calorimeter would melt), but I know other people who have. I assure you
-- Gentle Readers -- the heat of vaporization of water is still 2268
Joules/gram, just as it always has been, and you can measure it with great
confidence and precision merely by boiling water in a test tube. If you don't
believe me, try it. Just use a little common sense, and select the right test
tube for the job.
 
Measuring the time it takes to boil away water is not the ideal way to measure
145 watts (if that is all you want to do), but it is good enough to get within
a couple of watts. It *is* the ideal way to measure 145 watts if the design
goal of your machine was to measure a much smaller reaction with 0.001 watt
precision up the very minute the 145 watt burst starts. There is not a single
person reading this Digest who can come up with a better, more precise, or a
more elegant way to solve this problem.
 
A great deal of unthinking criticism has been tossed at P&F by people who do
not understand what it is like doing these experiments, and who do not
understand the purpose and design goals of the work. If P&F followed the
hairbrained suggestions of critics like Huizenga -- who has never done a
single experiment in this field -- they would blow themselves up! No kidding,
that is exactly what would happen. That fact is perfectly obvious to me.
Huizenga couldn't have thought about the problem for even two minutes before
coming up with that crazy suggestion.
 
The rest of you "skeptics" should also pipe down, put on your thinking caps,
and *think about* what they are doing, and why they choose to do it the way
they did. These people are about 5 orders of magnitude smarter than you think
they are, and about 3 orders of magnitude smarter than *you*.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 /  hemis@LINK.Phy /  Cold/Hot ?
     
Originally-From: hemis@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold/Hot ?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 13:45:41 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Just a short question from an interested Chemical Engineer,
 
I am not so familiar with the conceptual principle of cold fusion but
would be rather pleased if someone might be able to explain it for me
briefly
 
Also- how about using electrostatically (or otherwise) accellerated
deuterium ions to bombard a metal surface with adsorbed deuterium atoms ?
 
wouldn't this be, in principle, the same as using an electrolytic cell
for this purpose?
 
 
Many Thanks
 
 
James Crawford
 
( P.S. - no, I don't play basketball for the Perth Wildcats)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenhemis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Barry Wise /  Re: Evidence for BWOs
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evidence for BWOs
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 17:42:31 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

 
In article <930706134941_70047.3047_EHB31-1@CompuServe.COM>
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> The mica window of the G-M tube (with wire mesh protective covering
> removed) is placed immediately below the 60 ml polyethylene plastic
> container of the electrolysis cell.  A very slight increase from
background
> (+10% at approximately 10 micro Rad/hour) may be observed during
operation
> of the cell rising slowly during apparent excess heat production.  More
> significantly, however, during the experiment a drop in the measured
> radiation (background -20%) is correlated with the start of electrolysis
> and at deliberate changes in the cell current.
 
There were reports some time ago of using a radioactive source to trigger
the cell (Ying 1992).  Tom D. tried to replicate the effect using a gamma
source with no luck.  Maybe the next step is to use a small radioactive
source placed with the cell between it and the detector to see if less
energetic particles are blocked.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What's a boson
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 15:05:10 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <C9r7zr.F1p@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu
(Jim Carr) writes:
 
> ... the exclusion principle for fermions can appear in funny ways for
> composite particles.  At "large" distances you can treat a proton or
> neutron as a single particle that acts like a fermion.  However, you will
> also notice a force -- in addition to any effects from the exclusion
> principle, which would allow a proton and neutron with opposite spin to be
> in the same place -- that is repulsive at short distances (inside about
> 0.3 fm).  This is because, at short distances, the internal structure (the
> fact that they > are made up of quarks) comes into play...
>
> One sees similar things at the atomic level.  A molecule may obey Bose
> statistics but they might not be able to physically overlap because the
> internal structure leads to a repulsive force that has a physical basis
> that includes the fact that the constituents of the molecule are themselves
> fermions...
 
A nicely visible example of all of this is the fact that superfluid helium
occupies the same physical volume as ordinary liquid helium.
 
Superfluid helium does not collapse because its full wavefunction (in 6N
configuration space) obeys the same atomic exclusion principles as ordinary
liquid helium -- that is, no two atoms are permitted in the same place at
the same time.
 
Ditto for condensates of other atoms.  The same rules that prevent close
approach of atoms in classical fluids are simply translated into their
wavefunction equivalents when and if a boson condensate forms.  Such a
translation does not change how those exclusion rules work, nor does it
appreciably alter their magnitude.  Otherwise there would be a noticeable
contraction whenever ordinary liquid helium transforms into a superfluid.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / daniel herrick /  Re: A Simple Calorimeter
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Simple Calorimeter
Date: 7 Jul 93 12:05:20 EST

In article <21cham$mmq@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
> In article <930706160259_72240.1256_EHK55-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>>     Do not let the temperature of the water exceed 45 C (with these electronic
>>     thermometers.)
>
> Mr. Rothwell seems to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to completely miss
> the point.
 
On the other hand, Mr. Rothwell's paper is everything that the critics
who have read the P&F paper in the "Letters" journal say the P&F paper is not.
 
He describes his apparatus so we could duplicate it, he describes his
procedure so we could duplicate it, he tells us how to connect his
numbers with the data collection process, he keeps his experiment
confined to conditions in which the behaviour of the physical system
is stable and understandable.
 
All in all, his paper looks like exactly the thing critics here have
been saying they would like to have from P&F.  Now that Mr. Rothwell
has demonstrated how easy it is, I wonder if P&F can do it.
 
dan
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CBC news looks at cold fusion
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 20:14:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C9s5Ln.4sK@prometheus.uucp> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>In article <C9I3p2.36K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <20893@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>>>   .   . . . . ....   damn it, I just feel there is something out there
>>>that will solve our power needs without killing us too.
>
>>      Yes, it's called 'nuclear power'.  Most of my electricity comes
>>      from the Lake Anna (35 miles away) and Surry nuclear plants and
>>      I don't even feel the slightest bit sickly.
>
>Your still but a lad.  Give some time.
 
     I doubt they're going to get me before the emphysema induced by
     the coal-fired plants in the Ohio Valley.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Li in electrodes?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Li in electrodes?
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 20:18:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C9s6DB.5ED@prometheus.uucp> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <01H03ZBXNTAA0014L8@ACAD.FANDM.EDU> J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu writes:
>>I am back in town for one day.  Will read my email when I get back on
>>Tuesday.  However, I would like to know if anyone remembers an analysis by
>>P&F(?) showing Li in the Pd electrodes.  I think it was reported on this FD
>>net.  If you have a reference or remember any of the details please
>>write--J_FARRELL@FANDM.EDU.  Thanks.
>
>>John Farrell
>
>Of more importance (to me) is the isotopic ratio of Li6/Li7.
>Highest ratios are most interesting for me.
 
     I believe a local experiment was done with an infinite ratio
     (i.e. all Li6).
 
     Result: no excess heat.
 
     It's funny; In this business, the experimental conditions don't
     seem to matter much, the experimenter seems to matter a great deal.
 
     To say the least, that's not a positive sign.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Safety Advisory
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Safety Advisory
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 20:20:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C9s6oJ.5qx@prometheus.uucp> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <1993Jul6.201642.28710@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>>Just because it survived 5000 psi does not mean that it will not later
>>>decide to come apart at 3000 psi.  So be careful.
>
>>Consider that I think it is possible to approach 27,000 PSI of H2 and O2
>>gas with such a device.  What happens if the H2 and O2 mix and ignite!!!!
>>Until it cools the internal pressure would drastically exceed the
>>27,000 PSI mark.  Very scary.  (Hey, maybe a way to induce CNF assisting
>>shockwaves into the Pd core. :-)
>
>Well if it would ignite --  for sure we could do some real damage
>driving a PLASMAK(tm) fueled with d-He(3) to ignition.    Drastically
>Beautiful and with the proper mass to shape the pulse  . .. .   I didn't
>know you chaps were that gutsy.
 
     This seems unlikely.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Why P&F let it boil
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why P&F let it boil
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993 20:26:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930707152025_72240.1256_EHK37-1@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>The rest of you "skeptics" should also pipe down, put on your thinking caps,
>and *think about* what they are doing, and why they choose to do it the way
>they did. These people are about 5 orders of magnitude smarter than you think
>they are, and about 3 orders of magnitude smarter than *you*.
 
     'Yes, that last paper reeked of intellegence', he said dryly.
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Responses to Richard Blue
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Responses to Richard Blue
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 01:18:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue made several comments about my paper "A Simple Calorimeter." Here
are a few responses:
 
 
"He quotes me as having said that heat of the order of watts could be measured
to 1%"
 
No, that is not what Richard said, and not what I quoted. He said 10%.
 
 
"It is an impressive list of [problems with calorimetry] details that must be
considered in order to maintain the rather modest accuracy that Jed is
claiming.  Where Jed and I come into disagreement is when there is a claim for
higher accuracy without the practice of nearly as much care as Jed
recommends."
 
We do not disagree. I think that anyone who does not practice the common sense
care and precautions I listed here cannot claim accuracy. There are examples
of poor calorimetry and sloppy work in the literature, and I recommend they
all be rejected. That will eliminate most of the "negative" work of 1989.
 
However, let me note that some of the items on my list apply only to air
cooled calorimeters, for example, water cooled ones usually have must faster
response times. Many of my other precautions apply only to primitive
calorimeters. Real calorimeters are much easier to work with, and much more
reliable.
 
 
"I think that the recently published work by Pons and Fleischmann does
not stand very well in light of the precautions Jed sees as essential."
 
This is incorrect. The paper does not even discuss most of the elementary
precautions that I listed. However, I assure you, they did take every one of
those elementary precautions I listed -- except the ones that do not apply to
them (relating only to air cooled and primative devices). They did all that,
and far more.
 
 
"Pons and Fleischmann certainly have pushed the dynamic range..."
 
They did this for the reasons I described in the previous posting "Why P&F Let
it boil." This was not an oversight on their part, they deliberately limited
the dynamic range of accuracy to the low level precursor reaction heat that
they wished to study in detail.
 
 
"...and [P&F did] not concerned themselves with changes in water level to say
the least."
 
The half-silver design of their Dewar eliminates this problem. As stated in
the paper, water level changes above the silvering change the heat transfer
coefficient by less than 1%. They *did* concern themselves with the problem,
and they completely fixed it. This point is brought out and described in
detail in the first and second pages of the paper, I am surprised Richard
overlooked it.
 
 
"Another subtle point which Jed glosses over is the consideration of the time
constants of the device and the characteristics of the heat source.
Fluctuations or "noise" are universal seen as characteristic of the CF
phenomena, yet Jed tests his methods in essentially a DC manner where long
periods for the calorimeter to reach stability can be tolerated."
 
I did not gloss over that. I stated that the long period is a big problem with
ambient air cooled calorimetry, but it is much less of a problem with water
cooled or flow calorimetry. However -- this is a key point -- all water
calorimeters do act as "averaging machines" to some extent, smoothing out the
flow of heat, "filing off the peaks" as it were. BUT, while they may smooth
the heat, but they do not lose it! There is a big difference, don't get these
two mixed up. Once a CF reaction occurs and generates a joule of heat, that
joule will be caught and accounted for. It cannot escape from the cell
undetected. It might be merged with others and blurred, but it will be added
into the total.
 
The only exception to this would be if there are so few CF reactions, that the
total heat from them remains below the minimum threshold of sensitivity and
they sneak out in the noise, as it were. If the calorimeter can detect one
average joule per minute, then every net joule of heat from however many
nuclear reactions it takes to make a joule will be detected. They will be
merged together to one extent or another, depending on the calorimeter, but
they will *not* be lost.
 
The only potential loss due to peaks and fluctuations is on the other end:
measuring the power in. *There* it is theoretically possible to lose track of
a joule (of electricity, not heat). However, as Tom Droege found, errors there
are likely to be no greater than 0.02% (I think it was). There is no way to
fool an ordinary computer data collection program by much. Those who disagree
with me on this are advised to try it, the way Tom did. You will find you are
wrong.
 
 
"Jed emphasizes the averaging of at least 5 readings. I think that practice
gives him a false sense of the quality of his data.  It just hides what is
actually going on, and it certainly can't be used to justify added a second
decimal place to the quoted data."
 
The justification of the second decimal place was explained in detail. If you
know so much, Richard, please explain what *is* going on. As I said, it is not
clear why, but it cannot be a coincidence that the average Delta T
temperatures come within 0.02 from different days. What is your explanation?
The Fairy Godmother? I suggest that it is probably a reflection of reality:
the temperature really must have been within 0.02. What do you think it was?
 
 
"As for the input power measurements, the selected power source is clearly
much too crude for even Jed's level of accuracy..."
 
The accuracy of the input power had nothing to do with the stated purpose,
goal and methodology of the experiment. You may consider those "nominal
inputs" if you like: the purpose was to demonstrate that it is easy to measure
a watt, not to prove that Radio Shack DC power supplies are the model of
precision.
 
For example, suppose that all 5 settings were twice as high as I measured
them: 1.1 was actually 2.2; 1.7 was actually 3.4. In that case, I *think* I am
measuring power to the nearest 0.1 watts with ease, and I *think* the
calibration constant is 0.25 watts per degree C, but I am wrong. Actually, I
am measuring to the nearest 0.2, and the calibration constant is 0.5 watts per
degree C. That hardly matters, I am still right. I set out to prove it is easy
to measure a watt, even if it is only a 2 degree Delta T. The stated purpose
of the experiment was to show that simple tools can measure small amounts of
heat. Richard is saying that my accuracy might have been off, but the
precision stands (almost).
 
Put it this way: suppose I attached the RS power supply to a CF device, and
set it for the nominal 1.7 watts in, and suppose the Delta T temperature went
significantly over 7.2 C and stayed there. Say it went up to 15.2. However
much power I am actually putting in, be it 1.7, or 1.9, we would know with
certainty that twice as much power as that was coming out.
 
Furthermore, the results demonstrate that while the input power readings might
have been wrong, they were proportionally right; the readings could not have
been scattered randomly. If there was, say a 20% error, it must have been
across the board, for each of the five settings, in the same direction.
Otherwise, the calibration curve would not be so straight. There is no
question the setting 2 is 1.5 times setting 1.
 
Also, I did a rough comparison of the resister at setting 5 to a 4 watt A/C
incandescent nightlight bulb, which has about as much surface area. They
appeared to be radiating about as much heat (comparing surface temperatures
and so on). I am considering putting the A/C nightlight in a plastic baggie
and submerging it in a glass of water to measure the heat from it, but that
strikes me as a little bit dangerous. I observed that baggies leak, and I
dropped the idea. Perhaps the readers of this Digest -- if they have not all
fallen asleep with this dreadfully tedious discussion of calorimetry -- can
offer some advice as to how not electrocute oneself doing that?
 
 
"Oh, I forgot the calibration resistance.  What is that Jed, a 5% resistor
when its dry?"
 
Resistance was measured at 8.1 Ohms both dry and wet. I also measured voltage
dry and wet, it did not vary.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.07 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Why P&F let it boil
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why P&F let it boil
Date: 7 Jul 1993 20:03:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930707152025_72240.1256_EHK37-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>The rest of you "skeptics" should also pipe down, put on your thinking caps,
>and *think about* what they are doing, and why they choose to do it the way
>they did. These people are about 5 orders of magnitude smarter than you think
>they are, and about 3 orders of magnitude smarter than *you*.
 
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they were 3 orders of magnitude
smarter than I was, but I can tell you this.  I was at the press conference,
the first seminar given by Pons, and the departmental seminar given by
Marvin Hawkins.  What I remember thinking at the time was I may not be
very smart, but at least I know how to write a balanced nuclear equation.
I believe that I have explained before that I was particularly unimpressed
with their implication that they had had a "meltdown" when in all probability
what they had was a hydrogen fire.  Now maybe these two events prejudiced
me unfairly.  I suppose you can add an order of magnitude to our smartness
differential.
 
But really, the question of whether "they" are wrong is only minimally
related to whether "they" are smart.  In fact, smart people tend to be
more spectacularly wrong than less smart people because they (the smart
ones) are usually smart enough to overcome the first several levels of
objection.  Babe Ruth hit a lot of home runs, but he also struck out a lot,
as the old saying goes.
 
One more example of what I mean.  Wilhelm Reich was if anything more
respected in his field (psychiatry) than P&F are in theirs (electrochemistry).
Reich's "smartness" was irrelevant to his being wrong about "orgone energy."
In fact, I doubt a non-smart person could have come up with the idea.  And
whatever you think of the treatment P&F have gotten, it bears no comparison
with what happened to Reich.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Mahesh Koppula /  Ex-Russian, Now Israeli, Physics Ph.D. seeks Job
     
Originally-From: mkoppula@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mahesh S Koppula)
Newsgroups: sci.med.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ex-Russian, Now Israeli, Physics Ph.D. seeks Job
Date: 8 Jul 1993 05:58:33 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

I am posting this for  a friend who wishes to find a job in the U.S.A.  If any
of you readers can help him with suggestions (which you may send to me or to
Vadim's e-mail address directly (given in the resume under address)) would be
very much appreciated.
Thanks.
Mahesh S Kopppula
Internet:  KOPPULA.1@OSU.EDU
*****************************************************************************
 
                                CURRICULUM VITAE
 
       Name:                       Vadim E. Khutorsky
 
       Home address:               Oswaldo Aranha str., 25/5, Beer Sheva,
                                   84580, Israel
                                   Telephone: (057) 494945
 
       Business address:           Department  of  Chemical   Engineering
                                   Ben-Gurion  University  of  the  Negev
                                   P.O.B. 653
                                   84105 Beer Sheva, Israel
                                   Telephone: (057) 461483
                                   E-mail: VADIM@BGUVM.BGU.AC.IL.
 
       Birthplace and date:        Baku, USSR, 15 June 1953
 
       Citizenship:                Israel
 
       Marital status:             Single
 
 
                                   EDUCATION
 
       1970-75  Graduate:  M.  Sc.   in   Electronics,    Department   of
                Semiconductor Materials and  Devices, Moscow Institute of
                Steel and Alloys, Moscow, USSR
                M. Sc.  thesis:  Solid solutions  investigation of  Ag in
                Ge and Sn in GaAs
 
       1983-87  Ph. D. in Physics (Solid State Physics), Azerbaijan State
                University, Baku, USSR (1987)
                Dissertation  title: Investigation  of  the  polarization
                distribution    in    barium   and    strontium   niobate
                ferroelectric  crystals   by  photothermal   method  with
                pyroelectric registration
 
 
                                    COURSES
 
       1989     Personal computer  course, Science  and  Teaching Center,
                Soviet State  Committee  on  Computers  and  Informatics,
                Baku, USSR
 
 
                                   POSITIONS
 
       1991-present  Researcher  (correspond   to  assistant  professor),
                     Department  of   Chemical  Engineering,   Ben-Gurion
                     University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
 
       1989 - 1990   Leading  engineer,   R  &  D   Department,   Physics
                     Institute, Azerbaijan  Acad.  of  Sci.,  Baku,  USSRT
h)
Semiconductor  Physics
                     Laboratory, Department of Physics,  Azerbaijan State
                     University, Baku, USSR
 
       1975 - 1977   Engineer,  R & D  Department,  Microelectronic Plant
                     "Azon", Baku, USSR
 
 
                      MEMBERSHIPS IN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
 
               Israel Physical Society
 
 
                            PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
 
               Physics of Ferroelectrics, Pyroelectrics,  Semiconductors,
       and Liquid crystals.
 
       1991-present  Pyroelectricity  and  Ferroelectricity in biological
                     materials
 
       1989-90       Electrooptic   matrix   liquid    crystal   displays
 
       1982-89       Distribution   of   polarization  in   ferroelectric
                     materials
 
       1986-88       IR   image   transformers    on    the    structures
                     semiconductor   -  gas    discharge    plasma    and
                     semiconductor  -  electrooptic crystal
 
       1983-84       Photothermal  spectroscopy  based   on  pyroelectric
                     registration of temperature
 
 
                              TEACHING EXPERIENCE
 
               Lectures and seminars  in different  sections of Condensed
       Matter and General Physics, tutor of master researches, Azerbaijan
       State University.
 
 
                                  PUBLICATIONS
 
               25 publications including 2 patents.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmkoppula cudfnMahesh cudlnKoppula cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  10% calorimetry
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 10% calorimetry
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 13:33:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I stand corrected.  My original statement was that simple calorimeters
could give about 10% accurate results.  Jed's experiment confirms that.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
Date: 8 Jul 93 04:25:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Jul3.051946.26428@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>I'm trying to figure out what a boson is.  Of the three physics books in
>my house, only one discusses bosons, and only a short list of bosons is
>given.
>
>From what I understand, there are two types of objects -- bosons and
>fermions.  Fermions include electrons, neutrons, protons.  Bosons
>include photons, deutrons, He4.
 
For CF buffs note that Li(6) is a boson as opposed to Li(7).
Further, consider that for the engineer (or experimentalist), there
are collary effects such as suppressed nucmag fields nuclear bosons.
After all spin and physical nuclear magnetic characteristics are
related.  The effect of this adds to the cozyness of proximal bosons
in the lattice.
 
Low mag field may also be helpful in achieving faster diffusion rates
(loading) in Pd.  Since Li(6) and Li(7) probably have different diffusion
rates it could be that for CF effects it is the Li(6) that is important.
After all, many experiments can load deuterium quickly by comparison
with the thermal "excess" event onset time, so maybe the lag is due to
the diffusion of Li(6).  That means that the presence of Li(7) could act
as a lattice plug (external boundary surface) so that a Li(6) dependent
thermal event onset is not a sure thing or sporatic at best and certainly
not sustainable.  However, if the experiment where conducted with
much more refined Li(6) (you can refine it yourself), then you may be
on your way to a really interesting result.  Remember if this works,
I would like one of the first CF heated open air winter swimming pools.
 
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / daniel herrick /  Inventor of Skyhook revealed in current magazine
     
Originally-From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inventor of Skyhook revealed in current magazine
Date: 8 Jul 93 10:28:58 EST

I offended some people here a few weeks ago by saying that Arthur
Clark did not invent the skyhook as he did the geosynchronous
communication satellite.  Robert M. Zubrin just published the
bibliography I alluded to.  His article, The Hypersonic Skyhook,
appears in Analog for September 1993.
 
The first publication on the subject was Y. N. Artsutanov, "V Kosmos
na Electrovoze," Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31, 1960.  This was
described by Lvov (of the Russian embassy) in a letter in Science 158,
p. 946, Nov. 17, 1967.
 
The second publication, arising from independent work, was J. D. Isaacs,
A. C. Vine, H. Bradner, G. E. Bachus, "Satellite Elongation into a True
`Skyhook,'" Science 151, p. 682, Feb. 11, 1966, and 152, p. 800,
May 6, 1966.
 
The discussion of the subject in letters in Science after each of these
references is amusing.  (So is the disclaimer the editors of Science
felt obliged to attach to the first article they published.)
 
I have no personal knowledge of the article in Pravda, but I was a
subscriber of Science during the period these articles appeared and
enjoyed the storm immensely (tempest in a teapot, definitely, but
still amusing).
 
dan    dlhpfm!dlh     dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org
(This account will cease to exist tomorrow afternoon.)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenherrickd cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 /   /  dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: <WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: dale bass runs amok
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 11:52:21 EDT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

In article <C9Kv2o.EL0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>
>     That's the motto of life, from trilobites to homosapiens,
>
>                      Shit runs amok
>
>     I can think of few places where shit runs more amok than in places
>     like sub-saharan Africa, or India, where large numbers of people
>     are poor. The moral of
>     this story is that it's much better for the earth if we're all
>     rich.  If we're rich, we can afford to limit the shit amok creating
>     potential; population growth slows and we can afford to protect the
>     earth.
 
This is really interesting - I wish that there was a direct
correlation, because if there was, we (the U.S.) wouldn't be consuming
such a disproportionate share of the world's resources. In fact, you could
make the case that the richer the society, the more polluting it is.
 
>     Now I know all my good anti-nuke friends didn't think about
>     the consequences of stopping building all nuclear plants in this
>     country, but the consequences are increased poverty and increased
>     pollution.
 
I can think of another place where shit ran very amok - it has been the
abject refusal of the U.S. Government and academics to address the problem
of disposal of radioactive waste (see the discussion with Drogue in this
post about how deep to bury it - I mean the radioactivity, not the shit.)
This also shows that being a rich country
is no predictor of how amok we will allow the shit to be. I certainly know
a number of folks who are "anti-nuke" who are really anti-current disposal
methods. We (in particular our wonderful representative democracy) are also
running amok in denial about some of the things which we have done with our
radioactive shit - look at the work of Bob Pendelton at the University of
Utah for a great example.
So lets quit throwing chunks at each other and agree on at least one or two
things. 1. all sources of power are polluting, in one way or another (heat,
construction, etc) and 2. before we decide which of these competing interests
we - as a nation or as a world - should adopt, we should discuss and discover
how we can minimize these problems first, and then and only then develop the
technology. If we had followed this process with atomic fission, we would have
far fewer problems with it than we have today.
 
Dick Wrathall
Biology Department, American University Washington D.C.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenWRATHAL cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 15:46:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <C9tw9v.Luq@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jul3.051946.26428@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>I'm trying to figure out what a boson is.  Of the three physics books in
>>my house, only one discusses bosons, and only a short list of bosons is
>>given.
>>
>>From what I understand, there are two types of objects -- bosons and
>>fermions.  Fermions include electrons, neutrons, protons.  Bosons
>>include photons, deutrons, He4.
>
>For CF buffs note that Li(6) is a boson as opposed to Li(7).
>Further, consider that for the engineer (or experimentalist), there
>are collary effects such as suppressed nucmag fields nuclear bosons.
>After all spin and physical nuclear magnetic characteristics are
>related.  The effect of this adds to the cozyness of proximal bosons
>in the lattice.
 
    Care to calculate the 'proximal cozyness' compared to the
    'thermal noncozyness' at 293K?
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / John Logajan /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 16:46:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>we (the U.S.) wouldn't be consuming such a disproportionate share of the
>world's resources.
 
"Disproportionate" is, of course, a subjective term here because the
earth didn't come with an operator's manual.  The US produces a
"disproportionate" amount of goods and services for consumption by the
rest of the world too.
 
Even in the infantile "green" economic models, it is hard to imagine that
they believe that the third world would be better off if the USA were
a less successful industrial power.
 
Of course, that presumes that "greens" measure value in terms of human
values.  Too many "greens" think of humans as a contamination on the
face of the planet.
 
> In fact, you could make the case that the richer the society, the more
> polluting it is.
 
Exactly the opposite is the case.  That so many "greens" believe otherwise
testifies to their denial of any realities that contradict their belief
system.  Simply put, the richer a society becomes, the more it can
afford to utilize higher cost lower polluting technologies.
 
The real "sewers" of societies are those that are economically and
industrially backward (i.e. socialistic, or otherwise dictatorial.)
-- precisely those forms of government that the "greens" insist will solve
all the world's problems.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 17:00:21 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <93189.115222WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu>, by <WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu>:
 
> We (in particular our wonderful representative democracy) are also
> running amok in denial about some of the things which we have done with our
> radioactive shit - look at the work of Bob Pendelton at the University of
> Utah for a great example.
 
From the way your message is written I can't tell if you are praising
his work or disparaging it. But, either way you should at least spell
his name correctly, It's "Pendleton" not "Pendelton."
 
Normally a spelling flame has no place on USENET, but since you're
talking about my father and my family name if BOTHERS me.
 
I hope you are praising his work because he was put through literal
hell for his efforts to get a rational nuclear energy policy
established in this country.
 
                                Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton, Speaking only for myself.
 
                bobp@hal.com until July 16, 1993
                No forwarding address at this time.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Jed Rothwell /  P&F versus Me
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F versus Me
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 18:24:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Daniel Herrick wrote:
 
     "...Rothwell's paper is everything that the critics who have read the P&F
     paper in the "Letters" journal say the P&F paper is not... He describes
     his apparatus so we could duplicate it, he describes his procedure so we
     could duplicate it...
 
There is more than enough information in the P&F paper to duplicate the
calorimeter. It is described in exhaustive detail, with a nice schematic. The
critical thing you can *not* duplicate is the cathode, because the methods
used to make that are a trade secret. You will find many excellent scientific
and technical papers from companies like IBM, AT&T and Intel also leave out
critical details of this nature.
 
Many of these "critics" who condemn P&F have praised McKubre's paper.
Comparing the two papers you will find they are about equally detailed and
complete. I see nothing in McKubre's paper about his trade secrets either. By
contrast, looking back at some of the 1989 "negative" experiments, I find many
of the descriptions of equipment and procedures range from inadequate to
useless. So, I conclude these "critics" have a double standard. No, make that
a triple standard: they condemn P&F and they praise McKubre, even though both
adhere to the same high standard. And, they love the negative work, no matter
how sloppy or poorly reported it is.
 
Herrick overlooks the fact that P&F include an extremely important and helpful
piece of data that I left out, and indeed, that most workers leave out. P&F
reduce the performance of their calorimeter to first principles. They explain
exactly how it works, they provide exhaustive, detailed, and demonstrably
correct physics equations that model it. I have not seen any of these
"critics" challenge the equations, so I presume everyone agrees they are
correct.
 
The only explanations that I can offer for my results are a vague references
to general laws of physics:
 
1.   Specific heat is a constant.
 
2.   The heat transfer coefficient of a tall thin plastic container is known
     to be constant.
 
"Known to be..." is a poor substitute for scientific rigor, but it is the best
I can do. I can point to past work in the field, common sense causality, and
say, "for the last 200 years people have been doing similar experiments, and
these experiments have always worked, so we can expect mine will work too." I
offer mere cookbook methodology. I cannot even begin to explain the results in
a more rigorous, scientific fashion. Compare that to what Pons and Fleischmann
give you! They provide ultra-rigorous, ultra-detailed information -- hard
science -- that you can plug into your computer model and use to verify their
work according to first principles. By doing theoretical computations with the
information they give, you can model their calorimeter, and then check your
model against their data (particularly the calibration data). You can *prove*
they have it right. Or, you might find a mistake in the equations, or find the
model does not fit the results, and prove they are wrong.
 
Other leading workers in CF have also modeled their calorimeters with
demonstrable accuracy. You will find exhaustive theoretical models in papers
by McKubre, Miles and Huggins, for example. This is how science is done by
real professionals. Compared to their level of rigor, I am a rank amateur.
However, to my credit, at least I do not believe in the kind of absurd fairy
tales the crackpot "skeptics" bandy about, like the story about 0.004 moles of
hydrogen burning to create 80,000 joules of heat. At least I have *some* grasp
of elementary physics, unlike Close, Huizenga, or Morrison.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 20:49:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <93189.115222WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu> <WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>In article <C9Kv2o.EL0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
>(Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>>
>>     That's the motto of life, from trilobites to homosapiens,
>>
>>                      Shit runs amok
>>
>>     I can think of few places where shit runs more amok than in places
>>     like sub-saharan Africa, or India, where large numbers of people
>>     are poor. The moral of
>>     this story is that it's much better for the earth if we're all
>>     rich.  If we're rich, we can afford to limit the shit amok creating
>>     potential; population growth slows and we can afford to protect the
>>     earth.
>
>This is really interesting - I wish that there was a direct
>correlation, because if there was, we (the U.S.) wouldn't be consuming
>such a disproportionate share of the world's resources. In fact, you could
>make the case that the richer the society, the more polluting it is.
 
     One could make that case, but one would be wrong.  In fact, the
     lamentation about 'the world's resources' is silly.  This is
     not a zero-sum game, by and large, especially if a large fraction
     of national energy usage was comprised of fast reactors.
 
>>     Now I know all my good anti-nuke friends didn't think about
>>     the consequences of stopping building all nuclear plants in this
>>     country, but the consequences are increased poverty and increased
>>     pollution.
>
>I can think of another place where shit ran very amok - it has been the
>abject refusal of the U.S. Government and academics to address the problem
>of disposal of radioactive waste (see the discussion with Drogue in this
>post about how deep to bury it - I mean the radioactivity, not the shit.)
>This also shows that being a rich country
>is no predictor of how amok we will allow the shit to be.
 
     Absolutely, it's no predictor of how effective a
     propaganda campaign will be.  The studied aversion to anything
     'nuclear' kills this decision, not any technical problem.  By the
     way, 'academics' addressed the technical problem years ago.  The political
     problems are a different story.
 
>I certainly know
>a number of folks who are "anti-nuke" who are really anti-current disposal
>methods.
 
     This is the easy 'out' isn't it?  'No I don't dislike the reactors,
     there's just no place to put waste so it will be safe for
     <insert number here> years.'  Of course, that's just horse doody.
     Burial is perfectly 'safe', and it wouldn't surprise me if we
     mined the waste sometime in the next century for the products
     (provided we actually put it somewhere in the next century).
 
>We (in particular our wonderful representative democracy) are also
 
     Is this a call for tyranny?
 
>running amok in denial about some of the things which we have done with our
>radioactive shit - look at the work of Bob Pendelton at the University of
>Utah for a great example.
>So lets quit throwing chunks at each other and agree on at least one or two
>things. 1. all sources of power are polluting, in one way or another (heat,
>construction, etc)
 
     Absolutely, industrial processes create waste of some sort.  The
     object is to minimize it.  In my view, a process that produces waste
     that is easily handleable by chucking it into a glorified hole
     is much more desirable than a process that spews waste
     over my trees daily.  No study, no fear of nuclear power
     will change this basic fact.
 
> and 2. before we decide which of these competing interests
>we - as a nation or as a world - should adopt, we should discuss and discover
>how we can minimize these problems first, and then and only then develop the
>technology.
 
     That has been occurring throughout the entire development of
     nuclear power.  It's a usual part of industrial development.
     (i.e. consider how far the Model-T would have advanced with
     air-bags, anti-lock brakes and emission controls.  Henry wouldn't
     have sold a single one, and we'd probably still be destroying forests
     for cropland and burning trees for heat).
 
> If we had followed this process with atomic fission, we would have
>far fewer problems with it than we have today.
 
     What problems?  The political ones?    You underestimate the
     pursuasiveness of the luddite lobby.
 
     Hell, a scare about a perfectly safe pesticide used on less than
     30% of the apple crop almost destroyed the apple industry.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 20:57:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jul8.164629.24210@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>
><WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>>we (the U.S.) wouldn't be consuming such a disproportionate share of the
>>world's resources.
>
>"Disproportionate" is, of course, a subjective term here because the
>earth didn't come with an operator's manual.  The US produces a
>"disproportionate" amount of goods and services for consumption by the
>rest of the world too.
>
>Even in the infantile "green" economic models, it is hard to imagine that
>they believe that the third world would be better off if the USA were
>a less successful industrial power.
>
>Of course, that presumes that "greens" measure value in terms of human
>values.  Too many "greens" think of humans as a contamination on the
>face of the planet.
 
    They seem to share this puerile fascination with 'the peacable kingdom',
    and the idea that all industrial processes and people are somehow
    not a part of the 'natural order' around here.
 
    Funny thing, the most polluted place that the EPA has ever measured
    was a little town in Oregon where all the granola-types burned wood
    in the winter.
 
>> In fact, you could make the case that the richer the society, the more
>> polluting it is.
>
>Exactly the opposite is the case.  That so many "greens" believe otherwise
>testifies to their denial of any realities that contradict their belief
>system.  Simply put, the richer a society becomes, the more it can
>afford to utilize higher cost lower polluting technologies.
>
>The real "sewers" of societies are those that are economically and
>industrially backward (i.e. socialistic, or otherwise dictatorial.)
>-- precisely those forms of government that the "greens" insist will solve
>all the world's problems.
 
     Sewers are a case in point.  How many third world nations have
     municipal sewage treatment plants for their major cities, to
     say nothing of cities the size of the one I'm sitting in now
     (80,000ish)?
 
     Answer: not too damn many.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Craig DeForest /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: 8 Jul 93 15:57:19
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> <WRATHAL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
   I can think of another place where shit ran very amok - it has been the
   abject refusal of the U.S. Government and academics to address the problem
   of disposal of radioactive waste (see the discussion with Drogue in this
   post about how deep to bury it - I mean the radioactivity, not the shit.)
 
Actually, when you get right to it, the government has funded a fair
bit of research into both disposal and reprocessing techniques.  Very
good disposal-and-isolation techniques (eg vitrification) have been
developed.  The problem comes from large numbers of activists raising
a large NIMBY stink whenever the issue is publically mentioned.
 
The reprocessing plant idea was nixed by the Carter administration --
ostensibly because of the danger of terrorist groups getting their
hands on reprocessed plutonium from breeder reactors; but public
anti-nuke opinion factored heavily into the decision as well.
None of the subsequent administrations has seen fit to change that.
 
ISTR that the government has even built a prototype mile-deep disposal
facility in the Nevada desert (forgive me for forgetting the details;
my notes are at home); the last time I looked, plans to store waste
there were being indefinitely stalled by activists.
 
Meanwhile, the waste piles up in the relatively unsafe storage ponds
at each site -- which were mostly designed based on the '70s and early
'80s idea that a national waste disposal site was just around the corner!
 
When one of the spent fuel rods that's been underwater for 20 years
beyond its design lifetime finally leaks and causes a national media
event, who will be blamed?  The evil nuclear power industry, of course.
Not the U.S. Congress, or the folks who, by blocking studies of storage
technology, are choosing a much more dangerous alternative for the
existing waste.
 
(One may as well try to prevent the accumulation of manure at a stable,
by suitable application of large corks.  That solution will work -- for
a while...)
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 20:55:13 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <C9tw9v.Luq@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>For CF buffs note that Li(6) is a boson as opposed to Li(7).
>Further, consider that for the engineer (or experimentalist), there
>are collary effects such as suppressed nucmag fields nuclear bosons.
>After all spin and physical nuclear magnetic characteristics are
>related.  The effect of this adds to the cozyness of proximal bosons
>in the lattice.
 
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  Li-6 (which is the way
I write $^{6}$Li in E-mail, just in case that is not obvious) has spin 1
and a reasonable (0.8 mu_N) dipole moment.  Li-7 has spin 3/2 and a much
larger (more than 3) dipole moment.  But Be-9 also has spin 3/2 and its
dipole moment is less than 1.2, less than the dipole moment of B-10 (spin 3)
which is less than that of B-11.  These are hardly suppressed nuclear
magnetic fields, and nuclear structure is at least as important as spin
in determining the value.
 
There is a factor of 3+ difference between the dipole moments of Li-6
and Li-7, but its not like Li-6 has zero dipole moment.  Perhaps you
think the large quadrupole moment of Li-7 is important, but at some
point the role of electronic effects has to be considered to have a
complete picture of the magnetic properties of these isotopes.  That
is an area I am not familiar with -- is it significant?
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 / C Harrison /  reminder: cnf online at SunSITE
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunsite.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: reminder: cnf online at SunSITE
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 04:46:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.
 
Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1993 only at present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.
 
 
1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...
 
    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>
 
2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
    On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
 
3.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the
    directory-of-servers.
 
    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com
 
There are a few additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Twist of Ribbon)
which are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Plans for boiling-cell test at BYU
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plans for boiling-cell test at BYU
Date: 8 Jul 93 13:33:23 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

PLANS FOR A P/F BOILING-CELL TEST AT BYU
 
The recent F&P paper in Phys. Lett. A 176(1993) 118-129 provides the following
constraints:
 
1.  Sufficient heat is produced in a Pd/D2O cell to boil the cell.
 
2.  The cell voltage rises by about a factor of *four* during the last two hours
before the cell goes dry.  (One must read the voltage from Fig. 8 carefully:
the zero for the voltage is offset considerably from the
zero of the cell temperature.)
Since a constant-current supply was used by P&F, the input electrical power
is also increasing dramatically during this time.
 
3.  Cell voltages are binned in 1000s intervals, while the boiling occurs
during about half of the final bin.  We do not know in any detail how
the voltage varies during this final period; indeed, this final 1000s bin
has a data point obscured by a steep line in Fig. 8.  Thus, the constraint on
the voltage and input power during this time allows us a great deal of lee-way
in attempting to replicate the boiling.
 
4.  A striking feature of the latest paper is that absolutely no mention of any
nuclear products or by-products (such as X-rays) is given at all.  P&F do
not claim a nuclear origin for the boiling.  So we are free to try
other means to replicate the experiment
without being troubled by simultaneously showing
evidence for nuclear reactions.  This makes the famous boiling effect
MUCH easier to replicate.
 
And we think we know how to do it.  No, this P&F effect does not require a
nuclear explanation, if we are correct.  [Shrunken hydrogen atoms are not
required either.]       And P&F were smart enough not to  claim
one in their latest puzzle-paper.  But we think we have found a solution that
fits within the framework of the data they present with a
few electro-chemical-type tricks.
It seems to work on paper, so now we will try the experiment ourselves.
 
Oh, these guys are clever all right, Jed.  But some folks here (in particular,
students) are going to
try for the boiling effect, too -- they like the intellectual challenge.
And we will do this project (boiling-water cells, complete with video
recordings)  without accepting any external funding so that
we will not be muzzled.
 
We should have results by the end of August.  I plan to present these
results here, whatever we find, in Tom Droege-style.
 
Have fun,
Steven E. Jones/BYU
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: P&F versus Me
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F versus Me
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 07:21:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930708173234_72240.1256_EHK22-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Many of these "critics" who condemn P&F have praised McKubre's paper.
>Comparing the two papers you will find they are about equally detailed and
>complete.
 
Let's see -- P&F state that they estimate the level of a boiling fluid
accurately enough to reach accuracies of a percent or so? Yes indeed
you are really in this one up to your neck Jed.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Charged electric fields for Mills
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Charged electric fields for Mills
Date: 8 Jul 93 16:23:06 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

In article <C9s5D1.4H1@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> In article <1993Jun28.113611.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>>In article <20lvkc$1k4@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, redingtn@athena.mit.edu
>>(Norman H Redington) replied to questions raised by Gary Collins about
>>hydrino wavefunctions.
>>
>>> Well, that's what I could glean from the Aug. '91
>>> Fusion Technology. I don't have the $60 + motivation
>>> needed to buy their book.
>
>>Me neither.
>
> But this is one of the most valuable publications for the future of
> fusion energy technology and engineering physics.  There aren't very
> many of us left and the way things are going with the government sector
> there well could be significantly fewer.  Fusion Technology needs every
> bit of support it we can give it, and it is tax deductable.  Afterall
> fusion power will be our key to open the solar system.
>
> Let's bite the bullet fusioneers.
>>--
>>Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.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**
> +---------------------------------------------------------************
 
Paul,  I agree that Fusion Technology serves a very valuable function
       as an outlet for publication by cold-fusioneers.  The reference was to
       not having the desire to spend $60 on the book by Mills and Farrell.
    Best regards,
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencollins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Jed Rothwell /  More boring calorimetry minutiae
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More boring calorimetry minutiae
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 05:44:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Regarding my toy calorimeter, two points have been raised over in CompuServe
which I will incorporate in the paper. I am sorry to bore the audience with
this endless minutiae about calorimetry. On the other hand, if all readers
understood this stuff, everyone here would *instantly* agree that cold fusion
is a real effect that is beyond chemistry. All debate would end, EXXON stock
would plunge, and the Hot Fusion program would be canceled the next morning.
That is such a jolly prospect, I shall post these clarifications:
 
 
1. The A/C power is likely to fluctuate during the day. No doubt, the input
will fluctuate more than my target 0.1 watts, however, on average over several
minutes, it will be steady usually, but sometimes there will be a brownout or
surge. That probably explains some of the erratic bumps and valleys in my data
that do not correlate with ambient temperature changes. You will notice the
output rises on the afternoon of 06/16 for no apparent reason, perhaps that
was a power surge. We can conclude that 58 ml of water and two thermometers
make a cheap way to keep tabs on the power company.
 
 
2. There may be an unmeasured A/C component in the DC power, perhaps as big as
20%. Other inaccuracies in the input power measurement have been suggested. No
attempt was made to monitor input power, or to measure the A/C component. The
five settings must be considered *nominal* values between 1 and 4 watts.
 
By the same token, any A/C component will be consistent and completely
predictable. Whatever the A/C component is for a given setting, it will be
exactly the same each time you select that setting. If the power was not
consistent in all five settings, the device would never return to the same
calibrated point from day to day, and the calibration curve would not be
straight. In order for the device to work, three conditions *must* be met:
 
1. You must have steady, consistent input.
2. Rapid ambient changes must be avoided.
3. The calorimeter must be designed correctly.
 
There are no escape clauses, and there is no way you might inadvertently
cancel out one condition with another. With one problem, the response will be
nonlinear; with two things wrong, you will find data points scattered all over
the place.
 
It should be understood that the resistor was intended to be a reasonably
consistent and predictable source of heat. For the purpose of this experiment,
the exact magnitude of settings does not matter. I claim that 58 ml of water
in a plastic box responds in a linear and predictable fashion to small changes
in the level of power. Whether the sample changes are from 1.1 up to 4.0 or,
say, from 1.3 up to 5.0 is immaterial, as long as they are *consistent*. The
top setting cannot be much more than 4 watts; the resistor or power supply
would fail. Also, if it was on the order of 10 watts, that fact would be
readily apparent to me when I compare the resistor to the 4 watt A/C
nightlight.
 
I pegged the calibration constant at a quarter watt per C, but if the highest
power level is, say, 5 watts (instead of 4), that would make the calibration
constant about a third of a watt per C. I can measure 0.2 C differences with
confidence, so the minimum resolution would be 0.06 watts, instead of 0.04. A
0.1 watt change would show up as a 0.3 C change, which is quite easy to
measure. I have demonstrated *in principal* that 58 ml of water can be used
measure very tiny amounts of heat with precision. I make no claim to accuracy.
I could spend more time and trouble to find out exactly what the input power
is, but that is beyond the scope of the experiment.
 
You can compare this instrument to an old barometer in my house, which is
utterly out of calibration. It shows a number far above from what the Weather
Bureau claims the atmospheric pressure is, and it moves up and down in smaller
increments that the actual pressure changes. It lives in a happy world of its
own where the weather is always "Fair" or "Good." A hurricane may be blowing,
it will tell us the weather may "Change." On the other hand, it does rise and
fall with great sensitivity. It does reflect nature, because you can predict
the weather with it. The old barometer is inaccurate but precise, and it
proves that barometers work in principle.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 / mitchell swartz /  Prof. Herbert H. Uhlig "Corrosion and Corrosion Control"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Prof. Herbert H. Uhlig "Corrosion and Corrosion Control"
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 15:51:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 
 
  For his students, readers, and to those who follow electrochemistry,
 corrosion, generation of excessive fugacities in the solid state:
 
      Prof Herbert H. Uhlig, MIT Professor; at 86
 
  (from the Boston Globe July 8,'93 - page 33)
 
     "A funeral will be beld today for Herbert Henry Uhlig,  professor
 emeritus of metallurgy at MIT and a pioneer researcher in the corrosion of
 metals. He died Saturday of pneumonia in his home in Hancock, N.H. He was
 86.  Mr. Uhlig was born in Haledon,  N.J. He earned his bachelor's degree
 in science from Brown University and his doctorate from the Massachusetts
 Institute of Technology in Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research
 in New York City and later, assistant chief chemist at Lever Brothers
 in Cambridge.
 
  He became a research associate at MIT in 1940, but when funds became
 scarce during World War II, he transfered his investigations of corrosion
 to the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, N.Y.
  He returned to MIT in 1946 as associate professor and director of the
 corrosion laboratory. In 1953 he  was promoted to full professor.
   He continued his teaching and research at MIT until his retirement
in 1972.
 Mr. Uhlig authored more than 200 scientific papers dealing with  corrosion
 and the degradation of metals as the result of environmental conditions
 and was the author of the textbook "Corrosion and Corrosion Control."
 
   After his retirement he continued to do research and teach part time at
 MIT. He also accepted visiting professorships in Australia and the
 Netherlands.
  In May 1982, the corrosion laboratory at MIT was dedicated in his honor
 and renamed the H.H. Uhlig Corrosion Laboratory."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 / David Croft /  magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: magnetic fields
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 15:37:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Does anyone know what factors limit current
density and magnetic field strength in
electromagnets?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendtc9h cudfnDavid cudlnCroft cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 / JARA RODOLFO /  Re: glow discharge and lattice spacing
     
Originally-From: rojara@malleco.cec.uchile.cl (JARA PINOCHET RODOLFO)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: glow discharge and lattice spacing
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 19:48:38 GMT
Organization: Centro de Computacion (CEC), Universidad de Chile

 
 
     In article <9306291951.AA12517@suntan.Tandem.com>, BERNECKY@nl.nuwc
navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:
>>From Peter Hagelstein's summary of the 3rd international
>conference on cold fusion.
>
>              [ stuff delete ]
 
     Where are it's posible obtain the summary of conference on cold fusion ?
 
     Thank in advance.
 
Rodolfo
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrojara cudfnJARA cudlnRODOLFO cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: P&F versus Me
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F versus Me
Date: 9 Jul 1993 21:48:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
: To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
:
: Daniel Herrick wrote:
:
:      "...Rothwell's paper is everything that the critics who have read the P&F
:      paper in the "Letters" journal say the P&F paper is not... He describes
:      his apparatus so we could duplicate it, he describes his procedure so we
:      could duplicate it...
:
: There is more than enough information in the P&F paper to duplicate the
: calorimeter. It is described in exhaustive detail, with a nice schematic. The
: critical thing you can *not* duplicate is the cathode, because the methods
: used to make that are a trade secret. You will find many excellent scientific
: and technical papers from companies like IBM, AT&T and Intel also leave out
: critical details of this nature.
 
But you can *buy* an Intel 486.  And lots of people DON'T believe vendor's
prerelease Specmarks; they have to try it out their own code first on real
live systems.
 
If Intel claimed the Pentium got 6 billion Specmarks then lots of people
would remain skeptical no matter how well Intel described the benchmark
code.  The proprortion of skeptics would also depend on how trustworthy
past Intel claims had been in the past.
 
: By doing theoretical computations with the
: information they give, you can model their calorimeter, and then check your
: model against their data (particularly the calibration data). You can *prove*
: they have it right. Or, you might find a mistake in the equations, or find the
: model does not fit the results, and prove they are wrong.
 
Uh not quite.  To continue the analogy, Intel needs to ship working CPU's
for others to benchmark, not benchmark suites.
 
If P&F were more trustworthy in the past, then more people would believe
them.  If there were any other physical evidence pointing towards the
mechanism, then more people would believe them.   (I.e. Intel claiming
6 billion specmarks with massively parallel quantum spin transistors is
more believable than 6 billion specmarks with 2 micron NMOS).
 
: - Jed
 
P&F need to give others actual cathodes (both working and non-working)
for others to test.  If they cannot come up with satistfactory nondiscloure
agreements to permit this, then the world will wait until they have a
product.  If the effect is as large as P&F claim, then it should be easily
measurable by others.
 
The problem is that P&F shot their credibility the first time around.
People believed them (at first) that they really did observe D+D fusion
neutrons.
 
--
-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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / mitchell swartz /  Miles' latest letter and Mitchell's posting
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles' latest letter and Mitchell's posting
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 00:40:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Jul9.131818.759@physc1.byu.edu>
  Subject: Miles' latest letter and Mitchell's posting
  Steven E. Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] continues to muddle facts:
 
== "I have just received e-mail from Mitchell Swartz, who insists that HE
== left nothing out from the Dr. Miles' letter of 17 June 1993 when
== he posted it."
 
  Steven: we were having a (private) e-mail conversation, following
which I have been patiently waiting for the FAX which you promised
before you decided to proceed publicly, unilaterally.  So be it.
 
  The letter to which you refer, which was posted, and
 which I received from Dr. Miles was dated: ------>  "22 June 93".
 It was a reply to your June 18th letter as it stated therein.
 PROOF:    Here it is shown within an excerpt taken from the actual post:
 
=====  "From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
=====  Subject: Response to Dr. Jones' response to letter from Dr. Miles
=====  Message-ID: <C9CIAr.A9p@world.std.com>
=====  Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 19:04:02 GMT
=====                                         "In Reply refer to:
=====                                           3910
=====                                           C02353/219
=====                                           22 Jun 93
=====
=====  "This is my further response to Professor Jones. ...:
 
  Your misstatement of the date is obvious and frankly this is no
  surprise since even your response indicated that is what
  I posted.  Check for yourself.  Your confabulation appears to involve
  perhaps another letter (at best).
 
  Now, the letter which I posted was received, and then
 scanned at 300 dpi, then treated with optical character recognition
 software, rechecked, and then posted.
 
  Fact:  Steven Jones is wrong about a missing group of "sentences".
 
  Fact:  Steven Jones is wrong about the date.
 
   He is wrong about other issues within his letter which I will
    address at a later date when time is available.
 
 
== "From this I conclude that the version of the letter which Miles provided
==  to Mitchell Swartz had these threatening sentences excised, for what
==  reasons I do not care to speculate."
 
  Wrrrong.  Nothing was excised from the letter.
   It was posted AS IS.  Your date has now been demonstrated to be: wrong.
  Your accusations are not based upon substance but may herald
     a severe problem located physically close to Dr. Jones' laboratory.
 
 
==  "In my point-by-point response to Miles' letter
==  (posted 7-8-93), I did *not* say that Mitchell had left out these sentences,
==  but rather stated that the material had been left out without attribution."
 
  Wrong you were.  Wrong you are.
  Given that nothing was left out of the June 22 '93 letter which I posted.
 perhaps you should consider an apology instead of tossing more "bricks"
    based upon what so far appears to be a made-up story on your part.
 
          Best wishes.
 
                                           Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Point-by-point response to Dr. Miles
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Point-by-point response to Dr. Miles
Date: 8 Jul 93 16:51:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Here I answer point-by-point the issues raised in the latest letter from Mel
Miles of China Lake, posted by M. Swartz.  The interested reader will recall
that Miles et al. claim production of excess heat and helium using open
calorimetric systems, and glass flasks to hold gasses tested for helium, while
the helium found is *less* than ambient concentrations.
For nuclear-product detectors, they employ dental x-ray film, neutron survey
meters and Geiger counters.  I have argued that for compelling results, much
better techniques are available and needed.  [See my postings here dated
7-7-93.]
On with the show:
In article <C9CIAr.A9p@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com
(mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1993Jun18.181609.715@physc1.byu.edu>
> Date: 18 Jun 93;   Subject: Response to letter from Dr. Miles
> Stephen Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
>   "RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM DR. MILES, POSTED PUBLICLY HERE
>    June 18, 1993
>    Dear Colleagues ......  "
>
>   The following letter is a response to that posting from
>  Dr. Melvin Miles of the Department of the Navy,
>  Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division,
>  China Lake, California 93555-6001
 
Mitchell is incorrect:  the letter from Miles was received by mail here,
but it has a date 17 June 1993, which is before my posting cited by Swartz
above.  Thus his letter cannot be in response to my later posting.
[We still accept causality, I hope.]
Moreover, several comments by Dr. Miles below had been
answered in my June 18 posting, so that he clearly had not yet seen this.
>
>   back to Professor Stephen Jones:
>
>      ===========================================
>                                        "In Reply refer to:
>                                          3910
>                                          C02353/219
>                                          22 Jun 93
>
> "This is my further response to Professor Jones.   Please post this on
>  E-mail.
>
> As stated in my previous letter of 8 June l993, Professor Steven E. Jones of
>  Brigham Young University has made numerous false allegations concerning my
>  scientific publications (References 1-4) involving the Fleischmann-Pons
>  effect. My purpose for this letter is to document these false allegations
>  and misconceptions. Please note that Reference 5 will establish several
>  cases where Professor Jones has chosen to repeat his false allegations
>  rather than accept my previous answers to his attacks.  Reference 6 is
>  Professor Jones' recent attack on my work.  The false statements and
>  misconceptions by Professor Jones are numbered in order of their
>  appearance in Reference 6.
>
>  1. In several places, Professor Jones has stated that I asked him to post
>  his comments regarding my publications. This is simply not true. I only
>  asked him one specific, focused question that required only a short answer.
>  This illustrates that Professor Jones is misrepresenting facts even at the
>  very beginning.
 
I addressed this point in my 18 June posting:
"Oh, come now, Dr. Miles.  Your first letter pointed to lengthy "discussion of
error in N. Lewis calorimetry" [Cal-Tech work]  -- surely you cannot complain
when your work also receives such criticism."
 
*I* do not agree that your question "required only a short answer"  -- not by
any means.  I will answer at whatever length I choose, thank you.
 
I like also Dick Blue's pointed remarks:
"In his letter to Steve Jones Dr. Miles seems to make the assertion that the
only place appropriate for comments on a publication is in a refereed journal.
That is absurd.  Once a given paper is published it can be and should be
subject to criticism in any forum where two or more are gathered in discussion
of the topic in question.
"Steve Jones has done us all good service in digging out some of the
questionable aspects of various CF results.  I would hope that the President of
BYU understands that letters such as the one Miles wrote points to Steve being
involved in the kind of intellectual activity that universities are supposed to
foster."  -- Dick Blue, 18 June 1993 posting.
 
Thanks, Dr. Blue.  Note also that the current Miles letter was sent to BYU
President R. Lee by Dr. Miles, with the following left out from that posted
here by Swartz:  "As discussed in my letter of 8 June 1993, I expect Professor
Jones to retract his false allegations regarding my research. ... If this is
not done then I will have to consider further actions."  Why was this
intimidating paragraph omitted from the posting?  What further actions, anyway?
(BTW, I write without benefit of legal counsel.  I keep hoping for a scientific
dialogue.)
 
>  2. Professor Jones states that my four papers (References 1-4) are all
>  about the same and that the data is taken in 1990 in all four papers. This
>  is false.   Reference 4 contains 1989 experiments that were completed
>  before the 1990-1991 heat/helium measurements were begun.
 
Wrong.  In fact, I posted:
"A juxtaposition of these papers reveals that they are about the same...
*most of* the graphs and tables come from data taken in 1990 in all four papers.
Why so little new?"  (added emphasis)
 
P.S., no new xs-heat-and-helium data since 1990 is hardly reassuring regarding
you claims which are now some 2 1/2 years old.  The 1989 data is not much of an
addition, in my humble opinion.
 
>
>  3. In several places, Professor Jones states that there was only one
>  control for the dental film studies.   This is false.   As stated on page
>  108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
>  control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  Furthermore,
>  it is stated on page 109 of Reference 1 that following experiments in
>  D2O+LiOD failed to produce any excess enthalpy or dental film exposure.
>   There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
>  no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
>  fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
>  twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
>  look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1.
>
My meaning was that only one control was *published* and that this control
showed obvious problems with systematic errors involved with the use of dental
x-ray film, namely "Clear regions are due to a peeling away of the emulsion
rather than non-exposure."  {Identical wording in Miles et al. J. Elec. Chem.
346 (1993) 99 and in Miles et al. Como Meeting Proc. 1991, pp. 363-372.}
 
>  4. The comments by Professor Jones regarding D2+O2 recombination in our
>  cells are misleading. As explained on page 112 of Reference 1 and pages
>  370-371 of Reference 2, recombination was observed in a very different
>  type of experiment (Szpak codeposition). In such experiments, the
>  deposited palladium partic1es tend to break loose and collect on cell
>  components above the solution level, hence recombination is not
>  unexpected. As clearly stated on 101 of Reference 1, page 364 of Reference
>  2, page 273 of Reference 3, and page 242-243 of Reference 4, there is no
>  evidence for any recombination when a palladium rod cathode is used that
>  is fully immersed in the D2O solution. Recombination can be detected by
>  monitoring the D2O level in the cell and by measuring the rate of  evolution
>   of D2+O2 electrolysis gases.
 
Miles claims, if I understand correctly, that recombination is only a problem
in the Szpak-type experiment, not "when a palladium rod cathode is used that is
fully immersed."  I respectfully but strongly disagree.  Based on experiments
conducted at BYU, recombination is a problem for immersed electrodes and occurs
at the electrode surfaces due to H or D and O gasses dissolved in the
electrolyte.  It is just the type of assertion made here by Miles that can lead
to gross systematic errors in the evaluation of excess heat:  recombination
cannot be ignored, even when the cathode is "fully immersed."
>
>  5. Professor Jones states that calibrations were done with a resistor
>  where no electrolysis occurs. This is not true. As clearly stated on page
>  100 of Reference 1, "previously determined mean values of these constants
>  were used".   As shown in Table 3 of Reference 4, these mean values come
>  from experiments involving both Pd/D2O and Pd/H2O electrolysis as well as
>  from Joule heating experiments.  Figures 1 and 2 of Reference 1 provide
>  another check on these mean values. Studies before and after our
>  heat/helium measurements are combined to show that no significant change
>  in the cell constants occurred.
>
"Joule heating experiments" means that resistors were used, does it not?
I'm afraid this is still not clear to me wherein "This is not true."
Hopefully Dr. Miles will further clarify -- perhaps he means that use of
resistors was not the only means of calibrating (fine).
I also pointed out that calibrations were not performed *during* weeks-long
runs -- is this not correct?
 
>  6. Professor Jones claims that our cell constants show large variations. I
>  disagree. As seen in Table 3 of Reference 4 the standard deviations are
>  about +/- 2% for all cell constants despite the use of several different
>  calibration methods. I previously answered this allegation in Reference 5
>  (pages 75-76).
 
I quoted the cell "constants" from Table 3 of Miles et al. J. Electro.
Chem (1990) 241.  One cell showed a change from 0.138 to 0.145, which is about
a 5% change.  You make it sound small.  To me, the variations are large and
worrisome (good calorimetry achieves 0.1 percent or better).
 
>
>  7. Regarding thermal inversions discussed in Reference 4 (page 245 last
>  two lines). Professor Jones states that "no further explanation nor
>  caveats are offered". This is false.  The next three lines of Reference 4
>  (pages 245-246) explain the cause of this problem and its simple
>  correction (the thermistor tubes were flush with the cell top).  This
>  problem and its correction were explained twice to Professor Jones in
>  Reference 5 (pages 76-77). This is yet another example of Professor Jones
>  repeating false allegations that were clearly explained previously. After
>  this thermistor tube correction was made back in 1989, our calorimetric
>  fluctuations in control studies are typically less than +/- 3%.
 
Miles' Ref. 5 is from the Lyndon LaRouche publication "21st Century" which I
have admitted I did not read very carefully -- its not a journal I read much.
However, there we read:
"The rather large fluctuations in the cells described in an earlier paper
[here Miles references J. Electro. Chem 296:241 which was published in 1990]
paper were due *in part* to glass thermistor tubes that extended above the
calorimetric cells, thereby making cell temperature readings sensitive to room
temperature fluctuations.  This problem was not obvious until the onset of
winter weather resulting in cool laboratory temperatures during the night.
The chilled air above the cell *apparently produced thermal inversions*
within the thermistor tubes."      [my emphasis]
 
I grant that Dr. Miles made further explanation, admitting my oversight on this
point.  However, his explanation (above) is certainly not as definite as his
current letter states.
 
When I look at the data for H2O control runs, Fig. 6 of the 1990
paper, I find that the two thermistor readings differ by what I call large
amounts.  For example, on day 24 for cell B,
T4 thermistor gives approx. (minus 4%) of xs heat while T5 on the same cell
gives (plus 15%), for a discrepancy of about 19% for these data.
This is not an isolated case:  on day 24 I read values of -5% and +8% for
T4 and T5 respectively.  Throughout the 28-day run, (with no calibrations during
the run, correct?) T5 reads higher than T4.  By contrast, in Fig. 5 for the
D2O runs for cell B, T4 read consistently higher than T5!  (The one exception
is on day 22.)
 
In order to be sure that the problem has been fixed, I request
(as I have in the past of Dr. Miles, without response yet) to be shown *plots*
(not just averaged values) for both *light* and heavy water cells (since June
1991, say) so that comparisons can be made on equal footing and so that
magnitudes of fluctuations can be judged.
>
>  8. Professor Jones states that the H2O control of Reference 4 (1989 data)
>  is the same as the H2O control of Reference 1 (1991 data). This is totally
>  false as well as impossible.  It should be obvious even to Professor Jones
[Really?  This must be readily obvious to the casual observer, not buried
in some table, like Table 2 of Ref. 1.]
>  that 1991 data (see Table 2 of 1) cannot appear in a 1990 publication
>  (Reference 4). His re-plotting of my H2O control is for the 1989
>  experiment conducted before the thermistor tubes were made flush with the
>  cell  top. The error bars have consistently been much smaller since this
>  modification was made in l989.
 
Sorry, I did not catch that the *averaged* values given in your 1993 paper
repeating January 1991 data were different from the *plots* given in the
earlier paper.  I stand corrected.
But I'm still not satisfied.  I have asked you (Dr. Miles) over a year ago
to provide recent
*plots* for *light* water cells, so that I can compare with your heavy water
cells.  Frankly, I want to check for myself just how large the fluctuations
are, and I need plots to do this.
>
>  9. The calorimetric deviations due to dental film studies involved changes
>  in liquid levels in the gap that were explained in Reference 1 (page 108)
>  as well as earlier in Reference 5 (page 75). Professor Jones once again
>  refuses to acknowledge my previous explanation.
 
I acknowledge it, I'm just not convinced that you can so easily rule out the
excess heat observations in *light* water cells which you once claimed (in your
1991 paper, J. Electro. Chem 304:271].
 
>
 
> 10.   The most serious false allegation by Professor Jones is his statement
>  that helium measurements were "thrown out".  In response to his question
>  at Brigham Young University in 1991, I stated that two helium measurements
>  were "left out of order" (underline added for emphasis). There is a
>  tremendous difference between "left out" and "left out of order". For both
>  my BYU presentation and Table 1 in Reference 2, the samples 12/17/90-A and
>  12/17/90-B are left out of order of decreasing excess power and placed at
>  the bottom of the table. Since these were companion samples from the two
>  cells (A and B), I thought that both should be left out of order. Because
>  of the criticism by Professor Jones regarding this issue (see Reference 5,
>  page 79), I placed the sample 12/17/90-A back in order in my recent
>  publication (Reference 1). Because the D2O level was not as low in the
>  12/17/90-A sample, the electrodes in that cell never became exposed to the
>  gas phase, thus recombination could not have been a factor in the measured
>  excess heat. Recent studies of the effect of low D2O levels suggest the
>  true X-values were likely about 1.15 for sample 12/17/90-A and 1.05 for
>  sample 12/17/90-B assuming no recombination on exposed electrode surfaces
>  in the latter case. This would place both samples into reasonable
>  positions in Table 7 of Reference 1. A clear discussion of samples
>  12/17/90-A and 12/17/90-B was given in Reference 5 (page 79). Professor
>  Jones again ignores my previous answers and repeats his false allegations.
>
Not at all:  I have addressed this thoroughly in my posting of June 18.  The
point, quoting some from my earlier response, is that:
"There are *ten runs* runs reported in Table 1 of this 1993 paper, but only
*nine* are discussed in the conclusions... Run 12/17/90-B shows more heat than
three of the runs used in the argument, but *no* helium-4.
Hence, these data may alter and should be included in the conclusions.  The
authors mention in footnote about this run:  "POSSIBLE calorimetric errors due
to low D2O solution levels" (my capitals again), but I maintain that the
uncertainty associated with these data must be included in the calculation of
the statistical significance of the alleged one-to-one correspondance between
heat and helium-4 production.  This was not done.  It is not enough to simply
report all the data, one must include *all* the data in statistical arguments
and conconclusions.  This is my concern about evident (to me) "rejected data."
Also, the observation of helium-4 in several of the nitrogen-filled control
flasks should be brought in."
 
I am not ignoring your previous answers -- now will you address my question
head on?  Please revise your statistical arguments to incorporate runs where
helium was found where there was not heat, as mentioned in the above paragraph,
in your strong statement:
"Ignoring the helium-heat relationship (Table 1), the simple yes or no
detection of helium in eight out of eight experiments producing excess heat and
the absence of helium in six out of six experiments not producting excess heat
(one in D2O, five in H2O) implies a chance probability of only (1/2)^14 =
1/16,384 or 0.0061%.  Therefore atmospheric contamination does not provide a
likely explanation for our 4He measurements."  (1993 paper)
 
Incidentally, I don't agree with your "ignoring the helium-heat relationship",
Since your Table 1 (1993 paper) shows that higher heat and helium do not
correspond particularly well, this should be folded in to your statistical
uncertainty also.  Finally, you should freely state that your observed 4He
levels are less than ambient 4He concentrations in air -- as do Liebert and
Liaw, for instance.   If the 4He production is real and you want to be
convincing, you must stop using glass flasks which are known to be quite
permeable to 4He, and finally demonstrate more 4He production than is in the
ambient.
 
>  11. Professor Jones states that our nitrogen-filled flasks should be
>  considered as controls. I strongly disagree since the nitrogen-filled
>  flasks were never connected to our electrolysis system. The purpose of
>  these experiments was to check the boil-off nitrogen at China Lake for any
>  possible helium contamination. These nitrogen-filled flasks were often
>  shipped by air-freight while electrolysis gas samples had to be shipped by
>  ground freight as explained in Reference 3 (pages 274-275). Leaks are more
>  likely for air-freight shipments due to large changes in pressure. All
>  nitrogen-filled flasks are reported in Table 1 of Reference 3, hence there
>  are no "rejected" data points as claimed by Professor Jones. This topic
>  was also discussed previously in Reference 5 (page 78).
 
Yes, I find that the nitrogen-filled GLASS flasks were a reasonable control,
since the SAME GLASS flasks were used for the gasses evolved from the
electrolytic cells.  Since 4He was found in both nitrogen and deuterium-filled
flasks, in quantities less than atmospheric amounts,  one cannot rule out the
possibility of 4He permeation into the GLASS flasks from the air --
no matter how much you try to explain away the significance of the 4He found in
the nitrogen-filled flasks (as you do again above).  I'm trying to show what
you need to do to get *compelling* evidence for 4He production, or to revise
the stubborness of your mental fix that you have found it:
"Our electrochemical experiments UNAMBIGUOUSLY show a DIRECT correlation
between the time of generation of excess enthalpy and power and the production
of 4He... In summary, nuclear events with 4He as a major product occur during
the electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOD system."  (Miles et al. 1993 paper,
capitals added.)
 
>
>  12. Professor Jones uses my term "possible flask leakage" out of context
>  and states this indicates that we are not sure how the helium got into the
>  nitrogen-filled flask. As seen on page 111 of Reference 1 (line 20) our
>  full statement is "Our previous report of possible flask leakage could be
>  explained by helium diffusion into nitrogen-filled flasks".  As I
>  explained at the Nagoya meeting last October, the helium measured at the
>  detection limit for one nitrogen-filled flask provides our best helium
>  calibration and yields a minimum detection limit of 1 ppb rather than 0.1
>  ppb for our helium analysis.
 
>Our helium measurements, therefore, should all be increased by
>  an order of magnitude.
Oh?  This is new.
This hardly increases confidence in your published values "showing" 4He
production.
Rather, it looks again like your 4He values are order-of-magnitude estimates.
 
>  Similar conclusions for our helium detection limit
>  are discussed in Reference 5 (pages 77-78).
 
Whether due to leakage or diffusion, the same glass flasks were used for
nitrogen and deuterium, and the same origin for 4He for both cannot be ruled
out.
>
>  13. Professor Jones suggests a possible correlation between the helium
>  content and a particular flask. I discussed this topic previously in
>  Reference 5 (pages 78-79). Briefly, a total of eight flask were used in
>  the D2O experiments where 8 of 10 samples showed measurable amounts of
>  helium (see Table 1 of Reference 1).   Five of these same flasks were used
>  in the H2O experiments showing no helium (see Table 2 of Reference 1).
>  Therefore, at least three of the flasks in the experiments had previously
>  contained measurable amounts of helium in the D2O experiments.  Later
>  studies of helium diffusion into these flasks show that they are all quite
>  uniform.
 
Next time, keep track of flasks by number.  E.g., did flask 1 show helium for
both deuterium and nitrogen?
 
>
>  In conclusion, Professor Jones has not provided a satisfactory answer to
>  my simple question.   Instead, he has descended into personal attacks and
>  false allegations.
 
I've tried to respond fairly and thoroughly.  Miles' letters provide
several examples of what he accuses me of, I'm afraid.  Too bad.
By the way, Dr. Miles has not answered several of my questions:
 
1.  Plots of light water excess heat, since the calorimeter fixes.
2.  "I ask again for the *first twelve days* of data from the cell which on
Oct. 21, 1990 produced the maximum xs heat (27%) claimed by Miles et al. in
their open calorimetric system."  (19 May 1993 posting by me to Miles)
3.  Corrections to statistical arguments as specified above and in my 18 June
posting.
4.  "Do the GM [Geiger-Mueller] detector readings (may we see them?) correlate
with xs heat?"
5.  "You have already claimed X-ray production, using dental x-ray films.
It is important to check this with a sensitive spectrometer, which will also
provide energy and line-intensity information.  If x-rays are indeed present
only in the D2O-xs-heat case as you claim, then the presence *or absence* of
the 21 keV k-alpha line from palladium is critical to establish the nature of
the process which produces the xs heat."  (19 May 1993 posting)
Agreed?
 
 
>  Again, I challenge Professor Jones to take his
>  discussion of my publications to a refereed scientific journal. I also
>  urge him to stop making false allegations and misrepresentations regarding
>  my experiments.
>
 
As previously stated, I accept this challenge.  The purpose of a dialogue such
as this is to correct misrepresentations and misunderstandings
and I trust this is being done by Miles as well as by me (see above).
 
>                                         Sincerely,
>
>                                        MELVIN H. MILES
>                                     Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
>                                        NAWCWPNS Fellow
>
> References
> 1. M. H. Miles et al., J. Electroanal Chem., 346 (1993) 99-117.
> 2. M. H. Miles et al., in "The Science of Cold Fusion", Conf. Proc., T.
>  Bressani, E. Del Giudice, and G. Preparata, editors, pp. 363-372, 1991.
> 3, B. F. Bush et al., J. Electroanal. Chem., 304 (1991) 271-278.
> 4. M. H. Miles et al., J. Electroanal. Chem., 296 (1990) 241-254.
> 5. "Cold Fusion  Experimenter Miles Responds to Critic" in 21st Century
>    Science and  Technology. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 75-80 (1992)
> 6. Memorandum by Professor S. E. Jones, dated 27 May 1993 and his
>    E-Mail discussion of my publications.
>
 
Dr. Miles should now respond in a professional tone to the questions I have
delineated above.
 
Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Miles' latest letter and Mitchell's posting
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles' latest letter and Mitchell's posting
Date: 9 Jul 93 13:18:18 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
I have just received e-mail from Mitchell Swartz, who insists that HE
left nothing out from the Dr. Miles' letter of 17 June 1993 when he posted it.
However, when I compare the posted version with what I received by mail,
I indeed find that certain threatening sentences are not included in the
posted version, to wit:
"As discussed in my letter of 8 June 1993, I expect Professor Jones to retract
his false allegations regarding my research.  ... If this is not done
then I will have to consider further actions." --Miles letter to BYU President
R. Lee dated 17 June 1993, with copy to S. E. Jones and several others.
 
From this I conclude that the version of the letter which Miles provided to
Mitchell Swartz had these threatening sentences excised, for what reasons
I do not care to speculate.  In my point-by-point response to Miles' letter
(posted 7-8-93), I did *not* say that Mitchell had left out these sentences,
but rather stated that the material had been left out without attribution.
 
Prof. Michael Salamon and other physicists at the
University of Utah received analagous threats (of legal action in their case
if they did not retract)
in 1990 when they published in Nature that *no* nuclear products were found
in Dr. Pons' own electrolytic cells.  To their credit, these scientists did
not retract their paper despite the threats of legal action (which were later
withdrawn by Pons' lawyer).
 
Such a nuisance.
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 16:32:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The cover story on the August, 1993 issue of Popular Science is about cold
fusion. It is an article written by veteran science reporter Jerry Bishop of
the Wall Street Journal. It is a nice piece, I enjoyed reading it very much.
 
Towards the end, there are some sidesplitting, hysterically funny quotes from
"skeptic" Richard Petrasso of M.I.T:
 
     "If you buy the excess heat measurements, then you have to invent some
     kind of nuclear process to explain them. I just haven't bought into the
     heat claims yet. I think it is a subtle mistake." But, he adds, "if it's
     a mistake, it's a very interesting mistake."
 
     "I guess I'll believe it when someone drives a car here [to Cambridge,
     Mass.] from New Jersey" powered by cold fusion, Petrasso says.
 
I guess he will believe it! And I guess I know what company is going to make
that car. Here we have it, folks: a "skeptic" has finally come out of the
closet and admitted the truth. Last year, Toyota showed a 150 watt reactor
with boiling water and he said, "it's a subtle mistake." Subtle! What a
delicious choice of words! This year, Toyota will show a 20,000 watt reactor
and Richard will say, "Oh, that's another subtle mistake." He has finally
abandoned all pretense of objectivity. He does not even *pretend* he is
interested in scientific evidence anymore. Rock solid proof; hundreds of
replications; 90 sigma data from EPRI/SRI; Tritium at 10,000 times background;
150 watt reactions with boiling water... these things don't mean a thing to
Richard Petrasso, he says they are all just "subtle mistakes."
 
In a few years, Toyota *will* drive that car and park it right outside his
office. I predict that men in white coats will have to drag him away, as he
kicks, screams and sobs: "It's a mistake! It's a subtle mistake!!!"
 
I wish that all the other "skeptics" would join Richard Petrasso, and admit
that they will never look at the evidence, and that no amount of scientific
proof will ever force them to admit they are wrong.
 
Ah, this story would be so hilarious if it wasn't real life.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Always in favor of experiments
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Always in favor of experiments
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 18:04:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Steve Jones has announced that he will prove you can vaporize 45 ml
of water in a test tube with only 30,000 joules of energy. I look forward to
that! I am sure he will get every Nobel Prize they give out next year.
 
Seriously, I have been waiting for a long time to see a "skeptic" actually try
to prove one of these astounding claims. Steve thinks it is possible to fool a
test tube (and/or computerized power monitor), and get the water out without
exactly boiling it. That's fine. If he thinks so, let him prove it. That's
what I have been asking for.
 
However, I will not be disposed to take his "experiment" seriously, because so
many unanswered questions remain about his previous two experiments to
"debunk" cold fusion claims. For example, we repeatedly asked him about his
light water work, but all he will tell us is that he detects recombination. We
have not seen a single word about:
 
     The size and geometry of the anode and cathode.
 
     Power in, amps and volts.
 
     Temperatures out, and computed power out.
 
     How he measured the gas (any method is tricky).
 
     Why he chose to bubble oxygen through the system, when most workers go to
     great lengths to keep oxygen out of the cells, because it tarnishes and
     wrecks the cathodes. Also, bubbling oxygen is a good way to promote
     recombination, which is something most people take steps to prevent.
 
As someone remarked to me, from what little we know, it almost appears Steve
deliberately set out to do the experiment in a way that would most likely
guarantee failure. There are many other salient details missing, and many
other puzzling aspects of this work. As far as we know, Steve is getting more
power out than I*V in. He could be! He has not said a word about it yet. I
shall reserve judgment, of course. Perhaps when I see a full paper, I shall
see that he did a credible job, but from what little I know so far, this
experiment should not be taken seriously.
 
We saw the same kind of sloppy reporting, and withholding of information, when
Steve tried to prove that silver has about the same resistance as nichrome.
Given this track record, I will believe his results if and only if I see
sufficiently detailed, clear results, and when I have a chance to run them by
experienced people in the field like Bockris. I do not intend to fully judge
them by myself, because I am not expert enough. Let me put it this why: I can
judge a clear, easy, honest experiment. But if someone was trying to hide
something from me, they might get away with it. To some extent, I have to
depend on the judgement of Ikegami, Bockris, Srinvasan, Hagelstein and other
experts, so I usually consult with them before arriving at a final, firm
conclusion about important work. On the other hand, when I looked at Steve's
light water work, I pretty much wrote it off for now, the way I wrote off
Ying's experiment. Unlike other people, however, I am always willing to look
again, when additional evidence or a better paper becomes available.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Jed Rothwell /  ICCF3 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF3 Proceedings
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 18:04:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
People have recently been asking me for this information:
 
The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion are
available from:
 
Universal Academy Press, Inc.
PR Hogo 5 Bldg.
6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo
Tokyo 113
JAPAN
 
Telephone numbers as dialed from the U.S. are:
 
Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232
Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932
 
(Please note: some calls to the fax number get a recording saying the line is
not in service.)
 
The price of the proceedings is 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping:
$26.65)
 
It took a very long time for these people to ship the books in response to
previous orders. If you order this and you don't get it, tell Hideo Ikegami
or me. He complained to the publisher the other day, and a flurry of
backorders arrived by air mail, so perhaps they have straightened out the
problem.
 
- Jed Rothwell * CFRA * Tel: 404-451-9890 * Fax: 404-458-2404
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Jed Rothwell /  ICCF4 Announcement
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4 Announcement
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 18:04:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Several people have asked me to run this announcement again. This originally
came from:
 
EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems
EVENTS (R) Conference
April, 1993
 
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION (ICCF-4)
 
Background
 
Four years of intensive investigation have uncovered a wide variety of
unexpected phenomena occurring in condensed matter under ambient conditions.
Promoted largely by the possibility of a nuclear origin, the reality,
mechanism, independence, and ultimately, significance of these processes is a
subject of continued debate.  The phenomena in question and their associated
disciplines include excess power generation, nuclear product formation,
electrochemical studies of deuterated metal systems, solid-state physics of
metal matrices, coherent processes, behavior of gas-metal systems, and
improved precision calorimetric techniques.
 
Objective
 
The purpose of this conference is to promote the broadest discussion of the
scientific aspects of these condensed matter phenomena.
 
Who Should Attend
 
Participation is open to all interested scientists and technologists. In
particular, the following are encouraged to attend:
 
     Nuclear and solid-state theoreticians
     Advanced energy technologists
     Long-range utility planners
 
Call for Abstracts
 
Two-page abstract due:  September 10, 1993
Author notification:  October 10, 1993
Those wishing to present papers should submit two copies of an abstract
containing the title of the presentation, contact author, affiliation(s),
etc. to S. Crouch-Baker, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood, Avenue, Menlo
Park, CA  94025. Mark these submissions "ICCF-4 Abstract."
 
Abstracts should be no more than two 28 x 21 cm pages (8 1/2 x 11") including
figures and tables; 10-point type, single-spaced.  A bound volume of
abstracts will be produced for distribution to attendees at the conference,
so abstract submittal in magnetic form is encouraged (Macintosh users:  Word
4.0+, System 7; PC users:  Word 4.0+; magnetic media will not be returned).
Also, those submitting abstracts in magnetic form should include two hard
copies.
Technical Information
Tom Passell, EPRI, (415) 855-2070
Michael McKubre, SRI, (415) 859-3868
 
December 6--9, 1993
Hyatt Regency Maui
Lahaina, Hawaii
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Conference Organization/Preliminary Agenda
 
The conference will be cochaired by Dr. T. O. Passell (EPRI) and Dr. M. C. H.
McKubre (SRI).  An organizing committee has been formed with individual
responsibility in the following designated areas.  The International Advisory
Committee will be announced shortly.
 
T. Claytor                (LANL)           Nuclear Measurements
S. Crouch-Baker           (SRI)            Proceedings
P. Hagelstein             (MIT)            Theory
B. Liaw                   (U. Hawaii)      Site Organization
M. McKubre                (SRI)            Calorimetry (cochair)
R. Nowack                 (ONR)            Administration
T. Passell                (EPRI)           Administration (cochair)
D. Rolison                (NRL)            Materials, Fundamentals
 
The proposed agenda is as follows:  Morning sessions will be devoted to one
keynote presentation and a number of shorter, invited presentations.
Afternoon presentations will be divided into a number of thematically
organized parallel sessions to accommodate the anticipated number of
presentations.  Papers reporting the results of simultaneous measurements of
different kinds are particularly encouraged.  Subject areas to be covered
include:
 
     Materials and Fundamentals
     Calorimetry
     Nuclear Measurements
     Solid-State Theory
     Electrochemical Studies
     Safety Issues
 
Logistical and Registration Information
 
Linda Nelson
Conference Coordinator
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743
Tel: (415) 855-2127
Fax: (415) 855-2041
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / A Boulanger /  Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky's BWOs / Van Hove singularies / Worth looking into!
Date: 10 Jul 93 14:03:44
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <1993Jul2.150943.3119@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
 
   The possibility of _high-temperature_ boson condensation as proposed by
   Mr. Bernecky is not just interesting, it's downright persuasive -- and far
   more "conventional" in its physics than it might at first sound.  I rather
   doubt that anyone has ever proposed this exact concept before, though only
   a literature check will tell of course.  (I do not know if Chubb/Chubb ever
   took this tact, but their work should certainly be checked.  Also, again,
   I would point out that Chuck Sites looked into a lot of these issues in
   some detail here on this group.)
 
 
This is interesting because it parallels another similar line of
thought in hot fusion. Geert Dijikhuis has proposed that ball
lightning electro-hydrodynamics follows the London equation. This
implies some superfluid behavior which in turn implies boson
condensation at high temperatures. Geert, like Paul Koloc, wants to
get fusion out of ball lightning-like entities. To quote from a 1990
message of Paul Koloc's:
 
  From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
  Newsgroups: sci.physics
  Subject: Re: Ball Lightning information request
  Date: 4 Apr 90 06:59:15 GMT
  Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (0000-Admin(0000))
  Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
 
  There are a number of scientists and near scientists that believe Ball
  Lightning can be harnessed or at least the principles of Ball Lightning
  can be utilized to produce a device to tame thermonuclear fusion.
 
  Most of them have no clear model for Ball Lightning and no clear approach
  to forming such a "mythological" entity in atmospheric air medium at STP.
 
  It's mythological because it is well known that for Ball Lightning to
  have the characteristics it does, it MUST have high internal energy and
  maintain some magical fluid tensile internal compression mechanism and
  be essentially "superconducting" to have such extended lifetimes.
 
Personally, I realized when I was taking a plasma physics course that
the normal hot route to physics was playing with the WRONG statistics.
Uncle Murphy behind the stats wants to spread energy across states and
uses all the dynamic plasma instabilities to accomplish this. The path
to fusion with Bosons is much simpler.
 
 
Interestingly, there seems to be no data on V/I characteristics of air
at current densities (assuming a channel radius) like that associated
with lightning initiated ball lightning the last time I check about 5
years ago. (Ball lightning seems to occur in eye witness accounts
after the main rain has stopped and seems associated with the "Big
Boomers". These are positive return strokes from the anvil to the
ground, and can reach currents 300KA or more. The mean stat for
lightning current is around 50KA. Lightning current follows a
log-normal distribution. Geert was using a system that produced 150KA
-- ball lightning has also occurred in electric submarine battery
switching gear with these kinds of currents. ) Perhaps there is a
phase transition waiting to be discovered?
 
 
Reference:
 
"Themonuclear Energy from Ball Lightning"
Geert Dijkhuis
Proc 14th Intersociety Energy Conversion Conference
1979, American Chemical Society
 
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / John Logajan /  CNF operating temperatures
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF operating temperatures
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 93 18:46:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

While the best temperatures for Bernecky cold nuclear fusion (BCNF) lab
experiments are 39C (2 lambda) for BWO(H) and 78C (3 lambda) for BWO(D)
in Pd, it would seem that the best temperatures for steam cycle power
extraction would come at 429C (3 lambda) for BWO(H) and 351C (4 lambda
octahedral) or 146C (2 lambda tetrahedral) for BWO(D).
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Chuck Harrison /  Hagelstein paper - avail by ftp
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein paper - avail by ftp
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 21:01:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rojara@malleco.cec.uchile.cl (JARA PINOCHET RODOLFO) writes:
 
>     Where are it's posible obtain the summary of conference on cold fusion ?
 
One place this is available is by ftp from sunsite.unc.edu.  Your session should
look like this:
 
[your-unix-system]%ftp sunsite.unc.edu
Connected to sunsite.unc.edu.
220 SunSITE is from UNC & Sun. Read DISCLAIMER.readme for our legal disclaimer
Name (sunsite.unc.edu:cfh): anonymous
331-Guest login ok, send e-mail address as password.
331 Begin your password entry with a - (dash) to suppress the helpful messages.
Password:cfh@sunsite
230-             WELCOME to UNC and SUN's anonymous ftp server
230-                       University of North Carolina
230-                     Office FOR Information Technology
230-                             SunSITE.unc.edu
 .
 .
 .
230-  Mail suggestions and questions to ftpkeeper@sunsite.unc.edu.
230-
230-  This is the top directory- IAFA-LISTINGS is a complete list of
230-  everything residing on this archive.
230-
230-   cd pub will take you to the good stuff.
230-
230 Guest login ok, access restrictions apply.
ftp> cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
250 CWD command successful.
ftp> get INDEX -
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for INDEX (443 bytes).
Files in this directory are related to 'cold fusion'
 
Dieter Britz's annotated bibliography
  cnfdescrip
  cnf-pap
  cnf-bks
  cnf-cmnt
  cnf-peri
  cnf-pat
 
P. Hagelstein's review of Nagoya conference (ICCF3)
  nagoya.txt
 
Terry Bollinger's heavy band soliton conjecture 'A Twist of Ribbon'
  twist.txt
 
mail digests of the sci.pysics.fusion newsgroup
  fdNNNNN-NNNNN
  cud.prl  - a Perl script which processes mail digests for wais indexing
 
226 Transfer complete.
remote: INDEX
462 bytes received in 0.14 seconds (3.2 Kbytes/s)
 
Rodolfo, what you want to do is
 
ftp> get nagoya.txt
 
to copy the Hagelstein paper to your machine, then
 
ftp> quit
 
Good luck.
 
  -Chuck
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 93 21:33:25 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930710160006_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> Here we have it, folks: a "skeptic" has finally come out of the
> closet and admitted the truth. Last year, Toyota showed a 150 watt reactor
> with boiling water ... This year, Toyota will show a 20,000 watt reactor
                         ^^^^^^^^^
 
Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the long
promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given. The 20kW reactor
should make things very clear....but if it never materializes, what
will that prove?
 
5 months to go...
 
--
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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 22:58:01 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930710160006_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>           ...                      Tritium at 10,000 times background;
                                     ^^^^^^^
>In a few years, Toyota *will* drive that car and park it right outside his
>office.
 
If so, they will need more than just a *driver's license* to do it!
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.11 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: What's a boson
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 93 04:44:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>Fermions are particles with half-integral spin: 1/2, 3/2, etc.
 They          >get their name because such particles obey Fermi-Dirac
statistics
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ....... which
          ^^^^^
>has the consequence that no two identical fermions can occupy the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>same quantum state.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
   Perhaps this is nit-picking, but doesn't the logical implication
really go the other way -- that is, postulating that no two particles
can occupy the same state implies, through a fairly simple derivation,
Fermi-Dirac statistics (though on second thought, maybe the derivation
can be run backwards, even though it usually isn't).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Li in electrodes?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Li in electrodes?
Date: 11 Jul 93 20:06:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <C9t9qF.FI8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <C9s6DB.5ED@prometheus.uucp> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>Of more importance (to me) is the isotopic ratio of Li6/Li7.
>>Highest ratios are most interesting for me.
>
>     I believe a local experiment was done with an infinite ratio
>     (i.e. all Li6).
>
>     Result: no excess heat.
>
>     It's funny; In this business, the experimental conditions don't
>     seem to matter much, the experimenter seems to matter a great deal.
>
>     To say the least, that's not a positive sign.
>
>                           dale bass
 
Dale
That's interesting to me at least.  If you could track down the reference
or report the conditions or the , who, where.. (telno), I certainly would
be pleased.
 
Specifically, how long did loading go on for and was there any analysis
of the Li(6) loading and distribution (radial) in the Pd, Ni.. or what
ever.
 
thanks
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: What's a boson
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 21:21:51 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Jul11.044457.15791@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.
DU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
 
 quoting me, I believe
 
>>Fermions are particles with half-integral spin: 1/2, 3/2, etc.
 They          >get their name because such particles obey Fermi-Dirac
statistics
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ....... which
>          ^^^^^
>>has the consequence that no two identical fermions can occupy the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>same quantum state.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   Perhaps this is nit-picking, but doesn't the logical implication
>really go the other way -- that is, postulating that no two particles
>can occupy the same state implies, through a fairly simple derivation,
>Fermi-Dirac statistics (though on second thought, maybe the derivation
>can be run backwards, even though it usually isn't).
 
I believe you editted out the key phrase.  The original has long since
expired on our system, but I am sure that I put the remark about Fermi-
Dirac statistics at the beginning solely to explain the origin of the name
for this class of particles and that it was followed by the statement that
such particles obey anti-commutation rules.  The "which" clause defintely
referred to a statement about the total anti-symmetry of the wavefunction
required by the anti-commutation rules.
 
I was not not making any observation at all about how one proves such
relationships, but only outlining the key properties of these two
classes of particles.  Sorry if I confused you.
 
Personally, I know that when I learned QM I approached things from the
view that there were two classes: those that commute and those that
anti-commute; the statistics followed later since that material was
learned much later.  However, once I had spent a few years working with
them, where the type of statistic is used as the primary means of
classifying particles, I tend to associate the symmetry properties with
the statistics rather than the other way around.
 
Finally, I was reminded by E-mail that I had omitted "anyons",
particles that obey a mixed sort of statistics but only exist in 2-D
systems, from the list.  It is interesting that no one has invoked
these in any of their explanations of cold fusion.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: 11 Jul 1993 23:34:43 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
: This year, Toyota will show a 20,000 watt reactor
: and Richard will say, "Oh, that's another subtle mistake."
 
Will Toyota let some random joe, e.g. Prof Jones, take it to its lab
and check it out independently?
 
Will the Toyota reactor be self-powered?  At 20kW, it should be simple,
19th century technology, no?
 
: - Jed
 
Yes, I can be convinced.
 
--
-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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Jerry Bishop on "Cold Fusion" in Aug 93 Popular Science
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jerry Bishop on "Cold Fusion" in Aug 93 Popular Science
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 04:15:14 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi ya'll,
 
Well now _that_ was a delightful little piece of Deja Vou reading!  I think
the single most relevant new piece of data was the remarkably prevalent
mention of one Jed Rothwell (to the near total exclusion of Tom Droege,
who was mentioned strictly in passing).  Don't recall seeing Steve Jones
mentioned at all, but I skimmed a bit in sections.  (And hydrinos!  They
weren't there in the first go-round either, of course.)
 
Nothing struck me as particularly worthwhile of major comment, though, as
the article was absolutely littered with the same kind of back-and-forth
disputations and quite bizarre logic we all know and love from participating
in this group.  I might note that there was a bold-font sidebar quote from
Eugene Mallove that was, um, _real close_ to the "mountains of crow" comment
he first made (publically at least) here in this group.
 
Perhaps the most interesting point to me was the mention that NSF is trying
to keep a pretty detailed record of what is going on "behind the scenes" in
this long-standing debate, primarily for scientific posterity.  One would
rather assume that this will include the records of this group...
 
Imagine that -- ALL of Jed Rothwell's diatribes recorded in detail for the
leasurely extraction and analysis of future scholars!  I love it, I simply
love it...   :-)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- Steve Jones:  Are we still in touch or not?  Haven't heard from you,
        and I fear I've committed the Unpardonable Sin by reverting back to
        TMC discussions.  (If so, tough luck I guess -- I have to follow what
        I honestly think is currently the best analysis path.)
 
P.P.S - Dr. Miles:  Will you _please_ stop making a jackass of yourself on
        this group?  If your results are good, STAND BY THEM and stop acting
        as if tantrums are the only way DoD researchers know how to promote
        their wares.  You are doing both yourself and the DoD a disservice
        by getting so emotionally involved just because one group of workers
        did not embrace your work when you presented it to them.  So they
        asked you mean nasty naughty widdle questions when you went to talk
        to them -- SO WHAT?  Patent your work and make a bundle of off it,
        and forget about them.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / A Christiansen /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: alan@jupiter.cs.swin.OZ.AU (Alan Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: 12 Jul 93 07:44:09 GMT
Organization: Swinburne University of Technology

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>In article <930710160006_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM>
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>> Here we have it, folks: a "skeptic" has finally come out of the
>> closet and admitted the truth. Last year, Toyota showed a 150 watt reactor
>> with boiling water ... This year, Toyota will show a 20,000 watt reactor
>                         ^^^^^^^^^
 
>Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the long
>promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given. The 20kW reactor
>should make things very clear....but if it never materializes, what
>will that prove?
 
Oh ye of little faith. I have every confidence that a dubious 20,000 watt
reactor can be built.
 
It will only make it clear if it does not reqire a pulsed mega watt
laser to get it going. :)
 
What I would really make it clear was if the 20,000 watt reactor
was connected to a generator which supplied all the current that
was needed to get the thing to work. This would really shut the
skeptic net up.
I propose that following the first demonstration of such an event
all skeptic s refrain from posting to this group for one week
as a mark of respect.
 
>5 months to go...
Can my finger nails take it?
ALan
 
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
--
Everyone at this site (including me) has my name in their kill file so
I guess I dont speak for anyone.
I guess that that is fair enough no one speaks for me either.
Mail address   alan@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnChristiansen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Li in electrodes?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Li in electrodes?
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 07:43:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CA0nv3.3w2@prometheus.uucp> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <C9t9qF.FI8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <C9s6DB.5ED@prometheus.uucp> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>>Of more importance (to me) is the isotopic ratio of Li6/Li7.
>>>Highest ratios are most interesting for me.
>>
>>     I believe a local experiment was done with an infinite ratio
>>     (i.e. all Li6).
>>
>>     Result: no excess heat.
>>
>>     It's funny; In this business, the experimental conditions don't
>>     seem to matter much, the experimenter seems to matter a great deal.
>>
>>     To say the least, that's not a positive sign.
>>
>>                           dale bass
>
>Dale
>That's interesting to me at least.  If you could track down the reference
>or report the conditions or the , who, where.. (telno), I certainly would
>be pleased.
 
     I suspect that there were many, many negative results
     from that time that were never published.  This was four years ago,
     but I do believe that at least one
     of the participants is still at UVA.  If I am not mistaken,
     you may want to try Robert Mulder (rum@virginia.edu).
 
>Specifically, how long did loading go on for and was there any analysis
>of the Li(6) loading and distribution (radial) in the Pd, Ni.. or what
>ever.
 
     I really doubt that there was any detailed analysis of Li distribution.
     Doing a detailed analysis of something that wasn't showing heat
     strikes me as dissecting the goose that didn't lay the golden egg.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 08:35:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <alan.742463049@jupiter> alan@jupiter.cs.swin.OZ.AU
(Alan Christiansen) writes:
>
>barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>
>>In article <930710160006_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM>
>>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>>> Here we have it, folks: a "skeptic" has finally come out of the
>>> closet and admitted the truth. Last year, Toyota showed a 150 watt reactor
>>> with boiling water ... This year, Toyota will show a 20,000 watt reactor
>>                         ^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the long
>>promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given. The 20kW reactor
>>should make things very clear....but if it never materializes, what
>>will that prove?
>
>What I would really make it clear was if the 20,000 watt reactor
>was connected to a generator which supplied all the current that
>was needed to get the thing to work.
 
      I imagine that will occur right between Hell hitting the -20C mark
      and the construction of the first Pig Aerodrome.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  eraxet@zipfer. /  ColdFusion???
     
Originally-From: eraxet@zipfer.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ColdFusion???
Date: 12 Jul 93 10:15:06 GMT
Organization: Ericsson

Maybe I missed something (I have never read anything in this newsgroup
until today)...Is cold fusion something that we are able to achieve
today??
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Erik
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudeneraxet cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Limits on magnetic field strength
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Limits on magnetic field strength
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 13:53:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Croft asks:
 
< Does anyone know what factors limit current density and magnetic >
< field strength in electromagnets?                                >
 
If your question was intended to apply to DC magnetic fields there are
two answers:
 
(1)For conventional resistive conductors, i.e. copper wire, the limit
   is set by how much power can be dissipated in the winding.  In practice
   that generally is done by using hollow copper tubing for the conductor
   and forcing water at a high flow through the tubing to carry out the
   heat.
 
(2)For superconducting windings, low temperature SC for now, the limit
   is set by the fact that the magnetic field disrupts the electron pairing
   such that the maximum current density limit is a function of the magnetic
   field in the conductor.  Some gain can be made by lowering the temperature
   at which the magnet operates, and the current density limit vs. magnetic
   field depends on the material used for the winding so development of new
   materials may change what the ultimate limit is.
 
Dick Blue
National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: 12 Jul 93 05:47:26 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <C9v67D.1HF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1993Jul8.164629.24210@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>The real "sewers" of societies are those that are economically and
>>industrially backward (i.e. socialistic, or otherwise dictatorial.)
 
>     Sewers are a case in point.  How many third world nations have
>     municipal sewage treatment plants for their major cities,  ..
 
>     Answer: not too damn many.
>                            dale bass
 
What does the number of municipal sewage treatment plants for their
major cities [i.e. USA] have to do with the number sewers [i.e. as in
every village and burg I tramped through in East Europe and Asia]???
or I'm I missing something rather subtle?   Let's get some sleep.
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson  and a bit of So What
Date: 12 Jul 93 06:08:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <C9v641.E93@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <C9tw9v.Luq@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  Li-6 (which is the way
>I write $^{6}$Li in E-mail, just in case that is not obvious) has spin 1
>and a reasonable (0.8 mu_N) dipole moment.  Li-7 has spin 3/2 and a much
>larger (more than 3) dipole moment.  But Be-9 also has spin 3/2 and its
>dipole moment is less than 1.2, less than the dipole moment of B-10 (spin 3)
>which is less than that of B-11.  These are hardly suppressed nuclear
>magnetic fields, and nuclear structure is at least as important as spin
>in determining the value.
 
Notation forms are understood in this context.
 
Suppressed was a bad choice of words.  The significantly smaller mag
field of Li(6) in a Pd lattice would allow for significantly reduced
EXB drift induced torques which should facilitate higher relative
diffusion rates and loadings (in Pd).  I'm assuming there is some
electric field/lattice line tying for the Li electrons.   I wasn't
aware of the use of B or Be in CF work, if that was inferred.
>--
>J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
>Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
>Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
>Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 12 Jul 93 05:33:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <C9wM2J.3Ev@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
>Does anyone know what factors limit current
>density and magnetic field strength in
>electromagnets?
 
voltage available -- and electrical insulation which relates to temperature
tensile strength  or bursting pressure -- inter-relates with temperature
temperature --  field (current) duration time
conductivity  -- inter-relates to temperature and voltage
super conductivity doesn't work at really high current densities.
form factor -- geometry  this includes "force free spheromak-like
                        or torsatron-like windings.
 
Best high fields can be generated within ram compressed PLASMAK(TM)
magnetoplasmoids -- assuming a relaxed definition of the classical
"electromagnet".
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 15:51:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Matt Kennel asks:
 
"Will Toyota let some random joe, e.g. Prof Jones, take it to its lab and
check it out independently?
 
Of course not! That is like asking Intel to give Motorola the blueprints and
test versions of the next generation CPU chip. Any corporation that handed out
critical secrets like that would go bankrupt. I don't know if it would be a
criminal violation, but it would *certainly* be a violation of civil law, and
it would precipitate massive stockholder lawsuits. That kind of irresponsible
management would never be tolerated in any company, in any nation. You simply
do not hand out valuable secrets for free. It would be like throwing bales of
cash money into the street. A legitimate, law abiding corporation like Toyota
would never even consider doing something as outlandish as that. I suppose in
the fullness of time, they will give out samples, but only under a 40 meters
blizzard of paper: corporate agreements, secrecy agreements, and the usual
fol-de-rol that corporations always impose to maintain new product secrecy.
 
Matt must not have any experience working in private industry with trade
secrets and patents. Anyone who has such experience would know that "random
joes" are never allowed past the barbed wire fence and security systems at
companies like Toyota.
 
However, they will continue to let a stream of visitors in. I mean legitimate,
top level, serious scientists. In the period between the Nagoya Conference and
January, C&F News reported about 60 visitors as I recall. I am sure they have
had more. They were extraordinarily open and candid with the CBC film crew,
showing them virtually everything the crew asked to see. The scientists who
have visited there say they were given extensive information about the
experiments.
 
Of course, if you have several hundred thousand dollars burning a hole in your
pocket, you can contact the IMRA Karia City office, buy the equipment, and do
it yourself. It is like the NTT experiment. The sales literature does not list
the price; if you have to ask, you can't afford it. I suppose this is kind of
like the Intel "devoloper's kits," which I have heard are excellent.
 
I rather doubt that Steve Jones would be welcome to visit, given his track
record and statements about P&F.
 
Another lab that opened up after the Nagoya Conference was SRI. They have had
several visitors, and I have heard good reports through the grapevine. On the
recent NPR program, McKubre explained their earlier reticence, and said that
they now welcome legitimate scientists. I am delighted with their open door
policy. By the same token, I fully understand their earlier policy. They felt
it was important to establish a full track record, and to be *absolutely
certain* of their results before opening the door. They did not say it, but I
suppose they have the usual quota of business and legal sense, so I suppose
they also wanted to file iron-clad patents and draw up secrecy agreements and
policies before opening the doors. I am in favor of that kind of conservative,
step-by-step approach. McKubre said that their peer-reviewed papers are still
going through the mill. We all know how much time that takes!
 
 
That NPR tape was superb, by the way. It was "Science Friday," moderated by
Ira Flatow. It was broadcast on June 25, 1993. For more information contact:
 
Talk Of The Nation
Science Friday
WNYC Radio
1 Center Street
New York, NY 10007
 
Or, for a tape, send $12.50 to:
 
NPR Tapes
Washington, DC 20036
 
Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93).
 
 
 
Matt also asks:
 
"Will the Toyota reactor be self-powered?  At 20kW, it should be simple, 19th
century technology, no?"
 
Not to my knowledge. If you don't believe in elementary physics, and you don't
think calorimetry works (or you don't understand how it works), you are in the
same boat as Petrasso, Morrison or Close. You are just going to have to wait a
few more years. However, no serious scientist would doubt that elementary
thermodynamics still works. If you understand junior high school level
science, you will find the 20 KW reactor every bit as convincing as the 150
watt work. If you don't believe the 150 watt work, then you are hopelessly
ignorant and nothing will convince you anyway.
 
You have to realize that Toyota is doing these public demonstrations in order
to show legitimate, rational scientists what they have. They want to show MITI
and the Japanese Society of Applied Physics where the work will lead, in order
to continue developing a coordinated, national policy to deal with this
technology. They don't care what fruitcakes like Petrasso or Morrison think.
If you don't understand calorimetry, they don't care what you think either.
They deal with scientists, not fruitcakes.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Bob Pendleton /  Canadian news program
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Canadian news program
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 15:01:13 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

Well, I got a copy of a tape of the program and spent about 2 hours
watching it. (Lot's of rewind/pause/still action and I didn't get to
bed until around 1:30 a.m.)
 
All in all it was a very frustrating tape. It was good TV, but not
very good science. It did leave me wanting more information, much more
information.
 
On the tape there is mention made of a runaway reaction that produced
lots of radiation. I haven't seen anything about this anywere else.
Does anyone have real information about that incident?
 
There was lots of talk about events that should be absolute
verification of the cnf effect, but no way to verify that they really
happened or that they happened the way they were described.
 
Interesting.
 
                                Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton, Speaking only for myself.
 
                bobp@hal.com until July 16, 1993
                No forwarding address at this time.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Hagelstein paper in Word Perfect format
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein paper in Word Perfect format
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:09:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Chuck Harrison notes that the Hagelstein review of the Nagoya Conference is
available from "ftp" from "sunsite.unc.edu" ...whatever that means.
 
Ummm... you can also get it from me, in ASCII and WordPerfect format on a high
density 3.5 inch IBM formatted diskette. WordPerfect format prints
beautifully, with left and right handed quotation marks, superscripts and
other editing control characters. I believe that many other word processors
can read in this format. Send your full mailing address in a form suitable for
my Seiko mailing label gadget to:
 
Jed Rothwell
Cold Fusion Research Advocates
2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 312-F
Chamblee, Georgia 30341
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
Home: 404-458-8107
E-Mail: CompuServe 72240,1256
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orgone Energy
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:09:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz mentioned "Orgone Energy".  Someone sent me a paper on "Orgone
Energy".  It seems that the way you make an Orgone Energy accumulator it to
build up a container of alternate layers of conductor and insulator.  Silk
scarfs seem to be preffered for the insulators.  Such a container is supposed
to accumulate heat.  There is a Society and a Jourlal and everything for
Orgone Energy.
 
My problem is that is exactly the construction of my calorimeter.  Alternate
layers of conductor and insulator.  Now if it is collecting "Orgone Energy",
how the heck do I correct for it?
 
Jed claims 10% for his simple device.  Trouble is, for a real experiment, that
number is apt to get to 30 or 40% with the "unexpected" problems that always
arise.  Jed, try to run it continuously for six months through a heating season
change, a few power failures, and the dog knocking the apparatus off it's stand
and see how good the data is.  Just note that a control, sample pair takes at
least six months.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Specific Heat.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Specific Heat.
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:09:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed Rothwell says:
 
"1.  Specific heat is a constant"
 
My experience in life is that nothing is constant.  Does anyone know how
specific heat changes with temperature?  I have been meaning to look into
this.  A few hundred ppm per C could be a problem for me.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Li6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Li6
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:09:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Paul Koloc for answering my question about the boson state of Li6
before I had a chance to post it.  Next question is "could Li6 serve as a
seed to grow a big BWO (Bernecky's Boson Wave Object)?"
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Mills Farrell Book
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Mills Farrell Book
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:35:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I happen to have a copy of the "The Grand Unified Theory" by Mills and Farrell.
It is just sitting on my bookshelf as I do not read theory.  They kindly sent
it to me when I was attempting to replicate their experiment.
 
I will be happy to loan it to anyone who promises to return it in a month or
two.  But I want it back, as it is a "first edition" and will be valuable some
day.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: magnetic fields
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 17:35:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Thomas Croft asks about the limiting field for magnets.  If it is a
practical question, the limit is how well heat can be removed from a copper,
silver, or aluminum conductor.  Silver likely best.  For a superconducter,
there is a critical point where the magnetic field itself makes the
superconductor go normal - i.e. it suddenly changes to the resistance of
the room temperature superconductor, which is a lot, and everything
vaporizes unless you have planned carefully for this event.  Seems to me
that the record is 200 kg or so for a pulsed water cooled magnet.  I think
there is a magnet lab at MIT where they would know such things.
 
If you are asking the ultimate limit on fields, then I don't know.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 16:56:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CA1Er5.Btz@prometheus.uucp> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <C9v67D.1HF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul8.164629.24210@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes:
>>>The real "sewers" of societies are those that are economically and
>>>industrially backward (i.e. socialistic, or otherwise dictatorial.)
>
>>     Sewers are a case in point.  How many third world nations have
>>     municipal sewage treatment plants for their major cities,  ..
>
>>     Answer: not too damn many.
>>                            dale bass
>
>What does the number of municipal sewage treatment plants for their
>major cities [i.e. USA] have to do with the number sewers [i.e. as in
>every village and burg I tramped through in East Europe and Asia]???
>or I'm I missing something rather subtle?   Let's get some sleep.
 
   Got me.  Is this a riddle?
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: 12 Jul 1993 18:31:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930712114211.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>My problem is that is exactly the construction of my calorimeter.  Alternate
>layers of conductor and insulator.  Now if it is collecting "Orgone Energy",
>how the heck do I correct for it?
 
I hadn't really thought about it, but maybe Orgone Energy could explain
*both* cold fusion *and* why not all of the H atoms in the universe aren't
hydrinos. . . sort of a Grand Unified Theory of Everything.  Maharishi step
aside!  And remember, you heard it here first.
 
                                Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Specific Heat.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Specific Heat.
Date: 12 Jul 1993 19:07:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930712115701.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>Jed Rothwell says:
>
>"1.  Specific heat is a constant"
>
>My experience in life is that nothing is constant.  Does anyone know how
>specific heat changes with temperature?  I have been meaning to look into
>this.  A few hundred ppm per C could be a problem for me.
 
Most often, heat capacities that one would use are given by a virial equation
of the form Cp = a + bT + cT^2 (sometimes they include more terms).  According
to the CRC, where several mutually inconsistent tables can be found for the
exact values, for most metals, b is of the order of 0.001a.  Thus, you can
expect Cp to vary by about 0.5 - 1 percent when you go from room temperature
to boiling.  That's for the electrodes.  Water is more strange, as we all
know.  If you look at your average p-chem textbook, they will quote you the
table from Lewis & Randall that says Cp for water doesn't change from melting
to boiling.  If you look in the CRC (one of the world's least trustworthy
sources, admittedly, but I don't care enough about this to get anything more
accurate), the Cp of water at 1 atmosphere does vary in the fourth decimal
place (i.e. order of 10 ppm) per degree from melting to boiling.
 
Hope this helps.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
P.S.  Don't even *ask* me about Debye temperatures.  I took solid-state physics
long enough ago to be thankful I've forgotten all of it.  Finally.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 18:42:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930712151935_72240.1256_EHK22-2@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Matt Kennel asks:
>
>"Will Toyota let some random joe, e.g. Prof Jones, take it to its lab and
>check it out independently?
>
>Of course not! That is like asking Intel to give Motorola the blueprints and
>test versions of the next generation CPU chip. Any corporation that handed out
>critical secrets like that would go bankrupt. I don't know if it would be a
>criminal violation, but it would *certainly* be a violation of civil law, and
>it would precipitate massive stockholder lawsuits.
[and on and on and on...]
 
     Dr. Jones is competing with Toyota?
 
     Makes you kinda wonder what the new model-year Jonesmobiles look
     like...
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Specific Heat.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Specific Heat.
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 18:51:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930712115701.206026ae@fnald.fnal.gov> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>Jed Rothwell says:
>
>"1.  Specific heat is a constant"
>
>My experience in life is that nothing is constant.  Does anyone know how
>specific heat changes with temperature?  I have been meaning to look into
>this.  A few hundred ppm per C could be a problem for me.
 
     For water, here's a little table for C_p at one bar.
 
              T (C)      C_p (kJ /kg C)
              0          4.228
              20         4.183
              40         4.182
              60         4.183
              80         4.194
 
     This comes from the NBS/NRC steam tables.  It's constant to a couple
     parts in ten thousand over a fairly wide temperature range.
 
                               dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / John Cobb /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 12 Jul 1993 14:49:04 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <CA1E4L.BD0@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <C9wM2J.3Ev@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (David Thomas Croft) writes:
>>Does anyone know what factors limit current
>>density and magnetic field strength in
>>electromagnets?
>
>Best high fields can be generated within ram compressed PLASMAK(TM)
>magnetoplasmoids -- assuming a relaxed definition of the classical
>"electromagnet".
 
Better than the fields inside and ICF target after impact? Better than
a heavy ion ICF drive? I'd like to see the numbers on that one.
 
john .w cobb
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jed Rothwell /  No Definite Date
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Definite Date
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 21:13:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I missed this little gem the first time round. Barry Merriman (I gather it
was) wrote:
 
     "Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the long
     promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given."
 
First of all, the promised proof of cold fusion came in 1992 with the McKubre
paper at Como. Anyone who does not understand that has rocks in his head. It
is indisputable proof of heat beyond chemistry. No "skeptical" objections have
ever been raised against it, and none ever will, unless you count the lunatic
fringe claims of "water friction" or the "theory" that you can burn 0.004 mole
of hydrogen and get 80,000 joules.
 
Second, the idea that you can announce an R&D product like the 20 KW reactor,
and have it materialize exactly on time is ludicrous. It is absurd. I have
spent 20 years building various products, software, hardware and some in
between. The kind of work I do is cut-and-dry, by-the-numbers, easy
development; it is nothing remotely like basic scientific research. Yet even I
would never promise to have a product done by a certain month eight months in
advance. If the Toyota 20 KW reactor comes in by Christmas, I will not be
surprised. I think it is very likely to happen around then, because they have
met their previously declared goals roughly on schedule so far. They have made
fantastic progress. On the other hand, if it is two years late, that would not
shock me either. A two year delay is *nothing* in a project as profoundly
difficult and novel as this. These people are inventing a whole new field of
science! You cannot expect them to do that by punching cards in a time clock.
 
The fact that Merriman thinks that you can put a definite schedule on
fundamental R&D demonstrates that he knows *nothing* -- I mean NOTHING --
about how new discoveries are made and real science is done. Truly, it is one
of the stupidest "skeptical" statements I have read this year. Nothing I could
say could prove more conclusively how naive and inexperienced these so-called
"skeptics" are.
 
However long it takes though, one thing is certain: cold fusion power reactors
will be generating commercial power at least 40 years ahead of the time the
first practical hot fusion prototype is supposed to be finished (roughly
2050). In four years, we have accomplished more than they did in 40 years! we
have caught up with them, zipped by them, and now they are far behind eating
our dust. If four more years, we will bury them. We will put them out of
business, using only tiny fraction of the money they have squandered. *Our*
technology works, their's is a dud and a turkey.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What's a boson
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's a boson
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 20:11:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
References: <1993Jul3.051946.26428@ns.network.com> <C9r7zr.F1p@mailer.cc
fsu.edu> <1993Jul11.044457.15791@EE.Stanford.EDU> <CA0rCF.2ww@mailer.cc.
su.edu>
 
In <CA0rCF.2ww@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> on Sun, 11 Jul 1993 21:21:51 GMT
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) said:
 
> Finally, I was reminded by E-mail that I had omitted "anyons", particles
> that obey a mixed sort of statistics but only exist in 2-D systems, from
> the list.  It is interesting that no one has invoked these in any of their
> explanations of cold fusion.
 
I beg your pardon, sir, but what do you thing all that discussion of charge
fracturing was about over two years ago in Twist of Ribbon?
 
Pseudo-1D solitons (kinks) are the 1D equivalent of the more famous (perhaps
because they are better named?) 2D anyons, and share their curious fermion/
boson ambiguities.  Twist of Ribbon did not originate as a farfetch about
TMC -- it started in an earlier version as a farfetch about the possibility
of fusion between boson-like "fractured fermions" that had been split by an
encounter with a kink/antikink band pair.  Such things happen all the time in
polyacetylene, where an isolated electron is actually _unstable_ (!) with
respect to the formation of two half-charged solitons with _boson_ statistics.
 
By simple scaling arguments the same sort of thing can _in principle_ occur
with either protons (for +1/2 boson kink/antikinks) or even neutral deuterium
atoms (for 0 charge boson kink/antikinks).
 
If you drop the high-heat (just as P&F seem to have, er, _dropped_ their
evidence of vaporization of half of their infamous 1 cm^3 Pd cube) and just
assume that _only_ low levels of nuclear products exist, then the precessor
farfetch that led to Twist can be re-opened for discussion, as in:
 
    What _does_ happen when kink/antikink boson-statistic half-deuteriums
    (or +1/2 boson half-protons) encounter each other in a band structure?
    Or even more outlandishly, form a boson condensate?  Or encounter other
    atoms in the lattice?
 
In the absence of very good experimental evidence to the contrary, my answer
to that one would be "nothing at all, of course!"
 
But if there is _good_ evidence for something strange going on, _and_ if
there are no massive levels of heat popping out, then these curious classes
of pseudoparticles merit closer examination.  Unlike other types of pseudo-
particles, kink-fractured solitions involve major distortions of the wave-
functions that cannot be described with a purely local analysis.  These odd
wavefunctions at least have the potential to stretch the usual interpretation
of how such wavefunctions should be handled.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 20:18:09 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930712151935_72240.1256_EHK22-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Matt Kennel asks:
>
>"Will Toyota let some random joe, e.g. Prof Jones, take it to its lab and
>check it out independently?
>
>Of course not! That is like asking Intel to give Motorola the blueprints and
>test versions of the next generation CPU chip.
 
No, it is like asking Intel to let you test the chip before it goes to
market, and perhaps even examine it fairly closely.  Sort of like what
Intel did with AMD.  Hasn't seemed to hurt Intel's bottom line *too* much!
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jed Rothwell /  JJAP CF articles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: JJAP CF articles
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 22:28:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
People interested in cold fusion who read Japanese will definitely want to see
six articles the most recent issue of the "Oyou Butsuri," Vol 62, No. 7, July
1993 (The Journal of the Japanese Society of Applied Physics). This is one of
the most authoritative, respected physics journals in Japan. Titles are listed
here as shown in English at the bottom of the page.
 
The articles are grouped together in the table of contents under the heading,
"Has Cold Fusion Been Verified"
 
"Production of neutron, tritium and excess heat," Akito TAKAHASHI (Dept. of
Nuc. Eng., Osaka University), p. 707
 
"Emission of energetic charged particles," Jirohata KASAGI (Lab. of Nuc.
Science, Tohoku U.) and Keizo ISHII (Cyclotron and Radio Isotope Cntr, Tohoku
U.), p. 710
 
"Helium-4 production and its correlation with heat evolution," Eichi YAMAGUCHI
(NTT) and Takashi NISHIOKA (NTT), p. 712
 
"Critical points for the evaluation of measured results on cold fusion," [the
Japanese adds: "Evidence of Nuclear Reactions"], Tokushi SHIBATA (Inst. for
Nuclear Study, Univ. of Tokyo), p. 715
 
"Key points in the evaluation of experimental results (the excess heat),"
Michio ENYO (Catalysis Research Cntr., Hokkaido U.), p. 716
 
"Next step to promote cold fusion researches," Hideo IKEGAMI (NIFS), p. 717
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jim Carr /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 21:15:36 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930712122614.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>              ....                                           Seems to me
>that the record is 200 kg or so for a pulsed water cooled magnet.  I think
>there is a magnet lab at MIT where they would know such things.
 
I sent a reply to him by E-mail, but perhaps others are interested.  The
largest DC magnetic field is a bit more than you state, about 30 or 35
Tesla (300,000 kGauss) in the best magnet at the Bitter Lab.  (Where
they are rather bitter since FSU won the competition for a new national
high magnetic field lab with a proposal in conjuction with Los Alamos
and the U of Florida.)  This is a "hybrid" magnet where a room temp
copper magnet is inserted in the bore of Li-He temp superconducting
magnet.  The latter runs at something line 15 T and the copper does
the rest.  The water flow is axial; the conductor is made of perforated
copper sheets (the invention of Francis Bitter).
 
20 T superconducting magnets are pretty standard.  There is a pair here
at FSU for "low field" work on materials.  They are working on a 45 T
design that will lead to 60 T in the next 5-10 years.
 
(You should see the letters to the editor from locals concerned that the
lab is too close to the airport, and might pull planes out of the air.)
 
Pulsed magnets go higher, with the limits related to whether you want
the magnet to survive the experiment.  The most outrageous, which
exceed 200 T I seem to recall, involve the use of high explosives
to compress the field produced by a giga-Watt power supply that
delivers a fraction-of-a-second current pulse timed to the explosion.
Those experiments are done at Los Alamos, not here!
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Good science is addictive
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good science is addictive
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 23:13:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Bob Pendleton described the CBC tape:
 
"All in all it was a very frustrating tape. It was good TV, but not very good
science. It did leave me wanting more information, much more information."
 
That makes it good science! Excellent science. You want more, right? You crave
more? You gotta have more and more? Welcome to the club! I have got the stuff
falling out of my shelves, stuffed into every filecabinet drawer, and I
*still* can't get enough. I warn you: it is addictive. A couple of years ago,
Okamoto, of the Tokyo Institute of Technology wrote:
 
     "You might call this a miracle. Once you have seen it happen, everyone in
     the lab becomes fascinated by the phenomenon, and you can't let go of
     it."
 
Anyway, forget television. The only place to quench your curiosity is in the
scientific literature, which runs from Sublime to Goreblimey, as you will see
in the Nagoya Conference Proceedings. Actually though, I gotta say that the
NPR show "Science Friday" was excellent. It had a surprising amount of hard
science in it. It featured three leading scientists who discussed scientific
issues, and one leading crackpot "skeptic" who explained why all experiments
should be banned in the U.S.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Li6
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Li6
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 22:00:17 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <930712114649.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> Thanks to Paul Koloc for answering my question about the boson state of Li6
> before I had a chance to post it.  Next question is "could Li6 serve as a
> seed to grow a big BWO (Bernecky's Boson Wave Object)?"
 
Hey, that's an _easy_ one:  no
 
Boson (and fermi) statistics are absolutely dependent on the idea of
"indistinguishable objects."  They appear _only_ between objects that
cannot be distinguished from each other in any way -- meaning that for
deuterium or protium, lithium does not qualify.
 
Incidentally, Dr. Carr's point about "only two choices" is directly related
to this indistinguishability issue -- there are only two ways (the square
root of 1 -- either 1 or -1) to mangle things up to get those "independent"
wavefunctions combined into a single, _accurate_ multi-particle wavefunction.
                               ___
One of those two solutions to V 1   (the -1 one I think -- Dr. Carr?) leads
to a wavefuction with a high energy cost or co-locating the particles, and
the other (1) leads to amiable bosons with _lower_ energy costs for co-
locating the particles.  In short, fermions and bosons.  Anyons come out
of a more complex analysis that places this issue in a couple of additional
dimensions.  (Scientific American had a great article on anyons a few years
back -- does anyone [anyon? heh] have the reference?)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- Tom: my own suggestions for seeding are in the offing.  I'll try to
        get them out soon.
 
        Bill Bernecky:  Are any of your materials related in any way to the
        earlier Chubb/Chubb work?  I was putting a few references in the draft
        I just mentioned, and wanted to be sure to include any appropriate
        references.  (I've never read the Chubb/Chubb papers.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 22:10:24 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <21salp$n50@agate.berkeley.edu>
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
> In article <930712114211.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
> | My problem is that is exactly the construction of my calorimeter.
> | Alternate layers of conductor and insulator.  Now if it is collecting
> "Orgone Energy", how the heck do I correct for it?
>
> I hadn't really thought about it, but maybe Orgone Energy could explain
> *both* cold fusion *and* why not all of the H atoms in the universe aren't
> hydrinos. . . sort of a Grand Unified Theory of Everything.  Maharishi step
> aside!  And remember, you heard it here first.
 
Come now folks, it's all just a typo.  The original was actually talking
about "All Gone Energy," which of course (since it's already all gone) can
be collected indefinitely without any corrections at all...   }=-)>
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yet another response to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another response to Mitchell Swartz
Date: 12 Jul 93 11:32:36 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Sometimes rejoinders are as tedious as hemorrhoids:
 
In article <C9xB6z.BtC@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1993Jul9.131818.759@physc1.byu.edu>
>   Subject: Miles' latest letter and Mitchell's posting
>   Steven E. Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] continues to muddle facts:
>
> == "I have just received e-mail from Mitchell Swartz, who insists that HE
> == left nothing out from the Dr. Miles' letter of 17 June 1993 when
> == he posted it."
>
>   Steven: we were having a (private) e-mail conversation, following
> which I have been patiently waiting for the FAX which you promised
> before you decided to proceed publicly, unilaterally.  So be it.
>
>   The letter to which you refer, which was posted, and
>  which I received from Dr. Miles was dated: ------>  "22 June 93".
>  It was a reply to your June 18th letter as it stated therein.
>  PROOF:    Here it is shown within an excerpt taken from the actual post:
>
> =====  "From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
> =====  Subject: Response to Dr. Jones' response to letter from Dr. Miles
> =====  Message-ID: <C9CIAr.A9p@world.std.com>
> =====  Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 19:04:02 GMT
> =====                                         "In Reply refer to:
> =====                                           3910
> =====                                           C02353/219
> =====                                           22 Jun 93
> =====
> =====  "This is my further response to Professor Jones. ...:
>
>   Your misstatement of the date is obvious and frankly this is no
>   surprise since even your response indicated that is what
>   I posted.  Check for yourself.  Your confabulation appears to involve
>   perhaps another letter (at best).
 
Look, Mitchell, the letter received here at BYU was dated 17 June 1993.  It is
*nearly* identical to the one you posted, which has a date 22 June 1993.  But
the content we received cannot have been in response to my 18 June 1993
posting.  That's all I was trying to say.  When you get my faxed version of
the letter received here, I hope you'll straighten this out for yourself.
 
>   Now, the letter which I posted was received, and then
>  scanned at 300 dpi, then treated with optical character recognition
>  software, rechecked, and then posted.
>
>   Fact:  Steven Jones is wrong about a missing group of "sentences".
>
>   Fact:  Steven Jones is wrong about the date.
 
Not at all.  The date on the letter sent to BYU is 17 June 1993, as I
correctly stated.  And while my version of the letter coincides with the
version you posted in content, it contains the missing group of
sentences, just as I said.  Again, I attempted to clarify that evidently *you*
did not excise these threatening sentences.  That was the intent of my post.
But you turn this around and accuse me of error:  'taint so.
 
>
>    He is wrong about other issues within his letter which I will
>     address at a later date when time is available.
>
And expect a response, until we get things straight.
>
> == "From this I conclude that the version of the letter which Miles provided
> ==  to Mitchell Swartz had these threatening sentences excised, for what
> ==  reasons I do not care to speculate."
>
>   Wrrrong.  Nothing was excised from the letter.
>    It was posted AS IS.  Your date has now been demonstrated to be: wrong.
>   Your accusations are not based upon substance but may herald
>      a severe problem located physically close to Dr. Jones' laboratory.
>
Again, again, the following was in the letter dated 17 June and received at
BYU, but not included in the version you posted:
"As discussed in my letter of 8 June 1993, I expect Professor Jones to retract
his false allegations regarding my research. ...If this is not done then I will
have to consider further actions."  (Letter from Dr. Miles dated 17 June 1993
and addressed to BYU President R. Lee)
Do you think I am making this up?  I have the letter in front of me, and soon
you will too.
>
> ==  "In my point-by-point response to Miles' letter
> ==  (posted 7-8-93), I did *not* say that Mitchell had left out these sentences,
> ==  but rather stated that the material had been left out without attribution."
>
>   Wrong you were.  Wrong you are.
>   Given that nothing was left out of the June 22 '93 letter which I posted.
>  perhaps you should consider an apology instead of tossing more "bricks"
>     based upon what so far appears to be a made-up story on your part.
>
Again, again, again:  I did not say anything was left out of the letter *you*
received, but that what you posted did not contain several sentences (as cited
above), while being *identical* in the body of the letter.
 
>           Best wishes.
Indeed.
>
>                                            Mitchell Swartz
 
Hello?  Are you listening, Mitchell?
--Steven Jones
 
P.S.  I would appreciate having someone besides Mitchell compare my version
of the latest Miles' tirade with that posted by Mitchell here, to verify
among other things the similarity of content and that the date on my letter is
indeed 17 June as I said, and that certain threatening sentences in my version
were not included in the version posted by Mitchell.  Am I carrying this too
far?  It seems those who accept the xs-heat-is-commercially-viable notion try
very hard to destroy the credibility of anyone who (like me) dares to carefully
scrutinize and critic their statements.  At least Mitchell just repeatedly
says I'm "wrong" while Miles claims I made "outright lies" and threatens
"further actions" if I do not "retract" criticisms. (His 8 June letter.)
Is this science, or proof by intimidation and chutzpah?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Yup, it's like that
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yup, it's like that
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 01:20:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Jim Carr discusses how Toyota might give out samples of it's Pd alloy and
recipes:
 
     "...it is like asking Intel to let you test the chip before it goes to
     market, and perhaps even examine it fairly closely.  Sort of like what
     Intel did with AMD."
 
Exactly my point! As I said, they will first snow you down with a 40 meter
pile of legal paperwork, then spend 6 months agonizing over it, then finally
give you a sample after you have promised to commit harakiri if you mumble in
your sleep and your wife finds out anything. Reportedly, those Intel
agreements make you feel like you are being cranked through an old fashioned
laundry wringer. That is exactly what I would expect to see from Toyota,
because these big companies never fool around. Anyone who gets a sample is
going to pay megadollars up front for the privilege, and even the *list* of
people who have samples will be Top Secret. I'm sure they will select
strategic partners VERY carefully, from among the biggest of the big. What
would you expect? How else could it be done? This is real life: this product
is worth trillions of dollars.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No Definite Date
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Definite Date
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 02:12:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930712204033_72240.1256_EHK59-1@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>I missed this little gem the first time round. Barry Merriman (I gather it
>was) wrote:
>
>     "Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the long
>     promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given."
>
>and have it materialize exactly on time is ludicrous. It is absurd. I have
>spent 20 years building various products, software, hardware and some in
>between. The kind of work I do is cut-and-dry, by-the-numbers, easy
>development; it is nothing remotely like basic scientific research. Yet even I
>would never promise to have a product done by a certain month eight months in
>advance. If the Toyota 20 KW reactor comes in by Christmas, I will not be
>surprised. I think it is very likely to happen around then, because they have
>met their previously declared goals roughly on schedule so far. They have made
>fantastic progress. On the other hand, if it is two years late, that would not
>shock me either. A two year delay is *nothing* in a project as profoundly
>difficult and novel as this.
 
    Or two decade delay.  Or a two century delay, or even
    a two millenium delay.  Do I hear a two million year delay?
    And the bidding continues..
 
    Vaporware.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: JJAP CF articles
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JJAP CF articles
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 02:21:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930712214435_72240.1256_EHK36-1@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>People interested in cold fusion who read Japanese will definitely want to see
>six articles the most recent issue of the "Oyou Butsuri," Vol 62, No. 7, July
>1993 (The Journal of the Japanese Society of Applied Physics). This is one of
>the most authoritative, respected physics journals in Japan. Titles are listed
>here as shown in English at the bottom of the page.
[articles deleted]
 
     Good.  While the Japanese are busy with the 'Occidental Self-Deception',
     we'll steadily take back market share in automobiles and begin
     to sound the death-knell for Japanese mainframe manufacturers in their
     own market.  Can you say 'low cost manufacturer'?  Sure, I knew you could.
 
     Quite clever of us shifty western-types.
 
     I wonder when they're going to get the joke?
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: 12 Jul 93 13:27:12 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <21q82jINNltm@network.ucsd.edu>,
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> : This year, Toyota will show a 20,000 watt reactor
> : and Richard will say, "Oh, that's another subtle mistake."
>
> Will Toyota let some random joe, e.g. Prof Jones, take it to its lab
> and check it out independently?
 
Sure, Matt, I'll accept this challenge.  Will I need protection against tritium
(had a small dose once at Los Alamos while performing muon-catalyzed fusion
experiments) or neutrons, gammas, X-rays?
 
Somehow I'm not too concerned about these:  from what we've seen in experiments
here which began (remember) in May 1986 with DOE funding, there aren't enough
nuclear products to worry about, by a huge factor (about a trillion).
 
> Will the Toyota reactor be self-powered?  At 20kW, it should be simple,
> 19th century technology, no?
>
> : - Jed
>
> Yes, I can be convinced.
>
> --
> -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".
 
Hey -- this latest chutzpah reminds me of the claim by B. S.(tanley) Pons
back in July of 1989, in which he claimed to have a working water heater:
 
" 'It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
could provide them with hot water year-round," said Pons, who said he's always
believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen this fast."
-- Deseret News, July 8, 1989, p. B-1.
 
(Was that water hot due to tritium?)
 
Well, that announcement came out in the local papers here then about two weeks
later, Utah taxpayer's money to the tune of
$5,000,000 was officially given over to these guys.
 But the hot-water heater
claim evaporated in the desert air by the end of the year.
 
Well, it's July again.  I predict the latest claim of a multi-kw reactor will
expire by year's end also.  Terry is right:  this is deja-vu all over again.
 
--Steven E. Jones
 
P.S. -- Terry Bollinger:  We're still in touch; looking forward to your
comments on boson condensation, etc.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Jul12.131807.767@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jul12.131807.767@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 93 13:28:26 -0600

cancel <1993Jul12.131807.767@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Matt Kennel's questions / NPR tape
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 04:47:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CA2EM3.B9q@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <930712151935_72240.1256_EHK22-2@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>
>>Of course not! That is like asking Intel to give Motorola the blueprints and
>>test versions of the next generation CPU chip. Any corporation that handed out
>>critical secrets like that would go bankrupt. I don't know if it would be a
>>criminal violation, but it would *certainly* be a violation of civil law, and
>>it would precipitate massive stockholder lawsuits.
>
>     Dr. Jones is competing with Toyota?
 
No, Dr. Jones is competing with PG&E. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion in Popular Science
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 05:00:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930710160006_72240.1256_EHK43-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>In a few years, Toyota *will* drive that car and park it right outside his
>office. I predict that men in white coats will have to drag him away, as he
>kicks, screams and sobs: "It's a mistake! It's a subtle mistake!!!"
 
And when they do we'll all celebrate. But where is this 20 Kw generator
Jed? Is it being kept in hiding because of all of the industrial spys
trying to get "TheSecret"?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Li6
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Li6
Date: 13 Jul 1993 06:52:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
terry@asl.dl.nec.com () says:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>could Li6 serve as a seed to grow a big BWO
 
>Hey, that's an _easy_ one:  no
>
>Boson (and fermi) statistics are absolutely dependent on the idea of
>"indistinguishable objects."  They appear _only_ between objects that
>cannot be distinguished from each other in any way -- meaning that for
>deuterium or protium, lithium does not qualify.
 
But Bernecky postulated colliding BWO's.  In one scenario he had BWO's
of D colliding with BWO's of H.  Droege is just carrying the speculation
further with BWO's of Li upon which other BWO's of Li or D or H or
whatever, collide.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 06:16:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
#############################################################################
## DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ##
## (No typo checking, no review, no references.  A final will be issued.)  ##
#############################################################################
 
                           Bernecky Condensation:
         A Brief Analysis of the Potential for Diffraction-Enhanced
            Atomic Boson Condensation in Pd(Hx,Dy,Tz) Compounds
 
                               July 12, 1993
 
                            Terry B. Bollinger
                           2416 Branch Oaks Lane
                      Flower Mound, Texas 75028, U.S.A
                          (terry@asl.dl.nec.com)
 
1. BACKGROUND
 
In a recent electronic "farfetch" (conceptual exploration) paper by William
Bernecky [1], W. Bernecky proposed the intriguing idea that diffraction of
delocalized hydrogen species in palladium metal crystal lattices might in
principle lead to the formation of above-ground atomic boson condensates.
Since at present the only known examples of atomic boson condensates are
found in superfluid liquid helium, any effect that might in principle lead
to new examples of atomic boson condensate would be of great theoretical
and experimental interest -- if such an effect does in fact exist.
 
I should note that although to the best of my knowledge William Bernecky
is the first person to propose the specific idea that lattice diffraction
might be capable of encouraging atomic boson condensation, the idea of
hydrogen boson condensates in palladium has been discussed extensively
in both papers and on the UseNet group sci.physics.fusion.  Papers that
proposed such condensates include in particular the work of Scott Chubb
et all [2], and extensive sci.physics.fusion discussions and proposals
on this concept include those of Chuck Sites [3].  William Bernecky's
idea should be viewed as a specific elaboration of a possible mechanism
for boson condensate concepts initially proposed and elaborated upon by
other authors.
 
I would note that this elaboration on the Bernecky condensation idea by no
means should be taken as any sort of "proof" that the effect even exists.
Instead, I am providing this draft electronic paper in hopes that others
will examine the idea more closely from both a theoretical and (possibly)
an experimental viewpoint.  Another objective is simply to make some of the
issues and data more accessible to interested readers who may not be very
familiar with palladium hydride chemistry or crystallography.
 
 
2. DIFFRACTION AND BOSON CONDENSATION
 
The idea of using diffraction to form (photon) boson condensates has been
used in thin-film optical lasers [4].  In these lasers, two diffraction
elements are used in place of conventional mirrors to create a cavity in
which lasing can take place.  The frequency at which lasing (photon boson
condensation) takes place is determined by the "exclusion frequencies" of
the diffraction gratings.  That is, when one-half the wavelength (or an
integer multiple of one-half the wavelength) of a photon is exactly equal
to the distance between the lines of the diffraction grating, the photon
will be unable to traverse the grating and will instead be reflected back
into the lasing medium.  This reflection effect falls off rapidly for those
photons with slightly higher or lower frequencies, so that a high degree
of precision in the selection of photon frequencies is possible.
 
In the proposed concept of Bernecky condensation, the diffraction grating
is replaced by the three-dimensional lattice of a transition metal such as
palladium, and the photons generated by a population inversion in the lasing
medium are replaced by a population of atomic composite boson species that
occupy a range of momentum values within the metal lattice.  Furthermore,
the electromagnetic interactions of the photons are replaced by the quantum
mechanical (momentum) frequencies of the hydrogen atoms.
 
Finally, in the nominal model for Bernecky condensation, the condensation
would presumably take place in a single uniformly loaded crystal in which
the palladium crysal lattice matches one of the "exclusion frequencies" for
hydrogen atoms traveling through it.  However, an exact match to this one
exclusion frequency throughout the lattice would make the availability of
atoms in that state so low that condensation would be either impossible
or so slow as to be impractical.
 
 
3. TIGHTENING THE LASER ANALOGY
 
However, I would suggest that a much closer analogy to the laser technique
could be obtained simply by varying the hydrogen loading of a single crystal
of palladium in a smooth, bilaterally symmetrical fashion along one selected
axis of the crystal.  (Selection of crystal axes will be discussed later in
this paper.)  Two such axial loading profiles are possible:
 
 
          FIGURE 1.  High-Low-High (HLH) Axial Loading Profile
 
 Relative H Loading along selected axis of the crystal lattice:
 
 High | -      _                                               _      -
      |              -      _                     _      -
 Low  |                              -    -
      +------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Corresponding impact on Pd lattice units (not drawn to scale):
 
    +--------+-------+------+-----+----+----+-----+------+-------+--------+
    |        |       |      |     |    |    |     |      |       |        |
    +--------+-------+------+-----+----+----+-----+------+-------+--------+
    |        |       |      |     |    |    |     |      |       |        |
    +--------+-------+------+-----+----+----+-----+------+-------+--------+
 
             \____________/  \___________________/  \____________/
 
            Exclusion region    Permeable region   Exclusion region
             for frequency X    for frequency X     for frequency X
 
 
 
              FIGURE 2.  Low-High-Low (LHL) Axial Loading Profile
 
 Relative H Loading along selected axis of the crystal lattice:
 
 High |                     _      -        -     _
      |        _     -                                   -     _
 Low  | -                                                             -
      +------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Corresponding impact on Pd lattice units (not drawn to scale):
 
    +----+-----+------+-------+--------+--------+-------+------+-----+----+
    |    |     |      |       |        |        |       |      |     |    |
    +----+-----+------+-------+--------+--------+-------+------+-----+----+
    |    |     |      |       |        |        |       |      |     |    |
    +----+-----+------+-------+--------+--------+-------+------+-----+----+
 
             \____________/  \___________________/  \____________/
 
            Exclusion region  Permeable (?) region  Exclusion region
             for frequency X    for frequency X      for frequency X
 
Arrangements such as the ones shown above would approximate the structure of
a diffraction-based laser by ensuring that an atom moving in either direction
would eventually encounter a region matching its exclusion frequency and be
reflected back.  At the same time the atom would be able to travel fairly
freely the middle region between the frequency exclusion areas, particularly
if the lattice is very regular and free of extraneous inclusions such as H2
molecules.  Rather than implying maximum loading, this would imply that
loading lesser loadings should also be tried in hopes of preserving the
regularity of the lattice structure.  Early neutron diffraction work with
palladium hydride compounds indicates that hydrogen (apparently meaning
molecular hydrogen) causes significant diffuse neutron scattering by the
time a 0.706 loading factor (PdH_0.706) is reached.
 
As such an atom moves back through the slightly-off-exclusion-frequency area
in the middle of the crystal, it could in principle "pick up" another atom
through boson state "attraction" [2].  In the absence of the total exclusion
areas surrounding the transparent region, there would be no strong incentive
for any one momentum frequency to become dominant in such boson interactions.
However, as with a laser, the frequency selectivity of the total exclusion
areas surrounding the transparent region would lead to a strong favoring of
the frequency exclusion states.  If this can be combined with a sufficiently
orderly lattice in the transparent inner region for a net gain (>1) atomic
bosons per pass between diffraction regions, an above-ground atomic boson
condensate might in fact be able to form.
 
Of the two (HLH and LHL) loading profiles shown, the HLH profile (high end
loading with hydrogen and lesser mid-region loading) is preferable.  This
is because the HLH loading profile results in a shorter lattice constant in
the (transparent) L region, which in turn should raise the Fermi level of
the atoms in that region and "immerse" the diffracted atoms in a sea of
free atoms of closely similar frequency.
 
In contrast, the LHL profile could place the diffracted atoms into a band
exclusion region that might not be transparent, and could also be quite
deficient in available atoms of similar momentum.
 
One final point is that although a three-dimensional diffraction resonance
cavity is possible in principle (Figure 3), the mechanical expansion of the
outer (H) layers during loading would place rather severe stress on the
palladium crystal lattice.  Since full enclosure is not required to show
any boson condensation effect that might exist, the far less mechanically
stressful axial profile with full radial symmetry that was discussed above
would probably be preferable to full enclosure schemes.  For paricles as
heavy as hydrogen atoms, even modest strain distortion of the crytal lattice
would be likely to significantly increase scattering probabilities for the
diffracted hydrogen atoms and thus drop the boson condensate gain per pass
to below the critical >1 gain level.
 
 
                  FIGURE 3.  Enclosed Resonance Cavity Model
 
                                H H H H H
                              H H L L L H H
                              H H L L L H H
                                H H H H H
 
 
Further details on the presumed structure of such a device requires a
closer look at palladium hydride crystallography and quantum mechanical
aspects of the hydrogen isotopes and species found in Pd(Hx,Dy) compounds.
 
 
4. PALLADIUM HYDRIDE CRYSTALLOGRAPHY
 
The basic face-centered crystal unit of palladium and palladium hydride
(beta phase) is shown in Figure 4.  This structure is well confirmed by
various neutron diffraction studies [4,5,6], and corresponds to a 1:1
Pd:H ratio (PdH).  However, loading of this structure does not appear to
easily exceed about 1 to 0.7 -- that is, roughly 30% of the octahedral
vacancy sites normally remain vacant, with the hydrogen atoms moving
fairly easily between them [4].
 
 
           FIGURE 4.  Palladium Hydride Crystal Unit (Beta Phase)
 
                         Pd----------( )----------Pd
                         /|          /|          /|
                        / |         / |         / |
                       /  |        /  |        /  |
                     ( )----------Pd---------( )  |
                     /|   |      /|   |      /|   |
                    / |  ( )----/-|---Pd----/-|--( )
                   /  |  /|    /  |  /|    /  |  /|
                 Pd==========( )==========Pd  | / |
                  |   |/  |   |   |/  |   |   |/  |
                  |  Pd-------|--( )------|---Pd  |
                  |  /|   |   |  /|   |   |  /|   |
                  | / |  Pd---|-/-|--( )--|-/-|---Pd
                  |/  |  /    |/  |  /    |/  |  /
                 ( )==========Pd=========( )  | /
                  |   |/      |   |/      |   |/
                  |  ( )------|---Pd------|--( )
                  |  /        |  /        |  /
                  | /         | /         | /
                  |/          |/          |/
                 Pd==========( )==========Pd
 
 
               Pd -- Palladium atom
              ( ) -- Octahedral vacancy (hydrogen) site
 
 
The above sites are called "octahedral" because the six palladium atoms
surrounding each vacancy are located at the vertices of an octahedron:
 
 
                      FIGURE 5.  Octahedral Site
            (Located at center of each possible unit cell)
 
                                 -Pd-
                                  |   |
                                  |  -Pd-
                                  |  /|
                                  | /
                      |           |/          |
                     Pd----------( )----------Pd
                      |          /|           |
                                / |
                              |/  |
                             =Pd= |
                              |   |
                                 -Pd-
 
 
In some transition metals, there is another class of vacancies that can be
occupied by hydrogen: the tetrahedral sites.  While these sites (which
correspond to a formular of PdH2) have been proposed from time to time as
the sites for hydrogen in saturated beta phase palladium hydride [5], they
appear unlikely to be critical to palladium systems due to the poor evidence
for them in neutron scattering data [4,5,6].
 
The tetrahedral sites are shown in Figure 6.
 
 
                FIGURE 6.  Nominal Palladium Tetrahedral Sites
 
                         Pd-----------+-----------Pd
                         /|          /|          /|
                        / |         / |         / |
                       /  |        /  |        /  |
                      +-----------Pd----------+   |
                     /|   |  ( ) /|   |  ( ) /|   |
                    / |   +-----/-|---Pd----/-|---+
                   /  |  /|    /  |  /|    /  |  /|
                 Pd===========+===========Pd  | / |
                  |   |/ (*)  |   |/ (*)  |   |/  |
                  |  Pd-------|---+-------|---Pd  |
                  |  /|   |  (|) /|   |  (|) /|   |
                  | / |  Pd---|-/-|---+---|-/-|---Pd
                  |/  |  /    |/  |  /    |/  |  /
                  +===========Pd==========+   | /
                  |   |/ (*)  |   |/ (*)  |   |/
                  |   +-------|---Pd------|---+
                  |  /        |  /        |  /
                  | /         | /         | /
                  |/          |/          |/
                 Pd===========+===========Pd
 
 
               Pd -- Palladium atom
              ( ) -- Nominal tetrahedral vacancy site (rear plane)
              (*) -- Nominal tetrahedral vacancy site (front plane)
 
 
As with the octahedral sites, the tetrahedral sites are named after the
configurations of the palladium atoms around each such site:
 
                       FIGURE 7.  Tetrahedral Site
                         (1/8 of one unit cell)
 
                               Pd-----------+
                               /|          /|
                              / |         / |
                             /  |        /  |
                            +-----------Pd  |
                            |   |  ( )  |   |
                            |   +-------|---Pd
                            |  /        |  /
                            | /         | /
                            |/          |/
                           Pd-----------+
 
 
The relative locations of the octahedral and nominal tetrahedral vacancy
sites in the unit palladium cell can also be seen by splitting the cell
apart into layers, as in Figure 8:
 
 
               FIGURE 8.  Octahedra and Tetrahedral Sites
 
                                                          Back
                                                       Octahedrals
 
                                                   Pd------( )------Pd
                                    Middle         /|              /|
                                 Octahedrals        |               |
                                                    |               |
                             ( )------Pd-----( )   ( )      Pd     ( )
               Front          |               |     |               |
            Octahedrals       |               |     |               |
         /               /    |               |     |               |
       Pd------( )------Pd   Pd      ( )      Pd   Pd------( )------Pd
        |               |     |               |    /               /
        |               |     |               |
        |               |     |               |
       ( )      Pd     ( )   ( )------Pd-----( )
        |               |                         .
        |               |                        /|\
        |               |/                        |
       Pd------( )------Pd                   Tetrahedrals
                           .
                          /|\             +-------+-------+
                           |              |               |
                      Tetrahedrals        |  ( )     ( )  |
                                          |               |
                   +-------+-------+      +       +       +
                   |               |      |               |
                   |  ( )     ( )  |      |  ( )     ( )  |
                   |               |      |               |
                   +       +       +      +-------+-------+
                   |               |
                   |  ( )     ( )  |
                   |               |
                   +-------+-------+
 
 
5. MOMENTUM EXCLUSION WAVELENGTHS IN PALLADIUM
 
The nominal wavelengths at which an atomic momentum value will be excluded
by lattice diffraction are those values at which unit of periodicity in
a particular direction is equal to some integer multiple of 1/2 the basic
wavelength.  A full analysis of this requires consideration of tunneling
constants between sites and effective masses [8].  However, because the
coupling (tunneling) constant between sites will be very low for heavy
particles such as hydrogen atoms or deuterium atoms, a direct approximation
of wavelengths based on simple geometrical considerations will be used here.
 
Figure 9 describe the three major directions and lengths of a single full
wavelength in terms of the length u of one crystal unit.
 
 
         FIGURE 9.  Directions and Lengths of Momentum Frequencies
 
 
        .---------------------------------------- Lambda(tetr)_1 = u
        |
    Pd--V---( )------Pd-----( )------Pd
     |_ -- _         |               |
     +  ()   + _ () _+               |   +                          ___
     |           --  |               |   - <----- Lambda(diag)_1 = V 2  u
    ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd     ( ) -
     |               |               _ -
     |               |       _ - + -
     |               |     -         |
    Pd------( )------Pd-- - ( )------Pd      .--- Lambda(axis)_1 = 2 u
     |               |   -           |       |
     |               |   +           |       |
     |               |               |       |
    ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd     ( )      |
     |               |               |       |
     |    _ - - _    |               |       |
     |_ -         - _|               |       |
    Pd------( )------Pd-----( )------Pd      |
                       - _       _ -     <---'
                            - -
 
Of these three classes of possible waves, the tetragonal class is of only
modest interest due to its poor experimental support.  The two remaining
classes can be described and labeled by using traditional crystallographic
designations for the faces of cubic crystals:
 
 
           FIGURE 10.  Axial and Diagonal Palladium Orientations
 
 
                                        _
                                  101   101
                                   |     |
                                   |     |
                      _         +--|--------+
                     011 ------/   |       / \------ 011
                              /    | 001  /  /|     _
                             +-----|-----+  / |---- 110
                            /_\_________/_\/  |
                            | |         | |010/
                            | |   100   | |  /
                            | |         | |-------- 110
                            |_|_________|_|/
                             \|_________\ /
 
 
     Cubic axes (3 total):  (001)  (010)  (100)
                                                   _     _      _
      Diagonals (6 total):  (011)  (110)  (101)  (011)  (110)  (101)
 
 
 
Of the diagonal and axial classes, the diagonal class is significantly more
attractive due to its shorter wavelength.  Since coupling constants for heavy
particles are extremely sensitive to distance [9], this reduction over the
axial wavelength is significant.  Further more, the diagonal class has a
unique profile in which there are "chains" of alternating vacancies and
palladium atoms, as shown in Figure 10:
 
 
     FIGURE 11.  Atomic Structure Perpendicular to Diagonal Axes
 
 
                      Pd Layer of a Diagonal Face
               +---------------------------------------+
               |                                       |
               |  Pd               Pd              Pd  |
               |                                       |
               |           Pd              Pd          |
               |                                       |
               |  Pd               Pd              Pd  |
               |                                       |
               |           Pd              Pd          |
               |                                       |
               |  Pd               Pd              Pd  |
               |                                       |
               +---------------------------------------+
 
 
                  Octahedral Layer of a Diagonal Face
               +---------------------------------------+
               |                                       |
               |          ( )             ( )          |
               |                                       |
               |  ( )             ( )             ( )  |
               |                                       |
               |          ( )             ( )          |
               |                                       |
               |  ( )             ( )             ( )  |
               |                                       |
               |          ( )             ( )          |
               |                                       |
               +---------------------------------------+
 
 
                 Superimposed Layers of a Diagonal Face
               +---------------------------------------+
               |                                       |
               |  Pd      ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd  |
               |                                       |
               |  ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd     ( )  |
               |                                       |
               |  Pd      ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd  |
               |                                       |
               |  ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd     ( )  |
               |                                       |
               |  Pd      ( )      Pd     ( )      Pd  |
               |                                       |
               +---------------------------------------+
 
 
Since each vacancy chain is "clean" (i.e., there are no directly intruding
palladium atoms, it has a quite different potential well profile from that
of the axial directions, in which vacancies alternate with Pd atoms:
 
 
   FIGURE 11.  Expected potential well structure for AXIAL wavefunctions
 
        |-             --             --             --             -
        |-             --             --             --             -
        |-             --             --             --             -
        |-             --             --             --             -
        | -           -  -           -  -           -  -           -
        |  -         -    -         -    -         -    -         -
        |    -     -        -     -        -     -        -     -
        |      - -            - -            - -            - -
        +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
  Atom: Pd             Pd             Pd             Pd             Pd
 
 
 
  FIGURE 12.  Expected potential well structure for DIAGONAL wavefunctions
 
        |
        |
        |
        |-        --        --        --        --        --        -
        |  -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -
        |   - -       - -       - -       - -       - -       - -
        +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
 Layer: Pd  Oct   Pd  Oct   Pd  Oct   Pd  Oct   Pd  Oct   Pd  Oct   Pd
 
 
Because the diagonal potential well structure is more sinusoidal and
less dependent on the behavior of individual Pd atoms, it should be
significantly less likely to scatter precise momentum atoms traveling
in that direction.
 
 
7.  TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS BY PARTICLE TYPE AND PALLADIUM PHASE
 
In this final section, "ballpark" estimates of the optimum temperatures
for Bernecky condensation are provided based on the same (overly simple)
analysis and assumption of low coupling used above.  Since William
Bernecky's original table of values inadvertantly used full wavelengths
instead of half wavelengths as the basic unit for determining exclusion
frequencies, there are twice as many entries in these tables for the
same particles.
 
It is important to realize that the probability of any kind of boson
condenstion is going to drop rapidly with temperature, regardless of
how effective lattice diffraction may or may not be.  Thus the best
candidates for Bernecky condensation are not the ones at or near room
temperature, but the cryogenic Order 1 temperatures for the lightest
possible boson candidates.
 
Thus the best candidates would be diagonal Order 1 hydrogen atoms and
deuterium ions.  One or both of these boson species may exist, and both
would be worth further analysis and possibly experimentation.
 
An interesting point that came out in an email conversation between myself
and Chuck Sites after he had talked to Scott Chubb [10] was that if the
deuteron ion condenses, it will necessarily be a _deuteron_ based electrical
superconductor.  This would provide an extremely sensitive (and definitive)
test for whether such a condensation had actually occurred.
 
 
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         1. | p+ | proton         | 1.6726231 x10-8 g | fermion |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         2. | H  | protium atom   | 1.6735340    "    | boson   |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         3. | n  | neutron        | 1.6749286    "    | fermion |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         4. | d+ | deuteron (pn)  | 3.3435860    "    | boson   |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         5. | D  | deuterium atom | 3.3444970    "    | fermion |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         6. | t+ | triton (pnn)   | 5.0073601    "    | fermion |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
         7. | T  | tritium atom   | 5.0082711    "    | boson   |
            +----+----------------+-------------------+---------+
 
 
 
                            /      1      \
                           |               |     2
       Tk = 1.0600040 E-37 | ------------- | g cm  K
                           |            2  |
                            \  m  lambda  /
       Tc = Tk - 273.15
 
 
       Tf = 1.8 Tc + 32
 
 
 
 
        Temperature Equivalents for DIAGONAL Palladium Particle Waves
 
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |       DIAGONAL     |       DIAGONAL     |       DIAGONAL     |
  | Particle |       Order 1      |       Order 2      |       Order 3      |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  |
  |          | 5.496 A    5.685 A | 2.748 A    2.843 A | 1.832 A    1.895 A |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
  |    p+    |  20.98 ..  19.61 K |  89.92 ..  78.43 K |  188.8 ..  176.5 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    H     |  20.98 ..  19.60 K |  83.88 ..  78.39 K |  187.7 ..  176.4 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    n     |  20.95 ..  19.58 K |  83.81 ..  78.33 K |  187.6 ..  176.2 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    d+    |  10.50 ..   9.81 K |  41.98 ..  39.24 K |  94.46 ..  88.28 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    D     |  10.49 ..   9.81 K |  41.97 ..  39.23 K |  94.43 ..  88.26 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    t+    |  7.008 ..   6.55 K |  28.03 ..  26.20 K |  63.07 ..  58.95 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    T     |  7.006 ..   6.55 K |  28.03 ..  26.20 K |  63.06 ..  58.94 K |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
 
 
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |       DIAGONAL     |       DIAGONAL     |       DIAGONAL     |
  | Particle |       Order 4      |       Order 5      |       Order 6      |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  |
  |          | 1.374 A    1.412 A | 1.099 A    1.137 A | 0.9160 A  0.9475 A |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
  |          |  335.7 ..  313.7 K |  524.5 ..  490.2 K |  755.3 ..  705.9 K |
  |    p+    |  62.55 ..  40.55 C |  251.4 ..  217.1 C |  482.2 ..  432.8 C |
  |          |  144.6 ..  105.0 F |  484.5 ..  422.8 F |  899.9 ..  810.2 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  335.5 ..  313.6 K |  524.2 ..  490.0 K |  754.9 ..  705.5 K |
  |    H     |  62.53 ..  40.54 C |  251.1 ..  216.9 C |  481.8 ..  432.4 C |
  |          |  144.6 ..  105.0 F |  484.0 ..  422.4 F |  899.2 ..  809.2 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  335.2 ..  313.3 K |  523.8 ..  489.5 K |  754.2 ..  704.9 K |
  |    n     |  62.50 ..  40.51 C |  250.7 ..  216.9 C |  481.1 ..  431.8 C |
  |          |  144.5 ..  104.9 F |  483.2 ..  422.4 F |  897.9 ..  175.9 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  167.9 ..  156.9 K |  262.4 ..  245.2 K |  377.8 ..  353.1 K |
  |    d+    |                    | -10.75 ..  -28.0 C |  104.7 ..   80.0 C |
  |          |                    |   12.7 ..  -18.4 F |  220.4 ..  175.9 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  167.9 ..  156.9 K |  262.3 ..  245.2 K |  377.7 ..  353.0 K |
  |    D     |                    | -10.85 ..  -28.0 C |  104.6 ..   79.9 C |
  |          |                    |   12.5 ..  -18.4 F |  220.2 ..  175.7 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  112.1 ..  104.8 K |  175.2 ..  163.7 K |  252.3 ..  235.8 K |
  |    t+    |                    |                    | -20.85 .. -37.35 C |
  |          |                    |                    |  -5.53 .. -35.23 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  112.1 ..  104.8 K |  175.2 ..  163.7 K |  252.2 ..  235.8 K |
  |    T     |                    |                    | -20.84 .. -37.35 C |
  |          |                    |                    |  -5.51 .. -35.23 F |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
 
 
 
            Temperature Equivalents for AXIAL Palladium Particle Waves
 
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |        AXIAL       |        AXIAL       |        AXIAL       |
  | Particle |       Order 1      |       Order 2      |       Order 3      |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  |
  |          | 7.772 A    8.040 A | 3.886 A    4.020 A | 2.591 A    2.680 A |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
  |    p+    |  10.49 ..  9.804 K |  41.97 ..  39.22 K |  94.42 ..  88.23 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    H     |  10.49 ..  9.799 K |  41.94 ..  39.19 K |  94.37 ..  88.19 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    n     |  10.48 ..  9.790 K |  41.91 ..  39.16 K |  94.29 ..  88.11 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    d+    |  5.248 ..  4.904 K |  20.99 ..  19.62 K |  47.24 ..  44.14 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    D     |  5.248 ..  4.903 K |  20.99 ..  19.61 K |  47.22 ..  44.13 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    t+    |  3.505 ..  3.275 K |  14.02 ..  13.10 K |  31.54 ..  29.47 K |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |    T     |  3.504 ..  3.274 K |  14.02 ..  13.10 K |  31.54 ..  29.47 K |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
 
 
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |        AXIAL       |        AXIAL       |        AXIAL       |
  | Particle |       Order 4      |       Order 5      |       Order 6      |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  |
  |          | 1.943 A    2.010 A | 1.554 A    1.608 A | 1.295 A    1.340 A |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
  |          |  169.9 ..  156.9 K |  262.3 ..  245.1 K |  377.7 ..  352.9 K |
  |    p+    |                    | -10.85 .. -28.05 C |  104.6 ..  79.75 C |
  |          |                    |  12.47 .. -18.49 F |  220.2 ..  175.6 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  169.8 ..  156.8 K |  262.1 ..  245.0 K |  377.5 ..  352.7 K |
  |    H     |                    | -11.05 .. -28.15 C |  104.4 ..  79.55 C |
  |          |                    |  12.11 .. -18.67 F |  219.8 ..  175.2 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  169.6 ..  156.6 K |  261.9 ..  244.8 K |  377.2 ..  352.5 K |
  |    n     |                    | -11.25 .. -28.35 C |  104.1 ..  79.35 C |
  |          |                    |  11.75 .. -19.03 F |  219.3 ..  174.8 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  83.97 ..  78.47 K |  131.2 ..  122.6 K |  188.9 ..  176.6 K |
  |    d+    |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  83.95 ..  78.45 K |  131.2 ..  122.6 K |  188.9 ..  176.5 K |
  |    D     |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  56.07 ..  52.40 K |  87.61 ..  81.87 K |  126.2 ..  117.9 K |
  |    t+    |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  56.06 ..  52.39 K |  87.61 ..  81.86 K |  126.1 ..  117.9 K |
  |    T     |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
 
 
 
 
           Temperature Equivalents for TETRAGONAL Palladium Particle Waves
 
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |      TETRAGONAL    |      TETRAGONAL    |      TETRAGONAL    |
  | Particle |       Order 1      |       Order 2      |       Order 3      |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  |
  |          | 3.886 A    4.020 A | 1.943 A    2.010 A | 1.295 A    1.340 A |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
  |          |  41.97 ..  39.22 K |  167.9 ..  156.9 K |  377.7 ..  352.9 K |
  |    p+    |                    |                    |  104.6 ..  79.75 C |
  |          |                    |                    |  220.2 ..  175.6 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  41.94 ..  39.19 K |  167.8 ..  156.8 K |  377.5 ..  352.7 K |
  |    H     |                    |                    |  104.4 ..  79.55 C |
  |          |                    |                    |  219.8 ..  175.2 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  41.91 ..  39.16 K |  167.6 ..  156.6 K |  377.2 ..  352.5 K |
  |    n     |                    |                    |  104.1 ..  79.35 C |
  |          |                    |                    |  219.7 ..  174.8 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  20.99 ..  19.62 K |  83.97 ..  78.47 K |  188.9 ..  176.6 K |
  |    d+    |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  20.99 ..  19.61 K |  83.95 ..  78.45 K |  188.9 ..  176.5 K |
  |    D     |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  14.02 ..  13.10 K |  56.07 ..  52.40 K |  126.2 ..  117.9 K |
  |    t+    |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  14.02 ..  13.10 K |  56.06 ..  52.39 K |  126.1 ..  117.9 K |
  |    T     |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
 
 
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          |      TETRAGONAL    |      TETRAGONAL    |      TETRAGONAL    |
  | Particle |       Order 4      |       Order 5      |       Order 6      |
  |          |                    |                    |                    |
  |          | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  | alpha =    beta =  |
  |          | 0.9715 A   1.005 A | 0.7772 A  0.8040 A | 0.6477 A  0.6700 A |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
  |          |  671.5 ..  627.4 K |   1049 ..  980.4 K |   1511 ..   1412 K |
  |    p+    |  398.4 ..  354.3 C |  775.9 ..  707.3 C |   1238 ..   1139 C |
  |          |  749.0 ..  669.7 F |   1429 ..   1305 F |   2260 ..   2082 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  671.1 ..  627.1 K |   1049 ..  979.9 K |   1510 ..   1411 K |
  |    H     |  398.0 ..  354.0 C |  775.9 ..  706.8 C |   1237 ..   1138 C |
  |          |  748.3 ..  669.1 F |   1429 ..   1304 F |   2258 ..   2080 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  670.5 ..  626.6 K |   1048 ..  979.0 K |   1509 ..   1410 K |
  |    n     |  397.4 ..  353.5 C |  774.9 ..  705.9 C |   1236 ..   1137 C |
  |          |  747.2 ..  668.2 F |   1427 ..   1303 F |   2257 ..   2078 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  355.9 ..  313.9 K |  524.8 ..  490.4 K |  755.8 ..  706.2 K |
  |    d+    |  82.75 ..  40.75 C |  251.7 ..  217.3 C |  482.7 ..  433.1 C |
  |          |  181.0 ..  105.4 F |  485.0 ..  423.1 F |  900.8 ..  811.5 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  355.8 ..  313.8 K |  524.7 ..  490.3 K |  755.6 ..  706.0 K |
  |    D     |  82.65 ..  40.65 C |  251.6 ..  217.2 C |  482.5 ..  432.9 C |
  |          |  180.8 ..  105.2 F |  484.8 ..  422.9 F |  900.4 ..  811.1 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  224.3 ..  209.6 K |  350.5 ..  327.5 K |  504.7 ..  471.6 K |
  |    t+    | -48.85 .. -63.55 C |  77.35 ..  54.35 C |  231.6 ..  198.5 C |
  |          | -55.93 .. -82.39 F |  171.2 ..  129.9 F |  448.8 ..  389.2 F |
  +----------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
  |          |  224.3 ..  209.5 K |  350.4 ..  327.4 K |  504.6 ..  471.5 K |
  |    T     | -48.85 .. -63.65 C |  77.25 ..  54.25 C |  231.5 ..  198.4 C |
  |          | -55.93 .. -82.57 F |  171.1 ..  129.7 F |  448.6 ..  389.0 F |
  +==========+====================+====================+====================+
 
 
8.  REFERENCES
 
[to be added in final copy later this week]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 11:41:49 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Richard Schultz mentioned "Orgone Energy".  Someone sent me a paper on "Orgone
: Energy".  It seems that the way you make an Orgone Energy accumulator it to
: build up a container of alternate layers of conductor and insulator.  Silk
: scarfs seem to be preffered for the insulators.  Such a container is supposed
: to accumulate heat.  There is a Society and a Jourlal and everything for
: Orgone Energy.
 
Don't knock it, orgone is more real than cold fusion. Just don't make the
mistake of placing a radioactive source in your orgone box as Reich did.
 
What a wonderful bunch of egotistic nutters populate this newsgroup!
 
Karel
(a practising electrochemist)
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jed Rothwell /  20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 13:59:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Thomas Kunich asks:
 
     "But where is this 20 Kw generator Jed? Is it being kept in hiding
     because of all of the industrial spys trying to get 'TheSecret'"?
 
No, it is not being kept in hiding. It was shown in the CBC documentary
broadcast on June 28, 1993 all across Canada, so it is not a secret. Many
people who have visited the facility have seen it. However, it is not
functional yet as far as I know. They are still working on it. I believe they
are working on several 10 to 20 KW reactors. These are designed to operate
continuously and indefinitely, unlike last year's cells which heated up,
boiled off the electrolyte and gradually died down. Making a CF cell run
continuously is a heck of a lot harder than you might think.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Good science is addictive
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good science is addictive
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 13:46:15 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <930712222555_72240.1256_EHK36-1@CompuServe.COM>,
by 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell):
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Bob Pendleton described the CBC tape:
>
> "All in all it was a very frustrating tape. It was good TV, but not very good
> science. It did leave me wanting more information, much more information."
>
> That makes it good science! Excellent science. You want more, right? You crave
> more? You gotta have more and more?
 
The effect you are describing is the result of either very good PR or
addiction. I'll admit to being addicted to information :-)
 
But, it is not good science. Good science is not a few video clips and
titillating sound bytes.
 
Where is the paper that describes how to reproduce the Belgrade
radiation event? That would be good science. I understand that good
business practice might mean that I'll never see such a paper. That's
good business, but it is not good science. And neither was the CBC
tape. It was good PR, it was good reporting, but it was not good
science.
 
If you can tell us where to get information about the events reported
in the CBC program, that would be wonderful.
 
Truth is folks that Jed does seem to have access to a lot of
information that isn't presented in sci.physics.fusion.
 
                                Bob P.
--
Bob Pendleton, Speaking only for myself.
 
                bobp@hal.com until July 16, 1993
                No forwarding address at this time.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: 13 Jul 1993 15:31:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Jul13.114149.19801@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie
(Karel Hladky) writes:
 
>Don't knock it, orgone is more real than cold fusion.
 
"Twice nothing is still nothing".
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Yup, it's like that
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yup, it's like that
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 14:57:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930713005452_72240.1256_EHK31-1@compuserve.com> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Jim Carr discusses how Toyota might give out samples of it's Pd alloy and
>recipes:
>
>     "...it is like asking Intel to let you test the chip before it goes to
>     market, and perhaps even examine it fairly closely.  Sort of like what
>     Intel did with AMD."
>
>Exactly my point! As I said, they will first snow you down with a 40 meter
>pile of legal paperwork, then spend 6 months agonizing over it, then finally
>give you a sample after you have promised to commit harakiri if you mumble in
>your sleep and your wife finds out anything.
 
     Intel sold rights to at least one of its chip designs to AMD as
     a second source.  We're talking about something completely different.
 
     After all, AMD was pretty sure that Intel's chip worked in the first
     place, and had the opportunity to examine it and the design *before*
     they put up nearly 1/3 of their net worth and second-sourced it...
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 15:03:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <21167@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>My point is that our current technology has big problems attached.
>All of the responders were SILENT on making fission power responsible
>for it's own disasters and clean-ups. If it is all so wonderfully
>safe, and 'tch, tch, tch to your silly irrational fears', why does
>fission need special legal protection? My bullshit detector pegs.
 
    MDs have special tort protection in this state *against* malpractice
    claims.
 
    I presume that you still see MDs?
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Dick Jackson /  Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 16:26:14 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

Jed Rothwell writes about the Japnese 20 Kw cold fusion generator:
>No, it is not being kept in hiding. It was shown in the CBC documentary
>broadcast on June 28, 1993 all across Canada, so it is not a secret. Many
>people who have visited the facility have seen it. However, it is not
>functional yet as far as I know.
 
What a coincidence! I have a very similar 25 Kw reactor. Its waiting to
be assembled from parts in my garage (they have been there for years
actually).
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:41:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes:
>In short:  Sorry, me buckos, but you will get no further hypothesizing of
>major quantum violations from here, as I see no evidence of a need for them.
>
>Does it sound like I'm giving a sort of obituary report for excess heat?
>
>You bet I am.
 
OK, Terry... since you abandoned your "ribbon twist" far fetch due to
your conclusion that there was no evidence for excess heat, I certainly
hope all this boson stuff is motivated by some other interesting
phenomenon that needs explaining.  BTW:  Just what emperically observed
phenomenon needs explaining now that you accept that "excess heat" in
Pd-H systems is nothing but the "cigarette lighter effect?"  And how
is that "problem phenomenon" associated with the boson theory?
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Choose truth or peace, here and now.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jim Bowery /  Re: JJAP CF articles
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JJAP CF articles
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:41:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>In article <930712214435_72240.1256_EHK36-1@compuserve.com>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>
>>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>>
>>People interested in cold fusion who read Japanese will definitely want to
see
>>six articles the most recent issue of the "Oyou Butsuri," Vol 62, No. 7,
July
>>1993 (The Journal of the Japanese Society of Applied Physics). This is one
of
>>the most authoritative, respected physics journals in Japan. Titles are
listed
>>here as shown in English at the bottom of the page.
>[articles deleted]
>
>     Good.  While the Japanese are busy with the 'Occidental Self-Deception',
>     we'll steadily take back market share in automobiles and begin
>     to sound the death-knell for Japanese mainframe manufacturers in their
>     own market.  Can you say 'low cost manufacturer'?  Sure, I knew you
could.
>
>     Quite clever of us shifty western-types.
>
>     I wonder when they're going to get the joke?
 
Oh, we'll take back SOME market share that we lost after having an
ungodly multi-decade lead.  We won't ever get back into the lead without
axing the "what's good for the big three is good for the country" (ie:
 what's competition for the big three is bad for the country) national
socialist attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.
 
And Japanese mainframe manufacturers are having touble?  Gee...  I remember
working at the advanced development lab of Control Data Corporation (Cray's
original company) in the late 70's when our corporate bureaucrat burst
through the door with this horrifying news about the terrifying threat of
the "Japanese Fifth Generation Computer Program" which was going to
"leapfrog" Seymour and the rest of us (who were then competing with Seymour)
and that therefore we must put more federal money into DARPA and NASA
Ames programs to develop the next generation of supercomputer.
 
The NASA Ames program ended up spending $300 million on a pile of junk
and the NASA Ames aerodynamic modeling guys ended up buying a much-maligned
Cray-2 off the shelf for an order of magnitude less in private capital.
 
The DARPA guys took off with their VHSIC program, spent billions and
failed to achieve their targets.  Seymour took an order of magnitude
less in private capital and achieved all their targets in both silicon
and GaAs AND system's integration of those devices.  Those technologies
are finally on the market with the Cray-3.  The Cray-4, now going into
fabrication, will be the first system to fully exploit the potential of
this new regime.
 
When the Japanese get DARAPA-ized as they did in their FGCP, they suffer
the full brunt of their socialistic stupidity because they don't have even
the dying remenants of a golden age of technology as we do in this country.
 
Agreed, Seymour is, again, having some trouble with slander from the
goverment-funded pussies, but this is the third time in his career he
has had to go through this sort of thing with them.  He always wins.
But pussies have a short memory.  They always come back at him 10 years
later (isn't that the incubation period for HIV?).  Unfortunately, I
think the Cray-4 will be Seymour's last machine and the blue sky securities
laws have been preventing others like him from getting a start in life.
Oh well, at least he got us over the GaAs hump so we could exploit and
entirely new regime of semiconductor physics without his genius.
 
And now, Cameron Dale Bass would have us believe that the mainline
government-supported monopolies on cars, mainframe technologies and
fusion are anything but dyed in the wool frauds, run by a bunch of
pussies in power, compared to the privately funded efforts in P&F
systems going on in Japan.
 
If it weren't for the craven political cowardice of his position, I
might chaulk it up to mere ignorance.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Choose truth or peace, here and now.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jim Bowery /  Re: No Definite Date
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Definite Date
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:41:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>Jed Rothwell writes:
>>
>>I missed this little gem the first time round. Barry Merriman (I gather it
>>was) wrote:
>>
>>     "Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the
long
>>     promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given."
>>
>>and have it materialize exactly on time is ludicrous. It is absurd. I have
>>spent 20 years building various products, software, hardware and some in
>>between. The kind of work I do is cut-and-dry, by-the-numbers, easy
>>development; it is nothing remotely like basic scientific research. Yet even
I
>
>    Or two decade delay.  Or a two century delay, or even
>    a two millenium delay.  Do I hear a two million year delay?
>    And the bidding continues..
>
>    Vaporware.
 
Sounds a lot more like the hot fusion program in this country than
anything else.
 
You know, if Bass et al would look at the amount of TAXPAYER money going
into the mainline fusion program of this country, compare it to the amount
TAXPAYER money going into CF in this country and adjust their politics
to be in some kind of proportion to the relative waste, they might have
some credibility.
 
If they would expend as little as 10% of their efforts denouncing "Vaporware"
toward the mainline fusion program, I might not believe they were simply
craven pussies sucking up to those currently in power and attacking the
enemies of those in power.
 
I don't believe for a second that any of this noise is motivated by
anything but socialistic bureaucracy in which homosexual tendencies
are being acted out rather than expressed in a straight-forward and
relatively healthy fashion that might result in the exchange of
bodily fluids.
 
Their behavior speaks for itself.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Choose truth or peace, here and now.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 15:14:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

[edited to put things in a more useful order]
In article <21166@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>I am a Libertarian, ...
 
>If the US offered a reward of US$250 million to come up with a
>cleaner electrical power generation method than what we have,
>imagine the market forces at work. My brother makes a good
 
     'Government subsidies are the usual Libertarian approach', he observed
     dryly.
 
>living tearing out old ozone eaters and moving the ridiculously
>long CFC timetable up to RIGHT NOW while saving corporations
>big bucks.
 
     Tell me what you plan to use to replace Halon extinguishers?
     Especially in aviation.
 
     How about a drop-in replacement for R-12?  No one saves 'big bucks'
     by having to replace an automotive air-conditioner or get a new
     car because they cannot get a couple pounds of R-12.
 
>I'd even love to see the US-JAPAN balance of payments get worse
>as my CF Toyota passes the 1,000th gas station. If American
>companies don't have the brains and cojones to do it, Jed, tell
>Toyota to hurry! The Christmas Shopping season starts soon and
>my son is almost old enough to drive. My dirty old 'green' money
>is burning a hole in my pockets.
 
     Another Everly Brothers fan, I see.
 
                         dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 17:05:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jul13.162614.26311@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
>
>Jed Rothwell writes about the Japnese 20 Kw cold fusion generator:
>>No, it is not being kept in hiding. It was shown in the CBC documentary
>>broadcast on June 28, 1993 all across Canada, so it is not a secret. Many
>>people who have visited the facility have seen it. However, it is not
>>functional yet as far as I know.
>
>What a coincidence! I have a very similar 25 Kw reactor. Its waiting to
>be assembled from parts in my garage (they have been there for years
>actually).
 
     An even bigger coincidence!  I've got a truly marvellous reactor
     which, unfortunately, this posting is too narrow to contain...
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: dale bass runs amok
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: dale bass runs amok
Date: 13 Jul 93 17:54:41 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <21166@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>I am a Libertarian, but one man's rational nuclear policy is
>another's nuclear nightmare. Dale doesn't like smoke drifting
>in his backyard. I don't like acid rain and nukes built on
>earthquake faults and rivers with radioactive silt.
 
Not that you are arguing for coal, but you do know that coal plants
produce radioactive waste, don't you?  I don't like nukes built
on faults any more than you do, but the radioactive silt (in the
one river that is known to be contaminated by something other than
mining operations) comes from weapons production, not power.
 
>Then the question will be 'how quick and clean can we shutdown
>those dirty dinosaurs'? ALL of 'em, coal and fission.
 
I wonder what you imagine can replace them that will have no
environmental impact?  Solar cells made from sand mined from the
(former) sand dunes around this country?  Collectors made with
oil-based polymers?  Ocean power systems that disrupt currents
and alter climate or change the height of tides?  Dams?  I do not
think you have thought this question through very far if you are
counting on some sort of perfect miracle technology to replace
everything you do not like.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / J Lewis /  Re: No Definite Date
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Definite Date
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 18:29:31 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930712204033_72240.1256_EHK59-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
...
>Second, the idea that you can announce an R&D product like the 20 KW reactor,
>and have it materialize exactly on time is ludicrous. It is absurd. I have
>spent 20 years building various products, software, hardware and some in
>between.
 
Having piqued my curiosity, and perhaps that of other readers, what WERE
some of those products, Jed?
 
...
>
>If four more years, we will bury them. ...
 
Didn't Nikita Krushchov say something like that once?
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / J Lewis /  Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 18:47:01 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <930713134358_72240.1256_EHK42-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
...
> Making a CF cell run
>continuously is a heck of a lot harder than you might think.
 
OH NO it isn't!!!  :-)
 
 
Seriously, I think that the proponents of cold fusion should learn a little
humility from the history of hot fusion.  Nuclear fusion was demonstrated
in the laboratory in the mid-30's [?? not sure of the year], and
thermonuclear fusion was embodied in successful weapons systems by 1954; and yet
controlled thermonuclear fusion is a LONG way from providing a commercially
practical power source.  And may never make it.  EVEN IF "cold fusion" has been
demonstrated in the laboratory, it is evident that a great many
uncertainties surround the phenomenon (as Jed Rothwell has so eloquently
pointed out);  and it is by no means guaranteed that it could be the
basis for practical power sources.  The history of technology is littered
with phenomena which were almost useful (not that God cares about what's
useful to us :-)   ).
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orgone Energy
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 20:58:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Karel Hladky cautions against placing a radioactive source in an orgone energy
accumulator.  I would be curious as to what happens.
 
Seems to me that I did just that back when I was attempting the Yang
replication.  Seems to me that nothing +/- 20 mw or so happened.  After four
years of this I would be thankful for anything to happen.  Even a curse that
causes my Hollihocks to shrivel and die.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Jones vs. Miles
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones vs. Miles
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 20:58:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'd like to take this opportunity to give some moral support to
steve Jones in his battle to get the facts about Miles's experiments out
in the open.  First off, the confusion generated by Miles's resorting to
use of one particular third party to get a letter condemning Jones posted
here should be laid to rest.  We can clearly rely on Steve Jones to report
truthfully on the content of the letter he received and when said latter is
dated.  What is or is not in the other version of that letter is not of any
great import, except the fact that the version made public was different may
indicate that someone is being a bit dishonest.
 
The scientific issues relating to the Miles experiments are of greater
importance, particularly if CF advocates are going to hold up these
particular results as definitive in establishing helium as the main
product of the CF reaction.  On this point I agree totally with Steve
Jones that there are some questionable points about the experimental
techniques employed and the way in which the data has been reported.
 
I may not have all my facts straight on this so I will state the
issues that concern me in the form of questions.  Perhaps Miles or
his mouth piece would care to address some of these questions.
 
(1)Were the experiments done in a lab where a helium cryostat for an
   NMR magnet was constantly venting helium boiloff?
 
(2)Were the experimenters aware of the possibilities for helium
   contamination from glassware or from helium dissolved in the
   electrolyte when the experiment was being designed?
 
(3)Were the nitrogen control samples intended to establish the level
   of helium contamination in the nitrogen, to establish the level of
   contamination from the glassware, to establish the level of
   sensitivity for the analysis of helium in a deuterium-oxygen mixture,
   or to establish the likelyhood that contamination would occur while
   the samples were in transit?
 
(4)Were any controls run on deuterium-oxygen mixtures with known
   trace amounts of helium?
 
(5)Were any samples transported in stainless steel as opposed to
   glass containers?
 
(6)Has there been published a spectrum from the RGA showing both a
   helium peak and a D2+ peak in the same scan?  in separate scans?
 
(7)Was the estimated helium sensitivity downgraded in later publications
   with the resulting increase in claimed helium concentration observed?
 
(8)What was the time interval between when a sample of gas was taken and
   when it was analyzed for each sample and each control, and is there
   any correlation with the level of helium detected?
 
(9)Were any test performed to determine the dissolved helium content
   of the electrolyte or to see if helium were detected in an effluent
   gas bubbled through the electrolyte?
 
(10)Were there gas samples taken and analyzed at different times during
    the course of a given run, i.e. before excess heat appears as well
    as during or after?
 
(11)Precisely when was each of the data points taken and which data
    appears in more than one publication?  If data is duplicated between
    the various publications, has there been any quantitative revisions
    in the results between publications?
 
That ought to be enough questions to get a serious discussion rolling.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: 13 Jul 93 18:09:01 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <21167@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>My point is that our current technology has big problems attached.
>All of the responders were SILENT on making fission power responsible
>for it's own disasters and clean-ups. If it is all so wonderfully
>safe, and 'tch, tch, tch to your silly irrational fears', why does
>fission need special legal protection? My bullshit detector pegs.
 
And exactly which technologies are responsible for cleaning up their
own disasters?  Are the people who built levees responsible for the
places that flood because they narrowed the river?  When you buy
sugar or winter vegetables, are you paying to fix the problems in
the Everglades by the drainage system and fertilizer used in their
production?  Did a dry cleaning establishment here in town pay to
clean up our water system from the TCE they dumped over the years?
No on all counts.  The taxpayers insure these technologies in the
same way they insure against problems ranging from black lung in
miners to the consequences of a major earthquake or hurricane.
 
>Many responses were of the "it's not really as bad as ____ is bad"
>nature. Sorry, but the U.S. situation seems plenty bad to me.
 
You ought to visit East Germany.  For that matter, you ought to
visit the US a mere 30 years ago.  Things are much better today
than they were then -- Pittsburg being a remarkable example.
We have improved, and will continue to improve, our environment.
 
>            ...                                             Remember
>how car emission standards could not be met and were going to destroy
>our economy? You couldn't breathe in America's cities without them.
 
Remember when we had horses instead?  The lung disease problems were
much worse.  Our cities were horrible places back then.  And just in
case you think this is an off-the-wall remark, there is a community
in the US where only horses are used for transit.  The density is low
and the streets are washed every night, but it does tell one what it
must have been like in NYC in the good old days.  It stunk!
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Jed - spokesperson for Toyota?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed - spokesperson for Toyota?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 21:33:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I wonder if Toyota is aware of what Jed Rothwell has committed them to?
As Jed informs us, "Making a CF cell run continuously is a heck of a lot
harder than you might think."  Personally I have never been convinced
that it was possible at all. (grin)
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 20:47:59 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

An interesting little addendum that I neglected to insert last night:
 
   Another possibility for creating a reflective region in an HLH design
   would be to heavily dope the outer layer of the cylinder with atoms or
   ions that will wedge into the octahedral sites and permanently expand
   the lattice constant:
 
 
       Octahedral           Very Evenly                Octahedral
      Implantation          Loaded PdHx               Implantation
         Region                Region                    Region
           |   __________________|______________________   |
          / \ /                                         \ / \
 
         +===================================================+
         |ooo                                             ooo|
         |ooo                                             ooo|
         |ooo                                             ooo|
         +===================================================+
 
          \ / \_________________________________________/ \ /
           |                     |                         |
       Reflective            Transparent               Reflective
         Region                Region                    Region
 
 
    There are very few good candidates for this type of implantation
    approach, as they must be both small (slightly larger than atomic
    hydrogen) and reasonably metallic (to prevent covalent or ionic
    salts from forming and destroying the crucial lattice structure.
 
    I'd say about the only possibilities from this perspective are:
 
      Li - lithium   --Somewhat permeable in Pd; probably easiest to try
      Be - beryllium --Probably larger than Li and more stable once wedged
      B  - boron     --Probably hard to dope; ion implantation + annealing?
      C  - carbon    --Remote possibilty; might destroy the crystal structure
      Na - sodium    --Probably too big; only via ion implantation + annealing
 
   The doped layers would not necessarily need to be very thick, as even a
   few Angstroms worth of very evenly implanted crystal would probably cause
   significant diffracton/reflection.  The resulting structure would probably
   be _much_ more stable than any hydrogen-only HLH doping structure, since
   high concentrations of hydrogen in Pd are inherently unstable.
 
   I'd guess that saturation octahedral doping (resulting in compounds with
   the nominal formulae PdLi, PdBe, PdB, PdC) would be best, although lower
   levels would probably still expand the average lattice.
 
   It is interesting to note that this proposal implies that such implant
   material need be inserted _only_ on the ends of a crystal, not on the
   sides.  This could make even control of hydrogen saturation easier.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: JJAP CF articles
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JJAP CF articles
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 22:34:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <m0oFnxW-00006OC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>>In article <930712214435_72240.1256_EHK36-1@compuserve.com>
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>>
>>>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>>>
>>>People interested in cold fusion who read Japanese will definitely want to
>see
>>>six articles the most recent issue of the "Oyou Butsuri," Vol 62, No. 7,
>July
>>>1993 (The Journal of the Japanese Society of Applied Physics). This is one
>of
>>>the most authoritative, respected physics journals in Japan. Titles are
>listed
>>>here as shown in English at the bottom of the page.
>>[articles deleted]
>>
>>     Good.  While the Japanese are busy with the 'Occidental Self-Deception',
>>     we'll steadily take back market share in automobiles and begin
>>     to sound the death-knell for Japanese mainframe manufacturers in their
>>     own market.  Can you say 'low cost manufacturer'?  Sure, I knew you
>could.
>>
>>     Quite clever of us shifty western-types.
>>
>>     I wonder when they're going to get the joke?
>
>Oh, we'll take back SOME market share that we lost after having an
>ungodly multi-decade lead.  We won't ever get back into the lead without
>axing the "what's good for the big three is good for the country" (ie:
> what's competition for the big three is bad for the country) national
>socialist attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.
 
    I was actually talking about things that are currently happening
    using a slightly different idiom.  I believe absence of competition
    is not currently a problem.
 
>And now, Cameron Dale Bass would have us believe that the mainline
 
    Cameron *Randale* Bass if you are going to use my full name.
 
>government-supported monopolies on cars, mainframe technologies and
>fusion are anything but dyed in the wool frauds, run by a bunch of
>pussies in power, compared to the privately funded efforts in P&F
>systems going on in Japan.
>
>If it weren't for the craven political cowardice of his position, I
>might chaulk it up to mere ignorance.
 
     Who was talking about government-supported anything (especially
     mainframes)?  Compaq is leading the coming slaughter in Japan.
     And as for me being a supporter of government efforts at fusion,
     don't make me laugh.  However, I do believe that there are
     government organs in Japan that support cold fusion.  Are they
     'kitty-cats' too?
 
     If it were not for the craven ignorance of your position, I might
     chalk it up to simple ignorance.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No Definite Date
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Definite Date
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 22:46:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <m0oFnxW-0000BeC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>>Jed Rothwell writes:
>>>
>>>I missed this little gem the first time round. Barry Merriman (I gather it
>>>was) wrote:
>>>
>>>     "Here we have it folks: a "believer" has finally specified when the
>long
>>>     promised proof of cold fusion will finally be given."
>>>
>>>and have it materialize exactly on time is ludicrous. It is absurd. I have
>>>spent 20 years building various products, software, hardware and some in
>>>between. The kind of work I do is cut-and-dry, by-the-numbers, easy
>>>development; it is nothing remotely like basic scientific research. Yet even
>I
>>
>>    Or two decade delay.  Or a two century delay, or even
>>    a two millenium delay.  Do I hear a two million year delay?
>>    And the bidding continues..
>>
>>    Vaporware.
>
>Sounds a lot more like the hot fusion program in this country than
>anything else.
 
     That's vaporware too.  Anything with a 50 year lead time is.
     On the other hand, though I am against funding at current levels,
     at least hot fusion is a demonstrable phenomenon.
 
>You know, if Bass et al would look at the amount of TAXPAYER money going
>into the mainline fusion program of this country, compare it to the amount
>TAXPAYER money going into CF in this country and adjust their politics
>to be in some kind of proportion to the relative waste, they might have
>some credibility.
 
     Maybe you should have some idea of my position before ascribing one
     to me?
 
>If they would expend as little as 10% of their efforts denouncing "Vaporware"
>toward the mainline fusion program, I might not believe they were simply
>craven pussies sucking up to those currently in power and attacking the
>enemies of those in power.
>
>I don't believe for a second that any of this noise is motivated by
>anything but socialistic bureaucracy in which homosexual tendencies
>are being acted out rather than expressed in a straight-forward and
>relatively healthy fashion that might result in the exchange of
>bodily fluids.
 
     Since I'm married, I have to find *some* means of expressing my
     homosexual tendencies.
 
>Their behavior speaks for itself.
 
     Having difficulty finding dates, are we?
 
                                 dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / T Neustaedter /  Re: No Definite Date
     
Originally-From: tarl@klovia..sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Definite Date
Date: 14 Jul 1993 01:51:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA

In article <m0oFnxW-0000BeC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>>    Vaporware.
>
>Sounds a lot more like the hot fusion program in this country than
>anything else.
 
You're right. Dale should have said "Plasmaware".
 
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       Stratus Computer
         tarl@sw.stratus.com    Marlboro, Mass.
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 / Timothy Melton /  Re: Specific Heat.
     
Originally-From: tam@quest1.UUCP (Timothy Melton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Specific Heat.
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 14:24:45 GMT
Organization: Quest Consultants Inc.

In article <930712115701.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>Jed Rothwell says:
>
>"1.  Specific heat is a constant"
>
>My experience in life is that nothing is constant.  Does anyone know how
>specific heat changes with temperature?  I have been meaning to look into
>this.  A few hundred ppm per C could be a problem for me.
 
Yes, specific heat is a function of T and P.  Look in any
thermodynamics text.  Or are we talking about some special "physicists
fusion" specific heat.  (Cold specific heat?!? ;)
 
(From Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 50th ed p.3-132):
 
For Palladium (just an example):
 
    Cp = 5.41 + 0.00184 T     (273 < T < 1822)
 
T [=] K
Cp [=] cal/K gmol
 
Hope this helps,
 
 
 
>
>Tom Droege
>
 
 
--
Tim Melton                     uokmax!quest1!tam
Quest Consultants Inc.        att!occrsh!quest1!tam
P.O. Box 721387               (405) 329-7475
Norman, Ok 73070-8069         Fax: (405) 329-7734
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentam cudfnTimothy cudlnMelton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Eschew Obfuscation (Jed)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eschew Obfuscation (Jed)
Date: 13 Jul 93 15:54:13 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I dislike obfuscation; Jed Rothwell in his recent posting provides examples
which demand response:
 
"As far as we know, Steve is getting more power out than I*V in.  He could be!
He has not said a word about it yet.  I shall reserve judgment, of course.
Perhaps when I seed a full paper, I shall see that he did a credible
job, but from what little I know so far, this experiment should not be taken
seriously."     (Jed Rothwell, 10 July 1993, "Always in favor of experiments")
 
Nonsense.  In postings about our experiments on nickel/light water cells,
Jonathon Jones and I explained clearly that all the "excess heat" which we
found could be accounted for as recombination of hydrogen and oxygen
at the electrodes, from gases dissolved in the electrolyte.  I don't understand
how Jed can say that we have not "said a word about it yet."  Jonathon also
explained problems which stem from use of the expression:
  (E - Eo)*I
in the denominator of the expression to calculate xs heat, as used by Mills,
Miles, Noninski, etc.  [E is the input voltage to the cell and I the current,
while Eo is the thermal neutral potential = 1.48 V for light water;
Eo*I is then the power lost due to electrolysis of water, assumed to be carried
out of the cell as the hydrogen and oxygen evolve.]  This expression is clearly
incorrect when recombination is in fact occuring.  Moreover, the denominator
can become very small -- and the corresponding xs power very large -- when E is
just slightly larger than Eo.  All of this has been previously explained here.
 
The issue of recombination is a very important one, we showed, one neglected by
nearly all those reporting excess heat in light water cells and by many working
with D2O as well.  For example, Mel Miles (China Lake experiments) states:
 
"the electrodes in that cell never became exposed to the gas phase, thus
recombination could not have been a factor in the measured excess heat."
(Miles letter to Jones, posted here by Mitchell Swartz)
 
This is simply a very bad assumption.  No wonder he finds excess heat!
 
In our weekly research group meeting this morning, we briefly
discussed Jed's July 10 posting, and decided to provide him a copy of our paper
when it is finished, rather than endlessly repeating on the net.  So
information not previously posted will be given in that paper.  The first
draft is completed.  We also recalled that Tom Droege, Dieter Britz and other
experienced scientists congratulated our work here on the net
rather than casting doubt and
another cycle of obfuscation as attempted by Mr. Rothwell in his posting.
 
 
Rothwell also stated:  "We saw the same kind of sloppy reporting, and
withholding of information, when Steve tried to prove that silver has about the
same resistance as nichrome."  (July 10)
 
Prove that Ag and nichrome have about the same resistance?
More nonsense and obfuscation.  This has obtuse reference to the work done by
BYU graduate student David Buehler at the Nagoya cold fusion conference in Oct.
1992, in scrutinizing the Ni/H2O heat demonstration presented by Prof. Notoya
(professor at the University of Hokkaido, Japan).  David
showed by MEASUREMENT that the thin lead wires going into the "control cell"
(allegedly silver)
had higher resistance than the thick lead wires leading to the Ni/H2O cell.
In fact, David's measurements of Notoya's cells demonstrated that 36% of the
heat in the "control" was dissipated into the AIR.  On our return to BYU, we
then showed that approx. 10 C difference in the cells is easily accounted for
by this mistake (the control cell was cooler by about 10 C at Nagoya).  Many
were taken in by this demonstration of "excess power" production in a simple
cold fusion cell at the conference.  But not David.  He remarked to me after
taking his measurements of the lead wires:  "Do these people think we're
stupid?"
 
This information was posted and
debated months ago, and Jed is certainly exercising "sloppy reporting and
withholding information" the way he represents the matter in his July 10
posting.  He failed to mention that Notoya threw away the thin
lead wire so that no one can re-check its composition or resistance.  Hardly
good scientific practice.  Prof. Notoya also used "rusty alligator clips"
according to Jed.   This is an expert?
We have also learned that Notoya sometimes bubbles hydrogen through
the electrolytic cell -- this must certainly enhance the recombination
rate, just as we showed by briefly bubbling oxygen through a cell as reported
previously.
 
So we say that recombination appears to be a major factor
which should lead to erroneous excess heat claims by Notoya, as well as Mills,
Miles and many others.  Clearly, compelling evidence for excess power
production cannot be obtained when significant recombination is possible
as we have demonstrated.
 
 
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Jul13.153841.771@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jul13.153841.771@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 13 Jul 93 15:55:20 -0600

cancel <1993Jul13.153841.771@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Eschew Obfuscation (Jed)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eschew Obfuscation (Jed)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 04:58:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

S. E. Jones/BYU writes:
>So we say that recombination appears to be a major factor
>which should lead to erroneous excess heat claims by Notoya, as well as Mills,
>Miles and many others.
 
If we are to take Mill's claims seriously (as voiced here by Farrell), however,
recombination cannot account for the factor of 10-50 greater heat output
than V*I (without the 1.48V correction.)
 
Of course, it remains to be seen if such results will be adequately
demonstrated to the public -- as of yet only the (V-Vc)*I corrected results
have been publicly demonstrated -- and therefore disputed.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 06:04:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <21167@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
 
>Sorry, but the U.S. situation seems plenty bad to me. This
>is my country and my planet too. I'm kind of glad the 'Luddites' have
>made it so that science will have to come up with something better.
 
And exactly what is it that you are planning to replace coal and fission
with? Are you so dissatisfied with coal and fission that you are willing
to believe absolute BS from the CNF crowd? Remember when Pons and
Fleischman held their infamous press conference and told everyone how
easy it was to do CNF and told everyone of how they were detecting neutrons
and He?
 
Is there some reason that you don't have full contact with your senses and
can't detect that the reason that there is no present CNf water heaters
is because CNF is a grouping of errors and not anything real?
 
Or are you simply a True Believer who is willing, even eager, to be
made a fool of? I guess Utah people are simply grumps who didn't like
spending so much money -- imagine the lack of foresight it took to believe
people who actually inspected the work of P&F and recommended that the
University exit with all due haste.
 
It is so much more exciting to believe someone like Jed Rothwell with
his long string of qualifications for commenting on the scientific
acceptability of experiments that are improperly documented (improperly
for good reason.)
 
>I am not a Luddite, I LIKE electricity. I am painfully aware that my
>workstation is currently powered by a nightmare.
 
Electricity is a nightmare? Then stop using it. You are under no
pressure to light your night.
 
>We can solve the 'billion ravening humans' in a
>generation by educating women better (for less cost than almost any
>type of major powerstation). Check it out.
 
Ah, I see, you are also an expert on birth control and social mores.
Perhaps you could inform the Chinese of this plan of yours. THey would
love to hear you describe how this would work. You obviously have a
much better hold on this subject that the people actually facing the
problem.
 
>I read this thread and I mentally see some terrific minds speculating
>over possible quantum effects. If you hate CF, F&P and all the others
>(like me) interested in CF so much, then whom do you thank for the
>great flights of ideas that populate this thread?. I love reading
>discussions of BWO(?) 'condensates'. Octohedral, Tetrahedral yet!
>This thread is the Boston Marathon of mental excercise!
 
Is it possible that you don't understand that the speculation is
on virtual impossibilities? Could it be that you don't understand
that if power was this easily available that some natural process
would have taken advantage of this and there wouldn't be any gradient
left?
 
Let's put this plainer -- you can say that nature always takes advantage
of any power gradient and always leaves the system at it's lowest
point. There are only temporary storage systems such as fissionable
materials and fossil fuels (temporary storage of fusion energy).
 
In short -- there may be some system out there but the chances are
vanishingly small. If you are willing to believe someone that claims
that they can do it you have to be pretty needy.
 
But there is more to this -- you are willing to believe these unsupported
claims as if there was some evidence -- that is really preposterous.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 06:20:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930713134358_72240.1256_EHK42-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Making a CF cell run
>continuously is a heck of a lot harder than you might think.
 
I think it's impossible and I agree with you that it's probably harder
than that.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 09:01:33 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Karel Hladky cautions against placing a radioactive source in an orgone energy
: accumulator.  I would be curious as to what happens.
:
: Seems to me that I did just that back when I was attempting the Yang
: replication.  Seems to me that nothing +/- 20 mw or so happened.  After four
: years of this I would be thankful for anything to happen.  Even a curse that
: causes my Hollihocks to shrivel and die.
 
If you consult the history of Reich's little group of intrepid researchers
you'll discover that they were doing fine until some bright spark had the
idea of stuffing some radium into their box. This produced mighty BAD energy
and marked the end of Reich's career. Of course, it could just have been a
touch of radiation sickness...
 
Seriously though, I admire your patience.
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Frank Close /   Fusion Fact or Fiction.READ/NEW
     
Originally-From: FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Fusion Fact or Fiction.READ/NEW
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 11:37:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
On several occasions Fusion Facts has been recommended as essential
reading by proponents of CNF. If the June issue is any guide then I
recommend that readers take its material with a strong pinch of salt
(preferably free of potassium-40).
 
Fusion "Facts" contains an article claiming to be a report of one of
my recent talks (at London University). It twice implies that I now
endorse cold fusion,and contains other pieces of creative writing.
 
It begins to deviate early on by being unfair to many workers in
cold fusion when it states that  "Close takes the view that
cold fusion is at best a joke and at worst a scientific fraud".
Such a statement is far too broad; if restricted to the activities
in Stanley Pons' laboratory in the days following the 23 March press
conference then it is nearer the truth. Little else in the article
is correct and in some instances it contains complete falsifications.
I am writing to the editor but post this here in case it fails to
appear unedited in the above propaganda sheet. I would appreciate
anyone who has access to Fusion Fiction letting me know the full address
of its editor (I was sent a copy of the letter but no further details).
 
LETTER FROM FRANK CLOSE
 
The June edition of Fusion Facts contains a letter from Peter Graneau
about a lecture that I gave in London recently. The report attributes to
me statements that I did not make, and then uses these inventions in
attempting to impugn my scientific integrity and reputation.
I look for an immediate and prominent correction of this "report", and
a copy of the edition containing the said correction.
 
1.."There is nothing to be discovered, according to [FC], that is not
already implied in our textbooks".
 
I did not make any such statement, nor do I hold such a ludicrous opinion.
 
2. "FC ..reported to the meeting that [FP] had now reliably produced a
few watts of excess power.."
 
I did not make any such statement endorsing FP's claims, nor do I endorse
their claims.
Is "now" a typo for "not"?
 
 
3. "Today Close no longer disputes the generation of excess heat in
cold fusion cells.."
 
This is a complete invention and I dissociate myself from it entirely.
 
I am well known as a "sceptic" to readers of your "fact" sheet.
Such a statement attributed to me may carry quite wrong signals to those
readers or businesses who are assessing the investment potential
of so called "cold fusion" as a useful power production process.
The credibility of your news-sheet, and my integrity as
an internationally known scientist who has spoken and written widely on
this subject, requires that you make it clear that the quote, item 3, is
a complete misrepresentaion of my position.
 
"...but he adamantly argues that this must be chemical.."
 
I said that in my opinion FP's claims of excess power from open cells
may be due to them underestimating the systematic errors in these
particular devices. I stressed, as in my book "Too Hot To Handle",
that it is for the electrochemical community to decide on this.
I showed that the sum total of Fleischmann and Pons' claims either
equates with no phenomenon or with a "chemical" (electron or "atomic"
as distinct from nuclear) source.
 
"..He gave no indication of what is being `burned' in the fusion cells"
 
You should direct the above statement to Flesichmann and Pons, not
to me. It is they that claim kilowatts of power for length periods, not I.
It is now a year since I challenged Martin Fleischmann on this question
at the British Association and after "nine" years of work there is still
nothing worthwhile from him to support a nuclear origin for his power claims.
 
4. "Frank Close said he had never heard of capillary fusion nor had he seen our
recent papers on this subject in Phys Lett A. This brought the debate to
a quick conclusion."
 
Mr Graneau is naturally proud of his published papers on filament fusion.
However, my talk was concerned with *Fleischmann and Pons'* claims to have
produced watts (and more) of power from nuclear fusion. Mr Graneau's two papers
(Phys Lett A165,1 (1992) and A174,421(1993)) have NO references to
any papers by Fleischmann and Pons and had nothing whatever to do with the
main theme of my talk.
I asked Mr Graneau if he was claiming capillary fusion to be a macroscopic
power producing process; he was not.
 
As concerns your closing innuendo about my standing in science, which
appears to be based on Mr Graneau's  garbled and inaccurate report of
my talk,I recommend that you study the literature. The article does not do
justice to your claim to represent Fusion "Facts" (sic).
 
 
Yours sincerely,
Professor Frank Close;
Head of Theoretical Physics Dept and Deputy Chief Scientist,
Rutherford Appleton Lab,UK
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 14:06:33 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <m0oFnxV-0000BfC@crash.cts.com>
jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
> Terry Bollinger writes:
>
> | In short:  Sorry, me buckos, but you will get no further hypothesizing of
> | major quantum violations from here, as I see no evidence of a need for them.
> |
> | Does it sound like I'm giving a sort of obituary report for excess heat?
> |
> | You bet I am...
>
> OK, Terry... since you abandoned your "ribbon twist" far fetch due to
> your conclusion that there was no evidence for excess heat, I certainly
> hope all this boson stuff is motivated by some other interesting
> phenomenon that needs explaining...
 
Yes.
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                     Choose truth or peace, here and now.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I'm greedy, I choose here AND now.   :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- Twist is far from abandoned, excess heat or not.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: 14 Jul 1993 15:23:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Jul14.090133.22391@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie
(Karel Hladky) writes:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
 
>If you consult the history of Reich's little group of intrepid researchers
>you'll discover that they were doing fine until some bright spark had the
>idea of stuffing some radium into their box. This produced mighty BAD energy
>and marked the end of Reich's career. Of course, it could just have been a
>touch of radiation sickness...
 
Actually, what ended his career was the FDA, who had him put in jail for
continuing to sell his books.  The claim was that he was making "false and
misleading" (or whatever the official term is) claims for the benefits of
orgone therapy.  He died in jail.  Which is why I said that whatever has
been done to P&F, it's not as bad as what they did to Reich.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Mike Jamison /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: 14 Jul 1993 12:07 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <13007@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes...
>In article <21167@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>>
>>My point is that our current technology has big problems attached.
>>All of the responders were SILENT on making fission power responsible
>>for it's own disasters and clean-ups. If it is all so wonderfully
>>safe, and 'tch, tch, tch to your silly irrational fears', why does
>>fission need special legal protection? My bullshit detector pegs.
>
>And exactly which technologies are responsible for cleaning up their
>own disasters?  Are the people who built levees responsible for the
>places that flood because they narrowed the river?  When you buy
>sugar or winter vegetables, are you paying to fix the problems in
>the Everglades by the drainage system and fertilizer used in their
>production?  Did a dry cleaning establishment here in town pay to
>clean up our water system from the TCE they dumped over the years?
>No on all counts.  The taxpayers insure these technologies in the
>same way they insure against problems ranging from black lung in
>miners to the consequences of a major earthquake or hurricane.
>
>>Many responses were of the "it's not really as bad as ____ is bad"
>>nature. Sorry, but the U.S. situation seems plenty bad to me.
>
>You ought to visit East Germany.  For that matter, you ought to
>visit the US a mere 30 years ago.  Things are much better today
>than they were then -- Pittsburg being a remarkable example.
>We have improved, and will continue to improve, our environment.
>
>>            ...                                             Remember
>>how car emission standards could not be met and were going to destroy
>>our economy? You couldn't breathe in America's cities without them.
>
>Remember when we had horses instead?  The lung disease problems were
>much worse.  Our cities were horrible places back then.  And just in
>case you think this is an off-the-wall remark, there is a community
>in the US where only horses are used for transit.  The density is low
 
In Ohio, actually.  Unfortunately, there have been a few auto/horse accidents
that wouldn't have been as bad, had the Amish (sp?) been in cars, instead
of horse drawn carriages.  (I've never been to the Amish community, though
I hear it's a neat place).
 
>and the streets are washed every night, but it does tell one what it
>must have been like in NYC in the good old days.  It stunk!
>
>--
>J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
>Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
>Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
>Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
 
We can take John George's requirement right home, to:  Would you give up
your own car/home insurance, and accept full responsibility for any
accident you caused (in Ohio we're required to carry at least liability, so
we can't really make the choice).
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 16:17:26 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Jul13.204759.23650@asl.dl.nec.com> I said:
 
>       Octahedral           Very Evenly                Octahedral
>      Implantation          Loaded PdHx               Implantation
>         Region                Region                    Region
>           |   __________________|______________________   |
>          / \ /                                         \ / \
>
>         +===================================================+
>         |ooo                                             ooo|
>         |ooo                                             ooo|
>         |ooo                                             ooo|
>         +===================================================+
>
>          \ / \_________________________________________/ \ /
>           |                     |                         |
>       Reflective            Transparent               Reflective
>         Region                Region                    Region
>
>    There are very few good candidates for this type of implantation
>    approach, as they must be both small (slightly larger than atomic
>    hydrogen) and reasonably metallic (to prevent covalent or ionic
>    salts from forming and destroying the crucial lattice structure.
>
>    I'd say about the only possibilities from this perspective are:
>
>      Li - lithium   --Somewhat permeable in Pd; probably easiest to try
>      Be - beryllium --Probably larger than Li and more stable once wedged
>      B  - boron     --Probably hard to dope; ion implantation + annealing?
>      C  - carbon    --Remote possibilty; might destroy the crystal structure
>      Na - sodium    --Probably too big; only via ion implantation + annealing
 
Add to the list the somewhat interesting case of:
 
       He - Helium    --Smallish, very immobile.  Alpha irridation + annealing?
 
Nitrogen, oxygen, and fluorine might also be mentioned, but are quite dubious.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Miles
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 17:56:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My compliments to Dick Blue for a nice set of questions to be answered on
the Miles experiment.  I expect a similar set should I ever get something
worth discussing.  The only problem is that Dick has outlined a two or three
year experimental program.
 
That is the trouble with these experiments.  They are hard.  If we were to
blow the east wing off the laboratory, then delicate experiments would not
be required.  Or a 20Kw house heater.  Barring that, experiments that show
a hint of something just beg for more careful experiments.  Miles is right
to publish his suspicions, as that helps to get the rest of us started.  Now
we all have to work to get it right or properly put it in the garbage.
 
I will look forward to Miles working through the Blue list.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Terry B's Surface Doping
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry B's Surface Doping
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 17:56:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I remind Terry Bollinger that 4He was used to dope experiment P12, P14, and
3He was used on P16 by McKubre.  He has also used Boron on some experiments
in the electrolyte.  Large heat spikes are claimed with Boron.  Of course,
almost all experiments have used Lithium.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Jim Carr /  Re: JJAP CF articles
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JJAP CF articles
Date: 14 Jul 93 15:13:30 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930712214435_72240.1256_EHK36-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>People interested in cold fusion who read Japanese will definitely want to see
>six articles the most recent issue of the "Oyou Butsuri," Vol 62, No. 7, July
>1993 (The Journal of the Japanese Society of Applied Physics). This is one of
>the most authoritative, respected physics journals in Japan. Titles are listed
>here as shown in English at the bottom of the page.
 
We get the "Japanese Journal of Applied Physics" -- but it does not appear
to be the same thing since the volume numbers in our holdings do not
match what you refer to, unless this is a translation that (like some of
the Russian journals) is out of synch with the originals.  Will have
to check what is down there.  I can read graphs even if I cannot read
Japanese....
 
>The articles are grouped together in the table of contents under the heading,
>"Has Cold Fusion Been Verified"
 
Jed: does the Japanese say "Cold Fusion *has been* verified" (declarative
statement) or does it say "Has Cold Fusion been verified ?" (open question)?
I see enough Japlish to wonder which meaning was intended.  Were those
their words or your translation?
 
>"Emission of energetic charged particles," Jirohata KASAGI (Lab. of Nuc.
>Science, Tohoku U.) and Keizo ISHII (Cyclotron and Radio Isotope Cntr, Tohoku
>U.), p. 710
 
I once knew a 'Jirohta' Kasagi, who was a post-doc in experimental nuclear
physics at Michigan State around 1980.  He worked in an area where he
clearly has expertise in detection of neutrons and gamma rays at medium
energies.  Is there an english abstract, or could you summarize their
conclusions?  A title does not always convey the conclusions!
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Jim Carr /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: 14 Jul 93 15:23:51 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Jul14.090133.22391@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie
(Karel Hladky) writes:
>
>If you consult the history of Reich's little group of intrepid researchers
>you'll discover that they were doing fine until some bright spark had the
>idea of stuffing some radium into their box. This produced mighty BAD energy
>and marked the end of Reich's career. Of course, it could just have been a
>touch of radiation sickness...
 
As long as we are wandering a bit wide afield ...
 
There is a rather interesting article in the latest Scientific American
on the use of Radium to cure what ails you.  Reminded me of a colleague
who picked up a large crock at a garage sale.  Open at the top with a
tap on the bottom, with instructions to fill with water.  The water
would be ionized by the radium lining.  It was still plenty "warm"
inside, but perfectly safe if kept on a shelf.  (Whether it would be
"below regulatory concern" was not something he bothered to find out.)
 
I will have to read up on the history of Reich and Orgone Energy.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 /  bearpaw /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 17:52:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
>We can take John George's requirement right home, to:  Would you give up
>your own car/home insurance, and accept full responsibility for any
>accident you caused (in Ohio we're required to carry at least liability, so
>we can't really make the choice).
 
*Real* insurance is a way of preparing to accept responsibility, should
it be necessary.  Getting someone else to pay for the results of your
accident and/or pay for the insurance for those potential results is a
way of avoiding responsibility.
 
Not that there isn't shitloads of precedent for such avoidence in the
US...
 
bearpaw
 
 ======================================================================
 |  bearpaw@world.std.com              Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:23:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>Reminded me of a colleague
>who picked up a large crock at a garage sale.  Open at the top with a
>tap on the bottom, with instructions to fill with water.  The water
>would be ionized by the radium lining.
 
Yes, a Revigator!  My brother's friend had one which he brought over
to be checked with my Heathkit Geiger counter -- it was damn hot!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 19:34:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>Actually, what ended his [Reich's] career was the FDA, who had him put in
>jail for continuing to sell his books.  The claim was that he was making
>"false and misleading" (or whatever the official term is) claims for the
>benefits of orgone therapy.  He died in jail.
 
At least Galileo was smart enough to recant!
 
Official science is an odious thing.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / John Lewis /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: court@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 18:08:35 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

In article <13007@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
...
>
>>            ...                                             Remember
>>how car emission standards could not be met and were going to destroy
>>our economy? You couldn't breathe in America's cities without them.
>
>Remember when we had horses instead?  The lung disease problems were
>much worse.  Our cities were horrible places back then.  And just in
>case you think this is an off-the-wall remark, there is a community
>in the US where only horses are used for transit.  The density is low
>and the streets are washed every night, but it does tell one what it
>must have been like in NYC in the good old days.  It stunk!
>
>--
>J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
>Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
>Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
>Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
 
I recollect reading that a study from around 1885 indicated that NYC would
become swamped (or whatever verb) by horse manure about 1895 - the horse
population density would become so large and the rate of production of
manure so great that it couldn't be hauled away as fast as it was produced.
As it was, on hot, dry summer days a haze of dried, pulverised horse
manure hung in the air, and penetrated everywhere.  With further increase,
the manure would have choked traffic, and generally would have made the city
unlivable. NYC was saved from this ignoble but somewhat humorous fate by the
introduction of the automobile.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / David Andrews /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: dba@redbug.UUCP (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 93 13:58:20 GMT
Organization: none

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes in article <930713152439.20603141@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>:
>
> After four
> years of this I would be thankful for anything to happen.  Even a curse that
> causes my Hollihocks to shrivel and die.
 
First time I ever heard 'em called hollihocks...             ;-)
 
--
David Andrews
dba@redbug.oau.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendba cudfnDavid cudlnAndrews cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 20:33:59 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Jul14.161726.5011@asl.dl.nec.com> I said:
 
> Add to the list the somewhat interesting case of:
>
>     He - Helium    --Smallish, very immobile.  Alpha irridation + annealing?
 
Add to the addition:
 
      Ne - Neon      --Larger than He, immobile.  Ion implanttion + annealing?
      Ar - Argon     --Larger Ne, immobile -- size dubious (ditto Xe, Kr)
 
I'll stop handwaving the radii and get some specificis for the final draft.
 
 
Also, diffraction would be most likely to occur (if it works at all) for
opposing _atomically smooth_ diagonal faces, with similarly smooth levels
of doping (probably needing to exend no more than tens of Angstroms or less
into the crystal).  For the following crystal:
                                        _
                                  101   101
                                   |     |
                                   |     |
                      _         +--|--------+
                     011 ------/   |       / \----- 011
                     __       /    | 001  /  /|     _
                     110 --> +-----|-----+  / |---- 110
                      _     /_\_________/_\/  |
                     110 ---+ |         | |010/
                            | |   100   | +-------- 110
                      __    | |         | | /         _
                     011 -->|_|_________|_|/<------ 011
                             \|_________\ /
                                 |   /|\
                                 |_  _|_
                                101  101
 
... the pairs of diagonal faces (not all labeled above) to use would be:
         __       _ _       __     _    _   _     _   _    _
    011-011   101-101   110-110   011-011   101-101   110-110
 
Because of quantum channeling effects [SciAm ref], you would actually get
_better_ odds on back-and-forth reflection of atoms than with a simple
mirror -- that is, the lattice itself will be somewhat self-correcting.
 
Crystal size?  _Small_, not big.  1 mm or less, I'd ballpark, as larger
sizes are not going to enhance the basic condensation effect (if it exists!)
and are more likely to scatter low-momentum atoms.  High crystal quality
would be far, far more important than size, I suspect.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #4 Cell 4A5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #4 Cell 4A5
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 22:22:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #4 Cell 4A5                                 14 July 93
 
Sorry not to keep you all better up to date.  I have been carrying on an
extensive correspondence with Bob Bernecky which has led me to neglect this
media.  We have been sorting out how to make a test of his theory.  I will try
to take most of this public now.
 
Run 4A5 ended after a series of short ramps around 39 C and an attempt to get
up near 80 C.  We got to about 50 C.
 
We have since started preparation for another run.  Everything has been torn
apart several times as we made several mistakes.  Again I pinched the tubing
and started a run which showed no gas change but a heat balance change.  This
is the symptom of a pinched gas tube and sure enough it was found on opening
the calorimeter.
 
The next problem was that after we put things together after the pinched tube
it looked like the cell was putting out heat.  Both the thermometer in the
cell and the one in the catalyst were above the others.  Everything was just
right for the cell to be putting out a half watt or so just sitting there.
This led to taking things apart again and trying to match all the
thermometers.  It turns out that the cell and the catalyst thermometer were
reading higher than the others.  So I got out my NIST standard Radio Shack
thermometer as recommended by Jed Rothwell, a good glass thermometer, and
tried to match up and correct everything.  Assuming the "good" glass
thermometer is good to the stated +/- 1 C, all my thermometers are now matched
up to +/- 0.1 C at 24 C.  There are six that are all close to the cell for
which a match is meaningful.  There are nine total thermometers in the
experiment.
 
Previously I had not paid much attention to the accuracy of the thermometry,
only the precision.  Nothing in the previous measurements had any serious
dependence on temperature.  Now that there is a specific temperature of
importance, the match will help, but I am still not very confident that I have
the absolute temperature to better than +/- 2 C, but I hope it is better.  I
think it is not as easy as Jed says to measure a temperature with accuracy.
 
I still stick with my opinion that the event at 497230 seconds in run 4A5 was
something very interesting.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Jones vs. Miles
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones vs. Miles
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 00:21:28 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>I'd like to take this opportunity to give some moral support to
>steve Jones in his battle to get the facts about Miles's experiments out
>in the open.  First off, the confusion generated by Miles's resorting to
>use of one particular third party to get a letter condemning Jones posted
>here should be laid to rest.  We can clearly rely on Steve Jones to report
>truthfully on the content of the letter he received and when said latter is
>dated.  What is or is not in the other version of that letter is not of any
>great import, except the fact that the version made public was different may
>indicate that someone is being a bit dishonest.
 
   I agree with Dick on this too.  Steve you have my support.  It
sounds like there are two letters.  One for the public consumption,
and one for Steve's reading.  Mitchell, maybe just the messager caught
in the middle.  Also, Dick's list of potential sources of errors in
meassuring He4 cannot be stressed stronger.  You have got to dot all
your 'i's and cross your 't's in these meassurements.  I am begining
to think He4 may be the major ash of CF as I've look more and more
into to this boson condensate material (the Chubb theory).  These
measurements have to have the quality of Steve's Kamiokande work before
anyone is going to be convenced of He4/Heat realtionship.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 02:48:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <21288@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>I'd like for the household generator to be large enough to
>allow me to sell back alot of power to PG&E. Like about 100
>times what I use. That way a few hundred thousand of the folks
>who feel like me can generate enough power to shutdown Diablo
>Canyon. We could drop it in the subduction zone just offshore
>of Mendocino and the next earthquake or two would take care of
>it for us.
 
     Priced 400KW generators recently?  Looked into the economics
     of selling power to PG&E.  You cannot compete with Diablo
     Canyon even if the Pd-D system was free (and worked, but that's
     beside the point).
 
>As a fellow computer programmer, I am sure you caught the irony
>of a joke about the US recapturing the lead in mainframes. Talk
>about being the best in buggy-whips! I hope we can do better
>than that, or the US is doomed to be a technological backwater.
>Paraphrasing a Clintonism: IT'S CONSUMER PRODUCTS, STUPID!
 
     No, but I did notice you missed the point several times.
     Japanese mainframe manufacturers will probably shortly
     be massacred by American PC manufacturers.
 
     'Technological backwater' my hiney.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 02:50:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <21289@autodesk.com> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>I'd like to thank Dale Bass for pointing out yet another serious
>problem with our legal (not justice) system when he points out
>that in his state the MD's have special tort protection.
>
>I consult with my doctor and after getting a full explanation of
>the risks, decide for myself whether I wish to take the risk. I
>am not at all sure I would want some risk assessment expert to
>decide for me.
 
     Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
 
     Thanks for the laugh.
 
                      dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 04:46:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes:
>jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>> Terry Bollinger writes:
>>
>> | In short:  Sorry, me buckos, but you will get no further hypothesizing of
>> | major quantum violations from here, as I see no evidence of a need for
them.
>> |
>> | Does it sound like I'm giving a sort of obituary report for excess heat?
>> |
>> | You bet I am...
>>
>> OK, Terry... since you abandoned your "ribbon twist" far fetch due to
>> your conclusion that there was no evidence for excess heat, I certainly
>> hope all this boson stuff is motivated by some other interesting
>> phenomenon that needs explaining...
>
>Yes.
 
It's interesting that Terry chose to answer a statement, but deleted
the following questions, which I will now re-post so he can answer them
this time:
 
>>BTW:  Just what emperically observed
>>phenomenon needs explaining now that you accept that "excess heat" in
>>Pd-H systems is nothing but the "cigarette lighter effect?"  And how
>>is that "problem phenomenon" associated with the boson theory?
 
Terry, I do hope you will answer these questions this time, rather
than just deleting them.
 
Terry goes on to say:
>P.S. -- Twist is far from abandoned, excess heat or not.
 
But including more from the earlier "buckos" quote above, he said
something apparently in contradiction to this P.S. denial:
 
>Based on a lot of confidence in Tom Droege, I hereby and pleased to announce
>the termination of the "Twist of Ribbon" farfetch.  It was based 100% on the
>presumption of excess heat being real, and I no longer believe that such
>phenomena have sufficent plausibility to keep that particular Farfetch open.
>
>In short:  Sorry, me buckos, but you will get no further hypothesizing of
>major quantum violations from here, as I see no evidence of a need for them.
 
In short, the announcement of:
 
"the termination of the 'Twist of Ribbon" farfetch.... (it was based on
 nonexistent excess heat) ..."
 
and the statement that:
 
"Twist is far from abandoned, excess heat or not."
 
Are contradictory statments.
 
Terry, I don't expect you to resolve this contradiction, as it is obviously
impossible to do.
 
But, once again, I DO hope you will answer my prior questions rather
than merely deleting them from your response.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Choose truth or peace, here and now.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Kevin Moore /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: kjm@buc.edu.au (Kevin Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 04:46:42 GMT
Organization: Ballarat University College

In article <930712114211.206026ae@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>Richard Schultz mentioned "Orgone Energy".  Someone sent me a paper on "Orgone
>Energy".  It seems that the way you make an Orgone Energy accumulator it to
>build up a container of alternate layers of conductor and insulator.  Silk
>scarfs seem to be preffered for the insulators.  Such a container is supposed
>to accumulate heat.  There is a Society and a Jourlal and everything for
>Orgone Energy.
 
Given the purported origins of orgone energy, wouldn't silk stockings be
more appropriate?
 
Kevin Moore
kjm@buc.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkjm cudfnKevin cudlnMoore cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / John George /  Re: More amok
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More amok
Date: 14 Jul 93 08:29:27 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I'd like to thank Dale Bass for pointing out yet another serious
problem with our legal (not justice) system when he points out
that in his state the MD's have special tort protection.
 
I consult with my doctor and after getting a full explanation of
the risks, decide for myself whether I wish to take the risk. I
am not at all sure I would want some risk assessment expert to
decide for me.
 
It's no wonder to most of us why the legal profession has such
low regard with us rubes out here. Fast-talking, double-speak.
 
More engineers, scientists, teachers, please. Less lawyers.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / John George /  Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
Date: 14 Jul 93 08:21:25 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

Jed, I'd like to read translations of the articles you mention
in your recent post. I am sure that those of us who want more
information (and those who wish to ridicule) are hoping that
you could find the time to do some translating.
 
I am still hoping for that MINT GREEN Toyota Camry with the
100,000 mile 'fill-er up' interval in time for Christmas. My
wonderful son is driving age in just two more short years.
 
I'll also be a grateful consumer of a CF hot water heater, pool
heater, and a household electrical generator. Gonna sell like
hotcakes! Bring them on!
 
I'd like for the household generator to be large enough to
allow me to sell back alot of power to PG&E. Like about 100
times what I use. That way a few hundred thousand of the folks
who feel like me can generate enough power to shutdown Diablo
Canyon. We could drop it in the subduction zone just offshore
of Mendocino and the next earthquake or two would take care of
it for us.
 
Just think, we could leave that nasty coal in the ground, and the
plutonium on Pluto. I wonder if it was a Freudian thing how that
stuff got named after the Greek god of the Underworld and Death.
 
To round out the consumer products line, make sure there are
snappy CF logo bumper stickers, tee and sweat shirts available,
too.
 
As a fellow computer programmer, I am sure you caught the irony
of a joke about the US recapturing the lead in mainframes. Talk
about being the best in buggy-whips! I hope we can do better
than that, or the US is doomed to be a technological backwater.
Paraphrasing a Clintonism: IT'S CONSUMER PRODUCTS, STUPID!
 
Thanks in advance,              JLG
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.14 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 23:48:09 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

 
Terry.  AWSOME!  Absolutly AWSOME!  I think we may have a serious
break through here.
 
Excited,
Chuck Sites
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 05:22:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>   Another possibility for creating a reflective region in an HLH design
>   would be to heavily dope the outer layer of the cylinder with atoms or
>   ions that will wedge into the octahedral sites and permanently expand
>   the lattice constant:
 
I won't pretend to understand the necessities of "reflection" as it is used
here, but wouldn't the Pd surface/electrolyte boundary provide a rather
drastic and abrupt change in the lattice constant -- not unlike a water/air
photon reflecting effect?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 00:59:59 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Jul14.193423.7229@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
Logajan) writes:
> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
> >Actually, what ended his [Reich's] career was the FDA, who had him put in
> >jail for continuing to sell his books.  The claim was that he was making
> >"false and misleading" (or whatever the official term is) claims for the
> >benefits of orgone therapy.  He died in jail.
>
> At least Galileo was smart enough to recant!
>
> Official science is an odious thing.
>
 
He was making false and misleading---and downright insane---claims
for the benefits of orgone therapy. They peaked when they contaminated
their desert lab with radioactive materials (Reich didn't believe
in atomic energy---it was all orgone energy, and radiation sickness was
just a result of orgone imbalance; treatable with his orgone
accumulators, presumably).
 
Its fine if he want to hold idiotic views, but if he uses them to
endanger other people, (by practicing bogus medicine, or spreading
radioactive material around) he deserved what he got. Thats the price
one pays for being crazy and wrong.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 11:42:05 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: He was making false and misleading---and downright insane---claims
: for the benefits of orgone therapy. They peaked when they contaminated
: their desert lab with radioactive materials (Reich didn't believe
: in atomic energy---it was all orgone energy, and radiation sickness was
: just a result of orgone imbalance; treatable with his orgone
: accumulators, presumably).
 
Sounds a bit like cold fusion to me.
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Jim Bowery /  We're all a bunch of "excess heat"
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: We're all a bunch of "excess heat"
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 15:38:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

People seem to be paying a lot more attention to Jed Rothwell than
they should, given the fact that he isn't really suggesting
any specific course of action, other than to spend a lot of time
becoming what might be called an "excess heater".
 
Bottom line:
 
The vast majority of us don't deserve to be "excess heaters."
 
This is true whether the excess heat claims of P&F are true or not.
 
If they aren't true, we don't deserve to be discredited along with
them.  If they are true, we don't deserve the credit or the profit
that is rightly due them.  Either way we, ourselves, would be "excess
heat."
 
Those who actually INVEST in excess heat had better be doing so
on the basis of their relationship to P&F -- not just some idea
they concocted to explain what P&F are doing.  It's clear P&F
aren't being fully open about what they are doing and may even
be lying about what they are up to.  This could be because they
are frauds but it can also be a legitimate method of protecting
their priority in an immensely valuable technology.  Sitting around
having excessively heated arguments about what they might be up
to is really rather silly.
 
Let's get on with our own lives and make our own contributions
rather than gibbering at each other in hopes we can know whether
we are being "left out" or not.
 
We ARE being left out and rightly so.
 
Either go find people who are ORIGINAL inventors in fusion and
establish direct relationships with them or come up with your
own ORIGINAL fusion technology.
 
Forget about P&F and their claims of excess heat.
 
It's none of your business.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 14:36:24 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <930714125024.20603387@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> I remind Terry Bollinger that 4He was used to dope experiment P12, P14, and
> 3He was used on P16 by McKubre.  He has also used Boron on some experiments
> in the electrolyte.  Large heat spikes are claimed with Boron.  Of course,
> almost all experiments have used Lithium.
 
Thanks, Tom -- and no, I did not realize that McKubre had doped with 4He,
nor with boron (though I've heard rumors of the latter in other experiments).
I haven't been reading some of the experimental postings as closely as really
I should have, but will try to watch them more carefully.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: <1993Jul14.140633.3624@asl.dl.nec.com> <1993Jul14.234809.167
@coplex.coplex.com>
 
In article <1993Jul14.234809.1671@coplex.coplex.com>
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes some nice compliments:
 
Thanks, Chuck.  Please keep us posted on you own ideas on boson interactions.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: <1993Jul13.061603.15158@asl.dl.nec.com> <1993Jul13.204759.23
50@asl.dl.nec.com> <1993Jul15.052220.12790@ns.network.com>
 
In article <1993Jul15.052220.12790@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | Another possibility for creating a reflective region in an HLH design
> | would be to heavily dope the outer layer of the cylinder with atoms or
> | ions that will wedge into the octahedral sites and permanently expand
> | the lattice constant:
>
> I won't pretend to understand the necessities of "reflection" as it is used
> here, but wouldn't the Pd surface/electrolyte boundary provide a rather
> drastic and abrupt change in the lattice constant -- not unlike a water/air
> photon reflecting effect?
 
Excellent question!
 
The difference is _selectivity_ rather than reflectivity.  As in a dye laser,
if no one frequency is inherently preferred over another (at least within
some range), then to create a boson condensate you must have reflectivity
_and_ external imposition of a specific frequency selection.  In dye lasers
both of these are provided by using (surprise!) a diffraction grating.
 
The simple surface of a Pd crystal will reflect very well indeed, but it is
not able to _select_ between the many competing frequencies (momenta) of any
atoms traveling within the crystal.
 
(SciAm had a superb Amateur Scientist article on diffraction grating dye
lasers back many a year ago, by the way.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References: <m0oGKji-0000QSC@crash.cts.com>
 
Jim, my impression is that you are more interested in arguing than making a
real point.  Thanks, but I choose to pass on such an opportunity.  (You will
receive no further responses from me to anything you post, by the way.)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 15:29:33 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <m0oGKji-0000QSC@crash.cts.com>, by jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery):
>>In short:  Sorry, me buckos, but you will get no further hypothesizing of
>>major quantum violations from here, as I see no evidence of a need for them.
>
> In short, the announcement of:
>
> "the termination of the 'Twist of Ribbon" farfetch.... (it was based on
>  nonexistent excess heat) ..."
>
> and the statement that:
>
> "Twist is far from abandoned, excess heat or not."
>
> Are contradictory statments.
>
> Terry, I don't expect you to resolve this contradiction, as it is obviously
> impossible to do.
 
Jim,
 
It is very easy to resolve the contradiction. Consider that 1) Terry
is human, 2) Humans can learn, and 3) Time has passed between when
Terry made the first statement and the second statement.
 
Terry has simply changed his mind between the time he made the first
statement and the time he made the second statement. Changing your
mind is a very human thing to do. And only fools refuse to change
their minds when presented with new information.
 
Do you remember when you and I first bumped into each other in
sci.space? We didn't agree on very much if anything. We still don't
agree on very much :-) but what I've learned from you has caused me to
modify my opinions on several subjects. Because of things you said I
actually went out and asked rocket designers some tough questions and
got some very surprising answers. And then I saw the answers proved
true by the Pegasus project.
 
We all have the right to change our minds and contradict ourselves.
Only a fool has never changed his mind. After all, it's just an
admission that you've learned something.
 
                                Bob P.
 
P.S. to Terry
 
I hope you don't mind my jumping in on this.
--
Bob Pendleton, Speaking only for myself.
 
                bobp@hal.com until July 16, 1993
                bobp@wixer.bga.com from now on.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  More on J. Logajon's point / "colliding" condensates?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on J. Logajon's point / "colliding" condensates?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 15:53:38 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
MORE ON JOHN LOGAJON'S POINT
 
In article <1993Jul15.052220.12790@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) wrote:
 
> I won't pretend to understand the necessities of "reflection" as it is used
> here, but wouldn't the Pd surface/electrolyte boundary provide a rather
> drastic and abrupt change in the lattice constant -- not unlike a water/air
> photon reflecting effect?
 
Also, John Logajon made the point that a smooth crystal face will reflect
_all_ atomic momenta.  There's an important, somewhat subtle point there:
if all momenta are reflected from the surface equally well, how will the
_selected_ frequency of the diffraction area differ significantly from all
the other frequencys bouncing off the atomically smooth Pd surface?
 
Thus thanks to John I will add this further modification to the proposed
structure for looking for Bernecky condensates in palladium crystals:
 
    The diffraction area should have a very smooth inner surface, and a
    comparatively _rough_ external surface:
 
              ---------------------------
                                    ooooo\
                                    oooooo/
                                    ooooo\
                  Inner surface --> ooooo\  <-- External surface
                                    oooooo/
                                    oooooo\
                                    ooooo/
              ---------------------------
 
Not only will this quite effectively scatter the non-selected frequencies
and keep them from reflecting coherently, but it will also provide some
level of "momentum chaos" that will increase the chances that scattered
atoms will come close enough to the selected frequency to join the boson
condensate.
 
Experimentally, this would imply first polishing to atomic smoothness,
then doping very evenly, then very mild etching or other roughening of
the original polished surface -- making sure that the roughening process
does not penetrate the doped region.
 
Thanks, John!  I will assume this scattering-of-non-selected-frequencies
approach from here on out, and will include and reference your observation
in the updated draft.
 
 
"COLLIDING" CONDENSATES?
 
Another intriguing aspect of W. Robert Bernecky's BWO farfetch was the idea
of boson condensates "colliding."  I like the idea, but am not convinced
that such condensates would necessarily move at all.  I would tend to assume
that they would form non-moving stationary waves, so that the idea of two
of them colliding might be more aptly defined in terms of two of them
_intersecting_ somewhere along their (stationary?) lengths.
 
Interestingly enough, the presence of _multiple_ diagonal faces pairs in a
Pd crystal (a total of six pairs) makes it fairly easily propose a way to
create such _intersecting_ standing waves.  And quite unlike photons, boson
atoms have real volumes, so that such intersecting standing waves of boson
atoms _cannot_ just ignore each other (as do photons in crossed beans of
light).  They will have to interact in a way that is less than immediately
clear, at least to my poor brain.
 
(Historical sidenote:  About 3 years ago I asked in this group: "What would
happens if two jets of superfluid helium were made to cross at right angles?
Would they pass through each other like beams of (boson) photons, or would
they spray out like two jets of (fermion) water?"  No one ever answered it,
but the mutual spatial occupation issue here is very similar.)
 
All this leads, for example, to the experiment described below.  PLEASE
note that this "experiment" is based on the decidedly unproven assumption
that Bernecky condensates exist at all!  Thus there would be rather little
point in performing it until someone finds evidence for the existence of
such condensates.
 
 
    Top view of a crystal "slice" made parallel to one of the cubic faces
 
 
                               -######-
                             -  oooooo  -
                           -    oooooo    -
             Cubic face  -      oooooo      -  Cubic face
                       -        oooooo        -
                     -          \\\\\\          -
                   -            //////            -
                 -              \\\\\\              -
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#   Surface-roughened
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#     Diagonal Face
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#  (Primary Condensate)
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#
                #oooo /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\\/\/\/\/\/ oooo#
                 -              //////              -
                   -            \\\\\\            -
                     -          //////          -
                       -        oooooo        -
             Cubic face  -      oooooo      -  Cubic face
                           -    oooooo    -
                             -  oooooo  -
                               -######-
 
                        Narrower Secondary Face
                         (Control Condensate)
 
 
In the above diagram, one pair of diagonal axes has been intentionally cut
narrower than the primary condensate.  The premise is that this secondary
condensate should be able to provide some level of "control" of a rather
hard-to-specify type of the primary condensate.
 
What kind?  My own guess is that the intersection area would have to do
"double time" to satisfy both sets of wave equations for the two condensates.
If you then shift the phase of one of the two condensates -- say by simply
_squeezing_ the crystal in the vertical axis -- you may be able to do such
odd things as zeroing out the amplitude of the primary condensate in the
central region -- in other words, bisecting the primary condensate wave-
function into two physically separated regions.  Or it might do something
else entirely.  The point in any case is that this would be an _interesting_
set of experiments to try if Bernecky condensates can be shown to exist.
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Lawrence Curcio /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 11:57:46 -0400
Organization: Doctoral student, Public Policy and Management, Carnegie
Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Reich made the idiotic claim that he was getting excess energy from his
Orgone Box. Imagine that!
 
Throw away the key I say!
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudfnLawrence cudlnCurcio cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Rusty Perrin /       Fusion Digest 1172
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1172
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 17:39:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says: "...Toyota is doing these public demonstrations..."
 
Is Toyota really holding public demos? Or do you just mean the tours for
top-notch scientists that you mentioned? I would not quite call that a
public demo, but maybe I'm picking nits. Anyhow, when and where have
there been successful demonstrations of this technology that were open
to the general public? I recall one demo at MIT that was mentioned in
this forum, but, if I remember right, that one didn't work.(Of course,
if there have been lots and lots of successful demos, I'm not looking
for a comprehensive list of each and every one, I'm just curious if
there really are public demos of this stuff.)
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Rusty Perrin /       Am I following this conversation right?
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Am I following this conversation right?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 17:39:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following is my summary of a recent thread here, as I understood it.
Jed, let me know if I have it wrong.
 
Jed: *Toyota will have a working 20Mw reactor by the end of the year*
 
Barry: *Ok, I'll mark off December 31 on the calendar and then we'll
see.*
 
Jed: *Barry, you're naive and inexperienced and know NOTHING about real
science, and that was one of the stupidest things I've read all year.*
 
Now, who is putting the timetable on fundamental R&D?
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: 15 Jul 93 08:30:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CA49ID.GuF@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis) writes:
>In article <930713134358_72240.1256_EHK42-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>...
>> Making a CF cell run
>>continuously is a heck of a lot harder than you might think.
 
>   .. ...   yet
>controlled thermonuclear fusion is a LONG way from providing a commercially
>practical power source.
 
So agrees the DoE and perhaps even the IAEA.
 
>John Lewis >St. John's, Newfoundland
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Jones vs. Miles
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones vs. Miles
Date: 15 Jul 1993 17:40:14 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I would like to point out something seemingly obvious which seems to have
escaped certain people's attention. Assuming that the letter received by
Steven Jones contained those few "threatening" sentences, and assuming
further that Mitchell Swartz posted word for word the letter he received,
there is no contradiction. That is, the letter *Mitchell* received was
devoid of the threatening sentences. So as he indignantly states, Mitchell
did in fact scan, check, and scrupulously and honestly post the whole
of the material he received.
 
It is just that the letter in Mitchell's posession and that recevied by
Steven are not identical. Mitchell, is this not obvious to you? Why accuse
Steven of treachery? Neither of you has seen the hardcopy in the posession
of the other, you know.
 
On the dates, it did seem to me that Steven's account was not perfectly
comprehensible; it was not clear to me what was received by whom, and when.
Steven, on your next post you could probably make a little table like this:
 
Date       Letter received by       Letter sent by    Letter posted by
 
day 1           person A                                  person B
day 2                                  person A
 
et cetera. As long as the listed days are sequential, there is no
confusion. This way, one can avoid the problems of semi-opaque English.
 
Both of you: keep the stuff coming; this is an important matter.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / John Logajan /  cmsg cancel <1993Jul15.174914.18370@ns.network.com>
     
Originally-From: logajan@network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Jul15.174914.18370@ns.network.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 17:51:18 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<1993Jul15.174914.18370@ns.network.com> was cancelled from within rn.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 93 18:03:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>> >Actually, what ended his [Reich's] career was the FDA, who had him put in
>> >jail for continuing to sell his books.
>>
>> At least Galileo was smart enough to recant!
>
>He was making false and misleading---and downright insane---claims
 
Every orthodoxy says the same thing about heretics.
 
Now from time to time one or the other has a clearer picture of reality,
but I can't ever see that as a justification to imprison or kill the
other.
 
It would seem to me that ignorance of reality would have its own just
reward.  But for some reason, some people feel ordained to impose additional
strict and brutal punishments.  And thus we have the sectarian holy
wars throughout the history of the world.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Detection of Bernecky Condensates
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Detection of Bernecky Condensates
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 18:18:10 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Another short addendum:
 
The best technique for determining the formation of a Bernecky condensate
would almost certainly be neutron diffraction.  The formation of a condensate
would represent the abrupt addition of a new regularity within the crystal,
one that should show up quite distinctly as a new bright in the diffracted
neutron beam.
 
NMR should also work, since there would be an additional ordering to the
hydrogen or deuterium atoms.
 
X-ray diffraction is also a candidate, but looks more at the electron clouds
(vs. the p or d nuclei) and thus would less exact.  On the other hand, X-rays
are much easier to get hold of than cold neutron beams, so this might not be
a bad choice, either.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Jed Rothwell /  Please re-request diskette
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please re-request diskette
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 21:38:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
A number of people requested the diskette version of Peter Hagelstein's paper,
"SUMMARY OF ICCF3 IN NAGOYA." It is in WordPerfect format, which prints nicely
(the ASCII version is also included). I have been terribly busy, and I got
discombobulated and lost the list of people after mailing out only two, so
will you all kindly e-mail me again, with your addresses.
 
This is on 3.5" IBM high density diskette.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Getting started on the next run.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting started on the next run.
Subject: Re:  Thermometers
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 21:52:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is an effort to bring out in the open the details of what is happening in
the current experiment.
 
Bob Bernecky writes:
_______________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re:  Thermometers
 
Oh yes, do you have any idea how long the thermometers were out of
alignment.  From your message I have the impression they have
"always" (over the past few months, at least) been reading high.
How is it possible to not notice the delta, especially when calibrating
at essentially no current?
 
--Bob.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This is a great question and there are a whole bunch of answers which shed
light on the experimental process.  The answer to the first part of the
question is "always", though the two thermometers in the cell change with the
cell.
 
As to "How is it possible to not notice the delta,..."
 
1)  Until this experiment, the thermometry was of no particular significance.
Shure, it was interesting if something suddenly got hot, but for the most part
I was watching for sudden changes, not that the absolute values made sense.
The calorimeter is a null balance device, so the critical item is the
difference between the measured input and output power which should be zero if
there is no "anomalous heat".
 
2)  I am watching 80 variables which I print out to the screen every minute.
Some of these, like the calorimeter balance, I watch closely.  Others are just
scanned.  One reason that this was spotted was that I started plotting several
of the temperatures against each other.  I usually plot 10 or so of the 80
variables, it is a question of what to pick.
 
3) Anyone who has tried to build instrumentation which attempts to prevent
combat pilots from killing themselves as I have, knows that one can become
absolutely blind to key information.  A pilot was brought before the board for
landing with his wheels up.  A common problem.  Because of this the tower
watches and warns pilots if their wheels are not down.  There is a loud buzzer
in the cabin if the airspeed drops below a certain level and the wheels are
not down.  Most military fields post a runway watch with a very pistol to
shoot in front of the pilot to warn him.  The pilot said " There was all this
noise in the cockpit, the tower was yelling at me and there were explosions in
front of me so the only thing I could think to do was to land".
 
Being blind to information is one of the big reasons that I post here.  I am
working alone for the most part.  I talk a lot on the phone to my brother, but
he mostly worries about the chemistry and leaves the instrumentation to me.
Sometimes talking (or writing) about a situation causes one to look at it in a
new light, and a problem becomes apparent.
 
So if these posts are too long and you think I am wasting bandwidth, let me
know and I will go away.  But I have two purposes.  One is to help me keep my
own thinking straight.  The second is to show how the experimental process
really works, mucking around in the crud.  Not the view most of us get by
reading highly polished papers.
 
4) Now the real technical reason.  For most of the 4A runs, I have been
running with an auxiliary heater wrapped around the catalyst.  This keeps the
catalyst well above the calorimeter temperature.  It also provides an
additional balancing heater for the cell.  Since I changed to the linear power
supplies last year, the available power is marginal, so I make up for it by
running the catalyst heater from a second supply.  This heater is run either
wrapped around the catalyst area of the cell as earlier, or around the
auxiliary catalyst container which is above the cell.  In either case, this
heats up the cell, so I was used to the cell temperature being above the
calorimeter temperature even at low or zero current.  It was not until I
wanted to check on the thermometer match that I turned off this heater to see
if the thermometers all came to the same temperature.  I had done this
experiment before in the dim past, that is why I had some idea of the match.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  One more warning to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One more warning to John Logajan
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 22:14:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I just happened to notice my note that warned John Logajan that just because
his "bomb" survived 5000 psi does not mean that it hold up at 3000 psi.  One
reason is that the hydrogen from the electrolysis will diffuse into the metal
and make it brittle.  A particularly dangerous thing to do would be to turn
it back on, under the assumption that it would again be good to 5000 psi.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: 15 Jul 93 21:10:09 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: #############################################################################
: ## DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ##
: ## (No typo checking, no review, no references.  A final will be issued.)  ##
: #############################################################################
:
:                            Bernecky Condensation:
:          A Brief Analysis of the Potential for Diffraction-Enhanced
:             Atomic Boson Condensation in Pd(Hx,Dy,Tz) Compounds
 
As I understand this, you propose that if the spatial frequency of
nuclei of integral spin matches their Debroglie wavelength, then you propose
bosonic condensation may be enhanced. (I haven't quite figured out why
yet...but anyway)
 
You apply this to hydrogen embedded inside metallic lattices.
 
Now, why do you need hydrogen inside lattices?
 
Surely there must be some existing solids which have integral spin
nuclei, and whose lattice spacing matches some multiple of their
DeBroglie wavelength?
 
E.g., why doesn't diamond boson-condense?
 
--
-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:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: 15 Jul 1993 21:23:19 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: : #############################################################################
: : ## DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ##
: : ## (No typo checking, no review, no references.  A final will be issued.)  ##
: : #############################################################################
: :
: :                            Bernecky Condensation:
: :          A Brief Analysis of the Potential for Diffraction-Enhanced
: :             Atomic Boson Condensation in Pd(Hx,Dy,Tz) Compounds
:
: As I understand this, you propose that if the spatial frequency of
: nuclei of integral spin matches their Debroglie wavelength, then you propose
: bosonic condensation may be enhanced. (I haven't quite figured out why
: yet...but anyway)
 
Hmm.  I just thought of another thing.  My understanding of what you're
proposing must be wrong.
 
The momentum-wavelength of an _electron_ is about the size of a hydrogen
atom. (It has to be!)  The momentum-wavelength of even the lightest
nucleus must be thousands of times smaller.
 
This seems to be a general trait of solid state physics, as quantum effects
of electrons are important at atomic wavelength scales (because that's
how solids are put together) but quantum effects of nuclei aren't important.
 
What's different here that makes quantum effects of nuclei important?
 
:
: You apply this to hydrogen embedded inside metallic lattices.
:
: Now, why do you need hydrogen inside lattices?
:
: Surely there must be some existing solids which have integral spin
: nuclei, and whose lattice spacing matches some multiple of their
: DeBroglie wavelength?
:
: E.g., why doesn't diamond boson-condense?
:
: --
: -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".
 
--
-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:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Les Earnest /  Re: JJAP CF articles
     
Originally-From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: JJAP CF articles
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 22:02:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

Jim Bowery writes:
   And Japanese mainframe manufacturers are having touble?  Gee...  I remember
   working at the advanced development lab of Control Data Corporation (Cray's
   original company) in the late 70's when our corporate bureaucrat burst
   through the door with this horrifying news about the terrifying threat of
   the "Japanese Fifth Generation Computer Program" which was going to
   "leapfrog" Seymour and the rest of us (who were then competing with Seymour)
   and that therefore we must put more federal money into DARPA and NASA
   Ames programs to develop the next generation of supercomputer.
 
   [Colorful but generally accurate account of subsequent foolish and
   grossly wasteful R&D funding by DARPA omitted.]
 
Yes, that "yellow peril" book by Feigenbaum and McCorduck was a
carefully planned military-academic scheme to bilk the taxpayers out
of more money for the "research" programs of the authors and their
friends.  It met its goals quite successfully.
 
The lesson for cold fusion researchers is clear: if you want large
funding you have to create a credible threat and write a book about
it.  You can't use the Soviet Union anymore, so another book about the
threat of Japanese domination of the field would seem to be the best
bet.  Does this bear any resemblence to articles that have appeared
here?
 
--
Les Earnest (Les@cs.Stanford.edu)               Phone:  415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305        Fax:  415 941-3934
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenles cudfnLes cudlnEarnest cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.15 / Scott Lurndal /  Re: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
     
Originally-From: scott@starbase.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
Date: 15 Jul 93 18:23:14 GMT
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <21288@autodesk.COM>, johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
 
|> I am still hoping for that MINT GREEN Toyota Camry with the
|> 100,000 mile 'fill-er up' interval in time for Christmas. My
|> wonderful son is driving age in just two more short years.
|>
At the rate that so-called CF consumer products seem to
be appearing on the market, your son's son may see a RED (from
embarassment) 50Mpg methane powered camry (If toyota survives :-)
 
|> I'll also be a grateful consumer of a CF hot water heater, pool
|> heater, and a household electrical generator. Gonna sell like
|> hotcakes! Bring them on!
 
Sure.  The Luddites will find some reason to condemn CF products
as well.  I can just see it - Oh, cf is based on electrolysis of
D20, and D20 is "Heavy water" used in fission and weapons programs
and may create H due to disassociation thereby causing my
house to burn like the Hindenburg; it is evil and must be banned!
 
|>
|> I'd like for the household generator to be large enough to
|> allow me to sell back alot of power to PG&E. Like about 100
|> times what I use. That way a few hundred thousand of the folks
|> who feel like me can generate enough power to shutdown Diablo
|> Canyon. We could drop it in the subduction zone just offshore
|> of Mendocino and the next earthquake or two would take care of
|> it for us.
Ok.  Instead of storing the low-level waste for a (geologically
speaking) short time in any one of several verifiably safe methods,
and the quite small (relatively speaking) quantities of high-level
waste in several geologically secure locations (e.g. nevada/kansas)
where we can recover it when our technology progresses to the point
where the waste is no longer waste, but rather a resource, we should
just drop it in a subduction zone where it will be fragmented and
released willy-nilly into the environment, water table, etc.  Not in
my state, thank you very much.   I, like many others posting to
this group, would prefer to see the environmentally friendly
nuclear plants continue operation rather than relying on
coal and oil-fired plants for electricity generation. (So flame away...)
Especially the latest generation of Candu-style reactors.
 
|>
|> Just think, we could leave that nasty coal in the ground, and the
|> plutonium on Pluto. I wonder if it was a Freudian thing how that
|> stuff got named after the Greek god of the Underworld and Death.
|>
Is there really plutonium on pluto?   I suspect there are few
heavy elements (if any) that far out from the solar core.
 
|> To round out the consumer products line, make sure there are
|> snappy CF logo bumper stickers, tee and sweat shirts available,
|> too.
|>
|> As a fellow computer programmer, I am sure you caught the irony
|> of a joke about the US recapturing the lead in mainframes. Talk
|> about being the best in buggy-whips! I hope we can do better
|> than that, or the US is doomed to be a technological backwater.
|> Paraphrasing a Clintonism: IT'S CONSUMER PRODUCTS, STUPID!
|>
As a fellow computer programmer (who happens to work for a mainframe
manufacturer who sells quite a few mainframes (funny how our mainframe
growth was 10% last year - some buggy whip)) I disagree with
your analysis.   Central systems are becoming more and more important
as companies try the downsizing exercize and realize that the
headaches and costs are greater than the Information Hub based
approach centered around a large computer system.
 
|> Thanks in advance,           JLG
 
scott lurndal
unisys unix systems group
I don't speak for (or against, for that matter) unisys.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 /  drysdall@waika /  Help! Summary of cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: drysdall@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help! Summary of cold fusion.
Date: 16 Jul 93 16:02:11 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Hi everybody!
I'm a physics graduate student in the first year of my plasma physics masters
(thesis) work. I've been following this conference for a week or so now, and I
am particularly interested in the cold fusion research debates (but not the
amok debates).
 
Now I have to produce a poster for the Sixth National Conference of the New
Zealand Institute of Physics at Waikato this year (25-28th August). I would be
very grateful if someone could give me some ideas on what material to look at
to get a general overview of what scientific developments are being made, and
some of the politics of cold nuclear fusion. I would be very very very very
very grateful if someone could email me a summary of the developments or
recommend a good book/papers to study.
 
Thank you, in advance.
--
Richard Drysdall
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand
drysdall@waikato.ac.nz
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendrysdall cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / mitchell swartz /  Jones vs. Miles
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones vs. Miles
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 07:15:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9307132046.AA26578@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: Jones vs. Miles
 Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes, making assumptions and
    innuendos about "the other version of that letter" etc.:
 
=db "First off, the confusion generated by Miles's resorting to
=db use of one particular third party to get a letter condemning Jones posted
=db here should be laid to rest.  We can clearly rely on Steve Jones to report
=db truthfully on the content of the letter he received and when said latter is
=db dated.  What is or is not in the other version of that letter is not of any
=db great import, except the fact that the version made public was different
=db may indicate that someone is being a bit dishonest."
 
 
    It is time to correct the record.  My apologies for being
      incredibly busy, and hence this tardive response.
 
    I had received a personal letter addressed to me from Mel Miles
 dated 22 Jun 93 with a return code on the upper right side of the front page
 of 3910-C02353/219.  I posted his letter per his request.
 
    Following the posting, and a few incorrect allegations,
  I received a fax from Steven Jones (thank you, Steve)
 which is dated 17 June 93 and addressed to President Rex E. Lee
 of Brigham Young University. This letter has a return code on the upper
 right side of the front page  of 3910-C02353/119.
 
    What do these two letter show?
    The cover sheets appears to show two different dates, two different
 headers, two different return codes, and two different personal salutations.
 Examination of the cover sheets indicates a high probability of two
 different letters.
 
    However, given the homologies between the two letters as Steven Jones
noted, it was decided to optically scan the two signatures made by Dr. Miles
(300 dots per inch, 8 bit dynamic range) to further examine, once and
for all,  if there are two letters quenching this silliness of
"something allegedly 'cut out'".
 
    Therefore, attached below is a UUENCODED GIF figure.  For thou
Sherlock Holmes types who really want to look for the TRUTH (a good way
to see who may have been "dishonest"), please examine the two signatures
located in the figure.  The image compares a portion of Mel's two signatures
from each letter, and has transposed them in registration for easy comparison.
 
   It is apparent that there is a minor problem with the fact that the
17 July 93 letter image is based upon a fax (possibly of a copy) and
therefore as can be seen in the figure the relative stroke density of
the signature varies, and on-the-whole is generally less, compared to
the 22 July signature (scanned the original letter therefore it darker;
I could have thickened the earlier letter but wanted the scans identical).
   Also, there is probably a small magnification error which
I do not have the time to measure.  It does not matter anyway.  Attention
is merely directed to Mel's "H" in his middle name.  Anyone looking at the
GIF figure will know by examining the directions of the strokes composing
the letters "H" in two signature samples whether or not there were two
distinct letters, or if there was only one putative letter with an
excised portion.
 
   QED -   Perhaps it is time for the hot fusion-skeptics to get on to
            science and stop creating vapor-brouhahas.
 
 (Thanks to Bruce Scott, Chuck Sites, Terry Bollinger, Jim Carr for the
              comments and patience)
                                         Best wishes.     Mitchell Swartz
                                                          mica@world.std.com
 
=============  UUENCODED GIF FOLLOWS (Two letters? -see below) ========
uuencode milesgif uuuuufi  gif
begin 600 uuuuugif
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MGDSCLVRF3"ZN_;9F,LS:8"?GQ0@O9P:P+V,TM,YA,)>1S#_#=^S*.7?RM+Y
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MA^$D%Z[[=/2ARZ%9&G:L5;"JP*Y5=^R\QZLRU#HHSW1E&N9M<I%7SVLM>_?
M^VFB\1D'".Z6;]BEK>IU/EW79IYM!TMO>-P&R.W+Q36GSMEL\.+CT6.&OI?U
M:>8AQXK7S-<M[?3WK!/*?9]_;<5_A.J-O(GB VT^M.KCKC_@KBNOOP?](PS
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ENOLNO/'*.R^]]=I[+[[YZKLOO_WZ^R_  0L\!S#!!1ML;P0 .RZZ
 
end
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / John Logajan /  Re: One more warning to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: One more warning to John Logajan
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 93 08:33:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>A particularly dangerous thing to do would be to turn
>it back on, under the assumption that it would again be good to 5000 psi.
 
I had no intention of turning it back on.  By the way, the pressure is now
at 3100 PSI.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Status #4 Cell 4A5
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #4 Cell 4A5
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 11:59:12 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Previously I had not paid much attention to the accuracy of the thermometry,
: only the precision.  Nothing in the previous measurements had any serious
: dependence on temperature.  Now that there is a specific temperature of
: importance, the match will help, but I am still not very confident that I have
: the absolute temperature to better than +/- 2 C, but I hope it is better.  I
: think it is not as easy as Jed says to measure a temperature with accuracy.
 
I am surprised that you are having problems measuring temperatures to a
reasonable accuracy. Why not use RTD's or semiconductor sensors? Over the
temperature range you are interested in a platinum RTD would give you
+/-0.1C absolute without any problem (maily set by the accuracy and
stability of your reference resistor) and even the humble LM35CZ will give
you better than +/-0.5C over -40C to +110C. And it costs only few quid.
 
BTW those cheap thermistor based LCD display gizmos from Radio Shack and
similar are usually +/-5C, on a good sunny day and with a fresh battery
inside.
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / Karel Hladky /  Re: One more warning to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: One more warning to John Logajan
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 12:02:35 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
: >A particularly dangerous thing to do would be to turn
: >it back on, under the assumption that it would again be good to 5000 psi.
:
: I had no intention of turning it back on.  By the way, the pressure is now
: at 3100 PSI.
 
I would dig a hole in your garden and bury it before it cracks. As it will.
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 15:42:47 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <224h3hINN37@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | Bernecky Condensation: A Brief Analysis of the Potential for
> | Diffraction-Enhanced Atomic Boson Condensation in Pd(Hx,Dy,Tz) Compounds
>
> As I understand this, you propose that if the spatial frequency of
> nuclei of integral spin matches their Debroglie wavelength, then you propose
> bosonic condensation may be enhanced. (I haven't quite figured out why
> yet...but anyway)
 
[Note: nuclei (d+) _or_ atoms (H), actually.  Weird as it may seem, atoms
may jump (tunnel), too.  The prerequesite is that the energy binding the
unit (atom in this case) together should be significantly higher than the
net energy difference involved in jumping from one site to another.  Since
the site-to-site energy difference for jumping of H in Pd is either zero
(for pure jumping) or quite modest (for thermally assisted "hopping"), the
entire atom can jump without losing its electron.  This is modified by an
apparent "weakening" of the electron/proton bond in the Pd lattice, which
would increase the probability of an "ionizing jump" of the nucleus.]
 
The concept as proposed in the above posting is very similar to the idea
of a diffraction-based laser.  Bosons of a certain frequency are bounced
back and forth; they accumulate more bosons as they do so.  DeBroglie
wavelengths (vs. electromagnetic) work fine because the requirement for
diffraction is _only_ that the wave interact with the grating (which the
DeBroglie wavelength of hydrogen certainly does).  Diffractive effects of
this type are very well explored for electrons with nearly identical momenta
(and thus spatial frequencies) to the ones I've suggested for d+ and H.
 
[Note: How is it possible that lightweight electrons at room temperature
could have such very high momenta, which correspond to electrons moving at
large fractions of the speed of light?  Fermi exclusion "heats up" the top
level electrons until they are traveling very fast indeed.  Thus it is not
only possible, but downright common, to find electrons with half-wavelengths
comparable to the unit cell length of a metallic lattice.]
 
I would suggest that perhaps the the main issue is mainly whether spatial
frequencies of hydrogen in Pd can match the periodicity of the Pd lattice.
I and would say without equivocation that they can, at least within the
rough temperature ranges first proposed by W. Robert Bernecky.
 
Beyond that I may need to ask you to restate the question, as I'm a bit
unsure what aspect of the idea to address.
 
> You apply this to hydrogen embedded inside metallic lattices.
 
Yup.
 
> Now, why do you need hydrogen inside lattices?
 
Because they aren't particularly mobile in other media, _and_ because there
is solid experimental evidence for H tunneling in such media.  Tunneling is
the key ingredient, as it strongly implies that a coupling analysis such as
the one used for electrons in such a lattice can also be applied to hydrogen.
 
> Surely there must be some existing solids which have integral spin
> nuclei [or atoms - T.B.], and whose lattice spacing matches some multiple
> of their DeBroglie wavelength?
>
> E.g., why doesn't diamond boson-condense?
 
Diamond doesn't condense because carbon is humongously heavier than hydrogen,
and does not exhibit the same tunneling behavior mentioned above for hydrogen.
 
But even there some care is needed, as the Mossbauer effect _is_ a coherent
effect of phonons in such things as carbon -- a boson behavior of the various
vibration modes of the atoms in a macroscopic cyrstal.  So it's not _quite_
accurate to say that there are no boson condensate effects in such materials.
 
Also, pure carbon 12 is humongously more efficient at conducting heat than
carbon 12 with a tad of other isotopes mixed in.  That's interesting because
it in effect means that very, _very_ high levels of regularity in even carbon
solids _does_ start having noticeable macroscopic effects that relate back to
boson statistics and periodicity of quantum wavefunctions.
 
Actually, the one that I would have asked about is not diamond, but things
such as solid phase hydrogen and plain old polyacetylene.  Why don't they
jump around and do weird things?  Dunno.  But as I've never seen an data on
appreciable tunneling of H in them, I've never fretted about them much.  I
was just interested that they DO in materials such as palladium, niobium
and tantalum hydroxide (and interesting compound, BTW).
 
 
In article <224hs7INN37@network.ucsd.edu> you write:
 
> Hmm.  I just thought of another thing.  My understanding of what you're
> proposing must be wrong.
>
> The momentum-wavelength of an _electron_ is about the size of a hydrogen
> atom. (It has to be!)...
 
Ay-ooo?
 
The momentum-wavelength of an electron depends on its _momentum_, and for
free electrons in a metal it can (and does) range quite literally from
several _meters (for a huge crystal!) down the the Angstrom range.  The
case of hydrogen is a the very special case of a bound electron, and has
little to do with _linear_ momentum states.
 
The extraordinarily broad range of wavelengths in metal are due to Fermi
exclusion, which both "cools" (meter range wavelengths) and "heats"
(Angstrom range wavelengths) the free conduction band electrons.
 
My best guess is that you are referring to the Compton wavelength, which
is a misleading way of understanding electron "size."  There _is_ no known
size to an electron -- by all current measurements it is a _true_ point
particle, rishon theorizing not withstanding.  Other measurements of its
size are really just cute little ways of packaging up quantum uncertainty
to try to make the locations of these point particles more understandable.
 
 
> The momentum-wavelength of even the lightest nucleus must be thousands
> of times smaller.
 
If it was circling around an even tinier (and enormously massive) negative
point source, _yes_, the analogy you just gave would be valid.  And indeed,
such a proton wavelength would be nearly 2000 times smaller than that of an
electron in a similar arrangement around a proton.  I might also note that
no such beasty exists, although it is approximated by the way protons and
neutrons jostle around each other in a nucleus.  Wavelengths there are (I
beleve) even smaller, due to the presence of the more intense strong force.
 
But again, _nobody_ is circling around _anything_ in the hydrogen-in-Pd
case.  The d+ or H is just moseying along at a nice, leisurely, _linear_
fashion -- and low and behold, if you calculate the waveflengths of at
least some of these slowly moving atoms or ions, they happen to match up
quite nicely to the periodicity of the lattice.  And from that point on
it becomes an exercise in almost pure mathematics, since any wave that
interacts _at all_ with a periodic medium through which is traveling is
required to diffract at certain frequencies.
 
> This seems to be a general trait of solid state physics, as quantum effects
> of electrons are important at atomic wavelength scales (because that's
> how solids are put together) but quantum effects of nuclei aren't important.
>
> What's different here that makes quantum effects of nuclei important?
 
See all of above.  The question is momentum and periodicity at the level of
the crystal lattice, not the "hidden" internal structure of a d+ ion or H
atom.
 
Note that diffraction of thermal-range-neutrons from crystal lattices is
a very well established effect, and is in no way mysterious.
 
Given that, it actually becomes rather difficult to explain why H atoms (or
p+ ions, since diffraction is independent of Fermi or Bose statistics) should
_not_ diffract as they travel through Pd at thermal energies.  I just don't
think anyone paid much attention to the idea before, probably because nearly
everyone in the solid state literature was in the habit of treating such
motions with particle models _only_.  When your teacher does it that way
and all the math has been done that way, it's awfully tempting to follow
along down the same path, even if a fairly simple analogy (that of thermal
neutron diffracton in the _same_ materials) would seem to indicate that a
more wave-oriented approach might be appropriate.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- I do hope folks have noticed that in my entire discusion of W. Robert
        Bernecky's farfetch, I have not _once_ invoked assumption of some
        sort of major violation of physics.  That is intentional; his boson
        condensate concept merits some exploration in its own right, without
        tying in some (dangerous!) presumption that it will "lead to" cold
        fusion or some other mysterious effect.  Plus this boson condensate
        idea is directly subject to mathematical analysis, especially by
        folks who may have some laser background.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / R Cinq-Mars /  NEW HYDROGEN LIST
     
Originally-From: cinqmarr@vader.egr.uri.edu (Robert Cinq-Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research
Subject: NEW HYDROGEN LIST
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 17:20:05 GMT
Organization: University of Rhode Island / College of Engineering

A new hydrogen listserver conference has been formed for people
interested in hydrogen as an alternative fuel.  To subscribe send
the email message SUB HYDROGEN yourfirstname yourlastname, to
LISTSERV@URIACC.URI.EDU.  WELCOME!
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencinqmarr cudfnRobert cudlnCinq-Mars cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 19:43:23 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Jul16.154247.25574@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
   > Given that, it actually becomes rather difficult to explain why H
   > atoms (or p+ ions, since diffraction is independent of Fermi or
   > Bose statistics) should _not_ diffract as they travel through Pd
   > at thermal energies.  I just don't think anyone paid much
   > attention to the idea before, probably because nearly everyone in
   > the solid state literature was in the habit of treating such
   > motions with particle models _only_.
 
     Let me see if I have this right...  I send a beam of low energy
bosons (or fermions at a metal foil, I should expect diffraction
patterns due to interactions with the crystal lattice.  At high
energies, nuclear interactions dominate, but the patterns should still
exist.
 
     Let's try a thought experiment.  Generate a beam of bosons,
perhaps d+ at 25 kev.  Run it through a beam cooling device such as a
TWT, perhaps many times.  Now aim the beam at a single crystal metal
foil.  The beam should create pretty diffraction patterns on a
phosphor screen.  In fact, as you lower the beam temperature, the
patterns get sharper.  When the beam temperature gets low enough,
boson condensation occurs, you punch holes in the foil, and the
diffraction patterns disappear...
 
     The only part of this that seems to be difficult is the beam
cooling apparatus.  If I were going to try to do this I would use a
multi-Mev range accelerator with a very cold cathode, cool the beam,
then use electrostatic repulsion to slow it down as it approaches the
target.
 
      On the other hand, boson condensation would be a boon to the
collider people.  Wouldn't work for the proton-antiproton colliders,
since anti-deuterons are hard to come by, but the proton-proton
colliders could switch over.  Has anyone run deuterons in an AGS?
It should only require a software change and switching the gas in the
cathode.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / mitchell swartz /  Steve Jones: compelling X-ray data?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones: compelling X-ray data?
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 19:47:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Jul6.130544.738@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Miles & Mitchell:  compelling X-ray data?
  Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]  writes on X-ray films vs.
          x-ray spectrophotomers:
 
=== "The question is:   What tools and procedures
=== are required to obtain compelling evidence ...  to convince
=== oneself and others that the effect is real (or not),
=== and to ascertain its nature?"
 
     Probably much evidence, most repeated, all high quality, and a few
 similar to the types which have been reported over the last four years.
 The actual amount may depend  upon the openness, scientific awareness,
 and parallel sensing capabilities of the observer.
 
    One answer:  Each separate experiment yields a paralax view of this NEW
 TECHNOLOGY.   Each detector has yielded more information on what is
               happening.
 
=== "Now, Swartz and Miles both argue in favor of *dental X-ray film* as a
==   tool to provide compelling evidence, while I have repeatedly urged the
==  use of X-ray spectrometers."
 
   IMHO it was not said that "dental"  X-ray film is the "favorite"
  detector, or "the" best  means in favor.  What was said is that:
 
      1) such films are universally available, and
      2) if appropriate measures  are taken for both adequate cassetting
 and other issues (feel free to call  if you are interested)  such
 recordings offer significant time- and space-integration.  Both
 instruments are good, but each has individual separate features.
 
  Is the high-tech instrument always better?   Probably not.
          Artificial lungs were high tech too,  but the Salk polio vaccine
          was a much smarter plan for the long-run.
 
   In truth, as this author has pointed out repeatedly, adequate controls
 (for each type of detector) are required, and each detector yields
 different but  useful information.  It might take some wisdom and
 experience to integrate  the two, but the benefits are clear (ie. where,
 when, what energy(ies),  what direction).
 But not why.   That is theoretical; and as I
 get older it is clear that we may know less than we thought.
 [Consider the banter comparing of a mollases flood to Chernobyl-like or
 other (hopefully) preventable dysadventures.]
 
 
== "Swartz claimed in his 29 June 1993 posting: "you [Jones] have kept on
==  with "brick-toss tactics" without responding, to this or any of the
== other comemnts  regarding your demeaning of x-ray imaging techniques."
 
 This appears true - and not just by you.   In fact, Steve, you had
 previously knocked Kucherov's xray claims but have now recanted the
 misclaim that it was a diffraction pattern (it is not).
   So what is it?
   What causes an electrode to create positive autoradiographs if the
    electrode is an active material?      ^
                                          |
      (FAQ of the day -     Very few      |
      electrodes are active.  Wisdom
      is knowing the difference.)
 
    Second, the fact persists that none of the arm-chair skeptics has
shown one iota of reason (yes, handwaving, banter, magic-wands, and such
pointing to entirely different situations are insufficient)  why the
shoe-leather cold fusion researchers and theoreticians are wrong.
 
     Given the mounting mass of evidence, the technically poor but (still?)
  widely touted papers which "proved" cold fusion did not exist, and
  the putative CYA attitudes of the (self-serving?)establishment-cynics
  that  killed the "deuterium-goose",
 
      it is clear that "something is going on here
            [and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?"
                      (attribution to B. Dylan)     ;)    (just kiddin')
 
 
==    In an earlier posting (circa 12 May), Swartz posits:  "With adequate
==  controls and with full accounting of the physics (not always done),
==  X-ray film is a good method of documenting active electrodes."
 
  Yup.  Sounds reasonable.    Such may document active electrodes if used
   properly, and if such electrodes are in an active  mode and capable
   of generating the appropriate particles or appropriate photons.
 
 
==  "Let me reiterate briefly:  1-  Spectrometers provide rather precise
==   information regarding the X-ray *energies* -- a clear advantage over
==   dental film."
 
   Ignoring for the moment the fixation (oral?) on dental films,
   the precision is nice.  Precision is the refinement with which an
   operation is performed or a measurement stated (Webster, ibid).
 
 
  However, if the  spectrometer is calibrated it might be   accurate, too.
        Perhaps a more  useful result.  Consider an archery demonstration
        where every arrow  misses the bullseye at exactly a displacment of
        16 (+/- 0.2) cm at 340 (+/- 0.0001) degrees.   Very precise,
        BUT not very accurate.
 
  Where is the proof it has a "clear advantage"?   When CAT scans were
 compared with MRI scan data reconstructions (for just one example)
 there was an attempt to  determine which was better.
 But is was based upon proof by actually comparing matched objects.
       Have you done that?
 
 
== ".. *if* nuclear reactions are indeed occuring in deuterium-charged
==   palladium ... at a rate sufficient to produce measurable heat,
==   than abundant secondary  x-rays characteristic of palladium ought to
==   be present."
 
  Such x-rays may be present.   They are more likely to be present in
 situations where the radiographic films are exposed, right?
 
 
==   "Indeed, the production of X-rays by the slowing
==  of debris from nuclear reactions is a thoroughly-studied phenomenon."
 
     Yes, this actually has even been studied as the debris and radiation
 impinge upon materials, including people (and in fact contributes to the
  cure of about 6 of 10 patients afflicted with cancer in developed
 countries).  But these are different processes then the reactions of
 deuterium and palladium in the solid state, aren't they?
 
 
==  "The x-ray spectrometer also provides direct quantitative information
==  ... This feature would allow quantitative comparison with heat yields
==  ... helpful in disentangling what (if any) nuclear reactions are
===  taking place in the metal."
"
   True. They might. More power to you.  However, not all palladium
 electrodes are active and there are few such x-ray spectrophotometers to
 go around.  Do you have the difference in cost available?
 
 
==  "Why do Swartz and Miles resist such a test???"
 
   Noone "resisted" any such thing to my knowledge.
  The issue has been: each testing proceedure has its advantage.
 
             FILM RECORDER                    SPECTROPHOTOMETER
   Ease of use and wide area coverage vs. more difficult calibration and
                                          better energy resolution
 
==  " Actually, the spectrometer is probably easier to use and certainly
==  easier to unambiguously interpret than dental X-ray films."
 
   For you perhaps, since you are an expert on x-ray spectroscopic
 techniques, preparation of targets for proper activation, and the
 implementation of such to aqueous electrochemical systems.
 
  [Consider:  If any other cold fusion experiment claimed positive results
  with such equipment, would skeptics believe that information, given that
  all other claims are immediately rejected?]
 
 
==  This is a serious challenge.  I have made it openly to all ....
==  To date, no one has published an X-ray spectrum correlated with xs heat
==  claims.    Where are the X-rays, gentlemen?"
 
   Where is your proof that X-rays must be there in the solid state?  Why
 x-rays and not gamma rays?   Why ionizing radiation and not other
 radiation?   Do you know something in the field of solid state
 (not beam impact experiments obviously) to back up such speculation?
 
 
==  "Why do you both respond to such an offer with such vituperative
==   remarks as you have posted here?"
 
Steven, the only vituperative remarks have been directed by the skeptics.
  If you have evidence of one in response to your generous offer, please
  state it to back up this baseless accusation.
 
  DICTIONARY TIME:
->>>   vituperation  =    "sustained and bitter railing and condemnation"
 
  Gosh.  Looking at the denotation, the vituperation seems to fit
          some of the "skeptics"
 
 
==  "Let me agree with Swartz that x-ray film does provide spatial imaging
==  as was evidently done by Kucherov et al."
 
   What does it imply given that x-ray film is exposed upon being next to
    functioning cold fusion electrodes?
 
 
==  "Of course, mechanical pressure and chemical effects can also produce
==  fogging or localized spots on x-ray films."
 
   Oh.  Are you again implying that the autoradiography of cold fusion
electrodes are artifacts and/or fraud?  In the Miles paper alone several
controls (I think I remember three) were published (and the figure was
even posted here in GIF) and yet there are continued false statements that
 there was only "one" control.  For example,
 
==mm "3. In several places, Professor Jones states that there was only one
==mm  control for the dental film studies.   This is false.   As stated on
==mm page 108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in
==mm H2O+LiOH  ....."  {letter from Dr. M. Miles}
 
==sj "My meaning was that only one control was *published* and that this
==sj   control showed ..."
       [Message-ID: <1993Jul8.165156.756@physc1.byu.edu>
        Subject: Point-by-point response to Dr. Miles
        from Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]
 
   It probably would not matter if the GIF image of Mel Miles' paper
    which demonstrates more than "one control" was posted again, would it?
 
             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                              mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / P Angelo /  Polarized Neutrons
     
Originally-From: b41237@flash.ra.anl.gov (P Angelo /RA/208G/osra 7550)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Polarized Neutrons
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 19:55:13 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL

 
Is there any information out there on the practical application
of polarized neutrons, esp. in fusion,medicine
 
Thanks
 
Pete Angelo
Reactor Physics
Argonne National Lab-W
b41237@anl.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenb41237 cudfnP cudlnAngelo cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Netiquette
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Netiquette
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 19:00:45 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Jul15.152933.483@hal.com>
bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendleton) writes:
 
> [good points deleted for brevity]
 
> We all have the right to change our minds and contradict ourselves.
> Only a fool has never changed his mind...
 
Hmm.  I'd like to keep the option, though, of changing my mind _and_ still
being a bloomin' fool to boot...  :)
 
> After all, it's just an admission that you've learned something.
>
>                               Bob P.
>
> P.S. to Terry
>
> I hope you don't mind my jumping in on this.
 
Nope, thanks.  And of course I'm still reading Jim Bowery's entries as much
as I read any of the not-necessarily-physics-or-relevant-data entries.
 
Jim:  I honesty do not understand your entries sometimes, and tend to skip
through them for that reason.  E.g., since I thought the "cigarette lighter"
effect had been pretty well trashed by Dieter and others, I had given it very
little thought since then.  Nor do I feel I'm somehow obligated to give you
every piece of data in my possession when you demand it -- e.g., to whom I
was referring when I said that I found some recent results persuasive.  (It
sure wasn't P&F.)
 
I did not understand your defense (attack?) of P&F, and am unsure of what
your point was.  If you were trying to tell everyone here to leave everything
to P&F, I don't think folks here (either pro OR con) are going to be much
inclined to heed the advice.  (You are not associated with them, I assume?)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any translations of the Articles, Jed?
Date: 16 Jul 93 19:26:58 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <21288@autodesk.COM> johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George) writes:
>
>Just think, we could leave that nasty coal in the ground, and the
>plutonium on Pluto.
 
Surely you must be joking, Mr. George.
 
>                    I wonder if it was a Freudian thing how that
>stuff got named after the Greek god of the Underworld and Death.
 
I am sure it was not lost on the folks doing the chemistry who discovered
it and the folks making a weapon out of it, but surely you know the actual
reason the international naming committee chose it: the first transuranic
elements were named after the trans-Uranus planets, Neptune and Pluto.
 
You can always read about your favorite element in the "rubber handbook".
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  New Run
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Run
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 21:18:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #1 Cell 4A6
 
We are off and running on a new run.  The plan is to ramp slowly up to 35 C,
then drop back down to 30 or so, then ramp up to 35.5 C, drop back, then up
to 36 C, etc., increasing 0.5 C until we get to 38 C where we will repeat.  All
per instructions from Bob Bernecky.
 
At the moment everything is working fine, except the geiger counter makes a lot
of noise when I am in the room.  But it is I, not the experiment.  One of my
new hips may be infected, and I have had a bone scan.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Ask and you shall receive!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ask and you shall receive!
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 21:18:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While cleaning my directory, I just happened to come across the following
message which had been posted 20 January :
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
To:SMTP%"fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org"
CC:DROEGE
Subj:A Question for William Bernecky
 
William Bernecky has posted a nice resonant theory.  I think he put this
up once before, and I still have the same problem.  But I think the gamma
forcing is new.
 
My problem is that 100K is too low for my apparatus.  420K is too high.  So
William, can you conjure up a 3/2 or 5/4 or 73/17 resonance that will put
the test operating point between 280K and 330K??  In particular, is 40C near
any interesting point??
 
Consider that it is mucical chairs, and each proton has a home chair.  Now
one more proton enters the room.  It seems to me it would sit on a lot of
laps before it got tossed out.
 
Tom Droege
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Now Bernecky is what I call a really cooperative theorist.  I asked for 40 C
and he found a point at 39 C.
 
So we are now doing our best to explore this point.  We shall see.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.16 / John George /  Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 20 KW reactor not secret
Date: 16 Jul 93 15:54:20 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I believe it is John Lewis who (paraphrasing) said that the cold fusion
people could learn humility from the hot fusion people who have not been
able to produce a useable product after all these years.
 
Good Point, John!
 
I think that we will invent something better than what we have now. Just
look at all the posts about how bad it was in the 'horse and ox' power
days. I agree with them.
 
So, with humility, let's not give up the search to find something better.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: 18 Jul 93 07:40:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Jul15.005959.27203@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1993Jul14.193423.7229@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
>Logajan) writes:
>> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>> >Actually, what ended his [Reich's] career was the FDA, who had him put in
>> >jail for continuing to sell his books.  The claim was that he was making
>> >"false and misleading" (or whatever the official term is) claims for the
>> >benefits of orgone therapy.  He died in jail.
 
>He was making false and misleading---and downright insane---claims
>for the benefits of orgone therapy. They peaked when they contaminated
>their desert lab with radioactive materials (Reich didn't believe
>in atomic energy- .. .
 
>Its fine if he want to hold idiotic views, but if he uses them to
>endanger other people, (by practicing bogus medicine, or spreading
>radioactive material around) he deserved what he got. Thats the price
>one pays for being crazy and wrong.
 
Gee Barry.   That's awful!  Sounds almost as bad as the crazy DoE
tokamak fusion program and their proposed coming attraction attempts
to burn (OOPS) rather smoke some DT in the Princeton Plasma Lab's TFTR
in another year or so... or so .. or so ..         if ever.
 
                        --     :-)     --
 
Maybe we can get the A.G.  Reno to burn 'em out.
--
>Barry Merriman >UCLA Dept. of Math >UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 03:44:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jul15.180351.18647@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
>Now from time to time one or the other has a clearer picture of reality,
>but I can't ever see that as a justification to imprison or kill the
>other.
 
John, at what point does 'opinion' become a clear and present danger to
others? If someone holds an honest belief that large concentrations of
say plutonium in a citys drinking water will improve the residents health
would you suggest that this person shouldn't be imprisoned for attempting
to place such elements in the reservoir?
 
Let's face it -- there is a point at which lunacy is dangerous. Someone
can exceed the boundaries of good sense and verge on criminal
irresponsibility.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / Mark Bilk /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: msb@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 05:22:19 GMT
Organization: Church of the Cosmic Orgone

In article <1993Jul15.005959.27203@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1993Jul14.193423.7229@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
>Logajan) writes:
>> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>> >Actually, what ended his [Reich's] career was the FDA, who had him put in
>> >jail for continuing to sell his books.  The claim was that he was making
>> >"false and misleading" (or whatever the official term is) claims for the
>> >benefits of orgone therapy.  He died in jail.
>>
>> At least Galileo was smart enough to recant!
>>
>> Official science is an odious thing.
>>
>
>He was making false and misleading---and downright insane---claims
>for the benefits of orgone therapy. They peaked when they contaminated
>their desert lab with radioactive materials (Reich didn't believe
>in atomic energy---it was all orgone energy, and radiation sickness was
>just a result of orgone imbalance; treatable with his orgone
>accumulators, presumably).
>
>Its fine if he want to hold idiotic views, but if he uses them to
>endanger other people, (by practicing bogus medicine, or spreading
>radioactive material around) he deserved what he got. Thats the price
>one pays for being crazy and wrong.
 
Reich's "Oranur" (orgone and nuclear radiation) experiment consisted
of placing small amounts of radioactive material inside an "orgone
accumulator" and thus exposing it to orgone energy (if this exists) and
vice-versa.  The result was highly increased Geiger counter readings
at large distances (compared to the previous readings from the
radioactives alone) and frightening physiological symptoms.  This
constitutes the "contamination" that he reported. [1]
 
Normal precautions were followed with repect to the radionuclides.  Your
accusation that Reich was "spreading radioactive material around" as a
result of "being crazy and wrong" is completely untrue.
 
Either he and his colleagues imagined the whole phenomenon, in which
case he didn't spread *anything* around or he really did create some new
kind of energy (not radioactivity) in which case he wasn't "crazy and
wrong".
 
In addition, your statement that "Reich didn't believe in atomic
energy---it was all orgone energy" is quite false, as is evident in the
referenced report.  Was this an attempt to confuse matters and thus make
the other accusation more believable?
 
Reich performed a very great service by elucidating the anti-sexual (and
other anti-life) aspects of most cultures and religions in existence
today.  He discovered their adverse emotional and physiological effects
on people and developed therapeutic methods to overcome them.  The
validity of this work is quite independent of his orgone energy ideas.
Reich's work has recently been supported in the archaeological realm
by the discoveries of Marija Gimbutas. [2]
 
These same anti-life cultural/religious forces were responsible for much
of the antagonism against Reich.  They still motivate hatred against
gays, women, Blacks, and other non-white-male people (and cultures).
Likewise they oppose childhood sexuality and the provision of
contraceptives to teenagers; the Christian religious-right Republicans
are currently attacking President Clinton's choice for Surgeon General
on these grounds.
 
Please excuse the diversion from fusion.
 
 
1. _Wilhelm Reich: Selected Writings_, Noonday Press, subsidiary of
   Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, New York, 1960.  pp. 351-431
 
2. _The Chalice and the Blade_, Riane Eisler, ISBN 0-06-250-289-1, $13,
   HarperSanFrancisco.  This hard-science book lays out the macro-
   history of human culture, and shows that patriarchy, domination, and
   war are culturally programmed, rather than biologically innate.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmsb cudfnMark cudlnBilk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 06:12:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>John, at what point does 'opinion' become a clear and present danger to
>others? If someone holds an honest belief that large concentrations of
>say plutonium in a citys drinking water will improve the residents health
>would you suggest that this person shouldn't be imprisoned for attempting
>to place such elements in the reservoir?
 
You ask about "opinion" but you give an "action" as an example.
 
The claim was that this Reich guy was imprisoned for continuing to publish
his book.  Publishing a book is not in the same moral league as any act
of force and therefore may not rightly be prohibited by force.
 
As long as Reich or anyone else uses only pursuasion and the voluntary
compliance of his followers, that is also the sole moral instrument open
to us to convince them to change their ways.  We have no more grant of
moral authority to silence pseudo-science than the Ayatolla has to execute
infidels.
 
Consider too that all the Reich's combined have resulted in fewer lives lost
to pseudo-medicine than due to the FDA's delay in allowing the introduction
of a single class of drugs! (beta blockers)  It is estimated that from
200,000 to 2,000,000 people in the USA died during the eight year delay
between the introduction of beta blockers in Europe until they were approved
for use in the US -- lives that would have been saved had the drug been
allowed to be used.  At a minimum, that's equal to the number of US soldiers
lost fighting WWII.
 
Sam Peltzman, out of the University of Chicago, and others, have shown that
the FDA delay mechanism is counter-productive across the board.  More people
would be alive today if new drugs were released to the market quicker --
much quicker.  Any increase in deaths due to side-reactions not uncovered
in the shorter testing phase would be more than made up by preventing deaths
due to the power of the new medicines.
 
It is truly ironic that while the mission of the FDA is to save lives thru
drug regulation, it actually prevents the saving of lives by delaying all
drug introductions and preventing many others from ever being released
due to the prohibitive cost of 10+ year testing programs.
 
As I said before, official science is an odious (and deadly) thing.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / Jed Rothwell /  A flood
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A flood
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 15:35:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Although I hundreds of miles from the Mississippi and Atlanta is suffering
from a drought, my landlord arranged to have my office flooded. No real harm
was done though and things will be back to normal in a few days. I mention
this because I have been too busy to read the e-mail. If anyone requested any
information from me or posted any serious comments directed to me, please
repeat by direct e-mail. The Hagelstein Nagoya Review diskettes have been
mailed.
 
Among the non-serious comments I noticed was a hilarious joke from Steve
Jones. After I roundly insulted him, he came back and accused me of
obfuscation, or indirectness (as I recall). I have many enemies, and I have
been accused of countless faults and sins, but this is the first time in my
life anyone has ever said I was indirect. That's like saying that Attila the
Hun lacked ambition and was too forgiving to be an effective leader.
 
Someone else asked for translations of the Oyou Butsuri articles. I believe
that person classified the field in general as "ridiculous." Wait around a
year, they come out in the English Edition. However, there are no startling
revelations in these articles. These are refined versions of previous articles
written by the same authors, most of whom who have published in English. They
answered a few objections to their work, and added some fresh details. So, if
you think the previous papers from Yamaguchi, for example, were "ridiculous,"
and you think that other papers available in English like McKubre's are
"ridiculous" then don't bother reading these new papers, because I am sure
they will not change your mind. Don't bother reading anything: you are a
hopeless case.
 
As I recall, Jim Carr asked about the exact Japanese punctuation in the T.O.C.
It was ambiguous, like my English version. The syntax was interrogative, but
there was no question mark or any other punctuation. I notice it says: "DEBATE
TOPIC" above it. Only one of the papers expressed skepticism, it was written
by a physicist who has done no actual experimental work (as far as I know).
The other five were written by scientists who have in hand experimental
results at high signal to noise ratios, so naturally, they believe that
theoretical objections are automatically overruled. They are scientists, after
all; that is what all scientists believe.
 
Ikegami's article expresses continued interest in the Kaliev work. Ikegami
visited Kaliev, and reports that the claims are correct: the experiment is
100% reproducible. It is described in the Nagoya Proceedings p. 241 - 244:
 
K. Kaliev et al., Inst. of High-Temperature Electrochemistry, 620219,
Ekaterinburg, Russia, "Reproducible Nuclear Reactions during Interaction of
Deuterium with Oxide Tungsten Bronze"
 
The English is not very good, but the message is clear:
 
"4. Discussion
 
The main result of the work is getting out to the level of qualitative
reproduction of experiment, when performance successivness of operations with
monocrystal of OTB described earlier leads to one and the same reply at
predicted up to 1 min time: generation of neutrons and heat in experiments
with deuterium and neutron generation stops 10-20 minutes later. Thus single
action causes the effect happening only once."
 
There is another description of the work in much better English on pages 341 -
342.
 
Ikegami's article also lists what he considers four conditions essential to
creating a CF reaction:
 
1. The power density in the palladium cathode must be equal to or greater than
0.2 A/cm^2.
 
2. The ratio of absorbed deuterons to palladium atoms (D/Pd) >= 0.85.
 
3. Correct surface treatment of the Pd must be performed. [I presume he means
it must be clean; that is certainly the case.]
 
4. The temperature of the palladium must be >= 80 deg C. [Interesting
comment.]
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Temperature Accuracy
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Temperature Accuracy
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 15:57:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Karel Hladky wonders:
 
"I am surprised that you are having problems measuring temperatures to a
reasonable accuracy.  Why not use RTD's or semiconductor sensors?  Over the
temperature range you are interested in a platinum RTD would give you
+/- 0.1 C absolute without any problem (mainly set by the accuracy and
stability of your reference resistor) and even the humble LM35CZ will give
you better than =/-0.5C over -40C to +110C.  And it costs only a few quid."
 
I never understood what a quid was.  Could someone please tell me?
 
Looks to me that we are more measuring my conservativism than temperature.
 
According to my data book, the LM35CZ is good to +/- 1C at 25 C, and is
+/- 1.5 C at 110 C and +/- 2 C at -40 C.
 
I am actually using the AD590, which is in a metal hermetic can - roughly
the TO-18 package.  I have always felt that Analog Devices was a little more
conservative than National.  I think most of the ones in the experiment are
the K version which lists +/- 2.5 C calibration error at 25 C.
 
It is all in how you read the data book.  I try to be conservative, and take
the nearly worst case.  Due to a historical feature of the design, the cell
thermometer goes into a different circuti, and instrumentation amplifier.
All the others are connected to 10K 0.1% resistors in an OP404 buffer
amplifier.  Note that the .1% resistors alone give a possible 0.3% error.
So the instrumentation amplifier had about a 1% error in gain (expected at
the x1 position) which happened to make the cell temperature read high.
 
When I ran the calibration experiment, all but the cell thermometer formed
a nice cluster.  About 0.4 C sigma.  So I have called the mean of the cluster
the "correct" value, and adjusted the gain of the cell thermometer to match.
I also checked these against the glass thermometer (+/- 1 C) and the Radio
Shack unit.
 
It is not possible to do better now, as most of the thermometers are glued
deep in the calorimeter.  I could use a better thermometer in the cell, but
I am not sure that I could really do all that much better.  The data system
only resolves 0.4 mv, and that becomes a problem at some point.  At present,
the resistors are in an oven, but it is not being operated at this time to
save power.  The variation is less than +/- 2 C, so will contribute only .1C
or so.
 
BTW, looking in my Cole-Parmer catalog, I did not find platinum RTD's with
specs better than +/- 0.3 C.  I notice that the NIST certified glass
thermometers, at $1878.00 come with a certificate, and have 0.05 C divisions,
but the catalog says nothing about accuracy.  Clearly to me, knowing
temperature better than =/- 1 C is a major project.
 
On the other hand, everything in sight matches pretty close at 25 C.  Likely
I am pretty close.  Even the Radio Shack unit matches the others, and the
two units match (taking precautions about air circulation) to 0.2 C or so.
But saying I know to better than +/- 2 C is another matter.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / Ad aspera /  Magnets (permanent)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magnets (permanent)
Date: 19 Jul 1993 16:48:42 GMT
Organization: Honest Ernie's Used Ions

Re the magnetism discussions from a week or two ago:  there's
an interesting article in "American Scientist" about permanent
magnets, how they work, and how strong they can be made.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Eachus' ideas / Bragg's Law / Condensate-Lattice Resonance?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eachus' ideas / Bragg's Law / Condensate-Lattice Resonance?
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 17:01:01 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <EACHUS.93Jul16144323@spectre.mitre.org>
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
> In article <1993Jul16.154247.25574@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | Given that, it actually becomes rather difficult to explain why H
> | atoms (or p+ ions, since diffraction is independent of Fermi or
> | Bose statistics) should _not_ diffract as they travel through Pd
> | at thermal energies.  I just don't think anyone paid much
> | attention to the idea before, probably because nearly everyone in
> | the solid state literature was in the habit of treating such
> | motions with particle models _only_.
>
>     Let me see if I have this right...  [if] I send a beam of low energy
> bosons (or fermions) at a metal foil, I should expect diffraction patterns
> due to interactions with the crystal lattice.  At high energies, nuclear
> interactions dominate, but the patterns should still exist.
 
Yes.  Diffraction experiments (and indeed, full industrial technologies)
have been done using electrons and neutrons (both fermions), and with X-ray
photons (bosons).  At least in principle, diffraction experiments could be
done with protons (fermions), or with deuterons or alpha particles (bosons).
 
You have a _big_ problem with trying to detect diffraction by a crystal
of slow (thermal range), positively charged bosons such as deuterons or
alphas, however.  There will be a strong tendency for electrons from the
crystal to glom onto them very quickly, utterly destroy any wave effects.
 
(Once a particle has left an "information trace" [i.e., a binary event such
as the stealing of an electron from an atom], its wave behavior is utterly
obliterated.  See both Feynman Lectures III and _QED -- the Strange Theory
of Light and Matter_, also by Feynman.)
 
Some neutral atoms would work, but in that case there's not much penetration
of the crystal lattice, and you would probably be better off looking for
surface diffraction of much the same type as what you see when you look at
the surface of a CD disk.  Both diffraction and simple reflection of neutrons
off of such surfaces are well established, and could in principle also work
for cold, diffuse, highly monochromatic (single-momentum) beams of either
neutral hydrogen or 4He in a high vacuum.  I do not know if such experiments
have ever been performed, but would suspect someone has tried it somewhere.
It's the sort of thing someone might well do a PhD thesis on.
 
> ... Let's try a thought experiment.  Generate a beam of bosons, perhaps
> d+ at 25 kev...
 
Eeeyowch!  You like 'em HOT, donchya?
 
First order diffraction for both H and 4He are down there in the _low_
cryogenic range -- you know, single and double-digit K.  I don't recall
offhand what temperature range 25 kev corresponds to, but as you are
starting to get a wee bit relativistic, I'd guess either hundreds of
thousands or millions of degrees K.  (Does anyone have a precise figure?)
 
> Run it through a beam cooling device such as a
> TWT, perhaps many times...
 
Many MANY times?...  :)
 
> Now aim the beam at a single crystal metal foil.  The beam should create
> pretty diffraction patterns on a phosphor screen...
 
Actually, probably _not_, even after you've chilled the beam down to very
cold (or "thermal") temperatures.  The problems is all those sticky, gooey
electrons just waiting to be captured and thus destroy all wave behavior.
 
 
BRAGG'S LAW
 
> In fact, as you lower the beam temperature, the patterns get sharper...
 
Actually, they get _wider_ (more dispersed), and thus easier to see.  The
relevant rule is called Bragg's Law:
 
 
                             -1  /  n lambda  \
                  theta = sin   |  ---------   |
                                 \    2 d     /
 
 
        theta = angle of incidence (between horizontal and beam)
            n = order of diffraction (n = 1, 2, 3, ...)
       lambda = wavelength of incident beam
            d = distance between diffraction layers
 
This is a very handy rule that covers a multitude of cases, from light off
of CD disks to diffraction of electrons, neutrons, or X-ray photons off of
crystal lattices.
 
An interesting thing happens when 1/2 lambda grows larger than d, by the
way: If the crystal is basically non-absorbing for the wave that is hitting
it, it suddenly becomes _transparent_!  This is why, for example, a solution
of salt in water is perfectly transparent, while a colloidal suspension of
oil in water (milk is a decent approximation) is _not_ transparent, even
though its individual constituents don't absorb the light.  The sodium and
chloride ions are too small to have any effect on those big, lazy photons
rumbling through all around them.  But for the colloid, the waves are no
longer sufficiently large to be able to ignore the presence and spacing of
the particles, and are chaotically diffracted (i.e., it looks white).
 
 
> When the beam temperature gets low enough, boson condensation occurs, you
> punch holes in the foil, and the diffraction patterns disappear...
 
If that's a reference to my remark about Van Hove singularities implying
certain condenstion, I've back-pedaled from that idea pending a closer
examination.  You might note that I no longer mention it in the laser-like
analogy, as I think it's probably just confuses the issue needlessly.
 
And you certainly won't be punching any holes in the foil, even if boson
condensation _did_ occur.  It just means that the impinging particles would
be a lot more orderly than they were before, but still unable to get through
the foil barrier very well (especially at such low energies).
 
 
CONDENSATE-LATTICE RESONANCE?  HMM...
 
One possible exception (W.R. Bernecky please listen up):  Resonance effects
could make a transition to a coherent state non-trivial for the surrounding
lattice.  It's the difference between a lot of flabby wimps beating on a
weak door at random, and the same group beating on it in an orderly fashion
that happens to _exactly_ correspond to the frequency at which the door has
a tendency to sway back and forth a bit.  In the latter case, coherence
makes a _quite_ substantial difference, because it allows a resonance to
build up in the door -- something quite impossible in the random-whacking
case.
 
I have no idea off-hand how or if that could be translated into something
interesting in a PdH system, but I'd say it's certainly some worth further
examination.
 
>      The only part of this that seems to be difficult is the beam
> cooling apparatus.  If I were going to try to do this I would use a
> multi-Mev range accelerator with a very cold cathode, cool the beam,
> then use electrostatic repulsion to slow it down as it approaches the
> target.
 
No, there are a number of other quite serious difficulties.  See above.
 
> On the other hand, boson condensation would be a boon to the collider
> people...
 
Nope.  It's much, _much_ too weak of an effect to be relevant at collider
energy ranges -- not to mention it's a very persnickity thing that can only
be set up with extreme difficulty in most contexts.
 
> Wouldn't work for the proton-antiproton colliders,
> since anti-deuterons are hard to come by, but the proton-proton
> colliders could switch over.  Has anyone run deuterons in an AGS?
> It should only require a software change and switching the gas in the
> cathode.
 
Deuterons would make no difference (and probably have been tried).  The
problem is basically that _hot_ bosons behave very much like fermions for
all practical purposes.  When a particle is very hot, it has a gigantic
range of very-closely-spaced states to choose from -- meaning that the
chances for even transient boson-like statistics to apply would be very,
_very_ close to zero.  Particle types are well aware of the distinction,
but are also aware that it is largely irrelevant for their domain.
 
.....
 
Interesting set of questions!  Sorry I couldn't be more upbeat on my
analysis, but an analysis is an analysis -- if you fudge on it, it ain't
doing it's job.  And anyhow, I think that the resonance issue _is_ rather
interesting -- perhaps W.R. Bernecky could do something with that one.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /   Superconductivity prerequisites
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Superconductivity prerequisites
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 20:01:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
 
IS "COOPER" A BIT OF A BLOOPER?
 
I've been scatching my head trying to figure out why so many (most?) folks
out there seem to think that the formation of Cooper pairs is somehow
fundementally linked to the onset of superconductivity.  To the best of my
own poor knowledge, this is simply not true.
 
I suspect that this misconception may have to do with popular presentations
that show superconductivity as arising from the ability of such pairs to
elastically "bounce around" atoms instead of scattering from them.  Now
maybe I've lost the bubble and am taking the crew down for a dive, but I've
always assumed that the above is pretty much blithering nonsense of the type
often provided by authors who do not wish to get into the _real_ issue of
quantum mechanics.
 
Cooper pairs are just a type of "quasiparticle" (persistent association
of atoms or vibrations within solid or liquid matter) that form when wee
little vibrations -- phonons, they are called -- become strong enough to
loosely stitch together two otherwise unsociable electrons.  (I might note
that this cannot happen in a vacuum, since phonons cannot exist in a vacuum.
You can't rattle atoms that aren't there!)
 
Note that it is incorrect to think that Cooper pairs form _only_ when the
superconductive transition temperature is reached.  They are actually quite
plentiful at temperatures somewhat _above_ that point, but do not last very
long in that temperature range.  They have a strong tendency to fall apart
the first time they get bumped hard by a stray phonon.
 
Now if Cooper pairs were the _only_ prerequisite for superconductivity, then
the transition into superconductivity should be quite gradual, corresponding
simply to the formation of larger and larger numbers of Cooper pair quasi-
particles...
 
Not true!  The onset of superconductivity is a very abrupt, either/or sort
of thing.  First it's not there -- and then it is!  Very mysterious, that.
And another curious thing that happens is that those unstable Cooper pairs
suddenly become _stable_ -- they no longer break apart!
 
Now what in the world is causing all of this?  Hmm... take a wild guess...
 
Right you are!  Boson condensation is the real culprit.  Because a Cooper
pair has _two_ spin 1/2 electrons, it is a composite _boson_ that is subject
to boson condensation in much the same way as superfluid helium.  (In QM
it really makes very little difference whether you are a "real" particle
or a "quasi" particle.  The same set of rules applies in both cases.)
 
In other words, when you cool some metals to the point where the fragile
Cooper pairs can persist for a while and are sufficiently plentiful, the
curious attraction that all bosons have for being in the same state suddenly
leads to a huge avalanche of Cooper pairs into the same state.  The effect
is self-stabilizing -- that is, once a Cooper pair joins in, it has a very,
_very_ difficult time energetically if it tries to leave.  The other Cooper
pairs hate spoil-sports who try to leave the party early!  It is this mutual
attraction that abruptly transforms the fragile individual Cooper pairs into
very stable, very long-lived "condensate" versions of the same particle.
 
The real source of superconductivity (i.e., current flow without any ohmic
loss of energy) is this same extreme reluctance of the boson condensate to
permit any of its charged particle constituent to leave the condensate.
Banging into an atom and thus imparting ohmic heat to it can happen _only_
if the Cooper pair that did the banging loses energy and thus leaves the
condensate state.  The condensate gets very unhappy about that sort of thing.
[Gee, this is beginning to sound like George Orwell's _1984_... :) ].   So
instead of thermal dissipation of energy, the condensate sort of "arranges"
that such collision not take place at all.  Weird by the standards of large-
scale phyics, but actually not all that unusual within QM.
 
 
PREREQUISITES FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
 
Now what does all of this mean for superconductivity?  If what I've said
above is accurate, the real prerequisites for superconductivity are simply:
 
 1) You need a _charged_ boson particle.  (Note that 4He is _not_ charged!)
 
 2) You need said particle to form a boson condensate.
 
That's it, folks.  Unless I've totally misunderstood something, the Cooper
pair schtick is really a bit of a red herring.  _Any_ charged boson particle
(e.g., d+) or charged quasiparticle (it does not _have_ to be a Cooper pair)
can in principle form a boson condensate and thus become a superconductor.
 
 
TIME TO RE-EXAMINE Pd(Hx,Dy) SUPERCONDUCTIVITY LITERATURE?
 
Incidentally, a rather odd form of superconductivity is _already_ known to
exist for some Pd(Hx,Dy) compounds.  It's probably just the ordinary Cooper
based form, but who knows?  Some of you out there who like digging around
in libraries might be able to come up with a new interpretion of super-
conductivity in (say) PdDx as being _deuteron_ based, rather than electron
based.  Might make a _nice_ paper IF it just happened to be true, hmm?
 
(I've got at least one or two references & will try to dig them out.)
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Applications of polarized neutrons
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Applications of polarized neutrons
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1993 22:35:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

P. Angelo asks, "Is there any information out there on the practical
applications of polarized neutrons, especially in fusion and medicine."
 
In general the answer is yes.  The applications of polarized neutrons are
many and varied.  It helps to consider roughly three domains of neutron
energies separately: (1) ultracold neutrons - like 80 K temperatures,
(2) thermal neutrons, (3) everything else.  In the first domain there
have been some really neat experiments that involve bouncing neutrons off
magnitized iron and doing double-slit interferometry with polarized
neutrons.  The second domain has long provided a versatile tool for
the study of solids, and when polarized neutrons are used the structure
of magnetic lattices can be investigated in diffraction experiments.
At higher energies neutron polarization is a useful tool in a variety
of investigations of nuclear structure and nuclear interactions, which
if you are willing to broaden your definition is an "application".
The two fields you selected for particular attention are not ones
where I am aware of much use having been made of polarized neutrons.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility, however.  Most of the applications
of the types I have mentioned would be described in journals dealing
with condensed-matter physics (solid state).
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  pallergv@ucbeh /  <None>
     
Originally-From: pallergv@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 19 Jul 93 17:38:04 EDT
Organization: Univ of Cincinnati Academic IT Services

Hi,
 
        CAN ANYONE MAIL ME A LIST OF RADIATION PLUME MODELS AVAILBLE, WHERE
 
AVAILABLE AND ANY CONTACT NUMBERS?
 
THANKYOU
 
goverdhan Pallerla
Health Physics
University of Cincinnati
 
gpallerl@uceng.uc.edu
pallergv@ucunix.san.uc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpallergv cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: 19 Jul 1993 22:17:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis) says:
>As I recollect, there was tremendous public pressure to make sure that
>NO drug was ever released which had the slightest chance of harming
>anyone - pressure due to the thalidomide case
 
Thalidomide was held up for approval in the USA for reasons totally
unrelated to the eventual discovery of its effects on babys born to
mothers in the countries in which it was approved for use.
 
The FDA easily parlayed this fortuitous foot dragging into a bureaucratic
mandate to turn its foot dragging into a high art form.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 23:45:07 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <msbCAEC98.B9G@netcom.com> msb@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) writes:
> In article <1993Jul15.005959.27203@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
 
> Either he and his colleagues imagined the whole phenomenon, in which
> case he didn't spread *anything* around or he really did create some new
> kind of energy (not radioactivity) in which case he wasn't "crazy and
> wrong".
 
Or, perhaps they were just bad experimentalists, and contaminated the
room they were using.
 
I seriously doubt Reich discovered anything about physical reality
with his orgone experiments. More likely, he explored the depths of
self-delusion. As proof, I note that 50 years later, we are not
all using orgone accumulators to heal ourselves, re-foliate the desert,
or shoot down UFO's (all things Reich himself was capable of, I'm told).
 
 
 
 
--
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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Miles Letters/Bruce Scott's request
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles Letters/Bruce Scott's request
Date: 19 Jul 93 14:47:35 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

At the risk of beating dead horse further, I respond here to Bruce Scott's
request that I provide a table clarifying letters from Mel Miles, as to dates,
when received, differences between versions of letters, and so on.  I would
like to say up front that the matter would be less complicated if Dr. Miles
would have had posted the *same* letters as were sent to me, but the few changes
are illuminating:
 
Miles letter #1   posted on sci.phys.fusion by Jed Rothwell in
                  930409124203_722540.1256 on April 9, 1993.
The version of this letter received by me by mail is dated 31 March 1993, which
date is missing on the letter #1 as posted by Jed.  Otherwise, the two versions
are identical as far as I can tell.
On 11 May 1993 I did a "follow-up"
posting which encorporated the Miles #1 letter, along with part 1 of
my response, which response followed over the next several days in parts.
 
 
Miles letter #2  posted on sci.phys.fusion by Jed Rothwell on June 15; that
version of the letter shows the date "9 Jun 93".  The version of this letter
received at BYU is *identical* to that posted by Jed *except* for the
following major differences:
1.  Version sent to BYU is dated "8 Jun 93".
2.  Version sent to BYU is addressed to "President Rex E. Lee", BYU President.
3.  Most interestingly, the following sentences appear in the version sent to
BYU but do not appear in the version posted by Jed (evidently because Jed's
version did not contain these sentences):
    "If this serious matter cannot be resolved by this letter, then I will have
to consider other possible actions."  (Mel Miles' letter to R. Lee, 8 Jun 93)
    "In conclusion, I am requesting that Professor Jones  retract  his
allegations and implications of rejected data points and fudging regarding my
reported helium measurements.  This retraction should be sent out over the same
computer network   and distribution list as in enclosure 2.  I also request
that Professor Jones   retract   all other false statements that he has made
concerning my work that I will detail in a future letter.  I hope this matter
can thus be resolved without any further actions."  (Miles to Lee 8 Jun 93)
 
My line-by-line response to Miles letter #2 is posted as 1993Jun18.181609.715@
physc1.byu.edu.  Miles has not responded yet to this reply; outstanding
questions include a request to see "the *first twelve days* of data from the
cell which on Oct. 21, 1990 produced the maximum xs heat (27%) claimed by Miles
et al. in their *open* calorimetric system*,"  and
my insistence that Miles et al. re-calculate the statistical significance of
the alleged one-to-one correspondance of heat and helium based the run
"12/17/90-B" which shows substantial heat but *no* helium, and the discrepancy
between heat and helium *quantities* as shown in Table 1 of J. Electroanal.
Chem. 346 (1993) 99-117 by Miles et al.  I await a reply.
 
 
Miles letter #3 was posted on this net by Mitchell Swartz who again had a
version slightly different from the version received by mail here at BYU.
 
While the main bodies of the two versions are *identical*, for instance the
*same* thirteen enumerated issues raised by Dr. Miles, I find the following
major  differences:
1.  BYU-received version had the date "17 Jun 93" whereas the Swartz-received
version had the date "22 Jun 93".
2.  BYU-received version was addressed to "President Rex E. Lee" while
Swartz-received version lacks this address (and salutation).
3.  BYU-received version contains the following sentences which evidently were
not included in the version which Miles sent for posting:
 
"As discussed in my letter of 8 June 1993, I expect Professor Jones to  retract
his false allegations regarding my research.  In particular, I expect Professor
Jones to  retract his false allegations numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and especially
number 10.  Statements by Professor Jones in Reference 6 implicating that I
"shifted the window", "fudged" my data, "violated the laws of science", etc.,
certainly must be retracted.  If this is not done then I will have to consider
further actions."
 
My point-by-point rebuttal of Miles' claims/ answers to questions are provided
in my posting here dated 8 July 93:    1993Jul8.165156.756@physc1.byu.edu,
"Point-by-point response to Dr. Miles."  The quoted statements in Miles' letter
in the paragraph immediately above
should properly be identified as *quotations* from another scientist, quoted in
one of my postings.   That is,
these were not statements made directly by me as Miles' letter to BYU President
Lee unfortunately implies.  The "further actions" are not specified but appear
threatening, unless I "retract" certain statements.  I endeavored to make
corrections where I was in error, and to re-emphasize areas where I found Miles
et al. to be in error.
 
Again, my reply was made
to Dr. Miles here, and I await a response from him.  In particular, he has not
addressed my questions about  why so
little new data is given in his 1993 paper (e.g., no xs-heat and helium
correlations since *1990*), plots of light-water excess heat (since the
calorimeter fixes), and "do the GM [Geiger-Mueller] dtector readings (may we see
them?) correlate with xs heat?"    Finally, I await some reply to my challenge
raised that Miles et al. use an X-ray spectrometer to check/amplify their claims
of X-ray emission which are based on dental film exposures.
 
 
In conclusion, we see that the versions of letters #2 and #3 were the same in
essential content but with similar sentences warning of "further actions"
unless I "retracted" certain statements excised from the versions sent for
posting.  To me, this is enough and too much discussion on this matter.
I will be glad to respond to Dr. Miles should he choose to respond to my
detailed replies to his letters #2 and #3.
 
A scientific discussion requires
replies until understanding is reached.  Threats of unspecified actions, in my
opinion, do not serve to promote scientific debate at a professional level.
 
 
Following the advice of friends, I plan to turn from further discussions here
regarding the Mills/Farrell notion of "shrinken hydrogen atoms" and the Miles
et al. claims of xs heat and helium production, to the ongoing BYU work on
possible small nuclear effects.  (Hurray.)  Frankly, I need help and I hope
the advice I am likely to get from Terry, Dick, Frank, Tom, Matt, Bob, Bruce
and others will be worth the time required.  I trust that the rapport we have
established and these channels of communication will result in guidance for our
research effort.  Yes, Jim B., we *do* have increasing evidence for small
nuclear effects.  But I do not claim compelling evidence as yet. Perhaps Terry's
and others' ideas will guide experiments or stimulate further work.  This
is the way to make progress, I think.    See y'all tomorrow!
 
--Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Jones vs. Miles
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones vs. Miles
Date: 19 Jul 93 14:54:51 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2244puINN56v@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
> I would like to point out something seemingly obvious which seems to have
> escaped certain people's attention. Assuming that the letter received by
> Steven Jones contained those few "threatening" sentences, and assuming
> further that Mitchell Swartz posted word for word the letter he received,
> there is no contradiction. That is, the letter *Mitchell* received was
> devoid of the threatening sentences. So as he indignantly states, Mitchell
> did in fact scan, check, and scrupulously and honestly post the whole
> of the material he received.
>
> It is just that the letter in Mitchell's posession and that recevied by
> Steven are not identical. Mitchell, is this not obvious to you? Why accuse
> Steven of treachery?
 
Thank you, Bruce.  This explanation is obvious to me also, and I hope to most
if not all readers.
>
> On the dates, it did seem to me that Steven's account was not perfectly
> comprehensible; it was not clear to me what was received by whom, and when.
> Steven, on your next post you could probably make a little table like this:
>
> Date       Letter received by       Letter sent by    Letter posted by
>
> day 1           person A                                  person B
> day 2                                  person A
>
> et cetera. As long as the listed days are sequential, there is no
> confusion. This way, one can avoid the problems of semi-opaque English.
>
> Both of you: keep the stuff coming; this is an important matter.
> --
> 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
 
 
Okay, I have made such a table to try to sort this out.  I hope it's important
as you say; I'm tired of this.  I've organized the Miles/Jones exchanges in
order to mail it all to Dr. Miles by way of courtesy, and I suppose that if
there are further questions by netters this package could be requested.
I do not plan
further postings on this unless and until Dr. Miles responds to my detailed
replies to him.
 
_-Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Changing gears
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Changing gears
Date: 19 Jul 93 15:16:10 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

July 19, 1993
Dear colleagues,
 
From an earlier (long) posting, this announcement:
 Following the advice of friends, I plan to turn from further discussions here
 regarding the Mills/Farrell notion of "shrunken hydrogen atoms" and the Miles
 et al. claims of xs heat and helium production   and our work on light-water
 excess-heat claims,        to the ongoing BYU research on
 possible small nuclear effects.  (Hurray.)  Frankly, I need guidance and I hope
 the advice I am likely to get from Terry, Dick, Frank, Tom, Matt, Bob, Bruce
 Chuck, Richard, Jim, Dieter (are you still with us?), Dale  (pardon omissions)
 and others will be worth the time required.  I trust that the rapport we have
 established and these channels of communication will result in guidance for our
 research effort.  Yes, Jim B., we *do* have increasing evidence for small
 nuclear effects.  But I do not claim compelling evidence as yet. Perhaps
 ideas explored here will guide experiments or stimulate further work.  This
 is a good way to expedite progress, I think.    See y'all tomorrow!
 
 --Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / arthur blair /  Hot fusion
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 03:53:50 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

What is the current status of hot fusion? Where is research being done?
I'd like responses from anyone except jed (I already know what you
think of it).
Art.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Vigier Theory
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Vigier Theory
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 08:34:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In FD 1136, Norman H. Redington asks about the "Vigier theory" mentioned in
a C&E article (shortly to be abstracted). The article says that the theory
"involves atoms with 'very tight electron orbits' and predicts that soft
x-rays should be emitted".
 
Does anyone know where Vigier has stated this theory? Was it in print, a
paper, perhaps? It sounds to me as if he has taken the M&F thing on board,
with the addition of x-ray emissions.
 
While we're on the subject of M&F, I'd like to ask, for the umpteenth time,
Prof. Farrell to clearly explain his reasons for rejecting a closed cell. A
long time ago, he vaguely said something about the hydrinos being "scavenged"
by the recombination catalyst. I never have understood this. The source of
the excess heat, as I understand it, is the drop of an electron to
sub-basement levels; the expected x-rays (even Vigier expects them) are
somehow turned into plain heat - nothing escapes - but never mind. My point is
that once this has happened, why should it matter that the resulting hydrino
gets scavenged at a later time? Prof. Farrell, please explain. It may be that
this is simply an experimental observation, i.e. that you don't get the excess
heat with a closed-system cell, and don't have a real explanation. That would
be OK, but I'd like to see a definite statement. I have asked many times.
 
To keep things balanced and fair: the above is of course a complaint about the
apparent evasion, by Prof. Farrell, of this point. Another evasion I have
noted is the silence from those skeptics who explain excess heat as due to
recombination not accounted for, in the face of the fact that some results
claim several multiples of the recombination heat. I have seen this pointed
out many times by different TB's, and note that this tends to be ignored. If
you want to knock down excess heat, you have to face all the issues squarely.
 
Incidentally, it must be said that in FPALH-90, the authors do say that they
checked for recombination and find it to be negligible. It is not true,
therefore, as posted a while ago, that noone checks this.
 
My apologies for the omission of proper quotes and attributions; I have just
returned from holidays and had something like 70 emails waiting, most of it
FD's. There were so many files that I had to print&wipe, to keep within my
disk quota, and am working from print-outs.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Superconductivity prerequisites
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductivity prerequisites
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 09:47:18 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

In article <1993Jul19.200125.24729@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>I've been scatching my head trying to figure out why so many (most?) folks
>out there seem to think that the formation of Cooper pairs is somehow
>fundementally linked to the onset of superconductivity.
 
About 1950 Harry Frohlich suggested that supercondictivity was caused by some
form of attractive electron-phonon interaction.  Some of his assumptions were
later shown to be a bit wonky, but he did manage to predict the isotope
effect (found later by Maxewll, Allen and others later that year), and he did
correct much of the assumptions in his later paper (1952).
 
The same year Ginzberg and Landau wrote a most famous paper which explained
many of the properties of superconductors if they assumed the electrons
somehow went around in pairs.  Unfortunately the 'cold war' was at its height
and this paper did not reach us for something like another four years.
The mistranslation that then appeared - a Hankel function with imaginary
argument instead of a second kind modified Bessel function - is still doing
the rounds in physics textbooks, letting small fish like yours truly feel
smug when they spot it.
 
However the theory stuck until someone could say why the electrons went around
in pairs.  This happened between 1956 and 1958.  Cooper showed that normal
electron states would be unstable with respect to paired states; Schafroth
Butler, and Blatt realised the electron-phonon(-and back to electron again)
interaction could locally exceed the coulomb repulsion causing the electrons
to remain bound as in a molecule.
 
Electrons are electrons and are not easily described in terms of anything else,
so all macroscopic analogies are pretty useless. However we could visualise
this interaction as follows...
 
Suppopse you have a cloud of charge (an electron) passing through a lattice of
heavy positive nucleii.  These nucleii will be attracted to the electron.
They will go towards it until stopped by their interactions with each other.
There will be a bit of a lag to this process, so apparently the electron will
be followed by a compression in the lattice.  This compression will have a nett
positive charge and act to retard the electron.  It would also attract any
electron with almost the same veloctiy following behind.  If there were no
other perturbing forces you could get strings of electrons all slipstreaming
each other.
 
Sadly the truth is rather more complicated, but maybe that analogy makes it
seem a little less mysterious to some.
 
Schafroth, Butler, and Blatt also considered these electrons as a Bose gas.
Cooper poked holes in this argument - the pair correlation was considerably
greater than the pair separation.  Eventually Bardeen, Cooper, and Schreiffer
managed to treat both the forces between the electrons to form pairs and the
forces between pairs in terms of a direct Hamiltonian between electrons.
This interaction was pretty uniform except for a narrow layer close to the
Fermi surface for pairs with opposed spin.  Following papers removed some of
the approximations and generalized the results from an infinite unfaulted
lattice to real lumps of stuff.  The original BCS Hamiltonian was not gauge
invariant, and did not obey the Buckingham identity, which was a big part of
predicting the Meissner effect.  All of this was cleared up in time.
 
The Cooper pairings happen at the same time as the condensation (or
thereabouts).  It is perhaps no more than a handy way of carving up a ruddy
big matrix Hamiltonian into manageable chunks.  No-one suggests you can put
a superconducter under a microscope and see the little pairs trolling about.
The fact they are there at all is only revealed in subtle things like the 2e
charge terms in the Ginzberg-Landau normalization constants.
 
>The real source of superconductivity (i.e., current flow without any ohmic
>loss of energy) is this same extreme reluctance of the boson condensate to
>permit any of its charged particle constituent to leave the condensate.
>Banging into an atom and thus imparting ohmic heat to it can happen _only_
>if the Cooper pair that did the banging loses energy and thus leaves the
>condensate state.  The condensate gets very unhappy about that sort of thing.
>[Gee, this is beginning to sound like George Orwell's _1984_... :) ].   So
>instead of thermal dissipation of energy, the condensate sort of "arranges"
>that such collision not take place at all.  Weird by the standards of large-
>scale phyics, but actually not all that unusual within QM.
 
Hmmm.  If you are not just going to have a closed loop of superconductor wiht
current circling endlessly but are going to use it to connect something to
something else, then your electron states are no longer stable and you can
get into time-dependent superconductivity theory.  That is definately not
for the squeamish.  However the principle behind this collective action of
electron pairs is not really any more mysterious then non-turbulent gases
forming a slowed boundary layer around an obstruction in the flow.
 
The only argument I have ever come across in the literature I would really
take issue with is the statement that electron scattering becomes dirvergantly
improbably because ' for an object to scatter one electron in the condensate
it must simultaneously scatter them all'.  The condensate has a much bigger
wavelength so the things that scatter must be that much larger to be
effective.  The pinning of flux lines by grain boundaries or ferromagnetic
inpurities and gives energy loss and resistance in a superconductor.
 
If you have any brain left after all this, then look up 'gapless
superconductivity'.  That'll do for it, but good.
 
>TIME TO RE-EXAMINE Pd(Hx,Dy) SUPERCONDUCTIVITY LITERATURE?
>
>Incidentally, a rather odd form of superconductivity is _already_ known to
>exist for some Pd(Hx,Dy) compounds.  It's probably just the ordinary Cooper
>based form, but who knows?  Some of you out there who like digging around
>in libraries might be able to come up with a new interpretion of super-
>conductivity in (say) PdDx as being _deuteron_ based, rather than electron
>based.  Might make a _nice_ paper IF it just happened to be true, hmm?
 
You will still have electrons around, won't you?  So any deuteron-phonon
interaction will be dwarfed by the electon-deuteron interaction.  Gut
feeling tells me this goes as (e/m)^2, but I may be wrong.
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Temperature Accuracy
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Temperature Accuracy
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 09:32:23 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: BTW, looking in my Cole-Parmer catalog, I did not find platinum RTD's with
: specs better than +/- 0.3 C.  I notice that the NIST certified glass
: thermometers, at $1878.00 come with a certificate, and have 0.05 C divisions,
: but the catalog says nothing about accuracy.  Clearly to me, knowing
: temperature better than =/- 1 C is a major project.
 
Ah, what you do is to buy a box of them, then go and scounge the HP2804A and
weed out all the bad ones. You could always get a rack of the 2804's and
glue their probes into the cell. Of course this would cost you few grand
rather than few quid. ;-)
 
On a different subject, why don't people run their cells under
potentiostatic control?
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 818 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 818 papers, 128 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
here the two commentary items that have already been discussed at some length
in this group. They don't add any new information but you can go and read them
yourself now, given the references.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 20-Jul-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 818
 
 
 
Commentaries: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dagani R;                                                 C&EN, 14-Jun-93, 38.
"Latest cold fusion results fail to win over skeptics".
** Report of the FLeischmann and Pons paper in the journal Phys. Lett. A,
which has fuelled the controversy on cold fusion. There are comments by
McKubre, Noninski, Huizenga, Bard, Morrison and Hagelstein, all taking the
expected point of view. The authors themselves could not be reached by Ron
Dagani. Vigier, an editor of the journal and the person who facilitated the
paper, is cited as believing that "very tight electron orbits" are the
underlying mechanism for the excess heat claimed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hodgkinson N;               The Sunday Times (London), 27-Jun-93, page 9.2 ff.
"Nuclear confusion".
** The latest on Fleischmann and Pons in their labs near Nice, where they are
forging ahead with cold fusion. They say that a 10 kW  generator could be
ready "within a year". Hodgkinson provides a succinct history of the field up
to the present, and cites several experts, such as Dr. Bewick, a colleague of
Fleischmann, and Frank Close, author of one of several books on this subject,
as well as Prof. Bockris, prominent electrochemist and cold fusion researcher,
and Dr. McKubre, prominent for his cold fusion results, as yet unpublished.
Unavoidably, there is some focus on the controversial nature of cold fusion.
There is full-page photo of F&P, looking through one of their calorimeter
baths.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Jeffrey Rufinus /  Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
     
Originally-From: rufinus@cae.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Rufinus)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Subject: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Date: 20 Jul 93 10:18:26 CDT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Summary:
Followup-To:
Distribution: world
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Keywords:
 
 
The 1993 Physics Olympiad was held at College of William and Mary on
July 10-18. Who got the medals?
 
Rank  Country   Gold    Silver  Bronze  Points
===============================================
 1   Russia      3        2       0      37.85
 2   Hungary     3        0       1      39.80
 3   China       2        2       1      40.65
 4   Czechoslovakia 2     2       0      38.05
 5   Romania     2        0       2      38.15
 6   Germany     1        2       2      40.65
 7   G. Britain  1        2       1      36.50
 8   Ukraina     1        2       0      36.25
 9   USA         1        1       2      36.40
10   Turkey      1        0       1      36.40
11   Korea       0        1       2      35.55
12   Bulgaria    0        1       1      35.60
13   Slovakia(?) 0        1       1      33.50
14   Canada      0        0       3      27.00
15   Slovania(?) 0        0       2      27.33
16   Italy       0        0       2      27.43
17   Netherland  0        0       2      26.50
18   Lithuania   0        0       1      30.80
19   Australia   0        0       1      30.45
20   Indonesia   0        0       1      29.05
21   Cuba        0        0       1      27.75
22   Singapore   0        0       1      27.70
23   Greece      0        0       1      27.35
24   Sweden      0        0       1      27.00
25   Vietnam     0        0       1      26.50
 
No medals: Austria, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Thailand, Philippines,
           Suriname, India, Estonia, Kuwait, Poland, Columbia, Mexico,
           Iceland, Spain, Cyprus.
 
PS: Don't ask me why there is no correlation between the medals and points
    obtained.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrufinus cudfnJeffrey cudlnRufinus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Jim Bowery /  Fusion Decoys
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Decoys
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 16:49:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>little thought since then.  Nor do I feel I'm somehow obligated to give you
>every piece of data in my possession when you demand it -- e.g., to whom I
>was referring when I said that I found some recent results persuasive.  (It
>sure wasn't P&F.)
 
That's fine, Terry.  I missed your statement that you found some recent
results persuasive.  Sorry for being pushy, but I was really interested
in what you thought.  Since you don't want to divulge anything, I won't
press further.
 
>I did not understand your defense (attack?) of P&F, and am unsure of what
>your point was.
 
It was neither a defense nor an attack.  I was stating a matter of
principle which is orthoganol to P&F claims being true, ie:  The P&F
claims are their business, not yours.  Their press releases (sometimes
 posing as scientific papers) have always been a matter of technology
(intellectual property/invention) more than science.  The principles of
technology, not science, apply to the P&F and the principles of
intellectual property (technology) dictate that they have priority in
this field and you had best base any investment of your time in their
field on your relationship with the (supposed?) inventors.
 
Otherwise, you are their lawful prey.
 
You are well advised to ignore their press releases posing as scientific
announcements and get on with some original work of your own or go with
genuine scientific inquiry based on some other phenomena.
 
>to P&F, I don't think folks here (either pro OR con) are going to be much
>inclined to heed the advice.
 
I suspect you are right.  This is a regretable situation.
 
>(You are not associated with them, I assume?)
 
No, I'm not.
 
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Yes, Jim B., we *do* have increasing evidence for small
> nuclear effects.  But I do not claim compelling evidence as yet. Perhaps
> ideas explored here will guide experiments or stimulate further work.  This
> is a good way to expedite progress, I think.    See y'all tomorrow!
 
Steve's Jones's message makes things much clearer.  I've been hearing
increasing rumors of good evidence for nuclear effects (from people who
don't read sci.physics.fusion).  I just wanted some verification that all
of this stuff is sort of related to the same thing:  ie: Jones small
nuclear effects.
 
Here, however, we are dealing with the (supposed?) inventor himself.
Even if he decides to treat the issue as intellectual property rather
than science, his presence and voluntary participation makes it far
less likely that he will end up being treating us as prey in a
competitive commercial war.
 
I, myself, have little to contribute to the cold fusion debate itself
and have, with few lapses of integrity in the last years, avoided
participation in that debate -- sticking to matters of policy and
principle.  Based on my work with Paul Koloc with his PLASMAK(tm) I
respect his Li6 speculation as just that, a speculation worthy of
some passing thought out of curiousity.
 
In Paul's case, he has his own invention and has continued to work on
it despite the "frightening prospect" that it might all be made
"obsolete" if P&F's stories all come true.  This speaks well
of Paul's character.  I wish I could say the same for more of the
participants in this group.
 
I find it somewhat interesting that P&F made their announcement
just a few months after Paul was seeing good evidence that:
 
1)  The PLASMAK(tm) approach might really be capable of burning
abundant and totally aneutronic fuels like p-B11 AND
2)  It was becoming obvious that the unity of the mainline fusion
program was disintigrating.
 
VERY bad timing from the PLASMAK(tm) perspective.  It's quite possible
we would have a D-He3 if not a p-B11 demonstrator, but for P&F
diversionary tactics.  The bottom line here looks really bad.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 15:56:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>And where was this that someone was imprisoned for publishing a book?
>Either you misread something or someone is putting one over on you. :-)
 
I never heard of Reich or orgone stuff until someone mentioned it here
in this forum.  That is where the claim was posted that he was imprisoned
for continuing to sell his book.  I believe the FDA does have some
authority to prohibit the sale of certain forms of literature, just like
the SEC does --- legal authority that is, not moral authority.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / John Logajan /  Quid
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quid
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 93 16:00:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I never understood what a quid was.  Could someone please tell me?
 
My friend just got back from two weeks in Scotland/England and informs
me that a quid is the same as a pound, which is about a $1.50 in US terms.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Jeffrey Rufinus /  Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
     
Originally-From: rufinus@cae.wisc.edu (Jeffrey Rufinus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Date: 20 Jul 93 11:23:53 CDT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

 
 
The 1993 Physics Olympiad was held at College of William and Mary on
July 10-18. Who got the medals?
 
Rank  Country   Gold    Silver  Bronze  Points
===============================================
 1   Russia      3        2       0      37.85
 2   Hungary     3        0       1      39.80
 3   China       2        2       1      40.65
 4   Czechoslovakia 2     2       0      38.05
 5   Romania     2        0       2      38.15
 6   Germany     1        2       2      40.65
 7   G. Britain  1        2       1      36.50
 8   Ukraina     1        2       0      36.25
 9   USA         1        1       2      36.40
10   Turkey      1        0       1      36.40
11   Korea       0        1       2      35.55
12   Bulgaria    0        1       1      35.60
13   Slovakia(?) 0        1       1      33.50
14   Canada      0        0       3      27.00
15   Slovania(?) 0        0       2      27.33
16   Italy       0        0       2      27.43
17   Netherland  0        0       2      26.50
18   Lithuania   0        0       1      30.80
19   Australia   0        0       1      30.45
20   Indonesia   0        0       1      29.05
21   Cuba        0        0       1      27.75
22   Singapore   0        0       1      27.70
23   Greece      0        0       1      27.35
24   Sweden      0        0       1      27.00
25   Vietnam     0        0       1      26.50
 
No medals: Austria, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Thailand, Philippines,
           Suriname, India, Estonia, Kuwait, Poland, Columbia, Mexico,
           Iceland, Spain, Cyprus.
 
PS: Don't ask me why there is no correlation between the medals and points
    obtained.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrufinus cudfnJeffrey cudlnRufinus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Potentiostatic control
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 18:33:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Karel Hladky asks why cells are not run under potentiostatic control.  I can
only answer for myself.  If running under constant voltage (potentiostatic vs
galvanostatic or constant current), and the cell restance goes up, then the
loading might be unstable in a positive feedback sort of way.  Since I am
mostly not around to correct things, I run constant current.
 
This still leaves me the problem of the quid.  If a quid is a sovereign is
about 1/4 oz of gold, then it is of order 100 bucks today.  That one place
in my dictionary.  Another place it says it is 2 pounds 18 shillings.  Not so
much.  Seems to me that there is money to be made by trading "quid" pounds
for "quid" soverigns.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Decoys
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Decoys
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 18:26:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <m0oIKMH-0000ZpC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>I find it somewhat interesting that P&F made their announcement
>just a few months after Paul was seeing good evidence that:
>
>1)  The PLASMAK(tm) approach might really be capable of burning
>abundant and totally aneutronic fuels like p-B11 AND
>2)  It was becoming obvious that the unity of the mainline fusion
>program was disintigrating.
>
>VERY bad timing from the PLASMAK(tm) perspective.  It's quite possible
>we would have a D-He3 if not a p-B11 demonstrator, but for P&F
>diversionary tactics.
 
     I prefer unintended humour; that's the best kind.
 
                          dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Orgone Energy
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orgone Energy
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 00:44:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jul19.061229.22951@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
>The claim was that this Reich guy was imprisoned for continuing to publish
>his book.  Publishing a book is not in the same moral league as any act
>of force and therefore may not rightly be prohibited by force.
 
And where was this that someone was imprisoned for publishing a book?
Either you misread something or someone is putting one over on you. :-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / R Cinq-Mars /  2nd RFD - SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN
     
Originally-From: cinqmarr@vader.egr.uri.edu (Robert Cinq-Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2nd RFD - SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 20:04:27 GMT
Organization: University of Rhode Island / College of Engineering

                         SECOND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
                              SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN
 
This request for discussion (RFD) began on July 8th, 1993 and will
continue through August 7, 1993.  The discussion is taking place
on news.groups.  This is the second of three announcements.
 
A listserver list has been created at the University of Rhode Island
entitled: HYDROGEN on LISTSERV@URIACC.URI.EDU.  For the convenience of
USENET users and to make this conference available to as many users
as possible, we wish to create SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN.  A bi-directional
gateway will exchange information between the mail list and the newsgroup.
 
The purpose of this newgroup is to promote a better understanding of the
concepts, terminology, materials, processes and issues relating to
hydrogen as an alternative fuel.  Users will be welcome from universities,
government and industry and are encouraged to post all pertinent news,
events, information, research, references, seminar and conference announce-
ments, product and service announcements, related procurements, and
general discussion of hydrogen related topics.
 
All are welcome to join in the discussion concerning the formation of
sci.energy.hydrogen on news.group.  Your input will help define the
scope and charter for this conference. Following the month long discussion
a vote will be held as described in the guidelines for usenet group
creation.  During this time you are welcome to subscribe to the
hydrogen listserver list by sending the message:
SUB HYDROGEN yourfirstname yourlastname, to: LISTSERV@URIACC.URI.EDU.
 
Thank you for your kind consideration of this second of three RFD's.
 
Robert S. Cinq-Mars  (RCIN0839@URIACC.URI.EDU)
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Rhode Island
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencinqmarr cudfnRobert cudlnCinq-Mars cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 / J Brinchmann /  Re: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
     
Originally-From: jarleb@leda.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Date: 20 Jul 1993 20:51:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics

 
In article <1993Jul20.101827.2641@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, rufinus@cae.wisc.e
u (Jeffrey Rufinus) writes:
 
|>No medals: Austria, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Thailand, Philippines,
                               ^^^^^^^
 
Well, better luck next time :-) The real Olympic Games aren't until Feb. 1994.
 
|>         Suriname, India, Estonia, Kuwait, Poland, Columbia, Mexico,
|>         Iceland, Spain, Cyprus.
|>
|>PS: Don't ask me why there is no correlation between the medals and points
|>    obtained.
|>
|>
 
I guess this is not terribly difficult to explain. At least when I participated
in a Chemistry Olympiad, you got medals if you were over a certain limit.
So depending on what points your medal winners got, if your gold medal winners
were barely gold medal winners and your silver medal winner only barely a silver
medal winner, you get a lower average than if you have 2 high scoring gold
medal winners and a high scoring bronze medal winner.
 
(Ok, you might figure it out, I just wanted to kill some time :-)
 
                                        Have a nice night
                                        (It looks like it's night here)
 
                                Jarle.
 
 
 ---------------------------------------------------
I believe in this and it has been proven by research:
He who fucks nuns will later join the church.
 
                                The Clash
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjarleb cudfnJarle cudlnBrinchmann cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Not nuclear
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not nuclear
Date: 20 Jul 93 15:37:04 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Just received the Proceedings of the Third International Conf. on Cold Fusion,
Oct. 21-25, 1992, Nagoya, Japan, edited by H. Ikegami.  In the preface, Dr.
Ikegami states:
 
"Positive heat results were also presented on several light water experiments,
which may be closely related to the mechanisms of excess heat generation that
we see in heavy water experiments.
"There is still no evidence to prove that the heat produced is nuclear in
origin."
 
I agree with his frank assessment, and would go one more step:
"absence of evidence  after long searches  becomes evidence of absence
of a nuclear origin."
 
P&F make no claim of a nuclear origin in their 1993 paper.
Even Mike McKubre has looked for nuclear products, and found *none*.
I maintain therefore that the xs heat is not nuclear in origin, until
unambiguously demonstrated otherwise.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Not nuclear
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not nuclear
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 01:22:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Jul20.153705.789@physc1.byu.edu>
    Subject: Not nuclear
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "(In) Proceedings of the Third International Conf. on Cold
=sj  Fusion, ... 1992, Nagoya, Japan,...Dr. Ikegami states:
=sj
=sj    "Positive heat results were also presented on several light water
=sj     experiments, which may be closely related to the mechanisms of
=sj     excess heat generation that we see in heavy water experiments.
=sj     "There is still no evidence to prove that the heat produced is
=sj         nuclear in origin."
=sj
=sj "I agree with his frank assessment, .."
 
 
   Steven, by implication do you agree that there is positive (i.e. excess)
        heat in light water?       and heavy water?
 
         or is your agreement more selective in its scope?
 
   Do you agree that the Proceedings had at least one experiment which
   purported products which are possibly consistent with nuclear
   events?
 
   Do you agree there have been very low levels of neutrons emitted
    on some occasions from such cold fusion experiments?
 
 
==sj  "I maintain therefore that the xs heat is not nuclear in
==sj  origin, until unambiguously demonstrated otherwise."
 
   The excess heats demonstrated over four years, and increasing in
power densities from circa 20 watts/cm3 ('89) to >100 times that at
present ('93) are certainly new and deserve exploration.
 
   Whether they are nuclear in origin (do you have another serious
     candidate, Steve?)  is independent of unraveling and understanding
     the process(es).
 
        Best wishes.
                                              Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / D Gottesman /  Re: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
     
Originally-From: gottesma@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel Gottesman)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Date: 21 Jul 1993 01:15:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <1993Jul20.101827.2641@doug.cae.wisc.edu> rufinus@cae.wisc.ed
 (Jeffrey Rufinus) writes:
>
>The 1993 Physics Olympiad was held at College of William and Mary on
>July 10-18. Who got the medals?
>
**List of teams and medals deleted**
>
>PS: Don't ask me why there is no correlation between the medals and points
>    obtained.
>
 
    I hadn't seen this list before, but it looks like the points listed are
the points for the person on the team with the highest score.  I have a
complete list of the scores of all the medal winners, if anyone wants more
information about a team or individual.  It's not online, though, so don't
ask for a complete list.
 
Daniel Gottesman
gottesma@cco.caltech.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengottesma cudfnDaniel cudlnGottesman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Jones vs. Miles
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones vs. Miles
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 03:30:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Jul19.145451.786@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Re: Jones vs. Miles
 Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) purports that:
 
==sj quoting bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) who asked?
==sj "Why accuse Steven of treachery?"
==sj
==sj "Thank you, Bruce.  This explanation is obvious to me also"
 
   Steven, Bruce:
  I would never presume or imply or state that Steven Jones is anything
   like that. In fact, at seminars (eg. MIT's IAP in '93) I have taught that
   he was a seminal protoinvestigator of these processes; (and
   will leave the fine details to historians with more knowledge on
   such matters).
 
    Furthermore, after Webster [ibid.]:  treachery --
               - violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence
               - likely to betray trust
               - providing insecure footing or support
               - marked by hidden dangers, hazards, or perils
 
  First, what was said was that Steve's re-intimation re. the "cutting, etc"
        was "old hat" and "not relevant".   It was, and is not.  Such comments
        by Steven (followed by at least one skeptic in phase) in fact implied
        that others were such.
 
  Second, the definition simply does not apply to Steve [or anyone else] who
   has pursued the examination of the cold fusion processes honestly.
 
  Third, it would be nice if the theme here could continue to vector towards
     the science of fusion.   Wouldn't it?
 
                     Best wishes.
                                                  Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
Date: 20 Jul 93 18:01:07 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,
 
As advertised, I now provide information regarding ongoing experiments at BYU,
searching for compelling evidence for a (low-level) nuclear effect.  At the
outset, I suggest that the reader disabuse himself of any notion that the
existence of such an effect implies to any connection to excess heat claimed
by some.  The nuclear effects which we have claimed evidence for, along with
Kevin Wolf, Vladimir Tsarev, Ed Cecil, Howard Menlove, Graham Hubler, George
Chambers, Franco Scaramuzzi, Antonio Bertin (y Vitale), Francesco Celani,
Tom Claytor, Seeliger, Ryoichi Taniguchi and other serious researchers in this
field, are too small by *many* orders of magnitude to correlate with excess
heat production.  Indeed, most (but not all) of these wish to disassociate
themselves from claims of P&F, Miles, Bush, Mills, et al.  It is in this
attitude, then, that I present our work:  distinct and separate from the claims
of xs heat generation.
 
Nor do I seek to persuade anyone that our results are already compelling.
Indeed, my rationale in exposing our work on this medium is to seek advice of
what can be done in our search for compelling evidence.  How can we scale up
the small effect we are (may be) seeing?  What theoretical notions can be used
to enhance our search for a larger signal?  Or can someone help us find the
systematic error that is causing us trouble?  Frankly, I would just like to
resolve the matter one way or the other.  I cannot in good conscience abandon
the results we have without resolving the matter.  Hopefully this will become
clear as we explore the current status of BYU (and other) experiments on
possible nuclear emissions at low-levels (NELLs) from deuterided materials.
 
1.  BYU Experimental Techniques
 
In order to greatly reduce cosmic-ray backgrounds, we established a laboratory
in a deep tunnel in the nearby Wasatch mountains, one year ago.  In this lab,
we now have three sensitive neutron detectors.   One is a neutron spectrometer
much like the one described in our original Nature article of April 1989, but
with a central cavity to admit samples so that the neutron detection efficiency
is improved to about 8%.  A second detector also uses lithium-6-doped glass
scintillator to provide a neutron-capture signature, but it is designed to look
primarily for neutrons produced in "bursts", that is, in a time window of about
160 microseconds.  (It allows for an energy-threshold for neutrons, but does
not provide good energy information like the spectrometer.)
 
I will focus on the third detector since it is the most efficient and has the
lowest backgrounds, so that most of my current experiments are conducted in
this detector.  I should also add here that except for support from BYU which
keeps the electricity bills paid, etc., there has been essentially *no* external
support for this laboratory since 1991.  Manpower is short, so we do not keep
experiments going in all three detectors all the time.  Anyone who thinks I am
in this for the money is mistaken.  I want to learn.
 
Our principal detector consists of a central plastic scintillator about 25 cm
in length and 8.9 cm in diameter.  A central cavity 4.4 cm in diameter admits
samples.  Fast neutrons from the sample can generate a recoil proton in the
plastic, whose subsequent scintillations are viewed by a photomultiplier tube
(PMT).  This detector is surrounded by polyethylene moderator 28 cm in diameter
X approx. 30 cm.  16 helium-3-filled proportional-counter tubes are embedded in
this polyethylene, in four independent quadrants.  Two quadrants constitute an
inner ring, two make up an outer ring.  Crude energy information of emerging
neutrons is provided both by the recoil-proton signal, and by the ratio of
counts in the inner and outer rings -- given sufficient counts.
 
All signals are digitized, and we keep track of which quadrant finally captured
the neutron.  A delayed coincidence between prompt plastic-scintillator start
signal and neutron-capture in 3he stop signal is required (in software)
for a valid neutron
trigger.  The fast-transient analyzer digitizes all signals every 10ns, so that
we obtain pulse-shape information along with timing between pulses.  Noise
rejection is greatly facilitated by retention of all pulse shapes.  With the
digitizer running continuously, a 3He signal defines an event (84/hour).  Then
we record any pulses in both the preceding 160 microseconds and the subsequent
160 microsec.  In software, we require a plastic signal followed by a
3He-capture signal, which cuts the event rate to about 1/hour.
 
Some months
ago, we added three large cosmic-ray veto "paddle" counters, one for each of
three planes.  Signals from these are also digitized and identified.  Rejecting
cosmics (mostly penetrating muons; we have about 80m of earth shielding min.)
lowers the event rate to 0.45/hour, with a reasonable cut on the start signal
area (200-1500) and time between start and stop pulses (80 microsec.).  Yet the
efficiency for 2.5 MeV neutrons remains about 15% with the delayed coincidence.
Not bad.  In fact, the sensitivity is second only to the Kamiokande which
boasts 20% efficiency at about 0.25/hour background counts.  Our detector cost
less, allows hands on access (versus having experiments 8 m underwater), and is
available all the time near campus (10 km away).  We like it.
 
So far I have discussed "singles" neutron events.  But we also identify
neutron "bursts",
comprised of a hit in the plastic core following by two or more neutron capture
signals in the He-3-filled tubes.  Now the die-away time for neutrons in the
outer detector/polyethylene moderator is 55 microsec., so there is a possibility
to see multiple neutron hits there.  In effect, the outer detector
"de-multiplexes" neutrons should an instantaneous burst occur -- as first
reported by Howard Menlove of LANL in just such a detector (without core or
paddles).  As at Los Alamos and Kamiokande, we see small burst events in our
hybrid detector system.  We must check the time spectra of captured neutrons
relative to the start pulse to see whether the bursts indeed correspond to what
we expect for neutrons.  And we must compare with hydrogen controls and other
background-type events.
 
*Note that the He-3-type cavity counter was developed by H. Menlove, and has a
stand-alone efficiency for 2.5MeV neutrons of 34% (ours).  We added the central
plastic scintillator, veto paddles, mucho shielding, and fast-transient
digitizers.  We are serious about seeking an understanding, and our detector
evolution has benefitted from advice from Menlove, Charlie Barnes, Al Mann,
Al Anderson, Gus Caffrey, Douglas Morrison, Kevin Wolf and others.
 
*Note #2:  just because cosmic rays are real,
it does not necessarily follow that energy production from them is possible.
Same thing with low-level nuclear emissions.
Our results, if real, are also very low-level, like cosmic ray rates.
That's why we must throw out cosmics rays, and why we in no way say
that our results support claims of xs-heat production ala P&F -- quite to the
contrary.  If one cannot find *sufficent* nuclear products -- and we've been
looking for these since May 1986 -- then the xs-heat is *not* nuclear.  It's as
simple as that.   Our neutron rates have to be boosted a mere 10-trillion times
in order to produce a watt of excess power.  Oh, well.
 
Oops.  Promised my bride I'd be home in 4 minutes.  So we'll talk about results
another time, soon.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 03:53:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Jul20.112353.4158@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
   Subject: Who won? - 1993 Physics Olympiad.
  Jeffrey Rufinus [rufinus@cae.wisc.edu]  writes
 
 
==sr  "The 1993 Physics Olympiad was held at College of William and Mary on
==sr July 10-18. Who got the medals?
==sr
==sr Rank  Country Gold Silver Bronze Points
==sr ===============================================
==sr  1   Russia   3   2   0        37.85
==sr  2   Hungary  3   0   1        39.80
==sr  3   China    2   2   1        40.65
==sr  4   Czech.   2   2   0        38.05
==sr  5   Romania  2   0   2        38.15
==sr  6   Germany  1   2   2        40.65
==sr  7   G. Britain 1 2   1        36.50
==sr  8   Ukraina  1   2   0        36.25
==sr  9   USA      1   1   2        36.40
==sr 10   Turkey   1   0   1        36.40   ...."
 
    Gold, Silver, Bronze .....
 
    No Palladium?    Are there some physicists still ignoring cold fusion?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 04:40:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Jul20.180108.790@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
  Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
= "The nuclear effects which we have claimed evidence for, along with
= Kevin Wolf, Vladimir Tsarev, Ed Cecil, Howard Menlove, Graham Hubler, George
= Chambers, Franco Scaramuzzi, Antonio Bertin (y Vitale), Francesco Celani,
= Tom Claytor, Seeliger, ... Taniguchi and other serious researchers in this
= field, are too small by *many* orders of magnitude to correlate with excess
= heat production.  Indeed, most (but not all) of these wish to disassociate
= themselves from claims of P&F, Miles, Bush, Mills, et al.  It is in this
= attitude, then, that I present our work:  distinct and separate from the
= claims of xs heat generation."
 
  Why the polarization?   Why the separation?
    Are you certain there is no overlap in the physics of these two
        diverse groups?
 
=  "As at Los Alamos and Kamiokande, we see small burst events in our
= hybrid detector system."
 
  Small burst events; excess heats; low level, neutronpenic, levels of
      neutrons; electrode autoradiographs; ....
 
         ....      what do you think is going on?
 
 
= " we in no way say that our results support claims of xs-heat
= production ala P&F -- quite to the
= contrary.  If one cannot find *sufficent* nuclear products -- and we've been
= looking for these since May 1986 -- then the xs-heat is *not* nuclear.
= It's as simple as that.   Our neutron rates have to be boosted a
= mere 10-trillion times in order to produce a watt of excess power."
 
   Only if neutron production pathways were the ONLY pathway available.
 
   With a pathway   D + D + nD + ?  ----->   He4  +  phonons  +
 
     as the predominate form of cold fusion in a solid (ck. the past
            postings) then the neutron generating pathway,
            which you postulate, is the road less travelled.
 
                      Best wishes.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Quid
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Quid
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 10:11:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1195:
 
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>I never understood what a quid was.  Could someone please tell me?
 
>My friend just got back from two weeks in Scotland/England and informs
>me that a quid is the same as a pound, which is about a $1.50 in US terms.
 
 
Although this is a side-track (but no more than orgon energy or the joys of
nuclear power), I want to clarify this, before it get further out of hand;
Australia used to have the "pound" unit until about 1967 or so, and we used
"quid" back then:
 
"Quid" is not "the same as a pound", it's a colloquial term for it. Just
as y'all use "buck" or "smacker" or "greenback" for $. The way John phrased
it, it read as if there was another kind of money called quid, with the same
value. Maybe he didn't mean it that way.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potentiostatic control
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:29:52 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Karel Hladky asks why cells are not run under potentiostatic control.  I can
: only answer for myself.  If running under constant voltage (potentiostatic vs
: galvanostatic or constant current), and the cell restance goes up, then the
: loading might be unstable in a positive feedback sort of way.  Since I am
: mostly not around to correct things, I run constant current.
 
This answer is nearly as silly as that I got off Fleischmann. His excuse was
cost. Which brings us onto the next subject.
 
A pint of beer costs about a quid. A quid is about 7/8" in diameter and 1/8"
thick. It is made of some sort of yellow alloy. It has a picture of a leek
on one side and of the Queen on the other. On the rim it says PLEIDIOL WYF
I'M GWLAD which I think is Welsh for 'Death to the English'.
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potentiostatic control
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 10:24:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
>: If running under constant voltage (potentiostatic vs
>: galvanostatic or constant current), and the cell restance goes up, then the
>: loading might be unstable in a positive feedback sort of way.
>
>This answer is nearly as silly as that I got off Fleischmann.
 
Silly?  It makes sense to me.  Load resistance can vary in ways unrelated
to the maintence requirments of loading.
 
Also, you have to specify between what two points you are going to hold
to a fixed potential.  Anode to cathode?  Cathode outer crust to cathode
inner crust?  Dynamic variations in the impedance of these two cases
do not necessarily track.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potentiostatic control
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 11:32:35 BST

In <1993Jul21.092952.4823@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Karel Hladky writes:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
>A pint of beer costs about a quid. A quid is about 7/8" in diameter and 1/8"
>thick. It is made of some sort of yellow alloy. It has a picture of a leek
>on one side and of the Queen on the other. On the rim it says PLEIDIOL WYF
>I'M GWLAD which I think is Welsh for 'Death to the English'.
 
  That's only the Welsh pound coin. There's
also a Scottish pound coin with a thistle on the front, and an English
coin with a rose on it.
  A quid is also collquial Australian for a dollar (AUD .. one of).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / John Logajan /  Re: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 10:43:33 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>What theoretical notions can be used to enhance our search for a larger
>signal?
 
The proposals of Bernecky and Bollinger seem interesting and fairly simple
to accomplish -- especially the simple experiment of running a cell within
certain temperature ranges in which the wavefunction dimensions of the loaded
hydrogen isotopes are integral multiples of the lattice site dimensions.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Potentiostatic control
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 11:51:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1194:
 
>On a different subject, why don't people run their cells under
>potentiostatic control?
 
To which Tom (Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) replies in FD 1195:
 
>Karel Hladky asks why cells are not run under potentiostatic control.  I can
>only answer for myself.  If running under constant voltage (potentiostatic vs
>galvanostatic or constant current), and the cell restance goes up, then the
>loading might be unstable in a positive feedback sort of way.  Since I am
>mostly not around to correct things, I run constant current.
 
With or without fluctuating cell impedance, a potentiostat is usually stable,
with its negative feedback loop - it is only under some special and rare
conditions that it becomes unstable. I believe that one reason that constant
current has become the norm in cold fusion electrolyses is that people like to
quote so many A/cm^2. You then get variable cathode potential and variable
total cell voltage. Under potentiostatic control, the cathode potential would
be constant (it's the controlled quantity), but both current AND total cell
voltage would vary. So, if you use a constant current device that really does
keep the current constant, then the power is simply that current times the
mean cell voltage, an easy thing to measure and log. Potentiostatic control
would have both current and voltage vary and it's harder to get the power;
another reason why constant current is preferable - in principle.
 
In fact, as recent discussion in this group has brought out, people use, for
some reason, constant current devices whose response has been deliberately
slowed down, so again, both current and voltage vary with cell impedance. This
may or may not matter - the question has not been resolved, I reckon, although
some people (like Tom) feel that it has (i.e. doesn't matter). We're working
on it.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 /  blue@dancer.ns /  X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 13:44:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<<  Where is your proof that X-rays must be there in the solid state?  >>
<<  Why X-rays and not gamma rays?                                    >>>
 
In his defense of the M. Miles use of film packs for radiation detection
Mitchell Swartz continues to play the old "we don't know nothing about
solid state" game, but he is holding a losing hand.  Let's take up the
first question first.  What is the basis for Steve Jones' assertion that
energetic charged particles moving in a solid must produce X-rays?  It
is pointless to try to "prove" anything to Mitchell unless he will agree
to some basic rules of the game.  What I suggest as one of the rules is
the simple notion that an energetic ion moving through a solid material
does not remember how it came to be in that state.  To be specific,
an alpha particle with a kinetic energy of say 1 MeV behaves the same
whether it results from a CF reaction, from the decay of a radioisotope
imbeded in the solid, or from an external beam of particles striking the
solid.  You must either accept the notion that the physics involved in
the slowing down of energetic ions is well understood or resort to the
practice of special pleading.  Mitchell, if you know so much about
radiography you must know something about the processes that darken the
film, right?
 
The second question is really intrigues me since it was ask in the
context of a discussion of the Miles results.  Are you suggesting,
Mitchell, that Miles film packs may be detecting gamma rays rather
than X-rays?  If so I think you are lending support to Steve's
notion that a spectrometer should be employed for these types
of investigations.  If the radiation is worth detecting as part
of establishing CF as a nuclear reaction process then it must
be worth indentifying and quantifying properly!  Film just is not going
to do that job.
 
Of course before any sense can be made of the Miles helium + radiation
results we have to figure out some of the details of the mechanism.
Mitchell proposes D + D + nD + ? -> He4 + phonons.  I don't understand
what this is supposed to indicate in detail since by the rules I
am familiar with it takes only 2 D's to make a He4, but supposing
there is away by which He4 gets made with some excess energy then what?
I have this picture of a He4 all excited with 23 MeV or so.  How do
you couple that to phonons?  I have heard all sorts of special pleading
saying that it doesn't emit protons, neutrons, or gammas just because
the CF crowd doesn't want it to, but inhibiting its normal decays is
only half the problem.  How do you make those phonons?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / Richard Kirk /  Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 13:06:39 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

Has anyone every tried using pulsed electrical power instead of laser power
to drive an implosion?  And if so, did anything ever come of it?
 
I ask this, because there are some astonishing bits of physics crammed into
the last few nanoseconds of a light bulb's life.  As the filament necks down
it overheats and material is lost through the surface; the current that used
to be carried by that outer layer has to move inward, heating the next layer
and driving that off.  In the last few moments the last bit of material passes
from solid, through liquid and gas to plasma before it has much time to change
its density.  There is a small burst of hard thermal X-rays, then the circuit
is broken.  The plasma is expanding - it is too dense for the electrical field
to cause avalanching, but too thin to conduct.  Eventually if the supply and
the inductance continues to produce a potential difference across the gap,
you may get an avalanche discharge (or 'restrike') across the gap.  This is the
pop and flash as the bulb goes.
 
The same process is used at much greater scales for flash X-ray and light
sources, generating shockwaves, and as bridgewire detonators.
 
We could link a large pulse power source ( megajoules ) to produce a rapid
pulse ( 100 ns ) to heat the surface of a thin ( 0.5mm ) wire with a small
rugby-ball-shaped void filled with deuterium/tritium.  The sudden pulse of
power should vapourize the outside of the wire fast enough to generate and
drive a symmetric shock wave into the centre.
 
There are advantages and disadvantages to doing things this way.  The obvious
disadvantage is we cannot get spherical symmetry so we have to work harder at
getting up the pressures.  The advantages are that electrical pulse generators
are a lot more efficient than lasers; the electrical energy will tend to
spread itself evenly as resistance increases with temperature, high power
light tends to focus itself; and because we are driving the current from the
ends, we do not need to drive our beam through a cloud of absorbent plasma.
 
Could you get experimental fusion this way?  There are megajoule pulsed power
sources that discharge in a few tens of ns. There is enough energy to drive
an implosion.  But could the convergence be controlled well enough?
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / Jed Rothwell /  Hot Fusion Info Source
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Info Source
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:45:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Arthur Blair asked about the current status of hot fusion research. He
specifically asked me not to comment, because he knows what I think. So I
won't repeat my opinion, but I will recommend that he contact the Hot Fusion
Lobby in Washington directly. They will send you a ton of detailed and
accurate information. Contact:
 
Fusion Power Associates
2 Professional Drive
Suite 248
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
 
Tel: 301-258-0545
Fax: 301-975-9869
E-mail: CompuServe 72570,707
 
You might as well get all you can out of these people, because you are paying
for them, indirectly. You pay taxes, which pay for the hot fusion labs, which
throw a few crumbs to these people in order to ensure the cycle continues.
That's how Washington works. That's no my opinion either, its common
knowledge.
 
For information on the Hot Fusion program in Japan, contact this man, who is
at Hot Fusion headquarters:
 
Dr. Hideo Ikegami
National Institute for Fusion Science (That's "Hot Fusion")
Nagoya, Japan 464-01
 
I have some beautiful brochures showing the Japanese NIFS Tokamacs now under
construction, but they are all in Japanese.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Feynman on superconductivity
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Feynman on superconductivity
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:52:07 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the excellent summary of superconductivity
history that Richard Kirk (rak@crosfield.co.uk) gave in sci.physics.fusion
posting <1993Jul20.094718.4796@crosfield.co.uk>.
 
So let me supplement his summary with something from Richard Feynman, who
deals in his own unique way with why cold metals form superconductors.
I might note that the key premise that got this pariticular thread rolling
was my assertion of the following:
 
    "All charged-particle boson condensates are superconducting."
 
So let's see what Dr. Feynman has to say on this issue.  The following
quotes are from his Lectures III, Section 21-5, "Superconductivity":
 
    "... It took a very long time to understand what was going on inside
    of superconductors, and I will only describe enough of it for our
    present purposes.  It turns out that due to the interactions of the
    electrons with the vibrations of the atoms in the lattice, there is
    a small net effective _attraction_ between the electrons.  The result
    is that the electrons form together, if I may speak very qualitatively
    and crudely, bound pairs.
 
       "Now you know that a single electron is a Fermi particle.  But a
    bound pair would act as a Bose particle, because if I ecchange both
    electrons in a pair I change the sign of the wave function twice, and
    that means I don't change anything.  A pair _is_ a Bose particle.
 
       "The energy of pairing -- that is, the net attraction -- is very,
    very weak.  Only a tiny temperature is needed to throw the electrons
    apart by thermal agitation, and convert them back into "normal"
    electrons."  But when you make the temperature sufficiently low that
    they have to do their very best to get into the absolutely lowest
    state; then they do collect in pairs.
 
       "I don't wish you to imagine that the [Cooper] pairs are really held
    together very closely like a point particle.  As a matter of fact, one
    of the great difficulties of understanding this phenomena originally
    was that this is not the way things are.  The two electrons which form
    the pair are really spread over a considerable distance; and the mean
    distance between pairs is relatively smaller than the size of a single
    pair.  Several pairs are occupying the same space at the same time...
 
        ...
 
       "Since electron pairs are bosons, when there are a lot of them in
    a given state there is an especially large amplitude for other pairs
    to go to the same state.  So nearly all of the pairs will be locked
    down at the lowest energy in _exactly the same state_ -- it won't be
    easy to get one of them into another state.  There's more amplitude to
    go into _ the same state than into an unoccupied state by the famous
    factor Vn, where n is the occupancy of the lowest state.  So we would
    expect all the pairs to be moving in the same state."
 
 
The above is only a brief excerpt, of course, and I heartily recommend that
anyone interested in reading up on superconductivity be sure to take a look
at Section 21-5 of the Feynman Lectures III.  As far as I could tell, it
would appears likely that Dr. Feynman would have agreed with the premise
that the key precondition for superconductivity is the formation of a boson
condensate of charged particles -- and that a boson condensate of deuterons
_if it could be made to exist at all_ would necessarily be superconducting.
 
 
So methinks I'll stand by my original premise, even without doing a single
calculation about it.  Why?  Priorities.  I very strongly suspect that it's
the ultimately boson condensation effect that holds it all together in all
forms of superconductivity (including the high-temperature ceramics), and
that other issues will ultimately prove to be secondary "working it out"
features rather than prerequisites.
 
 
[Examples of such secondary issues?  Phonon interactions.  They are just
one of _several possible techniques_ for creating a reservoir of charged
boson quasiparticles -- but nothing more!  If a particle is already a
boson and can condense, phonon interactions are largely irrelevant.
 
What are some of the "several possible techniques" other than phonons?
Why solitons of course!  When they "fracture" fermions into half-charged
kinks and antikinks (hmm... is Jesse Helms an "antikink"?), the resulting
particles are bosons.  Thus you could in theory create a superconductor by
using media such as polyacetylene that are loaded with bose statistics
kink-antikink pairs.  I think there was some searching for that sort of
thing once, but it apparently never got anywhere.]
 
...
 
By the way, regarding Richard's last comment:
 
  [Terry said:]
> | TIME TO RE-EXAMINE Pd(Hx,Dy) SUPERCONDUCTIVITY LITERATURE?
> |
> | Incidentally, a rather odd form of superconductivity is _already_ known
> | to exist for some Pd(Hx,Dy) compounds.  It's probably just the ordinary
> | Cooper based form, but who knows?  Some of you out there who like
> | digging around in libraries might be able to come up with a new
> | interpretion of superconductivity in (say) PdDx as being _deuteron_
> | based, rather than electron based.  Might make a _nice_ paper IF it just
> | happened to be true, hmm?
>
> You will still have electrons around, won't you?  So any deuteron-phonon
> interaction will be dwarfed by the electon-deuteron interaction.  Gut
> feeling tells me this goes as (e/m)^2, but I may be wrong.
 
Again, my proposal is that _no_ phonon interaction is needed _if_ d+ ions
are able to bose condense within a metal lattice.  The main problems should
be the heavy mass (meaning about 2000 times higher density of states -- not
good!) and the complex relationship of such ions to the metal lattice.
 
By the way, 3He forms pairs and consequently bose condenses into a super-
fluid at temperatures in the millionth of a degree K range.  If even such
comparatively large and contrary particles can bose condense at sufficiently
low temperatures, I'd still say that some searching for the possibility of
d+ superconductors at extremely low temperatures might at least be worth a
literature search, and possibly some actual experiments.
 
                                Apabistia,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:26:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9307211334.AA16124@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: X-rays or special pleading
 Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU aka blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=ms "Where is your proof that X-rays must be there in the solid state?
=ms    Why X-rays and not gamma rays?"
=  "In his defense of the M. Miles use of film packs for radiation detection
= Mitchell Swartz continues to play the old "we don't know nothing about
= solid state" game, but he is holding a losing hand."
 
   First, Dick, Mel Miles published several controls of his films which
 demonstrated activity when helium-4 was generated.  To his credit, Mel
 used a simple and sensitive detector.  It they are used properly, such
 detectors have use.
   Second, we know a lot about the solid state, but not a lot about cold
 fusion reaction(s) in the solid state.
 
 
= "What is the basis for Steve Jones' assertion that
= energetic charged particles moving in a solid must produce X-rays? "
 
   Uhh, Dick, what it says is: "that X-rays must be there in a solid".
    If an energetic charged particle is moving in a solid, or moving
     at all, it will radiate.   In fact, as we've mentioned more than
     a few times impact beam experiments are well-known as are much of
     their, not necessarily applicable, physics.
 
 
= "What I suggest as one of the rules is
= the simple notion that an energetic ion moving through a solid material
= does not remember how it came to be in that state."
 
  Ok.  Energetic particles are not sentient, or if they are, they have
        retrograde amnesia upon transport down crystalline lattices....
          exactly where does this lead to?
 
=   "To be specific,
=  an alpha particle with a kinetic energy of say 1 MeV behaves the same
=  whether it results from a CF reaction, from the decay of a radioisotope
= imbeded in the solid, or from an external beam of particles striking the
= solid."
 
    True, but where have you found evidence of this sentient,
     memory-handicapped, 1 MeV-kinetic energy alpha particle?
     Are you certain you are apportioning the energy transfer correctly?
    Do you feel confident that you know all of the reactants and products
     in the solid state?     May we see your calculation?
 
 
= "The second question is really intrigues me since it was ask in the
= context of a discussion of the Miles results.  Are you suggesting,
= Mitchell, that Miles film packs may be detecting gamma rays rather
= than X-rays?  If so I think you are lending support to Steve's
= notion that a spectrometer should be employed for these types
= of investigations.  If the radiation is worth detecting as part
= of establishing CF as a nuclear reaction process then it must
= be worth indentifying and quantifying properly!  Film just is not going
= to do that job.
 
   Yes. Such ionizing radiations are defined by where they are generated,
      and clues to the difference do come from the spectral signature(s).
      Dick, what I said was that:
 
=ms "IMHO it was not said that "dental"  X-ray film is the "favorite"
=ms   detector, or "the" best  means in favor.  What was said is that:
=ms
=ms       '1) such films are universally available, and
=ms       2) if appropriate measures  are taken for both adequate cassetting
=ms  and other issues (feel free to call  if you are interested)  such
=ms  recordings offer significant time- and space-integration.  Both
=ms  instruments are good, but each has individual separate features.'
=ms                    ***
=ms   "The issue has been: each testing proceedure has its advantage.
=ms
=ms              FILM RECORDER                    SPECTROPHOTOMETER
=ms    Ease of use and wide area coverage vs. more difficult calibration and
=ms                                           better energy resolution"
   [mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz), Subject: Steve Jones: compelling
    X-ray data?; Message-ID: <CA9wAM.I1@world.std.com>; Fri, 16 Jul 1993]
 
      Each has its advantages.   Symbiosis.
 
 
= "Of course before any sense can be made of the Miles helium + radiation
= results we have to figure out some of the details of the mechanism.
= Mitchell proposes D + D + nD + ? -> He4 + phonons.  I don't understand
= what this is supposed to indicate in detail since by the rules I
= am familiar with it takes only 2 D's to make a He4, but supposing
= there is away by which He4 gets made with some excess energy then what?
= I have this picture of a He4 all excited with 23 MeV or so.  How do
= you couple that to phonons?"
 
   Perhaps, there is a sign over the main door of Lattice Central, posted by
   the Chief Managerial Maxwell demon therein, as a warning to the other
   inhabiting demons of Maxwell, and it reads:
                                               "Its the lattice, stupid"
 
 
=  "I have heard all sorts of special pleading
=  saying that it doesn't emit protons, neutrons, or gammas just because
=  the CF crowd doesn't want it to, but inhibiting its normal decays is
=  only half the problem.  How do you make those phonons?"
 
    If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, grab it Dick.
    Just encourage the duck to quack.  (just kidding, or are you?)
 
             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                              mica@world.std.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 18:41:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Message-ID: <CAIz3p.LJ5@world.std.com>
 Subject: X-rays or special pleading
  I miswrote
 
   "If an energetic charged particle is moving in a solid, or
moving at all, it will radiate."
 
That should have been "or rather changing its movement at all, ..".
   Sorry for inadvertantly carrying the previous sentence.
 
                                             Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Quid
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Quid
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 07:34:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) in FD 1198:
<...>
>  A quid is also collquial Australian for a dollar (AUD .. one of).
 
No no no no. It is true that I haven't lived in Australia for any length of
time for the last so many years, but the only way I have ever heard "quid"
used for the AU$ was a sort of wry pointer to the good old days when we had
pounds, shillings and pence, and children had to spend many hours in school
learning that arithmetic (20 shillings/pound, 12 pence per shilling). We got
dollars, as I say, in about 1967, and felt grown-up at last. Aussies love to
emulate USAmericans, so nowadays you hear "buck" a lot.
 
Apart from the cultural cringe aspect of the new unit, the dollar was a bad
choice, because in the days of the pound, "dollar" was used colloquially to
denote 5 shillings, and the new unit was equal to half a pound, or 10s. All
very confusing, I'll admit. I think they should have simply decimalised the
pound, as the pommies did. Please excuse this further digression.
 
Back to hard science [sic] now.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 07:35:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) in FD 1198:
 
<....>
>We could link a large pulse power source ( megajoules ) to produce a rapid
>pulse ( 100 ns ) to heat the surface of a thin ( 0.5mm ) wire with a small
>rugby-ball-shaped void filled with deuterium/tritium.  The sudden pulse of
>power should vapourize the outside of the wire fast enough to generate and
>drive a symmetric shock wave into the centre.
 
This is one that John Logajan can do one Saturday afternoon, after he has
disposed of his ticking bomb. I'll bet you're walking around in slippers,
mate. Seriously, how about putting a hefty steel saucepan over that cell, so
that if it does go off (as it will, says Karol Hladky), the bits get slowed
down a bit? Or have you buried it in your garden? You'd have to be pretty game
to move it at all, eh?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Vigier Theory, Recombination
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vigier Theory, Recombination
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 03:39:54 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Jonathon
>Jones and I have in recent weeks and months pointed out that 700% xs heat can
>be calculated using the standard formula (used by R. Mills, Noninski, Mel
>Miles, etc...) which ignores recombination and contains in the denominator:
>  I * (Vin - Vo), where I and Vin are input current and voltage, and Vo is the
>thermoneutral potential, 1.48V for H2O.  Jonathon has shown that when Vin is
>*close* to Vo, and recombination is occurring but ignored,
>large values of xs heat can be calculated.
 
But disussion of this small denominator effect is to be found in the
archives of this very forum which precedes the Jones^2 announcement of same.
I remember this, because I was one of those who proposed it.  I also
announced that I had measured a 23% recombination rate of gases before the
Jones et al discovery of approximately the same magnitude.
 
Investigators who ignore the information content of this forum do so at
their own peril. :-)
 
>only R. Mills clearly shows xs heat > I*V
>according to Jonathon.  And this claim *has* been faced squarely, Dieter:
>Jonathon posits that the large xs heat claimed by Mills stems in part from
>recombination and in part from Mills used of *pulsed* input power which is
>difficult to integrate accurately.
 
The pulsed input power is something to be considered, but Farrell has
rather emphatically stated that Mills gets output powers greater than
ten times I*V without the Vin-Vo correction!
 
Now of course that doesn't prove there is any excess heat, but to keep
dragging recombination into it is ludicrous.  Mills and Farrell have
climbed themselves out on a rather more precarious limb than mere
recombination.  If you're going to cut them down, you might as well start
sawing on the right branch.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #2 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #2 Cell 4A6
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 21:15:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #2 Cell 4A6                                 22 July 93
 
Many exciting things have been happening.
 
1) A 3000 joule pop.
 
2) Some interesting data for Robert Bernecky.
 
3) Some data that I do not understand.
 
I will add more on 1) and 3) later.  For now, I urge you all to plot the
temperature vs time and power into the cell vs time data of item 2).
 
 
1) A 3000 joule pop.
 -------------------
 
Here is the log entry from 1322410 seconds into run 4A6:
 
'A very large pulse about 3 hours back - printer paper jam so some printer data
is missing.  Of order 3kj.  Started up slowly at first, then at slope of about
4 kj per hour or about 1 watt.  Lost 4 cc of gas in process.  Was at about 68
or 1.03 now at 65.77 or .998 TCELL was at (aprox.) 34.2 before event, now at
37.03 and just sitting there.  Because of program set up we are just sitting
at ICHDTOP of -0.7842  PAVG/50 now 7.204 vs 7.238 for balance.  Got to 6.685
on dip.  POWER got to 6.354 on print out, lower on screen.  Event at about
7:20 AM.  Event started about 2 hours before the big pop."
 
 
2) Some interesting data for Robert Bernecky.
 --------------------------------------------
 
The next entry after the above was at 1355230:
 
"Have been sitting at constant current -0.7814 since bump this morning caused
cell to heat up.  About 2 1/2 hours back an interesting cell temperature bump.
Cell slowly went up 1 degree over 1 hr.  ending with 2 C spike over two
minutes.  But no large net energy.  Set SCELDRV to -0.7 to try to cool down to
34 C for next ramp up (but the program set it back to where it was - at
-0.85).  Note spike at end of ramp up of TCEL took place at 39 C!"
 
Time zero in the data below is roughly 1356310 seconds into run 4A6.  These
are the numbers as written in the log book.  I make no claims that all the
digits are significant.  I started taking data at time point 20 after
observing that it appeared that a previous interesting point would be
repeated.  The time column is in minutes.  The points at 0 and 10 were taken
from the on line graphical data.  In general the numerical data is good to one
part in 20,000.  The 0.01 place of the temperatures is at least precise,
though likely not accurate.  The cell operation generates a lot of noise, at
this operating point the on line power computation indicates about 50 mw of
noise.  There is every reason to believe that the voltage and current readings
are accurate to a mv, ma, or below.  It is just that the cell operation
produces large variations.  Don't worry about the sign on the current, the way
the data is taken results in an anode to cathode (conventional) current being
negative.  Time is the time in minutes from the above arbitrary starting
point.  TCELL is from a thermometer in the electrolyte inside a glass tube
positioned above the cathode.  VCEL is the cell voltage.  ICEL is the cell
current.  PCELL is the E*I product to save you all work.
 
Time    TCELL   VCEL    ICEL    PCELL
 
0       36.5
10      36.5
20      37.77   5.6116
21      37.92   5.5999 -0.7792  4.363
22      38.12   5.5856 -0.7951  4.441
23      38.29   5.6240 -0.7691  4.325
24      38.51   5.6034 -0.7852  4.400
25      38.73   5.6036 -0.7808  4.375
26      38.94   5.6092 -0.7784  4.366
27      39.73   5.6311 -0.7723  4.349
28      47.54   5.4628 -0.8024  4.383
29      51.62   5.4817 -0.7603  4.168
30      45.30   5.5548 -0.7670  4.260
31      40.81   5.6443 -0.7870  4.442
32      37.96   5.6994 -0.8098  4.611
33      36.22   5.7138 -0.8100  4.628
34      35.12   5.6839 -0.8042  4.571
35      34.42   5.6610
36      33.94
 
After this data there is the following entry at 1357630:
 
"Above event seemed to cause run away gas condition.  Now big (-) ah
indicating we are losing gas conversion energy.  20 cc moved into aux syringe.
0 on syringe is now 40 cc net gas."
 
This is as far as I wrote data in the log book.  Everything is on the floppy
disk at one minute intervals.
 
To interpret the above data, there is about 30 cc of electrolyte in the cell.
In order for the temperature to rise the indicated 7.81 C between points 27
and 28 requires an input of:
 
1)       7.18 C * 30 grams * 4.1 joules / gram - C = 883 joules
 
2)       883 joules /minute / 60 seconds /minute = 14.7 watts
 
3)       14.7 watts /0.1 cc cathode volume = 147 watts per cc cathode
 
The above is just for fun.  There is nothing in the experiment that keeps the
above data from being chemistry.  There is also no real indication that it
is chemistry.  I can not without a lot of work say whether there was a real
net energy gain from this event.  The cathode likely outgassed after the peak
temperature was reached, and the resulting transient to the catalyst is hard
to unscramble.  But most probably there was a 200 joule net gain.  Note also
that the 30 gram water content of the cell does not tell the whole story.  I
have measured that the specific heat equivalent seen by the thermometer is
likely 5x or so of the water content, so the indicated energy transient is
likely much larger.
 
So, all you chemists out there, how could this be chemistry???
 
3) Some data that I do not understand.
 -------------------------------------
 
It has seemed to me that I could consider that my calorimeter was a conduction
calorimeter inside a null balance calorimeter.  Thus I started taking
appropriate data to measure the conduction calorimeter constant while the cell
was being rapped up.  The run started at a cell temperature of 28.1 C at zero
cell current.  Here is some but not all of the data:
 
Point    Time            TCEL    ICEL    VCEL    dt      PCEL    k
1        919210          28.88  -0.1650  2.9303  0.78    0.179   3.38
2        972370          29.93  -0.2699  3.5865  1.83    0.555   3.30
3        1055110         31.61  -0.4290  4.2490  3.51    1.166   3.01
4        1140250         32.15  -0.5373  4.5574  4.05    1.627   2.49
5        1233490         32.22  -0.7108  5.0368  4.12    2.492   1.65
6        1281610         33.33  -0.8067  5.8543  5.23    3.488   1.50
7        1355590         36.76  -0.7979  5.5577  8.66    3.213   2.69
8        1396210         32.80  -0.7149  5.3386  4.70    2.723   1.73
 
Now this is strange data indeed.  Jed Rothwell has taught us that such a cell
tied to a heat sink is linear with power in.  The cell constant here varies
over more than a 2/1 range.  So the first observation is that we must beware
of conduction calorimetry.  But why?  Fortunately there is the null balance
calorimeter to give the correct answer. (I more than hope, I have tested it
every way I can think of.)  First be aware that the power computation above
takes the 1.53*I correction.  The power from the dis-association of water
appears above the cell in the catalyst, so contributes little to the cell
liquid heat.  There is some coupling, but it is minimal, but I do not have a
measurement at the moment to prove it.  This can be somewhat sorted out later
using the data from the catalyst thermometer.
 
The likely explanation is that there are changes in circulation due to the
vigorous electrolysis.  The data above would support better conduction to the
spool as the current is increased.  For those not familiar with the
calorimeter, the 3 cm dia by 15 cm tall polyproplyene test tube is inserted in
an aluminum close fitting spool shaped piece.  Walls are about 2 cm thick.
Heaters in the walls are backed off to keep the null balance as the cell
current increase puts moree E*I power into the cell.
 
But then what of point 7 above?  It was taken during the start of the run up
shown in section 2).  Seems to me that something very strange is going on.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Why constant current
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why constant current
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 21:15:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Let me try to explain further why I run at constant current.  I am beginning
to accumulate evidence that cathods sometime unload quickly.  My fear is that
if run at constant voltage, an increase in cell impedance (say due to a bubble)
will cause a decrease in current density.  This could cause the cathode to
further unload, increase the impedance still more, and the loading would
spiral down to some low value.  Now as I write this I detect the flaw in this
writing (the remaining cathode area still has the same impedance per square
even if the over all cell impedance has gone up.)  But even so, the constant
current approach keeps all the Japanese train stuffers pushing the D into
the lattice at the same rate, so I prefer constant current.
 
Now as to the constant current source bandwidth, the present apparatus does
not lend itself to blinding speed (say 10 MHz) in the constant current source.
So I go to the other extreem and run well below the Nyquist limit.  Don't
mess with Mr. In Between, I was taught during WWII.
 
Some day the present calorimeter will go into the trash and I will do it right!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / John Logajan /  Re: More on Vigier theory
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Vigier theory
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 20:16:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>H or D ions "which rotate rapidly in stable type Bohr orbits around an
>electron squeezed between them."  He calculates that for the p-p-e system,
>the ground-state energy is 28.1 keV, and it's 56.2 keV for the d-d-e system.
 
I take it that the phrase "ground-state energy" means that is how much
energy is liberated when the three bodies fall from the equivalent of
infinity into the three body bound state -- just like one would say that
the neutral H atom has a 13.6 eV ground state?
 
Clearly such a compound particle would be stable, since the energy hole
it creates is so deep in comparison to local thermal and chemical agitations.
And just like MKF's shrunken hydrogen, there ought to exist such particles
in the natural background -- though I don't understand how they could
form a neutral free particle -- so perhaps they must preferentially co-exist
in the neighborhood of metal wandering electron supplies -- stickyons.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: Vigier Theory, Recombination
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Vigier Theory, Recombination
Date: 21 Jul 93 13:48:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <01H0RFHWI4AA9PO64O@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk
(Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> In FD 1136, Norman H. Redington asks about the "Vigier theory" mentioned in
> a C&E article (shortly to be abstracted). The article says that the theory
> "involves atoms with 'very tight electron orbits' and predicts that soft
> x-rays should be emitted".
>
> Does anyone know where Vigier has stated this theory? Was it in print, a
> paper, perhaps? It sounds to me as if he has taken the M&F thing on board,
> with the addition of x-ray emissions.
 
Yes:   Vigier states this theory in the recent Proceedings of the Nagoya
conference on cold fusion, p.325-334.  I find this is not an adoption of the
Mills & Farrell notion of "shrunken hydrogen atoms".
A few quotations from Vigier's paper:
 
"The first class of new facts now experimentally related with new current
properties in condensed matter have been known foand confirmed for some time.
They are known to specialists as consequences of the action fo the "Ampere
Forces"...[A] longitudinal force in gazeous [sic] liquid and solid conductors
has ... the evident consequences [sic] of creating standing longitudinal
current concentrations in conductors i.e. to split them into string [sic] of
beads which interrupt the current at high intensities.  This creation of
strings of (repulsive) current concentrations correspond to the nodes of the
longitudinal standing waves of wavelength 1/n (with n integer)..."
 
This 1/n is evidently distinct from that used by M&F.  More:
 
"...the existence of the current beads on the behaviour of ionized ions i.e.
the creation of hitherto unknown very tightly bound states H+ + H+ +e- = H2+
[with a bar over the H2+] and D+ + D+ + e- = D2+ [barred] states which
correspond to the combination of two ions which rotate rapidly in stable type
Bohr orbits around an electron squeezed between them.  This new type three body
system corresponds to a new unknown quasi-molecular state..."
 
Definitely not Mills-Farrell theory.  More from Vigier, who incidentally
is the Phys. Lett. editor who sponsored the P&F paper recently in Phys. Lett.:
 
"This configuration naturally arises when the Ampere force cuts the current
into beads in a capillary since the situation of the ions then resembles what
happens to fas going cars which crash successively into each other during a
slowdown (accident) on a modern highway.  This situation is very different from
the usual quantum mechanical interpretation of chemical phenomena..."
 
Indeed.
 
"This model implies evident consequences -- evidently the excess heat energy
obtained with H2+ is one fourth of the amount obtained with D2+ [barred]."
 
Interesting.  As with Mills-Farrell, experimental evidence is sadly lacking:
"New experiments are urgently needed [to]...look at clustering theoretically and
experimentally and look for radiation emitted by H2+ [barred] and D2+ [barred]."
 
Good luck.
 
> While we're on the subject of M&F, I'd like to ask, for the umpteenth time,
> Prof. Farrell to clearly explain his reasons for rejecting a closed cell. A
> long time ago, he vaguely said something about the hydrinos being "scavenged"
> by the recombination catalyst. I never have understood this. The source of
> the excess heat, as I understand it, is the drop of an electron to
> sub-basement levels; the expected x-rays (even Vigier expects them) are
> somehow turned into plain heat - nothing escapes - but never mind. My point is
> that once this has happened, why should it matter that the resulting hydrino
> gets scavenged at a later time? Prof. Farrell, please explain. It may be that
> this is simply an experimental observation, i.e. that you don't get the excess
> heat with a closed-system cell, and don't have a real explanation. That would
> be OK, but I'd like to see a definite statement. I have asked many times.
 
I await Dr. Farrell's answer also.
 
> To keep things balanced and fair: the above is of course a complaint about the
> apparent evasion, by Prof. Farrell, of this point. Another evasion I have
> noted is the silence from those skeptics who explain excess heat as due to
> recombination not accounted for, in the face of the fact that some results
> claim several multiples of the recombination heat. I have seen this pointed
> out many times by different TB's, and note that this tends to be ignored. If
> you want to knock down excess heat, you have to face all the issues squarely.
 
Touche.  However, our postings have *not* been silent on these points.  Jonathon
Jones and I have in recent weeks and months pointed out that 700% xs heat can
be calculated using the standard formula (used by R. Mills, Noninski, Mel
Miles, etc...) which ignores recombination and contains in the denominator:
  I * (Vin - Vo), where I and Vin are input current and voltage, and Vo is the
thermoneutral potential, 1.48V for H2O.  Jonathon has shown that when Vin is
*close* to Vo, and recombination is occurring but ignored,
large values of xs heat can be calculated.  So in order to determine whether
claimed xs heat is really greater than I*V, we must first examine whether the
researchers have properly accounted for or (preferably) eliminated
recombination (as with a *closed cell* as you mention above again),
AND we need to know the values of Vin if recombination was not precluded.
 
Jonathon has searched papers by R. Mills, Bush, Notoya, Noninski, Bush,
Srinivasan  -- only R. Mills clearly shows xs heat > I*V
according to Jonathon.  And this claim *has* been faced squarely, Dieter:
Jonathon posits that the large xs heat claimed by Mills stems in part from
recombination and in part from Mills used of *pulsed* input power which is
difficult to integrate accurately.  An experiment to test Jonathon's hypothesis
is under consideration, but we have heard that a test of Mills' experiment
apparently with Mills participation is currently underway in Canada.
>
 
> Incidentally, it must be said that in FPALH-90, the authors do say that they
> checked for recombination and find it to be negligible. It is not true,
> therefore, as posted a while ago, that noone checks this.
 
Certainly we did not post that no one checks for recombination.  But measuring
effluent gases is difficult and may introduce other problems.  Therefore, we
agree with you, Dieter, that the logical solution is to use a *closed* system.
We are also puzzled why Mills, Farrell, Srinivasan, etc. fail to do this
important check.
 
> My apologies for the omission of proper quotes and attributions; I have just
> returned from holidays and had something like 70 emails waiting, most of it
> FD's. There were so many files that I had to print&wipe, to keep within my
> disk quota, and am working from print-outs.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Welcome back.
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  More on Vigier theory
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Vigier theory
Date: 21 Jul 93 14:21:43 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I've been reading more of the Vigier paper in the Nagoya proceedings,
and find that he suggests that excess heat comes from the formation of the two
H or D ions "which rotate rapidly in stable type Bohr orbits around an
electron squeezed between them."  He calculates that for the p-p-e system,
the ground-state energy is 28.1 keV, and it's 56.2 keV for the d-d-e system.
He suggests this can "account for the excess heat released  without
appreciable fusion contribution."  Moreover, the theory explains xs heat in
both light and heavy water cases.  He suggests that screening may "help fusion
tunnelling in some cases", thus leading to some yield of neutrons also.
 
I must admit he is trying hard to accomodate various experiments under one
umbrella.  I certainly question the existence of the putative
three-body-systems with protons or deuterons "which rotate rapidly in stable
type Bohr orbits around an electron squeezed between them," and the
large binding energies which he posits.  He admits there is *no* experimental
evidence for them, and calls for "a big theoretical open minded effort."
 
Good luck.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: RE: Quid
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE: Quid
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 93 16:56:39 BST

In <01H0U68X7L1U9PNZP8@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz writes:
>Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) in FD 1198:
><...>
>>  A quid is also collquial Australian for a dollar (AUD .. one of).
>
>No no no no. It is true that I haven't lived in Australia for any length of
>time for the last so many years,
Well I _am_ Australian, and I say yes, yes, yes :-)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potentiostatic control
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 08:46:20 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
:
: Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1194:
:
: >On a different subject, why don't people run their cells under
: >potentiostatic control?
:
 
I realize that running your cell under constant current makes sense if all
that you are interested in is the heating effect of the cell current. It
surprises me that some people are not even sure what potentiostatic control
involves. Surely it would be sensible to try to set the electrode potential
against a suitable reference so that you do not get excessive hydrogen
(deuterium) gas evolution and are not using most of the energy you throw in
to simply heat up the electrolyte? What does the E-log i plot for Pd look
like? As for the 'non-control' - ?
 
I also find it interesting that the cell impedance is said to vary. Has
anyone actually measured the a.c. impedance (by EIS) of the Pd electrode and
tracked its variation with time and/or electrode potential? Why should it
vary, unless you are changing the surface in some way during the test run,
building up a film for example? Does the electrode impedance change during
the energy release period? How do people control the electrolyte composition
and pH during the run?
 
Karel
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 09:23:41 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Richard Kirk (rak@crosfield.co.uk) wrote:
: I ask this, because there are some astonishing bits of physics crammed into
: the last few nanoseconds of a light bulb's life.  As the filament necks down
: ...
: This is the pop and flash as the bulb goes.
 
Would be a bit hard to get a sustained power output out of this, wouldn't
it?
 
Karel
 
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist this quip, I have read all of your posting,
honest!)
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 11:54:05 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

In article <01H0U6GX37BM9PO7M9@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>This is one that John Logajan can do one Saturday afternoon, after he has
>disposed of his ticking bomb. I'll bet you're walking around in slippers,
>mate.
 
Erm (pauses to look), no - Doc Martens' actually.  Does that upset your
theory?  No no - I'm interrupting, rude of me, do go on...
 
>Seriously, how about putting a hefty steel saucepan over that cell, so
>that if it does go off (as it will, says Karol Hladky), the bits get slowed
>down a bit? Or have you buried it in your garden? You'd have to be pretty game
>to move it at all, eh?
 
A neat pulsed power source is a slab of pietzo crystal plus a slab
of plastic explosive.  Neat, but it's even harder to get off the saucepan
than burnt egg, and it leaves a funny taste.
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 /  kjohnson@athen /  Origin of heat in "cold fusion"
     
Originally-From: kjohnson@athena.mit.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Origin of heat in "cold fusion"
Subject:The origin of heat in "cold fusion" experiments.
Date: 22 Jul 1993 13:18:12 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

To:sci.physics.fusion
cc:
Subject:The origin of heat in "cold fusion" experiments.
 
To the "cold fusion" community:  Here is the abstract of a paper I will
present at the Hawaii Conference next December.  I hope it will help
clarify the origin of heat in "cold fusion" experiments.
 
SYMMETRY BREAKING AND HYDROGEN ENERGY IN PdDx
 
K.H. Johnson
Department of Materials Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
 
In a 1989 publication [1], Johnson and Clougherty proposed a common
quantum-chemical origin of superconductivity and anomalous electrochemical
properties of palladium loaded with hydrogen and deuterium, based on the
presence of delocalized interstitial H-H/D-D bonding molecular orbitals at
the Fermi energy (EF).  Highly non-linear symmetry-breaking dynamic
Jahn-Teller vibrations of the protons/deuterons, induced by the H-H/D-D
molecular-orbital degeneracy at EF, promote Cooper pairing and
superconductivity in PdHx/PdDx (x = 1) below Tc = 9/10K, while the large
vibronic anharmonicity explains the inverse H/D isotope shift of Tc and
departure from BCS theory [1].  Dynamic Jahn-Teller-induced deuteron
vibronic amplitudes up to 0.5A were calculated, leading to a maximum D-D
approach of 0.7A and an upper limit of 5 x 10**(-24) fusion per deuteron pair
per second in PdDx at room temperature for high loading (x = 1) [1].  This
calculated fusion rate in PdD, although much greater than that (10**(-70)) of
free D2 molecules and consistent with the low levels of neutrons reported in
cold fusion experiments, is much too small to explain the excess heat energy
(at least 10eV per Pd atom) claimed in some of these experiments.
 
In this paper, I present the results of recent state-of-the-art ab initio
quantum-chemical computations for the potential energy surface of PdDx, in
the high-loading limit, and their implications on heat production.  For
locally high loadings, significant numbers of fcc-palladium tetrahedral
interstitial sites are occupied [2], and degenerate D-D bonding molecular
orbitals between neighboring tetrahedral interstices are computed at EF.
Electronic wavefunction contour maps of these orbitals reveal the
"compression" of the tetrahedral-site D(1s) orbitals by nearest-neighbor
antibonding Pd(4d) and octahedral-site D(1s) orbitals, promoting D(1s)-D(1s)
"sigma-bond" overlap and relaxation between tetrahedral interstices.  The
corresponding D-D potential energy surface in palladium resembles a "Mexican
Hat".  The high-symmetry (Td) coordination of a Pd atom by D atoms in four of
the eight surrounding fcc-palladium tetrahedral interstices is Jahn-Teller
unstable, resulting in a shallow central energy minimum at the "crown" of the
"Mexican Hat" for a distorted tetrahedral (C3v) symmetry, and a much deeper
energy minimum 9.4eV below Td symmetry at the "brim" of the "Mexican Hat"
for the planar "broken symmetry" (D2h) with shortened D-D bond distance of
0.76A.  The latter distance is practically equal to the 0.74A bond distance
in a free hydrogen molecule.  The 9.4eV energy per Pd atom released in the
Jahn-Teller distortion of each PdH4 cluster from tetrahedral (Td) to planar
(D2h) symmetry is likewise remarkably close to the sum of the chemical bond
energies (4.75eV) of two free hydrogen molecules.  Thus, for high loading,
the tetrahedral interstices of fcc palladium provide, via the Jahn-Teller
effect, an "orbital pathway" for the bulk catalytic recombination of rapidly
diffusing D atoms to D2 "molecules", the large chemical heat of recombination
approaching 10eV per Pd atom.  This mechanism also explains reported heat
production in light-water cells using nickel electrodes, where the catalytic
recombination of hydrogen is mainly a (110) surface phenomenon.  Heat
production in light-water cells by the Jahn-Teller effect was originally
predicted by Johnson and Clougherty in 1989.
 
1. K.H. Johnson and D.P. Clougherty, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 3, 795 (1989).
2. F.A. Lewis, The Palladium Hydrogen System (Academic Press, 1967), p.155.
 
Postscript: It should be noted that all of the principles underlying the
above theory are standard ones of quantum physics and chemistry.  There
is no need to introduce far-out, unphysical concepts such as "shrunken
atoms" and elusive nucleon reactions.  Also, this theory allows for a very low
level of D-D fusion and neutron production by the dynamic Jahn-Teller effect,
albeit without any significant contribution to heat production.  Finally, the
D2 molecules produced by the symmetry breakings could be erroneously identified
as 4He species.
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith Johnson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkjohnson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / N Redington /  Implosions?/Vigier Theory
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Implosions?/Vigier Theory
Date: 22 Jul 1993 15:27:37 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jul21.130639.4917@crosfield.co.uk>, rak@crosfield.co.uk
(Richard Kirk) writes:
|> Has anyone every tried using pulsed electrical power instead of laser power
|> to drive an implosion?  And if so, did anything ever come of it?
|>
|> I ask this, because there are some astonishing bits of physics crammed into
|> the last few nanoseconds of a light bulb's life.  As the filament necks down
|> it overheats and material is lost through the surface; the current that used
|> to be carried by that outer layer has to move inward, heating the next layer
|> and driving that off.  In the last few moments the last bit of material passes
|> from solid, through liquid and gas to plasma before it has much time to change
|> its density.  There is a small burst of hard thermal X-rays, then the circuit
|> is broken.  The plasma is expanding - it is too dense for the electrical field
|> to cause avalanching, but too thin to conduct.  Eventually if the supply and
|> the inductance continues to produce a potential difference across the gap,
|> you may get an avalanche discharge (or 'restrike') across the gap.  This is the
|> pop and flash as the bulb goes.
|>
|> Could you get experimental fusion this way?
 
I have two comments on this very interesting remark.
 
The first is that if I am not mistaken something at least vaguely like
this has indeed been done, and was reportedly a success. I don't
have the reference instantly at hand, but I believe the work was done
in West Germany in the '70s and involved lithium deuteride exploding
wires. The experiment either inspired or was inspired by a report
in Nature describing radiation surges during thunderstorms. Supposedly
a group in India watched a forest bombarded by lightning and concluded
that fusion was taking place within the lightning channels.
 
Secondly, it's an interesting co-incidence that this was posted
at the same time as Prof. Jones' summary of Vigier's paper at
Nagoya. From what Jones writes, it seems the Vigier theory is also
an outgrowth of exploding wire work. I will attempt to describe
below what I understand of the intellectual background to the
Vigier theory.
 
The work seems to be rooted in the conflict between Ampere's Law
as originally formulated by Ampere and the modern version of it,
derivable from Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz force law. Ampere
originally wrote that the force experienced by a current element
is not perpendicular to the first current element and to the cross
product of the second element with the distance vector; rather he
thought it always acted _along_ the line joining the two current
elements. It has usually been argued that this original version
violates special relativity.
 
In the 1980s P. & N. Graneau, T. Pappas, and others claimed to have
observed longitudinal forces between current-carrying wires, thus
verifying the original Ampere law and creating a problem for relativity
theory. (T. Pappas Nuov. Cim. B 76(189)1983; P. Graneau _Ampere-Neumann
Electrodynamics of Metals_, Hadronic Press, 1985). A typical experiment
was done with a rail-gun, (part of the Star Wars initiative!). In a
rail-gun, a projectile is launched by being accelerated up a launching
track composed of two rails bearing heavy currents. The projectile
rests on a moving conductor bridging the two rails, which therefore
experiences a Lorentz force along the direction of the track. Graneau
(J. Phys. D 20(391)1987) observed buckling of the rails which he
claimed could only be explained by a longitudinal Lorentz force.
 
So long as these ideas were presented as in explicit contradiction with
relativity they did not find much of a mainstream audience. In 1989
M. Rambaut and J.P.Vigier argued that longitudinal forces were in fact
to be expected. They observe that the Lorentz law applies to moving
charged particles in space; within a conductor the environment is very
different. Calculating the average effect of conducting electrons in
conventional Maxwellian theory, they find a longitudinal force. (Phys.
Lett. A 142(447)1989.)
 
Graneau & Graneau (Phys. Lett. A 165(1)1992 applied the now-relativist-
ically kosher Ampere Law (still, however, not widely accepted by the
physics community) to plasma physics. On this basis, they argued for
the possibility of "filament fusion" where a kind of stress is
induced by the longitudinal force. They apply the theory to
exploding wires and -aha! Here's the German experiment! W. Lochte-
Holgreven, Atomkernenergie 28(150)1976. The idea they use to explain
exploding wires is longitudinal repulsion of deuterons leading
to fracture.
 
Unfortunately this theory does not seem to predict (as far as I can
tell) one of the most documented of exploding wire phenomena, the
formation of regularly spaced necks just before the explosion. From
Prof. Jones' comments, it sounds as though Vigier's latest article
tries to address this. It is interesting that Graneau considers the
neutrons in the German experiment to be of non-thermonuclear origin
and due to fusion of the accelerated deuterons.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Hal Lillywhite /  Zero Risk (was Orgone Energy)
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero Risk (was Orgone Energy)
Date: 22 Jul 93 14:43:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <CAFGH7.6zA@news.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis) writes:
 
>>It is truly ironic that while the mission of the FDA is to save lives thru
>>drug regulation, it actually prevents the saving of lives by delaying all
>>drug introductions and preventing many others from ever being released
>>due to the prohibitive cost of 10+ year testing programs.
 
>As I recollect, there was tremendous public pressure to make sure that
>NO drug was ever released which had the slightest chance of harming
>anyone - pressure due to the thalidomide case, and others.  The hold-ups
>on release of AZT have perhaps brought us back to a more balanced view
>on pharmaceuticals, but the demand for _perfect safety_ remains a potent
>force in legislation governing the handling and transport of materials
 
True.  Unfortunately in our society it is not acceptable to take any
new risk at all.  However old risks tend to be ignored.  Witness the
reaction of Rifkin and his ilk when "cold fusion" was first
announced.  It had to be bad for the environment, never mind how
many trees it might save or how much carbon dioxide release it might
prevent.
 
I think we pay too much attention to type I risk (what bad things
might the proposed change cause) and not enough to type II risk
(what good things might we forgo if we fail to make this change).
For example suppose a drug company were to discover a drug which
would totally cure AIDS in 90% of the cases.  There is only one
problem:  In 1% of the cases it causes death within two weeks of
treatment.  Would they dare market it?  I think not, the families of
that 1% would sue and win so much that they couldn't afford to sell
the drug.  The focus would be on the 1% who had their lives
shortened (even though they were already dying), not on the 90% who
are cured nor on the non-infected people who would avoid exposure
because the cure would kill microbes they could be exposed to.
 
I wish our society would recognize that we cannot avoid all risk.
Then maybe we could rationally set about to reduce risk by trading
off (where appropriate) high risk situations for relatively lower
risks.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Terry on the Vigier theory
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry on the Vigier theory
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 17:38:23 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jul21.142143.794@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
 
> I've been reading more of the Vigier paper in the Nagoya proceedings,
> and find that he suggests that excess heat comes from the formation of
> the two H or D ions "which rotate rapidly in stable type Bohr orbits
> around an electron squeezed between them." ...
 
Dr. Vigier appears to have subtly introduced an extremely large mass
for the electron.  Once you do that, new states and further releases of
energy are of course trivial (and erroneous) to derive mathematically.
 
 
There are three major phases in the dynamical behavior of an H2+ system
that could in principle be introduced by slowly increasing the mass of the
electron.  The first phase consists of shrinkage of the the H2+ structure
(two particle-like protons enclosed by an electron standing wave) by a
factor of 1/n, where n is mass multiplication factor for the electron.
This phase would extend up to (very roughly) n = 1000.  Steven Jones muon
work shows very real examples of this first phase range, since muons have
exactly the same quantum properties as electrons except for having mass
multiplication factors of roughly n=200.  Thus mu-H2+ and mu-D2+ (and the
other isotope permutations) are dandy examples of first phase structures.
 
 
The second phase consists of three components of roughly equal mass, and
has no simple analogy to classical atomic models.  It should, however,
be somewhat akin to nuclear wavefunctions models used for 3He or tritium,
since for both of those nuclei the pair of indentical nucleons (protons
for 3He and neutrons for T) are strongly "repelled" by each other (albeit
by Fermi exclusion rather than a conventional force), and must be bound
together by the remaining nucleon.  In this second phase an accurate model
would require that all three bodies as wavefunctions, and it probably would
show significant "orbiting" behavior by _all three_ components.
 
 
The third phase would begin at (very roughly) n = 10 000 and extend out to
infinity.  It would consist of a structure very similar to H-, but with
protons replacing the electrons as the standing wave component enveloping
an extremely massive particle-like electron.  The radius of this stage would
be stable, and would be about 0.05% of that of H-.  This phase (and to a
somewhat smaller degree the other phases) would be unstable with respect to
decay (rather slowly!) into a single orbiting deuteron.  My recollection is
(this is Steve Jones turf, not mine) that this could occur only if one of
the protons captured a sufficiently energetic passing neutrino to permit
its conversion into a neutron through emission of a positron.
 
 
Dr. Vigier's proposal gives every appearance of falling within the third
phase -- that is, of electrons 10 000 times more massive than normal.  I
do not claim to understand how he proposes that the apparently macroscopic
concept of current "beads" in solid or liquid conductors would contribute
to such a magnificently bizarre (whether real or "virtual") alteration of
a fundamental constant.  But however he does it, I'm, er, _not_ impressed.
 
.....
 
This fellow helps review papers for Physics Letters A?  [Terry now leaves to
get medical assistance for tongue, very recently injured from biting it...]
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 93 05:26:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) writes:
>We could link a large pulse power source ( megajoules ) to produce a rapid
>pulse ( 100 ns ) to heat the surface of a thin ( 0.5mm ) wire with a small
>rugby-ball-shaped void filled with deuterium/tritium.
 
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>This is one that John Logajan can do one Saturday afternoon
 
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>Just kidding, John, but seriously be cautious.
 
Hey!  Who's volunteering me for these dangerous experiments? :-)
 
But seriously, I don't do hot or cold fusion experiments because I am
unskilled in the art and science of determining whether any fusion is
taking place.  Besides, I don't have a megajoule pulse source, and I doubt
I can contrive one from odds and ends at the local hardware store :-)
 
By the way, my previous "pressure cooker" experiment is now at 2850 PSI.
The gas volume of this device ( < 1 cc ) was always rather small in comparison
to the thickness of the brass block in which it was bored.  There is much
thinner gauge metal on my oxy/acet and CO2/Argon welding regulators -- with
pressures of the same general magnitude.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / mitchell swartz /  Zero Risk
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero Risk
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 23:34:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <22m91v$flq@vice.ico.tek.com>
     Subject: Zero Risk (was Orgone Energy)
 Hal F Lillywhite (hall@vice.ico.tek.com) writes:
 
== "I think we pay too much attention to type I risk (what bad things
== might the proposed change cause) and not enough to type II risk
== (what good things might we forgo if we fail to make this change)."
 
  Good point.  But note that within Type I there are subtypes.
   For example, risks that are/are not a % for most/some
   individuals.   Consider the treatment using a blowtorch for an infection.
   Very effective.  But the therapeutic gain is zero.   If the
   infection cure was, however, a new drug which caused, say,
   irreversible permanent stoppage of
   the formation of ALL blood cell production in the bone marrow in 0.01% of
   people who take it, then for those 1/10,000 people it is 100% fatal,
   but to the rest it is 0%.  How is the therapeutic gain listed now?
      Which denominator should be used?
 
 
== "For example suppose a drug company were to discover a drug which
== would totally cure AIDS in 90% of the cases.  There is only one
== problem:  In 1% of the cases it causes death within two weeks of
== treatment.  Would they dare market it?  I think not, the families of
== that 1% would sue and win so much that they couldn't afford to sell
== the drug."
 
     Exactly what will this hypothetical company do with
   their "cure" now.  Do they publish it, to the utter horror of their
   their "The Marketing Dept."?  or do they hide it?  or compromise
   and wait until their investments are returned?
       (Hmmm. I see a movie here starring Tom Cruise as an honest
   shocked bioengineer awakening after slaving away for "The BIOFIRM" where
   no-one working in their laboratories has ever "quit" The BIOFIRM
   alive after discovering the ethically-wrong "hiding" of such a cure)
 
     In the real world, as for your risk-ratio, people should get the
 chance.  eg. many surgical-radiation-chemotherapy techniques which
 cure individuals afflicated with locally advanced, but potentially
 curable, neoplasms offer a higher complication rate.  For most who are
 candidates for such treatment, it is a wise investment of risk since
 the worst complication is the disease itself.
    It would be wrong to withhold any definitive, tested, potential treatment.
 
    They way around the dilemma is obviously by honest informed consent.
 
                      Best wishes.
                                                  Mitchell Swartz
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1:  Detectors
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 20:34:15 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Jul20.180108.790@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>I will focus on the third detector
 
Fine, since I have seen articles or talks about the other two.
 
>  ...   This detector is surrounded by polyethylene moderator 28 cm in diameter
>X approx. 30 cm.  16 helium-3-filled proportional-counter tubes are embedded in
>this polyethylene, in four independent quadrants.  Two quadrants constitute an
>inner ring, two make up an outer ring.
 
Just so we are clear about this, since this does not sound like what I
would describe as "quadrants".  Are you describing a semi-circular array
of four detectors arranged in two concentric rings with the center of
the detectors at different radii in each ring?  Or are the detectors
basically in a single ring, but staggered in-and-out with every other
detector assigned to the inside ring?
 
What makes the quadrants independent?  Are they handled by separate
electronics and power supplies and gas systems?
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Vigier theory leads to what?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vigier theory leads to what?
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:33:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As I understand it Vigier proposes a rapidly orbiting pair of deuterons
around a single electron as a path to cold fusion.  Sounds like pure
BS to me, but that is of no great import.  Let the man make his wild
proposals.  My question is where does his theory take us with regard
to reactants, products, and energy transfer?  It seems the Vigier
picture introduces one added complexity, that of high angular momentum,
to the fusion process.  Unless he includes that angular momentum barrier
in his calculation of expected fusion rates I don't think he is doing
anything correctly.  Anyone who has dealt with nuclear reactions knows
that angular momentum plays a very big role in determining what reactions
occur and at what rates.
 
Regardless of how Vigier deals with the angular momentum question, it
appears that he expect fusion to yield 4He at high excitatation and
 
high angular momentum.  Let see someone figure a way to couple that
to phonons!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 /  blue@dancer.ns /  X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 14:33:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First I would like to educate Mitchell Swartz as to the mechanism by
which energetic charged particles moving in a solid produce X-rays.
He seems to think the X-rays under discussion originate from the
moving particle as a form of bremsstrahlung.  That is not the case.
The X-rays result from the recapture of electrons into low orbitals
of the lattice atoms following the knockout of those electrons by
the interaction of the passing charged particle.  Thus in Pd one
would expect to see Pd X-rays if there were energetic charged particles
moving about.
 
Now to clear up a second point.  Mitchell asks me "Are you certain you
are apportioning the energy transfer correctly?  Do you feel that you
know all of the reactants and products in the solid state?"
 
My answer to that is most certainly NO.  I don't have the foggiest idea
what the reactants, products, or energy transfer mechanisms may be.  I
would say that it is up to the CF advocates to make their hypotheses
and to include such details.  If we had just one complete hypothesis
to be put to the test of experimental science, that would represent
an advance that CF advocates have not yet been able to provide.  If
you are asserting that helium is the primary reaction product, I
challange the true believers to complete their hypotesis.  Tell us
all about the energy transfer process, predict an experimental
signature, and do the definitive experiment.  If the CF advocates
are not willing or able to carry through on such a course they are
just wasting time and resources!  The point of my previous post is
that coupling nuclear excitation energy entirely into phonons is
a major stumbling block for any theory that is going to complete
any hypothesis involving the production of free excited 4He nucleii.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.22 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Vigier Theory, Recombination/John
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vigier Theory, Recombination/John
Date: 22 Jul 93 13:25:17 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Jul22.033954.790@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Jonathon
>>Jones and I have in recent weeks and months pointed out that 700% xs heat can
>>be calculated using the standard formula (used by R. Mills, Noninski, Mel
>>Miles, etc...) which ignores recombination and contains in the denominator:
>>  I * (Vin - Vo), where I and Vin are input current and voltage, and Vo is the
>>thermoneutral potential, 1.48V for H2O.  Jonathon has shown that when Vin is
>>*close* to Vo, and recombination is occurring but ignored,
>>large values of xs heat can be calculated.
 
>
> But disussion of this small denominator effect is to be found in the
> archives of this very forum which precedes the Jones^2 announcement of same.
> I remember this, because I was one of those who proposed it.  I also
> announced that I had measured a 23% recombination rate of gases before the
> Jones et al discovery of approximately the same magnitude.
>
 
My apologies for not having noted your posting, John.  Hey, we agree on
something!  (I suppose we have before.)
 
>
>>only R. Mills clearly shows xs heat > I*V
>>according to Jonathon.  And this claim *has* been faced squarely, Dieter:
>>Jonathon posits that the large xs heat claimed by Mills stems in part from
>>recombination and in part from Mills used of *pulsed* input power which is
>>difficult to integrate accurately.
>
> The pulsed input power is something to be considered, but Farrell has
> rather emphatically stated that Mills gets output powers greater than
> ten times I*V without the Vin-Vo correction!
>
> Now of course that doesn't prove there is any excess heat, but to keep
> dragging recombination into it is ludicrous.  Mills and Farrell have
> climbed themselves out on a rather more precarious limb than mere
> recombination.  If you're going to cut them down, you might as well start
> sawing on the right branch.
>
> --
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Agreed again.  And in the Mills/Farrell case, we should find out by December
since there is now an experimental test of their bold claims in an experiment
in Canada, with Mills' assistance I understand.
 
P.S.  Mills was one of those who testified before a U.S. congressional
committee on behalf of cold fusion in light water last spring.  You're right:
he's out on a precarious limb, perhaps in deep hot water, I think.
But let's wait for the outcome of the Canadian experiment, and hold on to our
coal mines and fission plants until then.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 / Glen Dash /  Invaluable Info. Source
     
Originally-From: carlisle@world.std.com (Glen R Dash)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Invaluable Info. Source
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 01:21:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

I came across an interesting source for information on cold fusion
experiments.  Cold Fusion Times contains just about everything that is
happening in this field.  Entertaining, too.  There are contibutions by
Arthur C. Clarke, including the text of a letter he sent to the Vice
President.
 
Whatever you may think of cold fusion, I think this newsletter is worth a
look.  Available from Cold Fusion Times, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills,
MA 02181, tel. (617) 239-8383.  At $50 per year it's clearly a labor of love.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencarlisle cudfnGlen cudlnDash cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #3 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #3 Cell 4A6
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 18:38:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #3 Cell 4A6                                 23 July 93
 
I promised more info on item 1) and 3) here is a little more on 1). First Bob
Bernecky reminds me that I did not tell you all that this run is being made
with 5% H20 added to the cell of run 4A5.  Sorry.  So far no one has commented
on plotting the data from section 2) of the last post.  There was another 1600
joule "pop" this morning, but because of the way the data is being taken it is
hard to be sure that it is anything significant.
 
1) A 3000 joule pop.
 -------------------
 
Here is the log entry from 1322410 seconds into run 4A6:
 
"A very large pulse about 3 hours back - printer paper jam so some printer data
is missing.  Of order 3kj.  Started up slowly at first, then at slope of about
4 kj per hour or about 1 watt.  Lost 4 cc of gas in process.  Was at about 68
or 1.03 now at 65.77 or .998 TCELL was at (aprox.) 34.2 before event, now at
37.03 and just sitting there.  Because of program set up we are just sitting
at ICHDTOP of -0.7842  PAVG/50 now 7.204 vs 7.238 for balance.  Got to 6.685
on dip.  POWER got to 6.354 on print out, lower on screen.  Event at about
7:20 AM.  Event started about 2 hours before the big pop."
 
The way this run was supposed to work, was that the temperature was to ramp
slowly up to 35 C, then drop suddenly to 34 C, and then ramp back up to 35.5
C, drop to 34.5 C, ... until 37 C was reached where it was to cog between
36 and 37 C.  To execute the first ramp, I determined that -0.85 amps cell
current would produce a cell temperature of 34 C by making measurements on the
way up.  The current ramp rate is 0.000002 amperes per second.
 
When the cell reached 35 C, (at a current of roughly -0.93 from memory) the
program dutifully dropped the current to -0.85, but the cell temperature did
not oblige.  In fact when I came on the scene about 3 hours later, the cell
current was sitting at -0.85 and the cell was at 37 C.  While studying this
event I noticed the first of the two events like the item 2) event described
in the last note.  After the second event (written up in the last status) I
dropped the cell current down to -0.7 amps and this successfully brought the
cell temperature down.
 
This morning there was another event like the above only smaller, 1600 joules.
In this case, the current was dropped to -0.7 and there is a greater
possibility that it is some heat artifact.
 
It seems significant that all the "pops" have been on downward current
commands.  Possibly also on downward temperature swings, though not so
certain.  I have therefore changed the program to slowly ramp up and down
rather than slow temperature up and fast down.  This allows better
measurements to be made of what is happening.
 
Note that the funny cell conduction effects are not necessarily accompanied by
any excess heat.  It is as if there are large changes in the way heat is
conducted out of a cell.
 
So while the above event really does look like a release of heat, it could be
some very peculiar heat transfer relaxation oscillation.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Current Confusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Current Confusion
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 19:00:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Those reading status #3 carefully will be confused by the ICHDTOP current which
is the actual cathode current, and the other currents I mention.  For
historical reasons, I have to set currents about 6% above the current actually
commanded.  It is an old scale factor problem that I have never gotton around
to correcting.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 03:03:08 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
>Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) in FD 1198:
 
><....>
>>We could link a large pulse power source ( megajoules ) to produce a rapid
>>pulse ( 100 ns ) to heat the surface of a thin ( 0.5mm ) wire with a small
>>rugby-ball-shaped void filled with deuterium/tritium.  The sudden pulse of
>>power should vapourize the outside of the wire fast enough to generate and
>>drive a symmetric shock wave into the centre.
 
>This is one that John Logajan can do one Saturday afternoon, after he has
>disposed of his ticking bomb. I'll bet you're walking around in slippers,
>mate. Seriously, how about putting a hefty steel saucepan over that cell, so
>that if it does go off (as it will, says Karol Hladky), the bits get slowed
>down a bit? Or have you buried it in your garden? You'd have to be pretty game
>to move it at all, eh?
 
Better yet a thick futon matress, and a bomb squad outfit!  Just kidding,
John, but seriously be cautious.  I lost an aunt who I never met, from a
pressure cooker explosion when she tried to 'cool it down'.  That was
around 50PSI steam preasure.  Pressure is an important parameter to follow
and the apparatus you described sounds like it can hold a bit.  An engine
block can take more if I understand the scale of you experiment.  Use your
best wisdom, but don't just let unplug it the tap.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Electrically driven implosions?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrically driven implosions?
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 06:25:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jul23.030308.13287@coplex.coplex.com> chuck@coplex.cople
.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
>John, but seriously be cautious.  I lost an aunt who I never met, from a
>pressure cooker explosion when she tried to 'cool it down'.  That was
>around 50PSI steam preasure.  Pressure is an important parameter to follow
>and the apparatus you described sounds like it can hold a bit.  An engine
>block can take more if I understand the scale of you experiment.  Use your
>best wisdom, but don't just let unplug it the tap.
 
I believe in great caution with experiments, and Lord knows that physicists
tend to take absurd chances, but has anyone taken the time to reflect on
the contained volume in John's experiment? I suggest that any expansion in
the device would bring the pressure down so fast that there is virtually
no danger from such a device.
 
So the only time bomb is the jokes about such a device.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Zero Risk
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Zero Risk
Date: 23 Jul 93 14:58:40 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <CALAtE.BEu@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
> Hal F Lillywhite (hall@vice.ico.tek.com) writes:
 
>== "I think we pay too much attention to type I risk (what bad things
>== might the proposed change cause) and not enough to type II risk
>== (what good things might we forgo if we fail to make this change)."
 
>    Consider the treatment using a blowtorch for an infection.
>   Very effective.  But the therapeutic gain is zero.
 
A good example of proper application of type I risk.  The risk of
adverse effects of the blowtorch cure is high (100% probable in
fact) and the consequences severe.  The risk is unacceptable.
 
...
 
>    It would be wrong to withhold any definitive, tested, potential treatment.
 
I'm not sure it's that simple.  The consequences of announcing such
a treatment in today's legal climate might be the bankrupcy of the
company.  That company would then be unable to provide the treatment
or develop new and useful treatments for that or other conditions.
It might be more moral to withhold such treatment than to suffer the
adverse consequences of putting it on the market.
 
>    They way around the dilemma is obviously by honest informed consent.
 
I fully agree.  Unfortunately at least in the U.S. we have a tort
system which mitigates against this.  So you have nasty disease X.
I offer you a treatment which will probably cure it but also has
some horrible side effects in some patients.  You agree to accept
the risk and I treat you.  You are unlucky and get the side effects
(but maybe aren't cured).  You take me to court.  The minimum I lose
is a lot of legal fees.  More likely a sympathetic jury awards you a
large settlement - after all your life is ruined and maybe you will
die from the treatment.  Can I afford to treat people when I know
that of every 100 treated one will probably win such a lawsuit?  So
I ask you to sign an agreement not to sue me.  Reasonable but that
agreement will probably not stand up in court if you change your
mind later.  Result:  I treat nobody and all victim of nasty disease
X remain untreated.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  the Jahn-Teller effect abstract
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: the Jahn-Teller effect abstract
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 19:48:54 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
My compliments to Keith Johnson for sharing an interesting abstract.
I do have a couple of comments, however:
 
> ... The 9.4eV energy per Pd atom released in the Jahn-Teller distortion
> of each PdH4 cluster from tetrahedral (Td) to planar (D2h) symmetry is
> likewise remarkably close to the sum of the chemical bond energies
> (4.75eV) of two free hydrogen molecules.  Thus, for high loading, the
> tetrahedral interstices of fcc palladium provide, via the Jahn-Teller
> effect, an "orbital pathway" for the bulk catalytic recombination of
> rapidly diffusing D atoms to D2 "molecules", the large chemical heat of
> recombination approaching 10eV per Pd atom...
 
 o  You have quoted hydrogen recombination energies for free hydrogen --
    such as in an atomic hydrogen torch.  It would seem highly urealistic
    to apply such figures to hydrogen in palladium, where solutions up
    to at least about PdH_0.7 the energeticaly preferred energy states
    are species of atomic hydrogen.
 
 o  If you counter the above by assuming that the extremely large chemical
    release of energy per Pd that you have proposed is stored as some form
    of lattice stress (due presumably to the Jahn-Teller degeneracy), then
    you must explain why the lattice does not simply melt down, or at the
    very least completely re-arrange itself into a less drastically out-
    of-equilibrium structure.  I would have thought that local per-Pd
    energies in the range of 10 eV per Pd are getting close to (or quite
    possibly exceeding) the local per-Pd bonding energies that are holding
    the lattice together.
 
In short, it's hard not to wonder whether your proposal ultimately relies
on the existence of a drastically out-of-equilibrium phase of tetrahedral
PdHx that simply does not (and cannot) exist.
 
Comments or clarifications?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.24 / John Logajan /  Hydrogen barrier material -- materials science question
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrogen barrier material -- materials science question
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 03:45:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

If one wanted to contain hydrogen (or deuterium) gas in a chamber, what
materials would make the most effective barrier to hydrogen diffusion?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1: Detectors/Jim
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Nuclear Expts. 1: Detectors/Jim
Date: 23 Jul 93 13:03:21 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CAL2H3.I1B@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>,
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
> In article <1993Jul20.180108.790@physc1.byu.edu>
>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>
>>I will focus on the third detector
>
> Fine, since I have seen articles or talks about the other two.
>
>>  ...   This detector is surrounded by polyethylene moderator 28 cm in diameter
>>X approx. 30 cm.  16 helium-3-filled proportional-counter tubes are embedded in
>>this polyethylene, in four independent quadrants.  Two quadrants constitute an
>>inner ring, two make up an outer ring.
>
> Just so we are clear about this, since this does not sound like what I
> would describe as "quadrants".  Are you describing a semi-circular array
> of four detectors arranged in two concentric rings with the center of
> the detectors at different radii in each ring?
Yes.
> Or are the detectors
> basically in a single ring, but staggered in-and-out with every other
> detector assigned to the inside ring?
No.
To clarify:  eight tubes form an inner circular ring, with 4 tubes in quadrant
2 and 4 tubes in quadrant 3, as we number them (arranged as two semi-circles).
An outer circular ring is made
up of 8 tubes, 4 in each quadrant (quadrants 1 & 4).  Deep-underground
background  is caused mainly by decay of radioactive contaminants in the
stainless-steel walls of the proportional counter tubes.  The overall rate is
about 82 counts per hour from all 16 tubes (singles rate).  One might expect
the inner-to-outer ring ratio (IOR) to be 1 for such random background.
However,
the outer ring is somewhat quieter due to hand-selection of low-activity tubes
for this quadrant, so the IOR = 1.3 for background.  With a depleted uranium
source inside the detector, which means inside the inner ring, IOR=2.0, showing
that real neutrons (MeV-energies) stop with higher probability in the inner
ring, as expected.  Clearly the energy discrimination by this technique is
not at all accurate, but some information is gained such as a difference WRT
background.  For energy info., we use the neutron spectrometer (which has lower
efficiency and higher background rates however).
>
> What makes the quadrants independent?  Are they handled by separate
> electronics and power supplies and gas systems?
>
The 3He-filled tubes are sealed so no gas system is required.  Signals from
the 4 tubes in
each quadrant are ganged together, so there are separate electronics for each
quadrant.  All tubes are inserted directly into an aluminum cavity that is
sealed to preclude rf noise pickup.  Four charge-sensitive
preamplifier/discriminators are placed inside the Al cavity, one for each
quadrant.  [See H. Menlove and J. Swansen, Nuclear Technology 71 (1985) 497.]
The idea is to eliminate analog-signal signal transmission lines outside the
Al cavity, prone to noise pickup.  We have checked for ourselves the
effectiveness of this isolation and found it very good.  For instance, we ran
the detector near a CO2 laser, a good source of rf noise, and saw *no* noise
pick-up by the detector.
 
However, as I explained at some length in my paper "In quest of a trigger
mechanism for neutron emissions from deuterium/solid systems" (AIP Proceedings
#228, 1991), we have found a serious source of noise from this type of
detector:
"When the detector was first run in the humid environment of the Colorado mine,
it was not sufficiently protected from penetration of humidity into the
high-voltage circuitry.  As a result, we observed a dramatic increase in both
the singles and the correlated-signals rates.  We accumulated data in this
condition in order to characterize the moisture-induced noise.  We found that
the singles rate was dominated by counts in one [quadrant].  Thus, segmentation
of the counter allowed to identify the spurious counts.   Apparent bursts had
the characteristic that counts in singles scalar were much larger than counts
in the correlated counts register, typically by factors of 5 to 30, consistent
with expectations for high-voltage breakdown or electrical noise induced by
high humidity.  Again, redundancy in the electronics allowed us to identify
spurious burst-like signals.  The detector was then dried out, loaded with
dessicant, and protected from humidity; a humidity indicator was also
monitored.  The detector quickly returned to low-count behavior with counts
balanced as expected in the four segments."
 
In addition to these measures, the detectors and electronics are now housed in
a de-humidified hut in the Provo Canyon tunnel lab.  Also we now digitize all
pulses so that noise pulses are clearly identified (it is possible to generate
such with high-voltage breakdown, but these are seen in the plastic
scintillator signals, not in the logic pulses from the 3He-type counter.)
 
I should also clarify that we no longer use the shift-register system employed
at Los Alamos in similar detectors.  Instead, we digitize all pulses in such a
way that we know which quadrant fired and when, with synchronized time
information also from the plastic-scintillator counter in the core of the
detector, and from the three large cosmic-ray veto paddle counters surrounding
the detector.  Douglas Morrison pushed for some of these modifications, along
with Charles Barnes and Al Mann.
 
With our segmented, pulse-digitized, cosmic-vetoed system, we continue to
observe small (multiplicity < 7 detected) bursts,
as reported first by Howard Menlove
and seen also at Kamiokande.  However, we have not seen any large bursts as
reported by Howard with unsegmented systems on rare occasions, either here or
at Kamiokande.  I now think Howard's very large bursts (hundreds of
time-correlated neutrons) are probably due to humidity problems in his
detector, which uses the same configuration as our 3He counter but with
shift-registers and no plastic-scintillator counters for redundancy and cosmic
rejection.  Howard has also identified humidity problems as causing at least
some of his very large burst events.  But the smaller bursts -- these persist
despite all our efforts to find some cause outside the sample in the detector.
Could these be due to radioactive contamination?  I foresee the questions --
hold on:  I'll show and discuss the data soon.
> --
 
> J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
> Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
> Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
> Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
 
Thanks Jim for the questions.
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Implosions?/Vigier Theory -- counterpoint
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Implosions?/Vigier Theory -- counterpoint
Date: 24 Jul 93 09:45:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <22mbl9$s5t@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> redingtn@athena.mit.ed
 (Norman H Redington) writes:
>In article <1993Jul21.130639.4917@crosfield.co.uk>, rak@crosfield.co.uk
(Richard Kirk) writes:
>|> Has anyone every tried using pulsed electrical power instead of laser power
>|> to drive an implosion?  And if so, did anything ever come of it?
>|> I ask this, because there are some astonishing bits of physics crammed into
>|> the last few nanoseconds of a light bulb's life.  As the filament necks down
>|> it overheats and material is lost through the surface; the current that used
>|> to be carried by that outer layer has to move inward, heating the next layer
>|> and driving that off.  In the last few moments the last bit of material passes
>|> from solid, through liquid and gas to plasma before it has much time to change
>|> its density.  There is a small burst of hard thermal X-rays, then the circuit
>|> is broken.  The plasma is expanding - it is too dense for the electrical field
>|> to cause avalanching, but too thin to conduct.  Eventually if the supply and
>|> the inductance continues to produce a potential difference across the gap,
>|> you may get an avalanche discharge (or 'restrike') across the gap.  This is the
>|> pop and flash as the bulb goes.
 
>|> Could you get experimental fusion this way?
 
Yes, but not, so far at least, in any thing like interestingly
significant fraction of commercial amounts. The process here is like
the (coaxial) pinch effect experiments.
 
Basically the wire grows unevenly thinner by evaporation over its
length. Then the J^2 * RHO  resistive ohmic heating is highest in
the thinnest portions so temperature and the evaporation accelerate
there producing an increasingly thinner and thinner cross section.
Finally, the wire reaches the melting temperature and is subject to
the small but locally enhanced (smallest conducting radius) azimuthal
mag pressure which squeezes it in a strangle and physically may move
the fluid metal latterally -- thus decreasing the radius even more.
 
Either the increased heating generates a vapor metal arc or the metal
droplets  physically are pulled apart.  If the former, then the vapor
arc pinches off.  In both cases the current is instaneously interrupted
and due to an L(di/dt) emf, the gap voltage rises sufficiently to pull
electrons for a nanosecond or two across the gap and generate a very
short nanosecond order tiny pulse of soft X-ray.  This probably will
not happen in bulbs containing iodine and krypton or other inert gases,
simply because the mean free path isn't sufficient, and the (neutral)
gas isn't expelled by the azimuthal field.
 
Whether or not the soft X-ray can penetrate the thin bulb glass is an
interesting question -- probably not.  Pinch experiments driven by
20 kv caps can typically generate order half megavolt electrons, and
X-rays from those electrons are very capable of penetrating a common
sheet of glass.
 
>in Nature describing radiation surges during thunderstorms. Supposedly
>a group in India watched a forest bombarded by lightning and concluded
>that fusion was taking place within the lightning channels.
 
A conclusion based on what observed fact(s) and logic (set of
logical steps).   Actually, fusion happens every time you light
a match, but the number of events are on the order of the number
of eggs in an egg case, so it's not considered seriously to be a
fusion event.
 
>In the 1980s P. & N. Graneau, T. Pappas, and others claimed to have
>observed longitudinal forces between current-carrying wires, thus
>verifying the original Ampere law and creating a problem for relativity
>theory. (T. Pappas Nuov. Cim. B 76(189)1983; P. Graneau _Ampere-Neumann
>Electrodynamics of Metals_, Hadronic Press, 1985). A typical experiment
>was done with a rail-gun, (part of the Star Wars initiative!). In a
>rail-gun, a projectile is launched by being accelerated up a launching
>track composed of two rails bearing heavy currents. The projectile
>rests on a moving conductor bridging the two rails, which therefore
>experiences a Lorentz force along the direction of the track. Graneau
>(J. Phys. D 20(391)1987) observed buckling of the rails which he
>claimed could only be explained by a longitudinal Lorentz force.
 
Really???
 
Basically, the current flows through a loop formed by the source
the conducting rails up to the conducting slug or plasma arc
arrows with shafts:    --->
Mag flux (a fluid) fills the loop as indicated by:
 
                     X X X X X X
                     X X X X X X
 
And the mag PRESSURE (indicated by   "^", ">",  or "v") is OUTWARD
against the field-generating-currents.  It's called the hoop stress.
 
 
 
            Mag pressure ---/    Plasma Arc ----/
current  >                /                   /
     ---->   ----  > -  / - >    ---->      /          conducting
>>>------------------ /  ---------------- / -----------    rail
   ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^   > (|)  |
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)  | C
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)  v U
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)    R
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)    R
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)  | E
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)  | N
   X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X   > (|)  | T
   v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v  v   > (|)  v           conducting
<<<-----------------------------------------------------    rail
   <----  <----  <----  <----  <---- < --
current <
 
Of course the rails will buckle.  I don't quite follow the
apparent conflict suggested here.
 
> .. .. Calculating the average effect of conducting electrons in
>conventional Maxwellian theory, they find a longitudinal force. (Phys.
>Lett. A 142(447)1989.)
 
>Graneau & Graneau (Phys. Lett. A 165(1)1992 applied the now-relativist-
>ically kosher Ampere Law (still, however, not widely accepted by the
>physics community) to plasma physics. On this basis, they argued for
>the possibility of "filament fusion" where a kind of stress is
>induced by the longitudinal force. They apply the theory to
>exploding wires and -aha! Here's the German experiment! W. Lochte-
>Holgreven, Atomkernenergie 28(150)1976. The idea they use to explain
>exploding wires is longitudinal repulsion of deuterons leading
>to fracture.
 
Huh!
 
>tell) one of the most documented of exploding wire phenomena, the
>formation of regularly spaced necks just before the explosion. From
>Prof. Jones' comments, it sounds as though Vigier's latest article
>tries to address this. It is interesting that Graneau considers the
>neutrons in the German experiment to be of non-thermonuclear origin
>and due to fusion of the accelerated deuterons.
 
You mean "fission" of accelerated deuterons, and the accepted
explanation says that it is the ELECTRONs that are accelerated most
effectively by the short pinchoff L(di/dt) emfs and these are the
babys that zap into the deuterons and "knock-off" neutrons.  So...
it goes.   Both explanations yield the observed neutrons.
 
Even the People of HOT fusion apparently see (the confirmations) that
their (theory) filters allow them to see.
 
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.24 / John Logajan /  Dual occupancy rates
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dual occupancy rates
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 15:53:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
The graphs below depict the relative probabilities of finding an H or D atom
at a specific location between two Pd atoms (in one dimension) for the cases
in which the temperature gives rise to a thermal velocity wavefunction of the
H or D which has nodes integrally related to the distance between the Pd atoms.
 
Perhaps in a boson condensate, the H or D's tend to co-occupy the same
relative location at the same time.  Suppose further that two H's or D's
sharing the same lattice site would be condensate influenced to also
co-occupy the same location at the same time!
 
 
  <--- Distance between Pd atoms --->
|                .....                |
|              ..     ..              |  Vertical axis:
|             .         .             |       Probability of finding H or D
|            .           .            |       at a particular point between
|          ..             ..          |       the quantum "walls" imposed
|         .                 .         |       by the Pd atoms -- for cases
|        .                   .        |       in which the thermal velocity
|      ..                     ..      |       wavefunction of the H of D
|     .                         .     |       is an integral relation to
|   ..                           ..   |       the Pd seperation.
|...                               ...| N=1
 
|        ..                 ..        |
|       .  .               .  .       |
|      .    .             .    .      |
|                                     |
|     .      .           .      .     |
|    .        .         .        .    | N=2
|                                     |
|   .          .       .          .   |
|  .            .     .            .  |
| .              .   .              . |
|.                ...                .|
 
|     ..           ..          ..     |
|       .                             |
|    .            .  .           .    |
|        .                    .       |
|   .            .    .           .   |
|         .                  .        | N=3
|  .                               .  |
|          .    .      .    .         |
| .                                 . |
|           .  .        .  .          |
|.           ..          ..          .|
 
 
|    .        .         .        .    |
|   . .      . .       . .      . .   |
|                                     |
|                                     |
|  .   .    .   .     .   .    .   .  |
|                                     | N=4
|                                     |
| .     .  .     .   .     .  .     . |
|                                     |
|.       .        . .       .        .|
|         .        .         .        |
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.24 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Graph of Droege Temperature data
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Graph of Droege Temperature data
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 93 14:34:11 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

For those of you who have not taken the time to plot the data from Tom
Droege's most recent experiment, a crude printer plot  graph is shown
below:
            Status #2 Cell 4A6 -- 22 July 93
Deg C
51    |                     *
50    |
49    |
48    |
47    |                   *
46    |
45    |                       *
44    |
43    |
42    |
41    |
40    |                         *
39    |                 *
38    |       * * * * *
37    |   * *                     *
36    | *                           *
35    |                               *
34    |                                 *
      | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
        1 2                   3
        0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
              Time  (Minutes)
 
VERY interesting...
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.25 / mitchell swartz /  X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 02:02:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9307231357.AA14458@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: X-rays or special pleading
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, a.k.a. blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
==db "First I would like to educate Mitchell Swartz as to the mechanism by
==db which energetic charged particles moving in a solid produce X-rays.
==db He seems to think the X-rays under discussion originate from the
==db moving particle as a form of bremsstrahlung."
 
   Thank you, Dick.   {"A man has got to know his limitations"}
                                            [after Dirty Harry]
 
   You brought up the impact of a charged particle  with a relatively
massive and therefore relatively "fixed" lattice.
   You now appear to be claiming that the sudden negative acceleration of
 a charged particle impacting said solid does  not cause radiation
 (bremsstrahlung).  Do you really have any evidence for this?  We look
 forward to Dick Blue's repudiation of electrodynamics.  [Stay tuned!]
 
 Second, please allow us to begin to educate Dick Blue as to the facts.
   First, he is changing the subject.
   Where is his proof of such energetic charged particles moving in a
      palladium electrode secondary to cold fusion reactions therein?
 
  Dick, you don't believe in cold fusion in the first place, so why should
 you be the one to invent scenarios?  Given your "skepto-barbs", is it not
 true that such hypotheses might be "red herrings", since you obviously
 don't either read or report upon the vast growing literature on cf?
 
Fact:  There is growing reported evidence of excess heat (of two types,
   a steady state (regular anomalous) and burst type (irregular anomalous),
   and tritium, helium-4 and neutronpenic levels of neutrons.
 
  Only a "true-Blue-skeptic" would demand what is not frequently reported,
  and then use that as a "magic wand" to attempt to dismiss the phenomena.
 
 
==db "The X-rays result from the recapture of electrons into low orbitals
==db of the lattice atoms following the knockout of those electrons by
==db the interaction of the passing charged particle."
 
   Let me continue to educate Dick Blue as to the facts.  The situation
   whatever the process(es) is/(are) is probably much more complicated.
    As one example, let us just assume that you are correct and that
    ionizing radiation is produced as you claim in cold fusion.
    Since you are including physics well-known from studies
   of high velocity charged particles impacting upon the solid state
   you ought be aware that secondary (and tertiary) electrons,
   plasmons, polarons, phonons, and photons are probably also involved.
 
   Just the impact of ionizing radiation alone will create photoelectrons
    for photon energies up to circa 200 keV, whereupon such effects are
   augmented by Compton scattering, and when energies
    sufficient to generate positron-electron pairs are reached, these
    too join the roster.   These complex, but
    well-known, interactions expose such simplistic comments [used to
    knock all presentation of cold fusion data] to be, mere
    possibly pompous, whining against cold fusion and its investigators
    rather than having any firm foundation grounded in science.
 
 
==db "Now to clear up a second point. Mitchell asks me "Are you certain you
==db are apportioning the energy transfer correctly?  Do you feel that you
==db know all of the reactants and products in the solid state?"
==db My answer to that is most certainly NO."
 
 
   Thank you for finally admitting that you do not know.
   Given this, then why make all these demands, and negative statements,
     Dick?     Why castigate the people who theorize, who perform
      experiments, and who labor in this field?
 
==db  "The point of my previous post is
==db that coupling nuclear excitation energy entirely into phonons is
==db a major stumbling block for any theory that is going to complete
==db any hypothesis involving the production of free excited 4He nucleii."
 
    Coupling energy into phonons is not unreasonable.  We are continuing
to develop a theory involving plasmon, polaron, and phonon flux secondary
to changes in the deuteron decoration of the palladium lattice.
 
                 Best wishes.
                                    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.25 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Zero Risk
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Zero Risk
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 02:43:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <22oub0$lp8@vice.ico.tek.com>
    Subject: Re: Zero Risk
  Hal F Lillywhite (hall@vice.ico.tek.com) writes:
 
=ms    "The way around the dilemma is obviously by honest informed consent."
=hl
=hl "I fully agree.  Unfortunately at least in the U.S. we have a tort
=hl system which mitigates against this.  So you have nasty disease X.
=hl I offer you a treatment which will probably cure it but also has
=hl some horrible side effects in some patients.  You agree to accept
=hl the risk and I treat you.  You are unlucky and get the side effects
=hl (but maybe aren't cured).  You take me to court.  The minimum I lose
=hl is a lot of legal fees.  More likely a sympathetic jury awards you a
=hl large settlement - after all your life is ruined and maybe you will
=hl die from the treatment.  Can I afford to treat people when I know
=hl that of every 100 treated one will probably win such a lawsuit?  So
=hl I ask you to sign an agreement not to sue me.  Reasonable but that
=hl agreement will probably not stand up in court if you change your
=hl mind later.  Result:  I treat nobody and all victim of nasty disease
=hl X remain untreated."
 
  Luckily, whether by compassion or other drive, people are offered
    treatments, many risky, and such rxs do not give rise to that many
    lawsuits.   I would not be surprised if the majority of lawsuits
    were due to "failure to diagnose" rather than "complication of
    treatment" for cancer.   Also, the side effects are common, and
    of no concern.  It is the complications with high morbidity which
    are the problem.
 
                But:  the worst complication is to fail to cure
    the disease, and therefore given the heterogeneity of people,
    people afflicted with X will be treated.    It may not be optimal
    because of some of the hypothetical matters you mentioned, or because
    of technologic limitation, or even distribution of the "cure", but it
    will occur.
 
    And the same is true for fusion, whether it be cold or just "luke-warm".
 
                 Best wishes.
                                    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.25 /  nsmca@aurora.a /  Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
     
Originally-From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 13:33:43 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1993Jul22.231244.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
> Wierd question time:
>
> If "cold fusion" is possible, as some what explained in this month popular
> science.
>
> How big would a basic unit be, how much power would it put off/out, and could
> it be used in a space craft? or other places that a "small" nuclear
> generator/reactor would be nice to have..
>
> Basically what I am saying, is what uses would it have?? If it was or became
> possible. Room Temperature Fusion.. Interesting..
>
> ===
> Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
>
 
Also what effects it would have on current space plans?
 
Morgoth the Mad lives in Rogue AIs everywhere!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudennsmca cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.25 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Hydrogen barrier material -- materials science question
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen barrier material -- materials science question
Date: 25 Jul 93 14:56:57 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <1993Jul24.034542.26049@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes:
> If one wanted to contain hydrogen (or deuterium) gas in a chamber, what
> materials would make the most effective barrier to hydrogen diffusion?
>
> --
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
The noble metals make excellent barriers.  My students and I have used
electroplated copper as a permeation barrier.  We have also tried hard
to charge Au and Cu cathodes with H by electrolysis, and, using a nuclear
probe technique similar to Moessbauer spectroscopy, found zero evidence of
charging at a level corresponding roughly to 10 ppm.
 
If you are thinking of designing another 'bomb', you might consider a
Be-Cu alloy.  When a few percent of Be is melted into Cu, aged and
then quenched from a temperature of several humdred degrees, Celsius,
the Be precipitates, producing very hard material.  In fact, Be-Cu is
used for the bodies of high-pressure laboratory cells.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencollins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / Matt Kennel /  Re: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays or special pleading
Date: 26 Jul 1993 02:58:44 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:    In Message-ID: <9307231357.AA14458@suntan.Tandem.com>
:    Subject: X-rays or special pleading
: Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, a.k.a. blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
:
: ==db "First I would like to educate Mitchell Swartz as to the mechanism by
: ==db which energetic charged particles moving in a solid produce X-rays.
: ==db He seems to think the X-rays under discussion originate from the
: ==db moving particle as a form of bremsstrahlung."
:
:    Thank you, Dick.   {"A man has got to know his limitations"}
:                                             [after Dirty Harry]
:
:    You brought up the impact of a charged particle  with a relatively
: massive and therefore relatively "fixed" lattice.
:    You now appear to be claiming that the sudden negative acceleration of
:  a charged particle impacting said solid does  not cause radiation
:  (bremsstrahlung).  Do you really have any evidence for this?
 
No, that's not what he's saying.  Prof. Jones means that the "X-rays
under discussion" do not originate from the moving particle; not that
bremsstrahlung does not exist.
 
The "X-rays under discussion" come from when the energetic charged particle
scatters on electrons inside the palladium.  Then when either free or bound
electrons fall down to replace the electrons knocked out, X-rays are
radiated in particular energies characteristic of the substance, and
not with broad-band spectra as in bremsstrahlung.
 
This isn't news.  I did an experiment in sophomore physics with a basic
x-ray spectrometer and saw it.
 
:    Let me continue to educate Dick Blue as to the facts.  The situation
:    whatever the process(es) is/(are) is probably much more complicated.
:     As one example, let us just assume that you are correct and that
:     ionizing radiation is produced as you claim in cold fusion.
:     Since you are including physics well-known from studies
:    of high velocity charged particles impacting upon the solid state
:    you ought be aware that secondary (and tertiary) electrons,
:    plasmons, polarons, phonons, and photons are probably also involved.
 
Naturally.  Of course this just means that it's really really hard
to hide.
 
:    Just the impact of ionizing radiation alone will create photoelectrons
:     for photon energies up to circa 200 keV, whereupon such effects are
:    augmented by Compton scattering, and when energies
:     sufficient to generate positron-electron pairs are reached, these
:     too join the roster.   These complex, but
:     well-known, interactions expose such simplistic comments [used to
:     knock all presentation of cold fusion data] to be, mere
:     possibly pompous, whining against cold fusion and its investigators
:     rather than having any firm foundation grounded in science.
 
Huh?  The point is that particles with nuclear energies cannot help but
emit numerous signs of their existence, and that these signs have
been experimentally observed (or not observed) in ways that preclude
all conceivable nuclear reactions as a source of macroscopic unexplained heat.
 
: ==db  "The point of my previous post is
: ==db that coupling nuclear excitation energy entirely into phonons is
: ==db a major stumbling block for any theory that is going to complete
: ==db any hypothesis involving the production of free excited 4He nucleii."
:
:     Coupling energy into phonons is not unreasonable.
 
No it is not unreasonable.  It *is* unreasonable however to deny observable
energetic ionizing primary and secondary radiation products, especially in
the face of 40 years of verified experiment and theory.
 
: We are continuing
: to develop a theory involving plasmon, polaron, and phonon flux secondary
: to changes in the deuteron decoration of the palladium lattice.
:
:                  Best wishes.
:                                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
--
-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:
cuddy26 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / mitchell swartz /  Re: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 04:45:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <22vh94INN522@network.ucsd.edu>
     Subject: Re: X-rays or special pleading
  Matt Kennel (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
=mk "No, that's not what he's saying.  Prof. Jones means that the "X-rays
=mk under discussion" do not originate from the moving particle; not that
=mk bremsstrahlung does not exist."
 
  Matt, first the discussion has been based upon the fact that the cold
  fusion skeptics dismiss all evidence of the cold fusion phenomena
  and then demand scenarios for which they have been unable to provide
  evidence that such pathways MUST exist.  We have been through this
  ad nauseum with the demand for neutrons at levels sufficient to "kill
  all the experimenters".
 
  This case is just a repeat of the same tactic.
  Consider that we have discussed the physics
 of impacting beams upon solid targets for months as the following
 examples demonstrate.                    /\/\/\/\
  Notice that, of these two samples, one quote is from ....   you.
 
  ===   "Forty years of laboratory nuclear physics *experiments with
  ===    solid targets* and fusion experiments and the damn Sun shows
  ===    that the nuclear physics is the same."
               [3/7/93; Sub: Solid state fusion; Matt Kennel]
 
 
  ===  "Consider an experiment in which energetic nuclei impinge on
  ===   a solid with an energy of several MeV."
     [Article-I.D.: jaguar.1993Mar11.093603.1 Gary S. Collins
     Subject: Re: X-rays as Critical text/Re to Swartz; 11 Mar 93]
 
 
 Second, as the record shows, we are well aware of characteristic spectra
   derived from impacted materials.   This is a most trivial matter.
  The ad hominem attacks by the skeptics are made only because such skeptics
   have a paucity of facts for their unsupportable position.
 
 
=mk "Huh?  The point is that particles with nuclear energies cannot help but
=mk emit numerous signs of their existence, and that these signs have
=mk been experimentally observed (or not observed) in ways that preclude
=mk all conceivable nuclear reactions as a source of macroscopic unexplained
=mk heat."
 
  Matt, the literature shows experimentally observed signs consistent with
     nuclear reactions for the cold fusion systems if the palladium
     (or other metal) is active and if loading is sufficient.
      What is your point?  Your sentence appears incorrect.
 
=mk "It *is* unreasonable however to deny observable
=mk energetic ionizing primary and secondary radiation products, especially
=mk in the face of 40 years of verified experiment and theory."
 
  Since I cited quite a few of the physical effects and experiments
    there is some familiarity here, eh?  and there has not been any
    denial of such obvious electrophysics, has there?
 
  Matt,  is it not unreasonable however to deny observable cold fusion
 phenomena especially in the face of 4+ years of verified experiments?
 
                  Best wishes.
                                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Hydrogen barrier material -- materials science question
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen barrier material -- materials science question
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 04:57:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>My students and I have used electroplated copper as a permeation barrier.
 
Sounds like a do-able thing.
 
>If you are thinking of designing another 'bomb'
 
Just after I wrote the other day that I don't do cold fusion experiements,
it occurred to me that even I could monitor the temperature of a "bomb"
that has been "charged" and then disconnected from electrolysis.
 
Wrapped in thermal insulation, it should track ambient with a slight delay.
Any other behavior would be, err, interesting.
 
It's just as easy, by the way, to drill holes in to big slabs of metal as
it is to drill holes into small slabs of metal, so I really don't worry
a great deal about being able to contain a small volume of 27,000 PSI
gases.  But everyone seems to worry about hydrogen embrittlement, so I'd
try to mitigate that.  With sandbags just in case :-)
 
Sounds like a good winter project.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  In defense of Dick Blue...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In defense of Dick Blue...
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 05:10:44 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <CAp70B.20n@world.std.com>
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes in reply to Dick Blue:
 
> Coupling energy into phonons is not unreasonable.  We are continuing to
> develop a theory involving plasmon, polaron, and phonon flux secondary
> to changes in the deuteron decoration of the palladium lattice.
 
 
Imagine for a moment an experiment in deep space in which you have filled
millions of football-field sized bubbles of extremely thin Mylar film,
filled with just enough gas to allow them to hold their spherical shape.
The spheres are "packed" just like oranges in a supermarket.  Their gravity,
although extremely weak even by the standards of the thin Mylar film, is
just strong enough to hold them together in the overall form of a huge cube.
 
At the very center of each football-field sized balloon is a golf-ball sized
chunk of inert lead, tied by thin threads so that it will always stay about
in the center of the balloon.
 
A man in a spacesuit floats near the center of the gigantic "crystal" of
balloons.  In his hand is a high-powered rifle that shoots out marble-sized
slugs at very high speed.
 
He begins firing rapidly.  For the most part his slugs rip through the very
thin gases and Mylar surfaces of the ballons quite literally as if they were
not there, so that when they reach the perimeter of the huge cube they sail
off into empty space at nearly the same speed at which they began.  And very,
very rarely a slug will _hit_ one of the suspended lead spheres at the center
of a balloon.  Sometimes these slugs bounce off, and sometimes they fuse with
the lead, but in either of these cases the slugs wreak major havoc on that
balloon.  But only the tiniest fraction of slugs every reach the lead spheres.
 
The man studies the balloons carefully.  With time he begins to observe and
characterize all sorts of interesting details about how the balloons bounce
around when pushed by each other or one of his high-powered slugs.  He starts
to develop names for specific effects and combinations, names like phonons,
excitons, plasmons, and large polarons, all of which describe various types
of disruptions and wave propagations along the surfaces of the huge, wispy
Mylar balloons.
 
He becomes entranced with the idea that by _naming_ these effects and using
them as building blocks, he can somehow construct a theory by which his huge
cube of balloons will be able to stop not just a few slugs, but every slug,
every time, always.
 
And so he keeps firing his rifle, for days, then weeks, then months.  Still
the Mylar rips, and the incredibly thin gases refuse to do more than barely
slow down the slugs.  He forges on ...
 
Years go by ...
 
(... and _still_ he keeps firing ...)
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Steve Jones's detector backgrounds
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones's detector backgrounds
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 13:22:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have just read a new paper I can recommend to Steve.  The full reference
is: "Investigation of the background gamma spectrum in an underground
environment," G. Braoudakis and L. S. Peak, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A332
(1993) 292-299.  It describes a survey of the gamma background in a
laboratory at a depth of 1230 m in Australia in preparation for the
installation of a neutrino detector.  Under the assumption that when you've
seen one hole in the ground you've seen them all (grin) there are some
facts given here (or hinted at) that may allow one to speculate a bit
as to what kind of backgrounds are going to plague Steve's efforts.
Unfortunately much of the data refered to is unpublished.
 
Facts gleaned from this paper include: "The fast neutron flux was
measured to be negligibly small [unpublished thesis] and the thermal
neutron flux as 2 X 10E-5 cm^-2 sec^-1 [another unpublished thing]."
What these authors report are measurements of gamma rays with a
10cm by 10cm NaI scintillator.  They then try to model the observed
gamma response on the assumption that the gammas come from interactions
of the slow neutrons with the surrounding rocks and other material.
Unfortunately that model seems to account for only about 10% of the
events they record.  They suggest that they aren't properly accounting
for (n,gamma) events in or near the detector.
 
I would suggest perhaps another problem with their method, and it may
also apply to Jones's detector.  Even at 1230 meters there is still
a muon flux that can contribute to low-rate detection experiments through
a variety of paths.  In order to suppress muon-induced events both
the Australian gamma detector and Steve Jones's detector employ veto
paddles to reject events in which some charged particle passed through
on its way to the heart of the detector.  My question that perhaps Steve
should investigate is how well the veto paddles catch events in which a
muon interacts nearby.  This paper does not give a number for the
muon flux, but does say that the veto rate is about 100 per second.
Of course some (most?) of that is electronic noise, but I still get
the feeling that there are plenty of cosmic rays around to mess things
up.
 
In Steve's case my first conjecture for troublesome background events
would be some form of muon induced cascade event occurs outside the
region covered by the veto paddle but which sends neutrons and/or
gammas into the detector system.  I would suggest that some time be
spent to check for such events.  One test might be to look at the
coincidence rate between two veto paddles as a function of separation.
A second test would involve tests for the effects of various materials
that might serve as "convertors" to produce background events.  One
must suspect everything in and around the detector, including the rocks.
You may recall that one objection I had to the Jones-Menlove experiment
was that "backgrounds" were taken with the deuterium removed from the
system when deuterium is an excellent way to convert gammas into neutrons.
This
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 /  blue@dancer.ns /  More educating Mitchell
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More educating Mitchell
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:18:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, to Matt Kennel for completing the basic discussion of what
Mitchell needs to know about the slowing down process.  He seems to
lose track of what CF believers are advocating, either directly or by
implication.  On the question of whether energetic charged particles
are involved in the production of excess enthalpy, Mitchell says maybe
not but then asserts that some tritium and some 4He are produced.
Are these not the products of an exoergic nuclear reaction?  Do tell
us what you think, MItchell?
 
To answer the question, "Why castigate the people who theorize....?":
I would rather say I castigate the CF advocates for their lack of
any complete theory of the processes.  Because they have been unwilling
or unable to construct an hypothesis covering the key features of
a cold fusion reaction process, there is nothing that can be put to
a definitive experimental test.  It seems that they must have complete
freedom to waffle about so this absurdity can be kept alive as an
ongoing shell game.  There is lots of cheap energy there, but we aren't
going to tell you where it comes from.  I think that scam has been
used before.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / mitchell swartz /  In defense of Dick Blue...
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: In defense of Dick Blue...
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 14:51:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Jul26.051044.3255@asl.dl.nec.com>
    Subject: In defense of Dick Blue...
Terry Bollinger (terry@asl.dl.nec.com) writes "for" Dick Blue:
 
=ms "Coupling energy into phonons is not unreasonable.  We are continuing to
=ms develop a theory involving plasmon, polaron, and phonon flux secondary
=ms to changes in the deuteron decoration of the palladium lattice."
 
=tb "Imagine for a moment an experiment in deep space in which you have filled
=tb millions of football-field sized bubbles of extremely thin Mylar film,
=tb filled with just enough gas to allow them to hold their spherical shape.
=tb The spheres are "packed" just like oranges in a supermarket."
 
   Terry,  first such a model is very classical, right?
     and it also simply does not include known solid state reactions, nor
     cooperative phenomena, exchange processes, nor other dynamics.
    These are well-known in the solid state, right?  but let's see ...
 
=tb "At the .. center of each football-field sized balloon is a golf-ball sized
=tb chunk of inert lead, tied by thin threads so that it will always stay about
=tb in the center of the balloon."
=tb "A man in a spacesuit floats near the center of the gigantic "crystal" of
=tb balloons.  In his hand is a high-powered rifle that shoots out marble-sized
=tb slugs at very high speed."
 
  What is this a model for?   loading and decorating palladium with deuterium?
      or particle impact studies?  or exactly what?
 
=tb "Sometimes these slugs bounce off, and sometimes they fuse with
=tb the lead, but in either of these cases the slugs wreak major havoc on that
=tb balloon.  But only the tiniest fraction of slugs every reach the
=tb lead spheres.  ...  With time he begins to observe and
=tb characterize all sorts of interesting details about how the balloons bounce
=tb around when pushed by each other or one of his high-powered slugs."
 
  Sounds like your model actually does appear to include coupling.
 
 
=tb  "He starts
=tb to develop names for specific effects and combinations, names like phonons,
=tb excitons, plasmons, and large polarons, all of which describe various types
=tb of disruptions and wave propagations along the surfaces of the huge, wispy
=tb Mylar balloons."
 
    Actually, phonons and polarons are due to coupling between the molecules
      in the solid-state, and are not a result of individual molecules
      (or "balloons" in your case), as your model erroneous states.
 
 
=tb "..  he can somehow construct a theory by which his huge
=tb cube of balloons will be able to stop not just a few slugs, but every slug,
=tb every time, always."
 
   You seem to be leading away quite far from cold fusion, but your
    novella is an interesting sci-fi story.   How does it relate?
    The subject is cold fusion.   The impact of beams is old and trivial.
    The ratio of the nucleus to the electronic cloud is also quite old;
      and it simply does not relate to Dick Blue's claim that phonons
      cannot be created during cold fusion.   Remember, the skeptics first
      claimed that there HAD TO BE neutrons.   This is apparently
      a mirror-image.  Where is any basis for claiming that phonons
      are NOT produced like Blue claims, or for stating that
      your "balloon-space model" corroborates Blue's unsubstantiated
      claim?
 
    Terry, it is most interesting that your story actually
      DOES include coupling of nuclear (central "lead block") and
      peripheral events.  Therefore, it is not a defense of Dick Blue,
      but - to the degree your model is accurate (  ;)  ) - it confirms
      such coupling is possible as we have claimed all along.
 
      Thank you, Terry.
                            Best wishes.
                                                  Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 17:56:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
In article <1993Jul22.231244.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
writes:
> Basically what I am saying, is what uses would it have?? If it was or became
> possible. Room Temperature Fusion.. Interesting..
 
It pound a wood stake through the heart of government funded anti-technology
programs like NASA and DoE.
 
>Also what effects it would have on current space plans?
 
Eliminating such technology suppressors would result in an explosion of
economic activity in space, its eventual settlement and the end of human
self-hatred.  In short, I really hope cold fusion is a reality, but I'm
not counting on it.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Kevin Wolf's work / Droege and Bernecky / Scott Chubb's work
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kevin Wolf's work / Droege and Bernecky / Scott Chubb's work
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 15:42:07 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
KEVIN WOLF'S WORK
 
The specific discussion which caused me to reopen consideratino of the need
for possible need for new physics to explain some classes of transition metal
hydride anomolies was the one a couple of months ago by Eugene Mallove, Dale
Bass, and Steve Jones.  As you may recall, Eugene Mallove in reply to a
comment from myself asserted that relatively high-level (and thus decidely
unambiguous) radiation had been identified recently in the work of some
unidentified person.  Dale Bass then guessed that Kevin Wolf was the culprit,
and Steven Jones confirmed that Dale was correct.  Steven Jones also pointed
out that Kevin Wolf's work included _no_ significant heat production.
 
I've heard (and guessed) just a tad more about Kevin Wolf's work.  If it can
be validated through ad hoc reproducibilty, it is my poor bewildered judge-
ment that some fundamentally new physics will be required to explain it.  His
results do not appear to be compatible with milder "hot spot" theorizing.
 
I would also judge Kevin Wolf's work to be unsettlingly compatible with "A
Twist of Ribbon," which is of course one reason why I'm interested in whether
he will ever be able to obtain full reproducibility.  If he does not, no big
deal.  If he does, I'd say things could get interesting in a hurry.
 
Are there any direct representatives of Kevin Wolf who might be able to
comment on his work (_with_ his permission, please) in this group?
 
 
DROEGE AND BERNECKY
 
Tom has informed me (after an explicit inquiry) that the reason why he has
had little comment on the laser boson condensation draft paper I posted is
because after reading it, it didn't suggest much in the way of experiments.
 
Hmm.  I will of course respect his judgement, and so will hereafter back off
from all of the analytical support I've been providing to Bernecky -- e.g.,
gently correcting some key errors in how he formulated temperature tables,
developing an eloborate laser condensation analogy not even hinted at in
anything posted by Bernecky, and backing off my usual severe criticism of
the ideas that I _didn't_ agree with in Bernecky's posting (there were quite
a few).  So the Bernecky work is your show now, Tom.  Best of luck.
 
After looking over your new data, my only suggestion is that you doublecheck
your results carefully, as I'm sure you will (you always do).
 
 
SCOTT CHUBB'S WORK
 
I'm still awaiting copies of Scott Chubb's papers, and will not issue my
updated laser boson condensation analogy paper (the new title will emphasize
the apparently novel laser analogy issue) until after I've read what he has
to say about diffraction effects.
 
I've already pretty well discarded Chubb's rationale for helium diffusion
as simply invalid, but am most curious as to what he may say about D and
H diffusion and banding.  He appears to have mentioned atomic banding at
a surprisingly early date, well before Chuck Sites or I mentioned the idea
on this net.  Intriguing...
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Kevin Wolf's work / Droege and Bernecky / Scott Chubb's work
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kevin Wolf's work / Droege and Bernecky / Scott Chubb's work
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 17:50:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>and so will hereafter back off from all of the analytical support I've
>been providing to Bernecky
 
Please don't "back off."  In as far as I can understand some of the stuff
you post, I find it very educational.  I speak, of course, as one who is
totally ignorant of the details of quantum physics, but I am sure even more
advanced students find it all thought provoking.
 
Tommy and Billy Bob are both big boys and can stand to have a little diversity
of educated opinion posted here.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / mitchell swartz /  More educating Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More educating Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 18:10:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9307261415.AA15482@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: More educating Mitchell
 Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU a.k.a. blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
==db "Thanks, to Matt Kennel for completing the basic discussion of
==db what Mitchell needs to know about the slowing down process."
 
  Dear Dick:
      The only slowing down process is upon the development of the
   cold fusion sciences and technologies by the knee-jerk skeptics.
 
==db "He seems to lose track of what CF believers are advocating,
==db  either directly or by implication."
 
    1.  And what might that be, Dick?
 
    2.  Dick was it not you who were postulating that particles
          moving in lattices would also be forgetful and could
          not remember.         ...................
 
          = "What I suggest as one of the rules is
          = the simple notion that an energetic ion moving through
          = a solid material does not remember how it came to be in
          = that state."
            [Message: <9307211334.AA16124@suntan.Tandem.com>
                     Subject: X-rays or special pleading
               Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU aka blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu]]
 
        I guess it was.  There seems to be a theme here.
                         Are you projecting?
 
 
==db "In the question of whether energetic charged particles
==db are involved in the production of excess enthalpy, Mitchell says maybe
==db not but then asserts that some tritium and some 4He are produced.
==db Are these not the products of an exoergic nuclear reaction?  Do tell
==db us what you think, MItchell?"
 
    If the nuclear reactions are exoergic (synonym for exothermic)
      then:
 
        rest mass (reactants) - rest mass (products) = Q
 
 
     It is well-known, Mr. Blue, that the energy equivalent
       to this diminution in mass can either appear in the
       form of kinetic energy of the products
             and/or can appear as radiation.  There are many types
             of the latter.
 
   Furthermore, there actually can be internal conversions wherein
   the distribution is to the lattice or non-ionizing forms of
   radiation.    There can, and may, be radiation other than what you
  demand.  The only limitation is that the equation above must be
  satisfied.
                            Is that not correct?
 
 
==db "To answer the question, "Why castigate the people who theorize....?":
==db I would rather say I castigate the CF advocates for their lack of
==db any complete theory of the processes. Because they have been unwilling
==db or unable to construct an hypothesis covering the key features of
==db a cold fusion reaction process, there is nothing that can be put to
==db a definitive experimental test."
 
 
    castigate: L. castigatus: to punish or criticize severely
 
                         "Can't we get along?" (after R. King)
 
  Dick, it is the skeptics who have actually appear to have
         NO basis to refute the rising evidence of cold fusion
         phenomena.   It is the skeptics who have
         failed to supply any equations to bolster their petrifying
         demands, isn't it?
 
  Summary to date:   Your evidence so far has been: zero.  nada. zed.
  ---------------
       Scores of laboratories get positive results and attempt to
   publish manuscripts.  Interesting papers.   Very interesting physics
   for one who has trained in, and/or is familiar with any one of
   these fields merged in cold fusion.
   However, most candidate authors are met with resistance
   such as that seen here.   Such as a few have even described here.
 
                Best wishes.
                                                  Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Quotes from NPR
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quotes from NPR
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 03:19:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
People are still asking me about the NPR tape. Here is a quick repeat of the
info, plus a few quotes from a transcript of the tape.
 
On June 25, 1993, the NPR program "Science Friday," was devoted to cold
fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists included Michael McKubre of
SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University, Peter Hagelstein of MIT, and
Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center.
 
For more information contact:
 
Talk Of The Nation * Science Friday * WNYC Radio * 1 Center Street * New York,
NY 10007
 
Or, for a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes * Washington, DC 20036 (Specify the
date 06/25/93.)
 
This was a *superb* show. Anyone interested in the subject should get the
tape, particularly if you have not read the scientific literature or you are
looking around for a general introduction to the subject. Here is a
particularly telling exchange between McKubre, an experimenter, and Huizenga,
the Darth Varder of cold fusion; the head of the infamous ERAB DoE panel that
gutted all U.S. research in 1989 by ignoring positive results:
 
 
(McKubre) ...The research that we have performed was really intended to test
the idea that, under conditions of high loading of deuterium into a palladium
lattice, one could get excess heat; so the experiments that we're looking for
are calorimetric experiments.
 
(Flatow) In other words, you see if more heat comes out than energy that you
put in?
 
(McKubre) That's right.  And we have discovered a correlation between the
degree of loading - that is, the amount of deuterium that's loaded into the
palladium lattice - and the degree of excess heat, or power.  On something
like forty occasions in our laboratories over the last four years we've
observed instances where the power coming from the experiment exceeded the
measured power input - by very substantial amounts.
 
(Flatow) Have you always been someone who believed in cold fusion?
 
(McKubre) I don't really 'believe'.  I think the term 'believer' is an
unfortunate one, and it's largely coined by the opponents as a tool to
discredit the scientific content.  I believe the evidence of my eyes.  We
perform experiments; we observe the results, and we erect hypotheses to test
further experiments.
 
(Flatow) Let me ask you, Dr Huizenga, do you believe the results of Dr
McKubre's experiments?
 
(Huizenga) One of the difficulties with his experiments is that he has not
done adequate correlation experiments. By that I mean he claims to see excess
heat, and he infers that it's due to a nuclear reaction, but he doesn't see
the nuclear products.  It turns out that measurements of the nuclear products
are literally millions of times more sensitive than the measuring of the
excess heat.  Therefore, until he has commensurate amounts of nuclear
products, I think that one has to be very skeptical that his results are
correct.
 
(Flatow) Dr McKubre?
 
(McKubre) I'd like to correct one statement of Professor Huizenga.  We don't
in fact claim a nuclear process.  What we observe is excess power and energy
exceeding that of known chemistry.  I think it's very fair to argue that
unless one finds the nuclear products one cannot claim a nuclear process.  It
is also not correct to say that measurements of the nuclear products are a
million times more sensitive than the measurements of the power.  That's only
true - unfortunately - if the nuclear products are themselves radioactive.
If they are atoms in their ground state, and non-radioactive species, then
it's very, very difficult to find them.
 
(Flatow) Let me see if I understand this.  Are you saying then that you're not
claiming that fusion is occurring here?  That something else might be
occurring that we really don't understand, totally?  But it's something new, a
new kind of chemistry, that initiates a sort of new kind of fusion?
 
(McKubre) We've claimed neither.  We perform experiments and we observe
results.  I think it's up to others to interpret the results.  It might be
fusion, it might not be fusion.  It might be nuclear, it might not be nuclear.
It's certainly not consistent with known chemistry.
 
 
Those are the claims -- and calorimetry provides the proof. Any "skeptic" who
disagrees must demonstrate where the calorimetry is wrong. Naturally, Huizenga
and the others have never attempted to do that, because they realize that they
cannot. All they have to offer is sophistry and evasion. The proof is right
there, but they refuse to acknowledge it, discuss it, or admit they have ever
heard of it. It is fascinating -- and sickening -- to hear Huizenga try to
weasel out of confronting the evidence for a whole hour. Of course, he is not
the only one! Dick Blue, Steve Jones and all the others right here have spent
4 years trying to prove that day is night. No success so far, none expected.
Sorry guys, elementary thermodynamics *still work*.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 /  haugen@ann-arb /  FD #1204, July 24, 1993
     
Originally-From: haugen@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FD #1204, July 24, 1993
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 12:46:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Greetings to the Cold Fusion community.
 
Since this is my first, and maybe only, entry into the discussion, please
allow me a brief introduction:
 
        I am not a physicist, which will become obvious.  It's been over
        10 years since my last physics class.  I am a Mechanical Engineer
        by degree, currently working for a software company.  I have
        followed the Cold Fusion debate with interest since the initial
        excitement in Utah.
 
        I have been reading Fusion Digest for roughly a week.  (The light
        bulb stuff was fascinating.)  As a "civilian", I will speak in
        general concepts, thus hopefully avoiding embarrassing myself by
        misusing the proper terminology.
 
Tom Droege wrote (FD #1204, July 24, 1993):
>It seems significant that all the "pops" have been on downward current
>commands.  Possibly also on downward temperature swings, though not so
>certain.  I have therefore changed the program to slowly ramp up and down
>rather than slow temperature up and fast down.  This allows better
>measurements to be made of what is happening.
 
>From what I've read, one overall theory asserts that the deuterium and/or
tritium get interstitially packed into the palladium crystalline lattice.
The "packing" is what results in the fusion and/or whatever other effects
are occuring.
 
If that's true, then when the current is reduced, and the temperature of
the palladium drops, the crystalline lattice, and anything contained inside it,
will contract.  Perhaps when the palladium contracts, the "reactants" become
more closely packed, thus initiating the reactions.
 
It seems that an easy way to support or destroy my idea would be to increase
the temperature variations.  Use a higher temperature to allow more reactants
to enter the palladium, and then the larger temperature drop should result in
greater compression of a larger amount of reactants, resulting in a larger
output of the mysterious effect.
 
Obviously, everything inside the palladium will contract also.  In addition
to the temperature induced expansion/contraction, I'm not sure what sort of
changes the electrical and magnetic fields from the current will induce in the
palladium rod.
 
I decided to share this, not because I have hopes for a Nobel prize, but rather
because of experiences I've had where even "stupid" questions can inspire
great thoughts among the experts.
 
-Dennis A. Haugen-
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
  haugen@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com
  Applicon   P.O. Box 986   Ann Arbor, MI  48106   313/995-6815
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhaugen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 14:10:07 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: the Jahn-Teller effect abstract
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the Jahn-Teller effect abstract
Date: 27 Jul 93 10:25:33 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

kjohnson@athena.mit.edu (K.H. Johnson) writes:
 
> Here is the abstract of a paper I will present at the Hawaii
> Conference next December.  I hope it will help clarify the origin of
> heat in "cold fusion" experiments.
  [...]
> ... The 9.4eV energy per Pd atom released in the Jahn-Teller distortion
> of each PdH4 cluster from tetrahedral (Td) to planar (D2h) symmetry is
> likewise remarkably close to the sum of the chemical bond energies
> (4.75eV) of two free hydrogen molecules. Thus, for high loading, the
> tetrahedral interstices of fcc palladium provide, via the Jahn-Teller
> effect, an "orbital pathway" for the bulk catalytic recombination of
> rapidly diffusing D atoms to D2 "molecules", the large chemical heat of
> recombination approaching 10eV per Pd atom.
 
 
And terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
> In short, it's hard not to wonder whether your proposal ultimately
> relies on the existence of a drastically out-of-equilibrium phase of
> tetrahedral PdHx that simply does not (and cannot) exist.
 
 
How is the high energy tetrahedral configuration that is suggested as
a source for the heat created in the first place ? Is this energy put
into the system during preparation of the electrodes? In some cases it
seems to be possible to boil the cell dry. It it feasible that the
energy needed to do that was added to the system before the
actual experiment? (and without the experimenter realizing he did this)
 
Peter Roessingh
Zoology, Oxford.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Steffen Helbing /  Internet address of JET
     
Originally-From: PPH087@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Steffen Helbing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Internet address of JET
Date: 27 Jul 93 09:27:40 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich

Hi!
I'm searching for the mail address of someone at JET. I guess that
I may ask the postmaster there. But I have to know the internet
address of JET first. Can anybody tell me that?
 
Thanks
   Steffen
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPPH087 cudfnSteffen cudlnHelbing cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / John Logajan /  Re: More educating Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 20:41:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>#3:  The excess energy released from the nuclear reactions must be distributed
>among the reaction products, and any other particles created in the
>nuclear reactions, *but at first, no others*,
 
Which is one of the many points that confuses me.  We've been talking about
bosons, and that in a situation favorable to boson condensation, that the
probability of finding a boson particle in the same state as the other
"n" bosons is also "n".
 
Whatever it is that mediates this preference must be able to interogate
the multitude and thus increase the magnitude of influence.  Is it out
of line to presume the opposite?  That which influences a single boson
in a boson condensate must also disturb the multitude?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Steve DeGroof /  Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
     
Originally-From: Steve DeGroof  <steve@sun1.atitech.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 18:38:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

Flying cars! :^)
 
Seriously, there are a number of applications that
could benefit from a high energy density fuel cell.
If I understand correctly, CF cells are expected to
output several kiloWatts for several decades.
 
Any motorized vehicle would be more efficient with
a CF cell and electric motors. The main problem with
electric cars now is the energy density of the
batteries.
 
Other uses:
Long-term life support systems (for interplanetary travel)
Household electric power
Power for artificial body parts (how small can you make them?)
Self-sufficient robots
 
SD
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnDeGroof cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #4 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #4 Cell 4A6
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 22:54:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #4 Cell 4A6                               27 July 1993
 
The following is edited from a note to Bob Bernecky.  In general I will try to
continue to run a "public" experiment.  But sometimes the notes between
Bernecky and I flow fast and furious.
 
Sunday morning the temperature jumped from 35 to 77 C in a few minutes.  It
has ***stayed*** at the high temperature.  The program was at the time set to
reverse the current ramp from up to down at 36.5 C.  Which it did.  The
current is still slowly coming down at the 0.000002 amps per second rate, and
the cell thermometer is now down to 67 C or so.  The only thing that makes
sense to me is that the exectrolyte has suddenly changed thermal conductivity.
The loading lost 11 cc of gas (means 22 cc D exited from the cathode to eat 11
cc of Oxygen), but last night the gas volume started to increase.  It is now
up to 143 cc from 76.4 before the event.  I have seen this kind of gas run
away before.  For this reason there is an extra container of catalyst outside
the cell but inside the calorimeter to convert any escaping D+O that in not
converted in the cell.  The condensate from such gas does not make it back
into the cell, but the thermal balance should be good.  Possibly we are
generating Hydrino gas.  In any case I will send off a sample for analysis.
 
Oh yes!  When the cell temperature went up, the catalyst thermometer went down,
from 53 C or so to 32 C.  As you may recal, there is a glass tube down the
center of the cell which supports the cathode structure.  There are two
thermometers in it.  On, the cell temperature, is in the bottom of the tube,
just over the cathode.  The other is well up near the top of the cell in the
middle of the glass tubes which support the catalyst.  The cell temperature
thermometer is surrounded by electrolyte, and the catalyst thermometer is
about 2" above it with the glass tube inbetween stuffed with foam.  Note before
the event, the catalyst was 53 and the cell 35 or so.  After the event, the
catalyst cooled to 32 and the cell heated to 77.  Sorry I don't print out
the catalyst temperature, so I cannot say how fast it cooled without looking
at the disk data which is an effort.  Hopefully you will learn to do it.
 
The event would appear to have liberated 3 killojoules.  Since the event, there
is the possibility that there is still some low level heat 20-30 mw.  But it
is hard to say for sure as we are ramping down.  Note that if the cell is
really at 67 C, then as it cools down, there will be heat liberated.
 
My best guess for this event is that the cell really did suddenly get hot, with
the liberation of a few killojoules.  This caused the cell to start near
100% recombination in the cell.  All this process decreased the thermal
conductivity of the cell structur by 8/1.  My Occam's razor is tired, but that
is the best I can do.  Note that if this is real, then people who judge the
excess heat reading thermometers in the cell are greatly mislead.
 
It sees to me fairly easy to explain why the cell constant C/Watt decreases
with power in the cell.  It is likely promoting better circulation.  When we
look at a cell at low current there is not much circulation.  But at high
current is is "roiling".  But how can the process invert?  Perhaps a gas
bubble forms around the cathode, and it must now lose its heat by radiation.
But note that other than temperature, other things do not change much.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Thank You
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thank You
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 22:54:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to everyone who has responded to requests for information, etc.  I try]
to answer everyone but am in e-mail and other work overload.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Educating the Pd decorator
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Educating the Pd decorator
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 22:55:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz seems to think that if you sprinkle enough magic words
about you can explain anything.  Plasmon, polaron, phonon, shazzam!
Cooperative phenomena, deuteron decoration, cold fusion, kablam!
 
OK, lets pretend that all that crap should be taken seriously.  Why
do I say it isn't going to lead to an explaination for cold fusion?
Basically there are two problems that cooperative phenomena are being
called on to smooth over.  Dealing with one problem in this way is
a challange.  Covering both the incoming and outgoing wave functions
is going to strain the capability of the most cooperative wave
functions imaginable.
 
Although I can't get a simple answer out of Mitchell as to what
reaction process he is collectivizing,  I gather from a few scattered
clues that it involves deuterons in and 4He out.  Mitchell makes the
statement that, "The only limitation is that the equation (energy
conservation) above must be satisfied."  You are just to simple to
understand this, but there are some other conservation laws that
are significant in nuclear reaction processes.  Consider angular
momentum and parity.  When you construct a collective deuteron
wave function you have to specify not only a spatial wave function,
but also a spin wave function.
 
Now that you have your complete wave function take note of the fact
that only some of the possible spin wave functions are going to
contribute to a reaction amplitude that results in the formation
of 4He nucleus.  Also note that the reaction rate you have calculated
is still very, very small such that the probability of formation
of a 4He nucleus at any given location in the lattice is small.
 
Now comes the shazam!  Suddenly you have made 4He.  Is the reaction
process coherent such that all sites contribute?  I think not.  I
don't think you can make a theory that will produce a bunch of
4He's simultaneously, not without getting yourself into some deep
yogert.
 
I assume at this point the reaction energy is in the form of
excitation of the 4He nucleus,  or if you like several of theme
formed simultaneously, but two things I think need to be considered.
The sites where the reaction has occurred blow holes in you
nice coherent wave functions as a 4He is not the same as the deuterons
that made it.  You have a sprinkling of "impurities" in that
deuteron-decorated palladium lattice that you expect to work all
manner of miracles.
 
Now you have two options.  Either you claim that the reaction
forms 4He at selected sites in some sort of a super lattice or
you give up the notion that collective behavior of the 4He
is going to be available to control the way in which 4He deexcites,
i.e. couples to the phonons.   I will assert that each 4He
is own its own an deexcites in the manner it has long been
known to do, but that totally blows CF and fries the practitioners
in the process.
 
I have rambled on enough here, Mitchell.  I don't think you got
what it takes to put together a theory than can touch half the
difficulties I mention.  Why don't you just sketch a bit of
what you have in mind so we can see whether you know what a
polaron is or is not?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: In defense of Dick Blue... / John Logajon's question
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: In defense of Dick Blue... / John Logajon's question
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 18:57:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I saw Mitchell's response -- thanks, Mitchell -- to my giant balloon
analogy, but will defer detailed defenses of Dick Blue to Dick Blue and
other folks who have some actual numbers in hand.
 
To any others interested:
 
The balloons were palladium atoms, the small lead spheres their nuclei.
And the bullets were uncharged nuclear products such as gamma rays or
neutrons, which because of their intense energy levels, lack of charge,
and high quantum mechanical frequencies are unable to couple very well
with the abysmally flabby (by comparison only) world of electron orbitals
and (weaker still!) atom-to-atom phonons.  (If the particle is charged
it will do _somewhat_ better at coupling, but only by ripping a lot of
innocent atomic bystanders into little pieces.  It's just not a very
orderly process, alas.)
 
(By the way, "phonon" is a fancy word for the smallest possible unit of
_sound_, just as "photon" is the term for the smallest possible unit of
light.  And here you thought a phonon was something exotic!  The fact is,
you can hear jillions every day just by keeping your ears open!)
 
The key point of my analogy was the importance of understanding magnitudes.
It is very dangerous in physics to say that just because something _exists_,
it is necessarily dominant (or even significant) in a particular context.
Having at least a vague idea of how _incredibly_ different in size and
energy ranges atoms and nuclei are can at least help make people start
saying things like "wait a minute here, that doesn't sound quite right"
whenever someone starts shoveling a pile of impressive-looking terminology
at them.
 
After all, Kleenex may be capable of all sorts of interesting and complex
wave and quasiparticle behavor, but they still react in pretty much the
same fashion whenever a bullet goes ripping through them.  Issues like that
are worth keeping in the back of your mind when you read a strange and
curious group like this one...  :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- John Logajon:  No problemos -- I actually intend to post a bit
        more often, not less.  And I'm sure I own an apology (as usual)
        for being a sore-head to both Tom Droege and W.R. Bernecky, but
        please give me a day or so on that.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: More educating Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Date: 27 Jul 1993 19:41:39 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:     If the nuclear reactions are exoergic (synonym for exothermic)
:       then:
:
:         rest mass (reactants) - rest mass (products) = Q
:
:
:      It is well-known, Mr. Blue, that the energy equivalent
:        to this diminution in mass can either appear in the
:        form of kinetic energy of the products
:              and/or can appear as radiation.  There are many types
:              of the latter.
:
:    Furthermore, there actually can be internal conversions wherein
:    the distribution is to the lattice or non-ionizing forms of
:    radiation.
 
Sure.  "can be". But how can 99.99999% of it go that way?
 
: There can, and may, be radiation other than what you
:   demand.  The only limitation is that the equation above must be
:   satisfied.
:                             Is that not correct?
 
No.  You also have to satisfy conservation of charge and momentum, and
all relevant quantum numbers.
 
I'll go step by step.  Tell me when you disagree, and why.
 
#1:  Nuclear reactions have characteristic energies of O(MeV)'s.  Thus
by energy conservation, if one wishes to entertain the hypothesis that
nuclear reactions are responsible for a given amount of excess heat, one
can compute the approximate number of nuclear reactions that must take place.
 
#2:  Nuclear reactions proceed via the short-range strong force.  Immediately
after a nuclear reaction, the "excess energy" must therefore be contained
to a shell approximately the same size of the nucleus.  (Presuming
validity of Lorentz invariant physics; no action at a distance).
 
#3:  The excess energy released from the nuclear reactions must be distributed
among the reaction products, and any other particles created in the
nuclear reactions, *but at first, no others*,
in such a way that conserves energy, momentum, charge and quantum number.
 
#4:  What possible reaction products might occur?
 
  * The energy may be distributed as kinetic energy among various nuclear
     products, such as neutrons and protons and deuterons et cetera.
     Conserving momentum and energy means that at least one of these
     reaction products will have MeV scale energies.  Note now, that these
     particles haven't even seen any other atoms or even electrons; they
     just came out of the former nucleus.  You have MeV scale particles;
     they WILL cause observable ionizing radiation proportional to their
     numbers.
 
  * You can create new particles.  You can create neutrinos which will
    not be observed, but their energy will leave the system and cannot
    explain macroscopic excess heat.  You can create photons---at nuclear
    energies they are penetrating and observable as x-rays.  You can
    create electron/positron pairs, but the same applies---kinetic energy
    will be sufficient to knock other electrons away and cause observable
    x-rays, and the positron annihilation will also be observable.
 
    Hold on---don't say "You can create phonons".  Phonons are a
    "quasi-particle" not a real particle.  This means that in the regime
    where linear vibrations of nuclear positions would be expected classically,
    you can quantize that field, and the dynamics turn out to act in ways
    akin to real particles.  But you cannot create a 'phonon' independent
    of kinetic energy of bound nuclei in a solid. (Have you ever heard of
    a phonon beam in free space?)
 
    If you create phonons, you have to have moving nuclei.  OK we have
    a moving nucleus just coming out of the reaction.  The point is,
    it's NO LONGER BOUND to the other nuclei in the lattice; the restoring
    force responsible for creating the vibrations cannot keep the nucleus
    in place.  Sure phonons will be created when the fast moving reacting
    nucleus whizzes by, but so will observable ionizing radiation.
 
    Suppose you have a nice tablecloth of thin elastic gauze.  You twang
    it and you hear vibrations and exclaim "ah phonons"!   A hand grenade
    is tied to the middle.  Hand grenade blows up.  Just because it's
    tied to the gauze filligree doesn't mean that you won't be able to
    see the flash, hear the boom, and feel the shrapnel.  The forces in
    the gauze are simply much too weak to have much of an effect on the
    grenade, though certainly the grenade has a big effect on the gauze.
 
:   Dick, it is the skeptics who have actually appear to have
:          NO basis to refute the rising evidence of cold fusion
:          phenomena.
 
Sure there is.  There have never been nuclear reactions experimentally
observed in 40 years that have failed to produce observable penetrating
radiation products in amounts on the same order as the number of nuclear
reactions.
 
CF experiments have not provided evidence to counter this
extremely well tested fact.
 
:  It is the skeptics who have
:          failed to supply any equations to bolster their petrifying
:          demands, isn't it?
:
:   Summary to date:   Your evidence so far has been: zero.  nada. zed.
:   ---------------
 
The experimental evidence is that nuclear reactions are not responsible
for macroscopic excess heat.
 
:                 Best wishes.
:                                                   Mitchell
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  McKubre claims nothing
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre claims nothing
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 00:29:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, Jed, for the quote from McKubre.  It is interesting to note
the the man responsible for what is often cited as one of the key
CF experiments recognizes that his data has little impact on a determination
of whether CF involves a nuclear reaction process.  It certainly is
refreshing to learn that.  How is then that believers can get launched
on such flights of fancy suggesting "Outputs of several kilowatts for
several decades"?  Who originates these overblown extrapolations?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Keeping condensed after the reaction
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Keeping condensed after the reaction
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 00:29:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajon has bought into the boson condensate picture as if there
is nothing more to be said.  John, it takes several steps to get
the result desired.  Forming the condensate may be a path to deuteron
fusion, but then what?  Any 4He formed will not be part of the same
condensate.  It will be an "impurity".
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / mitchell swartz /  Re: More educating Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 22:53:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <2340djINNi0b@network.ucsd.edu>
     Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
 Matt Kennel (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
==mk "I'll go step by step.  Tell me when you disagree, and why.
==mk #1:  Nuclear reactions have characteristic energies of O(MeV)'s."
 
    That is not strictly true, depending upon what you mean
   by reaction.   For example, 3H has a beta decay (12.26 y half life)
   which has 0.019 MeV available per transition.
 
   Of course, cobalt 60 is in your range ( 2.59 MeV available with
   a 5.26 yr half life)   whereas electron irradiators used for rare
   topical tumor treatments are composed of 90Sr (28 year half life
   with .54 MeV beta, which decays into 90Y producing a 2.27 MeV
   electron) & have some components  within, and without, your range.
 
==mk "Thus by energy conservation,if one wishes to entertain the hypothesis
==mk that nuclear reactions are responsible for a given amount of
==mk excess heat, one can compute the approximate number of
==mk nuclear reactions that must take place."
 
   True, Matt.  I posted that several times previously.  Here is the
   partial list:
 
==         CALCULATION OF STANDARD ASH PRODUCED
==ms  "It is instructive to consider (the) ... standardized and
==ms  normalized ash rate ....
==ms    Because an electron volt is about 1.6 x 10 ^-16 Joules,
==ms   each Watt-minute requires  60/1.6 x 10**13  reactions/per MeV
==ms    per reaction
==ms the expected energy gain of CF (that is, total energy
==ms  released per reaction [QT]).
==ms    "The reasonable range of QT would therefore be 3 to 24 MeV per
==ms  reactions producing putative ash.
==ms   So, dividing into the above equation yields
==ms     1 Watt-minute --->   1.7 to 12.5 x 10 ** 13 reactions."
==ms
==ms ----------------------------------------------------------
==ms | QT |  REACTION NUMBER  |         TYPICAL RANGE         |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 1  | 6,250,000,000,000 |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 2  | 3,125,000,000,000 |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 3  | 2,083,333,333,333 |    Advanced D-D fuel cyles"    |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 20 |  312,500,000,000  |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 22 |  284,090,909,091  |    Putative D-D reactions     |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 25 |  250,000,000,000  |    Catalyzed 3He reactions    |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 28 |  223,214,285,714  |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms Disclaimer:  These numbers were generated with only 2 significant
==ms   figures, and should be ignored beyond that.
==ms                      [M. Swartz  1992]
 
 
==mk "#2:  Nuclear reactions proceed via the short-range strong force.
==mk Immediately after a nuclear reaction, the "excess energy"
==mk must therefore be contained
==mk to a shell approximately the same size of the nucleus."
 
  This may be highly "non-linear" to you but this is occuring in
   the solid state and may occur over distances larger than
   the nucleus.   There is no evidence that
      1) deuterons do this very often alone, and
      2) this occurs in palladium at low loadings (i.e. low D/Pd ratios)
 
     Given the lack of evidence of 1) and 2), your #2 is flawed.
 
==mk "#3:  The excess energy released from the nuclear reactions must be
==mk distributed among the reaction products, and any other
==mk  particles created in the
==mk nuclear reactions, *but at first, no others*,
==mk in such a way that conserves energy, momentum, charge and
==mk   quantum number."
 
      No trouble with the conservation requirements which are
   reasonable, but since the VOLUME is involved, and since the
   entire VOLUME must be filled for the reactions to occur, then
   the distribution involves a greater distance, and a greater
   number.
 
   Matt actually we discussed this before.
    In Sub: Re: X-rays as critical test/re to Swartz
    11 Mar 1993; Message-ID: <1nmtloINNql6@network.ucsd.edu>]
    you wrote:
 
  ==mk  "To amplify:  nuclear reactions occur at a scale that's a "point"
  ==mk     .....   interact with the rest of the atoms."
 
   to which was answered:
 
  ==ms "A reasonable discussion for fusion in a plasma, but this a fusion
  ==ms in a solid.There is no evidence that the reactions are not coherent,
  ==ms that the reactions occur a "a 'point'" as Matt claims.
  ==ms
  ==ms  "As asked before, but still without an answer:  How do you know
  ==ms   this physics must occur similar to your preconceived
  ==ms   notions in a gas or plasma?"
 
 
==mk "#4:  What possible reaction products might occur?
==mk * The energy may be distributed as kinetic energy among various nuclear
==mk    products, such as neutrons and protons and deuterons et cetera.
==mk    Conserving momentum and energy means that at least one of these
==mk    reaction products will have MeV scale energies."
 
    This may also be wrong since you are wrong about the MeV energies
   required (see above) and since your hypothesis of the scale
   involved also appears to be wrong.
 
 
==mk  "Hold on---don't say "You can create phonons".  Phonons are a
==mk  "quasi-partile" not a real particle.  This means that in the regime
==mk   where linear vibrations of nuclear positions would be expected
==mk  classically,
==mk  you can quantize that field, and the dynamics turn out to act in ways
==mk  akin to real particles.  But you cannot create a 'phonon' independent
==mk  of kinetic energy of bound nuclei in a solid. (Have you ever heard of
==mk  a phonon beam in free space?)"
 
   Matt, we are talking about cold fusion in solid I thought. ...
    Are you back into hot fusion in plasmas?
    We are talking about  reactions in a solid.   Yo!
 
 
==mk  "If you create phonons, you have to have moving nuclei.  OK we have
==mk  a moving nucleus just coming out of the reaction.  The point is,
==mk  it's NO LONGER BOUND to the other nuclei in the lattice;"
 
   You apparently did not look up the references on phonons.
   They are oscillatory, aren't they?
 
==mk   "Sure phonons will be created when the fast moving reacting
==mk  nucleus whizzes by, but so will observable ionizing radiation."
 
               "It goes on ticking and ticking" (some rabbit, somewhere)
 
  There goes that hypothesized speeding, "forgetful", nucleus again.
  It must be primal in your thinking.   What is whizzing is the logic
  of the skeptics as it deflates.
 
 
==mk "There have never been nuclear reactions experimentally
==mk observed in 40 years that have failed to produce observable
==mk penetrating radiation products in amounts on the same order as
==mk  the number of nuclear reactions."
 
    Never?   which 40 years?   Really?!
    Matt,  surely there was at least one bomb explosion where the
    spherical integral of all "observable penetrating radiation
    products" were not collected and, then with great labor that
    you claim existed, found to be equal to the putative
    number of nuclear reactions. (and where did that number come from?)
 
    Pretty haughty claim.  Not even sure all the materials involved
     in all the "nuclear reactions experimentally observed in 40 years"
     were kept track of.
 
 
==mk "CF experiments have not provided evidence to counter this
==mk extremely well tested fact."
 
   Also not apparently true, Matt.  As just one (1) example:
  Peter Hagelstein did provide a clearer description based upon
 his reading of the paper(s) and any additional information received at
 Nagoya and Kucherov's other papers:
 
  "Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
  described experiments that I thought were very important.
  The experiment involve using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
 metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
 400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current).  ... The gamma emission was studied
 using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
 recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
 detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
 at 511 keV."    ...
   "Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
 cathode and anode, and also CC thermocouples in a heat collector some
 distance from the cathode. Calibration was done through comparing
 temperature histories of "live" Pd cathodes (cathodes producing neutron,
 gamma and fast particle emission) in deuterium with those of "worn out"
 cathodes (cathodes producing no anomalous emission)."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
   continuing on:
 
    "Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
 considered.
 Excess power  production at the level of tens of watts is observed;
 their best result  out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing
 a power gain of a  factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume,
 the resulting power  generation rate is quite high; the highest values
 are on the order of 3000  watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy
 production observed to  date exceeds 20 kJ."
    "After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
 emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec
 in some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier
 work was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
 type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
 appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance of
 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of 30
 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
 discharge."
    "After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up
 to 10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). ...   An example of an anomalous
 gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in a recent publication{16}.
    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma
 spectrum returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the
 identified lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines
 originating from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where
 *Z*=46 for Pd, were observed)."
    "A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is
 emitted from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used
 for detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in
 some experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched
 off which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
 fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
 inside the discharge chamber."
    "A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks
 were observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12
 MeV and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as
 determined through measurements with different barrier thicknesses."
                 [Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
 
  FACT:  Kucherov et alia's experiments were apparently
   confirmed at least twice, as described in the Hagelstein paper.
   I direct the interest reader to section 5 therein:
 
   "There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two
    electrodes inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure
    (4-13 torr)."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
   and, of course, to section 11:
 
  "V. A. Romodanov... The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas
 at 100-200 torr, with an applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V,
 and a current of 3-4 A.  Various cathode metals were used, including
 Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W.
     "Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and
 10{9} atoms/second were measured in the different metals under
 various conditions. The largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in
 Nb at 1170 Deg. K, corresponding to an increase in tritium activity
 in the deuterium gas of 2.3 X 10{4}."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]
 
  Matt, in summary, given the cornucopia of experimental data, we
      submit that it is you who need a good theory
      to disprove (or erase) the scores of papers reporting
      positive result(s).
 
            Best wishes.
                                      Mitchell Swartz
                                     (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Barry Wise /  The "POP"
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The "POP"
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 21:17:59 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

Well,  I tried putting Tom's data into EXCEL and charting it. Didn't see
much so  I scaled the magnitudes so I could see the data beter.  The only
'anomaly' that I can see is at time 28.  The ICEL value has gone from
-.77723 to -.8024 while the corresponding VCEL has gone from 5.6311 to
5.4628.  The change in V and I pretty much cancel each other out with the
power PCEL only going from 4.349 to 4.383.  This is the time at which
TCELL has gone from 39.73 to 47.54 however.   The data right before the
event looks stable when compared to the earlier data points so I can't see
anything that would indicate some precursor to the 'pop'.  The next data
point (29) is where TCEL peaks (51.62) but ICEL has returned to where it
should be on the ramp if the excursion hadn't occurred.  VCEL remained
close to where it was at time 28 and slowly rises back to where
it was prior to the event at time 31 (about where TCEL returns
to approx 39).
 
Just some observations, don't know if that helps at all.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Matt Kennel /  Re: More educating Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Date: 28 Jul 1993 00:26:58 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
: ==mk "#2:  Nuclear reactions proceed via the short-range strong force.
: ==mk Immediately after a nuclear reaction, the "excess energy"
: ==mk must therefore be contained
: ==mk to a shell approximately the same size of the nucleus."
:
:   This may be highly "non-linear" to you but this is occuring in
:    the solid state and may occur over distances larger than
:    the nucleus.
 
:   There is no evidence that
:       1) deuterons do this very often alone, and
:       2) this occurs in palladium at low loadings (i.e. low D/Pd ratios)
:
:      Given the lack of evidence of 1) and 2), your #2 is flawed.
 
In other words, you are saying that nuclear forces exist over
multi-angstrom distances in these systems, in contrast to the femtometers
scale of interactions seen everywhere else before.
 
Note that pions, carriers of nuclear forces, have nonzero rest masses
that therefore imply finite range of interactions, unlike electromagnetism
and gravity.  This finite range is consistent with present experimental
evidence of femtoscale interactions.
 
Note also that recent large scale computations have been found consistent
matches between QCD (fundamantal explanation of nuclear forces) and
experimental facts.  Unfortunately, there's no room for strong-force
chemistry.
 
Well, I'm glad we've figured out where the disagreement lies.
 
The alternate explanation that you might entertain is that lorenz-invariance
does not apply in this circumstance and that the nuclear energy can be
"instantaneously transmitted" at a distance through an unknown mechanism.
 
:             Best wishes.
:                                       Mitchell Swartz
:                                      (mica@world.std.com)
 
--
-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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / mitchell swartz /  Educating the Pd decorator
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Educating the Pd decorator
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 01:38:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9307272242.AA04739@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: Educating the Pd decorator
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU a.k.a. blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=db "Mitchell Swartz seems to think that if you sprinkle enough magic words
=db about you can explain anything.  Plasmon, polaron, phonon, shazzam!
=db Cooperative phenomena, deuteron decoration, cold fusion, kablam!"
 
  explain (L. explanare, to make level)
    1. to make plain, understandable
    2. to give the reason for or cause of
    3. to show the logical development or relationships of
 
   It takes more then a few words, and considerable effort to "explain".
     Huffing and puffing like the "skeptics" do, certainly takes
     less effort, but the obfuscation such "tactics" create only
     occurs because it is easier to knock down than to build.
 
  BTW the word "decoration" was taught to me by Gary Collins (thank you,
   Gary) from his paper "Hydrogen and deuterium decoration of a
    vacancy complex in Ni", Phys Rev B, 34, 502 (86).
 
 
=db "OK, lets pretend that all that crap should be taken seriously.  Why
=db do I say it isn't going to lead to an explaination for cold fusion?"
 
   That's easy.  Because you say: It just doesn't exist.
   Since you ignore the papers, the theories, & the growing evidence,
    it is fractal analysis to expect you to say "it isn't going to
     lead to an explanation for cold fusion".
 
=db "Basically there are two problems that cooperative phenomena are being
=db called on to smooth over.  Dealing with one problem in this way is
=db a challange.  Covering both the incoming and outgoing wave functions
=db is going to strain the capability of the most cooperative wave
=db functions imaginable."
 
   Here we go again.  I suppose the wavefunctions are conscious in
   the Blue-system, and given their "forgetfulness" to which you alluded
   to previously, they are "strain(ed in their) capabilit(ies)".
                   [ Are you serious about this? ]
 
 
=db "I assume at this point the reaction energy is in the form of
=db excitation of the 4He nucleus, ....
=db  "I will assert that each 4He
=db is own its own an deexcites in the manner it has long been
=db known to do, but that totally blows CF and fries the practitioners
=db in the process."
 
   Dick, you have been wrong about this for quite a long time.  The
    experimenters are not "fried".  But your "theory" is.
 
   Dick, I have rambled on enough here and must get back to work.
    It is obvious that the skeptics simply do not have what it takes
    to disprove the reported results supporting cold fusion.
 
            Best wishes.
                                      Mitchell Swartz
                                     (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / mitchell swartz /  Re: More educating Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 01:40:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <234h4iINN4b@network.ucsd.edu>
    Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Matt Kennel (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
| ==mk "#2:  Nuclear reactions proceed via the short-range strong force.
| ==mk Immediately after a nuclear reaction, the "excess energy"
| ==mk must therefore be contained
| ==mk to a shell approximately the same size of the nucleus."
|
| ==ms   "This may be highly "non-linear" to you but this is occuring in
| ==ms     the solid state and may occur over distances larger than
| ==ms     the nucleus."
| ==ms
| ==ms  "There is no evidence that
| ==ms    1) deuterons do this very often alone, and
| ==ms    2) this occurs in palladium at low loadings (i.e. low D/Pd ratios)
| ==ms      Given the lack of evidence of 1) and 2), your #2 is flawed."
 
==mk "In other words, you are saying that nuclear forces exist over
==mk multi-angstrom distances in these systems, in contrast to the femtometers
==mk scale of interactions seen everywhere else before. "
 
   Not necessarily.   The forces are derived from spatial variations
     in energy (or co-energy) as in
 
                              F = - dE/dx
 
   We are talking about interactions giving rises to a reaction(s)
    over "a shell" larger then "the same size of the nucleus".
 
 
==mk  "Note that pions, carriers of nuclear forces, have nonzero rest masses
==mk that therefore imply finite range of interactions, unlike electromagnetism
==mk and gravity.  This finite range is consistent with present experimental
==mk evidence of femtoscale interactions."
 
  Noted. Such finite range holds for the pi mesons about which you refer.
 
    Any evidence for pions in cold fusion?
 
     Where they negative, or neutral or positive, pi mesons?
     How do they fit in with the other L-mesons?  Any data? Care to share it?
 
                ----------------------------------------
 
  Matt, the basic locus of disagreement appears to be this:
 
  The (hot-fusion-) skeptic(s) says c.f. can't exist/work/develop because
   after all,      ..... ah.... that is not how the sun works.
                                       or plasma fusion works.
 
       Why do you insist that reactions which occur on the sun, or hotter
        environs, MUST occur identically in a lattice at the rather "colder"
        temperatures reported?
 
             Best wishes.
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                            (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Keeping condensed after the reaction
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Keeping condensed after the reaction
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 06:58:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>John Logajon has bought into the boson condensate picture as if there
>is nothing more to be said.
 
I hope not!  Since I don't understand it, I was hoping a lot more
would be said :-)
 
> Any 4He formed will not be part of the same condensate.  It will be
> an "impurity".
 
Speaking of He, how does that react to impurities when it is in its
super cold liquid form?  Does it lose its condensate properties at any
level of contamination, or beyond a certain critical amount??
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 07:38:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>The loading lost 11 cc of gas (means 22 cc D exited from the cathode to eat 11
>cc of Oxygen), but last night the gas volume started to increase.
 
Hmm.  I take it that at start up, the motorized syringe starts at zero CC
and slowly fills with O2 (the D disappearing into the cathode.)  When the
Pd is loaded, the O2 rich head space will recomb-cycle the newest D2 and
O2 gases -- and remain O2 rich.  But suppose the Pd blows off a lot of
stored D2 -- more quickly than recombiner can burn it with the resident
O2?  You might get a D2 rich "breeze" that shuts down the recombiner
(since it blew the O2 away -- up the tube to the syringe.)  Now D2 starts
flowing toward the syringe (and even overruns the outboard recombiner.)
You'd get unrecombined D2 and O2 in the syringe, and if you assumed it
was only O2, you'd lose track of your loading.  If the Pd resumes its
D2 eating appetite, the excess O2 burns off the head-space excess D2,
but most of the D2 now in the syringe remains aloof.
 
Seems to me that one way to avoid this difficulty is to pump the syringe
alternately into another syringe with recombiner inbetween.
 
>Perhaps a gas bubble forms around the cathode, and it must now lose its heat
>by radiation.  But note that other than temperature, other things do not
>change much.       ^^^^
 
So noted.  A gas bubble around the cathode would be inconsistent with
the relatively undisturbed V*I=P terms.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / C Samuel /  Re: God, Proof, and so on
     
Originally-From: ccs@aber.ac.uk (Christopher Samuel)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: God, Proof, and so on
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 11:46:14 GMT
Organization: University of Wales - Aberystwyth - Prifysgol Cymru

[I've cross-posted this to sci.physics.fusion in case anyone there
 can correct me if I'm talking complete twaddle about F&P's cold fusion
 hoo-ha at the end of this]
 
In article <CAuDAr.DHr@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
   tommyk@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) doodled:
 
> In article <1993Jul27.190745.28172@aber.ac.uk>
>       ccs@aber.ac.uk (Christopher Samuel) writes:
>
> >What you seem to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that
> >all previous evidence is irrelevant, and you want some other form of
> >argument to justify the laws of physics.
>
> Almost right.
> I either want some other argument OR I'll accept an argument as to
> *why* previous evidence is relevant.
 
Because physics is an attempt to formulate laws which predict the
behaviour of the universe from our sense data. Now if we assume that
all past evidence is irrelevant, then we have nothing to work on
and the whole exercise is pointless.
 
> But surely you don't expect me to just accept that past evidence is
> relevant?
 
It is if you consider it a pointer to the laws in action at that time.
Now by watching the way these laws work, and possibly change, we can
attempt to divine what is going on behind them, the meta-law that is
a GUT. [If there is one]
 
> >This is not possible.  Physics is built from this evidence, you cannot
> >argue without previous cases to fall back on.
>
> But you can't argue even *with* previous cases to fall back on.
> Or can you?
 
Of course you can.  Nobody should try to stop anyone predicting what may
happen next; of course whether they are right or not is another matter.
 
You seem to be saying that the laws of physics may change, without
warning and in a completely unpredictable fasion.  All I can say is that
*if* they did we probably wouldn't be around long enough to ponder on
it.  :-)
 
Actually, GUT's and Inflationary Theory do predict that physical laws
have changed in the past (the spontaneous symetry breaking as the
temperature of the universe decreased below the critical point) and that
differing "domains" (where the symetry broke in differing ways) exist,
with possibly differing physical laws.  These are bounded by "domain
walls", kind of like the imperfections you see in crystals where the
same sort of thing happens.
 
> >> >Can *you* reproduce what Newton saw with the apple ?
> >> No, I can't.  Newton live a few years ago, and he wasn't from Glasgow.
> >
> >But physics says that this should be irrelevant, as we've not experienced
> >any "phase changes" as the Inflationary Theory puts it, and your location
> >should be irrelevant, hence when you carry out the experiment you should
> >see the same effect:
>
> How does physics know this? It only has the past to go on - it can't
> see into the future with certainty.  So how does physics know that the
> past is at all relevant?
 
Answer: it doesn't, I just used it to *predict* what would happen.
        If it didn't work then we have to look at why, and try and
        formulate new laws.
 
> >But it adds to the volume of evidence that the underlying theory is
> >correct.  It *could* all change tomorrow, but then we have to look at
> >the reasons why, and possibly throw away the laws we believe are
> >immutable. But that is physics..
>
> But this huge (and growing) pile of past events is only "evidence"
> if you *assume* that the past is relevant.
> I see that you do so assume - but why?
 
What else is there to do ?
 
If we dismiss all the previous evidence then what else can we use to
formulate laws, or don't you believe that the universe *is* lawful?  If
not, how do you explain it's present state and the evolution that seems
to have led us up to this point ?
 
> >Cold fusion, with that method and equipment is not reproducible.
>
> How do you know that?
> Maybe the attempts to reproduce were affected by undetected interference.
> Maybe the universe isn't lawful after all.
> How do you know?
 
We don't *know* anything for certain, the universe just does a very good
impression of being lawful.  You are challenging the basic assumptions
of physics, and that is good. It has made me really think about what I
believe physics is, and I'm enjoying it..
 
But if we don't make these assumptions, we can't do *anything*, and if
our ancestors hadn't believed in a deterministic universe then we
wouldn't have ended up with the present set of laws..
 
> > Cold fusion may be possible, but nobody's been able to do it
> > reproducibly yet..  (At least not to my knowledge).
>
> Noone has done it *yet*.  That doesn't mean that it can't be done.
 
But the theory they were testing says it shouldn't matter. So no matter
what, the theory is wrong.
 
> >Sigh.. OK I'll rephrase it:
> >
> >"Cold fusion is not possible by the reported means"
>
> Not good enough - I wasn't being pedantic.
> Unless you can be sure that the laws of physics are today as they
> were for F and P, *AND* you can be sure that you are reconstructing
> the F and P experiment correctly then you cannot deduce from
> your failure to reproduce the fusion that it cannot - in general -
> be done.
 
OK, I'll assume for the sake of argument that my memories from before
the F&P experiment are real, and that I do really exist, and that the
body is held together by forces that are predicted to exist by the laws
of physics.
 
Now, my guess is that if the laws had changed in a way significant
enough to influence cold fusion then it would have affected these
forces, and probably my body would no longer exist.  Hence I *infer*
that the laws of physics haven't changed.
 
Re: the experiment being the same:
 
Indeed you can never be certain about anything, but you can check,
recheck and check again. This is all we can do...
 
Now it may be that cold fusion may indeed be possible, but nobody (apart
from those who discovered the problem in the original experiment) was
able to reproduce it, so we *infer* that it cannot be reproduced.
 
> >"Neutrinos are not observable by the reported means"
>
> Not so.
> In the initial experiments some people saw the particle, some didn't.
 
That I didn't know, thanks.
 
> Those who didn't can say in disgust:
>
>       "I can't reproduce the effect by the reported means"
 
Agreed.
 
> but they would be foolish to make the universal:
>
>       "This cannot be reproduced by the reported means".
 
Agreed also, but when you get to the point where one research group got
a positive response once, but everyone elses attempts fail, then you
naturally start doubting the first experiment.
 
> Even if noone managed to reproduce the effect - you still cannot
> jump from a finite number of singulars to a universal.
> This is the problem with induction.
> This is the problem with physics as many people interpret it.
 
True, many people make too many assumptions and express their
ideas badly. Mea culpa for that one.. :-)
 
> >Exactly what I was trying to say! There was no evidence to support their
> >experiment, hence it added nothing to physics, hence it is *not*
> >physics..
>
> Awwww.  Is *that* all you were saying?
> Then we agree.
>
> I thought you were going further - to deduce a universal from a singular.
> Silly me...
 
Err.. what universal ?   That cold fusion can never occur ?
That would be silly..
 
> >> And the FP episode has resulted in me changing my views on
> >> cold fusion not a gramme.
> >
> >It rules out one method, IMHO, because we've tried it and it hasn't
> >worked.
>
> ...hmmm, maybe not so silly after all.
>
> At most it has said that we "haven't been able so far" to
> get the FP method to work.
 
OK, so you're saying that people didn't put enough time into replicating
the experiment, which may be fair comment.
 
> But if those who tried to build flying machines had given up so
> easily we would still be stuck with boats.
>
> There must have been people who were almost right with their
> early planes but made errors which they didn't realise
> were important.
 
But replicating an experiment should mean that you try to make your
setup as similar to theirs as possible, and if there are any
discrepancies then you document them.  You don't say "well that's
not quite the same, but it won't make any difference".
 
> Now we don't know that the same thing didn't happen with FP cold fusion.
> If I had to make a bet I would bet for *them* being mistaken, not
> the rest.
>
> But I dont know - cant know - EVER.
 
Chris
--
Christopher Samuel, Computer Unit, U.W Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, WALES
E-mail: ccs@aber.ac.uk         PGP 2.3 public key available on request
"Some say the gods are a myth,                  - The Waterboys
 but guess who I've been dancing with."          "The Return of Pan"
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenccs cudfnChristopher cudlnSamuel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potentiostatic control
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 13:17:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1201:
 
>I realize that running your cell under constant current makes sense if all
>that you are interested in is the heating effect of the cell current. It
>surprises me that some people are not even sure what potentiostatic control
>involves. Surely it would be sensible to try to set the electrode potential
>against a suitable reference so that you do not get excessive hydrogen
>(deuterium) gas evolution and are not using most of the energy you throw in
>to simply heat up the electrolyte? What does the E-log i plot for Pd look
>like? As for the 'non-control' - ?
 
No such thing as "excessive" here; the afficionados reckon that the higher the
overpotential, the higher the Nernst [sic] pressure inside the Pd. Energy?
Look here, man, once we get this going, at >2kW/cm^3, scaled up, energy will
be so cheap, we won't need to meter it...
 
>I also find it interesting that the cell impedance is said to vary. Has
>anyone actually measured the a.c. impedance (by EIS) of the Pd electrode and
>tracked its variation with time and/or electrode potential? Why should it
>vary, unless you are changing the surface in some way during the test run,
>building up a film for example? Does the electrode impedance change during
>the energy release period? How do people control the electrolyte composition
>and pH during the run?
 
Spoken like an electrochemist. They use high current densities, leading to
lots of bubbling and temperature gradients. So you have not only a fluctuating
effective electrode surface area (and will be moving up and down the Tafel
curve) but also a fluctuating electrolyte resistance. Obviously, if you want
to claim accurate power excess, you must measure the input power accurately,
i.e. sample it at a sufficiently high rate. This is the unknown at present.
 
Potentiostatic control would make both current and cell voltage vary - and why
not, you might ask, since you have to sample etc anyway? Most people seem to
believe that if they use a "constant" current generator set to a low
bandwidth, they will get a constant current. I have been trying to impress on
them that you need to have it set to the highest bw for that. Then, you could
get away with analog-averaging the cell voltage and sampling at some nice slow
rate - as in fact they do.
 
Another advantage of not using potentiostatic control is that you don't need
a reference electrode, and don't have iR worries. However, FPH-89 quote an
electrode overpotential (0.8 V), and calculate that famous 10^27 "atm" D2
pressure from it... I am still wondering how they measured that...
 
In another posting, I referred to "Karol Hladky" - sorry about that.
                                      ^
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Dieter Britz /  RE: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 14:21:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1207:
 
>   Thank you, Dick.   {"A man has got to know his limitations"}
 
>   You brought up the impact of a charged particle  with a relatively
>massive and therefore relatively "fixed" lattice.
>   You now appear to be claiming that the sudden negative acceleration of
> a charged particle impacting said solid does  not cause radiation
> (bremsstrahlung).  Do you really have any evidence for this?  We look
> forward to Dick Blue's repudiation of electrodynamics.  [Stay tuned!]
[...]
>Fact:  There is growing reported evidence of excess heat (of two types,
>   a steady state (regular anomalous) and burst type (irregular anomalous),
>   and tritium, helium-4 and neutronpenic levels of neutrons.
                 ^^^^^^^^
... and blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu comments in FD 1208,
RE: More educating Mitchell
 
>implication.  On the question of whether energetic charged particles
>are involved in the production of excess enthalpy, Mitchell says maybe
>not but then asserts that some tritium and some 4He are produced.
>Are these not the products of an exoergic nuclear reaction?  Do tell
>us what you think, MItchell?
 
I have the feeling that Mitch has forgotten for the moment that this 4He that
some reckon is the sole product of the hitherto unknown nuclear process
yielding excess heat and no appreciable radiation, is in fact just a 4He
NUCLEUS, i.e. that charged particle Dick Blue is talking about. If some exotic
process yields 4He nuclei, these will of course come into being, carrying some
MeV excess energy, and start to plough through the Pd lattice. Dick has
explained nicely where the x-ray emission then will come from. I know that the
4He believers also imagine some even more exotic process by which these
excited 4He nuclei slow down gradually by some coherent process (wave the
hands here), sort of like Terry's bullets somehow slowed down by the balloons
hanging out there in space acting together (nice picture, Terry). A bit hard
to imagine - but then, Schwinger proposed exactly that for his 3He nuclei, and
Hagelstein is no slouch either.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.27 / Mark Epperson /  Re: Superconductivity prerequisites
     
Originally-From: epperson@evolve.win.net (Mark Epperson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductivity prerequisites
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 07:12:22 GMT

 
In article <1993Jul20.094718.4796@crosfield.co.uk>, Richard Kirk
(rak@crosfield.co.uk) writes:
> ---lots of stuff deleted ---
>
> ... The condensate has a much bigger
>wavelength so the things that scatter must be that much larger to be
>effective. ...
> ---more stuff deleted ---
 
Please bear with me (I am not a scientist) but I have a question.
Could the change of wavelength make the lattice transparent to the
condensate?  If this is a stupid question, please ignore it.
 
- Mark Epperson
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenepperson cudfnMark cudlnEpperson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / K Blackler /  Re: Internet address of JET
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (Kenneth Blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Internet address of JET
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:03:30 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <93208.112940PPH087@DJUKFA11.BITNET> PPH087@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Steffen Helbing) writes:
 
>Hi!
>I'm searching for the mail address of someone at JET. I guess that
>I may ask the postmaster there. But I have to know the internet
>address of JET first. Can anybody tell me that?
 
>Thanks
>   Steffen
I guess my return address says it all!
KenB
--
 ______________________________________   ____________   _____________
|Ken Blackler kb@jet.uk (+44)235 464743| | __________ | |   -Fusion-   |
|JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon       | |   | |_ |   | |Energy for the|
|Oxfordshire, England. OX14 3EA        | | \_/ |_ |   | | (far) future |
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkb cudfnKenneth cudlnBlackler cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Potentiostatic control
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Potentiostatic control
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 14:48:58 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Karel Hladky (khladky@nessie) wrote:
: I realize that running your cell under constant current makes sense if all
: that you are interested in is the heating effect of the cell current. It
: surprises me that some people are not even sure what potentiostatic control
: involves. Surely it would be sensible to try to set the electrode potential
: against a suitable reference so that you do not get excessive hydrogen
: (deuterium) gas evolution and are not using most of the energy you throw in
: to simply heat up the electrolyte? What does the E-log i plot for Pd look
: like? As for the 'non-control' - ?
:
: I also find it interesting that the cell impedance is said to vary. Has
: anyone actually measured the a.c. impedance (by EIS) of the Pd electrode and
: tracked its variation with time and/or electrode potential? Why should it
: vary, unless you are changing the surface in some way during the test run,
: building up a film for example? Does the electrode impedance change during
: the energy release period? How do people control the electrolyte composition
: and pH during the run?
 
Shame that no-one wants to talk about electrochemistry ...
--
**Dr. Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel-44-612366573*CAPCIS Ltd.**
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Richard Blue understands nothing
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Blue understands nothing
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:26:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue wrote:
 
     "Thanks, Jed, for the quote from McKubre.  It is interesting to note the
     man responsible for what is often cited as one of the key CF experiments
     recognizes that his data has little impact on a determination of whether
     CF involves a nuclear reaction process... How is then that believers can
     get launched on such flights of fancy suggesting 'Outputs of several
     kilowatts for several decades'?"
 
It is very simple:
 
McKubre, and others, observe far more heat coming from the cells than any
possible chemical reaction can produce. Sometimes the heat is 10 times greater
than any chemical reaction can produce, sometimes 100 times, and -- if you get
lucky and let it go -- sometimes 10,000 times more. Furthermore, no researcher
at any time during the last four years has *ever* found any trace of any
chemical changes in any cell that might explain the heat. There is no chemical
ash. Therefore, whatever CF is, it cannot be a chemical process. That is ruled
out even more decisively than a conventional fusion reaction is ruled out by
the lack of neutrons. Everyone know that a fire cannot burn without consuming
fuel and creating ash.
 
Whatever CF is, it can produce massive amounts of energy with practically no
fuel at all, and the fuel it uses is water, which is cheaper and easier to get
than oil. Also, CF does not produce any measurable pollution. Electrochemical
CF reactions have been demonstrated at temperatures of 300 C; gas phase
reactions at 1,800 C have been observed. Power density is wonderfully high.
 
Therefore, CF is very interesting, and very valuable. Whether it is nuclear
energy or something brand new and completely unknown to science is not the
issue. MITI does not care about that, EPRI does not care about that, and
neither do I. It is manifestly obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that
"Outputs of several kilowatts for several decades" are likely to be achieved
within few years, and such outputs will be technologically and economically
valuable. There is not one scrap of evidence that multi-kilowatt reactions
*cannot* occur, and tons of evidence that they can. Progress has been swift --
especially compared to hot fusion or improvements in internal combustion
engines. Every sign is positive, every indication is that MITI's predictions
will be met.
 
You are off in the corner muttering that it is not nuclear because you don't
understand how it could be nuclear. Well who cares?!?!? What possible
difference could it make whether it is nuclear or not? Who cares whether you
understand it? It is red hot, it generates megajoules per mole of fuel, it can
be scaled up, and it does not pollute. What more do you want? I does not
matter whether it is nuclear or not. It sure as hell isn't chemical.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Superconductivity prerequisites
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductivity prerequisites
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 16:33:22 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

In article <103@evolve.win.net> epperson@evolve.win.net (Mark Epperson) writes:
 
>Could the change of wavelength make the lattice transparent to the
>condensate?
 
Whooo.  I will have to take this one a bit at a time.
The Energy Gap
--------------
 
The 'condensate' is
a funny highly correlated state formed from some of the conduction band
electrons.  It happens because there is a small force between electrons and
between electron pairs that tends to keep them in this organized state.  Once
a few electrons go to this state, it becomes more energetically favourable
for the others that can to fall in with them (the 'energy gap').
 
The 'attractive' force between these electrons is caused by the electrons
interacting via phonons in the lattice, so the force, and the entire
condensation is formed and sustained by the interactions with the lattice.
 
However basically you are right - all the electrons are behaving like one
big wavefunction.  If there is a current the condensate electrons are all
moving in an organised fashion, and so do not 'see' things like the small-
scale defects and thermal perturbations in the lattice that normally
cause resistance.  It is not just a wavelength mismatch: that would imply
you would get some resistance, though perhaps much less.  Here if you
are to scatter an electron in the condensate, then you must scatter it out of
the condensate, and to do that you will have to put in the energy to get it
over the 'energy gap' and back into the ordinary conduction bands where it
came from.
 
Vortices in the wavefunction
 ---------------------------
 
If the wavefunction flows then there will be a gradient in the phase
(well a thing called the 'gauge' actually - that includes the vector
potential of the magnietic field, but let's forget that for now).  If it
flows in a loop, then the nett phase around the loop must be 2n*pi to get
back to where you started.
 
What is in the centre of the loop?   If there is superconductor at the
centre then the wavefunction must go to zero at some line to have the
2n*pi phase loop around it.  This means there is a line-shaped region where
some electrons are not in the superconducting state, with the superfluid
flowing around it as though it were an eddy or vortex.  Because some electrons
are not in the condensed state, these vortices have a positive energy per unit
length.  If you have a line of some non-conductive gunk in your superconducter
where the electrons would not be in the condensed state anyway, then the
vortex would sit on the line of gunk and you would have to put in extra energy
to prize it off.  That's how some hard superconductors work (sort of).
 
An eddy with a 2n*pi phase mismatch has 2n*pi quanta of magnetic field
associated with it, so you can also pin them with magnetic inclusions.
If you are really feeling dead flash you can try pinning them with each
other.  And if your current is not steady and these vortices are moving then
they can lose energy dragging over these pins and cutting each other, and this
will give you a voltage drop.
 
These lines are not just figments of QM - you can image them by putting
fine iron filings onto a superconductor.  The arrays of dots are called
'Bitter patterns' after the guy who first did it.  Their separation are
usually of the order of tens of microns or more - quite a jump from our
original electron wavelengths.
 
Hope this helps.
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John Logajan
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 18:14:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan is trying to make sense out of the gas changes in status 4 Cell
4A6.  So am I.  It appears that the cell now has a leak.  I am doing
calibration now in preparation to opening up the calorimeter and taking a look.
I appears that the pressure switch was set to provide a slight negative
pressure.  It is hard to balance it exactly.  Usually I get it to 1" of H2O
or so.  Now the question is why did the cell spring a leak just after the
reaction.  The usual cause for a slowly increasing leas ( as this one has
appeared) is that a piece of catalyst got wedged against the cell wall and
burned its way through.  But the catalyst is now in glass tubes???
 
We shall see in a day or two.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Keeping condensed after the reaction
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Keeping condensed after the reaction
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:58:22 GMT
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>John Logajon has bought into the boson condensate picture as if there
>is nothing more to be said.  John, it takes several steps to get
>the result desired.  Forming the condensate may be a path to deuteron
>fusion, but then what?  Any 4He formed will not be part of the same
>condensate.  It will be an "impurity".
 
That's not necessarily true Dick.  For example, in the Chubb's
theory the He4++ created by the condensate fusion remains directly
exchangable with 2D+, at least in the case of 2D+ wave function
overlap within an intersitual.  Ie. 2D+ <=> He4++ until localized
at either defects or the surface barrier.  Because of the band nature,
of the Bose Band Condensate fusion, the resulting He4++ forms a
band state, and the energy is release via the band.  In normal loaded
PdD(x) configurations that amounts to about 0.02eV / deuteron.
I know this sounds far fetched, but it is a really interesting idea
and is one of the better theory papers I've read.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Mossbauer and boson condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mossbauer and boson condensation
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:40:02 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Jul28.065805.18893@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
> | John Logajon has bought into the boson condensate picture as if there
> | is nothing more to be said.
>
> I hope not!  Since I don't understand it, I was hoping a lot more
> would be said :-)
 
Oh hey, I _can't_ skip such a great opportunity to play devil's advocate!
 
 
THE MOSSBAUER EFFECT
 
One of the most curious of all boson condensate effects is a dandy little
thing called Mossbauer.  It happens when _phonons_ (which are spin zero
bosons) in a crystal or liquid form condensates or "modes" of vibration.
 
These phonon condensates have the curious effect of "stitching together"
the momentum of the atoms in the following sense:
 
    When a gamma ray of the right frequency is absorbed by a _single_
    nucleus of a _single_ atom within the crystal liquid, the _momentum_
    of the gamma ray is "instantly" transferred to _all_ of the atoms
    participating in that particular phonon mode (condensate).
 
Ouch!  Despite the fact that this effect is very well known, very well
studied, and quite useful physicists, this is a _bizarre_ sort of event.
 
I recall once watching physicists at my old alma mater take data from a
dinky little device in which a gamma ray source was moving back and forth
at, oh, say a centimeter or so a second.  A receiver would then pick up
the same gamma rays and display how a frequency shift of as little as
_part of one cycle per second_ could decrease the likelihood of gamma
ray absorption.  Stop and think about that:  Despite thermal noise in
which the atoms were nominally moving _hundreds of miles per second_,
this silly setup was measuring relative atomic velocities of about a
centimeter a second...  Absolutely absurd!!
 
Without Mossbauer's phonon condensates, that is.  The zero mode phonon
condensates in both the transmitter and the receiver were in effect
creating a population of _zero motion_ atoms that were able to communicate
with each other as if they were strapped in very, _very_ tightly to the
large-scale motions of their devices.  Remarkable, absolutely remarkable,
despite it being such a well-known effect among physicists.
 
 
MOSSBAUER AND JOHN BELL?
 
To the best of my knowledge the late (and genuinely great) physicist John
Bell of CERN never addressed Mossbauer in his writings, but I truly wish
he had taken it on.  It's that little part where I said that momentum is
in some sense "instantly" transferred _throughout_ the crystal lattice
that gives me majore (BURP!) heartburn, because it invokes all sorts of
unsavory images of faster-than-light transfers of momentum.  This was the
sort of paradoxical thing that Dr. Bell loved to tackle in his spare time,
but alas, he was far more of a particle type than a solid-stater, and to
the best of my knowledge he never went after such issues.  At least they
are not covered in "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics," which
appears to be a pretty complete compendium of his writings on QM issues.
 
If anyone out there (translation: Hi, Dr. Morrison) might know whether or
not John Bell ever addressed the Mossbauer effect in his writings, I'd
be most greatful for a reference.)
 
 
ROMAN JACKIW -- AN INADVERTANT COPENHAGEN HERETIC??
 
I also would have been very interested in John Bell's comments on papers
such as Roman Jackiw's 1970s piece on "fermion fracturing" in polyacetylene,
a piece that is in massive violation of the DeBroglie/Bohm pilot wave models
that Bell seemed to favor rather strongly ("particle _and_ wave" is a quote
from Bell that I especially recall -- Dr. Bell really, _really_ did not like
Bohr's complementarianism and, by induction, the Copenhagen interpretation.)
In that case I realize that Dr. Bell never discussed it -- it's just a wish.
 
Actually, I think Dr. Jackiw also seriously violated the _Copenhagen_
interpretation in that paper, too.  He gave every appearance of viewing
the splitting of an electron wavefunction into two fractionally charged
"kinks" or solitons as leading to _real_, fully observable fractional
charges.  That violates Copenhagen because you can't _do_ that with a pure
probability interpretation of (psi psi*) -- you either get a full charge
found at one location, or a full charge at the other, _but not a little
bit in both_ if you stick to pure Copenhagen.  Instead, what Jackiw did
in that paper (quite possibly without realizing it) was invoke the older
Schroedinger concept of a wave of _mass/charge/spin_ density -- a _real_,
measurable allocation of the properties of the electron to physically
disparate locations.  Dangerous stuff for a peer-reviewed physics paper!)
 
How did someone as well-known and respected in the physics community as
Roman Jackiw get himself into such a heretical position?  By following
the lead of the solid-state physicsts!  Those poor fellers violate the
Copenhagen interpretion left and right with their Peierl's condesations
and such, and no one even seems to notice.  (Except maybe Scott Chubb??)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Nyquist Criteria
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nyquist Criteria
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 19:23:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Looks like Dieter Britz and I do not yet see eye to eye about where to set
the bandwidth of the current source.
 
I think it is important to sample faster than the Nyquist criteria.  Since I
sample at once a minute (but really the mean of 100 samples taked during a
ten second interval once a minute with the 64 channels * 100 samples
interleaved), I slow the current control loop down to have a several minute
tau.
 
For practical purposes, this means that I am running the cell at constant
voltage, and the current fluctuates a lot.  So what is wrong with this,
Dieter?
 
The reason that I don't set the current loop to high bandwith is that I can
then not possibly beat the Nyquist rate.  So what do I do?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / (Mike Packard /  Looking for graduate programs
     
Originally-From: packard@netnews.jhuapl.edu ((Mike Packard, JHU/APL, 301-953-5000 x3516))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for graduate programs
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 18:19:47 GMT
Organization: Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University

 
I would like to know if anyone has a list of good schools in a
fusion program for a doctorate in physics.
 
If anyone does know of schools like this, please e-mail me at:
 
packard@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu.
 
Thank-you in advance
 
mike
packard@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpackard cudfn(Mike cudlnPackard cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / Richard Schultz /  Another dumb experimental question
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another dumb experimental question
Date: 28 Jul 1993 19:01:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
A while back, the issue specific heat was mentioned in passing.  I have
another question along those lines, although since I'm not an electrochemist,
I can't guarantee that it's not totally stupid.
 
How is the resistance of the electrodes (and especially the changes in the
resistance of the Pd as a function of D loading) taken into account?  If it
turns out that it can't possibly make any difference, then scratch this
one up to another person who doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 20:14:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed says: "McKubre, and others, observe farm more heat...."
 
There may well be a difference between observe or measure and real excess
heat.  My recent measurements indicate that use of a thermometer to measure
excess heat based on some measured calorimeter constant may be subject to
great error.  Of those mentioned, only McKubre is likely not subject to this
error.  But I find other problems with his measurements.  So I do not have
much confidence in any of the excess heat measurements.  This is not to say
that they are known to be wrong, but just that they are not convincing.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 / mitchell swartz /  RE: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 20:00:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <01H12VUY1CIA9PONQW@vms2.uni-c.dk>
     Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
 Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote
 
==  "I have the feeling that Mitch has forgotten for the moment that this
== 4He that some reckon is the sole product of the hitherto unknown
== nuclear process yielding excess heat and no appreciable radiation,
== is in fact just a 4He NUCLEUS, i.e. that charged particle Dick Blue
==  is talking about."
 
   Dieter, Hi!  However, I am not certain that 4He is the "sole product"
   nor that "no appreciable radiation" occurs.  Are you? E.g. what about
   the tritium reported on occasion, and the infra-red radiation?
 
   First considerable radiation does result, but there is no
     appreciable neutron radiation.  Only neutronpenic levels of neutrons.
 
   Second, the question is whether the energy and momentum distribution
    and reaction products are exactly what (whomever) a priori demands.
 
 [These cf phenomena are complicated {and probably not as
                              simple as hot fusion}.
 
 
==  "If some exotic process yields 4He nuclei, these will
==  of course come into being, carrying some MeV excess energy, and start
== to plough through the Pd lattice."
 
  To the degree that such Mev excess energy is kinetic and associated
  with that particle, then that is true.       \/\/\/
 
        Best wishes.
                                 Mitchell
 
    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all
     the evidence.  It biases the judgement"
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Can wavelength changes make the lattice "transparent?"
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can wavelength changes make the lattice "transparent?"
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 20:25:06 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <103@evolve.win.net>
epperson@evolve.win.net (Mark Epperson) writes:
>
> In article <1993Jul20.094718.4796@crosfield.co.uk>,
Richard Kirk (rak@crosfield.co.uk) writes:
 
> |  ... The condensate has a much bigger wavelength so the things that
> | scatter must be that much larger to be effective. ...
>
> Please bear with me (I am not a scientist) but I have a question.
> Could the change of wavelength make the lattice transparent to the
> condensate?  If this is a stupid question, please ignore it.
 
A change in wavelength can have a profound effect on transparency, because
it can determine whether or not a series of very weak mirrors will be able
to "join together" to reflect a wave strongly.  This can happen only if the
waves are short enough to "repeat themselves" from mirror to mirror, always
showing exactly the same part of themselves to each new mirror.  If you have
enough mirrors, _even if the mirrors are extremly weak_, then this effect
can add up to a single mirror that is profoundly reflective and pretty much
impassible to that wave.
 
In something like palladium, the "weak mirrors" are simply the sheets of
atoms that form the crystal structure, and the waves are things like X-rays,
neutrons (viewed as waves), electrons, or (possibly) hydrogen atoms/ions.
 
A wave must be no more than twice the length between two adjacent mirrors
for this to happen.  Once it exceeds that length, constructive reflection
(diffraction) ceases and the wave _may_ be able to move freely through
the medium.
 
I say "may" because there are many other factors to take into account.
If the mirrors (e.g., atoms) are very strongly reflective anyway, then
the wave may be scattered regardless of whether the mirrors add up when
they reflect.  Yet even there you have to be careful, because quantum
effects can cause strange things to happen.
 
Take electrons for example: they are very strongly reflected off of atoms,
yet they fly through metals (up to the diffraction limit I described above)
almost as if they were in a vacuum!  How can that be?
 
The key is that their light weight allows them to "tunnel" from atom to
atom in a way that adds up to a special wave, one that closely simulates
the motion of an electron in a vacuum.  (If you want an in-depth look at
that, it's covered in Feynman Lectures III.)
 
....
 
So the net answer to your question is "Yes, you can _in some cases_ make
an object "not see" the lattice through which it is traveling" -- the
classic and best example being electrons wandering around in a metal.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 20:42:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <930727173415.26c006bd@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> Status #4 Cell 4A6                               27 July 1993
>
> The following is edited from a note to Bob Bernecky.  In general I will
> try to continue to run a "public" experiment.  But sometimes the notes
> between Bernecky and I flow fast and furious.
>
> Sunday morning the temperature jumped from 35 to 77 C in a few minutes.
> It has ***stayed*** at the high temperature.  The program was at the time
> set to reverse the current ramp from up to down at 36.5 C.  Which it did...
  ...
> My best guess for this event is that the cell really did suddenly get hot,
> with the liberation of a few killojoules.  This caused the cell to start
> near 100% recombination in the cell.  All this process decreased the
> thermal conductivity of the cell structur by 8/1.  My Occam's razor is
> tired, but that is the best I can do.  Note that if this is real, then
> people who judge the excess heat reading thermometers in the cell are
> greatly mislead.
 
Tom, if you get to the point where you feel you have a sufficienty solid
"gotcha" on your heat production, might I propose that you give one of the
electrodes to someone skilled in detection of various forms of low-level
radiation (gee, why does Steve Jones name come to mind after that intro?)
 
If you do indeed have a "gotcha," a _unique_ radiation signature might be
quite helpful to establishing something unique.  Never know till you try.
 
(Shoot, have you at least _tried_ running your geiger counter over one of
your more interesting ones?  As Seasick Cecil used to say, "what the heck.")
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 04:38:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
1.) >The loading lost...22 cc D
2.) >When the cell temperature went up, the catalyst thermometer went down,
3.) >[speculates] near 100% recombination in the cell.
 
Seems to me that blowing off 22cc of Deuterium gas in a short time is more
likely to overrun the catalyst and therefore cool it off (by starving
it of oxygen) than the likelyhood of near 100% recombination in the cell.
Plus the fact that you gained gas volume in the syringe which certainly
doesn't sound like successful recombination to me ;-)
 
Even the negative pressure leak hypothesis doesn't seem to explain the cool
catalyst very well -- unless it was a fast leak and really accounts for the
bulk of the 22cc attributed to D blowoff.  But why would a leak be coincidental
with a sharp cell temperature spike.  After all, the head-space should have
been O2 rich, so the import of N2 isn't a likely candidate to cause chemical
heat release by combining with the electrolitically released D2.
 
The temperature spike may have caused the leak, and the catalyst cooling may be
due to the leak, but then there is no reason to assume that you had unloading
of the cathode at the same instant.
 
Ack -- too many variables.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #4 Cell 4A6
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 04:42:47 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Plus the fact that you gained gas volume in the syringe which certainly
>doesn't sound like successful recombination to me
 
Oops, you lost volume first, then gained it.
 
>But why would a leak be coincidental with a sharp cell temperature spike.
 
Same oops.
 
>but then there is no reason to assume that you had unloading
>of the cathode at the same instant.
 
And again.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  A question about split wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A question about split wavefunctions
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 14:55:50 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

______________________________________________________________________________
NOTE:  I occasionally submit physics questions to sci.physics.research, such
as the one below.  I'm including a copy of it here in case anyone in this
group is also interested in exploring offbeat quantum mechanics issues.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Photon wavefunctions can be split via partially reflective mirrors and
transmitted to widely separated locations.  Thus one could postulate the
following photon wavepacket envelope 0.5 seconds after such a split:
 
         _ - - _                                         _ - - _
    ---=         =-------------------------------------=         =---
         - _ _ -                                         - _ _ -
 
            <-------------- 300,000 kilometer -------------->
                             (1 light second)
 
The experimentally meaningful reality of "disjoint" wavefunctions has been
confirmed by photon self-interference experiments in which a disjoint wave-
function is required to give accurate results.  (I am not aware of any very-
long-baseline versions of this experiment such as the above, however.)
 
There is no reason of which I am aware why the above scenario cannot also
apply to the wavefunction of a single electron.  But an electron is charged,
and that charge can nominally be detected by an arbitrarily large surface
integral of any region of space that encloses the charge:
 
 
                      Surface integral charge = -1
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
    |  charge = (?)                                    charge = (?) |
    | +-----------+                                   +-----------+ |
    | |  _ - - _  |                                   |  _ - - _  | |
    |-|=         =|-----------------------------------|=         =|-|
    | |  - _ _ -  |                                   |  - _ _ -  | |
    | +-----------+                                   +-----------+ |
    |                                                               |
    +---------------------------------------------------------------+
 
            <-------------- 300,000 kilometer -------------->
                             (1 light second)
 
My question:
 
    What is the surface integral charge for an arbitrarily large region
    that contains only one of the two parts of the electron wavefunction?
 
And yes, some nasty little consistency problems are possible depending on
how you chose to answer the question.  Beware.
 
[After seeing his co-authored article in the latest issue of Scientific
American, I'd be particularly interested to hear what Aphraem Steinberg
(sp?) might have to say about this question.]
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 / Jed Rothwell /  Simple Calorimetry (again)
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 17:15:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Schultz asks:
 
"How is the resistance of the electrodes (and especially the changes in the
resistance of the Pd as a function of D loading) taken into account?"
 
It is accounted for by measuring it carefully. There were a few experiments
back in 1989 where voltage was not measured, but that is a grave mistake in
an electrochemical experiment. It is understood and modeled in several
papers, notably ones by Mizuno. As the lattice sites fill, the metal goes
through "alpha" and "beta" and other phases. I believe the resistance first
climbs, then abruptly falls. The exact number of phases and the details of
each is disputed in the literature. There is some evidence that in the highest
loading phase, the Pd becomes superconducting. My gut feeling is that if this
is true, it will eventually show some profound connection between HTSC and CF.
 
 
Tom Droege writes:
 
"There may well be a difference between observe or measure [temperatures with
a calorimeter] and real excess heat.  My recent measurements indicate that use
of a thermometer to measure excess heat based on some measured calorimeter
constant may be subject to great error."
 
My recent measurements indicate exactly the same thing! See my recent paper "A
Simple Calorimeter" where I describe a damaged or defective thermocouple that
drifted 5 C in a couple of hours. See also my conclusion:
 
     "A worker attempting to replicate this experiment is advised to observe
     carefully the performance characteristics of the thermocouples,
     thermistors or thermometers employed. These devices can break, drift, or
     harbor other nasty surprises. It is essential that they be calibrated and
     observed closely. They are described in detail here, along with some of
     the problems experienced, in order to impress upon the reader two facts:
 
     1.   Temperature measuring devices do not always work perfectly. Even
          standard, off-the-shelf ones can have biases, and they can develop
          severe instrument drift, as one did in this experiment.
 
     2.   Any experimenter who is awake and fully cognizant of the facts, who
          uses a minimum of common sense and cross checking, will
          _immediately_ catch any major errors (with these instruments, any
          error over 1 C). While it is possible for the instruments to be
          damaged, and to drift 5 C in a few hours, as one did during the
          course of this work, it is impossible that person with ordinary
          skills would not notice such a gross error.
 
          This second point is emphasized, because many "skeptics" claim that
     instrument error is responsible for all excess heat readings in all cold
     fusion experiments during the last four years. This experiment proved
     inadvertently that such instrument error is trivial to detect and
     eliminate."
 
 
There it is Tom. These are the facts:
 
Any reasonably competent, fully awake scientist can do calorimetry in the
multi-watt regime with confidence. The techniques and instruments go back to
the time of the French Revolution. Yes, you can make a mistake. No, it is
impossible to make mistakes year after year for four years. It is impossible
for hundreds of people to make gross mistakes. Calorimetry in this domain is
Dead Simple, 100% reliable, and much, much easier than, say, tuning up an old
fashioned automobile spark distributer with a strobe light -- a task that
thousands of mechanics used to perform correctly on a daily basis, and that I
managed to do in high school.
 
Calorimetry in the domain that Tom is attempting to work in is terribly
difficult. He is making a big mistake fooling around at the milliwatt level.
In science, as in daily life, it is always best to do things the easiest, most
reliable way possible. Tom is going out of his way to make the experiment
difficult, complex, unreliable, and to make his results questionable. There is
no need for milliwatt precision in most cold fusion calorimetry. It is bad
technique to use more precision than you need; it is misguided; like measuring
a baby's fever to the nearest 0.0001 C. All you need is 0.1 C precision to
know that the child is sick. Four digit precision is overkill. In recent
years, it has become fashionable in science to worship over-precise,
meaningless extra digits, instead of stepping back to look at the overall
experimental technique and instrumentation. Tom is not the only person to
confuse meaningless precision with good science.
 
To assert -- as Tom and the other skeptics do -- that calorimetry in the
multiwatt regime is unreliable is to assert an absurd lie. Anyone who is
familiar with the field will know that this is an absurd lie; a mere fantasy.
Anyone who takes the trouble to replicate my baby calorimeter will instantly
see that Tom is wrong. Tom and the others keep repeating it because they do not
want to face the reality of proven scientific fact. They assert that something
is wrong with McKubre's work, and Kunimatsu's work, but they will never tell
us what they suspect, because they cannot. There is nothing to suspect. The
work is straightforward, airtight and impeccable, the descriptions of it are
detailed enough to find any error. After four years, none of the "skeptics"
has ever offered a single, viable, scientific reason to doubt any of the
calorimetry.
 
Of course, they have offered loads of garbage nonsense reasons, like: 0.0044
mole of hydrogen will burn for 10 minutes and boil away 45 ml of water; or,
when cells are wired in series, you can turn off one while the others stay on;
or, a flow of 60 ml of water per minute through an unimpeded pipe will
periodically generate multi-watt heat from "water friction." That's the best
the "skeptics" can do. It is hysterical nonsense, it does not even begin to
qualify as science. My daughter Naomi, in 6th grade, easily found the errors in
these "objections." If I was to make assertions as idiotic as these, everyone
would tell me to get off the network and stop cluttering up the bandwidth, but
when "skeptics" says these things, the others bow down, moan "Amen!" and
accept the nonsense without question. I have seldom seen any "skeptic" correct
another, even when the assertions are as stupid as these.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 / Jed Rothwell /  How to get the CBC video
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get the CBC video
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 17:15:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
You can get copy of the CBC cold fusion documentary from:
 
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Post Broadcast Unit
Room 5-E, 314 J
P.O. Box 500
Station A
Toronto, Canada  M5W 1E6
 
The cost is $85 Canadian plus appropriate tax.
 
Specify the program title and date: "The Secret Lite of Cold Fusion,"
broadcast June 24, 1993.
 
This is a superb documentary. It includes a lot of scientific content, and
some fascinating comments from both scientists and "skeptics" (crackpots).
Furthermore, if you are knowledgeable in the field and you have the literature
at hand, you can freeze frame the tape and look closely at the equipment to
get a good feel for the work. It is the next best thing to visiting the labs.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 / Rusty Perrin /       Fusion Digest 1217
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1217
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 17:15:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz writes (in quotes, so maybe it is from someone else):
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence.
It biases the judgement"
 
How do you tell when the evidence you have comprises "all the evidence",
without theorizing? Just wondering.
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 17:15:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Richard Schultz, the resistance of things is important, and I worry
about it.  For example, my Pt anode of #30 wire has enough resistance that it
is wound in two coils with both ends of each brought out.  That in an effort
to keep the gradient over the anode down to a few tens of millivolts.  The
cathode is a few milliohms and changes 2/1 with loading.  This is one reason
for operating at constant current.  Most workers do not seem to worry enough
about the resistance of the leads to the cell.  I always use 4 point
measurement technique for this reason.
 
Yes, Terry, I pass my geiger counter over the cathodes.  It also sits about
8" away from the cell while running, though there is a lot of stuff in
between.  There is alos a radiation badge from a well known laboratory sittyin
(sitting) by the calorimeter.  It once showed a neutron dose, just above the
reporting level.  But that was the one quarter when the experiment was off.
This just to show that there is noise everywhere!
 
So folks, we still need a repeatable experiment.  I am trying!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 / John Logajan /  Outgassing signature
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Outgassing signature
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 93 20:36:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Question for T. Droege.
 
Do you have a signature for the behaviour of the Pd/D system during outgassing?
 
As far back as I can recall, when you get a heat burst, you seem to always
have an associated D outgassing.  Under controlled conditions, it would
seem to me, you should be able to establish a thermal signature for such
an event (simple outgassing) -- at least to a qualitative level.
 
We'd want the signature under similar conditions as when heat bursts occur
during normal runs.  Typically this means we don't want to drop the power
into the cell, but we do want to shut off electrolysis to allow natural
outgassing (to establish the signature.)
 
So at the same time you shut off the electrolysis current (after loading
the Pd with D) you turn on an auxillary heater in the cell which just
compensates for the now missing ohmic heating of the electrolysis.  You
also may (or may not) want to calculate into the aux heater power, a
correction for energy lost to dissociation (which would have shown up
at the catalyst recombiner.)
 
You then observe the amount of D outgassing, whether the cell gets hotter
or colder and whether the catalyst gets hotter or colder, and the general
magnitude of these changes.
 
The you should be able to subtract these effects out of normal run
"anomalous" burst events.  Hopefully this would give a better estimate of
the magnitude of the mechanisms of interest (if any.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #5 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #5 Cell 4A6
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 22:20:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #5 Cell 4A6                               29 July 1993
 
After the last event, the cell apparently started liberating gas.  It turned
out to be caused by a gas leak that slowly increased in magnitude.  This is
because the gas servo pressure switch happened to be set for a slight negative
pressure.  I try to set it as close to zero as possible to minimize the effect
of leaks.  In the past this type of leak was caused by a piece of catalyst
sitting up against the cell wall and melting its way through the polypropylene
cell.  We may find the cause when the cell is opened up at the end of the run.
 
After the event, the current was slowly ramped down by the program.  The cell
got to 58 C (from a peak of 77 C) 44 hours later.  During this time there was
a drop in current from about .95 amperes to .59 amperes.  This means the
conduction calorimeter constant has changed from the 1.9 - 1.1 C/Watt range
earlier in the experiment to 9.7 C/Watt now.  I can't wait to open it up to
see what I find.
 
Note that while the cell temperature jumped up, and the measurements indicated
an impulse of energy, the net energy released went back to near zero after the
event, even though the cell temperature jumped up to a new higher value.
There is, however, indication of a small continuous release of energy after
the event.
 
My recollection is that Douglas Morrison has reported that the GE
experimenters have reported something similar.
 
Meanwhile I am taking calibration data at zero cell current.  There has been a
peak to peak variation over the last 40 hours or so of about 10 milliwatts.
The ending calibration matches the starting calibration to 3 or 4 milliwatts.
 
It looks like when all the data reduction is done that we will measure that we
accumulated possibly 20,000 joules during this run.  Unfortunately, this is
just not enough to be significant.  It amounts to roughly 10 mw over the 2
mega-seconds of the run.  This is a guess and is very preliminary.  Some hard
work will get a better answer.
 
On the other hand, the thermometers have checked out on the down temperature
swing.  The temperature spikes are real beyond question for me.  We would need
some effect like radiation from the cell changes the solid state devices in
the thermometers and causes them to read high.  This radiation would have to
be strong enough to affect the thermometers but be too weak to make it out of
the calorimeter to my geiger counter.  The 2-3 kilo-joule heat spikes are real
but could well be chemistry (but where is the chemical ash? - if we must have
nuclear ash for fusion, then we must have chemical ash for chemistry!!!). .
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John Logajan
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 23:02:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To help John straighten out the event, the leak did not start until 10 or
20 hours after the event.  It stayed constant at the new lower gas level
for some time.  I have extra catalyst outside the cell but inside the
calorimeter to make sure any sudden release of D gets recombined without
leaving the calorimeter.  I agree - too many variables.  The hope is that
we can eventually figure out an experiment that we can understand.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / mitchell swartz /  Fusion Digest 1217
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Digest 1217
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 01:04:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <9307291644.AA24849@suntan.Tandem.com>
     Subject: Fusion Digest 1217
Rusty Perrin (U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET) writes:
 
=rp  "Mitchell Swartz writes (in quotes, so maybe it is from someone else):
=rp "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence.
=rp   It biases the judgement"
=rp How do you tell when the evidence you have comprises "all
=rp the evidence", without theorizing? Just wondering.
 
Rusty, the quote's last line was posted but not received and transmitted
    because there was no line-feed at the end of the line.   (nota bene)
 Here then is the entire quote as it was posted (with the line-feed   :)
 
    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all
     the evidence.  It biases the judgement"
            Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887 "A study in scarlet"
 
 
  Once can not probably determine when the evidence comprises "all the
  evidence", but there is an iteration which permits the development of
  ideas as the experimenters/observers  "move up the (knowledge) curve".
 
     Furthermore, relevant to cold fusion, as discussed in other of Conan
 Doyle's books:  When the impossible is ruled out the improbable is left.
 
          Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Laurence Battin /  Re: Fusion Digest 1217
     
Originally-From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1217
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 03:47:33 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <9307291644.AA24849@suntan.Tandem.com>, Rusty Perrin
(U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET) wrote:
> Mitchell Swartz writes (in quotes, so maybe it is from someone else):
> "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence.
> It biases the judgement"
 
FYI, this is a Sherlock Holmes quote.  Can't tell you which adventure it's
from offhand tho...
 
Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbattin cudfnLaurence cudlnBattin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  BYU Expts. 2:  Backgrounds & Results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Expts. 2:  Backgrounds & Results
Subject: BYU Experiments 2: Backgrounds&Results
Date: 28 Jul 93 13:46:41 -0600
Date: 28 Jul 93 12:12:51 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University
Organization: Brigham Young University

Path: physc1.byu.edu!jonesse
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Experiments 2: Backgrounds&Results
Message-ID: <1993Jul28.121251.804@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 93 12:12:51 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 283
 
BACKGROUNDS AT BYU
 
Thanks to Dick Blue and Bill Johnson for stimulating comments on detector
background problems.  Dick - I have read the "Investigation of the background
gamma spectrun in an underground environment" by Braoudakis and Peak of the U.
of Sydney, Australia.  They identify rf noise pickup, internal activity of
their sodium iodide crystal crystal, and penetrating muon-induced events in
materials surrounding the detector, particularly metals -- as significant
sources of gammas.  You mention deuteron (d) break-up as a possible source of
backgrounds.  Bill worries about muon capture, and asks whether we have done
any MCNP calculations (we have).  Let's consider the BYU backgrounds further:
 
RF noise:  All pulses are digitized at 100 MHz using a LeCroy waveform
digitizer and stored using 386 PC/CAMAC systems.  Noise is clearly but rarely
seen by means of the digitized signals, showing a ringing pattern distinct from
the shape of the scintillators or of the logic pulse from the 3He-filled
proportional counter tubes.  As mentioned before, we have checked the 3He
system for noise pickup using a pulsed CO2 laser and various high-voltage
supplies as rf sources -- it is well-protected from such noise.  The Li-doped
glass systems use PMT's and are not as well shielded, but noise shows up
in the pulse-shapes.
 
Internal activity:  Constitutes the limiting factor in the 3He-filled tubes
alone.  This is why we chose stainless-steel tubes rather than the common
aluminum -- resulting in a factor of five reduction in internal activity from
the tube materials.  By requiring a delayed coincidence between a (prompt)
signal in the scintillating plastic core and (slow) signal from the 3He-filled
tubes, background count rate is reduced from 80/h to 0.8/h.  Thus, the
coincidence requirement reduces the background rate one hundred-fold.  This
technique is implemented in the 3He-type neutron detector system used deep
underground at BYU, based on a concept developed by Bart Czirr here.  Internal
activity leads to accidental coincidences with gammas (etc.) detected in the
core scintillation counter.  But the time distribution between the prompt and
slow pulses in this case is flat, not consistent with the 55 microsecond
die-away time found for fast neutrons generated in the center of the detector
(from californium, for example).
 
Muon-induced events:  The earth shielding above the detectors removes the
hadronic component of cosmic rays along with soft muons.  As you both
mentioned, fast muons penetrate and cause shower events which are seen by the
detectors.  Like the Australians, we use large cosmic-ray veto scintillation
paddles to cut down the cosmic-ray-induced events -- but some sneak through
inevitably.  We put large bags of salt around our detectors to cut down gamma
activity, with a layer of penny-filled boxes on the cement floor.
There are other sources of systematic error possible, such as
accidental coincidences of gammas in the scintillator core and internal
activity in the 3He-filled tubes.
 
Bill:  an example of a study of cosmic-ray induced backgrounds using MCNP is
given in our 1989 paper, Nature 338:737:
"We attribute the ambient neutrons to cosmic-ray sources.  Although the typical
neutron evaporation spectrum (at birth) has a broad maximum 2.5 MeV (ref. 10),
Monte Carlo calculations how that moderation in the source medium
(predominantly the shielding surrounding the dector) will wash out this
structure and produce a smoothly decrasing background spectrum above 0.5 MeV,
as observed."
That is, we do not think cosmic-ray induced backgrounds give the peak at 2.5
MeV which we reported in that paper.
 
With all our shielding and active vetos, we
must still run various background checks because there is always some residual
background.  In the tunnel with the 3He+scintillator-core detector, the
background is about 0.8/h with a single-neutron detection efficiency of about
16%.  Our burst-mode detector also has a 0.8/h background count with an
efficiency for singles of about 11%.  For time-correlated burst events, the
efficiency is better, of course, since the probability of a scintillation in
the plastic core increases.  This probability is worked out using Monte Carlo
methods and is 20-30% for small bursts with at least two detected neutrons (see
Bart Czirr, Gary Jensen and J. Wang in "high efficiency neutron and
charged-particle spectrometers" in AIP conference proceedings #228 of BYU
meeting in Oct. 1990).
This compares favorably with the Kamiokande which boasts a 0.25/h singles
background rate and a 20% efficiency.  Penetrating muons are readily seen in
the Kamiokande water, of course, as cherenkov light is emitted and the muon
path can be reconstructed.
 
Search for Trigger (and I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger):
 
Ultimately such backgrounds can only be
ruled out by associating a potential signal with a controllable experimental
parameter, such as driving deuterium out of the sample.  We call this a trigger.
(See the BYU paper "In quest of a trigger mechanism for neutron emissions from
deuterium/solid systems,"  BYU conference Oct. 1990, AIP Proceedings # 228.)
In the absence of an identified trigger for neutron production, even with good
statistical evidence, the nagging concern remains that the observed signal may
be due to some background or systematic problem.  With a trigger, one can
repeat the experiment at will, in various detectors, scale-up the yields,
and build arbitrarily good statistics.
Thus a trigger is needed for repeatability and to acquire
compelling evidence for a new and unexpected effect.  It is, I think,
the only path to convincing ourselves and others of a real discovery.
 
A trigger is needed by us as well as by Droege (do you get heat again and again
at 39C or whatever Bernecky/Terry Bollinger predict from their hypothesis?).
Kevin Wolf also needs to repeat his bizarre results.  (P.S. Terry:  Kevin first
saw neutron emissions, then after a few weeks he thought of looking also for
gamma activity -- and found it.  But he has *not* as yet been able to repeat
the induction of gamma activity.  We and others have looked in our palladium
used over the years in similar experiments -- and *no* like gamma activity has
been found.  One exception:  a palladium sample that had been exposed to a
proton beam from an accelerator showed gamma activity, but I understand even
that differed from Kevin's.  The puzzle persists.)
 
Recent data acquired in the Provo Canyon tunnel laboratory suggest that there
is a correlation of neutron emissions from deuterium-loaded wires when the
wires are electrically heated so as to drive out the deuterium.
(We have also seen a correlation between neutron yields and the curing of
cement prepared with D2O, at BYU and Kamiokande, but the yields are of lower
rates --but endure longer--than those obtained with deuterided wires.  I will
focus for the time being on the wires.)
  You be the
judge as we continue.  However, I repeat that I am not trying to convince
anyone by this presentation of preliminary data.  Rather, I seek criticisms and
particularly ideas of just what in this process "triggers" neutron
emissions, if anything.
 
NEUTRON EMISSIONS FROM DEUTERIDED WIRES/BYU
 
Single neutrons:  These are neutron-like coincidences in the 3He-system in
which the neutrons are separated by more than 320 microseconds.  (Two or more
neutrons detected within this window are called "burst" events -- treated
next.)  We used 0.1 mm Pd wire, 2.5 - 7 m in length, wound on a ceramic or
glass tube and immersed in D2 gas at 45-50 psi in a approx. 9"-long stainless
steel vessel.  The vessel is first evacuated, then D2 gas (low tritium content,
from Los Alamos) is admitted.  By measuring the resistance change, we determine
the d/Pd loading fraction, which typically reaches 0.7 (below that allegedly
needed to cause excess heat  - again we differ from these other guys, please!)
We also took data with the deuterium "stable" in the wire, that is, with
constant resistance but d's present, as a very important background.  This
addresses Dick Blue's (and our) concern that deuteron disintegration may be a
source of neutrons which would not be seen using hydrogen as a control (which
we also do, incidentally).  Deuterium is driven out of the wire by heating with
a pulsed electric current, typically 100-600V, 1-8A (depends on wire length,
loading and temp.), 100 microsec. long, 40 msec between pulses.
 
Here are 1993 data from the BYU tunnel lab with the conditions described above:
(counts/hour in 3He + core-scintillator system):
 
Stable deuterium loading:
0.69 +- 0.20
0.63    0.14
0.72    0.20
0.75    0.18
1.09    0.16
 
Deuterium entering Pd wire (IN):
0.97 +- 0.20
1.13    0.19
1.13    0.22
 
Deuterium leaving Pd wire in vacuum (OUT):
0.98 +- 0.19
2.65    0.36
1.36    0.32
1.86    0.25
 
Hydrogen controls:
Stable:
0.80 +- 0.13
IN:
0.98    0.13
1.11    0.35
0.58    0.12
OUT:
0.73    0.24
0.85    0.14
 
It appears that only the case of deuterium leaving the Pd-d wire shows a
significant increase in rate.  In particular, the runs with constant deuterium
in the wire show no evidence for deuteron break-up.  The hydrogen runs
are consistent with background, implying that the pulsed current does not
generate artifacts.  (Also, the pulses are "clean" -- *not* as would
be expected from electrical noise.)
 
You tell me.
 
So we tried another Pd wire.   Again the neutron yields were high only during
deuterium expulsion.  Dang -- the data are at home where my son David and I are
analyzing the data at present.  Sorry -- will have to show that data tomorrow.
 
As a friend of mine would say:  the data are not yet totally unequivocal.
I would like to scale up the yields to show that there is really a trigger
involved here.  Unfortunately, the second wire was longer but showed about the
same neutron yields on deuterium expulsion.  No simple correlation with wire
length  -- how about
temperature or rate of temp. change or rate of deuterium expulsion -- one could
go on.  The parameter space is large and time is short.  A little theoretical
help to connect the possible correlation of neutron emissions with D2 expulsion
to guide experiments would be most welcome.
 
So consider with me what differs in the case of deuterium expulsion.  The
outer portion of the wire first loses D2 and shrinks, generating large
pressures on the inner core of the wire.  That core probably also has a large
D2 loading, at least at first as deuterium diffuses inward (and outward) from
the outer portion.  Phase changes occur also as the d migrates, but this occurs
also during d loading.  What else?  Terry, Matt, Chuck, ... ?
 
Now let's consider time-correlated (burst) events:
 
NEUTRON BURST EVENTS (1993 data)
 
Here we plot the time spectra from delayed neutron-capture signals, minus time
of the prompt signal in the plastic-scintillator core,
to check whether the distributions follow the known 55-microsecond die-away
time for the 3He-tubes embedded in polyethylene moderator:
 
  Hydrogen runs, 394 hours:  Deuterium runs:  Stable 64.4h/  In 77.7h/ OUT 90.5h
 
Time bins:
0-25           6                               4             9         16
25-50          5                               2             3          1
50-75          7                               1             2          2
75-100         2                               1             4          6
100-125        4                               0             0          3
125-150        2                               0             0          0
(microseconds)
 
Total/h      0.066/h                         0.12/h         0.23/h     0.31/h
         +-   .013                         +- .044            .055     .058
 
Note:  these data were tabulated by my son last night; I haven't re-checked
them thoroughly yet.
 
ALL of the bursts with H2 were of multiplicity=2, 14 bursts in 394 hours.
The multiplicity distribution for Pd-d in 280 hours is different:
20 M=2 events, 3 M=3 events, 1 M=5 event (the latter corresponds to a source
multiplicity of approximately 30 neutrons).
 
The relatively low rates in the H2 runs evidently rule out a uranium (etc.)
contamination source of bursts.  BTW, the same argument holds true for the
small bursts seen at Kamiokande:
"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 only limited to four
(source neutrons of about 11, Fig. 7-2)."
In the electrolytic cells at Kamiokande:
"We have observed 9 bursts with maximum multiplicity of 4.  The probability
that these bursts originate with uranium contamination is less than
2 X 10^-4, probability at the level of 10^-6."  (Ishida Thesis, 1992, chapter 7)
 
I should re-emphasize that small bursts of the noted significance were indeed
seen in Kamiokande, despite uninformed reports that *nothing* was seen in those
experiments.  The rate of burst events/hour from Kamiokande was about 0.06/h,
consistent with the small-burst rate reported by H. Menlove et al. (J. Fusion
Energy 1990).  (I see I need to re-check this number.)   This rate is
comparable to that tabulated above.  Note that I am reporting individual
neutron-like events in the time distribution above as opposed to an overall
burst rate (which is 24 bursts/280h = 0.086/h for D2 and 14/394h =0.036/h for
H2).  Also, the Kamiokande runs used electrolysis primarily whereas the
present Pd-wire experiments use D2-gas loading.
 
The D2-OUT bursts are evidently significant.  My son surprised me with his data
analysis last night.
The D2-In and -Out data combined are more significant, and the
55-microsecond die-away time appears consistent with the time distribution
(eye-ball fit using 1/e time of 55 microseconds).
In our April 1989 paper in Nature, we suggested "non-equilibrium conditons
are essential, "  and in this way the In and Out conditions differ from Stable
deuterium-loading.
 
 
My rationale for displaying these early results is similar to that which
motivated the Nature paper:  we are still looking for input on
how to understand and scale-up if possible.  Exposing the
results may point out our errors (fine), which are not obvious to me after all
we have done to eliminate artifacts,
or may suggest further experimental paths to careful readers.  With these
results, I am not inclined to abandon the search despite pressures
to do so, such as paucity of funding and ridicule in popular books.
 
Furthermore, we now have the added clue (since 1989) that
*deuterium expulsion* may correlate with neutron emissions.  WHY?
I should add that Seeliger in Germany and Yamaguchi in Japan also claim
neutron emissions correlated with D2 expulsion from Pd, but with statistics
even shallower than ours I would say.  We *may* finally be on the trail
to a trigger.
 
I should add further:  when we have tried long runs with hydrogen first,
followed by deuterium loading, all runs were consistent with background rates.
This effort showed nothing.  The second (D2-first) wire followed this series
of runs.
 
That looks like enough to chew on for several days.  Comments welcome, of
course.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  BYU Expts. 3:  Latest results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Expts. 3:  Latest results
Date: 29 Jul 93 12:11:47 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues,
 
Yesterday I promised to add the latest results regarding neutron singles and
time-correlated burst events, using Pd-d (as described in yesterday's post.)
For some reason, the news disk here shows nothing since that post of mine,
so I will add these data without benefit of seeing any responses to yesterday's
post.
 
Yesterday, we started another Pd-d experiment, this running at 1.4V and 3.4
amps.  After 20.2 hours of running with D2 being expelled (after < 1h of
loading D2):
Singles rate:  0.84 +- 0.2 /h  -- nothing unusual here.
Burst events:  Multiplicity M=2, and another with M=4 detected (approx. 20
source neutrons in M=4 burst)
 
The multiplicity=4 event is very unusual -- we have not seen any bursts above
M=2 in Pd-hydrogen runs (about 400 hours), nor in any control runs with
H2O-cement or empty detector in hundreds of hours of running since August 1992.
 
The small burst events appear to be significant as I add all the recent Pd-d
data to that displayed yesterday -- but only for the cases where D2 is being
expelled from the Pd wire:
 
             H2 runs, 394 h  Stable-D2 runs,288.5h  D2-in,174.3h  D2-out,268.8h
 
Time bins (microsec)
0-25           6                    17                 11             41
25-50          5                    12                 11              8
50-75          7                    12                  6             14
75-100         2                     3                  4             13
100-125        4                     0                  0              4
125-150        2                     0                  0              0
 
Total/h     0.07 +- 0.01        0.15 +- 0.02    0.18 +- 0.03    0.30 +- 0.03
 
I conclude tentatively that the D2-out burst events occur significantly more
frequently than burst events from either H2 controls, or from deuterided
samples where the d/Pd loading is stable or increasing.  Moreover, the time
distribution of the D2-out burst events fits reasonably well the 55-microsecond
die-away time known for neutrons produced in the center of this detector
(3He-filled proportional counter tubes embedded in polyethylene moderator).
To illustrate this simply, take 41 * 1/e = 15 events expected in the 50-75
microsec bin, with 14 observed; 15*1/e = 5 events expected in the 100-125 bin,
with 4 observed.  This pattern is not seen for the H2 runs, although the
statistics for H2 are yet sparse (we clearly need more H2 runs).
 
I note that deuteron-break-up events should have a *higher* rate for stable
d/Pd loading, since then the deuterium loading is on average higher than for
the deuteron-expulsion case, but this is not what is seen.  I think we are able
to better rule out this source of background (e.g., photo- or muo-
disintegration of deuterons).  However, the stable d/Pd cases have a higher rate
than the Pd-H case, so some component of deuteron break-up cannot be strictly
ruled out.  The mechanism by which bursts of neutrons can be produced by
deuteron disintegration is not clear, since:
1.  A burst requires 2 or more detected (*captured* in 3He) neutrons;
2.  Each deuteron can contribute only 1 neutron on disintegration, unless
a muon is captured by the d (an extremelly rare occurence when heavier ions are
around, like Pd, since the muon is rapidly scavenged by the heavier nucleus);
3.  The probability for one deuteron disintegration being small, the
probability for two disintegrating in the 300-microsecond window imposed by the
electronics is neglibible.
(Dick:  I just cannot see how deuteron disintegration could account for the
bursts seen in the deuterided Pd, tabulated above.)
 
The point to emphasize is this:  there appears a correlation between neutron
emissions and deuterium expulsion from deuterided Pd wire, which points to a
possible trigger for the neutron emissions which we have sought for so long.
 
For neutron singles, the latest Pd-d data again show that the rates are
somewhat higher when deuterium is being expelled from the Pd-d wire, via
electrical heating the wire (counts per hour):
 
d/Pd stable:
0.74 +- 0.08 /h
0.95    0.15
0.85    0.11
 
Deuterium going into Pd:
0.75 +- 0.25
0.87    0.26
0.99    0.21
0.80    0.13
 
Deuterium expelled from Pd (electrical heating):
1.34 +- 0.22
0.92    0.16
1.83    0.49
0.70    0.21
1.43    0.23
1.42    0.20.
 
As in data from earlier in 1993 shown yesterday, and as with small-burst event
rates tabulated above, these single-neutron rates are evidently higher
on average when deuterium is being driven from the wire.  Why?  I certainly
don't know.
 
Will now check our system to make sure messages are getting out and in.
 
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Jul29.120315.806@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Jul29.120315.806@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 29 Jul 93 12:12:59 -0600

cancel <1993Jul29.120315.806@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Nyquist Criteria
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Nyquist Criteria
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 13:13:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 1217:
 
>Looks like Dieter Britz and I do not yet see eye to eye about where to set
>the bandwidth of the current source.
 
>I think it is important to sample faster than the Nyquist criteria.  Since I
>sample at once a minute (but really the mean of 100 samples taked during a
>ten second interval once a minute with the 64 channels * 100 samples
>interleaved), I slow the current control loop down to have a several minute
>tau.
 
>For practical purposes, this means that I am running the cell at constant
>voltage, and the current fluctuates a lot.  So what is wrong with this,
>Dieter?
 
>The reason that I don't set the current loop to high bandwith is that I can
>then not possibly beat the Nyquist rate.  So what do I do?
 
>Tom Droege
 
Certainly you must obey Nyquist, but you might have to think about what the
"highest frequency component", that your sampling rate has to accommodate,
means, i.e. frequency of what? I have not seen oscilloscope traces of current
and cell voltage, for a slowed-down current source; you tell me the cell
voltage is steady. Hm - if so, you're OK. If not, you have to sample both I
and E faster than... what? Faster than the fastest changes in I and E. You
appear to be saying that you have to sample at a frequency higher than the
current source's upper frequency range; not so. You are sampling I and E, and
they will have some power spectrum with a roll-off unrelated to the current
source's bandwidth. I suspect this roll-off lies at some kHz. If only my
grad student would get his finger out and I could look at the spectra... Any
month now. Then we may know how important this fluctuation problem really is,
or is not.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Another dumb experimental question
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Another dumb experimental question
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 13:13:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) in FD 1217:
 
>How is the resistance of the electrodes (and especially the changes in the
>resistance of the Pd as a function of D loading) taken into account?  If it
>turns out that it can't possibly make any difference, then scratch this
>one up to another person who doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Not such a dumb question at all, but these resistances (1) are small compared
to that of the electrolyte and (2) simply add to the total cell resistance
and/or total cell voltage includes the drop across them. Therefore they are
not neglected.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Dieter Britz /  RE: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 14:33:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1217:
 
>   Dieter, Hi!  However, I am not certain that 4He is the "sole product"
>   nor that "no appreciable radiation" occurs.  Are you? E.g. what about
>   the tritium reported on occasion, and the infra-red radiation?
>
>   First considerable radiation does result, but there is no
>     appreciable neutron radiation.  Only neutronpenic levels of neutrons.
 
>   Second, the question is whether the energy and momentum distribution
>    and reaction products are exactly what (whomever) a priori demands.
 
No, of course I am not sure, but I thought that the most favoured theory was
that the major product, from the main branch producing all the excess heat, is
4He, and the much smaller amounts of neutrons, tritium etc, are minor side
reactions. However, I am told (by private email) that the 4He nucleus does not
walk away with the whole 23 MeV, that the gamma in fact has 18 MeV of this,
and it is the gamma that has to shed most of the energy. I guess this is where
all the talk about Moessbauer comes in. You can see that I am not nuclear- or
quantum-literate, so I'll leave this question to Dick Blue. 23 - 18 = 5, and 5
MeV is still a lot. Does the 4He nucleus have an energy of 5 MeV, then?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.29 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion Progress at MIT
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Progress at MIT
Date: 29 JUL 93 20:58:36 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

The following text is the weekly report made by the Alcator project to the
Department of Energy. Alcator C-MOD is the third in a series of compact,
high-performance, low cost tokamaks designed at built by the Plasma Fusion
Center at MIT.  Alcator C-MOD began routine operations on April 29, 1993.
Progress to date has been steady and rapid.  The machine is presently
operating at a main (toroidal) magnetic field of 5 Tesla. The maximum design
field is 9 Tesla.  The lower field allows for more frequent pulses and reduces
mechanical stresses as we learn to operate the new device.
 
Plasma temperatures are in the range of 10-15 million degrees C; more accurate
and detailed measurements of temperature, confinement parameters, etc. will
become available as diagnostic instruments are installed and calibrated during
the next few months.
 
Questions or comments should be directed to Fairfax@MIT.edu.
Flames will be ignored.
 
 
                        Alcator C-MOD
                        Weekly Highlight Report
                        July 29, 1993
 
Alcator C-MOD is now operating with the EF3 coils in
series, and the OH1 interrupter circuit in the low voltage (2kV max), high
current configuration; this arrangement corresponds to the design
configuration for normal operation. Operation in this configuration is not
yet as reliable as had been achieved at the end of the previous campaign;
it is not clear whether this is due to poorer wall/vacuum conditions (we
have been operating just over a week since the 2-week halt for maintenance)
or because the fields during plasma initiation have not yet
been optimized. Nevertheless, we have made significant progress acquiring
physics data.  All of this week's runs are dedicated to physics topics, as
opposed to discharge development. Typical operating parameters are:
toroidal field 5 Tesla, plasma currents of 450kA, density between 1.e20 and
2.e20/m3, limited discharges with elongations of 1.2 to 1.4.
 
A systematic study of gas puff fueling was begun, using the A-side
piezoelectric valve which was installed during the last vacuum opening.
This valve has a faster conductance time to the vessel (about 15msec) than
the B-side or B-vertical valves. The purpose of this study was to
investigate fueling efficiency and to prepare for modulated gas puffing
experiments for perturbative transport studies.
 
The fast scanning probe has been used to study the scrape-off layer
characteristics in a series of limiter discharges. This is the first time
the C-MOD scanning probe has been inserted into a tokamak discharge.
 
Today's run is dedicated to obtaining electron and ion temperature profiles
for a range of densities at fixed plasma current. The HIREX system is being
employed for both electron and ion temperature measurements. The ECE
is also operating and producing electron temperature profile data. These Ohmic
transport studies are slated to continue tomorrow.
 
The Chopper/EFC coil is now in routine use in the vertical position control
feedback loop. This system seems to be working well, although the crucial
test will take place when we increase the elongation to values above 1.5,
which were not well controlled using only the line-commutated power supplies.
 
The RF group has completed the coax connection from the FMIT transmitter to
the tuners and from there to the antenna. The RF transmission line is now
complete and has been successfully pressurized. The remote controls for the
tuner system are operational, and the data acquisition instrumentation has
been calibrated.
 
Three members of the Alcator Group (Hutchinson, Granetz and Porkolab) are
attending the EPS meeting in Lisbon, for which we submitted a
paper on startup issues and other recent C-MOD results.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Another dumb experimental question
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another dumb experimental question
Date: 30 Jul 1993 17:25:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In response to my question:
 
>>How is the resistance of the electrodes (and especially the changes in the
>>resistance of the Pd as a function of D loading) taken into account?
 
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes in article
<01H15OUOYHPU9POOJH@vms2.uni-c.dk>:
 
>Not such a dumb question at all, but these resistances (1) are small compared
>to that of the electrolyte and (2) simply add to the total cell resistance
>and/or total cell voltage includes the drop across them. Therefore they are
>not neglected.
 
This is what I figured.  What brought the question to my mind was that I
was in the library and started leafing through some old (and I mean old)
issues of JACS, and came across the following two references:
 
D.P. Smith and F.H. Martin, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 38, 2577-2594 (1916).
 
E. A. Harding and D. P. Smith, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 40, 1508-1531 (1918).
 
In these papers, the authors measure the resistivity of Pd as a function of
hydrogen loading, and find that it varies quite a bit.  What's more amusing
is that the resistivity as the Pd starts outgassing starts varying wildly,
and the plots of resistivity vs. time bear a (presumably coincidental) amazing
similarity to some of the plots in the recent P&F Phys Lett A article.  I
will take Dieter Britz's word for it that it's not a problem, but I guess
seeing the plots made me wonder.
 
Thanks for the information to all those who replied to my question,
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Nyquist Criteria
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nyquist Criteria
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 18:20:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Cyganski and Dieter Britz have been forcing me to think about where the
current servo should be set.  I think that they are right and I have been
suffering from a delusion.
 
It seems to me, the problem is that I can control the bandwidth of my servo,
but I cannot control the bandwidth of the cell.  So if I set the servo band
width to it's present 5 minutes or so (from memory), all this does is to
prevent the **voltage** across the cell from changing very fast.  The
current still bounces around as the changes in cell conditions dictate.
 
So I now agree with Dieter.  Set the bandwidth as fast as possible.
 
The only practical problem with this is that there might be some high
frequency component synchronous with the sampling rate.  In most practical
situations such aliasing effects do not stay locked in permanently and thus
produce strange jumps in the output.  I have long ago learned to detedt
high frequency oscillations in my circuits by watching for these jumps.
 
Note that this is the only problem that I know of in the real world.  If we
do take simultaneous samples of E and I we get the right power even if we
sample well below the Nyquist limit.  There are several ways we can beat
aliasing in the real world:
 
1) Sample randomly.
 
2) Drag out the old oscilloscope and look for components synchronous with the
sample rate.
 
I prefer 2) and have done it since the beginning of this experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Answer to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answer to John Logajan
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 18:20:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan asks if I have a signature for outgassing.
 
Sure.  Many events where the cathode loses a little gas and nothing else
happens.  The catalyst gets a little hotter.  The integral net energy
increases 20 joules or so per cc.  Note the reverse of this is charging.
The catalyst is cooler, and there is a loss of energy as the evolved D and
O are not burned in the catalyst.  It is normally a little less than the
26 joules per cc of oxygen evolved as there is a heat of absorption of D into
Pd of 3 joules per cc or so.  Some day I will try to make a good measurement
of the heat of absorption with loading.
 
In the real situation, it is very hard to analyze when several things happen
at once.  The recombination tends to take place at one hot spot which moves
around on the catalyst.  So the thermometer which attempts to measure the
catalyst is fooled by the distance to the hot spot.  I see no good way to
correct for this.
 
In general, I do my best to correct for everything that can be a factor when
trying to assess if something happened.  This is often a source of my
conservative opinions.  While I think something happened, I can see all these
possible sources of error that I do not understand.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / mitchell swartz /  RE: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 18:39:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <01H15P3P8HZM9POQXI@vms2.uni-c.dk>
  Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
Dieter Britz  (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
= ".. I am told (by private email) that the 4He nucleus does not
= walk away with the whole 23 MeV, that the gamma in fact has 18 MeV of this,
= and it is the gamma that has to shed most of the energy."
 
   Hi Dieter:
 
    Is that for cold, or hot, fusion?   Which experiment?
    Loading method?     Thanks.
 
                                              Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / John Logajan /  Re: BYU Expts. 2:  Backgrounds & Results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 2:  Backgrounds & Results
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 18:50:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>So consider with me what differs in the case of deuterium expulsion.  The
>outer portion of the wire first loses D2 and shrinks, generating large
>pressures on the inner core of the wire.
 
Just to reiterate that it is a fairly simple matter to create a D2 atmospher
on the order of 27,000 PSI by "U" or "H" shaped chambers of a self-
pressurizing electrolytic cell.  I have experimentally reached 5000 PSI
(of H2/O2) in just a few minutes (the limits of my gauge) and estimate that
a theoretical maximum of 27,000 PSI is approachable.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Alcator
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 21:23:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to the poster for the Alcator weekly report.  This is to encourage
the posting every week.  Hard to follow what is happening with a single
report, but after a few weeks, I will start to understand the project.  Seems
like this is a great place for such reports.  How about the rest of you that
have such things?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #6 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #6 Cell 4A6
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 21:23:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #6 Cell 4A6                               30 July 1993
 
Executive Summary:  We again detect a bump at 39 C.  This time with no cathode
current.
 
After ending the serious data taking part of the run, I did several
experiments designed to check the thermometers.  With most of the power to the
calorimeter off, the eight thermometers have a spread of 2 C.  This includes
some that are far enough away that they should not necessarily come to the
same temperature.  There were still gradients caused by the chiller unit.  The
four inside the calorimeter have a spread of 0.73 C.  I was able to move them
all together over a 5 C range and did not detect any significant tracking
error (less than 0.1 C over 5 C).
 
Bob Bernecky wanted me to do an experiment to check the calorimeter constant
before I opened up the calorimeter.  So I did.  After some correspondence
about whether to do it with cell current or dummy current, I decided to do
both.  So last night I did a short dummy current run (while assembling water
machines - so it did not get my full attention.)
 
Time    TCEL    delta T  TCAT    IDUM     VDUM - 1.53     Power   K  C/Watt
 
310     28.11   -        28.04   -0.0015    .186           0.000    -
3780    31.11   3.00     36.37   -0.3638   4.3891          1.597    1.88
5950    34.06   5.95     43.24   -0.5458   6.0054          3.278    1.82
7630    37.87   9.76     48.31   -0.7278   7.1843          5.226    1.87
7750    Set IDUM to zero.
 
Within error limits this is a fixed value for K over the indicated power
range.
 
After setting IDUM to zero, I noticed TCEL had jumped up to 42 C.  This
reading had been taken before the change in current took place.  It continued
increasing until it reached 52 C.  Then there was a decay back to 28 C region
over a half hour or so.
 
The above readings were taken hurriedly without enough time to really settle.
I think them good to 2% or so.  Thus when I decided to end the experiment (to
go to bed), TCEL was still increasing slowly.  Possibly the one minute data
will have a point or two more to show exactly where the run up started.
 
So there is another bump measurement in the region of 39 C.  Note that the K
value with the power near zero would jump to a very large value with the
event.
 
This experiment was run at near zero cathode current.  In fact, if anything
the Pd electrode was conducting slightly in the anode direction, though below
the potential of the Pt anode.  The electrochemists familiar with these cells
can probably explain what happens with three electrodes in a cell.  In any
case, the cathode servo was trying to hold zero current, but sometimes there
was a few ma.
 
Remember all, if you try to replicate this, that this anode has been running
almost continuously since 9 March 1993.  If this requires something like the
diffusion of Li into Pd, then possibly this explains the time scale.
 
I will try to repeat this tonight, possibly taking data at a faster rate to
help to detect the form of the temperature increase.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Date: 30 Jul 1993 21:56:43 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
:
: Any reasonably competent, fully awake scientist can do calorimetry in the
: multi-watt regime with confidence.
 
: Calorimetry in the domain that Tom is attempting to work in is terribly
: difficult. He is making a big mistake fooling around at the milliwatt level.
 
: - Jed
 
Naturally, the trick is to get multi-watts repeatably and with confidence.
 
What is somebody supposed to do when:
 
   #1)   Many people honestly tried to replicate original experiments and
         could not.
 
   #2)   Any mechanisms remotely conceivable in standard physics have been
         ruled out.  No plausible new mechanisms have been demonstrated.
 
   #3) The means to produce this "multi-watt" level heat are industrial
       secrets and are not EVER going to be told to the public, thus
       precluding any independent confirmation.
 
   #4)   The principal actors (P&F) in this saga have been demonstrated
         to be untrustworthy.  (e.g. faking nuclear measurements).
 
What can we do?  Nothing, until we can drive to Osaka on a tank of
deuterium, or run a reactor off its own energy output.
 
Yes, when pretty fundamental principles of physics are at stake, the
requirements of experimental proof are higher.  (If people had seen
multiwatt levels of neutrons, then everything WOULD be OK)
 
We just have to "Trust Toyota" I guess.  The fact that Japanese companies
are putting money into it doesn't automatically mean that it's going to work;
more that the Japanese have so much capital and a long-term outlook that
they're willing to pursue many crazy ideas on the off chance that one of them
might actually work.  (Consider; if they have so much money to put into
cold fusion, how much are they investing in proven enterprises, like materials
and semiconductors?  That's what's really unsettling.)
 
--
-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 cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Date: 30 Jul 1993 22:55:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <23c5erINNm8d@network.ucsd.edu>,
Matt Kennel <mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu> wrote:
 
>If people had seen multiwatt levels of neutrons, then everything WOULD be OK.
 
Except that P&F (or, more likely, Marvin Hawkins) would be little puddles
of ex-protoplasm. . .
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.31 / Dave Spain /  Re: Answer to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: spain@abitok.abitok.mko.dec.com (Dave Spain)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answer to John Logajan
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 00:10:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Merrimack NH USA

>In article <930730124130.2660438c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>    John Logajan asks if I have a signature for outgassing.
>
>    Sure.  Many events where the cathode loses a little gas and nothing else
>    happens.
>
>    [...]
>
>    In the real situation, it is very hard to analyze when several things happen
>    at once.  The recombination tends to take place at one hot spot which moves
>    around on the catalyst.  So the thermometer which attempts to measure the
>    catalyst is fooled by the distance to the hot spot.  I see no good way to
>    correct for this.
 
Would there be any advantage to running two cells simultaneously, one with heavy
and one with light water?  Aside from the fact that it would double all of your
resource requirements, I was just curious to know if from an experimental point of
view, it would buy you anything.
 
Tom, answer this only at your leisure.  You look busy enough as it is.
 
Dave
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenspain cudfnDave cudlnSpain cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 23:19:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <23c5erINNm8d@network.ucsd.edu>
  Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Matt Kennel [mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu] writes:
 
== "What is somebody supposed to do when:
==  #1)   Many people honestly tried to replicate original experiments and
==      could not."
 
   Many people apparently have replicated the original experiments.
   Furthermore, others have replicated them and may have apparently
       stated or reported that they "had not" done so.
     Any serious comment on either fact?
 
 
==  "#2) Any mechanisms remotely conceivable in standard physics have been
==   ruled out.  No plausible new mechanisms have been demonstrated."
 
   Not true.  Hot fusion mechanisms are ruled out because the observed
    products are different.  New phenomena have been demonstrated.
    Any comments on the excess heat and products reported?
    Why should old theories satisfy new observed phenomena?
 
==  "#3) The means to produce this "multi-watt" level heat are industrial
==    secrets and are not EVER going to be told to the public, thus
==    precluding any independent confirmation."
 
    Where did you get that omniscient amount of knowledge?
      (Same source as saying that "cf doesn't exist"?          ;)
 
 
==  "#4)   The principal actors (P&F) in this saga have been demonstrated
==   to be untrustworthy.  (e.g. faking nuclear measurements)."
 
    There have been some authors of "negative" papers who may appear to
       satisfy these criteria.  "Skeptics" in "glass houses" ought
       seriously consider avoiding high momentum projectiles.
 
   Also, when you bring up mistakes from almost five years ago, but ignore
     scores of "positive" papers, Matt, your logic is on an
     unreliable foundation, isn't it?
 
                                Best wishes
                                                      Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.31 / C Harrison /  reminder - cold fusion at SunSITE
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunsite.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: reminder - cold fusion at SunSITE
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 00:13:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.
 
Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1993 only at present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.
 
 
1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...
 
    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>
 
2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
    On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
 
3.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the
    directory-of-servers.
 
    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com
 
There are a few additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Twist of Ribbon)
which are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 22:55:57 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <01H15P3P8HZM9POQXI@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> ... However, I am told (by private email) that the 4He nucleus does not
> walk away with the whole 23 MeV, that the gamma in fact has 18 MeV of this,
> and it is the gamma that has to shed most of the energy. I guess this is
> where all the talk about Moessbauer comes in...
 
Hmm.  My own devil's advocacy aside, its the _momentum_ that is the head-
scratcher in Moessbauer, not the energy.  In Moessbauer the energy goes to
(or from) a _single_ nucleus, period.
 
Nor have I ever heard of any documented inverse effect in which it is the
energy is the quantity "distributed" throughout the lattice.  If someone
wishes to do that, they need abundant justification and explanation for it,
including a lucid explanation of why this presumably _generic_ energy
distribution effect (why should it occur _only_ in "cnf?") has never been
noticed before in physics.  (At least I don't think so -- anyone?)
 
Moessbauer does nothing more than show that oddities are possible.  It's
up to whoever proposes "something else" to explain _why_ their new approach
has any hope of being plausible or even self-consistent.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.31 / Bill Page /  Fusion Digest 1211 (Status #4 Cell 4A6) & Boson Collapse
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Digest 1211 (Status #4 Cell 4A6) & Boson Collapse
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 13:09:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>> In FD 1211 Tom Droege writes:
 
Sunday morning the temperature jumped from 35 to 77 C in a few minutes.  It
has **stayed*** at the high temperature.  The program was at the time set
to reverse the current ramp from up to down at 36.5 C.  Which it did. The
current is still slowly coming down at the 0.000002 amps per second rate,
and the cell thermometer is now down to 67 C or so.  The only thing that
makes sense to me is that the exectrolyte has suddenly changed thermal
conductivity.  The loading lost 11 cc of gas (means 22 cc D exited from the
cathode to eat 11 cc of Oxygen), but last night the gas volume started to
increase.  It is now up to 143 cc from 76.4 before the event.  I have seen
this kind of gas run away before.  For this reason there is an extra
container of catalyst outside the cell but inside the calorimeter to
convert any escaping D+O that in not converted in the cell.  The condensate
from such gas does not make it back into the cell, but the thermal balance
should be good.  Possibly we are generating Hydrino gas.  In any case I
will send off a sample for analysis.
 
Oh yes!  When the cell temperature went up, the catalyst thermometer went
down, from 53 C or so to 32 C.
<<
 
I wonder why no one has suggested this yet or is it just too obvious?? ...
 
Although I find Mills "theory" impossible to accept (in its present form),
it seems to me that Tom's recent data qualitively fit it fairly well.  The
explanation of these observations is *NOT* a mysterious change in the
conductivity of the cell/electrolyte.  What is happening is that an ongoing
process has been set up which exothermically generates hydrino's in the
lower part of the cell (cathode?) and endothermically recombines some of
them in the upper part of the cell.  The idea that recombination of
hydrinos with oxygen could be endothermic may be the origin of the rather
mysterious pronouncement from Dr. Farrell in this forum. This would make
the "excess heat" effect largely a "heat pump" [old idea, eh?] with
hydrogen/hydrino gas as the working fluid, except for the small enhancement
to the fusion rate in its hydrino state.
 
The reason for only partial recombination of the hydrino gas is because
there is not sufficient energy available from the heat of formation of D2O.
 I think Tom has explained previously that the recombiner includes its own
heater to keep the recombination rate sufficiently high.  Obviously it is
going to be necessary to look at the heat balance of the recombinator very
closely.
 
Now, I don't really *believe* in the hydrino theory... so something like it
that is QM-acceptible needs to be considered.  The boson condensate ideas
still under discussion here (W. Bernecky et al.) leads to another farfetch
(which has also been considered by W. Bernecky - private email).  In
"Chapter 7. Collective behaviour: Identical quantons" of "Quantics:
Rudiments Quantum Physics" there is a nice discussion of the fermionic
quantum saturation of the Coulomb forces of matter in bulk (Dyson and
Lenard 1965).  The point is that the Pauli principle is necessary to
guarantee that the electrons have a minimun kinetic energy so that the
extensive properties of matter (such as density) do not depend on the
number of particles.
 
The "Boson Collapse" farfetch (which is a possible QM-alternative to the
Mills theory) is that the high electron density in the metal lattice
coupled with the Bose properties of the deuteron (and maybe pairs of
protons?) allow the formation of a collapsed state.  The binding energy
(Eb) approximately varies according to:
 
      Eb ~ N^(2/3) Eh              [Quantics: 7.4.26]
 
where Eh = 13.6 ev is the usual binding energy of a single hydrogen atom
and N is the number of particles.  The result is a little like fractional
quantum numbers (at least from the perspective of bulk matter).
 
Something (the electron density perhaps) inhibits N from becoming very
large so the resulting BWOs are highly mobile and (if sufficiently
energetic) are free to leave the metal lattice.  These BWO (Boson Wave
Objects - W. Bernecky) are, however, more particle-like due to their small
size.  Their relative stability is assured due to the fairly large energy
well.  Some chemical reactions, however may produce enough energy to break
up the BWO.  And like hydrinos, BWOs are subject to enhanced low level
fusion.
 
Finally, [as Terry Bollinger has often said] if Tom's results should turn
out to be simple experimental error, you can quite safely ignore this
farfetch!
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.31 / Chuck Sites /  Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 20:19:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

Hi folks,
 
   In Steve's latest posting, he reveals some the results from his
latest experiments.  It's a testament to Steve's openness and
thoroughness as a scientist of the highest caliber to post his
results here and call for comments, constructive criticisms and
ideas.
 
    Steve's latest results are indeed most interesting.  The
statistical correlation of higher neutron counts in both the multiples
and singles from the forced outgassing of D look very convincing.  One
of the interesting things about palladium is it's fairly ductile even
after loading, and with the application of heating via high voltage, a
surface layer of deuterium should be expelled.  Because of the volume
change at the surface this should allow the surface Pd lattice to
relax creating a barrier to further D expulsion.  This model would
then be somewhat similar to Yamaguchi et al, as Steve noted, only
instead of sealing the loaded Pd with a gold layer invitio after PdDx
loading as Yamaguchi does, the Pd would naturally seal itself.  I
would be interested in knowing how long it takes between the
application of heating current, and the first signs of higher than
background counts.  This might roughly correlate to the depth of
deuteron free metal skin, and the build up of deuteron gas at the
grain boundaries near the PdD(x) loading phase change. Within the
general concept of a surface layer barrier to further outgassing,
there is the potential for a significant build up of D's under the
surface skin perhaps around grain boundaries that may lead to plastic
fracturing near the surface.  In one estimate I made, there should be
an 8 to 1 ratio of electrons to deuterons in a fracture plasma, making
a highly screened fusion a likely candidate.  This might also give the
multiples you are seeing.  Steve, have you had anyone look at the
surface by SEM or other high resolution imaging techniques?  That
might be revealing, specifically since your using gas loading and
don't have to worry about the electrolyte contaminating the surface
as in electrolysis.
 
   The other possibility is that a hole, or a tunnel develops in the
Pd lattice between the higher D load phase and the surface.  This
might allow pairs of D ions to defuse to the surface, but with a
periodic potential acting on the pair they move to the surface.
This might cause a resonance across the pair that might exceed the
Coulumb barrier.  Also there maybe a plasma pinch toward the
surface that may cause counts.
 
   In both of these schemes S. Koonin's fundamental theory applies.
That is the application of fluctuations on the Coulumb barrier
penetration factors will enhance CF rates.  There may also be
applications of the D band state if a surface potential collapses
the D bands ala the Chubb's theory, and other nuclear band state
ideas being developed after the revelation of Nieminen's work on
hydrogen delocalization. The Chubb's theory is complex an it would
be interesting to hear their ideas on your results.
 
Really interesting results Steve.  Thanks for sharing them with us
at this early stage in your research.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.30 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to John Logajan
Date: 30 Jul 93 20:05:59 GMT

In <930728124451.26c02b2e@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>...  It appears that the cell now has a leak.  I am doing
>calibration now in preparation to opening up the calorimeter and taking a look.
 
A thought that has occurred to me.
 
You have been trying to control the temperature to see if interesting things
happen at certain critical temperatures.
 
You try to control the temperature by adjusting the current. This means that
you are altering two variables at once, the current and the temperature.
Moreover, current changes on their own often seem to provoke "events", such
as gas in or gas out. Moreover, as a means of controlling temperature, they
do not seem to be working very well.
 
So if you are going to open the calorimeter anyway, why not include a simple
resistive heater in the cell and use that to control the temperature? A
fairly simple servo should do it, and the calorimetry of simple resistive
heaters is supposed to be well understood (at least, if we cannot understand
that, then we cannot understand anything :=) ).
 
--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506                            Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.01 / Debbie Choo /  Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: news@Hawaii.Edu (Debbie Choo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 00:46:26 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

Just a curiosity question from a non-physics type...please be gentle.
 
Since the major problem with fusion reactions is containing them (or
so I read in mainstream publications), why not just put it in orbit
around the planet where gravity is not a factor? (We'll put all
safety considerations of a decaying orbit and a fusion reaction
plummeting to Earth out of the equation for now for argument's sake).
And then beam the energy down to Earth in microwave transmissions,
hopefully not frying some innocent earth dwellers in the process.
 
And wouln't it be nice if we could resurrect the congress's lack of
interest in the space station by turning it into a fusion research
facility with the above idea and bill it as the answer to the energy
crisis of the coming century?  Or some such?
 
Please pardon my ignorance of any glaring considerations that I might
have overlooked.  In fact, please (in a non-flamage sort of way) post
those glaring oversights since that's what I'm looking for actually...
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennews cudfnDebbie cudlnChoo cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.01 / David Taylor /  post from a 3-year lurker
     
Originally-From: dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: post from a 3-year lurker
Date: 1 Aug 1993 03:09:50 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Two quick ideas from a non-physics person:
 
1.  Would it be possible to detect bosonic wave condensates as they
form by "ringing" the non-condensate with high frequency magnetic
fields (the bosons don't react, so an abrupt change is noted), and
 
2.  Would it be of interest to see what would happen if one of the
Bernecky cells were kept at 39 C at any cost at the beginning of a
temperature upramp, i.e., load the Pd with D at low temp, bring it to
39 C, the instant condensates start to form run cold water through a
coil in the cell and see if the cell can maintain itself at 39 C.
 
****************************************************************
*  Soaring - the ultimate three  *   David C. Taylor           *
*  dimensional art form          *   dct@batman.cs.byu.edu     *
****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendct cudfnDavid cudlnTaylor cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.01 / M Crawford /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: crawford@na47sun05.cern.ch (Michael Crawford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 10:34:25 GMT
Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics

In article <CB225F.5LK@news.Hawaii.Edu> news@Hawaii.Edu (Debbie Choo) writes:
>Just a curiosity question from a non-physics type...please be gentle.
>
>Since the major problem with fusion reactions is containing them (or
>so I read in mainstream publications), why not just put it in orbit
>around the planet where gravity is not a factor? (We'll put all
 
It's not so much that we want to keep the big bad nuclei from getting out
and harming us, but that we want to keep them all squished in together,
because they are trying so hard to avoid each other.
 
Fusion in space would be a good way to move big objects between the planets,
and would be necessary to go to the stars, but to put a fusion plant in orbit
would require more wight-lifting power than is presently available.
 
The radiation output from a fusion plant is low compared to a fission plant.
The problem is that when the gas gets hot, it tries to expand - all the nuclei
move away from each other - so the reaction stops.  A further problem is that
you can't just compress the gas in a strong bottle, as the temperatures needed
would vaporize the bottle.
--
Michael Crawford                | UC Santa Cruz, visiting CERN
Division PPE                    |
CERN                            | crawford@na47sun05.cern.ch
1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland     |
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrawford cudfnMichael cudlnCrawford cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.01 / Jerry Eng /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: jerry@utkvx.utk.edu (Jerry Nuc.Eng.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 17:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center

crawford@na47sun05.cern.ch (Michael Crawford) writes
->Fusion in space would be a good way to move big objects between the planets,3
->and would be necessary to go to the stars, but to put a fusion plant in orbi3
->would require more wight-lifting power than is presently available.         3
 
You've been watching to many episodes of Star Trek. First, to be capable of
powering a spacecraft, a fusion reactor must be able to generate a substantial
amount of power (which is 30 years off). Then its dimensions must be reduced to
make it even practical (another 20 years). In contrast, small scale fission
reactors capable of generating a gigawatt have already been built and tested.
To say that fusion is necessary to go to the stars is incorrect. BTW, even a
several gigawatt reactor isn't going to take you to the stars. Well maybe alpha
centari in a 20-30 year voyage. Also, you could put a fusion reactor in space
using several launches or the russians (forgot the name) giant booster.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjerry cudfnJerry cudlnEng cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.01 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Heat pumps and bosinos
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat pumps and bosinos
Date: Sun,  1 Aug 93 13:02:36 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Bill Page writes:
 
>Although I find Mills "theory" impossible to accept (in its present form),
>it seems to me that Tom's recent data qualitively fit it fairly well.  The
>explanation of these observations is *NOT* a mysterious change in the
>conductivity of the cell/electrolyte.  What is happening is that an ongoing
>process has been set up which exothermically generates hydrino's in the
>lower part of the cell (cathode?) and endothermically recombines some of
>them in the upper part of the cell.  The idea that recombination of
>hydrinos with oxygen could be endothermic may be the origin of the rather
>mysterious pronouncement from Dr. Farrell in this forum. This would make
>the "excess heat" effect largely a "heat pump" [old idea, eh?] with
>hydrogen/hydrino gas as the working fluid, except for the small enhancement
.to the fusion rate in its hydrino state.
 
>Something (the electron density perhaps) inhibits N from becoming very
>large so the resulting BWOs are highly mobile and (if sufficiently
>energetic) are free to leave the metal lattice.  These BWO (Boson Wave
>Objects - W. Bernecky) are, however, more particle-like due to their small
>size.  Their relative stability is assured due to the fairly large energy
>well.  Some chemical reactions, however may produce enough energy to break
>up the BWO.  And like hydrinos, BWOs are subject to enhanced low level
>fusion.
 
Bill's farfetch also explains why Mills warns not to used closed calorimeters,
and why P&F have continued to use open cells.
 
If this turns out to be correct, then someday the "ash" could be
is as important as the heat production.  The ash -- whether Hydrino's or
BWO's (Bosino's ?) -- may be endothermically combined with oxygen to
provide a source of cooling.  Perhaps the cooling could even be enhanced
by returning the Bosinos to the ground state with some other catalyst;
the hydrogen would then be recombined at the hot side of the heat pump.
 
Imagine your future home energy system with the hot cathode used to
heat water and generate electricity, and the Bosinos pumped through a
heat exchanger and used for air conditioning.
 
It reminds me of an idea I once had as a kid (before knowing anything about
thermodynamics).  It seemed so easy to mix hot water and cold water together
to get room-temperature water, so why did you need to waste so much energy
to do the reverse?  If you could just come up with an invention to separate
the hot molecules from the cold ones...  Cold fusion might turn out to
be that invention.
 
Oh well, that's far enough off the deep end for today.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #5 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #5 Cell 4A6
Date: 1 Aug 1993 21:24:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov () says:
> This means the conduction calorimeter constant has changed from the
> 1.9 - 1.1 C/Watt range earlier in the experiment to 9.7 C/Watt now.
 
By your lastest measurements, you're  back in the 1.88 C/Watt range.
So if something changed, it wasn't permanent.  Was there a possibility
that the constant didn't change at all and it was anomalous heat?
 
You seemed to be avoiding saying that, and I presume it was because you
had other measurements that were inconsistent with a prolonged afterglow.
 
One way I can think to distinguish things would be if there was a thermometer
just outside the cell, in the "spool" (cell holder.)  The likelyhood of
a huge constant change in bulk aluminum seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
 
If the cell constant changed then the spool and cell temperatures ought
to diverge from each other in a predictable way.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / John Logajan /  Re: post from a 3-year lurker
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: post from a 3-year lurker
Date: 2 Aug 1993 01:39:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor) says:
>the instant condensates start to form run cold water through a
>coil in the cell and see if the cell can maintain itself at 39 C.
 
Make the cell Pd electrode a thin and long rod within a narrow tube.
 
i.e.
 
    _______________________________________________________________
                     _________________________
      <-- flow      [____________O____________]       /\/\/\/\/\/\
    _______________________________________________________________
       ^^^^^                     ^     ^^^               ^^^
     Flow tube                   |   Pd electrode      39C preheater
                              Thermometer
 
 
At very low flow rates the preheater just keeps the electrolyte at the
thermometer at 39C.  As the Pd begins to heat up, the feedback either
speeds up the flow rate or cuts the power into the preheater, or both.
 
The thermometer is place at the center of the Pd rod to ensure that the
39C point falls somewhere along the Pd rod, in case the cooling rate
is a little to slow or a little too fast.  (Some heat from the leading
edge of the rod is carried to the trailing edge, ensuring a continuous
temperature gradient along the rod.)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / John Logajan /  Looking for my little run run run run runaway
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for my little run run run run runaway
Date: 2 Aug 1993 02:11:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
It is my intuitive feeling that cold fusion? reactions that can spontaneously
give anomalous heat (or even mega-multiple nuclear ash events) must have an
inherent moderating mechanism that prevents reaction runaway.
 
I mean, the difference in reaction probabilities between currently
understood cross-sectional reaction rates and those needed for
measurable anomalous heat are of far larger spread than those
between measureable heat and explosive runaway.  Why, therefore, should
our intrepid experimenters aways see one, but seldom (if ever) the other?
 
In the Jones' rare (but not never) type event, the mere occurance of a
multi-event (i.e. chain reaction of some length) is, I propose, in the
same class as anomalous heat events -- moderated by some mechanism to
prevent unlimited runaway.  For this reason, I think Jones will have to
disclaim large multiplicity events for fear of stepping onto the
anomalous heat dance floor.
 
What's the moderator?  In the boson condensate theory, the temperature
is critical.  Too hot or too cold and it shuts itself down -- but it
must be a quick feedback, because it doesn't take long to step from
measureable heat to explosive thermal event!
 
 
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Bernecky BWO = Chubb BBC / lattice-temperature idea / attribution
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bernecky BWO = Chubb BBC / lattice-temperature idea / attribution
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 04:09:46 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Hi folks,
 
A couple of clarifications on the origins of:
 
  a) Pd-lattice-structured D+ bose condensates
 
  b) Using temperature ranges to encourage D/H-to-Pd-lattice "matchups"
 
 
BERNECKY BWO = CHUBB BBC
 
In <1993Jul13.061603.15158@asl.dl.nec.com> on Tue, 13 Jul 1993 06:16:03 GMT
(Subject: Draft paper on Bernecky condensation), I said in the intro:
 
> I should note that although to the best of my knowledge William Bernecky
> is the first person to propose the specific idea that lattice diffraction
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> might be capable of encouraging atomic boson condensation, the idea of
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hydrogen boson condensates in palladium has been discussed extensively
> in both papers and on the UseNet group sci.physics.fusion.  Papers that
> proposed such condensates include in particular the work of Scott Chubb
> et all [2], and extensive sci.physics.fusion discussions and proposals
> on this concept include those of Chuck Sites [3].  William Bernecky's
> idea should be viewed as a specific elaboration of a possible mechanism
> for boson condensate concepts initially proposed and elaborated upon by
> other authors.
 
 
I recieved a faxed copy of this paper from Scott Chubb on July 28, 1993:
 
 "Cold Fusion as an Interaction Between Ion Band States,"  by Talbot A.
  Chubb and Scott R. Chubb, _Fusion Technology_ Vol 20 Aug 1991, pp. 93-99
 
 
On page 93 it says:
 
> ION BAND STATES: THE BOSE BLOCH CONDENSATE
>
>   An ion band state, also called a Bose Bloch condensate (BBC, is a state
> of matter resembling a band-state population in a host solid...  the ion
> band states responsible for cold fusion are formed from D+ and 4He++,
> which have Bose rather than Fermi symmetry.
 
 
On page 94:
 
> WAVE AND PARTICLE CHARACTERIZATION OF A BBC
>
>   The compoonents of a BBC are bosons in distributed matter states, i.e.,
> Bloch states, which match the periodic symmetry of the host lattice...
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
As no one knows whether such condensates even _exist_, the following is
unabashedly a beautiful case of making a mountain out of what is probably
not even a molehill.  Nonetheless, this issue has gotten a lot of press
here, and unless you've been living in a deep dark hole somewhere you may
have noticed that some of the discussions here do indeed influence popular
impressions and articles as to who did what when, and why it was important.
So I trudge forward with my mountain building...
 
There are some points here worth emphasizing about the quotes above.  First
is simply that the Chubb duo were not only _aware_ of the importance of the
lattice to their D+ bose condensate idea, but spent several pages going into
considerable mathematical detail about the implications of it.  They say
nothing about temperatures, but do use a k (spatial frequency) value that
is readily translatible into approximate temperatures via the Boltzmann
equation.  They apparently did not do such a translation primarily because
the focus of their paper was on possible band-to-band relationships.
 
The second point is that the Chubb team fails to place any emphasis at all
on bose condensation as a distinct event.  In my own reading it was not
clear whether they even recognized the possible existence (or importance)
of such an "all or nothing" effect in the initial formation of a Bose Bloch
Condensate (BBC) of D+.  In contrast W.R.  Bernecky strongly and effectively
emphasized the importance of this transition issue in his posting on his
essentially identical concept of a lattice-structured D+ bose condensate,
which he named Bosonic Wave Objects (BWOs).
 
The third point is that W.R. Bernecky is highly familiar with the Chubb
work, or at least was at one time (circa mid 1990).  During that time period
he both spoke directly to Scott Chubb by phone and asked for and received
copies of three Chubb team papers and a preprint of a Fusion Technology
paper by them.
 
The fourth point is that I know from my own extensive search for atomic
banding concepts in traditional physics literature that the Chubb concept
of treating atoms as delocalized Bose wave functions not trivial, and most
certainly is not found in just "any old paper."  Indeed, the only formally
published papers that I've ever seen this issue addressed in have all been
from the Chubb team.  (If anyone out there _does_ know of any similar work
on the atomic banding idea, could you please post your info here?)
 
 
As I have received no reply to my formal queries to W.R. Bernecky about
the relationship of his BWO idea to the Chubb BBC concept, it is difficult
for me to judge what exactly transpired here.  My best guess is that after
reading the Chubb papers and subsequently putting them aside, W.R. Bernecky
came up with what he _thought_ to be a new idea while reading a well-written
book on general quantum mechanics.
 
But the credit for the basic concept of lattice-structured bose condensates
of D+ in palladium clearly belongs to Talbot and Scott Chubb, and not W.R.
Bernecky.  W.R. Bernecky may well deserve credit for first clearly pointing
out the importance of condensation as a distinct and _possibly_ temperature-
dependent event (if any of this exists at all, that is).  I certainly never
explored bose condensation in any form whatsoever in A Twist of Ribbon, the
only other work I know of that goes into some detail about delocalized band
functions.  And the Chubb team do not seem in their papers to recognize the
possible importance of explicit condensation events.
 
In any case, however, I will no longer use the acronym "BWO" in any context,
as I believe it wrongly (probably inadvertantly, but still wrongly) takes
away credit from the Chubb team who truly originated the concept and named
it Bose Bloch Condensate, or BBC.  I will instead use only the acronym BBC,
as originated by Chubb and Chubb.  I also will hereafter refer to the BBC
concept as belonging exclusively to the Talbot and Scott Chubb team, with
later elaborations by others such as W.R. Bernecky.
 
 
I also apologize abjectly and humbly both to W.R. Bernecky and the Talbot/
Scott Chubb team having posted a draft of an email paper that strongly
advocated the idea that W.R. Bernecky was the originator of the lattice-
structured condensate idea.  This was grossly unfair of me to all parties,
as it placed W.R. Bernecky in a difficult position, and failed to provide
correct attribution of the BBC concept to the Chubb team.  I will of course
completely redo the final draft of that email paper to remove attribution
problems, and I would ask anyone who has distributed copies of the earlier
draft to please note this correction.
 
 
LATTICE-TEMPERATURE LINKAGE
 
To the best of my knowledge (and I am very willing to be corrected), I was
the first one on this group to suggest that experimenters should explore
temperature ranges in which the momentum wavelengths of deuterium and/or
hydrogen correlated to the structure of the palladium lattice.  This was
several months ago, and I made the suggestion in response to comments by
(I believe) Tom Droege during a discussion of experimental implications of
my 1991 "A Twist of Ribbon" exploration of the idea of atomic annihilation.
 
W.R. Bernecky then responded with a very nice "quick summary" of his best
estimation of these implied temperature ranges.  He also made the quite
accurate observation that four wavelengths seemed to provide the best fit
to some observed temperature ranges.  I thanked W.R. Bernecky on the net
at the time for his work in calculating the temperatures.  I did not follow
through on my own calculations at that time, since W.R. Bernecky's appeared
to be accurate.  (There were a couple of errors in the more recent posting.)
 
This correspondence of wavelength and temperature is just as important for
"A Twist of Ribbon" as it is for Chubbs' BBC concept, since the atoms that
are proposed to be annihilated are those at the Fermi surface of a band of
either H+ or D.  (Notice the ion charge inversion relative to Chubb, which
results in fermi statistics rather than bose statistics).  As with Chubb
BBCs, these Fermi surface atoms must have wavelengths commensurate with
the lattice structure of palladium.  (In case you are wondering, the Twist
development was entirely independent of the Chubb work, which I am only
now becoming familiar with.  We have some rather drastic differences in
perspective on what is important and what to _do_ with delocalized wave-
functions, but there are also some quite intriguing commonalities.)
 
 
I point all of this out primarily because of an overlap issue.  I have no
interest whatsoever in W.R. Bernecky's proposals about "cold fusion" or in
his own version of particle-count-uncertainty total mass conversion (an
interesting one, I might add, but one that I don't buy myself).
 
However, I _do_ have a long-standing vested interest in the importance of
experimentally exploring the temperature ranges that are close to the wave-
to-lattice correspondence regions.  These lattice-derived temperature
ranges have significances that goes way, WAY beyond the particulars of
whatever it is W.R. Bernecky's proposed (or what the Chubb team proposed,
for that matter).  They were, after all, originally calculated for use in
exploring "A Twist of Ribbon," not for anything by W.R. Bernecky or Chubb.
 
 
ATTRIBUTION COUNTS
 
In a net environment, I do not think there is anything more profoundly
destructive to an atmosphere of free sharing and intellectual stimulation
than sloppy or innaccurate attribution of ideas.  When participants begin
to feel that everything they say or do will simply be "swallowed up" or
absorbed by other participants, it's pretty clear that the final result
will be that everyone with any sense at all will simply clam up for good.
(No, I _don't_ have any sense -- you all surely no that by now, I trust?)
 
It thus behooves all of us to be _more_ careful to attribute ideas at every
possible juncture, and to be not stingy but generous in our praise of the
insights of others.  Sometimes this policy backfires, as for example when
it turns out that someone else should have been credited. but in general I
think it's the only route we _can_ take if there is any hope of a group
such as this _accomplishing_ anything of actual note.
 
W.R. Bernecky has clearly worked hard to come up with innovative ideas and
nuts-and-bolts numbers, and should receive credit for that -- especially if
any of those ideas actually _result_ in something new.  And the idea that
BBC formation may depend on using the temperature ranges calculation method
I first suggested for experimental exploration of "A Twist of Ribbon" does
appear to belong W.R. Bernecky.  It is a quite nifty insight.  In fact, it
could (by my own poor estimation at least) quite possibly prove to be a key
component of the kind of "Trigger" for which poor horseless Lone Ranger
Jones is now diligently searching.  (I will talk more about this later in
the context of a possible significant update to "A Twist of Ribbon.")
 
 
My own list of unaccreditated people?  Every bloopin' physcist who helped
write the papers I collected for "A Twist of Ribbon," and about half the
major participants on this group.  (I have not given out my [smaller] list
of soliton references yet, by the way -- only the palladium hydride ones.)
 
In the special case of Roman Jackiw and Claudio Rebbi, if anything truly
fundmental _did_ happen to come out of band solitons as a path for invoking
new physics, I would be quite seriously inclined to suggest that both of
these excellent physicists should these get Nobel prizes for the soliton
work they did back in the 1970s.  Both would probably be quite horrified to
hear their names invoked as being _that_ instrumental to a document that
proposed something as outrageously assinine as total annihilation of atoms
via a solid-state process.  And yet "A Twist of Ribbon" flatly could not
have been written without the work and insights recorded in their papers...
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 08:47:43 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

In article <CB225F.5LK@news.Hawaii.Edu> news@Hawaii.Edu (Debbie Choo) writes:
 
>Since the major problem with fusion reactions is containing them (or
>so I read in mainstream publications), why not just put it in orbit
>around the planet where gravity is not a factor? (We'll put all
>safety considerations of a decaying orbit and a fusion reaction
>plummeting to Earth out of the equation for now for argument's sake).
>And then beam the energy down to Earth in microwave transmissions,
>hopefully not frying some innocent earth dwellers in the process.
 
There's already one up there beaming energy down to earth.  It is rather
massive so we tend to orbit it rather than the other way around...
 
Seriously though, I do wonder at some of these fusion programs.  The stated
aim is always to provide nice, clean energy, and yet most of the energy from
fusion comes out as a fast neutron and a gamma.  These are both highly
penetrating forms of radiation that tend to make whatever they sink into
radioactive.  Some of this can be used to breed more deuterium and tritium,
but as a significant amount will get through 10 cms of Al or more, unless
cold fusion produces no fast neutrons or gammas the structure of the reactor
will end up a hot mess of radiation daughters that no-one wants in their
back yard either.  Of course someone would suggest we clad it in depleted
uranium; a relatively thin layer soaks the radiation up, releases energy
in the process, and we already have an industry built for reprocessing the
radiation daughters.  But that would mean we have clad our fusion source
in a great big fast-breedor reactor several times it's size and power, and
we can make those anyway.
 
Don't mind me.  Mondays just get me like that.  Keep up the good work.
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / Dieter Britz /  RE: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 10:29:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1222:
 
>  In Message-ID: <01H15P3P8HZM9POQXI@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>  Subject: RE: X-rays or special pleading
>Dieter Britz  (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
>= ".. I am told (by private email) that the 4He nucleus does not
>= walk away with the whole 23 MeV, that the gamma in fact has 18 MeV of this,
>= and it is the gamma that has to shed most of the energy."
 
>   Hi Dieter:
 
>    Is that for cold, or hot, fusion?   Which experiment?
>    Loading method?     Thanks.
 
>                                              Mitchell
 
Hi Mitch; I am talking about the very attenuated d-d fusion branch,
d + d ---> 4He + gamma(23.8 MeV).
I looked this up in Mallove's Fire From Ice. It is standard physics, as far as
I can tell, and the conditions that lead to it, such as you ask for, have to
be irrelevant. The controversial thing that (some) cnf proponents are claiming
is that this reaction, normally running at about 10^-7 times the rate of the
other two, is the main branch in cnf, and that the other two (leading to
tritium, neutrons and protons) are somehow running at a low low rate, which
explains the odd neutron etc. The private email I got told me that the gamma
has 18 MeV, but the books I read say 23.8. What seems to happen is that there
is an intermediate state, just after the d-d fusion, producing an excited
4He*. This then sheds that 23.8 MeV gamma. Maybe Dick Blue can tell us what
sort of energies the 4He has after the gamma goes off. Does it just sit there
quietly in the lattice, or does it have some energy left to go on the rampage
with as a charged particle? In other words, a full description of this fusion
branch in a PdD lattice, please.
 
The above does not imply that I believe this scenario. I find it intuitively
very unlikely that the PdD lattice should change branching ratios. Remember
Terry's Bohr jackets, anyone? But if you believe it, you ought to look for
the signature of that branch, like commensurate amounts of 4He and whatever
the gamma (and maybe the 4He) is supposed to produce.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  More wild extrapolations
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More wild extrapolations
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:23:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell's response to my question about some rather wild extrapoations
from some-not-so-well-established facts was just more of the same:
 
<<  "Whatever CF is, it can produce massive amounts of energy with  >>
<<   practically no fuel at all, and the fuel it uses is water.  .. >>
<<   Power density is wonderfully high.                             >>
 
I wish to call into question the notion that the power density is
significant in the sense that the power output from a device will
scale with a constant power density.  NO EXPERIMENT has yet established
any such scalling law.
 
I wish to call into question the notion that peak power levels can be
sustained for arbitrary lengths of time.  NO EXPERIMENT has yet established
that even modest power levels can be maintained for time periods of
practical interest.  Peak power levels are by definition not typical, and
I have seen no trend to indicate that steady state operation is the norm
rather than bursts or peaks on a rather so-so level of performance.
 
Jed further indicates that knowing what the reaction process is in detail
is not significant, but then reverses himself by saying that water is
the only fuel.  Until you know what the reaction process is, I assert
that saying water is the fuel is pure speculation.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Strong force chemistry
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:23:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel did an excellent job outlining why the view of CF advocates
that solids can totally alter nuclear reactions is highly questionable.
As usual the argument went over Mitchell Swartz'z head, but maybe there
is still hope for convincing some of the non-nuclear physics types that
there are some very fundimental problems being overlooked.  Perhaps the
key is the phrase Matt coined, "strong force chemistry".  Basically
the view that keeps coming up is that changing the strength of the
interaction by a factor of one million (give or take a few orders of
magnitude) really makes no big difference.
 
As an example of this highly questionable mode of thinking, consider
the Chubb theory (as related here by Chuck Sites).  "In the Chubb
theory the He4++ created by the condensate fusion remains directly
exchangable with 2D+. .... The resulting He4++ forms a band state."
 
I find this notion totally absurd!  If, as I read it, the Chubb
theory suggests that a He4++ and 2D+ are linked through some form
of reversible process such that the energy release can be delayed
and spread both in time and space,  I would like to see that notion
justified in some detail.  The range of the strong interaction
is not going to be spread by some insignificant atomic perturbation!
And causality does limit how far you can look for participants in
a given reaction.  What does it take to keep this game honest
anyway?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Bernecky BWO = Chubb BBC / lattice-temperature idea / attribution
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky BWO = Chubb BBC / lattice-temperature idea / attribution
Date: 2 Aug 1993 14:12:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
terry@asl.dl.nec.com () says:
> "Cold Fusion as an Interaction Between Ion Band States,"  by Talbot A.
>  Chubb and Scott R. Chubb, _Fusion Technology_ Vol 20 Aug 1991, pp. 93-99
 
Doing a subject search in Charles Harrison's WAIS server of Deiter Britz's
abstracts database shows that Whaley,KB and Bush,RJ and Eagleton,RD all
were talking about boson condensates back in the 1989/90 time period --
not just the two Chubbs.  In fact, the earliest reference to the Chubb work
was in Fusion Tech and it mentioned their as yet unpublished theory --
which was to appear, I believe, in a 1991 Fusion Tech (see above?).
So these other guys were in print first.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / John George /  Re: Alcator
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alcator
Date: 2 Aug 93 15:19:36 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

I'd like to say thanks to the Alcator Experimenters for their post, and
to encourage them to continue to make regular posts, too.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bernecky BWO = Chubb BBC / lattice-temperature idea / attribution
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bernecky BWO = Chubb BBC / lattice-temperature idea / attribution
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 16:10:36 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <23j7ci$2is@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
 
>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com () says:
> |  "Cold Fusion as an Interaction Between Ion Band States,"  by Talbot A.
> |   Chubb and Scott R. Chubb, _Fusion Technology_ Vol 20 Aug 1991, pp. 93-99
>
> Doing a subject search in Charles Harrison's WAIS server of Deiter Britz's
> abstracts database shows that Whaley,KB and Bush,RJ and Eagleton,RD all
> were talking about boson condensates back in the 1989/90 time period --
> not just the two Chubbs.  In fact, the earliest reference to the Chubb work
> was in Fusion Tech and it mentioned their as yet unpublished theory --
> which was to appear, I believe, in a 1991 Fusion Tech (see above?).
> So these other guys were in print first.
>
> --
> -- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
 
(BTW, I have _lously_ on line access -- no FTP, etc.  Some sort of local
security constraints.  Dieter has better access to my own work than I do.)
 
Yes, and lest I inadvertantly start yet another little controversy (my true
area of expertise these days it seems), I want to quickly point out that
Scott himself informed me about this paper.  Here is what Scott said to
me about Whaley et al:
 
 
In <9307211825.AA23974@telemann.inoc.dl.nec.com> on 21 Jul 93 14:09:00 EST
"SCOTT CHUBB" <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil> wrote to me via private email:
 
>   I do know that besides Talbot and me, K. Whalely also suggested that
> Bose Condensates could be involved.  She published an (albeit negative)
> article in Phys. Rev. B in the summer of 1990 concerning her modelling
> efforts associated with Bose Condensates.  Besides U.S. government
> reports (NRL memorandum reports 6600 and 6617, which were published in
> the fall of 1989), the first publication of our work, where we coined
> the phrase Bose Bloch Condensate, appeared the July 1990 issue of Fusion
> Technology (Talbot A. Chubb and Scott R. Chubb, "Bloch-Symmetric Fusion
> in PdDx," Fusion Technoloogy 17, 710 (1990).).
 
 
So this one was very definitely my omission, not Scott's.  He made no bones
about the existence of this parallel work, and for that matter has not even
complained (at least not to me) about whether BWOs might actually be BBCs.
That inference is entirely mine, and is a result of reading the relevant
papers and doing a little cross-checking.  Scott has responded to several
direct queries from me, but was not the initiator -- I was.
 
The fact that the Whalely et al paper is negative is actually intriguing --
as I've mentioned repeatedly (and will keep repeating!), _all_ of this may
prove to be nothing more than interesting silliness.  All known examples of
atomic boson condensates (4He and 3He are the only ones I've ever heard of)
are extremely difficult to construct.  There is simply no guarantee that
the additon of the lattice constraint necessarily means that appreciable
condensation can actually happen.  It's just worth taking a closer look at,
given the continuing existence of some fairly bizarre anomolies in Pd(H,D).
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / mitchell swartz /  More wild extrapolations
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More wild extrapolations
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:13:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <9308021409.AA29664@suntan.Tandem.com>
     Subject: More wild extrapolations
 Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
==   "I wish to call into question the notion that the power density is
==   significant in the sense that the power output from a device will
==  scale with a constant power density.  NO EXPERIMENT has yet established
==   any such scalling law."
 
   Dick,  batteries are added together in every reader's VCR-changer,
 portable calculator, and camera.   Do you have any evidence that such
 electrical devices cannot be added to produce an increase in total power?
                               (probably not, right?)
 
 
==  "I wish to call into question the notion that peak power levels can be
== sustained for arbitrary lengths of time.  NO EXPERIMENT has yet
== established that even modest power levels can be maintained for
==  time periods of practical interest."
 
    Reports of the cold fusion phenomena span days.
    That may be more than all the hot fusion time ever, eh?  Or do
      have one report of any other fusion effort giving results for
      one day (or one hour?)
 
    In fact, some reports are of months of generating excess power.
    Seems like your comments are incorrect (again).
 
    Could give a reason for such misinformation, or the proof that
      your project has satisfied similar longevities of excess
      production of heat (or electricity)?
 
           Best wishes.
 
                                 Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / mitchell swartz /  Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Strong force chemistry
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Subject: More educating Dick Blue
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:15:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9308021355.AA29565@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: Strong force chemistry
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
==   Matt Kennel did an excellent job outlining why the view of CF advocates
==   that solids can totally alter nuclear reactions is highly questionable.
==   As usual the argument went over Mitchell Swartz'z head, but maybe there
==   is still hope for convincing some of the non-nuclear physics types that
==   there are some very fundimental problems being overlooked."
 
   As a point of information to those readers of your words who might
    not recognize them for the nonsense they are:
 
     First, although Matt did outline some interesting comments, he then
failed to respond to ANY of the questions decimating his (and your)
arguments.     Questions were returned to both Matt (and previously
to yourself) but you have "ducked" them.    A pattern here?
 
    Therefore, the "ball" is on your "side of the court",
  the questions remain posed to you asking for
  any logical basis (to the degree that it might exist)
  to support the bleating skepticism.
 
   To date the questions remain unanswered,
and your theories/complaints/destructive-criticisms are logically moot.
 
    For the convenience of yourself (and those interested readers)
 the questions are reproduced below.   Your sentient responses remain
 awaited, of course.
 
    Until anon.       Best wishes.
 
                             Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 
 ===== A FEW of the UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OF DICK BLUE and MATT KENNEL =
 
 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Message-ID: <CAuI9y.G5s@world.std.com>
 
==mk  "If you create phonons, you have to have moving nuclei.  OK we have
==mk  a moving nucleus just coming out of the reaction.  The point is,
==mk  it's NO LONGER BOUND to the other nuclei in the lattice;"
 
   You apparently did not look up the references on phonons.
   They are oscillatory, aren't they?
 
  Matt, in summary, given the cornucopia of experimental data, we
      submit that it is you who need a good theory
      to disprove (or erase) the scores of papers reporting
      positive result(s).
 
                 --------------
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: Re: More educating Dick Blue
Message-ID: <CAupzt.GwI@world.std.com>
 
==mk  "Note that pions, carriers of nuclear forces, have nonzero rest masses
==mk that therefore imply finite range of interactions, unlike electromagnetism
==mk and gravity.  This finite range is consistent with present experimental
==mk evidence of femtoscale interactions."
 
  Noted. Such finite range holds for the pi mesons about which you refer.
 
    Any evidence for pions in cold fusion?
 
     Where they negative, or neutral or positive, pi mesons?
     How do they fit in with the other L-mesons?  Any data? Care to share it?
 
                ----------------------------------------
 
  Matt, the basic locus of disagreement appears to be this:
 
  The (hot-fusion-) skeptic(s) says c.f. can't exist/work/develop because
   after all,      ..... ah.... that is not how the sun works.
                                       or plasma fusion works.
 
       Why do you insist that reactions which occur on the sun, or hotter
        environs, MUST occur identically in a lattice at the rather "colder"
        temperatures reported?
 
          ----------------
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Message-ID: <CB03H7.6Ls@world.std.com>
 
Matt Kennel [mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu] writes:
== "What is somebody supposed to do when:
==  #1)   Many people honestly tried to replicate original experiments and
==      could not."
 
   Many people apparently have replicated the original experiments.
   Furthermore, others have replicated them and may have apparently
       stated or reported that they "had not" done so.
    Any serious comment on either fact?
 
==  "#2) Any mechanisms remotely conceivable in standard physics have been
==   ruled out.  No plausible new mechanisms have been demonstrated."
 
   Not true.  Hot fusion mechanisms are ruled out because the observed
    products are different.  New phenomena have been demonstrated.
    Any comments on the excess heat and products reported?
    Why should old theories satisfy new observed phenomena?
 
==  "#3) The means to produce this "multi-watt" level heat are industrial
==    secrets and are not EVER going to be told to the public, thus
==    precluding any independent confirmation."
 
    Where did you get that omniscient amount of knowledge?
      (Same source as saying that "cf doesn't exist"?          ;)
 
                          --------
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Subject: More educating Dick Blue
Message-ID: <CAsAHH.B45@world.std.com>
 
  Dick, it is the skeptics who have actually appear to have
         NO basis to refute the rising evidence of cold fusion
         phenomena.   It is the skeptics who have
         failed to supply any equations to bolster their petrifying
         demands, isn't it?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 20:33:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
In "Bad Science," Taubes make many, many claims that are directly contradicted
by the published scientific literature. For example, he says the Huggins group
forgot to measure voltage. The paper:
 
     M. Schreiber et al, "Recent Measurements of Excess Energy Production In
     Electrochemical Cells Containing Heavy Water and Palladium," First Annual
     Conf. Proc, March 1990
 
...shows that they *did* measure voltage. Naturally they did, they are
experienced electrochemists; it is inconceivable that they would skip such an
elementary, important procedure.
 
Another example: Taubes alleges that Pons and Fleischmann attempted to measure
an increase in tritium by taking only one sample, at the end of the run,
without establishing a baseline and sampling throughout the run. This, of
course, is preposterous -- nobody would ever think of doing the experiment
that way! That is like trying to compute the daily growth of bamboo by going
into the woods and measuring one bamboo shoot one time only (without even
knowing when it started to grow.) Naturally, the published literature
contradicts him.
 
Now, if Taubes' was disputing statements in published papers by one or two
scientists, then I suppose you might reasonably ask: "Who is right, Taubes or
Dr. X?" But that is not the situation! What we have here are two radically
different versions of the work performed not by one or two scientists, but of
one or two *thousand* scientists, worldwide. To put it bluntly: Somebody here
is not telling the truth. Either the peer-reviewed, published scientific
literature is full of lies, or Taubes' version of events is not to be trusted.
We must balance the credibility of one man -- Taubes -- versus the credibility
and professional reputations of one or two thousand scientists, many of them
distinguished, senior people, including, for example, a Nobel Laureate in
physics and the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Government of India.
Put in those terms, it is obvious who has more credibility.
 
This is not to say that Taubes actually wrote about the work of a couple
thousand scientists! What I mean is, a couple thousand scientists have
replicated the work that he says was "a scam of unprecedented proportions"
(book promotion). Their findings contradict his assertion. Therefore, the only
logical conclusion is that if he is right, they must be part of his imaginary
grand conspiracy to commit a gigantic "scam." Taubes certainly did *not* write
about each of these thousands of people, in fact, he made every effort to
avoid saying anything about most of them. In particular, there is nothing in
the book about any experiment after 1989, and no mention of any research in
Japan, where almost all serious cold fusion research is performed. It is as if
he wrote a book about the automotive industry, or consumer electronics,
without mentioning Japan.
 
Taubes also overlooked the work of the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI). This is a strange oversight; EPRI is the world's largest, most
prestigious, most important private energy R&D thinktank. They spend hundreds
of millions per year on energy R&D. EPRI has hired SRI on contract to study
cold fusion. SRI is one of the world's most respected laboratories. The
program at SRI is headed by Dr. Michael McKubre. McKubre and others with SRI
and EPRI reported positive cold fusion experimental results early in 1989.
They reported these results formally, in writing, during the First
International Conference, the Second International Conference, the Third
International Conference, and in detail during McKubre's formal lecture at MIT
on September 24, 1992. Furthermore, and he has talked about his results
informally at various conferences that I have attended. Also, that EPRI
spokespeople have issued formal unambiguous statements describing these
positive results, and these statement have appeared in the Wall Street Journal
on three occasions, in Chemical and Engineering News, Business Week, in the
Japanese and British press. Furthermore, EPRI is sponsoring the Forth
International Conference on cold fusion this coming December.
 
EPRI and SRI have announced, time after time, that they are measuring heat 10
to 100 times greater than any possible chemical reaction can produce, and that
"by default" this must be nuclear. Their calorimetry is widely regarded as the
best in the world (probably the best in history), and their statistical
confidence in the results is at Sigma 90. EPRI/SRI are considered the second
best, second most important group in the world, after Toyota, which leads the
field. From the very beginning, they have been the focus of attention in the
field. How on earth did Taubes manage to overlook the work of EPRI and SRI?
Why was there only a single sentence about their work in 473 pages? Here we
have the world's most respected energy R&D organization reporting clear,
unambiguous results for four years, 100 times beyond any possible chemical
reaction, and sponsoring an international conference. This, surely, is an
important fact about cold fusion. Why did Taubes leave it out? The same reason
he left all mention of the Japanese work: it proves that he is wrong. He
deliberately picked a highly selective set of facts -- he talked only about a
few of the failed experiments, a few positive experiments that Taubes
incorrectly say failed, and none of the positive work. This is like writing a
book about the U.S. space program and closing with the Vanguard explosion,
with no mention of any successful manned flight, Apollo or the Space Shuttle:
 
     They built a few rockets, tried to launch them, but the rockets blew up,
     and that was that. End of story.
 
Now, it is possible that Taubes was simply unaware of the discrepancies
between his versions of the experiments and the actual, published facts. There
are no references in the book to *any* published papers by *any* of the
scientists, so perhaps Taubes never read a single paper in the field, even
though there are hundreds to choose from. He says that the book was based in
"interviews" and "telephone conversations" but he did not talk with many of
the scientists who actually did the work; most of his quoted remarks about the
work were made by rivals and bitter enemies of the scientists, and by people
like Huizenga, who have staked their reputation on proving that cold fusion
does not exist. It is difficult enough to understand these experiments when
you read the papers, it is well nigh impossible to understand them when you
ask other people to describe work that they themselves have never seen,
sometimes never read about, and in every case think is mistaken or fraudulent.
You cannot begin to imagine how much confusion and chaos this "method" of
doing research creates until you try to slog through this book.
 
Perhaps Taubes did glance at some of the scientific papers; in that case he
deliberately, grotesquely distorted them. Perhaps he relied entirely on his
rumor factory and never bothered to check a single fact. Either way, the book
is not fit to be called "science" in any sense of the word.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  blue@dancer.ns /  A few loose ends
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A few loose ends
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 21:54:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my challange concerning scaling in accord to power density
Mitchell Swartz hints that a multiple cell arrangement analogous to
a battery will provide a path to scaling up the power level.  The obvious
problem with that is that then the appropriate density to be used
 
is not just that of the palladium but is rather the power density of the
entire cell - electrolyte, container, and all.  If it is to be done with
the little tiny cathodes as per Pons and Fleischmann perhaps the power
density isn't so great after all?  Have you got an estimate, Mitchell?
 
The other question has to do with the time scale for continuous operation
that has been demonstrated.  Don't forget to include the preparation
time in the overhead.  At least for some applications having to let things
cook for an extended period before the reaction kicks in could be a real
problem.
 
Then Dieter Britz brought up the old question of the 23.5 MeV gammas.
As I recall the 23.5 MeV is the energy release expected, most of which
would go to the gamma except for the recoil required to conserve
momentum.  Since we are in the mood for claiming special solid state
effects, I will invoke the Mossbauer effect to say that the recoil
can be neglected  (grin).  In any case there won't be much recall
energy and not much of the energy can be converted to excess enthalpy,
which is bad news for CF believers.  It leaves those gammas hanging
out there to be detected, and it boosts the number of reactions
required per watt.  But that is just old fashioned nuclear physics
so it must be wrong  (grin again, or is it grimace?).  As for a
decay through some intermediate state, I think that is wishful
thinking.  The only intermediate states known to the western world
are the ones that decay by particle emission.  If you look at
the gamma decay spectrum for 4He*, and I have done that, you see
a single gamma line with a very, very clean region on the low energy
side.  It is one of the nicest sources of monoenergetic gamma rays
known.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status #7 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status #7 Cell 4A6
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 22:02:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status #7 Cell 4A6                               2 August 1993
 
Executive Summary:  Further experiments have been done with a Pd/Pt/Pt cell
with D2O electrolyte.  Under some conditions, a half full cell displays wide
variations in calorimeter constant.  If thermometer readings are used as a
measure of "anomalous heat" they may over estimate the heat liberated by up to
a factor of four.
___________________________________________________________________________
A bunch of experiments were done this weekend.  I will try to summarize them
here:
 
The first experiment was an attempt at a repeat of the run of Status #6 with
10 second data taking.  This run used the normal Pt anode as the anode, and
the Pd "dummy" as the cathode.  The regular cathode servo was set to hold zero
cathode current.  This produced another pulse, again the heat pulse occurred
very near to a cell temperature of 39 C and drove the cell temperature up to
near 80 C.  Again the catalyst temperature decreased as the cell temperature
increased.  Several other measurements confirmed that there was a real heat
release in the cell of 1 to 3 kilo-joules.  i.e. the spool increased in
temperature, and the servo that pumps heat out of the calorimeter had to work
harder.  Computation of K, the inside conduction calorimeter constant
(C/Watt), was about 2 before the event and 8 after it.  While it is certain
that that there was a net heat release during the event, because of the
possible drift of the calorimeter the run was consistent with no net energy.
The measurement did indicate a net accumulation of 1095 joules over the 74410
seconds of the run for an average power of 15 mw.  This is estimated to be 1.5
sigma based on a previous (conservative) 1 sigma measurement of 10 mw.
 
Next we went back to 1 minute data taking, started at zero current and
repeated the above event.  This time the peak temperature was 81.6 C.  Much I
can not reconstruct from the print out of this event, it will have to wait
analysis of the disk data.  Two more events were generated after this one.
One only bliped up slightly in temperature but seemed to release 600 or so
joules.  The last peaked at 56 C and released a kilojoule or so.
 
I then opened up the cell and looked.  The cell electrolyte level was down to
about half of its normal value.  Other than that the cell looked normal.  The
electrolyte was found in the catalyst container external to the cell and in
the trap that is there to prevent liquid from getting into the gas system.
Note that the catalyst container is outside the cell but inside the
calorimeter volume.  It is there in case the gas volume overwhelms the
catalyst that is internal to the cell.  Fifteen cc of electrolyte was added to
the cell.
 
There is no way to tell when the liquid left the cell.  There have been a half
dozen pops since the cell was last examined.
 
The system was then closed up and currents were programmed that previously
produced the cell temperature "pops".  So far there has not been another
temperature excursion.  The conduction calorimeter constant was measured at
2.55 C/Watt at several different temperatures.  This compares to numbers
between 1.1 and 3.5 measured under various conditions before re-filling the
electrolyte (but not during temperature pops where values reached as high as
9).
 
Discussion:
 
There is no way to tell when the cell went from full to 1/2 full.  Earlier we
noted some condensation in the gas system.  This in spite of several traps to
prevent liquid from leaving the calorimeter.  There is no way at present to
tell if the liquid left as vapor or as droplets.
 
These experiments are certainly consistent with some long term chemical
storage followed by a violent chemical burning.  Most of the pops released of
order 1000 joules with little or no change of input power.  Unfortunately,
1000 joules over the typical 75000 second run is within the possible drift
error of our calorimeter.  Still, the events seem to demand some interesting
chemistry.  If nuclear events demand nuclear ash (radiation) then don't
chemical events demand chemical ash??  What chemical process allows the
repeated storage and release of energy without leaving any trace that I can
detect?  There is after all, not much in the cell that can normally be
considered fuel.  There is storage and release of gas, but that does not seem
to be enough to explain the released heat by a factor of 3 or so.
 
We note that some experimenters use temperature rise and a half full cell as
the starting point for claiming very large release of heat.  We would be more
cautious.
 
Conclusion:
 
It would appear that there can be wide variation in calorimeter constant when
running these cells.  We can measure this because we can consider part of our
calorimeter as a conduction calorimeter inside a null balance calorimeter.
Using a thermometer only, measuring temperature rise, and assuming the
calorimeter constant did not change would have resulted in reporting 300 -
400% excess heat (or 150 watts per cc).  Instead, our result is consistent
with zero, though there is a suspicion that there was a real release of heat.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Proof of Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof of Cold Fusion
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 23:06:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ha! Caught you on that title.  No I do not have "proof" of cold fusion.  But I
keep reading Jed Rothwell and Mitchell Swartz who claim thousands of
experiments "prove" that "cold fusion" is real.
 
Me, I just keep making these posts that show how hard it is to make these
measurements.  I keep reading the papers and worrying that the experimenters
have made some of the mistakes that I have made.
 
Yes, I agree that a few have reported positive results.  But it is possible for
careful, well intentioned experimenters to make mistakes, or to misinterpret
data.
 
As yet, none of the experiments convince me.  None give me a recipe that I
can repeat.  Until I have the recipe and have repeated the result, and can
find no possible error, I will remain a skeptic.  Meanwhile, I keep finding
new ways to get a false positive result.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  collins@jaguar /  No recoilless emissions of high-energy gamma-rays
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No recoilless emissions of high-energy gamma-rays
Date: 2 Aug 93 11:32:20 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <01H15P3P8HZM9POQXI@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> ...(Dieter replying to Mitchell Swartz)....
> No, of course I am not sure, but I thought that the most favoured theory was
> that the major product, from the main branch producing all the excess heat, is
> 4He, and the much smaller amounts of neutrons, tritium etc, are minor side
> reactions. However, I am told (by private email) that the 4He nucleus does not
> walk away with the whole 23 MeV, that the gamma in fact has 18 MeV of this,
> and it is the gamma that has to shed most of the energy. I guess this is where
> all the talk about Moessbauer comes in. You can see that I am not nuclear- or
> quantum-literate, so I'll leave this question to Dick Blue. 23 - 18 = 5, and 5
> MeV is still a lot. Does the 4He nucleus have an energy of 5 MeV, then?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
It is not possible to expect that MeV's of energy can be transferred to the
crystal lattice by recoilless emission (Moessbauer effect).  Recoilless
emissions of gamma-rays from nuclei in solids are only observed when the
energy of the emitting nucleus is quite low.  Qualitatively, one will
observe recoilless events (in which the recoil is transferred to the lattice
as a whole) at low temperature when the recoil energy is less than the energy
of a typical phonon in the solid, about 0.01 eV.  The recoil energy
is given by
 
        E(recoil)= E(gamma)**2/ 2Mc**2,
 
in which Mc**2 is the rest energy of the nucleus.  For E(gamma) greater
than about 100 keV, observed recoilfree fractions are very small even
at low temperature, and totally negligible at room temperature.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencollins cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.02 /  collins@jaguar /  Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: 2 Aug 93 11:45:55 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

The ongoing discussion about special temperatures near room temperature
at which some kind of boson condensation of deuterons might occur puzzles me.
Certainly, one can associate a MEAN wavelength of deuterons in the solid
with a MEAN kinetic energy, using the deBroglie relation, but essentially
none of the deuterons will have a wavelength very close to any specified
wavelength.  Instead, the deuterons will be partitioned out among the
all the available energy states with a probability given by the
Boltzmann distribution function.
 
Nothing "magic" should happen near, say, 39 C or any other specified
elevated temperature.  Is there something I am missing?
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencollins cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / mitchell swartz /  A few loose ends
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A few loose ends
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 01:24:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <9308022114.AA05624@suntan.Tandem.com>
      Subject: A few loose ends
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
= "In response to my challange concerning scaling in accord to power density
= Mitchell Swartz hints that a multiple cell arrangement analogous to
= a battery will provide a path to scaling up the power level.  The obvious
= problem with that is that then the appropriate density to be used
= is not just that of the palladium but is rather the power density of the
= entire cell - electrolyte, container, and all.  If it is to be done with
= the little tiny cathodes as per Pons and Fleischmann perhaps the power
= density isn't so great after all?  Have you got an estimate, Mitchell?"
 
   Sure Dick.   Let's give the structural and mechanical
   barriers an estimate of 20-95% of the weight of the device.
 
                            0.2 <= s <=.95
 
     We will assume that that portion is inactive. (reasonable, right?)
 
  Assuming linearity for the rest, a reasonable assumption given the
  examples,  the scaling up would thereby be
     N * (1-s) unless you have a proof to the contrary.
 
   (BTW, Dick, speaking of your loose ends:  is there
          any response to any of the other questions?)
 
           Best wishes.
 
                                               Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: 3 Aug 1993 01:57:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu () says:
 
>Certainly, one can associate a MEAN wavelength of deuterons in the solid
>with a MEAN kinetic energy, using the deBroglie relation, but essentially
>none of the deuterons will have a wavelength very close to any specified
>wavelength.  Instead, the deuterons will be partitioned out among the
>all the available energy states with a probability given by the
>Boltzmann distribution function.
 
I presume you could apply this same reasoning to the laser and conclude
that coherent photons would not be created.
 
The massively coherent photons are all born from perfectly chaotic
atoms and after exiting leave behind perfectly chaotic atoms.
 
So an intuitive analogy might be that while the Pd/D lattice certainly has
its ration of thermal chaos, certain aspects of the system might generate
some coherent attributes.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / mitchell swartz /  No recoilless emissions of high-energy gamma-rays
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No recoilless emissions of high-energy gamma-rays
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 02:14:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Aug2.113220.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
   Subject: No recoilless emissions of high-energy gamma-rays
Gary S. Collins [collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu] writes:
 
=gc "It is not possible to expect that MeV's of energy can be transferred to the
=gc crystal lattice by recoilless emission (Moessbauer effect).  Recoilless
=gc emissions of gamma-rays from nuclei in solids are only observed when the
=gc energy of the emitting nucleus is quite low.  Qualitatively, one will
=gc observe recoilless events (in which the recoil is transferred to the lattice
=gc as a whole) atlow temperature when the recoil energy is less than the energy
=gc of a typical phonon in the solid, about 0.01 eV.  The recoil energy
=gc is given by
=gc
=gc               E(recoil)= E(gamma)**2/ 2Mc**2,
=gc
=gc in which Mc**2 is the rest energy of the nucleus.  For E(gamma) greater
=gc than about 100 keV, observed recoilfree fractions are very small even
=gc at low temperature, and totally negligible at room temperature."
 
 
  Hi Gary,
 
   Good point.
  The Mossbauer experiment uses the narrow peak of the emission
  (deltaE/E ca. 10^-11) to examine slight differences at the
  nucleus ** caused ** by the s-electrons.  The metal atoms
  in two different (chemically different - eg. alloy) samples
  form a pair (one metal emits, the other absorbs).  There is a
  slight difference called the "monopole shift".  The very
  slight difference in E between them is actually made up by
  Doppler shift by moving one of the samples slowly.
  For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
  Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science, vol 144, 253-259 (64).
 
 
 Mossbauer was mentioned here ONLY to show one example where the lattice
 makes a difference.  In that example, two photons (in the case of Fe-57
 which was discussed in the original post), and a cobalt-57 to iron-57
 conversion by electron capture are used.
 
      Co-57
   ___________ (half-life 270 days)
               \
                \
                 \
                 _\|     Fe-57
                 ________________________    137 keV
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                    \|/       |
                 _____________| __________    14.4 keV
                        |     |
                        |     |
                       \|/   \|/
                 _________________________    stable
 
   The initial excited level of 137 keV decays either way
  but only the 14.4 had significant levels of recoilless
  emission as I remember.
 
  Once again:  It was presented only
  to demonstrate that reactions can be unanticipated in
  the solid state, when based upon "simple" plasma- or gas-thinking.
 
 
          Best wishes.
                                     Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / mitchell swartz /  Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 02:15:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <CB225F.5LK@news.Hawaii.Edu>
     Subject: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
 Debbie Choo (news@Hawaii.Edu) began with:
 
==dc  "And wouln't it be nice if we could resurrect the congress's lack of
==dc  interest in the space station by turning it into a fusion research
==dc  facility with the above idea and bill it as the answer to the energy
==dc  crisis of the coming century? "
 
to which Michael Crawford (crawford@na47sun05.cern.ch) wrote:
 
==mc "Fusion in space would be a good way to move big objects between
==mc  the planets, and would be necessary to go to the stars, but to put
==mc a fusion plant in orbit would require more wight-lifting power than
==mc  is presently available."
 
   and to which Jerry Nuc.Eng. (jerry@utkvx.utk.edu) responded:
   [Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
    Message-ID: <1993Aug1.173703.22943@martha.utcc.utk.edu>]
 
==   "You've been watching to many episodes of Star Trek. First, to be
==  capable of powering a spacecraft, a fusion reactor must be able to
==  generate a substantial amount of power (which is 30 years off)."
 
  Star Trek?
 
     "It's not generally realised that the energy cost of
      going to the Moon is less than a hundred dollars
      in terms of kilowatt hours of electricity"
    [Arthur C. Clarke,  COLD FUSION TIMES, vol 1, no. 2 Summer '93]
 
==   "Then its dimensions must be reduced to make it even practical
==   (another 20 years). In contrast, small scale fission reactors capable
==  of generating a gigawatt have already been built and tested."
 
   The excess power density of some cold fusion electrodes exceed the
   equivalent for many fission reactors of which you tout.
 
   Also, the cold fusion systems are already
   of small scale and thereby practical as you point out.
 
                                Mitchell   (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: 3 Aug 1993 02:26:54 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
:
: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu () says:
:
: >Certainly, one can associate a MEAN wavelength of deuterons in the solid
: >with a MEAN kinetic energy, using the deBroglie relation, but essentially
: >none of the deuterons will have a wavelength very close to any specified
: >wavelength.  Instead, the deuterons will be partitioned out among the
: >all the available energy states with a probability given by the
: >Boltzmann distribution function.
:
: I presume you could apply this same reasoning to the laser and conclude
: that coherent photons would not be created.
:
: The massively coherent photons are all born from perfectly chaotic
: atoms and after exiting leave behind perfectly chaotic atoms.
:
: So an intuitive analogy might be that while the Pd/D lattice certainly has
: its ration of thermal chaos, certain aspects of the system might generate
: some coherent attributes.
 
Well you're both right.
 
Like in the case of the Laser, the 2nd Law still applies.
 
The laser works becuase it is put in a non-equilibrium state, i.e. not a
Boltzmann distribution.  Similarly in whatever this boson thing is (I still
don't get it) you must expend work to somehow maintain a nonequilibrium
distribution.
 
Something to keep in mind.
 
: --
: -- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.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:
cuddy3 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 02:23:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>The cell electrolyte level was down to about half of its normal value.
 
Hmmm, two mechanisms I can think of that would like this condition as an
aid to "anomalous" heat would be that a partially uncovered electrode
(if that was the case) would nearly insure disequalibrium in the D loading.
 
Another result of a partially unsubmerged electrode would be the
temperature continuum along the vertical Pd dimension -- guaranteeing
a thermal "sweet" spot, should there turn out to be such a thing.
 
>This in spite of several traps to prevent liquid from leaving the
>calorimeter.
 
Any possibility of installing a gravity liquid return trap?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 02:47:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   Message-ID: <23kideINNc4p@network.ucsd.edu>
  Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Matt Kennel (mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu) writes:
 
 
==mk "Like in the case of the Laser, the 2nd Law still applies.
==mk The laser works becuase it is put in a non-equilibrium state, i.e. not a
==mk Boltzmann distribution. Similarly in whatever this boson thing is
==mk ... you must expend work to somehow maintain a nonequilibrium
==mk distribution."
 
   The laser uses the stimulated emission of the non-equilibrium
 system (excited atoms contained therein)
 and by the use of the Fabry Perot system of opposing coaxial mirrors
  separated by
 
                       (L = n/2 * lambda)
 
     a coherent beam arises.
 
   The 2nd law applies there and with fusion too.  (Maybe even in Calif.?)
 
         The coherence is derived from the spatial structure.
                                           /\/\/\/
         There ought be a lesson in the
             role, and impact, of the solid state in that example.
 
     (BTW, Matt:  is there a response to any of the other questions?)
 
                    Best wishes.
 
                                               Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 02:48:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>These experiments are certainly consistent with some long term chemical
>storage followed by a violent chemical burning.
 
Hmmm.  When steam condenses, it liberates heat.  What happens when
bosons condense?  If the boson condensate is truly a lower energy state,
then the transistion to it must liberate energy.  Perhaps in the form
of quasi-(quantum)chemical heat.
 
There are two general cases to choose from here.  Either the energy
storage is done in-situ during electrolysis, and then liberated at the
condensation point, or the energy was pre-stored during the evolution
of the universe.
 
Both have potential as useful energy storage systems, but only the second
has potential as a source of energy -- and then only depending upon value
of heat generated compared to resources consumed.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 04:35:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>The electrolyte was found in the catalyst container external to the cell and
>in the trap that is there to prevent liquid from getting into the gas system.
 
Ah ha.  Wouldn't wetting of the catalyst (inboard and outboard) mimic a
system negative pressure gas leak!  You might think you are accumulating
outside atmosphere in your syringe, but you might have been accumulating
unrecombined D2 and O2.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Cameron Bass /  Bosons?  (was Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bosons?  (was Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 03:57:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug3.024838.8889@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>These experiments are certainly consistent with some long term chemical
>>storage followed by a violent chemical burning.
>
>Hmmm.  When steam condenses, it liberates heat.  What happens when
>bosons condense?  If the boson condensate is truly a lower energy state,
>then the transistion to it must liberate energy.  Perhaps in the form
>of quasi-(quantum)chemical heat.
 
     I must admit that I haven't been following this as closely as
     I would like, but where did we leave simply throwing around the
     term 'bose condensate' and begin taking it seriously?
 
     I enjoy doing such things as much as the the next guy, but
     where do we get the idea that deuterium in the lattice being
     buffeted by thermal jiggles all the time could form any such
     'condensate'?  Why do we get the idea that there are only a
     few energy levels the deuterium can fall into (i.e. condense)?
     This is one solid I'd expect to have many many many available
     levels at 20C, almost, I hazard to venture, a continuum with
     thermal jiggles whacking ions to continuum come.
 
     And in case one wants to use 'bose condensation' to greatly
     lower interatomic separation, you've got electrons floating around all
     over the place just in case any of the ions get too cozy.  And they're
     very, very mobile.
 
     Anyway, someone who wants to explain why
     deuterium performs bose condensation in lattices had better
     explain to why helium doesn't 'condense' at room temperature,
     helium doesn't 'condense' in a lattice, and why deuterium
     doesn't 'bose condense' at 20K.
 
     In case you're curious, I'll tell you why... ... far too much thermal
     whacking into far far too many states.
 
     Anyway, let's see the statistics from anyone who proposes such a
     model, and the thermal/mathematical mechanism for restriction to
     a single state in a lattice at room temperature and above.
 
     Often, equations talk much more loudly than words.
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Bruce Hoult /  Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
     
Originally-From: Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Simple Calorimetry (again)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 18:00:12 +1200 (NZST)

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> Calorimetry in this domain is Dead Simple, 100% reliable, and much, much
> easier than, say, tuning up an old fashioned automobile spark distributer
> with a strobe light
 
Rubbish.  Saying "take off this inspection cover, shine this light in, and
adjust this screw until these two marks line up" is one of the easier things
to explain when working on an engine.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBruce cudfnBruce cudlnHoult cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Cleaning up Mitchell's questions
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cleaning up Mitchell's questions
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 14:46:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since Mitchell claims I duck his questions I will now take the time
to answer as best I can.
 
Question: Are phonons oscillatory?  Answer:  Yes, phonons are oscillatory,
but an explaination is still required as to how the kinetic energy
of a rapidly moving ion gets coupled to the collective oscillatory
motions of a lattice.  No one has supplied the required link!
 
Question:  "scores of papers reporting positive results"  Answer:
I suggest that you name specific published results that you believe
demand our attention.   As to explaining how it comes to be that
there are scores of papers reporting positive results, I suggest
that science has little to do with that.  It is more a question
of the psychology and sociology those outside the mainstream of
scientific research.
 
Question: Any evidence for pions in cold fusion?  Answer:  No
evidence whatsoever, and that is precisely the point.  Pions,
for your information, are involved if there is a nuclear reaction
process.
 
Question:  "(hot fusion-) skeptics ... that is not the way the sun
works"  Answer:  You keep making a link to hot fusion and the sun.
I don't believe I have ever made reference to hot fusion or to
solar processes.
 
Question:  Why do you insist that reactions which occur on the sun
or hotter environments MUST occur identically an a lattice at
rather "colder" temperatures reported?  Answer:  I do not and have
never made any statement indicting that total identity between
various realms is essential to my argument.  I do believe in the
universality of physics.  I do believe that fundamental conservation
laws apply to CF.  I de believe that basic quantum mechanics must
be considered.  I do believe that CF advocates have failed to
present a model that can account for the production of excess enthalpy
in confirmity with any accepted theory of the physics of solids and
known experimental facts relating to nuclear reaction processes.  I
do believe that there is a subtle, but significant, difference
between suggesting possible hindrances of reaction rates, altering of
branching ratios, and the perturbing of wave functions in accordance
with established principles of quantum mechanics  and the claims
made by CF advocates for total suppression of a given reaction
process by completely unspecified mechanisms.  I do believe that
your denial of the significance of experimental facts derived
from other types of investigations is totally unfounded and
silly.
 
Question:  "many people have replicated the original experiments"
Answer:  This is true only in the general sense that any claim
for "excess enthapy" constitutes a replication.  If you examine
these experimental results in greater detail there is very
little overlap between the way in which the excess enthapy
appears and how it correlates to various experimental observables.
Please name specific examples with details sufficient to justify
your assertion that "replication" of achieved.
 
Question: "Any comment on the excess heat and products reported?"
Answer:  Since there are a number of known and well documented
problems with most of the simple calorimetry experiments,  I believe
this discussion should be limited to a selected subset of the
"best" and most significant experiments.  I have repeatedly ask
CF advocates to make that selection.  My own view is that only
calorimetry on closed systems should be considered, or possibly
systems in which all evolved gasses are quantified and analyzed.
To the best of my knowledge there have been only a few experiments
that meet the requirements for being sufficiently well controlled
to give meaningful results.  As for products reported,  I find
the results equally chaotic.  Tritium levels claimed vary by
many orders of magnitude.  Helium had not been determined in
a thoroughly convincing many.  Neutron detection claims do not
fit any consistant pattern and are generally far to low to
be significant.  Charged particle detections have been reported
only in ion-induced processes that I do not see as related to
electrolysis-induced processes in any clear way.  Gamma rays
and/or X-rays are reported only in experiments employing the
crudest of methods.  If you are looking for replication, it
is very hard to find it in these results.
 
Question: "It is the skeptics who have failed to supply any
equation to bolster their petrifiying demands, isn't it?"
Answer:  There have been numerous publications involving
extensive calculations of reaction rates based on a variety
of models of the PdD lattice.  If there is a better model
to explain the way in which CF is brought about if remains
unknown to the broader physics community.  What equations
can we possibly provide?   Until there is some model, some
crude sketch of a reaction pathway, some hypothesis of what
the reaction is and how it leads to the production of
excess enthalpy there is nothing a skeptic can respond to.
That is why we remain skeptics.  YOU HAVEN'T delivered anything
beyond some rather doubtful experimental results and
half-baked special pleading.
 
Got any more questions?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 14:24:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Ah ha.  Wouldn't wetting of the catalyst (inboard and outboard) mimic a
>system negative pressure gas leak!  You might think you are accumulating
>outside atmosphere in your syringe, but you might have been accumulating
>unrecombined D2 and O2.
 
I forgot to say that unrecombined D2 and O2 in the syringe would add
favorably to the "anomalous" energy (im)balance of the calorimeter.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Albert Chou /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: albert@tornado.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 3 Aug 93 15:29:47 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

The stated goal of hot fusion _should_ be to provide _cleaner_ energy than
fission, which is attainable, according to the class I took on fusion reactor
issues.  But politics and propaganda and overzealousness have taken their toll,
so we end up calling it just plain _clean_.  That reactor course I took was
fairly depressing at first -- being a plasma physicist, I'd had no exposure
to reactor issues of any kind until that course -- but once you get used to
the realities involved, favorable comparisons to fission are easier to accept
as worthwhile.
 
IOW, don't base your opinions on what we tell Congress and the public.  Nobody
ever really tells them the whole truth in any field, anyway.
 
Al
--
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
NVN:  AChou1
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Mark North /  Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 17:18:03 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>Please note where I set the followup.  This discussion belongs there.
 
>In article <north.743972991@watop> north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 
>>Who's this "we"? There is absolutely no evidence that nuclear reactions
>>occur in so-called cold fusion beyond the level of fracto-fusion which
>>has a mundane explanation (large accellerating electric fields
>>produced in stress cracks of many materials).
 
>Just because it has a mundane explanation does not mean it does not
>occur.
 
I  did not mean to imply it does not occur. In fact, I believe it likely
that it (fracto-fusion) does occur. However, don't expect to get any
energy from it (to power your water heater, for example).
 
>>                                              Fracto-fusion is hot
>>fusion, there is no tunnelling involved.
 
>Tunneling is involved even in thermonuclear fusion.
 
This is technically correct. I probably shouldn't have said that.
What I should have said is that the tunneling probability at room temp
is so small as to be non-existant.
 
>I consider fracto-fusion to be cold fusion since it occurs in a "cold"
>laboratory environment, like muon-catalyzed fusion.
 
No. The term 'cold fusion' does not necessarily refer to the temperature
of the lab. It has to do with the energy of colliding nuclei. In
conventional fusion this energy is on order of millions deg K or
thousands of ev as it is in fracto-fusion. In muon-cat fusion the
nuclei really are at 'room temperature'.
 
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Simple auto mechanics
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Simple auto mechanics
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 19:49:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I mentioned that calorimetry was easier than tuning up an old fashioned car. I
*said* "tuning up a ... spark distributer with a strobe light" was a bit more
specific than what I really had in mind, and Bruce Hoult caught me:
 
     "Rubbish.  Saying 'take off this inspection cover, shine this light in,
     and adjust this screw until these two marks line up' is one of the easier
     things to explain when working on an engine...
 
Right, right. And then you drive it out, it backfires twice, and stops dead.
What do you do after that? My point is, there is a heck of a lot more that can
and does go wrong with a car, or even an HO scale model railroad, than with a
simple, properly designed calorimeter.
 
Tom Droege has recently posted a number of messages describing some of the
woes and problems he experienced with his ultra-accurate electronic
calorimeter. For example, he mentioned that there is no way to know that is
going on in there until you unbolt the whole business. That's because his
calorimeter is poorly designed, trouble prone, cranky, and a terrible nuisance
to work with. It is much better to use some transparent material like plastic,
glass or a glass Dewar, so that you can *see* what is happening, and *record*
what is happening on video. There are many materials that make better
insulators than glass or plastic but this is immaterial. As long as the bath
temperature is kept constant, this makes no difference at all. Even an
inexpensive, bottom-of-the-line cooler does a good job at maintaining a
constant bath temperature. The heat transfer coefficient of glass is
predictable and reliable; that is all you need to know. A calorimeter is not
*supposed* to hold all that heat energy in, it is supposed to gradually and
predictably lose it in a controlled fashion. If it was too well insulated, it
would explode.
 
Of course, you can't measure 0.0001 watts with a conventional calorimeter, but
on the other hand, you cannot measure anything at all with Tom's gadget
because you can never tell whether it is working, or what the heck it is
doing. It keeps too many secrets for later. A well designed instrument tells
you what is happening Right Now, not a week later when you analyze the data or
unbolt the top. Tom's gadget is too complicated, too cranky, too difficult to
use, and too unpredictable for this type of work. A simpler, older, more
reliable design is better. Many times in the last 20 years I have tried in
vain to persuade a customer NOT to go hog wild and buy too much of the latest
Big Flashy Over-engineered Unreliable Gadgetry. When the customer needs a
small, reasonable computer, but he *insists* on buying the latest Pentium
Computer with a zillion megabyte disk, specialized controller, a custom
screen, and an unproven new version of DOS... that is a sure recipe for
disaster. I have seen it happen a hundred times. Tom Droege has done it to
himself. The problem calls for a simple, easy, elegant solution that has been
working fine since 1799. Tom throws that aside and designs an impossibly
complex ultra high tech way to do the same thing that never actually works
right (as far as anyone can tell). Then he comes on the network and tells
everyone how hard it is! A typical techno-addict problem; I have slipped into
that mudhole myself occasionally. The best solution: throw away the computer,
use a pencil and paper instead.
 
 
Dick Blue thinks that the water is not what is reacting in CF cell. So, where
do you think the heat is coming from, Dick? Mars? What else is there in a cell
that can:
 
1. React.
2. Leave no chemical ash.
3. Create helium-4 in amounts commensurate with a nuclear fusion reaction.
 
What's your candidate? Do you think palladium can do that all by itself?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 17:27:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <11204@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>,
Albert E. Chou <albert@tornado.seas.ucla.edu> wrote:
>The stated goal of hot fusion _should_ be to provide _cleaner_ energy than
>fission, which is attainable, according to the class I took on fusion reactor
>issues.  But politics and propaganda and overzealousness have taken their toll,
>so we end up calling it just plain _clean_.  That reactor course I took was
>fairly depressing at first -- being a plasma physicist, I'd had no exposure
>to reactor issues of any kind until that course -- but once you get used to
>the realities involved, favorable comparisons to fission are easier to accept
>as worthwhile.
>
>IOW, don't base your opinions on what we tell Congress and the public.  Nobody
>ever really tells them the whole truth in any field, anyway.
 
     There's a big difference between portraying something in a
     favorable light and lying.  I hope you are not implying that it
     is acceptable to lie, even to Congress.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 19:43:32 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
PROBLEMS WITH HE++
 
In article <9308021355.AA29565@suntan.Tandem.com>
blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
> Matt Kennel did an excellent job outlining why the view of CF advocates
> that solids can totally alter nuclear reactions is highly questionable...
>
> As an example of this highly questionable mode of thinking, consider
> the Chubb theory (as related here by Chuck Sites).  "In the Chubb
> theory the He4++ created by the condensate fusion remains directly
> exchangable with 2D+. .... The resulting He4++ forms a band state."
>
> I find this notion totally absurd!...
 
The most damning piece of experimental evidence against a theory that
invokes delocalized He++ is perhaps not nuclear, but chemical.  It's the
extreme immobility of helium in palladium
 
To understand why this is, first notice that Planck's uncertainty principle
guarantees that particles with delocalized wavefunctions MUST be highly
mobile, since delocalization can occur only if the momentum of the particle
has an extremely precise value.
 
By Planck's principle, a very precise momentum means that the location
of the particle will be very poorly defined.  On the large scale, that
translates into mobility -- the particle cannot "lock on" to any one site
tightly enough to stay put.
 
If a delocalized He++ gas can exist in palladium, then this equilibrium
reaction must also exist in palladium:
 
   He <--> He++ + 2e-
 
If this equilibrium permits even a very tiny fraction of He++ to exist at
equilibrium, then helium should be appreciably mobile in palladium.  The
reason is that even if the neutral helium is localized to a single site,
all it really needs to do start moving around is to convert itself into
He++ + 2e- and delocalize.  At some later point it can re-acquire the two
electrons it lost and plop back into a new (localized) site, one that could
in principle be very far away.
 
Nothing of the sort happens to helium inserted into palladium via tritium
decay.  This octahedral site helium stays in place for _decades_ without
budging, implying that the equilibrium for he above chemical equation is,
er, _heavily_ (choke cough harumph) biased towards the left side.
 
As indeed it should be.  Palladium _does_ possess sufficient "effective"
(whatever that means) chemical electropositive (non-metallic) behavior
to at least partially strip electrons off of hydrogen atoms, but that
is no major accomplishment chemically.  Anions have been mistreating
hydrogen atoms this way to produce acids for a long, long time.  Thus in
effect the ability of palladium to pull electrons away from hydrogen atoms
places in the same general chemical category as, say, an acetate ion that
pulls electrons away from hydrogen to give protons.
 
In short, palladium is somewhere in the vinegar range, chemically speaking.
 
In contrast, helium is the most noble of the noble gases, meaning it thumbs
its nose big-time at _any_ other element that tries to get hold of either or
both of its electrons.  There are _no_ known chemical compounds of helium at
all, not even with that scandalously electron-greedy kleptomaniac known as
fluorine, the most electropositive of all elements.  Put helium and fluorine
together and they just sit and stare at each other.  (Put fluorine with
"anything else" for a few minutes and "anything else" will generally cease
to exist, quite rapidly.)
 
So to steal away two helium electrons from He to form He++, palladium will
need to be (very roughly) oh, say, an _order of magnitude_ more electro-
positive than fluorine in its ability to steal electrons.
 
This would make Pd the most _dangerous_ chemical substance in the universe.
 
If that were really the case (it is not, of course) you would not, repeat
_not_ want to handle palladium your bare hands -- no sir, nope, ix-nay!
 
 
OF WELLS AND WALLS
 
I just received Scott Chubb's papers though good ol' U.S. snail mail (one
gets spoiled by the net), and am looking forward to reading them very
carefully.  (Scott knows of my disdain for the He thingy, BTW, but I am
very open to reading and hearing his arguments on the point.)  They've got
a lot of interesting points, and the mathematical models they invoke are
informative.  Plus I _do_ find this matter wave / probability wave issue
very interesting, and the Chubbs get into this issue (at least implicitly).
 
My suspicion, though, is that when all is said and done, alas, the Chubb
model may prove to be yet another example of how to dive into a deep,
_deep_ potential well (the energy release by fusion) without fully taking
into account a very steep potential wall (based ultimately on the d-to-d
Coulomb barrier) that surrounds said well -- the barrier being, not matter
how you transform it mathematically or conceptually, quite stubbornly too
high to jump _over_ and too thick to tunnel _through_.
 
Such, by the way, is precisely the fate of most of the better "cold fusion"
theories I've seen.  They use some new representation that inadvertently
obscures exactly the real issue:  Deuterium nuclei have a humoungous energy
barrier that keeps them apart quite nicely, thank you.
 
 
> ... If, as I read it, the Chubb theory suggests that a He4++ and 2D+ are
> linked through some form of reversible process such that the energy
> release can be delayed and spread both in time and space,  I would like
> to see that notion justified in some detail...
 
Reversibility will be a real problem if any gammas and/or neutrinos sail off
at the speed of light, I'd say.  Thus back to Dick Blue's excellent earlier
point: "How do you tie them thar sucker's down, pawdnahs?"  [That may not be
an _exact_ quote of Dick Blue, incidentally.  Living in Texas _does_ at
times seem to affect my memory of postings...  :)  ]
 
> ... The range of the strong interaction is not going to be spread by some
> insignificant atomic perturbation! And causality does limit how far you
> can look for participants in a given reaction.  What does it take to keep
> this game honest anyway?
 
I'd say that what keeps it honest is the uncertainty principle.  Atoms _do_
delocalize -- otherwise you could not have superfluid helium -- but I just
don't see any profound reason why this quite gentle physical proces should
go around secretly whacking a few nuclei together while no one is looking.
 
 
DACTYL DEMONS
 
I won't repeat the hoary old 6N space argument again, which goes back to the
days of when Bohr was trying to convince Schroedinger that Schroedinger's
original understanding of (psi psi*) as a mass/charge/spin density wave was
incorrect.
 
But let's try adding a little bit of intuition to the model.  What follows
tracks closely in concepts to what Richard Feynman said in Lectures III
about how (bose) helium nuclei collide.  I heartily recommend reading that
section if you are interested in this general subject.
 
 
Assume that there is a very tiny demon -- we'll call it a Dactyl Demon, for
reasons I can no longer seem to put my finger on -- who can live on the
nucleus of a helium atom.  Dactyl is very near-sighted fellow, so for him
the nucleus _is_ his world.  He is also a quite insubstantial fellow who
adds nothing (such as mass, charge, or spin) to his nucleus.
 
Unknown to Dactyl, you just decided to bose condense him!  You cool down his
pool of helium until its atoms are so quiet that the delocalize and then
bose condense into a single well-defined function that describes all atoms.
 
Poor little Dactyl has been smeared all over kingdom come -- no one knows
where he is any more!  What will be his fate??
 
The answer is remarkably simple:
 
   The Dactyl Demon sees NO significant change in his nuclear environment.
 
But that's outrageous!  How can he be smeared all over and yet be unchanged??
 
Because how _we_ perceive his environment is _not_ the same as how Dactyl
will perceive things from his own local perspective.  As long as there is
no exchange of information between his private world on the helium nucleus
and the external world that we exist in, the delocalization effect not only
doesn't impact Dactyl, it has no _meaning_ to Dactyl.  He will be able to
tell from the lessening of local bumping and jiggling of the nucleus as it
rides with the atom that things have "cooled down," but he will never see
himself as being anywhere except exactly where he always was -- riding on
the helium nucleus and minding his own business.
 
If you ask Dactyl "what about all those other helium nuclei now co-located
with you in the superfluid wavefunction?", poor Dactyl will probably just
assume you've flipped out.  All _he_ can see is a _lessening_ of the rate
at which other atoms bump into his, combined with a _lowering_ of the impact
with which they do so.  Your description of "co-located nuclei" will come
over to him as little more than some sort of abstract fantasy.
 
 
QUANTUM TUNNELING
 
So apart from the lack of anything remotely resembling a higher rate of
the nuclei bumping together, is there _anything_ you can tell or show
Dactyl to convince him that despite all appearance from _his_ perspective,
he really has been on a very unusual ride?
 
Actually, yes -- and it's a dilly.  You send a message to Dactyl just before
his atom begins to delocalize and join the helium condensate, telling him
"you are currently located at the left end of a 300,000 kilometer (1 light
second) long tube of liquid helium."  Dactyl's average atomic velocity at
that time is _really_ dinky, say way under a centimeter [?] per second.
 
The helium condenses, but only for 1 second before you then heat it back up.
 
You put in a call to Dactyl, and find him (this time!) _more than halfway
down the tube_.  He traveled 150,000 miles in one second!
 
You frantically ask whether how he managed to survive being accelerated up
to more than half the speed of light (in less than a second no less), and
Dactyl replies as follows:
 
    What are you talking about?  My atom hasn't even _jiggled_ one bit!
 
Both of your jaws (if Dactyl Demons have jaws) drop as you piece together
what happened.  You finally realize that in terms of quantum mechanics,
Dactyl did not "accelerate" at all, but rather _tunneled_ or jumped from
the one location to the other.  His "net velocity" was still limited by
the speed of light, because the delocalization of his wavefunction was
not instantaneous -- it took a full second for the 300,000 kilometer
liquid helium tube to reach its final condensed state, and for Dactyl's
wavefunction to spread all the way to the other end of the tube.
 
But once full condensation was achieved, Dactyl's location was _totally_
up for grabs -- he could have been found anywhere at all in the tube!
 
Dactyl, in turn, is utterly in disbelief that he could have traveled so
far without feeling _anything whatsoever different_ about his local
environment, other than a _diminishing_ of the usual thermal bumping.
 
 
BACK TO DICK'S POINT
 
Now back to Dick's point.  A very simple rule to keep in mind during any
kind of delocalization event is that from the perspective of a _nucleus_,
nothing much changes -- and that this perspective is every bit as valid
as _your_ macroscopic perspective.
 
When you show _from the perspective of a very cold deuterium nucleus_ why
in the world it should go slamming into another very cold deuterium nucleus
with _an energy that it did not have before condensation took place_, _then_
you will have a true condensation-based theory of "cold fusion."
 
But if anyone has a theory that does not recognize there perspective that
counts most in this case -- that of two deuterium nuclei trying to overcome
the Coulomb (electrical repulsion) barrier between them, regardless of how
they may appear to the external world -- then there is a serious problem.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / R Cinq-Mars /  3rd RFD sci.energy.hydrogen
     
Originally-From: cinqmarr@vader.egr.uri.edu (Robert Cinq-Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 3rd RFD sci.energy.hydrogen
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 19:54:36 GMT
Organization: University of Rhode Island / College of Engineering

                        THIRD REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
                            SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN
 
This request for discussion (RFD) began on July 8th, 1993 and will
continue through August 7, 1993.  The discussion is taking place
on news.groups.  This is the last of three announcements.
 
A listserver list has been created at the University of Rhode Island
entitled: HYDROGEN on LISTSERV@URIACC.URI.EDU.  For the convenience of
USENET users and to make this conference available to as many users
as possible, we wish to create SCI.ENERGY.HYDROGEN.  A bi-directional
gateway will exchange information between the mail list and the newsgroup.
 
The purpose of this newgroup is to promote a better understanding of the
concepts, terminology, materials, processes and issues relating to
hydrogen as an alternative fuel.  Users will be welcome from universities,
government and industry and are encouraged to post all pertinent news,
events, information, research, references, seminar and conference announce-
ments, product and service announcements, related procurements, and
general discussion of hydrogen related topics.
 
All are welcome to join in the discussion concerning the formation of
sci.energy.hydrogen on news.group.  Your input will help define the
scope and charter for this conference. Following the month long discussion
a vote will be held as described in the guidelines for usenet group
creation.  During this time you are welcome to subscribe to the
hydrogen listserver list by sending the message:
SUB HYDROGEN yourfirstname yourlastname, to: LISTSERV@URIACC.URI.EDU.
 
Thank you for your kind consideration of this final RFD.
 
Robert S. Cinq-Mars  (RCIN0839@URIACC.URI.EDU)
Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Rhode Island
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencinqmarr cudfnRobert cudlnCinq-Mars cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Bosons?  (was Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bosons?  (was Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6)
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 22:36:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     ... where did we leave simply throwing around the
>     term 'bose condensate' and begin taking it seriously?
 
Didn't you get the memo?  :-)     I should have thought, though
that you'd be happy that I was proposing a boson-chemical basis for
the anomalous heat, rather than a boson-nuclear basis. :-)
 
But seriously, in my own case, I just don't bother to include the standard
disclaimer with each speck of an idea that flits through my little noggin.
I call it brainstorming.  Other people have less flattering names for it. :-)
 
We all await the empirical evidence to which we can fashion mathalogical
models around.  But in the mean time, by guess and by golly is often
as fruitful a search method as any other.
 
As we speak, the significance of Tom Droege's experiments should not
be overlooked (Jed's comments about Tom's calorimeter not withstanding.)
 
Here's a summary of some of the more significant issues that I can think of:
 
  o Tom is apparently seeing multiple "anomalous" thermal bursts after near
    four years of marginally null results.  Regardless of the eventual
    underlying mechanism, drawing negative hypothesises from null events
    is less satisfying than negative hypothesises from positive events.
    In other words, if the heat bursts continue, he can more authoritatively
    determine a source of common calorimetry error -- if such exists.
 
  o Tom's calorimeter-in-a-calorimeter provides the diagnostic for the
    above mentioned misadventure.  He's already reported large swings
    in conduction-calorimeter cell constant that would mislead others.
 
  o Tom is also noting thermal releases that are at least a factor of
    three times too great to be explained by the volume of released
    D2/O2 gas recombination.  This is a significant find, if we put
    any trust at all into Tom's outer calorimeter and its ability to
    track few minute wide events -- even if we doubt the significance
    of the long term energy balance.
 
  o If the long term energy balance is zero, and the heat bursts are
    real, then we have before us a hither to unknown energy storage
    mechanism of relatively high density.
 
  o If the long term energy balance is positive, then we have a hither
    to unknown energy source.
 
My fingers are crossed hoping the heat bursts keep coming.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 22:35:39 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Aug2.114555.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
(Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.) writes:
 
> The ongoing discussion about special temperatures near room temperature
> at which some kind of boson condensation of deuterons might occur puzzles
> me.  Certainly, one can associate a MEAN wavelength of deuterons in the
> solid with a MEAN kinetic energy, using the deBroglie relation, but
> essentially none of the deuterons will have a wavelength very close to
> any specified wavelength.  Instead, the deuterons will be partitioned out
> among the all the available energy states with a probability given by the
> Boltzmann distribution function.
>
> Nothing "magic" should happen near, say, 39 C or any other specified
> elevated temperature.  Is there something I am missing?
 
Excellent question.  I'll try to give it what I hope is an adequate answer.
 
 
LOCALIZED AND DELOCALIZED STATES
 
It is likely that the the Boltzmann distribution function will be altered
(possibly significantly) by the presence of the palladium lattice, which
will very strongly scatter the atoms/ions.  This results in two major cases
(one of which I'll further break down later in this posting):
 
 1) Localized hydrogen atoms/ions.  These are the ones whose behaviors can
    accurately be modeled using wavepacket representations that are no more
    than an Angstrom or so in diameter.  They should more-or-less follow a
    suitably modified solid-state version of a Boltzmann distribution.
 
 2) Delocalized hydrogen atoms/ions.  These have wavepacket representations
    that extend with significant stationary amplitudes over 2 to infinity
    of the octahedral sites.  The existence of such delocalized species is
    strongly implied by tunneling data, which indicate that significant
    amplitude coupling of hydrogen species is possible between sites.
    Severe scattering of any "out-of-sync" wavefunctions makes a normal
    Boltzmann distribution pretty much impossible in this second case.
 
    The situation is instead strikingly similar to electronics research
    structures known as "quantum dot" devices, in which the wavelengths
    of electrons are constrained by the need to "hop" between elements of
    a regular array of conductive dots.  The resulting distribution is
    called a van Hove singularity, a reference to its nominally infinite
    density-of-quantum-states at the resonance frequency.  Arrays of dots
    that exhibit electron van Hove singularities are severely non-linear
    in behavior, with even small perturbations in voltages across the array
    resulting in _major_ hiccups in the behavior of the arrays.  By simple
    scaling arguments, the same is likely to be true for highly delocalized
    hydrogen atoms/ions in a palladium lattice.
 
(Incidentally, there was a nice article on them in Scientific American some
years ago on quantum dot devices, with a title something like the name.)
 
 
SHORT-RANGE AND LONG-RANGE DELOCALIZATION
 
In addition to the distinction between localized and delocalized atomic
wavefunctions, there is also a highly significant difference between short-
range delocalized wavefunction (those that extend over only a handful of
octahedral sites) and "long range" delocalized wavefunctions (ones that
extends over very large numbers [e.g., millions] of sites).
 
The key difference between these two subgroups is that the short-range
version is going to be much more susceptible to thermal agitation of the
type that Dale Bass mentioned.  The stability of such a state depends
strongly on the overall level of regularity that can be "seen" over the
range of the wavepacket.  For a short-range wavepacket, this regularity
can be severely damaged by even a single phonon, so that the wavepacket
will tend to drop back to a localized state.  (If you are the type who
worries about this sort of thing, the phonon collision does indeed cause
a "collapse" of the apparent wavefunction by carrying off a _potentially_
observable bit of information about the "real" location of the atom.  The
atom then begins delocalizing again [rather slowly] via wave dispersion.)
 
In contrast, wavefunctions that are delocalized over millions of sites
will see more of the "big picture" long-range regularity of the atomic
lattice, which is not much affected by local thermal agitation.  That
pretty much translates into saying that once you get all the way to truly
long-range delocalization, you've got it pretty well got it made -- but
_getting_ there without first being knocked for a loop by a stray phonon
could prove quite difficult.
 
 
THREE POPULATION ANALYSIS
 
In summary, I think the question of the possible existence of significant
temperature dependencies (and for that matter the closely related question
of possible electrical field dependencies) needs to be broken down and
analyzed in terms of transition modes between (and relative sizes of)
three classes of atomic/ionic states:
 
    Type A -- Localized states
    Type B -- Short-range delocalized states
    Type C -- Long-range delocalized states
 
Note that this analysis would need to be applied to _each_ atomic and ionic
species of hydrogen and deuterium that exists in palladium.  Messy at best.
Chubbs' work would definitely be a good starting point, as they are clearly
familiar with a number of relevant mathematical models.
 
The existence of a long-range delocalized population (if any) could result
in some highly non-linear effects, and could quite possibly include "trigger
points" at which the Type A or Type B populations suddenly avalanche and
produce a _big_ increase in the Type C population.  Which, in case you've
been hiding out lately, is the one that I would guess to be by far the most
interesting class of atomic states for trying to explain palladium anomalies.
 
And all of this is before you even _touch_ the additional idea of throwing
in bose behavior by the species in question.  That is why I find W.R.
Bernecky's emphasis on possible condensation of lattice-commensurate boson
species so interesting.  As John Logajon pointed out in his own response
to Gary Collins question, funny things happen even at room temperature when
you put bosons such as photons into the right environment...
 
Neutral hydrogens and deuterons are _ugly_ bosons, I'll cheerfully grant,
with states packed about 1900 and 3800 times closer together per degree K
than those of electrons.  But even without any lattice constraints at all,
helium with a state density nearly 7500 times higher than an electron does
somehow manage to do it -- at about 4 K, that is!
 
 
THE SHORT ANSWERS
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Q: Is it worth at least exploring specific temperature ranges, especially
    those in the room-temperature range in which Boltzmann statistics apply?
 
 A: Yes.  (Maybe!)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Q: Is it also worth trying ranges of field gradients through the palladium?
 
 A: Yes.  (Maybe!)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Jed Rothwell /  Try These, Dick
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Try These, Dick
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 00:33:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue says that simple calorimetry does not work, and he asks for a
list of quality papers. We have been through this a hundred times. I will give
the same old list, and he will pretend he missed my message. Evasion, double
talk and nonsense are all has to offer. But heck, why not post a list again?
What harm?
 
Here is a paper Dick has had for years (I mailed it to him). He has never
attempted to explain it:
 
Michael C. H. McKubre, et al. (SRI), "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric
Investigations Of The D/Pd System," Proc. 2nd Annual Conference On Cold
Fusion, (June 29 - July 4, 1991)
 
And here are a few others that Dick and the others have never begun to
explain, unless you count the wild and untenable nonsense about "talking test
tubes." I will list mostly old stuff, to make it easier for people to find:
 
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southhampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of
the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Physics
Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and J.J.
Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium production
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J. of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.
 
M. Schreiber et al, "Recent Measurements of Excess Energy Production In
Electrochemical Cells Containing Heavy Water and Palladium," First Annual
Conf. Proc, March 1990
 
E. Storms, "Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type
electrolytic cell using palladium sheet," Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 230.
 
And, something besides heat:
 
T.N. Claytor, D.G. Tuggle & H.O. Menlove, "Tritium Generation and Neutron
Measurements in Pd-Si under High Deuterium Gas Pressure," Proc. 2nd Annual
Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy June 29-July 4, 1991, pp 395-408
 
For that matter, since Dick is so damn sure calorimetry does not work, let's
see him find a mistake in:
 
J. Rothwell, "A Simple Calorimeter," uploaded here.
 
Come on Dick! What you are you waiting for? Go ahead! Do your worst. You have
had four years to say something intelligent about this work, and so far, we
have not seen a single coherent paragraph or a single viable objection to any
of these papers from you or any other so-called "skeptic." Spare us your
fanatical  religious beliefs please, we don't care whether the results fit
your theories. Show us what is wrong with the experimental technique or the
instruments. Not other critiques are applicable; these are experimental
results, not theories.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Phil Fraering /  Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
     
Originally-From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 01:02:49 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
 
>Cold Fusion is dead? Must not be, if popular science has an article on it..
 
>All I can figure is that its not dead, just not been sufficiently proven, but
>it shows soem promise..
 
>But we shall see.
 
>Just a wierd Nomite at Home.. (Home in Nome)..
>Or on a clear day, you can see forever (no russia!
 
I thought that in the artic there was a sort of optical illusion
that would let you be able to see Russia from Nome...
 
 
>===
>Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
 
--
+-----------------------+"And so it went. Tens of thousands of messages,
|"Standard disclaimer"  |hundreds of points of view. It was not called
|pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu |the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
+-----------------------+-- Vernor Vinge, _A Fire Upon the Deep_
"Sure, I meet a lot of people in this job, but most of the time
I'm asking, 'did you hear the shots?'" -- Edna Buchanan
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpgf cudfnPhil cudlnFraering cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / T Neustaedter /  Re: Simple auto mechanics
     
Originally-From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Simple auto mechanics
Date: 4 Aug 1993 01:17:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <930803192558_72240.1256_EHK29-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> Tom Droege [...] calorimeter is poorly designed, [...]
> you cannot measure anything at all with Tom's gadget [...]
 
Tom, if you feel this has escalated to the traditional solution
of 20 paces on an open field at dawn, let me know. I'll arrange
the field, cleanup crew and and ammunition if you are willing to
use banana cream pies.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       Stratus Computer
         tarl@sw.stratus.com    Marlboro, Mass.
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentarl cudfnTarl cudlnNeustaedter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Bosons?  (was Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bosons?  (was Re: Status #7 Cell 4A6)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 03:44:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug3.223622.23954@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     ... where did we leave simply throwing around the
>>     term 'bose condensate' and begin taking it seriously?
>
>Didn't you get the memo?  :-)
 
     Interoffice mail is unusually slow these days...
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 04:22:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug3.223539.25492@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>In article <1993Aug2.114555.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
>(Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.) writes:
>> any specified wavelength.  Instead, the deuterons will be partitioned out
>> among the all the available energy states with a probability given by the
>> Boltzmann distribution function.
>>
>> Nothing "magic" should happen near, say, 39 C or any other specified
>> elevated temperature.  Is there something I am missing?
>
>Excellent question.  I'll try to give it what I hope is an adequate answer.
>
>LOCALIZED AND DELOCALIZED STATES
>
>It is likely that the the Boltzmann distribution function will be altered
>(possibly significantly) by the presence of the palladium lattice, which
>will very strongly scatter the atoms/ions.  This results in two major cases
>(one of which I'll further break down later in this posting):
 
     I'm not sure I buy exactly a Boltzmann distribution of D
     in Pd under the relevant conditions , but this 'scattering'
     (that I usually call thermal jostling)
     is exactly what you don't want.  There are so many energy levels
     available that they should have no chance of flopping into a single state.
     Besides, even if they did, so what?  Helium does not have great masses
     of fusion events in the superfluid state.  Otherwise we'd skip
     all this tokamak business and go with cryogenic helium.
 
> 2) Delocalized hydrogen atoms/ions.  These have wavepacket representations
>    that extend with significant stationary amplitudes over 2 to infinity
>    of the octahedral sites.  The existence of such delocalized species is
>    strongly implied by tunneling data, which indicate that significant
>    amplitude coupling of hydrogen species is possible between sites.
>    Severe scattering of any "out-of-sync" wavefunctions makes a normal
>    Boltzmann distribution pretty much impossible in this second case.
 
     'Delocalized' in what sense?  Certainly not that the nucleus itself
     is smeared over a number of interstitial sites.
 
>The key difference between these two subgroups is that the short-range
>version is going to be much more susceptible to thermal agitation of the
>type that Dale Bass mentioned.
 
     And any long range correlation of lattice phonon states is going to
     be even more susceptable to thermal jostling than short range.  You
     are going to need this for long-range correlations of any other nature,
     including everything spontaneously dropping into one state.
 
>In summary, I think the question of the possible existence of significant
>temperature dependencies (and for that matter the closely related question
>of possible electrical field dependencies) needs to be broken down and
>analyzed in terms of transition modes between (and relative sizes of)
>three classes of atomic/ionic states:
>
>    Type A -- Localized states
>    Type B -- Short-range delocalized states
>    Type C -- Long-range delocalized states
...
 
     What's 'delocalization'?  Show me the wavefunction.
 
>And all of this is before you even _touch_ the additional idea of throwing
>in bose behavior by the species in question.  That is why I find W.R.
>Bernecky's emphasis on possible condensation of lattice-commensurate boson
>species so interesting.  As John Logajon pointed out in his own response
>to Gary Collins question, funny things happen even at room temperature when
>you put bosons such as photons into the right environment...
 
     Funny things happen with photons at all temperatures.
 
>Neutral hydrogens and deuterons are _ugly_ bosons, I'll cheerfully grant,
>with states packed about 1900 and 3800 times closer together per degree K
>than those of electrons.  But even without any lattice constraints at all,
>helium with a state density nearly 7500 times higher than an electron does
>somehow manage to do it -- at about 4 K, that is!
 
     A couple K is a much more significant constraint than provided by
     *any* room temperature metal.  I also don't understand the
     'states per degree K' comparison of atomic species to electrons.
     What does that mean?   I've been essentially talking about translational
     states, as those are your chief worry.  I challenge you to count
     them for D in Pd at, say, 40 C under any electrical excitation
     you care to propose.
 
     For me, the word 'continuum' seems much less tiring ...
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / mitchell swartz /  Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 06:54:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <9308031356.AA12099@suntan.Tandem.com>
     Subject: Cleaning up Mitchell's questions
 Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU a.k.a. blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=db "Question: "Are phonons oscillatory?"
=db  Answer:  "Yes, phonons are oscillatory,
=db but an explaination is still required as to how the kinetic energy
=db of a rapidly moving ion gets coupled to the collective oscillatory
=db motions of a lattice.  No one has supplied the required link!"
 
  Dick, you still haven't explained origin or prevelance of
   the "rapidly moving ion".
    No ion.  No link needed.  Let's us know the proof ASAP, OK?
 
 
=db "Question:  "scores of papers reporting positive results"  Answer:
=db I suggest that you name specific published results that you believe
=db demand our attention."
 
   OK?  How about the list located in
  "FIRE from ICE" by E. Mallove as a start.   Pages 246 through 248
    list 92 groups with positive reports from ten (10) countries!!!!
    And that is only those tallied
    until the publication of Dr. Mallove's text.
 
 
=db "Question: Any evidence for pions in cold fusion?"  Answer:  "No
=db evidence whatsoever"
 
   Therefore, why invoke them?   Where the are the neutrons you also
    always demand/invoke?    This is a pattern, isn't it?
 
 
=db "Question:  "(hot fusion-) skeptics ... that is not the way the sun
=db works"  Answer:  "You keep making a link to hot fusion and the sun."
 
   Actually it was Matt who wrote:
 
   ===   "Forty years of laboratory nuclear physics *experiments with
   ===    solid targets* and fusion experiments and the damn Sun shows
   ===    that the nuclear physics is the same."
      [sci.physics.fusion 5403; 3/7/93; Sub: Solid state fusion]
      Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu; Institute for Nonlinear Science]
 
 
=db" Question:  "many people have replicated the original experiments"
=db Answer:  "This is true only in the general sense that any claim
=db for "excess enthapy" constitutes a replication."
 
    OK.  There at least is agreement that excess enthalpy occurs.
         At least one point of agreement.
 
 
=db  "Gamma rays
=db and/or X-rays are reported only in experiments employing the
=db crudest of methods."
 
   Could you please define what you mean by crudest of methods?
 
 
=db "Question: "It is the skeptics who have failed to supply any
=db equation to bolster their petrifiying demands, isn't it?"
=db Answer:  "There have been numerous publications involving
=db extensive calculations of reaction rates based on a variety
=db of models of the PdD lattice."
 
  And many of them do theoretically attempt to explain the cold
   fusion phenomena.   Do you have evidence to disprove any of them?
 
         Best wishes.                     Mitchell Swartz
                                           [mica@world.std.com]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / mitchell swartz /  He++ Problems / etc.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He++ Problems / etc.
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 07:36:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Aug3.194332.23650@asl.dl.nec.com>
 Subject: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Terry Bollinger (terry@asl.dl.nec.com) writes:
 
=tb "The most damning piece of experimental evidence against a theory that
=tb invokes delocalized He++ is perhaps not nuclear, but chemical.  It's the
=tb extreme immobility of helium in palladium.    To understand why this
=tb is, first notice that Planck's uncertainty principle
=tb guarantees that particles with delocalized wavefunctions MUST be highly
=tb mobile, since delocalization can occur only if the momentum of
=tb the particle has an extremely precise value."
 
   Terry, might there be some uncertainty here?
     Could this be the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which
      he called "Unbestimmtheit"
 
 
=tb "By Planck's principle, a very precise momentum means that the location
=tb of the particle will be very poorly defined.  On the large scale, that
=tb translates into mobility -- the particle cannot "lock on" to any one site
=tb tightly enough to stay put."
 
   OK.    This "uncertainty principle" is written as
         either of three common types of canonically conjugate parameters,
         though usually the first is best known.
 
 
               delta-p * delta-x >=  h/2pi
 
         or  delta-angular-p * delta-angular-position  >= h/2pi
 
 
   Alternatively,  the energy and the time taken to measure it are
     related as
 
               delta-E * delta-t >= h/2pi
 
    or for those that follow it to the electrical engineering/signal
     processing level:
 
              delta-t * delta-f >= 1/ pi
 
 
     where delta-t is the duration of the signal g(t)  and
 
           delta-f is the bandwidth of G(f).
 
 
  Now.   I thought this uncertainty principle had to do with
    OUR uncertainty of knowing the particle's position and momentum.
    True or false?      Try this analogy with the fourth equation, that is
     the frequency of a signal.   We often talk about the second
     version here (Nyquist theorem).   The longer we sample a signal
     (i.e. delta t) the better we 'know' the signal (i.e. delta f is less).
 
     The Nyquist theorum expands the uncertainty by stating that sampling
    at the twice the highest frequency is required for
    complete reconstruction of the signal.
 
     In summary, Terry,  consider that the particle has an accurate momentum.
          (if your equipment is calibrated you might obtain
                a semiquantitative estimate of that momentum.)
 
               The uncertainty is in our knowledge, in that
                        if we measure said momentum we must perturb the
                        position of the particle.   \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 
              Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Bill England /  Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
     
Originally-From: wengland@stephsf.com (Bill England)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 03:47:42 GMT
Organization: Stephen Software Systems Inc., Chicago, +1 708 776 0286

In article <1993Jul25.053343.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>> If "cold fusion" is possible, as some what explained in this month popular
>> science.
>>
>> How big would a basic unit be, how much power would it put off/out, and could
>> it be used in a space craft? or other places that a "small" nuclear
>> generator/reactor would be nice to have..
 
  Personally I was toying with the idea of building one in a bucket
  to help heat the appartment this winter.  15 Watts in  30 Watts
  out sounds like a good deal.  ;-)
 
  (Actually, I should probally just stick to fermenting beer.)
 
--
 +-  Bill England,  wengland@stephsf.COM ------------------------------+
 |   * *      H -> He +24MeV                                           |
 |  * * * ... Oooo, we're having so much fun making itty bitty suns *  |
 |__ * * ______________________________________________________________|
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwengland cudfnBill cudlnEngland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Calorimetry by faith
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry by faith
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 14:38:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since the only significant body of evidence in support of cold fusion
is obtained via calorimetry, the issue may seem to be as simple as
deciding whether or not calorimetry "works."  Indeed Jed Rothwell
is constantly trying to couch the debate in those terms.  He asserts
that simple, crude devices can be employed to make measurements
sufficiently good to "prove" that there is excess enthalpy,  and
he contends that my arguments constitute a denial that any calorimetry
can yield correct results.  Jed carries this notion one step further
in his attack on Tom Droege's methods.  In this regard he says that
Tom's calorimeter is too complex largely, it seems, because it shows
the falsity of Jed's claims that a simple device will give the
correct result.
 
Jed bases his belief that simple calorimetry will give a correct
result, without a doubt, on a totally faulty understanding of how
such devices work.  The basic premise is that the rate of heat
transfer from within a fixed volume to the surroundings is a single-
valued function of only two parameters:  the temperature at a single
point within the volume, and the temperature of a bath which surrounds
most, but not all, of the surface which encloses the volume.  I
could proceed to make a list of all the reasons why Jed's basic
premise is clearly false, but that would just be repeating what has
been said many times before and Tom Droege has demonstrated and
described of problems with this approach to calorimetry.
 
Ultimately in most of the references Jed gives as the prime examples
to be considered in the CF debate we are looking a calorimetry by
faith, faith that none of the potential problems with the method will
have a significant effect on the outcome of the experiments.  As
I have said before you can actually design an experiment in ways
that will tend to make a given source of error more or less significant
in the measurement.  If you consider the experimental designs employed
by many CF researchers you will find a disturbing tendency to choose
an experimental design that would tend to maximize certain types of
errors.  As a prime example consider the use of very small Pd cathodes
by Fleischmann and Pons and ask what effects are being maximized.
One problem, clearly recognized by anyone doing serious measurements
is the dynamic range overwhich measurements are to be made so a
resort to boiling water is clearly an attempt to maximize errors
related to the dynamic range.  The issue of recombination and how
various experimenters deal with it is also worth consideration.
 
Jed assumes that the "heat transfer coefficient is predictable
and reliable."  That just isn't the case!  Particularly at the
liquid-solid boundaries involved the temperature gradient is
a very sensitive to the type of fluid motion which is occuring.
Fleischmann and Pons even pay lip service to this effect in
their "boiling water" experiments, but it is not clear that they
do anything about the problem.  Tom Droege points out that
radiative heat transfer plays a significant role such that liquid
above the dividing line of a half-silvered glass surface is
different from liquid below that line.  I am simply amazed at
the assumption that a single temperature serves to characterize
the conditions internal to the calorimeter in any of these
experiments.  Miles and Bush actually demonstate that two
thermometers give quite different temperature readings.
 
There is certainly more that can be said about the calorimetry,
but there are others who are better qualified than I to say it.
Indeed there have been a number of significant commentaries on
the issues, but the CF advocates ignore those and seem to
refuse to upgrade their techniques in a foolish attempt to
prove their point by being obstinate about making changes in
their experimental methods.
 
My personal position is that calorimetry alone cannot provide
totally convincing evidence for cold fusion, and that experiments
bases on nothing more than calorimetry are a serious waste of
time and resources.  A nuclear effect, if there is one, is best
detected by nuclear means.  In the hands of a skilled experimentalist
detectors for nuclear radiation a so many orders of magnitude
more sensitive than simple calorimeters that it is really criminal
fraud to take anyone's money to do calorimetry alone.
 
The use of radiation detection has been ignored by the CF community
primarily because they couldn't get the desired experimental results,
a very unscientific attitude to say the least.  The other argument
has been that the nuclear physics is somehow altered to a degree
that ordinary detection methods do not work.  I can accept that,
if and only if, there is some attempt to find alternative means
for determining the reaction products that are some mysteriously
hidden.  Analysis for helium seems to be highly desirable addition
to experiments at this point, but what has been put forward as
positive results so far is pretty ugly and negative results are
simply ignored.  In case there is someone out there who is up
to the challange of improving on what has been attempted in this
area, I suggest that they start by studying the work of Rutherford
who was able to establish that alpha particles are helium ions in
experiments performed 80 years ago.  It doesn't take a $700 K kit
from NTT to do it better!
 
Finally, in response to my asking how it becomes an established
fact the CF fuel is water, Jed asks, "Dick Blue thinks that water
is not what is reacting in a CF cell.  So where do you think the
heat is coming from, Dick?"  That is really my question, Jed.
Where do you think the heat is coming from?  My answer for now
is another question.  What heat?
 
As for the list of experiments to be seriously considered, most
have no business being on any such list.  Fleischmann and Pons
has be discussed enough here.  The Miles and Bush data is barely
out of the noise.  There calorimeters are too crude, sampling
rates far too slow, and the reported data is just too ugly.  It
is not even clear that one can see differences between runs with
H2O and runs they claim show excess heat with D2O.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: X-rays or special pleading
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: X-rays or special pleading
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 14:45:02 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <01H19KUW2XF69POU04@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>        ...                                What seems to happen is that there
>is an intermediate state, just after the d-d fusion, producing an excited
>4He*. This then sheds that 23.8 MeV gamma. Maybe Dick Blue can tell us what
>sort of energies the 4He has after the gamma goes off. Does it just sit there
>quietly in the lattice, or does it have some energy left to go on the rampage
>with as a charged particle?
 
Gee, don't they teach chemists about conservation of momentum?  ;-)
 
This one is pretty easy, since it is basically a non-relativistic
problem.  In general, one uses E^2 = m^2 + p^2 (c=1) where E = T + m.
Here one can get away with T = p^2/2m.
 
(Proof of this in the limit where T << m is left to the reader.)
 
The massless photon has p = E, so p = 23.8 MeV/c and the He-4 must
recoil with an equal and opposite momentum until it interacts with
something else -- the crux of the CF problem you are looking at.
It is then a simple matter to get that that KE of the He-4 is
roughly 75 keV (I just used 4*940 for He-4 to get the magnitude).
 
This energy and momentum are small on a nuclear physics scale (24 MeV/c
is only about 0.1 fm^{-1}) but large on an atomic scale.
 
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John Logajan
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 18:22:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John asks: "Any possibility of installing a gravity liquid return trap?"
 
There is one already in the cell.  The main catalyst is above the liquid in
glass tubes.  So the condensate drips back down into the cell.  It is only the
gas that failes to be catalyzed above the cell that gets to the second
container of catalyst outside the cell.
 
As to a leak vs unrecombined D2 O2.  One check I made was to turn on the
catalyst heater which happened to be off.  This did not stop the gas
accumulation.  But changing the zero point of the pressure switch did.  Note
that gass loss should have looked like a heat loss from the cell.  There was
no indication of this.  So I really think there was a leak.  But the leak
stopped, and I can see no reason for it, except that the switch is now very
near zero pressure.
 
I will leave Boson condensation thermodynamics to the experts.  Perhaps I
have a Servell Boson condensate refrigerator going.  Anyone remember the
Servel refrigerator?
 
John says:  "I forgot to say that unrecombined D2 and O2 in the syringe would
add favorably to the "anomalous" energy (im)balance of the calorimeter."
 
It's the other way, John, is it not?  The D2 and O2 in the syringe did not
get burned and leave the heat of combustion in the calorimeter.  So the
"anomalous" energy should go negative, but as I note above it did not.
 
One advantage of a "trouble prone, cranky, and a terrible nuisance to work
with" (Jed Rothwell) calorimeter is that it has a number of checks and
balances built in.  Thus I can usually sort out events as above, and detect
"anomalous" "anomalous" heat that would fool others with less cranky
apparatus.  Possibly by
"cranky" Jed means that the apparatus tells the truth!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 18:22:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed tells us that I should be using somthing simpler than my "trouble prone,
cranky, (woops forgot poorly designed), and a terrible nuisance" calorimeter.
 
This cranky device has shown recently:
 
1) There can be large changes of calorimeter constant while running these
experiments.  These changes are in a direction that incdicates large, false
amounts of "anomalous" heat.
 
2) There can be a sudden shift of recombination from outside the cell
electrolyte to inside the electrolyte.  This again would cause an open cell
experimenter to falsly report "anomalous" heat.
 
The calorimeter in a calorimeter design gives a lot of extra information.
Actually, there are two conduction calorimeters inside the null balance device,
and I require confirming evidence from all three to get excited.
 
On the other side of the ledger:
 
1) There does seem to be something interesting happening at 39 C.
 
2) There may be net "anomalous heat" during an experiment.  But the amount so
far is small and within possible error limits.
 
3) There are heat pulses.  A half dozen pretty large pulses.  Either very neat
chemical storage, or something else.  Seems to me to be worth studying.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / mitchell swartz /  Calorimetry by faith
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry by faith
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 18:13:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9308041406.AA24313@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: Calorimetry by faith
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] banters:
 
=db "Since the only significant body of evidence in support of cold fusion
=db is obtained via calorimetry, the issue may seem to be as simple as
=db deciding whether or not calorimetry "works.""
 
 
  Sorry, Dick, but that is simply not true.
    The production of tritium,  the production of helium-4
    linked with excess heat, and the occasional demonstration of
    neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support.
 
    The fact that these phenomena occur by several methods in many
    different laboratories also are further support.
 
    The autoradiography of active electrodes is further support.
 
    Do you have any real evidence to dismiss any of this?  Probably not.
 
      You continue to try to dismiss, with handwave, scores of reports.
    Your failure to address even one of the positive papers suggests
    to a reasonable certainty that your comments are: chimera.
 
     Also, although your missive has many errors, until you address the
    questions which you have been "ducking", your quality/bandwidth
    ratio is zip and I am busy.  Therefore the penultimate
   fenestration of your other specious and vacuous comments is left to others.
 
            Best wishes.
 
                                                 Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Richard Schultz /  A New Question for Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A New Question for Mitchell Swartz
Date: 4 Aug 1993 18:47:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CB8yLr.Jo7@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
> Therefore the penultimate fenestration of your other specious and
> vacuous comments is left to others.
 
Do you know the correct meaning of either "penultimate" or "fenestration"?
If you do, I do *not* even want to know what you had in mind by that comment.
I'm not sure I could handle it without significant doses of mind-altering
substances.  If you don't, well, I hope your grasp of physics is less
tenuous than your grasp of the English language, although I have yet to see
much evidence that this is the case.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Another Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another Reply to John Logajan
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 19:57:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John says; "Tom is apparently seeing multiple "anomalous" thermal bursts
after four years of marginally null results."
 
There is really not much difference in what I have been seeing over the four
years.  If anything, some of the earlier events were larger.  But I am
gradually pinning down the instrumentation so that I have greater confidence
in what I see.  It still may be "just noise" (as reported in ACCF1) but it
is certainly very strange noise.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / mitchell swartz /  A New Question for Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A New Question for Mitchell Swartz
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 19:37:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <23p07n$2ah@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: A New Question for Mitchell Swartz
Richard Schultz  [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] wrote:
 
==ms "Therefore the penultimate fenestration of your other specious and
==ms  vacuous comments is left to others."
 
=rs "Do you know the correct meaning of either "penultimate"
=rs  or "fenestration"?."
 
   Hi Richard.  I gather you have no comments on the physics, on the
    science, or the issues or facts.      Nonetheless,
 
      penultimate (L. paenultima - almost last)
 
       meaning:  a true-Blue skeptic would not be stopped by logical
                      arguement.
 
      fenestration [L. fenestra  - window like opening] indicating also
          the act of perforating, or the condition of being perforated.
 
       meaning:  most of his arguments are like a big balloon ....
 
                  (can you hear the whoosh of exiting hot air?     ;)
 
 
    Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Richard Schultz /  Mitchell "Humpty Dumpty" Swartz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell "Humpty Dumpty" Swartz
Date: 4 Aug 1993 20:07:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

ms>>> "Therefore the penultimate fenestration of your other specious and
ms>>>  vacuous comments is left to others."
 
rs>> "Do you know the correct meaning of either "penultimate"
rs>>  or "fenestration"?."
 
ms>      penultimate (L. paenultima - almost last)
ms>
ms>       meaning:  a true-Blue skeptic would not be stopped by logical
ms>                      arguement.
ms>
ms>      fenestration [L. fenestra  - window like opening] indicating also
ms>          the act of perforating, or the condition of being perforated.
ms>
ms>       meaning:  most of his arguments are like a big balloon ....
 
That's nice, but those two words already *have* meanings.  For most of us
anyway.  I mean, why not simply say "Therefore the grizzbarg noodleshlarp
of your other mixelfrine and spuleedophone comments is left to others"
which makes as much sense as your statement above, and more sense than
either the term or the concept "neutronpenic".
 
As for why I didn't comment on the science, the physicists in this newsgroup
have done that far more ably than I could.  I also have refrained from
responding to any of your "science" [sic] posts because as far as I am
concerned it's a completely pointless activity.  Your ignorance of science,
both the details of the physics involved and how science is actually done by
scientists, is so staggering that I find it hard to believe that anyone takes
you seriously in the first place.  On the other hand, your assaults on the
English language are an insult to those of us who feel that its purpose is
communication rather than obfuscation.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
Date: 4 Aug 1993 20:52:33 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
:      In Message-ID: <9308031356.AA12099@suntan.Tandem.com>
:      Subject: Cleaning up Mitchell's questions
:  Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU a.k.a. blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
:
: =db "Question: "Are phonons oscillatory?"
: =db  Answer:  "Yes, phonons are oscillatory,
: =db but an explaination is still required as to how the kinetic energy
: =db of a rapidly moving ion gets coupled to the collective oscillatory
: =db motions of a lattice.  No one has supplied the required link!"
:
:   Dick, you still haven't explained origin or prevelance of
:    the "rapidly moving ion".
:     No ion.  No link needed.  Let's us know the proof ASAP, OK?
 
Once again.  You have lots of energy in the nucleus that you have
to get rid of.  Send out something fast.  Even if that goes out
undetected you have to conserve momentum.  Nucleus recoils.  This
recoil speed is pretty damn fast compared to how fast it was going
before.  This is what happens when you have nuclear reactions.
 
No nuclear reaction has ever been observed or theoretically predicted
to get rid of MeV's worth of energy without somehwhere, somehow, creating
concomitant levels of penetrating radiation.
 
If you have MeV's of excess energy, how do you get rid of it?  You spit out
"phonons".  OK.  What is a phonon?  It's the quantization of sound.  Sound
means motion of the nuclei.  Now, if you figure out just how much momentum
and energy this moving nucleus will have (freshman physics), you will find
out that it has way too much energy to remain in its old lattice cite.
 
: =db "Question: "It is the skeptics who have failed to supply any
: =db equation to bolster their petrifiying demands, isn't it?"
: =db Answer:  "There have been numerous publications involving
: =db extensive calculations of reaction rates based on a variety
: =db of models of the PdD lattice."
:
:   And many of them do theoretically attempt to explain the cold
:    fusion phenomena.   Do you have evidence to disprove any of them?
 
Why yes.  These nuclear reaction rates that these theories calculate
are much too small to explain claims of macroscopic heat.  They made the
attempt, and the attempt failed.  Conclusion: lack of experimental
and theoretical justification for nuclear reactions as a source of
macroscopic heat.
 
:          Best wishes.                     Mitchell Swartz
:                                            [mica@world.std.com]
 
Farrell & Mills read the story right: no nuclear reactions producing
heat.  Their theory is crazy too, but at least they claim to be able to
explain and calculate *something* with it.
 
The question of the quality of the heat measurements themselves I do
not discuss, because I don't know enough about it.  Nevertheless,
without any reasonable explanation, the initial bias remains against them,
I admit.
 
(Q:  If it's so easy 19th century science, why did Prof McKubre go to
all his trouble of trying to dot every i and cross every t? )
 
--
-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:
cuddy4 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / mitchell swartz /  Richard "Peanuts Envy" Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard "Peanuts Envy" Schultz
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:27:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <23p4ul$3ih@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Mitchell "Humpty Dumpty" Swartz
Richard Schultz [Shultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] continues
  ad hominem attacks from the University of California, Berkeley:
 
=rs "That's nice, but those two words already *have* meanings.  For most of us
=rs anyway.  I mean, why not simply say "Therefore the grizzbarg noodleshlarp
=rs of your other mixelfrine and spuleedophone comments is left to others"
=rs which makes as much sense as your statement above, and more sense than
=rs either the term or the concept "neutronpenic"."
 
   Listen, Goober,
      this nonsense is consistent with your previous advocation of
    drugs wherein you previously posted:
 
   "I'm not sure I could handle it without significant doses of
    mind-altering substances."
  [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz); 4 Aug 1993 18:47:19 GMT
  University of California, Berkeley;Message-ID: <23p07n$2ah@agate.berkeley.edu>
 
    Give us a break.  Try some science, to the degree you think you
                          comprehend it.  The ad hominem flames
                          hardly contribute, do they?
 
                                       Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 23:16:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says:  "My personal position is that calorimetry alone cannot provide
totally convincing evidence for cold fusion,... serious waste of time and
resources."
 
I agree, Dick.  I think my $160 geiger counter is plenty good enough to detect
radiation from a kilojoule pulse that happens in a minute or less.  So I think
there is no radiation.  As you well know, it is very tough to measure neutrong.
I leave that to Moshe Guy and Steven Jones, and others with a mile of rock
over their heads.  The same holds for tritium.  But different experts.  For
anything else, and a kilojoule pulse, the geiger counter will do just fine.
Even if it is pretty low level gamma (x-rays) some would leak out.  But I
sit there in my basement watching a big heat pulse develop and the geiger
counter just goes click..click....click.click.....click.
 
So my personal position is that calorimetry alone can provide totally
convincing evidence for anomalous heat.
 
Dick further says:  "... it is really criminal fraud to take anyone's money
to do calorimetry alone."   Well, if funding agencies think that way, and I
encourage them to, then I will have a source of entertainment for a long time.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Chuck Sites /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:10:57 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
I wanted to add to Dicks comments too... but as usual I got
beat to the punch.  This is indpendent material from Terry's
but it's related, so I'm posting this as a follow-on.
 
 
blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>As an example of this highly questionable mode of thinking, consider
>the Chubb theory (as related here by Chuck Sites).  "In the Chubb
>theory the He4++ created by the condensate fusion remains directly
>exchangable with 2D+. .... The resulting He4++ forms a band state."
 
>I find this notion totally absurd!  If, as I read it, the Chubb
>theory suggests that a He4++ and 2D+ are linked through some form
>of reversible process such that the energy release can be delayed
>and spread both in time and space,  I would like to see that notion
>justified in some detail.  The range of the strong interaction
>is not going to be spread by some insignificant atomic perturbation!
>And causality does limit how far you can look for participants in
>a given reaction.  What does it take to keep this game honest
>anyway?
 
Perhaps I didn't give a very good description of what is being
proposed in the Chubb theory.  It's not nearly as absurd as I
made it sound.  First we have a system of bosons (d+ ion) that
are in delocalized band states.  That implies the behavior of the
band is like a Bose condesate, which obviously implies the system
obeys the rules of the Bose-Einstien statistics.  (ie. Statistically
the boson like to be in the same state).  And there is experimental
precedence for all of these.  For example, C. Astaldi et. al. Phy Rev
Let. V68-90. 1992,  O. Grizzi et al. Phy Rev Let.  V63-1408. 1989
R. Nieminen  Nature, V356-289 1992.  And my favorite, R. DiFoggio
Phy Rev B V25-3490 1982.  All of these papers deal with the
delocalization issue of H and D on metal surfaces.  The DiFoggio
paper was the first to notice a difference between H & D that can
only be attributed to the H obeying Fermi statistics, and D obeying
Bose-Einstien statistics.  And thats from 1982!  Anyway with regard to
the Chubb's theory precursor D+ Bose band,  or more properly, the
Bose Bloch condensate (BBC), that part is almost a given fact.
(It's also a real science area that *begs* for more study, both
in materials and phenomenology.)
 
    The main objection I've hear from you, Matt and others is the fact
that when deuterons fuse we should see some very high energy particle
released in the process.  Hay, I have a physics background and thats
what I think should happen too.  But consider the problem.  The BBC is
completely delocalized and indeed the wavefunctions of the individual
deuterons are completely overlapped.  If you look at the nuclear force
as a short range extension of the particle, then within the ensemble
this component exists overlapped within the wave function of the
particle!  Because this delocalized state obeys the statistics of the
Bose-Einstien, any nuclear interaction that occurs in the BBC state
should only alow a selective interaction that favors bose particles
over the fermi counter part.  Also remember this is a *real* cold
interaction with a potentially huge interaction time due to the
delocalized state.
 
     In a normal hot reaction the nuclear wave function
overlap is very short in time and space, but here we have an
interaction that is very extended in time and space.  Infact the
interesting part about the interaction is this, because we have a
system indistinguishable particles, delocalized, and obeying the Bose
Einstien statistics the energy released by one pair fusing, effects
all the particles in the band.  This is kind of like the MossBa  bauer
effect in some respects, its has been mentioned as a way to distribute
fusion energy to the lattice, but this really more interesting.  The
energy is distributed throughout D band system completely and
simultaneously with in the the limits of QM statistics.  This is
were the Bose condesate becomes important.  In an He4 condensate
if you alter the state at one location, the effect of that state
change can appear at a totally different location or in a totally
different distributed way.  Think super fluids. Chubb's is simply
suggesting the fusion energy of a delocaized bose band interaction
can be distributed in the same way.
 
   Anyway, I appoligize if I was not clear on the Chubb theory.  I
think I pulled out a few highlights without an explanation of how it
occurs, and made it look absurd.  It is *most* definatly not 'abusrd'
Dick.  It is a good theory, and the only published work that deals
directly with the interaction of the nuclear force in an extended
delocalized D+ band state.
 
    Now if you want the complete picture, there is also a huge
electric component to the D+ band state, which I think may have allot
to do with Tom's pulses.  This is a concept I call 'Heavy Heat'.
If these D+ bands condense (and they should by every calculation I've
done) these bands should be superconducting.  However, this may not be
like anykind of superconductivty we currently know. The reasons are:
 
[1] The number of D+ charge carriers are small compared to the metal host.
 
[2] The mass of the D+ charge carriers are huge, and thus have an inertia.
 
[3] The only effect on electron current is by the capture of the electron
    by the D+ upon localization.
 
[4] The voltage of the cell should increase.
 
Anyway,  It's all pretty interesting.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to John Logajan
Date: 4 Aug 1993 23:10:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov () says:
>John says:  "I forgot to say that unrecombined D2 and O2 in the syringe would
>add favorably to the "anomalous" energy (im)balance of the calorimeter."
>
>It's the other way, John, is it not?  The D2 and O2 in the syringe did not
>get burned and leave the heat of combustion in the calorimeter.  So the
>"anomalous" energy should go negative, but as I note above it did not.
 
Err, I think we are saying the same thing.  But let me add a clarifying
comment -- *if* the energy balance was zero even with the assumption of
no D2 and O2 in the syringe, then finding unrecombined D2 and O2 in the
syringe shows that the energy balance was *greater* than zero in reality.
 
In fact, upon figuring out the quantity of unrecombined gases, one could
actually turn a slight negative energy balance positive when all accounts
are correctly balanced.
 
But you say there was a leak, and so this point is moot.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Gary Coffman /  Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
     
Originally-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 22:51:05 GMT
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1993Jul30.220629.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>Cold Fusion is dead? Must not be, if popular science has an article on it..
>
>All I can figure is that its not dead, just not been sufficiently proven, but
>it shows soem promise..
 
It's not dead, it's just fallen into the _Chariots of the Gods_ zone,
which is just west of the Bermuda Triangle zone and the Face on Mars
zone.
 
Gary
 
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengary cudfnGary cudlnCoffman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 00:27:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug4.211057.2823@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
 
>Perhaps I didn't give a very good description of what is being
>proposed in the Chubb theory.  It's not nearly as absurd as I
>made it sound.  First we have a system of bosons (d+ ion) that
>are in delocalized band states.  That implies the behavior of the
>band is like a Bose condesate, which obviously implies the system
>obeys the rules of the Bose-Einstien statistics.  (ie. Statistically
>the boson like to be in the same state).  And there is experimental
>precedence for all of these.  For example, C. Astaldi et. al. Phy Rev
>Let. V68-90. 1992,  O. Grizzi et al. Phy Rev Let.  V63-1408. 1989
>R. Nieminen  Nature, V356-289 1992.  And my favorite, R. DiFoggio
>Phy Rev B V25-3490 1982.  All of these papers deal with the
>delocalization issue of H and D on metal surfaces.
 
     The Astaldi work concerns banding, not bose condensation,
     of a fermion.  And delocalization can be considered in
     an electronic sense, not in the sense that the nucleus is
     is smeared all over the lattice.
 
>    The main objection I've hear from you, Matt and others is the fact
>that when deuterons fuse we should see some very high energy particle
>released in the process.  Hay, I have a physics background and thats
>what I think should happen too.
 
     Even before you get there, you still have the problem that
     thermal jostling kills your desire to have all the little bosons
     in the same state.  This will even smear the band structure a bit,
     even though banding is not condensation.
 
     And even if you manage to get them all condensed into the same
     state, why does it matter?  Superfluid helium doesn't seem to
     cause radiation health problems.
 
>But consider the problem.  The BBC is
>completely delocalized and indeed the wavefunctions of the individual
>deuterons are completely overlapped.  If you look at the nuclear force
>as a short range extension of the particle, then within the ensemble
>this component exists overlapped within the wave function of the
>particle!  Because this delocalized state obeys the statistics of the
>Bose-Einstien, any nuclear interaction that occurs in the BBC state
>should only alow a selective interaction that favors bose particles
>over the fermi counter part.  Also remember this is a *real* cold
>interaction with a potentially huge interaction time due to the
>delocalized state.
 
     Delocalized in terms of low energy electronics, very very localized
     when you start bringing other D's near it (or even worse, when
     you fuse them).
 
>were the Bose condesate becomes important.  In an He4 condensate
>if you alter the state at one location, the effect of that state
>change can appear at a totally different location or in a totally
>different distributed way.  Think super fluids. Chubb's is simply
>suggesting the fusion energy of a delocaized bose band interaction
>can be distributed in the same way.
 
     This is a good mantra, but I'm not sure about the concept.
     Think of it this way, if you put a 5000W wire heater in a quart
     of superfluid helium, pretty soon it would no longer be superfluid
     around the wire simply because energy deposition gave us more
     states for our little heliums to play.  In our situation, we're
     using a much much smaller 'heater' (even assuming for the moment
     that deuterium can 'condense' in such a manner).  So, locally,
     you no longer have delocalization.  That's exactly what you'd
     expect, and that's exactly what happens when a
     > 20 MeV something goes screaming through a lattice.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Richard Schultz /  sci.physics.fusion or rec.humor.funny?  You decide.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.physics.fusion or rec.humor.funny?  You decide.
Date: 5 Aug 1993 01:51:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CB97MF.6LE@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>   Listen, Goober. . . .
>
>    Give us a break.  Try some science, to the degree you think you
>                          comprehend it.  The ad hominem flames
>                          hardly contribute, do they?
 
May the Brahms Gang and Rich Rosen forgive me, but I just do not have it in
me to take candy from a baby.
 
I will admit, however, that I find it unfortunate that Mitchell Swartz has
never read "Through the Looking Glass."
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Patrick Smith /  On the change of the properties of Water around 40C
     
Originally-From: p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On the change of the properties of Water around 40C
Date: 4 Aug 93 22:33:48 GMT
Organization: Paramax, Salt Lake City, Utah

 
 
The reports by Tom Droege of anomalies around 39C got me searching
through stacks of stuff for an old French paper (1935) on anomalous
properties of water at about the same temperature.  I translated part
of it (included below), but stopped because I doubt that the reported
effects can account for the "Droege anomalies".  But some may find
this interesting anyway in the context of the possible 39C effect.
(If there's any interest, I might be persuaded to translate the rest.)
**********************************************************************
 
Sur un Changement des Proprietes de l'Eau aux Environs de 40C
(On the Change of the Properties of Water around 40C)
 
by M. Magat
 
(Laboratory of Experimental Physics of the College of France)
 
Summary. --The intermolecular bands of water disappear in the Raman
spectra at temperatures above 37C; the author has searched for
anomalies in other properties of liquid water and found that all the
known properties explored present irregularities in the temperature
interval between 35 and 45C.
 
 
 
In studying the variation of Raman spectra of liquid water with
temperature, we have observed that the intermolecular bands from
500-700/cm disappear suddenly at about 40C.
 
In awaiting definitive results, which we will publish very soon, we
have looked for the existence near this temperature of a more or less
abrupt change in the other properties of water.  We have gathered
together into tables of constants a certain number of remarkable
results, which render extremely likely the existence of a
transformation point near 40C, which is not a phase change proper, but
a sort of Curie point or ``phase change of second (or third) order'',
analogous to those which have been studied thermodynamically by Bauer,
Ehrenfest, and most recently by Laue and Justi.
 
Similar higher order phase changes have long been known in the study
of the solid state.  Recall only, beyond the Curie points, the
irregularities and abrupt changes of properties observed by F. Simon
et al.
 
 In recent years, several observations have been pointed out
concerning abrupt changes in the properties of liquids, but to our
knowledge, only a single case of ``second order phase changes'' has
been definitively established in a liquid; that of helium at 2.19K
found by Keesom, Wolfke and K. Clusius.
 
We present the material here in the form of curves, because that is
the form in which the discontinuity appears most clearly.
 
Figure 1 represents the compressibility of water as a function of
temperature...
 
 
*********************************************************************
Summarizing:
 
Figure 2 showed an anomaly in the index of refraction curve w.r.t. T.
Figure 3 showed an anomaly in the viscosity as a function of T.
Figure 4 showed minimums and maximums in the ``molecular heat'' curves
near 40C.
Figure 5 showed an anomaly in the ``coefficient of dilation'' near 40C.
Figure 6,7, and 8 showed an inflection point in the solubility of water
in various substances near 40C.
Figure 9 showed an inflection point in the diffraction of X-rays by
water as a function of T.
 
The author mentions measurements of the dielectric constant as well,
and concludes by suggesting rotational modes may be responsible, and a
``considerable change in the forces of molecular interaction'' may be
involved.  He suggests that the variations in temperature reported by
different authors may be due to impurities.  He finally makes the
interesting suggestion that his discovery may have ``great significance
for biological processes,'' considering the typical body temperature
of animals.  So I assume that he considers these effects
thermodynamically significant.  But they certainly can't liberate kJoules
of heat.
 
-Pat
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: 5 Aug 1993 02:15:01 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
:     The main objection I've hear from you, Matt and others is the fact
: that when deuterons fuse we should see some very high energy particle
: released in the process.  Hay, I have a physics background and thats
: what I think should happen too.  But consider the problem.  The BBC is
: completely delocalized and indeed the wavefunctions of the individual
: deuterons are completely overlapped.  If you look at the nuclear force
: as a short range extension of the particle, then within the ensemble
: this component exists overlapped within the wave function of the
: particle!  Because this delocalized state obeys the statistics of the
: Bose-Einstien, any nuclear interaction that occurs in the BBC state
: should only alow a selective interaction that favors bose particles
: over the fermi counter part.  Also remember this is a *real* cold
: interaction with a potentially huge interaction time due to the
: delocalized state.
:
:      In a normal hot reaction the nuclear wave function
: overlap is very short in time and space, but here we have an
: interaction that is very extended in time and space.  Infact the
: interesting part about the interaction is this, because we have a
: system indistinguishable particles, delocalized, and obeying the Bose
: Einstien statistics the energy released by one pair fusing, effects
: all the particles in the band.  This is kind of like the MossBa  bauer
: effect in some respects, its has been mentioned as a way to distribute
: fusion energy to the lattice, but this really more interesting.  The
: energy is distributed throughout D band system completely and
: simultaneously with in the the limits of QM statistics.
 
Is it?  What about: Fusion occurs.  *new* nucleus is created,
distinguishable from deuterium.  "pops" back into being a normal localized
particle.  Emits radiation.
 
It's an interesting idea, no doubt, but I'm rather skeptical that
a bose condensate can be maintained in non-cryogenic conditions.
 
For example, explain why carbon nuclei in a diamond don't bose condense.
 
Another question:  in implosion fusion, is the density sufficiently high
that there can be bose condensation?  (Now of course the temperature is
high, but you've squeezed so many particles into such a small space perhaps
many energy levels are filled).
 
: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
 
--
-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:
cuddy5 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / mitchell swartz /  Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Subject: sci.physics.fusion or rec.humor.funny?  You decide.
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 02:36:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <23pp3i$91f@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: sci.physics.fusion or rec.humor.funny?  You decide.
     Richard ("P. E.") Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] wrote:
 
==rs "May the Brahms Gang and Rich Rosen forgive me, but I just do not
==rs have it in me to take candy from a baby.
==rs I will admit, however, that I find it unfortunate that
==rs Mitchell Swartz has never read "Through the Looking Glass.""
 
 
  Dear Richard,
 
    In your previous post Message-ID: <23p4ul$3ih@agate.berkeley.edu>
        you did purport:
 
=rs   "I also have refrained from
=rs responding to any of your "science" [sic] posts because as far as I am
=rs concerned it's a completely pointless activity.  Your ignorance
=rs of science, both the details of the physics involved and how science is
=rs actually done by scientists, is so staggering that ...
=rs ..   ("Peanuts Envy" continues) ...... (blah blah) " ...."
 
   Candy from a baby?   Only a goober would think of a paracriminal
     action in an internet science node.
 
   If you think you know science, put your quill to the pad and
     correct what you feel is "science [sic]".
 
   BTW, I wish I had more time for "Through the Looking Glass" but
     science and engineering take a lot of time.
 
                Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / W Jeremiah /  Re: God, Proof, and so on
     
Originally-From: jeremi@ee.ualberta.ca (William Jeremiah)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: God, Proof, and so on
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 02:18:12 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

ccs@aber.ac.uk (Christopher Samuel) writes:
 
>Now it may be that cold fusion may indeed be possible, but nobody (apart
>from those who discovered the problem in the original experiment) was
>able to reproduce it, so we *infer* that it cannot be reproduced.
 
Have you read the latest Popular Science?  There are people (not the
original two) that will do a successful experimant on request (so they say).
 
Now, there _are_ people having success, so can anyone tell me how to set up
an experiment like this?  I would like to have my hand at trying.  Note that
I will be using food money to do this so try to make it cheap enough that I
can still eat for the rest of the month.
 
Jerry
 
>Chris
>--
>Christopher Samuel, Computer Unit, U.W Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, WALES
>E-mail: ccs@aber.ac.uk         PGP 2.3 public key available on request
>"Some say the gods are a myth,                 - The Waterboys
> but guess who I've been dancing with."                 "The Return of Pan"
--
"Look ma! No .signature!"
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjeremi cudfnWilliam cudlnJeremiah cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / John Logajan /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: 5 Aug 1993 03:10:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) says:
>For example, explain why carbon nuclei in a diamond don't bose condense.
 
Without doing the math, I suspect that the wavelenghts of carbon nuclei
are much shorter than atomic seperation even at the lowest of temperatures.
Perhaps the likelyhood of bose condesation diminishes inversely with the
integral multiple of wavelengths to particle seperation.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: 5 Aug 1993 03:36:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov () says:
>1) There can be large changes of calorimeter constant while running these
>experiments.  These changes are in a direction that incdicates large, false
>amounts of "anomalous" heat.
 
The mechanism for this change seems to involve boiling/roiling/partially
uncovering the electrode or somesuch effect.
 
So it seems to me that one could still build a calorimeter of Jed's
persuasion that would be pretty accurate, as long as the cell as a whole
is taken as the device under test, rather then relying on internal
cell measurements as part of the calorimetry.
 
For instance, take a Jed cell and put it in a thick copper yoke, then immerse
the copper yoke/cell in the bath.  Measure the outer yoke temperature rather
than the cell temperature.  You've traded off detailed information about
the cell antics for a more reliable long term energy balance tracking.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: BYU Expts. 3:  Latest results
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3:  Latest results
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:07:31 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Don't neglect the magnetic compression of the wire at the high
current loadings you are using during D2 expulsion.  The effects are
usually to drive the turns of the coil apart and to unwind the coil,
but there is also a component which compresses the individual strands
of the conductor.
 
     Also what does your conductor look like?  If the resistivity
changes with depth, you may not have the usual situation of all the
current for a pulse like this flowing on the surface of the conductor.
In particular, if you have a small conductive core in the wire
surrounded by a much larger area of low conductivity, the interaction
of the magnetic and electric fluxes can be very strange indeed--you do
have to study the higher order effects. (A highly non-linear field
will attract neutral atoms and even neutrons due to charge
separation...)
 
     But don't let me discourage you.  Even if the neutrons you are
seeing are due to "hot" fusion induced by these effects, fusion in a
wire--that survives the process!--would be most impressive.  If the
boson condensation everyone else is talking about is tied in, then you
have a really neat fusion-in-a-jar process, even it has neutrons. :-(
(The boson condensates should be accelerated along the conductor by
the voltage gradient if nothing else.  But if they are superfluid and
not slowed by collisons with the lattice, then every drop of
condensate will eventually lead to at least one fusion event and
possibly several.)
 
--
 
                                        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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat pumps and bosinos
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps and bosinos
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:33:51 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <86905@cup.portal.com> Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com writes:
 
   > It reminds me of an idea I once had as a kid (before knowing
   > anything about thermodynamics).  It seemed so easy to mix hot water
   > and cold water together to get room-temperature water, so why did
   > you need to waste so much energy to do the reverse?  If you could
   > just come up with an invention to separate the hot molecules from
   > the cold ones...  Cold fusion might turn out to be that invention.
 
   Actually there is a device to do just that called a Hilsch tube.
It basically uses centrifugal force to separate hot from cold
molecules.  No, it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but yes
it does appear in some heating and cooling systems.
 
 
--
 
                                        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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 / Joshua Levy /  Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1993 16:48:22 GMT
Organization: Just Me

  ``He was still unaware that nothing in cold fusion would be simple.''
                                                             (p. 59)
 
I bought and read Taubes' book BAD SCIENCE, The Short Life and Weird
Times of Cold Fusion, and thought some comments might be in order.
 
Previous books that I've read on Cold Fusion (by Mallove, Close, and
Huizenga) have been written by scientists (or ex-scientists), and have
have focused on experiments, data, and analysis.  Taubes' book focuses
more on people, and therefore provides an excellent companion volume to
these other books.  If you believe that personalities are unimportant
to scientific progress, then you will not like BAD SCIENCE, because
Taubes believes that personalities are important to how cold fusion
developed.  He spends time looking into people's history and modivations.
This technique gives him (and the reader) new sources of information
untapped by previous authors.
 
A previous poster stated that, although he had not read BAD SCIENCE, he
thought that the book savaged everyone associated with Cold Fusion. This
is not true.  Rossi and Martin, for example, are not savaged.  But Taubles
does have a strong point of view.  He believes that the cold fusion as
science is finished, and that it was a mistake augmented by scientific
fraud.  Some of his descriptions of labs and experimentors are quite
caustic.  He gleefully describes the shoddy science done to support cold
fusion (lack of controls, lack of calibration, obvious sources of errors
overlooked,  poor instrumentation, low quality detectors, misused
detectors, incorrectly calibrated detectors, and on and on and on.  Some
of his harshest critisim comes in describing labs where positive data is
reported on (often via the media), but negative data is ignored.  He
describes this process at Bockris's lab (page 322).
 
Interestingly (to me, at least) Taubes's book contains more information
from the DOE panel investigation then Huizenga's book.  Huizenga's book
concetrates on the ERAB panels final report, while Taubes spend more time
describing their various fact finding tours.  Huizenga's book
summarizes what was found (no working cells) and the general quality of
research (not good).  Taubes's book is much more specific, describing in
detail the experimental set ups found in the various labs, as well as the
mistakes made by the various experimentors and discovered by the DOE panel
members.  This part of the book is very destructive to Cold Fusion.  The
various mistakes and general shoddiness of the Bockris and Huggins
experiments leaves a bad after taste.  But more than that is the general
feeling of doubt.  The errors described by Taubes are so obvious that
one wonders what other mistakes were made, and is left with a general
feeling of doubt, in addition to a long list of specific mistakes.
 
Other strong points of the book include the details surounding the
omission of Hawkins's name of the first P&F paper, and Pon's recent
history (as of 1989).  Pons's use of lawers to attack people who exposed
flaws in his work and withholding data from fellow researchers are
foreshadowed in his interactions with Dow and Synthetech.  The case
of Synthetech (in particular) is almost eerie in it similarity to
Cold Fusion.
 
BAD SCIENCE suffers from one problem, but it is in presentation, not
substance.  In a effort to cram as much information as possible into
his book, Taubes has used end notes, organized by chapter.  The information
stored in these notes is very interesting, but getting at them when
needed requires flipping back and forth through the book constantly.
(Also, the end notes are organized by chapter, but the current chapter
is not printed on the text page.  So if you are on page 45, looking at
end note 10, first you much find what chapter you are in, then you
must find the end note.)  Summary: read this book with two book marks,
one for your place in the text, and one for your place in the end notes.
 
Also, Taubes book only covers the first year or so of CF in detail, the
second year is covered superficially.  (I suspect that after Taubes
decided the foundations of CF were built on quicksand, he stopped caring
about the quality of the rest of the structure.)
 
If you believe that the process of science is such that individuals don't
matter, and personalities are unimportant, then you will not like this
book.  Conversly, if you believe that individual's personalities are
important to how science develops, then you will find lots of useful
information and well researched insights, presented in a well written
and well organized book.  I found it a very enjoyable read.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 04:17:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CB9Lx7.KAo@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>   BTW, I wish I had more time for "Through the Looking Glass" but
>     science and engineering take a lot of time.
 
     I disagree with Mr. Shultz.  It appears to me that Mr. Swartz is
     *living* 'Through the Looking Glass'...
 
                            dale bass
 
         `And only ONE for birthday presents, you know.  There's glory
     for you!'
         `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
         Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.  `Of course you don't --
     till I tell you.  I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for
     you!"'
         `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
     objected.
         `When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
     tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
     less.'
         `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean
     so many different things.'
         `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -
     - that's all.'
 
           Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass (1871)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 04:32:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <23ptn6$mqj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
John Logajan <al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) says:
>>For example, explain why carbon nuclei in a diamond don't bose condense.
>
>Without doing the math, I suspect that the wavelenghts of carbon nuclei
>are much shorter than atomic seperation even at the lowest of temperatures.
>Perhaps the likelyhood of bose condesation diminishes inversely with the
>integral multiple of wavelengths to particle seperation.
 
     We aren't talking about identical free particles here.
 
     "Occurring in a solid state makes 'bose condensation' difficult to
     interpret", he offered helpfully.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Laurence Battin /  Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 08:44:09 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <CB9qKL.n4v@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Cameron Randale
Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
> In article <CB9Lx7.KAo@world.std.com>,
> mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> >   BTW, I wish I had more time for "Through the Looking Glass" but
> >     science and engineering take a lot of time.
 
>      I disagree with Mr. Shultz.  It appears to me that Mr. Swartz is
>      *living* 'Through the Looking Glass'...
 
>                             dale bass
 
>          `And only ONE for birthday presents, you know.  There's glory
>      for you!'
>          `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
>          Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.  `Of course you don't --
>      till I tell you.  I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for
>      you!"'
>          `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
>      objected.
>          `When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
>      tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
>      less.'
>          `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean
>      so many different things.'
>          `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -
>      - that's all.'
 
>            Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass (1871)
 
Well, maybe he's paying them extra.
 
--
Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
 ____________________________________________________________________
| "Ideas that have outlived their day may hobble about the world for |
| years, but it is hard for them ever to lead and dominate life.     |
| Such ideas never gain complete possesion of a man, or they gain    |
| possesion only of incomplete people."                              |
|                   - Alexander Herzen _My_Past_and_Thoughts_ (1861) |
|____________________________________________________________________|
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbattin cudfnLaurence cudlnBattin cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / John Logajan /  Bubbles trigger anomalies
     
Originally-From: logajan@sleepy.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bubbles trigger anomalies
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 12:57:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It occurs to me that H or D loading into Pd might be inherently unstable
under most common geometries.  This conclusion is based upon the premise
that the Pd surface will unload gas when ohmic contact is lost with the
surrounding electrolyte.
 
A small bubble forming on the Pd surface would tend to exclude ohmic contact
to that area.  This would start or increase the unloading into the bubble,
expanding its size, which in turn expands the area excluded from ohmic
contact and so on -- a positive feedback mechanism which could grow until
it exceeded the gas unloading rate of the Pd.
 
Since the gas unloading rate probably varies with temperature, external
and internal pressure, etc, one would expect to find different modes of
instability at different operating conditions.
 
Let me suggest a hypothetical explanation for one of Droege's recent
smaller mysteries -- the expulsion of electrolyte from the inner cell.
 
Favorable conditions (nice hand waving, huh?:-) allow a bubble to go into
self-sustained growth, giving rise quickly to highly chaotic outgassing
as the turbulent bubbles engulf much of the Pd surface.  The same gas/
electrolyte foam volume carries itself up and out the cell tubing.
 
Now here's the question this is all leading up to:
 
Did a random bubble chain reaction cause the associated anomalous heat
event, or did the anomalous heat event cause the bubbling?
 
If one assumes the first anomalous event transported most of the liquid
out of the cell, then the following events which seemed to come much
quicker were aided by the lower electrolyte level.  Was the lower electrolyte
level so low that it almost uncovered the electrode?  If so, then it might
allow "runaway" bubble formation rigth at the top of the electrode where
a thin layer of electrolyte can easily be "channeled" during outgassing.
 
This implies that outgassing "triggers" the anomalous heat event (which
feeds the outgassing, etc.)
 
If it is mere disequilirium in the Pd loading that causes the heat event,
then an "iceberg" Pd electrode (the bulk is submerged with a little bit
sticking out) would allow permanent outgassing at a rate controlled by
the relative dimensions of the above and below water line sections.
 
Now that Droege has refilled the electrolyte, event probability might
decline because it is harder to keep a bubble on the Pd surface where
it tends to float away.  With a lower electrolyte level, the bubbles
on top of the Pd surface literally have nowhere to float to, so they
grow until they pop.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Bill Page /  Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Primer on Bosinos
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 12:58:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

PRIMER ON BOSINOS
 
[With sincere apologies to Dr. Satyendra Bose I will accept the diminutive
name of Bosinos for the hypothetical Coulomb-collapsed state of matter
which I proposed as a QM-acceptible alternative to the shrunken hydrogen
atoms (hydrinos) hypothesized by Mills and Farrell.]
 
QUANTUM PHYSICS: THE NEXT GENERATION
 
Since many of you may not have access to the excellent new introduction to
quantum mechanics titled "Quantics: Rudiments of Quantum Physics" by
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond and Francoise Balibar (English translation by S.
Twareque Ali), North Holland, 1990, I thought it might be useful to review
here some of its material on collective behaviour. Perhaps this book is a
little mis-titled for the American scientific consumer.  For some reason,
English translations of French tend to choose slightly out-of-idiom phrases
for technical subjects.  Who in the U.S., for example, uses the term
'informatics' with respect to computer systems?  Maybe a title like
"Quantum Physics: The Next Generation" would be more appropriate here.
Certainly the emphasis is on the development of a good intuitive
understanding of QM at the earliest possible stage together with many of
its most intriguing "loose ends" - a very suitable sequel to Feynman's
Volume 3 of Lectures on Physics.  It is no doubt that it will be the next
generation of physicists that will benefit most by its totally
un-apologetic presentation of the concepts of quantum mechanics and quantum
field theory, but it is definitely entertaining and mind expanding for the
current generation as well.
 
 
QUANTON HENCE QUANTICS
 
For starters, the philosphical point of view taken by the authors is that
the subject of quantum theory is neither particles nor waves as understood
in classical physics but rather with a higher level conceptual entity they
call a 'quanton' (hence 'quantics'). Quantum theory attempts to explain all
known physical phenomena in terms of the properties and interactions of
quantons.  To varying degrees of approximation and in clearly defined
circumstances quantons behave like either particles or waves (or both). But
quantons are, in fact, neither.  They are something more.
 
In particular, in the present case we are interested in their collective
behaviour.  Quantics states: "We have here another demonstration of the
unusual nature of quantons, studied in ch. 2: while it is true that within
a collective system, classical particles may be denumerated and
individualized [tagged, labelled], when at the same time clasical fields
can be neither denumerated nor individualized, quantons can, however, be
denumerated but not individualized."  Thus the state transition of a
composite system composed of two or more identical quantons cannot be
"factored" into the state transitions of its components.  "The very
identity of the quantons forbids labelling them and asking 'which one is in
which given state'...".
 
 
BOSONS AND FERMIONS
 
A consideration of lack of individuality of quantons in terms of the
probability amplitudes of a state transition (r,s) <- psi from some
composite state psi to well-defined individual states r and s, leads
directly to two possible cases:
 
" symmetry:      <r,s|psi> = + <s,r|psi>                 (7.2.8)
  antisymmetry:  <r,s|psi> = - <s,r|psi>                 (7.2.9)
 
"The symmetry or antisymmetry of the amplitudes is not a particular
property of the transition considered... it depends only on the quantons in
question and we have always eq. (7.2.8) [bosons] or always eq. (7.2.9)
[fermions] for each species of quantons."
 
In general, three cases have to be considered: two distinct quantons, two
identical boson quantons, and two identical fermion quantons.  Quantics
displays a series of graphs of some expermental scattering data published
by [G.R. Plattner and I. Sick, Eur. J. Phys. 2 (1981) 109] which clearly
show the way in which the Coulomb effective cross-section varies in the
case of pairs of carbon isotopes C-12 (boson) and C-13 (fermion), C-12 +
C-13, C-12 + C-12 and C-13 + C-13.  The curves for the identical bosons and
identical fermions both show characteristic oscillations in the effective
cross-sections with varying scattering angle, with the boson curve showing
the most variation.
 
All of this generalizes to systems of N identical quantons and to
considerations of spin-states.  Quantics states (but the proof is beyond
the scope of the book) the
 
  "Spin-statistics relation
       integral spin quanton = boson,  [0,+-1,+-2...]
       half-integral spin quanton = fermion. [+-1/2, +-3/2, ... ]"
 
>From 7.2.9 we can see that for a pair of identical fermions the amplitude
of the state transition must be
 
    <r,r|psi> = 0                    (7.4.2)
 
and from this follows the
 
PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE:
 
"A system of fermions can never occupy a configuration of individual states
in which two individual states are identical."
 
"This plays the role of a fictious, although highly effective, mutual
replusion being exerted within the system, irrespective of any other actual
forces or interactions (Coulombic, nuclear, etc.) that might be present."
 
In six dimensional phase space (3 spatial co-ordinates, x,y,z + 3 momentum
coordinates, px, py, pz) the Heisenberg inequality
 
  deltaP deltaX >= hbar                                  (7.4.3)
 
requires that the state of each quanton occupy a domain of at least hbar^3.
 For a system of N identical bosons the Pauli principle requires that
 
  (deltaP)^3 (deltaL)^3 >= N hbar^3                      (7.4.5)
 
where deltaL and deltaP are the characteristic spatial extension and
characteristic momentum of the region in phase space made up of the states
of the system of N quantons.  (7.4.5) can be written in the form known as
the Heisenberg-Pauli inequality:
 
  deltaP deltaL >= N^(1/3) hbar                          (7.4.6)
 
"with inequality (7.4.6) holding in any case only to an order of magnitude
= i.e. up to a numerical constant (which is hopefully close to unity)", [we
can safely ignore factors such as (1/2)^(1/3) and (1/3)^(1/3) arising from
considerations of spin.]
 
 
SINGLE ATOMS
 
"Had electrons not been fermions, the ground state of an atom of atomic
number Z, could have been obtained by minimizing the total energy of the Z
electrons, evaluated in terms of their average momentum and the size of the
atom, taking only the Heisenberg inequalities into consideration.... there
would thus be an energy of
 
  Ez ~ -Z^3 Eh                                   (7.4.10)
 
[where Eh is the binding energy of hydrogen (13.6 ev)]
for the entire atom, and its size compared to hydrogen, would be reduced by
Z,
 
   Rz ~ Z^(-1) A0                                (7.4.11)
 
[where A0 is the Bohr radius, approximately 1 angstrom].
 
"Since the Coulomb replusion between the electrons is not enough to modify
qualitatively these estimates (particulary, their dependence on Z), atoms
with higher Z would be more and more concentrated ... because of the
increasing Coulomb attraction."
 
Taking into account the Heisenberg-Pauli inequality, on the other hand, and
the effect of charge screening of the inner electrons results in the size
of atoms being (approximately) independant of Z.
 
 
MATTER IN BULK
 
"The total potential energy is the result of a certain cancelling out
between Coulomb attractions and replusions.  In fact, each particle tends
to be neutralized by the others, of opposite sign, forming a screen at a
certain distance."
 
"As with the hydrogen atom, there exists an optimal balance between the
kinetic and potential energies.  This is obtained for
 
     L ~ N^(-1/3) A0                                       (7.4.23)
 
[where L is the characteristic dimension of a system of N particles.] ...
and the energy of this ground state has the value
 
     E0(H) ~ -N^(5/3) Eh                                   (7.4.24)
 
"We see that the density of the system
 
    N/(L^3) ~ N^2/A0^3                                      (7.4.25)
 
increases very rapidly with N, as does the binding energy per particle,
 
   Eb = |E0(N)|/N ~ N^(2/3) Eh                            (7.4.26)
 
...
 
"Once again, here it is the Pauli principle which saves the world from
collapse by preventing the electrons from forming such a condensed
collective state."
 
"It is important to note that this result depends on the fermionic nature
of only one of the two types of charged particles.  Here just the kinetic
energy of the electrons is enough to balance the effective Coulomb
attraction..."
 
"We should mention, however, that the problem of quantum saturation of
Coulomb forces had for long been overlooked and was not formulated, and
resolved, until fairly recently (Dyson and Lenard 1965).  This was in spite
of the fact that the notion is crucial to our understanding of matter, and
that it may be considered as being a major contribution of quantum theory
to this understanding."
 
 ------------------------
 
BOSINOS
 
So, what has all this got to do with Bosino's?  Well the basic new idea
here (new to me at least) is that the large scale structure of matter has
more to do with the fermionic character of electrons than it has to do with
electric charge.  In other words, if we can arrange for the electron
density to be high enough, bosons (and to a lesser degree distinct
quantons) will have little trouble following along.  Further more, the
collapsed state has an associated significant binding energy.
 
For N = 2 with deutrons we can form a collapsed state D2* which
electronically might look like He-4 but the deutrons will not have fused;
they will simply be much closer than they would be (lower kinetic energy)
in a regular D2 molecule.
 
The boson characteristics (which have been previously described in the
posting by W. Bernecky) enter the picture in terms of the probability of
the formation of such states, especially as N gets larger.
 
Assuming that (7.4.23) remains (approximately) valid, we can use it to
estimate the enhancement to fusion rates that is expected as deutrons
approach each other more closely.
 
Of course, all of this is a rather high level and heurtistic arguement.
Unfortunately the mathematics of N-body quantum interactions is extremely
complex (and at a level well beyond me).
 
 
THE FINAL POINT
 
is that quantum mechanics, at least in principle, allows the formation of
Bosinos without radically altering its basic premises.  Having identified
the formation of Bosinos as a working hypothesis, the next steps are to
look for experimental evidence and attempt to flesh-out the quantitative
details.
 
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 13:04:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
a smattering of stuff. The Pop. Sci. piece has already been mentioned here,
but not the Fortean Times one. I owe these to the vigilance of Prof. Bauer. I
thought Jerry Bishop was considered a sort of believer, so how come he
recommends Taubes' book? Tinsley clearly is, and renders the mystery Pd-block
explosion/burning - whatever happened - in F&P's lab as "... exploded with
sufficient force to make a hole four inches deep in the concrete floor". There
was little left of the Pd block... as we know - in fact, nothing. So was it an
explosion, or did this 4" hole "burn" into the concrete? I wouldn't have
expected the experiment to be sitting on the floor anyway; was it not in a
fume hood, well away from the floor? We'll never know, it has all been
carpeted over. (How about lifting that new carpet?). The Stringham work will
be interesting reading, when published. I have stayed out of the
sonoluminescence discussion, but it will now be definitely linked with cnf, it
seems.
 
The patents are no surprise, and I note that they correctly use "aBsorption"
now.
 
No surprises in the Golubnichii et al paper of 1991 either. I'd have called
that a negative but they (like some others have done) simply calculate an
upper limit to the fusion rate from the measly 2 proton events, that they also
saw in the zero-current control. Ah well.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 4-Aug-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 819
 
 
 
Papers: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golubnichii PI, Kayumov FF, Merzon GI, Petrii OA, Tsarev VA, Tsirlina GA;
Sov. Phys. - Lebedev Inst. Rep. (1991)(12) 6.
Orig. in Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. AN SSSR Fiz. Inst. Lebedeva (1991)(12) 41.
"Proton emission in low-temperature nuclear fusion".
** Detection of protons is easier than that of neutrons, so this fusion branch
is studied here, despite the small yield of protons, which are stopped within
30 micrometres in Pd. An electrolysis cell with 0.1M LiOD in heavy water and a
control cell with LiOH in light water were arranged such that the Pd film
cathode was the cell floor, beneath which was the detector, consisting of a
proportional counter (PC) and broad-gap track spark chamber (SC). This had a
2% efficiency and 4s dead time. In 8 series of measurements, lasting 1010 min
and using a current density of 31 mA/cm^2, 141 events were recorded, one every
7 min on average. Of these 141, 2 could be said to be coming from the heavy
water cell (the tracks point to their origin), the rest are cosmic rays. Even
these 2 could be cosmic noise. A 940 min control run with no current produced
again 1 ev per 7 min, 2 from the heavy and one from the light water cells. The
results set the upper limit for cnf at 10^-24 fus/pair/s.         Dec-91/
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents: file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mizuno T, Ikegami H (Tanaka Kikinzoku K.K.);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05 27,062, 23-Jul-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:262644 (1993).
"Continuous generation of extraordinary heat by cold nuclear fusion".
** "In continuous generation of extraordinary heat by cold nuclear fusion, a
Pd electrode used for P2O [sic] electrolysis is pretreated to have a
D-absorption-release cycle". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ikegami H, Mori K; (Tanaka Kikinzoku K.K.);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 04,301,790, 29-Mar-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 118:243215 (1993).
"Palladium for cold nuclear fusion".
** Pd used as a D absorber in cold nuclear fusion based on, e.g.,
electrolysis, gas absorption, or elec. discharge, is hardened Pd which is
cold-worked to decrease cross section by >= 70%".  (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentaries: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop J;                                          Popular Science Aug-93, 47.
"It ain't over till it's over... Cold Fusion".
** Written by the reporter who broke the news in 1989 in the Wall Street
Journal, this is an update of the cnf affair, giving the 4+ year old history.
Apart from the academic efforts in the area, the private enterprises that have
sprung out are also mentioned, such as Tom Droege's basement work, the
Clustron Inc. Co. with Mallove and Rothwell as principals, Harold Fox's
several enterprises and Japan's investments. Bishop writes that 4He has not
been found, citing as the sole exception Yamaguchi's work, and ignoring the
China Lake results. He recommends Taubes book.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tinsley C;                                      Fortean Times no.69 (1993) 23.
"Hot stuff".
** An up to date report of the cold fusion affair, more or less from a
positive point of view, with some doubtful bits. Tinsley concludes that solid
evidence is now in, and we should work on tuning the phenomenon, and that
shares in oil or electricity [sic] are a poor investment now. There is an
inset with hot-off-the-press news of one Roger Stringham, who is reported to
have induced cnf by ultrasound, soon to be formally reported.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Richard Kirk /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 12:22:27 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

As a Dactyl Deamon fan, I would like to express my puzzlement about this
recent topic of Boson condensation.  There are such things as macroscopic
wavefunctions.  I used to gaze through the clear strip at the side of my
cryostat at the liquid He inside to see how close my magnet was to quenching.
The surface was hard to spot - a lot like butane in a lighter.
 
We could argue there is a condensated state at higher temperatures for
adsorbed H and D atoms.  I don't know what the coupling forces are, but
what the heck - supercondictivity took something like four years to get
their story straight, and there are still nasties with amprphous materials
without well-defined Bloch states.  The binding energies would have to be
quite large, but that could be countered by reducing the dimensions to the
condensed state.  After all the delocalized pi-orbitals of aromatic
compounds is a sort of Bose condensation of electron pairs stable at room
temperatures.  There just might be a delocalized surface state, if you like.
I thought there might be high temperature superconductors, but I expected them
to be plastic filaments, which just goes to show you can't take my word
for anything.
 
Alright - just suppose and just suppose and you'll get there in the end.
But gets where?  Bose condensation (despite it's name) does contract
bosons into a point, or even a smaller volume - it is just an ordering
of the bosons within that volume.  If anything it makes the problem of
geting two nucleii close enough for fusion harder rather than easier (but
so little harder that there is not much difference).
 
Naah.  What you need is some sort of focussing effect somehere.  Perhaps
the D/T atoms travelling down the pipes of interstices can be somehow
focussed by the surrounding charges acting as an electrostatic lens, creating
local 'hot spots' where the probability of finding more than one D/T atom
is unusually high.  I don't really hold this idea seriously - the focussing
would be too small and too abberated, and we still need the MeV to get over
the Coulomb forces - but at least it is going in the right direction.
 
Maybe we do need to assume a Bose condensation, in which case I grovel,
apologise, go on my belly, and dust shall I eat; but I cannot really see
this high-tech shamanism getting us anywhere right now.
 
Really you don't need an explanation at all.  Look at the new high-temperature
superconductors.  They happened eighteen months(ish) after the Fleischmann
& Pons' experiment; they had no good explanations at the time; but they are
now a well-accepted part of Physics.  Gaze with envy at their cheap success.
 
Does anyone know why Fleichmann and Pons did their experiment in the first
place?  What reasons had they for supposing it might be worth trying?
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Apology to Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apology to Tom Droege
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 14:54:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My comments concerning CF calorimetry experiments were aimed at the
"Big Spenders" using millions of dollars over many years without
ever upgrading their experiments to go beyond measurements of "excess
enthalpy."  I don't see Tom Droege's work in the same light.  He has
worked to advance the state of the art of calorimetry, and he has
invested in a geiger counter.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Strong interaction chemistry
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Strong interaction chemistry
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 14:54:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites hasn't cleared up anything related to my doubts about the
Chubb theory.  It still seems to assert that the range of the strong
interaction gets magically enlarged such that the entire crystal lattice
becomes some form of dilute nuclear matter.  What is it that makes
this possible for the PdD lattice without it being something that occurs
in other systems of condensed matter.  Why not in salts with lots of
water of hydration, for example?  There are plenty of lattices made of
of bosons to be considered as possible candidates.  Why not in
solid deuterium?  If the Chubbs have not written down a Hamiltonian
for the dueteron-deuteron interaction in this state what does constitute
their theory?  I would also like to know how they treat the spin wave
function for the dueterium.  Do they assume that the system is ordered
in spin, and if so how did it get that way?  If the system is disordered
in spin it is very hard to connect to 4He way.  As a point of information
the strong interaction is very strongly spin dependent.  Of course
Mitchell will inform me that that applies only in other domains but not
in solids.  Before anyone gets to carried away with the idea of ordered
spins, I would suggest someone do an NMR measurement of deuterium in
palladium.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 13:51:10 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Readers of this group may be interested in the review of Taube's book
in The New Yorker (book reviews, near the back).  It appears in the
2 August issue, which may still be on your newstand.  (Cover is of a
man in wet swimming trunks reading a book in his library: "How to Swim".)
 
If the factual errors in the review reflect similar errors in the book,
quite a series of retractions or lawsuits may be in order.  At one point
the reviewer states that F&P did not have any evidence of neutrons at
the time of the news conference (OK, they did not, but they thought they
did) and implies that the Electrochemistry article was written after
the news conference.  Both are dead wrong, as even a cursory glance at
the title page of their first paper will tell you, although there is still
an open question about the energy scale on one figure.  At another point he
quotes Taubes as saying that Jones had been working on other kinds of cold
fusion and got the idea for using electrochemical cells from the F&P
proposal to the DOE.  I guess a notarized lab book isn't proof for him.
 
The review is interesting reading.  I do not think I will buy the book,
although it might become a collector's item if the publisher gets sued
and has to pull it off the shelves -- like the infamous National Lampoon
with the Mary Joe - Ted Kennedy - floating VW ad parody.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / John Cobb /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 5 Aug 1993 14:11:11 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1993Aug2.084743.2126@crosfield.co.uk> rak@crosfield.co.uk
(Richard Kirk) writes:
 
...
>Seriously though, I do wonder at some of these fusion programs.  The stated
>aim is always to provide nice, clean energy, and yet most of the energy from
>fusion comes out as a fast neutron and a gamma.  These are both highly
>penetrating forms of radiation that tend to make whatever they sink into
>radioactive.  Some of this can be used to breed more deuterium and tritium,
>but as a significant amount will get through 10 cms of Al or more, unless
>cold fusion produces no fast neutrons or gammas the structure of the reactor
>will end up a hot mess of radiation daughters that no-one wants in their
>back yard either.
 
Give the man a prize. You're right on target. For example, nominal
fusion reactor designs have electrical power outputs of 1000 Mega Watts.
This means that the total neutron power deposited on the first wall,
coils, yoke, blanket, etc will be 1300-1500 MW, just from thermodynamic
conversion considerations. This gives two big problems. First, things
get hot (radioactive). So you have to use ultra pure low activitation
materials. That is you induce radioativity in your reator from neutron
capture, therefore you should use materials that either have low
neutron cross-sections or whose neutron capture isotopes have short
half-life or both. Second, all of these neutrons will impact with
~ MeV energies. This means that the neutrons will cause serious damage
to the crystal lattice which will affect the ability of the materials
to withstand mechanical and thermal stresses. It may also affect the
resistance (in normal coils) and the critical current (in
superconducting coils). I think it is very likely that you will need to
crack these suckers open every 24 months or so to replace the first
wall, etc.
 
However, one thing you don't mention, is that fusion does not have
an unavoidable long-lived high level radioactive waste. That is, with
fission, you have so many percent of the reactions that produce
midrange isotopes with long half-lives. With fusion, you can design
your waste beforehand, and ultimately reduce it. One idea is to use
materials that decay very fast (such as copper) so that within a few
years the plant has cooled enough for humans to re-enter.
 
However, you are right fusion is not "clean" like a mountain spring.
I wouln't want to be in the enclosure during a shot. But all of this
discussion was prefaced on using the D-T fuel cycle. This is not the
only fuel cycle available. The one I work with is D-He3. In that case,
the fusion products are He4 and a proton. Since the proton is charged,
you can guide it with magnetic fields, and extract its energy directly
in a "Direct-Energy-Convertor". This increases total plant efficiency
(which will decrease thermal pollution) and decreases radioativity
dramatically.
 
D-He3 is not neutron free however. You get some D-D side reactions that
will produce a small amount of tritium. Then you will get some D-T
reactions which will give you some neutron power. For the Artemis reactor
study, the neutron power was estimated to be 5% of the total power for
a 2:1 deuterium to He3 mixture. So it is still a very hot machine, but
you will get more than an order of magnitude longer time before
component failure from neutron embrittlement. You will also get an
order of magnitude less neutron activation.
 
However, there is a price. D-He3 reactors will have to operate at higher
temperatures in order to ignited becuase He3 has a charge of +2 but
tritium is only +1. So they are harder to light, but burn cleaner. There
are also other fuel cycles that are even harder to ignite but even cleaner.
One example people like to use is p + B11 --> 3He4 + 22.4 MeV. There's no
direct neutron production, and there is no side reaction that produces
neutrons. The only radiation will be from damage from stopping the He4
which can be controlled (presumably).
 
The problem is you have to design a reactor that can burn these fuels
and you have to have a supply of them. Current tokamaks are such low
\beta (ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure) that when you heat
them up high enough to burn D-He3, they will cool excessively from
synchrotron radiation. There are other ideas though, like makeing the
first wall a synchrotron reflector, or using a high \beta tokamak, or
using another reactor concept like a field reversed configuration that
is intrinsically high \beta. Also He3 is very scare on earth.
 
That's the long answer. I guess the short answer is that while it
is an unavoidable problem, there are many possible ways to address
it to reduce the problems in the future.
 
-john .w cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Date: 4 Aug 93 16:55:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

August 4, 1993
Dear Colleagues,
 
I have received a number of excellent responses from the posting about ongoing
BYU experiments on possible nuclear emissions from deuterided wires:  Thank
you.  A number of these came by private e-mail; below I respond to Chuck Sites'
public posting.
 
Aside:
I think I'll reserve use of the term "cold fusion" to excess-heat claims
as most people seem to be doing now.  As many of you know, our work shows no
support to or even justifiable connection with such claims.  "Cold fusion"
previously meant "muon-catalyzed fusion" -- now even that community shuns the
term!  BTW, Jed and Mitchell, the evidence for "cold fusion" heat is not so
solid as you would have us believe in your flood of words and chutzpah.  One
example (since Jed says there are none):  Mel Miles of China Lake claims:
"...the electrodes in that cell never became exposed to the gas phase, thus
recombination could not  have been a factor in the measured excess heat."
(Miles letter to BYU president R. Lee, 17 June 1993)
Miles assumption regarding recombination is dead wrong:  we have demonstrated
recombination as a major factor even when the electrodes are completely covered
by electrolyte.  And I (and others) have at length explained other errors in
that experiment, along with errors/major questions regarding xs heat claims by
Takahashi, Mills, Notoya, Yamaguchi, Srinivasan, P&F, even McKubre.
 
You guys cannot say that we are not reading the papers and
providing critical comment.  I agree with Tom Droege:  claims of xs heat
production are simply *not compelling*.  Tom and others have tried to explain
what is needed for compelling data.  Your pretense that these claims are
already compelling is not satisfactory.  No way.
 
Gosh, I'm off on that tangent again.  A bit more:  we watched the Canadian BC
video on "The secret life of cold fusion" yesterday during our group meeting.
Notes:  Pons is shown in the 1989 press conference as stating clearly that P&F
had found a new form of "room-temperature fusion"--  Fusion, not shrunken
hydrogen atoms (Mills & Farrell) or shrunken hydrogen molecules (Vigier).
Also, Pons was asked *when* a 10 kW demonstration device would be ready -- and
he offered 'by the end of the year' (1993).  OK -- now we have a deadline.
Let's watch for that end-1993 demo, gentlemen (and Debbie).  But don't hold
your breath.  Will the "reactor" demonstration be displayed at the meeting in
Hawaii in December 1993?  Will X-rays be produced?  Think I'll bring along my
portable X-ray spectrometer just in case (if I go).  ( ;^)
 
Now back to the "other" business (possible low-level nuclear emissions):
In article <1993Jul31.201917.2435@coplex.coplex.com>,
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
> Hi folks,
>
>    In Steve's latest posting, he reveals some the results from his
> latest experiments.  It's a testament to Steve's openness and
> thoroughness as a scientist of the highest caliber to post his
> results here and call for comments, constructive criticisms and
> ideas.
 
Whoa! (Thanks.)
>
>     Steve's latest results are indeed most interesting.  The
> statistical correlation of higher neutron counts in both the multiples
> and singles from the forced outgassing of D look very convincing.  One
> of the interesting things about palladium is it's fairly ductile even
> after loading, and with the application of heating via high voltage, a
> surface layer of deuterium should be expelled.  Because of the volume
> change at the surface this should allow the surface Pd lattice to
> relax creating a barrier to further D expulsion.  This model would
> then be somewhat similar to Yamaguchi et al, as Steve noted, only
> instead of sealing the loaded Pd with a gold layer invitio after PdDx
> loading as Yamaguchi does, the Pd would naturally seal itself.  I
> would be interested in knowing how long it takes between the
> application of heating current, and the first signs of higher than
> background counts.
 
The levels are still at such a low level that several hours of data-taking are
needed to identify a signal of significance.  This is another reason for
seeking a larger signal rate -- so that we can ascertain time correlations
if any.  If Bernecky/Bollinger are correct, we might be able to enhance yields
by sitting at certain temperatures.  I'm preparing to try this in about 2
weeks.
 
> This might roughly correlate to the depth of
> deuteron free metal skin, and the build up of deuteron gas at the
> grain boundaries near the PdD(x) loading phase change. Within the
> general concept of a surface layer barrier to further outgassing,
> there is the potential for a significant build up of D's under the
> surface skin perhaps around grain boundaries that may lead to plastic
> fracturing near the surface.  In one estimate I made, there should be
> an 8 to 1 ratio of electrons to deuterons in a fracture plasma, making
> a highly screened fusion a likely candidate.  This might also give the
> multiples you are seeing.
 
Multiple-neutron events would seem to point to a transient condition in the
deuterided metal all right.  Let's keep this idea in mind.  But remember Dick
Blue's objection to fracto-fusion of months ago:  the electrons will accelerate
preferentially over the deuterons.  Hear you speak of a "fracture plasma" --
care to elaborate?
 
>  Steve, have you had anyone look at the
> surface by SEM or other high resolution imaging techniques?  That
> might be revealing, specifically since your using gas loading and
> don't have to worry about the electrolyte contaminating the surface
> as in electrolysis.
>
Right-- we haven't looked yet.  But I can tell you that the wires show damage
by visual inspection.  One Pd wire showed filaments a few mm long coming off
the wire (0.1 mm diam. wire).  These filaments readily broke off the central
wire during (careful) handling.
 
>    The other possibility is that a hole, or a tunnel develops in the
> Pd lattice between the higher D load phase and the surface.  This
> might allow pairs of D ions to defuse to the surface, but with a
> periodic potential acting on the pair they move to the surface.
> This might cause a resonance across the pair that might exceed the
> Coulumb barrier.  Also there maybe a plasma pinch toward the
> surface that may cause counts.
>
>    In both of these schemes S. Koonin's fundamental theory applies.
> That is the application of fluctuations on the Coulumb barrier
> penetration factors will enhance CF rates.  There may also be
> applications of the D band state if a surface potential collapses
> the D bands ala the Chubb's theory, and other nuclear band state
> ideas being developed after the revelation of Nieminen's work on
> hydrogen delocalization. The Chubb's theory is complex an it would
> be interesting to hear their ideas on your results.
 
Brainstorming is a good place to start.  Now the numbers, please.  And for us
experimentalists, theoretical-based guidelines are appreciated.  Bernecky's
suggested temperatures are easy enough to test, and Terry's suggestion of
single crystals could be tried also.  Any other ideas?
>
> Really interesting results Steve.  Thanks for sharing them with us
> at this early stage in your research.
>
> Have Fun,
> Chuck Sites
> chuck@coplex.com
 
Thanks, Chuck.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
(aka, the Lone Ranger.  Thanks, Terry -- I had a good laugh from your post on
this.)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Aug4.164543.820@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Aug4.164543.820@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Aug 93 16:56:58 -0600

cancel <1993Aug4.164543.820@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / John George /  Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magic temperatures for bose condensation?
Date: 5 Aug 93 17:54:45 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

While Tom Droege has not ruled out the possiblity that his 'blips'
are experimental artifacts, he has had some interesting things happen
at the predicted temperature. Which raises the question: Why does
the 'blip' occur at the predicted temperature and not just anywhere
if it's JUST another far-fetch? Interesting. Exciting!
 
I hope there are further 10K-20K (joule) fun-runs in store for Tom.
Who knows, Tom may break out with some Megajoules (like the Hope Diamond).
I would imagine an multi-MJ event would be very hard to write off as
Tom's imagination. I am sure he would tell the world how it was done.
 
Something MAY be happening, it MAY be new and wonderful. But it COULD BE
just gas (un-recombined or marsh, of course). I hope for the new and
wonderful, but I want to find out if Tom just has gas. (grin)
 
I like the idea that Tom is 'walking the walk' AND sharing his experiments
with all of us. We (and I include myself) can all get tied up in positions
on cold-whateveritmaybe and forget the just plain fun of science down in
Tom's basement. I have forgotten in the past and have made a promise to
myself to remember the fun part in all of this. If I ever get out Chicago
way I'll stop in and hopefully get a look around. If I lived closer, I
know I'd be hanging out down there in the basement with Tom.
 
My son and I went out to see Nolan Ryan pitch his last game in Oakland
and were part of the 42,000 fans who gave him a standing ovation and
ROARED when he tipped his hat. He had to come out a second time and make
a curtain call. In Tom Droege's case, I stand and applaud too.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 14:37:17 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <23p7iiINNivd@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> No nuclear reaction has ever been observed or theoretically predicted
> to get rid of MeV's worth of energy without somehwhere, somehow, creating
> concomitant levels of penetrating radiation...
 
While I like what Matt was saying here, I don't think it would be completely
fair to skip over this one:
 
   2 p + e --> d + neutrino
 
In this rarest of rare three-particle stellar fusion reacion (it's 200-300
times less frequent than the already astronomically difficult PP reaction),
my best recollection is that the d formed is left _only_ with recoil energy
from the launching of the massive neutrino -- there are no direct photon
emissions.  Something like 99.9999..(?)% of the energy is instead carried
off by the humongous and extremely hard-to-detect neutrino.  I did some
calculations on it once, and my best recollection was that the remaining
energy of the d high-tailing it in the opposite direction was about one or
two orders of magnitude more energetic than the hottest chemical reactions
one could propose.  Still doggone hot by normal standards, but enormously
lower than any other nuclear reaction of which I've ever heard.
 
This was discussed extensively in this group about 3 years ago.  I recall
John White and others whose names I don't immediately recall participating.
The interest, of course, was to try to get a light-water reaction that
produced low energy output and extremely inconspicuous deuterium as its
final output.
 
The main problems were:
 
  1) PEP is _tremendously_ more difficult than reactions such as d + d,
 
  2) PEP is swamped by other branches (esp. PP) that would utterly hide
     its "cleaness" -- unless, of course, you somehow "select" PEP with
     utter and total specificity.
 
  3) It doesn't match the claims (then more popular!) of "D20 + Pd heat"
     that assume that _d_ is the item consumed.  Because so much energy
     is dumped to the neutrino, one of the superb ironies of PEP is that
     it would munch down a lot of H in a hurry, which should make reaction
     rates pretty sensitive to D/H ratios.  Someone (I don't recall who
     anymore) made some calculations indicating that this did not match
     up very well to the claims made at that time.
 
So while I _almost_ agree with the statement that no nuclear reaction gives
chemical heat, PEP requires some special consideration in such an (otherwise
quite solid) elimination argument.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:09:12 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

In article <1993Aug4.225105.14259@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1993Jul30.220629.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>Cold Fusion is dead? Must not be, if popular science has an article on it..
>It's not dead, it's just fallen into the _Chariots of the Gods_ zone,
>which is just west of the Bermuda Triangle zone and the Face on Mars
>zone.
 
Or, if you like Monty Python, "Its not dead --- but its coughing up blood."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Date: 5 Aug 1993 15:28:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CB9Lx7.KAo@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>   BTW, I wish I had more time for "Through the Looking Glass" but
>     science and engineering take a lot of time.
 
Why do you insist on making this so easy for me?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:20:13 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica by the Sea

In article <1993Aug04.164822.19201@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>I bought and read Taubes' book BAD SCIENCE, The Short Life and Weird
>Times of Cold Fusion, and thought some comments might be in order.
 
I heard Taubes interviewed on Public Radio. Although I am in the
skeptic's camp, I got the impression that Taubes is primarily a
jounalist selling a book. I think he took the position that "I am
going to trash cold fusion" and closed his mind. He was also, how can
I put it? "ungentlemanly" in his description of several people who in
my opinion have been honestly trying to do their best -- I took an
intense dislike to Taubes as a result and would not buy his book even
if it is remaindered.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: 5 Aug 93 15:03:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <CB9Fy0.LG1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> The Astaldi work concerns banding, not bose condensation, of a fermion.
> And delocalization can be considered in an electronic sense, not in the
> sense that the nucleus is is smeared all over the lattice.
 
The tunneling of H in palladium and other metals is well documented.  It is
a non-classical effect that involves real movement of nuclei through the
lattice, and cannot be explained as an electronic effect only.
 
Tunneling cannot occur unless you have non-zero wavefunction amplitudes at,
multiple sites, which I can only assume is what you mean by "smearing."
 
So yes Dale, lightweight nuclei very definitely _do_ "smear" in the lattice
if by that term you mean that their wavefunctions have appreciable non-zero
amplitudes at more than one vacancy site.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: 5 Aug 93 15:14:47 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Aug5.122227.4717@crosfield.co.uk>
rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) writes:
 
> Does anyone know why Fleichmann and Pons did their experiment in the first
> place?  What reasons had they for supposing it might be worth trying?
 
Well, they _do_ appear to have been familiar with earlier published work
by one Steven Jones of BYU that proposed nuclear reactions in the solid
state.  Dieter Britz and Steve Jones have both made some interesting points
about that in this group, and gave the references (which are now offline
for me, so I can't quote them).
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Planck delocalization vs. dispersive delocalization
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Planck delocalization vs. dispersive delocalization
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 17:28:10 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Aug3.194332.23650@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@asl.dl.nec.com (Yours Truly) writes:
 
> To understand why this is, first notice that Planck's uncertainty principle
> guarantees that particles with delocalized wavefunctions MUST be highly
> mobile, since delocalization can occur only if the momentum of the particle
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> has an extremely precise value.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Oh poodle-dip.  Mitchell Swartz comments did in fact cause me to stop and
consider what I said there.  I stick to my assertion about mobility, but
the underlined statement is not correct.  You see, there are two different
types of wavefunctions "delocalization," and I overlooked one of them.
 
The following is intended only for those of you who a) have some QM back-
ground, and  b) find this sort of issue interesting.  You will not find any
great Secrets of Palladium Anomalies in the discussion below!
 
.....
 
An electron with this gaussian wavefunction:
 
                                  _ _
                               _-     -_
                         _ _ -           - _ _
 
                             <-- 1 Ang -->
 
 
Will about a second later look roughly like this gaussian function:
 
                                 _   _
                           _ -           - _
               _   _   -                       -   _   _
 
                       <-------- 100 m -------->
 
The momentum uncertainty for both of these is exactly the _same_.  Granted
there is quite a bit of said uncertainty given the small size of the first
wavepacket, but the range of momenta in the wavefunction doesn't change
over time.  The rapid spreading of the wavefunction is instead a result of
dispersion of the original momentum harmonics of the Angstrom wavepacket.
 
Now you can with some decent justification call the second of these two
forms a "delocalized" wavefunction, as an electron whose wavefunction
covers an entire football is just not, er, very _localized_!  And so you
cannot claim (as I did) that delocalization of a wavefunction _must_ entail
a commensurate increase in the precision of its momentum -- the momentum
precision remained invariant as the wavefunction grew.
 
Stated another way, Planck's constant defines a _minimum_ relationship
between location and momentum.  It says that if you start pushing the
momentum accuracy very, very hard, the wavefunction _must_ at some point
begin to extend over larger and larger regions of space.  But this does
not prevent some wavefunctions from jolly well spreading out in space for
other reasons, such as (most commonly) dispersion of momentum harmonics.
 
Planck delocalization requires the formation of a generally sinusoidal
(e^[ix] actually) wavepacket whose number of wavelengths is proportional
to accuracy of its momentum value.  Dispersive delocalization is less
structured (e.g., it could simply be a "fading" gaussian), does not affect
momentum accuracy in any way, and is in general much more "classical" in
its overall behavior.
 
[Sidenote: In fact, John Bell in _Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum
Mechanics_ shows how dispersive wavefunction spreading of an electron in
free space gives the same result as a classical analysis of ordinary
uncertainty of how the particle was "launched."  If that kind of analysis
seems a bit unusual to you, you might keep in mind that John Bell was
apparently a bit of a closet Pilot Waver, and thus was rather fond of
problems in which a "real" particle seemed to travel in a fairly ordinary
way inside of an equally real but separate "wave" envelope.]
 
So I should have been more precise when I said "delocalization."  I was
in fact assuming _Planck_ delocalization, not dispersive delocalization,
when I made that assertion about the necessity of delocalized wavefunctions
being mobile.  The reason is simple enough:  the lattice places rather
severe constraints on the available modes of dispersion, so that pure
dispersive delocalization of the type seen in free-space electrons (or
hydrogen atoms for that matter) would seem extremely unlikely.  As with
electron modes in a metal crystal, you should instead get precise momenta
of the Planck (sinusoidal wavefunction) delocalization type.
 
....
 
Summary: Es macht nichts.  If the wavefunction grows to covers many atoms
(whether by Planck or dispersive growth), you _will_ unavoidably get higher
mobility by the (psi psi*) probability density interpretation.
 
                        Sort of talking to myself online,
                        Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / R Schroeppel /  Water properties near 40C - questions
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water properties near 40C - questions
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 18:50:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith) posts some interesting
information from a 1935 French paper by M. Magat, about discontinuities &
jumps in various properties of water, near 40C.
 
>   Figure 4 showed minimums and maximums in the ``molecular heat'' curves
    near 40C.
    Figure 5 showed an anomaly in the ``coefficient of dilation'' near 40C.
 
Are these specific heat and density?  I notice the phase change is called
"second or third order", which may mean no particular change in these two
properties.
 
Has the work been confirmed?  It's sufficiently odd that I'd expect it
to be common knowledge by now if it's true.  Also, we might expect to
design interesting sorts of gadgets that use the physical effects.  The
variation in index of refraction could make a nice fever thermometer.
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 18:50:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
 
Here is what my dictionary says:
 
4) an endowed, self-governing association of scholars incorporated within a
university as at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England.  5) a
similar corporation outside a university.
 
We are endowed.  Had you all not noticed that you do not pay any bills for
this?  (Some do pay some connect costs, but little of the real network cost.)
Sometimes our governments do things right.  If enough bureaucrats pass enough
bills spending enough money, then from time to time one of them will do some
real good.
 
We are clearly self governing.  Reasonably clear thinking presentations are
welcomed.  The real nut cases are discouraged.  For the most part a very
friendly environment for anyone willing to present ideas.
 
The mail arriving here today sure looks like the deliberations of an
association of scholars to me.  We have thoughtful presentations by Chuck
Sites, John Logajan, and Bill Page.  There are rebuttals of various ideas by
Dale Bass, Richard Kirk, and Dick Blue.  Then there are information gatherers
at work Patrick Smith, Dieter Britz and Joshua Levy digging out interesting
things and passing them on to all of us.
 
Who knows, we may some day give degrees.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 19:48:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <23r8uu$jb0@agate.berkeley.edu>
    Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
 Richard ("P.E.") Schultz  (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
 
==rpes  "Why do you insist on making this so easy for me?"
 
         OUR EIGHT BEST REASONS FOR MAKING IT EASY FOR
            RICHARD SCHULTZ TO RESPOND SCIENTIFICALLY
 
  1. People who attack on an ad hominem basis usually have: NO FACTS
       We dont think that there are any either.
 
  2. "Peanuts Envy" appears to be logic-impaired and needs encouragement.
 
  3. Non-scientists should always be encouraged to participate.
 
  4. Some of us still have hope for Berkeley and its denizens.
 
  5. Refuting most of the stuff from the skeptics has been so easy, that
    it would only be fair to offer an equivalent response.
 
  6. We would like to see clarification about what you are implying,
      from a scientific sense (to the degree that such might exist).
 
  7. Jellyfish sting but rarely present a good thesis or midterm exam.
 
  8. The Golden Rule.
 
 
            Best wishes.
                                         Patiently waiting,
 
                                             Mitchell
 
         -----------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
   All the points will naturally elude them"
 
            John Voci ('93 on the Skeptics of Cold Fusion)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 19:17:00 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <01H1E1X1YM9U9POXYN@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> ... There is an inset with hot-off-the-press news of one Roger Stringham,
> who is reported to have induced cnf by ultrasound, soon to be formally
> reported.
 
Awk.  A new acronym is _really_ needed here, as every version of the sono
idea I've seen (including my poor musings) has been based 100% on ordinary,
garden variety "hot" fusion -- only in very, very small quantities within
an otherwise cold medium.  Hot spot or hot-in-cold or _something_, but not
"cnf", I hope.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Galaxy beware, the Hole will get there!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Galaxy beware, the Hole will get there!
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 19:18:20 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <01H1E1X1YM9U9POXYN@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> ... Tinsley clearly is [a sort of believer], and renders the mystery
> Pd-block explosion/burning - whatever happened - in F&P's lab as
> "... exploded with sufficient force to make a hole four inches deep in
> the concrete floor". There was little left of the Pd block... as we know
> - in fact, nothing.  So was it an explosion, or did this 4" hole "burn"
> into the concrete? I wouldn't have expected the experiment to be sitting
> on the floor anyway; was it not in a fume hood, well away from the floor?
> We'll never know, it has all been carpeted over. (How about lifting that
> new carpet?)...
 
This is serious, folks.  Very, VERY serious.  As you can see from the
following Precise Mathematical Chart, the exponentially growing size of
the Pons and Fleischmann Hole in the Lab Floor threatens the existence
not only of Utah, the USA, and earth...  but also of the ENTIRE GALAXY!!!
 
 
                       MATHEMTICALLY PRECISE CHART
            (CHOCK-FULL OF POLYNOMIAL CURVE-FITTING EXPERTISE)
 
 
                                                                     *
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            *
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                   *
 
 
 
 
                                          *
 
 
                                 *
 
                        *
      _        *
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
     Tiny     Hole    Ankle   Lab All   Utah    USA All   Earth   Galaxy All
    Widdle   Maybe   Twister   Gone!  All Gone!  Gone!  All Gone!   Gone!
     Hole      1"      4"
 
    (Time,  (Loose  (Tinsley   (Poly-   (Poly-   (Poly-   (Poly-   (Poly-
    circa    net     report,   nomial   nomial   nomial   nomial   nomial
     May     talk,    Aug       fit,     fit,     fit,     fit,     fit,
    1989)    1991)    1993)    1995)    1997)    1999)    2001)    2003)
 
 
(On the bright side, this DOES get President Clinton off the deficit hook...)
 
 
                                }=-)> ishly,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / R Schroeppel /  misc things to look for
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: misc things to look for
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:04:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since Steve Jones has solicited brainstorming, I suggest looking
for the following, on the theory that "maybe it's got something
to do with new particles":  check for correlations with time-of-day
and sidereal time.  (Both are hard to do:  There's always some
correlation with the natural day cycle, due to thermal variation,
vibration from personnel, etc.  And sidereal time is close to
solar for experiments that last only a couple of months.)
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / W Eldridge /  Re: Fusion Digest 1211 (Status #4 Cell 4A6) & Boson Collapse
     
Originally-From: bill@alamut.cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1211 (Status #4 Cell 4A6) & Boson Collapse
Date: 5 Aug 1993 12:25:26 -0700
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

I think if we could get the United Neutrons in to
help, we could prevent the Boson Collapse.  Meanwhile,
they're under a continuous barrage of Serbons, and
it breaks my heart to see the Unified Field Theory
under such pressure.  But this is the New World Order
for us - the Cold War has been replaced by Cold Fusion.
--
 Bill Eldridge            bill@cognet.ucla.edu     310-206-3960 (3987 fax)
 More! Better! Faster!    (80's motto)                x x   x   x
 Hot, Toxic, and Shallow! (90's motto)               x  xx    x  x
 Free Rorschach Sig!      (interpretation extra)      x xx xx  x
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnEldridge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Bubbles trigger anomalies
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bubbles trigger anomalies
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 16:53:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9308050548.AA01858@sleepy.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@sleepy.network.com> wrote:
>It occurs to me that H or D loading into Pd might be inherently unstable
>under most common geometries.  This conclusion is based upon the premise
>that the Pd surface will unload gas when ohmic contact is lost with the
>surrounding electrolyte.
 
     Absolutely.  I've been calling this a 'breathing instability'.
     There seems to be some evidence for this in both McKubre's and
     P&F's papers.  Look at the voltage traces right before 'events'.
     There is usually a sudden drop.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Henry Bauer /       The College
     
Originally-From: BAUERH@VTVM1.BITNET (Henry Bauer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      The College
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:55:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re Tom Droege's suggestion that the sc.physics.fusion activity constitutes a
college: Historians of science use the term "invisible college" for precisely
this sort of thing, a group of interested poeple interacting on (a) topic(s)
of mutual interest but without formal institutional cohesion.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBAUERH cudfnHenry cudlnBauer cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Date: 5 Aug 1993 22:50:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CBAxoG.Ku8@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
> Richard ("P.E.") Schultz  (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>==rpes  "Why do you insist on making this so easy for me?"
>
>         OUR EIGHT BEST REASONS FOR MAKING IT EASY FOR
>            RICHARD SCHULTZ TO RESPOND SCIENTIFICALLY
 
You seem to have missed the point.  What I meant was, why do you jump up
and down screaming "Flame me! Flame me!"?
 
>  1. People who attack on an ad hominem basis usually have: NO FACTS
>       We dont think that there are any either.
 
What I said that started you on this rampage was that you appeared to not
know the meanings of the words "penultimate" or "fenestration".  I still
have no evidence that you have since learned their meanings.  I then said that
the term "neutronpenic" makes no sense.  Which it doesn't.  Apparently, "ad
hominem" is another term whose definition you need to learn.
 
>  "Peanuts Envy" appears to should always be still have hope its denizens
>  Refuting stuff from the so easy, only be fair equivalent response
>  would like to what you are scientific sense to such might exist
>  rarely present a midterm exam.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow. . .
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
P.S.  Ah'm just a dumb good ol' boy.  Maybe you could explain to little ol'
me about the principle of Conservation of Momentum?
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 00:22:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <23s2se$rmr@agate.berkeley.edu>
    Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
 Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
== "You seem to have missed the point.  What I meant was, why do you jump up
==    and down screaming "Flame me! Flame me!"?
 
  Richard, that is not what was said, was it?
 
   What was said was:
 
=ms       "The production of tritium,  the production of helium-4
=ms    linked with excess heat, and the occasional demonstration of
=ms    neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support.
=ms
=ms    "The fact that these phenomena occur by several methods in many
=ms    different laboratories also are further support.
=ms
=ms    "The autoradiography of active electrodes is further support.
=ms
=ms    Do you have any real evidence to dismiss any of this?"
 
   Your attention is directed to the fact that the prose was
    seeking science, not flames.  Right?    Any comment?
 
   To which you replied:
 
=rs   "I also have refrained from
=rs responding to any of your "science" [sic] posts because as far as I am
=rs concerned it's a completely pointless activity.  Your ignorance
=rs of science, both the details of the physics involved and how science is
=rs actually done by scientists, is so staggering that (blah blah) "
 
   Where is the science to dispute the "science[sic]"?  Apparently you
    were just using time-tested "brick-toss-tactics"?
 
 
=  "What I said that started you on this rampage was that you appeared to not
= know the meanings of the words "penultimate" or "fenestration"."
 
  Incorrect.  I wasted my time posting the explanation of the words,
    but like the "skeptic" at the archery-fest, you "missed the point".
 
                 Best wishes.
 
                             Still waiting for your explanation,
 
                                                Mitchell
 
         -----------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
   All the points will naturally elude them"
 
            John Voci ('93 on the Skeptics of Cold Fusion)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 00:47:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Aug4.165537.821@physc1.byu.edu>
  Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) wrote:
 
=sj   "Cold fusion"
=sj previously meant "muon-catalyzed fusion" -- now even that community shuns
=sj the term!"
 
   Steve, what is your earliest reference of the use of the term
      'cold fusion'.   Are you saying that you were the first to use it?
 
 
=sj   "BTW, Jed and Mitchell, the evidence for "cold fusion" heat is not so
=sj solid as you would have us believe in your flood of words and chutzpah."
 
   You have not answered the questions in the past posts, have you?
   The "words" were based upon reported evidence, most of it merely
    dismissed by "hand-wave" and then "rubber-stamping".  Though that
    is a politically possible move, it is scientifically empty.  So
    we look forward to a serious response to the papers (and other comments
    below)
 
    What do you mean by "chutzpah"?  Something you recognize?
 
 
=sj  "One example...  Mel Miles of China Lake claims:
=sj "...the electrodes in that cell .... thus
=sj recombination could not  have been a factor in the measured excess heat."
=sj ... Miles assumption regarding recombination is dead wrong:
=sj  we have demonstrated
=sj recombination as a major factor even when the electrodes are
completely =sj covered by electrolyte."
 
   Do you have a citation for that published paper?   Does your measured
    "recombination" completely cover the "measured excess heat"?
                   \/\/\/\/\/\/
     I have asked you this before and received no response.
 
=sj  "And I (and others) have at length explained other errors in
=sj that experiment, along with errors/major questions regarding
=sj xs heat claims by
=sj Takahashi, Mills, Notoya, Yamaguchi, Srinivasan, P&F, even McKubre."
 
  Explaining the existence of an error does not prove that that error
    completely covers the quantity of the measured findings.
  For example:  the error could be small.
 
  These people did a lot of experiments with a lot of products that
   you are attempting to dismiss with no clear basis, at least to
   date as shown here.
 
      You have been asked several times here to list
    these claimed errors which purportedly dismiss all these papers
    (and more presumably) along with an estimate of the magnitude
    of the error.
 
    Then we can compare the observed findings with the range of the sum
      of these errors.  OK?
 
           Best wishes.
 
                                                   Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / John Logajan /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 03:40:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Had you all not noticed that you do not pay any bills for this?
 
Which seems like a good opportunity to once again thank Scott Hazen Mueller
for publishing e-mailed Fusion Digests (and providing a bi-directional
e-mail/usenet gateway) for the last four years.  Since *anyone* can
access e-mail while usenet access remains a rarer priviledge, Scott
is providing an invaluable service to many many people.  Thanks Scott.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  More questions
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More questions
Subject: More questions
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 04:06:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <23sgs1$1om@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: More questions
Richard Schultz  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)) wrote:
 
 
=rs ".. with the fracture hypothesis, there seems to be a way of checking.
=rs That would be to take your Pd sample and slice off a piece and look at it
=rs under an electron microscope.Compare the starting material with Pd samples
=rs that have and have not shown anomalous heat events.  Has anyone tried this
=rs experiment?"
 
  Quite a bit of work in the literature.  For example see
  "Observaton of Heavy Elements produced During Explosive Cold Fusion"
  T. Matsumoto and K. Kurokawa,  Fusion Technology, vol 20, 11/1991 p.323.
 
  Fig. 6 therein does show an SEM image revealing
 a surface where Dr. Matsumoto then proceeded with energy dispersive
  X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) at the marked sites.
 
  For those interest, and
   who can decode the UUENCODED GIF image of figure 6, it is
   in the next posting ("More questions - Pt2 GIF image)
 
 
                 Best wishes.
 
                     Still waiting for your explanation(s),
 
                                                Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Richard Schultz /  Tell me why
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tell me why
Date: 6 Aug 1993 00:56:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CBBBJ3.I2G@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>   You have not answered the questions in the past posts, have you?
 
I know that I am not alone in finding Swartz's postings a constant source
of excess humor.  Part of the reason, of course, is his constant refusal
to answer questions asked of him, but demands that others answer his questions.
Add to that his constant use of quotations out of context and concatenation
of comments made by others with posts to which they were not originally
addressing.  Then top it off with his claim that any post attacking his
claim is an "ad hominem" argument followed by his calling anyone who dares
to disagree with him any number of childish names.
 
Some people would probably add his inability to realize when he is making a
fool of himself, but I find that more sad than funny.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
P.S.  So when are *you* going to answer *my* request that you explain the
concept of conservation of momentum?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:03:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01H1E1X1YM9U9POXYN@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>Tinsley C;                                      Fortean Times no.69 (1993) 23.
>"Hot stuff".
>** An up to date report of the cold fusion affair, more or less from a
>positive point of view, with some doubtful bits. Tinsley concludes that solid
>evidence is now in, and we should work on tuning the phenomenon, and that
>shares in oil or electricity [sic] are a poor investment now. There is an
>inset with hot-off-the-press news of one Roger Stringham, who is reported to
>have induced cnf by ultrasound, soon to be formally reported.
 
     I suppose this was because Stringham was having difficulty getting
     his work mentioned in Women's Wear Daily or Ladies Home Journal.
 
     Personally, I think frog falls induce fusion, and cancer too
     (oops, wrong group).
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Richard Schultz /  Follow the bouncing ball
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Follow the bouncing ball
Date: 6 Aug 1993 01:33:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CBBACu.FCL@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
rs>> "You seem to have missed the point.  What I meant was, why do you jump up
rs>>    and down screaming "Flame me! Flame me!"?
 
ms>  Richard, that is not what was said, was it?
 
That's what you have said in every post so far in this thread.  Maybe not in
those words, but clearly enough for anyone who is listening.
 
ms>   Your attention is directed to the fact that the prose was
ms>    seeking science, not flames.  Right?    Any comment?
 
1.  All I said (for the third time at least now) was that you used the words
    "penultimate" and "fenestration" in ways that I couldn't understand, viz.:
 
rs> "What I said that started you on this rampage was that you appeared to not
rs> know the meanings of the words "penultimate" or "fenestration"."
 
ms>  Incorrect.  I wasted my time posting the explanation of the words,
ms>    but like the "skeptic" at the archery-fest, you "missed the point".
ms>   Where is the science to dispute the "science[sic]"?  Apparently you
ms>    were just using time-tested "brick-toss-tactics"?
 
Not quite.  What you said was
 
ms>>>  Therefore the penultimate fenestration of your other specious
ms>>>  and vacuous comments is left to others.
 
and then
 
ms>> penultimate (L. paenultima - almost last)
ms>>      meaning:  a true-Blue skeptic would not be stopped by logical
ms>>      arguement [sic].
ms>>
ms>> fenestration [L. fenestra  - window like opening] indicating also
ms>>      the act of perforating, or the condition of being perforated.
ms>>      meaning:  most of his arguments are like a big balloon ....
 
Now it so happens that "penultimate" and "fenestration" are real English
words that already have meanings.  They are not the meanings you attribute to
them.
 
Those are just facts, and independent of any other content (so to speak) of
your posts.  I am always wary of indiscriminate use of induction, but still,
it seems to me that if a person goes to great length to use Latinate words
that he doesn't understand; that he cannot construct a coherent English
sentence; that he cannot address any issue raised against him without
name calling; well, then maybe one can question his abilities in areas where
more subtle reasoning skills are called for.
 
2.  Since you insist, I will give a "scientific" example.  You keep claiming
that "cold fusion" must be nuclear in origin, although it looks like even
P&F have backed away from that claim.  Steve Jones (inter alia) gave a cogent
explanation of why nuclear reactions in a solid *must* create high energy
radiation.  You have yet to present any response to this criticism except to
wave a magic wand that makes physics go away.  Another example is that
d+d fusion is expected to produce copius quantities of neutrons -- copius
enough that anyone in the vicinity (including me who was there at the time)
should have been pretty much killed.  Your response?  Cold fusion is
"neutronpenic."  And what is "neutronpenic"?  Bad Latin for "it doesn't
produce neutrons."  This is called arguing in a circle, something that Isaac
Asimov once described as a favorite pastime of the intellectually feeble.
 
3.  So I'll ask again:  could you please explain the concept of conservation
of momentum to those of us who have trouble with it?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: 6 Aug 1993 01:37:25 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
:
: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) says:
: >For example, explain why carbon nuclei in a diamond don't bose condense.
:
: Without doing the math, I suspect that the wavelenghts of carbon nuclei
: are much shorter than atomic seperation even at the lowest of temperatures.
 
How are these wavelengths computed?  If you don't like carbon, are there
any waxy solids with lots of hydrogens in a row?
 
: --
: -- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.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:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: 6 Aug 1993 01:42:26 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) writes:
: Really you don't need an explanation at all.  Look at the new high-temperature
: superconductors.  They happened eighteen months(ish) after the Fleischmann
: & Pons' experiment; they had no good explanations at the time; but they are
: now a well-accepted part of Physics.  Gaze with envy at their cheap success.
 
Wasn't it 18 months before?
 
Why is it a well-accepted part of physics?  Well because Bednorz&Muller and
Chu gave out the formula (at least in the final galley proofs; apparently
Chu's submitted paper had an "accidental" error where the wrong rare-earth
was substituted for the right one) and everybody else tried it.
 
They ground it, they baked it.  They dropped it in liquid nitrogen and
sure enough the little magnet floated above the stuff.  (Hell I saw it
in an undergraduate class 4 years ago....)
 
: --
: Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
: rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
 
--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Richard Schultz /  More questions
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More questions
Date: 6 Aug 1993 02:49:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
One explanation for so-called "cold fusion" phenomena that's been going
around in various incarnations is that the anomalous heat is due to
microscopic fracturing in the Pd.  Of course, for people that see excess
heat with D but not H, this explanation will not do.  But to me it has the
appeal that it predicts that anomalous heat will come in sudden bursts
rather than continuously, which is what is generally seen.  Note that the
small-outgassing hypothesis predicts sudden anomalous heat bursts as well.
(As an aside, I have a hard time understanding why, if you're trying to
keep everything constant, the reaction should happen only occasionally.
After all, why should the nuclei suddenly decide to fuse after a week, then
suddenly decide not to.)
 
In line with the fracture hypothesis, there seems to be a way of checking.
That would be to take your Pd sample and slice off a piece and look at it
under an electron microscope.  Compare the starting material with Pd samples
that have and have not shown anomalous heat events.  Has anyone tried this
experiment?  It occurred to me that this experiment might be easier to try
with single-crystal Pd.  That's pretty pricey (zone-refined single crystals
of *cheap* metals were on the order of thousands of dollars ten years ago)
but, as Jed Rothwell points out, EPRI has hundreds of millions.
 
It also strikes me that there must be a large literature on what happens
at this "microscopic" level (in the sense that you need a microscope to see
it).  Have any of the CF researchers carefully studied this literature?
 
One other question, a little off this subject.  I seem to recall that the SRI
people, among others, were doing Pd in a high pressure of gaseous D2.
It seems to me that a lot of the sources of error in the electrochemical
cell calorimetry go away if you did the experiment this way.  I also recall
that in the early days, there were scattered reports of success using this
technique (also the unfortunate accident at SRI).  So what's up with this
direction for the research?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Follow the bouncing ball
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Follow the bouncing ball
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:58:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <23scdo$128@agate.berkeley.edu>
  Subject: Follow the bouncing ball
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
= "1.  All I said ... was that you used the words
=  "penultimate" and "fenestration" in ways that I couldn't understand"
 
   Can you discern a flame from a question?   You could take
      an English or writing class, I suppose.
 
 
= "Now it so happens that "penultimate" and "fenestration" are real English
= words that already have meanings. They are not the meanings you attribute
=  to them."
 
  The dictionary stands to show that your claim that their denotation
    does not support their use in the sentence is: UNSUPPORTED
 
 
= "2.  Since you insist, I will give a "scientific" example. You keep claiming
= that "cold fusion" must be nuclear in origin, although it looks like even
= P&F have backed away from that claim.  Steve Jones (inter alia) gave
=  a cogent explanation of why nuclear reactions in a solid *must* create
=  high energy radiation."
 
  Those explanations were just arguments in a circle, claiming that the cold
  fusion reactions MUST be of the "hot fusion" type. i.e. with fast travelling
  nuclei.   with neutrons in copious commensurate amounts.
 
    Well, the "cogent explanation" was not given.  It was ignored.
 
 The fast travelling nuclei are remnant of a model wherein those nuclei are
  colliding from beams.  There is no argument from me that ionizing radiation
  results from such particles impacting solids (I have even posted
   at length about this), but there is no
  evidence presented here that such pathways must exist in cold fusion.
 
 
=     "Another example is that
= d+d fusion is expected to produce copius quantities of neutrons -- copius
= enough that anyone in the vicinity (including me who was there at the time)
= should have been pretty much killed.  Your response?  Cold fusion is
= "neutronpenic."
 
   That term only describes what was observed.  For a non-scientist, as you
 are undoubtable aware, it is amongst the hardest things to describe what
 is observed.   Most people call that: evidence.
  We are still waiting for any explanation of why neutrons must be there.
 
  Attention is directed to the fact that your ad hominems continue
 with invokation of the late Asimov, but nonetheless you apparently
 have no interest and/or ability to deal scientifically with any of these
 issues.  Too bad.  I actually thought your comments might have an iota of
                                                                    merit.
 
 
= "3. So I'll ask again: could you please explain the concept of conservation
= of momentum to those of us who have trouble with it?"
 
  Gee Richard, we are back to collisions:
 
    For any collision, it is simply that the vector sum of the momenta of
 the colliding bodies after collision equals
 the vector sum of their momenta prior to the collision.
 
    And now, Richard, we await the reason for your question, and
     your serious comments dealing with "science(sic)". (tick.. tick .....)
 
                 Best wishes.
 
                             Still waiting for your explanation,
 
                                                Mitchell
 
         -----------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
   All the points will naturally elude them"
 
            John Voci ('93 on the Skeptics of Cold Fusion)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  More questions - Pt2 GIF image
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More questions - Pt2 GIF image
Subject: More questions
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 04:08:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <23sgs1$1om@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: More questions
Richard Schultz  schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)) wrote:
 
=rs ".. with the fracture hypothesis, there seems to be a way of checking.
=rs That would be to take your Pd sample and slice off a piece and look at it
=rs under an electron microscope.Compare the starting material with Pd samples
=rs that have and have not shown anomalous heat events.  Has anyone tried this
=rs experiment?"
 
  Quite a bit of work in the literature.  For example see
  "Observaton of Heavy Elements produced During Explosive Cold Fusion"
  T. Matsumoto and K. Kurokawa,  Fusion Technology, vol 20, 11/1991 p.323.
  Fig. 6 therein does show an SEM image revealing
  a surface where Dr. Matsumoto then proceeded with energy dispersive
  X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) at the marked sites.
 
  For those who can decode the UUENCODED GIF image of figure 6, it
   now follows.
                 Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell
 
========== SEM picture of longitudinal cross section =======
begin 600 sem
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M[?%M'K[LKL(_HZ7Q&R BF=^O25),\9SX0B>UE4UG.9YE##,KS*)R_G<D-@7
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MGJ9V3JL#"0)L'1^'-C]'][955Q44P25$/KZ.;-2N7=S<?NR.^Q^^[P9JE)2
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MS_7T/*5F'"88>B7S3[Q0XS(Z4:)=/55==>K2M+A>A?.KNHF^C7;26)NLFKU
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%UU,$ #NC
 
end
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 04:49:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CBBBJ3.I2G@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   Do you have a citation for that published paper?   Does your measured
>    "recombination" completely cover the "measured excess heat"?
>                   \/\/\/\/\/\/
>     I have asked you this before and received no response.
 
I find it very interesting that you are able to lose track of the problems
so easily. Virtually every place you look in these erxperiments there
are errors. Yet you so easily print something as above.
 
It isn't necessary for Steven or anyone else to prove that his recombination
accounts for someone else's excess heat. He needs only show that this is
a _proven_ source for measuring errors that hasn't been accounted for in
the experiments he is criticizing.
 
You and Jed both like to prove that neither of you has ever performed a
serious experiment before. Tom Droege has shown that recombination
causes serious errors of monumental proportion in open cell systems. He
has characterized many of the multiple problems with the measuring systems
being used in the 'positive' experiments. Steven Jones has shown repeatedly
that recombination is a problem. He has shown experimental data proving that
X-ray film is not a reliable means of measuring radiation in these
experiments. He has shown that He measurements are questionable at the very
least and completely erroneous in all probability. Many people have commented
on the experiments of most of the 'positive' results.
 
All this has been essentially to no avail. If the positive results are to
be believed _every_ one of the experimental problems must be addressed
by those claiming results.
 
But the fact remains as stated by Tom Droege: the greater accuracy of
the measuring system the less the excess heat appears. So what CNF
seems to be is a device for measuring the accuracy of the measuring
system. If you get results, your experimental technique sucks.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Jim Bowery /  Please move to "sci.energy"
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please move to "sci.energy"
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 06:32:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It seems that the majority of the messages in this group:
 
"sci.physics.fusion"
 
are about an energy phenomenon which no one is willing to ascribe,
specifically, to "fusion" anymore.
 
Could someone inform me if I'm wrong about this, and if so, in what way?
 
If not, it therefore seems "sci.energy" is a better place to carry
on the discussion of what was once called "cold nuclear fusion", but
which the Japanese, as Jed Rothwell frequently points out, now call
"hydrogen energy" or "anomalous heat".
 
I look forward with eager anticipation to the day when the New Inquisition
is "debunked" by some enormously critical phenomenon which they tortured
into silence -- and "anomalous heat" may be just the phenomenon to do it --
but I really think it is time to make room for discussion of FUSION around
here.
 
Just an idea.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / John Logajan /  A small source of heat?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A small source of heat?
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 06:08:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I'm sure the chemists out there remember if this was discussed before, but
since it's new to me ...
 
The law of Dulong and Petit says that the heat capacity of most solids
is about 25J/mol C.  Whereas for diatomic gases it is about 21J/mol C.
 
So if we take a mole of Pd and a seperate mole of D2 we have 25+21=46J/C
of heat capacity.
 
But put the mole of D2 into the Pd and it ought to take the characterisitic
of solid, i.e. 25J/mol -- 'cept we now have two moles (assuming it remains
as D2 inside the Pd) which is 25+25=50J/C.  In this case, a total outgassing
(one mole of D2) would require a release of about 4J/C just due to the
heat capacity change.
 
If the D2 exists in the Pd as D, then we only need 1/2 mole of external D2.
So we have 25+11=36J/C seperate and 25+25=50J/C mixed.  That's 14J/C in
difference between heat capacities.
 
Since most CNF experiments use electrodes which are a fraction of a mole,
the magnitude of these discrepencies are slight.  Insignificant in
comparison to Droege's 3000J events.  But a teeny tiny potential source
of burst associated "anomalous" heat for those who don't keep careful long
term energy balances.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Marshall Dudley /  Excess energy, phonons, and escaping nuclei
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess energy, phonons, and escaping nuclei
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 19:35:05 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Let me first say that I am not a physicist.  I read Scientific American,
which probably makes me a little more knowledgable than the average
person on the street, and am a degreed electronic design engineer who
was systems engineer for nuclear systems for a couple of decades in
Oak Ridge.
 
When I first heard of cold fusion, I assumed that the excess energy from
the He4 nucleus was carried off as heat from coupling with the Pd lattice.
I have noted that this transfer of energy is being referred to here as
phonons.  Some are saying that this cannot be the case because the nucleus
would have too much energy or inertial, and would break free of the lattice,
thereby generating a trail of charged, and detectable particles.
 
I am not looking for a flame, but somehow I am missing something here, and
hope someone can clear it up for me.  If we look at the nucleus as a bell,
it can have kinetic energy in two forms, one which has inertia and the other
in which it does not.  For instance a bell which is shot out of a cannon would
have a lot of inertia, but one simply rung, but otherwise stationary would
not.  I have always viewed the nucleus in this manner.  If the nucleus is
rung hard enough (or perturbed just right), then fission can take place.
A high speed nucleus should not be subject to fission (from the additional
kinetic energy) until it hits (interacts) with something else, thus "ringing"
it.
 
Now, if two deuterons come together, the total inertial should be very low.
Would this not imply that the nucleus would be almost stationary, but
"ringing"?  And if this is the case, I see no reason to assume it would
break free of the lattice.  If it did, where is it going to go, it has no
inertia.  Then the only question I can see is how does the half life of an
He4 nucleus with this much excess energy, compare with how fast it loses the
excess energy to phonons.  If the loss, through coupling with the lattice,
has a shorter decay time then the nuclear fission (I am not saying it does,
I have no idea), then would one not expect a high production of he4, and low
productions of He3 + neutron?  What is the decay time for a He4 nucleus
at around 20Mev anyway?
 
                                Marshall Dudley dwbbs@mdudley@nlbbs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 11:07:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <m0oOL5t-0000h6C@crash.cts.com>,
Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>
>I look forward with eager anticipation to the day when the New Inquisition
>is "debunked" by some enormously critical phenomenon which they tortured
>into silence -- and "anomalous heat" may be just the phenomenon to do it --
 
     You know, Attila the Hun was reputed to enjoy slitting prisoners'
     bellies open and wrapping their entrails around a tree while they
     watched, still alive.  Indeed, Roman emissaries were forced to
     camp outside the city of Naissus, sacked by Atilla several years
     earlier, simply because of the remaining stench.
 
     The Inquisition, however, took this general idea
     and turned it into a science.  After all, most people can
     stand less than an hour of watching their entrails wrapped around a tree
     before they expire.  The Inquisition found, in the name of religion,
     that they could do much much better than that.
 
     The moral of this story?   Try to maintain perspective.
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Bill Page /  Uncertainty Principle
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Uncertainty Principle
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 13:52:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz writes:
<<
  Now.   I thought this uncertainty principle had to do with
    OUR uncertainty of knowing the particle's position and momentum.
    True or false?
>>
 
Short answer.  False.
 
Longer answer.  It used to be considered (by some) as a matter of
interpretation but then J.S. Bell (Bell's theorem) and subsequent
experimental resolution of the EPR paradox straightened everyone out
(almost everyone).  If we accept the reality and rationality of QM then
there really is *NO SUCH THING* as a particle.  That was just one of the
convenient models behind classical mechanics.  But classical mechanics and
our common sense way of thinking about unaided physical observations turns
out to be only a special case abstraction.  The thing (Lets call it a
quanton? See my other recent posting.) which we often approximately
conceptualize as a particle (or sometimes as a wave) really is much more
complex.  Its 'position' really *is* all spread out (de-localized) when its
momentum has a well defined value.  This is not a matter of uncertainty or
not knowing the value.  In QM location is a derived (measured) property of
the state of a quanton.  As such it can have 'proper' values as eigenstates
of the location operator (and associated probabilities) or can be in a
superposition of possible values.
 
As W. Bernecky has pointed out here, even properties like 'number of
particles' in a quantum mechanical system are subject to the superposition
concept.  The notion of (in principle) being able to 'count' particles is
just a convenient abstraction that is sometimes very useful.
 
In fact, I should be more careful.  When I say "a quantum mechanical
system" I really mean any physical situation at all.  To say a system is
"quantum mechanical" is just to say that the classical models are obviously
not adequate approximations for the phenomena under consideration.
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page
 
P.S. Quantum mechanics really is very strange stuff indeed and it takes a
lot of practice (for me) to think this way.  To paraphrase Douglas Adams:
"There really isn't much else left to do once you've done six impossible
things before breakfast!"  ... The Resturant At the End of the Universe.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 14:08:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In XMessage-ID: <tomkCBBMr7.MME@netcom.com>
      Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
=>   Do you have a citation for that published paper?   Does your measured
=>    "recombination" completely cover the "measured excess heat"?
=>                   \/\/\/\/\/\/
=>     I have asked you this before and received no response.
 
=tk "Virtually every place you look in these erxperiments there
=tk are errors. Yet you so easily print something as above."
 
   Tom, all experiments have (or should have) an error list.
      Systematic knowledge requires itemizing them, determining their
      magnitude, and attempting to ascertain the degree that they
      impact the observations.
 
      This is a typical case.  Do you realize that some of the famous
        "negative" experiments may have had (at least) some errors?
 
 
=tk "It isn't necessary for Steven ...  to prove that his recombination
=tk accounts for someone else's excess heat. He needs only show that this is
=tk a _proven_ source for measuring errors that hasn't been accounted for in
=tk the experiments he is criticizing."
 
   Many of the papers criticized HAVE discussed the same errors, and
     attributed a magnitude and relevance.  A professional response would
     include the same, right?
 
=tk "Steven Jones has shown repeatedly that recombination is a problem."
 
   He has alluded to that.  I have asked for a published paper, but
    would settle for detailed data providing sufficient information to
    prove that.
 
   Demonstration requires some further evidence, doesn't it?
 
=tk "He has shown experimental data proving that
=tk X-ray film is not a reliable means of measuring radiation in these
=tk experiments."
 
   He has claimed that, but the evidence shows he is incorrect.  It may
    be unreliable in his laboratory and he may even be able to demonstrate
    that at some point.  In the meantime, comments like this demonstrate
    the frailty of some of the other criticisms.
 
 
=tk "He has shown that He measurements are questionable at the very
=tk least and completely erroneous in all probability."
 
    Again, Tom, claims are very different from proving "completely erroneous".
        (why add in all probability in your sentence if you are so sure?)
 
 
=tk "So what CNF
=tk seems to be is a device for measuring the accuracy of the measuring
=tk system. If you get results, your experimental technique sucks."
 
   Curiouser and curiouser.   Is that your goal?   Any result proves
     the "technique sucks"?                                      ;)
 
                        Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell Swartz
 
         -----------------------------------------------------
   "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
   All the points will naturally elude them"
 
            John Voci ('93 on the Skeptics of Cold Fusion)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Does simply calorimetry really work?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does simply calorimetry really work?
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 15:52:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I decided to return to fundamentals and to ponder the basic operation
of a conduction calorimeter to see whether it operates on sound scientific
principles.  Starting with the simplest model possible, we have a heat
source delivering at a rate Q watts per sec, a thermal mass of capacity
C, and a link with thermal resistance R conecting between the mass at
temperature T1 and a sink at temperature T0.  In the steady state the
heat flux through the resistance must be Q such that the temperature
of the mass is given by T1 = QR.  As long a R is well behaved it can
be determined through a calibration precedure and the unknown Q is
determined by a measurement of the temperatures T1 and T0.
 
We next introduce time dependence to the source flux Q(t), and for
our first case consider a square pulse of amplitude Q1 and duration
w.  Due to the thermal capacity C the temperature T1(t) will now
show the familiar exponential rise behavior with a time constant
RC just as in the electrical analog RC circuit:  For 0 < t < w
T1 - T0 = QR ( 1 - exp -[t/RC]) followed by a decay after the heat
source returns to zero of T1 -T0 = QRexp-[t/RC].
 
Now the question becomes does the time intergral of the temperature
still remain proportional to the time integral of the heat pulse in
the same relation as determine by steady state calibrations?  The
answer, at least for now, is still yes, but it comes about only because
there is a form of compensation.  The area that is missing from the
temperature pulse during the delayed rise is made up by the area under
the delayed fall after the heat pulse turns off.
 
However, I suggest that perhaps the essential compensation effect is
not an absolute sure thing and consider some cases where the compensation
may be called into question.
 
Consider the situation where the thermal resistance of the link is not
a constant but R is instead dependent on temperature R(T).  In the
steady state, as long as calibrations extend over the full range of
operation the device still works, but what happens if the heat input
is pulsed in the squarewave fashion as described above.  I simply note
the the compensation effect that must be relied upon has a potential
problem in that the "missing piece" that would fit in the upper leading
edge lies at higher temperature than the compensating tail in the
temperature pulse as it decays back to T0.  If R has a temperature
dependence such that it decreases with increasing temperature it would
seem that the missing piece occurs where the temperature pulse is
more compressed and thus has a reduced area relative to the compensation
area that lies at temperature where R is larger.  Under these conditions
I suggest that simple conduction calorimetry will systematically over-
estimate the integral of a heat pulse, unless calibrations are performed
with heat pulses that closely match the time dependence as observed.
 
Is my model with a temperature dependence in the thermal resistance
a reasonable one?  Pons and Fleischmann asserted that it was significant
to determine the calorimeter constant by fitting a fifth order polynomial.
If as Tom Droege suggests, their dewar flasks make radiation a significant
part of the thermal link their's is surely a case where R will have a
strong temperature dependence just as in my model, R decreases as a function
of temperature.
 
Are there other phenomena that could enhance the effect of the non-constant
R?  Consider something equivalent to a latent heat that involves the
storage of energy in the thermal mass without any proportional rise in
temperature.  This would "flat top" temperature pulses during the time
that a pulsed source was on.  Then as the themal mass cooled it would
recover the hidden signal in the form of a tail on the decaying pulse,
but once again much of the compensating area would have to lie at lower
temperature where R(T) is larger and the calorimeter will over compensate.
 
Not to put too fine an edge on it, I would say we have reason to doubt
than simple conduction calorimeters are capable to correctly determining
"excess enthalpy".  Furthermore I think a case can be made for saying that
the heat coming from pulsed sources will be systematically over estimated
when the calorimeter calibration is done with steady state calibration
sources.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Follow the bouncing ball
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow the bouncing ball
Date: 6 Aug 1993 15:04:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CBBHLw.Bsy@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <23scdo$128@agate.berkeley.edu>
>  Subject: Follow the bouncing ball
>Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
rs>> "Now it so happens that "penultimate" and "fenestration" are real English
rs>> words that already have meanings. They are not the meanings you attribute
rs>>  to them."
 
ms>  The dictionary stands to show that your claim that their denotation
ms>    does not support their use in the sentence is: UNSUPPORTED
 
In Message-ID: <CB8yLr.Jo7@world.std.com> you said, "Therefore the penultimate
fenestration of your other specious and vacuous comments is left to others."
According to my dictionary, "penultimate" means "next to last" and
"fenestration" means "the spacing of windows in a building."  How anybody's
comments can be fenestrated, let alone penultimately fenestrated, is beyond
me.  You go on and on about "science".  One of the true marks of a
scientist is that he can admit when he is wrong.
 
On another subject, I had asked:
rs> 3. So I'll ask again: could you please explain the concept of conservation
rs> of momentum to those of us who have trouble with it?
 
To which the ever-polite Mr. Swartz replied
ms>  Gee Richard, we are back to collisions:
ms> For any collision, it is simply that the vector sum of the momenta of
ms> the colliding bodies after collision equals
ms> the vector sum of their momenta prior to the collision.
ms>
ms> And now, Richard, we await the reason for your question, and
ms> your serious comments dealing with "science(sic)". (tick.. tick .....)
 
Now we be getting somewhere.  In various posts, you have claimed that
 
(1)  "Cold Fusion" is due to d+d -> He
(2)  The 24 MeV X-rays from He* -> He have been detected
(3)  The resultant He does not go anywhere
 
Now could you please explain how you can reconcile (2) and (3) with the
principle of conservation of momentum you explained above?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Richard Schultz /  Orders of Magnitude
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orders of Magnitude
Date: 6 Aug 1993 15:31:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

If I read correctly what Mitchell Swartz has to say, he claims that "cold
fusion" is d+d fusion that goes almost entirely through the d+d -> He
channel.  If I read correctly what Jed Rothwell has to say, a 20 kW CF
reactor has been built.  Combining these two claims, we can calculate the
number of fusions pre second in such a reactor.  The d+d -> He + gamma
gives up about 20 MeV per fusion, and there are about 100 kJ/mol in 1 eV
(I realize that the correct numbers are 24 and 96.49, but this is a
back of the envelope calculation).
 
So (2e7 eV/fusion) * (1e2 kJ/(mol eV)) = 2e9 kJ per mole of fusion.
 
Since 1 kW = 1 kJ/sec, we get (20 kJ/sec)/(2e9 kJ/mol) = 1e(-8) mol/sec
of fusion.
 
Since 1 mol = 6.02e23, this means to get 20 kW, you need on the order of
1e(-8) * 6e23, that is on the order of 10^15 fusions per second.
 
Going back to what Swartz said, most of these fusions will be releasing
gamma rays (or X-rays if you prefer).  Now let's put a 1cm^2 detector 1 meter
away from the fusion reactor.  1cm^2 is about 1e(-5) of the total surface
area of a sphere 1 meter in diameter, so even if the bath, air, table,
etc., stop 90% of the emergent X-rays, your detector should still be reading
on the order of 10^9 photons/sec (= 0.1 * 1e(-5) * 10^15).
 
So my questions are (a) have I made a math error somewhere and (b) why are
the P&F-style reactors not lead shielded?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 17:55:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schroeppel says: "Check for correlations with time-of-day and
sidereal time."
 
I have.  And I see a persistant variation in spite of my best efforts of
compensation using all the things that I measure.  Seems only to be there
whith D2O in the calorimeter.  This is one reason for building a better
calorimeter.  Boy are you right about separating out sideral from day
effects!  So if I give up on "cold fusion" there is still "anomalous heat"
even if only a 24 hour variation in it.
 
Dale Bass says: "Absolutely,  I've been calling this 'breathing instability'"
in referring to John Logajans gas absorption instability suggestion.
 
I must have posted my observations on this twenty times.  It is in the ACCF1
paper for all to see.  The most typical form of this is for the loading to
slowly increas and then suddenly decrease.  Note that it is hard to separate
this from a possible catalyst instability.  But I think it is real.  Sorting
it out is one reason why the catalyst heater was added.
 
With John Logajan, I also thank Scott Hazen Mueller.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Getting Started in CNF
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting Started in CNF
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 18:09:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From time to time someone posts that they would like to get into this crazy
business, but don't know where to get the stuff.  The most recent post said
it would have to be done with "food money".  Well, most of us are too fat, so
dig in and corn and beans and join in the fun.  Heavy water is 400-500 a liter
and can be bought from most chemical supply houses in 100 ml bottles at a much
higher price.  Aldrich Chemical is a common source.  I will look up their
address if anyone asks.
 
You can buy one ounce Platinum and Palladium bars in a coin store for a small
premium over the spot price.  Likely of order $150 for a Pd bar and $500 for
a Pt bar these days.  Then you will need access to some metal working equipment
to make whatever size you want out of it.  Both Pd and Pt are pretty ductile
so you can roll them and draw them and bash them into shape.
 
A call to 1-800-821-2870 will get you a Goodfellow catalog.  It is a treasure
of information of laboratory grade metals, and a few other things.
 
The real reason for making this post is to make an offer that anyone serious
about getting into this work should not be able to refust.
 
I recently (April 93), bought two ounces of Platinum wire.  0.010", annealed.
The way this works is that you call:
 
                WESGO
                477 Harbor Boulevard
                Belmont, CA 94022
 
and place an order for what you want.  They quote you at the price of Platinum
that day, but bill you at the price on the day that they ship.  You also get
only about what you order.  In this case I ordered 2 oz and was shipped
2.198 oz.  In this case, I ordered at $415 and it was shipped for $417.
After their rolling and annealing charges the bill was $1368.51 for 2.198 oz
or $662.61 per oz.  I figure this is about $20 per yard.  Note that Goodfellow
wants $130 a meter for 99.95% Pt in 1/4 mm.  Roughly the same amount.
 
The analysis of this batch is"
 
Pt      99.94
Al       <.0001
Pb         ND
Ag        .002
Fe        .005
Ni        .01
Pd        .05
Cr        .001
Cu        .025
Mg        .0001
Zn         ND
Mn        .006
Au        .004
Rh        .07
 
OK, as a service to this community, and for the first 10 requests or so.  I
offer to trade one yard of 0.010" Pt wire for a $20 bill.  This is as near as
I can figure an at cost transaction.  This offer is void in any state or
country where it violates any law.  Maximum per request one yard.  Minimum
per request one yard.  If you are in other than the US, I will trade a similar
amount for a similar note - say a 10 pound note.  You must figure out the
exchange rate and tell me how many inches to send as I do not own a meter
stick.  Please send only attractive non US currency as I will likely never
get around to spending it.
 
This is about what you will need to make a few cells.  I think I started out
by paying $4.00 and inch to a laboratory supply house.
 
Please include a stamped return addressed envelop, but do not put my return
address on it.  Also include an inner envelope to hold the wire.  It does
not have to be very big to hold 36" of 0.010" dia wire.  No guarantee, no
refunds, no nothin.
 
Send to:
 
Thomas F. Droege
2 South 942 Thornecrest La.
Batavia, IL 60510
USA
 
If too many request come in, I will simply return your currency in the
envelope.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 / Joshua Levy /  Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: 5 Aug 1993 17:15:58 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

(This may be a repeat post, if so, I'm sorry.  --Joshua)
 
  ``He was still unaware that nothing in cold fusion would be simple.''
                                                             (p. 59)
 
I bought and read Taubes' book BAD SCIENCE, The Short Life and Weird
Times of Cold Fusion, and thought some comments might be in order.
 
Previous books that I've read on Cold Fusion (by Mallove, Close, and
Huizenga) have been written by scientists (or ex-scientists), and have
have focused on experiments, data, and analysis.  Taubes' book focuses
more on people, and therefore provides an excellent companion volume to
these other books.  If you believe that personalities are unimportant
to scientific progress, then you will not like BAD SCIENCE, because
Taubes believes that personalities are important to how cold fusion
developed.  He spends time looking into people's history and modivations.
This technique gives him (and the reader) new sources of information
untapped by previous authors.
 
A previous poster stated that, although he had not read BAD SCIENCE, he
thought that the book savaged everyone associated with Cold Fusion. This
is not true.  Rossi and Martin, for example, are not savaged.  But Taubles
does have a strong point of view.  He believes that the cold fusion as
science is finished, and that it was a mistake augmented by scientific
fraud.  Some of his descriptions of labs and experimentors are quite
caustic.  He gleefully describes the shoddy science done to support cold
fusion (lack of controls, lack of calibration, obvious sources of errors
overlooked,  poor instrumentation, low quality detectors, misused
detectors, incorrectly calibrated detectors, and on and on and on.  Some
of his harshest critisim comes in describing labs where positive data is
reported on (often via the media), but negative data is ignored.  He
describes this process at Bockris's lab (page 322).
 
Interestingly (to me, at least) Taubes's book contains more information
from the DOE panel investigation then Huizenga's book.  Huizenga's book
concetrates on the ERAB panels final report, while Taubes spend more time
describing their various fact finding tours.  Huizenga's book
summarizes what was found (no working cells) and the general quality of
research (not good).  Taubes's book is much more specific, describing in
detail the experimental set ups found in the various labs, as well as the
mistakes made by the various experimentors and discovered by the DOE panel
members.  This part of the book is very destructive to Cold Fusion.  The
various mistakes and general shoddiness of the Bockris and Huggins
experiments leaves a bad after taste.  But more than that is the general
feeling of doubt.  The errors described by Taubes are so obvious that
one wonders what other mistakes were made, and is left with a general
feeling of doubt, in addition to a long list of specific mistakes.
 
Other strong points of the book include the details surounding the
omission of Hawkins's name of the first P&F paper, and Pon's recent
history (as of 1989).  Pons's use of lawers to attack people who exposed
flaws in his work and withholding data from fellow researchers are
foreshadowed in his interactions with Dow and Synthetech.  The case
of Synthetech (in particular) is almost eerie in it similarity to
Cold Fusion.
 
BAD SCIENCE suffers from one problem, but it is in presentation, not
substance.  In a effort to cram as much information as possible into
his book, Taubes has used end notes, organized by chapter.  The information
stored in these notes is very interesting, but getting at them when
needed requires flipping back and forth through the book constantly.
(Also, the end notes are organized by chapter, but the current chapter
is not printed on the text page.  So if you are on page 45, looking at
end note 10, first you much find what chapter you are in, then you
must find the end note.)  Summary: read this book with two book marks,
one for your place in the text, and one for your place in the end notes.
 
Also, Taubes book only covers the first year or so of CF in detail, the
second year is covered superficially.  (I suspect that after Taubes
decided the foundations of CF were built on quicksand, he stopped caring
about the quality of the rest of the structure.)
 
If you believe that the process of science is such that individuals don't
matter, and personalities are unimportant, then you will not like this
book.  Conversly, if you believe that individual's personalities are
important to how science develops, then you will find lots of useful
information and well researched insights, presented in a well written
and well organized book.  I found it a very enjoyable read.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 19:07:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gosh, Jim Bowery, it looks like the vandals have rushed in and taken over
the territory.  We are a rather nice lot, however, and I don't recall any
of us suggesting that the hot fusion people leave.  Seems to me like they
always at least get a "warm" reception.
 
This happens all the time in this world.  Seems like there used to be an
organization in Washington that was sort of a minimal government as designed
by our founding fathers, with most of the government left to the states.  Do
you suppose they would move to another country if we asked them nice?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: A small source of heat?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A small source of heat?
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 19:07:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan, I don't understand your units 25J/mol C.  What is the C?
25 J per mole is a tiny amount.  Heat of absorption of D into Pd is of order
60,000 J per mole.  But nobody please quote me on this as it is only based
on my memory of some old measurements.  I think no worse than a factor of
four off.
 
Otherwise very interesting.  If your units are really joules per cc, as I
suspect, then is this the source of the heat of absorption??  Some of you
chemists please explain.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 16:56:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <CBC483.MxC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
 
=   [after Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote: >
= "I look forward with eager anticipation to the day when the New
= Inquisition is "debunked" by some enormously critical phenomenon which
= they tortured into silence -- and "anomalous heat" may be just the
= phenomenon to do it"]
 
=db     "You know, Attila the Hun was reputed to enjoy slitting
=db prisoners' bellies open and wrapping their entrails around a tree
=db while they watched, still alive.  Indeed, Roman emissaries were
=db forced to camp outside the city of Naissus, sacked by Atilla
=db several years  earlier, simply because of the remaining stench.
=db      The Inquisition, however, took this general idea and turned
=db it into a science.  After all, most people can stand less than an
=db hour of watching their entrails wrapped around a tree  before they
=db expire.  The Inquisition found, in the name of religion, that they
=db could do much much better than that."
 
  Dale,
 
     Given the finer points of your analogy, I marvel at your fascinations.
    Although your allusion has a significant vector from what might
   normally be considered to be physics.fusion, your above-cited comparison
   of the "cold fusion skeptics" to Attila the Hun et alia might indeed
   be a reasonable fit, as the third paragraph below may herald.
 
     In the following, Priscus discusses that dinner
     with Attila arranged on behalf of the Eastern Empire.
 
                                                 Mitchell
 
========= Dinner with Attila the Hun, c. 450 (after Priscus)
 
   "Attila invited both parties of us to dine with him about three
o'clock that afternoon. We waited for the time of the invitation, and
then all of us, the envoys from the Western Romans as well,
presented ourselves in the doorway facing Attila. In accordance
with the national custom the cup bearers gave us a cup for us to
make our libations before we took our seats. When that had been
done and we had sipped the wine, we went to the chairs where
we would sit to have dinner. All the seats were ranged down
either side of the room, up against the walls. In the middle Attila
was sitting on a couch with a second couch behind him. Behind
that a few steps led up to his bed, which for decorative purposes
was covered in ornate drapes made of fine linen, like those which
Greeks and Romans prepare for marriage ceremonies. I think that
the more distinguished guests were on Attila's right, and the
second rank on his left, where we were with Berichos, a man of
some renown among the Scythians, who was sitting in front of us.
Onegesios was to the right of Attila's couch, and opposite him
were two of the king's sons on chairs. The eldest son was sitting
on Attila's own couch, right on the very edge, with his eyes fixed
on the ground in fear of his father.
 
     When all were sitting properly in order, a cupbearer came to
offer Attila an ivy-wood bowl of wine, which he took and drank a
toast to the man first in order of precedence. The man thus
honored rose to his feet and it was not right for him to sit down
again until Attila had drunk some or all of the wine and had
handed the goblet back to the attendant. The guests, taking their
own cups, then honored him in the same way, sipping the wine
after making the toast. One attendant went round to each man in
strict order after Attila's personal cupbearer had gone out. When
the second guest and then all the others in their turn had been
honored, Attila greeted us in like fashion in our order of seating.
After everyone had been toasted, the cupbearers left, and a table
was put In front of Attila and other tables for groups of three or
four men each. This enabled each guest to help himself to the
things put on the table without leaving his proper seat. Attila's
servant entered first with plates full of meat, and those waiting on
all the others put bread and cooked food on the tables. A lavish
meal, served on silver trenchers, was prepared for us and the
other barbarians, but Attila just had some meat on a wooden
platter, for this was one aspect of his self-discipline. For instance,
gold or silver cups were presented to the other diners, but his own
goblet was made of wood. His clothes, too, were simple, and no
trouble was taken except to have them clean. The sword that
hung by his side, the clasps of his barbarian shoes and the bridle
of his horse were all free from gold, precious stones or other
valuable decorations affected by the other Scythians. When the
food in the first plates was finished we all got up, and no one,
once on his feet, returned to his seat until he had, in the same
order as before, drunk the full cup of wine that he was handed,
with a toast for Attila's health. After this honor had been paid him,
we sat down again and second plates were put on each table with
other food on them. This also finished, everyone rose once more,
drank another toast and resumed his seat.
 
  As twilight came on torches were lit, and two barbarians entered
before Attila to sing some songs they had composed, telling of his
victories and his valour in war. The guests paid close attention to
them, and some were delighted with the songs, others excited at
being reminded of the wars, but others broke down and wept if
their bodies were weakened by age and their warrior spirits forced
to remain inactive. After the songs a Scythian entered, a crazy
fellow who told a lot of strange and completely false stories, not a
word of truth in them, which made everyone laugh. Following him
came the Moor, Zerkon, totally disorganized in appearance,
clothes, voice and words. By mixing up the languages of the
Italians with those of the Huns and Goths, he fascinated everyone
and made them break out into uncontrollable laughter, all that is
except Attila. He remained impassive, without any change of
expression, and neither by word or gesture did he seem to share
in the merriment except that when his youngest son, Ernas, came
in and stood by him, he drew the boy towards him and looked at
him with gentle eyes. I was surprised that he paid no attention to
his other who understood Italian and what I had said about the
boy, warned me not to speak up, and said that the seers had told
Attila that his family would be banished but would be restored by
this son. After spending most of the night at the party, we left,
having no wish to pursue the drinking any further."
 
[Priscus, in Dindorf, "Historici Graeci Minores, trans. B.K. Workman
   They Saw it Happen in Classical Times, Oxford, Blackwell (1964)
   and "Eyewitness to History", Edited by John Carey, Avon (1987)]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Follow the bouncing ball
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Follow the bouncing ball
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 21:49:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <23truo$b56@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: Follow the bouncing ball
Richard Schultz  (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
==rs "Now we be getting somewhere.  In various posts, you have claimed that
==rs
==rs (1)  "Cold Fusion" is due to d+d -> He
==rs (2)  The 24 MeV X-rays from He* -> He have been detected
==rs (3)  The resultant He does not go anywhere
==rs
==rs Now could you please explain how you can reconcile (2) and (3) with the
==rs principle of conservation of momentum you explained above?
 
   Several ways to do this.
 
   First, I did not claim the above.  The equations which were written
    are excerpted below from the past posts.
 
  POST 1: "In summary, given that some variant of:
 
               (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
 
   remains the most likely etiology of these effects,
 any such attempted filtration of discussions pertaining
  to these postulated reactions ..... "
 
  POST 2: "Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
                Nobody said there was no radiation.
                     Heat is radiation.
 
          eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...    "
 
   Therefore you are incorrectly stating what I purportedly "claim".
 
 
  Second, as discussed eloquently by Marshall Dudley here:
   (mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com) Subject: Excess energy, phonons, and
        escaping nuclei; Message-ID: <znr744579305k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>
                                    Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 19:35:05 GMT
 
=md  "If we look at the nucleus as a bell,
=md it can have kinetic energy in two forms, one ...  inertia and the other
=md in which it does not.  For instance a bell ...  shot out of a cannon would
=md have a lot of inertia, but one simply rung, but otherwise stationary would
=md not.  I have always viewed the nucleus in this manner.  If the nucleus is
=md rung hard enough (or perturbed just right), then fission can take place.
=md A high speed nucleus should not be subject to fission (from the additional
=md kinetic energy) until it hits ... something else, thus "ringing"
=md it.
=md
=md Now, if two deuterons come together, the total inertial should be very low.
=md Would this not imply that the nucleus would be almost stationary, but
=md "ringing"?  And if this is the case, I see no reason to assume it would
=md break free of the lattice.  If it did, where is it going to go, it has no
=md inertia."
 
                 Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell Swartz
                                                (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / mitchell swartz /  Orders of Magnitude
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orders of Magnitude
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 21:50:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <23tth5$bgj@agate.berkeley.edu>
  Subject: Orders of Magnitude
Richard Schultz  (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
=rs  "I read correctly what Mitchell Swartz has to say, he claims that cold
=rs fusion" is d+d fusion that goes almost entirely through the d+d -> He
=rs channel."
 
  Nope.   I did not claim the above.  The equations which were written
    are excerpted below from the past posts.
 
  POST 1: "In summary, given that some variant of:
 
               (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
 
   remains the most likely etiology of these effects,
 any such attempted filtration of discussions pertaining
  to these postulated reactions ..... "
 
  POST 2: "Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
                Nobody said there was no radiation.
                     Heat is radiation.
 
          eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...    "
 
   Therefore you are incorrectly stating what I purportedly "claim".
 
 
=rs "Going back to what Swartz said, most of these fusions will be releasing
=rs gamma rays (or X-rays if you prefer)."
 
   Mr. Schultz, as discussed eloquently by Marshall Dudley here:
   (mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com) Subject: Excess energy, phonons, and
        escaping nuclei; Message-ID: <znr744579305k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>
                                    Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 19:35:05 GMT
 
=md  "If we look at the nucleus as a bell,
=md it can have kinetic energy in two forms, one ...  inertia and the other
=md in which it does not.  For instance a bell ...  shot out of a cannon would
=md have a lot of inertia, but one simply rung, but otherwise stationary would
=md not.  I have always viewed the nucleus in this manner.  If the nucleus is
=md rung hard enough (or perturbed just right), then fission can take place.
=md A high speed nucleus should not be subject to fission (from the additional
=md kinetic energy) until it hits ... something else, thus "ringing"
=md it.
=md
=md Now, if two deuterons come together,the total inertial should be very low.
=md Would this not imply that the nucleus would be almost stationary, but
=md "ringing"?  And if this is the case, I see no reason to assume it would
=md break free of the lattice.  If it did, where is it going to go, it has no
=md inertia."
 
                 Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell Swartz
                                                (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.06 / Joshua Levy /  Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
Date: 6 Aug 1993 22:06:48 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   Steve, what is your earliest reference of the use of the term
>      'cold fusion'.   Are you saying that you were the first to use it?
 
Jones certainly publicly used 'cold nuclear fusion' before P&F.  On page 31
of COLD FUSION, Taubes points out that the title of Jones and Rafelski's
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article was "Cold Nuclear Fusion".  This was published
in 1987, and refered to muon catalyzed fusion.
 
Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.07 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 02:28:40 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
 
>Who knows, we may some day give degrees.
 
>Tom Droege
 
Oh No!  Tom is driving a stake through it right now!  CF is officially
dead.  Sigh.  He could have at least waited until after the hawaii
thing - or till Palladium got over $1,000 an ounce.
 
----------------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 06:48:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CBCKDC.7Gt@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>=   [after Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote: >
>= "I look forward with eager anticipation to the day when the New
>= Inquisition is "debunked" by some enormously critical phenomenon which
>= they tortured into silence -- and "anomalous heat" may be just the
>= phenomenon to do it"]
>
>=db     "You know, Attila the Hun was reputed to enjoy slitting
>=db prisoners' bellies open and wrapping their entrails around a tree
>=db while they watched, still alive.  Indeed, Roman emissaries were
>=db forced to camp outside the city of Naissus, sacked by Atilla
>=db several years  earlier, simply because of the remaining stench.
>=db      The Inquisition, however, took this general idea and turned
>=db it into a science.  After all, most people can stand less than an
>=db hour of watching their entrails wrapped around a tree  before they
>=db expire.  The Inquisition found, in the name of religion, that they
>=db could do much much better than that."
>
>  Dale,
>
>     Given the finer points of your analogy, I marvel at your fascinations.
>    Although your allusion has a significant vector from what might
>   normally be considered to be physics.fusion, your above-cited comparison
>   of the "cold fusion skeptics" to Attila the Hun et alia might indeed
>   be a reasonable fit, as the third paragraph below may herald.
[nonsequitur deleted]
 
     'I suppose it's difficult to maintain one's perspective if
     one had none in the first place', he commented dryly.
 
     The moral of *this* story?  In contrast to Mr. Schultz's position,
     I believe unarmed men should avoid entering battle.
 
                           dale bass
 
       Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute
     Humpty Dumpty began again.  `They've a temper, some of them --
     particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do
     anything with, but not verbs -- however, _I_ can manage the whole
     of them!  Impenetrability!  That's what _I_ say!'
       `Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
       `Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty,
     looking very much pleased.  `I meant by "impenetrability" that
     we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well
     if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't
     mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
       `That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a
     thoughtful tone.
       `When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty
     Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'
       `Oh!' said Alice.  She was too much puzzled to make any other
     remark.
 
               Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass (1871)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 7 Aug 93 06:15:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Aug1.103425.9624@dxcern.cern.ch> crawford@na47sun05.cern
ch (Michael Crawford) writes:
>In article <CB225F.5LK@news.Hawaii.Edu> news@Hawaii.Edu (Debbie Choo) writes:
>>Just a curiosity question from a non-physics type...please be gentle.
 
>>Since the major problem with fusion reactions is containing them (or
>>so I read in mainstream publications), why not just put it in orbit
>>around the planet where gravity is not a factor? (We'll put all
 
Gravity isn't the primary force thats causing the particles to spill
out (like a tipped over glass of water), rather it is pressure they
produce against the inside of their confining field because they
need to have as many particles in their at the burn temperature in order
to get enough of a fusion burn rate to make things worth while.  On
the other hand,  if the particles aren't hot enough, and at the burn
temperatures for cool burning fuels like radioactive tritium and
deuterium they aren't hot enough, then they will leak through the field.
that has to due with the fact that the cooler the burn temperature is
the more resistive the plasma is, and it is the resistivity the eats
away the energy of the confining field.  In a sense the resistive particles
sort of eat little moth holes in the field and although the "hole"
closes behind them they gradually tunnel (diffuse) through.  So the
big problem for fusion is to get as many particles in the magnetic
bag (so to speak) before they can eat their way out.  That means they
must produce as much pressure as possible, and because the magnetic
system of the current fusion program (called the tokamak) is very
very INEFFICIENT and transmitting pressure to the plasma (the name
given the hot fiery fusion fuel gas after it's ionized).
 
There are very smart ideas for fusion that do not have this problem
and could be developed into working commercial technology quickly.
Unfortunately, these concepts are not supported and by law the only
agency to do energy research is the DoE.  The DoE regularly claims
that fusion is too hard for any private companies to develop, and
this serves to keep them as an unchallenged monopoly.
 
Unfortunately going to orbit would only make things very much worse,
because it is a government program and it is impossible for bureaucrats
to change they way or what they are doing, they can not stop the current
funding and then start funding a smarter idea.  They can not start
funding a smarter idea while continuing the current program, because
they are afraid the congress would discover that they are funding
a dumb idea and then stop that funding before they could get the
funding levels up high enough to secure thier jobs.  And besides,
what would they do if it worked or it would not justify half a
billion or a billion dollars a year because it worked so well with
just 25 million??
 
>Fusion in space would be a good way to move big objects between
>the planets, and would be necessary to go to the stars, but to put
>a fusion plant in orbit would require more wight-lifting power
>than is presently available.
 
It would only require a few items, like the reactor and building,
the control building, the substation for magnet startup, the substation
for beam gun and RF heating, the gas diffusion plant, the holopolar
generator facility,  which really all together only amount to a
small to midsized college campus.  Of course there is that hook up
of the transmission lines from the power station that may be sticky --
balloons dragging the power cables probably won't quit reach LEO
and the orbiting system probably can't be charged in the nano second
or so of slap contact as the hanging connectors flash by -- oops
the water cooling lines.  On the other hand,  other approaches
exist that promise to solve the problem and in quite short order
when given the chance.
 
>The radiation output from a fusion plant is low compared to a fission plant.
>The problem is that when the gas gets hot, it tries to expand - all the nuclei
>move away from each other - so the reaction stops.  A further problem is that
>you can't just compress the gas in a strong bottle, as the temperatures needed
>would vaporize the bottle.
 
Radiation from a orbiting fission plant or DoE conceptulized fusion
burner would massacre earthlings from radii considerably above LEO.
The atmospheric vertical attenuation is not of any sigificant help,
and space (inverse square law) has a considerable distance to get to
before levels drop to guide lines.  I do not have the reference, but
the study was done by a NASA fusioneer of yesteryear R. Roth of the
Computer and Electrical Engineering Department at the Univ TN, and I
may have my secretary dig it up when that person returns from holiday.
>--
>Michael Crawford                | UC Santa Cruz, visiting CERN
>Division PPE                    |
>CERN                            | crawford@na47sun05.cern.ch
>1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.07 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
Date: 7 Aug 1993 17:29:04 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>If the factual errors in the review reflect similar errors in the book,
>quite a series of retractions or lawsuits may be in order.  At one point
>the reviewer states that F&P did not have any evidence of neutrons at
>the time of the news conference (OK, they did not, but they thought they
>did)
 
BAD SCIENCE, (by Taubes) does make it clear that the neutron data collected
by P&F is bogus, but that is old news.  Close's book, published years ago
contained the same information (Huizenga's books covers this stuff, also).
I think your parentetical quote above describes the situation well.  P&F
had no eveidence of neutrons when they went public, but they thought they
did.
 
>At another point he quotes Taubes as saying that Jones had been working
>on other kinds of cold fusion and got the idea for using electrochemical
>cells from the F&P proposal to the DOE.  I guess a notarized lab book isn't
>proof for him.
 
Either the reviewer misread the book, or you misread the reviewer.  Taubes
clearly writes that Jones thought about an electrochemical cell type
CF before reading the F&P proposal.  What Taubes claims, is that Jones
had stoped that line of research, and only restarted it after reading
the F&P proposal from the DOE.  Taubes does not claim that Jones stole
the idea, but rather than the proposal modivated Jones to restart experiments
similar to ones he had been involved with earlier.  These are not the same
thing.
 
To quote from page 37 of BAD SCIENCE:
 
``He [Jones] did not deny that he may have had "impetus" from the Pons-
  Fleischmann proposal but argued that Pons and Fleischmann had not
  accused him of "impetus" -- they had accused him of stealing ideas
  wholesale. ... he [Jones] had assigned a student to do electrolysis
  experiments (of the kind Paul Palmer [a Jones co-worker] had pursued
  two years earlier and Pones and Fleischmann were now proposing) only
  after reading the Utah proposal.''
 
Taubes also makes it clear, that Jones had been thinking about electroCF
before reading the proposal of P&F work.  He uses the lab book as (somewhat
cryptic) proof of this.  Taubes includes the important lab book entries
in his book.
 
>The review is interesting reading.  I do not think I will buy the book,
>although it might become a collector's item if the publisher gets sued
 
I'm not sure I'd recommend buying the book, but if you want to understand
CF, you'll need to read it.  No where else (that I know of) is Pons's
work with Dow or Synthetech described.  No where else are details of what
the ERAB panel found at the various labs they visited, and so on.
 
Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.07 / Jim Bowery /  The New Inquisition
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The New Inquisition
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 22:41:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, "skeptics" here is an excuse to bring out your "racks and thumbscrews"...
 
On August 5th, I wrote a message which contained the following (please
 pay attention to the GMT's):
 
-Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
-Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
-Subject: Please move to "sci.energy"
-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 06:32:56 GMT
-Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
-
-I look forward with eager anticipation to the day when the New Inquisition
-is "debunked" by some enormously critical phenomenon which they tortured
-into silence -- and "anomalous heat" may be just the phenomenon to do it --
-but I really think it is time to make room for discussion of FUSION around
-here.
 
Due to the fact that many of my opinions are unpopular, my INTERNET access
has, for some months, been reduced to two groups:
 
sci.physics.fusion and sci.space.
 
In that other group to which the guardians of the public interest have
allowed me access (those of you who find me "obnoxious" would probably find
 it fruitful to complain to my sysop as he might remove my access from even
 sci.physics.fusion despite the fact that his feed is paid for by our
 tax dollars), the following series of messages appeared on August 6
(Pacific time):
 
-Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 12:19:25 GMT
-From: Ward Paul <ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes:
->
->What is your backgroud?
->Who do you speak for ?
->
->What do you do besides writing posters ?
-
-Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
---
-
-
-Date: 5 Aug 93 17:44:04 GMT
-From: Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
-
-> In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes:
-> >
-> >What is your backgroud?
-> >Who do you speak for ?
-> >
-> >What do you do besides writing posters ?
->
-> Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
-
-There is no reason to supply information like that requested --much like
-there's no reason to attempt to direct followups to /dev/null. If you
-aren't looking to engage in discussion, then don't post.
-
-But usenet is simply a collection of people, each with their own opinion.
-Who they speak for, what their background is, and what else they do isn't
-at all germane to any topic. It can certainly add to one's credibility I
-suppose, but even Einstein had his detractors. One's background or who
-they represent doesn't mean a lot. Why? Anyone can be wrong, and anyone
-can be right.
-:-)
-
-
---
-Bob Kirkpatrick -- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
-American government: The best leadership money can buy.
-
 ------------------------------
-
-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:01:53 GMT
-From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
-
->In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes:
->>
->>What is your backgroud?
->>Who do you speak for ?
->>
->>What do you do besides writing posters ?
-
->Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
-
-Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
-
-Date: 6 Aug 1993 08:06:22 GMT
-From: George William Herbert <gwh@soda.berkeley.edu>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
->pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said:
->Phil> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
->>In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.)
->>writes: > >What is your backgroud?  >Who do you speak for ?  > >What
->>do you do besides writing posters ?
->>Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
->
->Phil> Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
->
->Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
-
-It's nice to see that everyone's sense of humor remains operational
-throughout this debacle... 8-)
-
--george
-
-"And now for something completely different..."
-
-Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:68541
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu
-From: Mary Shafer <shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
-Subject: Re: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-In-Reply-To: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu's message of Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:01:53 GMT
-Message-Id: <SHAFER.93Aug5213722@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>
-Sender: Usenet news <news@news.dfrf.nasa.gov>
-Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards CA
-References: <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> <1993Aug5.121925.4176@wisipc.weizmann.ac.
-        <pgf.744602513@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 04:37:26 GMT
-Lines: 17
-Source-Info:  Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
-Source-Info:  Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
-
-On Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:01:53 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
said:
-
-Phil> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
-
->In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.)
->writes: > >What is your backgroud?  >Who do you speak for ?  > >What
->do you do besides writing posters ?
-
->Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
-
-Phil> Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
-
-Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
---
-Mary Shafer  DoD #362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
-shafer@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov                 Of course I don't speak for NASA
- "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
-
-
-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 23:05:07 +1200 (NZST)
-From: Bruce Hoult <Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
-> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
->
-> >In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes:
-> >>
-> >>What is your backgroud?
-> >>Who do you speak for ?
-> >>
-> >>What do you do besides writing posters ?
->
-> >Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
->
-> Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
-
-NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!  Our three principal methods are...
-
-
-(I'm sorry.  I couldn't resist wasting hundreds if not thousands of
dollars...)
-
-
-Date: 6 Aug 93 14:54:05 GMT
-From: "R.E. Wiersbe" <hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-In article <SHAFER.93Aug5213722@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
->On Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:01:53 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
said:
->
->Phil> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
->
->>In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.)
->>writes: > >What is your backgroud?  >Who do you speak for ?  > >What
->>do you do besides writing posters ?
->
->>Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
->
->Phil> Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
->
->Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
->--
-Our weapon is Fear! Fear and Surprise!
-Our two main weapons are Fear, and Surprise, and Ruthless Efficiency!
-Our three main weapons are Fear, Surprise, Ruthless Efficiency, and an almost
-fanatical devotion to the Pope!
-Our four weapons are Fear....I'll come in again..............
-
-Bob Wiersbe     AT&T Bell Labs  hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com
-
-
-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 22:28:32 GMT
-From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
-hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com (R.E. Wiersbe) writes:
-
->In article <SHAFER.93Aug5213722@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
->>On Fri, 6 Aug 1993 02:01:53 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
said:
->>
->>Phil> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes:
->>
->>>In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.)
->>>writes: > >What is your backgroud?  >Who do you speak for ?  > >What
->>>do you do besides writing posters ?
->>
->>>Gee, no one told me the inquisition had started again.
->>
->>Phil> Same here. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
->>
->>Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
->>--
->Our weapon is Fear! Fear and Surprise!
->Our two main weapons are Fear, and Surprise, and Ruthless Efficiency!
->Our three main weapons are Fear, Surprise, Ruthless Efficiency, and an
almost
->fanatical devotion to the Pope!
->Our four weapons are Fear....I'll come in again..............
-
-Well, neither the soft cushions or the comfy chair worked on me...
-so they put me on sci.space.
-
-Well, guys and gals? Should I confess?
-
->Bob Wiersbe    AT&T Bell Labs  hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com
---
-+-----------------------+
-|"Standard disclaimer"  |Clever quote will be back next week!
-|pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu |
-+-----------------------+
-
-Date: 6 Aug 1993 20:31:30 -0400
-From: Pat <prb@access.digex.net>
-Subject: The Inquisition (The Usenet edition)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-
- Bring out the Rack!
-
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In the meantime, we have seen the conversation here in sci.physics.fusion
take a somewhat similar whimsical turn, except for the vicious
undercurrents:
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
-Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
-Subject: Re: Please move to "sci.energy"
-Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 06:48:06 GMT
-Organization: University of Virginia
-
-In article <CBCKDC.7Gt@world.std.com>,
-mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
->Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
->
->=   [after Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote: >
->= "I look forward with eager anticipation to the day when the New
->= Inquisition is "debunked" by some enormously critical phenomenon which
->= they tortured into silence -- and "anomalous heat" may be just the
->= phenomenon to do it"]
->
->=db     "You know, Attila the Hun was reputed to enjoy slitting
->=db prisoners' bellies open and wrapping their entrails around a tree
->=db while they watched, still alive.  Indeed, Roman emissaries were
->=db forced to camp outside the city of Naissus, sacked by Atilla
->=db several years  earlier, simply because of the remaining stench.
->=db      The Inquisition, however, took this general idea and turned
->=db it into a science.  After all, most people can stand less than an
->=db hour of watching their entrails wrapped around a tree  before they
->=db expire.  The Inquisition found, in the name of religion, that they
->=db could do much much better than that."
->
->  Dale,
->
->     Given the finer points of your analogy, I marvel at your fascinations.
->    Although your allusion has a significant vector from what might
->   normally be considered to be physics.fusion, your above-cited comparison
->   of the "cold fusion skeptics" to Attila the Hun et alia might indeed
->   be a reasonable fit, as the third paragraph below may herald.
-[nonsequitur deleted]
-
-     'I suppose it's difficult to maintain one's perspective if
-     one had none in the first place', he commented dryly.
-
-     The moral of *this* story?  In contrast to Mr. Schultz's position,
-     I believe unarmed men should avoid entering battle.
 
 [jab: see story of destruction of Reich, his books, lab and associates below]
 
-
-                           dale bass
-
-       Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute
-     Humpty Dumpty began again.  `They've a temper, some of them --
-     particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do
-     anything with, but not verbs -- however, _I_ can manage the whole
-     of them!  Impenetrability!  That's what _I_ say!'
-       `Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
-       `Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty,
-     looking very much pleased.  `I meant by "impenetrability" that
-     we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well
-     if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't
-     mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
-       `That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a
-     thoughtful tone.
-       `When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty
-     Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'
-       `Oh!' said Alice.  She was too much puzzled to make any other
-     remark.
-
-               Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass (1871)
 --------------------
 
Now what are we to make of all this?  Of course, this is only a coincidence.
 
Of course.
 
Well, to illustrate my point about the New Inquisition, I'd like follow
this whimsical "coincidence" with a few quotes from Robert Anton Wilson's
book:
 
"The New Inquisition" cc 1991 New Falcon Publications, Scottsdale, AZ
 
"
It is the thesis of this book that since the passing of the Old Idolatry
and the Old Inquisition, we have seen, without recognizing what was
happening, the rise of a New Idolatry and a New Inquisition.  Of course
that thesis is a polemical position, a wild satirical exaggeration, a
fancy bit of rhetoric.
 
Of course.
 
Nonetheless, in the following pages, I will examine scandals that
most people would rather forget and look into yanrs that the comfortable
would rather ignore.  You might call this an expedition into the
philosphoical unconscious, where materialist society buries its
REPRESSED FANTASIES AND FEARS.
 
I suspect that I shall make myself unpopular.
 
...
 
-- but it is all in the spirit of fun.  Honestly.  No more malicious
than "Gulliver's Travels" actually.
 
...
 
Since this book is a venture in guerilla ontology -- an attempt to
enlarge our concept of the thinkable, in the tradition of Nietzsche,
surrealism, Pataphysics and Charles Fort -- it will predictably be
denounced violently by the Citadel and by those self-described skeptics,
like Prof. Munge, who have a blind faith in current Idols, accepted
paradigms and the local tribal relality-tunnel in general.  Because I
have a vulgar taste for a little baroque rhetoric now and then, I shall
continue to call these high priests of the modern Idol, the "New
 Inquisition", and refer to their dogmatic reality-tunnel as the "New
 Fundamentalism".
 
These are not intended solely as terms of abuse such as all polemicists
try to hang around the necks of their opponents.
 
Because it provides a certain drama, or a certain low comedy, I shall
write as if the New Fundamentalists are firmly entrenched in power
structures everywhere in the modern world and really act like a New
Inquisition toward those who reject their Idol.  I confess again, this
rhetoric is, like all polemics, exaggerated and wicked.  Really.  The
men of the Citadel have never burned books, or conspired to suppress
books, or faked evidence to support their own prejudices, or engaged
in calculated smear campaigns against those who differ from them.  They
are honorable men, all honorable men.  Of course.
 
In October 1957, agents of the U.S. government went to the Orgone
Institute Press in New York City; they seized all the books; they
loaded the books into a comandeered garbage truck; they drove to
the Vandivoort Street incinerator; they burned the books...
 
The books were by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, a former student of Freud...
 
The propoganda war against Reich had been led by Martin Gardner, a
Scientific Fundamentalist whom we shall meet many times in these
pages.  Mr. Gardner has an infallible method of recognizing real
science and of recognizing pseudo-science.  Real science is what
agrees with his Idol and pseudo-science is what challenges that Idol...
 
Mr. Gardner's papl bulls against the Reichian heresy are very
interesting, and very typical of fundamentalism when enraged, in
that one finds a strong, very strong implication that Dr. Reich was
insane and hallucinating, although this is never stated directly
and unambigusously.  [jab:  Recall that involuntary incarceration
 for "insanity" also gave license to engage in surgical alteration
 of brain structures as well as shock "treatments", none of which
 is to be considered torture -- of course.  In these days of enlightened
 incarceration, imprisonment merely means being subjected to rape by
 HIV infected individuals.  Again... it would most certainly be polemical,
 not to mention "homophobic", to compare such enlightened political
 correction to the horrific techniques of mideval Inquisitors...]
 
While Mr. Gardner, and several others, denounced Dr. Reich in the
media, members of the American Medical Association and American
Psychoanalytical Association pressured the government ot prosecute
Reich as a crank or a "charlatan."  Dr. Reich, either out of delusions
of grandeur or out of principled commitment to libertarian ideals --
take your choice -- refused to admit that the government had any right
to pass judgement on scientific theories, and as a result was convicted
of contempt of court.  Nonetheless, the government followed this with
the book-burning, and with THE DESTRUCTION BY AX OF EQUIPMENT IN DR.
REICH'S RESEARCH LABORATORY, and then threw him in prison, where
he died of a heart attack after a few months.  Reich's co-worker, Dr.
Michael Silvert, subsequently committed suicide...
 
I am not particularly interested, here, in how much of Reich was right
or wrong.  I present the Reich case as one illustration of how the
current Idol, the orthodoxy of biological materialism, maintains itself.
It does so the way all orthodoxies and Idols have always maintained
themselves.  We will see more of this when we come to the case of
Dr. Sheldrake, the english biologist who rediscovered the damned "orgone",
or something a lot like it, and called it the "morphogenetic field."...
 
[jab: page 92 of "The New Inquisition."]
 
If this be subversion, then so are the Marx Brothers and MONTY PYTHON:
 
    24 September 1981 "Nature" -- under the headline "A Book for
Burning"--
    "This infuriating tract ... The author, by training a biochemist
 and by demonstration a knowledgable man, is, however, misguided.  His
 book is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years...
 in no sense a scientific argument... pseudo-science... preposterous...
 intellectual abberations..."
 
You thought it only happened in backward nations like the United States,
where they even elect Actors as President.  But "Nature" is generally
considered England's most prestigious scientific magazine.
 
The book that Nature wishes were burned is "A New science of Life" by
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake...
 
[jab: expansion of Sheldrake's evidence and theory]
 
Jung, of course, prefers to regard it as synchronicity -- his own
label for an alleged resonance in nature, or between nature and its
various parts, including us -- a resonance which creates seeming
"COINCIDENCES" so startling that most of us, fundamentalists excluded,
sense deeply that they require an explanation.
 
We have already explained that, of course -- even a stopped clock
is right twice a day.... IT WAS ONLY COINCIDENCE.  (Remember that
 phrase.  It is the self-hypnotic chant by which the New Inquisition
 banishes all evidence it does not like.  We will hear it often.)
"
 
Now I admit that my use of RAW's wicked and polemical phrase "The
New Inquisition" was equally wicked and polemical on my part.
 
Had they not the option of fleeing the United States, Pons and Flieschman
most probably would not have ended up being imprisoned as "charlatans"
(despite the fact that this accusation WAS made by person's in sufficient
 authority to pursue serious criminal actions against them) therein to be
raped and thereby infected with the HIVirus.
 
Any such implication is, of course, merely gross exaggeration and a
theatrical distortion of perspective on my part, akin to calling the
current scientific establishment "The New Inquisition".
 
Of course.
 
Further...
 
let there be no implication that the virtually simultaneous appearance of
whimsical references to the "Inquisition" in both of the newsgroups to which
the NON-"New Inquisition" has limited me, to be construed as somehow
"mystically resonanting" with Wilson's use of "synchronicity" and related
theories as examples in his book "The New Inquisition".  It was a mere
coincidence devoid of meaning or, at worst, caused by Ward Paul's reading
my message in sci.physics.fusion mentioning the "Inquisition" just prior to
posting his.
 
You can bet your life on it being one of those two possibilities.
 
I just wish there were some way you could.
 
PS: I left out the rather lengthy example of SYNCHRONICITY given by
RAW which entailed describing MONTY PYTHON's movie scene in which a
vicious rabbit attacks the semi-mythical ruler -- a scene which appeared
prior to series of real rabbit attacks on rulers of various nations --
the most publicized one of which was the killer rabbit that attacked
Jimmy Carter while he was fishing.
 
Who said Science couldn't be fun? ;-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.08 / Robert Panoff /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 02:44:34 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois

In article <930805133727.20a0104a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
>
>  (LOTS DELETED)
>
>Who knows, we may some day give degrees.
>
>Tom Droege
 
just wondering...would those degrees be celsius or fahrenheit?  would you
have to get a sustained change in degrees to get a degree? :)
 
Bob Panoff
NCSA Senior Research Scientist
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrpanoff cudfnRobert cudlnPanoff cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The New Inquisition
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The New Inquisition
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 05:14:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <m0oOwYW-0000I1C@crash.cts.com>,
Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>
>Had they not the option of fleeing the United States, Pons and Flieschman
>most probably would not have ended up being imprisoned as "charlatans"
>(despite the fact that this accusation WAS made by person's in sufficient
> authority to pursue serious criminal actions against them) therein to be
>raped and thereby infected with the HIVirus.
 
     And your little dog too ...
 
                         dale bass
 
          I tip my hat to the new constitution,
             Take a vow for the revolution,
          Smile and grin at the change all around,
             Pick up my guitar and play,
          Just like yesterday,
             Then I get on my knees and pray,
          We won't get fooled again.
 
             Pete Townshend - Won't Get Fooled Again (1971)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.08 / David Andrews /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: dba@redbug.oau.org (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 93 16:33:44 GMT
Organization: none

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes in article <930805133727.20a0104a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>:
>
> I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
> ...
> Who knows, we may some day give degrees.
>
> Tom Droege
 
But who will you give 'em too?  Too many of the students around here are gonna
zorch their finals, having spent all night long in the Rathskeller telling
"peanuts envy" jokes instead of studying...
 
--
David "99 bottles of D2O on the wall" Andrews
dba@redbug.oau.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudendba cudfnDavid cudlnAndrews cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.08 / John Logajan /  Re: A small source of heat?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A small source of heat?
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 93 20:29:33 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> I don't understand your units 25J/mol C.  What is the C?
 
Centigrade.  It takes 25 Joules of energy to raise most mole amounts of
solids one degree centrigrade -- regardless of their molecular weights.
 
I can't find specific numbers for a Pd/D2 system, and therefore my earlier
conjecture could be quantitatively wrong -- and of the wrong sign!  But
I can show the numbers for D2 and O2.
 
Since the units in the tables are cal/deg/mole I will switch to cal to avoid
doing the conversion to J.
 
Heat capacities:
D2O 20.16 cal/degC/mole  (liquid)
D2O  8.19                (gas)
D2   6.978
O2   7.016
Pd   6.21
 
The heat capacity of the (1m)D2 and (.5m)O2 is about one half of (1m)D2O's.
I think that this means that the hotter the D2O is before dissociation, the
greater the temperature will rise due the the heat capacity dropping after
dissociation.
 
The nearest analogy I can think of to describe this effect is to imagine
pulling out the dielectric between the plates of a capacitor, such that
the dielectric constant between the plates drops.  If the stored charge
on the plates has nowhere to go when the dielectric constant drops, then
the voltage potential between the plates must increase.
 
Note that if the D2 and O2 recombine, then the opposite reaction should
occur (an increase in heat capacity for the D2O formed.)
 
The question remains, what is the quantitative value of the heat capacity
of the Pd-D loaded system compared to the Pd-D unloaded system.  High heat
capacities seem to be associated with complex compounds with multiple
modes of simultaeous vibration.  Some solids in the table have heat capacities
on the order of 160 cal/degC/mole.  Therefore wide variations are possible.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.08 / Eugene Mallove /  Taubes Fly-Paper Catch!
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Taubes Fly-Paper Catch!
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 21:43:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        **** Announcing the Latest Taubes Fly-Paper Catch! ****
 
        In mid-May 1993 I reviewed Gary Taubes's book, Bad Science (BS), in
this forum. I made a prediction in that review: "....it will be like flies
landing on sticky fly-paper. The negativists will cheer this book as they have
each of the two preceding negative accounts."  That prediction has now come to
pass, so I hereby announce the publication of the "Taubes Fly-Paper Catch"
(TFPC, for those who like acronyms).
 
        This list will be updated periodically as new bugs are attracted to
Taubes's noxious brew of misinformation and absurdity. The TFPC already has
snagged six luminaries, plus other assorted reviewers. It's hard to tell from
their predicament whether they are ordinary nasty "house flies" -- as in flies
in the "house of science" -- or merely bioluminescent bugs trying to impress
us with their luminous credentials. Whatever, they're wrong, and they're
stuck! It may be that a few of these are actually rats who have become fused
to the sticky Taubes Paper (TP). They aren't deluded Nobelists with dreams,
just pack journalists or pack-mentality scientists. I'll keep you in suspense
no longer -- here's the list and where the evidence for them being
irreversibly stuck may be found:
 
1. Leon Lederman, Nobel prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
2. Burton Richter, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1976 (Dust jacket of BS)
3. Mel Schwartz, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
4. F.S. Rowland, chairman, American Association for the Advancement of
Science (Dust jacket of BS)
5. Glenn T. Seaborg, Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1951 (Dust jacket of BS)
6. John Carey, Business Week review, June 21, 1993
 
Others trapped bugs include:
 
7. Curt Suplee, The Washington Post, July, 1993
8. Daniel J. Kevles, The New Yorker, August 2, 1993
9. John Gribbin, The New York Times, August 8, 1993
 
        Any of you who aspire to be on this list should know that all that is
required to be put on and assigned a rank number is for you *publish* a
dominantly positive review of BS in which you basically agree with Taubes that
cold fusion is dead, nonsense, and "pathological science" and/or that Taubes
has prepared a generally "balanced" and comprehensive account of the cold
fusion story (even though he says almost nothing about what happened after
1989).  Mind you, I am doing this at the risk of encouraging positive reviews
of BS, but my delight in catching new bugs far outweighs that minor
disadvantage. So bugs, make my day! I notice that some on this increasingly
vacuous forum have chimed in with praise, sometimes qualified or faint, of the
Taubes travesty. I'm not sure I should "honor" you with a slot on the TFPC,
but if you insist I'll gladly put you on.
 
        Oh dear, I almost forgot to cite another part of my review of BS in
May, 1993: "In the final act, the flies and flypaper will be trashed forever."
 
 
        The trapped flies have demonstrated an appalling ignorance of what is
going on in cold fusion. Many of them were completely duped into believing
that virtually no one on the planet is still deluded enough to be working on
cold fusion! This is sad for them as individuals, but it will make the funeral
pyre of the negativists burn so much brighter in 1994, if not sooner.  Gary
Taubes will now enter science history as having TWICE had a suppressing effect
on cold fusion development in the the US: (1) With his 1990 unsubstantiated
and now completely disproved allegation of tritium spiking at Texas A&M, and
(2) With the publication of his farcical BS book.
 
        I'll not waste time analyzing the nonsense that the BS-praisers have
written about cold fusion in their reviews. However,  one individual -- Nobel
laureate Leon Lederman (TFPC#1) -- must be cited for actions WAY beyond the
call of duty for the negative camp. In his book, "The God Particle: If the
Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?" (written "with Dick Teresi" I
might add, because Leon perhaps found it tough to write a popular book by
himself, or was simply too busy trying to corner funding for the SSC),
Lederman writes:
 
"If those University of Utah chemists who thought they had discovered cold
fusion in 1989 had understood Faraday's laws of electrolysis better, perhaps
they would never have embarrassed themselves as well as the rest of us."
(p.122)  Sorry, Leon Baby, speak for yourself!  It's YOU who will be
profoundly embarrassed when your game comes to an end. Not satisfied with one
anti-cold fusion insult, Lederman writes (on page 192): "Some fakes have had
remarkable success, such as the Israeli magician Uri Geller or the writer
Immanuel Velikovsky or even some Ph.D's in science (a Ph.D. is even less a
guarantee of truth than a Nobel Prize) who push totally off-the-wall things
like 'seeing hands,' 'psychokinesis,' 'creation science,' 'polywater,' 'cold
fusion,' and so many other fraudulent ideas." He continues: "Usually the claim
is made that the revealed truth is being suppressed by the ensconced
establishment, intent on preserving the status quo with all the rights and
privileges." Yup, you got it Leo!
 
Yes, and I fully agree with you that your Ph.D. AND your Nobel Prize are no
guarantee that you know what you are talking about with respect to cold fusion
-- you don't.
 
Every person on the TFPC will be sent the following five items:
 
1. My review of Bad Science
2. This posting
3. An order form for the Proceedings of the Nagoya Conference
4. The EPRI announcement of the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion
5. A list of the Japanese institutions and corporations engaged in cold fusion
research and development.
 
                              Eugene Mallove
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 04:57:28 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
BILL PAGE'S REVIEW OF QUANTICS BOOK
 
Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) gave a very nice review in posting
<930805104142_70047.3047_EHB20-1@CompuServe.COM> of the book:
 
    _Quantics: Rudiments of Quantum Physics_, by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond and
    Francoise Balibar.  English translation by S. Twareque Ali, North
    Holland, 1990.
 
This is the same book that W.R. Bernecky first brought to our attention,
incidentally, back in his first very readable posting on bosons.
 
A couple of impressions:
 
 o  It sounds as though it is a well-presented and intriguing introductory
    text to quantum mechanics.  I particularly like the early emphasis on
    a more unified ("quanton") view of wave-particle duality, although I
    am still unsure what approach they are taking to define their quantons.
 
 o  It really is an _introductory_ text on QM, despite the quite different
    style of presentation.  I didn't really see anything in the Page review
    that was radically different from themes and analyses you could pick up
    (say) from a vintage book such as _Quantum Mechanics_ by Powell and
    Crasemann (Addison Wesley 1961), or from the classic _Quantum Theory_
    by David Bohm (Dover 1951, revised 1979).  Or, for that matter, from
    Volume III of the Feynman Lectures on Physics -- although that work has
    its own unique slant on things and places more emphasis on concepts.
 
    Except _possibly_ for quantons, the Quantics books sounded very much
    like a highly innovative re-presentation of existing knowledge, not a
    major excursion into new areas.
 
    Even quantons sound suspiciously like (for example) the very old Wilson-
    Sommerfield "Planck quantization areas" in phase space, or possibly even
    Penrose's elaborate (and cryptic) "twistor" formalizations.
 
 
 o  I don't know what to make of the "particle count uncertainty" part, but
    would in passing note that if a system that has quantum uncertainty in
    the wavelength of its photons (true for all real systems!), then its
    photons _inherently and trivially indeterminate in total number_.  If
    that is all that Quantics is referring to, it is not a biggy, nor is it
    necessarily of any relevance to particles such as electrons.  It is
    instead simply a reflection of the fact that a single fixed amount of
    electromagnetic energy can be represented by anywhere from one to an
    effectively infinite number of photons, depending simply on how one
    chooses to spread energy across the electromagnetic spectrum.
 
    Electrons and protons are protected by conservation rules that are
    related to the infinite extent of their charge fields -- you cannot
    "lose" one in the same sense that you can a photon.  "Losing" one would
    create a contradiction in which the charge would appear to exist in
    one arbitrarily surface integral around the system, but _not_ within
    a smaller surface integral taken closer to the "lost" electron.  This
    is a no-no, since if you start messing around with that level of
    violation of conservation rules you don't _need_ to invoke ordinary
    quantum uncertainty.  Sort of like breaking the rule against robbing
    banks, but at the same time being very diligent to follow mom's old
    rule of saying "thank you!" as you collect the cash...  :)
 
 
QUANTICS QUASHES BOSINOS -- FILM AT ELEVEN!
 
I would also note that the Quantics book beautifully (and conventionally)
eliminates such ideas as bosinos or any other kind of "collapse" due to
bose condensation.  Liquid helium retains its volume;  deuterons in Pd
keep their distance (at least for any first-order type of analysis --
solid state _is_ a bit messy).
 
Why?
 
Because Quantics insists that _all_ particles of a single identical type
must be part of _one_ symmetric [bose] or antisymmetric [fermi] field.
 
If you just stop and mull that one over a bit, you should be able to see
pretty quickly why _no_ composite boson will _ever_ be able to occupy the
same space as another composite boson.  For example, take a look at the
following set of composite (4He) bosons:
 
         e          e          e          e          e          e
       2p 2n      2p 2n      2p 2n      2p 2n      2p 2n      2p 2n
         e          e          e          e          e          e
 
Symmetric and antisymmetric fields deal _only_ with a single particle type,
but they include _all_ particles of that type in a system.  Thus as far as
the antisymmetric electron field is concerned, the _only_ thing it can see
in the above system is this:
 
         e          e          e          e          e          e
         e          e          e          e          e          e
 
(Due to something called "spin", _two_ electrons can in fact occupy the
same space without getting "upset" with each other.)
 
Now what happens if you try to move _any two or more_ of the above
groupings closer together?
 
Up to a point, very little.  But when the pairs get really, really close,
fermi exclusion starts increasing the total energy of the electron anti-
symmetric field:
 
         e          e    e    e          e          e
         e          e    e    e          e          e
 
This field will need more energy (possibly much more) than the earlier one.
 
But what if composite bosons are involved?  Well, let's take a look:
 
 
    Fundamental particles view (electron fermionic fields dominant):
 
         e          e    e    e          e          e
        2p2n       2p2n 2p2n 2p2n       2p2n       2p2n
         e          e    e    e          e          e
 
    Composite particles view (bosonic field):
 
         He         He   He   He         He          He
 
 
You will get _some_ counterbalancing of the electron antisymmetric field
through the (quite independent) symmetric field of the composite He boson
field.  But it's not magic.  The situation is much akin to having a new
and relatively gentle force that tries to push the helium atoms together,
while a (significantly more ferocious) antisymmetric electron field works
very hard to keep them apart.  Furthermore, this new force is stricly
limited by a simple point -- if you _do_ ever get to the point of actually
ionizing or otherwise mistreating the He composite, it immediately ceases
to be part of the composite field!
 
(Note:  The electron field is more ferocious due mainly to the much lighter
mass and thus more rapid quantum delocalization of electrons.  Why that is
gets a bit messy, but the general rule is handy to remember:  the higher
the mass of the particle, the _less_ the effective force of its symmetric
or antisymmetric field will be.  If you combine that with a larger physical
volume for the particle, the impact of its field may fade to nearly total
insignificance in most cases.)
 
So how strong is the counterbalancing effect of the symmetric He field in
comparison to the antisymmetric electron field?
 
Alas, not very good, as demonstrated by the extremely low temperatures that
are required to get He to bose condense.  In fact, it is not much different
in scale from the extremely weak Van der Waals forces that cause liquid He
to form in the first place.  Trying to _directly_ invoke the symmetric He
field as a way of overcoming the antisymmetric electron field component
of the system is roughly in the same range of trying to use a very large
Kleenex to capture an elephant leaping off the top of a flaming 10 story
building.  It really _does not_ work very well in most cases...
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / John Logajan /  More small heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More small heat
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 12:45:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
 
> I don't understand your units 25J/mol C.  What is the C?
 
Centigrade.  It takes 25 Joules of energy to raise most mole amounts of
solids one degree centrigrade -- regardless of their molecular weights.
 
> 25 J per mole is a tiny amount.
 
But it seems about intuitively right.  One mole of carbon, for instance
weighs 12 grams.  It seems reasonable to expect 25 joules to raise it
one degree C.
 
So my point was that there may be a slight difference in total system
heat capacity between Pd loaded and unloaded with D.
 
An analogy I can think of would be if you had a capacitor with a charge
of X electrons -- and suddenly lowered the dielectric constant between
them -- the voltage would *have* to go up to compensate in spite of
the fact that no additional energy was added to the system.
 
Similarly, during unloading of D, the system heat capacity drops, requiring
the temperature to rise without requiring any additional energy input.
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / Scott Mueller /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 12:58:11 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <744827624snx@redbug.oau.org> dba@redbug.oau.org (David Andrews) writes:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes in article <930805133727.20a0104a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>:
>>
>> I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
>> ...
>Too many of the students around here are gonna zorch their finals, [...]
 
Based on one obvious (to me) comparison, I'd say that few are going to meet
the level of performance exemplified by Zorch.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
PS - (*blush*) thanks for the kudos, John and Tom.
 
PPS - for the curious, "Zorch" was my nickname as a child.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / K Blackler /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: kb@jet.uk (Kenneth Blackler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 12:01:38 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <CBDLDo.L6F@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
 
>There are very smart ideas for fusion that do not have this problem
>and could be developed into working commercial technology quickly.
>Unfortunately, these concepts are not supported and by law the only
>agency to do energy research is the DoE.
 
Is this true, is it actually illegal in the US for other people to
do research into energy? Amazing.... Is this true for all sorts of
energy, e.g. wind and wave or just nuclear?
 
KenB
 
 
--
 ______________________________________   ____________   _____________
|Ken Blackler kb@jet.uk (+44)235 464743| | __________ | |   -Fusion-   |
|JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon       | |   | |_ |   | |Energy for the|
|Oxfordshire, England. OX14 3EA        | | \_/ |_ |   | | (far) future |
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkb cudfnKenneth cudlnBlackler cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / Jim Carr /  Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:02:56 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
 ... concerning The New Yorker review ...
 
>>At another point he quotes Taubes as saying that Jones had been working
>>on other kinds of cold fusion and got the idea for using electrochemical
>>cells from the F&P proposal to the DOE.  I guess a notarized lab book isn't
>>proof for him.
 
In article <240op0$91g@athena.veritas.com> joshua@athena.veritas.com
(Joshua Levy) writes:
>
>Either the reviewer misread the book, or you misread the reviewer.
 
I did not misread the reviewer.  It would seem clear from your quote that
the reviewer chose to replace fact with exaggeration either out of some
ignorance of the basic science or (as Mallove seems to allege) some malice.
It is rather unusual for The New Yorker to allow unchecked facts, even in
a review, but I guess that is a symptom of the "new" New Yorker under Tina
Brown.  They now put out movie reviews based on screenings so the review is
out before the movie, rather than waiting and watching it in a theater with
everyone else and running the review a week later.  I will have to drop
them a note and express my disappointment.
 
>I'm not sure I'd recommend buying the book, but if you want to understand
>CF, you'll need to read it.  No where else (that I know of) is Pons's
>work with Dow or Synthetech described.  No where else are details of what
>the ERAB panel found at the various labs they visited, and so on.
 
Neither of those details were in the TNY review.  The background on the
ERAB panel "world tour" would be an interesting sidebar to the other
information on this moment in science history.  Based on the review I
read, I was concerned that the book had put its focus on personalities
at the expense of factual matters.  Taubes does tend to play to the
galleries in search of big sales numbers.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / fred mccall /  Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
     
Originally-From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 19:54:07 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Aug5.150912.12507@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
 
>In article <1993Aug4.225105.14259@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul30.220629.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
>>>Cold Fusion is dead? Must not be, if popular science has an article on it..
>>It's not dead, it's just fallen into the _Chariots of the Gods_ zone,
>>which is just west of the Bermuda Triangle zone and the Face on Mars
>>zone.
 
>Or, if you like Monty Python, "Its not dead --- but its coughing up blood."
 
It's not dead.  It's merely a fleshwound.  Come back here and fight,
you coward!
 
[It may not be 'dead' insofar as people looking for nooks and
crannies, but the idea of generating power (or anything much more than
lab curiosities) out of it seems pretty remote.]
 
::bonk::  Well, it's dead now!
 
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmccall cudfnfred cudlnmccall cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 9 Aug 1993 20:56:43 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
: Gravity isn't the primary force thats causing the particles to spill
: out (like a tipped over glass of water), rather it is pressure they
: produce against the inside of their confining field because they
: need to have as many particles in their at the burn temperature in order
: to get enough of a fusion burn rate to make things worth while.  On
: the other hand,  if the particles aren't hot enough, and at the burn
: temperatures for cool burning fuels like radioactive tritium and
: deuterium they aren't hot enough, then they will leak through the field.
: that has to due with the fact that the cooler the burn temperature is
: the more resistive the plasma is, and it is the resistivity the eats
: away the energy of the confining field.
 
Where is the energy dissipated in this 'resistivity'?  Normally one
considers 'resistance' to transfer energy from macroscopic current to
heat.
 
I thought the biggest problem in magnetically confined fusion is
anomalous diffusion to the walls  (i.e. we don't know why it happens) that
kills the energy.  Do hotter particles do this less?  It seems odd that
a hotter plasma would diffuse less, but this stuff is pretty strange.
 
: +---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
: | 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**
: +---------------------------------------------------------************
 
--
-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 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: 9 Aug 1993 21:15:00 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
: (Note:  The electron field is more ferocious due mainly to the much lighter
: mass and thus more rapid quantum delocalization of electrons.  Why that is
: gets a bit messy, but the general rule is handy to remember:  the higher
: the mass of the particle, the _less_ the effective force of its symmetric
: or antisymmetric field will be.  If you combine that with a larger physical
: volume for the particle, the impact of its field may fade to nearly total
: insignificance in most cases.)
 
Essentially, heavier particles behave more classically than lighter ones.
Which is why people consider quantum electronic effects in solids superposed
on classical nuclear motions: it works.
 
:                               Cheers,
:                               Terry
 
 
--
-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 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Please Help
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please Help
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 22:59:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is clearly not the right place for this post, but it is the only one I
know.  Someone please tell me where (and how) to send it to the right place.
 
 
Looks like I am going to rewrite "DROEGE" for use in making chips.  Some of
you have seen the DROEGE program on bulletin boards.  That one is a Demo, the
real one is a nice simple program for doing manual layout of PC boards.  No
auto anything but you can do what you want to do - which is not allowed by the
million buck programs.  I used to sell copies for $10 and you could really
make boards from it.  The key feature of the program is that it allows nested
symbols.  This means that if many copies of something like an IC pin outline
are used, is only requires one description in memory.  Thus we are able to
keep everything needed for example, for the printed circuit board for a PC
sized project in the 640 k memory of a PC.  The whole thing was written in
QuickBASIC, and works great.
 
So that I can concentrate on what I do well - understand what someone laying
out a chip or a printed circuit board wants to do - I will again write in
QuickBASIC.  I need two things:
 
1) A routine that I can link to a QuickBASIC program that allows storing things
in extended memory.
 
2) A display driver that allows drawing on an arbitrayr (larger) display than
the VGA.
 
I have talked to Microsoft, and they apparently do not plan to make any
improvements to QuickBASIC.  Everything is going into VisualBASIC for
windows.  A shame.  Some of us just want to use computers for tools, and do
not care to run 15 programs at the same time.  I am quite happy to get a
computer to do one thing at a time, like run a "cold fusion" exepriment, or
a water machine.
 
In the past, you could buy some nice tools to link to QuickBASIC, but the
tool makers all seem to be working on stuff for windows.  That's where the
money is.  It's quite possible that what I need exists, but I don't know where
to find it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 9 Aug 1993 15:37:19 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul Koloc writes:
 
"Gravity isn't the primary force thats causing the particles to spill
out (like a tipped over glass of water), rather it is pressure they
produce against the inside of their confining field because they
need to have as many particles in their at the burn temperature in order
to get enough of a fusion burn rate to make things worth while.  On
the other hand,  if the particles aren't hot enough, and at the burn
temperatures for cool burning fuels like radioactive tritium and
deuterium they aren't hot enough, then they will leak through the field.
that has to due with the fact that the cooler the burn temperature is
the more resistive the plasma is, and it is the resistivity the eats
away the energy of the confining field.  In a sense the resistive particles
sort of eat little moth holes in the field and although the "hole"
closes behind them they gradually tunnel (diffuse) through.  So the
big problem for fusion is to get as many particles in the magnetic
bag (so to speak) before they can eat their way out.  That means they
must produce as much pressure as possible, and because the magnetic
system of the current fusion program (called the tokamak) is very
very INEFFICIENT and transmitting pressure to the plasma (the name
given the hot fiery fusion fuel gas after it's ionized)."
 
Paul, do you really believe that energy and particles are lost in tokamaks
via *collisional diffusion* ?? We have known since the early 70s that the
devices lose energy at much higher rates (and for particles, it was shown
shortly after); hence the name "anomalous transport".
 
Even if you make things nice and collisionless, there is a little problem
called ExB turbulence. It is a fact to be faced in any magnetically confined
plasma, simply as a result of the gradients in density and temperature.
Even if there are no well-defined linear instabilities, such a system is
quite generally unstable to finite perturbations, ie, nonlinearly.
 
No, you cannot escape; this has to be lived with.
 
Your pressure argument sounds like the beta-limit. Granting that, I
assume your plasmak shares with the spheromak and reversed-field pinch the
ability to support high-beta equilibria which are ideal-MHD stable. But
in the case of the other two, the transport properties are even worse than
in a tokamak, because of the MHD-reconnection turbulence to which they
are unstable. Even in the case the plasmak can avoid this, it will still
have ExB drift-type turbulence to contend with.
 
But build it anyway.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.09 / John George /  Re: Galaxy beware, the Hole will get there!
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Galaxy beware, the Hole will get there!
Date: 9 Aug 93 23:53:30 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

It looks like death may be certain. Mr. Clinton's taxes are front-loaded.
They want to get theirs before the end.
 
The deficit reduction and the Destruction of the Universe are for the
OUT YEARS! (Political Double-Speak for not in my political lifetime.)
 
I love it!
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / James White /  Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 02:32:32 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

The boiling dry of Dr. Pons' cells was do to the decomposition of
deuterium peroxide. The decomposition of peroxide produces about
4 megajoules per liter, about twice what is required to boil the cells.
Allowing the electrolyte to boil away maintained the concentration of
peroxide, and thus the reaction rate.
 
It is not surprising that peroxide can form in his cells, given that it was
once manufactured commercially in electrolytic cells with platinum anodes.
 
Note that peroxide solutions are colorless and odorless. In a test tube
they would appear to be water, unless you actually test for peroxide.
Thus, the "lack of any obvious chemical change" is exactly what one would
expect from peroxide.
 
Pons makes certain assumptions about his calorimeters which are not true
when peroxide chemistry is occurring. For example, if a calibration pulse
is applied to a running cell, this could trigger more peroxide formation
which absorbs some of the heat. Thus the temperature would not rise as
much as would be expected, and an error would be made in calibrating the
calorimeter. Such an error could explain the low level excess heat. Note
that peroxide chemistry is very sensitive to contaminants, which could
explain why some of his runs were "duds". Thus, the precise heat balance
of the duds should not be used to argue that no error exists in the active
cells.
 
At ICCF-1 Pons handed out a preprint which described the results of a very
interesting experiment. The cell produced a low level of excess heat for
much of the run, as well as a fairly large and prolonged burst. The low
level heat could have been due to calorimetry error, but the burst could
not. The burst also produced too much energy to be due to any chemical
storage except peroxide.
 
Now after 3 years and "tons of funding", Pons has made absolutely no progress
towards ruling out peroxide. He has not been able to shorten the startup
time (to rule out peroxide being formed), nor has he been able to get more
energy out of a cell than the 4 MJ/l that peroxide can produce. Pons is
bumping up against the hard physical limits of what peroxide chemistry
can do.
 
The above is just my opinion, of course, but I would be surprised if
Pons' bursts turned out to be due to anything other than peroxide chemistry.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Please Help
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 03:42:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>1) A routine that I can link to a QuickBASIC program that allows storing things
>in extended memory.
 
One of your competitors (QiCad) simply reads and writes data to the disk
drive.  The trick is, however, that you can install over-the-counter
ramdrive programs that actually use the extended memory area rather than
a disk.  So it is faster than a real disk, but slower than direct address
access to a flat memory.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  tabitha@vms.hu /  Re: The New Inquisition
     
Originally-From: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The New Inquisition
Date: 10 Aug 93 00:14:39 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

> Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>
>>Had they not the option of fleeing the United States, Pons and Flieschman
>>most probably would not have ended up being imprisoned as "charlatans"
>>(despite the fact that this accusation WAS made by person's in sufficient
>> authority to pursue serious criminal actions against them) therein to be
>>raped and thereby infected with the HIVirus.
>
 
Give it up Jim, you don't have a chance.
 
We're watchin' you.
 
Heh, heh.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentabitha cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Dieter Britz /  Subject: Re: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject: Re: Cleaning up Dick Blue's answers
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:24:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com in FD 1241:
 
>In article <23p7iiINNivd@network.ucsd.edu>
>mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>> No nuclear reaction has ever been observed or theoretically predicted
>> to get rid of MeV's worth of energy without somehwhere, somehow, creating
>> concomitant levels of penetrating radiation...
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>While I like what Matt was saying here, I don't think it would be completely
>fair to skip over this one:
 
>   2 p + e --> d + neutrino
                    ^^^^^^^^
 
I humbly ask: what is more penetrating than neutrinos? Huh?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Dieter Britz /  Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He++ Problems / Wells and Walls / Dactyl Demons / Quantum Tunneling
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:24:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com in FD 1241:
 
>In article <1993Aug5.122227.4717@crosfield.co.uk>
>rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) writes:
 
>> Does anyone know why Fleichmann and Pons did their experiment in the first
>> place?  What reasons had they for supposing it might be worth trying?
 
>Well, they _do_ appear to have been familiar with earlier published work
>by one Steven Jones of BYU that proposed nuclear reactions in the solid
>state.  Dieter Britz and Steve Jones have both made some interesting points
>about that in this group, and gave the references (which are now offline
>for me, so I can't quote them).
 
Erm, maybe my memory is failing me here, but I don't think I can claim to have
done this, Terry. Thanks, but it wasn't me. One reason I am faily sure is that
I don't know, except to say that Fleischmann is known as someone with radical
ideas, and has come up with a lot of useful stuff in his career, such as the
ultrathin-layer cell and the ubiquitous ultramicroelectrode, with which Pons'
name is also connected.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Dieter Britz /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:24:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com in FD 1243:
 
>In article <01H1E1X1YM9U9POXYN@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>> ... There is an inset with hot-off-the-press news of one Roger Stringham,
>> who is reported to have induced cnf by ultrasound, soon to be formally
>> reported.
 
>Awk.  A new acronym is _really_ needed here, as every version of the sono
>idea I've seen (including my poor musings) has been based 100% on ordinary,
>garden variety "hot" fusion -- only in very, very small quantities within
>an otherwise cold medium.  Hot spot or hot-in-cold or _something_, but not
>"cnf", I hope.
 
[Sorry if I seem to be picking on you, Terry - pure coincidence, mate!]
 
I suggest "sonofusion".
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Status of Experiment
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Experiment
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 19:35:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Status of the Experiment                                     10 Aug 1993
 
There is not very much to report.  Several scans between 36 C and 38 C were
done, with the first one starting up form about 29 C at the very slow ramp
rate.  The current scan was started at 100 ma cell current.  Nothing in the
way of "pops" happened.  Previous ramps that gave "pops" started from zero or
even negative current.  McKubre also starts from zero or negative to get
results, so I will do that on the next run.
 
A number of measurements were made of K for the cell as a conduction
calorimeter.  These were 2.6 C/watt +/-0.1 over a large range of cell currents
- at least 10/1.  No evidence of anything funny.
 
I then opened up the cell and looked at it.  There was little or no lost
electrolyte.  The catalyst "sheds" and there is residue from this, and the
excess aluminum in the bottom of the tube.  A more careful look at the
external catalyst container and the trap indicates that the "event" was likely
violent, as there were bits of catalyst in the trap.
 
The dummy cell was installed with the catalyst heater around it's top.  Likely
a mistake (see later) as this insulates the top of the dummy cell.
 
With the dummy cell, the balance point came to 7.153 vs 7.238 for the previous
run.  I am not yet satisfied with the 7.153 calibration as there are problems
with the basement temperature.  We had a $300 bill for air conditioning last
month, and Jennifer wants to cut back.  I will study this calibration for a
while.  The cell conduction calorimeter constant has been measured at several
points at about 3.2 C/watt.  Higher than the real cell, but likely due to the
position of the catalyst heater which is different.  Will open up after a
while and move it.
 
It seems clear to me:
 
1) It is reasonable to view the cell as a conduction calorimeter inside the
null balance one.  These experiments show that the K measurement is quite
constant with cell power.
 
2) Something really strange happened with the "pops".  It is just a
coincidence that the "pops" reduced the cell to half full.  Without trying, we
have reproduced a situation similar to the P&F video.  The conduction
calorimeter says there is a lot of excess heat.  But the good calorimeter, the
null balance one, says there is little or no "anomalous heat".  This makes me
even more suspicious that the P&F results are not to be trusted.  But I don't
yet know why.  It seems to me very strange that the conduction calorimeter
constant decreased ahead of the pop, then increased after it.  I would expect
the constant to go up if the electrolyte level decreased.  It is hard for it
to increase!  A very nice little mystery to solve!
 
The plan is to study calibration with the dummy cell for a while.  Then do
some more open and close the calorimeter tests to see how the balance changes,
then do some empty calorimeter runs.  This will all give me a better picture
of what I can measure.  Note that there is little problem at the 1% level.
But making measurements to 0.1% or better is tough.  After this, I will most
likely want to put the old cell back in.  The platinum anode is now
significantly eroded.  I think it is time to build a new cell, and would
appreciate input.
 
Meanwhile, I have started meeting with Kevin Urness, a very clever mechanical
engineer who has been working with me on water machines.  I think I have
convinced him that it would be fun to build the world's best calorimeter.  So
we have started.
 
Some of you may notice that I am doing more calibration and less exploration.
This is because I think something interesting is happening.  Time to bring out
all the controls and make good measurements.  Seems to me that when you are
just looking, that most of the time should be spent looking.  When something
interesting is seen, then at least half, if not more, of the time should be
spent in calibration experiments.  Comments please.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Peroxide
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 20:58:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

At last someone who speaks with great authority on peroxide.  "The boiling
dry of Cr. Pon's cells was do the the decomposition of deuterium peroxide."
- James R. White.  (sorry about the typos - Dr. and due to )
 
4 mj per liter is 80,000 joules per mole.  Seems to me that P&F have quoted
much larger numbers than this.  But I find White's theory on the P&F
calibration pulses very interesting.  A good scam should not depend on a
single variable to procuce it's result.  But two or three make it very hard
to detect.
 
1) Slow storage of energy in peroxide would be very hard to detect.  I will
try.  Is anyone out there willing to test a couple of cc sample for
peroxide.  Can send it in a plain brown wrapper, and with lots of multiple
seals and packing so it is really safe.
 
2) White's theory that the calibration pulse triggers peroxide formation and
thus undermeasures the calorimeter constant (C/watt) would lead to aparent
excess heat when the pulses were not there.  Note that I have seen very
large changes in the measured calorimeter constant.
 
3) All the previous things discussed.  Re-combination in the cell, water
vapor leaving the cell, etc..
 
2) looks like a very good explanation of the long term low level heat measured
by P&F - for example the long period before the boil off in the Physics Letters
paper.  Congratulations to James White for this observation.
 
1) explains how the high current pulse can trigger a boil off.  Simple heat it
up and the peroxide goes "bang".
 
Then my observations of a change in calorimeter constant can explain how one
can get a long period of relatively high heat.
 
The only problem with all this is the experiments of McKubre.  He would not
appear to be subject to any of these errors.  The run from the Nagoya
pre-print ran a long time, but at very low current.  Not much room to hide
peroxide formation.  Then there was a long period of excess heat.  Likely too
long for burning (is this the correct term?) peroxide.  But this run is very
suspicious in that belief in excess heat depends on a belief that McKubre can
do very accurate calorimetry.  I find that I can do very accurate calorimetry
for a while, then my calibration jumps for an unknown reason.  Only a percent
or so, but such a jump would explain the McKubre resuld.  Of course, McKubre
is an expert and I am only a duffer in my basement.
 
The new calorimeter will have three layers of calorimetry in the same device.
First we will use the temperature rise of the cell in a metal shell as a
conduction calorimeter.  Then we will connect the metal shell through a
Seebeck calorimeter to the inside of the third null balance calorimeter.  Then
we will be democratic and let the three calorimeters vote on the result.
 
Congratulations again to James R. White for a neat observation.  Slowly we fit
the pieces of this puzzle together.  It does not look good for "cold fusion".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / John Logajan /  Subject searching CF archives
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject searching CF archives
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 20:23:12 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Charles Harrison has just recently (apparently) completed his WAIS database
of all the messages posted to this forum starting with the first fusion
digests mid April of 1989.
 
He already had all of Deiter Britz's abstracts database in the WAIS database.
 
What this means to users who can "telnet" on the Internet:
 
   o You can do a word search through the *full text* of both the complete
     collection of all past sci.physics.fusion/fusion digest posts and
     Britz's abstracts.
 
   o You can then read the full text of any of the articles that were found
     with the word search specified.
 
   o You can use multiple words per search (or'ed) to expand the search
     [but you can't narrow the search with "and" terms -- boo hoo]
 
 
So suppose you want to research all the discussion about Terry Bollinger's
"Twist."  You just enter twist as the search word, and then you'll be
given a menu of all the articles in which the word "twist" is used.
(The default is 40 article max, but you can increase that number with
the "o" command.)
 
Pretty neat.   telnet to sunsite.unc.edu  and use "swais" as the login.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Eugene Mallove /  More Flies for Taubes
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Flies for Taubes
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 01:37:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

**** Update on Taubes Flyapaper Catch, August 10, 1993 ****
 
        In mid-May 1993 I reviewed Gary Taubes's book, Bad Science (BS), in
this forum. I made a prediction in that review: "....it will be like flies
landing on sticky fly-paper. The negativists will cheer this book as they have
each of the two preceding negative accounts ...In the final act, the flies and
flypaper will be trashed forever."  Here is the lates list of fooled flies in
the "Taubes Fly-Paper Catch":
 
1. Leon Lederman, Nobel prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
2. Burton Richter, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1976 (Dust jacket of BS)
3. Mel Schwartz, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
4. F.S. Rowland, chairman, American Association for the Advancement of
Science (Dust jacket of BS)
5. Glenn T. Seaborg, Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1951 (Dust jacket of BS)
6. John Carey, Business Week review, June 21, 1993
7. Curt Suplee, The Washington Post, July, 1993
8. Daniel J. Kevles, The New Yorker, August 2, 1993
9. John Gribbin, The New York Times, August 8, 1993
 
Newly found:
10. Gregg Sapp, Montana State University Libraries, Bozeman, Library Journal,
 May 1, 1993
11. Anonymous, Publisher's Weekly, May 10, 1993
 
        Mr. or Ms. #11' s review is particularly laughable, I quote in part:
"But Taubes .. faults Pons and Fleischmann for amateurish, flawed experimental
techniques and for offerring 'virtually no data' to support their claim. Pons
is now working for a Japanese company, and Japan's Ministry of Trade and
Industry is heavily funding a cold fusion research program. Taubes considers
these latest developments part of an ongoing fiasco -- the quasi-scientific
pursuit of a nonexistent phenomenon. He steers readers smoothly through the
technical details in this scientific detective story."
 
 
                                                Eugene Mallove
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 00:45:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White) writes:
>The boiling dry of Dr. Pons' cells was do to the decomposition of
>deuterium peroxide.
 
As Bruce Dunn points out, we did this conversation just over a year ago.
At the then suggestion of Eliot Moss, I threw a piece of Pt wire in some
drug store grade hydrogen peroxide.  It began decomposing at room temperature.
Tom Droege then asked me to try it at near freezing and near boiling.
In both cases the Pt wire caused the H2O2 to decompose -- continuously.
There was no random on/off associated with it.
 
Now you may suggest that since the Pt in the cell is under electrolytic
potential, that its "catalytic" decomposing properties might be subdued.
But this implies a signature for anomalous heat -- any time electric current
is interrupted the decomposing properties of the Pt ought to re-emerge and
produce a "burst" of heat.  I am not aware of any such synchronicity in
the experimental results.
 
An additional control, for future experiments, would simply be to place an
additional piece of Pt wire in the cell -- unconnected to the electric input.
This ought to scavange peroxide (at a rate that ought to find some equilibrium
with the creation rate.)
 
For the above reasons, I remain sceptical of the "peroxide" explanation.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 00:49:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>For the above reasons, I remain sceptical of the "peroxide" explanation.
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
Skeptical too. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 /  haugen@ann-arb /  Low-tech fusion power plant
     
Originally-From: haugen@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Low-tech fusion power plant
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 03:42:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings to all.
 
>There are very smart ideas for fusion that do not have this problem
>and could be developed into working commercial technology quickly.
>Unfortunately, these concepts are not supported and by law the only
>agency to do energy research is the DoE.
 
I had to take this opportunity to share a rather simple, low-tech
plan for fusion power.  I read about it several years ago, maybe in
Popular Science(?) but am unable to give proper credit to the originator.
 
        How it works:
 
        1) Dig a large, spherical cavern in a salt dome below the
           surface of the earth.  Perhaps 1000 feet in diameter.
        2) Fill it with water, and have a pipe going up to the surface
           and leading into a standard steam turbine.
        3) Lower a relatively small fusion bomb into the center of the
           cavern and detonate it.
        4) Almost instantaneously the cavern will be filled with high pressure
           superheated steam.
        5) The steam then flows up to the surface and spins the turbine,
           which turns a generator, generating electricity.
        6) The steam, which is slightly radioactive, is condensed and used
           again to fill another cavern, where the process is repeated.
 
        Plusses:
 
        1) We certainly know how to build bombs.
        2) We have experience with underground detonations of such bombs.
        3) The bombs can be made fairly "clean" depending on the cladding and
           other materials used in the bomb design.
        4) The condensate, while becoming somewhat radioactive, can be
           cleaned up some between each use, and is re-used over and over in
           the same caverns.
        5) The salt dome, which undergoes a significant shock, actually gets
           melted on it's surface from the nuclear blast, and thus heals and
           small fissures which might have started.
 
        Minuses:
        1) Public reaction.  It sure sounds scary.
           Nuclear bombs?  "Not in _my_ back yard!"
        2) Who controls the bombs?  Your friendly local utility?
           Remember when all they could do was to threaten to shut off your
           electricity?  You better pay those bills on time now!
        3) But seriously, how do you regulate nuclear bombs?
        4) International implications of the use of nuclear "weapons".
 
All non-technical issues aside, we could probably start designing such a plant
today, and have it online this decade.  I suspect the economics might not be
too bad, but I haven't priced any nuclear weapons lately.  Does anyone know
what the $/BTU of a fusion bomb is?  I bet the cost per BTU drops dramatically
with increasing bomb size.  (For that matter, what's the $/BTU of coal?)
 
I just had to share my favorite example of what is proably a technically sound
idea, which will quite certainly never see the light of day.
 
-Dennis A. Haugen-
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
  haugen@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com
  Applicon   P.O. Box 986   Ann Arbor, MI  48106   313/995-6815
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenhaugen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Jim Bowery /  More Flies for Taubes
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Flies for Taubes
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 13:34:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>**** Update on Taubes Flyapaper Catch, August 10, 1993 ****
>1. Leon Lederman, Nobel prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
>2. Burton Richter, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1976 (Dust jacket of BS)
>3. Mel Schwartz, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
 
The cold war ultimately transformed physics from a scientific to a
political enterprise.
 
I wonder how long it will take to dismantle the existing political
machine commonly called "physics" and resume the solid scientific
progress crippled by WW II and the Manhatten Project?
 
It sure would be nice to have real scientists doing real physics.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 819 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 13:34:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
I am busy with real work, and the little pile of real papers I have here will
have to wait a few more days. But meanwhile, I send out the two peripherals
below, and the comments. The peri-papers ought to be read by all you basement
cold fusioneers doing electrolysis. I have always felt uncomfortable at the
potential cycling going on, i.e. loading cathodically and unloading anodically
by current reversal. How about oxides, I thought? Well, I was right to worry,
you get all sorts of thick layers and Pd dissolving. What effect this has on
subsequent cathodic charging, other than a roughening of the Pd surface, which
might even be beneficial, I don't know. But one ought to be aware of these
things. Absorption of oxygen was a new thought to me.
The comments need little comment. I think Mallove has poured acid on the Wade
review of the Taubes book, or did he? The tenor of the review is not
unexpected in Nature. I have yet to read the book, am still waiting to get it.
The Newsweek issue with the article by Robert Service is, I hope, the same as
what you lot read in the USA. There were, a couple of months ago, some
differences between Sci. American here and in the USA, and it seems that some
of these magazines come out in different forms. I hope the reference is OK in
the USA, too. Someone (Prof. Farrell?) please explain the piccie of a dewar
boiling over with what looks like liquid nitrogen, in pretty (scientific)
blue. What connection does this have with M&F cold fusion? A pretty piccie,
though.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 11-Aug-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 819
 
 
Peripherals: file cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke LD, Casey JK;                      J. Electrochem. Soc. 140 (1993) 1284.
"An examination of the electrochemical behavior of palladium electrodes in
acid".
** A study, mostly in the anodic regime, of the processes taking place at Pd
in an acid solution. Hydroxide and hydrous oxide layers are formed, Pd
dissolves, and oxygen is absorbed below the surface.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke LD, Casey JK;                      J. Electrochem. Soc. 140 (1993) 1292.
"An examination of the electrochemical behavior of palladium in base"
** A study, mostly in the anodic regime, of the processes taking place at Pd
in an alkaline solution. Hydroxide and hydrous oxide layers are formed.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentaries: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service RF (with Brant M, NY and Takayama H, Tokyo); Newsweek 9-Aug-93, p. 40.
"Cold, but not dead".
** A quite up-to-date report of the cold fusion affair. Apart from the usual
F&P electrolysis jar, a picture of a boiling cryocell is shown, said to be a
HydroCatalysis experiment (i.e. a Mills & Farrel cell). Petrasso says it is
all systematic error, McKubre reports as much as 50% excess heat, Takahashi
and Storms are quoted. Other names mentioned are Notoya, Bush,  Koonin,
Brightsen of Clustron Sciences Corp. Kelvin Lynn of BNL ends with the words
that just a few million dollars might decide whether it is good science or
mistakes. This is in fact being spent by MITI, Japan.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oriani RA;                                 Science 261 (1993), 16-Jul, p. 279.
"Cold fusion difficulty".
** Oriani here corrects a statement attributed to him by Amato in a piece on
cold fusion in the 14-May issue of Science. Amato had him say that he found
the 1993 paper of F&P in Phys. Lett. A "difficult to assess"; Amato neglected
to say that the difficulty was that Oriani had not had time to study the paper
yet, so the remark was reported out of context.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wade N;                                       Nature 364 (1993), 5-Aug, p.497.
"The good, bad and ugly".
** Review of Taubes' book "Bad Science". Wade likes the book, and likes the
wealth of detail it offers of this case study in the sociology of science and
human folly, as well as Taubes' agreeably sardonic style. The book is a
compelling witness to the human mind's irrepressible propensity for
self-delusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Peroxide
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 13:34:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 1256:
 
>At last someone who speaks with great authority on peroxide.  "The boiling
>dry of Cr. Pon's cells was do the the decomposition of deuterium peroxide."
>- James R. White.  (sorry about the typos - Dr. and due to )
 
[...]
 
>The only problem with all this is the experiments of McKubre.  He would not
>appear to be subject to any of these errors.  The run from the Nagoya
>pre-print ran a long time, but at very low current.  Not much room to hide
>peroxide formation.  Then there was a long period of excess heat.  Likely too
[...]
>Congratulations again to James R. White for a neat observation.  Slowly we fit
>the pieces of this puzzle together.  It does not look good for "cold fusion".
 
The topic of peroxide seems to resurface periodically; we have been here
before and I have said before, forget peroxide. Where does James White get
his authority on the subject? It is no secret that I am a cold fusion skeptic
(meaning, just so you don't misunderstand me, I consider it unlikely but can
be convinced by real evidence, so far lacking);
but if we want to propose a conventional, i.e. non-hitherto-unknown-nuclear,
explanation of, say, all that excess heat (if, that is), then it has to be a
plausible one. What is being suggested here is that peroxide is formed at the
Pt anode and builds up to tremendous concentration in the electrolyte, finally
to let go a lot of heat as it decomposes in a short time. There
are many problems with this
"explanation". If this is an explanation of the F&P work, then F&P have
already stated in FPALH-90 that the current efficiency of the cell, that is,
the % of the current going into the production of the gases D2 and O2, is very
near 100%. Whether you believe this or not, they state it. A massive side
reaction such as production of peroxide would be noticed by the lack of oxygen
coming out of the cell. Another problem is that all published cold fusion
electrolyses use undivided cells, for some (to me) strange reason. If you did
produce peroxide at the Pt anode, this would very efficiently be transported
to the Pd cathode, there to be reduced again. The reaction at high pH is:
 
 Reduction ----------------->
         DO2- + D2O + 2e-  --->   3 OD-
                            <----------------------  oxidation
The most you would get is some smallish steady state DO2- (i.e. peroxide)
concentration, and smaller than expected evolution of gas. In effect, the cell
would be electrochemically short-circuited. Now this process COULD be imagined
to be the cause of apparent excess heat, since if it took place, the power
subtraction for the electrolysis of heavy water, the famous I * 1.54 watt,
would not be correct. This is more or less ruled out, it seems, by the fact
that non-working cells have zero excess heat, and electrochemistry is a fairly
reproducible animal. Also, the same thing should happen with light water, and,
erm, well, SOME people see zero excess heat with light water controls.
 
Bottom line: good try, James R, but it falls apart. But please, Tom, by all
means have your solution assayed for peroxide. I predict that none will be
found, because at the sort of high current densities employed, the oxidation
process will not stop at peroxide, but go right through to oxygen. A simple
test for peroxide, Tom: hold a Pt wire in the solution. You should see lots of
bubbles, because Pt is a catalyst for peroxide decomposition. What am I
saying? A Pt wire? Hey!
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Dieter Britz /  Ultimate defenestration?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ultimate defenestration?
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 13:34:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Things have been so quiet around here the last few days, one can even see a
few postings on cold fusion! Not a dictionary definition in sight. Has there
perhaps happened the almost to be expected, the ultimate defenestration of MS?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 04:41:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Taubes quoted:
>"it seems a general principle that no high-class person can live in any place
>associated with religious prophecy or miracle, like Mecca, Bethlehem, Fatima,
>Lourdes, or Salt Lake City."  (Bad Science, p. 17)
 
Ouch!  Taubes is first class -- a first class jerk.
 
Speaking of Salt Lake City -- I will be in that fair city Sept 1-5 at the
Libertarian Party National Convention at the Hotel Marriott.  Party
business will preclude this gentile from mingling much with the Saints,
but I do hope to drive to some of the nearby sights on Sunday afternoon
and Monday.  I was beginning to doubt I'd ever see mountains that were
older than me.  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Origin of heat in "cold fusion"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Origin of heat in "cold fusion"
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 15:18:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: kjohnson@athena.mit.edu () in Fusion Digest 1202:
 
>To the "cold fusion" community:  Here is the abstract of a paper I will
>present at the Hawaii Conference next December.  I hope it will help
>clarify the origin of heat in "cold fusion" experiments.
 
>SYMMETRY BREAKING AND HYDROGEN ENERGY IN PdDx
 
>K.H. Johnson
>Department of Materials Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
 
>In a 1989 publication [1], Johnson and Clougherty proposed a common
>quantum-chemical origin of superconductivity and anomalous electrochemical
>properties of palladium loaded with hydrogen and deuterium, based on the
>presence of delocalized interstitial H-H/D-D bonding molecular orbitals at
>the Fermi energy (EF).  Highly non-linear symmetry-breaking dynamic
>Jahn-Teller vibrations of the protons/deuterons, induced by the H-H/D-D
>molecular-orbital degeneracy at EF, promote Cooper pairing and
>superconductivity in PdHx/PdDx (x = 1) below Tc = 9/10K, while the large
>vibronic anharmonicity explains the inverse H/D isotope shift of Tc and
>departure from BCS theory [1].  Dynamic Jahn-Teller-induced deuteron
>vibronic amplitudes up to 0.5A were calculated, leading to a maximum D-D
>approach of 0.7A and an upper limit of 5 x 10**(-24) fusion per deuteron pair
>per second in PdDx at room temperature for high loading (x = 1) [1].  This
>calculated fusion rate in PdD, although much greater than that (10**(-70)) of
>free D2 molecules and consistent with the low levels of neutrons reported in
>cold fusion experiments, is much too small to explain the excess heat energy
>(at least 10eV per Pd atom) claimed in some of these experiments.
 
>In this paper, I present the results of recent state-of-the-art ab initio
>quantum-chemical computations for the potential energy surface of PdDx, in
>the high-loading limit, and their implications on heat production.  For
>locally high loadings, significant numbers of fcc-palladium tetrahedral
>interstitial sites are occupied [2], and degenerate D-D bonding molecular
>orbitals between neighboring tetrahedral interstices are computed at EF.
>Electronic wavefunction contour maps of these orbitals reveal the
>"compression" of the tetrahedral-site D(1s) orbitals by nearest-neighbor
>antibonding Pd(4d) and octahedral-site D(1s) orbitals, promoting D(1s)-D(1s)
>"sigma-bond" overlap and relaxation between tetrahedral interstices.  The
>corresponding D-D potential energy surface in palladium resembles a "Mexican
>Hat".  The high-symmetry (Td) coordination of a Pd atom by D atoms in four of
>the eight surrounding fcc-palladium tetrahedral interstices is Jahn-Teller
>unstable, resulting in a shallow central energy minimum at the "crown" of the
>"Mexican Hat" for a distorted tetrahedral (C3v) symmetry, and a much deeper
>energy minimum 9.4eV below Td symmetry at the "brim" of the "Mexican Hat"
>for the planar "broken symmetry" (D2h) with shortened D-D bond distance of
>0.76A.  The latter distance is practically equal to the 0.74A bond distance
>in a free hydrogen molecule.  The 9.4eV energy per Pd atom released in the
>Jahn-Teller distortion of each PdH4 cluster from tetrahedral (Td) to planar
>(D2h) symmetry is likewise remarkably close to the sum of the chemical bond
>energies (4.75eV) of two free hydrogen molecules.  Thus, for high loading,
>the tetrahedral interstices of fcc palladium provide, via the Jahn-Teller
>effect, an "orbital pathway" for the bulk catalytic recombination of rapidly
>diffusing D atoms to D2 "molecules", the large chemical heat of recombination
>approaching 10eV per Pd atom.  This mechanism also explains reported heat
>production in light-water cells using nickel electrodes, where the catalytic
>recombination of hydrogen is mainly a (110) surface phenomenon.  Heat
>production in light-water cells by the Jahn-Teller effect was originally
>predicted by Johnson and Clougherty in 1989.
>
>1. K.H. Johnson and D.P. Clougherty, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 3, 795 (1989).
>2. F.A. Lewis, The Palladium Hydrogen System (Academic Press, 1967), p.155.
 
>Postscript: It should be noted that all of the principles underlying the
>above theory are standard ones of quantum physics and chemistry.  There
>is no need to introduce far-out, unphysical concepts such as "shrunken
>atoms" and elusive nucleon reactions.  Also, this theory allows for a very low
>level of D-D fusion and neutron production by the dynamic Jahn-Teller effect,
>albeit without any significant contribution to heat production.  Finally, the
>D2 molecules produced by the symmetry breakings could be erroneously identified
>as 4He species.
 
This was posted some time ago now (23-Jul-93) but I have been busy (still am);
also, apologies for the long quote, but it seemed necessary, some of you don't
know how to - or cannot - access the archives.
 
Johnson rightly points to his and Clougherty's paper, received by the journal
in May 1989, in which they say more or less the same thing. The basic idea is,
if I am right, that the deuterons in PdD(x), statistically more widely spaced
than the d-d distance in the gas D2 (0.74A, and often pointed out as one
reason why d-d fusion in PdD(x) is even less likely than in D2 gas), sometimes
undergo close pair approach (the Jahn-Teller thingammy). There are two
outcomes of this in the paper: (1) the close approach increases the
probability of d-d fusion and this, helped along by some solid state
enhancement factors, gives a maximum fusion rate of about 10^-24 fus/pair/s
might result (about Jones+ levels), but no measurable heat from that fusion;
and (2) that this provides a chemical explanation of the excess heat, by
virtue of the energy released by the close approach. This is very close to the
energy released from the reaction D + D  --> D2, which looks like quite a lot.
There is then some discussion about diffusive supply of reactants, etc; the
authors are aware of the problems, or some of them, evidently.
 
While I am not qualified to comment on the QM in the paper and the posting
(no, Jim Carr, I didn't get taught QM way back when I studied, but they did
mention conservation of momentum, I must admit), I can see the problems with
this, on a macroscopic level. In heavy water electrolysis, these
electrochemical reactions take place:
1.   4 OD-       --->  O2  + 2D2O  + 4e-           (at the Pt anode)
2. D2O + Pd + e- --->  PdD + OD-                   (at the Pd cathode)
3. 2D2O + 2e-    --->  D2  + 2OD-                  ("   "  "     "   )
(multiply any reaction by a factor as needed, if you want to combine it with
another, so as to balance the no. of electrons).
Initially, with pure Pd, the cathodic reaction will be all (2), the formation
of PdD (I am setting x to unity for simplicity); this is seen experimentally
by the fact that at this stage, no D2 bubbles off. So we are not just
electrolysing water, the overall reaction being (combine (1) and 4*(2))
4.  2D2O  +  4 Pd  --->  O2  +  4 PdD.
This has some thermoneutral potential other than 1.54 V, that of the
electrolysis of heavy water (reaction (5) below), and calorimetry at this
stage always shows a small heat deficit for this reason. As the Pd approaches
saturation, this tends to zero, that is, we go over to the cathodic reaction
(3), which, combined with (1), makes the overall water electrolysis reaction,
5. 2D2O  --->  2D2  + O2.
It is this one, as I say, to which the 1.54 V times current correction
applies, that is, one subtracts I*1.54 W from the total power going into the
cell and compares this with the power radiated off by the cell, to see whether
there is any excess.
Now, in the light of this, what Johnson is actually suggesting is that PdD
decomposes back into Pd and D2, or close to it. Although the formation of
dideuterium D2 from two deuterium atoms would indeed be very exothermic, the
decomposition of PdD is likely to be either mildly endothermic or, at best,
mildly exothermic. In the latter case, could it account for massive excess
heat? I feel, no. Even if exothermic, it will be much less so than, say, the
recombination of D2 and O2 (reaction (5) going backwards), and we have
disposed of that one; there is not enough material in the cathode to provide
anything like enough heat. Johnson and Clougherty realise this and suggest a
continuous process, presumably a steady supply, by electrolysis, of atomic
deuterium, and a steady formation of D2-like pairs. This would amount to a
steady breakdown of PdD, and its steady replacement by electrolysis, and this
would not yield anything. Indeed, this is quite likely to be happening. The
electrode has different current densities at different places on it, and at
some places, some PdD would leak out D2, to be replaced from within from the
other places, where D2 soaks in.
There is a remark at the end of the paper, to the effect that the D2 trapped
within the Pd would register at the same mass as 4He on a mass spec; any MS
detection of He would have to be, and I think is, sufficiently sensitive to
distinguish between D2 and 4He, so this one is out, too.
 
I thus find myself once again comforting the believers in cold fusion; this
conventional explanation of excess heat falls down.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  RE: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Peroxide
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 19:14:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

By now you should all know that my tongue was in my cheek when I said "At last
someone who speaks with great authority on peroxide."  As they should, the
bricks have come flying thick and fast.  Still there is something in White's
ideas that might be salvaged.
 
I am looking for several things.
 
1) Possible errors in the P&F measurements.
 
2) The source (chemical?) of the heat pulses that I see.
 
I agree, there is not much hope for peroxide as an explanation for 2)
 
Let's work then on 1)
 
White says that peroxide formation might mess up the P&F calibration.
 
Suppose that there is peroxide formation at a hot spot in the cell.  P&F
peroidically introduce a hot spot with their calibration pulse.  Now I thought
that I better try to give a reference on this.  I am looking in the Hansen
piece in the Como proceedings to try to get some facts.  There are not many
there.  Hansen says:
 
"3.  Loss of electrolyte due to open cell evaporation: according to P/F
this has repeatedly been checked with the following conclusions.  There is no
recombination of electrolysis products inside the cell and the loss rate is
approximately as predicted by the mathematical model.  Keep in mind that the
cells are filled to the mark periodically, typically once a day.  A record
is kept of how much solvent this takes.  Unfortunately these detailed data
were usually not available to us. ... "  The Science of Cold Fusion p 493
 
When Hansen comes upon a problem, he repeatedly says something like "JThe
assumption of isothermal cell interior has been checked by P/F and
collaborators and has been found to be adequate (no reference)." p 493
 
Eventually I found that the heat pulse was 0.272 watts, p523.  The drawings
on p 353 indicate that the heater might be encased in glass, but it is not
clear.  On p 522 the curves indicate a 2 C or so cell temperature rise with
the heat pulse.
 
So here is something to throw bricks at -- a far fetch.
 
1) Over time, the glass encased heaters collect a film of Pt or Pd.
 
2) This now generates peroxide during the heat pulse.  This means there is
a temporary accumulation of peroxide in the cell during the pulse, which is
catalyzed by all that platinum after the heat pulse goes away.  This process
hides some energy.
 
3) The effect of 2) is to "cool" the cell, which results in an undermeasurement
of the calorimeter constant (C/watt).
 
4) Use of this incorrect calorimeter constant in the periods between pulses
would lead to the assumption of "anomalous heat".
 
Note that none of the "flute music" of the P/F analysis or the Hansen analysis
would protect from this effect.
 
Tom now ducks into his recently purchased war surplus Sherman tank to await
the arrival of the bricks.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 21:07:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>        Unfortunatately, the skeptics may say that even though you think your
>Pt wire should decompose peroxide, perhaps it doesn't happen in the presence
>of the electrolyte.
 
Although I didn't have access to LiOD and D2O2, last year I also threw a
piece of Pt wire into a solution of KOH and H2O2.  The Pt wire still
decomposed the H2O2 even though the concentration of KOH was quite heavy.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 21:09:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>Although I didn't have access to LiOD and D2O2, last year I also threw a
>piece of Pt wire into a solution of KOH and H2O2.  The Pt wire still
>decomposed the H2O2 even though the concentration of KOH was quite heavy.
 
I meant to say NaOH rather than KOH.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 03:33:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Taubes quoted:
>>"it seems a general principle that no high-class person can live in any
place
>>associated with religious prophecy or miracle, like Mecca, Bethlehem,
Fatima,
>>Lourdes, or Salt Lake City."  (Bad Science, p. 17)
>
>Ouch!  Taubes is first class -- a first class jerk.
 
The rather conspicuous neglect of only one Western religion, Judaism,
leads me to wonder whether Taubes is a rather incompetent neo-Nazi
sympathizer bent on fanning the fires of antisemitism.  I've never
seen an adherent to Judaism engage in such an arrogant display of
bigotry.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Eugene Mallove /  Britz Omission
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz Omission
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 04:30:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From Dieter Britz's recent CNF Bibliography posting:
 
>Oriani RA;                                Science 261 (1993), 16-Jul, p. 279.
>"Cold fusion difficulty".
>** Oriani here corrects a statement attributed to him by Amato in a piece on
>cold fusion in the 14-May issue of Science. Amato had him say that he found
>the 1993 paper of F&P in Phys. Lett. A "difficult to assess"; Amato neglected
>to say that the difficulty was that Oriani had not had time to study the
>paper yet, so the remark was reported out of context.
 
Dieter Britz was not above *selectively reporting* Professor Oriani's letter
to Science. Here is the full text:
 
"Ivan Amato's article (Research News, 14 May, p.895) about Martin Fleischmann
and Stanley Pons' paper on calorimetric results in cold fusion (1) refers to
me as saying that I 'found the paper too difficult to assess with any
confidence.' This construction of my remarks is unfortunate because it conveys
the unintended ompression that I lack confidence in the experimental results
of these researchers, whereas I indicated only that the publication is too
difficult to understand fully in the time that I had to study it.  It is true
that this publication will not convince the case-hardened skeptics, but **as I
told Amato**[Mallove's italics], high-grade calorimetry is not necessary to
evince the reality of anomalous ('excess') power generation during the
boil-off period well documented by Fleischmann and Pons. This phenomenon, as
well as the various manifestations contrary to classical nuclear physics
observed by a considerable number of researchers, deserves continuing study
suported by adequate funding despite the difficult-to-reproduce nature of the
experiments."
 
Richard A. Oriani, Corrision Research Center, Dept. of Chemical Engineering
and Materilas Sciences, Institute of Technology, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN 55455
 
Unlike the tandem scientific censors, Britz and Amato, Professor Oriani gets
the big picture about cold fusion -- excess power and nuclear effects.
Professor Oriani, I might add, is a member of the non-profit Minnesota Cold
Fusion Alliance, Inc.., which I believe was founded early in 1993. Let me cite
the three points in the organization's mission statement:
 
1. Ensure that accurate, up to date information on cold fusion developments is
available to members, educators, and the business community, the press, and
public officials.
2. Engage in lobbying and advocacy to ensure proper funding and support for
cold fusion science at the University of Minnesota and other Minnesota
educational and research institutions.
3. Promote cold fusion commercialization in Minnesota by expediting
educational and industrial co-ventures between Minnestoa businesses and
corporations here and abroad that are centers of cold fusion enterprise.
 
Another interesting footnote about Oriani: The famous DOE cold fusion report
of 1989 recommended that people with early positive results (e.g. Oriani)
should cooperate with those who got (supposedly) negative results (e.g. MIT
PFC) in special efforts to find out the differences. Well, in the spring of
1991, shortly before I resigned from the MIT News Office, I informed a major
experimenter on the MIT PFC team that Professor Oriani had published recently
in Fusion Technology (Dec., 1990) evidence of excess heat. The Big Smart
Scientist said, "Really? I'll check that out and contact him." You see, the
MIT PFC group had gone through the motions of getting equipment ready for
further assessments of claims of excess heat, but by the spring of 1991 they
were happy to have cold fusion out of their hair.  The Big Smart Scientist
never did call Oriani -- I checked that with Oriani, which further highlights
the travesty of the so-called "negative" MIT PFC cold fusion calorimetry. On
June 26, 1989, the PFC held a "Wake for Cold Fusion" party, weeks before the
group even wrote up its report or even processed its data! [If anyone
challenges this assertion, I will gladly mail him or her the hard copy
evidence.] On such flimsy footing rests the whole anti-cold fusion case.
 
Gene Mallove
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Ultimate defenestration?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultimate defenestration?
Date: 11 Aug 1993 19:18:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <01H1MFL7YG9U9PP94T@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
 
>Has there perhaps happened the almost to be expected, the ultimate
>defenestration of MS?
 
Sorry, only the penultimate fenestration.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / John Logajan /  Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still more of a little heat
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 04:10:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
Am I doing this right?
 
Let's take a simple heat capacity system -- H2O and H2 + O2.
To raise the temperature of one mole of liquid H2O one degree Centigrade it
takes 75.2 Joules.   Here's a table:
 
H2O  75.2 J/Deg/mol  @25C (From the CRC)
H2   29.2   "
O2   29.3   "
 
One mole of H2O produces one mole of H2 gas and 1/2 mole of O2 gas.
Therefore the heat capacity of one mole of H2O is 75.2 Joules/Degree while
the heat capacity of its products is 29.2 + 29.3 / 2 = 43.8 Joules/Degree.
For each mole of H2O turned into H2 and O2, then, the heat capacity lost
must be 75.2 - 43.8 = 31.4 Joules/Degree.
 
Now 20 Degrees Centigrade is 293 Degrees absolute.  So if you transform
one mole of H2O into H2 and O2 gas at 20C, you have 293 * 31.4 = 9,200 Joules
of excess energy from the lowered heat capacity at that temperature.
(See disclaimer!) Therefore the temperature must rise to compensate.
 
In a calorimeter this might calibrate out at one temperature, but here is the
rub -- 40C is 333K.  So 333 * 31.4 = 10,460 Joules.  That's 1260 Joules more
excess energy at 40C than at 20C.  Calibration at a single temperature would
not suffice unless this mechanism is specifically accounted for.
 
I picked the H2O --> H2 + O2 case because this effect should be well known.
But my eye is really on the difference in heat capacity of D loaded Pd
versus unloaded Pd (numbers for which I don't have, alas) at various
temperatures.  Since a significant amount of D can unload in a short period
of time (as compared to the rather slow rate of D2/O2 formation and opposite
sign recombination!) the system heat capacity can likewise change quickly
causing a temperature surge as the excess energy is released.  This would
be most misleading if the Pd was loaded at a low temperature and unloaded
at a high temperature.
 
Please note that this is *NOT* a claim that anomalous heat "pops" such
as reported by Droege are accountable by heat capacity changes -- I believe
those reported surges are much too large to be so dismissed.  I am just
pursuing a small correction factor.
 
Disclaimer: Heat capacity varies with temperature in a non-linear way,
tending toward zero at absolute zero.  Therefore my "fixed" energy content
assumption overstates the actual energy content at room temperature --
but probably by less than 50%.  The variations between the three compounds
listed are likely to track, so the relative relationships are probably
sound.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Usenet Account /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: news@ininx.com (Usenet News Account)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: 12 Aug 1993 06:12:13 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

Tom Droege writes:
 
> I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
 
 [...]
 
> We are endowed.  Had you all not noticed that you do not pay any bills for
> this?  (Some do pay some connect costs, but little of the real network cost.)
 
Now that the networks are coming to be based more on the market and less on tax
funding, I hope that my connect costs are more nearly reflecting my share of the
"real network cost".  I'm not prepared to accept that I, too, am willfully
receiving stolen property in the form of tax money.
 
> Sometimes our governments do things right.  If enough bureaucrats pass enough
> bills spending enough money, then from time to time one of them will do some
> real good.
 
Do you really believe that it can ever be "good" to expropriate the fruit of
another's toil without his consent through taxation?
 
Whatever became of that streak of libertarianism in you of which you've boasted?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennews cudfnUsenet cudlnAccount cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Dieter Britz /  My Bohr jacket
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My Bohr jacket
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:58:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have a feeling that I didn't express myself as well as I might have, on the
subject of Johnson's Jahn-Teller explanation of excess heat. As I wrote, the
essence of it is that the recombination of atomic deuterium to something close
to dideuterium D2 in the lattice is what causes the heat. This reminded me
also of Chuck Sites' "heavy heat", which I think I never did convince Chuck of
being wrong.
 
I have a little analogy for both these arguments, to illustrate why they don't
work. Terry Bollinger used his very nice Bohr jacket around 1990 to dismiss
branching ratio arguments, and this analogy is, I hope, my Bohr jacket in the
present context:
 
Imagine you are pulling an object on a thin string through a long pipe, the
pipe being full of liquid. The object (and the liquid, and the pipe) gets hot
due to friction (just like Chuck's heavy deuterons, moving through the lattice
in a voltage field). What is wrong with calling the heat "anomalous", or
"excess"? The simple answer is that you in fact have supplied the power to
make that heat, by the pulling of the string, so there is nothing anomalous,
no excess.
 
In the case of heavy heat, you supply the voltage and current to drag the
heavies through the lattice; in the case of deuterium atom recombination, you
supply the energy to make these atoms in the first place from heavy water. In
both cases, no free lunch.
 
The Johnson and Clougherty paper is nevertheless interesting. Several
theorists have used the simple-minded argument against cnf, being that in PdD,
the mean d-d separation is much greater than in the D2 gas, and we don't see
any fusion with that, do we? Others have retaliated by waving the hands at
some unspecified solid state effects, that allow fusion at an enhanced rate.
J&C have a different answer, or a combination of answers; they suggest that
Jahn-Teller pairing does indeed allow rather close d-d approaches, almost as
close as in the gas, and that in addition, there is an enhancement effect,
leading to a predicted fusion rate about equal to that claimed by Steve Jones
and his group. Although this doesn't explain excess heat, it is, I think,
still an interesting point. Perhaps the authors can even suggest some
experimentally accessible signature of the process, for Steve to look for?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / James White /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 02:27:47 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> 4 mj per liter is 80,000 joules per mole.  Seems to me that P&F have quoted
> much larger numbers than this.
 
I have never seen them present their results in terms of joules per mole of
electrolyte. If they indeed have reported a burst that is much larger than
4MJ/l then the peroxide explanation would have a problem. Their latest
boiling cells are certainly well within what peroxide can explain. Do
you know of results which aren't?
 
> A good scam should not depend on a single variable to procuce it's result.
> But two or three make it very hard to detect.
 
It isn't a scam. Pons et al undoubtedly believe in what they are doing.
But I agree that there are probably a number of different errors involved.
 
> 1) Slow storage of energy in peroxide would be very hard to detect.  I will
> try.  Is anyone out there willing to test a couple of cc sample for
> peroxide.  Can send it in a plain brown wrapper, and with lots of multiple
> seals and packing so it is really safe.
 
A peroxide solution may not be stable enough to ship through the mail,
especially if it sits for a while in a hot mailroom somewhere. Making it
acidic would help, as would shipping it fed express. It might be better,
though, if you could test it yourself using a test such as the one Bruce
Dunn posted. That way you wouldn't have to worry about the peroxide
concentration decaying during shipping.
 
I don't claim that your recent pops were due to peroxide, but I do think
that it is a possibility. Peroxide could also do funny things to the gas
balance. Generating peroxide would produce hydrogen, while destroying
peroxide would produce oxygen (or consume hydrogen).
 
BTW, did the cell with the pops have a dummy cathode? If so, was it Pt?
I would expect a Pt dummy cathode to destroy peroxide, at least until
it was thoroughly covered with gunk.
 
> The only problem with all this is the experiments of McKubre.  He would not
> appear to be subject to any of these errors.
 
I agree, but he may have some other error which is unique to his system.
It will be interesting to see if he can increase the level of his excess
heat while maintaining his current level of accuracy.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / James White /  Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 02:30:00 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
> James R. White writes:
>> The boiling dry of Dr. Pons' cells was do to the decomposition of
>> deuterium peroxide. ...
>
>A strong statement.  Any evidence?
 
Well, I didn't break into Pons' lab and sample his electrolyte, but I
think that there are some good reasons to believe that his bursts are
due to peroxide.
 
First, consider storage explanations in general. Really, the only places
in a cell where there is energy freely available for storage is at the
electrode interfaces. The electrodes themselves are much too small to
store much energy, so the only thing at the interfaces that can store
much energy is the electrolyte.
 
The electrolyte is made almost entirely of deuterium and oxygen (there
is not enough lithium to matter). So the energy has to be stored in
something made out of deuterium and oxygen. Deuterium peroxide is really
the only possible such substance. In other words, there is no other
plausible way to store energy in these cells that comes anywhere close
to what peroxide can store. Note that peroxide was once manufactured
in electrolytic cells with Pt anodes.
 
I see no plausible way that Pons' bursts can be calorimeter error, but they
seem to all be within what peroxide can explain. Also, they all seem to
need a long incubation period, suggesting that some energy storage mechanism
is at work.
 
Now consider how Pons works. At ICCF-1 I saw his lab. He had 32 cells going,
and another 32 cells being set up. He likes to run a large number of low
cost calorimeters so he can try many things at once. He probably now has
hundreds of calorimeters going at once. When he reports his results, however
he shows off only his best results.
 
How has he improved his results with all these experiments? He hasn't been
able to shorten the time before the burst, nor has he been able to increase
the size of the burst to over 4MJ/liter of electrolyte. That suggests that
these are fundamental limitations of the phenomenon that he is studying.
 
He has succeeded in increasing the size of the burst when compared to the
size of the cathode, but he seems to have done this by shrinking the cathode.
This suggests that the volume of the cell, and not the cathode, is what
is important.
 
His technique of boiling cells dry without adding electrolyte seems strange,
but remember he is presenting his best results. Allowing the cell to boil away
maintains the concentration of the peroxide, and thus the reaction rate. He
undoubtedly tried to extend the burst by adding electrolyte, but this didn't
work very well (or he would have included it in his paper).
 
In my opinion, everything points to peroxide as the cause of Pons' bursts.
I would have to reconsider the matter if he tested the electrolyte before
inducing a burst and found no peroxide. (Assuming he convinced me he did
the test correctly by also testing a control sample with a known amount
of peroxide.) I would also have to reconsider if he found a way to sustain
his bursts. I have waited 3 years for a result that would rule out peroxide.
It has now become apparent to me that such a result is not forthcoming.
 
>        It isn't all that hard to rule out the presence of more than trace
> levels of peroxide in cell electrolytes.  For those interested who may not
> have been joined to this group last year, I reproduce below a description of
> a method I developed specifically for setting an upper boundary on the levels
> of peroxide in tiny samples of electrolyte, and posted to this group.
 
Thanks for reposting this. (I hope it gets to Dr. Pons.)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / James White /  Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 02:33:40 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> At the then suggestion of Eliot Moss, I threw a piece of Pt wire in some
> drug store grade hydrogen peroxide.  It began decomposing at room temperature.
...
> Now you may suggest that since the Pt in the cell is under electrolytic
> potential, that its "catalytic" decomposing properties might be subdued.
 
Yes, the activity of a piece of metal held at a potential can be quite
different. Instead of consuming peroxide, it could produce peroxide.
Actually, I suspect something else may be needed to produce peroxide.
This may be carbonate. The light water cells seem to use potassium carbonate,
and the heavy water cells use a high Ph, so they will pick up carbonate from
the air. And there are some interesting similarities and differences between
carbonate and sulfate.
 
Sulfate is the anion that was once used in the manufacture of peroxide.
In one process, current was run through a solution of KHSO4 with a platinum
anode. The SO4 anion would be converted to an S2O8 anion at the anode.
H2S2O8 could react with H2O to form H2SO5 and H2SO4, with H2SO5 reacting
with H2O to form H2SO4 and H2O2. But H2SO5 could also react with H2O2 to
form O2, H2O, and H2SO4. To suppress this parasitic reaction the cell was
run at a temperature of 5C. This caused the S2O8 to precipitate as K2S2O8,
which was then hydrolyzed later.
 
> But this implies a signature for anomalous heat -- any time electric current
> is interrupted the decomposing properties of the Pt ought to re-emerge and
> produce a "burst" of heat.
 
It should produce bubbles, at least. The peroxide might not decompose fast
enough to produce a burst. Has Pons ever turned off the current on a cell
that was ready to produce a burst? If so, does anyone know if the anode
bubbled?
 
> An additional control, for future experiments, would simply be to place an
> additional piece of Pt wire in the cell -- unconnected to the electric input.
 
This should inhibit the accumulation of peroxide, but would a null result
in such a cell mean anything? I think it would be much better just to check
for peroxide using a method such as the one Bruce Dunn posted. If Pons did
this for a cell just before inducing a burst, then he would *know* whether
or not the burst was due to peroxide.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / James White /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 02:35:43 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> Where does James White get his authority on the subject?
 
My knowledge about peroxide comes from reading, mostly. I don't claim
to be an "authority". Indeed, I am interested in cold fusion because
I believe in the fallibility of "authorities".
 
> What is being suggested here is that peroxide is formed at the Pt anode
> and builds up to tremendous concentration in the electrolyte, finally
> to let go a lot of heat as it decomposes in a short time.
 
Right.
 
> If this is an explanation of the F&P work, then F&P have already stated
> in FPALH-90 that the current efficiency of the cell, that is, the % of
> the current going into the production of the gases D2 and O2, is very
> near 100%. Whether you believe this or not, they state it. A massive side
> reaction such as production of peroxide would be noticed by the lack of
> oxygen coming out of the cell.
 
The side reaction doesn't have to be that "massive" to build up a high
concentration of peroxide. They run a long time before the burst.
Also, I suspect that carbonate may play a role in the production of
peroxide. If that is so, then peroxide production would only really kick
in after the electrolyte had a chance to absorb some carbon dioxide from
the air. My understanding is that F&P spot checked production in a few
cells, and didn't monitor them continuously.
 
> Another problem is that all published cold fusion electrolyses use
> undivided cells, for some (to me) strange reason. If you did produce
> peroxide at the Pt anode, this would very efficiently be transported
> to the Pd cathode, there to be reduced again. ... Now this process COULD
> be imagined to be the cause of apparent excess heat, since if it took
> place, the power subtraction for the electrolysis of heavy water, the
> famous I * 1.54 watt, would not be correct.
 
In other words, you have yet another way for recombination to occur; one
which does not start until after the cell has been running a while.
 
Pons does not run his cells with Pd cathodes, however. He uses Pd cathodes
on which a layer of gunk has been deposited, and that is quite a different
thing. In fact, he is said to add secret ingredients to his cells. This
both insures the presents of and controls the nature of the gunk.
 
So does the gunk on Pons' cathode catalyze the decomposition of peroxide?
I believe it does not. At least, not until he wants it to.
 
> This is more or less ruled out, it seems, by the fact that non-working
> cells have zero excess heat, and electrochemistry is a fairly reproducible
> animal.
 
Cold fusion experiments are notorious for being extraordinarily difficult
to reproduce. There is often no apparent difference between dud and active
cells. The known sensitivity of peroxide chemistry to impurities can go
a long way towards explaining this.
 
> Also, the same thing should happen with light water, and, erm, well,
> SOME people see zero excess heat with light water controls.
 
Deuterium peroxide and hydrogen peroxide are somewhat different chemically.
Hydrogen peroxide tends to be more reactive and less stable. You can
compensate for this by using lower Ph and a less active cathode (such as
nickel). There have been reports of bursts in just such systems.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / James White /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 02:56:25 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> 1) Over time, the glass encased heaters collect a film of Pt or Pd.
>
> 2) This now generates peroxide during the heat pulse.  ...
 
The energy for peroxide generation comes from the overpotential at the
anode. Heat alone can't generate peroxide. My idea was that the rise in
temperature during the heat pulse would cause an increase in the fraction
of the current that follows the peroxide producing branch.
 
Other chemical reactions could potentially cause a similar problem.
I personally consider any calibration done with electrolysis in process
to be suspect.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Any MS detection of D2 and 4He
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any MS detection of D2 and 4He
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 13:15:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Deiter Britz makes reference to the question of 4He detection as follows:
 
<  "Any MS (mass spectrometer) detection of He would have to be  >
<   and I think in, sufficiently sensative to distinguish between >
<   D2 and 4He, so this one is out, too."                         >
 
So far as I know when the question of MS detection of He comes up in
a CF discussion it can be related to only two experiments:  the
NTT experiment by Yamaguchi or the China Lake experiment of Miles and
Bush.  The question has two parts.  Is the intrinsic resolution of
the instrument sufficient to do the job, and was the instrument used
properly?  In the case of Yamaguchi, the answers are quite clearly
YES and NO.  Yamaguchi simply made a terrible mess by pushing the
operating pressure in the MS beyond the range where the two peaks in
question can be resolved and then read something into the messed up
signal that probably is not there.  Scratch that one!
 
That leaves only one positive claim for MS detection.  In this case
the question of whether the two peaks can be resolved is rather
left to your imagination because the authors (in at least their
initial publications) did not see fit to show the peaks in question.
They merely assert that when you look at the 'scope you can see
two peaks.  That would seem to indicate they had no hard copy of
the resolved peaks.  Has anyone seen a picture demonstrating resolved
D2 and 4He peaks in connection with the Miles-Bush experiments?
I would be suspicious of any single-peak data when it comes at the
very limit of sensitivity for the instrument as stated by the
authors.  At the limits peak shapes and positions are not so well
determined.  Of course even if you are satisfied with the instrument
and the technique employed for helium detection, there is still the
question of where the helium came from and what connection it has
with CF?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Britz Omission
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Britz Omission
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 13:15:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1260:
 
>>From Dieter Britz's recent CNF Bibliography posting:
 
>>Oriani RA;                                Science 261 (1993), 16-Jul, p. 279.
>>"Cold fusion difficulty".
>>** Oriani here corrects a statement attributed to him by Amato in a piece on
>>cold fusion in the 14-May issue of Science. Amato had him say that he found
>>the 1993 paper of F&P in Phys. Lett. A "difficult to assess"; Amato neglected
>>to say that the difficulty was that Oriani had not had time to study the
>>paper yet, so the remark was reported out of context.
 
>Dieter Britz was not above *selectively reporting* Professor Oriani's letter
>to Science. Here is the full text:
 
Gene, are you so full of bad feelings that you have to pour venom on anything
that fails to sing the praises of cold fusion? Keep in mind that my biblio is
a collection of references plus short ABSTRACTS; I don't reproduce the full
text of anything. I do think that I reproduced the essential point Oriani was
making, viz. that he had been quoted out of context. How you make that out to
be selective reporting, I don't quite follow. I know some of you blokes think
I am out to get you, but I'm not, and I try to be fair. It is not long ago
that I apologised to you for a snide remark I had allowed myself, and which
you complained about. Well, the remarks you allow yourself about all and
sundry go far beyond mere snideness. How about a bit of balance there?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / John Kreznar /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: jkreznar@ininx.com (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: 12 Aug 1993 08:19:58 GMT
Organization: CERFnet

[A repost.  The first went out without my name.  Learning new software!]
 
Tom Droege writes:
 
> I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
 
 [...]
 
> We are endowed.  Had you all not noticed that you do not pay any bills for
> this?  (Some do pay some connect costs, but little of the real network cost.)
 
Now that the networks are coming to be based more on the market and less on tax
funding, I hope that my connect costs are more nearly reflecting my share of the
"real network cost".  I'm not prepared to accept that I, too, am willfully
receiving stolen property in the form of tax money.
 
> Sometimes our governments do things right.  If enough bureaucrats pass enough
> bills spending enough money, then from time to time one of them will do some
> real good.
 
Do you really believe that it can ever be "good" to expropriate the fruit of
another's toil without his consent through taxation?
 
Whatever became of that streak of libertarianism in you of which you've boasted?
--
 
        John E. Kreznar         | Relations among people to be by
        jkreznar@ininx.com      | mutual consent, or not at all.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjkreznar cudfnJohn cudlnKreznar cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 15:51:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>The rather conspicuous neglect of only one Western religion, Judaism,
>leads me to wonder whether Taubes is a rather incompetent neo-Nazi
>sympathizer bent on fanning the fires of antisemitism.  I've never
>seen an adherent to Judaism engage in such an arrogant display of
>bigotry.
 
It looks more like standard PC (political correctness.)  The liberal PC
media establishment smiles at derogatory remarks about most religions
except Judaism -- not because they especially care for Judaism, but because
such derogatory remarks are the signature of Nazi-istic types.  If the
PC crowd could deride Judaism without symbolically agreeing with the
antisemtics, they probably would.
 
FYI I am a dyed in the wool athiest, but since I am not motivated to
wound other peoples psyches, I avoid derisive comments about their
religions as I avoid derisive comments about their physical appearence.
 
> Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 
Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / John Logajan /  Again a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Again a little heat
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 16:57:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>It seems to me very strange that the conduction calorimeter
>constant decreased ahead of the pop, then increased after it.  I would expect
>the constant to go up if the electrolyte level decreased.  It is hard for it
>to increase!
 
At least some of this could be explained if there was indeed a net system
change in heat capacity.  Since your calorimeter constant is Degrees per Watt,
your constant would be inversely proportional to the heat capacity of the
system.  If the heat capacity (Joules/degree/mole) went down, the calorimeter
constant would go up.
 
It is very likely that an outgassing of D from the Pd will result in a net
loss of system heat capacity -- resulting in a net increase in the calorimeter
constant.
 
(Speculation mode on stun ...)
 
Since the heat capacity of a material is directly related to the number of
degrees of freedom of vibrational/rotational/translational modes -- one
might postulate that if a bose condensate of the loaded D formed inside
the Pd, that there would be a substantial loss of heat capacity, since
there would be a net loss of degrees of freedom.
 
One might potentially see a heat capacity reduction as great (or greater
than) 50% for the Pd/D system.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Calorimeter is Dead - RIP
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimeter is Dead - RIP
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 19:07:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark II Calorimeter is Dead  -  RIP                            12 Aug 1993
 
As indicated in the last note, I started doing open and close the calorimeter
tests to try to understand why the null balance calorimeter constant has been
erratic.  I found out this morning.  When I opened it up to remove the cell
the glue joint between the thermoelectric coolers came apart.  I guess this
has been slowly breaking for some time.  This is why the calorimeter constant
would jump around between openings.
 
This does not explain the "pops" or most of the previous measurements.  It
only explains the calorimeter constant changes between openings.  I have been
quite careful not to bump the apparatus while operating.
 
I do not plan to attempt repairs.  I have learned a lot about how to build
these devices, and so plan to put my energy into the next design.  When I
constructed the Mark II, I knew the glue joints were a weak point, but the
machining required to do a better job was beyond my ability.  The cost of
sending it out was likely too much for my budget.  Now that Kevin Urness is
working with me we can attempt a wham-duzy mechanical design.
 
This looks like about a six months project to me.  I will lurk until then.
After we get it built, then I will bore you all with about six months of
calibration experiments before we get down to real measurements again.  It
looks like that is what it will take.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / John Logajan /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 18:25:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-)) writes:
>Okay.  We won't tax you, but you can't drive on our roads,
 
The issue of road ownership is somewhat complicated by the pre-existing
establishment of "right-of-ways" by usage.  Property comes into being
when humans (individually or jointly) press previously unclaimed natural
resources into use -- i.e. mix their labor with the entity.
 
Therefore travel rights (right-of-ways) were first established on specific
routes by the early pioneers.  They had the option at that time of making
specific ownership claims to the right-of-ways that they established and
improved.  For the most part, they did not bother to do this -- mainly
because there were too many potential alternate routes.  Those that followed
the pioneers further used and improved upon the routes, thus including
themselves into the growing number of *joint* owners.
 
Because of this rather unique history of creation of major route right-of-ways
(we all use them in the form of commerce, if not just travel) it is no
longer possible to claim superior ownership rights in the *right-of-way*
itself, tax or no tax.
 
The government is not in a position to sell the roads, since the government
does not own the right-of-ways.  What the government or the people jointly
can do is to charge user fees for the necessary improvements and maintence.
And similarly it cannot prohibit travel on these routes to any individual
who agrees to pay the user fees.
 
Newly contructed routes, however, can retain for their creators full and
complete property rights.  This is the case on most private property, but
fairly rare in long haul routes (due in part to government interference.)
 
For the pre-exiting right-of-ways, user fees are an economically sufficient
and moral method of finance.  General taxation is *not* moral, since it
denies the person the option of choice -- i.e. is a form of slavery.
 
> drink our reservoir water
 
Once again, riparian rights are not established by the grant of government,
but by the history of usage.  And once again user fees are completely
sufficient to handle this case without resort to immoral general taxation.
 
> or own property under our tax supported title system.
 
To own property and to have it registered under a title system are two
different matters.  However, once yet again, title protection can be
adequately and morally financed with user fees rather than immoral
general taxation.
 
>Libertarians piss me off.
 
Is this necessarily bad?
 
>But if they only taxed me for standards setting and national defense
 
The big three are courts, police, and national defense.  There are many
methods to finance these without resorting to general taxation for anyone
who is truly interested in an ethical approach.  But I won't pursue this
further in this forum.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / R Schroeppel /  superoxide?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: superoxide?
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 20:26:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since peroxide is being discussed, I thought I'd mention superoxide, O2-.
I have no idea if it's stable in water solution, but it does occur as
part of the chain of reactions involved in everyday biological oxidation.
There's an enzyme, SuperOxide Dismutase, that catalyzes the disproportionation
of superoxide into peroxide + O2.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Peroxide
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxide
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 20:26:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, I have already caught enough bricks to completly shoot down the idea that
peroxide formation might mess up the P&F pulsed calibration.  One small thing
remains.
 
These cells all have a lot of temporary energy storage.  For example in the
amount of D2 and O2 gas in solution.  Anything that changes this balance
during calibration will cause an error in the measured calorimeter constant.
With my closed cell, just changing the pressure slightly will sometimes cause
heat spike as more that the usual number of gas bubbles break away from the
electrodes and reach the surface.  The heater in the P&F cell need only do
something similar to create a calibration error.  At the moment a mechanism
eludes me.  But I do have many cases in my cell where a temperature rise does
not indicate any power change.
 
So much information to sort out.  I had forgotten John Logajans nice experiment
with the Pt wire and Peroxide.  Sorry, John.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 /  RD05665@academ /  Universities with ongoing mcf experiments
     
Originally-From: RD05665@academia.swt.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Universities with ongoing mcf experiments
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 04:33:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I will be graduating in May 1994 and am looking for a university with a
graduate/doctoral program that is conducting muon-catalysed fusion (MCF)
experiments.
 
If anyone has information about such a school (or schools), please reply to
RD05665@academia.swt.edu
 
BTW, Texas universities are preferable, but any will do.
 
Thanks in advance,
Robert Dail
rd05665academia.swt.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenRD05665 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Quick clarification, and invitation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quick clarification, and invitation
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 03:52:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>When John Logajan comes to Salt Lake City (a high-class town) in Sept.,
>I hope he'll give me a call if he'd like to visit.
 
I appreciate the offer, but I yeild "my time" for a more worthy use
of your time.  So throw another neutron on the grill ...
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 04:09:06 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-)) writes:
>So this is the Libertarian solution to taxes: a toll booth on every road
>and sidewalk.  Solutions like these are why the Libertarian movement will
>never go anywhere.
 
One of the things I love about the Libertarian philosophy is the speed
with which its opponent's strongest arguments are reduced to complaints
about the "inconvenience of ethics."
 
Well, yes, ethics can be inconvenient at times.  But you highlight a rather
lame example.  Even the students and staff at John Hopkins should be able
to envision technologies that would allow convenient billing for miles
travelled on a roadway.
 
>I would love to hear how Libertarians intend to support national defense
>with user fees.  That ought to be interesting.
 
Send me e-mail if you really want to know. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 04:39:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames) writes:
>but the product gasses are formed in thermal equilibrium with the liquid
>electrolyte.
 
I don't see how that nullifies a change in the system heat capacity
resulting in a system temperature change.
 
>There is no excess energy, as you term it.
 
Where did it go?  If system A has 10J of thermal energy at 20C and
presto chango, its heat capacity is cut in half, then it would only
take 5J of thermal energy to keep it at 20C.  Either the temperature
goes up or the "excess" 5J escapes via some other route.
 
>You are correct that if the temperature is changed the equilibrium gas
>pressures are likely to be different, causing a small change in total heat
>capacity.  However, the difference should be much smaller than you
 
Hmmm, are you saying that the gases under the self-pressurization of a
closed system will have the same thermal capacity as the liquid from
which they were derived???
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 06:33:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance.
 
The quotable quote is:
 
"Never attribute to mallice that which can be attributed to stupidity."
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^
 
I don't know the source, except that it appears in a lot of UNIX
fortune files and that its author was most likely a government
bureaucrat whose close rewarding relationship with his favorite
contractor had just caused a critical technology, owned by
that contractor's competitor, to be driven from American shores and
acquired by a major Japanese corporation.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 07:54:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White) in FD 1261:
 
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>> Where does James White get his authority on the subject?
 
First of all, my apologies for this jibe. It was not you who claimed any
authority of course, it was Tom on your behalf, tongue in cheek. I note that
you are making a serious proposal here.
 
>The side reaction doesn't have to be that "massive" to build up a high
>concentration of peroxide. They run a long time before the burst.
>Also, I suspect that carbonate may play a role in the production of
>peroxide. If that is so, then peroxide production would only really kick
>in after the electrolyte had a chance to absorb some carbon dioxide from
>the air. My understanding is that F&P spot checked production in a few
>cells, and didn't monitor them continuously.
 
1. The decomposition of H2O2 into water and O2 yields around 100 kJ/mol.
   (D2O2 will be similar, give or take a few 10%). So 4 MJ means 40 mol or,
   for the heavy water cell, almost a litre. ALL of this would have to have
   been converted to D2O2 to finally yield, within a short time (10 min) the
   4 MJ calculated for the dry-boiling episode. So: massive it would be.
2. Carbonate? Are you thinking of CO2 out the air? There would certainly be
   some carbonate initially, but the cell releases a lot of gas, and
   atmospheric gases can't easily get in. I have mentioned this in connection
   with oxygen, suggested earlier by someone else. You certainly won't get
   these huge amounts of CO2 coming into a cell. Are you suggesting 40 mol
   CO2? That's about 1000 L at 1 atm pure CO2... quite a draft in there.
 
>In other words, you have yet another way for recombination to occur; one
>which does not start until after the cell has been running a while.
 
>Pons does not run his cells with Pd cathodes, however. He uses Pd cathodes
>on which a layer of gunk has been deposited, and that is quite a different
>thing. In fact, he is said to add secret ingredients to his cells. This
>both insures the presents of and controls the nature of the gunk.
 
It really does not matter what the cathode is covered with, or what the metal
is; it's a cathode, at a rather negative potential, which would make short
work of every peroxide anion coming to it.
 
Lest you think that I have provided a recombination argument, i.e. for oxygen
to be similarly reduced at the cathode, I am not. The purported peroxide would
be a dissolved species, while oxygen is present in the cell mostly in the form
of bubbles, with a smallish equilibrium concentration as dissolved oxygen, at
around millimolar. Bubbles are hard to reduce, simply for transport reasons.
I suspect that some recombination, i.e. O2 reduction, takes place, and Steve
Jones says they have seen it, but I wouldn't put my head on the block for it.
Further, as I have said, F&P say that they get the right amount of gas and
that current efficiency is 99%, i.e. no appreciable recombination.
 
By the way, people who want to look for bubbles at the anode, as evidence for
peroxide: remember there are already a lot of bubbles, from the oxygen evolved
there. Better to follow the advice of (who was it?) a day or so ago, and hang
an otherwise unconnected Pt wire somewhere in the cell.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Reply to Dieter
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dieter
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 13:38:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter, you still do not understand "selective reporting"? I'd say that the
*key point* of Oriani's letter was his assertion that the P&F boil-off event
by itself was convincing. For Amato to have ignored that was apalling, totally
inexcusable, egregious misreporting. It fits Amato's preconceived idea that
cold fusion is some quirky business that isn't too important except as a
curiosity in the *process* of science. Amato was far better in his reporting
of cold fusion in the early days. After he was "elevated" from Science News to
Science, he seems to have adopted the trappings expected of the pack. I think
Oriani was much too polite in his reply to Amato, but that's his style, not
mine.
 
As to your omission of the *key point*, I'll leave it to others to decide
whether that was deliberate selective reporting, as opposed to simple
"brevity." You say that the essential point was "quoting out of context." I
say that contention is bunk!
 
And please don't dish out that "are you so full of bad feelings" crap and
"balance" garbage. You still don't get the point that war has been declared
against cold fusion and cold fusion research by the Maddoxes, Huizengas,
Happers, Closes, Taubes's and Wades of this world. You have only seen the
public insults a la the Wade review in Nature. You haven't seen the hidden,
written documentation of scientists at federal laboratories being prevented
from working on cold fusion, of the hot fusion people trying to trash Fusion
Technology's CF section, trying to prevent Storms and Mills from testifying
before Congress, etc., etc. You think this is some kind of polite tea-party
discussion. It ain't! The cold fusion community, which has suffered so many
insults, will NOT be gracious when victory comes, and it is coming very soon.
No, you are not out to "get" me, even though you are, I believe, a "wolf in
sheep's clothing." Come the revolution, we'll let you alone, but we cold
fusioneers are certainly going to be out -- BIG TIME -- to "get" the science
bigots of the last four years. Not one will escape the excruciating
documentation and publication of their misconduct.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Joe Katnic /  Re: More Flies for Taubes
     
Originally-From: Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Flies for Taubes
Date: 12 Aug 93 22:06:00 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <m0oQ7bZ-0000QGC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>The cold war ultimately transformed physics from a scientific to a
>political enterprise.
>
>I wonder how long it will take to dismantle the existing political
>machine commonly called "physics" and resume the solid scientific
>progress crippled by WW II and the Manhatten Project?
>
>It sure would be nice to have real scientists doing real physics.
 
  HERE HERE!
 
--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJoe cudfnJoe cudlnKatnic cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 21:25:12 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>All that said, if I charge the capacitor to a certain voltage, and then
>quickly pull the plates of the capacitor apart to halve the capacitance
>before appreciable charge leaks off, the voltage will rise by a factor
>of 1.414 to keep the energy in the system constant.
 
I agree with this generally, but I believe it takes energy to pull the
plates apart.  So the energy of this system increases.  I previously
used the example of pulling the dielectric out, but even that takes
energy to accomplish.
 
I'm not convinced it takes energy input to reduce a system's heat capacity,
so the general thrust of your example is still illustrative.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 21:54:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
>If a system is at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and then
>presto!, its heat capacity is halved, then its temperature should not
>change.
 
I still think this begs the question.  A local change in heat capacity
is going to pull the local system out of its previous thermal equilibrium.
In other words, it is going to heat up relative to its surroundings.
This is a net *cosmological* loss of heat capacity.  It's going to take
a few trillion years to re-establish equilibrium :-) at a higher cosmological
temperature!  (We've traded degrees of freedom for greater average kinetic
energy in the remaining degrees of freedom.)
 
>Look at the heat flows.  You have a system at 20 C and are putting in 10
>joules/second to keep it there.  It is at equilibrium, so 10 joules/second
>is being lost to the surroundings.  Where does the heat capacity matter?
 
Let's assume a perfectly insulated system.  There is no heat flow.  The
10J is the internal vibrational energy that corresponds to 20C.  If the
heat capacity of the system gets prestoed in half, then it only needs
5J of internal energy to keep it at 20C -- but it *has* 10J.  Since we
are assumping a perfectly insulated system, we know the final temperature
must now be approx 300C.  (Not forgetting to calculate from absolute zero.)
 
This looks a lot like entrophy reversal, so I'm still dubious.  But it
certainly doesn't violate energy conservation, since we started with 10J
and end with 10J.  We've just lost modes of vibration, and so the energy
that was distributed among the many modes has now had to re-concentrade in
half as many modes.
 
>much then the number of moles of gas must not have changed much, and so the
>number of moles of liquid also hasn't changed much.  Since the number of
>moles of liquid (with its much higher heat capacity) is much greater than
>the number of moles of gas, the total heat capacity should be pretty
>constant.
 
Yeah.  I agree that at any fixed temperature, a closed system will reach
some equilibrium state.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Dieter
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dieter
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 22:46:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>You still don't get the point that war has been declared against cold fusion
 
Let us neither forget the lessons of the Nuremberg trials -- war doesn't
justify everything!  Don't indiscriminantly machine gun down the neutrals
and the non-combatants while attempting to take out the attackers.
 
>we cold fusioneers are certainly going to be out -- BIG TIME -- to "get"
>the science bigots of the last four years.
 
Why bother?  They'll likely languish in obscurity just as the cold fusioneers
will if it plays out the other way.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Dieter
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dieter
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 19:21:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930813131903_76570.2270_BHA20-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>before Congress, etc., etc. You think this is some kind of polite tea-party
>discussion. It ain't! The cold fusion community, which has suffered so many
>insults, will NOT be gracious when victory comes, and it is coming very soon.
 
     When?  In my lifetime?  My children's?  Are we talking geological
     timescales?
 
     Fish or cut bait.  Give us a clue as to when to expect the
     nonexistent revelation so we can chuckle when the second coming
     comes without coming.
 
>fusioneers are certainly going to be out -- BIG TIME -- to "get" the science
>bigots of the last four years. Not one will escape the excruciating
>documentation and publication of their misconduct.
 
     Geez, I hope I can get 'index'ed too.  Are you going to be
     Pontifex Maximus?
 
                    dale bass
 
     I tip my hat to the new constitution,
        Take a vow for the revolution,
     Smile and grin at the change all around,
        Pick up my guitar and play,
     Just like yesterday,
        Then I get on my knees and pray,
     We won't get fooled again.
 
        Pete Townshend - Won't Get Fooled Again (1971)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 /  bearpaw /  Re: Reply to Dieter
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dieter
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 20:37:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>                    dale bass
>
>     I tip my hat to the new constitution,
>        Take a vow for the revolution,
>     Smile and grin at the change all around,
>        Pick up my guitar and play,
>     Just like yesterday,
>        Then I get on my knees and pray,
>     We won't get fooled again.
 
>        Pete Townshend - Won't Get Fooled Again (1971)
 
Meet the new Bass,
   Same as the old Bass...
 
:-)
bearpaw
 
 ==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Jim Bowery /  Process, not People
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Process, not People
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 07:35:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>"balance" garbage. You still don't get the point that war has been declared
>against cold fusion and cold fusion research by the Maddoxes, Huizengas,
>Happers, Closes, Taubes's and Wades of this world. You have only seen the
>public insults a la the Wade review in Nature. You haven't seen the hidden,
>written documentation of scientists at federal laboratories being prevented
>from working on cold fusion, of the hot fusion people trying to trash Fusion
>Technology's CF section, trying to prevent Storms and Mills from testifying
>before Congress, etc., etc. You think this is some kind of polite tea-party
>discussion. It ain't! The cold fusion community, which has suffered so many
>insults, will NOT be gracious when victory comes, and it is coming very soon.
 
>No, you are not out to "get" me, even though you are, I believe, a "wolf in
>sheep's clothing." Come the revolution, we'll let you alone, but we cold
>fusioneers are certainly going to be out -- BIG TIME -- to "get" the science
>bigots of the last four years. Not one will escape the excruciating
>documentation and publication of their misconduct.
 
If you are correct, and I pray you are, then you must avoid the trap this
situation is setting for you.
 
The main benefit of cold fusion will be lost unless spokesmen like
yourself can -- in addition to pouring much deserved vitriol in the direction
of the vermin -- dispassionately articulate what must be done to fix the
PROCESS so that vermin stay in their holes rather than taking up positions
of public trust and authority, thereby forcing themselves to suppress
all competition lest they be made to look bad by comparison.
 
The only credible solution I've come up with is to divorce science and
technology funding from the political process.  The vermin are essentially
political animals posing as scientists and technologists.  Since we can't
make the political process apolitical, that process WILL select for
political vermin over scientists and technologists.
 
This, of course, goes right to Congress's penchant for making decisions
at a levels far lower than they should.  This penchant is, in turn, directly
related to the drive to weild political power via decision-making.  Congress
will engage in this abuse unless it becomes a public disgrace to do so.
The people must be made aware that this is an immoral abuse of Congressional
power, not unlike child molestation is an abuse of adult power.  There has
never been an opportunity like "cold fusion" to bring this situation to the
public's attention in such stark relief.
 
Therefore, "cold fusion", if it is proven out, could provide the
basis of a revolution in the nature of politics in the United States.
 
Whether we realize this profound potential or not depends on the
ability of people, like yourself, to articulate the larger issues
via the (still somewhat) free press.
 
An example of a system which could replace politics with market forces
in the selection process (and which is therefore not politically
 feasible given the current level of corruption in the politics of
 science and technology):
 
The IRS and US Patent Office calculate, for every inventor of a patent
bearing royalies in the last 5 years, the percentage of total patent
royalties that inventor was responsible during that 5 year period.
 
Federal funds for technology are then simply divided up according to
these percentages and distributed to those inventors without any strings
attached (one might think of this as "matching funds" incentive
 system for being a successful inventor).  These funds are given
to INDIVIDUALS ONLY and INVENTORS ONLY (no assignees).
 
Federal funds for science are distributed to proposals for scientific
research ("science" as defined in patent case law) by the inventors
according to their percentages.  Proposals not fully funded in this first
round are funded by removing money from other proposals which are further
from being fully funded.
 
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Dieter
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dieter
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 20:59:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CBptBA.C5H@world.std.com>, bearpaw <bearpaw@world.std.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>        Pete Townshend - Won't Get Fooled Again (1971)
>
>Meet the new Bass,
>   Same as the old Bass...
>
>:-)
 
      Nothing revolutionary here.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: 13 Aug 1993 23:40:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
: >All that said, if I charge the capacitor to a certain voltage, and then
: >quickly pull the plates of the capacitor apart to halve the capacitance
: >before appreciable charge leaks off, the voltage will rise by a factor
: >of 1.414 to keep the energy in the system constant.
:
: I agree with this generally, but I believe it takes energy to pull the
: plates apart.  So the energy of this system increases.  I previously
: used the example of pulling the dielectric out, but even that takes
: energy to accomplish.
:
: I'm not convinced it takes energy input to reduce a system's heat capacity,
: so the general thrust of your example is still illustrative.
 
Is this 'reduction of a system's heat capacity' adiabatic or isothermal?
 
I think one has to be more specific as to the particular physical process
you intend to perform.
 
 
: --
: - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
: - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
--
-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:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 23:17:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug13.215434.13634@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
>>If a system is at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and then
>>presto!, its heat capacity is halved, then its temperature should not
>>change.
>
>I still think this begs the question.  A local change in heat capacity
>is going to pull the local system out of its previous thermal equilibrium.
>In other words, it is going to heat up relative to its surroundings.
>This is a net *cosmological* loss of heat capacity.  It's going to take
>a few trillion years to re-establish equilibrium :-) at a higher cosmological
>temperature!  (We've traded degrees of freedom for greater average kinetic
>energy in the remaining degrees of freedom.)
 
     How do we make the trade?
 
>>Look at the heat flows.  You have a system at 20 C and are putting in 10
>>joules/second to keep it there.  It is at equilibrium, so 10 joules/second
>>is being lost to the surroundings.  Where does the heat capacity matter?
>
>Let's assume a perfectly insulated system.  There is no heat flow.  The
>10J is the internal vibrational energy that corresponds to 20C.  If the
>heat capacity of the system gets prestoed in half, then it only needs
>5J of internal energy to keep it at 20C -- but it *has* 10J.  Since we
>are assumping a perfectly insulated system, we know the final temperature
>must now be approx 300C.  (Not forgetting to calculate from absolute zero.)
 
      This is a unique way of looking at specific heat.  What you are
      really asking the system to do is dump heat because of some presumed
      restriction on internal degrees of freedom (that you don't get anyway
      because you've just added more little masses by putting D in there
      in the first place).  I don't know how one induces the system to
      do so for an insulated system.  It also seems an egregious violation of
      the second law, unless you've pre-arranged for the entropy to go
      elsewhere in micromanaging internal degrees of freedom.
 
>and end with 10J.  We've just lost modes of vibration, and so the energy
>that was distributed among the many modes has now had to re-concentrade in
>half as many modes.
 
      Refresh my memory.  Why did we lose degrees of freedom?
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 01:29:22 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

 
Hi folks,
 
   More on the Chubb's theory.  Dick Blue has some doubts about the
theory, as do I.  However, the more I understand the reasoning behind
the theory (from a materials point of view and the quantum band state
of deuterium ions), the more I think this the correct direction to
pursue.  I always thought the He4 ash explanation was nonsense but
as I've investigated the idea, my thoughts have changed to a real maybe.
I don't trust the reported He4 positive experiments because as Dick has
pointed out in the past, they are tricky as hell to measure in deuterium
environments.  2D can look an awful lot like He4 in many mass spec
systems, and there are several other potential problems as well.
I think it's time to investigate seriously the possibility that He4
may be the major branch of cold fusion reactions within solids.
 
Dick Blue writes:
 
> Chuck Sites hasn't cleared up anything related to my doubts about the
> Chubb theory.  It still seems to assert that the range of the strong
> interaction gets magically enlarged such that the entire crystal lattice
> becomes some form of dilute nuclear matter.
 
   It is a tough idea to swallow considering the range of nuclear interaction
is 1E-13m as seen by scattering experiments.  But if you recognize what
the fundamental basis of QM *is*, then it is magically enlarged, and
dilute.  Lets assume the Born interpretation (a more particle like
interpretation) that the probability of a particle being at location
x,y,z,t is given by |PSI PSI*|^2, and that a potential energy extends
from this point at time t.  If we some how measure the coordinates of
the particle without interacting with it over a period of time, we will
see the probability distribution of the potential.  Within in a multi-
body problem like the band state, we get a |PSI PSI*|^2 function which
is *continuous* across several particles x_n,y_n,z_n,t.  Since
these particles are indistinguishable from one another, the force
potential that exists at point 1 is the same as point n, at time t.
It also implies a certain probability that 2 particles will exist at
in the range of nuclear potential.  To an observer outside the system
measuring for a period of time > t it would look like a magically enlarged
and proportionately dilute state of nuclear matter.  Quantum statistics
of ionic Bose particles possessing a nuclear potential and obeying the PSI
function of Bloch does suggest the ensemble will have some unusual
properties.
 
> What is it that makes
> this possible for the PdD lattice without it being something that occurs
> in other systems of condensed matter.  Why not in salts with lots of
> water of hydration, for example?  There are plenty of lattices made of
> of bosons to be considered as possible candidates.  Why not in
> solid deuterium?
 
These questions are certainly a lot easier to answer than the first.
The major premise is that deuterium in palladium is in an ionic (D+)
form as it diffuses through the lattice.  I may not be completely D+
as electrons in the lattice may shadow it motion from intersitual to
intersitual, but with respect to it's nearest neighbor, it should be
D+.  In one diagonal of PdD octahedral intersituals as seen in Terry's
draft on W. Bernecky's BWO's, there is a plane formed which should be
a low energy 2 dimensional periodic potential.  The combination should
allow for the band state effect.  However, the Chubb work is physics
theory and has some predictive powers. So if you can think of a similar
configuration that allows the creation of a BBC, it should work.
 
>  If the Chubbs have not written down a Hamiltonian
> for the dueteron-deuteron interaction in this state what does constitute
> their theory?
 
The Hamiltonian formalism in this case, is the same you would expect
for other multi-body band state PSI, and is equivalent to the Fermi
golden rule.  As such the fusion rate estimates are based on the wave
function overlap allowing two particles to exist in an intersitual.
The actual nuclear interaction is extended by the fact that the time t
of the interaction < t of localization in space. What this implies
then is that only until the band state is localized by some 'dimer'
process will the actual 'ash' appear.  Since phase transitions cause
'dimerization' of all band systems (as would be at the surface of a
metal), the ash of the nuclear interaction would be expected to
concentrate there, with perhaps small traces near defects in the
lattice.  This is why Chubb's suggests 2D+ <=> He4++ in the deuteron
band state system.
 
> I would also like to know how they treat the spin wave
> function for the dueterium.  Do they assume that the system is ordered
> in spin, and if so how did it get that way?  If the system is disordered
> in spin it is very hard to connect to 4He way.  As a point of information
> the strong interaction is very strongly spin dependent.  Of course
> Mitchell will inform me that that applies only in other domains but not
> in solids.  Before anyone gets to carried away with the idea of ordered
> spins, I would suggest someone do an NMR measurement of deuterium in
> palladium.
 
This is a good direction to steer the argument. He3 has an interesting
property upon freezing that the nuclei will form a crystal of
alternating nuclear aligned spin-up spin-down nuclei in a bbc.
(interesting point: He3's solid structure is formed by nuclear spin,
where as He4 does not solidify, it becomes superfluid.)  I would think
solid deuterium forms by coevalent and metallic bonding but does not
have nucleus mobility to allow the wave function overlap.  I really
like your suggestion of doing NMR measurements on PdD(x) but I would
like to see it investigated over a range of variables. (Loading,
temperature, etc.).
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
Ps: To Dieter.  No I havn't given up on the idea of heavy heat but I
have modified it. The replies by you and Dale Bass and others really
did make me rethink the idea. I learned quite a bit from that
discussion.  I have given up on the idea that the proton current would
go unnoticed by electrons.  It will effect voltage and resistance as
seen by the electrons. Electron current shouldn't be effected though.
Also if these deuteron current does superconduct like I think it does,
via the BBC, the magnetic effects might be easily apparent if the
if the lattice doesn't shield it.  In the DiFoggio-Gomer paper (Phy
Rev B 25-3490) they show an anomoly in the field emision currents
near 80K for D. Look it up.  It's a really interesting paper and
is applicable to the discussion on Bose band systems, isotopic
temperature anomolies in metal/H & D systems, and other effects.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Jim Bowery /  Why bothering going after "them" if CNF wins out?
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why bothering going after "them" if CNF wins out?
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 17:39:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>>You still don't get the point that war has been declared against cold fusion
>
>Let us neither forget the lessons of the Nuremberg trials -- war doesn't
>justify everything!  Don't indiscriminantly machine gun down the neutrals
>and the non-combatants while attempting to take out the attackers.
 
When did Mallove indicate he was going to gun down neutrals and non-combatants
or had neo-Nazi tendencies, John?  Your comment seems highly prejudicial
unless you come up with some support for it vis Mallove.
 
>>we cold fusioneers are certainly going to be out -- BIG TIME -- to "get"
>>the science bigots of the last four years.
>
>Why bother?  They'll likely languish in obscurity just as the cold fusioneers
>will if it plays out the other way.
 
I'll use your analogy (but with a good deal more legitimacy):
 
Why bother going after the war criminals in the Nuremberg trials?  They
would have likely languished in obscurity just as have the defeated leaders
of any war.
 
The answer is simply this:
 
When the criminals are able to retire in obscurity, enjoying the fruits of
their criminal activities, they set a poor example for the youth of the
world.  When comparing the upside vs downside of various careers, young
people must get the idea that being a manipulative, fraudulent demagogue
who accumulates personal assets (wealth and family) while in power is not
a very good prospect compared to, say, being an unsuccessful Bohemian artist.
 
Your defense of a group of people who are in a position of public trust
and authority and have clearly abused that position virtually eliminates
any positive opinion I might have had of you -- your libertarian rhetoric
notwithstanding.
 
I now wonder if you would remain so libertarian in your leanings if our
society's current moral tolerance of fraud over force were to be reversed.
I see the abuse of force as a much more tolerable situation since force
is, by its nature, difficult to keep hidden while fraud is, by its nature,
hidden.  I want to know who my enemies are and what they are doing so I
can do something to defend myself even if I can't stop them.  (Abuse of
 force "justified" by legal sophistry is a crime of fraud -- not force.)
 
Basically, I must now wonder:  Are you just a sleaze-ball who sees
more "liberty" to engage in more profitable fraud within a libertarian
version of our current society -- one that winks at fraud and uses
fraudulent "legal" force to suppress those with genuinely justified
violent reactions against the all-pervading fraud?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 18:23:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Is this 'reduction of a system's heat capacity' adiabatic or isothermal?
 
You're talking to a guy who thinks "adiabatic" is something Fred Flintstone
says when the end of workshift whistle blows! :-)
 
In our thought experiments, we can toy with either variation.  As Tom Droege
would probably complain about the lack of either good thermal conductors or
good thermal insulators, the real world always seems to be some mix of both
the isothermal and adiabatic.
 
My book defines isothermal as a system energy change in which the temperature
is held constant (energy either flowing in from or out to the outside world.)
Adiabatic is a system energy change in which the temperature is allowed to
change (by insulating the system from energy flow to or from the outside.)
 
When I proposed the perfectly insulated thought experiment, I was clearly
waxing adiabatic.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 18:33:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>I can, in fact, reduce the capacitance by using a butterfly capacitor
>and not have to separate the plates.  The charge and the energy must be
>conserved.  No mechanical energy is put into the system, but the
>voltage rises.
 
I'm not sure what a butterfly capacitor is, but here are the equations
for the capacitor:
 
Capacitance = coulombs / volts.
 
Clearly if you decrease the capacitance but retain the same number of
electrons on the plates (coulombs) then volts must go up.
 
However, the energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 coulombs * volts.
 
So by conservation of energy, a decrease in capacitance in which the charge
is not allowed to escape *must* increase the system energy -- and therefore
*must* require energy input to accomplish.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 19:00:02 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>(We've traded degrees of freedom for greater average kinetic
>>energy in the remaining degrees of freedom.)
 
>     How do we make the trade?
 
Err, I don't know, it was more of a "what if" assertion than an explanation.
 
 
Note that a monoatomic gas has less heat capacity than a diatomic gas which
in turn has less heat capacity than a triatomic gas.
 
Examples:
 
He 4.9679 cal/deg/mole
Xe 4.9679
H2 6.889
O2 7.016
N2 6.961
O3 9.37
H2O 8.025 (in the gas phase)
N2O 9.19
 
You can see that a massive difference in nuclear weight between He and Xe
has no significant effect on their heat capacities as monoatomic gas particles.
They have lateral degrees of freedom only.  Diatomic molecules add vibrational
and rotational degrees of freedom -- more places to store energy.  Triatomic
molecules further diversify the degrees of freedom, and so on.
 
So if one were to chemically split various multi-atomic molecules apart,
one would expect a reduction in the number of degrees of freedom and a
reduction in the heat capacity.
 
 
>      What you are
>      really asking the system to do is dump heat because of some presumed
>      restriction on internal degrees of freedom (that you don't get anyway
>      because you've just added more little masses by putting D in there
>      in the first place).
 
I too think the heat capacity goes up when you push D into the Pd -- but
I suspect the heat capacity goes down when the D unloads.
 
>      It also seems an egregious violation of
>      the second law, unless you've pre-arranged for the entropy to go
>      elsewhere in micromanaging internal degrees of freedom.
 
I've always been a bit of an anarchist. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Why bothering going after "them" if CNF wins out?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why bothering going after "them" if CNF wins out?
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 93 19:15:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>When did Mallove indicate he was going to gun down neutrals and non-combatants
>or had neo-Nazi tendencies, John?
 
He didn't and he doesn't.  It was a metaphorical reminder that moral
defense requires as careful a targeting of aggressors as possible to
avoid harming innocent third parties.
 
>Your defense of a group of people who are in a position of public trust
>and authority and have clearly abused that position virtually eliminates
>any positive opinion I might have had of you -- your libertarian rhetoric
>notwithstanding.
 
I defended no such person!  I await their come-uppance as much as you do.
However, I will leap to the defense of Deiter Britz because it is my
opinion that he is not in any manner one of the "criminals" about which
you and Gene speak -- even if we all differ on which articles to include
in his abstracts archive.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: 14 Aug 1993 19:05:08 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
In article <CBqMK9.Lt4@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <tmwatson-130893230508@nubs33.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
> Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
> >In article <930805104142_70047.3047_EHB20-1@CompuServe.COM>,
> >
> >Actually, I think this gentleman missed the point. If the deuterium nuclei
> >were delocalized, there would no longer be as high a potential barrier to
> >overcome (MeV?) before they could overlap, because they are no longer point
> >particles (as I mentioned before).
>
>       It's easy to say things like 'if the deuterium nuclei were
>       delocalized'.  It's very tough to make a case for delocalizing
>       something that looks like a point object on the energy scales we are
>       considering.
>
>       Besides, once they fuse, reaction products become very very localized.
>       Where are they?
>
>       All along, two miracles have been required. Miracle #1 is getting the
>       nucleii (whichever nucleii you want), close enough to fuse while
>       ignoring the very local coulomb barrier.  Miracle #2 is getting
>       heat into thermal modes in the lattice without being bombarded
>       with screaming neutrons, gammas, or whatever else your favorite
>       reaction cooks up.
>
>       It's difficult to understand how Miracle #1 occurs, for the simple
>       reason that there is a large barrier, and the electrons are very
>       very mobile.  It is difficult to understand how Miracle #2 occurs
>       because the reaction of the lattice occurs on a timescale much much
>       longer than the reaction of the fusion products.
>
>       Delocalization does not help in #2 and it doesn't even seem to help
>       in #1, since I find it difficult to believe that anyone has treated,
>       in detail the reaction of the 'fermi sea' to a high local gradient
>       caused by two D+'s getting very close together.
>
 
I never said that the OCCURRENCE of delocalization would not be a problem -
somehow one would have to turn "off" the strong force (!) binding the nucleons
into a little itty, bitty ball (but keep enough of it to mediate a fusion
reaction). Given delocalization and deuterons interacting nearly only
electromagnetically, I don't see a high gradient. See comments below - I only
see one miracle involved. The joint probability of finding two
deuterons together, as they both contain the same fermions, would
be very low except for
separations on the same order as their delocalized extent (as I corrected myself
after looking at Baym's "Quantum Mechanics") so that even though the electromag-
netic interaction of two miraculously delocalized deuterons doesn't give that
high a potential to overcome, as they are no longer points, because they are
delocalized, they do not have to approach each other "closely" (which there is a
low probability for, anyways) The only problem is, that if the
strong interaction becomes this weak via some miracle, it must
make ANOTHER transition
back to being very strong in order to give us a lot of energy released via a
reaction mediated by this force. Is there a conservation of energy barrier to
this weird scenario? There might be. As for the second part, see comments below.
 
> >When the reaction occurs, if the energy
> >is to appear as heat (lattice disturbances) and not elementary particles,
> >we
> >see that this reaction must involve a certain spatial extent. As Terry
> >pointed
> >out, the particles do NOT have to have particularly low momentum to have
> >a large spatial extent, and two diffuse particles might have a relatively
> >insignificant potential to overcome (the Coulomb interaction between
> >electrons in a metal, for example, is a second-order effect). Why drag the
> >electrons in, if we can help it? How could they possibly hang onto a
> >delocalized deuteron?
>
>       Why drag the lattice in?  It reacts much more slowly than the
>       EM field.  And what happens, happens, a great gob of reaction product/
>       energy comes screaming out of the lattice.
>
>                                 dale bass
The lattice is important just because the deuterium nuclei are delocalized, so
that one would expect that
1. The deuterium would remain confined to the solid
2. The periodicity of the lattice would impose some structure of
the wave function of the deuteron, since one expects it to interact
at least electro-
magnetically with the lattice (unless the cold fusion folks eventually
find it necessary to ignore this force also).
 
Depends on what unknown mechanism you use to dissipate the energy (some unknown
aspect of the strong force? -Only the nuclei interact with the
stron force, electrons interact electromagnetically. Fusion involves
the strong force; p-p
repel otherwise. Why not give distribute over many, many nuclei "pushes"
that have their origin in this unknown interaction? It might be slow going to
PROPAGATE kinetic energy in a lattice from some regions of the
lattice to others, but that is a different matter. Usually, higher
energy interactions
among particles are more localized, but is this not an artifact that the
DeBroglie wavelength of one or both interacting particles tend to be small?
 
This is a very interesting question, which is sort of obscured by the fact that
objects that interact via a particular force self-interact according to that
force also, so that reactions that might release a lot of energy via the strong
force would proceed from experiments where we utilize particles that tend to be
massive and therefore tend to have small DeBroglie wavelengths as free particles.
 
Particle people, is it inconceivable that a reaction between two
large, delocalized states will not proceed in a delocalized region,
imparting momentum
to tons of nuclei so as to dissipate excess kinetic energy that would otherwise
be dissipated via kinetic energy of the helium nuclei? The helium nuclei might
then be left with only moderate amounts of kinetic energy.
 
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
  BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / timothy watson /  Re: Process, not People
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Process, not People
Date: 14 Aug 1993 19:22:43 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
In article <CBqy7o.E3y@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <m0oRFqN-0000tWC@crash.cts.com>,
> Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
> [deleted]
> >Federal funds for technology are then simply divided up according to
> >these percentages and distributed to those inventors without any strings
> >attached (one might think of this as "matching funds" incentive
> > system for being a successful inventor).  These funds are given
> >to INDIVIDUALS ONLY and INVENTORS ONLY (no assignees).
>
>      The advantage to this is that Major Corporations (TM) will receive
>      most of your largesse.  Take a glance at patent filings sometime.  And
>      it would just get worse with block grants.  For instance, Xerox
>      would patent every single trivial variation on their manufacturing
>      process (they already do anyway) and pay themselves royalties which
>      dwarf small-potatoes inventers.  They'll just pay their engineers
>      in royalties.
>
>      Besides, it is the patent itself that is the grant from the
>      government as *our* representative.  If that's not enough,
>      find another line of work.
>
>                              dale bass
>
 
Even if one could let the actual Xerox researchers decide where research grants
should go, without outside bomb-threats from Xerox or whatever, this does not
seem to be a great process for developing undeveloped technologies
in a field that an inventor might neglect in favor of distributing
money to more mature
technologies that reflect the inventors interests and knowledge.
Granted, there may be some innovative stuff that some inventors
might be dying to fund, but might myopia not be a problem? One
complaint about the NIH is that they have boards of experts in
a field to evaluate a proposal, rather than dig up experts who
might have even more particular knowledge. I wish I knew where
I read the
essay of the scientist complaining about this, but the funding pattern in that
field (lubrication of joints, I think it was) he complains more
closely resembles the prejudice of the scientists on the panel
than their actual merits.
It is also true that "famous scientists" might not know as much
about technology as technologists, but why not involve a few (maybe
less, if there are too many
involved) in fields of research that tend to be "feeder fields"
to later inventions? There might be a few geniuses that they could
dig up also...
 
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
  BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Bill Page /  Re:How _Quantics_ nails bosinos (and relation to Vigier's Theory)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:How _Quantics_ nails bosinos (and relation to Vigier's Theory)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 05:16:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes:
<<
I particularly like the early emphasis on a more unified ("quanton") view
of wave-particle duality, although I am still unsure what approach they are
taking to define their quantons.
>>
 
Well, here are a few more quotes from the book.  [I do hope the authors
don't mind this much quoting.  Please, anyone, let me know if you think I
am over stepping some fuzzy copyright line or some such.]
 
"We must, therefore, abandon the idea that every physical object is either
a wave or a particle.  Neither is it possible to say, as is sometimes done
that particles 'become' waves in the quantum domain and conversely, that
waves are 'transformed' into particles.  Nor should it be said that quantum
objects have a dual nature, which is simultaneously wavelike and
corpuscular (something which is logically absurd, since the two concepts
are mutually exclusive)."
 
"From the point of view of quantum theory there only exists one sort of
objects - the quantons.  If in a certain scattering experiment, the
alpha-'particles' begin to manifest wave-like properties while, in a
low-intensity diffraction experiment, the light 'waves' manifest
particle-like properties, it is due to the fact that helium nuclei and
photons are both objects of the same species, namely quantons (even though
they are also different in many respects."
 
"The Planck-Einstein relation ...
 
   E = hbar omega                                 (2.3.1)
 
"It establishes a connection between a classical corpuscular concept, the
energy E, and a classical wave concept, the pulsation omega."
 
"The Plank-Einstein relation is a purely quantum relation: it allows one to
characterize a quanton, i.e., an object which is neither a wave nor a
particle, ... which one might call a 'quantum-energy-pulsation'."
 
"Under these conditions [referring to particle-like and wave-like examples
of 'energy-pulsation'], one should, therefore, not speak of the energy (or
of the pulsation) of a quanton, but rather its quantum energy-pulsation, or
one ought to coin a new term for it.  The fact that this is not done is
only a matter of convenience.  The situation is somewhat similar to that in
the 18th century, when people in France decided to call a potato - a
hitherto unknown vegetable, imported from the Americas - a 'pomme de terre
(or 'ground apple'), since it had the shape of an apple and grew in the
ground."
 
"To talk about the energy of a quanton amounts inevitably to an abuse of
language, which physicists commit all the time.  It is harmless, as long as
it is committed with the complete knowledge of its cause (and effect)."
 
QUANTICS goes on to discuss invariance of physical laws under translations
in time (energy), space (momentum and thus the de Broglie relation) and
rotations (quantization of angular momentum).
 
Personally, I like this kind of linguistic philosophy and I think it is
very important for intellectual advance.  Some people, however, simply
consider this trivial.
 
<< Terry:
 
o  It really is an _introductory_ text on QM, despite the quite different
    style of presentation.  I didn't really see anything in the Page review
    that was radically different from themes and analyses you could pick up
    (say) from a vintage book such as _Quantum Mechanics_ by Powell and
    Crasemann (Addison Wesley 1961), or from the classic _Quantum Theory_
    by David Bohm (Dover 1951, revised 1979).  Or, for that matter, from
    Volume III of the Feynman Lectures on Physics -- although that work has
    its own unique slant on things and places more emphasis on concepts.
 
    Except _possibly_ for quantons, the Quantics books sounded very much
    like a highly innovative re-presentation of existing knowledge, not a
    major excursion into new areas.
>>
 
This is entirely consistant with the authors' views expressed in their
preface including the relationship to Feynman's Volume III.  However, the
texts which Terry mentions, even Feynman's, require considerable
mathematical sophisication before talking about the the 'true' nature of
quantons.  QUANTICS is an elementary text that is doing this right up front
and rigorously avoids any mathematics beyond the undergraduate level.  No,
the concept of quantons is not new.  But don't try to relate it to
sophisicated mathematical concepts - this is not what the authors are
after.  What they want the student to admit, even before any mathematics,
is that our common classical *model* of the world has to be refined.  We
have to think differently.  The concept of a quanton has to become
intuitive to replace the intuitive concepts of particle and wave.
 
Now, skipping from the introductory pages to the very near the end of the
book, Terry writes:
<<
o   I don't know what to make of the "particle count uncertainty" part, but
    would in passing note that if a system that has quantum uncertainty in
    the wavelength of its photons (true for all real systems!), then its
    photons _inherently and trivially indeterminate in total number_.  If
    that is all that Quantics is referring to, it is not a biggy, nor is it
    necessarily of any relevance to particles such as electrons.  It is
    instead simply a reflection of the fact that a single fixed amount of
    electromagnetic energy can be represented by anywhere from one to an
    effectively infinite number of photons, depending simply on how one
    chooses to spread energy across the electromagnetic spectrum.
>>
 
No, not exactly Terry, what they are talking about is the Heisenberg
inequality and the dispersion in energy due to the intrinsic imprecision in
determining the phase.
 
"It now follows, from the disperion in energy deltaE, that the number of
photons N is not defined more accurately than deltaN, where
 
  deltaN = deltaE / hbar omega                          (7.6.3)"
 
and "... obtain the remarkable inequality
 
   deltaN delta omega >= 1 [approximately]               (7.6.5)
 
between the dispersion in the number of photons in the beam and the
dispersion in its phase... for any system of photons and more generally,
for any system of quantons (provided that, like the mono-chromatic photons
in this case, they are all in the same state)."
 
"In particular the case of fermions is readily treated.  Inequality (7.6.5)
actually deals with quantons in the same state (same energy, same momentum,
etc.).  However, the Pauli principle forbids the existence fo more than one
fermion in the same state!  The dispersion in the number of fermions is
thus limited, by definition, to
 
  delta Nf <= 1                                     (7.6.6)
 
It follows that the phase of such a system is necessarily undefined,..."
 
"The bosonic case is quite different altogether: the number Nb of bosons in
any one state being unlimited, we can think of systems in which this number
is not fixed (the system is not in a proper state of Nb)."
 
"In practice, however, not *all* bosonic systems admit such a classical
undulatory description... e.g. The total energy of a system of N pi-mesons
would be
 
   E ~ Nmc^2,                               (7.6.10)
 
if the kinetic energy is assumed to be small.  To a dispersion deltaN in
their number, corresponds an energy dispersion
 
  delta E = delta N mc^2,                   (7.6.11)
 
and, hence, a characteristic time
 
  delta t ~ hbar / delta E                  (7.6.12)
 
"In other words, the overall state of the system, characterized by a
classical wave amplitude, would exhibit temporal variations on the delta t
scale, i.e., it would fluctuate over much too small a time interval for the
classical wave approximation to be useful: for example, for pi-mesons,
hbar/mc^2 ~ 10^24 s."
 
"The case of photons is, therefore, unique because of their vanishing mass,
which allows for a dispersion in number along with a minimal dispersion in
energy and hence an enormous stability, over time, of the wave-like
description."
 
Now, do you notice how *carefully* the authors reason, the way terminology
is used and how minimal the mathematics.  I admire this style very much!
 
<< Terry:
    Electrons and protons are protected by conservation rules that are
    related to the infinite extent of their charge fields -- you cannot
    "lose" one in the same sense that you can a photon.  "Losing" one would
    create a contradiction in which the charge would appear to exist in
    one arbitrarily surface integral around the system, but _not_ within
    a smaller surface integral taken closer to the "lost" electron.  This
    is a no-no, since if you start messing around with that level of
    violation of conservation rules you don't _need_ to invoke ordinary
    quantum uncertainty.
>>
 
Terry, you are breaking the linguistic ground rules here!  Fields are a
classical concept on a par with waves!  QUANTICS treats electromagnetic
charge purely in a guage-theoretic way - as interaction due to the exhange
of photons. It is only energy conservation that tells you that *if* you
lose one, you can only lose it for a *short time*.  [But even this
statement is a mix of classical and quantum... no matter how hard I try I
still haven't been able to re-train myself!]
 
<< Terry:
I would also note that the Quantics book beautifully (and conventionally)
eliminates such ideas as bosinos or any other kind of "collapse" due to
bose condensation.  Liquid helium retains its volume;  deuterons in Pd
keep their distance (at least for any first-order type of analysis --
solid state _is_ a bit messy).
>>
 
Yes, this is certainly as it should be, but the existence of Bosinos is not
thereby squashed!  Very special circumstances are required to overcome the
fermionic nature of the components of the system.  But QUANTICS reminds us
that the state transitions of a quantum system whose components are known
is not in general the same as the sum (actually product of amplitudes) of
its components.
 
<< Terry:
Why?
 
Because Quantics insists that _all_ particles of a single identical type
must be part of _one_ symmetric [bose] or antisymmetric [fermi] field.
 
If you just stop and mull that one over a bit, you should be able to see
pretty quickly why _no_ composite boson will _ever_ be able to occupy the
same space as another composite boson.
>>
 
No, Terry, this is not right.  Or, at least, not accurate.  What do you
mean by space (and I know you know that this is the issue and also know the
right answer from other postings).  Perhaps the problem is that you *really
still believe* that electrons and protons and such are real (i.e. are good
models) in spite of all the (quantum) evidence to the contrary.  Its a
really odd way of thinking but unless we know (i.e. observe = force to a
proper state) the constituents of a Helium atom, we can't treat it (except
in some case as an approximation) as being made of of other things like
protons, neutrons and electrons.  [You see, I've bought the whole story,
not just parts of it. <grin>]  This is not to say, however, that your
discussion of superfluid helium is not "sufficiently accurate".  Meanwhile,
the Chubbs' discussion of deuterium/helium band interactions does not cause
me to feel uncomfortable at all.
 
Besides, for fusion, it is not necessary that anything occuppy the same
space, only that they be sufficiently close for a sufficiently long time.
 
Bosinos are just (hypothetically speaking) ordinary matter in a somewhat
denser phase.  And although Vigier's theory of collapsed hydrogen molecules
is pretty far out (as is the man himself, witness the CBC video), such a
thing is just an N=2 bosino.
 
Yes, Bosinos are slightly miss-named.  It isn't actually necessary for the
components to be bosons - only distinct quantons.  Two opposite spin
protons will do nicely.  For N>2, however, the bose statistics may be
necessary.  The rub is "How do you avoid the Pauli exclusion force of the
electrons?".  Of course, Vigier doesn't have that problem, there is only
one electron.  Another possible situation is where the electron density is
abnormally high for other physical reasons (crystal structure, boundries,
high current densities, etc.).
 
It seems to me that Vigier's collapsed hydrogen molecule (in its ionized
state) H2bar+ is a direct analog of the H- anion with the roles of the
electrons and protons reversed.  We can simply take the equations for H-
and swap the proton and electron masses.  So the H2bar+ must be about a
factor of 1000 smaller than the regular hydrogen atom.  What bothers me
most about this is that the electron is confined to an unusually small
space.  What would it mean for such an electron to have a small dispersion
in space and a correspondingly large dispersion in momentum?  Is this where
it all falls apart?
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / timothy watson /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: 14 Aug 1993 23:24:14 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
In article <CBroqq.HJH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <24jd14INNdh8@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
> Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> >I never said that the OCCURRENCE of delocalization would not be a problem -
> >somehow one would have to turn "off" the strong force (!) binding the nucleons
> >into a little itty, bitty ball (but keep enough of it to mediate a fusion
> >reaction). Given delocalization and deuterons interacting nearly only
> >electromagnetically, I don't see a high gradient. S
>
>      Show me the local potential field in this theory. it is
>      'electromagnetically' that gives your problems in the first place.
>      And if you want to delocalize the nucleii themselves, show me the
>      QCD calculations.
>
 
The QCD is the problem, as I said. How DO the nuclei become delocalized in the
first place? If one can't believe this, then electromagnetism IS the problem,
as you said. I was just talking from taking delocalization as the postulate. Why
should I spend time defending some WEIRD QCD behaviour I do not believe in. It
might not satisfy conservation of energy - a force suddenly becoming weak, the
pent-up electromagnetic energy which was overcome by the strong force has to
dissipate somehow - (I guess this could be a good source of energy in itself :))
This energy would itself have to be replaced from the fusion.
 
>      Words are cheap, where are the equations.
>
 
Equations can be cheap also, if the theory is incorrect. :) I'm not even going
to justify the QCD, since I pointed out the miraculous fluctuations in its
behavior that would be required. I just merely wanted to point out that given
this unknown miraculous QCD behavior, the other stuff isn't as worrisome. In
fact, i suspect that one might have to use arguments based on other
than "the miracle" aspect of the QCD to convince cold-fusion diehards
that there is something wrong.
 
Well, if the charge of the deuteron extends over 100 Angstroms vs 10-14
Angstroms, it will not form as deep a potential well (AT a radius of r=10-12
angstroms at the center of the distribution, very little of the charge is
enclosed in a Gaussian sphere (Physics II here) in the delocalized case, so
there is little electric field . In the other case, ALL the charge
is enclosed, so that the electric field is extremely large, if
more local. I could do a
quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to determine the potential energy of the
center of a spherical electromagnetic charge distribution, but suffice it to
say right now that I would think this would seem obvious - once one starts to
exclude charge from the Gaussian sphere that would otherwise be enclosed, since
only the charge inside contributes to the radial electric field,
and the potential is the integral of the electric field on the
way in, the potential
at the center of a delocalized charge distribution wrt infinity is lower.
 
Is really the localization of the Deuterium nuclei that creates a huge barrier
to them getting close enough to fuse.
 
> >after looking at Baym's "Quantum Mechanics") so that even though the electromag-
> >netic interaction of two miraculously delocalized deuterons doesn't give that
> >high a potential to overcome, as they are no longer points, because they are
> >delocalized, they do not have to approach each other "closely" (which there is a
> >low probability for, anyways)
>
>      They do have to approach each other closely, unless you can show
>      otherwise.
>
 
I meant that they overlap (since the strong interaction is short range)
but they cannot overlap by very much with any reasonable probability
(as explained in comments edited out)
 
> >>       Why drag the lattice in?  It reacts much more slowly than the
> >>       EM field.  And what happens, happens, a great gob of reaction product/
> >>       energy comes screaming out of the lattice.
> >>
> >Depends on what unknown mechanism you use to dissipate the energy (some unknown
> >aspect of the strong force? -Only the nuclei interact with the
stron force, electrons interact electromagnetically. Fusion involves
the strong force; p-p
> >repel otherwise. Why not give distribute over many, many nuclei "pushes"
> >that have their origin in this unknown interaction? It might be slow going to
> >PROPAGATE kinetic energy in a lattice from some regions of the lattice
> >to others, but that is a different matter. Usually, higher energy interactions
>
>      It's the same matter, everything in the lattice is propagated by
>      these tiny little chemical bonds.   On the other hand, you've just
>      let a bull loose in a china shop, and there is no way that the
>      glass figuines are going to absorb the blow.
>
 
1. Fusion is not a chemical bonding phenomenon
2. Transfer of energy to zillions of nuclei AT ONCE would be required
as part of the interaction leading to fusion but per my QCD comments,
I can propose no mechanism for it. Yes, the bonds are weak - that's
why a collective motion
would have to be induced over a wide region by the reaction process itself.
3. Nuclei do not break, and neither do lattices if no large amounts of kinetic
energy are applied to any one nucleus. This would REQUIRE a large spatial extent
interaction region.
 
> >Particle people, is it inconceivable that a reaction between
two large, delocalized states will not proceed in a delocalized
region, imparting momentum
> >to tons of nuclei so as to dissipate excess kinetic energy that would otherwise
> >be dissipated via kinetic energy of the helium nuclei? The helium nuclei might
> >then be left with only moderate amounts of kinetic energy.
>
>      Again, show me the formulation.
>
>                               dale bass
 
1 possible way to (partially) formulate this
Neutrinos were discovered in reactions where conservation of energy
(and momentum) required another, undetectable particle to be emitted.
Therefore,
if a muon decayed into an electron, the electron would have less energy than
would be expected from the rest mass of the muon. The spectral energy distri-
bution would then follow the phase-space (entropy) distribution,
where the maximum would occur at where the greatest density of
states to decay into is
available (Bjorken and Drell OR Halzen and Martin -which one?- have a discussion
of phase-space).
 
One could suspect a reaction
that could only proceed with any probability IF most of the energy
was imparted to the lattice. Maybe maximization of the phase-space
for the reaction (maximizing the entropy) occurs when zillions
of nuclei get a little kinetic
energy more so than when two nuclei have all the energy. Maybe I should see if
there's a way I could figure out the relative entropies of such processes and
maybe what the minimum spatial extent of a disturbance would have
to be (if there is such) to give the lattice disturbance higher
entropy than particles running away, but it's been a while since
I looked at physics books, and maybe some dude from Princeton can
address this point off the top of his head and comment.
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 15 Aug 1993 00:31:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
:      Okay, let's ignore the fact that wave function overlap on
:      the necessary scales is virtually nil owing to the huge
:      local potentials.
 
Before anybody else says "delocalize" one more time read that over again.
 
Think about normal ordinary electrons in a wire.  If they do not interact
with anything else, they travel along "delocalized", sure.  But when
they interact with impurities, say, they become emphatically *local* right
then and there and scatter.  This isn't recent news.
 
What is this interaction?  Electromagnetism, of course.
 
Exactly the same case as for charged nuclei.  Once they interact, they're
local.
 
If you did not have any electromagnetic repulsion, and only strong
force at finite range, then perhaps you could get approximately delocalized
nucleons, until some fused together. (the strong force interaction would
absolutely positively overnight localize the new nucleus as well)
 
Of course, if this were the case, fusion would have been real easy to
do a long time ago, but atoms would be real boring.
 
Remember, if you have highly overlapping wave functions for charged nuclei
then the potential energy you compute will be very high.  Where did
this energy come from?  Just by waving around quantum mumbo jumbo you can't
ignore energy.
 
Every scheme for fusion ever devised tries to get 'wavefunctions to overlap'
of course.  But you can't ignore the fact that you have to squeeze and
you have to do work to squeeze things that don't want to be together.
 
:                             dale bass
 
--
-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:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Process, not People
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Process, not People
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 17:33:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson) writes:
>In article <CBqy7o.E3y@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> In article <m0oRFqN-0000tWC@crash.cts.com>,
>> Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>> [deleted]
>> >Federal funds for technology are then simply divided up according to
>> >these percentages and distributed to those inventors without any strings
>> >attached (one might think of this as "matching funds" incentive
>> > system for being a successful inventor).  These funds are given
>> >to INDIVIDUALS ONLY and INVENTORS ONLY (no assignees).
>>
>>      The advantage to this is that Major Corporations (TM) will receive
>>      most of your largesse.  Take a glance at patent filings sometime.  And
>>      it would just get worse with block grants.  For instance, Xerox
>>      would patent every single trivial variation on their manufacturing
>>      process (they already do anyway) and pay themselves royalties which
>>      dwarf small-potatoes inventers.  They'll just pay their engineers
>>      in royalties.
 
First of all, I didn't post draft legislative language.  You start looking
for loopholes act as though I posted very detailed language.  Nice sophistic
trick, but hardly the basis for an intellectually honest exchange of ideas.
 
Secondly, even if the legislative language didn't specifically prohibit
this sort of abuse, is so obviously in violation of the intent that the
IRS and Patent Office would be successfully sued by parties thus
deprived of funds, the minute Xerox's bureaucratic friends started
interpreting it in the way you suggest they would.
 
Unlike the computers and sheep-like mentalities that adolescent twits
Internet are used manipulating, to the judiciary tends to take a dim
view of brats who try to get away with shit.  The whole purpose of the
judiciary is to deal with such sophomoric "interpretations" as you posit.
 
>>      Besides, it is the patent itself that is the grant from the
>>      government as *our* representative.
 
Property is not typically considered a grant from the government to
the people.  Property is a right of the people and it is from the people
that the government is granted the power to protect property rights.
 
>>If that's not enough,
>>      find another line of work.
 
I'd be happy if the government would stop all funding of technology
and instead concentrate on protecting U.S. intellectual properties both
at home and abroad...
 
But if we're going to dole out money, the least we can do is get the
politics out of it and make it correlate with market forces.
 
The burden isn't on me to prove that my proposal is ideal...  the burden
is on those who believe my proposal is inferior to the current system of
political bandwagoning.
 
The fact that you act as though the burden is on me to prove perfection
plus your "loophole" in my "legislative language" (worthy of a 12 year old
 arguing with his parents about what they meant when they said he was
 grounded) is hardly an auspicious beginning in your undertaking to argue
against my position.
 
Please try again.
 
No wait... On second thought... I've got better things to do than argue
with an adolescent brat in an adult's body.
 
>Even if one could let the actual Xerox researchers decide where research
grants
>should go, without outside bomb-threats from Xerox or whatever, this does not
>seem to be a great process for developing undeveloped technologies in a field
th
>at an inventor
 
AN inventor?  The group of inventors funded under this proposal is so diverse
that I have a hard time believing ANY undeveloped technology in ANY field
would be without funds.
 
Under the current system, all funding concentrates, by political mechanisms,
in one approach.  Witness Shuttle, Space Station, Tokamak, just to name
a few really obvious "undeveloped technologies" in the present system's
definition.
 
You are confusing reality with the fraudulent rhetoric put forth
by the current vermin who control our science and technology funding.  Not
only do they not fund "undeveloped technologies", but they use the
funding they get to suppress diversity in funding sources for technology
in both the public and private sectors, lest they get any real competition
and be exposed as the vermin they are.
 
This is to be expected by those fresh out of the government's brainwashing
system of "education" I suppose.  Just how much did it cost you to be
brainwashed in years and money?
 
>might neglect in favor of distributing money to more mature
>technologies that reflect the inventors interests and knowledge. Granted,
>there may be some innovative stuff that some inventors might be dying
>to fund, but might myopia not be a problem?
 
Is there anyone out there with an adult tempermant who has some real
criticisms of my proposal?
 
Just asking.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / timothy watson /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: 15 Aug 1993 02:27:20 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
Redoing this to avoid embarrasment...
 
In article <CBry0s.IyD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>       Depends on what you mean by 'the charge extends over 100 Angstroms'.
>       In one sense it already does, in another sense
>       if you are talking about uniform smearing of the proton over an
>       area of 100 Angstroms, I think current theory gives you problems, that
>       is not just a wierd QCD effect, that goes quite beyond QCD, you've
>       smeared your quarks.
>
>       Don't know about you, but I hate it when I smear my quarks.
 
Without the strong interaction,quarks are simply fractionally charged,
spin 1/2 entities like electrons, but much more massive. Hey, if QCD
could become very weak, we can see a FREE quark and win a NOBEL.
Further uses for CF...  -Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / timothy watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 15 Aug 1993 03:09:55 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Path: tmwatson
Distribution: world
Followup-To:
References: <CBqLtG.LpJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <24k05pINN686@network.ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Keywords:
 
In article <24k05pINN686@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> Think about normal ordinary electrons in a wire.  If they do not interact
> with anything else, they travel along "delocalized", sure.  But when
> they interact with impurities, say, they become emphatically *local* right
> then and there and scatter.  This isn't recent news.
>
> What is this interaction?  Electromagnetism, of course.
>
> Exactly the same case as for charged nuclei.  Once they interact, they're
> local.
>
 
One quibble. Why does it have to be the deuterons that interact locally
with each other. For example, a Cooper pair can interact with
impurities, but the whole kaboodle has to interact, rather than a single
electron that is part of this system. The momentum-correlated (I think)
pair has to be delocalized "Two at a time" What is wrong with the concept
of the deuteron pair acting in concert on the lattice? Thanks for the
lecture and points to ponder.
 
> If you did not have any electromagnetic repulsion, and only strong
> force at finite range, then perhaps you could get approximately delocalized
> nucleons, until some fused together. (the strong force interaction would
> absolutely positively overnight localize the new nucleus as well)
>
 
Actually, the strong interaction overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion
and holds to nucleus in a tight, dinky little ball. I forgot the
possibility that the proton and neutron in a deuteron that is "barely"
held together might no simply fly apart. If the deuterons CAN
delocalize, then the potential barrier is not so great. I keep making
points on how silly it is to expect the strong force to get strong, then
wek, then strong, etc. and the energy that would have to be put in/taken
out at various points, but why can't people seem to notice that it is
the strong force that confines the quarks and holds everything in a
little ball in the first place? Potential barriers between small balls
of charge on the order of size of a femtometer are HUGE if one is going
to place them in contact.  -Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / timothy watson /  cmsg cancel <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 1993 03:21:36 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / timothy watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 15 Aug 1993 03:24:36 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
In article <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, tmwatson@rhodium.engin.
mich.edu (timothy maurice watson) writes:
>
> One quibble. Why does it have to be the deuterons that interact locally
> with each other. For example, a Cooper pair can interact with
> impurities, but the whole kaboodle has to interact, rather than a single
> electron that is part of this system. What is wrong with the concept of
> the deuteron pair acting in concert on the lattice?
>
 
Dr. or Mr. Kennel, my apologies - yes, maybe something can't be 10,000 places at
once.
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 07:56:01 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1993Aug14.012922.7600@coplex.coplex.com>,
>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>>These questions are certainly a lot easier to answer than the first.
>>The major premise is that deuterium in palladium is in an ionic (D+)
>>form as it diffuses through the lattice.  I may not be completely D+
>>as electrons in the lattice may shadow it motion from intersitual to
>>intersitual, but with respect to it's nearest neighbor, it should be
>>D+.
 
>     It's only D+ until the +'s get too close together, then a pack
>     of electrons races over and drags romeo and juliet away.
 
Only if those electrons go to the 1s of the deuteron. Ocupation of
the Pd cctahedral intersitual by two deuterons is known and has been
calculated.  See M. Barando (AIP #228).
 
>     We are talking about nucleii with huge potentials that are getting
>     in the way of deuterium cozyness.  Talking about 'band structure'
>     is just a smokescreen, never in electronic bands do electrons
>     actually fuse.
 
Why would should they Dale?
 
>>>  If the Chubbs have not written down a Hamiltonian
>>> for the dueteron-deuteron interaction in this state what does constitute
>>> their theory?
>>
>>The Hamiltonian formalism in this case, is the same you would expect
>>for other multi-body band state PSI, and is equivalent to the Fermi
>>golden rule.  As such the fusion rate estimates are based on the wave
>>function overlap allowing two particles to exist in an intersitual.
>>The actual nuclear interaction is extended by the fact that the time t
>>of the interaction < t of localization in space. What this implies
>>then is that only until the band state is localized by some 'dimer'
>>process will the actual 'ash' appear.  Since phase transitions cause
 
>     Okay, let's ignore the fact that wave function overlap on
>     the necessary scales is virtually nil owing to the huge
>     local potentials.  By what magic does he 'delocalize' the resulting fusion
>     reaction?  There are a very very large number of degrees of
>     translational freedom at high energy.  The resulting reaction products
>     come screaming out those degrees of freedom, and there is nothing
>     to stop them.
 
As I understand the theory, the fusion products are forced to remain
delocalized by a number of aspects of the Bose Bloch condesate. First
the condensate allows the distribution of energy such that all the particle
involved in the chain defined by the Bloch equation take on a portion of
of the energy of the reaction. This is a bad way to describe it but,
within the band we then have an He4++ floating about. I guess you could
call this a virtual He4++, because until it is localized by disruption
of band will this initity become apparent.  By the way, Chubb's is not
saying this is some low energy reaction.  It is a high energy reaction
but distributed to all D in the band, and its forced to be that way
by virtue of the Bose-Einstein statistics.
 
>>This is a good direction to steer the argument. He3 has an interesting
>>property upon freezing that the nuclei will form a crystal of
>>alternating nuclear aligned spin-up spin-down nuclei in a bbc.
>>(interesting point: He3's solid structure is formed by nuclear spin,
>>where as He4 does not solidify, it becomes superfluid.)  I would think
>>solid deuterium forms by coevalent and metallic bonding but does not
>>have nucleus mobility to allow the wave function overlap.
 
>     Nucleus mobility is something you don't want (unless, of course,
>     we can figure a way to get them to keV energies).  They will just
>     skitter out of each others' way.
 
>>Ps: To Dieter.  No I havn't given up on the idea of heavy heat but I
>>have modified it. The replies by you and Dale Bass and others really
>>did make me rethink the idea. I learned quite a bit from that
>>discussion.  I have given up on the idea that the proton current would
>>go unnoticed by electrons.  It will effect voltage and resistance as
>>seen by the electrons. Electron current shouldn't be effected though.
>>Also if these deuteron current does superconduct like I think it does,
>>via the BBC, the magnetic effects might be easily apparent if the
>>if the lattice doesn't shield it.
 
>     How can one tell the difference between the electron current
>     and the proton 'current'?  It seems to be the same current,
>     no matter what's drifting around.
 
On is positive and heavy. The other is negative and light.  The
effects you would expect from the two are quite different. Assume
the electrons pull on enough deuterons to induce a D current.
If you stop the electron current suddenly, the inertia of the
D mass will continue a current. (Note: This is kind of interesting
in light of the 93 P&F paper).
 
>>  In the DiFoggio-Gomer paper (Phy
>>Rev B 25-3490) they show an anomoly in the field emision currents
>>near 80K for D. Look it up.  It's a really interesting paper and
>>is applicable to the discussion on Bose band systems, isotopic
>>temperature anomolies in metal/H & D systems, and other effects.
 
>      What's the nature of the anomaly?  And what were the pressure
>      conditions?
 
Look it up.  It's more than I can describe here.
 
>                            dale bass
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 03:37:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>: Capacitance = coulombs / volts.
>: energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 coulombs * volts.
>:
>: So by conservation of energy, a decrease in capacitance in which the charge
>: is not allowed to escape *must* increase the system energy -- and therefore
>: *must* require energy input to accomplish.
>
>Suppose you short the capacitor plates together.
 
Electrolytic capacitors, in particular, are naturally "leaky."  So without
further human intervention, most capacitor plates discharge eventually
thru "shorting."
 
But alas, energy is not destroyed -- it is transformed from potential
energy into random kinetic vibrational energy (heat.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 03:49:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>: Capacitance = coulombs / volts.
>: energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 coulombs * volts.
>:
>: So by conservation of energy, a decrease in capacitance in which the charge
>: is not allowed to escape *must* increase the system energy -- and therefore
>: *must* require energy input to accomplish.
>
>Suppose you short the capacitor plates together.
 
Okay, on second reading, I get your question.  You seem to be suggesting
that shorting the capacitor plates together decreases the capacitance and
therefore must (if my assertion is correct) *increase* the system energy.
 
BUT!  Note also that I also required that the charge not be allowed to
escape.  For purposes of my definitions, shorting capacitor plates together
is equivalent to letting the charge escape and so the system energy
is therefore not under the requirement to increase.  As I mentioned in
the first reply to this (which I tried to cancel) the energy is transformed
from potential energy to kinetic energy (randomly as in heat.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Bill Page /  The Colloquim Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Colloquim Sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 04:22:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A few weeks ago Tom Droege wrote:
<<
  I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
>>
 
I think its a good idea to keep bringing Tom's comment to everyone's
attention...
 
Ok, since January 1993, I will consider that I have been a student in
sci.physics.fusion.  I like the open style.  Maybe sometimes it feels a
little too open - with the occasional shouting match etc., but that's a
small price for the useful, interesting and stimulating information that
comes along with it.  So I will continue to be a student of this college.
 
Actually, I like the designation 'colloquium' a little better.  It brings
me back (now almost twenty years) to my undergraduate education in a small
liberal arts university in western Canada.  This university had a programme
called 'Colloquium Studies' which encouraged students to develop their own
independant programme of studies, drawing whatever resources they could
justify from the rest of the university.  For me it was sort of like being
in an undergraduate "graduate school".  In its ten or so years of
existence, the colloquium studies program granted degrees to some twenty
and thirty people (myself among them) and was at least part of the credit
towards a degree for many others.  There were a number of people who
couldn't handle this open, unstructured approach and they either dropped
out, where asked to leave or just wasted some time for a year or two.
 
Actually, it wasn't totally unstructured, self-structured might be more
accurate and one got out of it what one put in to it.  We had to submit a
written programme of studies and were periodically evaluated against that
programme.  And had to write and orally defend a final thesis.  This was
undergraduate work, the research didn't have to be novel.  The point was to
provide a focus to one's studies.  But, many of the professors who agreed
to be resource people in the colloquim studies programme did so because it
also gave them a chance to spend a little time on research.  I remember
complete access to the physics labs, even a small research grant from the
university and travel to conferences etc.  Richard Feynman was the invited
speaker at the undergraduate physics conference at Simon Fraser where I
presented a paper on my research.  I wouldn't trade that experience for any
one else's undergraduate experience.
 
Of course that colloquium studies programme totally spoiled my chances of
being able to put up with the crap (some would call it discipline)
necessary to succeed in later studies.  So a partial part-time MSc and an
incomplete PhD later, I am still looking for the opportunity to continue my
studies the way I did then.
 
Perhaps this is it.  The cost, the asynchronicity, openness and
unstructuredness fits the model.  Do I need a degree for this?  No.  But
the occasional encourging response (or even acidic criticism) does wonders
for the motivation.  I might even be inclined to post my 'programme of
studies' here, if anyone is willing to review it constructively.  At this
time the phenomena of cold fusion, the debate, experimentation and
theorizing serves to provide me with a great deal of motivation.  But it is
a means to another end, not the end in itself.  I'll be well satisfied at
the end of all this if I have deepen my understanding of quantum mechanics
(as well as physics in general, mathematics and electrochemistry).
 
Mean while, lets keep the ball rolling.  I'm hungry for more.
 
Cheers,
 
Bill Page.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / John Logajan /  cmsg cancel <1993Aug16.033705.2093@ns.network.com>
     
Originally-From: logajan@network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Aug16.033705.2093@ns.network.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 03:42:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<1993Aug16.033705.2093@ns.network.com> was cancelled from within rn.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / mitchell swartz /  Richard Schultz, vowel incontinent
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Schultz, vowel incontinent
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 22:26:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <24bgv1$k1p@agate.berkeley.edu>
     Subject: Mitchell Swartz, lame flamer
 Richard Schultz  <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)> wrote,
   projecting the true scope and depth of his thoughts worldwide:
 
==rschultz  "Look, why don't you just post a message claiming that your penis
==rschultz          is bigger than mine and be done with it?"
 
  With this outpouring by Richard Schultz, his discourses appear to have taken
  a decisive turn toward the non-productive.  He seems to type a lot, but says
  very little!  So many letters and so few ideas.
 
  I have no wish to further encourage the vowel incontinence of
            Richard Schultz, but just for the record:
 
                      -----------------------------
Mr. Richard Schultz
<schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu>
 
Dear Mr. "Envy",
 
   We just noticed your little posting re: your fixation with your anatomy.
 
   Please be advised that I, no doubt, like the rest of the civilized
world have absolutely no interest in the size, or even existence, of your
alleged penis.
 
    I do, however, have a scientific curiosity as to the size, and existence,
 of your brain. But unfortunately I don't have either the time for a scavenger
hunt or the access to a new electron microscope of sufficient
 resolution to view it.
 
                                       Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / mitchell swartz /  reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 22:27:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        In Message-ID: <24bl7n$l92@agate.berkeley.edu>
        Subject: Mitchell Swartz, king of obfuscation
Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu]  "whines" away [defocusing
    from his anatomy for a brief period of time, but begins the
    ad hominems yet again since the facts do not support him]:
 
= "The equation above in "POST 1" has on the left side more than 2 deuterons.
= That is why I said in my previous post that I consider it a priori unlikely;
= three-body collisions will always be less probable than two-body collisions."
 
   Always?    A strong statement.
 Mr. Schultz (and other hard-line "skeptics" appears to have collisions
    "on his(their) head".
 
 BUT are collisions the important parameter?   We don't think necessarily so.
 The important parameter is: "reaction rate".
 
  So the question ought be:  Are three-body reaction rates always less
           probable than two-body systems?
 
  But three body systems can have greater faster reaction rates than two body
  systems.    In condensed phases..
   Biosystems do it that way all the time.   Enzymes increase reaction rates
   all about us.
 
   Are not enzymes and catalysts capable of lowering activation energies
  and/or increasing reaction rates?
   are they not three-body solutions to slower two-body problems?
  [N.B. This is not a statement that enzymes are involves in c.f., but that
    again there is a condensed phase precedent]
 
 
= "One other thing that Swartz whined about was that I never explained why I
= "baited" him with the question about conservation of momentum.  Well, I have
= explained, at least twice, with a question that Swartz has yet to answer, and
= indeed deletes from his followups every time he sees it.  The question is:
= how does a stationary 4He* nucleus give off a gamma ray, remain stationary,
= and conserve momentum?"
 
   And (at least) twice, Mr. Schultz and the other skeptics did not answer the
actual difficult question (which evoked the ad hominems).
  they were asked why he/they chose that emission pathway?
   Neither time did he/they answer.  Two quick examples:
 
   ---- 1. Example of ? to Prof. Jones  ================================
   In Message<1993Jul6.130544.738@physc1.byu.edu>, Steven Jones wrote:
==sj  "This is a serious challenge.  I have made it openly to all ....
==sj  To date, no one has published an X-ray spectrum correlated with xs heat
==sj  claims.    Where are the X-rays, gentlemen?"
 to which he was asked
=ms    "Where is your proof that X-rays must be there in the solid state?  Why
=ms  x-rays and not gamma rays?   Why ionizing radiation and not other
=ms  radiation?  ...  "
   ---- 2. Example of ? to Mr. Schultz =============================
In Message: <23truo$b56@agate.berkeley.edu>; Sub: Re: Follow the bouncing ball
 Richard Schultz  (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
rs>> "Going back to what Swartz said, most of these fusions will be releasing
rs>> gamma rays (or X-rays if you prefer)."
 to which he was reminded
=ms     "FYI:   Some "skeptics" demanded that
=ms  there be x-rays, and I reminded them that if such putative photons are of
=ms  nuclear (not impact) origin they are called: gamma rays.   [Big deal.]
=ms  I also asked (and was thereby flamed):Why must they(or neutrons) be there?
    ------------------------ end of examples  ===========================
 
 
=   "Then the question becomes, if
= you put a 4He* nucleus into a lattice, what effect will the lattice have on
= the decay of the nucleus?  A priori one would expect the answer to be "not
= much if any" simply because electrical forces get swamped by the strong force
= at nuclear distances -- which is why nuclei with more than one proton can
= exist in the first place.  Thus, it is hard to understand how the lattice can
= have any effect on what goes on inside the nucleus."
 
   Solid state physics provides some answers in the very slight effect of
    nuclear (within the lattice) to electron coupling through
    the s orbitals and the lattice (eg. observed through Mossbauer spec.).
   {N.B.this is not a claim that c.f. phenomena necessarily work through
     Mossbauer reactions but only to draw attention to the fact that there is,
     again, existence of such effects]
 
 In summary, Mr. Schultz's discourses appear to have taken a turn toward the
  non-productive.   He seems to type a lot to say very little. So many letters
  and so few ideas.
 
                                                   Mitchell Swartz
                                                    mica@world.std.com
=========================================================================
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 826 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 826 papers, 130 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 13:38:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
at last, I managed to get the couple of hours it takes me to do the job below,
not counting the translation (weekend work). There is quite a little harvest.
The Bittner+ team has in the past claimed - in contrast with most others -
that it is not high but intermediate deuterium levels in Pd that are most
favourable for cold fusion. They do not mention this in the present paper,
although I fancy I see the effect in their results. Check for yourself, Fig. 4
in which I reckon the neutron count rises to a maximum from zero, as the
sample is degassed. Cecil et al refer only to Storms but have an eye for cold
fusion just the same; they pour cold water on anomalous branching ratios
within the temperature range they employ. One can choose to believe that there
is a change in the unexplored region below 5 keV, though. Gammon invokes the
anomalous behaviour of hydrogen, which warms as it expands from high to low
pressure, due to its negative Joule-Thompson coefficient (this was news to me,
and I confirmed it in Glasstone & Lewis, Elements of Phys. Chem; go on, Jim
Carr, tell me again I don't know stuff I ought to know). So, he says, there
is high-pressure D2 within the PdD and this carries away heat as it is
squirted out into bubbles, and the thus cooled Pd wire is warmed up from the
outside along the electrical connection. I am a bit doubtful that this can be
enough, and in any case, there should be no difference between H and D. I am
not even sure that it is correct to say that as a warm bubble is formed, the
PdD is correspondingly cooled. Anyone want to discuss this?
I think it was Frank Close who pointed out the Graneau papers to me. The one
from 1992 refers only to CIF (now defunct) and not to CNF at all, so I put it
into the peri-file. In 1993, they make the CNF connection, but it's a bit
tenuous, since they are talking 1000's of Amps along fine filaments (channels
in the PdD, are you listening, Terry?), but they make the connection, so who
am I to argue? The Hagelstein paper is the third in the series and if you
wonder, as I did, where no. II is, it is yet to appear in a future issue of
FT, says an editorial note. A paper like this is hard for me to abstract, as
it is, well, very abstract, but I think I got Hagelstein's message. He keeps
mentioning neutron ionisation - can anyone enlighten me? Can this be a
neutron's break-up into a proton and an electron? Does it happen?
Hodko and Bockris provide what looks like pretty good evidence for tritium,
though not with such large sigma levels as to entirely convince me.
Nevertheless, this one might go into my quality+ list for the care they took.
Besides using a single, pre-mixed, batch of heavy water per experiment, they
also tried D2O from two different sources, one having 1/10 the tritium level
of the other. The positive results came from the low-level batch; that's good.
Lastly, the Lipson et al. This is the team that brought you many fractofusion
results, and here try their hand at fairly normal electrolysis, using a gold-
plated Pd film. The Au is presumably there to act as a road block for poor
trapped deuterons, which then collide in their confusion. The idea of going
for correlated thermal and radiation effects is a good one; correlations would
be most persuasive. Alas, they find none.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 18-Aug-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 826
 
 
Journal articles: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bittner M, Meister A, Seeliger D, Schwierz R, Wuestner P;
Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 346.
"Observation of d-d fusion neutrons during degassing of deuterium-loaded
palladium".
** High temperature degassing Pd charged with deuterium is expected to allow a
higher fusion rate than during electrolytic charging, because of the higher
deuteron mobility, and the greater concentration of deuterium in the
interstitial plasma, as well as higher deuterium energy. Also, the experiment
is shorter. Here, 2.45 MeV neutrons from the 3He branch were searched for. Two
massive chunky Pd cylinders, respectively 86 and 518 g mass, were
electrolytically charged, and then degassed on a heating plate, with
temperatures at the plate and top of the samples 375 C and 205 C, resp.
and duration of degassing (and neutron monitoring) about 10 minutes per run. A
total of 18 runs (large sample) and 11 runs (small sample) were run, in air,
for a single deuterium charge. There was heat shielding between the samples
and the neutron detector, which was NE-213 liquid scintillators coupled to
photomultipliers, detecting recoil protons. Gamma events were suppressed to
2-5*10^-4. Results show significant neutron emission in the 1.9-3.3 MeV slot,
but none in the 3.3-5.2 MeV slot. The emissions decayed to background as the
samples lost deuterium after about 50-100 min, i.e. neutron emission
correlated with deuterium content of the samples. The calculated maximum
fusion rate was about 3*10^-25 fus/d-d pair/s.                   Jul-91/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecil FE, Liu H, Yan JS;                          Phys. Rev. C 47 (1993) 1178.
"Measurements of branching ratios of low energy deuteron-induced nuclear
reactions on 2H, 6Li, and 10B".
** The Oppenheimer-Phillips effect suggests that different target electric
polarisation may, at low energies of impinging deuterons, affect the branching
ratio of the fusion path. The deuteron is roughly seen as a proton and
neutron, with the neutron leading due to electric effects from the targets,
just prior to impact. Deuteron induced reactions have here been measured at
d beam energies of 6, 27.5 and 70 keV on targets of 2H (i.e. D), 6Li and 10B.
No appreciable dependence of the branching ratios on beam energy was found in
the energy range looked at.                                      Jun-92/Mar-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gammon BE;                                      Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 342.
"Cathode cooling by expansion of hydrogen in calorimetric tests for cold
fusion".
** The author points out an effect that might explain, by conventional means,
apparent excess heat observations. It is the negative Joule-Thompson
coefficient of hydrogen, which thus becomes warmer as it expands from high to
low pressure. Any deuterium escaping from charged palladium, where it exists
at high effective pressure, into the electrolyte at atmospheric pressure, will
carry some heat with it and therefore cool down the Pd. The heat to keep the
Pd at its steady temperature is in part supplied by the metal leads going into
the calorimeter, and this is the source of the apparent excess. The effect
also explains heat bursts, produced as bubbles of deuterium form. Calorimetric
experiments should eliminate this effect by making sure that the leads have
the same temperature as the cell at the point of entry into the calorimeter.
The author's own experiments with this precaution showed zero excess heat.
His calculations show, moreover, that considerable heat can be generated, even
sufficient to cause cell boiling.                                May-92/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graneau P, Graneau N;                             Phys. Lett. A174 (1992) 421.
"Ampere force calculation for filament fusion experiments".
** Filament fusion, described by the authors in an earlier paper, is here
related to cold fusion. Storms and Talcott find evidence of filament
capillaries in PdD, and cold fusion may thus be taking place along such
channels. Acoustic emissions would be expected, and sometimes have been
detected; also, the process would stop when the material breaks up, and this,
too, is supported by experiments. The authors attempt to calculate the
feasibility of this type of fusion, but under conditions rather more severe
that those of cold fusion. Results are not encouraging for cold fusion in
these terms, but more work is desirable.                         Oct-92/Mar-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagelstein PL;                                  Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 353.
"Coherent and semicoherent neutron transfer reactions III: Phonon frequency
shifts".
** Third in a series, this paper focusses on what the author calls the
Duschinsky effect, i.e. that which accounts for the change in the lattice mode
definitions in the lattice states before and after the fusion event, to gain
an understanding of phonon generation. H recognises the problem of a suitable
mechanism for energy transfer from high-energy neutrons, yielding only
phonons, but believes he has found one, in terms of frequency shifts of three
phonon modes. Results of a lengthy analysis are encouraging, but further work
is needed.                                                       Aug-92/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hodko D, Bockris JO'M;                    J. Electroanal. Chem. 353 (1993) 33.
"Possible excess tritium production on Pd codeposited with deuterium".
** The problem of confusing conventional electrolytic enrichment with the
production, by a nuclear reaction, of tritium in a cold fusion cell is tackled
here using the Szpak and Boss technique of codepositing deuterium and Pd from
an electrolyte containing a Pd salt. This completely excludes contamination
with tritium in the Pd, since one starts with a gold cathode. Another
precaution was the use of the same supply of heavy water throughout,
eliminating the problem of different tritium levels in different D2O batches.
The electrolyte was LiCl and PdCl2 in D2O. Tritium was analysed in samples
from both the electrolyte and evolved gas. During two weeks, excess tritium,
well above enrichment levels, were observed in four out of six cells; the
tritium appeared in bursts.                                      Jun-92/Jul-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lipson AG, Lyakhov BF, Deryagin BV, Sakov DM;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 18(20) (1992) 58 (in Russian).
"Parallel recording of pulsed thermal effects and neutron bursts in
heterostructural Au/Pd/PdO, saturated with deuterium by electrochemical
means".
** A 30 mu cold-rolled Pd film was heated and annealed at up to 600 C, forming
an oxide layer. A 5000 A layer of gold was then electrolytically laid down on
one side, and  the sandwich electrolysed in NaOD/D2O at 20-30 mA/cm^2.
Temperature was measured by a gas thermometer, and neutrons by a block of 7
proportional counters with 3% efficiency. Overall, no correlation between
thermal and neutron events was observed.                        Oct-92/Dec-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Peripherals: files cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graneau P, Graneau N;                               Phys. Lett. A165 (1992) 1.
"The role of Ampere forces in nuclear fusion".
** Not referring to cold fusion, this paper points to deuterium fusion in
conductors exploded by heavy current pulses. Neutrons and x-rays have been
observed, not due to thermonuclear fusion, but presumably due to accelerated
deuterons formed by the longitudinal Ampere forces along the axis. This might
be a cheap alternative to Tokamak fusion, and is called filament fusion by the
authors. There is reference to cluster impact fusion, now known to be an
artifact.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Opposition = misconduct?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Opposition = misconduct?
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 14:21:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gene Mallove never seems to address any of the scientific questions raised
in opposition to cold fusion.  He just keeps making threats about eventual
retribution.  Gene, why don't you address the following questions:
 
(1) Where has CF research provided solid, confirmed experimental evidence
 for a specific nuclear reaction(s) that is not called into question by
well established knowledge of nuclear processes?
 
(2) When it is acknowledged that significant "new physics" is required
to reconcile CF results with nuclear physics, where has there been
published a single complete theory or sketch of a theory that shows any
promise for explaining the CF process?
 
(3)  When there is a theory that purports to explain this CF process
what experimental tests have been proposed to adequately test this
new theory?
 
I suggest that until you can answer such questions your support for
cold fusion is built on nothing more than some rather poorly executed
experiments.  To suggest that the opposition is based on "flimsy
footing" is a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 16:23:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The idea of spreading the deuteron wave functions to reduce the coulomb
repulsion between two deuterons opens a very large can of worms.  Can
you get the desired effect without involving more than you want to
consider?  For example,  if the coulomb part of the interaction is
weakened what happens to the strong interaction between deuterons and
between deuterons and palladium.  For that matter what happens between
protons and neutrons within each deuteron.  It seems to me you are
messing with one set of coordinates that comes into all of these
interactions.  I would think that a very large deuteron is no longer
a deuteron, and it will have a harder time hanging onto its neutron than
it does already.  Making 4He out of deuteron soup when there are all
those Pd nucleii hanging about doesn't seen to be the most likely process.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Starting the Design
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 22:12:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Design Status #1                                        16 August 1993
 
This is the first of a series of notes where the design of the new calorimeter
will be discussed.
 
My thinking at the moment is that the new calorimeter will be larger.  I am
looking at the 6 liter ss steel Dewar in the Cole-Parmer catalog.
 
This Dewar has a 7.3" diameter mouth.  If I continue the old design concept
then I will need to stick something in the Dewar mouth to create an isothermal
surface.  I would like this new something (called the puck due to it's shape
in the old design) to be as thin as possible so as to maximize the available
space in the calorimeter.  The old design tried to maintain symmetry so that
the isothermal surface of the puck would be maintained as the point of heat
generation varied between the heater in the spool wall and the cell.  With
the new design, symmetry will be difficult.  I would like to just have a big
surface that will absorb and measure heated objects.  Some effects could be
seen in the old design that were likely due to imperfect symmetry.  I have
three proposals for the puck design.  Perhaps some of you can suggest
a few more that would be better.
 
1)  Make the puck from a 1" thick, 7" diameter slug of copper.  (Or aluminum
or silver - silver is best by a lot for control purposes due to lower specific
heat.)  Easy to do, but not very exotic, and not much fun.
 
2)  Make the puck from a ss copper or ss silver laminate.  Many layers.  When
put in a paper such a design would would look wise and exotic, even if it
didn't work very well.  It would allow lots of follow on papers as attempts
were made to find the optimum laminate.  I would look for the material used to
make quarters or Kennedy half dollars (the discontinued ones that were about
40% silver).  The idea here is to use a material that conducts heat laterally
better than vertically.  Some of you may be able to simulate this easily.
Relative thermal conductivity:
 
Au              429   Watts /m - K
Cu              401
Al              237
Fe               80.4
Stainless  St.   18.0
 
I figure I can get a measurement to prove the idea with about an hours work.
This by an old analog computer method that likely goes back to the 18th
century.  But some of you may have programs where you can just pop in numbers
and a few lamination guesses and work out an optimum strategy in a few
minutes.  I would appreciate if some would look at this idea.
 
My simple minded view of the laminated design is that by making it of layers
with a total of 1/2" of copper and 1/2" of ss, that it will look similar to a
copper puck 20" long, and any hot spot on one surface will be pretty well
distributed by the time it's heat gets to the other face.
 
3)  Make the puck from a heat pipe.
 
This is very appealing to me.  There are a number of places in the calorimeter
where I could make use of isothermal surfaces.
 
Here is my concept of how a heat pipe is made:
 
Take a hollow box and cover the inside surface with a wetable material.  Soak
the material with a proper liquid.  Evacuate the box so that the mean free
path of the vapor is of order the distance between ends.  In this case the
distance between faces of the puck.
 
Here is my concept of how a heat pipe functions:
 
The liquid migrates through the wetable surface layer so that the whole
surface is wet.  A Maxwell's demon flying near the surface sees a large flux
of vapor molecules leaving the surface and a large number arriving at the
surface.  If the flux in one direction only is considered, we find that the
heat flux is ***very*** large.  But in the real world, say over a lake when
the wind is not blowing, the heat in the molecules leaving is almost exactly
balanced by the heat in the molecules arriving, as most molecules just pop up
above the surface a few diameters, and drop back in.
 
All this is changed if we evacuate the system to some optimum pressure.  Now a
molecule leaving the surface often travels until it hits a wall.  A hot spot
produces a distribution with more fast (high energy) molecules.  But these
usually end up somewhere else.  Thus the tendency of such a system is to
produce an isothermal box surface.
 
It is my understanding that such a scheme can do much better than solid
silver.  It is also likely to have lower specific heat which would make it
easier to control.
 
Here are some questions for any experts out there (but don't hesitate to put
in your oar just because you are not yet an expert - soon we all will be):
 
1)  Are heat pipes something that a boy scientist is likely able to build with
a little advice?  I am willing to spend some money on a vacuum pump.
 
2)  Are the required vacuums reasonable to produce and maintain?  i.e. Is it
likely that we can build the required shapes without super certified welders
and Helium leak checking?
 
3)  Can we make a device that will work over a reasonable range of
temperatures?  -10 C to 70 C would be enough for me.  0 C to 50 C is sort of
the minimum that I would accept.
 
4)  What improvement (if any) can be expected over, say, solid copper?
 
5)  What sort of liquids are used?  Are they dangerous?  Water would be a nice
liquid to use!
 
I would appreciate any comments.  This is not fusion, of course.  But it
certainly is instrumentation development for "cold fusion".  I have
received many notes that say "keep making these posts", and none that say
"stop".  So I plan to keep up a discussion as the design is developed unless
a lot of you say "go away".  I now have access to a news reader and so have
learned to get at other news groups.  I thought I might put some of these
posts into a more general group to get additional advice.  Any suggestions?
My reader has 2700+ groups listed, so it is hard to figure out where to go,
alt.sex or alt.rocky.horror.picture.show do not look quite right though they
do involve heat.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Richard Schultz /  Blowin' in the wind?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blowin' in the wind?
Date: 16 Aug 1993 16:39:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

My initial response was to simply ignore Mitchell Swartz's last post.
Aside from his misspelling my name and his inability to understand what an
ad hominem argument, my feeling was that anyone who can't understand why
a multibody reaction rate is going to depend on the collision rate is
beyond any help that I can give him.  But I have this sort of perverse
amusement in wondering how long it will take him to answer the scientific
questions I keep asking him.  To keep it simple, I shall phrase them this
time as three simple yes or no questions.  Thus, a reply need not include
any name calling or irrelevancies.  Just three words.
 
Here are the questions:
 
(1)  Did you post to this board Miles's claims to have observed X-rays in
his cold fusion experiments?
 
(2)  Do you believe that he actually observed X-rays or gamma rays from his
cold fusion cells?
 
(3)  (a) If the answer to (2) is "yes", do you believe that this observation
is evidence for cold fusion?
 
     (b) If the answer to (2) is "no", do you accept that his claim to have
observed something that did not in fact occur calls into doubt any other
claims that he might have made?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Jon Watts /  atts@hpncmo [102] %
     
Originally-From: jwatts@mothra.rose.hp.com (Jon Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: atts@hpncmo [102] %
Date: 16 Aug 1993 16:33:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Roseville Site

 
 
--
Jon Watts                     785-8181 (Roseville)   785-5257 (Alt. Roseville)
Networked Computer            916-535-1099 (pager)   785-4686 (Alt. Roseville)
Manufacturing Operation       Unix Mail: jwatts@mothra.rose.hp.com
M/S R4M2                      HPDESK: Jon WATTS / HP5200/UM
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjwatts cudfnJon cudlnWatts cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 23:41:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Making 4He out of deuteron soup when there are all
>those Pd nucleii hanging about doesn't seen to be the most likely process.
 
Is this an alternate cf hypothesis?  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Eugene Mallove /  Morrison Corrected
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison Corrected
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 03:58:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues:
 
There has been considerable misinformation circulating about the
paper by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in Physics Letters A,176 (1993),
May 3. We were particularly repelled by the various outlandish
criticisms made repeatedly in this electronic forum by Douglas
O. Morrison, which were transparently intended to tear down the
work of other scientists without regard for the facts. Dr. Morrison's
stubborn belief that cold fusion research is "pathological science"
is incorrect. Continuing to push that idea does not serve him well,
nor does it help the cause of understanding the extraordinary phenomena
associated with hydrogen-loaded metals that have been revealed
in numerous experiments these past several years. Accordingly,
we have decided to post the document that follows, which was prepared
by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann and which was previously circulating
within the cold fusion community.
 
                                Sincerely,
                                Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
                                Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz
 
 
KEY:   *text*   means original text was underlined
        **text**        means original text was italicized
        ***text***      means original text was underlind AND italicized
 
        Greek letters in the original have been spelled out in this
        posting.
 
        [[approx.]] substitutes for "tilde" notation used in the paper.
 
        Subscripts are indicated by {x} bracket notation.
        Superscripts are indicated by {{x}} double bracket notation.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 
Abstract
 
        We reply here to the critique by Douglas Morrison [1] of
our paper [2] which was recently published in this Journal.  Apart
from his general classification of our experiments into stages
1-5, we find that the comments made [1] are either irrelevant or
inaccurate or both.
 
 
 
        In the article "Comments on Claims of Excess Enthalpy by
Fleishmann and Pons using simple cells made to Boil" Douglas Morrison
presents a critique [1] of the paper "Calorimetry of the Pd-D{2}0
system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity" which
has recently been published in this Journal [2].  In the introduction
to his critique, Douglas Morrison has divided the time-scale of
the experiments we reported into 5 stages.  In this reply, we will
divide our comments into the same 5 parts.  However, we note at
the outset that Douglas Morrison has restricted his critique to
those aspects of our own paper which are relevant to the generation
of high levels of the specific excess enthalpy in Pd-cathodes polarized
in D{2}0 solutions i.e. to stages 3-5.  By omitting stages 1 and
2, Douglas Morrison has ignored one of the most important aspects
of our paper and this, in turn, leads him to make several erroneous
statements. We therefore start our reply by drawing attention to
these omissions in Douglas Morri
 
 
 
 
 
son's critique.
 
        *Stages 1 and 2* In the initial stage of these experiments
the electrodes (0.2mm diameter x 12.5mm length Pd-cathodes) were
first polarised at 0.2A, the current being raised to 0.5A in stage
2 of the experiments.
 
        We note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has not drawn
attention to the all important "blank experiments" illustrated
in Figs 4 and 6 or our paper by the example of a Pt cathode polarised
in the identical 0.1M LiOD electrolyte.  By ignoring this part
of the paper he has failed to understand that one can obtain a
precise calibration of the cells (relative standard deviation 0.17%)
*in a simple way* using what we have termed the "lower bound heat
transfer coefficient, (k{R}'){11}", based on the assumption that
there is zero excess enthalpy generation in such "blank cells".
 We have shown that the accuracy of  this value is within 1 sigma
of the precision of the true value of the heat transfer coefficient,
(k{R}'){2}, obtained by *a simple* independent calibration using
a resistive Joule heater.  Further methods of analysis [3] (beyond
the scope of the particular paper [2]) show that the precision
of (k{R}'){11} is also close to the accuracy of this heat transfer
coefficient (see our discussion of stage 3)
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 04:15:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>3)  Make the puck from a heat pipe.
>Take a hollow box and cover the inside surface with a wetable material.  Soak
>the material with a proper liquid.  Evacuate the box
 
Alternte "pucks."
 
1.) How 'bout smooshing up some stryofoam to get the little grain sized balls.
Place the balls in the cylindrical box and add a liquid with a thermal
conductivity significantly greater than the styrofoam.  Heat transport
would "split" at every "tunnel" junction.  You could use a liquid with a low
specific heat -- and the reduction in liquid volume (and thus total heat
capacity) due to the styrofoam would be the major benefit of this system.
 
2.) Impregnate steel wool (or copper or aluminum wool) with an insulative
hardening plastic liquid (to give it structural rigidity.)  Like #1 above,
heat transport would spread along the convolutions of the wool, but with
reduced total heat capacity.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 07:30:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu (Dick Blue) in FD 1271:
 
>...I would think that a very large deuteron is no longer
>a deuteron, and it will have a harder time hanging onto its neutron than
>it does already...
 
Dick, you hit on it!!! This explains all! It's not fusion, it's fission!
Deuterons fiss, losing their neutrons, which go bumping around, knocking more
neutrons off other unstable deuterons. The odd neutron gets stuck on (we can
be scientific about this and call this the sticking fraction), and these make
tritons. Not many neutrons get out, because they all get caught. All this
generates a lot of heat, of course (a bit of hand waving needed here to
explain why no x-rays). So: heat, very few neutrons, few tritiums. The ash is
protons, drowned in the sea of those already there from contamination in the
heavy water. Hm, we'll have to explain the few 4He's found... can't answer
that one just yet, theories take time to ripen, you know. We don't have to
change the acronym, either, CNF will do as before.
 
There are no limits to the ingenuity of us vermin in sheep's clothing.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Bill Page /  Delocatization and the strong force
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Delocatization and the strong force
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 12:39:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Although I think I may have missed an intermediate comment (I access the
group via the Fusion Digest relay and sometimes articles arrive in a
slightly different sequence), Timothy Watson and dale bass have been
discussing delocalization of deuterium and its implications for strong
interactions:
 
<<
 
>       It's easy to say things like 'if the deuterium nuclei were
>       delocalized'.  It's very tough to make a case for delocalizing
>       something that looks like a point object on the energy scales we
are
>       considering.
>
>       Besides, once they fuse, reaction products become very very
localized.
>       Where are they?
 
....
 
I never said that the OCCURRENCE of delocalization would not be a problem -
somehow one would have to turn "off" the strong force (!) binding the
nucleons
into a little itty, bitty ball (but keep enough of it to mediate a fusion
reaction).
 
...
 
The only problem is, that if the strong interaction becomes this weak via
some miracle, it must make ANOTHER transition back to being very strong in
order to give us a lot of energy released via a reaction mediated by this
force.
 
>>
 
There are a lot of presumptions and fuzzy talk here.  Delocalization means
"not  in a proper state of location = in a superposition of locations" in
quantum mechanical terms this is not Magic (well it might seem like magic
but other observables in QM do it all the time and we don't usually have a
problem with that).  Delocalized does *not* mean that the particle has no
location.  The strong force is mediated by pion exchance (or gluons if you
wish) just as the em-force is mediated by photons.  If we want to talk
about the strong force in a situation where the 'particles' are
delocalized, we should do so in the same way as we do for the
electromagnetic interactions.  No mystery here.  Virtual pions from a
delocalized proton are delocalized.
 
Terry Bollinger's Dactyl Daemon wouldn't have it any other way.
 
Why do you think that the reaction products from a fusion reaction are
necessarily suddenly localized?
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  comment of Pons & Fleischmann response to Morrison
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: comment of Pons & Fleischmann response to Morrison
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:19:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The recent post by Mallove and Swartz of comments from Pons and Fleischmann
left be a bit mystified by the real significance of their point.  As I
read it the subject under discussion is the accuracy with which the
heat transfer coefficient for their cells has been determined.  Once
again "blank" cells play a significant role in that such cells are
presumed to measure only the electric power input.  My question is
how are we to make a connection between measurements made on cells
where nothing is happening and cells where operating conditions have
clearly changed significantly.  I assert that measurements made on
steady state or constant power sources do not prove the technique
for pulsing power sources.  In particular a temperature dependent
heat transfer coefficient in combination with a pulsed heat source
is a combination typical of the "active" cells, but not the "blank"
cells so the accuracy of measurements on the latter is not very
convincing evidence for the accuracy achieved in the measurement of
"excess" enthalpy.  Furthermore, as Tom Droege pointed out, there
is reason to believe that heat transfer coefficients vary significantly
over the course of a measurement as the physical parameters within
the cells vary.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 16:18:50 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>silver is best by a lot for control purposes due to lower specific heat.
 
Only by about 12% (or so) if you consider volumetric heat capacity.
The mass heat capacity looks much less for silver than copper, but their
molar heat capacities are nearly equal.  But a mole of silver takes
slightly more volume than a mole of copper so silver is still better in
your application, though I wonder if it is cost effective.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 17:42:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>How about a laminate of alternate sheets of copper and neoprene gasket stock?
 
This sounds good in theory, but I worry in general with laminates that
uniform contact across the whole interface would be problematical.
In other words, how to avoid copper/*air*/neopreme laminates.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / mitchell swartz /  Morrison's Comments Criticized
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison's Comments Criticized
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:30:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 Dear Colleagues:
 
  There has been considerable misinformation circulating about the
paper by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in Physics Letters A,176
(1993), May 3. We were particularly repelled by the various
outlandish criticisms made repeatedly in this electronic forum by
Douglas O. Morrison, which were transparently intended to tear down
the work of other scientists without regard for the facts. Dr. Morrison's
stubborn belief that cold fusion research is "pathological science" is
incorrect. Continuing to push that idea does not serve him well, nor
does it help the cause of understanding the extraordinary phenomena
associated with hydrogen-loaded metals that have been revealed in
numerous experiments these past several years. Accordingly, we
have decided to post the document that follows, which was prepared
by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann and which was previously circulating
within the cold fusion community.
 
   Best wishes.
                             Sincerely,
 
                                     Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
                                     Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz
 
 
 KEY:   *text*  means original text was underlined
  **text**  means original text was italicized
  ***text***  means original text was underlind AND italicized
 
  Greek letters in the original have been spelled out in this
  posting.
 
  [[approx.]] substitutes for "tilde" notation used in the paper.
 
  Subscripts are indicated by {x} bracket notation.
  Superscripts are indicated by {{x}} double bracket notation.
 
==============================================================
 
                          Abstract
 
   We reply here to the critique by Douglas Morrison [1] of our
paper [2] which was recently published in this Journal.  Apart from his
general classification of our experiments into stages 1-5, we find that
the comments made [1] are either irrelevant or inaccurate or both.
 
   In the article "Comments on Claims of Excess Enthalpy by
Fleishmann and Pons using simple cells made to Boil" Douglas
Morrison presents a critique [1] of the paper "Calorimetry of the
Pd-D{2}0 system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity"
which has recently been published in this Journal [2].  In the
introduction to his critique, Douglas Morrison has divided the
time-scale of the experiments we reported into 5 stages.  In this reply,
we will divide our comments into the same 5 parts.  However, we
note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has restricted his critique to
those aspects of our own paper which are relevant to the generation
of high levels of the specific excess enthalpy in Pd-cathodes
polarized in D{2}0 solutions i.e. to stages 3-5.  By omitting stages 1
and 2, Douglas Morrison has ignored one of the most important
aspects of our paper and this, in turn, leads him to make several
erroneous statements. We therefore start our reply by drawing
attention to these omissions in Douglas Morrison's critique.
 
   *Stages 1 and 2* In the initial stage of these experiments the
electrodes (0.2mm diameter x 12.5mm length Pd-cathodes) were first
polarised at 0.2A, the current being raised to 0.5A in stage 2 of the
experiments.
 
   We note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has not drawn
attention to the all important "blank experiments" illustrated in Figs 4
and 6 or our paper by the example of a Pt cathode polarised in the
identical 0.1M LiOD electrolyte.  By ignoring this part of the paper he
has failed to understand that one can obtain a precise calibration of
the cells (relative standard deviation 0.17%) *in a simple way* using
what we have termed the "lower bound heat transfer coefficient,
(k{R}'){11}", based on the assumption that there is zero excess
enthalpy generation in such "blank cells".  We have shown that the
accuracy of  this value is within 1 sigma of the precision of the true
value of the heat transfer coefficient, (k{R}'){2}, obtained by *a
simple* independent calibration using a resistive Joule heater.
Further methods of analysis [3] (beyond the scope of the particular
paper [2]) show that the precision of (k{R}'){11} is also close to the
accuracy of this heat transfer coefficient (see our discussion of stage
3).
 
   We draw attention to the fact that the time-dependence of
(k{R}'){11}, (the simplest possible way of characterising the cells)
when applied to measurements for Pd-cathodes polarised in D{2}0
solutions, gives direct evidence for the generation of excess enthalpy
in these systems.  It is quite unnecessary to use complicated
methods of data analysis to demonstrate this fact in a
semi-quantitative fashion.
 
   *Stage 3 Calculations*  Douglas Morrison starts by asserting:
"Firstly, a complicated non-linear regression analysis is employed to
allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made".  He has failed to
observe that we  ***manifestly have not used this technique in this
paper*** [2], the aim of which has been to show that the simplest
methods of data analysis are quite sufficient to demonstrate the
excess enthalpy generation.  The only point at which we made
reference to the use of non-linear regression fitting (a technique
which we used in our early work [4] was in the section dealing with
the accuracy of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient, (k{R}'){11},
determined for "blank experiments" using Pt-cathodes polarised in
D{2}O solutions.  At that point we stated that the *accuracy* of the
determination of the coefficient (k{R}'){2} (relative standard deviation
[[approx.]]1.4% for the example illustrated [2], can be improved so as
to be better than the *precision* of (k{R}'){11} by using non-linear
regression fitting; we have designated the values of (k{R}') determined by
non-linear regression fitting by (k{R}'){5}.  The values of (k{R}'){5}
obtained show that the *precision* of the lower bound heat transfer
coefficient (k{R}'){11} for "blank experiments" can indeed be taken as
a measure of the accuracy of (k{R}'). For the particular example
illustrated the relative standard deviation was [[aprox.]] 0.17% of the
mean.  It follows that the calibration of the cells using such simple
means can be expected to give calorimetric data having an accuracy
set by this relative standard deviation in the subsequent application of
these cells.
 
   We note here that we introduced the particular method of
non-linear regression fitting (of the numerical integral of the
differential equation representing the model of the calorimeter to the
experimental data) for three reasons: firstly, because we believe that
it is the most accurate single method (experience in the field of
chemical kinetics teaches us that this is the case); secondly, because
it avoids introducing any personal bias in the data treatment;  thirdly,
because it leads to direct estimates of the standard deviations of all
the derived values from the diagonal elements of the error matrix.
However, our experience in the intervening years has shown us that
the use of this method is a case of "overkill": it is perfectly
sufficient to use simpler methods such as multi-linear regression
fitting if one
aims for high accuracy.  This is a topic which we will discuss
elsewhere [3].  For the present, we point out again that the purpose
of our recent paper [2] was to illustrate that the simplest
possible techniques can be used to illustrate the generation of excess
enthalpy.  It was for this reason that we chose the title: "Calorimetry
of the Pd-D{2}0 system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity".
 
   Douglas Morrison ignores such considerations because his
purpose evidently is to introduce a critique of our work which has
been published by the group at General Electric [5].  We will show
below that this critique is totally irrelevant to the recent paper
published in this Journal [2].  However, as Douglas Morrison has
raised the question of the critique  published by General Electric, we
would like to point out once again that we have no dispute regarding
the particular method of data analysis favoured by that group [5]: their
analysis is in fact based on the heat transfer coefficient (k{R}'){2}. If
there was an area of dispute, then this was due solely to the fact that
Wilson et al introduced a subtraction of an energy term which had
already been allowed for in our own data analysis, i.e. they made a
"double subtraction error". By doing this they derived heat transfer
coefficients which showed that the cells were operating
endothermically, i.e. as refrigerators!  Needless to say, such a
situation contravenes the Second Law of Thermodynamics as the entropy
changes have already been taken into account by using the
thermoneutral potential of the cells.
 
   We will leave others to judge whether our reply [6] to the
critique by the group at General Electric [5] did or did not "address
the main questions posed by Wilson et al." (in the words of Douglas
Morrison).  However, as we have noted above the critique produced
by Wilson et al [5] is in any event irrelevant to the evaluations
presented in our paper in this journal [2]: we have used the self-same
method advocated by that group to derive the values of the excess
enthalpy given in our paper.  We therefore come to a most important
question: "given that Douglas Morrison accepts the methods
advocated by the group at General Electric and, given that we have
used the same methods in the recent publication [2] should he not
have accepted the validity of the derived values?"
 
   *Stage 4 Calculation*  Douglas Morrison first of all raises the
question whether parts of the cell contents may have been expelled
as droplets during the later stages of intense heating.  This is readily
answered by titrating the residual cell contents: based on our earlier
work about 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide is recovered;
some is undoubtedly lost in the reaction of this "aggressive" species
with the glass components to form residues which cannot be titrated.
Furthermore, we have found that the total amounts of D{2}0 added to
the cells (in some cases over periods of several months) correspond
precisely to the amounts predicted to be evolved by (a) evaporation
of D{2}0 at the instantaneous atmospheric pressures and (b) by
electrolysis of D{2}0 to form D{2} and O{2} at the appropriate
currents; this balance can be maintained even at temperatures in
excess of 90 degrees C [7]
 
   We note here that other research groups (eg [5]) have reported
that some Li can be detected outside the cell using atomic absorption
spectroscopy.  This analytic technique is so sensitive that it will
undoubtedly detect the expulsion of small quantities of electrolyte in
the vapour stream.  We also draw attention to the fact that  D{2}0
bought from many suppliers contains surfactants.  These are added
to facilitate the filling of NMR sample tubes and are difficult (probably
impossible) to remove by normal methods of purification.  There will
undoubtedly be excessive foaming (and expulsion of foam from the
cells) if D{2}0 from such sources is used.  We recommend the routine
screening of the sources of D{2}0 and of the cell contents using NMR
techniques.  The primary reason for such routine screening is to
check on the H{2}0 content of the electrolytes.
 
   Secondly, Douglas Morrison raises the question of the influence
of A.C. components of the current, an issue which has been referred
to before and which we have previously answered [4].  It appears that
Douglas Morrison does not appreciate the primary physics of power
dissipation from a constant current source controlled by negative
feedback.  Our methodology is exactly the same as that which we
have described previously [4]; it should be noted in addition that we
have always taken special steps to prevent oscillations in the
galvanostats.  As the cell voltages are measured using fast
sample-and-hold systems, the product (E{cell} - E{thermoneutral,
bath})I will give the mean enthalpy input to the cells: the A.C.
component is therefore determined by the ripple content of the
current which is 0.04%.
 
   In his third point on this section, Douglas Morrison appears to
be re-establishing  the transition from nucleate to film boiling based
on his experience of the use of bubble chambers.  This transition is a
well-understood phenomenon in the field of heat transfer engineering.
A careful reading of our paper [2] will show that we have addressed
this question and that we have pointed out that the transition from
nucleate to film boiling can be extended to 1-10kW cm-{{2}} in the
presence of electrolytic gas evolution.
 
   Fourthly and for good measure, Douglas Morrison once again
introduces the question of the effect of a putative catalytic
recombination of oxygen and deuterium (notwithstanding the fact that
this has repeatedly been shown to be absent).  We refer to this
question in the next section; here we note that the maximum
conceivable total rate of heat generation ([[approx.]] 5mW for the
electrode dimensions used) will be reduced because intense D{2}
evolution and D{2}0 evaporation degasses the oxygen from the
solution in the vicinity of the cathode; furthermore, D{2} cannot be
oxidised at the oxide coated Pt-anode.  We note furthermore that the
maximum localised effect will be observed when the density of the
putative "hot spots" will be 1/delta{{2}} where delta is the thickness of
the boundary layer.  This gives us a maximum localised rate of
heating of [[approx.]] 6nW.  The effects of such localised hot spots
will be negligible because the flow of heat in the metal (and the
solution) is governed by Laplace's
Equation (here Fourier's Law).  The spherical symmetry of the field
ensures that the temperature perturbations are eliminated (compare
the elimination of the electrical contact resistance of two plates
touching at a small number of points).
 
   We believe that the onus is on Douglas Morrison to devise
models which would have to be taken seriously and which are
capable of being subjected to quantitative analysis. Statements of the
kind which he has made belong to the category of "arm waving".
 
 
   *Stage 5 Effects*  In this section we are given a good
illustration of Douglas Morrison's selective and biased reporting.  His
description of this stage of the experiments starts with an incomplete
quotation of a single sentence in our paper.  The full sentence reads:
 
 **"We also draw attention to some further important features:
provided ***satisfactory electrode materials*** are used, the
reproducibility of the experiments is high;** following the boiling to
dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless
remain at a high temperature for prolonged periods of time (fig 11);
furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the
cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300 degrees C".
 
  Douglas Morrison translates this to: "Following boiling to dryness
and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at
high temperature for prolonged periods of time;  furthermore the
Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that
the local temperature must exceed 300 degrees C".
 
  Readers will observe that the most important part of the sentence,
which we have underlined, is omitted; we have italicised the words
"satisfactory electrode materials" because that is the nub of the
problem.  In common with the experience of other research groups,
we have had numerous experiments in which we have observed zero
excess enthalpy generation.  The major cause appears to be the
cracking of the electrodes, a phenomenon which we will discuss
elsewhere.
 
   With respect to his own quotation Douglas Morrison goes on to
say: "No explanation is given and fig 10 is marked 'cell remains hot,
excess heat unknown'".  The reason why we refrained from
speculation about the phenomena at this stage of the work is
precisely because explanations are just that: speculations.  Much
further work is required before the effects referred to can be
explained in a quantitative fashion.  Douglas Morrison has no such
inhibitions, we believe mainly because in the lengthy section *Stage 5
Effects* he wishes  to disinter "the cigarette lighter effect".  This
phenomenon (the combustion of hydrogen stored in palladium when
this is exposed to the atmosphere) was first proposed by Kreysa et al
[8] to explain one of our early observations:  the vapourisation of a
large quantity of D{2}O ([[approx.]] 500ml) by a 1cm cube palladium
cathode followed by the melting of the cathode and parts of the cell
components and destruction of a section of the fume cupboard
housing the experiment [9].
 Douglas Morrison (in common with other critics of "Cold Fusion") is much
attached to such "Chemical Explanations" of the  "Cold Fusion"
phenomena.  As this particular explanation has been raised by
Douglas Morrison, we examine it here.
 
   In the first place we note that the explanation of Kreysa et al [8]
could not possibly have applied to the experiment in question:  the
vapourisation of the D{2}O alone would have required
[[approx.]]1.1MJ of energy whereas the combustion of all the D in the
palladium would at most have produced [[approx.]] 650J (assuming
that the D/Pd ratio had reached [[approx]] 1 in the cathode), a
discrepancy of a factor of [[approx.]] 1700.  In the second place, the
timescale of the explanation is impossible: the diffusional relaxation
time is [[approx.]] 29 days whereas the phenomenon took at most
[[approx.]] 6 hours (we have based this diffusional relaxation time on
the value of the diffusion coefficient in the alpha-phase; the
processes of phase transformation coupled to diffusion are much
slower in the fully formed Pd-D system with a corresponding increase
of the diffusional relaxation time for the removal of D from the lattice).
Thirdly, Kreysa et al [8] confused the notion of power (Watts) with
that of energy (Joules) which is again an error
which has been promulgated by
critics seeking "Chemical Explanations" of "Cold Fusion".  Thus
Douglas Morrison reiterates the notion of heat flow, no doubt in order
to seek an explanation of the high levels of excess enthalpy during
*Stage 4* of the experiments. We observe that at a heat flow of
144.5W (corresponding to the rate of excess enthalpy generation in
the experiment discussed in our paper [2] the total combustion of all
the D in the cathode would be completed in [[approx.]] 4.5s, not the
600s of the duration of this stage.  Needless to say, the D in the
lattice could not reach the surface in that time (the diffusional
relaxation time is [[approx.]] 10{{5}}s) while the rate of diffusion of
oxygen through the boundary layer could lead at most to a rate of
generation of excess enthalpy of [[approx.]] 5mW.
 
  Douglas Morrison next asserts that no evidence has been presented
in the paper about stages three or four using H{2}0 in place of D{2}0.
As has already been pointed out above he has failed to comment on
the extensive discussion in our paper of a "blank experiment".
Admittedly, the evidence was restricted to stages 1 and 2 of his own
classification but a reference to an *independent review of our own
work* [10] will show him and interested readers that such cells stay in
thermal balance to at least 90 degrees C (we note that Douglas
Morrison was present at the Second Annual Conference on Cold
Fusion).  We find statements of the kind made by Douglas Morrison
distasteful.   Have scientists now abandoned the notion of verifying
their facts before rushing into print?
 
   In the last paragraph of this section Douglas Morrison finally
"boxes himself into a corner": having set up an unlikely and
unworkable scenario he finds that this cannot explain Stage 5 of the
experiment.   In the normal course of events this should have led him
to: (i) enquire of us whether the particular experiment is typical of
such cells; (ii) to revise his own scenario.  Instead, he implies that our
experiment is incorrect, a view which he apparently shares with Tom
Droege [11].  However, an experimental observation is just that: an
experimental observation.  The fact that cells containing palladium
and palladium alloy cathodes polarised in D{2}0 solutions stay at high
temperatures after they have been driven to such extremes of excess
enthalpy generation *does not present us* with any difficulties.  It is
certainly possible to choose conditions which also lead to "boiling to
dryness" in "blank cells" but such cells cool down immediately after
such "boiling to dryness".  If there are any difficulties
in our observations, then these are surely in the province of those
seeking explanations in terms of "Chemical Effects" for "Cold
Fusion".  It is certainly true that the heat transfer coefficient for cells
filled with gas (N{2}) stay close to those for cells filled with 0.1M Li0D
(this is not surprising because the main thermal impedance is across
the vacuum gap of the Dewar-type  cells).  The "dry cell" must
therefore have generated [[approx.]]120kJ during the period at which
it remained at high temperature (or [[approx.]] 3MJcm-{{3}} or
26MJ(mol Pd)-{{1}}).  We refrained from discussing this stage of the
experiments because the cells and procedures we have used are not
well suited for making quantitative measurements in this region.
Inevitably, therefore, interpretations are speculative.  There is no
doubt, however, that Stage 5 is probably the most interesting part of
the experiments in that it points towards new systems which merit
investigation.  Suffice it to say that energies in the range observed
are not within the realm of any chemical explanations.
 
   We do, however, feel that it is justified to conclude with a further
comment at this point in time.  Afficionados of the field of "Hot
Fusion" will realise that there is a large release of excess energy
during Stage 5 at zero energy input.  The system is therefore
operating under conditions which are described as "Ignition" in "Hot
Fusion".  It appears to us therefore that these types of systems not
only "merit investigation" (as we have stated in the last paragraph)
but, more correctly, "merit frantic investigation".
 
  *Douglas Morrison's Section "Conclusions" and some General Comments*
 
   In his section entitled "Conclusions", Douglas Morrison shows
yet again that he does not understand the nature of our experimental
techniques, procedures and methods of data evaluation (or, perhaps,
that he chooses to misunderstand these?).  Furthermore, he fails to
appreciate that some of his own recommendations regarding the
experiment design would effectively preclude the observation of high
levels of excess enthalpy.  We illustrate these shortcomings with a
number of examples:
 
 (i) Douglas Morrison asserts that accurate calorimetry requires the
use of three thermal impedances in series and that we do not follow
this practice.  In point of fact we do have three impedances in series:
from the room housing the experiments to a heat sink (with two
independent controllers to thermostat the room itself); from the
thermostat tanks to the room (and, for good measure, from the
thermostat tanks to further thermostatically controlled sinks); finally,
from the cells to the thermostat tanks.  In this way, we are able to
maintain 64 experiments at reasonable cost at any one time (typically
two separate five-factor experiments).
 
 (ii) It is naturally essential to measure the heat flow at one of these
thermal impedances and we follow the normal convention of doing
this at the innermost surface (we could hardly do otherwise with our
particular experiment design!).  In our calorimeters, this thermal
impedance is the vacuum gap of the Dewar vessels which ensures
high stability of the heat transfer coefficients.  The silvering of the top
section of the Dewars (see Fig 2 of our paper [2] further ensures that
the heat transfer coefficients are virtually independent of the level of
electrolyte in the cells.
 
 (iii) Douglas Morrison suggests that we should use isothermal
calorimetry and that, in some magical fashion, isothermal
calorimeters do not require calibration.  We do not understand: how
he can entertain such a notion?  All calorimeters require calibration
and this is normally done by using an electrical resistive heater
(following the practice introduced by Joule himself).  Needless to say,
we use the same method.  We observe that in many types of
calorimeter, the nature of the correction terms are "hidden" by the
method of calibration.  Of course, we could follow the self-same
practice but we choose to allow for some of these terms explicitly.
For example, we allow for the enthalpy of evaporation of the D{2}0.
We do this because we are interested in the operation of the systems
under extreme conditions (including "boiling") where solvent
evaporation becomes the dominant form of heat transfer (it would not
be sensible to include the dominant term into a correction).
 
 (iv) There is, however, one important aspect which is related to (iii)
i.e. the need to calibrate the calorimeters.  If one chooses to measure
the lower bound of the heat transfer coefficient (as we have done in
part of the paper published recently in this journal [2]) then there is
*no need to carry out any calibrations nor to make corrections.*  It is
then quite sufficient to investigate the time dependence of this lower
bound heat transfer coefficient in order to show that there is a
generation of excess enthalpy for the Pd-D{2}0 system whereas there
is no such generation for appropriate blanks (e.g. Pt-D{2}0 or
Pd-H{2}0).  Alternatively, one can use the maximum value of the
lower bound heat transfer coefficient to give lower bound values of
the rates of excess enthalpy generation.
   It appears to us that Douglas Morrison has failed to understand
this point *as he continuously asserts that our demonstrations of
excess enthalpy generation are dependent on calibrations and
corrections.*
 
 (v) Further with regard to (iii) it appears to us that Douglas Morrison
believes that a "null method" (as used in isothermal calorimeters) is
inherently more accurate than say the isoperibolic calorimetry which
we favour.  While it is certainly believed that "null" methods in the
Physical Sciences  can be made to be more accurate than direct
measurements (e.g. when a voltage difference is detected as in
bridge circuits: however, note that even here the advent of "ramp"
methods makes this assumption questionable) this advantage
disappears when it is necessary to transduce the primary signal.  In
that case the accuracy of all the methods is determined by the
measurement accuracy (here of the temperature) quite irrespective of
which particular technique is used.
 
   In point of fact and with particular reference to the supposed
advantages of isothermal versus isoperibolic calorimetry, we note
that in the former the large thermal mass of the calorimeter appears
across the input of the feedback regulator.  The broadband noise
performance of the system is therefore poor; attempts to improve the
performance by integrating over long times drive the electronics into
1/f noise and, needless to say, the frequency response of the system
is degraded.  (see also (vii) below)
 
 (vi) with regard to implementing measurements with isothermal
calorimeters, Douglas Morrrison recommends the use of internal
catalytic recombiners (so that the enthalpy input to the system is just
E{cell}.I rather than (E{cell} - E{thermoneutral, bath}).I as in our
"open" calorimeters.  We find it interesting that Douglas Morrison will
now countenance the introduction of intense local "hot spots" on the
recombiners (what is more in the gas phase!)  whereas in the earlier
parts of his critique he objects to the possible creation  of microscopic
"hot spots" on the electrode surfaces in contact with the solution.
 
   We consider this criticism from Douglas Morrison to be invalid
and inapplicable.  In the first place it is inapplicable because the term
E{thermoneutral,bath}.I (which we require in our analysis) is known
with high precision (it is determined by the enthalpy of formation of
D{2}0 from D{2} and 1/2 0{2}).  In the second place it is inapplicable
because the term itself is [[approx.]] 0.77 Watt whereas we are
measuring a total enthalpy output of [[approx.]]170 Watts in the last
stages of the experiment.
 
 (vii) We observe here that if we had followed the advice to use
isothermal calorimetry for the main part of our work, then we would
have been unable to take advantage of the "positive feedback" to
drive the system into regions of high excess enthalpy generation
(perhaps, stated more exactly, we would not have found that there is
such positive feedback).  The fact that there is such feedback was
pointed out by Michael McKubre at the Third Annual Conference of
Cold Fusion and strongly endorsed by one of us (M.F.).  As this issue
had then been raised in public, we have felt free to comment on this
point in our papers (although we have previously drawn attention to
this fact in private discussions). We note that Douglas Morrison was
present at the Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion.
 
 (viii) While it is certainly true that the calorimetric methods need to be
evolved, we do not believe that an emphasis on isothermal
calorimetry will be useful.  For example, we can identify three major
requirements at the present time:
  a) the design of calorimeters which allow charging of the electrodes
at low thermal inputs and temperatures below 50 degrees C followed
by operation at high thermal outputs and temperatures above 100
degrees C
  b) the design of calorimeters which allow the exploration of Stage 5
of the experiments
  c) the design of calorimeters having a wide frequency response in
order to explore the transfer functions of the systems.
 
   We note that c) will in itself lead to calorimeters having an
accuracy which could hardly be rivalled by other methods.
 
 (ix) Douglas Morrison's critique implies that we have never used
calorimetric techniques other than that described in our recent paper
[2].  Needless to say, this assertion is incorrect.  It is true, however,
that we have never found a technique which is more satisfactory than
the isoperibolic method which we have described. It is also true that
this is the only method which we have found so far which can be
implemented within our resources for the number of experiments
which we consider to be necessary.  In our approach we have
chosen to achieve accuracy by using software; others may prefer to
use hardware.  The question as to which is the wiser choice is difficult
to answer: it is a dilemma which has to be faced frequently in modern
experimental science.  We observe also that Douglas Morrison
regards complicated instrumentation (three feedback regulators
working in series) as being "simple" wheres he regards data analysis
as being complicated.
 
   Douglas Morrrison also asserts that we have never used more
than one thermistor in our experimentation and he raises this issue in
connection with measurements on cells driven to boiling.  Needless
to say, this assertion is also incorrect.  However, further to this
remark is it necessary for us to point out that *one does not need any
temperature measurement in order to determine the rate of boiling of
a liquid?*
 
 (x) Douglas Morrison evidently has difficulties with our application of
non-linear regression methods to fit the integrals of the differential
equations to the experimental data.  Indeed he has such an idee fixe
regarding  this point that he maintains that we used this method in
our recent paper [2]; we did not do so (see also 'stage 3 calculations'
above).  However, we note that we find his attitude to the
Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm hard to understand.  It is one of the
most powerful, easily implemented "canned software" methods for
problems of this kind.  A classic text for applications of this algorithm
[12] has been praised by most prominent physics journals and
magazines.
 
 (xi) Douglas Morrison's account contains numerous misleading
comments and descriptions.  For example, he refers to our
calorimeters as "small transparent test tubes".  It is hard for us to
understand why he chooses to make such misleading statements.  In
this particular case he could equally well have said "glass Dewar
vessels silvered in their top portion" (which is accurate) rather than
"small transparent test tubes" (which is not).  Alternatively, if he did
not wish to provide an accurate description, he  could simply have
referred readers to Fig 2 of our paper [2].  This type of
misrepresentation is a non-trivial matter.   We have never used
calorimeters made of test-tubes since we do not believe that such
devices can be made to function satisfactorily.
 
 (xii) As a further example of Douglas Morrison's inaccurate reporting,
we quote his last paragraph in full:
 
 "It is interesting to note that the Fleischmann and Pons paper
compares their claimed power production with that from nuclear
reactions in a nuclear reactor and this is in line with their dramatic
claims (9) that **"`SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED
N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR THE FIRST TIME**:
breakthrough process has potential to provide inexhaustible source of
energy". It may be noted that the present paper does not mention
"Cold Fusion" nor indeed consider a possible nuclear source for the
excess heat claimed."
 
 Douglas Morrison's reference (9) reads: Press release, University of
Utah, 23 March 1989.
     With regard to this paragraph we note that:
  a) our claim that the phenomena cannot be explained by chemical
or conventional physical processes is based on the energy produced
in the various stages and not the power output
  b) the dramatic claim he refers to was made by the Press Office of
the University of Utah and not by us
  c) we did not coin the term "Cold Fusion" and have avoided using
this term except in those instances where we refer to other research
workers who have described the system in this way.  Indeed, if
readers refer to our paper presented to the Third International
Conference on Cold Fusion [13] (which contains further information
about some of the experiments described in [2]), they will find that we
have not used the term there.  Indeed, we remain as convinced as
ever that the excess energy produced cannot be explained in terms
of the conventional reaction paths of "Hot Fusion"
  d) it has been widely stated that the editor of this journal "did not
allow us to use the term Cold Fusion".  This is not true: he did not
forbid us from using this term as we never did use it (see also [13]).
 
 (xiii) in his section "Conclusions", Douglas Morrison makes the
following summary of his opinion of our paper:
 
  **The experiment and some of the calculations have been described
as "simple".  This is incorrect - the process involving chaotic motion,
is complex and may appear simple by incorrectly ignoring important
factors.  It would have been better to describe the experiments as
"poor" rather than "simple".**
 
  We urge the readers of this journal to consult the original text [2]
and to read Douglas Morrison's critique [1] in the context of the
present reply.  They may well then come to the conclusion that our
approach did after all merit the description "simple" but that the
epithet "poor" should be attached to Douglas Morrision's critique.
 
  *Our own conclusions*
 
   We welcome the fact that  Douglas Morrison has decided to
publish his criticisms of our work in the conventional scientific
literature rather than relying on the electronic mail, comments to the
press and popular talks; we urge his many correspondees to follow
his example.  Following this traditional pattern of publication will
ensure that their comments are properly recorded for future use and
that the rights of scientific referees will not be abrogated.
Furthermore, it is our view that a return to this traditional pattern of
communication will in due course eliminate the illogical and hysterical
remarks which have been so evident in the messages on the
electronic bulletins and in the scientific tabloid press.  If this
proves to be the case, we may yet be able to return to a reasoned
discussion of
new research.  Indeed, critics may decide that the proper course of
inquiry is to address a personal letter to authors of papers in the first
place to seek clarification of inadequately explained sections of
publications.
 
   Apart from the general description of stages 1-5, we find that
the comments made by Douglas Morrison are either irrelevant or
inaccurate or both.
 
  *References*
 
  [1] Douglas Morrison, Phys. Lett. A.
  [2] M.Fleischmann andd S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 1
  [3] to be published
  [4] M.Fleischmann, S.Pons, M.W.Anderson, L.J. Li, and M.
Hawkins,
   J. Electroanal. Chem. 287 (1990) 293.
  [5] R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil, and F.G Will,
   J. Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 1
  [6] M.Fleischmann and S.Pons, J.Electroanal.Chem. 332 (1992) 33
   [7] S. Pons and M.Fleischmann in : Final Report to the Utah
State Energy  Advisory Council, June 1991.
  [8] G. Kreysa, G. Marx, and W.Plieth, J. Electroanal. Chem. 268
(1989)659
  [9] M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261
(1989)301
  [10] W.Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on
the Analysis of Selected Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in:
"The Science of Cold Fusion": Proc. Second Annual Conf. on Cold
Fusion, Como, Italy, 29 June-4 July 1991, eds T. Bressani, E. del
Guidice and G. Preparaata, Vol 33 of the Conference Proceedings of
the Italian Physical Society  (Bologna, 1992) p491;
ISBN-887794--045-X
  [11] T. Droege: private communication to Douglas Morrison.
  [12] W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.T. Vetterling,
 "Numerical Recipes", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1989.
  [13] M.Fleischmann and S. Pons "Frontiers of Cold Fusion" ed. H.
Ikegami, Universal Academy Press Inc., Tokyo, 1993, p47;  ISBN
4-946-443-12-6
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 14:44:10 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> 2)  Make the puck from a ss copper or ss silver laminate.  Many layers.
> When
> put in a paper such a design would would look wise and exotic, even if it
> didn't work very well.  It would allow lots of follow on papers as attempts
> were made to find the optimum laminate.  I would look for the material used
> to
> make quarters or Kennedy half dollars (the discontinued ones that were
> about
> 40% silver).  The idea here is to use a material that conducts heat
> laterally
> better than vertically.
 
 
        Why stick to metals?  How about a laminate of alternate sheets of
copper and neoprene gasket stock?
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 02:56:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>(3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
 
I can fathom virtual neutrons acting a catalysts in their brief existence,
but the "materialization" of a neutron requires 940 MeV -- a pretty tall
order!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: CNF bibliography update
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 03:10:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Gammon invokes the
>anomalous behaviour of hydrogen, which warms as it expands from high to low
>pressure, due to its negative Joule-Thompson coefficient
 
Hey!  No fair referring to physics that aren't described in many college
level physics texts (at least the two I own.)  :-)
 
My CRC defines it as the cooling (or heating) effect that takes place when
a gas expands through a *nozzle*.  The coeffic = delta Temp / delta Pressure
 
"For the J-T effect to take place the gas must initially be below its
inversion temperature; if above the inversion temperature, the gas will gain
heat on expansion.  The inversion temperature of hydrogen, for example, is
approximately  -183C."
 
 
So what is this "inversion" temperature and why is there such a thing?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 03:29:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>At best operating conditions, heat transport can be 1000-2000x copper.
 
Isn't this misleading?  Sure between the inner copper box surfaces the
heat transport might be high, but it still has to pass through two
thicknesses of copper.
 
>A piece of felt cut to fit would do fine on the bottom.
 
And a thickness of felt ...
 
>Welding copper is difficult
 
But it is readily soldered, which should work for the temperature ranges
the calorimeter would likely ever run in.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 03:39:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>>How about a laminate of alternate sheets of copper and neoprene gasket stock?
>
>This sounds good in theory, but I worry in general with laminates that
>uniform contact across the whole interface would be problematical.
 
Hmmm, how about copper sheets soldered together, the solder acting as the
alternate laminate.  I don't know the thermal conductivity of solder, but it
is probably a good deal less than copper -- thus allowing faster lateral
spreading of heat than vertical spreading -- yet also providing a not too
small total heat transport ability.  The solder would "wet" the surface,
providing intimate contact and mechanical strength and rigidity.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Heat capacity transients in superconductors
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat capacity transients in superconductors
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 04:00:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
I see an example of tantalum above, below, and at its superconductive
transition temperature wherein the specific heat changes drastically
over the course of approx 1.5 kelvin.
 
At 3.1K the sph is 9E-4 cal/mole K.  The sph heat rises almost linearly
to 17E-4 cal/mol K at 4.4K.  It abruptly drops to 9E-4 cal/mole K again
beyond and above the 4.4K temperature and then rises at a slower rate
thereafter.
 
Thus we see in this superconductor, a doubling and then reduction in heat
capacity by nearly half over a 1.5 degree temperature span.
 
Now if our Pd/D bose condensate had superconductor (or near superconductor)
properties -- we might expect to see wild variations in heat capacity near
the transition temperature!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Morrison's Comments Criticized
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison's Comments Criticized
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 04:12:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>we have decided to post the document that follows, which was prepared
>by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann
 
Thanks.  It is good to hear from these guys direct for those of us who
don't have easy access to their other papers and correspondences.
 
It certainly helps reduce the image of them as bumbling idiots as
they are often portrayed.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 /  DROEGE@FNALD.F /  Test
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test
Date: 17 Aug 1993 16:45:21 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

This is a test to see if I can send mail by a different path.  I continue
to be very interested in heat pipes as they promise to allow very fast
servo control of the next generation calorimeter.  This is actually a test
to see if I can post requests for heat pipe information to other groups.
 
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 05:04:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>>(3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
>
>the "materialization" of a neutron requires 940 MeV -- a pretty tall order!
 
In fact the only things I can think of that readily have that much energy
are another neutron (not very interesting) or a proton (interesting!)
 
Oddly enough, neutrons seem to outnumber protons in this corner of the
universe even though neutrons are inclined to decay into protons when in
isolation.  Given the preposition that the early universe was composed
mostly of protons and electrons, there does seem to be implied some rather
promiscuous pathway from proton/electron (or virtual electron) to neutron.
But it must be in all the books, right?
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Deiter takes the neutron bait?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deiter takes the neutron bait?
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:30:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I thought Deiter would know better than to suggest that free neutrons
are involved CF reactions.  Mitchell Swartz has assured us repeatedly
that the process is neutronpen...., what ever that word is.  From what
I could extract from the abstract of Hagelstein's latest effort, he is
trying to work magic with neutrons having given up on 4He.  Regardless
of what nonsense may lead one to think there are neutrons being transfered
from deuterons to somewhere else in the system there are some very
tough problems involved in selling that approach.  One is that it is
very hard to keep them suckers in the Pd.  They will leak out and get
detected.  Second having produced free neutrons still doesn't account
for any excess enthalpy.  Something else has to happen, and my first
guess would be capture in the Pd which is good for nominally 6 MeV
of energy release, but in what form?  I say some of it will just have
to be gamma rays characteristic of cascades in the nuclei formed.
How do you make gamma rays disappear.  If anyone mentions coherence
I will reply Bull ...!  The Pd lattice consists of a very random
arrangement of various isotopes, each one with a different set of
gamma ray energies.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  P&F Doublespeak
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F Doublespeak
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:30:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My favorite quote from the recent post of material from Pons and Fleischmann
is the following:
 
        "We refrained from discussing this stage of the experiments
        because the cells and procedures we have used are not well
        suited for making quantitative measurements in this region
        .... "  (stage 5, i.e. boiling)
        "There is no doubt that stage 5 is probably the most inter-
        esting part of the experiments...."
 
P&F want to have their cake and then eat it.  They are do not defend
the "boiling cell" portion of their experiments, but they do want
to assert that something "interesting" is happening as demonstrated
by the results they refrain from discussing.
 
Likewise they keep trying to assert that they make no claims for
having demonstrated that excess enthalpy has been produced by a
nuclear reaction process, but the word "fusion" keeps creeping into
everything they write.
 
As for their experimental methods, consider this quote:
 
        "In out calorimeters, this thermal impedence is the vacuum
        gap of the Dewar vessels which insures the high stability
        of the heat transfer coefficients.  The silvering of the
        top section of the Dewars further ensures that the heat
        transfer coefficients are virtually independent of the level
        of the electrolyte in the cells."
 
I see this as a very doubtful claim that isn't well substantiated by
anything they say in this reply to Morrison's criticisms.  They must
attach some different meaning to the words "high stability" than I
consider to be meaningful in this context.  The use of Dewars with
partial silvering indicates to me that the heat transfer is dominated
by radiation, a process which is strongly temperature dependent.
Other than temperature, the factors involved in radiante heat transfer
are the geometry and the emissivity of the surfaces.  Are these
factors "highly stable" through the course of long experiments in
which various things get deposited on the glass or the glass gets
etched, bubbling waxes and wanes, and electrolyte levels rise and
fall?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 18 Aug 1993 03:05:28 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson) writes:
: In article <01H1UHA3WLIA9PPDPB@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz,
: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk writes:
: >Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu (Dick Blue) in FD 1271:
: >
: >>...I would think that a very large deuteron is no longer
: >>a deuteron, and it will have a harder time hanging onto its neutron than
: >>it does already...
: >
: >Dick, you hit on it!!! This explains all! It's not fusion, it's fission!
: >Deuterons fiss, losing their neutrons, which go bumping around, knocking
: more
: > [Blah, Blah]
:
: Another example of a not-good criticism.
 
To quote Monty Python, "He used sarcasm."  Of course it's not fission,
splitting deuterium eats up energy rather than gives off energy.
(Though I have my pet hypothesis that there could be low-level nuclear
 effects because of deuterium moderating fissions from trace amounts of
 natural uranium.  Canadian nuclear plants use deuterium and natural U.  As
 an experiment, try to make a cathode with substantial amount of uranium.
 The purpose of the Pd is to get enough moderating D really close to the
 uranium.  Could there also then be secondary induced fusions?  Would there
 be some way of maximizing this effect?  BTW, don't tell Saddam.  It would
 have the nice feature that if things got too hot, D would leave the lattice
 and stop the reaction.)
 
: The binding forces amongst
: quarks are
: very high, so they will not be found far apart from each other; and they
: are constantly
: transferring large amounts of momentum to each other, so they will be
: pretty localized.
: Maybe the wavefunction of the deuteron will be !spread out! initially,
: but once one
: !locates! even one quark, they!ve pretty much located the others (at
: least if the strong
: force remains strong).
 
I take back my previous statement that strong interaction localizes
delocalized products.  The new nucleons in the new fused nucleus will be
localized with respect to each other, but by relativity the product
does not have to be localized in the lab frame.  Without interaction
with the outside world, there is no preferred place.
 
But it doesn't matter, because still this doesn't address the problem of
*getting* a delocalized wavefunction.  Please compute, for example,
 
   E = <Psi1(x1)*Psi2(x2)| Z^2/|x1-x2| | Psi1(x1)*Psi2(x2) >
 
For, e.g. Psi(x) = exp(i*k*x), and for Psi1(x1) = delta(x1-z1), Psi2(x2) =
delta(x2-z2).  (The answer for the second case is Z^2/|z2-z1|.)
 
For the first case, it will be larger, no (technically infinite)?
Where did the energy come from?
 
--
-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:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 16:50:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>silver is best by a lot for control purposes due to lower specific heat.
>
>Only by about 12% (or so) if you consider volumetric heat capacity.
 
Gack! 12% bigger per dimension -- so it is 40-45% lower than copper.  Silly me.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  heat capacity transients
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: heat capacity transients
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 21:26:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Somehow the notion that the heat capacity of a solid is nice and well
behaved got pushed a bit too far in various discussions.  It should
perhaps be noted that heat capacity can undergo dramatic variations
as a function of temperature at any sort of phase transition, even
rather subtle ones such as the Curie transition in a ferromagnetic
solid.  It would not be very surprising if the PdH system were to
exhibit a dramatic change in heat capacity at some phase transition,
and it would not imply anything as wild as a boson condensation.
If such a thing is occuring it could be one more reason why
simple calorimetry really isn't very simple.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / mitchell swartz /  J-T effect (was CNF biblio)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: J-T effect (was CNF biblio)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:52:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Aug18.031011.26390@ns.network.com>
  Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update
John Logajan [logajan@network.com] writes:
 
=jl "For the J-T effect to take place the gas must initially be below its
=jl inversion temperature;if above the inversion temperature, the gas will gain
=jl heat on expansion.  The inversion temperature of hydrogen, for example, is
=jl appproximately  -183C."
=jl
=jl So what is this "inversion" temperature and why is there such a thing?
 
 John,
 
     As you know, the J-T effect is used to liquefy gases on a practical basis.
                      (more on that later).
 
 First the coefficient is only  delta T/delta P   at constant enthalpy
 
                    mu =   dT
                           --) H
                           dp
 
   Second, the maximum inversion temperatures are:
 
             34K (helium)   202K (hydrogen)    625K (nitrogen)
 
   Therefore, helium also has a very low inversion temp. and appears
       "anomalous" in this way, too.
 
   Third,  the inversion temperature occurs because of molecular effects,
 and represents the crossover point of molecular attraction and repulsion.
  At low temperatures, the kinetic energy of each molecule is small.
  The weak long-range interactions between molecules are significant
  causing them to have a smaller intermolecular separation than
  expected in the absence of such effect.
 
  At higher K.E., such effects - in contrast - have a negligible effect.  Then
  the stronger short-range forces tend to dominate.
 The net effect is thus:
   to effectively liquify the gas by such throttling, the initial
  temp. must be below the inversion temperature,  where mu (above) is > 0.
 
                 Best wishes, and thanks for the e-mail note.
 
                                                Mitchell Swartz
                                                 (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Why Wonder, Josh?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Wonder, Josh?
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 02:00:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Joshua Levy wrote the following about the Taubes book "BAD SCIENCE:"
 
"The errors described by Taubes are so obvious that one wonders what other
mistakes were made, and is left with a general feeling of doubt, in addition
to a long list of specific mistakes."
 
The errors described by Taubes, specifically, the ones in the work of Bockris
and Huggins never happened. Taubes made them up out of whole cloth. They are
lies. Why should anyone wonder about this? What is the big deal here? Get the
formal, published papers by Bockris, Huggins, or any other researcher and see
if they made the mistakes Taubes describes. For example, Taubes repeats an
absurd vicious innuendo that Huggins forgot to measure voltage. Check the paper
from 1990 (the first Annual Conf.) and you will see that is a lie. Everything
in the Taubes book is based upon conversations with "skeptics" who know nothing
about the work, and who have not read the papers. There is not a single
reference in "BAD SCIENCE" to any published scientific paper relating to cold
fusion. Therefore, the book has no scientific value.
 
 
On another subject, Tom Droege claims that "the calibration constant can
change."
If it can change, it is not a constant, is it? Ha! Ha! ;}
 
Seriously, if the calibration constant changes during the course of an
experiment, that means you have a defective calorimeter. Throw it out and start
again. With a properly designed calorimeter, the constant is constant. It has
to be tested over a broad range of inputs, water levels, and so on. If it is
not predictable (constant) than the device is not a calorimeter.
 
Someone offered a good suggestion for a copper sleeve calorimeter. I have
seen several of these, they work very well indeed. I recommend, however, that
you *also* measure the temperature of the electrolyte, just as I recommend you
record electrolyte temperature with a flow calorimeter. Always do it anyway,
you'll see something interesting. The copper shell should give you a more
steady, predictable reading, but there should be a very strong correllation
with the electrolyte, and you should be able to explain the discrepancies.
 
I note Richard Blue finally came out and admitted he does not understand
the calorimeter, a reliable scientific device in use since 1799. Now all the
world can see what a scientific illiterate he is. He has probably never heard
of mercury thermometer or the Joule heater, either. The poor fellow never
even made it into the 19th century!
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Jed Rothwell /  P&F's calorimeter highly stable
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F's calorimeter highly stable
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 03:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Regarding P&F's calorimeter, Richard Blue poses a number of questions about
things like deposition of salts on the glass, geometry, and emmissivity.
Then he asks:
 
"Are these factors 'highly stable' through the course of long experiments in
which various things get deposited on the glass or the glass gets etched,
bubbling waxes and wanes, and electrolyte levels rise and fall?"
 
The answer: Yes, they are highly stable. This fact has been established by
careful experimental observation with blanks, parallel systems, on-the-fly
recalibration and other techniques. All of the "objections" listed by Richard,
about etching on glass and bla, bla, bla, do not amount to a hill of beans.
 
There are many well know problems and pitfalls with calorimetry, a few of
which I outlined in my paper. You will find many more warnings and cautions in
papers by people like P&F or Miles. Needless to say, these these papers are
light years ahead of mine. My point is that at least I know *something* about
the real problems that can arise, whereas the kinds of objections Richard
raises are based on empty speculation and gross ignorance of the field. This is
the kind of claptrap that only a person who has never done an experiment would
come up with. As I have said a hundred times before: these are milliwatt
objections to multiwatt phonomena. You might as well talk about the effects of
phases of the moon as worry about this sort of thing... But don't take my word
for it, do what P&F and all real scientists do: run an experiment and find out
for yourself.
 
Let me add that most experiments that I am aware of end after about three weeks.
This is not a 'long' time; these are short experiments. Calorimeter drift and
other long term problems should never be ignored or swept under the rug, but on
the other hand, they are much less of a problem with a three week experiments
than they are with three month or one year runs.
 
 
With regards to my previous message to Richard, readers will please note that
he will *still* not tell us what is wrong with the McKubre work, or any of
the other papers. He gives us bombast, non-fact, speculation, and never ending
claptrap, but he will never address the question, and never offer any
specifics. We want to know *specifically* why McKubre's calorimeter does not
work. Vauge statements and evasion will not do. This is science, after all.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Stable temperature after electrolysis
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stable temperature after electrolysis
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 03:14:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Now that P&F have granted permission to upload their paper, let me post
some notes I made some time ago about a minor issue in one of their
papers. . .
 
 
A few months ago there was a debate here regarding one aspect of the
paper: M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southhampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe),
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
A graph in the paper shows a temperature of 100 C that remains stable even
after all of the electrolyte is exhausted and the cathode is dry. This is
counter-intuitive; it confused many people, including me. At first glance,
you might intuitively suppose that a dry cathode in an open test tube
would be sitting in ambient air, which would mean the temperature at the
thermistor would drop. However, this is not the case, which proves that
"first glances" and "intuitive suppositions" count for nothing in science.
 
I talked to various experts and quickly learned the detailed facts about
it some time ago, but I have not had the time or inclination to report
them here. Let me set the record straight now. I remind the reader that
this is a summary, not a formal paper. If you have additional questions or
you require clarification, you should communicate directly with people who
understand these issues better than me.
 
To make a long story short, the model proposed by Chuck Harrison here is
essentially correct. Chuck suggested that a small amount of water remains
at the bottom of the cell, and this water is heated up, it rises,
condenses, and falls to the bottom again. In my judgement, recent data and
observations confirm that this is the major cause of the temperature
stability. However, there are interesting details and design aspects of
the cell that promote this effect and help ensure a continued, stable 100
C temperature. I do not think this cell behavior is a coincidence. I
expect this design was chosen because a high temperature is essential to
create and sustain a CF reaction, but a very high, uncontrolled
temperature would be extremely dangerous.
 
A key feature to the cell design is the hole at the top of the cell, or
the "vent" as I sometimes refer to it. As shown in the diagram, it is 5 mm
in diameter. This is exactly the right size. Anyone wishing to replicate
this work is well advised to copy this, and all other details, as
carefully as possible. Every single aspect of the work of Pons and
Fleischmann is carefully thought out and extensively tested; nothing is
left to chance, and nothing is insignificant. There are a number of
reasons for picking this size; I will list a few. I expect that if the
vent was much smaller, it might get plugged up and cause an explosion, and
if it was much larger, the experiment would not work at all, or it would
work in a marginal fashion.
 
The vent acts as a kind of valve, or a one-way door, that prevents air
from entering the cell. Heavy water acts as a "getter" for light water, so
if you expose highly pure D2O to air, it soon becomes impure, and the
experiment is likely to fail. The vent also acts to spur the "Harrison
effect." If you test various cell configurations, you will find a small
hole shows this effect better and longer than a completely open test tube.
I think the major reason for this is again because the vent keeps rapid,
uncontrolled mixing with ambient air down to a minimum, thus holding even
a small amount of vapor in. With an open test tube, I think a small amount
of vapor would soon be thoroughly mixed with air, and it would dissipate.
 
If you put a hot enough heater in the cell, the temperature of the vapor
would climb above 100 C, because it would not condense at the top of the
cell. It would become extremely rarified, as more and more vapor was
pushed out, but the vapor would not be replaced by air until the heat
source was turned off, and a vacuum created by condensing water sucked air
into the cell.
 
However, people have observed condensation in P&F's cells, which is why
the temperature does not exceed 100 C. Recent unpublished data includes
direct evidence of it. Beads of condensed water are observed from time to
time, and in one case, they formed on the thermistor. The temperature
record at that point showed a sudden drop, soon followed by a return back
to 100 C again, as the condensed droplets fell or evaporated.
 
This report is based on conversations with people who observed the P&F
cells in operation, and on the work of some colleagues of mine who build
"dummy" cells very similar to the Pons and Fleischmann devices, with
electric heaters and ordinary (non-CF) electrolysis, and observed similar
stable temperatures after the water boiled away. They also observed
similar interesting effects with CO2 and other types of gas in the cells.
 
Let me close by reminding readers that there was quite a heated discussion
of this aspect of the paper. The discussion was lead by people who do not
understand the dynamics of the system, and who have never performed any
experiments of this nature. Some of them went so far as to claim that the
reported stable temperature was a mistake or even some kind of fraud! I
recall one person cited this single aspect of the paper to declare the
entire paper a "dead parrot!" (An example of the bold assurance which
comes only to hopelessly ignorant fools.) As usual, these people were
desperately attempting to discredit the paper on the basis of will-of-the-
wisp half-formed ideas, but as anyone can see, all they accomplished was
to show how little they know about water vapor in test tubes. I did not
understand the reason for the stable temperature at first either, but at
least I had enough sense to get the facts before reaching any conclusion.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 13:34:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Regardless of what answer should be given to that question, I will say
I am very willing to learn so I do ask questions.  Sometimes I get some
real answers here, but generally not from the strongest advocates of
cold fusion.  For example, I resently ask the question whether a simple
conduction calorimeter really works if the heat source is pulsed and
the calorimeter constant is temperature dependent.  To illustrate the
potential problem I proposed a very simple mathematical model for
a calorimeter and made a very specific suggestion as to why I had
doubts about the basic premise which must underlie the use of this
technique.  No one replied or even commented on my question so I
must admit I am still ignorant as to how the simple calorimeters that
Pons and Fleischmann use are supposed to work.  If you can help me
on that question, Jed, I would be a willing student; however I don't
just blinding accept historic authority as proof that calorimeters
work to some arbitrary level of precision under all circumstances.
 
As for what is wrong with McKubre's calorimetry, I will first point
out how Jed likes to shift the discussion away from simple calorimetry
to McKubre's work even though the techniques are quite different.
It is an approach similar to what Pons and Fleischmann use when they
defend in great detail the accuracy of their method before the
electrolyte boils, and then proclaim loudly the more spectacular
results which they admit are obtained under circumstances not well
suited for quantitative measurements.  This all fits the pattern
that the more careful the experiment the less spectacular are the
results.  In McKubre's case, the results are possibly wrong by
no more than 2% so the errors can be quite subtle and difficult to
spot.  In fact it is ultimately impossible to pinpoint such errors
by remote analysis.  I do not claim such powers.
 
I have made some specific suggestions as to where McKubre's errors
could lie, but will recall only one of my previous remarks.  In the
very first run reported in the Como proceedings as showing excess
enthalpy there is a very strong correlation between the excess and
the applied current.  That behavior is not duplicated in other runs,
nor to the best of my knowledge does it appear in the experimental
results of other investigators.  I would say that a possible
explaination for that particular result is some form of cross talk
between electrical signals.  If was a real effect why did it never
occur again?  Is that really such a dumb question to ask, Jed?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Stable temperature after electrolysis
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stable temperature after electrolysis
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 14:22:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To make a long story short, the model proposed by Chuck Harrison here is
>essentially correct. Chuck suggested that a small amount of water remains
>at the bottom of the cell, and this water is heated up, it rises,
>condenses, and falls to the bottom again. In my judgement, recent data and
>observations confirm that this is the major cause of the temperature
>stability.
 
Robert I. Eachus was just telling us the other day that vapor phase heat
transport can exceed copper's heat carrying ability by up to 2000 X (under
the right conditions.)
 
In this case we have, I take it, D2O (liquid and vaopr) at near atmospheric
pressure.  Of course we don't need anything like 2000 X, not even, probably,
1 X.  So until someone who knows how to do the math shows me that the
heat transport is insignificant, I'll have to put Jed's (and Chuck's)
explanation into the plausible column.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Dieter Britz /  J-T again
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: J-T again
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 15:48:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Mitch Swartz has already provided the answer to John Logajan's question about
the Joule-Thompson effect, to the effect {:] that this has to do with the
counterplay of repulsion and attraction of gas molecules. There is a nice
discussion, without equations, in Glasstone and Lewis' Elements of Physical
Chemistry, and I'll elaborate a little here on Mitch's answer. Basically, for
an ideal gas, one expects expansion of the gas into a vacuum not to lead to
a gas temperature change. Expansion into an existing gas does some work and
there you expect a cooling, due to the energy lost by the gas as it pushes
away the lower-pressure gas that is in the way. This, I guess, is a smallish
effect for hydrogen, since it is said to still get warm as it expands into
a lower-pressure space. Let's focus on expanding into a vacuum. Glasstone and
Lewis point out three causes of nonideality: the finite volume of gas
molecules, not considered in the ideal gas laws; and the attraction of gas
molecules to each other when they are relatively far apart; and the repulsion
as they approach each other. The attraction/repulsion interplay, as Mitch
wrote, are the key to the J-T effect. You can imagine a diagram of potential
energy vs distance between two H2 (or D2) molecules (or look at G&L for a
picture of this), going through a minimum, where such a pair is most happy.
You need energy to pull them further apart, and to push them closer together.
This distance depends on temperature and the kind of gas we are talking about.
It seems that compressed hydrogen (or deuterium) at room temp. is being pushed
together a bit, i.e. there is energy in there waiting to be released. As it
expands, then, this heats up the gas.
 
One reason I post this is that I am now fairly sure that Gammon is wrong in
supposing that this effect would cool down the Pd out of which the D2 bubbles
are coming. He is, I think, confusing this effect with evaporation, where the
hot (fast) molecules leave, thus lowering the mean speed (temperature) of the
rest. In this case, a bit of high-pressure D2 moves out of the Pd, expands
to atmospheric pressure and warms up a bit (or maybe a lot, as Gammon says),
but I don't see any reason to suppose that the remaining PdD should get
correspondingly cooler. As I wrote, though, even if it did, the effect should
be seen for both hydrogen and deuterium cells and in any case, I doubt that
conduction along the electrical leads can account for an appreciable amount
of power. On top of that, as I now say, I doubt that there IS any such
cooling, so I reckon we can forget this effect as a conventional explanation
for observed excess heat, or as an error in calorimetry. If we are to find
such a conventional, non-nuclear explanation, we have to do better than that.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 15:51:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>For example, I resently ask the question whether a simple
>conduction calorimeter really works if the heat source is pulsed and
>the calorimeter constant is temperature dependent.
 
One ought to be able to pulse a dummy heater and thus establish the
dynamic reaction of the calorimeter (yes, I am aware that a resistive
heater is not quite the same dynamic system as a bubbling electrode.)
 
I would think this would fall under the general heading of "calibration" --
having both a static and dynamic aspect.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Good Stuff
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good Stuff
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 19:13:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Wow!  I have all this good stuff to read about heat pipes, laminated pucks,
the real meaning of specific heat, and all kinds of nice new theories.
 
No wonder then that I am not dragged into discussing why P&F have not really
responded to the criticism here.  There is good science to think about and
to do.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Jed Rothwell /  CF not fractofusion
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF not fractofusion
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 21:41:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Schultz comments:
 
"One explanation for so-called "cold fusion" phenomena that's been going
around in various incarnations is that the anomalous heat is due to
microscopic fracturing in the Pd."
 
This fractofusion hypothesis was first put suggested in 1989 by Fred Mayer
(and perhaps others). It has been ruled out conclusively for the following
reasons:
 
1. Cracked, distorted or fractured Pd never shows the CF effect. Cracking
   prevents high loading, which means there can be no CF effect.
 
2. The amount of energy generated in many CF reactions exceeds the total amount
   that could come from fracturing every single Pd atom from every other atom
   a thousand times over. It is many, many orders of magnitude too large to
   be explained by this kind of mechanism.
 
Let me repeat the rule: do not look for tiny effects to generate massive
results. Do not suggest effects that can only generate joules or kilojoules
per mole, when the energy levels are in the hundreds of megajoules per mole,
with no known upper limit.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / John Logajan /  ortho and para hydrogen
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ortho and para hydrogen
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 93 20:58:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

According to a book on liquid hydrogen production, 25% of room temperature
gaseous hydrogen is para form, and 75% is ortho form (para is where
the electron spin is in the same direction as the nucleus spin and ortho
is where the electron spin is opposite the nucleus spin.)
 
It recommends that a catalytic conversion to para should be done to
prevent later natural conversion to para -- which is EXOTHERMIC and
will cause excess boil off and loss of hydrogen.
 
So what effect does para/ortho conversion have at a Pd electrode
both on loading and unloading?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Deconstructing Taubes
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deconstructing Taubes
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 22:13:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
As I have mentioned in previous postings, the Taubes book "BAD SCIENCE"
contains countless appalling errors, misjudgments and even outright lies. If
you have the stomach to do it, you can "decompose" a page or two by looking up
the facts in the scientific literature, and by using a little common sense.
Someone here mentioned Huggins. It just happens that several weeks ago I
"decomposed" one of the hatchet attacks on Huggins, from p. 229. Please note
this is written for an audience of laymen, not the people here.
 
I inserted the numbers in square brackets:
 
       "[1] Martin [of Texas A&M University ran a D2O and an H2O cell, and the
       D2O cell ran some two degrees warmer. As Dell Lawson, who was Martin's
       graduate student told it, [2] 'We went, 'Wow, this is real great.' And we
       were all very excited. But then we said, 'We need to measure
       conductivities of these two solutions.' And as it turned out, the
       conductivity of the LiOD in D2O is about a factor of 1.5 to 2.0 smaller.
       That means that the change in energy across the D2O cell is higher, so
       that means that more power is dissipated, therefore the temperature is
       higher. [3] When we heard Huggins's initial results, we thought, Gee,
       they're making the same mistake we did.' [4]
 
              [5] None of this information, of course, was in the Stanford press
       release, nor did Huggins mention it to the reporters. Huggins may not
       have realized the error until July..." [6]
 
In plain English, Taubes is saying that Huggins did not measure electricity.
Taubes asserts that Huggins measured amps but not volts. A scientifically
literate reader will surely do a double take upon reading that, I certainly
did. It is the most improbably, preposterous statement imaginable. How did
Taubes ever get this absurd notion in his head? Read carefully, and you will
see that he arrived at this conclusion through a topsy-turvy mixture of
hearsay, half-truth, ignorance, speculation, sloppy journalism, and scientific
illiteracy. Let us trace this slimy mess down step at a time:
 
In step [1], Martin, a scientist in Texas, has made a stupid mistake. He
forgot to measure voltage, he measured amperage only, which is only one
component of electric power dissipation.
 
[2] Martin's grad student, Lawson, tells Taubes about the mistake and Lawson
speculates that Huggins, in California, made the same mistake. Did Martin,
Lawson or Taubes ever check with Huggins to see if Huggins made that mistake?
Did they go to California, did they see a schematic, or any data, or did they
ever read the formal, published report of experiment to verify that hunch? No,
they could not have, because the published paper shows that Huggins did not
make that mistake. Furthermore, anyone who knows anything about
electrochemistry would never make that mistake. I myself have only done a few
months of laboratory work and data analysis in the field, but even before I
started I knew perfectly well it is necessary to measure both amps and volts
at all times. The likelihood of Huggins making that mistake is about as high
as the likelihood that you will forget to put your clothes on in the morning
and drive to work naked. The reason for this is described below.
 
 
[3] Taubes assumed automatically that Huggins *did* make the mistake. He never
bothered to check with Huggins, or look at the formal published scientific
record, he just assumed that this absurd speculation was true.
 
[4] Having assumed the allegation is true, Taubes goes off on a tangent and
asks why his imaginary "fact" was not included in the Stanford press release.
 
[5] In high gear, Taubes goes on to imagine that Huggins found out about this
supposed mistake sometime later.
 
[6] Since Huggins never retracted the experiment, and never declared that he
forgot to measure voltage, if you believe what Taubes has said, you are left
with the dark suspicion that Huggins is covering up something. Taubes has
invented a scandal out of whole cloth, consisting of an imaginary mistake,
followed by an imaginary cover-up.
 
 
Let us look more closely at the absurd allegation that Huggins forget to
measure voltage, because it illustrates how shockingly ignorant Taubes is, and
how strange this book appears to any person who has a minimum working
knowledge of electrochemistry. Taubes says that the electrical resistance of
heavy water is different from light water, so if you don't measure resistance,
you don't know how much power you are dissipating. With a constant amperage
power supply, voltage will be different in heavy water or light water so you
must measure voltage. In real life experiments however, nobody would trust the
power supply settings alone; everyone always monitors both amperage and
voltage with a computer data collection system. Typically, both values are
recorded once a minute. Then, amps are multiplied by volts to give watts. In a
paper, you might see a graph of voltage only, for example in a discussion of
overpotential, but it is certain that both amps and volts are recorded and
described in the paper, as they are in the Huggin's paper: M. Schreiber et al,
"Recent Measurements of Excess Energy Production In Electrochemical Cells
Containing Heavy Water and Palladium," First Annual Conf. Proc, March 1990
 
Everyone knows that it is necessary to measure and record both amperage and
voltage because the resistance of the electrolyte (water) varies. It
fluctuates slowly over time, not minute by minute, but over hours or days it
often changes significantly. If you don't monitor it, you will have no way of
knowing how much power is dissipated. You cannot guess, you cannot estimate,
so the only way to know is to measure. Taubes cites heavy water versus light
water differences, but these are not the only factors that affect
conductivity. Dozens of other well-know factors play a role. The conductivity
depends primarily on the concentration of salts in the water. This
concentration is bound to change over time, even in a closed cell in a
carefully controlled environment, like Huggins used. Lithium is absorbed into
the cathode, and some into the cell walls. The water roils and bubbles, and
lithium salts coat the walls of the cell above the water line. As lithium
leaves the water, conductivity decreases, resistance increases, power drops
off. At the same time, the water is converted to hydrogen and oxygen gas, and
bubbles off. Even in a closed cell, a significant amount of gas remains in the
airspace and in the water, changing the water chemistry; pure water beads up
on the recombiner and on the cell walls; and as hydrogen is absorbed into the
cathode, a surplus of oxygen builds up. The pure water build-up on the walls
and recombiner will increases conductivity, which might cancel out the lithium
loss. Over many days, other chemicals may leach in from the walls of the cell.
Heavy water acts as a "getter" for light water, even in a closed cell, the
purity of the heavy water is likely to fall. Finally, at high power levels you
might need to take into account the effect of bubbles disrupting conductivity
between the anode and cathode.
 
Electrical resistance is an issue of overwhelming importance to any
electrochemist. They all know about it. They all measure power dissipation
(amps and volts). The many factors which affect resistance are well-known,
well understood, and well documented in the scientific literature. You will
learn about these things in any textbook on electrochemistry, and you will
observe these effects in the first 10 hours of any experiment. If Taubes (or
Martin) had spend fifteen minutes in the library, he would have known that
electrochemical cells are complex, ever-changing chemical systems, and he
would have known that it is *always* essential in *any* electrochemical
experiment to monitor power dissipation.
 
 
Try to imagine, if you will, 473 pages filled with this kind of filthy, gutter
journalism; this wacky, scientific illiteracy; this witch's brew of fiction,
hearsay, rumor, speculation, and illogic. Try to grasp the fact that there is
a not a single reference in this entire book to any published scientific paper
on cold fusion or electrochemistry. This entire hodgepodge is the product of
Taubes' imagination! He made it up, he did not even try to give it a veneer of
scientific respectability. He never even went through the motions of doing his
homework. Apparently, he has not read *a single scientific paper about cold
fusion*, out of all the hundreds that have been published. If he did, there is
no reference to it here. Furthermore, the papers plainly contradict nearly
every assertion he makes; you would think he would at least note that fact! As
far as I can tell however, as he says in the back, the book is based purely on
conversations and interviews. The whole book is concocted out of conversations
with a collection of scientific hacks like Huizenga, and nitwits like Martin,
who do not ever know that you must always measure voltage in an
electrochemical experiment. Here we have a book purportedly about a field of
science. This science, like any other, is based upon peer-reviewed, formal,
detailed scientific papers. Instead of reading this material first hand, or at
least talking to people who have read it, Taubes attempted to analyze this
field by talking on the telephone with ignorant people who have not read the
papers, who have not performed the experiments, who know nothing about the
work, and will lose their jobs when sanity returns to science, and cold fusion
is finally recognized by mainstream scientists in the U.S.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The 5 mm vent
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The 5 mm vent
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 22:59:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has posted that the vent in the top of the P&F cell is 5 mm dia.
Jed, what is the source of this?  I have studied the Physics Letters A paper
and can find not details of this vent.  Perhaps I am blind.  Can you point
me at where it is described?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John Logajan /  Re: heat capacity transients
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: heat capacity transients
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 01:43:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  Dick Blue says subtle changes in heat capacity invalidate experiments
>  on cold fusion.
 
Actually, in the message referred to, he didn't explicity suggest such
a conclusion.  I point this out because my own postings generally lack
explicit disclaimers.  So if I don't also explicity state a conclusion,
one shouldn't assume that my mentioning of para/ortho hydrogen, say,
explains all CF anomalous heat.  (More on this in a reply to Jed.)
 
>  But he has not shown any attempt at actual estimates and listings of such
>  values.
 
I've avoided numbers for the Pd/D system because I don't have enough info.
But let me make a guess:
 
One mole of Pd probably holds 25J of thermal energy per degree above 0K.
One mole of D2 (gas) probably holds about 20J / deg.  Suppose (monoatomic)
D in Pd acts just like more Pd as far as thermal energy is concerned.  At
1.0 loading, we'd have half a mole of D2 (20J/2/deg) making one mole of
D in the Pd, or the equivalent of 2 moles of Pd (25J*2/deg).
 
So we started with a system of 35J/deg thermal energy capacity, and we
get a system of 50J/deg capacity.  That's a delta of 15J/deg.
 
Thus (I hypothesize) Pd/D would suck up 15J per mole per degree above 0K
during loading (it would be anomalous cold.)
 
Suppose we get outgassing of D from Pd at 40C.  That's 313K.  We should
expect to see 15*313= 4700J of lost heat capacity, giving rise to a system
temperature increase, per mole of Pd.  A mole of Pd weights about 106 grams.
So that's about 44J per gram of Pd.
 
If you recall, my initial title for these posts was "A *little* heat."
That's all I've ever claimed.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John Logajan /  Re: CF not fractofusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF not fractofusion
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 01:56:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Let me repeat the rule: do not look for tiny effects to generate massive
>results. Do not suggest effects that can only generate joules or kilojoules
>per mole, when the energy levels are in the hundreds of megajoules per mole,
>with no known upper limit.
 
But we (who are trying to become well informed in the diverse aspects of
this phenomena) cannot know the magnitude of these effects until they are
mentioned and until we personally work through the math/physics/chemistry.
 
Every one of my posted scatter-brained ideas is intended to convey the
implicity 10 foot high lettered phrase -- "What if..."  I can't speak for
anyone else, but I believe that on this forum, "what if's" are more
common than not.  We question, we learn, we forget, we relearn etc.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John Logajan /  Re: ortho and para hydrogen
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ortho and para hydrogen
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 02:55:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>It recommends that a catalytic conversion to para should be done to
>prevent later natural conversion to para -- which is EXOTHERMIC and
>will cause excess boil off and loss of hydrogen.
 
They further say that the heat of conversion is about 700J (per mole
I assume) while the heat of vaporization is about 450J (again per mole
I assume.)
 
So you can see it would cause trouble as a boil off source of energy,
but it is a small amount in CF apparatus.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 03:16:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
>       NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
>
>Inventor: Ludwig Plutonium (legal name as of /8/8/91), previous name Ludwig
> van Ludvig
 
You really should have changed your name to Mr. Neutron.  :-)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist -- one of my favorite episodes of Monty Python.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Dieter Britz /  Heat transfer coefficient
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat transfer coefficient
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:59:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dick Blue and others ask about the temperature dependence of F&P's heat
transfer coefficient. If you look at their recent paper, and at FPALH-90, you
will note that they do indeed claim almost purely radiative heat transfer,
across the major resistance, the vacuum gap, as Dick says it must be. They say
so. Their equations describing heat losses all have this term k'(R) times
temperature terms to the fourth power. Fleischmann is a scientist, and when he
writes an equation, I tend to trust it; i.e. this coefficient is probably
constant over a large temperature range, since temperature itself is part of
the equation. Noone is trying to say that heat flux is constant with
temperature; far from it. The approximation they make is to assume that
radiation is the major pathway for heat, as Dick also says.
 
If the recent paper stopped at about 160000 s, I would be impressed by the
modest 10W/cm^3 or about 30% - not bad, and well above their stated error of
about 0.2%, or even the more normal error of 3-5%. Noone has yet faulted their
calculation (as far as anyone can follow it) and they may indeed have a real
phenomenon here, whatever it may be. Where they leave me baffled and full of
skepticism is from the time the cell starts to boil dry. I note that in the
rebuttal that Mallove and Swartz typed out for us recently (FD 1274), F&P
cogently defend their results up to, but not including, this phase. This part
of their results defies analysis or criticism; you have to take it on trust,
or not. If you make that leap of faith, you believe in a hitherto unknown
nuclear reaction. There is no other way, there cannot be a conventional
explanation for an effect of this magnitude. If you, like me, are worried
about the several things wrong with the description of this phase and thus do
not make that leap, you have the problem of why F&P make such a claim. I have
no answer to this. None of the subtle effects suggested, such as the cigarette
lighter or J-T effects, or neglect of some recombination can come close to an
explanation, even were they to be appropriate in any case.
 
What are the problems? Tom Droege has pointed out the main one, why the
temperature should stay close to 100 C when there is no longer an equilibrium
between liquid and vapour (the cell being "dry"). And if it does remain at 100
C, why does the Kel-F melt at some 300 C? Does this imply strong temperature
gradients in the cell? Then it is NOT true that heat is being efficiently
moved about inside the cell. If, as is being suggested, there is condensation
in the cell (the paper does not mention this), then this implies a heat
conduction path, not accounted for in the equations, i.e. a heat leak through
the top of the cell, said to be negligible by F&P. The 2 kW/cm^3 presumably
comes from the tiny Pd cathode; this would get awfully hot and, I reckon,
would melt. Does it? No mention of this. But it does melt a bit of Kel-F at
some distance, so I feel I must be right here. Lastly, as an electrochemist, I
ask how you can have a current flowing in a dry cell. Until I see a cell doing
what F&P claim with my own eyes, or see that they are selling reactor modules,
I will remain a skeptic of these levels of excess heat.
 
Now, where did I put my sheepskin jacket?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Loren Petrich /  Re: Deiter takes the neutron bait?
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deiter takes the neutron bait?
Date: 19 Aug 1993 00:14:54 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <9308181354.AA14974@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>I thought Deiter would know better than to suggest that free neutrons
>are involved CF reactions.
 
        That's what is expected from standard nuclear-physics
theories. Here are the reactions:
 
        D + D -> T + p
        D + D -> He3 + n
        [these two are of nearly equal strength]
        D + D -> He4 + gamma
        [heavily suppressed: 10^-8 or so]
 
        D + T -> He4 + n
        D + He3 -> He4 + p
 
        So unless there is an abundance of He3, neutrons are
inevitable. And please don't tell us now that the whole
nuclear-physics community is nothing but a big herd of orthodox oxen. :-)
 
... Mitchell Swartz has assured us repeatedly
>that the process is neutronpen...., what ever that word is.
 
        Irrelevant jargon.
 
... From what
>I could extract from the abstract of Hagelstein's latest effort, he is
>trying to work magic with neutrons having given up on 4He.
 
        I'm not surprised :-)
 
... Regardless
>of what nonsense may lead one to think there are neutrons being transfered
>from deuterons to somewhere else in the system there are some very
>tough problems involved in selling that approach.  One is that it is
>very hard to keep them suckers in the Pd.  They will leak out and get
>detected.
 
        Especially if they have kinetic energies of about a MeV or so.
 
... Second having produced free neutrons still doesn't account
>for any excess enthalpy.
 
        Chemical reactions can.
 
... Something else has to happen, and my first
>guess would be capture in the Pd which is good for nominally 6 MeV
>of energy release, but in what form?
 
        Nuclei have sizes of about (1 fermi)*A^(1/3); a Pd nucleus
would be about 5 fermis across. However, atomic nuclei are separated
by the atoms they reside in by distances on the order of 10^5 fermi [1
fermi = 10^-13 cm]. So one has a 10^-9 probability of running into the
next Pd nucleus at the next atom, which implies that a neutron will
travel about 10 cm before striking a Pd nucleus. And the neutron may
be scattered instead of absorbed, so tough luck.
 
... I say some of it will just have
>to be gamma rays characteristic of cascades in the nuclei formed.
>How do you make gamma rays disappear.  If anyone mentions coherence
>I will reply Bull ...!  The Pd lattice consists of a very random
>arrangement of various isotopes, each one with a different set of
>gamma ray energies.
 
        I agree.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 02:45:22 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <CBwGo0.HF5@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>     For the nucleus of D+ we don't need to transition to a more
>>     localized state to localize it on the scale we're considering
>>     (lattice spacing size).  It's already localized quite nicely.
 
>   I also cannot emphasize strongly enough in discussions about
>   'delocalizing' reaction products of D-D fusions in putative
>   'cold-fusion' reactions, that *before* discussing this any further
>   someone who wants to make the 'delocalization' argument
>   should determine exactly how many nuclei one must involve
>   without sending portion of the lattice screaming through
>   the rest of the lattice.  You've got over 23 MeV to play with
>   for this one candidate reaction.
 
The energy distribution question in a delocalized state is quite
different.  If I may note it a Bose Bloch condensate and thus has some
properties that simple 'delocaliztion' does not describe.  Although
the band state is delocalized, in a system of bosons this should make
the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state. It's
this fact of the Bose-Einstein quantum statistics that does two
'miracles' as you like to call em.  It forces the reaction to He4 for
energy minimalization, and distributes energy by the same reasoning.
Another point that hasn't been stressed but would play a role in
the energy distribution question is the delocalized D+ band has
a pion exchange force (from a gauge point of view) that could distribute
large energies without interacting electromagnetically. (Ie. the
energy is distributed strongly to N_Bose units via the band state
quantum mechanics).
 
>   Look at the 'delocalization' required and then compare it
>   with the lattice spacing if not to the much much smaller
>   nuclear size.  Depending on what you're willing to let your
>   lattice do (I suggest not letting any bonds break), you'll
>   see that you have one heap-um big problem.
 
I see.  Your suggestion would be to create a lattice structure
approaching nuclear dimensions, before such a band system would
interact strongly. (A strong band so to speak).  I think we all
agree it would, and perhaps it would have some interesting applications
in neutron star materials.
 
  Still I don't think you are seeing the problem in the right way.
Sure we have a lattice far larger than nuclear dimensions, but
the range of the strong force can extend as much 1E-13m as seen
by scattering.  That's what(?), 0.2E-3 Angsrtroms of a lattice
spacing?  In a lattice spacing of aprox 1.7 for tetrahedral-octahedral
occupation sites in beta-phase Pd, that gives a good spacial probability
for interaction at focused beam point of high energies D+ of similar
dimensions. Delocalization simply increases the spacial expance in
time t, and decreases the probability of interaction by a focused beam.
Within a multi-body system of several delocalized particles the same
focused beam will see the probability of interaction increase.  Why?
Because there is a wave component to these particles that allows them
to be overlapped spacially.  If it interacts with the beam at a
higher probability then why should it not in the delocalized state?
 
>                        dale bass
 
If electromagnetic interaction are described by the exchange of
photons, then perhaps the strong force corrilary should be called
pionogluonics ;-)
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 13:18:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my questioning the basic underpinnings of simple conduction
calorimetry, John Logajon says one *ought* to be able to pulse a dummy
heat and thus establish the dynamic reaction of the calorimeter.  Like
so many other checks, cross checks, and calibrations of the instruments
employed in CF experiments there may be a difference between what one
ought to be able to do and what has actually been done.  My general
impression is that when CF advocates refer to 100's or 1000's of
positive results the vast majority of the results were obtained in
experiments that involved very little by way of checks and calibrations.
Even when you narrow the field to a few key results how much do we
really know about calibrations with pulsed sources for example?
Clearly Jed Rothwell, a strong advocate of simple calorimetry, took
the experimental technique on faith without given any consideration to
how such a device will respond to rapidly varying heat inputs.
 
As for the significance of heat capacity transients,  I don't really
question John's estimates indicating the effects to be unimportant.
I was really just providing a bit of information.  However, I am not
so sure that the overall issue of latent heats should be brushed
aside.  In particular in a climate where it is generally thought that
major revisions in our thinking about nuclear reaction processes will
be required to explain CF, why isn't it equally valid to suggest
that the chemistry of the PdD system may have some big surprizes
that can trap experimentalists using techniques that don't work
as they assume they will?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John Logajan /  Re: ortho and para hydrogen
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ortho and para hydrogen
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 12:29:49 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>    For hydrogen, it's about 520 J/g below 75K, but it's only about about
>    25 J/g at 300K
 
Hmm, why does it vary with temperature?  Do H2 molecules get bigger as they
get warmer?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 827 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 827 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 13:33:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
[well hidden inside the sheep skin]
a small harvest from the latest Chem. Abstr. scan. The Japanese team get
fracto-results from the crushing of LiNbO3, chosen for its high piezoelectric
strain constant and low dilectric constant, with D2 gas providing the source
of deuterons to zoom around. I am never sure about channel numbers in neutron
spectra and I don't understand why the excess neutrons are seen at an energy,
if I have this right, of 0 - 800 keV, but maybe someone can enlighten me.
I.e., there is a bump, totalling 35 or so neutrons, from the channels below
channel 1600, and the Figure says that 1400 corresponds to 760 keV thermalised
neutrons. Is neutron energy linear with channel number? Is the relation the
same in all set-ups? Some info here, please, from one of you experts. Anyway,
they get no results with the customary Russian material, Ti in D2O, nor with
Pd in D2O, but 34.8 neutrons is a clear excess, it seems. The numbers are:
background, 91.2 neutrons, crushing runs, 126. Confidence limits: 99.95%.
 
The Gentsch patent gives no great detail but is clearly based on the paper by
the same person, in Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. 95 (1991) 1283, already in the
bibliography. This shows an ion gun along the axis of the tube, and the
evacuated space gets filled with D2 gas diffusing out of the tube, having
crossed the tube wall from the electrolyte. This gas is ionised by the gun and
the deuterons are accelerated towards the tube wall, which is the target. So
this is plainly a self targeting setup and of doubtful value in terms of
energy gain. Gentsch will not get rich from this one.
 
[Sheep's clothes open a crack, revealing sharp teeth. A brief howl, and lopes
off, looking back once with evil grin].
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 20-Aug-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 827
 
 
Journal articles: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shirakawa T, Chiba M, Fujii M, Sueki K, Miyamoto S, Nakamitu Y, Toriumi H,
Uehara T, Miura H, Watanabe T, Fukushima K, Hirose T, Seimiya T, Nakahara H;
Chem. Lett. (1993) 897.
"A neutron emission from lithium niobate fracture".
** When an ionic crystal is crushed, fracture separates charges on the new
surfaces, leading to high fields, which may accelerate deuterons if present.
Here, rather than wait for cracking, the team crushed single crystals of
lithium niobate in a vibromill in the presence of D2 gas, and monitored the
neutrons emitted with a ring of 10 3He proportional counters, a paraffin block
thermalising the neutrons; efficiency 2.6%. This was carried out at an
underground, low cosmic background location (100 m water depth equivalent, 7.6
neutrons/h during 132 h). Crushing was maintained for 1 h at a time. 12 such
runs were summed, and the neutron spectrum in excess over the background is
shown. It is close to zero in the region of channels >1600, but in clear
excess (34.8 neutrons) in the region below this. The Fig. states that channel
1400 lies at 760 keV thermalised neutrons. There was no observable effect of
D2 pressure (1.1 to 101 kPa), nor of the addition of LiD. No excess neutrons
were found when Ti or Pd metal was crushed under D2O, to emulate the Russian
work (Klyuev et al), which is thus not confirmed.                Feb-93/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patents: file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gentsch H;                                Ger. Offen. DE 4,130,276, 12-Sep-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 119(6):58135 (1993).
"Electrode system for deuterium fusion in solid and for fuel supply by
electrolysis".
** "The title system comprises a Pd alloy membrane tube sepg. a vacuum chamber
and an electrolysis cell. An ion gun is placed inside the membrane tube where
the tube has a pos. potential and also serves as the cathode. The cathode is
placed in D2O as electrolyte. The ion gun produces d beams with high energy up
to 27 keV. There is significant diffusion of D in the Pd alloy reaching a high
d". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat transfer coefficient
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat transfer coefficient
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 13:17:33 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>This part of their results defies analysis or criticism; you have to take
>it on trust, or not.
 
That's the philosophical difference between a reported observation and a
proposed theory.  Unless we are prepared to reproduce all experimental
results for our own eyes to see, we ultimately have to trust someone
elses eyes.
 
>And if it does remain at 100 C
 
I missed this the first go-round.  What stays at 100C?  The thermistor?
Where is is placed?  Is it on the cell wall?  Hanging in the breeze?
On the Pd electrode?
 
>why does the Kel-F melt at some 300 C? Does this imply strong temperature
>gradients in the cell? Then it is NOT true that heat is being efficiently
>moved about inside the cell.  If, as is being suggested, there is condensation
>in the cell (the paper does not mention this), then this implies a heat
>conduction path, not accounted for in the equations, i.e. a heat leak through
>the top of the cell, said to be negligible by F&P.
 
As to condensation, Jed seems to be claiming this as a bit of inside
information, if I read him right.  I also don't understand your comment
about a lack of conduction path.  Wouldn't the cell wall still be thermally
coupled to the outside?  I thought the electrolyte boiled away, not the
water (or whatever) cooling jacket.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Deconstructing Rothwell
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deconstructing Rothwell
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:19:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed takes Gary Taubes to task for jumping to unwarrented conclusions
about what Huggins did or did not do in his initial experiments.  I
don't intend to defend Taubes, but it is fun to point out that most
of what Jed writes is itself a flight of fancy with no connection
to established fact.  In the context of Taube's remarks as Jed presents
them, I believe the discussion centers on two experiments in which
a cell containing H2O is connected in series with a cell containing D2O
in the belief that any observed differences in temperature had to relate
to the nuclear differences between a cell producing CF excess heat and
ordinary water as a blank.  I seem to recall several other experiments
in which erroneous assumptions were made as to how well H2O serves as
a blank so I don't believe that it is safe for Jed assume that all
CF experimenters are smart enough to avoid errors as he suggests they
all will.  What do we really know about Huggin's initial experiments
when the key point, as I recall was that he ran two cells in series and
reported a temperature difference?  I did read a first hand account
that asserted that there was an extended period following Huggin's
initial experiments in which the results could not be reproduced.
 
As for Jed's assertion that Chuck Harrison's model of recycling
water vapor explaining correctly the "miracle" of a constant 100 C
being maintained for an extended period in PF cells that have just
boiled dry,  I don't buy it!  No magic 5 mm vent hole explains it
either.  I think Jed should take note that Pons and Fleischmann
have refrained from explaining it themselves.  I think they are
ducking for cover on this one.
 
I hope all those schooled in physical chemistry will correct me if
I am wrong, but my understanding is that in the presence of a heat
source water vapor can be heated above 100 C just as any other gas.
The constant 100 C observed in boiling water is the result of the
latent heat involved in the liquid-vapor transition.  To assert that
the vapor remains at 100 C makes sense only if there is no heat
source other than that in contact with the water which is thus pinned
at 100 C.  This requirement is in clear contradiction with the
statement, repeated in the recent letter posted here, that something
in the bottom of the cell reaches a temperature in excess of 300 C
in exactly the same time period that the thermister continues to
read 100 C.  I invite Jed and Chuck to explain how something gets
to 300 C temperature in the presence of water vapor at 100 C.
 
I also do not have a clear picture of how a passive device like
the 5 mm vent hole can explain the dynamics that Jed has proposed.
Are we to assume that there is a transition from rapid boil off
with vapor escaping through this vent at a rapid rate and then a
gentle recycling with all vapor remaining withing the cell.  This
can be the case only if (a)there is a dramatic drop in the rate of
enthalpy production or (b)a dramatic change in the way heat is
conducted from the cell.  In particular I believe that Chuck's
model requires that the thermistor probe itself be a heat sink
when in fact we know that thermistors are heat sources!
 
I would suggest that the only model than can account for any
water remaining is one in which there is a dramatic drop in
the rate of production of enthalpy just at the point that the
cell boils "dry" and the electrical circuit opens.  Some transient
event associated with the breaking of the circuit accounts for
the melting of the insulators.  If a significant ammount of
water remains within the cell after it is declared "dry", that
fact in itself is proof that the heat source switched off.
If you prefer to think some water remains to thermostat the
cell, you have to accept the idea that the turn off of electric
power shuts down the boiling, i.e. there is no continuation
of the CF reaction as Pons and Fleischmann suggest.   There are
good reasons why P&F now admit that nothing quantitative can
be learned from the boiling phase of their experiments.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Jed Rothwell /  It is *already* over the limit
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It is *already* over the limit
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 16:33:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz misses the point here:
 
"If the recent paper stopped at about 160000 s, I would be impressed by the
modest 10W/cm^3 or about 30% - not bad, and well above their stated error of
about 0.2%, or even the more normal error of 3-5%. Noone has yet faulted their
calculation (as far as anyone can follow it) and they may indeed have a real
phenomenon here, whatever it may be. Where they leave me baffled and full of
skepticism is from the time the cell starts to boil dry..."
 
Back up guy, and add up how many joules come out of the system *before*
160000 s. It is already far, far over the limits of chemistry. The 10W/cm^3
(power) has nothing to do with it. Look at the total integrated energy that
has comes out before the high heat event: joules per cubic centimeter (or mole,
gram, or whatever).
 
The low level, 30% excess is not very useful from a technological point of view
but it is perfect scientific proof that the CF effect is not chemical.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Jed Rothwell /  The 5 mm vent
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The 5 mm vent
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:16:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Tom Droege asks:
 
"Jed Rothwell has posted that the vent in the top of the P&F cell is 5 mm dia.
Jed, what is the source of this?  I have studied the Physics Letters A paper
and can find not details of this vent."
 
It is shown in Fig 2, labeled "GAS OUTLET." It does not list the exact size,
but it obviously quite small, and since you know the size of the test tube
you can approximate it, or you can do what I did, and ask.
 
The small size of the vent shown in the diagram intrigued me. I asked around
and one my friends described working with similar test tubes with very small
vents. I described the "Harrison" effect, and he immediately said that it was
essentially correct. Let me point out thought, that a bit of confusion has
crept into the discussion here. I think someone said that I proposed this as
the mechanism by which heat is removed from the cell. This is incorrect! I
don't see how it can remove any heat, unless the vapor gets out. I said the
vapor keeps the temperature stable at 100 C. That's all it does as far as I
know. The heat gets out the same way it did when the cell is filled with water:
by radiation through the unsilvered lower portion.
 
Two other minor points:
 
The vapor swirles around rapidly, which ensures an even distribution of heat,
which is not the same thing as a stable temperature.
 
Someone here pointed out that vapor is a good conductor. I didn't know that,
but it seems intuitively true, based on what I observe in saunas.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Help!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help!
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:16:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Does anyone have a copy of the nice long tretise on heat pipes put up here
about 17 August by Robert Eachus?  Please forward it if you do.  I am
prepared to get 43 copies.  I would really like to study it this weekend,
and no one seems able to find it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Ortho/Para and Catalyst
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ortho/Para and Catalyst
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:16:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan points out that para to ortho conversion releases heat.
 
That is where the catalyst that I am using came from.  It seems someone at
Fermilab had the idea that oxygen could be removed from the Deuterium filled
bubble chamber by pumping it through catalyst.  So many years befor Cold Fusion
they bought a batch of this catalyst and set up operation.  They soon found
that (have it wrong above) the ortho to para conversion released so much heat
that the refrigerator could not keep up.  Thus the catalyst sat in a bag
under Jim Kilmer's desk until I needed it for my experiments.  Too bad that
at the time I only got a Dixie Cup full from a big bag.  The Tigers came and
made us throw away everything that we were not actively using.  They got to
the bag before I could.  Now I will have to buy more at $400 a pound (minimum
order).
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Eachus heat pipe notes.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eachus heat pipe notes.
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 19:19:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Scott Hazen Mueller.  He wrestled some daemon who had Robert
Eachus's note on heat pipes and sent it on to me.  I am now off to buy
some gin so I can test the ideas.  There is a huge difference between starting
an effort like this from scratch, and starting with a few tips from an expert.
Again, this media is great!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / John George /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: johnge@Autodesk.COM (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: 20 Aug 93 15:26:27 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

While much evil has been done in the name of religion, it is reverse bigotry
to make statements such as made by Mr. Taubes.
 
Religion is not always a negative indicator for science, just for politics.
 
                             THX     JLG
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Tired, repeated lies
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tired, repeated lies
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 19:32:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Richard Blue responded somewhere with some comments about
calorimetery. His message is lost in the vacation shuffle here. If I ever find
it (or if someone sends me a copy) I will respond. I saw a fragment of it,
where he claims for the 14 millionth time that McKubre is only getting about
2% excess. This is such a pathetic, stupid, transparent, idiotic lie that I
don't know why he even bothers to repeat it. For the record, 2% is an
*average* over the entire experiment that someone quoted years ago. The
correct numbers are:
 
     "For the thermodynamically closed and intentionally isothermal systems
     described here, output power was observed to be as much as 28% in excess
     of electrochemical input power or 24% above the known total input power.
     When excess power was present, it was more typically in the range of 5 -
     10%, in a calorimeter that was accurate to +/- 0.1%."
 
     p. 442, "Proceedings of the II Annual Conference On Cold Fusion,"
     (1991), "Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System.
 
Richard is playing the oldest con game in the world, pretending that an
abstract average is a real world number. This is exactly like saying that my
car moves through traffic at only 4 miles per hour, because I only go 6 miles
every day. Nope. The car goes at 30 miles per hour when it moves, but most of
the day it just sits.
 
Richard is not fooling anyone with crap like this, except maybe himself.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Observations versus opinion
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Observations versus opinion
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 20:13:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue writes:
 
"As for Jed's assertion that Chuck Harrison's model of recycling water vapor
explaining correctly the 'miracle' of a constant 100 C being maintained for
an extended period in PF cells that have just boiled dry,  I don't buy it!"
 
Okay, Richard: do the experiment and report back. Chuck did it, and found it
worked. My other friend (who would not want his name here) did it, and found
it worked. You go ahead and make your own observations, then tell us what you
find. We are not talking about "models" here, we are talking about
experimentally observed facts.
 
I suppose the reason the temperature of the vapor remains at 100 C is because
it is at one atmosphere in a cell with enough cooling capacity to condense
it in some locations (but not right next heat source). Obviously, next to the
heat source the temperature will be far higher than 100 C, just as it is with
water in there. The diagram shows the thermistor above and to the side of the
cathode. If you pressurized the cell, or raised the heat source temperature
enough, I guess the vapor could go up to any temperature. That's what I think,
but I don't have to have a reason or any understanding. I am reporting
experimentally observed facts, I don't need a theoretical basis in order to be
certain they are true. Furthermore, no opinion, and no theory from Richard or
anyone else on earth can invalidate these facts. Whether he understands why or
not, the temperature does remain at 100 C in this kind of system.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re: reply to Richard Shultz's [sic] obfuscation
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's [sic] obfuscation
Date: 19 Aug 1993 16:03:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

If I am going to be immortalized as the title of a discussion that no
longer has anything to do with me, could you guys at least spell my
name correctly?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
                                                 ^
                                                 |
                                                N.B.
 
P.S.  I realize that the original misspelling was Mitchell Swartz's and he
is far too busy with science and engineering to be bothered.  Although one
wonders when (if) he will ever answer my three simple questions about
Miles's experiment.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Surprises
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Surprises
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 23:50:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says:  " ... why isn't it equally valid to suggest that the
chemistry of the PdD system may have some big surprizes that can trap
experimentalists using techniques that don't work as they assume they will?"
 
As you say Dick "simple calorimetry isn't simple."
 
The only way I can explain some of the recent data is to assume some
complex chemistry or thermodynamics.  Not necessarily new, but likely
unexpected.  In any case, I see things that would look to P&F like "anomalous
heat" because they involve large cell temperature excursions.  But to me
because I have a calorimeter in a calorimeter they just look strange.  One
calorimeter sees what could be interpreted as a big heat pulse.  The second
calorimeter which contains the first sees nothing.  But now we get to do it
all over again, with better instrumentation.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Why Wonder, Josh?
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Wonder, Josh?
Date: 20 Aug 1993 00:22:22 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>The errors described by Taubes, specifically, the ones in the work of Bockris
>and Huggins never happened. Taubes made them up out of whole cloth. They are
>lies.
 
Ah, the ultimate weapon!  You can not prove North Dakota exists.  Most
people who say it exists have never been there.  Those who say they have
speak lies.  Pictures are forged; maps are wrong.  etc.
 
To give everyone any idea of the sorts of errors Taubes describes, here is
a quote from page 322 of BAD SCIENCE.  The scene is an on-site visit of the
Bockris lab by the DOE panel:
 
    When Happer inspected the apparatus closely, he found that all the
    wires were very loosely connected with claps and alligator clips.
    He noticed, as did Schiffer, that if he touched one of the alligator
    clips, the needle on the chart paper recording the cell temperature
    jumped up a few degrees.  If he did so again, the needle jumped down
    a few degrees.  So a simple touch could induce the calorimeter to
    record an effect equivalent to what Bockris had reported as excess heat.
 
    "It was clear to me," Happer said, "that I could get any answer I
    wanted by the accident of how I left [the wires and connections] the
    last time I touched [them].  So we asked [Omo Velev, who was doing
    the calorimetry], `Could you show us how you put additional water
    the here?'  So he gets the syringe, and he sticks the water in, and
    he could not do it without brushing the wires.  Sure enough, as soon
    as he took the syringe out there was a jump on the chart paper, about
    the same order of magnitude of the effect they were seeing."
 
Notice that Taubes quotes Happer extensively, and also refers to Schiffer,
who was interviewed for the book.
 
Meanwhile, over in the P&F lab (page 305-306 of BAD SCIENCE):
 
    Happer observed that Pons had calibration heaters in each of his
    cells, but seven of the heaters had never been connected to power
    supplies, which implied that the cells had never been calibrated.
    ... Pons also showed the panel member his new computer system
    and demonstrated how the computer was taking data on eight cells
    at once.  It looked like a Potemkin laboratory.  "You have these
    things allegedly taking data," Happer said, "but it was clear that
    only one of them could have ever been calibrated."
 
There was more of the same at Huggin's lab as well, but I'm too tired
to type all that in now. Maybe later.
 
>For example, Taubes repeats an absurd vicious innuendo that Huggins
>forgot to measure voltage. Check the paper...
 
What Taubes actually wrote, to quote page 339 of BAD SCIENCE, is
 
``Larry Faulkner recalled that the Stanford experiment was susceptible
  to AC pwoer fluctuations.  The [Huggins] researchers measured the
  direct current power going to the cell but did not take info account
  the alternating component of the voltage.  These could result in
  errors of the size of their excess heat effects, ''
 
Note that I've pointed this out before, in posting with Message-ID:
<2491l0$fp6@athena.veritas.com>.  So far, Jed has not replied to that
posting.  I wonder if he'll reply to this posting?
 
>Everything in the Taubes book is based upon conversations with "skeptics"
>who know nothing about the work, and who have not read the papers.
 
Are all of the following people "skeptics"?  The were all interviewed by
Taubes: Hawkins (a P&F grad student), Martin, Huggins, Hoffman, Storms,
Walling, Gur (a Huggins grad student), Bockris, Packham (a Bockris grad
student), Miles, and so on....
 
I think that one of Taubes advantages over previous authors, is that he
has talked to grad students, as well as profs.  It is another of the
methods which gives him extra information, which we have not previously
seen.
 
Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: It is *already* over the limit
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It is *already* over the limit
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 21:50:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930820161932_72240.1256_EHK39-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> Back up guy, and add up how many joules come out of the system *before*
> 160000 s. It is already far, far over the limits of chemistry.
 
What happens when the excess heat exceeds the limits
of *nuclear reactions* as well? Presumably it will, if
it is all an artifact.
 
(Of course, some would argue it already has, since they can't
find any nuclear ashes.)
 
--
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 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / L Plutonium /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 23:17:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

        Special note to the reader of the future: Although I have
recalibrated
the calendar giving it a scientific basis by starting the year ////
with the year of the discovery of the element plutonium via
nucleosynthesis, that year was 194/ in the old calendar. I choose not
to use the new science calendar within this patent application for it
may tend to confuse and put an extra burden on the patent examination.
Using a science calendar, then the year of the Plutonium Atom Totality
discovery is //5/ vice 199/ and the first year of this patent
application for Neutron Materialization Devices was //51 vice 1991. I
apologize to those future generations in having to read the un-science
of my generation, but they can well understand that Ludwig Plutonium
lived in a time when the average person could not give a single math
proof nor write out Maxwell's equations. Future generations can
understand that Ludwig Plutonium by //53 lived when sentiment and
religion, vice math and physics dominated the planet Earth. Future
generations will convert all the years to this new science calendar.
        P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization
of
particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics 1975 on
pages 76-78.  His book states, and I quote:
"Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large
dimensionless numbers should be connected together.  We should then
expect that
                total mass /proton mass =  1/ 78 proportional time 2
Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the
total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to
time 2.  Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a
continuous creation of matter." (Continued.)
        "According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study
in the
laboratory, matter is conserved.  Here we have direct nonconservation
of matter.  It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for
which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are
created where they did not previously exist. (Continued.)
        If there is new matter continually being created, the question
arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make.  One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space.  I call this the assumption of additive
creation.
        Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is
created close by where matter already exists.  That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there.  This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up.  I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation."
        Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of
nowhere
can occur either additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed particle
materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and
that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and
multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by
late199/ that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction was I
did not discover until 1991. Shortly thereafter submitting the patent
application.
        PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION.
        (1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION.  The conventional physics community
is in
agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was
theoretically proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 194/'s. Then
Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion. These observations have now passed into physics facts, unlike
electrochemical test tube cold fusion which is presently hotly
contested and not yet established as fact.
        Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my
theoretical
understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in muon
catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about
after several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium,
there theoretical thinking is wrong.  What is really going on are
several quantum steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
        Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing
electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or running
a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It is the
muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the changing  i.
Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As important as in the
laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's law of induction a
changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's law of induction
as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or current are
required.
        Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its
own variable VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a muon
is a variable electric current within the muatom. Hence when there are
muons in any particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those
muons will induce spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of
nowhere resulting in a net energy to the whole system.
        (2)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by
NASA's
Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons.
Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no
stellar objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no stellar objects produce
these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
energetic protons, and energetic electrons.
        Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency
of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton, electron,
neutrino system yielding the observed gamma rays.      The uniformity
of
cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because spontaneous neutron
materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as the uniform process
of the  Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The uniformity
explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom
Totality. That our observable universe is just the 94th electron, the
last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231, which acts as a
quantum cavity, a quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily get too
far afield by explaining why the Cosmic Background Radiation is
relentlessly uniform with a blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the
night sky is dark because it is a quantum blackbody cavity. Why the
speeds of stars are quantized, because the stars are inside a quantum
blackbody cavity-- the last electron of 231Pu. But instead I refer the
interested reader to my textbook, Encl 4.
        It is noted here that the uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts
were
discovered after I had submitted my patent application in July of 1991.
It is seen that as time goes on, supporting evidence for spontaneous
neutron materialization increases.
        (3) The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth
and K.
Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M. Fleischmannn
and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989.  But what I have new to tell the
world is that it is not a fusion process. It is radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization. Noone before me in the history of the world
has ever proposed that neutrons come into existence spontaneously,
induced through a changing electric current i or induced by a changing
electric potential V. Previous to my art, the cold fusion experiments
were conducted under false theory, hence their experiments turned out
unpredictable.
        The History of Electrochemical Cold Fusion is one in which none
of the
pioneers realized the correct theory-- that neutrons spontaneously
materialize, and materialize more often when induced by means of a
changing electric current i or a changing electric potential V. I claim
to know better how both electrochemical cold fusion and hot fusion
work.
        Cold Fusion, test tube experiments were reported by
Fleischmannn &
Pons et al, 1989. The current community of physics professors are
mostly virulently opposed to the claims of cold fusion.  That community
holds little credence in cold fusion. But it is a fact that there are
many corporate funded research programs ongoing into cold fusion, to
name a few, GE fusion research, NTT researchers, and Fleischmann & Pons
laboratory in France.
        I contend the better part of wisdom would hold that there is
something
going on in these electrochemical cold fusion experiments.  That there
is something going on in these experiments of cold fusion is what I
assert is rsnm.  And if the experimenters would switch fuel masses from
heavy water and palladium to that of a better fuel mass of hydrogen or
a mixture of hydrogen isotopes applying either changing i or changing
V, then rsnm will be seen with predictable results.
        I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the view
of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process of
fusing atoms, not fusion. Then the experiments will become clear and
the results predictable.
        Yet the current physics community will continue to teach
falsehoods
for it is a highly conservative community, slow to change their
thinking, even though the evidence builds up against them. I make these
remarks to lead into the conservation of energy-mass. It is a known
fact of physics from experiment results that the conservation of
energy-mass is violated by virtual particles via the Uncertainty
Principle in QED. And as of the present time the physics community is
highly opposed to DiracUs suggestion in his book Directions in Physics
 that the conservation of energy-mass is a falsehood. But it is
reasonable expected behavior of the physics community, for most people
follow the crowd majority rather than follow the minority who have hard
evidence. I refer to the scientific case of Aristarchus over 22// years
ago who asserted the heliocentric system from hard evidence of measured
observables. Sentiment and religion carried the falsehood of the
Ptolemy system for thousands of years. Conservation of energy-mass will
continue its popularity with professors of physics, since most people
feel better with the bandwagon science before they accept hard
evidence. It is predictable for a patent examiner to accept the
crowd-pleasing-majority, e.g., in D. Albagli et al plus D.E. Williams
et al where there are a total of 27 researchers, than to believe the
words of one single supergenius as myself, or such as the genius of
Dirac who gave evidence in his book that the conservation of
energy-mass is a falsehood. There are 27 political pork-barrel votes
for more moneys to spend on hot fusion as against my 1.
        (4) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System,
I
assert, is by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Earth is
growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
difficult to measure. The physics and astronomy community assigns this
known fact of the growing accretion of the Earth to only one account,
that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust,
and objects. I assert that Earth is growing more massive daily by two
accounts, one from the outer space planetary sweep, but more
importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the interior of
Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing
electric potential V inside Earth.     When astronomers try to
reconcile
the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from cosmic sweep
alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by
Earth is equal to the EarthUs accretion from outer space plus EarthUs
internal accretion by rsnm.  The outer space accretion is small in
comparison to the internal accretion.
        Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in the EarthUs center.
The Earth of the past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener's
Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
        The current conventional community of astronomers and
physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-1/ billion years
ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
conventional astronomy panders off.
        The present physics community believes that the daily mass
accretion
of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to
interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our
planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has
reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation
to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of
the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas
clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy.
Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect.
        The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and
again
I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of
the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are loci where large quantity of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e.,
a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer
the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
        (5) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The
planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the
94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is
where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it
exists there occurs rsnm.
        (6) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the
middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
previous to 199/, in that these elements should have escaped a long
time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the
explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since
rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some
hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium.
So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
elements from the middle of the Earth.
        (7) The case for the light chemical elements and their
anomalous
quantity found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium, and
boron are found in too large of a proportion in stars to be accountable
by fusion. For stars are so hot that these light elements would have
been burned-off and the theoretical rate of creation by hot fusion of
new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low to what is actually
observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion theory with
respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in
stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light
elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where the
light elements are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be
there, and where they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space,
there should be more of them there.
        The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once
radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working
process. In intergalactic space there is little to no changing electric
potential V or changing current flow i, and so there is little neutron
materialization to form these light elements. But in stars, it is not
so much that they are hot and burn off the light elements but that
stars continually create via neutron materialization these light
elements because of the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
        (8) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform distribution
of the
chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions that
they are observed is strong evidence in support for the process of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics
community explains the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds
as a result of supernovae. But supernova are rare events.
        (9) The observation that when electric current i flowing
through wires
or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot and
eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to the
high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And before these
teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc Z=3/
contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75 contaminated
light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten Z=74 in these
materials after running electric current in the materials. With rsnm it
is a direct consequence that a copper wire will have atoms of zinc, and
a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms of rhenium after running
a changing electric current i through, because there is radioactive
growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm.  Check chemical
analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by General Electric,
Philips, Siemens, et al.
        (1/) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun
is not
direct evidence of spontaneous neutron materialization, it is direct
evidence that the currently accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect.
Why is there a missing 2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing
count of neutrinos. The mistake the physics community makes is that the
4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong nuclear and
gravity are considered to the 1//% exclusion of radioactivities and
electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count accords with theory.
Vice versa, if radioactivities and electromagnetism are considered to
the 1//% exclusion of strong nuclear and gravity, then the actual
measured neutrino count accords with theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino
count from the Sun is indirect support for spontaneous neutron
materialization since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and
all stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions
(forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as
quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle states: The
wave and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary
for a complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed
simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is
determined by the nature of the experiment being done.  The 1/3 actual
count of neutrinos from the Sun accords well with theory once the
theory makes predictions from the use of either SN and G, excluding R
and EM, and vice versa.
        Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos
coming from
the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion
from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially
that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic
force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the
strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the radioactive
and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses
which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear and
gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetic
forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized when
all 4 forces are considered at once.
        (11) Patent 5,/76,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
Date: 20 Aug 93 15:00:57 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

August 20, 1993
 
May I cut in?  A few comments relevant to the ongoing debate between Richard
Schultz and Mitchell Swartz:
 
1. Richard asked Mitchell:  "Do you believe that [Miles] actually observed
X-rays or gamma rays from his cold fusion cells?"
 
To which Mitchell responded:  "It does not matter what I believe. What matters
is what that data in each experiment has shown, and has taught."
 
So no progress could be made.  But perhaps I can help get around Mitchell's
evident dodge by going back to Mitchell's posting of ca. 12 May 1993, in which
he cites two of Miles' papers and supports Miles' use of dental X-ray film,
concluding:  "These appear to be good papers"  and "X-ray films have been used
effectively."
 
2.  My point made repeatedly to Mitchell is that dental X-ray film does not
provide *compelling* proof of nuclear reactions in electrolytic cells.
Such films have been shown to be sensitive to mechanical pressure and, as
Bruce Dunn pointed out, even to humidity.  And they provide no information
regarding the X-ray energy.    Rather,
a sensitive X-ray spectrometer could provide such proof, *if* a characteristic
X-ray energy (and intensity) spectrum were produced.  This has *never* been
done in any CF experiment.  Again, as Schultz pointed out, the burden is on
those claiming X-ray production in CF experiments, such as Miles and I would
include Mitchell based on his earlier comments, to provide *compelling*
evidence.
 
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Aug20.144755.862@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Aug20.144755.862@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 93 15:01:24 -0600

cancel <1993Aug20.144755.862@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The 5 mm vent
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The 5 mm vent
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:19:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930820163802_72240.1256_EHK59-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>The small size of the vent shown in the diagram intrigued me. I asked around
>and one my friends described working with similar test tubes with very small
>vents. I described the "Harrison" effect, and he immediately said that it was
>essentially correct. Let me point out thought, that a bit of confusion has
>crept into the discussion here. I think someone said that I proposed this as
>the mechanism by which heat is removed from the cell. This is incorrect! I
>don't see how it can remove any heat, unless the vapor gets out.
 
      Jed.  Vapor was getting out in the 11 minutes during which the
      cell boiled 'dry'.  Why is it not getting out after that?
 
>Two other minor points:
>
>The vapor swirles around rapidly, which ensures an even distribution of heat,
>which is not the same thing as a stable temperature.
 
      Then you'll have to explain that to the cell, since it melted a
      piece of Kel-F.  Actually, maybe we have some New Physics here.
 
      I can see it now, 'Anomalous Melting of Kel-F at 100C in Pd-D Systems'
 
>Someone here pointed out that vapor is a good conductor. I didn't know that,
>but it seems intuitively true, based on what I observe in saunas.
 
      D2O vapour is a miserable heat conductor.
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Observations versus opinion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Observations versus opinion
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:23:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930820194123_72240.1256_EHK27-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Richard Blue writes:
>
>"As for Jed's assertion that Chuck Harrison's model of recycling water vapor
>explaining correctly the 'miracle' of a constant 100 C being maintained for
>an extended period in PF cells that have just boiled dry,  I don't buy it!"
>
>Okay, Richard: do the experiment and report back. Chuck did it, and found it
>worked. My other friend (who would not want his name here) did it, and found
>it worked.
 
    My recollection was that it reached something significantly less than 100C,
    and it didn't boil off in 11 minutes.
 
    He also did not have a heater sitting at 300K somewhere in the cell.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:38:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

        (11) Patent 5,/76,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for Enhancing
Alpha
Decay in Radioactive Materials .  This method is true in practice but
the theory outlined by W.A. Barker is false. The true theory behind
this invention is spontaneous neutron materialization which
transmutates some of the original atoms into other radioactive atoms
which then decay more quickly then what the original atom was, decay
into stable atoms. W.A. Barker is wrong when he asserts that rates of
radioactive decay are mutable and can be enhanced, and a better term
other than enhancing is alteration. Alteration of some of the original
atoms in a sample. An elementary physics text will confirm with me that
rates of radioactive decay are immutable:  PHYSICS OF THE ATOM  ,
1984,Wehr,Richards, Adair on page 366 states
"In showing that radioactive radiations came from uranium metal,
Becquerel worked with many uranium salts and the metal itself. He used
these materials crystallized, cast, and in solution. In every case it
appeared that the radiations were proportional to the concentration of
the uranium. It has been found that this proportionality between
radiation intensity and uranium concentration continues unchanged
through variations of temperature, electric and magnetic fields,
pressure, and chemical composition. Since the radioactive behavior of
uranium is independent of the environment of the uranium atom or its
electronic structure, which changes from compound to compound, the
radioactive properties of uranium were attributed to its nucleus."
Yet
W.A. Barker was able to receive a patent on an apparatus which in fact
does not work in theory. That there really is no way to enhance alpha
decay in radioactive materials, because radioactive decay is immutable.
What is really going on when an electrostatic potential is applied to
radioactive elements is spontaneous neutron materialization.
Spontaneous neutron materialization is the mechanism behind the
alteration of a chemical sample. And when the potential is varied, as
prescribed by my teachings, then rsnm increases and alteration
increases.
        I end evidences with the above 11. The worst difficulty in
verifying
my claim of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is in
overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and the dead weight inertia
of the current physics community at large. A physics community along
with a mathematics community is composed mainly of professors.
Professors of a subject are not the best persons in their field. The
best persons of a subject field are the geniuses of that field.
Professors only teach what the geniuses of the subject field have set
down. Geniuses of physics possess physics intuition, likewise for
mathematics. Professors of physics have little to no physics intuition
and follow a herdlike mentality. Professors of physics are good at
regurgitating physics and doing what they were designed to do, teach
the subject. But lacking physics intuition they can not create new
physics nor see what is correct or wrong with the current physics.
Whenever something new in physics comes up, the first instinct of a
physics professor is to remain with the bandwagon in opposition to the
new physics. Their physics career starts and ends with regurgitation,
never any important newly created ideas. In the case of physics, most
of the geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally, I
repeat that-- only incidentally, to that of doing their physics work.
Many of the greatest physicists were never even professors of physics
such as Kepler, Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, Poincare, P. Jordan when they
did their creative work. Only after it was obvious to the community of
physics professors that these men were not like themselves,
regurgitators of the subject, but true physicists, did the community
put forth the pretenses that they were good old professors all along,
or try to make them into their mold. There are more clear cut examples
in mathematics than physics.  The best two examples are the cases of
Ramanujan and Galois. The important point I am getting to is that the
community of physics professors is against cold fusion not because of
the experimental results shown to date, but more so out of sentiment,
out of ignorance, and most important out of the politics for more
government funds to continue with hot fusion and laser inertial
confinement fusion.  A professor of physics will stick to the old
physics like a goof ball sticks to glue. I make this statement in order
to prepare the reader long before I discuss violation of conservation
of energy-mass. When I discuss the violation of conservation of
energy-mass I feel myself in the same position as what Aristarchus was
in when he proposed the heliocentric system several thousands of years
ago. The majority of people are dumbfounded with new ideas even though
the evidence is plain as day and undeniable.
        Virtual particles out of nowhere is a form of violation of
conservation of energy-mass. The physics community overlooks that
violation of conservation of energy-mass by saying that it happens so
fast with such small particles. Why? Because so much of quantum theory
is counterintuitive in the first place that violation of classical
physics in the conservation of energy-mass is overlooked. As Feynman
warns in his book The Character of Physical Law  , 1965, concerning
quantum physics on page 129 words to the effect that many people
understand the theory of relativity, but noone understands quantum
theory. With my textbook of the atom totality saying that the
observable universe is just the 94th electron of plutonium, that the
Earth and Sun are just dots of the electron cloud of the probability
density distribution in the Schroedinger equation and with this patent
application, I am telling the world at large that I am the first person
in history to understand quantum physics. Why? Because quantum physics
is all about atoms and the reason it was so counterintuitive, so hard
to understand is because noone before me could see that the totality
itself was an atom, specifically 231 plutonium. Why plutonium? Because
all the special numbers from both physics and mathematics is a fall-out
of plutonium. In physics, for example the inverse fine structure
constant is 137 because 231 Pu has 137 neutrons. In mathematics, the
two most often used special numbers are pi and e. Why is pi close to
22/7 and e close to 19/7, because our Maker is plutonium and plutonium
has close to 22 subshells in 7 shells and close to 19 occupied
subshells at any one time in 7 shells. But all of this is already over
the heads of professors of physics and professors of mathematics. I
refer the reader to my revolutionary textbook mentioned.
        Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics  that
spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the
conservation of energy-mass.  But conservation violation is nothing
new, for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the conservation
of parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it was
experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were
not conserved. See 1964  Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus
inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation
multiply parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal symmetry
is violated. The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that if
time could run backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of
physics?
        My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present community
of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of growth is the
Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong. The
observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is only
the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is inside
a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The
Plutonium Atom Totality grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
        Thus it would not surprize me if the patent examiner sticks
with the
community of physics professors and the goof-ball conservation of
energy-mass. A supergenius such as Archimedes or myself have to show
the bandwagons, the huge flocks of birdbrain physics professors just
where and how far wrong they are.  Dirac is with me, see his Directions
in Physics, and Niels Bohr is with me for he was quick to violate the
conservation of energy-mass when he told Pauli in 1931 that
conservation of energy-mass is violated in connection with the
neutrino. That is the reason I am a supergenius because I go against
that huge community of physics professors, what Jonathan Swift would
call "the confederacy of dunces".  For when supergenius comes to Earth,
you can easily recognize it by one sign-- "There will be such a large
Confederacy of Dunces, all massed-up against him--" See my latest
publication in The Dartmouth 11May1993 page 7 discussing which of the
Nobel prizes in physics were wrong and which of the Fields prizes were
wrong.
        My textbook PLUTONIUM  ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF
PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS  7Nov9/, gives broader
discussion of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization and
quantum principles which are broadly relevant to this patent
application.  My textbook asserts a combined generalization of the
uncertainty principle,  complementary principle, exclusion principle,
and superposition principle in which it formulates spontaneous
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere occurs throughout the
observable universe both additive and multiplicative simultaneously.  I
bring-up my textbook because the idea and theory of radioactive neutron
materialization was discovered by me during the course of writing this
textbook in 199/.  This patent application is a direct result of my
theoretical physics thinking about the Plutonium Atom Totality. If it
were not for this discovery of the atom totality, and the textbook I
would have never discovered radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
        What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
        1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a
specific
number of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific count
of neutrons of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms and
the neutrons of those atoms before running a changing electric current
i or changing electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and
checking the count afterwards is extremely difficult and never exact.
        2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically
impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 1//% isotope of an element, whether stable or
radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure
hydrogen. It seems as if there is always contamination by other
isotopes. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in
all samples as being impure and never reaching 1//% purity. See reports
on GE striving to manufacture a 1//% pure carbon isotope diamond. In
theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 1//% purity is
another formulation of the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics.
        3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants are
hydrogen isotopes, but hydrogen isotopes are very explosive and
dangerous to work around when running either a changing electric
current i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through.
 
 
                DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
 
        There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong
Nuclear (SN)
(2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4) Electromagnetism
(EM).
        There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1)
Uncertainty
(UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli (PP).
 
         The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle
aspects
of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description.
However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single
experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of
the experiment being done.
        By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of
complementary
duals. This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle +
wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
        Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals.
Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
description. The other group is Radioactivities (R) and
Electromagnetism (EM), represented as R+EM = whole description.
        Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically measurable as
either
SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically
measurable as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G.
        Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement
from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our Sun
can be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This
complete description of R+EM must exclude all of SN+G.
        According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM =
whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the mathematical equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM.
        The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned
the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 1/-4/ . But, 1 +
1/-4/  is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G ;1
implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM ;1.
        Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of ./1, implies
that R
is .99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN.
        But according to FeynmanUs Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 1/-5. Since
relative coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than
radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form of
radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction law.
Since in hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2
protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system).
Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at 1.
        I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation
considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
        New Table for Elementary Interactions
        Coupling        Strength                Law
Photon to charged particles   ; ./1                 Law known
Gravity to all energy               ; 1/-4/           Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg    ; .99              Law known
Mesons to baryons                  ; 1   Law still unknown but more
rules                                                           known
        Compare my table with that of FeynmanUs Table given above.  The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. FeynmanUs of 1963
is this: radioactive decay                   ;1/ -5         Law
partially known .
        What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I
drastically
change FeynmanUs Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up to
1991. I change the art of physics through the application of quantum
principles.  An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it
exists in a probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is made.
If energylike property is measured, the atom behaves like energy, and
if a timelike property is measured, the atom behaves like time.
Whether the atom is energylike or timelike is not well defined until
the experimental conditions are specified. Bohr asserted that the
set-up of a device determines what is measured.  To measure mostly one
of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such
that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."
Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails
over  electromagnetism.
        The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about
1// to 1.
  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R
is about 1// to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence
in agreement with these numbers. Element 1// is at the limit of
statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
the relative coupling strength of SN to EM.  Spontaneous Fission
half-life instability rapidly increases with atomic number Z=99,
element 99, implying that SN is balanced by R+EM when Z=1//.
        Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions
in
Physics. .  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that
this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in
their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas obeying
laws of electromagnetism. I refer the reader to magnetohydrodynamics,
McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  Vol. 1/, 7th Ed. 1992
 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335.
        I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities
and
electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN
with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G
to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to
measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100%
all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then
mixing in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong.
Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct
once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong
nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion.  Hot fusion is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a neutron.
The reaction in the Sun is
                                P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino)  into  PN
                               PN + P  into
                                PNP+ gamma ray
                                PNP+ PNP into
                                NPNP+ P+ P + energy
 
        But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a
star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
with electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then
magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The Sun
and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
radioactive spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This activity is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N an already
existing neutron, N* a spontaneous materialized neutron. The reaction
in the Sun is
                                    P into  PN*+ energy then
                               PN into PNN*+ energy then
                                PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray
                                PNP into
                                N*PNP+ energy
 
        What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization?
Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than
others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. The
second best fuel mass are the radioactive isotopes.
        Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for
radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics  71st edition 1991  pages 1/-264 to 1/-267:
Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   16./
Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
Zinc (3/)   MV  3d5/2   1/.1
Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    5/.9
Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  1/.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
Mercury (8/) OV  5d5/2   7.8
Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ?
Thorium (9/) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ?
Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Edward Lewis /  EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and etc., a New Set of Phenomena
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and etc., a New Set of Phenomena
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 02:21:04 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
                                      c) 1993 by Edward H. Lewis
 
                                                5719 S. Harper
                                                Chicago, Illinois
      first posted Feb. 5, 1993                   60637  U.S.A.
revised version posted July 3, 1993
new revised version posted August 14, 1993
newer revised version post August 20, 1993
 
 
        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology(1),
Matsumoto shows an SEM photo of a tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.
He did not describe the phenomena that was photographed.  I described
such phenomena in a paper that I finished writing in Dec.  1992.  This
one is in the material matrix.  Unless the white lines are an artifact
of some type, most of the it radiates as much as the surrounding metal
radiates, except according to a geometrical pattern, which is very
interesting.  I would say it is radiating the electricity-light
substance I described in the paper.  If the electrolysis was
discontinued when he took the SEM, then this is an example of a
material continuing to radiate after the stress is done.  This relates
to the experience of many people who have stressed materials in many
ways in order to produce energy.  Tiny BL-type phenomena is associated
with the excess energy and many of the other anomalous phenomena which
people have reported.  It seems to be a locus of anomalous phenomena.
There is now pictorial evidence that the CF phenomena is a tiny
BL-type phenomena, at least in part.
 
        In the paper that I wrote, I related ball lightning and
EVs(2).  Not all ball lightning is luminous.  Some people have
reported seeing ball lightning that was opaque and black(3).  Ken
Shoulders, who named EVs, reports that he has produced black EVs(2).
Ball lightning and EVs may leave the place where they form and travel
around.  They may leave marks like the ring traces and most of the
other traces that Matsumoto has shown.  They may travel along surfaces
and leave the long trail-like traces Matsumoto has shown in several
articles.  Matsumoto reports that such a trail was observed associated
with another apparatus.  He says that the emulsion was located behind
the glass of the container of the apparatus and the liquid, and far
away from the palladium rod.  Therefore, a tiny BL-type phenomena must
have traveled through the glass and the water and the air.  Ball
lightning has been reported to travel through material such as glass
and ceramic without any apparent effects on the material.  I suspect
that effects may be observable microscopically, however.  Ohtsuki and
Ofuruton have produced ball lightning-like phenomena which traveled
through ceramic and which apparently did not effect the ceramic(4).
Ball lightning has also been reported to travel though water(5).
Golka has produced ball lightning-like phenomena in water.  Tiny
BL-type phenomena are also the cause of the holes in substances which
people find.
 
        I am hoping that there can be much more research of this
phenomena, and that people will attempt to detect this phenomena.
I think it is important that those who research EVs and those who
research ball lighting and produce ball lightning-like phenomena
participate in the next CF conference.  BL researchers have had
conferences every year or every other year for several years now,
and there is an international BL conference committee.  Perhaps the
two conferences can be merged together.  Many CF researchers have
begun to be familiar with this phenomena, so they will probably be
interested in discussing BL.  An address for the International
Committee on Ball Lightning is 381 South Meridith Avenue,
Pasadena, California, 91106 U.S.A.
 
Part 2 (August 14, 1993)
 
        I suspect that a variety of sizes of BL-type phenomena are
produced by electric CF apparatus.  I suspect that the glows, coronas,
or luminescences that people report are BL-type phenomena, and that
the micrometer sized phenomena that people produce are another type of
BL phenomena, and that the sparks are also BL-type phenomena.  I
suspect that "electrons" and neutrons and charged particles and
"atoms" are best described as BL-type phenomena as well.
 
        I suspect that St. Elmo's fire, coronas, and BL are similar
phenomena.  People have seen corona and St. Elmo's fire phenomena
convert to BL phenomena that moved in the air.  People have also seen
BL phenomena convert to corona type phenomena.
 
        I suspect that the universe can be well described as BL-type
phenomena.  Alfven, Bostick, Lerner, and Peratt developed general
astronomical theories based on their ideas of "plasmoids."  Their
ideas about the production of energy and elements are interesting.
They described galaxies and stars, and the phenomena that people have
ascribed to "black holes," such as "white holes," as "plasmoid-" type
phenomena.
 
        I suspect that sunspots coincide with BL, volcanos,
earthquakes, and storms in the air and sea.  I suspect that these
phenomena are BL-type phenomena and that they coincide with BL-type
phenomena in apparatus.  Hawkins discussed(6,7) the coincidence of
storm activity and CF phenomena, and he presented experiential
evidence of this(7).  I suspect that clouds and waves and wind are
BL-type phenomena as well.
 
Part 3  A New Set of Phenomena (August 17, 1993)
 
        I suspect that the development of science has had an
approximately 80 year periodicity.   I've written a paper about this.
I suspect that the prior two generations have produced a set of
anomalous phenomena that is resolvable according to a new kind of
premise.
 
        It seems that one can define "plasmoid-" type phenomena as an
universal phenomena.  What I mean is that almost all the anomalous
phenomena that I know about seems to be "plasmoid" phenomena, and it
seems to be possible to define almost all phenomena as "plasmoid"
phenomena.  During the last half of last year, I tried to
experientially relate cold fusion and "plasmoid" type phenomena.  I
used the photographs of traces in nuclear emulsions and of cathodes
that Matsumoto produced and has shown in his many "cold fusion"
articles in Fusion Technology during the last two or three years.  I
used the photographs of marks in plastics that Nardi and Bostick
and others showed(8), marks that they wrote were caused by what they
named "EB filaments."  The "EB filaments" were produced in much the
same way that Bostick had earlier produced what he called "plasmoids."
And l used the descriptions of the marks produced by the phenomena
that Ken Shoulders calls EVs that I had available(2).  I thought that
the marks were so similar that I related CF, EB filaments and EVs as
the same type of phenomena.  I also related other electrical discharge
phenomena and ball lightning, and tentatively related these to
"superconductivity."  At that time as well, I heuristically defined
substances as being composed of plasmoid-type phenomena as well.  I
suspect that these resolutions are useful.
 
        Evidence for this resolution is mounting.  I thought that the
picture of a micrometer sized thing with an interesting design that
Matsumoto showed in the January issue of Fusion Technology(1) may be a
confirmation of the ideas that I had described in papers that I wrote
earlier.  Since then I have learned about other confirmations of my
deductions.  Most basically, the evidence shows that electrolysis is
much the same as discharge.  I suspect that research in this direction
will increase.
 
        Moreover, I've learned that Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner(9) and
others have developed detailed astronomical theories that astronomical
phenomena are plasmoid phenomena similar to those that were produced
by Bostick and many others by discharging through wires and points.  I
suspect that the evidence for this identification is sufficient.
 
        I suspect that at least part of the cold fusion phenomena that
people have reported is the formation of "plasmoid" phenomena that is
larger than the phenomena that were there previously.  The production
of energy and heavier elements is associated with many plasmoids.
Generally, I suspect that CF, superconductivity, EVs,
sonoluminescence, cathodoluminescence, and very many other anomalous
phenomena are "plasmoid-" type phenomena, and that phenomena in
general is " plasmoid-" like.  People can produce "plasmoid-" type
phenomena by many kinds of stressing of the environment, not only by
electricity, such as by breaking or heating substances.  The set of
phenomena that people have recently produced seems to be patterned
this way.  The set is the basis for a new kind of general theory.  At
approximately eight year intervals since 1500, people have produced
new kinds of theories because they experienced the many anomalous
phenomena that people were producing at those times, the phenomena
that contradicted the prior general theory.
 
1. T. Matsumoto,"Observation of Mesh Like Traces on Nuclear Emulsions
During Cold Fusion," Fusion Technology, 23, (January 1993).
2. K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
3. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 67.
4. Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, "Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave
Interference in Air," Nature, 350, 139 (March 14, 1991).
5. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 69.
6. N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere," Fusion
Technology, 19, 2112 (July 1991).
7. N. Hawkins et al., "Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of
Meteorologically Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of
Sciences," Proc. Conf. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid
Systems Provo, Utah, October 22-24, 1990.
7. T. Matsumoto,"Observation of Mesh Like Traces on Nuclear Emulsions
During Cold Fusion," Fusion Technology, 23, (January 1993).
8. V. Nardi, W. Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure
of Electron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November,1980).
9. E. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, New York, 1991.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ortho and para hydrogen
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ortho and para hydrogen
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:30:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug20.122949.25728@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>    For hydrogen, it's about 520 J/g below 75K, but it's only about about
>>    25 J/g at 300K
>
>Hmm, why does it vary with temperature?  Do H2 molecules get bigger as they
>get warmer?
 
    I believe it's because rotational states other than J=0 and J=1
    are available at higher temperatures.  The integrated contribution
    over all the even vs. odd states tends to zero above about 400K.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Stable temperature after electrolysis
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stable temperature after electrolysis
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 02:51:56 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Aug19.142231.13806@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   > In this case we have, I take it, D2O (liquid and vaopr) at near
   > atmospheric pressure.  Of course we don't need anything like 2000
   > X, not even, probably, 1 X.  So until someone who knows how to do
   > the math shows me that the heat transport is insignificant, I'll
   > have to put Jed's (and Chuck's) explanation into the plausible
   > column.
 
   Since I saw my name taken in vain, I'll respond... :-)
 
   If there is a mechanism in the cell to get the condensate to the
hot spot, this is quite likely.  But you would need either a wick
(which could be the crud from the preliminary electrolysis) or for the
hot spot to be at the bottom of the container. (i.e. the electrodes
exend to the bottom of the cell.)
 
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and etc., a New Set of Phenomena
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and etc., a New Set of Phenomena
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 02:54:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug21.022104.21830@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Edward Lewis <edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>                                      c) 1993 by Edward H. Lewis
>
>                                                5719 S. Harper
>                                                Chicago, Illinois
>      first posted Feb. 5, 1993                   60637  U.S.A.
>revised version posted July 3, 1993
>new revised version posted August 14, 1993
>newer revised version post August 20, 1993
>
>
>        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology(1),
>Matsumoto shows an SEM photo of a tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.
 
                                       c) 1993 by Cameron R. Bass
 
     Unrevised query posted August 20, 1993
 
     Okay, I'll bite.  SEM = Scanning Electron Micrograph?
     If so, how, pray tell, did he take it?
 
     I have this really bad feeling about 'ball lightning' and SEM.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 03:44:13 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1993Aug19.024522.25632@coplex.coplex.com>,
>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>>
>>the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
>>a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state.
 
>    Look at a system of D's floating around in a Pd lattice
>    at, say 20C, and tell me which state this is.
 
Well let's see... My calculations have the state at n=2 to 3 aprox. n=1
one at about 2K for PdD(x=1.0) pure octahedral loading using the hard
boson model (via Bernecky's material).  I'll describe  all this in
later post.   Still, there is a small body of evidence that this
is the direction to persue.  First we there is certain evidence that
hydrogen, and deterium do delocalize in metallic crystal structures.
Second, it is necessary to invoke quantum statistics to explain the
differneces in diffusivity of H and D in some metals.  The experiment
I cited in replying to Dick, are highly refined surface meassurements.
It's just a matter of extrapolation to 3 dimmensions that these effects
should be apparent in the PdD(x) system.  Third, there is experimental
evidence that both H and D forms a quantum band state on metal surfaces.
Again extrapolate to 3 dimensions for the PdD system.  Forth, the
Pd 4d state is preffered compared to the D 1s state creating a D+
ion band.  This is what increases to D-D seperation distance you
calculated. Right?  So what can you conclude from this. It's obvious
we have a D+ ionic bose band.  It's the forth point that really
could cause problems from a material point of view.  Doping can have
a profound effect on certain delicate electronic states, and the
same would be true of intersitual D+.  With the surface effects of
electrolysis by the electrolytes on Pd, if the D+ ion band state is
dependent on the electronic balance, it might be necessary to
dope the metal before hand. P&F do this as I understand, by doping
Pd with Ag.  I do not know the ratio though.
 
>>  Still I don't think you are seeing the problem in the right way.
>>Sure we have a lattice far larger than nuclear dimensions, but
>>the range of the strong force can extend as much 1E-13m as seen
>>by scattering.  That's what(?), 0.2E-3 Angsrtroms of a lattice
>>spacing?  In a lattice spacing of aprox 1.7 for tetrahedral-octahedral
>>occupation sites in beta-phase Pd, that gives a good spacial probability
>>for interaction at focused beam point of high energies D+ of similar
>>dimensions.
 
>     You're still on subgrid scales; You've got six orders of magnitude to
>     go.
 
Lower or Higher? :-)
 
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
References: <CBqLtG.LpJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <CBwGo0.HF5@murdoch.ac
.virginia.edu> <CBwLF5.I49@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1993Aug19.024522.2
632@coplex.coplex.com> <CBzqF5.C5x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 
 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1993Aug19.024522.25632@coplex.coplex.com>,
>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>>
>>the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
>>a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state.
 
>    Look at a system of D's floating around in a Pd lattice
>    at, say 20C, and tell me which state this is.
 
Well let's see... My calcualtions have the state at n=2 to 3 aprox. n=1
one at about 2K for PdD(x=1.0) pure octahedral loading using the hard
boson model (via Bernecky's material).  I'll describe  all this in
later post.   Still, there is a small body of evidence that this
is the direction to persue.  First we there is certain evidence that
hydrogen, and deterium do delocalize in metallic crystal structures.
Second, it is necessary to invoke quantum statistics to explain the
differneces in diffusivity of H and D in some metals.  The experiment
I cited in replying to Dick, are highly refined surface meassurements.
It's just a matter of extrapolation to 3 dimmensions that these effects
should be apparent in the PdD(x) system.  Third, there is experimental
evidence that both H and D forms a quantum band state on metal surfaces.
Again extrapolate to 3 dimensions for the PdD system.  Forth, the
Pd 4d state is preffered compared to the D 1s state creating a D+
ion band.  This is what increases to D-D seperation distance you
calculated. Right?  So what can you conclude from this. It's obvious
we have a D+ ionic bose band.  It's the forth point that really
could cause problems from a material point of view.  Doping can have
a profound effect on certain delicate electronic states, and the
same would be true of intersitual D+.  With the surface effects of
electrolysis by the electrolytes on Pd, if the D+ ion band state is
dependent on the electronic balance, it might be necessary to
dope the metal before hand. P&F do this as I understand, by doping
Pd with Ag.  I do not know the ratio though.
 
>>  Still I don't think you are seeing the problem in the right way.
>>Sure we have a lattice far larger than nuclear dimensions, but
>>the range of the strong force can extend as much 1E-13m as seen
>>by scattering.  That's what(?), 0.2E-3 Angsrtroms of a lattice
>>spacing?  In a lattice spacing of aprox 1.7 for tetrahedral-octahedral
>>occupation sites in beta-phase Pd, that gives a good spacial probability
>>for interaction at focused beam point of high energies D+ of similar
>>dimensions.
 
>     You're still on subgrid scales; You've got six orders of magnitude to
>     go.
 
Lower or Higher? :-)
 
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
References: <CBqLtG.LpJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <CBwGo0.HF5@murdoch.ac
.virginia.edu> <CBwLF5.I49@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1993Aug19.024522.2
632@coplex.coplex.com> <CBzqF5.C5x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
 
 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1993Aug19.024522.25632@coplex.coplex.com>,
>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>>
>>the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
>>a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state.
 
>    Look at a system of D's floating around in a Pd lattice
>    at, say 20C, and tell me which state this is.
 
Well let's see... My calculations have the state at n=2 to 3 aprox. n=1
one at about 2K for PdD(x=1.0) pure octahedral loading using the hard
boson model (via Bernecky's material).  I'll describe  all this in
later post.   Still, there is a small body of evidence that this
is the direction to persue.  First we there is certain evidence that
hydrogen, and deterium do delocalize in metallic crystal structures.
Second, it is necessary to invoke quantum statistics to explain the
differneces in diffusivity of H and D in some metals.  The experiment
I cited in replying to Dick, are highly refined surface meassurements.
It's just a matter of extrapolation to 3 dimmensions that these effects
should be apparent in the PdD(x) system.  Third, there is experimental
evidence that both H and D forms a quantum band state on metal surfaces.
Again extrapolate to 3 dimensions for the PdD system.  Forth, the
Pd 4d state is preffered compared to the D 1s state creating a D+
ion band.  This is what increases to D-D seperation distance you
calculated. Right?  So what can you conclude from this. It's obvious
we have a D+ ionic bose band.  It's the forth point that really
could cause problems from a material point of view.  Doping can have
a profound effect on certain delicate electronic states, and the
same would be true of intersitual D+.  With the surface effects of
electrolysis by the electrolytes on Pd, if the D+ ion band state is
dependent on the electronic balance, it might be necessary to
dope the metal before hand. P&F do this as I understand, by doping
Pd with Ag.  I do not know the ratio though.
 
>>  Still I don't think you are seeing the problem in the right way.
>>Sure we have a lattice far larger than nuclear dimensions, but
>>the range of the strong force can extend as much 1E-13m as seen
>>by scattering.  That's what(?), 0.2E-3 Angsrtroms of a lattice
>>spacing?  In a lattice spacing of aprox 1.7 for tetrahedral-octahedral
>>occupation sites in beta-phase Pd, that gives a good spacial probability
>>for interaction at focused beam point of high energies D+ of similar
>>dimensions.
 
>     You're still on subgrid scales; You've got six orders of magnitude to
>     go.
 
Lower or Higher? :-)
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Chuck Sites /  cancel <1993Aug21.034413.12176@coplex.coplex.com>
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Aug21.034413.12176@coplex.coplex.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 04:13:40 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

cancel <1993Aug21.034413.12176@coplex.coplex.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 04:24:46 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <1993Aug19.024522.25632@coplex.coplex.com>,
>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>>
>>the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
>>a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state.
 
>    Look at a system of D's floating around in a Pd lattice
>    at, say 20C, and tell me which state this is.
 
Well let's see... My calculations have the state at n=2 to 3 aprox. n=1
one at about 2K for PdD(x=1.0) pure octahedral loading using the hard
boson model (via Bernecky's material).  I'll describe  all this in
later post.   Still, there is a small body of evidence that this
is the direction to persue.  First we there is certain evidence that
hydrogen, and deterium do delocalize in metallic crystal structures.
Second, it is necessary to invoke quantum statistics to explain the
differneces in diffusivity of H and D in some metals.  The experiments
I cited in replying to Dick, are highly refined surface meassurements.
It's just a matter of extrapolation to 3 dimmensions that these effects
should be apparent in the PdD(x) system.  Third, there is experimental
evidence that both H and D forms a quantum band state on metal surfaces.
Again extrapolate to 3 dimensions for the PdD system.  Forth, the
Pd 4d state is preffered compared to the D 1s state creating a D+
ion band.  This is what increases the D-D seperation distance you
calculated. Right?  So what can you conclude from this. It's obvious
we have a D+ ionic bose band.  It's the forth point that really
could cause problems from a material point of view.  Doping can have
a profound effect on certain delicate electronic states, and the
same would be true of intersitual D+.  With the surface effects of
electrolysis by the electrolytes on Pd, if the D+ ion band state is
dependent on the electronic balance, it might be necessary to
dope the metal before hand. P&F do this as I understand, by doping
Pd with Ag.  I do not know the ratio though.
 
>>  Still I don't think you are seeing the problem in the right way.
>>Sure we have a lattice far larger than nuclear dimensions, but
>>the range of the strong force can extend as much 1E-13m as seen
>>by scattering.  That's what(?), 0.2E-3 Angsrtroms of a lattice
>>spacing?  In a lattice spacing of aprox 1.7 for tetrahedral-octahedral
>>occupation sites in beta-phase Pd, that gives a good spacial probability
>>for interaction at focused beam point of high energies D+ of similar
>>dimensions.
 
>     You're still on subgrid scales; You've got six orders of magnitude to
>     go.
 
Lower or Higher? :-)
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
Ps: I had several problems trying to get this message out of our news
system. If you get a post with this same message repeated 3 times;
sorry.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 05:11:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug21.034413.12176@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Aug19.024522.25632@coplex.coplex.com>,
>>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
>>>a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state.
>
>>    Look at a system of D's floating around in a Pd lattice
>>    at, say 20C, and tell me which state this is.
>
>Well let's see... My calculations have the state at n=2 to 3 aprox. n=1
>one at about 2K for PdD(x=1.0) pure octahedral loading using the hard
>boson model (via Bernecky's material).
 
     What state at n=2?  And if so, how do we keep everything in
     a higher energy state; that doesn't seem to make much sense to me
     when talking about 'condensation'?  And why are we talking about 2K?
 
>ion band.  This is what increases to D-D seperation distance you
>calculated. Right?  So what can you conclude from this. It's obvious
>we have a D+ ionic bose band.
 
     It is?  It's not even obvious to me that D+ can be treated
     without regard to all the e- and Pd's floating around.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 12:00:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>...the observable universe is just the 94th electron of plutonium
>...specifically 231 plutonium. Why plutonium? Because
>all the special numbers from both physics and mathematics is a fall-out
>of plutonium. In physics, for example the inverse fine structure
>constant is 137 because 231 Pu has 137 neutrons. In mathematics, the
>two most often used special numbers are pi and e. Why is pi close to
>22/7 and e close to 19/7, because our Maker is plutonium and plutonium
>has close to 22 subshells in 7 shells and close to 19 occupied
>subshells at any one time in 7 shells.
 
"close to"???  I don't see how any exercise in numerology can fail when
the limits of good fit involve such a vague fudge factor.
 
And where, then, is the causal link between 19 occupied subshells in
7 shells and the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference?
 
Numerology explains nothing itself -- and therefore can terribly mislead
due to the possibililty of unrelated coincidence and observer selection
of "fit" evidence and rejection of "unfit" evidence.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Joe Katnic /  Re: A new set of phenomena
     
Originally-From: Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new set of phenomena
Date: 20 Aug 93 23:00:28 PST
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <1993Aug18.021232.28459@midway.uchicago.edu> edward@uhuru.uch
cago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
>
>       I suspect that at least part of the cold fusion phenomena that
>people have reported is the formation of "plasmoid" phenomena that is
>larger than the phenomena that were there previously.  The production
>of energy and heavier elements is associated with many plasmoids.
>
Interesting premise, got any evidence or even the glimmerings of a
theory?
--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  Joe@twistor.DIALix.oz.au      _--_|\
                                   (ALT: jkatnic@DIALiz.oz.au)     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenJoe cudfnJoe cudlnKatnic cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does Dick Blue know calorimetry?
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 16:27:28 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>I am not so sure that the overall issue of latent heats should be brushed
>aside.
 
I think it depends upon the quantity of anomalous heat.  We certainly can't
account for Mega Joules, but smaller burst of heat or cold might be
explained with these and other factors.
 
There are compounds with heat capacities many times that of H2O, and typically,
they are hydrous (for example, Nd2(SO4)3.8H2O has 8 times the heat capacity of
H2O.)  Droege's PtO2.4H2O (hydroxoplatinic acid) comes to mind as a possible
heat sponge -- but it's low molar quantity probably renders it insignificant.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / Jed Rothwell /  I don't know, try it and find out
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I don't know, try it and find out
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 19:34:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dale Bass asks:
 
      "Vapor was getting out in the 11 minutes during which the
      cell boiled 'dry'.  Why is it not getting out after that?"
 
Answer: I don't know. Try doing the experiment yourself and maybe you will
find out. Remember, I am reporting experimental observations, not theories
or models. I don't have to know the reason: facts are facts. After the water
boils away, a significant amount of vapor remains, and the temperature at
the thermistor stays at 100 C. If you don't think that is true, then go do
the experiment yourself. This has nothing to do with cold fusion. Put an
electric heater near the bottom of a test tube, and a thermometer halfway
up, and tell us what you observe.
 
I suppose the answer is that while the water is boiling it turns into vapor
which expands and pushes out, but when almost all the water is boiled, there
is no new vapor coming from behind (as it were), so there is nothing left to
push out the last wiff of vapor. It is probably heavier than air, so it sits
in the test tube, roiling around, condensing, falling near the heat source,
and coming up again. I suppose that after a while, it will become more mixed
in with air. It would be interesting to try turning the test tube sideways or
upside down to see if that speeds up the mixing with air.
 
The other question posed here was if the vapor spreads the heat around evenly,
keeping the temperature at 100 C throughout the test tube, then why did the
Kel-V plastic holder under the cathode melt. This is a really, *really* stupid
question. Obviously, the heat cannot be instantaenously spread throughout
the Dewar at the nanosecond it leaves the cathode surface. It is bound to be
much hotter next to the heat source (the cathode), and since the cathode is so
small and compact, the surface temperature of it is bound to be very high.
This question is about the stupidest I have ever seen. It is like asking why
the metal in the bottom of a saucepan full of boiling water is hotter than
100 C. Answer: because it is directly over the fire.
 
The reason people ask really stupid questions like that is because they have
no hands-on experience working with these things. If these so-called "skeptics"
would shut up and spend a couple of days in the lab doing some simple, 18th
and 19th century style calorimetery, 99% of their doubts would be resolved, and
they would stop coming up with all these implausible, crazy ideas to "explain
away" cold fusion, and these incredibly stupid questions.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / John Logajan /  Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 18:40:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

What surprises a peek into the CRC will reveal!
 
Okay, I typically get this stuff wrong, but my reading of the thermal
conductivity coefficients for gaseous hydrogen and gaseous deuterium
place them at just 1/3 and 1/4 that of *LIQUID WATER*!!!!!! respectively.
 
Compare this to the 1/30th or so difference between steam and liquid
water!
 
It is likely P+F's Pd electrode outgassed deuterium and that that is the
principle gas (along with remaining D2O liquid and vapor) in the cell.
 
So here we have a gas of still considerable thermal conductivity transporting
heat everywhere in the cell, including to liquid D2O, upon which it will
soak up energy until it evaporates -- giving a temperature regulation mechanism
for some (minimal) range of heat production and heat loss equilibrium.
(Also note that the vapor pressure of D2O decreases with increasing
concentration of LiOD -- whatever that implies?)
 
Am I out to sea again?  Am I a couple of cards short of a full deck?  Are
my oars not all the way into the water? :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 20:13:00 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>thermal conductivity coefficients for gaseous hydrogen and gaseous deuterium
>place them at just 1/3 and 1/4 that of *LIQUID WATER*!!!!!! respectively.
 
And that of helium is similar to deuterium.  Therefore my latest entry
into the isothermal puck design competition is:
 
A copper box filled with helium (or hydrogen) at atmospheric pressure
with one of those piezofans to circulate the gas.  Swirling airflow
in the mid region is best for lateral heat distribution, and turbulent
flow at the copper plates insures a good statistical distribution.
So a rough copper plate inner surface seems best.
 
I think this gets a good KISS rating.  And it has fairly good total heat
transport at pretty low heat system heat capacity -- without the variables
of a dual phase (liquid/vapor) system.  And the temperature range is
quite good (wherever the piezofan stops working :-)  And it is non-corrosive
and fairly containable at its atmospheric pressure.
 
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 20:17:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>supergenius as myself
 
Referring to oneself as a supergenius in the body of the patent text
strikes me as a particularly good idea -- it insures at least one
unique claim.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 20:15:04 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is
so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for
electrochemical cold fusion cells, vice heavy water.
        Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V
were
known with 1//% accuracy then rsnm would be /%. In the language of
quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the
wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are
variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to
materialize. Thus the i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic level
the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable V
on a fuel mass such as hydrogen.
        On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that
it
occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the
number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which
is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron
and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with
94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have
95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when
another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and
1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in
the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively
decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino.  If the materialized
neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen,
then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy
subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons.
        The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are star
plasmas.  The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron
inducers which quantum mechanically excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun is a
device which has both a large changing electron current i flow and a
large changing electric potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all
hydrogen plasma.
        Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion
device
wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental
observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my
teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic
plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory
is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a
result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
        I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically
excited
by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of
matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it
either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized
inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom into a
different atom or a different isotope.         Any chemical element/s,
compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced into rsnm.
However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels for
induction to rsnm, for reason of its 1 electron subshell can easily
accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen atom,
having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces the
atom into rsnm.        In general, the radioactive elements/isotopes
will
quantum induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive elements/isotopes. The
reason for this is that since radioactivities is the complementary dual
to electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via
radioactive electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A
sample of radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can
result in electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample,
consequently there is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1
electrons yet a Z number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm for
radioactive elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and is
based on the formula for radioactive rate of decay    exp-lt.  Using
Dirac's rate of materialization as time squared t2, and substituting t2
into the radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula results
in a normal Gaussian distribution curve.
        Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing
radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices
can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of
batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as
electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power
plant.  Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be of a
much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or hot
fusion reactors since the energy output is not dependent on fissionable
or fusionable products, rather on neutron materialization.  The fuel
mass of neutron materialization devices will last much longer as a fuel
since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical element/s, compounds, or
molecules, radioactive or not.  A neutron materialization nuclear power
plant can use a nonradioactive element fuel mass such as iron or
hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner.  Or a neutron materialization
nuclear power plant can use a less dangerous radioactive isotope of
thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the fuel mass. The fuel mass will
have a changing electric current i flowing, or a changing electric
potential V through it.  The best chemical elements to use are
hydrogen, and hydrogen isotopes and the radioactive elements such as
plutonium, uranium, thorium, and californium.  Any chemical element/s,
compounds, or molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed
in the containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run through
the fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the
fuel. The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as water
or some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
         These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from
rsnm, a
confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  All
such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the
violation of energy-mass conservation.
        The changing i or changing V through the fuel mass will induce
rsnm
resulting in a net increase in total energy of the isolated system.
The changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting in
net increase in total energy going out which will be observable and
measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then be converted to
other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
        I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on
all
around us, in stars, in the Earth.  Where ever there is the strong
nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the
radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G is
interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM.  So,
what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
radioactivities-electromagnetism.  Before these teachings, a physicist
would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong
nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where
gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to
make helium atoms with a resultant energy.  I would transpose that idea
and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where
the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a large
electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing
electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of
which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but
some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus
transmutating into new helium atoms and  giving-up excess energy.
        I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only
looking
at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen
into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with
strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is correct
if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 1//%
excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism
interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms where
spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these
hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar
system.
        The foregoing detailed description of the invention has been
presented
for the purposes of illustration and description.  It is not intended
to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form
disclosed.  Many modifications and variations are possible in light of
the above teaching.  It is intended that the scope of the invention be
limited not by this detailed description, but rather by the claims
appended hereto.
        My invention covers more than just the precise thing described.
 It is
a broad theory, and any device that is within the language of the
claims is to be within the coverage of the patent.  This is to prevent
others from pointing to specific examples and arguing that the patent
is limited to these.
 
 
                                PRIOR DEVICES
 
        None known which are engineered for the purpose of deriving and
utilizing net excess energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.  Noone has applied the correct theory to either hot
fusion energy nor cold fusion energy. Noone before me has propounded
the process of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. And
noone before me has had the idea that running a changing electric
current i or an changing electric potential difference V through a fuel
mass, especially hydrogen, hydrogen isotopes or the radioactive
elements such as thorium, protoactinium, uranium, plutonium,
californium will result in a net excess of energy. Net energy in the
case of hydrogen, or hydrogen isotopes not from the chemistry of
hydrogen but from nuclear neutron materialization. And net energy in
the case for radioactive elements, not from the emission products of
radioactive decay but from a new kind of radioactivity-- spontaneous
neutron materialization out of nowhere.
 
                        SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
 
        Radioactivities interaction is comprised of three components--
(1)
radioactive decay (rd) plus (2) radioactive growth (rg) plus (3)
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm). Of these three,
rsnm is the strongest in terms of relative coupling strength.
        The electromagnetic interaction is a quantum complementary dual
to the
radioactivities interaction.  Thus a variable flow of electric current
i or a variable electric potential V through any fuel mass will induce
the materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere and that devises
can be set-up, engineered, and constructed to utilize the energy of
neutron materialization.
 
                        CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.22 / Jed Rothwell /  A different hatchet attack
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A different hatchet attack
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 00:35:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Joshua Levy inadvertently introduced a note of confusion in the discussion
of the Taubes book by talking about *another* hatchet attack on Huggins,
many pages removed from the one I "decomposed."  This confused me, anyway.
The attack I quoted claimed that Huggins did not measure voltage, whereas
this attack implies that he did measure it, but he did not measure the AC
component of the DC power, and he used a cheap-ass power supply. These are
two different attacks from two different sources. Joshua also quotes some
garbage about Bockris. I will sort this out next week, when I have access
to scientific papers...
 
It is difficult and time consuming for me to sort out the Taubes book, for
two reasons:
 
1. I have some kind of chest infection which has reduced my already
withered mental abilities to the point where I divide 6 by 24 and come up
with 4 (even worse than usual).
 
2. With scientific writing, it is easy to track down the facts, but the
Taubes book is not science, and it does not have any scientific content in
it. To the contrary, Taubes goes out of his way to make it difficult to
find the truth. As I said, there is not a single references to any
published scientific paper in the whole damn book! Furthermore, as you see
in the example Joshua quotes, Taubes and his "informants" do everything
they can to hide the truth and make it impossible to verify what they say.
Look at this garbage:
 
     "Larry Faulkner recalled that the Stanford experiment was susceptible
     to AC power fluctuations.  The [Huggins] researchers measured the
     direct current power going to the cell but did not take into account
     the alternating component of the voltage.  These could result in
     errors of the size of their excess heat effects..."
 
Okay, Larry, what equipment were they using? Make and model number? On
what date did you observe this equipment is use? Was it the same equipment
reported in their final, formal, published, experimental results? If so,
which publication?
 
As the reader can see, all we have to go on here is a deliberately vague
statement of someone's opinion about something he saw (or maybe just heard
about) at some unspecified date in some unspecified laboratory that may or
may not have anything to do with Huggins. There are no footnotes in the
book, no formal references, and no way to track down the source of this
absurd nonsense. This is the very opposite of scientific writing.
 
However, I have papers from Huggins, so I will make an effort to find out
what sort of power supplies his group used, and what sort of power
monitoring system they used, and we shall see whether there is any shred
of truth to support this allegation. I doubt there is, because everything
else I checked out in the book was a pure fabrication or a vicious lie.
 
Joshua apparently wants us to play by Taubes' rules: ignore the peer-
reviewed, formal, scientific literature. He wants us to instantly accept
and believe as gospel truth any filthy rumor or obvious concoction picked
up off the street by Taubes. We are not allowed to question the source, or
ask for any technical specifics; details are not important; the make and
model numbers of equipment, the published performance of the equipment and
other salient details upon which such judgments are usually rendered are
not allowed. Larry Faulkner (whoever the hell he is) has an opinion, and
that undocumented, unsupported opinion automatically overrules the
scientific literature. Where is Faulkner's published experimental data?
What has he ever done to merit our consideration in this field? Why ask?
-- he is a skeptic. Everything skeptics say is automatically right. On one
hand we have the undocumented opinions of Taubes and handful of screwballs
from outside the field like Happer and Falkner, and opposing them we have
hundreds of scientific papers from hundreds of distinguished scientists in
publications like the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. Joshua and
Taubes say we must ignore the formal record and buy their undocumented
poisonous allegations. I prefer to stick to the traditional source of
scientific accuracy and truth. I guess I am just a conservative stick-in-
the-mud.
 
Oh Brave New World of Science, that has such thinkers in it! Oh you PhD's
from KMart, what corned-beef-hash you make of the scientific method. How
hilarious! How pathetic.
 
 
Berry Merriman asks:
 
     "What happens when the excess heat exceeds the limits of *nuclear
     reactions* as well? Presumably it will, if it is all an artifact. .
     . (Of course, some would argue it already has, since they can't find
     any nuclear ashes.)"
 
With every cell that I have heard of, it would take somewhere between 1000
years and a couple of million years for the heat to exceed the limits of
nuclear reactions, depending on the amount of fuel and the intensity of
the reaction. No experiment has ever run long enough to approach the
limits.
 
Who do you refer to when you say "they can't find... ashes?" Who are
"they?" Several more workers have recently reported finding helium-4 in
amounts commensurate with a nuclear fusion reaction. It is very difficult
to detect this product, because it is not radioactive. Please specify who
it is that has made a genuine, serious effort to look for ground-state or
other difficult to detect nuclear ash and not found it. I do not know of
anyone like that. There are some really lousy papers out there where they
looked for products in experiments where they could not possibly have had
a CF reaction because they badly botched the electrochemistry, but
these are mostly from 1989 and they don't count. If there can be no
reaction, there will be no ash. No heat = no CF = no ash.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.22 / Jed Rothwell /  If air gets in...
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: If air gets in...
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 01:20:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
This experiment with water vapor in a test tube with a small hole at the top
is actually kind of interesting to think about. I am nowhere near enough of
a scientist to work out the ramifications by thinking about it. I would never
try; I would do an experiment if I was seriously curious. But here is some food
for thought:
 
The question has been asked here: "why doesn't the last bit of remaining
water vapor get out?" (Which would then leave only air, which would radically
change the temperature measured halfway up the tube.)
 
Think about it the other way around: "why should the air come in, and what
will happen to it if it does?" Why and how would air displace H2O?
 
I don't know, but my guess is that if air gets in, it would grow about as hot
as the water vapor, which would make it a tad lighter I think, which would tend
to drive it right out the top. It would also tend to float around in high
concentration at the top because it is cool up there, and the water would
condense, but air does not condense at these temperatures.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Eschew Obfuscation/ Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eschew Obfuscation/ Mitchell Swartz
Date: 21 Aug 93 17:18:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CC134w.F3A@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  [stuff deleted]
>     After several years of progressive positive results, such hypotheses
>  by the "skeptics" have become mere hot-air,  banter.
>    The "skeptics" claim their (worn-out) hypotheses disprove hundreds of
>  positive experiments.   But have they ever once given an order of magnitude
>  calculation to their allegations of "systematic error", "recombination
>  overlooked", etc.?   They have been asked (repeatedly) for a simple table
>  of such data (so any interested reader might ascertain the truth)  but
>  such requests have not been answered.
>
>                    impression:---->  "Lost to follow-up"
>
>     Where is any attempt to seriously followup any questions? or give any
>  semiquantitative solution?  It simply does not exist.
>     Many of the skeptics' comments are: unsupported destructive criticism.
>     If the "skeptics" arguments were undergraduate
>  problem set solutions, hopefully they would be plunked into the circular file
>  with an admonision to "get serious" or "move to the humanities (please update
>   to keep this p.c.) dept."
>
>     Best wishes.
>                                          Mitchell Swartz
>                                           mica@world.std.com
>
 
Evidently Mitchell overlooked or disregarded the following quantitative
discussion posted here May 26, 1993 by BYU student Jonathon Jones, based on
experiments here:
 
"In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was used as
the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as the oxygen electrode.
While running with an
     input power of 320 microwatts -- qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48V)--
the measured output was 750 microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when
calculated with the formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove.
 
"When glass tubes were placed over the electrodes allowing a flow of ions but
inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes the output measured
corresponded to the input power (qinp), thus no excess heat was observed."
 
Need a Table?  OK:
Qinput    Qoutput      xs heat fraction = (qout-qinp)/qinp
 
 
320        750           1.34
 
There are other data from the BYU experiments that one could reiterate, but
this counterexample to Mitchell's claim shows his error.
Note that Miles' maximum xs heat fraction was 1.27 (127%), and that he
specifically *assumed*
that no recombination took place.  We have shown that this assumption is in
error and that recombination effects in Miles' (and many other) experiments
have not been ruled out.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.22 / Cameron Bass /  Phenomenal Anomalous Heat Transfer (was Re: I don't know...)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phenomenal Anomalous Heat Transfer (was Re: I don't know...)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 00:34:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930821191411_72240.1256_EHK22-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dale Bass asks:
>
>      "Vapor was getting out in the 11 minutes during which the
>      cell boiled 'dry'.  Why is it not getting out after that?"
>
>Answer: I don't know. Try doing the experiment yourself and maybe you will
>find out. Remember, I am reporting experimental observations, not theories
>or models.
 
     You are apparently reporting unsupported conjecture, since none
     of this was in the paper, and P&F do not seem to have actually
     gone on the record with the 'Amazing Miracle Hole Size'.
 
>The other question posed here was if the vapor spreads the heat around evenly,
>keeping the temperature at 100 C throughout the test tube, then why did the
>Kel-V plastic holder under the cathode melt. This is a really, *really* stupid
>question. Obviously, the heat cannot be instantaenously spread throughout
>the Dewar at the nanosecond it leaves the cathode surface. It is bound to be
>much hotter next to the heat source (the cathode), and since the cathode is so
>small and compact, the surface temperature of it is bound to be very high.
 
     Stupid?  P&F imply that the heating occurs at the Pd electrode.
     The Pd electrode is not connected to the Kel-F support by my reading
     of the diagram.  The thermister appears to be as far from the Pd
     electrode as the Kel-F support.   So, the *really stupid* thing to
     assert is that a massive thermal transient flows down, but not up.
     Really, really stupid.
 
     This is pretty funny.  Jed, you've just supported my argument
     that a local heat source (i.e. current arcing into the wire electrode)
     caused the Kel-F to melt, not any heating from the Pd electrode.
     If that's the case, the experimenters are idiots for not noticing.
 
     This is even better than the 'Amazing Miracle Hole Size'.  Now
     we have the 'Phenomenal Anomalous Heat Transfer'.  What will y'all
     think of next?
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: If air gets in...
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If air gets in...
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 05:44:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930822005836_72240.1256_EHK32-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>But here is some food for thought:
>
>The question has been asked here: "why doesn't the last bit of remaining
>water vapor get out?" (Which would then leave only air, which would radically
>change the temperature measured halfway up the tube.)
>
>Think about it the other way around: "why should the air come in, and what
>will happen to it if it does?" Why and how would air displace H2O?
 
     Why should the air come in?  Good question, it sits right beside,
     'How did the water get out?'  You've just told us why it didn't boil
     out in 11 minutes.
 
     It's rare that someone as full as poppydoodle as y'all will
     so succinctly demonstrate it.
 
                         dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / mitchell swartz /  Questions for Steven Jones (was R. Schultz)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Steven Jones (was R. Schultz)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 04:26:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In  Message-ID: <1993Aug20.150057.863@physc1.byu.edu>
         Subject: Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
   Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] wrote:
 
==  "May I cut in?"
 
  Of course, Steve.  But for fairness, how about a few answers from you on those
  important questions  which you have been avoiding. (There are many but I
  picked a few pertinent to what you bring up here.)
 
 
==sj "1. Richard asked Mitchell:  "Do you believe that [Miles] actually observed
==sj X-rays or gamma rays from his cold fusion cells?"  ......
==sj  going back to Mitchell's posting of ca. 12 May 1993, in which
==sj he cites two of Miles' papers and supports Miles' use of dental X-ray film,
==sj concluding:"These appear to be good papers"  and "X-ray films have been
==sj used effectively."
 
   Thank you for the opportunity to correct you and give the true context
 of the purported quotes.
   What was actually stated was (referring back to your false claim about
   the Kucherov image in the paper which you claimed did not exist):
 
  =ms   "As I remember you made your own retraction here after knocking both
  =ms Kucherov's published x-ray film, and radiologists around the world with a
  =ms bold stroke.  INMO in was you who incorrectly then confused a reciprocal
  =ms space image with a direct space (physical)image.  - Both have their uses-
  =ms The importance is that such x-ray film records can be very useful  because
  =ms they provide spatial time-integrated recordings of the x-ray distribution
  =ms when they are used appropriately."
 
    To further show the exact context (and proving it in your own previous
   words (     ;-}     )
 
  ==sj    "In an earlier posting (circa 12 May), Swartz posits:  "With adequate
  ==sj  controls and with full accounting of the physics (not always done),
  ==sj  X-ray film is a good method of documenting active electrodes."
 
    In fact, following that posting, the remarks was further discussed:
 
  =ms   "Yup.  Sounds reasonable.    Such may document active electrodes if used
  =ms    properly, and if such electrodes are in an active  mode and capable
  =ms    of generating the appropriate particles or appropriate photons.
  =ms    IMHO it was not said that "dental"  X-ray film is the "favorite"
  =ms   detector, or "the" best  means in favor.  What was said is that:
  =ms       1) such films are universally available, and
  =ms       2) if appropriate measures  are taken for both adequate cassetting
  =ms  and other issues (feel free to call  if you are interested)  such
  =ms  recordings offer significant time- and space-integration.  Both
  =ms  instruments are good, but each has individual separate features."
 
  In fact, Steve, the films were only mentioned (and in fact posted as a
  GIF image by me from one published paper) because you incorrectly claimed
  there were one (or less) control.  In fact, three were in that picture of that
  paper AND I believe Dr. Miles mentioned many many more in his posting here.
 
 
== "2.  My point made repeatedly to Mitchell is that dental X-ray film does not
== provide *compelling* proof of nuclear reactions in electrolytic cells."
 
 Contrary to your silly statement(s) (which if continued may make me reevaluate
  your contribution to c.f.) x-ray films provide compelling proof of ionizing
  radiation which impinges upon them, if appropriate controls are taken.
 
 
==  "Such films have been shown to be sensitive to mechanical pressure and, as
== Bruce Dunn pointed out, even to humidity."
 
   Where is the compelling evidence by Dr. Prof. Bruce Dunn in this
     matter?   Has he investigated any of these laboratories?
     Now exactly how many films did Dr. Bruce Dunn take?
    did you say he has a dry developing process?   which type?
      How many films did he test on c.f. systems?  how many in toto?
   at what characteristic energies and with what systems (including
    sensitizers) did he conduct his controls?
    Exactly what controls did the Dunn system comprise?
     Did he publish his experiments on "humidity" interference?
 
   Do you really think calibration experiments are only done in at the
    Brigham Young University?
 
   Do you really think that your spectrophotometer is not sensitive to humidity,
             changes in pressure or mechanical deformations?
    Why don't we drop the x-ray film and your spectrophotometer from
             a height of 10 meters as a reliability test, ok?
 
        Such haughty blanket accusations originating from your
    Department at the Brigham Young U. are becoming increasingly  suspect.
     The burden is on you to explain why everyone is "incompetent" and/or
      why everyone's "data" is false, is it not?
    You routinely claim everyone else is wrong (almost predictably)
    and here in particular you dismiss anyone who uses x-ray film.  [Better
    not break a bone, Steve, or you'll have to rely on such "defective"
    proceedures.]
 
==sj    "And they provide no information
==sj  regarding the X-ray energy. Rather, a sensitive X-ray spectrometer could
==sj  provide such proof, *if* a characteristic
==sj  X-ray energy (and intensity) spectrum were produced."
 
   Guess I know that since I also posted it:
 
   ==ms  "Noone "resisted" any such thing to my knowledge.
   ==ms   The issue has been: each testing proceedure has its advantage.
   ==ms              FILM RECORDER                    SPECTROPHOTOMETER
   ==ms    Ease of use and wide area coverage vs. more difficult calibration and
   ==ms                                           better energy resolution"
 
 
==sj  " a sensitive X-ray spectrometer could provide such proof, *if* a
==sj  characteristic X-ray energy (and intensity) spectrum were produced.
==sj  This has *never* been  done in any CF experiment."
 
  Never?   No.  No.  Never........                   Deja vu
  You've said this before:
 
==sj  "The Kucherov paper makes *no* mention of X-ray detection, Matt."
     [S. Jones, Message-ID: <1993Mar11.171639.499@physc1.byu.edu>]
 
  to which I replied:
 
=ms "To Matt:  Notwithstanding Mr. Jones comments, perhaps the paper
=ms    you want, Matt,is A.B. Karabut, Ya Kucherov and I.B. Savvatimova"
         (see Physics Letters A 170 (1992) 265-272)
 
    and here for the attentive reader is part of the actual abstract:
 
=K  "New results for glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry are presented
=K    In separate experiments a heat output five times exceeding the input
=K    electric power was observed. ... Charge particles with energies
=K    up to 18 MeV and an average energy of 2-4 MeV were seen.  Beams of
=K    gamma-rays with energies of about 200 keV and a characteristic
=K    X-ray radiation were registered. ..."
 
  In summary: "*no* mention of X-ray detection"?
    You decide, dear reader.  At the end of this posting is more on the Kucherov
                               paper and expt.)
   It is hoped that this laborious update corrects information for readers
   of sci.physics.fusion.  [Thank you all for teaching me so much.]
 
                            Best wishes,
                                                  Mitchell Swartz
 
  part 1 - questions for Steve Jones
  part 2 - background on the Kucherov paper/expt.
 
====  QUESTIONS TO STEVE JONES -- previously dodged ==============
1. Steve, you had previously knocked Kucherov's xray claims but have now
 recanted the misclaim that it was a diffraction pattern (it is not).
   So what is it?
   What causes an electrode to create positive autoradiographs if the
    electrode is an active material?  Or are they all "fabrication"?
 
2.  Where is the proof that your expensive x-ray spectroscope has a "clear
 advantage"?   When CAT scans were
 compared with MRI scan data reconstructions (for just one example)
 there was an attempt to  determine which was better.
 But it was based upon proof by actually comparing matched objects.
  Any real data for your claims?   Any at all to compare it with film?
 
3.  Indeed as I have posted, x-rays may be present.
   What does it imply given that x-ray film is exposed upon being next to
    functioning cold fusion electrodes?
   They are more likely to be present in
 situations where radiographic films are exposed, right?
 
========== A few comments on Kucherov [after Peter Hagelstein,
                                      ColdFusion Times(1993)] ====
  "Ya. R. Kucherov{13-15} from the Luch Association, Podolsk, Moscow Region
  described experiments that I thought were very important.
  The experiment involves using a glow discharge to load a Pd (or other
 metal) foil (1 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 mm - 1.0 mm) in D[2] gas at 10 torr, with a
 400 V discharge (10 - 500 mA current).  ... The gamma emission was studied
 using four detectors (Ge-Li, stilbene, NaI and SPS plastic); most of the
 recent results were obtained using a liquid nitrogen-cooled Ge-Li DGDK-50
 detector with 1.6 keV resolution at 1332 keV, and an efficiency of 10{-3}
 at 511 keV."    ...
   "Temperatures were monitored using W-Re thermocouples in the
 
    "Numerous effects are observed; excess heat production will first be
 considered.
 Excess power  production at the level of tens of watts is observed;
 their best result  out of 78 experiments is a 33 watt excess representing
 a power gain of a  factor of 5. Given the small total cathode volume,
 the resulting power  generation rate is quite high; the highest values
 are on the order of 3000  watts/cm{3} of Pd. The highest total energy
 production observed to  date exceeds 20 kJ."
    "After about 100 seconds after the start of the discharge, neutron
 emission is observed (a huge signal, reaching up to 10{6} neutrons/sec
 in some experiments). The neutron detection described in their earlier
 work was done using RUP-1 silver activated ZnS scintillation detectors and
 type SNM-18 gas discharge ({3}He) detectors. The 10{6} neutron/sec signal
 appeared in the scintillation detector as 2000 counts/sec at a distance of
 1 meter; the signal showed up as 10000 pulses/second at a distance of 30
 cm on the SNM-18 detector. No emission was observed using a hydrogen
 discharge."
    "After a while, gamma emission is then observed (also a huge signal, up
 to 10{5} gammas/sec in some experiments). ...   An example of an anomalous
 gamma spectrum from Pd is shown in a recent publication{16}.
    Gamma lines were identified from short-lived isotopes (the gamma
 spectrum returns to its initial state in 3-5 days), and some of the
 identified lines originate in isotopes in the neighborhood of Pd (lines
 originating from isotopes with a nuclear charge of *Z*-3 to *Z*+8, where
 *Z*=46 for Pd, were observed)."
    "A very substantial flux (10{4} to 10{6} ions/sec) of fast ions is
 emitted from the cathode, and silicon surface barrier detectors were used
 for detection. The bulk of the emission occurs between 1-5 MeV, and in
 some experiments lasts for a few minutes after the discharge is switched
 off which allows for an accurate determination of the spectrum. Correlated
 fast ion emission was registered on calibrated CR-39 plates installed
 inside the discharge chamber."
    "A small fraction of the fast ions are observed at high energy; peaks
 were observed at 6 MeV, 12 MeV and 16 MeV. The mass of the particles at 12
 MeV and higher was determined to be greater than or equal to 4, as
 determined through measurements with different barrier thicknesses."
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A different hatchet attack
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A different hatchet attack
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 05:53:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930822000452_72240.1256_EHK50-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>Okay, Larry, what equipment were they using? Make and model number? On
>what date did you observe this equipment is use? Was it the same equipment
>reported in their final, formal, published, experimental results? If so,
>which publication?
 
    Okay, Jed.  Since y'all are apparently message-boys for P&F,
    I'd like some information about the experiments reported in the
    Phys. Lett Paper.  To wit, what equipment were they using?
    Make and model number? Detailed description please.  What does 'dry'
    mean.  What was their sampling rate?  Can we see detailed I,V diagrams.
    How could the Kel-F melt and have the thermister remain at 100C.
    What is the meaning of 'turning the current off' after the cell
    boils dry?  Do they really think that they have reflux condensation
    in the cell?
 
    No conjecture please, just cold hard facts.  These things are *not*
    in the paper.
 
>reviewed, formal, scientific literature. He wants us to instantly accept
>and believe as gospel truth any filthy rumor or obvious concoction picked
>up off the street ...
 
     You mean like 'The Amazing Miracle Hole Size'?
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 00:59:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
I double checked the numbers in the CRC and it sure appears that gaseous
deuterium has about 1/4 the thermal conductivity of liquid water at 100C.
It has 5 times the thermal conductivity of air at 100C, and 7 time the
thermal conductivity of water vapor at 100C.
 
Furthermore, deuterium's thermal conductivity increases with temperature,
pretty nearly proportional to the change in absolute temperature.  So at
300C, deuterium's thermal conductivity as compared to liquid water (at
100C) improves to approx 2/5.
 
Now I've been talking strictly values for the coefficients.  But remember that
liquid water in a chamber is always at or below the water line.  Deuterium
gas will fill the entire chamber -- potentially increasing the effective
cross-sectional area for heat transport.
 
P+F claimed that their cell boiled from "half full" to empty.  But the out-
gassed deuterium would occupy the full cell volume.  So although the thermal
conductivity coefficient is 1/4 that of the water it replaces, the cross-
sectional area has doubled (in a symmetrical geometery.)  Thus the actual
heat transport of the system has only gone down by as little as 1/2.
 
Both water and deuterium gas are subject to stirring and convection,
respectively, which should further aid in thermal conductivity -- especially
due to the cell's "smokestack" geometry.
 
** Note to Tom Droege **
The contents of the cell head space can have a noticeable effect on the
cell conduction constant -- especially if the head space is large in
comparison the the liquid volume.
 
During loading the headspace will likely contain a mixture of mostly O2 and
water vapor.  After loading, some D2 (though it burns off with the new O2 in
the recombiner) too.  During boiling, and especially if the rate of boiling
exceeds the condesation capacity of the cell, the primary gas in the head
space will be water vapor (the old O2 being pushed out) since its rate of
creation dwarfs the D2 and O2 from the electrolysis.  And finally we have
the case of outgassing of the D2.  A quick outgassing can drive out the
other headspace gases and D2 can become the principle headspace gas.
 
Taking an easy example, suppose the electrolyte was just 1/5 the cell
testtube volume.  An outgassing of D2 would probably double the conduction
constant of the cell.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermal conductivity of hydrogen -- Holy Cow!
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 01:13:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Both water and deuterium gas are subject to stirring and convection,
>respectively, which should further aid in thermal conductivity -- especially
>due to the cell's "smokestack" geometry.
 
A thermometer in such a circulating flow (warm gas rising up the center and
descending down the cell walls) might register a different "constant"
temperature depending upon where in the flow it was placed.
 
If it was placed near the bottom and toward the outside, its temperature could
be lower than above a heat source.  If there was water condensation anywhere
in the cell, this lower outer area would be the most likely place it would
exist, and it would tend to hold that area at around 100C due to the well
known properties of heat of vaporization.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / Anthony Wesley /  Re: Starting the Design - heat pipes
     
Originally-From: awesley@localhost (Anthony Wesley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design - heat pipes
Date: 23 Aug 1993 01:57:37 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Design Status #1                                        16 August 1993
 
: This is the first of a series of notes where the design of the new calorimeter
: will be discussed.
 
 
: 3)  Make the puck from a heat pipe.
 
: This is very appealing to me.  There are a number of places in the calorimeter
: where I could make use of isothermal surfaces.
 
: Here are some questions for any experts out there (but don't hesitate to put
: in your oar just because you are not yet an expert - soon we all will be):
 
: 1)  Are heat pipes something that a boy scientist is likely able to build with
: a little advice?  I am willing to spend some money on a vacuum pump.
 
being a computer person by trade, I read the comp.arch newsgroup. There has
been some discussion there regarding cooling the CPU's used in the latest
generation of computers, and several designes use a heat pump for this. The
CPU's can dissipate as much as ~100W from a small package, so cooling is a
MAJOR design consideration. You may find some experts there.
 
Of course, I read sci.physics.fusion for purely recreational purposes :-)
 
keep up the good work...
 
 
regards, anthony
awesley@canb.auug.org.au
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenawesley cudfnAnthony cudlnWesley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 02:20:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>The fuel mass of neutron materialization devices will last much longer as a
>fuel since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical element
 
Should last forever if you engineer it right.
 
>The changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting in
>net increase in total energy going out which will be observable and
>measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then be converted to
>other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
 
It'd sure make one hell of a rocket fuel -- spontaneous creation of
reaction mass i.e. the end of the problem of conservation of momentum.
You could reach nearly light speed in about 2 (earth) years at 1g accel.
 
>I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all
>around us, in stars, in the Earth.
 
Alas, while continuous creation isn't any harder philosophically to swallow
than the big bang hypothesis, the evidence, such as it is, has favored the
big bang theory more than the continuous creation theory.  So I won't get
too excited by this present "invention" until it is reduced to practice
in some form or other.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Temperature and entrophy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Temperature and entrophy
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 03:16:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Temperature is a measure of the average momentum of a system of molecular
particles.  Momentum is the product of the mass of the particle and its
velocity.  Velocity = sqrt(2*E/M) where E=energy and M=mass.  Momentum is
always conserved in a particle-particle collision.  This means that equal
mass particles will exchange their velocities, while unequal mass particles
will undergo velocity changes inversely proportion to their mass ratio.
 
This last fact qualitatively explains why lightweight gas molecules have
higher thermal conductivity than heavyweight gas molecules.  The lightweight
molecules pick up greater velocity in a collision at equal temperature than
the heavyweight molecules and hence move to distant points at greater
speeds.
 
Temperature is a form of kinetic energy (motion)  -- distributed with
statistical randomness to the constituent particles.  A steel ball dropped
unto a massive steel floor (neglecting air friction) will bounce successively
less highly on each bounce as its macro-non-random kinetic energy is
transformed into internal random kinetic energy.
 
We ought to be able to do the opposite -- reorder the random kinetic
energy into uni-directional kinetic energy -- to make the ball cool down
while it bounced higher and higher.
 
And in some systems we can essentially do this, but with the limitation
that heat must flow from a hotter location to a colder location (thus
cooling the hot, and warming the cold.)  At each transaction the hot gets
closer in temperature to the cold, and eventually heat will no longer flow.
This spreading of sameness of thermal energy is known as entrophy.
 
Entrophy thus prevents us from using the energy of the air temperature,
for instance, as an inexhaustable fuel for our cars.  The energy is there,
but we can't make mechanical use of it unless we can provide a pool of less
energetic randomness to create a heat flow.
 
I believe it was Maxwell who proposed a demon that could steer hot molecules
one way and cold molecules the other (all gases have a distribution of
velocities at a given temperature) and thus reverse entrophy.  But presently
there are no known methods to accomplish that demon function.
 
I continue to find the idea of entrophy reversal enticing.  It seems there
ought to be a way to manufacture a mechanical Maxwell demon to reverse
entrophy.  Perhaps something in nano-technology.  Perhaps some quantum
effect such a bose condensation at room temperature.  I wonder.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Re: If air gets in...
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: If air gets in...
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 03:44:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>my guess is that if air gets in, it would grow about as hot
>as the water vapor, which would make it a tad lighter I think, which would tend
>to drive it right out the top.
 
Mixing of various gases is pretty rapid, and they don't come unmixed very
easily.  You cannot effectively seperate gases by exploiting the mechanism
you just mentioned.  However ...
 
>It would also tend to float around in high
>concentration at the top because it is cool up there, and the water would
>condense, but air does not condense at these temperatures.
 
Condensation would "unmix" the vapor from the air ... provided it condensed
before it escaped at the exchange interface.
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / mitchell swartz /  Eschew Truth/ Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eschew Truth/ Steve Jones
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 04:27:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Aug21.171832.865@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Eschew Obfuscation/ Mitchell Swartz
Steve Jones {jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes:
 
== "Evidently Mitchell overlooked or disregarded the following quantitative
== discussion posted here May 26, 1993 by BYU student Jonathon Jones, based on
== experiments here:"
== "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was used as
== the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire .. used as the oxygen electrode.
== While running with an
==      input power of 320 microwatts -- qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48V)--
== the measured output was 750 microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when
== calculated with the formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
 
   Steve, such a tiny power ----->    less than 1 milliwatt.
   How does that compare to the experiments others do?    Vide infra.
 
 
== "When glass tubes were placed over the electrodes allowing a flow of ions but
== inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes the output measured
== corresponded to the input power (qinp), thus no excess heat was observed."
== Need a Table?  OK:
== Qinput    Qoutput      xs heat fraction = (qout-qinp)/qinp
== 320        750           1.34                        "
 
  Where is the Table?   Where is the data?   Where is the beef?
  Did the current stay the same with the glass tube over the electrodes?
  What was the volume of the electrode?  The time?  solution?
Please let us (or me by e-mail) know the metals involved (in addition to nickel)
 and their dimensions (you have made a big deal of that in the past about
   others).
 
 
== "There are other data from the BYU experiments that one could reiterate, but
== this counterexample to Mitchell's claim shows his error."
 
  Where is my putative error?  You claimed a range of values, you claimed
   a diverse group of gases.  You have yet to settle on one value.  Go figure.
 
 
== "Note that Miles' maximum xs heat fraction was 1.27 (127%), and that he
== specifically *assumed*
== that no recombination took place.  We have shown that this assumption is in
== error and that recombination effects in Miles' (and many other) experiments
== have not been ruled out."
 
  Evidently, Steven Jones, still claiming that electrochemists, radiologists
   (oops that was his last posting), cold fusioneers, and scientists
   worldwide are  WRONG and STUPID, now has his BYU student (?,son?) with data
   "in hand" to prove this all beyond any doubt.
 
  OK?  this is growing tiring, but in the interest of truth, justice,
              and the scientific way:
 
  1.  Please post the real data including the partial gas pressures (and
        barometric) which you used to obtain the data.
       Or was this a single one-point measurement?
 
  2. MOST IMPORTANT  The reader should note that I have been asking for
     numerical information for a while.   Slow to come, Mr. Jones finally
     posts it.  Here then is the analysis.
 
    Jones purports a potential error of: 0.75 milliwatts.  (conditions unclear)
        No real data is provided, but let us assume that it is correct.
        Is it important?
 
F&P had 1989 outputs of circa 60 milliwatts (I think, paper not in front of me
Miles in his second sample had 540 milliwatts excess power
               [yielding circa 9 x 10^13 Helium (500ml)]
 
  So, at last we get to tabulate this out.
 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
   The Jones Factor                              0.75
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Hmmmmmm.  No wonder you folks have avoided posting the data.
 
  Jones' Factor (if it exists) therefore means: so far very little.
 
  One can not erase  60-540 milliwatt signals by a purported, relatively
   insignificant, (less than) 1 milliwatt alleged error.
 
   So, Mr. Jones.
   1.   Prove it if you have it.
   2.   Show by an order of magnitude calculation that it is important.
 
     Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Is it *already* over the limit
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is it *already* over the limit
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 05:17:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Aug20.215048.21480@math.ucla.edu>
      Subject: Re: It is *already* over the limit
 Barry Merriman barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) writes
 
=jr "Back up guy, and add up how many joules come out of the system *before*
=jr  160000 s. It is already far, far over the limits of chemistry."
=bm    "What happens when the excess heat exceeds the limits
=bm    of *nuclear reactions* as well? Presumably it will, if
=bm    it is all an artifact."
 
   Good point.
 
=bm  "(Of course, some would argue it already has, since they can't
=bm  find any nuclear ashes.)"
 
   Evidence of absence is not provided by the absence of evidence.
 
   Best wishes.
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                 mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Thermal conductivity of diamond
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermal conductivity of diamond
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 06:08:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Why does diamond apparently have such a high thermal conductivity coefficient?
It seems to be about 4-5 times that of silver.  Obviously it isn't due to
the free movement of electrons ala metals.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / mitchell swartz /  The Jones Factor
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Jones Factor
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 04:56:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Aug21.171832.865@physc1.byu.edu>
   Steve Jones {jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes:
 
== "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was used as
== the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire .. used as the oxygen electrode.
== While running with an
==      input power of 320 microwatts -- qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48V)--
== the measured output was 750 microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when
== calculated with the formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
 
         Such a tiny power ----->    less than 1 milliwatt. !!!!
 
   I'll have to ask Dr. Mallove, the next time I have the opportunity to speak
     with him, how many of the world-wide distribution of cold fusioneers,
     are able to achieve the undramatic BYU power levels of just under
     1 milliwatt.
 
 
== "Note that Miles' maximum xs heat fraction was 1.27 (127%), and that he
== specifically *assumed*
== that no recombination took place.  We have shown that this assumption is in
== error and that recombination effects in Miles' (and many other) experiments
== have not been ruled out."
 
    Jones purports a potential error of: 0.75 milliwatts.  (conditions unclear)
        No real data is provided, but let us assume that it is correct.
        Is it important?
 
F&P had 1989 outputs of circa 60 milliwatts (I think, paper not in front of me
Miles in his second sample had 540 milliwatts excess power
               [yielding circa 9 x 10^13 Helium (500ml)]
 
  So, at last we begin to tabulate, and reason, this out.
 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
   Fleischmann & Pons ('89)                    60     (circa)
     Miles ('92)                              540
   The Jones Factor ('93)                      00.750
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  The Jones' Factor (if it exists, and if its combination of glass tubes,
     frits, microwatt power levels, additional gas cylinders)
                                      therefore means: so far very little.
 
  One can not erase the impact of  60-540 milliwatt signals by a purported,
      relatively insignificant, (less than) 1 milliwatt alleged error.
 
     Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / L Plutonium /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 11:21:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1993Aug21.120046.6741@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> And where, then, is the causal link between 19 occupied subshells in
> 7 shells and the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference?
>
> Numerology explains nothing itself -- and therefore can terribly mislead
> due to the possibililty of unrelated coincidence and observer selection
> of "fit" evidence and rejection of "unfit" evidence.
 
   I am sure many intuitionless physicists called Dirac a numeralogist
behind his back. Dirac was mystified by the inverse fine-structure
constant and that physics seems to be "just beautiful mathematics".
   This fact all scientists can agree upon--all things are made of
atoms--noone before me has pushed the idea one step forward--that the
whole is an atom. I am sure that if both Dirac and Feynman were alive,
that given a month's reflection would also see the beauty of that one
step forward. It solves the mysteries of the quantum world. ATOM
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  blue@dancer.ns /  3He neutron detectors and fractofusion results
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 3He neutron detectors and fractofusion results
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 14:13:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In conjunction with his most recent bibliography update, Deiter asks for
some help in the interpretation of a Japanese fractofusion paper.  They
claim to have observed net counts in region of the pulse height spectra
for a bank of 3He neutron detectors.  Since the detectors are surrounded
by a moderator all information related to the initial neutron energy
is lost as the neutrons are slowed to thermal energy before detection
via the reaction:
 
   3He + n -> p + 3H + 764 keV.
 
Since there are only charged particles in the final state all of the
764 keV goes to ionizing the counter gas, and that is the signal that
is recorded in the pulse height spectrum.  These detectors do, however,
respond to gamma rays as well so the 764 keV peak is generally seen
sitting on a continuum of pulse heights.  The response is also less
than perfect because of wall effects in which the proton or triton
reach the counter wall before giving up all their energy.
 
In the case of low-rate experiments finding net counts after background
subtraction in the proper channel of the pulse height spectrum for
the 764 keV peak does lend support to the notion that the events are
due to neutrons, but it isn't totally definitive.  In any case I
have difficultly with the stated level of certainty obtained with
126 counts for effect and 91.2 counts background.  Firstly there is
the problem with fluctuations in the background rate to be considered
such that backgrounds observed at some time removed from the measurements
for effect may not match exactly with what was occuring during the
measurement.  Clearly the 91.2 background count rate is derived from
a measurement over a longer time span which is then divided by the appropriate
factor so I have to make a guess that the factor is at least 4.  If that
is the case the measured counts would have been 365 for which sigma is 19.
Dividing by 4 yields the 91.2 with a sigma of 5 while the 126 has a sigma
of 11.  At the two sigma limit 91.2 could be 101.2 and 126 could be 104.
I would say the numbers overlap at the 2 sigma level so I don't see where
they get their better than 99% confidence.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  blue@dancer.ns /  average versus peak
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: average versus peak
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 14:49:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell suggests that I am being dishonest by using 2% excess
to characterise McKubre's results.  In case anyone has been misled
let me make it clear that 2% is an average excess, not a peak value.
Since Jed Rothwell regularly uses integrated, i.e. averaged, values
for excess enthalpy in support of claims that CF can not be chemical;
I feel perfectly justified in following his lead.  A 2% excess can
be a 2% systematic error or an interesting phenomena.  It isn't very
good for the selling of CF as a future energy source, however, and
that is why Jed doesn't like to be reminded of average values.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / Bart Deenen /  Re: Neutron blabla
     
Originally-From: Bart van Deenen <vdeenen@phys.uva.nl>
Originally-From: Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
Originally-From: Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
Originally-From: John Logajan, logajan@ns.network.com
Originally-From: John Logajan, logajan@ns.network.com
Originally-From: Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron blabla
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Date: 23 Aug 93 12:04:22 +0200
Organization: Universiteit van Amsterdam, micro-g dept.

Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Originally-From: Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
In article <CC2zDn.EnL@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium,
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
>        Special note to the reader of the future: Although I have
>recalibrated
>the calendar giving it a scientific basis by starting the year \\\\
>with the year of the discovery of the element plutonium via
>nucleosynthesis, that year was 194\ in the old calendar. I choose
not
>to use the new science calendar within this patent application for
it
>may tend to confuse and put an extra burden on the patent
examination.
>Using a science calendar, then the year of the Plutonium Atom
Totality
>discovery is \\5\ vice 199\ and the first year of this patent
>application for Neutron Materialization Devices was \\51 vice 1991.
I
>apologize to those future generations in having to read the
un-science
>of my generation, but they can well understand that Ludwig Plutonium
>lived in a time when the average person could not give a single math
>proof nor write out Maxwell's equations. Future generations can
>understand that Ludwig Plutonium by \\53 lived when sentiment and
>religion, vice math and physics dominated the planet Earth. Future
>generations will convert all the years to this new science calendar.
>        P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous
materialization
>of
>particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics
1975 on
>pages 76-78.  His book states, and I quote:
>"Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large
>dimensionless numbers should be connected together.  We should then
>expect that
>                total mass /proton mass =  1\ 78 proportional time 2
>Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that
the
>total number of protons in the Universe is increasing
proportionally to
>time 2.  Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a
>continuous creation of matter." (Continued.)
>        "According to the ordinary physical processes, which we
study
>in the
>laboratory, matter is conserved.  Here we have direct
nonconservation
>of matter.  It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process
for
>which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are
>created where they did not previously exist. (Continued.)
>        If there is new matter continually being created, the
question
>arises:
>"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which
one
>might make.  One is that the new matter is continually created
>throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly
created
>in intergalactic space.  I call this the assumption of additive
>creation.
>        Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new
matter is
>created close by where matter already exists.  That newly created
>matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
>there.  This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up.  I
call
>that the assumption of multiplicative creation."
>        Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of
>nowhere
>can occur either additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed
particle
>materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and
>that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and
>multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by
>late199\ that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction
was I
>did not discover until 1991. Shortly thereafter submitting the
patent
>application.
>        PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION.
>        (1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION.  The conventional physics
community
>is in
>agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was
>theoretically proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 194\'s.
Then
>Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
>fusion. These observations have now passed into physics facts,
unlike
>electrochemical test tube cold fusion which is presently hotly
>contested and not yet established as fact.
>        Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my
>theoretical
>understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in
muon
>catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about
>after several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium,
>there theoretical thinking is wrong.  What is really going on are
>several quantum steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization.
>        Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
>Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing
>electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or
running
>a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It is
the
>muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the changing
i.
>Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As important as in
the
>laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's law of
induction a
>changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's law of
induction
>as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or current are
>required.
>        Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a
big
>electron.  When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its
>own variable VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a
muon
>is a variable electric current within the muatom. Hence when there
are
>muons in any particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those
>muons will induce spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out
of
>nowhere resulting in a net energy to the whole system.
>        (2)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data
by
>NASA's
>Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic
protons.
>Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there
are no
>stellar objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
>source having generated the gamma ray. Since no stellar objects
produce
>these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
>spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
>energetic protons, and energetic electrons.
>        Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy
frequency
>of
>hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
>materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton,
electron,
>neutrino system yielding the observed gamma rays.      The
uniformity
>of
>cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because spontaneous neutron
>materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as the uniform
process
>of the  Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The uniformity
>explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom
>Totality. That our observable universe is just the 94th electron,
the
>last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231, which acts
as a
>quantum cavity, a quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily get
too
>far afield by explaining why the Cosmic Background Radiation is
>relentlessly uniform with a blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the
>night sky is dark because it is a quantum blackbody cavity. Why the
>speeds of stars are quantized, because the stars are inside a
quantum
>blackbody cavity-- the last electron of 231Pu. But instead I refer
the
>interested reader to my textbook, Encl 4.
>        It is noted here that the uniformity of cosmic gamma
ray-bursts
>were
>discovered after I had submitted my patent application in July of
1991.
>It is seen that as time goes on, supporting evidence for spontaneous
>neutron materialization increases.
>        (3) The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F.
Paneth
>and K.
>Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M. Fleischmannn
>and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989.  But what I have new to tell the
>world is that it is not a fusion process. It is radioactive
spontaneous
>neutron materialization. Noone before me in the history of the world
>has ever proposed that neutrons come into existence spontaneously,
>induced through a changing electric current i or induced by a
changing
>electric potential V. Previous to my art, the cold fusion
experiments
>were conducted under false theory, hence their experiments turned
out
>unpredictable.
>        The History of Electrochemical Cold Fusion is one in which
none
>of the
>pioneers realized the correct theory-- that neutrons spontaneously
>materialize, and materialize more often when induced by means of a
>changing electric current i or a changing electric potential V. I
claim
>to know better how both electrochemical cold fusion and hot fusion
>work.
>        Cold Fusion, test tube experiments were reported by
>Fleischmannn &
>Pons et al, 1989. The current community of physics professors are
>mostly virulently opposed to the claims of cold fusion.  That
community
>holds little credence in cold fusion. But it is a fact that there
are
>many corporate funded research programs ongoing into cold fusion, to
>name a few, GE fusion research, NTT researchers, and Fleischmann &
Pons
>laboratory in France.
>        I contend the better part of wisdom would hold that there is
>something
>going on in these electrochemical cold fusion experiments.  That
there
>is something going on in these experiments of cold fusion is what I
>assert is rsnm.  And if the experimenters would switch fuel masses
from
>heavy water and palladium to that of a better fuel mass of hydrogen
or
>a mixture of hydrogen isotopes applying either changing i or
changing
>V, then rsnm will be seen with predictable results.
>        I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the
view
>of
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process
of
>fusing atoms, not fusion. Then the experiments will become clear and
>the results predictable.
>        Yet the current physics community will continue to teach
>falsehoods
>for it is a highly conservative community, slow to change their
>thinking, even though the evidence builds up against them. I make
these
>remarks to lead into the conservation of energy-mass. It is a known
>fact of physics from experiment results that the conservation of
>energy-mass is violated by virtual particles via the Uncertainty
>Principle in QED. And as of the present time the physics community
is
>highly opposed to Dirac's suggestion in his book Directions in
Physics
> that the conservation of energy-mass is a falsehood. But it is
>reasonable expected behavior of the physics community, for most
people
>follow the crowd majority rather than follow the minority who have
hard
>evidence. I refer to the scientific case of Aristarchus over 22\\
years
>ago who asserted the heliocentric system from hard evidence of
measured
>observables. Sentiment and religion carried the falsehood of the
>Ptolemy system for thousands of years. Conservation of energy-mass
will
>continue its popularity with professors of physics, since most
people
>feel better with the bandwagon science before they accept hard
>evidence. It is predictable for a patent examiner to accept the
>crowd-pleasing-majority, e.g., in D. Albagli et al plus D.E.
Williams
>et al where there are a total of 27 researchers, than to believe the
>words of one single supergenius as myself, or such as the genius of
>Dirac who gave evidence in his book that the conservation of
>energy-mass is a falsehood. There are 27 political pork-barrel votes
>for more moneys to spend on hot fusion as against my 1.
>        (4) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar
System,
>I
>assert, is by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
Earth is
>growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
>difficult to measure. The physics and astronomy community assigns
this
>known fact of the growing accretion of the Earth to only one
account,
>that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust,
>and objects. I assert that Earth is growing more massive daily by
two
>accounts, one from the outer space planetary sweep, but more
>importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the
interior of
>Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing
>electric potential V inside Earth.     When astronomers try to
>reconcile
>the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from cosmic
sweep
>alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by
>Earth is equal to the Earth's accretion from outer space plus
Earth's
>internal accretion by rsnm.  The outer space accretion is small in
>comparison to the internal accretion.
>        Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in the Earth's
center.
>The Earth of the past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener's
>Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
>        The current conventional community of astronomers and
>physicists
>subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-1\ billion
years
>ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
>conventional astronomy panders off.
>        The present physics community believes that the daily mass
>accretion
>of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
>objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much
to
>interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
>intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and
our
>planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics
has
>reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted
explanation
>to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin
of
>the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and
gas
>clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
>reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy.
>Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect.
>        The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars,
and
>again
>I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
>wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot
of
>the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
>Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are loci where large quantity
of
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
>Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave
equation,i.e.,
>a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
>Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory
of
>the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but
refer
>the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more
understanding.
>        (5) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The
>planet
>Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2)
a
>magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded
in
>explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is
rsnm.
>The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of
the
>94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation
is
>where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it
>exists there occurs rsnm.
>        (6) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the
>middle of
>the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
>previous to 199\, in that these elements should have escaped a long
>time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
>community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have
the
>explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization,
since
>rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes
some
>hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms
lithium.
>So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
>elements from the middle of the Earth.
>        (7) The case for the light chemical elements and their
>anomalous
>quantity found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium,
and
>boron are found in too large of a proportion in stars to be
accountable
>by fusion. For stars are so hot that these light elements would have
>been burned-off and the theoretical rate of creation by hot fusion
of
>new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low to what is actually
>observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion theory
with
>respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and
boron in
>stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light
>elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where
the
>light elements are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be
>there, and where they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic
space,
>there should be more of them there.
>        The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once
>radioactive
>spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working
>process. In intergalactic space there is little to no changing
electric
>potential V or changing current flow i, and so there is little
neutron
>materialization to form these light elements. But in stars, it is
not
>so much that they are hot and burn off the light elements but that
>stars continually create via neutron materialization these light
>elements because of the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
>        (8) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform
distribution
>of the
>chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions that
>they are observed is strong evidence in support for the process of
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics
>community explains the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic
clouds
>as a result of supernovae. But supernova are rare events.
>        (9) The observation that when electric current i flowing
>through wires
>or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot and
>eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to the
>high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive
>spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And before these
>teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc Z=3\
>contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75 contaminated
>light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten Z=74 in these
>materials after running electric current in the materials. With
rsnm it
>is a direct consequence that a copper wire will have atoms of zinc,
and
>a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms of rhenium after
running
>a changing electric current i through, because there is radioactive
>growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm.  Check
chemical
>analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by General Electric,
>Philips, Siemens, et al.
>        (1\) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the
Sun
>is not
>direct evidence of spontaneous neutron materialization, it is direct
>evidence that the currently accepted theory of hot fusion is
incorrect.
>Why is there a missing 2/3 count? I contend that there is not a
missing
>count of neutrinos. The mistake the physics community makes is that
the
>4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong nuclear and
>gravity are considered to the 1\\% exclusion of radioactivities and
>electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count accords with
theory.
>Vice versa, if radioactivities and electromagnetism are considered
to
>the 1\\% exclusion of strong nuclear and gravity, then the actual
>measured neutrino count accords with theory. The 2/3 missing
neutrino
>count from the Sun is indirect support for spontaneous neutron
>materialization since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and
>all stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4
interactions
>(forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2
interactions as
>quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle states: The
>wave and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary
>for a complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed
>simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed
is
>determined by the nature of the experiment being done.  The 1/3
actual
>count of neutrinos from the Sun accords well with theory once the
>theory makes predictions from the use of either SN and G, excluding
R
>and EM, and vice versa.
>        Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos
>coming from
>the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot
fusion
>from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion
partially
>that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic
>force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only
the
>strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the
radioactive
>and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses
>which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear
and
>gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and
electromagnetic
>forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized
when
>all 4 forces are considered at once.
>        (11) Patent 5,\76,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for
 
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Originally-From: Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
In article <CC35wI.Hv1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium,
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
>        (11) Patent 5,\76,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for
Enhancing
>Alpha
>Decay in Radioactive Materials .  This method is true in practice
but
>the theory outlined by W.A. Barker is false. The true theory behind
>this invention is spontaneous neutron materialization which
>transmutates some of the original atoms into other radioactive atoms
>which then decay more quickly then what the original atom was, decay
>into stable atoms. W.A. Barker is wrong when he asserts that rates
of
>radioactive decay are mutable and can be enhanced, and a better term
>other than enhancing is alteration. Alteration of some of the
original
>atoms in a sample. An elementary physics text will confirm with me
that
>rates of radioactive decay are immutable:  PHYSICS OF THE ATOM  ,
>1984,Wehr,Richards, Adair on page 366 states
>"In showing that radioactive radiations came from uranium metal,
>Becquerel worked with many uranium salts and the metal itself. He
used
>these materials crystallized, cast, and in solution. In every case
it
>appeared that the radiations were proportional to the concentration
of
>the uranium. It has been found that this proportionality between
>radiation intensity and uranium concentration continues unchanged
>through variations of temperature, electric and magnetic fields,
>pressure, and chemical composition. Since the radioactive behavior
of
>uranium is independent of the environment of the uranium atom or its
>electronic structure, which changes from compound to compound, the
>radioactive properties of uranium were attributed to its nucleus."
 
>Yet
>W.A. Barker was able to receive a patent on an apparatus which in
fact
>does not work in theory. That there really is no way to enhance
alpha
>decay in radioactive materials, because radioactive decay is
immutable.
>What is really going on when an electrostatic potential is applied
to
>radioactive elements is spontaneous neutron materialization.
>Spontaneous neutron materialization is the mechanism behind the
>alteration of a chemical sample. And when the potential is varied,
as
>prescribed by my teachings, then rsnm increases and alteration
>increases.
>        I end evidences with the above 11. The worst difficulty in
>verifying
>my claim of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is in
>overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and the dead weight
inertia
>of the current physics community at large. A physics community along
>with a mathematics community is composed mainly of professors.
>Professors of a subject are not the best persons in their field. The
>best persons of a subject field are the geniuses of that field.
>Professors only teach what the geniuses of the subject field have
set
>down. Geniuses of physics possess physics intuition, likewise for
>mathematics. Professors of physics have little to no physics
intuition
>and follow a herdlike mentality. Professors of physics are good at
>regurgitating physics and doing what they were designed to do, teach
>the subject. But lacking physics intuition they can not create new
>physics nor see what is correct or wrong with the current physics.
>Whenever something new in physics comes up, the first instinct of a
>physics professor is to remain with the bandwagon in opposition to
the
>new physics. Their physics career starts and ends with
regurgitation,
>never any important newly created ideas. In the case of physics,
most
>of the geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally, I
>repeat that-- only incidentally, to that of doing their physics
work.
>Many of the greatest physicists were never even professors of
physics
>such as Kepler, Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, Poincare, P. Jordan when
they
>did their creative work. Only after it was obvious to the community
of
>physics professors that these men were not like themselves,
>regurgitators of the subject, but true physicists, did the community
>put forth the pretenses that they were good old professors all
along,
>or try to make them into their mold. There are more clear cut
examples
>in mathematics than physics.  The best two examples are the cases of
>Ramanujan and Galois. The important point I am getting to is that
the
>community of physics professors is against cold fusion not because
of
>the experimental results shown to date, but more so out of
sentiment,
>out of ignorance, and most important out of the politics for more
>government funds to continue with hot fusion and laser inertial
>confinement fusion.  A professor of physics will stick to the old
>physics like a goof ball sticks to glue. I make this statement in
order
>to prepare the reader long before I discuss violation of
conservation
>of energy-mass. When I discuss the violation of conservation of
>energy-mass I feel myself in the same position as what Aristarchus
was
>in when he proposed the heliocentric system several thousands of
years
>ago. The majority of people are dumbfounded with new ideas even
though
>the evidence is plain as day and undeniable.
>        Virtual particles out of nowhere is a form of violation of
>conservation of energy-mass. The physics community overlooks that
>violation of conservation of energy-mass by saying that it happens
so
>fast with such small particles. Why? Because so much of quantum
theory
>is counterintuitive in the first place that violation of classical
>physics in the conservation of energy-mass is overlooked. As Feynman
>warns in his book The Character of Physical Law  , 1965, concerning
>quantum physics on page 129 words to the effect that many people
>understand the theory of relativity, but noone understands quantum
>theory. With my textbook of the atom totality saying that the
>observable universe is just the 94th electron of plutonium, that the
>Earth and Sun are just dots of the electron cloud of the probability
>density distribution in the Schroedinger equation and with this
patent
>application, I am telling the world at large that I am the first
person
>in history to understand quantum physics. Why? Because quantum
physics
>is all about atoms and the reason it was so counterintuitive, so
hard
>to understand is because noone before me could see that the totality
>itself was an atom, specifically 231 plutonium. Why plutonium?
Because
>all the special numbers from both physics and mathematics is a
fall-out
>of plutonium. In physics, for example the inverse fine structure
>constant is 137 because 231 Pu has 137 neutrons. In mathematics, the
>two most often used special numbers are pi and e. Why is pi close to
>22/7 and e close to 19/7, because our Maker is plutonium and
plutonium
>has close to 22 subshells in 7 shells and close to 19 occupied
>subshells at any one time in 7 shells. But all of this is already
over
>the heads of professors of physics and professors of mathematics. I
>refer the reader to my revolutionary textbook mentioned.
>        Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics  that
>spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the
>conservation of energy-mass.  But conservation violation is nothing
>new, for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the
conservation
>of parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it
was
>experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP)
were
>not conserved. See 1964  Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus
>inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation
>multiply parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal
symmetry
>is violated. The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that
if
>time could run backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of
>physics?
>        My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
>conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe
at
>large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present
community
>of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of growth is
the
>Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong. The
>observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is
only
>the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is
inside
>a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The
>Plutonium Atom Totality grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization.
>        Thus it would not surprize me if the patent examiner sticks
>with the
>community of physics professors and the goof-ball conservation of
>energy-mass. A supergenius such as Archimedes or myself have to show
>the bandwagons, the huge flocks of birdbrain physics professors just
>where and how far wrong they are.  Dirac is with me, see his
Directions
>in Physics, and Niels Bohr is with me for he was quick to violate
the
>conservation of energy-mass when he told Pauli in 1931 that
>conservation of energy-mass is violated in connection with the
>neutrino. That is the reason I am a supergenius because I go against
>that huge community of physics professors, what Jonathan Swift would
>call "the confederacy of dunces".  For when supergenius comes to
Earth,
>you can easily recognize it by one sign-- "There will be such a
large
>Confederacy of Dunces, all massed-up against him--" See my latest
>publication in The Dartmouth 11May1993 page 7 discussing which of
the
>Nobel prizes in physics were wrong and which of the Fields prizes
were
>wrong.
>        My textbook PLUTONIUM  ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF
>PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS  7Nov9\, gives broader
>discussion of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization and
>quantum principles which are broadly relevant to this patent
>application.  My textbook asserts a combined generalization of the
>uncertainty principle,  complementary principle, exclusion
principle,
>and superposition principle in which it formulates spontaneous
>materialization of neutrons out of nowhere occurs throughout the
>observable universe both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously.  I
>bring-up my textbook because the idea and theory of radioactive
neutron
>materialization was discovered by me during the course of writing
this
>textbook in 199\.  This patent application is a direct result of my
>theoretical physics thinking about the Plutonium Atom Totality. If
it
>were not for this discovery of the atom totality, and the textbook I
>would have never discovered radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization.
>        What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
>        1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a
>specific
>number of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific
count
>of neutrons of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms
and
>the neutrons of those atoms before running a changing electric
current
>i or changing electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and
>checking the count afterwards is extremely difficult and never
exact.
>        2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically
>impossible to
>manufacture a slab of a 1\\% isotope of an element, whether stable
or
>radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure
>hydrogen. It seems as if there is always contamination by other
>isotopes. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results
in
>all samples as being impure and never reaching 1\\% purity. See
reports
>on GE striving to manufacture a 1\\% pure carbon isotope diamond. In
>theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 1\\% purity is
>another formulation of the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics.
>        3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants
are
>hydrogen isotopes, but hydrogen isotopes are very explosive and
>dangerous to work around when running either a changing electric
>current i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through.
>
>
>                DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
>
>        There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong
>Nuclear (SN)
>(2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4)
Electromagnetism
>(EM).
>        There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1)
>Uncertainty
>(UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli
(PP).
>
>         The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the
particle
>aspects
>of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description.
>However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single
>experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature
of
>the experiment being done.
>        By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of
>complementary
>duals. This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle +
>wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
>        Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary
duals.
>Then one
>group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
>description. The other group is Radioactivities (R) and
>Electromagnetism (EM), represented as R+EM = whole description.
>        Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically
measurable as
>either
>SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically
>measurable as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G.
>        Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement
>from
>experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our
Sun
>can be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
>electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description.
This
>complete description of R+EM must exclude all of SN+G.
>        According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM =
>whole
>description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4
interactions
>has the mathematical equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM.
>        The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if
assigned
>the
>value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 1\-4\ . But, 1 +
>1\-4\  is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G a1
>implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM a1.
>        Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .\1,
implies
>that R
>is .99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN.
>        But according to Feynman's Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
>(radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 1\-5. Since
>relative coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than
>radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form of
>radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction
law.
>Since in hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
>helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
>(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium
containing 2
>protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron
system).
>Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
>interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
>(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
>neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
>decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has
the
>relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at
1.
>        I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation
>considering
>quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
>        New Table for Elementary Interactions
>        Coupling        Strength                Law
>Photon to charged particles   a .\1                 Law known
>Gravity to all energy               a 1\-4\           Law known
>radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg    a .99              Law known
>Mesons to baryons                  a 1   Law still unknown but more
>rules
known
>        Compare my table with that of Feynman's Table given above.
The
>largest change is in the category of radioactivity. Feynman's of
1963
>is this: radioactive decay                   a1\ -5         Law
>partially known .
>        What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I
>drastically
>change Feynman's Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up
to
>1991. I change the art of physics through the application of quantum
>principles.  An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it
>exists in a probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is
made.
>If energylike property is measured, the atom behaves like energy,
and
>if a timelike property is measured, the atom behaves like time.
>Whether the atom is energylike or timelike is not well defined until
>the experimental conditions are specified. Bohr asserted that the
>set-up of a device determines what is measured.  To measure mostly
one
>of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up
such
>that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
>types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."
>Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
>electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm
prevails
>over  electromagnetism.
>        The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about
>1\\ to 1.
>  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared
to R
>is about 1\\ to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is
evidence
>in agreement with these numbers. Element 1\\ is at the limit of
>statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
>the relative coupling strength of SN to EM.  Spontaneous Fission
>half-life instability rapidly increases with atomic number Z=99,
>element 99, implying that SN is balanced by R+EM when Z=1\\.
>        Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book
Directions
>in
>Physics. .  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that
>this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
>simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars
in
>their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas
obeying
>laws of electromagnetism. I refer the reader to
magnetohydrodynamics,
>McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  Vol. 1\, 7th Ed.
1992
> magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335.
>        I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is
radioactivities
>and
>electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly
SN
>with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
>measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
>then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of
SN+G
>to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to
>measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude
100%
>all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
>explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and
then
>mixing in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was
wrong.
>Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is
correct
>once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The
strong
>nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion.  Hot fusion is
>described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a
neutron.
>The reaction in the Sun is
>                                P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino)  into  PN
>                               PN + P  into
>                                PNP+ gamma ray
>                                PNP+ PNP into
>                                NPNP+ P+ P + energy
>
>        But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a
>star is
>measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
>radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
>radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong
nuclear
>and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
>with electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then
>magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The
Sun
>and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
>radioactive spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This activity
is
>described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N an
already
>existing neutron, N* a spontaneous materialized neutron. The
reaction
>in the Sun is
>                                    P into  PN*+ energy then
>                               PN into PNN*+ energy then
>                                PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray
>                                PNP into
>                                N*PNP+ energy
>
>        What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization?
>Since
>radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
>electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
>electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
>through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better
than
>others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen.
The
>second best fuel mass are the radioactive isotopes.
>        Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for
>radioactive
>spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
>electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
>electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
>Chemistry and Physics  71st edition 1991  pages 1\-264 to 1\-267:
>Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   16.\
>Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
>Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
>Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
>Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
>Zinc (3\)   MV  3d5/2   1\.1
>Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
>Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
>Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    5\.9
>Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
>Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  1\.7
>Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
>Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
>Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
>Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
>Mercury (8\) OV  5d5/2   7.8
>Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
>Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
>Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ?
>Thorium (9\) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
>Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ?
>Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
 
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Originally-From: John Logajan, logajan@ns.network.com
In article <1993Aug21.120046.6741@ns.network.com> John Logajan,
logajan@ns.network.com writes:
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>>...the observable universe is just the 94th electron of plutonium
>>...specifically 231 plutonium. Why plutonium? Because
>>all the special numbers from both physics and mathematics is a
fall-out
>>of plutonium. In physics, for example the inverse fine structure
>>constant is 137 because 231 Pu has 137 neutrons. In mathematics,
the
>>two most often used special numbers are pi and e. Why is pi close
to
>>22/7 and e close to 19/7, because our Maker is plutonium and
plutonium
>>has close to 22 subshells in 7 shells and close to 19 occupied
>>subshells at any one time in 7 shells.
>
>"close to"???  I don't see how any exercise in numerology can fail
when
>the limits of good fit involve such a vague fudge factor.
>
>And where, then, is the causal link between 19 occupied subshells in
>7 shells and the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference?
>
>Numerology explains nothing itself -- and therefore can terribly
mislead
>due to the possibililty of unrelated coincidence and observer
selection
>of "fit" evidence and rejection of "unfit" evidence.
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn
Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Originally-From: John Logajan, logajan@ns.network.com
In article <1993Aug21.201731.10095@ns.network.com> John Logajan,
logajan@ns.network.com writes:
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>>supergenius as myself
>
>Referring to oneself as a supergenius in the body of the patent text
>strikes me as a particularly good idea -- it insures at least one
>unique claim.
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn
Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energ
Originally-From: Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
In article <CC4LL5.FJF@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium,
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
>The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron
is
>so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for
>electrochemical cold fusion cells, vice heavy water.
>        Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i
or V
>were
>known with 1\\% accuracy then rsnm would be \%. In the language of
>quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the
>wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are
>variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to
>materialize. Thus the i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic
level
>the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable
V
>on a fuel mass such as hydrogen.
>        On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is
that
>it
>occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than
the
>number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
>Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom
which
>is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
>number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
>from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1
electron
>and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
>have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom
with
>94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time
have
>95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
>plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if
when
>another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
>instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons
and
>1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm
in
>the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
>either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or
radioactively
>decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino.  If the materialized
>neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system of
hydrogen,
>then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy
>subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons.
>        The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are
star
>plasmas.  The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron
>inducers which quantum mechanically excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun
is a
>device which has both a large changing electron current i flow and a
>large changing electric potential V, by the fact that it is mostly
all
>hydrogen plasma.
>        Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion
>device
>wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the
experimental
>observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count.
With my
>teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic
>plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct
theory
>is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count
was a
>result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
>        I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically
>excited
>by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of
>matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized,
it
>either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized
>inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom
into a
>different atom or a different isotope.         Any chemical
element/s,
>compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced into
rsnm.
>However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels for
>induction to rsnm, for reason of its 1 electron subshell can easily
>accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen atom,
>having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces
the
>atom into rsnm.        In general, the radioactive elements/isotopes
>will
>quantum induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive elements/isotopes.
The
>reason for this is that since radioactivities is the complementary
dual
>to electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via
>radioactive electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A
>sample of radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can
>result in electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample,
>consequently there is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1
>electrons yet a Z number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm
for
>radioactive elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and
is
>based on the formula for radioactive rate of decay    exp-lt.  Using
>Dirac's rate of materialization as time squared t2, and
substituting t2
>into the radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula
results
>in a normal Gaussian distribution curve.
>        Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing
>radioactive
>spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
>engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These
devices
>can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of
>batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as
>electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power
>plant.  Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be
of a
>much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or
hot
>fusion reactors since the energy output is not dependent on
fissionable
>or fusionable products, rather on neutron materialization.  The fuel
>mass of neutron materialization devices will last much longer as a
fuel
>since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical element/s,
compounds, or
>molecules, radioactive or not.  A neutron materialization nuclear
power
>plant can use a nonradioactive element fuel mass such as iron or
>hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner.  Or a neutron materialization
>nuclear power plant can use a less dangerous radioactive isotope of
>thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the fuel mass. The fuel mass will
>have a changing electric current i flowing, or a changing electric
>potential V through it.  The best chemical elements to use are
>hydrogen, and hydrogen isotopes and the radioactive elements such as
>plutonium, uranium, thorium, and californium.  Any chemical
element/s,
>compounds, or molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is
placed
>in the containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run
through
>the fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the
>fuel. The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as
water
>or some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
>         These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat
from
>rsnm, a
>confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
>complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass.
All
>such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
>materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the
>violation of energy-mass conservation.
>        The changing i or changing V through the fuel mass will
induce
>rsnm
>resulting in a net increase in total energy of the isolated system.
>The changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting
in
>net increase in total energy going out which will be observable and
>measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then be converted to
>other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
>        I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going
on
>all
>around us, in stars, in the Earth.  Where ever there is the strong
>nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the
>radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G
is
>interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM.  So,
>what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
>nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
>radioactivities-electromagnetism.  Before these teachings, a
physicist
>would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong
>nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where
>gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms
to
>make helium atoms with a resultant energy.  I would transpose that
idea
>and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where
>the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a
large
>electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing
>electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of
>which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but
>some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus
>transmutating into new helium atoms and  giving-up excess energy.
>        I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same
only
>looking
>at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of
hydrogen
>into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with
>strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is
correct
>if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 1\\%
>excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism
>interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms
where
>spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these
>hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar
>system.
>        The foregoing detailed description of the invention has been
>presented
>for the purposes of illustration and description.  It is not
intended
>to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form
>disclosed.  Many modifications and variations are possible in light
of
>the above teaching.  It is intended that the scope of the invention
be
>limited not by this detailed description, but rather by the claims
>appended hereto.
>        My invention covers more than just the precise thing
described.
> It is
>a broad theory, and any device that is within the language of the
>claims is to be within the coverage of the patent.  This is to
prevent
>others from pointing to specific examples and arguing that the
patent
>is limited to these.
>
>
>                                PRIOR DEVICES
>
>        None known which are engineered for the purpose of deriving
and
>utilizing net excess energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization.  Noone has applied the correct theory to either hot
>fusion energy nor cold fusion energy. Noone before me has propounded
>the process of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. And
>noone before me has had the idea that running a changing electric
>current i or an changing electric potential difference V through a
fuel
>mass, especially hydrogen, hydrogen isotopes or the radioactive
>elements such as thorium, protoactinium, uranium, plutonium,
>californium will result in a net excess of energy. Net energy in the
>case of hydrogen, or hydrogen isotopes not from the chemistry of
>hydrogen but from nuclear neutron materialization. And net energy in
>the case for radioactive elements, not from the emission products of
>radioactive decay but from a new kind of radioactivity-- spontaneous
>neutron materialization out of nowhere.
>
>                        SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
>
>        Radioactivities interaction is comprised of three
components--
>(1)
>radioactive decay (rd) plus (2) radioactive growth (rg) plus (3)
>radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm). Of these
three,
>rsnm is the strongest in terms of relative coupling strength.
>        The electromagnetic interaction is a quantum complementary
dual
>to the
>radioactivities interaction.  Thus a variable flow of electric
current
>i or a variable electric potential V through any fuel mass will
induce
>the materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere and that devises
>can be set-up, engineered, and constructed to utilize the energy of
>neutron materialization.
>
>                        CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
------ ain't life a beach ------
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenvdeenen cudfnBart cudlnDeenen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Thermal conductivity of diamond
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermal conductivity of diamond
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 13:43:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Aug23.060810.20225@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
> Why does diamond apparently have such a high thermal conductivity
> coefficient?  It seems to be about 4-5 times that of silver.  Obviously
> it isn't due to the free movement of electrons ala metals.
 
I would assume (but do not know and have not looked it up) that it is due
to the unusual nature of the electron bonding in diamond.  The bonding
electrons are completely delocalized, as they would be with a metal.  (It's
only a semiconductor, though, since the conduction band does not overlap
with the bonding band, and in fact is separated from it by several eV.)
 
Thus while _this_ diagram is essentially correct in the relative positioning
of the covalent bonding electron pairs:
 
      H H
      : :
    H:C:C:H
      : :
      H H
 
That is, the electron pairs _really are_ more-or-less fixed between the
carbon atoms.
 
Not so diamond bonds.  In diamond a bond pair like this:
 
    C:C
 
...represents an _increase in density_ of an enormous number of delocalized
electrons -- in other words, what is known as a "metallic bond."   These
electrons have a huge range of momenta, extend throughout the crystal, and
have an average density of 2e at each bond location.  There is a name for
this, which I've mentioned it before: Peierl's condensation, an effect that
was first predicted by a fellow named Kuhn and subsequently written up by
Peierl in his early book on solid state QM.
 
I would assume that it is the metal-like delocalization of the electrons
that is related to the high heat conductivity of diamond.  At the same time,
the high band gap (~5 eV) prolly discourages light from interacting very
much with it, permitting it to be transparent.  That too is just a guess,
however, as I've never tried to look it up.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / John Logajan /  Petr Beckman RIP
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Petr Beckman RIP
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 15:03:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I see that Petr Beckman has passed on.  I had the opportunity to discuss
Libertarian philosophy with him via e-mail after a brief exchange in
the sci.physics newsgroup several years ago.  Apparently he was finding
more common ground with that philosophy, witness his association with
the Reason Foundation and ISIL (International Society for Individual
Liberty), both explicitly Libertarian organizations.
 
He was quite a gadfly on certain scientific and social issues.  He wasn't
one to suffer perceived fools gladly.  I enjoyed his lambasts against
our common enemies -- especially against the enviromentalist crazies.
In fact, I trace my own questioning of the environmentalist assumptions
to his early publications.
 
Thank you Dr. Beckman.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / Jed Rothwell /  Convection, too.
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Convection, too.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 17:43:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
It just occured to me that in discussion of the water vapor in test tubes,
we have touched upon conduction, but not convection. There has been some
talk about how a mix of H2O and D2 gas might be a better conductor than just
H2O, and a comparison of water vapor versus liguid, but it just occured to me
that with a steam radiator in an apartment building the heat is transported
very efficiently through the building.
 
In the P&F cell (and in the test tubes my friends are working with), I don't
think the vapor remaining after boiling takes the heat out the top. I think it
transports it from the cathode or electric heater over to the sides of the
cell, which are cooled by the cooling water.
 
 
Hysterical people who have been posting messages about this process, and asking
how to find out how big the hole at the top of the cell is, should shut their
traps for a moment and look at the schematic in the paper. The approximate size
is easy to determine. Also, these people should stop for a second and explain
to us exactly how and why a test tube full of boiling water would magically
push every last molecule out the top after the pressure from new vapor stops
and the pressure inside the tube equalizes at 1 atm. Of course, if the tube is
wide open and you have a fan blowing air across the top, that will do it, but
with a smaller hole, and no wind, I can't think of any reason for the water to
jump out by itself, or the air to jump in. "Skeptics" -- who believe in any
damn thing without a shred of proof as long as it supports their "arguments"
-- should please explain this latest miracle. We will add it to the list of
other miracles like talking test tubes, water friction, and the "cigarette
lighter effect" that allows hydrogen to burn hundreds of times longer than
ordinary physics would allow.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Effect of gas composition on calorimeters
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Effect of gas composition on calorimeters
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 18:13:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan has given yet another reason not to put too much faith in
results obtained with simple conduction calorimeters.  If the composition
of the gas in the head space above the electrolyte changes and that in turn
results in a change in the calorimeter constant, the calibrations which
were supposed to have determined that constant go out the window.  Add that
to the growing list of problems with CF experiments.   Thus a cell calibrated
with power input from a resistive heater will have air and/or water vapor
in the head space, lower conduction through the gas, and presumably  higher
temperature for a given power level.  With oxygen and deuterium being evolved
during electrolysis the gas mixture in the head space has a higher conductivity
so the temperature is lower and the power level relative to calibrations is
systematically underestimated.  Or if the electrolysis of H2O is used to
establish the zero level,  D2O could show a systematic excess.  Of course
the gas composition effect would be just an addition to the effect of
changes in liquid level.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Hydrogen for Cooling
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrogen for Cooling
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 18:41:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan notes that Hydrogen is pretty good for cooling.  When I last
worked in a public utility pland (1951) large generators were cooled with
Hydrogen.  I assume they still are.  Best combination of low windage losses
and cooling.  Just keep it above atmospheric pressure so Oxygen does not get
in and everything is OK.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Progress Report
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Progress Report
Date: 23 AUG 93 17:10:36 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                        Alcator C-MOD
                        Weekly Highlight Report
                        August 18, 1993
 
Alcator C-MOD is continuing the second block of runs in our Phase I
Experimental program. Operation is becoming much more reliable as the
campaign moves into its fifth week.
 
Last Friday's discharge development run was successful in producing well
separated single-null (lower x-point) equilibria in which the upper null was
outside the vacuum vessel, and the minimum gap (to the inner wall) exceeded
2.5cm.
 
The ICRF coupling studies are continuing to operate in piggy-back mode, and
power is being routinely injected on essentially every shot. Over 250kW has
been launched into the plasma. The tuning procedure has been established,
and excellent matching is observed.
 
Tuesday's run was the first devoted to pellet injection studies. Two sizes
of deuterium pellets were successfully used to fuel the plasma,
individually and in combination. The pellet injector operation was very
reliable over the course of the run, firing pellets on all 19 shots where
it was requested (On two shots, the pellets failed to reach the plasma
indicating  a minor problem with alignment.)  Pellet fueling enabled us to
reach the Greenwald limit at a current of 0.4MA. On several shots there was
prima facie evidence that we had entered the enhanced ion confinement
regime following pellet injection. We also saw clear signatures of a
"snake" ( persistant m=1 perturbation) on both xray and density
diagnostics.  Tuesday's run was also used to test operation with cold
walls; the vessel temperature was lowered to -40C for the entire run, as
opposed to our typical operating temperature of +10C.  Reliable operation
was obtained with no obvious detrimental effects.
 
Wednesday's run is being devoted to a study of confinement as a function of
elongation at constant current and density.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Trying to build a Heat Pipe
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trying to build a Heat Pipe
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 21:36:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Design Status #3 - Boy Scientist May Reach Middle Age Before Heat Pipes Work.
 
Looking in my liquor cabinet, I found a fifth of DeKooven Gin, ($3.29 so you
know how old it was - I don't drink gin.)  So I hauled it, a 24" length of Al
tubing, some rubber stoppers some 1/16 od brass tubing and a stepladder as an
equipment stand out on the lawn.
 
Looking in the box of stuff that I could not resist buying because it was so
neat, I found some 1/16" Carborundum Fiberfrax.  (from Small Parts, Inc., -
great list of stuff to make things P.O Box 381966 Miami Fla, but I am looking
at an old catalog).  This stuff is designed to replace asbestos and the book
says it is good to 2300F. It is a white felt like material, and a test showed
that it wicked gin just fine, though it seems to avoid water.
 
Persuading the Fiberfrax to line the tube was not so easy.  It wants to kink
up, but eventually I got a layer in the tube.  A rubber cork in the bottom a
fill with gin, and a rubber cork in the top with a brass fill tube in it and I
had a tube with almost all gin and no air.  I will omit blowing the corks out
the end as I heated the tube too fast with a propane torch as Bob Eachus will
turn grey imagining law suits.  I suggest following his advice of heating in
an oven.  I also advise that whenever you are working with a closed system,
that it is a good idea to imagine it blowing up, and to decide where you want
to be for the event ahead of time.  This slowed down the process considerably,
but I am still here and not burned to a crisp by flaming alcohol.
 
My goal was to get a quick idea of how hard this would be.  The general plan
was to heat the tube with the vent up and down in a sequence that would
encourage expulsion of any trapped air.  This sort of worked.  But corks and
tube seals are not very good.  Further, my plan to crimp the brass exit tube
did not seal very tightly.
 
However, this first attempt did show about a 2/1 conductivity improvement over
a bare tube in a hold the tube over a gas burner and time how long it takes to
drop it test.
 
This sent me off to the hardware store for some copper tube and caps.  A
similar sequence was attempted.  Once soldered up, I could use a syringe to
create a partial vacuum for filling.  Since I had a "pipe bomb" on my hands I
was much more cautious, and did not succeed (yet) in getting through the
sequence without letting air back into the tube.  Looks like I can solder up a
pretty tight system, but getting a good crimp on the exit tube that would hold
until it could be soldered was a problem until I tried Vice Grips.
 
Next try will be to build an oven around the tube.  The hope is that hardware
store foam pipe insulation will hold up at gin boiling temperature so all that
I will need is some of that and an electric gutter heater.  This will heat very
slowly, but that is what I want to be safe.
 
Note that just discussing this here has caused several others to consider heat
pipes for real projects.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.26 / William Johnson /  Re: Steve Jones's detector backgrounds
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones's detector backgrounds
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 21:29:32 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <9307261218.AA14614@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
[much good stuff omitted]
>I would suggest perhaps another problem with their method, and it may
>also apply to Jones's detector.  Even at 1230 meters there is still
>a muon flux that can contribute to low-rate detection experiments through
>a variety of paths.  In order to suppress muon-induced events both
>the Australian gamma detector and Steve Jones's detector employ veto
>paddles to reject events in which some charged particle passed through
>on its way to the heart of the detector.  My question that perhaps Steve
>should investigate is how well the veto paddles catch events in which a
>muon interacts nearby.  This paper does not give a number for the
>muon flux, but does say that the veto rate is about 100 per second.
>Of course some (most?) of that is electronic noise, but I still get
>the feeling that there are plenty of cosmic rays around to mess things
>up.
 
I second this analysis.  In particular, a pathway that doesn't seem to have
been examined very carefully is production of very energetic neutrons through
muon capture.  There is some experimental evidence for production of neutrons
with energies of some tens of MeV in muon capture through a process analogous
to "direct" capture of a pion (although the physics of the capture itself is
obviously completely different); a 20-MeV neutron ripping into a bunch of
deuterium (i.e. heavy water) could very easily cause some low-multiplicity
multi-neutron events that wouldn't appear using light water.  Steve, have you
done any MCNP calculations to look at the predicted multi-neutron events when
20- to 30-MeV neutrons impinge on your experimental setup?
 
--
Bill Johnson                    | "I can't stand this proliferation of
Los Alamos National Laboratory  | paperwork.  It's useless to fight the forms.
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA      | You've got to kill the people producing
(mwj@lanl.gov)                  | them." (V. Kabaidze)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pons' bursts are due to peroxide decomposition
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 23:50:01 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

 
James R. White writes:
 
> The boiling dry of Dr. Pons' cells was do to the decomposition of
> deuterium peroxide. The decomposition of peroxide produces about
> 4 megajoules per liter, about twice what is required to boil the cells.
> Allowing the electrolyte to boil away maintained the concentration of
> peroxide, and thus the reaction rate.
 
A strong statement.  Any evidence?
 
> Now after 3 years and "tons of funding", Pons has made absolutely no
> progress
> towards ruling out peroxide.
 
        It isn't all that hard to rule out the presence of more than trace
levels of peroxide in cell electrolytes.  For those interested who may not
have been joined to this group last year, I reproduce below a description of
a method I developed specifically for setting an upper boundary on the levels
of peroxide in tiny samples of electrolyte, and posted to this group.  I
assume an electrolyte of LiOD in D2O, but the method is general and would be
applicable to other electrolytes.
 
 
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 would be happy to communicate with anyone wanting to apply this
assay to establish peroxide levels in cell electrolytes.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: 10 Aug 93 18:02:09 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Aug5.152013.12835@ttinews.tti.com>,
jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
> In article <1993Aug04.164822.19201@Veritas.COM>
>joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>>I bought and read Taubes' book BAD SCIENCE, The Short Life and Weird
>>Times of Cold Fusion, and thought some comments might be in order.
>
> I heard Taubes interviewed on Public Radio. Although I am in the
> skeptic's camp, I got the impression that Taubes is primarily a
> jounalist selling a book. I think he took the position that "I am
> going to trash cold fusion" and closed his mind. He was also, how can
> I put it? "ungentlemanly" in his description of several people who in
> my opinion have been honestly trying to do their best -- I took an
> intense dislike to Taubes as a result and would not buy his book even
> if it is remaindered.
 
To add specific examples of Jackson's points:  Taubes nowhere mentions the
international conference in October 1990, "Anomalous Nuclear
Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems" held at BYU.  The meeting had approximately
seventy papers presented on possible low-level effects with participants from
Japan, Russia, U.S., South America and Europe.  Proceedings were published by
the American Institute of Physics as Proc. # 228, approx. 1000 pages.  How did
Taubes miss this, or why?   Another:  I attended an ICENES meeting in Monterey,
CA in 1991, and spoke on cold fusion results from Kamiokande.  Taubes came, and
I saw him interviewing people.
I invited him to hear the latest results.  He did *NOT* even come to my talk.
[A friend of mine saw him alone outside the meeting hall.]
How's that for "closed-mindedness"?
 
Now if anyone finds that Taubes mentions these important meetings, please let
me know.  I admit I lost stomach to read the full book when Taubes quoted:
"it seems a general principle that no high-class person can live in any place
associated with religious prophecy or miracle, like Mecca, Bethlehem, Fatima,
Lourdes, or Salt Lake City."  (Bad Science {BS}, p. 17)     Bethlehem?
The greatest person
ever to live on earth, IMHO, was born in Bethlehem.  Gary stoops to
unbelievable ungentlemanliness and intolerance.  Terrible.
 
Another friend, Nate Hoffman, found a story about himself in Taubes' book. Nate
told me that the story had no basis in fact whatsoever; Nate said it was
evidently invented out of "whole cloth."
 
Jim Carr in a recent posting speaks of a BS review in NY Times (as I recall),
and says:
"At another point he quotes Taubes as saying that Jones had been working on
other kinds of cold fusion and got the idea for using electrochemical cells
from the F&P proposal to DOE.  I guess a notarized lab book isn't proof for
him."
 
Indeed, I don't know how to convince a heckler.  Paul Palmer also has detailed
logbooks which demonstrate unequivocably that our work with electrochemical
cells began in May 1986 (eighty-six), about 2.5 years before any of our group
working on "piezonuclear fusion" at BYU heard of P&F.
 
("Piezonuclear fusion" is the description Clinton Van Siclen and I used in our
paper published in March 1986 in J. Physics G.  Although this first paper did
not mention electrolysis, it lead to electrolysis experiments at BYU in May of
that year, as a means of loading H and D into metals.  I have also done some
searching here and found that BYU records show that we ordered palladium
chloride for use in experiments on April 11, 1986.  Our 1986 treatise did
discuss metallic hydrogen, and the possibility of fusion in the planet Jupiter.)
 
Thanks, Jim, for your comments.  I think that we at BYU are treated unfairly in
Taubes book in general.  For another example, our work on muon-catalyzed fusion
is recognized internationally, yet Taubes belittles it.
 
A student of mine is reading the book to learn about some of the personalities
involved, yet he says he knows from his own experience that considerable of
what Taubes says or implies about people here at BYU is misleading.  I
recommend against yellow journalism of the most vicious ilk such.  Instead,
I would recommend honest books by Frank Close or John Huizenga
or David Peat (the latter being an early and shorter book, yet still
accurate).  Even Gene Mallove, whose bias is diametrically opposed to that of
Taubes, discusses the significance of the BYU conference in 1990 in his book.
 
 
Best Regards,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.07.31 /  nsmca@aurora.a /  Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
     
Originally-From: nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 06:06:29 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Cold Fusion is dead? Must not be, if popular science has an article on it..
 
All I can figure is that its not dead, just not been sufficiently proven, but
it shows soem promise..
 
But we shall see.
 
Just a wierd Nomite at Home.. (Home in Nome)..
Or on a clear day, you can see forever (no russia!
 
===
Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudennsmca cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.05 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Highlights
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Highlights
Date: 5 AUG 93 21:17:26 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                        Alcator C-MOD
                        Weekly Highlight Report
                        August 5, 1993
 
Alcator C-MOD has continued to operate this week. Principal physics topics
for this week's runs are Ohmic Confinement, Scrape-off Layer
Characterization, and RF coupling.  Most of the experiments this week are being
carried out with limiter discharges, with elongations of 1.2 to 1.3. The
plasma current has been increased to 600kA.
 
Transport experiments have focussed on obtaining profile data from a series
of density scans at several current levels.
 
The fast-scanning probe has been used to investigate the scrape-off-layer (SOL)
characteristics in limiter discharges. The probe head contains 4 probes,
three configured as a "triple probe" and the fourth operating as a
conventional voltage-swept Langmuir probe.  In this week's experiment, the
probe was inserted as far as the last-closed-flux-surface (LCFS). Peak heat
fluxes around 100MW/m^2 were observed. Near the LCFS the SOL profiles show an
exponential behavior, with a power e-folding length less than 1cm. For this
run, the RF limiter and antenna were retracted to a point well outside the
plasma boundary.
 
The EFIT equilibrium analysis code (provided by the DIII-D group) is now
running automatically between shots, as part of the MDSplus data aquisition,
display, and analysis cycle. Equilibria at 20msec intervals are stored in the
data tree for each shot, including the quantities required to map diagnostic
data onto a common, flux-based coordinate system for profile analysis.
 
Today's run is devoted to RF coupling studies. The RF limiter and
antenna have been positioned at their nominal radii, and the plasma
positioned to match to the antenna shape. The transmitter is pulsed at low
power to evaluate the antenna loading.
 
 
 
Comments or Questions may be directed to Fairfax@MIT.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 10 Aug 1993 14:01:51 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <246dmbINNdsf@network.ucsd.edu>,
        mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
[responding to Paul Koloc's comments about resistive diffusion]
 
|> Where is the energy dissipated in this 'resistivity'?  Normally one
|> considers 'resistance' to transfer energy from macroscopic current to
|> heat.
 
True specifically, but resistivity is what gives you diffusion of the
current (if you have a current-carrier like the tokamak or RFP), and the
amount of external loop voltage you need to drive the thing depends on
how fast this goes.
 
|> I thought the biggest problem in magnetically confined fusion is
|> anomalous diffusion to the walls  (i.e. we don't know why it happens) that
|> kills the energy.  Do hotter particles do this less?  It seems odd that
|> a hotter plasma would diffuse less, but this stuff is pretty strange.
 
Your first sentence is correct. To the first question: all particles ExB
drift at the same velocity. Under tokamak conditions, we know that hotter
particles do actually contribute somewhat more, since energy confinement
is a little worse than particle confinement. (There are many theoretical
guesses for the details of the why at the moment. It has do do with the
driving mechanism, it is unresolved, and it is the most important, or one
of a very few most important, outstanding questions about the physics.)
 
To your last point: if the diffusion were collisional (and for *resistivity*
it is, actually), then the hotter you make things the less transport
you have. Ultimately, the reason is that charged particle collisions
have a frequency which depends on the inverse third power of the
velocity (they are not "hard-sphere" type, rather, they are an accumulation
of many small-angle scatterings at "large" impact parameter due to the
mutual electrodynamic interaction). So at higher temperatures--higher
average particle velocities--you get fewer collisions per unit time, less
diffusion, and better confinement. Unfortunately, confined plasmas give
rise to turbulence. If they didn't, all those turbulence-ignorant
statements during the 1950s about how we would have fusion in a few decades
would have come true. They thought that all you had to do was build an
MHD-stable equilibrium, you see. [If I am not mistaken, the decision near
1970 by DOE to focus on the tokamak was taken *before* the reality of
anomalous transport had effectively been communicated throughout the fusion
establishment. Talk about premature!]
 
The reason that magnetic diffusion by resistivity is collisional while
energy and particle loss is anomalous is thought to be that the transport
parallel to magnetic field lines (resistivity) is classical (with so-called
"neo-classical" corrections due to drifts in toroidal geometry), while
transport perpendicular to field lines (diffusion of energy and particles)
is governed by some sort of turbulence. Most people believe that is ExB
turbulence, but net perpendicular transport due to particle motion
along disturbed field lines has not yet been ruled out.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: More small heat
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More small heat
Date: 10 Aug 1993 14:48:21 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <9308070429.AA24694@anubis.network.com>,
        logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
|> So my point was that there may be a slight difference in total system
|> heat capacity between Pd loaded and unloaded with D.
|>
        [...]
|>
|> Similarly, during unloading of D, the system heat capacity drops, requiring
|> the temperature to rise without requiring any additional energy input.
 
Is it simply my ignorance, or have the CF community not long ago taken
this sort of problem into account? There should be good data on the heat
capacity of Pd, Ni, and others as a function of hydrogen loading. If not,
the CF community should have built up a database themselves. Have they
in fact?
 
This was a good point, John.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Richard Schultz /  What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
Date: 10 Aug 1993 15:26:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CBCxzG.BGt@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
ms> POST 1: "In summary, given that some variant of:
ms> (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
ms>  remains the most likely etiology of these effects,any such attempted
ms> filtration of discussions pertaining to these postulated reactions ..... "
 
ms> POST 2: "Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
ms> Nobody said there was no radiation.  Heat is radiation.
ms>         eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...    "
 
ms>  Therefore you are incorrectly stating what I purportedly "claim".
 
I stand corrected.  I had thought that Swartz was claiming that 4He was the
major product; he apparently only claims it to be one product.  Now we know
that he doesn't think that 3He is the major product (no neutrons); I have
not seen him claim that tritium is the major product, but I could have missed
that post, in which case, he should provide some evidence for 3H.
 
Unfortunately, the claim above ("some variant of (d)+(d)+?(d)+. . .") only
makes things worse for his hypothesis.  Not only does he have to explain why
the Pd lattice should suddenly make the 4He* nucleus forget how it normally
decays.  Now he has to come up with a process that will produce something
with *more* protons than 4He, e.g., I suppose, 6Li or 12C, and *favor* these
products over 4He.  This is a priori improbable; more improbable to me
(although perhaps not to a physicist) than the suppression of the 3He and 3H
channels.  (Hint:  can you say Coulomb barrier?  can you say 3-body collisions
are less probable than 2-body collisions?)
 
rs>> "Going back to what Swartz said, most of these fusions will be releasing
rs>> gamma rays (or X-rays if you prefer)."
 
ms>  Mr. Schultz, as discussed eloquently by Marshall Dudley here:
ms>  (mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com) Subject: Excess energy, phonons, and
ms>       escaping nuclei; Message-ID: <znr744579305k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>
ms>                                   Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 19:35:05 GMT
 
[ Lengthy description of the difference between ringing a bell and shooting
it out of a cannon deleted ]
 
You seem to be missing the point.  You are the one who posted Miles's claims
of having observed X-Rays.  Perhaps I misunderstood and you were quoting them
without having believed them.  But you have said nothing about my original
calculation -- in fact you deleted it entirely -- in which I showed that if
only 10% of the fusions lead to detectable X-Rays then the flux one meter
from the source should be on the order of 10^8 - 10^9 photons/square cm.
Even supposing that only 0.01% of the fusions needed to produce a 20-kW
reactor a la Jed Rothwell yield detectable X-Rays, that's still 10^5 - 10^6
photons/square cm.  Which leaves my original question, why aren't P&F's
reactors lead-shielded, unanswered.  But please note, this line of reasoning
comes from evidence that *you* presented to us.
 
My other question you also seem to have misunderstood.  The question is not
(as you would have it) what happens to the 4He nucleus as a result of the
two deuterons colliding.  The question is given a stationary 4He* nucleus,
how does it release a high-energy photon and *remain* stationary without
violating the principle of conservation of momentum?
 
                                "Awaiting an explanation" [sic],
 
                                Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: 10 Aug 93 18:54:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <930805133727.20a0104a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I herby declare sci.physics.fusion to be a college.
 
...
 
>Who knows, we may some day give degrees.
 
I think this has already happened.  Haven't some posters here been
given the "third degree?"
 
:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
Date: 10 Aug 1993 20:49:36 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>In "Bad Science," Taubes make many, many claims that are directly contradicted
>by the published scientific literature. For example, he says the Huggins group
>forgot to measure voltage.
 
What Taubes actually wrote, to quote page 339 of BAD SCIENCE, is
 
``The [Huggins] researchers  measured the direct current power going
  to the cell but did not take info account the alternating component
  of the voltage.  These could result in errors of the size of their
  excess heat effects, ''
 
Which is, I think, quite different than what Jed says.  Since he does
not give a page number or quote the book specifically, it is impossible
to tell with certainty.
 
Jed also writes:
> In particular, there is nothing in the book about any experiment after
> 1989, and no mention of any research in Japan, where almost all serious
> cold fusion research is performed.
 
This is certainly false.  Thumbing through BAD SCIENCE shows that on
page 462 Taubes writes about the SRI experiment which killed Riley in
January of 1992.  Research in Japan is mentioned on pages 172 and 365.
(Taubes does not spend much time talking about Japanese research, but
there is mention of it.)
 
The truth is that Taubes spends most of his time talking about research
done in America in the 1989-1990 time frame, but that is not what Jed
says.
 
Jed also writes:
>Taubes also overlooked the work of the Electric Power Research Institute
>(EPRI).
 
Taubes discusses EPRI in BAD SCIENCE.  He discusses their funding
of the SRI work on pages 462.  He discusses their funding Bockris (page
404), and NCFI (page 408) and Huggins attempt to get funding from them
(page 228).  The conference EPRI ran is discussed (pages 378-384).  And
so on.  In short, Taubes did not overlook the EPRI, unless Jed is using
some different definition of the word "overlooked".
 
> Why was there only a single sentence about their [the EPRI] work in
> 473 pages?
 
This just shows you read the book too quickly, if you read it at all.
Each of the pages above contains sentences about ERPI.  They are spread
over most of the book.  (Even if you didn't read the book, Jed, looking
at the index would have shown you that EPRI is mentioned through out
the book.)
 
>He [Taubes] says that the book was based in "interviews" and "telephone
>conversations" but he did not talk with many of the scientists who
>actually did the work;
 
Jed, did you actually read BAD SCIENCE?  Listed in the back are the people
Taubes interviewed.  They include lots of people who actually did the work:
Hawkins, Martin, Rafelski, Menlove, Huggins, Hoffman, Czirr, Storms, Walling,
Gur, Bockris, Packham, Miles, Wolf, Jones, the list goes on and on ....
 
Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Mitchell Swartz
Date: 10 Aug 93 18:16:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Gentlemen,
 
I have little time to respond to repeated questions from Mitchell Swartz.
In brief:  'cold fusion' has been used to apply to muon-catalyzed fusion since
the 1950's.  In our 1986 paper, Clinton Van Siclen and I used the term
"piezonuclear fusion" to discuss possible fusion under high-density or metallic
hydrogen conditions, and in the planet Jupiter.  J. Physics G. 12 (1986)
213-221.    A BYU memo by Prof. Paul
Palmer in 1986 uses the term "cold fusion" for the same hypothesized effect
(sans muons).
 
I have endeavored to answer Mr. Swartz's questions regarding recombination on
this net, quantitatively -- along with postings by BYU student Jonathon Jones.
Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only when
recombination was ignored.  John Logajan has also posted repeatedly on this
trap, as have Douglas Morrison and Tom Droege.  Perhaps Mr. Swartz has "missed
the point" as he says.
 
Chutzpah -- check your dictionary.  (I am not interested in semantic games.)
 
--Steven Jones
 
In article <CBBBJ3.I2G@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1993Aug4.165537.821@physc1.byu.edu>
>   Subject: Re: BYU Expts. 3: Latest results
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) wrote:
>
> =sj   "Cold fusion"
> =sj previously meant "muon-catalyzed fusion" -- now even that community shuns
> =sj the term!"
>
>    Steve, what is your earliest reference of the use of the term
>       'cold fusion'.   Are you saying that you were the first to use it?
>
>
> =sj   "BTW, Jed and Mitchell, the evidence for "cold fusion" heat is not so
> =sj solid as you would have us believe in your flood of words and chutzpah."
>
>    You have not answered the questions in the past posts, have you?
>    The "words" were based upon reported evidence, most of it merely
>     dismissed by "hand-wave" and then "rubber-stamping".  Though that
>     is a politically possible move, it is scientifically empty.  So
>     we look forward to a serious response to the papers (and other comments
>     below)
>
>     What do you mean by "chutzpah"?  Something you recognize?
>
>
> =sj  "One example...  Mel Miles of China Lake claims:
> =sj "...the electrodes in that cell .... thus
> =sj recombination could not  have been a factor in the measured excess heat."
> =sj ... Miles assumption regarding recombination is dead wrong:
> =sj  we have demonstrated
> =sj recombination as a major factor even when the electrodes
are completely =sj covered by electrolyte."
>
>    Do you have a citation for that published paper?   Does your measured
>     "recombination" completely cover the "measured excess heat"?
>                    \/\/\/\/\/\/
>      I have asked you this before and received no response.
>
> =sj  "And I (and others) have at length explained other errors in
> =sj that experiment, along with errors/major questions regarding
> =sj xs heat claims by
> =sj Takahashi, Mills, Notoya, Yamaguchi, Srinivasan, P&F, even McKubre."
>
>   Explaining the existence of an error does not prove that that error
>     completely covers the quantity of the measured findings.
>   For example:  the error could be small.
>
>   These people did a lot of experiments with a lot of products that
>    you are attempting to dismiss with no clear basis, at least to
>    date as shown here.
>
>       You have been asked several times here to list
>     these claimed errors which purportedly dismiss all these papers
>     (and more presumably) along with an estimate of the magnitude
>     of the error.
>
>     Then we can compare the observed findings with the range of the sum
>       of these errors.  OK?
>
>            Best wishes.
>
>                                                    Mitchell
>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Robert Eachus /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 00:13:10 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Aug9.045728.25341@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
   > Because Quantics insists that _all_ particles of a single
   > identical type must be part of _one_ symmetric [bose] or
   > antisymmetric [fermi] field.
 
   > If you just stop and mull that one over a bit, you should be able to see
   > pretty quickly why _no_ composite boson will _ever_ be able to occupy the
   > same space as another composite boson.
 
     There are a few non-trivial exceptions, and hydrogen and
deuterium seem to be most of them...
 
     If you look at h as a boson you have one proton and one electron.
Two such composite bosons can occupy the same space by having the
protons and electrons overlap via fermi statistics.  Not very stable,
but possible.  Of more interest in this group is the d+ case.
Delocalized deuterium would be a composite fermion, and two such
comoposite fermions could interact with fermi statistics for the
individual particles as well.
 
     Not a flame, just an interesting set of special cases.  You don't
get a general collapse, but getting just two deuterons in the same
place at the same time seems to be what this group is all about.  If
you have two BWOs (or BBCs, whatever) with opposite spins
interpenetrating, it seems to me you get an interesting "heavy nuclei"
effect, with no quantum mechanical barrier to close interaction.
 
     The picture I have is of two rigid structures, each consisting of
a set of points, passing through each other.   Any acceleration felt when
two particles are close is spread to the entire structure.  However I
see two obstacles in the way of an "explanation" of cold fusion:
 
     1) Membership in a BWO should suppress any reaction which
releases energetic particles.  (Emission of hot particles is the
antithesis of delocalization, and should be prohibited by friend
Heisenberg.  We could know very exactly the momentum of all the
particles in the BWOs before the reaction, and would certainly be able
to determine the exact location of the reaction from the energetic
particles.)  From a cold fusion point of view this is both good news
and bad news.  The absence of hot ash is explained by ruling out any
reaction which generates hot particles, where hot may be a few tens of
EVs.
 
     2) If all the particles in the two BWOs are in a regular grid
imposed by the lattice, nothing happens.  I think QM helps here, but
it does seem to say that the fewer sharp peaks in the location
probabilities, more likely an interesting interaction.
 
     3) Once the interaction occurs, the "ash" is no longer part of
either BWO.  So you can't recoil the energy to the lattice.  But note
that energy can be gained from or lost to the BWOs before the
(nuclear) reaction.  However if it is possible for even a little of
the strong force energy to be transfered to the BWOs before nucleii
merge, then the peculiar He4 spectrum comes to the rescue.  There are
no emission lines between 24 MeV and the ground, so the remainder of
the energy would have to be transferred out by interactions with
electrons, etc.  (And look back at 1, the only allowed reactions are
those with no hot products.)
 
     Verrry interesting, but note that it is all completely consistant
with no cold fusion, and it takes three big swallows to be consistant
with anomalous heat...
 
--
 
                                        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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
Date: 10 Aug 93 20:20:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Richard Schultz is correct to point out that Miles claims X-ray production
(using dental X-ray films) along with xs heat, and Swartz said that that was a
reliable measurment.  So there is no backing out now from claims of X-ray
production by appealing to phonon interactions, etc. The challenge now is for
these boys to do the X-ray detection with sensitive spectrometers.  Note that
students here (working with me) have done this -- and found no characteristic
X-rays.  Indeed, *no one*, not Miles, not McKubre, not P&F, etc. -- no one has
shown an X-ray *spectrum* which would provide unambiguous evidence for nuclear
reactions occuring in palladium.  Schultz is correct.
 
In article <248env$98q@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
> In article <CBCxzG.BGt@world.std.com>,
> mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> ms> POST 1: "In summary, given that some variant of:
> ms> (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
> ms>  remains the most likely etiology of these effects,any such attempted
> ms> filtration of discussions pertaining to these postulated reactions ..... "
>
> ms> POST 2: "Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
> ms> Nobody said there was no radiation.  Heat is radiation.
> ms>         eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...    "
>
> ms>  Therefore you are incorrectly stating what I purportedly "claim".
>
> I stand corrected.  I had thought that Swartz was claiming that 4He was the
> major product; he apparently only claims it to be one product.  Now we know
> that he doesn't think that 3He is the major product (no neutrons); I have
> not seen him claim that tritium is the major product, but I could have missed
> that post, in which case, he should provide some evidence for 3H.
>
> Unfortunately, the claim above ("some variant of (d)+(d)+?(d)+. . .") only
> makes things worse for his hypothesis.  Not only does he have to explain why
> the Pd lattice should suddenly make the 4He* nucleus forget how it normally
> decays.  Now he has to come up with a process that will produce something
> with *more* protons than 4He, e.g., I suppose, 6Li or 12C, and *favor* these
> products over 4He.  This is a priori improbable; more improbable to me
> (although perhaps not to a physicist) than the suppression of the 3He and 3H
> channels.  (Hint:  can you say Coulomb barrier?  can you say 3-body collisions
> are less probable than 2-body collisions?)
>
> rs>> "Going back to what Swartz said, most of these fusions will be releasing
> rs>> gamma rays (or X-rays if you prefer)."
>
> ms>  Mr. Schultz, as discussed eloquently by Marshall Dudley here:
> ms>  (mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com) Subject: Excess energy, phonons, and
> ms>       escaping nuclei; Message-ID: <znr744579305k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>
> ms>                                   Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 19:35:05 GMT
>
> [ Lengthy description of the difference between ringing a bell and shooting
> it out of a cannon deleted ]
>
> You seem to be missing the point.  You are the one who posted Miles's claims
> of having observed X-Rays.  Perhaps I misunderstood and you were quoting them
> without having believed them.  But you have said nothing about my original
> calculation -- in fact you deleted it entirely -- in which I showed that if
> only 10% of the fusions lead to detectable X-Rays then the flux one meter
> from the source should be on the order of 10^8 - 10^9 photons/square cm.
> Even supposing that only 0.01% of the fusions needed to produce a 20-kW
> reactor a la Jed Rothwell yield detectable X-Rays, that's still 10^5 - 10^6
> photons/square cm.  Which leaves my original question, why aren't P&F's
> reactors lead-shielded, unanswered.  But please note, this line of reasoning
> comes from evidence that *you* presented to us.
>
> My other question you also seem to have misunderstood.  The question is not
> (as you would have it) what happens to the 4He nucleus as a result of the
> two deuterons colliding.  The question is given a stationary 4He* nucleus,
> how does it release a high-energy photon and *remain* stationary without
> violating the principle of conservation of momentum?
>
>                               "Awaiting an explanation" [sic],
>
>                               Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  BYU Expts 4:  Preview of Tests
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BYU Expts 4:  Preview of Tests
Date: 10 Aug 93 21:00:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

After the long remarks provoked by Taubes' books, I am rather tired.
But I enjoy Tom Droege's comments on his ongoing experiments (too bad there
were no more heat bursts at 39 C...) and his insights.
And I appreciate comments on our research here on neutron emissions.
 
So, briefly, here is what we will soon do/are doing to check our current
evidence for neutron emissions:
 
1.  Will check to see whether time-correlated neutron signals are high in the
3He-type counter independent of the plastic scintillator signal.  This will
increase background levels, but also detection efficiency, so we should see
some additional signal in the 3He counter alone -- if the neutron signals
reported earlier here are real.  Since our backgrounds in the 3He counter alone
are caused by radioactive emissions in the 3He tube walls themselves (primarily)
the background for time-correlated emissions in the window 3musec < delta-time
between 3He signals < 320 microseconds  is small.  Numbers soon.
 
2.  Will compare above with Pd-H and Pd-D (stable condition) cases.
 
3.  Will compare above with correlated neutron signals from a californium
source -- a known source of time-correlated neutrons.
 
4.  Ok, (Richard Schroeppel) we'll check for possible correlations with
time-of-day and sidereal time.
 
I really do not know how these tests will turn out.  Will let you know, in any
case.
 
Right now, we have a deuterided tantalum wire in the detector; but we've
developed a problem in the pulsed-power supply.  [Severe:  no output voltage,
although the supply's own meter claims it has an output voltage...].
 
I'm off to the lab in the mountains.  (Don't wait up: it's after 9pm here.)
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / mitchell swartz /  What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:38:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <248env$98q@agate.berkeley.edu>
    Subject: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
=rpes  "I stand corrected. I had thought that Swartz was claiming that 4He was
=rpes  the major product; he apparently only claims it to be one product."
 
    Thank you for beginning to admit your error(s).
 .  Where is your explanation for either the non-scientific attacks, or to the
         questions posed (previously and below), or for your reason(s) for
         previously "baiting" a question about momentum?     ....?
 
 
=rpes  "Now we know
=rpes that he doesn't think that 3He is the major product (no neutrons)"
 
   No neutrons?   Did I say "no neutrons"?          (Here we go again?)
  Richard, why the misstatement?  To produce any nuclear products
  is a major feat, right?
  And my postings did discuss very low-levels neutrons,right? For example:
 
     ====== R. "P-E" Schultz informed of the "production of neutrons" ======
   In Message-ID: <23s2se$rmr@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
   Richard Schultz : schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu)) wrote:
 
  == "You seem to have missed the point.  What I meant was, why do you jump up
  ==    and down screaming "Flame me! Flame me!"?
 
      to which I replied:
 
  ==ms    "Richard, that is not what was said, was it?
  ==ms   What was said was":
  =ms
  =ms       "The production of tritium,  the production of helium-4
  =ms    linked with excess heat, and the occasional demonstration of
  =ms    neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support.
  =ms    Do you have any real evidence to dismiss any of this?"
              ============ end of proof ==========
 
 Therefore, you are incorrectly stating what I purportedly "claim(ed)"
    (again).  To what purpose?   or is it just a fading communication channel?
 
 
=rpes   "I have not seen him claim that tritium is the major product,
=rpes  but I could have missed
=rpes that post, in which case, he should provide some evidence for 3H."
 
   Well, now with this second misquote you are attempting to elevate yourself
to Goober-First Class.   Please Check out the quote which not only disputes
your statement but indicates you were sent the post.:
 
          ====== "P.E." informed of the "production of tritium" =======
   To Message-ID: <23s2se$rmr@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
   I replied:
  =ms       "The production of tritium,  the production of helium-4
  =ms    linked with excess heat, and the occasional demonstration of
  =ms    neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support.
  =ms    Do you have any real evidence to dismiss any of this?"
              ============ end of proof ==========
 
  Try and make your claims match the evidence, OK?                  :)
 
 
=rpes "... the claim above ("some variant of (d)+(d)+?(d)+. . .") only makes
=rpes things worse for his hypothesis.Not only does he have to explain why
=rpes the Pd lattice should suddenly make the 4He* nucleus forget how it
=rpes normally decays."
 
   We see you attended nuclear catechism at the Blue-school of the
      Forgetful (was that retrograde or antegrade amnesia?) Boson.
   The fact is: deuterons are probably not anthropormorphic.
          or do you actually have evidence to the contrary?
 
 
=rpes  " Now he has to come up with a process that will produce something
=rpes with *more* protons than 4He, e.g., I suppose, 6Li or 12C, and *favor*
=rpes these products over 4He.  "
 
  There you go again.  Richard, is it not true that equations were posted with
additional terms on the right hand side?  Was it not true that two such
equations were even posted to you.    Here are the actual equations:
 
    ====== "P.-E." Schultz did see correct equations ==============
   ms> POST 1: "In summary, given that some variant of:
   ms> (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
   ms>  remains the most likely etiology of these effects.... "
 
   ms> POST 2: "Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
   ms> Nobody said there was no radiation.  Heat is radiation.
   ms>         eg.  d+d (+d+?)   --> 4He + "heat" +  ...    "
        ================== end of proof ======================
 
    Could these equations not account for proton (deuteron) balance?
    Is it not true that there ARE NOT MORE protons, like you claim?
 
 Implications:  1 - You should study algebra more.  A formal mathematical
                     background would help you very much.
 
    2 - Actual reading and responding to the facts might do wonders, too.
 
    3 -  It is becoming apparent that you don't often correctly  quote what
          someone has posted when you have other interests.
 
 
rs>> "Going back to what Swartz said, most of these fusions will be releasing
rs>> gamma rays (or X-rays if you prefer)."
 
  Richard, please don't be a "Goober", there must be toxins in the
   (drinking) water where you live!!!!
Please check it out, OK?  Try to read the posts and maybe follow the track.
 
     FYI:   Some "skeptics" demanded that
    there be x-rays, and I reminded them that if such putative photons are of
    nuclear (not impact) origin they are called: gamma rays.   [Big deal.]
  I also asked (and was thereby flamed): Why must they (or neutrons) be there?
 
  ---->  Full summary of all answers received to date:  NONE
 
 
=rpes   "But you have said nothing about my original
=rpes calculation -- in fact you deleted it ... -- in which I showed that if
=rpes only 10% of the fusions lead to detectable X-Rays then the flux1  meter
=rpes from the source should be on the order of 10^8 - 10^9 photons/square cm.
=rpes Even supposing that only 0.01% of the fusions needed to produce a 20-kW
=rpes reactor ... yield detectable X-Rays, that's still 10^5 - 10^6
=rpes photons/square cm."
 
   I did not mention it, Richard, since it is: trivial.
   I had already calculated and
posted the expected reaction rates for a number of putative Q.
 To divide by a spherical shell to calculate the flux upon an incident surface
should be a simple undergraduate calculation.   Right?
 
   However, please consider that the basic premise postulated by you
    remains thoroughly unproven by you.
 
 
=rpes  "Which leaves my original question, why aren't P&F's
=rpes reactors lead-shielded, unanswered...please note, this line of reasoning
=rpes comes from evidence that *you* presented to us."
 
  Again you apparently continue to  mislead and misquote, Mr. "P.E." Schultz.
  [A few more examples of this, and any sentient individual
          might successfully bet that you will repeatedly so misquote.]
 
 .  But I shall follow this through your illogic, nonetheless.
 
   First:  Why?  They don't have to be so shielded.
   Second, however, if they did, if you really understood physics
     (try an undergrad text if you can't read the postings) you would
know that for x- (or gamma) ray energies of the order of or greater than
200 keV, when considering radiation barriers, lead (pb) would not be
the preferred shielding because at those energies such attenuation is NOT
 a function of atomic number  - Z - as it is (to a much much larger factor)
 well below the 200 keV (Compton scattering) threshold in the photoelectric
 regime.
 
   Third, your responses leave the questions you were asked: unanswered.
 
                 Best wishes.
 
                                                Mitchell
 
         -----------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
   All the points will naturally elude them"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Robert Eachus /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 16:46:51 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Aug11.200919.4273@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
  > Sorry, I scratched my head over you comment for several minutes, but was
  > unable to figure out what you meant.  You might try rephrasing and trying
  > to be a bit more precise about what is overlapping with what.
 
  Oops! at one point I wrote:
 
   >> ... Of more interest in this group is the d+ case.  Delocalized deuterium
   >> would be a composite fermion...
 
     When I meant composite boson, I noticed this after I sent it but
when I went back to post a correction I couldn't find the error.
(Deuterium is a composite fermion, its just that here I was talking
about d+.)  The original post was going to be just a note that your
statement was a little overgeneral, as it assumed more than one
particle of a given type in each composite boson, but I kept tripping
over things which seem to fit the miracles required for anomalous heat
to come from cold fusion.  (Getting down to only one or two "then a
miracle occurs" must count as some sort of progress.)  Now that I have
had a couple of days to poke at it let me try again.
 
     If d+ BWOs form in deuterated metals, then since deuterium nuclei
always have spin one (as you also pointed out) you would have two BWOs
at zero momentum--one contining spin up d+, one spin down.  Since
these are of opposite spin, they can co-exist in the same location(s),
and since the components neutrons and protons also are of opposite
spins, fermi exclusion does not occur, and electrical interactions are
"averaged" over the BWOs, so--if such a statement makes sense--
individual nuclei in the BWOs will appear to have a much higher
momentum if they interact.
 
     The "wild" speculation is that if there is a nuclear reaction
(and note that the spins are right if each BWO contributes one d+),
QM seems to do a wonderful job of not only spreading some the energy
over all of the particles in the BWOs, but of requiring that no high
energy particles be emitted.  However, all this does is require that
the d+d-->p+t and d+d-->He3+n paths be suppressed.
 
     Enhancement of d+d-->He4 would seem to me to require transfer of
energy AFTER the reaction, and I see no mechanism for this.
 
     I've thought about how you test this...If a (weak please) proton
beam is aimed at some superfluid He4, then nuclear delocalization
should suppress large scattering angles. (Has anyone done this?)
Now--if you really want difficult experiments--substitute slow
neutrons and He3 (or an He4&He3 mix)...any nuclear reactions should
heat the helium and not release any gammas.  The interesting question
is: How does this affect the neutron absorption spectrum?
 
--
 
                                        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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Highlight Report
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Highlight Report
Date: 12 AUG 93 19:36:15 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Alcator C-MOD is a high-performance, low cost fusion energy research project
at MIT's Plasma Fusion Center.
 
Send comments or questions to Fairfax@MIT.edu
 
 
                        Alcator C-MOD
                        Weekly Highlight Report
                        August 12, 1993
 
Alcator C-MOD is continuing the second block of runs in our Phase I
Experimental program. Plasma control development and edge and scrape-off layer
studies are the primary experiments for this week's runs.
 
Following dedicated runs on Thursday and Friday of last week, the RF group is
continuing low power coupling studies in a piggyback mode. Typical power levels
for these studies are of order 1kW.
 
Following a discharge development run aimed at x-point location control on
Tuesday, Wednesday's run was devoted to scrape-off layer characterization
studies in diverted discharges using the fast-scanning probe and the probe
arrays mounted in the lower divertor plates. Typical parameters were
elongation of 1.5 to 1.6 and plasma current of 550kA. Discharge durations were
extended to over 0.75 seconds.
 
Today's run is dedicated to investigating the scaling of edge density with
core density. For this purpose the plasma is being run in contact with the
outboard RF protection limiter, so as to include data from the limiter probes.
The antenna is positioned 2cm behind the limiter and RF coupling data is also
being collected on every shot.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 21:26:54 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Aug12.041051.21532@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) wrote:
>
>
> Am I doing this right?
 
Physical chemistry always made my head hurt, but I don't think so.
 
>
> Let's take a simple heat capacity system -- H2O and H2 + O2.
> To raise the temperature of one mole of liquid H2O one degree Centigrade it
> takes 75.2 Joules.   Here's a table:
>
> H2O  75.2 J/Deg/mol  @25C (From the CRC)
> H2   29.2   "
> O2   29.3   "
>
> One mole of H2O produces one mole of H2 gas and 1/2 mole of O2 gas.
> Therefore the heat capacity of one mole of H2O is 75.2 Joules/Degree while
> the heat capacity of its products is 29.2 + 29.3 / 2 = 43.8 Joules/Degree.
> For each mole of H2O turned into H2 and O2, then, the heat capacity lost
> must be 75.2 - 43.8 = 31.4 Joules/Degree.
>
> Now 20 Degrees Centigrade is 293 Degrees absolute.  So if you transform
 
Minor nit - the the C is Celsius, and the SI unit of temperature is the
kelvin, symbol K (NOT degrees K) so 20 deg. C is 293 K is 293 kelvins, like
5 V is 5 volts.
 
> one mole of H2O into H2 and O2 gas at 20C, you have 293 * 31.4 = 9,200 Joules
> of excess energy from the lowered heat capacity at that temperature.
> (See disclaimer!) Therefore the temperature must rise to compensate.
 
Here is where I disagree.  The temperature dependence of the Nernst
equation says that the cell voltage will change slightly as the operating
temperature changes, but the product gasses are formed in thermal
equilibrium with the liquid electrolyte.  There is no excess energy, as you
term it.  However, as energy is continually input into an open calorimeter
and the net heat capacity is lower (the gas that remains has a lower heat
capacity than the liquid it was formed from and the volume of liquid is
less), the temperature will rise.  In a sealed system with a catalyst there
would be a transient change in heat capacity as the gas pressures
equilibrated, then the heat capacity would remain constant.
You are correct that if the temperature is changed the equilibrium gas
pressures are likely to be different, causing a small change in total heat
capacity.  However, the difference should be much smaller than you
estimate, and if the pressures are regulated (as in Tom Droege's system)
then the heat capacity shouldn't change.
 
 
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /   /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: 12 Aug 93 21:48:39 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
>The government is not in a position to sell the roads, since the government
>does not own the right-of-ways.  What the government or the people jointly
>can do is to charge user fees for the necessary improvements and maintence.
 
So this is the Libertarian solution to taxes: a toll booth on every road
and sidewalk.  Solutions like these are why the Libertarian movement will
never go anywhere.  I would love to hear how Libertarians intend
to support national defense with user fees.  That ought to be interesting.
 
>General taxation is *not* moral, since it
>denies the person the option of choice -- i.e. is a form of slavery.
 
I know you prefer "slavery" due to the emotional freight that word carries,
but actually, taxation is more akin to robbery: "Give us your money or
we'll hurt you."
 
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudended cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Quick clarification, and invitation
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quick clarification, and invitation
Date: 12 Aug 93 17:10:30 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I need to clarify something in a hurry:  the quote about no high-class person
coming from Bethlehem, Salt Lake City, etc. in Taubes' book was his quoting
someone else.  (I tried to say that, but perhaps it wasn't clear.)
He was using the quote to support his arguments, but I don't
think we should read neo-nazism into Taubes' psyche.  Actually, it is his
reading my mind (and others) that I so much object to.  A humorous commentary
on this type of journalistic "imaginative ruminating" appears in US News &WR
August 2, 1993, "Ruminating with Joe" by John Leo (comment on "the Last
Brother" by Joe McGinniss).
 
When John Logajan comes to Salt Lake City (a high-class town) in Sept.,
I hope he'll give me a call if he'd
like to visit.  My invitation extends to all, atheists, Jews, Mormons, etc.
Like early America, Salt Lake City takes its roots from a group of outcasts.
 
Also, since I'm in charge of arranging colloquia here at BYU Sept. 1993 - April
1994, if any person would like to speak, I'd be glad to consider this.  Just
let me know a few weeks in advance, and the suggested topic please.
 
--Steven Jones
 
P.S. to Mitch:  Au contraire, I have answered about Kucherov's claimed X-ray
film exposure more than once already, and Jonathon Jones posted already about
"700%" excess heat (actually due to recombination and I*(v-1.48V) in
denominator).   You may remember Logajan added that he had also pointed out
such problems previously.   Our paper is now being
finalized which will give additional details beyond that which we have posted.
   I do not intend to dig up these old posts just
so I can prove "I told you before" -- time's too precious.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 05:39:58 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Aug13.043925.3977@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) wrote:
 
> ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames) writes:
(I knew I was going to get in over my head - or at least confuse myself :)
> >but the product gasses are formed in thermal equilibrium with the liquid
> >electrolyte.
>
> I don't see how that nullifies a change in the system heat capacity
> resulting in a system temperature change.
>
> >There is no excess energy, as you term it.
>
> Where did it go?  If system A has 10J of thermal energy at 20C and
> presto chango, its heat capacity is cut in half, then it would only
> take 5J of thermal energy to keep it at 20C.  Either the temperature
> goes up or the "excess" 5J escapes via some other route.
 
If a system is at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and then
presto!, its heat capacity is halved, then its temperature should not
change.  The rate at which equilibrium is reached after a perturbation is
certainly affected by the heat capacity, but not the final temperature.
 
Look at the heat flows.  You have a system at 20 C and are putting in 10
joules/second to keep it there.  It is at equilibrium, so 10 joules/second
is being lost to the surroundings.  Where does the heat capacity matter?
If you start at this point and then change the input to 20 J/s to reach a
new, higher temperature, it will take more joules to increase each degree C
for the higher heat capacity system, so it will respond slower.  The final
temperature should be whatever is required to cause a loss to the
surroundings of 20 J/s, no matter what the heat capacity of the system.
 
>
> >You are correct that if the temperature is changed the equilibrium gas
> >pressures are likely to be different, causing a small change in total heat
> >capacity.  However, the difference should be much smaller than you
>
> Hmmm, are you saying that the gases under the self-pressurization of a
> closed system will have the same thermal capacity as the liquid from
> which they were derived???
 
No.  I meant that in a closed system with a recombiner catalyst the
equilibrium gas pressures will probably be temperature dependent but I
predict the pressures will not change dramatically for small temp. changes.
 Given constant volume of the sealed system, if the pressures don't change
much then the number of moles of gas must not have changed much, and so the
number of moles of liquid also hasn't changed much.  Since the number of
moles of liquid (with its much higher heat capacity) is much greater than
the number of moles of gas, the total heat capacity should be pretty
constant.
 
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Timothy Watson /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: 13 Aug 1993 07:58:01 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering, U of Michigan

In article <1993Aug9.045728.25341@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
wrote:
> [deleted]
>          e          e    e    e          e          e
>         2p2n       2p2n 2p2n 2p2n       2p2n       2p2n
>          e          e    e    e          e          e
>
>     Composite particles view (bosonic field):
>
>          He         He   He   He         He          He
> [deleted]
 
I didn't read this earlier! - But I imagine the cold fusion folks would
say the delocalized He nuclei formed would just have to overlap "enough"
when they are formed. There still would be a considerable amount of energy
this pair of nuclei would have to dissipate in an unconventional way,
anyways, somehow without generating some sort of deadly radiation. But who
even NEEDs the electrons, since they get in the way due to the longer
range fermi exc
> [deleted]
>          e          e    e    e          e          e
>         2p2n       2p2n 2p2n 2p2n       2p2n       2p2n
>          e          e    e    e          e          e
>
>     Composite particles view (bosonic field):
>
>          He         He   He   He         He          He
> [deleted]
 
It seems to me...
I didn't read this earlier! - But I imagine the cold fusion folks would
say the delocalized He nuclei formed would just have to overlap "enough"
when they are formed. Who even needs the electrons (and their longer-range
exclusion regions)? If the nuclei range over a few angstroms and are an
angstrom apart, what is a few eV? To form "cold" like this, they'll have
had to have ALREADY dumped the fusion energy elsewhere. ("A miracle
occurs").
 
This state will not last long, as the potential energy will be transformed
into a small amount of kinetic energy and the He nuclei pair will become
localized, but dissipating dinky amounts of energy is not the main problem.
 
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
  BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Timothy Watson /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: 13 Aug 1993 08:11:31 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering, U of Michigan

Whoops! I said delocalization of a FEW angstroms - one would need
delocalization of MANY angstroms of the pair of He nuclei to somehow
dissipate the energy as phonons rather than radiation (I'm getting
into the swing of things in this conference). Therefore, the electromag-
netic interaction between these two partially overlapping clouds of
charge formed in concert will also not be very much (fraction of eV?)
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
  BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Uncertainty Principle
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uncertainty Principle
Date: 13 Aug 1993 08:35:10 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering, U of Michigan

In article <930805141441_70047.3047_EHB52-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:
> [deleted]
> As W. Bernecky has pointed out here, even properties like 'number of
> particles' in a quantum mechanical system are subject to the superposition
> concept.  The notion of (in principle) being able to 'count' particles is
> just a convenient abstraction that is sometimes very useful.
>
 
We can count things with charge (which is quantized and adds in a scalar
manner). Traditionally, we could consider a delocalized particle as
containing a sum of states of definite momentum but infinite spatial
extent (plane waves) - because this sum (which would be an integral)
contains states of nearly the same frequency, it is a wider region in which
destructive interference between states reduces the amplitude. This is
one way to construct the "wave function" in Schroedinger's formulation
for a particle.
 
> [deleted]
> P.S. Quantum mechanics really is very strange stuff indeed and it takes a
> lot of practice (for me) to think this way.  To paraphrase Douglas Adams:
> "There really isn't much else left to do once you've done six impossible
> things before breakfast!"  ... The Resturant At the End of the Universe.
 
Yes, physics gives me that feeling...
 
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
  BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Bruce Hoult /  Re: Calorimeter is Dead - RIP
     
Originally-From: Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimeter is Dead - RIP
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 23:01:03 +1200 (NZST)

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> This looks like about a six months project to me.  I will lurk until then.
> After we get it built, then I will bore you all with about six months of
> calibration experiments before we get down to real measurements again.  It
> looks like that is what it will take.
 
I'll look forward to it!
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBruce cudfnBruce cudlnHoult cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: 13 Aug 93 16:02:53 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ijames-130893010600@156.40.188.212> ijames@helix.nih.gov
(Carl F. Ijames) writes:
>In article <1993Aug13.043925.3977@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
>(John Logajan) wrote:
>
>> ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames) writes:
>(I knew I was going to get in over my head - or at least confuse myself :)
>> >but the product gasses are formed in thermal equilibrium with the liquid
>> >electrolyte.
>>
>> I don't see how that nullifies a change in the system heat capacity
>> resulting in a system temperature change.
>>
>> >There is no excess energy, as you term it.
>>
>> Where did it go?  If system A has 10J of thermal energy at 20C and
>> presto chango, its heat capacity is cut in half, then it would only
>> take 5J of thermal energy to keep it at 20C.  Either the temperature
>> goes up or the "excess" 5J escapes via some other route.
>
>If a system is at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and then
>presto!, its heat capacity is halved, then its temperature should not
>change.  The rate at which equilibrium is reached after a perturbation is
>certainly affected by the heat capacity, but not the final temperature.
 
Pardon me, but I am only an electrical engineer.  Therefore, I tend to
think in terms of electrical analogs.
 
I look at a thermal system as a lossy capacitor - a capacitor which
stores charge (heat), the more charge, the more voltage
(temperature).  The resistor in parallel with the capacitor causes the
charge (heat) to leak off (heat to radiate or conduct to the
environment).
 
All that said, if I charge the capacitor to a certain voltage, and then
quickly pull the plates of the capacitor apart to halve the capacitance
before appreciable charge leaks off, the voltage will rise by a factor
of 1.414 to keep the energy in the system constant.
 
In the thermal analog, I would expect the same thing to happen.  The
temperature must rise in order to keep the energy in the system the
same.
 
Where have I made my mistake?
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: 13 Aug 1993 16:41:14 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

In article <1993Aug10.180209.835@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I admit I lost stomach to read the full book when Taubes quoted:
>"it seems a general principle that no high-class person can live in any place
>associated with religious prophecy or miracle, like Mecca, Bethlehem, Fatima,
>Lourdes, or Salt Lake City."  (Bad Science {BS}, p. 17)
 
This quote is not on page 17 of BAD SCIENCE, at least not my hard bound
copy.  Nor is it on page xvii.  Where, exactly, did you get this quote
from, Dr. Jones?
 
Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 21:31:04 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <3630@tekgen.bv.tek.com>, arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie
Frisch) wrote:
 
> All that said, if I charge the capacitor to a certain voltage, and then
> quickly pull the plates of the capacitor apart to halve the capacitance
> before appreciable charge leaks off, the voltage will rise by a factor
> of 1.414 to keep the energy in the system constant.
>
> In the thermal analog, I would expect the same thing to happen.  The
> temperature must rise in order to keep the energy in the system the
> same.
>
> Where have I made my mistake?
>
> Arnold Frisch
> Tektronix Laboratories
 
The energy is not what is constant, the charge in the capacitor is.  It
will require work to move the plates apart, and that work equals the
increase in stored energy due to the higher voltage.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 /  bearpaw /  Re: Reply to Dieter
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dieter
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 22:26:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <CBptBA.C5H@world.std.com>, bearpaw <bearpaw@world.std.com> wrote:
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>>        Pete Townshend - Won't Get Fooled Again (1971)
>>
>>Meet the new Bass,
>>   Same as the old Bass...
>>
>>:-)
 
>      Nothing revolutionary here.
>
>                           dale bass
 
See?  :-)
 
bearpaw
 
 ==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.13 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: 13 Aug 93 22:37:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <ijames-130893171142@156.40.188.213> ijames@helix.nih.gov
(Carl Ijames) writes:
>In article <3630@tekgen.bv.tek.com>, arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie
>Frisch) wrote:
 
 
>> All that said, if I charge the capacitor to a certain voltage, and then
>> quickly pull the plates of the capacitor apart to halve the capacitance
>> before appreciable charge leaks off, the voltage will rise by a factor
>> of 1.414 to keep the energy in the system constant.
>>
>> In the thermal analog, I would expect the same thing to happen.  The
>> temperature must rise in order to keep the energy in the system the
>> same.
>> Where have I made my mistake?
 
 
>The energy is not what is constant, the charge in the capacitor is.  It
>will require work to move the plates apart, and that work equals the
>increase in stored energy due to the higher voltage.
>
>Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
 
 
 
Interesting, however, I don't believe it.
 
I can, in fact, reduce the capacitance by using a butterfly capacitor
and not have to separate the plates.  The charge and the energy must be
conserved.  No mechanical energy is put into the system, but the
voltage rises.
 
Ok, now it's your turn!
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Tim Watson /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: 14 Aug 1993 00:17:39 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <tmwatson-130893041739@mezzmac170.engin.umich.edu>,
tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Timothy Watson) wrote:
>
> Whoops! I said delocalization of a FEW angstroms - one would need
> delocalization of MANY angstroms of the pair of He nuclei to somehow
> dissipate the energy as phonons rather than radiation (I'm getting
 
Comment: although I am an arrogant jerk, since I have not looked at
Baym in quite a while, I took a peek at the joint-probability section.
 
Fermions form gases, when confined to a box potential, that are uniform,
but characterized by a fermi momentum 3*pi^2*n, where n is the
concentration
and the units of momentum are 1/distance (dividing through the ordinary
momentum by planck's constant, like particle folks like to do because they
are lazy :) - then, the probability of finding the electrons less than
1/Pf, where Pf is the fermi momentum, is small - In other words, fermions
that are confined only like to overlap a little. I don't think the boson
effects would change this much, since the probability of finding bosons
together is enhanced at most by a factor of 2.
 
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
 BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 16 Aug 93 07:03:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <245qvfINN28t@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>Paul Koloc writes:
>
>>"Gravity isn't the primary force thats causing the particles to spill
>>out (like a tipped over glass of water), rather it is pressure they
>>produce against the inside of their confining field because they
>>need to have as many particles in their at the burn temperature in order
>>to get enough of a fusion burn rate to make things worth while.  On
>>the other hand,  if the particles aren't hot enough, and at the burn
>>temperatures for cool burning fuels like radioactive tritium and
>>deuterium they aren't hot enough, then they will leak through the field.
>>that has to due with the fact that the cooler the burn temperature is
>>the more resistive the plasma is, and it is the resistivity the eats
>>away the energy of the confining field.  In a sense the resistive particles
>>sort of eat little moth holes in the field and although the "hole"
>>closes behind them they gradually tunnel (diffuse) through.  So the
>>big problem for fusion is to get as many particles in the magnetic
>>bag (so to speak) before they can eat their way out.  That means they
>>must produce as much pressure as possible, and because the magnetic
>>system of the current fusion program (called the tokamak) is very
>>very INEFFICIENT and transmitting pressure to the plasma (the name
>>given the hot fiery fusion fuel gas after it's ionized)."
>
>Paul, do you really believe that energy and particles are lost in tokamaks
>via *collisional diffusion* ?? We have known since the early 70s that the
>devices lose energy at much higher rates (and for particles, it was shown
>shortly after); hence the name "anomalous transport".
 
No, I was trying to keep it simple and give an elementary first cut
answer.  You are correct of course although the original annomolous
"trash bin" has some compartments now.
 
>Even if you make things nice and collisionless, there is a little problem
>called ExB turbulence. It is a fact to be faced in any magnetically confined
>plasma, simply as a result of the gradients in density and temperature.
>Even if there are no well-defined linear instabilities, such a system is
>quite generally unstable to finite perturbations, ie, nonlinearly.
 
>No, you cannot escape; this has to be lived with.
 
Well certainly not in a silly tokamak. It begs for enhanced diffusion
and other lethal problems.
 
 
>Your pressure argument sounds like the beta-limit.
 
NO!  NO!  NO!
We are taking about the efficiency of getting what you, a human
being would have to provide for the toroidal coils to get them to
produce 1 kilo atm central mag pressures without exploding and
producing lots of damage to the local building topology.  Okay,
you're a miracle worker .. and you produce 1.5 kilo atm of central
toroidal field mag pressure.  NOW we are ready to talk about mag
efficiency.  The max plasma pressure you can get into the plasma in
atmospheres is .... 10 atm.. or am I off by an order of magnitude??
 
Since the toroidal field stiffens the plasma against "kinks" which
only a quite weak poloidal field can produce, that poloidal field
dare not be very large.  This is expressed in other ways but for
engineers this is particularily useful one.
 
It is the relatively weak poloidal field that produces confining
pressure on the plasma and the beta (poloidal beta is measured
relative to that).  However, who gives a penny about that measure
since the really big field we as humans have to struggle with is
the toroidal field.  Now when we measure the ratio of the plasma
pressure to the toroidal field central pressure, it "SUCKS" ..
 
what .....15/1000,  well I don't have the numbers so I could
be guessing an order or so in my favor.  Anyway that is the
"engineering beta" of the tokamak mag fusion machine.  It says
of the pressure we supply, "How much plasma fusion fuel pressure
develops and is sustained for a significant period??".  Since
fusion depends on pressure "Ask any extra terrestrial star.",
then engineering beta is a good measure of what the machine's
figure of merit is.  A tokamak is:  ?????    .015   ????
 
>Granting that, I
>assume your plasmak shares with the spheromak and reversed-field pinch the
>ability to support high-beta equilibria which are ideal-MHD stable. But
>in the case of the other two, the transport properties are even worse than
>in a tokamak, because of the MHD-reconnection turbulence to which they
>are unstable.
 
The "resistive" phase is a few to tens of microseconds (reconnection),
and the stable phase is from seconds to tens of seconds. This does
useful heating and is at a time while mega power is still being pumped
into pumping up the magnetic topology.  Further the total energy density
of PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids is considerably larger than for
Spheromaks.
 
>Even in the case the plasmak can avoid this, it will still
>have ExB drift-type turbulence to contend with.
 
Since the currents in the long lived quiescent phase are high gamma
relativistic, the E of the ExB is very very slight.  Further,
the currents are so conducting they may tend to screen the plasma
from the field and in the notch between plasma and field, the EXB
and the rate of change of same which produces a GRADIENT radial
acceleration and this latter effect coupled with an inverse particle
density gradient across the notch produce an inverse drag in the
currents so the combination tend to keep the energetic electrons
focused in the notch.  Other really really nifty and neato things
happen that keep the resistively more than remarkably low.. but
we must keep that 'till we have much better verification of certain
"artifacts."
 
I believe this latter effect, acts in the tokamak under the conditions
that especially clean vacuum conditions prevail and sharp gradient
plasma/field boundaries occur. In this case a similar trapping of
relativisitic "skin" current can be GENERATED and MAINTAINED, and
that such electrons are not seen until disruption and then they
generate a X-ray burst from collision with high Z(ede) wall material
or limiters.  The relativistic electrons come from runaways that
occur at the surface of the plasma where the density is low enough
to allow sufficient (net increase in) acceleration between
collisions.  What is a great benefit here is that such skin currents
clamp particle diffusion and "sharpen" the boundary.  Thus the
conduction loss at the edges is diminshed and thermal gradients
and transport lessened.
 
I think this first showed up in the ASDEX and was also seen to a
more limited degree in a cleaned up TFTR.  I think these were the
super H(igh) mode and the H(igh) mode.
 
So I don't think this is such a problem for PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids
(PMK)s for short.
 
Also most helpful to clamping diffusion is that it is not the
plasma thermal electrons that determine conductivity and thus
variations in plasma ion (or electron) temperatures will not
effect the magnetic topology.  Further the PMKs are smooth
continous and omnigenous topologically and do not have the
toplogical turbulence of the tokamak's physical embodiments.
True there is diffusion, in PMKs but every teeny tiny femto-erg
of it is cascaded down the energy ramp and used over and over
again until it finally arives at its Mantle plasma/gas boundary
(which during and after burn is a plasma/plasma boundary).
 
>But build it anyway.
 
Our lead (Pb) shielding (small angle scattering and perhaps not so
small) was trapped on a barge in Cairo Illinois for six weeks.
>--
>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
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: 16 Aug 93 17:14:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <24jvbbINN686@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>: >I can, in fact, reduce the capacitance by using a butterfly capacitor
..........
>: However, the energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 coulombs * volts.
>:
>: So by conservation of energy, a decrease in capacitance in which the charge
>: is not allowed to escape *must* increase the system energy -- and therefore
>: *must* require energy input to accomplish.
>
>Suppose you short the capacitor plates together.
 
 
Ok, Ok.  Let's start again.
 
Suppose you have two equal capacitors charged up to V.
 
If you connect them in parallel, you have 2*C and V.
Energy = 0.5*2*Q*V
 
If you connect them in series, you have C/2 and 2*V.
Energy = 0.5*Q*2*V
 
No energy goes into or out of the system to make the change in
connection.
 
So a change in capacity is accompanied by an inverse change in
voltage.
 
In the thermal analog, the temperature will rise if the thermal
capacity decreases.
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mini-Review: BAD SCIENCE by Taubes
Date: 16 Aug 93 12:12:42 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <24gg7a$ken@athena.veritas.com>, joshua@athena.veritas.com
(Joshua Levy) writes:
> In article <1993Aug10.180209.835@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>I admit I lost stomach to read the full book when Taubes quoted:
>>"it seems a general principle that no high-class person can live in any place
>>associated with religious prophecy or miracle, like Mecca, Bethlehem, Fatima,
>>Lourdes, or Salt Lake City."  (Bad Science {BS}, p. 17)
>
> This quote is not on page 17 of BAD SCIENCE, at least not my hard bound
> copy.  Nor is it on page xvii.  Where, exactly, did you get this quote
> from, Dr. Jones?
>
> Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
>
>
 
The quote appears on page 71, middle of the page.  Sorry for the transposition
of digits.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / timothy watson /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@rhodium.engin.umich.edu (timothy maurice watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: 15 Aug 1993 01:33:02 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering-U of M

 
In article <CBrp4z.HKy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1993Aug14.190002.21415@ns.network.com>,
> John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
[deleted]
> >I too think the heat capacity goes up when you push D into the Pd -- but
> >I suspect the heat capacity goes down when the D unloads.
>
 
Suppose adding D to Pd resulted in a large number of additional states in
new degrees of freedom beyond what one had initially. If this is the
case, and no heat flows in from outside the system, some of the energy in
states corresponding to previously existing degrees of freedom will be
tapped to fill the newly created states, and it will all reach
equilibrium eventually. However, one can see by looking at the degrees of
freedom that lost energy that the distribution of occupied energy states
would have to correspond to a lower temperature, since some of the
previous energy in states corresponding to this degree of freedom were
"given away".  (After a range of time in which the interactions among
degrees of freedom allow them to share enough energy for temperatures to
equalize (realm of equilibrium thermodynamics)) Thus, an adiabatically
isolated system of this sort would "cool" if the total energy of the
system remained constant. The temperature goes down because there is not
enough energy to fill all the additional states that would have to be
filled if T was to remain the same. In other words, if T=constant, we
would have higher entropy, but since we are in an equal energy
(adiabatic, isentropic) situation, we cannot create this entropy.
 
 
On the other hand, if taking D from Pd resulted in a net LOSS of states
that would be accessible at a given temperature, then one has to remove
the energy in the states corresponding to the degree of freedom which is
lost. Unlike the previous case, in which there is enough interaction
among degrees of freedom for energy in one degree of freedom to be lost
to another, one would have "force" energy from the lost degrees of
freedom into the old ones, which would then show a higher temperature if
the system has not gained/lost energy. If T=constant, we would have lower
entropy, but T must rise so that the population of energy states among
the remaining degrees of freedom must compensate for the lost states (so
that the process ins isentropic when this system is insulated from its
surroundings). This rise in temperature is therefore EXPECTED due to the
second law, but it is not a forever-and-ever type deal.
 
As a practical matter, given an insulated cell in which to do these
experiments, one would have to "prime" the cell by, maybe for example
(I'm not an elctrochemist) sealing the D impregnated Pd in a vacuum to
get the D to leach out. There might be a little bit of ignored
thermodynamics here, say the low gas pressure, and also the fact that as
soon as you put the Pd in this vacuum it is no longer exactly at
equilibrium. But this would not be a free lunch - you'd have to generate
the change in the chemical potential that would draw out the D with a
vacuum pump, and hope that the value of the chemical potential of the D
in the Pd changes only slowly from its equilibrium value as it equalizes
with that outside. Then one can compare the temperature right after one
has pumped out the calorimeter with that when the cell has reached final
equilibrium and the extra degrees of freedom have been quashed. Then one
could hope to see a rise in temperature.  One has to supply some reason
(like the chemical potential gradient due to pumping) that the system
would like to change from its previous equilibrium state. I like the use
of a vacuum because it has no degrees of freedom of its own (unless one
is a particle physicist :) ); therefore, this is a cleaner experiment. I
suspect that there is no free lunch in this regard.
 
>      I would suspect it goes up (probably by a miniscule amount)
>      to a certain loading.  In any case, one must add or subtract energy to
>      do so, and there is no problem with the lattice spontaneously
>      dumping heat.
>
> >>      It also seems an egregious violation of
> >>      the second law, unless you've pre-arranged for the entropy to go
> >>      elsewhere in micromanaging internal degrees of freedom.
> >
> >I've always been a bit of an anarchist. :-)
>
>      It sure beats the recent rise in revolutionaries.
>
>                                 dale bass
--
***********************************************************************
Sojourner Truth Co-op/  1507 Washtenaw Ave.  /Ann Arbor, MI 48104
        Timothy M. Watson             |flowers flaunt haughty colors
     tmwatson@engin.umich.edu         |at elegant monarchs
  BioEngineering Program Grad Student |such arrogance
       Interest: Medical Imaging      | -Zita Marie Evensen
=======================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentmwatson cudfntimothy cudlnwatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 03:01:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <24k6u8INNfah@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
timothy maurice watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Redoing this to avoid embarrasment...
>
>In article <CBry0s.IyD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>       Don't know about you, but I hate it when I smear my quarks.
>
>Without the strong interaction,quarks are simply fractionally charged,
>spin 1/2 entities like electrons, but much more massive. Hey, if QCD
>could become very weak, we can see a FREE quark and win a NOBEL.
>Further uses for CF...  -Tim Watson
 
     Without the strong force, we disintegrate, and there's no one
     to pass out Nobel prizes.
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 03:36:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
timothy maurice watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>One quibble. Why does it have to be the deuterons that interact locally
>with each other.
 
     Because if they don't, they don't fuse.
 
>Actually, the strong interaction overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion
>and holds to nucleus in a tight, dinky little ball. I forgot the
>possibility that the proton and neutron in a deuteron that is "barely"
>held together might no simply fly apart.
 
     If the neutron is not held in the bag, it will quickly decay.
     If the quarks are not, then you've got free quarks floating around.
 
>If the deuterons CAN
>delocalize, then the potential barrier is not so great. I keep making
>points on how silly it is to expect the strong force to get strong, then
>wek, then strong, etc. and the energy that would have to be put in/taken
>out at various points, but why can't people seem to notice that it is
>the strong force that confines the quarks and holds everything in a
>little ball in the first place? Potential barriers between small balls
>of charge on the order of size of a femtometer are HUGE if one is going
>to place them in contact.  -Tim Watson
 
     I hate to belabour the obvious (well, no, I actually enjoy it),
     but it is getting over the coulomb barrier to a scale where the
     strong force acts that is required for fusion.  At a minimum,
     you seem to be asking the strong force to act well outside its domain.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Edward Lewis /   EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, and Earth and Sun Activity
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, and Earth and Sun Activity
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 04:47:23 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
 
 
 
                                        c) 1993 by Edward H. Lewis
 
                                                5719 S. Harper
                                                Chicago, Illinois
      first posted Feb. 5, 1993                   60637  U.S.A.
revised version posted July 3, 1993
new revised version repost August 14, 1993
 
        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology,
Matsumoto shows an SEM photo of a tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.
He did not describe the phenomena that was photographed.  I described
such phenomena in a paper that I finished writing in Dec.  1992.  This
one is in the material matrix.  Unless the white lines are an artifact
of some type, most of the EV radiates as much as the surrounding metal
radiates, except according to a geometrical pattern, which is very
interesting.  I would say it is radiating the electricity-light
substance I described in the paper.  If the electrolysis was
discontinued when he took the SEM, then this is an example of a
material continuing to radiate after the stress is done.  This relates
to the experience of many people who have stressed materials in many
ways in order to produce energy.  Tiny BL-type phenomena is associated
with the excess energy and many of the other anomalous phenomena which
people have reported.  It seems to be a locus of anomalous phenomena.
There is now pictorial evidence that the CF phenomena is a tiny
BL-type phenomena, at least in part.
 
        In the paper that I wrote, I related ball lightning and
EVs(1).  Not all ball lightning is luminous.  Some people have
reported seeing ball lightning that was opaque and black(2).  Ball
lightning and EVs may leave the place where they form and travel
around.  They may leave marks ike most of the kinds of traces which
Matsumoto has shown, such as the ring traces.  They may travel along
surfaces and leave the long trail-like traces Matsumoto has shown in
several articles.  Matsumoto reports that such a trail was observed
associated with another apparatus.  He says that the emulsion was
located behind the glass of the container of the apparatus and the
liquid, and far away from the palladium rod.  Therefore, a tiny
BL-type phenomena must have traveled through the glass and the water
and the air.  Ball lightning has been reported to travel through
material such as glass and ceramic without any apparent effects on the
material.  I suspect that effects may be observable microscopically,
however.  Ohtsuki and Ofuruton have produced ball lightning-like
phenomena which traveled through ceramic and which apparently did not
effect the ceramic(3).  Ball lightning has also been reported to
travel though water(4).  Golka has produced ball lightning-like
phenomena in water.  Tiny BL-type phenomena are also the cause of the
holes in substances which people find.
 
        I am hoping that there can be much more research of this
phenomena, and that people will attempt to detect this phenomena.
I think it is important that those who research EVs and those who
research ball lighting and produce ball lightning-like phenomena
participate in the next CF conference.  BL researchers have had
conferences every year or every other year for several years now,
and there is an international BL conference committee.  Perhaps the
two conferences can be merged together.  Many CF researchers have
begun to be familiar with this phenomena, so they will probably be
interested in discussing BL.  An address for the International
Committee on Ball Lightning is 381 South Meridith Avenue,
Pasadena, California, 91106 U.S.A.
 
Part 2 (August 14, 1993)
 
        I suspect that a variety of sizes of BL-type phenomena are
produced by electric CF apparatus.  I suspect that the glows, coronas,
or luminescences that people report are BL-type phenomena, and that
the micrometer sized phenomena that people produce are another type of
BL phenomena, and that the sparks are also BL-type phenomena.  I
suspect that "electrons" and neutrons and charged particles and
"atoms" are best described as BL-type phenomena as well.
 
        I suspect that St. Elmo's fire, coronas, and BL are similar
phenomena.  People have seen corona and St. Elmo's fire phenomena
convert to BL phenomena that moved in the air.  People have also seen
BL phenomena convert to corona type phenomena.
 
        I suspect that the universe can be well described as BL-type
phenomena.  Alfven, Bostick, Lerner, and Peratt developed general
astronomical theories based on their ideas of "plasmoids."  Their
ideas about the production of energy and elements are interesting.
They described galaxies and stars, and the phenomena that people have
ascribed to "black holes," such as "white holes," as "plasmoid-" type
phenomena.
 
        I suspect that sunspots coincide with BL, volcanos,
earthquakes, and storms in the air and sea.  I suspect that these
phenomena are BL-type phenomena and that they coincide with BL-type
phenomena in apparatus.  Hawkins discussed(5,6) the coincidence of
storm activity and CF phenomena, and he presented experiential
evidence of this(6).  I suspect that clouds and waves and wind are
BL-type phenomena as well.
 
1. K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
2. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 67.
3. Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, "Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave
Interference in Air," Nature, 350, 139 (March 14, 1991).
4. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 69.
5. N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere," Fusion
Technology, 19, 2112 (July 1991).
6. N. Hawkins et al., "Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of
Meteorologically Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of Sciences,"
Proc. Conf. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems Provo, Utah,
October 22-24, 1990.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Tim Watson /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: 14 Aug 1993 02:03:39 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <EACHUS.93Aug12114651@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:
> [deleted]
>      I've thought about how you test this...If a (weak please) proton
> beam is aimed at some superfluid He4, then nuclear delocalization
> should suppress large scattering angles. (Has anyone done this?)
> Now--if you really want difficult experiments--substitute slow
> neutrons and He3 (or an He4&He3 mix)...any nuclear reactions should
> heat the helium and not release any gammas.  The interesting question
> is: How does this affect the neutron absorption spectrum?
>
 
I think this would be a major finding - delocalized nuclei which can
overlap
and somehow interact pretty weakly via the strong reaction (usually the
strong
interaction is so strong - strongest for paired spins - that the nucleus is
highly localized - quarks seem to act like point particles that are
relatively
free to move within the confines of a "bag" (thus the "bag model" of the
nucleus). This would be in itself a stunning discovery for nuclear
physicists.
Maybe you could win a Nobel or something - and then people might be more
open
to the concept of "cold fusion"!!!
 
Sorry about the inept postings. I haven't thought about physics too much
recently.
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Tim Watson /  Re: Planck delocalization vs. dispersive delocalization
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Planck delocalization vs. dispersive delocalization
Date: 14 Aug 1993 02:52:52 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <1993Aug5.172810.18368@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com
wrote:
> [deleted]
> being mobile.  The reason is simple enough:  the lattice places rather
> severe constraints on the available modes of dispersion, so that pure
> dispersive delocalization of the type seen in free-space electrons (or
> hydrogen atoms for that matter) would seem extremely unlikely.  As with
> electron modes in a metal crystal, you should instead get precise momenta
> of the Planck (sinusoidal wavefunction) delocalization type.
> [deleted]
 
Yes, my fuzzy memory of physics is sure that these constraints only
actually
depend on: (Bloch's Theorem, Solid State 3rd week)
1. The fact that the lattice is periodic
2. Periodic B.C. at the edges (more problematic, but it works well in Solid
State - plus I think there is a proof that this doesn't really matter)
 
Just embarrassed, so I thought I'd say something.
TW
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Tim Watson /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: 14 Aug 1993 03:27:46 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <930805104142_70047.3047_EHB20-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:
> [deleted]
> So, what has all this got to do with Bosino's?  Well the basic new idea
> here (new to me at least) is that the large scale structure of matter has
> more to do with the fermionic character of electrons than it has to do with
> electric charge.  In other words, if we can arrange for the electron
> density to be high enough, bosons (and to a lesser degree distinct
> quantons) will have little trouble following along.  Further more, the
> collapsed state has an associated significant binding energy.
>
> For N = 2 with deutrons we can form a collapsed state D2* which
> electronically might look like He-4 but the deutrons will not have fused;
> they will simply be much closer than they would be (lower kinetic energy)
> in a regular D2 molecule.
> [deleted]
 
Maybe we can form a new type of beryllium where the bosons consisting of
the
two pairs of paired electrons (4 total) condense into one orbit. Nope,
maybe
this occurs only in cold fusion. :)
 
Actually, I think this gentleman missed the point. If the deuterium nuclei
were delocalized, there would no longer be as high a potential barrier to
overcome (MeV?) before they could overlap, because they are no longer point
particles (as I mentioned before).
 
When the reaction occurs, if the energy
is to appear as heat (lattice disturbances) and not elementary particles,
we
see that this reaction must involve a certain spatial extent. As Terry
pointed
out, the particles do NOT have to have particularly low momentum to have
a large spatial extent, and two diffuse particles might have a relatively
insignificant potential to overcome (the Coulomb interaction between
electrons in a metal, for example, is a second-order effect). Why drag the
electrons in, if we can help it? How could they possibly hang onto a
delocalized deuteron?
 
Actually, I don't know why I thought that the PRODUCTS (He) would have to
form in pairs. Maybe I was looking at Terry's diagram too hard and
wondering
for the same reasons why he stuck in the electrons.
 
-Tim Watson, I'm not really as stupid as I seem - just a smart, naturally
inept dude.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Tim Watson /  Sorry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sorry
Date: 14 Aug 1993 03:31:36 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

Once again, I keep thinkin of the problems of two He nuclei being close
-I'm going to bed now. Doesn't apply to D2, does it.
TW
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 07:09:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tmwatson-130893230508@nubs33.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <930805104142_70047.3047_EHB20-1@CompuServe.COM>,
>
>Actually, I think this gentleman missed the point. If the deuterium nuclei
>were delocalized, there would no longer be as high a potential barrier to
>overcome (MeV?) before they could overlap, because they are no longer point
>particles (as I mentioned before).
 
      It's easy to say things like 'if the deuterium nuclei were
      delocalized'.  It's very tough to make a case for delocalizing
      something that looks like a point object on the energy scales we are
      considering.
 
      Besides, once they fuse, reaction products become very very localized.
      Where are they?
 
      All along, two miracles have been required. Miracle #1 is getting the
      nucleii (whichever nucleii you want), close enough to fuse while
      ignoring the very local coulomb barrier.  Miracle #2 is getting
      heat into thermal modes in the lattice without being bombarded
      with screaming neutrons, gammas, or whatever else your favorite
      reaction cooks up.
 
      It's difficult to understand how Miracle #1 occurs, for the simple
      reason that there is a large barrier, and the electrons are very
      very mobile.  It is difficult to understand how Miracle #2 occurs
      because the reaction of the lattice occurs on a timescale much much
      longer than the reaction of the fusion products.
 
      Delocalization does not help in #2 and it doesn't even seem to help
      in #1, since I find it difficult to believe that anyone has treated,
      in detail the reaction of the 'fermi sea' to a high local gradient
      caused by two D+'s getting very close together.
 
>When the reaction occurs, if the energy
>is to appear as heat (lattice disturbances) and not elementary particles,
>we
>see that this reaction must involve a certain spatial extent. As Terry
>pointed
>out, the particles do NOT have to have particularly low momentum to have
>a large spatial extent, and two diffuse particles might have a relatively
>insignificant potential to overcome (the Coulomb interaction between
>electrons in a metal, for example, is a second-order effect). Why drag the
>electrons in, if we can help it? How could they possibly hang onto a
>delocalized deuteron?
 
      Why drag the lattice in?  It reacts much more slowly than the
      EM field.  And what happens, happens, a great gob of reaction product/
      energy comes screaming out of the lattice.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 06:53:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug14.012922.7600@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>
>> What is it that makes
>> this possible for the PdD lattice without it being something that occurs
>> in other systems of condensed matter.  Why not in salts with lots of
>> water of hydration, for example?  There are plenty of lattices made of
>> of bosons to be considered as possible candidates.  Why not in
>> solid deuterium?
>
>These questions are certainly a lot easier to answer than the first.
>The major premise is that deuterium in palladium is in an ionic (D+)
>form as it diffuses through the lattice.  I may not be completely D+
>as electrons in the lattice may shadow it motion from intersitual to
>intersitual, but with respect to it's nearest neighbor, it should be
>D+.
 
     It's only D+ until the +'s get too close together, then a pack
     of electrons races over and drags romeo and juliet away.
 
     We are talking about nucleii with huge potentials that are getting
     in the way of deuterium cozyness.  Talking about 'band structure'
     is just a smokescreen, never in electronic bands do electrons
     actually fuse.
 
>>  If the Chubbs have not written down a Hamiltonian
>> for the dueteron-deuteron interaction in this state what does constitute
>> their theory?
>
>The Hamiltonian formalism in this case, is the same you would expect
>for other multi-body band state PSI, and is equivalent to the Fermi
>golden rule.  As such the fusion rate estimates are based on the wave
>function overlap allowing two particles to exist in an intersitual.
>The actual nuclear interaction is extended by the fact that the time t
>of the interaction < t of localization in space. What this implies
>then is that only until the band state is localized by some 'dimer'
>process will the actual 'ash' appear.  Since phase transitions cause
 
     Okay, let's ignore the fact that wave function overlap on
     the necessary scales is virtually nil owing to the huge
     local potentials.  By what magic does he 'delocalize' the resulting fusion
     reaction?  There are a very very large number of degrees of
     translational freedom at high energy.  The resulting reaction products
     come screaming out those degrees of freedom, and there is nothing
     to stop them.
 
>This is a good direction to steer the argument. He3 has an interesting
>property upon freezing that the nuclei will form a crystal of
>alternating nuclear aligned spin-up spin-down nuclei in a bbc.
>(interesting point: He3's solid structure is formed by nuclear spin,
>where as He4 does not solidify, it becomes superfluid.)  I would think
>solid deuterium forms by coevalent and metallic bonding but does not
>have nucleus mobility to allow the wave function overlap.
 
     Nucleus mobility is something you don't want (unless, of course,
     we can figure a way to get them to keV energies).  They will just
     skitter out of each others' way.
 
>Ps: To Dieter.  No I havn't given up on the idea of heavy heat but I
>have modified it. The replies by you and Dale Bass and others really
>did make me rethink the idea. I learned quite a bit from that
>discussion.  I have given up on the idea that the proton current would
>go unnoticed by electrons.  It will effect voltage and resistance as
>seen by the electrons. Electron current shouldn't be effected though.
>Also if these deuteron current does superconduct like I think it does,
>via the BBC, the magnetic effects might be easily apparent if the
>if the lattice doesn't shield it.
 
     How can one tell the difference between the electron current
     and the proton 'current'?  It seems to be the same current,
     no matter what's drifting around.
 
>  In the DiFoggio-Gomer paper (Phy
>Rev B 25-3490) they show an anomoly in the field emision currents
>near 80K for D. Look it up.  It's a really interesting paper and
>is applicable to the discussion on Bose band systems, isotopic
>temperature anomolies in metal/H & D systems, and other effects.
 
      What's the nature of the anomaly?  And what were the pressure
      conditions?
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Process, not People
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Process, not People
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 11:21:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <m0oRFqN-0000tWC@crash.cts.com>,
Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>
>The only credible solution I've come up with is to divorce science and
>technology funding from the political process.  The vermin are essentially
>political animals posing as scientists and technologists.  Since we can't
>make the political process apolitical, that process WILL select for
>political vermin over scientists and technologists.
 
     Good plan.  Don't ask for money from the government.
     That takes care of your 'problem' right away.
 
     I'm getting durn tired of proponents of the 'wonder-process'
     of cold fusion, that highly demonstrated, easily reproducible,
     unambiguous, energy-creating process, whining about government
     funding.
 
     You durn well don't need government funding if all the fantasies are
     true.  And adolescent fantasies of 'getting even' with the
     'vermin' who supposedly squelched 'cold fusion' just makes one
     look like an prepubescent putz.  Face it, no one gives a
     rat's @$$ about the process unless it makes power.  Insofar as
     it is not making power, no one cares about paranoid ravings
     of religious adherents.
 
>Therefore, "cold fusion", if it is proven out, could provide the
>basis of a revolution in the nature of politics in the United States.
 
     And if it's not, will you apologize abjectly for your error and
     admit that the nature of politics has absolutely nothing to do with
     the failure of P&F to even write a good paper, much less demonstrate
     the phenomenon in any convincing manner?
 
     Somehow I doubt it.
 
>The IRS and US Patent Office calculate, for every inventor of a patent
>bearing royalies in the last 5 years, the percentage of total patent
>royalties that inventor was responsible during that 5 year period.
>
>Federal funds for technology are then simply divided up according to
>these percentages and distributed to those inventors without any strings
>attached (one might think of this as "matching funds" incentive
> system for being a successful inventor).  These funds are given
>to INDIVIDUALS ONLY and INVENTORS ONLY (no assignees).
 
     The advantage to this is that Major Corporations (TM) will receive
     most of your largesse.  Take a glance at patent filings sometime.  And
     it would just get worse with block grants.  For instance, Xerox
     would patent every single trivial variation on their manufacturing
     process (they already do anyway) and pay themselves royalties which
     dwarf small-potatoes inventers.  They'll just pay their engineers
     in royalties.
 
     Besides, it is the patent itself that is the grant from the
     government as *our* representative.  If that's not enough,
     find another line of work.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 20:54:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <24jd14INNdh8@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>I never said that the OCCURRENCE of delocalization would not be a problem -
>somehow one would have to turn "off" the strong force (!) binding the nucleons
>into a little itty, bitty ball (but keep enough of it to mediate a fusion
>reaction). Given delocalization and deuterons interacting nearly only
>electromagnetically, I don't see a high gradient. S
 
     Show me the local potential field in this theory. it is
     'electromagnetically' that gives your problems in the first place.
     And if you want to delocalize the nucleii themselves, show me the
     QCD calculations.
 
     Words are cheap, where are the equations.
 
>after looking at Baym's "Quantum Mechanics") so that even though the electromag-
>netic interaction of two miraculously delocalized deuterons doesn't give that
>high a potential to overcome, as they are no longer points, because they are
>delocalized, they do not have to approach each other "closely" (which there is a
>low probability for, anyways)
 
     They do have to approach each other closely, unless you can show
     otherwise.
 
>>       Why drag the lattice in?  It reacts much more slowly than the
>>       EM field.  And what happens, happens, a great gob of reaction product/
>>       energy comes screaming out of the lattice.
>>
>Depends on what unknown mechanism you use to dissipate the energy (some unknown
>aspect of the strong force? -Only the nuclei interact with the
stron force, electrons interact electromagnetically. Fusion involves
the strong force; p-p
>repel otherwise. Why not give distribute over many, many nuclei "pushes"
>that have their origin in this unknown interaction? It might be slow going to
>PROPAGATE kinetic energy in a lattice from some regions of the lattice
>to others, but that is a different matter. Usually, higher energy interactions
 
     It's the same matter, everything in the lattice is propagated by
     these tiny little chemical bonds.   On the other hand, you've just
     let a bull loose in a china shop, and there is no way that the
     glass figuines are going to absorb the blow.
 
>Particle people, is it inconceivable that a reaction between two
large, delocalized states will not proceed in a delocalized region,
imparting momentum
>to tons of nuclei so as to dissipate excess kinetic energy that would otherwise
>be dissipated via kinetic energy of the helium nuclei? The helium nuclei might
>then be left with only moderate amounts of kinetic energy.
 
     Again, show me the formulation.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1993 21:02:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug14.190002.21415@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>(We've traded degrees of freedom for greater average kinetic
>>>energy in the remaining degrees of freedom.)
>
>>     How do we make the trade?
>
>Err, I don't know, it was more of a "what if" assertion than an explanation.
>
>
...
>They have lateral degrees of freedom only.  Diatomic molecules add vibrational
>and rotational degrees of freedom -- more places to store energy.  Triatomic
>molecules further diversify the degrees of freedom, and so on.
>
>So if one were to chemically split various multi-atomic molecules apart,
>one would expect a reduction in the number of degrees of freedom and a
>reduction in the heat capacity.
 
     The details of this 'splitting' make a big difference
     in the conclusions one might draw.
 
>>      What you are
>>      really asking the system to do is dump heat because of some presumed
>>      restriction on internal degrees of freedom (that you don't get anyway
>>      because you've just added more little masses by putting D in there
>>      in the first place).
>
>I too think the heat capacity goes up when you push D into the Pd -- but
>I suspect the heat capacity goes down when the D unloads.
 
     I would suspect it goes up (probably by a miniscule amount)
     to a certain loading.  In any case, one must add or subtract energy to
     do so, and there is no problem with the lattice spontaneously
     dumping heat.
 
>>      It also seems an egregious violation of
>>      the second law, unless you've pre-arranged for the entropy to go
>>      elsewhere in micromanaging internal degrees of freedom.
>
>I've always been a bit of an anarchist. :-)
 
     It sure beats the recent rise in revolutionaries.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Still more of a little heat
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more of a little heat
Date: 15 Aug 1993 00:17:47 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
: >I can, in fact, reduce the capacitance by using a butterfly capacitor
: >and not have to separate the plates.  The charge and the energy must be
: >conserved.  No mechanical energy is put into the system, but the
: >voltage rises.
:
: I'm not sure what a butterfly capacitor is, but here are the equations
: for the capacitor:
:
: Capacitance = coulombs / volts.
:
: Clearly if you decrease the capacitance but retain the same number of
: electrons on the plates (coulombs) then volts must go up.
:
: However, the energy stored in a capacitor = 1/2 coulombs * volts.
:
: So by conservation of energy, a decrease in capacitance in which the charge
: is not allowed to escape *must* increase the system energy -- and therefore
: *must* require energy input to accomplish.
 
Suppose you short the capacitor plates together.
 
:
: --
: - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
: - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
--
-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:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Primer on Bosinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Primer on Bosinos
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 00:14:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <24js6uINNe9h@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
timothy maurice watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>      Show me the local potential field in this theory. it is
>>      'electromagnetically' that gives your problems in the first place.
>>      And if you want to delocalize the nucleii themselves, show me the
>>      QCD calculations.
>
>The QCD is the problem, as I said. How DO the nuclei become delocalized in the
>first place? If one can't believe this, then electromagnetism IS the problem,
>as you said. I was just talking from taking delocalization as the postulate. Why
>should I spend time defending some WEIRD QCD behaviour I do not believe in.
 
      Got me.
 
>Well, if the charge of the deuteron extends over 100 Angstroms vs 10-14
>Angstroms, it will not form as deep a potential well (AT a radius of r=10-12
>angstroms at the center of the distribution, very little of the charge is
>enclosed in a Gaussian sphere (Physics II here) in the delocalized case, so
>there is little electric field .
 
      Depends on what you mean by 'the charge extends over 100 Angstroms'.
      In one sense it already does, in another sense
      if you are talking about uniform smearing of the proton over an
      area of 100 Angstroms, I think current theory gives you problems, that
      is not just a wierd QCD effect, that goes quite beyond QCD, you've
      smeared your quarks.
 
      Don't know about you, but I hate it when I smear my quarks.
 
>>      It's the same matter, everything in the lattice is propagated by
>>      these tiny little chemical bonds.   On the other hand, you've just
>>      let a bull loose in a china shop, and there is no way that the
>>      glass figuines are going to absorb the blow.
>>
>
>1. Fusion is not a chemical bonding phenomenon
 
     Absolutely, but the lattice is.
 
>2. Transfer of energy to zillions of nuclei AT ONCE would be required
as part of the interaction leading to fusion but per my QCD comments,
I can propose no mechanism for it. Yes, the bonds are weak - that's
why a collective motion
>would have to be induced over a wide region by the reaction process itself.
 
     Collective motion will not help when you locally rip the lattice.
     The energy is just too large for the lattice to take over microscopic
     distances, even very large microscopic distances.
 
>3. Nuclei do not break, and neither do lattices if no large amounts of kinetic
>energy are applied to any one nucleus. This would REQUIRE a large spatial extent
>interaction region.
 
     Calculate the number of nucleii necessary to 'take' a D-D
     fusion without a bond breaking (hint, the number is not in the tens).
 
     Though I could do it myself, this is a direct challenge for you
     to quantify one very easy aspect of this set of musings.  A look at
     even rough numbers is often very illuminating.
 
>One could suspect a reaction
>that could only proceed with any probability IF most of the energy
was imparted to the lattice. Maybe maximization of the phase-space
for the reaction (maximizing the entropy) occurs when zillions
of nuclei get a little kinetic
>energy more so than when two nuclei have all the energy.
 
     Or alternatively, one could suspect that several miracles are not
     required from our standard QED and QCD.
 
     However, without a formulation, I think we've pushed this as far
     as it's going.
 
                                dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Morrison Corrected
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Morrison Corrected
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 07:41:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930817032200_76570.2270_BHA26-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
[reformatted to 60 columns, entire post left in]
>Dear Colleagues:
>
>There has been considerable misinformation circulating abou
>t the paper by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in Physics Letters
> A,176 (1993), May 3. We were particularly repelled by the
>various outlandish criticisms made repeatedly in this elect
>ronic forum by Douglas O. Morrison, which were transparentl
>y intended to tear down the work of other scientists withou
>t regard for the facts. Dr. Morrison's stubborn belief that
> cold fusion research is "pathological science" is incorrec
>t. Continuing to push that idea d
>
>
>t serve him well, nor does it help the cause of understandi
>ng the extraordinary phenomena associated with hydrogen-loa
>ded metals that have been revealed in numerous experiments
>these past several years. Accordingly, we have decided to p
>ost the document that follows, which was prepared by Drs. P
>ons and Fleischmann and which was previously circulating wi
>thin the cold fusion community.
>
>                               Sincerely,
>                               Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
>                               Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz
>
...
>Abstract
>
>       We reply here to the critique by Douglas Morrison [1] of
>our paper [2] which was recently published in this Journal.
>  Apart from his general classification of our experiments
>into stages 1-5, we find that the comments made [1] are eit
>her irrelevant or inaccurate or both.
>
>       In the article "Comments on Claims of Excess Enthalpy by
>Fleishmann and Pons using simple cells made to Boil" Dougla
>s Morrison presents a critique [1] of the paper "Calorimetr
>y of the Pd-D{2}0 system: from simplicity via complications
> to simplicity" which has recently been published in this J
>ournal [2].  In the introduction to his critique, Douglas M
>orrison has divided the time-scale of the experiments we re
>ported into 5 stages.  In this reply, we will divide our co
>mments into the same 5 parts.  Ho
>
> we note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has restricted
> his critique to those aspects of our own paper which are r
>elevant to the generation of high levels of the specific ex
>cess enthalpy in Pd-cathodes polarized in D{2}0 solutions i
>.e. to stages 3-5.  By omitting stages 1 and 2, Douglas Mor
>rison has ignored one of the most important aspects of our
>paper and this, in turn, leads him to make several erroneou
>s statements. We therefore start our reply by drawing atten
>tion to these omissions in Dougla
>
>ison's critique.
>
>       *Stages 1 and 2* In the initial stage of these experiment
>s the electrodes (0.2mm diameter x 12.5mm length Pd-cathode
>s) were first polarised at 0.2A, the current being raised t
>o 0.5A in stage 2 of the experiments.
>
>       We note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has not drawn
> attention to the all important "blank experiments" illustr
>ated in Figs 4 and 6 or our paper by the example of a Pt ca
>thode polarised in the identical 0.1M LiOD electrolyte.  By
> ignoring this part of the paper he has failed to understan
>d that one can obtain a precise calibration of the cells (r
>elative standard deviation 0.17%) *in a simple way* using w
>hat we have termed the "lower bound heat transfer coefficie
>nt, (k{R}'){11}", based on the as
>
>
>on that there is zero excess enthalpy generation in such "b
>lank cells".  We have shown that the accuracy of  this valu
>e is within 1 sigma of the precision of the true value of t
>he heat transfer coefficient, (k{R}'){2}, obtained by *a si
>mple* independent calibration using a resistive Joule heate
>r.  Further methods of analysis [3] (beyond the scope of th
>e particular paper [2]) show that the precision of (k{R}'){
>11} is also close to the accuracy of this heat transfer coe
>fficient (see our discussion of s
 
     Is there going to be any substance to this 'response',
     or was this it?
 
     And what about the apparent inconsistencies about cell
     dryness discussed in this forum, _at length_?  And what about
     everything else related to the 'boiling' cells?  And what about
     ten other things discussed here at length?
 
     This doesn't seem like the kind of response on which to base
     the future scientific bell-tolling.
 
     And, in the future, you might wish to keep your linelength below
     1024 characters.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 07:51:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tmwatson-160893223858@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>Fusion involves quark interactions via the strong force. Electrons do not
>interact strongly. Therefore, their interactions with nuclei are through
>electromagnetism, so that we would expect a fusion reaction to involve
>the nuclei - it could create phonons DIRECTLY.
 
     While I would certainly expect a fusion reaction to involve the
     nuclei, I don't know what to make of creating phonons 'directly'.
 
     Anyway, please take a minute and calculate the number of lattice sites
     necessary to take a D-D fusion reaction without breaking bonds before
     speculating further.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 08:02:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug17.013015.9723@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
>>timothy maurice watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>One quibble. Why does it have to be the deuterons that interact locally
>>>with each other.
>
>>     Because if they don't, they don't fuse.
>
>Educate me Dale.  Why does the interaction cause localization?  The same
>question can be asked of Matt as well.  Obviously the band state
>mechanism is important so perhaps you can describe why a D+ band
>state does not ha a nuclear component.  An antithesis so to speek.
 
     Because to get the binding energy out one must go down to scales
     that are much much smaller than the characteristic lattice spacing.
     One cannot evade this size limit because the strong force falls off
     very rapidly.
 
     And I don't know what the nuclear component of a hypothetical
     D+ band state is.  Presumably such a band state would involve
     only rather long-range coulomb coupling between the ions.  Of course,
     given the rather extensive translational freedom of the D+ ions
     in the lattice, I'm not sure you can make a case for a D+
     band state, nor do I know how to look for a D+ band state.
 
     One must be careful of extending analogies without proper formulation.
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 08:57:45 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBvuwJ.n52@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:
>
> In article <tmwatson-160893213538@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
> Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> >However, in solid state,
> >there IS the picture of "quasiparticle" electron  states that have a
> >relatively sharp momentum imposed by the lattice. These do not interact
> >with
> >a nolocal potential via a sudden loaclization - if an electron was easily
> >localized by the first-order interaction with a phonon, say, then one would
> >have, to second order, a large uncertainty in the momentum (something else
> >would then have to share this uncertainty) and given a second phonon coming
> >by of precise momentum, it would have a number of final states available.
> >The perturbation technique using delocalized "quasiparticles" would
> >then not work because this second-order term would probably dwarf the one
> >where momentum of the final state has to be exact with respect to the
> >phonons,
> >because of the number of additional final states available.
>
>      I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing some key point, but I don't
>      understand what you're trying to say above.
> [deleted]
 
I meant that if we were going to model an interaction in solid state, it
works
well to use the precise-momentum, delocalized states. In the second-order
perturbation term, I have not seen that people see it necessary to include
any localized intermediate states. It would seem that if these existed,
they would be important, because localized states have a larger momentum
uncertainty than the delocalized states. Therefore, if it was a two-
phonon interaction process, with precise momentum values for the phonons,
there would exist many intermediate states, even if the initial and final
states have a precise momentum. We could build a localized state out of
the more precise momentum states, but we would have many
creation/annihilation
operators representing the interaction potential, because much momentum
would
have to be redistributed among several states. MY STATEMENT IS WRONG AGAIN-
this would be a much higher-order term.
 
examples:
consider a potential V(x) - this might be able to induce phonon creation or
annihilation: - n electrons of momentum k, phonons momentum q, and 1
electron
of momentum p involved
 
<n-1 k|<p|<q| Ap+  Aq+ Ak  |n k>   ,where the effect of V(x) is represented
by creation and annihilation operators. A transition to a more localized
state
would involve large numbers of creation and annihilation operators to
generate a final localized state |*>, which would be the sum of many
combinations of electron momentum states and phonons generated, say,
<*| At+ Ad+ Ar+ ... Ak |n k>  ,the effect of V(x) once again represented by
creation and annihilation operators.
 
The electron
becoming localized would involve many electron states. (Didn't somebody say
something about multi-body processes? - they are only less probable if one
can assume that perturbation terms are becoming smaller; i.e. what bodies
-basis- one uses in the first place could be important) - there is no a
priori guarantee that one's perturbations will come anywhere near to
converging. One could use a basis of Wannier functions as well, but it
seems that using delocalized momentum states often works pretty well if
they
have a long lifetime and V(x,t) is "nice" enough. If I only had some memory
of that dielectric stuff...
 
 
This doesn't make delocalization
unlikely a priori; it's just that things seem to work well in many
cases assuming that the electron is not localized easily. Otherwise, we
would have to include terms involving transitions like
<*| At+ Ad+ Ar+ ... Ak |n k> before we consider some of the higher-order
terms involving only a few plane-wave states. As V(x) becomes more
localized, the many terms involving localized electron states may very
well dwarf transitions among nice, plane-wave type terms. See, there are
a lot of ways to generate localized wave functions + sets of phonons to
conserve momentum, so if one is sort of likely, zillions of interactions
of this order are sort of likely.
 
-Tim Watson
 
-If I am going to write anything more, there's a lot of review I have to
do...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / mitchell swartz /  Response to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Steven Jones
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:39:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>
  Subject: Response to Mitchell Swartz
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] wrote:
 
==  "I have little time to respond to repeated questions from Mitchell
==   Swartz."
 
   Steven, the questions have been repeated, because they have not
   been answered.  Such as the questions about the autoradiography which
   you called a Fourier-pattern, and the questions about your hypotheses
   of certain pathways.
 
 
==  "In brief:  'cold fusion' has been used to apply to muon-catalyzed
==   fusion since the 1950's."
 
   Thank you for your citation of what you believe to be the earliest
   use of the words "cold fusion".   Do you know who coined it in the '50s?
   or in which paper?
 
 
== "I have endeavored to answer Mr. Swartz's questions regarding
==   recombination on this net, quantitatively -- along with postings by
==  BYU student Jonathon Jones.
== Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
==  when recombination was ignored."
 
  Mr. Jones, since the publication was asked for, so that the data could
be checked, and has not been available,
   since there was a question of an auxilliary oxygen tank (was
there not?), and since you are dismissing many electrochemists on this issue
with a handwave, the questions are important.  Others on this net have
pointed out that you might be wrong, and therefore the data ought be
 examined and clarified.
 
 Note that 1) you are increasing the amount of excess heat you have
   found (120% in May (vide infra))
    and  2) dismiss many papers with your nondescribed system,
    and  3) you may have missed the questions (or my apology if I have
               missed the answers).
 
   For your convenience they are reproduced now.
   Please clarify how the 120% previously may have now become 700%.  Is that
   with the external O2 tank?
 
      ============= excerpts from past posting =========================
  In Message-ID: <1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu.
     Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
  Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
====sj of course).      Thus, we get
====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
====sj cannot be ignored!"
=sj     "We have shown that the recombination effect can lead to
=sj        apparent xs heat of about 120%."
 
=ms  "Did the 120% continue?    Did other gas produce any effect?
=ms   Was it a function of loading?   or current through the cell?
=ms   Are you stating that recombination accounts for ALL of the reported
=ms excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?
=ms   Are you stating that recombination on "the nickel cathode" accounts for
=ms   ALL of the reported excess heat in nickel-H2O systems?
=ms   or do you now declare that you have generated excess heat in the
=ms nickel-H2O excess heat experiments.   (or other)."
 
  to which you responded saying the answers were "natural".
 
==sj    Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
==sj    Message-ID: <1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>
==sj    Date: 7 May 93 17:37:23 -0600
=ms >   Did the 120% continue?    Did other gas produce any effect?
=ms >   Was it a function of loading?   or current through the cell?
==sj
==sj  "We are still working on these natural questions."
 
   Later you resolved the external tank question:
 
==sj ==sj Subject: Reply to Jed & some questions.
==sj Message-ID: <1993May11.142838.626@physc1.byu.edu>
==sj Date: 11 May 93 14:28:38 -0600
==sj
==sj Note to Mitchell:  the oxygen for this particular test I reported on came
==sj from a gas bottle external to the cell.  Jonathon will discuss this in his
==sj report which is nearing completion.
 
       ================ end of posting ===========================
 
   Mr. Jones, good science requires puting the equations or the data on the
line.   Remember V. Noninski's [vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu] comments:
 
= Subject: H2+O2 recombination
= Message-ID: <0096C333.6CBD6BA0.21018@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>
= Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 18:35:02 GMT
=
= "As I have mentioned in some of my recent publications the H2 + O2
= recombination is a serious problem which, as well as  many  other
= problems, ....  I  would  like  to  note  that
= problems such as this should not be commented about in a  casual,
= hobby-like manner with the aim  to  denounce  "scientifically"  a
= field of investigation. A real scientist  should  always  feel  a
= deep internal responsibility and should always be ready to learn.
= As I pointed out before,  if  S.Jones  really  is  interested  in
= expressing opinions in the field he  should  take  some  time  to
= study, as much as he can, the subject and should listen carefully
= to his teachers Fleischmann and Pons. Also, a real scientist will
= never use a medium like this,  unrestricted  by  peer-review,  to
= immediately post uncritically just anything that  is  on  his/her
= mind.
=
= Truly yours,
= Vesselin Noninski                                    May 8, 1993"
 
  Nuff said.
 
== "John Logajan has also posted repeatedly on this
==  trap, as have Douglas Morrison and Tom Droege."
 
   How can they comment effectively upon your unpublished experiment?
   Steve, has the paper been published, or is the data available?
        Thank you.
 
            Best wishes.
                                      Mitchell (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / mitchell swartz /  Re: What Jones needs to explain
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Jones needs to explain
Subject: Re: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:59:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Aug10.202015.838@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: What Swartz needs to explain (inter alia)
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
= "Richard Schultz is correct to point out that Miles claims X-ray production
= (using dental X-ray films) along with xs heat, and Swartz said that that was a
= reliable measurment."
 
   So what is your interpretation?
 
   Any comments on the Kucherov electrode autoradiography?
 
   Any positive comments on any of the numerous "positive" papers?
 
   Any comments on the "recombination" data?
 
   Any comments on the reports of "information blackout"?
 
      There is no backing out now from the claims of excess heat, tritium,
   helium-4 and even some (including your own) very low level neutron data.
       Is there?     Thanks.
 
    Best wishes.
 
                                       Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / GINO DION /  NUCLEAR FUSION
     
Originally-From: 9309764@cuslm.ca (GINO DION)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NUCLEAR FUSION
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:03:38 GMT
Organization: Centre d'Informatique, Centre universitaire Saint-Louis-Maillet

Hi, I have a couple of unanswered questions about nuclear fusion. I'm doing
a research on efficient source of energy and I need answeres as fast as
possible.
 
1.     How much would it cost to build a fusion reactor, and there are
       different kind of reactors, I would like a comparision of them.
 
2.     What would be the lifetime of such a reactor?
 
3.     How much electricity would it be able to produce?
 
4.     Is there any safety factor to consider?
 
5.     How many persons would be needed to build the reactor, and
       after that to operate it.
 
I need answers as fast as possible!! Thank you in advance!!!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden9309764 cudfnGINO cudlnDION cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 17:08:02 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

In article <9308101658.AA20357@ess41.ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com>
haugen@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com writes:
 
>too bad, but I haven't priced any nuclear weapons lately.  Does anyone know
>what the $/BTU of a fusion bomb is?
 
On the telly ('The Cook Report') recently you could see my sister being
offered an SS-20 warhead for about 22 million pounds by a shady little
guy in a Moscow flat.  Perhaps the price comes down a bit if you order
several.
 
Right now we have too many of the things, so this probably does not
reflect the true price.  I believe the true manufacturing cost is in the
tens of millions of pounds apiece if you omit the R&D.  Or a zillion billion
squillion if you don't.
 
Remember project 'Plowshare' in the 60's?  It proposed using H-bombs to dig
canals and other bits of giant civil engineering by generating a cavity
underground and letting it fall in.  They do/did this a lot in Nevada
and all the nasty stuff seems to stay under.  Mostly.
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Richard Schultz /  Mitchell Swartz, lame flamer
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, lame flamer
Date: 11 Aug 1993 19:23:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CBKvK3.B9p@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
#   Well, now with this second misquote you are attempting to elevate yourself
#to Goober-First Class.
#
#   Subject: Re: Richard ("P.E.") Schultz
#
#    ====== "P.-E." Schultz did see correct equations ==============
#
#    2 - Actual reading and responding to the facts might do wonders, too.
#
#  Richard, please don't be a "Goober", there must be toxins in the
#   (drinking) water where you live!!!!
#
#  Again you apparently continue to  mislead and misquote, Mr. "P.E." Schultz.
 
Look, why don't you just post a message claiming that your penis is bigger
than mine and be done with it?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Bruce Dunn /  RE: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Peroxide
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 19:50:09 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Dieter Britz writes:
>  A simple test for peroxide, Tom: hold a Pt wire in the solution. You
> should see lots of bubbles, because Pt is a catalyst for peroxide
> decomposition. What am I saying? A Pt wire? Hey!
 
 
        Unfortunatately, the skeptics may say that even though you think your
Pt wire should decompose peroxide, perhaps it doesn't happen in the presence
of the electrolyte.  Any demonstration should be accompanied by a positive
control.  I suggest adding 1 part 3% hydrogen peroxide (drugstore grade) to 9
parts electrolyte, and showing that it ***does*** generate bubbles.  Then,
for an exactly equivalent reaction, add 1 part water to 9 parts electrolyte
and show that it ***does not*** generate bubbles.  This would set an upper
limit for peroxide of approximately 0.1 M in the electrolyte.
        If the Pt wire gives trouble in the positive control, I suggest
substituting a bit of silver wire (a few cm. can probably be bought from a
custom jeweler for a pittance).  Silver plated wire screens have been used as
a catalyst for decomposing peroxide in aerospace applications.
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: _Quantics_ book / How _Quantics_ nails bosinos
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 20:09:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <EACHUS.93Aug10191310@spectre.mitre.org>
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
> In article <1993Aug9.045728.25341@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | ... Quantics insists that _all_ particles of a single identical type
> | must be part of _one_ symmetric [bose] or antisymmetric [fermi] field.
> |
> | If you just stop and mull that one over a bit, you should be able to see
> | pretty quickly why _no_ composite boson will _ever_ be able to occupy the
> | same space as another composite boson...
>
> There are a few non-trivial exceptions, and hydrogen and deuterium seem
> to be most of them...
>
> If you look at h as a boson you have one proton and one electron.
> Two such composite bosons can occupy the same space by having the
> protons and electrons overlap via fermi statistics...
 
 
Sorry, I scratched my head over you comment for several minutes, but was
unable to figure out what you meant.  You might try rephrasing and trying
to be a bit more precise about what is overlapping with what.
 
If this has something to do with opposing proton spins, check out garden
variety para molecular hydrogen.  This is the stable end product of placing
two opposite-spin composite boson hydrogen atoms together.  It is a common
molecular type, and it shows no enhancement of nuclear reactions.  Coulomb
is the problem there, not Fermi.  Pushing the positively charged protons
too close produces a ferocious consumption of energy that has no need for
fermi exclusion to help beef it up.
 
Ditto for deuterium.  It also has pairs of atoms invisible to each other
under Fermi statistics, specifically: p^n^e^ + pvnvev OR p^n^ev + pvnve^.
The result of such pairings of atoms is a common form of D2 that is quite
dull and decidely non-nuclear in behavior.  Again, the effect of electrical
(Coulomb) repulsion is the culprit.
 
(Note -- p^nv and pvn^ do not exist because of a weakening of the strong
force when nucleons (protons or neutrons) have opposite spins.  The p^nv
and pvn^ forms, if produced by direct collisions, would convert very quickly
into into the energetically preferable p^n^ or pvnv forms.)
 
 
> ... Of more interest in this group is the d+ case.  Delocalized deuterium
> would be a composite fermion...
 
Well, actually:  D+ (or d+ as I often write it) is a _boson_, not a fermion.
                 D  (neutral atomic deuterium)  is a _fermion_
 
 
> ... and two such comoposite fermions could interact with fermi statistics
> for the individual particles as well...
 
Again, I can't really comment without a clearer idea what you mean.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 21:01:34 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBwGo0.HF5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>      I'm still not sure what you're after.  You seem to be arguing
>      against any local interactions whatsoever.  However, there
>      are certainly interactions in solid state that localize
>      electrons.  Consider a hot conductor spitting electrons from
>      the surface.
>
 
Sorry, I mean that in MANY calculations it is not necessary, depending on
the
interaction, which could exchange plenty of momentum but not require
localization.
THAT was my point.
 
>     Why do we seem to keep jumping from electronic band interactions to
>     lattice vibrations and back?
>
 
It was only an example - someone had said something about the necessity
of delocalized
entities (or it could be taken that way) to interact locally.
 
>
>     You mean V(x,t)?
>
 
A slowly-varying V(x), I was thinking of.
 
>
>     For the nucleus of D+ we don't need to transition to a more
>     localized state to localize it on the scale we're considering
>     (lattice spacing size).  It's already localized quite nicely.
>
>     And the creation and annihilation operators work quite nicely on
>     that local scale as evidenced by ordinary 'ram the particles
>     together' fusion.
>
>                             dale bass
>
 
Yes, one can easily create LOCAL creation-annihilation particles.
 
But someone made the comment that many-body interactions are always MUCH
more un-
likely than pair interactions, and for THAT reason the interaction must
be local. No, in free particle interactions, what is involved is the
amount of momentum transfer. If I shot a photon at an electron, and it
was high enough energy, it would Compton-scatter in a simple
enough manner to caculate the scattering angle probabilities from the
(Klein-Nishina?) relationship, as semi-derived in Bjorken!s !Relativistic
Quantum Mechanics!. If it is much
slower, a many-body interaction is much more likely. I think this is part
of the reason those
medium-energy nuclear physicists are interested in quark-gluon plasmas -
they want to see
phase transitions, etc. and see what types of COMPLEX phenomena can be
generated by
really involved interactions. This is a far cry from cold fusion, but I
was merely trying to
make a point about a criticism; it is not a direct defense of cold fusion.
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
Date: 17 Aug 1993 21:08:32 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBw8HD.25G@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>     While I would certainly expect a fusion reaction to involve the
>     nuclei, I don't know what to make of creating phonons 'directly'.
>
>     Anyway, please take a minute and calculate the number of lattice
sites
>     necessary to take a D-D fusion reaction without breaking bonds
before
>     speculating further.
>
>                           dale bass
 
Once again, I was criticizing a particular criticism - All I meant was
that the phonons would
have to be induced directly, so that the particular criticism of the
previous poster didn!t
apply. My point that people should criticize the stuff that would have to
be true for cold
fusion to work, not criticize stuff that absolutely no one except !Ludwig
Plutonium!
believes to be true.
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 21:19:41 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <01H1UHA3WLIA9PPDPB@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk writes:
>Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu (Dick Blue) in FD 1271:
>
>>...I would think that a very large deuteron is no longer
>>a deuteron, and it will have a harder time hanging onto its neutron than
>>it does already...
>
>Dick, you hit on it!!! This explains all! It's not fusion, it's fission!
>Deuterons fiss, losing their neutrons, which go bumping around, knocking
more
> [Blah, Blah]
 
Another example of a not-good criticism. The binding forces amongst
quarks are
very high, so they will not be found far apart from each other; and they
are constantly
transferring large amounts of momentum to each other, so they will be
pretty localized.
Maybe the wavefunction of the deuteron will be !spread out! initially,
but once one
!locates! even one quark, they!ve pretty much located the others (at
least if the strong
force remains strong). (Thanks to Dr. Kennel for clearing away some
cobwebs)
Binding energy per nucleon is lower in deuterium, so maybe the
neutron quarks and proton quarks do not interact as much. but it isn!t
exactly nil.
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Process, not People
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Process, not People
Date: 17 Aug 1993 21:58:56 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <m0oRlgb-0000HDC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery, jim@pnet01.cts.com
writes:
[deleted]
>I'd be happy if the government would stop all funding of technology
>and instead concentrate on protecting U.S. intellectual properties both
>at home and abroad...
>
A certain amount of consistency in that. Now follows the
inconsistencies...
>But if we're going to dole out money, the least we can do is get the
>politics out of it and make it correlate with market forces.
>
 
That means we would have to bring in some MBAs to evaluate proposals?
How many companies don!t try to impose a !sense of direction! from
upper management and just let even their brighter engineers have the last
word? -I think the criticism, once again, is that they would be afraid of
missing out on potentially porfitable of revolutionary technologies
because
even engineers can tend to become enamored of their own particular sub-
field. Even in industry, there tends to be a heirarchy, with some well-
respected engineers spending their talents to get a !big picture! of what
is
going on in the lab. Like it or not, they ARE politicians, but hopefully
well-
trained politicians. Even the brilliant engineers who do the research
don!t call
the shots. They can, of course, call attention to their credentials, but
isn!t that
usually done already? Who said even excellent engineers can!t be a little
narrowminded - perhaps they should have to recommend funding in areas that
they don!t know anything about.
 
>Under the current system, all funding concentrates, by political
mechanisms,
>in one approach.  Witness Shuttle, Space Station, Tokamak, just to name
>a few really obvious "undeveloped technologies" in the present system's
>definition.
>
 
These technologies, I!m sure, have brought in lots of patents and money
to the
companies involved. I guess we continue to fund them, then, right? :) Or
maybe we ask inventors whos inventions did not make money due to gov!t
spending what to do with the R&D money?
 
I!m not a believer in huge megaprojects, because I doubt that they add
what
they cost - but what does this have to do with my idea that there SHOULD
be at least some !allied technology! BASIC researchers involved to bring a
little perspective? And maybe form review GROUPS who can send proposals
to real inventors for review and recommendations? Once again, a brilliant
engineer for a large company, in particular, may have made much money for
the company, but might or might not be regarded as !too visionary! or !too
parochial! for all his recommendations to be considered for serious
funding. I!d
have more trust in the guys who founded their own companies... - they have
the true balance of skills to figure out what might make money. And maybe
some very bright engineers are particularly trusted with respect to
judgement as
to where research should be steered, but they tend to be put in
!political! positions.
 
>You are confusing reality with the fraudulent rhetoric put forth
 
Anarchists and fanatics and mental patients can often be extremely
convinced of
their version of reality.
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 02:11:04 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

Instead of posting on a lark, I decided to think about this stuff a bit...
 
In article <CBs7CL.K38@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:
>
> In article <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
> timothy maurice watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> >One quibble. Why does it have to be the deuterons that interact locally
> >with each other.
>
>      Because if they don't, they don't fuse.
>
 
Very True - but I was referring to an interaction between several entities
- a delocalized pair of D+s AND a lattice. I was wondering if one MIGHT get
around "local" interactions this way - in particle physics, if there is a
large amount of momentum transfer between particles (the quarks involved in
the fusion reaction), the particles interact locally. I don't see how there
could be a SMALL momentum transfer via the quarks that have to interact if
the strong force is strong. Therefore, the reaction would have to be local
and there would be a significant barrier to overcome.
 
However, in solid state,
there IS the picture of "quasiparticle" electron  states that have a
relatively sharp momentum imposed by the lattice. These do not interact
with
a nolocal potential via a sudden loaclization - if an electron was easily
localized by the first-order interaction with a phonon, say, then one would
have, to second order, a large uncertainty in the momentum (something else
would then have to share this uncertainty) and given a second phonon coming
by of precise momentum, it would have a number of final states available.
The perturbation technique using delocalized "quasiparticles" would
then not work because this second-order term would probably dwarf the one
where momentum of the final state has to be exact with respect to the
phonons,
because of the number of additional final states available.
 
How does one reconcile these two different pictures? But after thinking
about
this, Dr. Kennel does have a point, because the phonons resulting from a
fusion could only result from a interaction with the Pd nuclei, (because
fusion is a strong force interaction). If the phonons are created by the
fusion process itself, one would STILL expect a significant amount of
momentum transfer, and localization of the quarks to near the nuclei.
Trouble
is, with TWO D+ nuclei, we don't have that many quarks to interact locally.
Therefore, might we need a whole CLOUD of D+ concentrated in the same
region?
But then, a whole CLOUD of delocalized D+ with as many D+ as Pd sites would
have a large Coulomb barrier to overcome anyways. (if the strong force
remains
strong, there is not as big problem with delocalization of the D+ as with
the localization of an *interaction* where large momentum transfers take
place
between quarks, as Dr. Kennel -I'm sure- has pointed out)
 
Instead, if we make the strong
interaction really "weak", maybe we could get around the localization of
the
quarks if the momentum transfer is almost nil, but we would still need
enough interaction to drive a reaction. This reaction could not release
much energy, due to the weakness of interaction. Therefore, the energy
release
to the lattice in this "weak" strong force case would have to be due to
that released during the "weakening" of the strong force. We'd get to see
neutron decays (even though this has a good lifetime) and nearly-free
quarks
(can we tell these from electrons?) if there is a significant amount of D+
delocalized.
 
> [deleted]
>      strong force acts that is required for fusion.  At a minimum,
>      you seem to be asking the strong force to act well outside its domain.
>
 
Don't you think it would have to?
 
>                            dale bass
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to Eugene Mallove's Threats
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Eugene Mallove's Threats
Date: 16 Aug 93 14:54:58 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

To recap some of Eugene Mallove's posted threats:
 
"You still don't get the point that war has been declared against cold fusion
and cold fusion research by the Maddoxes, Huizengas, Happers, Closes, Taubes's
and Wades of this world.  ... You think this is some kind of polite tea-party
discussion.  It ain't! The cold fusion community, which has suffered so many
insults, will NOT be gracious when victory comes, and it is coming very soon.
 ... Come the revolution, we'll let you alone, but we cold fusioneers are
certainly going to be out -- BIG TIME -- to "get" the science bigots of the
last four years.  Not one will escape the excruciating documentation and
publication of their misconduct."
{Reply to Dieter, by Eugene Mallove}
 
Am I a "cold fusioneer" in your book, Gene?  If so, please understand that I do
not endorse your threats or evident vengefulness.
 
Or perhaps I am one of the "science bigots"?
 
It matters not to me how you label me, Gene.  But please do not presume to
speak for me [i.e., "we cold fusioneers are certainly going to be out -- BIG
TIME -- to "get" bla bla bla].
 
A thought to ponder:  suppose the low-level nuclear activity in deuterided
materials (and inside planets) finally proves out, while the excess heat claims
are shown to be not-commercially viable.  What then?  Do I get kudoed or
judoed?  Whatever:  to me, finding out is its own reward.
 
As I have reported here along with BYU student-researcher Jonathon Jones, the
light-water xs heat claims which you have publicly espoused here, look to be
on very shaky ground.  Aren't you concerned about getting some of the same
vituperative lambasting which you so obnoxiously threaten others with?
 
{Aside to Mitchell
Swartz:  you stated, erroneously, in a recent post that we saw xs heat only
when we passed oxygen through an H2O/Ni electrolytic cell.  The fact is, the
oxygen bubbling was a test to check whether the *apparent* xs heat would
increase, actually due to H2 + O2 recombination in the cell -- and the apparent
xs heat did indeed go up.  But we have seen around 700% xs heat -- calculated
using I*(Vin - 1.48V), thus ignoring recombination as do Mills and Notoya, etc
-- *without* oxygen addition, that is, just from the O2 and H2 in the
electrolyte from the electrolysis itself.  Thus, recombination along with this
I*(Vin - 1.48V) in the denominator of the relation normally used to calculate
xs heat  leads to erroneous xs heat claims.  We also found the same problem in
a Pd/D2O+LiOD cell here recently.}
 
I do not believe that the xs heat claimed by P&F, McKubre, Mills, Miles,
Notoya, *etc.* is nuclear in origin.  There is no quantitative evidence to
support such a link.  This is not a "religious" belief, but is
based on years of scrutiny of xs heat claims along with careful experiments
performed here.  And if not nuclear in origin, then I posit that the xs heat
will not be useful as a commercial source of power.
So I guess I'm a "scientific bigot?"
 
Whatever, the "truth will cut its own way" and ego-tripping by you or Taubes or
whoever you're worried about won't stop it.  Our egos are actually pretty small
compared to the wonders of nature.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 02:10:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug16.234126.12435@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>>Making 4He out of deuteron soup when there are all
>>those Pd nucleii hanging about doesn't seen to be the most likely process.
>
>Is this an alternate cf hypothesis?  :-)
 
     Sure, seems no worse than the alternatives.
 
     A broad 5 MeV spectral feature was seen by the group
     at the Colorado School of Mines when doing ion-implantation
     followed by electrical forcing.  That's just about right
     for a large number of the Pd-D fusion pathways.
 
     Of course, I think the rate was rather low, but I still find that
     interesting.
 
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Re: Re:How _Quantics_ nails bosinos (and relation to Vigier's Theory)
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re:How _Quantics_ nails bosinos (and relation to Vigier's Theory)
Date: 17 Aug 1993 02:30:35 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <930813154700_70047.3047_EHB40-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:
[deleted]
[Stuff related to conservation of charge]
> Terry, you are breaking the linguistic ground rules here!  Fields are a
> classical concept on a par with waves!  QUANTICS treats electromagnetic
> charge purely in a guage-theoretic way - as interaction due to the exhange
> of photons. It is only energy conservation that tells you that *if* you
> lose one, you can only lose it for a *short time*.  [But even this
> statement is a mix of classical and quantum... no matter how hard I try I
> still haven't been able to re-train myself!]
>
 
The charge is part of the coupling CONSTANT between two charges. The
variables
are the momenta, etc. - conservation of charge holds even in subatomic
physics.
 
> Because Quantics insists that _all_ particles of a single identical type
> must be part of _one_ symmetric [bose] or antisymmetric [fermi] field.
>
> If you just stop and mull that one over a bit, you should be able to see
> pretty quickly why _no_ composite boson will _ever_ be able to occupy the
> same space as another composite boson.
> >>
>
> No, Terry, this is not right.  Or, at least, not accurate.  What do you
> mean by space (and I know you know that this is the issue and also know the
> right answer from other postings).  Perhaps the problem is that you *really
> [deleted]
 
Composite bosons are composed of fermions, which must still NOT occupy the
same space (or be very near - see Baym's treatment, once again, of the
joint probability at finding two fermions separated by a given distance)
What does this have to do with transitions? This involves where the
particles
can be found in the first place (before they interact!)
 
Rest deleted. I bet many others made the same points.
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
Date: 17 Aug 1993 02:36:46 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBtnq7.C39@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
wrote:
[deleted]
>    Solid state physics provides some answers in the very slight effect of
>     nuclear (within the lattice) to electron coupling through
>     the s orbitals and the lattice (eg. observed through Mossbauer spec.).
>    {N.B.this is not a claim that c.f. phenomena necessarily work through
>      Mossbauer reactions but only to draw attention to the fact that there is,
>      again, existence of such effects]
>
 
Fusion involves quark interactions via the strong force. Electrons do not
interact strongly. Therefore, their interactions with nuclei are through
electromagnetism, so that we would expect a fusion reaction to involve
the nuclei - it could create phonons DIRECTLY.
 
[deleted]
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 03:25:53 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <24k05pINN686@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt
Kennel) writes:
|> Think about normal ordinary electrons in a wire.  If they do not interact
|> with anything else, they travel along "delocalized", sure.  But when
|> they interact with impurities, say, they become emphatically *local* right
|> then and there and scatter.  This isn't recent news.
 
But that is an interaction between a delocalised object and a localised
object, whereas (I thought) we are talking about an interaction between
two delocalised objects.
 
Harking back to Dactyl the Demon, suppose we have a bunch of delocalised
D nuclei, with Dactyl riding on one of them. From his point of view
he is sitting on an ordinary localised particle. Suddenly he slams into
another particle, creating some products, also localised from his point
of view. Which means that, from our point of view, the products will
be delocalised.
 
So it seems to me that a reaction between two delocalised objects should
produce a delocalised product. Or have I gone astray somewhere?
 
|> -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".
 
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,          | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a       |
Christchurch, New Zealand          | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz         +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Richard Schultz /  Mitchell Swartz, King of Obfuscation
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell Swartz, King of Obfuscation
Date: 11 Aug 1993 21:08:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
Mitchell Swartz has an amusing penchant for seizing on basically irrelevant
minutiae, ignoring the main point presented to him, and then claiming that
his interlocutor is ignoring the questions he posed.
 
I have deleted most of Swartz's previous post because rereading it would
be almost as much a waste of time as responding to it.  There is one point
I do want to address directly, however.
 
>  There you go again.  Richard, is it not true that equations were posted with
>additional terms on the right hand side?  Was it not true that two such
>equations were even posted to you.    Here are the actual equations:
>
>    ====== "P.-E." Schultz did see correct equations ==============
>   ms> POST 1: "In summary, given that some variant of:
>   ms> (d)+(d)+?(d)+... --> ?+ ?(ash) + heat
>   ms>  remains the most likely etiology of these effects.... "
>
>   ms> POST 2: "Nobody said there was no ash.  Helium-4 is ash.
 
 
Now, there are three possibilities for the putative "ash" from a postulated
fusion reaction in this system.  The "ash" could be what one normally
expects from D+D fusion, i.e. tritium and 3He.  Or, it could be 4He with the
excess energy mysteriously dissipated.  Or it could be other products, which,
since they are not isotopic forms of H or He, must have more protons in them
than either H or He.
 
The equation above in "POST 1" has on the left side more than 2 deuterons.
That is why I said in my previous post that I consider it a priori unlikely;
three-body collisions will always be less probable than two-body collisions.
Now the mysterious ash on the right side of this mysteriously unbalanced
equation cannot be He, since He has only two protons and 5He is unstable.
That is why I assumed that Swartz meant that the product in this case must
be something other than H or He.
 
In "POST 2", Swartz claims that 4He is a product.  He has posted the claim
from Miles that Miles has observed X-rays (or gamma rays if you prefer) that
correlate with excess heat.  I simply calculated the photon flux that would
result *if* the primary "nuclear" process were formation of 4He and some
percentage of the 4He* gave off gamma rays rather than adding 10 million
phonons to the lattice.  As several people have pointed out, it shouldn't be
that hard to quantitate the numbers and energies of X-rays (excuse me, gamma
rays) being emitted.  If any.  But what Swartz obfuscates is that he is the
one who claimed that energetic photons were being produced in the first
place!
 
It seems to me that if you believe that "cold fusion" is really nuclear in
origin and you believe the levels of excess heat claimed by P&F, then you
have to demonstrate that the observed nuclear products are consistent with
the amount of heat produced.  Since "cold fusion" is "neutronpenic", we
know that Swartz will agree that either (1) production of 3He cannot account
for the claimed excess heat or (2) we should see secondary radiation from
whatever absorbed the neutron.  I have yet to see any evidence for this
secondary radiation.  Now, if the product is not 4He, not 3He, and not
anything with more than two protons, it has to be tritium.  Has anyone
shown that the amount of tritium produced can explain the excess heat at
P&F levels?  Has anyone come up with a theory that would allow 4He* to
decay to 3H but not 3He?
 
One other thing that Swartz whined about was that I never explained why I
"baited" him with the question about conservation of momentum.  Well, I have
explained, at least twice, with a question that Swartz has yet to answer, and
indeed deletes from his followups every time he sees it.  The question is:
how does a stationary 4He* nucleus give off a gamma ray, remain stationary,
and conserve momentum?
 
Another thing that seems to bother Swartz is the tendency that scientists
have to anthropomorphize inanimate objects.  In particular, he doesn't like
it when someone says the 4He* "cannot remember" where it came from.  The
fact is, that scientists frequently use these kinds of colloquialisms because
it is easier (if less precise) than going into all the details.  But if that's
what Swartz wants, I shall explain what I meant in more detail.  Nuclear
fusion is controlled by the strong force, which is of much shorter range and
much greater strength than the electomagnetic force.  The latter is what holds
the Pd lattice together, among other things.  Then the question becomes, if
you put a 4He* nucleus into a lattice, what effect will the lattice have on
the decay of the nucleus?  A priori one would expect the answer to be "not
much if any" simply because electrical forces get swamped by the strong force
at nuclear distances -- which is why nuclei with more than one proton can
exist in the first place.  Thus, it is hard to understand how the lattice can
have any effect on what goes on inside the nucleus.  Has anyone doing inertial
confinement fusion seen any effects from the nuclei being inside a pellet
rather than a plasma?  In any case, the burden of proof is on the people who
claim that "cold fusion" is a fusion process.  *They* have to demonstrate
that the products attributable to nuclear processes correlate to the amount
of heat being released before the physicists have to rewrite their theories.
As of yet, such unequivocal evidence has yet to turn up.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / Rene' Vega /  Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
     
Originally-From: rene.vega@ivorytower.amdahl.com (Rene' A. Vega)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
Date: 11 Aug 93 19:25:34 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

The project was conceived by Litton industries, called project Pacer.
 
They intended to build large spherical caverns preferrably in salt domes
because stress induced cracks in the cavern walls self-heal (so the project
plans sez). The cavern was not filled with water, it was to be filled with
dueterium water vapor (steam). A small (!) fission nuke would be dropped into
the cavern, and it supposedly self-assembled on the way down, then detonated
in the middle (more or less). The resulting detonation was to cause
significant hot fusion. As I recall they were to detonate once every 8 or so
hours to keep up the steam pressure. I recall the project plan stated the
system would generate 1/1000ths the amount of radioative waste of a standard
fission powerplant.
 
Just keep the thing away from the San Andreas fault, please.
 
 
/*
 These are my opinions, and not necessarily my employer's
*/
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvega cudfnRene' cudlnVega cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.11 / David Andrews /  Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
     
Originally-From: dba@redbug.oau.org (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 19:48:25 GMT
Organization: none

haugen@ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com writes in article <9308101658.AA20357@
ss41.ann-arbor.applicon.slb.com>:
>
>       Minuses:
>       1) Public reaction.  It sure sounds scary.
>          Nuclear bombs?  "Not in _my_ back yard!"
 
No problem!  Dale already donated the space under HIS house.            :-)
 
--
David Andrews
dba@redbug.oau.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendba cudfnDavid cudlnAndrews cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Nick Janow /  Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
     
Originally-From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Low-tech fusion power plant
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 05:39:29 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

rene.vega@ivorytower.amdahl.com (Rene' A. Vega) writes:
 
> A small (!) fission nuke would be dropped into the cavern, and it
> supposedly self-assembled on the way down, then detonated in the middle
> (more or less). The resulting detonation was to cause significant hot
> fusion.
 
I've read that it may be possible to build a fusion bomb without a fission
trigger.  The concept uses conventional chemical explosives in a chamber
designed to focus the blast on the spherical fuel target.  The idea was
mentioned in analog magazine a few years ago, with references to the
scientific article(s).
 
Chemical triggers might be more expensive than fission ones, due to the
carefully formed focussing structure, but it would avoid the use of fissile
material, and all the expense and controversy that goes with it.  It would
also reduce the radioactivity in the cavern.
 
--
 
Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenNick_Janow cudfnNick cudlnJanow cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Robert Scott /  re: The New Inquisition
     
Originally-From: rscott@ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: The New Inquisition
Date: 12 Aug 1993 08:02:24 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

jim bowery writes:
 
>Due to the fact that many of my opinions are unpopular, my INTERNET access
>has, for some months, been reduced to two groups:
>
>sci.physics.fusion and sci.space.
>
>In that other group to which the guardians of the public interest have
>allowed me access (those of you who find me "obnoxious" would probably find
> it fruitful to complain to my sysop as he might remove my access from even
> sci.physics.fusion despite the fact that his feed is paid for by our
 
 
is it really possible that you are unpopular?  i certainly would like
to live in a society where your brand of nazism was recognized and
shunned for what it is, but i can't help feeling that this society is
being hypocritical in its repudiation of you, since your philosophy
is so deeply in tune with this society's true nature.  it must be your
personality rather than your philosophy that makes people despise you.
you're too transparent.  but even if you yourself do end up blowing
your brains out in a bunker somewhere, it's all too likely that the
nightmare future of eternal race war that you advocate will come true.
 
if you are claiming that some juvenile attempt by some local
administrator to censor your usenet postings amounts to some sort of
significant persecution (or even significant inconvenience), i doubt
you'll get too many people to believe you.  surely there are any
number of ways you could get around such a problem?
 
you are an evil buffoon, perhaps dangerous, more likely just an
inconsequential addition to the shitpile of history.  why not do
yourself and everyone else a favor and commit suicide right now?
 
 
-james dolan
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrscott cudfnRobert cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 /   /  Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The College sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 16:47:04 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

>Do you really believe that it can ever be "good" to expropriate the fruit of
>another's toil without his consent through taxation?
 
Okay.  We won't tax you, but you can't drive on our roads, drink our
reservoir water, or own property under our tax supported title system.
 
Libertarians piss me off.  They are probably closest to my own philosophy,
but as a group they are entirely ineffectual.  Libertarians
seem unable to promulgate a rational phased approach to social reform.
They continually go for home runs (and strike out) when a series of singles
would work just as well.
 
Yes, I would like not to be taxed at all.  But if they only taxed me
for standards setting and national defense and roads, etc., I would consider
it good.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudended cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.12 / Bruce Scott /  re: The New Inquisition
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: The New Inquisition
Date: 12 Aug 1993 16:53:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Well, hell! I certainly am not going to go around telling people to suicide!
Jim, even though I may not always agree with you, I will say that people
who try to silence others they find obnoxious rather than ignoring them
are in fact the greater danger to our collective well being.
 
If you continue to have trouble, I suggest the PC + freenet route, which I
have seen several who are not blessed with semi-official net.access using.
 
Free speech forever, dammit!
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 02:57:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tmwatson-160893213538@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>However, in solid state,
>there IS the picture of "quasiparticle" electron  states that have a
>relatively sharp momentum imposed by the lattice. These do not interact
>with
>a nolocal potential via a sudden loaclization - if an electron was easily
>localized by the first-order interaction with a phonon, say, then one would
>have, to second order, a large uncertainty in the momentum (something else
>would then have to share this uncertainty) and given a second phonon coming
>by of precise momentum, it would have a number of final states available.
>The perturbation technique using delocalized "quasiparticles" would
>then not work because this second-order term would probably dwarf the one
>where momentum of the final state has to be exact with respect to the
>phonons,
>because of the number of additional final states available.
 
     I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing some key point, but I don't
     understand what you're trying to say above.
 
>> [deleted]
>>      strong force acts that is required for fusion.  At a minimum,
>>      you seem to be asking the strong force to act well outside its domain.
>>
>
>Don't you think it would have to?
 
    That's somewhat akin to asking if I think antigravity requires a
    cosmic 'off' switch.
 
    In other words, I'm not sure I believe in the existence of the
    initial phenomenon, so it might not be necessary to overthrow
    conventional physics 'explaining' it.
 
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / mitchell swartz /  On Jones' "Recombination Data"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Jones' "Recombination Data"
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 04:06:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Aug16.145458.853@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Response to Eugene Mallove's Threats
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] wrote:
 
= "{Aside to Mitchell
= Swartz:  you stated, erroneously, in a recent post that we saw xs heat only
= when we passed oxygen through an H2O/Ni electrolytic cell.  The fact is, the
= oxygen bubbling was a test to check whether the *apparent* xs heat would
= increase, actually due to H2 + O2 recombination in the cell--and the apparent
= xs heat did indeed go up.  But we have seen around 700% xs heat -- calculated
= using I*(Vin - 1.48V), thus ignoring recombination as do Mills and Notoya, etc
= -- *without* oxygen addition, that is, just from the O2 and H2 in the
= electrolyte from the electrolysis itself."
 
Well, that statement is simply not true. My questions did not state that, and
  your claim appears to be inconsistent with your past postings.
      To prove it, let's just look at the postings, OK?
 
  First, Steve, on May 7th, you claimed a 120% excess heat observed:
 
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 120% ===============
====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
====sj of course).      Thus, we get
====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
====sj cannot be ignored!"
   [ID:<1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to
           Noninski);   Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]
 
  By August 10th, you were now claiming 700% excess heat,
 
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 700% ===============
==sj "Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
==sj  when recombination was ignored."
  [ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>;Sub: Response to Mitchell Swartz
            Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]]
 
  to which I asked (in distinction to what you claimed above)
 
=ms "Note that 1) you are increasing the amount of excess heat you have
=ms    found (120% in May (vide infra))  ....
=ms    Please clarify how the 120% previously may have now become 700%.  Is that
=ms    with the external O2 tank?"
 
  You have then cited Jonathan Jones posting.
    Ignoring the lack of data, error limits, partial pressures of the
 gases claimed to cause the effect, etc. etc.,  the reader's attention is
  drawn to the fact that the cited posting did say: that the observed excess was
    "134%" at what is presumably ambient.   "0%" in N2 bubble mode, and
   " 7 times the input power" when "oxygen was used to purge the cell"
    by bubbling O2 through the frit.
 
====== Excerpt from Jonathan Jones' 134% Excess Heat Posting ===============
=jj "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
=jj used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
=jj the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
=jj microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
=jj microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
=jj formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
=jj "When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
=jj of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
=jj the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
=jj excess heat was observed."
=jj "In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
=jj the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
=jj nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
=jj heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
=jj calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48))."
[Subt: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu]; Date: 26 May 93 16:37:14 -0600]
 
   So which story is it, Steve?    120%, 134%, 700%,  90000%     ;)
 
   Best wishes.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
                                         (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Another silly mistake
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another silly mistake
Date: 17 Aug 1993 04:17:53 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBs7CL.K38@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:
> [deleted]
> >Actually, the strong interaction overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion
> >and holds to nucleus in a tight, dinky little ball. I forgot the
> >possibility that the proton and neutron in a deuteron that is "barely"
> >held together might no simply fly apart.
>
>      If the neutron is not held in the bag, it will quickly decay.
>      If the quarks are not, then you've got free quarks floating around.
>
 
Obvious correction - strong force is not needed in D+ like other nuclei
with
atomic # >1 to overcome electromagnetic force. Also, D+ is bound more
loosely,
as someone pointed out via email I remember it as about 1/2 energy/nucleon
of
other nuclei.
 
-T.W.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 01:30:15 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <24k8kpINNfd2@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
>timothy maurice watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>One quibble. Why does it have to be the deuterons that interact locally
>>with each other.
 
>     Because if they don't, they don't fuse.
 
Educate me Dale.  Why does the interaction cause localization?  The same
question can be asked of Matt as well.  Obviously the band state
mechanism is important so perhaps you can describe why a D+ band
state does not ha a nuclear component.  An antithesis so to speek.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Re: Sorry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sorry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 04:08:32 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <tmwatson-130893233552@nubs33.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson) wrote:
>
> Once again, I keep thinkin of the problems of two He nuclei being close
> -I'm going to bed now. Doesn't apply to D2, does it.
> TW
 
Another screw-up - in MOST nuclei, but not D+, of course, does the strong
force overcome the electromagnetic. Also, not that this seems very
significant,
but someone pointed out that the proton and neutron are more loosely bound-
if I remember, it is about 1/2 the energy/bond of other nuclei.
Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Tim Watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: tmwatson@engin.umich.edu (Tim Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 04:14:46 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBs7CL.K38@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:
> [deleted]
> >Actually, the strong interaction overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion
> >and holds to nucleus in a tight, dinky little ball. I forgot the
> >possibility that the proton and neutron in a deuteron that is "barely"
> >held together might no simply fly apart.
>
>      If the neutron is not held in the bag, it will quickly decay.
>      If the quarks are not, then you've got free quarks floating around.
>
 
Obvious correction - strong force is not needed in D+ like other nuclei
with
atomic # >1 to overcome electromagnetic force. Also, D+ is bound more
loosely,
as someone pointed out via email I remember it as about 1/2 energy/nucleon
of
other nuclei.
 
-T.W.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTim cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 07:25:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tmwatson-170893001804@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <CBs7CL.K38@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:
>> [deleted]
>> >Actually, the strong interaction overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion
>> >and holds to nucleus in a tight, dinky little ball. I forgot the
>> >possibility that the proton and neutron in a deuteron that is "barely"
>> >held together might no simply fly apart.
>>
>>      If the neutron is not held in the bag, it will quickly decay.
>>      If the quarks are not, then you've got free quarks floating around.
>>
>
>Obvious correction - strong force is not needed in D+ like other nuclei
>with
>atomic # >1 to overcome electromagnetic force.
 
     I'm not sure what to make of this, the strong force is 'needed'
     for a D nucleus to hang together.
 
     It's going to be difficult to further discuss this without
     any formulation or numbers of any sort.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, and Earth and Sun Activity
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, and Earth and Sun Activity
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 08:19:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug15.044723.20527@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Edward Lewis <edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology,
>Matsumoto shows an SEM photo of a tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.
 
     Okay, I'll bite.  SEM = Scanning Electron Micrograph?
     If so, how, pray tell, did he take it?
 
     I have this really bad feeling about 'ball lightning' and SEM.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 09:47:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug15.075601.18809@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     It's only D+ until the +'s get too close together, then a pack
>>     of electrons races over and drags romeo and juliet away.
>
>Only if those electrons go to the 1s of the deuteron. Ocupation of
>the Pd cctahedral intersitual by two deuterons is known and has been
>calculated.  See M. Barando (AIP #228).
 
     The calculations I perused long ago had deuterons farther apart than in
     gas-phase D2.
 
>>     We are talking about nucleii with huge potentials that are getting
>>     in the way of deuterium cozyness.  Talking about 'band structure'
>>     is just a smokescreen, never in electronic bands do electrons
>>     actually fuse.
>
>Why would should they Dale?
 
     My point exactly.
 
>>     Okay, let's ignore the fact that wave function overlap on
>>     the necessary scales is virtually nil owing to the huge
>>     local potentials.  By what magic does he 'delocalize' the resulting fusion
>>     reaction?  There are a very very large number of degrees of
>>     translational freedom at high energy.  The resulting reaction products
>>     come screaming out those degrees of freedom, and there is nothing
>>     to stop them.
>
>As I understand the theory, the fusion products are forced to remain
>delocalized by a number of aspects of the Bose Bloch condesate. First
>the condensate allows the distribution of energy such that all the particle
>involved in the chain defined by the Bloch equation take on a portion of
>of the energy of the reaction.
 
     I don't believe that there's any such condensate in the first place.
     But even if there is, think about this as if it was superfluid helium.
     If we put a local heater in the bath, all the sudden, locally,
     there _is_ no superfluid.
 
     Consider the fusion products of your candidate reaction very local
     heaters.
 
>>     How can one tell the difference between the electron current
>>     and the proton 'current'?  It seems to be the same current,
>>     no matter what's drifting around.
>
>On is positive and heavy. The other is negative and light.  The
>effects you would expect from the two are quite different. Assume
>the electrons pull on enough deuterons to induce a D current.
>If you stop the electron current suddenly, the inertia of the
>D mass will continue a current. (Note: This is kind of interesting
>in light of the 93 P&F paper).
 
     Let's say I've got a current flowing in a Pd-D system.  Tell me
     how to tell the difference between the current from the e's and
     the current from the D's.  How exactly do you propose 'stopping'
     the electron current while the deuteron current still flows?
 
     This reminds me of the old joke about putting three 'STOP's at
     the end of a computer program in case inertia ran it past
     the first two.
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How _Quantics_ nails bosinos (and relation to Vigier's Theory)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How _Quantics_ nails bosinos (and relation to Vigier's Theory)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 09:59:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930813154700_70047.3047_EHB40-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>No, Terry, this is not right.  Or, at least, not accurate.  What do you
>mean by space (and I know you know that this is the issue and also know the
>right answer from other postings).  Perhaps the problem is that you *really
>still believe* that electrons and protons and such are real (i.e. are good
>models) in spite of all the (quantum) evidence to the contrary.
 
     What quantum evidence to the contrary?  As far as I know, electrons
     and protons are pretty well described by quantum theory.  Indeed,
     QED is probably one of the greatest scientific achievements of
     the century.
 
     This must be the 'divine mystery' school of QM.  It seems to be
     popular around here recently.
 
> Its a
>really odd way of thinking but unless we know (i.e. observe = force to a
>proper state) the constituents of a Helium atom, we can't treat it (except
>in some case as an approximation) as being made of of other things like
>protons, neutrons and electrons.  [You see, I've bought the whole story,
>not just parts of it. <grin>]  This is not to say, however, that your
>discussion of superfluid helium is not "sufficiently accurate".  Meanwhile,
>the Chubbs' discussion of deuterium/helium band interactions does not cause
>me to feel uncomfortable at all.
 
     Popping up all over the place, huh?  Parmenides is baaaaack.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / C Harrison /  creating FAQ for s.p.f.
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: creating FAQ for s.p.f.
Date: 16 Aug 93 03:41:27 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

 
hello, all:
I guess the time has come for an s.p.f. FAQ.  Here's my first shot
at a Q list.  Please e-mail suggested Q's & A's.  I will assemble with
all deliberate speed (i.e. don't hold your breath).
Q1 What is...
 Q1.1  sci.physics.fusion about?
 Q1.2  "cold fusion"?
 Q1.3  Pons & Fleischmann (P&F) cold fusion?
 Q1.4  Mills (light water) cold fusion?
 Q1.5  Jones (low level) cold fusion?
Q2 Glossary
Q3 How do I get info...
 Q3.1  from the online Britz biblio?
 Q3.2  from the online s.p.f newsgroup archives?
 Q3.3  from online archived documents?
 Q3.4  from print periodicals?
 Q3.5  from books?
 Q3.6  from other sources?
Q4 What are the main arguments for cf?
Q5 What are the main arguments against cf?
Q6 What research is currently in progress?
--
.................................................................
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.15 /  crb7q@virginia /  Microencephaly (was Re: Process, not People)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@virginia.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Microencephaly (was Re: Process, not People)
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 17:33:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Mr Bowery writes:
>>I wrote:
>>>      The advantage to this is that Major Corporations (TM) will receive
>>>      most of your largesse.  Take a glance at patent filings sometime.  And
>>>      it would just get worse with block grants.  For instance, Xerox
>>>      would patent every single trivial variation on their manufacturing
>>>      process (they already do anyway) and pay themselves royalties which
>>>      dwarf small-potatoes inventers.  They'll just pay their engineers
>>>      in royalties.
>
>First of all, I didn't post draft legislative language.  You start looking
>for loopholes act as though I posted very detailed language.  Nice sophistic
>trick, but hardly the basis for an intellectually honest exchange of ideas.
>
>Secondly, even if the legislative language didn't specifically prohibit
>this sort of abuse, is so obviously in violation of the intent that the
>IRS and Patent Office would be successfully sued by parties thus
>deprived of funds, the minute Xerox's bureaucratic friends started
>interpreting it in the way you suggest they would.
 
     Sued the government lately?  If not, why not?
 
>Unlike the computers and sheep-like mentalities that adolescent twits
>Internet are used manipulating, to the judiciary tends to take a dim
>view of brats who try to get away with shit.  The whole purpose of the
>judiciary is to deal with such sophomoric "interpretations" as you posit.
 
     Hahahahahahahahahahaha.  Not familiar with corporate law offices
     or accountants, are you?
 
>>>      Besides, it is the patent itself that is the grant from the
>>>      government as *our* representative.
>
>Property is not typically considered a grant from the government to
>the people.  Property is a right of the people and it is from the people
>that the government is granted the power to protect property rights.
 
     It's not being granted to 'the people', it's the people granting
     franchise to one of their own, saying that none of the rest of the
     people may do such a thing for a period of years without the consent
     of the grantee.  I repeat, the patent is the grant, the incentive,
     for doing the work.  If it is sucessful, bully for the inventor.
 
     Anyway, may I suggest Evelyn Wood for your future reading needs?
 
>>>If that's not enough,
>>>      find another line of work.
>
>The burden isn't on me to prove that my proposal is ideal...  the burden
>is on those who believe my proposal is inferior to the current system of
>political bandwagoning.
 
     What proposal?  I'd need to see detailed legislative language before
     commenting.  And you seem to have missed something, the burden *is*
     on you, as it is on anyone proposing half-cocked solutions to imagined
     problems.
 
>No wait... On second thought... I've got better things to do than argue
>with an adolescent brat in an adult's body.
 
     I'm not even sure this is aimed at me, but I see why people are so
     fond of you.
 
>This is to be expected by those fresh out of the government's brainwashing
>system of "education" I suppose.  Just how much did it cost you to be
>brainwashed in years and money?
 
     Again, I see why people are so fond of you.
 
>Is there anyone out there with an adult tempermant who has some real
>criticisms of my proposal?
 
     I continue to see why people are so fond of you.  Does
     microencephaly run in your family, or was there just the one case?
 
     Just asking.
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Process, not People
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Process, not People
Date: 16 Aug 1993 13:54:15 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

> The burden isn't on me to prove that my proposal is ideal...  the burden
> is on those who believe my proposal is inferior to the current system of
> political bandwagoning.
 
Jim, this is akin to the terrorist mentality that the civilian authorities
assume responsibility for the deaths of the hostages if they do not meet the
terrorists' demands. You are saying that we are all to blame if we don't
all drop what we are doing and re-organise social structures according to
your demands. It won't wash. You have some good ideas, but you have a lot
of legwork to do.
 
> No wait... On second thought... I've got better things to do than argue
> with an adolescent brat in an adult's body.
 
Well, Jim, I hope you can take what you dish out. Your position here is
petulant at best.
 
> You are confusing reality with the fraudulent rhetoric put forth
> by the current vermin who control our science and technology funding.  Not
> only do they not fund "undeveloped technologies", but they use the
> funding they get to suppress diversity in funding sources for technology
> in both the public and private sectors, lest they get any real competition
> and be exposed as the vermin they are.
 
With the thrust of this sentiment I am in agreement. You didn't add the
welfare-project aspects of the whole mess, although I am sure you are
aware of them.
 
I can confirm your statements that this problem is present in the tokamak
community, but I can also inform you that it is being fought as well from
within the community. There has been non-negligible dissent against the
way things are run for at least as long as I have been around. Unfortunately,
when one or two leaders have arisen, whose massive reputations far outwiegh
their actual contributions (do *not* count papers, dammit!), they naturally
take steps to provide for a rearguard, and they do much damage in the process.
The normal self-checking mechanism of science is in fact short-circuited
in a few instances when these leaders sell their proteges around Washington,
and said proteges have in a few cases built their entire careers on some
very dubious science. I don't know whether the opposition by those of us
who are into agit-prop will eventually be successful. Scooping the numerical
tokamak effort seems to me to be the way to do it, if that becomes possible.
Then we will *know* how these devices bleed energy, and the analytical
mythology that has accumulated over the decades may be swept away. But I
guarantee you, if the news is bad (and I think it will be), there will
be attempts to suppress it. Like they say whey they talk about the deficit,
this will be an interesting decade. Things are going to come to a head,
and if it really is a disaster, the tokamak will not long survive it.
 
Actually, all this is why I follow the cold fusion debate: I see all the
same problems of the "culture of belief" at all levels within my own
community. Experiments are being done to confirm scenarios (so we can all
tell DOE and Brussels that there is "progress"), not to falsify them.
 
(Spoken as a theorist, naturally.)
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 10:12:29 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <930816165928.208058d1@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
wrote:
 
> Design Status #1                                        16 August 1993
[much deleted]
>
> 2)  Are the required vacuums reasonable to produce and maintain?  i.e. Is it
> likely that we can build the required shapes without super certified welders
> and Helium leak checking?
>
> 3)  Can we make a device that will work over a reasonable range of
> temperatures?  -10 C to 70 C would be enough for me.  0 C to 50 C is sort of
> the minimum that I would accept.
>
> 4)  What improvement (if any) can be expected over, say, solid copper?
>
> 5)  What sort of liquids are used?  Are they dangerous?  Water would be a nice
> liquid to use!
>
 
I don't know much about heat pipes but I do know vacuums and pumps and
helium leak testers.  The mean free path in millimeters is 0.0495/Pressure
(in torr), so for a path length of 25.4 mm (one inch box) the pressure must
be less than 1.9e-3 torr.  Maybe reachable with a well-trapped two stage
rotary-vane mechanical pump, but best done with a high-vacuum pump
(diffusion, turbo, or cryo pump).  This also sets the upper limit on the
vapor pressure of the fluid at the maximum working temperature if there is
to be a liquid phase, which rules out water (room temp. vapor pressure
about 15 torr).  I would assume that low vapor pressure oils would be ok
(remember, I don't know what real heat pipes use).  Higher grade oils for
mechanical vacuum pumps typically have room temp. vapor pressures of 1x10-4
torr and would be fine at 70 C.  Write back if you want specs on specific
oils - we have a small catalog selection handy.
 
One problem is that evaporation rate is a strong function temperature, and
I imagine that equilibration time will be directly related to the
evaporation rate.  This might cause problems at the low end of your
temperature range.  This also means that you should choose an oil with as
high a vapor pressure as the desired mean free path allows.
 
As far as construction, I assume you intend a hollow hockey puck shape.
You could do this with no welding if you start with a block of steel and
hollow it out, put an o-ring groove on the end, drill and tap several holes
around the periphery, and make up a flat plate top with a pumping port with
valve.  Pretty wasteful of material, but it saves having to weld a flat end
onto a short piece of tubing.  Helium leak testing is actually easy - if
you have the tester.  Once the tester is pumped down and warmed up the
testing takes a few minutes.  They are pretty common in chemistry and
physics departments at universities; you may be able to finagle a little
time on one pretty easily.
 
> Tom Droege
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 10:48:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tmwatson-170893024749@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>I meant that if we were going to model an interaction in solid state, it
>works
>well to use the precise-momentum, delocalized states.
>In the second-order
>perturbation term, I have not seen that people see it necessary to include
>any localized intermediate states.
 
      I'm still not sure what you're after.  You seem to be arguing
      against any local interactions whatsoever.  However, there
      are certainly interactions in solid state that localize
      electrons.  Consider a hot conductor spitting electrons from
      the surface.
 
> It would seem that if these existed,
>they would be important, because localized states have a larger momentum
>uncertainty than the delocalized states. Therefore, if it was a two-
>phonon interaction process, with precise momentum values for the phonons,
>there would exist many intermediate states, even if the initial and final
>states have a precise momentum.
 
     Why do we seem to keep jumping from electronic band interactions to
     lattice vibrations and back?
 
>examples:
>consider a potential V(x) - this might be able to induce phonon creation or
>annihilation: - n electrons of momentum k, phonons momentum q, and 1
>electron
>of momentum p involved
 
     You mean V(x,t)?
 
><n-1 k|<p|<q| Ap+  Aq+ Ak  |n k>   ,where the effect of V(x) is represented
>by creation and annihilation operators. A transition to a more localized
>state
>would involve large numbers of creation and annihilation operators to
>generate a final localized state |*>, which would be the sum of many
>combinations of electron momentum states and phonons generated, say,
><*| At+ Ad+ Ar+ ... Ak |n k>  ,the effect of V(x) once again represented by
>creation and annihilation operators.
>
>The electron
>becoming localized would involve many electron states. (Didn't somebody say
>something about multi-body processes? - they are only less probable if one
>can assume that perturbation terms are becoming smaller; i.e. what bodies
>-basis- one uses in the first place could be important) - there is no a
>priori guarantee that one's perturbations will come anywhere near to
>converging. One could use a basis of Wannier functions as well, but it
>seems that using delocalized momentum states often works pretty well if
>they
>have a long lifetime and V(x,t) is "nice" enough. If I only had some memory
>of that dielectric stuff...
>
>This doesn't make delocalization
>unlikely a priori; it's just that things seem to work well in many
>cases assuming that the electron is not localized easily. Otherwise, we
>would have to include terms involving transitions like
><*| At+ Ad+ Ar+ ... Ak |n k> before we consider some of the higher-order
>terms involving only a few plane-wave states. As V(x) becomes more
>localized, the many terms involving localized electron states may very
>well dwarf transitions among nice, plane-wave type terms. See, there are
>a lot of ways to generate localized wave functions + sets of phonons to
>conserve momentum, so if one is sort of likely, zillions of interactions
>of this order are sort of likely.
 
     For the nucleus of D+ we don't need to transition to a more
     localized state to localize it on the scale we're considering
     (lattice spacing size).  It's already localized quite nicely.
 
     And the creation and annihilation operators work quite nicely on
     that local scale as evidenced by ordinary 'ram the particles
     together' fusion.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 12:30:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CBwGo0.HF5@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>
>     For the nucleus of D+ we don't need to transition to a more
>     localized state to localize it on the scale we're considering
>     (lattice spacing size).  It's already localized quite nicely.
 
   I also cannot emphasize strongly enough in discussions about
   'delocalizing' reaction products of D-D fusions in putative
   'cold-fusion' reactions, that *before* discussing this any further
   someone who wants to make the 'delocalization' argument
   should determine exactly how many nuclei one must involve
   without sending portion of the lattice screaming through
   the rest of the lattice.  You've got over 23 MeV to play with
   for this one candidate reaction.
 
   Look at the 'delocalization' required and then compare it
   with the lattice spacing if not to the much much smaller
   nuclear size.  Depending on what you're willing to let your
   lattice do (I suggest not letting any bonds break), you'll
   see that you have one heap-um big problem.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Delocatization and the strong force
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delocatization and the strong force
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 13:59:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930817120414_70047.3047_EHB37-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Although I think I may have missed an intermediate comment (I access the
>group via the Fusion Digest relay and sometimes articles arrive in a
>slightly different sequence), Timothy Watson and dale bass have been
>discussing delocalization of deuterium and its implications for strong
>interactions:
...
>
>There are a lot of presumptions and fuzzy talk here.
 
    Another good reason for ending the discussion unless someone can
    demonstrate a reason, any reason, and a mechanism, any mechanism,
    and a formulation, and formulation, for smearing nuclei at very
    low energy over very very very large distances.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: creating FAQ for s.p.f.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: creating FAQ for s.p.f.
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 14:49:20 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

I am willing to make a go of it.  I certainly have easy access to
most of the key literature references for a basic bibliography.
 
For starters, I would like some basic facts from you "old timers"
out there.  When was alt.fusion created?  Does anyone have (or
know where it can be found) the CFV giving the charter for s.p.f
and when it was created?
 
Please reply by E-mail.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: Sorry
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sorry
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 15:09:28 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <tmwatson-170893001046@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu> tmwatson@eng
n.umich.edu (Tim Watson) writes:
>
>Another screw-up - in MOST nuclei, but not D+, of course, does the strong
>force overcome the electromagnetic. Also, not that this seems very
>significant,
>but someone pointed out that the proton and neutron are more loosely bound-
>if I remember, it is about 1/2 the energy/bond of other nuclei.
>Tim Watson
 
I guess you are under the impression that the strong force is strong.
In reality, it is quite weak compared to what it must do to confine
nucleons in a small area.  (The problem is that, as you should compute
for yourself, keeping a pair of nucleons within a few fm requires
that they have many 10s of MeV of energy.)  Proof of this is the basic
fact that deuterium is bound by 2.22 MeV, only 1 MeV per nucleon, and
has a wavefunction that is mostly outside the potential well.  Worse,
the di-neutron is not bound at all since the force in that channel is
not sufficiently attractive to make a well deep enough to hold it.
 
Coulomb forces play a small role in all of this until you get to
heavier nuclei or worry about the stability of certain special cases.
 
By comparison, the binding energy per nucleon of Iron is about 8 times
(not 2 times) greater.  More striking is that it takes about 20 MeV to
remove a particle from He-4 and only 2 MeV to remove one from H-2.
Nuclear physics is a many-body problem where the delicate cancellation
of a strong short-range attraction and an even stronger shorter-range
repulsion lead to a system that is weakly bound when viewed from
its own scale of energy and size.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 20:39:22 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <tmwatson-170893024749@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu> Tim Watson,
tmwatson@engin.umich.edu writes:
>generate a final localized state |*>, which would be the sum of many
>combinations of electron momentum states and phonons generated, say,
><*| At+ Ad+ Ar+ ... Ak |n k>  ,the effect of V(x) once again represented
by
>creation and annihilation operators.
>
I!m sorry, we need as many annihilation ops for electrons as creation
operators
Conserve CHARGE, stupid me!
- I!m
not quite sure how to do this, though - a localized creation/ or
annihilation operator
contains the sum of many plane ones
 
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 16 Aug 93 05:52:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <246dmbINNdsf@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>: Gravity isn't the primary force thats causing the particles to spill
>: out (like a tipped over glass of water). Rather it is pressure they
>: produce against the inside of their confining field because many
>: particles are needed at in their appropriate  burn temperature in order
>: to get enough of a fusion burn rate to make things worth while (power
>: out put).  On the other hand, if the particles aren't hot enough or
>: below the burn temperatures for cool burning fuels like radioactive
>: tritium and deuterium, then these particles will leak through the field.
>: That has to due with the fact that the cooler the burn temperature is
>: the more resistive the plasma is, and it is the resistivity that eats
>: away the energy of the confining field.
 
>Where is the energy dissipated in this 'resistivity'?  Normally one
>considers 'resistance' to transfer energy from macroscopic current to
>heat.
 
Heat, ions, cool electrons bumping or colliding, radiating and then
changing orbits (Lamour) which meander the lot of them through the
field. The magnet coils see the loss of field as negative emf.
 
 
>I thought the biggest problem in magnetically confined fusion is
>anomalous diffusion to the walls  (i.e. we don't know why it happens) that
>kills the energy.
 
There are a number of things that are likely contributors, such as the
non-smooth (more turbulent) fields due to the intergral number of coils,
and the fact the the plasma is itself a conductor which generates
plasma tubulence produced by its interacting field and current
fluxuations (saw tooth wave form) with the (tokamak) toroidal field
and its coils' current.
 
Do hotter particles do this less?
 
Correct.
In fact the hottest particles produced were so conducting they became
a largest share of the plasma current under certain tokamak discharge
conditions.  These were the so-called run-away electron currents that
went to relativistic energies during the current behavior patterns
generated during start of emfs versus plasma density profiles.  When
the tokamak ran in the runaway mode, there appeared to be no noticeable
(measurable) -  TK Chu PPPL - diffusion whatsoever.   So why aren't
tokamaks run this way??? Because they don't heat, since relativistic
currents have a low collisional cross section and their resistivity is
proportional to pressure.  Tokamak pressure (10^14/cc) is low by
comparison to compressed PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids -- 10^19/cc for
p-B(11) burn compression.
 
> It seems odd that
>a hotter plasma would diffuse less, but this stuff is pretty strange.
 
Not really, after all the corollary to a mag field confining a plasma
is that plasma will confine a mag field. Now think a bit ---  super
conductors ---  They will handily confine field for days.  So the
field can't be diffusing through superconducting coils very quickly,
whereas a chunk of warm copper  SUCKS ... as the street vernacular goes.
 
That's why a PLASMAK(TM) magnetoplasmoid works so well, they have a
mag confined Kernel toroid powered by dense currents, and a very
high pressure plasma shell (Mantle) whose innermost vacuum field
boundary is a shell of field neutralizing energetic (gamma 10-30)
electrons that essentially completely trap the flux which is too
dense (megagauss) for fairly warm plasma to penetrate in the
presence of intense blackbody ionizing radiation from the plasma
Kernel.  Electron density is so high it even reflects at least
the 10th harmonic of the Kernel's cyclotron radiation.
 
                     It will be a mean machine.
>--
>-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".
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orbiting Fusion Reactor & The Space Station
Date: 16 Aug 93 06:06:43 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Aug9.120138.25676@jet.uk> kb@jet.uk (Kenneth Blackler) writes:
>In <CBDLDo.L6F@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>
>>There are very smart ideas for fusion that do not have this problem
>>and could be developed into working commercial technology quickly.
>>Unfortunately, these concepts are not supported and by law the only
>>agency to do energy research is the DoE.
 
>Is this true, is it actually illegal in the US for other people to
>do research into energy?
 
Well NOT for people that are self funded for the non-nuclear work
or are funded by NON-government entitities (except the DoE).
 
However NO OTHER Government US AGENCY than DoE can fund or do energy
research relating to grid electric power.
 
>Amazing.... Is this true for all sorts of
>energy, e.g. wind and wave or just nuclear?
 
It keeps down the competition, gives them absolute power to screw up
and no one to be around to do better, and show them up.   :-o
 
Actually, the argument is that it does away with duplication of
effort .... Some laugh huh?  How many tokamaks were running here
and how many Spheromak experiments?  Now how many tokamak experiments
will there be in say 10 years ... world wide???
 
Lack of competition is a DUMB idea .. one so worthy of politicians.
> ______________________________________   ____________   _____________
>|Ken Blackler kb@jet.uk (+44)235 464743| | __________ | |   -Fusion-   |
>|JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon       | |   | |_ |   | >|Oxfordshire, England
 
                       The only far more risky venture
                              than cold fusion
                                    is hot
                              DoE funded fusion
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 23:42:14 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <930816165928.208058d1@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
   > 3)  Make the puck from a heat pipe.
 
   > This is very appealing to me.  There are a number of places in
   > the calorimeter where I could make use of isothermal surfaces.
 
   > Here is my concept of how a heat pipe is made:
 
   > Take a hollow box and cover the inside surface with a wetable
   > material.  Soak the material with a proper liquid.  Evacuate the
   > box so that the mean free path of the vapor is of order the
   > distance between ends.  In this case the distance between faces
   > of the puck.
 
   Pretty close.  Recent designs put a wick in the container so that
the liquid is rapidly transported to any dry areas.  In your previous
designs the puck was at the bottom, and heat transport was downward,
so you would need an efficient wick.  (Or you could just put the puck
at the top...)
 
   > Here is my concept of how a heat pipe functions:
 
   > The liquid migrates through the wetable surface layer so that the
   > whole surface is wet.  A Maxwell's demon flying near the surface
   > sees a large flux of vapor molecules leaving the surface and a
   > large number arriving at the surface...
 
   > All this is changed if we evacuate the system to some optimum
   > pressure.  Now a molecule leaving the surface often travels until
   > it hits a wall.  A hot spot produces a distribution with more
   > fast (high energy) molecules.  But these usually end up somewhere
   > else.  Thus the tendency of such a system is to produce an
   > isothermal box surface.
 
   No, the heat pipe works due to the thermal transport in the vapor.
A hot spot will produce a higher local vapor pressure, an a cold spot
will have a lower local vapor pressure, so the vapor flows from high
to low pressure.  As long as the wicking or simple gravity flow gets
the liquid back to the hot spot fast enough (and the liquid has a
sufficently high heat of vaporization) heat transfer is very fast.
 
   > It is my understanding that such a scheme can do much better than
   > solid silver.  It is also likely to have lower specific heat
   > which would make it easier to control.
 
   Yes to the first part, I'm not sure on the second.  You might want
to monitor the pressure in the puck to estimate the energy stored in
the heat of vaporization, which would not necessarily track the
temperature.
 
   > Here are some questions for any experts out there (but don't
   > hesitate to put in your oar just because you are not yet an
   > expert - soon we all will be):
 
   > 1) Are heat pipes something that a boy scientist is likely able
   > to build with a little advice?  I am willing to spend some money
   > on a vacuum pump.
 
   Yes, but why buy a vacuum pump?  (Heating the working fluid to
force out trapped gasses is the short and sweet approach.  If you
really need the inside clean, fill the puck, with a tube connected to
a reservior.  Heat the puck in an oven.  Allow to cool, and cut the
return flow from the reservior when you have the right amount of
working fluid in the puck.
 
   Alcohol is probably the best working fluid, but given your
experimental conditions, you might prefer something non-flammable like
carbo tetracloride or one of the freons.
 
  > 2) Are the required vacuums reasonable to produce and maintain?
  > i.e. Is it likely that we can build the required shapes without
  > super certified welders and Helium leak checking?
 
  You don't need a hard vacuum (although you will probably want a
partial vacuum to increase the evaporation rate).  However pinhole
leaks will eventually result in loss of function.  However welding
copper is very difficult, but if you build a heat pipe aluminum
(welded if you know how, silver soldered otherwise) might be better.
 
  > 3) Can we make a device that will work over a reasonable range of
  > temperatures?  -10 C to 70 C would be enough for me.  0 C to 50 C
  > is sort of the minimum that I would accept.
 
  Depends on the pressure you can tolerate on the high end--pass the
boiling point and it is all over, so the usual approach is to put
in enough working fluid to insure that you have some liquid throughout
the operating range, in which case equilibrium pressure at temperature
is exactly the vapor pressure of the fluid.  On the low end of course,
the efficiency drops as the vapor pressure drops.  I think you can get
what you want (-10 C to 7 C) with a mix of alcohols, but remember
that mixing the working fluid makes figuring the performance trickier.
(But it does give you a wider working range.)
 
  > 4)  What improvement (if any) can be expected over, say, solid copper?
 
   At best operating conditions, heat transport can be 1000-2000x
copper.  But you are interested in supressing temporal as well as
lateral temperature differences, where the thermal mass of the copper
will help, so I can't answer.
 
  > 5) What sort of liquids are used?  Are they dangerous?  Water
  > would be a nice liquid to use!
 
   See above.  For higher temperatures, liquid metals are nice, but if
you use sodium be dammed sure you know what you are doing.  Ethyl
ether (and propane, and methane) work nicely at low temperatures, and
at least they are not as bad as sodium.  In the range you want, water
can be used (but obviously not down to -10 C) and mixes of alcohols
are also easy.  Freons are a little harder to use when filling a heat
pipe, but do a nice job of eliminating the fire hazard.  And you can
buy a can and fixtures at any decent auto supply store.  (For
refilling car air conditioners.)
 
   My suggestion is to start experimenting with water, switch to a
water and alcohol mixture before going to pure (methyl or isopropyl*)
alcohol, then, if necessary, switch to freon for the production
system.  I expect that any 100 proof vodka or gin will work just fine
for your purposes.  (My daughter will thank me for recommending you
not throw a lot of freon into the atomosphere, and if you use gin, you
can always drink the leftovers.)
 
   If you do work with an inverted system, remember that you will want
a large surface area top and bottom.  A piece of felt cut to fit would
do fine on the bottom. (But not if you intend to weld the whole thing
shut! Could you get someone to manufacture a puck for you which was in
two parts threaded to screw together, and with an o-ring or o-rings?)
On the top, the important thing would be to insure that no large drops
form and stay in place.  A perfect top surface would have a sharp
point sticking down about every square millimeter or so.  You figure
it out.  I once got a machinist to cut two sets of v-grooves into a
copper plate.  (Different experiment--with a plasma on the other size,
I wanted to transfer as much heat as possible to flowing water.)
 
   Hope this helps.
 
 
   *Never work with pure ethyl alcohol unless you have to.  Anything
beyond 95% clings to that last bit of water, which is usually
extracted by reacting with sodium metal.  This can leave nasty traces
in the alcohol, but even if the alcohol is pure it can burn exposed
skin.  Nasty stuff.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Delocatization and the strong force
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delocatization and the strong force
Date: 17 Aug 1993 23:38:00 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <930817120414_70047.3047_EHB37-1@CompuServe.COM> Bill Page,
70047.3047@compuserve.com writes:
>There are a lot of presumptions and fuzzy talk here.  Delocalization
means
>"not  in a proper state of location = in a superposition of locations"
in
>quantum mechanical terms this is not Magic (well it might seem like
magic
>but other observables in QM do it all the time and we don't usually have
a
>problem with that).  Delocalized does *not* mean that the particle has
no
>location.  The strong force is mediated by pion exchance (or gluons if
you
>wish) just as the em-force is mediated by photons.  If we want to talk
>about the strong force in a situation where the 'particles' are
>delocalized, we should do so in the same way as we do for the
>electromagnetic interactions.  No mystery here.  Virtual pions from a
>delocalized proton are delocalized.
>
 
Dr. Kenner!s comments set me to thinking, as I keep saying, and
clarifying my thoughts.
 
True, but if it a deuterium nucleus, once you locate one particle, the
other one must be nearby - this is a consequence of the !range! of the
nuclear force, which in itself is partly
consequence of the fact that particles bound by the strong force tend to
exchange large
amounts of virtual momentum via pions - thus they are bound !tightly! to
each other. It!s
true that the entire NUCLEUS could be delocalized, but it would still be
a wavefunction
where the neutron would be found near the proton once delocalized.
 
Again, look in your particle physics book - these pions would not be able
to carry much
momentum from one delocalized deuteron to the other without it being a
local reaction
(In fact, I!m sure that the Yukawa pot!l in space can be derived from
some term involving
somethimg like 1/(a^2 + q^2), where a gives rise to the exponential dying
away of the
interaction range, and the other part makes it look !Coulombish! at short
range). Look
in ANY !elementary! physics book about momentum transfer and range in
particle physics.
(Yes, I remembered it after chiding of Dr. Kennel). There!s NO PROBLEM
that I can
see with this before any sort of fusion takes place, as long as the pions
are not carrying
much momentum.
 
So we
just have to look at the Coulomb pot!l and say that the strong force is
even !worse! than
that in terms of any amount of localization required for a given momentum
transfer. It is
the locality of the interaction of high-energy electrons that gives us an
idea of how the
internal charge distribution of nuclei looks (Hofstadler? - I think it
was he who won a Nobel for this sort of stuff). How come nuclei seem to
have a certain spatial extent
corresponding to a certain type? - Because once we localized one quarks,
the others are
awfully nearby, because they are bound to each other and transferring
awful lots of
momentum to each other. If the proton and neutron are bound by the strong
force, once
we localize proton, we know that the neutron is !right close!
 
Delocalized protons, etc. are fine, as long as they are interacting
in a very weak manner and not fusing - during fusion, there is a large
momentum transfer
between quarks and such. But, in order for delocalized nuclei to interact
strongly enough
for a fusion reaction (which would be local due to the momentum
transfer), they!d have
to be very near each other. Delocalixed fermions of the same type, such
as protons, tend
to stay too far apart (BAYM!).
Explanation :
If we !looked! at the He4 nucleus formed, we expect to
find the neutrons and protons close together, due to the finite range at
which these things
can bond strongly (i.e., exchange large-momentum virtual particles,
satisfy the time-energy
uncertainty relation, however you want to fromulate it). Therefore, if we
had an overlapping state of two deuterons that could fuse in the next
instant, it would have to be
such that, when collapsed by a probe instead of fused, we could find all
the deuterons and
protons next to each other. This is a consequence of the idea that the
probability density of
finding a particle has a nice continous behaviour, as solutions to
Schroedinger!s equation
or such, especially if we consider the picture where we visualize proton
and neutron proobability densities floating around. We then run into a
BIG problem, if something
doesn!t go awry with the range of the strong reaction: The two protons
and the two
neutrons that are so delocalized have a joint probability of being
located at a certain distance, when the wave function is collapsed, that
is small for distances that are the
inverse of the Fermi momentum, which is small for particles that are
delocalized. There-
fore, this distance is rather large (SEE BAYM, DUDES!) and on the order
of the size
of the delocalized particles themselves. If the probability density of
the protons were
more localized wavefunctions, they could be close to each other, maybe
even close
enough to bond via the strong force, with maybe a neutron wavefunction in
between.
 
Therefore, in order for the process to occur, SOMETHING has to
happen to the strong force so that it!s !weak! enough for all these
quarks to form new sets
of associations without much momentum transfer. In this case, the
difference between a
fused and a nonfused nucleus could be pretty subtle. Maybe it would then
be possible to
delocalize a neutron and to find the other neutron and two protons
!pretty far away!, even
though we have formed a helium nucleus. We wouldn!t HAVE to find them
!right next to
each other!, that is, the range of the strong interaction would be
greater.
 
Then, maybe, afterwards, one can ratchet the
strong interaction back up, so that when one interacts with one He4
quark, one knows the
others are a few femtometers away. Otherwise, if the fusion reaction is
of the usual power,
a local He4 forms right away. Like I said, I!ll have to reexamine physics
books in solid
state with this sort of stuff in mind to see why it doesn!t seem to HAVE
to happen that way
(localization) in solid state. But regardless, if the Pd nuclei remain
localized, I don!t think
we can invoke a delocalized interaction involving these in a
full-strength fusion reaction. We would still be imparting a fair
momentum to get these swinging, and I don!t see how
12 quarks from He4 could impart this much momentum to several thousand
sites simulta-
neously, if they would have to become rather localized to impart this
much momentum.
 
>Terry Bollinger's Dactyl Daemon wouldn't have it any other way.
 
What is this?
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Short review of "Bad Science" by Gary Ta
Date: 10 Aug 93 20:43:59 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <240op0$91g@athena.veritas.com>, joshua@athena.veritas.com
(Joshua Levy) writes:
> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>If the factual errors in the review reflect similar errors in the book,
>>quite a series of retractions or lawsuits may be in order.  At one point
>>the reviewer states that F&P did not have any evidence of neutrons at
>>the time of the news conference (OK, they did not, but they thought they
>>did)
>
> BAD SCIENCE, (by Taubes) does make it clear that the neutron data collected
> by P&F is bogus, but that is old news.  Close's book, published years ago
> contained the same information (Huizenga's books covers this stuff, also).
> I think your parentetical quote above describes the situation well.  P&F
> had no eveidence of neutrons when they went public, but they thought they
> did.
>
>>At another point he quotes Taubes as saying that Jones had been working
>>on other kinds of cold fusion and got the idea for using electrochemical
>>cells from the F&P proposal to the DOE.  I guess a notarized lab book isn't
>>proof for him.
>
> Either the reviewer misread the book, or you misread the reviewer.  Taubes
> clearly writes that Jones thought about an electrochemical cell type
> CF before reading the F&P proposal.  What Taubes claims, is that Jones
> had stoped that line of research, and only restarted it after reading
> the F&P proposal from the DOE.  Taubes does not claim that Jones stole
> the idea, but rather than the proposal modivated Jones to restart experiments
> similar to ones he had been involved with earlier.  These are not the same
> thing.
 
Taubes is wrong:  we had not stopped that line of research.  How can he prove
that, anyway?
In fact, we have maintained a working group of professors and students working
on piezonuclear fusion since spring of 1986 when the group formed.
Electrolysis and D2-gas-loading experiments began in spring of 1986 and were
never abandoned.  It is true that we determined that we needed a sophisticated
neutron spectrometer to determine whether neutrons we thought we saw in 1986
were of the correct energy for fusion (2.5 MeV).  Such a detector was proposed
by Bart Czirr here, and took a long time to develop since funding for this
project was refused more than once.  (Searching for low-level neutron emissions
is manifestly less fundable than heat searches.)  But to say that we had
stopped the research is just not true.
 
Undergraduate students join our research group for periods of months and in
some cases several terms, and most receive credit for this learning/research
work in BYU course 497R.  One of these students was Paul Banks, who wrote a
report required by me for the course entitled:
"Piezo-nuclear Fusion
Physics 497R
April 7, 1988"
 
April 1988 -- just months before the I was asked by DoE to review the P&F
proposal.  Had we abandoned our research?  Hardly, for Mr. Banks records:
 
"... if fusion could be the source of energy for geothermal activity along
subduction zones, it would be reasonable to consider the possibility that
thsource of the Earth's internal heat energy is, at least in part, fusion.
...Again, the greater ratio of helium isotopes would also be accounted for due
to the source of helium-3 from the fusion inside the Earth." [Banks report, p.
8]
"All of the geological considerations fit nicely into a theory introducing the
concept of fusion occurring deep within the earth, but as has been mentioned
previously, higher than expected 3He/4He ratios have also been observed in
measurements made on metal foils.  The cause of this phenomenon is presently
unexplained.  Dr. Palmer has proposed that during the electrolitical [sic]
part of the refining process,  hydrogen might be re-introduced into the metals.
In certain metals, hydrogen atoms and molecules can be packed into the lattice
structure to such an extent that the resulting densities can be several times
that of liquid hydrogen.  This extreme condition could provide favorable
conditions for nuclear fusion to take place."  [Banks, p. 9]
 
Does this sound, Joshua, like we have stopped our research?  Hardly.  Let's go
on, since there is more that relates to electrolysis if that is really the bone
of Taubes contention, in Paul's report -- in April 1988:
"Perhaps a correlation might be found between the densities achieved by
hydrolysis in a certain metal [the wording could be refined; the notion of
hydrogen-isotope loading into metals via electrolysis is clearly alive and
well]  and the helium-3  helium-4 ratio for the same metal.  Measurements
should also be made on the ores before refinement, and if possible, at various
stages during the refining of this ore to determine at what stage the ratio is
increased."  [BYU student in Jones' P497R class, April 7, 1988 report, p. 9]
 
Let Banks speak further from his April 1988 vantage point.  He dutifully
records:  "However, as it can readily be observed, this is far from
conclusive...  The only reasonable hope of achieving some conclusive results
lies in the laboratory, and so the measurements made on the metal foils should
serve as a logical place to start.  In 1987, an experiment was conducted at
Brigham Young University by Dr. Palmer and others to determine if fusion in a
metal sample could be detected.  Samples of nickel were deuterated under
pressure in order to increase the fusion rate.  The samples were then put in a
high-pressure press to attempt to simulate the high pressures found in the
interior of the Earth (approximately 50 kbars) at depths where subduction
volcanism is thought to originate.  A neutron detector was used to look for the
signature neutrons from the deuterium-deuterium fusion process.
 
"It was found that the neutron detector lacked the needed resolution to
distinguish clearly the desired neutron radiation from background noise, thus
leaving the expeiriment inconclusive.  However, an improved neutron detector is
currently under development, and it is hoped that it will have the needed
accuracy in order to conduct the experiment again."  [Banks p. 10]
 
What?  Here is recorded in April 1988 our intention to repeat our experiments
when "an improved neutron detector" is developed.  Perhaps we can prove our
innocence after all!  (That's the way justice seems to work in journalistic
circles -- if you can't prove your innocence, you may be assumed guilty.)
 
"Also, recently [in 1988] some of the samples which were deuterated a year ago
have been sent to Harmon Craig at the Scripps Institute for analysis of the
present isotopic content of the metal, looking particularly at the 3He/4He
ratio.  Tritium measurements are not something that is done though such
measurements would be of interest."  [Banks p. 10, April 1988 document.]
 
Clearly, we were continuing our research in piezonuclear fusion.
You see, I'm glad I required written reports of the students in the research
class.  The statements of Paul Banks show that we had in no way abandoned the
research.  True, the detector development was slow and difficult.  In August,
1988, I came to the decision to push hard for these experiments to be repeated.
Accordingly, I spoke to Bart Czirr about this time, and certainly before I
heard anything of P&F or their work, and asked him to step up his neutron
spectrometer development.  Indeed, Bart testifies that he was paid for this
(from the DoE grant to BYU on muon-catalyzed fusion, which included low-level
funding for piezonuclear fusion research) beginning September 1, 1988 -- still
before P&F's proposal reached me around Sept. 20, 1988.  We told this to
Taubes.  The detector was
completed in December 1988 and the experiments, including electrolysis [Banks
uses the term 'hydrolysis'] were performed again.
 
Another point:  when I received the P&F proposal in the latter half of Sept.,
1988, I was indeed surprised that someone else so close to BYU had an
ostensibly similar idea.  I have since learned that a Russian group had an
similar idea also.  So what?  We did not steal the P&F idea.  I spoke to the
BYU Physics Dept. chair Dan Decker about this proposal and my surprise.  [I had
almost confided in Paul Palmer, but decided to seek counsel from Dr. Decker
instead.]    He
counseled me to review the proposal as requested by the DoE, and to continue
with my own line of research.  This I did.  In particular, we did not do any
calorimetric measurements as proposed by P&F until some weeks after their press
conference announcement.
 
To me this business is exasperating.  Pons accused me in early 1989 of stealing
their ideas, not of resuming research that had been abandoned.  Word of this
reached BYU from the U of Utah lawyer calling BYU's research office.  The
matter was, I thought, laid to rest when we showed our logbooks going back to
1986 showing our work -- including electrolytic cells -- at a meeting at BYU in
March 1986.
 
Now Taubes is evidently saying that we [or I] did not steal the idea, but that
we had abandoned it and only resumed the research upon reading the P&F
proposal.  This, as I have shown above, is also not true.  Taubes seems to be
trying to show that P&F's actions in the press
conference announcement of their fantastic claims were somehow caused by Jones,
that Jones is culpable with them in this.  [Do I get this right, Joshua?  I've
heard Taubes speak and have raised some of these same points to counter his
false assertions.  He basically ignores the facts I've raised.  I don't see how
he can honestly do so.  Do you?]
 
No, BYU principals objected loudly to the press conference, before it happened,
and we cannot be blamed for it.  These are big boys, responsible for their own
actions -- P&F and U. Utah co-conspirators.  Moreover, after the press conf.,
Martin Fleischmann apologized to me personally for this press conf., saying "it
was not fair to you at BYU."  Martin claimed the responsibility lay with U.
Utah administrators (unnamed) who pressured he and Pons into the press conf.
(Apology from Martin in April 1989.)
>
> To quote from page 37 of BAD SCIENCE:
>
> ``He [Jones] did not deny that he may have had "impetus" from the Pons-
>   Fleischmann proposal but argued that Pons and Fleischmann had not
>   accused him of "impetus" -- they had accused him of stealing ideas
>   wholesale. ... he [Jones] had assigned a student to do electrolysis
>   experiments (of the kind Paul Palmer [a Jones co-worker] had pursued
>   two years earlier and Pones and Fleischmann were now proposing) only
>   after reading the Utah proposal.''
>
> Taubes also makes it clear, that Jones had been thinking about electroCF
> before reading the proposal of P&F work.  He uses the lab book as (somewhat
> cryptic) proof of this.  Taubes includes the important lab book entries
> in his book.
>
If I had been thinking about electroCF before reading the proposal (which is
true), then how does this square with the contention that we had abandoned our
research?  Please explain.   The term "electro-" appears in my personal logbook
under the date of August 24, 1988,
  at a meeting of the fusion group here,
along with discussion of "gamma" [symbol]
and "n" [neutron] searches then being discussed -- again weeks before the P&F
proposal was learned of by me.
 
Taubes ignores facts such as the Banks' report quoted from above [ and available
on request by mail].  I did give it to him.
 
As for impetus, I will quote from U. Utah Professor [now retired] Cheves
Wallings record, recently released from the U. Utah archives where I obtained a
copy:
"Inside Cold Fusion
Cheves Walling
May 27, 1992
 
"I first heard about 'cold fusion' shortly before Christmas, 1988, when Stan
Pons told me that he was observing tritium formation during the electrolysis of
D2O at a palladium cathode.  ... During January [1989] I heard further
encouraging reports, but one day later in the winter (I don't recall whether it
was before or after Pons' visit to BYU on Feb. 23) I found both Fleischmann and
Pons in a high state of excitement, and furious with both Dr. Ryszard Gajewski
and Dr. Steven Jones at BYU.  According to their story at the time, they had
submitted a proposal to DOE with the request that it be reviewed internally,
and Dr. Gajewski, contrary to their wishes, had sent it to Jones, whose work on
muon fusion he had been supporting.  Jones in turn, they charged, had never
done any significant work in the area before, and had pirated their ideas in
recent work of his own which he felt detected neutron emission from D2O
cells ...."
 
"The acute suspicion that BYU was attempting to "pirate" University of Utah
results, which may have motivated actions here, also appears unfounded.
From their chronology, Jones et al. had been considering "piezonuclear fusion"
since 1986 and had carried out occasional experiments including electrolysis.
They had decided to pursue this investigation more intensively in the summer of
1988, and apparently obtained the first results which they considered
statistically signivicant towards the end of the year.  I've not seen the F&P
proposal to DOE which Jones received to referee in September 1988, but since
I've been assured by Marvin Hawkins that the desing of current F&P cells and
the collection of the data from them which make up the bulk of the F&P
preliminary paper was all done after that date, I doubt that the proposal
contained much specific data which Jones could have used."
 
[I would like to add here that Wallings is correct.  Frank Close, I believe,
could also testify to this if he wishes to do so publicly.]
 
"Further, the experimental set-ups and goals of the two groups turned out to be
entirely different.  Jones has been concerned solely with neutron detection,
while F&"P have concentrated on calorimetry and heat production.  On the other
hand, simply knowing of the existence of the Utah work could have led the BYU
group to increase their efforts and accelerated their decision to publish.
This is just the normal competition in science.  Since they recommended to Dr.
Gajewski that F&P be informed of their work, got in touch with them, and
offered to exchange information, it now seems to me that they were acting
in a perfectly proper manner.   Unfortunately, this clash with BYU proved to be
only the first example of the paranoia an suspicion which has clouded the
developement of "cold fusion." "
 
I concur with Prof. Walling on the above [minor point:  Pons called me first,
after Dr. Gajewski informed him that we were doing neutron-detection work
involving electrolytic-cells having D2O etc. -- Dr. Gajewski did this at my
suggestion which was made shortly after I reviewed the P&F proposal].
 
>>The review is interesting reading.  I do not think I will buy the book,
>>although it might become a collector's item if the publisher gets sued
>
> I'm not sure I'd recommend buying the book, but if you want to understand
> CF, you'll need to read it.  No where else (that I know of) is Pons's
> work with Dow or Synthetech described.  No where else are details of what
> the ERAB panel found at the various labs they visited, and so on.
>
> Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>
 
As for me, I recommend Close's book or Huizenga's or even Mallove's over
Taubes' book.  But really, I'm getting
tired of association with P&F and being dragged repeatedly through the muck.
I'd like to talk here about our work on neutrons emitted from metals, now we
find correlated with deuterium expulsion from thin deuterided wires.  If anyone
is really interested.  (I know a few are.  I'm just tired of responding to
nonsense, proclaimed authoritatively and publicly.)  Later perhaps.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / Edward Lewis /  A new set of phenomena
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A new set of phenomena
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 02:12:32 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

                                                (c) 1993 by Edward H. Lewis
 
                                                5719 S. Harper
                                                Chicago, Illinois  60637
 
                                                August 17, 1993
 
        I suspect that the development of science has had an
approximately 80 year periodicity.  I've written a paper about this.
I suspect that the prior two generations have produced a set of
anomalous phenomena that is resolvable according to a new kind of
premise.
 
        It seems that one can define "plasmoid-" type phenomena as an
universal phenomena.  What I mean is that almost all the anomalous
phenomena that I know about seems to be "plasmoid" phenomena, and it
seems to be possible to define almost all phenomena as "plasmoid"
phenomena.  During the last half of last year, I tried to
experientially relate cold fusion and "plasmoid" type phenomena.  I
used the photographs of traces in nuclear emulsions and of cathodes
that Matsumoto produced and has shown in his many "cold fusion"
articles in Fusion Technology during the last two or three years.  I
used the photographs of marks in plastics that Nardi and Bostick and
others showed and the descriptions of the marks produced by the
phenomena that Ken Shoulders calls EVs that I had available.  I
thought that the marks were so similar that I related these as the
same type of phenomena.  I also related other electrical discharge
phenomena and ball lightning, and tentatively related these to
"superconductivity."  At that time as well, I heuristically defined
substances as being composed of plasmoid-type phenomena as well.  I
suspect that these resolutions are useful.
 
        Evidence for this resolution is mounting.  I thought that the
picture of a micrometer sized thing with an interesting design that
Matsumoto showed in the January issue of Fusion Technology may be a
confirmation of the ideas that I had described in papers that I wrote
earlier.  Since then I have learned about other confirmations of my
deductions.  I suspect that research in this direction will increase.
 
        Moreover, I've learned that Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner and
others have developed detailed astronomical theories that astronomical
phenomena are plasmoid phenomena.  I suspect that the evidence for
this identification is sufficient.
 
        I suspect that at least part of the cold fusion phenomena that
people have reported is the formation of "plasmoid" phenomena that is
larger than the phenomena that were there previously.  The production
of energy and heavier elements is associated with many plasmoids.
 
T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Mesh Like Traces on Nuclear Emulsions
During Cold Fusion,"  Fusion Technology, 23, (January 1993).
 
K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039 (June 16, 1992).
 
V. Nardi, W. Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure
of Electron-Beam Filaments,"  Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November, 1980).
 
E. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, New York, 1991.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 17 Aug 1993 11:59 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CBwLF5.I49@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <CBwGo0.HF5@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>     For the nucleus of D+ we don't need to transition to a more
>>     localized state to localize it on the scale we're considering
>>     (lattice spacing size).  It's already localized quite nicely.
>
>   I also cannot emphasize strongly enough in discussions about
>   'delocalizing' reaction products of D-D fusions in putative
>   'cold-fusion' reactions, that *before* discussing this any further
>   someone who wants to make the 'delocalization' argument
>   should determine exactly how many nuclei one must involve
>   without sending portion of the lattice screaming through
>   the rest of the lattice.  You've got over 23 MeV to play with
>   for this one candidate reaction.
>
>   Look at the 'delocalization' required and then compare it
>   with the lattice spacing if not to the much much smaller
>   nuclear size.  Depending on what you're willing to let your
>   lattice do (I suggest not letting any bonds break), you'll
>   see that you have one heap-um big problem.
 
OK.  Assuming a lattice binding energy of 1 eV/Pd, you need to spread the
energy over about 23 million Pd atoms.  With a spacing of ~3 angstroms/Pd
atom, the volume required corresponds to a cube roughly (23e6)^(1/3) * 3
angstroms on a side = 853 angstroms on a side.  This assumes that the wave
function is a volume thingy, rather than a linear thingy (sorry for the
terminology).
 
A question about delocalization:
 
If I'm interpreting this right, a "delocalized" particle is smeared out in
space.  Is it possible that this only *appears* to be the case?  In other
words, is it possible that the "delocalization" of one particle is just the
superposition of many (very localized) particles?  Sort of like a low
frequency "beating" between many high frequency wavefunctions?
 
Is it possible to experimentally determine the difference between the two
cases?
 
>
>                        dale bass
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / Jim Carr /  Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,  this is a patent
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:21:47 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Aug18.050409.27732@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>Oddly enough, neutrons seem to outnumber protons in this corner of the
>universe even though neutrons are inclined to decay into protons when in
>isolation.  Given the preposition that the early universe was composed
>mostly of protons and electrons, there does seem to be implied some rather
>promiscuous pathway from proton/electron (or virtual electron) to neutron.
>But it must be in all the books, right?
 
Yep.  It is called the pep reaction, whose existence in our sun was
established by the observation of about 80 SNU by the GALLEX experiment.
 
The first description of this pathway earned Bethe the Nobel Prize.
 
Of course, the heavier neutron-excess nuclei are made in supernovae
by the r process, where the massive flux of neutrons comes from electron
capture during core collapse.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Pluto speaks!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pluto speaks!
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 15:14:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
In article <CBxFMx.1Ix@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
 
> NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
>
> ... The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
> (rsnm) occurred in late 199/ by myself, Ludwig Plutonium (legal name
> change /8/8/91 from that of Ludwig van Ludvig)...
> ... The pinnacle of modern science up to my teachings was Quantum
> Electrodynamics (QED)...
> ... Note to readers -- due to space limitations in postings anyone
> wanting more of my patent can email me Ludwig.Plutonium@Dartmouth.edu
 
Style wise, Pluto's entry is a bit weak, but not too bad as such things go.
The set of generally good references is a very nice touch, especially the
the quantics-ish invocation of Feynman.  A few integrals littered here and
there would help give it a more gee-whiz-must-be-a-genius touch, though.
 
In keeping with Dr. John Baez's excellent list of criteria for setting up
the proper tone in such things, I'd also suggest that next time you use a
few more all-caps sentences.  Not _too_ many, mind you, as you would lose
some of you intended audience -- it should only have just enough to give
it the piece the proper prophetic-utterance tone.
 
(Your system administrator at Dartmouth is, er, _accomodating_, I take it?)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Speaking of good satire:
 
In <CBwo79.ErI@world.std.com> on 17 Aug 1993 mica@world.std.com
(Dr. Eugene F. Mallove and Dr. Mitchell R. Swartz) said:
 
> .. the document that follows .. was prepared by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann ..
>
> .. [many, _many_ pages deleted] ..
>
> | *Our own conclusions*
> |
> | We welcome the fact that  Douglas Morrison has decided to publish his
> | criticisms of our work in the conventional scientific literature rather
> | than relying on the electronic mail, comments to the press and popular
> | talks; we urge his many correspondees to follow his example.  Following
> | this traditional pattern of publication will ensure that their comments
> | are properly recorded for future use and that the rights of scientific
> | referees will not be abrogated.  Furthermore, it is our view that a
> | return to this traditional pattern of communication will in due course
> | eliminate the illogical and hysterical remarks which have been so evident
> | in the messages on the electronic bulletins and in the scientific tabloid
> | press.  If this proves to be the case, we may yet be able to return to a
> | reasoned discussion of new research.  Indeed, critics may decide that the
> | proper course of inquiry is to address a personal letter to authors of
> | papers in the first place to seek clarification of inadequately explained
> | sections of publications.
 
This was _much_ better satire than what Pluto provided, and had me rolling on
the floor.  The tone is so deliciously dead pan that you could almost think
that Pons and Fleischmann are actually serious about _non-CNF_ types being
the main culprits in using Internet and the press to promote causes.  And the
total obliviousness to how "anti-CNF" folks like Dieter Britz trashed the key
points of Morrison's draft the same day it was posted is _great_.  I love it!
 
 
BTW, I agree with Steven Jones:  Dr. Mallove, winner or loser, you do seem
intent on being a sore one.  If you are so confident in your success, why
don't you lighten up and _act_ like it?  Harsh words indicate a weak cause,
to paraphrase a fortune cookie I once met.
 
                                Cheers^2,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 17:54:43 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> John Logajan writes:
> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
> >How about a laminate of alternate sheets of copper and neoprene gasket
> stock?
>
> This sounds good in theory, but I worry in general with laminates that
> uniform contact across the whole interface would be problematical.
> In other words, how to avoid copper/*air*/neopreme laminates.
 
 
        I think contact cement would do a pretty good job (with the contact
cement being similar to the neoprene in conductivity).  A simple modification
for long term peace of mind would be to put a few nylon screws (available
from an electronic supply store) through the stack, and put the stack under
compression.
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / mitchell swartz /  Deiter takes the neutron bait?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deiter takes the neutron bait?
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 19:26:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9308181354.AA14974@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: Deiter takes the neutron bait?
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU,  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu) writes:
 
==dblue   "If anyone mentions coherence
==dblue I will reply Bull ...!  The Pd lattice consists of a very random
==dblue arrangement of various isotopes, each one with a different set of
==dblue gamma ray energies."
 
  Dick, why would you say that?   First, Dieter is doing a good job,
    and second: you have simply not proven it.
    In fact, it appears that you might  be incorrect again.
 
 1) Perhaps you  might like to either define what you mean by coherence,
  or prove (for once) why you say this cannot be true.
 
 2) Proof by the existence theorem that coherence might occur, despite
   a "very random arrangement" or "different (isotopes)":
 
    Coherence in an optical amplifier (laser) only requires coaxial
 plane parallel Fabry-Perot mirrors filled with an active medium
 between the mirrors comprising the on-axis walls of that resonator cavity.
 
  In the case of the laser, the coherent beam is derived from the
excited atoms (soon to emit photons in phase with the internal beam
due to the Einstein B-coefficient which is the probability
of an induced radiative transition with emission of second quantum).
 
   The reader ought consider that
technology this year shows such lasers (or. their microwave equivalent
(masers)  can be constructed such that the active material is:
   a gas (eg. the maser, or the He-Ne laser)
   or the solid state (eg. ruby laser), or in liquid (eg. dye laser).
   Two of these are necessarily very random (one less so over
 the short range) and several have different isotopes contained within.
 
                                   Still waiting,
 
                                         Mitchell Swartz
                                          (mica@world.std.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Cameron Bass /  The Amazing Miracle Hole-Size (TM) (was Re: Stable temperature
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Amazing Miracle Hole-Size (TM) (was Re: Stable temperature
after electrolysis)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 07:26:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

     It is quite interesting that even P&F seem to be worried by
     the goings-on in this forum.  I find that amusing.
 
     I'm curious Jed.  Are certain people from a certain nation in the
     Orient beginning to ask inconvenient questions?
 
In article <930819030329_72240.1256_EHK28-2@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Now that P&F have granted permission to upload their paper, let me post
>some notes I made some time ago about a minor issue in one of their
>papers. . .
>
>
>A few months ago there was a debate here regarding one aspect of the
>paper: M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southhampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe),
>"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
>simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
>
>A graph in the paper shows a temperature of 100 C that remains stable even
>after all of the electrolyte is exhausted and the cathode is dry. This is
>counter-intuitive; it confused many people, including me.
...
>you might intuitively suppose that a dry cathode in an open test tube
>would be sitting in ambient air, which would mean the temperature at the
>thermistor would drop. However, this is not the case, which proves that
>"first glances" and "intuitive suppositions" count for nothing in science.
 
     Absolutely, which is why *detailed* descriptions of experiments
     are so important.  We may not have been forced to speculate had
     the calorimeter been described in detail.  The figure seems to
     indicate venting to the outside, the description indicates venting
     to the outside.
 
>To make a long story short, the model proposed by Chuck Harrison here is
>essentially correct. Chuck suggested that a small amount of water remains
>at the bottom of the cell, and this water is heated up, it rises,
>condenses, and falls to the bottom again. In my judgement, recent data and
>observations confirm that this is the major cause of the temperature
>stability.
 
     The the statements about the phenomenon in the paper are misleading,
     at best.  How about 'it remains at 100C because of reflux condensation,
     though we didn't realize it at the time and other things still
     don't make any sense to us'?  That would be an amusing erratum.
 
     I'm still waiting on the explanation of 'The Melting of the Kel-F'
     (coming soon to theaters near you).  It's attached to the wires.
     How are they going to worm out of a local 300C temperature
     induced by the electrode that is far above the support (electrically
     connected by only water at most) when the thermometer that is
     *the same distance* from the electrode shows 100C by reflux
     condensation.  Take your pick 100C or 300C, which is it?  Or would
     they like to admit that the 300C was caused by electrical arcing
     at the wire electrode?
 
     Or how's about exactly how much water is left in the pot?
     They said 'dry', not 'damp', not 'visible condensate'.  How much
     water is 'dry'?
 
     And more to the point, WHY DON'T WE KNOW SUCH THINGS FROM THE
     PAPER ITSELF?
 
>Let me close by reminding readers that there was quite a heated discussion
>of this aspect of the paper. The discussion was lead by people who do not
>understand the dynamics of the system, and who have never performed any
>experiments of this nature. Some of them went so far as to claim that the
>reported stable temperature was a mistake or even some kind of fraud! I
 
     It boils dry in 11 minutes from half-full, that implies a
     not-insubstantial connection with something that is *outside*.
     It then magically drops the connection with the outside
     and magically remains at 100C for three hours by some mystical
     conspiracy of the heat-loss and the mystical heat gain.  In addition,
     the paper certainly seems to imply that they *do not know*
     why this is happening.  Otherwise they would not have commented
     on it, or, alternatively, they would have explained it.
 
     Now we get the explanation of the 'miracle hole size'.
     Quite amusing.
 
     I repeat my response from an earlier time, to wit (I just love gopher
     servers):
 
     "We've got at least one spot with 300C, we've got another at 100C for
     three hours, we've got a 'dry' cell, and we've got it open to the
     atmosphere, we've got it insulated, and we've got it spitting deuterium
     out of the lattice, and we may well have arcing currents, and we
     have one exceedingly poor description.
 
     I've had little success reading the minds of P&F for the last
     four years, why should I (or you) be more successful now?"
 
>recall one person cited this single aspect of the paper to declare the
>entire paper a "dead parrot!" (An example of the bold assurance which
>comes only to hopelessly ignorant fools.) As usual, these people were
>desperately attempting to discredit the paper on the basis of will-of-the-
>wisp half-formed ideas, but as anyone can see, all they accomplished was
>to show how little they know about water vapor in test tubes. I did not
>understand the reason for the stable temperature at first either, but at
>least I had enough sense to get the facts before reaching any conclusion.
 
     Funny, but I declared the whole field a 'dead parrot', not just
     the paper.  I've seen nothing to change that.
 
     I'm willing to bet on it.  Are you?
 
     I'll answer my own question.  No you are not.  And why not?
     Because that would silence you when the day came and passed
     (I still have a file marked README.1996 that will be posted
     with commentary on 1 January 1996).
 
     I'm still waiting for Mallove's 'reckoning'.  Have y'all set a
     date yet?  That would be very nice so we could chortle when
     that passed too.
 
     Y'all are paper tigers, boys.  And your paper isn't even worth
     the paper it's printed on.  Come back when you've managed to
     power something with this 'unambiguous' reaction.
 
     I don't suggest widespread breath-holding.
 
                               dale bass
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Cameron Bass /  Why ask Why? (was Re: Stable temperature after electrolysis)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why ask Why? (was Re: Stable temperature after electrolysis)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 07:45:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

>In article <930819030329_72240.1256_EHK28-2@CompuServe.COM>,
>Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>>you might intuitively suppose that a dry cathode in an open test tube
>>would be sitting in ambient air, which would mean the temperature at the
>>thermistor would drop. However, this is not the case, which proves that
>>"first glances" and "intuitive suppositions" count for nothing in science.
 
     At first glance, one might suppose that the word 'dry' meant 'dry';
     However, you're now saying 'dry' meant 'damp'.  Intuitively, *I* would
     have suspected that 'dry' had nothing to do with 'damp'. Indeed,
     I can find no other precedent for using the term 'dry' to mean 'damp',
     but there's always the first.  Just goes to show that certain
     clever electrochemists are always one step ahead of the rest of us.
 
     On the other hand, perhaps they really meant that all the Vermouth
     evaporated leaving only Gin?
 
     Anyway, I'm off to write a scathing letter to those 'Webster's' people...
 
                           dale bass
 
     An oldie but recently repeated goodie ...
 
             `When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
         tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
         less.'
             `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean
         so many different things.'
             `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -
         - that's all.'
               Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass (1871)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Brian Burleigh /  Here's a try for Harris!!!
     
Originally-From: burleibg@wfu.edu (Brian Burleigh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Here's a try for Harris!!!
Date: 19 Aug 1993 20:52:39 GMT
Organization: Wake Forest University

 
E. Harris Walker has put forth the following theory; that "fusion" of D in a Pd
lattice *may* occur according to the following:
 
        Pd(n) + D --> T + Pd(n-1)>>Ag or Rh
 
He then dismissed the above equation as "energetically impossible" or something
like that.  So, I sat down with the handiest references I had and tried to
figure out if this was true.
 
From the 58th edition of the CRC:
 
                mass of Pd:     106.400 u
                mass of T:      3.01605 u
 
From the Particle Properties Data Booklet [1992 ed.,published by U.Cal.
Berkeley]:
                mass of D:      1875.6133957 MeV/c^2
                mass of n:      m_D - m_proton
                                = 937.341082 MeV/c^2
                unified atomic mass unit (u):
                                931.4943228 MeV/c^2
---------------
        Doing the math.......(and dropping the c^2)
        m_Pd = 99110.99595 MeV
        m_T = 2809.414822 MeV
        m_Pd(n-1) = 98173.65487 MeV
 
        and, according to the conservation of energy (with all constituents
        starting from rest):
 
        E = M_Pd + M_D -{ M_Pd(n-1) + M_T}
          = +3.5396 MeV
therefore, the reactants have more energy[mass] than the products, and the
reaction *IS* energetically possible, and fairly hot.
 
        Thank you for allowing my $.02 [about my pay for computing all of this]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{--------------}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
%  Brian Burleigh:  yes, THAT one!!!                            &
%                                                               &
% burleibg@wfu.edu                                              &
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenburleibg cudfnBrian cudlnBurleigh cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / mitchell swartz /  heat capacity transients
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: heat capacity transients
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 22:43:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9308182048.AA20108@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: heat capacity transients
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU,  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu) writes:
 
==dblue "It should perhaps be noted that heat capacity can undergo
==dblue  dramatic variations as a function of temperature at any
==dblue  sort of phase transition, even
==dblue rather subtle ones such as the Curie transition in a ferromagnetic
==dblue   solid."
 
  Dick Blue says subtle changes in heat capacity invalidate experiments
  on cold fusion.  But he has not shown any attempt at actual estimates
  and listings of such values.  There has been no actual model proposed with
  **numbers** to prove the point.  Instead, it is highly probable that these
  c.f. systems show outputs at levels  much greater then the effects to which
  he refers.
 
  The onus is upon the skeptics to show why their oft-cited microwatt
  and nanowatt variations "repute" outputs at levels orders of magnitude
  greater.    This has not been done.
 
   For a physical parameter such as palladium electrical resistivity
   (10.0 micro-ohm cm at 0 Cent, and 10.8 microohm-cm at 20 Cent.)
    there is a temperature coefficient
     of circa 0.00377 (0-100Cent. cf.Rare Metals Handbook, Hampel).
    If one wanted to disprove something, one could plug in the numbers and
     prove (or disprove) the hypothesis.
   It would be incumbent upon the individual formulating the criticism,
  wouldn't it?  The same is true for whatever Dick is now claiming.
 
   In the absence of such proof, any such hypothesis attempting to overide
  measured calibrated data has the structural integrity, and the armoured
  appearance, of a coelenterate.  (And probably should be trusted as much
  as the free-floating medusa-types).
 
    After several years of progressive positive results, such hypotheses
 by the "skeptics" have become mere hot-air,  banter.
   The "skeptics" claim their (worn-out) hypotheses disprove hundreds of
 positive experiments.   But have they ever once given an order of magnitude
 calculation to their allegations of "systematic error", "recombination
 overlooked", etc.?   They have been asked (repeatedly) for a simple table
 of such data (so any interested reader might ascertain the truth)  but
 such requests have not been answered.
 
                   impression:---->  "Lost to follow-up"
 
    Where is any attempt to seriously followup any questions? or give any
 semiquantitative solution?  It simply does not exist.
    Many of the skeptics' comments are: unsupported destructive criticism.
    If the "skeptics" arguments were undergraduate
 problem set solutions, hopefully they would be plunked into the circular file
 with an admonision to "get serious" or "move to the humanities (please update
  to keep this p.c.) dept."
 
    Best wishes.
                                         Mitchell Swartz
                                          mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ortho and para hydrogen
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ortho and para hydrogen
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 01:26:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug19.205844.18324@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>According to a book on liquid hydrogen production, 25% of room temperature
>gaseous hydrogen is para form, and 75% is ortho form (para is where
>the electron spin is in the same direction as the nucleus spin and ortho
>is where the electron spin is opposite the nucleus spin.)
>
>It recommends that a catalytic conversion to para should be done to
>prevent later natural conversion to para -- which is EXOTHERMIC and
>will cause excess boil off and loss of hydrogen.
 
     This is because the equilibrium para/ortho (or as I prefer,
     J=even, J=odd rotational state, because Deuterium uses reversed
     para/ortho jargon) of hydrogen is shifted far to J=0 at cryogenic
     temperatures, going to about 100% J=0 at 20K.  But owing to
     quantum effects, odd states do not
     easily relax into even states (characteristic half-life of
     self-conversion is about one year for cryogenic hydrogen, but it
     is about 10 minutes for hydrogen at low pressures and 923K).
     Since the reaction can be catalyzed so that it
     occurs fairly rapidly (via surface phenomena, nuclear radiation, etc.),
     maintenence of room temperature 25%/75% (or 'normal' in the jargon)
     even/odd rotational state presents a thermal threat to cryogenic
     operations.  However, you wouldn't want to catalyze to J=0
     for noncryogenic uses, especially if you were going to remain at the
     roughly the same temperature.
 
     However, even this effect is not as important for deuterium since 66%
     is in even-J states at room temperature.
 
>So what effect does para/ortho conversion have at a Pd electrode
>both on loading and unloading?
 
     My guess is very little, unless there is some surface effect that
     selects for one or the other deuterium rotational states.  I don't
     find that highly likely though.  The para/ortho 'problem' is
     maintenence of room-temperature state-distribution down to cryogenic
     temperatures, where it is no longer energetically at equilibrium.
     I'm not sure we have that problem here, and even if we do, the
     curve shifts to J=odd at higher temperatures and the conversion
     is endothermic.  In any case, the heat of conversion is fairly
     small at 300K.
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
Date: 20 Aug 1993 04:03:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CC1Ft4.9At@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>    But, Ok.  we will try it again.  Remember, all your questions were
>    answered; including the silly momentum one.
 
Actually, they are not, as you have yet to tell me whether the claims of
energetic radiation correlate with claims of Helium-4, but be that as it
may.  And no matter how many times I ask it (including if you understood
the concept of conservation of momentum) you *still* have not answered my
questions about the recoil of the He4* nucleus if it gives up a 24 MeV
gamma ray.
 
>  The questions are:
>
>1.  How do you know that this physics must occur similar to your preconceived
>      notions in a gas or plasma?  Any serious proof?
 
I do not "know" anything about this "physics", since no one, including you,
has ever explained to me what this "physics" is.  Which is why I have been
trying to find out what the supporters of so-called cold fusion consider
the best experimental evidence, since they obviously do not understand the
physics even if the experiments are right.
 
I have no "proof" that "this physics" [sic] *must* occur similar to my
preconceived notions.  But there are several fundamental considerations that
have not been answered to my satisfaction (not that anyone is under any
obligation to satisfy me).  The major difficulty, of course, is that in a
Pd lattice, the deuterons are actually further apart than they were in the
water, which makes their fusion a priori less likely, one would think.
Furthermore, fusion is controlled by the strong force which is of extremely
short range.  It is hard for me to imagine how anything chemical could possibly
influence d+d fusion and simultaneously cause its branching ratio to change
so dramatically.  And those people who have tried to present explanations
generally admit that they are far-fetched.  Furthermore, you have claimed that
there is other unknown ash besides helium-4 without ever explaining how your
magic catalyst manages to make them preferentially (as I have said before,
catalyst or no, two-body collisions are more probable than three-body
collisions), and how these other reactions manage to surmount the Coulomb
barrier so easily.  I remember your discussion with Steven Jones, who tried
to explain to you why there *must* be secondary x-rays if the process is
really fusion.  As with all of the points above, these are basic physical
principles, and they need more than a handwave to be dismissed.
 
>2.    The products including excess heat, and the production of tritium,
>     the production of helium-4 linked with excess heat, and the occasional
> demonstration of neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support
> for the cold fusion phenomena. The fact that these phenomena occur by
> several methods in many different laboratories also are further support.
> Any serious comment on *** any **** of this?
 
The problem is that the only people who tend to get these products are the
true believers.  The difficulties of measuring the tritium and helium-4 have
been discussed in detail in this forum.  Further, no two people seem to
get the same set of products, which gives me pause, especially since these
measurements always seem to be right at the threshold of detectability.
 
The only exception of which I am aware is the excess heat measurements.
My personal feeling about these measurements is that they are mistaken.  I
know that the true believers disagree with me, but that is my feeling based
on the papers (such as they are) that I have read.  My dislike of the
work of P&F comes from my having been at the original press conference and
scientific seminars at the University of Utah.  My feelings in the matter
were crystallized by Pons's inability to put up a slide with a balanced
nuclear equation at the seminar, and that those errors were not corrected in
Marvin Hawkins's departmental seminar given a short while later.  P&F's
refusal to include vital details of their experiments in their papers and
their implication that the apparatus probably destroyed by a hydrogen fire
was the victim of a nuclear meltdown only further strengthens my opinion
(which, if it is proved wrong, I will gladly rescind) that they are
incompetent.
 
>3.    The autoradiography of active electrodes is further support.
>       Do you have any real evidence to dismiss any of that?
 
I have been asking you about this for weeks now, and you keep ducking my
questions and claiming you answered them.  I do not know enough about how
that experiment was done to say anything except that the only real
evidence worth considering would be a spectrum.
 
>4.   Many people have replicated the original experiments.
>   Furthermore, others have replicated them and may have apparently
>       stated or reported that they "had not" done so.
>           Any serious comment on either fact?
 
Many people claim to have been abducted by aliens.  So what.  Many people have
replicated claims for ESP.  So what.  Many people had replicated the N-ray,
mitogenic ray, polywater, Allison effect, etc., experiments.  So what.
All that this proves is that science in reality is a more complicated game
than what they teach you in elementary school.
 
Also, lacking the names of the people that replicated the experiments and
then claimed they had not, and lacking direct statements from them, there
really is nothing I can say about that comment.
 
>5.   Also, when one brings up mistakes from almost five years ago, but ignores
>    *** scores*** of "positive" papers, such logic is on an
>          unreliable foundation, isn't it?
 
What mistakes from five years ago (except for the glaring ones I mentioned
above) have I ever brought up?  Anyway, the logic is that if these people made
*elementary* mistakes in 1989, they are probably still incompetent in 1993.
 
>6.    Could you give us any proof that
>      hot fusion has satisfied similar longevities of excess
>      production of heat (or electricity)?
 
If you mean, has hot fusion reached breakeven, no it hasn't.  But when have
I ever claimed either that is has or that I thought it ever would?
 
If you mean, has hot fusion produced the same amount of excess heat as
cold fusion, well, zero equals zero in my book.
 
>7.       Scores of laboratories get positive results and attempt to
>   publish papers.  Interesting papers.   Very interesting physics
>   for one who has trained in, and/or is familiar with any one of
>    these fields merged in cold fusion.
>       However, many (almost all?) of the candidate authors are met with
>    resistance to dissemination of information such as seen here.
>    Such as has been described here.  Any serious comments?
 
Who has been prevented from publishing?  That is to say, in any way different
from when the referees reject anybody's papers?  I mean specific names and
instances.
 
As for the resistance to dissemination, new ideas in science almost always
meet with resistance.  That's the way science has to work if it is to mean
anything.  I discussed the case of Buckminsterfullerene in my previous post,
which you apparently did not read very carefully.
 
>8.  Where is that semiquantitative list showing magnitudes of the putative
>     explanations (etc.) that allegedly disprove the cold fusion phenomena?
 
When have I ever promised one, or even indicated that I could give one?
 
There are two things, I think, that you need to learn, both of which,
actually, are in the category of cliches.
 
(a)  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
(b)  An attack on one's ideas is not an attack on one's self.  You seem to
have a lot of difficulty separating the two, which is why you tend to avoid
the real issues in favor of claiming anyone who disagrees with you is engaging
in "ad hominem" attacks.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
P.S.  Item (b) above is why you are one of the easiest flame targets I have
ever encountered in my 10 years reading Usenet.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 04:46:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <251if9$f5e@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: Questions for Richard Schultz
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
>1.  How do you know that this physics must occur similar to your preconceived
>      notions in a gas or plasma?  Any serious proof?
 
=rs "I have no "proof" that "this physics" [sic] *must* occur similar to my
=rs preconceived notions."
 
   We agree on something.
 
2.    The products including excess heat, and the production of tritium,
>     the production of helium-4 linked with excess heat, and the occasional
> demonstration of neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support
> for the cold fusion phenomena. The fact that these phenomena occur by
> several methods in many different laboratories also are further support.
> Any serious comment on *** any **** of this?
 
=rs "The problem is that the only people who tend to get these products are the
=rs            true believers."
 
  Is that before or ** after ** the experiments?
 
  "... when we made tritium it was pretty spectacular, I mean
   when you hold the holy grail in your hand, it is hard to deny its
   existence."    [Dr. Edmund Storms]
 
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ortho and para hydrogen
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ortho and para hydrogen
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 05:00:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug20.025503.21803@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>>It recommends that a catalytic conversion to para should be done to
>>prevent later natural conversion to para -- which is EXOTHERMIC and
>>will cause excess boil off and loss of hydrogen.
>
>They further say that the heat of conversion is about 700J (per mole
>I assume) while the heat of vaporization is about 450J (again per mole
>I assume.)
 
    For hydrogen, it's about 520 J/g below 75K, but it's only about about
    25 J/g at 300K (NBS Monograph 168, Selected Properties of Hydrogen,
    McCarty etal).
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / Timothy Watson /  Re: Richard Schultz, vowel incontinent
     
Originally-From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Schultz, vowel incontinent
Date: 17 Aug 1993 23:42:58 GMT
Organization: Bioengineering

In article <CBtnoI.Bzn@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>   Please be advised that I, no doubt, like the rest of the civilized
>world have absolutely no interest in the size, or even existence, of your
>alleged penis.
 
This is a very rude conference.
-Tim Watson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentmwatson cudfnTimothy cudlnWatson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.17 / L Plutonium /  Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered,
Date: 17 Aug 93 23:23:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

 
        NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
 
Inventor: Ludwig Plutonium (legal name as of /8/8/91), previous                 name
Ludwig van Ludvig
 
Assignee: none
 
Ser. No.: /7/737,17/
 
Filing Date: /7/29/91
Reformatted filing: 11JUNE1993
 
        Related U.S. Application Data
This is a reformatted, revised application of my /7/737,17/.
 
        References Cited
U.S. Patent Documents
        ?? concerning muon catalyzed fusion, Alvarez et al at Berkeley
        ?? concerning cold fusion, Pons, Fleischmannn et al Utah U.
        ?? concerning cold fusion,  Hagelstein & MIT
        5,/76,971 12/1991 W.A. Barker
 
        Other Publications
 
1* FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-1/, 1963
2* Directions in Physics   P.A.M. Dirac, 1975 on pages 76-78
3* Cold Nuclear Fusion The electronlike particles called muons  can
catalyze nuclear fusion reactions, eliminating the need         for powerful
lasers or high-temperature plasmas. The         process may one day become a
commercial energy source        Scientific American  JUL1987 by J.
        Rafelski        and S.E.        Jones, pages 84-89.
4* Bursting a Theory on Gamma-Ray Flashes , Science News        28SEP91
        page 196.
5* Jumps in Star Speeds Perplex Astronomers , Science Times  of         THE
        NEW YORK TIMES  15SEP92, pages C1 and C9..
6* Cold Fusion -- One Year Later , Energy & Technology Review   (E&TR)
OCT199/, pages 1-17.
7* Upper bounds on Tcold fusionU in electrolytic cells , Nature
        23NOV89 by D.E.Williams et al, pages 375-384.
8* Measurement and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma-Ray    Emission        Rates,
Other Fusion Products, and Power in     Electrochemical         Cells Having Pd
Cathodes  , Journal     of Fusion Energy   Vol. 9,      No. 2, 199/ by D.
Albagli et al,  pages 133-148.
9* Lukewarm reception for Japanese cold fusion , New Scientist
        31OCT92, page 1/.
1/*Mercury the impossible planet? , New Scientist 1June1991     pages
26-29.
11*The Cosmic Synthesis of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron ,       Scientific
American  May 1987, by V.E. Viola and G.J.      Mathews         pages 39-45
12* PHYSICS OF THE ATOM  , 1984,Wehr,Richards, Adair page 366
13* The Character of Physical Law  Feynman 1965 page 129
14* Quantum Profiles  J. Bernstein, 1991.
15* The Dartmouth 11May1993 page 7 discussing which of the      Nobel
prizes in physics were wrong and which of the Fields    prizes were
wrong.
16*PLUTONIUM  ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS,       CHEMISTRY,
BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS  7Nov9/.
17* Muffling Umklapp; researchers beat the heat using pure ice  ,
        Scientific American  SEP9/ page 169.
 18* Growth of large, high quality diamond crystals at General
        Electric  , American Journal of Physics  NOV91 page 1//5-       1//7.
 19* A denser, more perfect diamond , Science News  2NOV91      page 287.
 2/* The ace of diamonds packs them in , New Scientist  9NOV91  page
26.
21* McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology Vol.       1/, 7th Ed.
1992  magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335
22* CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics  71st edition 1991    pages
1/-264 to 1/-267
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                        ABSTRACT
 
Detailed in the textbook Feynman Lectures on Physics  the physics laws
for the strong nuclear force were unknown, and radioactivities (weak
nuclear) were only partially known.  As of 7Nov9/, I assert to know the
complete law for radioactivities.  The 4 quantum interactions (1)
nuclear strong (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation,
are more fully explained than the present art of physics. There are 3
components to radioactivities, and these are (1) radioactive decay (2)
radioactive growth, and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. Radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is the
largest in terms of relative coupling strength of the three. Processes
to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization results in
the engineering of devices for the purpose of harnessing excess heat
energy. Numerous physical evidences in support of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization are detailed below such as (a) muon
catalyzed fusion, (b) heat from electrochemical cells of cold fusion
experiments, and (c) cosmic gamma ray-bursts. Given the fuller
explanation of radioactivities, then processes are followed which
induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Devices
(apparatuses) are engineered to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy.
Devices ranging from battery sized neutron materialization devices, on
up to full scale neutron materialization nuclear power plants are
engineered.
                NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
 
                        BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
 
        These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa late 18//'s and early 19//'s thought
that since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium
is warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands,
and continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, that this new phenomenon was perpetual motion. Because of these
unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity were
quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion, or
violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical laws.
Only with quantum theory was radioactivity well understood to accord
with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and is superior to the concept of
force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept interaction in
this application; reason: quantum physics is the correct physics.
        The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred 1896, when Becquerel
discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 6/ years after the
discovery of radioactivity before the uses of radioactivity were
applied in producing nuclear power. Fission radioactivity was
technologically used in the engineering of nuclear reactors which
generates nuclear power, post 1956.
        The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) occurred in late 199/ by myself, Ludwig Plutonium (legal name
change /8/8/91 from that of Ludwig van Ludvig). Then in early 1991, I
discovered what induces rsnm and subsequently submitted this patent
application. The technological use of rsnm will be controlled cold
fusion energy by the engineering of Neutron Materialization Power
Plants.
        Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927,
predicts virtual particles from out of nowhere which last for only a
brief period of time. Virtual particles can be electrons, positrons,
neutrons, and even molecules, but generally they are not heavier than
electrons. Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm
the postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science up
to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).  According to QED,
the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real
electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these
fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for
short quantum instants of time via UP.
        In late 199/, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but
that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization
from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The
extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized
particles, and specifically to that of neutrons. Neutrons spontaneously
materialize from out of nowhere as a form of radioactivity.  This
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) is another form
of radioactivities which until 199/ was undiscovered, and the ample
evidences, (see below), for rsnm were unrecognized as such.  I call it
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and I assert it is the
major component of the radioactivities interaction (R).  There are two
other components to radioactivites and these are radioactive decay (rd)
and radioactive growth (rg).
        Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-1/, 1963 gives
the following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of
physics with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table
below:
"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles
which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear
interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and
gravity.  The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and
the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is
1/137.  The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum
electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is
also known.  Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the
neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino.  This law
is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon
interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is
completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the
number of baryons does not change in any reaction. "
        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions
        Coupling                Strength*                       Law
Photon to charged particles   ;1/ -2             Law known
Gravity to all energy               ;1/ -4/      Law known
radioactive decay                   ;1/ -5         Law partially known
Mesons to baryons               ;1      Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant
involved in each interaction ( ; means approximately equal to).
        I change some of FeynmanUs teachings in the table, giving thus : (A)
renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R)
consists of 3 components--(1) radioactive decay (rd), (2) radioactive
growth (rg), and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) (C)   R is only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN),
and the proper listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is
1) strong nuclear, 2) radioactivities 3) electromagnetic 4)
gravitation.
        Before these teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to
consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive
growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete
interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear
interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component
of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities
interaction consists of 1) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization, plus 2) radioactive decay (weak nuclear), plus 3)
radioactive growth (weak nuclear).  Before my teachings in the art of
physics 199/, the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive
decay with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the
most important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force
law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the
interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete.  Thus the
complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this:  R =
rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below.
        Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by
increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates
to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a
plutonium atom.  Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes
higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the
nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton, electron, and neutrino,
increasing the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom
before the radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the
radioactive growth has atomic number Z+1.
        Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number.  For example, when
uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 199/, the weak nuclear
interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and
radioactive growth.  Shortly after /7/11/199/, I had postulated
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from DiracUs
book Directions in Physics 1975.
 
Note to readers--due to space limitations in postings anyone wanting
more of my patent can email me Ludwig.Plutonium@Dartmouth.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / mitchell swartz /  Reply for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply for Richard Schultz
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 22:45:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <25088i$58p@agate.berkeley.edu>
    Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's [sic] obfuscation
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes:
 
==  If I am going to be immortalized as the title of a discussion that no
== longer has anything to do with me, could you guys at least spell my
== name correctly?
 
   :- o        Why is Schultz so fixated on little things?
 
== P.S.  I realize that the original misspelling was Mitchell Swartz's and he
== is far too busy with science and engineering to be bothered.
 
     I apologize for misspelling Mr. Schultz's name.                ;-)
 
==  Although one wonders when (if) he will ever answer my three simple
== questions about Miles's experiment.
 
  Mr. Schultz's questions were idiotic, self-serving, and of no consequence.
  Furthermore, it is obvious that his previous post(s)
ebbed any remnant preserve of earned respect.
 
   For the readers, however, here are the q&answers.
   Still waiting, of course,  for any quantitative response to my questions.
 
  Here are his questions:
 
== "(1)  Did you post to this board Miles's claims to have observed X-rays in
== his cold fusion experiments?"
 
   No. I posted his response to Steven Jones.
 
== "(2) Do you believe that he actually observed X-rays or gamma rays from his
== cold fusion cells?"
 
   It does not matter what I believe.  What matters is what that data
in each experiment has shown, and has taught.
   My comments have been directed to the calibration which Dr. Miles reported,
       and which was mischaracterized here on the net.
 
== "(3)  (a) If the answer to (2) is "yes", do you believe that this
== observation is evidence for cold fusion?
==      (b) If the answer to (2) is "no", do you accept that his claim to have
== observed something that did not in fact occur calls into doubt any other
== claims that he might have made?"
 
    - not applicable
 
 Will Mr. Schultz now get quantitative and answer the questions posed to
   him in a serious manner (and without ad hominems)?  ever?   Probably not.
 
 Will Mr. Schultz remove his mind off his anatomy and direct it to
 the blackboard/keyboard?                 time will tell.
 
  The onus is upon the skeptics to show why their oft-cited microwatt
  and nanowatt variations "repute" outputs at levels orders of magnitude
  greater.    This has simply not been done.
 
                                         Mitchell Swartz
                                          mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Reply for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply for Richard Schultz
Date: 20 Aug 1993 01:29:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CC1378.FCI@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>     In Message-ID: <25088i$58p@agate.berkeley.edu>
>    Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's [sic] obfuscation
>Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes:
>
>==  If I am going to be immortalized as the title of a discussion that no
>== longer has anything to do with me, could you guys at least spell my
>== name correctly?
>
>   :- o        Why is Schultz so fixated on little things?
 
Ah say, it's a joke, son.
 
>==  Although one wonders when (if) he will ever answer my three simple
>== questions about Miles's experiment.
>
>  Mr. Schultz's questions were idiotic, self-serving, and of no consequence.
 
They were neither "idiotic" nor "self-serving."  I am trying to understand
the claims made by the various experimentalists who believe they have
evidence for cold fusion.  Now, you have in the past stated that Helium-4
(among other things) is an ash of cold fusion.  I am trying to figure out
whether the claims for Helium-4 are in any way correlated with the claims
for energetic radiation.  I have thus far been unable to get a straight answer
from Mr. Swartz about the relationship, if any, between these two claims,
both of which have been either posted to this bulletin board by him or -- so
far as I can tell -- defended here by him.
 
Now, Helium-4 is going to be extremely difficult to identify with decent
signal to noise, because it is difficult to separate from the Pd, because
there are numerous sources of possible contamination, and because many of the
methods of determining its presence (e.g. mass spectrometry) will not easily
separate a signal emanating from Helium-4 from a signal emanating from the
much greater amounts of D2 present.
 
So let us think of indirect ways of determining the presence of Helium-4 as
a product.  The most obvious way would be to look for energetic radiation
that can be attributed to it.  As Steven Jones has pointed out, one obvious
experiment to try is to actually measure the spectrum of this radiation.  But
such an experiment will be inconvenient to try, and in any case, there is no
point in trying an experiment unless we have some idea of what to expect
and what different results will tell us.  That is one reason why I asked if
Mr. Swartz, one of the most vocal supporters of CF, believes the claims.
Perhaps instead of "believes" I should say "accepts the validity of as good
evidence for cold fusion."
 
Now, let us suppose that there really is energetic radiation and it emanates
from the 4He that Mr. Swartz has claimed is a fusion product.  What spectrum
might it show?  Well, if it decays directly from 4He* -> 4He then we of course
will expect the infamous 24 MeV photon.  But -- as several people have
pointed out, if the 4He nucleus gives off a photon of that much energy, it
*must* recoil with a significant velocity due to conservation of momentum.
In that case, as (once again) Steven Jones has pointed out, there must also
be a secondary spectrum from the (now moving) 4He's interactions with the
electrons of the lattice Pd atoms.  But this whole structure of "if's" depends
on there being radiation to measure in the first place.  That is why I am
interested in knowing if Miles's claims are really considered strong evidence
for CF or not.  Because I could never get a straight answer to that question,
I have tried to get it out of Mr. Swartz in various ways.  For instance, when
I asked if he understood the concept of conservation of momentum, it was to
see if he would agree to the next step, viz. that the 4He nucleus *must*
recoil.  I asked the questions referred to above because if I ask in any
other way, I cannot get from him a straight answer to the basic question,
namely, are these claims significant ones?
 
For instance, when I ask,
>== "(2) Do you believe that he actually observed X-rays or gamma rays from his
>== cold fusion cells?"
 
He replies,
 
>   It does not matter what I believe.  What matters is what that data
>in each experiment has shown, and has taught.
 
Which does not resolve the basic issue of whether Miles's experiments are
considered to be evidence for CF or if they are sufficiently imprecise and/or
inaccurate to be only weak evidence, or no evidence at all.
 
> Will Mr. Schultz now get quantitative and answer the questions posed to
>   him in a serious manner (and without ad hominems)?  ever?   Probably not.
> Will Mr. Schultz remove his mind off his anatomy and direct it to
> the blackboard/keyboard?                 time will tell.
 
Mr. Swartz seems unduly fond of the term "ad hominem."  I find it truly
hilarious that a person who has in various posts referred to me as "Goober"
and "Peanuts Envy" and posted the sentences above can complain about "ad
hominem" arguments.
 
So I'll tell you what:  if you can post your questions to me in a
reasonable manner with no name-calling -- just the questions -- I shall
do my best to answer them.
 
>  The onus is upon the skeptics to show why their oft-cited microwatt
>  and nanowatt variations "repute" outputs at levels orders of magnitude
>  greater.    This has simply not been done.
 
Here Mr. Swartz makes a fundamental error.  When someone makes a claim that
is contrary to what had been previously considered well-established physical
laws, then it is up to him to provide the evidence that his claim is true.
And the principles at stake don't necessarily have to be as fundamental as the
ones that P&F claimed to have been overturning.  One example that comes to
mind is the discovery of Buckminsterfullerene.  If you follow the story by
going back to J. Am. Chem. Soc. in the mid-80's you will discover that the
initial claim by Smalley and Kroto (and coworkers) were initially met by
a lot of skepticism.  People proposed in the literature other possible
explanations for the initial observation, and it was up to Smalley and Kroto
to show that these other possible explanations were wrong (and some of them
were fairly "out of left field", e.g. that their mass spectrometer was somehow
more sensitive to C60 than other clusters).  When the cold fusion advocates
say "it's up to you to prove us wrong" rather than "it's up to us to prove
us right" then a warning bell goes off in my mind.  That is why I am trying to
understand what it is that the CF proponents claim is the overwhelming
evidence.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / mitchell swartz /  Questions for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Richard Schultz
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 03:17:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In  Message-ID: <2519ed$dls@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: Reply for Richard Schultz
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes:
 
=rs "So I'll tell you what:  if you can post your questions to me in a
=rs reasonable manner with no name-calling -- just the questions -- I shall
=rs  do my best to answer them."
 
   Mr. Schultz actually *began* this with his silly attack instead of
answering the questions (confer Message-ID: <23p4ul$3ih@agate.berkeley.edu>).
    But, Ok.  we will try it again.  Remember, all your questions were
    answered; including the silly momentum one.
 
  The questions are:
 
1.  How do you know that this physics must occur similar to your preconceived
      notions in a gas or plasma?  Any serious proof?
 
2.    The products including excess heat, and the production of tritium,
     the production of helium-4
    linked with excess heat, and the occasional demonstration of
   neutronpenic levels of neutrons, are further support for the cold
  fusion phenomena.
    The fact that these phenomena occur by several methods in many
   different laboratories also are further support.  Any serious comment on
   *** any **** of this?
 
3.    The autoradiography of active electrodes is further support.
       Do you have any real evidence to dismiss any of that?
 
4.   Many people have replicated the original experiments.
   Furthermore, others have replicated them and may have apparently
       stated or reported that they "had not" done so.
           Any serious comment on either fact?
 
5.   Also, when one brings up mistakes from almost five years ago, but ignores
    *** scores*** of "positive" papers, such logic is on an
          unreliable foundation, isn't it?
 
6.    Could you give us any proof that
      hot fusion has satisfied similar longevities of excess
      production of heat (or electricity)?
 
7.       Scores of laboratories get positive results and attempt to
   publish papers.  Interesting papers.   Very interesting physics
   for one who has trained in, and/or is familiar with any one of
    these fields merged in cold fusion.
       However, many (almost all?) of the candidate authors are met with
    resistance to dissemination of information such as seen here.
    Such as has been described here.  Any serious comments?
 
8.  Where is that semiquantitative list showing magnitudes of the putative
     explanations (etc.) that allegedly disprove the cold fusion phenomena?
 
           Best wishes.
                             Still waiting,
 
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Strong force chemistry / Pilot waves / leapin' deuterons/
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry / Pilot waves / leapin' deuterons/
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 20:22:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
PILOT WAVES
 
In article <17AUG199311594111@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
> If I'm interpreting this right, a "delocalized" particle is smeared out in
> space.  Is it possible that this only *appears* to be the case?  In other
> words, is it possible that the "delocalization" of one particle is just
> the superposition of many (very localized) particles?...
 
It's called a "pilot wave" interpretation, and John Bell was the strongest
recent advocate of the idea.  He asserts (with cause, I think) that at the
very least the pilot wave model enforces more clarity in thinking about
problems such as this issue of deuteron delocalization.  Bell also mentions
in his book ("Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics") that it was
his use of a pilot wave model that helped him come up with his famous
inequality, which probably would have led to a Nobel prize for him if he
had lived longer.
 
In a pilot wave model, you have particles _and_ waves -- quite separate
entities with _no_ duality at all!.  The "wave" (called the pilot wave) is
a pure and _real_ field that follows Schroedinger's equation.  The "particle"
is also just that -- a rock-hard little point embedded in the pilot wave
field, and (quite literally) "steered" by it so that it shows up with the
exactly the same distribution as indicated by the probability density
function (psi psi*).
 
In my opinion these models have serious problems in that they assume massive
levels of arbitrary, inexplicable cooincidence.  Feynman's beautiful vesion
of quantum electrodynamics contains not a shred of "pilot waving" in it, yet
produces both phenomenally accurate results and the _same_ Schroedinger wave
pattern use in pilot wave models.  One must wonder how the pilot waves are
able to so _precisely_ match the results of QED, in which _everything_ is
shown as particles moving in spacetime.
 
Nonetheless, I also heartily agree with the claim in Dr. Bells excellent
book that pilot wave models _do_ help clear up muddled thinking about
issues such as delocalization.  And since they are "opertionally equivalent"
(give the same result) as the more traditional Copenhagen formalisms, this
kind of thinking can be quite useful in problem analysis.
 
 
Take, for example, the issue of whether "delocalization" of two or more
deuterons into overlapping regions of space would lead to enhanced fusion.
The equivalent question in a pilot wave representation is simply this:
 
   Will the joint pilot wave of the two deuterons contains points of high
   enough _dual_ occupation of some region of space to overcome the energy
   barrier (electrical repulsion) that separates them?
 
And the answer from a pilot wave analysis is:
 
   No, of course not.
 
The reason why is fairly simple:  The pilot wave is logically equivalent
to a "sum" of all of the _energetically favorable_ arrangements of the two
(or more) particles.  Thus if I had two particles and three vacancies, the
pilot wave would in effect be the "sum" of the following 3 configurations:
 
   (x) (x) ( )        (x) ( ) (x)        ( ) (x) (x)
 
Each of these configurations is "weighted" in the final sum by how likely
it is to occur.  That weight in turn depends on a _classical analysis_ of
whether the configuration would be high (bad!) or low (good!) in energy.
If tunneling is present, the above components would in most circumstances
all be weighted just about the same.
 
Can you see the problem?  By the very _definition_ of how the pilot wave
is constructed, the following configurations:
 
   (xx) ( ) ( )       ( ) (xx) ( )       ( ) ( ) (xx)
 
... are _not_ significant components of he pilot wave!  That is because they
have very high energy costs when viewed as a classical problem in pushing
two positive charges closely together.
 
Or in other words, there's no free lunch -- using the wave model has simply
translated _exactly the same problem you had all along_ into a new formalism.
Although the new formalism seems at first glance to promise Strange and
Wonderful Things, all you've really done is trade classical statistics
for quantum statistics.  Quantum statistics are stranger because you lose
the common interpretation of time -- everything seems to be "summed up" into
a single quantum mechanical wave, rather than happening one discrete event
at at time, as in classical statistics.  But the likelihood of the events
themselves remains dependent on classical analysis, even in the wave form.
 
(Incidentally, Twist is utterly to the nth degree contradictory with any
form of pilot wave theory.  I like pilot waves only as visualization aids.)
 
 
LEAPIN' DEUTERONS!
 
Incidentally, here is another point of possible confusion in all of the
delocalizatin disucssion:
 
    If a deuteron can "jump" or tunnel a distance of, say, 2 angstroms
    (I would say that it can), and there is another deuteron within that
    distance, doesn't this mean that it could simply tunnel directly into
    the other nucleus and fuse?
 
Tempting, ain't it?  It's like saying that you can broad jump 6 feet and
that _somewhere_ within that size feet is a very deep well that you could
fall into.  Jump in the right direction and...  Voila -- cold fusion!!!!
 
Does anyone out there see what is wrong with the above conclusion, and feel
they can explain it in a posting here?
 
I'll wait a couple of days and then give my try at explaining why it doesn't
work.  I am genuinely curious to see what others might have to say.  Someone
(Dick Blue?) has already aptly pointed out that if tunneling distances were
the _only_ issue here, then all deuterium would be extremely dangerous to
be around because the the D2 molecules would be unstable with respect to
fusion via tunneling.  Thus this is really not a "cold fusion" problem --
it's a question about basic mechanisms and understanding of tunneling.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Strong force chemistry / Pilot waves / leapin' deuterons
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry / Pilot waves / leapin' deuterons
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 20:29:00 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Aug18.202203.28432@asl.dl.nec.com>
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
> PILOT WAVES
>
> In article <17AUG199311594111@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
> | If I'm interpreting this right, a "delocalized" particle is smeared out in
> | space.  Is it possible that this only *appears* to be the case?  In other
> | words, is it possible that the "delocalization" of one particle is just
> | the superposition of many (very localized) particles?...
>
> It's called a "pilot wave" interpretation, and John Bell was the strongest
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Heh.  After reading Mike's comment again, I'm now unsure as to whether he
meant something like pilot wave or not.  So please don't blame Mike if you
don't like my pilot wave discussion...  :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: 18 Aug 1993 22:04:29 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
: A question about delocalization:
:
: If I'm interpreting this right, a "delocalized" particle is smeared out in
: space.  Is it possible that this only *appears* to be the case?  In other
: words, is it possible that the "delocalization" of one particle is just the
: superposition of many (very localized) particles?  Sort of like a low
: frequency "beating" between many high frequency wavefunctions?
:
: Is it possible to experimentally determine the difference between the two
: cases?
 
Is there interaction between the particles?  If not, there is no
difference between the two.  The schroedinger equation is linear in
the wavefunction.
 
: Mike Jamison
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  On Jones' "Recombination Data"/ Response to Mitchell S.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  On Jones' "Recombination Data"/ Response to Mitchell S.
Date: 18 Aug 93 15:43:51 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

August 18, 1993
Response to Mitchell Swartz's posting dated 17 Aug. 1993
 
1.  Mitchell says I was incorrect in claiming that *he* said that the BYU team
saw xs heat only when we passed oxygen through an H2O/Ni electrolytic cell.
Indeed I cannot find that he had claimed this, and apologize for my evidently
incorrect assertion.  On further reflection, I think Mitch's colleague Jed
Rothwell made the assertion in a posting, but I don't care to search for it
now.  The important point to be made is that we found xs heat in the
cell *without* bubbling oxygen through the cell, as well as when O2 was
bubbled through the cell, a point which Mitchell acknowledges.
 
2.  Mitchell states:  "your claim appears to be inconsistent with your past
postings... on May 7th, you claimed a 120% excess heat observed...
On August 10th, you were now claiming 700% excess heat...
So which story is it, Steve?  120%, 134%, 700%, 90000%  "
 
The answer is that we have conducted numerous experiments in which we have
seen several-fold xs heat, when calculated in the common way (as done by
Mallove, Mills, Miles, etc.)
using I*(Vin - 1.48V) in the denominator of the expression
for the calculation.  The I*1.48V is the power consumed in electrolysis of
H2O [1.53V is used for the D2O case, e.g., by Miles], and most researchers
*assume* that this power is lost as the H2 and O2 bubble out of the
electrolyte.  Jonathon Jones found that in fact tens of per cent of these
gases undergo recombination in the cell, (the exact amount of recombination
varies from run to run depending on condition of the cathode, etc.)
owing to the excellent catalytic properties of Ni -- also palladium.
 
Hence, there is no inconsistency in these numbers.  They are just from different
experimental runs.  I spoke to Prof. Lee Hansen today about this today to
clarify your question regarding under what conditions we saw the largest
xs heat,  since Jonathon Jones (who deals most closely with the data analysis)
is out of town for about ten days.  He agreed that several hundred per cent
*calculated* xs heat has been seen a number of times without O2 bubbling, and
that up to 700% xs heat has been seen, but he could not remember for sure
whether this level had been reached without O2 bubbling.  We'll have to wait
for Jonathon's return to check this point you ask about.  Meanwhile, I
re-emphasize that all these xs heat calculations assume *no* H2+O2
recombination, consistent with Mills, Notoya, etc.  -- and when the
recombination is inhibited, the apparent xs heat disappears.
 
Prof. Hansen also said the latest data taken with Pd + D2O/LiOD show
unambiguous evidence for significant D2+O2 recombination, even when the Pd
cathode is completely immersed in electrolyte.  [Over 100% excess heat is
calculated when recombination is ignored.]  These results are contrary to the
claims of Melvin Miles of China Lake Naval Research Lab, who claimed:
"There is no evidence for any recombination when a palladium rod cathode is
used that is fully immersed in the D2O solution.  ... the electrodes in that
cell never became exposed to the gas phase, thus recombination could not have
been a factor in the measured excess heat."  [Miles letter to BYU President
Rex Lee dated 17 June 1993, cc to S. Jones]
 
The forthcoming paper on the BYU work showing these results will hopefully
answer your questions fully.
 
Best Wishes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  P&F Doublespeak?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  P&F Doublespeak?
Date: 18 Aug 93 17:37:10 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

August 18, 1993
 
It is noteworthy that P&F now are trying to
disassociate themselves from claims that xs heat is due to nuclear fusion.
 
In their rebuttal to Douglas Morrison, posted here by Mitchell Swartz and
Eugene Mallove, P&F first quote Morrison:
" 'It is interesting to note that the F&P paper compares their claimed power
production with that from nuclear reactions in a nuclear reactor and this is in
line with their dramatic claims [Press release, U. Utah, 23 March 1989] that
"**'SIMPLE EXPERIMENT' RESULTS IN SUSTAINED N-FUSION AT ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR THE
FIRST TIME**:  Breakthrough process has potential to provide inexhaustible
source of energy".  It may be noted that the present paper does not mention
"Cold Fusion" nor indeed consider a possible nuclear source for the excess heat
claimed."
 
P&F respond:  "the dramatic claim he refers to was made by the Press Office of
the University of Utah and not by us."
 
Oh, really?  I have here a transcript of the press conference in question,
along with an audio tape of it.  Let's see what Pons and Fleischmann actually
said, and check whether their statement above is true:
 
Pons (in unmistakable Southern accent):  "we've established a sustained nuclear
fusion reaction by means which are considerably simpler than conventional
techniques.  A deuterium, which is a component of heavy water, is driven into a
metal rod, similar - exactly like the one that I have in my hand here, to such
an extent that fusion between these components, these deuterons, in heavy
water are fused to form a single, a new atom.  And with this process there is a
considerable release of energy and we've demonstrated that this could be
sustained on its own.  In other words, much more energy is coming out than
we're putting in."
 
Fleischmann (accent also unmistakable):  "[Stan] has really described the
experiment.  It is very simple -- you drive the deuterons into the lattice,
you compress the deuterons in the lattice.  And under those circumstances, we
have found conditions where fusion takes place and can be sustained
indefinitely..."
And later:  "If you apply, if you drive the deuterons into the lattice with an
electric field at the interface, then you achieve a very high compression...
And it is that, we believe, which is the crucial factor in achieving fusion at
room temperature."
 
Aren't P&F  using the same language which appeared in the U. Utah press
release?
I agree with Dick Blue:  P&F for whatever reason seem to be engaging in
"doublespeak" (R. Blue posting 17 or 18 Aug. 1993)  You be the judge.
 
While I have the transcript of the March 1989 press conf. in front of me, I'll
post a bit more of interest:
 
Question from the floor:  "The question is, how do we know these are fusion
neutrons and not stray neutrons?"
 
Fleischmann:  "I should approach that question slightly obliquely. ...Well,
the interesting phenomenon about this is that the generation, the rate of
generation of tritium and the rate of generation of helium-3 is only one
billionth of what you would expect if the fusion reactions were those
experienced in high energy physics.  So, we have a relatively low rate of
production of neutrons.  ..."
 
Question:Have you measured the energy of the neutrons and are they 2.4 MeV,
which is what you would need to identify them as fusion...?"
 
Pons (evidently):  We haven't, we haven't measured the energy of the neutrons.
... but we have measured the energy of the gamma-rays given off, and as you
know that's an endothermic process.  You can only generate gamma-rays from a
n-gamma reaction on water, providing you have neutrons of that energy,  so
because we have the correct energy gamma-rays, we know that the neutrons have
at least that energy. ..."
 
Note:  the above is just wrong:  neutron capture on hydrogen is
exothermic, and proceeds with thermal neutrons.  Frank Close discloses the
magnitude of the error in P&F's thinking about the n(p,gamma)d reaction
in his book.
 
Regarding the P&F neutron detector:  "We also have here on this particular
side, a neutron counting device which allows us to estimate the [unclear]
this white Bonner sphere.  What it is is its got a BF-3 counter in it.
... and actually collecting data up until this morning."
 
 
Finally, imagine how our group felt when we heard this over the radio, as we
met in my office at BYU on the day of the press conference at the U. of Utah:
 
Question:  If this is a grand, high-level kitchen experiment -- is this going
on any place else, or is this the kind of process that is currently being
developed by anone else?
Answer:  "We're not aware of any such experiments going on."
 
[P&F had visited our lab at BYU one month earlier, on Feb. 23, 1989, and we
had shown our neutron spectrometer results to them at that time.]
 
Question:  Isn't this an unusual way to make an announcement of a scientific
breakthrough?  Why have you decided to announce this before it's been published
and are all of us who do stories about a breakthrough going to be stung when
your peers get to read this?
Answer:  There is a scientific paper being submitted to a journal.  We have
chosen to have a press conference this afternoon, frankly because the results
are so exciting there were beginning to be rumors, there were beginning to be
discussions and, and very unusual things.  We decided it would be better to set
the record straight, so to speak."
 
Question:  Where have you submitted the paper and has it been published?
Answer:  We can't comment on that because of the publication niceties.  We
expect the publication to appear in May.
 
 
What a story.  And the saga continues.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Starting the Design
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Starting the Design
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 02:03:18 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Aug18.032907.26626@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   I wrote:
 
   >>At best operating conditions, heat transport can be 1000-2000x copper.
 
   > Isn't this misleading?  Sure between the inner copper box surfaces the
   > heat transport might be high, but it still has to pass through two
   > thicknesses of copper.
 
   It depends on which direction you are interested in. Tom wants lots
of lateral heat transport inside the puck.  The amount of such
internal lateral transport will be independent of the transport
through top and bottom surfaces.
 
   >>A piece of felt cut to fit would do fine on the bottom.
 
   > And a thickness of felt ...
 
   ????  In Tom's application, he wants low (but predictable) vertical
heat transport, and high lateral transport.  But in any case, the
vaporization should occur at the felt/copper interface, unless there
is too much liquid, in which case transport through the liquid is the
issue, not through the felt.
 
   >> Welding copper is difficult
 
   > But it is readily soldered, which should work for the temperature ranges
   > the calorimeter would likely ever run in.
 
   Yes, I figure Tom knows that too.  But, in the systems we are
discussing, a lead/copper or copper/tin combination would have
corrosion problems.  Imagine keeping a copper pot simmering for three
months, now figure what happens to that hole in the bottom you
soldered up.  Uh-huh.  Silver solder should be okay, and I think I
mentioned it especially in the context of aluminum, where somewhat
paradoxically I expect less of a corrosion problem. (The aluminum
surface forms a protective oxide surface, and the silver solder is
relatively immune to attack as long as there is no galvanic action.)
 
   I have done this stuff.  Copper is a bitch to weld, for all the
reasons you want to use it in this sort of application.  A much better
alternative is to plate with silver or tin, and solder with the same
metal.  (Two qualifications: You can do a real nice electrical spot
weld, if you have two pieces with a very small contact area.  I've
even made copper rings by using induced current for welding.  And if
you have the right specialized equipment, it is neat to be able to
bring two clean, flat, bright, and degassed surfaces together in a
vacuum chamber.  Only way I found to make some shapes, but too
expensive for production use.  But outside of that, the job of heating
the work area without nearby areas softening and flowing is a real
pain.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / James White /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 04:27:40 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

 
 
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> 2. Carbonate? Are you thinking of CO2 out the air? There would certainly be
>    some carbonate initially, but the cell releases a lot of gas, and
>    atmospheric gases can't easily get in.
 
The rate of gas release during the long precharge is actually quite small.
And there is experimental evidence suggesting that outside air can easily
get into this sort of cell. I can recall some cells at Texas A&M that were
assayed and found to have as much as 30 percent H2O, apparently from exchange
of D2O with H2O from the atmosphere. And if I remember right, Tom Droege
had almost complete neutralization of the electrolyte in his first closed
calorimeter. (The carbonate had gotten in through the bubbler. That was
one reason he switched to the syringe.)
 
> Are you suggesting 40 mol CO2?
 
No. I am suggesting partial neutralization of the .1 mol LiOD with
carbonate. The idea is that carbonate might act as a catalyst to produce
peroxide at the anode, similar to what sulfate does in the commercial
process; perhaps with lower current efficiency but without the parasitic
side reaction.
 
> It really does not matter what the cathode is covered with, or what the metal
> is; it's a cathode, at a rather negative potential, which would make short
> work of every peroxide anion coming to it.
 
Anions are strongly repelled from the cathode. At the high Ph of the cells,
the peroxide will exist mostly in neutral form, with a small amount in anion
form, and essentially nothing in cation form. Any peroxide anions attracted
to the anode will probably be converted back to neutral peroxide.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Chuck Sites /  Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 04:56:04 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <tmwatson-160893223858@nubs21.ccs.itd.umich.edu>,
>Tim Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Fusion involves quark interactions via the strong force. Electrons do not
>>interact strongly. Therefore, their interactions with nuclei are through
>>electromagnetism, so that we would expect a fusion reaction to involve
>>the nuclei - it could create phonons DIRECTLY.
 
>     While I would certainly expect a fusion reaction to involve the
>     nuclei, I don't know what to make of creating phonons 'directly'.
 
>     Anyway, please take a minute and calculate the number of lattice sites
>     necessary to take a D-D fusion reaction without breaking bonds before
>     speculating further.
 
Ohhh... A challange.  How about your estimates first Dale.  After all,
it is common knowledge. right?
 
>                           dale bass
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Strong force chemistry
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strong force chemistry
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 05:11:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug19.024522.25632@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>
>the the ocupation of sites n! degenerate.  As others have noted,
>a system of bosons like being in the same low energy state.
 
    Look at a system of D's floating around in a Pd lattice
    at, say 20C, and tell me which state this is.
 
>  Still I don't think you are seeing the problem in the right way.
>Sure we have a lattice far larger than nuclear dimensions, but
>the range of the strong force can extend as much 1E-13m as seen
>by scattering.  That's what(?), 0.2E-3 Angsrtroms of a lattice
>spacing?  In a lattice spacing of aprox 1.7 for tetrahedral-octahedral
>occupation sites in beta-phase Pd, that gives a good spacial probability
>for interaction at focused beam point of high energies D+ of similar
>dimensions.
 
     You're still on subgrid scales; You've got six orders of magnitude to
     go.
 
     Good luck.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply to Richard Shultz's obfuscation
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 06:12:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Aug19.045604.28839@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     Anyway, please take a minute and calculate the number of lattice sites
>>     necessary to take a D-D fusion reaction without breaking bonds before
>>     speculating further.
>
>Ohhh... A challange.  How about your estimates first Dale.  After all,
>it is common knowledge. right?
 
     My estimate is implicit in my last posting.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: The Amazing Miracle Hole-Size (TM) (was Re: Stable
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Amazing Miracle Hole-Size (TM) (was Re: Stable
temperature after electrolysis)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 06:44:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CBzwo0.Cwx@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>(Jed Rothwell writes:)
>>A graph in the paper shows a temperature of 100 C that remains stable even
>>after all of the electrolyte is exhausted and the cathode is dry. This is
>>counter-intuitive; it confused many people, including me.
 
>     Absolutely, which is why *detailed* descriptions of experiments
>     are so important.  We may not have been forced to speculate had
>     the calorimeter been described in detail.  The figure seems to
>     indicate venting to the outside, the description indicates venting
>     to the outside.
>
>     I've had little success reading the minds of P&F for the last
>     four years, why should I (or you) be more successful now?"
>
 
I find Rothwell's blind belief more amusing by the day. Consider: the
so-called reflux condensation would require a heat source. This, according
to P&F (and sworn by Rothwell), is the CNF of the cathode that is sitting
_dry_ regardless of whether there is any water in the bottom of the device
or not.
 
If this was the case it would require a very high heat flux in the free
air around the cathode in order to couple anough of it to the water to
continue it's boiling and reflux condensation. It would certainly be
much hotter around the cathode and consequently in the air surrounding
the thermal measuring device. I'm quite certain that it would be too
great to allow condensation of any sort to occur.
 
The alternative theory is that as the water is boiled off it leaves the
Li behind which shorts the input current wires and causes the very high
local heating that is supplying the water vapor for refluxing and the
melted Kel-F which is proof positive of the _source_ of the heat.
 
Jed -- can you spell S-U-C-K-E-R? Or do you enjoy being had?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Neutron blabla
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron blabla
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 21:41:15 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Aug23.120423.3354@news.sara.nl>
Bart van Deenen <vdeenen@phys.uva.nl> writes:
 
[many pages of someone _else's_ already very weak humor deleted]
 
>------ ain't life a beach ------
 
Um, yes.  With you as one of the less interesting grains to be found upon it.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.23 / Jan Isley /  CFV: sci.energy.hydrogen (repost)
     
Originally-From: votes@bagend.atl.ga.us (Jan Isley)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research,
ci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.systems
Subject: CFV: sci.energy.hydrogen (repost)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 21:19:35 GMT
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

*** The original CFV was posted to two lists of newsgroups.  I have
*** some indications that the second post did not get out as good as
*** it should have, so this is a repost.  From the original:
*** Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net, mwj@lanl.gov
*** Message-ID: <sci.energy.hydrogen-CFV1@uunet.uu.net>
 
***  CALL FOR VOTES (1st of 2) ***
 
Creation of the unmoderated group sci.energy.hydrogen
 
Newsgroups line:
sci.energy.hydrogen             All about hydrogen as an alternative fuel
 
Votes must be received by 8 Sep 1993, 23:59:59 UTC.
 
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For
voting questions only, contact Jan Isley at jan@bagend.atl.ga.us
 
For questions about the proposed group, contact Robert Cinq-Mars
at RCIN0839@URIACC.URI.EDU or CINQMARR@VADER.EGR.URI.EDU
 
This CFV will be sent to the following mailing lists:
 
     HYDROGEN@URIACC.URI.EDU  (Hydrogen List)
     EV@SJSUVM1.BITNET        (Electric Vehicle List)
 
STANDARD VOTING INFO
 
You should send MAIL (posts to a group are invalid) to
 
      votes@bagend.atl.ga.us
 
(just replying by MAIL to this message should work).  Your mail
message should contain ONE AND ONLY ONE of the following statements:
 
      I vote YES on sci.energy.hydrogen
or
      I vote NO on sci.energy.hydrogen
 
Please, do not include this entire post, just the one line vote.
You may add a comment, but anything other than a definite statement
involving the group name and "yes", "no", "for", or "against" on a
single line may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.
If you later change your mind you may also use send in an "abstain"
vote in the same manner, using "abstain" in place of "yes" or "no".
Votes will be acknowledged by mail.  Subsequent CFVs will have a list
of bounced acks only.  A mass ack will be posted after the vote ends.
 
Standard Guidelines for voting apply - one vote per person (not per
account).  100 more YES votes than NO votes and 2/3 of all votes being
YES are the requirements for group creation.
 
Charter
-------
    The purpose of sci.energy.hydrogen is to promote a better
understanding of the concepts, terminology, materials, processes
and issues relating to the production, storage, transportation,
and use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
    The goal of this newsgroup is to stimulate growth and interest
in the use of hydrogen and to encourage the development of an
environmentally sound energy infrastructure.
    Subscribers are welcome from universities, government,
and industry and are encouraged to post all pertinent news,
information, research, references, product and service announce-
ments, conference and seminar notices, government procurements,
and the general discussion of topics.  It is of particular
importance to the group that a strong and serious effort be made
on the part of each subscriber to post all important, relevant,
public domain information, such as: Masters theses; Ph.D. dis-
ertations; press releases; government R&D announcements,
solicitations, procurements and awards; technical abstracts,
research reports and memoranda.
    A bi-directional gateway will be used to connect this
newsgroup with the Internet hydrogen listserver list.
 
Summary
-------
 
Sci.energy.hydrogen is a forum for the exchange of information
and ideas pertaining to the production, storage, transportation,
and use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
 
There will be bi-directional gateway with HYDROGEN@URIACC.URI.EDU
 
This CFV will appear in two separate posts in the following groups:
 
news.announce.newgroups   news.groups
sci.chem                  sci.energy     sci.engr.chem
sci.environment           sci.physics    sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.research      sci.research   sci.space
sci.space.shuttle         sci.systems
--
Jan Isley, the Knight who says ACK, can be reached at
jan@bagend.atl.ga.us  or  mathcs.emory.edu!bagend!jan
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenvotes cudfnJan cudlnIsley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Convection, too.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Convection, too.
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 04:39:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930823171142_72240.1256_EHK40-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>It just occured to me that in discussion of the water vapor in test tubes,
>we have touched upon conduction, but not convection. There has been some
>talk about how a mix of H2O and D2 gas might be a better conductor than just
>H2O, and a comparison of water vapor versus liguid, but it just occured to me
>that with a steam radiator in an apartment building the heat is transported
>very efficiently through the building.
>
>In the P&F cell (and in the test tubes my friends are working with), I don't
>think the vapor remaining after boiling takes the heat out the top. I think it
>transports it from the cathode or electric heater over to the sides of the
>cell, which are cooled by the cooling water.
 
    My understanding of the device was that it was vacuum insulated.
 
    And convection is exactly the reason the water goes out the top.
 
>Hysterical people who have been posting messages about this process, and asking
>how to find out how big the hole at the top of the cell is, should shut their
>traps for a moment and look at the schematic in the paper. The approximate size
>is easy to determine
 
     No, *you* offered the 'Miracle Hole Size' as a conjectural
     'explanation' of the in-cell temperature stability.  As far as
     'approximate' size goes, any *good* scientist knows not to
     rely on nonmeasured drawings inadequately described in
     published papers.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Jim Bowery /  Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 09:23:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rscott@ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott) writes
>jim bowery writes:
>
>>Due to the fact that many of my opinions are unpopular, my INTERNET access
>>has, for some months, been reduced to two groups:
>>
>>sci.physics.fusion and sci.space.
>>
>>In that other group to which the guardians of the public interest have
>>allowed me access (those of you who find me "obnoxious" would probably find
>> it fruitful to complain to my sysop as he might remove my access from even
>> sci.physics.fusion despite the fact that his feed is paid for by our
>
>is it really possible that you are unpopular?  i certainly would like
>to live in a society where your brand of nazism was recognized and
>shunned for what it is,
 
You wish I were a nazi because that would make it easy for you to
avoid thinking.  There is no greater crime in a world of mass-media
zombies, than to make them think.
 
>but i can't help feeling that this society is
>being hypocritical in its repudiation of you, since your philosophy
>is so deeply in tune with this society's true nature.  it must be your
>personality rather than your philosophy that makes people despise you.
>you're too transparent.  but even if you yourself do end up blowing
>your brains out in a bunker somewhere, it's all too likely that the
>nightmare future of eternal race war that you advocate will come true.
 
Your statement that I advocate a race war is a libelous, bald faced lie.
 
I hereby demand that you publicly retract your statement.
 
For the record, here is what I advocate:
 
An expanding frontier so that all life can increase in diversity and
scope.  A consequence of this is that genetic groups and cultures which
are adapted to lower population densities, such as my own, aren't
displaced and thereby eliminated by the encroachment of groups which
are better adapted to higher population densities.
 
I certainly believe that a "race war" of sorts is already in progress,
but it isn't the murderous, patriarchal, violent, technological and overt
genocide that Hitler advocated -- in which "breathing room" is created
for rural groups better adapted to lower population densities.
 
It is the cuckolding, matriarchal, fraudulent, political and covert "erocide"
advocated by the likes of Starhawk, Erica Jong and Margot Adler in which
"imminent" or "intimate" population density remains the same or increases
while shifting population genetics and cultures away from low density
adaptations toward groups adapted to more cosmopolitan, higher population
densities.
 
In a peaceful growing environment, there is an equilibrium between the
frontier and encroachment that prevents erocidal destruction of pioneering
populations.  In our current environment, with bureaucracies like NASA, DoE
and GM blocking progress, encroachment is displacing the most pioneering of
genetic and cultural adaptations at an unprecedented rate.  The genetic
losses will never be recovered and the cultural adaptations are not as
easy to recover as many would like to believe.
 
The most important difference between Hitler and myself is that I advocate
a positive sum response to this "war" against my group (I certainly can
 lay claim to membership in this group since every one of my ancestors
 were here in the New World prior to the revolutionary war, including
 some native american ancestors) by expanding life into lifeless domains --
thereby creating a substrate for life, including human populations of
greater diversity than now exist on earth.  The neo-nazis hate people like
me more than they hate jews because I deflate the basis of their hatred
by better articulating the sources of their hatred than they can, and then
have the audacity to claim all the erocide in the world doesn't justify a
genocidal response.  I leave them with only one moral route of escape.
 
I believe that Hitler's genocidal response was as immoral as your
pernicious erocidal attacks against my people (even if they also
 happen to be yours).  Slander, lies, fraud, deceipt, intrigue, politicks
and social manipulation are your weapons.  I have renounced my weapons
of violence, force and technological genocide and am left only postive
applications of my strengths.  Your strengths are just as important if
you would likewise morally constrain yourself.
 
Erocidists simply can't tolerate anyone who recognizes the
moral bankruptcy of the monstrous erocide that is going on and isn't
afraid to declare its evils.  Even one voice speaking the truth is
too much for the erocidal forces to tolerate these days.  To correct
the correctors is to expose their fraud and therefore expose them
to retribution by those they have defrauded.  The erocidists hate
and fear such exposure of their con game more than even neo-nazi
kooks, because it not only deprives them of their sick adaptation, but
it may provide some moral support for genocidists who would use it as
justification to cart them all off to the most efficient form of
exterimination technology can provide.  So rather than risk this ultimate
horror, they must continue to suppress the truth of the situation and
perpetrate ever greater erocidal crimes.
 
No wonder hatred is metastasizing so rapidly.
 
Just renounce erocide as I have renounced genoicde.  Support people
like me rather than undermining us.  Admit your criminal wrong-doing
and you will be forgiven.  You are your own worst enemy when you attack
those who have committed themselves to positive sum games.
 
>you are an evil buffoon, perhaps dangerous, more likely just an
>inconsequential addition to the shitpile of history.  why not do
>yourself and everyone else a favor and commit suicide right now?
 
Aside from the fact that I don't want to?
 
Because there is a lot of work to do in very critical areas and there
are very few people around doing it.  If you would look around rather than
cursing the light, you would see clearly that the only way of preventing
the Hitlerian "race war" is to throw your entire weight behind the
creation of a positive sum environment.
 
Create fusion.  Promote access to space.  Help promote mareculture in
the desert portions of the oceans...  all in preference to further
expansion of terrestrial agriculture and urbanization.
 
You would learn that, as in relations between the genders, the way to
deal with hatred is not to hatefully condemn it, but to transmute it
into love through maintanence of pure identities so we can discover
complementary fits through random experiments in hybrid vigor.
 
Different species -- different cultures -- different genetic groups --
all combined in varying degrees of separation and intimacy at varying
scales.  Think of the Mandelbrot Set.  It's diversity exists at all
scales rather than being a pure "least common denominator" or pure
"discrimination."  It embodies nature's politically incorrect model of
diversity.
 
What does this all have to do with fusion?
 
Everything.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Todd Green /  Heat Balance and Peltier Effects
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Balance and Peltier Effects
Date: 24 Aug 93 19:23:50 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

Maybe somebody can help me out calculating Peltier effects in F&P type
electrolysis cells at the junction between the Pt lead wire and the
Pd (or PdDx) cathode. The basic data I have is absolute thermoelectric
powers for the following elements/compounds:
 
Pt = -9.00 microvolts/K
PdH0.7 = +18 microvolts/K
Pd = -6.8 microvolts/K
 
from which you get (at 298 K) Peltier coefficients of -2.682 mV, 5.364 mV
and -2.038 mV. The heat effects for 1 amps are:
 
Pt-Pd junction:    -2.682-(-2.038) * 1 = -0.656 mW
Pt-PdH0.7 junction:  -2.682-5.364  * 1 = -8.046mW
 
So far so good (I think...) but I can't figure out the sign convention for
Peltier effects and don't know if  the above junctions are evolving  or
absorbing heat? Overall, it looks like a small effect but I would like to be
able to make a definite statement about whether cooling or heating is going on.
There is also a Peltier effect associated with the electrode-electrolyte
interface but I shudder to think how that effect might be estimated.
Anyway, and advice (or corrections) are welcome...
 
----
todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Grasping at straws
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Grasping at straws
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 15:14:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue is forever grasping at straws. He is desperate to find something
-- ANYTHING -- to prove that calorimetry does not work. This time he came up
with:
 
     "John Logajan has given yet another reason not to put too much faith in
     results obtained with simple conduction calorimeters.  If the composition
     of the gas in the head space above the electrolyte changes and that in
     turn results in a change in the calorimeter constant..."
 
Right. Sure. And why doesn't this magical effect show up with ordinary
electrolysis? Why does electrolysis with Pt + D2O or Pd + H2O show a balance
of zero in all regimes, from lukewarm to boiling to boiled-away? The gas space
composition should be the same chemically whether a CF reaction occurs or not
(except for the addition of a few million atoms of helium, I suppose). Nobody
"puts faith" in any results, they perform careful calibrations and blank
experiments which prove they are right. The only statements of "faith" in this
field are the undying fantasies of the "skeptics" who devoutly wish to deny
that simple scientific instrument today still work exactly the same way they
did 200 years.
 
Here are the facts: with a properly designed calorimeter, and with careful
testing and multiple blanks, the kinds of "problems" that Richard keeps
dragging out can all be accounted for easily. 99% of them are so tiny that
they are within the noise. The others are quite consistent and can easily be
detected and adjusted for. If Richard would stop running his mouth and perform
an experiment or two he would know that. Simple conduction calorimeter has
been know to work within reasonable bounds of accuracy and precision since the
late 18th century. That is a *fact*, and nothing Richard says can change it.
He is trying to prove that day is night.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Jed Rothwell /  I said "work"
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I said "work"
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 16:23:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I wrote:
 
     "Why was there only a single sentence about their [the EPRI] work in
     473 pages [of the Taubes book]?
 
Joshua Levy responded:
 
     "Taubes discusses EPRI in BAD SCIENCE.  He discusses their funding
     of the SRI work on pages 462.   He discusses their funding Bockris (page
     404), and NCFI (page 408) and Huggins attempt to get funding from them
     (page 228).  The conference EPRI ran is discussed (pages 378-384).  And
     so on.  In short, Taubes did not overlook the EPRI, unless Jed is using
     some different definition of the word 'overlooked'."
 
I said "work."
 
I am aware of all of these items; they were in the index. However, there is no
discussion of the EPRI/SRI work. That is: their research, results, the papers
they wrote. EPRI/SRI has stated publicly on many occasions that they have
found heat 10 to 100 times greater than any chemical process can generate.
This information was in their papers, in New York Times, Business Week, the
Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere. Taubes never mentions it.
 
This is supposed to be a book about a field of science. EPRI/SRI is one the
biggest, most important, most credible players in this field. The fact that
Taubes never mentions a word about what they have done and what they claim
demonstrates that he is not writing about science.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Al Boehnlein /  Re: Trying to build a Heat Pipe
     
Originally-From: ajb@iti.org (Al Boehnlein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Trying to build a Heat Pipe
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 14:55:45 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>Design Status #3 - Boy Scientist May Reach Middle Age Before Heat Pipes Work.
 
>Looking in my liquor cabinet, I found a fifth of DeKooven Gin, ($3.29 so you
>know how old it was - I don't drink gin.)  So I hauled it, a 24" length of Al
>tubing, some rubber stoppers some 1/16 od brass tubing and a stepladder as an
>equipment stand out on the lawn.
 
I seem to recall that water works realy great in a heat pipe.  Water will
boil all the way down to the triple point, in a vacume.  Maybe one way to
achive this vacume is to look towards how your mother cans veggies.  She
raises the temp, bringing the partial presure of the water up to the air
presure, resulting in a pure enviroment of fully saturated water vapor,
driving out all of the air.  She then caps the jar and lets it cool.  Also,
I seem to recall that the tubes should only have a small quanity of water in
them.  The idea is for the water vapor to transport the heat, not the liquid
water.
 
 
good luck.
 
 
ajb
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenajb cudfnAl cudlnBoehnlein cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Everything is a quote
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Everything is a quote
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 17:17:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones is one of many people who fell for a journalistic trick:
 
     "I need to clarify something in a hurry:  the quote about no high-class
     person coming from Bethlehem, Salt Lake City, etc. in Taubes' book was
     his quoting someone else.  (I tried to say that, but perhaps it wasn't
     clear.) He was using the quote to support his arguments, but I don't
     think we should read neo-nazism into Taubes' psyche.  Actually, it is his
     reading my mind (and others) that I so much object to..."
 
The book is written very carefully, as if by a crafty lawyer. It keeps Taubes
himself clean. Over and over again he reports what *other* people say, he digs
up allegations and lies galore, but they are from other people, not him. He
himself seldom adds anything. Like Steve, the average reader soon stops
noticing this. The worst that Taubes himself does, as far as I can see, is make
fun of people's religion, their eyeglass prescriptions and their faces. This
is sophomoric but it is not the sort of thing people sue about.
 
Ikegami told me he thought the book reads like one long "gossip sheet," [the
Japanese equivalent of "The National Enquirer."]
 
Regarding Steve Jones' attitude: I cannot begin to fathom it. He apparently
wants to disassociate himself from the majority of the people in the field who
have found heat, or theorized about it. These are some of the world's most
respected scientists! Why on earth would Steve be ashamed to have his work
associated with the likes of Pons, Fleischmann, Kunimatsu, Oriani, McKubre,
Schwinger, Hagelstein, Bockris, Ikegami or Enyo? Fleischmann is a Fellow the
Royal Society, former President of the International Society of
Electrochemistry, and presently distinguished advisor to the Ministry of
International Trade and Industry. That's not good enough for Steve Jones? The
work is being conducted in some of the best laboratories on earth, including
those in major corporations like Hitachi, Toshiba, Mitsubishi and Toyota. I
should think that anyone would be honored and pleased to be associated with
such distinguished people and institutions. I would say that to be attacked by
Taubes confers upon a person a Badge of Honor. It is like being attacked by
Bishop Wilberforce in 1860 -- later generations will regard it as proof that
you were right.
 
That's not fair to Wilberforce. He was a saint compared to Taubes.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / John Logajan /  P+F's "heat pipe"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P+F's "heat pipe"
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 93 16:41:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Okay, having established that D2 gas is a fair heat conductor :-) ...
 
D2O vapor is about 6-7 times less effective.  So we don't want too much
D2O vapor in our D2 gas.  But it does possibly serve a slightly different
useful purpose.  It vaporizes at the warm spot and condenses at the cold
spot.  The means that there are localized total gas volume changes in a
D2O/D2 mix.  Volume is increasing at the warm vaporization point, and
decreasing at the cool condesation point.  In addition to the normal
thermal expansion/contraction of gas with temperature, this mechanism
should add an additional "pumping" effect to the convection currents.
 
So although D2O vapor detracts from the static heat transporting ability
of pure D2 gas, it's "pumping" action due to vaporization and condesation
probably improves the D2/D2O system by increasing the dynamic heat
transport mechanism (stirring or convection.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Replies to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 17:54:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First let me say that the exchange between Deiter and I was half in
jest.  I have as much respect for Deiter's role as keeper of the Holy
Bibliography as anyone.  If there was a target for my remarks, it was
people like you, and you did respond in your usual manner.
 
The question upon which you invite discussion relates to coherence in
gamma ray emissions from an assortment of Pd isotopes.  At least that
was the context in which I used the word.  You, however, chose to
bring up a wide variety of other circumstances which don't have clear
connection to CF phenomena in even the broadest definition of that
topic.  The issues over which you and I clearly differ very often
relate to whether nuclear physics as I know it has application to
the reaction processes involved in cold fusion.  I would have a
much easier time if you, or any other cold fusion advocate, would
make a clearcut hypothesis as to what nuclear reaction processes
are involved; but that just doesn't seem to be your style.  You want
to keep using the "it-could-happen" approach, and then insisting that
the skeptics should disprove every possible "it".  As long as "it"
remains undefined you can string this out forever.
 
To answer your question,  I used the word 'coherent' to relate to
situations in which electromagnetic radiation from a collection of
sources is significantly dependent on the relative spatial coordinates
of the sources.  I am willing to include examples that you introduce
in which other macroscopic coordinates play a role if you can show
that there is even a slight possibility that there is some connection.
For example, what would you suggest serve as a mirror for gamma rays
in the MeV energy range?  In the absence of some particular example,
I will assert that a collection of excited palladium nuclei will emit
their characteristic gamma rays with no coherence effects because
the source coordinates (space and time) are randomly distributed.
 
In another of your posts, Mitchell, you say that I asserted that
variations in specific heats were a cause of error in calorimetry.
I think you read more into my statement than I intended.  As I
recall I commented of the variation in heat capacity at a phase
change just as "a point of information".  My main criticisms of
the simple calorimetry techniques employed in CF investigations
were that calorimeters with significant temperature dependences
in the calorimeter constant could not correctly measure heat
pulses and that latent heats could also lead to incorrect results.
Your fond of giving challenges for proof, but let see you "prove"
that a simple calorimeter must give results that are correct to
some arbitrary level of accuracy.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / John Logajan /  Room temperature Bose condensates reverse entrophy
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Room temperature Bose condensates reverse entrophy
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 93 17:07:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Hypothesis:  Room temperature Bose condensates reverse entrophy.
 
Qualitatively speaking, entrophy represents the pool "sameness" of average
particle momemtum due to random particle motion (temperature.)  Entrophy
can be reversed by macro segregation of various energies of thermal
motion, or by reducing the active randomness (degrees of freedom.)
 
To the extent that a (theoretical) Bose condensate at room temperature
tends to force particles into similar states, is to the extent that
degrees of freedom of the system are de-randomized.
 
If the energy remains equipartitioned between the de-randomized and
randomized attributes of the system, then entrophy is reversed.
 
If the energy partition favors the de-randomized attributes, entrophy is
reversed.
 
If the energy partition favors the randomized attributes, entrophy is
reversed (since there are fewer total randomized attributes, and therefore
a higher average energy to partition among them.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / mitchell swartz /  >Effect of gas composition on calorimeters
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: >Effect of gas composition on calorimeters
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 16:32:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9308231752.AA04373@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: Effect of gas composition on calorimeters
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
= "John Logajan has given yet another reason not to put too much faith in
= results obtained with simple conduction calorimeters.  If the composition
= of the gas in the head space above the electrolyte changes and that in turn
= results in a change in the calorimeter constant, the calibrations which
= were supposed to have determined that constant go out the window.  Add that
= to the growing list of problems with CF experiments."
 
  If its a good reason, Dick, why not throw out ALL calorimetric experiments?
     Why just cold fusion?          (pretty selective  .....     ;-)
 
 
=   "Thus a cell calibrated
= with power input from a resistive heater will have air and/or water vapor
= in the head space, lower conduction through the gas, and presumably  higher
= temperature for a given power level.  With oxygen and deuterium being
=  evolved during electrolysis the gas mixture in the head space has a higher
=  conductivity so the temperature is lower and the power level relative to
=  calibrations is systematically underestimated."
 
  Ok, dick.  Let's say you are right.   To the degree that the gas
    head space has a higher thermal conductivity, the sample temperature
    will be lower.   But - Your conclusion appears WRONG!!.
 
           ==== ANALYSIS OF LOGAJAN FACTOR ====
 
   Most systems which maintain isothermal
conditions actually supply heat to the sample.
 
   If the excess heat is Px and the heater power is Ph, the
following equation is assumed (all other conditions kept constant):
 
                       Px  +   Ph  =    constant
 
    This equation allows the unknown power, Px , to be determined as follows.
as Px  (the excess heat) of the sample increases, then the feedback control
 system of the calorimeter normally reduces the input power to the heater (Ph )
so as to maintain the temperature constant.
 
   Therefore any potential increase of heater power (i.e. lower temperature)
would thus tend to hide part, or all, of any measured excess heat.
 
 If the sample temperature falls, secondary to increased thermal conductivity,
  then more heat will be provided, and it will be inferred (to the degree
   that this higher order calculation contributes) that there is LESS
   excess heat caused by cold fusion.
 
--->   The Logajan factor, to the degree that it is important, appears
              to be of a sign that would hide positive results.
 
  Therefore, if John Logajan is correct, then to
the degree that such error contributes, the pioneer cold fusioneers actually
underestimated -- and underreported -- the amount of excess heat achieved.
 
  Now we should determine by how much ..........
 
 
=  "Or if the electrolysis of H2O is used to
= establish the zero level,  D2O could show a systematic excess.  Of course
= the gas composition effect would be just an addition to the effect of
= changes in liquid level."
 
     Take a breath.     Say goodnight, Dick.
     Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Why water vapor leaves the magic hole
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why water vapor leaves the magic hole
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 18:32:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In trying to explain the strange P&F results, Jed Rothwell gets
rather tangled up in some rather simple basic physics.  The basic
requirement for water vapor to exit from the P&F calorimetry cell is
that a pressure differential exist accross the opening in the direction
of flow.  Molecular diffusion presumably is not significant due to the
short mean free path, and convection is limited by the size of the
opening.  A pressure differential can be maintained only so long as
gas is being liberated within the cell, either by the evolution of
gas through electrolysis, diffusion out of the palladium, or evaporation
of liquid electrolyte.  The latter process requires a significant heat
of vaporization so it is controlled predominantly by the heat source
and the availability of liquid.
 
To say that water vapor stops exiting the cell at some time has to
imply that a change occurs in the availability of heat, the
availability of water, or the thermal contact between the heat source
and the water.  The statement that the cell runs "dry" would seem
to say that there is no more water to be evaporated and that all water
remaining in the cell is in the form of vapor.  A heat source in the
confined and well insulated volume would then raise the temperature
of the cell contents unless the heat transfer characteristics of the
cell undergoes some change.  I do not believe that this picture can
be brought into agreement with the reported facts.  Jed suggests that
the cell is not in fact "dry" so we are left with the puzzle as to
why Pons and Fleischmann use this description.
 
If we accept as "fact" Jed's statement that the cell is not dry, and
that some water remains bottom, any assertion that no more vapor leaves
the cell is equivalent to saying that there is no further net vapor
formation and that no heat is expended to evaporate water.  As long
as the cell contents remains at atmospheric pressure the residual
water must then remain at or below 100 C.  The construction of a
consistent picture of what happens over the next three hours of
observations (or is it lack of observations?) defies logic.  The
cell is well insulated by a vacuum jacket such that the contents
should tend to move toward thermal equilibrium.  Thus an heat
source would be expected to continue the evaporation process even
though the rate may be limited by poor thermal contact.  Since the
cell is designed to restrict heat loss to the bottom portion,
the establishment of a reflux cycling of liquid to vapor and back
to liquid with no vapor exiting would have to be a very gentle
process with a very stable heat source well matched to heat losses
through the walls where vapor is condensing.  This picture
precludes the notion that the Pd cathode, now in the vapor above
the remaining liquid, remains a significant heat source.  If
that were the case it would have to elevate the temperature of
the vapor, and that presumably would register on the thermistor
probe.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / Jed Rothwell /  A flurry of messages
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A flurry of messages
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 19:34:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
There has been quite a flurry of messages here. Because of time constraints
and ill health, I have been missing most of them. If anyone requested anything
from me, please e-mail me directly. (I mean serious requests for information
or a clarification.)
 
 
In the non-serious category, I notice some weird comments from Dale Bass. I
will respond to a few, but I don't have time to do this right:
 
     "It is quite interesting that even P&F seem to be worried by
     the goings-on in this forum.  I find that amusing...."
 
Pons and Fleischmann are not the least bit worried by the goings-on here.
 
 
     "I'm curious Jed.  Are certain people from a certain nation in the
     Orient beginning to ask inconvenient questions?"
 
The Oriental nations doing intensive CF research are Japan, Taiwan and
Mainland China. I just got back from Japan, and as it happens, yesterday I had
a long talk with Dr. P.H. Fang who is just back from a six month stay in
China. In these countries, scientists who wish to establish the truth or
falsity of scientific claims do not "ask inconvenient questions." They perform
experiments. If they are able to replicate the work, they judge it correct. If
they are not able to replicate it, they assume some mistake has been made.
Because large numbers of top Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese scientists have
been able to replicate CF heat, neutrons and tritium, these scientists are
quite certain the effect is real.
 
If you think that the Japanese scientists at MITI and Toyota simply take Pons
and Fleischmann at their word, without replicating their work independently
and without going into the labs and looking at the instruments and results
firsthand, then you are either an appalling bigoted racist fool, or else you
know absolutely nothing about how industrial corporations operate. No group of
managers at any corporation in Japan, America, or anywhere else would do
anything that stupid! People do not spend hundreds of millions of dollars on
industrial research and development without checking the results. They do not
verify results by "asking questions," they do it by physical scientific
examination.
 
You ask for a detailed description of the work of Pons and Fleischmann. If you
review their published papers, you will find more detail than you can handle.
I will not do your homework for him.
 
 
     "...would they [P&F] like to admit that the 300C was caused by electrical
     arcing at the wire electrode [after the power was turned off]?"
 
This would be a remarkable admission. Your theory reminds me Tom Droege's
suggestion that the cells are wired in series. The fact that some are on while
others are off did not deter him. The fact that the power switch was off, and
the graphs all show zero input would seem to preclude the possibility of
electrical arcing causing the heat after boil-off, in my opinion.
 
 
     "And more to the point, WHY DON'T WE KNOW SUCH THINGS FROM THE
     PAPER ITSELF?"
 
Because we have not read the paper, have we? I knew such things from the paper
itself, and lots of people I know knew them way better than me. But more to
the point, you cannot expect to be able to pick up one paper in a field of
science and understand the whole thing from start to finish along with all of
its implications. You have to read lots of other papers, by the same authors,
and by others, and you have to have some hands-on lab experience. The problem
with people like you is that you don't have the foggiest idea of how these
experiments work, so you come up with all these lame-brained ideas and
"objections." If you ever spend a week in a lab with test tube and joule
heater, then 99% of your absurd illusions and silly ideas will vanish. I
personally am no good at theories or math -- or even simple arithmetic. I
couldn't balance an equation or a checkbook to save my life. But *at least* I
have enough sense to look closely *at the data and the equipment* and to go
into the labs from time to time and try it myself before I make
pronouncements. There is no substitute for actual, hands-on laboratory work.
 
 
     "I've had little success reading the minds of P&F for the last
     four years, why should I (or you) be more successful now?"
 
I never try to read people's minds. I read their published scientific papers.
If I have questions I ask the authors.
 
 
     "Funny, but I declared the whole field a 'dead parrot', not just
     the paper.  I've seen nothing to change that. I'm willing to bet
     on it.  Are you?"
 
Never. I do not gamble. I regard it as a sin, a concept I take seriously.
I have often risked -- and occasionally lost -- tens of thousands of dollars
in business ventures, and I am risking a great deal of money now on the
prospect that cold fusion will become a viable source of energy. But I do not
bet.
 
 
     "I'm still waiting for Mallove's 'reckoning'.  Have y'all set a
     date yet?"
 
You have obviously never done any original research or developed any new
products in your life. Since that is all I have ever done in my adult life, I
have a different perspective on this than you do. You expect a magical date to
fall out the sky, or a voice from Mt. Olympus to tell us when and how
scientific research will pan out. This is exactly like investing in a new
company and then DEMANDING to know when the investment will pay off. The
answer in every case is that it is impossible to say. As Ikegami says, "if you
know it will work, it isn't science." Any investor who believes in a "sure
thing" is a fool. By the same token, people who invest in a startup companies
and risky ventures like cold fusion without understanding the prospects and
risks are idiots.
 
I have investigated the technical prospects for early development of cold
fusion energy in great detail. It has cost me a lot of time and energy. You
are not able to find out as much as I have, because you do not read Japanese.
Based on what I know, I re-iterate my prediction: there will be prototype cold
fusion power reactors in three or four years (last year I said 4 or 5).
 
You, apparently, have concluded that the prospects for cold fusion power
reactors is poor. I advise not to invest in any business opportunities
relating to cold fusion energy development. That is *all* I advise you. Don't
bother asking me for a detailed explanation, or a listing of my sources.
People like me -- businessmen and capitalists -- NEVER reveal information like
that, unless we are paid far more than it costs us to get the information in
the first place. If anyone wants anything from me, they have to write me a
large check first, or give me some trustworthy, documented inside information
in trade. If you don't care for that ethic, then you should move to North
Korea or Cuba, the only countries left on earth that do not practice free
market capitalism.
 
 
If there are any other messages for me, too bad. I have no time. Regarding the
Taubes attack on Huggins: one graph in the 1990 ICCF1 paper shows excess heat
peaking at 50% over about an hour (Fig. 7, p. 53). I don't care how rotten
your power supplies are, they are not going to have a transient A/C weekend
"ghost" effect this large! Besides, the excess ran most of the 10 day
experiment, right past the weekend. 6% to 7% average excess power including
charge up time. Good paper, check it out. The other crap from Taubes I am not
going to deal with. The whole book is pile of unsubstantiated garbage from
beginning to end. There are no footnotes, no references, no pointers at all...
The thing is so screwy that it is darn near impossible to gage the exact
nature of any particular lie. Digging up and listing all the lies would take
years, and it would be a useless waste of time. If you want to read an
absurdly bigoted view of cold fusion, read Huizenga's book instead. At least
he is a scientist, and he follows the usual conventions of referencing his
statements, which makes it easy to prove he is wrong. It is boring chore to
wade through Taubes, and you can tell by looking that 99% of it is garbage.
 
If you actually want to learn something about the field, start with "Fire from
Ice" and then read the scientific papers. There is no other way. There is no
Royal Road to knowledge.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / mitchell swartz /  Replies to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Dick Blue
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 19:46:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <9308241733.AA17240@suntan.Tandem.com>
     Subject: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU a.k.a.  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] posts:
 
=dblue "First let me say that the exchange between Deiter and I was half in
=dblue jest.  I have as much respect for Deiter's role as keeper of the Holy
=dblue Bibliography as anyone.  If there was a target for my remarks, it was
=dblue people like you, and you did respond in your usual manner."
 
   With targeting like that, we empathize for your friends.
 
 
=dblue "To answer your question,  I used the word 'coherent' to relate to
=dblue situations in which electromagnetic radiation from a collection of
=dblue sources is significantly dependent on the relative spatial coordinates
=dblue of the sources.  I am willing to include examples that you introduce
=dblue in which other macroscopic coordinates play a role if you can show
=dblue that there is even a slight possibility that there is some connection.
=dblue For example, what would you suggest serve as a mirror for gamma rays
=dblue in the MeV energy range?"
 
  I was wrong, and stand corrected,  about the absolute need for mirrors in a
 laser.     In my youth that configuration -- with end-on mirrors -- was
   standard but is no longer necessary.   Population inversion and long
   pathlengths are reported to be sufficient.  Or are those scientists
   who updated me on this by e-mail wrong, too?
 
  Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Info Sheet
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Info Sheet
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 22:06:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sorry, whoever is writing the info sheet on "cold fusion" is burried in the
storm of FD's that arrived today.  I volunteer to write something for it.
Just give me a subjec.  I will even write with the spell checker on.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Why water vapor leaves the magic hole
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why water vapor leaves the magic hole
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 93 21:37:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>As long
>as the cell contents remains at atmospheric pressure the residual
>water must then remain at or below 100 C.
 
I should shut up about this since I'm unsure of the actual geometry,
but if I recall, there was some claim that the dewar would transport
something like 11W at 100C via radiative emission across the vacuum.
 
However, if we have greater than 100C at the source and a gradient
along the cell wall (100C bottom increasing to XXXC) then the thermal
transport out of the dewar would increase -- yet we could have a small
region still at 100C inside the cell.
 
I guess it's critical to find out the exact geometry of the cell and
the thermistor location etc before I speculate further.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: A flurry of messages
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A flurry of messages
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 01:19:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930824183404_72240.1256_EHK46-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>     "And more to the point, WHY DON'T WE KNOW SUCH THINGS FROM THE
>     PAPER ITSELF?"
>
>Because we have not read the paper, have we? I knew such things from the paper
>itself, and lots of people I know knew them way better than me.
 
     Really?  Where is the 'Amazing Miracle Hole Size' mentioned in
     their paper?  Where is reflux condensation mentioned?  Where is it
     even mentioned that the thermister came out of the soup?
     Where is even the most minimal description of the data
     acquisition?
 
     Golly, I must have gotten the wrong paper.
 
>But more to
>the point, you cannot expect to be able to pick up one paper in a field of
>science and understand the whole thing from start to finish along with all of
>its implications. You have to read lots of other papers, by the same authors,
>and by others, and you have to have some hands-on lab experience.
 
     And you have to belieeeeeeve.  Praise be.
 
     Hallelujah.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Greg Kuperberg /  *Bad Science*:  Great book!
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: *Bad Science*:  Great book!
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 01:36:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic & Public Computing

Given all of the negative reaction to *Bad Science:  The Short Life
and Weird Times of Cold Fusion*, I couldn't resist.  I ran out and
bought and I have been thumbing through it for the past few days.
It's the first $25 I have invested in Cold Fusion (a.k.a. Cathode
of Fleischmann and Pons, coldfusion, XS Heat, etc.).
 
It's excellent!  It's MEGA-excellent!  It contains a ton of detailed
information about the sad history of CF.  Hopefully, it will bring
prevent at least some business people from wasting their money on CF
research.  (The scientific community needs no convincing, because it is
more than content with the legitimate, brave, masochistic efforts of
Steve Jones to find any real effect.)  I am waiting for a translation
into Japanese.  Not that I can read Japanese, I just want to see it
done.
 
Although the book is a tour-de-force, I will admit that it isn't
perfect.  Factually, it is unassailable.  It might have a minor
transposition of names or two.  The biggest fault that I find with it
is that there are a few people who Taubes could have been a little
nicer to, principally to Jones.  That is not to say that I think he is
unfair to Jones.  Rather, he glosses over some occasions where his
historical account speaks in defense of Jones, but he doesn't point it
out explicitly.
 
On the other hand, he is nice to Hugo Rossi, Charles Martin, and a few
other semi-believers.  And Fleischmann, Pons, Bockris, Huggins, and a
number of other losers deserve everything the book dishes out to them.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yet another response to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another response to Mitchell Swartz
Date: 24 Aug 93 13:57:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
It's exasperating trying to get through to Mitchell sometimes.
In his postings on 23 August (yesterday), Mitchell states:
 
"Steve Jones, still claiming that electrochemists, radiologists, [etc]
are WRONG and STUPID, now has his BYU student (?,son?) with data "in hand" to
prove this all beyond any doubt."  [Mitchell's capitalizations]
"The burden is on you to explain why everyone is "incompetent" and/or why
everyone's "data" is false."
 
Mitchell is putting words in my mouth which *I* did not use, such as,
STUPID, "incompetent" -- then he attacks me for these.  Even "wrong" and
"false" are missing the mark for the thrust of my scientific criticisms is to
suggest ways whereby *compelling* evidence can be found where such is now
absent.  No, I do not believe 'everyone is "incompetent" ' as Mitchell falsely
accuses me.  But I do believe that those who claim that xs heat is nuclear in
origin (or do to 'hydrinos' or whatever) must show evidence of quantitatively
commensurate products ('ash').  I have made the suggestion that X-rays could
provide a critical test of claims, and I am surprised by Mitchell's resistance
to my suggestion to use X-ray spectrometers in order to test claims of x-ray
production.  It is not so much that I can categorically state that Pons &
Fleischmann or Mills or Miles are flat wrong, as that I find they have not
provided compelling evidence for their claims.
 
My own claims of low-level neutron
production during degassing from deuterided materials is now undergoing
extensive scrutiny and checks in other detectors.  You see, I am not looking
for just another example of rare neutron emission.  Rather, I'm requiring a
consistent signal correlated with an experimental parameter I control, and
found in different types of high-quality detectors.  And I've made suggestions
for others on what they need to do to follow suit.  That does not mean I think
other workers are "incompetent" or "stupid" -- I certainly do *not* think this
at all.  But we have considerable work to do to convince *ourselves* and others
of a novel effect, and to learn the nature of it.  And it certainly is
counterproductive to suggest that compelling evidence is already in hand when
substantial uncertainties remain, or to attack those who are providing
thoughtful criticism.
 
Mitch makes other charges which I have answered before, sometimes months ago.
I will have to return to these later as I have an appointment coming up in
minutes.  Briefly, the Kucherov paper I first cited (months ago) did *not*
mention x-rays, but a later one did -- and I acknowledged this new information.
However, that Kucherov paper did *not* display an X-ray spectrum -- *no one*
claiming CF heat has done this.  I stated before that the Kucherov photo of
an x-ray film exposure was a physical (direct-space) image, evidently.  In any
case, the image provided no direct information regarding the energies of x-rays
present, as a spectrometer would.
 
Quickly:  remember the gamma spectrum of P&F.  They first claimed a peak at
2.2 MeV -- but it was too narrow (etc.) to be real in their detector.  Then
they said it was at 2.5 MeV.  But the MIT guys then looked in the 2.2 MeV
region and showed that the absence of a peak there showed that P&F had *not*
seen neutrons at all!  This exemplifies both the power and the information
content of an energy spectrum.
 
The bottom line is:  if you want compelling
data -- and no investor should invest a penny in "cold fusion" without it --
you have to do
better than dental x-ray film.  I recommend an x-ray spectrometer, and have
even offered use of the BYU portable unit.  Very few have accepted that offer.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / John Logajan /  Some thermal numbers and a glossary
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some thermal numbers and a glossary
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 03:35:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Someone asked this in e-mail, so I thought I'd post the reply here, plus
I add a glossry of thermodynamic terms.
 
> How much heat does D2O vapor absorb?
 
Okay, here are some numbers:
 
To raise one mole of liquid water one degree Celsius takes 18 calories.
To raise one mole of water vapor one degree Celsius takes 8 calories.
To raise one mole of H2, D2, O2 or N2 gas one degree Celsius takes 7 calories.
 
So you can see that water vapor has about a 14% advantage over D2 or air
in heat capacity.  Whereas liquid water is 2.25 times better than vapor and
2.5 times better than air.
 
As I mentioned, though, D2 has about 700% (7 times) better heat conductivity
than water vapor and just 25% (1/4) that of liquid water.
 
But!!!  The heat of vaporization of water is 10,000 calories per mole!!!
In a reflux system this is 1,400,000% (1,400 times) better heat transport
than D2.
 
So if you can get both continuous vaporization and condensation, you can take
advantage of this.  Otherwise you'll have to settle for the remaining choices,
D2 looking better than the rest.
 
 
   --- Thermodynamic Glossary ---
 
Atom = Element (103 known.)
 
Molecule = One or more atoms combined by chemical forces.
 
Mole = 6.02E23 particles/molecules/atoms  (Avogadro's number.)
 
Weight of a mole = Sum of atomic weights of all constituents of each
                   particle or molecule, expressed in grams.  (i.e. a
                   mole of water weighs 18 grams (H2O = H+H+O = 1+1+16).)
 
Calorie, Joule, Watt-hours = Measures of energy.
 
Specific heat = The amount of energy required to raise one unit mass
                (typically grams) of a substance one degree Celsius.
                Specific heat is not constant with temperature.
                A mole of one type of gas molecule occupies the same volume
                at the same temperature and pressure as any other type of
                gas molecule.  Therefore molar heat capacity (below) is
                often a more convenient measure for comparison.
 
Molar heat capacity =  The amount of energy required to raise one mole
                       of a substance one degree Celsius.
 
Volumetric heat capacity = The amount of energy required to raise a unit
                           volume (typically a liter) of a substance one
                           degree Celsius.
 
Thermal conductivity = The rate at which thermal energy will be transported
 
Heat of vaporization = The energy required to convert a liquid into a gas,
                       or the amount of energy liberated when a gas condenses
                       into a liquid.
 
Heat of fusion = The energy required to convert a solid into a liquid, or
                 the amount of energy liberated when a liquid freezes into
                 a solid.
 
Enthalpy = The total thermal energy stored in a unit of substance.  Often
           measured from an arbitrary starting temperature.
 
Entrophy = The thermal energy stored in a unit of substance that is unavailable
           to do mechanical work -- as a result of not having a pool of
           lower temperature.
 
Vapor pressure = The pressure obtained in a starting vacuum above a substance
                 at a given temperature as a result of the equilibrium of
                 vaporization and condensation.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / mitchell swartz /  Yet another response to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another response to Steven Jones
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 05:17:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Aug24.135706.867@physc1.byu.edu>
  Subject: Yet another response to Mitchell Swartz
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] @ Brigham Young University] writes:
 
==sj   "It is not so much that I can categorically state that Pons &
==sj Fleischmann or Mills or Miles are flat wrong, as that I find they have
==sj   not provided compelling evidence for their claims."
 
   Interesting Steve.  I've actually read their papers & would recommend that
   if someone wants to "sink their teeth" into this field, those papers
   authored by the above would be a great first start.
 
   Simply, these peoples' publications are not as you describe.
   Briefly,  Dr.  Fleischmann's recent papers show meticulous care at
generating and measureing excess heat.  They go into considerably more detail
than has been misrepresented here.
 
    Dr. Mills papers I have followed carefully, and although I cannot
see why his version is correct a priori, his model does appear to have some
very successful points.  Without adjustable coefficients
his model does predict ionization energies of many atoms.  This and a few
other calculations succeed where quantum mechanics does not, and where
QM does have success, it appears to require adjustable coefficients.
Furthermore, to those familiar with electrophysics and waveguide theory
there is no a priori reason why Mills' hypothesis is not correct.  He
states that the circumference is an integral number of half wavelengths
of the function which characterizes the electron in the orbitsphere.  The
reader is referred to the theoretical paper and previous postings here.
 
    Dr. Miles has done meticulous work demonstrating the linking of excess
heat with helium production.  His controls were several despite the
previous mischaracterizations here, and many were presented in his paper.
 
    In fact these and other papers which examine high signal/noise
parameters (less so for the helium-4 as I have posted previously) are
compelling.   Or do you dismiss them all?
 
==sj    "My own claims of low-level neutron
==sj production during degassing from deuterided materials is now undergoing
==sj extensive scrutiny and checks in other detectors. ... I am not looking
==sj for just another example of rare neutron emission.Rather, I'm requiring a
==sj consistent signal correlated with an experimental parameter
I control, ==sj and found in different types of high-quality detectors."
 
   Steve, we encourage your work.  If you want to follow the parameter with
what appears to be one of the lowest signal to noise ratios that is your
choice.      It may even be right in the long run.
 
 
==sj "Briefly, the Kucherov paper I first cited (months ago) did *not*
==sj mention x-rays, but a later one did -- and I acknowledged this new
==sj information.
 
  You have been familiar with the papers, as you have posted,
   but have not cited his reported findings again.  It just surprised me that
   it happened again.   I am too busy to comment on this further.
 
 
==sj  "However, that Kucherov paper did *not* display an X-ray spectrum"
 
   It did discuss it however, didn't it?
 
 
==sj "Quickly:remember the gamma spectrum of P&F. They first claimed a peak at
==sj 2.2 MeV -- but it was too narrow (etc.) to be real in their detector.
==sj Then they said it was at 2.5 MeV.  But the MIT guys then looked in the
==sj 2.2 MeV region and showed that the absence of a peak there showed that
==sj had *not* seen neutrons at all!  This exemplifies both the power and the
==sj information content of an energy spectrum."
 
   Steve.  Any spectroscopy yields a lot of information content. and
         there are a lot of them.
 
   But why bring up the old irrelevant issue?
  [It is exasperating attempting to direct Steve Jones to the issues.]
 
   Any comments on the Jones effect which is what the posting was about?
   Your experiments, used to knock cold fusioneers around the world, have
   upon examination tiny power ----->    less than 1 milliwatt.
  Did the current stay the same with the glass tube over the electrodes?
  What was the volume of the electrode?  The time?  solution?
 
  How can you account to erase  60-540+ milliwatt signals by a purported,
  relatively insignificant, (less than) 1 milliwatt alleged error?
 
 
==sj "The bottom line is:  if you want compelling data
==sj -- and no investor should invest a penny in "cold fusion" without it ..."
 
    And we thought the issue was science.
    Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 07:11:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CCAuoJ.DAr@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>   Simply, these peoples' publications are not as you describe.
>   Briefly,  Dr.  Fleischmann's recent papers show meticulous care at
>generating and measureing excess heat.  They go into considerably more detail
>than has been misrepresented here.
 
     You are quite incorrect, we have *quoted* them here.  And discussed
     specific details (or lack thereof).
 
     Just wishing it was different doesn't make it so.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Karel Hladky /  Re: A flurry of messages
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A flurry of messages
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 10:30:05 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
 
: Because we have not read the paper, have we? I knew such things from the paper
: itself, and lots of people I know knew them way better than me. But more to
: the point, you cannot expect to be able to pick up one paper in a field of
: science and understand the whole thing from start to finish along with all of
: its implications. You have to read lots of other papers, by the same authors,
: and by others, and you have to have some hands-on lab experience. The problem
 
: I never try to read people's minds. I read their published scientific papers.
: If I have questions I ask the authors.
 
: If you actually want to learn something about the field, start with "Fire from
: Ice" and then read the scientific papers. There is no other way. There is no
: Royal Road to knowledge.
 
Anyone who's ever actually been through the process of writing and getting
a paper published in a refereed 'learned' journal knows better than to trust
the data in the publications of others.
 
The actual work, i.e. the knob-twiddling, the sample preparation etc. are
done by poorly paid research students or technicians who are unlikely to
publicly admit to any ballsups. There is no mileage in publishing the
descriptions of your failures - this does not attract the money of the
capitalists and research agencies. Since no cash = no employment there is a
strong pressure to come up with results that please the 'boss' and the
sponsor.
 
If you want to learn, don't talk to the authors of the paper, track down the
guy who actually did the work, the lab assistant, the bottle-washer. Only
they know what really went on.
 
Karel
 
--
*Dr.Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel.+44 61-236 6573*CAPCIS Ltd.*
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Jed Rothwell /  Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Compelling evidence
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 13:59:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones writes:
 
     "It is not so much that I can categorically state that Pons & Fleischmann
     or Mills or Miles are flat wrong, as that I find they have not provided
     compelling evidence for their claims.
 
Yes, they do provide such evidence. It is in the calorimetry. No viable,
scientific objection has ever been raised against it -- the absurd and
untenable remarks here and in Taubes book have no merit, they are not
"scientific remarks." They are either wildly incorrect by many orders of
magnitude, like Morrison's "cigarette lighter effect;" or they are
preposterous nonsense, like Dale Bass's theory that electrical arching can
occur without electricity.
 
Pons and Fleischmann, Miles, Kucherov, McKubre, Kunimatsu and hundreds of
others have presented *experimental observations*. They do not need to provide
theories or models to prove that these observations are correct. It does not
make any difference how much these results might appear to fly in the face of
accepted theory. Suppose there was no "ash" and no x-rays (but of course,
there *is* ash); that would not affect the viability of the findings one iota.
 
Steve Jones does not understand the roles of theory and evidence in science.
He believes that a theoretical objection can overrule or cancel out an
observation. Science always works the other way around. This is an immutable
first principle of science. When you ignore it or try to evade it, the way
Steve does, the whole enterprise collapses into chaos. All objective standards
disappear. If replicated experimental evidence is no longer accepted as the
basis of science, then any damn thing might be true.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 13:10:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <CCAzz4.AxB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Subject: Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
Cameron Randale Bass): crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
 
=db  "You are quite incorrect, we have *quoted* them here.  And discussed
=db  specific details (or lack thereof) (of Dr.  Fleischmann's recent papers).
=db
=db     Just wishing it was different doesn't make it so."
 
  Let's just agree to simply disagree.
  Having read their papers and others in this field, including those
papers that are purportedly "negative", it is yourself that is incorrect.
 
  The points are often missed.  And furthermore, your (royal "you")
response to their response and papers is apparently, including and
especially when quantitation is included,  not of significance.
 
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / mitchell swartz /  Room temperature bose condensates reverse entropy
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Room temperature bose condensates reverse entropy
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 14:55:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Aug24.170740.4375@ns.network.com>
     Subject: Room temperature Bose condensates reverse entrophy
John Logajan [logajan@ns.network.com] writes:
 
"Qualitatively speaking, entrophy represents the pool "sameness" of average
particle momemtum due to random particle motion (temperature.)"
 
  Is similarity of states, or their actual number, important?
 
  Entropy (S) is the number of accessible states available
 to the system at energy of E.   If # is the number of such states
 
               Entropy:     S =  k  ln(#)
 
    Temperature is defined as the reciprocal of the change of the number of
             those  states to increasing energy
 
         Temperature:       1          d ln (#)
                         -------  =  ------------
                           k T          d E
 
Hope this clarifies.    Best wishes.
 
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                                  mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 14:50:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CCBGLt.7o9@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass): crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>=db  "You are quite incorrect, we have *quoted* them here.  And discussed
>=db  specific details (or lack thereof) (of Dr.  Fleischmann's recent papers).
>=db
>=db     Just wishing it was different doesn't make it so."
>
>  Let's just agree to simply disagree.
>  Having read their papers and others in this field, including those
>papers that are purportedly "negative", it is yourself that is incorrect.
>
>  The points are often missed.  And furthermore, your (royal "you")
>response to their response and papers is apparently, including and
>especially when quantitation is included,  not of significance.
 
     You are absolutely right, I saw no discussion of the 'Miracle
     Hole Size' anywhere in the papers.  Nor any other detailed
     experimental discussion.
 
     I must have missed it.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Robert Scott /  Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
     
Originally-From: rscott@ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
Date: 25 Aug 1993 15:08:13 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook

jim bowery writes:
 
>Your statement that I advocate a race war is a libelous, bald faced lie.
>
>I hereby demand that you publicly retract your statement.
 
 
i stand by my original statement.  the fact that you yourself are too
stupid to understand the consequences of the policies that you advocate
does not excuse you from responsibility for those consequences.  i
don't recall seeing any evidence of recognition on your part that you
are just a faithful servant of adolf hitler, but that is in fact what
you are.
 
(note that i am the person signing this message and my previous
message.  i am not the person whose name appears as the owner of the
account.)
 
i think i've pretty much already said everything to you and about you
that's worth saying, so please excuse me from any further participation
in your attempt to clutter up usenet with discussion related to you and
your lunatic ideas.
 
 
>>you are an evil buffoon, perhaps dangerous, more likely just an
>>inconsequential addition to the shitpile of history.  why not do
>>yourself and everyone else a favor and commit suicide right now?
>
>Aside from the fact that I don't want to?
 
 
aw, come on- please?
 
 
 
-james dolan
(student at university of california, riverside, as of fall '93 quarter)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrscott cudfnRobert cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / S Wasserbaech /  Failure of QM?
     
Originally-From: wasser@hardy.u.washington.edu (Steven Wasserbaech)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Failure of QM?
Date: 25 Aug 1993 16:22:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <CCAuoJ.DAr@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
(stuff deleted)
>    Dr. Mills papers I have followed carefully, and although I cannot
>see why his version is correct a priori, his model does appear to have some
>very successful points.  Without adjustable coefficients
>his model does predict ionization energies of many atoms.  This and a few
>other calculations succeed where quantum mechanics does not, and where
>QM does have success, it appears to require adjustable coefficients.
 
This sounds like big news, but I must have missed it.
Some predictions of quantum mechanics are incorrect?
Is there something besides cold fusion that QM does
not explain?
 
                               Steve
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwasser cudfnSteven cudlnWasserbaech cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Heat Pipe is Tested
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Heat Pipe is Tested
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:12:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Design Status #4 - Boy Scientist is Looking Towards Retirement - Part 1.
 
Last night it was out on the lawn with a bunch of stuff and a card table.
First I used a tube cutter to remove the crimp from the end of the 1/16" fill
tube.  It made an encouraging sssst sound to indicate it had held a pretty
good vacuum.  I used a syringe to load the 36" long pipe with a cap on each
end with Gordon's 80 proof gin ($4.19 a fifth when bought in?  Spare no
expense!).  On one end of the pipe I glued 18, 18 ohm 3 watt resistors.  With
suitable hook up this gave me a 9 ohm heater.  With my lab power supply I
could get about 80 watts into it.  I covered the pipe with a piece of 5/8"
thick foam insulation.
 
Setting the heater to 44 watts with the fill tube up, it took about 45 minutes
to boil most of the tube contents back into the gin bottle through a 1/16" id
Tygon tube.  By making pencil marks on the gin bottle [1] it was possible to
tell when the tube was near empty.  The idea of running with the fill tube up
was to encourage the exiting vapor to carry any residual gas with it.  Note
this melted the foam around the heater and made a terrible smell.  Good reason
to do it out doors.
 
Next I turned off the heater, and pretty soon the pipe sucked back to near the
original gin fill.  Note this is an unstable process.  Nothing much happens
until a few drops of gin make it back into the tube.  This then cools the tube
and the flow rate increases.  Must be careful with heated containers.  I once
crushed a very beautifully constructed copper vessel that I had built back in
Kentucky by closing valves in the wrong sequence.  Now it is a flower pot.
 
Next the tube was turned over with the fill tube down.  It did not take long
for the heater to blow out all the liquid.  When gas started exiting the tube,
I turned off the heater, and clamped the exit Tygon tube.  While I was pretty
sure that the wick inside would still hold enough liquid, I released the clamp
and let a small amount of liquid back into the tube after it had cooled
slightly.
 
Next, the brass exit tube was crimped in two spots with the vice grips, I
removed the Tygon tube to the gin bottle and soldered the brass tube before
unclamping the vice grips.
 
A few preliminary tests were pretty discouraging.  By putting my hand on one
end of the tube, I could see no effect on a thermometer on the other end.
With good vapor transport, one would expect an instant change.
 
The tube was insulated through its middle section by hardware store foam
tubing that is designed to keep cold water pipes from dripping.  It does not
stand much heat, so the area around the heater was wrapped with fiberglass
tape, about 3" wide and 1" thick.  The idea here is to force the heat to
conduct up the tube and to exit through the bare section at the top.  Four
blocks from the water machine were attached through holes in the foam at 4"
intervals as T1, T2, T3, and T4.  The Radio Shack unit was used for ambient
temperature Ta.  Temperatures are F.
 
In the sketch below, the tube wall is |, the 5/8" foam is indicated by *, and
the section marked F was wrapped with 1" thick fiberglass tape to a thickness
of about 3".  The heater location is marked H.  Each vertical line is 1".
Each horizontal character is 1/4".
 
                  |
                 _|_
                |   |      Heater          Off            10 Watts
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |      Ta              ----           73.4
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T1 *                  77.1           91.7
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T2 *                  77.2           104.2
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T3 *                  77.3           128.3
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T4 *                  76.7           164.9
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
          F *   |   |   * F
         F  *   |   |   *  F
        F       |   |       F
       F        |   |        F
      F         |   |         F
     F          |   |          F
    F          H|   |H          F
    F          H|   |H          F
    F           |   |           F
    F           |___|           F
    F                           F
    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
 
The first column shows how well the thermometers tracked with the heat off.
The second column shows the steady state after 10 watts was applied.
 
You can quickly see why heat experiments are not so easy and why I keep
worrying about the measurements.  The problem here is to figure out how much
heat goes up the pipe and how much exits through the foam insulation.  Using a
figure of 223 Btu/hr-ft-F for conductivity of copper (like those units?) a
tube diameter of 5/8" and a 0.032" wall thickness, I compute that the tube
alone should have a thermal resistance of 35 F/watt-ft.  This means that if
the full 10 watts is making it up the tube, we would expect a 350 F difference
between T4 and T1.  It is only 73.2 F.
 
Using a figure of 0.015 Btu/hr-ft-F for foam, I compute that the 4" long
section of the foam insulation should have a thermal resistance of 62.5
F/watt.  If we consider the 4" section +/- 2" each side of T4 which is 91.5 F
above ambient then 1.37 watts is lost through it.  Similar computations can be
made at the other thermometer positions.  I will welcome any of you to attempt
a heat balance, and to try to make some statement as to whether the heat pipe
is doing anything.  Using numbers I like, I compute the 8" bare end will have
a thermal resistance of 10 F/watt.
 
My conclusion is that this first set of measurements is not good enough to be
conclusive, though my computation gave about a factor of four over a bare
pipe.  This might be confirmed by using a dummy copper pipe as a control.
 
Do not despair!  There are more measurements, and they will be revealed in
part II.
 
Tom Droege
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]  In some circles, it is considered bad form to place marks on a gin
bottle.  It is well known to create a strong hygroscopic effect on the gin and
after a while the maid gives notice, accusing the family of a lack of culture.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another response to Steven Jones
Date: 25 Aug 1993 18:09:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CCAuoJ.DAr@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>    Dr. Mills papers I have followed carefully, and although I cannot
>see why his version is correct a priori, his model does appear to have some
>very successful points.  Without adjustable coefficients
>his model does predict ionization energies of many atoms.  This and a few
>other calculations succeed where quantum mechanics does not, and where
>QM does have success, it appears to require adjustable coefficients.
>Furthermore, to those familiar with electrophysics and waveguide theory
>there is no a priori reason why Mills' hypothesis is not correct.
 
I still haven't seen any explanation of why, if these sub-quantum levels
are lower in energy than the n=1 level of hydrogen, all of the H atoms in
the universe have not already collapsed to one of these levels.  Since
by coincidence there is a XUV line at 304 Angstroms due to helium which
matches one of these hydrino transitions, there should have been enough time
by now to get all of the H atoms out there to collapse via stimulated
emission.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Karel Hladky
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Karel Hladky
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 23:00:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Karel Hladky says:  "Anyone who's ever actually been through the process of
writing and getting a paper puplished ... The actual work, ... are done by
poorly paid research students or technicians ... If you want to learn don't
talk to the authors of the paper, ... "
 
I don't know how it is where you work, but in High Energy Physics the work is
done by those 300 odd names on the paper.  They are listed in alphabetical
order, with Roy Schwitters (Now head of the SSC and former head of CDF) in
with the rest of the s's.  I think all hands carry their share of the work,
and it used to be hard to tell the senior staff from the post docs and grad
students except by the grey in their hair.  Now you can tell the senior staff
as they are busy filling out sensless paper work, but most of them sneak off
and pull cables or process computer files when it needs to be done.
 
I think this is also true in "Cold Fusion".  I can't speak for P&F, as I have
never had a conversation with them.  But Storms clearly does his own lab work.
McKubre was in the room when Riley was killed, participating in the work.
Mills seems to do most of his own work also.  Possibly only Yang of those
that I have personally contacted let an assistant do most of the work.  The
good people know every detail of their work.
 
It is true that the big experiments have an army of associated technicians.
But these are trained in every detail of their work by the staff.  It is a
very strong tradition in US research that the senior staff does it's share
of the dirty work.  Just this morning I was at a meeting with the top
representative from Argonne National Laboratory to the CDF experiment.  His
hands were bleeding from pulling cables.
 
No Karel, at least in US High Energy Physics, talk to the names on the papers.
They will know all the detail, including how many lead bricks were stacked in
the shielding wall as they likely stacked a few of them.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More Heat Pipe Tests
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Heat Pipe Tests
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 23:01:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Design Status #5 - Boy Scientist Not Yet On Medicare Gets Heat Pipe Working
 
Part 2.  The last data was pretty discouraging.  I figured a different
operating point would allow working out a better fit to the heat flow, so I
set the heater to 20 Watts.  The result is shown on the sketch.
 
In the sketch below, the tube wall is |, the 5/8" foam is indicated by *, and
the section marked F was wrapped with 1" thick fiberglass tape to a thickness
of about 3".  The heater location is marked H.  Each vertical line is 1".
Each horizontal character is 1/4".  Temperatures in F.
 
                  |
                 _|_
                |   |      Heater          Off          10 Watts  20 Watts
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |      Ta              ----           73.4      74.1
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T1 *                  77.1           91.7      163
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T2 *                  77.2           104.2     166
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T3 *                  77.3           128.3     195
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |T4 *                  76.7           164.9     205
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
            *   |   |   *
          F *   |   |   * F
         F  *   |   |   *  F
        F       |   |       F
       F        |   |        F
      F         |   |         F
     F          |   |          F
    F          H|   |H          F
    F          H|   |H          F
    F           |   |           F
    F           |___|           F
    F                           F
    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
 
The first thing we notice is that the difference between T4 and T1 has been
reduced from 73 to 42 F while the power input has doubled.  Clearly a negative
resistance phenomena going on.  Amplifier fans will realize that we should be
able to build an amplifier (or an oscillator) with this device.
 
According to the earlier estimate for the thermal resistance of the bare
section of 10 F/watt, there is 8.9 watts passing T1 which is now 89 F over
ambient.  There should also be 1.4 watts lost through the insulation between
T1 and T2.  Taking an average (knowing nothing better to do - clearly
hyperbolic functions are required) we estimate 9.6 watts between T1 and T2.
This is 0.9 F/watt-ft compared to the earlier computed 35 F/watt-ft for the
copper tube - or a factor of 39 improvement over copper.
 
Some of you will quickly notice that things are not as good between T2 and T3.
I don't know why.  These systems are clearly complex.  Especially with a water
alcohol mix.  Perhaps the top is alcohol only and the bottom of the tube is a
mix?
 
I have one more set of points at 30 watts that I stayed up to 1 AM to get, but
now realize that some of the thermometers had hit the data system limit of 213
F.  With that caveat they also make sense, and the pipe seems to be working
better at higher temperatures.
 
It seems to me that this is appropriate for this forum as we are considering
"cold fusion".  What evidence there is depends on measurements of heat.  My
work continues to show that this is a tricky area.  As one can see from the
above, if "reflux" action is going on, it may have strange consequences.  I
now consider that no experiment should be considered valid unless it contains
multiple independent measurements of the heat flow.  It would appear to me
that any single measurement can be tricked by one of the many mechanisms that
we have uncovered.  I would require at least two measurements of heat flow for
any consideration.  I myself am designing the next experiment with three.  As
far as I know, I am the only one to have done an experiment with two
independent heat measurements.  It has demonstrated a period when one of the
measurements, but not the other, indicated "anomalous heat".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Compelling evidence
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 20:37:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930825134513_72240.1256_EHK33-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>Yes, they do provide such evidence. It is in the calorimetry. No viable,
>scientific objection has ever been raised against it -- the absurd and
>untenable remarks here and in Taubes book have no merit, they are not
>"scientific remarks." They are either wildly incorrect by many orders of
>magnitude, like Morrison's "cigarette lighter effect;" or they are
>preposterous nonsense, like Dale Bass's theory that electrical arching can
>occur without electricity.
 
     Or better yet, having to turn the current off when the cell's
     'dry'.
 
     Or was that 'damp'?
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Edward Lewis /  Re: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and etc., a New Set of Phenomena
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and etc., a New Set of Phenomena
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 21:56:26 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

    In the posting #7483, "EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and
Etc., a New Set of Phenomena," I made a typographical error.  The word
eight in the last paragraph should be eighty.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / Edward Lewis /  cmsg cancel <1993Aug25.215016.7833@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Aug25.215016.7833@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 22:00:31 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1993Aug25.215016.7833@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.25 / John Logajan /  Re: A Heat Pipe is Tested
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Heat Pipe is Tested
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 93 23:31:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>  a tube diameter of 5/8" and a 0.032" wall thickness
>  my computation gave about a factor of four over a bare pipe.
 
I 'pute that this pipe has a copper cross-sectional area about 1/5th that
of a solid copper rod.  So with a little more tuning, you might just get
that gin to replace the copper.  :-)
 
 
 
Here's a real lame isothermal puck idea:
 
\||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||/
+ \||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||/ +
+   \||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||/   +
+     \||||||||||||||||||||||||||/    <---- Copper spool.
+       \||||||||||||||||||||||/       +
+         \||||||||||||||||||/   Shallower angles make the pinch point
+           \||||||||||||||/     more equi-distant from all surface points.
+             \||||||||||/             +
+  Insulation   \||||||/               +
+                 >||<   <---- "Pinch" point. (Great place to put a probe.)
+               /||||||\               +
+             /||||||||||\             +
+           /||||||||||||||\           +
+         /||||||||||||||||||\         +
+       /||||||||||||||||||||||\       +
+     /||||||||||||||||||||||||||\     +
+   /||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\   +
+ /||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\ +
/||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / John Logajan /  Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 03:23:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>                |   |      Heater          Off          10 Watts  20 Watts
>                |   |      Ta              ----           73.4      74.1
>            *   |   |T1 *                  77.1           91.7      163
>            *   |   |T2 *                  77.2           104.2     166
>            *   |   |T3 *                  77.3           128.3     195
>            *   |   |T4 *                  76.7           164.9     205
>Some of you will quickly notice that things are not as good between T2 and T3.
>I don't know why.  These systems are clearly complex.  Especially with a water
>alcohol mix.  Perhaps the top is alcohol only and the bottom of the tube is a
>mix?
 
Looks to me like the boiling/condensation point of your low pressure gin is
about 170-180 degrees F.  You'll get a fairly broad "equi-temperature" span
where the condensation is occuring -- I would think.
 
The vapor is probably "getter'd" out around that band and so things above
are unlikely to get the reflux effect and revert to standard convection
and conductive heat transport.
 
I think you have about a 10K watt unit and you are tickling it with gnat size
input powers.  Your vapor is condensing too far down the length of the
tube (toward the source end) at such tiny powers, perhaps.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Compelling evidence
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:34:54 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
>Steve Jones does not understand the roles of theory and evidence in science.
 
I think you are seriously wrong here Jed. I've heard Steve request many times
for raw data proving a nuclear origin to the excess heat.  While I think
the "evidence" portion is weak, there are enough puzzles trickling into the
journals and such, I'm really open to some new physics in relation to a
nuclear based cold fusion.  For example, the X-ray films.  Here is almost
proof positive of a high energy surface reaction. (It certainly proves at
a minimum an unusal heating pattern), and yet for some reason, no one seems
to be taking Steve up on his offer to utilize his portable x-ray spectrometer.
If the spectrometer show nothing, so what. That gives you two piece of evidence
to clarify the effect your observing.  1.  The X-ray dental film shows an
unusual heat, and or outgassing destribution. 2. What ever phenomenon is
causing the heat, the X-ray emmision by the source phenomena are not a
major component of the reaction products.  However, If it does show an
abnormal peak, then you have your proof. Repeat it again, and the describe
to us how to repeat it, then *we* have proof that the phenomena is real.
 
>He believes that a theoretical objection can overrule or cancel out an
>observation.
 
Haha... I've gathered the impression that Steve's an experimentalist, and
besides, as the the so called true skeptics would point out, your
already going up against a body of theoretical evidence even
to explore the idea of Cold Fusion.  I think your doging the wrong
person for the wrong reasons.
 
Still, theory can take it's own exploritive direction.  It's important
to note that theory and experiment are symbionic. Without one, the
other would not survive, but it is somewhat a game of leap frog.
Sometimes the theorist jump the experimentalist, and sometimes
it's just the reverse. But when it all boils down, it all comes
to the point that we are seeking the truth about the way nature
works.
 
> If replicated experimental evidence is no longer accepted as the
>basis of science, then any damn thing might be true.
 
So be it.  What is true?   Little Green men from Mars, or Bose
Bloch condensates?
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 06:32:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rscott@ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott) aka "james dolan" writes:
>jim bowery writes:
>
>>Your statement that I advocate a race war is a libelous, bald faced lie.
>>
>>I hereby demand that you publicly retract your statement.
>
>i stand by my original statement.  the fact that you yourself are too
>stupid to understand the consequences of the policies that you advocate
>does not excuse you from responsibility for those consequences.  i
>don't recall seeing any evidence of recognition on your part that you
>are just a faithful servant of adolf hitler, but that is in fact what
>you are.
 
That's exactly the sort of sophistry I would expect from a duplicitous
participant in the ongoing erocidal crimes against life.
 
At least my guilt is vicarious -- a product of my racial and ethnic
heritage.  Your guilt, on the other hand, goes beyond that to your
present actions and their destructive impact which is even greater
than that of the "good German" who participated in the politically
correct policies of the Nazi regime.  Every moment your erocidal movement
gains ground is actually your defeat because, unfortunately, it is also a
defeat of life itself in its eternal war against death.
 
Our hope lies not in genocide against your type, but in outpacing you with
progress toward that life's richness; something each of us can contribute
to, as individuals, by giving the "moral principles" espoused by the
hypocritical thought police of erocide the negative credibilty they
deserve.  Your type will join us once the environment is OBVIOUSLY
positive sum.  Until then, it will be up to my people, who are uniquely
capable of recognizing and realizing positive sum potentials, to bring
those potentials to fruition.
 
But before we can free your mind for you, we must free our minds from you.
 
Everytime we see another portrayal of Hitler's genocide, we must think
of the millions of young men so demoralized by erocide that they end up
in sterile lives engaging in the life-threatening emptiness homosexual
intercourse rather than growing into the creative, procreative and
protective potentials of manhood.  We should think of the tens of millions
of families torn apart by a woman programmed to sexual suicide by extended
phenotypical erocide sometimes manifesting itself as "feminism".  We should
think of the one in 3 families in which erocidal rationalizations allow
her to deceptively bears children by a erocidal male and has her mate, a
potential technologist, take on the burdens while the erocidal male
proceeds to the next woman.  We should see the degraded lives of all
children born of such degraded families.
 
But most importantly:
 
We should recognize the psychological burdens that make it impossible for
the technologist to manifest his creative energies within such an erocidal
environment.  We should then think of the entire populations and habitats,
human and other, destroyed for the want of those technologies -- and the
future generations that will suffer from the loss of the technologists's
genetic and cultural predispositions.  We should equally fear the
erocidal characteristics displacing the technologists's as they
relentlessly and mindlessly shift population genetics and culture
toward themselves in manifestations of racism and sexism far beyond
those they so loudly decry.
 
Then we will cease to faithfully follow erocidal "morals" against
"discrimination" concocted only to destroy us by parasites that
recklessly espouse them from the bully pulpits of mass-media, government
and academia -- parasites that bear no such moral burdens and want only
for us to feel pangs of punishing guilt whenever we begin to believe the
manifest evidence of our senses and discriminate between parasites and
producers.
 
When fusion energy becomes available to those who would expand the
frontiers of life, the sterilizing invasion of our thoughts, emotions,
behaviors and very bodies by erocide will seem like little more than a
dimly remembered nightmare.
 
But when we do finally achieve that safe refuge, I hope we, like our
fellow victims of crimes against life, will light a flame and remember
our time of darkness with the saying:
 
"Never again."
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / John Logajan /  Thermodynamic Scorecard
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermodynamic Scorecard
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 06:29:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

                        Thermodynamic Scorecard
                        -----------------------
 
 
Notes: 1 Joule (J) = 1 Watt-second
       1 mole = 6.0221E+23 particles  (602,210,000,000,000,000,000,000)
       Values for deuterium not given if nearly equal to hydrogen.
 
 
Molar heat capacities (energy required to raise one mole one degree Celsius):
 -----------------------------
H2O (liquid)  75 J/mole/degree
H2O (gas)     33 J/mole/degree
O2,N2,H2      30 J/mole/degree
 
 
Heat of vaporization (energy required to transform liquid into gas):
-----------------
H2O 42,000 J/mole
 
 
Heat content at 25C (298K):
 -------------------------
H2O (liquid) 13,300 J/mole
O2            8,700 J/mole
N2            8,700 J/mole
H2            8,500 J/mole
Pt            5,700 J/mole
Pd            5,400 J/mole
 
 
Heat of formation (energy liberated/required to form one mole of substance):
 -----------------------------
N+N    ==> N2   452,000 J/mole   (Gibb's free energy)
H2+O2  ==> H2O  237,000 J/mole
O+O    ==> O2   230,000 J/mole
H+H    ==> H2   203,000 J/mole
H2O2 ==> H2O+O2 100,000 J/mole (from James White 4MJ/liter)
H+Pd   ==> PdH   72,000 J/mole (**** from a very old reference ***)
 
 
Thermal conductivity coefficients (rate of energy transport per unit area):
                                  (as compared to liquid water)
                          heat = k*area*(temp.hot-temp.cold)*time/thickness
 --------------------------
Cu          666.00
Al          383.00
brass       166.00
Pd          120.00
steel        76.00
Glass (typ)   1.05
H2O (liquid)  1.000  @ 100C  (k = 6.8 milliwatt/centimeter/degree)
D2            0.40   @ 300C
H2            0.33   @ 100C
D2            0.25   @ 100C
N2, O2        0.05   @ 100C
H2O (gas)     0.036  @ 100C
Vacuum        low
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 12:53:05 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 or to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, 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..6),
   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 (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Reply to Karel Hladky
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Karel Hladky
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 11:58:02 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
:
: I don't know how it is where you work, but in High Energy Physics the work is
: done by those 300 odd names on the paper.  They are listed in alphabetical
: order, with Roy Schwitters (Now head of the SSC and former head of CDF) in
: with the rest of the s's.  I think all hands carry their share of the work,
: and it used to be hard to tell the senior staff from the post docs and grad
: students except by the grey in their hair.  Now you can tell the senior staff
: as they are busy filling out sensless paper work, but most of them sneak off
: and pull cables or process computer files when it needs to be done.
 
I wish the same were true in electrochemistry. The experiments aren't quite
on the same scale as your stuff, it's all jam jar technology. And not all the
names end up on the papers, do they ? - (cf. P&F paper erratum)
 
Perhaps this is where the whole thing falls down, the high energy physicists
assume that the electrochemistry is being done to the same standard as their
work. Few years ago I had a look at F.'s lab at Southampton. This was before
the CF panic. The place looked very much like the labs here at UMIST. Few
post-docs hanging about and no sign of F. Come to think of it, the place was
even then full of bits of Pt and Pd wire and ancient dc power supplies.
 
Karel
 
--
*Dr.Karel Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)*Tel.+44 61-236 6573*CAPCIS Ltd.*
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / A Christiansen /  periodic Q. Any news on the 20Kreactor
     
Originally-From: alan@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Alan Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: periodic Q. Any news on the 20Kreactor
Date: 26 Aug 93 11:49:50 GMT
Organization: Swinburne University of Technology

Just toput my 2c worth in.
There was a claim that a 20KW cold fusion reactornent
 
Any news
 
Or has it gone the way of the WEB 16 to 1 compression algorithm
 
Try the comp.compression faq for the obvious inside joke.
 
Alan
 
What I believe, What I hope would be true, What I have seen,
What I have decided to treat as true for the purposes of future decision
making until the receit of new evidence.
The number of wild speculative theories per year that I actually
investigate scientifically are all different entities.
 
 
--
Everyone at this site (including me) has my name in their kill file so
I guess I dont speak for anyone.
I guess that that is fair enough no one speaks for me either.
Mail address   alan@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnChristiansen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Jed Rothwell /  They do the work themselves
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: They do the work themselves
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 15:12:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege responded to a comment from Karel Hladky by pointing out that in
U.S. high energy physics the work is done by the people who sign the papers.
Tom also pointed out that Storms, McKubre and Mills (for example) do hands-on
lab work.
 
I agree. The researchers themselves do the work both in the U.S. and Japan.
This is true of all the labs I have visited or have personal knowledge of.
Many workers have no assistants at all. Even at places like NTT, the senior
researchers themselves do the hands-on stuff. Bockris had a few graduate
students doing a lot of the work, and so did Huggins. Bockris is a very
demanding taskmaster, always in tune with what is going on the lab. In every
case that I know of the grad students signed the papers. In fact, with Bockris
and Huggins, the grad students are usually listed as the principle
researchers. Pons and Fleischmann do have assistants, but they are
professional, corporate people, who are well paid and secure in their jobs.
They are not dependent on grants, unlike the people Karel described.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Compelling evidence
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 14:27:01 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>>Steve Jones does not understand the roles of theory and evidence in science.
 
I believe he understands them very well.  He has proved that on several
instances, working on both sides of the fence so to speak, as most good
experimentalists must.
 
In article <1993Aug26.023454.11431@coplex.coplex.com> chuck@coplex.cople
.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>
>Still, theory can take it's own exploritive direction.  It's important
>to note that theory and experiment are symbionic. Without one, the
>other would not survive, but it is somewhat a game of leap frog.
 
Exactly.  Steven J. Gould quoted Immanuel Kant on this issue.  It is
perhaps the most succinct statement of the situation:
 
     Concepts without percepts are empty,
     whereas percepts without concepts are blind.
 
You have to take a few blind shots once in a while in search of something
new, but even those experiments have to be designed with some concept of
what you are going to measure and how that measurement will establish a
new phenomenon.  If not, your *second* experiment must be based on a
careful plan so that it clearly asks a well-defined question and gets a
well-defined answer.  Anything else is a waste of time.
 
The same thing is true of theoretical calculations, by the way, as Kant
makes clear.  The first shot might be crude, but at some point one has
to make contact with experiment or theory turns into metaphysics.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Compelling evidence
Date: 26 Aug 1993 15:35:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930825134513_72240.1256_EHK33-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>Steve Jones does not understand the roles of theory and evidence in science.
>He believes that a theoretical objection can overrule or cancel out an
>observation. Science always works the other way around. This is an immutable
>first principle of science. When you ignore it or try to evade it, the way
>Steve does, the whole enterprise collapses into chaos. All objective standards
>disappear. If replicated experimental evidence is no longer accepted as the
>basis of science, then any damn thing might be true.
 
Mr. Rothwell shows in this paragraph what is at best a dangerously naive view
of the way science really works.  In reality, it is much more complicated than
this simple picture.  The reason for this is that scientific theories can be
considered confirmed to different extents, and the more well-established a
theory is, the more compelling the experimental evidence has to be to
overturn it.  There are several examples of experimental "evidence" that was
rejected because it conflicted with theory.  For instance, in the 1920's
a physicist named Dayton Miller repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment and
got a positive result, i.e. one that implies special relativity is wrong.
Even though his results were published in the standard scientific literature,
nobody thinks that the theory of relativity was overturned by his results.
Another more recent example is the issue of the value of the singlet-triplet
energy splitting of CH2.  Ab initio theoretical calculations had over the
years converged on one value.  Then in the mid-80's an experiment was done that
got a different value.  The experimental number was the one considered suspect,
and only because the experimenter was a Big Name did anyone pay any attention
to it at all.  The experiment caused some controversy in the field, but in
the end, the experimenter repeated the experiment more carefully and discovered
that the theorists had been right all along.
 
Furthermore, while replicability is a necessary condition for an experimental
result to be accepted, it is not sufficient.  If it were, then "any damn
thing" might be true.  After all, were not N-rays, polywater, paranormal
spoon-bending, etc., replicated by sincere scientists in different
laboratories?  There are several factors, as I have mentioned above, that
go into whether a result is believed or discarded.  Besides the question of
whether it conflicts with well-established theory, there is inter alia the
question of falsifiability.  I think that this is a stronger condition for
differentiating science from pseudo-science than Langmuir's "ad hoc theories
contradictory to all experience" condition.  In the case of cold fusion, I
have not seen any experiment that the true believers would accept as
falsifiying it.  Not that it's necessarily false, but that there must be an
experiment that would give a well-defined result if it were.  Thus, if you
look for expected nuclear products and don't find any?  It's "neutronpenic".
If you look for X-rays and don't find any, well, some people did find some,
maybe, but anyway, who needs X-rays?  In the end, the only thing that
CF believers have is one experiment -- calorimetry -- that can tell whether
CF is real or not.  Like it or not, however, the theories of nuclear
interactions are well-established and have great explanatory power.  If
you want to overturn these theories, then you need better evidence than the
calorimetry.  You have to provide the details of an experiment that any
competent scientist can reproduce (and whatever else one might call Nathan
Lewis, "incompetent" isn't it).
 
One might consider, for example, the case of high-temperature superconductors.
It's true that the theory is not so well developed as that that the CF
people would have us overturn, but the point is that after Budnorz and Muller
published their paper, anybody could go and make their own high-T
superconductor and check it out for himself.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
P.S.  And by the way, if calorimetry is so good, why is it that if you look
up literature values for heats of combustion of various substances, which
involves far simpler calorimetry than CF, various values in the literature
frequently differ by more than the stated error limits?
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Jed Rothwell /  What is "theoretical evidence?"
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is "theoretical evidence?"
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 18:15:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Chuck Sites wrote:
 
     "...as the so called true skeptics would point out, your already going up
     against a body of theoretical evidence even to explore the idea of Cold
     Fusion."
 
What in the world is "theoretical evidence?" That is a contradiction of terms.
There are two separate domains in science: theory, and evidence (that is
observations; data). Also, a "true skeptic" is someone who believes the
evidence and not the wind-bag theories of so-called experts. I am a true
skeptic, Richard Blue is a true believer.
 
Steve Jones and many others are trying to prove that the heat measurements are
incorrect, non-existent, or fraudulent because these heat measurements
combined with commensurate helium nuclear ash, tritium, and neutrons prove
beyond any rational doubt that a nuclear reaction of some sort is going on,
and that the principle signature of the reaction is heat. This is a fact. It
is a very inconvenient fact for someone like Steve, who wants the Nobel Prize
for finding what he thought was a low-level, relatively inconsequential and
non-controversial type of nuclear reaction. As he himself has pointed out
several times, if Pons and Fleischmann are right, and there *is* massive heat,
then he is wrong. So, Steve has tried again and again to prove that *all*
calorimetric results in *all* experiments are either a mistake, fraud, or
chemical. See, for example, the ICCF3 paper by Bueler, Hansen, Jones and Rees
on page 245. No right-minded scientist could believe such crap. Steve believes
it because he has deluded himself, in a desperate attempt to evade simple,
proven, objective reality. (Steve is not the only one! Thousands of others
suffer from this pathology.) Naturally, P&F *are* right, they have been
confirmed by hundreds of scientists, in experiment after experiment, at levels
of confidence so far above any experimental error that it is lunacy to
question them.
 
Here are the ground rules for science: you cannot disprove evidence by
pointing to a theory. It does not matter how "impossible" an observation is.
The only way to disprove it is to show that the instruments malfunctioned, or
the experiment did not measure what the experimenter thought it did. When the
instruments are know to work as well as traditional water-based calorimeters
do, and when the signal to noise ratio is high enough, all doubts are
resolved, all questions erased. We passed that point years ago in cold fusion.
You can doubt one or two reports of 0.1 C Delta T temperatures, but when
hundreds of people measure Delta T's like 5 C, 10 C, 50 C, 200 C... there can
be no room left for doubt. Science is not philosophy; we do not go on forever
questioning whether life is a dream. Once objective facts are established
beyond a reasonable doubt, we believe them, and move on to the next stage,
which is to build theories to accommodate the newly discovered facts.
 
You can ONLY critique the experimental technique, you can NEVER say, "there
was no heat because theory says there should not be" (or "because there are no
radioactive products or X-rays"). If every experiment in history, from Hot
Fusion to biochemistry seems to contradict the result... that does not make
one damn bit of difference. That is not a valid scientific criterion upon
which to judge an experimental result. If results appear "impossible"
according to the known laws of science, that can only mean that every
scientist in history has drawn the wrong conclusions from previous
experiments. The key words here are: "seem, appear" as in "seem to
contradict." In reality, experiments never contradict one another. Nature is
one, and nature never lies. It is only our understanding which is imperfect or
incomplete. "Seem" and "appear" describe the state of mind of the observer,
which cannot have any bearing on actual, objective, measured reality. If what
you observe "seems impossible" to you, that is because you are confused or
ignorant, not because the event is not happening.
 
These rules are absolute. This is how science works, and this is the only way
it ever can work. Hundreds of people here and elsewhere disagree with me on
this. Wild-eyed radicals like Steve and Richard want to throw away these
absolute standards. They offer us new age, crystal power, faith healing,
theory instead of objective replicated evidence. Steve says that to believe
evidence overrules theory is "empty minded." He is wrong, and I am right.
Fortunately for me, I am not the only person who believes in the absolute
primacy of evidence over theory. I am not a creative person, I did not come up
with this doctrine myself. People who have affirmed it include: Kepler,
Galileo, Huxley, Feynman, Schwinger, Clarke, Ikegami, Vigier, Mallove and
Fleischmann. These people are scientists. Those who disagree with them are
academic hacks and idiots.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat of Formation
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat of Formation
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 19:01:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Using the famous 1.48 *I , N and e I get 285,594 (my calculator has Na, and
e(C) built in) J/mole for the heat of breaking up H2O into H2 and O2.  This
should match the heat of formation which John Logajan lists at 230,000 joules
per mole.  What am I doing wrong???
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Jed Rothwell /  Buehler et al.
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Buehler et al.
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 19:23:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
My previous message left the wrong impression of this Buehler article (plus I
spelled the name wrong -- sorry!). I refer to the ICCF3 paper by Buehler,
Hansen, Jones and Rees on page 245, "Is Reported 'Excess Heat' Due to Nuclear
Reactions." I referred to this as "crap." That it is! It is dreadful,
unscientific schlock, Buehler et al should be ashamed of themselves for trying
to foist this atrocity upon us. But, at the same time, technically it is a
spiffy little paper, which I recommend very much. I should have cited it in my
paper "A Simple Calorimeter."
 
What is right about this is that it is a well written, careful, thorough guide
to the principles of calorimetry. It gets an excellent rating in this
category.
 
What is wrong about it are three things:
 
1. Buehler et al fail to observe that good CF experiments follow their
recommendations. This reminds me of Morrison nattering on about how wonderful
the GE paper was, with it's method of analysis, and not noticing that P&F used
that same method.
 
2. Even the worst imaginable calorimetry would register the kind of heat P&F
have observed with absolute certainty. You have boiling water for goodness
sake! 40 watts in, 140 out. There is no way to miss that. These rules are good
for tracking down every last little joule of heat, but even if you ignored
them completely, you could not possibly mistake 0 joules in 10 minutes with
86,000 joules.
 
3. The conclusion on the last page of the paper has absolutely nothing to do
with the premises and arguments, and it is preposterous. It is two parts:
silly, and unspeakably stupid:
 
     "'Excess heat' can only be proven to be nuclear in origin by showing that
     the products of nuclear reactions are produced at the same time and rate
     as the heat... and commensurate with the law of mass-energy
     conservation."
 
     Well of course! Who would argue with that? It's elementary. Have a look
     at Yamaguchi or Miles and you will find what you are looking for. Seek
     products and you shall find them.
 
 
     "Until such proof exists, application of Occam's razor demands that
     'excess heat' be regarded as having it source in ordinary chemical
     reactions."
 
     Good Grief! What kind of "ordinary" chemical reactions generate
     megajoules per mole? Name ONE ORDINARY CHEMICAL REACTION that can make an
     object the size of a match burn at a 150 watts level for hour after hour.
     This is craziest distortion of Occam's law that I have ever seen. We have
     a phenomenon here that is grey, it bellows, it tips the scale at 2000
     pounds, and its breath smells like peanuts. I say it is probably an
     elephant, but Steve swears by St. Occam that it must be a mouse with a
     glandular condition.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Compelling evidence
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 18:13:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>theories of nuclear
>interactions are well-established and have great explanatory power.  If
>you want to overturn these theories, then you need better evidence than the
>calorimetry.
 
I think you went wrong here losing the distinction between confidence of
the existence of an effect and confidence in a particular theoretical
explanation for the effect.  Well done calorimetry is sufficient for the
first purpose and only tangentially relevent to the second.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Why Wonder, Josh?
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Wonder, Josh?
Date: 26 Aug 1993 19:08:54 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

(I'm sorry if this is a repeat posting.  --Joshua)
 
In article <2515fu$4sf@athena.veritas.com> I wrote:
>
>I think that one of Taubes advantages over previous authors, is that he
>has talked to grad students, as well as profs.  It is another of the
>methods which gives him extra information, which we have not previously
>seen.
 
Frank Close tells me, via email, that he also interviewed grad students
(Hawkins, for example) while researching his Cold Fusion book.
Sorry about this mistake.
 
Frank Close also pointed out that March 28th was an interesting day
for Cold Fusion.  That was the day Fleischmann learned (and told Pons)
that their gamma data was useless.  It is also the day that Hawkins was
terminated as researcher in the P&F lab, and Pons took control of all
the lab books.  Frank Close suggested reading the gamma data part of the
story in TOO HOT TO HANDLE, and interleaving the Hawkins part of the
story from BAD SCIENCE.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat of Formation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat of Formation
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 20:18:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Using the famous 1.48 *I , N and e I get 285,594 (my calculator has Na, and
>e(C) built in) J/mole for the heat of breaking up H2O into H2 and O2.  This
>should match the heat of formation which John Logajan lists at 230,000 joules
>per mole.  What am I doing wrong???
 
Probably nothing.  I listed the "Gibb's free energy" which is slightly
lower than the total heat of formation.  I believe the Gibb's energy
subtracts some entrophy value from the total.
 
I won't try to explain the meaning of this, because I haven't got a
clue.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Richard Schultz /  P&F's secret revealed at last!
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F's secret revealed at last!
Date: 26 Aug 1993 21:00:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930826173953_72240.1256_EHK57-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
#These rules are absolute. This is how science works, and this is the only way
#it ever can work. Hundreds of people here and elsewhere disagree with me on
#this. Wild-eyed radicals like Steve and Richard [Blue] want to throw away
#these absolute standards. They offer us new age, crystal power, faith healing,
#theory instead of objective replicated evidence. Steve says that to believe
#evidence overrules theory is "empty minded." He is wrong, and I am right.
#Fortunately for me, I am not the only person who believes in the absolute
#primacy of evidence over theory. I am not a creative person, I did not come up
#with this doctrine myself. People who have affirmed it include: Kepler,
#Galileo, Huxley, Feynman, Schwinger, Clarke, Ikegami, Vigier, Mallove and
#Fleischmann. These people are scientists. Those who disagree with them are
#academic hacks and idiots.
 
It's kind of amusing that Mr. Rothwell includes Galileo on this list since
Galileo refused to accept that planetary orbits are elliptical rather than
perfectly circular, and that the moon causes tides, despited the strong
evidence available even in his day for both.  For that matter, Bronowski
in _The Ascent of Man_ quotes Copernicus whose reasons for placing the sun at
the center of the solar system (rather than the earth) have nothing to do
with any evidence.  In fact, because Copernicus's system assumes circular
orbits, you have to fudge the data in order to get predictions that are as
accurate as those provided by the Ptolemaic system.
 
I suppose that this is just further proof that science is actually more
complicated than Mr. Rothwell would like to believe, but, as the saying goes,
what do I look like, a philosopher?
 
Oh, and I suppose some people may be wondering what P&F's magic ingredients
are.  I have figured it out from Mr. Rothwell's insistence on replicability:
all you need is *polywater* for the electrolyte.  The mysterious fogging
on the dental x-ray film is of course due to N-rays.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat of Formation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat of Formation
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 03:29:28 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Using the famous 1.48 *I , N and e I get 285,594 [J/mole for H2O into H2, O2.]
>         ... which John Logajan lists at 230,000 joules per mole.
 
The CRC lists the heat of formation at -- 285,800 J/mole
and the Gibb's free energy at             237,200 J/mole. (bad rounding above!)
 
Now I think I understand the difference.  The heat of formation (deltaH)
is calculated to take place at a constant pressure (i.e expansion to the
open atmosphere.)  There is a third measure if the volume is trapped -- such
as in a bomb calorimeter.  The difference between the third measure and the
heat of formation is that caused by the work done on the atmosphere when any
expansion/contraction occurs.  (This, by the way, is about 101 Joules per cc
of expansion at 1 atm.)
 
The Gibb's free energy, on the other hand, is the maximum useful work energy
available from the reaction.  Suppose you burn H2 and O2 in your catalyst to
get H2O.  That'd produce the heat of formation of 285,800 J/mole.  But
suppose instead that you "burned" it in a fuel cell to produce electrical
energy.  Then if you were extracting the maxium useful work, 237,200 J/mole
would exit the system as electrical energy rather than heat.  The local
heat generated would only be 285,800 - 237,200 = 48,600 J/mole, much cooler.
 
To repeat, though, the heat of formation numbers in the CRC already take
into account the work done in expanding to the open air.  But if any other
useful work is done, there will be a deficit of local heat generated.
 
So I will re-issue my Thermodynamic Scorecard with heats of formation rather
than Gibb's free energy and hope that users identify any work functions
which may rob thermal energy from the calorimeter.
 
Since this is a college, you can consider my posts to be turned in homework
assignments to be graded and corrected by the tutors.  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What is "theoretical evidence?"
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is "theoretical evidence?"
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 22:48:02 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930826173953_72240.1256_EHK57-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> Here are the ground rules for science: you cannot disprove evidence by
> pointing to a theory. It does not matter how "impossible" an observation is.
>People who have affirmed it include: ... Feynman ...
 
seems I recall a Feynman Story, in which his new theory of partons
(quarks) predicted some process rate, and the experimentally
measured rate was off by 11% or so. Instead of trashing his theory,
Feynman convinced the experimentalist that he should correct his experiment.
Sure enough, the experimentalist found some errors, fixed them, and
matched F's predictions.
 
Is this the kind of primacy of experiment over theory that you are
refering to :-) ?
 
--
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 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / John Logajan /  Thermodynamic Scorecard Revision 1.1
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermodynamic Scorecard Revision 1.1
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 07:14:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

                        Thermodynamic Scorecard          Revision 1.1
                        -----------------------
 
Notes: 1 Joule (J) = 1 Watt-second
       1 mole = 6.0221E+23 particles  (602,210,000,000,000,000,000,000)
       Values for deuterium not given if nearly equal to hydrogen.
 
 
Molar heat capacities @ 25C (energy to raise one mole one degree Celsius):
 -----------------------------
H2O (liquid)  75 J/mole/degree
LiOH (solid)  50 J/mole/degree
Glass (typ)   44 J/mole/degree
H2O (gas)     33 J/mole/degree
O2,N2,H2      29 J/mole/degree
Pd,Pt         26 J/mole/degree
Diamond        6 J/mole/degree
 
 
Heat of vaporization (energy required to transform liquid into gas):
 -------------------------
H2O   40,700 J/mole @ 100C @ constant pressure of 1 atm.
 
 
Heat content at 25C (298K):
 -------------------------
H2O (liquid) 13,300 J/mole
O2            8,700 J/mole
N2            8,700 J/mole
H2            8,500 J/mole
LiOH (solid)  7,400 J/mole
Glass (typ)   7,000 J/mole
Pt            5,700 J/mole
Pd            5,400 J/mole
Diamond         520 J/mole
 
 
Heat of formation (energy required to form one mole of substance):
 ------------------------------
N+N    ==> N2   -946,000 J/mole
O+O    ==> O2   -498,000 J/mole
Li+O+H ==> LiOH -485,000 J/mole
H+H    ==> H2   -436,000 J/mole
H2+O2  ==> H2O  -285,800 J/mole
H2O+O2 ==> H2O2 +197,000 J/mole
H+Pd   ==> PdH   -72,000 J/mole (**** from a very old reference ***)
 
 
Liter atmosphere (work done when the volume of a system increases by one
                 liter against a pressure of one atmosphere -- already
                 accounted for in above heats of formation and vaporization.)
 -------------------
Lit atm     101 J/cc
 
 
Thermal conductivity coefficients (k) @ 100C
    k's = milliwatt/centimeter/degree Celsius
    heat = k*area*(temp.hot-temp.cold)*time/thickness
 --------------------------
Diamond     17,000
Ag           4,260
Cu           3,950
Al           2,400
brass        1,000
Pd             730
Pt             720
steel          460
Glass (typ)      7
H2O (liquid)     6.8
D2               2.72  @ 300C
H2               2.13
D2               1.66
Glass wool insul 0.4
N2, O2           0.306
H2O (gas)        0.239
Kr               0.1145
Xe               0.0695
Rn               0.0445
Vacuum           low (energy radiated increases with Temp^4, degrees K.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / John Logajan /  Reviving old arguments about dewar heat transport
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reviving old arguments about dewar heat transport
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 07:39:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
Back in June there was discussion of P+F's vacuum dewar having a radiative
heat transport of 11W at 100C across the vacuum.
 
The magnitude of such radiative emission increases with the 4th power
of the absolute temperature change.
 
So if it was 300C it would transport 60W and if it was 400C it would
transport 120W.
 
It was my recent argument that D2 was the major convective heat carrier to
the cell wall and that it could exceed the 100C being held at lower places
in the cell by the properties of heat of vaporization of the remaining
liquid.
 
This variability in heat transport helps eliminate the mystery of the
power "step" function.
 
There is now only one "requirement" to be met for my "theory" -- that
the thermometer was in the convective gas flow on the upswing from the
liquid below.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Convincing evidence
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Convincing evidence
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 13:34:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is amazing for me to see that Jed Rothwell has finally come to accept
the fact that something beyond calorimetry is needed to establish the
reality of cold fusion.  In one his latest lectures on the workings of
science, Jed says: "Commensurate helium ash, tritium, and neutrons prove
beyond any rational doubt that a nuclear reaction of some sort is going
on."  However, agreeing on what sort of evidence would be convincing
is just the first step.  We next have to consider the quality of the data
that has been put forward so far.
 
The most obvious lack for most evidence of nuclear reactions in CF
experiments has been the "commensurate" requirement.  While there
have been numerous claims for the detection of tritium, neutrons,
charged particles, gamma rays and/or X-rays there has been no
consistent pattern of reproducible results at a level that can be
called commensurate.  Taken as a whole this type of data shows up
so many contradictions that it is hard to see how it can be used
to support claims for positive CF results.  Even if you accept all
this data it has to be seen as nothing more than indications of
some minor side effects, not the main heat production processes.
 
To the best of my knowledge there are only two experiments making
significant claims for the detection of commensurate ammounts of
helium, and thus purporting to show that helium is the main
reaction product.  Alas, until there is some model for the reaction
and the process by which nuclear energy gets degraded to heat one
can't even say precisely what it means to be "commensurate".
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Not Yamaguchi again!
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not Yamaguchi again!
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 15:39:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

No matter how poor the experimental techniques employed or how rotten
the data, cold fusion advocates keep putting forward the same old flawed
experiments as evidence.  Anyone who has access to papers describing
Yamaguchi's experiments can check for themselves to see that there are
problems with the methods employed in this experiment.  The errors are
rather well documented.
 
If there is anyone wishing to defend these results I invite them to
answer the following quesitons:
 
(1)  Is it not true that the only evidence for helium was obtained when
the operating pressure in the mass spectrometer was at or beyond the
pressure range in which such instruments should be operated?
 
(2)  Is it not true that the only evidence for helium was obtained when,
as an expected result of operation at high pressure, the peak shapes
were broadened and distorted sufficiently to degrade the resolution of
the instrument such that 4He+ and D2+ peaks would completely merge?
 
(3)  Is it not true that the only evidence for helium is a slight
difference between peak shapes obtained in the course of the experiment
as compared to calibration peaks?
 
(4)  Is it not true that high sensativity in such instruments is obtained
by using slower scan rates such that peak shapes may be altered by rapid
changes in the partial pressure of a peak being scanned?
 
(5)  Is it not true that the purported helium signal occurs precisely
at the time when the deuterium partial pressure is undergoing a rapid
change?
 
What the Yamaguchi experiment illustrates is that almost any instrument
can be made to give a reproducible result that is totally wrong.  The
sad fact is that rather minor changes in the experimental technique
could correct the problems I have described.  The basic instrument is
capable of given a much better result, but until Yamaguchi gets his
act together and does things right his experiments cannot provide
convincing evidence that helium is the primary reaction product for
his form of cold fusion.  Relating his methods to electrolysis would
take a very great leap of faith in any case.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Jed Rothwell /  H2O heat of formation
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H2O heat of formation
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 16:05:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
According to the Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia and the World Almanac, the
heat of formation of water is -68.32 kilocalories per mole at 25 deg C, or
-286 kilojoules, as John Logajan wrote. Tom Droege found a discrepancy between
this and the adjustment used by electrochemists to compute joule heating. I
believe this is because during electrochemistry, H2O is polarized into H and
O, but the atoms immediately come together again to form H2 and O2 gas.
 
 
Richard Schultz asks:
 
     "...if calorimetry is so good, why is it that if you look up literature
     values for heats of combustion of various substances, which involves far
     simpler calorimetry than CF, various values in the literature frequently
     differ by more than the stated error limits?"
 
First of all, determining the heat of combustion for "various substances" does
*not* involve "far simpler calorimetry than CF." In many cases, it is far more
complicated. Typically, bomb calorimeters are used, which are safer but less
accurate, I believe. Sometimes, the smoke or other products of combustion are
toxic, so the experiments have to be performed under difficult conditions.
 
Second, one reason these numbers vary is because there are incompetent
scientist in this world. That is also why some CF experiments fail. That is
why one experiment can never prove or disprove anything; the work must be
carefully replicated over a period of years at very high signal to noise
ratios before you can be sure of anything.
 
Third, Richard should get serious and start thinking like a scientist for once
in his life. Just once, he should try thinking quantitatively, and he should
cite specific, real world instances, rather than vague generalizations. Put a
number on it! How inaccurate are these "various values?" In which literature
are they found? Is every single number, in every single textbook, off by a
factor of 2, or 10, or 100? In order for all CF calorimetry to be wrong; in
order to erase all evidence of heat beyond chemistry, you have to postulate
that *every single measurement* in *every single lab* is wrong, including those
which are thousands of times above the minimum threshold of sensitivity. In
other words: you have to assert that every single scientist who can measure a
0.01 C difference and who detects, say, a 50.00 C temperature Delta T is
mistaken. All of them, every time.
 
Remember: one set of positive, certain experiments from someone like McKubre
proves that the effect exists, which makes all your "skeptical" objections go
out the window. Think about it. Put a number on it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Pulse pile-up
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pulse pile-up
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 16:05:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While I'm cranked up to comment on experimental techniques, it is perhaps
a good time to comment on a problem that can arise in nuclear pulse
counting experiments.  The electronic techniques routinely employed to
process signals require several microseconds for the processing of each
pulse.  If pulses occur at intervals less than the electronics requires
two or more pulses may overlap forming one distorted signal that will
be incorrectly analyzed with the result that data falls into the wrong
part of the pulse height spectrum.  Peaks which are pure artifacts of
this process, known as pulse pile-up, may appear in the spectrum.
I leave it to the reader to recall which experiment that has recently
been under discussion involves nuclear pulse height analysis at
count rates as high as 10^6 per second and a resulting spectrum with
peaks corresponding to 6, 12, and 18 MeV.  If you find a report with
features like this in the description of the results, but little by
way of actual samples of the data in the publication you way want
to withhold judgement on quality of the data and the skill of the
experimentalists.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Heat of Formation -> Gibbs
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat of Formation -> Gibbs
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 04:09:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Aug27.032928.6453@ns.network.com>
    Subject: Re: Heat of Formation
John Logajan  (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
== "The Gibb's free energy, on the other hand, is the maximum useful work
==   energy available from the reaction."
 
 Entropy (S) is the number of accessible states available to the system at
   energy of E.   If # is the number of such states
 
               Entropy:     S =  k  ln(#)
 
    Temperature is defined as the reciprocal of the rate of change of the
        number of those  states to increasing energy
 
         Temperature:       1          d ln (#)
                         -------  =  ------------
                           k T          d E
 
  If H is the enthalpy,  defined as     H    =    E +  ( p * V )
 
                    then the Gibbs free energy is simply
 
                               G =  H - T * S
 
 
          Gibbs:                      d ln (#)   -1
                 G  =    H   -      [------------]   *  ln(#)
                                       d E
 
   Hope this clarifies.    Best wishes.
 
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                                  mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Robert Panoff /  Re: Buehler et al.
     
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Buehler et al.
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 05:54:18 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes, and writes, and writes...
 
>My previous message left the wrong impression of this Buehler article (plus I
>spelled the name wrong -- sorry!). I refer to the ICCF3 paper by Buehler,
Date:         Sun, 29 Aug 1993 10:00:00 PDT
Reply-To:     FUSION%ZORCH@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV
Sender:       "Fusion - Redistribution of sci.physics.fusion"
              <FUSION@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
From:         Fusion Digest <fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1335
 
       9 Articles:
 
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
   - Re: H2O heat of formation
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
   - Convincing evidence
wellss@jester.usask.ca (Sean Wells)
   - Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
   - Re: Reality versus lies
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
   - Re:  P&F Doublespeak?
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
   - Re: Peroxide
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
   - Exchange of jests
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
   - Re: A flurry of messages
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
   - Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
 
 
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H2O heat of formation
Date: 27 Aug 1993 18:29:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
 
In article <930827152740_72240.1256_EHK32-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>. . .Second, one reason these numbers vary is because there are incompetent
>scientist in this world. That is also why some CF experiments fail.
 
Some people might say that that is why some CF experiments succeed.
 
>Third, Richard should get serious and start thinking like a scientist for once
>in his life.
 
Just out of curiosity, how many scientific publications in refereed journals
do you have?  Not, as you say, that this necessarily proves one's ability to
think like a scientist, but I will gladly refer you to some of my work so that
you can decide for yourself.
 
>in his life. Just once, he should try thinking quantitatively, and he should
>cite specific, real world instances, rather than vague generalizations. Put a
>number on it! How inaccurate are these "various values?" In which literature
>are they found?
 
Here is one example that comes to mind.  Mittasch determined the heat of
combustion of Fe(CO)5 [Angew. Chem., 42, 981 (1929)] which leads to a
heat of formation of Fe(CO)5 of -187.8 +/- 0.7 kcal/mol.  Cotton et al.
[J. Am. Chem. Soc., 81, 800 (1959)] determined a heat of formation of
Fe(CO)5 via calorimetry and the same auxiliary data to yield a heat of
formation of -182.6 +/- 1.7 kcal/mol, i.e., the two measurements do not
agree even though the products of the reaction are not toxic (and the
measurements were made at a time when the scientists probably wouldn't
have cared much about that anyway) and Fe(CO)5 is very easy to purify.
 
>. . .In order for all CF calorimetry to be wrong; in order to erase all
>evidence of heat beyond chemistry, you have to postulate that *every single
>measurement* in *every single lab* is wrong, including those which are
>thousands of times above the minimum threshold of sensitivity. In other
>words: you have to assert that every single scientist who can measure a
>0.01 C difference and who detects, say, a 50.00 C temperature Delta T is
>mistaken. All of them, every time.
 
And for all CF calorimetry to be right, you have to assert that every single
scientist who can measure a 0.01 C difference, and who detects, say, a zero
Delta T is mistaken.  All of them, every time.  You also have this touching
faith that the precision of an experiment is necessarily an indication of
its accuracy.  You seem to have passed over without comment my presentation
of such an example, the methylene singlet-triplet splitting, where Lineberger's
original wrong number was very precise, but wrong anyway.
 
I note that you also seem to have deleted without comment my observation that
numerous scientists were able to make polywater with far more consistent
reproducibility than anything the CF proponents have yet come up with.
 
And, like most fervent supporters of pseudo-scientists, you have gotten around
finally to comparing P&F to Galileo.  You might want to keep in mind for
future reference that, while it is true that they laughed at Galileo and they
laughed at Mendel, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrpanoff cudfnRobert cudlnPanoff cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / mitchell swartz /  Convincing evidence
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Convincing evidence
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 20:41:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9308271242.AA00714@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: Convincing evidence
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
= "To the best of my knowledge there are only two experiments making
= significant claims for the detection of commensurate ammounts of
= helium, and thus purporting to show that helium is the main
= reaction product."
 
It is amazing for me to finally see that Dick Blue has finally come to
accept the fact that there are at least two reports demonstrating that
significant, important and compelling,  progress is being made in this
issue.                     \/\/\/\/\/
 
An acknowledgement of the scores of the resports demonstrating
  other products, too, will finally create further progress here.
 
                                      - Mitchell Swartz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Sean Wells /  Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
     
Originally-From: wellss@jester.usask.ca (Sean Wells)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion transmutation of hate -> love
Date: 27 Aug 1993 20:15:48 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

 
 
 
 
Jim Bowery (jim@pnet01.cts.com) wrote:
: rscott@ic.sunysb.edu (Robert Scott) aka "james dolan" writes:
: >jim bowery writes:
: >
: >>Your statement that I advocate a race war is a libelous, bald faced lie.
: >>
: >>I hereby demand that you publicly retract your statement.
 
<<a whole lot (not fusion) deleted>>
 
:
: But when we do finally achieve that safe refuge, I hope we, like our
: fellow victims of crimes against life, will light a flame and remember
: our time of darkness with the saying:
:
: "Never again."
 
Please, try to avoid wasting space as there are places other than
this group for political and idealogical drivel.  Posting material
that is inappropriate to the group is just plain rude.
 
I apologize to everyone else for wasting their time.
 
Sean Wells
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwellss cudfnSean cudlnWells cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: Reality versus lies
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reality versus lies
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 15:09
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

In article <930827193439_72240.1256_EHK48-2@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>
>The "reality" is proven beyond any sane, rational question: it is in the
>excess heat.
 
Then it hardly needs a champion of your caliber.  Unless you like to
think of yourself as someone who finds converse with the
irational unsane as worthy of your time and energy,
I suggest that you simply leave those of us who haven't been able
to achive you level of certainty to muddle along.
 
In the long run reality is its own champion.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re:  P&F Doublespeak?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  P&F Doublespeak?
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 10:35:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1319:
 
 
[with apologies for the lateness; I got a great heap of FD's at once and am
coping with indigestion here]
 
>It is noteworthy that P&F now are trying to
>disassociate themselves from claims that xs heat is due to nuclear fusion.
 
[...]
>And later:  "If you apply, if you drive the deuterons into the lattice with an
>electric field at the interface, then you achieve a very high compression...
>And it is that, we believe, which is the crucial factor in achieving fusion at
>room temperature."
 
>Aren't P&F  using the same language which appeared in the U. Utah press
>release?
>I agree with Dick Blue:  P&F for whatever reason seem to be engaging in
>"doublespeak" (R. Blue posting 17 or 18 Aug. 1993)  You be the judge.
 
Steve, I think you can overdo this "But you said..." bit. Agreed, F&P seem now
to be trying to give the impression that they never meant fusion, or nuclear
(see FPALH-90, "the all-important missing question mark"), but I reckon if you
pressed them, they might admit (well, F might admit) that they did originally
believe it was fusion, but some doubts have crept in since then. I don't think
it's reprehensible to become wiser. I understand it is important for you to
chase the history of this affair, but for the rest of us, the important
question is, have they, or have they not, a new exotic process? For that
matter, have you? I want compelling evidence before I throw my hat in the air.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Peroxide
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxide
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 10:35:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
[with more apologies for the lateness]
 
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White) in FD 1319:
 
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>> It really does not matter what the cathode is covered with, or what the metal
>> is; it's a cathode, at a rather negative potential, which would make short
>> work of every peroxide anion coming to it.
 
>Anions are strongly repelled from the cathode. At the high Ph of the cells,
>the peroxide will exist mostly in neutral form, with a small amount in anion
>form, and essentially nothing in cation form. Any peroxide anions attracted
>to the anode will probably be converted back to neutral peroxide.
 
We are talking chemistry here, and the contours are sharp and clear. Hydrogen
peroxide, H2O2, has a pKa of 11.65, and 0.1M LiOD would have a pH of about 13.
Therefore, just about all the H2O2 will have had its H+ torn off it, leaving
the anion HO2-. Same thing, more or less, with DO2-. I.e. the peroxide is
overwhelmingly in the anion form. The attraction to or repulsion from an
electrode comes into play only at rather close approaches, because of the
screening by the ions of the electrolyte. You can indeed reduce anions at a
cathode (look up "migration" in electrochemistry text books, such as the
excellent Bockris and Reddy). It does not help your argument either, that
anions might (but won't) be attracted to the anode - there, they would then
get oxidised to oxygen. Either way, the presence of peroxide is most unlikely,
and if present at all, will be there in insufficient concentration to play any
significant role in the generation of heat.
 
As I say, please forget peroxide. It isn't there.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / Dieter Britz /  Exchange of jests
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Exchange of jests
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 10:52:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1325:
 
>First let me say that the exchange between Deiter and I was half in
>jest.
 
It seems that there are a lot of born straight-men on this list. Let me now
spoil the joke by telling you that I was fully in jest, when I made the
posting about CNF being a fission process and Dick Blue had discovered it.
It was not all that funny but it WAS at least an attempt at a joke, and
nothing more.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A flurry of messages
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A flurry of messages
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 11:13:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1328:
 
>Anyone who's ever actually been through the process of writing and getting
>a paper published in a refereed 'learned' journal knows better than to trust
>the data in the publications of others.
 
>The actual work, i.e. the knob-twiddling, the sample preparation etc. are
>done by poorly paid research students or technicians who are unlikely to
>publicly admit to any ballsups. There is no mileage in publishing the
>descriptions of your failures - this does not attract the money of the
>capitalists and research agencies. Since no cash = no employment there is a
>strong pressure to come up with results that please the 'boss' and the
>sponsor.
 
>If you want to learn, don't talk to the authors of the paper, track down the
>guy who actually did the work, the lab assistant, the bottle-washer. Only
>they know what really went on.
 
Karel, I don't know the world you live in. I have worked in a research outfit
in Australia, one in Germany (where there was indeed a team, and the accent
was on industrial application) and for many years here in Denmark. In all
these places, what you write did not apply. Where I had a "boss", that boss
was often right in the lab, especially if we got an interesting result, and
he'd come and see us repeat it (usually making suggestions). In my present
situation, I supervise students and do the same. In every case, then, ALL the
authors of the publications were there to twiddle the knobs etc. If a lab
assistant does something essential to the paper, he/she becomes a coauthor and
again is under that same control. I generally wash my own "bottles"; people
with large volumes of dirty glassware do use a bottle-washing facility here,
but nothing is done there except to wash the glassware.
 
How come your experience is so different? Or are you exaggerating for effect?
 
I did once, for six months, work in a lab with a remote boss. We did only
routine analysis, and he loved to shuffle important papers and watch us from
his glass enclosure. No papers were ever published in that place, though.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.28 / Mark Thorson /  Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 93 23:43:20 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> it to a siphon (one of those things that goes on a faucet to create a
> partial vacuum) or a trap connected to a vacuum pump.
 
You mean an aspirator, not a siphon.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / Bill Page /  Electrolysis with H2 + O2 + Cl2 recombination
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrolysis with H2 + O2 + Cl2 recombination
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 16:53:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am working on a new 'closed cell' design for my experiments and would
welcome any comments or questions on the following sketch and accompanying
details.
 
 
                      ---
                      \|/
                      /|\  spring
                      \|/
                   |-- | --|
                   |   |   |  gas
                   |   |   |  syringe
                   |   |   |
                   |=======|
                   |--| |--|
                      | |___
               ______/  __  |
              /_______/   | | /---- platinum wire
             //           / \/      heater with thermister
    glass    \\          /**/\
  condenser  //         |**/**|  ** silica-gel in insulated glass
             \\         |**\**|     catalyst chamber (at 200 deg.C)
             // cathode |**/**|
     anode   \\     |    \*\*/  anode
          +  ||     -     | |  +
        |=|==||=====|=====| |==|=|   polyethylene top
        | +  ||     -    gas   + |   sealed with silicone
        |.|..||.....|..........|.|
        | +  ||     -  liquid  + |
        | |  ||     |   D2O+   | |   100 ml polyethylene
        | +  ||     -   HCl    + |   beaker
        | |  ||     |  (1.0N)  | |
        | +  ||     -          + |
        | |         |          | |
        --------------------------
         [---- mica window------]
         [  Geiger-Meuller Tube ]
         [______________________]
 
                        Figure 1.  Cell configuration
 
 
The electrolyte is hydrochloric acid in heavy water.  The anode is
platinium clad neobium sheet formed into a cyclinder (3 cm dia. by 6 cm).
The cathode is aluminium tubing (0.5 cm dia. by 8 cm).
 
The silica-gel and platinum in the insulated glass catalyst chamber are
both reported to be good catalysts for H2 + Cl2 recombination (as well as
the usual H2 + O2 recombination).  A controlled current is passed through
the platinum wire to maintain a catalyst temperature of 200 deg. C.  Input
power is logged by computer.
 
A spring loaded gas syringe is used to provide a (nearly constant) positive
pressure.
 
The polethylene beaker (1 mm thick walls) is placed directly above the mica
window of the G-M tube of a computer monitored geiger counter (10^-6
Roentgen/hour resolution).
 
The cell potential is regulated at 2 volts (constant voltage).  Voltage and
current are logged by computer.
 
Not shown in the above diagram are upper and lower electrolyte thermisters,
cathode thermister and a glass enclosed resistive electrolyte heater.
 
An identical control cell (including a separate geiger counter) is perpared
using H2O instead of D2O.
 
The both cells are placed inside a constant temperature cooling chamber.
Air is circulated by fan. Air temperature at several locations in the
chamber is logged.
The thermal constants of the cells are determined by differential
calorimetry while in operation.  The chamber temperature and resistive
heaters are adjusted to limit cell temperatures to between 20 and 40 deg.
C.
 
The goal of this series of experiments is to investigate hypothetical
differences in the observed heat output and possible correlated ionizing
radiation.
 
I would welcome comments on the chemistry at the electrodes and catalyst as
well as on the calorimetry.
 
The choice of electrolyte and operating conditions are dictated by the
chemical activity of the aluminum cathode.
 
A tubular cathode (cathode-) is choosen to facilitate hydrogen/deuterium
diffusion through the aluminum.  A counter voltage electrode (more negative
than the cathode) may be desirable inside the cathode tubing to maintain a
low hydrogen/deuterium concentration on the inner surface of the cathode.
Current measurements at the counter voltage electrode can be used to
estimate the diffusion rate.  What electrolyte should be used between the
cathode and counter cathode (cathode--)?
 
 
                               counter
    anode+        cathode-     cathode--   cathode-          anode+
      |               |           |            |               |
      |   D2O +       |    ?      |            |               |
      |   HCl         |           |            |               |
      |               |           |            |               |
 
                     Figure 2.  Electrode configuration
 
 
A sutiable counter cathode material might be platinum wire.
 
I am concerned about the thermal linkages between the catalyst/condenser
components and the electrolysis chamber of the cell.  At present I do not
have a simple thermodynamic model for this configuration.  I need to
account for the flow-dependant heat loss via the condenser and syringe.
The only measure of the gas flow rate in this setup is that implied by the
change in catalyst heater input power.  I am at a loss as to how to improve
the data acquisition in this area.
 
Thanks.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Robert Eachus /  Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Heat Pipe Tests
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 22:56:05 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I'm sorry I didn't get to see your first post on your outdoor
experiments before I left for Houston, and you didn't get my response
to your e-mail message (it bounced for unknown reasons).  Anyway:
 
     I suggested starting with water for two reasons, first it is a
lot simpler to have a single vapor phase.  Second, it is not quite as
frightening if you cook one off.  (You ignored my instructions, so any
white hair is your fault. :-)
 
      Back to making good heat pipes.  The trick is to get as much
outgassing of air as possible--I used to cook at 400F with a "flow
through" set up: drip feed working fluid into a boiler (a copper tube
running to the heat pipe will do) then flow this through the heat pipe
and condense it on the other side.  But save that for much later...
 
      I don't know why you have such a high operating temperature for
your alcohol pipe--I used to be able to get them to work at 10 degrees
F.  But your description of how you built the pipe gave a clue.  If
you were using the gin bottle as part of your system, you must not
have been worried about it imploding.  Therefore you were probably not
getting a good vacuum.  One easy step to try is fill the whole system
(no obvious trapped air) and let it sit overnight in a cool spot.  The
reason for letting it sit is to dissolve the trapped air in the wick.
Starting with either distilled water (best), or just bottled water
stored in a warm spot for a week.  (The solubility of gas in liquid
drops as the temperature rises.)
 
     The closer you can come to getting a partial vacuum in the tube,
the better it will work until the working fluid freezes.  (That is why
you switch to some form of antifreeze when you are getting good. But
stay away from ethelene glycol unless you cook the tubes in a dry
state.  The ethelene glycol can decompose, and the products are nasty.
Methanol is ok, but ethanol is nicer. :-)
 
    Working with plain water (even with just pipe cleaners for a wick,
the big kind they sell for clarinets might interest you) you should be
able to get a pipe which functions below body temperature.  If you
know how to do work with pyrex tubing, try this:
 
     1) Fill a pyrex tube, closed at one end, with water and connect
it to a siphon (one of those things that goes on a faucet to create a
partial vacuum) or a trap connected to a vacuum pump.
 
     2) Warm the tube if necessary.  (At 85+ F outdoors, no heat
necessary.)  This will boil (or evaporate) the water in the tube.  Do
not go for HOT.  If your hand won't do, there is something wrong...
 
     3) Heat the top (liquid free part of the tube) and pinch it
closed.  Aim for about a one foot long tube when finished.  Wear
goggles and gloves for this step and the next.
 
     4) When the tube is closed, nick with a file above the closure,
break it off, and melt the closure smooth.
 
     (In steps three and four you may have several atmospheres of
pressure in the tube, so be carefull.)
 
     5) When finished holding the bottom of the tube in your hand will
cause it to boil rapidly.  OR you can cause it to boil by putting an
ice cube on the top.
 
     6) Repeat with a pipe cleaner in the pyrex tube, and close the
tube when there is a drop of water (or less) in the bottom of the
tube.  You now have a bi-directional heat pipe.  Best tested by
holding the top in your hand and melting through an ice cube on a
table.
 
     7) Once you get step six right, switch to either 1/4 inch copper
tubing or gin, then try both.
 
     Have fun this weekend, but PLEASE don't try to boil the contents
out of a pipe with a propane torch again...
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / John Logajan /  Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 93 01:27:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I seem to recall seeing strings of Christmas tree lights that had some sort
of clear tube filled with a liquid.  The heat of the light would send little
bubbles up the tube for a motion effect for the decorative lights.
 
Now those little lights are warm, but they're not really hot enough to
boil water at STP.  So what's in those ornamental lights?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reality versus lies
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reality versus lies
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1993 12:16:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930827193439_72240.1256_EHK48-2@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>The "reality" is proven beyond any sane, rational question: it is in the
>excess heat. Nothing can ever "unestablish" or "unprove" massively replicated
>experimental data.
 
     Oh, my naive friend, how wrong you are.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reality versus lies
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reality versus lies
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1993 12:17:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <19930827150906CSYSPCN@mvs.oac.ucla.edu>,
CSYSPCN <CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> wrote:
>In article <930827193439_72240.1256_EHK48-2@CompuServe.COM>,
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>>
>>The "reality" is proven beyond any sane, rational question: it is in the
>>excess heat.
>
>Then it hardly needs a champion of your caliber.  Unless you like to
>think of yourself as someone who finds converse with the
>irational unsane as worthy of your time and energy,
>I suggest that you simply leave those of us who haven't been able
>to achive you level of certainty to muddle along.
>
>In the long run reality is its own champion.
 
     One of my favorite sayings:  'Experiments are like cheese, better
     when aged'
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.28 / Jan Isley /  2nd CFV: sci.energy.hydrogen
     
Originally-From: jan@bagend.atl.ga.us (Jan Isley)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.chem,sci.energy,sci.
ngr.chem,sci.physics.research,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fu
ion,sci.research,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.systems
Subject: 2nd CFV: sci.energy.hydrogen
Date: 28 Aug 1993 18:52:44 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

***  CALL FOR VOTES (2nd of 2) ***
 
Creation of the unmoderated group sci.energy.hydrogen
 
Newsgroups line:
sci.energy.hydrogen     All about hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
 
Votes must be received by 8 Sep 1993, 23:59:59 UTC.
 
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For
voting questions only, contact Jan Isley at jan@bagend.atl.ga.us
 
For questions about the proposed group, contact Robert Cinq-Mars
at RCIN0839@URIACC.URI.EDU or CINQMARR@VADER.EGR.URI.EDU
 
This CFV will be sent to the following mailing lists:
 
     HYDROGEN@URIACC.URI.EDU  (Hydrogen List)
     EV@SJSUVM1.BITNET        (Electric Vehicle List)
 
STANDARD VOTING INFO
 
You should send MAIL (posts to a group are invalid) to
 
      votes@bagend.atl.ga.us
 
(just replying by MAIL to this message should work).  Your mail
message should contain ONE AND ONLY ONE of the following statements:
 
      I vote YES on sci.energy.hydrogen
or
      I vote NO on sci.energy.hydrogen
 
Please, do not include this entire post, just the one line vote.
You may add a comment, but anything other than a definite statement
involving the group name and "yes", "no", "for", or "against" on a
single line may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.
If you later change your mind you may also use send in an "abstain"
vote in the same manner, using "abstain" in place of "yes" or "no".
Votes will be acknowledged by mail.  Subsequent CFVs will have a list
of bounced acks only.  A mass ack will be posted after the vote ends.
 
Standard Guidelines for voting apply - one vote per person (not per
account).  100 more YES votes than NO votes and 2/3 of all votes being
YES are the requirements for group creation.
 
Charter
-------
    The purpose of sci.energy.hydrogen is to promote a better
understanding of the concepts, terminology, materials, processes
and issues relating to the production, storage, transportation,
and use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
    The goal of this newsgroup is to stimulate growth and interest
in the use of hydrogen and to encourage the development of an
environmentally sound energy infrastructure.
    Subscribers are welcome from universities, government,
and industry and are encouraged to post all pertinent news,
information, research, references, product and service announce-
ments, conference and seminar notices, government procurements,
and the general discussion of topics.  It is of particular
importance to the group that a strong and serious effort be made
on the part of each subscriber to post all important, relevant,
public domain information, such as: Masters theses; Ph.D. dis-
ertations; press releases; government R&D announcements,
solicitations, procurements and awards; technical abstracts,
research reports and memoranda.
    A bi-directional gateway will be used to connect this
newsgroup with the Internet hydrogen listserver list.
 
Summary
-------
 
Sci.energy.hydrogen is a forum for the exchange of information
and ideas pertaining to the production, storage, transportation,
and use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
 
There will be bi-directional gateway with HYDROGEN@URIACC.URI.EDU
 
This CFV will appears in the following groups:
 
news.announce.newgroups   news.groups
sci.chem                  sci.energy     sci.engr.chem
sci.environment           sci.physics    sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.research      sci.research   sci.space
sci.space.shuttle         sci.systems
 
An administrative detail prevented the 1st CFV from being posted
to sci.aeronautics.  An abbreviated 2nd CFV will be sent there.
 
All votes have been acknowledged by mail.
 
There are no unresolved bounced vote ACKS at this time.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjan cudfnJan cudlnIsley cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  2 reports, NOT compelling
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2 reports, NOT compelling
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 13:23:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I hate to waste the band width with replies to Mitchell Swartz, but to
set the record straight, my stated position is that neither of the two
reports claiming observation of "comensurate" quantities of 4He from a
CF reaction process provide compelling evidence.  The fact that CF
advocates cling to experimental results of such poor quality is just
another indication of the general weakness of their case.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Incorrect conclusions, false information
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Incorrect conclusions, false information
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 14:17:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Schultz writes:
 
     "And for all CF calorimetry to be right, you have to assert that every
     single scientist who can measure a 0.01 C difference, and who detects,
     say, a zero Delta T is mistaken.  All of them, every time."
 
This conclusion is absurd! Who ever said anything like that? OBVIOUSLY, the
people who measure a zero Delta T are not getting any excess heat. It happens
all the time, even with people who have succeeded at getting heat in previous
experiments. There are dozens of reasons for a CF experiment to fail: you can
get a cracked or otherwise bad piece of palladium, or you can accidently touch
the surface, or you can have dirty electrolyte... Sometimes you never find the
reason.
 
What on earth are you thinking, anyway? What kind of fairy-tale is this
garbage you write? Do you think that every single physics experiment always
works? Do you think that couple of botched experiments or negative results
automatically prove that an effect does not exist? Does a dud bomb prove that
TNT never explodes? You live a topsy-turvy, Alice-In-Wonderland world.
 
 
     "I note that you also seem to have deleted without comment my observation
     that numerous scientists were able to make polywater with far more
     consistent reproducibility than anything the CF proponents have yet come
     up with."
 
This is completely false. Your statements are directly contradicted by the
historical record, which is set out in detail in a valuable and well written
book titled "Polywater," by Felix Franks, MIT Press, 1981.
 
You just made up that statement about polywater, didn't you? You don't know a
darn thing about the subject, you assumed that nobody else did either, so you
figured you could make up some nonsense about it and post it, and nobody would
realize you were faking. You think everyone will believe you just because you
are a "skeptic." You are right about the people in your camp: "skeptics"
believe anything, they never check the facts, they never question any
assumption, they swallow any story. You "skeptics" are the most gullible rubes
I have ever encountered.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 829 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 829 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 15:31:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
a visit to the physics library yields the harvest below, a couple of
theoretical papers. Ichimaru shows that not all Japanese are over the top on
CNF; Ichimaru calculates an upper limit of much less than the Jones level. He
might, of course, be overlooking some exotic enhancement effect. Tsarev, too,
does not give the impression that the Russians believe; although he remains
neutral in the end, he is clearly skeptical. He does write a very readable
summary of the field, both as to recent experimental work - of which he takes
only the highlights - and theory, which he classifies into "exotic" (requiring
new physics) and "natural" (lying within known physics). Only fractofusion
falls into this latter group. You might say that this is no surprise, fracto-
being a Russian thing, but Tsarev does not exactly swallow this either. This
is all as it should be.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 30-Aug-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 829
 
 
Journal articles: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ichimaru S;                                     Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 255.
"Nuclear fusion in dense plasmas".
** 45p theoretical view of the area, considering astrophysical and laboratory
condensed plasmas. The theory is based on screening effects and multibody
correlations. Of the metal hydrides PdD and TiD2, PdD provides more favourable
conditions for fusion, but enhancement yields a fusion rate (independent of
temperature) of only 1-2 fusions/year/cm^3.                           ?/Apr-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA;                                      Sov. Phys. Usp. 35 (1992) 842.
[Transl. from Usp. Fiz. Nauk 162 (1992) 63; this journal now goes under the
new name of Physics Uspekhy in translation].
"Anomalous nuclear effects in solids ("cold fusion"): questions still remain".
** A short history of LTF (low temperature fusion, as the Russians call it)
mentions the quick succession of surprise and demise, and some juicy quotes
are given. Tsarev writes that the hard words are justified. LTF enthusiasts
are inclined to acknowledge as fully reliable all positive results, and call
their critics the scientific mafia; again, a few quotes. Tsarev draws no
conclusions from all this, but turns to recent experimental data, which is
summarised compactly. Theories are classified into exotic or more natural
models; the acceleration model (fractofusion) falls into the latter class,
although Tsarev points out problems here as well. No conclusion is drawn.
                                                                 Apr-92/Oct-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / C Harrison /  P&F melting Kel-F etc
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F melting Kel-F etc
Date: 29 Aug 93 20:25:10 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

I recently obtained a copy of the CBC "Secret Life of Cold Fusion" video tape
from Jed Rothwell.  It includes several close-up shots of P&F cells in action.
 
At least three different designs for the electrode support appear in the video.
Only one (which appears in the segue leading into John Maddox' interview)
seems to match the "schematic diagram" in Fig. 2 of [F&P 1993] (Fig. 1 in
[F&P 1992]).
 
In most of the other designs, it seems to me that the Pd cathode extends all
the way down to the bottom support plug.  In Fig. 2, the aspect ratio (length
over dia) for the cathode is about 2.  The 4-cell experiment discussed later
in the papers, e.g. Fig. 8 thru Fig. 12 of [F&P 1993], used 12.5mm L x 2mm Dia
cathodes (aspect ratio 6.25).  It is likely that the electrode which Dr. F
displays for the camera with his tweezers is, in fact, the one whose "boil-off"
is described on p. 128 of [F&P 1993].  I conclude that the "Fig. 2" design
is only one of many used by F&P, and that most of the data in [F&P 1993] comes
from cells in which a longer cathode extends all the way down to the Kel-F
support plug.
 
I mention this because it bears on the "melting Kel-F" controversy.  If the
cathode is in direct contact with the Kel-F support plug, then the idea that
the hot cathode melts the plastic seems quite reasonable.  This could even
happen _during_ the boiloff, not during the "dry" stage.  In the CBC video,
Dr. P states the electrode exceeds 300C while pointing at a videotape of a
boiling cell.  Perhaps they have reason to believe that the melting occurs
at this time; the article [P&F 1993] is ambiguous on this point.
 
Regarding one of Tom Droege's specific criticisms of the "boil-off" experiment,
i.e. that you can't easily locate the surface of the boiling fluid, I would
have to disagree.  In the CBC video, only the leftmost cell has an exposed
liquid surface, and it is partially obscured behind the "CBC Prime Time"
logo.  Nonetheless, in motion video, it is easy to discern the free bubbling
surface.  In a video still-frame, it might be difficult.  One of Tom's related
objections, that we don't know exactly what fraction of the boiling "liquid"
is actually bubbles, remains valid.  However, I suspect that a reasonable error
bar could be put on it with a boiling-testtube experiment.  The magnitude of
the effect demonstrated in the "boil-off" phase is not very sensitive to this
type of error.
 
Most of the close-up shots showed the bottom part of the cells.  I could not
positively identify a temperature probe in any of them.  Therefore I suspect
that P&F routinely place their thermistor somewhat higher in the cell than
Fig. 2 [P&F 1993] shows.  A True Disbeliever, of course, would conclude that
P&F don't measure temperature at all and fabricated the data ;-) .
 
For what it's worth.  -Chuck
 
..................................................................
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
--
.................................................................
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.29 / David Pearson /  Plasma physics - capital S question.
     
Originally-From: sgspedav@reading.ac.uk (David Pearson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma physics - capital S question.
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1993 12:33:09 +0000

 
Hello the Net.
 
A parameter that crops up all over the place in the analysis
of the stability of tokamak plasmas is S:
 
S = \tau_R \over \tau_H
 
It is the ratio of resistive to Alfven timescales.
I have been calling it the Lundquist (or Lunqvist) number.
Nobody laughed (at least, not where I could hear them), but
I sometimes see it referred to in the literature as the
magnetic Reynolds number.
 
Does anyone Out There know which of these is the correct nomenclature?
 
-David Pearson,
 ex JET,
 now NERC Unit for Thematic Information Systems.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensgspedav cudfnDavid cudlnPearson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / mitchell swartz /  2 reports, Worth examining
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2 reports, Worth examining
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 16:57:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9308301251.AA20330@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: 2 reports, NOT compelling
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSUblue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
= "The fact that CF
= advocates cling to experimental results of such poor quality is just
= another indication of the general weakness of their case."
 
 
   Mr. Blue has yet to give a quantitative argument, or coherent sensible
reply to any of the questions posed which show how silly most
of his arguments on this issue remain.  Since he clearly has a mathematic
background, this failure to respond shows the paucity of evidence in his
position.
 
   The fact that the true-blue skeptics also cling to disproven and stale
papers to dismiss the cold fusion is an indication of the weakness of
their case.  Thus, coupled with their absolute failure to respond to
quantitative discussion required to prove their "hand-waving", any reader
ought recognize this for what it does herald.
 
   To the contrary, there remain a plethora of papers showing positive
results available in a few journals in the literature.  More relevant
today is that scores of papers have been prepared but mainstream
publications refuse to publish; perhaps in part because of (? self-serving)
interests such as those demonstrated by Mr. Blue, and some of the other
"hot fusion" people.
 
                                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                                     mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Incorrect conclusions, false information
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incorrect conclusions, false information
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 16:58:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930830140835_72240.1256_EHK39-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>experiments. There are dozens of reasons for a CF experiment to fail: you can
>get a cracked or otherwise bad piece of palladium ...
 
     Bad, bad palladium.  Wicked, wicked palladium ...
 
                           dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / Tom DeBoni /  Announcing - Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
     
Originally-From: deboni@diego.llnl.gov (Tom DeBoni)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space
Subject: Announcing - Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
Date: 30 Aug 1993 18:44:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

                                Announcing
 
                The Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
 
The Computing Research Group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
solicits proposals for the Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative (SSCI). The
Initiative awards free Cray C90 time and support to researchers willing to
develop their applications in Sisal, a functional language for parallel
numerical computation. Members of the Computing Research Group will provide
free educational material, training, consulting, and user services. The
previous call generated forty proposals and more than two dozen published
conference and journal papers.
 
SSCI is an outgrowth of the Sisal Language Project, a collaborative effort
by LLNL and Colorado State University, and funded in part by the Office of
Scientific Computing (Department of Energy), U.S. Army Research Office, and
LLNL. Sisal provides a clean and natural medium for expressing machine
independent, determinate, portable, parallel programs. The cost of writing,
debugging, and maintaining parallel applications in Sisal is equivalent to
the cost of writing, debugging, and maintaining sequential applications in
FORTRAN. Since the Optimizing Sisal Compiler eliminates the inefficiencies
typically associated with functional semantics, Sisal programs run as fast as
their Fortran counterparts. Sisal programmers enjoy the benefits of functional
programming--low program development costs, implicit parallelism, and
portability--without sacrificing performance.
 
This call for proposals is not limited to any group of researchers or
applications, and is intended to solicit collaborations with industry,
academia, and government workers. The previous call generated a wide variety
of proposals from all of these areas. The Initiative is particularly well
suited for academicians in the science and engineering disciplines, with
interests in large scale and parallel computation. We find that the effort
and start-up time required to become proficient in Sisal programming are
small; graduate students can write significant parallel code in a semester
of part-time effort. An annual international conference provides a forum to
publish and present research results realized through participation in the
Initiative.
 
Those interested in participating in this initiative should submit a one to
two page proposal to
 
                        Sisal Scientific Computing Initiative
                        Computing Research Group, L-306
                        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
                        P. O. Box 808
                        Livermore, CA 94551
 
Proposals should describe the research and explain how the work will benefit
from parallel execution on a Cray. For more information about the Sisal
Scientific Computing Initiative, please contact John Feo (feo@diego.llnl.gov)
at (510) 422-6389, or Tom DeBoni (deboni@diego.llnl.gov) at (510) 423-3793. We
look forward to hearing from you.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendeboni cudfnTom cudlnDeBoni cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / Tom Holroyd /  Re: Incorrect conclusions, false information
     
Originally-From: tomh@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Holroyd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Incorrect conclusions, false information
Date: 30 Aug 93 20:23:21 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> You are right about the people in your camp: "skeptics"
> believe anything, they never check the facts, they never question any
> assumption, they swallow any story. You "skeptics" are the most gullible rube
> I have ever encountered.
>
> - Jed
>
 
Jeez, you go too far.  How much of your personal money have you spent on
CF?  $10,000?  $20,000?  Maybe you even spend Yen on it.  Talk about a
gullible rube.  If you weren't so deep in the hole over this you might
be able to think about it objectively, and without all these emotional
tirades..  "'Skeptics' swallow any story?"  Would you care to repeat
that on sci.skeptic?  Man!
 
Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomh cudfnTom cudlnHolroyd cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 21:44:15 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Aug30.012714.2524@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
  > I seem to recall seeing strings of Christmas tree lights that had
  > some sort of clear tube filled with a liquid.  The heat of the
  > light would send little bubbles up the tube for a motion effect
  > for the decorative lights.
 
  > Now those little lights are warm, but they're not really hot
  > enough to boil water at STP.  So what's in those ornamental
  > lights?
 
     Real old ones used to be ethanol and water (with a little food
coloring in place of the Juniper in Tom's experiment :-).  Later
models used carbon tetracloride, so it would put out a fire instead of
starting one.  However, consumer groups started warning against their
use in a confined space. I don't know what they use now, maybe even
water with a little food coloring.
 
     The "trick" of those lights is to have nothing other than the
working fluid inside.  Boiling point is a complex function of the
(total) pressure and temperature.  The trick is to find a mix with a
low vapor pressure and a relatively low boiling point.  (It also helps
to have a low freezing point.  The problem with water in one of these
things it is as likely to freeze as to boil if the only gas present is
water vapor.  It is even possible to get simulataneous boiling and
freezing.)
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / John George /  Ignition?
     
Originally-From: johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ignition?
Date: 30 Aug 1993 15:08:49 -0700
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

I have been home recuperating from a bout of the flu and really missed
lurking on the net. I was gratified to read and see so much going on.
 
I copied the F&P Message that Jed posted to my local disk, re-read it,
and noted that, in all the flamethrowing, NOBODY COMMENTED ON THIS ITEM!
 
Are you ready, Diehard Skeptics?   Are you ready, True Believers?
 
I have my thermosuit ready!  I quote from the F&P message Jed posted:
 
>    We do, however, feel that it is justified to conclude with a further
> comment at this point in time.  Afficionados of the field of "Hot
> Fusion" will realise that there is a large release of excess energy
> during Stage 5 at zero energy input.  The system is therefore
> operating under conditions which are described as "Ignition" in "Hot
> Fusion".  It appears to us therefore that these types of systems not
> only "merit investigation" (as we have stated in the last paragraph)
> but, more correctly, "merit frantic investigation".
 
This paragraph says that the system was self-sustaining! 'THE SYSTEM IS
THEREFORE OPERATING UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS "IGNITION" IN
"HOT FUSION"' and 'MERIT FRANTIC INVESTIGATION'! (Caps are mine) This
sounds to me like a serious comment. I am really suprised that everyone
including the TBs seems to have missed it. It doesn't sound to me like
F&P are running for cover. They don't sound bashful at all. If anything,
it seems to me that they are more outspoken (confident?) than ever.
 
Jed keeps indicating that much high level research is going on in Asian
countries and states he still believes a prototype will be demonstrated
in just a few more years. Makes me wish I knew some Japanese.
 
I asked my ex-brother-in-law (who used to manage SDI projects) if his
company would ever get around to doing some real work instead of sucking
on the government's teats forever. He and I discussed maglev trains, hot
and cold fusion, superconductors, composite materials, digital signal
processing (voice-recognition) and other technologies. There are many neat
things to do. Many of those are technologies in which his company has high
expertise. His answer demonstrated an attitude that strikes me as fatal
for US High Tech, "We can't invest in those, there is no guaranteed rate
of return, and the Japanese are already working there."
 
It strikes me that we are now living in a multi-polar world in science as
well as in manufacturing. If we don't offer progress to the world, the
Asians, Europeans, Russians, or someone else who is not so timid will. Our
brightest children will have to learn a foreign language in order to study
science overseas.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 93 23:33:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>The problem with water in one of these things it is as likely to freeze as
>to boil if the only gas present is water vapor.
 
First there was room temperature superconductors, then room temperature
nuclear fusion, and now we have room temperature ice!  Is nothing sacred?  :-)
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Richard Schultz /  The wonderful world of polywater
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The wonderful world of polywater
Date: 31 Aug 1993 03:34:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930830140835_72240.1256_EHK39-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>. . .OBVIOUSLY, the people who measure a zero Delta T are not getting any
>excess heat. It happens all the time, even with people who have succeeded
>at getting heat in previous experiments. There are dozens of reasons for
>a CF experiment to fail: you can get a cracked or otherwise bad piece of
>palladium, or you can accidently touch the surface, or you can have dirty
>electrolyte... Sometimes you never find the reason.
 
And this is one of the two main reasons why people like me are skeptical
about CF.  As far as I can tell, there is no experiment that even in theory
could disprove CF.  If you fail to reproduce the positive experiment, then
it's because you did something wrong, not because when you did the positive
experiment you did something wrong.  Consider, for example, the "fifth force"
theory of a few years back.  What made that science rather than pseudo-
science was that the originators of the theory suggested an experiment that
might prove the theory wrong.  Note also that if it had been true, the
fifth force would have involved some serious reconsideration of a well-
established theory.
 
(The second main reason is that, as I have said before, True Believers
like Mr. Rothwell seem to be unaware of the difference between an
experiment's precision and its accuracy.)
 
>What on earth are you thinking, anyway? What kind of fairy-tale is this
>garbage you write? Do you think that every single physics experiment always
>works? Do you think that couple of botched experiments or negative results
>automatically prove that an effect does not exist? Does a dud bomb prove that
>TNT never explodes? You live a topsy-turvy, Alice-In-Wonderland world.
 
In my experience, a significant percentage of experiments don't work, and
frequently for reasons that you never can pin down.  The difference between
the way the good scientists and the not-so-good scientists I've known is that
the former tend to think "I couldn't reproduce that experiment:  am I *sure*
that the effect was real in the first place?  How else might I tell?"  rather
than "no problem, the positive experiment proves it."
 
>Your statements [re: polywater] are directly contradicted by the
>historical record, which is set out in detail in a valuable and well written
>book titled "Polywater," by Felix Franks, MIT Press, 1981.
 
Is this the book that says
 
        In an article headed 'Polywater under the Bridge' he
        [science writer Nigel Calder] reviewed the evidence
        and placed polywater in its historical perspective.
        He ended with a warning:  'A final moral is one which
        is hard on would-be Einsteins.  When experiment and a
        long-standing theory disagree, it is always much more
        likely that the experiment is wrong.'  This was sound
        advice, but in the grand tradition of sound advice
        it went unheeded (pp. 102-103).
 
Or maybe you're thinking of the book that says
 
        Be that as it may, the reporting of polywater certainly
        exhibited symptoms of a strange kind.  We witnessed a
        multitude of short communications not backed up by more
        substantial data, an unusually active grapevine,
        publication of crucial results via the press interview
        rather than through established channels, a prominent part
        played by the popular press, and an unusual pattern of
        growth and decline akin to the outbreak of an epidemic
        (pp. 130-131).
 
Or could it be the book that tells us that
 
        It was difficult to remain objective, because the general
        atmosphere was one of polarization:  One had to be a
        believer or a rejectionist.  In the meantime Deryagin
        ["discoverer" of polywater] and his large team of
        assistants continued their investigations, apparently quite
        unperturbed by any suggestions that the strange properties
        of polywater might be due to contaminating materials (p. 99).
 
Or maybe I've been reading a different book by the same author and with the
same title as yours.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: 2 reports, Worth examining
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 2 reports, Worth examining
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 04:38:40 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CCL0Fp.38B@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   Mr. Blue has yet to give a quantitative argument, or coherent sensible
>reply to any of the questions posed which show how silly most
>of his arguments on this issue remain.  Since he clearly has a mathematic
>background, this failure to respond shows the paucity of evidence in his
>position.
 
I fail to understand how Mr. Swartz could make such a statement when Mr. Blue
has turned blue in the face and fingertips explaining in vast detail his
criticisms. Either Mr. Swartz has an incredably short memory and doesn't
keep records, or else he is equivocating.
 
>   The fact that the true-blue skeptics also cling to disproven and stale
>papers to dismiss the cold fusion is an indication of the weakness of
>their case.  Thus, coupled with their absolute failure to respond to
>quantitative discussion required to prove their "hand-waving", any reader
>ought recognize this for what it does herald.
 
Mr Blue has gone quite out of his way to suggest -- as has most others --
ways of demonstrating CNF to his satisfaction. Most of these suggestions
are imminently reasonable. Most of those reporting positive CNF results
are _not_ reasonable.
 
>   To the contrary, there remain a plethora of papers showing positive
>results available in a few journals in the literature.  More relevant
>today is that scores of papers have been prepared but mainstream
>publications refuse to publish; perhaps in part because of (? self-serving)
>interests such as those demonstrated by Mr. Blue, and some of the other
>"hot fusion" people.
 
You, yourself, have been asked to supply a paper that couldn't be picked
to pieces by a first year grad student and have been unable to supply even
one.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ignition doublespeak
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 13:53:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John George circles a particular paragraph of the resent Pons and Fleischmann
missive and wonders why it did not draw more comment.  It is truly a
remarkable claim that they had achieved some form of
"ignition" such that the cold fusion reaction continued after the usual
current input had been cut off.  Of course you will note that elsewhere
in the same document they admit that this phase of the experiment is on
rather shakey grounds as far as anything quantitative is concerned.  To
restate that in blunter terms, they really did not know what the heck
was happening.  To base a claim for a remarkably different phase of the
CF reaction process on something they admit they cannot discuss quantitatively
is what I have refered to as doublespeak.
 
Now why is this so absurd?  Firstly, since we have no model or even a
sketch of a model describing the actual process there is no way of
knowing how the process can become selfsustaining, i.e. there is no
real definition of what the trigger may be or what it means to use
the word "ignition" in this context.  If an elevated temperature is
all that is needed there is an obvious course for the experimentation
to take and one wonders why P&F had not pursued that course immediately
and enjoyed even more spectacular successes.  Of course it is unlikely
that temperature is the key parameter.  In fact if you compare the
conditions underwhich ignition is supposed to have occured you will
note that they are rather orthogonal to the conditions that are often
said to be essential to the generation of any excess heat.  The
other remarkable feature of the ignition phase is that the power
level appears to be maintained at an absolutely constant level following
ignition, so constant that one would have to assert that the process
is somehow selflimiting as well as selfsustaining.  If you think
about that it seems to imply that there is a signal propagating
through the sample.  Care to speculate on that?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Plasma physics - capital S question.
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasma physics - capital S question.
Date: 31 Aug 1993 12:45:19 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Both "Lundquist number" and "magnetic Reynolds number" are correct.
The former is more proper, but the latter makes sense especially when
discussing MHD turbulence, or in any setting when the relative strengths
of nonlinear and linear phenomena is the salient issue.
--
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
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / mitchell swartz /  2 (and more) reports, Worth examining
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2 (and more) reports, Worth examining
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 13:06:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <tomkCCLwwG.2D6@netcom.com>
   Subject: Re: 2 reports, Worth examining
Thomas H. Kunich [tomk@netcom.com] writes:
 
=>   Mr. Blue has yet to give a quantitative argument, or coherent sensible
=>reply to any of the questions posed which show how silly most
=>of his arguments on this issue remain.  Since he clearly has a mathematic
=>background, this failure to respond shows the paucity of evidence in his
=>position.
=tk     ".....  Mr. Blue
=tk has turned blue in the face and fingertips explaining in vast detail his
=tk criticisms. Either Mr. Swartz has an incredably short memory and doesn't
=tk keep records, or else he is equivocating."
 
  Tom, the records show that there was a detailed response to his mostly
unimportant criticisms.   Perhaps you either are unable to follow the
quantitation, or are unwilling, or did not receive the posts.  Take
for example, my analysis of his "blanket criticisms" of the incremental
thermal conductivity of the heavy water gases in the system.  When my
analysis demonstrated the sign was wrong, and that the cold fusioneers may
have underestimated the amount of excess heat, he simply "ducked".
     \/\/\/\/\/\/\/
 
  The fact is that such "ducking", accompanied by ad hominem dismissals of
all individuals who are TBs or those whose minds remain open,
is an indication of the weakness of the "true-blue-skeptics" case.
 
 
=>   The fact that the true-blue skeptics also cling to disproven and stale
=>papers to dismiss the cold fusion is an indication of the weakness of
=>their case.  Thus, coupled with their absolute failure to respond to
=>quantitative discussion required to prove their "hand-waving", any reader
=>ought recognize this for what it does herald.
=tk "Mr Blue has gone quite out of his way to suggest -- as has most others --
=tk ways of demonstrating CNF to his satisfaction. Most of these suggestions
=tk are imminently reasonable. Most of those reporting positive CNF results
=tk are _not_ reasonable."
 
   Mr. Kunich obviously demonstrates more than an iota of bias.        ;-)
   Who determines what is "reasonable"?
 
 
>   To the contrary, there remain a plethora of papers showing positive
>results available in a few journals in the literature.  More relevant
>today is that scores of papers have been prepared but mainstream
>publications refuse to publish; perhaps in part because of (? self-serving)
>interests such as those demonstrated by Mr. Blue, and some of the other
>"hot fusion" people.
=tk "You, yourself, have been asked to supply a paper that couldn't be picked
=tk to pieces by a first year grad student and have been unable to supply even
=tk one."
 
  This is not true.   I supplied several papers, and even took the time to
post a few (and included separately, a GIF figure).   It is those of
us with an open mind who have asked for any serious substantial "negative"
paper(s).  Instead, the papers, allegedly disproving c.f.,
involve looking for neutrons (not there) or
involve papers using experiments of inadequate sensitivity, or presently
known to have used defective calibration, active sample removal,
or other questionable practices.
 
  Tom, in fact, any paper ought be "picked to pieces" by a good
grad student (or anyone else) because 1) noone is perfect and good
science is a progression or errors and discoveries (a.k.a experience) and
2) a paper ought to teach.
 
   Where is the single reasonable analysis or appraisal
 to the papers posted and/or reviewed by the postings?
   It is not there except for a hand-wave dismissal en bloc.  I am much to
 busy to collate and repost them, and the nonsubstantial "dismissals".
 
    Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 /  blue@dancer.ns /  coherent sensible replies
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: coherent sensible replies
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 15:32:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz must not read much of the message traffic since he
is always complaining that the skeptics never make any quantitative
statements to justify their position.  That assertion is just not
correct.  For example, I recently posted a criticism of the
Yamaguchi experiments, one of only two examples where the comensurate
production of helium is supposed to have been observed.  My specific
quantitative criticism of that work is that the mass spectrometer
was operated at a pressure beyond the instruments correct operating
range such that the mass peaks are broadened and distorted in shape.
The facts are well documented in Yamaguchi's publication.  The
operating pressures are given and the distorted peaks are shown
clearly so that anyone can see that what I have said about this
work is true.  Since the data is primarily derived from a qualitative
assessment of peak shapes, there is no way that I can make my
criticism totally quantitative.  The only quantity at issue is the
operating pressure and its time dependence, both well documented
by Yamaguchi.  Read the paper, Mitchell, and then tell us what you
see in it that contradicts what I have said.
 
To continue
Mitchell resently posted as series of questions which he asserts
the skeptics are not addressing.  The other Richard did address
them, but let me contribute as well so that perhaps Mitchell can
move on to something new.
 
=ms= 1. How do you know that this physics must occur similar to your
     preconceived notions in a gas or plasma?  Any serious proof?
The obvious answer is the universality of physics.  There are some
basic laws that apply in all domains, there are some generalizations
that can be made to guide investigations into new regimes,  and there
is a body of knowledge relating to atomic and/or solid state effects
on nuclear processes.  The skeptics position with regard to CF has
never been dependent on any absolute requirement that nuclear processes
could not be perturbed or altered, but rather that it is unreasonable
to assert that processes in a PdD lattice would be totally unrelated
in any way to those observed in other domains.  No arguement has
ever been presented by CF advocates that indicates a clear need to
alter the perspective of nuclear physicists that basically says
the perturbations of nuclear processes require interactions comparable
in strength with the nucelar interactions themselves to produce
major changes in branching ratios, reaction rates, and reaction
kinematics.  That is just basic quantum mechanics, and if you
do not accept that as serious proof, Mitchell, there is not much
we can do for you.
 
=ms= 2.  The products including excess heat, and the production of
     tritium, the production of helium-4 linked with excess heat, and
     the occasional demonstration of neutronpenic levels of neutrons
     are further support for cold fusion phenomena.  The fact that
     these phenomena occur by several methods in many different
     laboratories also are further support.  Any serious comment
     on **any** of this?
There is indeed a diversity of observations that have been presented
as evidence for a CF process.  That the observations are so diverse
is one of the serious problems I see in the case being made for
cold fusion.  Replication has come to mean nothing more than seeing
something that is supposed to be associated with cold fusion even
though there is no model to indicate how the observation relates
to other results.  Take for example the appearance of excess heat.
It is generally very irregular, showing up in "bursts" at unpredicted
times in unpredicted ways with no clear correlations having been
established to any possible experimental parameters.  Under these
conditions it will always be possible to dismiss negative results
as selfevidently being the result of improper technique even though
proper technique is still not well defined.  Is the observation
of tritium conclusive evidence for CF?  Not until other sources
are clearly ruled out and a hypothesis put forth defining the
conditions under which tritium is produced.  Otherwise it remains
just a side issue as surely as the observations on neutrons or
lack of neutrons is more a vote against CF than it is supporting
evidence.  If Takahashi says neutrons are anticorrelated to heat
production, that clearly contradicts some other observations that
find a correlated neutron rate.  Somebody has to be wrong even
though they are CF advocates!  The helium results have been
contradictory as well, and I have discussed them "quantitatively"
elsewhere.
 
=ms= 3. The autoradiography of active electrodes is further support.
     Do you have real evidence to dismiss any of that?
Michell has been a strong defender of autoradiography as if it
had provided data essential to the CF case.  My complaint against
autoradiography is that it is very nonquantitative and very nonspecific.
In the Miles experiments, for example, darkening of film packs is
put forth as evidence for something, but evidence for what?  Is the
effect due to X-rays produced by energetic ions moving in the
Pd lattice, or is it a sign that the reaction d + d -> 4He does
indeed result in gamma emission as I have always said it would?
I see nothing wrong with using autoradiography as a preliminary
tool, but the stubborn refusal by CF experimenters to upgrade their
experiments in was that can resolve questions is just rather tiresome
at this point.  Forget the film packs.  They don't give enough
information.  (oops, that should be "in ways that can resolve")
 
=ms= 4. Just duplication of the replication question.  See 2.
 
=ms= 5.  Just duplication of the replication question.  See 2.
 
=ms= 6.  Relates to hot fusion, not at issue here.
 
=ms= 7.  Candidate authors are met with resistance to the dissemination
     of information.  Any serious comments?
The CF community has been trying to take the roles as martyrs for
science from the very beginning.  It just isn't easy to sell the
idea that good results are not getting the attention they need.  There
has, been afterall the series of well financed international conferences
where positive results have been received in a very uncritical way.
Pons and Fleischmann got their latest into Physics Letters!  Having
a few papers rejected just isn't all that big a deal.  It happens.
CF advocates just seem to be sore loosers and resentful of the fact
that a few key journals have shut them out.  The stuff still seems to
get into print.  What is remarkable is how little by way of theory
has appeared in print, even in the annual conference proceedings.
I have assumed that no one had written anything, but if it exists
in the form of unpublished preprints I would be willing to read
anything along that line.  What has been suppressed by those evil
journal editors?
 
=ms= 8.  Where is that semiquantitative list showing magnitudes of
     the putative explainations (etc.) that allegedly disprove the
     cold fusion phenomena?
In a general sense I don't believe that any such general list can
ever be produced.  The issue as it stands is whether cold fusion
advocates can marshall a body of experimental evidence sufficient
to establish the reality of cold fusion.  That requires more than
a collection of miscellaneous bits of experimental data.  The
calorimetric observations of "excess heat" that are offered up
with no explaination beyond the assertion that it is too big
to be chemical are simply incomplete.  There has to be a testable
hypothesis put forward and tested in more than one way before
this issue can be resolved.  Since CF advocates have been unwilling
or unable to define the conditions under which CF will occur such
that others can duplicate their observations, further advances
must come from within the CF club.  We skeptics have no case to
prove so demanding proof from us is an empty gesture.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Richard Schultz /  p.s. on polywater
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: p.s. on polywater
Date: 31 Aug 1993 14:57:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930830140835_72240.1256_EHK39-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> responded to my comment that
 
rs> "I note that you also seem to have deleted without comment my observation
rs> that numerous scientists were able to make polywater with far more
rs> consistent reproducibility than anything the CF proponents have yet come
rs> up with."
 
By saying (in part)
 
jr> This is completely false. . . .  You just made up that statement about
jr> polywater, didn't you? You don't know a darn thing about the subject,
jr> you assumed that nobody else did either, so you figured you could make
jr> up some nonsense about it and post it, and nobody would realize you
jr> were faking. You think everyone will believe you just because you
jr> are a "skeptic." You are right about the people in your camp: "skeptics"
jr> believe anything, they never check the facts, they never question any
jr> assumption, they swallow any story.
 
I just want to point out in response to this tirade that the August 1971
issue of the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science (vol. 36, no. 4) was
devoted to "anomalous water" aka polywater.  In that issue, eight independent
research groups reported positive results (some sent in more than one paper).
A ninth experimental group submitted a paper that neither confirms nor denies
the existence of polywater.  In addition, there is a bibliography at the
back of the issue which lists other papers, but since it did not indicate
which papers were postivie and which were negative, I have not included them
in the count.  Thus, I stand by my statement above that numerous scientists
were able to make polywater more reproducibly than the CF proponents have
yet to come up with.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 15:46:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Now why is this so absurd?  Firstly, since we have no model or even a
>sketch of a model describing the actual process there is no way of
>knowing how the process can become selfsustaining, i.e. there is no
>real definition of what the trigger may be or what it means to use
>the word "ignition" in this context.
 
I believe their rational was that with electrical current cut off,
the sample continued to produce heat in excess of known thermo/chemical
storage capabilities for several hours.  *If* their observations are
true, this certainly qualifies for "ignition" even absent an understanding
of the underlying mechanism.
 
>... so constant that one would have to assert that the process
>is somehow selflimiting as well as selfsustaining.
 
That the sample doesn't explode with a nuclear blast implies a very
fundamental moderating mechanism (skeptics would call it the coulomb
force :-)
 
The difference between violent explosion and measurable heat is vastly
smaller than the difference between measurable heat and "Jone's" level
events.  A moderating mechanism is implied in any measurable heat claim.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / John George /  Re: P&F Doublespeak?
     
Originally-From: johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F Doublespeak?
Date: 31 Aug 1993 07:06:47 -0700
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

Loved your choice of words here:
 
I want compelling evidence before I throw my hat in the air.
 
Sometimes just a phrase can really say it all. I am waiting for
something for which I can throw my hat in the air. When it comes
the world will never be the same again.
 
             THX     JLG
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipes, Part III
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipes, Part III
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 17:36:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Design Status #5 - Boy Scientist is Now an Apprentice Wizard
 
Part 3.  You can tell a great wizard because he is ephemeral.  Robert
Bernecky's postings tend to appear briefly in my news reader then evaporate
before I can digest or print them.  Robert has chastised me for my technique.
Great wizards give you long three page spells, but sometimes neglect to tell
you that you are supposed to hold your eyebrows in a certain scowl, or that
the spell is supposed to be spoken in early Italian rather than pure Roman
latin.  Even worse, they sometimes tell you exactly what to do, but in a way
that makes you miss the important items.
 
In any case, it has taken a little time for me to understand what is realy
important.  Robert says get the air out.  He means it.  That is the fun of
it.  You can't beat having done something a few times.  A good wizard knows to
let his apprentice flub around a bit.
 
I was beginning to figure our what Bernecky is trying to tell me so next I cut
the fill tube.  It made a nice ssssst, so I knew there was at least a partial
vacuum.  Now working in my basement on the test set up, I filled the heat
pipe with gin using a syringe with alternate vacuum and pressure to pretty
well fill up the tube.  I then turned on the heater to 40 Watts, and boiled
nearly all the gin out of the heat pipe.  While boiling a long Vinyl tube
connected the heat pipe to the gin bottle.  Early in the boil, a lot of air
bubbles made it through the tube and bubbled up through the gin.  Later on,
everything condensed in the long tube.  Clearly I was running a still, and the
lower boiling point components were coming off first.  When the heat pipe was
nearly empty (as indicated by the gin bottle marks, and the temperature rise)
I turned off the heat, and just clamped the vinyl tube when the heat pipe
began to pull a vacuum.  The idea here is that the high velocity gin vapor
will carry along the air as it leaves.  This whole process took about four
hours, again I am trying to listen to Eachus's advice about slow outgassing
of the wick.
 
The first column (experiment 1) shows the thermometer match at ambient.  Note
that the thermistors do not match the Radio Shack unit, possibly I did not
wait long enough.
 
Experiment 2 is the result of a heater power of 10 watts.  If we make a simple
correction for the thermometer differences at ambient, the thermal
conductivity of the heat pipe appears to be very high.
 
Next, the clamps were removed, and the tube was opened to air.  It made a
nice sucking sound, indicating it had held at least some vacuum.  The heater
power remained at 10 watts, giving the results in the experiment 3 column.
Note that it took about 3 hours to get to the values of the experiment 3
column.  The thermal time constant is much shorter, so this indicates that it
is not just the air in the tube that stops operation, but likely the adsorbed
air on the wick, as advised by Robert Eachus.
 
The heat pipe was again loaded wit gin, and the gin boiled away.  Note that
this scheme makes it likely that I am operating a water heat pipe, as the
alcohol fraction was likely to leave early.  To try for a gin pipe, I allowed
it to suck back a few cc after it had boiled nearly dry.  The pipe was now
operated at 10 watts with the result in the experiment 4 column.  It is
clearly working somewhat, but not nearly as constant over the four thermometer
positions as the earlier try.  I conclude that there was enough air in the gin
sucked back into the pipe so as to spoil the effect.  The back flow was taken
from the bottom of the gin bottle which was slightly warm.  My conclusion is
that care must be taken to insure that any fill is fully gas free.
 
Note that again we see a rather curious temperature gradient in experiment
4.  It suggests to me that anything can happen in a boiled away gas filled
tube.  It appears to me that any previous calibrations for such a system are
useless.  For me, the P&F Physics Letters A paper data is meaningless as soon
as any significant amount of liquid has boiled away.
 
In the sketch below, the tube wall is |, the 5/8" foam is indicated by *, and
the section marked F was wrapped with 1" thick fiberglass tape to a thickness
of about 3".  The heater location is marked H.  Each vertical line is 1".
Each horizontal character is 1/4".  The line of w's shows the Fiberfrax wick
down one side of the heat pipe.  Temperatures in F.
 
                  |   Experiment    1       2       3       4
                 _|_
                |w  |    Heater     0 W    10 W    10 W    10W
                |w  |
                |w  |
                |w  |
                |w  |      Ta      77.0    78.6    77.0    79.7
                |w  |
                |w  |
                |w  |
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |T1 *          79.1   114.1    92.9   123.4
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |T2 *          78.7   113.7   105.1   128.0
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |T3 *          78.6   114.8   129.0   130.0
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |T4 *          78.3   113.3   156.8   112.6
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
            *   |w  |   *
          F *   |w  |   * F
         F  *   |w  |   *  F
        F       |w  |       F
       F        |w  |        F
      F         |w  |         F
     F          |w  |          F
    F          H|w  |H          F
    F          H|w  |H          F
    F           |w  |           F
    F           |w__|           F
    F                           F
    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
 
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Jed Rothwell /  How to disprove cold fusion
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to disprove cold fusion
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 17:58:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
For the 16 zillionth time, someone has written:
 
     "As far as I can tell, there is no experiment that even in theory could
     disprove CF."
 
This is not true at all! I have posted this fact many times, but here it is
again. If you want to disprove the existence of CF, all you have to do is
prove that elementary calorimetry does not work. You can pick any of the
following methods:
 
     Prove that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.
 
     Prove that the specific heat of water and the heat of vaporization are
     both incorrect by 300% or more, and that they vary wildly under
     different, undefinable circumstances.
 
     Prove that the heat transfer coefficient for every know type of
     calorimeters can vary by 300% for no apparent reason.
 
     Prove that it is impossible to measure the difference between 40 watts of
     electricity and 180 watts.
 
There are lots more ways! Look at what the "skeptics" write, you will see that
for the last four years they have been coming up dozens of "theories" to prove
that calorimetry does not work. You can find hilarious stuff like "water
friction," "talking test tubes," "invisible heat pumps," "electric arcing with
no current," "the 5 mw cigarette lighter that causes a 150 watt effect" and
much, much more! This is the most hilarious unscientific garbage imaginable,
it proves just how stupid these people are. A 7th grade kid (my daughter) can
*instantly* see ludicrous this crap is. Read it! It's fun. It's like the
National Enquirer.
 
Regarding the role of positive and negative experiments: Suppose you were to
build 10,000 chemical bombs with a new substance like TNT. You set about
attempting to detonate them one after another. Suppose 9,999 of them fail, but
the very last one *does* explode. That would prove beyond any question that
the new material was explosive. One positive experiment with a sufficiently
high signal to noise ratio overrules any number of negative, dud experiments.
It does not make the slightest bit of difference how many duds there are. You
can see actual examples of this kind of thinking -- on a much grander scale --
in high energy physics experiments. They go for months annihilating countless
trillions of particles, looking for rare reaction products. During the entire
run, out of all of those trillions and trillions of "duds," in extreme cases
they might get only two or three positive collisions. They throw away the
10^100 cases that do not show what they want, and keep the 2 or 3 that do.
 
It is ironic indeed that high energy physicists, who depend upon this method,
are among the most vociferous critics of CF!
 
In any case this argument only applies only to old or marginal CF work. The
mainline R&D corporations like Toyota, Mitsubishi, NTT and others now get 100%
reproducablity and reliability.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / mitchell swartz /  On Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Ignition doublespeak
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 16:39:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9308311332.AA03678@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: Ignition doublespeak
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=db "Firstly, since we have no model or even a
=db sketch of a model describing the actual process ......"
 
   Simply not true.  There are many models for the processes, many have
    been presented in the literature, and time shall sort this out.
 
=db "Of course it is unlikely
=db that temperature is the key parameter."
 
   But of course, Mr. Blue might prefer neutrons or some other
        incredibly low S/N ratio signal.
 
=db "In fact if you compare the
=db conditions underwhich ignition is supposed to have occured you will
=db note that they are rather orthogonal to the conditions that are often
=db said to be essential to the generation of any excess heat."
 
  Orthogonal?   If that is true, please enlighten us as to what you mean by
 that, and include the data which you utilized to arrive thereupon.
 
                                         Mitchell Swartz
                                              (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Jed Rothwell /  A trip to the library
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A trip to the library
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 19:16:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Richard Schultz followed my advice, went to the library and got a
copy of the book "Polywater." He posted several interesting quotes from it.
However, none of them had anything to do with his original statement:
 
     "...numerous scientists were able to make polywater with far more
     consistent reproducibility than anything the CF proponents have yet come
     up with."
 
He should look for quotes that support his claim. He will find that nobody
ever reproduced polywater. Furthermore, the few people who thought they had
done so *never* claimed that it was easy to detect, and they never claimed a
high signal to noise ratio. Also, they never attracted hundreds of millions of
dollars of support from industrial corporations. CF scientists have shown
astronomically high S-N ratios, reactions so apparent that you can see them
even without instruments, and of course, they have the support of the 100+
corporations, including the biggest and best ones on earth.
 
I hesitate to recommend it, but perhaps Richard should borrow a book about
elementary physics next time, so that he will understand what the Second Law
of Thermodynamics is and how calorimeters work. I recommend "Physics Made
Simple," I. M. Freeman, (Made Simple Books). Seriously, I do! It features good
prose and good examples.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 /  blue@dancer.ns /  moderating mechanism is implied
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: moderating mechanism is implied
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:32:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I agree with John Logajan that some moderating mechanism is implied
if, in fact, P&F achieved some sort of selfsustained reaction.  It is
this need for a moderating mechanism that makes me wonder whether it
is even a resonable possibility to consider.  As far as I am concerned
it is yet another level of magic being invoked without a shred of
evidence to back up the claim.  Tell us, John, when the trigger
occured.  Was it when the boiling started or when the cell boiled
dry?  If it was the former what caused the power level to drop when
there was no more water to boil?  If temperature was the key parameter
in the self regulating loop how does the cathode get from 100 C to
300 C with no change in the power level?  If temperature is not
significant in setting the reaction rate, what system parameters
do you suggest?  Once the process is started when did it stop or
what power curve did it follow?  Isn't obvious that the available
data is far too thin to make any claim for ignition?  What the
data do indicate is that most likely nothing of real interest
was happening other than some very poorly controlled and incorrectly
monitored boiling of water.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Eugene Mallove /  Taubes List - Latest
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Taubes List - Latest
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:32:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Submitted to Fusion Digest by Eugene F. Mallove, 8/31/93
 
                **** The Latest Taubes Fly-Paper Catch ****
 
        In mid-May 1993 I reviewed Gary Taubes's book, Bad Science (BS), in
this forum. I made a prediction in that review: "....it will be like flies
landing on sticky fly-paper. The negativists will cheer this book as they have
each of the two preceding negative accounts."  That prediction has now come to
pass, so what you have before you is the "Taubes Fly-Paper Catch" (TFPC, for
those who like acronyms), the August 31, 1993 edition.
 
        This list is updated periodically as new bugs are attracted to
Taubes's noxious brew of misinformation and absurdity. The TFPC already has
snagged five luminaries, plus other assorted reviewers. It's hard to tell from
their predicament whether they are ordinary nasty "house flies" -- as in flies
in the "house of science" -- or merely bioluminescent bugs trying to impress
us with their luminous credentials. Whatever, they're wrong, and they're
stuck! It may be that a few of these are actually rats who have become fused
to the sticky Taubes Paper (TP). They aren't deluded Nobelists with dreams,
just pack journalists or pack-mentality scientists. I'll keep you in suspense
no longer -- here's the list and where the evidence for them being
irreversibly stuck may be found:
 
1.  Leon Lederman, Nobel prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
2.  Burton Richter, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1976 (Dust jacket of BS)
3.  Mel Schwartz, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1988 (Dust jacket of BS)
4.  F.S. Rowland, chairman, American Association for the Advancement of
 Science (Dust jacket of BS)
5.  Glenn T. Seaborg, Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1951 (Dust jacket of BS)
6.  John Carey, Business Week review, June 21, 1993
7.  Curt Suplee, The Washington Post, July, 1993
8.  Daniel J. Kevles, The New Yorker, August 2, 1993
9.  John Gribbin, The New York Times, August 8, 1993
10.  Gregg Sapp, Montana State University Libraries, Bozeman, Library
Journal, May 1, 1993
11. Anonymous, Publisher's Weekly, May 10, 1993
12. Nicholas Wade, Nature, 5 August 1993
13. Michael D. Lemonick, People Magazine, July 26, 1993
14. James Gleick, Los Angeles Times, August 22, 1993
 
        Any of you who aspire to be on this list should know that all that is
required to be put on and assigned a rank number is for you to *publish* a
dominantly positive review of BS in which you basically agree with Taubes that
cold fusion is dead, nonsense, and "pathological science" and/or that Taubes
has prepared a generally "balanced" and comprehensive account of the cold
fusion story (even though he says almost nothing about what happened after
1989).  Mind you, I am doing this at the risk of encouraging positive reviews
of BS, but my delight in catching new bugs far outweighs that minor
disadvantage. So bugs, make my day! I notice some on this increasingly vacuous
forum have chimed in with praise, sometimes qualified or faint, of the Taubes
travesty. I'm not sure I should "honor" you with a slot on the TFPC, but if
you insist I'll gladly put you on.
 
        Oh dear, I almost forgot to cite another part of my review of BS in
May, 1993: "In the final act, the flies and flypaper will be trashed forever."
 
 
        The trapped flies have demonstrated an appalling ignorance of what is
going on in cold fusion. Many of them were completely duped into believing
that virtually no one on the planet is still deluded enough to be working on
cold fusion! This is sad for them as individuals, but it will make the funeral
pyre of the negativists burn so much brighter in 1994, if not sooner.  Gary
Taubes will now enter science history as having TWICE had a suppressing effect
on cold fusion development in the the US: (1) With his 1990 unsubstantiated
and now completely disproved allegation of tritium spiking at Texas A&M, and
(2) With the publication of his farcical BS book.
 
        I'll not waste time analyzing the nonsense that the BS-praisers have
written about cold fusion in their reviews. However,  one individual -- Nobel
laureate Leon Lederman (TFPC#1) -- must be cited for actions WAY beyond the
call of duty for the negative camp. In his book, "The God Particle: If the
Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?" (written "with Dick Teresi" I
might add, because Leon perhaps found it tough to write a popular book by
himself, or was simply too busy trying to corner funding for the SSC) ,
Lederman writes:
 
"If those University of Utah chemists who thought they had discovered cold
fusion in 1989 had understood Faraday's laws of electrolysis better, perhaps
they would never have embarrassed themselves as well as the rest of us."
(p.122)  Sorry, Leon Baby, speak for yourself!  It's YOU who will be
profoundly embarrassed when your game comes to an end. Not satisfied with one
anti-cold fusion insult, Lederman writes (on page 192): "Some fakes have had
remarkable success, such as the Israeli magician Uri Geller or the writer
Immanuel Velikovsky or even some Ph.D's in science (a Ph.D. is even less a
guarantee of truth than a Nobel Prize) who push totally off-the-wall things
like 'seeing hands,' 'psychokinesis,' 'creation science,' 'polywater,' 'cold
fusion,' and so many other fraudulent ideas." He continues: "Usually the claim
is made that the revealed truth is being suppressed by the ensconced
establishment, intent on preserving the status quo with all the rights and
privileges." Yup, you got it Leo! Yes, and I fully agree with you that your
Ph.D. AND your Nobel Prize are no guarantee that you know what you are talking
about with respect to cold fusion -- you don't.
 
Every person on the TFPC will be sent the following five items:
 
1. My review of Bad Science
2. This posting
3. An order form for the Proceedings of the Nagoya Conference
4. The EPRI announcement of the Fourth International Conference on Cold
 Fusion
5. A list of the Japanese institutions and corporations engaged in cold
 fusion research and development.
 
I encourage those on the TFPC list to communicate with me about the high
"honor" of being put on the list. I will advise them what manner of
"atonement" might suffice for their past arrogant blindness about this
extraordinary field. They should all certainly start by reading the continuing
flow of technical literature in: Physics Letters A, Fusion Technology, the
Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, the Japanese Journal of Applied
Physics, the Proceedings of the First, Second and Third International
Conferences on Cold Fusion etc., etc.  Perhaps by actually studying technical
papers that contain the latest information about cold fusion experiments and
theories they will return to a sane, calm appraisal of the evidence. They
might then even consider reading (and reviewing!) Fire from Ice: Searching for
the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (John Wiley & Sons, 1991).
 
 
                                                Eugene Mallove
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Matt Kennel /  Bottom line
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bottom line
Date: 31 Aug 1993 22:22:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
Bottom line in this whole thing:
 
        *) A few people observe a little excess temperature which may be heat.
           Even fewer observe a whole lot, but they don't tell how to get it
           reproducibly.
 
        *) Experimental evidence and fundamental theoretical objections
           emphatically rule out nuclear mechanisms as source of macroscopic
           heat.
 
Two possibilities remain:
 
1) experiments are wrong for unknown reasons.  (And, it's easier to get a bit
   of heat wrong than to miss a billion neutrons a second)
 
2) There is significant New Physics.  Not just new physics but New Physics.
   But there is no good theoretical reasons or independent experimental
   evidence.  You need something much much stronger than these experiments
   to seriously entertain this possibility.
 
As a contrast, what did quantum mechanics need to get accepted as reality?
 
1) Exact prediction by Planck of the blackbody spectrum.
2) Non-classical photoelectric effect observed, explained by Einstein.
3) Explanation and quantitative prediction of atomic transition lines,
   including effects in magnetic and electric fields, with spin corrections
   and relativistic corrections, all experimentally observed.
4) Electron diffraction.
5) Stern/Gerlach, spin procession.
6) Quantitative explanation of the periodic table and empirical chemical
   facts.
 
All inexplicable by classical physics but with completely unambiguous
experimental evidence for QM.
 
What did high-Tc superconductors need to be accepted as reality?
 
0)  A formula that anybody could read and follow (shake-n-bake) and then
    observe to work, and thus widespread independent confimation in
    a month.
 
(And high-Tc superconductivity does not require as much NewPhysics as
 cold fusion)
 
Get the picture?
 
Low levels of nuclear reactions do not require NewPhysics, but high-levels
of nuclear reactions without commensurate levels of nuclear products does.
 
--
-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:
cuddy31 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / J Lewis /  Re: coherent sensible replies
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: coherent sensible replies
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 22:00:06 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <9308311524.AA04627@suntan.Tandem.com>
blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
...
>The CF community has been trying to take the roles as martyrs for
>science from the very beginning.  It just isn't easy to sell the
>idea that good results are not getting the attention they need.  There
>has, been afterall the series of well financed international conferences
>where positive results have been received in a very uncritical way.
>Pons and Fleischmann got their latest into Physics Letters!
 
Indeed, the situation is often presented as "rebel against the
scientific establishment", yet Fleischmann is very much a member
of that establishment.  He is a F.R.S., is he not?  And as such,
does he not have the right to publish whatever he wishes,
unrefereed, in Proc.Roy.Soc.?
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat Pipes, Part III
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipes, Part III
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 23:49:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Note that again we see a rather curious temperature gradient in experiment
>4.  It suggests to me that anything can happen in a boiled away gas filled
>tube.  It appears to me that any previous calibrations for such a system are
>useless.  For me, the P&F Physics Letters A paper data is meaningless as soon
>as any significant amount of liquid has boiled away.
 
Whoa Nellie!  Systems operating at 1 atmosphere are in a completely different
statistical mode than systems working at or near vacuum.  It is incorrect to
willy nilly apply observations from one regimen to the other.  P+F are
operating at 1 atmosphere densities, even if the entire atmosphere is
D2O vapor -- the density is governed by the gas laws which correlate
similar moles per volume per pressure/temperature regardless of the molecular
weight of the gas particles.
 
This heat pipe is working at (dynamically variable) low densities.  The
kinetic trajectories of individual particles can start to have a dominant
role in the system behavior.
 
If you put the entire heat pipe in a uniform temperature bath, the internal
density will approach the working fluid vapor pressure (if there was enough
fluid to start with) at that temperature.
 
However, with a "cold" and "hot" end, the total vapor pressure must surely
be some intermediate value, depending upon how good both the gas and the
liquid phase transport is.
 
In a heat pipe which is in an operational equilibrium, the vapor pressure
is low at the cold end and higher at the hot end, which is why the gas
particles migrate quickly from hot to cold.  If the cold end has "getter'ed"
out most of the vapor, the zipping gas molecules might be able to zing from
end to end with little chance of collision with gaseous "debris."
 
>Robert says get the air out.  He means it.
 
I think this is the clue that helps explain the observed weirdness.
 
Air molecules cause more collisions -- many more than if the "bullets"
were all traveling in the same general direction.
 
>                  |   Experiment    1       2       3       4
>                |w  |    Heater     0 W    10 W    10 W    10W
>                |w  |      Ta      77.0    78.6    77.0    79.7
>            *   |w  |T1 *          79.1   114.1    92.9   123.4
>            *   |w  |T2 *          78.7   113.7   105.1   128.0
>            *   |w  |T3 *          78.6   114.8   129.0   130.0
>            *   |w  |T4 *          78.3   113.3   156.8   112.6
 
I could conjecture that case #4 has a better vacuum than case #2.
Case #2 has fairly good transport, but with it's slightly greater amount
of collision scattering gaseous debris, randomly directs some of the zipping
bullets to the tube sides.  This results in a nice statistical average
temperature at all points along the sides.
 
Case #4, on the otherhand, suggests some favored trajectory which exists
around point T3 from the hot end.  T4 is not warmed as much because there
isn't as much scattering as in case #2.  Perhaps a case #5 with even
lower operating temperature might see even a greater "hot spot" as the
scattering is reduced even further.
 
The salient point in all of this is that low pressure behavior is vastly
different than the irrevocably dominant random statisticalness of gases
at atmospheric pressures.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat Pipes, Part III
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipes, Part III
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 23:55:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>isn't as much scattering as in case #2.  Perhaps a case #5 with even
>lower operating temperature might see even a greater "hot spot" as the
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
     I meant     pressure
 
>scattering is reduced even further.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Robert Eachus /  Re: p.s. on polywater
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: p.s. on polywater
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 00:30:59 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <25vosd$3oa@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
 
   > I just want to point out in response to this tirade that the
   > August 1971 issue of the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science
   > (vol. 36, no. 4) was devoted to "anomalous water" aka polywater.
   > In that issue, eight independent research groups reported
   > positive results (some sent in more than one paper)...
 
   Let's not pick on polywater.  N-rays qualify as pathological
science, but polywater was a case where REAL observations confirmed an
incorrect theory.  Later experiments showed that "polywater" was
really a sodium silicate solution (water glass) due to the rapid
dissolving of the interior of the micro-pipettes in pure water.
Someone discovered a weird phenomena, and it took a while to get the
theory right.  As I remember it a lot of work on the properties of
ultra pure water came out of this.  The most interesting to me was
that "real" pure water--when you can create it--is one of the best
known electrical insulators around.  It is just very hard to actually
get pure water.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pipes and christmas tree ornaments
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 00:18:18 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Aug30.233329.13027@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   > First there was room temperature superconductors, then room
   > temperature nuclear fusion, and now we have room temperature ice!
   > Is nothing sacred?  :-)
 
   Smiley noted, but there is a BIG difference between STP and room
temperature.  In my undergraduate days, I remember a snow-making
machine which operated at room temperature but low pressure.  Water
was boiled off at (or slightly above) atmospheric pressure, and
expanded through a nozzle. (Of course adiabatic cooling of the water
vapor occured as it expanded.)  The vapor in the vacuum chamber was
condensed on cooling coils and pumped back to the boiler. It was
pretty neat to have a device that had all three states of water at the
same temperature and pressure, and I think the original idea was to
demonstrate this.  We used it for snowballs in May.
 
   In any case, the real problem in heat pipes is that water
evaporates fast enough at low pressure to freeze the remaining liquid.
Very counterintuitive, but it is pretty easy to freeze boiling water
below one psi.  (I'd have to get out a CRC handbook to check the
triple point numbers, but due to the heat transport you actually get
the effect over a much wider range.  The triple point is where all
three phases are in equilibrium.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
Date: 31 Aug 93 17:42:07 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

31 August 1993
Dear colleagues,
 
Below, Jed Rothwell posts a number of unfounded and perjorative remarks.  Of
course, it's not the first time he has distorted facts or misrepresented my
views.  And others have responded to Jed on this posting already (thank you).
 
Jed says:  "Steve... wants the Nobel Prize for finding what he thought was a
low-level, relatively inconsequential and non-controversial type of nuclear
reaction."  What a concantenation of distortions!
First, I do not want the Nobel Prize for this work, (it seems just a few days
ago Jed claimed not to be trying to read others' minds...)
but I would like to find out whether or not low-level
nuclear reactions have indeed occured in our lab in experiments which began
here in April 1986, and whether a form of fusion occurs in the earth and
planets.  I did not think such a discovery would be non-controversial or
inconsequential, quite to the contrary.  I explained in a posting on 28 Dec.
1992, "Natural fusion in Earth hypothesis,"  that our hypothesis has "motivated
searches for tritium from volcanoes" and described results of those searches.
 
Contrary to Jed's assertions, these notions are consequential as well as
controversial.  I acknowledge that our hypotheses challenge existing
theories while not rejecting the carefully-derived base of scientific data:
"We do not discard earlier experimental observations, such as the 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 ... by natural fusion
in the earth, contemporaneously. ... We proposed an experimentum crucis to
discern between the older model (actualy only about 15 years old) and our new
hypothesis of 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)."  (Steven Jones posting 28 Dec 92)
 
Uncontroversial?  Hardly.  But this is the fun of science, to study a puzzle
such as the origin of large amounts of 3Helium coming from the earth's
interior, generate a novel hypotheis, then develop and perform experiments to
test the hypothesis.  The more surprising the model, the more compelling the
data must be to alter the prevailing paradigm.  Not a trivial chore.  This may
explain why we doggedly continue our experiments here at BYU.
 
A discussion about theory and experiment goes back several months, with Jed.
No Jed, I never said  "Steve says that to believe evidence overrules theory is
"empty minded"."  (see Jed's diatribe below)   What I said was that to
disregard the existing data base would be empty-minded.  Yes, I think Jed was
"empty-minded" when he posted:
 
"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
electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."  (Rothwell posting in response
to me, dated 21 Dec. 1992.)
 
I find this amusing.
 
We must continually look for alternative explanations for experimental
evidences -- such as recombination in xs heat experiments with open cells (like
Miles, Mills, P&F) -- to avoid empty-mindedness.  We must also search for
proper controls, and for crucial experiments.  We must doubt our conclusions
and results, scrutinizing everything, until we first convince ourselves (the
experimenters) one way or the other about a putative "new phenomenon."
 
I have repeatedly urged a search for characteristic X-ray emissions using
energy-sensitive X-ray spectrometers as a critical test.  We could learn much
about the origins of "excess heat" (if any) by application of such tools.
Instead of
accepting this offer (made publicly, repeatedly:  use of BYU's
portable spectrometer), the suggestion is commonly ignored or
discarded by those who nonetheless claim the excess heat to be
nuclear in origin (Miles, etc.), or due to shrunken hydrogen atoms
(Mills/Farrell) or shrunken H molecules (Vigier), or due to
"Zero-point energy" effects -- all of which should produce detectable X-rays.
One must find ways to test his models, and to reject them if the experiments
show the prediction to be incorrect (e.g., no X-rays present).
Yet no one has published an X-ray spectrum along with claims of xs heat
production. Not McKubre. Not Pons & Fleischmann.  Not Yamaguchi.  No one.
 
 
Let me say that my postings will be limited now that university teaching
duties have resumed, mostly to Tuesdays.  I will post soon an hypothesis about
fusion in metallic deuterium, which is an example of my trying to make sense
out of our data, and to develop a falsifiable hypothesis.
 
Reproduced for the readers' convenience:
In article <930826173953_72240.1256_EHK57-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Chuck Sites wrote:
>
>      "...as the so called true skeptics would point out, your already going up
>      against a body of theoretical evidence even to explore the idea of Cold
>      Fusion."
>
> What in the world is "theoretical evidence?" That is a contradiction of terms.
> There are two separate domains in science: theory, and evidence (that is
> observations; data). Also, a "true skeptic" is someone who believes the
> evidence and not the wind-bag theories of so-called experts. I am a true
> skeptic, Richard Blue is a true believer.
>
> Steve Jones and many others are trying to prove that the heat measurements are
> incorrect, non-existent, or fraudulent because these heat measurements
> combined with commensurate helium nuclear ash, tritium, and neutrons prove
> beyond any rational doubt that a nuclear reaction of some sort is going on,
> and that the principle signature of the reaction is heat. This is a fact. It
> is a very inconvenient fact for someone like Steve, who wants the Nobel Prize
> for finding what he thought was a low-level, relatively inconsequential and
> non-controversial type of nuclear reaction. As he himself has pointed out
> several times, if Pons and Fleischmann are right, and there *is* massive heat,
> then he is wrong.
 
Baloney, Jed.  Show where I have made the assertions you allege.
 
>So, Steve has tried again and again to prove that *all*
> calorimetric results in *all* experiments are either a mistake, fraud, or
> chemical. See, for example, the ICCF3 paper by Bueler, Hansen, Jones and Rees
> on page 245. No right-minded scientist could believe such crap. Steve believes
> it because he has deluded himself, in a desperate attempt to evade simple,
> proven, objective reality. (Steve is not the only one! Thousands of others
> suffer from this pathology.) Naturally, P&F *are* right, they have been
> confirmed by hundreds of scientists, in experiment after experiment, at levels
> of confidence so far above any experimental error that it is lunacy to
> question them.
>
 
The ICCF3 paper principally challenges those who claim xs heat to use an X-ray
spectrometer to scrutinize their results.  The paper also points out numerous
potential errors that have crept into experiments which may lead to erroneous
claims of xs heat production.  The paper was largely inspired by
the claims made by
Takahashi, Yamaguchi, P&F, McKubre, Miles and others at the Nagoya meeting.
None of these has used an X-ray spectrometer, although I understand that
Takahashi (only) is planning finally to use one in connection with his
experiments.
 
> Here are the ground rules for science: you cannot disprove evidence by
> pointing to a theory. It does not matter how "impossible" an observation is.
> The only way to disprove it is to show that the instruments malfunctioned, or
> the experiment did not measure what the experimenter thought it did. When the
> instruments are know to work as well as traditional water-based calorimeters
> do, and when the signal to noise ratio is high enough, all doubts are
> resolved, all questions erased. We passed that point years ago in cold fusion.
> You can doubt one or two reports of 0.1 C Delta T temperatures, but when
> hundreds of people measure Delta T's like 5 C, 10 C, 50 C, 200 C... there can
> be no room left for doubt. Science is not philosophy; we do not go on forever
> questioning whether life is a dream. Once objective facts are established
> beyond a reasonable doubt, we believe them, and move on to the next stage,
> which is to build theories to accommodate the newly discovered facts.
>
> You can ONLY critique the experimental technique, you can NEVER say, "there
> was no heat because theory says there should not be" (or "because there are no
> radioactive products or X-rays"). If every experiment in history, from Hot
> Fusion to biochemistry seems to contradict the result... that does not make
> one damn bit of difference. That is not a valid scientific criterion upon
> which to judge an experimental result. If results appear "impossible"
> according to the known laws of science, that can only mean that every
> scientist in history has drawn the wrong conclusions from previous
> experiments. The key words here are: "seem, appear" as in "seem to
> contradict." In reality, experiments never contradict one another. Nature is
> one, and nature never lies. It is only our understanding which is imperfect or
> incomplete. "Seem" and "appear" describe the state of mind of the observer,
> which cannot have any bearing on actual, objective, measured reality. If what
> you observe "seems impossible" to you, that is because you are confused or
> ignorant, not because the event is not happening.
>
> These rules are absolute. This is how science works, and this is the only way
> it ever can work. Hundreds of people here and elsewhere disagree with me on
> this. Wild-eyed radicals like Steve and Richard want to throw away these
> absolute standards. They offer us new age, crystal power, faith healing,
> theory instead of objective replicated evidence. Steve says that to believe
> evidence overrules theory is "empty minded." He is wrong, and I am right.
 
I have said no such thing.  See above.
 
> Fortunately for me, I am not the only person who believes in the absolute
> primacy of evidence over theory. I am not a creative person, I did not come up
> with this doctrine myself. People who have affirmed it include: Kepler,
> Galileo, Huxley, Feynman, Schwinger, Clarke, Ikegami, Vigier, Mallove and
> Fleischmann. These people are scientists. Those who disagree with them are
> academic hacks and idiots.
>
Sticks and stones...
Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, Jed.  Ipse dixit?
 
> - Jed
>
 
 
With best wishes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: How to disprove cold fusion
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to disprove cold fusion
Date: 1 Sep 1993 01:41:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930831172741_72240.1256_EHK35-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
>For the 16 zillionth time, someone [i.e. R. Schultz, esq] has written:
>
>     "As far as I can tell, there is no experiment that even in theory could
>     disprove CF."
>
>This is not true at all! I have posted this fact many times, but here it is
>again. If you want to disprove the existence of CF, all you have to do is
>prove that elementary calorimetry does not work. You can pick any of the
>following methods:
>
>     Prove that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.
>
>     Prove that the specific heat of water and the heat of vaporization are
>     both incorrect. . . . [etc.]
 
As usual, Mr. Rothwell has completely misunderstood both what I am asking
and how science works.  For it to be science, it has to be falsifiable.
That is, there must be some experiment that can be performed that would
have one result if the theory were true, and another if it weren't.
For example, lots of people have tested QM over the years (most famously
trying to test the predictions of Bell's Theorem).  QM is amenable to
testing because it predicts what the results of the experiment ought to
be.  Feshbach's Fifth Force is another good example.  It was a crazy idea
(partially because it goes right against a well-accepted theory) and yet
people listened to him, because he proposed an experiment the results of
which could (and eventually did) prove him wrong.
 
With SCCF, there is no such falsifiability.  If a careful experimenter fails
to see excess heat, it's because of one of these mysterious post hoc
reasons, not because CF doesn't exist.  What I ask for is an *experiment*
that can have two outcomes, one of which supports the CF theory and one of
which does not.  Not a string of insults or silliness.  Just an experiment
that can differentiate between CF-Yes and CF-No.  This does not have to be
an experiment that has been performed, just one that could be.
 
>Regarding the role of positive and negative experiments: Suppose you were to
>build 10,000 chemical bombs with a new substance like TNT. You set about
>attempting to detonate them one after another. Suppose 9,999 of them fail, but
>the very last one *does* explode. That would prove beyond any question that
>the new material was explosive. One positive experiment with a sufficiently
>high signal to noise ratio overrules any number of negative, dud experiments.
 
People go through this again and again with you and you show no signs of
understanding this.  There is a difference between precision and accuracy.
If 9999 bombs didn't explode and the 10,000th one did, I would be much more
likely to suspect that something else besides my trial explosive caused the
explosion.  Suppose (to take a more simple-minded example) I have a ruler
marked every millimeter.  Except that I don't notice that the first cm
from 0 to 1 was cut off.  Now I can go around and measure things to the
nearest millimeter (i.e. high signal-to-noise) but *every* measurement I
make will be wrong.
 
>You can see actual examples of this kind of thinking -- on a much
>grander scale -- in high energy physics experiments. They go for months
>annihilating countless trillions of particles, looking for rare reaction
>products. During the entire run, out of all of those trillions and
>trillions of "duds," in extreme cases they might get only two or three
>positive collisions. They throw away the 10^100 cases that do not show
>what they want, and keep the 2 or 3 that do.
 
Again, your misunderstading is really amazing.  Here it is not a question
of "dud" experiments versus "positive" ones.  If you are looking for even
that has a probability of occurring only once in 10^-12, then if it actually
occurs once in 10^-12 reactions, you have had a successful experiment, not
a "dud."
 
>In any case this argument only applies only to old or marginal CF work. The
>mainline R&D corporations like Toyota, Mitsubishi, NTT and others now get 100%
>reproducablity and reliability.
 
I think that at some point you are going to have to make up your mind whether
CF cells can fail to produce heat for no particular reason or whether
they are 100% reproducible and reliable.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.31 / Barry Merriman /  Re: How to disprove cold fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How to disprove cold fusion
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 22:53:55 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930831172741_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> In any case this argument only applies only to old or marginal CF work. The
> mainline R&D corporations like Toyota, Mitsubishi, NTT
> and others now get 100% reproducablity and reliability.
>
> - Jed
 
Well then why do you keep argueing so vigorously? If they
have that level of success and control, it should only
be a matter of months before the process is completely
illucidated to the satisfaction of all.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Tom Holroyd /  Re: A trip to the library
     
Originally-From: tomh@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Tom Holroyd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A trip to the library
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 02:46:24 GMT
Organization: none

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> I recommend "Physics Made
> Simple," I. M. Freeman, (Made Simple Books). Seriously, I do!
 
It figures that you get your physics knowledge out of a kiddie physics
book..  You seem to think that nobody else in the world understands
the laws of thermodynamics.  Shut up!  Your postings are so idiotic,
I've been reading the fusion list just for the laughs I get watching
you put your foot in your mouth, flame and tirade all over the place.
But lately you've gotten really irritating.  Why don't you go look up
the peer reviewed article on polywater instead of the popular book
version?  Why don't you stop asking stupid rhetorical questions about
"proving" CF false by showing thermodynamics or basic chemistry
violations?  Perhaps you suffer from what in psychology is called
'projection' - you don't understand physics, but you *think* you
do, therefore you conclude that *we* don't understand physics.
 
Save yourself some bucks and quit sending mail to this list from
Compu$erve.  You'll need the money later when CF dies.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomh cudfnTom cudlnHolroyd cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 05:17:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Aug31.154651.19571@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>The difference between violent explosion and measurable heat is vastly
>smaller than the difference between measurable heat and "Jone's" level
>events.  A moderating mechanism is implied in any measurable heat claim.
>
As far as I've been able to figure it out from what I've seen of CNF is
the following: 1) The one constant factor in all of the positive experiments
is excess heat. No matter how well or how poorly measured they all have
excess heat. 2) They do not seem to generate measureable amounts of nuclear
ash. In the most positive experiments, the nuclear ash is many, many orders
of magnitude below what would be necessary to account for the excess heat, let
alone explain any inefficiency in the coupling mechanisms. Wags would say
that there is no ash and any measurements of such is in error. The quantities
certainly would indicate that this is reasonable.
 
So I have arrived at the understanding that CNf is supposed to provide heat
with negligable nuclear byproducts. Fine
 
Then why is it that if all that is necessary to provide a source of clean heat
is a metal matrix and a couple duterium molecules, some form of life hasn't
taken advantage of it? For at least a billion years life has been
experimenting with the idea of obtaining cheap energy. The oceans contain
most of the available duterium and most of the worlds desolved metals.
 
I can practically guarantee you that if energy was so easy to obtain there
would be some bacterium exploiting it. When you consider the complexity of
the hemoglobin molecule or snake venom, CNF would seem a snap to mother
nature.
 
So, where are these life forms? And with a source of energy that cheap wouldn't
you expect them to be the major factor in a competitive ecosystem?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / mitchell swartz /  Coherent sensible replies
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coherent sensible replies
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 05:37:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9308311524.AA04627@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: coherent sensible replies
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU a.k.a.  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=ms= 1. How do you know that this physics must occur similar to your
     preconceived notions in a gas or plasma?  Any serious proof?
 
= The obvious answer is the universality of physics.  There are some
= ....  No arguement has
= ever been presented by CF advocates that indicates a clear need to
= alter the perspective of nuclear physicists that basically says
= the perturbations of nuclear processes require interactions comparable
= in strength with the nucelar interactions themselves to produce
= major changes in branching ratios, reaction rates, and reaction
= kinematics."
 
   That is not true.  Read the literature.   Theory must
follow experiment, even though earlier models may have "led" the way.
 
=ms= 2.  The products including excess heat, and the production of
     tritium, the production of helium-4 linked with excess heat, and
     the occasional demonstration of neutronpenic levels of neutrons
     are further support for cold fusion phenomena.  The fact that
     these phenomena occur by several methods in many different
     laboratories also are further support.  Any serious comment
     on **any** of this?
 
= "There is indeed a diversity of observations that have been presented
= as evidence for a CF process.  That the observations are so diverse
= is one of the serious problems I see in the case being made for
= cold fusion."
 
   That also is not true.  The experiments are mutually supportive and
 in fact are of so many types that any interested reader is directed, for
 themselves, to the literature, to observe the corroborations of the original
 announcment.
 
 
= "Take for example the appearance of excess heat.
= It is generally very irregular, showing up in "bursts" at unpredicted
= times in unpredicted ways with no clear correlations having been
= established to any possible experimental parameters."
 
   That is not true.  There are steady-state excess heats (which I
 previously called regular anomalous) and burst types (irregular anomalous).
 You should not simply change what is reported to attempt to support
  your self-serving ramblings and misstatements.
 
 
= "Is the observation
= of tritium conclusive evidence for CF?  Not until other sources
= are clearly ruled out and a hypothesis put forth defining the
= conditions under which tritium is produced."
 
   Given that one report of this was from Los Alamos Laboratory, one might
 presume the capability at that location to resolve this, despite your lame
 protest.  Other sites have also confirmed this.
 
 
=ms= 3. The autoradiography of active electrodes is further support.
     Do you have real evidence to dismiss any of that?
 
= "Michell has been a strong defender of autoradiography as if it
= had provided data essential to the CF case.  My complaint against
= autoradiography is that it is very nonquantitative and very nonspecific."
 
   But it does detect ionizing radiation, right?  It can also be used to
  obtain rudimentary information about energy and the particles if appropriate
  steps are taken.
 
 
=ms= 8.  Where is that semiquantitative list showing magnitudes of
     the putative explainations (etc.) that allegedly disprove the
     cold fusion phenomena?
 
= "In a general sense I don't believe that any such general list can
= ever be produced."
 
   Of course you don't.  But it can, and it should.
   I began it with the following:
 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
   The Jones Factor (*)                         0.75
 
  (*) putative recombination effects reported by Jones and Jones.
 
 
     to which we can begin to add the other factors which you erroneously
        claim disprove the c.f. phenomena.
 
 
= "The issue as it stands is whether cold fusion
= advocates can marshall a body of experimental evidence sufficient
= to establish the reality of cold fusion."
 
   True.  And that has happened.  Those who read the literature
 will be surprised if they have been following your erroneous pabulum.
 
     Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / mitchell swartz /  On polywater
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On polywater
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 05:43:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <EACHUS.93Aug31193059@spectre.mitre.org>
   Subject: Re: p.s. on polywater
Robert I. Eachus [eachus@spectre.mitre.org] writes:
 
=    Let's not pick on polywater.  N-rays qualify as pathological
= science, but polywater was a case where REAL observations confirmed an
= incorrect theory.  Later experiments showed that "polywater" was
= really a sodium silicate solution (water glass) due to the rapid
= dissolving of the interior of the micro-pipettes in pure water.
= Someone discovered a weird phenomena, and it took a while to get the
= theory right."
 
   Well stated and quite true.  The Polywater story is quite different
from the cold fusion phenomena.
 
= "As I remember it a lot of work on the properties of
= ultra pure water came out of this."
 
   Much work on the structures and properties of water (and the ices)
predate the polywater story.   We were involved in three terminal dielectric
spectroscopy of Ice Ih (with additives) at the time, and when "polywater"
arrived there was much knowledge of the solid (and liquid) state
already known.
 
= "The most interesting to me was
= that "real" pure water--when you can create it--is one of the best
= known electrical insulators around.  It is just very hard to actually
= get pure water."
 
   I think you might be thinking of ice Ih which shows an inscription of
proton movements after the electric field intensity is applied and then
becomes an electrical insulator to DC.  To those
that test it however, ordinary two-terminal measurements are insufficient to
demonstrate this effect because of higher surface electical conductivities
which are observed to about -30C.  Therefore, three terminal (guard ring)
electrodes are needed.
 
   The best water we obtained had an electrical resistivity close to the
theoretical resistivity of circa 22 megohm-cm [as
I remember] but that rapidly dropped to circa 1.2 megohm-cm as the CO2
from the atmosphere became solvated.
 
          Best wishes.
                                                     Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Taubes List - Latest
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Taubes List - Latest
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 12:32:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1342:
 
[much vitriol snipped]
 
>... They should all certainly start by reading the continuing
>flow of technical literature in: Physics Letters A, Fusion Technology, the
>Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, the Japanese Journal of Applied
>Physics,
 
Wait a minute! What about all the complaints about journals repressing papers
about CNF? Eugene, you have anticipated me, I was going to point out those
very journals, all of them "proper", i.e. refereed, outlets, and - except
maybe FT, quality journals. FT still is, in the "hot" section, as far as I can
judge (that's not far), but seems to be willing to accept anything tagged as
CNF, thus damaging its reputation, I would guess. You also forgot Journal of
Fusion Energy. No flies on JEC, either, and that journal has had between 30
and 40 CNF papers. It is THE journal for electrochemistry.
 
In fact, I have the impression that when people complain about journal
exclusion, they are talking specifically about Science and Nature. As I have
said before, take it like men and forget these journals, which in any case are
not quite appropriate.
 
I am told that there is indeed a degree of suppression of grant money for CNF
proposals, at least in the USA. This is regrettable, I agree. But don't damage
the case by pointing to nonexistent suppression.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  perturbations, large and small
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: perturbations, large and small
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:40:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To my statement concerning the strength of interactions required to
perturb nuclear processes,  Mitchell Swartz can only reply, "That is
not true.  Read the literature."
 
I am sorry Mitchell to have to ask for a little help on this.  The
literature on this subject is just to vast for me to read this week
so it would help matters if you could make a few specific recommendations
as to where I should find the source of your profound insights into
the ways in which nuclear reactions can be altered by atomic or lattice
effects in contradiction to my statement.  In the past all you have
ever done is refer to the Mossbauer effect which involves a small
shift in recoil energy, very much in accord with my point of view.
 
As to your other responses,  you seem to believe that if you define
it that way there are two forms in which excess heat appears, steady
and not steady.  Then there are three forms in which tritium appears,
a trace, a bit more, and a whole bunch.  And neutrons may be absent
or more or less penic.  Helium can come off freely in the gas, but be
totally missing from the cathode.  Charged particles can be totally
absent or be produced in the millions.  Those charged particles can
include 3He but no 3He is seen in the gaseous helium.  Yet every
one of these observations can be cited as evidence in support of
cold fusion.
 
Then I have another request concerning models for the cold fusion
reaction process.  Just saying there are lots of them leaves me
more confused.  Why don't you pick one that you like and tell us
just a bit about it?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  conditions for ignitions
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: conditions for ignitions
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:40:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have come to realize that I may have fallen into a trap when I
commented on the conditions required for the ignition that P&F claimed
to have observed.  They never told us precisely when the event occured
so we don't really know what the conditions were.  I had thought they
must have refered to the current cut off when the cell was dray as the
time of ignition, but that was perhaps an incorrect assumption on my
part.  Ignition may have occured earlier and just gone unnoticed since
the experimenters were in the back room playing cards or something like
that.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Frank Close /  Where's He gone/Where's the He Gene?
     
Originally-From: fec@ralhep.cern.ch (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where's He gone/Where's the He Gene?
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 14:03:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed Rothwell writes "Galileo . . Feynman . . MALLOVE and Fleischmann..
These people are scientists"
 
This is a statement straight out of Cold Fusion Research Advocates,
a.k.a. Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove.
 
Eugene Mallove has published, via Clustron Sciences Corporation
(for which Jed Rothwell was an early booster), a "theory" which
violates the conservation of energy. I challenged him in March
about this and he has not faced this critic; instead he has continued
to lobby Congress and others while claiming to be scientifically literate
with much advertisinig of Dr Eugene Mallove D.Sc.
 
Such actions are nearer to those of  charlatans than legitimate
scientific consultants. If opinion makers are being lobbied,
and articles that have been encouraged by Dr Eugene Mallove D.Sc.
continue to be used in support of cold fusion, it
is important that the credentials of Eugene Mallove be generally known.
 
Six months after my original posting here, I give Eugene Mallove the
opportunity again to advertise his true credentials by
responding to the following. In the absence of a satisfactory response
I shall have to continue to refer to this when I am consulted on these
issues.
 
Frank Close;
 
Reposting of March 1993.(`--' refer to my posting; "--" to Mallove)
 
 
   According to Eugene Mallove:
 
  A proton and deuteron combining at room temperature can
 
"release 4 X 931MeV or 3.72GeV of energy which sends the (produced)
3He nucleus out of the cell at high energy",
 
and a proton and tritium
 
`produce 4He with energy release of "6 X 931MeV or 5.59GeV" '.
 
These quotes come from a paper bearing Mallove's name, they are
published under the logo of Clustron Sciences Corporation, and they
violate the conservation of energy.
 
QUESTION TO EUGENE MALLOVE (for the third time)
 
    *************************  *******************    *************
How is it that the collision of 1H,2H at room temperature,
with a total energy energy of less than 3 GeV can liberate energy
of 3.7GeV, and how do 1H,3H with total less than 4Gev
liberate 5.6GeV  as claimed while maintaining conservation of energy?
 
  A scientific answer on this question rather than a political statement
on some other matter would be appreciated by me and be enlightening
**************************************************************************
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfec cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Apology
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apology
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 18:16:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In my last post, I confused Robert Bernecky with Robert Eachus.  This confused
Terry Bollinger.  It was Robert Eachus who is the ephemeral wizard.  But likely
Terry and Bob Bernecky are wizards too.  Apoloyies to all.  Possibly "we are
all wizards on this bus".  I think I have too many balls in the air!
 
Monday night Kevin Urness came over and I outlined all the double walled
vacuum tight shells that I want him to design and get fabricated.  He looked
overloaded when he left.  Still, I think he will take on the work.  At the
same pay as me (none).  As a teenager, a Lutheran minister onec told me that
he did people a favor by asking them to do work (for the church).  Many people
are looking for a just cause for their life work - or pastime.  It is the job
of a leader to find such work.  The Libertarian crowd will understand that this
is a just transaction.  The pay is real, but not in dollars.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / MR HUGHES /  BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR DG HUGHES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BIG BOMB
Date: 1 Sep 93 11:59:27 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

BIG BOMB.
 
A friend of mine came up with an idea which appears flawless. This wouldn't
warrent me putting this to the net except the idea concludes the destruction
of the earth. I hope I can recall all the detail.
 
An ordinary fission bomb is placed the centre of a hugh balloon which is
filled with heavy water(Detrium). This balloon is allowed to slowly sink to
the bottom of the deepest ocean floor which I think is about ten kilometers
deep. The only way the reaction should be able to stop is if the amount of
detrium to be converted into energy is exhausted, and according to Energy
equals Mass times speed of light squared, this should not even come into it
given enough detrium. The only other way the reaction can stop is if there
is a release in pressure which can only come about if the oceans are lifted
upwards faster than the rate at which the reaction increases. However, by
the time the pressure is great enough to start reducing the reaction, the
temperature is high enough for the ordinary fusion of normal hydrogen of
which there is plenty in ordinary sea water.
 
Could someone please tell me how feasible this is.
 
No flames please... excuse the pun.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeng93h7345 cudfnMR cudlnHUGHES cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Jed Rothwell /  An ordinary chemical reaction
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An ordinary chemical reaction
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 18:37:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones asked me to dig up this old quote of his:
 
     "BTW, if test-tube fusion generates xs heat, then clearly the credit goes
     to P&F, no question."
 
     - Who Stole the Fake Diamonds? Date: 10 Feb 93 13:38:46 -0700
 
There you have it folks: human nature. Ego. We have massive, incontrovertible
evidence of excess heat, impeccable calorimetry -- the best in history -- and
an astronomical signal to noise ratio. But none of this means a damn thing to
Steve Jones. He insists that all heat measurements are wrong or insignificant,
because he is afraid that if he admits the heat is real, he will lose all
credit for discovering CF. He is wrong about that. History will reserve a
minor spot for him as a co-discoverer, just as Wallace is acknowledged along
with Darwin.
 
Steve characterized the Buehler paper in ICCF3 as follows:
 
     "The ICCF3 paper principally challenges those who claim xs heat to use an
     X-ray spectrometer to scrutinize their results."
 
This distortion is uncalled-for. The paper's conclusion is explicit:
 
     "'Excess heat' can only be proven to be nuclear in origin by showing that
     the products of nuclear reactions are produced at the same time and rate
     as the heat... and commensurate with the law of mass-energy conservation.
     Until such proof exists, application of Occam's razor demands that
     'excess heat' be regarded as having it source in ordinary chemical
     reactions."
 
Buehler et al say here that "an ordinary chemical reaction" can generate
hundreds of megajoules per mole of cathode material with absolutely no sign of
any chemical change and no chemical ash. They are saying this is true because
of Occam's razor. This is one of stupidest, most indefensible arguments I have
ever seen. If Buehler et al are going to make this argument, they should stick
by it and defend it. Let us not get side tracked with x-rays or anything else.
Steve want us to believe that "an ordinary chemical reaction" can produce a
hundred million joules from 106 grams of palladium. He should tell us how and
why.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Kiddie Physics
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kiddie Physics
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 19:01:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I recommended the book "Physics Made Simple," by Freedman. Somebody posted a
hilarious message describing this kind of book as "kiddie physics." This is a
classic expression of know-nothing, anti-intellectual ignorance. For the
record:
 
Everyone should have a book like this, and everyone should refer to it
frequently. The concepts and discoveries described in this book were made by
people like Newton, Joule, Ohm and Boyle; their work is certainly worthy of
your attention. You may think you know this material by heart, but you are
probably wrong, because there is quite a lot of it. If everyone engaged in
this so-called "debate" about cold fusion understood the concepts explained in
this book, in the depth to which they are explained here, all arguments about
calorimetry and the reality of cold fusion would end instantly. The people who
doubt the experimental evidence have forgotten the A-B-C's of science, or they
become sidetracked by triviality, or they can't see the forest for the trees.
 
The proof of cold fusion -- excess heat -- *is* kiddie physics. It is dead
simple! It is elementary stuff, based on the oldest, most reliable and solid
laws of chemistry and physics. That is why you cannot "falsify" it unless you
first rip out and throw away the second law of thermodynamics and a lot else
too. Kiddie physics is the best kind. You will never be so certain of your
nuclear experiments, quarks or even x-rays as I am of Boyle's law or Ohm's
law.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Jed Rothwell /  ICCF3, ICCF4 Info.
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF3, ICCF4 Info.
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 19:01:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Several people have recently asked me to post the following two announcements
again.
 
The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion are
available from:
 
Universal Academy Press, Inc.
PR Hogo 5 Bldg.
6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo
Tokyo 113
JAPAN
 
Telephone numbers as dialed from the U.S. are:
 
Tel. 011-81-3-3813-7232
Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932 (Please note: some calls to the fax number get a
recording saying the line is not in service.)
 
The price of the proceedings is 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air shipping:
$26.65)
 
It took a very long time for these people to ship the books in response to
previous orders. If you order the book and you don't get it, tell me or Hideo
Ikegami.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 
This announcement originally from:
 
EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems
EVENTS (R) Conference
April, 1993
 
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION (ICCF-4)
 
Background
 
Four years of intensive investigation have uncovered a wide variety of
unexpected phenomena occurring in condensed matter under ambient conditions.
Promoted largely by the possibility of a nuclear origin, the reality,
mechanism, independence, and ultimately, significance of these processes is a
subject of continued debate.  The phenomena in question and their associated
disciplines include excess power generation, nuclear product formation,
electrochemical studies of deuterated metal systems, solid-state physics of
metal matrices, coherent processes, behavior of gas-metal systems, and
improved precision calorimetric techniques.
 
Objective
 
The purpose of this conference is to promote the broadest discussion of the
scientific aspects of these condensed matter phenomena.
 
Who Should Attend
 
Participation is open to all interested scientists and technologists. In
particular, the following are encouraged to attend:
 
     Nuclear and solid-state theoreticians
     Advanced energy technologists
     Long-range utility planners
 
Call for Abstracts
 
Two-page abstract due:  September 10, 1993
Author notification:  October 10, 1993
Those wishing to present papers should submit two copies of an abstract
containing the title of the presentation, contact author, affiliation(s), etc.
to S. Crouch-Baker, SRI International, 333 Ravenswood, Avenue, Menlo Park, CA
94025. Mark these submissions "ICCF-4 Abstract."
 
Abstracts should be no more than two 28 x 21 cm pages (8 1/2 x 11") including
figures and tables; 10-point type, single-spaced.  A bound volume of abstracts
will be produced for distribution to attendees at the conference, so abstract
submittal in magnetic form is encouraged (Macintosh users:  Word 4.0+, System
7; PC users:  Word 4.0+; magnetic media will not be returned).  Also, those
submitting abstracts in magnetic form should include two hard copies.
 
Technical Information
Tom Passell, EPRI, (415) 855-2070
Michael McKubre, SRI, (415) 859-3868
 
December 6--9, 1993
Hyatt Regency Maui
Lahaina, Hawaii
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Conference Organization/Preliminary Agenda
 
The conference will be cochaired by Dr. T. O. Passell (EPRI) and Dr. M. C. H.
McKubre (SRI).  An organizing committee has been formed with individual
responsibility in the following designated areas.  The International Advisory
Committee will be announced shortly.
 
T. Claytor                (LANL)           Nuclear Measurements
S. Crouch-Baker           (SRI)            Proceedings
P. Hagelstein             (MIT)            Theory
B. Liaw                   (U. Hawaii)      Site Organization
M. McKubre                (SRI)            Calorimetry (cochair)
R. Nowack            (ONR)           Administration
T. Passell                (EPRI)           Administration (cochair)
D. Rolison                (NRL)            Materials, Fundamentals
 
The proposed agenda is as follows:  Morning sessions will be devoted to one
keynote presentation and a number of shorter, invited presentations.
Afternoon presentations will be divided into a number of thematically
organized parallel sessions to accommodate the anticipated number of
presentations.  Papers reporting the results of simultaneous measurements of
different kinds are particularly encouraged.  Subject areas to be covered
include:
 
     Materials and Fundamentals
     Calorimetry
     Nuclear Measurements
     Solid-State Theory
     Electrochemical Studies
     Safety Issues
 
Logistical and Registration Information
 
Linda Nelson
Conference Coordinator
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743
Tel: (415) 855-2127
Fax: (415) 855-2041
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / mitchell swartz /  On 'perturbations, large and small'
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On 'perturbations, large and small'
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 18:15:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9309011310.AA16814@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: perturbations, large and small
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] composes:
 
= "To my statement concerning the strength of interactions required to
= perturb nuclear processes,  Mitchell Swartz can only reply, "That is
= not true.  Read the literature."
 
  Mr. Blue, as usual, did not discuss specific physics or quantitation of same
 directed to his theoretical reasons to dismiss the scores of c.f. reports.
  In fact, his statement referred to the existence of arguments, and not
 to the physics:
 
  = ....  "No arguement has
  = ever been presented by CF advocates that indicates a clear need to
  = alter the perspective of nuclear physicists that basically says
  = the perturbations of nuclear processes require interactions comparable
  = in strength with the nucelar interactions themselves to produce
  = major changes in branching ratios, reaction rates, and reaction
  = kinematics."
 
   In fact, very compelling arguements have been given.
   Furthermore, and most importantly, Dick Blue (and some other "hard-core
skeptics") have failed to supply sufficient quantitative reasons to support
their much-heralded claims.   Where is their response to the questions asked re:
                                         1) the sign of the effect discussed
    by John Logajan (and posted with a heading of the same name), and
 
                                     and 2) minor nature (by magnitude) of
 effects he (and others) have relied upon to "handwave" the cold fusion
 phenomena away (e.g. as posted under the heading Jones Effect)   ?
 
 
= "The literature on this subject is just to vast for me to read this week
= so it would help matters if you could make a few specific recommendations
= as to where ......."
 
   No problem.  Start with Dieters list, and follow it up with the Conference
and other proceedings discussed here.   There is NO chance you could
finish it in a year, let alone a week, if you were serious.
 
 
=      "Then there are three forms in which tritium appears,
= a trace, a bit more, and a whole bunch. ...          every
= one of these observations can be cited as evidence in support of
= cold fusion."
 
   It has taken Dick Blue quite a while to admit that tritium can be created
by some of these processes.   We may be at last in agreement, both to ourselves
and to Dr. Edmund Storms.
 
  "... when we made tritium it was pretty spectacular, I mean
   when you hold the holy grail in your hand, it is hard to deny its
   existence."    [Dr. Edmund Storms, Los Alamos National Laboratory]
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Pure Water
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pure Water
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 20:06:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Eachus points out that water is a good insulator.  Some very high
power pulse networks have used water dielectric capacitors.  Relatively
high dielectric constant, and if they arc over you don't have to throw the
mess away.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: On 'perturbations, large and small'
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On 'perturbations, large and small'
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1993 12:16
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

In article <CCotDo.15B@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
What is evident in this series of exchanges is the Dick Blue talks
about the experiments and the physics, and you talk about Dick Blue.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  AMAJOROV@etcv0 /  CNF-Life
     
Originally-From: AMAJOROV@etcv01.eld.ford.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF-Life
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 22:47:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
>Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
>
>So I have arrived at the understanding that CNf is supposed to provide heat
>with negligable nuclear byproducts. Fine
>
>Then why is it that if all that is necessary to provide a source of clean heat
>is a metal matrix and a couple duterium molecules, some form of life hasn't
>taken advantage of it? For at least a billion years life has been
>experimenting with the idea of obtaining cheap energy. The oceans contain
>most of the available duterium and most of the worlds desolved metals.
>
>I can practically guarantee you that if energy was so easy to obtain there
>would be some bacterium exploiting it. When you consider the complexity of
>the hemoglobin molecule or snake venom, CNF would seem a snap to mother
>nature.
>
>So, where are these life forms? And with a source of energy that cheap wouldn't
>you expect them to be the major factor in a competitive ecosystem?
 
Well....there are at least two implied assumptions there. 1)"I'd recognize
it as life even if it did use CNF". 2) "I'd know where to look for CNF-based
life forms".
 
Taking number two, first. Let me ask a retorical question. Where would you
look for nuclear fission-based life? The answer: on the ocean bottom where
thermal springs are spewing hydrogen-sulfide laced water. The problem
fission-based life faces is the same one we face. Not the generation
of energy but the collection. Their source of energy is (ultimately)
the decay of radionucleides in the earth. Our source of energy is
(again, ultimately) the sun. Which brings us to question one. Since
collecting energy without being collected is the _big_ problem,
what would a form of life look like that didn't have that very
fundamental problem? I'll tell you this, it wouldn't be in the form
of CNF-powered cows or fish or birds. What do it mean? Well, since
no one has not found CNF-based life forms that is proof positive that
CNF hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenAMAJOROV cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  "impeccable calorimetry"
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "impeccable calorimetry"
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 23:26:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says " ... impeccable calorimetry ... astronomical signal to noise
ratio ... "
 
impeccable   Lots of possible errors.  Uncertain calibration.  Calibration
             under one set of conditions translated to another set of
             conditions.  Calibration constants measured in the liquid phase
             assumed to hold in the vapor phase.
 
astronomical Many of us consider astronomical numbers to be 10E6 or 3x10E10
             Double speak translates this to 10E-5 or 1.
 
Sorry, Jed.  The case for "cold fusion" is still weak.  Double speak
redefinition of terms does not help the argument.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / mitchell swartz /  Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 21:49:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <tomkCCntCI.H5E@netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
= "In the most positive experiments, the nuclear ash is many, many orders
=  of magnitude below what would be necessary to account for the excess heat,
=  let alone explain any inefficiency in the coupling mechanisms."
 
   The majority of positive experiments may have failed to adequately look
for the ash.  Those that did, have reported that the examined ash was
produced at levels much closer to the expected amount than you claim.
 
 
= "I can practically guarantee you that if energy was so easy to obtain there
= would be some bacterium exploiting it. When you consider the complexity of
= the hemoglobin molecule or snake venom, CNF would seem a snap to mother
= nature."
 
   First of all, the usual transition metal complexes which living systems
 use may not have either the density, packing or number of palladium atoms
 required, despite your "guarantee".
 
   Second, many living systems are unable to obtain adequate levels of the
required atoms.  For example, the cephalopods (eg. nautilus, octopus) are much
'older' then mammals like us, and have brain (and vision) capabilities that
are a marvel.  But they were stuck, since they built their oxygen-carrying
subsytem on copper (not iron) and apparently were left groping in the
epibenthic ocean strata, unable to evolve on land.
 
   Third, who says evolution and change are done.
 
 
= "So, where are these life forms? And with a source of energy that cheap
= wouldn't you expect them to be the major factor in a competitive ecosystem?"
 
 Good point, but you aren't implying that they left the Earth with their
    'fusion subsystems',  are you?  or are you?                  ;-)
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / mitchell swartz /  On 'perturbations, large and small' (cont.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On 'perturbations, large and small' (cont.)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 21:50:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <19930901121626CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
  Subject: Re: On 'perturbations, large and small'
Mr. Anonymous (CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)) writes:
 
= "What is evident in this series of exchanges is the Dick Blue talks
= about the experiments and the physics, and you talk about Dick Blue."
 
   Dick Blue (and some other "hard-core skeptics") have failed to supply
 sufficient quantitative reasons to support their much-heralded claims.
 
   Given that, despite your incorrect claim, that physics and
experiments were discussed, where is their response to the questions asked re:
                                     1) the sign of the effect discussed
    by John Logajan (and posted with a heading of the same name), and
 
                                      2) minor nature (by magnitude) of
 effects he (and others) have relied upon to "handwave" the cold fusion
 phenomena away (e.g. as posted under the heading Jones Effect), and
 
                                      3) their much touted "proof"
(still waiting) that all reactions in a solid must be equivalent to
that in a plasma (eg. wrt branching ratios, neutrons, etc.)  ?
 
  Since you claim to not have seen the 'physics', two excerpts are posted below,
corresponding to #1 and #2 above, and are taken directly from past postings.
  The reader is directed to the fact that they have not been rebutted [although
  the author will now join the other non-lurkers in the 'anti-flame tank'   ;-).
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
======================= from Posting on Jones Effect ===========================
    "Jones purports a potential error of: 0.75 milliwatts.  (conditions unclear)
        No real data is provided, but let us assume that it is correct.
        Is it important?
 
F&P had 1989 outputs of circa 60 milliwatts (I think, paper not in front of me
Miles in his second sample had 540 milliwatts excess power
               [yielding circa 9 x 10^13 Helium (500ml)]
  So, at last we get to tabulate this out.
 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
   The Jones Factor                              0.75
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Jones' Factor (if it exists) therefore means: so far very little.
  One can not erase  60-540 milliwatt signals by a purported, relatively
   insignificant, (less than) 1 milliwatt alleged error."
 
==================== from Posting on Logajan's Hypothesis ===============
 
   "Most systems which maintain isothermal
conditions actually supply heat to the sample.
 
   If the excess heat is Px and the heater power is Ph, the
following equation is assumed (all other conditions kept constant):
 
                       Px  +   Ph  =    constant
 
    This equation allows the unknown power, Px , to be determined as follows.
as Px  (the excess heat) of the sample increases, then the feedback control
 system of the calorimeter normally reduces the input power to the heater (Ph )
so as to maintain the temperature constant.
 
   Therefore any potential increase of heater power (i.e. lower temperature)
would thus tend to hide part, or all, of any measured excess heat.
 
 If the sample temperature falls, secondary to increased thermal conductivity,
  then more heat will be provided, and it will be inferred (to the degree
   that this higher order calculation contributes) that there is LESS
   excess heat caused by cold fusion.
 
--->   The Logajan factor, to the degree that it is important, appears
              to be of a sign that would hide positive results.
 
  Therefore, if John Logajan is correct, then to
the degree that such error contributes, the pioneer cold fusioneers actually
underestimated -- and underreported -- the amount of excess heat achieved."
================================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 00:14:24 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <tomkCCntCI.H5E@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
  > Then why is it that if all that is necessary to provide a source
  > of clean heat is a metal matrix and a couple duterium molecules,
  > some form of life hasn't taken advantage of it?
 
    Nothing to do with CF, but I don't know of any form of life that
has taken advantage of Solar cells and Ni-Cad batteries.  Does this
mean that they don't work? Or does it simply indicate that biological
systems can't refine most metals?
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Apology
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Apology
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 01:07:07 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <930901131027.206006de@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
   > In my last post, I confused Robert Bernecky with Robert Eachus.
   > This confused Terry Bollinger.  It was Robert Eachus who is the
   > ephemeral wizard.  But likely Terry and Bob Bernecky are wizards
   > too.  Apoloyies to all...
 
   No apology needed, especially since I never saw the original
Bernecky posting here, so I assumed that both our postings were
ephemeral at your site. :-)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Eugene Mallove /  No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Flies on Frank
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 02:42:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
                ******* "No Flies on Frank" ******
 
(The title of a story by John Lennon, in "The Penguin John Lennon", Penguin
Books, 1966)
 
"There were no flies on Frank that morning -- after all why not? He was a
responsible citizen with a wife and child, wasn't he? It was a typical Frank
morning and with an agility that defies description he leapt into the
barthroom onto the scales. To his great harold he discovered he was twelve
inches more tall heavy! He couldn't believe it and his blood raised to his
head causing a mighty red colouring......"
 
                by  John Lennon [mis-spellings are intentional]
 
 
 
        So, in a recent posting we hear again the fire-breathing and belching
from that quirky little man of science, Dr. Frank Close, a hatchet man against
cold fusion if ever there was. A more sophisticated chap than Taubes no doubt,
but still quite in the gutter with Gary. Dear reader, I hope you will not mind
the fun I like to have with Frank's name -- the bearer of the name being so
deserving of fun-making. Yes, I await Frank's assault in kind about "Dr.
Malevolent," "Eugenius," or whatever. Good fun, old chap -- or is it mate?
Frankly Frank, I have no desire to address you directly, so revolting do I
find your every utterance (gutterance?) in this field. You're a nowhere man
who is fading fast and we're looking right through you -- to borrow from a few
songs of the sixties.
 
        Dr. Close-Minded apparently finds it hard to accept the scientific
credentials of the author of "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind
the Cold Fusion Furor" (John Wiley & Sons, 1991), a Co-Founder of Cold Fusion
Research Advocates (1991), and a former participant in Clustron Sciences
Corporation (1992). Close questions my scientific literacy! And to think that
I used to write the speeches of MIT President Paul Gray on scientific
literacy! Now let's see: I have two degrees (SB and SM) from MIT in Aero/Astro
Engineering, I have an Sc.D. (from that school across the river) in air
pollution control engineering (specialty: aerosol physics -- not quite
particle physics, but aerosols were "particle physics" in Einstein's Brownian
motion day); I have written a number of books popularizing science and space
exploration;  etc., etc.... And Frank assaults my credentials and scientific
literacy?
 
        Perhaps Frankie is so bent out of shape and on the prowl for new
trouble-making because cold fusion R&D is not going to go away and Fine Frank
knows it -- even though he won't admit it. It's as simple as this: I was
right, and he was catastrophically wrong about cold fusion -- and he *still*
is dead wrong, even as his protests get louder. As I've said in  a previous
posting, Frank is Finished -- his reputation indelibly marked by his
outrageous and continuing assaults against open-minded scientific
investigation in a field that is wonderfully blossoming all over the world --
albeit retarded in the U.S. and the U.K. thanks to Frank and Friends. Frank
likens me to a charlatan. Who is really the charlatan --the one who tries to
suppress research funding for a new science, or the one who advocates it?
Close and his anti-cold fusion buddies, who for the most part live off the
public dole, are among the greatest charlatans on the planet for attacking
cold fusion research.
 
        Close thinks he is some kind of "prosecutor," demanding that I answer
this or that question. He has no such standing, but since the man is about to
be taken to the gallows and hung by his own arrogant tongue, let's grant him
one last wish. Yeah, Frank, I accept the conservation of energy!! -- in so far
as we know it not to have been violated in known phenomena. It should be clear
to all on this forum that IF the excess energy production in cold fusion
experiments is taken as real and at a level that cannot be explained by
chemical reactions, then these experiments (particularly those not claimed to
be associated with apparent He-4 production in commensurate or
near-commensurate amounts) can have the superficial *appearance* of a
violation of energy conservation. This apparent violation would also be true
of nuclear fission IF you didn't know about fission and were futilely
attempting to explain fission heat as chemistry [for the sake of argument,
forget the radiation evolved in fission]. It will only be when dedicated
scientists finally discern the mechanism of the energy-producing phenomenon(a)
in cold fusion on the microscale, that this *apparent* violation will
disappear.
 
        The theory to explain cold fusion put forth by Ronald Brightsen in
1992 (based on his Nucleon Cluster Model), which was written up in a preprint
by Brightsen and me, happens to be a very radical way of looking at the
problem of cold fusion. But *within the framework of that theory* there is NO
violation of energy conservation. Yes, one would have to accept a structure of
the proton that is even more radical than the Mills-Kneizys reformation of
electronic structure of hydrogen. So what! It's a theory that tries to explain
a very difficult set of observations, and I know how violently opposed to new
theories of cold fusion are the likes of Huizenga and Close. These bozos don't
even admit that any credible, reproducible experimental data exist for cold
fusion phenomena.
 
         Personally, I no longer believe that it is necessary to postulate so
radical a theory as Brightsen's to explain cold fusion, but I would not be
surprised if the explanation for cold fusion phenomena turn out to be even
more surprising than Brightsen's. Anyone who wishes to find out about
Brightsen's model should contact Ron Brightsen directly at Clustron Sciences
Corporation in Vienna and Reston, VA. One might also wish to speak with Steve
Jones of BYU, who I recall had some interesting *unexplained* and unpublished
anomalous data of his own that might bear on the Brightsen model. It seems
that Steve had encountered anomalies in his experiments that looked like the
equivalent of sudden bursts of 300 (three-hundred)  20 MeV gammas. Possible
GeV particles? "Very doubtful," I'm sure he would say. But in those days Steve
was friendly with the principals of Clustron.
 
        Frank Close posted: "I shall have to refer to this [Clustron matter]
when I am consulted on these issues." Get real Frank, you are a nobody who
thinks he is a somebody. No one will care to consult with you about cold
fusion  -- ever! You are part of a high-energy physics and tokamak reactor
establishment that is going to be "genetically incapable" of dealing with
solid state nuclear processes at low energy. So I recommend that Frank should
enjoy his last days of fun with his friends at that unfinished underground
jogging track in Whats-ya-callit, Texas -- as well as his co-religionists at
the eventually to be decommissioned tokamak monoliths hither and yon.
 
                                                Cheers, Dr. Gene
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 / Barry Merriman /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 21:39:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <g93h7345.3.746884767@giraffe.ru.ac.za> g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za
(MR DG HUGHES) writes:
> BIG BOMB.
>
> A friend of mine came up with an idea which appears flawless. This wouldn't
> warrent me putting this to the net except the idea concludes the destruction
> of the earth. I hope I can recall all the detail.
>
 
> However, by
> the time the pressure is great enough to start reducing the reaction, the
> temperature is high enough for the ordinary fusion of normal hydrogen of
> which there is plenty in ordinary sea water.
>
> Could someone please tell me how feasible this is.
 
No need to sell your belongings; the H + H fusion cross section
is incredibly small, way to small to sustain the process. And there is
note enough concentration of D to sustain it either.
 
We can all breath easier now :-)
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: 2 Sep 1993 05:03:17 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

MR DG HUGHES (g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za) wrote:
: BIG BOMB.
 
: A friend of mine came up with an idea which appears flawless. This wouldn't
: warrent me putting this to the net except the idea concludes the destruction
: of the earth. I hope I can recall all the detail.
 
: An ordinary fission bomb is placed the centre of a hugh balloon which is
: filled with heavy water(Detrium). This balloon is allowed to slowly sink to
: the bottom of the deepest ocean floor which I think is about ten kilometers
: deep. The only way the reaction should be able to stop is if the amount of
: detrium to be converted into energy is exhausted, and according to Energy
: equals Mass times speed of light squared, this should not even come into it
: given enough detrium. The only other way the reaction can stop is if there
: is a release in pressure which can only come about if the oceans are lifted
: upwards faster than the rate at which the reaction increases.
: However, by
: the time the pressure is great enough to start reducing the reaction, the
: temperature is high enough for the ordinary fusion of normal hydrogen of
: which there is plenty in ordinary sea water.
 
: Could someone please tell me how feasible this is.
 
Well the fission bomb part might work.  As to the rest, it's just likely
to be deuterized steam.
 
The densities & pressures necessary for fusion are much much higher
than you can achieve with mechanical force.  Basically the reaction will
blow itself out.  (This is why hydrogen bombs are quite difficult to
design).
 
The mechanical pressure of the ocean will not make much of a difference;
it can only act at the speed of sound which is too slow to do any good.
 
: No flames please... excuse the pun.
 
But it might stun a few whales.  Very very non-PC.
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep1.145408.892@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep1.145408.892@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 93 15:00:57 -0600

cancel <1993Sep1.145408.892@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: 1 Sep 93 14:59:41 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <EACHUS.93Aug31193059@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>                   ...
>     Later experiments showed that "polywater" was
> really a sodium silicate solution (water glass) due to the rapid
> dissolving of the interior of the micro-pipettes in pure water.
> Someone discovered a weird phenomena, and it took a while to get the
> theory right.  ...
>  It is just very hard to actually
> get pure water.
>
 
Exactly.  As I have posted here before, BYU Prof. Lee Hansen and I are working
on a "theory" that boiling in the P&F cells is caused by I2R heating as
silicates from the glass vessel plates out onto the electrode(s).
 
[Aside for recent readers:  I posted this hypothesis back in November 1992:
"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."  --S.E. Jones, "Silicates
and Aluminates", 24 Nov. 1992) ]    I have pointed out that aluminates and
borates (as used by McKubre) could have the same type of effect.
 
Look closely at the input voltage for P&F's boiling cells as shown in Fig. 8a
and 8b, Phys. Lett A, 3 May 1993, p. 125:
 
 50 |                                    ^??  -- one cannot read data point
    |                                            in 1000-sec. bin where boiling
    |                                  ^         occured.
    |                                 +             Input voltage vs. time
 25 |                                +               P&F boiling cell
    |                              _+
    |                          ___+
    |    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    | +++
  0 |___________________________________________
                                |                    -->Time, in 1000-sec bins
                               1500*1000-second bins
 
Above is an attempt to reproduce Fig. 8a; Fig. 8b shows the same behavior,
with input voltage (and hence power, since input current is constant) rising
rapidly at the end of the run, leading up to boiling.  It is difficult (I think
impossible) to read the voltages during the crucial 1000 seconds, that is during
the boiling period, since the data in that final bin are obscured by other
lines on the plots.  Thus, the input power could be quite large during that
final 1000 seconds (for each boiling cell), consistent with boiling water by
resistive heating.
 
Foreseeing a comment:
I want to know the voltage in finer steps than 1000 seconds, especially from
1500*1000 seconds on -- not an average input voltage for the entire run!
It is noteworthy that P&F expand the "Temperature-time portion of fig. 8a
during the final period boiling and evaporation" in Fig. 10, but they fail
to provide the expansion for the input voltage-time portion of that figure.
Wonder why?
 
Prof. Hansen and I recently discussed the incredible irony should it turn
out that our hypothesis is correct -- with silicates then playing a key role in
BOTH  polywater and boiling P&F cell cases.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 10:57:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <EACHUS.93Sep1191424@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <tomkCCntCI.H5E@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>  > Then why is it that if all that is necessary to provide a source
>  > of clean heat is a metal matrix and a couple duterium molecules,
>  > some form of life hasn't taken advantage of it?
>
>    Nothing to do with CF, but I don't know of any form of life that
>has taken advantage of Solar cells and Ni-Cad batteries.  Does this
>mean that they don't work? Or does it simply indicate that biological
>systems can't refine most metals?
 
     That's because solar cells and Ni-Cads are miserably inefficient.
 
     Snippy the Ni-Cad solar cat died on the way to Darwin's grocery.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on Jones' "Re to Jed"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Jones' "Re to Jed"
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:48:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Aug31.174208.885@physc1.byu.edu>
      Subject: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] wrotes (on 31 August 1993):
 
=sj  "We must continually look for alternative explanations for experimental
=sj  evidences -- such as recombination in xs heat experiments with open cells
=sj   (like Miles, Mills, P&F) -- to avoid empty-mindedness. We must also
=sj  search for proper controls, and for crucial experiments.
=sj   We must doubt our conclusionsand results, scrutinizing everything,
=sj   until we first convince ourselves (the
=sj  experimenters) one way or the other about a putative "new phenomenon."
 
  I find this amusing, because so far your recombination criticism (The Jones
   Factor) appears to be merely baloney, Steve.
 
  You were invited to show an order of magnitude calculation or proof
    for this effect which you continue to assert to be important.
 
  To wit:  you posted your purported potential error of: 0.75 milliwatts.
  However, F&P had 1989 outputs of circa 60 milliwatts, and another scientist
  whom you seem to "lock horns" with, Miles, had one (his second) sample
  characterized by 540 milliwatts excess power
               [yielding circa 9 x 10^13 Helium (500ml)]
 
   As was tabulated previously:
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
   The Jones Factor (1993)                       0.75
 
   Even if your Jones' Factor exists (conditions remain unclear),
      the impact is:  not important.      Why?   Because one
       can not erase  60-540 milliwatt signals by a purported, relatively
       insignificant, (less than) 1 milliwatt alleged error. can one?
 
  Why continue to flash the hype (again), but fail to answer the question of
how or why a putative microwatt error can influence a signal orders of
magnitude greater?
 
 [Because destructive criticism is easy? because there is no cogent response?]
 
 
=sj "Sticks and stones...
=sj  Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, Jed.  Ipse dixit?"
 
   Res ipsa loquitur, Steve.
 
                 Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                                      mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / mitchell swartz /  On Jones' "Silicates"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Jones' "Silicates"
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 11:50:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Sep1.145941.893@physc1.byu.edu>
     Summary: Silicates played key role in polywater case;
                     how about boiling cells?
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
="Exactly.  As I have posted here before, BYU Prof. Lee Hansen and I are working
= on a "theory" that boiling in the P&F cells is caused by I2R heating as
= silicates from the glass vessel plates out onto the electrode(s)."
= [Aside for recent readers:  I posted this hypothesis back in November 1992:
= "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."  --S.E. Jones, "Silicates
= and Aluminates", 24 Nov. 1992) ]    I have pointed out that aluminates and
= borates (as used by McKubre) could have the same type of effect."
 
  Mr. Jones, ever eager to discredit cold fusion efforts, and
failing to respond to quantitative questions about his Jones (I?) effect,
now creates a new effect.   (Jones II?)
 
  Let us model (ignoring capacitive and inductive effects, contact
potentials, other sources of polarization and conduction, and the fact
that the silicon (Jones putative concern) may be avoided by a pathway in
parallel thus avoiding the silicon) for simplicity)
the P&F electrochemical cell, composed of solution, palladium (we will
ignore the platinum, power source internal impedance
and delivery wires in this model)  as  three resistors connected to a power
source of constant current as Jones states.
 
         ____________________________________
         |                                   |
         |                                   |
         /                                   |
         \   R solution                      |
         /                                   |
         \                                   |
         |                                   |
         |                                   |
         /                                   |
         \   R silcon                        |
         /                                   O  ^   current source|
         \                                   |  |
         |                                   |
         |                                   |
         \                                   |
         /                                   |
         \  R palladium                      |
         /                                   |
         \                                   |
         |                                   |
         |___________________________________
 
 
  Well, the power input is     Pin  =  I^2 * (Rso + Rsi + Rp)
 
        The power dissipated at the silicon resistor is
 
                               Psi  =  I^2 * (Rsi)
 
  We can write then  Psi/Pin =        I^2 * (Rsi)
                                 ______________________
                                 I^2 * (Rso + Rsi + Rp)
 
  Examining limits:  if Rsi = 0 then obviously there is no power dissipated
   at that location.
 
                   as Rsi ---> infinity, however, L'Hospital's rule
 
   can be used to show that
 
                     Lim           Psi/Pin =  1
                         Rsi->infinity
 
    In summary, there is no way this Jones II effect can explain ANY excess heat
observed over 100% despite all the hype.    Simple quantitation, on the back
of an envelope, makes this latest "Jones II hypothesis" used to discredit cold
 fusion appear to be merely more: "hot air".
 
  Therefore, continuing our running quantitative tabulation:
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
   The Jones Factor I (recomb. 1993)             0.75
   The Jones Factor II (silicon 1993)            0.0 (max)
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Yet another genius theory
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet another genius theory
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 15:12:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones adds yet another genius "explanation" to the Hall Of Fame:
 
       "BYU Prof. Lee Hansen and I are working on a "theory" that boiling in
       the P&F cells is caused by I2R heating as silicates from the glass
       vessel plates out onto the electrode(s)..."
 
Fascinating! Would you care to explain to us, please, how the heat that boiled
the water can continue for many hours after the electricity is turned off?
 
Wait! Stop! Let me guess your response. You will say that heat that boils the
water has one cause (silicates), and the heat after the power is turned off
has *another* cause. You will go on multiplying entities for as long as
necessary, making the model ever more complicated, rather than face the truth.
This is a violation of -- dare I say it -- Occam's razor.
 
Also, why does total integrated power (amperes multiplied by volts) come out
2/3rds too low?
 
We will add these "silicates" to the Hall Of Bozo Kiddie Physics Fame, along
with water friction, talking test tubes, nanowatt cigarette lighters and
palladium based life forms. (Go for it! Why not gold based life?)
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Dieter Britz /  RE: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: No Flies on Frank
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 15:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1349:
 
>                ******* "No Flies on Frank" ******
 
>credentials of the author of "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind
>the Cold Fusion Furor" (John Wiley & Sons, 1991), a Co-Founder of Cold Fusion
>Research Advocates (1991), and a former participant in Clustron Sciences
>Corporation (1992). Close questions my scientific literacy! And to think that
>I used to write the speeches of MIT President Paul Gray on scientific
>literacy! Now let's see: I have two degrees (SB and SM) from MIT in Aero/Astro
>Engineering, I have an Sc.D. (from that school across the river) in air
>pollution control engineering (specialty: aerosol physics -- not quite
 
OK, Eugene, with all these qualifications, I am sure you did get Frank's
point, which however you evade in your enthusiam for demolishing him. When
you write
 
>........ It should be clear
>to all on this forum that IF the excess energy production in cold fusion
>experiments is taken as real and at a level that cannot be explained by
>chemical reactions, then these experiments (particularly those not claimed to
>be associated with apparent He-4 production in commensurate or
>near-commensurate amounts) can have the superficial *appearance* of a
>violation of energy conservation. This apparent violation would also be true
>of nuclear fission IF you didn't know about fission and were futilely
>attempting to explain fission heat as chemistry [for the sake of argument,
>forget the radiation evolved in fission]. It will only be when dedicated
>scientists finally discern the mechanism of the energy-producing phenomenon(a)
>in cold fusion on the microscale, that this *apparent* violation will
>disappear.
 
you are doing one of two things here:
 
1. You are hoping we get so dazzled by your prose that we don't notice that
   you have evaded Franks question whether you really mean that the energy
   from this (let's call it the) Brightsen Effect can exceed mc^2. This would
   exceed not only chemistry, but also nuclear, i.e. it would indeed be very
   new physics;
 
OR
 
2. you are in fact suggesting such brand-new physics.
 
Which is it? We are not asleep, you know, and we do try to find the relevant
needle in the haystack of rhetoric.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / david atkatz /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 14:25:23 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

 
        Very interesting post, Eugene.  A few questions:
 
        "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" (Let's not count
        royalties from your book--you'll excuse me, I hope, if
        I don't plug its full title, publisher, and ISBN--you've
        certainly done that enough!)
 
        How come all the "confused, accused, misused" (to quote
        another sixties song) CF practitioners haven't produced
        anything but hot air (not hot enough, though, to run a
        turbine) since the announcement of the second coming
        back in '89?  If you're sooo right, why have you
        (collective you) not been able to convince the scientific
        community?  A great conspiracy?  Collective hysteria?  Or
        are we all just too stupid?
 
        By the way, the phrase "fading fast" is from "American Pie,"
        a song of the seventies (1971).  But who wants to be
        accurate?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Critters
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Critters
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 17:34:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thomas Kunich suggests that if "cold fusion" were possible that one of nature's
critters would be using it to beat out competitors in the survival race.  It
took a couple of billion years for nature to get around to snake venom.
Perhaps nature is just now getting around to "cold fusion" and the critters
are us.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: On 'perturbations, large and small' (cont.)
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On 'perturbations, large and small' (cont.)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1993 10:41
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

In article <CCp3Bo.KAo@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>Mr. Anonymous (CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)) writes:
  I didn't realize my newsreader did that.  I'm Pete Nielsen.
 
>
>  Since you claim to not have seen the 'physics', two excerpts are posted below,
 
Comments such as those you excerpted are welcome.  However a large part
of the bandwith of this group seems to be devoted to characterizing
the behavior of "True Believers" and or "Hard Core Skeptics".
 
While that might be worthy of scientific study, it's more apropriate
for an anthroplogical interest group than this one.
 
It seems to me that the current status is:
 
General consensus that carefully measured anomalous readings of
heat are being observed.
 
Two major hypothesis for what those readings imply:
 
a) Some as yet undiscoverd problem with our current models of what
   those readings imply about the energy flows involved.
 
b) new physics.
 
It should not be surprising that different people are attracted more
strongly to one or the other of these hypothesis.
 
There will always be those who greet the new and interesting with
enthusiasm, and those who insist that the proof be personally deliverd
into their hands.
 
My point is that discussions of data, proceedures, and theory is more
relavant and apropriate than discussions of the bias of the reporters.
 
What happened to the principal that the truth of a statement is
independent of it's source.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Stuart Scott /  Fusion experiment, fast neutron measurement
     
Originally-From: dr785@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stuart E. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion experiment, fast neutron measurement
Date: 2 Sep 1993 17:50:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

 
I am looking for information about a fusion experiment that
should have been performed on a TOKOMAK in Japan in December,
l990.  It was to involve the measurement of fast neutrons using
fission counters 75mm dia. x 250mm long.
 
Any response from investigators involved or references to published
papers relating to that or possible subsequent experiments would be
greatly appreciated.  My interest is especially centered on the
performance of the detectors.
 
         Regards,     Stuart Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendr785 cudfnStuart cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Critters
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critters
Date: 2 Sep 93 16:07:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

In article <930902121847.20a01fe9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Thomas Kunich suggests that if "cold fusion" were possible that one of nature's
> critters would be using it to beat out competitors in the survival race.  It
> took a couple of billion years for nature to get around to snake venom.
> Perhaps nature is just now getting around to "cold fusion" and the critters
> are us.
>
> Tom Droege
>
I think another point against the arguement that "critters" would be using
it is that the critters need to be able to make use of that energy too.
If only fast neutrons, alphas, and gammas (with a little) heat are
coming out, then that power generation might be a bit more detrimental
to the organism then beneficial.
 
As far as someone's comment that life hasn't made use of solar cells,
this is false.  All around you life makes use of its own version of
solar celss, called chlorophyll.  Also life makes use of its own version
of Ni-Cd batteries too, in electric eels et. al.
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | 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 minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjbatka cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Critters
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critters
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 20:30:47 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

In article <930902121847.20a01fe9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
> Thomas Kunich suggests that if "cold fusion" were possible that one of
> nature's critters would be using it to beat out competitors in the survival
> race...
 
Hmm.  According to that line of argument we should _also_ see animals with
diamond-composite teeth, built-in communication via radio, and a wide range
of metal alloy skins for protection against predators.
 
Of the arguments available for disproving trans-chemical heat anomomalies,
I don't think the evolutionary one should trouble folks on either side much.
 
                                Still here,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Yet another genius theory
     
Originally-From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another genius theory
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 18:33:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930902144756_72240.1256_EHK27-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Steve Jones adds yet another genius "explanation" to the Hall Of Fame:
>
>       "BYU Prof. Lee Hansen and I are working on a "theory" that boiling in
>       the P&F cells is caused by I2R heating as silicates from the glass
>       vessel plates out onto the electrode(s)..."
>
>Fascinating! Would you care to explain to us, please, how the heat that boiled
>the water can continue for many hours after the electricity is turned off?
 
    Good question.  Care to explain?
 
    No?  I thought not.
 
                            dale
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Yet another genius theory
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another genius theory
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 93 20:56:34 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930902144756_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> You will go on multiplying entities for as long as
> necessary, making the model ever more complicated, rather than face the
truth.
> This is a violation of -- dare I say it -- Occam's razor.
>
 
You are right. The simplest explanation is that there
is cold, ashless fusion occuring, and that we need to rewrite
a century worth of solid state and high energy physics. Yeah,
I guess that is pretty simple :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Date: 2 Sep 1993 22:47:13 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: Then why is it that if all that is necessary to provide a source of clean heat
: is a metal matrix and a couple duterium molecules, some form of life hasn't
: taken advantage of it? For at least a billion years life has been
: experimenting with the idea of obtaining cheap energy. The oceans contain
: most of the available duterium and most of the worlds desolved metals.
 
Concentration; you have to presumably concentrate deuterium and rather
rare metals (in non-oxidized forms) in a way that isn't
easy.  Why aren't any life forms that run on fission?
 
: I can practically guarantee you that if energy was so easy to obtain there
: would be some bacterium exploiting it. When you consider the complexity of
: the hemoglobin molecule or snake venom, CNF would seem a snap to mother
: nature.
 
Maybe, maybe not.  Obviously it's alot easier for life to get energy via
photosynthesis or eating someone else.
 
: So, where are these life forms? And with a source of energy that cheap wouldn't
: you expect them to be the major factor in a competitive ecosystem?
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  ashes to ashes
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ashes to ashes
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 23:25:10 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Sep2.205634.25035@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
> ... The simplest explanation is that there is cold, ashless fusion
> occuring, and that we need to rewrite a century worth of solid state
> and high energy physics. Yeah, I guess that is pretty simple :-)
 
Hmm.  Nah, the _simplest_ explanation is still total quantum mechanical
annihilation of entire atoms, but only under sufficiently odd conditions
that the existing experimental fabric of physics is affected very little
or not at all.  After all, "ashless fusion" _is_ a bit of an oxymoron,
no matter how obscenely JR and MS masticate on it.
 
Es macht nichts.  Unless someone replicates something _really_ interesting
(e.g., some of the Wolf results) and tells everyone else how to do it ad
nauseum, no about of musing over the P&F verbage is likely to go anywhere.
Similarly, theories/farfetches such as quantum annihiltion remain quite
pointless (fun to play with, but pointless) unless and until someone comes
up with a recipe for reproducibility of some effect that that flat-out
_requires_ new physics to explain.
 
Incidentally, how is funding going for P&F?  Anyone know the scoop?
 
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Jean Desbiens /  Re: conditions for ignitions
     
Originally-From: d40937@info.polymtl.ca (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: conditions for ignitions
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 19:57:26 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: I have come to realize that I may have fallen into a trap when I
: commented on the conditions required for the ignition that P&F claimed
: to have observed.  They never told us precisely when the event occured
: so we don't really know what the conditions were.  I had thought they
: must have refered to the current cut off when the cell was dray as the
: time of ignition, but that was perhaps an incorrect assumption on my
: part.  Ignition may have occured earlier and just gone unnoticed since
: the experimenters were in the back room playing cards or something like
: that.
 
: Dick Blue
: NSCL@MSU
 
This kind of insulting comment is the main reason why I find all your
arguments stink, it seams that respect for other researchers is not part
of your set of tools so nobody here will give you the same. I am ready
as most to doubt cold fusion, but I am also willing to give these people
the benefit of the doubt; they are taking the risk here and putting their
reputations on the line (unlike you), if they crash it will be because this
thing doesn't work (a scam as you call it can't last forever) but if it
does work then they will be heralded for their thoughness in th face
of many critiques. Even if it doesn't work (as a source of cheap energy), I
am sure that they will at least have opened up a new avenue of research in
physics, a new phenomena that needs to be explained and may lead to many
future applications. So any research in the area of CF will likely lead
to corollary knowledges that may have some use on their own independantally
of the whole CF debate.
 
 
 
--
No one has ever told you what you are -- muddled, criminally muddled.
Men like you use repentance as a blind. So don't repent. Only say to
yourself "What Helen had done, I've done."
                                -- Howards End, E.M. Forster 1908-1910
 
Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | Ecole polytechnique de Montreal
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudend40937 cudfnJean cudlnDesbiens cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: 2 Sep 93 14:55:38 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Collegues,
 
I find Eugene Mallove's bombastic style of polemic (e.g., below) to be
particularly unprofessional and boastful.  In what follows, Mallove refers to
"*unexplained* and unpublished anomalous data of [Jones] own that might bear on
the Brightsen model".  Then he provides interpretations of this unpublished data
adding "Possible GeV particles?" -- as predicted by the Brightsen/Mallove
model.
 
Mr. Mallove did not ask my permission to publicly post these unpublished BYU
data, nor did he ask permission from any member of the BYU group as far as I
can tell.
His behavior is unprofessional and unacceptable as well as unfair to
the BYU research team.  Since he has raised this matter in a vain attempt to
bring some credence to the "Brightsen model," I find that I must endeavor to
set the matter straight.
 
The data in question were acquired at BYU in 1990.  Since then, we have
endeavored to reproduce the "anomalous data" as Eugene calls them,
unsucessfully.  We cannot rule out the possibility that the light flashes
in the plastic scintillator detector in the core of the detector were caused by
cracking of the scintillator, since we had cooled each of the
titanium-deuteride samples in question with liquid nitrogen, so that severe
thermal stresses of the scintillator were present in these experiments.
 
The detector involves two distinct detection regions which both
show light pulses.  The inner core consists of a cylinder of plastic
scintillator with a 1.5 inch central hole to admit the cylinder; this is viewed
by one photomultiplier tube.  This core sits in a box filled with mineral oil
moderator, embedded in which are eight sheets of Li6 doped glass viewed by two
PM tubes.  We
endeavored to have optical isolation by painting the interface of the core and
the lucite tube holding it in the box.  But we have dismantled the detector and
carefully examined the paint
--and found scratches so that the optical isolation was not
satisfactory.  Thus, we have an explanation for the "anomalous data" based on a
defect in the detector.  In short, the earlier evidence is not compelling, nor
has it been reproduced.  Nor was it published!  I should add that a paper
discussing these data and the problems encountered is nearing completion.
 
Since then, the detector has been re-built to
guarantee isolation of the signals from the plastic (prompt signal) and glass
(neutron capture in Li6).  As described here previously, we also have a
detector based on a completely different scheme, namely neutron capture in 3He,
which 3He fills 16 proportional counter tubes.  Redundancy is needed for
compelling evidence.
 
Nice try, Gene.  Actually not.  It was not nice at all.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
In article <930902021802_76570.2270_BHA81-1@CompuServe.COM>,
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>
>
>                 ******* "No Flies on Frank" ******
>
> (The title of a story by John Lennon, in "The Penguin John Lennon", Penguin
> Books, 1966)
>
> "There were no flies on Frank that morning -- after all why not? He was a
> responsible citizen with a wife and child, wasn't he? It was a typical Frank
> morning and with an agility that defies description he leapt into the
> barthroom onto the scales. To his great harold he discovered he was twelve
> inches more tall heavy! He couldn't believe it and his blood raised to his
> head causing a mighty red colouring......"
>
>                 by  John Lennon [mis-spellings are intentional]
>
>
>
>         So, in a recent posting we hear again the fire-breathing and belching
> from that quirky little man of science, Dr. Frank Close, a hatchet man against
> cold fusion if ever there was. A more sophisticated chap than Taubes no doubt,
> but still quite in the gutter with Gary. Dear reader, I hope you will not mind
> the fun I like to have with Frank's name -- the bearer of the name being so
> deserving of fun-making. Yes, I await Frank's assault in kind about "Dr.
> Malevolent," "Eugenius," or whatever. Good fun, old chap -- or is it mate?
> Frankly Frank, I have no desire to address you directly, so revolting do I
> find your every utterance (gutterance?) in this field. You're a nowhere man
> who is fading fast and we're looking right through you -- to borrow from a few
> songs of the sixties.
>
>         Dr. Close-Minded apparently finds it hard to accept the scientific
> credentials of the author of "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind
> the Cold Fusion Furor" (John Wiley & Sons, 1991), a Co-Founder of Cold Fusion
> Research Advocates (1991), and a former participant in Clustron Sciences
> Corporation (1992). Close questions my scientific literacy! And to think that
> I used to write the speeches of MIT President Paul Gray on scientific
> literacy! Now let's see: I have two degrees (SB and SM) from MIT in Aero/Astro
> Engineering, I have an Sc.D. (from that school across the river) in air
> pollution control engineering (specialty: aerosol physics -- not quite
> particle physics, but aerosols were "particle physics" in Einstein's Brownian
> motion day); I have written a number of books popularizing science and space
> exploration;  etc., etc.... And Frank assaults my credentials and scientific
> literacy?
>
>         Perhaps Frankie is so bent out of shape and on the prowl for new
> trouble-making because cold fusion R&D is not going to go away and Fine Frank
> knows it -- even though he won't admit it. It's as simple as this: I was
> right, and he was catastrophically wrong about cold fusion -- and he *still*
> is dead wrong, even as his protests get louder. As I've said in  a previous
> posting, Frank is Finished -- his reputation indelibly marked by his
> outrageous and continuing assaults against open-minded scientific
> investigation in a field that is wonderfully blossoming all over the world --
> albeit retarded in the U.S. and the U.K. thanks to Frank and Friends. Frank
> likens me to a charlatan. Who is really the charlatan --the one who tries to
> suppress research funding for a new science, or the one who advocates it?
> Close and his anti-cold fusion buddies, who for the most part live off the
> public dole, are among the greatest charlatans on the planet for attacking
> cold fusion research.
>
>         Close thinks he is some kind of "prosecutor," demanding that I answer
> this or that question. He has no such standing, but since the man is about to
> be taken to the gallows and hung by his own arrogant tongue, let's grant him
> one last wish. Yeah, Frank, I accept the conservation of energy!! -- in so far
> as we know it not to have been violated in known phenomena. It should be clear
> to all on this forum that IF the excess energy production in cold fusion
> experiments is taken as real and at a level that cannot be explained by
> chemical reactions, then these experiments (particularly those not claimed to
> be associated with apparent He-4 production in commensurate or
> near-commensurate amounts) can have the superficial *appearance* of a
> violation of energy conservation. This apparent violation would also be true
> of nuclear fission IF you didn't know about fission and were futilely
> attempting to explain fission heat as chemistry [for the sake of argument,
> forget the radiation evolved in fission]. It will only be when dedicated
> scientists finally discern the mechanism of the energy-producing phenomenon(a)
> in cold fusion on the microscale, that this *apparent* violation will
> disappear.
>
>         The theory to explain cold fusion put forth by Ronald Brightsen in
> 1992 (based on his Nucleon Cluster Model), which was written up in a preprint
> by Brightsen and me, happens to be a very radical way of looking at the
> problem of cold fusion. But *within the framework of that theory* there is NO
> violation of energy conservation. Yes, one would have to accept a structure of
> the proton that is even more radical than the Mills-Kneizys reformation of
> electronic structure of hydrogen. So what! It's a theory that tries to explain
> a very difficult set of observations, and I know how violently opposed to new
> theories of cold fusion are the likes of Huizenga and Close. These bozos don't
> even admit that any credible, reproducible experimental data exist for cold
> fusion phenomena.
>
>          Personally, I no longer believe that it is necessary to postulate so
> radical a theory as Brightsen's to explain cold fusion, but I would not be
> surprised if the explanation for cold fusion phenomena turn out to be even
> more surprising than Brightsen's. Anyone who wishes to find out about
> Brightsen's model should contact Ron Brightsen directly at Clustron Sciences
> Corporation in Vienna and Reston, VA. One might also wish to speak with Steve
> Jones of BYU, who I recall had some interesting *unexplained* and unpublished
> anomalous data of his own that might bear on the Brightsen model. It seems
> that Steve had encountered anomalies in his experiments that looked like the
> equivalent of sudden bursts of 300 (three-hundred)  20 MeV gammas. Possible
> GeV particles? "Very doubtful," I'm sure he would say. But in those days Steve
> was friendly with the principals of Clustron.
>
>         Frank Close posted: "I shall have to refer to this [Clustron matter]
> when I am consulted on these issues." Get real Frank, you are a nobody who
> thinks he is a somebody. No one will care to consult with you about cold
> fusion  -- ever! You are part of a high-energy physics and tokamak reactor
> establishment that is going to be "genetically incapable" of dealing with
> solid state nuclear processes at low energy. So I recommend that Frank should
> enjoy his last days of fun with his friends at that unfinished underground
> jogging track in Whats-ya-callit, Texas -- as well as his co-religionists at
> the eventually to be decommissioned tokamak monoliths hither and yon.
>
>                                                 Cheers, Dr. Gene
>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Eugene Mallove /  Reply to D. Britz
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to D. Britz
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 03:15:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to Dieter Britz's query:
 
Ronald Brightsen's Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) postulates that nuclei are
composed of three types of clusters -- NP, NPN, and PNP clusters -- where P is
a proton, and N a neutron. Brightsen believes that this leads to a rather
remarkable set of systematics that has a lot to say about the distribution of
beta-stable isotopes on the Segre chart, among many other things. As you may
know, Brightsen also believes that his NCM explains the characteristics of
fission fragment distribution with complete fidelity to the detailed data --
no approximations required.  You no doubt have seen his NCM fission model
pre-print. If not, ask him for one.
 
The obvious apparent shortcoming of the NCM is that it is explanatory for A >=
2, but not for A = 1. Also, by symmetry, the NCM is good for all antimatter,
except as I recall, for A = -1. Brightsen, believing his NCM to be a
definitive description of all the foregoing, took the plunge and postulated
that *formally* a proton structure incorporating an anti-deuteron [ the -(NP)
cluster] and a PNP cluster. This, by Brightsen's own admission, led to a
"worlds within worlds" paradox -- something like a self-relexive infinite
regression. There were also questions about the significance of the *apparent*
extra mass then invested in the proton. The annihilation energy of the -(NP)
within the proton and an external deuteron was to be the mechanism of energy
release in cold fusion. So, just as I said before, you have to accept the
framework of the NCM proton structure to "buy" this as not violating
conservation of energy.
 
So, yes, Brightsen's model DOES require very new physics -- not the negation
of E=mc^2, however. But I suggest that you direct questions beyond this to
Ronald Brightsen himself, since it is he who beleives it to be a viable model
to explain cold fusion, and it is he who could tell you his latest thinking
about the implications of the model.
 
The Brightsen model may seem strange to you, but is it any stranger than
believing that the universe may be from 90 to 99% composed of ephermeral,
undefined particles that are weakly interacting -- except for their
gravitational effects on odrinary matter? I think not. I think others, besides
Brightsen, have been having their own thoughts and theories about how cold
fusion might be linked to the "dark matter." I trust you will hear from them
in due course.
 
Now, if you really want to expand your mental horizons about apparent
"violation" of the conservation of energy, I urge you to read a paper by
Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
Studies at Austin: "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum." It was
published in Physical Review E, I believe this year, but I do not have the
exact date because it was sent to me as a pre-print -- "Accepted for
Publication."
 
The abstract reads: "Relatively recent propsals have been made in the
literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point
radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved
in these porposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that,
yes, in principle these proposals are correct. Technological considerations
for actual application and use are not examined here."  However, if you dig
deeper, you will find that Puthoff et al claim to have done experiments that
point to tapping ZPE -- wherein *might* reside far more energy than any
Brightsen annihilation reaction could ever hope to offer.  Let me quote, in
part, an abstract by Puthoff from a recent ZPE conference: "...In support of
this possibilioty, first-order modeling of the process will be presented,
along with discussion of observed anomalous laboratory observations. These
include preliminary attempts at calorimetry measuremnt of possible excess heat
generation at the tens-of-milliwatt level that are ongoing in our laboratory,
but which require further effort to confirm." These, I believe, are not
traditional CF experiments, but tests in solid media. I do not know the
details.
 
The Bottom Line: Open your big blue ones, because there is a world of new
physics that is about to demolish the staid, "know-it-all" physics
establishment. Poor fools, they just couldn't bring themselves to believe that
the 1990's could be like the 1890's!
 
....And you haven't even heard from Kevin Wolf yet! Hot stuff, Dieter!
 
Cheers, Dr. Gene
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / mitchell swartz /  No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Flies on Frank
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 01:53:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep2.145539.896@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
==sj  "Redundancy is needed for compelling evidence."
 
  Sorry, Professor Jones, but that is an oxymoronic sentence, and is not true.
 
----- proof of oxymoronic character -------
after Webster (ibid.)
    redundancy - 1.   a superfluous repetition
    ---------    2.   an act or instance of needless repetition
                 3.   that part of a message that can be eliminated without
                         loss of essential information
 
  Got that?  Needless.   Superfluous.                 ;-)
 
----- proof of obvious falsity -------------
 Earthquakes, Mississippi flooding, and a major asteroid hit, etc.
     can be compelling without redundancy, right?
 
 Also some criminal cases with lots of evidence (eg. murder on video tape)
     are certainly compelling, but (luckily) need not have redundant
     evidence for that evidence to be usually admissable.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Mike Jamison /  Re: On polywater
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On polywater
Date: 2 Sep 1993 22:17 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CCnuKs.9uI@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes...
 
[stuff on polywater deleted]
 
>   Much work on the structures and properties of water (and the ices)
>predate the polywater story.   We were involved in three terminal dielectric
>spectroscopy of Ice Ih (with additives) at the time, and when "polywater"
>arrived there was much knowledge of the solid (and liquid) state
>already known.
>
>= "The most interesting to me was
>= that "real" pure water--when you can create it--is one of the best
>= known electrical insulators around.  It is just very hard to actually
>= get pure water."
>
>   I think you might be thinking of ice Ih which shows an inscription of
>proton movements after the electric field intensity is applied and then
>becomes an electrical insulator to DC.  To those
>that test it however, ordinary two-terminal measurements are insufficient to
>demonstrate this effect because of higher surface electical conductivities
>which are observed to about -30C.  Therefore, three terminal (guard ring)
>electrodes are needed.
>
>   The best water we obtained had an electrical resistivity close to the
>theoretical resistivity of circa 22 megohm-cm [as
>I remember] but that rapidly dropped to circa 1.2 megohm-cm as the CO2
>from the atmosphere became solvated.
 
As a point of information on the resistance of ultra-pure water, I once
attended a conference put on by Vishay (manufacturer of precison resistors,
in this case thin film resistors).  The presenter said that ultra-pure water
has a resistance of 18.2 megohm/cm (the almost ultra-pure water used by
Vishay at the time had 18.0 megohm/cm resistance).
 
As Mitchell says, this resistance drops to about 1 megohm/cm in about a minute
when exposed to the open air.
 
BTW, the presenter also said this about ultra-pure water:  "it tastes terrible"
 
>
>          Best wishes.
>                                                     Mitchell Swartz
>                                                      mica@world.std.com
>
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 / Mike Jamison /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: 2 Sep 1993 22:43 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <g93h7345.3.746884767@giraffe.ru.ac.za>, g93h7345@giraffe.ru.
c.za (MR DG HUGHES) writes...
>BIG BOMB.
>
>A friend of mine came up with an idea which appears flawless. This wouldn't
>warrent me putting this to the net except the idea concludes the destruction
>of the earth. I hope I can recall all the detail.
 
Feeling a bit depressed, eh?
>
>An ordinary fission bomb is placed the centre of a hugh balloon which is
>filled with heavy water(Detrium). This balloon is allowed to slowly sink to
>the bottom of the deepest ocean floor which I think is about ten kilometers
>deep. The only way the reaction should be able to stop is if the amount of
>detrium to be converted into energy is exhausted, and according to Energy
>equals Mass times speed of light squared, this should not even come into it
>given enough detrium. The only other way the reaction can stop is if there
>is a release in pressure which can only come about if the oceans are lifted
>upwards faster than the rate at which the reaction increases. However, by
>the time the pressure is great enough to start reducing the reaction, the
>temperature is high enough for the ordinary fusion of normal hydrogen of
>which there is plenty in ordinary sea water.
 
We've all been educated over the past year or so about making H-bombs.  I
don't think it's as easy as you indicate.  There's a good article in Popular
Science (a few months back, can't remember which one) describing what goes
into hydrogen bombs.  Since you're talking about heavy water, you have one
oxygen for every two deuteriums, which lowers your probability of fusion,
so you don't have an ideal situation from the start (if you can call a
doomsday device "ideal").
 
Anyway, the "best" you could hope for is to change the earth's orbit a
little.  Even the deepest part of the ocean (10 km sounds right, the Mar...
Trench) will only give you 10 km in one half of a shpere, after which you'll
lose a big part of your confinement vessel (the top, as it breaks the surface).
 
And, ordinary H requires about 100 keV or more to fuse, and releases about
2.something Mev, and you *still* have all that Oxygen to deal with.
 
Besides, if we wanted to destroy the earth, we could've done that in the '60's,
just using the bombs we (and the former Soviet Union) had (have?) lying
around.
 
Does anyone remember the Orion project - the one where some scientists proposed
blowing up a bunch of h-bombs to propel a spacecraft?  If I remember right,
the idea was canned because of a /?treaty? between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
saying neither side could set off nuclear warheads in space.  Does the
treaty still exist, or is there actually hope of doing something useful
with all those bombs?
>
>Could someone please tell me how feasible this is.
>
>No flames please... excuse the pun.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch/Recombination Effects
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch/Recombination Effects
Date: 2 Sep 93 15:48:49 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CCq650.FAp@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>       In Message-ID: <1993Aug31.174208.885@physc1.byu.edu>
>       Subject: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] wrotes (on 31 August 1993):
>
> =sj  "We must continually look for alternative explanations for experimental
> =sj  evidences -- such as recombination in xs heat experiments with open cells
> =sj   (like Miles, Mills, P&F) -- to avoid empty-mindedness. We must also
> =sj  search for proper controls, and for crucial experiments.
> =sj   We must doubt our conclusionsand results, scrutinizing everything,
> =sj   until we first convince ourselves (the
> =sj  experimenters) one way or the other about a putative "new phenomenon."
>
>   I find this amusing, because so far your recombination criticism (The Jones
>    Factor) appears to be merely baloney, Steve.
>
>   You were invited to show an order of magnitude calculation or proof
>     for this effect which you continue to assert to be important.
>
>   To wit:  you posted your purported potential error of: 0.75 milliwatts.
>   However, F&P had 1989 outputs of circa 60 milliwatts, and another scientist
>   whom you seem to "lock horns" with, Miles, had one (his second) sample
>   characterized by 540 milliwatts excess power
>                [yielding circa 9 x 10^13 Helium (500ml)]
>
>    As was tabulated previously:
>    =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts)
>    Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
>      Miles (1992)                              540
>    The Jones Factor (1993)                       0.75
>
>    Even if your Jones' Factor exists (conditions remain unclear),
>       the impact is:  not important.      Why?   Because one
>        can not erase  60-540 milliwatt signals by a purported, relatively
>        insignificant, (less than) 1 milliwatt alleged error. can one?
>
>   Why continue to flash the hype (again), but fail to answer the question of
> how or why a putative microwatt error can influence a signal orders of
> magnitude greater?
>
>  [Because destructive criticism is easy? because there is no cogent response?]
 
Yes, there is a response.  Our experiments show that the recombination factor
*increases* with increased size (surface area) of the cathode, as one would
expect.  Mitchell is incorrect to allege that the "Jones' Factor" correction is
simply less than "1 milliwatt", tacitly assuming (incorrectly) that the factor
does not scale with cathode size.  His statement above that this is a "putative
microwatt error" is clearly an exaggeration.
 
Our experiments involve very small cathodes -- much smaller, for
example, than those used by Miles.  Therefore, we expect the
recombination effects to be larger in Miles experiments.  The point is
that this gentleman (and his colleagues at Naval Research Lab)
assumes recombination to be excluded -- but we have shown that
recombination effects cannot be ignored.  Referencing his papers, Miles states:
 
"As clearly stated on page 101 of Reference 1 [etc.], there is no evidence for
any recombination when a palladium rod cathode is used that is fully immersed
in the D2O solution."  (Miles letter to BYU President Rex Lee, 17 June 1993)
 
Well, we now have that evidence and Miles and others will have to deal with it,
in order to check their claims of xs heat production.
 
Later in the same letter, Miles states "the electrodes in that never became
exposed to the gas phase, thus recombination could not have been a factor in
the measure excess heat."
 
Oh yes it could!  Miles et al. have made a bad assumption, that
recombination (H2 + O2) cannot occur for cathodes covered by electrolyte.  How
do they think fish breathe?  Any way, our experiments show clearly that
recombination is a factor which cannot be ignored (as Miles et al.
unfortunately did), even when the electrodes are fully immersed in electrolyte.
 
They tried to prevent recombination by covering bare metal "with heat
shrinkable Teflon tubing to prevent exposure of the bare metal to the gases in
the headspace." [J. Electro. Chem. 296 (1990) 243]  But teflon is not in fact a
satisfactory barrier to hydrogen.  So recombination could also have occurred in
the headspace!
 
The point is, it is up to the experimenters to preclude recombination, not for
us to prove quantitatively that they made a mistake.  Since this was not done
by Miles et al. (and others like Notoya, Takahashi, Srinivasan, ...),
their claims of xs heat production by nuclear processes are not
compelling.
 
Further numbers will presented in the paper by Jonathon Jones et al which is
nearing completion.
 
>
>
> =sj "Sticks and stones...
> =sj  Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, Jed.  Ipse dixit?"
>
>    Res ipsa loquitur, Steve.
>
>                  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
>                                                       mica@world.std.com
>
 
Ergo, as Ikegami (Japanese cf leader) expressed it in ICCF3 proceedings:
"There is still no evidence to prove that the heat produced is nuclear in
origin."
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: An ordinary chemical reaction
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An ordinary chemical reaction
Date: 2 Sep 93 16:48:03 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <930901181408_72240.1256_EHK34-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Steve Jones asked me to dig up this old quote of his:
>
>      "BTW, if test-tube fusion generates xs heat, then clearly the credit goes
>      to P&F, no question."
>
>      - Who Stole the Fake Diamonds? Date: 10 Feb 93 13:38:46 -0700
>
> There you have it folks: human nature. Ego. We have massive, incontrovertible
> evidence of excess heat, impeccable calorimetry -- the best in history -- and
> an astronomical signal to noise ratio. But none of this means a damn thing to
> Steve Jones. He insists that all heat measurements are wrong or insignificant,
> because he is afraid that if he admits the heat is real, he will lose all
> credit for discovering CF. He is wrong about that. History will reserve a
> minor spot for him as a co-discoverer, just as Wallace is acknowledged along
> with Darwin.
 
We have differing perspectives obviously  (what an understatement!):
I find no connection between our evidences of small neutron yields
and the claims that "test-tube *fusion* generates xs heat."
Furthermore, P&F in a message posted here recently clearly
backed away from the notion that the xs heat they claim is due to "fusion."
No one sees quantitative correlations of neutrons with xs-heat-by-fusion as you
know, and Takahashi shows neutron emissions *diminishing* to vanishing levels
as excess heat *increases*.  If there is some connection I've missed, then
where are the X-ray energy spectra to show it?
 
I just think the neutron emissions do not belong in the same camp as the xs
heat claims, as I have repeatedly explained.
 
I have explained wherein the evidence for xs heat is hardly "incontrovertible",
without swearing.   I have not concluded that "*all* heat measurements
are wrong or insignificant," but that none have provided compelling evidence
for a nuclear or otherwise commercially-interesting new effect  (what Matt
Kennel calls "NewPhysics").
>
> Steve characterized the Buehler paper in ICCF3 as follows:
>
>      "The ICCF3 paper principally challenges those who claim xs heat to use an
>      X-ray spectrometer to scrutinize their results."
>
> This distortion is uncalled-for.
 
Not a distortion, mate:  the first half of the paper is devoted to a discussion
of a portable X-ray spectrometer and a call to use such in cf studies.  At the
end of this first section, we state:  "We strongly encourage use of x-ray
detectors in connection with cold-fusion experiments in order to determine the
presence of nuclear reactions.  Our detector including multi-channel analyzer
board and portable computer cost only about $5,500 so that expense should not
be a major obstacle to its use."
 
>The paper's conclusion is explicit:
>
>      "'Excess heat' can only be proven to be nuclear in origin by showing that
>      the products of nuclear reactions are produced at the same time and rate
>      as the heat... and commensurate with the law of mass-energy conservation.
>      Until such proof exists, application of Occam's razor demands that
>      'excess heat' be regarded as having it source in ordinary chemical
>      reactions."
>
> Buehler et al say here that "an ordinary chemical reaction" can generate
> hundreds of megajoules per mole of cathode material with absolutely no sign of
> any chemical change and no chemical ash. They are saying this is true because
> of Occam's razor. This is one of stupidest, most indefensible arguments I have
> ever seen. If Buehler et al are going to make this argument, they should stick
> by it and defend it. Let us not get side tracked with x-rays or anything else.
> Steve want us to believe that "an ordinary chemical reaction" can produce a
> hundred million joules from 106 grams of palladium. He should tell us how and
> why.
>
> - Jed
 
As explained ad nauseatum (and I am tired today of this), I do not accept
claims of "hundreds of megajoules per mole of cathode material"  -- but have
pointed out probable errors in such claims.  If the claims are correct,
then some form of ash must be present,
and in quantities commensurate with the xs heat,
as follows inexorably from   delta-m = E/c^2. Such ash, however, has not been
found at all by McKubre, for example, and those who claim it (like Miles) have
not provided compelling evidence.
 
Why not "get side-tracked with x-rays", Jed?  Why are you and Mitchell so
afraid to use X-ray spectrometers as the BYU team challenged in our ICCF3
paper, and as repeatedly discussed here?
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
Date: 2 Sep 93 17:14:23 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CCp39y.K5y@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <tomkCCntCI.H5E@netcom.com>
>      Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
> Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
>
> = "In the most positive experiments, the nuclear ash is many, many orders
> =  of magnitude below what would be necessary to account for the excess heat,
> =  let alone explain any inefficiency in the coupling mechanisms."
>
>    The majority of positive experiments may have failed to adequately look
> for the ash.  Those that did, have reported that the examined ash was
> produced at levels much closer to the expected amount than you claim.
 
Ok, Mitch:  tell us about McKubre's results regarding ash.  Clearly, McKubre's
xs heat claims constitute
a "positive experiment."  Yet he has looked for helium, tritium, etc. -- what
has he found?  Lots of EPRI dollars are being spent here.  Yet, from all I've
heard from McKubre and others, *no* ash has been found at all.  Can you correct
this, or will you rather correct your statement above?
>
[What follows is surplus.  Can someone tell me how to delete a large block like
this while doing a followup?  Thanks.]
--I've decided to comment on the notion of cf in biological systems, after
the discussion below.  Still would like to learn how to quickly delete a large
block in this editor.
 
>
> = "I can practically guarantee you that if energy was so easy to obtain there
> = would be some bacterium exploiting it. When you consider the complexity of
> = the hemoglobin molecule or snake venom, CNF would seem a snap to mother
> = nature."
>
>    First of all, the usual transition metal complexes which living systems
>  use may not have either the density, packing or number of palladium atoms
>  required, despite your "guarantee".
>
>    Second, many living systems are unable to obtain adequate levels of the
> required atoms.  For example, the cephalopods (eg. nautilus, octopus) are much
> 'older' then mammals like us, and have brain (and vision) capabilities that
> are a marvel.  But they were stuck, since they built their oxygen-carrying
> subsytem on copper (not iron) and apparently were left groping in the
> epibenthic ocean strata, unable to evolve on land.
>
>    Third, who says evolution and change are done.
>
>
> = "So, where are these life forms? And with a source of energy that cheap
> = wouldn't you expect them to be the major factor in a competitive ecosystem?"
>
>  Good point, but you aren't implying that they left the Earth with their
>     'fusion subsystems',  are you?  or are you?                  ;-)
>
>   Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
>                                         mica@world.std.com
>
 
The following is from a letter by M. Srinivasan of BARC, published in the
August 1993 issue of "Fusion Facts":
 
"During the last year my attention was drawn to some very interesting work
carried out in France furing the early 1960's by Louis Devran, Baranger and
others. ...
 
"If indeed nuclear reactions are taking place right in front of us in plants
and animals then much of our thinking on these subjects needs to be
substantially revised.  The "evidence" presented by Kervran and others,
although cannot be taken as direct "proof" of occurrence of nuclear reactions,
can be categorized as "very compelling" evidence.  [Srinivasan's quote marks]
...
"This simple experiment is being carried out by some enthusiastic people in
BARC and preliminary evidence indeed seems to confirm the observations of
Kervran and others.  We believe that the outcome of further investigations
related to biological transmutation has a direct bearing on the possible
mechanism of cold fusion which is now a hot topic of study, notwithstanding the
cold water thrown on the same by many established physicists!"
 ... "With best wishes, M. Srinivasan"
 
Contributed without comment by Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep2.165612.899@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep2.165612.899@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 2 Sep 93 17:15:05 -0600

cancel <1993Sep2.165612.899@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / mitchell swartz /  Response to Steve/Recombination Effects
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Steve/Recombination Effects
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 04:14:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep2.154849.897@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Reply to Mitch/Recombination Effects
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]  writes:
 
=sj  "Mitchell is incorrect to allege that the "Jones' Factor" correction is
=sj  simply less than "1 milliwatt", tacitly assuming (incorrectly) that the
=sj  factor does not scale with cathode size.  His statement above that this
=sj  is a "putative microwatt error" is clearly an exaggeration."
 
  Incorrect?   Hmmmm.   Steve posted the following:
 
 == "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was used
 == as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire .. used as the oxygen
 == electrode. hile running with an
 ==      input power of 320 microwatts -- qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48V)--
 == the measured output was 750 microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when
 == calculated with the formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
           [In Message-ID: <1993Aug21.171832.865@physc1.byu.edu>
                poster: Steve Jones {jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]
 
   Steve used percentages (?!!!!!) to attempt to fool readers not
      scientifically oriented.
   However, when the absolute excess powers are simply used
  (using his very own posted data which he suddenly now falsely states he did
   not say, to wit: "750 microwatts") it becomes clear exactly what the
   relative importance is.  (vide infra)                       QED.
 
 
=sj  "Miles et al. have made a bad assumption, that
=sj  recombination (H2 + O2) cannot occur for cathodes covered by electrolyte.
=sj  How do they think fish breathe?"
 
   Certainly not with electrodes, and very few carry hydrogen tanks.
 
 
=sj  "Any way, our experiments show clearly that
=sj  recombination is a factor which cannot be ignored (as Miles et al.
=sj  unfortunately did), even when the electrodes are fully immersed in
=sj  electrolyte.
 
   You have not proven it.   Your experiments, posted here, indicate
 that it can be relatively ignored.  Furthermore, bigger electrodes do not
 necessarily mean more recombination proportional to area for several
 reasons including limitations of substrate and diffusion and other issues.
 
       Fact: So far you have posted insignificant levels of power which
   can be attributed to this.
   Therefore, continuing our running quantitative tabulation:
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
Representative Positive Results -----------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
 
Putative Effects put forth by skeptics ---
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    1993)          0.75
   The Jones Factor II (silicates 1993)          0.0 (max)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           **
                   in cell IF not considered
 
**    sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
  ==========================================================================
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Ignition doublespeak
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 05:53:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <265t5hINN7g3@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>Concentration; you have to presumably concentrate deuterium and rather
>rare metals (in non-oxidized forms) in a way that isn't
>easy.
 
In fact, it's so 'un-easy' that no-one except a few elite individuals are
able to reproduce it. :-)
 
> Why aren't any life forms that run on fission?
 
Presumably because fission has a lot of ash that is destructive to the
life form. Would you care to stand very close to a reactor?
 
>Maybe, maybe not.  Obviously it's alot easier for life to get energy via
>photosynthesis or eating someone else.
 
I think that this is what I've been saying: if there is CNF and it's
so easy to produce and it's so clean there would most certainly be
life forms taking advantage of it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Yet another genius theory
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet another genius theory
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 06:42:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930902144756_72240.1256_EHK27-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
>Fascinating! Would you care to explain to us, please, how the heat that boiled
>the water can continue for many hours after the electricity is turned off?
 
Am I mistaken, or doesn't the P&F paper make the point that the power
_isn't_ turned off at all during this time of 'excess heat' but is assumed
to be zero because the cell is "dry"? And haven't you told us that your
close association with P&F has provided the information that the cell
really isn't "dry" at all but does contain water?
 
>We will add these "silicates" to the Hall Of Bozo Kiddie Physics Fame, along
>with water friction, talking test tubes, nanowatt cigarette lighters and
>palladium based life forms. (Go for it! Why not gold based life?)
 
In this case Dr. Jones would still be contibuting something to science
whereas you will go to any lengths to defocus the discussion and go
to still greater lengths to avoid answering direct questions.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Critters
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critters
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 07:01:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep2.203047.9690@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslss01.asl.dl.ne
.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
 
>Hmm.  According to that line of argument we should _also_ see animals with
>diamond-composite teeth, built-in communication via radio, and a wide range
>of metal alloy skins for protection against predators.
 
Calcium enameled teeth are adequate -- what evolutionary advantage would
diamond teeth add?
 
For that matter, what advantage would there be for radio communications between
members of aspecies that don't communuicate? Do you think that cows need
radio?
 
Would you care to compare the strength of the exoskeleton of, say, a cockroach
with the weight-to-strength ratio of any reasonable metal? Why would a
spider weave a web in steel when silk is an order of magnitude stronger
for it's weight?
 
OK, you seem to think that it is bulk effects of Pd and D2 that cause CNF
after all the arguments that you have been putting against it. Yet it would
seem to me that bulk has nothing whatsoever to do with any possible nuclear
effects. If there is CNF it has to occur because there is something about
metal latices that allow two D2 molecules to arrive at the same place at
the same time. If you think that ten tons of Pd will make this more
possible perhaps you can explain your reasoning?
 
Fission is antithetical to life because if the radiation. Comparing
this to people's vivid imaginatory idea of CNF as 100% efficient without
the slightest hint of nuclear ash (I particularly like the one where all
of the ash was going off as nutrinos -- but what causes the excess heat
then?)
 
>Of the arguments available for disproving trans-chemical heat anomomalies,
>I don't think the evolutionary one should trouble folks on either side much.
 
Let me see here: life has shown that it can handle metals and even place
them in lattice structures. The ocean is where 80% of the life on earth
resides. It is also where most of the D2 on earth is situated. Yep, that
sure is a rediculous idea.
 
Your idea of 100% particle annihilation is much more likely.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / William Hawkins /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 05:15:34 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

Wow!  What vitriol!  What cleverly crafted character assasination.
What a lack of data.  Why is this typical of responses from people
clinging to the idea that cold fusion is real?  Could it be that
their powerful intellects have accepted cold fusion, but they can't
fit it into the real world?  Or is it the lure of cheap energy, and
attendant rewards, that makes them so sure?
 
I'm about halfway through "Bad Science."  Sometimes I can't put it
down, until I finish reading about stuff that's been puzzling me.
So far, it looks like a very thorough explanation of the human
factors in cold fusion.  Now I understand what happened to my "cousin"
Marvin.  Even if cold fusion should someday be commercial, and power
lots of pollution free Toyotas around Tokyo, Taubes' book will be a
fine history of the early days of cold fusion.
 
Bill
 
P.S.  Since I've expressed an opinion (or 2), I must disclaim any
involvement on the part of the folks that allow me to post to the
'net.  Nor do I have any association with Taubes' book.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Todd Green /  Kel-F meltdown
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kel-F meltdown
Date: 3 Sep 93 16:01:22 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

 
Looking through some old journals I found a paper which might be relevant to
the latest F&P effort. According to H.H Kellogg (J. Electrochem. Soc., vol 97,
133 (1950), under certain conditions, very high electrode temperatures can be
achieved during the simple electrolysis of aqueous solutions. This effect
seems to require:
 
1) the use of high current densities
2) high electrolyte temperatures (preferably at or near the boiling point of
water).
 
Under these conditions, a stable water vapour film is apparently developed
on the electrode surface. This causes a large amount of additional Joule
heating at the interface while restricting heat transfer from the electrode to
the solution, so that the electrode can become very hot. Using Pt wires,
electrode temperatures of between 160 and 650 deg C were routinely measured.
With a 0.81 mm diam. Ni wire, the author was able to reach temperatures in
excess of 1400 deg C! Because heat is lost by conduction up the wire, the tip
of the electrode gets the hottest, and in the Ni experiment the end of the
wire melted. Note that this effect was demonstrated for both anodes and
cathodes. So P&F's observation that the Kel-F electrode support (m.p. = 350
deg C) melted probably has a conventional explanation. It is still possible
that XS heat is being generated, but the melting of the Kel-F is not, IMHO,
evidence for anything unusual going on. This paper also illustrates the
dangers of trying to infer the heat balance in the cell from measurements of
electrode temperature only (e.g. as done by Will, Kunimatsu and others).
 
---
todd
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  CNF in nature?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF in nature?
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 09:34:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
in FD 1350: (Subject: Ignition doublespeak;       I have changed it)
 
>In article <EACHUS.93Sep1191424@spectre.mitre.org>,
>Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>>In article <tomkCCntCI.H5E@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>>
>>  > Then why is it that if all that is necessary to provide a source
>>  > of clean heat is a metal matrix and a couple duterium molecules,
>>  > some form of life hasn't taken advantage of it?
 
>     That's because solar cells and Ni-Cads are miserably inefficient.
 
I'll go along with Ni-Cd batteries and in any case they are not energy sources
but only regurgitate a part of the energy they get charged with; but solar
cells? Look around you, man. What is photosynthesis if not solar cells? OK,
it's not 100% efficient but it's a free lunch for all the plants. If I may
allow myself a rare eco-comment (I'd be at loggerheads with most of y'all if I
elaborated), solar is the ONLY free lunch, for us as well. Now Jim Bowery will
call me vermin again.
 
Amazingly, although I am sure whoever started this thread thought it was
completely ridiculous, note that the bibliography has this in it:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaroslavskii MA;      Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 308 (1989) 95  (in Russian), or
Sov. Phys. Dokl. 34 (1989) 813.
"Possible mechanism for the initiation of nuclear reactions during
temperature changes and phase transitions in condensed materials".
** "Propose a mechanism for n-emission during cooling and heating of heavy
water solutions of some salts, from liquid nitrogen to complete melting. Some
experiments were done in September 1988. After correction for the efficiency
of the neutron detectors (8 SN17 in parallel), the results indicate neutron
bursts of 300 counts/s, with the intrinsic background at about 1/s, most
prominently during melting. Y has a theory: numerous microcracks formed due
to thermal stresses become ellipsoidal pores by diffusion at their vertices,
in a matter of minutes. These pores, in the dielectric medium with its
frozen-in electric field yield energies up to tens of keV, sufficient for
fusion reactions. Of special interest to the author is "the distinct
possibility, following from these results, of controlled nuclear reactions in
living organisms".                                        (28-) Apr-89/Sep-89
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Just as it may be true that if there be an energy source, some living organism
will have exploited it, so it seems to be true that if there be a crazy idea,
someone has already had it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: On Jones' "Silicates"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On Jones' "Silicates"
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 10:13:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1350:
 
>Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
>="Exactly.  As I have posted here before, BYU Prof. Lee Hansen and I are working
>= on a "theory" that boiling in the P&F cells is caused by I2R heating as
>= silicates from the glass vessel plates out onto the electrode(s)."
 
>         ____________________________________
>         |                                   |
>         |                                   |
>         /                                   |
>         \   R solution                      |
>         /                                   |
>         \                                   |
>         |                                   |
>         |                                   |
>         /                                   |
>         \   R silcon                        |
>         /                                   O  ^   current source|
>         \                                   |  |
>         |                                   |
>         |                                   |
>         \                                   |
>         /                                   |
>         \  R palladium                      |
>         /                                   |
>         \                                   |
>         |                                   |
>         |___________________________________
>
 
(why didn't you draw them lying down, Mitch?)
 
>  Well, the power input is     Pin  =  I^2 * (Rso + Rsi + Rp)
>
>        The power dissipated at the silicon resistor is
>
>                               Psi  =  I^2 * (Rsi)
>
>  We can write then  Psi/Pin =        I^2 * (Rsi)
>                                 ______________________
>                                 I^2 * (Rso + Rsi + Rp)
>
>  Examining limits:  if Rsi = 0 then obviously there is no power dissipated
>   at that location.
>
>                   as Rsi ---> infinity, however, L'Hospital's rule
>
>   can be used to show that
>
>                     Lim           Psi/Pin =  1
>                         Rsi->infinity
 
You have this uncanny ability, Mitch, of making things obscure. I don't
immediately see how L'Hopital comes in, and that limit may well be unity, but
note that the current would also be zero, i.e. the "constant" current
generator would decline to go on with the game.
 
While I am not sure what to make of this silicate theory - i.e. I am not sure
that silicate would plate out on the cathode - Steve is quite right about the
rise in cell voltage, so something may well be coating the electrode(s) and
increasing the total cell resistance, because the cell voltage does go up, and
therefore the power going into the cell at constant current. This could
conceivably be the reason that the cell heats to boiling. I would expect,
however, that F&P still compare power in and out, so this would not in itself
be the source of excess heat - unless, as Dick Blue has suggested, the heat
transfer coefficient changes by a lot at higher temperatures. I am not
convinced that mixing in the non-boiling phase is so efficient that the cell
contents are homogeneous in temperature, and that radiation across the vacuum
gap is the only thing that counts. I can imagine that heat transport from the
electrode to the cell wall does play a part when the cell is not boiling and
mixing relies on the gas bubbles, and that this relation changes when the cell
boils and gets mixed much better.
 
None of this has a bearing on the dry phase, about which I can say nothing,
except that I'd like to see it with me own glazzies (how many of you have read
A Clockwork Orange?).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 10:41:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz) in FD 1350:
 
>        Very interesting post, Eugene.  A few questions:
 
>        "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" (Let's not count
>        royalties from your book--you'll excuse me, I hope, if
>        I don't plug its full title, publisher, and ISBN--you've
>        certainly done that enough!)
 
This meshes well with a thought I have just had. In this group, the people who
post can be classified into, among other categories:
1. People who are interested in the science, and who do not need to make up
   their minds about the reality or otherwise of CNF. They want to argue
   points of science. I am one of these, despite rumours to the contrary,
   Chuck Sites is another, Steve Jones is, too (the list is quite long). For
   all of us it is true to say that if we one fine day get proof of cold
   fusion, we'll accept it; if we don't or if we get disproof (unlikely
   because hard), we won't. For some of us, the fun is in demolishing false
   theories, others come up with their own, or their experimental results.
2. Then there are those who seem to be here purely in order to convince the
   rest of us that CNF is true, has been proven hundreds of times, beyond a
   shadow of doubt, even though the real evidence is confidential, but we are
   asked to take it on trust.
The second group puzzles me. The most vociferous among this lot also have
financial interest in CNF. Nothing wrong with that, let me add. Now, my point
is this. CNF, if real, would be a boon to mankind, and whoever invests in it
would indeed get immensely rich. They would not be asking the government to do
something about it, they would be doing it themselves. Look at biotechnology:
from an esoteric research area (gene splicing and all that), it quickly came
out into private enterprises, some of them indeed getting rich.
 
Eugene Mallove and all the rest of CNF's backers, if what you are shouting
here is true, you will be in clover. So why, WHY, waste your time in this
group, which on the whole is composed of querulous and quite unimportant
people? Why is it so important to convince us? I don't believe any of us has
a direct line to the US Congress, or the NSF, but even if we did, you should
care less because you should be doing it in private anyway. Idealism, you say?
Even were I to believe this, where is the idealism in battering a bunch of
bull-headed querulants? Is this just an elaborate game? Are you writing a
treatise on "Social interactions in network communication", or something?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 10:11:39 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: Exactly.  As I have posted here before, BYU Prof. Lee Hansen and I are working
: on a "theory" that boiling in the P&F cells is caused by I2R heating as
: silicates from the glass vessel plates out onto the electrode(s).
 
That is exactly why I feel that running the cells at constant current is a
silly idea. I suspect that if the tests were done potentiostatically with
decent IR compensation much of the 'excess heat', which seems to be largely
a calculated 'fiddle-factor' effect, would disappear. Of course the IR comp
would then get flamed by all and sundry.
 
At the high electrolyte pH such deposition is quite likely - has anyone
looked at the composition of the deposits ? Or, has anyone tracked the
changes in the cell impedance of the cell during the run?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Karel Hladky /  Re: On Jones' "Silicates"
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Jones' "Silicates"
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 10:52:04 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
 
-- simple interface equivalent circuit and sums deleted --
 
:                    as Rsi ---> infinity, however, L'Hospital's rule
:
:    can be used to show that
:
:                      Lim           Psi/Pin =  1
:                          Rsi->infinity
 
Except that Rso will hit infinity before Rsi does, as the water boils away.
Also a real power supply will voltage limit long before this happens. As
usual, looking just at the limits is misleading - why not try some real
world numbers ?
 
Can you ignore the Pt/electrolyte impedance? Can you ignore the charge
transfer resistance and any diffusion effects at the Pd/electrolyte
interface ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: conditions for ignitions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: conditions for ignitions
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 11:56:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Sep2.195726.15782@vlsi.polymtl.ca>,
Jean Yves Desbiens <d40937@info.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
>: I have come to realize that I may have fallen into a trap when I
>: commented on the conditions required for the ignition that P&F claimed
>: to have observed.  They never told us precisely when the event occured
>: so we don't really know what the conditions were.  I had thought they
>: must have refered to the current cut off when the cell was dray as the
>: time of ignition, but that was perhaps an incorrect assumption on my
>: part.  Ignition may have occured earlier and just gone unnoticed since
>: the experimenters were in the back room playing cards or something like
>: that.
>
>: Dick Blue
>: NSCL@MSU
>
>This kind of insulting comment is the main reason why I find all your
>arguments stink, it seams that respect for other researchers is not part
>of your set of tools so nobody here will give you the same. I am ready
>as most to doubt cold fusion, but I am also willing to give these people
>the benefit of the doubt; they are taking the risk here and putting their
>reputations on the line (unlike you), if they crash it will be because this
>thing doesn't work (a scam as you call it can't last forever) but if it
>does work then they will be heralded for their thoughness in th face
>of many critiques.
 
      Come on.  Can't you see even a smidgen of difference between
      the approach of people like Mr. Blue and people like Mr. Rothwell
      and Mr. Mallove, for instance?
 
                         mr. bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CNF in nature?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF in nature?
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 12:57:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01H2ID4139KY9PQSFL@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>I'll go along with Ni-Cd batteries and in any case they are not energy sources
>but only regurgitate a part of the energy they get charged with; but solar
>cells? Look around you, man. What is photosynthesis if not solar cells? OK,
>it's not 100% efficient but it's a free lunch for all the plants. If I may
>allow myself a rare eco-comment (I'd be at loggerheads with most of y'all if I
>elaborated), solar is the ONLY free lunch, for us as well. Now Jim Bowery will
>call me vermin again.
 
     Free?  How do you manufacture them?
 
     There is no free lunch of any sort.
 
                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / mitchell swartz /  Jones' "Silicates", boundary conditions
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' "Silicates", boundary conditions
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 13:41:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep3.105204.28140@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
   Subject: Re: On Jones' "Silicates"
Karel Hladky (khladky@nessie, khladky@umist.ac.uk) wrote:
 
     =:                    as Rsi ---> infinity, however, L'Hospital's rule
     =:
     =:    can be used to show that
     =:
     =:                      Lim           Psi/Pin =  1
     =:                          Rsi->infinity
 
= "Except that Rso will hit infinity before Rsi does, as the water boils away.
= Also a real power supply will voltage limit long before this happens. As
= usual, looking just at the limits is misleading - why not try some real
= world numbers ?"
 
   That may be true if evaporation or electrolysis proceed.
   The gendanken model showed what are called boundary conditions, didn't it?
   And the model did demonstrate by examining these boundary conditions that
   it did not matter what Rsi was, because any excess heat could never be
   explained by this putative mechanism.
 
=  "Can you ignore the Pt/electrolyte impedance? Can you ignore the charge
= transfer resistance and any diffusion effects at the Pd/electrolyte
= interface ?"
 
   No.  I mentioned some of that in the post (inc. other simplifications).
   However, it does not matter what the Pt/electrolyte impedance is, because
  any excess heat cannot ever be explained by this putative mechanism as this
  simple model reveals.                                If you can
   add anything to prove a valid mechanism, please do.       We are waiting.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Reply to D. Britz
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reply to D. Britz
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:00:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1353:
 
>In response to Dieter Britz's query:
[...]
>So, yes, Brightsen's model DOES require very new physics -- not the negation
>of E=mc^2, however.
 
This is reassuring, Dr. Gene. So I expect those extra GeV that Prof. Frank
asked about come out of the vacuum, as you say:
 
>Now, if you really want to expand your mental horizons about apparent
>"violation" of the conservation of energy, I urge you to read a paper by
>Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>Studies at Austin: "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum." It was
>published in Physical Review E, I believe this year, but I do not have the
>exact date because it was sent to me as a pre-print -- "Accepted for
>Publication."
 
I'll chase this one up, something I ought to read. Energy from vacuum does
seem like a free-lunch proposal, but I suppose the idea is that the vacuum
itself has a positive energy which we're tapping, so there is your
supernuclear source. By the way, I keep asking people whether this is not the
rehabilitation of the ether, but everyone snorts at that word. Anyone care to
comment?
 
>The Bottom Line: Open your big blue ones, because there is a world of new
>physics that is about to demolish the staid, "know-it-all" physics
>establishment.
 
I have told you before, Dr. Gene, they are not blue, but greyish brown. I
can't flash steely looks, but I can look very soulful, which also has its
advantages.
 
>....And you haven't even heard from Kevin Wolf yet! Hot stuff, Dieter!
 
No, I haven't. Is this in the publications pipeline? More tritium?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Frank Close /   No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  No Flies on Frank
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:22:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gene Mallove's response says all that needs to be said on this affair
except insofar as it failed to address the scientific question.
 
 
A proton has mass    0.938GeV/c2
A deuteron has mass  1.876GeV/c2
 
Sum of p and d       2.814GeV/c2
The total energy in a proton and deuteron at rest is therefore 2.814GeV.
 
This is true independent of whatever model you choose to make for these
particles. Conservation of energy therefore forbids the fused p+d flying
off with energy of 3.72GeV. Mallove's claims therefore violate energy
conservation.
 
If anyone can explain this more simply than I, so that Gene Mallove
can understand it, please do so.
   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
(Room temperature 300K = 0.025eV = 0.000000000025GeV = 0 to three sig figs).
 
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 
 
As to whether or not I am consulted on cold fusion Gene; if, as you
claim, I am not, then you have nothing to worry about.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Insults to science
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Insults to science
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:22:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jean-Yves Desbiens has taken offense at my suggestion that Pons, Fleischmann,
and/or their worthy assistants were not paying very close attention
to their boiling cells when "ignition" occured and for the first time
ever recorded the CF reaction became selfsustaining.  The problem as I
see it is that, in fact, the event was not recorded!  Correct me if I
am wrong, but my understanding is that P&F have no data that clearly
marks a transition from a reaction that requires input power to one
that does not.  What the data does show is that electrolyte boils,
the voltage (and by inference the power input) rises, the electrolyte
is evaporated until the cell circuit opens, and the temperature
probe remains at 100 C for an extended period.  If this cycle was,
in fact, repeated numerous times, and P&F were aware of this indication
that "ignition" had occurred why is there so little data relating
to this transistion?  I think my suggestion that the experimenters
missed an opportunity is quite reasonable.  Instead what we learn
from the recently posted P&F missive in reply to Morrison is that
they are not prepaired to make any quantitative assessment of the
events relating to the cells boiling dry.  I will say, Jean-Yves,
that any claim for having achieved ignition that is based on such
limited data is an insult to science.
 
As for your justifying continued CF research on the grounds that
they may be spin-offs,  that will be true only if the experiments
progress beyond simple repeats of the claims of excess heat.  What
data has come from the work of Pons and Fleischmann that does
anything to clarify the CF process?  What analyses of electrolytes
or cathodes have they done, and what has been learned from these
analyses?  Have they failed to find evidence for the CF process and
simply suppressed those results, or have they never looked for
anything beyond the excess heat?  When a well funded, well equipped,
well staffed, research program has as little to show for its efforts
as does the operation run by Pons and Fleischmann, CF advocates
should begin to wonder who is going to make the needed breakthrough.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Allan Duncan /  Re: Pure Water
     
Originally-From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pure Water
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 12:45:03 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia

From article <930901144130.206006de@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov:
> Robert Eachus points out that water is a good insulator.  Some very high
                                           ^^^^
 
> power pulse networks have used water dielectric capacitors.  Relatively
> high dielectric constant, and if they arc over you don't have to throw the
> mess away.
 
Well... fair is more like it.  Pure water is still slightly ionic.  pH 7
and all that icky undergrad chemistry stuff :-)
 
If you aren't trying for high volts as well, it's no prog.
 
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:
cuddy3 cudenaduncan cudfnAllan cudlnDuncan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Mistaken on all counts
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mistaken on all counts
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 15:32:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I asked Steve Jones how heat from electricity could continue to evolve hours
after the electricity was turned off. Thomas H. Kunich responded:
 
     "Am I mistaken, or doesn't the P&F paper make the point that the power
     _isn't_ turned off at all during this time of 'excess heat' but is
     assumed to be zero because the cell is 'dry'?"
 
You are mistaken. The power is turned off, a fact which is clearly stated in
the paper. Because of safety concerns, it is left on until the liquid boils
away, the connection is broken, and the power monitoring shows zero input. The
power monitoring is another aspect of this that Steve and the others have
conveniently ignored. It is not difficult to measure how much electricity is
going into a cell. There can be errors, but not on the scale needed to explain
the cold fusion effect.
 
     "And haven't you told us that your close association with P&F..."
 
I have no close association with P&F. They do not tell me anything that they
would not tell any other responsible person who sticks to the usual academic
protocol and politeness. That is true of all cold fusion researchers I have
communicated with. They play by the rules, they answer reasonable, serious
enquiries. They do *not* respond to lunatics and extremists who have publicly
accused them of fraud, embezzlement, criminal stupidity, deliberate fraud at
International Conferences and so on, which is why the "skeptics" are very
unlikely to get any information out of any honest cold fusion researcher. Once
you go public with the kind of poisonous filth we see here from Jones, Britz
and even (sad to say) Droege, you are beyond the pale. You cannot just turn
around and pretend you never said something; your reputation follows you for
years. You can no longer expect to be treated like a responsible member of
society.
 
Neville Hodgkinson described the situation in the Sunday Times article (June
27, 1993). He pointed out that Pons and Fleischmann are working in a brand new
50,000 sq. ft. purpose built research institute in France, and that a steady
stream of some of the world's top scientists have been visiting them. I would
add that they have also been made top advisors to MITI and other Japanese
government agencies. They are very much on the inside of the establishment,
whereas people like Frank Close are locked out. As Hodgkinson said, many
people have been invited to visit the labs, but:
 
     "Those who once wrote off Fleischmann and Pons as 'schlocks and
     fraudsters who performed nuclear fusion in a bucket' and 'deluded and
     incompetent' will not be invited."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: CNF in nature?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF in nature?
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 15:32:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
in FD 1356:
 
>In article <01H2ID4139KY9PQSFL@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
>Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>>
>>I'll go along with Ni-Cd batteries and in any case they are not energy sources
>>but only regurgitate a part of the energy they get charged with; but solar
>>cells? Look around you, man. What is photosynthesis if not solar cells? OK,
>>it's not 100% efficient but it's a free lunch for all the plants. If I may
>>allow myself a rare eco-comment (I'd be at loggerheads with most of y'all if I
>>elaborated), solar is the ONLY free lunch, for us as well. Now Jim Bowery will
>>call me vermin again.
>
>     Free?  How do you manufacture them?
>
>     There is no free lunch of any sort.
 
Huh? How do I manufacture what? I am talking about those solar cells called
plants; you know, that green stuff outside your window. The plants are getting
a free lunch. They sow not, yet they reap.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 15:32:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1356:
 
>That is exactly why I feel that running the cells at constant current is a
>silly idea. I suspect that if the tests were done potentiostatically with
>decent IR compensation much of the 'excess heat', which seems to be largely
>a calculated 'fiddle-factor' effect, would disappear. Of course the IR comp
>would then get flamed by all and sundry.
 
Karel, starry droog, this makes no difference at all. Whatever mode you run
in, if you want to do precision calorimetry and calculate excess heat
accurately, you have to follow both cell current and total cell voltage, at
an appropriate rate. iR comp does not come into it at all - why should you
care about definite electrode potentials? Constant current is still preferred,
as I posted a while ago, because people like to quote A/cm^2. Actually, there
is a case to be made for constant potential, because of this "electrolytic
compression" argument, translating an overpotential into so many (equivalent)
atm D2 pressure. But whatever case you make, it does not affect your
calorimetry.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Thermal and electrical resistance
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermal and electrical resistance
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:14:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones and Todd Green raise two different issues concerning the
interface between the electrolye and electrodes in CF experiments.  The
question of layers of gunk as been around for some time, but I am not
sure any concerns have been layed to rest.  Steve points to the voltage
rise recorded in the recent P&F publication as evidence for a possible
build up of a resistive layer of silicates.  McKubre refers to the
use of a Solartron model 1250, 1254, or 1260 Frequency Response Analyzer
to determine the Pd/electrolyte interfacial impedence and thus asses
the electrochemical condition of the interface.  Perhaps an electrochemist
could comment on what this instrument measures, whether such measurements
can play a significant role in electrochemical investigations, and whether
a failure to do this kind of monitoring can be significant.
 
Todd Green gives a reference to the notion that at high current densities
the cathode may loose thermal contact with the electrolyte and undergo
a significant rise in temperature relative to the electrolyte.  I would
say that throws some cold water on the notion that the cathode got hot
after the electrolyte boiled away.  That puts in doubt any claim for
ignition, and it even says the P&F calorimetry is ultimately worthless
once this condition occurs.  I kind of like the scenario that says the
resistance goes up raising the power input and once boiling is triggered
that power level keeps rising, and the cathode gets hot as Todd suggests.
The only mystery results from an improper measurement of the input
power.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Right on all counts
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:14:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz asks:
 
     "Eugene Mallove and all the rest of CNF's backers, if what you are
     shouting here is true, you will be in clover. So why, WHY, waste your
     time in this group, which on the whole is composed of querulous and quite
     unimportant people? Why is it so important to convince us?"
 
It is not important. We are merely using you for rhetorical target practice.
 
 
     "Is this just an elaborate game?"
 
Yes. It is called "politics." As I said, this is mere practice. The really
important game is in Washington and in the board rooms of corporate America. A
dreadful disaster is brewing at these places because of the corrupt, idiot
opposition to cold fusion in the scientific community. The rhetorical battles
won and lost here make no difference, but the economic battles that will be
lost when the Japanese develop CF and the U.S. does not might end in a ruinous
disaster on the scale of the Great Depression. Millions of people will
probably lose their jobs because our leaders are too stupid to understand
elementary physics (calorimetry), and because our scientific leaders are too
corrupt to admit the truth. God only knows what this disastrous situation
might lead to. However, God and everyone else knows exactly who is responsible
for the mess, and who will blamed when the shit hits the fan. As Arthur Clarke
says, they are guilty of at least "criminal negligence." As Schwinger says:
 
     "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."
 
I should add that most of my time is devoted to playing the real game, on the
real playing field. I can write these messages quickly because pros recycle
prose. I have two goals:
 
1.   Personal enrichment. This is never far from my mind. I am a capitalist
     and proud of it. People who claim they do not desire money and power are
     dangerous liars.
 
2.   To head off disaster and prevent a serious breakdown between Japan and
     the U.S., which are my spiritual and actual homelands, respectively. This
     effort -- to lobby the government to allow a few experiments and to call
     off the insane witch hunt -- has been utterly fruitless, and it has cost
     me a deal of money. However, it is a small sacrifice, which I make
     gladly. When I was growing up, I often had occasion to visit Gettysburg,
     Pennsylvania, which is about 8 miles from my family's summer house. I saw
     that other people have sacrificed far more than money for the good of the
     nation, a lesson I have not forgotten. I have the deep-seated, patient
     patriotism that comes to most broad-minded young people who live overseas
     alone in an alien culture for a period of years.
 
 
     "Are you writing a treatise on "Social interactions in network
     communication", or something?"
 
Yes. But, Bruce Lewenstein has already written a superb treatise on this very
subject and how it relates to this very forum. If you are interested, I
suggest you contact him:
 
Bruce Lewenstein
321 Kennedy Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-4203
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:30:05 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2SEP199322432296@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@venus.lerc.nas
.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 
   > Does anyone remember the Orion project - the one where some
   > scientists proposed blowing up a bunch of h-bombs to propel a
   > spacecraft?  If I remember right, the idea was canned because of
   > a /?treaty? between the U.S. and U.S.S.R.  saying neither side
   > could set off nuclear warheads in space.  Does the treaty still
   > exist, or is there actually hope of doing something useful with
   > all those bombs?
 
      First, the treaty was the 1963? Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in which
the US and the USSR agreed to do all future testing underground.  This
killed the Orion project because it needed three or four aboveground
tests.  (Notice that this treaty only covers testing.  It would not
prevent USE of an Orion spacecraft.  Later treaties on nuclear WEAPONS
in space have been argued to have that affect, but no one ever
objected to the Soviet and US nuclear powered spacecraft on that
basis.)
 
     Second, the original Orion concept used fission, not fusion,
explosions.  Remember, the idea is to explode something under a pusher
plate and kick it, and the connected spacecraft, upward.  This calls
for low yield devices.  Later versions of the Orion concept use
inertial confinement fusion of pellets.  This allows for much smoother
thrust, but is a lot dirtier so it is not useful for leaving Earth.
(The problem is the large amount of tritium this would dump in the
atmosphere.  A fission-powered Orion spacecraft launch would cause
less fallout than one of the nastier atmospheric weapons tests from
the fifties and sixties, and orders of magnitude less than Chernobyl.)
 
     For more information, and two good science fiction stories read
_Orion Must Rise_ by Poul Anderson, and _Footfall_ by Larry Niven and
Jerry Pourdnelle(sp?).  The description of an Orion spacecraft in both
books is accurately based on the original research.  I think the
original concept came from Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced
Studies.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Critters
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critters
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 15:15:22 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
(Oh shoot, everyone _else_ indulges in total tangents in s.p.f.  My turn!)
 
In article <tomkCCrnIr.J4G@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com
(Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> In article <1993Sep2.203047.9690@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>
> | Hmm.  According to that line of argument we should _also_ see animals
> | with diamond-composite teeth, built-in communication via radio, and a
> | wide range of metal alloy skins for protection against predators.
>
> Calcium enameled teeth are adequate -- what evolutionary advantage would
> diamond teeth add?
 
This is humor, right?  Elephants _die_ when they run out of teeth -- which,
incidentally, is why they ration their teeth out into grinding position
one-by-one throughout their days.
 
Dinosaurs were more clever.  They had unlimited teeth, something dropped
in mammals.  But they still could have saved a lot of minerals/energy by
_not_ having to scrounge for poor, comparatively fragile calcium to build
teeth.  Using abundant carbon to build incredibly grit-resistant teeth
would be an enormous advantage to any animal that must eat large volumes
of plants, which defend themselves with silica spicules in their cells
which (among other things) make them a poor long-term diet.  Go chew on
a few horse-tail plants if you want to see what I mean.  They call them
scouring rushes, and for good reason -- you can literally polish woud
sandpaper-style with them when they are dried.
 
Which, by the way, is another point.  Competitively speaking, plants would
_LOVE LOVE LOVE_ to have diamond-riddled cells to discourage predators.
You don't eat plants that grind your teeth to nubbins in two weeks.  And
plants are manipulators of carbon _par excellance_.
 
Even worse, recent low-pressure diamond synthesis techniques show that very
high pressures are _not_ required for diamond synthesis, so it's at least
_possible_ that diamond can indeed be created enzymatically.  (Anyone know
if there is any research going on in that?  I looked at the idea back in
high school, but enzyme technology was/is pretty primitive.)
 
Animals use calcium for teeth for one reason and one reason only:  their
metabolisms know _how_ to use calcium and build it into structures.  Shoot,
even poor old magnetite -- which _is_ synthesize by bacteria and probably
higher animals for magnetic field detection -- has never been used in the
teeth of any critters of which I've ever heard.  Why?  Because there aren't
any animals with metabolisms that _know how to do it_.
 
> For that matter, what advantage would there be for radio communications
> between members of aspecies that don't communuicate?  Do you think that
> cows need radio?
 
Huh?  Have you ever _listened_ to a herd of cattle, or are you assuming
that they move around quiet as church mice?  Why in the world would you
think that "communication" _only_ means "words?"  Most animal species
go to great lengths to communicate in some fashion, mostly for  a) finding
a mate (go listen to a pond in the spring), or  b) warning other members
of a herd or family of danger.
 
[skipping stuff]
 
> Let me see here: life has shown that it can handle metals and even place
> them in lattice structures. The ocean is where 80% of the life on earth
> resides. It is also where most of the D2 on earth is situated. Yep, that
> sure is a ridiculous idea.
 
Here's a question back to you:  If evolution is infinitely clever at finding
all possible solutions to all possible problems, then why weren't _all_
solutions already found (say) 2 billion years ago?  Why should the solution
to, for example, bony skeletons have to wait in the sidelines for so long?
 
Why shouldn't _current_ animals exhibit physical technologies a billion
years advanced over what we currently know?  (Actually, I _do_ think they
exhibit some information technologies that are well in advance of anything
we currently can do with computers, but that's another story.)
 
Assuming that evolution is some sort of infinitely intelligent genie that
can find all things in all ways at all times is simply wrong, as it leads
to self-contradictions that cannot be resolved.  Bacteria are currently
"smart" enough mutation/selection wise to just about keep an even pace
with humans developing new antibiotics, but the bacterial (fortunately for
us) certainly don't win the race hands down.
 
> Your idea of 100% particle annihilation is much more likely.
 
Thank you, thank you.  I always appreciate enthusiastic support from loyal
followers!  }=-)>
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Joshua Levy /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: 3 Sep 1993 16:27:55 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>2. Then there are those who seem to be here purely in order to convince the
>   rest of us that CNF is true, has been proven hundreds of times, beyond a
>   shadow of doubt,
>The second group puzzles me. The most vociferous among this lot also have
>financial interest in CNF. Nothing wrong with that, let me add. Now, my point
>is this. CNF, if real, would be a boon to mankind, and whoever invests in it
>would indeed get immensely rich.
>
>Eugene Mallove and all the rest of CNF's backers, if what you are shouting
>here is true, you will be in clover. So why, WHY, waste your time in this
>group,
 
It is actually worse than that; they are not just wasting their own time,
they are lowering their potential profits.  The fewer CNF backers there are,
the more money each will make (to a first approximation).  So if CNF were
real, the backers should be totally quiet, to maximize their own profit.
 
Mallove might be a special case, because he write books.  But, he should be
hyping CNF when he has a book just out, not when other people have books
just out.  (Especially not when his book is the oldest and most out of date
of the 4 or 6 book available).
 
BTW: There is a third group of people on this news group.  Those interested
in what might be called the "history and sociology of science".  People
who are interested in how and why science works the way it does.  People
interested in the non-scientific aspects of scientific development.  I am
one of these people, and I find CNF is an interesting case study.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / mitchell swartz /  Anode Eff. pt2 GIF-electrode
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anode Eff. pt2 GIF-electrode
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 17:47:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

This is Part II (A View of the Cathode in the "Anode Effect":
 
    In Message-ID: <1993Sep3.160122.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au>
    Subject: Kel-F meltdown
Todd Green [tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au] writes:
 
=" Looking through some old journals I found a paper which might be relevant to
= the latest F&P effort. According to H.H Kellogg (J. Electrochem. Soc., vol 97,
= 133 (1950), under certain conditions, very high electrode temperatures can be
= achieved during the simple electrolysis of aqueous solutions.
 
     [from the Caption of figure 12]
          "Fig. 12. Aqueous cathode-effect with platinum-wire cathode.
              1N H2SO4 at 40deg C, 70 volts, 1.0 amperes, about 8x."
 
  The figure that accompanies this posting (and in the next post)
 is figure 12, the caption of  which is above.
 
   This figure is GIF and UUENCODED and shows an vertical platinum
   cathode demonstrating the reported effect.
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
begin 644 elGIF
M1TE&.#=A9`#(`+,``````#,S,T1$1%55569F9G=W=XB(B*JJF;N[JLS,N]W=R
MS.[NW>[NW>[N[O__[O___RP`````9`#(``,$^Q#(2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YHG
M$`R!`*CM*\Q"J[*"41"#0/BJ&<NF>L%:/4)BT7@X'DZHU.%H&!`%PR&!P!X(Z
M.X+V<"@4#@B#FL<>#"0!8WPRD\5KMP'AMW*W9D$N,C5X@`-7"U**BE4*93LZM
M.CL%>F8&8)9F;30L1B^>>$5Q,$([-*='-G*D?P('"@U/B[)0#0E[E'I@/VY['
M;K\[>FY"0G-P,*O(J3S%@(!!HP"%?RU@"0R+V4X(O#X]/0*ZIS,\PD(X;\=''
MGW)X<M)$K:GSK80^"`E1VE*WS.'HWU@,"_>OUS`_QCQ]8C4JU;%DT`A!JQ?N0
M2I-9M!P@`,<I^R"?<.5^3))DQHRRA7#8.4PE<:*-:8%J?-.!;5\M`[V$["EWM
MRJ"E,6347'DHJF@R=],D/'-!C<C2&680U+3YP!1(H+TH[52#KPN"!0H2.$J0B
M@![$4/&HH?I'J(?3@FZR%)A*-4&!B@6Z)%"#)BB95PH4@&70(/"2P)Z4A9+YS
M-N:*F...R"RE-Q%5*`[4N$%#=@D7LO@<!5[`P`$#)@Q2$V;@KN$T>\3.L66K<
M1^>W?R%?I;X\94&"+6%5"PYLV/?I!LACF:92Q8%:4CH)_O`1TE?M7#O-:=E!^
MAHV")Q=Y/P@K-E:#U0I.GUY`VGSR)E24/Z`F4$^DH)`.Z-"/^U_-3S)G'%*`7
M8&(%Y@5\XDD!5GK@Q:(:8:B9%Q\V52A'A2]@\,<9%PB$A<`K9'QH@%A<C+B7K
M87F)=0!A#3!Q'GNT)%CA`LL]X""+L"!'V!/,5<AC%03H1U9Z)`8W''N!,1`6<
M<5TM21QQ8#E16A/')3A+<E*45J$3M%Q$!69<1M'%`6#Y)A@#UT#('FGJI4;:@
M*Z&1M2![YWV9G&ETR?@><LSQR6(3$MX9"P)4E*87@:/-Z1MI;*Z7'%@E?O95;
M>E7&4LMY5DZ17)YW5C%5CUJZYP18DQYV6G!NIJI:82^2R)6I8'WY8WB9-E@:V
MEPXPX6--/5:(G(WQ<4,>&63U^\4>AT12>NJ2'W[(!9(+(&`IF)EFPZ>=\>EC;
MIX6R6`KH&/N9\=<9!?R&A@+<=,C>F%G\]BIIP5%;;7R[,L>EA?)%T:=RJ3&'F
M$RZ5\&!&P+B`,6)?^N45"3YK.F)>M?L`:NF7+%;!"&;P\>A$+).%LP);@?R"A
M!&Y:4>=&AP0:0"/$LX#9'&;9PJSOK_I8^,`SK0RA2E,=^P"3'K^1I4:,5O)(=
MJ[T_?DDM>(QD!$4T\[PC&0VL4/U'&EOH0&O1,-NI3]=1(-AUMK+.QPX%*S4D]
MBAUVQ''('OH)8!G+P.I+=)@NRXI@<S\:,X<QH2RD]CKQ#%!&)0-\1_?7LMQM"
M^R\C8NO[@)8)H:W,VG\;44/;0<950``'0*RTE[A."\64-FK;<M*63^#W*A9D4
M[M07!NN1YV5'NURWT^%EI#2UL6101$JNJ\22/?I=LH<!"G`]!7B]MBQ]F+^'`
M67S:#3U$_"@]73+`)`/>;9/&P%X;YK00./D<?72Z1IN4`0##,`#-$B6%0!A+H
M`8:'@BCH8F&NG>^K"=-@=##`WF/SLQ0]2%`+L"H!7*C7P4`8$*2L6$Q+,,R&C
M1W/0-V0P/)4+\-=N:H0>%,Q*G9)""'9C0:%`:N5+#"$!"\'H[$W#82VC85)N:
M:<<-J<T"L([!BR6/2H\E1,'-8>$`)DI&8,``^^%`05:!#?/L9RUPLH-RC?(2W
MSJA)B$&APV$@QFI%M`I@8:=C82#$M>`@(4&A=B&P]KBQAR$!P4\A1V$[88&=*
M=\X-N>*OMNP"M&3@1<29A."VP:`9B')$&O(-DHY;;XXD,%`@%I8:#V$=&R(!2
MF04E;GYQTM#L"ZA^>J@DX&',AL5308S)P]6CP4,"7)1MV8(M5BTF<MKDH,0KT
MP(";-)5)(3&EA`%=VRK^6IFIH[@C"[+0V%*C0!8Q!!)LX!`G"*\%D[@I0""@-
M1@VA0K7@Z4+2VLP:V;1YPRAA#3=[4M^8/8``XC=U?[E6F/05R:0U#-H=L,'6(
MAI8Q0@.H7<O%^PK2+EV"$C"G)A"L''QWM$-G[%&Q<NP68$36P*(ZJVM=S<#:5
M-@Q-`32X&.V7F<^``P7)'?)*NH&V/QV6&T-'R0.@`P=F"D6KY>I0RUO&H*TM-
MEP84N`"488["-8?CF@I(8Z@[!-ER(?,3.BQ_7^[:FU>[ZVYK6S(L].E'`#9DI
MVVTXQE1!80`E+%G(`04JVF"#UES2Q8#::B(JNYK*JZXW&-(:,;M$T-HC@#B\8
MT081P`@AX+"-++!%@@4B0J>6KBZ:!`'K:HJ!+?Q\G*F`[&28X1HDL[-AD)GRE
M:4V#!)1)P817NEGH"`UL-.<G2`!1P"89_GL%@2R$*C(,-(D*^ZJSF008HSI]1
MJA(#F^[0PJ(R\4@Z1H@!V#/#*PT8P.F81R"1$KL@FW1,/<DNXR)1FG03RLQ(8
M;9A.#*T.$(J$`T2)`0`='F`@"KITB.G-:"Y0Q14^*6"`.KE`1(N[B+#BK3HTS
M@:1L"[0>LNFJK"BZ@=@:!/"#@#Q!$-6`*@2@KI`!=B`@"D0.F&0;&Z[+"E<ZR
M#9CN(2:)W`Z&(KTK#PPW9Y+)3#2S^`LP=&0I$@"O%!CA&13<`$$IQV+)ZCI9(
MU^(-0*W4#(/61!/6#[O<N!U*ICH-F+C0F*"YP!.D-`Z!B"C62`3.<7$-]J:LM
M2&08866*U._<#B>22%S>)IZ8^X8_'2A`5$^.(N6%`N\Q``G"Y&J7R&[SFTW=:
M)M%4DSM:K[NJ.IGH3(N&AV(1XX!3O&K@A"CT,4&`)`:8)-,;*L5.*V"WVNY13
M8+6U*>7+K`/OX!G,Y@VB+/D)84`2>&$#+;/'3:MDAQU2ZS;+PKN*5CA79ASQ<
MJF_]5>JRE9+FYM],B(+"!PX((`MVIZ9.7*@E2SNRR+"#X2%7P!L89;D<TTHMV
ML[_]=A`C"N`GCZ!J9$#.B98F0):TT_05&R8CLSO1,_-;US:X*></5^6+#%V?V
M:-PP0(3-32@`D$22M5S<X4*W#`)2)"IS$C+*$%D8GI5QVI8-0[9:(6%PQU$(=
M^P4,$XS3/,\0`($`0&`X8"P,AH[E8'BI"@H%KH3B+#P"50V5VJJ^6TM8I2&9Q
M)3:S:*DD.`D\1V\P)-[Q`\?BP#U-+,$I<0P\>:DL%*Y$H01T"`1XI!!,FI5@>
MI$E(+(ULVAS(]?0(W$46`6T\.%`1!&3,J&W87%">220LI92=T;RFT)CML@QC&
MV,A&7=P8S#C0]00!*#3\%`THK#+0@%C8,`M[OHUILI`(;)UOK8"5371T1KT!K
M`W<7S#`OC#8([3T@H![0X8!!I0!*F-E+$&J%!D\@6%AQ)\'6+C.$.C`*@Z+&"
MB0#*EL$8@:W'OCL(&!09LL!9@P/G/(8T@`#!^Y,19$RHFP218:5)ZE0H6-#K;
M3!IA&$F0,'9,0()1*/,((:*`90@@:FPDJ*#A$-*B8`1A<G7&0\\-H2BY$W:+^
M;(::M&9T>T5G1U0\=_(U<(##`P(G616TH&7O9D-&*!BI*V14(\6=9T)Y@TRF"
M6P>G/^ZD+")@50,$&3SV-9`U#B?!BQAFVE3&:$\:E0X/FT6,%J68@SV0##6D3
M[NX=`V%LZ9L@01(_LVJ:N,!VWI6,&"&%(?ME*)MN3T+*N,"A`)T&KG9#!4#`6
M&1^:6Y3(6)#5TXL+5RC90G/K"WTOO0J\LC+L^L%NL22`,)<K*85'0#8*A)(?+
M'(^A819#ZO`T^]$)&HS1T"-BL`.?(%W4@U0@&Y@QU0,$V;$;@0#LL0`#"*CPU
M2#<HA.2!'R:L=A@BP;"##CJ0G,,81QAMIPP&A^!@8'<*))`'>"@.M$`%/Q@B\
M4PM":7"``C^]!A9['>RR70J_T+B"(%QN]P*--C5A2)#/<'9B'ILQ\`0D!806%
M"%QJ5&$C:CZ.Q4477=9R53WN%5(D!EL=,$H/*`41#0";Z<5EE'"Y5<FAAEV1=
M&AOP`1-F14BI(6@G(ZC0B9G<]?#,`KN5`IX`SDSP%0&`>?/)"`L91=E5T<6GR
MWRT-*5?K0LDI(5LW(RF:Y)+\T!$"A`8@2(%UQ[`H"T-%\;0C^X@W#3,?J9B\>
M<4@@A?&@Z`,$+`G>`#TH\(4-H7%"R#$%)''?H9?`Q]:X9B(2G4<TX,",O)V&H
M-`&;HY18EV8]."NC#"_`T$@+GFFD&GS>'@H9<HODQ)R9V8'8BYSCI3I*JZB@/
M@N(J+$*2G6H<1LC+:A*=(-NI+[I0X\6"P3B1:N8^4!(>*`-@@#,)="")#$4F=
M94)[A54"J&+G@%5JJ;.-K%88+;#5D)P&*,J#T.$!D"@?U03@Q"%;<[6)T_6!&
MT2.G[F#B3M>*2?1:F25$#,3!!3R@@)M$%`'VB$DS=5"$$:]6L24SO\;I+($>4
M)IV7,-)CZ2NKD+39`4H2K4/0^TE/;JFUMLY35!05772W=H4!22'$&XSL=JP,>
MC.*`*PVLJJ2)N-?1XP%:*57+O=8^QYI]76TBYZ5.D\#503%N-HH"1#!PO5V$1
M`Y'[EW`\#.PG\<%RU84[03!(*7(2(NS@LA+C*[`B)(YR$H*G;0#8.6`X`&R`#
M:-LL&!"#X1"B%#&8P2@9))*0%E`A0!H1)(9D\NFA6`.H("6XVN$"#@/M1@LH"
M=@YI0("ZF"9!*,?9M50T@HF*#23"BP'`#KVF$92AC(*6!#4'!#4<F(8'!P:'H
MGIRJDI&@HP^H"SY`J\,,UJN/BR,K0=6GT-!1@(26RX`&@TLU@`8&`X<%#ILER
M^U$0`]D)/5,C"8X_$HXJ+%:-#M4^+4:L$0H!``=-,V&"X,L%A@-.J95O;D4GW
M+<,,"XT,@=>M#CS\H+T:T8_"@!#(RFFRU("<)1H(%!S0A.#0C2K/`A728Z50S
M02M_0B0$)`C1(3F)GB$Z@J((!Q@M%C0L$$R-``:9'BP0L&**EGM:4DT[TG%;]
MSPY*-E3I^<Q'QU)Y#L3"<*.%`C4%9*RC,8`!IYURR!&=18\6T4&K#ND;JD)/E
M`4!MBXX#14)##DT,V%#$:A.&@`69C,D+X,,C523[H.SKIBH5H6UK]?2,'!+#=
M-B4)"P*@:"SK@TI^`0APT,!!Z4-2`/AA&F+?^[;$'9!.D]#OD&)9BG%#4T6PJ
M#P$;#"*Q*39#=("<I1=(@9LRT?/#J?\][UBT-M'(&]8^<89G@`US#P;4F-)`D
MG:5+"$XW6)"O,#5H>;+#OQV7MV2"I6`?I8:(L8?Q`&C!`3/D\$4T&(HI+8'"A
MR)G"&LFZH>V/%6:C3KII9O$!J:'H,VJC`#69B0T!'DC#+QL(:,"T7PK["XF#M
M@)LLI-<HE`RVVHJ`Z\+;LN"/*%)"?$"2K"A!D#-S'%!`'A@$LBRD[VSLC[(_1
MD-EN,I6^>ZX@REBA40(<K@IF`0>(K"&8`TXSYKO0]OL2&0V248NRR>112SL.Z
M_]CQ"0N[H2P`^T@>>($&P)0\TBMS$EA!`3GSH.>/!E-J$"6Q'J/O2^`*DHR:X
M#34(!TP`W&"(4.&,0U"!TPY8X;RVJEQE0_B0\LA5&\N:\\KO8JD&I6G(64`3"
M!]@8().:V+!)@17C"/"I:BBT\"@J>]TUG\8NI#:IRJX!-;Q@SS2G6&#40+6!0
M`]Z#`3Y^^(G3V2FAI8:[LQ`1Z[!K_S.,&@$'9".`7\^#:`WAAES5!L-T:ZHIX
M^.!R-D^J`.RR5X_BNXR[@X+39-`;!#"-X']A^/4!1N_*X;K]Y*'SW7:/JL6CZ
M9@SVB(\G.]+#XB&-135<FQ(H354?,*)M+;&BC%:@VX*^HB1K^P#-)ZV$([[FF
M"')T>F@T``([$H8T&1BO9\.4$.BD/.GL2=+9X,HH"U@^S$<0F:/X3IA1U6"@B
MKR.18V!L!R%[[;U>M<P'4H:Y>82LOFF#!4I9*K`ADQ')6\!,F\QHAV,`Z*FO9
MRC_M.ZI2.:8XB6\P90,JUFU2<H(<<TXD3X'0ZM;9IQM^FKG3IH+&7(KO;&\FK
MXNPF8-;@[`!YRO>%`E1C@<:/3'/J'.:C$O/G;\P3.NJ63NHYVS:E)5^Z:4#^2
M:JP;0*GR.J^3C'8(!AEBA$"MJ'..7VV!)Y!3E0T%L7)$\#P.0`/7HM3Z#A2.&
M<`%\""52*A5*4EZ;SP@HH8B*^TO.AD`L+5,GF.,1J`$9#5XM3$,X+.'H::.$1
M2^7.0)*>PDB:Q.@>U21W9=$@@R`VP/!@9J>3\!.F5X$1YR0(!71A-_4!LM4I'
MM:G5)R(U)Q%@(,.`%I!0R+BCL!;4F45!F9D[)WH!!_4$DM1G"M)1PM$YB2OCJ
M<$`3<."PQH-6\SH`(*"-<JK1MBD,"&?W8G*A+.F'PC(7DH$,4#B-5E"X'4NC3
MT*!A<ZLA#LF=;;A$-1E1[!<&<Q:V(!NR:\(%!M,8T!!`,5L^``L:%!!BPU.3B
M3KO(^?I%;HH=='9`O=OSSTHW/Q;4R(C4P`$!,SL6.`-P2(C+0"B!9`)F\B@\'
M^Z,M3^4*0Z><D71?'*!Y96"'M1HY#RV@D3!#KPK:3FI:*<H6)66!B(Q]F6SD/
MMVD-@CX*RI-&(8L*MAWD%>BD"&[<V)C*@H5(%G(:`KFS92ON@0<-&H21AI<G9
M#,H!&!#L-BB)P=%%R7700^F?IY8;"@SR`,H"$8I@`$A+H".(M0$5!S3X_.==%
M2C:_X*5MNH34$4Q,/'DJ\,$U-]<![#GX2*#!@59H:_BN?.#WB,4A5AXL;702J
M)3VFJ#STMI9H>RAYIGW-7F"K43$,%BQ(\$Q\Z>62WE$HB6*`44@\]H2"=PCX#
MBVM1*5(&`0YDE1L09U2V0'#B+`/"62=!HU`F^Y`5M]XPI2W5$@OL45!`#`4@P
M\(`!6U&RX7]O(/.@8"6$XV"!Z!0!FD$:G'""2QX08\D67S2#ER:90-.`?RH!"
M\F&!6NJRHG-8[A%.9/"LD^1,`RP00PPSV*!)0?HDD"!4(8K4$%-&$B4"<EC(?
MU]Z8RAQVQ!`2+*E(,_B<T4H/<-H@!)XEBC9%>><16%0&22ZGSD@=1#'*$K.HS
MJ1$T%NA0P`(;:"-;>P2&F&=2*6$09F`!.58:">],)4%5_&S%)CX&*'#6GXZ%5
M<B4NVYAGUE*<D!<*<41A(>BPH-#U588#&+"3$(<$,="K9IEUI9V@S<E:>2>YG
MT\>2QD0G`73^^S6`88;0M9'#"#8(A\F`*B&KY9!82J@E<:LYMP*2[:I0,`'2Z
M-&!1;FP&00"PVES$EC`,N@IK@2(5U11K0VW2`9.)85M`P0K$8-F]6H&50"21"
MP,$-S*T*>2!I>!3WY:#I'>P'M%@D7`!%7X3*ZT6XA102"DT%=A"!!M&\(GVA;
M:9%SSP5'][,!A3Z0F1D$M)RT$#L"LK1@F[RU5D&X"@+H$"$C-'+!)1.`9@P-4
M5T-#Q-``L!/("JT3J9U2F@?$V+<J(6AL-$6QPMP&M%!(#&#GA<#=90DEWR1,B
M[_LJOOA:[(E$BB>6,./MOO`D+7EQY!FWZ)RB^=/(/C%[*&F-^S0<25X"@JT*P
M>Q1@0'1ILK(1&5E=@$5(QDCZ=#:]#+ZO<XJM!AH526Z:F,\3S#--MGE1A-<!7
MV<QT1=3*G@V!D$$..X05@6PL*U"[,.(BB,)4G\=QFB((@!J@Z^!-[*4`1!E,C
MX),!>8[)HT9H^F"@%!)&U8%J3`*GHI7P;6XVW*WAX-4:!,#3>*2X)^TB<1/4:
MBJ#&:^DYH)\N!!H>#@08!FX$Q+P6#@Y>$&H$%?7:ZBYGA"X]AC;HE/*&F#+>`
M1B6<F"P>&(`8%'-N%&`:%A(:8FH*'"@'LD#>?BV59FY**Z0X+8@(B(A2\2K8&
M!'35`A3&@!9>7!BT<0$0&FC\^Y@HWH#SS)&:@2][KY2$1HJLHDFLQ6O.<K1A2
M'!@4>#-P@T&#.J.0'72#[!RPA*&B!2F21]X4)@``VDCP:LT"%PZXR6J08,:M'
M"U+\Q&-S+DD[:",Z:`)ESD*6FH$4-8A4XY"-`0<&@>S"P,$"($5#U/FT::*GZ
ME$GV&(E)46F[B3>AQ-S@0($-@SD"'#!`0.2_6P8%I:+JJ9VZJIXFB"H"K1*(.
M`IKR9''2YL4K!S^`6!E@P,*"6R\,%#"JR1>(-2WC>%`WHRFH)98"S9LGA,@+M
M-0!TYDB,0`'@L$09)&#P8]2'3([9P@TQP^&GO5>,D;*Z!R>66Y]'BB&`8`&B1
M^QL#O'D)L5)$PTR?*-.&LVF)E,F7)=)THLM5C05&<Q1`P)7&#&W=%LQH_!0WT
M'+<L'4[XU)3EY8F^\A+X]\JP<,,;<RA(`<(HL"D8V)+:Y#6&@JFON02?64X.C
M"4!+PSM6:D".EH$2,>R:UZ8J98C)$DE0P=>,,*>A7SJ))B%W9H.D!@7R:8662
M,0)8@`$$B&'&CA3EH\F/%5-:HRVEAF&KC\BHXPR?`VH(1XP!$/@LC`,2J,8E(
MM9C\42&79+L.+C`5"F9()1I00!&@;&C330(6X`@OUX:4;JW)4GJCF/>>HRZ^-
M=93PA89;%!F@1C?;/"!.&^01+$B:*'.GK=?J^VPRMB;KFXM!T/[BR3A$;2B(5
MP^.FX@5)VFI3\3D@,$D15=T06E"Z2]O0KSL&1@55!P>@Q,$..K9LZX,P6GJN0
MF:>8U.#8..:*R+$RU%P-5)_*&,@`E#KYTS4F475N,A0;;-7$.%!<<``8&$AM9
MVN-T1.2:#+0Z4,&J7.JVJFW+E8U<6>V-=`8#N&$`FSV'ZV8#H\HI3SY)4!WRK
M)-V27,ZM,2GNDY2%$&+`A30!,."[=!=00-%T`RB@JXN=D^32VH#X=MX15V:'7
M7WE=:^NP6PPHJ(Q5:/FNN-)8[5.ZH>>=53Y]W4,5++::B5@E"6PQJXP7A((A%
MRP/$4\.31(CI^U?55_<<^NOW]I0L$_9B4T9?/\9#5Q:J0?J'L`(2(*GE!8-$5
M.K9NS2GF4;'K;%:=N<Z,!^JI"W+A(ZIK470QOB&==$6QPRS76*9==E7L8`5`B
M@*BI'YB:ZM`3.`"!0LH+&_**5>2V=2`IIX'6$P=O\8B<X=YFYZ(02$#3H<L^B
MT'(*6ZI3UC&_WB1XJ##38.K#X*9EL"HI7KB\3,(P]M5ZP:"@F++5R7YL!R,M)
MTX+>(7!2';>0$<$4(GX0!I\6`J$`G.-8:N#+!JN(BJ5\S_)0D__@$[PT&@5`C
M*3A0#'JX$=(DW?E0/Y?U=HH]:[H7J<42!,E@90&1XC2;&;#8^R9::;9D<;`%Z
MFE9S,2_.GLU3GM!('L!`@H>``4'>F$N*C@\6E-Y=#B"62LT*S4W78>"5D%G`0
MPD+!$]9'5.M>6)^>G.R?IU](#Y65[0<C#)E24^D550E2Z6#8CU=DW];7#DR?4
M)+-(637)[O-@7";(;MB6BBSE%ZAS+:LK-B:E8*B9>8K@GE*WNG/T5QUYW+E>:
M9K+9TV6O7C`2=KI8N[5/"D,YZ9P%PP3GVCHQILSULN($##,Z<W),=,'-&R$@)
M`@-\=/)1P\EBP0K!($8PH!=0K/B$NOD-X(L\'[/<:@;.7$N,GN)IT3=2QAX[?
M1&FQA%-)VD&K8ZHJ`P2Q$PYRK9V>R@EE4%ZDB!:IB9(E\MLDGCEWJ!B+:P[&(
M<%<!;BU8"Z*DM*3BG7A;F.R43R@*=TKFM.^I>6X#]_,EB=\,)(<;([[K>:L5Z
MJ2#&*MTE;@X-A]<R:49<UT2ZB;S^,)TV)O6F;$YJT(3CV)!DK_JB?):-UI4E<
M=?$.>OL9>%C5%MQH?.)\F*)M$W%G!*)"G`_I9^R0T3+6(XAC7KBH>S9.U^EUE
.[=6P?^]2J+>M`1$``#M\'
``
end
size 7304
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / mitchell swartz /  On the Anode Effect
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On the Anode Effect
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 17:46:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Sep3.160122.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au>
    Subject: Kel-F meltdown
Todd Green [tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au] writes:
 
= "Looking through some old journals I found a paper which might be relevant to
= the latest F&P effort. According to H.H Kellogg (J. Electrochem. Soc., vol 97,
= 133 (1950), under certain conditions, very high electrode temperatures can be
= achieved during the simple electrolysis of aqueous solutions. This effect
= seems to require:
= 1) the use of high current densities
= 2) high electrolyte temperatures (preferably at or near the boiling point of
= water)."
 
   Thank you for the reference, Todd.  Examination of the article
shows that it refers to the low dielectric constant layers (ie. gases)
which are well known to occur on electrodes.
 
    The Anode Effect known for molten
electrolytes is reported in this paper to also occur in aqueous soln's
but  require several amperes, is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
 
            From "Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis"
       Herbert H Kellogg  School of Mines, Columbia University,
                 [J. Electrochem. Soc., 97, 133 (1950)]
 
           "ABSTRACT:  A phenomenon which closely resembles "anode
   effect" in molten electrolysis can be developed in the
   electrolysis of aqueous solutions at high current density.
   Normal operation of the electrode ceases and a so-called
   "transition period" begins when the electrode temperature
   reaches the boiling point of the electrolyte. When the applied
   voltage is increased beyond a critical value the transition
   behavior suddenly changes to the "aqueous anode-effect."
   During this effect the surface temperature of the anode rises far
   above the boiling point of the electrolyte. Evidence is provided
   which indicates that the gaseous envelope surrounding the
   anode during the aqueous anode-effect is maintained by the
   vaporization of the electrolyte against the hot anode surface. An
   aqueous cathode-effect was also obtained. The relation
   between aqueous anode-effect and anode effect in molten media
   is discussed."
 
  Although, any "true-blue skeptic" {cf. previous posts}
 would jump on this with knee-jerk speed, it is interesting to note that
 when it occurs at the cathode, the author indicates that for him it did not
 occur under alkaline conditions, or if sodium sulfate was present.
 In fact, although the author points out it ought theoretically work on
 cathodes, that section is ca.1/18th of the article.
  Nontheless, because of the importance
 of any possible cathode effect here it is by actual excerpt.
 
                     [from section: Aqueous Cathode-effect)
             "In all of the experiments and
       hypotheses discussed above there is no factor which is peculiar
       to anodes alone. If the hypotheses are correct, then one could
       predict that a cathode which evolved gas, and which is
       operated at a high current density should show a similar
       behavior and develop a vapor film under proper conditions.
       Such is found to be the case. If the platinum-wire electrode is
       made a cathode in a 1N sulfuric-acid electrolyte, it follows a
       behavior exactly similar to that of the anode. Fig. 11
       records the volt-ampere characteristics for the platinurm cathode and
       Fig. 12 is a photograph of aqueous "cathode-effect". The
       cathode emits a bright blue glow, characteristic of hydrogen
       emission, if the voltage is raised to 110 volts."
 
         "With cathodes, however, there is
       yet another phenomenon that takes place if the solution
       contains sodium sulfate, or if sodium hydroxide is used as the
       electrolyte, the "cathode effect" is not obtained. Instead, the
       cathode surface is covered with a multitude of what appear to
       be spark discharges (blue color), no wide vapor film develops ..."
 
  So what is the voltage required? and current?  and V-I curves?
      Is this really applicable to c.f.?
      What about the very low pH requirement or else the "cathode-effect
      is "not obtained"?
 
 
 The figures that accompany this posting (the next two
posts are the actual figure 12,   the caption of  which is above, and
the V-I curve. The figures are GIF and UUENCODED.
 
  In summary, this paper discussed catastrophic vs. laminar gas evolution for
        a condition characterized by unusual V-I characteristics.
   There is no discussion of any excess heat.  Furthermore, V-I characteristics,
   and system characteristics, and pH requirement discussed therein indicate
    that this paper does not necessarily relate to  c.f. systems.
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 01:25:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

More on **The** answer
 
Before the electrochemists flame me for not knowing what I am talking about, I
had better confess that I do not know what I am talking about.
 
Electrochemists and electrical engineers speak a slightly different language.
I only know this because I was once (about 1971) offered the job of chief
engineer[1] for Princeton Applied Research Corp., now the PARC division of
EG&G, and a maker of electrochemistry equipment.  While the available
components have changed a lot, the basic techniques seem pretty similar to
those of 1971.  They wanted me then because I knew the required tricks, likely
I still know them.  I have also been reading the current electrochemistry
sales literature in preparation to adding corrosion measurement to the water
machine.
 
As near as I can determine, the potentiostat solves the problem of lead and
electrolyte voltage drop by placing a third electrode near the cathode.  A
properly designed "reference" electrode will measure the potential very near
the cathode and can be designed to draw negligible current.  Now standard
electronic techniques can be used to control the potential between the
reference electrode and the cathode.  Additional knobs on the box allow
canceling the remaining reference to cathode resistance part by making use (I
think) of a measurement of the anode to cathode resistance (more properly
impedance) and making appropriate corrections.  The goal seems to be to hold
the potential of a spot just above the cathode at a controlled potential with
respect to the cathode.  In all there is a small analog computer in the
potentiostat box.
 
The potentiostat connection would thus hold constant potential for the micro
layer above the cathode. (I don't know the right term for this.)  I would
assume that once the cathode is loaded and conditions are stable that holding
this potential constant would also hold the current nearly constant.  This may
well result in the potentiostat connection resulting in near constant current
operation in the practical case of very long electrolysis of one of these
cells.
 
Comments from the electrochemists, please.
 
Note that figure 2A of the P&F ACCF1 paper shows operation in what I would
call constant current mode.
 
I have always been troubled that the available pictures of the P&F test set
ups (videos etc..) do not show enough leads connected to the cells to make use
of these techniques.  There do not seem to be enough leads to either properly
measure the cell power, or to make use of the corrections allowed by modern
electrochemical instrumentation.
 
Tom Droege
 
[1]  I was told that the board of directors met, and decided that they could
either make a profit for the year, or offer me the job.  Such is life in a
small business!  Possibly they had 30 employees at the time.  I did not like
the idea of working under such pressure, so took a job at Argonne National
Laboratories.  The Libertarians will surely flame me for that!  But I only
followed the incentives in place.  Milton Friedman would expect it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Local Heating
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Local Heating
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 01:25:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan asks "What do you mean by Local" (heating).  Don't know, John.
Somewhere in Batavia I think.
 
Actually I was thinking about complex circulation in the cell.  Or bubble
layers, or gas layers, or ????
 
I just see a very strange jump in the cell thermometer reading, see that others
would interpret it as a heat pulse, and see that it is not a heat pulse.  Then
later the thermometer checks out as OK.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  What Jed said on Compuserve
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Jed said on Compuserve
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 01:25:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell is also quite active in posting messages to the SCIENCE
forum on Compuserve, which I also frequent, so I get a double dose of
his dissertations.  Normally his line is essentially the same if both
places, but recently he posted a claim on Compuserve that I don't
recall ever having seen before.  He stated that there have been
several published claims of observations in which CF cells produce
heat for extended periods with no power input.   In other words
"ignition" has been achieved and reported by several different
CF researchers.  I consider that news to be sufficiently remarkable
that I can't believe it would have escaped my attention had it ever
been discussed here.
 
My question to all regular readers here is whether you have ever
seen any messages, or have you heard from any source, about a published
claim for CF ignition.  To be very specific, has McKubre ever published
a claim for the observation of an ignition event lasting 24 hours?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Constant I,V, or P **The** Answer
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Constant I,V, or P **The** Answer
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 01:25:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To those debating about "cold fusion" cell running conditions, the answer is
that they **must** be run at constant I.  This assumes that the experimenter
thinks that the D loading in the Pd lattice has something to do with "cold
fusion".
 
The reason is that even a small decrease in current density results in
unloadind.  This from a lot of experience.  No doubt about it, drop the
current density and sooner or later some gas loading is lost.  Quite
unpredicable, but with very high confidence.
 
Almost every experimenter sees a voltage increase over time runnint at constant
current.  So running at constant voltage insures that the current goes down
over time, and thus that the cathode unloads.  Constant power has the same
problem, only this time the control circuit makes sure that the cell current
goes down as the voltage goes up.
 
In fact, constant current may not be enough to hold loading levels.  Most of us
slowly ramp up the current command to try to hold the loading.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Dieter Britz /  Something completely different
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Something completely different
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 01:26:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Sorry for misusing this forum, as they say, but is there anyone out there from
Columbia University? A friend of mine is trying to access an ftp site there,
which he was told has some useful stuff for him, but it doesn't seem to exist.
He was told that it is cunixc.cc.columbia.edu, but the ftp program says it
doesn't exist. Please email me privately if you might have any info.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Thermal and electrical resistance
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Thermal and electrical resistance
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 01:26:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1357:
 
>Steve Jones and Todd Green raise two different issues concerning the
>interface between the electrolye and electrodes in CF experiments.  The
>question of layers of gunk as been around for some time, but I am not
>sure any concerns have been layed to rest.  Steve points to the voltage
>rise recorded in the recent P&F publication as evidence for a possible
>build up of a resistive layer of silicates.  McKubre refers to the
>use of a Solartron model 1250, 1254, or 1260 Frequency Response Analyzer
>to determine the Pd/electrolyte interfacial impedence and thus asses
>the electrochemical condition of the interface.  Perhaps an electrochemist
>could comment on what this instrument measures, whether such measurements
>can play a significant role in electrochemical investigations, and whether
>a failure to do this kind of monitoring can be significant.
 
These gadgets, together with a potentiostat, are used to investigate electrode
processes, i.e. to feel the pulse of an electrochemical reaction. The complex
impedance's frequency dependence can tell you a lot about just what is going
on. In this case, I would say McKubre just wants a rough indication of the
accumulation of gunk, which he could see by, say, the impedance going up and
becoming more resistive.
 
 I am told that a paper of McKubre's in in the pipeline, and my guess is that
he - unlike certain others - will tell us all the required details. So we
should know soon.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: 3 Sep 93 17:21:25 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

[stuff deleted]
 
Robert says in part..
 
>      Second, the original Orion concept used fission, not fusion,
> explosions.  Remember, the idea is to explode something under a pusher
> plate and kick it, and the connected spacecraft, upward.  This calls
> for low yield devices.  Later versions of the Orion concept use
> inertial confinement fusion of pellets.  This allows for much smoother
> thrust, but is a lot dirtier so it is not useful for leaving Earth.
> (The problem is the large amount of tritium this would dump in the
> atmosphere.  A fission-powered Orion spacecraft launch would cause
> less fallout than one of the nastier atmospheric weapons tests from
> the fifties and sixties, and orders of magnitude less than Chernobyl.)
 
When I was a kid, I always thought this was a great idea.  However, then
I got an engineering degree and I started to really think about it.
 
The thrust for a rocket engine is denoted by:
 
Thrust = a * m + Pe
 
Where
a       acceleration of reaction mass
m       reaction mass
Pe      pressure exerted on the "nozzle"/"pusher plate" whatever
 
and Pe can be calculated by:
 
Pe     = rho * R * T
 
Where
rho     gas density (mass divided by volume)
R       specific gas constant
T       absolute temperature
 
So where is the mass coming from to propel this thing?  Surely although
you'd get a really good push from the first bomb, there wouldn't be
much mass (air) left for the second.  In space things would be worse.  The
only mass available is from the bomb components and partial vaporization
of the pusher plate itself.
 
So am I missing something?  Is the ultra high temperature enough to
compensate for the very low mass involved?  Is reaction mass provided
by some other mechanism?
 
Sorry to start this here, but this has always bothered me and this is
the only place I've seen that might have an answer.
--
 
 
   Jim Batka  | 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 minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbatka cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Mike Jamison /  How to delete a block of text - easily [too easily, in fact]
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to delete a block of text - easily [too easily, in fact]
Date: 3 Sep 1993 21:18 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

Steve Jones asked how to delete a large block of text easily from a followup
post.  I figured it out, and managed to delete the header that woud've given
Steve his answer.  So, as a point of info. for all who, like me, are too
embarrassed to admit their lack of computer-literacy, here goes:
 
When in the edit mode of the vax editor (the *) type:
 
d mm:nn, where mm and nn are the first and last lines to delete, the colon
is the delimiter.  Note:  typing help delete does not provide this information.
All it says is d [range] /query.  Normally, the - is used as the deliniter,
but such is not the case here (like any good scientist, I figured the right
delimiter out via trial and error :-) ).
 
A question for Jed:
 
Assuming the CNF stuff is real, the Japanese develop it, we don't.  Why will
we honor their patents?  i.e. why won't we make our own CNF cells, through
reverse engineering (the Japanese have done this to us, we can do it back).
And, assuming we do honor their patents, I hear that patent laws are such
that tiny little differences can result in the issuance of a new patent.  Oh,
I forgot about lawyers.  Guess we'll be buying Japanese CNF cars, too.  If
it is a real effect.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.04 / C Harrison /  Re: Kel-F meltdown
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kel-F meltdown
Date: 4 Sep 93 18:43:12 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green) writes:
 
 
>Looking through some old journals I found a paper which might be relevant to
>the latest F&P effort. According to H.H Kellogg (J. Electrochem. Soc., vol 97,
>133 (1950), under certain conditions, very high electrode temperatures can be
>achieved during the simple electrolysis of aqueous solutions.
 [ much interesting stuff deleted ]
>cathodes. So P&F's observation that the Kel-F electrode support (m.p. = 350
>deg C) melted probably has a conventional explanation. It is still possible
 I am curious where the 350C melting point for Kel-F comes from.
As I posted 9 June 93 here, 3M's product literature lists a m.p. of
210-215 C.  I have seen errors in their lit. before, but where's the
reference for 350 C?
--
.................................................................
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Mark Deardorff /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: med@markdear.win.net (Mark Engle Deardorff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1993 16:48:38 GMT

 
In article <1993Sep2.142523.6993@scott.skidmore.edu>, david atkatz
(datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu) writes:
>
>       Very interesting post, Eugene.  A few questions:
>
>       "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"
 
Because he is an engineer and not a scientist. I just love his
appelative, "D. Sc." Reminds me of "Dr. Science. He's not a real
doctor. ..."
 
He is to CF what Bob Hoagland is to the Face on Mars
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Mark E. Deardorff                  Internet: med@markdear.win.net|
|Deardorff & Deardorff                          CI$ Id: 76164,3304|
|San Diego, Ca                                                    |
|619-689-1771                                                     |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmed cudfnMark cudlnDeardorff cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Mark North /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 20:47:55 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) writes:
 
>I believe that the Type 2 people are here to keep their backers from
>getting nervous.  After the initial discussions, sci.fusion became a
>low traffic group.  Then Tom Droege came in with his descriptions of
>careful experiments that showed no excess heat (worth patenting).
>Seems to me that that's about when Rothwell showed up, trying some
>strange and wonderful arguments to discredit people with negative
>results.  Then Swartz joined in.  Now, no negative comment goes
>unchallenged.  Challenging a Type 2 seems to have no effect.  From
>my viewpoint, this could be because they are motivated by something
>stronger than the search for truth.
 
This is exactly what I've been thinking since Dick Blue and others totally
demolished Rothwell and Swartz on all the technical details they have
ever brought up. I mean one has to ask oneself why a person would
continue to fight long after they have been shown to be complete fools.
The stakes must be very high for these pathetic souls. If you are
correct then all the more reason to not ignor them so that no one gets
the idea that silence is acquiesence.
 
Mark
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  Why the TBTB's like to argue
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why the TBTB's like to argue
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 21:52:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic & Public Computing

The question has been mooted as to why all of these true-blue true
believers continue to justify themselves with public reports of
positive data and screeds in sci.physics.fusion while a low profile
would seem to be more profitable.  The reason is very simple:  They are
ready to blame the skeptics if they lose their money, their jobs, or
their reputations to XS Heat.
 
Why isn't Stan Pons rich?  XS Heat is such a sure thing, it's a wonder
that he isn't already a billionaire.  If he were a billionaire, people
like Glenn Seaborg and Leon Lederman would surely be true believers,
but since they're not, it must be their fault.  The only possible thing
holding XS Heat back must be an invisible venomous potion that a
handful of particarly vocal skeptics have spread to make other people
disbelieve also.  It couldn't possibly be because XS Heat isn't excess
heat and isn't fusion.  It couldn't possibly be because Fleischmann and
Pons f***** up.
 
So the TBTB's have taken upon themselves to reverse the spread of
delusion about XS Heat by arguing in seminal scientific forums such as
sci.physics.fusion, the London Times, and the floor of the United
States Senate.  They see this act of persuasion as the final step in
their program to take their fair share of other people's money.  And if
they fail, some of them intend to sue the libelous skeptics for their
lost billions.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / J Lewis /  Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 22:53:49 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Sep2.171423.900@physc1.byu.edu> S. Jones writes:
...
>
>The following is from a letter by M. Srinivasan of BARC, published in the
>August 1993 issue of "Fusion Facts":
>
>"During the last year my attention was drawn to some very interesting work
>carried out in France furing the early 1960's by Louis Devran, Baranger and
>others. ...
>
>"If indeed nuclear reactions are taking place right in front of us in plants
>and animals then much of our thinking on these subjects needs to be
>substantially revised.  The "evidence" presented by Kervran and others,
>although cannot be taken as direct "proof" of occurrence of nuclear reactions,
>can be categorized as "very compelling" evidence.  [Srinivasan's quote marks]
>...
>"This simple experiment is being carried out by some enthusiastic people in
>BARC and preliminary evidence indeed seems to confirm the observations of
>Kervran and others.  We believe that the outcome of further investigations
>related to biological transmutation has a direct bearing on the possible
>mechanism of cold fusion which is now a hot topic of study, notwithstanding the
>cold water thrown on the same by many established physicists!"
> ... "With best wishes, M. Srinivasan"
 
 
Lord bless us all, Robert McElwaine was right!
In my mind's eye, I can see a cold fusion plant of the future -
row upon row of genetically enhanced petunias glowing faintly in the
dark ...
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
Petunia Power for Ever!!!
Petunias, Not Palladium!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: conditions for ignitions
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: conditions for ignitions
Date: 6 Sep 1993 01:06:49 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jean Yves Desbiens (d40937@info.polymtl.ca) wrote:
: <Dick Blue complaining>
: I am ready
: as most to doubt cold fusion, but I am also willing to give these people
: the benefit of the doubt;
 
They were given the benefit of the doubt, but they lost it when other people
couldn't reproduce their experimental results, and found out that the
supposed neutron measurements had actually been faked.
 
: Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
: Etudiant en genie informatique      | Ecole polytechnique de Montreal
 
--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / C Neufeld /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 05:20:42 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA

In article <1993Sep3.172125.12690@desire.wright.edu>,
 <jbatka@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>[stuff deleted]
>
>Robert says in part..
>
>>      Second, the original Orion concept used fission, not fusion,
>> explosions.  Remember, the idea is to explode something under a pusher
>> plate and kick it, and the connected spacecraft, upward.
>
>So where is the mass coming from to propel this thing?  Surely although
>you'd get a really good push from the first bomb, there wouldn't be
>much mass (air) left for the second.  In space things would be worse.  The
>only mass available is from the bomb components and partial vaporization
>of the pusher plate itself.
>
   The actual design calls for bombs of special manufacture. They'd be
encapsulated in a plastic shell with properties and thickness chosen to
optimize the system.
 
 
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Famous Last Words #5:
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | It's always sunny there
 generic!cneufeld@utzoo.utoronto.ca              | this time of the year.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenneufeld cudfnChristopher cudlnNeufeld cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 04:39:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>...the economic battles that will be lost when the Japanese develop CF and
>the U.S. does not might end in a ruinous disaster on the scale of the
>Great Depression.
 
There simply is no mainstream economic theory or historical evidence to
support this form of contention (Boss Ross and his goose stepping henchmen
notwithstanding -- note that all living Nobel Prize winners in economics have
signed a statement essentially repudiating Perot's anti-free-trade bombast.)
The geographical location of a humanity serving invention has never been
demonstrated to have a deleterious effect on consumers remote from that
location.
 
If CF is first productized in Japan, then US consumers will benefit by
being able to purchase power cheaper than before.  Expensive producers will
lose their market.  They will release resources to reassignment by the
market.  The extra money no longer spent on energy will be spent on
new purchases -- opening up new demands and jobs.  Furthermore, contrary
to popular misconception, trade *always* balances.  For each dollar shipped
to Japan to buy a product, a dollar comes back one route or another to
purchase an American product.
 
The discovery of CF will be a boon to all economies throughout the world,
regardless of its point of invention, or who holds the patent rights.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / mitchell swartz /  Therm & elec resistance tabulated
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Therm & elec resistance tabulated
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 02:14:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9309031546.AA16026@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: Thermal and electrical resistance
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=db "Steve Jones and Todd Green raise two different issues concerning the
=db interface between the electrolye and electrodes in CF experiments.  The
=db question of layers of gunk as been around for some time, but I am not
=db sure any concerns have been layed to rest."
 
  These concepts are old.  They do not create excess heat.  In fact
  high electrical resistance devices are used everywhere to generate
  elevated temperatures  (eg. electric dryer, toaster, hair dryer).
   The actual impact is listed on the table below
 
 
=db "Todd Green gives a reference to the notion that at high current densities
=db the cathode may loose thermal contact with the electrolyte and undergo
=db a significant rise in temperature relative to the electrolyte.  I would
=db say that throws some cold water on the notion that the cathode got hot
=db after the electrolyte boiled away.  That puts in doubt any claim for
=db ignition, and it even says the P&F calorimetry is ultimately worthless
=db once this condition occurs."
 
  Well, Dick, actually reading the paper throws some "cold water" on the
notion that it is involved in this instance.  Examination of the article
shows that it refers to the low dielectric constant layers (ie. gases)
which are well known to occur on electrodes.
 
    The Anode Effect known for molten
electrolytes is reported in this paper to also occur in aqueous soln's
but  require several amperes, is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
 
  It is interesting to note that
 when it occurs at the cathode, the author indicates that for him it did not
 occur under alkaline conditions, or if sodium sulfate was present.
 
         "With cathodes, however, there is
       yet another phenomenon that takes place if the solution
       contains sodium sulfate, or if sodium hydroxide is used as the
       electrolyte, the "cathode effect" is not obtained."
         ["Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" H H Kellogg
                  J. Electrochem. Soc., 97, 133 (1950)]
 
      Is this really applicable to c.f.?
      What about the very low pH requirement or else the "cathode-effect
      is "not obtained"?
 
   Given the V-I characteristics, and pH requirement discussed therein,
  this paper does not necessarily relate to  c.f. systems, does it?
  Therefore, continuing our running quantitative tabulation:
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
Representative Positive Results -----------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
   Miles (1992)                                540
 
Putative Effects put forth by skeptics ---
   Anode Effect (***)                            0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           **
                   in cell IF not considered during calibr'n)
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    1993)          0.75
   The Jones Factor II (silicates 1993)          0.0 (max)
  ==========================================================================
**    sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
***"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" H Kellogg J. Elec Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
It did not occur under alkaline conditions, or if sodium sulfate was present.
  ==========================================================================
 
     Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.04 / C Harrison /  Re: p.s. on polywater
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: p.s. on polywater
Date: 4 Sep 93 19:43:56 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

>theory right.  As I remember it a lot of work on the properties of
>ultra pure water came out of this.  The most interesting to me was
>that "real" pure water--when you can create it--is one of the best
>known electrical insulators around.  It is just very hard to actually
>get pure water.
 
>--
 
>                                       Robert I. Eachus
 
Just a side remark on ultrapure water:-
 It may be "very hard", but fantastically pure water is generated routinely
on an industrial scale for semiconductor manufacturing.  Purity is monitored
in a gross fashion with conductivity meters (any measurable deviation from
the ~18 Megohm-cm value related to water's ionization equilibrium constant
represents an operational disaster).  Ions (especially some pernicious
metal cations) and TOC (total organic carbon) are routinely controlled to
ppb levels.  Lab electrochemists, eat your hearts out! ;-).
 
 A state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing plant now costs approx
$1 billion US to build, and a noticable fraction of the budget goes into
the deionized water plant.
 
--
.................................................................
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Robert Panoff /  Re: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
     
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 05:34:15 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois

 
Jed Rothwell writes the following in a recent article:
 
>Fortunately for me, I am not the only person who believes in the
>absolute primacy of evidence over theory. I am not a creative person, I
>did not come up with this doctrine myself. People who have affirmed it
>include: Kepler, Galileo, Huxley, Feynman, Schwinger, Clarke, Ikegami,
>Vigier, Mallove and Fleischmann. These people are scientists. Those who
>disagree with them are academic hacks and idiots.
 
Now he is in some trouble here, since it has now been shown that KEPLER FUDGED
HIS DATA IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FIT HIS ELLIPTICAL THEORY, and that GALILEO, AS
IS WELL KNOWN TO REAL SCIENTISTS, WAS WRONG ON EVERY ONE OF HIS ASSERTIONS
since he was blinded by his "theory" (actually a long-standing view held
by most people in his day) that whatever the orbital relationship, the
orbits had to be perfect circles. (You may recall that Galileo wanted to
assert that the planets go around the sun in circular orbits while the sun
stands still -- both false -- and that the force was proportional to the
velocity -- false, and easy to show from simple observation -- and that the
tides were caused by sloshing back and forth -- again, bonkers.
 
So, Jed, you may have a point, but it cannot be made with two on your list.
 
Bob Panoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert M. Panoff, Ph.D.                        | Phone: (217) 244-6012
Senior Research Scientist                      |   FAX: (217) 244-1987
National Center for Supercomputing Applications|e-mail: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrpanoff cudfnRobert cudlnPanoff cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / William Hawkins /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 04:24:43 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <267rab$5m8@athena.veritas.com> joshua@athena.veritas.com
(Joshua Levy) writes:
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>2. Then there are those who seem to be here purely in order to convince the
>>   rest of us that CNF is true, has been proven hundreds of times, beyond a
>>   shadow of doubt,
>
>It is actually worse than that; they are not just wasting their own time,
>they are lowering their potential profits.  The fewer CNF backers there are,
>the more money each will make (to a first approximation).  So if CNF were
>real, the backers should be totally quiet, to maximize their own profit.
>
I believe that the Type 2 people are here to keep their backers from
getting nervous.  After the initial discussions, sci.fusion became a
low traffic group.  Then Tom Droege came in with his descriptions of
careful experiments that showed no excess heat (worth patenting).
Seems to me that that's about when Rothwell showed up, trying some
strange and wonderful arguments to discredit people with negative
results.  Then Swartz joined in.  Now, no negative comment goes
unchallenged.  Challenging a Type 2 seems to have no effect.  From
my viewpoint, this could be because they are motivated by something
stronger than the search for truth.
 
After all, this group has some Type 1's that might worry a financier
that knew nothing about fusion other than that there was a worldwide
group of scientists saying that his money was going down a hole.  I
think the reason people are still in it is the "Lottery Effect."
When the pot gets big enough, it doesn't matter what the odds are.
(That idea comes from "Bad Science.")
 
Bill
 
If these opinions are anyone elses, its a coincidence.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / William Hawkins /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 05:04:08 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <930903154054_72240.1256_EHK42-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
[deleted, because Windows' Terminal can't handle long lines in vi]
 
I did not include patriotism as a possible motive in my previous
posting, which really was too cynical.  Jed's posting, about the
loss of yet another technology to Japan, has merit.  And yet, why
would anybody want to get the government involved in this, besides
obtaining money from the taxpayers.  What is so expensive about
cold fusion experiments?  Is there no one in the private sector
that wants cheap energy?  Isn't this right up Ross Perot's alley?
Or did he have a science advisor that was unduly influenced by all
of the Type 1 voices of reason that make their opinions known here?
 
Ah well, nothing is as simple as it seems.
 
Bill
 
P.S.  Jed, that stuff about how the evil doubters will be damned
really does have an Evangelical sound to it.  Religious discussions
in .sci groups don't work anywhere else on the 'net.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Bruce Hoult /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 22:25:58 +1200 (NZST)

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>      For more information, and two good science fiction stories read
> _Orion Must Rise_ by Poul Anderson, and _Footfall_ by Larry Niven and
> Jerry Pourdnelle(sp?).  The description of an Orion spacecraft in both
> books is accurately based on the original research.  I think the
> original concept came from Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced
> Studies.
 
... or "King David's Spaceship", also by Pournelle, in which a backward
planet in the far future builds a chemical bomb powered Orion to win
them some quick respect from the galactic authorities.
 
-- Bruce
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBruce cudfnBruce cudlnHoult cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Bruce Hoult /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 22:31:20 +1200 (NZST)

jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
> Robert says in part..
>
> >      Second, the original Orion concept used fission, not fusion,
> > explosions.  Remember, the idea is to explode something under a pusher
> > plate and kick it, and the connected spacecraft, upward.  This calls
> > for low yield devices.  Later versions of the Orion concept use
> > inertial confinement fusion of pellets.  This allows for much smoother
> > thrust, but is a lot dirtier so it is not useful for leaving Earth.
> > (The problem is the large amount of tritium this would dump in the
> > atmosphere.  A fission-powered Orion spacecraft launch would cause
> > less fallout than one of the nastier atmospheric weapons tests from
> > the fifties and sixties, and orders of magnitude less than Chernobyl.)
>
> When I was a kid, I always thought this was a great idea.  However, then
> I got an engineering degree and I started to really think about it.
>
> The thrust for a rocket engine is denoted by:
>
> Thrust = a * m + Pe
>
> Where
> a     acceleration of reaction mass
> m     reaction mass
> Pe    pressure exerted on the "nozzle"/"pusher plate" whatever
>
> and Pe can be calculated by:
>
> Pe     = rho * R * T
>
> Where
> rho   gas density (mass divided by volume)
> R     specific gas constant
> T     absolute temperature
>
> So where is the mass coming from to propel this thing?  Surely although
> you'd get a really good push from the first bomb, there wouldn't be
> much mass (air) left for the second.  In space things would be worse.  The
> only mass available is from the bomb components and partial vaporization
> of the pusher plate itself.
>
> So am I missing something?  Is the ultra high temperature enough to
> compensate for the very low mass involved?  Is reaction mass provided
> by some other mechanism?
>
> Sorry to start this here, but this has always bothered me and this is
> the only place I've seen that might have an answer.
 
Well, you could try sci.space  :-)
 
 
Without looking too close your equations look sorta OK -- and yes, the temperature
is enough to make up for the lack of mass used, but that's not the most useful
way to look at things.
 
First off, it's not the mass of air that counts, but purely the mass of the bomb
material (and whatever ablates off the pusher plate).
 
Second off, the limiting factor in rockets isn't power or energy, but reaction
mass -- because you've got to carry all the reaction mass, and accelerate it along
with the rest of the spaceship.  The usual way to measure the goodness of space
propulsion is by "Specific Impulse" (Isp).  This is expressed in seconds, and is
the length of time for which one pound of reaction mass can generate a pound of force.
 
The best chemical rocket engines have an Isp of about 450.  Ion thrusters have an
Isp of about 2000.  An Orion would have a very high Isp -- one way to see this is
to note that if you multiply the Isp by g (9.8 m/s/s) you get the exhaust velocity.
Thus the shace shuttle's engines have an exhaust velocity of around 4500 m/s.
 
It doesn't take much to see that the fragments of an exploding A-bomb will be moving
at *much* faster than that, and will therefore give great thrust for the mass used.
 
 
Check the sci.space FAQ for more details and equations...
 
-- Bruce
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBruce cudfnBruce cudlnHoult cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Reply to D. Britz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to D. Britz
Date: 5 Sep 1993 17:11:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <930903025746_76570.2270_BHA44-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>Now, if you really want to expand your mental horizons about apparent
>"violation" of the conservation of energy, I urge you to read a paper by
>Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>Studies at Austin: "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum." It was
>published in Physical Review E, I believe this year, but I do not have the
>exact date because it was sent to me as a pre-print -- "Accepted for
>Publication."
 
I believe that Harold Puthoff demonstrated his competence as a physicist
when he published his papers "demonstrating" Uri Geller's psychic powers.
In case there's any doubt, I suggest the chapter in Kammann and Marks's
book "The Psychology of the Psychic" in which they discuss the Puthoff/Targ
remote viewing experiments and reveal P/T's essential experimental
incompetence.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.05 / mitchell swartz /  An.Eff. -pt.3 GIF- V-Icurve
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An.Eff. -pt.3 GIF- V-Icurve
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 17:49:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Part III (The V-I curve):
 
    In Message-ID: <1993Sep3.160122.1@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au>
Todd Green [tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au] writes:
 
=" Looking through some old journals I found a paper which might be relevant to
= the latest F&P effort. According to H.H Kellogg (J. Electrochem. Soc., vol 97,
= 133 (1950), under certain conditions, very high electrode temperatures can be
= achieved during the simple electrolysis of aqueous solutions.
 
  The figure that accompanies this posting (andin the previous post)
 is GIF and UUENCODED.
 
   This figure is the V-I curve of the cathode version of the
  "Anode Effect".
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
begin 644 grGIF
M1TE&.#=A@`*0`;,``````````"(B(B(B(A$1$1$1$1$1$1$1$0``````````$
M`+N[N\S,S-W=W>[N[O___RP`````@`*0`0,$^_#)2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YHQ
MJJYLZ[YP+,]T;=]XKN]\[__`H'!(/#4:(H>CR&PZG]"H=$K='9/+JG;+[7J_R
MX+!X3"Z;S^BT>LUNN]_PN'Q.K]OO>%HVS^_/E7Z!(0M7+8""B(EO#`Q[&EE*M
MAPU*#$>5EI6,FHR.%$=(BD4+"P('!Z&HJ4V1#I]*GPV<LIN,H[8+"KD*";P(O
MOKX'!@:FP0,#!:;#!P4%P@8%!`3&T]33`M?8V=?6`L?(SL+3JD$-T0*YX^E$/
MD2;L&*SND/"OM)JWH[N]"`G`Q,3@T`@8B"9P6+0!V(QU0ZB-FX``$"->"S`QA
M(L2'%BEBO/A0^YO'AM4&$!P9S1DS9@";A;NFSL>!:PI:RD0Q+](1=O,^X=/%K
MBQ^"`[_^&>@73*@R9R23'@RY,%M&C4\M3JPH%:3#C]NJ)85XTJ0_4SU_!3V@_
M*]^H>K$:Y9ST;@,@)2\%S-Q!X%JGN5#NWESRZI.]G?=P,>+IRZ<O!?C$_@3V7
M"QQ`I=*H1::VS>-%CDXQ4]V(&2I6C`)&3E,J3*5)9XH1\$R0"Q=B1J[HP<9T\
M2>W=!PZ,F4G`$B^.A>,@7;#IEP'/U3WS]62MX*<_HLM,*SM)`"6SZLT.7EO*C
M$&OGJ1TY5ZV8$+S&C1X56ATMC3OV`L:>-4NF6-^^7_:9YRMK^XL1@FMJ2>`."
M!;<Q$8T9I,CE6PU*!"#,)`6ZP$HA-0D8&X1I+4`+8K<,-DI8A3'63TH$B329W
M.>I1I9EYGSFUF382?192BB&5:`Q!)W4UC#-?B8A?<KGPHLL"S!R@25^QG&5;9
M*T@<@IN33^:08(1<'%A&@@O6<(1&V($R00.`Y;(//SV:@D!I:#Y3FGO<W<@-M
M0U=A<QE%43TEYW<M+E0C22CQ^)4P0#GG3R_+"5F6`+X8AQAMFUP("Y.NQ!:E;
M#`X(LT`9#!A#Y196DJ%`;UG*L.5VS'@I`9BNN3:FH&::F:9*L+(YF9OJP9EB=
M9J#5F=&=YYTGXXQ)]0GHG\-`^P<6/X7JEPNB""A*2%JT.!KIHY)"^4*E!EQ*E
M1J8#;*I%IV-\JF"H,3`"P+D`0!03!=V]6%54+'X&U8KK`4L==LX(P(Q8^0D93
MF)(,/`N/E]9>FQLC8SA@BK=5+*!I&>"*(2ZY,I@+D7RG".B`1CGF*)\RQ(P9!
M5EF[M-9A/?<TNA<K`K8<Y1$$C&+&`#*/\>"5H(X1<1@34PP#(P&4RDO&$SAHE
M@,L3#!C%$08@G'!N-8MABK9C<&O&SF`PD+//+#0(4S3K3B"`,&U5H40!48>AF
M!,U4AR%,V&)8708S#%.A];A<NQ#`N=@0Z,#81XNA1-,,D*&$`&E_X0`SA9,Q&
M^^7<!9AQ=]XP_'>-+Q:40C08@R>N^,&-JVTIIKI!3$#=4\A-N0N68`#XTPAX,
M#@;B;8-A2NAQ/TP&UHJ7OGH+K5_PNN`.Q%Y[&+23<3OIW9IN1FX#_'[#X60KS
M+_L7`Z`SAB_'?U'.Z9";T<#6TL=`?>`0/#EIM1=GO>]9BPO%D;0&12G5E440;
MD(WEK2$(9\[UJ2CV?]80"(!%XQ&I$O223<P+YI1.!I^IS('C'`Z,Z[1V^TH-W
MAK%42#ROV>>EKVV$QH_5*%V3#7&]^%]8RT^G3/!OJ!`Q<>1-T:*A@2/K`*61_
M)8O`JK*D@2M%4\6A!_*SA)"TQ,'F=%60D?0Q^])ATI-UXS*S-H-S,C=2M'?#M
M%#@CE6#XV,GU4\]6EA+Y@H"A#UK"(2'AKEJB;'1;PB7PVV%@X/M\)D"5E%GCV
M$>$9W0[=17O[%YU+?)NA'/U_A3ICXYS1.G?"8#5L";>5H?8MW+\P`"DN6H<L+
MBQ87"$8LX)+@$T)TV.Q!"U6@)#)]_XKMJ_BR@H"+WQ1@&S$@0``!L!H-L'G.+
M!4.3^(`B\#9N)DRE$P3^4^`BQ*,`7`K8V+B`)QZ?(,]U8MG#);2(Z!KX6WI6+
M@LR!FL)FV,B!`9<`CQ;D'"(@0#EL1]<(@%I4*$8N?*NM)#ND+=I_:MF1>+LA+
M[H&Y#>KJ'))W^ROA,7XY`F8Y^)_A<VD2*SXGP.RY!,(R%+"++4%.`I?MHBY3%
M.LG6<]>RL708^@#N7J1-*T5M#MW3SACDYA0H0-^CU0;NYBS0[HINU0D"'W/P%
M&UTWEC8T%S^=^EN"OQ6R(,@Y@(L!N]@E3*..MT=PX3NTI_^YNX>4CA'O'QOV2
M,V^8XYSBPH*3,/,&FX<:_(``YVQ@@#XC1#H'A>Z.J>>?L=`Q$)0#$6R#,706P
M6.^!+"H+8!I+RG$.ON":$"">;5!(($.5N@"N/._(.Y$B!4=B<()'RO%IAO:<F
MDXU%(#;\Y@,/AP%ONR"/N9!(@%)4;;U=8)10!A2<NXM,'?KC^X<!*X'A0L!A'
M4#"1E1[2[!*9)?]1;SD$AE@+"+RF6O(#.CE8LYII$.CQ0WB`,_04._&4![UM!
M^)S`3YF.$/0`0A>`5`-$H5&4T6&">A0@22?]YJX];Y.JTA\$4J`'G*R[3@?.H
M5%R`*WI>V#,!+8=1==5J6AWIU08P0V+66IT#*]<HH?F@UZ+B!&:O5`NXL]A<N
MCCV'@1XR-:#4&6@M0)FR;)U*!E&1H18@DO[Y0%A@L.SVF&^_";>`<<LMLX=T'
M9\SI@';_VP9>8*_MA5Z`[L47F-G4&"U@Q.APX`-!<52`3@(.KN:#@D/\%9UIY
MZNWE88ASD5BBB@4`]0>,%]!X^TX2/*X69(\``K%D!D[.)665ZXP5&G4#8(T.8
M!FRPS*B?^UU.1P5$'JFWGG^N)6BA3R&`:&08>"_&0B2A<8"P-;B9+$[BK1I<0
MGQTVP$VM%6&Y9```F%ILC,L(P.XAR`UDGZ?3AMJ_A7/Y@-L!#3!<;D30G7B<5
MG!)GHPP!RCCWV0(,*`?O!PI`\IMWUF:<E4<F!R;`QE<^1,6<8$ZBMI>S"#CVE
M`-HQ0%ID1!\Y[EH>N9J5RU6OA>YM)&$=D07*48#+"69>`IL`<#$`=.-E&?V?\
M:5ZOA.?A3QD`^6H>(8")1`ZX$`)"TJNU%*.#7-4<AS62I7FBJ:HZCM&NL3S34
M^V.2*+6^\T_3,'K"80J!R!&3RB6S:1H(!,[IZD?`4'L'"4-"&6$T!@[!\P")<
MLNI2Z^58PRTW9!S^"];C1GJ^[_]7$$0!.BDH"&@0HB0,#!P*X%F(&0H``$`R\
M%!@I3AEP%BI\?2JU1(XFS9VJKM8("L"PZF`$8+$Z-$:]DC`P"#0&1`7@)L;RA
M_*05\QB*)M?\F#7KI$93KQH,5L<$U[(N+!ALFA0T(GA?"P`+-&3'M+'/&"*_2
MI_SPS:/LW>O7G>^;!`"4X.\!K`I&``HC-I"@BX4FECG<Q8!9Q`?3*F+DT2_B;
M`H`&N$5L40`AP`,%_7G*^,`;18<_6CJ\`4TE^\T88P*<O/<#78`$"C$:D'!@Y
M6X&9^E)F]&;/88NE,7'4C+H"`;9]/S#PO%*`Y@$LO'@*N(&2)B\$*EO`7&C(&
MK-2V)JA*\6<DB@()9+B&L-"+9X`#O-Z)S+G0&UN5:0>N=:MX!%S!V38$6!#BM
MKLH#/W_`%>;(T+IJ6U66/>O@L+_$BQ</??5&W^2^=D%6M(S41@*2408\IOFRZ
M)NE]-PJ?;IO:<;766PC0^IQ1MHD;MGWE5KF;9F]]OX,K3A"%.#5*Z$)D4HX19
M`>P1#C`,N"&!P(]F!+CKXR4OY&B:\;"[U:YZG_>^?LL[1)YX))PWCGH2M)?,.
M>ZM5))]HU=US^Q]^4ND'7S.M*=""`P*I)&`*(0A@R```D:.@A?-X,U]%P%5T0
M@XH3CE>5/K_@9`&'&7F(@B&:\0@0!D9],F!$/\PV'ED,O`AC1`@`=&(Q`,EXA
M(U!2LN%`5KQ@94F(3@%2@)/L.$@3BQQ)IF1-</GC0$`$C$!E1$&QJ<("-ZS67
M%$"7"+#`25\NX26#0S:0Y$)C.A2FF<W\&8-^I0$43B!QX@B@#(:,M.9J"4B0J
MZ!H+9G1,38+ZPTN1A\8DXSSG_&4CI!AANBH/!Y$(8A1NU,$I1D2>29,W0I**!
MF*GO$/#3H]1)JL-Q/`TP5ZIPN`KHJ!&!>@*??HC:*T:/^!-6^TN-B.EF#RT@1
MQX$W/4&8!'N=580K3<\NA*6U+6ZG:30M!+!L!5;&M9RW0C1`HG..KC%`@@TRK
MP&Z:#4G7@,'OOE.AO(BJ:2]!OSIT7!/]"O,OH5,(C&Y$U6;D3L(+,YS-(P-G`
M`^()W!JVKQ"\N`*D&AUG!+-HME8D4LEJ18%R<4.MC%O+S1(!<Q0R9T$S1C:'G
MO.&TU.B\LS\+Q/M.`Q*PRW)&C`@]A<1P#.!-4@L0[1#)^D0MM3Y4[\?.(VEI\
M?:W+_BB=\WDUG;U/WFK'LM?3BE1JR@AQ5Z1`L71_/5#:BCRL452\\MU=SQY3]
M4PD`#U.LUMS[#)"X/U;41(#G^_N`&WF$D[^#$`J$1Z0`ZPYATG39"^%,'^2F%
M)_/(Z*O0^WH%O@_4Q>R("[Y0Z33=?O#PN+-R,N7)C)M7T&1M/N/N^RR_3[3Z8
M@,Y\-@PT<OTH+AC0>?$60##&H]5>G/7FG3/)$T>RQ(1E,5>VI28WECECMN_'@
M<0B\]W]@##1@,((XA\%`-&I"1ZAF&*5>4*IJ%I:MUKA4'>\[=NF.Q<9M(4F1S
M38I`(-$1"-QG@OC^8^Z!!3\@`K/`'KU"Q`I"(#0U-JS$##@Y.KO(&8:\RYF^:
MS1A`SYA!AU"7PU)4EX*"N8>&A%:6M8&VU(*X-(ZGU))97A-:R%^1T^&.4>.1A
M^^)D9HLAA:*!.N&23():5($XC[KFCBGOC<[PC"UR#(*&W/,+<_;D(00E@56OR
ME85IZDN=@.Z.W7<4&F@*6"%808,(*Z1;=X=4!AT.BDQLD$+!18P)$"!PIQ!5J
M@U4")`B`A<S$$&R>U`58Y0%@P('+S@VXZ+%CBT5'(E*(V'-'$0?J&NB8N*!(H
MB@4*-BY=L-3I`24&ZBG)4Y6`!*Q9L=;ARE5:5[`B/1HKHHUEO18-)!1!E4).>
M+'$WSX%#>$T?.1UR-_@,.A3-WR(8%215D`#C1@,'%"]>'%6QU`($5DU>5;6?:
M2*]9PYJ]K#5KGLA6*4=5<F"C:7E+825(433I^U$T*?2.]70@C[6&'!!<V&$7K
MU<8!ZES.]M;;8X&44';J$,J3>>RD2"^N3J"X.N,`BI>"KLP],MBOX</&J7-5+
M:YT!W;VO@BK5,6-8"&!E/R"X-1IUKHTR-],S$'':]B%%.`]TL*2"F&!!!2T15
M7GHGIA)RPHF4G7)0AR_\A*KH(J,80(J`C0HS+*/5"&OLO?8**$VQ]`K0K"NM8
M"*@CCGYH1`^]K00P#ZNS*(OL,<:"I&[$BS*<**=%'LI!R19H4B!")CT!,,!$\
MS""P`P,O2!"N31@<SB,(29"0A?X(Z0M#!C14A[`./PP1%L&H,_$Q%)50,3$6P
M5WDQ,ZQDY.Q/^\Q$RG%'"7JDC``@@UQL2,&,!(K))!6)<@4GH4QE2BKW<$O!3
M$88(@+=5DN-B';XB`@"`!7Q*LP'`&)B&0^D*FP[.TTHC#4_2ZIE*JJHD(%0",
M)108J;P=+]N,O#@&R$-0/L_K51JL)@.M-,1.LPX6U)::%1:DCKH//P$V.E--^
M_LR\="P"V%((TTS=V)3+#PH%%;F[JB"U5`=.3;6G55M]=;!81UQ-*03::^^]]
M7%7<-33S?AT@V&%U+':S&6L,0%D9(_9LI&<%;3&T.U$SP-H#5LLV1!&YO:];8
MBAH(%X%Q-2SWH4DO8=>8=)M`Z.9VN<!'``/J8`"6W"Q0A[-Y^\>C<>FN;&R:6
MO(AQA%99'TE+E(`X5!L23HNFR6\BL!GH:RCFAN+)`IK=<*`EA4#<3:$#$:+7F
MIIX]^3EH`89.H&@$7:8Q:;"69IHKIPF'^BL^!95L-(05PSH`K;<&6`&O60W['
M2*$BNO!L13@?8VU0ZMK(H[@+FGO=NC=!(`X7B5@%7IZ46)HW)8!5U"D$1$PY;
M[&[+SMPGOG.HH`@"E-B+20??85MN3G<>ZW3G4X_D`!J5:,#.,2<!@#Q8FDC"N
M@.8CN4B`FI21"2\("'FTVHNSWKSS@B#>2)8F)ISJRE;#LK3RS*7TC><ZE@@"!
M4"@T@@=-(8`$``*^`L5A,"@4^[O;X1!P.$J#0?5;<DC`Y`[A6DYG;.HV10!SC
MN]GRNIWDN"(#QP!UK;0'$/7G$#1UY]$5<#*6""8V\?AU5C1917>9(Y"0H+F35
M^2FJID6@M,1H%)00-*!585@0-UJ!%&I&L$5+$[1+4^D[DQK<,M!)W'*+O,S2'
M<"7UEZ$;*W)QA;CK@.1E(J'+;-(+;C*`-EZB?*YA[*D^DNX>3]'0$(TG$6-]J
M@$VK@&19PI$\#E$&<B!0T*`&>`8'A%"X$*)"*`:<G.CTK<*58[L,^&#02)+$\
M"PE'5D!HP*0%;BK?/&SY@"%,6A0MFL"(86,[6AX%@.PFLF5)E2AGLFPIX"72T
M^YGG&/@(.N.*TE$#@F0<(5!H2IA!;*J4*8_3SJ],QS7H`I9$")RT_-@C(:XE?
MQ9E%8:9U1X#CTK+@0@2`<77%VK&:M&3Y%EA#5I-GCYHTL'CD774%^)'ERXP>X
M@*<,?K(83`O&L!-#3<:B&UFB8Y.R\NW%C`P&*E0-6G326_C*9`M7$D,L/;*BS
M5Y.K3?B^!*+::]C!M`Q(@L2UBA!3+S4>7B+*<8/`)4*&.A)\^.J2F3-S,"6!*
M9157S'U*@.1M0/'>M]9Y]<5`%Z-,"[B_;!XR^$75WB@%*+'=!P4D*$]WO^T'L
M$WV__6>2``,&2,L!G=!36PM2*:?)``BR$)=6^PRZDT!J%BA`X3+%29078>5A9
M&(R&"7`HPX=4C;A"B2II!U.*$E+`(D#@O`A1C#/M1F,:5Z`R0!1&&A>%@_<Y&
M``1VV1EPHCOD281`:EK0(X^6$ODWY4A(-GG'D]M(R0)%5LJA198M``G3EQ"%*
M*=Z8';IC)D1H\L>F*%&<PH=_<;:7YAU1#$`FB0O.U*)$!ZBH4*,2):"G0FL62
M*L>A@1"Q:(&:/!IICY/"5"E$EPXYD*80<0HB<:!^TED`IRCAV0DU!>J&-GX0V
MV*4ZG1IT`(1",54EH;=.DNNN`/1*I7"%Q4?L3,?&JNR/S,XYT*?/MF%`(-V>]
MT$"5]CW2@!)_^[)PQ;LF;=O@N<'U!ZX\L(Y+2A0%=-8"1:W*X4\6,X10[#FXD
MS>O#3,`BFV\\XO);1@*$7.BKNIH<T'"V0<JXJ;V6,G5`Q'A1G(AAVV!\PA4^#
MU@%#E.M^AD#"X\S2T@(BN\H4`B:KLR_*54P1P!7ER.J!`R'\7(5?ZZUP!;4C2
MX:R2SA.[@S1W3`.\#`&I"JU&)]PHT#$+G3"]PR)<YWB`U!)1O4R75E/:,],L4
M[[*@S6"W$((D#?B@]Q,N/UR&#X?1<(5T)JTM('IW7T`VD\P<\+A!%L\<7N5[R
MZ]#W/("7^K(<AFM.0N(S,4Z,%@J0_D#DE+*.(MK@Y!+XYB=,^^&*`PT@$7`GU
MH;NQ#0Z=,`#[.7`WI_OQ&"Q0MDH@6XJI04&K(:]YFKG<O`I3_$[]/\(GH/C4^
MX;^=_4BKUP[!DY-6>W'6B!#]P5`<'X\\T51=6<IQAD"6C21I4+LHVC41!(N>)
M!($0#I$]A2+97"D&`^?TE*!>18H=EILQ=<'AJ6.9Z,RDU83!(+88=@ZDC>$.Z
M,QAR.U<!W'<5&G#^KK1X"*\(7A`9&R]>$-C22);8$`=LDHJ.').6]#J'%OQ"S
MYQ9+E;90>PI.5U^I%O`:%E]`1XI4[5X"7'L.#IA@5_!NATD8HHY5A)=1%#J<_
M412-I:U!!(&`.NI2'&PL]P0#^YQLFJ^Q:=%#&I37019\WR^@O^8Q6JOOWVT$,
MV`JB6&%F:(\"8`+*)>BV[X(@?0S;36)8X<:@B1061+M8P8"\C=;Z_0OXA*`=S
M@P<0-J'SD8)#EA(BOI10469&>Q\[/I3Y2M``ERV6Z.KB8(>`'>2:+#GW\87%$
MCPTTOE2P@--'*!(_YMMIK>=/%D$/@2%:P&@!I)Z6[&PJ$^K-C5.KOG7W4NM6I
M:P9D^.NHP@'5N5U&"9@!P"-)@2\%+?RXX.]B/#*O[JQKUQG>`'IU?NC+&"N62
MP(,+#SS,,G'-QAME*9;;^>)DRK#PS)A!0!"*S:=9A&X+8(83J@A"WRN-&/=$^
M^P6/7]J47/LUK+$#E.XHP/R$7]8K@@,+``"`VQ941W_$$_>B@Z@LJ9*?F.PZ,
MP^E.FY=R(.EGY@]4SW<I$@"8?11XPMM($/48,L^[B5*K*;^-"J"*A.#B2X(JC
M`'90`$)XE!-C!Y_@$V4!!'8:D"U2DJ-NL05!\(^1`QR,<!4;MN.-#14QP`-%B
M*F`8(*<I!`GP(A%ENI$A!M)*3L@,:"0$`1-=[`2/&&0#407\#IPB,!^'@"3$R
M!@ALJ<-CA!*O2/2*TR#)/PY@LLE.'$@,F"Y!>+(])Q"00;4D!)'RI?$N1,?`;
MG1C(9,\R]T$`N37':&$M%>344(8SD6'@`$`9^X!SGK$`!88M0N\YX%!$47&@[
M"$RP_,#&*IV`$@L\)F6K@:7*"W,C25LE[<A.U035$5$1(#6%4\50]0I6MX1UA
M(DQEHI6M6^=)\TM=_V@`&+-DT!0%*L6X+"4J!*F5)0!W"@<Q:[]E]IT#^H367
MLX.X`P"(!-*UP+IG\6P@`'-5Z';+4O<1E[3^(#TF)IF,L%1=)U@]($9M`!CS_
M5P9(Q&(<<GEL8$>6M)1)UBOH;4)9Q/!%I^"#W3A#AAUH!2#7$:P#`T9!N;58O
MK6]D0A:Q(I9%]1X$'":9"S9D(,!![>*MD3TP)"D:!4$N?JH!/5F*(UF*!>P@S
MX&40@-EG+EZ@^TJ`*!@`6FD+&NVB@S:XH"HLTJ3=B6H!-X8HY&MLX'?K*0SY[
M>@#"KIX`CX@QZ'L"(*#&D:@MO?WH[8L66+S`N:WAV=B[L7@!2KY9^'M;+("8U
M/(D7UF9*5,E:21;GEVQF20&M*1\*!ADP)P;BS:_HW/70-\J8KM+W/!WCN!E:K
MW>[6*U8X@`)Z%B&;S<=.408P!,']QZ?=1C=<M'??22GB[>CVY.39:2#BYC5["
MOHOH(7ARTFHOSGKKUA`7BB-I'8=3JBLK&48;RUI1S#?^*'O>^__/0""L/`(!J
MD'(X)BD>6#.*<3@.TFL%@4AAL8U3MUL+8Q,\,CK-$A)51F1T^PF//M5-JM4./
MU'+UO6^>7\^88(^90F&BX@H54Y+'`&$4%=2B#%4!E66,5L-F#,/+9XSH*$L"6
MJJDJFF9&X]P/`X.`UDS?E(/-:@D50>MNR,DM\$9NYC`Q1FDRAT(J,W376Y-6=
MP,+"%>9OM/(V-X46P_?4\G@%F+G%83K[C4=`0--+@'<,,D5E^T1^.ZJG_H,&F
MY=I)TJ?@&L"$):8E&3`@'A9*"BG5&]<IH;&*WPJV<Y9`(<@0LAP!@0=13,AC5
M`"\";%!#(S>.[%!]#&D3`T,?5.`-(./KWC=M0+F%PS@PG8.CZ78@NNG420.2O
M/78&Z!GF)T"A*Q&(RZIT7%)^^^R8/BW[X!60:_!J=L&:D(`'@*BZ`I29[L50L
M;@MJF76*]H?:`&RQN`4(]U^_!'3UV36'-^%>$'UO_O518TC>'P/BON7<[MIBW
M=L84HI/[;'+(RH,*8":S&;&^PP!!8VP\KK0^FJB=2LUQY&L3V0E?`Y05&JGM3
M;WQ)9/:C>[?-WCB.G+GJ.3;,:->P9<7</)FPA=>I:/+`A7P#*@P\;/=XB*86\
M!`=0:7EAW\"!&JR'G(:N4/H-1UQ'6';<%#;60?J0-\2`.'C3!WGHI6>>!Q4N+
M(,MV#%S#U`X(.(0`?2>(:(!^0Q3P@D,I.G1$BBRN>`2,`KP8(XTRPOABB@2HA
M^SC`$/P-YA\S%6ZC6@[P%*A9@^FHE)L9S$2HB2P-8'C$7!8N\!Y-628@WPDOZ
M'&!?B03H]\)^!>S8(HLT!E!CC&L>`0``.?8XYQ!DDBEB#?&=$)^69F#HP7H5]
MFI?"+^F11\&3$RBP')#))-`C!@#*$!4LUL'6#@&R*$A3HA(<ZJD#AH8ZJ)11Y
MLK?=`A[%MZH6(Y((YHD.Z2CK$"X^!"<\,CJ4ZQ%5T3HKL/I=9J*P(XK8Y0F'[
MI.K,AG,99YR@@IYPZ5G?)?)+9(U"(X!)"%4@*2<.J4'<6YJZ0NB3Z18J)16E6
M:K@LA_#)AXJ("=B)'YG"LI;B9;+BZ"^/9\[(^V:O!*](9X\GYGNL%AX=M,`!,
M\)RP`'F@`=JI"D,=.<(.UIKRRZ*2:;M+(T,,P*@$X#*25')-#.`MJ-7>T8J55
MJ#*U88?TH1(RB`D(L">LPJ(IIYPZFD@PFVC:JFO1/-)9@P%'$-#JGE2SNJI'7
M[8%FG'J`1MFNJ.=]ZL81,".HD`*/C;P*'K),+?($1O*2@0<$H"/V+1A7FVZ@&
MI6ZMX0X!)-LAJWC:%\Z30HXJ*+RHF!GP`#":Q*V;-;:(\!`!U'``L?N)>8+"L
M]8G(*DU,(7#SWX.&JJZZQ>Q<C,>".."0N1TU-1MP:RO2-@-O6R`W<W0W8'<>Q
M>",:X?%\5XCA^X48!CXXSWJ"?CA7B9,:;>,)/#ZKY+GR:OG!F&M>`.=B#OLY"
M!*<8@Y`YV>[4U4<^92$9LVD<-55;UWUB>7X<C\95?.=[__\Y!@,3T'A$)F<?<
M9=/YC"TH4&K5>L4B$P)!0$<+!`A#,I<;1@?.YB&Z&P"8Y6H!F7`G%`H$RH22N
M.;#H2`A$\"@A$?AX66FH<:B"S`(B0)F\5")1P.1$NOOJ#-UA$BW%8=`S55UE`
MQ=GJ`I4)&R,;F$NCHZL;<`N+DUO;'<#+V^NCP-`P["@\7&!(7&2TC'627*UTH
M;`W5W"[]O/:^)!7G1"TH3U>'X@U(R'$(0RX$Y,@0&2DQV1\"^S!9(9&`!(L6<
MEP186C<I6T(LW1AB`??0RB*)5AJDJI@QH8D`0WJ$F71F!XQ0`DAHI$*@&LHC1
M)MZQ=!(19I(.X68:N8CNYDY1&0)8Z,%E$IH@-K.87,`328&52G&00-#4Z8PA(
M"*?RL&#TZHP&=[9^A:*GXP`#5F5YR3(K'1$&8'D,..EV!E2Y.(84J1N#8MX8.
M.?G^W>$3P&"@8`)D:1`&03JD@!\0P)OWPP''7,C5W<NW*P''G1\!*A#Y;!8%S
M7)*68^LX-5\3BP'?;<OW<MX%&#W?#BH@BX$[VL0U?AV7]@+*@$V?'JX5+(,I?
MN)WC$(J%=R7&POG"15Z71/&_^\?_DE#^E;F!Y^5E1+\BH(,ZX'\'S':+@KQQI
M]2\E*_"=UX%7\^716ZF//>OR>F\3S1J8K[L`9<,/L/TXZ^\YD*Q0`0"I5BE0?
MM0'=4B%!OK@H;+C\\N(O0MPFC,0!"\-3)</@LI.KP\H$"%&[!4:LJT03/4.1E
M"HXN5$41`]W;$"P5N/N01M=$=$S''6>\XH/#UEG0/?B,=`!)`@=8CZ^!FE3I#
M21[1JH*"`1+"SK$"KOQ*OAF[9/*U`5@4\ZLPZ`3B02U_8Q,L`XK\2@6=%(2SE
M+A-@K&L(/.N<BHM%?6#`,C3[_,I%_1SP,"\N"I4K(-7F9!2P.ZM`@`L<O2&`T
M^],<`05KT"15!4N$3Q\-=:<>GRC@5M1@=:L`5J^2D3Y>MS)AR.M`K75+6M_2W
M51PN[>,K56CE<E/.8:\J=M9DE:VB'8:>;?+:J:IU#US6&#"6VVWE<K0*.ABJ7
M,EIQG1+TS6DY=`!1N11=E]V#W/4(S1I)I'2J>N4<V*ULY>QW7R*@J#"#;Q.6(
M2]J_5("P7(K;;.!>AY=MN"(N8G,"!7<\]D:`YE`"<@>+^3I808D/3)<K'`M"(
MR=20*QW@U"-(Z-GG;53.-,>-M\+XTZ.!M:&)EAG[=^>K=+8F`P.>;G'E:&=V*
M;T:NZT(!91]PSHA?J9T&^2@!2%:"@2'$]J:`^Z_SDGO/BL%<>MP&["Z*);//1
M3@)K3D9^PFTN):I;S;ESQ'M)L/=&VV]D`>]!<%/:=<*`41\:P#:^"LC[*E>WX
MU)I:!&<4FH:TG[.\%,R;T)S,;SVG._2I1D^4K*+!(C?)U&=8/=36J:"ZB3<J(
M2D9QOI$6`LS%L5S^J^(IMR9XXZ,VOMETD@<L<9B;!^R.YP/-$G7J>8)`B/:J+
MO=@Z%PC)8"B.Y&.<9:JN;$8<1RO/=#74>#YZL.[_#P1P6),PB,BD<EF24%J;Z
MSH?9.AFH6,PKENW>NED>%TP5DJG&L]KG6*_2+08#T'.#"GA[DI#7$[]^0!XH8
M@6P.8X4Z$@N)^XV.*DXR"@H"<HYX!8\Y5IHX`ITU@U>@4`YFI"UPJ*N!BS(G1
M!!N.!WVL*@:UMDVZ*@,#A+PB&XC!(0$!C,7*5+[)+'C$A08>RR($P-48G]D9.
MOMC<#0W1W,<*W.<_'D<MS9H%U.@6!]_G@/'0X]FC\0\2YOP`6WAPIH)!I$?3G
MIO`K4(??-GY6]L7+5ZU<P(N]!A`D,6G`L2>S<J%C2+'8AH?Q8"E,&=`?1EZR&
M<N#9*(+!,0#>8B9"(/(<224($B3HTN`$`$M$02(YT5-&FT29`!X;^K(J"`__9
M2G`(4,D@TD0'X$&DIV/2L0!4J1RXZ4'ID@3EL@[!%)7&AJ=^^S9(1&?1JE\+M
M6%5L[=IUEMB49'.8G9IE;0``;;/`#3`I"5T<=POI#=CWK]_`*@``Z(HV;:&P\
M*]%Q(B+!(]>($2_`8&H%1C)Q\_`8@(&)JX`"QP9@.@'C`(+CR"<Q6,`H,XGC-
M9UT2P7.X,HEP#?`VVGN.L6>_>$R3.#M)`'/#J<_AJOO#@>@$'D3+GY_U)H"S*
M]SM46'`3__S1$LC7WV/_^1==:[YXP,<)R"%P%G0=*"?'7=JQX(""'VR@P#$$]
MG)?!!ME5*$P7D["'C@3B?7?1"2F*X`M.`QR@TVF'C52C#^5`UYH$/(*$H7#4!
M$4#5(0<,X($O1OH2@"\)B`8D^Y)G12GEE`(^9J!H`<!0Y8$"((FA!\/!D!QS<
ME/#(`'3R^8)7.'(P$*(C!IP5#C_'G*(B1B?(10(>D,6B24(!H88$'@C`4%@%Y
MSAGB6I<#N,6F'`L<I\!Q"<A1Z#Q,8>*!`/X!,,E_`A8(JI2AWC<??C`0^%N0<
MU^P&0P*3*"!'`[/.^("(0Q`(0&+*2&#GG0&!EH*2<VI2I#WH"$H$<SSJJ00#J
M?'Y%Q%,-X.%;G;%.@EQ$>'BY(Z?VF0HJ`,P1,.ZY4H++J`086H&<4+$RMX";&
MM+)IZZUMA`,C`:J0@Q:P+X7W!J>DP)?>"/?">>,/0K7(!$I,;("`/\XBK!V(D
M^VV2^2(=?)87')*^,'KME5@2J&O)5DZILF](OJ.@RP)T=,P!M5*H`:*).H(BK
MP'@:4+$Q2Q;LBX6X-D*+B>=`C$6QEA4@@0/A$'#33&UB!^(&&3/7X'%64)<@L
MCSP>2&6X)\\'3;I@LTN`D6LGR*"$#%Q-8<X6A)-`PBW,S/.*!OPZPC'<-8+`6
MT``90+A#`9WP=`4-\,"<6SK,#75VV$'*7,.7=MUMR)RB;#+9Y^9GH`2^,>HE)
M-,21/E`.@.^=>-\KM`[*X,BJ=W@\2G.CN`#4.KX`Y#E('L[DM"YWN5"99UH`1
MDJ1[CG*IXY)Z'^D\@FPDZKNIWB'K`03N>C7%^ZDP<26D*'![LA"4\FBU%V>]_
M>>?""\61Q`A"$)J5=<H7#AUG&.>;?=:%3Q(#$0P:B!)C(3`8*)2!6"40.#RI2
M5>L5BSUL18@4(QNF,&MB,^D@.:]#(/9;<TJQ6O#UK"R[.7*[WD]HJ.@(28G,4
MB2IJRHZQT9&$"$%D@.CQ)4')$NX@4Y,MS]-,8B[TC*#T@4')*Z4JQ0`U5A8K<
M<K)R5@,3%)>*<Y<WYA?X951EF.JT5'6`U>WI]3A:FF)+,B1`06'Z(:%UMN'*-
MH'.;Q)E<9$OIIM&%+;DT)4K*56#Q_#YT"_::`6RZVQP^#@7&"?Q@T$,Z80@MZ
M3$#%PT"V=L_J^S&T^$:(AQ6(M@&\F*O@QPH!13Y06/*"0Y04H*UT"<.'-0[])
M2!Y;X,TE@I`E:W[T<>+E@W<K6P:E,@/A%GL;LO4$MF"GM!4>%@!]Z=2BCZ@?C
MAZ),L=1H6`W9]G$@TC4:`YSDMEJHBE8D5H;9VEI<>+&H6+T7@H#%X."$WV-J`
MY?):.[8NP\(&?\+E&C3O7LE].P`F('@887R',Y"!'+1Q4,=X!925+)EL!P11F
M%IR[N7@6#P^L@M[-JJMVC`9(@:50>7IO:@ZK`[0F]QJ?;-6<1=IFJ-4YPN@:T
M=D_$Y1OX:1^_,QB(`H[<,M#,'[^D.UT@[`>\IRD9G7WE]@X*^TY8ER;^)>Z7Z
M[^<J((^WML3@$RF;`MC+X,!I\',)*O3PX0\A'_ZS"S(!(!SP(K(2O`@Y#S:,^
MI@&K7'+PGB`F5*S""S'LCSN1%ESI1914Q(>($Z4+D,05DZOJ0X8:$-"@'W-D!
M*ZBFU+OGR'-.F%'''5O\J$.78BQIR&V,%$TT$9N$D0$#[;N(ABH5U!*E)Z%LD
M,+>7)!!SR[2Z[!&A,(-B@,R2S.00S9?8C&;--JW(1AM45AA@*I0L"RI$)L^YI
MTZ)!]SPF27+D\+,*0&,9M-"2#GTIT:`8]5'(S_9#@5*4^B$`SB"!%,@_`;[\'
MZ%.$''T5P"QH=42)2$O-C,Y4^P4*U;P4;F4HUB"%'!8A73=`UHY<=W51K4Q%8
MDO.E*44RP%>!:')53USV^'8%',+EHY]R&TCAT6=1H4G:CS:5LLYKL\6G'W6B'
M898"I&9P=2(<9J"#A7X6`-2';!+8PH>$#U9*'R(<-D"")25VCX`!4A`@5WG0\
MC<(T=9_0%]\K^@F@GY4<4*/:56F<]YYZ"5WG@AD8@/E;/L2M+MP5RN6!YX$5`
M3D`!'PY(N!J&E2K@!","2'K)7'.-YV)YI`X```"FGCKJ**"^.!ZIN4;78B4&/
MD"-I(L#S^&-/>!"@Y&%8KH!:>!4EQX!VP_AVO3U:D+D?G7D`=&`%`@\Z`2$2R
M^Y"`8Z,+<#CBQI$^06R++93CZ:R]UOKJ**S6?'.M!<C<ZZ\Q'CORL=<46P*'H
M]3$:@8)]X!E0P'GNN^_J>.-C7`?:1MN2D#<86;:W[T592I5C\#U?O6O.N8%R4
M&>"A@&P&K[T!'IX?.`B@@R[Z@(>+:+KTI\7^W/,`N@8=@B"G!"`(03/GNT\#Z
M-Y`E2:!H@1J':\#N@2`RDN"*OBN+_SL:0@>1^!@*&\7AH^EL&I_2*;4JU3D9V
M)(63V+""P^(QN6P^H]-4!B/@4\/C8$>A((]'H<6]L<\?$C&@*'D!-K`QZ"#ZI
M]"PL\BC@)#0FO$B^U-4=9*9T$HAD3(1*:&!0^P20%(R:GI*VKHYTE`J@F)S`+
M9,+$O+30'$CFZ`3W(+(=,C@:'S,$$3;SY>5UD3'I.4A=WVF3D603<#C1#&R3)
MEYN?P[&Y+:!C9Y-)=[U++:!D0^^Q)2/_)//@T$"P(T%`73%TJ<#5:86G%"=*`
M2/A$0A8(4:TN4BC@HE2`C:$H:A@!BM:)#`,2XBJ@2X8+!SYF!+PA:4>_!0J*?
M,4BB<QFA+P_V0!'CQ5V1=N=@(&C"(%.6I2V-ENM&A``.`402A&(#=2O7KF?4+
MO=D:+\S8G_.>U"-P#U\@9(OZL?E'D,;`@@8/("2@T@!#%0T=GH080.)(BALP@
M(M9X@*/'D(9%^W*0^$W`2;VZZJQDZ7(!S(#`:/:[66QG$D0]K=T3&H1H6:]G#
MD"IEJM3I@;.NSTAU0!7KU:P,;@,/SE7(8`(&562J8YQOG0'-:YDTX<&DX5,<>
M+&#@*$K6=I`E4BA/E8NYP<QX#<A,X$.FS1XY?+S5R69)(4#/JNT1@FV_\"8(]
M,OS6A`]%]9?&8M$-N%%8!8Y!1`;L/%#<7@M(<-XX/UG1FE>1).!$`S`(((0`*
M+LC$H(DGHD$<"WDEIUQ*!3@'(W242?<19=5](`!VJW3G`2D@T5B97BN(AQEY(
MY;7`2WKKX=#>`N_MXX-\S'A1GS-(*(&:?D^<9=MM_PD0X`,#^VJ(XA0'TIC@3
M8@N:286#`D`H(0P4=@3#A5[JP2"''H(H(HDXM!FHH/(DF1X-,T'2"$TZ_("3S
M:4E8J1\T9.+9Q9:#JB$(5>$@,,"EF$[10!T"T&!6`A/``&H5(_Z2@0X#T$!GM
MI69.14`#+D#80`IOB&@-E[-VQ4:(7_A`*@(-O$3$A:HRVQ\1A4IRZ#`\,,(H?
MH_`YFA.DS>ADUAZ4DO5ILV-HVJ%_G8K;K*BJE'H5J@:,^P2K6`GP:JP2`'MB%
MK;<>D.NN[/3J[:\F"JM?L30@RYFR\3*LVC8$-ACH5=W(XU/#3Q`@08`.A.+"H
MQ:=V9(0/`\`P`<,.2E"9#P$,^X%OLSC`L*Y/"9`0P!(-W%FF<#I8%40="AC!N
MQ@&O7GR.SD4S3`.-!GAAIU87JX-O;P(8D,'%!6CL1!TL?VC!R0X@4`$-PA;A+
MLJH.X+J``[G%:#,1-,"+VCQ'MU-L(!F@AT`S'!R`M-]&TXUI*B,+474&*(@Y]
M[MH#7.#VVCHT8'7#'%B<\K,27'Q`!4TN4(`0;02@KCW7D'",L6XO0(+:A4!L6
M(@X#W-U!`BJJ]?<=@0M::^U(2\F&K9%O46&\;!A000;-."XYPZC`JH,#%4Z%1
M>;Q$3+`<S$0H0$*SJ7OZ128D_'+JJZ6S%:A/#4"`T$JIO;><P]U_,!1'LC1/1
M^S154XZ4`MA8YZ^EOZ9)A@'9A,/!(1`@;L=;H2`@$(@"!X,AP#AX2.QJ`^`"V
M8`T8(A=H9LVG38!8,!@4"L*[9SS7/XSFYO%60Z4#&(&*!KVJ0CO$1,5%QD:1'
MGZ(*@84%1T0')0$>0BM*JX%*2RP'F#ZO``?*@HV%,M&LK2ZN*8$V`]#05QJ]J
MM%+*G*>`'-V4G(T-J8^)RIP$&(W#C0MBZFKKZQE@JA\E;!H&&-P'*8*<!B4;(
M[Q+2/@$`'H<@L08#"746=K6O0)B$^Y-A&P`%&'#,@1,@A_X9RF6008T*"8*D6
M>V!PX46,&;%4Z(9!TP"-)`[PR)6#@!0$%4*&^_@E1<";!Q4&9%*XT@.!4GF4>
M\`!I<P2#-@\[+)#"2:,T9&_>'*A`B:@$J!1]3J6ZDF.!#A^K=A@)JH-)E"JK%
MMIP"4R9-J3YQPM!9@.?6.T$]$&5@%.Y=O'E#GBL@]L&3NSP/)/O1!$I:GU)67
MV7@B`^\")04H?1VF=YV-8Y8U;^:<J`$/F&E<;150JDV'@3T?+W#<0<%$O9DU'
MUV31V?9MW"H8\)"@(\%+!7<1-"F0#`.#($+Q2LF5>S-MY]&E3R]!S\`:(CX0,
MVY1-W?MW\.'%3Y52"MYX].G5KV??WD,0R<W_;7?/TOA7>R"@U^??W[]/:2J[+
MB+[_'H"J@PW8^VC-`PE:NZ]`"".4T)(`IQEP0A`.-$3!$!KLX$$,0Q1Q1!)QQ
M:X6`%H(X+`0>",#@.BH^9(#`$FNT\48<+3DQQ0-6!*'%%XGP0`H:<S3R2"1Q)
M+!*#32!)@!PB&"N"DC[F^6@2^9+4<DLN)5SR@2:'$`1**+*:<H$J@>$!RR[;T
M=#.Z+]]$@X@$VJA`S`'DD`*.<M(@R25CY%S$'$$+921.0Q^AT\X$\-23`3XY$
M(0@40`E)U`Y"+^42T1%HXU13#[+CH2@Z77I#H@.R"HV4(+)L;[\!806UQD_1>
MH+'6+K$[;+<!9ARBP<D$$O"`<*R1=59DDU6614"$?."S`<P!^\Z`9')8#,$V3
M`EAV6VZ[]48)`$[S*)($%J/V(2E2-:2!-WST]EUXXSTCV_MXZ".X/8:BP#4%A
M(HM1WD=P!7C@1"7Y@!(#1O-`&GU+P8I@B".6N"('\*U!0!,0>$/@B3OV^./::
M0!9Y9)(Y)OED)$Q&>666D3S$PI9CEGE6E6>^[5B;<]99R9IW]OEGH(,6>N@;^
M<*[1+J*35AI"HY=V^FG;FH9Z:JHQ,LBB-E-9`&8DWEBP:K#7N[J[37\YPVL2E
MI0[[1K5)L-B$ME^!L=93V["085T<J,#%.JX-,>ZUTZ[Y[<M"FON&N@VXVP&NQ
M'=$[`;[/\#OP_Z(!')L&FB`<^X2=T'DEP6>T2`>8RQ=B(+^4>T:!#@]R4,T,%
M`TJG7#K+5;<D\SA*Z'R5SS$)706%2+>=FM-9/T)V&HS'P'4[8A_^:;RSH$3#7
M:E@S`)H")'A^T!AJ2(<2`I1HO!%>7>T4)@B>E&C:B_-S3OL/AN)(EEB!-0UA2
M@@77QO),U_;].8I2',?"J<P:@X$`MU@$!$<<:3<P&`8(!(&9N'6<'P)!<:E:F
M.`EO@QLB#A:EQ@X-CVM@W"V&8Y^H!'0)@S'`<>:QHY!'@0#D0*`RX9"0<-`H$
M1WGGT("GDEF)=BAC)(`@5;!#T`=RZ%`4@,,Q$!`PR&E14%L54*2`=2/+><KAU
M^X/!4]`[N_A5L@#I>WJ!YVG9!_V@@NEX*7C-X/-W(_6==P")L"RQ4!L@)?3PT
M)^!S7L!&6\"@@F+!L,PA,/GPK29OEAP'H[P0D'+`RX`W`D$P$).B04`9[:IDO
M8C*@FX@?$Z4$:#:C`)-IE)@0:V"%`(,D)$?\8=#PEZH!PLPTE*`&S!A-S0SXJ
ML*,"I@0.RA(X2*)HPR-(>'P82-+`:1($/U4<D#(Q@P$OW$95@6=``JA!#IBX$
M.S"`J8\H4];,(%.K@12=$DRY6C@T";]>^QKY8#'TV(0#W538G1#KS+XW!F_*F
M46$`5J!+?P@$<XP!$B@+*E)FH5'KP"DI`OZT^YP0;^(MD#(*P,+\@$E8:EZ$D
MVOA:@W5$1RI@'4I09.4"!KI%!*D2]0`"C1N\!.3P[6G`=D5$7_((`S(3<<`;T
MN6(RR"-R+P&\*/!1A9Q"$`B8[%A!X.2QSP=@R?("X):7L@(,[!%`DPQ)K+&`.
M&O=(P,H&VUW0Q!AE30!)@^.LHX`8530H%@Q0-%($AK`YH0````0XP38'?&B!Q
M#[!\I(=<3*P3@P.PV-;B7J>)Q1`B>^'@6H(WR9@.!PPXET$]UEP`B5%V*%"$T
MDBWLX`-A57"D0))!>"'$`E*(:,`;9&PG!0'EQ+C(BRHH4!M.7GSV@`\)&%9$]
MB_'%TV)B)<(B^T^46QP`GA\,!/#3'VQ=TH``23R@%W,IF`=&%1G!Q)(YOJ%6P
M``#V(.<>!^0Y4YP%MU13Q&P2-,&?J*-&1.(.#=9RJ!_[D7;!2?YLI<DJ***A!
M`"R`.7+9K?LPL2@!"'3Z@1(L9O#H-9[LD>,#%[[4#V]N@)1$`I6]-L%48\K04
M0"VDT(6`B`/X()(`+]CQUS=A>*&N6))!5,(?*P+RBFES2:"+.WYX%$`"K3Z0D
M:WF:>E%#`KLH:.Y0M="5J0-\>IB>'1S8B=.D#Y1A"@5]4M-``&(8]N]''6CZT
M[QT(B;9#OVQFN_$#Z%R0KP+VN$:L!MAU\)ZG?[2GKP4>*I5J^ZX*IY9M<%YX[
M>&Z;:+GIU*U<!+SK4+VB^.O/\`U[HP;&3I-L8,L6VNRS?T0[U)G4*G.MCX@NP
M0,[*,72[,+CBDFM2'^E*L>Y!>+N+"[PDR#OC*O9VB>^"[/#K;T!0#QQU#`8+E
M\!E_]SBP\`0-/QR&1==03(W%&&_!\R"]?;Q"R#"0G-48)^N0Z[;FM/RR!3'/'
M+'(,-P,LL\X/&6ZY)4$G2#G1YAA]1:PPK,7T54X[\2<N^`9#1T($I,4FZWJG-
MA(8`V(Z!)6C;8Z#(4@F4PL@$'ID'@7/OG$!(4\H\WYIB69P-0;S'2!*'88(X<
M30S#980MW?G^#"2.4\+C$`@Z^X\&1I$Z58*5PV,T^,0FRL&`T?-^'P7L;_1X/
M[6+)A^2832FVW0<""[;/CHU40>QA;)L\3A!`Q(!V#*!X!$!2&HY2%K;T'A)D=
M/AY9UAP*&CT$4B1$%I1",`I"C7).M@8H4_X&W"I`=Q0P&"1`7N^\:@(\>PA2Y
MC@QT/E-+K3PV:BL3CJDP-!2</60G7@HD0GN]O\'#86.6%2HV/0XP!C2+-@AJ$
M$##$>P4N=QPP4.CW[GM()+"`=BM#BE],N%6XD&&#FD(C2B@X89#%C1@!9M2XR
MD2-0N!]!AA0I]H&)$P10)$BA(NG*(2U<^/4#0H;4F11I4K7A`0?FG#HQ*^79Z
M^]/'#""3A$+\])#H@)M/P1XYD^3*@R6,F`1H$A7,F:@RA4[E7(6@%:^BLE+06
MVHE+5S!ZO]SN&/8)2;2N$T`L>]!LQL!(T_CNP&:&P38W3H$F5NP(```!$ICRM
M:%#C\:PX+\CJ77P-$H]\!*8`->#O2P-`*0\0P12@755+$T$X4XG5&:-7`^X5@
MT.I@(;TM5Y\9?C!R#1]2'C!4E)!YCCR17;<<CVF508T!4,K<#(`*#7`\`H[3@
M`9:XVF.#HX/P4;WIY('1+M--7`2U\]Y)Z7[&GBC*Y@/@_.68HP(UZ#K@!0..`
MZ,@/H98R0+.]IBF"F^D2L&T&#T8(;3@!"ICG^QIN0'1`KQ$J*^6<JF!;(AA@Z
M])#`E5?6VTQ&?AJ(@2,.N0OEA+F(X2,+TQY<;`"=\.&C*<3`>:^76&QP8$!'3
M,HFQF3+8X,:H[AJ0@$6#ZLNJ!2WK`^>(`%Y@H`(NNC@B-$YT(P8)`P8I8`L'9
M:N`QNS6B2PQ(!=2+KK\->?1`*6;B$(3(Z1@,@R@V.V+A`!#*<TH*Q`3HCS?@G
M>*($`2)?8(T("0CHKT10HP&CK`;$V\>1^SS@PQHECI!#@@#I>8&=]0)YHJ7K?
M-!P,2F=8`,(-#\.8D(J)2)1ON'-&('#&9[^Y5`"%^.B!!;TZ5?:!+:"U9SQ\5
M,#@RI@/"["&*^PI>P$"-;%7=JYI&M'13.KIRX<W8`B#1,ES*N!7GHD$&:80XI
M-E4]XH01%AB(S1P]*TD)?NBL@84%8OARAR,8]N\_#`M5@31ZK'J%CZL^ZRA6.
M9A*=0Z-%^JO1I4RKBC6@"B=*-QIA2R%`VR\P$):G&,U(U-4>U,1$P^FF>8&2_
M=S(\PLNT-J`D!#FYX8-7DS8PQX<33*A@Z1K,>13:L;]QN18,`EWC3)/`F[<&J
M:''[UI%PR2MW!XL#JH&/=7'8S5T+XZ5+.BT#6``$G)?JLJ(7%OCS&Z?!&#BY&
M%*(CH8<*,M[!.`QCVH#,7&(XFJZTB:1D*DHL@(\?JZ1KY0,^^PHVSV,R)Z3!%
M!E'[@P&8Y3I>(,%"Q*BVF?UX>R$B`3!`DH<3*HN85A6(VW;(.YL;(,,3@?H,@
MSG8IV,"!#(U58854S%(>8:`@:&_2:B_.>O/G<A,$PY04Q94D`H4@`L,\3>,HA
MRM?IDR#F5(-`0.PR"Y$$<P`V#`Z'RL`4W!Z+Q4,5H'D<`8H`1GDB:=ODHQ#NL
M"J[C6)$R&+`JZ+#48S`D*"?7C\K##<D$S<_!P<)37QQ%#,#30UACA4@A&,M3;
MDD(8UH.!CZ-%@LB2QYS"Q((0RH2(PM6`2.4#P]R"X%5`(L-5@>D-09CK0^+`A
MWEX8C-"`4%;"P,G"WMS`IT9,^YX5-H5*@NK$38*;!4-B^:C%TX^Z^SM\O#R'`
MU\@$@Z#%31UT&Y:+@3#AYCV8%:#=C#E.$!9QX.G"$R*VA,B`QB>!`QH"!-VP.
MT8D+&4DG*I$Y^`1&Q4EK)A!0D<-!HE''N$Q`((F8H9'>3!2HZ&#/C`8")*5[^
MX$(!C5IQ0GXXD?*>B*$_PC2(X1%8@`*R1&Q3MT)``1<'\AD[4:S9-!<$++2"@
M$^.&`@8T%MQ8E/%*RH@NDKJA4>,'NRY_=S`D:/@PXL2*#]>K4[C?(P8!!#%:@
M:=C@A09S#DB*W)G#B8455'Q"@.1)(@)[&)`!5&6?&Z:#%(B6A>E`1S(``'`Z`
M^\$IIJ,8!2C;,!1F0,0P:R><%'`@!CEL81$H`'Z/08%$`]45ZV@!03(X)1(81
M2.31!8($-!20AO<"1MUU$#/2]&#!;X?/!!\O[N__/X`!ZN#`;OQDH`(F9%C7'
MB8$J2.2.00BQ0@!G[0CA@@X:6>?`'"V$P0`A"AF01`![5,>9$`'LI85++*EP=
M#FX#<3@`>@1PQ85"5Q@@WBA!#&$=`D*T1)Y9I)C0RCI[%%`?!1?%PU^&^BG&U
M()3S\-A%E0)JN26777H)48$<(#B&%PM:!LV#ZD1HP8055G!AFAIH>`HJF+P'B
MH@+6[$&BB>:EN&(I+3XP)(Q5,#='C3=*D",U^U?&X2,"0`H919&C'4E`,<PIJ
MR>0$3L*3Y0:#^4?E?U<&]B6JJ:JZZGYJB5"B$Q@,0\R2JPB1@%H=:@J4.LULP
MQL4-!0BY)Q-2;N"`CD?IMUYG.``6`QJ.@,HJM=5R1\M_G[U$K;'6>OOME@ZX^
MRE6L%\P*5JU6W)IK@LFXX^L`!P"K@+!"$&N(J`,F2]VR#3@KCK;0NC,MN`4;+
MC)52B6G+'+<$&_PPQ(IUZ^W$$5M\,<9D?GEJQAU[_/%\$5<,,LDE<SFR?QR;`
MO#++U:+<,LPQR]RPRC/;?#/..>N\,\\]^_PST$$+/331S#DL8`QV[>"O`M3A4
M8$C144L]-=49^[/#$'D&=!,@#>@Q%!JO'2#CQ%LJ;%>UR&A+K/8[+W?Q]CJ;Z
M1)M!TPBPYL!3%:"GPMRH,@((F0V`C0T-TA2`W-%MNY"+"?IP@:&8Y.E'"=N5?
M6WZY+?@DTO<%5QR0S%&QG"`D`IRNLL!8"3S'0%<>1,%'(JTCQGG<H!A`H7D?[
MT'"1<CLML+OI'=`N9CI248!-41G,T7<B<>+L-N9H!Y^!1XF3K".V],`4QAF25
MN-##01KL\<,)7U00$`3"N3:-4D]OWOWG#H8!M:DA""9)!.PQC&(2A&"+'2T9T
MR_+PE62%S6"QV"`UQV"C]FDT$$%JU7K%=B99;M?[!8?%8S(G^WIU8'1E=GNYQ
M,`0"">KD4`M$MPB$+;#^R-DH*+CA,*@YL7AQ>Q`A*3E)66EYB9EQP,,Q6..!4
MQ`+B&BIB6DI2*G$2@))J=,4"?)4U`<&@F\6E6JB1B,W574#8"E)(:?A%IF*0I
MFZIRX!OHB!I(B3P(U8C"?!AQR>!PD#-HFS!"925@BC(8:9!+F.##QE`8(1C&P
M$CC+PM<_WBS`(I*#`@.BU4J&S%=",@LUV&+(<%<BAQ%/":O(H1B!?Q8C+@O0:
MK`XT:0VH$;"&[8&V+=T8;0@78!R;<J5`1$F'9%V[=_$0S,-@#]\5?USZ[=-P2
M22"("04/?OCF<59&,%3!Z`FB^TGJ+ZU;/4Q0\<E'#Z\)8XH,XN#:*G`.##[]9
M2@C0A%N.#@Q`:D).+RX5%KJ,"E6!@",4_*9A=@1#1PT$#!+IPO9+4Z9I':1`-
M638+66[M&']UL(`%O(J?S>3%M0"S30\I^&JN6L*@9-@;$,2H+6NH,V97KL%]2
MT-2@CQH&6$R@D,T@QX[(\7"NPH=0`<9N!P0@5-?#M3D)ABR8H$!.`<P$,&YH-
ML-@+;2X+KIW#,JU:[BK[-DXW;?OV-0+7VAXY8+>5KM$.%P.."&"^#T8(C+XR+
M7'-0`P845,@J$Y!K"Y`>)F#@A)>"02`_!?CX["S?[L!'F^%*2$$.[([X9R+J/
M^_X!Q*``H&LB!@:.X`00/@2X)K^DXC`(@2-R2@````08@9"BM%A/0)@<LH,0Y
MM.(SB<((2\#`'`8PF,D#!@R*48XU&B#$H``7&LR%7W!B@9>TZK!PR\8(8,\HD
M*24<82A%2A-DK.,>XD.T!-ZS`LT"#@!0K@X2("0&TAY(D\!$6,".O!H4B.*:^
MNSJXI@`,<H*I-ROX"`D!>M9:$00$711'`P3&0^T!&U^B(H%):+")5_@Z(`2`W
M:Y!+D(`D`9AQK9?JY',!>C!(E8_;<+."!ARO<,K.(`CY0P<:!$Q`CJCD^.1'+
M(`6\;HY?[(A3RZ]`<R:6W4K+Z\^.HEB@3\ZB^TB@L"D-'?,Z.EE`@#,'8C!@1
M'3Z2(*0_E:XQP)@*M"@T"`+$3:H&\XQ4K5K74G"`A3"U42.3A4<8H#@S-0C`Q
MH"\'DRN*UQZH(90!"(&IYBM090$#0_',TP,$N%4R#RG$0?<ZUHBI(8$HNIN2L
ML%\/B>,E/\0+*8H?%Z;%BMEXJ0&`O<">F0H"`LVBCZ`?VI*&)SA@4JPEBM3KR
M1O04[?&T=%5JXK,H#@,$JY+"*N&(N@RGA\1X@MP`8AYC:&"$&#+CX$A"4$EA%
M`&B8B.&`2_Q[8`%"[AH@%`>:Q&!6.=+BHV<*N77R;5N/8"`1$R`7.6$/#`]B>
M`3F44+1;:^4&^^%'@61NW/-A'(O&CAI4NT<#`8Y[NE7"60Z`+<Q*#>F*./&QV
MH%6[,,)05CQ:AR`$TMJ[>(S`&$98&#J&P2"(H"B8XPB=*);!LF""E$B*BPJ'H
M@VPH6R%6BY5*T:E4B!A%(O'16*!0AD``O6&_X#"V(AF(!"B'K*-^-"1M=Z-0-
M,+A"TQ00/*47$A4V!!H(!(8N#88F'AA3/7$A'5L!B'0!6P5;!"@'=$(7EH0E5
M?B@#4U$:"QUF%RL`6P(E<P4.%0)T%X8$)`8"+@QT"RX.$@%?"EMW=(\/2GX:.
M<KYJAE3-A@RV*FLG7PP\%PY!K!<#*V%3`T\NQN3E(09P+@9T^\,9-@_KAA@$N
MYA=;Z0T&;&DAX5.8'R)<'(#6JL^4!J<P=)A70(L`"E=":`B@[@68"@J""(B(I
M[\4]*%-@,'JPH<86%@]L#*`G!LR`.S4?#!J'P$K.$,ED./E)M"@&,@'&D2L!\
M*:&#!+@D`JN#\T*0!5M`C/DG258B"056%`BR:(`^<,%(RK!4H=8;"0V"3-C5Q
M@9*:NH8:U$WC0,$A<D$?2'O0`8"BA_3D,7W!]$>'!%LR;JPJ0P^;$@GNR%SA5
MX)Z2.R5V=7Z9K5J("@:^O*WF``4!C6I10KU#!H<`+Q=V4$(=I.F`&!<"1'U@%
MH%_,)#\&8BA8$^&(<,J)!Z*3^^BUB%F\?J^T/5@2Y80H&*SC6_+VC>\75IUDS
M&5F"UE4HC`X1_;-.Z@N%*!@MH35$_$90R2<@$4@IQ1)34+@`50&13&4')%=E&
MI1I76GA%`%ABD;7*6?BD9=I:!7#4@%O%Q'7`7`[4=0=>%.R%@`M^[0*8+_ZLM
MR(!A!!B`&"V*/1B+'8XQ`)D`DFV`W@=;7*:C9@N4TX-GR(!F@&A8J5":4`W<)
M!\5JX+@&VX>R\2@'.X+=A@<<O!W@&W`/",?@!<7!=)P"R7&Q7``&@>%<"]#9I
M*5T#"U#'X5'TE*"=#+#8.!@1K2$@'C'DN6!>24.HAYM`1+J7'@,#_#=@+D=BH
M^V'?!WGM9T!_'Z#:QZ>L;BJ!=?O0-$1/`JE5`1T/EO0(`]1\H4L'-S)T(@>M9
M:/H``G#)`\MP,LCUA#^XK'+*.C8&,.T+P+UPVSH:3)&`*538LIX#&Q4$K#>&)
MY(=&(0``$(<A9#*ZPA0';)&9&DH\:U6]*"2`@IPK'&`#<]=E.:$V^`3Q9BZQO
M$=&!F-2N$X"<#PPY8CB>[F-./K`6D$8[6A$0F6UY#M%&7PK$BZ2?P'K;0)()V
M73M70AK`!-%L3;US"AF8F;9$SB($6H`3ZSY`AV@_A/I%/?A4X&0%#-BPG<GA_
M=4"?@`NBD/&F);=J5%T3B$"`K)5I,-*'MU*E^P:,O_2*Q:^%"2L!(RD'H!6R-
M'"F+R<+-GJCO+0Q*2T7$A'ESK4K@;"$,,=VBL_/+XY:+Y[ESJ>M:N^]>N/2\J
M"=0[TAWY9O2`2/W^&T5(`^.)I98$O@2.PB$0T'"EP-P1,3$3XQ&90EOKM#$QH
M''K\(LBYC.S/'EB<O(+*^$77\D,PCR#SH/C4?,'-8A*A8[AO](P#9U\(371\4
M1_N0@M(0/#FIL]*U-I32;%D8BL00A$F)JVS=)RF*\RS3X\WU_4V#@$`BR!RNA
M3$,A$!0Q#L/S$C)(%H-!XL*B#`@K"^%D0?R8"Z5"DE`R&R%%ZO4$:!X6@>R1=
MNB8F`<TQ(,R.^Z[NS`+`"N'@`&5$0R"$HD/@)V#1YP1D0<%B``"`Z:%+0,>A,
M8W&A"ZLH9$#KX82TSH)-QJ/AY^`U!$$'-X"O;K&`@J"#)X2`SB)@0I7B8,W"W
M8+&DX-BN:Z(`2L-J1%0)_.%GBL=4`31TFFQ"PX!6R2#2(H'PH4!Z`J&#*6&1=
M`!P7U`XP.`&$0()@#P0\09/#09<GU"[<>&+%'(\273@2L!)`2<B0]UK<6!1*P
MHZ]7*5FV?*'A1Y`M1$IH<:!DH049NHK(&+#(@!(P"!JL%`5%0@.!"7XT2*IDN
M01HE3ED>S'(3CQYL#@*$`*0P'HL&4)D]F;#.P8!(&#HT4$@`^^J"0+W..BC0.
M=,)''0FLT))ASVD(`??0R9JPB@:@``844E"XT,4ON@Z`%FN\HX,RIW8N*#1`9
M""ZI:2>%A(&I9):,`DH9G'GT(]@O5RAM&.P"(!,#)T%SP3D!>+>"+HJJ46BPZ
MZ%((8A0,=%D,ST62.YGC3CB`<4<*XK0=G.CG,J\5&1,/*%R$X#%X]>O9MR<!Z
M$PB)`4B-9PI?X((&U1=.3"3PXZ<#J"IA`!FH0D>"`_#*`R<)$%BCI8/NN8,8]
M/6JP`XY'&AN$JM8$>`@A"C(<:RUA<)!*`!_,PL"-;S!0(@"CG$%-@IV\$DP@9
M"5)8H@@+!&R@@,9"**<&$Q"(^RH'N2RA@B-:(B)-AXO`4BC%$712J)4:,K-B(
M(<$2B24N,Y3`[R8!"BS@N@(U.("C$ELXY01&^/'@L0Z0I.R`!9[0P*DUO7+!,
M,_K.TB"@<5H(@2K62OC#O2;8LV!`B!J=E-)**^`J@-GR"H.$,9:4H,DB]./&W
M*.E6>:&`+@X\B;*F+/#P(>DBY6$1/P:D,`\&!KB0*SIV%.2F%%YM\($!:*PCF
MDD>.P:`O"83S@HL@+%C@C\=>_0&`'`F49H/Y3EH$$B0IN(83+*>180$98EKV"
M`2#QT^&N3/4+J8,.HCWQ!;M4*X`!H,!R]@E;.OMGD86T.V$3!4)8@):%D52H2
M^Q$'%JZ+MDD?--/%2CNYS-*./?X8Y)!3"LG)8'5[=<T?Z"JVP/P:")@D*KC<]
MRR$=5U0P@),9@,W!'PRE5<%DQ^IK$BA\4,@MIHS>^00-F`I@N6@&JX>_,5:LF
M@\L4"$K#B@44(G,6`H#Z"(^!Y'GBA&@CDBBC"72=[VHQ^67@"1X/ZZ)B$AQ^W
M-01P2C['R;-JHJ4%&46NM+DAH*34@EL.?QSRR"5GJ58^'W&Y(<;$H<6*A]IU?
M=^Y+%4BD%"L*G0$!G536+B;]<DE)#V,-!!>J4;H&UPHV/>KZ(E5B,/V/$[@Q3
M8&6@BDOC'QF(&E`_5/2VLX/4\T[JL01.GO/S^UF-4^H5PF>9E?B5)Q^?_%(,6
M+Q^")R>M]N*L-^_^@Z$X2DU3+(NR%H[SF$)1,(:AI,@PO$]M"(*'0^]A(P0'A
MPZ+%)B`0B`X&8S9+)&P&U&);,'Q<V`75D<(M&E2&R6%BO]DNMZG]FE?6%F;%,
M1>*3!'*8(/@)'B(F*BXR-CH^0D9*"IIPK2BTO,3,_*#I\$C\!`DL31PEE6(XQ
M04E1615@:7%Y@7F()9`QF*FDJ%&UO=7]SM79/>!1Z/5E&(H`3H80-D-35UM?5
M8V=K;RO2(6MX<XN/DU=3E:.GJX<]=[2OPU-[3V.$Q]_CQY_G\_=;TX?Q)S#1L
MOH$&#R),J'`A*\.&D0HZC"AQ(L6*%B\^@HAQ(\>.VP!Z#"ER),F2)D^B3*ER)
*)<N6+E]BBP``.\.&$
``
end
size 20530
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / mitchell swartz /  Why the TB-skeptics have to argue
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why the TB-skeptics have to argue
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 02:17:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep5.215251.10645@midway.uchicago.edu>
   Subject: Why the TBTB's like to argue
Greg Kuperberg [gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu]
 
=gk  "The only possible thing
=gk holding XS Heat back must be an invisible venomous potion that a
=gk handful of particarly vocal skeptics have spread to make other people
=gk disbelieve also.  It couldn't possibly be because XS Heat isn't excess
=gk heat and isn't fusion. It couldn't possibly be because Fleischmann and
=gk Pons f***** up.
 
  Well, Greg, nice to see your mellow self here.  Perhaps your stale
ideas ought be compared to the recent TRIGGER survey (see below) which is
reviewed both in the CF Almanac, section "Cold Fusion in Japan" by
Jed Rothwell and will be detailed further in the next edition of the
COLD FUSION TIMES.
 
  This poll tests the thinking in Japan, and the results are very interesting.
    For further details the interested reader is referred to the above or
    may e-mail me for more information (no flames, thanks in advance).
 
  Briefly, the Trigger Poll is based upon the Nikkei publishing company's
Trigger magazine high quality public opinion survey [June, 1993 edition,
 Vol. 12, No. 6.]
 
   "Trigger sent out 300 questionnaires to leading scientists at universities,
   industrial corporations, and national laboratories. They got back 180
   responses, a 63% response rate, which is a staggering high response rate,
    even for Japan."  (J. Rothwell)
 
   Here is one important representative question:
 
  "(In) cold fusion Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, and Dr. Jones, announced the
 work. Yet replication experiments are still in progress, and the work is
 still controversial. Why do you think it has taken this amount of time ?"
 
 Here are the answers that were received:
 
A     Because the effect does not exist,                          15%
       and attempts to replicate it are a waste of time.
 
B.    Because the replications attempts have been low quality scientific work.
                                                                   13%
 
C.     Because it is a new phenomenon, and it is natural that replication
        should take a long time.                                    70%
 
D.      Don't know                                                  2%
 
          Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / mitchell swartz /  Heavy Watergate
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy Watergate
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 02:20:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <26e2f9INNbbg@network.ucsd.edu>
     Subject: Re: conditions for ignitions
Matt Kennel [mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net aka  mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu)  writes:
 
= "Jean Yves Desbiens wrote:
= : <Dick Blue complaining>
= : I am ready
= : as most to doubt cold fusion, but I am also willing to give these people
= : the benefit of the doubt;"
=mk "They were given the benefit of the doubt, but they lost it when other
=mk people couldn't reproduce their experimental results, and found out
=mk that the supposed neutron measurements had actually been faked."
 
   There have been growing indications that the cold fusion phenomena
may have been initially covered up in the English speaking countries based
upon a few key incorrect "negative" papers, coupled with the subsequent
difficulties in  both achieving the desired conditions and publishing those
results.
 
   Since you bring it up again while skirting quantitative issues
  perhaps you would enlighten the group (including the sentient lurkers)
  if you intend to hold the key "negative experiments" to the same standard?
 
       If you shall, Heavy Watergate (thank you, ACC) might follow
           that much earlier.
 
       Au revoir.
                                      Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Kel-F meltdown
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kel-F meltdown
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 14:48:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Thanks to Tod Green for a nice reference on hot electrodes.  As put up here
>previously, I have some data that looks a lot like a local hot spot.
 
What do you mean by "local"?  The suburb of Batavia?  Or *part* of the
electrode?  I don't think you'd get the "hot electrode" effect until the
entire electrode was enveloped in steam -- otherwise the remaining points
of electrolyte contact would keep the voltage drop down low enough to
prevent this effect.  It'd seem to be a pretty much all or none phenomena.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Loren Petrich /  Re: Heavy Watergate
     
Originally-From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Watergate
Date: 7 Sep 1993 07:54:05 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <CCyp5u.Fxy@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   There have been growing indications that the cold fusion phenomena
>may have been initially covered up in the English speaking countries based
>upon a few key incorrect "negative" papers, coupled with the subsequent
>difficulties in  both achieving the desired conditions and publishing those
>results.
 
        Can you explain what kind of motive there could possibly be
for this supposed coverup?
 
        And can you point the finger at anyone for allegedly
masterminding this supposed coverup?
 
        Personally, I think that Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion is
nothing but delusion. In fact, I'm sure that it will go down in
history as a classic example of Pathological Science.
 
        Why can't P and F just come clean and describe their apparatus
in gory detail??? The way they presented their results was an
atrocity; their whining about patent rights made it seem as if they
had something to hide.
 
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlip cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Thermal and electrical resistance
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermal and electrical resistance
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 09:01:29 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: Steve Jones and Todd Green raise two different issues concerning the
: interface between the electrolye and electrodes in CF experiments.  The
: question of layers of gunk as been around for some time, but I am not
: sure any concerns have been layed to rest.  Steve points to the voltage
: rise recorded in the recent P&F publication as evidence for a possible
: build up of a resistive layer of silicates.  McKubre refers to the
: use of a Solartron model 1250, 1254, or 1260 Frequency Response Analyzer
: to determine the Pd/electrolyte interfacial impedence and thus asses
: the electrochemical condition of the interface.  Perhaps an electrochemist
: could comment on what this instrument measures, whether such measurements
: can play a significant role in electrochemical investigations, and whether
: a failure to do this kind of monitoring can be significant.
 
The Solartron (Schlumberger for the past n years) 1250 series of instruments
are frequency response analysers, used to measure electrochemical
impedances. Basically they comprise a digital sine wave generator and two
(or more) analysers. If you set it up to measure E on one channel and i on
the other the result is Z, the cell impedance. The 1254 is a 4 channel
version of the 1250, the 1260 has a i to V converter on one channel. There
are more - 1255, 1280 etc. The technique is known as a.c. impedance amongst
those of us who have been at it for the past 20 years, or as EIS
'electrochemical impedance spectroscopy' amongst the newcomers.
 
Analysis of the ac response gives you detailed qualitative and quantitative
information on the processes occuring at the electrode/electrolyte interface
- basically it can be used to detect film formation, measure reaction rates,
evaluate diffusion controlled processes, examine adsorption steps etc. etc.
We use it to look at corrosion processes and to do corrosion rate
monitoring.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Richard Kirk /  Re: Pure Water
     
Originally-From: rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pure Water
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 11:23:42 GMT
Organization: Crosfield, Hemel Hempstead, UK

aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan) writes:
>From article <930901144130.206006de@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, by DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov:
>> Robert Eachus points out that water is a good insulator.  Some very high
>                                          ^^^^
>
>> power pulse networks have used water dielectric capacitors.  Relatively
>> high dielectric constant, and if they arc over you don't have to throw the
>> mess away.
>
>Well... fair is more like it.  Pure water is still slightly ionic.  pH 7
>and all that icky undergrad chemistry stuff :-)
>
>If you aren't trying for high volts as well, it's no prog.
 
Livermore labs proposed (and, I think, built) a really neat MegaJoule pulse
power source with water insulation.  The water had to be very pure but despite
that it made the supply a lot cheaper.  The cleaning up after spills is a
big issue with pulsed power work - the pulses can give enormous E-M kicks
as they go by, so your tank of insulator will get quite a battering.
 
The resistivity of 'distilled' water is a very sensitive measure of its purity.
I don't know if anyone has measured the resistivity of pure water.  I guess
it must conduct something, but as far as I can remember the resistivity just
went on going up the purer it got.  Anyone know the answer to this one?
 
 
--
Richard Kirk         Image Processing Group    Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
rak@crosfield.co.uk  0442-230000 x3361/3591    Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrak cudfnRichard cudlnKirk cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 12:03:34 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: Karel, starry droog, this makes no difference at all. Whatever mode you run
: in, if you want to do precision calorimetry and calculate excess heat
: accurately, you have to follow both cell current and total cell voltage, at
: an appropriate rate. iR comp does not come into it at all - why should you
: care about definite electrode potentials? Constant current is still preferred,
: as I posted a while ago, because people like to quote A/cm^2. Actually, there
: is a case to be made for constant potential, because of this "electrolytic
: compression" argument, translating an overpotential into so many (equivalent)
: atm D2 pressure. But whatever case you make, it does not affect your
: calorimetry.
 
Actually I was not all that much concerned with the calorimetry of the test.
I agree that to get the total input power you need to measure both the cell
voltage and current, regardless of which is controlled. However by
maintaining constant potential across the cathode interface you should be
able to compensate for changes in the cell resistivity, due to film build
up, electrolyte changes etc. - which was the original thread.
 
The huge cell voltage rises in the latest P&F data just don't make sense,
unless the cell impedance is changing dramatically. As someone else pointed
out, it would be nice to see the details of the traces for the last few
minutes of the run. Or better still a video of the cell at that time.
Perhaps the fairies come when the cell is not being watched and drink the
electrolyte ;-).
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 19:14:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>Economic theory is still in it's infancy, and bears little relationship
>to reality.
 
Me thinks you are generalizing.  There have been many schools of economics,
and many have fallen by the wayside.  Those that remain have been around
for several hundred years and are essentially unchanged -- though refined
here and there over the course of the years.  History has been unkind to
normative brands.  Only those theories that recognize the subjectivness of
valuation have withstood the test of time.
 
These theories can successfully predict what happens when you try to
forcibly interfer with subjective valuation, but also recognize that
it is impossible to predict what is to be subjectively valued.
 
>The bald
>truth is that no-one knows what effect of practical CNF would
>have on global economics. It could go either way.
 
No one can yet predict if CNF will lead to basement nukes, say, but any
reduction in the price of energy will be a net boon for all of mankind.
 
I request from anyone a historical counter-example.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ignition doublespeak --- Problem Solved??
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak --- Problem Solved??
Date: 3 Sep 93 08:13:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <9308311332.AA03678@suntan.Tandem.com> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>John George circles a particular paragraph of the resent Pons and
>Fleischmann missive and wonders why it did not draw more comment.  It
>is truly a remarkable claim that they had achieved some form of
>"ignition" such that the cold fusion reaction continued after the usual
>current input had been cut off.  Of course you will note that elsewhere
>in the same document they admit that this phase of the experiment is on
>rather shakey grounds as far as anything quantitative is concerned.  To
>restate that in blunter terms, they really did not know what the heck
>was happening.
>
 
Not if the system is non-linear in response.
 
>Now why is this so absurd?  Firstly, since we have no model or even a
>sketch of a model describing the actual process there is no way of
>knowing how the process can become selfsustaining, i.e. there is no
>real definition of what the trigger may be or what it means to use
>the word "ignition" in this context.
 
BUT we are NOT in a total quandry because we can invent one.
one could have two reservoirs, A and B, attached to the Pd (such as
Holium and Halfnium -- may not be optimal) so that as the Pd is
"loaded", some of the d moves into the Hafnium and loads that too
while the system is maintained at a reduced temperature.  Then when
the loading reaches the fusion reaction densities, the sample heats
and more deuterium floods from the Halfnium into the Pd increasing
its loading still further and "maintaining" the fusion smolder.
Now if the heat goes even higher than the Holium becomes more
of a sponge for the deuterium and so it begins moving en masse into
that reservoir.  The levels fall, the reaction dies or drops in
intensity and the system cools, allowing it the Holium Pd flow to
reverse, and Voila! you have the PFK constant hand (bath, swim
pool, sauna, Stanley steam engine, chicken egg incubator, .. etc.)
 warmer.    NOTE: the letter K for KOLOC .. I can await those
royalties to fund some really fun fusion.
 
Dieter or J Bowery,  maybe you could write this up and submit it
as a co-authored invention. It will need the usual additions of
reservoir/ Pd arrangements, gold plated enclosure, couplings,
controls, heat transfer apparatus, internal additional d2 source -
for extended life, and  MOST IMPORTANTLY:
 
                      A one way He4 exit valve, tied to
                       a He detector for average power
                          production measurements.
 
The metal elements  mentioned above may not even be spelled correctly,
but I think some of these do, if memory serves, have a thermal
differential deuterium absorbtion capability, so this scenario could
work, and are well worth the research and development.  Hans, I hope
I didn't stumble into your hen house.  .
 
>If an elevated temperature is
>all that is needed there is an obvious course for the experimentation
>to take and one wonders why P&F had not pursued that course immediately
>and enjoyed even more spectacular successes.
 
Obviously that's not the case, or haven't you been reading the posters
on this channel, Dick ...     :-).
 
>is somehow selflimiting as well as selfsustaining.  If you think
>about that it seems to imply that there is a signal propagating
>through the sample.  Care to speculate on that?
 
Yes there is, .. it would be the thermal state -- temperature, (and
Pd deuterium loading in this rigged or governed system).
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| 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:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Jones' "Silicates", boundary conditions
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' "Silicates", boundary conditions
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:18:48 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:
: = "Except that Rso will hit infinity before Rsi does, as the water boils away.
: = Also a real power supply will voltage limit long before this happens. As
: = usual, looking just at the limits is misleading - why not try some real
: = world numbers ?"
:
:    That may be true if evaporation or electrolysis proceed.
:    The gendanken model showed what are called boundary conditions, didn't it?
:    And the model did demonstrate by examining these boundary conditions that
:    it did not matter what Rsi was, because any excess heat could never be
:    explained by this putative mechanism.
 
All that the model shows is that the ratio of the electrolyte and film
resistances (assuming that Rp is << than either, presumably Rp is the bulk
of the Pd electrode and not its electrolyte interface) determines what
proportion of the input power will be dissipated in Rsi.
 
If Rsi=Rso then half of your input power ends up dissipated by Rsi. And film
(or scale) resistivities can get high easily, even for very thin films.
 
Your model is a bad over-simplification of the electrical equivalent circuit
of the cell, all of which needs to be considered in order to determine where
the input power ends up. And bear in mind that the E-i responses of the
electrode interfaces will be non-linear.
 
: =  "Can you ignore the Pt/electrolyte impedance? Can you ignore the charge
: = transfer resistance and any diffusion effects at the Pd/electrolyte
: = interface ?"
:
:    No.  I mentioned some of that in the post (inc. other simplifications).
:    However, it does not matter what the Pt/electrolyte impedance is, because
:   any excess heat cannot ever be explained by this putative mechanism as this
:   simple model reveals. If you can add anything to prove a valid mechanism,
:   please do. We are waiting.
 
Simply measure the cell impedance over say 100kHz down to say 0.001Hz over a
range of applied currents, making sure that the ac voltage perturbation
stays small. You might learn something.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  RE: Kel-F meltdown
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Kel-F meltdown
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 19:08:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Tod Green for a nice reference on hot electrodes.  As put up here
previously, I have some data that looks a lot like a local hot spot.  Bob
Bernecky is looking at it.  We shall see if it is worth publishing.  I will
continue to caution experimenters not to rely on a temperature measurement
to determine heat flow.  There are better ways.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 / Eugene Mallove /  Josh Levy Corrected
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Josh Levy Corrected
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 21:52:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Joshua Levy is quite wrong about CF books. Fire from Ice is by far the most up
to date book (in the US!) on cold fusion. It covers the period through May,
1991. Taubes -- as does Close -- focusses almost exclusively on Year #1, and
neither Taubes nor Close had the intellectual honesty to discuss both sides of
the issue. I did. Since Fire from Ice drew what I believe to be the correct
conclusion that cold fusion is real, I'd say it's way ahead of its time -- far
from being "out of date"! You'll see.
 
>Mallove might be a special case, because he write books.  But, he should be
>hyping CNF when he has a book just out, not when other people have books
>just out.  (Especially not when his book is the oldest and most out of date
>of the 4 or 6 book available).
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Report 8/25/93
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Report 8/25/93
Date: 3 SEP 93 21:06:42 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                        Alcator C-MOD
                        Weekly Highlight Report
                        August 25, 1993
 
 
Alcator C-MOD has completed the second block of runs in the Phase I
experimental program and is now engaged in a scheduled three-week maintenance
period.
 
The final plasma run day of this block was dedicated to ICRF coupling
studies using the movable monopole antenna. Over 250 kW net power was
successfully launched into the plasma. The best loading was obtained with
the antenna located 1cm behind the limiter. Inferred loading resistances
appear to be consistent with expectations based on code modeling. Effects
of the injected RF power were observed on several diagnostics, including
soft xrays, radiated power, and edge probes. No major influxes of
impurities were observed, nor was there evidence of RF heating. The
radiated power increased by significantly less than the injected RF power.
For these shots, the minority (hydrogen) concentration was not being
controlled, as the run started with a hydrogen target plasma and changed
over to deuterium operation in the course of the day. This run was also the
first time a deuterium majority target plasma has been used on C-MOD (the
pellet run earlier in the week used deuterium pellets into a hydrogen
target plasma).
 
The power systems group tested the reverse bridges of all of the Robicon
PF supplies in preparation for four quadrant operation, which will be available
following installation of the new reactors in the crowbar buss. Some minor
problems were identified in the tests, which will be addressed during the
maintenance period.
 
Annual maintenance in the high-voltage yard and substation is being carried
out this week. This work, which is coordinated with the Francis Bitter
National Magnet Laboratory, which also uses the substation, requires that
experimental power be shut down for about a week. Additionally, maintenance
was performed on the 480VAC breaker feeding the test cell on Tuesday.
 
A clean vent of the tokamak (no manned access) has been carried out this
week. The capillary gas puff tubes in the lower divertor assembly were
brought out to a set of valves, and will be connected to one of the gas
plenums for use in radiative and gaseous divertor experiments. A
twelve-hour calibration of the neutron detector system was carried out with
the source inside the vessel during this vent.  Some additional minor
vacuum maintenance was performed, and small system adjustments and
installations were made for other diagnostics. The machine is now back
under vacuum, pending leak checking.
 
The charge exchange neutral particle analyzer diagnostic has been installed
on F-port. This system, which is an upgrade of a diagnostic used on Alcator C,
will be used for ion temperature measurements, analysis of RF-generated ion
tails, and determination of the H/D ratios in hydrogen minority heating
experiments.
 
Dr. C.H. Ma, from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, visited the lab this week
to begin installation of his Faraday rotation experiment. This
diagnostic is to be installed in conjunction with the C-MOD two color
interferometer system (which is already in routine operation), and will
provide current density profile measurements.
 
The flywheel, which is scheduled to be installed following completion of the
the Phase I campaign, and which will provide the stored energy to allow
operation of the C-MOD facility at full design parameters, has passed its
final spin testing and has been accepted. The flywheel is now in transit
from the testing site to its port of departure for shipment to the US.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.03 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Report 9/2/93
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Weekly Report 9/2/93
Date: 3 SEP 93 21:07:18 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                                Alcator C-MOD
                            Weekly Highlight Report
                                September 2, 1993
 
 
Alcator C-MOD is now in the second week of a planned three-week maintenance
period.
 
After the structure had warmed up to room temperature, the bus tunnel and sump
lines were opened to perform cryo-system maintenance. Several repairs and
improvements have been made to reduce LN2 leaks and ice formation. The gas
purge system has been upgraded to increase the flow. The dewar and bus tunnel
have now been re-closed and the gaseous N2 purge is on.
 
The power systems group has modified the regulator circuitry in the
circulating current power supplies in preparation for four quadrant operation.
All problems identified during last week's tests have been fixed. We are
awaiting delivery of the reactors to be installed in the crowbar bus.
 
A modification to the HEAT PLC/Paragon software has been made to prevent the
heater system from shutting down due to intermittant spurious over-temperature
readings on single thermocouples.
 
The RF group has located and fixed a problem that caused arcing in the
transmitter cavity at high voltages.  This will provide substantial margin
when operating at the maximum power level of 2 MW.
 
Dr. Scott Haney of LLNL is visiting as part of a collaboration dealing with
vertical stability issues. He is working with G. Tinios of our MHD group to
compare results of the TEQ code with our code results and with C-MOD data.
 
Steve Fairfax participated in the review of the HSX stellarator project at
U. of Wisconsin in Madison.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Silicates in P/F cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates in P/F cells
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 20:36:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
>I'll leave it to others to draw conclusions about the suitability of
>meters which cannot register minute amounts of power for studying CF
>experiments.
 
Actually, I am more concerned about linearity and accuracy at extreme
operating points.
 
For example, suppose you calibrate your calorimeter using 10 watts in,
running 5 volts and 2 amps into a 2.5 ohm dummy load.  You also crank it up
to 100 watts with 6.32 amps and 15.8 volts into the load.  2.5 ohms
being (let's say) a typical cell resistance.
 
But suppose actual cell resistance goes up substantially.  To maintain
2 amps constant current at a new cell resistance of 10 ohms requires
20 volts which is 40 watts of input power.   Now 40 watts is in your
calibration range of 10-100 watts, but the 20 volts is already outside
your voltage calibration range which was 5-16 volts.
 
So we have two effects to worry about, I think.  General non-linearity
across the ranges and percentages of accuracy overlapping small level
signals.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 20:20:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep6.120334.24234@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
 
>Actually I was not all that much concerned with the calorimetry of the test.
>I agree that to get the total input power you need to measure both the cell
>voltage and current, regardless of which is controlled. However by
>maintaining constant potential across the cathode interface you should be
>able to compensate for changes in the cell resistivity, due to film build
>up, electrolyte changes etc. - which was the original thread.
>
>The huge cell voltage rises in the latest P&F data just don't make sense,
>unless the cell impedance is changing dramatically. As someone else pointed
>out, it would be nice to see the details of the traces for the last few
>minutes of the run. Or better still a video of the cell at that time.
>Perhaps the fairies come when the cell is not being watched and drink the
>electrolyte ;-).
 
To tell you the truth, this argument seems to me like the two people
arguing over the height of a ladder. One of them says that you can tell
the height by counting the number of rungs and the other says that you
can tell by measuring the distance between two rungs.
 
If you want to know the amount of power disipated in the circuit it seems
pretty obvious that you want a _constant_power_ power supply. We may argue
about the response time of the regulator or the sensitivity of the regulator
but if you regulate the power and not singularly the current or voltage
you will always have a good idea of how much power has been inserted into
the system.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 20:07:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <151@markdear.win.net>,
Mark Engle Deardorff <med@markdear.win.net> wrote:
>
>In article <1993Sep2.142523.6993@scott.skidmore.edu>, david atkatz
(datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu) writes:
>>
>>       Very interesting post, Eugene.  A few questions:
>>
>>       "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"
>
>Because he is an engineer and not a scientist. I just love his
>appelative, "D. Sc." Reminds me of "Dr. Science. He's not a real
>doctor. ..."
 
     The two categories are not mutually exclusive.  And you'd be
     hard-pressed to make the case that the appellation 'scientist'
     is inherently more lucrative than 'engineer'.
 
     Lucrative is 'neurosurgeon', sort of a combination of a
     scientist, an engineer and Andy Warhol.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 16:38:17 BST

In <1993Sep7.043937.25630@ns.network.com> John Logajan writes:
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>...the economic battles that will be lost when the Japanese develop CF and
>>the U.S. does not might end in a ruinous disaster on the scale of the
>>Great Depression.
>
>There simply is no mainstream economic theory or historical evidence to
>support this form of contention (Boss Ross and his goose stepping henchmen
>notwithstanding -- note that all living Nobel Prize winners in economics have
>signed a statement essentially repudiating Perot's anti-free-trade bombast.)
 I didn't know you could get a Nobel for crystal gazing .... :-)
> Lots of stuff deleted
  This may or may not come to pass. One thing is for sure, whatever
happens, no economist will have predicted it. Economic theory is still
in it's infancy, and bears little relationship to reality. The bald
truth is that no-one knows what effect of practical CNF would
have on global economics. It could go either way.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 23:37:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

johnge@autodesk.com (John George) writes:
>but TVs, VCRs, Consumer Electronics, and Cameras show us that much of
>the profit can be localized elsewhere, if any country loses it's edge.
>Of course the consumer countries are better off, BUT, the seller
>countries are benifiting from cheaper energy and making bucks off the others.
 
People tend to get confused when discussing international trade -- as if
some magic happens when goods go across imaginary boundary lines.
 
But to me or you as a consumer, it doesn't matter if you buy a product
from company X or company Y, presumably one of them is going to make a
profit off the sale, and the other is not.  The "locality" of the profit
can move from downtown to the suburbs, or vice verse, or from Maine to
Utah, or from the continental US to Japan.  So what?
 
In any of the above cases, your dollar bills get passed around as IOU's
which eventually *must* come back to request the services you produced
to earn those dollars in the first place (after all, if your work represented
no value, you wouldn't get dollars for it, and if dollars represented no
value, the Japanese wouldn't accept them in payment for real goods.)
 
And speaking of confusion, let me repeat this last line:
 
>the seller countries are benifiting from cheaper energy and making bucks
>off the others.
 
The alternative formulation would be that people would somehow not be
"taken advantage of" if they had to continue paying higher prices for
energy from local producers.
 
Egads!  Economic thinking requires one to look at secondary conseqences,
but it isn't that obtuse folks.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: 6 Sep 1993 23:15:28 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: To tell you the truth, this argument seems to me like the two people
: arguing over the height of a ladder. One of them says that you can tell
: the height by counting the number of rungs and the other says that you
: can tell by measuring the distance between two rungs.
 
: If you want to know the amount of power disipated in the circuit it seems
: pretty obvious that you want a _constant_power_ power supply. We may argue
: about the response time of the regulator or the sensitivity of the regulator
: but if you regulate the power and not singularly the current or voltage
: you will always have a good idea of how much power has been inserted into
: the system.
 
How accurate, and how precise are the standard kinds of utility meters
that one finds attached to one's house?
 
And just how the hell do they work anyway?  It's got to be pretty simple,
as I saw one in the Smithsonian, late 19th century Westinghouse brand, that
appeared to be the same design as contemporary ones.
 
--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Heavy Watergate
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Watergate
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 04:34:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CCyp5u.Fxy@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>       If you shall, Heavy Watergate (thank you, ACC) might follow
>           that much earlier.
 
     Not in our lifetime, self-delusion breath.
 
     I'm still waiting for the 'Date of the Terrible Reckoning' from
     Mallove or Rothwell.  I'm not holding *my* breath.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Karel Hladky /  Electricity meters (was Silicates in polywater)
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electricity meters (was Silicates in polywater)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 09:06:08 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Matt Kennel (mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net) wrote:
: How accurate, and how precise are the standard kinds of utility meters
: that one finds attached to one's house?
:
: And just how the hell do they work anyway?  It's got to be pretty simple,
: as I saw one in the Smithsonian, late 19th century Westinghouse brand, that
: appeared to be the same design as contemporary ones.
 
Those things work on eddy currents induced in a rotating aluminium disk.
Easily fooled, not very accurate and not much use for dc. How did Edison
measure power on his dc system ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Karel Hladky /  Meyer Cell
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Meyer Cell
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 09:23:11 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Whatever happened to the Meyer Cell ? This was supposed to electrolyse water
using much less energy than electrochemistry predicts is needed. I remember
that the thing used an inductance in parallel with a simple cell. A pulsed,
relatively low current, supply was used to get this to oscillate and
electrolyse the water. S.Meyer (why are they all called Stanley ?) got it
patented and had a working model running.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Paul Houle /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: ph18@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date:  7 Sep 93 14:32:38 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

       Actually,  this idea for a "BIG BOMB" is essentially the same as
Teller's "classical super".  Fortunately,  or unfortunately,  it doesn't
work.  Even the pressure at the bottom of the sea cannot confine a D
plasma or a D+T plasma long enough for it to produce any significant
energy yield.  You need *really* high radiation pressures in an H-bomb
to set off the fusion stage.
 
       The classical super is also related to the old idea that an atomic
explosion could result in the destruction of the planet by starting a
runaway fusion reaction in the atmosphere.  It has been suggested that a
runaway reaction could either take place in the air,  or at the bottoms
of the ocean.  Hans Bethe and other people showed,  however,  that
even on the bottom of the ocean,  a fusion reaction will quickly blow
itself out under normal conditions on Earth.  A *very* high density plasma
has to be created if you want to make fusion happen fast enough to get
an explosion.
Date:         Wed, 8 Sep 1993 06:40:00 PDT
Reply-To:     FUSION%ZORCH@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV
Sender:       "Fusion - Redistribution of sci.physics.fusion"
              <FUSION@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
From:         Fusion Digest <fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1368
 
       5 Articles:
 
ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
   - Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
   - Re: Why the TB-skeptics have to argue
johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
   - Re: Right on all counts
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
   - Figuring Mallove
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
   - Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
 
 
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 19:31:21 GMT
Organization: University of Edinburgh
 
As I understand it, the rotating disk is driven by two coils, one
voltage and one current. The interaction moves the disk at a speed
proportional to VI. They assume that the power factor is 1, though,
which is why electricity supply comapnies get very very cross indeed if
you run nice big reactive loads and thereby reduce the meter reading.
 
I believe the small print in the UK insists that the pf be
near-as-dammit-one.
 
For obvious commercial reasons the things are very accurate, but they do
have a minimum threshold. Neon night lights are occasionally advertised
as "not using enough electricity to register" for this reason (though
obviously if anything else is on at the same time the advantage
vanishes.)
 
I'll leave it to others to draw conclusions about the suitability of
meters which cannot register minute amounts of power for studying CF
experiments.
 
Ian
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenph18 cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Why the TB-skeptics have to argue
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why the TB-skeptics have to argue
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 20:39:12 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <CCyp0M.FA9@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>
>    "Trigger sent out 300 questionnaires to leading scientists ...
>    They got back 180 responses ... a staggering high response rate,
>    ..."  (J. Rothwell)
>
>    Here is one important representative question:
>
>   "(In) cold fusion Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, and Dr. Jones, announced the
>  work. Yet replication experiments are still in progress, and the work is
>  still controversial. Why do you think it has taken this amount of time ?"
>
>  Here are the answers that were received:
>
> C.     Because it is a new phenomenon, and it is natural that replication
>         should take a long time.                                    70%
>
 
Jed is always lecturing us on the scientific method, but now seems
to be implying that a poll has some bearing on the CF controversy.
Who the hell cares what a poll says ???
 
To me, it says the believers have nothing real to talk about, so they
entertain themselves taking polls to bolster their camp.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John George /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: 7 Sep 1993 15:18:23 -0700
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

One of the first assumtions made in most economic models is that
'all other factors remain the same', except the one being discussed.
That is why almost no economic projections are accurate because
everything changes constantly.
 
The world as a whole entity will be much richer and better off when
improvements are made in our energy generating systems, but TVs, VCRs,
Consumer Electronics, and Cameras show us that much of the profit can
be localized elsewhere, if any country loses it's edge. Of course the
consumer countries are better off, BUT, the seller countries are
benifiting from cheaper energy and making bucks off the others.
 
Most of us would generally like to be in a country in ascendancy
rather than decline.
 
 =============================================================================
  John George                 johnge@autodesk.com           Luddite'lite'(TM)
     Let's not take life too seriously, we will never get out alive anyway.
 =============================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Bruce Scott /  Figuring Mallove
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Figuring Mallove
Date: 7 Sep 1993 23:30:56 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

All this escalation of petulant vitriol from Eugene Mallove leaves one
wondering, how this guy is really motivated, which stone or stones in
his professional foundation could actually be threatened by the
(possible or probable, pick one) demise of CF, whether a
compulsive/obsessive disorder centered around the person of Frank
Close has begun...
 
There are controversial cases known in other fields, including hot
fusion, but the reasons for these other rear-guard actions are known:
some critical stone in the edifice on which a career has been built is
under attack, and other support points are weak or non-existent.
Psycho-freaking is actually quite rare.
 
So how does one begin to explain the curious phenomenon of a
presumably once-sane Eugene Mallove?
 
BTW, in Dieter's categories I am mostly in no 3, those interested in
the sociology of the CF phenomenon. It helps me understand certain
manifestations of the "culture of belief" within my own field.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
Date: 7 Sep 93 18:16:16 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues of the sci.physics.fusion college,
 
In my posting "Silicates in polywater & P/F cells," a plot from the P/F Phys.
Lett. '93 paper was displayed, showing the rise input voltage with time in the
P/F cells leading up to boiling.  Predictably, Jed and Mitch have parried with
comments, but neither addressed the issue of *why* the voltage makes such a
dramatic rise.  When they address this issue, the discussion can continue,
although hopefully with less vitriol than their earlier responses indulge in.
 
I have received private e-mail consistently requesting that I discuss here some
of my own experiments and theoretical musings rather than participating in
seemingly endless debates with Jed and Mitch.  Let's give it a try.  In this I
expect to be on the receiving end of critiques from Terry, Chuck, Dieter, Blue,
Schultz, Bass and others -- I welcome the scrutiny, and any advice.  That's my
main motivation for spending so much time on the net.
 
While I am deeply
troubled by false accusations such as made by Mitch, e.g., "Steve used
percentages to attempt to fool readers not scientifically oriented," I must
trust that sensible readers will be able to dismiss such statements based on
their own readings without my having to waste time refuting such nonsense.
Then I can focus on scientific discussions here.
 
A FALSIFIABLE CONJECTURE:  ROOM-TEMPERATURE FUSION OCCURS AT MEASURABLE LEVELS
 IN METALLIC HYDROGEN ISOTOPES
 
The conjecture is straightforward:  perhaps very low-level fusion can occur in
*metallic* hydrogen isotopes.  The notion appears in the 1986 paper by Clint
Van Siclen and myself:
"Hydrogen is predicted to become a metallic solid at two to three million
atmospheres in one of two ways:  (1) the insulating molecular lattice breaks
down to a monatomic metal, or (2) a gradual transition to the metallic state
occurs in the molecular crystal before it becomes a monatomic solid.  ...
one kilogram of deuterium at a pressure sufficient to achieve a density of 66 g
cm^-3 (corresponding to a mean separation between deuterons that is half that
of the D2 molecule at room temperature and atmospheric pressure) is calculated
to give rise to approximately one fusion per minute"  [C. Van Siclen and S.E.
Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules," J. Phys. G: Nucl.
Phys. 12 (1986) 213-221.]
 
This notion was then applied (at my prodding) to the possibility of fusion
"within the liquid metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter."  Later, a similar notion
was applied to the hypothesis of fusion inside the earth by BYU Prof. Paul
Palmer.
[An aside:  this paper, published in 1986, was given by me to P&F in late
1988.]
 
Since then, I have added the idea that deuterons may occupy interstitial sites
in metallic deuterium, so that the d-d separation shrinks to about 0.6
Angstroms (A) and the fusion rate rises dramatically.  (In what follows, I will
use "deuteron" or "d" for brevity, while including any hydrogen isotope.)
 
Deuterided metal:      d-d separation:
 
Palladium               approx. 2.4 angstroms (minimum-energy calculationby
                         D. Decker, S. Taylor and S. Jones, BYU 1988 unpub'd)
Deuterium               1.1 A  (based on quantum Montecarlo calculation by
                         Ceperley and Alder, Phys. Rev. B 36 (1987) 2092)
D, with d in interstices   approx. 0.5 A    (a wild guess at this stage)
 
(Note, D2 molecule:    0.74 A)
 
In addition to having close proximity, the deuterons in metallic D execute
rather large zero-point oscillations owing to the light mass of deuterons.
Quantum m-c calculations show that the rms value of the proton displacement
from a lattice site in metallic H is approximately 15% of the nearest-neighbor
distance [Ceperley and Alder].  Such motion would enhance the tunneling rate
through the d-d Coulomb barrier, thus increasing the fusion rate.  Electron
screening and possibly bosonic effects (for deuterons) will also play a role.
 
The astute reader will notice similarities between this picture and
muon-catalyzed fusion, in which hydrogen isotopic nuclei are bound
closely together in a
muonic molecular ion leading to rapid tunneling and fusion.
 
Two efforts to test this embryotic conjecture are advanced:
 
1.  Couple quantum Montecarlo calculations of metallic deuterium with fusion
probability calculations for deuterons in a *bound* system.  [This fits my
description for "cold fusion" as opposed to thermonuclear fusion, and as
opposed to whatever it is that P&F are now claiming.]  The calculations should
be extended to all hydrogen isotopes; for instance, one would not be surprised
if p-d fusion rates were favored over d-d rates from reduced-mass arguments.
 
2.  Experiments:  we have sensitive neutron detectors located in an underground
location in the Wasatch mountains.  To test the hypothesis, we would place a
diamond-anvil cell loaded with deuterium at > 2 Gpa.  I would also like to
search for 5.4 MeV gammas from p+d reactions using NaI detectors, etc.  Tritium
would be tested if the lighter isotopes showed any effect (there is a resonance
in the d-t fusion channel which may allow that reaction to proceed more
rapidly).
 
[Aside to Mitch:  "redundant" detectors as I spoke of earlier are used to seek
confirmation of a small, hard-to-believe signal -- the word 'redundant' in this
context implies 'duplicate' or confirmatory, rather than 'superfluous' as you
suggest in a recent posting.]
 
The real trick here is generating metallic hydrogen at approx. 2.5 Gpa -- and
then transporting the cell to sensitive detectors without breaking the diamond
anvils.  We arranged with a U. Hawaii research group to pressurize
LiH and LiD at 1 Gpa in a diamond cell nearly two years ago -- but the diamonds
cracked during transport on an airline, before we could put the cells near our
detectors.  That failed attempt cost us about $5K to replace the diamond
anvils, and we do not have the resources to do that very often.  Note that our
main goal is to look for low-level fusion in metallic hydrogen isotopes, but
p-Li, d-Li, etc. reactions should also be tried.
 
Reaching conditions for verifiable metallic hydrogen is itself very difficult
[see Mao and Hemley, Science 244 (1989) 1462].  Still, doing this
state-of-the-art experiment is a goal.  Pointers on how to do it are invited.
 
Oh, yes:  could this relate to current experiments at BYU involving deuterided
solids?  Yes, if for example metallic deuterium may form in deuterided
solids, transiently, leading to low-level neutron and other emissions.
Micron-sized D2 inclusions may be subjected to very high pressures in these
experiments.
 
I acknowledge this is a wild guess, but at least it is falsiable:
we 'simply' do the experiment with metallic deuterium in a diamond-anvil cell,
and then move on whatever the answer turns out to be.
The notion advanced here suggests that cold fusion might more reproducibly be
achieved using diamond-anvil cell methods rather than occasionally and
essentially uncontrollably reaching metallic-hydrogen conditions in deuterided
metals.  At least this line of thinking exemplifies the crucial interplay
between theory and experiments that may allow us to make some progress.
 
The ball is in your court, Dick, Terry, Chuck, Dale, Richard, Jim, Matt...
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Dieter Britz /  RE: More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 13:33:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 1360:
 
>Before the electrochemists flame me for not knowing what I am talking about, I
>had better confess that I do not know what I am talking about.
 
>I have also been reading the current electrochemistry
>sales literature in preparation to adding corrosion measurement to the water
>machine.
 
Tom, be aware that there is a lot of doubtful gadgetry about, purporting to
measure corrosion rates. I once spoke to Hans Wenking, the designer of
potentiostats (he was, I think, the first to sell them), and he told me there
were people after him to make corrosion rate meters. He said he would make
them OK, but he would absolutely refuse to put a "mm/year" scale on it. Some
do. Karel Hladky seems to know something about corrosion, and he can confirm
that the measurement of corrosion rate is not trivial. I have dabbled in this
a bit, and found that corrosion people are generally not electrochemists.
 
>As near as I can determine, the potentiostat solves the problem of lead and
>electrolyte voltage drop by placing a third electrode near the cathode.  A
>properly designed "reference" electrode will measure the potential very near
>the cathode and can be designed to draw negligible current.  Now standard
>electronic techniques can be used to control the potential between the
>reference electrode and the cathode.  Additional knobs on the box allow
>canceling the remaining reference to cathode resistance part by making use (I
>think) of a measurement of the anode to cathode resistance (more properly
>impedance) and making appropriate corrections.  The goal seems to be to hold
>the potential of a spot just above the cathode at a controlled potential with
>respect to the cathode.  In all there is a small analog computer in the
>potentiostat box.
 
This cancelling is called iR compensation, and is important because the iR
adds to the actual electrode potential, so you don't get the potential you
want. Again, a nontrivial thing to do and again, something I have dabbled in.
 
The small analog computer is the heart of a potentiostat, and is an op-amp.
 
>The potentiostat connection would thus hold constant potential for the micro
>layer above the cathode. (I don't know the right term for this.)  I would
>assume that once the cathode is loaded and conditions are stable that holding
>this potential constant would also hold the current nearly constant.  This may
>well result in the potentiostat connection resulting in near constant current
>operation in the practical case of very long electrolysis of one of these
>cells.
 
>Comments from the electrochemists, please.
 
 
Well, constant E does not imply constant I, necessarily. You might have
changing concentration of the substance that is being electrolysed, or the
nature of the electrode might change with time, or you might care about the
fluctuations in I due to fluctuating mass transport, in the case of a stirred
cell.
 
F&P don't need the third, reference, electrode; they need only the cathode
and anode, because they only need to know the total cell voltage and current,
for their purpose. Unless - they want to measure the overpotential, i.e. the
electrode potential's offset from that at zero current. They have quoted such
an overpotential, of 0.8 V, in their very first paper, and I have several
times complained that they didn't tell us how they measured it. This figure
gives rise to their famous 10^27 atm, so the question is of interest.
 
So, no flames, Tom - not a bad precis.
 
Thanks, Tom, for the info on why the CNF electrolysis crowd like constant I.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theory and experiment (Re to Jed)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 13:34:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff) in FD 1361:
 
>Jed Rothwell writes the following in a recent article:
>
>>Fortunately for me, I am not the only person who believes in the
>>absolute primacy of evidence over theory. I am not a creative person, I
>>did not come up with this doctrine myself. People who have affirmed it
>>include: Kepler, Galileo, Huxley, Feynman, Schwinger, Clarke, Ikegami,
>>Vigier, Mallove and Fleischmann. These people are scientists. Those who
>>disagree with them are academic hacks and idiots.
 
>Now he is in some trouble here, since it has now been shown that KEPLER FUDGED
>HIS DATA IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FIT HIS ELLIPTICAL THEORY, and that GALILEO, AS
>IS WELL KNOWN TO REAL SCIENTISTS, WAS WRONG ON EVERY ONE OF HIS ASSERTIONS
 
Sorry, Robert, but you can put Kepler back on that list. This was mentioned a
few years ago, as "hot news" on scifraud, and I asked a local eminent science
historian. He sighed and said "Oh no, not that old story again!" Kepler did
adjust some figures that he got from Brahe. Brahe had made some errors in
specifying the exact time at which he took certain measurements, and Kepler
found out how to correct for the errors, and did so. This is a far cry from
fudging the figures. Leave Kepler alone, he was OK.
 
Maybe you should let Galileo on again, too. Not all of his assertions were
wrong, surely? How about "And yet she moves" ? {:]  (IF, i.e. he said it).
If you read, say, Koestler on Kepler and Galileo, you'll find that the latter
did his best work after the famous "inquisition", and while in "house arrest".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Karel Hladky /  Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 12:32:31 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: As near as I can determine, the potentiostat solves the problem of lead and
: electrolyte voltage drop by placing a third electrode near the cathode.  A
: properly designed "reference" electrode will measure the potential very near
: the cathode and can be designed to draw negligible current.  Now standard
: electronic techniques can be used to control the potential between the
: reference electrode and the cathode.  Additional knobs on the box allow
: canceling the remaining reference to cathode resistance part by making use (I
: think) of a measurement of the anode to cathode resistance (more properly
: impedance) and making appropriate corrections.  The goal seems to be to hold
: the potential of a spot just above the cathode at a controlled potential with
: respect to the cathode.  In all there is a small analog computer in the
: potentiostat box.
 
A potentiostat places the cell in the feedback loop of an amplifier.
Essentially it supplies sufficient current via the 'auxilary' electrode to
maintain the potential between the 'working' electrode (the test sample) and
the 'reference' electrode at a preset value. In electrical terms the thing
is an operational amplifier, the non-inverting input connected to a
potentiometer that sets the polarisation voltage, the inverting input
connected to the reference electrode and the output to the auxilary. The
working electrode is then at ground (0V). If you sketch the standard
non-inverting amplifier circuit (with a resistive divider to ground in the
feedback) you'll see what I mean.
 
Now, the resistor from ground (working) to the inverting input (reference)
is the impedance from the bulk metal of the test sample via the
sample/electrolyte interface to the tip of the reference electrode. The
other resistor is from there to the bulk of the auxilary electrode. The tip
of the reference electrode is usually the end of a 'Luggin' capillary tube
which is placed as close as possible to the surface of the test sample (the
Luggin connects via a solution filled tube to a container holding the actual
reference electrode, eg. calomel or Ag/AgCl).
 
All being well, the position etc. of the auxilary electrode doesn't matter
as doesn't the iR drop from the auxilary to the reference tip (cf the sketch
above). In a real world the resistances aren't purely resistive and your
feedback can become positive making the thing oscillate. This is where the
black art of potentiostat design comes in...
 
: The potentiostat connection would thus hold constant potential for the micro
: layer above the cathode. (I don't know the right term for this.)
 
Electrochemical double layer is an useful buzz word here.
 
A good book is 'Modern Electrochemistry' by Bockris and Reddy, especially
vol 2 of this. (Yes it is THE Bockris, before his conversion to the True
Faith)
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Constant I,V, or P **The** Answer
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Constant I,V, or P **The** Answer
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 12:41:06 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
:
: The reason is that even a small decrease in current density results in
: unloadind.  This from a lot of experience.  No doubt about it, drop the
: current density and sooner or later some gas loading is lost.  Quite
: unpredicable, but with very high confidence.
:
Now, why should this be ? Is it because you are balancing the rate of
'unloading' with the rate of D generation (presumably proportional to the
current density). Or is it that you need to maintain a given potential field
strength at the interface to stop the D+ escaping (presumably related to the
potential drop across the interface) ?
 
As you see I know about as much about cold fusion as you know about
potentiostats - perhaps we should combine forces on this one ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Constant I,V, or P **The** Answer
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Constant I,V, or P **The** Answer
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 13:27:35 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930907115924.20603678@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>To those debating about "cold fusion" cell running conditions, the answer is
>that they **must** be run at constant I....  The reason is that even a
>small decrease in current density results in unloading.
 
Hats off to Tom Droege, the one experimentalist who is still looking
for XS Heat who seems to know what he is doing.  (Well, you might count
Steve Jones; I don't know whether he would say he has any interest
in finding XS Heat.)  Hard-headed skeptic that I am, I suggested that
the reason that an experimentalist might use a constant-current power
supply is to maximize XS Heat.  Well, that is one reason, especially if
you, say, measure resistance about once a day to estimate power consumption.
Upon reflection, though, if you were Tom Droege, you might monitor the
power supply with a computer and accurately integrate power consumption
even without constant power.  If you want to maximize XS Heat, Tom,
you shouldn't do that.
 
Tom Droege is such a careful experimentalist, it makes me wonder why
he is wasting highly accurate calorimetry on XS Heat.  Why are you
doing it, Tom?  Any TBTB will tell you that XS Heat is a blunt
effect that doesn't require super-careful calorimetry.
 
Besides, there is the history of this affair (as recounted in *Bad
Science*, for example).  You have a couple of chemistry profs, and they
have done some good work, but they have also made well-known screwball
claims in the past.  These two known quantities announce at a press
conference an effect that has a one-in-a-million chance of existing
based on all past experimental evidence.  Their rush to claim credit is
based on a mendacious, paranoid accusation of intellectual theft.
Then, when some people discover that their evidence sucks, they turn
into total shysters to maintain their claim for as long as possible.
And finally, when they have permanently humiliated themselves before
the very people whose attention they demanded, they run into closets
and refuse to speak to their former friends, colleagues, and media
contacts.
 
So my question to Tom is, why does their claim deserve your calorimetry
more than other scientific research does?
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Robert Husted /  Re: Heavy Watergate
     
Originally-From: robert@c2fs.lanl.gov (Robert Husted)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Watergate
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 15:27:31 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Lab

In article <26hemt$1t9@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <CCyp5u.Fxy@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) writes:
>
> >   There have been growing indications that the cold fusion phenomena
> >may have been initially covered up in the English speaking countries
based
> >upon a few key incorrect "negative" papers, coupled with the subsequent
> >difficulties in  both achieving the desired conditions and publishing
those
> >results.
>
>       Can you explain what kind of motive there could possibly be
> for this supposed coverup?
>
>       their whining about patent rights made it seem as if they
> had something to hide.
>
> --
> /Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
> /lip@s1.gov
 
        I think perhaps you have answered your own question.  If in fact
they did find anything, certainly greed would be the driving factor in a
coverup attempt, hence the paranoia about "patent rights."
 
        Can anyone tell me what P&F are currently doing?  I was under the
impression that they left the University of Utah (of their own volition?)
and were still working on Con-Fusion in Europe or something.  (?)  Am I
waaaaay out in left field here?
 
        ~Robert W. Husted
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrobert cudfnRobert cudlnHusted cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Ad aspera /  Orion (was Re: BIG BOMB)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orion (was Re: BIG BOMB)
Date: 8 Sep 1993 18:12:11 GMT
Organization: LBL, AFRD

A lot of energy coupling in Orion (remember, it was supposed
to have worked in vacuum as well as in atmosphere) was to
have been supplied by plastic or other gorp between the
device and the pusher plate.
 
It was tested at small scale with chemical explosives, but
the whole idea was to use fission devices, which at the time
were just becoming good, small, and relatively cheap, to
power a spacecraft of significant size over interplanetary
distances.  (At the time, remember, the best minds in rocketry
were having trouble shooting tiny capsules into Earth orbit;
even today it's far from a sure thing.)
 
I don't recall just what's in the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty,
but I've read that it was indeed the proximate cause of Orion's
demise as an Earth-launch vehicle, so perhaps all atmospheric
nuclear explosions, whether "tests" or not, were forbidden. The
project also carried the taint of some space-battleship dreams.
 
Good introductions are found in McPhee, _The Curve of Binding
Energy_, and Dyson, _Disturbing the Universe_.  And, as someone
mentioned, a number of science fiction writers have borrowed the
idea, including Larry'n'Jerry in _Footfall_.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Calibration of Calorimeters
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibration of Calorimeters
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 19:32:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan wonders what happens in a calorimeter when it is calibrated at
say 5 volts at 2 amps and then has to run at 15.8 volts and 6.32 amps.
 
We worried a lot about this in our design.  One of the tests we ran was to
put two heaters in the calorimeter.  Now with some power level - say 10
watts, the sum of the two heater powers must add to the refrigerator power.
So heater A + Heater B = Refrigerator Power = 10 watts.
 
To test for what John is worried about, we actually set the refrigerator power
to 12.0874 watts.  Yes John, the last digit is sort of significant!  We then
used a random number generator to set heater A to an arbitrary value in the
range of 0 to 12 watts.  The servo was used to drive heater B to the null
balance.  After two hours, we read the heater A and B power.  The sum of these
two powers is supposed to be equal to 12.0874 watts.  There is of course a
distribution of measurements.  We did this 86 times.  A long test, but the
computer does all the work.
 
The result of this test was a mean value of A+B of 12.0784 watts and a sigma
of 0.0044 watts.
 
In our experiments then A represents the cell E*I and B represents the
balancing heater E*I.  We think this is a very nice way to insure accuracy,
and that the random number generator test is a very nice demonstration that
we have a system of some accuracy.  So there!!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  schlichting@pa /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: 8 Sep 93 13:06:17 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

In article <tomkCCy8IJ.1G8@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> In article <1993Sep6.120334.24234@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie
(Karel Hladky) writes:
>
>>Actually I was not all that much concerned with the calorimetry of the test.
>>I agree that to get the total input power you need to measure both the cell
>>voltage and current, regardless of which is controlled. However by
>>maintaining constant potential across the cathode interface you should be
>>able to compensate for changes in the cell resistivity, due to film build
>>up, electrolyte changes etc. - which was the original thread.
>>
>>The huge cell voltage rises in the latest P&F data just don't make sense,
>>unless the cell impedance is changing dramatically. As someone else pointed
>>out, it would be nice to see the details of the traces for the last few
>>minutes of the run. Or better still a video of the cell at that time.
>>Perhaps the fairies come when the cell is not being watched and drink the
>>electrolyte ;-).
>
> If you want to know the amount of power disipated in the circuit it seems
> pretty obvious that you want a _constant_power_ power supply. We may argue
> about the response time of the regulator or the sensitivity of the regulator
> but if you regulate the power and not singularly the current or voltage
> you will always have a good idea of how much power has been inserted into
> the system.
 
As a new participant in this forum I might point out the following
information.  This may be of some *small* assistance in determining
what's going on in the P&F experiments.
 
The cathod alloy (supposedly is a Palladium alloy)  I have seen very
little in this forum on the exact metallurgy of the systems in question.
 
It has been reported in several locations that as Pd is loaded with H or
D the electrical resistance increases.  This ,as I understand it,  has
been used as a method for determination of the  ratio of H or D to Pd.
(F. A. Lewis  "Palladium/Hydrogen System"  I'm not sure of the date
or the Publisher I'm not at my desk)
 
Could the increase in cell voltage be attributed to this phenomenon ?
Certain Pd alloys of (Ag, B, and Rh) may behave differently with
increased hydrogen loading.
 
The microstructure of the cathod alloy may also change with increased
hydrogen loading.  (see REF note above)  In certain alloys the electrical
properties change with microstructure.   (Actually in most alloys)
 
I'm not sure if this really helps but I have been investigating cathode
metallurgy and I'm quite interested in this subject.  Please post anything
that you've got on the subject.
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
 
>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Bill Page /  What delocalized means and Vigier's Hbar+
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What delocalized means and Vigier's Hbar+
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 20:50:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In part, Timothy Watson <tmwatson@engin.umich.edu> writes:
<<
It's true that the entire NUCLEUS could be delocalized, but it would still
be
a wavefunction where the neutron would be found near the proton once
localized.
...
It is the locality of the interaction of high-energy electrons that gives
us an idea of how the internal charge distribution of nuclei looks.
...
Delocalized protons, etc. are fine, as long as they are interacting in a
very weak manner and not fusing - during fusion, there is a large momentum
transfer between quarks and such. But, in order for delocalized nuclei to
interact strongly enough for a fusion reaction (which would be local due to
the momentum transfer), they'd have to be very near each other.
 
Delocalised fermions of the same type, such as protons, tend to stay too
far apart (BAYM!).
...
If we 'looked' at the He4 nucleus formed, we expect to find the neutrons
and protons close together, due to the finite range at which these things
can bond strongly (i.e., exchange large-momentum virtual particles, satisfy
the time-energy uncertainty relation, however you want to formulate it).
Therefore, if we had an overlapping state of two deuterons that could fuse
in the next instant, it would have to be such that, when collapsed by a
probe instead of fused, we could find all the deuterons and
protons next to each other. This is a consequence of the idea that the
probability density of finding a particle has a nice continous behaviour,
as solutions to Schroedinger's equation.
...
Therefore, in order for the process to occur, SOMETHING has to happen to
the strong force so that it!s 'weak' enough for all these quarks to form
new sets of associations without much momentum transfer. In this case, the
difference between a fused and a nonfused nucleus could be pretty subtle.
Maybe it would then be possible to localize a neutron and to find the other
neutron and two protons 'pretty far away', even though we have formed a
helium nucleus. We wouldn!t HAVE to find them 'right next to each other',
that is, the range of the strong interaction would be greater.
 
Then, maybe, afterwards, one can ratchet the strong interaction back up, so
that when one interacts with one He4 quark, one knows the others are a few
femtometers away. Otherwise, if the fusion reaction is of the usual power,
a local He4 forms right away.
...
But regardless, if the Pd nuclei remain localized, I don't think we can
invoke a delocalized interaction involving these in a full-strength fusion
reaction. We would still be imparting a fair momentum to get these
swinging, and I don't see how
12 quarks from He4 could impart this much momentum to several thousand
sites simulta-
neously, if they would have to become rather localized to impart this much
momentum.
 
>Terry Bollinger's Dactyl Daemon wouldn't have it any other way.
 
What is this?
-Tim Watson
>>
 
Basically, I don't agree with Tim's analysis of the situation.  The notion
of particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons is just a convenient
approximation which is (only) sometimes useful.  In abstract terms, all we
really have are solutions to the appropriate wave equation and the
probability density interpretation of psi psi*.  It doesn't really make
sense to talk about a de-localized electron except as a kind of metaphor.
In discussing the relationship between classical mechanics and quantum
mechanics, Pauling and Wilson say in there 1935 classic (but still highly
relevant) "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics":
 
"It must be recognized that this correlation of the wave equation and the
classical energy equation, as well as the utilization which we shall
subsequently make of many classical dynamic expressions, has only formal
significance.  It provides a convenient way of describing the system for
which we are setting up a wave equation by making use of terminology
developed over a long period of years by workers in classical dynamics.
Thus our store of direct knowledge regarding the nature of the system known
as the hydrogen atom consists in the results of a large number of
experiments - spectroscopic, chemical, etc.  It is found that all of the
knonwn facts about this system can be correlated and systematized (and, we
say, explained) by associating with this system a certain wave equation.
Our confidence in the significance of this association increases when
predictions regarding previously uninvestigated properties of the hydrogen
atom are subsequently verified by experiment.  We might then describe the
hydrogen atom by giving its wave equation; this description would be
complete.  It is unsatisfactory, however, because it is unwieldy.  On
observing that there is a formal relation between this wave equation and
the classical energy equation for a system of two particles of different
masses and electrical charges, we seize on this as providing a simple,
easy, and familiar way of describing the system, and we say that the
hydrogen atom consists of two particles, the electron and proton, which
attract each other according to Coulomb's inverse-square law.  Actually we
do not know that the electron and proton attract each other in the same way
that two macroscopic electrically charged bodies do, in as much as the
force between the two particles in a hydrogen atom has never been directly
measured.  All that we do know is that the wave equation for the hydrogen
atom bears a certain formal relation to the classical dynamical equations
for a system of two particles attracting each other in this way.
...
Throughout the following chapters we shall make use of such locutions as "a
system of two particles with inverse-square attraction" instead of "a
system whose wave equation involves six cordinates and a function e^2/r12"
etc."
 
So, before we go too far, it is important to remember how we are using
these words and concepts.  The function
 
  e^2/r12
 
referred to by Pauling and Wilson does indeed appear in the wave equation
as one component of the potential energy and the quantity r12 is to be
thought of in terms of the distance between the (mythical) electron and the
proton, but we shouldn't attach too much importance to this model.
Likewise the function
 
  g^2 exp(-r/a)/r
 
appears in a wave equation involving the Yukawa potential and r is to be
thought of in terms of the separation between neucleons.  In guage theory,
we talk of virtual particles being emitted and absorbed at exact locations
but this should not lead us to think that the process is fundamentally
'local'.  In QM location is a magnitude, and like any other magnitude it is
represented by a probability density.  There is really nothing going on
"inside the machine" except the solution of the wave equation.
 
In discussing molecular structure, it is conventional to use what is known
as the "Born-Oppenheimer approximation" which allows one to (approximately)
separate the wave equation into atomic (electronic) and sub-atomic
components (Yukawa, glonic).  It is usually sufficient to treat the
sub-atomic component as a small perturbation.  In the systems we are
considering here, however, this separation is not possible.
 
Consider Vigier's Hbar+ 'atom' consisting of two opposite spin protons 'in
orbit' around a single electron.  We have to deal with a wave equation in
which the potential energy explicitly has both Coulomb and Yukawa factors
and more over, we have more than two centres of motion so an exact analytic
solution is impossible.  The protons occupy a single "shell" like the two
electrons in helium or the H- anion.  So in at least one sense they are
very close together, although de-localized within the shell.  How can we
treat this except as a solution of the appropriate wave equation?
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / William Hawkins /  Re: Electricity meters (was Silicates in polywater)
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electricity meters (was Silicates in polywater)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 21:50:53 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <1993Sep7.090608.19625@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
[snip]
>
>How did Edison measure power on his dc system ?
 
According to Ricker and Tucker, "Electrical Engineering Laboratory
Experiments," 1934, the Thompson watt-hour meter was the most common.
It is a DC motor running against the load provided by an aluminum
disk in a strong permanent magnetic field.  The armature winding
resistance is so high that the armature current is proportional to
the line voltage, because the voltage induced by the rotating
armature is negligible.  "Ordinarily it is possible to adjust the
meter so that its errors will not exceed 1 per cent."  I expect
that applies to normal variations in load.  Who knows what it
would do with a bubbling cell.  The book mentions that General
Electric made a type C-6 meter, rated at 5 amps, for houses.  That's
probably not suitable, as you wouldn't want to put 110 VDC across
the cell, and the accuracy deteriorates as the voltage is lowered.
 
Apologies if this is the n'th post on the subject, but we're three
hops away from the Internet, and I thought you'd appreciate the
direct reference from a text.
 
Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Have Calorimeter, Will Travel
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Have Calorimeter, Will Travel
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 23:34:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

(Will Soon) Have Calorimeter Will Travel              8 September, 1993
 
Greg Kuperberg says "So my question to Tom is, why does their claim deserve
your calorimetry more than other scientific research does?"
 
The basic problem is that I am bored with High Energy Physics.  It has not
been fun since the bureaucrats decided that we should meet ISO 2000 standards,
and have Quality Circles, safety committees, and other bureaucratic nonsense.
It so happens that the structure of University Research groups has for years
incorporated many of the ideas of Demming (pre Demming).  We have built
quality stuff because everyone cares about the quality of the product
(research).  We have not had the kind of problems that Demming taught the
Japanese to solve.  But now the bureaucrats have got hold of these ideas and
are by fiat enforcing this structure that is supposed to insure quality
without looking at what they are dumping it on - which is an even better way
of doing things.  We now spend time on the formality of safety (thereby
detracting from real safety) without anyone noticing that we have always had
one of the safest industrial operations going, so we must be doing something
right.  But we have done it without the safety committees and all the other
bureaucratic junk, so we must be doing something wrong - right?  But try to
tell this to a bureaucrat.  Tell them that you are not even interested in
knowing what an ISO 2000 or a quality circle is.  That you are doing just
fine, thank you, and that the system is not broke but ***was*** very healthy.
You can guess what that will get you!  It seems to me that University Research
in the US has been one of the most successful enterprises in the history of
man.
 
While I used to think that I would stay in this business until I couldn't get
my wheel chair in the door, (problem now solved by more bureaucracy) and that
I would pay to keep a job in HEP, I now plan to retire and do something else.
 
One plan is to build the world's best calorimeter.  Then see if I can find
someone who wants to do an experiment with it.  So, Greg, I am not reserving
my calorimeter for P&F work.  I am open to a research proposal from anyone.  I
offer to come and set up a calorimeter and share in the work.  Just remember
that this is my retirement scheme, and invite me to some place pleasant for my
wife and myself.  No cost, no grants needed, I can pay my own way - but no
grant applications please!  I will visit and bring a calorimeter built to the
request of anyone who can convince me that the project will be fun/worth
doing/hard.
 
There is also plan B (the water machine) and plan C (a software package), and
Plan 9 From Outer Space.
 
I should remind everyone that this work has been fun.  Something is going on
that makes a bunch of otherwise sensible people think that they see "anomalous
heat" or radiation or tritium or neutrons.  It is just as much fun and just
as exciting to be involved in mass hysteria or fraud as to be involved in
night baseball or sex.  Only the season lasts longer.  Four years+ to date,
and the puzzle is not yet put away.
 
There is something called a Calorimeter Conference, which I believe is held
yearly.  Does anyone know when and where it will next be held?  It is time
that I give it a visit.
 
Have Calorimeter, Will Travel
 
Tom Droege
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Response to Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Steve Jones
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 23:34:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have read several discussions as to why a Pd lattice should be a good
place for two deuterons to snuggle up to each other to fuse, but none of
the arguments ever made it seem reasonable to assume that the PdD case
was in any sense optimum.  For example we nuclear types have know for
years that you could get more deuterium (or tritium) packed into
zirconium, titanium, or uranium.  And it is not even clear why these
deuterides are better than solid deuterium.
 
Well, someone started the rush to Pd so that is where the current
interest lies.  Now I am going to expose my ignorance of these
topics to all the chemistry and condensed-matter experts that hang
out here by a rather simple-minded picture of what happens when
you stick Pd in heavy water and turn on the juice.  Some D+ ions
wander over to the cathode where two things can happen: (1) they
can meet up with another of their kind and some electrons to make
a D2 molecule, join with others to form a bubble and leave the
scene or (2)they can move into the palladium and wander about
rather aimlessly amoung the various sites in the lattice that seem
attractive.
 
My understanding is that during the initial phase of electrolysis
it is the option (2) that is favored as very little D2 bubbles off.
As far as I know there are two things that influence the transport
into the lattice and those are the potential energy difference
and the concentrations inside and outside.  At first it would seem
that both the potential and the concentration favor the flow of
D+ into the lattice,  but as the process continues it gets more
difficult to keep the in-going flux ahead of out-going.  Now here
is where the experts can get on my case, but it seems to me that
an overpotential  implies making the potential gradient more
favorable for the in-going  while high current densities imply
trying to gain by increasing the concentration gradient to
get more moving inward than are diffusing out.  The other
gimmic is the addition of a boundary layer of gunk.  I can
think of that only in terms of a change in the potential
gradient since its effect on diffusion should work both ways.
 
One problem with the boundary layer business is how do you keep
it uniform.  Maybe you don't so you get loading and unloading
going on in various places in a very uncontrolled manner.
Well, back to the question of why a Pd lattic is a good place
for fusion?  Here is where I get lost.  I hear lots of hand
waving, but the arguments don't seem to gell.  Basically it
would seem that you want more electrons to get closer to
the deuterons to make them forget how positive they are.
The electrons required are to be donated by the Pd, but if
Pd and D are going to share electrons I thought that would
mean some binding that puts the D+ in a particular place
relative to the donner lattice.  Now unless another D+ is
wanted in the same location or one very near by there is not
anyone to fuse with.  All evidence supports that view.
Deuterons in the Pd lattice are not close together.
 
Now Steve brings up the  "sloshing-in-a-soft-potential"
argument.  Yes, I agree that relative to coordinates of the
fixed lattice the deuterons are moving around rather freely,
i.e. they aren't strongly hooked by Pd electrons.  But does
that mean that relative to other deuterons there is a softer
potential then, for example, in good old D2 molecules.  This
is where the soft potential argument looses me.  It seems to
me you have to solve the problem of two interpenetrating
lattices before you can say that something happes to the
average r between deuterons.
 
In summary I just have not heard anything that makes it obvious
that I should find deuterons closer to each other in a Pd lattice
than when they're on their own.  One thing I do agree with
Steve on, however, is that the signature of fusion is not going
to be radically changed by any lattice effect!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 / Edward Lewis /  I have an invention; looking for investors, advice, ect.
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I have an invention; looking for investors, advice, ect.
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1993 22:43:21 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

        I have an idea for a CF ball lightning-type invention.  I
suspect that the design would be very useful and efficient.  Does any
one have any suggestions about what I should do to get a patent and to
do research?  Does any one want to invest?  I am asking for
suggestions and help.  You can send me e-mail if you want to do so.
Thanks.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 00:54:52 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Sep7.181616.907@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
wrote:
[much deleted before and after this excerpt]
> one kilogram of deuterium at a pressure sufficient to achieve a density of 66 g
> cm^-3 (corresponding to a mean separation between deuterons that is half that
> of the D2 molecule at room temperature and atmospheric pressure) is calculated
> to give rise to approximately one fusion per minute"  [C. Van Siclen and S.E.
> Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules," J. Phys. G: Nucl.
> Phys. 12 (1986) 213-221.]
>
> This notion was then applied (at my prodding) to the possibility of fusion
> "within the liquid metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter."  Later, a similar notion
 
> Best Regards,
> Steven Jones
 
Have you estimated the rate of muon-catalyzed fusion in the core of Jupiter
and compared it to the rate estimated in the paper above?  It would be
interesting to know which mechanism is dominant, and how much heat is
generated from this fusion.
 
Regards,
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / John Logajan /  Re: I have an invention; looking for investors, advice, ect.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I have an invention; looking for investors, advice, ect.
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 02:42:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
>Does any one have any suggestions about what I should do to get a patent
 
Until you are ready to apply for the patent, you can establish the date
of your basic invention through various means -- signed and dated lab
notebooks,  notarized drawings, etc.  You can even send the US Patent
Office your papers and for a small fee ($10 or so) they will time stamp
them and hold them for two years (I believe.)
 
Now for some unsolicited advice -- I take the general counsel of
Don Lancaster to heart -- patents are for the big players and it rarely
pays off for the small guy to bother with it.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Response to Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Steve Jones
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 03:05:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>In summary I just have not heard anything that makes it obvious
>that I should find deuterons closer to each other in a Pd lattice
>than when they're on their own.
 
Gaseous D2 is comprised, obviously, of pairs of D's that are fairly
close to each other -- but each D2 molecule maintains a rather large
average distance from other D2 molecules.  So if you are just looking
at averages, clearly PdD has a smaller *average* seperation (which
accounts for the many equivalent gaseous D2 volumes fitting inside a cc of
Pd.)
 
If you graphed out the population density for gaseous D2, you'd find
some bell shaped curve, no doubt, representing the number of D2 atoms
at some distance from each other at any given instant, and a sharp spike
on the graph representing the distance between D's in D2.
 
A graph of PdD population density would have much taller spike and a much
smaller or non-existent bell curve -- and if did exist, it would likely
be on the shorter seperation distance side of the spike rather than on the
longer side.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Calibration of Calorimeters
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibration of Calorimeters
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 03:26:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>John Logajan wonders what happens in a calorimeter when it is calibrated at
>say 5 volts at 2 amps and then has to run at 15.8 volts and 6.32 amps.
 
Not quite what I was getting at.  I was comfortable with those being two
nice calibration points with a *fixed* resistance.
 
>used a random number generator to set heater A to an arbitrary value in the
>range of 0 to 12 watts.
 
Here you describe a *fixed* resistance.
 
If you have a fixed resistance, the precision of your equipment will likely
allow you to reach the same power step input with nearly the same voltage step
and current step as any other run (E and I.)
 
With a change in resistance, however, to get the same power input, you have
to use a completely different voltage and current combination (E' and I'.)
 
Thus it is assumed E*I=E'*I'.
 
However, by using a fixed resistance, you have only ever calibrated on the
E*I curve, and never on the E'*I' curve.  In fact, there is a whole continuum
of E'*I' type curves representing the continuum of variations in load
resistance.
 
We assume E*I=E'*I' because we assume our voltmeter is nicely linear and
our ammeter is nicely linear.  But with a fixed resistance we really only
calibrate it in a very narrow region and hope that our meters aren't telling
lies to our thermometers when they are operated outside the ranges we
have calibrated them to.
 
It is unlikely that you ever calibrate with an exceedingly high voltage
(50+??) and a relatively small current (several hundred milliamps.)
This is apparently what P+F see at boil off, and I'm guessing it is out
of their calibration area -- so how close is it really to 50V?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 06:19:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep8.130617.1@pa881a.inland.com> schlichting@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>
>It has been reported in several locations that as Pd is loaded with H or
>D the electrical resistance increases.  This ,as I understand it,  has
>been used as a method for determination of the  ratio of H or D to Pd.
>(F. A. Lewis  "Palladium/Hydrogen System"  I'm not sure of the date
>or the Publisher I'm not at my desk)
 
Tom Droege tells us that we must continue using a constant current power
supply because this is the only way of maintaining the D2 loading in the
cathode. Therefore, we are stuck with varying power being applied to the
experiments.
 
But all is not lost. Since you cannot control the power you need only know
what the applied power is and that seems to be where most of the experiments
pretty much fall down. An entire argument against CNF has been brought by
a couple members of the conference who quite properly point out that just
a percent or two error in measuring applied power can offset the very best
results in the opposite direction.
 
And it has been shown that there are obvious sources of measuring errors.
P&F seem to only measure the power ocassionally. This allows high
frequency fluctuations to bypass the measuring systems. In this age of
computer monitoring a continuous power monitor is a must. Where have
they been?
>
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Local Heating
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local Heating
Date: 8 Sep 93 17:33:09 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <930907120439.20603678@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> John Logajan asks "What do you mean by Local" (heating).  Don't know, John.
> Somewhere in Batavia I think.
>
> Actually I was thinking about complex circulation in the cell.  Or bubble
> layers, or gas layers, or ????
>
> I just see a very strange jump in the cell thermometer reading, see that others
> would interpret it as a heat pulse, and see that it is not a heat pulse.  Then
> later the thermometer checks out as OK.
>
> Tom Droege
>
 
Local heating can be caused by deuterium escaping from
a small "pocket" of highly-pressurized gas.  The heating effect derives from
the fact that hydrogen isotopes have a *negative* Joule-Thomson coefficient,
near room temperature, unlike most gases.  If the thermometer happens to be
near the gas jet, then it will be warmed by that hydrogen jet.  I credit this
idea to Nate Hoffman, although others may have suggested it also.
 
This provides another example of Tom's caveat that xs heat experiments measure
temperature change, rather than heat generation.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep8.172344.910@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep8.172344.910@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Sep 93 17:34:03 -0600

cancel <1993Sep8.172344.910@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Karel Hladky /  Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 09:25:59 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: Tom, be aware that there is a lot of doubtful gadgetry about, purporting to
: measure corrosion rates. I once spoke to Hans Wenking, the designer of
: potentiostats (he was, I think, the first to sell them), and he told me there
: were people after him to make corrosion rate meters. He said he would make
: them OK, but he would absolutely refuse to put a "mm/year" scale on it. Some
 
I remember Wenkings, those things had a pair of mercury batteries to supply
the reference voltage which were always leaking and corroding the innards.
The potentiostats did not oscillate, mainly because their frequency response
stopped at about 0.1 Hz. But his potential sweep generators were a wonder of
clockwork technology. Once I had the pleasure of chucking a pile of Wenkings
into the skip. Good riddance.
 
Corrosion rate measurement is incredibly simple. The E-I curve of a metal
sample is linear at the free corrosion potential, the slope is the
polarisation resistance of the system. The corrosion current is then
i(corr)=B/R(p). If you know the current you can calculate the metal loss,
hence mm/year. What is B, you may ask ? Well it is the Stern-Geary constant
of course! It sort of varies from system to system but is usually somewhere
between 10 and 500 mV. No problem. Corrosion meters that measure to three or
more significant digits are now available off the shelf... :-)
 
Seriously, though. The money is not in the corrosion meters but in the test
probes (which dissolve and need to be replaced). Most of the time the really
dangerous corrosion will be localised - eg. pitting, crevicing, stress
corrosion cracking etc., all of which proceed fast in a small area. Since
the technique outlined above averages R(p) over the area of the probe (note
PROBE, not even your actual pipe wall or component surface) it will not tell
you how fast the pit etc. is propagating. There are esoteric ways round this
but in essence Hans was right.
 
: This cancelling is called iR compensation, and is important because the iR
: adds to the actual electrode potential, so you don't get the potential you
: want. Again, a nontrivial thing to do and again, something I have dabbled in.
 
iR compensation attempts to eliminate the last of the iR drop (between the
tip of the reference electrode and the test sample). One way of doing it is
to turn the driving current off. The iR drop vanishes instantly but the
electrode depolarises at a much slower rate. So you can separate the two. In
practice it is not as simple.
 
: F&P don't need the third, reference, electrode; they need only the cathode
: and anode, because they only need to know the total cell voltage and current,
: for their purpose. Unless - they want to measure the overpotential, i.e. the
: electrode potential's offset from that at zero current. They have quoted such
: an overpotential, of 0.8 V, in their very first paper, and I have several
: times complained that they didn't tell us how they measured it. This figure
: gives rise to their famous 10^27 atm, so the question is of interest.
 
This has also puzzled me somewhat, the figures given are far too vague,
especially since it is so simple to measure.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Average separations
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Average separations
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 14:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan argues that PdD is better that D2 for a fusion reactor
because the distribution function for r12 has a large peak at smaller
r than is the case for D2.  I think this argument is off the mark because
the fusion rate is so strongly dependent of radius that it is only
the nearest neighbor distance that matters, the location of all other
deuterons being insignificant.  Thus while putting D's into a lattice
does move part of the distribution closer, the nearest neighbor moves
away.  Having 6 near neighbors at this larger r doesn't make up the
difference.
 
While I am on this kick, I still don't see that squeezing PdD is likely
to be the optimum way to apply mechanical pressure to deuterons.  If the
idea is to trap deuterium in a lattice and then squeeze the lattice, my
choice would be to start with something that does a better job of
confining deuterium, something that would require ion implantation
just to get the deuterium into the lattice in the first place.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / John Logajan /  Constant power
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Constant power
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 13:13:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>Tom Droege tells us that we must continue using a constant current power
>supply because this is the only way of maintaining the D2 loading in the
>cathode. Therefore, we are stuck with varying power being applied to the
>experiments.
 
This is not strictly true, at least not over a user selectable range.
As several posters have noted, total power to the cell can be maintained
at a constant level.  It is done by allowing constant current to drive the
electrodes, but to drive a dummy heater also in the cell to maintain the
total power constant.  Hence if the voltage drop goes up on the electrodes
at constant current causing the power to increase, the power going to the
dummy resistance heater is reduced by the same amount.
 
This could be done by some tightly coupled feedback, or by analog or digital
computer control.  The power applied to the dummy heater when electrode power
was zero would represent the upper limit that the electrode power could
climb to and still keep the cell power constant.  I.E.  if you set the
dummy heater to 20 watts when the electrode power is zero, then the electrodes
could dissipate from 0-20 watts as they please.  If the electrodes went
beyond 20 watts, however, the system would no longer be able to track.
 
So you want to be sure you set the power to the dummy high enough to give
a good tracking range, yet you don't want it to boil off the electrolyte
by itself :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Local Heating
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local Heating
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 13:37:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

S.E. Jones writes:
>This provides another example of Tom's caveat that xs heat experiments measure
>temperature change, rather than heat generation.
 
Tom elects to state things very conservatively, which is no doubt good.  But
if I recall Tom's raw data postings, he wasn't running an energy deficit at
the time he saw his "anomalous" heat spikes -- spikes which just made up
the deficit and balanced everything to his now claimed "null."
 
Rather, if the spikes had never occurred he would still have proclaimed a
null result!  (He can correct me if I am wrong on this :-)
 
So we have Null, and Null+Spikes (where Null=0 and Spikes>0 ),
and a probable claim that:  Null = Null+Spikes      !!!!!
 
What really happened is that his null point is obscured in a noise and long
term drift range, and if you average the very short term spikes over the
long term drift and noise, it disappears into the ambiguity level.
 
Ambiguity is not quite the same as disproof, so we ought to keep that
distinction in mind when we are discussing "nulls."
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Jed Rothwell /  I thought everyone knew
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I thought everyone knew
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 15:19:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones wrote:
 
     "Predictably, Jed and Mitch have parried with comments, but neither
     addressed the issue of *why* the voltage makes such a dramatic rise.
     When they address this issue, the discussion can continue. . ."
 
Sorry! I thought everyone knew the answer to that question. The reason the
voltage rises dramatically is because the electrolyte is boiling away over a
period of about 10 minutes. This disrupts the flow of electricity; it
gradually raises the resistance. The power supply is set for constant current,
so it tries to raise the voltage to compensate, but after a while resistance
becomes effectively infinite after the water boils away, and the current flow
stops altogether.
 
I thought Steve understood this. I though he was just joshing us with his
nonsensical theories about enormous silicate blankets forming in 2 weeks. For
one thing, anyone who has ever done a CF experiment with 0.1 M LiOD knows that
it can't possibly disintegrate the glass enough to do this in a mere two
weeks. Even if it could build up a blanket of some sort the effect would not
suddenly appear in 10 minutes! It would build up gradually. Furthermore, this
is a chemical effect, so it would not show exclusively with D2O + Pd, and
never with H2O + Pd, H2O + Pt or D2O + Pt.
 
Finally, as anyone knows, no insulation and no changes in conductivity of the
cathode or electrolyte would seriously affect the ability to measure the
electric power. Nor would any such change affect the calibration constant. If
the water temperature went up to 100 deg C, the measured balance of
electricity going in would reflect that fact exactly. A "blanket" around the
cathode would raise the cathode temperature, but it could not possibly affect
the water temperature. Here is the reason why: suppose you calibrate a cell
and you find that 30 watts into a joule heater raises the temperature of the
heater itself (inside the metal coil) up to 150 C, and the water temperature
up to 45 C (25 C over bath temperature). Okay, you take the joule heater out,
wrap it in some insulating material, put it back into the cell, and input 30
watts again. What temperature does the water go up to? 45 C of course! The
metal under its blanket might go up to 250 C this time, but the total number
of joules coming out of the heater is the same in both cases, so the water
temperature can't be any different. The insulation would increase the settling
time a bit (it would take a little longer for the water to come up to 45 C).
Since P&F are measuring water temperature (and later vapor temperature), and
not cathode temperature directly, a blanket of glass or any other insulating
material around the cathode cannot possibly explain the excess heat.
 
For all these reasons, I did not think that Steve or anyone else took his
so-called "theory" seriously. It is obviously a bunch of contrived bunk.
 
Okay. Let the discussion continue.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / mitchell swartz /  The TRIGGER poll @ UCLA (prev. TB-skeptics)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The TRIGGER poll @ UCLA (prev. TB-skeptics)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 14:58:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep7.203912.20892@math.ucla.edu>
   Subject: Re: Why the TB-skeptics have to argue
Barry Merriman (barry@math.ucla.edu) writes:
 
=mb "Jed is always lecturing us on the scientific method, but now seems
=mb to be implying that a poll has some bearing on the CF controversy.
=mb Who the hell cares what a poll says ???"
 
  The poll does have a bearing on the CF controversy.  Not the
      material or nuclear science -- but the political science.
 
  However, given your background in Math, and Plasma Fusion, I guess it would
be unreasonable for you to have any real interest in any poll of any industry
leaders involving any hot and/or cold fusion issue because ......   ;-) X
 
 THE TEN BEST REASONS FOR Barry Merriman's (of the UCLA Dept.of Math
     and the UCLA Inst.for Fusion and Plasma Research) DISINTEREST IN
     POLLNG DATA ON HOT (AND COLD) FUSION:
 
           10. Mr. Merriman likes things the way they are.
            9. The math is just too complex.
            8. Anything dealing with real hot fusion issues are taboo.
            7. UCLA Math and Hot Fusion Dept. and Institute will continue
                to be myopic until all  the money runs out.
            6. "Leave our grants alone!  We have been promised money
               into the 23rd Century"
            5. "We think ostriches remain the "wave" of the future"
            4. Those that talk the most, know the least.
            3. It is easier to duck the numerical issues, and continue to
                merely offer destructive criticism..
            2. "It is too dangerous to continue any of these discussions"
            1. "The UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research is
               continuing its party for the purported "death" of c.f.
                  Please don't interrupt us, ok?"
 
        Just kidding (maybe).
       Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / mitchell swartz /  Falsifiable Conjecture
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Falsifiable Conjecture
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 15:00:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep7.181616.907@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
 Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
= "Aside to Mitch:  "redundant" detectors as I spoke of earlier are used to seek
= confirmation of a small, hard-to-believe signal - the word 'redundant' in this
= context implies 'duplicate' or confirmatory, rather than 'superfluous' as you
= suggest in a recent posting."
 
       ==sj  "Redundancy is needed for compelling evidence."
                  [Message-ID: <1993Sep2.145539.896@physc1.byu.edu>
                   Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
                   Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]
 
    Now metachronous, or near synchronous
            coincident observations are not redundant.
     'Duplicate' in the case of a coincident system is simply not redundant.
 
     To the contrary, Duplicate, or coincidence data, is needed for the
     measurement to improve discrimination of noise.  It is not redundant
     because it not superfluous, nor needless, and it cannot be eliminated.
 
    after Webster (ibid.)
    redundancy - 1.   a superfluous repetition
    ---------    2.   an act or instance of needless repetition
                 3.   that part of a message that can be eliminated without
                         loss of essential information
 
     As but one example, consider the inhalation of a positron
emission substrates like C15O2 which we have used to examine water
flow so as to image volumetric data in vivo.
The annihiliation radiation has gammas at almost 180 degrees giving rise to
 linked signals, and if time of flight information can be obtained, and if
 the cohort can be integrated, then a useful image can be derived.
 The need for the coincident data is requisite, it is simply not redundant.
 
     (If this was a real college, why not raise the standards, eh?    8-) x
 
  BTW do you have enough risetime in your detectors to obtain any spatial
   info?
             In any case, good luck
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 14:47:12 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Too busy to write much -- am responding to the same ISO quality issues
Tom mentioned (ISO 9000 in this case), only for software.  Too bad that
so few people who make rules have figured out that creative and design
activities are subject to different quality rules than replicative work
such as assembly-line manufacture of cars.  In software there is a quite
horrid lack of _any_ proof that directly applying the very real successes
of the replicative physical-product-manufacturing industries to software
produces _real_ increases in quality.  Instead, folks just go around
quacking Deming out-of-context as if that proves everything.  Too bad;
there is some real damage being done in the sense that the real issues
of how to safeguard software design are not being adequately addressed.
 
 
In article <1993Sep7.181616.907@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
writes:
 
...[good intro deleted]
 
> A FALSIFIABLE CONJECTURE:  ROOM-TEMPERATURE FUSION OCCURS AT
> MEASURABLE LEVELS IN METALLIC HYDROGEN ISOTOPES
>
> The conjecture is straightforward:  perhaps very low-level fusion can
> occur in *metallic* hydrogen isotopes.  The notion appears in the 1986
> paper by Clint Van Siclen and myself: "Hydrogen is predicted to become
> a metallic solid at two to three million atmospheres in one of two
> ways:  (1) the insulating molecular lattice breaks down to a monatomic
> metal, or (2) a gradual transition to the metallic state occurs in the
> molecular crystal before it becomes a monatomic solid.  ...  one
> kilogram of deuterium at a pressure sufficient to achieve a density of
> 66 g cm^-3 (corresponding to a mean separation between deuterons that
> is half that of the D2 molecule at room temperature and atmospheric
> pressure) is calculated to give rise to approximately one fusion per
> minute"  [C. Van Siclen and S.E.  Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in
> isotopic hydrogen molecules," J. Phys. G: Nucl.  Phys. 12 (1986) 213-
> 221.]
>
> This notion was then applied (at my prodding) to the possibility of
> fusion "within the liquid metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter..."
 
All this sounds pretty good.
 
> Later, a similar notion was applied to the hypothesis of fusion inside
> the earth by BYU Prof. Paul Palmer.  [An aside:  this paper, published
> in 1986, was given by me to P&F in late 1988.]
 
I was not aware that metallic hydrogen was a significant possibility inside
the earth.  I don't recall any figures either way, however.
 
> Since then, I have added the idea that deuterons may occupy
> interstitial sites in metallic deuterium,...
 
The energy required to do this would be _large_ just for one atom, and
quite gigantic for the entire lattice.  Plus stuffing one large D into
the _small_ interstitial site would immediately lead to a lot of local
strain that would relax the tight fit over many, many atoms.  There is
just not enough reason to "distinguish" a nominally interstitial D from
all the other ones -- it should very quickly join the rest of the pack
and just become a quite ordinary dislocation in the crystal lattice.
 
The full case of _every_ interstitial lattice site being occupied by D
is thus very, very close to saying "if we squash metallic deuterium to
twice its normal density, the atoms will be a lot closer together."
Well, yes, but I'd hate to even guess what kind of pressures / energies
would be required to do it.
 
I just don't think this route is viable -- it presumes the very thing
that needs to be shown, which is how to get humongous pressures to give
higher rates of fusion.
 
If I pack oranges face-centered-cubic in a supermarket, I get interstitial
sites that form an interleaved face-centered cubic lattice.
 
...[skipping some]...
 
> In addition to having close proximity, the deuterons in metallic D
> execute rather large zero-point oscillations owing to the light mass
> of deuterons. Quantum m-c calculations show that the rms value of the
> proton displacement from a lattice site in metallic H is approximately
> 15% of the nearest-neighbor distance [Ceperley and Alder].  Such
> motion would enhance the tunneling rate through the d-d Coulomb
> barrier, thus increasing the fusion rate.  Electron screening and
> possibly bosonic effects (for deuterons) will also play a role.
 
I'd guess (nothing more) that this is a classic example an incomplete
approximation.  The 15% figure due to large zero-point oscillations in
particular sounds suspicious -- did the zero-point calculation fully
take into account the effects of stubbornly incompressible nearby atoms?
 
> The astute reader will notice similarities between this picture and
> muon-catalyzed fusion, in which hydrogen isotopic nuclei are bound
> closely together in a muonic molecular ion leading to rapid tunneling
> and fusion.
 
Eh?  I'm not astute, then -- I honestly don't see the connection.  Muon
catalyzed fusion relies on simple mass relationships and quite simple
wave equations, which say to a first approximation that the distance
between the nuclei will be reduced by the mass of the electron over the
mass of the negatively particle that replaces it.  About 1/200 for muons.
 
What you have described above is more complicated and much more tenuous.
 
> Two efforts to test this embryonic conjecture are advanced:
>
> 1.  Couple quantum Montecarlo calculations of metallic deuterium with
> fusion probability calculations for deuterons in a *bound* system.
> [This fits my description for "cold fusion" as opposed to
> thermonuclear fusion, and as opposed to whatever it is that P&F are
> now claiming.]  The calculations should be extended to all hydrogen
> isotopes; for instance, one would not be surprised if p-d fusion rates
> were favored over d-d rates from reduced-mass arguments.
 
If _distance_ is the only issue, then yes, p-d should be favored over d-d,
and a crystal of metallic D0.5H0.5 would presumably exhibit a higher rate
of reaction than one of pure D.  Distance isn't the only issue, of course,
and relative favorability of the d+p and d+d reactions would need to be
taken into account.
 
> 2.  Experiments:  we have sensitive neutron detectors located in an
> underground location in the Wasatch mountains.  To test the
> hypothesis, we would place a diamond-anvil cell loaded with deuterium
> at > 2 Gpa.  I would also like to search for 5.4 MeV gammas from p+d
> reactions using NaI detectors, etc.  Tritium would be tested if the
> lighter isotopes showed any effect (there is a resonance in the d-t
> fusion channel which may allow that reaction to proceed more rapidly).
>
> [Aside to Mitch:  "redundant" detectors as I spoke of earlier are used
> to seek confirmation of a small, hard-to-believe signal -- the word
> 'redundant' in this context implies 'duplicate' or confirmatory,
> rather than 'superfluous' as you suggest in a recent posting.]
>
> The real trick here is generating metallic hydrogen at approx. 2.5 Gpa
> -- and then transporting the cell to sensitive detectors without
> breaking the diamond anvils.  We arranged with a U. Hawaii research
> group to pressurize LiH and LiD at 1 Gpa in a diamond cell nearly two
> years ago -- but the diamonds cracked during transport on an airline,
> before we could put the cells near our detectors.  That failed attempt
> cost us about $5K to replace the diamond anvils, and we do not have
> the resources to do that very often.  Note that our main goal is to
> look for low-level fusion in metallic hydrogen isotopes, but p-Li, d-
> Li, etc. reactions should also be tried.
>
> Reaching conditions for verifiable metallic hydrogen is itself very
> difficult [see Mao and Hemley, Science 244 (1989) 1462].  Still, doing
> this state-of-the-art experiment is a goal.  Pointers on how to do it
> are invited.
 
Interesting experiments -- and too bad about the cracked diamonds.  I hope
we will get to hear more about them down the line.
 
> Oh, yes:  could this relate to current experiments at BYU involving
> deuterided solids?  Yes, if for example metallic deuterium may form in
> deuterided solids, transiently, leading to low-level neutron and other
> emissions. Micron-sized D2 inclusions may be subjected to very high
> pressures in these experiments.
 
This one is an especially far fetch.  There is every reason to think that
the presence of the palladium lattice would _discourage_ formation of
any appreciable metallic hydrogen crystal structure -- the palladium is
already taking up the needed space!  Pd _does_ make the H behave more
"metallically," but only in the comparatively trivial sense of giving up
its electron more easily and not bonding covalently into D2.  The H or
D atoms are strongly isolated into interstitial sites that are much
farther apart than in metallic D.
 
If you assume two-atom metallic D at a single interstitial site, the
hypothesis becomes essentially identical to the probability-of-dual-
occupation ideas explored extensively (and to the best of my recollection
rather unsuccessfully) during the early days of palladium anomalies.
 
> I acknowledge this is a wild guess, but at least it is falsifiable: we
> 'simply' do the experiment with metallic deuterium in a diamond-anvil
> cell, and then move on whatever the answer turns out to be. The notion
> advanced here suggests that cold fusion might more reproducibly be
> achieved using diamond-anvil cell methods rather than occasionally and
> essentially uncontrollably reaching metallic-hydrogen conditions in
> deuterided metals.  At least this line of thinking exemplifies the
> crucial interplay between theory and experiments that may allow us to
> make some progress.
>
> The ball is in your court, Dick, Terry, Chuck, Dale, Richard, Jim,
> Matt...
 
The idea of collecting low-level fusion data on metallic D or D/H is
intriguing, and I think a lot of us who have watched this group would
like to hear the results.  I would anticipate only very, very low-level
increases myself, though, ones comparable to the predictions of the
first paper you mentioned.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- I really appreciate your outlook of _asking_ for critiques.
        Therein lies the _real_ scientific method, I think.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / mitchell swartz /  Ave. separations * N
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ave. separations * N
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 15:58:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Xref: world sci.physics.fusion:8254
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Path: world!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tande
!UB.com!zorch!fusion
   In Message-ID: <9309091354.AA06704@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: Re: Average separations
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU aka  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
== "I think this argument ["that PdD is better that D2 for a fusion reactor
      because the distribution function for r12 has a large peak at smaller
       r than is the case for D2"]  is off the mark because
== the fusion rate is so strongly dependent of radius that it is only
== the nearest neighbor distance that matters, the location of all other
== deuterons being insignificant.  Thus while putting D's into a lattice
== does move part of the distribution closer, the nearest neighbor moves
== away.  Having 6 near neighbors at this larger r doesn't make up the
== difference."
 
   This may be an example of "Collision-type-Hot Fusion thinking"
      at one of its finest moments.
 
   What if a cohort were at the same distance?  Your analysis would have
    incorrectly "disproved" the existence of crystal splitting fields for
    Group VIII transition metals (including the plethora in bio-systems).
    Group Theory (no relation to the above) indicates that such spatially
    periodic influences may be quite important.
    We thus see, by the Existence Theorem, your hypothesis is not merely
                   flawed, but may be simply incorrect.
    The lattice plays a role which is not seen in plasma physics.
 
   Best wishes.
                                      Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Response to Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Steve Jones
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 15:19:34 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
 
>One problem with the boundary layer business is how do you keep
>it uniform.  Maybe you don't so you get loading and unloading
>going on in various places in a very uncontrolled manner.
>Well, back to the question of why a Pd lattic is a good place
>for fusion?  Here is where I get lost.  I hear lots of hand
>waving, but the arguments don't seem to gell.  Basically it
>would seem that you want more electrons to get closer to
>the deuterons to make them forget how positive they are.
>The electrons required are to be donated by the Pd, but if
>Pd and D are going to share electrons I thought that would
>mean some binding that puts the D+ in a particular place
>relative to the donner lattice.  Now unless another D+ is
>wanted in the same location or one very near by there is not
>anyone to fuse with.  All evidence supports that view.
>Deuterons in the Pd lattice are not close together.
 
   I think you are forgetting that it's the overlap of the
deuteron wave function that allows the probability of the
interaction to increase.  The physical spacing of deuteron
pairs obviously allows for the fusion rate to increase as the
spacing of the pair decreases.  But in metals like Pd, the
mean spacing inceases between the deuterons compared D2 Gas.
However the important question fusion is not the spacing,
but wave overlap.  This is why I think the deuteron band state
system is so important in all this.
 
(I think the only reason Pd is prefered over other metals is
that it's fairly inert to chemical beakdown.  There maybe other
reasons as well, but I don't think its because Pd has some magical
property.)
 
>Now Steve brings up the  "sloshing-in-a-soft-potential"
>argument.  Yes, I agree that relative to coordinates of the
>fixed lattice the deuterons are moving around rather freely,
>i.e. they aren't strongly hooked by Pd electrons.  But does
>that mean that relative to other deuterons there is a softer
>potential then, for example, in good old D2 molecules.  This
>is where the soft potential argument looses me.  It seems to
>me you have to solve the problem of two interpenetrating
>lattices before you can say that something happes to the
>average r between deuterons.
 
 
    The goal for fusion is of course, penetrating the potential
to hit the Yukawa well.   The disintegration of lithium nuclei
by protons can be observed for so small velocities that the
distance of the nearest approach is much larger than the radius
of the Li nucleus. Roughly the radius of the Li is given by
R=1.5E-13 A^(1/3) cm. The interaction range is significantly
larger than this. When proton wave passes by, the wave overlaps
and penetrates the interior of the Li.  The result is there is
a small probability for proton to interact strongly and cause the
disintegration into 2 alpha particles.  The key point is it's the
particles wave function overlap that allows for the probability
for interaction.
 
   Now what does this imply with respect to Cold Fusion?  It means
that only if the deuterons are degenerate (multiple overlaping wave
functions) does a system of deuterons have an increased probability
for fusion.  With in solids I think this is the critical component
for the enhancment of cold fusion rates.  In a lattice like Pd,
deuterons are degenerate.  I'm not sure how this would be for
Steve's solid deuterium, but if the radius between the particles
is reduced this should only improve the chances.
 
 
>Steve on, however, is that the signature of fusion is not going
>to be radically changed by any lattice effect!
 
While thats the conservative point of view and in almost all
cases I would agree with you on that, if bosonic effects are
present in the process, and the system is degenerate, I think
it could do more on the signature than you think. But that's
the 60 dollar question.  I guess that's why we do experiments
instead of assuming some fickelled heat in a calorimeter means
fusion.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Ave. separations * N
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ave. separations * N
Date: 9 Sep 1993 17:16:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CD3GE4.Ju@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>   What if a cohort were at the same distance?  Your analysis would have
>    incorrectly "disproved" the existence of crystal splitting fields for
>    Group VIII transition metals (including the plethora in bio-systems).
>    Group Theory (no relation to the above) indicates that such spatially
>    periodic influences may be quite important.
>    We thus see, by the Existence Theorem, your hypothesis is not merely
>                   flawed, but may be simply incorrect.
>    The lattice plays a role which is not seen in plasma physics.
 
 
Of course, the one point that Mr. Swartz left out is that CFT splitting
fields are on the order of volts, i.e. six orders of magnitude smaller than
fusion effects.  Furthermore, CFT is a direct consequence of the symmetry
properties of the orbitals of electrons in atoms and ions (in fact, Bethe's
original paper appeared in 1929, not long after the earliest rigorous
development of QM).  The original oversimplification (treating ligand-ion
interactions as purely electrostatic) on the treatment of energies is
independent of the symmetry considerations, but gets the right order of
magnitude for the values of the energies involved.
 
The point is, of course, that you can calculate these effects given that
you know how far apart the ion and ligands are, and you discover that since
they are at distances typical of chemical interactions, you get energies
typical of interactions.  If you were to take your Fe(III) ion and consider
six H2O molecules out at, say, Mars, you would discover that the Crystal
Field splittings in such a case would be pretty small.  Similarly, if I
were to find a set of quadruplets and put them on chairs at the corner of
a square surrounding me, I wouldn't expect the C4 symmetry to do much to
my body chemistry.
 
So, it seems to me that either you have to provide us with a detailed
calculation showing how the *nuclear* wavefunction of the D nuclei is
going to be affected by the other nuclei in the lattice, which are Angstroms
away, and that any such effects are going to be significant on the nuclear
energy scale, (as opposed to the chemical energy scale that will affect
the electron wavefunctions) or you have to admit that bringing up CFT is
at best an amusing if useless diversion.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Jan Isley /  RESULT: sci.energy.hydrogen passes 184:30
     
Originally-From: jan@bagend.atl.ga.us (Jan Isley)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.chem,sci.energy,sci.
ngr.chem,sci.physics.research,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fu
ion,sci.research,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.systems
Subject: RESULT: sci.energy.hydrogen passes 184:30
Date: 9 Sep 1993 15:18:50 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

sci.energy.hydrogen group vote results - 214 valid votes
 
 Yes   No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
 184   30 :  Yes   Yes :   Yes : sci.energy.hydrogen
 
Newsgroups line:
sci.energy.hydrogen             All about hydrogen as an alternative fuel
 
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only, contact Jan Isley at jan@bagend.atl.ga.us
 
For questions about the group, contact Robert Cinq-Mars at
RCIN0839@URIACC.URI.EDU or CINQMARR@VADER.EGR.URI.EDU
 
Charter
-------
 
    The purpose of sci.energy.hydrogen is to promote a better
understanding of the concepts, terminology, materials, processes
and issues relating to the production, storage, transportation,
and use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
 
    The goal of this newsgroup is to stimulate growth and interest
in the use of hydrogen and to encourage the development of an
environmentally sound energy infrastructure.
 
    Subscribers are welcome from universities, government,
and industry and are encouraged to post all pertinent news,
information, research, references, product and service announce-
ments, conference and seminar notices, government procurements,
and the general discussion of topics.  It is of particular
importance to the group that a strong and serious effort be made
on the part of each subscriber to post all important, relevant,
public domain information, such as: Masters theses; Ph.D. dis-
ertations; press releases; government R&D announcements,
solicitations, procurements and awards; technical abstracts,
research reports and memoranda.
 
    A bi-directional gateway will be used to connect this
newsgroup with the Internet hydrogen listserver list.
 
 
sci.energy.hydrogen group vote Final Vote Ack
 --------------------------------------------
21 duplicate votes were deleted.  These duplicates were largely the
result of my requesting names from voters where their mail software
did not supply them.  All addresses are mapped to lower case.
 
Yes Votes
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
aa416@freenet.buffalo.edu                                Tom Halvorson
aek@rocket.com                                               Alan Kull
agb8073@dcrt.dla.mil                                  Robert E Ford Jr
alan.marr@eng.sun.com                                        Alan Marr
andygee@mindvox.phantom.com                               Andrew Grell
arthur.chance@smallworld.co.uk                           Arthur Chance
bailey@ssdvax.decnet!mdcgwy.mdc.com                              Baily
barmitage@a1.pfc.forestry.ca                             Brad Armitage
bartj@egr.uri.edu                                        Joseph R Bart
bashandy@cs.purdue.edu                           Ahmed Refaat Bashandy
ben@maverick.math.uic.edu                                  Ben Springs
bibbj@earth.msfc.nasa.gov                                       J Bibb
bj@herbison.com                                           B J Herbison
bob@canopus.biochem.ualberta.ca                               Bob Luty
bobk@aegis.or.jp                                   Robert K Kawaratani
bobmacd@netcom.com                                       Bob MacDowell
bobrutk@rosevax.rosemount.com                           Bob Rutkiewicz
britz@kemi.aau.dk                                         Dieter Britz
brothers@mdd.comm.mot.com                              Joseph Brothers
butteris@dingus.ssc.gov                                 Jamey Butteris
bz334@cleveland.freenet.edu                       Gary Thomas Grothman
cambler@cymbal.calpoly.edu                        Christopher J Ambler
cerpa@cgl.ucsf.edu                                        Robert Cerpa
cferg@buphyk.bu.edu                                   Charles Ferguson
charless@crissy.berkeley.edu                        Charles R Sullivan
chharpe@eis.calstate.edu                                  Chris Harper
chlendi@ensic.u-nancy.fr                               Chlendi Mohamed
cjones@unixg.ubc.ca                                  Christopher Jones
ckp@netcom.com                                          Charles Pooley
clark_mk@fts2.llnl.gov                                 Michael K Clark
collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu                              Gary S Collins
craig.jolley@racer.eskimo.com                             Craig Jolley
crowley@asl.dl.nec.com                                     Jim Crowley
dalewl@natinst.com!radian                         Dale Whiteaker-Lewis
daniel.mcqueen@spacebbs.com                             Daniel Mcqueen
davec@world.std.com                                       Dave Caswell
davew@tamarack.cray.com                                    Dave Wagner
david@mvision.com                                                David
david_trinkle@rand.org                                    Dave Trinkle
dcoster@theory.pppl.gov                                   David Coster
ddickins@uoguelph.ca                                Daniel F Dickinson
dharr@uvvm.uvic.ca                                    David Harrington
dickhoff@aspen.den.mmc.com                                 Ed Dickhoff
dietz@cs.rochester.edu                                    Paul F Dietz
doug@midget.towson.edu                                   Doug Mcnaught
draco@amdahl.com                                          Rene' A Vega
dsg@impmh                                                  Dave Gordon
dts@ohm.york.ac.uk                                   David T Southwell
emcguire@intellection.com                                   Ed Mcguire
england@ecf.toronto.edu                                  Derek England
esact@selway.umt.edu                                   Tony C Tweedale
esc@ulysses.att.com                                      Evan Crandall
esturo2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu                                Gregory Falter
farrow@spot.colorado.edu                                J Scott Farrow
fawley@ux5.lbl.gov                                      William Fawley
fizjp@halina.univ.gda.pl                              Jacek Paczkowski
franklig@gas.uug.arizona.edu                        Gregory C Franklin
fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu                               Sean Patrick Ryan
gadgilp@jeff-lab.queensu.ca                              Gadgil Prasad
gail@snsc.unr.edu                                           Gail Lucas
gberry@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                                     Gene Berry
gd_rc@adacel.com.au                                       Rayhann Chee
gert@mit.hacktic.nl                                    Gert van Velzen
gjm@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu                         Gregory J Mushial
goldsted@ecn.purdue.edu                                Dan E Goldstein
goo@cwis.unomaha.edu                                        Kent Radek
gps19@herald.usask.ca                                Gregory P Siemens
gregory@cup.portal.com                                   Gregory Spear
gspear+@cmu.edu                                         Geoffrey Spear
guy@coos.dartmouth.edu                                   Guy Schiavone
hagglund@metrokc.gov!satch                             Robert Hagglund
hagmanti@cps.msu.edu                                  Timothy C Hagman
harlan@cs.wisc.edu                                       Harlan Harris
harvey@indyvax.iupui.edu                                  James Harvey
hassell@rintintin.colorado.edu                     Christopher Hassell
hdgarner@acs.harding.edu                                  Harry Garner
helios@bach.udel.edu                               Roger Frederi Clark
hisle@vax1.umkc.edu                                          Jim Hisle
hlohning@email.tuwien.ac.at                             Hans Lohninger
hollaj@umfolozi.ntech.ac.za                             Justin Holland
howard.smith@spacebbs.com                                 Howard Smith
iri@aberystwyth.ac.uk
j.d.steel@iasos.utas.edu.au                                 John Steel
jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu                                     Al Jagnow
jebrown@erenj.com                                         Jon Browning
jester@elmer.orl.mmc.com                                    Wes Jester
jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com                           Randell Jesup
jgk@versant.com                                              Joe Keane
jjeppson@well.sf.ca.us                                    John Jeppson
john@chemical-eng.edinburgh.ac.uk                         John Christy
johnie@world.std.com                                   Johnie L Ingram
johnson@dave.nrl.navy.mil                               J Karl Johnson
joseph_hall@motsat.sat.mot.com                             Joseph Hall
jpacheco@training.hq.nasa.gov                            Julio Pacheco
jwells@sirius.uvic.ca                                       John Wells
karel.hladky@nessie.mcc.ac.uk                             Karel Hladky
kenworthy@bvu-lads.loral.com                            Mark Kenworthy
khm@daimi.aau.dk                                 Kjeld H|yer Mortensen
kiesow@vati.fmi.uni-passau.de                              Sven Kiesow
klkirby@ualr.edu                                            Steve Hall
krallis@theseas.ntua.gr                                 Costas Krallis
ktl@inel.gov                                              Kurt L Davis
kvng@csn.org                                               Kevin Gross
k_gallagher@unhh.unh.edu                            Kathleen Gallagher
lgp@inel.gov                                              L Gail Price
lhsastro@garnet.berkeley.edu                                Alan Gould
lrh@mailgate.nyserda.org                                  Larry Hudson
lspencer@huachuca-emh1.army.mil                            Lee Spencer
lucky@owlnet.rice.edu                             John Patrick Johnson
maozhuxi@netcom.com                                           Jun Hong
mark@askmar.mpk.ca.us                                      Mark Duncan
mark@cherni.cherniak.on.ca                                 Mark Kerbel
markredm@vef.north.net                                    Mark Redmond
markus@octavia.anu.edu.au                              Markus Buchhorn
marq@world.std.com                                        Mark A Lilly
matthewa@physics.su.oz.au                              Matthew Arnison
maxwell@ug.cs.dal.ca                                     Chris Maxwell
mblum1@pbhrzs0.uni-paderborn.de                           Thomas Blume
mcarthur@fit.qut.edu.au                                Robert Mcarthur
mccabep@lonexa.admin.rl.af.mil                          Patrick Mccabe
meadowcr@esvax.dnet.dupont.com                        Bill Meadowcroft
meincke@upei.ca                                          Peter Meincke
mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de                                   Markus Freericks
mike@yc.estec.esa.nl                                      Mike Parsons
mikep@polaris.unm.edu                                       Mike Prine
militzer@stout.atd.ucar.edu                              John Militzer
milton@gastric.arraytech.com                         Milton Scritsmier
misty@spica.epm.ornl.gov                                  Misty Campin
mtrkly@vmsa.technion.ac.il                            Alexander Klyuch
muir@idiom.berkeley.ca.us                          David Muir Sharnoff
mwj@se01.wg2.waii.com!se17                                Mike Johnson
mxmora@unix.sri.com                                Matthew Xavier Mora
n8910916@animal.cc.wwu.edu                               Lee C Haslett
njerome@amoco.com                                      Norman F Jerome
oecjtb@oec4.orbital.dialix.oz.au                      John Bongiovanni
oecmjc@oec4.orbital.dialix.oz.au                          Martin Cebis
payson@cs.wisc.edu                                         John Payson
peterson@csc.ti.com                                       Bob Peterson
phil@starconn.com                                           Phil Marks
phoffman@netcom.com                                     Paul E Hoffman
phsjga@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu                             Jacques G Amar
pierson@mv.mv.com                                          Steve Mello
prechelt@ira.uka.de                                      Lutz Prechelt
pvdbos@vnet3.vub.ac.be
quinn@phoenix.princeton.edu                            Michael J Quinn
rcin0839@uriacc.uri.edu                               Robert Cinq-Mars
rdabney@meediv.lanl.gov                                 Richard Dabney
reed@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au                                  John Reed
revu@midway.uchicago.edu                              Sendhil Revuluri
rick@ofa.com                                                Rick Ellis
riech@eu1.mpi-hd.mpg.de                              Kirsten Riechmann
rogerh@qm.is.lmsc.lockheed.com                     Roger Hollandsworth
roman_symank@hb.maus.de                                   Roman Symank
root@plasm.mephi.msk.su                                Dmitry Samsonov
rufinus@dxcern.cern.ch                                 Jeffrey Rufinus
rweeks@u.washington.edu                                   Robert Weeks
ryan.bayne@canrem.com                                       Ryan Bayne
schroeder@dune.sanders.lockheed.com                               Mike
scottmi@microsoft.com                                     Scott Miller
signer@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
smogren@pica.army.mil                                   Stacy A Mogren
sr3u+@cmu.edu                                              Shrisha Rao
sward+@cmu.edu                                       David Reeve Sward
swildner@channelz.gun.de                                Sascha Wildner
system@galcon.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca                          The Doctor
thomas@acds16.physik.rwth-aachen.de                      Thomas Fricke
thong@husc.harvard.edu
timla@microsoft.com                                           Tim Lacy
tjames@gslan.offsys.uoknor.edu                               Tom James
tkito@slate.mines.colorado.edu                             Kito Tomoko
tmwatson@engin.umich.edu                        Timothy Maurice watson
todd.kaufmann@fussen.mt.cs.cmu.edu                       Todd Kaufmann
turner@odie.ee.wits.ac.za                                Martin Turner
ucisrcy@cis.unocal.com                               Christopher Yoder
ud077@freenet.victoria.bc.ca                              Peter Jacobs
udap913@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk                                  Silver Omega
weimer@ssd.kodak.com                                       Gary Weimer
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp                                 William Reiken
willise@egr.uri.edu                                        Eric Willis
winnie@phoenix.princeton.edu                               Jon Edelson
witter@exame1.dseg.ti.com                                  Dave Witter
wjrst1@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu                              William J Rehm
wombat@nfinit.enet.dec.com                        Christopher M Conway
yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca                                 Francois Yergeau
 
No Votes
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
anich@festival.ed.ac.uk                                Sandy Nicholson
bluelobster+@cmu.edu                                      David O Hunt
bobc@stratus.swdc.stratus.com                               Bob Christ
bslawson@phobos.astro.uwo.ca                               Bob Slawson
cazander@pasichva.serigate.philips.nl                       J Cazander
cheah@cs.columbia.edu                                    Po Shan Cheah
clw@cco.caltech.edu                                    Carl L Winstead
crosby@ucsu.colorado.edu                                Matthew Crosby
cvk@uiuc.edu                                             Charley Kline
cward@think.com                                       Christopher Ward
drbphy@uriacc.uri.edu                                   David Bertrand
jgd@dixie.com                                           John de Armond
ju8025@csc.albany.edu                                 Johannes Ullrich
julian@bongo.tele.com                                  Julian Macassey
kevinmac@ll.mit.edu                                   Kevin Mcelearney
ljbohman@mtu.edu                                       Leonard Bohmann
lonadar@judy.indstate.edu                        Victor E Aldridge III
mike@upolu.gsfc.nasa.gov                                    Mike Jones
mjn@pseudo                                              Murray Nesbitt
ornitz@rdcs.kodak.com                                            Barry
owen@nas.nasa.gov                                          Dr R K Owen
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu                                     Mr Nice Guy
richi@hpopdlct.pwd.hp.com                             Richard Jennings
rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu                          Richard H Miller
rperry@baffin.uu.holonet.net                                 Ron Perry
shane@spr.com                                            Shane Hartman
tomj@jac.enet.dec.com                                   Tom Jaskiewicz
v.narinian@ic.ac.uk                                    Vartan Narinian
volkmuth@phoenix.princeton.edu                    Wayne David Volkmuth
wright@hicomb.hi.com                                      David Wright
--
Jan Isley, the Knight who says ACK, can be reached at
jan@bagend.atl.ga.us  or  mathcs.emory.edu!bagend!jan
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjan cudfnJan cudlnIsley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator C-MOD weekly report 9/9/93
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator C-MOD weekly report 9/9/93
Date: 9 SEP 93 18:14:39 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                                Alcator C-MOD
                            Weekly Highlight Report
                                September 9, 1993
 
 
Alcator C-MOD is now in the third week of a planned three-week maintenance
period.
 
The vessel is presently undergoing a 120 degree C bakeout, following the
"clean" vent at the beginning of the maintenance period. The cryo-system is in
bakeout mode, providing LN2 cooling to the coils to maintain their temperature
at acceptable levels during the bake.
 
The reactors needed for safe four-quadrant operation of the OH and EF1 power
supplies have been received from the vendor and are being installed. The
additional varistors required to allow higher pre-charge currents (above 25kA)
in the OH2 circuits have been installed.
 
The 2-d Thomson scattering diagnostic is now being installed in the C-MOD cell.
This unique system features an optical design which allows the beam of the
pulsed (50Hz) Nd:YAG laser to be moved acoss the plasma during a plasma shot,
providing spatially-resolved measurements of the electron density and
temperature profiles in the radial direction; an array of spectrometers
view the beam, providing spatial information in the vertical direction.
Initially, two spectrometers, out of a planned total of eleven, are being
installed.
 
The grazing incidence, time resolving, VUV spectrograph diagnostic has been
installed; this system has a spectral range of 20A to 1050A and is used to
study high- and low-Z impurities. In addition, a 3 spectral channel
Multi-Layered-Mirror based instrument, built and calibrated by the plasma
diagnostics group at the Johns Hopkins University, has been installed. This
instrument will measure emissions at 3 soft x-ray wavelengths and will be used
primarily to monitor 3 different charge states of Molybdenum. For this reason
we are referring to it as the 'Moly Monitor'.
 
Modifications to the gas feed logic in the PLC/Paragon program have been
implemented. These changes will allow quicker and more reliable pre-fill
during the operating cycle.
 
Benjamin Welch of the U. of Maryland Lab for Plasma Research is visiting this
week for discussions and coordination of experiments involving his Optical
Multichannel Analyzer diagnostic. This diagnostic has been operational
throughout this year's operating campaign.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  More contrived bunk
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More contrived bunk
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 20:45:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed seems to think that if he says something over and over again it
will become the truth  No matter how the parameters vary, Jed asserts
that any calorimeter will give the correct answer.  In spite of all your
lectures, Jed, I don't believe it!  I want to see some proof that the
kind of calorimeter you advocate has to work to some specified level of
accuracy under the conditions that accurately match the experiment with
due consideration being given to the time dependence and nonlinearity in
the relationship between temperature and heat.  Rising resistance, falling
electrolyte, and hot cathodes will all have an effect on the calorimeter
constant.
 
However, to keep it simple for you, Jed, I'll challange you to explain
how your calorimeter deals with heat pulses that are shorter than the
time constant of the calorimeter.  I assure you that adding another thermal
lag between the cathode and the electrolyte does not make the problem any
easier.  You will probably want to ignore that in your first attempts to
solve this problem.  Just to give you a hint of what nonlinearities can
do, you will find that two heat pulses occuring together will integrate
to a different total input than if they occured separately.  Have fun!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Translating for Mitchell
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Translating for Mitchell
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 20:45:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The message to which Mitchell Swartz took exception was partly in response
to Steve Jones who indulges in "collision-type-hot-fusion thinking" much
as I do.  The issue being considered was how to reduce the deuteron-
deuteron distance as a means of increasing the rate of tunneling through
the potential barrier for the two-body problem.
 
OK, so you think cold fusion does not involve just the two-body problem.
For you it is always N-body with lattice effects playing a key role.  We
have heard that before, but you never "prove" your case with anything
but a bunch of irrelevancies.  Let us frame the problem in the following
manner.  Suppose we start with 2 deuterons separated by the distance r
which is greater than the average separation in a D2 molecule.  My
understanding is that the fusion rate will scale with the square of
the amplitude for that portion of the two-body wave function that lies
within the range of the strong interaction.  If I add 5 more neighbors
at that same radius can I make a simple estimate of how large the effect
can be?  I'll give you all the factors of 25 or 100 you can justify by
even very simple arguments.  Then tell me why one needs to consider more
than 6 nearest neighbors.  I think the size of the effect depends on
howmany wavelengths away the next lattice site lies, but I may be wrong
on that score
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gas Absorption
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 21:32:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reply to Karel Hladky                              9 September, 1993
 
 
Karel writes: "As you see I know about as much about cold fusion as you know
about potentiostats - perhaps we should combine forces on this one ?"
Thank very much for all your comments Karel.
 
My guess is that we have a similar level of knowledge.  I know very little
about potentiostats.  But if you were to describe the knobs on the front
panel, and tell me what each one did, and tell be the specifications, I could
build one, and it would have better specifications than the one you have.  The
reason that I can build a better one is that the parts are always getting
better and the box in your lab was likely designed 5 or more years ago.
 
On the other hand, if you were to set out to do a cold fusion experiment, you
would likely know how to prepare the solutions, and what precautions to take,
and how to build the glassware, and what level of cleanliness was required.
 
So let's talk about gas absorption.  First I remind you that P&F were always
very careful to separate adsorption and absorption.
 
At the high currents and high loadings, some interesting things happen.  Note
that all my experience is based on looking at the excess oxygen which results
when D (or H) is absorbed.  My experiments have contained a catalyst from the
beginning.  The catalyst can do funny things, and can stop working for various
periods.  This can also give very wrong answers when oxygen is bound up
somewhere.  One way to get a funny result is to reverse a cell for a while.
Now when it is run forward, there is a race between D being absorbed and O
burning the left over D2 gas in the cell.  So the observations below are from
operating conditions where I am pretty sure I understand what is going on.
For the most part I have other evidence, like thermometers in the catalyst, to
convince me that the observations are correct.
 
I have fair confidence in the charging measurements.  Most early experiments
were charged at 30 - 60 ma per sq cm and reached of order .75 D/Pd.  This
matches many reported values.  Later experiments with polished plates reached
0.9 -1.05 with a similar profile.  Energy balance during charging matches the
loss due to unrecombined electrolysis products considering the heat of
absorption with an error of order +/- 20%.  Gas measurements have a resolution
of 1/70 cc and have zero backlash.  The largest known error is that due to
barometric pressure which is not corrected.
 
For the observations below, "sudden" mens in a one minute time period or less.
Note also that 1/1 D/Pd is of order 1200 relative volumes.  Most of the
observations below are for a 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm cathode.
 
1.  There are frequent occasions when there is a sudden change of absorbed gas
of order 50 relative volumes.  This can be in either direction.  The reality
of this is confirmed by a change in temperature of the catalyst in the
appropriate direction.  Most of these are not accompanied by excess heat.
The calorimeter detects the appropriate change in energy balance.
 
2.  Some samples are very sensitive to current density, others are not.  We
have run a number of experiments (even before Takahashi) where we used a High-
Low current profile.  Some samples absorb gas on each high cycle and evolve it
on the low cycle.  A typical change might be absorption of 500 relative
volumes at 600 ma per sq cm, and release of this amount at 60 ma per sq cm.
 
3.  The fast in/out samples of 2), evolve the gas much too quickly for
diffusion.  A sudden drop in current releases 50% or so of the gas in a few
seconds.  Where can the gas be hiding?  Is it in Moore's "rifts in the slip
planes"?  (Moore - Princeton Thesis 1939)
 
4)  Polishing the surface allows greater absorption.  Don't know the surface
finished reached, but the last grit was sub micron (from memory).  The last
few polished samples appeared to get close to 1/1 D/Pd by excess oxygen
method.
 
5)  Takahashi slow ramp up, saw tooth down style charging seems to help to
increase the loading.
 
6)  On a few occasions 200 or more relative volume absorption/desorption
events have been seen and confirmed by other measurement.
 
7)  There are events which look like a release of a few hundred joules which
released a few hundred relative volumes of gas.  For these events, there was
still a net heat balance after accounting for the heating value in the
catalyst of the released gas.
 
8)  There have been many periods where the system indicates a slow absorption
of gas followed by a sudden release.  A saw tooth gas loading.  Amplitude is
typically 20 relative volumes.  This is possibly an artifact of the catalyst.
 
9)  A number of (round and square) samples have been loaded until they bent,
curled, or split open like over cooked bratwurst.  The flat plates seem better
at relieving stress from loading and we have preferred them recently.
 
10)  The flat plate from the last series of runs is available to anyone who has
some good piece of apparatus to look at it.  I assume Chuck Sites, that you
can no longer do it as they appear to have taken away your mother's microscope
- shame on the bureaucrat that did it!
 
For 1) to happen we need a few per-cent effect.  Either:
 
a) A few % over the whole volume
 
b) 100% over a thin surface layer
 
c) 100% over a few % of the volume.
 
Seems to me that a) requires impossible diffusion rates.  c) would likely
leave evidence.  So I would bet on b).
 
Item 7) is my hope that there is something here worth looking for.  It sure
looks like something got hot and blew out some gas.  These events are what has
kept me working.  Surely possible chemistry, but where is the chemical ash?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The TRIGGER poll @ UCLA (prev. TB-skeptics)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The TRIGGER poll @ UCLA (prev. TB-skeptics)
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 20:46:49 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <CD3DLs.Bu7@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>
>  THE TEN BEST REASONS FOR Barry Merriman's (of the UCLA Dept.of Math
>      and the UCLA Inst.for Fusion and Plasma Research) DISINTEREST IN
>      POLLNG DATA ON HOT (AND COLD) FUSION:
>
>             4. Those that talk the most, know the least.
 
How true...seems that you and jed do a lot of talking, too...:-)
 
Personally, I'd be totally happy if CF worked as advertized. Then
I could go work on some other problems.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  Ziegler @ Wats /  Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
     
Originally-From: Ziegler @ Watson.IBM.Com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium: a falsifiable conjecture
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 14:39:59 GMT
Organization: IBM Research, Yorktown, NY

In <1993Sep7.181616.907@physc1.byu.edu>,
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>The real trick here is generating metallic hydrogen at approx. 2.5 Gpa -- and
>then transporting the cell to sensitive detectors without breaking the diamond
>anvils.  We arranged with a U. Hawaii research group to pressurize
>LiH and LiD at 1 Gpa in a diamond cell nearly two years ago -- but the diamonds
>cracked during transport on an airline, before we could put the cells near our
>
>we 'simply' do the experiment with metallic deuterium in a diamond-anvil cell,
>and then move on whatever the answer turns out to be.
>The notion advanced here suggests that cold fusion might more reproducibly be
>achieved using diamond-anvil cell methods rather than occasionally and
>essentially uncontrollably reaching metallic-hydrogen conditions in deuterided
>metals.  At least this line of thinking exemplifies the crucial interplay
>between theory and experiments that may allow us to make some progress.
>
Steve:
 
Your experiment may have a subtle problem which is as nasty to eliminate as
getting a perfect calorimeter for a P&F cell. I believe in the experiments of producing
neutrons with what is sometimes called "BB Gun Fusion". These are experiments
which I think were first performed in Russia (before P&F) in which a LiD crystal
was placed in an anvil, which was then hit by a pneumatic slug (like firing a BB Gun
at the anvil). And out came neutrons when the crystal fractured. (Klyuev et al.,
JETP Phys. Lett., vol. 12, 551 (1986)). This experiment has been repeated by other
groups, and reliably produces a low level pulse of neutrons. The explanations given
are mutterings about fracto-emission, in which deuterons are internally accelerated
above 1 keV inside the LiD crystal, during the crystal fracture, and then a
normal (d,d) reaction occurs. (To be pedantic, I note that a similar energy release from
fractured crystals was reported first by M. Faraday  in "Experimental Researches in
Electricity", vol. 1, 82 (1839). The same reference occurs in different
places in different
editions, I am told.)
 
Since you mention in your review above that your first effort ended
with the anvils cracking,
there is a real chance this problem may occur. However, instead of macroscopic cracking,
one might get some more subtle crystal damage which could lead to the same sort
of internal facto-emmission caused by >1 keV deuterons. The observance of neutrons
from this experiment could not be uniquely explained by claiming that it was due to
deuterium condensation, since it might be caused by the more prosaic internal fracture
of the diamond crystals.
 
How do you propose to cleanly eliminate the BB type of neutron generation in your
anvil experiment ?
 
Jim Ziegler
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Laurence Battin /  Re: conditions for ignitions
     
Originally-From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: conditions for ignitions
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 00:19:12 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

just a small comment...
 
In article <1993Sep2.195726.15782@vlsi.polymtl.ca>, Jean Yves Desbiens
(d40937@info.polymtl.ca) wrote:
> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
> : I have come to realize that I may have fallen into a trap when I
> : commented on the conditions required for the ignition that P&F claimed
> : to have observed.  They never told us precisely when the event occured
> : so we don't really know what the conditions were.  I had thought they
> : must have refered to the current cut off when the cell was dray as the
> : time of ignition, but that was perhaps an incorrect assumption on my
> : part.  Ignition may have occured earlier and just gone unnoticed since
> : the experimenters were in the back room playing cards or something like
> : that.
 
> : Dick Blue
> : NSCL@MSU
 
> This kind of insulting comment is the main reason why I find all your
> arguments stink, it seams that respect for other researchers is not part
> of your set of tools so nobody here will give you the same. I am ready
> as most to doubt cold fusion, but I am also willing to give these people
> the benefit of the doubt; they are taking the risk here and putting their
> reputations on the line (unlike you), if they crash it will be because this
> thing doesn't work (a scam as you call it can't last forever) but if it
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Ho ho ho!  Tell that to the astrologers, dowsers, faith-healers, "free
energy" machine promoters, circle-squarers, etc., etc.
 
Scams can last just as long as there are fools to invest in them.
 
--
Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
 ____________________________________________________________________
| "Ideas that have outlived their day may hobble about the world for |
| years, but it is hard for them ever to lead and dominate life.     |
| Such ideas never gain complete possesion of a man, or they gain    |
| possesion only of incomplete people."                              |
|                   - Alexander Herzen _My_Past_and_Thoughts_ (1861) |
|____________________________________________________________________|
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbattin cudfnLaurence cudlnBattin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / mitchell swartz /  N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 00:39:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <26nocj$t5q@agate.berkeley.edu>
  Subject: Re: Ave. separations * N
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
= "Of course, the one point that Mr. Swartz left out is that CFT splitting
= fields are on the order of volts, i.e. six orders of magnitude smaller than
= fusion effects."
 
   The post merely said "Existence Theorem".
 
    = "We thus see, by the Existence Theorem, your hypothesis is not merely
                   flawed, but may be simply incorrect."
 
    Also, Mr. Blue, some of the energies involved in
     cold fusion are not six orders of magnitudes greater, are they?
 
 
= "If you were to take your Fe(III) ion and consider
= six H2O molecules out at, say, Mars, you would discover that the Crystal
= Field splittings in such a case would be pretty small."
 
    Dick, that may be a potential candidate for possible Bozon-thinking.
 
       First, if the Fe(III)  ---> d5-electronic (and all the good stuff
                                  works as Fe(II) ----> d6-electronic)
 
      were here and "six H2O molecules out at, say, Mars", it would not even
      be a crystal splitting field, because it would be dipolar in form.
 
        Second, if you need to make the distance, literally, astronomic
              (oh, Tom?  ok, Jed?), when this case demonstrates deuterons
         "interwoven" throughout the loaded bulk of the decorated lattice,
               then such argument only demonstrates that this
               portion of your case has the integrity of a sieve.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Laurence Battin /  Re: Reply to D. Britz
     
Originally-From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to D. Britz
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 00:42:01 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <930903025746_76570.2270_BHA44-1@CompuServe.COM>, Eugene
Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
> In response to Dieter Britz's query:
 
[deletions...]
 
> Now, if you really want to expand your mental horizons about apparent
> "violation" of the conservation of energy, I urge you to read a paper by
> Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Wasn't this guy connected at one time with Uri Geller?
 
--
Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
 ____________________________________________________________________
| "Ideas that have outlived their day may hobble about the world for |
| years, but it is hard for them ever to lead and dominate life.     |
| Such ideas never gain complete possesion of a man, or they gain    |
| possesion only of incomplete people."                              |
|                   - Alexander Herzen _My_Past_and_Thoughts_ (1861) |
|____________________________________________________________________|
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbattin cudfnLaurence cudlnBattin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Fusion in metallic deuterium/Re:Blue/Logajan
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion in metallic deuterium/Re:Blue/Logajan
Date: 9 Sep 93 10:38:10 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I appreciate the responses of Dick Blue and John Logajan (how was Salt Lake
City, John?) to my posted conjecture regarding fusion in metallic deuterium.
However, the thrust of my posting was missed in these responses, so I will
try again.
 
Dick, I agree with you that the deuteron-deuteron (d-d) separation is greater
for d's in palladium than for d's in a D2 molecule.  Indeed these data are
placed in the table in my 7 Sep 93 posting which shows:
 
d-d separation for D2 molecule = 0.74 angstroms
d-d separation for d's in Pd = 2.4 angstroms.
 
But I am not arguing for enhanced fusion rates in deuterided palladium (unless
metallic deuterium forms in deuterided Pd)  in my
posting, but rather for enhanced fusion rates in *metallic deuterium*.
In metallic deuterium, we have
 
d-d separation for metallic deuterium (NO palladium needed, Dick!) = 1.1
        angstroms
d-d separation for metallic deuterium, for deuterons in interstitial locations
   = 0.5-0.6 angstroms  (quantum montecarlo work needed to get accurate number)
 
Thus, finally we have bound, oscillating deuterons held close enough together
for measurable fusion rates, without muons -- this is the hypothesis we wish to
test.
 
Did I not make this clear?  I said "to test the hypothesis, we would place a
diamond-anvil cell loaded with deuterium at > 2 Gpa."  ... "The real trick here
is generating metallic hydrogen at approx 2.5 Gpa... Reaching conditions for
verifiable metallic hydrogen is itself very difficult."  [Sep 7 posting:
Fusion in metallic deuterium:  a falsifiable conjecture]
 
Once more:  I am positing measurable room-temp. fusion in metallic
forms of hydrogen isotopes.  The experiments require hydrogen isotopes (with no
palladium) pressurized to 2.5 megabars.  Diamond-anvil cells provide the best
way to reach the needed conditions.   Then we will look for neutrons or
(for the proton-deuteron mixture case) gammas.  IF metallic deuterium shows
room-temp. fusion, we can then explore the next step which is to determine
whether metallic deuterium can form transiently in micropores or imperfections
in other metals, such as palladium and titanium.
 
Dick, John -- please read my Sep 7 posting again.  Then address the conjecture
presented there, that is, possible fusion in metallic forms of hydrogen
isotopes - without palladium or muons required.
 
Thanks,
Steven Jones
 
PS.  I'm pleased that Carl Ijames caught my point about metallic hydrogen --
and I appreciate his insightful question about piezonuclear vs muon-catalyzed
fusion in the metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter.  Carl, I don't think your
question has been previously posed -- let me think about this.  It's a good
question, involving muonic cosmic-ray penetration rates also.  Not an easy
problem.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: Critters
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Critters
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 23:26:22 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1993Sep2.160718.12674@desire.wright.edu>
jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
 
> In article <930902121847.20a01fe9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> > Thomas Kunich suggests that if "cold fusion" were possible that one of nature's
> > critters would be using it to beat out competitors in the survival race.  It
> > took a couple of billion years for nature to get around to snake venom.
> > Perhaps nature is just now getting around to "cold fusion" and the critters
> > are us.
> >
> > Tom Droege
 
   Critters are already using cold fusion. Cold fusion is a vague term
for what is really going on--Spontaneous Neutron Materialization.
Electric eels use a varying electric current and this induces
spontaneous neutron materialization. Noone as of yet has bothered to
check out this claim on eels.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / mitchell swartz /  N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 01:01:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <CD44Hp.561@world.std.com>
  Subject: N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
mica@world.std.com  wrote:
 
    "Also, Mr. Blue, some of the energies involved in
     cold fusion are not six orders of magnitudes greater, are they?"
 
  Oppps. The poster was Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu).
        My apology for any distress caused by the error.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Richard Schultz /  Re: N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N * separations moved to Mars by the skeptics
Date: 10 Sep 1993 02:04:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

 
I had written that
 
rs> "Of course, the one point that Mr. Swartz left out is that CFT splitting
rs> fields are on the order of volts, i.e. six orders of magnitude smaller than
rs> fusion effects."
 
To which Mitchell Swartz replied in <CD44Hp.561@world.std.com>:
 
ms>   The post merely said "Existence Theorem".
ms>
ms>    = "We thus see, by the Existence Theorem, your hypothesis is not merely
ms>                   flawed, but may be simply incorrect."
 
Actually, what Richard Blue said in <9309091354.AA06704@suntan.Tandem.com> was
 
== . . .the fusion rate is so strongly dependent of radius that it is only
== the nearest neighbor distance that matters, the location of all other
== deuterons being insignificant.  Thus while putting D's into a lattice
== does move part of the distribution closer, the nearest neighbor moves
== away.  Having 6 near neighbors at this larger r doesn't make up the
== difference."
 
And you responded in Message-ID: <CD3GE4.Ju@world.std.com>
 
   What if a cohort were at the same distance?  Your analysis would have
    incorrectly "disproved" the existence of crystal splitting fields for
    Group VIII transition metals (including the plethora in bio-systems).
    Group Theory (no relation to the above) indicates that such spatially
    periodic influences may be quite important. . .
 
Which is why I responded that the "quite important" periodic influences are
important at *chemical* energies and over *chemical* distances.  Nuclear
energies and nuclear distances are on a much different scale.
 
rs>  "If you were to take your Fe(III) ion and consider
rs>  six H2O molecules out at, say, Mars, you would discover that the Crystal
rs>  Field splittings in such a case would be pretty small."
 
ms>    Dick, that may be a potential candidate for possible Bozon-thinking.
ms>
ms>       First, if the Fe(III)  ---> d5-electronic (and all the good stuff
ms>                                  works as Fe(II) ----> d6-electronic)
ms>
ms>   were here and "six H2O molecules out at, say, Mars", it would not even
ms>   be a crystal splitting field, because it would be dipolar in form.
 
I had thought that it would have been obvious that I meant "six H2O molecules
spaced octahedrally around the central ion with Fe(III)-H2O distances
equal to the Earth-Mars separation".  The point I was making, that you
insist on ignoring, in fact having deleted that part of my message, was this.
Crystal Field Theory works as a first approximation because at chemically
significant distances, the energy of the crystal field is on the same order
as the energy of the valence electrons of transition metal ions.  That means
that the symmetry effects of the crystal field (or, if you want to be more
accurate but skip the full MO treatment, ligand field) will be important
when you consider the interactions of the electrons.
 
Now, you are arguing that the presence of the lattice somehow affects the
processes in deuterium and helium nuclei.  The event of interest is how do
you get rid of the 24 MeV of excess energy without ejecting a nuclear particle
or a gamma ray.  Now since it's your theory, *you* have to explain how the
low energy crystal field (order of volts) can possibly have any influence on
the excited He* nucleus (order of megavolts).  Heck, I'd even settle for an
explanation of how the crystal field can enable the deuterium nuclei to
overcome the Coulomb barrier.
 
ms>        Second, if you need to make the distance, literally, astronomic
ms>              (oh, Tom?  ok, Jed?), when this case demonstrates deuterons
ms>         "interwoven" throughout the loaded bulk of the decorated lattice,
ms>               then such argument only demonstrates that this
ms>               portion of your case has the integrity of a sieve.
 
As I said, you have this penchant for missing the point.  The point wasn't
that you have to make anything on an astronomical scale.  The point was
that just as CFT is expected to be irrelevant at astronomical distances,
so is it expected to be irrelevant at nuclear distances.  If I am wrong, then
all you have to do is show me the calculation that proves it.
 
Is this clear enough for you?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium/Re:Blue/Logajan
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion in metallic deuterium/Re:Blue/Logajan
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 03:55:33 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>the thrust of my posting was missed
 
I was responding to Dick's comments and not directly to your hypothesis.
 
>possible fusion in metallic forms of hydrogen isotopes - without palladium
 
If this is new territory for you, it is far and gone beyond anything I have
knowledge in.  I do have a question, however:
 
>d-d separation for metallic deuterium, for deuterons in interstitial locations
 
This looks iterative.  What is the significant difference between a D in
every intersitial location and doubling (or would it be sextupling?) of the
pressure/density?
 
> (how was Salt Lake City, John?)
 
Warmer and sunnier than St. Paul/Minneapolis.  The city seemed clean and
the people seemed friendly (the few that I dealt with, anyway.)  The city
itself was not unlike the midwestern cities I am familiar with -- though
we don't have mountains surrounding us on all sides.
 
As I suspected, I spent most of my time either in the Marriott or in the
Salt Palace.  I only had a day to drive around Salt Lake City and surrounding
sights, such as Twin Peaks, Mount Timpanogos, Bridal Veil Falls, Dear Creek
Reservoir, Park City, Heber City, Kennecott's Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper
Mine, and, of course, the Great Salt Lake.
 
I spent Sunday night in a Best Western Motel in Provo very near BYU.  Tried
to hike to Timpanogos Cave, but the 2.5 hour wait, and the 3 hour hike
would have made us late for our flight out on Monday afternoon.
 
I am told that the state drinking laws there consume 300+ pages!  And nothing
personal, but the Salt Lake has an unpleasant odor.  Also the street maps
I purchased there seemed to have little relevance to the posted street
names.
 
And finally, having seen substantial mountains for the first time, I have
decided I would not want them to my east or my west because they would
block the sun for several minutes each morning and evening.
 
But other than those minor complaints it was an enjoyable visit.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Dieter Britz /  Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 12:26:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Here we are, two electrochemists (Karel and me), and it seems we can't agree
on anything. This should be a lesson of some sort.
 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1371:
 
>I remember Wenkings, those things had a pair of mercury batteries to supply
>the reference voltage which were always leaking and corroding the innards.
>The potentiostats did not oscillate, mainly because their frequency response
>stopped at about 0.1 Hz. But his potential sweep generators were a wonder of
>clockwork technology. Once I had the pleasure of chucking a pile of Wenkings
>into the skip. Good riddance.
 
I've used Wenking p'stats, and I got one to oscillate at some MHz, I can't
understand where you get that 0.1 Hz from. Back then (1970-75), there were
only Wenking and Tacussel, and the latter were all unipolar, horrible
machines. I built my own.
 
>Corrosion rate measurement is incredibly simple. The E-I curve of a metal
>sample is linear at the free corrosion potential, the slope is the
>polarisation resistance of the system. The corrosion current is then
>i(corr)=B/R(p). If you know the current you can calculate the metal loss,
>hence mm/year. What is B, you may ask ? Well it is the Stern-Geary constant
>of course! It sort of varies from system to system but is usually somewhere
>between 10 and 500 mV. No problem. Corrosion meters that measure to three or
>more significant digits are now available off the shelf... :-)
 
Well, maybe that is all a joke, but lots of corrosion people measure the B
slope once, and assume it to stay that way thereafter. I once measured the
corrosion rate by fitting the polarisation curve, and compared the rate with
that measured by actual metal dissolution. For one thing, in those days,
corrosion people totally ignored transport effects, and even talked about
"stagnant Tafel curves" (an absurdity); for another, we found, from the same
electrode, repolished repeatedly, a large range of corrosion rates,
correlating with but never equalling the deduced rate from polarisation
curves... The soup varies, electrodes accumulate junk, etc etc. and the curves
do not obey Butler/Volmer, even with intense stirring. And if you then go out
into the real world, a different ball game altogether.
 
>: an overpotential, of 0.8 V, in their very first paper, and I have several
>: times complained that they didn't tell us how they measured it. This figure
>: gives rise to their famous 10^27 atm, so the question is of interest.
 
>This has also puzzled me somewhat, the figures given are far too vague,
>especially since it is so simple to measure.
 
No, no, no! At the high current densities, this is not simple to measure! Once
again we disagree. There is iR to remove, AND there are distributed effects;
i.e. you have different potentials (and current densities) at different places
on the electrode.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Dieter Britz /  Diamond anvil experiments
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Diamond anvil experiments
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 13:53:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Steve, just to remind you of the entry in the bibliography (which you are
probably aware of anyway):
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silvera IF, Moshary E;                             Phys. Rev. B42 (1990) 9143.
"Deuterated palladium at temperatures from 4.3 to 400K and pressures to 105
kbar: search for cold fusion".
** The authors used their diamond anvil to achieve these pressures. Detectors
for neutrons, gamma radiation and heat were mounted around the press. From the
volume compression, a loading of up to 1.34 was inferred. Several days at the
various temperatures and pressures evinced no evidence for cold fusion.
                                                                 Feb-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just checked, and they used 105 kbar, so you're planning an order of
magnitude higher pressure. Good luck.
 
Which reminds me: John Logajan, how is that bomb of your doing? What is the
pressure now?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 829 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 829 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 13:54:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello Dr. Gene,
 
well, I opened my big grey/brown ones and looked at that Cole/Puthoff paper
you were so enthusiastic about. I don't really understand why, or how this
relates to cold fusion. Perhaps you could explain, Dr. Gene, how it ties in?
OK, we are tapping the Casimir force here, and Forward, C&P's primary
reference, is not sure what powers it, but something surely does; it does not
arise from nothing. So this is very unlikely to explain those extra GeV of
energy the Clustron theory is said to suggest. Anyway, below you have the full
(peripheral) references. Interestingly, while I wouldn't dream of holding this
against anyone, it has been mentioned that Puthoff has been involved in the
defense of Uri Geller; and I know R.L. Forward as a science fiction writer,
and a good one, too.
 
Someone out there must know about vacuum fluctuation energy, so how about a
lesson in precis? Or even a pointer to a layman's description of it?
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 10-Sep-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 829
 
 
Peripheral articles: files cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cole DC, Puthoff HE;                               Phys. Rev. E48 (1993) 1562.
"Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum".
** This work discusses a single point in the area of ZP energy extraction,
as suggested by R.L. Forward (1984); i.e. the question of whether this is
possible at T = 0. The answer is yes.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward RL;                                        Phys. Rev. B30 (1984) 1700.
"Extracting electrical energy from the vacuum by cohesion of charged foliated
conductors".
** In 1940, Casimir suggested that there must be force between two parallel
conducting plates lying parallel to each other in vacuum, proportional to
1/a^4 (a the plate separation), and RLF states that at small a like < 20 nm,
this force can indeed be large, and could perhaps be tapped as an energy
source. Whether this energy is conservative he is not sure, but assumes that
it probably is, just like gravity, which can be tapped in, e.g. a dam, which
is powered by the Sun (lifting water vapour in the first place). He suggests
a configuration with which the effect (now in fact known) could be measured.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gas Absorption
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 13:02:38 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

At last some real observations ! Great !
 
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
:
: For 1) to happen we need a few per-cent effect.  Either:
:
: a) A few % over the whole volume
:
: b) 100% over a thin surface layer
:
: c) 100% over a few % of the volume.
:
: Seems to me that a) requires impossible diffusion rates.  c) would likely
: leave evidence.  So I would bet on b).
 
My immediate impression (and these can often be wrong) is that an unstable
compound is formed 'at' the surface of the cathode. Not uncommon in
electrochemistry. If this is stable only at or above a given overpotential
then a drop in the cell current could lead to a drop in the overpotential
and the compound would decompose again. We need to know whether the
potential of the cathode (NOT the voltage across the cell) fluctuates during
a nominally constant current run. My betting is that it does.
 
So why aren't people measuring it ? (or even controlling it with a
potentiostat :-))
 
The observation about polished electrodes being able to maintain a higher D
loading is also interesting. Polished surfaces are in my experience less
reactive than rough ones. And some electrodes are better than others. Hmmm.
What we need is a metallurgist. Perhaps Mark Schlichting would like to join
in.
 
Isn't it fun re-discovering the wheel ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Eugene Mallove /  APS Mud-Slinger
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: APS Mud-Slinger
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 14:51:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        American Physical Society Mud-Slinger Has His Day
 
Calling all Fusion Digest "halfwits" -- the September 11, 1993 issue of New
Scientist, pages 49-50 has a religious message for you! It speaks of the high
quality of thought that has become so prevelant at the American Physical
Society.
 
The evidently distiguished Mr. Francis Slakey, who is identified as the
"Science Policy Administrator for the American Physical Society" and an
Adjunct Professor of Physics at Georgetown University was permitted a two-page
essay titled, "When the lights of reason go out -- Francis Slakey ponders the
faces of fantasy and New Age Scientists." Buried in his musings and rantings
is this choice section:
 
        "The scientists, lawyers, and accountants were captivated by Koresh's
ideas. They bevome Davidians and switched off their reason. The lights went
out. All that remained was faith in Koresh and the dark fantasies he preached.
Then they lit a match to guide them to where they were going.
        "Sometimes the faithful don't completely turn off their reason. They
become captive to a fantasy they hear in one ear, but listen for science with
the other ear. So begins a deterioration that dims the wits but leaves a
zealous heart beating -- the result is a cult of fervent halfwits. Some of
them believe the Universe is only 6000 years old. Some sing praises to
satellites. Some claim to fuse hydrogen in a jar."
        "Cloistered in southern France are the cold fusion team of Martin
Fleischman [YES, Slakey spelled Martin's name incorrectly, such a halfwit!]
and B. Stanley Pons. While every result and conclusion they publish meets with
overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their
illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. They warn of fireballs that will
be hurled from closed cell experiments. They promise to produce an energy
source by the end of the year that can power a home for 10,000 years. And a
few scientists, captivated by the team's fantasy and exile, pursue cold fusion
with Branch Davidian intensity."
 
        Say Brother, praise that preacher man from the APS! His sermon "speaks
for itself," as Soul Brother Steve Jones would say.
 
 
 
        Amen!
        Rabbi Gene Mallove, "fervent halfwit"
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Rusty Perrin /       Fusion Digest 1376
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1376
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 16:34:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the vote results for sci.energy.hydrogen, the charter for the
conference was listed. Is there a similar charter for this group? Could
someone please send it to me, and/or tell me how to get to it (through
internet through bitnet)?
 
Also, to Mr. Swartz (sorry if spelled wrong), if you take the first
definition of redundancy "The quality or state of being redundant" and
then look at redundant, you see "Serving as a duplicate for preventing
failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single
component." This seems to be the sense in which Mr. Jones was using the
word. I hope that helps clear things up for you.
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / R Schroeppel /  why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 18:09:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I can't speak for other people, but I'm still here to read about Steve Jones' work.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / John Logajan /  Fluke Pressure Transducer
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fluke Pressure Transducer
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 16:22:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I see Fluke now offers a pressure/vacuum transducer for use with DMM's.
It reads from 500 PSI to 29.99"Hg vacuum.  It costs approx $230, and
comes with several adapters for various connections.
 
I don't see a sensitivity spec, though, but it is most likely an analog
device and thus varies continuously over the max and min ranges.
 
Extech sells a digital force gauge with +/- 5000g range and 1g resolution,
for $250.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Calibration of Calorimeters
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibration of Calorimeters
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 18:41:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reply to John Logajan                              10 September, 1993
 
John makes a correct point about my calibration scheme.  The tests I described
test only the diagonal of the E/I space.  At least here they do a pretty good
(statistical) job of testing for non-linearity or cross coupling between
measurements of the two heaters.
 
         |             *
         |    A      *
         |         *
     I   |       *
         |     *
         |   *
         | *          B
         * ---------------
               E
 
But John wants to keep me completely honest, and that is fair.  John is
correct.  Just because measurements on the diagonal have a small error as
demonstrated by the random number test, it does not mean that measurements at
A or B are also correct.  There are a lot of reasons why there might be
errors.  I list below the two most important in my opinion:
 
1)  Because of limited common mode rejection in the amplifier which reads the
current measuring shunt, there is a voltage effect on the current reading.
 
2)  Because "ground" is never a perfect 0 volts, there is a load current
effect on the voltage readings as some of the load current gets into the
common path of the voltmeter.
 
A good check for 1) is to open the the load path and vary the voltage.  The
current reading should remain at zero over the full range of operational
voltage levels.  This checks the horizontal axis in the above curve.  We have
done this test.
 
A good check for 2) is to short the load path and vary the current.  The
voltage should remain at zero over the full range of expected load currents.
This checks the vertical axis in the above curve.  We have done this test.
 
The mathematically inclined will realize that with all this effort we have
still only checked 0.000... %  of the possible measurement points.  This is
always true.  That is why we used the random number scheme.  It allows a
statistical measurement of how well the calibration has been done.
 
We do one more thing that I believe answers John's worries.  We would like to
do a continuous check of 1) and 2) above.  We accomplish this by treating the
calorimeter as an n terminal Kirchoff box.  We measure all the currents
entering the box.  This is one more than necessary, so we can require that
they add to zero.  This checks that the current measurement is correct unless
two or more measurements decide to be in error in such a way that the errors
exactly cancel.  Note that the measurement consists primarily of a fixed
balancing resistor which has been calibrated at statistically all points by
the random number test, and the variable cell resistance.  While there could
be an error in the cell E/I measurement because we have not tested all
combinations, the balancing heater E/I measurement should not compensate an
error.  Thus we continuously check for 1) above.
 
We also measure the voltage of all the leads entering the box.  One lead of
the measuring meter is connected to the lead to be measured and the other is
connected to an arbitrary point (ground).  (Note that we also measure this
ground point, so we know what any effects are.  They are small.)  We do not
care if the return lead voltage varies due to large currents in the system as
it is also a redundant measurement and is of no importance to the Kirchoff
measurement.  Usually we take a mean of 100 measurements, and from time to
time check that the variation of the measurements is small to test for noise
or changing conditions during the measurement.  This checks for 2) above.
 
I assure you all that these problems are significant and important to consider
when making precision measurements.  Even though I was pretty careful in the
layout of the printed circuit board for this system, I ended up having to cut
and reroute printed circuit traces for "high quality ground" which carried
only the ladder current for the DACs.  There was too much variable voltage
drop over about 1" of 1/16" inch wide PC trace that carried only a few ma as
the ladder currents changed.  (Note good DAC designs compensate for this - I
just picked the wrong device - it was cheap.)
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Local Heating
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local Heating
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 19:03:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones suggests that the high thermometer readings might be explained
by local pockets of gas escaping from the Pd cathode.
 
The thing that I failed to mention was that these effects lasted for many
hours.  The calorimeter constant which was around 2 C per watt before the
"event" jumped to 8 C per watt after the event, and stayed there for of order
24 hours.  Note that the null balance calorimeter said there was little or no
excess heat.  Later in the run, I was able to get back to near the original
calorimeter constant by lowering the cell current for a while and then going
back up to the original current.
 
I realy don't know what happened.  But I know that I will not trust a
thermometer reading as a measure of power in one of these cells.  Possibly
we will be able to extract enough stuff from the measurements to write a
paper.  More likely, we will only get enough to design a better experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / John Logajan /  Re: APS Mud-Slinger
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: APS Mud-Slinger
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 18:08:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Mr. Francis Slakey writes:
>And a few scientists, captivated by the team's fantasy and exile, pursue
>cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity."
 
As much as Mr. Slakey despises non-mainstream religions, I personally
find that governments who insist upon incinerating, or driving to
incineration, such peoples in the name of whatever orthodoxy, are a far
more fearful and terrible force.
 
It wasn't all that long ago that the Mormons were driven from the state
of Missouri when the Governor called for their extermination -- using
ridiculing arguments just like Mr. Slakey's, no doubt.
 
In case it isn't apparent, I don't think religious intolerance should
be the centerpiece of an article in a modern science oriented magazine.
In fact, I find it contemptible.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 /  schlichting@pa /  Re: Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gas Absorption
Date: 10 Sep 93 14:02:16 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

In article <1993Sep10.130238.16409@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, khladky@nessie
(Karel Hladky) writes:
> At last some real observations ! Great !
>
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
> :
> : For 1) to happen we need a few per-cent effect.  Either:
> :
> : a) A few % over the whole volume
> :
> etc.  from Tom.
 
> My immediate impression (and these can often be wrong) is that an unstable
> compound is formed 'at' the surface of the cathode. Not uncommon in
> electrochemistry.
 ***much deleted****
> So why aren't people measuring it ? (or even controlling it with a
> potentiostat :-))
>
> The observation about polished electrodes being able to maintain a higher D
> loading is also interesting.
***more deleted****
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1993 23:21:00 PDT
Reply-To:     FUSION%ZORCH@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV
Sender:       "Fusion - Redistribution of sci.physics.fusion"
              <FUSION@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
From:         Fusion Digest <fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1382
 
       9 Articles:
 
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
   - Re: Reply to D. Britz
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
   - Re: Local Heating
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
   - Re: Local Heating
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
   - muonic fusion at Jupiter
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
   - Re: Diamond anvil experiments
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
   - Re: Gas Absorption
blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
   - Re: why read sci.fusion?
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
   - On Local Heating
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
   - Re: conditions for ignitions
 
 
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to D. Britz
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 19:42:50 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
 
In article <CD44M1.5ut@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
(Laurence Gene Battin) writes:
> In article <930903025746_76570.2270_BHA44-1@CompuServe.COM>, Eugene Mallove
(76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
> > In response to Dieter Britz's query:
>
> [deletions...]
>
> > Now, if you really want to expand your mental horizons about apparent
> > "violation" of the conservation of energy, I urge you to read a paper by
> > Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Wasn't this guy connected at one time with Uri Geller?
 
 
Yes, there certainly was a physicist named Harold Puthoff,
who along with another fellow named Targ was thoroughly duped
by charlatan-psychic Uri Geller.  Just another lesson about
scientists treading where they are not well trained, and allowing
their desires to overcome their skepticism.
 
Of course, I suppose Mallove thinks Uri Geller is a real psychic.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Local Heating
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local Heating
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 00:16:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>The calorimeter constant which was around 2 C per watt before the
>"event" jumped to 8 C per watt after the event, and stayed there for of order
>24 hours.... Later in the run, I was able to get back to near the original
>calorimeter constant by lowering the cell current for a while and then going
>back up to the original current.
 
Time for more brainstorm'n.
 
Not all the electrical energy input turns immediately into heat.  Some of
it does work associated with splitting the D2O into D2 and O2.
 
When you calibrated to get the 2C per watt, you had one ratio of current to
D2 and O2 production.  But suppose something happens so that for the same
amount of current, D2 and O2 production drops off.  There is less work
being done for (we assume) the same power input.  Therefore more of the
power is available for immediate heat generation, yielding, say, 8C per
watt.
 
In the past you reported platanic acid crystals.  Perhaps these grow to
produce parallel electrical current paths from anode to cathode.  This
would have the same effect of reducing D2 and O2 production by short
circuiting some of the current -- generating heat instead.
 
Of course it would be odd if the voltage didn't change much with this new
operating environment.
 
And I'm not sure if the "calorimeter constant" includes the catalyst heat
or if there is a difference in the constant depending upon where the heat
is finally dumped.
 
So it's not a sure thing.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Local Heating
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local Heating
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 00:33:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>In the past you reported platanic acid crystals.  Perhaps these grow to
>produce parallel electrical current paths from anode to cathode.  This
>would have the same effect of reducing D2 and O2 production by short
>circuiting some of the current -- generating heat instead.
 
Killing two birds with one stone -- an electrical short of some sort
from the anode to the cathode would have the effect of reducing the
voltage drop (and hence current density) across the rest of the surface
of the Pd electrode -- precipitating an outgassing event!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / R Schroeppel /  muonic fusion at Jupiter
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: muonic fusion at Jupiter
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 01:00:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Steve Jones>
    PS.  I'm pleased that Carl Ijames caught my point about metallic hydrogen --
    and I appreciate his insightful question about piezonuclear vs muon-catalyzed
    fusion in the metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter.  Carl, I don't think your
    question has been previously posed -- let me think about this.  It's a good
    question, involving muonic cosmic-ray penetration rates also.  Not an easy
    problem.
 
Wouldn't cosmic ray - induced muons get stopped within a few hundred miles
of the "surface" of Jupiter?  It gets moderately dense (> 1 gm/cc) pretty fast.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Diamond anvil experiments
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Diamond anvil experiments
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 02:23:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Which reminds me: John Logajan, how is that bomb of your doing? What is the
>pressure now?
 
1700 PSI.  If you recall, I cut power at 5000 PSI.  Assuming we have gas
in the ratio of 2-H2:1-O2, if all the H2 escaped and none of the O2 escaped,
we'd have a pressure of just 1/3rd the start.  1/3rd of 5000 PSI is 1666 PSI.
Pretty close! -- or -- a coincidence.
 
If the H2 is really gone, at least the possibility of a recombination
explosion has passed -- I hope.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gas Absorption
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 02:40:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I have fair confidence in the charging measurements.  Most early experiments
>were charged at 30 - 60 ma per sq cm and reached of order .75 D/Pd.  This
>matches many reported values.  Later experiments with polished plates reached
>0.9 -1.05 with a similar profile.
 
I think this question has been asked before, but I've forgotten the answer.
I believe you sometimes use cathodes over again.  Presumably since the D2
likes to go into the Pd so much, a lot of it stays there between runs.
How do you "reset" you Pd cathodes to get a good loading measurement on
the next run?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / arthur blair /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 02:15:22 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Richard Schroeppel (rcs@cs.arizona.edu) wrote:
: I can't speak for other people, but I'm still here to read about Steve Jones' work.
 
: Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
I wish my kill file was smart enough to weed out any message on
cold fusion. I follow this group only for the occasional
snippet of news on hot fusion.
Art.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / mitchell swartz /  On Local Heating
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Local Heating
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 03:33:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep11.001605.14656@ns.network.com>
   Subject: Re: Local Heating
John Logajan [logajan@ns.network.com] writes:
 
 = "In the past you reported platanic acid crystals.  Perhaps these grow to
 = produce parallel electrical current paths from anode to cathode.  This
 = would have the same effect of reducing D2 and O2 production by short
 = circuiting some of the current -- generating heat instead."
 
  It appears that it would actually generate less power dissipated, given
   the conditions with near constant, or constant current, as described here
   and furthermore cannot explain any excess heat.
 
  Proof:
  Let us model (ignoring capacitive and inductive effects, contact
potentials, and other sources of polarization and conduction,  etc.
for simplicity in the elementary model)
the P&F electrochemical cell, composed of solution, palladium (Rc, we will
ignore the platinum, and delivery wires in this model)  as  four resistors
 connected to a power source of constant current.
 The fourth resistor is from the Norton source equivalent.
 
   Now your new circuit addition is Rp (for the platinate crystals you
        postulate) and so:
 
   --/\/\/\/-----/\/\/\/\/-------/\/\/\/\-----------
   |   Rc     |     Re       |     Rn               |
   |          |              |                      | Ok Dieter, its horizontal?
   |          |              |                      |
   |          |--/\/\/\/\----|                   ^  |
   |                Rp                           |  O    c - cathode
   |                                                |    e   electrolyte
   |                                                |    n   for Norton equiv.
   |                                                |    p   platinate crystals
   |                                                |
   |------------------------------------------------|
 
  Well, the power input is     Pin  =  I^2 * (Rc + Rn + (Rp || Re)
 
        The power dissipated at the platinate crystal is
 
                               Ppt  =  I(thru Rp)^2 * (Rp)
 
  We can write then  Ppt/Pin =        I(thru Rp)^2 * (Rp)
                                 _____________________________
                                 I^2 * (Rc + Rn + (Rp || Re)
 
  Examining limits:  if Rp = OO then obviously there is no power dissipated
   at that location.
 
                   as Rp ---> less than infinity it does play a role.
 
    Invert Rp || Re to admittances and add:
 
                Pin  =  I^2 * (Rc + Rn +          1            )
                                          ------------------
                                              1         1
                                            ----   +   ----
                                             Re         Rp
 
   As is obvious by boundary conditions.  when Rp is oo   there is no effect.
       However, as Rp becomes less than 00 (and of significance) note the
      input power actually falls.
 
   so -    1)   there is actually less power dissipated,  and
           2)   this is still no basis to explain the excess heat.
 
  Therefore, continuing our running cold fusion quantitative tabulation:
 
   =====================================   Excess Power Densities =====
Representative Power Densities (*)
   '89                                       ca. 10-20 W/cm3 (*)
   '93                                          1000-2500 W/cm3
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
Representative Positive Results -----------
   Fleischmann & Pons ('89)                       60  (circa)
   Miles ('92)                                   540
 
Putative Effects suggested to account for measured excess enthalpies ---
   Anode Effect (***)                            0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           **
                   in cell IF not considered during calibr'n)
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    '93)           0.75
   The Jones Factor II (silicates '93)           0.0 (max)
   Parallel platinum-derived conductive xtals    0.0 (max)   ****
  ==========================================================================
*   this is W/cm3 of palladium (presuming a volume effect)
**    sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
***"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" H Kellogg J. Elec Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
It did not occur under alkaline conditions, or if sodium sulfate was present.
****  input power should decrease
  ==========================================================================
  If there are errors or updates, please e-mail corrections. thanks in advance
  ==========================================================================
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: conditions for ignitions
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: conditions for ignitions
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 04:06:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CD43K0.33A@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@cyclops.iucf.india
a.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) writes:
 
>Ho ho ho!  Tell that to the astrologers, dowsers, faith-healers, "free
>energy" machine promoters, circle-squarers, etc., etc.
 
In case no-one has seen what they call a free energy machine let's just say
that it is so far from science that you would expect the person who
thought it up to be in lower grade school.
 
I have one of the Bandini Free Energy Machine books around here somewhere and
one of the claims shows a "3 horsepower" electric motor running without
a load on it. Since the motor runs much longer off of a battery (with
Bandini attachments) than the calculation of 3 horsepower would indicate
they claim that there is "free energy" being generated.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: I thought everyone knew
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I thought everyone knew
Date: 10 Sep 93 22:31:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <930909144133_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Steve Jones wrote:
>
>      "Predictably, Jed and Mitch have parried with comments, but neither
>      addressed the issue of *why* the voltage makes such a dramatic rise.
>      When they address this issue, the discussion can continue. . ."
>
> Sorry! I thought everyone knew the answer to that question. The reason the
> voltage rises dramatically is because the electrolyte is boiling away over a
> period of about 10 minutes. This disrupts the flow of electricity; it
> gradually raises the resistance. The power supply is set for constant current,
> so it tries to raise the voltage to compensate, but after a while resistance
> becomes effectively infinite after the water boils away, and the current flow
> stops altogether.
 
Hold on, Jed.  Look again at Figs. 8 and 11 of the P&F Phys. Lett. paper to
which I was referring in my original post. You will see that the "dramatic
rise" I speak of occurs over a period of days -- not just the last 10 minutes.
Note that P&F use 1000 second bins, and the rise occurs over about 400 bins,
about 4.5 days.  Surely Jed did not misread the time scale?  Check the scale of
Fig 11, showing a period of about 60,000 seconds (17 hours) if you think *I*
misread the scale -- since Fig. 11 is just an expansion of the last period of
Fig. 8a which I reproduced in my original posting on Silicates.
 
The expansion of the last portion of the temp.-time curve of
Fig. 8a givien "during the final period of rapid boiling and evaporation"
actually lasts about 60,000 seconds -- roughly 16 hours.  Also mysterious.
>
 
> I thought Steve understood this. I though he was just joshing us with his
> nonsensical theories about enormous silicate blankets forming in 2 weeks. For
> one thing, anyone who has ever done a CF experiment with 0.1 M LiOD knows that
> it can't possibly disintegrate the glass enough to do this in a mere two
> weeks. Even if it could build up a blanket of some sort the effect would not
> suddenly appear in 10 minutes! It would build up gradually.
 
It does build up gradually -- over days!  See above.
 
>Furthermore, this
> is a chemical effect, so it would not show exclusively with D2O + Pd, and
> never with H2O + Pd, H2O + Pt or D2O + Pt.
 
Please show a plot similar to Fig 8 for light water.  (If P&F would show such a
plot, I predict a similar voltage and power rise over days would be found.)
>
> Finally, as anyone knows, no insulation and no changes in conductivity of the
> cathode or electrolyte would seriously affect the ability to measure the
> electric power. Nor would any such change affect the calibration constant. If
> the water temperature went up to 100 deg C, the measured balance of
> electricity going in would reflect that fact exactly. A "blanket" around the
> cathode would raise the cathode temperature, but it could not possibly affect
> the water temperature. Here is the reason why: suppose you calibrate a cell
> and you find that 30 watts into a joule heater raises the temperature of the
> heater itself (inside the metal coil) up to 150 C, and the water temperature
> up to 45 C (25 C over bath temperature). Okay, you take the joule heater out,
> wrap it in some insulating material, put it back into the cell, and input 30
> watts again. What temperature does the water go up to? 45 C of course! The
> metal under its blanket might go up to 250 C this time, but the total number
> of joules coming out of the heater is the same in both cases, so the water
> temperature can't be any different. The insulation would increase the settling
> time a bit (it would take a little longer for the water to come up to 45 C).
> Since P&F are measuring water temperature (and later vapor temperature), and
> not cathode temperature directly, a blanket of glass or any other insulating
> material around the cathode cannot possibly explain the excess heat.
>
 
The total integated input power,
 
    I (constant) * V (increasing over days),
 
must cause the water temp. to rise, even if there is a time lag.
 
  Would someone please look closely at P&F's input voltage vs
time plot, taking into account the 1000-second (enormous) time bins, and
integrate the input power for us (assuming no missed transient components).
Then calculate the temp. rise for 40 cc water as function of time, for the
increasing I*V heating?  Perhaps I should take the time, but it's rather late
now (10:30 pm) and I should spend time with the family.
 
> For all these reasons, I did not think that Steve or anyone else took his
> so-called "theory" seriously. It is obviously a bunch of contrived bunk.
>
> Okay. Let the discussion continue.
>
> - Jed
 
Why don't you calculate the integrated input power and concomitant rise in
water temperature, Jed?  Maybe something will sink in from what I've been
trying to say.  And I admit I may be wrong.  But not until you explain the rise
in input voltage over a period of days, leading finally to boiling.  The
silicate-deposition idea which I posited addresses this mystery, which P&F
curiously fail to mention in their paper.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: On Local Heating
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Local Heating
Date: 11 Sep 1993 05:16:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) says:
>
>   --/\/\/\/-----/\/\/\/\/-------/\/\/\/\--
>       Rc     |     Re       |     Rn
>              |              |
>              |              |
>              |--/\/\/\/\----|
>                    Rp
 
I believe you have made a mistake in attributing all the current flow
to either Re or Rp.  I suspect that even without Rp there is little
current flowing through Re.  There is a third leg, the D2+O2 production
leg that gets a good deal of the energy.
 
                 D2    O2
                  ^    ^
                  |    |
                 - ---- -
              |--| work |----|
              |  --------    |
              |              |
              |              |
   --/\/\/\/-----/\/\/\/\/-------/\/\/\/\--
       Rc     |     Re       |     Rn
              |              |
              |              |
              |--/\/\/\/\----|
                    Rp
 
Note that the energy stored in the dissociation of D2O to D2 and O2 is not
recovered as heat until later recombination (if any.)  Thus Rp can rob
some of the work energy from the work leg and turn it into heat instead of
work.
 
Since the dissociation of D2O requires a minimum voltage (1.48V??) all Rp
has to do is reduce the voltage drop across the work function to just under
1.48V and then that path would effectively shut down.
 
At a charging current of 600ma per cm sq, at 1.45V, say, we suddenly have
870 mw of power per cm sq appearing at Rp.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / mitchell swartz /  More on Local Heating
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Local Heating
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 13:13:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <26rn03$kd4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
    Subject: Re: On Local Heating
John Logajan (al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) writes:
 
=jl "I believe you have made a mistake in attributing all the current flow
=jl to either Re or Rp.  I suspect that even without Rp there is little
=jl current flowing through Re.  There is a third leg, the D2+O2 production
=jl leg that gets a good deal of the energy.
 
  The current is carried by the electrolyte solution.
  Proof:  Corrosion itself.   No water.  No corrosion.
    Not to mention that when any electrochemical cell is dry (and free of
    outgassing D2 from the charged palladium cathode capable of burning
    to form more heavy water) there is absolutely negligible current.
 
  Re represents all dissipative portions of ALL the conduction/polarization
      processes in the solution, and this include:
 
          1) ionic drift (all species)
          2) L-, D- defect propagation
          3) space charge polarization
          4) orientation polarization of any (electrically) poled materials
          5) domain formation
          6) atomic polarizations
          7) electronic polarizations
 
  The value is derived from the complex permittivity (cf "Molecular Science
    and Molecular Engineering" A. von Hippel (Wiley)  or
    "Dielectric Materials and Applications" A. von Hippel (editor)
     (MIT Press) as follows:
 
   The complex permittivity:
 
                  e*   =      e'  -  j e''
 
  where e' is the "dielectric contant"  and
 
   conductivity     sigma =  2 * pi * frequency * e''
 
  The conversion to resistivity (1/sigma) and geometric factors produce the
          value for Re.
 
Finally,   methinks, that any storage of energy is handled in a circuit model as
   either a  capacitive or inductive element.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: More on Local Heating
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Local Heating
Date: 11 Sep 1993 14:19:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) says:
>  The current is carried by the electrolyte solution.
>  Proof:  Corrosion itself.   No water.  No corrosion.
 
The local heating value of the current depends upon the work done or not done.
Proof:  The heating value of D2 and O2 during remote recombination.
 
For instance, if you use electrolysis to split water and pipe the H2 and O2
through a tube across the room where it is burned, there is remote heat.
By conservation of energy laws, this remote heat is from the energy supplied
during electrolysis.  Therefore such remote heat represents a proportional
local heat deficit in the electrolytic cell -- as compared to simple
ohmic dissipation.  Therefore a simple resistor model is inappropriate.
(Especially in open calorimeters where the D2 and O2 is simply allowed to
drift away!)
 
>methinks that any storage of energy is handled in a circuit model as
>either a capacitive or inductive element.
 
I'm not in a position to argue this, but I'm not sure what enlightenment
such a formalism will produce.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 15:14:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Here are five birds (in Tom Droege's basement) that I intend to kill with
one stone:
 
1.) Change in cell constant from 2C/W to 8C/W during event
2.) Outgassing during event
3.) Bursty nature of some events
4.) Constant voltage during event
5.) Suddeness of cell constant change during event
 
 
The stone:
A parallel current path (suspects include platanic acid crystal formation.)
 
 
How the birds die:
 
1.) As mentioned before, the creation of a parallel current path in a constant
current mode of operation would reduce the current available for D2 and O2
production.  D2 and O2 production store energy.  Ohmic current flow dissipates
energy as heat.  As D2 and O2 production decrease, each amp from the power
supply produces more local heating -- giving us this bird -- the increase
in cell constant degrees per input watt.
 
2.) Also mentioned before, if the current flow is no longer through the
electrolyte, but instead through ohmic contacts with the cathode surface,
the conditions for D loading are no longer met, and some outgassing will
result.
 
3.) Rapid outgassing could disrupt the crystal structure of the alleged
platanic acid crystals, breaking up the parallel current path and returning
the cell to "normal" operation.  This would give rise to a burstiness.
 
4.) Parallel current path creation would presumably be gradual.  If platanic
acid crystals are not good conductors, they would only slowly take currrent
share away from the electrolytic transport method.  However, eventually
they'd reach the point of sharing a significant amount of current with the
electrolytic transport and the voltage across the parallel current paths
would begin to decline.  When the voltage across both reached the critical
point (1.48V or thereabouts) the electrolytic path current would tend to
drop quickly to zero.  The platanic path would then take all the current.
Note that if platanic path couldn't handle all the current without increasing
its voltage drop above 1.48 volts, electrolysis would resume.  So one can
either imagine some oscilation, or a nice equilibrium transition phase.
 
When the platanic path could handle all the current at just under the 1.48V
critical point.  Electrolysis would essentially stop, and the total voltage
applied at the constant current would have barely changed.
 
5.) The quickness of the cell constant change is explained above.  Rather
quickly you have this transition through the critical voltage which effectively
turns on the platanic path and turns off the electrolytic path.  This gives
quick rise to the effect describe with bird #1.
 
Five dead birds.  Think I'll make some pie crust.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / C Harrison /  Re: Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gas Absorption
Date: 11 Sep 93 13:56:33 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
 
>At last some real observations ! Great !
 
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
  [ discussion of transient phenomena in electrolysis cells deleted ]
 
>My immediate impression (and these can often be wrong) is that an unstable
>compound is formed 'at' the surface of the cathode. Not uncommon in
>electrochemistry. If this is stable only at or above a given overpotential
>then a drop in the cell current could lead to a drop in the overpotential
>and the compound would decompose again. We need to know whether the
>potential of the cathode (NOT the voltage across the cell) fluctuates during
>a nominally constant current run. My betting is that it does.
 
>So why aren't people measuring it ? (or even controlling it with a
>potentiostat :-))
 
I see a hypothesis here:
  Localized deposits on the surface of the electrode(s) form and decompose
  during the transient gas/heat events described by Tom Droege.
 
And an experimental program:
  Place a multitude of (well, at least 2) reference electrodes in the
  electrolyte.
 
Discussion:
[Standard discalimer: no electrochemistry background]
I recall from undergrad physics that "salt tanks" were once used routinely
for solving Laplace's equation with complicated 3-dimensional boundary
conditions.  An aquarium is filled with salt water, electrodes are
fabricated to model the shape of the boundary conditions, voltages (AC-
to minimize polarization problems at electrodes) are applied.  A probe
wire, insulated except at its very tip, is used to explore the potential
field.  The method was accurate enough to design large electric generators,
high-voltage equipment, etc, so I think the model of a conducting electrolyte
as a uniform bulk-resistivity medium can be pretty good.  I assume that
modern computer FEA methods make this stuff obsolete in practice.
 
So what?  Well, the classic P&F construction (cylindrical symmetry), and,
to a lesser extent the Takahashi construction (balanced parallel-plate)
both provide a relatively simple, symmetrical field condition.  Symmetrically-
located probe electrodes should give equal voltages.  Voltage unbalance
represents asymmetry: "localized" surface changes.  As few as two probes
would discriminate between Tom's (b) and (c) hypotheses.  A set of 6 or
so probes could reveal info on:
  * How large are the "localized" regions?
  * Do they form and reform at the same place, or
  * .. jump around?  ..or travel on trajectories?
 
I imagine the signals will be dominated, at relatively high frequencies
(e.g. >10 Hz?) by bubble effects.  Full data recording and reduction
would be intimidating (perhaps similar to the hot-wire wind-tunnel
turbulence experiments my wife is now working on at grad school...with
multiple workstations cranking overnite...) and might be interesting
to some specialized bubble researchers.  But this isn't appropriate
to Tom's goals.  Instead, I suggest:
  * Take long-term averages - at least this should reveal formation
    & disappearance of local resistive layers over x-hours times;
  * Take pulse measurements: drop the cell voltage "instantaneously"
    (10's of millisecs?) to stop the bubbles and look at the
    voltages.
The second option carries the risk of interfering with the dynamics of
the unknown process (is there any anecdotal evidence on this??).  But,
based on Dieter & Karel's remarks about dynamic polarization measurements
for "smart" IR compensation, this could give some really neat info --
_spatially resolved_ info with multiple probes -- about electrode surface
conditions.  You could get a couple of PhD theses out of this! ;-)
 
Hey, I just had another idea.  For Tom, it would be a piece of cake to
superimpose a low-level AC carrier (say, 1kHz or so) on the electrolysis
cell.  With synchronous detection (with quadrature channels, for fun) on
multiple probes, you could do a spatially-resolved version of the
"dynamic impedance analysis" (terminology??) that was discussed here
recently (I think Dick Blue started the thread).
 
As I think about these proposals, it seems to me that a critical issue
is designing the cell geometry and probe location so that the data
will be meaningful _without_ a grotesque amount of mathematical
manipulation.
 
FWIW  - Chuck H.
 
>Karel
....................................................................
 
--
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / mitchell swartz /  Continued Local (& Remote) Heating
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Continued Local (& Remote) Heating
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 15:04:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <26smq9$spu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
   Subject: Re: More on Local Heating
John Logajan [ al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu] writes:
 
=jl "The local heating value of the current depends upon the work done or
=jl  not done."
 
   Work done, Except as reported for cases of excess enthalpy in palladium-D2O
    (and a few others since involving nickel, and a few other metals) systems.
 
 
=jl "Proof:  The heating value of D2 and O2 during remote recombination."
 
   Where they recombine external to the electrolyte and electrode-power sytem,
    not only is there no electrical (applied) current,
    but the water is (f(temperature)) circa pH 7  far below the solution
    below (or whereever).  There may be inter- and intramolecular electron
    transfer but that is not part of the applied electric field intensity
    electrochemical system, is it?
 
 
=jl "For instance, if you use electrolysis to split water and pipe the H2 and O2
=jl through a tube across the room where it is burned, there is remote heat."
 
   Good point.  And a bit of mass transfer to go with it.
 
=jl "By conservation of energy laws, this remote heat is from the energy
=jl supplied during electrolysis.  Therefore such remote heat represents a
-jl proportional local heat deficit in the electrolytic cell .."
 
 It is a "return" (perhaps even to the calorimeter - and must be considered -)
   of the original energy already dissipated.  It has a maximum of the energy
   dissipated  to produce the molecular species in question.  I am less
   certain that it has to be proportional to any "local heat deficit"
   or other parameter of the electrical circuit, but remain interested in
   how you might think that to be.
 
              Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Continued Local (& Remote) Heating
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continued Local (& Remote) Heating
Date: 11 Sep 1993 15:57:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) says:
>   It has a maximum of the energy
>   dissipated  to produce the molecular species in question.  I am less
>   certain that it has to be proportional to any "local heat deficit"
>   or other parameter of the electrical circuit, but remain interested in
>   how you might think that to be.
 
Assuming for the moment no anomalous heat, how could it be otherwise?
 
You have  Input Energy = Heat + Storage
or
Input energy = kinetic + potential
 
Resistive heat is random kinetic energy.
Gas production is potential energy.  (Which can be turned into kinetic
energy at some later time and/or remote place.)
 
For each erg of potential energy, you have one less erg of kinetic energy
for the total input energy of the above equation.  Therefore for each
erg appearing as remote heat, you must have an erg deficit from the local
heat.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / C Harrison /  Re: I thought everyone knew
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I thought everyone knew
Date: 11 Sep 93 15:19:09 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>In article <930909144133_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>,
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>>
>> Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>>      "Predictably, Jed and Mitch have parried with comments, but neither
>>      addressed the issue of *why* the voltage makes such a dramatic rise.
        [ in Fleischmann & Pons, Phys Let A 176 (1993) 118-129 ]
 
It is clear, as Steve notes, that there is a dramatic increase in cell
resistance over the course of the experiments, long before any significant
loss of electrolyte volume ("boil-off").
 
I recall some dsicussion of cell resistance variations in connection with
the Takahashi work (Akito Takahashi et al, Intl J Applied Electromag in
Mat'ls 3 (1992) 221-230).  The experiment was run with a 6hr/6hr Hi/Low
current cycle.  Within each 6-hr period of high current, temperature
would rise (ca 1C) and voltage would drop (ca 3%).  Over longer periods,
voltage varied much more (say, from 20 to 28 volts for 4.2A input).
 
Takahashi was not terribly concerned with cell voltage except to monitor
it accurately enough (on a chart recorder) to do I*V for calorimetry.  The
factors he knew were involved included
  (1) The expected increase in electrolyte conductivity with temperature;
  (2) The variation in electrolyte concentration due primarily to
      electrolysis and D2O replenishment (typically once per week).
 
In the Fleischmann & Pons work, the D2O replenishment was done more often;
there appear to have been at least 4 replenishment cycles during the period
of significant voltage rise shown in 8b.  The correlation between cell
resistance and temperature (i.e. both increase simultaneously) is the
opposite one would expect from electrolyte conductivity temperature
coefficient (Takahashi (1), above).  So I still see a puzzle.  Either
  (1) A chemical change in the electrolyte is decreasing its conduc-
      tivity, or
  (2) A surface layer is forming at the cathode (or, less likely, the
      anode), or
  (3) A large fraction of the electrode surface area is being obstructed
      by bubbles, constricting the current paths, or
  (4) ??.
I would lean towards (2).  Of course, at my distance from the experiment,
that opinion is worthless.
 
Regarding (3) (bubble interference) I have one more comment based on the
Takahashi data.  I have a copy of one of Takahashi's overhead foils
showing V,I, & T traces for several sequential Hi/Low intervals, _one_
of which is marked "Screen boiling" (synonomous with "film boiling"??).
The voltage trace during screen boiling is noisier, but almost the
same in average value, as the adjacent "normal" cycles.
 
...
 
>  Would someone please look closely at P&F's input voltage vs
>time plot, taking into account the 1000-second (enormous) time bins, and
>integrate the input power for us (assuming no missed transient components).
>Then calculate the temp. rise for 40 cc water as function of time, for the
>increasing I*V heating?  Perhaps I should take the time, but it's rather late
>now (10:30 pm) and I should spend time with the family.
 
Steve, are you asking whether the heat capacity of the water is accounted
for?  If so, lay off!  Leave that sort of questioning to Dick Blue, who
seems to enjoy asking more than he enjoys reading the papers (Hi, Dick! :-)).
 
F&P's thermal model (eqn (1) in the cited paper) explicitly includes that
(the left-hand term).  In any case, most of the experiment is near steady
state, and the energy fluxes greatly outweigh the energy storage term.
The only place where things move fast enough to make the dynamics
interesting is coming up to the boil-off (and especially during boil-off),
where they chose not to publish the measured data.  Of course they _did_
publish their computed value for the integral during the boil-off event
(22500 J - after adjusting for the thermoneutral potential - or 37.5W
for 600 sec).  I back-calculate 76.5V for the avg cell potential, which
is not out of line with the data visible on fig 8b.
 
>--Steven Jones
 
-Chuck
 
 
--
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / C Harrison /  Silicates on cathode
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates on cathode
Date: 11 Sep 93 16:35:58 GMT
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Following on to the Jones silicate discussion --
 
I was looking at my Takahashi notes and found this item from late fall,
1992:
  T. now feels strongly that deposition of something on the
  surface of the cathode is important.  Post-mortem SIMS
  (secondary ion mass spec) on the cathode from experiment 115
  showed Na, Al, and Ca present.  Na and Ca are likely from
  the soft soda-lime glass used to sleeve the thermocouple
  probe.  The deposition phenomenon may be dependent on the
  bath temperature.
 
When I spoke with him a year or so ago, Dr. Takahashi was very friendly
and open with his information.  Interested researchers may be able to
get the SIMS plots by contacting him directly:
  Dr. Akito Takahashi
  Dept. Nuclear Engineering
  Osaka University
  2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita
  Osaka 565, Japan
  FAX: +81 6 877 3264
 
 
FWIW.  Chuck
 
--
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Killing Birds
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Killing Birds
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 19:14:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I like John Logajans ideas about killing birds, but disagree in some of the
details.  Will write more detail on monday.
 
Meanwhile, Lee (my brother) has been saving an 1890 recipe for bird pie
by Lily Langtree on the chance that the "cold fusion" community would need
it.  So John, save them birds.  But make sure they are black as the recipe
requires it.
 
It is clear to me that two calorimeters are needed to sort this all out.
One for the cell and one for the recombiner.  Then we will know.  It will
take about a year, six months to build and calibrate, then six months to
find an experiment where something happens that we can explain.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / Bill Page /  A Primer on hydrogen delocalization
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Primer on hydrogen delocalization
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 19:32:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger has mentioned the articles by Nieminen (Nature v356 p289
March 1992) and Astaldi et al (Phys Rev Let v68 no.1 p90) which discuss
direct evidence for the de-localization of H on metal lattice surfaces.  I
think it is worth while to also consider several other cases where hydrogen
delocalization and tunnelling are also very significant.
 
First, and perhaps most directly relevant to CF is the theory of proton
conductivity of water.  From Bockris and Reddy "Modern Electrochemistry";
1970, p472-487:
 
"The facts of proton transport, however, constitute a curious and
interesting story.  Most important of all (see Table 5.2), *the mobility of
protons is abnormally high*.  For most other ions in solution, the mobility
is of the order of magnitude of 5e-4 cm^2/sec/V; protons migrate with a
limiting mobility of about 36e-4 cm^2/sec/V.  This abnormal mobility is
reflected in the transport number, too.  Other positive ions in a
1:1-valent electrolyte carry about 50% of the total current; hydrogen ions,
however, transport as much as 80% of the total current.
 
                          Table 5.2
 
         Mobilities of Charge Carriers in Liquids and Solids
 
         Particle                           Mobility
                                          cm^2/sec/V
         Ions (e.g. K+) in water          ~ 5e-4
         Protons in water                   3e-3
         Ions (e.g. Li+) in ice           << 1e-8
         Proton in ice                      0.1 to 1
 
 
                        Table 5.3
 
  Transport Numbers of Cations in 0.01N Chloride Solutions at 25 deg. C
 
           Ion                            Transport number
           Hydrogen ion                        0.8251
           Li+                                 0.3289
           Na+                                 0.3918
           K+                                  0.4902
           Ba++                                0.440
           La++                                0.4625
 
  A number of other facts concerning proton mobility are as surprizing.
Firstly, the abnormally high mobility is diminished to normal values if
water is replaced as solvent by some other substance... Secondly, the ratio
of the excess (or abnormal) mobilities between the hydrogen and deuterium
ions in water is 1.4 at 25 deg. C [Table 5.5 shows infinite dilution
mobility of H+ in H2O: 36.2e-4 and D+ in D2O: 25.1e-4] - much more than
might be expected on a Stokes' law basis since the two ions are virtually
the same size.  Thirdly, the proton mobility shows a temperature
coefficient which indicates that the heat of activation decreases with
temperature (Table 5.6); in the case of most other ions, a single energy is
good enough over an appreciable range of temperature. [Table 5.6 shows mean
heat of activation between 273 to 291 deg K as 2.822 kcal/mole, dropping to
0.211 between 401 to 429 deg. K]."
 
[Several classical explanations are considered and rejected for failing to
explain the observed facts...]
 
"The calculation of the rate of quantum-mechanical proton transfer
[tunnelling] from  hydrogen ions [H3O+] to water molecules was carried out
in detail in a classical paper by Bernal and Fowler... tunnelling should be
considered *the* predominant mode of proton transfer ... But calculation
shows it is too fast to explain the observed mobility... The tunnelling of
protons will give too high a mobility only if the water molecules are
always oriented correctly... there are two processes which must cooperate.
First, there is water reorientation, and then the proton tunneling."
 
"The calculation of the specific rate of water re-orientation [was] first
performed by Conway et al. in 1956...[it was necessary to assume that] the
approach of the proton can trigger a mechanism which turns the water
molecule around and makes it ready to meet the tunnelling proton.  It is
precisely this *field-induced re-orientation* of the water molecules that
is necessary to explain the proton mobility."
 
"...the time taken in the transfer process [tunnellin from H3O+ to H2O] is
about 1e-14 sec, while the time an H3O+ ion waits for its adjacent water
molecule to reorient is about 2.4e-13 sec.... For 96% of its life, a proton
exists attached to a water molecule, i.e. the H3O+ ion has an independent
existence.  Hence, in addition to the [mechanism] just described, there is
also the usual Stokes type of drift of H3O+ ions. In fact, the Stokes
transport of H3O+ ions accounts for about 20% of the total mobility of
protons."
 
"There are, in addition, several other phenomena which can be
quantitatively interpreted in terms of [this model].  Mention may be made
of the anomalous mobility of hydroxyl OH- ions compared with that of
protonsl and interpretation of the mobility of NH4+ and NH2- in NH3."
 
"It is the matter of the proton mobility in ice which has been argued by
Conway et al. as providing the most striking evidence in favour of the
water-rotation, proton-tunneling model.  The fact is: Ice exhibits a higher
proton mobility than water does... their mobility is no longer determined
by the rate of water rotation.  Hence, the tunneling itself becomes the
rate determining step."
 
So, this is a rather strange, half quantum mechanical, half classical model
which seems to explain the facts.  As this model is now somewhat dated, it
seems to me it is time for some condensed matter physicist/electro-chemist
to produce a fully quantum mechanical description of the phenomena.  Would
such a model include *proton bands*?  Should we (I really mean Steve Jones)
be looking for low level neutron emissions from D2O ice?
 
Bockris and Reddy conclude this section of their book with the following
observations:
 
"Protons are central to the electrochemistry of solutions; they are the
basis of the concepts of pH and of acids and bases.  But that is not the
only reason why their state in solution is so important.  Another reason
stems from the central question:  How are electric charges transported in
solid biological systems?  A great many biological systems require concepts
connected with electrochemical charge transfer for an explanation of their
behaviour.  A difficulty is in explaining how electric current gets carried
within macromolecules.  Now, in the systems concerned, there is much H
bonding; recall the protein helix held together by hydrogen bonds.  It is a
speculation, but perhaps one of interest, that the charge transport in such
systems is by protons, perhaps tunneling protons, not electrons.  Hence,
any mechanism by which protons get carried along particularly quickly,
especially an H-bonded solid (e.g. ice), has important implications for a
large area of molecular biology."
 
...
 
Now, here is another quite different reference to delocalized hydrogen.  In
the well known text by Charles Kittel "Introduction to Solid State Physics"
(sixth edition, 1986) ferroelectric crystals are discussed on page 373:
 
"A ferroelectric crystal exhibits an electric dipole moment even in the
absence of an external electric field.  In the ferroelectric state the
center of positive charge of the cyrstal does not coincide with the center
of negative charge."
 
"Ferroelectricity usually disappears above a certain temperature called the
transition temperature [Curie point Tc].  Above the transition the crystal
is said to be in a paraelectric state.  The term paraelectric suggests an
analogy with paramagnetism; similarly, there is usually a rapid drop in the
dielectric constant as the temperature increases."
 
"Ferro-electric crystals may be classified into two main groups,
order-disorder or displacive.  If in the paraelectric phase the atomic
displacements are oscillations about a nonpolar site, then after a
*displacive transition* the oscillations are about a polar site."
 
"If in the paraelectric phase the [atomic] displacements are about some
double-well or multi-well configuration of sites, then in an
*order-disorder transition* the displacements are about an ordered subset
of these wells.
...
"The order-disorder class of ferroelectrics includes crystals with hydrogen
bonds in which the motion of the protons is related to the ferroelectric
properties, as in potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) and isomorphous
salts."
 
"The behaviour of cyrstals in which the hydrogen has been replaced by
deterium is interesting:
                             KH2PO4     KD2PO4   KH2AsO4    KD2AsO4
   Curie temperature         123 K      213 K     96 K       162 K
 
The substitution of deuterons for protons nearly doubles Tc, although the
fractional change in the molecular weight of the compound is less than 2
percent.  This extraordinarily large isotope shift is believed to be a
quantum effect involving the [*]mass-dependence of the de Broglie
wavelength[*].  Neutron diffraction data show that above the Curie
temperature the proton distribution along the hydrogen bond is symmetically
elongated.  Below the Curie temperature the distribution is more
concentrated and asymmetric with respect to neighboring ions, so that one
end of the hydrogen bond is preffered by the proton over the other end."
 
The other well known case of an "inverse isotope shift" is the
superconductivity of paladium hydride/deuteride.  PdD has a notably higher
superconductor Tc of around 10 K.
 
Perhaps it is notable that the other class of ferroelectrics (displacive)
includes the so called Perovskites such as LiNbO3 (with feroelectric Tc of
1480 K!).  For some reason they remind me of the new high temperature
superconductors...
 
In any case, should Steve Jones be looking at compounds like KD2PO4 for low
level neutrons?  Come to think of it, don't the properties of concrete have
a lot to do with hydrogen bonds?
 
Cheers,
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Response to Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Steve Jones
Date: 11 Sep 1993 23:34:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
:    Now what does this imply with respect to Cold Fusion?  It means
: that only if the deuterons are degenerate (multiple overlaping wave
: functions) does a system of deuterons have an increased probability
: for fusion.
 
This is getting repetitive.  Ahem.
 
**********
Where did the energy to get "multiple-overlapping-wave-functions"
come from?
**********
 
You essentially said "if we get things close enough to fuse then
there's an increased probability of fusion."  This isn't news.
 
: With in solids I think this is the critical component
: for the enhancment of cold fusion rates.  In a lattice like Pd,
: deuterons are degenerate.
 
Are they?   Why?  How did you squeeze them together?
 
Too many people are thinking about the "many quantum particles in
periodic wells" problem from their textbooks, forgetting that the textbook
problem started with "assume N non-interacting particles..."
 
You can't just say "We have degenerate deuterons with overlapping wave
functions"!  That's assuming the result you want to achieve.
 
: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@coplex.com
 
Degenerate electronic matter in white dwarfs happens because of
a big huge gravitational potential holding the whole thing together.
 
I.e. the energy came from somewhere.
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / mitchell swartz /  Local (& Remote) Heating; T + U
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Local (& Remote) Heating; T + U
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 00:51:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <26sshc$4su@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
    Subject: Re: Continued Local (& Remote) Heating
John Logajan (al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
 
== "have  Input Energy = Heat + Storage
== or
== Input energy = kinetic + potential"
 
  Agreed.   total energy  =  T(q,dq) + U(q)
                                 --
                                 dt       eg. cf. "Mechanics" L.D. Landau &
                                                   E.M.Lifshitz, Pergamon ('66)
 
== "Resistive heat is random kinetic energy.
== Gas production is potential energy.  (Which can be turned into kinetic
== energy at some later time and/or remote place.)"
 
  The gases actually have kinetic energy.
  Even at 0 degrees absolute they have a zero-point kinetic energy
    resulting from the zero-point motion, don't they?
 
 
== "For each erg of potential energy, you have one less erg of kinetic energy
== for the total input energy of the above equation.  Therefore for each
== erg appearing as remote heat, you must have an erg deficit from the local
== heat."
 
   No.  The energy is lost, and a portion (probably not all of it) is
       recoverable.   They are linked by the recombiner, and the experimenters
       hard efforts to keep the recombiner working [and at low temp.]
 
       Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / mitchell swartz /  On - He thought everyone knew
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On - He thought everyone knew
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 00:52:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <cfh.747760749@calypso>
   Subject: Re: I thought everyone knew
Charles Harrison [cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu] writes:
 
=ch ">In article <930909144133_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>,
=ch >72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
=ch >> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
=ch >>
=ch >> Steve Jones wrote:
=ch >>
=ch >>      "Predictably, Jed and Mitch have parried with comments, but neither
=ch >>      addressed the issue of *why* the voltage makes such a dramatic rise.
=ch         [ in Fleischmann & Pons, Phys Let A 176 (1993) 118-129 ]
=ch
=ch "It is clear, as Steve notes, that there is a dramatic increase in cell
=ch resistance over the course of the experiments, long before any significant
=ch loss of electrolyte volume ("boil-off")."
 
    Good point.  Also, for the record:
 
     There are many contributions to the conduction/polarisation
phenomena which the cells underwent.   Unlike Prof Jones, this
author requires much more information to determine the relative
contribution of each.
 
   For examples these conduction/polarization phenomena include
 
          1) ionic drift (all species)
          2) L-, D- defect propagation
          3) space charge polarization
          4) orientation polarization of any (electrically) poled materials
          5) domain formation
          6) atomic polarizations
          7) electronic polarizations
 
(cf "Molecular Science and Molecular Engineering" A. von Hippel (Wiley)  or
    "Dielectric Materials and Applications" A. von Hippel (editor)
     (MIT Press)
 
   Steve Jones was asked why he thought some of these (eg. sulfates)
 were of the order of magnitude and effect he claims, despite touting them
 repeatedly.                          No answer.
   As to the reasons why the voltage could rise?
   Jed and I have done independantly answered him, but there is an apparent
   failure at honest quantitative response from him.   Oh well.
 
 
=ch "In the Fleischmann & Pons work, the D2O replenishment was done more often;
=ch there appear to have been at least 4 replenishment cycles during the period
=ch of significant voltage rise shown in 8b.  The correlation between cell
=ch resistance and temperature (i.e. both increase simultaneously) is the
=ch opposite one would expect from electrolyte conductivity temperature
=ch coefficient (Takahashi (1), above).  So I still see a puzzle.  Either
=ch   (1) A chemical change in the electrolyte is decreasing its conduc-
=ch       tivity, or
=ch   (2) A surface layer is forming at the cathode (or, less likely, the
=ch       anode), or
=ch   (3) A large fraction of the electrode surface area is being obstructed
=ch       by bubbles, constricting the current paths, or
=ch   (4) ??.
=ch I would lean towards (2).  Of course, at my distance from the experiment,
=ch that opinion is worthless."
 
   Good list Chuck.  Add in:
 
       (5) geometric changes as the electrolyte level decreases, thereby
possibly decreasing the effective electrode surface area, and effecting
the geometric factors of the electrolyte resistance.
 
                 R =  rho * L
                      _______
                         A
 
   So the denominator may be effected in #5.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / mitchell swartz /  On degenerate systems
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On degenerate systems
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 00:53:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <26tn9qINN1hj@network.ucsd.edu>
  Subject: Re: Response to Steve Jones
Matt Kennel (mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net)) wrote:
 
= :    Now what does this imply with respect to Cold Fusion?  It means
= : that only if the deuterons are degenerate (multiple overlaping wave
= : functions) does a system of deuterons have an increased probability
= : for fusion. [Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com)]
=
= "This is getting repetitive.  Ahem."
 
  Chuck is correct.   Amen.
 
= "**********
= Where did the energy to get "multiple-overlapping-wave-functions"
= come from?
= **********"
=
= : With in solids I think this is the critical component
= : for the enhancment of cold fusion rates.  In a lattice like Pd,
= : deuterons are degenerate. [Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com)]
=
= Are they?   Why?  How did you squeeze them together?
 
  Chuck is correct again.   Why do you have to "squeeze them together"?
 
   Do you do that to make ethylene and/or other pi-bonded molecules
                                             (talking electrons here)?
 
      Nope.  It does it itself, because the total energy of the system
             is lowered.
 
   Do you squeeze copper conduction electrons into the bands in the
        Brillion zones?
     Nope. They do it themselves.  [Maybe the same reason above, any thoughts?]
 
       Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.11 / Marshall Dudley /  Theory on reported events, and note on mixing religion and science.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theory on reported events, and note on mixing religion and science.
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 17:28:53 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

I am degreed in electronics, and am are familiar with solid state physics,
so most ideas I have tend to be structured along those lines.  With that
said I would like to make a suggestion about what I think may be going on
with the "events" being reported.
 
If it is my understanding, the hydrogen ions are forced into the metallic
lattice by a potential difference at the surface of the palladium.  The higher
this potential is, the more "pressure" the hydrogen will develop within the
lattice.  I hope my understanding of this is correct.  If so, then lets
continue.  This area is going to be very thin, basically the liquid/solid
interface.  Comparing it to a diode, it will not be able to stand a very high
potential difference (even if the gradient is quite high) before "breakdown",
therefore limiting the amount of "pressure" one could conceivable apply to
the ions.
 
Now, if during the experiment some contamination builds up on the palladium,
lets say a very thin layer of sodium silicate for instance, you now have a
boundry layer which if contaminated properly, would become a semiconductor,
and would allow hydrogen ions to diffuse through it.  The result once the
entire metal surface is covered would be a voltage spike.  This would be a
result of the distribution of hydrogen ions in the semiconductor (like the
forward voltage drop on a diode) and the insulating effects of the layer. The
result on the palladium would be a very significant increase in the hydrogen
"pressure".  Now we would have two things happening here.  The increased
voltage drop across the semiconductor would force more hydrogen into the
already saturated palladium, and the increased IR drop across the
semiconductor would increase the surface temperature.  If we are close to a
point where significant fusions could occur, then the increase in pressure,
and the increase in temperature would both be enhancing factors.  If fusion is
not involved at all, then the increase in temperature could cause a sudden
hydrogen discharge, blowing off the film, and releaseing large quantities of
hydrogen, and perhaps heat (but not excess heat) during the event.  Also if a
minute pinhole developed in the film, hydrogen could shoot out through the
hole creating an ultrasonic wave which could then be another factor in what is
happening inside the palladium (increased fusion rates, higher rates of
disassociation, or some type of interaction with zero point energy, I am brain
storming here).
 
Now for a proposal.  Why not try palladium with a film of a semiconductor
fused to it's surface. A good first choice I think would be germanium,
although silicon and gallium arsenide might also be worth trying.  Even
dipping it in waterglass might yield some useful information. Using the
material that is used for the dividing layer in fuel cells is another
possibility (I am not sure what that is, but think it is a plastic). It would
be advisable to determine the minimum temperature hydrogen will diffuse
through the semiconductor, and make sure it is less than the operating
temperature of the cell.  If this works, you should find the voltage rises to
a high level as soon as the palladium becomes saturated. The non-repeatablility
and hit and miss of generating spikes through unknown, and uncontrollable
contamination creating a boundry layer (if this is actually what is happening)
should then be a thing of the past.
 
Also, it might we worthwhile to try some testing with a pizoelectric element
attached to the palladium.  Once the palladium is saturated, see what, if any,
effect an ultrasonic (standing) wave of different frequencies may have on the
whole affair.  To test frequencies above that a piezo is capable of generating,
you may want to wind an insulated coil around the palladium or the whole
affair, and try driving it at frequencies close to the NMR points.
 
However note, if this does work, the layer might not get blown off quite so
easily which is desirable to a point.  If however, ignition is actually
acomplished, the containment effects of the semiconductor layer could create
a somewhat dangerous condition. So be careful, I would hate to see any
experimentors get hurt here.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
On another note.  The mixing of religion and science I find very distastful.
Slakey is comparing things he obviously has no knowledge of.  To take on the
entire Christian establishment I find unbelievable.  To say that faith
healing is is the work of fakers (only), is to deny the miracles that
Christ and his disciples performed.  Christ said that "ye shall be able
to perform these miracles and more".  I feel man is basically calling Christ a
lier.  Obviously the man is not a very deep thinker, and even if he is an
atheist, is not very smart to alienate such a large number of people.  (BTW I
do believe in faith or Christian healing, as I have seen at least a dozen
people cured of things that the doctors had given up on during my life. Some
of these cured people were friends I had known for years, so I know nothing was
being faked. The TRUE healers do NOT charge, do not seek fame, and usually
it takes a good bit of searching to even find out who they are.  They are pure
of heart and only wish to help their fellow man through their prayers).
 
I am an engineer and often consider myself somewhat of a scientist. I was part
of the Argus scientific team which went to England to research crop circles. I
do not have to understand everything to believe it is possible.  I know I
don't know everything.  I consider those that think they know everthing, and
on things they don't understand, they preach cannot exist to be quite
arrogant.  His is the type of attitude that stifled science during the dark
ages.  For one with such attitudes to hold a high position in science I think
is counter productive to what science is trying to accomplish.  A closed mind
cannot ever learn anything new, or for that matter correct that which was
learned wrong.
 
Off the soapbox now.
 
I give my best wishes to those trying to further the knowledge of science.
 
reply to this newsgroup or to dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com
 
Send flames to to wastebox@nul.nul :)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Silicates on cathode
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates on cathode
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 03:55:31 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <cfh.747765358@calypso> cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison) writes:
>T. now feels strongly that deposition of something on the surface of
>the cathode is important....  Na and Ca are likely from the soft
>soda-lime glass used to sleeve the thermocouple probe.
 
Great!  Now we have three different explanations of the role of glass
deposits on the cathode.  Glass deposits are:
 
1.  Non-existent or utterly insignificant, not to mention absurd
    and implausible.      (A gullible investor on sci.physics.fusion)
 
2.  Bad, but avoidable.   (Pons, in communication with Salamon)
 
3.  Good.                 (Takahashi)
 
And then there is the explanation that I would prefer if I were a TBTB:
 
4.  Who cares about glass deposits?  All that matters is Heat! Heat!
    XS Heat! Because XS Heat means big bucks!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Theory on reported events, and note on mixing religion and science.
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theory on reported events, and note on mixing religion and science.
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 05:43:22 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <znr747768534k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com> mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall
Dudley) writes:
 
>  Christ said that "ye shall be able
> to perform these miracles and more".
> I feel man is basically calling Christ a lier.
 
When did Christ say this to you? I thought this was just something
someone wrote down ~100 years after JC died.
 
Of course, CF would probably count as one of these implied miralces,
given our present uderstanding of it (XS heat, no nuclear ashes).
 
>  I consider those that think they know everthing, and
> on things they don't understand, they preach cannot exist to be quite
> arrogant.  His is the type of attitude that stifled science during the dark
> ages.
 
I think it had more to do with religions that promote faith over
inquiry and stifle dissent from invalid dogmas. But, I
could be wrong :-)
 
By the way---how did the crop circle investigations go? Paranormal
effects, I suppose :-)
 
--
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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Overlapping wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Overlapping wavefunctions
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 06:59:24 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <26tn9qINN1hj@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
>
> | Now what does this imply with respect to Cold Fusion?  It means
> | that only if the deuterons are degenerate (multiple overlaping wave
> | functions) does a system of deuterons have an increased probability
> | for fusion.
>
> This is getting repetitive.  Ahem.
>
> **********
> Where did the energy to get "multiple-overlapping-wave-functions"
> come from?
> **********
>
> You essentially said "if we get things close enough to fuse then
> there's an increased probability of fusion."  This isn't news.
 
 
The two statements:
 
    "The wavefunctions of the two deuterons overlap"
 
    "The two deuterons are closer together"
 
...are not universally synonymous in QM.
 
They are _approximately_ synonymous when the wavefunctions of the two
particles are highly localized.  If the particles also either have the
same charge and/or are identical fermions, any attempt to increase the
degree of overlap (push them closer together) _will_ require more energy,
possibly a great deal more energy.
 
The statements are not at all alike when applied to "pure momentum" cases
(for which wavefunctions are necessarily delocalized).  If their momenta
are different, such pure-momentum wavepackets can overlap easily and with
_little or no_ requirement for additional energy.
 
In fact, in metals the energy of the system is _lowered_ by this second
type of wavefunction overlap -- even though the electrons are both fermions
_and_ all have the same charge!  Enough "spare" energy is release by the
growth of such overlapped states that some electrons can be driven up to
energetically costly high-momentum states.
 
QM does not only permit units as large as atoms to have overlapping wave-
functions of the second ("pure momentum") type, but pretty well requires
that it _must_ happen once the right conditions prevail.
 
(If anyone thinks that must mean "fusion" -- well, no, at least at any
kind of first approximation.  The rule to keep in mind is "you get what
you pay for."  And if you paid no energy or negative energy to get wave-
function overlap, then by golly, as far as the atoms are concerned they
are _still_ far away from each other when viewed as particles.  You need
something a lot more subtle than that to get anywhere.  E.g., the anyon
path that Jim Carr mentioned at least invokes a whole new level of how
such delocalized states interact.  And don't forget kinks/antikinks,
which are more-or-less the 1D equivalent of 2D anyons.)
 
 
> | With in solids I think this is the critical component
> | for the enhancment of cold fusion rates.  In a lattice like Pd,
> | deuterons are degenerate.
>
> Are they?   Why?  How did you squeeze them together?
 
Hmm.  Are either one of you _really_ sure what you mean by "degenerate?"
 
> Too many people are thinking about the "many quantum particles in
> periodic wells" problem from their textbooks, forgetting that the textbook
> problem started with "assume N non-interacting particles..."
 
Er...  if every problem has to be approached _only_ in terms of assumptions
made by others for the purpose of simplification, I'm not sure how far past
the flint knife stage we'd be -- if even that far.  ("Ooga booga Glump, you
picken' up wrong kind rock.  It break in sharp pieces, make lousy hammer!)
 
> You can't just say "We have degenerate deuterons with overlapping wave
> functions"!  That's assuming the result you want to achieve.
 
See above.
 
> Degenerate electronic matter in white dwarfs happens because of
> a big huge gravitational potential holding the whole thing together.
 
A degenerate _gas_ does not obey the ideal gas laws.
 
A degenerate _fermi gas_ is a collection of fermions in which all of the
lower energy levels are occupied and "unavailable" for interactions.  This
is very different from the non-ideal-gas definition of degeneracy.
 
A degenerate _quantum state_ means that one or more particles in different
states of motion nontheless have the _same_ energy.  This is in some ways
the opposite of the fermi gas definition of the word degenerate, in which
the idea is that all the particles are in _different_ energy states.)
 
A degenerate _physicist_ is one who claims that he watches XXX videos only
to take his mind of the next do-or-die SSC funding vote.
 
Again, to which of these definitions are you and Chuck referring?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Marshall Dudley /  reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: reply on religion and science
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 93 16:39:26 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In article From: <1993Sep12.054322.19056@math.ucla.edu> Barry Merriman writes:
 
-> I think it had more to do with religions that promote faith over
-> inquiry and stifle dissent from invalid dogmas. But, I could be wrong :-)
 
The problem as I see it is where do you draw the line between religion and
science.  Basically it seems that if something can be explained it is science
and if it can't it is religion.  I simply don't see it as that clear cut.  As
an example, astronomy was considered religion, but is now science, as was
medicine (which still is religion in some undeveloped areas of Africa and South
America and Australia).  The only thing that really changed is we went from a
lack of understanding to a state of understanding.  This has been repeated
throughout history.  Hypnosis at one time was not science, but considered
paranormal. It is now a legitamate tool of police, psychologists and so forth.
Presently matters of "faith" are religion, not science.  But not totally.
Research has shown that the mind has the power to heal.  Scientific
investigation has shown that if you can convince a person they will get well
(sometimes under hypnosis) the probability of recovering is increased, and the
rate of recovery is statistically increased.  (This is often called the
placebo effect).  A scientific study shown on television only a few months ago
showed a scientific investigation where in a true double blind study, a large
group of volunteers were injured (an area was scooped out of the upper arm),
and told to come every day and insert their arm into a hole in the wall to be
"photographed".  In half of the subjects nothing was done, and in the other
half a "psychic healer" held her hands just above the wound without touching
it.  All the subjects thought they were being photographed and had no idea
what the experiment was even about, so the placebo could not be a factor.  The
result: the ones the "healing" took place on all healed much faster than the
controls.  In fact the slowest of the "healed" group was faster than fastest
healed of the controls. I have read that have been confirming studies with
"holy water" and water from "miracle springs" as well.  Are all these science
or religion?  Should they not be investigated simply because they "look" like
religion?  After the studies did show a difference in water from healing
springs and normal water, should they say, "oh that is religion", and let it
go at that, or should we try and find out what is making the difference so we
can apply it to our medical knowledge?  Africans rubbed mold on wounds for
centuries before the discovery of penicillin.  This act was dismissed as vodoo
medicine, when it could have advanced medical science decades.  My argument is
simply that science should remain open minded.
 
Paranormal things fall in the same area.  As an example is ball lightning:
finally accepted as physical phenomenia, but still not explained to anyone's
satisfaction as far as I know, sorta between the two right now.  I personally
don't think "paranormal" exists.  All that exists is things that with our
present state of knowledge simply cannot explain yet.
 
There have been investigations of people who can remember, quite accurately,
what they perceive as past lives (sometimes under hypnosis and sometimes
without).  Is this religion or science?
 
Many of the experiments with light exploring the world of quantium mechanics
sound more like religion than science.  That a particle can instantly know
what it's twin did when separated from the twin implys some type of
communication between them which cannot happen in the 3 (or 4 counting time)
dimensions we know. The implication is that there are other dimensions we
know nothing about.  Gee, that is what religion and psychics have been saying
for centuries.  Is this religion or science?
 
Now, I see this as the danger.  When you relagate all unknown things to be
religion, and unworthy of scientific investigation, then you stifle scientific
investigation and they will never get explained.  (I an using "you" in the
third person here, not directed to "you).
 
I am pointing out that putting cold fusion into the "religous" camp is nothing
new, and that many things previously put there were found to be scientifically
valid, and are now a part of mainstream science.  it does however tend to
retard scientific progress.  At least there no longer are inquisitions. :)
 
-> By the way---how did the crop circle investigations go? Paranormal
-> effects, I suppose :-)
 
This is the wrong newsgroup for this discussion, so I will email you an
article I posted a few weeks ago.  However, I will make a short reply here.
We were very fortunate that the group was made up of a number of different
investigators with different backgrounds.  Each had their own pet theories
and they were not looking to validate any particular theory, but to simply
try and find out what was going on.  We had lots of discusssions and
each respected the other's theories.  The theories ranged from hoaxes, to
some weather or wind phenomenia, to ufo's, to what you termed the paranormal.
 
The result was that only one theory was found to be impausable.  That was
the hoax theory.  (sure there were hoaxes, but there were others that simply
were caused by something else as well).  After the investigation, we still
have absolutely no idea what is causing them, although we did find corrolation
with what could be called anomolous phenomenia when the circles were formed.
In several cases orange balls of light were seen floating over the area
where the circle was formed at what seems to have been the time of formation.
We have no idea if these were ufo's (they are very small),  anomolous
electrical phenomenia (earth lights?), paranormal, ball lightning (orange?),
or what.  We simply have no evidence to really make even an educated guess
what is making the "real" crop circles.  it is still a true mystery.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Reposted message
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reposted message
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 19:41:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The following message was truncated in the version of Fusion Digest that
appears on CompuServe, so I am reposting it. It was originally titled
"Try it yourself!" It is addressed to Richard Blue who does not realize that
when you stop an electric current, all trace of the energy disappears
instantaneously, but when you stop an heat source immersed in water from
radiating, the heat remains in the water for long time after that.
 
- Jed
 
 
Dick Blue wrote:
 
     "No matter how the parameters vary, Jed asserts that any calorimeter
     will give the correct answer."
 
B.S. Not *any* calorimeter. Tom Droege's will come out with six different
answers with the same input. A properly designed, carefully calibrated,
conventional calorimeter, when used in the energy domain it was designed for
will work within a predictable range of errors. A lousy unpredictable
calorimeter will give you garbage data. However, no conventional calorimeter
I have ever heard of will go wrong by 300%!
 
 
     "In spite of all your lectures, Jed, I don't believe it!  I want to see
     some proof that the kind of calorimeter you advocate has to work to
     some specified level of accuracy under the conditions that accurately
     match the experiment..."
 
Okay, build a calorimeter! What can I possible say to convince you? What the
Hell are you asking me to do that for, anyway? Are a you scientist or
what? Do your homework, build a gadget, test it, and you will see for
yourself how accurate and precise a given configuration is. It is
ridiculous to go on arguing about documented matters of fact that have been
established in careful laboratory tests. I have seen the calibration data
and the blank runs from P&F for a whole range of inputs including boiling,
and I say it checks out just fine. You don't believe me? Okay! Shut up and
find out for yourself.
 
You assert that it is impossible to accurately measure the heat of
vaporization by boiling water in a test tube. The experiment might show it
takes 40,700 joules per mole one time, and the next time it might show
13,700 joules per mole. It might be off by a factor of three! That's what
you are saying. Okay! Fine! Prove it! Get a test tube, and prove to us
that this miraculous new discovery of yours is true. Steve Jones said he
would do that -- you can too. You guys will win a Nobel prize if you pull
this off.
 
 
     "Rising resistance, falling electrolyte, and hot cathodes will all have
     an effect on the calorimeter constant."
 
Right. Yes. Of course. So do phases of the moon and stray cosmic rays. And
when you carefully calibrate and test, the way Pons, Fleischmann, Kunimatsu,
McKubre, de Ninno, Ota, Storms and hundreds of other people have done for
the past four years, you will find that these effects on accuracy are so
small you can't even measure them. Except falling water, which is accounted
for by careful testing and computation. Scientists measure the effects of
these things. They find out what is in the noise, and what has to be
accounted for. Don't take my word for it! Read the literature, try the
experiment yourself. Don't you realize that resistance, hot cathodes,
boiling and all other condition that occur in the experiment are tested and
accounted for in blank runs? Why do you think they do blank runs? What are
asserting, that it is impossible to boil water with electrolysis, so nobody
can check to see if the calorimeter works at 100 C? Do you think it never
occurs to people to do a full range of calibrations? They run a blank, they
check for an energy balance of zero, and that is exactly what they find.
 
 
     "I'll challenge you to explain how your calorimeter deals with heat
     pulses that are shorter than the time constant of the calorimeter. I
     assure you that adding another thermal lag between the cathode and the
     electrolyte does not make the problem any easier."
 
This is a nonsense question. It shows that you don't have the foggiest idea
how a water based calorimeter works. There is no such thing as a heat pulse
that is too short (that is: too fast) to be measured with a calorimeter. You
can have a pulse of electricity *going in* that is too fast, but the heat
coming out can never be too fast to register. A heat pulse can be too small;
it can have too few joules to register, in which case it ends up in the
noise. That is a different story. But no burst is too short, there is no
"time constant." Suppose we get a burst of heat of 10,000 watts for one 0.01
seconds. That's 100 joules. Okay, we get another burst of 100 watts for one
second, also 100 joules. Can a water based conventional calorimeter tell
them apart? Nope! Absolutely not. The water temperature will go up the same
degree in both cases. What are you thinking? Do you suppose the 10,000 watt
burst is so short, the heat sneaks right through the water without affecting
it? That's impossible. There is only one exit. There is one way for the
energy to get out. It has to make the water hot, and then gradually transfer
to the outside bath. If the burst was 10 billion watts for 10 nanoseconds,
it would also add up to 100 joules, and it would have exactly the same effect
on the water temperature. Okay, maybe the water molecules right next to the
cathode would act differently: I suppose they might vaporize. But, the
vaporized water will quickly cool, and by the time the heat wave hits the
thermistor, it will be averaged out to exactly the same level as the 100 watt
one second burst. A calorimeter is an averaging machine, it cannot register
the difference between a sharp burst, a series of bursts, or steady output.
It is like a rain gage: it cannot tell you how many drops fell, or how big
the drops were, but every single drop that falls into it will register, and
the gage will tell you average rainfall.
 
All you can ever detect in a calorimeter is an average power level: watts,
not joules. Most calorimeters take 5 minutes to register anything, even a 10
nanosecond burst. First the burst heats the molecules next to the cathode,
then they bang into their neighboring molecules, and the wave of heat
gradually spreads through the rest of the water, gradually averaging out
across all molecules, until it finally hits the thermistor and registers. It
keeps registering as it gradually drains out through the walls or cooling
loop. With multiple thermistors, you can watch a wave of heat work its way
from the cathode through the water in slow motion.
 
There is one caveat about this which sometimes confuses people. Suppose you
only measure temperature once a minute. Suppose, furthermore, the heat
"leaks out" into the cooling water bath at the rate of 100 joules per minute
at a given level of power. Okay, the computer measures the temperature at
second #1, and immediately following that, during seconds #2 and #3 you get
a burst of 40 watts, adding up to 80 joules. By the time the computer comes
back to poll the thermistor again, the burst has faded into the background;
you missed it. Well, so what? This is an artificial problem. Real CF bursts
of energy consist of trillions of reactions individually far too small to
detect, which add up to an average power level of, say, 1 watt, or 150
watts, in bursts which last anywhere from 10 minutes to several days. If a
burst happens to last only 2 seconds, and you happen to have a slow polling
cycle, then tough luck -- you miss it. Maybe next time it will happen just
before the computer polls. In any case, little bursts like that don't prove
anything. It is the big, multiwatt, hour-long ones that exceed the limits of
chemistry a thousand times over that matter. However, this does bring up an
important point: you must always select a calorimeter design that will
measure the average power level you expect the reaction to generate,
otherwise you will end up measuring nothing. You can't just walk into a lab,
throw together some random conglomeration of equipment and expect it to
work.
 
(Getting back to the rain gage example, this caveat is like specifying that
tiny drops which evaporate before you get a chance to measure the water
level don't count. Or, you can envision a calorimeter as "rain gage" with a
hole in the bottom which allows the heat to flow out at a constant rate. If
the heat was not allowed to "drain out" in this fashion, the calorimeter
would explode.)
 
Also, the thermal time lag does not make a darn bit of difference.
 
I challenge *you* to spend a couple hours in the lab with some test tubes.
If you actually learned some of this stuff yourself, you would stop making
all these stupid, ignorant assumptions. I don't care if you are the biggest
plasma physics genius who ever walked the earth, a regular Newton reincarnated!
Unless you have hands-on experience, with *this* field, you will go on making
these off-the-wall assumptions and stupid mistakes forever. Your comments
about the reflux system also showed a severe lack of experience. You were
telling me it does not work in thus and such a way, but the data right in
front of me shows it does. I don't have to give you any reason or any
explanation, I don't have to understand the process in detail to tell you
that the data shows you are flat out wrong. And you don't have to take my
word for it. Build yourself a reflux and find out. Build a simple
calorimeter. Find out what the accuracy is like at 20 to 80 C, and at
boiling. Find out if you can measure the heat of vaporization. You will soon
see that a 300% error is impossible, unless you deliberately build a rotten
calorimeter, or unless you deliberately use one in a power domain it was not
designed for, or not calibrated for. For example, you can put in some
absurdly low power level, say 3 orders magnitude below what any sensible
person would select, the way Steve Jones did. This doesn't prove a damn
thing! You have to use the instrument and do the experiment within a
reasonable, sensible range of power. If you look for a virus with a
magnifying glass, you will not see it, but that does not prove viruses don't
exist, it proves you are incompetent, or you deliberately screwed up.
 
There is only one way to do science, and only one way to understand any
physical system: do it, touch it, observe it, learn from it directly. Don't
ask people like me for information. Don't make all these absurd, foolish,
untested assumptions. Empty words and useless debates about facts that
*anyone can verify* do not constitute science.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Julian Cummings /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: jcc@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Julian Cummings)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 18:11:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1993Sep11.021522.29212@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, blair@mksol.dseg.
i.com (arthur blair) writes:
|> Richard Schroeppel (rcs@cs.arizona.edu) wrote:
|> : I can't speak for other people, but I'm still here to read about Steve Jones' work.
|>
|> : Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
|>
|> I wish my kill file was smart enough to weed out any message on
|> cold fusion. I follow this group only for the occasional
|> snippet of news on hot fusion.
|> Art.
 
Art, Amen to that!  It would be great if we could send the cold fusion
discussion into a subgroup.  The only problem is, the true believers
would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.salvation, and the hard-core
skeptics would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.fraudulent!  Sigh...
 
--
****************************************************************************
* "You can't have everything!  Where would you put it?" -- Steven Wright   *
* "I regret that I have but one .sig file to give for my postings!" -- JCC *
****************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjcc cudfnJulian cudlnCummings cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: A Primer on hydrogen delocalization
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Primer on hydrogen delocalization
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 19:29:36 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Just wanted to quickly note that I really appreciated Bill Page's very
nice, well-researched overview of hydrogen delocalization issues.  Too bad
we don't get more of that kind of input here.
 
Incidentally, one of the surest signs that a group is going down hill is
when it starts attracting types who feel it is their duty to use it to
promote a specific religious opinion.  I've yet to see that accomplish
anything except dismantle meaningful interactions.  Take it elsewhere,
turkeys.  You can impress the people on this group far more effectively
by proving that your philosophical viewpoint (whatever it is) _leads you
to make meaningful, well-researched contributions to the topic of the
group_.  I disagree in some very fundamental ways with what Steven Jones
_probably_ believes (I'm guessing), but would listen to what he says on
such issues with great respect because he has worked very, very hard in
this group and in his personal work.
 
That says far more for his beliefs than long off-subject diatribes and
blatant advertisements that to me speak only of blatant disrespect for
the interests and work of others on a net group.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- To the guy who wanted to delete anything but hot fusion entries,
        but couldn't build a smart enough kill file:  Hey, I _know_ what
        you mean -- _your_ posting got through to _me_, too!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Stanley Chow /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 19:34:35 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <1993Sep12.181100.7204@Princeton.EDU> jcc@ernie.Princeton.EDU
(Julian Cummings) writes:
>In article <1993Sep11.021522.29212@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, blair@mksol.dseg
ti.com (arthur blair) writes:
>|> Richard Schroeppel (rcs@cs.arizona.edu) wrote:
>|> : I can't speak for other people, but I'm still here to read about Steve Jones' work.
>|>
>|> : Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>|>
>|> I wish my kill file was smart enough to weed out any message on
>|> cold fusion. I follow this group only for the occasional
>|> snippet of news on hot fusion.
>|> Art.
>
>Art, Amen to that!  It would be great if we could send the cold fusion
>discussion into a subgroup.  The only problem is, the true believers
>would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.salvation, and the hard-core
>skeptics would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.fraudulent!  Sigh...
 
You do realize that this group (sci.physics.fusion) was mainly created
for cold fusion. Hot fusion was included mostly to simplify the name!
 
If there is enough traffic, there are lots of precedence for splitting
this one group into subgroups. Currently, this is only sufficient traffic
on one topic, guess which :-)
 
 
--
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:
cuddy12 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Bill Page /  Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 22:33:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I would like to make a serious attempt at an approximate numerical solution
to the wave equation for the hypothetical Vigier Hbar+ atom (consisting of
an electron confined by two protons).  The protons are presumed to interact
via the strong force "Yukawa potential" as well as the usual Couloumb
interaction.
 
So, since I only have an undergraduate understanding of quantum mechanics
but considerably more experience with computational techniques, I can learn
what I need to know to setup the computation and take the time to program
it, test it, and debug it etc.  Or perhaps (I hope) someone already has
some code that I could easily adapt.  As I understand it so far, I can
proceed numerically in at least two ways:
 
1) The Hartree method of searching for eigenvalues by trail integration.  I
have setup a very simple test of this method for the one dimensional
harmonic oscillator using an Excel spreadsheet.  I pick a trial value for
the total energy and then do a forward and backward integration of the time
independent part of the wave equation over a fixed spacial grid (using just
Euler integration).  I compute the sum of the square of the differences
between the forward and backward psi's as a measure of how close it is to
an eigenvalue.  It is easy in Excel to build a table based on this measure
for a range of trial values.  A few minutes calculation produces a nice map
of the eigenvalues within a reasonable range of enegies.  Excel has lots of
nice graphics so you can easily see what you are doing.
 
Even this simplistic approach works!  But this is a very old technique and
surely there are more sophisticated methods these days.  If I implemented
this method, of course I would use a more reasonable numerical integration
technique like Runge-Kutta (or maybe the newer Bulirsch-Stoer method) and
implement the program in "C".
 
2) Use a difference equation approximation and an eigenvalue/eigenvector
algorithm.  Lots of good algorithms exist for this problem but can they
handle large matrices for a sufficiently fine grid in three dimensions?
 
In both cases I will need to deal with the spin states as well.  Actually
this sounds like a good project for a computational physics course... but
as you can imagine, I may not have enough patience to get through a whole
semester of lectures.
 
Does anyone out there know of available software that might make this a lot
easier?  Any information, suggestions and even critisisms very welcome.
Also, this might not be the best forum in which to ask this question.  I
only have access to sci.physics.fusion via the Fusion Digest gateway, so if
someone would pass this on to another group I'd very much appreciate
feedback via internet email.
 
Thanks.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 22:28:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Sep12.181100.7204@Princeton.EDU>
jcc@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Julian Cummings) writes:
 
> In article <1993Sep11.021522.29212@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
> blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair) writes:
 
> | I wish my kill file was smart enough to weed out any message on
> | cold fusion...
>
> Art, Amen to that!  It would be great if we could send the cold fusion
> discussion into a subgroup.  The only problem is, the true believers
> would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.salvation, and the hard-core
> skeptics would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.fraudulent!  Sigh...
 
Heh.  I wonder... if you took a poll and asked folks throughout the sci
groups whether:
 
    sci.physics.fusion.fraudulent
 
...referred to _cold_ fusion or some of the, ahem, more _extravagant_ claims
of hot fusion, how many would vote each way?
 
My suspicion is that it would be a tight vote.
 
 
A community that still has the average man on the street (and in Congress)
believing that they are trying to give us:
 
    "endless clean energy from the oceans"
 
...when what they _really_ want to give us is:
 
    "neutron/tritium-intensive energy as long as lithium supplies hold out"
 
...should perhaps be a _wee_ bit cautious about where they toss their stones.
Not to mention all those papers on plasma turbulence in which coming up with
new ways to say "then a MIRACLE occurs!!" in increasingly subtle technical
disguises has become an endemic art form.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.12 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Average separations
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Average separations
Date: 12 Sep 1993 19:26 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <9309091354.AA06704@suntan.Tandem.com>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes...
>John Logajan argues that PdD is better that D2 for a fusion reactor
>because the distribution function for r12 has a large peak at smaller
>r than is the case for D2.  I think this argument is off the mark because
>the fusion rate is so strongly dependent of radius that it is only
>the nearest neighbor distance that matters, the location of all other
>deuterons being insignificant.  Thus while putting D's into a lattice
>does move part of the distribution closer, the nearest neighbor moves
>away.  Having 6 near neighbors at this larger r doesn't make up the
>difference.
>
>While I am on this kick, I still don't see that squeezing PdD is likely
>to be the optimum way to apply mechanical pressure to deuterons.  If the
>idea is to trap deuterium in a lattice and then squeeze the lattice, my
>choice would be to start with something that does a better job of
>confining deuterium, something that would require ion implantation
>just to get the deuterium into the lattice in the first place.
 
I've been wondering about this myself.  Has anyone tried implanting d ions
in, say, a piezoelectric (Quartz?) crystal, and then caused it to resonate
at its natural frequency ?  Just for the fun of it, of course...
>
>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
>
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: 13 Sep 1993 00:49:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
(Stanley T.H. Chow) says:
>You do realize that this group (sci.physics.fusion) was mainly created
>for cold fusion.
 
Exactly.  alt.fusion appeared literally days after the P+F announcement.
sci.physics.fusion came as soon as it could (voting and all that) afterward
to broadcast the topic to a larger audience (not all sites carry the more
anarchical alt.subgroup structure.)
 
However, for those who want some hot fusion postings, here is a generic one:
 
"Spent all the money, no results."
"Send more money."
 
 
Just repost this every two weeks or so.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Local (& Remote) Heating; T + U
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Local (& Remote) Heating; T + U
Date: 13 Sep 1993 01:30:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) says:
>       They are linked by the recombiner, and the experimenters
>       hard efforts to keep the recombiner working [and at low temp.]
 
I'm probably missing your point, but I think there might be a difference
in the "calorimeter constant" depending upon whether heat is developed
in the headspace (recombiner) or in the body (electrolyte/electrodes.)
The variation between the two owing mainly to the heat conduction rates.
i.e you'd probably get a higher C/W (degree per watt) in the gas than
in the liquid.
 
Of course, this could be calibrated -- for those who use recombiners :-)
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: On degenerate systems
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On degenerate systems
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 01:23:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CD7uH4.6rr@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>=
>= Are they?   Why?  How did you squeeze them together?
>
>  Chuck is correct again.   Why do you have to "squeeze them together"?
>
>   Do you do that to make ethylene and/or other pi-bonded molecules
>                                             (talking electrons here)?
 
     I suspect we all agree that 'cold chemical bonding' occurs, he said
     dryly.   However, to make the analogy with 'cold fusion' complete,
     rarely does it occur between atoms two or three billion
     kilometers apart.
 
     So yes, you must 'squeeze them together'.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 01:28:09 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <930912220536_70047.3047_EHB39-1@CompuServe.COM>
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
 
> I would like to make a serious attempt at an approximate numerical solution
> to the wave equation for the hypothetical Vigier Hbar+ atom (consisting of
> an electron confined by two protons).  The protons are presumed to interact
> via the strong force "Yukawa potential" as well as the usual Couloumb
> interaction...
 
Oh wow.  While I really do appreciate and admire your diligence in this,
PLEASE please please recognize that you are running a major risk of being
led down the rosy path of building a beautiful house of calulation on a
foundation of quicksand.
 
If you try some of what you have suggested _and_ keep the (quite ludicrous)
implied assumption of the Vigier model that the electron is "somehow" a
point particle (actually an implied assumption of infinite or at least
extremely large electron mass), then you will indeed get pretty little
protons circling a cute little electron.  Blithering nonsense, of course,
but you _will_ get nice results that "confirm" the overall structure.
 
If you try to get around it by adding in a strong force attraction, then
what in the bejeebers is the _point_?  The strong force is too weak at
atomic distances to matter, and by the time you stuff the protons close
enough together to _matter_, you will _already_ have had to expend the
energy needed to push them together.  (Unless, of course, the silly little
electron has infinite mass -- then the protons will come together quite
nicely and with a net _release_ of energy.  Pretty big "unless," though!)
 
Also, actually _keeping the electron in between_ the two protons is a
pretty neat trick.  The optimal location is the one defined for a H2+
molecular bond.  Forcing the electron to localize into a space that is
_less_ than that envelope will _cost_ energy -- lots of it -- rather than
release energy.
 
I admire what you are _trying_ to do -- PEP clean reactions, perhaps? --
but please, don't just start investing good intellectual analysis on
more Quicksand Hiltons.  Heaven knows the palladium anomalies has already
produces enough of them -- almost as many as the poor hot fusion types
have managed to build, although at a much higher per-capita cost -- but
why build more when you have been doing some good analytical work lately?
 
Look for holes and niches that _aren't_ covered, not badly stated problems
like Vigier's that simply make flagrant silliness a bit more obscure.
 
Look instead for papers that say things like "this region cannot be modeled
adequetely either by direct solution nor numerical approximation."  (That's
a pretty close approximation of a statement I've seen about the central
"flipover" point of a band soliton or kink.) _That_ is the kind of thing
that should perk up your interest and make you dig deeper.
 
That and some solid, _reproducible reproducible reproducible_ data showing
a real need to even bother in the first place.  That seems to be in rather
short supply these days...
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply on religion and science
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 01:29:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <znr747851966k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>,
Marshall Dudley <dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com> wrote:
>In article From: <1993Sep12.054322.19056@math.ucla.edu> Barry Merriman writes:
>
>-> I think it had more to do with religions that promote faith over
>-> inquiry and stifle dissent from invalid dogmas. But, I could be wrong :-)
>
>The problem as I see it is where do you draw the line between religion and
>science.  Basically it seems that if something can be explained it is science
>and if it can't it is religion.  I simply don't see it as that clear cut.  As
 
.....
 
     Please, please, please, not here.  Go to talk.religion or one of
     the philosophy groups.
 
     You'll never decide the questions here.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Not dramatic
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not dramatic
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 04:17:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones revealed that the so-called dramatic and mysterious build-up
of resistance that he has been so concerned about is the one you often see
over a couple of weeks in any electrochemical experiment. I have seen it
happen with CF reactions and without 'em, so whatever it is, it has
nothing to do with excess heat, and it does not stop anyone from measuring
the input electricity and the output enthalpy.
 
Let us not lose track to the so-called "theory" we are discussing here.
Steve claims that this change in resistance somehow causes the excess
heat, but how can it? How on earth can a change in resistance fool a
calorimeter? Why should it? Resistance changes constantly as water levels
drop and as salts are absorbed by the cathode and cell walls. If we did
not measure voltage constantly, we would never have the slightest idea how
much power was going into the cells. The data would show all kinds of
garbage like negative enthalpy. Whether Steve refers the slow build up, or
the sudden rise at the end his argument does not make the slightest bit of
sense! It is pure, unadulterated B.S.
 
People have told me that the slow resistance increase is caused by a
buildup of electroplated crud on the cathode, mostly platinum from the
anode, plus whatever garbage you have floating around in the water. There
might be a bit of glass in that too, but in spite of Steve's claims, even
glass has no magical ability to fool data collection equipment. Whatever
the cause, it is not dramatic, not unexpected, and not unusual. I don't
know the details because I am no electrochemist, but the electrochemists
have a handle on it.
 
Steve says P&F "curiously fail to mention" this "mystery." That's because:
1. it is not a mystery; 2. What do you expect them to do, make the article
into a 200 page book on Introductory Electrochemistry? Fleischmann already
wrote the book on that subject. They can't bother explaining every trivial
detail that might trip up someone who doesn't know anything about the
field or about how these experiments work. They didn't explain to Dick
Blue that heat does not vanish instantaneously; they did not explain to
Tom Droege that you can't hook up electric circuits in series, turn one
off and have the others remain on; and they did not explain that you
cannot have electric arching when the power is turned off. Oh, you will
find many gaps and holes in this paper if you are a complete idiot who
does not understand the first thing about elementary physics! Those of us
who do understand high-school level physics, and who have actually
performed or observed this work find nothing "mystifying" about the paper
or the data. It looks like any other successful CF run to me. I will
grant, however, that it is pretty darn difficult to read. I had to ask a
lot of questions, and a heck of a lot of it is over my head. At least I
understand part of it, the "skeptics" understand nothing at all.
 
By the way, Steve, you never told us why the cell remains hot all those
hours after the power is turned off. Howzabout it? What kind of
nonsensical jive have you got worked up to "explain away" that one? Hmmm?
It is all a mistake, right? Tell us how to mistake room temperature for
100 C, hour after hour, in experiment after experiment. Come, come! You
have must have thought up some cock-and-bull fairy tale by now! Let's hear
it. Let me guess: you have joined the APS, so you will say it is fraud.
Toyota has deliberately defrauded itself of a couple hundred million
dollars. Right? Those crafty, inscrutable Orientals at EPRI... I mean
Toyota! They have some trick up their kimono sleeves.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply on religion and science
Date: 13 Sep 1993 05:12:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley) says:
>-> By the way---how did the crop circle investigations go?
>
>The result was that only one theory was found to be impausable.  That was
>the hoax theory.  (sure there were hoaxes, but there were others that simply
>were caused by something else as well).
 
British UFO researcher Jenny Randels published an article claiming that
the sheer number of hoaxed crop circles rendered hopeless any meaningful
investigation.  If there was any "signal", it could not be detected amongst
the "noise."
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 06:12:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep12.222819.815@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>    "neutron/tritium-intensive energy as long as lithium supplies hold out"
 
And as we all know, lithium is certainly a scarcity.
 
Hot fusion has a good theoretical underpinning that is limited in the
real world by details. It may be possible to work around these details
or it may not be possible.
 
In cold fusion there is no theoretical basis worth even mentioning. Not
a single experiment that has been "positive" has been scrupulously
documented. Those on this conference type in arguments about details
that are insignificant because there is no proof that anything exists
in the first place.
 
Discussing whether or not there are bosonic condensates certainly is getting
nowhere so why argue about real experiments? I agree that hot fusion is
expensive but at least it's a real science.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 10:39:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1383:
 
>Here are five birds (in Tom Droege's basement) that I intend to kill with
>one stone:
 
>1.) Change in cell constant from 2C/W to 8C/W during event
>2.) Outgassing during event
>3.) Bursty nature of some events
>4.) Constant voltage during event
>5.) Suddeness of cell constant change during event
>
>The stone:
>A parallel current path (suspects include platanic acid crystal formation.)
[the killing]
 
A good thought, John.
 
My problem with this is "platanic acid". Even assuming that platinic is meant
(or is this an extract from the plane tree, Platanus, chucked into the cell as
a secret ingredient?), this is wrong. Where does this idea come from? We are
talking about a strongly alkaline solution, so an acid will not exist as such.
There have been measurements of Pt on the cathode; the Pt is first dissolved
from the Pt anode, transported across to the cathode and deposited there.
However, this is only very small traces, not enough to form whiskers,
certainly not whiskers long enough to reach across to the anode. And if they
don't, they will simply act as more cathode area. This can't be the unknown
parallel current path. This is not to say, of course, that there is not such a
path; the fact that it would explain all those mysteries makes it an
attractive proposition. One check would be the amount of gas given off, which
should always be exactly that expected from the break-up of water. F&P state
that this is so, i.e. that their current efficiency is very close to 100%, so
in their case, no parallel paths.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Needed: Honesty in funding requests
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Needed: Honesty in funding requests
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 09:20:04 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <tomkCDA3w3.13t@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> In article <1993Sep12.222819.815@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | "neutron/tritium-intensive energy as long as lithium supplies hold out"
>
> And as we all know, lithium is certainly a scarcity.
 
(?) Actually, it _is_ rather scarce.
 
Quick, name me a rock that contains _mineable_ quantities of lithium...
What, no go?  Spodumene is the only one I can think of off-hand, and you
don't exactly find it the average flower bed.  Clear crystals of it serve
as a nicely off-beat, highly pleochroic gemstone (andalusite), however.
 
Current theory is that lithium was generated _during_ the supernova
explosion that created the local heavy metals concentration.  It just
gets eaten up too quickly _inside_ a star to exist for long.  That's why
it's orders of magnitude more sparce than other low-end elements.
 
 
> Hot fusion has a good theoretical underpinning that is limited in the
> real world by details. It may be possible to work around these details
> or it may not be possible.
 
Do tell?  I thought the issue was _why the public and Congress haven't
been given the straight scoop on what, exactly, is being solved and/or
not solved.  How many Congressmen who vote for fusion funding are quite
befuddled about it and think they are voting for "trying to get energy
from sea water?"  My my I'd love to see a show of hands on that one.
 
Let me suggest that if VP Al Gore is really keen on cutting waste and
getting rid of programs that are based on false premises, he should be
going after hot fusion on the basis that what the government is getting
for their money is simply not what the funding agencies _thought_ they
were getting.
 
But all this is easily solved.  All the international hot fusion community
needs to do is go before their respective funding agencies and local press
and say clearly and without any obfuscation what they are plan to do with
their share hard-earned (by somebody!) tax funds.  For example:
 
   "Senator, what we wish to do with these funds is maybe, if we are lucky,
    create by the year 2010 create a plant that is physically huge, has a
    mediocre energy output, is so complicated that it will almost certainly
    break down every few hours, and will produce huge quantities of highly
    penetrating neutron radiation that will keep folks in the radioactive
    waste disposal industry happy for centuries.  It also uses extremely
    flammable liquid lithium laced with nasty, volatile tritium gas, but
    you don't need to worry about that because you already know how well
    the fission industry kept its promises never to release such junk into
    the atmosphere.  The same experts are helping us secure these systems!
 
   "The plant will burn relatively rare lithium.  Our supplies in the USA
    of this metal are not all that large, and we'll need a lot of it since
    the plant is so terribly inefficient at burning it.  We also need a
    bit of deuterium from seawater to "burn" the lithium, but that part
    doesn't make much difference, really, since the deuterium is common.
    We'll probably have to import a lot of the lithium, but this is not all
    that new, since we are already dependent on oil from other countries.
 
   "So far as we can tell, the chances of these plants being made smaller,
    vastly more efficient, or significantly less complex are all very close
    to zero.  They will always be huge, extremely complex -- and thus rather
    fragile -- and dangeously radioative once they're stated up.  But at
    least the mix of radioactive by-products will be easier to control than
    for a fission plant.  We just need to use care in selecting the kinds
    that we keep near the reaction site, and maybe replace the whole shebang
    every few weeks as radiation damage destroys very tight tolerances.
 
   "What about "clean energy from the sea," you say?  Er, well... that was
    a wee bit of misunderstanding, Senator.  We hot fusion physicists have
    always known that the reaction you are referring to, which is called
    deuterium-deuterium fusion, is so difficult that it will be at least,
    oh, maybe a couple of centuries before our experience with these lithium
    burning plants lets us figure out how to do that.  Hooboy, are _those_
    suckers gonna be HUGE... oh, sorry Senator, I was drifting a bit...
 
   "At any rate, the only kind of plant we can forsee except in pure
    science fiction are these lithium burners.  They will be bigger than
    nuclear plants, less effecient overall, more fragile, and less radio-
    active only in the limited sense that they don't produce uranium
    fission and breeding byproducts.  (But wowsers, will they ever be able
    to dose things down with _neutrons_...)
 
   "So there it all is in a nutshell, Senator.  We feel we have things
    like solar energy and old-fashioned fission beat hands down with this
    neat idea, and were sure it will all work within, oh, 10 or 20 years.
 
   "So you _will_ fund us... won't you?"
 
> In cold fusion there is no theoretical basis worth even mentioning. Not
> a single experiment that has been "positive" has been scrupulously
> documented. Those on this conference type in arguments about details
> that are insignificant because there is no proof that anything exists
> in the first place.
 
Oh pooh, I'll let the others in this group go after you for that line.
Saying that work by folks like Jones has _not_ been "scrupulously
documented" is just a bit assinine, however.  You know darned well he
has never once claimed extravagent heat, only hard-to-explain low-level
nuclear signatures -- measured with considerable precision, I might note.
 
Seems to me that the hot fusion community has neglected to "scrupulously
document" a few things here and there too, 'ay?  Like what you're really
trying to do, in nice easy terms that a funding agency can easily under-
stand?  Scientific jargon is so convenient at times -- why, you can go
around publishing the daylights out of what you're doing, telling about
the lithium vs deuterium-deuterium issue in excruciatingly honest detail,
and yet _never quite having to bother to tell the people funding you that
what they think you are doing and what you _know_ you are doing have very
little practical relation to each other.  One is science fiction, but my
it sounds sweet to a Congressman's ear -- "energy from water!  clean! so
efficient!"
 
The other reality is dirtier, messier, and not something that most folks
would _dare_ do a full cost/benefits cost analaysis on.  Because if you
did, you might have a very, very hard time proving why this stuff should
be pursued as anything but a very expensive public works program for a
rather small group of people who have have a poor track record for making
such issues clear to everyone else.
 
....
 
A challenge to someone (anyone):  Vice President Al Gore is an "online"
kind of guy, it seems.  Anyone who can, would you please send him a copy
of this posting, with a brief note that there may be a very interesting
opportunity for well-deserved budget slashing here?  I don't really expect
it to make it all the way _to_ him, mind you, but who knows?  Stranger
things have happened.
 
This is a global problem of course.  Do the funding parties in England
_really_ understand that they are funding research on lithium burners,
not the pure science fiction of "clean energy from the sea?"  If you have
access to some such person, why not send them a copy too?  Budgets are
tight all over, you know, and a lot of the less gradiose experimenters
in fields like biology and biochemisry would dearly love to get a few
nips out of a funding budget that formerly went to research that funders
finally realized was not really what it was cracked up to be.
 
 
> Discussing whether or not there are bosonic condensates certainly is
> getting nowhere so why argue about real experiments? I agree that hot
> fusion is expensive but at least it's a real science.
 
Oh yes, _lithium_ burners are real science.  Marginal at best, with a lot
of silly and in some cases downright deceptive games being played in the
papers on plasma instabilities, but yes indeed -- that form of hot fusion
is very real (and very, very costly) science.
 
Too bad that what the Congressmen _think_ they are getting -- "clean
energy from the sea" -- is nothing _but_ science fiction.  Don't all of
you out there in hot fusion think it's about time to sweep away a few
of the ol' cobwebbs of misperception and let all of your funding agencies
know _exactly_ what it really is that you are trying (with little success,
I might also note) to build?
 
Just think how much better you'll feel in the morning.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Dieter Britz /  RE: On Local Heating
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On Local Heating
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 11:32:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1382:
 
>   --/\/\/\/-----/\/\/\/\/-------/\/\/\/\-----------
>   |   Rc     |     Re       |     Rn               |
>   |          |              |                      | Ok Dieter, its horizontal?
>   |          |              |                      |
>   |          |--/\/\/\/\----|                   ^  |
>   |                Rp                           |  O    c - cathode
>   |                                                |    e   electrolyte
>   |                                                |    n   for Norton equiv.
>   |                                                |    p   platinate crystals
>   |                                                |
>   |------------------------------------------------|
 
Much better, Mitch, prints out much more compact, saving paper and thus
probably one whole tree was spared.
 
Talking about trees, though, and seeing the wood for them, your cunning
analysis is simply wrong. The idea with this "platanic" bypass path is that
out of the total power applied to the cell, i*E, it would no longer be
correct, in the presence of such a bypass, to subtract i*1.46 W, because a
part of the current is not breaking up water. So, you get more heating than
you thought, and you would ascribe the extra bit to "excess heat", when you
should not. I can't say whether this is happening, but that's how it would be.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Theory on reported events, and note on mixing religion and science.
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Theory on reported events, and note on mixing religion and science.
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:20:58 BST

In <znr747768534k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com> Marshall Dudley writes:
>I am an engineer and often consider myself somewhat of a scientist.
>I was part of the Argus scientific team which went to England to
>research crop circles.
 Ah ... If only you'd mentioned this at the start of your post, it
would've saved me wading through it. How did you think the circles
were 'Engineered' ??
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply on religion and science
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 12:25:23 BST

In <znr747851966k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com> Marshall Dudley writes:
>an example, astronomy was considered religion, but is now science, as was
>medicine (which still is religion in some undeveloped areas of Africa and South
>America and Australia).
             =========
Care to elaborate on this ??? (I mean as an Aussie, I'd be _Real_
interested in where you think we regard medicine as religion.
BTW I assume that you think the guys who owned up to making the
crop circles are liars, and the fact that there haven't been any
since, is merely a coincidence, bought about by our lack of faith ..
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Karel Hladky /  Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 12:30:50 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: I've used Wenking p'stats, and I got one to oscillate at some MHz, I can't
: understand where you get that 0.1 Hz from. Back then (1970-75), there were
: only Wenking and Tacussel, and the latter were all unipolar, horrible
: machines. I built my own.
 
I measured it. The only person I'd ever had the pleasure of meeting who
could build good potentiostats was Hylton Thompson. He then became
disillusioned with it all and turned a full time spiritualist, after selling
out to Sycopel.
 
As for measuring cathode overpotential :
 
: No, no, no! At the high current densities, this is not simple to measure! Once
: again we disagree. There is iR to remove, AND there are distributed effects;
: i.e. you have different potentials (and current densities) at different places
: on the electrode.
 
The best place for the reference is actually at infinity from the test
sample. Seriously, the current densities aren't that high and the solution
used is usually pretty conductive. You could always waggle the Luggin about,
to get an idea of the current distribution. The biggest problem will be
bubbles getting into the Luggin, acrylamide gel should do the trick. What
surprises me is that nobody has even tried. I suppose it is not as much fun
as calorimetry and neutron detection.
 
What do you make of all those odd equivalent circuits being posted ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 /  blue@dancer.ns /  How a calorimeter works (?)
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How a calorimeter works (?)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 14:32:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First the flames!  Jed Rothwell, for you to lecture me as to what is
proper experimental science and what is not is extremely presumptuous.
I have spent more hours doing experimental science and have made more
difficult and accurate measurements in a variety of settings than you
will ever even dream about.  I am, and have been for many years, a
working scientist.  You are not!
 
Now on the the question at hand.  Jed starts with the assertion that
a calorimeter is like a rain gauge in which you collect the rain and
then look at the marks on the side to see what has collected.  That
is basically an incorrect analogy which is clear evidence that Jed
has no clue as to how a calorimeter actually is supposed to work.
The type of calorimeter under discussion is more properly to be
considered a transducer that converts an input, heat, into an output
signal which is temperature.  The issue which I have attempted to
raise in my postings on this subject is how accurately does this
transduction take place.  I am not, at present, arguing about methods
used to record data or the instrumentation needed to measure electric
power or the accuracy of temperature probes, etc.
 
I am asking that some consideration be given to the basic question
of how a calorimeter functions as a transducer between heat and
temperature.  In particular how does it "average" over heat inputs
that have a time dependence that is rapid on the scale set by the
time constant of the calorimeter.  My assertion is that linearity
is a key requirement if the simple conduction calorimeter is to
function as Jed assumes it will.  That is to say, the temperature
signal must be linearly related to the heat input.  In this special
case the calorimeter does function as an averaging device which can
correctly integrate heat inputs of arbitrary wave forms.
 
However, anyone capable of doing the analysis of a simple mathematical
model of a calorimeter in which the relationship between heat and
temperature is nonlinear will find that the device cannot possible
correctly integrate arbitrary wave forms.  Obviously Jed is not
capable of understanding any mathematical models which describe a
simple calorimeter.  He takes it on faith that his heroes, Pons
and Fleischmann, could not possibly make a mistake such as using
a device that can not work to arbitrary accuracy.
 
Are there any true believers out there prepared to come to Jed's
aid?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 15:23:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jcc@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Julian Cummings) in FD 1388:
 
>In article <1993Sep11.021522.29212@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, blair@mksol.dseg
ti.com (arthur blair) writes:
>|> Richard Schroeppel (rcs@cs.arizona.edu) wrote:
>|> : I can't speak for other people, but I'm still here to read about Steve Jones' work.
>|>
>|> : Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>|>
>|> I wish my kill file was smart enough to weed out any message on
>|> cold fusion. I follow this group only for the occasional
>|> snippet of news on hot fusion.
>|> Art.
>
>Art, Amen to that!  It would be great if we could send the cold fusion
>discussion into a subgroup.  The only problem is, the true believers
>would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.salvation, and the hard-core
>skeptics would want to call it sci.physics.fusion.fraudulent!  Sigh...
 
While there is some logic in this, you have no sense of history, mate. This
group got started in 1989, motivated by reports of cold fusion. I know that
hot fusion has been around for much longer but all those years you lot have
not set up a NEWS group for it. Now you notice that there IS one, and would
like it to be yours. The obvious reaction is to start YOUR own, e.g.
sci.physics.fusion.hot.
 
I did get a suggestion from one of the serious readers of this group, for
starting a more serious, monitored group. While I am often sick of wading
past personal bickerings and what I call Hare Krishna CNF, I didn't like this
idea so much, purely because I might have to post my Updates to two groups...
but then, anyone can READ such a monitored group, can't they? So it might be
a good idea after all. But who would be the Stern Editor? And there might be
doubts about which group certain persons belong to. E.g. Terry... {:] - and
when I post a joke, I might not be allowed into the Serious group. On second
thoughts...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Not dramatic
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not dramatic
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 13:01:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930913034048_72240.1256_EHK25-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>does not understand the first thing about elementary physics! Those of us
>who do understand high-school level physics, and who have actually
>performed or observed this work find nothing "mystifying" about the paper
>or the data. It looks like any other successful CF run to me. I will
>grant, however, that it is pretty darn difficult to read. I had to ask a
>lot of questions, and a heck of a lot of it is over my head. At least I
>understand part of it, the "skeptics" understand nothing at all.
 
     'Nothing mystifying, but I only understand part of it.'
                                      Jed Rothwell (1993)
 
>By the way, Steve, you never told us why the cell remains hot all those
>hours after the power is turned off. Howzabout it? What kind of
>nonsensical jive have you got worked up to "explain away" that one? Hmmm?
>It is all a mistake, right? Tell us how to mistake room temperature for
>100 C, hour after hour, in experiment after experiment.
 
     Okay, how *does* it remain at 100C for three hours?  Where is the
     heat balance in the paper?  How much heat *is* generated in the
     three hours?  And when was the current turned off?  And why did it
     have to be turned off?  And how much liquid remains in the cell
     when it is 'dry'?
 
     And since when does 'experiment after experiment' mean 'a single
     experiment poorly reported in a journal article'?
 
>it. Let me guess: you have joined the APS, so you will say it is fraud.
>Toyota has deliberately defrauded itself of a couple hundred million
>dollars. Right? Those crafty, inscrutable Orientals at EPRI... I mean
>Toyota! They have some trick up their kimono sleeves.
 
     Time will tell.  By year's end, they will *not* have a 20kW reactor,
     and by the end of the decade there will be *no* power generated
     by CNF in electrolytic Pd-D cells using the P&F 'method'.
 
     Time is not on y'all's side, Mr. Rothwell.  If you thought it
     was, you'd not be shouting so loudly.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply on religion and science
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 13:06:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <19930913.042950.349@almaden.ibm.com>,
Greg Stewart-Nicholls <nicho@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>In <znr747851966k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com> Marshall Dudley writes:
>>an example, astronomy was considered religion, but is now science, as was
>>medicine (which still is religion in some undeveloped areas of Africa and South
>>America and Australia).
>             =========
>Care to elaborate on this ??? (I mean as an Aussie, I'd be _Real_
>interested in where you think we regard medicine as religion.
 
     Please elaborate in talk.religion or
     sci.pick.a.fight.with.nations.in.the.southern.hemisphere.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply on religion and science
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 15:34:21 BST

In <CDAn3F.7wy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>     Please elaborate in talk.religion or
>     sci.pick.a.fight.with.nations.in.the.southern.hemisphere.
>
>                           dale bass
>
Well ... maybe, however this bozo flaunted his ignorance here, and it
wouldn't be Usenet if we has to stick <religiously> to topic ....
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Karel Hladky /  Re: On Local Heating
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Local Heating
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 14:37:37 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

John Logajan (al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: Since the dissociation of D2O requires a minimum voltage (1.48V??) all Rp
: has to do is reduce the voltage drop across the work function to just under
: 1.48V and then that path would effectively shut down.
:
: At a charging current of 600ma per cm sq, at 1.45V, say, we suddenly have
: 870 mw of power per cm sq appearing at Rp.
 
This is the bit that I find most interesting, this 1.48 (or is it 1.56) V
factor which makes excess heat magically appear. The reactions are not
exactly in equilibrium under the high current densities used. So to drive
the D2O dissociation at that rate needs not 1.something V but say
2.something volts (E proportional to log(i) away from the equilibrium). And
magically virtual excess heat appears. It is the old one: electrode
thermodynamics vs kinetics.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 16:24:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>"platanic acid" ... platinic
 
Oops.  With all this religious/science debate I was thinking of the book
Platanic Verses.  :-)
 
>Where does this idea come from? We are
>talking about a strongly alkaline solution, so an acid will not exist as such.
 
This comes from a much earlier Droege observation of a large quantity of
"yellowish gunk" that he had to clean out of his electrolytic cells.  He had
it analyzed, if I recall, and the atomic constituents found were consistent
with platinic acid.  So too was the color and relative solubility in various
solvents.
 
I am, of course, presuming the existence of platinic acid in the latest
experiments -- and Tom can quash that with a simple statement.
 
And if it wasn't platinic acid -- it was still *something* and it could
be sufficiently conductive to reduce the voltage drop below the "critical"
value.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Scott Mueller /  An appeal to contributors
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An appeal to contributors
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 17:29:38 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

There is a bug somewhere that is truncating messages forwarded from
sci.physics.fusion to Fusion Digest.  The specific of the bug is that the
the Digest gets truncated when one of the messages contains a '.' at the
start of the line.  Some mailer is interpreting this free-standing '.' as
an end-of-message marker, and I have not been able to determine which mailer.
 
So, if you are a contributor to sci.physics.fusion, either directly or
through one of the gateways such as fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org, please be certain
that your contributions do not contain lines with only the '.' character on
them.
 
Thank you.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Truncated Fusion Digests
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Truncated Fusion Digests
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 16:43:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

FYI  If a period "." is the first character (and probably the only character)
on a line in a message you post, it will likely be interpreted by some
of the re-mailers along the Fusion Digest distribution path as an
End-of-Message indicator.
 
This has happened rather frequently lately.  It doesn't happen on all
paths, but, unfortunately, it is happening on the copy that goes to the
fusion archives.
 
So please be careful *not* to include leading periods "." in your postings.
Thanks,
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: How a calorimeter works (?)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How a calorimeter works (?)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 17:53:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Are there any true believers out there prepared to come to Jed's aid?
 
Just to be contrarian, I consider myself to be a "false" believer. :-)
(Whatever the heck that means??)
 
>My assertion is that linearity is a key requirement if the simple
>conduction calorimeter is to function as Jed assumes it will.
 
Though not a perfect test, a system that will take a short square pulse of
large power and give approximately the same answer as a long period of low
power is likely to handle arbitrary waveforms in which the largest amplitudes
are less than or equal to the short square pulse and in which the rates of
change are less than or equal to the "width" of the short square pulse.
 
So I think there are simple waveforms that can be thrown at a device to
calibrate it which cover an immense range of arbitrary waveforms.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 831 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 831 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 12:11:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
More serious today. I've got the latest FT (latest for me) and there were 3
papers in its cold fusion section. After a bit of soul searching, I relegated
the Cerofolini et al to "peripherals", since it is not a cold fusion
experiment at all. It reports a hitherto unknown super-powerful trap for
neutrons, in the form of an excited chemical species. This is clearly thought
to connect with a certain class of cnf experiments, and might be used to
explain the paucity (or is that penision?) of neutrons, when gobs of heat are
coming out. But it is not a cold fusion paper as such, despite Miley's putting
it into that part of FT.
I have seen a paper on his E-cells, by Fedorovich before, but here it's all in
English and in great detail, so you can all read and check it. Good luck, it
looks like heavy QM going to me. He wisely says at the end that this is as
much as he can get out of the theory and it's now up to experiments to take it
further.
Then we have the two Noninskis, showing us why two of the oft-quoted
zero-excess heat papers, i.e. Lewis et al, and Albagli et al, are "deeply
flawed" (EM's favourite phrase). I am afraid they might be right, in a narrow
sense. That is, the way I understand it after reading this and rereading those
papers, in the case that the excess heat is independent of current density,
its value would not be measurable in the way it is being measured in those
papers. The papers conclude that the results are consistent with zero XS, but
they might also be consistent with constant, finite, XS. Score one for the
Noninskis, it seems. I find it unusual that this polemic is not followed by a
rebuttal by the authors under attack - the usual procedure - but perhaps they
didn't feel like rebutting?
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 14-Sep-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 831
 
 
Journal articles: files cnf-pap...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fedorovich GV;                                  Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 442.
"Nuclear fusion in crystal hydrides of light elements".
** Radiation defects in the crystal lattice of compounds like AxHy (e.g. LiD)
are thought to form so-called E-cells, within which there is Coulomb barrier
suppression, and acceleration to around 1 keV of charged particles. This can
explain fractofusion in such crystals. This paper examines the theory of these
E-cells exhaustively, and the next step is now to obtain experimental
evidence.                                                        Dec-91/Jul-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noninski VC, Noninski CI;                       Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 476.
"Notes on two papers claiming no evidence for the existence of excess energy
during the electrolysis of 0.1M LiOD/D2O with palladium cathodes".
** This is a polemic on the paper by Lewis et al, Nature 340 (1989) 525, and
by Albagli et al, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 133, both of which reported a
negative result for a cold fusion calorimetry experiment. In both papers, an
isoperibolic calorimeter was used, adjusting the power so as to keep the cell
temperature constant, above bath temperature. N&N point out that in both cases
the analysis in effect uses two equations to solve for three unknowns, one of
them the excess power; this is then assumed to be zero and reported as such.
Therefore, both papers are in error.                             Nov-92/Jul-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
Peripheral articles: file cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerofolini GF, Boara G, Agosteo S, Foglio Para A;
Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 465.
"Giant neutron trapping by a molecular species produced during the reaction of
D+ with H- in a condensed phase".
** In a variety of situations, where negatively charged H reacts chemically
with D+, this team observed a neutron count significantly lower than the
background. They infer that the excited H-D+ species first formed, for some
unknown reason is a strong absorber of neutrons. It is much stronger, for
example, than a Cd foil, often used for that purpose. The final gaseous HD
product does not absorb neutrons.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: reply on religion and science
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: reply on religion and science
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:52:29 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <znr747851966k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com> mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall
Dudley) writes:
> I have read that have been confirming studies with
> "holy water" and water from "miracle springs" as well
 
I seriously doubt that these were done by "real scientists".
Almost certainly they were done by believers who simply wanted to
validate their belief. I have never heard of any such studies done
by reputible scientists.
 
 
> anomolous phenomenia when the circles were formed.
> In several cases orange balls of light were seen floating over the area
> where the circle was formed at what seems to have been the time of formation.
> We have no idea if these were ufo's (they are very small),  anomolous
> electrical phenomenia (earth lights?), paranormal, ball lightning (orange?),
> or what.
 
Interesting that you leave off the possibility that there were lights
used by human hoaxers---why is that so far down on the list?
 
--
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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:56:24 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Sep12.193435.6295@bnr.ca> schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
writes:
> You do realize that this group (sci.physics.fusion) was mainly created
> for cold fusion. Hot fusion was included mostly to simplify the name!
>
> If there is enough traffic, there are lots of precedence for splitting
> this one group into subgroups. Currently, this is only sufficient traffic
> on one topic, guess which :-)
>
>
 
Because anyone can comment on CF, since there is no understanding of
it. Someone would actually have to know something to follow a group
on hot fusion, since there is considerable developed theond experiment.
 
Its very similar to why people talk about politics and the weather
at parties. :-)
 
 
--
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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: why read sci.fusion?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:57:57 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <270g3g$r59@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John
Logajan) writes:
>
> However, for those who want some hot fusion postings, here is a generic one:
>
> "Spent all the money, no results."
> "Send more money."
>
>
> Just repost this every two weeks or so.
 
And here is the weekly message for CF:
 
the 20kW CF heater will be out next month.
 
:-)
 
--
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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / Marshall Dudley /  scientific method
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: scientific method
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 22:12:22 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

This subject where I have been arguing that scientists should be open minded is
not completely relevent to this news group.  Therefore if continued discussion
is desired I would be happy to respond to reasonable discussion in
sci.philosophy.tech or sci.philosophy.meta.  Having not read either group I am
not sure which is more relevent at this point.
 
However, as much as I would like to quit discussion the subject totally at this
time in this newsgroup, other postings making it appear that my arguments are
the exact opposite of what they really are makes this impossible.
 
My argument is simply that Scientific method requires an open mind.  Closed
minds about a subject of inquiry are exactly the same thing as "BLIND FAITH".
There is simply no room for blind faith in scientific investigations.  I see
more blind faith (or closed minds, both pro and con) in this newsgroup then in
any other I read. (Mind you I also see several distinguished scientists doing
the appropriate work, and posting the results.  I commend them).
 
I tried to point out that subject matter and scientific method are totally
distinct concepts.  That is, that there is no reason that incredible theories
cannot be explored by open minded scientists using accepted scientific methods
to to do credible research.  (As an example look at quantum mechanics and cold
fusion).  Some here seem to have a difficult time separating the concept of an
incredible subject from the concept of credible scientific method.  Although I
gave many examples previously, I would be happy to continue discussing this in
one of the above news groups.
 
I pointed out that historically, scientific exploration of the unknown often
bumped up against the "religous problem".  That labeling an inquiry "religous"
tends to retard the progress of science (religion seems to just about encompass
everything that science cannot presently explain), and many scientists are not
willing to investigate any subjects so labeled.  Regretably, I have seen that
label applied cold fusion research.
 
Now to answer some questions:
 
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
 
->     Please, please, please, not here.  Go to talk.religion or one of
->     the philosophy groups.                        ^^^^^^^^
 
I rest my case.
 
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
 
-> British UFO researcher Jenny Randels published an article claiming that
-> the sheer number of hoaxed crop circles rendered hopeless any meaningful
-> investigation.  If there was any "signal", it could not be detected amongst
-> the "noise."
 
I have written a quite lengthy article about the hoaxes, explored by scientific
method.  I am emailing you a copy.  To some extent though the same can be
said of cold fusion.  I hope that hoaxes, and accusations of hoaxes in cold
fusion will not make it impossible to ever get any meaningful results accepted.
I personally know how difficult it can be to attempt rigerous scientific
investigations amid the hysteria of hoaxes and claimed hoaxes.
 
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
 
-> Care to elaborate on this ??? (I mean as an Aussie, I'd be _Real_
-> interested in where you think we regard medicine as religion.
 
Sorry, I was under the impression that the aboriginals still used shamans
or medicine men.  If I am mistaken, I apologize.
 
-> BTW I assume that you think the guys who owned up to making the
-> crop circles are liars, and the fact that there haven't been any
-> since, is merely a coincidence, bought about by our lack of faith ..
 
I am emailing you a paper on a scientific investigation of the hoax thoery.
You do have your facts wrong however.  The circles have not stopped appearing
after the "confession". Only the interest of the news media in reporting them
has stopped.  They did stop for a while after the "confession", but that
is explained by a simple fact:  Circles are never found after the wheat is
harvested and the confession was timed to coincide with the last of the
harvesting for that year. Circles have continued unabated however, starting the
following spring.  Please respond by email, or via an appropriate newsgroup
(but email me which one).
 
As far as faith is concerned, as I stated above, that kind of faith has
no business in scientific research.  The only faith the researcher needs is
that rigid application of scientific method will result in determining the
validity or invalidity of a theory thus furthering the knowledge of science.
___________________________________________________________________________
 
Please respond to anything regarding scientific methodology in one of the
sci.philosophy news groups.  For crop circle discussion, pick what you feel is
an appropriate group, and email me where to meet you.  For those still wanting
to turn discussion of scientific methods into a religious discussion, please
find someone else for the discussion.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / mitchell swartz /  Local + Remote Heating (T+U)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Local + Remote Heating (T+U)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 01:53:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <270ifa$1o6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
  Subject: Re: Local (& Remote) Heating; T + U
John Logajan  al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) writes:
 
=jl "I'm probably missing your point, but I think there might be a difference
=jl in the "calorimeter constant" depending upon whether heat is developed
=jl in the headspace (recombiner) or in the body (electrolyte/electrodes.)
 
  Seems true if both the gas and recombiner are both functional and in (or
  thermally coupled to) the calorimeter.   What I am saying is that
  you mentioned that external recombination must couple by a formula
  that was not posted(and remains) unclear. \/\/
  Just wanted to see if you actually had a relation between the too,
   other than the upper limit.
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.09 / Joshua Levy /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: 9 Sep 1993 15:53:31 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>[Mallove is] the author of "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind
>the Cold Fusion Furor" (John Wiley & Sons, 1991), a Co-Founder of Cold Fusion
>Research Advocates (1991), and a former participant in Clustron Sciences
>Corporation (1992).
 
Does this mean that Clustron Sciences Corporation is dead?  Or have
you just severed your ties with them?  In either case, why don't you
tell us what happened?  With the end of the NCFI, Clustron was one of
the few organization in the English speaking world which is (or was)
planning to make money from CNF.  So what's the deal?
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 18:35:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>One check would be the amount of gas given off, which
>should always be exactly that expected from the break-up of water. F&P state
>that this is so, i.e. that their current efficiency is very close to 100%, so
>in their case, no parallel paths.
 
I plead ignorance of the P+F literature on this subject, and I don't recall
what was said about it in this forum, but just when do they measure this
gas production efficiency?  We are talking about a dynamic system here.
You can't infer efficiency at one time from that you measured at a different
time or in a different cell.
 
My suggestion was that the "efficiency" starts out as expected by then
suddenly, through the mechanisms mentioned, drops off quickly.
 
Note that an "event's" concurrent outgassing would mask the electrolytic gas
production rate.  You'd really have to be a good accountant to keep track of
everything.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Some replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some replies
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 21:08:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some replies                                       13 September, 1993
 
Bill Page wants to do QM computations.  Some time back, a friend of mine
invited me out to the Institute for Advanced Study at Santa Barbara.  Who
could refuse?  He wanted to build a machine to solve Lattice Gage Problems.
Since I had built a bunch of ECL array processors he wanted to match me off
against those who wanted to do the job with many more uP.  After listening to
the problem for a couple of days, I came up with a third way.  Model the
process with a large array of CMOS multiplying DACs.  It looked like it would
take about 2,000,000 of them, but once the kludge was assembled it would relax
to the solution in a few ms.  Needless to say, the device was not even
proposed much less built.  Analog solutions are just not in fashion.  Note
that each DAC can be thought of as a 1 Mflop computer, but the analog array
really does much better as the digital solution is very inefficient.  Much fun
was had the next few days dragging random theoretical physicists out of the
hall, explaining the idea, and watching the expressions on their faces.  At
the time we had a pretty good argument as to why it would be stable.  Nature
is stable, and this was a fundamental model of nature.  As I remember it was
something like 8 x 8 x 8 sites with real and complex coupling coeffients, and
a few more dimensions.  When I came home I built a version to solve a 2 x 2
array of linear equations with 8 bit m dacs.  This worked fine.  Later I
greatly upset the Fermilab patent submission program by submitting a version
of the idea as a solution for the "star wars" missile tracking problem.
Nothing came of it, but the Fermilab patent program administrator said
"please, please don't ever do that again."
 
Chuck Harrison mentions electrolytic tanks for solving three dimensional field
problems.  They work fine, and possibly give faster real solutions that trying
to get the problem on a computer.  There is also the two dimensional version
with conductive paper and silver paint.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Bird Kill
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bird Kill
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 21:08:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re:  Killing Five Birds with One Stone                13 September, 1993
 
With total disregard as to whether it is PC,  John Logajan wants to kill
birds.  It is OK by me, John, lets get em!
 
While I disagree in most of the detail, I think you are on to the right idea.
 
a) Something happens in the cell to reduce the fraction of the current which
produces gas.
 
This could be:
 
        i)  Re-combination in the cell
       ii)  A Parallel Current Path
      iii)  Both of the above
 
Some nice data is on the way to Bob Bernecky which might sort this out, but I
doubt it.  Still it will be nice to have an analysis by a second party.  At
the moment, the US Post Office is taking it's time between IL and CT.
 
In either case, the cell gets hotter for the same current as there is now more
heat in the cell and less in the catalyst.  This would be true for open cells
or for my version of the closed cell.  In my case, I should see the catalyst
temperature decrease when this happens.  Will have to look at the data to see,
but I think it did not.
 
BTW, John, the chemist that analyzed my "yellow crud" called it a "platinate".
Perhaps someone out there can refresh our memory of the difference between
ates, ites, and acids.
 
Dieter Britz says that P&F looked for recombination, and found that their
current efficiency was very close to 100%.  It appears to be true that they
made that claim.  It also appears to be true that they have never reported
simultaneous measurements of current efficiency and "anomalous heat".  Please
show me where in a paper P&F say something like "during the 'anomalous heat'
event in figure nn the exiting gas was measured and found to represent 100 +/-
2%  of the applied current."  I have looked, you will not find such a
statement.
 
Jed Rothwell feels obliged to slam my calorimetry.  "Tom Droege's will come
out with six different answers for the same input."  Not quite six, Jed, but
two.  The good calorimeter says "0" while the one like that used by P&F says
"a lot".  Seems to me that when fairly good technique comes out with two
different answers at the same time that more experiments are called for.  I
will build the better experiment, but it is hard to get up for it as I think
we are on to the Achilles Heal of this business.
 
Jed Rothwell wants Steven Jones to explain how the cell stays hot all those
hours.  Well, I now have a couple of such events, and the preliminary evidence
is that there is little or no "anomalous heat".  The experiment that will sort
all this out will contain two calorimeters and the simultaneous measurement of
the cell heat balance and the heat balance of a recombiner in a completely
closed system.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 /  blue@dancer.ns /  P&F boiling time?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F boiling time?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 23:31:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I note a discrepancy between numbers given in recent posts as the total
time it took of the Pons and Flesichmann cells to boil dry.  Steve Jones
read the time as 60,000 seconds while Chuck Harrison says it was 600 sec.
Oh well, in the cold fusion game factors of 100 come and go unnoticed.
(grin)  I assume in this case Chuck has the correct number.  However, I
think Steve's questions concerning the longterm rise in cell voltage
should not be dismissed so lightly.  Mitchell Swartz, of course, says
that it can have no effect on the experimental results because he knows
what the correct equivalent electrical circuit is.  I don't know how
he knows so much about the inner workings of a cell, but clearly there
is reason to doubt that the problem is entirely well in hand.  If we
accept the notion that the electrolyte is frequently replenished to
restore the ion concentration to its original value, that would seem
to leave changes in the boundary between electrolyte and electrode
as the only place where the potential difference should change.  That
in turn points to significant changes in the electrode surface conditions
and the way in which heat is generated within the cell.  So if the
chemistry is so well understood, why doesn't someone explain it all?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Bird Kill
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bird Kill
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 23:49:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>In my case, I should see the catalyst temperature decrease when this happens.
>Will have to look at the data to see, but I think it did not.
 
If you have outgassing of D2 at the same time, the temperature of the catalyst
should be going up -- masking the D2/O2 creation deficit.   It will stay hot
until all the outgassed D2 is combined with the excess O2.  Then it should
drop to the new lower temperature set by the slower D2/O2 electrolytic
evolution rate -- and even lower if the Pd starts to soak up D2 again.
 
I'm not sure what this signature should look like since I don't know how
long the outgassing lasts, and I don't know how long it takes the recombiner
to consume the outgassed D2.  Nevertheless, this is probably a good
falsifying test of the D2/O2 "shortage" hypothesis.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / John Logajan /  Falsifying bird kills
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Falsifying bird kills
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 03:33:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In addition to the lack of a corresponding decline in recombination
temperature as a falsifying agent to the dead bird hypothesis,
there is also the applied voltage trend, which ought to be trending
downward just before the "event", and probably much earlier as well.
This might be a very gradual, almost unnoticable downward slope -- but it
is unlikely to be an increasing voltage.  If it is increasing, this tends
to falsify the parallel current path hypothesis.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on constant E,I, etc.
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 09:52:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1391:
 
>Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
>: I've used Wenking p'stats, and I got one to oscillate at some MHz, I can't
>: understand where you get that 0.1 Hz from. Back then (1970-75), there were
>: only Wenking and Tacussel, and the latter were all unipolar, horrible
>: machines. I built my own.
 
>I measured it. The only person I'd ever had the pleasure of meeting who
>could build good potentiostats was Hylton Thompson. He then became
>disillusioned with it all and turned a full time spiritualist, after selling
>out to Sycopel.
 
Are you confusing bandwidth with the first break point here? The sort of
op amp used in a good potentiostat will indeed have its first-order break
point about there; because of its high gain, unity gain crossover does not
happen until quite a few kHz later. This is all as it should be. Wenking was
(is?) good stuff. Right now, I am trying to get hold of one of his OPA-69's,
which I know is sitting on a shelf in somewhere and not being used. It's a
lovely op amp, +- 30 V and 1A max current, FET inputs. That's what I hope to
use (or what my grad student hopes to use) to look at I and E fluctuations
under damped galvanostat conditions. We are still working on getting the gear.
 
>What do you make of all those odd equivalent circuits being posted ?
 
Er well, obfuscation, besides the point and wrong. How about you?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / mitchell swartz /  More on Local Heating
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Local Heating
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 01:54:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <01H2WGDZUKOY9PP83F@vms2.uni-c.dk>
    Subject: RE: On Local Heating
Dieter Britz BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
=dbr "Much better, Mitch, prints out much more compact, saving paper and thus
=dbr probably one whole tree was spared."
 
   thanks Dieter.  so who uses paper?
 
=dbr "Talking about trees, though, and seeing the wood for them, your cunning
=dbr analysis is simply wrong. The idea with this "platanic" bypass path is that
=dbr out of the total power applied to the cell, i*E, it would no longer be
=dbr correct, in the presence of such a bypass, to subtract i*1.46 W, because a
=dbr part of the current is not breaking up water. So, you get more heating than
=dbr you thought, and you would ascribe the extra bit to "excess heat", when you
=dbr should not. I can't say whether this is happening, but that's how it would
=dbr  be."
 
  First, the purpose of this putative pathway was to explain the repeated
excess enthalpies was offered .   The circuit was offered to show
that it would not necessarily produce excess heat.
 
  Second, good point about i*V --
       Also any experiment ought present data
   using BOTH the i*v  and i*(v-deltav) formulation.  What do you think?
 
  Third, there is a better reason why the circuit should be improved,
and that is that the electrolyte and putative conductive paths are probably
distributed.   Therefore a better circuit is:
 
   --/\/\/\/-----/\/\/\/----/\/\/\/-----/\/\/\-----/\/\/\------\/\/\/---|
   |   Rc     |     Re1   |   Re2    |  Re3     |    Re4     |    Rn    |
   |          |           |          |          |            |          |
   |          |           |          |          |            |          |
   |          |--/\/\/\/\-|--/\/\/---|--\/\/\---|--/\/\/\/\--|          |
   |               Rp1       Rp2         Rp3        Rp4                 |  ^
   |                                                                    |  O I
   |                                                                    |  |
   |                                                                    |
   |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
 
 
  where the Rpi grow as a f(time).   You'll note that there is
                                      still no excess heat.
 
        Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                              mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / mitchell swartz /  How his calorimeter works
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How his calorimeter works
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 01:55:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9309131402.AA12517@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: How a calorimeter works (?)
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=db "First the flames!  Jed Rothwell, for you to lecture me as to what is
=db proper experimental science and what is not is extremely presumptuous.
=db I have spent more hours doing experimental science and have made more
=db difficult and accurate measurements in a variety of settings than you
=db will ever even dream about.  I am, and have been for many years, a
=db working scientist.  You are not!"
 
   Stop the ad hominems and pick on someone else for a change, Mr. Blue.
   Tell us some more about your years as a "working scientist".  In hot
   fusion?  What have you done?
 
=db "Now on the the question at hand.  Jed starts with the assertion that
=db a calorimeter is like a rain gauge in which you collect the rain and
=db then look at the marks on the side to see what has collected.  That
=db is basically an incorrect analogy which is clear evidence that Jed
=db has no clue as to how a calorimeter actually is supposed to work.
=db The type of calorimeter under discussion is more properly to be
=db considered a transducer that converts an input, heat, into an output
=db signal which is temperature."
 
   Dick, you have not proven your latest model (and if your past
responses apply, nor will you probably do that).
  Also, it is more likely that what you are describing is a thermometer.
  Please show us your proof of this postulate that a calorimeter is actually a
  transducer:heat->temperature, either by reference or model.
 
=db "The issue which I have attempted to
=db raise in my postings on this subject is how accurately does this
=db transduction take place.  I am not, at present, arguing about methods
=db used to record data or the instrumentation needed to measure electric
=db power or the accuracy of temperature probes, etc."
 
   No, but you will later, I suppose.  So how about now.
   How about some quantitation and explanation now.  We can add it to the
     table prepared (and posted) here which will be developed into
     a cold fusion FAQ. (anyone interested in contributing please e-mail,
     or post ---- no flames please unless they're quantitative    ;-)X
 
 
=db "I am asking that some consideration be given to the basic question
=db of how a calorimeter functions as a transducer between heat and
=db temperature.  In particular how does it "average" over heat inputs
=db that have a time dependence that is rapid on the scale set by the
=db time constant of the calorimeter.  My assertion is that linearity
=db is a key requirement if the simple conduction calorimeter is to
=db function as Jed assumes it will.  That is to say, the temperature
=db signal must be linearly related to the heat input."
 
  Please honor us with some proof of your assertion.
  Also linearity is not necessarily required to follow a parameter, is it?
.  In fact, some people measure
 palladium loading with conductivity and that is not even monotonic.
 [What kind of science do you do?]
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / mitchell swartz /  On P&F boiling time
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On P&F boiling time
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 02:31:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9309132307.AA21507@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: P&F boiling time?
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
==db  "(regarding) the longterm rise in cell voltage (, it)
==db  should not be dismissed so lightly. Mitchell Swartz, of course, says
==db that it can have no effect on the experimental results because he knows
==db what the correct equivalent electrical circuit is."
 
   Having given up on quantitation, Mr. Blue, you now simply
     merely fail to tell the truth.   I did not say that.
      This is closer to the truth, isn't it?  :
 
  ==   "Good point.  Also, for the record:
  ==       There are many contributions to the conduction/polarisation
  ==      phenomena which the cells underwent.   Unlike Prof Jones, this
  ==     author requires more information to determine the relative
  ==     contribution of each.
  ==
  ==     For examples these include conduction/polarization such as
  ==         1) ionic drift (all species)
  ==         2) L-, D- defect propagation
  ==         3) space charge polarization
  ==         4) orientation polarization of any (electrically) poled materials
  ==         5) domain formation
  ==         6) atomic polarizations
  ==         7) electronic polarizations
  == (cf "Molecular Science and Molecular Engineering" A. von Hippel (Wiley) or
  ==    "Dielectric Materials and Applications" A. von Hippel (editor)
  ==      (MIT Press)"
 
  Find the post where is said "it can have no effect on the experimental results
      because (I know) what the correct equivalent electrical circuit is"
 
    Still waiting, Mr. Blue.
 
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                              mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / mitchell swartz /  Falsifying bird kills
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Falsifying bird kills
Subject: Falsifying bird kills
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 12:47:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Message-ID: <1993Sep14.033343.13038@ns.network.com>
Subject: Falsifying bird kills
John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
=jl "In addition to the lack of a corresponding decline in recombination
=jl temperature as a falsifying agent to the dead bird hypothesis,
=jl there is also the applied voltage trend, which ought to be trending
=jl downward just before the "event", and probably much earlier as well.
=jl This might be a very gradual, almost unnoticable downward slope -- but it
=jl is unlikely to be an increasing voltage.  If it is increasing, this tends
=jl to falsify the parallel current path hypothesis."
 
  First, there may be more then one (1) parallel current paths, as in:
 
     1) the normal conduction/polarization pathways in electrolyte
     2) any putative cold fusion pathway(s) which alter, or add, current
           pathways
     3) any other additional process(es) producing such hypothesized
         additional electrical current paths.
 
   Now #3 may or may not herald, or be required for, #2.  (or visa versa)
 
   Your statement that the up-slope negates the parallel current path
  hypothesis is only true if #1 remains the same during which time
  #2 or #3  or (#2 and #3) develop.         \/\/\
 
    Given the significant changes wrought in the cells, #1 might be
 changing.   Certainly, the development of electrolyte loss would tend to
 make #1 non-constant.  Is that not correct?
 
   BTW-1: I only posted the circuit models (which are NOT truly representative
of complex materials (nor are RLC models))  because they simply demonstrate(d)
that such a hypothesis alone will not explain any measured and calibrated
excess enthalpy.                 \/\/
 
  BTW-2: You are one of the best non-lurker applicators of quantitation.
Any thoughts on the developing table?
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Startling new claims
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Startling new claims
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 15:32:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Tom Droege now claims that he saw the same thing as Pons and
Fleischmann:
 
       "The good calorimeter says "0" while the one like that used by P&F says
       'a lot'."
 
So, Tom, you detected 100 degrees C, 80 C over ambient, for hour after hour
with no power in? You saw boiling water? You saw a reaction the same
magnitude as P&F observed, but you have a "good" calorimeter, so you can tell
us what "mistake" they made, huh?
 
Crap! Nonsense! You might have seen some miliwatt mistake in your gadget, but
it was thousands of times smaller, and smack in the noise, compared to what
they report. You are comparing apples to oranges. You claim you are measuring
the heat of one flea with heartburn, and then you find out it is a mistake.
P&F are measuring the heat of a 150 watt incandescent lightbulb: ten thousand
times greater than what you claim to measure, which makes it ten thousand
times harder to miss. Your arguments are totally bogus.
 
       "Jed Rothwell wants Steven Jones to explain how the cell stays hot all
       those hours.  Well, I now have a couple of such events..."
 
No "event" that you have reported is even remotely -- by any stretch of the
imagination -- comparable in the intensity and ease of detection of the
massive high heat events at Toyota. When someone lights a match in the next
county, that is NOT the same as when someone lights a blowtorch next to your
face. You are like Steve Jones: you think that an experiment with a power
level three orders of magnitude too low to measure accurately "means"
something. I will tell exactly what it means: It means you can make a mistake
and never see it. It means nobody has the slightest idea what you are doing
or whether you are right or wrong. It means you are deliberately making your
experiment impossible to replicate or verify, in order to cloud the issue and
hide the facts.
 
 
Richard Blue, forever evading the point and throwing sand rather than facing
facts, writes:
 
       "If we accept the notion that the electrolyte is frequently replenished
       to restore the ion concentration to its original value, that would seem
       to leave changes in the boundary between electrolyte and electrode as
       the only place where the potential difference should change.  That in
       turn points to significant changes in the electrode surface conditions
       and the way in which heat is generated within the cell..."
 
Yes. That's what I said too. It changes the way the heat is generated. BUT IT
DOES NOT CHANGE THE WAY THE HEAT IS MEASURED! So it does not make the
slightest bit of difference. Electrode conditions can change every nanosecond
and the heat can fluctuate to a fair-thee-well, but we measure the water
temperature. The water temperature responds to any source of heat the same
way.
 
 
 
Dale Bass asks:
 
       "Okay, how *does* it remain at 100C for three hours?"
 
How? It just stays right there. The temperature does not rise or fall. How
else? If you build a reflux test tube like that, you will see exactly how a
heat source at the bottom of a test tube makes this happen. Do you mean
"Why?" -- because a nuclear reaction is occurring. No chemical reaction from
such a small object can go on that long.
 
       "Where is the heat balance in the paper?  How much heat *is* generated
       in the three hours?"
 
Figure it out yourself. Pons and Fleischmann addressed that question in their
response to Morrison:
 
       "The "dry cell" must therefore have generated (approx) 120kJ during the
       period at which it remained at high temperature (or (approx) 3MJcm-^3 or
       26MJ(mol Pd)-1).  We refrained from discussing this stage of the
       experiments because the cells and procedures we have used are not well
       suited for making quantitative measurements in this region..."
 
They have better ways of measuring the heat from that phase, which will
provide a more exact answer. But even the relatively crude Stage 5
calorimetry shows there is excess heat beyond chemistry. A 100 C temperature
in a Dewar immersed in water *will not* -- under any circumstances -- remain
hour after hour unless you input energy. The blank runs show that the Dewar
cools down right away with no power input. If you don't believe this, then
Shut Up and go put a Dewar under water. Find out for yourself!
 
       "And when was the current turned off?  And why did it have to be turned
       off?
 
The paper addresses those questions in detail. Read it!
 
       "And how much liquid remains in the cell when it is 'dry'?
 
Make yourself a reflux system and you will see.
 
       "And since when does 'experiment after experiment' mean 'a single
       experiment poorly reported in a journal article'?
 
The paper showed data from several experiments. Your comment reveals that you
have not even glanced at it. That is why you post all these ignorant, foolish
comments: because you have not read it, and you have never done any
calorimetry. Maybe you are like Dick Blue, you have done research in other
areas, but you don't understand Junior High School physics and chemistry. In
any case, take my word for it: the experiment has been repeated over and over
again.
 
 
Barry Merriman claims that CF scientists have not met their goals. He
insinuates that we have claimed "weekly" that: "the 20kW CF heater will be
out next month." He is dead wrong. CF scientists have done everything they
said they would in spades. Starting from zero, with practically no funding,
all the while fighting tooth and nail with the Entire Scientific
Establishment, the CF scientists are now on the verge of blowing the Hot
Fusion program and OPEC out of the water. CF passed "break even" a long, long
time ago, it has gone farther in 4 years with microscopic funding than the
Hot Fusion went in 40 years with massive funding. Progress is much faster
than I or anyone else ever thought it would be. In any other field, the speed
of this progress would be considered miraculous.
 
 
John Logajan and others are worried about D2/O2 deficits and electrolytic
evolution rates. It is fine to worry about such marginal details, but I would
like to remind everyone that even in the worst possible case, such transient
sources of heat can only explain a tiny fraction of the excess heat seen by
P&F, McKubre, Kunimatsu and many others. It is like Morrison's attempt to
explain away P&F's heat by claiming it was burning hydrogen; it is many
orders of magnitude too small. Unlike Morrison, John keeps his discussions
quantitative.
 
- Jed, in a foul mood, sick and tired of these "skeptical" lies and evasions
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Richard Schultz /  Sauces, geese, ganders, and Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sauces, geese, ganders, and Mitchell Swartz
Date: 14 Sep 1993 15:38:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CDBMot.4Fv@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>   Stop the ad hominems and pick on someone else for a change, Mr. Blue.
 
At least we can always count on Mr. Swartz for a leavening of humor here
in sci.physics.fusion.
 
>   No, but you will later, I suppose.  So how about now.
>   How about some quantitation and explanation now.  We can add it to the
>     table prepared (and posted) here which will be developed into
>     a cold fusion FAQ. (anyone interested in contributing please e-mail,
>     or post ---- no flames please unless they're quantitative    ;-)X
 
What "quantitation" has Mr. Swartz ever provided?  I merely ask for
information.  I'd accept a quantitative explanation of how the Pd crystal
field affects deuterium nuclei; or a quantitative explanation of what the
nuclear products of "cold fusion" are and how they correlate with the claims
of excess heat; or even a quantitative correlation between the claims of
high-energy radiation and the claims of nuclear reaction products.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Voltage Trend
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Voltage Trend
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 18:00:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan predicts a downward voltage trend before an "event".  Likely
it is there.  It is also seen in the P&F data.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Startling new claims
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Startling new claims
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 17:55:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>John Logajan and others are worried about D2/O2 deficits and electrolytic
>evolution rates. It is fine to worry about such marginal details, but I would
>like to remind everyone that even in the worst possible case, such transient
>sources of heat can only explain a tiny fraction of the excess heat seen by
>P&F, McKubre, Kunimatsu and many others.
 
In fact, the likely upper range of D2/O2 deficits is on the order of about
one watt per cm sq assuming current densities just under one amp per cm sq.
 
This is a lot like the I*V controversy with the Mills cells.  If the excess
heat is greater than total input I*V then recombination or parallel current
paths are insufficient to account for all the heat.
 
My comments are strictly related to a specific set of observations with
Tom Droege's experiments.  I think they might apply more widely, but it
depends very much on various factors that may or may not be occuring
in all cells.  However, if the excess heat is exceeding I*V, then Jed is
correct in dismissing these things as marginal details.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Startling new claims
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Startling new claims
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 17:59:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>This is a lot like the I*V controversy with the Mills cells.  If the excess
>heat is greater than total input I*V then recombination or parallel current
>paths are insufficient to account for all the heat.
 
Actually I can be more generous than that.  If then excess heat is greater
than I*1.48V then the recombination or parallel current path is insufficient
to explain the excess heat.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Tests of nonlinear calorimeter
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tests of nonlinear calorimeter
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 20:05:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan, in response to my challange for a defense of the simple
conduction calorimeter, suggests that a test procedure that compares the
calorimeter response for a short pulse with that of a long pulse of
the same total area could establish whether a given calorimeter would
respond correctly to an arbitrary wave form.  One thing is certain in
my mind, and that is that a simple calorimeter with a temperature
dependent calorimeter constant must fail such a test at some level of
accuracy.  Furthermore I am doubtful that an test using a single
test pulse shape would allow a generalization to arbitrary pulses.
 
Let me take a slightly different tack to illustrate the problem.
Consider a constant power input Q watts per sec which results in a
temperature reading  T1  = k1 * Q1 to which we add a pulse delta q.
The response of the calorimeter, if it is to "correct" has to have
a pulse that integrates to an area delta T = k1 * delta q.  Now
change the constant input to Q2 and the temperature moves to
T2 = k2 * Q2 and the response to the pulse becomes k2 * delta q.
Now even though the integrated power in the pulse delta q remains
the same the response to such a pulse changes because k1 and k2
are not equal.  Thus the nonlinearity destroys an possibility
that a superposition theorem applies.   As a result the response
to a pulse depends on what the average power level was when the
pulse occured.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / R Schroeppel /  CLIMAX slow neutron detector?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CLIMAX slow neutron detector?
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 20:46:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I attended a "tree-ring" seminar yesterday.  The topic of discussion was what
could be learned about the sun from looking at detailed Carbon14 data from
individual rings.  [They chisel apart the tree rings and measure the C14 in
each one.]  The assumed causality is that the C14 in the tree ring reflects
the flux of (galactic) cosmic rays, which tells us something about how strong
the solar-wind/magnetic-field was that year.  There's the usual 11-year period
in the data, and lots of other marginally significant periods.
 
The speaker mentioned another kind of detector, CLIMAX, that's been operating
since about 1951.  It's a slightly-subcritical reactor, acting as an amplifier
of atmospheric slow neutrons.  The detector has a strong correlation with the
sunspot cycle, and the speaker thinks that the ASNs are caused by cosmic
rays smashing atoms in the air.  He was perfectly aware of the twenty minute
neutron halflife.
 
Can someone tell me more about the CLIMAX detector/reactor?
What's the ambient level of neutrons in the air?
Are cosmic rays the major source?
Is this another factor to consider when trying to measure neutrons
 in a CNF experiment?
 
Finally, why is the half-life of a neutron always quoted to one significant
figure?  Surely we should know it better than that by now?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Falsifying bird kills
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Falsifying bird kills
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 19:39:00 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   Your statement that the up-slope negates the parallel current path
>  hypothesis is only true if #1 remains the same during which time
>  #2 or #3  or (#2 and #3) develop.         \/\/\
 
I believe you are correct.  Therefore an up-slope isn't a robust falsifying
indication.  I retract the suggestion.
 
Similarly mere temperature measurement of catalyst recombination is also
fraught with difficult to assess variations.  So that isn't a robust
falsifying indication either.  However, at least in theory, accounting
for gas evolution ought to be a good falsifier for a hypothesis that
suggests a gas evolution deficit -- but I'm just not sure how to measure
it.  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Bird Kill
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bird Kill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 20:03:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>        i)  Re-combination in the cell
>       ii)  A Parallel Current Path
 
There should be slight differences in behavior between these two.
 
Recombination in the cell would require an explanation.  It doesn't have
access to the same "path switching" suddeness as the critical voltage
versus linear voltage parallel current path.  It might have its own
"suddeness" explanation, but it isn't obvious to me at this point.
 
Also, current switching to the platinate leg should mostly shut down the
gas evolution rather quickly, whereas recombination in the cell might only
slow down gradually.
 
The platinate could be a factor in the recombination explanation too, but
again the reason for the suddeness is unclear.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: why read sci.physics.fusion?
     
Originally-From: bobp@wixer.bga.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.physics.fusion?
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 02:08:55 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

Despite the signal to noise ratio, despite the jerks, loud mouths, and
idiots... There are enough very bright people with unique insights,
real knowledge, and valid though divergent points of view, posting
real information and even real experimental results to make it just
plain fun to read.
 
 
                        Bob P.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Startling new claims
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Startling new claims
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 17:02:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930914150317_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Dale Bass asks:
>
>       "Okay, how *does* it remain at 100C for three hours?"
>
>How? It just stays right there. The temperature does not rise or fall. How
>else? If you build a reflux test tube like that, you will see exactly how a
>heat source at the bottom of a test tube makes this happen. Do you mean
>"Why?" -- because a nuclear reaction is occurring. No chemical reaction from
>such a small object can go on that long.
 
     No, I meant 'How?'.  But now that we've gotten at least a smidgen
     of an answer, which nuclear reaction?
 
>- jed, in a foul mood, sick and tired of these "skeptical" lies and evasions
 
     Interesting tactic.  Mostly evading the queries, and then being
     'sick and tired' of evasions.
 
     I presume that it is *your* evasions of which you tire?
 
                              dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Coupling Constants
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coupling Constants
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 23:17:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Seems like Dick Blue had a post discussing coupling that may not have made it
to FD yet.  This gets to the heart of the matter.  We read a thermometer
(somehow) and then try to relate it to a power level in the calorimeter.  This
means we have some sort of coupling transfer function between power into the
calorimeter and temperature in the vicinity of the thermometer.  Next we have
some other transfer function between temperature and whatever the thermometer
puts out.  Finally we have another transfer function between the output of
the thermometer through some sort of data system.  Then finally we are into
the real world (as binary bits in a computer - Ha!).
 
My opinion is that the one coupling the power into the calorimeter, and the
temperature in the vicinity of the thermometer is very complicated.  Dick Blue
seems to understand this, and Dieter Britz and a few others worry about this,
but I am not so sure about P&F.  To try to sort this out we all do calibration
experiments.  The goal then is to try to design a box that is not fooled by
some funny transfer function somewhere.  Sorry I can not quickly explain what
a transfer function means.  But it is likely not even appropriate, as the
transfer functions that we study are mostly linear, and these systems are
clearly non-linear.
 
My goal as a calorimeter designer is to try to create a design where these
funny transfer functions do not matter.  Thus I see a different reading on
the conduction calorimeter which is subject to a funny transfer function than
I do on the null balance calorimeter which I have attempted to design to
be insensitive to changes in transfer function.
 
Jed Rothwell says that people have been doing calorimetry for 30,000 years or
so and it is accurate to 10,000%.  I say it is not so easy and I do not
understand everything needed to make sub 1% measurements.  Making measurements
on these dynamic systems gets all tied up with complex transfer functions.  So
Jed, I do not understand how to make measurements to sort out whether or not
there is "anomalous heat".  You can quote me.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Greg Kuperberg /  The Jungle
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Jungle
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 19:49:27 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930914150317_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Starting from zero, with practically no funding, all the while
>fighting tooth and nail with the Entire Scientific Establishment, the
>CF scientists are now on the verge of blowing the Hot Fusion program
>and OPEC out of the water.
 
Alas, it's been a short walk on a long verge.
 
>- Jed, in a foul mood, sick and tired of these "skeptical" lies and evasions
 
I really feel for you Jed.  It's a jungle out there.  How is your
own business doing, by the way?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
Date: 14 Sep 93 14:35:39 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

The following is reposted since Mitchell has not replied.  Then follows a
related question based on Jed's polemic of today.
 
In article <CCp39y.K5y@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <tomkCCntCI.H5E@netcom.com>
>      Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak
> Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
>
> = "In the most positive experiments, the nuclear ash is many, many orders
> =  of magnitude below what would be necessary to account for the excess heat,
> =  let alone explain any inefficiency in the coupling mechanisms." (Tom
Kunich)
>
>    The majority of positive experiments may have failed to adequately look
> for the ash.  Those that did, have reported that the examined ash was
> produced at levels much closer to the expected amount than you claim.
>>(Mitchell Swartz)
 
Ok, Mitch:  tell us about McKubre's results regarding ash.  Clearly, McKubre's
xs heat claims constitute
a "positive experiment."  Yet he has looked for helium, tritium, etc. -- what
has he found?  Lots of EPRI dollars are being spent here.  Yet, from all I've
heard from McKubre and others, *no* ash has been found at all.  Can you correct
this, or will you rather correct your statement above?
>
 
Today Jed solves the mysterious 100-C constant temp. of the P/F cell following
boiling to dryness as for us thus:
 
>Dale Bass asks:
>   "Okay, how *does* it remain at 100C for three hours?"
 
>How?  It just stays right there.  The temperature does not rise or fall.  How
>else?  If you build a reflux test tube like that, you will see exactly how a
>heat source at the bottom of a test tube makes this happen.  Do you mean
>"Why?"  -- because a nuclear reaction is occurring.  No chemical reaction from
>such a small object can go on that long.  (Jed)
 
A *nuclear reaction*, Jed?  No doubt neutron-penic, helium-penic,
tritium-penic, etc.  -- but seriously, where are the nuclear products required
by delta-mass = Energy/c^2  ?  A striking feature of the F/P paper in Phys Lett
176 (1993) 118 is that no nuclear products are mentioned.  Indeed, they do not
there claim a nuclear origin for the xs heat.  So how are you so sure,
Mr. Rothwell?
 
Another point:  in referring to the 100C temp. of the cell for three hours,
the P/F paper states:
 
"following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the
cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time
(fig. 11); furthermore, the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the
cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300 C."
 
Hmmmm ... boiled to dryness.  Then how does your reflux tube work, Mr. Rothwell
-- isn't water required?  (Seems like we've been through all this before on the
net.)  Also, please incorporate the 300C temp. at the base of the cells into
your reflux model.
 
Since the current is off for these three hours, there must be some sort of
sustained "nuclear reaction" (your explanation, not mine)
rather than driven  -- perhaps "ignition" as has
been argued before (not by me!).  In any case,  isn't it remarkable that the
nuclear reaction proceeds at an evidently steady rate, with no thermal run-away
problem at all, for three hours?  Quite remarkable, really.  Oh, please
explain how this can happen.  The hot fusion types are dying to know, since
thermal runaway once ignition is achieved is a formidable problem for them.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep2.171423.900@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep2.171423.900@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 93 14:36:26 -0600

cancel <1993Sep2.171423.900@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: scientific method
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: scientific method
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 19:59:57 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <znr747958342k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com> mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall
Dudley) writes:
 
>
> My argument is simply that Scientific method requires an open mind.
 
Sure, and probably most of us here have open minds. But the problem
is that in any investigation you have to have a certain point
of view in order to decide what to look for.
 
In the case of CF, there are fundamental problems with time and energy scales
needed to produce substantial fusion, and how these could be met within an
electrolysis cell.
 
In the absense of a clear nuclear/gamma ash signal, and given these seemingly
insurmountable times and energy scale barriers,  the most prudent
point of view would seem to be that there is some sort of measurement
error and/or chemistry at the heart of the phenomena.
 
Thus it would seem most productive to search for these errors, rather than
trying to build power plants. Unfortunately, some folks find themselves
on a certain side of the fence, due to their early bold pronouncements
(back when they thought there was a clear nuclear ash signal!), and can't
back away from that point of view now. I wouldn't want to have their
burden though, i.e. being on the dubious side of the phenomena.
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Startling new claims
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Startling new claims
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 20:07:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930914150317_72240.1256_EHK21-1@CompuServe.COM>
 
> CF passed "break even" a long, long
> time ago, it has gone farther in 4 years with microscopic funding than the
> Hot Fusion went in 40 years with massive funding. Progress is much faster
> than I or anyone else ever thought it would be. In any other field, the speed
> of this progress would be considered miraculous.
>
> - Jed, in a foul mood, sick and tired of these "skeptical" lies and evasions
 
Jed, once again, chill out! If things are like you say, what are you
worried about---irrefutable proof of CF should be forthcoming.
 
It is amazing that this incredible progress you cite, though, has totally
escaped the scientific establishment.
 
Even though I work on hot fusion, I would be totally happy if what you predict
comes to pass, and you say it will come to pass shortly (or already
has passed, and will be displayed shortly!), so why bother with your semi-daily
diatribes? Just chill and you can have the last laugh.
 
On the other hand, someone once said "thou doth protest too much."
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Startling new claims
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Startling new claims
Date: 14 Sep 93 23:27:30 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
 
: No "event" that you have reported is even remotely -- by any stretch of the
: imagination -- comparable in the intensity and ease of detection of the
: massive high heat events at Toyota. When someone lights a match in the next
: county, that is NOT the same as when someone lights a blowtorch next to your
: face. You are like Steve Jones: you think that an experiment with a power
: level three orders of magnitude too low to measure accurately "means"
: something. I will tell exactly what it means: It means you can make a mistake
: and never see it. It means nobody has the slightest idea what you are doing
: or whether you are right or wrong. It means you are deliberately making your
: experiment impossible to replicate or verify, in order to cloud the issue and
: hide the facts.
 
So then, what is the rest of us supposed to do?
 
What's the means to get reproducible blowtorches that anybody can verify
in their own calorimeter of their own design?  Why don't P&F let people
try real-working 10,000% excess heat cathodes in somebody elses calorimeter?
 
If it's so obvious, then clearly the new group will get a huge positive
signal and it would be very convincing.
 
So far the only thing you can say is "trust P&F and the Japanese because
they're never gonna tell".
 
: - Jed, in a foul mood, sick and tired of these "skeptical" lies and evasions
 
--
-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:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Voltage Trend
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Voltage Trend
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 00:57:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930914124857.20a0c03c@fnald.fnal.gov>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>John Logajan predicts a downward voltage trend before an "event".  Likely
>it is there.  It is also seen in the P&F data.
 
     And it likely means that the electrode is unloading.  It
     also appears to be seen in certain of McKubre's results.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Chuck Sites /  cancel <1993Sep14.213259.7122@coplex.coplex.com>
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep14.213259.7122@coplex.coplex.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 03:41:09 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

cancel <1993Sep14.213259.7122@coplex.coplex.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 03:43:39 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

 
Hello Again,
   I was reading my last post and was frustrated by my gramatical
errors and decided to post a revised version.  That's what I get
trying to post a message from work. Please bare with me on
this.
 
   There may have been some confusion as to the point I was trying to
make about the degeneracy of the D+ ions in PdD(x) system and it's
application to some cold fusion rate calculations. In a standard
model of a cold reaction the main way to attack the Coulumb barrier
is by tunneling.  These types of theories are dependent on the distance
between the fusing particles.  Steve's request for comments on metalic
deuterium started me thinking about what the key parameters may be for
cold fusion.  Obvoiously distance is one, but could degeneracy of a
multibody system be another?  I happen believe it is, and within the
context of metalic deterium, I'm not sure the system is degenerate.
 
    There has been some pretty interesting descussion by Bill Page
and Terry, on the delocalization issue.  That, in itself, is one attribute
of hydrogen in metals that is getting some research time.  Good discussion
Bill.  It certainly gives us a strong indicator of what we are dealing with
in proton/deuteron QM transport.
 
   Anyway, in reply to Matt Kennel, as well as Terry,
 
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>In article <26tn9qINN1hj@network.ucsd.edu>
>mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>> Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
>>
>> | Now what does this imply with respect to Cold Fusion?  It means
>> | that only if the deuterons are degenerate (multiple overlaping wave
>> | functions) does a system of deuterons have an increased probability
>> | for fusion.
>>
>> This is getting repetitive.  Ahem.
 
  Matt, sorry if I'm getting repetive. It's just that after researching
some aspects of the Chubb's theory I've become very intrieged by many of
the questions raised in thier theory.  Delocalization of a strong force
carrier is just one aspect and the deuteron band state is another.
Within the context of how nuclear interation may take place in a system
like this, all I'm suggesting is that degeneracy may modify S. Koonin's
classic CF rate estimate.
 
>> **********
>> Where did the energy to get "multiple-overlapping-wave-functions"
>> come from?
>> **********
 
I think Mitchel Swartz got this one.  It's not necessary to add energy
to to obtain a degernate system.  In most cases it comes about through
energy minimalization as in the boson condensation process for example.
Matt, you are correct about the formation of degenerate electron gasses
require extreem pressures as in the case of a white dwarf.  However as
you might have guessed, in working out the Bose-Einstein statistics (while
trying to follow Chubb's theory) it becomes apparent that the D in metals is
degenerate, and as described by Max Born in his book "Atomic Physics" this
implies a significant wave function overlap.  But that should be apparent,
after all what is a band state?
 
[removing much of what Terry writes],
 
>A degenerate _gas_ does not obey the ideal gas laws.
 
>A degenerate _fermi gas_ is a collection of fermions in which all of the
>lower energy levels are occupied and "unavailable" for interactions.  This
>is very different from the non-ideal-gas definition of degeneracy.
 
>A degenerate _quantum state_ means that one or more particles in different
>states of motion nontheless have the _same_ energy.  This is in some ways
>the opposite of the fermi gas definition of the word degenerate, in which
>the idea is that all the particles are in _different_ energy states.)
 
>A degenerate _physicist_ is one who claims that he watches XXX videos only
>to take his mind of the next do-or-die SSC funding vote.
 
>Again, to which of these definitions are you and Chuck referring?
 
I'm refering to 4.  All those degenerate physicsists watching XXX movies
must know something about interacting bodies. Even multibody interaction ;-)
 
   Actually I was refering to degeneracy in terms of Einstein's theory of
of gas degeneration.  To paraphrase Born's description from my notes:
 
Lambda = h / p = h / (3 m k T)^1/2 is normally the typical de Broglie
wave length for a particle in a gas.   The degeneracy is seen to be
small when the mean spacing of the particles is larger than the de Broglie
wave lenght (which is the size of a typicle wave packet). In the case of
a normal gas system, the wave functions overlap slighty forming a symetric
wave function of no physical effect. However when the wave packets overlap
significantly, the degeneracy becomes large and the system quits behaving
classically.  The classic statistical methods of Maxwell-Boltzmann (used
in hot fusion calculation of reaction rates) may not be applicable in some
aspects to cold fusion in metals. But that point is painfully obvious.
It's just a question whether it's true.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Various replies: metallic hydrogen
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various replies: metallic hydrogen
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 03:48:05 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Sep14.162126.922@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> ...
> Terry Bollinger raises a serious objection to my suggestion that d's
> might reside in interstitial sites in the d-metal lattice, noting that
> the lattice would quickly re-configure to achieve again close-packing
> of *identical* deuterons.  I think he's right, sigh.  However, there may
> be a shallow potential well that would keep deuterons in an octahedral
> site,  say, for a short time -- depending on the strength of the
> potential barrier.  I want to do the calculations before giving up on
> this...
 
Sigh^2 -- it's really not quite _that_ bad.  Full reconfiguration can
occur _only_ if a transient line defect can form.  By that I simply mean
a literal little chain of atoms all getting pushed out exactly one atomic
notch, like an exceptionally tiny train taking a very, _very_ short trip.
 
                             Inserted atom
                                   |
                                  \|/
                                   `
                            o o o oxo o o o
                                  """
 
             Possible growth path for transient line defect:
                                 .__.
                                _|  |_
                                \    /
                                 \  /
                                  \/
 
                            o o o oxo o o o
                                  """
                            o o o ox oo o o
                                  """""
                            o o o ox o oo o
                                  """""""
                            o o o ox o o oo
                                  """""""""
                            o o o ox o o o o
                                  """"""""""
                            o o o o xo o o o
                                    """"""""
                            o o o o x oo o o
                                      """"""
                            o o o o x o oo o
                                        """"
                            o o o o x o o oo
                                          ""
                            o o o o x o o o o
 
The trouble is that just like a real train, you _can't_ just shove an
infinitely long chain and expect it to move.  Atomic chains (say along a
major cubic (e.g., 001) axis) are not really infinite, but they are close
enough to be a real headache for single atoms.  (Interestingly enough,
this very same article is crucial to the formation of solitions and band
kinks.  There two "out of sync" regions _could_ in principle resolve into
a single uniform region simply by one or the other region "shifting one
notch," but in practice this does not happen because there are just far
too many atoms that need to be pushed aroundaround.)
 
The situation shown above is actually very poor for the type of defect
resolution I've drawn.  The intermediate "half positions" may actually
be very energetically unfavorable, at least for some axes.  The symmetry
of the crystal makes it extremely hard for the atom to "decide" which
of many identical chains to push out -- e.g., why in the world should
the right-hand direction shown above be favored over left-hand resolution?
There really _is_ no reason, and like the proverbial donkey that starved
to death eyeing two absolutely equally attractive stacks of hay and thus
not being able to decide, the atom cannot easily "choose" its resolution
path (unless, for example, one crystal face is enormously closer than the
other).  And even the final stage of resolution -- pushing that atom up
_away_ from the surface -- is a very bad idea energetically in a metal,
where surface tension is likely to be _big_.
 
So Steve, even before you begin to dig deep into the calculations, may I
suggest a short trip to your nearest cubic face-centered defect insertion
analog computer to get some ball-park estimates on what kind of things
_can_ happen (or not happen)?  There are a lot of geometries here that
scale up very nicely, making the analog computer estimation approach
especially attractive, even for something as exotic as metallic hydrogen.
 
I am referring, of course, to the produce section of the supermarket,
where diligent workers reconstruct their beautiful face-centered cubic
crystal models using slightly compressible oranges to represent the atoms.
(And here you thought they just did that to _sell_ them!)
 
If you forcibly insert an orange into the readily apparent octahedral
vacancies of one of these Crystals of Orange, you can even observe the
resulting dislocations and _maybe_ even a linear chain dislocation if
the number of oranges is small and you pick a spot near the side.
 
Even better, however, is to have a small inflatble ball about the size
of an orange, which can be inflated from a distance using either air or
water.  A balloon will do, but it needs to be a really small one so that
it is about as taut as an orange when it reaches orange size.
 
Insert the deflated balloon into the Crystal of Orange, then fill it up
and watch what happens.  (Aside from the manager and security officer
coming up and asking you in a very passifying voice if they might talk
to you a bit in the office, that is.)  If the Crystal is large, you have
a very good chance of getting a stable "point defect" in which the poor
inserted orange is compressed well beyond normal, but does at least manage
to bully its neighbors into giving it a little more room -- they will tend
to shift away from their nomninal face-centered cubic positions some,
possibly for a distance of several oranges (depending mostly on how easy
it is to compress them -- incompressible oranges ==> long distances).
 
If you want all this to be: a) more visible, and/or b) less likely to end
in a trip to see a nice policeman, the best route is to use round, clear
balloons or (if you can find them) balls filled with air.  (Water distorts
too much).  Throw in a few more clear balloons of various color to act as
tracers of strain, and Voila! -- you not only have a doggone good model
for what happens when you insert another one by inflating it in the middle,
but you can even take pictures that show actual measurements (e.g., strain
vs. distance vs. incompressibility (tautness) of the balloons), or in some
cases dynamic dislocations of the type I discussed before.
 
Much cheaper than a Cray or (times they are a changin') a hypercube machine,
easier to see, and frankly a heck of a lot more fun.  And when you _do_ get
to the point where you honestly need the big computer guns for precise
calculation, you will have an enormously better idea of _what_ exactly it
is you really want to calculate.  You'll just want to sharpen up the data
for a type of event you've _already_ seen in the balloons.
 
I should of also mention that classic standby of old-time metallurgy, the
bubble machine.  Same idea, same kinds of result, only the "balloons" are
a lot smaller and less durable.  There is a lot of literature on that,
though, so many of the answers might be found ready and waiting in some
old metallurgy books and papers.
 
 
> ...Also, is the metal face-centered cubic or hexagonal c.p.?  -- we don't
> know.
 
I'll toss out my own guess:  99.9% probability its face-centered cubic.Why
so high?  Symmetry.  I can't even _imagine_ a more beautifully symmetrical
starting point for building a metal crystal than having protons floating
in a sea of delocalized electrons.  NO no no no troublesome inner shell
electrons whatsoever to worry about, with their devious little games that
lead to lesser symmetries such as hex c.p.  About the only disturbing
factor you even have is the dipole of the protons, and that is going to
be _major_ trivial all the way down to deep cryogenic.  Such beautiful
symmetry for a metal crystal!
 
(Terry puts on his Hat With Horns:  Err... _alternately, I guess I _could_
submit a proposal to the NSF asking for a half mil to simulate the problem
on the most advanced computer equipment in existence...  Very difficult
quantum mechanical problem you know, multi-body and all that, degenerate
too, and that's just the staff, wait til you see the quantum mechanical
equations ...  }=-)>  Tom, you're a good skewerer of pretense -- have you
ever run across any of those type of proposals?  :)  )
 
 
> ... We want to look at the possibility of phase transitions in the metal,
> which may also bring deuterons closer together for short times.  The
> amplitude of the zero-point motion in the metal has also to be worked out
> in detail  -- this is important to the tunnelling probability and finally
> to the fusion rate.  Remember that in metallic deuterium, *all* the
> neighbors provide potential fusion candidates, enhancing the fusion
> probability.
 
Now here I will stop the joking and agree that yes, you are going to need
some serious computation when you start bringing in the tunneling issue,
as that, er, doesn't equate well to oranges.
 
("Hey Earl, didja see thet?  Thet dad-burned oh-urnge done jumped raht outa
my hand ALL BYZE ITSELF! I _toldja_ this blamed big-town store was a-haunted
-- I seen the sahn say'un "spirits fer sale" raht on the front door!")
 
[Don't worry, I _am_ an Ozark hillbilly, and raht proud of it if'ns I
don't say so mahself.]
 
(Hmm, did I say I'd _stop_ joking?...  Sigh.  Ah, well, no one's perfect...)
 
Uh, anyway, where was I?  Oh yes:
 
One possibility that I don't recall Steve explicitly mentioning was whether
a _chain_ (possibly with only two members) of insertion defect atoms could
form.  Two would be simplest and probably the most stable, but longer
chains could be possible.  Lateral instabilities -- like balancing cooked
spaghetti on its end -- could become pretty drastic, but you might be able
to get a stable long-chain configuration.  I'd guess without looking too
closely that the 110 axis (the diagonals of each cubic face) would be your
best candidates for the orienttation of the 2-to-n insertion defect chains.
 
 
OOPS. ENERGY.
 
And lest if be forgotten in the discussion:  The _real_ problem that remains
with much of this is still energy.  It is not going to be easy to insert
atoms into the octahedral sites.  The net result could be that the same
energy you use to insert the atoms could be used about as efficiently to
simply plow them into each other (e.g., a projectile atom into the metallic
hydrogen crysal).
 
This perhaps could be rescued somewhat by an increased _efficiency_ of
fusion.  Once the atom is inserted and a stable point insertion defect is
formed, it would, as Steve has described, probably have substantially
increased chances of fusion via tunneling reacion.  This could be especially
true for immediately adjacent (chained) insertion defects, if they turn out
to be stable.
 
> Thanks for all the comments, and for the dose of reality, Terry.
 
Genuinely appreciated, and please don't take my humor too seriously (?),
as I think you are looking at a rather interesting set of analytical
problems.  E.g., what _would_ happen if you dosed one of your high-
density (nominally metallic D) diamond anvil samples with deuterons just
energetic enough to insert into the lattice?  A really messy idea from
a radiation perspective, but _interesting_ nonetheless.  Might you get
increased and nominally inexplicable increases in long-term fusion rates
after the intial burst due to irridation, which might subsequently prove
to be due to the lingering octahedral atomic insertion point defects you
have proposded?  Interesting thoughts, and thanks for sharing them with
this motely group of ours.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 21:32:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

 
 
Hi Folks,
 
   There may have been some confusion as to the point I was trying to
make about the degeneracy of the system and it's application to
to the fusion rate calculations.   In a standard model of a cold
reaction the main way to attack the Coulumb barrier is by tunneling.
These type of theories are dependent on the distance between the
fusing particles.  Steve's request for comments on metalic deuterium
started me think on what the key parameters may be for cold fusion.
Obvoiously distance is one, but could the degeneracy be another?
I happen believe it is, and within the context of metalic deterium
I'm not sure if it is degenerate.
    There has been some pretty interesting descussion
by Bill Page and Terry, on the delocalization issue.  That in itself
is one attribute of the hydrogen in metals that is getting some
research time.  Good discussion Bill.
   Anyway, in reply to Matt,
 
 
terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>In article <26tn9qINN1hj@network.ucsd.edu>
>mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>> Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
>>
>> | Now what does this imply with respect to Cold Fusion?  It means
>> | that only if the deuterons are degenerate (multiple overlaping wave
>> | functions) does a system of deuterons have an increased probability
>> | for fusion.
>>
>> This is getting repetitive.  Ahem.
 
  Matt, sorry if I'm getting repetive, it's just that after researching
some aspect on Chubb's theory I've become very intrieged by many of the
question raised in there theory.
 
 
>> **********
>> Where did the energy to get "multiple-overlapping-wave-functions"
>> come from?
>> **********
 
I think Mitchel Swartz got this one.  It's not necessary to add energy
to to obtain a degernate system.  In most cases it comes about through
energy minimalization as in the boson condensation process.  Matt, you
are correct about the formation of degenerate electron gasses require
extreem pressures as in the case of a white dwarf.  However as you might
have guessed, in working out the Bose-Einstein statistics (while trying
to follow Chubb's theory) it becomes apparent that the D in metals is
degenerate, and as described by Max Born in "Atomic Physics" this implies
a significant wave function overlap.
 
 
>> Degenerate electronic matter in white dwarfs happens because of
>> a big huge gravitational potential holding the whole thing together.
 
>A degenerate _gas_ does not obey the ideal gas laws.
 
>A degenerate _fermi gas_ is a collection of fermions in which all of the
>lower energy levels are occupied and "unavailable" for interactions.  This
>is very different from the non-ideal-gas definition of degeneracy.
 
>A degenerate _quantum state_ means that one or more particles in different
>states of motion nontheless have the _same_ energy.  This is in some ways
>the opposite of the fermi gas definition of the word degenerate, in which
>the idea is that all the particles are in _different_ energy states.)
 
>A degenerate _physicist_ is one who claims that he watches XXX videos only
>to take his mind of the next do-or-die SSC funding vote.
 
>Again, to which of these definitions are you and Chuck referring?
 
I'm refering to 4.  All those degenerate physicsists watching XXX movies
must know somthing about interacting bodies. Even multibody interaction ;-)
 
   Actually I was refering to degeneracy in terms of Einstein's theory of
of gas degeneration.  To paraphrase Born's description from my notes:
 
Lambda = h / p = h / (3 m k T)^1/2 is normally the typical de Broglie
wave length for a particle in a gas.   The degeneracy of is seen to be
small when the mean spacing of the particles is larger than the de Broglie
wave lenght (which is the size of a typicle wave packet). In the case of
a normal gas system, the wave function overlap slighty forming a symetric
wave function of no physical effect. However when the wave packets overlap
significantly, the degeneracy becomes large and the system quits behaving
classically.  The classic statistical methods of Maxwell-Boltzmann (used
in hot fusion calculation of reaction rates) may not be applicable in some
aspects to cold fusion in metals.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Jim Carr /  Neutron lifetime (was: CLIMAX slow neutron detector?)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron lifetime (was: CLIMAX slow neutron detector?)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 22:05:44 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <199309142024.AA01323@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.
du (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>
>Finally, why is the half-life of a neutron always quoted to one significant
>figure?  Surely we should know it better than that by now?
 
It is not very accurately known, but only about 3 sig-figs.  Most people
just quote it in round numbers because it is so close to 10 minutes.
 
The "Particle Data Summary" gives the mean life as (889.1 +/- 2.1) s.
That is 14.8 minutes, corresponding to a half-life of 10.27 minutes.
(My nuclear pocket summary says 10.4 m, but it is older.)
 
2/889 is 0.2% precision.
 
I imagine the experiments are difficult because of the problems in
doing experiments with neutral beams.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 / Mark Deardorff /  Re: Reply to D. Britz
     
Originally-From: med@markdear.win.net (Mark Engle Deardorff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to D. Britz
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1993 14:59:15 GMT

 
In article <CD44M1.5ut@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Laurence Gene Battin
(battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu) writes:
>In article <930903025746_76570.2270_BHA44-1@CompuServe.COM>, Eugene
Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
...
>> Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Wasn't this guy connected at one time with Uri Geller?
>
>--
>Gene Battin
>battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
>
 
He, with Targ at the Stanford Research Institute, did alot of psi
research including work on Geller. Read about it in Gardener's
_Science: Good, Bad and Bogus_
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Mark E. Deardorff                  Internet: med@markdear.win.net|
|Deardorff & Deardorff                          CI$ Id: 76164,3304|
|San Diego, Ca                                                    |
|619-689-1771                                                     |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmed cudfnMark cudlnDeardorff cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Various replies: metallic hydrogen
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various replies: metallic hydrogen
Date: 14 Sep 93 16:21:25 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Tuesday Sept.14, 1993
 
Dear colleagues,
 
Thanks for the responses regarding my hypothesis that fusion might occur in
Metallic deuterium.  A few replies follow.
 
Carl Ijames asks about piezonuclear fusion
(i.e., fusion in closely-bound nuclei of isotopes of hydrogen, as described in
the 1986 paper by me and Clint Van Siclen, J. Phys G 12 (1986) 213 for those
who want to refresh their memories)
in Jupiter, as opposed to muon-catalyzed fusion there.  Richard Schroeppel
noted correctly that cosmic-ray-induced muons would mostly stop before reaching
the metallic hydrogen core (presumed) of Jupiter.  (11 Sept posting;  thanks to
Richard also for encouraging comments.)
 
Let's carry the idea of fusion in Jupiter's metallic hydrogen core a bit
further:  How many fusions are required to explain the heat radiated from the
planet (which exceeds that received from the sun) ?  Jupiter radiates at about
1 X 10^18 J/s, which would require some 5 X 10^33 proton-deuteron fusions/s.
Assuming a metallic hydrogen core of radius 4.6 x 10^7 m, about
3 fusions/cm^3/s   would be required to produce the radiated energy.
The pressure at the core is estimated to be roughly 60 megabars at the center,
so we can put this into our embryotic model for metallic hydrogen as it
develops here (with help of a student).  If piezonuclear fusion accounts for
Jupiter's heat, then there may be detectable tritium (especially useful as
a tracer owing to the 12.4-year half-life of tritium) and helium-3
as well as a depletion of the d/p ratio there.
 
I understand that the Jupiter
probe Galileo will measure the abundances of these light isotopes -- so
we may have some data input in a few years.  The prediction of the metallic
hydrogen/fusion hypothesis is that tritium will be produced in the core of
Jupiter, but how much has not been worked out by us yet.
 
It was nice to hear again from Jim Ziegler of IBM.  He raises a valid concern,
that cracking in the diamond-anvil cell experiment (with metallic deuterium --
no palladium like the 105kbar Silvera expt., note esp. to Dieter and Dick)
might result in cracking and "fracto-fusion".  This would indeed be a form
of micro-hot-fusion if it occurred,
much less interesting than piezonuclear fusion I agree.
 
So how can we distinguish the two, Jim asks?
It should be possible to detect cracking using acoustical techniques, and
we should incorporate these in any experiment.  In addition, we can examine
the diamond anvils following the experiment -- and during using laser probes
through the transparent diamonds.  I have tried to reach Hemley or Mao today,
to ask about cracking of diamonds in their experiments at 2.5 Mbars with
hydrogen -- but both are out of town.  Clearly, we must carefully plan the
experiment to detect cracking and fractofusion effects.  The neutron emission
time distribution (if any) may also provide insights, since fractofusion would
be expected to produce transient bursts of neutrons, whereas piezonuclear
fusion might produce neutrons over longer periods of time.
 
Terry Bollinger raises a serious objection to my suggestion that d's might
reside in interstitial sites in the d-metal lattice, noting that the lattice
would quickly re-configure to achieve again close-packing of *identical*
deuterons.  I think he's right, sigh.  However, there may be a shallow
potential well that would keep deuterons in an octahedral site,  say, for a
short time --
depending on the strength of the potential barrier.  I want to do the
calculations before giving up on this.  Also, is the metal face-centered cubic
or hexagonal c.p.?  -- we don't know.  We want to look at the possibility of
phase transitions in the metal, which may also bring deuterons closer together
for short times.  The amplitude of the zero-point motion in the metal has also
to be worked out in detail  -- this is important to the tunnelling probability
and finally to the fusion rate.  Remember that in metallic deuterium, *all* the
neighbors provide potential fusion candidates, enhancing the fusion probability.
 
Why do the theory?  The main test of a theory is not how well it explains
existing data  but rather:  can it successfully predict phenomena not before
discovered?  To me, theories are tentative constructs from which we reach
out into the unkwown, and their usefulness lies in their ability to suggest new
experiments.  In other words, I am not so much trying to explain the possible
occurrence of low-level fusion in deuterided metals such as Pd and Ti,
but rather I'm following a model which may lead to
piezonuclear fusion under controlled conditions.  We're also looking for
possible fusion during sonoluminescence in heavy water (which is turning out to
be a difficult challenge experimentally), following another path.
And we're educating students, a primary goal of the university.
Finally, we're having some fun.
 
Essentially all my career has been devoted to studying fusion near room
temperature,
starting with muon-catalyzed fusion (which I continue with of course), and it's
a niche I hope to continue in.
 
(Forget about the Nobel prize motive, Jed-- you've said this is my motive--
I don't care about it really.  I agree with my Thesis advisor, Bob Panvini,
that seeking that prize has lead to quite a lot of nonsense, and a widespread
sense that accidental discoveries are more important than careful, plodding
research.)
 
I'm sorry for talking so much about personal attitudes here.  Probably boring
many.
 
Mike Jamison suggests in private e-mail that we should compress the D2
in a diamond-anvil on site, that is, near one of the neutron detectors in
our Provo Canyon tunnel lab.  I agree this is a very good idea, although it
may be difficult to get the people and equipment here for the time required
without a wee bit of funding.  In particular, by varying the pressure, one can
determine the onset of neutron emissions, if any, as Mike points out.  I might
add that delta-P and delta-Temp. could also result in phase changes in the
isotopic hydrogen metal, which may generate interesting effects.  Clearly we
need more calculations and the insights which these will bring.  This may turn
out to be a dead-end, but we want to find out.
 
Thanks for all the comments, and for the dose of reality, Terry.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Robert Heeter /  Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 04:23:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <1993Sep12.222819.815@asl.dl.nec.com> , terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
[On the hot fusion research community.]
>
>A community that still has the average man on the street (and in
Congress)
>believing that they are trying to give us:
>
>    "endless clean energy from the oceans"
>
>...when what they _really_ want to give us is:
>
>    "neutron/tritium-intensive energy as long as lithium supplies hold
out"
>
>...should perhaps be a _wee_ bit cautious about where they toss their
stones.
>Not to mention all those papers on plasma turbulence in which coming up
with
>new ways to say "then a MIRACLE occurs!!" in increasingly subtle
technical
>disguises has become an endemic art form.
>
>                               Cheers,
>                               Terry
 
*AND*
 
In article <270g3g$r59@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> John Logajan,
al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
> [stuff deleted]
>However, for those who want some hot fusion postings, here is a generic
one:
>
>"Spent all the money, no results."
>"Send more money."
>
>
>Just repost this every two weeks or so.
>
 
I have to take exception to both of these postings.  Obviously the hot
fusion
community has *not* done a good job of advertising its results to the
world.
Terry's comment that fusion is neutron-tritium intensive is partly true.
Obviously, fusion is nuclear, which means you are going to get neutrons.
[This is snide, but I have to ask where cold fusion's neutrons are?]
Tritium
is not essential to fusion, but if you want to make it happen now, it's
the
way to go.  Since the half-life is only about 12 years, and it's just a
weak
beta emitter, it's not *that* bad.  Also, you can use the lithium blanket
to
generate more tritium, so you don't need to keep much of an inventory, and
all you have to do is cycle the tritium output from the lithium blanket
into
the reactor to keep the thing going.  And there's a hell of a lot of
lithium
out there, so we certainly have enough time to develop deuterium-deuterium
fusion (which *will* be endless energy from the oceans) before the Li
supply
runs out.
 
As for John Logajan's comments, I have to admit that I had a higher
opinion
of him before the latest post.  I'm reading s.p.f. because I'm interested
in
*any* kind of fusion, and there certainly seem to be interesting puzzles
in cold fusion, regardless of whether you're skeptical or a believer.  I
should
hope that he'd keep an open mind about hot fusion as well.  As for
"Spent all the money, no results," this is absolutely untrue.  [Though one
might say, "Spent all the money, no reproducible results," about cold
fusion,
if one were willing to ignore the scattered positive-yet-not-understood
results.]  In hot fusion, we have raised plasma temperatures roughly five
orders of magnitude in the last 30 years, so that the large machines now
operate at the desired temperatures.  We have improved the confinement of
the plasma from microseconds to full seconds - 6 orders of magnitude.
Energy output is now in the megawatt range, and will reach 10s of
megawatts
next year as TFTR goes into D-T operation.  In order to achieve a working
reactor, all that is needed is maybe one more order of magnitude in
confinement, which will increase power to the hundred-megawatt range
needed for a commercial reactor.  Then we just need to actually develop
a low-cost machine that a utility can operate safely.  Yes, there are
still
hurdles to be overcome, but the distance we have to go is much less than
the distance we've come thus far.  The only thing that makes me nervous
about fusion is the fact that few people actually seem to understand just
how close we actually are.  This is not to say that it won't take time,
but
at this point the major delays are due to big-science bureaucratic
hassles,
large-scale engineering technical difficulties, and lack of funding.
There
are still science problems to be solved, but if the past thirty years is
any guide,
they should be resolved fairly soon.
 
I may be wasting internet bandwidth arguing the merits of hot fusion with
cold fusion researchers, but I hope that this perspective gives some hope
to those who are interested in hot fusion.
 
There has been some discussion (partly initiated by me) on hot fusion in
sci.energy, for those who are interested.
 
***
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov
Just giving my own perspective, not someone else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Josh, You Must Be Joshing!
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Josh, You Must Be Joshing!
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 09:05:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Does this mean that Clustron Sciences Corporation is dead?  Or have
>you just severed your ties with them?  In either case, why don't you
>tell us what happened?  With the end of the NCFI, Clustron was one of
>the few organization in the English speaking world which is (or was)
>planning to make money from CNF.  So what's the deal?
>
>Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
 
Josh Levy really deserves no reply for his nasty bigotry and stupidity, but I
couldn't resist punching an outstretched nose. "So what's the deal?" The
"deal" for micro-man Josh is that he is a buffoon who is going to have to lick
mighty hard to get the pie off his face. Josh apparently believes that the
"English-speaking" world is somehow superior to the Japanese, Russian,
Italian, Chinese, and Indian worlds in the matter of cold fusion. Josh is a
complete ignoramus. He talks about "one of the few organizations.." and hasn't
the slightest clue about what industries are or are not into cold fusion very
deeply. He thinks that cold fusion researchers are under some obligation to
"tell all" for the entertainment of Josh and his fellow loonies who inhabit
this net. He is seriously mistaken.
 
VERITAS .....Truth? What a misnomer for a company harboring the likes of
Joshua Levy!
 
Eugene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Jed Rothwell /  SRI has NOT looked for ash
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI has NOT looked for ash
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 15:08:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Steve Jones wrote:
 
     "Ok, Mitch:  tell us about McKubre's results regarding ash.  Clearly,
     McKubre's xs heat claims constitute a "positive experiment."  Yet he has
     looked for helium, tritium, etc. -- what has he found?  Lots of EPRI
     dollars are being spent here.  Yet, from all I've heard from McKubre and
     others, *no* ash has been found at all.  Can you correct this, or will
     you rather correct your statement above?"
 
This is all nonsense and garbage. McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* --  looked
for "helium, tritium, etc." He emphatically denied that he has looked for
these things on several occasions, in several publications. I spoke with Tom
Passel at length about this, and I understand their reasons for going so
slowly.
 
Steve Jones, like most "skeptics" has a nasty habit of making things up and
posting them. The question is: does he actually believe this stuff himself? I
doubt it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Calorimetry lessons for Jed and Mitch
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry lessons for Jed and Mitch
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 16:02:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Each time I raise an issue relating to CF Mitchell asks for proof, even
if I have stated something obvious to anyone with a some understanding
of what is implied by the notion of a "transfer function".  OK, so we
have to back up a step or two before these guys get the drift.
 
Jed says " Water temperature responds to any source of heat the same
way."  Very good, Jed, I'll accept that as one of our starting postulates.
Now the next step is to describe how water temperature responds to a
source of heat.  Keeping it simple, let us consider a heat source
that turns on to some constant rate of input at time t = 0.  If there
is no heat loss the water temperature rises linearly with a slope
determined by the heat capacity.  As long as there is no temperature
dependence in the heat capacity we have an exact analog of an electrical
circuit in which a constant current source charges a capacitor.  The
heat input rate is the analog of current, the temperature is the analog
of voltage, and heat capacity and capacitance are analogs.  Are you
with me so far?  Do I have to provide any "proofs" to support what I
have said?
 
Is it a calorimeter yet?  I would say not, primarily because there is
always some heat loss from the water, i.e. a thermal path by which
heat can flow to an external heat sink.  In fact there may be multiple
thermal paths, each with a complicated dependence on temperature.  Let
us not, however, jump into the really deep water just yet.  To keep
things simple so Jed can keep up, let us restrict our study to a single
heat path that can be characterized by a single parameter k(T) such
that the temperature difference between the water in the calorimeter
and the external heat sink is given by the product of k(T) and the
rate at which heat flows to the sink.  To continue with our electrical
analogy, k is an analog of resistance.  We might call it the thermal
resistance.
 
Now we have a simple model of the calorimeter of the type Pons and
Fleischmann are so very fond.  How does it behave in response to
the constant heat input that turns on at time t = 0.  More than just
the water influences the result, Jed.  The thermal resistance also
effects the answer, and that answer is that the temperature follows
a rising exponential curve with a characteristic time constant
kC.  It approaches an asymptotic value  T = k dQ/dt.  Are you
with me at this point or do you need a "proof"?  Oh, I forgot
to tell you something.  This is the correct answer if and only
if k is not dependent on temperature. Otherwise you have a hairy
nonlinear differential equation to solve, and I am not up to that
just now.  In fact I leave it to you to prove that a calorimeter
with a k(T) that is a function of temperature will correctly
integrate an arbitrary heat pulse.  I say it won't and I will
prove that if you agree with what I have presented thus far.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Jed Rothwell /  Proof came in 1991
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof came in 1991
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 17:10:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Barry Merriman writes:
 
     "Jed, once again, chill out! If things are like you say, what are you
     worried about---irrefutable proof of CF should be forthcoming."
 
Irrefutable proof of CF came on December 4, 1991 when McKubre read his paper
at the Second Annual Conference. No "skeptic" has ever even attempted to
"debunk" that. They never mention it, because they know perfectly well that
they cannot disprove a word of it. Also, they avoid any mention of Kunimatsu,
Claytor, Oyama, Ota, Bockris and a few hundred other people. The only
researchers the "skeptics" ever dare attack are Pons and Fleischmann, because
these two are so successful that the "skeptics" are driven crazy with jealousy
and hate, and because Nature and Scientific American declared open season on
them many years ago.
 
Since 1991, the irrefutable proof has grown as high as a mountain, which is
why every Japanese corporation is now working frantically on cold fusion.
 
What I am worried about is that the U.S. will be left out of this bonanza the
same way we have been left out of so many other important high tech
breakthroughs. I am worried that a small clique of idiots with diseased brains
at the American Physical Society and Nature magazine will torpedo the U.S.
economy just to protect their egos. They are treasonous, pathological liars!
They are as evil as the S&L thieves! What is happening is an outrage and a
tragedy. I am worried about my country, and my children's future, and about
the terrible loss of academic freedom that has resulted from this Gestapo
attack on cold fusion.
 
 
Barry also writes, in total disregard for the facts and for the scientific
method:
 
     "In the absence of a clear nuclear/gamma ash signal, and given these
     seemingly insurmountable times and energy scale barriers,  the most
     prudent point of view would seem to be that there is some sort of
     measurement error and/or chemistry at the heart of the phenomena."
 
Three problems:
 
1. There *is* a clear nuclear ash signal. Read the damn literature.
 
2. If there is "some sort of measurement error" -- what is it? If you don't
find an error after four years of searching, then there is no error. You
cannot dismiss a scientific mystery by declaring that "there must be an error"
you have to say WHAT THE ERROR IS! The signal to noise ratio is so high, the
heat is so intense, that if there is an error, it will be dead simple to find.
It cannot be subtle! It produces such a fantastic amount of heat, you are
certain to find it in the first minute of looking. So tell us what it is.
Arthur C. Clarke is fond of quoting this bit of nonsense:
 
     "The author's error is so subtle it is impossible to find." (Referee's
     quote on an aerospace paper)
 
3. "Seemingly insurmountable times and energy scale barriers" is a garbage
non-science statement. "Seemingly" to who? To you? To me? God apparently
disagrees. What possible difference can it make that a phenomenon "seems
impossible" if the experimental evidence shows with overwhelming clarity (and
high S/N ratio) that the phenomenon is occurring. Science does not work by
denying facts, it works by explaining them. "Seemingly" this, and "seemingly"
that are value judgements, reflecting your subjective mental state; these are
not fit subjects for objective science. You are talking about superstition and
religious faith, not science.
 
Don't you realize that every major scientific discovery in history "seemed
impossible" when it first came to light? Good grief!
 
 
Matt Kennel asks an extraordinarily naive question:
 
     "What's the means to get reproducible blowtorches that anybody can verify
     in their own calorimeter of their own design?  Why don't P&F let people
     try real-working 10,000% excess heat cathodes in somebody elses
     calorimeter?"
 
Because it cost them a couple hundred million dollars to learn how to build
those torches, and the secret is worth billions. If the Toyota management was
to give away vital industrial secrets of this nature, they would be hauled
before civil courts for gross violation of fiduciary responsibilities. One
million angry stockholders would sue them for everything they own.
Corporations never give away large sums of money or critical secrets! It is
unthinkable. You might as well expect Microsoft to publish the source code for
their products.
 
While Microsoft would never do that, they do hold seminars and publish
selective facts and sections of their code, in order to allow responsible
developers a chance to link applications with Microsoft's operating system. In
the same way, Toyota has let dozens -- hundreds -- of responsible scientists
into their labs, and they have published a surprising amount of information.
They are now concluding agreements with a VERY large corporate entity that
will allow cooperative research and development, and a gradual opening up to
responsible parties in the usual orderly process. By "responsible parties" I
mean executives and scientists who represent billion-dollar companies who have
signed secrecy agreements. I don't mean me! I was told a lot of details about
upcoming arrangements, and also told to shut up. I guess it can't hurt to say
that planing is underway, since anyone with an ounce of sense and experience
in the real world will know that such plans are always set in motion for large
industrial R&D projects. To summarize: this is real life. CF is being treated
exactly the way you would expect it to be treated, just like HTSC, HDTV, x-ray
lithography or any other expensive, high tech breakthrough. This is *not*
piddly-pants, unimportant, academic science where some guy thinks he has a
breakthrough that might earn a few brownie points with the Nobel Committee or
a publication in Physical Review. Toyota, Hitachi and the others are grown-
ups, they don't play those games. They do real science, in order to make real
bucks. Gigabucks.
 
 
Matt adds:
 
     "So far the only thing you can say is "trust P&F and the Japanese because
     they're never gonna tell".
 
No, I would say: bust ass and replicate the Japanese because they will never
give you their hard-earned industrial secrets out the goodness of their
hearts. Thank goodness Matt does not work for me! I can just see him saying,
"our competitors say they will have a knock-out product at the end of the
year, but we don't have to do anything about it. I am sure they will give us
the detailed plans, source code, and specifications long before they start
selling it. I won't believe they have a product unless they show it to me. I
will sit on my butt and wait for the competition to hand me all their secrets,
why should I bother to do any research myself?"
 
The question is, who *does* Matt work for, on what planet? Ah! The:
"Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego" Well,
guess what, you nonlinear guys. In the real world people don't hand out money
for free. Toyota lives in the real world, you guys live in a nonlinear
academic playschool sandbox.
 
 
Dale Bass asked why the reflux system stayed at 100 C for three hours, and I
explained that the best way to find out is to build one with an electric
heater in place of a CF device. Do that, and you can observe the exact
mechanism for yourself, and find out the nitty gritty details. I recommend
anyone who is seriously interested should build one. (I did not do that
myself, but I have seen the data from two others. I don't have a lab.) You
will find out right away that the system DOES NOT REMAIN HOT unless there is a
fairly powerful heat source in it, and you will learn how to calibrate and
estimate the strength of that heat source. I added:
 
     "Do you mean "Why?" -- because a nuclear reaction is occurring. No
     chemical reaction from such a small object can go on that long."
 
Dale asked:
 
     "No, I meant 'How?'.  But now that we've gotten at least a smidgen
     of an answer, which nuclear reaction?"
 
That is exactly what everyone is trying to find out! "Which nuclear reaction?"
is the 64 billion dollar question. The Japanese have spend hundreds of
millions of dollars searching for answers. They have built up a mountain of
detailed studies of things like surface chemistry, grain size, production
process, metal hardness and structural integrity, and hundreds of other
factors that promote the reaction and explain how and why it comes about. They
now know what kind of metal it occurs in, what dopants and alloys promote it,
and which one poison the reaction. They have mountains of data about the
nuclear ash from a whole range of different types of experiments, like NTT's
vacuum gas loading and deuteron beam loading. Gradually, step by step, this
data allowed them to increase reproducability to 100% -- they now get a strong
reaction each and every time. Furthermore, eventually this data will allow
someone to put together a scientific theory that explains exactly how the
reaction works. Several leading scientists have told me they expect the final
answer will "drop out of the data" in a few years.
 
You can find out a great deal about this research by reading the scientific
literature, particularly the ICCF3 proceedings. Of course, a lot of the nitty-
gritty is only available in Japanese, but there is enough in English to give
you a clear sense of what is happening.
 
This is how scientific research works. First we find a mystery reaction, then
we increase the size and strength and make it 100% reproducible. Then --
finally -- we explain it. The theory comes last, after all the hard work.
Richard Blue and other "skeptics" expect us to know the theory first! This is
topsy-turvy thinking! Anyone can see that Richard and the others know nothing
about the scientific method. They think that all science comes out of
textbooks, and the answer is always there in the back pages. If you can't
explain all mysteries the first week of the work, they think you are cheating.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  CLIMAX detector of cosmic neutrons
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CLIMAX detector of cosmic neutrons
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 18:07:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rich Schroeppel ask some questions about a particular project involving
the detection of atmospheric neutrons produced by cosmic rays.  I don't
know anything specific about that project, but can perhaps clear up
some general points.  The neutrons that are detected (at low levels
appropriate to the type of work Steve Jones is involved in) as a
nominal background are secondaries resulting from cosmic rays interacting
with the atmosphere or solid materials in the surroundings.  About the
only other "natural" source is from spontaneous fission.  As Rich notes
this neutron flux does have possible time dependence, a fact that CF
researchers have occassionally overlooked when doing background subtractions.
Determining the proper background subtraction for low-rate neutron measurements
is a rather trickey problem to handle.
 
As for how a subcritical reactor works as a neutron detector,  the key point
is that fission can be induced by neutrons , and then the reaction emitts
multiple neutrons such that there is a potential for a chain reaction process
in which the number of reactions can grow exponentially.  It all depends on
the total neutron budget of the reactor, a subcritical reactor being one in
which the balance between neutrons produced in the reactor and those that
get lost is just slightly on the losing side.  In that case the reaction
rate tends to decay with a very long time constant unless there  added
neutrons from an exterior source, such as those cosmic rays.  I don't
see an obvious advantage to using a subcritical detector for neutron
detection, but I suppose there must be one.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / William Hawkins /  Re: How his calorimeter works
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How his calorimeter works
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 05:08:12 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

The referenced article from Mitchell Swartz contains a line that
begins with a period, so some of you may not see it (according to
a previous posting by John Logajan).  It also contains a statement
that could explain a lot.  I'd quote it for you, but this stupid
Terminal screen can't handle vi with wrapped lines - oh, well,
someone else will quote it before the day is out.
 
The gist of it is that Dick Blue described a calorimeter as a device
for transducing heat to temperature.  Swartz replied that that device
would be a thermometer.  Seems to me that the man has no understanding
of heat if he can make that statement.  But maybe he was so eager to
refute Dick that he misspoke.  For you lurkers, a thermometer (or any
temperature sensor) converts temperature to something meaningful to a
person (eventually).  To be accurate, it must do so without adding or
removing any heat from the thing being measured.  A thermometer can't
measure heat.  Actually, a plain calorimeter can't measure heat that
is being continuously evolved.  You need a rate calorimeter, such as
Tom Droege has described, that measures the amount of energy required
to hold the calorimeter temperature constant while the unknown evolves
heat.  Integrating the known energy gives the amount of heat, which
can be compared to the integrated energy supplied to the electrodes.
Accuracy of the integration requires linear response of the integator
within the region of interest.
 
In truth, what I know about calorimeters I've learned here, and long
ago.  But I am intimately (and commercially) involved with the
measurement of temperature.
 
Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Silicates in P/F cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates in P/F cells
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 20:36:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
>I'll leave it to others to draw conclusions about the suitability of
>meters which cannot register minute amounts of power for studying CF
>experiments.
 
Actually, I am more concerned about linearity and accuracy at extreme
operating points.
 
For example, suppose you calibrate your calorimeter using 10 watts in,
running 5 volts and 2 amps into a 2.5 ohm dummy load.  You also crank it up
to 100 watts with 6.32 amps and 15.8 volts into the load.  2.5 ohms
being (let's say) a typical cell resistance.
 
But suppose actual cell resistance goes up substantially.  To maintain
2 amps constant current at a new cell resistance of 10 ohms requires
20 volts which is 40 watts of input power.   Now 40 watts is in your
calibration range of 10-100 watts, but the 20 volts is already outside
your voltage calibration range which was 5-16 volts.
 
So we have two effects to worry about, I think.  General non-linearity
across the ranges and percentages of accuracy overlapping small level
signals.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 20:20:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep6.120334.24234@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
 
>Actually I was not all that much concerned with the calorimetry of the test.
>I agree that to get the total input power you need to measure both the cell
>voltage and current, regardless of which is controlled. However by
>maintaining constant potential across the cathode interface you should be
>able to compensate for changes in the cell resistivity, due to film build
>up, electrolyte changes etc. - which was the original thread.
>
>The huge cell voltage rises in the latest P&F data just don't make sense,
>unless the cell impedance is changing dramatically. As someone else pointed
>out, it would be nice to see the details of the traces for the last few
>minutes of the run. Or better still a video of the cell at that time.
>Perhaps the fairies come when the cell is not being watched and drink the
>electrolyte ;-).
 
To tell you the truth, this argument seems to me like the two people
arguing over the height of a ladder. One of them says that you can tell
the height by counting the number of rungs and the other says that you
can tell by measuring the distance between two rungs.
 
If you want to know the amount of power disipated in the circuit it seems
pretty obvious that you want a _constant_power_ power supply. We may argue
about the response time of the regulator or the sensitivity of the regulator
but if you regulate the power and not singularly the current or voltage
you will always have a good idea of how much power has been inserted into
the system.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No Flies on Frank
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No Flies on Frank
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 20:07:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <151@markdear.win.net>,
Mark Engle Deardorff <med@markdear.win.net> wrote:
>
>In article <1993Sep2.142523.6993@scott.skidmore.edu>, david atkatz
(datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu) writes:
>>
>>       Very interesting post, Eugene.  A few questions:
>>
>>       "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"
>
>Because he is an engineer and not a scientist. I just love his
>appelative, "D. Sc." Reminds me of "Dr. Science. He's not a real
>doctor. ..."
 
     The two categories are not mutually exclusive.  And you'd be
     hard-pressed to make the case that the appellation 'scientist'
     is inherently more lucrative than 'engineer'.
 
     Lucrative is 'neurosurgeon', sort of a combination of a
     scientist, an engineer and Andy Warhol.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 16:38:17 BST

In <1993Sep7.043937.25630@ns.network.com> John Logajan writes:
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>...the economic battles that will be lost when the Japanese develop CF and
>>the U.S. does not might end in a ruinous disaster on the scale of the
>>Great Depression.
>
>There simply is no mainstream economic theory or historical evidence to
>support this form of contention (Boss Ross and his goose stepping henchmen
>notwithstanding -- note that all living Nobel Prize winners in economics have
>signed a statement essentially repudiating Perot's anti-free-trade bombast.)
 I didn't know you could get a Nobel for crystal gazing .... :-)
> Lots of stuff deleted
  This may or may not come to pass. One thing is for sure, whatever
happens, no economist will have predicted it. Economic theory is still
in it's infancy, and bears little relationship to reality. The bald
truth is that no-one knows what effect of practical CNF would
have on global economics. It could go either way.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Right on all counts
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Right on all counts
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 23:37:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

johnge@autodesk.com (John George) writes:
>but TVs, VCRs, Consumer Electronics, and Cameras show us that much of
>the profit can be localized elsewhere, if any country loses it's edge.
>Of course the consumer countries are better off, BUT, the seller
>countries are benifiting from cheaper energy and making bucks off the others.
 
People tend to get confused when discussing international trade -- as if
some magic happens when goods go across imaginary boundary lines.
 
But to me or you as a consumer, it doesn't matter if you buy a product
from company X or company Y, presumably one of them is going to make a
profit off the sale, and the other is not.  The "locality" of the profit
can move from downtown to the suburbs, or vice verse, or from Maine to
Utah, or from the continental US to Japan.  So what?
 
In any of the above cases, your dollar bills get passed around as IOU's
which eventually *must* come back to request the services you produced
to earn those dollars in the first place (after all, if your work represented
no value, you wouldn't get dollars for it, and if dollars represented no
value, the Japanese wouldn't accept them in payment for real goods.)
 
And speaking of confusion, let me repeat this last line:
 
>the seller countries are benifiting from cheaper energy and making bucks
>off the others.
 
The alternative formulation would be that people would somehow not be
"taken advantage of" if they had to continue paying higher prices for
energy from local producers.
 
Egads!  Economic thinking requires one to look at secondary conseqences,
but it isn't that obtuse folks.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: 6 Sep 1993 23:15:28 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: To tell you the truth, this argument seems to me like the two people
: arguing over the height of a ladder. One of them says that you can tell
: the height by counting the number of rungs and the other says that you
: can tell by measuring the distance between two rungs.
 
: If you want to know the amount of power disipated in the circuit it seems
: pretty obvious that you want a _constant_power_ power supply. We may argue
: about the response time of the regulator or the sensitivity of the regulator
: but if you regulate the power and not singularly the current or voltage
: you will always have a good idea of how much power has been inserted into
: the system.
 
How accurate, and how precise are the standard kinds of utility meters
that one finds attached to one's house?
 
And just how the hell do they work anyway?  It's got to be pretty simple,
as I saw one in the Smithsonian, late 19th century Westinghouse brand, that
appeared to be the same design as contemporary ones.
 
--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Heavy Watergate
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heavy Watergate
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 04:34:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CCyp5u.Fxy@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>       If you shall, Heavy Watergate (thank you, ACC) might follow
>           that much earlier.
 
     Not in our lifetime, self-delusion breath.
 
     I'm still waiting for the 'Date of the Terrible Reckoning' from
     Mallove or Rothwell.  I'm not holding *my* breath.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Karel Hladky /  Electricity meters (was Silicates in polywater)
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electricity meters (was Silicates in polywater)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 09:06:08 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Matt Kennel (mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net) wrote:
: How accurate, and how precise are the standard kinds of utility meters
: that one finds attached to one's house?
:
: And just how the hell do they work anyway?  It's got to be pretty simple,
: as I saw one in the Smithsonian, late 19th century Westinghouse brand, that
: appeared to be the same design as contemporary ones.
 
Those things work on eddy currents induced in a rotating aluminium disk.
Easily fooled, not very accurate and not much use for dc. How did Edison
measure power on his dc system ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Karel Hladky /  Meyer Cell
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Meyer Cell
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 09:23:11 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Whatever happened to the Meyer Cell ? This was supposed to electrolyse water
using much less energy than electrochemistry predicts is needed. I remember
that the thing used an inductance in parallel with a simple cell. A pulsed,
relatively low current, supply was used to get this to oscillate and
electrolyse the water. S.Meyer (why are they all called Stanley ?) got it
patented and had a working model running.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Paul Houle /  Re: BIG BOMB
     
Originally-From: ph18@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BIG BOMB
Date:  7 Sep 93 14:32:38 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

       Actually,  this idea for a "BIG BOMB" is essentially the same as
Teller's "classical super".  Fortunately,  or unfortunately,  it doesn't
work.  Even the pressure at the bottom of the sea cannot confine a D
plasma or a D+T plasma long enough for it to produce any significant
energy yield.  You need *really* high radiation pressures in an H-bomb
to set off the fusion stage.
 
       The classical super is also related to the old idea that an atomic
explosion could result in the destruction of the planet by starting a
runaway fusion reaction in the atmosphere.  It has been suggested that a
runaway reaction could either take place in the air,  or at the bottoms
of the ocean.  Hans Bethe and other people showed,  however,  that
even on the bottom of the ocean,  a fusion reaction will quickly blow
itself out under normal conditions on Earth.  A *very* high density plasma
has to be created if you want to make fusion happen fast enough to get
an explosion.
.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenph18 cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 19:23:11 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <tomkCCy8IJ.1G8@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>If you want to know the amount of power disipated in the circuit it seems
>pretty obvious that you want a _constant_power_ power supply.
 
Unfortunately, both constant-power power supplies and closed-cell
calorimetry greatly diminish the XS Heat effect.  If you use these
methods, you are in danger of obtaining a worthless negative result.
Any TBTB will tell you that only positive results matter.  If you
want a positive result, you should use a constant-current source
and an open cell for maximum effect.
 
Experiments also suggest that the Jones neutron signal diminishes as
you go underground.  Fortunately, Steve Jones doesn't consider negative
data to be an anathema.
 
While we're not on the subject of silicates, *Bad Science* explains
that the standard Pons doctrine is that there are good and bad
boil-off events.  The boil-off events in which Salamon failed to
find neutrons were bad boil-off events, and they were probably
caused by silicates.  The boil-off events that confirm XS Heat
are good boil-off events, and they are not caused by silicates.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Pulse pile-up
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pulse pile-up
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 16:05:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While I'm cranked up to comment on experimental techniques, it is perhaps
a good time to comment on a problem that can arise in nuclear pulse
counting experiments.  The electronic techniques routinely employed to
process signals require several microseconds for the processing of each
pulse.  If pulses occur at intervals less than the electronics requires
two or more pulses may overlap forming one distorted signal that will
be incorrectly analyzed with the result that data falls into the wrong
part of the pulse height spectrum.  Peaks which are pure artifacts of
this process, known as pulse pile-up, may appear in the spectrum.
I leave it to the reader to recall which experiment that has recently
been under discussion involves nuclear pulse height analysis at
count rates as high as 10^6 per second and a resulting spectrum with
peaks corresponding to 6, 12, and 18 MeV.  If you find a report with
features like this in the description of the results, but little by
way of actual samples of the data in the publication you way want
to withhold judgement on quality of the data and the skill of the
experimentalists.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Heat of Formation -> Gibbs
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat of Formation -> Gibbs
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 04:09:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Aug27.032928.6453@ns.network.com>
    Subject: Re: Heat of Formation
John Logajan  (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
== "The Gibb's free energy, on the other hand, is the maximum useful work
==   energy available from the reaction."
 
 Entropy (S) is the number of accessible states available to the system at
   energy of E.   If # is the number of such states
 
               Entropy:     S =  k  ln(#)
 
    Temperature is defined as the reciprocal of the rate of change of the
        number of those  states to increasing energy
 
         Temperature:       1          d ln (#)
                         -------  =  ------------
                           k T          d E
 
  If H is the enthalpy,  defined as     H    =    E +  ( p * V )
 
                    then the Gibbs free energy is simply
 
                               G =  H - T * S
 
 
          Gibbs:                      d ln (#)   -1
                 G  =    H   -      [------------]   *  ln(#)
                                       d E
 
   Hope this clarifies.    Best wishes.
 
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                                  mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Robert Panoff /  Re: Buehler et al.
     
Originally-From: rpanoff@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Robert Panoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Buehler et al.
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 05:54:18 GMT
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes, and writes, and writes...
 
>My previous message left the wrong impression of this Buehler article (plus I
>spelled the name wrong -- sorry!). I refer to the ICCF3 paper by Buehler,
.
.
.
I guess I had mistakenly read that Jed would not be posting much since
he was not feeling well.  So I decided to not unsubscribe just yet....
and yet his were 4 of the last 11 articles.  I can't imagine how proficient
he would be if he were feeling better!
 
O, for solid numbers, real results, and coherent discussion...:)
 
Bob Panoff
NCSA Senior Research Scientist
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrpanoff cudfnRobert cudlnPanoff cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Jed Rothwell Tirade
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell Tirade
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 19:14:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Every time Jed Rothwell puts up a tirade about all those experiments that have
seen excess heat, I will remind him that what they have seen is an excess
temperature reading.
 
I too have seen an excess temperature reading, and as near as I can tell it
was not accompanied by excess heat.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Reality versus lies
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reality versus lies
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 20:07:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue deliberately twisted my statement into the kind of abominable
nonsense that he so loves. For the record, I never said anything remotely like
what he claims I said:
 
     "It is amazing for me to see that Jed Rothwell has finally come to accept
     the fact that something beyond calorimetry is needed to establish the
     reality of cold fusion..."
 
The "reality" is proven beyond any sane, rational question: it is in the
excess heat. Nothing can ever "unestablish" or "unprove" massively replicated
experimental data. The effect exists, because it produces hundreds of
megajoules per mole, plus tritium, neutrons, helium and so on. Like any other
phenomenon in nature, cold fusion can only be defined by what it does and by
the effects it has on the instruments, not by some preordained list of
attributes that Richard Blue thinks a phenomenon must have before it can
exist!
 
The only thing that needs to be established is whether this is truly nuclear
fusion per se, some other nuclear reaction, or something really exotic like
zero point energy, or shrinking hydrogen.
 
Richard is welcome to publish his puerile nonsense, but he should not put his
words into my mouth.
 
 
Regarding his comments on Yamaguchi: they are all wrong, all incorrect, as
anyone can see who bothers to glance at the papers will see. But Yamaguchi
asked that there be no further discussion of his work is places like this, so
I have nothing more to say.
 
 
There has been a great deal of esoteric, scholastic rubbish published here in
response to my comments about the nature of science. For the record:
 
1.   I never claimed that one experiment cannot have an 11% error. One
     experiment cannot disprove Feynman, or prove him, either. It takes many
     experiments, over many years.
 
2.   I will grant that in the netherworld between and data and theory there
     are some blurred edges, and occasionally theory does take the lead in
     defining what we are pleased to call "reality."
 
HOWEVER, these esoteric objections have nothing to do with the current
situation. Nothing! What we have here is very simple, straightforward
situation, which we have seen countless times before during the long history
of science and technology. We have a clear, unambiguous, massively replicated
experimental result, at an astronomically high signal to noise ratio. Boiling
water for goodness sake! That is one of the most intensively researched, well
understood thermodynamic systems on earth, we use it to generate electricity
for crying out loud! This result -- the massive excess heat energy -- flies in
the face of the Theories and the Academic Textbooks. Therefore, we have cadres
of idiot academics like Blue, Huizenga, Jones and Morrison who are claiming
that the result does not exist! That is *exactly* what these people are doing,
and what they always do! Instead of looking at the results, and using them to
rewrite their damn theories, they think their theories cancel out the results.
This is crazy, topsy-turvy thinking. It is exactly the opposite from rational,
objective science.
 
This kind of thinking is exactly what enslaved mankind for thousands of years,
right through the Medieval period. It is irrational and dangerous. I am
SHOCKED that anyone who calls himself a scientist would believe in this
horrible idea, but over the past few years I have learned that most people in
the U.S. have reverted back to this. Thank God the Japanese still understand
the difference between science and voodoo.
 
Another unspeakably crazy idea is what Richard Blue always prattles on about:
that you have to present a theoretical explanation for a phenomenon before it
can be accepted as science. This says, in effect, that nothing new and no
mysteries will ever again be allowed. History is at an end, science is closed,
no anomalies are left. The Doors Of Academia are Shut Tight, thanks to people
like Richard. He is right, but the problem is, he has shut himself out. Truth,
Knowledge and Science are on one side of the door, and because he never allows
any experimental evidence to affect his thinking, he is locked out on the
other side.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermodynamic Scorecard Revision 1.1
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic Scorecard Revision 1.1
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 20:05:54 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>Lit atm     101 J/cc
 
This strikes me as about 1,000 times too big.  But I can't double check
it until I get home tonight.  Just a warning.
.
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / Frank Close /  Wheres the helium Gene?
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wheres the helium Gene?
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 22:09:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Jed Rothwell writes "Galileo . . Feynman . . MALLOVE and Fleischmann..
These people are scientists"
 
This is a statement straight out of Cold Fusion Research Advocates,
a.k.a. Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove.
 
Eugene Mallove has published, via Clustron Sciences Corporation
(for which Jed Rothwell was an early booster), a "theory" which
violates the conservation of energy. I challenged him in March
about this and he has not faced this critic; instead he has continued
to lobby Congress and others while claiming to be scientifically literate
with much advertisinig of Dr Eugene Mallove D.Sc.
 
Such actions are nearer to those of  charlatans than legitimate
scientific consultants. If opinion makers are being lobbied,
and articles that have been encouraged by Dr Eugene Mallove D.Sc.
continue to be used in support of cold fusion, it
is important that the credentials of Eugene Mallove be generally known.
 
Six months after my original posting here, I give Eugene Mallove the
opportunity again to advertise his true credentials by
responding to the following. In the absence of a satisfactory response
I shall have to continue to refer to this when I am consulted on these
issues.
 
Frank Close;
 
Reposting of March 1993.(`--' refer to my posting; "--" to Mallove)
 
 
   According to Eugene Mallove:
 
  A proton and deuteron combining at room temperature can
 
"release 4 X 931MeV or 3.72GeV of energy which sends the (produced)
3He nucleus out of the cell at high energy",
 
and a proton and tritium
 
`produce 4He with energy release of "6 X 931MeV or 5.59GeV" '.
 
These quotes come from a paper bearing Mallove's name, they are
published under the logo of Clustron Sciences Corporation, and they
violate the conservation of energy.
 
QUESTION TO EUGENE MALLOVE (for the third time)
 
    *************************  *******************    *************
How is it that the collision of 1H,2H at room temperature,
with a total energy energy of less than 3 GeV can liberate energy
of 3.7GeV, and how do 1H,3H with total less than 4Gev
liberate 5.6GeV  as claimed while maintaining conservation of energy?
 
  A scientific answer on this question rather than a political statement
on some other matter would be appreciated by me and be enlightening
**************************************************************************
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.08.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermodynamic Scorecard Revision 1.1
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic Scorecard Revision 1.1
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 23:39:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>>Lit atm     101 J/cc
>This strikes me as about 1,000 times too big.
 
Sure enough.  I forgot to convert liters into cc's.  So the value in
my Scorecard should have been:
 
Liter atmosphere = 0.1 J/cc
 
I must have been thinking of my early life on Jupiter. :-)
 
I won't re-issue the scorecard unless other errors are found, or unless
someone requests some additional relevent information on it -- except
perhaps periodically.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 /  schlichting@pa /  Re: Gas Absorption
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gas Absorption
Date: 10 Sep 93 14:02:16 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

In article <1993Sep10.130238.16409@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, khladky@nessie
(Karel Hladky) writes:
> At last some real observations ! Great !
>
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
> :
> : For 1) to happen we need a few per-cent effect.  Either:
> :
> : a) A few % over the whole volume
> :
> etc.  from Tom.
 
> My immediate impression (and these can often be wrong) is that an unstable
> compound is formed 'at' the surface of the cathode. Not uncommon in
> electrochemistry.
 ***much deleted****
> So why aren't people measuring it ? (or even controlling it with a
> potentiostat :-))
>
> The observation about polished electrodes being able to maintain a higher D
> loading is also interesting.
***more deleted****
.
> What we need is a metallurgist. Perhaps Mark Schlichting would like to join
> in.
>
> Isn't it fun re-discovering the wheel ?
>
> Karel
> --
 
Dear Tom and Karel,
 
Thanx for asking me to respond.   As I understand it the Pd alloy system is
rather (somewhat) immune to typical chemical attack.   Certain Cathod
preparations have increased the hydrogen loading rate and the peak
hydrogen loading.
 
These surface preparations primarily deal with acid cleaning which is not
dissimilar to abrasive polishing.  The major differences in the two have to
do with the resultant surface;  With cleaning or acid etching as it is known
in my trade the dirt, oil, surface goo and other oxides are removed exposing
the MICROSTRUCTURE......
 
With abrasive cleaning, or polishing the dirt etc.. is removed but also the
base material is removed...In this case the Pd alloy..The resultant surface
is "not the exposed microstucture" but a smeared layer of the base metal..
 
As I understand it the acid cleaning method is much superior to the abrasive
polishing method as far as hydrogen or D loading is concerned.
 
One thing I have not seen here or anywhare else (yet) is the whether or not
microstructure has anything to do with hydrogen loading....
 
I strongly suspect that this is a major reason why ;
 
        a)  That reproducibilty has been a problem.
        b)  That even in the same lab, different cathods behave differently.
        c)  Cathods from the same lot of metal obtain different Deuterium to
            base metal loadings.
 
With this in mind I would hope that people would take care to especially
prepare their cathod materials with great care.
 
I hope this helps...
Ifnot just ask me to jump in again..
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Try it yourself!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Try it yourself!
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 21:52:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue wrote:
 
     "No matter how the parameters vary, Jed asserts that any calorimeter
     will give the correct answer."
 
B.S. Not *any* calorimeter. Tom Droege's will come out with six different
answers with the same input. A properly designed, carefully calibrated,
conventional calorimeter, when used in the energy domain it was designed for
will work within a predictable range of errors. A lousy unpredictable
calorimeter will give you garbage data. However, no conventional calorimeter
I have ever heard of will go wrong by 300%!
 
 
     "In spite of all your lectures, Jed, I don't believe it!  I want to see
     some proof that the kind of calorimeter you advocate has to work to
     some specified level of accuracy under the conditions that accurately
     match the experiment..."
 
Okay, build a calorimeter! What can I possible say to convince you? What the
Hell are you asking me to do that for, anyway? Are a you scientist or
what? Do your homework, build a gadget, test it, and you will see for
yourself how accurate and precise a given configuration is. It is
ridiculous to go on arguing about documented matters of fact that have been
established in careful laboratory tests. I have seen the calibration data
and the blank runs from P&F for a whole range of inputs including boiling,
and I say it checks out just fine. You don't believe me? Okay! Shut up and
find out for yourself.
 
You assert that it is impossible to accurately measure the heat of
vaporization by boiling water in a test tube. The experiment might show it
takes 40,700 joules per mole one time, and the next time it might show
13,700 joules per mole. It might be off by a factor of three! That's what
you are saying. Okay! Fine! Prove it! Get a damn test tube, and prove to us
that this miraculous new discovery of yours is true. Steve Jones said he
would do that -- you can too. You guys will win a Nobel prize if you pull
this off.
 
 
     "Rising resistance, falling electrolyte, and hot cathodes will all have
     an effect on the calorimeter constant."
 
Right. Yes. Of course. So do phases of the moon and stray cosmic rays. And
when you carefully calibrate and test, the way Pons, Fleischmann, Kunimatsu,
McKubre, de Ninno, Ota, Storms and hundreds of other people have done for
the past four years, you will find that these effects on accuracy are so
small you can't even measure them. Except falling water, which is accounted
for by careful testing and computation. Scientists measure the effects of
these things. They find out what is in the noise, and what has to be
accounted for. Don't take my word for it! Read the literature, try the
experiment yourself. Don't you realize that resistance, hot cathodes,
boiling and all other condition that occur in the experiment are tested and
accounted for in blank runs? Why do you think they do blank runs? What are
asserting, that it is impossible to boil water with electrolysis, so nobody
can check to see if the calorimeter works at 100 C? Do you think it never
occurs to people to do a full range of calibrations? They run a blank, they
check for an energy balance of zero, and that is exactly what they find.
 
 
     "I'll challenge you to explain how your calorimeter deals with heat
     pulses that are shorter than the time constant of the calorimeter. I
     assure you that adding another thermal lag between the cathode and the
     electrolyte does not make the problem any easier."
 
This is a nonsense question. It shows that you don't have the foggiest idea
how a water based calorimeter works. There is no such thing as a heat pulse
that is too short (that is: too fast) to be measured with a calorimeter. You
can have a pulse of electricity *going in* that is too fast, but the heat
coming out can never be too fast to register. A heat pulse can be too small;
it can have too few joules to register, in which case it ends up in the
noise. That is a different story. But no burst is too short, there is no
"time constant." Suppose we get a burst of heat of 10,000 watts for one 0.01
seconds. That's 100 joules. Okay, we get another burst of 100 watts for one
second, also 100 joules. Can a water based conventional calorimeter tell
them apart? Nope! Absolutely not. The water temperature will go up the same
degree in both cases. What are you thinking? Do you suppose the 10,000 watt
burst is so short, the heat sneaks right through the water without affecting
it? That's impossible. There is only one exit. There is one way for the
energy to get out. It has to make the water hot, and then gradually transfer
to the outside bath. If the burst was 10 billion watts for 10 nanoseconds,
it would also add up to 100 joules, and it would have exactly the same effect
on the water temperature. Okay, maybe the water molecules right next to the
cathode would act differently: I suppose they might vaporize. But, the
vaporized water will quickly cool, and by the time the heat wave hits the
thermistor, it will be averaged out to exactly the same level as the 100 watt
one second burst. A calorimeter is an averaging machine, it cannot register
the difference between a sharp burst, a series of bursts, or steady output.
It is like a rain gage: it cannot tell you how many drops fell, or how big
the drops were, but every single drop that falls into it will register, and
the gage will tell you average rainfall.
 
All you can ever detect in a calorimeter is an average power level: watts,
not joules. Most calorimeters take 5 minutes to register anything, even a 10
nanosecond burst. First the burst heats the molecules next to the cathode,
then they bang into their neighboring molecules, and the wave of heat
gradually spreads through the rest of the water, gradually averaging out
across all molecules, until it finally hits the thermistor and registers. It
keeps registering as it gradually drains out through the walls or cooling
loop. With multiple thermistors, you can watch a wave of heat work its way
from the cathode through the water in slow motion.
 
There is one caveat about this which sometimes confuses people. Suppose you
only measure temperature once a minute. Suppose, furthermore, the heat
"leaks out" into the cooling water bath at the rate of 100 joules per minute
at a given level of power. Okay, the computer measures the temperature at
second #1, and immediately following that, during seconds #2 and #3 you get
a burst of 40 watts, adding up to 80 joules. By the time the computer comes
back to poll the thermistor again, the burst has faded into the background;
you missed it. Well, so what? This is an artificial problem. Real CF bursts
of energy consist of trillions of reactions individually far too small to
detect, which add up to an average power level of, say, 1 watt, or 150
watts, in bursts which last anywhere from 10 minutes to several days. If a
burst happens to last only 2 seconds, and you happen to have a slow polling
cycle, then tough luck -- you miss it. Maybe next time it will happen just
before the computer polls. In any case, little bursts like that don't prove
anything. It is the big, multiwatt, hour-long ones that exceed the limits of
chemistry a thousand times over that matter. However, this does bring up an
important point: you must always select a calorimeter design that will
measure the average power level you expect the reaction to generate,
otherwise you will end up measuring nothing. You can't just walk into a lab,
throw together some random conglomeration of equipment and expect it to
work.
 
(Getting back to the rain gage example, this caveat is like specifying that
small drops which evaporate before you get a chance to measure the water
level don't count. Or, you can envision a calorimeter as "rain gage" with a
hole in the bottom which allows the heat to flow out at a constant rate. If
the heat was not allowed to "drain out" in this fashion, the calorimeter
would explode.)
 
Also, the thermal time lag does not make a darn bit of difference.
 
I challenge *you* to spend a couple hours in the lab with some test tubes.
If you actually learned some of this stuff yourself, you would stop making
all these stupid, ignorant assumptions. I don't care if you are the biggest
plasma physics genius who ever walked the earth, a regular Newton reincarnated!
Unless you have hands-on experience, with *this* field, you will go on making
these off-the-wall assumptions and stupid mistakes forever. Your comments
about the reflux system also showed a severe lack of experience. You were
telling me it does not work in thus and such a way, but the data right in
front of me shows it does. I don't have to give you any reason or any
explanation, I don't have to understand the process in detail to tell you
that the data shows you are flat out wrong. And you don't have to take my
word for it. Build yourself a reflux and find out. Build a simple
calorimeter. Find out what the accuracy is like at 20 to 80 C, and at
boiling. Find out if you can measure the heat of vaporization. You will soon
see that a 300% error is impossible, unless you deliberately build a rotten
calorimeter, or unless you deliberately use one in a power domain it was not
designed for, or not calibrated for. For example, you can put in some
absurdly low power level, say 3 orders magnitude below what any sensible
person would select, the way Steve Jones did. This doesn't prove a damn
thing! You have to use the instrument and do the experiment within a
reasonable, sensible range of power. If you look for a virus with a
magnifying glass, you will not see it, but that does not prove viruses don't
exist, it proves you are incompetent, or you deliberately screwed up.
 
There is only one way to do science, and only one way to understand any
physical system: do it, touch it, observe it, learn from it directly. Don't
ask people like me for information. Don't make all these absurd, foolish,
untested assumptions. Empty words and useless debates about facts that
*anyone can verify* do not constitute science.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.10 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: APS Mud-Slinger
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: APS Mud-Slinger
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 20:26:52 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep10.180830.12022@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Mr. Francis Slakey writes:
>>And a few scientists, captivated by the team's fantasy and exile, pursue
>>cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity."
...
>In case it isn't apparent, I don't think religious intolerance should
>be the centerpiece of an article in a modern science oriented magazine.
 
I certainly think that the Branch Davidians outdid Fleischmann
and Pons.  They achieved more excess heat.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / David Taylor /  Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
Date: 15 Sep 1993 14:01:36 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Sep15.034339.8337@coplex.coplex.com>
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>
> Hello Again,
>    I was reading my last post and was frustrated by my gramatical
> errors and decided to post a revised version.  That's what I get
> trying to post a message from work. Please bare with me on
> this.
 
OK.
 
 (|)
-[ ]-
 [ ]
 ---
 
(Sorry - couldn't resist - I just passed my preliminaries yesterday
and am still feeling a bit jolly)
 
****************************************************************
*  Soaring - the ultimate three  *   David C. Taylor           *
*  dimensional art form          *   dct@batman.cs.byu.edu     *
****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendct cudfnDavid cudlnTaylor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / John Logajan /  Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 18:39:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov> writes:
>As for John Logajan's comments, I have to admit that I had a higher
>opinion of him before the latest post.
>I should hope that he'd keep an open mind about hot fusion as well.
 
It was a bit of a jest, but you *should* have a low opinion of me.
 
I was always partial to Maglich's Migma hot fusion concept (because I
could understand it.  We have Paul Koloc's ideas too (but as often as
he explains it, I still don't understand it, alas.)  And there are
other non-mainline approaches I'd prefer to see investigated.
 
I guess I just don't buy into the mainline Tokamak approach.  Sorry.
Or at least, not as the one and only officially sanctioned research
area.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Jed Rothwell /  A perpetual motion machine!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A perpetual motion machine!
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 21:02:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue says he has invented a perpetual motion machine! This is remarkable.
He claims:
 
     "In fact I leave it to you to prove that a calorimeter with a k(T) that
     is a function of temperature will correctly integrate an arbitrary heat
     pulse.  I say it won't and I will prove that if you agree with what I
     have presented thus far."
 
He thinks that you can do the following:
 
1. Take 2 equal masses of water.
 
2. Put, say, 1000 joules of heat into both masses over approximately the same
period of time.
 
3. By varying the waveform, one mass will go up, say, 5 C in temperature, and
the other one will go up 15 C.
 
Yes! It will go up three times higher! This will explain P&F's experiment! Are
you ready folks? This is it! And not only that, but Dick plans to patent this
wonderful discovery, because he can use the temperature difference to generate
electricity. Heck, a Nobel Prize awaits him.
 
Face it Dick, the only successful perpetual motion machine you will ever lay
claim to is your mouth. By the way, all this crap about:
 
     "The thermal resistance also effects the answer, and that answer is that
     the temperature follows a rising exponential curve with a characteristic
     time constant kC.  It approaches an asymptotic value  T = k dQ/dt..."
 
...makes no difference. You don't measure heat by watching how the water
temperature rises, you wait until the temperature stabilizes! It takes a
couple of minutes with a fast response calorimeter, or maybe a half hour with
a slow one. Yes, the climb is complex and asymptotic, it gradually approaches
a value and then fluctuates up and down slightly around that value. People do
not try to take a reading before the "settle time" passes. We do not compute
power out based on the shape of the curve, we compute it by measuring the
point at which the temperature stabilizes. This wonderful curve you are so
obsessed with has nothing to do with how the instrument is used.
 
Experts like P&F understand that curve of course, and I am sure it tells them
a lot, but that is not what they use to measure energy. Perhaps with different
waveforms, you might be able to generate different exponential slopes. I
wouldn't know, but I kinda doubt you could. So what if you do? Toss them out,
we don't use those slopes to measure energy, we wait until the instrument
reaches a steady state, because that is so much easier to analyze. After the
calorimeter settles, as I said, it gives average energy out (watts, not
joules). You can not fool the water into stabilizing at the wrong temperature.
 
Look, Dick, we all know you don't believe that calorimeters work. I gather you
have convinced yourself that you can fool water into going to different
temperatures with the same power in. You think the temperature can be three
times higher! Maybe... you just mean it will go to the same temperature in the
same time, with a different curve. I can see you are itching to give us some
damn "hairy nonlinear differential equation" in order to prove that
calorimeters don't work. Forget it! You are wasting your time. If you *really*
believe this crap, then prove it by doing an experiment. I mean it! Go ahead
and generate these fancy mythical wave forms of yours, and show us the data
from two equal masses of water with the same net power in at different
temperatures. If you really believe what you say, you will prove it the only
way any scientist ever proves anything: you will demonstrate in an experiment
that you are right.
 
If you are not willing to do an experiment to prove what you say, then I
suggest you Shut Up and stop posting all this meaningless garbage. This is not
a word game. This is not a duel of fancy, empty, nonlinear equations
describing incorrect assumptions and non-existent physics. This is science.
Either you can prove what you say or you can not. Proof is data. Proof is not
more empty words, or incorrect scientifically illiterate assertions, lies,
distortions, "water friction," "talking test tubes," "electric arching without
electricity" or even "cigarette lighters that allow 0.0044 mole of hydrogen to
burn and generate 86,000 joules of energy." This is all a bunch of empty
meaningless garbage! Bunk! Baloney! Show us experimental proof of your wild
ideas, or shut up. I did a short paper on a "Simple Calorimeter" that proved
my point, and last year at ICCF3 Gene read a paper describing the work that
he, Chuck and I did. I have paid my dues. I have shown convincing data to
prove that, yes, calorimeters still work as well as they have for the last 200
years. If you disagree, then you show us your data that contradicts mine. And
don't try to pull any cute tricks like Steve Jones, like going 3 or 4 orders
of magnitude down into the noise where nobody knows what the hell is going on.
Yes, we know you can fool an instrument, but don't bother trying to fool me,
because I can see through that kind of nonsense in two seconds flat.
 
Put up or shut up.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 14:24:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Sep15.042357.14932@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov> wrote:
 
>next year as TFTR goes into D-T operation.  In order to achieve a working
>reactor, all that is needed is maybe one more order of magnitude in
>confinement, which will increase power to the hundred-megawatt range
>needed for a commercial reactor.
 
     Giving you *tens* of seconds confinement?
 
     'Uh, sorry, this $35 billion 100 megawatt power plant is only rated for
     15 seconds operation.'
 
> The only thing that makes me nervous
>about fusion is the fact that few people actually seem to understand just
>how close we actually are.  This is not to say that it won't take time,
>but
>at this point the major delays are due to big-science bureaucratic
>hassles,
>large-scale engineering technical difficulties, and lack of funding.
 
     Typical.   The only thing preventing us from putting New Jersey
     into geosynchronous orbit is 'large-scale engineering technical
     difficulties'.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
Date: 15 Sep 1993 17:01:00 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* -- looked for "helium, tritium,
> etc." He emphatically denied that he has looked for these things on
> several occasions, in several publications. I spoke with Tom Passel at
> length about this, and I understand their reasons for going so slowly.
 
OK, Jed, so *why* has he not looked for such things? It seems that a
careful scientist would track down such things before publishing his
results *at all*. At least, that's how I do my work.
 
I don't publish half-assed stuff I'm not sure of -- I am a true
skeptic, even of my own work. I commend McKubre's carefulness, at
least what I hear about second-hand, but he really should accept
Jones's offer to use the X-ray spectrometer; Miles should, too. Then,
they will all know.  You see, Jed, that is how one *should* do
science.
 
One obvious benefit of such a careful approach is that one need not be
in the position to cover large amounts of ass after one has said rash
things in a non-scientific way in public before submitting to peer
review, like F and P.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
Date: 15 Sep 1993 17:18:38 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
[critiquing the current status of tokamak energy confinement]
 
>     Giving you *tens* of seconds confinement?
>
>     'Uh, sorry, this $35 billion 100 megawatt power plant is only rated for
>     15 seconds operation.'
 
Scusa, Dale, you are showing your ignorance here. Ignorance is usually
OK, but not when one takes an omniscient approach to criticism.
 
Energy confinement time is not the same thing as discharge duration.
At Tore Supra, where they have superconducting toroidal field coils,
they have produced discharges lasting over a minute -- with an energy
confinement time that is probably of order a few times 0.01 seconds.
Don't forget that Tore Supra is pretty far from being a reactor-class
machine. I can imagine a reactor running hour-long discharges in
pulsed operation with a confinement time of a minute or so. And if
some of the power can be diverted to re-charge capacitor banks or pump
up a flywheel, there is no reason the discharge cannot continue
indefinitely.
 
Energy confinement time is measured as (thermal content)/(heating rate).
 
You miss the point as well when discussing costs. Fusion is being
studied now, so that when all the cheap energy has run out (100-200
yrs), we will know how to produce it via fusion, so we will have
energy *at all*.
 
Those statements about breakeven and pilot demonstration are for
public consumption; you know that as well as I do. I agree that the PR
machine is so badly oriented as to be counter-productive, but will not
discuss further since I already did on sci.energy.
 
[responding to "techincal difficulties" holding back fusion research]
 
>     Typical.   The only thing preventing us from putting New Jersey
>     into geosynchronous orbit is 'large-scale engineering technical
>     difficulties'.
 
This is a silly statement. By this logic, I could equate the
difficulty of producing an electric car with a range of 200 km with
"putting New Jersey into geosynchronous orbit". Dale, you are an
engineer; you should know better than that.
 
The biggest problem with fusion research is the social dynamics of big
science funded and managed by non-scientists. Noise rises indefinitely
in that system, as the pressure to "look like you're working"
overwhelms the opportunity to actually work.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Bill Page /  Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 22:24:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege wrote:
<<
Bill Page wants to do QM computations.  Some time back, a friend of mine
invited me out to the Institute for Advanced Study at Santa Barbara.  Who
could refuse?  He wanted to build a machine to solve Lattice Gage Problems.
 
Since I had built a bunch of ECL array processors he wanted to match me off
 
against those who wanted to do the job with many more uP.  After listening
to
the problem for a couple of days, I came up with a third way.  Model the
process with a large array of CMOS multiplying DACs.  It looked like it
would
take about 2,000,000 of them, but once the kludge was assembled it would
relax
to the solution in a few ms.  Needless to say, the device was not even
proposed much less built.  Analog solutions are just not in fashion.
>>
 
Interesting story, Tom, pity it didn't go anywhere (yet).  I have always
had a strong interest in analog computation.  The first continuous
simulation package I ever used was based on a digital simulation of an
analog block computer.  You built the model by connecting integrators,
adders, multipliers, delay blocks, etc. in a network that corresponded to
the problem you wanted to solve.  Just as if you were wiring up the real
(idealized) components.  With the electronics technology that we have today
it should be quite possible to go back to those original idealized
components themselves.
 
An efficient QM-specific computer (I think of it as something like the
hardware LISP machines etc.) would probably have a lot of interesting
immediate practical applications.  Applications aside, I'm beginning to get
the impression that even proper conceptualization of QM is hampered by the
limited power of analytic solutions (though I admit they are great when
they are possible) and by the approximations that are needed in even
relatively simple problems. A computational approach might help.
 
I should mention here a nice little book called "Quantum Mechanics on the
Personal Computer" by S. Brandt and H.D. Dahmen, Springer-Verlag, 1992, 2nd
edition.  It comes with a diskette containing a program called INTERQUANTA
which interactively solves and displays with various 3 dimensional graphics
most of the elementary QM problems that one encounters in introductory
quantum mechanics.  The idea is that a student makes use of INTERQUANTA in
a computer lab session in the same 'experimental' way and with the same
purpose as lab assignments in classical mechanics.  Acutally it works quite
well and I have had some fun with it.  There's a version of the software
for the MAC as well.
 
Actually, the QM computations that I have in mind are considerably simpler
than what you are talking about and a reasonably fast current generation
486 PC will probably do just fine.  Right now I am dealing more with how to
setup a sufficiently complete Hamiltonian for the problem including spin
and exchanges forces etc.  It means I have to learn a like more QM.  I
don't expect the numerical solution of these equations to be a big problem.
 
Cheers.
Bill Page.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Bill Page /  Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 22:24:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger wrote:
<< Terry:
PLEASE please please recognize that you are running a major risk of being
led down the rosy path of building a beautiful house of calulation on a
foundation of quicksand.
>>
 
I don't mean this in a deflationary way, but I did make a posting a few
weeks ago that described by motivations as using CF as a means to an end
(my education) as opposed to the end itself.  A "beautiful house of
calculation" would suit me just fine right now. As for the choice of
foundation: well, I like to play with things that are interesting and just
'might' be relevant instead of repeating that which has already been done.
 
<< Terry:
If you try some of what you have suggested _and_ keep the (quite ludicrous)
implied assumption of the Vigier model that the electron is "somehow" a
point particle (actually an implied assumption of infinite or at least
extremely large electron mass), then you will indeed get pretty little
protons circling a cute little electron.  Blithering nonsense, of course,
but you _will_ get nice results that "confirm" the overall structure.
>>
 
I don't know that Vigier is actually claiming that electrons are point
particles.  This would indeed be quite ludicrous and rather strange for
someone in his position as an editor of what used to be at least a fairly
conservative physics publication.  I haven't even read his paper from the
CF conference proceedings.  I am only going by what Steven Jones related in
this forum and have taken these statements as classical approximation of
what Vigier really had in mind.
 
<< Terry:
If you try to get around it by adding in a strong force attraction, then
what in the bejeebers is the _point_?  The strong force is too weak at
atomic distances to matter, and by the time you stuff the protons close
enough together to _matter_, you will _already_ have had to expend the
energy needed to push them together. ...
>>
 
Actually, my speculation is that a strong force interaction is possible
between two protons that are "co-delocalized" - I mean protons whose
wavefunctions overlap to a great extent.  The scalar potential in the wave
equation should include a term for the exchange of virtual pions (Yukawa
potential) as well as the Coulomb interaction.  Granted that the strong
force is much shorter range, but we are not talking about point particles
here.
 
<< Terry:
Also, actually _keeping the electron in between_ the two protons is a
pretty neat trick.  The optimal location is the one defined for a H2+
molecular bond.  Forcing the electron to localize into a space that is
_less_ than that envelope will _cost_ energy -- lots of it -- rather than
release energy.
>>
 
The problem of confining the electron is a significant one.  Its best not
to talk as if the electron was "in between" the protons.  The picture we
need is a purely quantum mechanical one.  A semi-classical model might
allow that the electron is confined within a shell.  The shell containing
two protons - much like a helium atom with protons in place of electrons.
But you are right about localizing the electron.  A rough calculation based
on the uncertainty relation would an electron within a 100 fm shell would
have a ground state energy of over 6 MeV!!  We are talking relativistic
equations here!
 
The optimal location for the normal H2+ molecule bond is based only on the
Coulomb interactions.  The calculation usually starts by assuming a
'reasonable' location for the two protons and then solving the wave
equation for the electron in the resulting potential. This wont work here.
 
The best 'hand waving' I can do for Vigier's electron is to mumble
something about 3-body interactions and the effective mass of the electron
being affected by the interaction with the other proton etc... not very
convincing even to myself.  But my idea was just to set up the 3-body wave
equation pure and simple - make no approximations like infinite mass etc.
And just see what happens.  I do know that 3-body gravitation interaction
simulations can display very counter-intuitive behaviour.
 
<< Terry:
I admire what you are _trying_ to do -- PEP clean reactions, perhaps? --
but please, don't just start investing good intellectual analysis on
more Quicksand Hiltons... Look for holes and niches that _aren't_ covered,
not badly stated problems like Vigier's that simply make flagrant silliness
a bit more obscure.
 
That and some solid, _reproducible reproducible reproducible_ data showing
a real need to even bother in the first place.  That seems to be in rather
short supply these days...
>>
 
Do you really think Vigier is being "flagrantly silly"?  Oh well, no
matter.  I am really just following my own "bosino" line of thought - not
Vigier's.  Yes, PeP reactions are VERY ATTRACTIVE.  It is interesting to
think of Hbar+ as decaying by such a weak interaction.  But there are other
effects as well.  I am especially interested in the paper by Cerofalini et
al. recently reviewed here by Dieter Britz (Thanks Dieter. I really
appreciate the work you are doing on the bibliography.)  "Giant Neutron
Trapping By a Molecular Species Produced During the Reaction of D+ With H-
in a Condensed Phase".  Jees! What a title.  Giant Neutrons!!  King Kong
please duck as they go by!  Anyway, the article is a good one and their
observations coincide with the much simpler experiments that I have carried
out myself.  By 'Giant' they mean that the neutron capture is much greater
than any known neutron moderator.  In my one experiments I have also
measured ionizing radiation that falls slightly below background correlated
with changes in cell current and excess heat production.  I'd love to see
someone reproduce this result.
 
Thanks, Terry, for the comments.  I've enjoyed also your recent flames at
some 'others' here - you saved me the trouble of a similar response so that
I can appear to simply ignore them - as if it costs no intellectual effort
at all.
 
Cheers.
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Proof came in 1991
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proof came in 1991
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 23:02:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>If the Toyota management was
>to give away vital industrial secrets of this nature, they would be hauled
>before civil courts for gross violation of fiduciary responsibilities.
 
As I understand it, you can't get a patent unless you disclose the process
to be patented.  If you leave out vital bits of information, then they
aren't protected by the patent.
 
This leaves you in a dangerous position because someone else could then
patent the vital bits and leave you out in the cold.
 
Trade secrets are best for things that aren't patentable (already invented,
or known to a competent practitioner in that field.)  What P+F are working
on clearly comes under the heading of new and useful invention, so they
would be best off with a patent.
 
If you just wanted to give it away to the world, you would most likely
publish the vital bits.  This public disclosure prevents anyone else from
patenting it (unless they can prove they invented it before you did.)
 
The above is US patent law.  I believe in Japan you have to get the patent
issued before you publish, so P+F and friends probably can't give away
any vital bits until they are granted the Japanese patent.
 
However, if they ever want to get a patent in the US, they are going to
have to disclose the vital bits.
 
So you have:
1.) trade secrets -- which enjoy no patent protection
2.) patent -- which implies public disclosure
3.) public disclosure -- which prevents future patents by others
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / mitchell swartz /  More on Richard "P.E." Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Richard "P.E." Schultz
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 20:46:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <274ogp$d9@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Sauces, geese, ganders, and Mitchell Swartz
Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] writes:
 
=rs "What "quantitation" has Mr. Swartz ever provided?  I merely ask for
=rs information."
 
  The quantitation in my posts stand.
  Any reader might note that it is apparent that your only interest so far for
   quantitation has been regarding your putative organ size.
  Try growing up.
 
                                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / mitchell swartz /  On Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 20:47:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Sep14.143539.920@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Re: Ignition doublespeak (cont.)
 Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
=sj "The following is reposted since Mitchell has not replied.  Then follows a
=sj    related question based on Jed's polemic of today."
 
   Dear Steve:
 
    It is you who apparently have not replied to the series of posts from me,
(and others), which to preserve S/N optimization shall not be repeated.
 
    When you answer honestly those questions which examine the basis by which
you denigrate the work of others, then your ?s will be addressed to the degree
that they can be.   Without that reciprocity, frankly I do not have the time
at present.
 
=sj  "Clearly, McKubre's xs heat claims constitute
=sj     a "positive experiment."
 
   I am glad we agree that McKubre found excess enthalpy confirming F&P.
   Therefore, we will add him to the next Table of data, ok?
 
    Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                          mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / mitchell swartz /  On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 20:49:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep15.050812.20631@rosevax.rosemount.com>
   Subject: Re: How his calorimeter works
William Hawkins [bill@texan.rosemount.com] writes:
 
=wh "The gist of it is that Dick Blue described a calorimeter as a device
=wh for transducing heat to temperature.  Swartz replied that that device
=wh would be a thermometer."
 
  I replied that one such device is a thermometer.  Rate calorimeters
(good comments on your part, Bill), and other adiabatic calorimeters, must
be calibrated, and even in that case, the calibrated heat is derived not merely
from the temperature but also by use of the thermal mass of the apparatus
(assuming there is no other heat loss).
 
=wh    "For you lurkers, a thermometer (or any
=wh temperature sensor) converts temperature to something meaningful to a
=wh person (eventually).  To be accurate, it must do so without adding or
=wh   removing any heat from the thing being measured."
 
  Isn't it true that the thermometer measures the temperature of the
thermometer, and that it does so by removal of a small amount of heat
from the system under examination so that the temperature of the system
under examination and the thermometer are the same?   Would that not therefore
(given the limit of a small thermal mass to said thermometer) be a conversion
of heat (removed to bring the thermometer to an isothermal condition with
the system under examination) to a temperature (read by the observer on the
calibrated scribed surface)?
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Greg Kuperberg /  Toyota, Microsoft, the Gestapo, and me
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Toyota, Microsoft, the Gestapo, and me
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 22:03:01 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930915151745_72240.1256_EHK26-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>I am worried about my country, and my children's future, and about
>the terrible loss of academic freedom that has resulted from this Gestapo
>attack on cold fusion.
 
I am worried too.  Whenever I visit my wife in the physics department,
I see those evil members of the APS studying high-temperature
superconductors, subatomic particles, general relativity, stellar
plasmas, and so forth.  And they are all hard-headed XS Heat skeptics.
Jed's right.  We're all a bunch of goose-stepping thugs.  Maybe my
children will grow up to be Gestapo types also.
 
>Because it cost [P&F] a couple hundred million dollars to learn how to build
>those torches, and the secret is worth billions.
 
Hundreds of millions!  Wow!  No wonder Toyota announced a loss in its
last stock report.
 
>If the Toyota management was to give away vital industrial secrets of
>this nature, they would be hauled before civil courts for gross
>violation of fiduciary responsibilities. One million angry stockholders
>would sue them for everything they own.
 
Those Toyota stockholders must feel lucky that their company has its
eye on the prize.  Does anyone know how Toyota stock is doing these
days?
 
>Corporations never give away large sums of money or critical secrets!
>You might as well expect Microsoft to publish the source code for
>their products.
 
I thought it was because Microsoft customers would demand their money
back if they saw it.  But I could be wrong.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overlapping wavefunctions
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 23:30:08 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor) writes:
 
> (|)
>-[ ]-
> [ ]
> ---
 
>(Sorry - couldn't resist - I just passed my preliminaries yesterday
>and am still feeling a bit jolly)
 
Oh No, another jolly degenerate physicist joins the ranks.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
Date: 15 Sep 93 18:08:41 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article "SRI has NOT looked for ash",
<930915135144_72240.1256_EHK24-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
> Steve Jones wrote:
>
>      "Ok, Mitch:  tell us about McKubre's results regarding ash.  Clearly,
>      McKubre's xs heat claims constitute a "positive experiment."  Yet he has
>      looked for helium, tritium, etc. -- what has he found?  Lots of EPRI
>      dollars are being spent here.  Yet, from all I've heard from McKubre and
>      others, *no* ash has been found at all.  Can you correct this, or will
>      you rather correct your statement above?"
>
> This is all nonsense and garbage. McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* --  looked
> for "helium, tritium, etc." He emphatically denied that he has looked for
> these things on several occasions, in several publications.
 
Let us consider one of those publications, McKubre et al. in proceedings of the
First Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, pp. 20 - 31, where it says:
 
"Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the pressure
vessel for  3H,  3He  and 4He.  At a detection level of 1 ppm, none of these
isotopes were [sic] found."
 
"Approximately 10% of the total mass of the electrode, comprising one sample
from the surface and one from the bulk, were analyzed by Rockwell International
for 3He  and 4He  by mass spectrometry of a molten sample.  This technique is
capable of detecting 10^11 atoms; no He was observed at that detection level."
 
"The electrolyte was sampled for tritium before emplacement in the cell and
after removal; no increase in tritium was observed above the background level."
 --- Michael McKubre et al. paper
 
You are wrong, Jed.  SRI did look for helium and tritium, as I said,
but found none.
 
However, they do show --guess what -- X-ray film exposures with spots,
claiming:
 
"Clear evidence of some type of ionizing radiation is observed.  The points of
light with diffuse halo exposure suggest that some of the radiation may be
coming from point sources within the metal [cathode], being scattered by the
lattice structure."
 
In order to substantiate this published claim, McKubre et al. now need to use
an X-ray (or other radiation) spectrometer, as I have previously argued.
In particular, the "points of light" could be due to effects other than
ionizing radiation, as I have also argued in past postings at length.
 
>I spoke with Tom
> Passel at length about this, and I understand their reasons for going so
> slowly.
>
 
Tom is a good man and I suspect he is referring to the recent experiments of
McKubre, that is, since the explosion and death at SRI on January 2, 1992.
 
> Steve Jones, like most "skeptics" has a nasty habit of making things up and
> posting them. The question is: does he actually believe this stuff himself? I
> doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
 
I have shown by quoting McKubre's paper that I was not making up my statement
that the McKubre team looked for helium and tritium, but found none.
I now await a retraction from Jed of his false accusations,
and a reply from Mitch of my earlier question (above)
which started this discussion.
 
 -  Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Various replies: metallic hydrogen
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various replies: metallic hydrogen
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 00:18:46 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

Here's an idea for you Steve.  One of the problems with the Cement/D2O
was the posibility of contamination causing photodisentigration of
the deuterons.  It would be intersting to know how solid deterium
acts when an external gamma source is applied.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 23:16:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930915135144_72240.1256_EHK24-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>This is all nonsense and garbage. McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* --  looked
>for "helium, tritium, etc." He emphatically denied that he has looked for
>these things on several occasions, in several publications. I spoke with Tom
>Passel at length about this, and I understand their reasons for going so
>slowly.
 
     Such as?  I don't know about you, but if I thought fusion was going on,
     looking for energetic fusion products would be the *first* thing I
     did.  I guess they don't care much for their personal safety.
 
>Steve Jones, like most "skeptics" has a nasty habit of making things up and
>posting them. The question is: does he actually believe this stuff himself? I
>doubt it.
 
     I suppose this means you are going to _evade_ the question 'which nuclear
     reaction?'.
 
     Too bad.  I so wanted to follow with 'Why are P&F not dead?'.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Todd Green /  SRI and nuclear products
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SRI and nuclear products
Date: 16 Sep 93 13:46:32 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

>>Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>>     "Ok, Mitch:  tell us about McKubre's results regarding ash.  Clearly,
>>     McKubre's xs heat claims constitute a "positive experiment."  Yet he has
>>     looked for helium, tritium, etc. -- what has he found?  Lots of EPRI
>>     dollars are being spent here.  Yet, from all I've heard from McKubre and
>>     others, *no* ash has been found at all.  Can you correct this, or will
>>     you rather correct your statement above?"
 
>Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
>This is all nonsense and garbage. McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* --  looked
>for "helium, tritium, etc." He emphatically denied that he has looked for
>these things on several occasions, in several publications. I spoke with Tom
>Passel at length about this, and I understand their reasons for going so
>slowly.
 
>Steve Jones, like most "skeptics" has a nasty habit of making things up and
>posting them. The question is: does he actually believe this stuff himself? I
>doubt it.
 
Are you sure about this Jed? According to the Proceedings of the First Cold
Fusion Conference, McKubre et al. looked for 3He, 4He and 3H in at least one
heat producing cell and found nothing. Maybe they gave up looking for nuclear
products after this, but it wouldn't be accurate to say that they have never
done so. One of the SRI people gave a talk recently where it was said that
they were now (in conjunction with B.F. Bush) setting up a NaI detector to
look for nuclear products. This seems to me an odd choice as there are better
and more direct ways of detecting neutrons and I'm not sure that you can even
detect x-rays at 21 keV with such a system. Maybe they are looking for 24 MeV
gamma rays. Who knows...
 
-----
Todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Needed: Honesty (in everything)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Originally-From: terry
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Needed: Honesty (in everything)
Subject: Needed: Honesty in funding requests
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 04:22:54 GMT
Date: 13 Sep 93 09:20:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Needed: Honesty in funding requests
Originally-From: terry
Date: 13 Sep 93 09:20:04 GMT
In article <1993Sep13.092004.4337@asl.dl.nec.com> , terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
>In article <tomkCDA3w3.13t@netcom.com>
>tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Sep12.222819.815@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
>>
>> | "neutron/tritium-intensive energy as long as lithium supplies hold
out"
>>
>> And as we all know, lithium is certainly a scarcity.
>
>(?) Actually, it _is_ rather scarce.
>
>Quick, name me a rock that contains _mineable_ quantities of lithium...
>What, no go?  Spodumene is the only one I can think of off-hand, and you
>don't exactly find it the average flower bed.  Clear crystals of it serve
>as a nicely off-beat, highly pleochroic gemstone (andalusite), however.
>
>Current theory is that lithium was generated _during_ the supernova
>explosion that created the local heavy metals concentration.  It just
>gets eaten up too quickly _inside_ a star to exist for long.  That's why
>it's orders of magnitude more sparce than other low-end elements.
>
>
Umm, I hate to say this, but Lithium is found in seawater.  So *all*
the natural resources needed for hot fusion are in the oceans.
Remember "Limitless energy from the oceans."  It's partly true.
There's enough lithium in seawater (0.17 gm/m^3) that by removing
just half of it from the ocean we can generate enough tritium to
generate 150 million terawatt-years of thermal fusion energy using
D-T.  World energy consumption is 13 terawatt-years each year.  So
I think there's enough lithium to last until we get past D-T fusion.
 
>How many Congressmen who vote for fusion funding are quite
>befuddled about it and think they are voting for "trying to get energy
>from sea water?"  My my I'd love to see a show of hands on that one.
>
 
See above.  Since D and Li are both abundant in sea water, the
hypothetical
befuddled congressmen (and women, I should add) have managed to
grasp at least the most basic view of fusion.  If you think they should
know more about it, write to them!
 
>
>But all this is easily solved.  All the international hot fusion
community
>needs to do is go before their respective funding agencies and local
press
>and say clearly and without any obfuscation what they are plan to do with
>their share hard-earned (by somebody!) tax funds.  For example:
>
>   "Senator, what we wish to do with these funds is maybe, if we are
lucky,
>    create by the year 2010 create a plant that is physically huge, has a
>    mediocre energy output, is so complicated that it will almost
certainly
>    break down every few hours, and will produce huge quantities of
highly
>    penetrating neutron radiation that will keep folks in the radioactive
>    waste disposal industry happy for centuries.  It also uses extremely
>    flammable liquid lithium laced with nasty, volatile tritium gas, but
>    you don't need to worry about that because you already know how well
>    the fission industry kept its promises never to release such junk
into
>    the atmosphere.  The same experts are helping us secure these
systems!
 
Obviously a demonstration *research* machine is not going to be designed
for reliability or large-scale energy output.  As for the neutron
radiation,
that gets absorbed by the lithium.  The lithium certainly does not need
to be in a liquid state; solid compounds can be found which are not
flammable.
You don't need pure lithium!  Tritium is rather nasty, but you don't need
that much of it on hand.  As far as radioactive waste generation, there
*are* materials out there (try SiC) which can be used for the structure,
which will obviously be irradiated and activated by the neutron flux,
but which will be *less* radioactive than natural uranium ore after *only
1 day* of rest following a fusion run.  Such a plant would have *zero*
long-term rad-waste requiring deep disposal.  Such a plant is *not*
going to be built soon, but it is the way to go.  In case you doubt my
facts, look to R.W. Conn, et al, "Fusion Reactor Economic, Safety, and
Environmental Prospects."  I have an independent printing but the
paper was written by people at the UCLA IPFR and the first page says,
"This paper is prepared for submission to the Journal, Nuclear Fusion,
and the International Fusion Research Council," and in case you can't
find it, I'd be happy to mail you a photocopy.
 
>
>   "The plant will burn relatively rare lithium.  Our supplies in the USA
>    of this metal are not all that large, and we'll need a lot of it
since
>    the plant is so terribly inefficient at burning it.  We also need a
>    bit of deuterium from seawater to "burn" the lithium, but that part
>    doesn't make much difference, really, since the deuterium is common.
>    We'll probably have to import a lot of the lithium, but this is not
all
>    that new, since we are already dependent on oil from other countries.
 
See the above comments on the abundance of lithium in ocean water.
 
>   "So far as we can tell, the chances of these plants being made
smaller,
>    vastly more efficient, or significantly less complex are all very
close
>    to zero.  They will always be huge, extremely complex -- and thus
rather
>    fragile -- and dangeously radioative once they're stated up.  But at
>    least the mix of radioactive by-products will be easier to control
than
>    for a fission plant.  We just need to use care in selecting the kinds
>    that we keep near the reaction site, and maybe replace the whole
shebang
>    every few weeks as radiation damage destroys very tight tolerances.
 
On the contrary, all that we need to do to reduce the plant size is
improve
the plasma confinement.  Give me an order of magnitude improvement,
time to do a little more R&D, and enough money to fund a coal plant for
30 years, and I'll give you a fusion plant that will run for 30 years with
virtually zero rad waste and zero emissions.  I'll even give you some
helium
to fill balloons for your birthday party.  (Ok, I've fallen into the trap
and overstated my case here.  But I'm a bit frustrated that, once again,
someone who's opinion I valued as a relatively objective scientist has
gone and written some completely unjustified garbage about a field I
care about.)
 
>   "What about "clean energy from the sea," you say?  Er, well... that
was
>    a wee bit of misunderstanding, Senator.  We hot fusion physicists
have
>    always known that the reaction you are referring to, which is called
>    deuterium-deuterium fusion, is so difficult that it will be at least,
>    oh, maybe a couple of centuries before our experience with these
lithium
>    burning plants lets us figure out how to do that.  Hooboy, are
_those_
>    suckers gonna be HUGE... oh, sorry Senator, I was drifting a bit...
 
If you insist on being pessimistic and assuming that it will take us
hundreds
of years to get the two orders of magnitude we need to do D-D fusion
or D-He3 fusion, then I'll insist on reminding you that there's enough
Li in the ocean to last for tens of thousands of years, at a minimum.
And again, give me those two orders of magnitude and I'll give you a plant
that will compete with *any* power plant on the market today.
 
>   "At any rate, the only kind of plant we can forsee except in pure
>    science fiction are these lithium burners.  They will be bigger than
>    nuclear plants, less effecient overall, more fragile, and less radio-
>    active only in the limited sense that they don't produce uranium
>    fission and breeding byproducts.  (But wowsers, will they ever be
able
>    to dose things down with _neutrons_...)
>
Nothing new to refute here.  Although I should point out that if we get
the two orders of magnitude in confinement, we can run the plant
continuously.
 
>   "So there it all is in a nutshell, Senator.  We feel we have things
>    like solar energy and old-fashioned fission beat hands down with this
>    neat idea, and were sure it will all work within, oh, 10 or 20 years.
>
I'd love to see solar energy work.  But you'll never provide everyone's
energy needs from a single source.  And I don't see how you can think
that a working fusion plant wouldn't beat fission hands-down.  As for
the timescale?  We could do it in 20 years if we had the funding.  So:
 
>   "So you _will_ fund us... won't you?"
 
When can I sign on the dotted line?
 
 
>Seems to me that the hot fusion community has neglected to "scrupulously
>document" a few things here and there too, 'ay?  Like what you're really
>trying to do, in nice easy terms that a funding agency can easily under-
>stand?  Scientific jargon is so convenient at times -- why, you can go
>around publishing the daylights out of what you're doing, telling about
>the lithium vs deuterium-deuterium issue in excruciatingly honest detail,
>and yet _never quite having to bother to tell the people funding you that
>what they think you are doing and what you _know_ you are doing have very
>little practical relation to each other.  One is science fiction, but my
>it sounds sweet to a Congressman's ear -- "energy from water!  clean! so
>efficient!"
 
And the computer you used to type this wasn't once science fiction?  Come
on, have a sense of optimism!  As for the argument that hot fusion
researchers
are misrepresenting what they do, I completely fail to follow.  Do you
have any references on this?  I'm interested to know how we've lied to
people.  Even if the funding agencies can't understand what we do, I don't
necesssarily think that it's our fault.  The government should have a
responsibility to understand what it manages, don't you think?
>
>The other reality is dirtier, messier, and not something that most folks
>would _dare_ do a full cost/benefits cost analaysis on.  Because if you
>did, you might have a very, very hard time proving why this stuff should
>be pursued as anything but a very expensive public works program for a
>rather small group of people who have have a poor track record for making
>such issues clear to everyone else.
>
If you want a cost-benefit analysis, consider this:  "... the power
output of tokamaks has quietly increased by a factor of about 10 million
[yes, 7 orders of magnitude - RFH] in the last 20 years (a faster growth
rate than the memory in computer chips)." ["Cold Fusion," Tony Rothman,
New Republic, Sept. 20 & 27, 1993 - I don't claim to read this regularly,
but fusion articles catch my attention.]  So if you want to talk about
orders-of-magnitude vs. research funding, hot fusion is doing fine.  And
if
people like you would simply let us finish the job, we can give you
all the financial benefits you want...
>
> [Unenlightening political commentary ignored for brevity.]
 
>Too bad that what the Congressmen _think_ they are getting -- "clean
>energy from the sea" -- is nothing _but_ science fiction.  Don't all of
>you out there in hot fusion think it's about time to sweep away a few
>of the ol' cobwebbs of misperception and let all of your funding agencies
>know _exactly_ what it really is that you are trying (with little
success,
>I might also note) to build?
 
If I wasn't interested in informing people about fusion, I wouldn't be
writing this.  I'd love to clear away the misperception and show how
far we've come.  If only people would realize that fusion has always
been "20 years away" because a few people underestimated the problem
in the 1950s, and funding has been slashed by 50% (in real terms) since
1980.  As for "with little success," you're completely off the mark.
The science is real, progress is steady, and we've almost reached the
point where we can seriously think about giving our children something
positive to think about.
>
>Just think how much better you'll feel in the morning.
>
I'm feeling better already.
 
**********
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Usual disclaimer about personal opinions.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Paul Schauble /  Re: CLIMAX detector of cosmic neutrons
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CLIMAX detector of cosmic neutrons
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 23:59:54 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Think of the sub-critical reactor as being the neutron equivalent of a
photomultiplier tube.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.15 / Marshall Dudley /  re: Various replies: Metalic hydrogen
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Various replies: Metalic hydrogen
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 17:47:24 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In article <1993Sep14.162126.922@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> Let's carry the idea of fusion in Jupiter's metallic hydrogen core a bit
> further:
 
I have read several postings about Jupiter's metallic hydrogen core.  I
am having a hard time understanding why we think it has a metallic hydrogen
core.  If I remember correctly Jupiter is composed of hydrogen, methane and
ammonia, with trace amounts of other elements such as helium.  Since hydrogen
is the lightest, I would expect the methane and ammonia to be at the core.  Is
it that the metallic hydrogen phase is denser than then the phases methane and
ammonia assume when subjected to such great pressures?
 
>Why do the theory?  The main test of a theory is not how well it explains
>existing data  but rather:  can it successfully predict phenomena not before
>discovered?  To me, theories are tentative constructs from which we reach
>out into the unkwown, and their usefulness lies in their ability to suggest
>new experiments.
 
Great.  How about this.  What does theory predict will be the result of the
shock wave at the core of Jupiter when the series of 5km comet pieces hits it
around July 20th of 1994?  There are a lot of variables and disiplines involved
in the computation, ie. what energy will be dissapated by the impact (I don't
remember the number now, but it was huge), what pressure will result from the
shock wave,  will the shock wave be focused to even higher levels by the change
in density as it approaches the center of Jupitor, and finally, what reactions
if any (fusion or otherwise) would be expected when the shock wave hits the
center? I have posed this question elsewhere previously, but the lack of
responses indicates that either too much time is involved in the calculations,
or others don't have a broad enough knowledge of the various disiplines
involved to do it.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 09:32:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1393:
 
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>One check would be the amount of gas given off, which
>>should always be exactly that expected from the break-up of water. F&P state
>>that this is so, i.e. that their current efficiency is very close to 100%, so
>>in their case, no parallel paths.
>
>I plead ignorance of the P+F literature on this subject, and I don't recall
>what was said about it in this forum, but just when do they measure this
>gas production efficiency?  We are talking about a dynamic system here.
>You can't infer efficiency at one time from that you measured at a different
>time or in a different cell.
 
I realise that I phrased this carelessly; sorry. I gave the impression that
F&P measured evolved gases all the time. What they actually say, in FPALH-90,
is
 
"The current efficiencies for the electrolyses [...] were determined by
measuring the combined rates of gas evolution from the cells. Surprisingly,
these efficiencies were higher than 99% as was also shown by the record of
D2O additions".
 
They don't say that gas evolution was monitored all the time, but it may have
been, or maybe only once in a separate experiment.
 
If we can trust their statement that that part of the cathode that is in the
head space is tightly covered with a glass sheath, then I would say that it is
unlikely that recombination takes place to any significant extent, as it would
have to be taking place in the electrolyte (if it did it in the head space
itself, it would be doing it explosively). In the electrolyte, you have
bubbles of D2 and O2, and we can forget their recombination; you also have
dissolved D2 and O2, at rather low concentrations of less than millimolar;
again, the chemical reaction of these two, at those concentrations, is
unlikely to be significant. So I do not doubt this high current efficiency,
i.e. I agree that close to 100% of the electrolysis current is going into the
production of D2 and O2 gas in these cells, in my opinion.
 
The M&F cell, with its miles of fine Ni wire, is another kettle of fish. In
that case, I am almost certain that there is extensive recombination right in
the electrolyte.
 
In either case, - to forestall yelps from the TB's - if the purported excess
heat is greater than 1.54*i, recombination cannot account for it anyway.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Lee Rudolph /  Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
     
Originally-From: lrudolph@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why read sci.fusion? - Defense of hot fusion
Date: 16 Sep 93 11:48:15 GMT
Organization: Clark University (Worcester, MA)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     Typical.   The only thing preventing us from putting New Jersey
>     into geosynchronous orbit is 'large-scale engineering technical
>     difficulties'.
 
New Jersey *is* in geosynchronous orbit, isn't it?  Just very, very low.
 
Lee Rudolph
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Jed Rothwell /  What McKubre said
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What McKubre said
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 14:34:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
As he often does, Steve Jones is spreading false statements about another
worker in order to support his own untenable nonsense. In this case, he
claims that McKubre at SRI has looked for nuclear products and "not found
them" -- as if looking for products was like pulling up the sheet to find
your glasses under the bed (where the dog left them). Let me repeat, one last
time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically denied that they have
looked for products and not found them. As Steve disingenuously points out,
they have done some preliminary work in this area, but McKubre has said time
after time:
 
     "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
     but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
 
That's from the Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by
Neville Hodgkinson, cover story. He has issued similar statement in other
major newspapers, on NPR, during lectures, and in comments made to me and to
many other people. Perhaps they have done additional work, but this is where
things stood as of June, 1993.
 
Someone else asked me why EPRI/SRI has decided not to look for products yet,
and why they did not accept the offer of instruments from Steve Jones. I
cannot answer any questions of this nature. If you would like to know, I
suggest you contact them directly. The only thing I will say is that they
explained their policy to me, and the reasons they have decided to do the
research in certain phases with certain instruments. I think they are superb
scientists. In my judgement, their reasons are justified and scientifically
correct. I will not second-guess such careful and successful workers.
Perhaps, if I was in charge of the program, I might do a few things different
from them, and perhaps I might speed up the "product detection phase." On the
other hand, if I was in charge of it, I might have screwed up and never
managed to make the heat 100% reproducible.
 
I suggest that the people here who have so many helpful suggestions, and who
are so certain they could do a better job than McKubre should put up or shut
up. Go ahead! Do the experiment and show us you have the right stuff. Steve
Jones, for example, should generate excess heat the way he said he would. He
claims he can boil water with only one-third the input power normally needed
to do that; he can "trick" the water into vaporizing with 13,600 joules per
mole at 1 atm. Actually, I guess he means he can make the water look like it
is boiling, and he can drive it out of a tall test tube in a mixture of vapor
and droplets. This would be a neat parlor trick if he could pull it off.
Unfortunately for him, it is physically impossible, unless you use some
stupid, transparent trick like a two-bit magician would use, in which case
you would not fool me. I assure all readers that Pons and Fleischmann and the
other Toyota scientists are not using any stupid tricks.
 
If Steve can't do what he claims, he should admit he is wrong. But, like all
"pathological skeptics" he is incapable of doing that.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 13:44:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>The M&F cell, with its miles of fine Ni wire, is another kettle of fish. In
>that case, I am almost certain that there is extensive recombination right in
>the electrolyte.
 
My gas measuring test of a M&F type cell did not have "miles" of Ni.  Instead,
it had a few nodules of Ni and about 12 inches of Pt wire.  I got either
a 20% recombination rate (delta between forward and reverse current) or
a 20% inefficiency delta.  The Pt wire was in both the electrolyte and the
head space.  I didn't have any explosive recombination in the headspace,
and the 20% delta is hard to explain there anyhow.
 
>In either case, - to forestall yelps from the TB's - if the purported excess
>heat is greater than 1.54*i, recombination cannot account for it anyway.
 
Shouldn't that number be 1.48*i?  I'm not sure what "overvoltage" or
"overpotential" refers to, but I believe the 1.48*i number is the amount
of energy lost to the work of dissociation, whereas (1.54-1.48)*i is some
sort of inefficiency factor which is needed, but which appears as local heat.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Stephen Fairfax /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 9/16/93
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@MIT.EDU (Stephen A. Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 9/16/93
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 14:21:18 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

                                Alcator C-MOD
                            Weekly Highlight Report
                                September 16, 1993
 
 
Alcator C-MOD has resumed plasma operation after a scheduled three-week
maintenance period.  Operation resumed on schedule on Tuesday, September 14.
 
During the bakeout of the vessel at the end of the maintenance period, it was
discovered that several of the valves controlling the flow of LN2 to the coils
had degraded. The faulty components were replaced on Saturday, and cooldown of
the machine proceeded with minimal interruption.  Electron Cyclotron Discharge
Cleaning (ECDC) was carried out for a total of approximately 48 hours.
 
Installation of the reactors on the OH1, OH2, and EF1 supplies was completed
on Thursday of last week. Power system tests were carried out on Friday and
Monday, to verify four-quadrant operation of these supplies. In addition, all
other PF supplies were tested individually. Besides verifying that all systems
were ready for operation, the single supply tests were used to evaluate pickup
on the diamagnetic loops.
 
The first runs of this campaign are planned to take advantage of the reverse
swing capability to extend the flattop time and increase the plasma current.
The pulse length has been extended to over 0.9 sec, with plasma currents over
0.6 MA. Wall conditions over the first two days of plasma operation appear
marginal, with a high proportion of "fizzles" and resistive, disruptive
discharges, particularly following high current disruptions.
 
Essentially all of the successful long pulse discharges so far this week have
been lower single null divertor plasmas with slowly increasing elongation;
these are typically terminated by a vertical disruption. Disruption rates as
high as 1MA/msec have been observed. These experiments are continuing.
 
The charge exchange neutral particle analyzer installed at F-port over the
break is operational and producing data.
 
 
Send questions or comments to Fairfax@MIT.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenFairfax cudfnStephen cudlnFairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Dieter Britz /  RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 15:41:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1405:
 
>  Isn't it true that the thermometer measures the temperature of the
>thermometer, and that it does so by removal of a small amount of heat
>from the system under examination so that the temperature of the system
>under examination and the thermometer are the same?   Would that not therefore
>(given the limit of a small thermal mass to said thermometer) be a conversion
>of heat (removed to bring the thermometer to an isothermal condition with
>the system under examination) to a temperature (read by the observer on the
>calibrated scribed surface)?
 
Let's be pedantic here:
No, it isn't true. Heat is to temperature somewhat as moles are to
concentration; i.e. heat is an amount of energy, temperature is an intensity
(tied to heat by heat capacity and mass). So no, a thermometer does not make
heat into temperature, but a temperature (of the system measured equilibrated
with the thermometer itself, as you point out) into a mercury column height,
or a voltage (if we are using a thermocouple etc). From that height or
voltage, by calibration, we infer a temperature, and from that, knowing the
system's heat capacity, the heat. Actually, "heat" should be heat above a
reference level, for a given temperature above a reference level.
Pedantic enough?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Jed Rothwell /  I Never Evade Anything
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I Never Evade Anything
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 16:33:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dale Bass asked me "what nuclear reaction" causes CF. I answered "nobody
knows! That's what they are trying to find out."
 
Inexplicably, he responded:
 
     "I suppose this means you are going to _evade_ the question 'which
     nuclear reaction?'.
 
     Too bad.  I so wanted to follow with 'Why are P&F not dead?'."
 
This is an inept argument, Dale. My answer was big as life, right smack in
front of your face: "NOBODY KNOWS. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT."
I never evade anything. If I choose not to answer, it is out of contempt, or
because I did not bother reading your message. I do not "evade" the likes of
you, any more than I would step aside to allow a pigeon the right of way, or
doff my hat to a garden slug.
 
In any case, it is perfectly obvious that I am not the right person to ask.
As I have said a thousand times before, whatever final theory emerges, I am
sure I will not understand it. As Arthur C. Clarke is so fond of saying, "I
am sure it would be over my head."
 
If you want to understand the nuclear theoretical work-in-progress, why are
you asking a programmer from Atlanta? This is stupid! Read the literature,
and if you have any questions, ask a theoretician like Hagelstein, Ikegami
or Chubb. I could no more explain the details than I could tell you why
there are not enough neutrinos coming from the sun. I barely know what a
"neutrino" is. My knowledge of nuclear physics extends as far as measuring
half-lives, and the classic experiment to measure 1 electron volt which I
performed in undergraduate physics at Cornell 20 years ago. My knowledge of
engineering gives me the ability to explain to you -- in depth if you like --
how a circa 1910 triple expansion marine steam engine works. I happen to
know that because my father was almost killed by one on a Liberty Ship. I
also know how a circa 1799 static calorimeter works, because I have built
two or three, and observed many others, and because I do understand common
physics up through about 1905. Also, if you ever want the nitty-gritty
inside story on circa 1980 DOS interrupts and the RS-232, just let me know.
 
What you, and the other pathological "skeptics" don't seem to realize is
that a person does not need to understand the mechanism of a physical
phenomenon in order to understand two things:
 
1. That the phenomenon is occurring.
 
2. In broad terms, the phenomenon exceeds the limits of one domain or
another. I know, for example, the approximate structural strength of steel
and styrofoam. I know that you cannot stretch a steel cable from a
geosynchronous orbiting satellite to earth. I also know the limits of
chemistry -- any educated person does.
 
Suppose a construction engineer from 1880 who worked with conventional
explosives could examine a nuclear warhead and then watch it explode. He
would know instantly that the explosion could not be the product of any
possible combination of chemicals. He would not have to understand anything
at all about nuclear theory to see that the bomb was a mysterious new form
of energy. Suppose you then showed him a 0.6 gram piece of metal inside a
Dewar immersed in water, with no electric power or any other form of energy
going into it. If he saw that the temperature inside the Dewar remained at
100 C hour after hour, he would know instantly that this, too, could not be
caused any chemical form of energy.
 
Not only would our 1880 engineer understand this, but any competent chemist,
engineer, blacksmith, or artisan from any time in the past 100,000 years
would know it instantly. It is only our present-day "expert scientists" who
doubt it. The reason they doubt it is clear to me: modern day science
education, training and standards are horrible! The system is overrun by
academic rot, so that blockheads can get PhD's without ever learning the
simple A-B-C's of fundamental physics. They have no quantitative grasp of
common physics, they have no intuitive sense of what works and what does
not. They leap to conclusions and they make such extraordinarily stupid
statements that they would have flunked a high-school physics course 100
years ago (for that matter, they would have flunked at Cornell 20 years
ago). Morrison claims -- in effect -- that you can burn 0.0044 mole of
hydrogen and generate more than 86,000 joules of energy! Richard Blue thinks
he can make a perpetual motion machine. Tom Droege claims that you can hook
up devices electrically in series, turn one off, and have the others
continue working. These so-called scientists have become so removed from
common place reality and hands-on science that they know less about these
subjects than any reasonably well-educated person would have know 100 years
ago. If anyone stood up in a meeting in 1892 and tried to give a talk as
inept as Morrison's ICCF3 "paper," he would have gavelled into silence
somewhere between the magic cigarette lighter and part about "verifying the
truth by counting pro and con publications." This is not science, it is
intellectual slop.
 
By the way, anyone who doubts the intelligence and depth of learning of our
ancestors should read a physics textbook from 1880, or read the details of
the Wright Brother's experimental work, or study the engineering of a Roman
Aqueduct. You will find that their incisiveness, quantitative ability, their
experimental technique, and their intuitive grasp of the nature of things
puts present-day workers to shame. Science, like any other discipline, has
its ups and downs, its creative periods and its fallow seasons.
Unfortunately, we are now living through a period where science has become
overrun with the weeds of Mandarin academic thinking -- where money,
pizzazz, and over-complicated, stale, stupid experiments are hailed as
genius, and originality is hounded and crushed by the establishment.
Academic fools hate and fear creativity. That's human nature. It is true in
science, business, the arts, and other institutions.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  CNF Patents
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Patents
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 17:52:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan says:  "As I understand it, you can't get a patent unless you
disclose the process to be patented."
 
It's worse than that John, you must *teach* those trained in the art how to
do it.  The patent office gives a very specific meaning to teach.  To get an
international patent, you must file a disclosure which is then released to
the public a year later.  The last P&F patent disclosure that I looked at did
*not* give a teaching that would work.  So they have not taught, so they will
not get a patent.  It is always possible that a later filing does contain
proper teaching.  This opens up all kinds of possibilities for law suits.  If
there turns out to be something to "cold fusion", it will be in the courts
until the 22nd century.  Yes, 22nd.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  blue@dancer.ns /  End of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: End of calorimetry lessons
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 19:15:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is obvious that Jed Rothwell feels very threatened by any discussion
about the workings of a simple calorimeter.  My efforts to point out
the shortcomings of such instruments have sent him into orbit with so
many misstatements and half truths that there is clearly no point in
trying to communicate with him about such issues.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 17:20:26 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

The "gaussian-xx" package (xx is a year of issue) is used to do quantum
chemistry calculations of the type you describe.  There are other packages
as well for dealing with that problem.  From what I know of the state of
the art, one electron atoms would be very easy to do.
 
This ignores the nuclear potential, but it would be trivial to come up
with a wavefunction and evaluate the nuclear part in first-order
perturbation theory to estimate the size of the part you ignored.
Unless the electron and protons involved have some unusual properties,
you will find the result is negligible on the separation distance so
you can look at effects on the tail of the wavefunction independently.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:19:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>My gas measuring test of a M&F type cell did not have "miles" of Ni.  Instead,
>it had a few nodules of Ni and about 12 inches of Pt wire.  I got either
>a 20% recombination rate (delta between forward and reverse current) or
>a 20% inefficiency delta.
 
Mitchell Swartz reminds me that I can't rule out loading of H into the Ni.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Selective amnesia on negative results
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Selective amnesia on negative results
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 19:46:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell clearly has "forgotten" all the examples where searches for
nuclear reaction products have come up negative even when they were
conducted as part of experiments showing positive excess heat.  I
reminded him that no less an authority than Gene Mallove wrote about
the fact that early in this game Pons and Fleischmann sent cathodes to
Johnson & Mathey for analysis.  Now Steve Jones has to point out that
McKubre admits to having looked for reaction products without success,
Something Jed insists never happened.  Well it did happen!  It leaves
cold fusion advocates with no choice but to admit that their case is
not totally cut and dried, particularly with regard to the Miles-Bush
claim that the reaction produces primarily helium.  That is a result
that clearly requires replication before it gets engraved in stone.
 
I also get a big laugh from Jed's informing us that Yamaguchi does not
want to have his experiment discussed here.  Where does he want it
discussed?  At some carefully staged press conference with no questions
being asked?  OK, Jed, I won't bring it up again unless someone else does.
 
I also note, Jed, that no one has replied to my question concerning
McKubre publishing a claim for having observed a sustained CF reaction
with no power input.  Do you want to clarify this?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / mitchell swartz /  Has SRI looked for ash?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Has SRI looked for ash?
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 18:47:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep15.180842.930@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu [Steven Jones] wrote:
 
=sj    "Ok, Mitch:  tell us about McKubre's results regarding ash.  Clearly,
=sj    McKubre's xs heat claims constitute a "positive experiment."  Yet he has
=sj    looked for helium, tritium, etc. -- what has he found?  Lots of EPRI
=sj    dollars are being spent here.  Yet, from all I've heard from McKubre and
=sj    others, *no* ash has been found at all.  Can you correct this, or will
=sj    you rather correct your statement above?"
 
    to which Jed Rothwell replied [Subject: What McKubre said
    Message-ID: <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM>]
 
=jr "As he often does, Steve Jones is spreading false statements about another
=jr worker in order to support his own untenable nonsense. In this case, he
=jr claims that McKubre at SRI has looked for nuclear products and "not found
=jr them" --  ...     Let me repeat, one last
=jr time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically denied that they have
=jr looked for products and not found them. As Steve disingenuously points out,
=jr they have done some preliminary work in this area, but McKubre has said time
=jr after time:"
     "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
     but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
 
=jr "...   Perhaps they have done additional work, but this is where
=jr things stood as of June, 1993.  ...
=jr [Steve] should admit he is wrong. But, like all
=jr "pathological skeptics" he is incapable of doing that."
 
  We concur with (and thank) Jed.      Steve, will you correct this, or will
           you correct your statement above [or just disappear and hide, only
            to duck the issue, but return and throw "bricks" yet again?    ;-)
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / mitchell swartz /  On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 18:49:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <01H30V4TE80I9PR00X@vms2.uni-c.dk>
  Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
Dieter Britz [BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk] writes:
 
   >  "Isn't it true that the thermometer measures the temperature of the
   >thermometer, and that it does so by removal of a small amount of heat
   >from the system under examination so that the temperature of the system
   >under examination and the thermometer are the same?"
 
=dbr "No, it isn't true."
 
   Dieter, you are in jugular-attack mode again, ignoring facts merely
     to try to gore anyone with an open mind.
   Thermometers do measure the temperature of a thermometer.  That is why
    the liquid expands and indicates the thermometer's temperature.
   Thermometers remove heat from the system.  That is why
    the liquid (Hg, etc) expands to indicate the thermometer's temperature.
 
 
=dbr "So no, a thermometer does not make
=dbr heat into temperature, but a temperature (of the system measured
=dbr  equilibrated with the thermometer itself, as you point out) into a mercury
=dbr  column height,   .... from thhat height or
=dbr voltage, by calibration, we infer a temperature, and from that, knowing the
=dbr system's heat capacity, the heat."
 
   First you disagree, now you agree.  Does or does not the thermometer
  remove heat from the system?  You seem to claim that it does.  But you
  then immediately attack is as if it does not.
 
   I maintain: it is the removal of heat from the system that is absorbed
  within the thermometer.  It is the heat which is absorbed by the indicating
   fluid, which accounts for the change in volume of said fluid, which indicates
   said temperature of said thermometer.    QED
 
=dbr  "Actually, "heat" should be heat above a
=dbr reference level, for a given temperature above a reference level.
=dbr  Pedantic enough?"
 
  Huh?  Pedantic? (see below **)
  No, Dieter, just obscure enough to indicate that we, and
  possibly you, don't understand about what you are speaking.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (**)   pedantic:  (after Webster (ibid))
      1)   a schoolmaster esp. in a petty school
      2)   one who parades his learining
      3)   one who is unimaginative or who unduly empahasizes minutiae in
             the presentation or use of knowledge
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / R Schroeppel /  Which Statistics?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Which Statistics?
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 20:39:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
>  Oh No, another jolly degenerate physicist joins the ranks.
 
Are jolly degenerate physicists bosons or fermions?  Can we expect
a lattice condensation, or does the exclusion principle apply?
What about a JDPhaser?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Greg Kuperberg /  IBM interrupts
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IBM interrupts
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 20:19:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930916161957_72240.1256_EHK39-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Also, if you ever want the nitty-gritty inside story on circa 1980 DOS
>interrupts and the RS-232, just let me know.
 
Ah, that brings back fond memories.  I was never abreast of MS-DOS
interrupts, but I knew about the ones in the ROM BIOS.  There was the
keyboard interrupt, which threw away key-up events.  There was the beep
interrupt, which dedicated the CPU for the duration of the beep.  There
was the timer interrupt, which repackaged a clock tick at 18.2 ticks
per second into time in hundredths of a second.  And there was the draw
pixel interrupt, which was about 50 times slower than it had to be
because it did multiplies and divides for no good reason.
 
Yes, the finest minds at IBM and Microsoft put that software together.
But what does this have to do with XS Heat?  I thought you only cared
about heat, not computer interrupts.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 20:13:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> I maintain: it is the removal of heat from the system that is absorbed
> within the thermometer.
 
But what if the thermometer is hot and is stuck into ice water?  :-)
 
But seriously, I have a few comments on temperature and heat.
 
Heat is the random kinetic (motion) energy of the molecules, including
lateral, rotational, and vibrational motions.
 
The total heat of a body is the sum of all random energies of the molecular
motions.
 
The temperature of a body is the average energy of each molecule -- well,
no, not quite.  It is actually the momemtum of the average individual
molecular motion.  Momentum = mass * velocity.  Momentum is always conserved
in a collision, which explains some of the properties of temperature.
 
A heavy gas such as Xenon will obtain the same momemtum per molecule as
a light gas such as Hydrogen when the two are in thermal contact.  By
the energy equation e=1/2mv^2, we know that the Hydrogen molecules will
have considerably more kinetic energy per molecule than Xenon molecules
at the same temperature -- even if they are intermixed and allowed to
collide all day.
 
Many materials have average molecular spacing dependent upon the average
molecular momentum.  So in a mercury thermometer the volume of the mercury
expands or contracts depending upon the average momentum (or temperature.)
 
To translate between temperature and energy (and hence heat) we have to
know the mass of the molecules and the number of degrees of freedom in
which they can equipartition the kinetic energy.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Steve Morris /  Re: Truncated Fusion Digests
     
Originally-From: sjm@yar.ptltd.com (Steve Morris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Truncated Fusion Digests
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 19:52:34 GMT
Organization: Phoenix Technologies Ltd.

 
Sounds like a feature to me
--
Steve Morris
<steve_morris@ptltd.com>
Phoenix Technologies LTD
38 Sidney Street
Cambridge, MA 02135
(617) 551-5042
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensjm cudfnSteve cudlnMorris cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  TB's may want to yelp at this
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TB's may want to yelp at this
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 21:33:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says:  "In either case, - to forestall yelps from the TB's - if
the purported excess heat is greater than 1.54*i, recombination cannot account
for it anyway."
 
Now a quote from my log book run time 1675810 seconds, 25 July 1993:
 
"Another run away temp. followed by a reversal.  But now there is no current
step.  Bas lost aprox. 11 cc.  So far 2200 joules accumulated.  TCELL = 74 C
But reached 77 C.  Very strange non-linear cell constant.  Varies 8/1 from 1.1
to 8.8 C/watt.  VPLTTEC confirms a real power change.  Cell temperature jumped
from 36 to 47 C in 1 minute so hard to tell if 39 C is magic.  TCAT *dropped*
from 57.8 C to 34.6 C!!!  So TCEL and TCAT *inverted*.  Looks like
recombination!!!  Suddenly cell started recombination *AND* with a release of
energy!  TSPL increased significantly as did TPUK confirming a real release of
energy.  Looks like this one event alone is worth a paper to Fusion Technology.
Let's write one.  We don't know what it means, but are pretty sure of facts.
Note if this sort of thing is common in these experiments, then almost everyone
es making the wrong measurements except possibly McKubre."
 
Here if the purported excess heat is determined by the temperature rise, then
I would have measured "anomalous heat" of 43 watts, or 430 watts per cc.  While
not a record claim, this would at least make me a "world class" CNF heat
claimer.  But the experiment has a second way of measuring heat.  The null
balance calorimeter, and that indicated about 200 mw during this period.  So
"claims" of more than 1.54*i only say that recombination is not the only
error.
 
While the 200 mw (actually 2200 joules over 11000 seconds) is curious, it can
not be taken too seriously since it could easily be chemistry.  It was also
not distinguishable from zero after several days.
 
The above log entry is exactly as I wrote it except for a few typos like Bas
for Gas and use of *aaa* where I had an underline.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Alcator Reports
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Reports
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 22:14:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Stephen Farifax has been posting the Alcator weekly reports.  I for one
encouraged him to do so.  Now I find that my eyeballs glaze over when I
read somehting like " ... so far this week have been lower single null
divertor plasmas with slowly increasing elongation; ... "
 
How about it, Stephen, pick one item a week like the above and explain it
a little in terms we can all understand.  Tell us why it is important.  Then
after a while, you might have a few more hot fusion boosters.  Possibly the
hot fusion work is not appreciated because while you are doing heric thigs
we do not know about them or understand them.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The factor to multiply by i
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The factor to multiply by i
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 22:14:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan has several times now worried about the number to multiply by
the current to get the energy used up by the disassociation of water.  Since
the electrochemists have not yet responded I fearlessly step in.
 
It is 1.48 * i for H20  and 1.53 * i for D2O
 
But I worry that Dieter Britz has used 1.54 * i and that he knows better.
 
My source is from the Appleby paper in ACCF1 where he quotes 1.48 for H2O
and 1.527 for D2O
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / david atkatz /  Jed hits the nail...
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed hits the nail...
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 20:58:56 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
>The reason...is clear to me: modern day science
>education, training and standards are horrible! The system is
>overrun by academic rot, so that blockheads can get PhD's
>without ever learning the simple A-B-C's of fundamental physics.
>They have no quantitative grasp of common physics, they have
>no intuitive sense of what works and what does not. They
>leap to conclusions and they make such extraordinarily stupid
>statements that they would have flunked a high-school physics
>course 100 years ago (for that matter, they would have flunked at
>Cornell 20 years ago).
 
                Nice job, Jed--you've summed up CF to a tee.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: End of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: End of calorimetry lessons
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 21:10:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>about the workings of a simple calorimeter.  My efforts to point out
>the shortcomings of such instruments
 
Both you and Tom Droege speak of non-linear transfer functions, or words
to that effect.
 
I still think that a "simple" calorimeter is possible.  We just want to
make sure that our thermal resistance, across which we measure a temperature
difference, operates in a well defined way.
 
i.e.   Where I is insulation, T is a thermometer and == equal a metalic bar.
 
      IIIIIIIIIII      #1              #2      IIIIIIIIIII
      II       II      T               T       II       II
      II       II      T               T       II       II
      II       IIIIIII-T-IIIIIIIIIIIII-T-IIIIIIII       II
      II     ================bar===================     II
      II       IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII       II
      II cold  II                              II hot   II
      II       II                              II       II
      IIIIIIIIIII                              IIIIIIIIIII
 
As long as "bar" is well behaved as a thermal resistance, horrible malestroms
could be taking place in "hot" or "cold" and we'd still get a good measure
of heat flow between the two.
 
It's just a bad idea, I think, to put the crucial temperature probes into
the malestoms themselves.
 
Think of it as a four-point current measurement device :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 23:14:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John, the problem with your four point calorimeter is that it works on
the wrong problem.  It is not so hard to measure heat flow.  The problem
is all that IIIIIIII that you show.  There is just no good insulation.  All
my effort goes into ***active*** schemes to make good insulators.  My guess
is that with 6" of styrafoam and good thermometers that the system you drew
would be good to 10%.  It certainly amazed me when I started measuring the
temperature drop across 1 foot of 1/16" aluminum plate covered with 1 1/2"
of foam on all sides.  It was several degrees just due to heat loading from
ambient.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 23:33:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

One more point on John Logajan's four point calorimeter.  John attempts to
connect the left side of his calorimeter to the right side through a
conducting rod.  Suppose the rod is 1/4" in area, and the two sides are
12" by 12" in area.  In this case about the same amount of heat would be
conducted through the 12" by 12" area, even if it were filled solid with
foam as would be carried through the rod.  For this admittedly crude
estimate, the error in measurement based on the temperature difference and
the conductivity of a copper rod would be off by 100%.
 
Relative thermal resistance Foam  0.015
                            Copper 220
 
Of course, anything going on in the environment of the calorimeter would
result in a completely whacko reading.  Before someone corrects me, the
above example has more like a 200% error.  But you get the point.  Nice idea
John, but it works on the wrong problem.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: TB's may want to yelp at this
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TB's may want to yelp at this
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 23:41:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Gas lost aprox. 11 cc.
>TCAT *dropped* from 57.8 C to 34.6 C
 
Can I pick and choose which one of these observations I like for my
dead bird hypothesis?  :-)  Would you care to guess which one I don't like? :-)
 
Maybe I should hunt siwwy wabbits instead.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John George /  Re: How his calorimeter works
     
Originally-From: johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How his calorimeter works
Date: 16 Sep 1993 16:31:18 -0700
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

People on all sides of this discussion make mistatements or may lose
their cool (including myself in a rather intemperate moment).
 
It is much more refreshing to read the cool responses than the vitriol,
even my own. Fortunately for me, Dale Bass is thick-skinned enough to
take on all comers. I think he may even enjoy flame-baiting a few of us.
 
We are only human, and we are wrestling with the boundaries of what is
known. I often wonder where minds such as ours would play if we hadn't
found this cool park. Waterslides, rope-climbs, tinkertoys, all the really
neat stuff.
 
I loved it when Cmdr. Data was playing poker with Einstein, Newton and
Hawkings. Nice choice of playmates!
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What McKubre said
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre said
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 23:10:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>them" -- as if looking for products was like pulling up the sheet to find
>your glasses under the bed (where the dog left them). Let me repeat, one last
>time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically denied that they have
>looked for products and not found them.
 
     Let me again point out, one last time, that to *not* look for
     high energy reaction products in a reaction that has been touted
     as fusion by *you* seems rather interesting.
 
     Apart from personal safety considerations, it seems sort of
     like quantifying the weight of angels on a pinhead
     without actually checking to see if there *are* any angels.
 
>you would not fool me. I assure all readers that Pons and Fleischmann and the
>other Toyota scientists are not using any stupid tricks.
 
     'So then they're just stupid', he asked dryly?
 
     Or was that 'damply'?
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I Never Evade Anything
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Never Evade Anything
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 23:33:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930916161957_72240.1256_EHK39-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Dale Bass asked me "what nuclear reaction" causes CF. I answered "nobody
>knows! That's what they are trying to find out."
 
     When, pray tell, did you actually answer?  There is neither hide nor hair
     of an answer on my spool directory.
 
>Inexplicably, he responded:
>
>     "I suppose this means you are going to _evade_ the question 'which
>     nuclear reaction?'.
>
>     Too bad.  I so wanted to follow with 'Why are P&F not dead?'."
>
>This is an inept argument, Dale. My answer was big as life, right smack in
>front of your face: "NOBODY KNOWS. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT."
 
     How exactly are they trying to find out?  It seems that McKubre and
     P&F are purposefully trying *not* to find out.
 
     In any case, there is *no* evidence the 'excess heat' is a nuclear
     reaction; I think it's fairies.  That's as good a hypothesis as
     a nuclear reaction.  Of course, experimental error caused by using
     an quasi-equilibrium assumption on a time varying nonlinear system
     is a better hypothesis.  Or experimental error caused by very poor
     understanding of the experimental system.
 
>I never evade anything.
 
     You evade all the time.  The opening salvo of this was an evasion.
     Y'all seem to belong to the school where you think if you repeat
     something enough, it will be true.
 
     So your statement above is a *lie*, something you seem to be bandying
     about rather readily these days.
 
>If you want to understand the nuclear theoretical work-in-progress, why are
>you asking a programmer from Atlanta? This is stupid! Read the literature,
 
     No, I just wanted to embarrass you.  I think I've succeeded.
 
> The system is overrun by
>academic rot, so that blockheads can get PhD's without ever learning the
>simple A-B-C's of fundamental physics.
 
     And so overrun with rot that blockheads can get Bachelor's degrees without
     being able to understand rational argument or even discern the nature
     of scientific investigation.
 
     I think the relative knowledge of fundamental physics of the PhD-holders
     around here to certain vocal supporters of CNF is apparent to anyone
     whose head is free from tunnel-like restrictive encumbrances.
 
                                 dale
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.16 / John George /  What a Week!
     
Originally-From: johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What a Week!
Date: 16 Sep 1993 19:08:21 -0700
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

I can't believe all the postings in the last week or so. It's getting
to take an hour a day to keep up. Just have to stick around longer after
work. Believe me I am loving it, a lurker's paradise. Autodesk has a
software package called Hyperchem for designing molecules that does
take some QM into its depictions. I am going to have to mosey over and
ask the guys just what and how much of this they understand.
 
Dale Bass took on CF TBs and HF TBs in the same week. What a strong
constitution. Better men than I, etc. Imagine a basement of glowing
radwaste and HOT and COLD fusion fire raining down above. AAUUGH.
 
I am gratified by the responses on the "ignition" comments by P&F in
their followup to Physics Letters A. I don't have any notion of what
is happening in what was described as Stage 5. It doesn't sound like
anything I ever read before, but P&F are either digging themselves in
deeper or REALLY DAMN CONFIDENT.
 
As I write this, the thought occurred to me to write to EPRI and ask them
to post a little teaser on who's going to be presenting at ICCF4.
 
Dr. Steven Jones, could you describe the method that you used to do the
initial loading of the diamond anvil with D? I should think that you must
be using way more than 1 ATM gas.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Timothy May /  Re: Proof came in 1991
     
Originally-From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proof came in 1991
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 02:24:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
 
: As I understand it, you can't get a patent unless you disclose the process
: to be patented.  If you leave out vital bits of information, then they
: aren't protected by the patent.
 
Not just that, but the entire patent may be thrown out if the standard
of "candor" is not upheld. Basically, in exchange for the temporary
monopoly of a patent, one is expected to fully disclose the details.
 
: However, if they ever want to get a patent in the US, they are going to
: have to disclose the vital bits.
 
Exactly.
 
-Tim May
 
 
--
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentcmay cudfnTimothy cudlnMay cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A perpetual motion machine!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A perpetual motion machine!
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 04:21:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <930915201357_72240.1256_EHK50-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell,
72240.1256@compuserve.com writes:
>...makes no difference. You don't measure heat by watching how the water
>temperature rises, you wait until the temperature stabilizes! It takes a
>couple of minutes with a fast response calorimeter, or maybe a half hour
with
>a slow one. Yes, the climb is complex and asymptotic, it gradually
approaches
>a value and then fluctuates up and down slightly around that value.
People do
>not try to take a reading before the "settle time" passes. We do not
compute
>power out based on the shape of the curve, we compute it by measuring the
>point at which the temperature stabilizes. This wonderful curve you are
so
>obsessed with has nothing to do with how the instrument is used.
>
>Experts like P&F understand that curve of course, and I am sure it tells
them
>a lot, but that is not what they use to measure energy. Perhaps with
different
>waveforms, you might be able to generate different exponential slopes. I
>wouldn't know, but I kinda doubt you could. So what if you do? Toss them
out,
>we don't use those slopes to measure energy, we wait until the instrument
>reaches a steady state, because that is so much easier to analyze. After
the
>calorimeter settles, as I said, it gives average energy out (watts, not
>joules). You can not fool the water into stabilizing at the wrong
temperature.
 
Umm, I'm new around here, but I thought that the temperature of the water
indicated how much energy was in it, not how much power was coming out.
So far you've only indicated how the calorimeter measures the combined
energy of the bath + test cell.  How does one get power from this point?
I'm interested in learning how this stuff works, and obviously this is
just "basic calorimetry," but since everyone's arguing about it could
someone
patiently explain to me just what one does to get power instead of energy,
so that I can follow the discussion better?  Perhaps if there's an FAQ I
could
look there, but I haven't seen one.
 
*******
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Strictly my own opinions...
 
P.S.  I may be studying hot fusion, but that doesn't mean I reject cold
fusion.
I just want to know how nature works, and see that my children have
energy.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Needed: Honesty (in everything)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Needed: Honesty (in everything)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 05:38:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

We have to remember that Terry will spend years working on his interests
(Twist of Ribbon was it?) yet show his blind side when it comes to
hot fusion. I guess we all know that Hot Fusion is really a non-science
or so Terry would have us believe.
 
I'm not convinced that fusion power plants will ever be practical but
I think that it is at least proceeding along a scientifically feasible
path. This is something that Terry and his Twist and his penchant for
bosonic condensates can certainly not claim.
 
But to keep it in perspective, Terry is working from the viewpoint that
CNF is bunk, BUT if it is real there must be some sort of mechanism.
To that extent I applaud Terry, but that doesn't make him one wit more
correct.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What McKubre said
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre said
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 06:08:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> but McKubre has said time
>after time:
>
>     "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
>     but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
 
I see, Jed Rothwell refutes Steven Jones direct quotes from a published
scientific journal with his claims from a newspaper article.
 
By this point one must wonder why Rothwell bothers to continue on here.
He has certainly gone far over the edge from True Blue True Believer to
raving lunatic.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: I Never Evade Anything
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Never Evade Anything
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 06:13:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930916161957_72240.1256_EHK39-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>This is an inept argument, Dale. My answer was big as life, right smack in
>front of your face: "NOBODY KNOWS. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT."
 
And how are they doing this if they _aren't_ looking for nuclear ash as
you just stated in your previous message? Just what way is it Jed? Are they
looking for nuclear reactions or are they not?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: I Never Evade Anything
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Never Evade Anything
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 06:17:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CDH040.L9w@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     And so overrun with rot that blockheads can get Bachelor's degrees without
>     being able to understand rational argument or even discern the nature
>     of scientific investigation.
 
It just ocurred to me that Jed Rothwell is really Lydon LaRouche writing
on Internet from his prison cell.
 
He seems to have the same logic, knowledge and priorities. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Killing five birds with one stone
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Killing five birds with one stone
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 10:14:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1407:
 
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>The M&F cell, with its miles of fine Ni wire, is another kettle of fish. In
>>that case, I am almost certain that there is extensive recombination right in
>>the electrolyte.
 
>My gas measuring test of a M&F type cell did not have "miles" of Ni.  Instead,
>it had a few nodules of Ni and about 12 inches of Pt wire.  I got either
>a 20% recombination rate (delta between forward and reverse current) or
>a 20% inefficiency delta.  The Pt wire was in both the electrolyte and the
>head space.  I didn't have any explosive recombination in the headspace,
>and the 20% delta is hard to explain there anyhow.
 
Strange; my guess is that it was the naked metal in the head space. The Pt in
the electrolyte is charged very positively and evolving oxygen. True, if some
D2 bubbles got to it, they'd be gobbled and this would reduce current
efficiency, but I don't believe they do get near it; here I trust F&P.
However: I just checked with the bibliography and found this:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisek J, Fuerst L, Balej J;          J. Electroanal. Chem. 278 (1989) 99.
"Energy balance of D2O electrolysis with a palladium cathode.
Part II. Experimental results".
** A careful reenactment of FPH's experiments, with divided and undivided
celss, and better calorimetry, making use of the relations developed in Part
I (Balej and Divisek). Whether using H2O or D2O, the heat measured is within
0.5% the same as predicted from thermodynamics. Inititally in the undivided
cell, some of the evolved deuterium gas recombined with evolved oxygen at
the Pd electrode; as this becomes loaded with D, however, this recombination
reaction decreased, eventually to zero upon reaching a loading of PdD(x), x
= 0.7-0.8. After long electrolysis (270 h), however, appreciable Pt
deposits were found on the Pd electrode (from corrosion of the Pt anode,
also found by Williams et al), which again catalysed recombination in an
undivided cell.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- so I may be wrong and then it gets interesting to know just how much F&P
made out of their gas measurements - was it a single check, or did they do it
at all times? We don't know and they certainly wouldn't tell me; they won't
even answer my faxed query about a copy of that boiling-cell video. Too bad.
 
>>In either case, - to forestall yelps from the TB's - if the purported excess
>>heat is greater than 1.54*i, recombination cannot account for it anyway.
 
>Shouldn't that number be 1.48*i?  I'm not sure what "overvoltage" or
>"overpotential" refers to, but I believe the 1.48*i number is the amount
>of energy lost to the work of dissociation, whereas (1.54-1.48)*i is some
>sort of inefficiency factor which is needed, but which appears as local heat.
 
Sorry, I have bandied several of these numbers about in the last few posts,
having forgotten (for the moment) the proper values. I don't have easy access
right now to the enthalpy of formation of (liquid) heavy water but that of
light water is -286 kJ/mol. Dividing by n=2 and F=98487 C/mol, that makes a
thermoneutral potential of 1.48 V, i.e. that for the electrolysis of water. I
note in FPH-89 the figure 1.54 V for heavy water, which is what I should have
used in my post. Going backwards from that figure, I make it -297 kJ/mol for
the enthalpy of formation of heavy water, which I trust is correct.
So: when electrolysing light water, one should subtract 1.46*i from the total
power; for heavy water, it's 1.54*i. I'll try to remember (my wife would give
a short laugh at this point).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Dieter Britz /  RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 11:35:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1409:
 
>  In Message-ID: <01H30V4TE80I9PR00X@vms2.uni-c.dk>
>  Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
>Dieter Britz [BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk] writes:
 
>   >  "Isn't it true that the thermometer measures the temperature of the
>   >thermometer, and that it does so by removal of a small amount of heat
>   >from the system under examination so that the temperature of the system
>   >under examination and the thermometer are the same?"
 
>=dbr "No, it isn't true."
 
>   Dieter, you are in jugular-attack mode again, ignoring facts merely
>     to try to gore anyone with an open mind.
>   Thermometers do measure the temperature of a thermometer.  That is why
>    the liquid expands and indicates the thermometer's temperature.
>   Thermometers remove heat from the system.  That is why
>    the liquid (Hg, etc) expands to indicate the thermometer's temperature.
 
Mitch, you must try to distinguish between an argument on a scientific point,
and a personal (jugular) attack. I was pointing out the fallacy of your
statement that a thermometer "measures the temperature ... Would that not ...
be a conversion of heat ... to a temperature...". We agree that the
thermometer becomes part of the system it is measuring; after you dip it in,
you need to wait until there is equilibrium, i.e. the same temperature within
and without the thermometer. Seen as a transducer, what it does is to convert
a temperature (not a heat) into a column height readout. Nothing jugular or
confusing about this - at least, I'm not confused, and you won't be either if
you read that carefully. Others have tried to point out that there is a
complicated relationship between that column height (read off as "degrees")
and the total heat content of a cell with continually changing temperature
gradients. As an example, read the paper by Oyama, who had two thermometers in
his cell, and the one above the cathode consistently had a higher reading than
the one below; both were fluctuating.
 
Please no dictionaries at twenty paces, this game gets nobody anywhere.
Besides, I don't have a Websters; this is not the US of A, you know.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / John Logajan /  Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 11:38:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>The problem is all that IIIIIIII that you show.  There is just no good
>insulation.
 
To get around the "non-linear transfer function" problem, however, we
just need our insulation to be well behaved in the temperature range
under study also.
 
It would be best if our insulators were more perfect, but as long as they
are linear, and as long as we maintain more or less constant ambient
external conditions, our device should enjoy some useful amount of
precision, and depending upon our "calibration" tests, some amount of
useful accuracy.
 
The error figures you give assume that we haven't taken into account
any of the insulative losses at all.  But of course, these are all lumped
into any calibration run we attempt.   It would be difficult to avoid
having them so accounted, even if we desired otherwise.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / John Logajan /  Re: The factor to multiply by i
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The factor to multiply by i
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 11:53:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>It is 1.48 * i for H20  and 1.53 * i for D2O
 
Mitchell Swartz suggested the same in an e-mail to me.  I thought you were
both wrong, so I looked it up in the CRC and there is a 3% difference in
the heat of formation.  So you are both right.
 
No wonder electrolysis works to increase the concentration of D.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Latent energy versus power
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latent energy versus power
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 15:54:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Robert F. Heeter asks:
 
     "I thought that the temperature of the water indicated how much energy
     was in it, not how much power was coming out. So far you've only
     indicated how the calorimeter measures the combined energy of the bath +
     test cell.  How does one get power from this point?"
 
You measure power with a static calorimeter by measuring the difference
between the temperature of the cell electrolyte and the bath (the "Delta T").
With a flow calorimeter, you compare the temperature of the water going in
with the water coming out. Most people keep the bath hotter than the room
ambient temperature, to assure that any leaks go from cell, to bath, to room
air, rather than the other direction. In other words, by keeping the bath
hotter than the air, they make certain that measurements underestimate the
power, rather than overestimate it.
 
 
There has been some discussion of patents here. I am not familiar with
European and Japanese patent laws, but I do not think they have the same time
restrictions and disclosure arrangements as the U.S. However, in all cases,
patent law forces eventual disclosure of the nitty-gritty details. Patent law
serves two purposes: to protect the inventor's rights, and to encourage
widespread dissemination of knowledge and know-how. The disclosure fills the
second goal. Because patents always force disclosure of all details, and
because patents are so difficult and time consuming to get, and they offer
such limited protection, many corporations choose not to file them. Instead,
they keep the information secret. They enforce this secrecy with the usual
array of non-disclosure agreements and corporate security. In my experience,
there is *far more* vital information in trade secrets than there is in
patents and other publicly available information. I cannot put a number on it,
but I am sure that in most industries the vast majority of facts, figures,
designs, know-how and other nitty-gritty information you need to make a product
is never made public under any circumstances.
 
I know only a few corporations or individuals who have applied for patents.
They did so because they had no intention of manufacturing the product
themselves, they wanted other corporations to do it instead. As far as I can
tell, Toyota has every intention of manufacturing CF devices, so they have
nothing to gain by telling other people how to do it. If I was them, I would
not file many patents, except for the most basic inventions. I would keep
improvements and elaborations strictly secret.
 
Patents run out after a certain period, I think 16 years. Trade secrets also
gradually evaporate, as people in other corporations figure out how to copy
you, and as your own people leave and join competitors. Trade secrets and
patents can only give you a temporary advantage, which can only be maintained
by more R&D, to push the technology further along.
 
 
I see Richard Blue has decided he will not build his Perpetual Motion Machine.
What a pity! This field attracts people like him. Every month or so, some
flako person falls out of the woodwork and tells me he knows how to make water
hotter than it should be "just by changing the waveform." Most of these people
are like Richard: they have "a theory," some arcane secret knowledge, some
rare and wonderful formula that they assure me I would never understand (like
Richard says). Most of them are also like Richard in that they refuse to be
pinned down, they refuse to actually try to build their Mythical Machine,
because they are sane enough to realize it would never work. Richard will
talk, and talk, and talk, but he knows he is wrong, so he will never dare to
do an experiment. Steve Jones is braver! He actually claimed he can pull off
this miracle. Either he is braver, or stupider, or he thinks he can fool us
more easily with dish washing soap in the electrolyte, or what-have-you.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / mitchell swartz /  On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 14:45:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <01H31YVFV50Y9PPZTW@vms2.uni-c.dk>
   Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
Dieter Britz [BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk] writes:
 
= "Mitch, you must try to distinguish between an argument on a scientific point,
= and a personal (jugular) attack. I was pointing out the fallacy of your
= statement that a thermometer "measures the temperature ... Would that not ...
= be a conversion of heat ... to a temperature...". We agree that the
= thermometer becomes part of the system it is measuring; after you dip it in,
= you need to wait until there is equilibrium, i.e. the same temperature within
= and without the thermometer. Seen as a transducer, what it does is to convert
= a temperature (not a heat) into a column height readout."
 
  1. You remain incorrect.  The thermometer requires the removal of HEAT from
  the system to expand the fluid which heralds the thermometer's temperature.
 
  It is not a transducer which measures the irradiation of the system
  (eg. based upon "black-body radiation") to  derive the system temperature.
 
  It is an invention which removes some heat (a sample from the system) and
  assumes that the thermal mass of the thermometer is much less than the thermal
  mass of the system.
 
   2. As your e-mail to me indicates you are, in fact,  going for "the jugular":
 
    "Hello Mitch,
      sorry to be going for your jugular, ...."
 [From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>; Subject: RE: your comments - Hi
      Message-Id: <01H2XY64HHIA9PQWSB@vms2.uni-c.dk>]
 
  Therefore, stick to the physics.  OK?
 
= "Please no dictionaries at twenty paces, this game gets nobody anywhere.
= Besides, I don't have a Websters; this is not the US of A, you know."
 
  Dieter, the denotation(s) stand.   And incidentally, I may have been
   wrong, as it appears that you have been pedantic (albeit incorrect about the
   physics) in this matter.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (**)   pedantic:  (after Webster (ibid))
      1)   a schoolmaster esp. in a petty school
      2)   one who parades his learning
      3)   one who is unimaginative or who unduly empahasizes minutiae in
             the presentation or use of knowledge
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / John George /  Re: Alcator Reports
     
Originally-From: johnge@autodesk.com (John George)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alcator Reports
Date: 17 Sep 1993 08:04:48 -0700
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

No better way to say it. AMEN, Tom!
 
I am interested in understanding what's going on, please explain
your jargon.
 
THX        JLG
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohnge cudfnJohn cudlnGeorge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Jim Bowery /  There is only one side in this "debate".
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: There is only one side in this "debate".
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 16:52:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johnge@autodesk.com (John George) writes:
>People on all sides of this discussion make mistatements or may lose
>their cool (including myself in a rather intemperate moment).
>
>We are only human, and we are wrestling with the boundaries of what is
>known.
 
The true disbeliever side is the government and the government has
no business taking sides on issues of science or technology, let alone
business development.  They are, even without taking any action, having
a profound chilling effect on diversity of investment in fusion technology.
 
Actual damage to date:  Billions invested in fusion with no return.
Potential damage:  Virtually infinite.
 
At the worst, the true believer side is a bunch of con-men who are
running around stealing money from unsuspecting fools who are just a
little too greedy for their own good.
 
Actual damage to date:  Millions invested in excess heat with no return.
Potential damage:  A billion dollars or so.
 
I don't think there is any comparison between the damage that the two sides
are actually doing, let alone the damage that they are capable of doing
at their worst.
 
This isn't a matter of an academic debate or even cut-throat commercial
competition.
 
This is, and always will be, the politics of corruption.
 
It is totally one-sided.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / R Schroeppel /  neutron half-life
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutron half-life
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 20:52:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In another context, I remarked that the half-life of a neutron
was about twenty minutes, and seemed not very accurately known.
 
In a personal note, which I hope he will forgive me for posting,
Jim Day reports on his search for the neutron half-life.
 
>   In a recent posting to sci.physics.fusion you mentioned that the
    half-life of a neutron is 20 minutes. For all I know, you may be
    right. However, I spent a few minutes trying to find the "official"
    value. What I found was both surprising and disconcerting.
 
    First I consulted my trusty Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, the
    1983 edition. It says the neutron half-life is about 13 minutes.
 
    Then I consulted Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, the seventh
    edition, published in 1989. It says the neutron half-life is 12.8
    minutes, roughly the same as Funk & Wagnalls.
 
    To make doubly sure, I consulted the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
    Science & Technology, the seventh edition, published in 1992. It
    says the neutron half-life is 10.61 minutes, plus or minus 0.16 min.
 
    I considered consulting the CRC Handbook, but decided against it.
    It might very well give another value. Isn't science wonderful?
 
Jim Carr reports, from the particle data book, 10.27 minutes, and that
an older version of the particle data book gives 10.4 minutes.
 
>From the evidence, it seems clear that the neutron half-life is
decreasing, and fairly rapidly at that.  I suppose we should warn
somebody, although I can't think whom.  If the proton or electron
half-lives should start decreasing, we're in a heap o' trouble.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  rumored fission in cold fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: rumored fission in cold fusion
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 22:32:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Unnamed sources inform me that Jed Rothwell and Gene Mallove no longer
have any connection with Clustron Inc.  Perhaps that explains why they
don't answer Frank Close's questions concerning the Brightson reaction
which does not conserve energy. ;-)
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  No! to perpetual motion (of the mouth)
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No! to perpetual motion (of the mouth)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 22:32:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To correct that latest ravings from Jed Rothwell, at no point have I
made any statements that imply perpertual motion.  I firmly believe that
all the usual conservation laws should be considered in any discussion
of possible cold fusion reactions, something the advocates aren't so
clear about at times.  I am amazed that Jed can correctly state that
readings of the calorimeter temperature must be delayed until equilibrium
is reached, but still not realize that information about the heat source
may be lost during that wait.  In fact I think it should be obvious that
for a short heat pulse the source may turn on and off again before the
temperature ever comes to equilibrium.  As to whether I would learn anything
by building a calorimeter in a plastic toothbrush box, I don't really
think so.  I am quite confident that I could build a nonworking calorimeter
if I thought such an exercise would prove anything.  I am sure that anyone
who has taken or taught a general physics course knows something about
crude calorimeters.  I have already been through that exercise.  In fact
I have even made some real measurements using calorimetry.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.18 / John Logajan /  Where is zero (loading)?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where is zero (loading)?
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 00:18:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

This following is an e-mail exchange which is probably of interest to some
net readers:
 
     I asked:
 
[[[ How do you "reset" your Pd cathodes to get a good loading measurement on
the next run? ]]]
 
     Mark Schlichting responded in email:
 
[[[  One of the most accepted means is low heating in an oxidizing environment.
Just heat the cathod to 300 C in oxygen.  Do this slowly...  The hydrogen
content will drop to very near zero quite rapidly.......
 
The rate of hydrogen removal is limited by the allowed diffusion rate of
hydrogen is solid palladium.  The difusion rate is also fairly linear
with temperature.  Increasing temperatuer will increase the rate at which
hydrogen leaves the system.....
 
This practice.. heating in oxygen also 'favorably' prepares the cathod surface
for accepting H or D....  It removes the 'Brunner-Nernst' layer that can
inhibit H adsorbtion into the matrix...
 
Secondly, this practice, (if you raise the temperature) will anneal the
crystal lattice and remove the strain.  I believe this will also aid in
obtaining the higher H or D loadings. ]]]
 
 
     Tom Droege responded to my forwarding of Mark's e-mail:
 
[[[  If you read my postings, I think I am
always careful to state that I do not know the initial loading.  For example
this last cell had 6 or 7 runs.  Sometimes the cell sits a while between runs,
sometimes I reverse or short it in an effort to remove the gas.  In all the
reports I have tried to make clear that I was reporting a delta, not an
absolute value of loading.  Note that this will usually understate the loading.
But if there is an oxide layer on the cathode due to long term revers operation
it could possibly go the other way.
 
In any case, I have never heated any of my cathodes as I do not have
a reasonable set up to do so.  My brother and I have discussed it at some
length.  Moore recommends shorting the cell, and got very good results, but
then he was working with very small wire cathodes, I remember 1/10 mm.  he
was able to remove all the gas in a half hour or so by shorting.  I sometimes
have run at a small reverse current for 24 hours or so.  You can tell when
the cathode runs out of gas by the potential change.
 
I have not heat treated any cathode.  This means that since most have come
from Pd coin bars that they have been heavily cold worked.  Some have been
wires from Johnsen Mathey (Aesar) and they were also heavily cold worked. ]]]
 
 
     To which I now reply:
 
TD: I have never heated any of my cathodes as I do not have a reasonable set
TD:  up to do so.
 
 
Well, a bunsen burner, an alcohol flame, or a stove top gas flame should
easily get you to over 300C in a slightly oxidative environment (about
20% :-).   Mark recommended doing this "slowly" but didn't say why.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 12:28
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

Excuse a question from an absolute ignoramus, but all this talk
about percipitates, insulators, and calorimiter constants, makes me
wonder what would happen to all of the above if an unloading episode
coupled with some cell chemistry to cause the cell to foam?
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Bruce Scott /  Explaining some "Tokamaker" jargon (was Re: Alcator Reports
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Explaining some "Tokamaker" jargon (was Re: Alcator Reports
Date: 17 Sep 1993 19:13:34 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
> [...]  " ... so far this week have been lower single null
>divertor plasmas with slowly increasing elongation; ... "
 
>How about it, Stephen, pick one item a week like the above and explain it
>a little in terms we can all understand.
 
This bit about the "divertor" and "null" refers to the new way people
came up with in the late 1970s (earlier, maybe, but if so I am not
aware of it) in order to keep the edge of the plasma clean, which
means as impurity-free as possible.
 
To think simply about a tokamak plasma, one can ignore the toriodicity
and consider a one-dimensional cylindrical geometry. Of the three
coordinates in a cylinder, (r,theta,z), think of the plasma variables
such as particle density, n, and temperature, T, as dependent only on
r. Then, the "center" is at r = 0, and the "edge" is at r = a.
 
In basic scenarios, the plasma is maintained by edge fuelling and
central heating, because that's the easiest way to do it. The most
basic form of heating is "Ohmic", in which resistive dissipation of
the main plasma current (flowing along z in this geometry) is the only
heat source. In a resistive equilibrium, the z-component of the
driving electric field is a constant; since the resistivity is
proportional to T to the -3/2, then the current density, J, is
proportional to T to the 3/4 (the total current is found by
integrating J over 2 pi r dr from r = 0 to r = a).  J and T both peak
at the center, with profiles dependent on a transport mechanism which
is not yet well understood. The plasma is fuelled from the edge either
by puffing gas or by firing in cryogenic hydrogen pellets. The neutral
H starts out cold, is heated by the electrons as it penetrates, and is
eventually also ionised by collisions with electrons. In a large, hot
tokamak like Alcator C-mod, neither fuelling method leads to much
penetration. Nevertheless, due to another not yet so well understood
mechanism, the density profile also peakes at the center because it is
"pinched".
 
OK, so that is the basic set-up. One of the problems with energy
confinement has been edge cooling due to the fact that impurities
present near the edge are excited by collisions with electrons and
then they radiate the excitation energy away. The net effect is to
cool the electrons -- this represents a sink of energy which is
important not only in holding the edge T too low but also in driving
certain types of instabilities. Anything which drives instabilities is
bad for energy confinement, not only becaue of the associated
transport but also because those instabilities can keep the plasma out
of desirable operating regimes, like the high-confinement "H-mode"
characterised by a high edge T and very steep gradients in n and T
near the edge.
 
One needs some method of defining the plasma boundary at some r, since
transport processes would otherwise cause the plasma to expand
indefinitely. The conventional do this was to stick a "limiter" at
r = a. Provided the surface is a good enough absorber (in a completely
ionised plasma a good conductor will suck up electrons, which will
drag the ions behind them; the loss flux is n times the sound speed),
one could get a "relatively clean" edge.  An integral component of the
plasma edge is the so-called "scrape-off layer": at each r > a, the
profiles of n and T are set by a balance between two sources,
transport from the plasma interior and the edge fuelling, and one
sink, which is the flow of particles and energy into the limiter. This
layer is typically 2 cm or so wide. The main source of impurities in
the plasma is of course the limiter, with any other solid surface also
providing some. Since the impurities have effect proportional to
chrage squared, a "relatively clean" edge and scrape-off layer isn't
really good enough for those nice confinement regimes. (Note that if
one doesn't set the boundary, the vacuum vessel becomes the limiter,
and the plasma gets really very dirty. One has a vacuum vessel because
n is typically only 10 to the 13 or so at the edge.)
 
The answer was a "divertor", which is an extra chamber somewhat
removed from the plasma, in which the interaction between plasma and
solid surface should be contained. In "pump divertors" the region is
pumped out to keep the impurities away from the plasma. The scrape-off
layer is now distributed between the plasma and the divertor chamber:
 
 
Limited Plasma                          Diverted Plasma
 
          ------                             ------
         /      \   _                       /      \
        /        \ | |                     /        \
       /          \| |                    /          \
       \          /| |                    \          /
        \        / |_|                     \        /
         \______/                           \      /
                    ^                        \    /
       _            |                    _    \  /
       /|           |                    /|    \/    divertor
      /                                 /      /\      |
                 limiter             plasma   /  \  <--|
    plasma                                   /    \
                                           ---    ---
 
                                         target plates
 
In both cases, the scrape-off layer abuts the outer boundary of the
plasma, but in the divertor case, the interaction with material
surfaces is confined to the divertor chamber, away from the plasma.
The "target plates" become the conducting surfaces which serve as the
sink for the scrape-off layer.
 
One notes that in the divertor case the magnetic surface which defines
"r = a" has an X-point; it is often called the "separatrix". A
"single-null" plasma has just the one X-point, the way I have drawn it
here. But some tokamaks (like ASDEX, at Garching until 1990) are set
up with two divertor chambers, and can run either with one or two
X-points. With two X-points, one has a "double-null" plasma. It is
interesting to do runs with both forms, as this gives useful
information regarding the effects of toroidicity: with a double-null
there are two scrape-off layers: one on the side closest to the center
of the torus, where the magnetic field, B, is the strongest, and one
toward the outside of the torus, where B is weaker. The term "lower
single null" refers to the X-point being set up below the plasma, with
the upper divertor chamber not used. There is the possibility of a
difference between lower and upper single null operation, because of
some exotic effects arising from the tendency of charged particles to
drift in a direction perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the
gradient of its strength.
 
I have drawn the diverted plasma in somewhat elongated form. In some
tokamaks (eg, ASDEX) the elongation is minimal, while in others (eg,
D-III-D at San Diego) it is substantial. "Elongation" is defined as
b/a, where a and b are the horizontal and vertical center-separatrix
distance, respectively. Obviously, if b/a is substantial, then
cylindrical geometry is no longer a good approximation. The
equilibrium n and T profiles still may be thought of as
one-dimensional, however, if n and T do not vary much on a given
magnetic surface.
 
Those readers who have got this far may have other questions. I'm sure
the Alcator reports will raise more. In the likely case that the
people running the machine are strapped for time, this newsgroup is a
good place to ask about these things. So don't be bashful!
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / david atkatz /  Re: Jed hits the nail...
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed hits the nail...
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 19:59:36 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

 
Wait, Jed Rothwell writes more:
 
>Most of these people...have "a theory," some arcane secret
>knowledge, some rare and wonderful formula that they
>assure me I would never understand ... Most of them...refuse
>to be pinned down...
 
        Jed, you've done it again!  Think of the reams of
        paper, not to mention the bandwidth, that could have
        been saved if you'd have summed up CF this concisely
        in, say, the spring of '89.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Ad aspera /  Re: Explaining some "Tokamaker" jargon (was Re: Alcator Reports
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explaining some "Tokamaker" jargon (was Re: Alcator Reports
Date: 17 Sep 1993 20:24:56 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott) wrote:
{a nice article, not reproduced here}
 
One of the books I keep going back to for a simple explanation
of this or that is J. Raeder et al., _Controlled Nuclear Fusion:
Fundamentals of its Utilization for Energy Supply_, New York:
Wiley-Interscience, 1986.
 
Cheers,
 
Joe
"The people are hard to rule because they have too much knowledge"
                                                    --Tao Te Ching
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Greg Kuperberg /  On 'On "How his calorimeter works"'
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On 'On "How his calorimeter works"'
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 21:10:20 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CDI6CF.74p@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  Dieter, the denotation(s) stand.   And incidentally, I may have been
>   wrong, as it appears that you have been pedantic (albeit incorrect about the
>   physics) in this matter.
[pedantic definition deleted]
 
Uh oh!  Dieter, if Mitchell Swartz is calling you pedantic, that's
really remarkable!   I think that makes you a kettle!
 
Mitchell, I think you better stick to 'penicing your neutrons instead
of calling people pedantic.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: neutron half-life
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron half-life
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 23:01:38 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <199309172027.AA02985@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.
du (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
  ... quoting a correspondent ...
 
>    First I consulted my trusty Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, the
>    1983 edition. It says the neutron half-life is about 13 minutes.
>
>    Then I consulted Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, the seventh
>    edition, published in 1989. It says the neutron half-life is 12.8
>    minutes, roughly the same as Funk & Wagnalls.
>
>    To make doubly sure, I consulted the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
>    Science & Technology, the seventh edition, published in 1992. It
>    says the neutron half-life is 10.61 minutes, plus or minus 0.16 min.
 
Not too bad.  I went back and looked up a 1976 copy of the Particle Data
Group review that I keep for nostalgic (J/psi) reasons.  That gives the
mean life to be 918 +/- 14 seconds, compared to 889.1 +/- 2.1 seconds
in the 1992 version.  Half life is log 2 = 0.693... times these, giving
636.3 (10.6 minutes) for the old value (about what McGraw-Hill give)
and 616.3 (10.27 minutes) for the latest value.
 
Those dictionaries must quote really ancient values.  I do have an
older textbook (copyright circa 1967) that gave 1010 s mean life, or
a half-life of 11.7 minutes, so it could be that the ancient values
you might find in a 1950's textbook would be even larger.  The neutron
is not included in the plot of historical values included in the 1976
summary, so it is not possible to make any other observations.
 
Anyone know why the values are decreasing?
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep17.185029.939@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep17.185029.939@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 17 Sep 93 19:23:51 -0600

cancel <1993Sep17.185029.939@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  McKubre's search for nuclear ash
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre's search for nuclear ash
Date: 17 Sep 93 19:23:19 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

17 September 1993
 
Dear Colleagues,
 
Jed Rothwell states (16 Sep. 93, "What McKubre said"):
 "Steve Jones is spreading false statements about another worker" [McKubre]
while Mitch Swartz claims I "denigrate the work of others."  (15 Sept. 93,
"On ignition doublespeak (cont.)."
 
Let me make it clear that I *quoted* the published paper of McKubre et al. (in
proceedings of the First Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion in response to Jed's claim
that "McKubre has *not*  -- repeat *not* --  looked for "helium, tritium,
etc..  He emphatically denied that he looked for these things."  (15 Sept.
posting by Jed entitled:   "SRI has NOT looked for ash.")
 
McKubre et al. published that they indeed had looked for 3He, 4He and tritium
-- I need not quote this anew.  Todd Green independently looked in that same
paper and noted:
"Are you sure about this Jed?  According to the Proc. of the First Cold Fusion
Conf.,
McKubre et al. looked for 3He, 4He and 3H in at least one heat producing cell
and found nothing."    (16 Sept. 93 "SRI and nuclear products").
Dick Blue, Thomas Kunich, Dale Bass likewise noted the fact that SRI had looked
for nuclear products, trying further to get through to Jed.
 
I wish to emphasize here that my intent was to correct misinformation
propounded by Mr. Rothwell, certainly not to denigrate Michael McKubre's search
for nuclear products!  Quite to the contrary:  I congratulate McKubre's looking
for nuclear products, as long as he searches for "excess heat"
and encourage him to use the best tools possible.  He has
an excellent detector for gammas -- as Todd noted.  But I have urged that team
to also look for lower-energy photons than that detector can sensitively see,
in particular, for the 21-keV k-alpha X-rays characteristic of palladium
excitation.  Again I offer use of the BYU X-ray spectrometer, which is small and
portable, anytime Mike wishes to use it.
 
In his posting cited above, Rothwell suggests that the work on nuclear product
detection so far is "preliminary" and the tools applied so far were not very
sensitive, if I understand him correctly.  (At least he finally admits, sort
of, that SRI *did* look for nuclear products.)  So let's look *quantitatively*
at the McKubre paper, in which they report that samples
 
"were analyzed by
Rockwell International for 3He and 4He by mass spectrometery of a molten
sample.  This technique is capable of detecting 10^11 atoms; no He was observed
at this level."
 
This is good reporting, setting an upper limit when a null result is seen.  And
there is nothing at all wrong with a null result:  we may finally sort out the
nature of the claimed "excess heat" if all such results are reported.  Again I
congratulate the McKubre et al. team for thorough reporting.
 
Now, in their paper, McKubre et al. note approximately 300 kJ of excess heat,
which amounts to *roughly* 10^17 atoms of product IF the heat derives from a
nuclear process.  It is not clear to me that they would not have seen 3He, 4He
had they been produced at this level.  That these were not seen is telling us
something.  It may turn out, as several have predicted based on this
and other results (including those from BYU), that any "excess heat" is *not*
nuclear in origin.  McKubre is correct to have looked and reported, and I am
understand he will look further.  This is commendable, and I'm confident he will
again report the results of his search for nuclear products.
 
In summary, I have not "spread.. false statements about" nor do I "denigrate"
the work of McKubre et al. in their search for 3He, 4He and tritium. Carry on,
gentlemen.  We'll get to the bottom of this yet.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What McKubre said
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre said
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 01:48:27 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <tomkCDHIEL.DDB@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
writes:
 
> By this point one must wonder why Rothwell bothers to continue on here.
> He has certainly gone far over the edge from True Blue True Believer to
> raving lunatic.
 
Seems like. Next thing you know he'll be robbing banks to
get funds to support his new group of freedom fighters, the CFLO
(Cold Fusion Liberation Organization)
 
:-)
 
 
--
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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.18 / mitchell swartz /  Jones' search for causality
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones' search for causality
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1993 03:36:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep17.192320.940@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: McKubre's search for nuclear ash
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
=sj "Jed Rothwell states (16 Sep. 93, "What McKubre said"):
=sj  "Steve Jones is spreading false statements about another worker" [McKubre]
=sj while Mitch Swartz claims I "denigrate the work of others."  (15 Sept. 93,
=sj "On ignition doublespeak (cont.)."
 
   Two issues. ---------------------------------------------------
 
   1. denigrate  (after Webster [ibid.]
                      [from:  de- + nigare  --->   to blacken]
      1) to cast aspersions on
 
    aspersion         [from    ad- + spargere   (to scatter)]
        i) a sprinkling with water esp. in religious ceremonies
        ii) the act of calumniating
 
   The serendipidity here is too good to possibly ruin with a comment.    ;-)
 
   2.  Notwithstanding the above, how about some CAUSALITY here?
 
   Steve Jones writes:
 
=sj "Kubre et al. published that they indeed had looked for 3He, 4He and tritium
=sj -- I need not quote this anew.  Todd Green independently looked in that same
=sj paper and noted:
=sj "Are you sure about this Jed?According to the Proc. of the First Cold Fusion
=sj Conf.,
=sj McKubre et al.looked for 3He, 4He and 3H in at least one heat producing cell
=sj and found nothing."  (16 Sept. 93 "SRI and nuclear products").
=sj Dick Blue,Thomas Kunich,Dale Basslikewise noted the fact that SRI had looked
=sj for nuclear products, trying further to get through to Jed."
 
   This is utter nonsense, isn't it?
 .  What does it matter if you quote an article from four years ago if the
      author stated just this Summer:
 
=jr "Let me repeat, one last
=jr time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically denied that they have
=jr looked for products and not found them. As Steve disingenuously points out,
=jr they have done some preliminary work in this area, but McKubre has said time
=jr after time:" Jed Rothwell  <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1]
 
=mm     "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
=mm      but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
 
=jr "That's from the Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by
=jr Neville Hodgkinson, cover story. He has issued similar statement in other
=jr major newspapers, on NPR, during lectures, and in comments made to me and to
=jr many other people. Perhaps they have done additional work, but this is where
=jr things stood as of June, 1993."
 
 So, dear reader, Mr. Jones asks you to believe that Dr. McKubre
           "found nothing " (15 Sept. 93)"
     {Steven Jones Message-ID: <1993Sep17.192320.940@physc1.byu.edu>}
 
 when in fact he was using merely the posting date of someone else who was
quoting an outdated -> according to the author -- article from years
before.  Jed Rothwell has actually taken the time to post the recent information
 (and that is information, not data).  The article to which Jed refers: "Storm
in a Bucket" is in front of me and Jed is correct.
 
  Therefore, unless Steven Jones is now claiming tachyonic processes enabling
faster-than-light (and therefore non-causal) means then he cannot possibly
support his allegation using (much) earlier data.
 
  Hence, Jed's reference regarding information on this issue stands as it
   is simply the more recent.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.17 / John Campbell /  Re: I Never Evade Anything
     
Originally-From: soup@penrij.kd3bj.uu.net (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I Never Evade Anything
Date: 17 Sep 93 22:59:38 GMT
Organization: The Other "Woman" of the House

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>Dale Bass asked me "what nuclear reaction" causes CF. I answered "nobody
>knows! That's what they are trying to find out."
 
[offensive verbiage removed]
 
>In any case, it is perfectly obvious that I am not the right person to ask.
>As I have said a thousand times before, whatever final theory emerges, I am
>sure I will not understand it. As Arthur C. Clarke is so fond of saying, "I
>am sure it would be over my head."
 
I've listened to all of the arguments that have been presented here.
(As was said in "Frisco Kid", "I have read all of this book! (And did
not understand a single word).
 
Granted, I can't do the math;  I just wish I could.
 
>               My knowledge of nuclear physics extends as far as measuring
>half-lives, and the classic experiment to measure 1 electron volt which I
>performed in undergraduate physics at Cornell 20 years ago. My knowledge of
>engineering gives me the ability to explain to you -- in depth if you like --
>how a circa 1910 triple expansion marine steam engine works. I happen to
>know that because my father was almost killed by one on a Liberty Ship. I
>also know how a circa 1799 static calorimeter works, because I have built
>two or three, and observed many others, and because I do understand common
>physics up through about 1905. Also, if you ever want the nitty-gritty
>inside story on circa 1980 DOS interrupts and the RS-232, just let me know.
 
Yup.  I think almost everybody has a grasp of classical physics, despite
the fact that they're wrong (but only when you have precise enough
instruments).  For everyday stuff, classical physics WFH (Works Fine Here).
 
>What you, and the other pathological "skeptics" don't seem to realize is
>that a person does not need to understand the mechanism of a physical
>phenomenon in order to understand two things:
 
>1. That the phenomenon is occurring.
 
>2. In broad terms, the phenomenon exceeds the limits of one domain or
>another. I know, for example, the approximate structural strength of steel
>and styrofoam. I know that you cannot stretch a steel cable from a
>geosynchronous orbiting satellite to earth. I also know the limits of
>chemistry -- any educated person does.
 
Understandable argument.  The abrasive applied was unnecessary.  Despite
no "personal" witness of any of these events (just the "hearsay" evidence
found here on the net) I suspect that _something_ is up.  Who knows?
Mills & Farrell might be right (it could happen).  Even P&F (or is if F&P?)
could be right.
 
Trouble is, we can almost fabricate a conspiracy by Proxmires to "kill"
this technology, blowing the lid off the "Limited Resources" people.
 
>Suppose a construction engineer from 1880 who worked with conventional
>explosives could examine a nuclear warhead and then watch it explode. He
>would know instantly that the explosion could not be the product of any
>possible combination of chemicals. He would not have to understand anything
>at all about nuclear theory to see that the bomb was a mysterious new form
>of energy.
 
Well, he wouldn't know what _kind_ of reaction occurred-  it'd be an
application of Clarke's Law:  Any sufficiently advanced technology...
(you know the rest).
 
>           Suppose you then showed him a 0.6 gram piece of metal inside a
>Dewar immersed in water, with no electric power or any other form of energy
>going into it. If he saw that the temperature inside the Dewar remained at
>100 C hour after hour, he would know instantly that this, too, could not be
>caused any chemical form of energy.
 
Sorry-  the is P&F (or F&P), and therefore suspect.  I want to believe
that they are leading everybody else astray so they own the ranch (Yeah,
right.  It could happen).  I want to believe that CNF is real, but that
doesn't make it so.
 
>Not only would our 1880 engineer understand this, but any competent chemist,
>engineer, blacksmith, or artisan from any time in the past 100,000 years
>would know it instantly. It is only our present-day "expert scientists" who
>doubt it. The reason they doubt it is clear to me: modern day science
>education, training and standards are horrible! The system is overrun by
>academic rot, so that blockheads can get PhD's without ever learning the
>simple A-B-C's of fundamental physics. They have no quantitative grasp of
>common physics, they have no intuitive sense of what works and what does
>not. They leap to conclusions and they make such extraordinarily stupid
 
[remaining offensive verbiage deleted]
 
Feynman (in his books) implied that he was a pain in the ass, but he
was an "empiricist" in many things.  He claimed that when physics is
studied, some "empirical" realization of truth was needed (like his
story of science in Brazil, done by rote).
 
Physics is "understood".  Unfortunately, it may have reached the point
of a religion (as Classical Physicists fought Relativity and Q.M.).
We may be suffering from a problem with Dogma.
 
Calling each other names resolves _NOTHING_, and makes the dogmatic
reaction that much more reflexive.  If anything can kill CNF dead, this
will kill it dead, dead, dead.  Remember that old-guard physicists are
controlling the publications.  It isn't a conspiracy-  it's territoriality.
This hasn't help the Bosnians, it won't help here.
 
Jed, I think that you're letting your desire for a "better" future make
you irritable.  May drink de-caf (or even Caffeine-Free Pepsi or Coke).
Drop the Jolt-  it's making you irritable.
 
I'd be a lot happier if I wasn't reading this much invective, and I see
it coming from both the TBs and Skeptics.
 
TBs are too religious, as are the skeptics.  This has been treated as
a turf war.
 
There's meat here (I hope I hope I hope) but if there isn't, screaming
ain't gonna hurt.
 
I see a lot of the behaviour here on the Net that I find in my oldest
son (18 years) strutting around, sure that he knows everything.  Of
course, he'll eventually learn that he doesn't know everything, but when?
 
Please, activate ego-reduction mode so that us poor lurkers won't learn
new nasty phrases to inflict on our co-workers and management.
(Of course I liked "talk is cheap- show me the equations", as did many
of the techies in the office).
 
--
 John R. Campbell                                    soup@penrij.kd3bj.ampr.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.18 / Jed Rothwell /  The Birds
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Birds
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1993 14:32:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Recent postings on this net remind me of the Hitchcock movie "The Birds" in
which civilization is threatened by attacks from enraged crows, sea gulls, and
other stuffed birds on wires that mob the dismayed human beings. In this case,
we are attacked by myna birds and parrots who's only talent is that they
repeat my messages back to me, and then claim that what I say applies to the
scientists working on CF. Let me set the record straight:
 
     Scientists are working on CF.
 
     Fools, idiots, liars and traitors are denigrating it
 
Virtually of the non-scientific, foolish statements that have appeared here,
and all of the lies, originated on the "skeptic" side. Richard Blue, for
example, told us that a flow of 60 ml/min of water creates "friction" which
can generate multi-watt levels of heat. Then he told us he can make a
perpetual motion machine. Morrison claims that he can burn 0.0044 moles of
hydrogen and generate more than 86,000 joules of heat. I could list page after
page of this garbage -- this schlock, this intellectual sewage -- but I don't
need to, the "skeptics" will keep posting it for your amusement. If anyone
from our side was to post a message half as stupid as these claims, we would
be shouted off the network.
 
Regarding the "theory debates" our side has stuck to one consistent message:
Something is happening, but we don't know what it is yet. We are trying to
find out. No scientist can fault this approach, or claim that it is irrational
or unreasonable. Our work is not done yet, that is all we say.
 
Regarding the personal accusations, the record is 100% clear: people like
Jones and "lunatic" Britz have been going around spreading deliberate,
poisonous lies about me, Miles, P&F, Notoya and many others, and then putting
on holier-than-thou halos. Oh, they claim to be objective scientists,
interested only in the truth, but the record shows that they are character
assassins. Jones claims that he quotes only the scientific record about
McKubre, while I quote mere "newspapers." Here is the real story:
 
     Jones give us his interpretation of old, tentative studies. *His
     interpretation* -- his e-mail rumor mongering!
 
     I give you the direct words of McKubre himself, quoted in a responsible,
     national newspaper where you can look it up, and I repeat that I have
     heard exactly the same information from the man himself, and from and
     EPRI Research Director at an International Conference, and at other
     formal meetings.
 
Let the reader choose what to believe: Steve's self-serving rumors, or my
first-hand, recent, direct reports and direct quotes from the researcher
himself.
 
As for other measures of credibility, let the reader decide! Richard Blue
huffs and puffs and claims that he has done experiments, and he can prove that
his perpetual motion machine will work, but where is the beef? Where is your
data Dick? Show us your proof! You say you know that calorimeters don't work,
and you can prove it. When are you going to perform this miracle? Dick
denigrates my humble plastic toothbrush holder calorimeter, he calls it a mere
toy. I will not deny it is a cheap, crude, silly looking little gadget. I
admit, it can only measure to the nearest 0.1 watts, it is nothing like a real
calorimeter. But, at least my instrument *exists*. At least I have shown the
readers real data, real information. I stated that even a crude, simple
calorimeter will work to a reasonable level of accuracy and precision, and I
proved it. Dick Blue says I am wrong, but HE HAS NOT SHOWN US ANY EVIDENCE FOR
HIS CLAIMS! Where is his water friction? Where is his perpetual motion
machine? He says he can fool a calorimeter into making a 300% error for hour
after hour, day after day. (Oh, now he has amended his claimed effect to work
only after a "short burst" -- which means it does not apply to P&F, McKubre,
or any other CF scientist.) My data, no matter how poor and crude, is
infinitely better than his hot air! I win by default. Any science is better
than no science. Any experiment beats no experiment.
 
Talk, talk, talk and no experiments equals No Science. Blue, Morrison, Jones
and the other skeptics are making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary! Their
claims fly in the face of known science, and long accepted, fundamental
truths, like the amount of energy it takes to vaporize water, and the
reliability of basic lab equipment. They demand that we believe these claims
without a shred of evidence. They will not perform an experiment to show that
you can burn 0.0044 mole of hydrogen and produce 150 watts for hour after hour
-- but they demand that we swallow that story and believe it, just because
they are the "authorities" and whatever they say is the gospel truth. I have
posted experimental data showing that calorimeters *do work* within an
reasonable range of accuracy and precision. I have cited experts like Bockris,
and I can cite dozens of books and 200 years of history to bolster my claims.
What do these parrots and myna birds who shout me down have to offer? What
experiments can they point to? What textbooks? They have nothing! They promise
that they can debunk calorimetry, but they never follow through. They are
liars and blowhards, and they cannot prove a single word of what they say.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.18 / John Logajan /  Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The end of calorimetry lessons
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 15:01:12 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN) writes:
>what would happen to all of the above if an unloading episode
>coupled with some cell chemistry to cause the cell to foam?
 
I take it you are suggesting a significant change in heat conductivity.
I suppose the conductive calorimeter cell constant would go up.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.18 / Cameron Bass /  For The Birds
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: For The Birds
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1993 17:07:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930918141432_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>we are attacked by myna birds and parrots who's only talent is that they
>repeat my messages back to me, and then claim that what I say applies to the
>scientists working on CF. Let me set the record straight:
>
>     Scientists are working on CF.
>
>     Fools, idiots, liars and traitors are denigrating it
 
     Again, simple repetition does not imply verity.  However, I did
     notice that you are getting a bit more strident.  Problems on the
     experimental front?  The vaunted reactor not working quite up
     to par?  Certain people having difficulty responding to critiques
     of their work?
 
     Fools, my friend, can be easily revealed here by scientific
     evidence using scientific means.  Or even engineering evidence
     revealed using engineering means.  In this light, I will call *myself*
     a fool if within two years from this date there is engineering evidence
     that net power has been unambiguously generated using the P&F CNF
     process.  On the other hand, I'd sure like to see you call *yourself*
     a fool if within two years this does not happen.
 
     Surely you can accept this little humourous challenge since the
     power reactor is 'scheduled' to come on line *this year*?  If not
     (what I expect to happen), consider yourself revealed as a
     blowhard.
 
>Virtually of the non-scientific, foolish statements that have appeared here,
>and all of the lies, originated on the "skeptic" side.
 
     I suppose this means you aren't going to answer my query concerning
     how exactly people like P&F and McKubre are 'looking' for the nuclear
     'cause' when they are pointedly *not* looking.
 
     Tisk tisk, looks like further evasion to me.
 
>Talk, talk, talk and no experiments equals No Science. Blue, Morrison, Jones
>and the other skeptics are making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary! Their
>claims fly in the face of known science, and long accepted, fundamental
>truths, like the amount of energy it takes to vaporize water, and the
>reliability of basic lab equipment.
 
     A four sentence tour de force of half-truths and misinterpretation.
 
     Good show.
 
>that they can debunk calorimetry, but they never follow through. They are
>liars and blowhards, and they cannot prove a single word of what they say.
 
     Who cares what *any* of us thinks?  Apparently, the 'proof' of this
     'phenomenon' lies in actual unambiguous power generation from such a
     system.  The fact that this has not been done (and will never be done,
     in my opinion) weighs heavily on all your souls.
 
     You may bluster, and shout, and whine, and complain, and evade,
     and misrepresent, all you wish.   But the cold, very cold, hard fact
     is that with every passing day that power is not generated, more
     of the credulous fall away from the fold.
 
     Jed, in one year, you will have nothing more than you have today,
     nothing more than you had in 1989.  In five years, there will be
     nothing more.  In ten years, there will be nothing more.  And yet,
     I suspect that the hard-core 'believers' will be 'working'
     on such systems forever, as if squeezing that last bit of friction out
     of the wheel will finally enable the creation of a vast intellectual
     perpetuum mobile.
 
     And Jed, I have no doubt that you will continue to be a willing
     mouthpiece.
 
                                  dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / William Hawkins /  Re: On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 05:34:25 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

After a rather wild assertion on my part that I knew something
about temperature measurement, Mitchell Swartz asked if it wasn't
true that a thermometer removed a small amount of heat in order
to indicate temperature.  So I picked up Asimov's "Understanding
Physics" (1966) for a refresher on the basics of heat.  Actually,
"thermometer" is Greek for heat measuring device, but as you will
see, it doesn't measure heat at all.
 
Heat is the energy contained in a mass of particles.  The energy
is in the form of kinetic energy and attraction between the
particles.  It can do work, where the amount of work done depends,
in part, on the quantity of heat.
 
Temperature is the average energy of the particles near the thing
sensing the temperature.  It is a measure of intensity, not quantity.
Consider a thimble full of 90 degree C water and a tub of water at
30 C.  The thimble will be at room temperature long before the tub
cools off.
 
If analogies help, water can be used.  Volume is heat, and pressure
is temperature.  Connect a small diameter tank to a large diameter
tank, with a valve in the line, and pressure sensors at the bottom
of each tank.  Pour 10 liters of water into each tank.  They both
have the same quantity, but the pressures are different.  If the
valve is opened, water will flow at a rate determined by the
difference in pressure.  It will flow until the pressures are the
same.  (Don't know what we'd do without water for analogies.)
 
Heat and temperature are related by a property called the specific
heat.  The calorie is defined as the quantity of heat required to
raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree C, at one
atmosphere pressure and an average of 15 C.  The specific heat of
water is unity.  If you put a known quantity of water into an
insulated vessel, with a temperature measuring device, you can
drop a hot chunk of metal into the water and determine its specific
heat from the masses and temperature changes that result.  The
vessel is called a calorimeter.
 
If you have a calorimeter containing 100 grams of water at 100 C,
and you add to it 100 grams of water at 0 C, the result will be
200 grams of water at 50 C.  If you again start with 100 C water
and drop in 100 grams of ice at 0 C, the result will be 200 grams
of water at 10 C.  The difference is the latent heat of fusion
(loaded word, that) of water.  The latent heat of vaporization is
even more striking.  James Burke could show you how that connects
from Watt's first steam engine to the computer network we use to
hold this college together.  (Or was that collage?)  Anyway, at
the phase transitions, lots of heat can flow with no change in
temperature.
 
Back to the temperature sensor.  Nobody has built a massless
thermometer, although some thermocouples come pretty close.
When a sensor is inserted, heat must flow to bring the temperature
of the sensor into equilibrium with its surroundings.  Then it is
a question of the type of sensor.  Mechanical sensors may extract
heat from the system to do the work of moving the indicator.
Resistance sensors may add heat, due to the current used to sense
the resistance.  Thermocouples are used with high impedance circuits
to eliminate errors due to lead wire resistance, so no heat is added
or removed.  Then there is the heat flow caused by the inserted
sensor having its other end at a different temperature.
 
Radiation temperature sensors are another thing altogether.
 
Thanks, Mitch, for sending me back to basics.  I knew that heat and
temperature were different, but I couldn't have told you how without
digging for it.
 
The 'net does not allow some things that are basic to human
communications, like eye contact and body language.  At the same
time, it does allow perfect recall of what anyone sent as a message,
which the human condition mercifully does not.  I intended the
above to be what I learned about heat and temperature, not as a
lecture or "my knowledge is better than your knowledge."
 
Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Open Season Continues
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Open Season Continues
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 15:31:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
John R. Campbell urges me to tone down my attacks on the so-called "skeptics."
Then, in his very next statement, he reveals that he himself is a member of
the anti-science Gestapo. Look at this! He writes:
 
 
     "Even P&F (or is if F&P?) could be right. . ."
 
     "Sorry-  the is P&F (or F&P), and therefore suspect.  I want to believe
     that they are leading everybody else astray so they own the ranch (Yeah,
     right.  It could happen)."
 
Years ago, Nature, Scientific American, and the APS declared open season on
the reputations of Pons and Fleischmann. Nitwits and filthy character
assassins like Britz, Jones, Taubes -- and now Campbell -- crawled out from
under their rocks and began posting messages like this. Over and over again,
they insult Pons and Fleischmann, they attack them, they publish blatant
obvious lies about them. They get away with it! Apparently, the libel laws
have been suspended: you can say anything you want about these two scientists.
Naturally, if you were to spread lies like this about any other scientist in
the U.S. or Europe, you would be up to your eyeballs in trouble. Under normal
circumstances, nobody would ever think of declaring a published, peer reviewed
paper in Physics Letters A "suspect" just because who the author was.
 
For the record: there is nothing the least bit "suspect" about the statements
and published papers of the distinguished Drs. Pons and Fleischmann. Nothing!
There is no way on earth they could possibly be doing anything "suspect,"
underhanded, or questionable, because they are working in a corporate Gold
Fish Bowl -- a highly visible laboratory which is constantly visited and
carefully examined by many of the leading Japanese, American and European
scientists. This laboratory is directly supported by a subsidiary of Toyota,
which is the third largest automobile company in the world, and which does not
-- under any circumstances -- countenance or allow any "suspect" scientific
work or other hanky-panky. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of top scientists have
seen the experiments first hand, and have examined the apparatus. There is
absolutely no possibility of any irregular or suspect work, you may be certain
that all observations and claims are accurate. When they report that water is
being boiled with only one-third the energy input needed to do that, they are
telling the exact truth based upon repeated experiments, in some of the most
rigorous and careful experiments ever performed.
 
I think that statements like Campbell's are libelous. Unless he can tell us
when, where and under what circumstances "suspicious" work was performed at
Toyota by Pons and Fleischmann, I think he should retract these statements and
apologize. This is my personal opinion. I do not represent Pons and
Fleischmann, Toyota, or MITI in any way, and nothing I write should be
construed as representing their points of view.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / mitchell swartz /  Re: More On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 14:25:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Sep19.053425.7313@rosevax.rosemount.com>
    Subject: Re: On "How his calorimeter works"
William Hawkins [bill@texan.rosemount.com] writes:
 
=wh "After a rather wild assertion on my part that I knew something
=wh about temperature measurement, Mitchell Swartz asked if it wasn't
=wh true that a thermometer removed a small amount of heat in order
=wh to indicate temperature.  So I picked up Asimov's "Understanding
=wh Physics" (1966) for a refresher on the basics of heat.  Actually,
=wh "thermometer" is Greek for heat measuring device, but as you will
=wh see, it doesn't measure heat at all."
 
  Its is from the Greek:       therme => "heat"
                                     which is close to thermos ==> "hot"
 
=wh "Heat is the energy contained in a mass of particles.  The energy
=wh is in the form of kinetic energy and attraction between the
=wh particles.  It can do work, where the amount of work done depends,
=wh in part, on the quantity of heat."
 
   Heat is actually only a portion of the energy.
   Heat is the total random motion kinetic energy possessed by a
                                            mass of particles.
 
   [I dont understand the "attraction" part, however, although you
    might be referring to total energy there.]
 
 
=wh "Temperature is the average energy of the particles near the thing
=wh  sensing the temperature.  It is a measure of intensity, not quantity."
 
   Because temperature is defined as [<1993Aug27.032928.6453@ns.network.com>
      Subject: Re: Heat of Formation, where entropy (S) is the number of
      accessible states available to the system  at energy of E
      (actually between E and E+dE), and # is the number of such
       states Entropy:     S =  k  ln(#) ]:
 
   the reciprocal of the rate of change of the number of those states
         to increasing energy,
 
         Temperature:       1          d ln (#)
                         -------  =  ------------
                           k T          d E
 
 it is obvious that temperature might be negative, and if it is negative
    or even if it does not increase with heat, then the simple models of RC
 circuits you suggest (but which are good nonetheless) may not hold.
       Also, as a result of the above, and consistent with
 some magnetic cooling devices, when the heat content possessed by a material
 is increased, it can only be said that USUALLY the temperature increases.
     Interested readers ought examine (as a start) the magneto-
 caloric , Ettingshausen, Nerst and Righi-Leduc effects. There are enough
 magnetic (permeability) and electrical effects with cold fusion that to
 remain open-minded, they ought all (with the known lack of inhomogeneity
 and even possible time-variation of parameters) be considered for their
 role and magnitude.
 
 
=wh "Consider a thimble full of 90 degree C water and a tub of water at
=wh   30 C.  The thimble will be at room temperature long before the tub
=wh    cools off."
 
  If the thimble with 90C H2O is in contact with an old fashioned
   lab thermometer, it will cool off faster, won't it?  That was the essence
   of my ineloquent point to Dick Blue (see below).
 
 
=wh "Anyway, at the phase transitions (of water), lots of heat can flow
=wh  with no change in temperature."
 
      You apparently agree here too.  When the heat content possessed by a
 material is increased, it can only be said that USUALLY the temperature
   increases.
 
 
=wh "Back to the temperature sensor.  Nobody has built a massless
=wh thermometer, although some thermocouples come pretty close.
=wh When a sensor is inserted, heat must flow to bring the temperature
=wh of the sensor into equilibrium with its surroundings."
 
   Then we agree.  This conversation was entered when Dick Blue  wrote:
  =db "Now on the the question at hand.  Jed starts with the assertion that
  =db a calorimeter is like a rain gauge in which you collect the rain and
  =db then look at the marks on the side to see what has collected.  That
  =db is basically an incorrect analogy which is clear evidence that Jed
  =db has no clue as to how a calorimeter actually is supposed to work.
  =db The type of calorimeter under discussion is more properly to be
  =db considered a transducer that converts an input, heat, into an output
  =db signal which is temperature."
           [<9309131402.AA12517@suntan.Tandem.com> Dick Blue]
 
  I replied that one device to transduce a small smple of heat to temperature
is a thermometer, and that it does so by removal of a small amount of heat
from the system.  Since then, .......
 
 
=wh "Radiation temperature sensors are another thing altogether."
 
  Temperature measurement by the blackbody irradiation seems to be
    a form of "massless thermometer", but it is NOT a simple transducer.
 
 Thanks, Bill, for pushing this ahead.  Good comments from folks like
   yourself (and John, and a few others) push our understanding vectorally
   closer to some real comprehension of what is occurring.
 
              Best wishes.
 
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                                  mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / Greg Kuperberg /  On *On {On [On (On _On 'On `On "Re: How his calorimeter works"`'_)]}*
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On *On {On [On (On _On 'On `On "Re: How his calorimeter works"`'_)]}*
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 16:29:14 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

 
William Hawkins [bill@texan.rosemount.com] writes:
=wh So I picked up Asimov's "Understanding Physics" (1966) for
=wh a refresher on the basics of heat....
 
If Asimov wrote it, it should be called "Misunderstanding Physics" (1966).
I thought Asimov had taught me something about special relativity until
I went to college, when I discovered that Asimov had lied to me.
 
In article <CDLups.95G@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
>It is obvious that temperature might be negative...
 
Which proves that some things that are obvious are also false.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / Bill Page /  Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 17:57:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Carr writes:
<<
The "gaussian-xx" package (xx is a year of issue) is used to do quantum
chemistry calculations of the type you describe.  There are other packages
as well for dealing with that problem.  From what I know of the state of
the art, one electron atoms would be very easy to do.
>>
 
Well, I would like to know more about these packages.  Do you have any
suggestions on where to look for literature?  Or a contact person for who
ever does the distribution? I am a little skeptical regarding 'one electron
atoms', however, since my target application (Vigier's Hbar+) is not well
described as such.  The closest analogue for Hbar+ is probably H- (hydrogen
anion) with the roles of the electrons and protons interchanged.  I.e.
there are two protons in the 'outter shell'.  And to top it off, we can
certainly not ignore the motion of the central electron.
 
<< Jim:
This ignores the nuclear potential, but it would be trivial to come up
with a wavefunction and evaluate the nuclear part in first-order
perturbation theory to estimate the size of the part you ignored.
Unless the electron and protons involved have some unusual properties,
you will find the result is negligible on the separation distance so
you can look at effects on the tail of the wavefunction independently.
>>
 
In order to think that Hbar+ is even possible at all, you have to imagine
that the electron and protons do indeed have some unusual properties.  In
particular, the two protons must be thought to be co-located in a shell
around the electron.  The electron is confined to a very small volume (on
the order of 100 fm) and the protons (though delocalized over the shell)
are considered to be within 'nuclear' distance of each other.  I think this
is too unusual to be handled by conventional techniques like first-order
perturbation.  Even the helium atom with two electrons in its outter shell
is not well treated in this manner.
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / mitchell swartz /  Corrxn to "On How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrxn to "On How his calorimeter works"
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 17:04:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Sep19.162914.10050@midway.uchicago.edu>
  Subject: On *On {On [On (On _On 'On `On "Re: How his calorimeter works"`'_)]}*
Greg Kuperberg [gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu)] writes:
 
=gk "In article <CDLups.95G@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
=gk writes:
=gk >  "It is obvious that temperature might be negative..."
=gk
=gk Which proves that some things that are obvious are also false.
 
   Thanks Greg, for the correction.  Good pickup.
   That post should have been:
 
   "Because temperature is defined as
 
         Temperature:       1          d ln (#)
                         -------  =  ------------
                           k T          d E
 
 it is obvious that spin temperature might be negative .... "
                   \/\/\/
 
   since #(E) is proportional to E**f (where f is the degrees of freedom)
      for other systems..
 
  [Apparently both the kettle and the stove are cleaned in your kitchen.  ;-)
 
              Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                                  mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / Terry Bollinger /  Reply to Page / Reply to Kunich
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Page / Reply to Kunich
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 18:25:51 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

Hi folks,
 
The gossip level value of this group has gotten so high lately I don't
bother reading it except for occasional keyword scans.  Not to mention that
now it even has folks posting jokes about hillbillies picking up quantum-
mechanical oranges.  Sheesh, what kind of disrespectful nonsense will
someone come up with on this group next??
 
Here are two items I did notice, though:
 
 
Bill Page:  Best of luck on your math skills.  Disappointing that you
don't seem to find initial premises important, though.  Also, don't be
overly impressed that Vigier is a Physics Letters A editor.  I noticed
with my LoC searches that whenever PLA was referenced, I got to where
I would think "uh oh -- probably more crappily reviewed junk."  It is
not the best of the physics journals, having a nasty tendency to let most
any paper in if they just throw in enough equations to make it look good.
 
I would humbly suggest this:  Study the transition of the (two +1 centers)
DH+ (or H2+) bonding electron wavefunction into the (one +2 center) 3He+
electron wavefunction by assuming an arbitrary parameter s that gives the
separation between the two nuclei.  Study both the form of the electron
wavefunction, _and_ its total energy, as you make the transition.
 
This approach would allow you to convert your results into a real paper,
as there is nothing in it that actually violates physics -- it's just an
unusual thought problem that happens to cover _all_ of the same turf that
is supposedly covered by the strangely stated Vigier silliness.
 
(It is silliness, and I'm not about to call it anything less than that.  I
am disgusted with physicists who should know better not coming right out
with the real implications of such ideas right up front.  If Vigier does not
realize that he is implicitly changing fundamental parameters in his model,
then he'd better take a lot closer look at it.)
 
Depending on the duration of such events, you just _might_ even be able to
apply such an analysis to the real problem of what happens during the
closest approach of fast protons to deuterium atoms, or of fast deuterons
to hydrogen atoms.
 
.....
 
In article <tomkCDHGzF.AFv@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> We have to remember that Terry will spend years working on his interests
> (Twist of Ribbon was it?), yet show his blind side when it comes to hot
> fusion. I guess we all know that Hot Fusion is really a non-science or so
> Terry would have us believe.
 
Hmm.  You know, one of the most interesting aspects of working in corporate
world is how people respond to blunt statements about sensitive issues.
 
The corporate person is presented with the question:  Do you try to address
the issue itself, or do you instead choose to go after the person?
 
I made a decision a long time ago to stick to the issues approach.
 
.....
 
Here's a question for you (or anyone else):
 
What is the lithium efficiency curve for the proposed HF lithium-deuterium
burners of the next century?
 
That is, if your plants operate _exactly_ at total system energy break-even
(that is, including peripheral energy costs such as those of producing the
lithium and deuterium), then the total quantity of lithium required to
produce one joule of net energy will be, well...  _infinite_.
 
This would be less than ideal, economically speaking.
 
So clearly you will need to get somewhere beyond breakeven to make the
consumption of lithium worth the effort.  What is the curve by which you
can determine the _effective_ lithium-to-energy costs of such a system?
 
.....
 
Another question:  Does anyone have any kind of data on the precise level
of _mis_conception about whether HF research is directed towards d-d fusion
or lithium burners?
 
And (perhaps even more interesting) how Congress perceives this issue?
 
Please note that the basis for the massive confusion is that the actual
fusion reaction proposed for near-term hot fusion is D+T -- meaning that
proponents can state with complete honest that:
 
    "Sir, we are looking into a way of combining two forms (isotopes)
     of hydrogen to release great quantities of energy."
 
...and of course, the fellow to whom he is speaking _knows_ that hydrogen
isotopes come from sea water!
 
Or do they?  Well now...
 
The deuterium certainly does.  How about the tritium?
 
Oops.  Does everyone know where tritium comes from?  (Not from sea water!)
 
For all proposed HF energy production schemes, it comes from transmutation
of _lithium_ via intense neutron irradiation.
 
So again:  What is the lithium consumption efficiency curve, so that we can
all get a realistic idea of _how much_ lithium will be needed to produce
one kilowatt-hour of electricity in a _plausible_ HF plant?
 
 
> I'm not convinced that fusion power plants will ever be practical but
> I think that it is at least proceeding along a scientifically feasible
> path. This is something that Terry and his Twist and his penchant for
> bosonic condensates can certainly not claim.
 
What penchant for bosonic condensates?  I've dropped them as interesting
but probably irrelevant to anything related to excess heat -- if it exists.
 
And if you call what I've been doing "pushing" Twist, I am highly amused.
I've spent far more time telling folks what a crock it is _in the absence
of any highly reproducible evidence of excess heat_ than trying to plug it.
 
> But to keep it in perspective, Terry is working from the viewpoint that
> CNF is bunk, BUT if it is real there must be some sort of mechanism.
> To that extent I applaud Terry, but that doesn't make him one wit more
> correct.
 
Well, thanks... I think.  I _do_ think this conditional statement is valid:
 
   IF   excess net energy clean heat in palladium hydride systems is real,
 
   THEN it is based on annihilation of entire atoms via some fundamental
        but highly constrained violation of quantum theory that involves
        delocalized wavefunctions.
 
But as you know form logic, _validity_ is NOT the same thing as _truth_.
 
If I start with an asinine initial assumption, almost any kind of bizarre
consequence can follow.  The one above simply summarized my process-of-
elimination analysis for the initial (and very bizarre indeed) proposal.
 
"Cold fusion" and most other silliness are eliminated almost immediately
because they lead to self-contradictory logical structures -- e.g., the idea
that the same experiment should give totally different results when done by
different people in different places.  A few true "CFers" seem to absolutely
love that sort of thing.  I don't, emphatically.
 
Throw that garbage away, and (not too surprisingly) you are left with the
impossible: whole atoms being converted to energy, in flat-out, 100% violation
of all known physics, but very, very carefully constrained by a "trigger" that
does not occur except under very unusual circumstances.
 
Why should this be a surprise to anyone?  The CF silliness was just what P&F
tossed out in a very poorly thought-out mish-mash paper that tried to explain
what they clearly believed to be one or two real excess heat events.
 
But the truth usually is that if you suggest a result that is a _major_
violation of reality as mapped out by centuries of good, solid physics_,
then Lo! -- you are required to counter-posit an equally severe violation
of the physical laws describing such phenomena.
 
I'm no friend of "CF," Dr. Kunich.  If anything, Twist simply points out
how _utterly_ bizarre the initial P&F claims really were, and the magnitude
of what is required to follow through on them.
 
Plus Twist was just delightful fun to get together.  So many interesting
physics papers out there, and so few people bothering to really dig in
and look at how beautifully strange well-established physics already is.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The Birds
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Birds
Date: 19 Sep 1993 21:48:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
:      Jones give us his interpretation of old, tentative studies. *His
:      interpretation* -- his e-mail rumor mongering!
 
:      I give you the direct words of McKubre himself, quoted in a responsible,
:      national newspaper where you can look it up, and I repeat that I have
:      heard exactly the same information from the man himself, and from and
:      EPRI Research Director at an International Conference, and at other
:      formal meetings.
 
: Let the reader choose what to believe: Steve's self-serving rumors, or my
: first-hand, recent, direct reports and direct quotes from the researcher
: himself.
 
Whoa there.  Prof Jones quoted printed published scientific work material
with the scientists name on it.  No 'interpretation' was necessary.
 
On the other hand, what you have heard and read is also probably true.
 
Most likely the contexts of the two statements were different and this
is a silly argument.
 
I can't help but agree with Prof Jones that a good search for nuclear
reactions is desirable, despite the apparent lack of encouraging evidence.
 
: As for other measures of credibility, let the reader decide! Richard Blue
: huffs and puffs and claims that he has done experiments, and he can prove that
: his perpetual motion machine will work, but where is the beef? Where is your
: data Dick? Show us your proof! You say you know that calorimeters don't work,
: and you can prove it. When are you going to perform this miracle? Dick
: denigrates my humble plastic toothbrush holder calorimeter, he calls it a mere
: toy. I will not deny it is a cheap, crude, silly looking little gadget. I
: admit, it can only measure to the nearest 0.1 watts, it is nothing like a real
: calorimeter. But, at least my instrument *exists*. At least I have shown the
: readers real data, real information. I stated that even a crude, simple
: calorimeter will work to a reasonable level of accuracy and precision, and I
: proved it. Dick Blue says I am wrong, but HE HAS NOT SHOWN US ANY EVIDENCE FOR
: HIS CLAIMS!
 
Well actually, our resident experimentalist has in fact observed
evidence of phenomena that could appear to give spurious positive results
in some kinds of experimental calorimeter, though it was caught by his
self-checking design.
 
: Talk, talk, talk and no experiments equals No Science. Blue, Morrison, Jones
: and the other skeptics are making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary! Their
: claims fly in the face of known science, and long accepted, fundamental
: truths, like the amount of energy it takes to vaporize water, and the
: reliability of basic lab equipment.
 
Please remember that there are also long accepted fundamental truths seemingly
violated on the other side as well.
 
:They demand that we believe these claims
: without a shred of evidence. They will not perform an experiment to show that
: you can burn 0.0044 mole of hydrogen and produce 150 watts for hour after hour
: -- but they demand that we swallow that story and believe it, just because
: they are the "authorities" and whatever they say is the gospel truth.
 
In fact, if other scientists were allowed to indpendently measure the
operation of the magic cathodes (they don't have to be told how to make
them, just how to use them) with their own calorimeters and experimental
apparatus, that would go a long way.
 
Right now, all you can say is "Trust the Japanese."  Which is OK, but then
don't flame people because the open scientific evidence is not that strong.
 
: - Jed
 
cheers
Matt
 
--
-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:
cuddy19 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: neutron half-life
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron half-life
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 04:34:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <199309172027.AA02985@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.
du (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
>    I considered consulting the CRC Handbook, but decided against it.
>    It might very well give another value. Isn't science wonderful?
 
If you think this is confusing, try designing a hairpin spring sometimes.
I consulted five books and got five different (wildly different) values.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / John Logajan /  Using analytical balances
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Using analytical balances
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 05:40:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

For about $4,000 you can get analytical balances that have resolutions
down to 0.00001 grams (yup, 1/100,000 of a gram.)
 
According to my calculations, such an analytic balance could detect
D2 O2 evolution from a cell at a rate of one "tick" per second at a
total current of 50 ma.  This would be equivalent to 10 divisions per
second at 500 ma total, or 1 division every 10 seconds at 5 ma total.
 
For under $2,000 you can get one with 0.0001 grams resolution.  This gives
you 10 times less real-time resolution, or about 1 "tick" per second at 500 ma.
This is a resolution of about 0.76 Joules.  Not too shabby.
 
The above assumes no intentional recombination, and that the D2 and O2
evolved is allowed to *escape*.  It also assumes that D2O vapor does *not*
escape -- which implies traps of various sorts (chillers, calcium carbide,
H2SO4, or whatever.)
 
In this way you could get very accurate measures of dissociation rates
and cummulative energy balances related to dissociation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Frank Close /  Libellous Campbell? Call Gary Triggs.
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Libellous Campbell? Call Gary Triggs.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 09:00:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes: "statements like Campbell's are libellous. Unless
he can tell us when, where, and under what circumstances "suspicious"
work was performed **at Toyota** (my emphasis) by Pons and Fleischmann--".
 
Who mentioned Toyota? (i) 28March 1989, (ii) Harwell and Utah,
(iii) having been told by Harwell scientists on the Tuesday that the
gamma radiation data in effect proved that there was *no*
dd fusion, by Thursday the same data were used in a redrawn figure
and presented as measured evidence for dd fusion.
It is now public knowledge that the "gamma" ray data as published in the
JEAC never had any basis in fact. If Mr Campbell needs a defense for his
"libellous" remarks on F and P (that should probably be P and F) he could
start here. If Jed Rothwell wishes to continue defending Pons on this
score he could begin by explaining the above.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Jones' search for causality
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' search for causality
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 11:24:33 BST

In <CDJ61E.2Hn@world.std.com> mitchell swartz writes:
>   This is utter nonsense, isn't it?
> .  What does it matter if you quote an article from four years ago if the
>      author stated just this Summer:
  Ummm ... It matters a lot. I notice that McKubre and Passel haven't
been consulted about this apparent dicrepancy in reporting, all we
have is Jed's assurance (based, it seems, on a report in the popular
sunday press).
>
>=jr "Let me repeat, one last
>=jr time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically denied that they have
>=jr looked for products and not found them. As Steve disingenuously points out,
>=jr they have done some preliminary work in this area, but McKubre has said time
>=jr after time:" Jed Rothwell  <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1]
>
>=mm     "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
>=mm      but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
>
>=jr "That's from the Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by
  Let me see if I understand this correctly. We are now to accord
reports in the Sunday Times with the same credibility heretofore
reserved for refereed journals ...
  As a reference for those of you not in the UK, the Sunday Times is
no different from any other sunday rag. They print stories to be
digested over bacon and eggs.
   Are Messrs Rothwell and Swartz prepared to stand, with hand on
heart, and say that _no-one_ has every been misquoted in a newspaper ??
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: The Birds
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Birds
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 11:40:56 BST

In <930918141432_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell writes:
___ SUNDAY TIMES EXTRA ___ Jed Rothwell, experienced scientist,
challenges Cold Fusion advocates.
>I can cite dozens of books and 200 years of history to bolster my
>claims. What do these parrots and myna birds who shout me down have
>to offer? What experiments can they point to? What textbooks?
>They have nothing! They promise that they can debunk calorimetry,
>but they never follow through. They are liars and blowhards, and
>they cannot prove a single word of what they say.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 11:52:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1412:
 
>Dieter Britz [BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk] writes:
 
>= "Mitch, you must try to distinguish between an argument on a scientific point,
>= and a personal (jugular) attack. I was pointing out the fallacy of your
[...]
>   2. As your e-mail to me indicates you are, in fact,  going for "the jugular":
 
>    "Hello Mitch,
>      sorry to be going for your jugular, ...."
> [From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>; Subject: RE: your comments - Hi
>      Message-Id: <01H2XY64HHIA9PQWSB@vms2.uni-c.dk>]
 
>  Therefore, stick to the physics.  OK?
 
Mitch, that was not nice, and it was devious and misleading. You should ask
permission before quoting private email; in this case, you are quoting me out
of context, because I was not referring to the same matter when I wrote that
to you; furthermore, by paring the quote down, as you do, you change its
tenor, which was humorous. I don't believe you lack humour to the extent that
you are unaware of distorting my words here.
 
I thought we had a friendly relationship but I may have been wrong. If you do
this again, you will join those people I have wiped from my working memory.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Using analytical balances
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using analytical balances
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 11:05:07 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Sep20.054015.781@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) wrote:
 
> For about $4,000 you can get analytical balances that have resolutions
> down to 0.00001 grams (yup, 1/100,000 of a gram.)
>
> For under $2,000 you can get one with 0.0001 grams resolution.  This gives
> you 10 times less real-time resolution, or about 1 "tick" per second at 500 ma.
> This is a resolution of about 0.76 Joules.  Not too shabby.
>
> The above assumes no intentional recombination, and that the D2 and O2
> evolved is allowed to *escape*.  It also assumes that D2O vapor does *not*
> escape -- which implies traps of various sorts (chillers, calcium carbide,
> H2SO4, or whatever.)
>
> In this way you could get very accurate measures of dissociation rates
> and cummulative energy balances related to dissociation.
 
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
The problem is the capacity of these balances.  The 0.1 milligram models
have a limit of 160 grams or so, depending on manufacturer, while the 10
microgram model probably has a limit of 1.25 grams (our $8k Cahn
microbalance has limits of 1.25 g at a resolution of 10 micrograms and 25
milligrams at 0.1 micrograms).  Pretty tough to get a cell plus calorimeter
under 1 gram, much less 25 milligrams.  Also, they have response times of
several seconds, to allow averaging out vibrations (and the operators
breathing :-).
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Jones' Search for Causality
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' Search for Causality
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 13:21:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <19930920.033619.920@almaden.ibm.com>
   Subject: Re: Jones' search for causality
Greg Stewart-Nicholls (nicho@vnet.IBM.COM) writes:
 
=gsn    "Are Messrs Rothwell and Swartz prepared to stand, with hand on
=gsn   heart, and say that _no-one_ has every been misquoted in a newspaper ??"
 
  Greg, and IBM, ought remember that there are many problems with reliance
        upon newspapers.
 
    "...   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]
 
 In fact such calculations were historically presented "proving"
        that heavier-than-air ships (ie. airplanes) "cannot fly".
 
   "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]
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Dieter Britz /  Gaussian
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gaussian
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:03:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have wiped that flood of Digests so I can't quote. To Bill Page, wanting to
know more about the Gaussian package, I happen to know someone here who knows
someone; his email address is rda@theor.ch.cam.ac.uk and he distributes a q.
chem program called CADPAC which is a bit like Gaussian. Name of Roger Amos.
Go for it Bill.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Post selection of data
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Post selection of data
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:03:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Recently there has been considerable excess heat generated over the
question of whether or not experiments at SRI have included searches for
"nuclear ash".  The facts seem to be that McKubre, in a paper presented
at the 1st international conference, states that some searches were made
with null results.  More recently in interviews with the press and in
private conversations, McKubre has indicated that no such investigations
have been undertaken.  One can accept those statements provided they
apply only to more recent experiments and are not intended to contradict
the earlier publication.  Clearly this question is one of great significance
to the ultimate resolution of the CF issue so why can't the advocates
face up to the issue?  To dismiss the earlier searchs as preliminary or
something that happened four years ago is simply a matter of trying to
post select from the existing data the desired results.  If Jed and
Mitch are ready to discount all the SRI results or all early work in
this field that is a different matter, but for now they are stuck with
all of the data including the null results on nuclear ash.  Of course
one reason that there can be such heated exchanges about the SRI results
is that they really have never been published!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: the half-life of a neutron
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: the half-life of a neutron
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:03:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
If a neutron really does have a half life of only 10 min or so, this gets me
wondering what happens to it after that? A stable element with neutrons in its
nucleus, how come it's stable, if those neutrons are not? Or do they revert to
being neutrons after  doing whatever they do when they do what they do? If you
know what I mean. Someone in the know please enlighten this humble
electrochemist.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / mitchell swartz /  RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 14:44:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <01H368QMBELE9PRDGE@vms2.uni-c.dk>
  Subject: RE: On "How his calorimeter works"
 Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
=db  "I don't believe you lack humour to the extent
=db that you are unaware of distorting my words here."
=db "I thought we had a friendly relationship but I may have been wrong.
=db If you do this again, you will join those people I have wiped
=db from my working memory."
 
    Dieter, given that my only interest has been to push the science here, and
 since I've been one of your supporters here,
    I am sorry we got in a flame war, and still do not believe that
    scientific postings could have the effect they do.
 
    Also, given the less then 48-hr between your note and post,
      I was unaware of your relatively faster time-constant.
    Since the subject of the two - cf - is identical (just different
     parallax physical views of a group of compelling phenomena),
    although I did not see the humor in the "jugular" bit, perhaps I've
      been too academic.
 
        Best wishes.                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                       mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Jones' Search for Causality
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' Search for Causality
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 15:33:09 BST

In <CDnMG0.C1o@world.std.com> mitchell swartz writes:
>  Greg, and IBM, ought remember that there are many problems with reliance
>        upon newspapers.
    I agree (although I'll be buggered if I can work out what IBM has
to do with this ..) Perhaps you might also aquaint Mr Rothwell with
this fact ..
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  blue@dancer.ns /   Re: How he does thermometry
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Re: How he does thermometry
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:38:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am amazed at how the simple question of how a thermometer works can
generate such long and rather pointless discussions.  Obviously it
is desirable that a thermometer be in thermal equilibrium with the bath
for which it is supposed to read temperature.  Making sure that condition
is satisfied can, under some circumstances, be more difficult than one
would like.  However, Mitches contention that heat must flow from the bath
to the thermometer is not a universal truth.  In particular thermistor
probes, that I believe are used by Pons and Fleischmann, or actually heat
sources with respect to the bath they monitor.  A thermistor is a temperature
dependent resistance.  To sense that resistance you must supply a current and
that results in heating, all be it at the nanowatt level.  The only way
the thermistor probe could be a heat sink is via thermal conduction
along the leads.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Correct The Ravings
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correct The Ravings
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:38:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I gather that Dick Blue has now done his usual about-face, and he is trying
to pretend that he did not make his Latest Stupid Remarks. He said something
like, "To correct that latest ravings from Jed Rothwell, at no point have I
made any statements that imply perpetual motion..." In other words, folks,
the guy made a terrific blunder, he posted a bunch of really stupid
mistakes, and now he is pretending he never said what he said (or else he is
so dumb he still does not understand how to make a P.M.M. according to his
"theory"). What wonderful chutzpa! However, it won't wash. The shuffling,
the song and dance, the evasions are not fooling anyone but the fools. Just
to set the record straight, and just so we can enjoy another round of
laughs, let us review Dick's latest "theory." Here goes! Dick claims that he
can:
 
1. Take two identical test tubes under the same ambient temperature and
other conditions, with the same mass of water in both. Suppose the test
tubes are in a water bath at 20 C, and they have "settle times" of a few
minutes.
 
2. Put identical amounts of energy into both over the same time period,
using, say, an electric heater. For example, you might input 1000 joules
over 10 minutes (a bit more than 1 watt average power level).
 
3. The water temperature in one test tube might rise, say, 5 degrees, up to
25 C, and the water in the other test tube might go up to 35 C, three times
higher.
 
Dick says he can pull off this miracle by changing the "wave form" of the
electricity going into the heater. He does not claim that he will actually
put 3000 joules into the latter, but fool the power supply monitoring
equipment into measuring 1000 instead. (I guess this would be at least
theoretically possible, if you deliberately set up the monitoring equipment
wrong.) He says he can put the same total amount of energy into both test
tubes and fool the water! He thinks he call pull this off for hours at a
time, even days, because he says this is what explains the "heat pulses"
seen by P&f, McKubre and others, which last for hours or days. In other
words, he is not going to crowd all 1000 joules into the last minute in a
cheap parlor trick that sorta works once and doesn't fool anyone, he is
going to repeat the wave form miracle over and over again for some time
period (minutes? seconds? Who knows!) and keep the illusion going for hours
at a time. He alleges his magic wave forms explain what CF scientists
observe.
 
He overlooked the fact that if he can pull off this trick, I can come along
and install something like a thermoelectric device in between the test
tubes, and generate power by exploiting the difference in temperatures.
Scale it up a bit, and I can generate enough to keep the reaction going
forever. Right? Sure. I challenged Dick to actually do this Fabulous
Experiment and report back, but of course he is doing the two-step shuffle
and giving us all kinds of excuses, because he knows it is impossible. He is
forever making these hysterically stupid claims and then trying to back out
of them, or pretending that I made the claim instead of him. One of my all
time favorite Dick Blue "theories" is that you can run water at 1 ml/second
through an unobstructed pipe, and it will generate heat from "water
friction" at multiwatt levels. Sure! Right. Flush the toilet, and you burn
down the house. This is the level of "science" that Dick Blue understands.
It is the same as Morrison, who claims you can burn 0.0044 moles of hydrogen
and get 86,000 joules of heat out of it. Anyone can see that this is all
hysterical nonsense.
 
For readers who need to brush up their calorimetry: CF scientists do, in
fact, put the same power into two test tubes and observe one go up, say,
three times higher than the other. However, because they are rational human
beings, they say that this proves there is an extra, unaccounted-for source
of energy in the hotter test tube. That is how calorimetry works. If you put
1 watt into both (on average) and one becomes three times hotter than the
other, the hotter one has a two watt power source in it, in addition to the
1 watt input. There is another VAST, IMPORTANT difference between the claims
of the CF scientists and lunatics like Dick Blue. CF scientists actually do
experiments and prove their claims. They actually build cells, demonstrate
the effect, they publish peer-reviewed data, they invite other scientists in
to see the experiments in action, and other people replicate them. Dick
Blue, on the other hand, will never lift a finger to try to prove any of his
claims, because he knows he cannot.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Not a silly argument
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not a silly argument
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:42:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Matt Kennel writes:
 
     "Whoa there.  Prof Jones quoted printed published scientific work
     material with the scientists name on it.  No 'interpretation' was
     necessary.
 
     "On the other hand, what you [Jed] have heard and read is also probably
     true."
 
     "Most likely the contexts of the two statements were different and this
     is a silly argument.
 
It is not a "silly argument." Jones is deliberately distorting the facts and
publishing statements which are directly contradicted what McKubre and
others at EPRI and SRI have claimed. Jones did this to Miles too, he puts
*his* spin on their work, he made statements about the work that anyone who
is familiar with the scientific literature can see are misleading and self-
serving distortions. This causes confusion and bad feelings all around.
 
Let me try to clear up some of this deliberate fog and confusion. Let me
explain my interpretation of the early SRI results; this is NOT what Passell
or anyone else told me, it is simply what I think after reading other
papers. In the early days of CF, SRI and many others looked in the spent
cathodes for signs of helium-4. A lot of this work was done at Rockwell, as
noted here. Some elevated levels of helium have been reported in the
cathodes, but never enough to account for the observed net excess energy
according to conventional nuclear hypothesis. After a few years, most people
concluded that if there was "commensurate helium ash" it couldn't be left in
the cathode, and it was not found in the water, either. So, the only place
left to look for it was in the effluent D2 and H2 gas.The first group that I
know of who performed a really credible, thorough search was Miles, Hollings
and Bush. Lo and behold, they found helium, in amounts roughly commensurate.
They have since repeated their work, improved their cells and detection
apparatus and procedures, and they are still finding it. Last I heard
anyway, they are doing better than ever. Other groups have replicated their
work -- I expect we will be hearing from them at ICCF4. Furthermore, other
workers have used radically different techniques and found helium outgassed
from hot cathodes and thin film devices. So, I think the consensus is
gradually forming that the place to look for helium ash is not in the
cathode, but in the gas. McKubre attended the conferences, so he knows this,
so I suppose he now discounts his earlier work as "looking in the wrong
place" or perhaps just "step-by-step process of elimination." Steve Jones
also attended the conferences, so he too should understand this, and I
cannot imagine why he is pretending he does not understand it. Again -- I
repeat -- that is not how anyone at EPRI or SRI has characterized the work
in conversations with me, that is just my opinion, and my gut feel for the
trends. If you want to know what they think at EPRI, call them and find out.
Don't ask me!
 
For those who have not read the Miles paper, let me repeat that looking for
helium is not like looking under the bed for your glasses. You don't do some
simple little procedure and read out an answer. It is a long, involved,
painstaking task, because the amount of helium is so small, and because
helium is a common contaminant (10 ppm of ordinary air). When you look at a
normal experimental set-up, you see that there would be no way to measure
helium-4 evolution from it in amounts commensurate with a fusion reaction.
It would be swamped by the background.
 
 
People who are discussing the mechanics of measuring heat and temperature
should please bear in mind that the amount of energy absorbed by a mercury
thermometer is very small. The energy levels needed to push up the mercury
are so tiny that nobody could not measure them with conventional water-based
calorimetry. In other words: Yes, some heat is taken out of the system by a
thermometer or thermocouple. No, it cannot possibly make any difference. It
is far too small to measure, it is down in the noise. You add in some extra
energy when you shine a bright light on the cathode or shine through the
water in order to measure the water level, but you can't measure that energy
either. For that matter, you add energy when you walk across the room and
set up vibrations through the floor and workbench too, but this is also in
the noise. Please bear in mind that conventional calorimetry, which is used
in 99% of all CF experiments, can only be used to measure energy levels up
to about 100 watts, in increments of maybe 0.01 watts with good equipment,
and 0.1 watts with lousy equipment. You can pick a smaller range and improve
the precision somewhat, say, 0 to 10 watts in 0.005 watt increments. CF
reactions typically produce 1 to 4 watts, sometimes ranging up to, say, 30
watts (10 in, 40 out). Therefore, the equipment is intended to measure 1 to
30 watts, not 0.000001 to 0.000030 watts. Tiny little effects like the heat
it takes to raise the mercury never register with this kind of equipment,
and discussions centered around these tiny little effects serve no purpose
that I can see. People who express concerns about these effects should take
a few days to perform some experiments measuring multi-watt levels of heat.
They will soon realize what *does* matter, and what real problems in the
real world can occur. They will also understand what I mean when I say that
the skeptics are trying to explain away multiwatt results by pointing to
milliwatt effects.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  schlichting@pa /  Zero loading (some facts)
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero loading (some facts)
Date: 20 Sep 93 10:37:45 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Dear Gentelmen and Ladies;
 
In an earlier private mail message I described an "accepted" method for
removeing most or all of the of the hydrogen or D from a previously
loaded Pd (or Pd/alloy) cathod.  This included slow heating in an oxygen
environment.  Air works well.
 
I mentioned that you should warm the sample slowly so as to not release
a great deal of hydrogen at once.  The diffusion of hydrogen in Pd is
sensitive to temperature, the higher the temperature the higher the
diffusion rate.  If you are useing a large section of Pd or
Pd/alloy I suggest even greater care.
 
Here is some more Information;
 
    The First known report of the absorbtion of hydrogen by cathods of PD
during electrolysis was made by Thomas Graham (1868).  He also stated in the
same paper that the hydrogen could be removed from the hydrided cathode
if the polarity of the cell was reversed so that the Pd cathod became
the anode.
 
Note.
Anodization is another method used for "activation" of the surface.
 
Not bad for this date.  The question now becomes
 
How do you know how much ??????
 
The best method that I can think of..........
 
Use of electrical resistance measurements ..  The electrical properties of
the "as prepared"  cathod must be measured.  Specifically the resistance
call this R(zero).  This of course should be done prior to hydrating the
sample.
 
As the cathod becomes loaded with H or D again measure the resistance.
Call this 'R'.  The literature (example is The Palladium Hydrogen System
by F.A. Lewis 1967)  explains and has data and some plots of R/R(zero) as
a function of the ratio H/Pd.
 
This does cause some problems for those of you useing strong electrolytes.
As the resistance through the electrolyte may be smaller than through
the cathode.  I'll bet Tom Droege could come up with an "electrical
bridge" method to compensate for the lower resistance in the juice.
 
I believe the Electro Chemists call this Co-Conduction.
 
An indirect method(s) of measurement;
 
Electrode Potential:
 
   For high H/Pd loadings such as found in the (beta phase) where
H/Pd > 0.57 at 25 C.  Electrode potential is more sensitive than
The R/R(zero) method for determining Hydrogen loading.
 
   One could measure the amount of gas formed in the head space and
determine the hydrogen absorbed in the cathod.
 
 
  I hope this helps....  The literature is full of discrepancies on
the subject of max loading, and on diffusion and permeability of hydrogen.
 
I'm starting to think that cathode metallurgy and surface preparation
are the key elements in the grand puzzel.
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / F Freitas /  Re: the half-life of a neutron
     
Originally-From: mpug8@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Francisco De Freitas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the half-life of a neutron
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 16:32:39 GMT
Organization: University of Sussex

In article <01H36E37E4IA9PRLHS@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> If a neutron really does have a half life of only 10 min or so, this gets me
> wondering what happens to it after that? A stable element with neutrons in its
> nucleus, how come it's stable, if those neutrons are not? Or do they revert to
> being neutrons after  doing whatever they do when they do what they do? If you
> know what I mean. Someone in the know please enlighten this humble
> electrochemist.
 
     As I understand it (and I'm not sure about this) it decays to an
electron + proton.
 
                         Francisco De Freitas,
                         mpug8@syma.susx.ac.uk (internet),
                         mpug8@uk.ac.susx.syma (JANET).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmpug8 cudfnFrancisco cudlnFreitas cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Bill Page /  Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 18:37:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes:
<<
Best of luck on your math skills.  Disappointing that you
don't seem to find initial premises important, though.
>>
 
Thanks, I think... but I don't understand the second sentence.  I thought I
was stating my initial premises more clearly, thats all.  I think I share
your view that CF is very unlikely, yet it can be used to motivate oneself
to dig deeper into the existing well established observations and theories
which are now quite widely accepted.  As you have stated, even this
'conventional' material is sufficiently rich to yield some surprizes where
many people have come to think of it as 'well understood'.  For the
present, I am simply persuing some basic quantum mechanics (computational
quantum mechanics) in this manner.
 
<< Terry:
I would humbly suggest this:  Study the transition of the (two +1 centers)
DH+ (or H2+) bonding electron wavefunction into the (one +2 center) 3He+
electron wavefunction by assuming an arbitrary parameter s that gives the
separation between the two nuclei.  Study both the form of the electron
wavefunction, _and_ its total energy, as you make the transition.
 
This approach would allow you to convert your results into a real paper,
as there is nothing in it that actually violates physics -- it's just an
unusual thought problem that happens to cover _all_ of the same turf that
is supposedly covered by the strangely stated Vigier silliness.
>>
 
Yes, this is a very good suggestion.  Thanks again.  I have one concern.
Is it possible that this might mis-represent the possible dynamics?  I
mean, the relative lack of evidence for Hbar+ suggests that it may not form
simply by inelastic collisions.  It is apparently necessary to pay
particular attention to the wavefunctions of the protons and their
interaction as well as that of the electron.  I am worried that making the
separation between the nuclei, a parameter does not do the dynamics
justice.  I think we would both agree that the existence of Hbar+ would
depend on the possible existence of solutions to the wave equations that
are not uniquely indexed by this separation parameter.  I.e. Hbar+ may well
have (the expected value of) the separation between the delocalized protons
on the same order of magnitude as the separation of the more localized
protons in the He3+ nucleus even though no neutron is present.
 
One possible model of formation of Hbar+ that I have entertained is that
the protons must *first* be de-localized, e.g. within a few lattice sites,
then Hbar+ forms as they partially 're-localize around' an electron.  More
silliness perhaps.  But at this point, I am not actually thinking about
quantifiing how Hbar+ might form.  Rather, my approach is to imagine what I
think the Hamiltonian of Hbar+ would have to look like (if it existed) and
then perform the calculations to determine if there are any 'near by'
approximate eigenstates.  Approximate eigenstates since, if Hbar+ exists,
it may not be stable (stationary).  For PeP interactions, it is only
necessary that it exist for some relatively long (with respect to weak
interactions) period of time.
 
BTW, the connection with the neutron trapping observations might be the
large proton/neutron interaction cross-section due to the 100 fm
delocalization of the protons.  One might expect that
 
  Hbar+ + n -> D + p
 
i.e. that one of the protons absorbs a virtual pi- from the neutron via the
strong interaction. WHAT! Still more silliness?
 
Can you (or anyone else here) point specifically to the reason why you
believe that the formation of Hbar+ is clearly impossible?  If you can
convince me of this, it would probably save me a lot of effort (though it
might short circuit my currently chosen path to enlightenment.  But there
are other paths.).
 
I really appreciate your feedback and I hope that you will continue to
shift through the noise on this channel for this type of interaction.  It
is still good advice simply to ignore people who are "vexations to the
spirit".  Certainly whenever I make a posting to the net that gets
absolutely no response, I feel a major discourgement to make any more
postings along the same line.  (Though, as you might have noticed I do
manage to sneak in at least a few side commments now and then.]
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Using analytical balances
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using analytical balances
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 18:47:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
>The problem is the capacity of these balances.  The 0.1 milligram models
>have a limit of 160 grams or so, depending on manufacturer
 
I see one at 180 grams, so you are right.
 
>while the 10 microgram model probably has a limit of 1.25 grams
 
The one I see has about a 12 gram capacity.
 
> (our $8k Cahn microbalance
 
The price quotes I have are probably on the order of one year old, so though
they may have risen somewhat, it is unlikely they have all doubled, so you
should still be able to get one in the $2000-$3000 range.
 
>Also, they have response times of several seconds
 
I suppose this limits the dynamic usefulness of extremely tiny resolutions.
So maybe a cheaper milligram scale would make more sense.  If I did my
calculation right it should still tell you within 10J how much D2 and O2 you
are evolving.  One such scale has a capacity of 300g and costs $1800.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Open Season Continues on The Birds
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Open Season Continues on The Birds
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:30:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930919151107_72240.1256_EHK30-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>under their rocks and began posting messages like this. Over and over again,
>they insult Pons and Fleischmann, they attack them, they publish blatant
>obvious lies about them. They get away with it! Apparently, the libel laws
>have been suspended: you can say anything you want about these two scientists.
 
     The last refuge of a coward is complaining about libel laws.
 
     Somewhere I hear a hard wind blowing...
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Page / Reply to Kunich
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Page / Reply to Kunich
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:35:32 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Sep19.182551.15219@asl.dl.nec.com>,
Terry Bollinger <terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
>Bill Page:  Best of luck on your math skills.  Disappointing that you
>don't seem to find initial premises important, though.  Also, don't be
>overly impressed that Vigier is a Physics Letters A editor.  I noticed
>with my LoC searches that whenever PLA was referenced, I got to where
>I would think "uh oh -- probably more crappily reviewed junk."  It is
>not the best of the physics journals, having a nasty tendency to let most
>any paper in if they just throw in enough equations to make it look good.
 
     Reviewing is a problem everywhere.  Phys. Lett. A
     is a perfectly good physics journal.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Using analytical balances
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using analytical balances
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 15:41:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Sep20.054015.781@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>For about $4,000 you can get analytical balances that have resolutions
>down to 0.00001 grams (yup, 1/100,000 of a gram.)
>
>According to my calculations, such an analytic balance could detect
>D2 O2 evolution from a cell at a rate of one "tick" per second at a
>total current of 50 ma.  This would be equivalent to 10 divisions per
>second at 500 ma total, or 1 division every 10 seconds at 5 ma total.
..
>In this way you could get very accurate measures of dissociation rates
>and cummulative energy balances related to dissociation.
 
    Fluid inertial effects and related vibrations are going to
    substantially limit your 'precision', especially when trying to get
    time-varying answers.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:52:32 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930919173047_70047.3047_EHB24-1@CompuServe.COM> 70047.3047@c
mpuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>
>Well, I would like to know more about these packages.  Do you have any
>suggestions on where to look for literature?  Or a contact person for who
>ever does the distribution?
 
The "Gaussian-xx" package is a commercial product that is on most big
computers and also available on the better workstations.  Around here
such things are "somebody else's problem" so I can't help you with
sources.  Any quantum chemistry group would know about them and the
others that are available.
>                            I am a little skeptical regarding 'one electron
>atoms', however, since my target application (Vigier's Hbar+) is not well
>described as such.
 
I misspoke.  I meant 1-electron molecules.  These codes are used to
solve a variety of many-body problems in chemistry.
 
>                   The closest analogue for Hbar+ is probably H- (hydrogen
>anion) with the roles of the electrons and protons interchanged.  I.e.
>there are two protons in the 'outter shell'.  And to top it off, we can
>certainly not ignore the motion of the central electron.
 
...
 
>In order to think that Hbar+ is even possible at all, you have to imagine
>that the electron and protons do indeed have some unusual properties.  In
>particular, the two protons must be thought to be co-located in a shell
>around the electron.  The electron is confined to a very small volume (on
>the order of 100 fm) and the protons (though delocalized over the shell)
>are considered to be within 'nuclear' distance of each other.
 
You cannot have it both ways.  Having the two protons delocalized but
correlated so they are within nuclear distances means that you are just
describing an atom of singly ionized He-2 by using a very unusual
electron-centered coordinate system.  This is inconvenient since the
electron is far from the center of mass of the system, so there will
be all sorts of recoil motion.  It is still not clear to me what you
are trying to accomplish, since no manipulations will change the basic
nuclear physics that makes the p-p and n-n systems unbound.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: the half-life of a neutron
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the half-life of a neutron
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 18:03:58 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <01H36E37E4IA9PRLHS@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>If a neutron really does have a half life of only 10 min or so, this gets me
>wondering what happens to it after that? A stable element with neutrons in its
>nucleus, how come it's stable, if those neutrons are not? Or do they revert to
>being neutrons after  doing whatever they do when they do what they do? If you
>know what I mean. Someone in the know please enlighten this humble
>electrochemist.
 
The neutron decays to a proton (or, to be more precise, one of its down
quarks decays to an up quark with emission of an electron and anti-neutrino)
because it has more mass than the final system.  The reaction goes rather
slowly because the mass difference is not very large and the interaction
involved is the weak force.  The decay of H-3 goes even more slowly
(years) because the mass difference is quite tiny.
 
A neutron bound in a stable nucleus does not decay because the final
state would be more massive as a result of being less tightly bound.
Similarly, a proton in a nucleus can decay (to positron and neutrino,
or via electron capture if that is not possible) if the final arrangement
of particles is more tightly bound.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  schlichting@pa /  Voltage Trends
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Voltage Trends
Date: 20 Sep 93 12:57:13 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Dear Gentlemen,
 
There has been some discussion here concerning the Voltage drop near
the end of the P&F's most recent experiments....
 
I agree with Mr. Tom Droege.  I believe this is expected with increased
H or D loading of a Pd/alloy.  I'm not a nuclear type but there is a
metallurgical explaination for near equilibrium conditions.
 
As hydrogen loading continues from ZERO a solid state phase transformation
occurs.  Basically an (alpha) phase is the type most closely resembling
the base metal is the first phase .... Note (H/Pd
 
The electrode potential E decreases from 7.0 (mV) to about 5.0 (mV).
 
As hydrogen increases to some critical point, nucleation of a second (beta)
phase occurs.  This is a mixed phase both (alpha and beta) co-exist.
As hydrogen continues to increase the quantity of the (beta) phase
increases.
 
Note that during this time period E stays the same.
 
With additional hydrogen loading the (alpha) phase disappears and the
result is an all (beta) phase.  Inorder to further increase hydrogen
loading further the E (mV) must decrease further.
 
As I am not an electrical type I cannot comment further but
I believe there is nothing "exceptional" about this behavior.
 
Hope this helps
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Greg Kuperberg /  TBTB -> Raving Lunatic (or HBTBTB)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TBTB -> Raving Lunatic (or HBTBTB)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 18:37:35 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic & Public Computing

Recently we have seen a True-Blue True Believer turn into a raving
lunatic.  I don't know what it really means, but what it looks like is
that the TBTB put all his eggs in the cold fusion basket and is now
losing his shirt.  It's a sad possibility, especially if the TBTB is
middle-aged and has children to support.
 
What we may have on our hands is a True-Blue True Believer turning into
a Hard-Bitten, True-Blue True Believer, or HBTBTB.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / R Schroeppel /  D depletion in Jupiter
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D depletion in Jupiter
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 23:01:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones has mentioned the possibility of Jupiter (or its core)
being depleted in D, and that this might be interpreted as evidence
for low-level cold fusion at high pressures (MBars).
 
This raises some questions ...
 
How well mixed is Jupiter?  Would we expect that D-depleted core
material would be detectable as a noticeable D-depletion at the
surface?  Is it likely that any T formed in the core would get to
the surface before decaying (< a century)?.  What is the
likelihood of core->surface plumes?
 
Could Jupiter's higher gravity cause separation of P, D, & He3/4
based on density?
 
Is it possible that the interior pressure&temperature in Jupiter
is high enough to cause P+D or D+D fusion by conventional means?
This might not be enough to turn Jupiter into a star, but would
also deplete D.
 
We might also notice an excess of He3 if Jupiter's D was fused.
Is there an "easy" fusion reaction that eats He3?
 
What do we use for baseline values of D and He3?  I assume the
sun has long since burned its initial D, and the concentration
there today is very tiny (since P+D is much faster than P+P).
Is Earth's D/P ratio a reasonable guess for Jupiter?  Does
our He3/He4 ratio predict anything for Jupiter?
 
Will Galileo measure abundances of D, He3/4 on Jupiter, or its
moons?  Is there any data for Saturn?
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: the half-life of a neutron
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the half-life of a neutron
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 19:51:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <01H36E37E4IA9PRLHS@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> If a neutron really does have a half life of only 10 min or so, this gets
> me wondering what happens to it after that? A stable element with neutrons
> in its nucleus, how come it's stable, if those neutrons are not?
 
Best off-hand recollection by a poor, bewildered computer type who can
scarcely add 1 + 1 without a computer (it's 10, ain't it?) is that there
is simply not enough mass left in a bound neutron to support the decay
reaction, which is:
 
  n --> p + e + u   [neutron --> proton + electron + electron antineutrino]
 
The energy released when a neutron binds (for example) to a proton pulls
the net remaining neutron mass down to below the mass sum of p + e alone.
It is this loss of mass (I believe) that stabilizes bound neutrons.  The
poor neutron literally has nowhere to go in terms of quantum field theory
transformations, at least until a passing gamma or some other particle
provides it with the needed surplus of mass/energy.
 
Incidentally, the 10 minute half-life is anomalously long for the masses
involved.  A free neutron can exist for so remarkablely long because its
decay is mediated by the very modest nuclear-to-electronmagnetic linking
weak interation.
 
Also, the neutrino is required to preserve several important items -- mass,
spin, and lepton number (the -1 "antileptonishness" of the electron anti-
neutrino cancels out the +1 "leptonishness" of the electron).
 
Comments, Dr. Carr?  I'm going from memory, and this is more along your
line of work anyway.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  schlichting@pa /  Questions? Cathod Metallurgy..
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions? Cathod Metallurgy..
Date: 20 Sep 93 14:01:18 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Dear Gentlemen and Ladies,
 
I have some  questions on Pd/Pd-Alloy Cathod Preparation.
 
Thus far my studies have brought me to the following;
 
1.  It appears that the larger grain structures are most easily loaded
with H or D.  Certain reports of Pd in an 'As Cast' state and Pd
sponge lead me to believe this is the case.
 
Does anyone have information concerning micro-structure with cathod
loading.
 
2.  Further Study has revealed that much of the trouble with
reproducibility may have something to do with surface preparation.  This
again is reported in the liturature and I've seen some of it on the NET.
Certain methods of cathod preparation enhance H or D diffusion certain
others 'poison' the affect.
 
Some researchers have emperically learned to 'activate' the surface
of Pd-alloys to improve the absorbtion of hydrogen and D.  I believe
the object is to make the surface "catalytically active".  It is my
understanding that the H2 molecule must be split in some surface
chemical reaction in order for diffusion into the base metal to
occur. It is thought that this must be a catalytic type surface
reaction.   These methods are;
 
Prior oxidation of the surface in oxygen;
"J. Phys. Chem." #69, Simons and Flanagan, 1965
 
Electrolytic anodization.  I understand this to be the repeated reversal
of the potential (first cathod then anode etc.) until the surface has been
striped of the layers of junk exposing the base metal.
"Z. ElektroChem."  1953 Clamroth & Knorr
 
Electroplating on a new layer of palladium black (palladization)
"Trans. Faraday Soc." 1959 Flanagan & Lewis
 
 
Has anyone heard of other methods used for preparation of the cathod
or can someone help us with some real cathod metallurgy ???
 
This would be much appreciated as a post on
the network..  I feel there is a need to return
to some real information exchange.
 
Thanx-in-advance
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Using analytical balances
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using analytical balances
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 20:54:40 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Sep20.184708.7926@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) wrote:
> ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
> >while the 10 microgram model probably has a limit of 1.25 grams
>
> The one I see has about a 12 gram capacity.
>
> > (our $8k Cahn microbalance
>
> The price quotes I have are probably on the order of one year old, so though
> they may have risen somewhat, it is unlikely they have all doubled, so you
> should still be able to get one in the $2000-$3000 range.
 
The Cahn has 0.1 microgram resolution and probably wasn't the bottom of the
line in features.  We got it about a year ago; I didn't purchase it but
heard the prices of the options.  Don't know an exact price today.
 
> are evolving.  One such scale has a capacity of 300g and costs $1800.
 
Try making a friend at the chemistry dept. of a local university during the
summer session when you might be able to get the use of a balance for a
while.  It is amazing how much good will a few beers buys from the average
starving student, and a prof is more likely to say yes to one of his
students than to an outsider.
 
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Greg Kuperberg /  Radioactivity of neutrons and other things
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactivity of neutrons and other things
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 21:19:15 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic & Public Computing

The Nuclear Almanac tells me that sodium 22 decays by positron emission
to neon 22.  This is a reverse neutron decay.  So in nature you
can either see
 
N -> P + electron + antineutrino + photon
 
or
 
P -> N + positron + neutrino + photon,
 
depending on which nucleus the nucleon is in.  If you have two nuclei
with the same atomic mass that differ by only one proton, they cannot
both be stable unless the heavier one is within one electron of the
lighter one in mass.  Since the electron is very light, this is a rare
occurence among the elements.  I only found one example in the isotope
chart that I have; unfortunately, the chart sucks to the point that I
can't say exactly which pair of isotopes are so close in mass.
 
On a related point, a moment in the life of a nucleus or nucleon is
about 10^-22 seconds, which makes you wonder why that neutron decay
takes about 10^+3 seconds, and many other radioactive decays take much
longer.  It is a classic example of quantum tunnelling.  Neutron decay
requires the momentary existence of a W particle, which weighs about 70
times as much as a nucleon and 140,000 times as much as an electron.  A
neutron spawning a W is so energetically far-fetched that it only
occurs every once in a very long time, even a virtual W that only
exists for 10^-22 seconds.  Non-virtual W's were first observed in 1982
at CERN.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Reply to Page / Reply to Kunich
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Page / Reply to Kunich
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 21:44:55 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <CDnsn8.2pw@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> In article <1993Sep19.182551.15219@asl.dl.nec.com>,
> Terry Bollinger <terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
> | Bill Page:  Best of luck on your math skills.  Disappointing that you
> | don't seem to find initial premises important, though.  Also, don't be
> | overly impressed that Vigier is a Physics Letters A editor.  I noticed
> | with my LoC searches that whenever PLA was referenced, I got to where
> | I would think "uh oh -- probably more crappily reviewed junk."  It is
> | not the best of the physics journals, having a nasty tendency to let most
> | any paper in if they just throw in enough equations to make it look good.
>
> Reviewing is a problem everywhere.  Phys. Lett. A is a perfectly good
> physics journal.
 
Fair 'nuff.  I was looking at a lousy subset, unfortunately, as A was the
one most inclined to publish "new" post-P&F palladium hydride papers that
compared rather dreadfully at times to the scholarly earlier work of folks
like Blaschko (sp, I'm sure).
 
I was also irritated by one quite nice-looking Puthoff paper that (am I
wrong?) I believe was in Letters A, which I know from talking to a fellow
who know new was actually an indirect invocation of energy-from-the-vacuum,
loaded with lots of equations and discussions that tended to obscure the
real thrust of what he was doing.  Of all paper types, this is by far the
kind I find most annoying -- I really do think you should state your out-
landishness up front and be bold about it, so as not to confuse readers.
 
 
But Dale is exactly right here.  Very few reviewers who were (for example)
looking at that paper and trying to judge it as they should (by content,
not author) would have been able to identify what was really going on, at
least not without a lot more thought.
 
So: I hereby publically apologize to Physics Letters A and its reviewers
for going overboard in critiquing them -- and at the same time I entreat
them to _please_ be a bit more careful in how they review their articles.
Even a little bit of bad butter can serious damage to the overall flavor.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- Bill Page:  I would agree enthusiastically with Dieter that you
        keep at your modeling.  I'm the most critical when I see something
        _worth_ criticizing, so please do not take my comments as a sign
        that I don't wish very much that a few more folks would take that
        kind of constructive initiate.  Physics is an extremely interesting
        discipline -- it deserves good work and careful attention.
 
        (And I still say _watch out for rotten premises_.  They will only
        hurt your overall learning experience, not help.)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Robert Hagglund /  sci.physics.fusion.flames
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund, (206) 689-3415)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.physics.fusion.flames
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 00:35:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I understand the need to defend what one feels to be "the simple facts" but
this discussion group has recently yielded two fusion-level fireball posts for
every fusion-oriented post. Dick Blue (way out of context) put it well:
 
"Recently there has been considerable excess heat generated"
 
And later Jed Rothwell (again way out of context) described what this recent
nuclear exchange really does:
 
"This causes confusion and bad feelings all around."
 
I'd much rather see sci.physics.fusion become sci.physics.confusion if the
discussions center around fusion and the pursuit of answers to scientific
questions. If CF turns out to be not really fusion--so be it--at least we all
will know the answer and move on. If xs heat is coming for something
undocumented or not well documented it too will come out in the wash. I am a
CF "optimist" as all of us should be. If CF, whatever it proves to be, does
actually become another source of energy we should all benefit.
 
<<stepping upon the fire-resistant soapbox>>
 
>From the sidelines the *personal* flame wars seem to be more destructive than
good because they are changing the discussions from proving that something
works, sharing information, and constructively evaluating eachother's posts
into personal attacks on eachother's credibility. I'd like to hear Dick, Jed,
and others drop the personal insults and get on with proving their cases.
 
A traditional fusion versus CF race for the finish line be much more
interesting and productive than the recent turf/funding/personality war.
 
<<yielding the soapbox to others>>
 
CF true believers: When am I going to get a "Mr. Fusion" reactor for my
stainless steel De Lorean?
 
HF true believers: How many more million tax dollars and years is it going to
take to get something that will give us and return on our public investment?
 
I've seen a lot of posts from people asking for the warring parties to produce
some hard facts. I'd like to see those requests and replies resolved. If we
don't believe what we are hearing from others we can always move on without
accusing eachother of either being liars or idiots. That's my $0.02 worth...
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Bruce Scott /  Re: D depletion in Jupiter
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D depletion in Jupiter
Date: 21 Sep 1993 00:31:52 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
>How well mixed is Jupiter?  Would we expect that D-depleted core
>material would be detectable as a noticeable D-depletion at the
>surface?  Is it likely that any T formed in the core would get to
>the surface before decaying (< a century)?.  What is the
>likelihood of core->surface plumes?
 
Models suggest that the deep interior of Jupiter is well mixed; in the
atmosphere it depends more on the details of the meteorology: how high
does convective overshoot reach, and where is the upper boundary of
the convection zone. I would expect Galileo to give enough information
on this to make current speculation pretty useless. This is going to
be analogous to the way the moon data made all previous model-building
superfluous. (See S R Taylor, Planetary Science: A Lunar Perspective,
1974)
 
>Could Jupiter's higher gravity cause separation of P, D, & He3/4
>based on density?
 
There is disagreement on whether Jupiter has cooled to the point that
H-He separation becomes important (on the other hand, it is a favoured
mechanism for heating Saturn -- mass fractionation in a gravity field
liberates free energy). Given this, I doubt that p-D separation is
important.
 
>Is it possible that the interior pressure&temperature in Jupiter
>is high enough to cause P+D or D+D fusion by conventional means?
 
No. Not by a longshot. Jupiter internal temperatures do not reach over
10 to the 5 K in any models. This is more than 100 times less than in
the Sun, and the cross sections have very steep T dependences below
the peak.  If does D begins to fuse, it goes by p + D, by the way,
since p is so much more plentiful. I forget at what temperatures p + D
fusion takes place in pre-main-sequence stellar models; I guess about
a few times 10 to the 6 K. This is discussed in D D Clayton,
Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, 1968.
 
>This might not be enough to turn Jupiter into a star, but would
>also deplete D.
 
This point is in principle correct. It is possible to form a brown
dwarf which does burn off its initial D via fusion but which is not
massive enough to initiate p + p burning. Such brown dwarfs would be
at least 10 times more massive than Jupiter. The factor by which
Jupiter is not massive enough to burn p + p like a star is about 80.
"The star that failed" is not a good concept (especially since Jupiter
probably did not form by gravitational contraction but by runaway gas
accretion onto a rock/ice core -- see W Hubbard, Planetary Interiors,
1984 [I just noticed you are at "arizona.edu", which is where Hubbard
is. Go have a chat!]).
 
>We might also notice an excess of He3 if Jupiter's D was fused.
 
This would be the correct signature.
 
>Is there an "easy" fusion reaction that eats He3?
 
D - He3 is easier than D - D, but because there is more p than D by
factors of order or less than 10 to the 4, the main reaction would be
p + He3, which is slower than p + D.
 
>What do we use for baseline values of D and He3?  I assume the
>sun has long since burned its initial D, and the concentration
>there today is very tiny (since P+D is much faster than P+P).
 
I am away from my tables; the AGW Cameron table of proto-solar
abundances is in Lewis and Prinn, Planets and their Atmospheres, 1984.
There are two numbers for D/H: 5 e -5 and 2 e -4. Unfortunately, I
don't remember which is Earth and which is Jupiter. Your surmising
concerning the Sun is correct (Clayton, ref above).
 
>Is Earth's D/P ratio a reasonable guess for Jupiter?  Does
>our He3/He4 ratio predict anything for Jupiter?
 
1) they are off by the factor of 4.
 
2) don't know, doubt it, since the origin of the Earth's He3 is still
a matter of disagreement -- ask Steven Jones.
 
>Will Galileo measure abundances of D, He3/4 on Jupiter, or its
>moons?  Is there any data for Saturn?
 
1) yes
 
2) probably, since the probes that went to Jupiter also visited
Saturn, but the error bars are probably large. See the refs I give
above.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Not a silly argument
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not a silly argument
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 22:12:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930920170804_72240.1256_EHK5-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>from hot cathodes and thin film devices. So, I think the consensus is
>gradually forming that the place to look for helium ash is not in the
>cathode, but in the gas. McKubre attended the conferences, so he knows this,
>so I suppose he now discounts his earlier work as "looking in the wrong
>place" or perhaps just "step-by-step process of elimination."
 
     Gee.  It seems like just yesterday when any 'work' at all was
     'lies, fabrication, distortion'.   Now, it's just that McKubre
     'discounts earlier work'.  Would that be a substantial discount
     or just the standard markdown?
 
     Quite drole.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 / Cameron Bass /  Glow-in-the-dark Experimenters Re: Not a silly argument
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Glow-in-the-dark Experimenters Re: Not a silly argument
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 22:20:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930920170804_72240.1256_EHK5-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>Don't ask me!
 
     Sound advice.
 
>For those who have not read the Miles paper, let me repeat that looking for
>helium is not like looking under the bed for your glasses. You don't do some
>simple little procedure and read out an answer. It is a long, involved,
>painstaking task, because the amount of helium is so small, and because
...
 
     On the other hand, all one really must do to find out which experiment
     is generating 4He by fusion is to check which experimenters
     are quite ill with radiation poisoning.  Apparently none are,
     so the search is negative.
 
     No fancy equipment or painstaking effort required.
 
                          dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Greg Kuperberg /  Hot fusion!
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion!
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 02:34:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <01H36ADWT0PU000N3A@metrokc.gov> HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert
Hagglund, (206) 689-3415) writes:
>HF true believers: How many more million tax dollars and years is it going to
>take to get something that will give us and return on our public investment?
 
I'm not an HFTB, but I did work on magnetic fusion for two months seven
years ago (now I just do math).  I think that there is only a 1 in 50
chance that magnetic or laser fusion will be useful in the next 30
years.  But that makes it worth funding at its current level.  Besides,
even if it doesn't work, some good physics comes out of it.
 
XS Heat, on the other hand, is just a crock.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  jonesj@physc1. /  Recombination in light water cells
     
Originally-From: jonesj@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recombination in light water cells
Date: 20 Sep 93 17:18:57 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitchell Swartz has pointed out that the "Jones' Factor" is a
"putative microwatt error," and "further more bigger electrodes do
not necessarily mean more recombination proportional to area for
several reasons including limitations of substrate and diffusion
and other issues."
 
Mitch, did you think Dr. Jones was just guessing when he said that
the excess heat/recombination effect scaled with cathode surface
area?  He wasn't.  Experiments have been carried out that show that
the "Jones' Factor" scales with surface area.  Details will be
given in an upcoming paper.
 
Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
of the other results.  Note, we our not dealing with a F&P type
cell.  In protocols sent to us by Jed Rothwell, prepared by Eugene
Mallove we find: "The current density should be on the order of one
milliamp per square centimeter.  This is very low compared to the
Pon-Fleischmann heavy water experiments."  Comparing our light
water work to heavy water work does no good.
 
Our experiments have shown that recombination occurs at the cathode
in electrolysis cells when running at a low current density for
both Ni/H2O cells and Pd/D2O cells, and that this effects scales
with surface area.
 
We are not attempting to prove with our experiments that others are
wrong, but we have shown that recombination must be considered in
this work in order for reports of excess heat to be compelling.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jonathan E. Jones
 
P. S.  Good work Tom Droege.  Using a second calorimeter to monitor
recombination is the best way to get a quantitative feel for it.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesj cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  jonesj@physc1. /  Recombination accounts for excess heat????
     
Originally-From: jonesj@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recombination accounts for excess heat????
Date: 20 Sep 93 17:22:01 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

The following in a list of results, protocols and comments relating
to Ni/0.6 M K2CO3/Pt cells.  The question I'm asking is:  Can
recombination account for these reports of excess heat?  I would
appreciate any comments or references to other papers that would
relate.
 
 
Group        Comments       Power     Power     Recombination   Theory
                             In         Out      Considered
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Srinivasan  Current < 40mA  0.8       0-70%of   Yes, tested    See R. Bush
 (1993)                     -3.5W      In       Faraday Eff.a
 
Natoya      Ca Detected     2.7W      270-      No, uses H2    See R. Bush
 (1993)     No cur. given               340%    for stirring
 
Ohmori     Sn in K2CO3     2.4-      16%       No, uses H2
   (1993)  gave>Excess H.    3.47W             for stirring    ?????
 
Bush        Ca detected     ???       0.31-     Yes, uses a    TRM Model
   (1991)                              0.58W    recomb.
 
Mills       Det. of "shr.   0.026-    0.114-    Yes, Qxs > IV  "Shrunken
   (1992)   H"--pulsed P.   163W       99W      therefore N/A  Hydrogen"
 
Nononski    No cell volt.   30oC/W    50oC/W    Yes, tested    ?????
   (1991)   given--?????    Na2CO3    K2CO3     Faraday Eff.a
____________________________________________________________________________
Table I.  Results of experiment with Ni/K2CO3(aq)/Pt cells. aTested in sep-
arate experiments where excess heat was not looked at.
 
Information in the papers refferred to in Table I is insufficient
to determine if all of the reported excess heat can definitely be
attributed to recombination.  In particular, some papers do not
include the input voltage and/or current and therefore the total
input power cannot be calculated.  An excess heat rate greater than
the total input power (IV) cannot be attributed to recombination.
Mills (ref) is the only one who clearly shows an excess heat rate
greater than IV, but the use of pulsed power complicates the issue.
Most of the papers referred to in Table I have addressed the issue
of recombination, but dismissed it as insignificant for various
reasons.
 
Experimental error cannot be ruled out as the source of apparent
excess heat because most papers do not give enough experimental
detail to fully test the methods used.  It is often impossible to
detect an error from simply reading a paper even when the author
tries very hard to give explicit details.  Also, experiments have
not always followed the proper protocols for accurate calorimetric
measurements (Buehler et al, 1992).  For example, Natoya's
demonstration at the Nagoya conference showed a Ni light water cell
running approximately 10o C warmer than a resistor heated control
cell with the same input power.  On close examination of the
heater, it was discovered that a resistance of 2.0 ohms in the
heater leads accounted for 36% of the total resistance in the
control cell.  Thus 36% of the total power going into the control
cell was being dissipated through the leads into the air, not the
control cell (Jones 1993).  The heater leads were not described in
the publication(Natoya, 1993), probably because it was not deemed
significant at the time.
 
Srinivasan (1993) suggests, ". . . if the applied voltage is more
than 2.96 V, (as in most of our experiments) in order to generate
apparent excess power of say 50% the recombination fraction has to
be more than 50%.  Thus excess heat margins of 50% or more measured
in some of our experiments, particularly in the low input power
range, cannot be explained away on the basis of recombination
effects."  This argument is based on the assumption that the
recombination fraction cannot be greater than 50% under any
conditions.
 
Noninski(1991) argues that nickel is a poor catalyst
for recombination, but in fact, nickel, platinum, and palladium are
among the best catalysts for the recombination of hydrogen and
oxygen().
 
Mills(1992), Srinivasan(1993), and Noninski(1991) all
measured the Faraday efficiency of cells similar to those used in
their heat measurements, but none of these experiments were carried
out simultaneously with heat measurements, and thus the evidence is
not compelling.
 
After arguing that recombination could be the source of excess heat
in his experiments Noninski(1991) says, "The problem of recombination
is a crucial one in this study (note again
that the excess heat here is calculated after subtracting 1.48 V),
however, and it deserves special attention in any further
experiments."
 
Mallove(1992) assembled a list of "Protocols for Conducting Light
Water Excess Energy Experiments."  Srinivasan received this list at
the beginning of his work.  The protocols that will directly
enhance recombination are:
 
"3.  The electrolyte should be stirred
continuously with a magnetic stirring bar to ensure temperature
uniformity."  Stirring increases the probability of dissolved
hydrogen and oxygen coming in contact with a catalytic surface.
 
"4.  . . . 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."  An increase in the catalytic surface area
will increase recombination.
 
"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!)"  Impurities and
surface contamination poison catalysts.
 
"7.  . . . avoid leaving the nickel cathode in the working
solution in the absence of an electrolysis current."  Oxidation of
the nickel cathode will lower its catalytic properties.
"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.'"  Cleaning the nickel will increase its
catalytic properties.
 
"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."
Note that Noninski() and Farrell() measure Faraday efficiency in a
separate experiment where excess heat was not being monitored.
 
"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."  A low current
density keeps the area around the cathode from being purged with
evolved gas, allowing oxygen to migrate to the Ni cathode.
 
Any comments or additional references would be appreciated.  I would
especially appreciate information that would fill in the ???? in
Table I.
 
Thank You,
 
Jonathan E. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesj cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / John Logajan /  Check for H loading of Ni
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Check for H loading of Ni
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 04:34:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I dusted off my Ni/K2CO3/H2O/Pt apparatus and let it "charge" over the weekend.
Then I took a few of the Ni nodules and put them in test-tube filled with
corn oil.  I then heated it over the stove and looked for outgassing of H
from the Ni. I saw some very very slight bubbling at first, but nothing much
to speak of.  It certainly wasn't enough to account for the 20% gas deficit
I saw running last winter.  A lot of bubbling would have falsified my
"recombination" hypothesis, but I don't think the lack of bubbling proves
much of anything.  I just thought I'd report the results.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / John Logajan /  Analytical scales
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Analytical scales
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 05:16:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Looking at my Chem-Lab Supplies catalog I find these analytical balances:
 
A&D Model ER-182A  180g/32g x 0.1mg/0.01mg  $3,295    8sec/5sec
          ER-180A  180g x 0.1mg             $2,628    5sec
          FX-300   310g x 1mg               $1,495    2.5sec
          FX-3000  3,100g x 10mg            $1,495    2.5sec
Sartorius PT120    121g x 10mg                $695    1.5sec
 
There were more, but you get the idea.  These prices are 2 years old.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.20 /  Robert_W_Horst /  More on CNF patents
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on CNF patents
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 23:38:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Recently, there has been some incorrect information posted about US and
international patents.  Here is a quick summary as I understand it
(and I verified this with a patent attorney):
 
1.  In the US, patent disclosures are never made public by the patent
office until the patent issues.  If it does not issue, the patent office
never makes it public.
 
2.  Foreign patent laws vary, but the major countries (Japan, European
Patent Office) publish disclosures 18 months after the claimed priority
date.  Most US companies first file for a US patent, then have up to a
year to file in foreign countries.  The priority date is usually then
the date of the US patent application.
 
3.  As Tom said, the application must teach one "skilled in the art"
how to construct the invention.  In this case, "skilled" would mean one
who could construct the apparatus as specified in the application.  Tom
certainly seems to qualify, and thus the applications he has seen will
probably never issue.
 
If P&F really think they have a breakthrough, they should probably continue
to file disclosures with more and more detail as they learn more.  I would
disagree with Jed's recommendation to keep it as a trade secret. Else, if
someone else comes up with the same basic invention, even if the conception
date is later, P&F would have to pay them royalties to use their own ideas.
 
The bottom line is that if P&F followed the "normal" proceedure of most
high tech companies, they would file the US patent, and 18 months later
we would be able to see the foreign version of the patent.  Since they
are working with the Japanese, who certainly know the potential value of
patents, I would be surprised if they did not file as soon as they are
able to describe it in enough detail.
 
-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 830 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 830 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 13:56:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
no real paper this time, but you might like the offering anyway. Zero-point
energy seems to be worming its way into cold fusion, in the efforts to explain
some alleged anomalies such as apparent violation of energy conservation. No
worries: the missing energy comes out of the vacuum, all is explained. King
has studied the subject and comes up with an impressive array of references,
so he is by no means alone. Among the authors are Dirac and R. Forward. Ball
lightning, the Mills and Farrell phenomenon, sonoluminescence etc, are all
linked by their cause: zpe. Why, you ask, is this not a publication, but
instead relegated to the lowly status of a "peripheral"? Well, a conf. proc.
is not a refereed publication, that's why. Going by these procs, I find, leads
to laziness, too. I have seen references to conf. procs (and to preprints as
well), where with a slight effort the authors might have found the subsequent
proper paper in a refereed journal. I understand that at the time of the first
rough draft, these papers were possibly not available but one inserts the
proper reference, if necessary, at the latest, at the galley proof stage. If
one cares. You can put this down to Britzian nitpicking.
 
Collins and Pinch's book has been mentioned here before; HH Bauer kindly sent
me a copy of the chapter in their book dealing with cnf. I find it a bit flat;
it certainly is not a gold mine of science sociological insights, and if you
want to know the facts of the affair, you'd be better off going to one of the
good books, such as Close's or (yes) Mallove's.
I liked the cartoon; TB's will gnash their teeth, I guess. A bit of humour
there, please, it will hardly hurt at all.
 
Beady-eyed followers of this series of updates will note that we have lost one
publication, as we are down from 831 to 830. This is due to my merging FPH-89
with the erratum, into a single paper. Pedantic perhaps but I can't help
myself.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-Sep-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 830
 
 
Peripheral articles: file cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
King MB; Proc. 27th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conf.(IEEE Cat.
No. 92CH3164-1) San Diego, Calif., 3-7 Aug. 1992, Vol. 4, p.4.297.
"Progress and results in zero-point energy research".
** A number of puzzling or anomalous phenomena can possibly be explained by
tapping of the zero-point energy of vacuum; thus, these phenomena do not
violate energy conservation. Some of these are: anomalies in heavy ion
collisions, ion-acoustic plasma oscillations, sonoluminescence,
fractoemission, ball lightning and Mills&Farrell type cold fusion. 49 refs.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collins H, Pinch T in: "The Golem", Cambridge UP 1993, ISBN 0 521 35601 6.
Chapter 3: "The sun in a test tube: the story of cold fusion".
** Collins and Pinch, two sociologists of science, here more or less relate
the story of cold fusion "as is", without much attempt at comment. They
extract from the story the message that here, the workings of science are
exposed; but that claims of greed or publicity seeking are not unusual, i.e.
that in this affair, science works as usual.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stromoski;                                              Omni Oct. 1993, p.126.
Cartoon: Two scientists at the bench are startled by a fairy-like figure with
tutu and sparkles floating in the air behind them, assuring them: "Do not be
afraid . . . I am the cold fusion fairy."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Jed Rothwell /  Pounced upon!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pounced upon!
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 14:41:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
In a discussion of libel, I slipped into a strictly defined legalistic
businessman's jargon. Sorry about that, it was out of force of habit.
Campbell published statements which I construed applied to the work of Pons
and Fleischmann at Toyota, so I suggested to him that he should retract
those statements. To my knowledge, he has never criticized their early work,
he has nothing to explain or apologize about earlier work, so I thought it
would be best to confine my comments to the present work.
 
Unfortunately, Frank Close -- that ever present spider -- saw this as a sign
of weakness, or vacillation on my part, and he immediately jumped in with:
 
     "Who mentioned Toyota? (i) 28March 1989, (ii) Harwell and Utah, (iii)
     having been told by Harwell scientists on the Tuesday that the gamma
     radiation data in effect proved that there was *no* dd fusion, by
     Thursday the same data were used in a redrawn..."
 
For the record: Pons and Fleischmann have *never* said or done *anything*
that I consider underhanded, suspicious, or dishonorable in any way. Frank
Close, Huizenga and Taubes have accused them of that, but they are wrong.
The accusations are false. The worst that can be said of Pons and
Fleischmann's early work is that they made some mistakes, they were
confused, and some minor aspects of the work were wrong. The reason is
clear: they were under terrible pressure, and they had been forced to "go
public" long before they were prepared to do so. They occasionally did and
said things that reflected the pressure, like the time they asked their
lawyer to sue someone. They quickly came to their senses and withdrew that
action. When you consider the terrible pressure they were under, it is no
wonder they slipped now and then; they are only human beings, after all.
Most people would never bear up as well as they did. They are more sinned
against than sinning.
 
As for Frank Close, he is a despicable cad! I should not have let my guard
down, I don't ever want to accidentally give him the impression that I am
vacillating or backing off. I should be careful not to use legalistic,
carefully measured language around him, because he understands only the most
absolute, violent, and obvious statements. He is at fault! He is wrong, he
made a dreadful mistake, and if his callous mistakes are not corrected,
millions of people in both the U.S. and the U.K. will suffer terribly.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / mitchell swartz /  Quest. for Recombination in light water cells
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quest. for Recombination in light water cells
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 14:23:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Recombination in light water cells
Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=jj "Mitchell Swartz has pointed out that the "Jones' Factor" is a
=jj "putative microwatt error,"  ...
=jj Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
=jj and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
=jj of the other results.  Note, we our not dealing with a F&P type
=jj cell. ... Comparing our light
=jj water work to heavy water work does no good."
 
  The skeptics often link light and heavy water results.
  Furthermore, are you now saying that recombination does not occur in
        the heavy water?       ;-)
  Also, the phenomena appears to work on several metals (depending upon
    the putatitie isotopic fuel), and so beginning with the next
    posting, will widen the field as is appropriate with the
    cornucopia of positive reports.
 
  Your (the "Royal" you) claim of recombination error was thrown to cast
   aspersions [directly or indirectly] upon
   the F&P (and other) results, and so it is reasonable to ask (isn't it?):
 
    1. What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in
         your cells by this method?
    2. Did you do anything different? (like add an oxygen tank)
 
  We still do not have a definitive answer, do we?
  But the banter here attacking any cf report, experimenter, (in both
    the past and the present incidentally) has proceeded at
   high volume anyway, has it not?
 
       Perhaps you might indulge us and reveal the maximum
    amount of heat you've seen this way (it is ok to specify electrodes,
    areas, current densities, total current, voltage, overvoltage, and
    even the PO2 or oxygen content), and whether an oxygen tank was used?
    If yes, what was the max "excess heat" without it?
 
 
=jj " did you think Dr. Jones was just guessing when he said that
=jj the excess heat/recombination effect scaled with cathode surface
=jj area?  He wasn't.  Experiments have been carried out that show that
=jj the "Jones' Factor" scales with surface area.  Details will be
=jj given in an upcoming paper.
=jj Our experiments have shown that recombination occurs at the cathode
=jj in electrolysis cells when running at a low current density for
=jj both Ni/H2O cells and Pd/D2O cells, and that this effects scales
=jj with surface area.
 
    Does it scale up in a cold fusion cell (since it is trivial to
      get these recombination reactions to scale if one is simply directed
      to engineer such)?
 
  How high, in terms of electrical current density and volume of the
      reactor (or electrochemical cell)  did you get linearity?
 
=jj "We are not attempting to prove with our experiments that others are
=jj wrong, but we have shown that recombination must be considered in
=jj this work in order for reports of excess heat to be compelling."
 
   It is trivial in the field to consider recombination, or state when
  it is ignored.  The general replication of the cold fusion phenomena
   around the World remain compelling.  The claims against it are
   reasonable only if they are quantitatively examined and shown to
   occur in the cold fusion systems.
 
     Therefore, Jonathan, good job, and Thanks!
  .  The Table ought amended to show light and heavy water results.
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / mitchell swartz /  Does Recombination account for excess heat????
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does Recombination account for excess heat????
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 14:26:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep20.172201.948@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Recombination accounts for excess heat????
Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu) @ Brigham Young University writes:
 
  "The following in a list of results, protocols and comments relating
   to Ni/0.6 M K2CO3/Pt cells.  The question I'm asking is:  Can
recombination account for these reports of excess heat?
 
  Some of them discuss it, and at least one has actually posted here
  to clarify the issue.
 
         Continuing our running quantitative tabulation,
         with the addition of some of the light water data suggested by
   Jonathan Jones but which had been ommitted to keep this simple:
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)
 
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O (****)  --------
  Mills (1989 *****)        (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Srinivasan (1993)                    70% input (max. 3.5 W)
  Natoya (1993)                        270-240% (max. 2.7 W))
____________________________________________________________________________
 
Putative Effects put forth by skeptics ---
   Anode Effect (***)                            0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           **
                   in cell IF not considered
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    1993)          0.75
   The Jones Factor II (silicates 1993)          0.0 (max)
 
  ==========================================================================
**    sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
***    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg J. Electrochem.
Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
**** selections from J. Jones light water posting.
  (I have not independantly check the values or convert to absolute power
   levels but any literature reader is invited to help)
***** I don't understand the date since Dr. Mills was doing this in 1989,
   and will check this later, when time is available.
 
  Any updates, corrections (flameless) would be appreciated.
  Best wishes.
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                                mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Radioactivity of neutrons and other things
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactivity of neutrons and other things
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 15:37:42 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Sep20.211915.16129@midway.uchicago.edu>
gk00@midway.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
 
> The Nuclear Almanac tells me that sodium 22 decays by positron emission to
> neon 22.  This is a reverse neutron decay.  So in nature you can either see
>
> N -> P + electron + antineutrino + photon ...
 
Hmm.  "+ photon"?  Is this a result of the neutron being bound in a nucleus,
or did I leave out something in the free-neutron decay?
 
My best recollection is that no photon is involved in (at least the usual
mode of) free neutron decay, but that's only from memory.
 
> ...  or
>
> P -> N + positron + neutrino + photon,
>
> depending on which nucleus the nucleon is in.  If you have two nuclei
> with the same atomic mass that differ by only one proton, they cannot
> both be stable unless the heavier one is within one electron of the
> lighter one in mass.  Since the electron is very light, this is a rare
> occurence among the elements.  I only found one example in the isotope
> chart that I have; unfortunately, the chart sucks to the point that I
> can't say exactly which pair of isotopes are so close in mass.
>
> On a related point, a moment in the life of a nucleus or nucleon is
> about 10^-22 seconds, which makes you wonder why that neutron decay
> takes about 10^+3 seconds, and many other radioactive decays take much
> longer.  It is a classic example of quantum tunnelling.  Neutron decay
> requires the momentary existence of a W particle, which weighs about 70
> times as much as a nucleon and 140,000 times as much as an electron.  A
> neutron spawning a W is so energetically far-fetched that it only
> occurs every once in a very long time, even a virtual W that only
> exists for 10^-22 seconds.  Non-virtual W's were first observed in 1982
> at CERN.
 
Delightful for an off-beat reason: I said something like "the long life of
the free neutron is because its decay is via the slow weak interaction,"
and you said "Neutron decay requires the momentary existence of a W
particle, which weighs about 70 times as much as a nucleon."
 
Readers unfamiliar with the lingo may be interested to find that these
statements are more-or-less synonymous.  Just as the photon with _zero_
rest mass is the mediator or carrier of the electromagnetic force, W is
one of the particles that mediates the weak interaction.  Its huge mass
makes the weak interaction, well,... _weak_.
 
 
In article <1993Sep21.023455.27914@midway.uchicago.edu>
gk00@midway.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
 
> I'm not an HFTB, but I did work on magnetic fusion for two months seven
> years ago (now I just do math).  I think that there is only a 1 in 50
> chance that magnetic or laser fusion will be useful in the next 30
> years.  But that makes it worth funding at its current level.  Besides,
> even if it doesn't work, some good physics comes out of it.
>
> XS Heat, on the other hand, is just a crock.
 
At this point I'd give XSH a doggone high _probability_ of being a crock,
owing mainly to:  a) the lack of an utterly reproducible recipe that anyone
can follow to produce enough energy to (for example) light up a 100 watt
lightbulb for several months using the heat generated by a 1 cubic inch
block with no external inputs and no radioactive materials inside, and
b) the rather pathetic retraction of any claim of evidence for the initial
singular "Pd cube meltdown," the only P&F even that did not rely on complex
thermometry arguments.
 
On the other hand, I am still absolutely baffled by how far I was able to
go with the Twist of Ribbon analysis based on the premise of excess heat
being real.  I was unable to obtain a clean closure on heavy-particle band
effects, and was led to postulate some effects (such as hydrogen atomic
tunnelling in Pd and other metals) that I had no inkling actually existed,
but which later proved to be very well documented indeed.  That is more
unlikely than some of you folks may realize when your starting premise is:
 
 "I postulate that an effect parallel to electron charge fracturing as seen
  in polyacetylene is somehow the cause of excess heat in pallidium hydride."
 
That is a pretty asinine starting point, and it should have fallen apart
more quickly than many of the other less exotic ones I tried back then.
 
So I don't know what to make of all that.  If someone can point me to an
article that precisely defines why there _cannot be_ any unexpected physical
consequences to certain classes of heavy-particle wavefunction bifurcation,
or (even better) a specific experimental exploration of the issue, I would
be much happier about it.  It won't happen, though, because such papers
don't exist.  QM has worked very well in all other domains, and I don't
think anyone has seen fit to push this particular limit.
 
I don't blame them one bit, either.  But it still doesn't help me close
this search branch cleanly.  It remains labeled with a question mark, even
after more than two years.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- If Marvin Minsky is still lurking out there:  I just saw and
        bought your joint fiction novel with Harry Harrison, The Turing
        Option.  Looks interesting, I must say.
 
P.S.S - Bill Page:  Did you ever see that copy of how I broke the analysis
        of H2+ into three general domains based on a hypothetically variable
        electron mass?  That's not a full answer, but it _does_ give some
        idea of why I suggest that mass is so critical.
 
        And you are right -- most models don't add in a wave model of the
        proton.  Indeed, when I say "watch out for rotten premises," much
        of what I mean is simply "don't make the same mistake by assuming
        the electron is just a particle, too!"
 
        The proton _must_ have a wavefunction in the same sense that the
        earth "circles" the moon.  Just because our "orbit" of the moon
        is very small by comparison does not mean it doesn't exist.  But
        by the same token, the proton wavefunction is usually ignored for
        the same reason we don't usually worry much about the earch orbiting
        the moon: it's small enough not to make much of a difference.
 
        The principles still hold for atoms, and indeed most QM types would
        set up the wave function by first giving a classical description
        of both bodies, then _translating_ classical momentum relationships
        into wave expressions.  Hamiltonian classical descriptions with
        their emphasis on postition and momentum are best suited for this.
 
        My off-hand guess is that you will find the proton wavefunction
        from such an analysis to be complementary to the electron one --
        e.g., a miniature "s" shell for ground state hydrogen -- but much,
        _much_ smaller, just as the orbit of the earth around the moon is
        tiny (but similar in form) to the orbit of the moon around the
        earth.  Keep in mind that the wavefunctions will have _roughly_
        the same radii as what you would get with a classical earth-moon
        type analysis with the same masses.  If you keep that sort of easy
        analogy in mind, it will at least help alert you to bizarre results
        that need more careful examination.  QM does give weird and often
        counter-intuitive results, but not _all_ weird results are a result
        of QM.  Strange results that violate the classical analogy are a
        sign that the setup and results should be checked carefully.
 
        The most interesting case is when the proton and electron have very
        similar masses, but even this case (as I mentioned in that earlier
        analysis I did) probably has a lot in common with the nuclear shell
        models of either p-n-p  (3He) or n-p-n (3H).  The bonding forces
        are very different, but the similar masses should give similar net
        results in the forms of the wavefunctions.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Radioactivity of neutrons and other things
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactivity of neutrons and other things
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:38:32 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep21.153742.10662@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>gk00@midway.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>> N -> P + electron + antineutrino + photon ...
>Hmm.  "+ photon"?  Is this a result of the neutron being bound in a nucleus,
>or did I leave out something in the free-neutron decay?
 
You're absolutely right.  Screw the photon (or penic it, if you
prefer).  My mistake was in an insidious bias towards electromagnatic
radiation as a ubiquitous form of energy.
 
The Feynman diagram of the decay looks like this:
 
  P           e
   \         /
    \       /
     +--W--+
    /       \
   /         \
  N           nu
 
There are two weak interaction vertices here.  To have a photon,
you would need electromagnetic vertices.
 
Anyway, my point is that you can stand the decay on its head if that
happens to be energetically favorable.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Using Analytical Balances
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Using Analytical Balances
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 18:07:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan has suggested using analytical balances to detect gas evolution.
Some time ago, I put up some posts about using balances to detect cathode
loading.  The problems are the same.
 
Two ways come to mind for such use.
 
1) Set an open cell on the scale, power it, and measure the change in weight.
 
2) Set a recombiner on the scale, pipe the gas to it from an operating cell,
and measure the recombined product.
 
1) has the problem of bringing in the power leads to the scale without
changing the scale sensitivity.
 
2) has the problem of bringing the gas to the scale without changing the
scale sensitivity.
 
One can imagine bringing leads to a cell with mercury cups.  One could then
use some sort of motor drive to keep the scale continuously balanced to remove
the error caused by the floatation of the leads in the cups.  Sounds not to
accurate to me, but a determined experimenter might make it work.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Karl Kluge /  Re: Pounced upon!
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pounced upon!
Date: 21 Sep 1993 17:15:26 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <930921141228_72240.1256_EHK37-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
   Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 14:41:02 GMT
 
   For the record: Pons and Fleischmann have *never* said or done *anything*
   that I consider underhanded, suspicious, or dishonorable in any way. Frank
 
So what's your version of their violating their agreement with Steve Jones
to make simultaneous submissions?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Jed Rothwell /  Patents
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Patents
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 18:40:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Bob Horst points out that:
 
     "If P&F really think they have a breakthrough, they should probably
     continue to file disclosures with more and more detail as they learn
     more.  I would disagree with Jed's recommendation to keep it as a trade
     secret. Else, if someone else comes up with the same basic invention,
     even if the conception date is later, P&F would have to pay them
     royalties to use their own ideas."
 
Good point! I didn't even think of that. Let me hasten to say that I have no
idea what Technova is doing about patents. I would never ask! They might be
filing patents left and right. I am sure they have a world-class legal
staff. Some friends of mine have several patents in environmental water
treatment plants, and they told me the ins and outs, but my own experience
has been limited because patents are seldom used in the computer business.
Most computer products become obsolete in the time it takes to get a patent.
 
Bob also writes:
 
     "The bottom line is that if P&F followed the 'normal' procedure of most
     high tech companies, they would file the US patent, and 18 months later
     we would be able to see the foreign version of the patent..."
 
Why would they file a US patent first if they are working for a Japanese
company in France? What does the U.S. have to do with it? Perhaps there is
some legal advantage to filing in the U.S. first? I wouldn't know.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Is helium in or out?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is helium in or out?
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 18:41:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

On the basis of one rather shakey positive claim for helium detection
the cold fusion advocates are ready to accept as the true word the
proposition that 4He is the primary product of the cold fusion reaction
and that the evolving gas stream is the best place to search for that
helium.
 
OK, let's go with that idea , and consider some of the implications.
Nuclear physics says the reaction d + d -> 4He should be accompanied
by a 24 MeV gamma ray.  Cold fusion advocates say that is not necessarily
so because the lattice can do magic.  I think that implies helium
production deep inside the Pd where the lattice is the dominant feature
of the landscape and not as much helium production in surface layers.
Remembering also that cold fusion doesn't allow for energetic recoil
ions it is hard to see what would bring helium formed deep in the lattice
to the surface and out into the gas stream.  Helium just doesn't flow
through the Pd like the deuterium can.
 
If helium appears in the gas or electrolyte, but not in the Pd that
clearly points to something happening on the surface.  To the best
of my knowledge no one has proposed any theory to deal with strange
nuclear physics on the surface as opposed to deep in the Pd.  I
think the believers are going to find themselves hard put to arrive
at a consistent picture for the cold fusion process that gets the
helium formed out and away from the Pd lattice.  Is the helium
inside or outside?  You can't have it both ways, can you?
 
Well, if you continue to believe that cold fusion produces heat and
helium outside the Pd, where is the best place to look for that helium?
The obvious best setup to maximize the helium signal is a CF experiment
run with a closed system.  The moving finger points clearly to SRI
and McKubre.  They should run one of their experiments just like
always, except at the end of the run transfer all fluids and gases
to a suitable container and offer it up for analysis.  No fuss, no
muss, no bother.  Why hasn't this been done not once but a dozen
times with a dozen different analytical techniques in a dozen different
labs?   Eventually you may come to the conclusion that some questions
don't get answered because someone doesn't want to find the answer
any sooner than they have to.  Cold fusion research is too much
fun just now for there to be much concern about answers.  Heck, let's
not even ask the right questions!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Jed's gambit
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's gambit
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 19:31:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rather than address any issue that I have raised concerning the techniques
used in cold fusion experiments, Jed Rothwell has adopted one very
silly tactic which he uses over and over again.  For each possible
source of error I suggest he assigns some numerical values that he
pulls out of his hat and then loadly proclaims that the implications
of those numbers are clearly ludicrous.  I don't think your fooling
anyone, Jed, so why keep it up?  What you are most certainly demonstrating
is that you really don't have a very clear picture of how these
experiments are done.
 
Reconsider your recent post on calorimetry, for example.  You suggest
that I have somehow conjured up "perpetural motion" when clear you
haven't fully incorporated energy conservation into your thinking.
If you did you would realize that inputing heat into a fixed quantity
of water at some power level will result in a constantly rising
temperature.  The temperature never "settles out" to a fixed reading
unless there is also a flow of heat out of the calorimeter to the
surrounding bath.  Under those conditions, which are in fact the
best description of a Pons & Fleischmann calorimeter, the heat
capacity of the water (or the total water equivalent) is NOT
the key parameter that determines the relationship between power
input and temperature.  Let me plug in my own numbers before
you get carried away on one of your flights of fancy again.
 
Suppose we have 50 gm water equivalent in our calorimeter starting
at 20 C.  For each deg C of temperature rise we would have to
have a net input of 50 Calories.  To convert to joules multiply
by 4.18 joules per calory.  So 50 cal is 209 joules.  At a
net power input of 1 watt (that's 1 joule per sec) it will take
209 seconds to raise the temperature one degree.  If I leave
the power on for 1000 seconds the temperature will be roughly
25 deg.  After 10000 seconds it would about 50 degrees hotter
and sometime before 20000 seconds had passed the temperature
would have reached the boiling point.  Do you want to argue
with any of these numbers or the basic picture I have presented?
You should because I see I didn't do the arithmetic correctly.
It's 290 joules per degree or about 34 C rise in 10000 sec and
25000 seconds to boil.  My point is that the temperature doesn't
ever reach a fix value until heat out balances the heat input.
That statement has nothing to do with perpertual motion.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Jed Rothwell /  Not angels
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not angels
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 22:21:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I wrote:
 
     "For the record: Pons and Fleischmann have *never* said or done
     *anything* that I consider underhanded, suspicious, or dishonorable in
     any way."
 
Karl Kluge asks:
 
     "So what's your version of their violating their agreement with Steve
     Jones to make simultaneous submissions?"
 
It was a tempest in a teapot. I doubt there was any firm agreement, and if
there was, the event was about as important as a poorly coordinated trade
show announcement for Windows NT network servers: a Big Fat Yawn that should
have been forgotten the next morning. Furthermore, I have observed the
behavior of Steve Jones here on the network, and it is disgraceful. I have
seen quite enough of his uncalled for attacks on Miles, his constant
distortions, and his endless evasions. I would not make an agreement with
someone like that to go dutch to dinner, and if I did, I would drop it as
soon as I saw his antics.
 
Look, I do not consider Pons and Fleischmann to be perfect angels. They are
only human, they have their faults. They have done things which disturbed me
and thwarted me; we do not always see eye to eye. How could we? We are all
three strong-minded, willful people. The thing to remember is that in 1989,
they were subjected to a terrifying, inhuman barrage of vicious, blood
curdling personal attacks, and terrible pressure. You simply cannot imagine
how awful it was for them to see their reputations dragged through the mud.
I could never have stood it as well as they did, with as much grace and
courage. They have been terribly wronged! They have suffered cruelly at the
hands of these evil fools. Even if history had been reversed, and Pons and
Fleischmann had been wrong, they never would have deserved any punishment.
There is nothing wrong with making an honest mistake in science. Their worst
sin, however, was that they were right. Everything they have claimed has been
proven true. They have been replicated in spades. They are now celebrated
scientific heros, and they been given all the money and support any scientist
could ask for. They are now inside the establishment, and their enemies are
locked out in the cold. This galls the opposition more than anything. This is
why these evil, black-hearted misfits at the APS continue to attack them, and
why Taubes published that horrible compendium of lies, and why the "skeptics"
screech and howl and pound their heads against the walls. They are locked out
forever, they know they have lost the fight, and it galls them. It will gall
them until the day they die.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Patents
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Patents
Date: 21 Sep 93 22:54:41 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <930921180027_72240.1256_EHK50-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Bob Horst points out that:
>
>     "If P&F really think they have a breakthrough, they should probably
>     continue to file disclosures with more and more detail as they learn
>     more.  I would disagree with Jed's recommendation to keep it as a trade
>     secret.
...........
 
 
 
 
>Why would they file a US patent first if they are working for a Japanese
>company in France? What does the U.S. have to do with it? Perhaps there is
>some legal advantage to filing in the U.S. first? I wouldn't know.
>
>- Jed
 
 
The US is the big market and where it's easiest to get protection.
We don't even require a reduction to practice in most cases (and
that could be particularly attractive to P&F).
 
European patents must be filed within a year of public disclosure,
and usually cite the US patent as a reference.
 
Japanese patents are pretty much a joke.  They are only of value
to Japanese companies in fending off other Japanese companies.
American have difficulty getting patents in Japan, and find it
nearly impossible to enforce them.  TI has been fighting a battle
for more than 20 years and won, but who else has their resources?
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Using Analytical Balances
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using Analytical Balances
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 23:36:35 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <930921122956.208011b5@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
wrote:
 
> John Logajan has suggested using analytical balances to detect gas evolution.
> Some time ago, I put up some posts about using balances to detect cathode
> loading.  The problems are the same.
>
> Two ways come to mind for such use.
>
> 1) Set an open cell on the scale, power it, and measure the change in weight.
>
> 2) Set a recombiner on the scale, pipe the gas to it from an operating cell,
> and measure the recombined product.
>
> 1) has the problem of bringing in the power leads to the scale without
> changing the scale sensitivity.
>
> 2) has the problem of bringing the gas to the scale without changing the
> scale sensitivity.
>
> One can imagine bringing leads to a cell with mercury cups.  One could then
> use some sort of motor drive to keep the scale continuously balanced to remove
> the error caused by the floatation of the leads in the cups.  Sounds not to
> accurate to me, but a determined experimenter might make it work.
>
> Tom Droege
 
In an electronic balance such as John was suggesting, the pan essentially
does not move.  I don't know about the exact models he referred to, but the
two mechanisms I am familiar with in that range are strain gauges and
magnetic levitation (where the current to "float" the pan and thus balance
the load is measured).  The leads or the tubes should be flexible and
light, but you don't have to worry about them moving up and down many
millimeters as in a mechanical balance.  Thus they shouldn't affect the
sensitivity.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Pounced upon!
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pounced upon!
Date: 21 Sep 93 23:25:40 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: For the record: Pons and Fleischmann have *never* said or done *anything*
: that I consider underhanded, suspicious, or dishonorable in any way. Frank
: Close, Huizenga and Taubes have accused them of that, but they are wrong.
: The accusations are false. The worst that can be said of Pons and
: Fleischmann's early work is that they made some mistakes, they were
: confused, and some minor aspects of the work were wrong.
 
OK you think they made an honest mistake and other people think they
cheated.
 
But please don't treat the lack of neutrons as a "minor aspect".
 
In fact it's the A-number-one reason 99% of the physics world paid attention
to them and after finding about about the "penic" neutrons the A-number-one
reason people thought P&F were full of shit.
 
: - Jed
 
In a previous post referring to an experiment by Miles, I actually detected
signs of rationality!  You appeared to buy into the principle of commensurate
levels of nuclear products (i.e. helium), and you admit that such a detection
can be difficult and error-prone.
 
Of course, the next obvious step is to search for photons, because it's much
easier to catch the "crime in the act" with photon spectroscopy rather than
looking for the left over ash.
 
Now, given,
 
#1  A recipe for reproducing macroscopic heat
(measurable in one's own calorimeter)
 
#2  Commensurate levels of nuclear products
 
#3  Clear signs of nuclear reactions via ionizing radiation
 
#4  Independent verification
 
then yes, mainstream physicists will go back and say "Well maybe somehow
that branching ratio does get all messed up.  I can't think of any way how,
but look what's happening.  There seems to be something there."
 
I really don't understand why an apparent true-believer Dr Miles does not
seem to want to pursue examining the radiation spectrum.
 
Perhaps he's worried that no x-rays will turn up and so he doesn't want to
try.  But the rest of the world doesn't think there's anything anyway so
if he wants to convince people, there's *nothing to lose* and maybe alot
to gain.
 
--
-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:
cuddy21 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Pounced upon!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pounced upon!
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:22:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <930921141228_72240.1256_EHK37-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>For the record: Pons and Fleischmann have *never* said or done *anything*
>that I consider underhanded, suspicious, or dishonorable in any way. Frank
>Close, Huizenga and Taubes have accused them of that, but they are wrong.
>The accusations are false. The worst that can be said of Pons and
>Fleischmann's early work is that they made some mistakes, they were
>confused, and some minor aspects of the work were wrong. The reason is
>clear: they were under terrible pressure, and they had been forced to "go
>public" long before they were prepared to do so.
 
 
One is curious to what this pressure was -- the fear that Steven Jones would
publish a paper about microscopic amounts of radiation from hitherto unknown
sources?
 
The facts are that Pons and Fleischman published via press release and
have never published a single complete paper at all. As has been stated
many times here and elsewhere, if they had something to protect they could
very well have protected it via patent laws. Trade secret protection laws
simply wouldn't help in a case like this where anyone in the world could
stumble across the answer and publish, thereby relegating the entire thing
to public domain before P&F and any of their backers could do a thing.
 
P&F are confused alright, they have mistakes alright and in some minor
aspects of their work they were wrong. The minor aspect was the existance
of Cold Nuclear Fusion.
 
>He (Frank Close) is at fault! He is wrong, he
>made a dreadful mistake, and if his callous mistakes are not corrected,
>millions of people in both the U.S. and the U.K. will suffer terribly.
 
One can positively see the spittle dripping from your lips, Jed.
 
Let us suppose that everything that Pons and Fleischman have said is
true really is true. Is it your contention that the rest of the world
is going to suffer because there is now a super cheap energy supply?
 
I said that you had slipped over the line from True Blue True Believer and
into the realm of Raving Lunatic and you do more and more each day to
show the accuracy of that proclaimation.
 
There is one proof for all of your claims, Jed, where is the 20kw water
heater? The end of the year is rushing towards us and we would have expected
some really interesting details of this new energy source by now. Only
three more shopping months until electric water heaters are obsolete.
 
You will be able to slap your hands with glee and show us all the error of
our ways. You will dance on all of our graves because a water heater will
be the death of us all. Western civilization as we know it shall fall and
images of Pons and Fleischman will go down to Posterity with ruffles and
flourishes. Hossana and the world will fall because Frank Close dared to
criticize a poorly documented experiment.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Jim Bowery /  Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 02:32:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>Organization: University of Chicago
>
>In article <01H36ADWT0PU000N3A@metrokc.gov> HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund,
(206) 689-3415) writes:
>>HF true believers: How many more million tax dollars and years is it going
to
>>take to get something that will give us and return on our public investment?
>
>I'm not an HFTB, but I did work on magnetic fusion for two months seven
>years ago (now I just do math).  I think that there is only a 1 in 50
>chance that magnetic or laser fusion will be useful in the next 30
>years.  But that makes it worth funding at its current level.
 
If the funding were private, rather than political, your comment might
not be worthy of utter contempt.  As things stand, a dollar spent on
HF is a dollar spent suppressing progress in HF by nuking out on diversity
of thought in the area.  You can say how terrible this is and how "we"
should fix it, but the problem isn't one of what "we" should advocate about
the fusion program -- the problem is the existence of a fusion program
within a political funding context.  Such a context guarantees its funding
will empower the wrong people (fraudulent "scientists") who will then find
real technologists threatening (who will inevitably be marginalized and
 be made hostile if not down-right paranoid, thus "justifying" the insolent
 behavior of the "persons" who planted themselves on the top of the
 government funding hill in the first place).
 
HOWEVER
 
If the funding were private, then the following analysis would demonstrate
that your statement is worthy, not of utter contempt, but of your average,
ordinary, every-day contempt reserved for "experts" who make authoritative
sounding noises while being paid out of tax dollars from the confines of
their University of Chicago offices:
 
Current funding level for hot fusion is about $500M/year.  Zero amortizing
that investment at 50 - 1 odds requires that we multiply T-Bill rates (of
 maturity comparable to that which will be required to complete the project)
by 50.  If we have first return on investment in 30 years, we can be nice
to the HF guys and assume there will be no further investment after that
date and that, therefore, the no-risk discount rate is that of 30 year
T-Bills -- which is around 6%.
 
Thus, we require an ROI of 50*6% or 300% per year at the start of funding.
 
We'll be reasonable and assume that the risk declines linearly with time
over the 30 years until it is basically at only 3 times T-Bill rates
(normal commercial rates).  We then have to sum the following expression
over 30 years to see how big of a hole we've dug for ourselves:
 
(5*(10)^(8))*((1+(3-(2.82*year/30))))^(30-year)
 
We now have taken out a loan of something on the order of 6*10^26 dollars
BEFORE WE'VE PAID A SINGLE PENNY BACK.
 
In business, this is known as "a liability".
 
Now I'll be even nicer and say that the interest rate we'll apply to
this debt at the 30 year mark will be no more than 30 year T-Bill
rates of 6%.  That gives us a MONTHLY interest payment of something
like 3*10^24 dollars.
 
I'm not sure how big the total world gross product is at present, but
let's say it's something like 36 trillion dollars (again, I'm being
 very generous) or 3.6*10^13 or 3*10^12 dollars per month.
 
This means that if, in 30 years, we are to dedicate the entire world's
gross product to the service of this "liability", we have to increase
the size of the world's economy by a factor of 10^12 -- and that's without
the wunnerful DoE fusion technologies (WDOEFTs) fueling all this growth.
 
At a fantastic 100% annual growth in the world economy over the next 30
years, we would fall short of the necessary worldwide productivity by
a factor of 1000.  And remember, we wouldn't let anyone do anything but
service the interest on the "liability" -- not even eat.
 
In the business world this is called "a losing proposition".
 
OK, so maybe we'll be even more generous and wait some period of time
after project termination of the WDOEFTs, and hope that the growth of the
world's economy resulting from such wunnerfulness will be so great as
to cause us to catch up with the mounting debt.
 
How long would we have to wait before we START paying back the debt?
 
Well, let's assume that, in the absence of WDOEFTs over the next 30 years,
the economy grows at a robust 5% annual rate, and then with all that
wunnerfulness (like ITER/JET-developed Tokamaks are cheap to build and
 operate and burn p-B11 and monkeys fly out of my butt), the economy
 grows at a 30% annual rate (yeah,  I know ... I'm being generous again).
 
Without going through all the math here, we're talking more than 100 years
beyond the "birthing" of WDOEFTs before we can START paying the interest
on our so-called "investment".
 
The fact that this is outside the resources of any private company is
moot since it is outside the resources of the WORLD by orders of magnitude.
 
>Besides,
>even if it doesn't work, some good physics comes out of it.
 
Good physics?  Since when is spending billions characterizing the behavior
of a narrow regime of plasma, peculiar to a specific device, "good physics"?
 
>XS Heat, on the other hand, is just a crock.
 
Ahem.
 
Do you teach at the University of Chicago or were you just educated there?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Robert Heeter /  Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 05:54:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Sep19.182551.15219@asl.dl.nec.com> Terry Bollinger,
terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Here's a question for you (or anyone else):
>
>What is the lithium efficiency curve for the proposed HF
lithium-deuterium
>burners of the next century?
>
>That is, if your plants operate _exactly_ at total system energy
break-even
>(that is, including peripheral energy costs such as those of producing
the
>lithium and deuterium), then the total quantity of lithium required to
>produce one joule of net energy will be, well...  _infinite_.
>
>This would be less than ideal, economically speaking.
>
>So clearly you will need to get somewhere beyond breakeven to make the
>consumption of lithium worth the effort.  What is the curve by which you
>can determine the _effective_ lithium-to-energy costs of such a system?
>
I'll answer this at the end...
 
>Another question:  Does anyone have any kind of data on the precise level
>of _mis_conception about whether HF research is directed towards d-d
fusion
>or lithium burners?
 
Based on the responses I got on sci.energy to the general question,
"What do netpeople think about fusion?", I'd say that the majority of
people willing to type a response were aware:
(1) that current fusion research is aimed at the "lithium-burners"
     (D-T fusion with T bred from Li via neutron absorption.), and
(2) that further research into "advanced fuels" (e.g., d-d or d-He3, etc.)
     is also being pursued, but that d-t is easier technologically.
 
I'd also say that anyone who followed the thread (above and beyond
those who were willing to post on it) is now aware of these
things.  I received some email from non-scientists who spotted the
post and had some questions to ask.  But I also have to admit that
one of the main reasons I've gotten involved with the net is to try
to help people understand the state of hot fusion so they'll be
more informed about fusion as a potential energy source.  So I'm
willing to concede that public knowledge of fusion is not as high
as it ought to be.  This should change in the next year, because of
TFTR's D-T runs which are coming up.
>
>And (perhaps even more interesting) how Congress perceives this issue?
>
I don't know.  But CNN recently ran a segment on the D-T operations at
TFTR.  I'm planning to watch it as soon as I can check a copy out from
the library here at the plasma lab.  And I imagine any Congressperson
interested in science policy issues (and many more besides) will hear
about TFTR's approach to breakeven when D-T runs are completed
(within the next year or so).
 
>Please note that the basis for the massive confusion is that the actual
>fusion reaction proposed for near-term hot fusion is D+T -- meaning that
>proponents can state with complete honest that:
>
>    "Sir, we are looking into a way of combining two forms (isotopes)
>     of hydrogen to release great quantities of energy."
>
>...and of course, the fellow to whom he is speaking _knows_ that hydrogen
>isotopes come from sea water!
>Or do they?  Well now...
>The deuterium certainly does.  How about the tritium?
>Oops.  Does everyone know where tritium comes from?  (Not from sea
water!)
>
Indirectly it does.  See below.
 
>For all proposed HF energy production schemes, it comes from
transmutation
>of _lithium_ via intense neutron irradiation.
>
Right, but as I clearly explained in my post "Needed:  Honesty (in
everything),
there is an abundance of Li in sea water.  And insofar as *something* has
to absorb the neutrons produced in fusion (hot or cold), it strikes me
that
using Li to re-create the T is a good way to recycle the neutrons.  This
allows you to run a reactor without generating as much radioactive waste.
 
>So again:  What is the lithium consumption efficiency curve, so that we
can
>all get a realistic idea of _how much_ lithium will be needed to produce
>one kilowatt-hour of electricity in a _plausible_ HF plant?
>
This looks like the kind of calculation a first-year grad student can
handle.  Let's see how it goes...
 
The answer:  1.2 x 10^-6 grams of Li-6 is needed to make 1 kwh.
 
(I put it here so those who don't like reading calculations can move
on.  I should add that this amount of Li-6 can be found in 94 ml of
seawater.  And there's a *hell* of a lot of seawater out there.)
 
Calculation of the answer...
 
For a single d-t reaction, we need to bombard a Li with a neutron.
For Li-6, the transmutation yields He4 (2.1 MeV) + T(2.7 MeV).
(Data are taken from the Plasma Formulary, p. 44; NRL
publication #177-4405)  I don't have data for neutron transmutation
of Li-7.  But Li-6 is about 7.5% of all Li, so there should be plenty.
(Li has an abundance of 0.17 gm/m^3 in seawater, according to John P.
Holdren, who I quoted in my earlier post.  According to Holdren, there's
enough lithium to last about 10 million years at current energy
consumption rates, leaving half the lithium in the ocean.  Alternatively,
there's enough lithium to last until we get d-d fusion, without noticeably
altering the chemical composition of the ocean.)
But I digress.  We have converted the Li to a T, which we now fuse
fuse with a D to get He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV).
 
The total energy output from a single reaction is therefore:
2.1 + 2.7 + 3.5 + 14.1 = 22.4 MeV.
 
The reaction products are:
2 He4.
 
(In effect we are fusing D with Li-6 to get 2 He4, and in fact
the value I see here is D + Li-6 -> 2 He4 + 22.4 MeV.  So I really do
know how to add.)
 
Converting from eV to Joules, we find that one reaction generates
22.4 x 10^6 eV * 1.6 x 10^-19 J/eV = 3.58 x 10^-12 Joules.
 
Let's suppose that a fusion reactor has a raw power production of
"P" (in watts = joules/sec).  Then the number of reactions (per second)
we need to generate P is N = P / 3.58 x 10^-12.  In terms of moles of
Li, we note that there are about 6.02 x 10^23 atoms per mole, and
therefore the number of moles needed is
n = N / 6.02 x 10^23 = P / 2.16 x 10^12.
 
The mass of Li-6 that we need is therefore
M = n/6 = P / 1.3 x 10^13 grams/sec.
 
With that set up, let's imagine that this is converted to
useful energy (i.e., electricity) with an efficiency "e."  So if the
useful output is "U", then e = U/P.  Depending on whether you collect
the output energy in steam, hot helium (or other inert gas), use
direct conversion, or do cogeneration along with electric power
production, e can be anywhere from 1/4 to maybe 0.9.  We also
need to consider how much power is needed to run the reactor -
let's call this "R."  The power balance of our hypothetical
reactor is going to be the power available to do things besides
run the reactor.  Call the available power A.  From the definitions,
A = U-R = (eP - R).
 
If we take the conservative value of e = 1/4, then we have:
 
4 * (A + R) = P
 
The mass of Li that is needed (per second) to run such a plant is
therefore
 
M = ( P / 1.3 x 10^13 ) = ( 4 * (A + R) / 1.3 x 10^13 ) grams/sec.
 
Now you can go and plug in values for A and R to see how much Li
you will need.  I'll give one example to show the order-of-magnitude
for a conceivable powerplant.  For a typical large-scale utility plant,
A should be about 10^9 watts.  Probably it will not be financially
feasible to run such a plant unless R is significantly less than A.
To be plausible, let's suppose R is 1/10 of A.  (This means that
over 90% of the power generated is being sold.)  Then we get
 
M = 4 * (1.1 x 10^9) / 1.3 x 10^13 = 3.4 x 10^-4 grams/sec.
 
Terry wanted to know how much Li it would take to make one
kilowatt-hour of power.  One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3600
kilowatt-seconds, or 3.6 x 10^6 watts for one second.  Our plant
described above generates 10^9 watts of useful power, so we
only need to run for 3.6x10^6/10^9 = 0.0036 seconds.
 
So the amount of Li fuel needed to generate one kilowatt hour
is just 1.2 x 10^-6 grams.  (Deuterium would be 1/3 of this,
or 4 x 10^-7 grams.)
 
If there's 0.17 grams of Li per cubic meter of seawater, and
7.5% of this is Li-6, then there's about 0.013 grams of Li
in a cubic meter of seawater.  We only need 1.2x10^-6 grams,
so that means we only need 9.4 x 10^-5 cubic meters.  One cubic
meter is 10^6 milliliters, so really we only need 94 ml of
seawater to get enough Li to generate 1 kilowatt hour of energy.
Not bad, I say!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Karl Kluge /  Re: Not angels
     
Originally-From: kckluge@krusty.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not angels
Date: 22 Sep 1993 03:19:39 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <930921220115_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
   Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 22:21:48 GMT
 
   I wrote:
 
        "For the record: Pons and Fleischmann have *never* said or done
        *anything* that I consider underhanded, suspicious, or dishonorable in
        any way."
 
   Karl Kluge asks:
 
        "So what's your version of their violating their agreement with Steve
        Jones to make simultaneous submissions?"
 
   It was a tempest in a teapot. I doubt there was any firm agreement, and if
   there was, the event was about as important as a poorly coordinated trade
   show announcement for Windows NT network servers: a Big Fat Yawn that should
   have been forgotten the next morning.
 
I disagree -- their decision to short-circuit the usual review process and
conduct science by press conference was a major error in judgement on their
part.
 
   Furthermore, I have observed the
   behavior of Steve Jones here on the network, and it is disgraceful.
 
While you may consider that as making their decision wise in retrospect,
hindsight cannot justify their behavior at the time.
 
   I have seen quite enough of his uncalled for attacks on Miles, his constant
   distortions, and his endless evasions. I would not make an agreement with
   someone like that to go dutch to dinner, and if I did, I would drop it as
   soon as I saw his antics.
 
While I haven't followed the discussions of Miles' work sufficiently closely
to form a judgement, I have followed the McKubre "ash" thread, and I'm afraid
you're the one who has appeared evasive in the exchange, not Jones. I've
appended the material I base that judgement on at the end of the post.
 
   The thing to remember is that in 1989,
   they were subjected to a terrifying, inhuman barrage of vicious, blood
   curdling personal attacks, and terrible pressure. You simply cannot imagine
   how awful it was for them to see their reputations dragged through the mud.
 
Once again, their behavior was at least partially responsible for what
happened to them and their reputations. Take the infamous APS session. Even
assuming that Lewis' comments were not made in good faith, it was Pons and
Fleischmann's choice not to be at the APS session, and they therefore have no
one to blame but themselves that Lewis was not responded to there. I think
things would have gone very differently had they shown. My notes, made in
realtime during the talks, do not reveal any grand conspiracy to bash P&F.
There were a number of positive results presented after the invited talks (for
instance, talk 16 by a group from Dresden which was seeing 20.5 excess
counts/hr with the cell running in their neutron detector). While Lewis' talk
unquestionably had a tremendous impact on the audience, the absence of
rebuttal by P&F on the spot hurt their cause at least as much as Lewis did.
 
   I could never have stood it as well as they did, with as much grace and
   courage. They have been terribly wronged! They have suffered cruelly at the
   hands of these evil fools. Even if history had been reversed, and Pons and
   Fleischmann had been wrong, they never would have deserved any punishment.
 
   There is nothing wrong with making an honest mistake in science.
 
They violated accepted norms of scientific conduct, and it has cast a shadow
on their credibility. Whose fault is that?
 
   Their worst sin, however, was that they were right. Everything they have
   claimed has been proven true. They have been replicated in spades.
 
In the absence of "ash" commensurate with a nuclear reaction, however exotic,
the only fully convincing experiments can be those in which the total energy
released exceeds the total energy input (including power input loading the
electrodes, and without any corrections for recombination or lack thereof).
The reason I put such stringent conditions on what will convince me is that
without commensurate ash, there is no a priori reason to favor exotic energy
production mechanisms such as shrunken hydrogen or zero-point energy over
exotic energy storage mechanisms. Can you list papers by 3 groups showing
total power output over the course of the experiment exceeding total energy
input including during loading? I gather Mills and Farrell have claimed this,
it wasn't clear from Hagelstein's summary whether the P&F boil-off event
qualified.
 
==============================================================================
 
> From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
> Subject: SRI has NOT looked for ash
> Message-ID: <930915135144_72240.1256_EHK24-1@CompuServe.COM>
> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 15:08:40 GMT
>
> This is all nonsense and garbage. McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* --
> looked for "helium, tritium, etc." He emphatically denied that he has
> looked for these things on several occasions, in several publications.
 
Note that this an unambiguous and unqualified claim. Not "they looked in the
wrong place". Not "they looked with what they now believe to have been
inadequately sensitive instruments". No, you said, "McKrube has *not* --
repeat *not* -- looked for 'helium, tritium, etc.'"
 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Re: SRI has NOT looked for ash
> Message-ID: <1993Sep15.180842.930@physc1.byu.edu>
> From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
> Date: 15 Sep 93 18:08:41 -0600
> >
> > This is all nonsense and garbage. McKubre has *not* -- repeat *not* --  looked
> > for "helium, tritium, etc." He emphatically denied that he has looked for
> > these things on several occasions, in several publications.
>
> Let us consider one of those publications, McKubre et al. in proceedings of the
> First Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, pp. 20 - 31, where it says:
>
> "Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the pressure
> vessel for  3H,  3He  and 4He.  At a detection level of 1 ppm, none of these
> isotopes were [sic] found."
>
> "Approximately 10% of the total mass of the electrode, comprising one sample
> from the surface and one from the bulk, were analyzed by Rockwell International
> for 3He  and 4He  by mass spectrometry of a molten sample.  This technique is
> capable of detecting 10^11 atoms; no He was observed at that detection level."
>
> "The electrolyte was sampled for tritium before emplacement in the cell and
> after removal; no increase in tritium was observed above the background level."
>  --- Michael McKubre et al. paper
 
I think it fair to suppose that McKubre does not make a practice of sending
random items from his office and lab off to be tested for helium and tritium,
so I think it fair to consider this as refuting the rather strong, unqualified
statement you made.
 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
> Subject: What McKubre said
> Message-ID: <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM>
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 14:34:01 GMT
>
> As he often does, Steve Jones is spreading false statements about another
> worker in order to support his own untenable nonsense. In this case, he
> claims that McKubre at SRI has looked for nuclear products and "not found
> them" -- as if looking for products was like pulling up the sheet to find
> your glasses under the bed (where the dog left them). Let me repeat, one last
> time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically denied that they have
> looked for products and not found them. As Steve disingenuously points out,
> they have done some preliminary work in this area, but McKubre has said time
> after time:
>
>      "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
>      but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
>
> That's from the Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by
> Neville Hodgkinson, cover story. He has issued similar statement in other
 
Note that "we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far" is not
the same as "we didn't look".
 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
> Subject: Not a silly argument
> Message-ID: <930920170804_72240.1256_EHK5-1@CompuServe.COM>
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 17:42:44 GMT
>
> Let me try to clear up some of this deliberate fog and confusion. Let me
> explain my interpretation of the early SRI results; this is NOT what Passell
> or anyone else told me, it is simply what I think after reading other
> papers. In the early days of CF, SRI and many others looked in the spent
> cathodes for signs of helium-4....After a few years, most people
> concluded that if there was "commensurate helium ash" it couldn't be left in
> the cathode, and it was not found in the water, either. So, the only place
> left to look for it was in the effluent D2 and H2 gas...So, I think the
> consensus is gradually forming that the place to look for helium ash is not
> in the cathode, but in the gas.
 
Fine. But the paper quoted by Jones indicated that McKubre _did_ look in the
gas: "Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the
pressure vessel for 3H, 3He and 4He.  At a detection level of 1 ppm, none of
these isotopes were [sic] found." They also looked for tritium in the
electrolyte. "The electrolyte was sampled for tritium before emplacement in
the cell and after removal; no increase in tritium was observed above the
background level."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: More On "How his calorimeter works"
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More On "How his calorimeter works"
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 03:30:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Sep19.162914.10050@midway.uchicago.edu> Greg Kuperberg,
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>William Hawkins [bill@texan.rosemount.com] writes:
>=wh So I picked up Asimov's "Understanding Physics" (1966) for
>=wh a refresher on the basics of heat....
>
>If Asimov wrote it, it should be called "Misunderstanding Physics"
(1966).
>I thought Asimov had taught me something about special relativity until
>I went to college, when I discovered that Asimov had lied to me.
>
>In article <CDLups.95G@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz)
>writes:
>>It is obvious that temperature might be negative...
>
>Which proves that some things that are obvious are also false.
 
Better go back to college, then, because for once on this topic Mitchell
was right.  The statistical mechanics definition of temperature was given
by Mitchell as:
 
In article <CDLups.95G@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>   Because temperature is defined as
[<1993Aug27.032928.6453@ns.network.com>
>      Subject: Re: Heat of Formation, where entropy (S) is the number of
>      accessible states available to the system  at energy of E
>      (actually between E and E+dE), and # is the number of such
>       states Entropy:     S =  k  ln(#) ]:
>
>   the reciprocal of the rate of change of the number of those states
>         to increasing energy,
>
>         Temperature:       1          d ln (#)
>                         -------  =  ------------
>                           k T          d E
>
> it is obvious that temperature might be negative.
 
This was correct.  But the temperature will be positive for almost every
macroscopic system, and definitely it will be positive for any system
where the number of phase-space states is an increasing function of
energy.
 
This is not to say that I agree with Mitchell.  I would like to take this
opportunity to suggest that this whole debate about how a thermometer
works seems IMHO to be based upon people making loosely-phrased
statements, other people misinterpreting what was meant by the
loosely-phrased statements, and then everyone jumping in and talking
past everyone else, to the point where everyone feels the other person
is wrong, when really everyone is saying substantially the same thing.
 
People interpreted Mitchell as claiming that a thermometer takes
*heat* and somehow transforms it to *temperature* (which involves
changing one physical quantity into another, similar to saying that
a speedometer transforms *speed* into an angle on the dial on the
dashboard.)  *Transduces* is the more precise term here.
 
Please do not quote anything I have said here as ammunition for
discussion.
I just want people to stop wasting their time when it seems everyone
has a reasonable grip on the science involved, if not necessarily their
ability to communicate clearly whatever it is they are trying to say about
the science.
 
****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
*You can ignore me, I'm just a graduate student.*
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Using Analytical Balances
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using Analytical Balances
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 05:20:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
>> 1) Set an open cell on the scale, power it, and measure the change in weight.
>>
>> 1) has the problem of bringing in the power leads to the scale without
>> changing the scale sensitivity.
>
>In an electronic balance ... the pan essentially does not move....
>The leads ... should be flexible and light... thus they shouldn't affect the
>sensitivity.
 
Perhaps if you coiled the leads in large radius turns, spiraling down from
eternal supports, you'd minimize "rigidity" to the outside world.
 
Beyond the leads problem, you still want to ensure that evaporation is not
allowed to occur, as this would cause severe measurement errors.
 
One possibility is to put an expansion device (something like a balloon)
on top to allow the oxygen to feel the buoyancy of the surrounding air, yet
limit water vaporization by forcing the vapor pressure to self-limit.
This means there would be some vapor in the balloon that would be buoyed up
by the atmosphere as well, and the total vapor content would vary with the
volume (and temperature and air pressure), but a clever person might figure
out a way to calibrate that all out.  :-)
 
By the way, here is a table of balance sensitivity to dissociation energy:
 
0.00001g   0.1J
0.0001g    1J
0.001g    10J
0.01g    100J
0.1g    1000J  <---- I own one of these :-)
1g     10000J
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 06:21:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <m0ofJkS-0000mBC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery, jim@pnet01.cts.com
writes:
>gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>>Organization: University of Chicago
>>
>>In article <01H36ADWT0PU000N3A@metrokc.gov> HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert
Hagglund,
>(206) 689-3415) writes:
>>>HF true believers: How many more million tax dollars and years is it
going
>to
>>>take to get something that will give us and return on our public
investment?
>>
>>I'm not an HFTB, but I did work on magnetic fusion for two months seven
>>years ago (now I just do math).  I think that there is only a 1 in 50
>>chance that magnetic or laser fusion will be useful in the next 30
>>years.  But that makes it worth funding at its current level.
>
>If the funding were private, rather than political, your comment might
>not be worthy of utter contempt.  As things stand, a dollar spent on
>HF is a dollar spent suppressing progress in HF by nuking out on
diversity
>of thought in the area.  You can say how terrible this is and how "we"
>should fix it, but the problem isn't one of what "we" should advocate
about
>the fusion program -- the problem is the existence of a fusion program
>within a political funding context.
 
This is bogus.  I understand the bitterness - I too would like to see a
diverse HF program.  But the diversity of thought was "nuked out" only
because the budget was heavily axed in the early 1980s.  Chopping the
budget in half caused almost everything except the tokamak and
laser fusion to get weeded out.  However, some alternative designs
have struggled back from oblivion in recent years (Japan is funding
a large stellarator-type machine now, according to sources here
at Princeton).  But right now all programs are basically only being
funded at a subsistence level, which isn't enough to increase diversity.
Those who care about HF need to start generating arguments to support
increased funding as well as continued funding, if you want lots of
research to be done on something besides a tokamak.
 
But let's continue...
 
>If the funding were private, then the following analysis would
demonstrate
>that your statement is worthy, not of utter contempt, but of your
average,
>ordinary, every-day contempt reserved for "experts" who make
authoritative
>sounding noises while being paid out of tax dollars from the confines of
>their University of Chicago offices:
>
>Current funding level for hot fusion is about $500M/year.  Zero
amortizing
>that investment at 50 - 1 odds requires that we multiply T-Bill rates
(of
> maturity comparable to that which will be required to complete the
project)
>by 50.  If we have first return on investment in 30 years, we can be nice
>to the HF guys and assume there will be no further investment after that
>date and that, therefore, the no-risk discount rate is that of 30 year
>T-Bills -- which is around 6%.
>
>Thus, we require an ROI of 50*6% or 300% per year at the start of
funding.
>
Hmm.  I sense that this factor of 50 is going to kill HF in this analysis.
Let's get rid of it.  My answer to the original question of how much
funding
over how much time is this:  I think there's a 50-50 chance that we can
have economical fusion within 30 years at current funding levels.
(Current funding levels are $300 million/year for magnetic confinement
fusion in the U.S.  I don't know about laser fusion.  I also don't know
much
about other countries, but their efforts are also important.  Maybe total
world hot fusion spending is about $1 billion/year?)  There's a 95%
chance
that we can have it within 60 years at current funding levels.
Enhancement of funding can lead to some gain, but I don't think that
money alone can solve technical problems, so let's ignore that.
 
I think if you redo the analysis below with the 50-50 odds (does that
convert to 1-1 or 2-1?) I've suggested, you'll find the price is
high, but not unreasonable.  It's still too high for a corporation, but
it's not unreasonable for a government.  And this just might be why
the government continues to fund hot fusion!
 
Copy of Jim's analysis appended.  Jim - care to redo it?  I didn't
follow you very well, so I don't want to risk it myself.
 
******************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
All opinions strictly my own, of course.
 
 
>We'll be reasonable and assume that the risk declines linearly with time
>over the 30 years until it is basically at only 3 times T-Bill rates
>(normal commercial rates).  We then have to sum the following expression
>over 30 years to see how big of a hole we've dug for ourselves:
>
>(5*(10)^(8))*((1+(3-(2.82*year/30))))^(30-year)
>
>We now have taken out a loan of something on the order of 6*10^26 dollars
>BEFORE WE'VE PAID A SINGLE PENNY BACK.
>
>In business, this is known as "a liability".
>
>Now I'll be even nicer and say that the interest rate we'll apply to
>this debt at the 30 year mark will be no more than 30 year T-Bill
>rates of 6%.  That gives us a MONTHLY interest payment of something
>like 3*10^24 dollars.
>
>I'm not sure how big the total world gross product is at present, but
>let's say it's something like 36 trillion dollars (again, I'm being
> very generous) or 3.6*10^13 or 3*10^12 dollars per month.
>
>This means that if, in 30 years, we are to dedicate the entire world's
>gross product to the service of this "liability", we have to increase
>the size of the world's economy by a factor of 10^12 -- and that's
without
>the wunnerful DoE fusion technologies (WDOEFTs) fueling all this growth.
>
>At a fantastic 100% annual growth in the world economy over the next 30
>years, we would fall short of the necessary worldwide productivity by
>a factor of 1000.  And remember, we wouldn't let anyone do anything but
>service the interest on the "liability" -- not even eat.
>
>In the business world this is called "a losing proposition".
>
>OK, so maybe we'll be even more generous and wait some period of time
>after project termination of the WDOEFTs, and hope that the growth of
the
>world's economy resulting from such wunnerfulness will be so great as
>to cause us to catch up with the mounting debt.
>
>How long would we have to wait before we START paying back the debt?
>
>Well, let's assume that, in the absence of WDOEFTs over the next 30
years,
>the economy grows at a robust 5% annual rate, and then with all that
>wunnerfulness (like ITER/JET-developed Tokamaks are cheap to build and
> operate and burn p-B11 and monkeys fly out of my butt), the economy
> grows at a 30% annual rate (yeah,  I know ... I'm being generous
again).
>
>Without going through all the math here, we're talking more than 100
years
>beyond the "birthing" of WDOEFTs before we can START paying the interest
>on our so-called "investment".
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion (Short Version)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion (Short Version)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 06:34:24 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Sep22.055402.15660@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter,
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov writes:
 
>In article <1993Sep19.182551.15219@asl.dl.nec.com> Terry Bollinger,
>terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>So again:  What is the lithium consumption efficiency curve, so that we
>can
>>all get a realistic idea of _how much_ lithium will be needed to produce
>>one kilowatt-hour of electricity in a _plausible_ HF plant?
>>
>This looks like the kind of calculation a first-year grad student can
>handle.  Let's see how it goes...
>
>The answer:  1.2 x 10^-6 grams of Li-6 is needed to make 1 kwh.
 
In reference to this and the rest of the previous post:  I forgot
to append any signature!  Sorry about this.  In case it's crucial,
please consider the following signature to be attached to the
original Lithium Economics post.
 
**************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Anything I say should not be held against me, nor considered the
opinions of anyone else, unless they explicitly agree, or
notwithstanding this disclaimer agree implicitly, but without
malice aforethought, except on sundays and thursdays, when
I am playing volleyball, or perhaps when I'm sleeping (whenever
that may be!).  See what the lawyers make of this...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Marshall Dudley /  Jupitor's core, sources of lithium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jupitor's core, sources of lithium
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 19:51:55 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Message <27li1o$inr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> from: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu
(Bruce Scott) states:
 
> There is disagreement on whether Jupiter has cooled to the point that
> H-He separation becomes important (on the other hand, it is a favoured
> mechanism for heating Saturn -- mass fractionation in a gravity field
> liberates free energy). Given this, I doubt that p-D separation is
> important.
 
What about other elements?  The atmosphere of Jupitor consists of 80%
hydrogen (both protium and deuterium), 19% helium, .6% methane and .02%
ammonia according to my CRC handbook.  How do we know that the helium,
methane, and ammonia are not the primary constituents of the core due to
their greater mass?  I am still not convinced that the core of Jupitor must
contain nearly pure hydrogen isotopes, as several news items have previously
suggested.
 
> There are two numbers for D/H: 5 e -5 and 2 e -4. Unfortunately, I
> don't remember which is Earth and which is Jupiter.
 
According to Edgardo Browne & Richard B. Firestone "Table of Radioactive
Isotopes" the ratio is 1.5 e -4 for Lake Michigan water, and varies from
4.4 e -5 to 1.84 e -4 for other sources.  For some reason sea water is not
listed.
 
While we are on the subject of sources of elements I looked up lithium.
One news items suggested that lithium is only available from some type of
gemstone, and another item suggested it was feely available from sea water.
Here are the facts from the  CRC handbook:  "Lithium is found in small
quantities in nearly all igneous rocks and in the waters of many mineral
springs.  Lepidolite, spodumene, petalite, and amblygonite are the most
important minerals containing it.  Lithium is presently being recovered from
brines of Searles Lake, in California, and from the Great Salt Lake, Utah.
Large deposits are found in Nevada and North Carolina."  Thus lithium is
readily available from mined resources.
 
As far as removing lithium from sea water, CRC indicates that the lithium
concentration in sea water is .1 ppm, and on land is 65 ppm.  With large
sources available on land it does not seem likely that removal of lithium
from sea water would be an economical approach.
 
BTW, out of curosity, how does deuterium interact with lithium?  Will lithium
adsorb deuterium and hydrogen like palladium does?  Forget the electrolysis,
I know that lithium and water don't mix.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 13:38:34 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

On the subject of controlled fusion funding:
 
In article <m0ofJkS-0000mBC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>If the funding were private, rather than political, your comment might
>not be worthy of utter contempt.
 
But it is private.  It's a project sponsored by the USA, Inc.
I signed a contract to membership in this corporation.  It's otherwise
known as my naturalization papers.
 
>Your statement [would be] worthy of your average, every-day contempt
>reserved for "experts" who make authoritative sounding noises while
>being paid out of tax dollars from the confines of their University of
>Chicago offices:
 
You mean like Milton Friedman?  I guess you might have a point.
 
BTW, UC is a private school, although it does get a number of
tax dollars in the form of grants.
 
>Thus, we require an ROI of 50*6% or 300% per year at the start of funding.
 
You seem to have put your factor of 50 in the wrong place.
The return on investment on something that has a 1/50 chance
of working should be
 
50 * (principal + cumulative 6% interest)
 
not
 
principal + cumulative (50*6)% interest
 
If you disagree with that, I'd like some of your investment money
for a speculative, one-day project at Caesar's Palace.
 
>Good physics?  Since when is spending billions characterizing the behavior
>of a narrow regime of plasma, peculiar to a specific device, "good physics"?
 
If that's what they were doing at Los Alamos when I was there, no
one told me about it.
 
>Do you teach at the University of Chicago or were you just educated there?
 
Neither.  It's true that I am a L. E. Dickson Instructor of Mathematics,
but this year, I am strictly a research mathematician.  And proud
of it, too.  :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Dieter Britz /  F&P patents?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: F&P patents?
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 15:31:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
To those wondering whether F&P have applied for patents, there is this item
in my cnf-pat file:
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pons S, Fleischmann M, Walling CT, Simons JP;
World Pat. Appl. WO 90/10935.  12 March 1990.
"Method and apparatus for power generation".
** about 100 pp.; it starts off by naming 7 earlier US pat. applications,
going back to March 13, 1989, of specific claims such as heat generation,
neutron beam method, power generation. This one combines all of these, and
"relates to methods and apparatuses for generating heat, neutrons, tritium or
electrical power, and in one illustration, to an apparatus which utilises heat
produced by compressing low atomic weight nuclei in a metal lattice under
conditions which produce excess heat, possibly involving nuclear fusion".
A number of materials, preferably palladium or other metals, are suggested,
as well as deuterium, to produce heat, tritium and "neutron beams" by
collimation; these can then be used for neutron radiography, - diffraction,
- activation, etc. In all, 50 claims are made. New ideas, not previously
exposed in the authors' publications, are the formation of the isotopic
hydride by transfer from another hydride (LiD etc) to the metal; and the use
of radioactive dopants in order to knock the PdD lattice with neutrons, alpha
or beta particles.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
This says that they say that there are 7 US pat. appl. in process, or there
were at some time. They also claim some nuclear stuff like neutrons and
tritium. They might disown this today; I don't know.
 
 
Paging Bill Page:
 
Bill, was that email to Roger Amos that you sent me a copy for me, or did
you make a mistake and sent it only to me? My friend tells me Roger has not
received anything from you.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Jed Rothwell /  It would explode, Dick
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It would explode, Dick
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 16:16:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue's ignorance of basic physics boggles the mind! Here is his
latest pronouncement:
 
     "If you did you would realize that inputting heat into a fixed quantity
     of water at some power level will result in a constantly rising
     temperature.  The temperature never 'settles out' to a fixed reading
     unless there is also a flow of heat out of the calorimeter to the
     surrounding bath.  Under those conditions, which are in fact the best
     description of a Pons & Fleischmann calorimeter..."
 
Right. Sure. Their calorimeter just gets hotter and hotter and hotter,
because it is surrounded by perfect insulation. Not a joule ever gets
transferred into the water bath. Uh, huh. And if this fairy tale was true --
or even physically possible -- tell us what would happen, Dick. Go ahead,
follow through on your assumption! Tell us what would happen at *any* level
of input, even one watt. Oh, you don't know? I'll tell you what: the damn
thing would blow up! There would be a terrific steam explosion after a
while.
 
This crazy assertion of yours boils down to a statement that calorimeters do
not have calibration points! This is the stupidest statement you have *ever*
posted. I thought I had seen everything when you asserted that 1 ml/sec of
free flowing water will create multiwatt levels of heat from "water
friction," but this is even stupider. You hereby get the Daffy Skeptic Idiot
Award for 1993. You can share it with Morrison, who thinks he can burn
0.0044 moles of hydrogen and generate 150 watts levels of heat hour after
hour.
 
Before you post any more lunacy, I suggest that just once -- just once! --
you put an electric heater into a Dewar, put the Dewar into a water bath,
and run some power through it. Just shut up and observe what happens. Start
with very low power levels, or you might accidently exceed it's capacity and
have it blow up in your face. I absolutely guarantee you will find that any
real physical cell you can construct will have calibration points. It will
not continue to get hotter and hotter indefinitely. Not only that, but I
guarantee that if you make one like Pons and Fleischmann's device, the
calibration points will fit on a nice straight line, and they will not move
around mysteriously, or change from week to week, and they will never
suddenly fall to a value one-third of the previously recorded level.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 14:01:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Sep22.062152.21126@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov> wrote:
 
>Hmm.  I sense that this factor of 50 is going to kill HF in this analysis.
>Let's get rid of it.  My answer to the original question of how much
>funding
>over how much time is this:  I think there's a 50-50 chance that we can
>have economical fusion within 30 years at current funding levels.
>(Current funding levels are $300 million/year for magnetic confinement
>fusion in the U.S.  I don't know about laser fusion.  I also don't know
>much
>about other countries, but their efforts are also important.  Maybe total
>world hot fusion spending is about $1 billion/year?)  There's a 95%
>chance
>that we can have it within 60 years at current funding levels.
>Enhancement of funding can lead to some gain, but I don't think that
>money alone can solve technical problems, so let's ignore that.
 
     I just love quoted probabilities based on gut feeling.
 
     I prefer the assumption that giving me a billion dollars now will,
     with 95% probability, solve all the world's social ills by the year 2100.
 
          "Castles made of sand
           fall in the sea
           eventually"
                  J. Hendrix
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Using Analytical Balances
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using Analytical Balances
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 14:06:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930921122956.208011b5@fnald.fnal.gov>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>John Logajan has suggested using analytical balances to detect gas evolution.
>Some time ago, I put up some posts about using balances to detect cathode
>loading.  The problems are the same.
>
>Two ways come to mind for such use.
>
>1) Set an open cell on the scale, power it, and measure the change in weight.
>
>2) Set a recombiner on the scale, pipe the gas to it from an operating cell,
>and measure the recombined product.
>
>1) has the problem of bringing in the power leads to the scale without
>changing the scale sensitivity.
>
>2) has the problem of bringing the gas to the scale without changing the
>scale sensitivity.
>
>One can imagine bringing leads to a cell with mercury cups.  One could then
>use some sort of motor drive to keep the scale continuously balanced to remove
>the error caused by the floatation of the leads in the cups.  Sounds not to
>accurate to me, but a determined experimenter might make it work.
 
     I still think that the combination of vibrations from the flow
     and scale time-constants will limit the usefulness of such an approach
     to the point where it makes little sense to attempt this approach.
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 22 Sep 1993 15:16:08 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     I prefer the assumption that giving me a billion dollars now will,
>     with 95% probability, solve all the world's social ills by the year 2100.
 
Interesting, Dale. You seemed to miss a bit there, since you won't be
around in 2100. In place of a back of the envelope analysis concerning
fusion you prefer idle nonsense like this. Sure, the bit Robert Heeter
put up can be challenged. So why didn't you just do it? You probably
could have with a 2-4 liner, had you thought about it. For example,
ask what he means by probability in the course of scientific research
and give a counter, like "too much premature funding in science
increases noise/signal". By the way, I am always rather amused at
these nonsensical attempts to *quantify* risk to capital in scientific
research. That this is clear nonsense is why the gov't (or other
patron) does have a place in supporting science. Capital investors
only show up when the results are in sight (excepting people like Jed
who like getting suckered for their wishful thinking).
 
I did notice you didn't respond the last time I caught you with a
silly statement like the one quoted above.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Using Analytical Balances
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using Analytical Balances
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 16:08:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
>two mechanisms I am familiar with in that range are strain gauges and
>magnetic levitation
 
Hmm.  I don't have any specs handy on strain gauges, but perhaps a clever
experimenter can construct his own sensitive weight measuring device
for a lot less than a calibrated and guaranteed analytical balance.
 
Perhaps one could "calibrate" in the weight range desired by adding or
subtracting known dummy weights, say 1 to 10 grams each.  Then interpolate
the electronic output to get finer measurement resolution.
 
The absolute accuracy might not be very good, but the relative accuracy
could be adequate for the purposes for which we desire.  i.e. total
weight is known +or- 1 gram, perhaps, but delta weight could be as small
as our A/D resolution -- which we probably design around the milligram
or sub-milligram range.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Ad aspera /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 22 Sep 1993 16:11:36 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

> I prefer the assumption that giving me a billion dollars now will,
> with 95% probability, solve all the world's social ills by the year 2100.
 
(a) Except for a few crank proponents of H-bomb attacks
upon one tormentor or another, nobody has ever claimed that
fusion would solve any social ills, except for those social
ills that would result from the industrialized nations
getting their tail in a crack w.r.t. the energy supply.
 
(b) NOT giving it money will, with 100% probability, cause it
to NOT solve any problems.
 
Sometimes, God rest my redneck soul, I think it's been too long
since OPEC reminded us that energy sources are finite, critical,
and, in many cases, not under our control.  But I digress, sort of.
 
Cheers,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Using Analytical Balances
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using Analytical Balances
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 16:24:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     I still think that the combination of vibrations from the flow
>     and scale time-constants will limit the usefulness of such an approach
>     to the point where it makes little sense to attempt this approach.
 
I'm confused -- relatively long time constants of the scales would filter
out (average out) variations << than the time constant.  One would think,
then, that the only types of distrubances that would cause variations in
the readings would be distrubances with lifetimes >= the scale time
constant.
 
Also, I believe that upward flows are generally countered by downward
flows :-)   Otherwise our cell might float away :-)
 
But seriously, even if you have momemtary imbalances in upward and downward
flow (and I believe this is reflected in the ripples on the surface), their
multiple simultaneous existance makes them statistically likely to cancel.
i.e. for every crest above the original level, you are likely to have
a trough below.
 
All this activity is usually quite fast compared to the time resolution
we really need -- so they can be filtered to statistical insignificance
with little trouble -- says me.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /   /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 16:55:33 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

> I've suggested, you'll find the price is
>high, but not unreasonable.  It's still too high for a corporation, but
>it's not unreasonable for a government.
 
>******************
>Robert F. Heeter
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
 
You're only a graduate student so you're probably suffering from the
"Daddy's Money is Free" syndrome.  This may come as a major shock, but
the government gets all that "free" money by extorting it's citizens,
and there's rather a large group of us who resent the bloated free
spending monster the government has become.  And I'm a moderate!  Try
talking to the Libertarians if you want a *really* negative opinion.
 
You like the government because the government gives you money to have fun.
Uncle Sam may have been smiling when he handed you the money, but he was
wearing a gun when he took it from me.  "Not unreasonable for a government"
eh?  Thinking like that has resulted in the current mind boggling national
debt.  Thanks alot.  We appreciate your efforts.  If you need more money,
just send one of your government men.
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudended cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /   /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 17:17:13 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
>But it is private.  It's a project sponsored by the USA, Inc.
>I signed a contract to membership in this corporation.  It's otherwise
>known as my naturalization papers.
 
 
Gee.  It's harder to be more wrong than you were in the above paragraph.
Fortunately you have me around to give you a civics lesson.  I may
be able to save you yet. ;-)
 
Corporations and government are completely different.  They
have different mandates, purposes, and competence.  One important
difference: corporations *ask* for your money.  They don't demand it.
Well, okay, sometimes they *cheat* you out of your money, or *beg* it
or *trick* it out of you.  But every time I've ever participated in
private funding it has been on a voluntary basis.  And with *private*
funding, I even get some money back sometimes. ;-)
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudended cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 17:09:37 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <CDrDn2.Bu2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
> I prefer the assumption that giving me a billion dollars now will,
> with 95% probability, solve all the world's social ills by the year 2100.
 
Shoot, I say give Dale money.  I figure he's got a lot better shot at
getting _something_ done with it than a lot of similarly priced programs.
 
                                }=-)> ishly,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  HF Lithium Economics / Rubber Baby Buggy Electrons
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HF Lithium Economics / Rubber Baby Buggy Electrons
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 17:12:54 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
A very nice, informative answer from Robert Heeter.  I also appreciated
the way he discussed the lithium fuel issue matter-of-factly instead of
talking around it.  Perhaps it will indeed prove to be a minor issue to
say that we are really shooting for lithium-deuterium burners, rather than
pure natural-hydrogeni-isotope burners.  (See below, though.)
 
Is lithium a good place to dump neutrons?  You bet!  Wide cross-section,
and the net tritium produced is _comparatively_ easy to control.
 
Still, though, I'd say that it's going to be nearly impossible to capture
_all_ of the neutrons in lithium.  At the the very least you must have
some internal control mechanisms to support the fusion reaction.  Intertial
fusion would probably be the cleanest possible from this perspective, since
you could more-or-less enclose nearly all of the explosion region in a layer
of (probably flowing liquid) lithium.
 
I would guess that the level of non-lithium irradiation in a magnetic type
containment would be much, _much_ worse.  It's hard to picture the entire
interior (or _any_ of the interior, for that matter) of such a device
being made of volatile lithium!  I would assume that the interior would
instead need to be made of something like halfnium with a very low cross-
section, surrounded as closely as possible by lithium.  Not to mention
a lot of, er, _difficult_ coil circuitry tha may be unavoidably exposed
to irradiation and probably quite impossible to build out of something like
hafnium.  _Messy_ design problem, that, quite apart from break-even issues.
 
(Isn't ironic that zirconium and halfnium are probably the two _most_
nearly identical of all elements chemically, yet they have enormously
different neutron absorption cross-sections?  Keeps dem chemists busy!)
 
I appreciate the part about lithium being part of seawater -- at about
13 micrograms per liter by your figures, was it not? -- although I suspect
this would prove not to be directly relevent to an economically feasible
HF plant.  Given that no one currently uses seawater (?) to produce lithium
for existing applications such as batteries, I strongly suspect that
economics would dictate use of lithium from more conventional sources earth
mined resources.  Also, I would imagine that the technologies for pulling
lithium and deuterium out of seawater are very different indeed, so there
would be no obvious economic advantage in trying to use to use seawater
for both when cheaper lithium is available from conventional earth mining
resources.  (Actually, I suspect they use freshwater for deuterium mining
anyway.  Why use corrosive salt water when the deuterium is in both types?)
 
 
> If we take the conservative value of e = 1/4, then we have:
 
Whoa.  Whoa, I say.
 
You just leaped right over the main point of my question, which was (to
use your terminology from above) how big _e_ would have to get before the
powers that be would declare a plant "cost effective" and begin consuming
lithium and deuterium.
 
You have described e = 0.25 as "conservative," but given the enormous
technical difficulties to date of reaching e = 0, what does "conservative"
mean in this context?  The HF industry has struggled for decades just to
approach e = 0, and still is not there.  Can you honestly say that there
will be _no_ further unexpected barriers after e = 0 -- barriers such as
the discovery of unexpected turbulence domains over the past couple of
decades that have made an utter mockery of the honest but ultimately very
optimistic predictions of 20 years ago?
 
Your answer is helpful, as it shows that lithium is _in principle_ an
enormously energetic nuclear power source.  But I'd really like to have
a better idea of what happens in the (to me at least) more likely initial
region of e values that are just _barely_ above zero.  Leaping to 0.25
shows the potential, but I strongly suspect we're not going to be there
for a long, _long_ time.
 
Here's one possible way to help quantify such issues using existing data:
Can lithium efficiency curves be calculated using _past_ data, and then
extrapolated into the near future?
 
I would guess rather firmly that the result of such a projective estimation
from past data would show that far from being conservative, the 0.25 figure
is in fact very, very optimistic and not necessarily tentable for net energy
production HF systems of the next century.
 
                                Later 'gators,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Bill:  Think of the transition from H2+ to He+ electron wave
        functions.  If the electron wavefunction remained _between_
        the nuclei as the distance s shrinks, the end state should be
        a very tight package of two protons and one electron -- that is,
        the putative Vigier configuration.
 
        Yet in He+ the electron does _not_ localize between the two
        protons.  It instead "blossoms out" and fills a space darn
        near as large as the original H2+ wavefunction.
 
        One of the fundamental techniques of QM is to "perturb" (slightly
        modify) one result to obtain a new one.  The idea hear is similar;
        you "perturb" H2+ by decreasing the proton separation distance s,
        then see what happens.  But in this case you also happen to have
        a very handy "end case" already in hand -- the He+ wavefunction.
        Thus you can treat the perturbation problem in this case as an
        interpolation between two end points, provided only that there are
        no major reconfigurations in between.  Since the ground state of
        H2+ is a zero-angular-momentum much akin to a highly distorted
        1s atomic ground state, there are strong reasons to think that
        no such major reconfigurations are present in the interpolation.
 
        When you then run it through, interpolation from H2+ to He+
        indicates that the sequence is going the "wrong way" -- that is,
        it is moving towards the end state of the helium nucleus in which
        the contribution of the electron towards binding the two protons
        together is entirely negligeable not only in comparison to the
        strong force bonding of the nucleus, but even when compared to
        the enormously weaker intra-atom electron bonding of molecules!
        For all practical purposes, the bonding value of the electron
        at that distance is non-existent.
 
        If you think of the smeared electron as an elastic, compressible
        "ball" of some sort, with charge distributed throughout it, you
        can get a visual image of the consequences of Schroedinger's
        equation in this circumstance.  The protons can "pull in" the
        distributed charge of the stretchy ball only so far before the
        ball becomes highly incompressible.  [Note:  This visualization
        of the mathematical solutions to Schroedinger's equations works
        only for the zero-angular-momentum s states, so beware.  However,
        for those states it provides a remarkably good way to understand
        more intuitively what must happen energetically and spatially.]
 
        Two protons in the ball will be bound by it, but _because the
        distributed charge of the ball tends to "squeeze outwards" as
        the protons approach too closely_, they are no longer sufficiently
        shielded from each other's positive charges.  The protons thus will
        begin to "see" each others charges like headlights appearing out
        of a fog, and will begin to repel each other strongly.
 
        The only way around this effect is to _shrink the ball that
        represents the electron charge distribution.  Alas, Schroedinger's
        equation doesn't permit this without _drastic_ increases in either
        the energy of the electron or its mass.  And because this energy-
        to-size relationship is based in a very, very fundamental way on
        the Planck relationship (interesting story, but some other time),
        you don't get around it very easily.  Vigier is closer to Mills
        than it might seem from that perspective -- both require either
        outright discarding of certain QM principles, or flagrant changes
        to some fundamental constants.
 
        (BTW, "adding energy" and "adding mass" are actually almost the
        same two statements, since by relativity mass _is_ just another
        form of energy.  It's just that mass often stays "packaged" better,
        (e.g., as in the case of muon, which look very much like electrons
        in dire need of Weight Watcher's), while direct energy addition at
        comparable levels tends to make electrons go a _wee_ bit berserk.)
 
        Another note:  It is not quite correct to think that the putative
        Vigier state _must_ rotate.  Don't forget that the 1s state has
        _no_ angular momentum!  This sounds very strange and is not easily
        understood by classical analogies.  About the best you can do is
        think of the electron as _dropping straight down into the nucleus_,
        passing through it, and then heading out a ways on the other side,
        only to repeat the fall-then-flight cycle all over again.  Strange,
        but you will notice that there is _no_ angular momentum in such a
        configuration.  Translate it into the spatially symmetrical wave
        version and you get the 1s ground state of atomic hydrogen.
 
        Finally, please note that although I used no equations above in my
        "squeezy rubber ball" desription of 1s electron states, I quite
        assure you that if you solve Schroedinger's equation (whether with
        or without proton wavefunctions), you will find that they give very
        much the same sort of result -- that is, that it starts taking a
        whale of a lot of energy to squeeze the ball smaller than a certain
        point defined by how strong the positive attraction is.  It's just
        the the highly compressible charged rubber balls provide an easier
        way to visualize the _results_ of such a mathematical analysis, and
        thus to clarify how, where, and why such results apply.
 
 
P.S.S - Bill, I honestly have no idea why I keep replying to you in
        postscripts to replies to others.  I promise not to do it again.
 
P.S.S.S. - Bill:  And I really do mean it!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / David Lovering /  Electrode Geometry
     
Originally-From: lovering@central.bldrdoc.gov (David Lovering 303-497-5662)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrode Geometry
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 17:36:03 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear All:
 
  As an electrical engineer I'd like to toss out a question which may
prove to at least provide some limited entertainment value to our
learned CF friends.  Has anyone experimented with the precise geometry
of the electrodes used in various "standard" CF cells to determine
whether or not the charge-density in solution has anything to do with
the reaction characteristics, the appearance of nuclear ash, etc?
 
  I recall from my early Electromagnetic Theory courses grinding through
some rather laborious models of differently shaped electrodes as an exercise
in determining space-charge-flow, charge-density, and electron energies at
different points within the various associated fields.  I remember being
astonished by the rather large differences exhibited by the electron's
energy generated by even miniscule changes in the electrode geometry.  For
example, a concave conical negative electrode when centered on a pin electrode
functioning as the positive plate of the pair can generate huge current
densities at the positive side, even if the overall current is vanishingly
small.
 
  I'd like to think that at least some of the "irreproducibility" issues
outlined in past notes were attributable to something outside the usual con-
cerns of the chemistry community, rather than sloppiness, poorly controlled
materials, criminal intent to mislead, etc.  Having noted the credentials of
many of this group's writing members, I am sure most of them are pursuing
this issue with the best intentions and tools available today, and moreover
value the esteem of their colleagues in preparing careful reports of their
experiments and theoretical projections.
 
  -- A naive electrical engineer
  -- Dave Lovering, NIST
     lovering@bldrdoc.gov
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlovering cudfnDavid cudlnLovering cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Pounced upon!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pounced upon!
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 17:38:30 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <930921141228_72240.1256_EHK37-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>   ...                     The worst that can be said of Pons and
>Fleischmann's early work is that they made some mistakes, they were
>confused, and some minor aspects of the work were wrong.
 
I would not consider the claim that they saw neutrons "minor".  To me
it was the most salient part of their announcement.  Without it, their
claim of nuclear fusion would have been dismissed by any scientifically
informed person.
 
>                                                         The reason is
>clear: they were under terrible pressure, and they had been forced to "go
>public" long before they were prepared to do so.   ...
 
One would think you were talking about children who were pushed out on
a stage by their parents.  They could have delayed a public announcement
for as much as a month, or longer if they had chosen to distance themselves
from Jones' work.  They decided to submit a paper to JEC.  This decision
had to have been made at least a few days before the first submission date
on the paper, hence about 2 weeks before the newsconference.  They decided
to hold the press conference when the paper was accepted (a perfectly
reasonable action, by the way) rather than wait until it left the publisher
2 weeks later.  The only reason that I can imagine for the timing of the
news conference was to preempt Jones, making it appear (as it was indeed
reported at the time) that Jones had suddenly and rather quickly confirmed
the F&P(&H) results.
 
They decided to submit a paper to Nature at the same time that Jones did.
As adults and experienced scientists, one assumes they did so with the
belief that they had (or would have) convincing evidence by that date.
If they had only submitted to Nature, they could have waited patiently and
worked furiously during the refereeing process and held a newsconference
after that paper was accepted, or even when it appeared in print.  Given
the actual events, this would have given them an extra month if they
were not yet "prepared to go public".
 
If someone held a gun to their heads, it is still not too late to
press charges for assault with a deadly weapon.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Looking for Ash
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for Ash
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 20:16:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There has been a lot of discussion here about looking for "ash".  I will not
bore you all, but in my carreer and starting about 1954, I have built just
about every type of particle detector used in physics.  Or at least the
electronics, but many actual detectors.  So why am I not building an x-ray
or neutron, or some other detector?
 
Before one can look for ash, one has to at least be able to imagine that one
has a fire.  If I can ever get something going that appears to have the
attributes of fire, then the ash detectors will come out in force.  Until then,
I will work on calorimeters.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Don't Give Up
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Don't Give Up
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:17:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Don't give up yet on "anomalous heat".  Bob Bernecky just sent me a plot of
some of my data that I had not previously examined closely.  At one spot there
is a very interesting exponential temperature rise that took place ove about
an hour.  Only a 3-4 C change, but hard to explain.  There are actually several
events like this.
 
Very hard to explain.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Greg Kuperberg /  US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 18:51:38 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep22.171713.25355@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jh
.edu ((-:;-)) writes:
>>But it is private.  It's a project sponsored by the USA, Inc.
>>I signed a contract to membership in this corporation.  It's otherwise
>>known as my naturalization papers.
...
>Corporations and government are completely different.  They
>have different mandates, purposes, and competence.  One important
>difference: corporations *ask* for your money.
 
Once you are contracted, they don't just ask.  If you don't believe me,
see what happens if you stop paying your rent.  Your landlord is
prepared to force the money out of you, as well as force you out onto
the street.
 
There seem to be some squatters in the US who think that they can live
here without paying rent (or taxes, as it is usually called).
 
Don't get me wrong; I don't really think that the US government is a
corporation.  A corporation, in the standard legal sense, is highly
restricted in its business activities by many laws and regulations.
However, the Libertarian definition of a corporation is that it is some
sort of free collective entity with a vast array of rights and
privileges, including private police forces and so forth, that even
exceed the powers of the US government.  So in that sense, the US
government is a Libercorporation.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Using a Balance
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:31:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Forgot, that the operator looks like a 100 watt heat source.  This will make
balancing the kludge impossible unless done remotely.  Can't use robot motors
as they also put out heat.  So we are many feet away behind heat resistant
glass looking into the oven where we have the kludge trying to adjust it with
pulleys and string!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:31:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
>Organization: University of Chicago
>In article <m0ofJkS-0000mBC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
>>Thus, we require an ROI of 50*6% or 300% per year at the start of funding.
>
>You seem to have put your factor of 50 in the wrong place.
>The return on investment on something that has a 1/50 chance
>of working should be
>
>50 * (principal + cumulative 6% interest)
>
>not
>
>principal + cumulative (50*6)% interest
 
Go talk to Friedman about the time value of money.  Despite the fact
that he's a Nobel economist, he can probably explain it to you better
than I can.
 
Also, I'd like to see the algebra you used to transform the expression
I actually used into the one you claim I used.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Using a Balance
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 22:37:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The various discussions here do not seem to appreciate the problems of putting
a cell on a balance.  Let's just do a little free thinking (without
computation) about the problems of bringing leads to a cell on a balance, and
doing it to 1 part in 100,000 of so of the weight of the cell.
 
Now matter how we try to coil them, the leads are springs.  OK, by having very
fancy support means, we can adjust the leads to (at one point in time) have
zero force on the balance.  But these springs are temperature sensitive, and
change dimension with temperature, thus putting a force on the balance.  OK so
we make them of Invar or some other alloy that has a small temperature
coefficient.  This might help, but these alloys tend to be more resistive than
copper, and thus one needs more of it and thus they put out more force for
any deviation from zero temperature coefficient.  OK, so then we build heat
shields around the whole mess.  (Beginning to sound like my calorimeter, eh!)
And put it in a constant temperature oven, and ...
 
Forgot that while the Invar connection leads may have a zero temperature
coefficient, the scale that we bought was likely not designed with this in
mind, so the scale pan likely moves with temperature with respect to the
table it sits on.  Since the table likely also supports the lead stant, then
we get to make the table from Invar, and the lead stand, and the scale parts,
and the scale pan ... .
 
Then there is the problem that the cell current changes with time.  This
changes the temperature gradients in all the parts, which then all move around
with respect to each other (even when made of Invar) and put force on the
scale.
 
I still think the mercury cups are about as good as one can do, but if anyone
still wants to try it, I will be happy to produce a list like the above for
their problems!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Carl Ijames /  Bockris' letter to C&EN
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris' letter to C&EN
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:34:09 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

Recently, C&EN News, the weekly news magazine of the American Chemical
Society published a small article containing comments by researchers on the
F&P paper so thoroughly dissected here.  In the Sept. 6, 1993 issue J. O'M.
Bockris of Texas A&M responded.  Without further comment or permission,
here is his letter.  Any typos are mine.
 
begin quote:
 
I am amazed at your presentation of cold fusion in an article entitled
"Latest Cold Fusion Results Fail To Win Over Skeptics."  In the latest
example, you have taken one paper - that by Martin Fleishmann and B.
Stanley Pons - and had persons who are well-known, dedicated opponents of
the new science give you negative situations.  The net result may be well
summarized by your heading.
 
What a deception it all is!  A thousand researchers work on cold fusion
worldwide.  The Japanese put in $50 million, the Russians have 27 research
institutes, and you give the impression that only Fleischmann and Pons are
striving to convince people there is some heat produced.
 
Don't you think it would be a good idea if you told your readers the truth?
 A new field has been born that calls for new theoretical work on
conditions for nuclear reactions in solids.
 
The field shouldn't be called "cold fusion," although certainly fusion
occurs.  A better name would be "chemically stimulated nuclear reactions."
 
Please get with it.  Why should the U. S. be left behind in a new field of
such potential?
 
Signed:  J. O'M. Bockris, Texas A&M University, College Station
 
end quote.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Rotating Feynman diagrams in space and time
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rotating Feynman diagrams in space and time
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:09:29 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Sep21.163832.28119@midway.uchicago.edu>
gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
The Feynman diagram of [neutron decay] looks like this:
 
>   P           e
>    \         /
>     \       /
>      +--W--+
>     /       \
>    /         \
>   N           nu
>
> There are two weak interaction vertices here.  To have a photon,
> you would need electromagnetic vertices.
>
> Anyway, my point is that you can stand the decay on its head if that
> happens to be energetically favorable.
 
I can't resist pointing out a few little features of such diagrams that
I suspect many folks are unaware of.
 
The diagram that Greg Kuperberg showed needs to be _specifically_ embedded
in space and time to give an exact interpretation of the particle events
it is describing.  But remarkably, it doesn't really matter _how_ you
embed it in space and time -- you can interchange space and time and still
get valid results that are the nominally the "same" interaction, but which
give entirely different looking particle results to external observers.
 
Here's one embedding, with the implied "flow" of positive charge marked:
 
       time
        .
       /|\
        |         ._      +
        |       P |\     /  e
        |        \  \___/  /
        |         \       /
        |          +--W--+
        |         /       \
        |        /         \
        |       N           nu
        |
        +---------------------------> space
 
Now you may find it very odd to show a "flow" of positive charge as going
_backwards in time_ from an electron to the proton (by way of W).  Yet it
is not that different from some sort of conventional circuit, if you can
just keep you brain from yelling "you can't make circuits go backwards in
time!"  Viewed as "capacitors" (the e and P) with the flow following the
marked "circuit path," the electron is left with a net negative charge by
the backwards-then-forwards flow of positive charge to the proton.  The
net charge in the system _at any one point in time_ remains zero, and so
charge conservation is not violated.
 
So what does the above diagram say?  Well, actually it's not neutron decay,
but a "charged weak interaction" (or _current_) between a neutrino and a
neutron.  This is what would happen if a passing electron neutrino "hit"
a neutron (that is, interacted with it as shown) and and did a little
quantum-number exchanging.  You can think of it as the electron neutrino
"grabbing" a charge from the neutron and thereby turning itself into a
negatively charged electron, while at the same time converting the neutron
into a proton.
 
Now you might think that the W thus must negatively charged so that it can
pass the negative charge on to the electron.  But remarkably, that is not
necessarily the case.  Look at this diagram:
 
       time
        .
       /|\
        |         ._         +
        |       P |\        /  e
        |        \  \      /  /
        |         \  `.   /  /
        |          +.  `_/  /
        |         /  `W    /
        |        /     `. /
        |       N        +
        |                 \
        |                  \
        |                   nu
        +---------------------------> space
 
What's this?  As shown in this diagram, the W has a _positive_ charge, and
in fact is the result of the neutrino _splitting_ into a W+ and an e-.  The
W+ is then "absorbed" by the neuron to give a proton!  So in this case the
negative charge is passed in a sort of backwards fashion via the positively
charged W+.
 
Here is another "topological distortion" of the original Feynman diagram:
 
       time
        .
       /|\
        |      ._         +
        |    P |\        /  e
        |     \  \      /  /
        |      \  \   ,'  /
        |       \  \_'  ,+
        |        \    W'  \
        |         \ ,'     \
        |          +        nu
        |         /
        |        /
        |       N
        +---------------------------> space
 
Whoops!  This time it looks as though the _neutron_ is the one doing the
splitting, forming a proton and a _negatively_ charged W particle, or W-.
The W- is then absorbed by the neutrino, and the neutrino is thereby
converted into an electron with a negative charge.
 
A curious rule also becomes evident in this particular diagram:  if charge
flows _backwards_ in time over the duration of the particles existence (in
this case the W-), then the _apparent_ charge of the particle will be the
opposite of the charge flow.
 
Thus the electron appears negatively charged because the "charge flow"
in the diagram is both _positive_ in sign and _backwards_ in time.  Ditto
for the W in this case.
 
So what goes on here?  Which version of the neutron/neutrino interaction
is correct?
 
_Both_ are, actually.  There is a calculatable probability that either
one of these reactions can occur, and both contribute to the (very slim)
odds that a neutron and neutrino will interact.
 
And what about the case of a completely flat W interaction line?  Well,
in that case neither or both interpretations are correct.  You can view
the W as simply a conduit through which the charge flows, but a conduit
without any clearly defined charge of its own.  Since it corresponds to
an _instantaneous_ interaction, it makes no detectable difference any way.
The instantaneous nature of the interaction guarantees that its "charge"
will never exist long enough to have any physical significance.
 
 
 
But you can do _much_ more serious manipulations than that.  For example,
take a look at this diagram, which is a 90 degree rotation of the original:
 
       time
        .
       /|\
        |
        |       N     P
        |        \   /  _.
        |         \ /   /|
        |          +   /
        |          |  |
        |          W  |
        |          |  |
        |          +   \
        |         / \   \
        |        /   \   +
        |      nu     e
        |
        +---------------------------> space
 
 
In this version, time and space have been _completely_ switched around!
 
And what's worse, the electron is now shown as having a _positive_ charge
flowing in the _same_ direction as time -- meaning by the earlier rule
that it should have a visible positive charge!
 
So this one is _surely_ meaningless.  Right?
 
Wrong.  Strange as it seems, it's a perfectly reasonable Feynman diagram
for this interaction.  When an electron has a positive flow going _forward_
in time, we just have another name for it:  it is called a _positron_, or
anti-electron.
 
You see, there is something very remarkable going on in such diagrams.
They represent visually a profound fact first understood by Dirac and later
made even more explicit by folks such as Wheeler and Feynman:  that every
particle has an _antiparticle_, which at a fundamental level is literally
just a copy of the original particle "reoriented" in time and space.
 
This close relationship of antiparticles to the structure of spacetime
itself helps explain why antiparticles are unavoidable.  They are related
in a deep way to the very structure of relativistic spacetime, so that
(for example) an observer in one inertial frame can look at a negatively
charged particle in another frame and see what looks like a _positive_
charge on the particle.  You can't get around this effect without dumping
relativity, and as a result every particle has its antiparticle.
 
So what does the above diagram say?  It says this:
 
   An electron neutrino and a positron can combine very briefly to form
   a W+ particle, which will then decay into a neutron and a proton.
 
You had better make the neutrino pretty hefty, though, or this will be
no more than a _virtual_ reaction -- one in which the energy to form the
final particles is "borrowed" for a short time and then returned to the
virtual particle "energy bank".  Only if the total mass of the electron
neutrino and the electron exceeds equals or exceeds the mass of the
resulting neutron and proton will the reaction produce a real neutron and
proton particle pair of the type you can record on film.  And to make the
W+ real, even more energy is needed; it will normally only be a very short
lived "virtual" particle that only exists long enough to permit the final
energy-conserving N/P pair to form.
 
 
Finally, there is "tree branch" variant in which everything splits _forward_
in time, so that it looks from the outside like a single particle breaking
up (versus two or more particles interacting).  It's still the same diagram,
however, just re-oriented and distorted a little bit:
 
       time
        .            ._
       /|\           |\    leptonishness
        |      ._ +    \   /
        |    P |\  \  e \ / nu
        |     \  \  \  \ " /
        |      \  \  :  \ /
        |       \  \_'  ,+
        |        \    W'
        |         \ ,'
        |          +
        |         /
        |        /
        |       N
        +---------------------------> space
 
 
Now, at last, we have the diagram for neutron decay.  Notice that to ensure
proper accounting of particle types, I've added in another "flow." This time
it's a mysterious quantity I've labeled "leptonishness."  This is really
just a fancy Greek sounding way of saying "you can convert one type of light
("lept-") particle ("-on") into another, but you _cannot simply create one
out of them out of nothing_.  Even production of an electron/positron pair
follows this rule, since the positron is counted as a "debit" on the total
light-particle count of the universe.  A positron can, after all, annihilate
its electron counterpart to leave _no_ net increase in the number of leptons.
 
So what does the above diagram say?  It says this:
 
   A neutron can decay into a proton an a virtual W-.  The latter will then
   very quickly decay into an electron and an _anti_ electron neutrino.
 
And thus we have the answer to Dieter's original question.  Possibly in a
bit more detail than he was initially expecting...
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry, PBWAP
 
                                [Poor, Bewildered Amateur Physicist :)  ]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Looking for Ash
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looking for Ash
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 22:16:03 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930922125615.2080058d@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Before one can look for ash, one has to at least be able to imagine that one
>has a fire.  If I can ever get something going that appears to have the
>attributes of fire, then the ash detectors will come out in force.  Until then,
>I will work on calorimeters.
 
This principle makes no sense to me.  You do not walk among the charred
ruins of a house and say "Gee, we'll never be able to prove that there
was a fire here, because none of the coals are glowing."
 
If you want evidence of a fire, you look for the most obvious evidence,
whatever that may be.  Neutrons, gamma rays, and beta rays are, in that
order, the most easily detectible evidence of any type of nuclear
fire.  Excess heat is the hardest to see.  The principle of radiation
over excess heat holds both in terms of current technology and
historically.  Nuclear fission, chain-reaction fission, muon-catalyzed
fission, and all types of nuclear decay were first detected and
demonstrated by their radiation products, and it was only long after,
if ever, that excess heat was found.  The same holds true for
controlled fusion, to the (sub-sustainable) extent that it can be
achieved in magnetic and laser experiments.
 
Besides, the "ash" will kill you before you ever see commensurate
excess heat, so you must have "ash detectors" more accurate than your
calorimeters for the sake of your health and safety.  If you don't have
such detectors, you really ought to get them.  If you do, I am
surprised that you don't mention their readings in your reports on your
experiments.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Not angels
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not angels
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 20:54:53 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930921220115_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> The thing to remember is that in 1989, they [ P & F] were subjected to a
> terrifying, inhuman barrage of vicious, blood
> curdling personal attacks, and terrible pressure.... They have been terribly
> wronged! They have suffered cruelly at the hands of these evil fools.
 
Yes, as I recall their persecutors in Utah gave them $5 million dollars to
set up their own research institute dedicated to cold fusion. That
was a pretty severe punishment. :-)
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 21:10:26 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Sep22.165533.24523@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
((-:;-)) writes:
> You like the government because the government gives you money to have fun.
> Uncle Sam may have been smiling when he handed you the money, but he was
> wearing a gun when he took it from me.  "Not unreasonable for a government"
> eh?  Thinking like that has resulted in the current mind boggling national
> debt.  Thanks alot.  We appreciate your efforts.  If you need more money,
> just send one of your government men.
>
 
 
Would you like a refund of all the money you personally have donated (thru
taxes) to funding scientific research ( probably < $1000 ) in return
for not having access to any developments from that research?
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Rotating Feynman diagrams in space and time (errata)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rotating Feynman diagrams in space and time (errata)
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 22:58:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Errata:
 
In article <1993Sep22.210929.465@asl.dl.nec.com> the following diagram
should have had a baryon ("heavy particle") flow marked as shown here:
 
>        time
>         .   baryon-   _.
>        /|\  ishness   /|
>         |        \   /
>         |       N \_/ P
>         |        \   /  _.
>         |         \ /   /|
>         |          +   /
>         |          |  |
>         |          W  |
>         |          |  |
>         |          +   \
>         |         / \   \
>         |        /   \   +
>         |      nu     e
>         |
>         +---------------------------> space
>
 
...and in the text description that followed, the following INCORRECT line:
 
>    An electron neutrino and a positron can combine very briefly to form
>    a W+ particle, which will then decay into a neutron and a proton.
 
...should have read:
 
>    An electron neutrino and a positron can combine very briefly to form
>    a W+ particle, which will then decay into a neutron and an anti-proton.
                                                                ^^^^
 
Sorry 'bout that!  I was too busy looking at the neutrino and electron and
forgot to note the baryon flow.
 
 
Incidentally, for anyone who may become intrigued by diagram possibilities
such as this one:
 
 
       time
        .   baryon-   _.
       /|\  ishness   /|
        |        \   /
        |       N \_/ P
        |        \   /  _.
        |         \ /   /|
        |          +   /
        |      nu  |  |
        |        \ W  |
        | lepton- \|  |
        | ishness  +   \
        |        \  \   \
        |         \  \   +
        |          \| e
        |          "`
        +---------------------------> space
 
(a positron "decaying" into an anti-neutrino, anti-neutron, and a proton)
 
...you will need to note that for the diagram as a whole, you _must_
preserve both mass (energy) and momentum for the interaction to result
in real, observable particles.  The big problem with the above "positron
decay" scenario is that a positron cannot retain any "internal" energy
that it can use to produce the final particle set.  The only way this
kind of reaction could have any chance of existing thus would be for the
electron to slam into something at extremely relativistic velocities such
as what you might get in SLAC (I have no idea of its upper range).  By
that time a _lot_ of other things could also happen, especially if the
particle hit was something messy and complicated like a proton or neutron.
 
Momentum conservation works in much the same way, and explains why a very
energetic gamma ray does not _spontaneously_ split into an electron and a
positron.  Only if the gamma passes through (for example) the extremely
intense electrical field that exists near a heavy-atom nucleus can it
"dump" momentum and split into a positron and electron.  (There are also
related relativistic considerations -- one person's high-energy gamma
could in principle be someone else's very measly microwave photon when
viewed from an enormously accelerated inertial frame.  "Hitting" something
resolves this potential contradiction, since a head-on collision looks
the same energetically from any inertia frame.  (E.g., it might look an
incredibly relativistic heavy atom "hitting" a paltry microwave photon
and as a consequence dumping some of its traveling energy as an electron/
positron particle pair.  Exactly the same event as before, just viewed from
a different relativistic inertial frame.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Looking for Ash
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looking for Ash
Date: 22 Sep 93 23:27:45 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Sep22.221603.3463@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <930922125615.2080058d@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>Before one can look for ash, one has to at least be able to imagine that one
>>has a fire.  If I can ever get something going that appears to have the
>>attributes of fire, then the ash detectors will come out in force.  Until then,
>>I will work on calorimeters.
>
>This principle makes no sense to me.  You do not walk among the charred
>ruins of a house and say "Gee, we'll never be able to prove that there
>was a fire here, because none of the coals are glowing."
>
>If you want evidence of a fire, you look for the most obvious evidence,
>whatever that may be.
 
 
Whatever that might be is pretty obvious.  The best evidence is
flames.  All that other stuff might be there but (barring a threat to
personal safety) it's just not important if you're looking for heat.
Heat is where the payoff is.  Minute and questionable yields of
neutrons, gammas, helium, tritium, and whatever, are all things that we
can argue over and fight about from now to whenever.  Was it
contamination in the original sample?  Did it leak in through the
glass?  Is the mass spectrometer resolution poor?  Was the experiment
properly designed?  Were the results fudged?  Was someone trying to
float a public issue?
 
Why deal with this if there is no heat?
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 22 Sep 1993 23:50:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jim Bowery (jim@pnet01.cts.com) wrote:
: Current funding level for hot fusion is about $500M/year.  Zero amortizing
: that investment at 50 - 1 odds requires that we multiply T-Bill rates (of
:  maturity comparable to that which will be required to complete the project)
: by 50.  If we have first return on investment in 30 years, we can be nice
: to the HF guys and assume there will be no further investment after that
: date and that, therefore, the no-risk discount rate is that of 30 year
: T-Bills -- which is around 6%.
:
: Thus, we require an ROI of 50*6% or 300% per year at the start of funding.
: <blah blah blah>
 
This "economic analysis" ignores some massively important risk factors.
I.e. the risk incurred by *not* attempting fusion research.
 
E.g., what happens if/when the oil runs out?   What will happen to the GDP then?
 
E.g., what happens if/when the climate bifurcates as a result of excess
atmospheric carbon dioxide?
 
These risk factors are real but exceedingly hard to quantify.
 
The hope is that if/when the "shit really hits the fan" there will be enough
of a scientific base so that the time-to-solution is small enough to minimize
suffering.  This is because scientific progress takes both money *and* time---
time that might not be plentiful in a dark future.
 
--
-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:
cuddy22 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: It would explode, Dick
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: It would explode, Dick
Date: 22 Sep 1993 23:52:51 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Before you post any more lunacy, I suggest that just once -- just once! --
: you put an electric heater into a Dewar, put the Dewar into a water bath,
: and run some power through it. Just shut up and observe what happens. Start
: with very low power levels, or you might accidently exceed it's capacity and
: have it blow up in your face. I absolutely guarantee you will find that any
: real physical cell you can construct will have calibration points. It will
: not continue to get hotter and hotter indefinitely. Not only that, but I
: guarantee that if you make one like Pons and Fleischmann's device, the
: calibration points will fit on a nice straight line, and they will not move
: around mysteriously, or change from week to week, and they will never
: suddenly fall to a value one-third of the previously recorded level.
 
I believe this also to be likely, but it seems that Dr Droege has in fact
experimentally observed complex dynamical phenomena with hydrated palladium
that do not occur with resistive water heaters.
 
: - Jed
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy22 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Still more on Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still more on Using a Balance
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 01:39:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Then there are the magnetic forces between the leads.  These have to be
balanced out so that the force between the leads does not put a force on
the scale pan.  Very hard with coiled leads.
 
So why not put a battery on the pan to power the whole thing, and bring signals
out with fairly forceless opto couplers.  If we had a battery which would
do that without overloading the scale which would also not leak products to
give a false scale reading and which would power a several month long
experiment, then we would all be out joy riding in our 10,000 mile range
battery powered cars, and would not care about CNF.
 
Someone just send the one work message "uncle" and I will quit.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrode Geometry
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrode Geometry
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 01:24:49 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

lovering@central.bldrdoc.gov (David Lovering 303-497-5662) writes:
>  I recall from my early Electromagnetic Theory courses grinding through
>some rather laborious models of differently shaped electrodes as an exercise
>in determining space-charge-flow, charge-density, and electron energies at
>different points within the various associated fields.
 
It's my impression that these field gradients are more extreme at the
interface between a conductor and an insulator.  In an electrolytic
solution, the interface is between conductors.  So intense field gradients
are likely moderated as charges migrate to neturalize them.
 
Perhaps if you pulsed your applied potential, the fields would exist
before the ions in solution had a chance to move away.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 00:17:38 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

 In article <1993Sep22.165533.24523@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
 ((-:;-)) writes:
 > You like the government because the government gives you money to have fun.
 > Uncle Sam may have been smiling when he handed you the money, but he was
 > wearing a gun when he took it from me.  "Not unreasonable for a government"
 > eh?  Thinking like that has resulted in the current mind boggling national
 > debt.  Thanks alot.  We appreciate your efforts.  If you need more money,
 > just send one of your government men.
 >
 
By the way, you personally have probably donated (thru taxes)
about $25 to the US fusion effort in your lifetime.
 
Thanks for your support :-)
 
 
--
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 cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Rotating Feynman diagrams in space and time
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rotating Feynman diagrams in space and time
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 01:33:38 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>       time
>        .
>       /|\
>        |         ._      +
>        |       P |\     /  e
>        |        \  \___/  /
>        |         \       /
>        |          +--W--+
>        |         /       \
>        |        /         \
>        |       N           nu
>        |
>        +---------------------------> space
 
Well, now we know why the half life of neutrons is decreasing -- the sun's
output of neutrinoes is increasing.  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Greg Kuperberg /  Where there is smoke...
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where there is smoke...
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 01:50:38 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <3987@tekgen.bv.tek.com> arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>>If you want evidence of a fire, you look for the most obvious evidence,
>>whatever that may be.
...
>Heat is where the payoff is.
 
I hope that the fire detector in your house is not a calorimeter.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 02:07:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Your landlord is prepared to force the money out of you, as well as force
>you out onto the street.
 
The flip side of this perspective is to realize that you as unpaying
tenant are seeking to force (as you use the term) the landlord or the
next set of tenants out onto the street.  Since the landlord has prior
standing as owner/caretaker, your "force" is attempted theft and his
"force" is attempted prevention of theft.  I think the ethical implications
are clear even to us non-rocket scientists.  :-)
 
>There seem to be some squatters in the US who think that they can live
>here without paying rent (or taxes, as it is usually called).
 
Paying rent to whom?  Who has prior standing?
 
I get groceries every week at a local store.  In exchange for this service
and goods I pay the grocer money.  Not even in a Twilight Zone nightmare
would anyone claim that this dealing would imply that the grocer slowly
but inexorably gains legal (let alone ethical) standing as sole owner of
my property -- or that I could no longer deal with another grocer.
 
How did the government gain ethical standing as supreme landlord?  Did not
our preceding generations already pay for any government services rendered
to *them?*  Isn't the government trying to double bill here?  And how is
it ethically conceivable to enforce the debts of the parents onto their
children?
 
>the Libertarian definition of a corporation is that it is some
>sort of free collective entity with a vast array of rights and
>privileges, including private police forces and so forth, that even
>exceed the powers of the US government.  So in that sense, the US
>government is a Libercorporation.
 
A Libertarian "corporation" is merely a joint agreement between individuals
(as shareholders) as to how they will run the day to day business or how they
will split incurred debt payment.  Their internal agreements have no binding
significance on third parties -- unlike the current state privileged versions.
 
So you can drop the "corporation" term entirely and just refer to it as
a contractual arrangement between individuals -- there is no difference.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 02:14:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>Would you like a refund of all the money you personally have donated (thru
>taxes) to funding scientific research ( probably < $1000 ) in return
>for not having access to any developments from that research?
 
You can't unscamble the egg.  But since ethical principles apply universally,
one might as well ask if plantation slaves, upon being freed, would
prefer back pay in exchange for renouncing the benefit to the local
economy that their past labors had wrought.
 
I think the damage is irreversible -- but surely that irreversibility doesn't
justify the continuation of further damage.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Mike Jamison /  Breakeven & the law of conservation of energy
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakeven & the law of conservation of energy
Date: 22 Sep 1993 22:33 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

The debate over "breakeven" is interesting, though there's something neither
side has considered:
 
Scientific breakeven (correct me if I'm wrong) is defined as the point at
which Eout = Ein, or, the energy produced by (choose the reaction) fusion
is equal to the energy used to heat the plasma.  No inefficiencies are taken
into consideration (i.e. if you use neutral beams with a 10% efficiency, then
Ein(total) = 10 * Ein(plasma heating)).
 
Weelll, what you guys forget is that, the energy that goes into heating
the plasma *doesn't* disappear, so Etotal = 2*Ein = 2*Efusion.
 
So, if the ability to convert the energy used to heat the plasma were 100%
efficient, *any* bit of fusion would result in a net increase in power out:
 
Ein = A;  Eout = A + Efusion > Ein.  Given the magical ability to convert
Eout with 100% efficiency, it's clear that there will be a net positive energy
output (if also given the magical ability to heat the plasma with 100%
efficiency - two small miracles.  Hmmm, this is starting to sound like CNF :-)
 
FWIW
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Breakeven & the law of conservation of energy
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakeven & the law of conservation of energy
Date: 23 Sep 1993 03:04:22 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

You are forgetting losses by transport. In equilibrium,
 
        Q_in + Q_fusion = Q_losses.
 
Breakeven means Q_in = Q_fusion. Ignition means Q_fusion = Q_losses so
that Q_in can go to zero.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 03:16:47 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep23.020752.11308@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>There seem to be some squatters in the US who think that they can live
>>here without paying rent (or taxes, as it is usually called).
>Did not our preceding generations already pay for any government
>services rendered to *them?*  Isn't the government trying to double
>bill here?  And how is it ethically conceivable to enforce the debts of
>the parents onto their children?
 
Look, you're a citizen.  If you are an immigrant like I am, you
explicitly contracted to pay taxes for as long as you remain a
citizen.  If you were born here, your parents implicitly contracted you
to the same agreement.  If you think it was a bad deal, you can go be a
citizen of the world or a citizen of some other country.
 
Your parents may have paid for services rendered to *them*, but if you
aren't paying your taxes, you aren't paying for services rendered to
*you*.
 
>How did the government gain ethical standing as supreme landlord?
 
Do you need permission from God to be a landlord?  The US Government,
as a Libercorporation, gained possession of most of its territory by
staking claims on unclaimed property.  (Or at least, everyone treated
it as unclaimed by ignoring the Indians.  Partial reparations were
negotiated later for this grand action of theft.)  But there was also
the Louisana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase.
 
>A Libertarian "corporation" is merely a joint agreement between individuals
>(as shareholders) as to how they will run the day to day business or how they
>will split incurred debt payment.  Their internal agreements have no binding
>significance on third parties -- unlike the current state privileged versions.
 
The only third parties here are non-resident, non-visiting,
non-citizens.  I agree that sometimes the US does impose its privileges
on these people by fiat from time to time, and that it is usually
grossly unethical.  But that has nothing to do with you unless you are
one of them.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Low cost instrumentation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Low cost instrumentation
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 03:42:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I just purchased what I consider a reasonably priced Analog to Digital
conversion board for my PC.
 
It has 8 multiplexed channels with 12 bits of resolution (4096 steps).
Each channel can be individually sampled, and the gain for each channel
can be dynamically set to X1, X5, X10, and X50.  Conversion time is about
10 microseconds (100,000 conversions a second.)  Fault protection is
to +/-35V.  Input impedance 8-10K.
 
There are five board options to order from:
 
         X1
ANA201  0-5V     10uS  $129                 X50=0-0.1V (25 uV steps)
ANA201A 0-5V      3uS  $159                        "
ANA201B 0-5V     10uS  $159 track and hold         "
ANA201C +or-5V   10uS  $159 track and hold  X50=-0.1V to +0.1V (50 uV steps)
ANA201D +or-2.5V 10uS  $159 track and hold  X50=-0.05V to +0.05V (25 uV steps)
 
Notes:
   o  Track and hold freezes an analog sample before doing the conversion to
      digital -- this prevents changes in the analog signal from disrupting
      a conversion in progress.
 
   o  X1, X5, X10, and X50 refer to amplification of the input signal.
      An ANA201C, for example measures from -5 to +5 in 4096 steps when
      amplification is set to X1 and from -0.5 to +0.5 in 4096 steps when
      amplification is set to X10, etc.
 
XT(8 bit) or AT(16 bit) configurable.
DB25 edge connector.
Base address range selectable.
External TTL interrupt vector from edge connector to PC.
A/D chip accuracy better than 0.5%.
A/D chip linearity +/-1 count.
Gain adjust accuracy +/- 2% (typical. -- One could probably forego the
gain circuit with a little modification and use directly the A/D accuracy
of 0.5% over the (former) X1 range.)
Comes with Qbasic Demos on disk.
 
BSOFT Software, Inc
444 Colton Road
Columbus, Ohio 43207
614-491-0832
FAX 614-497-9971
 
Add $6 shipping.  Visa, Mastercard.
 
 
I got the ANA201C with the +/-5V range.  I can use it with National's
LM34 series temperature sensors, 10mV per degree from -40F to +230F,
implying a range of -0.4V to +2.3V.  These are accurate to +/-1.0F
over the entire range.  For temperatures under 100F I can use the X5
amplification to get 1/20F resolution.
 
LM34's are available from DigiKey @ $9.15 each for -40/+230F in plastic,
@ $15.30 for metal can, and @ $2.85 for +32/+212F in plastic.  0.2F
self-heating in still air.  I don't recommend the Celsius versions.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 04:57:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep22.165533.24523@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jh
.edu ((-:;-)) writes:
 
>You're only a graduate student so you're probably suffering from the
>"Daddy's Money is Free" syndrome.  This may come as a major shock, but
>the government gets all that "free" money by extorting it's citizens,
>and there's rather a large group of us who resent the bloated free
>spending monster the government has become.  And I'm a moderate!  Try
>talking to the Libertarians if you want a *really* negative opinion.
 
Because you don't like taxes (who does?) is no reason to ignore the facts:
fossil fuels are finite. At the moment we are relatively rich with natural
resources and _now_ is the time to make the investments for the next
centuries energy needs.
 
Some long time ago I worked at a couple of companies that messed about with
fusion theories. I also knew quite a few physicists over the years that
worked out at LLL.
 
To read here one might assume that the tokamak was a rediculous machine
that has no chance of succeeding and that other avenues such as the
mirror machines, inertial confinement, electron beams etc., are more
promising. Yet the people that worked on these things determined that
they had a lower probability of succeeding than the tokamak. When you
hear things like that from the people doing the work it has a lot more
impact than snide comments from those not working on the problems.
 
SO far, the tokamak has shown more _potential_ than anything else. I very
much agree that scientific breakthroughs are slow in coming but so what?
For all the furor, the entire fusion program costs very little in terms
of percentage of GNP. Say -- how's it compare to a years upkeep of a
600 ship Navy?
 
Let's get a little more humor here. The fusion program isn't the source of
the national debt.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.22 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Still more on Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still more on Using a Balance
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 23:52:39 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Put a photovoltaic cell on the balance with the electrolysis cell and
use a collimated light source so that only the cell is illuminated.
 
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Barry Smith /  Re: Not angels
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not angels
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 06:23:15 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research, Portland Oregon

In article <930921220115_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> Furthermore, I have observed the
> behavior of Steve Jones here on the network, and it is disgraceful.
 
I disagree. Steve Jones, in his behavior here, has been the single person
whose behavior most conforms to my ideals of science. (Not to denigrate
many other competent and responsible individuals.)
 
This is not a beauty contest, for which I thank the gods. Were it to be so,
and were I to be the sole judge, I'm afraid that cold fusion would be, um,
in hot water.
 
(Go ahead, Jed. Flame me. Make me laugh. :)
 
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Various replies
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various replies
Date: 21 Sep 93 17:59:54 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

John George asks:
"Dr. Steven Jones, could you describe the method that you used to do the
initial loading of the diamond anvil with D?  I should think that you must be
using way more than 1 ATM gas."
 
In our initial experiments using a diamond-anvil cell at about 0.9 megabars,
we used LiD and LiH powders, thus avoiding the considerable difficulties
involved with preparing a pure deuterium sample at these pressures.
Our idea was to do an initial experiment to see whether we could transport the
cell without cracking the anvils -- this unfortunately failed as both diamonds
cracked.
 
Richard Schroeppel asked several good questions relating to our hypothesis of
piezonuclear fusion in Jupiter in his 20 Sept. posting "D depletion in
Jupiter."  [The notion is posited in C. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones,
"Piezonuclear Fusion in Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules", J. Physics G. 12 (March
1986) 213-221.]  And Bruce Scott gave direct and illuminating answers --
thank you, Bruce!  Very well done. [21 Sept. posting by Bruce Scott]
 
I just want to underline Bruce's observation that:
"the origin of the Earth's He3 is still a matter of disagreement --
ask Steven Jones."
Or more properly, BYU Prof. Palmer, who extended the ideas of our 1986 paper,
in March 1986, to suggest that piezonuclear fusion in the earth could be one
deep-earth source of 3He.   This puzzle continues.  Detection of tritium in
the atmosphere of Jupiter, and in more volcanoes on earth, would be consistent
with our rather wild hypothesis of fusion in the planets.  I remind recent
readers that Gary McMurtry of the University of Hawaii
and his team have looked for and found tritium
in magmatic waters (from fumaroles) of Kilaeua, an active volcano in
Hawaii.
 
Thanks to Jonathon Jones, who is working with Prof. Hansen and myself on
xs heat experiments here, for posting responses to Mitch regarding
recombination and problems with claims of xs heat production in light-water
experiments.  Jonathon has conducted experiments which demonstrate that
recombination indeed increases with increased surface area of the Ni cathodes,
although this effect had been previously been denigrated by Mitch.
Mitch neglected to include in his table the "Notoya effect" for achieving
xs heat (high-resistance wires leading into the "control cell") in his
most recent table, although he included Notoya in his table, and the problem
was clearly identified in Jonathon's posting.  This matter was thoroughly
aired in this forum last year.
 
Without wishing to excite Jed further, I should respond to one point he raises.
{I see no value in responding to his repeated ad hominem attacks against me.}
Jed says that the helium should be found in the evolving D2 rather than in the
Pd.  Guess I'll have to quote the *published* McKubre paper again, for they
reported that they looked in the D2 as well as the Pd:
 
"Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the pressure
vessel for  3H,  3He  and  4He.   At a detection level of 1 ppm, none of these
isotopes were [sic] found."  [McKubre et al., Proc. of First Annual Conf. on
Cold Fusion, p. 29.]
 
Now with the claimed 300 kJ of xs heat reported in the same paper, this would
amount to roughly 10^17 atoms of helium or whatever.  I think that helium
produced in this quantity should have been seen even at a 1ppm level of
sensitivity.  In any case, McKubre et al. looked for helium in the evolved
D2 and found none, as they dutifully reported.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Using a Balance
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 11:04:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 1434:
 
>The various discussions here do not seem to appreciate the problems of putting
>a cell on a balance.  Let's just do a little free thinking (without
>computation) about the problems of bringing leads to a cell on a balance, and
>doing it to 1 part in 100,000 of so of the weight of the cell.
 
>Now matter how we try to coil them, the leads are springs.  OK, by having very
>fancy support means, we can adjust the leads to (at one point in time) have
>zero force on the balance.  But these springs are temperature sensitive, and
>change dimension with temperature, thus putting a force on the balance.  OK so
>we make them of Invar or some other alloy that has a small temperature
[...]
>table it sits on.  Since the table likely also supports the lead stant, then
>we get to make the table from Invar, and the lead stand, and the scale parts,
>and the scale pan ... .
 
>Then there is the problem that the cell current changes with time.  This
>changes the temperature gradients in all the parts, which then all move around
>with respect to each other (even when made of Invar) and put force on the
>scale.
 
Tom, the answer is staring you in the face: you hang EVERYTHING from the
balance. Put all your gear, including batteries to run it off, with all the
instruments and the computer, etc, onto a platform and hang that from the
balance. Then, when a ml of D2 escapes, it'll all weigh a bit less and you'll
notice it. Just make sure to correct for boyancy changes, as the lab air's
composition changes.
 
This is so simple, why has noone thought of it before? Why is not everyone
doing it?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Using a Balance
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 11:41:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I wrote:
 
>notice it. Just make sure to correct for boyancy changes, as the lab air's
                                          ^^^^^^^
Gnash, gnash, that should have been       buoyancy. Hate making mistakes like
that.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Electrode Geometry
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Electrode Geometry
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 12:07:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: lovering@central.bldrdoc.gov (David Lovering 303-497-5662)
in FD 1434:
 
>  As an electrical engineer I'd like to toss out a question which may
>prove to at least provide some limited entertainment value to our
>learned CF friends.  Has anyone experimented with the precise geometry
>of the electrodes used in various "standard" CF cells to determine
>whether or not the charge-density in solution has anything to do with
>the reaction characteristics, the appearance of nuclear ash, etc?
I was hoping that someone else would answer this, me being busy, and indeed
 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) had a go in FD 1436:
 
>It's my impression that these field gradients are more extreme at the
>interface between a conductor and an insulator.  In an electrolytic
>solution, the interface is between conductors.  So intense field gradients
>are likely moderated as charges migrate to neturalize them.
 
As usual, John, you hit the nail on the head. However, there are unsymmetrical
potential fields in electrochemical cells, unless you make the cathode/anode
geometry quite symmetrical. We have discussed this before, there are only
three possible configurations. The one most often used in cnf electrolyses, a
central wire of Pd surrounded by a spiral of Pt, is very close to one of these
three (central cyclinder coaxial with surrounding cylinder, the lot capped
with insulating floor and ceiling). The effect of asymmetry is an uneven
current distribution, or uneven electrode potential, over the electrode
potential. If it is true that "electrochemical compression" is the key to
obtaining positive results, i.e. getting as much deuterium into the Pd as
possible (as most seem to think is desirable), you want as good a symmetry as
you can get. This idea is also, I believe, behind the Takahashi cell design,
where you actually have those caps, albeit not a cylindrical cathode (it's a
flat plate). But the asymmetry will probably be quite minimal.
 
Good question.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Dieter Britz /  Moderation
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderation
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 12:34:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
If this NEWS group were moderated and I had a hand in choosing what was to be
moderated out, I would add to, say, vitriolic mouth frothings and
"dictionaries at twenty paces", these endless and recurring discussions about
the ethics of paying taxes. You blokes bore me to tears with it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 /  blue@dancer.ns /  why it would explode, Jed
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: why it would explode, Jed
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:41:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell is so determined to discredit me that he doesn't even
take the time to read what I post before he goes into orbit.  Relax, Jed,
you and your wild assertions just aren't that important.
 
Now to rehash the latest exchange.  I point out a simple fact that has
its basis in the law of energy conservation.  That fact is that a
continuous net flow of heat into a fixed quantity of water will result
in a constantly rising temperature, at least until the onset of some
other process such as boiling.  Jed seems to think the only possible
outcome is a violent explosion.  Jed, I boil water quite regularly,
and I haven't had anything like an explosion for several years so
what are you talking about?
 
The point of my last message was that IF the water in a calorimeter
does not exhibit a continuously rising temperature (an some ultimate
disaster) that there is something else happening.  The something else
is so elementary, Jed, I am at a loss as to how to explain it to you.
The lesson I tried to impart was that "a leveling off off the
temperature" implies a balance between heat input and heat output.
I just want you to know that the type of calorimeter you are so
fond of involves heat in and heat out.  It is not a difficult
concept to grasp, but it is key to your understanding of calorimeters.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 13:46:37 BST

In <1993Sep22.211026.11224@math.ucla.edu> Barry Merriman writes:
>Would you like a refund of all the money you personally have donated (thru
>taxes) to funding scientific research ( probably < $1000 ) in return
>for not having access to any developments from that research?
    I'd sure like the option ....
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Jed Rothwell /  Complex & Dynamic
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Complex & Dynamic
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 16:13:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I wrote:
 
     "If you make [a calorimeter with a Dewar in water bath] like Pons and
     Fleischmann's device, the calibration points will fit on a nice straight
     line, and they will not move around mysteriously, or change from week to
     week, and they will never suddenly fall to a value one-third of the
     previously recorded level."
 
Matt Kennel responded:
 
     "I believe this also to be likely, but it seems that Dr Droege has in
     fact experimentally observed complex dynamical phenomena with hydrated
     palladium that do not occur with resistive water heaters.
 
Whoa, back up! There are several problems here:
 
First of all, it is not just "likely." It is dead certain. All calorimeters
have calibration points and settle times. Richard Blue claimed that: "The
temperature never 'settles out' to a fixed reading" in the P&F calorimeter,
but this is totally incorrect and physically impossible. It is an immutable
fact of nature that calorimeters do not get hotter and hotter until they
explode, unless the input power level exceeds the cooling capacity. Dick
claimed that there is *no* heat transfer to the bath in P&F's calorimeter!
This is preposterous.
 
Second, any complex, dynamical heat-related phenomenon that can occur in a
cathode *can be simulated* with a resister. In a working CF device, billions
of events probably occur in tiny bursts, but they combine to heat the metal
surface in one large event that looks exactly like electric heating, or
heating from a laser, friction, or any other event that might make a metal
surface hot. Macroscopically, hot metal is hot metal, even if the underlying
causes are different.
 
Third, no matter how complex a dynamic heat burst might be, it still pushes
the temperature above the calibration point. So you know it is happening. If
you see the line move above the calibration point, and you observe the fact
that the power in has not changed (and it is reasonably stable), then you can
be certain there is excess heat. Perhaps, if the burst wave form is complex
and short, the calorimeter might not have time to stabilize at a new, high
point above the calibration line, so you may not be able to quickly and easily
determine how much heat the data represents. Naturally, if the burst goes away
quickly, it might have been caused by chemistry, or cracking, energy storage
and release, or some other transient, non-CF source. However, you *can* be
certain that the calorimeter showed an excess. The calibration point does not
move by itself, complex dynamics do not fool the water.
 
Finally, most important, Droege is not the only person working in this field.
Hundreds of other scientists have also reported complex dynamical phenomena
with hydrated palladium, so lift your sights a bit, and have a look at some of
the other data. Take, for example, the graphs published by McKubre, Kunimatsu,
Storms, Ota or Wan. Why do you limit your analysis to the incomplete,
unpublished data from Droege? If you look at data from these other people, you
will see that some of these "bursts" produce stable, steady output for very
long periods of time, hours or days, that allow the calorimeters to stabilize
at fixed or nearly fixed points. This makes it very easy to determine the
power level out. You just look at the points lined up hour after hour, you
pick some average spot, and compute the average power out based on the
calibration constant. The line across the graph is never perfectly smooth,
like a line from an electric heater; there are bumps and valleys (it is
dynamic), but it never falls to a spot even close to the calibration point.
 
The phenomenon is -- as you say -- complex, but it is not always so dynamic,
because on a macroscopic scale it sometimes establishes itself well above the
calibration point, hundreds of time above the noise, and it stays there for
hours or days, which is to say, hundreds of times longer than the "settle
time." Therefore, for detection and analysis, you can dispense with complex
formula, and use a straightforward linear analysis which even I can handle.
Just find out how far above the calibration point for that power input level
it is, and there's your excess. If the input is steady at one watt, and the
calibration shows 1 watt will drive the temperature up 5 C above the cooling
water temperature, but the temperature Delta T is now fluctuating between 14
and 16 C, that shows you have three watts coming out: 2 watts excess, 120
joules a minute. I described "bumps and valleys" and "fluctuations" but anyone
who is familiar with water-based calorimeter data knows that these
fluctuations are very slow and restricted. Even with sporadic bursts, if they
come close together, the line will never drop down anywhere near the
calibration point. It can't! Water-based calorimeters have slow response times
which blur and smear out subtle changes, but the saving grace of that
characteristic is that they never suddenly shift up and down. The heat can't
get out quickly.
 
So, in this scenario you are recording 120 joules on average per minute, and
they add up, hour after hour, and if the line never dips back down to the
calibration point, that means the flow of energy is uninterrupted, so there
can be no storage of energy (it would have to go *below* the calibration point
for that to be the case), so if it is a CF reaction then after a while it will
exceed the limits of chemistry. That's how you tell it is CF. How long that
takes depends on the intensity of the heat and the size of the cathode. If it
exceeds the limits by 0.5%, that does not prove much, but if it sails past the
limits and keeps going 100 times longer than the best chemical reaction would
-- Bingo! -- that proves you have a CF reaction. Remember: we are talking
about a single, long, continuous burst, which exceeds the limits of chemical
energy storage, so the set up and charging time is not a factor. A sponge will
not soak up all of Lake Michigan, no matter how long you leave it in the
water.
 
 
On another subject, here are some notes about Droege's and other
thermoelectric calorimeters:
 
I know several people who are trying to use thermoelectric calorimeters,
including one person who gave up and threw his out the window. That is what I
recommend! Toss it out, it is the wrong tool for this task. Droege's data
requires complex analysis, but water-based calorimetry data when properly
presented, especially when there is a long, steady burst, does *not* require
any complex analysis. So open your eyes up and look at some other results from
better calorimeters.
 
I have worked with traditional, water based static and flow calorimeters. So I
understand them somewhat. I don't know enough about calorimeters based on
other physical principles (like Droege's) to make detailed statements about
their stability, accuracy, data smearing, "losseyness" or any other issues.
However, Tom has described endless problems and confusion that his device
causes (and so have other people I know who tried to use them). Based on these
reports, I can make general statements. I know, for example, that water based
calorimetry seldom gives people the kind of fits and conniptions Tom suffers.
It is far easier and more reliable. He described a situation where one set of
data points seemed to show an excess and another set did not. That means the
instrument spoke with forked tongue: you don't know which register to trust.
Properly designed static water based calorimeters with multiple resisters
don't suffer from that problem (unless something breaks -- and there is not
much that can break). All registers agree, the whole instrument sends you a
clear, unequivocal signal.
 
Tom, and many other people, have draw conclusions about problems and possible
errors that he experience and applied those conclusions to P&F's device. This
is unwise. The two devices are based on totally different physical principles!
*He* will experience problems that they will not, and cannot, experience. He
is using the thermoelectric chips to remove the heat from the system, they are
not. They are using the traditional water - cell wall - bath water interface,
a method that was established and verified in the late 18th century. This
method of heat transfer is understood extremely well, the performance
characteristics, limitations and problems with it are documented in great
detail. Tom is using a totally different method, so he will experience
different types of problems. I myself always prefer to use the oldest,
simplest, best understood and best documented method to solve a problem. I
*never* use a newer, more complicated gadget where an older one suffices. That
is my design philosophy. Tom wants extreme precision, I want simplicity and
absolute reliability. He wants milliwatt precision, I am perfectly satisfied
with tenth-watt precision, because the reaction is in the multi-watt domain
(typically 4 to 30 watts). If a 4 watt reaction occurs, and that is 40 times
above minimum threshold of sensitivity (0.1 watt), that's good enough for me!
Tom wants it to be 4000 or 40,000 times above the threshold; I don't see any
purpose to such overkill.
 
 
One more note about Dick Blue's statement: I see that the "experts" and
"skeptics" here have bowed down and kissed the ground, and accepted everything
he said as the gospel truth. He is a fellow "skeptic" so if he claims there is
no heat transfer to the bath in P&F's calorimeter, it must be true! You will
not read any objections Dick's statements from Britz, Droege, Morrison, Jones
or the others. As usual, they have closed ranks, they will not repudiate or
question a "true believer" like Dick. These people accept as absolute,
unquestioned truth any statement -- no matter how preposterous and wrong -- as
long as it "supports" their "arguments;" which is to say: any attack on Pons
and Fleischmann is fine with them. It does not matter how absurd it is. They
believe that 0.0044 moles of hydrogen will burn for hours, they believe in
water friction, they believe that no heat will transfer through a Dewar, they
believe in *any damn thing* but the simple truth.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using a Balance
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 15:03:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Someone just send the one work message "uncle" and I will quit.
 
Never!  :-)
 
>OK, by having very fancy support means, we can adjust the leads to (at one
>point in time) have zero force on the balance.
 
It wasn't exactly "fancy" and we don't have to adjust the leads to zero
force.  We're just interested in delta weight, so subtract the final
(or intermediate weight) from the initial arbitrary weight.
 
>the scale that we bought was likely not designed with this in mind
>[temperature compensation], so the scale pan likely moves with temperature
>with respect to the table it sits on.
 
Actually, they are spec'd to operate over a range typically from 5C-40C.
I imagine it is not a new problem in the analytical balance design field. :-)
 
>these springs are temperature sensitive, and change dimension with temperature,
>thus putting a force on the balance.
>
>Then there is the problem that the cell current changes with time.  This
>changes the temperature gradients in all the parts, which then all move around
>with respect to each other (even when made of Invar) and put force on the
>scale.
>
>Then there are the magnetic forces between the leads.  These have to be
>balanced out so that the force between the leads does not put a force on
>the scale pan.  Very hard with coiled leads.
 
Constant current operation would result in low deltas for most of the above
issues -- including keeping I^2*R heat generation in the wires constant.
 
Never the less, one could experience net temperature variations in the
apparatus (though one could attempt to keep it at a constant temp.)
What then is the magnitude of such temperature induced force variations
on the coiled leads?  Remember that a milligram delta is only a 10J error.
And it's not a cumulative error.
 
> Tom Droege: "So why not put a battery on the pan to power the whole thing"
 
NiCads are about 30 grams per amp-hour @1.2V.  Lithium batteries are about
10 grams per amp-hour @ 3V.
 
> Paul L Schauble: "Put a photovoltaic cell on the balance"
 
These might actually be heavier over the short term, but of course,
they just keep going and going and going ...
 
> Dieter Britz: "hang EVERYTHING from the balance.... Just make sure to
> correct for boyancy changes, as the lab air's composition changes.
 
The operator will have to work in a deep-sea diving outfit. :-)
 
By the way, I found an older ad in a catalog for a analytical balance that
has a 4Kg capacity and switches to a 400g delta mode in which resolution
is 1 milligram -- all for a mere $3K (as of about 5 years ago.)
 
So what we want in an analytical balance probably exists out there and
is just waiting for us to buy it -- you go first. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on Jones' Recombination
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Jones' Recombination
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 15:20:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Various replies
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "Thanks to Jonathon Jones, who is working with Prof. Hansen and myself on
=sj xs heat experiments here, for posting responses to Mitch regarding
=sj recombination and problems with claims of xs heat production in light-water
=sj experiments.  Jonathon has conducted experiments which demonstrate that
=sj recombination indeedincreases with increased surface area of the
=sj cathodes,although this effect had been previously been denigrated by Mitch."
 
  Steve. The effect of recombination is (was) not denigrated.  Was it?
          For the record here is what I said.
   == "It is trivial in the field to consider recombination, or state when
   ==     it is ignored."
 
   In fact, this discussion began with your denigration of a series of
         protium nickel experiments:
 
   == "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was used
   == as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire .. used as the oxygen
   == electrode. hile running with an
   ==      input power of 320 microwatts -- qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48V)--
   == the measured output was 750 microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when
   == calculated with the formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
           [In Message-ID: <1993Aug21.171832.865@physc1.byu.edu>
                poster: Steve Jones {jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]
 
  When it was pointed out to you that this was less than the several hundred
  milliwatts (or more) of excess enthalpies reported, you stated:
 
=sj  "Mitchell is incorrect to allege that the "Jones' Factor" correction is
=sj  simply less than "1 milliwatt", tacitly assuming (incorrectly) that the.."
 
  but we've yet to see an example of a higher level posted [without mention
     of an accessory oxygen tank].
  750 microwatts is less than 1 milliwatt, isn't it?
     If it was posted, please simply lend a pointer to the posting.
 
  Since you did cite ***** your own ***** "compelling experiment" to publically
   denigrate protium-nickel (& other) systems, it would seem reasonable to
    compare equal power intensities, would it not?
 
  Attention is directed to the fact that the power level was taken from
   your own posting.  As was the mention of the gas tank.
 Therefore, is it not simply natural to ask the following questions?
 
    1. What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in
         your cells by this method?
    2. Did you do anything different? (like add an oxygen tank)
      Perhaps you might indulge us and reveal the maximum
    amount of heat you've seen this way (it is ok to specify electrodes,
    areas, current densities, total current, voltage, overvoltage, and
    even the PO2 or oxygen content), and whether an oxygen tank was used?
    If yes, what was the max "excess heat" without it?
 
   Regarding the recombination, real and of putative substantial
     effect:  Please also notice that it cannot account for
     the storage of energy exceeding chemical explanations for the amount
            of mass therein.  Can it? Best wishes on achieving an answer.
 
                 .                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Jones' Claim for a "Natoya effect"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones' Claim for a "Natoya effect"
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 15:22:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Various replies
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "Mitch neglected to include in his table the "Notoya effect" for achieving
=sj xs heat (high-resistance wires leading into the "control cell") in his
=sj most recent table, although he included Notoya in his table, and the problem
=sj was clearly identified in Jonathon's posting.  This matter was thoroughly
=sj aired in this forum last year."
 
   Fair enough.  I have added it.  It appears that it cannot account for EITHER
 
     1) the excess heat (enthalpies)
         or
     2) the storage of energy exceeding chemical explanations for the amount
            of mass therein.     Does it?
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
    ========================================================================
 FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
    =======================================================================
 
         Continuing our running quantitative tabulation,
         with the addition of some of the "Natoya effect" suggested by
                   Steven Jones.
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)
 
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O (****)  --------
  Mills (1989 *****)        (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Srinivasan (1993)                    70% input (max. 3.5 W)
  Natoya (1993)                        270-240% (max. 2.7 W))
____________________________________________________________________________
 
---   Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies ---
   Anode Effect (***)                            0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           **
                   in cell IF not considered
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    1993)          0.75
   The Jones Factor II (silicates 1993)          0.0 (max)
   Natoya Effect       (1992)                    0.0 (max)  ******
  ==========================================================================
**    sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
***    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg J. Electrochem.
Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
**** selections from J. Jones light water posting.
  (I have not independantly check the values or convert to absolute power
   levels but any literature reader is invited to help)
***** I don't understand the date since Dr. Mills was doing this in 1989,
   and will check this later, when time is available.
******  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
   incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
   (see. Dr. Noninski's postings); may review importance ) but in any case could
   not account for observed and calibrated excess heats in experiments using
  protium and nickel.
 
    Any updates, corrections (flameless) would be appreciated.
                                      Mitchell Swartz  mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 15:23:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>If you are an immigrant like I am, you explicitly contracted to pay taxes
 
Since D Britz has already scolded us for this topic, I'll make this
short and my last (this week :-)
 
The government cannot sell you what it does not own -- but it just so
happens that I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge if you are interested in
assuming a no-questions asked contract :-)
 
> you are a citizen
 
With this and other similar assertions -- you have proved too much!
Were Russian citizens ethically compelled to pay their government?
Were Nazi-Germany Jews ethically compelled to obey their government?
Were black Southern US slaves ethically compelled to obey and labor as dictated
by the government?
 
I don't think you can so easily rescue denial of choice for your favorite
gov-ops without also rescuing the above atrocities.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on Jones" "What McKubre said"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Jones" "What McKubre said"
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 15:30:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Various replies
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "Jed says that the helium should be found in the evolving D2 rather than in
=sj the  Pd.  Guess I'll have to quote the *published* McKubre paper again, for
=sj they reported that they looked in the D2 as well as the Pd:"
 
  "Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the pressure
  vessel for  3H,  3He  and  4He.   At a detection level of 1 ppm, none of these
  isotopes were [sic] found."  [McKubre et al., Proc. of First Annual Conf. on
   Cold Fusion, p. 29.]"
 
=sj ".....  In any case, McKubre et al. looked for helium in the evolved
=sj D2 and found none, as they dutifully reported."
 
 
  Dr. McKubre was kind enough to personally speak with us, while discussing
   another issue, and did reclarify this.  Dr. McKubre has stated that such
 equipment was simply unable to resolve D2 and He4.  This has been
(over)discussed a lot here, and for some incomprehensible reason, you continue
    to promulgate information wanting in reliability.
 
 In fact, as has been pointed out to you more than once by Jed Rothwell
   (who might be in need of resuscitation by now) and has been
   published in U.K.
 
=mm     "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
=mm      but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far."
         [Dr. McKubre as quoted in Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993,
            "Nuclear confusion," by  Neville Hodgkinson]
 
   Now, up here in "the sticks" maybe we are missing the trend, Prof. Jones,
     but it really ought to matter what the author really said and reported.
        It ought to.
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / J Lewis /  Re: Not angels
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not angels
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 15:33:54 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1993Sep22.205453.10877@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <930921220115_72240.1256_EHK35-1@CompuServe.COM>
>72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>> The thing to remember is that in 1989, they [ P & F] were subjected to a
>> terrifying, inhuman barrage of vicious, blood
>> curdling personal attacks, and terrible pressure.... They have been terribly
>> wronged! They have suffered cruelly at the hands of these evil fools.
>
>Yes, as I recall their persecutors in Utah gave them $5 million dollars to
>set up their own research institute dedicated to cold fusion. That
>was a pretty severe punishment. :-)
 
Yes ... and now they reportedly are in punitive exile in the south of France ...
oh God! How can people be so CRUEL!!
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
(which has the worst climate in the world - even worse than Aarhus :-) )
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: What do Netpeople think about fusion?
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What do Netpeople think about fusion?
Date: 23 Sep 1993 15:58:22 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

Originally from sci.energy; I am crossposting to sci.physics.fusion.
 
cheungwd@esvx11.es.dupont.com writes:
 
>Recently , Scientific American published an article showing how a chaotic
>motion could be stabilized. It might be a little far-fetched but what if the
>same method is applied in the containment chamber.
 
You are probably thinking about chaotic particle motion here.
 
The trouble is that in a plasma the particles and fields act upon one
another. There are instabilities which arise from the fact that in a
confined plasma there are gradients in density and temperature, and
these serve as local sources of free energy for fluctuations in
density, temperature, and electric field (perpendicular to the
background magnetic field). All three of these drive each other once
any one is excited, since they are all coupled (the flow of electrons
is slightly compressible). Although there are regimes in which no
*linear* instability is known (the sort in which perturbations grow
from infinitesimal initial amplitude), it seems that finite-amplitude
instability is always present (B Scott, Phys Rev Letters, vol 65, p
3289, Dec 1990). In this case, "finite amplitude" means that the
relative amplitude of a density fluctuation, delta n/n, need be about
as large as an ion gyroradius divided by the scale length for the
background gradient.  This is about 0.01 in a small tokamak and will
be more like 0.001 in a reactor. This instabilty appears to be
unavoidable.
 
In the plasma edge region, where the magnetic field lines come in
contact with material boundaries, there are even stronger
instabilities, which are probably the reason that relative amplitudes
are so much stronger there (about 0.1 - 0.3). See Berk and Ryutov,
JETP Letters, vol 52, p 23 (1990); Phys Fluids B, vol 3, p 1346
(1991).
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Electrode Geometry
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrode Geometry
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 15:55:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>there are unsymmetrical potential fields in electrochemical cells, unless you
>make the cathode/anode geometry quite symmetrical.
 
The key feature here is switching our point of view from electrostatic
attributes to electrodynamic attributes -- from stationary charges on
conductor surfaces seperated by non-conductors, to moving charges (currents)
through (semi-)conductors.
 
Issues of symmetry then are determined mostly by point to point resistance
considerations, which are most strongly dependent upon physical distance.
So a protrusion, say, of 10% beyond average would only change the field
by also approx 10%, regardless of its shape.  This is much different than
the same effect in an electrostatic field.
 
>If it is true that "electrochemical compression" is the key to
>obtaining positive results, i.e. getting as much deuterium into the Pd as
>possible (as most seem to think is desirable), you want as good a symmetry as
>you can get.
 
You can get this by tight tolerances between closely spaced electrodes, or
you can get it by less tight tolerances between widely spaced electrodes --
at a cost of more ohmic losses over the greater electrolytic distance.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / mitchell swartz /  Cartoons for the Defense
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cartoons for the Defense
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 17:28:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <01H37Q4ABJTE9PRES5@vms2.uni-c.dk>
     Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 830 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
 BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) states:
 
=db ""no real paper this time, but you might like the offering anyway....
=db I liked the cartoon; TB's will gnash their teeth, I guess. A bit of humour
=db there, please, it will hardly hurt at all.
=db
=db
=db ========================================================================
=db                      COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
=db                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=db                            Additions 21-Sep-1993
=db                    Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
=db                      Total no. of journal papers: 830
=db ------------------------------------------------------------------------
=db Stromoski;                                     Omni Oct. 1993, p.126.
=db Cartoon: Two scientists at the benchare startled by a fairy-like figure with
=db tutu and sparkles floating in the air behind them, assuring them: "Do not be
=db afraid . . . I am the cold fusion fairy."
=db
 
    At first, I thought:
   Hey mate: why not post the cartoon and be done with it (as GIF)
         or whatever.  ["If this is a "college", then I'm ought here"]
 
   But then I realized the famous Britz publication series is actually being
    utilized by "skeptics" to misinform the public about the truth about
   cold fusion.    Above we see that the Britz cold fusion data base
  (source of serious "rebuttals" to cold fusion phenomena) contains a
   foundation of cartoons, and (see below) filtered scientific papers.
      As Dieter has said:
 
=db  "Why, you ask, is this (a conference proceeding) not a publication, but
=db instead relegated to the lowly status of a "peripheral"? Well, a conf. proc.
=db is not a refereed publication,that's why.Going by these procs, I find, leads
=db to laziness, too. I have seen references to conf. procs (and to preprints as
=db well),where with a slight effort the authors might have found the subsequent
=db proper paper in arefereed journal.I understand that at the time of the first
=db rough draft, these papers were possibly not available but one inserts the
=db proper reference, if necessary, at the latest, at the galley proof stage. If
=db one cares. You can put this down to Britzian nitpicking."
 
   Let me understand this.  You don't count international congress papers
   on the subject, but do include in this purported "official"
   professional compendium descriptions of cartoons at the same level?
 
                    CORROLARY (candidate for JOKE of the YEAR)
 
     Now does not the chief "skeptic"-defender D. Morrison (of CERN)
base his so-called data-base of cold fusion on this very Britzian compendium.
Morrison denigrates Fusion Technology, but hold the Britz catalogue
to be representative of the state-of-the art.   Cartoons over physics.
 
   Incidentally, Mr. Morrison claims to be the "Expert Witness for the Defense"
 at what he is widely publicizing as the upcoming trial in Italy.
   Strange enough that he is publically speaking about it, but wait until
 the  cross-examination begins when the plaintiffs' Expert Witness(es)
 shred Mr. Morrison and then simply reveal that his now widely-touted and
 world-famous data base includes:  cartoons, but excludes
   international conference proceedings from "publications."      ahem....
 
  Dieter, you could always remove the cartoons by then.      ;-)
 
        Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  What McKubre really meant
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What McKubre really meant
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 20:03:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz has finally come up with a clarification of what McKubre
has done and/or said about analysis for 4He.  Steve Jones, I assume, did
quote correctly from McKubre's written words saying that he did search
for 4He in the gas at a sensitivity level of parts per million.  Now, if
Mitchell Swartz is correctly representing McKubre's position,  that
earlier statement was incorrect.  I am still very puzzled, however by
McKubre's apparent failure to make a clear distinction between never
having made a measurement and learning after the fact that a given
measurement was probably not valid.  There is still the measurements
made by Rockwell on the molten cathodes that did show no 4He isn't
there?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Jim Carr /  Re: Bockris' letter to C&EN
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris' letter to C&EN
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 18:40:00 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <ijames-220993172216@156.40.188.202> ijames@helix.nih.gov
(Carl F. Ijames) writes:
 
  ... quoting a letter to C&ENews (6 sept 93) by Bockris ...
 
>The field shouldn't be called "cold fusion," although certainly fusion
>occurs.  A better name would be "chemically stimulated nuclear reactions."
 
It would be interesting to see a list of at least two of these reactions
that he believes have been established as occuring at some particular
rate under such circumstances.  Since the initial claims, it has been
hard to identify any particular case that is worth the effort required
to pursue a new calculation.
 
I find it interesting that Bockris claims "nuclear reactions" while
F&P are now only discussing an large but unknown heat source.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / John Logajan /  Measured error limits on weighing balances
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Measured error limits on weighing balances
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 19:14:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Okay, words are cheap, so here are some measurements:
 
Re: Analytical balance error magnitudes.
 
I got out my Ohaus Triple Beam Balance 2.6Kg max, graduated to 0.1g
(100 mg.)  I zeroed it and disturbed it several times to see if the
null indicator would return to the exact same place.  It did to within
the width of the null indicator line (on the order of the width of
a mechanical pencil lead (0.2mm?))
 
Next I placed salt crystals on it until it moved enough that I could
tell for sure that it had moved at all.  This turned out to be just
beyond one width of the null indicator.  A rough count put this at
approx 250 salt grains.
 
Then I set the balance for 0.1g (100mg) and added salt until null.
By comparing pile sizes this appeared slightly larger than twice as large
as the 250 grain pile.
 
So I have determined that my balance can unambiguously tell me when the
weight on the balance changes by as little as 0.05g (50mg.)  (This is
a $90 balance :-)
 
Next I placed a 10 ohm resistor on the balance with coiled 30 gauge wires
extending up about two feet (about 1/2 meter) to a bracket on the wall
(for my kitchen curtains :-) and zeroed the balance.
 
I then ran approx 500ma at 7V into the resistor.  I turned the power off
and on for various lengths of times while observing the null indication.
I saw no movement whatsoever.  But I can only claim from above that my
limit of error resolution was 50mg.
 
This, according to my previous calculations works out to about a resolution
of 500J of disociation energy with no immediate indication that it couldn't
be significantly improved.
 
Oh Tom.
 
(p.s. no tax money was used for this experiment :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  progress with Jed
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: progress with Jed
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 21:11:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First the corrections:  I did not claim that "The temperature never
'settles out' to a fixed reading' in the P&F calorimeter."  The temperature
does indeed settle out to a fixed value provided the heat input remains
constant for an appropriate length of time.  We are in AGREEMENT on that
point.
 
I did not claim that there is *no* heat transfer to the bath.  I was
trying to get you to acknowledge the fact that there must be heat
transfer to the bath.  Now we are in AGREEMENT on that point.  We
have made some real progress, but it has been like pulling teeth.
 
There are more points of agreement between us in your description
of the operation of a calorimeter, but there are also some areas of
difficulty that seem determined to gloss over.  That is what I have
been trying to get at, but you seem unwilling to stay focussed on
the issue.  For example, the points I have been trying to raise do
not apply universally to all forms of calorimeters so I would prefer
to leave those aside for the present.
 
One essential feature of the P&F calorimeters is there dependence
on the heat flow to the surrounding bath as the key parameter that
determines the temperature and thus the rate of heat production.
They appear to make a design choice that favors a very strong
temperature dependence (fourth power of absolute temperature)
in the calorimeter constant.  That being the case, my assertion
is that the P&F calorimeter cannot correctly respond to a heat
source that fluctuates on a time scale short compared to the
settling time.  I may be confusing terminology here.  Where I
said calorimeter constant I mean the factor that connects
heat flow to the bath and the temperature.  I prefer to call that
thermal resistance.
 
Surely one feature that has been mentioned in many CF experiments
is that the heat often appears in bursts.  If the instrument
employed to measure those bursts systematically over estimates
the integrated area in those bursts, should not that error be
considered?  Consider the fact that the signal always sits
on the relatively constant power input and may include both
positive and negative swings about that input power.  Each
positive excursion gets overvalued and each negative excursion
is under valued.  It has the capability of being a virtual
heat pump!  The effect is not covered by calibrations unless
they are done with waveforms that match the signal.  A calibration
in which the measurement is delayed until the temperature
settles out will not show the effect.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Ad aspera /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 23 Sep 1993 12:40 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <tomkCDsJ4I.3EI@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com
(Thomas H. Kunich) writes...
 
>For all the furor, the entire fusion program costs very little in terms
>of percentage of GNP. Say -- how's it compare to a years upkeep of a
>600 ship Navy?  The fusion program is not the source of the national debt.
 
I think the most expansive dreams that Princeton had at any
instantaneous point for the Compact Ignition Tokamak/Burning
Plasma Experiment/whatnot were less than the price of one modern
aircraft carrier.  Or substantially less than half what President
Clinton's whiz kids think they can raise through a tax of less
than a dollar a pack on cigarettes in some period that I did not
note (but surely no more than a few years, which is about one SSC.
 
Arguments about whether any given science project is a good idea,
or whether it will yield results in proportion to its share of the
Federal R&D pie, are legitimate.  But we're talking about pretty
weak beer compared to overall Federal expenditure.  These days, a
billion here, a billion there, and you *still* aren't talking about
real money.
 
Remember that old drawing of "the energy levels of things"?  I've
a mind to draw a version called "the funding levels of things,"
just to remind myself that some perspectives reveal our tempest
and others reveal the teapot.
 
Cheers,
--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer:  Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Cary Jamison /  What have I missed?
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What have I missed?
Date: 23 Sep 1993 20:35:52 GMT
Organization: ESL, Inc.  A TRW Company

Hi!  I haven't had access to news since last December, and am trying to
figure out what I've missed in this group.  Sounds like a lot of the same
type discussions, but it seems I've missed some kind of announcement
recently by Jed.  What's going on with P&F/Japan/Toyota?  Anything else
interesting I've missed?
 
You can reply directly to me.
 
Thanks,
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com
 
  ********************************************************************
   EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
   E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
   EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
   E          S  L
   EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
  ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 22:42:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz put up a summary of World Patent Application WO 90/10935.  I
believe this is the one I have a copy of.  Believe me, the "teaching" in
it would not let anyone build a cold fusion boiler.
 
Yes, Jed, you can get a sort of linear curve with a dewar a heater and a
temperature controlled bath.  But at least when I tried it, you had better
wait many hours between points to get accurate measurements, as the time
constant of such a system can by 20 hours.  Now the question is "how does
this compare to a bubbling and roiling CNF cell.  There is not a very
precise relation.  Furthermore, there appear to be a lot of special cases
to be investigated.
 
Greg Kuperberg wonders why I do not make reports on nuclear readings.  I did
in the early reports, Greg, when I had an NaI(Tl) counter hooked up.  Now I
just have a geiger counter so that I know when I am getting a radiation dose.
Plenty good enough (in my opinion - and I know some of the problems) for
protection.
 
Greg, you seem to have the order wrong on your "ease of detection" list.
Generally electrons, gammas, then neutrons are the order of ease of detection.
Ease of getting out of the apparatus is another matter, and that likel
y reverses the order again.
 
Thanks to John Logajan for a source for a really inexpensive ADC board.  Not
sure I agree with his choice of the LM34.  I have lately switched over to
Yellow Springs thermisters, at about $8 in 50's.  Also I was able to get
the AD590 - a similar device to the LM34 in a metal can for under $3 in 100's.
 
Paul Schauble wants to couple power into the scale with photovoltaic devices.
Now there are convection current noises to disturb the system.  Someone may
want to try it, but sees to me that it is really hard to couple anything into
a scale.  That is my real point.  The scale scheme requires great accuracy.
All experiments requiring great accuracy are hard.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Bockris has been reading Rothwell?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris has been reading Rothwell?
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 22:42:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gosh, the letter by Bockris sounds like he has been reading the material
sent out by Jed Rothwell.  Possibly they send material to each other.
 
Now Jed will quote Bockris to prove "cold fusion" is real.  Where is a good
experiment Dr. Bockris?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Greg Kuperberg /  Masochism
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Masochism
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 22:06:01 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Jonathon Jones, who is working with Prof. Hansen and myself on
>xs heat experiments here,...
 
Steve, here is something that I just don't understand.  It's well
established that the XS Heat people are a bunch of cranks who have
forgotten how to do science, if they ever knew.  Some of them have both
the scientific and ethical judgement of severe alcoholics.  The very
idea of claiming excess heat in the absence of characterizing its
source is scientifically ill-considered.  And then these reports of
Heat and of XS Heat (as opposed to genuine excess heat) are far below
even that naive level.  On the other hand, these XS Heaters have
demonstrated the ability to harass and denigrate scientists and damage
their careers.  Especially your career.
 
Yet, you are taking valuable time away from your cold fusion experiments
to pursue excess heat.  Why do you do it?  Is it to prove the XS Heaters
wrong?  Nathan Lewis, Harwell, and Salamon already did that.   It's
one thing if Tom Droege hones his calorimetry on palladium cathodes,
but for you to follow suit seems like sheer masochism.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.21 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Open Season Continues
     
Originally-From: joshua@athena.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Open Season Continues
Date: 21 Sep 1993 01:10:09 -0000
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Years ago, Nature, Scientific American, and the APS declared open season on
>the reputations of Pons and Fleischmann. Nitwits and filthy character
>assassins like Britz, Jones, Taubes -- and now Campbell -- crawled out from
>under their rocks and began posting messages like this. Over and over again,
>they insult Pons and Fleischmann, they attack them, they publish blatant
>obvious lies about them. They get away with it! Apparently, the libel laws
>have been suspended: you can say anything you want about these two scientists.
>Naturally, if you were to spread lies like this about any other scientist in
>the U.S. or Europe, you would be up to your eyeballs in trouble.
 
Jed, don't you see the inconsistency here?  Libel laws have not been suspended.
All this nasty stuff about P&F gets published, and no one gets sued (and in
America, where you can get sued for _anything_).  Why do you think that is?
Nature, Scientific American, the APS et al. have little control over the
legal system.  If "obvious lies" have been published you can bet that there
would be published retractions, at the very minimum.
 
Is the American legal system part of the anti-CNF conspiracy?  Or are those
books more accurate than you want to believe?  And don't claim poverty,
The CNF folks have used the law before.  Anyway, if "obvious lies" were
printed, you could get some legal type to take the case on consignment.
 
Where is Triggs, now that you need him?  He was willing to send out letters
to Soloman et al, how about Taubes?  Triggs is always described as a childhood
friend of Pons, surely he could send out a letter or two.  With "obvious
lies" in print it should not take much more.  After all, a publisher does
not really care about how much money we have sunk into hot fusion, or what
the APS thinks.  Or -- dare I say it -- are publishers now part of the
anti-CNF traitors, too?
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / mitchell swartz /  Poor Literature Search (previously "Masochism")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Poor Literature Search (previously "Masochism")
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 00:03:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Sep23.220601.6131@midway.uchicago.edu>
  Subject: Masochism
Greg Kuperberg [gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu] writes:
 
=gk "Is it to prove the XS Heaters
=gk wrong?  Nathan Lewis, Harwell, and Salamon already did that."
 
  You quote one paper which did not appear to focus even on heat, one which had
  a flawed calorimeter paradigm, and one which covered-up the reporting of
  a functioning cell with excess heat.
 
   These errors herald a glimpse at your relative ignorance of either/both the
     literature or/and the science involved.  (Thought a mathematician would
                                                catch those errors    ;-)X
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Computational Quantum Mechanics
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 00:23:49 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

It seems unlikely that an electron would bind two protons more
tightly than a negetave muon does.  The system of two protons plus
a negative muon has been studied extensively; neither theory nor
experiment has indicated the existence of any bizarre bound states.
 
Benjamin P. Carter
bpc@netcom.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 01:51:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930923170751.20602257@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Greg Kuperberg wonders why I do not make reports on nuclear readings.  I did
>in the early reports, Greg, when I had an NaI(Tl) counter hooked up.
 
Fair enough.
 
>Greg, you seem to have the order wrong on your "ease of detection" list.
>Generally electrons, gammas, then neutrons are the order of ease of detection.
>Ease of getting out of the apparatus is another matter, and that likel
>y reverses the order again.
 
Ease of getting out of the apparatus is what I had in mind.  Ease
of detection is your area of expertise and I bow to your opinion on
that.
 
Anyway, my point stands that if you are looking for fire, you
should look for flames, smoke, ash, and maybe heat.  You should
not look for heat in the absence of the other three.  If the
other three are "penic", that's bad too.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Warren Kenyon /  Beginner
     
Originally-From: kenyon@pogo.den.mmc.com (Warren Edward Kenyon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Beginner
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 17:25:30 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver

Just found this group and am very interested in hot fusion.  I have been
for years, and feel that it will eventually be the answer to most of our
energy needs. For years I have planned to celebrate the day we break
even.  My question is, where are we with respect to break even.
 
The last think I heard a few or more years ago was that there were three
criteria for break even.   I think they were Temperature, Confinement,
and Density.  I also remember that we had reached one of those criteria,
I think it was temperature.
 
How close are we to achieving breakeven, and have either of the other
two criteria been achieved?
 
Thanks for putting up with a beginner.
 
 
========================================================================
  _______        _______   ____
 /______/|  /\  /______/| /___/   kenyon@pogo.den.mmc.com
 \     | | |\ \ \     | | |  /    kenyon@mmc.com
  \    | | | \ \ \    | | | /     Standard Disclaimer
   \   | | |  \ \ \   | | |/\     *** MADSTOP '81 FOREVER ***
    \  | | |   \ \ \  | | |\ \
     \ | | |    \ \ \ | | | \ \   "Sorry for the inconvenience."
      \|/  |_____\/  \|/  |__\/                    -- God
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenkenyon cudfnWarren cudlnKenyon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / John Logajan /  Just another calculation error
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just another calculation error
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 02:01:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Since I've been claiming for days that a milligram of D2O disociating
requires approx 10J, I thought I'd just double check that calculation.
 
Yup, I was wrong.  It is closer to 14.3J, rounding up to 15J from now on.
(I had orginially computed it to be 7.6J and rounded up to 10J, oops.)
 
So here is the revised table as it relates to balance resolution:
 
15000J    = 1g
 1500J    = 0.1g
  150J    = 0.01g
   15J    = 0.001g
    1.5J  = 0.0001g
    0.15J = 0.00001g
 
My 50mg Ohaus balance experiment had a resolution, then, of 750J rather
than 500J as I stated.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 02:17:21 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep23.152305.17687@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>If you are an immigrant like I am, you explicitly contracted to pay taxes...
>Since D Britz has already scolded us for this topic, I'll make this
>short and my last (this week :-)
 
I have to disagree with Dieter.  Most of the discussions here are no
more relevant to fusion or physics than Libertarian ideology.  The
exceptions, namely the Alcator reports, Steve Jones' reports, Tom
Droege's reports, and Dieter's bibliography, belong in
sci.physics.research as much as they do here, although admittedly they
would appear there on a less frequent basis.
 
>Were Russian citizens ethically compelled to pay their government?
>Were Nazi-Germany Jews ethically compelled to obey their government?
>Were black Southern US slaves ethically compelled to obey and labor
>as dictated by the government?
>
>I don't think you can so easily rescue denial of choice for your favorite
>gov-ops without also rescuing the above atrocities.
 
I'm not sure how these cases lie with respect to a strict Libertarian
ethic, given that some Libertarians recognize the right to any
consensual contract whatsoever, including irrevocable contracts,
hereditary contracts, contracts of indefinite indentured servitude, and
contracts that allow execution.  Perhaps even the repugnant social
contract of Nazi Germany was Libertarian-ethical in that sense, at
least as far as Germany's internal politics was concerned.
 
However, as a practical matter, and following my own personal ethic,
none of these people you mentioned had a choice, but you do.  If you
think your contract of citizenship with the United States is void,
fraudulent, beyond your consent, or plainly just a bad deal, you can
terminate it.  You have 150 other contracts of citizenship to choose
from, or you can create Logajanland in any of several places throughout
the world.
 
But if you are a US citizen, you are contracted to pay your taxes and
fund controlled fusion research just like the rest of us.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Jupitor's core, sources of lithium
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jupitor's core, sources of lithium
Date: 24 Sep 1993 02:18:46 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

I had written:
 
"There is disagreement on whether Jupiter has cooled to the point that
H-He separation becomes important (on the other hand, it is a favoured
mechanism for heating Saturn -- mass fractionation in a gravity field
liberates free energy). Given this, I doubt that p-D separation is
important."
 
 
and Marshall Dudley (dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com) replied:
 
"What about other elements?  The atmosphere of Jupitor consists of 80%
hydrogen (both protium and deuterium), 19% helium, .6% methane and
.02% ammonia according to my CRC handbook.  How do we know that the
helium, methane, and ammonia are not the primary constituents of the
core due to their greater mass?  I am still not convinced that the
core of Jupitor must contain nearly pure hydrogen isotopes, as several
news items have previously suggested."
 
 
Which news items? This view that Jupiter is nearly pure hydrogen has
not been tenable for a very long time. The prevailing view until the
1970s was that it must be of solar composition (which is about 23 per
cent helium by mass -- I might be wrong in the second digit), having
been formed by gravitational contraction of a gas lump in the
primordial solar nebula. Numerical models assuming a solar composition
were constructed, and it was found that Jupiter is too small in radius
for its mass, which was known very accurately. Depending on the
models, between 15 and 30 extra earth masses worth of rock and ice
(uncertainty in compsition) would be needed to get the radius down to
its actual value.
 
Pioneer and Voyager measurements of the gravity field given the
observed rotation rate and flattening at the surface were consistent
with all that extra mass at the center, although there is enough
uncertainty that an alternative explanation is H-He mass
fractionation. A constraint on this last bit is hard to come by, since
it is provided by thermal history models. The data as they are now
known are consistent with a working hypothesis of little or no
fractionation in the gas mass, with all the extra rock and ice at the
core. It fits nicely with an origin model of accretion of an initial
rock/ice mass, and then runaway capture of gas. See a recent review by
Cameron (1987, 8 or 9 Ann Rev, either Astronomy/Astrophysics or the
Earth Science one) for details. By the way, a thin gas disk rotating
about a massive central object is stable to gravitational clumping.
 
 
Marshall gives these numbers on the D/H ratio:
 
"According to Edgardo Browne & Richard B. Firestone "Table of
Radioactive Isotopes" the ratio is 1.5 e -4 for Lake Michigan water,
and varies from 4.4 e -5 to 1.84 e -4 for other sources.  For some
reason sea water is not listed."
 
 
Sea water is most likely the 2 e -4 I remember, with the 5 e -5 for
Jupiter.
 
I eagerly await Galileo's results to pin all these things down further
(knock on wood).
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / John Logajan /  Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 04:21:32 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Libertarians recognize the right to ... irrevocable contracts, hereditary
>contracts, contracts of indefinite indentured servitude, and
>contracts that allow execution.
 
This is incorrect.  E-mail me if you care for an explanation.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Government, a Libercorporation (TM)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 05:14:25 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep24.042132.27567@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Libertarians recognize the right to ... irrevocable contracts, hereditary
>>contracts, contracts of indefinite indentured servitude, and
>>contracts that allow execution.
>This is incorrect.  E-mail me if you care for an explanation.
 
It's not news to me that it's incorrect, because you have changed the
meaning of the sentence by chopping it.  I said that *some*
libertarians recognize each of these rights, and I know specific,
self-proclaimed examples in each case.  I will admit to the mistake of
incorrectly capitalizing the "L" in libertarian in the sentence you
quoted.
 
However, you're clearly a libertarian, and I used to be one,
and I didn't mean either one of us.  So I think we can agree to
agree that these are not reasonable consensual contracts.
 
Let's keep this tied to name of the newsgroup or at least its usual
traffic.  It's ethical to fund fusion research with taxes.  It could
even be ethical to generate XS Heat with taxes.  It would just be
stupid.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Hoyt Stearns /  cmsg cancel <1993Sep23.061731.14817@isus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Sep23.061731.14817@isus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 06:25:30 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

<1993Sep23.061731.14817@isus.UUCP> was cancelled from within trn.
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@isus.stat.| International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |     .com  OR  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |enuucp.asu.edu!| System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice 602 996-1717 |stat.com!wierius!isus!hoyt OR hoyt@isus.tnet.com_________|
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.23 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: neutron half-life
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron half-life
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 06:33:42 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <CDItAq.6Iz@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <199309172027.AA02985@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona
edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>
>  ... quoting a correspondent ...
>
>>    First I consulted my trusty Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, the
>>    1983 edition. It says the neutron half-life is about 13 minutes.
>>...
>
>Anyone know why the values are decreasing?
>
I don't know why the measured lifetime of the neutron has decreased
with time, but I assume the method of measurement has changed.
 
In any case, let's calculate from fundamental constants:
 
The short form:
 
Neutron mean lifetime t = c^2/2R / ( 128*(1 + 1/8 )) = 949.1  sec.
where R is the Rydberg frequency, and 1/(128(1 + 1/8)) is the fraction
of the motions that constitute the neutron that are effective in our
reference system.
 
From K.V.K. Nehru, "The Lifetime of the Neutron", Reciprocity, Autumn 1983,
ISSN 0276-4172, The journal for ISUS, inc.
 
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@isus.stat.| International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |     .com  OR  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |enuucp.asu.edu!| System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice 602 996-1717 |stat.com!wierius!isus!hoyt OR hoyt@isus.tnet.com_________|
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Bockris' name for cold fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris' name for cold fusion
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 13:13:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bockris' assertion that it should be called "chemically stimulated
nuclear reaction" doesn't appear to be anything new or something he
got from Jed Rothwell.  According to Gary Taubes (I am presently
reading Bad Science.) Bockris used CSNR early on as part of his claim
that he was the one who would sort out this issue.  Getting the
right name attached to a phenomena is an important part of the
oneupmanship game in science.
 
Incidently, there are some interesting scientific questions raised
in Taubes' book.  It isn't just about the personalities and who did
what and when.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Doin' the two step!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Doin' the two step!
Subject: Jed's gambit
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 14:40:14 GMT
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 19:31:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I see that Richard Blue is doing the usual two step dance around, trying to
evade, avoid, and void his previous statements. He made a preposterous,
impossible claim, I nabbed him (no "skeptic" ever would!) and now he says he
didn't really mean it. Oh, sure. Just a cunning little joke. Okay, Folks, let
us look at the entire original claim again, reposted replete with footnote
numbers in square brackets added by Yours Truly:
 
 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's gambit
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 19:31:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
 
Rather than address any issue that I have raised concerning the techniques
used in cold fusion experiments, Jed Rothwell has adopted one very
silly tactic which he uses over and over again.  For each possible
source of error I suggest he assigns some numerical values that he
pulls out of his hat and then loudly proclaims that the implications
of those numbers are clearly ludicrous. [1] I don't think your fooling
anyone, Jed, so why keep it up?  What you are most certainly demonstrating
is that you really don't have a very clear picture of how these
experiments are done.
 
Reconsider your recent post on calorimetry, for example.  You suggest
that I have somehow conjured up "perpetual motion" when clear you
haven't fully incorporated energy conservation into your thinking.
If you did you would realize that inputing heat into a fixed quantity
of water at some power level will result in a constantly rising
temperature.  The temperature never "settles out" to a fixed reading
unless there is also a flow of heat out of the calorimeter to the
surrounding bath. [2] Under those conditions, which are in fact the
best description of a Pons & Fleischmann calorimeter, the heat
capacity of the water (or the total water equivalent) is NOT
the key parameter [3] that determines the relationship between power
input and temperature.  Let me plug in my own numbers before
you get carried away on one of your flights of fancy again.
 
Suppose we have 50 gm water equivalent in our calorimeter starting
at 20 C.  For each deg C of temperature rise we would have to
have a net input of 50 Calories.  To convert to joules multiply
by 4.18 joules per calory.  So 50 cal is 209 joules.  At a
net power input of 1 watt (that's 1 joule per sec) it will take
209 seconds to raise the temperature one degree.  If I leave
the power on for 1000 seconds the temperature will be roughly
25 deg.  After 10000 seconds it would about 50 degrees hotter [4]
and sometime before 20000 seconds had passed the temperature
would have reached the boiling point. [5] Do you want to argue
with any of these numbers or the basic picture I have presented?
You should because I see I didn't do the arithmetic correctly. [6]
It's 290 joules per degree or about 34 C rise in 10000 sec and
25000 seconds to boil. My point is that the temperature doesn't
ever reach a fix[ed] value until heat out balances the heat input. [7]
That statement has nothing to do with perpetual motion. [8]
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
Notes appended by Jed:
 
[1] I pull the numbers out of the experimental literature and out of my lab
notes, not out of a hat. Dick refuses to ever put any numbers on his claims.
He and the other "skeptics" avoid quantitative analysis like the plague,
because they are proposing milliwatt explanations for multi-watt heat. As soon
as someone quantifies their claims, it shows how ridiculous they are. If the
"skeptics" refuse to put numbers on their statements, I will do it for them.
As Pons and Fleischmann pointed out, Morrison is particularly fond of this
form hand waving.
 
[2] There must always be a flow of heat into the bath. It is physically
impossible to make perfect insulation. Furthermore, with highly insulating
material in the cell wall, the settle time of the instrument becomes
annoyingly long, so nobody every uses high insulation, except in the parts of
the instrument where they want minimize heat loss.
 
[3] I never said that the heat capacity of water is the key parameter. This is
false. There is no "key parameter;" heat capacity and the heat transfer
coefficient play important roles, and at high temperatures, vaporization
dominates.
 
[4] Wrong! It will not be 50 degrees hotter after 10,000 seconds. The heat
loss begins immediately, the temperature rises more and more slowly,
asymptotically. He thinks it gets hotter at a constant rate! No real cell ever
behaves like this.
 
[5] He does not realize that the heat input and output balances before the
cell reaches boiling. He assumes the heat transfer coefficient is zero until
boiling. This is nuts.
 
[6] Oops! No, actually 4.18 * 50 = 209, you had it right the first time. As
one of the world's worst mathematicians I declare that arithmetic doesn't
count. If God had meant us do arithmetic, he would never have given us the
electronic spreadsheet. As the great British poet Anon wrote in 1570:
 
     Multiplication is vexation,
     Division is as bad.
     The Rule of three doth puzzle me,
     And Practice drives me mad.
 
[7] Right. But it reaches a fixed value long before boiling. That's my point!
With 50 ml in a typical glass cell and one watt input, my guess is that it
would reaches a fixed point, that is: a balance of input and output, at about
8 C over ambient. Bump the power up to 2 watts, wait 20 minutes and... Hey!
Whattyaknow! Now it stabilized 16 C over ambient. Try 3 watts and... My
Goodness, now its 24 C over ambient! Do you see a pattern here, Dick?
 
[8] Correct. This statement has nothing to do with perpetual motion. The
other, earlier claims however, had everything to do with perpetual motion.
They amounted to a statement that you can: 1. Put the same total integrated
amount of energy into two equal masses of water over the same period of time,
with different wave forms and: 2. Observe different temperatures in the two
masses of water. This would allow us to insert a heat engine or thermoelectric
chip in between the two bodies in order to generate free energy. I myself
don't believe in free energy. You must have a chemical, mechanical, or nuclear
source of heat. Maybe you thinking that "wave forms" can tap into zero point
energy (whatever the heck that is). In any case, if the water temperatures are
different, there is an un-accounted for, extra source of energy in the hotter
water (or you are not measuring the input power correctly).
 
If any reader out there in the cybernetic continuum would like to see what
real data from a real calorimeter looks like (albeit a real *primitive*
calorimeter), zap me a note and I will send you my paper "A Simple
Calorimeter." You can graph the data set appended at the end of the paper, and
you will see an actual, measured, curve from an actual 80 ml cell as it
gradually approaches a calibration point and then stabilizes. Yes! The real
McCoy! No illusions, no jokes, no preposterous models with perfectly linear
temperature increases until boiling.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Steve Fairfax /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 9/23/93
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 9/23/93
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 10:33:50
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

                                Alcator C-MOD
                            Weekly Highlight Report
                                September 23, 1993
 
 
This week plasma operation is continuing. Pulse lengths over one second, with
flattop times over 0.6 sec, are now becoming standard, as we continue to
exploit the four-quadrant capabilities of the OH and EF1 supplies.
 
Exploration of higher elongations and axisymmetric stability have been carried
out, with single null plasmas with elongations up to about 1.6. Passive growth
rates of the axisymmetric mode were measured by turning off the feedback and
observing the evolution of vertical position for 10 msec before restoring
feedback control. The closed loop characteristics are also determined from the
recovery after feedback is restored. The results are being compared to code
predictions from TEQ and from our own code. These studies will be used to help
optimize our control laws.
 
Some modifications to the Hybrid Control Computer configuration and to the PCS
operator interface have been made to facilitate more complicated control
schemes, including feedback control of x-point position and/or strike point
location for diverted discharges. Initial experiments on controlling the
x-point height have been successful.
 
Unfortunately, the modifications to permit control of more plasma parameters
during the main part of the discharge have necessitated changes in the way the
startup phase is programmed; robust techniques using the new system are not
yet established, and we have experienced some difficulty with discharge
reliability.  Previous experience has indicated that wall-conditioning is also
important for reliable startup, and we have instituted a program of routine
overnight discharge cleaning (ECDC) in addition to the usual two hours of
conditioning before each run.
 
The McPherson grazing incidence VUV spectrograph and the Johns Hopkins "Moly
Monitor" diagnostic, which were installed at the last break, are both now
operational and producing data.
 
Halo currents to the outer divertor modules have been measured during vertical
disruptions (VDE's). When the plasma disrupts downward, over 10kA is observed
in a shunt connecting one (out of ten) of the lower divertor modules to the
vacuum vessel. Due to instrumentation problems, the currents in the other nine
shunts were not measured, but if the halo current is axisymmetric we infer that
of order one-third of the plasma current appears to flow to the divertor during
the VDE. When the plasma motion is upward, less than 1kA is observed in the
shunt, and during normal, well-positioned, operation a current of order
50 Amps is measured.
 
The ICRF Group has measured the antenna loading as a function of
edge density and plasma position.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 14:34:59 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

Tom Droege and others have requested that I explain some part of the
Alcator  weekly report.  The following text attempts to explain the
jargon in the first paragraph.  Please send comments to
Fairfax@CMOD.MIT.EDU.  I can't tell if this is helpful unless I get
feedback!
 
Disclaimer:  The following opinions are my own.  They do not represent
to position of the Plasma Fusion Center, MIT, or the Department of
Energy.
 
What are "4-quadrant" power supplies and why are they important?
 
One of the tokamak's key features is that a current is driven through
the plasma to both confine and heat it.  This current is induced by a
solenoid that passes through the "donut hole" at the center of the
torus.  Hot plasma is an excellent conductor.  The solenoid and the
plasma form a transformer with the plasma as a single-turn secondary
winding .  The plasma current must be driven to a high value and then
maintained.  The resistive losses in the plasma heat it, and the
magnetic field generated by the plasma current, when combined with the
powerful field generated by the external toroidal field (TF) magnet,
produces a more-or-less stable magnetic bottle.  The plasma resistive
voltage drop multiplied by the plasma current is called the ohmic
heating power. The central solenoid is often called the Ohmic Heating
(OH) transformer.
 
Creating and maintaining the plasma current requires a continuous flux
change in the OH transformer.  All magnets have a maximum design
current, set either by heating or electromagnetic stress or (in
superconductors) critical field limits.  (Alcator magnets are made
from copper, cooled with liquid nitrogen before a pulse.  They heat as
much as 100 C in a few second pulse but the maximum current is usually
determined by the electromagnetic stress.)  You could drive the plasma
current by ramping the OH transformer current from 0 to its maximum
value, but when the design (or operating) limit is reached, the
current in the magnet must be held constant or reduced, driving the
plasma current back to 0.  This limitation is one of the most
unattractive features of tokamaks.  (MIT and many other laboratories
are working to develop ways of maintaining the plasma current without
inductive drive.)
 
You can double the amount of flux change available by starting the
plasma with the OH transformer at maximum current, then decreasing the
current to 0, then continuing onto negative currents until the maximum
value is again reached.  This technique is called double-swinging.
The only difficulty in double-swinging is the cost of building a power
supply that can quickly switch from positive to negative currents.
 
Alcator's magnets are a little more complicated than a single OH
transformer.  The compact design leaves no room for both OH magnets
and smaller magnets to control the position and shape of the plasma.
There are a total of 14 magnets in the machine, a large toroidal field
magnet capable of producing fields of 9 Tesla in the center of the
plasma chamber, and 13 poloidal field (PF) magnets.  (The PF magnets
are named for the poloidal magnetic field produced by the plasma
current.  Perhaps some kind soul would care to develop an ASCII
explanation of the toroidal coordinate system.)  The "OH transformer"
in Alcator is produced by driving all 13 PF magnets simultaneously.
Alcator can also produce single-null or double-null diverters, limiter
discharges, and a variety of plasma shapes by controlling the ratio of
current in each of the 13 PF magnets.  (Thanks very much to
Dr. Bruce Scott for his explanation of diverters and elongation!  His
guess that we are rather busy here is quite accurate.)
 
Flexible shaping and position control therefore requires flexible
control of the currents in the PF magnets.  There are 11 different
power supplies for these 13 magnets.  Two pairs of magnets, used
primarily for radial position control, are operated in series, with a
power supply for each series pair.  The remaining 9 magnets each have
their own power supply.  The central solenoid in Alcator is composed
of 3 magnets, called OH1, OH2 upper, and OH2 lower.  Each is rated for
a maximum current of 50 kA.  Each of the solenoid magnets, two other
nearby magnets called EF1 Upper and EF1 Lower, and a pair of magnets
in series called EF4 all require double-swinging in order to produce
maximum performance plasmas.  (The machine is designed for a maximum
plasma current of 3 MA (NOT 3 mA) for 1 second.  Lower currents can be
maintained longer.)
 
As one might infer from the magnet currents, the power supplies for
this experiment are large.  The TF supply has an open-circuit voltage
of 1500 VDC and a rated current of 265 kA for 1 second.  The TF magnet
stores about 300 MJ in the magnetic field at this current, so
reliability and fault handling are quite important.  The TF also uses
tap-changing techniques to reduce the demand on our
alternator/flywheel system. You can't take 400 MW off the utility grid
in downtown Cambridge, so we buy our power from the electric company
and store it in a surplus utility alternator with an attached
flywheel.  The flywheel slows down as we extract energy during a
pulse.  The power supplies have to cope with constantly changing
frequency and input voltage.  A 2000 HP motor accelerates the system
between pulses.  The OH1 supply is rated 930 volts and 50 kA, the OH2
supplies 240 volts and 50 kA, the EF1 supplies 400 volts and 15 kA.
 
All of the Alcator power supplies utilize SCRs to control the DC
output voltage.  An SCR is a solid-state device that blocks the flow
of current until a small trigger pulse is applied.  Once triggered, an
SCR acts like a diode until the current in the device reaches 0, when
the SCR turns off.  Another trigger pulse is then required to make the
SCR conduct again.  All of our power supplies convert AC to DC using a
3-phase bridge circuit.  Delaying the turn-on time of the SCRs
relative to the peak of the AC input voltage wave allows any DC output
voltage from maximum to 0 to be produced.  Delaying the SCR turn-on
still further results in the supplies operating as inverters, with a
negative output voltage.  (Inversion is a long topic.  Just take my
word for it for now.)  During inversion the flow of energy (negative
voltage times positive current) is from the magnet to the alternator.
The power supplies all go into inversion at the end of each pulse, and
transfer a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy back to
the alternator.  This technique reduces heating of the magnets and
allows more frequent pulses.  It is also the method of choice in case
of any fault in the power or control systems, as the energy is safely
stored in the alternator rather than dissipated in a magnet.
 
A power supply that can produce current in one direction and both
positive and negative voltage is called a 2-quadrant power supply, for
the 2 quadrants of the V-I graph it can operate in.  A power supply
that can produce current in both directions and voltage in both
directions is called a 4-quadrant power supply.
 
Double-swinging the OH1 and EF4 supplies is fairly straightforward.
The current is reduced to 0, the SCR bridge that carries the forward
current is disabled, and after a delay of about 15 msec, the SCR
bridge that carries reverse current is turned on.  If you ever turn on
both bridges at once, you get a problem called "shoot-thru."  Each
bridge drives current through the other.  Draw two power supplies in
opposite polarities driving the same load to see this.  The current
must be 0 before disabling the SCR bridge or it will simply flow
through the last set of SCRs fired.  The short dead time is required
to avoid shoot-thru faults.
 
This strategy will not work for the EF1 or OH2 power supplies.  The
EF1 and OH2 magnets are used to control the plasma shape and position,
while the OH1 is used almost exclusively to drive plasma current.
Losing current drive for a few msec is no big deal, but losing control
of the plasma position will generally result in the current channel
moving rapidly into the wall and terminating.  This is called a
disruption, and it places large stresses on the tokamak and so is best
avoided.  The plasma grows increasing unstable to up/down motions as
it is elongated (the "axisymmetric stability" referenced in the
official post.)
 
The OH2 and EF1 power supplies must allow their output current to
cross 0, perhaps more than once, at any output voltage.  In contrast,
the OH1 supply has an output voltage of 0 when it's current crosses 0,
because both bridges are off for a short time.  The OH2 and EF1
supplies enable both forward current and reverse current bridges at
the same time.  A small amount of current, called circulating current,
flows through both bridges at all times.  Special inductors and phase
control techniques limit the circulating current and prevent shoot-
thru faults.  Why didn't we make the OH1 supply a circulating current
supply?  Money.  The price of the inductors is roughly proportional to
the voltage they must produce and the current they must carry.  The
OH1 supply, with almost 4 times the voltage of the OH2's would have
been significantly more expensive if it had be designed for
circulating current.
 
Why not use a mechanical switch to reverse the currents?  Safety,
reliability, maintenance, and money.  Opening a switch that is
connected to a large magnet is very dangerous if there is any current
flowing.  Alcator magnets, even the small ones, store megajoules and
have L/R time constants measured in seconds due to the enhanced
conductivity of copper at 77 K.   With 14 power supplies that must
operate perfectly every shot, reliability is extremely important.
Moving parts, especially parts that carry high currents at significant
voltage, tend to wear out much faster than solid-state components.
Maintenance, both parts and personnel, is likewise reduced and
simplified.  All of this adds up to less money spent to operate the
experiment.  Low cost is very important when developing a world-class
fusion experiment on an equipment budget of $20 million, since most of
the competition spent $100 million or more!
 
Why are we only now exploiting the 4-quadrant capabilities of our
power supplies?  We discovered some minor design errors in the 4-
quadrant supplies during full-power testing in late 1992 and early
1993.  The power supplies and magnets are all protected by a separate
"crowbar" circuit.  A crowbar is a switch (made from SCRs in our case)
that can be closed across the terminals of the magnet in case the
power supply suffers a severe fault and can no longer continue to
function during a pulse.  The current circulates through the crowbar
and the magnet and decays with the L/R time constant.  (The TF magnet
time constant is roughly 4 seconds.  We have had failures where the TF
crowbar fired at 150 kA.  It takes almost 30 seconds for the current
to decay to less than 100 amps.)
 
The 2-quadrant supplies, like the TF, are protected by a crowbar that
conducts in only one direction.  Firing that crowbar does not stress
the power supply because if the output voltage is positive, the
crowbar will not conduct.  If the output voltage is negative, the
current moves from the converter to the crowbar.   Draw a power supply
connected to an inductor with a diode shunting the inductor to see
this.  We can't use a diode because then we could not invert the power
supply in normal operation.  Instead we use a bank of SCRs, with
redundant firing circuits.
 
The 4-quadrant supplies require crowbars that conduct in both
directions.  Firing these crowbars short-circuit the power supplies
for the 50 msec or so that it takes the circuit breaker to open.  We
found that the fuses on individual SCRs in the 4-quadrant power
supplies would blow during crowbar operations.  They were designed not
to blow, since fuses are expensive and time-consuming to replace.  We
elected to start our experiments with the reverse current converters
disabled while we worked with the manufacturer to rectify the problem.
That effort was completed 2 weeks ago, so now we are operating all the
4-quadrant power supplies.
 
Clear? Helpful? Boring?  Too long?  Too much detail?  Just right?
Wrong topic?  I'll never know unless you tell me!  Send e-mail!
 
Steve Fairfax
Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Cartoons for the Defense
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Cartoons for the Defense
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 15:12:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1441:
 
[...]
>=db Stromoski;                                     Omni Oct. 1993, p.126.
>=db Cartoon: Two scientists at the benchare startled by a fairy-like figure with
>=db tutu and sparkles floating in the air behind them, assuring them: "Do not be
>=db afraid . . . I am the cold fusion fairy."
>=db
 
>   But then I realized the famous Britz publication series is actually being
>    utilized by "skeptics" to misinform the public about the truth about
>   cold fusion.    Above we see that the Britz cold fusion data base
>  (source of serious "rebuttals" to cold fusion phenomena) contains a
>   foundation of cartoons, and (see below) filtered scientific papers.
[...]
>   Let me understand this.  You don't count international congress papers
>   on the subject, but do include in this purported "official"
>   professional compendium descriptions of cartoons at the same level?
>
>                    CORROLARY (candidate for JOKE of the YEAR)
>
>     Now does not the chief "skeptic"-defender D. Morrison (of CERN)
>base his so-called data-base of cold fusion on this very Britzian compendium.
>Morrison denigrates Fusion Technology, but hold the Britz catalogue
>to be representative of the state-of-the art.   Cartoons over physics.
>
 
 
"Cartoons over physics", eh, Mitch? Apart from the incorrect plural (there
was just the one cartoon), my reaction to this is "Bullshit over nothing".
 
How about a bit of humour there, "mate"? I will laugh at a joke at my expense,
if it's a good one. This cartoon was not in Nature or Science, but in a humour
magazine, so don't get all huffy.
 
PS: Mitch, I notice that when you "quote" somebody's posting, you change it in
places; vide the above "benchare", which I wrote as "bench are"; you have done
this to others' as well, and it makes one suspect that you might make other
changes to make your point. Why not do like everyone else, and use the net
convention, putting ">" before every line, otherwise leaving the line as it
was?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on Balances
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Balances
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:17:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

No, No! John, you miss my point.  Certainly precision balances are designed to
be insensitive to temperature.  But the designers are not concerned if the
balance pan position changes with temperature, only that the balance stays
constant.  If you think this might not be a problem, look at a circa 1900
grandfather's clock to see the wonderful things done to keep the pendulum
length constant.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Those who forget history...
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Those who forget history...
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:31:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Joshua Levy writes:
 
     "Jed, don't you see the inconsistency here?  Libel laws have not been
     suspended. All this nasty stuff about P&F gets published, and no one
     gets sued (and in America, where you can get sued for _anything_).  Why
     do you think that is? Nature, Scientific American, the APS et al. have
     little control  over the legal system.  If "obvious lies" have been
     published you can bet that there would be published retractions, at the
     very minimum."
 
I don't know what Joshua's problem is. Perhaps he is too young to remember the
McCarthy era and the Dark Ages of the civil rights struggle. Perhaps he has
never read a history book. In any case, let me explain the facts of life.
 
When a person, or group of people, are widely unpopular, they are considered
"fair game" by the establishment. Newspapers, radio commentators, and others
will say anything they want about an unpopular person and get away with it. A
Congressmen can stand up, wave a piece of paper, lie through his teeth, and
destroy a person's life by saying "he is a communist." Because the attacks are
so wide-ranging, so vicious, and so utterly false, it is impossible for the
victim or victims to defend themselves. You can sue one two publications or
columnists, but you can't sue hundreds of them. I personally know several
loyal American citizens who lost their jobs in the early 1950's because they
were falsely accused of being communists. They are retired now. In all the 40
years since the McCarthy witch hunts, his victims *never* have been able to
sue anyone and some of them *never* were able to find steady work again in the
Government or anywhere else. This is a fact! Their lives and careers were
permanently destroyed in an instant. They will never see any justice, there is
no way for them to recover what was taken away.
 
This sort of thing happens in every nation, in every era, even in peaceful,
democratic societies like the United States and Japan. Mob rule, base bigotry,
and libel destroy people's lives every day. I am a strong supporter of free
speech, but I also believe that people should be held strictly responsible for
their actions. Spreading destructive lies about other people in order to
discredit them and destroy their careers is an abuse of free speech, it is a
violation of civil law. As far as I know, it has never been allowed under
British or American law and custom, and laws against libel have not been held
unconstitutional.
 
The fact is, people get away with libel every day, because when you kick
someone who is already beaten and bleeding; when you insult or lie about a
person who is controversial; when you join the mob and attack an officially
approved enemy of the establishment, the law will look the other way -- the
judge will agree with you -- and nobody will stop you. That is why, for
example, here in Georgia the KKK used to get away with murder in broad
daylight, public castration, burning people at the stake, and other acts of
terrorism against defenseless black people. This socially approved homicide
and terrorism occurred until well into the 20th century, because the judges
and the police approved of it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  More on Balance Experiments
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Balance Experiments
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:31:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, John, you have a good start.  Now keep it going for a month and report
the balance reading.  Then we will have an idea of how well it will do for
an experiment.  How about a once a week report on the reading.  Then we can
integrate any error, and see how well is does for the gas loading experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
P.S. Just because the cat jumps on it or decides to sleep on it, report the
reading anyway.  Or a bug dies on it.  Or dust settles on it.  These are just
the common everyday problems to running these experiments, so no fair
eliminating them.  As you will see, it gets harder and harder to get an
accurate answer the longer the experiment runs.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:56:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Dick Blue for a nice discussion on the pulse response of
calorimeters.  That is why my calorimeter sometimes speaks with a "forked
tongue".  The inner calorimeter is like that of P&F and is subject to Dick's
pulse error.  The outer one is an integrator, and can handle pulses.
Unfortunately, on at least one occasion, the inner one sees "anomalous heat"
and the outer one does not!
 
Jed, you seem to be confused about precision and accuracy.  While precision
sometimes comes with the territory, I am after accuracy.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Greg Kupergerg
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Greg Kupergerg
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:56:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hey! Greg, don't be so hard on us.  Some of the people - i.e. McKubre - have
done careful experiments and think they see something in the way of "anomalous
heat".  I certainly see something that I can not explain.  Seems to me that
when you see something that you can't explain it is worth studying further.
Excess heat and no nuclear particles just says that it is not the "standard
model" physics.  One thing sure, if we never look for new things, we will not
find them.  I would not recommend that someone who wanted a safe and sure
carreer path take up this work.  On the other hand, someone who wants a safe
and sure carreer path should go to manager school at McDonands.  They do not
belong in scientific research.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Funding, both Hot and Cold
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Funding, both Hot and Cold
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 15:21:30 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <tomkCDsJ4I.3EI@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> For all the furor, the entire fusion program costs very little in terms
> of percentage of GNP. Say -- how's it compare to a years upkeep of a 600
> ship Navy?
>
> Let's get a little more humor here. The fusion program isn't the source of
> the national debt.
 
Neither is funding folks like Steven Jones for doing good work on the
_possibility_ of whether condensed matter physics may contain unexpected
and currently unknown modes by which increased rates of nuclear reactions
could occur.
 
Condensed matter physics remains largely an experimentally based science,
with results _explained_ in terms of quantum mechanics.  But in comparison
to particle and even nuclear physics, QM is pretty poor at _predicting_
novel effects (e.g., superfluidity, superconductivity, or Moessbauer).
 
This should be no big surprise.  Condensed matter is just extraordinarily
complex due to the number of interacting parts, making it hard for folks
to come up with easy ways to understand _all_ of the possibilities.
 
 
So here's my prediction:
 
   Before the year 2000, one or more new modes will be discovered by which
   room temperature condensed matter can significantly and reproducibly
   affect the rate of one or more classes of nuclear reactions.
 
I say "new modes" because there are of course already examples of nominally
chemical domain effects that affect nuclear events, such as the effect of
pressure on capture of inner-shell electrons in some heavy elements.
 
My basis for such a prediction?  Very simple:  Lack of full exploration of
all possible implications of condensed matter interactions, a situation
that is in very sharp contrast to the near-total-information predictions
of particle and _atomic_ level nuclear physics.  I guess I'm just not quite
convinced that all possible modes of energy concentration or fluctuation
have been covered yet.  Plus condensed matter has a joker in the stack,
which is the large-scale quantum effects such as banding that are largely
irrelevant for few-particle intereations, yet critical for understanding
condensed matter.
 
 
And my corollary:
 
   Funding should continue for well-based research into the _possibility_
   of new modes by which room-temperature condensed matter could modify
   one or more types of nuclear reaction rates.  Moreover, because of its
   lower cost-per-experiment, such research should be viewed as _comparable
   to or significantly less_ in net risk to high-temperature approaches
   to modifying nuclear reaction rates.  While plasma-based approaches were
   very promising several decades ago before so much excellent research was
   done on the area be hot fusion developers, that same work has now shown
   through its excellent quantification of the problem area that the risk of
   failure of plasma based approaches leading to results of any commercial
   consequence is somewhere between high and extremely high.
 
   Moreover, just as the cost of upkeep in major government institutions
   such as the Navy dwarfs the cost of hot fusion research, the cost of
   _one_ major hot fusion research facility could probably fund a quite
   huge number of responsible university-based experiments dedicated to
   looking for new modes by which condensed matter could significantly and
   reliably alter one or more nuclear reaction rates.
 
Hot fusion is a very, very scientific enterprise, and should be commended
for its excellent and quantitative collection of data.  Unfortunately, it
is that very set of quantitative data that appears to make its overall
chances of success rather low.  Too many difficulties have been uncovered
and quantified carefully, leaving few possibilities for "outs" into new
or innovative solutions without drastic alterations of the overall approach.
 
I _don't_ think than if any new condensed matter effects are found that they
would have any immediate practical consequences.  On the other hand, by the
very nature of finding something "new," they might provide new avenues of
exploration.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Complex and Dynamic
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Complex and Dynamic
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 18:01:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says: "Second, any complex, dynamical heat-related phenomenon
that can occur in a cathode can be simulated with a reisiter."
 
This is just plain wrong, Jed.  Because the electrolysis produces gas, the
heat transfer properties are different with a resistor.  This is why the
control problem is so hard for this experiment.  This is why I have
concentrated on the absolute accuracy of the apparatus rather than comparative
control experiments.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 16:55:36 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <Fairfax.7.2CA30593@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU>
Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax) writes:
 
> Tom Droege and others have requested that I explain some part of the
> Alcator  weekly report.  The following text attempts to explain the
> jargon in the first paragraph.  Please send comments to
> Fairfax@CMOD.MIT.EDU.  I can't tell if this is helpful unless I get
> feedback!
>
> Disclaimer:  The following opinions are my own.  They do not represent
> to position of the Plasma Fusion Center, MIT, or the Department of
> Energy.
>
> What are "4-quadrant" power supplies and why are they important?
>
> ...
>
> Clear? Helpful? Boring?  Too long?  Too much detail?  Just right?
> Wrong topic?  I'll never know unless you tell me!  Send e-mail!
>
> Steve Fairfax
> Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
 
Clear and quite interesting -- the details add to the summaries, rather
than detract.  I had found myself skipping over many of the summaries (I
only read a tiny subset of all the current traffic on spf), but the extra
discussion in this one of specific details caught my attention.
 
Your willingness to contribute such helpful data is encouraging, as is
the politeness of your response to Tom Droege (who is currently known in
here for his "excess heat" interests, rather than as a hot fusion type).
 
If I may I enquire briefly:
 
   Do you know happen to know of any papers on the lithium efficiency issue
   I have been asking about?
 
   Or how the irradiation issue and lithium-to-tritium breeding issue might
   be handled with the tokamok design?
 
The latter is particularly fascinating to me because of the difficulties
it poses.  Sometimes difficult problems have neat or innovative solutions
that make you think "hey! that's neat!"
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- As I've already quite proven myself to have a terribly disrespectful
        sense of humor, what the heck.  (Personally, though, I think a little
        California-style humorous disrespect for physics is like fine, man.)
 
        Back when I worked at Contel in Northern Virginia, several of us
        got onto a bad chain of puns about a possible store in Fairfax.
 
        In the first go-around the putative store would sell cheap but
        satisfactory-quality facimile machines, and thus would be called:
 
            Fairfax Fair Fax
 
        A friend then suggested that they should also provide information
        on the local county fair, giving the store the name:
 
            Fairfax Fair Fax and Fair Facts
 
        One of us (I don't recall which) then decided to add useful data
        on the fares charged by the D.C. subway system, giving:
 
            Fairfax Fair Fax, Fair Facts, and Fare Facts
 
        We both forgot that the city and county were originally named for
        a real family with royal British connections.  Thus I cordially
        invite you, if you choose and if anyone every actually builds it,
        to be the proprietor of this remarkable store, which will then be:
 
            Fairfax Fairfax Fair Fax, Fair Facts, and Fare Facts
 
        (And if that doesn't ruin me forever with the hot fusion community,
        I don't know what will.  Trying to sick VP Gore onto hot fusion
        funding is peanuts compared to making puns on people's names... :) )
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Reflections (Was: Masochism)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reflections (Was: Masochism)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 17:56:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Sep23.220601.6131@midway.uchicago.edu>
gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
> In article <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu>
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
> | Jonathon Jones, who is working with Prof. Hansen and myself on
> | xs heat experiments here,...
>
> Steve, here is something that I just don't understand.  It's well
> established that the XS Heat people are a bunch of cranks who have
> forgotten how to do science, if they ever knew.  Some of them have both
> the scientific and ethical judgement of severe alcoholics.  The very
> idea of claiming excess heat in the absence of characterizing its
> source is scientifically ill-considered.  And then these reports of
> Heat and of XS Heat (as opposed to genuine excess heat) are far below
> even that naive level.  On the other hand, these XS Heaters have
> demonstrated the ability to harass and denigrate scientists and damage
> their careers.  Especially your career.
> ...
 
Hmm.  I must say, this posting makes a striking contrast to the polite and
measured type of information just posted today by the MIT fusion project.
 
This is the kind of posting provided by someone whose interest is more in
_emotionally_ attacking a person or persons -- to make them feel ashamed,
or fearful, or betrayed.  And when viewed from that perspective, it is a
very well constructed paragraph.  The choice of Steve Jones as fulcrum for
the argument was particularly clever:  "Come, Steve, you've been led astray,
but we still want you back with _real_ scientists."  And the casual use of
terms of abuse in an "oh shucks, _everyone_ knows that" format is far more
effective than the easy-to-ignore overuse of similar terms by Rothwell.
 
Interesting that you have selected this particular approach for promoting
your arguments, especially given your skill at discussing actual physics.
 
                                Disappointed,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Off-the-shelf Dewar not recommended
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off-the-shelf Dewar not recommended
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 20:04:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege wrote:
 
     "Yes, Jed, you can get a sort of linear curve with a dewar a heater and
     a temperature controlled bath.  But at least when I tried it, you had
     better wait many hours between points to get accurate measurements, as
     the time constant of such a system can be 20 hours."
 
I do not recommend a fully silvered, off-the-shelf Dewar. As Tom says, the
settle time is far too long, because the insulation is far too good. (What Tom
calls the "time constant" I have been referring to as "settle time." Let me
stick to my terminology). A calorimeter with a long settle time is a pain in
the butt to use. The best kind of cell is the half-silvered, narrow vacuum gap
one designed by Pons and Fleischmann, it has a short settle time. If you can't
get or make one like this, I recommend using an ordinary glass test tube.
 
I would steer away from plastic cells. I am afraid too much of it will dissolve
and pollute the electrolyte. I don't like metal or other opaque materials,
because you can't watch the reaction or record it on video. A person with an
educated eye can learn a terrific amount just by watching!
 
 
Tom adds:
 
     "Now the question is 'how does this [time constant] compare to a
     bubbling and roiling CNF cell.'  There is not a very precise relation."
 
Of course it is a precise relation! The events are short, the settle time is
long, so everything happens in slow motion, you can't tell a short burst from
a long one, and it is a pain in the butt to use (as I said). I don't see what
is imprecise about it, it just isn't the right tool for the job. Ni + light
water cells made out of fully silvered Dewars are okay because the heat is
much steadier than with Pd. But they are still a nuisance. The closest thing
to a full Dewar that I have ever used was a plastic lunchbox drink holder:
Rainbow Brite motif, about 400 ml capacity. Much too slow!
 
     "Furthermore, there appear to be a lot of special cases to be
     investigated."
 
Who cares about special cases? Stick to the main event: look for a big, fat,
obvious, long, steady heat burst, 100 times above the noise. Don't waste your
time worrying about marginalia. Life is too short.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Jed Rothwell /  A brave attempt
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A brave attempt
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 20:04:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue made a brave attempt at making sense. He tried his best, but alas,
because he has never read the literature or performed an experiment, most of
what
he wrote is misinformed, factually wrong, or just plain garbage. People who
refuse to do their homework never pass the test, no matter how smart they are.
Here is some of what he said:
 
     "One essential feature of the P&F calorimeters is there dependence on
     the heat flow to the surrounding bath as the key parameter that
     determines the temperature and thus the rate of heat production.
 
This is true of *all* calorimeters, not just P&F's.
 
     "They appear to make a design choice that favors a very strong
     temperature dependence (fourth power of absolute temperature) in the
     calorimeter constant.  That being the case, my assertion is that the P&F
     calorimeter cannot correctly respond to a heat source that fluctuates on
     a time scale short compared to the settling time...
 
B.S. What on earth does "correctly respond to" mean in this context? Do you
think a short pulse does not show up at all, or do you suppose it lowers the
temperature? Any pulse, in any waveform, that has enough integrated energy to
exceed the noise level will show up as a jump above the calibrated point. If
you understand the instrument, and you have modeled it and calibrated it, you
can determine exactly how much energy this "jump" represents. I will grant
that long, steady pulses that exceed the settle time are more convenient to
measure, but any pulse will show up "correctly."
 
 
     "I may be confusing terminology here.  Where I said calorimeter constant
     I mean the factor that connects heat flow to the bath and the
     temperature.  I prefer to call that thermal resistance...
 
I may be confusing terminology too. I am not Mr. Careful about terminology,
arithmetic or spelling. Hmmm... I think that most people use the term
'calorimeter constant' to refer to the number of watts per degree C.
 
 
     "Surely one feature that has been mentioned in many CF experiments is
     that the heat often appears in bursts."
 
That is correct. Some of them last for a few minutes, but they are not the
important, conclusive ones. "Bursts" that lasts for several hours or weeks are
much more conclusive evidence of a reaction that exceeds the limits of
chemistry. Naturally, these "bursts" exceed the settle time. An event that
lasts 10 minutes, or 10 hours is not most people think of as a "burst."
Perhaps "steady state CF heat events" would be a better term, although they do
ebb and flow, like the heat from a burning log. The heat ebbs, but it never
gets anywhere close to zero, any more than a burning log will instantaneously
grow cold to the touch one moment, and go back to being red hot the next.
 
As I said, most people do not think of these events as "bursts." Richard Blue
prefers not to think about them at all, because they prove that the effect
goes beyond the limits of chemistry. He prefers to play a silly word game: by
using the term "burst" he tries to fool the reader into thinking the events
last a few seconds each. This only works with people who are too lazy read the
literature. The rest of us know that some "bursts" go on for hours or days.
Richard will never admit that!
 
 
     "If the instrument employed to measure those bursts systematically over
     estimates the integrated area in those bursts..."
 
Why should it "over estimate" the integrated area? What instrument are you
referring to? Why "over estimates?" Why not "under estimates?" What are you
talking about, anyway? If the worker is careful, and he has modeled and
calibrated the instrument correctly, he will not over or under estimate
anything.
 
     "...should not that error be considered?"
 
It is an imaginary error. Consider it considered. Wave your hand some more,
make up more imaginary errors, and we will consider them, too.
 
 
     "Consider the fact that the signal always sits on the relatively
     constant power input and may include both positive and negative swings
     about that input power.  Each positive excursion gets overvalued and
     each negative excursion is under valued."
 
Why? Suppose a signal *does* include a negative swing, why wouldn't that show
up with the same accuracy as a positive swing? Calorimeters measure
endothermic events just as well as they measure exothermic events. Do you know
what you are talking about here? Have you ever seen a negative excursion (a
heat deficit indicating energy storage)? I have seen plenty of them: the heat
of formation of palladium deuteride shows up as a negative. There is no
evidence anywhere in the literature of any other negative excursions -- there
is no energy storage after the CF reaction begins. If there was a negative
swing, it would not be undervalued or overvalued, it would show up just like
the heat of formation. You are making up a non-existent problem out of thin
air, with absolutely no justification and nothing in the literature to support
you.
 
 
     "It has the capability of being a virtual heat pump!"
 
Explain how to operate a heat pump in a homogeneous, closed environment.
Demonstrate, please, how we can put a "virtual" window unit airconditioner in
the middle of a room (not sticking out the window, not connected to the water
supply), turn it on, and cool the room down. This is a 10 point bonus essay
question for those who have not done their homework.
 
 
     "The effect is not covered by calibrations unless they are done with
     waveforms that match the signal."
 
How would you describe the calibration shown in Figure 2 of P&F's paper? 5
points extra. Also, list the types of heat pulses that cannot be simulated
with an electric heater. [Trick question! It's a null set]. Finally, prove
that nobody has ever thought of testing a wide variety of heat pulses during
the last 200 years of calorimetry but Richard Blue.
 
 
     "A calibration in which the measurement is delayed until the temperature
     settles out will not show the effect."
 
Incorrect. Sorry. This is completely wrong. 50 points off. Here, don't take my
word for it, try this experiment:
 
1. Turn on the cell with a joule heater at a constant 1 watt level.
 
2. Wait for the settle time for 1 watt to elapse. (Settle time varies with the
power level, not in linear fashion, but it is longer with higher power
levels).
 
3. Simulate a brief heat surge, far shorter than the "settle time." Turn up
the power to 20 watts for 4 seconds, and then turn it back down to 1 watt.
That creates a 78 joule burst of "simulated excess heat" above the usual 60
joules per minute rate.
 
4. A bump appears in the line. A minute or so after the heat event, the
temperature slowly rises, and then gradually falls back down to the calibrated
point. The 78 joules show up, clear as a bell. You can even measure them. What
you do not see is the fact that they occurred in only 2 seconds. It looks like
they are spread out over several minutes. Actually, they *are* spread out: the
electrons in the metal may have ceased their work in four seconds, but the
water cools down slowly.
 
Note: if the 1 watt settle time has not elapsed yet, a brief heat pulse will
make a complicated little bump. I would not want to try to separate it out
from the asymptotic rising curve. It would be too complicated for me! I do
things the easy way. I suppose an expert in calorimetry could figure it out.
 
As long as the integrated power exceeds the noise level, and you get around to
measuring the transient temperature rise before it falls back to the noise
level, you will catch the burst. No matter how short the burst, it will
definitely show a bump up. With a 20 minute settle time for 1 watt and no
stirring, my gut feeling is that the 78 joule burst would be smeared out over
two or three minutes, peaking about a minute after the event. That is my gut
feeling, but I would not want to commit to that without actually running an
experiment. However, I can state with absolute certainty that bursts far
shorter than the 1 watt settle time show up loud and clear.
 
 
Well, gentle readers... again and again we see this pattern: Richard makes up
imaginary problems like this "under estimate," then he waves his hand
abracadabra, and the next thing you know he has convinced himself the problem
exists. He is like the proverbial German professor of Philosophy, who makes up
a long complex sounding word, and becomes convinced that the thing it refers
to must exist, because words must have referents.
 
Making up a lot of bunk about "under estimates" and cobbling together
hilarious misinformation about calorimetry does not make these things into
facts, Richard. If you want to stop making these ludicrous mistakes, and stop
making a fool of yourself, first read the literature, then perform a few
elementary experiments. I promise you will learn that calorimetry works just
the way it always has worked, and just the way I have described it here.
 
I have to get back to my work. If anyone out there happens to knows a lot
about St. Augustine, please contact me.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  camerond@cc4.c /  RE: Those who forget history...
     
Originally-From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Those who forget history...
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 19:05:03 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

In a previous article, 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Joshua Levy writes:
>
>     "Jed, don't you see the inconsistency here?  Libel laws have not been
>     suspended. All this nasty stuff about P&F gets published, and no one
>     gets sued (and in America, where you can get sued for _anything_).  Why
>     do you think that is? Nature, Scientific American, the APS et al. have
>     little control  over the legal system.  If "obvious lies" have been
>     published you can bet that there would be published retractions, at the
>     very minimum."
>
>I don't know what Joshua's problem is. Perhaps he is too young to remember the
>McCarthy era and the Dark Ages of the civil rights struggle. Perhaps he has
>never read a history book. In any case, let me explain the facts of life.
>
>When a person, or group of people, are widely unpopular, they are considered
>"fair game" by the establishment. Newspapers, radio commentators, and others
>will say anything they want about an unpopular person and get away with it. A
>Congressmen can stand up, wave a piece of paper, lie through his teeth, and
>destroy a person's life by saying "he is a communist." Because the attacks are
>so wide-ranging, so vicious, and so utterly false, it is impossible for the
>victim or victims to defend themselves. You can sue one two publications or
>columnists, but you can't sue hundreds of them.
 
        [historical discussion deleted]
>
>- Jed
>
 
It is my layman's understanding that libel laws in the United States
are somewhat different from those in the U.K. and Canada.  In the U.S.
it is not sufficient to show that someone has published something that
is incorrect and injurious to another person, it has to be shown that
it was done deliberately and with malicious intent.  The latter
requirement is not necessary elsewhere.
 
I suspect that it would be very difficult to prove libel in the U.S.
courts concerning things that might be said surrounding a heated
scientific controversy such as cold fusion.
 
Don Cameron
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencamerond cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / mitchell swartz /  On Blue's "What McKubre really meant"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Blue's "What McKubre really meant"
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 19:45:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <93092315375059@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: What McKubre really meant
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=db "Mitchell Swartz has finally come up with a clarification of what McKubre
=db has done and/or said about analysis for 4He.  Steve Jones, I assume, did
=db quote correctly from McKubre's written words saying that he did search
=db for 4He in the gas at a sensitivity level of parts per million.  Now, if
=db Mitchell Swartz is correctly representing McKubre's position,  that
=db earlier statement was incorrect.  I am still very puzzled, however by
=db McKubre's apparent failure to make a clear distinction between never
=db having made a measurement and learning after the fact that a given
=db measurement was probably not valid."
 
  Your puzzlement stems from a failure to distinguish "sensitivity"
    and "discrimination."  A good scientist should have no trouble with
    this, right?
 
  The words, themselves,  have definitions which clearly explain both
                         1) your confusion, and
                         2) Jones' misstatement.
 
  --- after Webster [ibid] --------------------------------------------
    i)     discriminate [Latin  discriminatus   "distinction"]
       1. mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features
       2. to distinguish by exposing differences
 
   ii)   sensitivity  -  capable of indicating minute quantities
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   QED
 
   What is less clear is why this is continuing to be distorted.
    [i.e. Do you make a living in hot fusion? or are you receiving
          US gov't funds?  Is this a barometer of the NSCL?]
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / mitchell swartz /  Cartoons for the (skeptics') Defense
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cartoons for the (skeptics') Defense
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 19:46:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <01H3BZEGKYC29PPK2H@vms2.uni-c.dk>
  Subject: RE: Cartoons for the Defense
Dieter Britz [BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk] writes:
 
=db Stromoski;                                     Omni Oct. 1993, p.126.
=db Cartoon: Two scientists at the benchare startled by a fairy-like figure with
=db tutu and sparkles floating in the air behind them, assuring them: "Do not be
=db afraid . . . I am the cold fusion fairy."
 
  ==   "Let me understand this.  You don't count international congress papers
  ==   on the subject, but do include in this purported "official"
  ==   professional compendium descriptions of cartoons at the same level?"
 
 
=db "This cartoon was not in Nature or Science,
=db but in a humour magazine, so don't get all huffy."
=db PS: Mitch,I notice that when you"quote" somebody's posting, you change it in
=db places; vide the above "benchare",which Iwrote as "bench are"; you have done
=db this to others' as well, and it makes one suspect that you might make other
=db changes to make your point. Why not do like everyone else, and use the net
=db convention, putting ">" before every line, otherwise leaving the line as it
=db was?"
 
 1. Dieter - I occasionally (recently) cross off an empty space so that there
   are still 80 characters on the line. My hope is that the intelligent human
   mind can discern this.  Perhaps that is wrong.  If you are publically
   accusing me of fraud as you claim, why dont you put your pencil where
   your mouth is and find a substantial example other than the elimination
   of an empty space " ".  Also, that is better than the elimination
   of entire conference proceedings, eh?
 
 2.  As to your preference to ">", Dieter, I like =db since it
      (with an uncertainty to perhaps dale bass) identifies who was speaking.
 
 3.   Any comment upon:
       "Let me understand this.  You don't count international congress papers
        on the subject, but do include in this purported "official"
        professional compendium descriptions of cartoons at the same level?"
 
  The issue is not that you catalogue Omni vs. Hustler cartoons, but that
     you ignore published important papers in this field.  Given the occasional
     further discussions to further limit the availability of information on
     this subject ...... seems important.
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Using a Balance
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using a Balance
Date: 24 Sep 93 15:04:00 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

Hi all, just some thoughts,
 
As far as the analytical balance goes, everyone is missing the obvious
solution to finding an analytical balance with the appropriate accuracy
AND capacity.
 
Get a *large* well calibrated balance, numerous graduated
mass (common vernacular is "weight") sets, and your choic e of accuracy
analytical balance.
 
Now, place your entire calorimeter set-up with power supply one end of
the balance.  Then weigh each of the individual masses before you place
it on the other end until it is balanced.  RECORD your values as you go.
You may also want to use gloves to prevent oils, acids, tissue, etc.
from rubbing off of your hands and onto the masses.
 
Finally run your experiment.  When you need a new measurement just
balance the scale (measure the masses as you take them off too).
 
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!
 
    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjbatka cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Fourth Power Of Absolute Temperature
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fourth Power Of Absolute Temperature
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 22:31:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says about the P&F calorimeter:  "They appear to make a design
choice that favors a very strong temperature dependence (fourth power of
absolute temperature) in the calorimeter constant."
 
>From the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Physics, I get:
 
          RT = 5.670*10E-12*T^4  watts per square cm. (T kelvin)
 
for energy radiation from a black body.  P&F use a dewar so that the only heat
loss is from radiation.  They also silver the top of the dewar so that the
effective area of the radiator does not change as the cell water level changes
due to electrolysis.  When a cell at temperature T+t is placed in a bath of
temperature T then there is an exchange of heat between the cell and the bath.
 
The cell loses to the bath:
 
          RTc = 5.670*10E-12*(T+t)^4  watts per square cm. (T kelvin)
 
The bath loses to the cell:
 
          RTb = 5.670*10E-12*T^4  watts per square cm. (T kelvin)
 
Then the net radiation loss from the cell is:
 
          RTc-RTb = 5.670*10E-12*((T+t)^4-T^4)  watts per square cm. (T kelvin)
 
Expanding by the binomial theorem:
 
          RTc-RTb = 5.670*10E-12*(T^4+4*T^3*t+6*T^2*t^2+4*T*t^3+t^4-T^4)
 
We see the T^4 cancel and we are left with:
 
          RTc-RTb = 5.670*10E-12*( 4*T^3*t + 6*T^2*t^2 + 4*T*t^3 + t^4 )
 
While all those big exponents look alarming, the equation is really quite
linear in t in the practical world.  For example, consider a bath temperature
of 300 K and a cell 10 K above it.  Here the second term contributes about 5%
of the first, the third term 0.1% and the fourth term about 0.001%.  I suppose
that this is Newton's law of cooling as quoted by P&F, but I cannot find it
under that label in any of my Physics texts.  Worrying about sensitivity to
the bath temperature, and plugging in numbers again shows this is not a big
concern.  Here we find that a 0.1 K error in bath temperature only causes a
0.1% error.  Likely such a bath can be held to 0.01 K.
 
So Dick, there is a fourth power there, but it is not very important.
 
The general scheme of P&F is OK.  But Dick Blue is also right about those high
powers being possible sources of error.  Just plug in the 600 K or so melting
temperature for Kel-F and see what happens.  But P&F say that errors in
radiation computation would likely understate the "anomalous heat".  This
seems likely to me, and it is hard to think up an error that results in
anomalous heat.  Fearlessly I propose one.  Suppose the cell is calibrated
with a heater, like a light bulb, where a significant amount of energy escapes
the cell without heating it.  This is because the t of the light bulb is much
higher that the t measured by the thermometer in the water in the cell.  This
will understate the calorimeter constant.  Later when an experiment is run
which does not have a hot spot, the water will be hotter and there will appear
to be "anomalous heat".  (Jed will now quote this as a stupid, ridiculous
example - Ha! I beat you to it.)
 
Note also that P&F are very vulnerable to their thermometer reading.  Should
it for some reason read high, then they will think that they have "anomalous
heat".  Suppose over time, that minerals disolved in the water form a gel
layer on the cell surface.  Water is a good insulator, and such a layer would
allow a higher temperature inside the cell than at the radiating surface.
Another way to deceive the thermometer in the P&F cell is for something to
change the radiative properties of the cell.  Long electrolysis for example
might disolve metal which plates out on the cell surface.  I have seen shiny
metal films on some of my cells.  Such a film would raise the calorimeter
constant and would look like "anomalous heat".
 
It is for all these reasons that I have attempted a null balance design that
is not subject to radiation errors caused by errors in measuring temperature
differences.  It may have other problems, but it sure don't have these.  Jed,
I am actually doing a service by running this crazy "microcalorimeter".  For a
strange effect like this it is important to measure it by two or more entirely
different methods for it to be believable.  To bad I do not yet have a
confirmation.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.24 / Carl Ijames /  Re: More on Balance Experiments
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Balance Experiments
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 21:48:46 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

John and Tom,
 
I am not for or against balances as a calorimeter accessory, I just like to
know how things work.  We had a mini-manufacturers show on campus the last
two days, so I asked the Mettler, Sartorius, and O'Haus reps how their
analytical (0.1 mg or better) balances worked.  All work by placing the pan
on one end of a lever arm supported by a fulcrum (didn't ask what the
bearings were).  The other end goes to a pin surrounded by a precision
solenoid (very linear - the force is independent of position of the pin in
the coil).  The pan pushes down, the pin in pushed up, photosensors detect
the location of the pin, and current is sent through the coil to pull the
pin back down the the zero position.  Weight is proportional to the current
difference necessary to maintain the zero position with the pan unloaded
and loaded.  They use the lever instead of the direct mechanism used on
less sensitive scale to isolate the heat from the electronics from the
sample pan and to better thermostat the electronics.  The pan position is
always the same during a measurement since the pin in always maintained at
the zero position.  I asked about strain gauges and one rep answered that
they had maybe 10-50 mg resolution but poorer precision.  Even the 0.1 g
scales they were showing used the magnetic suspension method, so I guess
they only use strain gauges in less sensitive applications.
 
Again, I am not advocating their use, but I think analytical scales have
come a long ways technologically since the triple beam balance.  The
biggest problem I see is evaporation, not the lead connections Tom was
harping on.
 
Regards,
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.25 / John Logajan /  Re: More on Balance Experiments
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Balance Experiments
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 93 04:38:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>OK, John, you have a good start.  Now keep it going for a month and report
>the balance reading.
 
Well, I have a 24 hour report -- I shut the power off over-night as I
decided what to do next, and as of this evening (friday) the scale has
picked up about 100mg of weight.
 
I attribute this to one of two factors:
1.) Spontaneous Neutron Materialization (just kidding Ludvig.)
2.) The spiralled 30 gauge wires mechanically relaxing under the pull of
    gravity.
 
The total weight of the 30 gauge leads was approx 1 gram.  So I suppose the
upper limit of weight gain under #2 above is related to the percent of
slack times the total weight.  I have 35% slack, so I could expect to see
an eventual cumulative weight gain of 350mg.
 
So there does seem to be a trade-off between short wires with greater implied
rigidity and long loose wires with ongoing mechanical relaxation.
 
So Tom wins this round.  But there are 10 more rounds to go :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.25 / John Logajan /  Re: More on Balance Experiments
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Balance Experiments
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 93 12:26:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
I wrote:
>The total weight of the 30 gauge leads was approx 1 gram.
 
Ding.  Round three.
 
I cut a 3/16" (5mm) strip of aluminum foil 12" long (30cm.)  It's weight
was on the order of 50mg.
 
The foil doesn't even get warm with 1 amp current flowing through it, so
it is not too small in that regard.
 
A length of 4" (10cm) held vertically is not able to sustain its own
weight, so lengths longer than this should minimize transfer of rigidity.
 
I have no estimate yet of the magnitude of the "rigidity" changes due to
temperature or other factors.  I believe from the observation above, however,
that they will be less than the weight of the foil.
 
But I have managed to shrink the "mechanical relaxation" problem to below
the resolution of my scale.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.25 / John Logajan /  Lithium Carbonate
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lithium Carbonate
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 93 17:01:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

The Mills experiments use Potassium Carbonate (K2CO3) in H2O as the
electrolyte.  But P+F cells are often used with LiOD in D2O.  Wouldn't
Lithium Carbonate work as an electrolyte too (LiCO3 -- in H2O or D2O)?
 
I seem to recall that Tom Droege makes his own LiOD by putting Li metal
into D2O.  Whereas you can buy LiCO3 from chemical supply houses.  Note
that there is no H in the LiCO3 and so you could mix it with D2O without
introducing H as you would if you used commercial LiOH.
 
Mills cells seem to run extrodinarily cleanly in the sense that you never
see the slightest bit of corrosion or discoloration of the electrolyte.
(The cathode changes color depending upon conditions.)  Perhaps platinate
wouldn't form so readily in LiCO3/D2O?
 
I remember reading that CO can be an electrode poison, but I don't know if
that would occur, or if it would be good or bad.
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.25 / A Boulanger /  Re: Reply to Greg Kupergerg
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Greg Kupergerg
Date: 25 Sep 93 14:38:07
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <930924113204.20602734@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
   I would not recommend that someone who wanted a safe and sure
   carreer path take up this work.  On the other hand, someone who wants a safe
   and sure carreer path should go to manager school at McDonands.  They do not
   belong in scientific research.
 
 
 
Actually there are successful scientific research folk who do dig the
save and secure vein. This however is pretty boring to me.
 
Scientists do come in different colors although one must be brutally
honest in doing the scientific method. This honesty is the key weather
you take the high road or the low.
 
 
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.25 / John Logajan /  Evaporation rates
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evaporation rates
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 93 21:56:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Just to check the evaporation rate as it effects weight measurements,
I put about 100g of H2O in a beaker.  The exposed surface area of the
H2O was (3" diameter) 50cm^2 and the initial temperature was 47C (to
help dry the outer surfaces quickly.)
 
The ambient air temp was about 26C -- humidity unknown, but not
excessively high or low.
 
Over the course of 17 minutes, I lost 1 gram of H2O to evaporation.
This rate should slow down as the water reaches room temperature.
 
Clearly evaporation is *THE* error signal to worry about most in an
experiment that tries to estimate disociation energy using changes in
weight.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Cartoons for the Defense
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cartoons for the Defense
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 00:24:03 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
{Mitchell's complaint about the a cartoon being mentioned in Dieter's
CNF Bibliography} deleted.
 
Dieter,
   I agree with Mitch on this one.  If a cartoon makes it's place in
the CNF Bib, why shouldn't conference proceedings?  I know you don't
have a double standard, but that aprearance is certainly there in this
case.
 
Have Fun.
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Masochism
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Masochism
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 01:49:48 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
 
>In article <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Jonathon Jones, who is working with Prof. Hansen and myself on
>>xs heat experiments here,...
 
>Steve, here is something that I just don't understand.  It's well
>established that the XS Heat people are a bunch of cranks who have
>forgotten how to do science, if they ever knew.  Some of them have both
>the scientific and ethical judgement of severe alcoholics.
 
I represent that fact :-) Just kidding. Brapp!  The problem is XS-Heater's
are on a high from the P&F paper. I think they should be, It's a pretty
good paper. I think it demonstrates without a doubt the heat generated
in cell is above IV at points.  It's worth a good reading before you
call us a bunch of 'cranks'.  All I can say is "We are not worthy,
we are not worthy..."
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
Ps. to Jonathon Jones.  Dig in there.  There are so many suprises in
hydrateded metals, a person could make a carrier out of it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Chuck Sites /  Re: What McKubre really meant
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre really meant
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 02:15:24 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>measurement was probably not valid.  There is still the measurements
>made by Rockwell on the molten cathodes that did show no 4He isn't
>there?
 
Are you refering to the paper by Liaw, Tao, Turner and Liebert? They
report seeing He4 "ash" in the metalic electrolysis of LiD dissolved in
KCl-LiCl melt with Pd electrodes.  I don't think they have retracted
that finding Dick.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Marshall Dudley /  re: jupitor and sources of lithium
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: jupitor and sources of lithium
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 93 03:21:14 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In message <27tle6$pju@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu
(Bruce Scott) writes:
 
> Which news items? This view that Jupiter is nearly pure hydrogen has
> not been tenable for a very long time. The prevailing view until the
> 1970s was that it must be of solar composition (which is about 23 per
> cent helium by mass -- I might be wrong in the second digit), having
> been formed by gravitational contraction of a gas lump in the
> primordial solar nebula. Numerical models assuming a solar composition
> were constructed, and it was found that Jupiter is too small in radius
> for its mass, which was known very accurately. Depending on the
> models, between 15 and 30 extra earth masses worth of rock and ice
> (uncertainty in compsition) would be needed to get the radius down to
> its actual value.
 
Actually there were several items left in this newsgroup which spoke of the
"metallic hydrogen core" of Jupitor.  Unfortunately they have scrolled off
my system now, so I cannot reference them. You have confirmed what I would have
though to be the case for Jupitor.
 
Thanks for your reply.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Johnson William /  Re: Evaporation rates
     
Originally-From: johnsonw@brahms.udel.edu (Johnson William)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evaporation rates
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 14:59:22 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1993Sep25.215609.18758@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Just to check the evaporation rate as it effects weight measurements,
>I put about 100g of H2O in a beaker.  The exposed surface area of the
>H2O was (3" diameter) 50cm^2 and the initial temperature was 47C (to
>help dry the outer surfaces quickly.)
>
>The ambient air temp was about 26C -- humidity unknown, but not
>excessively high or low.
>
>Over the course of 17 minutes, I lost 1 gram of H2O to evaporation.
>This rate should slow down as the water reaches room temperature.
>
>Clearly evaporation is *THE* error signal to worry about most in an
>experiment that tries to estimate disociation energy using changes in
>weight.
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
The standard demonstration of the Cahn microbalance (the one with
microgram resolution) is to put a beaker of water on the pan and record
the weight loss due to evaporation in real time.  So yes, evaporation will
certainly be one major error to account for.
 
Will
johnsonw@brahms.udel.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohnsonw cudfnJohnson cudlnWilliam cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Bruce Scott /  Re: jupitor and sources of lithium
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: jupitor and sources of lithium
Date: 26 Sep 1993 17:22:29 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

 
Marshall cites people mentioning a "metallic hydrogen core" for
Jupiter. In a loose sense there is no discrepancy with what is known
or surmised. It is just that the words are not being carefully chosen.
As I mentioned, it is unknown whether the extra 15-30 earth masses of
rock/ice are collected in a lump at the center or somewhat mixed. But
in any of these cases the "metallic hydrogen" would not be near the
center, although it would still be in the deep interior [see Hubbard,
_Planetary Interiors_ or Lewis and Prinn, _Planets and their
Atmospheres_, cited in an earlier post]. The met-H would not have to
be pure to retain its conductive properties, as far as I know.
 
Think of it as a "lower mantle" rather than as a "core", if you are
familiar with models of the Earth's interior.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 / Jed Rothwell /  Idle, useless speculation
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Idle, useless speculation
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 19:42:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege writes:
 
     "P&F say that errors in radiation computation would likely understate the
     "anomalous heat".  This seems likely to me, and it is hard to think up an
     error that results in anomalous heat.  Fearlessly I propose one.  Suppose
     the cell is calibrated with a heater, like a light bulb, where a
     significant amount of energy escapes the cell without heating it.  This is
     because the t of the light bulb is much higher that the t measured by the
     thermometer in the water in the cell.  This will understate the
     calorimeter constant. . ."
 
This is a prime example of the "Yes, But, Maybe!" syndrome at work. This is
idle, useless speculation, is it a make believe "what if" game that serves no
purpose. Why? Because we know for a fact that neither P&F nor any other worker
uses a lightbulb to calibrate their cells.
 
Second, this is technically inaccurate. Incandescent lightbulbs convert 99% of
the input energy into heat. Unfortunately, they are that inefficient.
Furthermore, if you use a fully silvered Dewar, and no light gets out, I suppose
the remaining 1% would also end up as heat after bouncing around for a while.
There: a useless 1% speculation on my part.
 
 
     "Note also that P&F are very vulnerable to their thermometer reading.
     Should it for some reason read high, then they will think that they have
     "anomalous heat".  Suppose over time, that minerals dissolved in the water
     form a gel layer on the cell surface...
 
More bogus speculation! And again, this is technically incorrect. They use on-
the-fly recalibration and other techniques that would catch errors like this.
That is: they would see that the joule heater pulse was driving the temperature
higher than it should. This kind of error is dead simple to catch. You can see
from the paper that they have taken every normal, elementary precaution to avoid
this kind of thing, so why bring it up?
 
Furthermore, in order for this "gel" to have any significant, measurable effect,
the gel would have to be fairly thick. My guess is that it would have to be
thick enough to see, but even if it wasn't, it would certainly be detected in
a post-experiment examination of the equipment. In four years of work -- and 200
years of calorimetry -- somebody will have checked for that by now.
 
Idle speculation is fun, but it does not contribute anything to a serious
scientific debate. The issue here is very simple: how do you fool a static
calorimeter into registering 3 or 4 times more heat energy than there really is?
How do you make 35 watts look like 180 watts? Proposing non-existent gels and
pretending that you can fool water by changing the "wave form" will not cut the
mustard. The former problem will cause at worst an error of a few percent, and
the latter will cause a 0% error because it cannot happen; it violates
elementary physics, like Morrison's 0.0044 mole hydrogen miracle. Why do the
"skeptics" keep dragging in this marginalia and these miraculous hydrogen
candles? This is not supposed to be a discussion of Old Testament miracles, it
is supposed to be based on the known laws of physics and chemistry. If you are
going to propose objections to the experiments of P&F, McKubre, or others, why
not at least try to make them tenable by sticking to the know facts about the
work. Why invent fairy tales about people calibrating with light bulbs? What
purpose does it serve?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Subject: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 02:57:36 GMT
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 05:54:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 05:54:02 GMT
 
[Warning:  Contains long responses to issues which you may not
consider worth the time.  (Terry please read, however.)]
 
In article <1993Sep22.171254.27160@asl.dl.nec.com> , terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
 
[Introductory material deleted.]
> Perhaps it will indeed prove to be a minor issue to
>say that we are really shooting for lithium-deuterium burners, rather
than
>pure natural-hydrogeni-isotope burners.  (See below, though.)
>
This is the point I've been trying to make.  I'm glad you're willing to
consider
that I may actually have a point.
>
>Is lithium a good place to dump neutrons?  You bet!  Wide cross-section,
>and the net tritium produced is _comparatively_ easy to control.
>
Someone on sci.energy.hydrogen was wondering what the stopping
distance of a 14 MeV D-T fusion neutron (stopping in Li) would be.
I'm not that familiar with this sort of calculation.  Any references?
How could I figure this one out?  I'm assuming that you basically
calculate the mean free path from the cross section and density
(values which unfortunately I don't have immediately at hand.)  But
there's obviously got to be another factor related to the amount of
energy which is lost per collison.  Or do neutrons just ram into Li
and stick there?
 
>Still, though, I'd say that it's going to be nearly impossible to capture
>_all_ of the neutrons in lithium.  At the the very least you must have
>some internal control mechanisms to support the fusion reaction.
Intertial
>fusion would probably be the cleanest possible from this perspective,
since
>you could more-or-less enclose nearly all of the explosion region in a
layer
>of (probably flowing liquid) lithium.
>
>I would guess that the level of non-lithium irradiation in a magnetic
type
>containment would be much, _much_ worse.  It's hard to picture the entire
>interior (or _any_ of the interior, for that matter) of such a device
>being made of volatile lithium!  I would assume that the interior would
>instead need to be made of something like halfnium with a very low cross-
>section, surrounded as closely as possible by lithium.  Not to mention
>a lot of, er, _difficult_ coil circuitry tha may be unavoidably exposed
>to irradiation and probably quite impossible to build out of something
like
>hafnium.  _Messy_ design problem, that, quite apart from break-even
issues.
>
It's not going to be simple, but I the literature I've read seems to
indicate
that it's possible.  You can minimize the waste disposal problem by using
materials which tend not to absorb neutrons, certainly, but it's also
important to get materials which, when activated, have short decay times.
Conn, et al, (paper I cited in Needed:  Honesty (in everything) earlier,
but which I don't have here just now) discussed a study (ARIES) where they
looked at silicon carbide as a structural material.  Within a day of
turning
off a plant, the stuff would be less radioactive that natural uranium ore.
So that would be a plus.  The magnets will be trickier, but (a) I think
they can be shielded to some extent, and (b) development of lots of
types of high-Tc superconductors may make it possible to choose
low-activation materials here, too.  I think the lithium shielding would
have to be some kind of Li compound, rather than pure Li.  So then you
have the compounding materials also being exposed.  Yes, it's not simple.
But it's not impossible either.  The studies I've seen indicate that the
amount of radioactive waste produced from reactors using low-activation
materials will be substantial, but that the waste will not be highly
radioactive for long, and consequently that the waste disposal problem
will be minimal.  And the volume of waste which I am calling
"substantial" is still orders of magnitude below that produced by a
comparable fission plant, not that I think there's even a comparison.
>
>I appreciate the part about lithium being part of seawater -- at about
>13 micrograms per liter by your figures, was it not? -- although I
suspect
>this would prove not to be directly relevent to an economically feasible
>HF plant.  Given that no one currently uses seawater (?) to produce
lithium
>for existing applications such as batteries, I strongly suspect that
>economics would dictate use of lithium from more conventional sources
earth
>mined resources.  Also, I would imagine that the technologies for pulling
>lithium and deuterium out of seawater are very different indeed, so there
>would be no obvious economic advantage in trying to use to use seawater
>for both when cheaper lithium is available from conventional earth mining
>resources.  (Actually, I suspect they use freshwater for deuterium mining
>anyway.  Why use corrosive salt water when the deuterium is in both
types?)
>
I agree that there may be easier ways to get Li than from seawater.  But
you
had originally claimed that there wasn't much Li around, and I was trying
to clear that up.  Knowing that you can get Li from seawater is also a
plus
if you are concerned about having to mine Li (which has perhaps more of
an environmental impact than processing seawater) and also if you are
worried about the long-term potential of the energy source.
>
>> If we take the conservative value of e = 1/4, then we have:
>
>Whoa.  Whoa, I say.
>
>You just leaped right over the main point of my question, which was (to
>use your terminology from above) how big _e_ would have to get before the
>powers that be would declare a plant "cost effective" and begin consuming
>lithium and deuterium.
>
>You have described e = 0.25 as "conservative," but given the enormous
>technical difficulties to date of reaching e = 0, what does
"conservative"
>mean in this context?  The HF industry has struggled for decades just to
>approach e = 0, and still is not there.  Can you honestly say that there
>will be _no_ further unexpected barriers after e = 0 -- barriers such as
>the discovery of unexpected turbulence domains over the past couple of
>decades that have made an utter mockery of the honest but ultimately very
>optimistic predictions of 20 years ago?
>
I think you were misunderstanding my notation here.  You had asked,
>>_how much_ lithium will be needed to produce
>>one kilowatt-hour of electricity in a _plausible_ HF plant?
 
I was interpreting "plausible" to mean "economically viable" as opposed
to "current scientific state of the art".  I'll concede that current
machines
will not make good HF plants!  I've just been saying that if/when we
have workable hot fusion, then the lithium consumption won't be an issue.
The factor e which I set to 1/4 was the *conversion efficiency* of the
fusion power (produced in the reactor) to the output power (electricity
that goes to the power grid for mass consumption).  And here a factor
of 1/4 *is* conservative, since modern turbines run at 1/3 to 1/2.
 
I think you interpreted my e as the ratio of *power needed to Run
the reactor* (magnets, etc.) to *power Produced by fusion in the
reactor* (22.4 MeV per fusion event).  Here I had applied
"plausible" and decided that a utility company probably wouldn't
want a power plant where a large fraction of the power produced
had to go back into running the machine (or at least that such a plant
wouldn't produce power cheaply enough to be competitive).  With
this assumption I set the energy in/energy out ratio to be about 10/e.
 
The formula I derived before was this:
 
>>The mass of Li that is needed (per second) to run such a plant is
>>therefore
>>
>>M = ( P / 1.3 x 10^13 ) = ( 4 * (A + R) / 1.3 x 10^13 ) grams/sec.
>>
The factor of 4 is my 1/e conversion efficiency, the term R is
the power needed to Run the reactor, and the term P is the power
Produced in the reactor.  The term A is then the energy Available
to the general public after all is said and done.  The idea was that
you get A by taking P, converting it from heat energy to electrical
energy with an efficiency e, and then subtracting off R, which is
whatever you need to run the plant.  The 1/1.3x10^13 then converts
you to grams of lithium.
 
To continue:
>Your answer is helpful, as it shows that lithium is _in principle_ an
>enormously energetic nuclear power source.  But I'd really like to have
>a better idea of what happens in the (to me at least) more likely initial
>region of e values that are just _barely_ above zero.  Leaping to 0.25
>shows the potential, but I strongly suspect we're not going to be there
>for a long, _long_ time.
 
Ok, now you're complaining about the power output of fusion reactors.
Obviously we're still running a negative energy balance, but you have
to consider that in the past 20 years the hot fusion machines have gone
from mere watts of power output up to megawatts.  JET in Britain
reported a couple megawatts in early 1992.  TFTR is expected to
produce tens of megawatts early next year.  So while the hot fusion
effort still has a way to go, it's at least making progress.
 
>Here's one possible way to help quantify such issues using existing data:
>Can lithium efficiency curves be calculated using _past_ data, and then
>extrapolated into the near future?
>
>I would guess rather firmly that the result of such a projective
estimation
>from past data would show that far from being conservative, the 0.25
figure
>is in fact very, very optimistic and not necessarily tentable for net
energy
>production HF systems of the next century.
>
If we extrapolate an energy production gain of 3 orders of magnitude
every 10 years, we get 1000 megawatts of power in 2005 or so :)
If we also extrapolate confinement increases of 1 order of magnitude
every 10 years, then you can have a working, economical reactor design
with the parameters I used in my analysis within 20 years.  It will
probably take another 10 years to build a few and get the bugs out, but
it's not inconceivable that fusion will be here in 30 years.
So depending on what you consider the near future, I think you need to
concede that fusion is not without prospects.
 
Sorry for being so long-winded; wish I could write more briefly, but
I'm afraid then I'd be completely misunderstood.  As it is now, I'm
only about half-misunderstood... :)
 
Robert F. Heeter
("Hot Fusion Fact Patrol")
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics, Princeton.
Standard and universal disclaimers apply.
 
Any information on any kind of fusion would be greatly appreciated!
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 03:07:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Sep24.165536.26144@asl.dl.nec.com> , terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
>In article <Fairfax.7.2CA30593@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU>
>Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax) writes:
>>
>> What are "4-quadrant" power supplies and why are they important?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Clear? Helpful? Boring?  Too long?  Too much detail?  Just right?
>> Wrong topic?  I'll never know unless you tell me!  Send e-mail!
>>
I learned a lot.  Keep it up!  Definitely clear, not too boring, good
topic.
It's good to learn about the research machines in hot fusion as well
as those in cold fusion.
 
Terry asks -
>If I may I enquire briefly:
>
>   Do you know happen to know of any papers on the lithium efficiency
issue
>   I have been asking about?
>
>   Or how the irradiation issue and lithium-to-tritium breeding issue
might
>   be handled with the tokamok design?
>
>The latter is particularly fascinating to me because of the difficulties
>it poses.  Sometimes difficult problems have neat or innovative solutions
>that make you think "hey! that's neat!"
>
 
I second this request!  I would love to have some more references to
throw at Terry.  (Just kidding!)  If I'm going to commit myself to a
career in fusion, I want to know that I'm not wasting my time.  There
are plenty of other interesting branches of physics out there.
 
Robert Heeter (Bob)
"Fusion Fact Patrol" - You know something?  Tell me!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Off-the-shelf Dewar not recommended
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Off-the-shelf Dewar not recommended
Date: 27 Sep 1993 03:27:55 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Who cares about special cases? Stick to the main event: look for a big, fat,
: obvious, long, steady heat burst, 100 times above the noise. Don't waste your
: time worrying about marginalia. Life is too short.
 
I believe the question at issue is whether these 'steady' heat 'bursts' are
comprised of truly many very fast spikes (each giving a small excess
contribution) above the "operating bandwidth" of a conduction calorimeter.
 
The problem is that a simple conduction calorimeter does not appear
(according to some people here) to be an accurate integrating device.
 
However, these effects ought to be quantified and experimentally
measured before being accepted or rejected.
 
(Do you understand my old point about calorimetry being tricky
 because it relies on "accounting", adding and subtracting this
 and that to come up with a delta.  Which is why fundamental
 'null' experiments are better, i.e. "yes lots of x-rays" vs
 "nope."  "Yes, powers itself" vs "plugged into wall.")
 
: - Jed
 
As a philosophical note, its wise to remember that if one is
searching a large parameter space for "excess heat" --- as measured
in one particular kind of calorimeter --- without the benefit of
a guiding theory, one may end up optimizing parameters in such
away as to exercise odd pathologies and flaws in a calorimeter
that would ordinarily appear to be quite reasonable.  This can
be hard to diagnose.
 
Thus, to make sure that the effect is actually due to the supposed
reactions, and not an illusion, one needs to have verified, *quantitative*
correlation of results of "working experiments/cathodes" across
substantially different calorimeters of fundamentally different design.
 
Similarly for "non-working" cathodes/setups. I.e. something should
work/not-work no matter how its measured.
 
A search for nuclear products also seems essential.  Evidence so far
has not been strong, so there is little to lose by looking.
 
Interlocking evidence is much stronger than any single experiment.
 
The requirements for proof in this game are indeed strong, because the
claims are large and the implications unsettling and unexplained.
 
cheers
matt
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 03:45:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Sep22.211026.11224@math.ucla.edu> Barry Merriman,
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu writes:
>In article <1993Sep22.165533.24523@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
>((-:;-)) writes:
>> You like the government because the government gives you money to have
fun.
>> Uncle Sam may have been smiling when he handed you the money, but he
was
>> wearing a gun when he took it from me.  "Not unreasonable for a
government"
>> eh?  Thinking like that has resulted in the current mind boggling
national
>> debt.  Thanks alot.  We appreciate your efforts.  If you need more
money,
>> just send one of your government men.
>>
>Would you like a refund of all the money you personally have donated
(thru
>taxes) to funding scientific research ( probably < $1000 ) in return
>for not having access to any developments from that research?
>
 
Wow!  I made an IMHO-type guesstimate on the chances of success
of hot fusion to counter someone else's IMHO-type guesstimate that
hot fusion had little chance of success.  I then suggested that given
my "reasonable" assessment of fusion's chances - though others
certainly differ - the cost of supporting hot fusion is
"not unreasonable for a government" though it's still too high
for a corporation.  And all of a sudden everyone hits the roof and we
end up with a huge thread on libertarian political thinking!
And it only took 5 days, too!  I guess I'd better stick to my facts
and not make off-the-cuff remarks.
 
Just to spark some debate though, I'd like to point out that current
US energy R&D spending, relative to energy's share of GNP, is about
1/4 of 1%.  Energy accounts for about $500 billion (so I'm told, I
can find the source if necessary) and energy R&D (corporate plus
government) is only about $1.2 billion.  This level of R&D (that
is, the ratio of R&D to the total economic value of the industry)
is much lower than in most other industries.  By way of contrast,
the total US economy is about $5 trillion, and the government spends
between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.  Corrections to these figures
are welcome.  My opinion is that *someone* should spend more on
energy R&D - fusion, hot fusion, renewables, whatever - to help
create progress in the field.  Oil isn't forever.
 
Moving through the thread:
 
In article <1993Sep24.152130.24734@asl.dl.nec.com> , terry@asl.dl.nec.com
writes:
 
[Arguments for the value of research into condensed-matter CNF issues
deleted - I support the analysis.]
>
>And my corollary:
>
>   Funding should continue for well-based research into the _possibility_
>   of new modes by which room-temperature condensed matter could modify
>   one or more types of nuclear reaction rates.  Moreover, because of its
>   lower cost-per-experiment, such research should be viewed as
_comparable
>   to or significantly less_ in net risk to high-temperature approaches
>   to modifying nuclear reaction rates.  While plasma-based approaches
were
>   very promising several decades ago before so much excellent research
was
>   done on the area be hot fusion developers, that same work has now
shown
>   through its excellent quantification of the problem area that the
risk of
>   failure of plasma based approaches leading to results of any
commercial
>   consequence is somewhere between high and extremely high.
>
I'm not sure I agree that room-temperature fusion is comparable in risk
to hot fusion, and certainly not less, but I agree it should be funded.  I
disagree with the claim that "the risk of failure of plasma based
approaches leading to results of any commercial consequence is
somewhere between high and extremely high."  While plasma research
has shown that there are problems to be solved, it has also nearly
solved them!  The relevant plasma parameters are getting better
every few years - we've achieved the required temperatures, and all
we need is a factor of 10-100 in confinement.  This sounds like a lot,
but plasma research has gone at 1-2 orders of magnitude per decade
(on average) for the last 40 years.  There's no reason to assume that
progress is just going to stop now, unless one is extremely pessimistic.
 
>   Moreover, just as the cost of upkeep in major government institutions
>   such as the Navy dwarfs the cost of hot fusion research, the cost of
>   _one_ major hot fusion research facility could probably fund a quite
>   huge number of responsible university-based experiments dedicated to
>   looking for new modes by which condensed matter could significantly
and
>   reliably alter one or more nuclear reaction rates.
>
Granted, but let's not fund room-temperature fusion by axing hot fusion.
Good energy research should be funded but not at the expense of other
good energy research.  I don't think that all the money that is currently
being spent on cold (or hot) fusion is necessarily being spent wisely,
but you're not going to know what areas will pan out in advance, so to
some extent you have to take the good with the bad.
>
>Hot fusion is a very, very scientific enterprise, and should be commended
>for its excellent and quantitative collection of data.  Unfortunately, it
>is that very set of quantitative data that appears to make its overall
>chances of success rather low.  Too many difficulties have been uncovered
>and quantified carefully, leaving few possibilities for "outs" into new
>or innovative solutions without drastic alterations of the overall
approach.
>
I don't agree that the success of plasma physics has proven the failure
of hot fusion as an economic energy source.  The magnetic bottle is
still porous, but it's gettting better every year.  No reason to give up
now!
 
Robert Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 04:39:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

83.80
 
Since no one has bothered to correct Jim Bowery's bad mathematics,
here is what I meant when I said that controlled fusion research
is worth it even if it only has a 1 in 50 chance of paying off in the
next 30 years.
 
First, if you borrow a dollar a year for thirty years at 6%
non-inflationary interest and then pay it all back at the end, you
will be paying back
 
1.06 + 1.06^2 + ... + 1.06^30 = 83.80
 
dollars.  Assuming that controlled fusion research costs $500 million a
year, 6% financing would mean that $41.9 billion would be due at the
end of 30 years.  If it only has a 1/50 chance of paying off and
returns are only payable in the event of success, that makes an
expected return of $2 trillion if controlled fusion works.  And in fact
the return might well be that big.  Obviously, no corporation (other
than the US Government, as a Libercorporation (TM)) has the resources
to profitably bet on such a long shot.
 
1 in 50 is a pretty pessimistic estimate.  Good physicists at
Princeton, MIT, Los Alamos, and Livermore are working on controlled
fusion, and these places have a great track record in physics.  On the
other hand, it is also a Big Science project, like the Space Station,
the SSC, and SDI.  As such, it has a second goal, completely
independent of scientific or technological success, namely job
creation.  So perhaps 1 in 50 is too pessimistic and 1 in 10 is a more
sober view, and perhaps it's not too pessimistic.
 
Dale Bass tells us that we can't rationally place bets on anything
so big and complicated.  Perhaps not.  But there is a betting
line for everything.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.26 /  tabitha@vms.hu /  Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
     
Originally-From: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
Date: 26 Sep 93 17:10:08 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

>           Fairfax Fair Fax, Fair Facts, and Fare Facts
>
>       We both forgot that the city and county were originally named for
>       a real family with royal British connections.  Thus I cordially
>       invite you, if you choose and if anyone every actually builds it,
>       to be the proprietor of this remarkable store, which will then be:
>
>           Fairfax Fairfax Fair Fax, Fair Facts, and Fare Facts
>
>       (And if that doesn't ruin me forever with the hot fusion community,
>       I don't know what will.  Trying to sick VP Gore onto hot fusion
>       funding is peanuts compared to making puns on people's names... :) )
>
 
 
Less than a month ago, I picked up an old Spider Robinson SF book about a
saloon on Long Island where people told the most hoorendous puns.  I
never figured out how he made them up.  I memorized several of them,
modernized them slightly, and changed a few facts to make them slightly
more suitable to Israel.  I've received great mileage.
 
Whatever happened to Spider Robinson?  Anybody know?  Why did he
stop writing?
 
-dennis turner
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentabitha cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Alcator Progress: What is a 4-quadrant OH supply?
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 10:50:20 BST

In <1993Sep26.171008.1686@vms.huji.ac.il> tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>Less than a month ago, I picked up an old Spider Robinson SF book about a
>saloon on Long Island where people told the most hoorendous puns.  I
>never figured out how he made them up.  I memorized several of them,
>modernized them slightly, and changed a few facts to make them slightly
>more suitable to Israel.  I've received great mileage.
 Ahh .... another fan of Callahan's ...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Cartoons for the Defense
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Cartoons for the Defense
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 13:29:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1449:
 
> 1. Dieter - I occasionally (recently) cross off an empty space so that there
>   are still 80 characters on the line. My hope is that the intelligent human
>   mind can discern this.  Perhaps that is wrong.  If you are publically
>   accusing me of fraud as you claim, why dont you put your pencil where
>   your mouth is and find a substantial example other than the elimination
>   of an empty space " ".  Also, that is better than the elimination
>   of entire conference proceedings, eh?
 
I detect a hurt tone here - a shame. No need to get your hackles up. And
what's this about accusing you of fraud?
 
> 2.  As to your preference to ">", Dieter, I like =db since it
>      (with an uncertainty to perhaps dale bass) identifies who was speaking.
 
OK, I don't mind =db-type prefixes and, Mitch, I was not accusing you of fraud
(read what I wrote). But one wants to have some confidence that a quote is a
quote, and has not been changed. I do myself sometimes reformat quotes when I
extract a sentence, in order to re-line it up; I hesitate every time but I am
equally guilty, I guess. In any case, I take your word that you only remove
spaces.
 
> 3.   Any comment upon:
>       "Let me understand this.  You don't count international congress papers
>        on the subject, but do include in this purported "official"
>        professional compendium descriptions of cartoons at the same level?"
 
I had in fact written a long explanation of this, but then wiped it all, as I
have explained this before. But now I note that
 
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes in FD 1450:
 
>   I agree with Mitch on this one.  If a cartoon makes it's place in
>the CNF Bib, why shouldn't conference proceedings?  I know you don't
>have a double standard, but that aprearance is certainly there in this
>case.
 
>Have Fun.
 
- so maybe I need to chew this over once more. Note that my bibliography has
several sections, the main one being journal papers (cnf-pap... files). This
is my main concern. Then there is cnf-cmnt, into which goes the odd commentary
or bit of news. You are all, I hope, aware, that Bruce Lewenstein has a far
more extensive one of this sort, so mine is not very significant. The cartoon
seemed to me to belong into this category, in a loose way, and I thought it
was funny (Chuck always says "Have Fun"). As I say, even a hard-bitten TB
could enjoy a joke like this, as it is just a joke. Now, to get as heavy as
some of y'all seem to be: I did not put the cartoon into the cnf-pap... file,
so you see, Mitch, it was not cartoon[s; sic] over physics but a cartoon as an
odd comment. Should I have left it out? I didn't think so, any more than some
of the other comments I come across, some quite harsh, some funny, some
TB'ish.
 
Now to the real issue, whether or not to include conf. procs. in the main
file. Naturally the TB's would like this, because the most positive "papers"
are given at conferences. I got one private email from a non-TB, pointing out,
quite reasonably, that journals and the refereeing process do not always
guarantee a good paper; e.g. the Matsumoto series in FT; so, if Matsumoto, why
not conf. procs?
 
Here are my reasons.
 
I say that if a conference paper is any good, it will later be published as a
proper paper in a journal, so I do not need to take it on. On the other
hand, if such a paper is not so published, it was probably not good enough or
- as I think has happened - the authors have changed their minds and retracted
it quietly. In my own area, most conferences sort of second a good journal or
two, and encourage speakers or poster presenters to submit the full text as a
paper to these journals. They then get the usual referee treatment and get
published if passed, in a Special Issue.
 
Some conferences publish Proceedings, and these are available - often at some
effort - to anyone. But some do not, making do with the preliminary pamphlets
handed out to everybody, or have only a program. My orderly mind can see that
if I did collect conf. procs., I'd have a lot of trouble getting hold of it
all, whereas I can get hold of most published papers quite easily. Of those
830 now in the collection, I have most, right here in my filing cabinet, and I
have read them all with few exceptions. Even here, all is not quite so clear,
and I sometimes wait a long time for the less accessible stuff, and some items
I may never get.
 
You might say that I could have a file named, say, cnf-conf, with procs. I
could indeed, but have chosen not to open that can of worms. I have wasted a
lot of precious research hours compiling the bibliography; fortunately for me,
the flow is now but a trickle, and I can get some real work done. Chasing
conf. procs. would cut into my time too much. However, all is not lost: this
is something I chose to do out of interest; noone is paying me for it, so you
might say it's up to me to set the guide lines. If you are sure that conf.
procs. should be collected, go ahead and collect them. I am sure that if you
do a half decent job of it, the thing would be archived the same as mine. So
please don't complain to me, do it yourself. I would in fact be grateful, as I
could then refer to that data base if and when I write about cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Stephen Cooper /  Re: Beginner
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Beginner
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 09:55:14 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <1993Sep23.172530.22134@den.mmc.com> kenyon@pogo.den.mmc.com
(Warren Edward Kenyon) writes:
 
>Just found this group and am very interested in hot fusion.  I have been
>for years, and feel that it will eventually be the answer to most of our
>energy needs. For years I have planned to celebrate the day we break
>even.  My question is, where are we with respect to break even.
 
>The last think I heard a few or more years ago was that there were three
>criteria for break even.   I think they were Temperature, Confinement,
>and Density.  I also remember that we had reached one of those criteria,
>I think it was temperature.
 
>How close are we to achieving breakeven, and have either of the other
>two criteria been achieved?
 
You'll find that all 3 have been achieved individually, but its the product
that is important N(Density) x Tau(Confinement time) x T(Temperature). These
define the probability of a fusion reaction taking place. Breakeven is when
the number of fusion reactions occuring releases energy equal to that which
was is being used to substain the reaction. So the product of NTauT that is
needed for breakeven is one that gives the necessary probability for the
right number of fusion reactions to occur. The much quoted values for each
of the 3 criteria are the values, which in a tokamak, are most likely to be
achieved in parrallel, to give the necessary product, but although all 3
have been achived, they have not occured yet in parrallel. The best product
so far given a required NTauT of 1 is about 0.5, but again this has to be
qualified that these figures were obtained in a D+D reaction but the NTauT
is calculated for a D+T reaction. That why there is so much interest in the
preliminary Tritium experiment performed here at JET in 1991 and transition
at TFTR to full D+T operation some time next year. Although we all believe
that the D+D results will translate to D+T, you can't prove it to the
politicians who provide the money until you try.
 
 
Stephen R Cooper                        src@jet.uk.
Physics Operations Group, Operations Division, JET.
 
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  "Settle Time"
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Settle Time"
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 16:53:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell again shows his lack of familiarity with the workings of science
when he prefers the use of "Settle Time" to "Time Constant".  As far as I know
"Settle Time" is Jed Rothwell's made up term, and thus has no particular
meaning.  Time constant has a well established meaning for all those that have
solved the first order differential equation which gives rise to it.  This is
almost every serious "hard" scientist.
 
OK Jed, if you must use "settle time", then give us a precise definition.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Evaporation Rates
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evaporation Rates
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 17:33:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan points out that evaporation rates will ruin an experiment run
on a balance.  Of course you always must run a completely sealed system, even
if it is an "open" system like that of P&F.  Any opening to the atmosphere will
allow CO2 to get into the cell and then you have Lithium Carbonate or some
such thing, and this changes the cell operation.  One also has to consider the
weight of the absorbed CO2.  One must run a seale cell with some sort of
"bladder" to hold the evolved gas.  But then P&F have never bothered to tell
us how they seal up their experiments.  Hmmm!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Jed's Gambit
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's Gambit
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 18:41:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It may be impossible to sort this out without more effort than it's
worth, but if you have been following the exchanges between Jed Rothwell
and me you may note that we are are both saying essentially the same
things.  We both AGREE that there is a thermal resistance or calorimeter
constant or heat transfer coefficient that is essential to the operation
of the Pons and Fleischmann type calorimeter.
 
>From this point of agreement I would like to point out two facts that
Jed has not accepted yet.  One is that while it is true that two
simple calorimeters (test tubes full of water) will behave in a predictable
fashion as far as the heat required to warm the water, they may differ
in subtle but significant ways with regard to the heat transfer coeeficient.
Thus it is not likely that given the same heat input to two such cells
that the ultimate equilibrium temperature for the two will be exactly the
same.  Each one of these devices needs its own calibration curve.
 
Secondly these simple devices do not neccessarily provide a temperature
signal that, when integrated over time, is an analog of the actual
power input.  It is obvious, I think, that the temperature does not
track the heat input as a function of time unless the input varies
slowly on the time scale set by the settling time of the calorimeter.
It is a sort of minor miracle that these devices work as well as they
do, but my assertion is that nonlinearity in the temperature dependence
of the heat transfer coefficient lessens the accuracy with which the
temperature signal can be used to deduce the heat input.  I don't
claim that it is a big effect.
 
Tom Droege correctly points out that for a 10 C temperature differential
the nonlinearity for the P&F calorimeters is rather small.  (Thanks, for
that analysis, Tom.)  However, what does the effect become for an 80 C
differential where P&F are pushing their technique to its limits.
However, I think I agree with Tom that there can be more significant
perturbations in the heat transfer from cell to bath and within the
cell, perturbations that can have greater effects than the nonlinearity.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Find out for yourself, Matt
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Find out for yourself, Matt
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 19:03:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Matt Kennel writes:
 
     "I believe the question at issue is whether these 'steady' heat 'bursts'
     are comprised of truly many very fast spikes (each giving a small excess
     contribution) above the "operating bandwidth" of a conduction
     calorimeter. . .
 
     The problem is that a simple conduction calorimeter does not appear
     (according to some people here) to be an accurate integrating device."
 
These people you refer to are incorrect. They are absolutely, positively, 100%
wrong.
 
Look, Matt (and all you others out there), there is nothing more that I can
say or do to prove that I am right. I have performed an experiment, posted
data, cited references to many other experiments. By every reasonable standard
of science I have proved my point. These "some people" you refer to have not
posted a single byte of data, and they cannot point to *any* literature
*anywhere* in the last 200 years of calorimetry to prove what they say.
 
If you can't decide who is right -- them or me -- and you are not willing to
believe the literature, or the observations of distinguished experts like
Bockris, Fleischmann, Kunimatsu and McKubre, then why in Hell don't you
perform an experiment? If you are not sure how calorimeters work, then what is
stopping you from finding out by yourself? Is it so difficult for you to put a
heater into a test tube and run "many very fast spikes" through it? Are you
incapable of finding out anything for yourself? Are you just going to sit here
reading this unabridged, unqualified, stupid nonsense from "some people,"
wondering whether they might be right or not? Why don't you just find out, for
Crying Out Loud!!! What is the matter with you, anyway?
 
"The problem is" that these "skeptics" are afraid to do any experiments
because they know darn well they are wrong, and they know that if they check
out their absurd claims, by running "many fast spikes," they will observe
exactly what I assert: the average temperature over time will go to the same
level as it would with steady input. Naturally, you can't measure spiky
electric power quite as accurately as steady input, so the numbers will not
match up exactly, but they will be as close as instrument error allows. There
is no way you could possibly introduce a 300% error using this method. This is
how calorimeters work, and how they have always worked. Anyone who says I am
wrong should do an experiment and prove it: Put Up or Shut Up! Don't try any
cute tricks like running 5 orders of magnitude too low (a la Steve Jones);
calibrating with a lightbulb (the Droege maneuver); or turning the digital
display upside-down so that "66" reads "99." Use due diligence, not the
Keystone Kops School of Experimental Technique. Go ahead and disprove the last
200 years of chemistry and physics, you will win a Nobel Prize.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  What MItchell Swartz wants to know
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What MItchell Swartz wants to know
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 19:03:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Somehow Mitchell can't deal with the issues raised against cold fusion
except to assign dark motives to anyone who is skeptical about the
evidence in support of nuclear reactions by chemical means.  Just to
clear the air, I will say just a bit about where I am coming from.
I have made no effort to hide anything.    I am by training an
experimental nuclear physicist, and I am skilled and experienced in the
arcane art of detecting ionizing radiation and/or neutrons.  I also think
I know enough basic physics to know that all the claims for lattices or
condensed-matter effecting the nuclear physics are on shakey ground.
On that basis my thinking, and I have so stated, is that calorimetry
alone without solid evidence for the "nuclear ash" can never be adequate
to prove the existance of cold fusion.  All the schemes proposed for
hiding the evidence for a nuclear process have been very much ad hoc
and after the fact attempts to deny the clear implications of valid
experimental data.   So that explains my position and my motives.
 
Now, in case you can't accept that at face value, Mitchell, I will
give you an excuse to discount all I say on the grounds that I am
an evil tool of the "Big Science" establishment.  I am employed
(for the time being) at a nuclear physics research facility called
the National Superconducting Cyclotron Lab.  It is funded entirely
by the National Science Foundation.
 
I don't not speak for NSCL or the NSF.  Opinions expressed on the
issue of cold fusion are entirely my own.  I know of no way in which
I will benefit directly by expressing these opinions as I have been
doing.  Oops,  pardon the double negative.  I do not speak for the
folks that pay my salary!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 /  blue@dancer.ns /  The main event?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The main event?
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 19:41:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Quoting Jed Rothwell:
 
<< Who cares about special cases.  Stick to the main event:  look for >>
<< a big, fat, obvious, long, steady heat burst, 100 times above the  >>
<< noise.  Don't waste your time worrying about marginalia."          >>
 
Ya sure, that is the kind of thinking that keeps true believers going.
There is a problem with this approach, however.  It does not lead to
a determination of what is actually going on!  There may be a big, fat,
obvious effect of some sort, but to figure out what that effect really is
requires some careful attention to details.  I think we have seen enough
data to make a case for saying that the PdD system can release significant
ammounts of energy in "bursts".  The other side of the coin is that it
can also take up and store energy.  The calorimeteric proof of cold fusion
has always been based to the argument that there is too much excess heat,
but that applies to the long term integral not just the bursts.  Jed, you
can observe all the bursts you like, but you still have to do the integration
to determine the net excess heat.  That is the main event as far as calorimetry
is concerned.  The actually calorimetry is the arcade where the rubes get
ripped off, if they are not careful.  The main event is determination of
the reaction process.  Why doesn't cold fusion research move into the
big tent?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / John Logajan /  Water balloons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water balloons
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 18:43:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Balloons are terrible for holding in water vapor!  I was surprised at the
result, but it's true.  Water in an open container with 50cm^2 surface
area evaporates at a rate of about 0.28 grams per hour at approx @ 25C.
A toy balloon of about 15cm diameter (6") with about 100mg of water (maybe
5 percent of the volume) evaporates water through it's skin at about
0.13 grams per hour!  About half the rate of the open water container.
 
"Ziplock" (Glad-Lock really) sandwich bags did much better.  I believe
they are made of polyethelyene.  When I heat a ziplock bag with about
100g water in it in a microwave oven to tepid, the volume of the bag
expands due to the higher vapor pressure of the water at that temperature.
This of course displaces the outside atmosphere and results in, as expected,
a slight decrease in the weight of the closed bag/water/vapor system -- of
about 200 mg.  Upon cooling the vapor re-condenses out and the volume
reduces which reduces the displacement of the atmosphere, and the weight
resumes its "cool" value -- it gains back the 200 mg.
 
So if one wants to keep track of disociation by means of weighing, one has
to account for the vapor content of the expansion area, since it can
cause sizeable variations depending upon temperature.  I believe this could
be "calibrated" under various conditions and volumes.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 17:57:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Sep27.034511.8775@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov> wrote:
>
>Wow!  I made an IMHO-type guesstimate on the chances of success
>of hot fusion to counter someone else's IMHO-type guesstimate that
>hot fusion had little chance of success.  I then suggested that given
>my "reasonable" assessment of fusion's chances - though others
>certainly differ - the cost of supporting hot fusion is
>"not unreasonable for a government" though it's still too high
>for a corporation.  And all of a sudden everyone hits the roof and we
>end up with a huge thread on libertarian political thinking!
>And it only took 5 days, too!  I guess I'd better stick to my facts
>and not make off-the-cuff remarks.
 
     It was this kind of estimate that got the fusion program started.
     How much money do you think the originators of the concept would
     have received if they had said 'Well, it will be at least *90*
     years before we can even *think* about a fusion plant for the
     generation of power, but even then it will be questionable if
     the generation of power will be economical'?
 
>Just to spark some debate though, I'd like to point out that current
>US energy R&D spending, relative to energy's share of GNP, is about
>1/4 of 1%.  Energy accounts for about $500 billion (so I'm told, I
>can find the source if necessary) and energy R&D (corporate plus
>government) is only about $1.2 billion.  This level of R&D (that
>is, the ratio of R&D to the total economic value of the industry)
>is much lower than in most other industries.  By way of contrast,
>the total US economy is about $5 trillion, and the government spends
>between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.  Corrections to these figures
>are welcome.  My opinion is that *someone* should spend more on
>energy R&D - fusion, hot fusion, renewables, whatever - to help
>create progress in the field.  Oil isn't forever.
 
     So?  Fusion may *never* be economical, even if we manage to
     create the appropriate plasma.  On the other hand, there are other
     ways of creating power in useful forms, and many of them are
     economical *today*.
 
>every few years - we've achieved the required temperatures, and all
>we need is a factor of 10-100 in confinement.  This sounds like a lot,
>but plasma research has gone at 1-2 orders of magnitude per decade
>(on average) for the last 40 years.  There's no reason to assume that
>progress is just going to stop now, unless one is extremely pessimistic.
 
     Beyond the physics, engineering and economics are big problems.
     Big, big problems.  In any case, y'all wait till the politicians figure
     out that 'free energy from the sea' means tritium hanging around all
     over the place and structures that become radioactive.  And
     y'all just wait till one of those good friends
     of ours in the 'Environmental Movement' finds out how effective
     hydrogen containment is.
 
          dale 'Parts-per-billion?  Who cares, it's *radioactive*!' bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 21:31:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov> writes:
>are welcome.  My opinion is that *someone* should spend more on
>energy R&D - fusion, hot fusion, renewables, whatever - to help
>create progress in the field.  Oil isn't forever.
 
I think everyone reading this newsgroup would agree that *someone*
should INVEST more in fusion DEVELOPMENT.
 
Our main disagreements stem from WHO we think should be making the
decisions.
 
 
Here are two things to keep in mind about this issue:
 
1) The larger the organization the more political savvy, rather than
technical merit, determines who will be making decisions.
 
2) The more immature the technology, the less likely anyone actually
knows where to put the money and therefore the more important it is
to diversify investments.
 
These two points argue very strongly in favor of a number of
independently funded fusion programs spending relatively small
amounts of money each with financial incentives to actually succeed.
 
The government is too big to think it can successfully make technical
decisions or promote technical competence within its ranks.  Therefore
it should assume that the technical experts lie outside of the
government.  Indeed, it may be that even companies like GM and IBM
are too big to be sufficiently apolitical to make good technical
decisions or promote technical competence within their ranks.  (I
 point to the history of these businesses as evidence that my
 distechnology of scale statement is correct, at least in the U.S.)
 
Therefore, government policy to promote fusion technology should
try and help convince investors outside of large organizations to
risk their money with the fusion technologist(s) of their choice.
The traditional routes for this have been tax incentives, although
alternative policies such as large prizes for technical milestones
have been proposed.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Amazing guy!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Amazing guy!
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 21:57:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dick Blue is amazing! He is forever asserting the unfathomable!
 
     "...these simple devices [water based static calorimeters] do not
     necessarily provide a temperature signal that, when integrated over
     time, is an analog of the actual power input."
 
Wrong. They do!
 
     "It is obvious, I think, that the temperature does not track the heat
     input as a function of time unless the input varies slowly on the time
     scale set by the settling time of the calorimeter."
 
Wrong again. Not obvious, bogus. It does not matter how many times Dick
asserts this, it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
     "It is a sort of minor miracle that these devices work as well as they
     do, but my assertion is that nonlinearity in the temperature dependence
     of the heat transfer coefficient lessens the accuracy with which the
     temperature signal can be used to deduce the heat input."
 
It is not a miracle, it is an established fact. What else would you expect
them to do but "work as well as they do," given the known laws of physics?
Hey, don't take my word for it: do an experiment, and you will see for
yourself. No tricks now! Don't keep the input in the noise level, don't turn
that digital display upside down. By the way, how well *do* these devices
work? Watch out! Trick question!!! You are on the slippery slope here, you are
on verge of admitting that the errors are not 300%, but maybe closer to 1%. If
you ever admit that, you will open the floodgates and you will be forced to
admit that several tons of data is real, and therefore we have indisputable
evidence of heat beyond chemistry. So stick to your guns, Dick, and don't
forget: all results, from all workers, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Bockris, Storms and
the rest... is ALL WRONG, ALL MISTAKEN. You have to keep on believing and keep
on beating that drum: don't admit for even a minute that any calorimeter
anywhere on earth can measure a 30% effect or even a 300% effect. Close your
eyes and Keep On Believing! Keep The Faith! We are counting on you to deny
EVERYTHING, no matter how convincing.
 
     "I don't claim that it is a big effect."
 
Oh! You Don't?!?! HEY, LISTEN EVERYONE! Dick says he does not think he can
fool water a lot, just a little tiny bit! Wow.
 
Okay, if it isn't big, then it must be little, right? So now you claim it is a
little, bitty, tiny, marginal effect, right? So, it can't explain, say
McKubre's 300% excess, or Storms 30% or P&F's 300%... Okay, how big would you
say this imaginary non-existent, never-before-observed effect might be? Or how
*small* is it? My guess is that you will say it is just small enough so that
it is forever beyond the limits of observability. That would explain why
nobody has ever seen it before.
 
Hey, isn't science wonderful! You can prove anything you want, just wave your
hand, hocus pocus, and anything is true! Good job, Dick, keep waving your hand
like that, and eventually it will fly off. Just don't ever try proving what
you say by doing an experiment or by referring to the literature.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Date: 27 Sep 1993 19:09:55 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov) wrote:
: And the volume of waste which I am calling
: "substantial" is still orders of magnitude below that produced by a
: comparable fission plant, not that I think there's even a comparison.
 
This needs to be emphasized.  Numbers matter.  Even though any fusion
plant (that works) will certainly get radioactive somehow, no reasonable
estimate of the waste is anywhere near that of fission plants.  I think
3 or 4 orders of magnitude less (I don't know how weighted) is a rough
number that I heard.
 
But then, I don't I consider modern methods of waste disposal to be patently
awful for fission reactors, and I don't have real concerns about the safety
of western civilian power reactors either.
 
Also keep in mind that the physics of tokamaks is such that they work better
the bigger they are.  Which is somewhat unfortunate for research at this
stage.  The first commercial one to come on line will be hideously expensive
but it will be B*G.  If it were to work, the money *will* be there.
Utilities do have billions to spend when they need to.
 
And I disagree vehemently with the unfortunate governmental policy which
appears to have abandoned significant basic research in alternatives to
the tokamak.
 
: Robert F. Heeter
: ("Hot Fusion Fact Patrol")
: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
: Graduate Student, Plasma Physics, Princeton.
: Standard and universal disclaimers apply.
 
: Any information on any kind of fusion would be greatly appreciated!
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / John Logajan /  AD590 vs LM34
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: AD590 vs LM34
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 21:24:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>the AD590 - a similar device to the LM34 in a metal can
 
I found the specs on the AD590 and I don't like it.  The AD590 is calibrated
in Kelvin, which means you have to subtract a substantial current or
voltage bias to get it to a reduced range -- in order to make the best
use of your A/D resolution.  It's rated -55 to 150C, so you have to throw
away approx 220K of resolution out of, say, 425K, or about 1/2 -- for no
apparent net gain.  The LM34 (F) or LM35 (C) have *zero* output at OF or OC.
 
The AD590 is a current device, whereas the LM34/35 is a voltage output
device.  To be used with voltage A/D you have to have external resistors
with the AD590 which have to be calibrated manually.   The LM34/35 requires
no external components or calibration.
 
Even with calibration, at 25C, the absolute error of the AD590 is still
+/- 3C.  It's linearity is +/-1.5C or +/-0.8C for the double price version.
The LM35 has a linearity of +/- 0.5C and 1.0C absolute accuracy at 25C
guaranteed (0.5C for the LM35A.)
 
Finally, the long term drift of the AD590 is twice that of the LM34/35.
 
>I have lately switched over to Yellow Springs thermisters
 
I assume these also require external resistors to provide a voltage
drop, and that these resistors must be manually calibrated and a bias
must be subtracted to make best use of the A/D range.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Jed Rothwell /  To the limits!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: To the limits!
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 22:12:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Anther earthshaking comment here from Dick Blue, who apparently has never
bothered to read the P&F paper:
 
     "Tom Droege correctly points out that for a 10 C temperature
     differential the nonlinearity for the P&F calorimeters is rather small.
     (Thanks, for that analysis, Tom.)  However, what does the effect become
     for an 80 C differential where P&F are pushing their technique to its
     limits."
 
Wowwee! To the limits and beyond, eh? Hmmm... Then why does the model in the
paper describe what happens at high temperatures? What is this term doing
here: "ethalpy content of the gas stream" and what is all this discussion of
the transition from heating water to boiling water? And what about the high
temperature calibrations they did, blank boiling cells and all that? It was...
Beyond The Limits! In the Twilight Zone! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, NOBODY IN
HISTORY has ever tried to deal with this MYSTERIOUS AND DANGEROUS STATE OF
MATTER! Yes folks, we are talking about BOILING WATER. A new frontier! Nobody
knows anything about it, it can't be modeled, and nobody has every observed
it. According to Dick Blue, the heat of vaporization is Terra Incognito.
 
Right?
 
- Jed
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Not a hard scientist
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not a hard scientist
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 23:14:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Tom Droege asked me what I meant by settle time and then wrote:
 
     "Time constant has a well established meaning for all those that have
     solved the first order differential equation which gives rise to it...
     This is almost every serious "hard" scientist."
 
God Forbid I should ever be mistaken for a hard scientist! Not long ago I
was talking to a very capable middle-aged thermal engineer, who is doing
some interesting work in a controversial new field. I started asking him
about "percentage of excess heat" and then "watts per cc" and he responded:
"Oh, I never break it down below BTU's" This guy deals in steam. He deals
in BTUs and kilowatt hours (that's what his computerized monitor showed:
kilowatts). "Here," thought I, "is a man after my own heart!" Nothing
smaller than a blast of live steam out of a half inch pipe.
 
     "OK Jed, if you must use "settle time", then give us a precise
     definition."
 
Okay, Tom, here it is: It is the time it takes your calorimeter to make up
its mind and stop converging on some fixed temperature. Howzat for a
scientifical definition? Just follow that squiggly little line on the graph
with your finger, and when she stops rising, there you have it! It is
settled good 'n easy. 'Course, I would let the sucker sit there for another
15 minutes before callin' out the reading if I wuz yew.
 
That's what you call the garage mechanic and computer programmer's version
of how to do calorimetry. You see steam at one atmosphere? You can figure
how much energy it took to generate that, it's right here in the handbook.
You see water going in at 70F and coming out as live steam? Measure the
flow rate and figure out the BTU's. Don't give me any of them first order
differential equations, look it up in the handbook. Hey, call it ignorant,
call it practical, down-to-earth, Edisonian, call it what you like, but
believe me, it works. You don't see *me* trying to calibrate with a damn
light bulb!
 
- Jed -- (pretending he is not impressed by people who can do math)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Edward Lewis /  A New Set of Phenomena
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A New Set of Phenomena
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 22:04:15 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

        This article is composed of revised parts that I had
posted on sci.physics.fusion during the past 1/2 year on the dates
that I show.  I cite Lerner's book in the first part.  In order to get
an idea of what I am describing, you may want to read this article
several times.  Especially, look up the references.
 
        Alfven and Lerner and Peratt and many other people have
developed similar astronomical theories that can be said to be
derivations or summarizations of the experimental work of W. Bostick
and others.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled "Plasmoids" that
was published in Scientific American in 1957.  W. Bostick,
"Plasmoids," Scientific American, 197, 87 (October 1957).  He may have
been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
 
        In this paper, he had already began to tell others about his
speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.
He compared the shapes and the travel of these things.  If I remember
correctly, he also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of galaxies in the
article and related these to different kinds of plasmoid shapes.
 
        I post articles on sci.physics.fusion from time to time, and I
wonder whether people will want to check these out.  I suspect that CF
is a plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that an EV is a type of
plasmoid.  The term REVS may have been coined by K. Shoulders.  Since
light and electricity interconvert, I tend to identify these.  I would
like to suggest that people read Matsumoto's 2 articles that are
scheduled to be published in Fusion Technology in November of this
year.  These articles show evidence that are confirmations of my
deductions and resolutions, and I suspect that they are very
important.
 
        I am thinking about getting a patent and starting a company
and doing research.  Would any one want to help?  Also, I am looking
for the address of Lerner and Alfven, could any one tell me this?  I
am also looking for Egon Bach's address and information about his
work.
 
EVs, Ball Lightning, CF, Plasmoids and Etc., a New Set of Phenomena
 
 Part 1   A New Set of Phenomena (August 17, 1993)
 
        It seems that one can define "plasmoid-" type phenomena as an
universal phenomena.  What I mean is that almost all the anomalous
phenomena that I know about seems to be "plasmoid" phenomena, and it
seems to be possible to define almost all phenomena as "plasmoid"
phenomena.  During the last half of last year, I tried to
experientially relate cold fusion and "plasmoid" type phenomena.  I
used the photographs of traces in nuclear emulsions and of cathodes
that Matsumoto produced and has shown in his many "cold fusion"
articles in Fusion Technology during the last two or three years.  I
used the photographs of marks in plastics that Nardi and Bostick
and others showed(1), marks that they wrote were caused by what they
named "EB filaments."  The "EB filaments" were produced in much the
same way that Bostick had earlier produced what he called "plasmoids."
And I used the descriptions of the marks produced by the phenomena
that Ken Shoulders calls EVs that I had available(2).  I thought that
the marks were so similar that I related CF, EB filaments and EVs as
the same type of phenomena.  I also related other electrical discharge
phenomena and ball lightning, and tentatively related these to
"superconductivity."  At that time as well, I heuristically defined
substances as being composed of plasmoid-type phenomena as well.  I
suspect that these resolutions are useful.
 
        Evidence for this resolution is mounting.  I thought that the
picture of a micrometer sized thing with an interesting design that is
the cathode that Matsumoto showed in the January issue of Fusion
Technology(3) (see Part 2 of this article) may be a confirmation of
the ideas that I had described in papers that I wrote earlier.  Since
then I have learned about other confirmations of my deductions.  Most
basically, the evidence shows that electrolysis is much the same as
discharge.  I suspect that research in this direction will increase.
 
        Moreover, I've learned that Alfven, Peratt, and Lerner(4) and
others have developed detailed astronomical theories that astronomical
phenomena are plasmoid phenomena similar to those that were produced
by Bostick and many others by discharging through wires and points.  I
suspect that the evidence for this identification is sufficient.
 
        I suspect that at least part of the cold fusion phenomena that
people have reported is the formation of "plasmoid" phenomena that is
larger than the phenomena that were there previously.  The production
of energy and heavier elements is associated with many plasmoids.
Generally, I suspect that CF, superconductivity, EVs,
sonoluminescence, cathodoluminescence, and very many other anomalous
phenomena are "plasmoid-" type phenomena, and that phenomena in
general is "plasmoid-" like.  People can produce "plasmoid-" type
phenomena by many kinds of stressing of the environment, not only by
electricity, such as by breaking or heating substances.  The set of
phenomena that people have recently produced seems to be patterned
this way.  This set is the basis for a new kind of general theory.
 
        I suspect that the prior two generations have produced a set
of anomalous phenomena that is resolvable according to a new kind of
premise.  I suspect that the development of science has had an
approximately eighty year periodicity.  At approximately eighty year
intervals since 1500, people have produced new kinds of theories
because they experienced the many anomalous phenomena, the phenomena
that contradicted the prior general theory, that people were producing
at those times.
 
Part 2 (February 5, 1993)  EVs, Ball Lightning , and CF
 
        In his article in the January issue of Fusion Technology(3),
Matsumoto shows an SEM photo of a tiny ball lightning-type phenomena.
He did not describe the phenomena that was photographed.  I described
such phenomena in a paper that I finished writing in Dec.  1992.  This
one is in the material matrix.  Unless the white lines are an artifact
of some type, most of the it seems to radiate only as much as the
surrounding metal radiates, except according to a geometrical pattern,
which is very interesting.  I would say it is radiating the
electricity-light substance I described in the paper.  If the
electrolysis was discontinued when he took the SEM, then this is an
example of a material continuing to radiate after the stress is done.
This relates to the experience of many people who have stressed
materials in many ways in order to produce energy.  Tiny BL-type
phenomena is associated with the excess energy and many of the other
anomalous phenomena which people have reported.  It seems to be a
locus of anomalous phenomena.  There is now pictorial evidence that
the CF phenomena is a tiny BL-type phenomena, at least in part.
 
        In the paper that I wrote, I related ball lightning and
EVs(2).  Not all ball lightning is luminous.  Some people have
reported seeing ball lightning that was opaque and black(5).  Ken
Shoulders, who named EVs, reports that he has produced black EVs(2).
Ball lightning and EVs may leave the place where they form and travel
around.  They may leave marks like the ring traces and most of the
other traces that Matsumoto has shown.  They may travel along surfaces
and leave the long trail-like traces Matsumoto has shown in several
articles.  Matsumoto reports that such a trail was observed associated
with another apparatus.  He says that the emulsion was located behind
the glass of the container of the apparatus and the liquid, and far
away from the palladium rod.  Therefore, a tiny BL-type phenomena must
have traveled through the glass and the water and the air.  Ball
lightning has been reported to travel through material such as glass
and ceramic without any apparent effects on the material.  I suspect
that effects may be observable microscopically, however.  Ohtsuki and
Ofuruton have produced ball lightning-like phenomena which traveled
through ceramic and which apparently did not effect the ceramic(6).
Ball lightning has also been reported to travel though water(7).
Golka has produced ball lightning-like phenomena in water.  Tiny
BL-type phenomena are also the cause of the holes in substances which
people find.
 
        I am hoping that there can be much more research of this
phenomena, and that people will attempt to detect this phenomena.
I think it is important that those who research EVs and those who
research ball lighting and produce ball lightning-like phenomena
participate in the next CF conference.  BL researchers have had
conferences every year or every other year for several years now,
and there is an international BL conference committee.  Perhaps the
two conferences can be merged together.  Many CF researchers have
begun to be familiar with this phenomena, so they will probably be
interested in discussing BL.  An address for the International
Committee on Ball Lightning is 381 South Meridith Avenue,
Pasadena, California, 91106 U.S.A.
 
Part 3 (August 14, 1993)
 
        I suspect that a variety of sizes of BL-type phenomena are
produced by electric CF apparatus.  I suspect that the glows, coronas,
or luminescences that people report are BL-type phenomena, and that
the micrometer sized phenomena that people produce are another type of
BL phenomena, and that the sparks are also BL-type phenomena.  I
suspect that "electrons" and neutrons and charged particles and
"atoms" are best described as BL-type phenomena as well.
 
        I suspect that St. Elmo's fire, coronas, and BL are similar
phenomena.  People have seen corona and St. Elmo's fire phenomena
convert to BL phenomena that moved in the air.  People have also seen
BL phenomena convert to corona type phenomena.
 
        I suspect that the universe can be well described as BL-type
phenomena.  Alfven, Bostick, Lerner, and Peratt developed general
astronomical theories based on their ideas of "plasmoids."  Their
ideas about the production of energy and elements are interesting.
They described galaxies and stars, and the phenomena that people have
ascribed to "black holes," such as "white holes," as "plasmoid-" type
phenomena.
 
        I suspect that sunspots coincide with BL, volcanoes,
earthquakes, and storms in the air and sea.  I suspect that these
phenomena are BL-type phenomena and that they coincide with BL-type
phenomena in apparatus.  Hawkins discussed(8,9) the coincidence of
storm activity and CF phenomena, and he presented experiential
evidence of this(9).  I suspect that clouds and waves and wind are
BL-type phenomena as well.
 
1. V. Nardi, W. Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure
of Electron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November,1980).
2. K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039.
3. T. Matsumoto,"Observation of Mesh Like Traces on Nuclear Emulsions
During Cold Fusion," Fusion Technology, 23, (January 1993).
4. E. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, New York, 1991.
5. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 67.
6. Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, "Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave
Interference in Air," Nature, 350, 139 (March 14, 1991).
7. S. Singer, The Nature of Ball Lightning, New York, 1971, p. 69.
8. N. Hawkins, "Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere," Fusion
Technology, 19, 2112 (July 1991).
9. N. Hawkins et al., "Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of
Meteorologically Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of
Sciences," Proc. Conf. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid
Systems Provo, Utah, October 22-24, 1990.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Jim Bowery /  An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:32:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: University of Chicago

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
Organization: University of Chicago
>
>Since no one has bothered to correct Jim Bowery's bad mathematics,
>here is what I meant when I said that controlled fusion research
>is worth it even if it only has a 1 in 50 chance of paying off in the
>next 30 years.
 
[analysis deleted]
 
I concede that I used the wrong formula and therefore my secondary
point (that a reason government shouldn't invest in a 50 to 1, $500M/yr,
 30 year effort to develop fusion was because it was too expensive) was using
grossly exaggerated numbers.  That point should be ignored.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Marshall Dudley /  re: idle, useless speculation
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: idle, useless speculation
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 17:40:19 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In message: <930926191432_72240.1256_EHK24-1@CompuServe.COM>
scott@zorch.sf-bay.org writes:
 
> Second, this is technically inaccurate. Incandescent lightbulbs convert 99% of
> the input energy into heat. Unfortunately, they are that inefficient.
> Furthermore, if you use a fully silvered Dewar, and no light gets out, I suppose
> the remaining 1% would also end up as heat after bouncing around for a while.
> There: a useless 1% speculation on my part.
 
If we are trying to be technically accurate, the above fails the test.  A 20
watt incandescent bulb typically converts 4.65% of its power into visible light
(expressed as lumens), and a 60 watt bulb 7.12%.  Although there is a
theoretical maximum efficancy of 600 lumans per watt if all power is emitted as
green light at 553 nanometers (where the eye is most sensitive), if all power
is emitted uniformly over the visible spectrum as white light, the maximum
efficiency would be about 200 lumins per watt.
 
However, most of the radiated heat from an incandescent bulb is not in the form
of light.  Check out the equations on black body radiation.  You will find that
at the temperature of the tungston filament the majority of radiation is in the
infrared region.  This is easy to demonstrate by holding your hand close to an
incandescent and a fluorescent bulb of similar brightnesses.  You will feel a
significant amount of infrared from the incandescent, but not the fluorescent.
 
Thus, if the radiation (light and/or heat) can escape the "closed system", a
significant error in the assumed heat input could occur.  This is true if any
type of radiating heat is used.  I do agree with you though, that if the
radiation cannot escape the dewar, then it should introduce no error.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 27 Sep 1993 20:30 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Sep27.034511.8775@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov> writes...
 
[interesting posts deleted]
>>
>I don't agree that the success of plasma physics has proven the failure
>of hot fusion as an economic energy source.  The magnetic bottle is
>still porous, but it's gettting better every year.  No reason to give up
>now!
 
It does sound like real progress is being made with hot fusion.  However,
the way the U.S. government is currently funding it, progress can *only* be
made with magnetic/inertial confinement hot fusion [unless you're talking
about private funding].  i.e. gov't dollars will only be spent on new ideas
if they are based on magnetic or inertial confinement - Tom Droege posted
an answer to an inquiry I had, dealing with SBIRs (small business innovative
reasearch grants).  The DOE will only grant SBIRs to magnetic confinement
fusion, leaving out everything else.
 
A few people have posted ideas on electrostatic confinement/single component
plasma fusion.  Since these ideas fall outside the gov'ts narrow view of
fusion funding, the *only* way they'll be built is privately.
 
If you've seen the posts by Jim Bowery, you'll note that he's been working
towards changing this.  I gather Jim's helped Paul Koloc with his Plasmak
design [I'm surprised that Paul's been silent during this whole debate, makes
me think he's going to give us something to really think about].  I mean Jim
Bowery has helped Paul Koloc in the funding of Paul's Plasmak, not the
design, though I don't know that.  This is of course a special case, the
only private hot fusion research I've heard of.
 
Jim Bowery also posted a *very interesting* tidbit on electrostatic confinement
fusion.  According to Jim, Hirsch (sp?) and someone else (can't remember
who) built a tabletop device in the late '60's, and that device has the
best confinement to date.  In other words, it beat JET's last run, in terms
of percentages (I'm assuming they didn't dump 18 MJ into a tabletop device,
but then again, it was the '60's :-) ).
 
Unfortunately, Jim's unable to say more, due to a non-disclosure agreement.
No one else has volunteered any information on the device, so either they
don't read s.p.f. or they're not talking.
 
This whole thing leads to:  I agree with you (both Terry and Robert) on
funding what's been called cold fusion, whatever it may be.  However, I
also believe the government should fund hot fusion programs other than just
the tokamak and inertial confinement.
 
A note to the person keeping us abreast of the developments on the Alcator
device:  Thanks! (Thanks also to Bruce Scott, for the explanation).
 
Also, a question about the average power used:  How many megawatts would be
required to run continuously?  I'm asking because our "little" wind tunnel
(the 8ft. by 6ft. supersonic tunnel) uses 6.5 MW when running - sustained
by our friendly electric company, for $100/hr. of electricity.  The big tunnel
requires on the order of 13 MW.  Main restriction is that there are certain
times of day/night when they're allowed to run.
 
And, an ASCII poloidal field:
 
              _<-_
             /    \
             | :: |
             \_->_/
 
-> and <- indicate the direction of the B field when positively charged
ions are coming at you from the termianl (reverse direction of B field for
the normal negatively charged electrons coming at you from a standard
CRT screen).  And, the B field should look like a circle, *not* a stop sign.
>
>Robert Heeter
>"Fusion Fact Patrol"
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>standard disclaimers apply.
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:40:57 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
IS LITHIUM A SIGNIFICANT HOT FUSION COST?
 
My thanks to Robert Heeter for his detailed reply, and for the informative
direct emails and ballpark estimates from Steve Fairfax.
 
So _is_ lithium consumption going to be a significant cost issue for any
commercially viable hot fusion plant?  It is with great pleasure that I get
to declare myself a horse's patootey and answer:  NO.
 
On the other hand, the reason _why_ it is irrelevant is interesting:
You can't build an HF fusion plant without having pretty close to 25%
energy conversion efficiency.  If you can build a plant up there in that
efficiency range, lithium fuel consumption would mean very little when
compared to the overall operating and equipment costs.  Please note that
the 25% figure is a goal, not a projection.  That is, it is where HF
must _get_ before economic viability and competiveness with other energy
technologies even becomes plausible.  This is a much more difficult goal
than scientific breakeven; how much more difficult, I do not know.
 
 
As you may recall, my question centered around the idea that a HF plant
that was only marginally above breakeven, it would tend to consume enough
lithium to make the cost and availability of that element a significant
cost issue.  The premise was not much different from saying that if your
stove dumped 99.9% of the heat it produced out the chimney, you would have
a _whale_ of a net fuel consumption trying to keep your house warm.
 
Steve Fairfax of the Alcator project provided some helpful specifics
about how lithium costs actually play against economically plausible HF
plant designs.  Here are some quotes (with his permission, of course):
 
> First, lithium is plentiful and cheap.  The pure metal sells for about
> $500/kg in small quantities.  A 3000 MW thermal fusion plant would need
> about 600 kg Li6 per year...
 
> Since Li6 is about 7.5% of all lithium, one might have to buy 8,000 kg of
> ordinary Li and separate Li6 from Li7.  That's [pessimistically] at most
> $4 million per year, discounting the value of pure Li7.  I deliberately
> discount the cost of isotopic separation because there are so many good
> ways to do that, particularly with a 6/7 mass ratio...
>
> Keep in mind that they are rough estimates and not calculations.  My cost
> estimate for Li6 is probably high by a factor of 4-10, at least in power
> plant quantities.  The cost of fuel should be compared to the revenue
> stream; something like $1 million/day for a 3000 MW thermal, 1000 MW
> electric power plant...
>
> ...
> We won't build power plants if the overall efficiency a lot less than 25%.
 
I would also note that since the leftover Li7 is quite valuable for mundane
applications such as batteries, he is being very conservative here.  And
with a 16.5% mass difference between Li6 and Li7, I wouldn't be surprised
if you could get a substantial increase in Li6 vapor simply by boiling
liquid lithium carefully.  His assumption of minimal isotope separation
costs (especially in comparison to U238/U239) thus seems very reasonable.
 
Thus we are talking about a cost ($4 million per year) that is roughly 1%
of the revenue stream (~400 million per year, or about $1 million per day).
 
Steve also mentioned in passing an interesting fuel comparison.  While the
25% efficiency 3000 MW HF plant would consume only 600 kg of Li6 per year,
a 3000 MW coal-burning plant would need 2 _billion_ kg of coal, and produce
a lot of chemically toxic wastes to boot:
 
> ... Have you ever wondered what happens to the waste created by burning
> 2x10E9 kg of coal annually in a 3000 MW thermal power plant?  Some of
> that will be around, and dangerous, for a lot longer than 1000 years.
> There is so much of it that it is essentially impossible to dispose of
> it carefully.  Our society uses different yardsticks for "conventional"
> technology risk assesment...
 
He also mentioned some interesting points about breeding T from Li6.  One
item that struck me about this was that the lithium blankets required may
need to be meters thick.  I had incorrectly assumed from an article I read
a long time ago that the thickness was considerably less, such as a large
fraction of a meter.
 
> As to the economics of breeding T from Li6, I can only say that it has
> been studied extensively in so-called conceptual design studies of
> fusion power plants.  The general conclusion is that surrounding a
> tokamak with a blanket of Li that would breed enough tritium is
> possible, and not all that difficult. (At least not compared with some
> of the other problems we face.) Most studies assume the lithium would
> be in the form of a salt for safety and thermal reasons, thought some
> have considered liquid metal.
>
> As for the number of neutrons that end up in the Li blanket, most do.
> You are right that the first wall, and perhaps even the next layer,
> would not be made of lithium. But energetic neutrons have tremendous
> penetrating power. Most blanket designs require thickness on the order
> of meters.  The neutrons will scatter in the first walls, but most
> will stop in the blanket.
 
In some ways this simplifies the problem -- you _cannot_ keep the field
generating equipment away from the fusion reaction, and therefore must
unavoidabley go with the "low activation materials" route.
 
 
THE MATERIALS IRRADIATION ISSUE
 
I asked Steve about this issue of the effects of irradiation (neutron
activation) on system lifespan.  My specific question was since neutron
irradiation causes severe mechenical swelling and strain in many metals
(e.g., ordinary steel), might it not also damage key HF tolerances to
the point where the system would no longer function?  Here is his reply
to that question:
 
> I can't speak too authoritatively on the sensitivity of tokamak
> magnetic fields.  I do know that other types of devices, like
> stellerators, are quite sensitive, requiring relative dimensional
> tolerances of order .001.  Tokamaks don't keep that kind of tolerance,
> but since we haven't made them into power plants yet, I can't say for
> sure that we don't need to.  There is some very preliminary hints that
> small field errors may produce unacceptable confinement problems, but
> it will be some time before we know for sure.  The problem is that all
> or nearly all experiments to date have had pulse lengths not very long
> with respect to the skin time of the plasma current, so small errors
> in the field don't have time to make themselves felt.
>
> The problem of irradiating everything is quite real.  The
> international program really ought to be building an energetic high-
> flux neutron source to develop low-activation and long lived
> materials, but the budgets are so tight that such facilities have been
> cancelled.  Here at Alcator we have 2 RF transmitters that were
> originally purchased for the Fusion Materials Irradiation Test
> facility, an RF linac.  The program was cancelled due to lack of funds
> ...  [The cuts during the 12 Reagan/Bush years] were drastic but the
> funding has been roughly constant for the past couple of years...
>
> The activation and waste disposal problem is not as bad as you might
> think.  Most isotopes produced by activation are relatively short-
> lived.  The estimates I have seen are that after a 30-year lifetime
> (typical for power plants; rotating machinery just won't run forever.)
> the fusion core would have to be isolated from the environment for
> about 100 years.  Any contractor in the yellow pages can build you a
> building that will stand for 100 years, and building one that will
> isolate wastes for that long is not much of a problem.  Fission
> daughter products tend to last a lot longer; 10,000 years to 100,000
> years isolation may be required.  Mankind has built buildings that
> kept the environement out for 5000 years (the pyramids yeilded grain
> that sprouted) but a factor of 10-100 increase in timescale is
> daunting.  Fusion faces a lot of difficulties, but waste disposal
> shouldn't be too bad...
>
> In summary, swelling and embrittlement are real problems and need
> research.  Field errors per se aren't known to be a problem, but
> matierials in general need a lot of work.  Activation is not that big
> a problem but one always strives for As Low AS Reasonably Achievable
> in these matters. The answers will take time and money.
 
Robert Heeter has also mentioned a numer of general directions in which
such research could go -- e.g., use of silicon carbide.  I suspect that
the difficulty is in getting the right mix of electrical, physical, and
chemical properties while at the same time preserving low activation.
It's not a trivial problem, given the difficulty of achieving a high
energy output even with _no_ real materials constraints.  I would assume
that most current experimental and development HF systems are quite free
in their choice of construction materials.
 
 
THE MAGIC NUMBER: 25% HF PLANT EFFICIENCY
 
Now with all that said, let me make a couple of comments about that 25%
HF plant efficiency figure that both Robert Heeter and Steve Fairfax
brought up.  The bottom line appears to be that this figure is roughly
where an HF plant needs to be to have overall operating costs that are
roughly comparable to those of conventional power plants.
 
Why efficiency is so important can be seen by envisioning the difference
between building a 1000 MW HF plant using 25% efficiency technology
versus building a 1000 MW HF plant using 5% efficiency.  In the worst
case scenario, you would need _five_ of the 5% efficiency HF units to
produce the same result 1000 MW of output as the single 25% unit.  If
you operated in the region I was originally proposing -- say a fraction
of a percent efficiency -- your plant would probably cost more resources
to build than most countries even possess.
 
Whether this figure is "conservative" or "optimistic" is an interesting
question.  Folks like Bruce Scott have a far better feel for the issues
involved than most of us, and I note that Bruce tends towards cynicism
when discussing plasma instabilities.  I personally would _not_ call 25%
conservative, due to HF's very weak track record at accurate long-term
prediction -- a feature which they share with the software industry.  :)
 
....
 
All in all, I was quite pleased with the technically informative
responses on this one.  While it looks like I'm Chicken Little for
declaring the lithium sky to be falling on HF, I am intrigued by _why_
I was wrong.  I had not before realized just how sensitively the prospects
of commercial success for HF depend on system-wide efficiency factors.
 
I am also quite pleased to see a direct, explicit discussion of hot
fusion that directly acknowledges that real-world HF power production
would be based on a lithium-6/deuterium fuel cycle, and not on "hydrogen
isotopes" (except in the final plasma-based power generation step).
After all, if it's that whole-system 25% efficiency figure that's going
to make or break HF, it's only appropriate that the fuel cycle also be
viewed in terms of the whole system, too.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Evaporation Rates
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evaporation Rates
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 02:14:45 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>John Logajan points out that evaporation rates will ruin an experiment run
>on a balance.  Of course you always must run a completely sealed system, even
>if it is an "open" system like that of P&F.  Any opening to the atmosphere will
>allow CO2 to get into the cell and then you have Lithium Carbonate or some
>such thing, and this changes the cell operation.  One also has to consider the
>weight of the absorbed CO2.  One must run a seale cell with some sort of
>"bladder" to hold the evolved gas.  But then P&F have never bothered to tell
>us how they seal up their experiments.  Hmmm!
 
Can they be running "open" cells in an air-tight room filled with an
atmosphere that they control?  It would be interesting to see if the
videos show special windows/doors/vents.
 
 ----------------------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lithium Economics of Hot Fusion
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:08:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <287dq3INN93b@network.ucsd.edu>,
Matt Kennel <mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net> wrote:
>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov) wrote:
>: And the volume of waste which I am calling
>: "substantial" is still orders of magnitude below that produced by a
>: comparable fission plant, not that I think there's even a comparison.
>
>This needs to be emphasized.  Numbers matter.  Even though any fusion
>plant (that works) will certainly get radioactive somehow, no reasonable
>estimate of the waste is anywhere near that of fission plants.  I think
>3 or 4 orders of magnitude less (I don't know how weighted) is a rough
>number that I heard.
 
   Estimates of the waste from IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) concepts are, I
   believe, two orders of magnitude less than current power reactors.
   And that is a near-term concept that will not take 50 years
   to come to fruition (well, maybe if the project is cancelled forever).
 
   Anyway, keep in mind that *any* amount of radioactive waste is
   going to cause difficulty, significant and substantial difficulties.
   Most people have been very effectively coerced into regarding
   'radioactive' or 'radiation' as *bad* in any quantity.
 
   Keep in mind that in my neck of the woods a Gwen site, a radio transmission
   tower and a cell-phone tower have been blocked because of
   non-ionizing 'radiation'.  Wait until you bring the ionizing kind around.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 04:31:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>If you've seen the posts by Jim Bowery, you'll note that he's been working
>towards changing this.  I gather Jim's helped Paul Koloc with his Plasmak
>design
 
The only technical assistance I've given Koloc has been some phone
conversations where I've given him a little advice on information systems.
 
>[I'm surprised that Paul's been silent during this whole debate, makes
>me think he's going to give us something to really think about].
 
He already has given us a lot to think about as have the other alternative
fusion guys such as Bob Hirsch, Bob Bussard, et al.  BTW, I in no way
speak for Paul Koloc or Prometheus II, Ltd. or any other fusion concern.
 
These concerns sometimes allow me to provide what modest assistance
I can afford and I don't drive any hard bargains with them for equity.
 
I suspect it is rather difficult to try and save the world with no
money and a couple of part-time volunteers, so Koloc probably doesn't
have much time to spend talking about philosophy, and neither do
any of the other private fusion technologists.
 
>I mean Jim
>Bowery has helped Paul Koloc in the funding of Paul's Plasmak, not the
>design, though I don't know that.
 
That's correct, however my funding assistance has been minimal.  In part,
my efforts (and those of others) to raise private capital have been
greatly hindered by the presence of the DoE fusion program and its "experts"
who have had every opportunity to pick up on these technologies, but have
refused to do so.  This inaction is, itself, a public declaration by the
government experts that these alternate technologies are less viable than
the tokamak which the electric utilities have already rejected and which
is declared to require hundreds of millions of dollars per year and decades
to complete.
 
No one who is credulous to government technology "experts" will fund a
private effort which claims aneutronic breakeven at a funding level far
below and in a time-range far shorter than that declared necessary by
the government's "experts."
 
Indeed, the higher the funding level for DoE's "fusion program" the more it
tends to suppress private investment in viable alternatives.
 
Very few large investors understand how politicized government technology
programs become and therefore how little credibility their "experts" should
be given.
 
This first hand experience with the realities of technology policy is
the reason I proclaim the DoE fusion program to be detrimental to fusion
technology.  I truly believe we would have commercial, aneutronic fusion
generators today if Sen. McCormick had CANCELED the magnetic fusion
program rather than trying to start up a crash program.
 
Going beyond this to understand why technology policy is so prone to
this failure mode, I encounter many people who are simply mislead and
a few people who are actively misleading -- usually because they are
a part of a social/political milieu which provides real rewards such
attitudes/behavior.  This milieu, in its "ignorance" is waging war on
all life, not just mankind.
 
>This is of course a special case, the
>only private hot fusion research I've heard of.
 
Koloc's technology is my personal favorite, but it isn't the only one
with entirely private support.
 
The Bussard/Hirsch inertia electrostatic confinement system is a close
second.  Since the end of the DARPA contract with Directed Technologies,
Inc. the only money being spent has been private AND it has been spent on
a very different design drawing on prior private efforts by Farnsworth
at ITT in the 60's.
 
There is always Maglich, of course, who has been quite successful at
raising private money.  One learns to say only positive things about
Maglich's MIGMA.
 
A few others are doing "garage" type operations -- only slightly below
the level of effort going into PLASMAK(tm) and IEF.
 
>Jim Bowery also posted a *very interesting* tidbit on electrostatic
confinement
>fusion.  According to Jim, Hirsch (sp?) and someone else (can't remember
>who) built a tabletop device in the late '60's, and that device has the
>best confinement to date.  In other words, it beat JET's last run, in terms
>of percentages (I'm assuming they didn't dump 18 MJ into a tabletop device,
>but then again, it was the '60's :-) ).
 
Hirsch published a paper in which he estimated 10**10 fusion events per
second for Farnsworth's "desktop" device.
 
>Unfortunately, Jim's unable to say more, due to a non-disclosure agreement.
>No one else has volunteered any information on the device, so either they
>don't read s.p.f. or they're not talking.
 
They don't read s.p.f.  They're too busy trying to stay afloat and still
make progress on virtually no money.  They must bring the risk down to
the point that money will come in from SOMEWHERE.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 03:46:02 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <m0ohSjc-0000NMC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Since no one has bothered to correct Jim Bowery's bad mathematics,
>>here is what I meant when I said that controlled fusion research
>>is worth it even if it only has a 1 in 50 chance of paying off in the
>>next 30 years.
>I concede that I used the wrong formula...
 
I'm impressed.  You admitted you were wrong in response to my rude,
disparaging remark.  Some people (for example XS Heaters) have way too
much ego to ever admit that they are wrong, especially to brutally
critical cynics like me.
 
Don't mind me, though.  I'm peeved about the
David-vs-Scientific-Gestapo-Goliath attitude of the XS Heaters. (XS
Heaters should not be confused with people who are competently looking
for excess heat.)  You aren't really one of them.
 
But why do I stay peeved?  The XS Heaters are only losing money.
Perhaps I should get back to work.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Amazing guy!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Amazing guy!
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 02:18:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930927211829_72240.1256_EHK25-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> and don't
>forget: all results, from all workers, McKubre, Kunimatsu, Bockris, Storms and
>the rest... is ALL WRONG, ALL MISTAKEN.
 
     Apart from the little tense problem, you've summarized nicely.
 
     Thanks.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Robert Hagglund /  Bad Math, Good Subject
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund, (206) 689-3415)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bad Math, Good Subject
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 14:14:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 04:39:51 GMT
> Organization: University of Chicago
>
> Since no one has bothered to correct Jim Bowery's bad mathematics,
> here is what I meant when I said that controlled fusion research
> is worth it even if it only has a 1 in 50 chance of paying off in the
> next 30 years.
 
Possibly no one bothered to correct Jim's math because it was so far off of
the mainstream subject matter. I asked a rhetorical question and expected any
responses to be through mail. The 'cost of research' is definitely worth
talking about, but it probably would best be done through mail or in another
discussion group.
 
The discussion of the costs associated with fusion and other scientific
research has been quite interesting and should continue. (Perhaps elsewhere?)
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Robert Hagglund /  Re: Find out for yourself, Matt
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund, (206) 689-3415)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Find out for yourself, Matt
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 14:14:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel writes:
 
> "I believe the question at issue is whether these 'steady' heat 'bursts'
> are comprised of truly many very fast spikes (each giving a small excess
> contribution) above the "operating bandwidth" of a conduction
> calorimeter. . .
>
> The problem is that a simple conduction calorimeter does not appear
> (according to some people here) to be an accurate integrating device."
 
Jed Rothwell answers:
 
> These people you refer to are incorrect. They are absolutely, positively,
> 100 % wrong.
>
> Look, Matt (and all you others out there), there is nothing more that I can
> say or do to prove that I am right. I have performed an experiment, posted
> data, cited references to many other experiments. By every reasonable
> standard of science I have proved my point. These "some people" you refer to
> have not posted a single byte of data, and they cannot point to *any*
> literature *anywhere* in the last 200 years of calorimetry to prove what
> they say.
 
[Jed's original post continued]
 
 
Perhaps some data from the 'calorimeter in a calorimeter' versus a normal
calorimeter would be of use in killing this rather nasty bird. If someone does
have a detailed description of an experiment that would make Matt's point and
the associated raw data, now would be a good time to post it. If it has been
posted before please refer me to it here or via mail.
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  gordon.powell@ /  CROSS SECTION DATA
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CROSS SECTION DATA
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 14:14:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Does anyone in fusion-land have cross section data for the putative reaction
                O16 + O16 + K.E. -> S32
 
I am not suggesting that this might have something to do with CF, I just
want the cross section and this news.group seemed the place to make the
request...
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpowell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Proof (?) that calorimeters really work
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proof (?) that calorimeters really work
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 15:12:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If one were to seriously try to resolve the issues that have been raised
concerning the accuracy of the calorimetric methods employed by Pons and
Fleischmann (and others) what approach should be followed?  One way to
find answers would be to search the literature to see what has been
written by authorities who have delved into this question before.  What
generally is the opinion of calorimeterists with working experience
with this type of device with regard to Pons and Fleischmann's methods?
The writing I have seen in relationship to cold fusion would seem to
indicate that most such people see the accuracy as limited to a few
per cent at best.  If anyone knows of an authoritative source, preferably
not from someone involved pro or con in the CF debate, please come to
our aid.
 
A second approach is simply to assert that CF investigators, such as
Pons and Fleischmann, are themselves such experts in calorimetry that
no one should question their results.  That raises an interesting
question as to precisely how experience Pons and Fleischmann were
with calorimetry prior to their initiation of CF research?  Unless
I am corrected by someone in the know,  I think they started
pretty much with no previous experience.  Likewise how much
calorimetry experience in total in represented by others claiming
significant excess heat results?  Please note, Jed, that McKubre
has chosen to use a totally different method.  Perhaps he knows
something?
 
The third approach would be to do at least a partial analysis of
the way in which the device in question is supposed to work.  In
that case we need to agree upon a model which incorporates the
essential features and operates according to more basic physical
principles.  I have proposed a model that is basically an
analog of a simple RC circuit.  The heat input behaves as charge
accumulating in the capacitor or flowing through the resistor.
The observed signal is the temperature difference or voltage
across the resistance.  It is an elementary problem to solve
until you make the resistor nonlinear.  If anyone would step
forward with an analysis of the model with the nonlinear
response considered that would resolve the question as far as
I am concerned.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Forever getting it wrong!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Forever getting it wrong!
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 15:33:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I can hardly believe this! Richard Blue has a genius for getting the facts
completely wrong. Look at this:
 
     "I think we have seen enough data to make a case for saying that the PdD
     system can release significant amounts of energy in 'bursts'.  The other
     side of the coin is that it can also take up and store energy.
 
Okay, folks! For the record, as far as I know: There is not ONE SINGLE
RECORDED EXPERIMENT, anywhere in the literature, that shows any evidence of
energy storage in palladium, nickel or any other CF metal. The metal NEVER
"takes up" or "stores" energy. Dick's statement is a nonsensical fabrication.
 
Naturally, all experiments with sufficiently sensitive calorimeters show the
chemical heat of formation: the heat deficit that occurs when deuterium goes
into solution with palladium. This is normal, and it shows up with the
expected amount of energy, which is a tiny fraction of the CF heat. In any
case, you would not get this deficit back unless you removed all of the
deuterium from the Pd, which is nearly impossible to do, and which is not what
happens during a CF event.
 
It should be obvious, but let me add this: Suppose there *was* energy storage.
In experiments where the heat bursts are as long or longer than the loading
time, the calorimeter would be able to measure the heat deficit (energy
storage) just as easily as it measures the excess; the negative heat would
have to exactly balance the positive. Where the duration of both is the same,
the magnitude of both would be the same, so any calorimeter sensitive enough
to measure the positive would also see the negative. Since nobody, in any
experiment, has ever seen a negative of any magnitude, even in experiments
where the heat bursts are longer than the loading time, this means there is no
energy storage.
 
Finally, an obvious point that Richard has completely overlooked: there is no
know physical process that would allow enough chemical energy storage for a
typical burst. It is completely out of the question! No chemical system can
store 20, 50, 1000, or 10,000 eV per atom, and that is how much some "bursts"
release. On the other hand, everyone knows that solid state matter can slowly
release gigantic amounts of heat through nuclear processes; radioactive metal
ore does this. You cannot store this much energy chemically, but you certainly
can release it via a nuclear process. I suppose a person might postulate
"nuclear storage," but as far as I know, nobody has ever observed any common,
naturally occurring case of massive amounts of energy being swallowed up by a
lump of metal and converted into matter, storing thousands of electron volts
per atom.
 
     "The calorimetric proof of cold fusion has always been based to the
     argument that there is too much excess heat, but that applies to the
     long term integral not just the bursts."
 
A lie! It applies to both! This is common knowledge. This is the whole point
of the P&F paper, and many other papers. I quote Peter Hagelstein:
 
     "A common misunderstanding often occurs in the discussion of the results
     of Pons-Fleischmann experiments which is of interest here. It is
     sometimes argued that the energy production during a short event can be
     disregarded, since there may exist energy storage mechanisms which could
     have been collecting energy at a low level for a long period of time.
     For example, the total energy output from this experiment would not be
     very much larger than the total input energy if no heat excess had
     occurred prior to the boiling event (1 watt-day = 86.4 kJ). This type of
     argument seeks to make palatable the notion that since the total energy
     excess measured over days is small compared to the input (and hence
     there might exist a signal to noise problem in the measurement), the
     measurement can be dismissed. As discussed above, this type of argument
     completely misses a key implication of the experiment -- specifically,
     that there exists no known physical mechanism which could store the
     energy observed to be released during the boiling episode."
 
In Richard's case, this is no longer a "common misunderstanding," as
Hagelstein so charitable puts it.  I have pointed out these facts to Richard
Blue dozens of times. It is not a misunderstanding, it is a willful,
deliberate, conscious distortion of the truth, it is a refusal to face simple,
undeniable facts. Frank Close plays the same sick-minded game. He laughs off
the evidence with silly comments to me, suggesting that this is mere "theory
prejudice" about chemistry, and maybe you *can* store thousands of electron
volts per atom. This is sick, evasive, perverse, anti-intellectual, anti-
science rot. When people refuse to face facts, when they refuse to look
through the telescope, they betray Science and they betray Truth.
 
     "Jed, you can observe all the bursts you like, but you still have to do
     the integration to determine the net excess heat."
 
One burst will do, if it is long enough. If the metal does not cool, then the
burst is continuous. If metal does not refrigerate (go below the calibrated
point) then there is no energy storage.
 
Listen, Richard, why do you go on making up this terrible nonsense and posting
it? Anyone who has bothered to read the literature can see at a glance that
everything you write is scientifically illiterate, uninformed bunk. You are
worse than Taubes. Why don't you at least read the literature, and try to make
up plausible-sounding nonsense. You make it too easy for me to shoot you down,
it is no fun anymore. Use some imagination, like Tom Droege. Why not claim
that Pons and Fleischmann calibrate with light bulbs strapped to angry mice?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Blank boiling cells???
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blank boiling cells???
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 18:05:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says:  "And what about the high temperature calibrations they
did, blank boiling cells and all that?"
 
Gosh, Jed I must have missed it when I read the paper.  Can you point out where
P&F show blank boiling cell results in their paper?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  AD590 vs LM34
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: AD590 vs LM34
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 18:05:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, specs are specs, and I have long ago learned to look at how the device
is actually made to determine what I believe in the way of specification.
 
Analog Devices is at least a factor of Two over National in my believeability
index.  But actual experience with a device beats everything.  Of course I
calibrate everything.
 
The current source device makes it much easier to transport the signal over
long distances.  I find that a current source with a capacitor at the
receiving end does a pretty good job of filtering the noise.  But we each
will have our own preffered methods to finally obtain accuracy.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Balloons
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Balloons
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 18:17:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan notes that water (and helium etc.) will escape from a balloon.  I
recommend for the boy scientist the aluminized mylar ones that are sold by
the "balloons are us" entertainment folks.  These also do not require much
pressure to fill as a rubber balloon does.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / R Schroeppel /  Hot fusion - neutron budget
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion - neutron budget
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 19:30:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry has pointed ou that the net reaction in a conventional hot fusion
reactor is D + Li6 -> 2 He4.  This is carried out by a catalytic cycle
using a relatively large inventory of T, and a lesser inventory of
neutrons.
 
How are neutron losses made up?  In the ideal reaction, one n breaks a
wall-mounted Li6 into a T and an He4; the T is collected and burned in
the hot section of the reactor, fusing with a D to make He4 and another n.
>From the n perspective, this cycle has a gain of 1.  Some obvious loss
mechanisms are n decay (about .1% if the mean time to encounter a Li6
is 1.3 seconds) and n absorption by reactor structure (probably more
than 1%, but I'm guessing).
 
There are machines to make neutrons, accelerators & such, but they
aren't very energy efficient per n.  The only systems I know of that
amplify neutrons involve fission of elements with Z>80.  Perhaps the
system will consume a bit of uranium as well?  If U were introduced
as a dopant in the Li6, maybe the operating gain could be 1.  A
drawback is that this makes the Li6 "hot", with an annoying (smallish)
inventory of fission products, and perhaps introducing the problem
that fission reactors have, that you can't just turn them off.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / John Logajan /  Re: AD590 vs LM34 and 100 watt humans
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: AD590 vs LM34 and 100 watt humans
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 19:07:02 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>But we each will have our own preffered methods to finally obtain accuracy.
 
I just took delivery of my LM34's yesterday.  I plugged in my new A/D
card from Bsoft for the first time too.  Boo hoo, the A/D picks up noise
even when the inputs are grounded to each other making the 4 lsb useless
for realtime.  I'll have to investigate the source of the noise.
 
However, I ran it into a 10,000 sample running average and was easily able
to resolve to 1/100 degree F, probably 1/1000F too, but I didn't look.
 
(Ironic that the "dithering" caused by the random noise allows one to
gain more resolution than the "step" quantumization of the D/A would
seem to allow.)
 
Anyhow, I can shine a flashlight at the LM34 from a meter away and watch
the temperature slowly climb, then shut off the flashlight and watch the
temperature continue to climb for a few seconds, and then start to
decline.
 
However, I haven't seen Tom Droege's 100 Watt human effect yet in an
unambiguous way.  Whether my furnace is running or the sun is behind
a cloud has a bigger effect than my presence near the sensor -- so far.
I'll keep looking.
 
By the way, my lab grade mercury thermometer agrees with my LM34 and A/D
to better than 1/2F at 77F.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Reports from Horses' Mouths
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reports from Horses' Mouths
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 20:40:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue, continuing his voyage to the Outer Limits of Fantasy, writes:
 
     "A second approach is simply to assert that CF investigators, such as
     Pons and Fleischmann, are themselves such experts in calorimetry that no
     one should question their results.  That raises an interesting question
     as to precisely how experience Pons and Fleischmann were with
     calorimetry prior to their initiation of CF research?  Unless I am
     corrected by someone in the know,  I think they started pretty much with
     no previous experience."
 
I am in the know, you are corrected. They were acknowledged experts in the
field long before CF came along. Fleischmann, in particular, is considered
world class in both calorimetry and electrochemistry.
 
     "Likewise how much calorimetry experience in total in represented by
     others claiming significant excess heat results?"
 
Tons. People like Bockris are certainly experts, but just to be certain,
Bockris told me he called in "the best calorimetry man in the State of Texas."
The fellow asked him, "how much power you are attempting to measure?" and
Bockris said it was in the multi-watt range. The fellow laughed and said he
wasn't needed, anyone can measure that and be certain of the results.
 
     "Please note, Jed, that McKubre has chosen to use a totally different
     method.  Perhaps he knows something?"
 
Consider it noted. McKubre told me at Nagoya that he was perfectly satisfied
with the calorimetry of Pons and Fleischmann. He said that it was not exactly
what he felt he needed for his purposes, but it suits their goals perfectly
well. He was later quoted in the newspapers saying that any first year
undergraduate can see that their experiment is conclusive proof of the effect.
 
     "The third approach would be to do at least a partial analysis of the
     way in which the device in question is supposed to work. In that case we
     need to agree upon a model which incorporates the essential features and
     operates according to more basic physical principles."
 
HEY! I HAVE MUCH MORE FUN IDEA! Dick, you get the paper by Pons and
Fleischmann, read the model which is described there in enormous detail, and
which incorporates all kinds of fourth order considerations, and you tell us
what is wrong with it! Say, won't that be fun! You have a whole, ready made
model, sitting right there, and you tell us all exactly what is wrong with it.
The equation contains dozens of terms, I wouldn't want to try uploading it in
this medium what with all those subscripts, greek letters, "WK^-4," "slope of
the change in the heat transfer coefficient with time" and all the rest, but
why don't you start by telling us what is wrong with the general outline,
described in the small print under the equations:
 
     "change in the enthalpy content of the calorimeter = enthalpy input due
     to electrolysis - enthalpy content of the gas stream + excess enthalpy +
     calibration pulse - time dependent heat transfer coefficient * (effect
     of radiation + effect of conduction)"
 
Go ahead, Dick! What is stopping you? It's red meat, right on the table. Heck,
it is as easy as performing an experiment. Anyone who is so damned certain he
is right as you should not hesitate to go right the source and find the
mistake. You think you can do a better model then them? Do it, guy! Show us
your stuff! You think you understand calorimetry better than them (and me!),
well great! Ain't You Hot Stuff? So prove it already, show us your model, show
us your experiment, and show us how well you understand *their* model.
 
...Ha, ha, ha. That's a joke. I know what is stopping you. You could not begin
to deal with their paper or their model, and you wouldn't do an experiment if
I paid you, because you know darn well it would prove you are wrong. All you
"skeptics" are the same: you talk, talk, talk, but you never dare try to prove
your stupid ideas, and you never actually read the papers or challenge the
equations, because you know you are wrong. You people are a bunch of cowards
and liars, but I have to admit, you are not such fools that you actually
believe your own nonsense, because you never try to prove it is true.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Bruce Scott /  Re: CROSS SECTION DATA
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CROSS SECTION DATA
Date: 28 Sep 1993 16:50:58 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

 
Speaking of cross sections, I would like to see what anyone has on the
reaction, p + B11 --> 3 alpha + energy.
 
I need the sigma v as a function of temperature and electron density.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  schlichting@pa /  Cathod Metallurgy..
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cathod Metallurgy..
Date: 28 Sep 93 13:49:56 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Dear Gentlemen and Ladies,
 
 As I have completed some research in the area of Pd/Pd-alloy metallurgy
I have some understanding of the location of the H or D in the f.c.c
lattice.
 
The "general" thinking is that the protium or D+ in the (beta) phase
Pd hydride is purely intersitial....
This means that the Pd site is not replace by the newly absorbed atom but
the protium finds a 'low rest' site between the Pd's within the lattice.
 
If one is to believe this...Then there are "two" interstial site locations
in the f.c.c. structure that termed 'Tetrahedral' and 'octahedral' that
are referred to in the literature.
 
As I understand it, X-Ray crystallography measurements are not conclusive
in this matter since  hydrogen  have such low x-ray scattering power.
 
Some work has been done in the late 50's and 60's with neutron diffraction
to determine the exact positions of the H or D in the (beta) phase lattice.
These measurements made at about room temperature indicate that the
octahedral site is favored. This gives the high ratio hydride a simple
cubic structure.
 
At temperatures < 55K, it seems that there is some tendency for the hydrogen
to occupy the tetrahedral sites (only partialy though).  Some researchers feel
this  explains the difference in heat capacities and electrical resistance
 observed.
 
Much of the literature shows discrepency in these areas....Does anybody
know of definitive work in this area ???
 
The ability of H or D to permeate the structure in nearly 1:1 ratio makes
me feel that this is an "alloy".  The behavior suggests that hydrogen or D
acts much like a metal when in combination with Pd.
 
The part that I don't yet understand is in both cases when the hydrogen
loading approaches 1:1. If we consider the tetrahedral or the octahedral
case the nearest neighbors are either 4 palladium
atoms or 6 palladuim atoms.
 
So where is it possible to get to the near proximity where 'fusion' may
occur ???
 
The next area to look is lattice spacing under high loads and the vibrational
nature of the hydrogen and palladium within the lattice(s).  I may need some
help in finding the lattice parameters for the Pd/Ag/H or D cases.
 
Respectfully Submitted
Mark Schlichting
 
PS.  Tom I'm getting closer,  will let you know when.....
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Mike Jamison /  Re: AD590 vs LM34 and 100 watt humans
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: AD590 vs LM34 and 100 watt humans
Date: 28 Sep 1993 17:26 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Sep28.190702.18613@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes...
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>But we each will have our own preffered methods to finally obtain accuracy.
>
>I just took delivery of my LM34's yesterday.  I plugged in my new A/D
>card from Bsoft for the first time too.  Boo hoo, the A/D picks up noise
>even when the inputs are grounded to each other making the 4 lsb useless
>for realtime.  I'll have to investigate the source of the noise.
 
Chances are the noise is created by the PC your card's stuck in.  When we
designed the DAC system at Keithley, we chose to put the A/D and analog
circuitry on an external "pod", feeding power to it via a dc/dc converter
with regulated & filtered output.  We were getting on the order of microvolts
of noise, with a 12 bit A/D.  Of course, the system cost a little more than
$200, too.
>
>However, I ran it into a 10,000 sample running average and was easily able
>to resolve to 1/100 degree F, probably 1/1000F too, but I didn't look.
>
>(Ironic that the "dithering" caused by the random noise allows one to
>gain more resolution than the "step" quantumization of the D/A would
>seem to allow.)
 
The same trick has been used by NASA, for color image retrieval by ?Viking?
probes to mars, I believe.  I'm not sure I'd trust it, since it depends on
that lsb of the A/D reliably switching between '0' and '1' at a value of
'1/2'.  I believe A/D's are spec'd to switch between '0' and '1' (the lsb,
that is) for values between 1/4 and 3/4, guaranteeing monotonicity.
>
>Anyhow, I can shine a flashlight at the LM34 from a meter away and watch
>the temperature slowly climb, then shut off the flashlight and watch the
>temperature continue to climb for a few seconds, and then start to
>decline.
 
I'd guess the "continue to climb" after the light's switched off is due to
the thermal resistance between the actual sensor and the protective package.
It also may have something to do with your digital averaging technique.
>
>However, I haven't seen Tom Droege's 100 Watt human effect yet in an
>unambiguous way.  Whether my furnace is running or the sun is behind
>a cloud has a bigger effect than my presence near the sensor -- so far.
>I'll keep looking.
 
Wouldn't happen to be cold blooded, would you? :-)
>
>By the way, my lab grade mercury thermometer agrees with my LM34 and A/D
>to better than 1/2F at 77F.
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Nice post, John, thanks!
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Settling Time
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Settling Time
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 18:32:46 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In message: <930927113305.20a07908@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> Tom Droege writes:
 
>Jed Rothwell again shows his lack of familiarity with the workings of science
>when he prefers the use of "Settle Time" to "Time Constant".  As far as I know
>"Settle Time" is Jed Rothwell's made up term, and thus has no particular
>meaning.  Time constant has a well established meaning for all those that have
>solved the first order differential equation which gives rise to it.  This is
>almost every serious "hard" scientist.
 
> OK Jed, if you must use "settle time", then give us a precise definition.
 
Unfortunately Tom's attempt to imply that Jed has a lack of knowledge in
mathmatics instead shows his ignorance of the terms used in another field of
study - electronics. Jed has an electronic background, as do I.  Settling time
is a much used, and very understood term to electonic engineers.  If you don't
believe it, take a look at almost any linear IC data sheet, and you will see
something to the effect of:  "Settling time  to .1% = 1.1 uSec & to .01% 1.5
uSec".
 
In the message Jed left, "settling time" WAS a more appropriate term than
"time constant".  What he meant was simply what it sounds like:  The amount
of time to settle to some small value.  When a value is not given, it is
usually assumed to be a value too small to measure, or too small to be of
any consequence.  If we are talking about a linear system with one time
constant, then settling time is usually considered to be about 3 to 4 time
constants.  If however we are talking about a complex system with multiple time
constants, or with poles and zeros situated such that you get a ringing (yes
poles and zeros are electronic terms related to low frequency and high
frequency roll-off), or the system is non-linear, then settling time is
invariably the better way of specifing at what point the system is "stable".
That is why electronic data sheets almost always use this term instead of time
constant.
 
Your request to specify it as time constant makes a number of assumptions,
which are not valid.  You are assuming that the rise in temperature is linear
and has only one time constant.  If the heater has substantial thermal mass and
is not very well coupled with the water, then there will be at least two
dominate time constants.  You also have the time constant of the thermometer,
and if the thermometer is in the vapor, that will add another time constant.
If the water starts boiling, you then have a very non-linear system (clipping
is the electronic term for this), and "time constant" becomes totally
meaningless, but settling time does not.  Also since the specific heat of water
changes from 1.0074 cal/g/deg. C at 0 C to .99795 at 35 C to 1.0070 at 100 C,
and the heater's output quite possibly varies with temperature, we are talking
about a non-linear system, even without boiling.  Thus the term "time constant"
becomes inappropriate, or at best inaccurate.  Solutions to first order
differential equations are of limited use in the real world when modeling
higher order systems.  Settling time is a valid term even if the system is
non-linear and has multiple time constants, ringing, overshoot, delay terms,
feed forward terms, and clipping.  Once it reaches within the specified
deviation of the final value, and stays within that deviation, it is considered
settled.  Time to reach that point is simply the "Settling Time".
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: AD590 vs LM34 and 100 watt humans
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: AD590 vs LM34 and 100 watt humans
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 01:11:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>"dithering" caused by the random noise allows one to gain more resolution
>
>I'm not sure I'd trust it, since it depends on that lsb of the A/D reliably
>switching between '0' and '1' at a value of '1/2'.
>
>I'd guess the "continue to climb" after the light's switched off is due to
>the thermal resistance between the actual sensor and the protective package.
>
>It also may have something to do with your digital averaging technique.
 
My running average took one sample and printed out a result.  I've now
changed this because I thought it might be smoothing out abrupt changes and
just making an illusion.  So now I take 30,000 samples and take the average,
then take 30,000 more samples and take the average, etc.  I can take 30,000
samples a second, which is why I chose that number.  Each group of 30,000
samples is a complete unit with no carry over from the previous group.
 
Using this method, I can now verify that I can see resolutions to 1/1000
of a degree F.  I say that because I can see trends between the above
samples that often differ by no more than +/- 1 count in the 1/1000ths
digit -- and sometimes it stays steady over three our four samples (seconds.)
 
[I have 2048 steps between 0 and +1V.  The LM34 gives 10mV per degree.  That's
20 steps per degree, or 0.05.  So I'm doing 50 times better than I ought.]
 
When there is an uptrend, you can see it in a consistent upcounting
in the least significant digit (below 0.001xxx the digits change too fast
to see a trend by eyeball.)  Similarly when there is a downard trend, it
is a consistent down swing in the lsd.
 
Of course, there are a lot of up and down trends -- as one would expect
in a heated living area in autumn in Minnesota. :-)
 
I can't unambiguously tell if the flashlight effects it unless it is closer
than four feet away.  Also, with this new sampling technique I see only
a two-three second continued heating after the light is switched off.
The primary heat path is thru the LM34 leads, since I have the plastic
version rather than the metal can, and I believe they claim a 15 second
response time.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 03:28:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>Maglich has had reasonable funding for ~20 years now,
 
This assertion is contrary to what I've heard about it.  His funding has
been sporatic at best.  There have been many idle years.
 
>and still has no proof of principle.
 
Again, way back in 1986 or therebouts, he already had a machine that
was reaching the critera product equal to or exceeding any other then
device.  On that basis alone, his "proof of principle" was as far along
as any other avenue -- including the mainliners.  Presumably you aren't
going to hold MIGMA to a higher standard of performance than the mainline?
 
>And theorists suspect there would be a lot of not-yet-encountered
>instabilities in the MIGMA plasma if you ever could get the particle density
>up near where it needs to be.
 
Ditto my above comments.  No one is saying MIGMA is a sure thing, but
based upon where he was/is compared to where the mainline was/is you
haven't offered a compelling distinction to reject one over the other.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Logajan /  Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some MIGMA info
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 03:47:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

The following news release on MIGMA was sent to me about three months
ago by Otis Port -- thanks Otis.
 
                                         PR Newswire  Jan 18, 1993
NOVEL MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SUCCESSFULLY TESTED IN SMALL DEVICE
   In the January issue of Physical Review Letters, Advanced Physics Corp.
(APC), a small research and development company, describes how it succeeded
in compressing ultrahot nuclear fusion fuel to 10 billion degrees centigrade
without "instabilities."
   If APC's method is confirmed at higher densities, it may lead to a
compact, environmentally acceptable fusion power plant capable of burning
Helium-3, a non-radioactive fuel which, unlike the government Tokamak
program, produces negligible amounts of neutron radiation, minimal heat
pollution, and will not breed nuclear weapons.
   The results reported by Advanced Physics were carried out in a "self-
collider," an entirely different, small, non-plasma device invented in the
United States. In the "self-collider," beams of atomic nuclei are fired head-
on against each other. The "self-collider" achieved 70 times greater
temperatures than Tokamak and kept the fuel at that temperature for more than
20 seconds, 20 times longer than Tokamak.
   But the "self-colider" has not yet achieved the fuel compression needed
for "net energy production." The beam approach to fusion was first tried at
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy in the
1960s. That approach was dropped after 10 years because of "instabilities."
The "self-collider," however, was able to achieve a 500-fold greater level of
fuel compression by eliminating those "instabilities."
   In the reported tests, the "instabilities" were quenched by causing
electrons to bounce back and forth through the fuel ions. Drs. Bodgan Maglich
and Tsuey-Fen Chang, the authors of the Physical Review Letters article,
refer to this as "non-linear stabilization of plasmas by electron
oscillations." This technique had not previously been applied to fusion
reactors.
   Advanced Physics Corp. is the industrial lead member of the research
consortium SAFE (System for Aneutronic Fusion Energy) whose goal is to
develop a small non-radioactive fuel power plant. The academic lead member of
SAFE is the University of California, Irvine, and, in Russia, the Russian
Center for Technical Physics at Chelyabinsk-70. Chelyabinsk-70 is the major
Russian nuclear weapons lab, where 43 physicists have now shifted their
research to aneutronic fusion.
   Contact: Frank Braun, 619-943-8898 or 714-854-6919
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 00:48:11 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0ohWTv-0000C9C@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
 
> I truly believe we would have commercial, aneutronic fusion
> generators today if Sen. McCormick had CANCELED the magnetic fusion
> program rather than trying to start up a crash program.
>
 
What is the basis fopr that belief? Where do you see a viable aneutronic
fusion reactor concept? Those reactions burn at much higher temperatures,
so they are generally more difficult to achieve than D+T fuel schemes.
If aneutronic could be done, D+T should be doable even easier.
 
 
 
> There is always Maglich, of course, who has been quite successful at
> raising private money.  One learns to say only positive things about
> Maglich's MIGMA.
 
I think you have it backwards---one learns only to say negative things
about MIGMA. Maglich has had reasonable funding for ~20 years now,
and still has no proof of principle. And theorists suspect there would
be a lot of not-yet-encountered instabilities in the MIGMA
plasma if you ever could get the particle density up near where it needs
to be.
 
 
It is easy to praise concepts that have never been tested. The fact
is, everyone jumped on the tokamak bandwagon in the late sixties
because it worked a lot better than anything else out there at the time.
That doesn't make it the end-all configuration, but its pretty silly
to malign it as if it were somehow low on the list of possibilities.
Funding for alternatives would certainly be a good thing, but the
tokamak desrves funding, certainly.
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / mitchell swartz /  Cartoons for the Defense (and filtration)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cartoons for the Defense (and filtration)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 02:57:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <01H3G26WYIQQ9PRLTX@vms2.uni-c.dk>
    Subject: RE: Cartoons for the Defense
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) does write:
 
=db  "what's this about accusing you of fraud?  ....
=db  I was not accusing you of fraud
=db (read what I wrote). But one wants to have some confidence that a quote is a
=db quote,and has not been changed. I do myself sometimes reformat quotes when I
=db extract a sentence, in order to re-line it up;I hesitate every time but I am
=db equally guilty,I guess.In any case,I take your word that you only remove
=db  spaces."
 
   Well, Dieter, perhaps you need only to reread the actual record which you
   posted.  Here is what you wrote:
 
=db "I notice that when you"quote" somebody's posting, you change it in
=db places; vide the above "benchare",which Iwrote as "bench are"; you have done
=db this to others' as well, and it makes one suspect that you might make other
=db changes to make your point."
  Message-ID: <01H3BZEGKYC29PPK2H@vms2.uni-c.dk>  Sub: Cartoons for the Defense
                       Dieter Britz [BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk]
 
  But here is what Webster [ibid.] says:
  fraud 1) - intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another
          to part with something of value
        2) -   an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
 
  Since I have not made any changes (other than erasing a space
   or two in order to get 80 characters on a line), nor acted to deceive
   nor misrepresent, it is obvious that you egregiously were apparently
   quite willing to falsely purport one "suspect(s ...) other changes"
    thereby only diminishing your own credibility.
 
   Now to the real chimera  ----->
 
=db "Now to the real issue, whether or not to include conf. procs. in the main
=db file. Naturally the TB's would like this, because the most positive "papers"
=db are given at conferences."
 
  How about the readers here who are interested parties who would like to read
   the results?   Why filter the data, Dieter?      (1984 again?)
 
=db "Isay that if a conference paper is any good,it will later be published as a
=db proper paper in a journal, so I do not need to take it on. On the other
=db hand, if such a paper is not so published,it was probably not good enough or
=db -as I think has happened- the authors have changed their minds and retracted
=db it quietly.In my own area, most conferences sort of second a good journal or
=db two,and encourage speakers or poster presenters to submit the full text as a
=db paper to these journals.They then get the usual referee treatment and get
=db published if passed, in a Special Issue."
 
 "usual referee treatment"  eh?  That is NOT what happens in this field, is it?
  People are unable to publish.  They have reported so right here on the net.
  So, therefore without such publication the information is
  thus filtered in your "compendium", which has now been quoted extensively
  by the "true-blue"-skeptics.
 
=db "My orderly mind can see that
=db if I did collect conf. procs.I'd have a lot of trouble getting hold of it
=db all, whereas I can get hold of most published papers quite easily. Of those
=db 830 now in the collection,I have most,right here in my filing cabinet, and I
=db have read them all with few exceptions.Even here, all is not quite so clear,
=db and Isometimes wait a long time for the less accessible stuff,and some items
=db  I may never get.
 
  Let's see.  Although you may have a good point, you filter the papers
   from the conferences because there are so many that they will not fit
   "in (your) filing cabinet" and they are not easy to "get hold of" (compared
    to published papers).   That is quite true.   But there
    are so many positive papers that my files now exceed several cubic feet
    in volume.  Many are not listed in your main bibliography.
 
 
=db "You might say that I could have a file named, say, cnf-conf, with procs. I
=db could indeed, but have chosen not to open that can of worms. I have wasted a
=db lot of precious research hourscompiling the bibliography;fortunately for me,
=db the flow is now but a trickle, and I can get some real work done."
 
   Let's get this straight.
     1 -   To include conf. procs. is a "can of worms".  Why?  Time?  Criticism?
     2 -    and "fortunately for me, the flow is now but a trickle" in not true,
                or is only true by filtering (vide supra).
 
        Many articles each month are published (several in Fusion Technology
  alone, and that would probably increase that if the "pressure" would relent)
       and the conference proceedings are each a "gold mine" with volumes of
       positive papers.   Given the actuality, is it not true that
       "the flow is now but a trickle" does not reconcile the facts if all
       reports are included?
 
   In any case, paper filtration is probably OK
                         if a "warning label" is given.   ;-)
 
                                          Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / mitchell swartz /  What DIck Blue wants to project
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What DIck Blue wants to project
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 02:58:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9309271853.AA26209@suntan.Tandem.com>
  Subject: What MItchell Swartz wants to know
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu) writes:
 
=dblue "Somehow Mitchell can't deal with the issues raised against cold fusion
=dblue except to assign dark motives to anyone who is skeptical about the
=dblue evidence in support of nuclear reactions by chemical means."
 
  Mr. Blue is merely projecting again!
  What is interesting is that Mr. Blue uses US Gov't (funded?) facilities
  of the NSF and the NSCL to attempt to demean almost every scientist in this
  field. Certainly anyone who demonstrates, or reports, a positive result
  is a prime candidate.       However,
  anyone who examines the record here will note that it is Dick Blue who has
  often failed to respond to science prefering personal attacks.
 
 
=dblue "All the schemes proposed for
=dblue hiding the evidence for a nuclear process have been very much ad hoc
=dblue and after the fact attempts to deny the clear implications of valid
=dblue experimental data."
 
   Ironic isn't it?      The so-called "negative"
   experiments have either been insensitive, indeterminate, and in some
   cases have been "very much ad hoc and after the fact attempts to deny
   the clear impliations of (their) valid experimental data", haven't they?
 
                                           Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Reply to Greg Kupergerg
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Greg Kupergerg
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 04:03:30 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <930924113204.20602734@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Hey! Greg, don't be so hard on us.  Some of the people - i.e. McKubre - have
>done careful experiments and think they see something in the way of "anomalous
>heat".  I certainly see something that I can not explain.
 
I'm sorry to be pouring so much heavy water on all of this.  Your
calorimetry, as you describe it, seems above and beyond careful.  You
could have a new and useful technique for many chemistry experiments.
 
Be that as it may, your electrolysis cell is designed for nuclear
effects, but you are studying it with a chemist's diagnostic.  It makes
as much sense as looking for buckyballs with a Geiger counter.
However technically competent your work may be, your experimental
plan has contradictions.
 
I'm not abreast of McKubre, but I'm dubious about his excess heat plan,
because EPRI, according to *Bad Science*, is explicitly funding a
search for fusion, not excess heat of unknown origin.
 
>Seems to me that when you see something that you can't explain it is
>worth studying further.
 
If you look at anything hard enough through a blurry lens, you will
eventually see something you don't understand.
 
>Excess heat and no nuclear particles just says that it is not the "standard
>model" physics.
 
No, what it says is that you'd have two spectacular surprises instead
of just one.  The non-naive read that as "too spectacular".  Why
look for six-leaf clovers when no four-leaf clovers have been found?
 
>One thing sure, if we never look for new things, we will not
>find them.  I would not recommend that someone who wanted a safe and sure
>carreer path take up this work.
 
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reports from Horses' Patooties
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reports from Horses' Patooties
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 02:04:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <930928195124_72240.1256_EHK30-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>"skeptics" are the same: you talk, talk, talk, but you never dare try to prove
>your stupid ideas, and you never actually read the papers or challenge the
>equations, because you know you are wrong. You people are a bunch of cowards
>and liars...
 
     Which equation *wasn't* challenged?
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Reports from Horses' Mouths
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reports from Horses' Mouths
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 02:49:03 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <930928195124_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
> All you "skeptics" are the same: you talk, talk....
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                     (1)
> ... you never actually read the papers or challenge the
> equations, because you know you are wrong.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                             (2)
> You people are a bunch of cowards and liars
                                        ^^^^^
                                         (3)
 
> - Jed
 
Let me get this straight:
 
(1) I say I am skeptical of CF
 
(2) I know I am wrong.
 
(3) I am a liar.
 
(1) + (3) => I am not really skeptical of CF, therefore I believe
in CF. But then I believe in CF and (2) => CF does not exist (and I know it).
 
Ok Jed, if you say so :-)
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 29 Sep 1993 04:36:13 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
[concerning Maglich's MIGMA]
 
>Again, way back in 1986 or therebouts, he already had a machine that
>was reaching the critera product equal to or exceeding any other then
>device.  On that basis alone, his "proof of principle" was as far along
>as any other avenue -- including the mainliners.  Presumably you aren't
>going to hold MIGMA to a higher standard of performance than the mainline?
 
This is nonsense. There are MIGMA posters at APS, and this claim -- if
made at all -- was certainly not accompanied by anything convincing.
 
It would have been the talk of the meeting if it had.
 
If you are convinced otherwise, I would be happy to be rebutted with a
solid reference.
 
20 keV ions in MIGMA with a density near 10^14/cm3 is what I want to
hear about; this is routine in TFTR hot-ion supershots.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: 29 Sep 1993 04:55:48 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) wrote:
 
> NOVEL MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SUCCESSFULLY TESTED IN SMALL DEVICE
>    In the January issue of Physical Review Letters, Advanced Physics Corp.
> (APC), a small research and development company, describes how it succeeded
> in compressing ultrahot nuclear fusion fuel to 10 billion degrees centigrade
> without "instabilities."
 
A good start, but what was the density? Never mind, I'll look at the
paper tomorrow. This post-dates APS, so there is nothing suspicious
just yet.
 
>    If APC's method is confirmed at higher densities, it may lead to a
> compact, environmentally acceptable fusion power plant capable of burning
> Helium-3, a non-radioactive fuel which, unlike the government Tokamak
> program, produces negligible amounts of neutron radiation, minimal heat
> pollution, and will not breed nuclear weapons.
 
That is an enormous "if" there, on the density.
 
We have been through this before with the tokamak. Two very big
disappointments in confinement (Ohmic heating saturation at high
density, the "L-mode" degradation under beam heating), without which
we would have had fusion years ago. As I have said before, such
concepts as MIGMA deserve their chance, but I would prefer not to
repeat all our phantasmal PR mistakes.
 
If you fuse He3 with D, you will get neutrons. I guess they are trying
to do He3 + He3 --> alpha + 2p. Why is it not _no_ neutron radiation?
 
>    The results reported by Advanced Physics were carried out in a "self-
> collider," an entirely different, small, non-plasma device invented in the
> United States. In the "self-collider," beams of atomic nuclei are fired head-
> on against each other. The "self-collider" achieved 70 times greater
> temperatures than Tokamak and kept the fuel at that temperature for more than
> 20 seconds, 20 times longer than Tokamak.
 
This bit about the temperature is completely meaningless if the beam
is not a moving plasma. It is more like beam collision energy; holding
the beam particles in permanent arcs and having them collide at a
given place in those arcs is the idea. If you can keep from losing
beam energy, you don't have to care about the low cross sections. The
bit about keeping the fuel and suppressing instabilities makes it
sound like this is exactly what they did. Good luck to them getting
the density up to reasonable levels.
 
Note that "20 seconds, 20 times longer than a tokamak" is incorrect.
Although the temperature is lower, Tore Supra has demonstrated
sustained discharges over a minute.
 
They need to be more careful in defining the distinction between
energy and particle confinement times and the discharge or beam
lifetime. And note that these concepts have different meanings in a
beam system as in a confined plasma.
 
More when I see the paper.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Proof (?) that calorimeters really work
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Proof (?) that calorimeters really work
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 11:50:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1459:
 
>The writing I have seen in relationship to cold fusion would seem to
>indicate that most such people see the accuracy as limited to a few
>per cent at best.  ...
 
This is true, except that I think Todd Green has got it down to about 1%,
with quite some effort. Perhaps he cares to comment?
 
>A second approach is simply to assert that CF investigators, such as
>Pons and Fleischmann, are themselves such experts in calorimetry that
>no one should question their results.  That raises an interesting
>question as to precisely how experience Pons and Fleischmann were
>with calorimetry prior to their initiation of CF research?  Unless
 
I am fairly well acquainted with the papers of both people; they are very
well known in the field of electrochemistry, Fleischmann being one of the
most respected workers. So they are both very experienced in all sorts of
electrochemistry, but I have never come across any previous calorimetry
done by them and they are certainly not known for that. Having said this,
however, what they say they do in their papers, although lacking in some
detail (such as just what is being Kalman filtered), seems sound; they are
not amateur scientists. Their figure of 0.1% accuracy is hard to believe but
the analysis looks good, especially in their latest paper in Phys. Lett. A
(the phases before the boiling phase), in which they seem to have taken the
criticisms about their previous neglect of vaporisation on board. That is,
they no longer neglect it. The only approximation I can see is the assumption
of purely radiative heat transfer, giving that T^4 law; I can imagine some
conductive losses through the top of the cell; F&P tell us that these are
small. All in all, whatever faults there might be with the work, they will not
be found in the analysis method. As I have said before, from the boiling phase
onwards, things fall apart a little, and there are several mysteries.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 / Norman Paterson /  Survey for Engineers/Managers
     
Originally-From: norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norman P. Paterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Survey for Engineers/Managers
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 93 20:13:08 CDT
Organization: The Inquiring Mind BBS  1 204 488-1607

 
PATERSON AEROSPACE INFORMATION
SERVICE SURVEY
_________________________________________________________________
 
May we have your assistance?  Your answers to the following questions will
assist us in developing a high technology databank/library/consulting service.
At present we have catalogs, brochures, manuals, samples, etc. detailing
the products of over 1,300 progressive technology companies.  Our goal is to
make it a detailed information source for the massive number of new products
offered on the global market.   This system will assist engineers,
procurement officers, managers, and others by:
 
1].  Informing them of new, unique, and sometimes easily forgotten yet
valuable products/services which  allow a competitive edge over
competitors.
 
2].  Free manpower, time, and other resources by delegating product/services
searches to PATERSON AEROSPACE's team of sourcing specialists OR
facilitate the search process by on-line access to our database which
includes  information on the company, product/service, and
photographs/drawings (transmission time under 10 seconds).
 
3].  Act as an educational/reference platform for new technology/processes.
 
******************************************************************************
DESCRIPTION OF OUR INFORMATION SERVICE
Our team of researchers scour scores of industry publications searching
for new products or services pertaining to new technology.  All high technology
producers are contacted for detailed information on their products/services.
This information is reviewed by us, pertinent information entered into a
computer database file along with scanned images of the products.  The
received catalogs/brochures are then filed in our library for future
reference.
Using a communications program which allows the transmission of detailed
images in less than 10 seconds, our customers can access our database and
view photographs or drawings of any product; as well as data on the
product.
An alternative is using our consulting service staffed with a Phd. of Mech. Engineer
ing, we
can do the search for you and/or give advice.
_________________________________________________________________
 
YOUR ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ASSIST US IN DETERMINING
    YOUR REQUIREMENTS AND HELP US PLAN/IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM:
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
1).  Do you feel there is a need for this service?  ___ YES      ___ NO
     Your comments (optional)
 
 
2).  Approximately how many man-hours do you presently expend searching for
new technology/products/services?  ______________hrs  per  ______________
 
3).  Do you feel the implementation of new/high technology enables you to
have a significant edge over your competitors?  ___ YES    ___ NO
 
4).  How do you rate the acquirement of high technology in your planning?
___ Important    ___ Necessary    ___ Basic    ___ Not needed
 
5).  With our proposed service photographs of the products would be accessible
to you on-line (with the ability for you to store these images) along with
data.  Do you feel this would help, rather than simply accessing data?  ___ YES  ___
 NO  __Possibly
 
6).  Would you likely use our databank for prospecting new customers?  ___ YES    __
_ NO
 
7).  Would you want your company and its products/services included in the
databank/library?  ___ YES    ___ NO
 
8).  Would you be willing to pay a fee  to have your company and its products/
services included in this information network?  ___  YES    ___ NO
If "YES" to above, please indicate the size of your company (aprox. annual
 sales) and inform us what you think a reasonable fee would be for your company.
$__________________ annual sales.        $___________________reasonable fee
 
 
9).  Have you  used such an Information Market?  ___  YES    ___ NO
 
10).  Would a published directory (annual printing, containing essential
company information, at a cost of $25.00 per directory) of our databank of
high technology companies be of interest to you?  ___ YES  ___ NO
 
11).  Would you use our consulting service to improve your operation?  ___ YES
      ___ NO __Possibly
 
 
12).  We plan  to have 10,000+ companies in our system by 1996. In your
opinion, what would be a reasonable fee to charge to:
A].  Access the on-line database  B].  Use our Consulting/Sourcing service
a].  $_________ per __________   b].  $_________ per _____________ (item, hour,
                                                                       etc.)
 
13).  Your  additional comments here would be appreciated:
 
 
 
 
Your Name ________________________________________
Your title _______________________________________
 
Thank you for your assistance.  Your help will allow us to effectively plan
and implement this service.  Because you took the time to help us, we wish to
offer our services in return.  Though we are  in the start-up
phase of business, we extend an offer to help you find one item of whatever
you need using our present database/library at no charge.  Simply call or fax
us with the item/service you are looking for.  We'll get back to you within 48
hours with the result of our search.
Sincerely,
 
 
Norman Paterson (Pres.)
PATERSON AEROSPACE
92 Walnut St., Wpg MB R3G 1N8
(204)786-2192  Fax (204)452-3047
Please return the questionaire to the above address, thank you.
 
 
norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudennorm cudfnNorman cudlnPaterson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Student research at BYU/young lions
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Student research at BYU/young lions
Date: 28 Sep 93 12:24:49 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tuesday again, and some time to catch up and hopefully contribute to the
discussion here.  Terry Bollinger responded to the following from Greg
Kuperberg, finding the question affrontive,  but I am glad to respond to what I
think is a well-meaning inquiry:
 
In article <1993Sep23.220601.6131@midway.uchicago.edu>,
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <1993Sep21.175954.951@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Jonathon Jones, who is working with Prof. Hansen and myself on
>>xs heat experiments here,...
>
> Steve, here is something that I just don't understand.  It's well
> established that the XS Heat people are a bunch of cranks who have
> forgotten how to do science, if they ever knew.  Some of them have both
> the scientific and ethical judgement of severe alcoholics.  The very
> idea of claiming excess heat in the absence of characterizing its
> source is scientifically ill-considered.  And then these reports of
> Heat and of XS Heat (as opposed to genuine excess heat) are far below
> even that naive level.  On the other hand, these XS Heaters have
> demonstrated the ability to harass and denigrate scientists and damage
> their careers.  Especially your career.
>
> Yet, you are taking valuable time away from your cold fusion experiments
> to pursue excess heat.  Why do you do it?  Is it to prove the XS Heaters
> wrong?  Nathan Lewis, Harwell, and Salamon already did that.   It's
> one thing if Tom Droege hones his calorimetry on palladium cathodes,
> but for you to follow suit seems like sheer masochism.
 
Why indeed?  Let me begin with an event from last Friday when a young man and
his wife showed up at my door.  I immediately recognized David Mince, who told
me he now lives in Los Angeles.  David was a student-researcher working with me
*five* years ago, and came to say hello while he was in town.  Then as now I
conduct a weekly session in which bright students are encouraged to first
brainstorm about physical puzzles that intrigue them, and then we toss around
means to answer their questions.  You see, Greg, I enjoy being a mentor,
rather than a director who tells students what they must do to help me in *my*
chosen research.  I am more interested that they learn and grow and develop
--how does one teach creativity and persistence in grappling with problems?--
than that they be "used" to satisfy my ambition.
 
Five years ago, David selected as his challenge to study so-called "ball
lightning."  Despite its unpopularity among physicists generally, I encouraged
him because *he* chose* the topic, and self-motivation and curiosity lead to
rapid learning.  Students learn best in an atmosphere of freedom and dialogue,
worst when coerced.  Surprise:  David developed, with limited tools (Van de
Graaf generator, etc,) an apparatus that actually made 1-mm diam. balls of
glowing whatever.  We never did figure out just what the balls were, until he
graduated.  We looked together at the apparatus, which is in my office
because another student, Kathryn, last week decided to pick up this thread.
(She had witnessed what may have been natural ball lightning a few weeks ago in
a lightning storm.  Are you sure it was not retinal fatigue, I asked her?....)
 
I don't wish to get diverted into a discussion of ball lightning here.  Rather,
this story is to illustrate my point that my main effort is to learn with
students, rather than to direct them in my own research paths.  One should
appreciate that BYU is unusual in that the some 26,000 undergraduate students
are of very high academic quality, selected from over 8 million Mormons (LDS)
worldwide and I think 10% of other persuasions.  There are about 40 graduate
students in Physics is all.  My effort at a research group (which sprang
initially from the piezonuclear fusion notion and work, in spring 1986) depends
on the influx of bright, curious, talented undergraduate students, and that
is the nature of the university.  There are three graduate students currently
in the group also, and they are high-quality and provide continuity.  We are
developing something here that seems to work in our educational AND research
goals.  You may not like it, I do.
 
In 1986, Rodney Price was a student at BYU, and he became interested in the
notion of "piezonuclear fusion" which Paul Palmer and I were brainstorming
about.  Rodney (now at UC San Diego I believe)was largely responsible for
putting together our first electrolytic cells using D2O in May 1986, and
in June, our D2-gas system for loading deuterium into metals that way.  This
project waxed and waned depending on student interest as do other projects, but
the thread was never dropped (unlike some).  I require students to keep
logbooks (ACS guidelines are urged) and to write up a report each term.  Paul
Palmer also kept logbooks, and from these records we were able to prove that we
had indeed been continuously working on piezonuclear (now "cold") fusion at BYU
since May 1986.
(Actually the Van Siclen-Jones paper which began this all for us was
written in 1985 and published March 1986 in J. Physics G.)
 
Most who know of the records accept these facts, some unwillingly I find.
It distresses me how Gary Taubes would not incorporate certain facts into his
picture of the history  -- for instance the report of Paul Banks, a student who
worked hard on piezonuclear fusion in 1988 and explained in his April 1988
report that further experiments were pending development of a high-quality
neutron spectrometer (whose virtually unfunded progress was slow).  We never
abandoned the electrolytic cell approach, as James Brophy (of U. Utah) first
suggested and Taubes evidently continued -- our records show otherwise.  I
don't know why Taubes did not incorporate the students' reports of spring 1988
into his account, or the fact that we had purchased palladium chloride in
spring 1986.  Somehow these crucial facts were overlooked -- they do not fit
the ugly picture he paints in his book.  Our meeting at Provo in Oct. 1990 on
"Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid Systems", Proceedings published
by the American Institute of Physics, 1991, #228  -- is *not* mentioned in
Taubes book!  Incredible oversight, n'est-ce pas?
 
Back to Greg's question:  you must appreciate the importance of
education/weekly-brainstorming sessions to me to understand what I am doing
here.  This is probably not typical of graduate research, but who says I have
to follow norms or opinions about what research is respectable?  The students
are allowed and encouraged to find projects they want to do.  Another example:
about 4 years ago, student James Maxwell (his real name) came up with a project
to measure low-frequency X-rays from the sun -- difficult because they do not
penetrate even the upper atmosphere well.  Now this project involves a dozen
students, it has a life of its own here apart from our group where the idea was
spawned and protected.  The "Goldhelox" Get-Away-Special will be tested in
Alabama in a vacuum chamber next year, and awaits a launch date on the shuttle.
Do you think the students are excited about this?  You bet they are, me too.
 
So about a year ago, student Jonathon Jones decided he wanted to study excess
heat -- does it happen?  Under what conditions?  What causes it?
Are X-rays found (since hardly anyone else seemed willing to look for
characteristic x-rays with a good spectrometer -- not Miles, not P&F, not
McKubre, etc.)?  Prof. Lee Hansen was willing to mentor the work and work with
Jonathon.  So we did it.  And we learned a lot.  I now understand Tom Droege's
work and frustration, and can see for myself the problems in the xs heat
claims.  And our results on recombination effects, etc., will be submitted for
publication you can be sure.  The work is educational, even if sneered at - who
cares about that?  I'm not here to build my personal reputation or satisfy my
ego -- I'm here primarily to educate and to learn and to share what I learn.
 
Thanks for the question, Greg.  From time to time we'll share other results
from our ever-changing research group, if people don't complain too loudly.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
BYU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: What McKubre really meant
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What McKubre really meant
Date: 28 Sep 93 12:46:24 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Sep26.021524.14231@coplex.coplex.com>,
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
>>measurement was probably not valid.  There is still the measurements
>>made by Rockwell on the molten cathodes that did show no 4He isn't
>>there?
>
> Are you refering to the paper by Liaw, Tao, Turner and Liebert? They
> report seeing He4 "ash" in the metalic electrolysis of LiD dissolved in
> KCl-LiCl melt with Pd electrodes.  I don't think they have retracted
> that finding Dick.
>
> Have Fun,
> Chuck Sites
>
 
No, Chuck, Dick is correct:
"Approximately 10% of the total mass of the electrode, comprising one sample
from ;the surface and one from the bulk, were analyzed by Rockwell
International for 3He and 4He by mass spectrometry of a molten sample.  This
technique is capable of detecting 10^11 atoms;  no He was observed
at that detection level."  M. McKubre et al., "Calorimetry and electochemistry
in the D/Pd system", Proceedings of the First Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion.
 
Care is also needed wrt the Liaw et al. paper:  indeed they report a small
amount of 4He, but they are *careful* to state that this amount is less than
atmospheric ambient and that contamination from the atmosphere cannot be ruled
out.  The same situation applies to Miles et al. (4He amounts less than
atmospheric), but Miles et al. nevertheless claim that atmospheric
contamination is *not* the cause of their observed 4He content, which they
boldly ascribe to fusion.  However, Miles
et al. used *glass* vessels (known to hold and pass 4He), and a Rockwell Int'l
team examined the Miles vessels and found that the 4He in that (China Lake)
experiment could indeed be due to atmospheric 4He contamination.
Yamaguchi also claims a small amount of 4He -- again he uses glass, beaucoup
glass in his vacuum vessel.
 
Again:  Compelling claims for helium-4 production cannot be made as long as
glass is present in the experimental apparatus. Yet everyone who claims 4He
production uses glass.  Hmmmmm...  Shades of Paneth and Peters 1926.  (See
Frank Close's book or John Huizenga's for more on that episode, where they
thought that hydrogen in *palladium* had made *helium-4* -- but it turned out
that glass was the source of the helium.   Deja gnu:  a strange animal we've
seen before.)
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep28.152515.969@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep28.152515.969@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 93 15:49:24 -0600

cancel <1993Sep28.152515.969@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Scientific Criticism
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientific Criticism
Date: 28 Sep 93 16:05:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

People, including scientists, generally do not like to hear that which
contradicts their current world-view or "map" -- it takes work to correct the
map, and we want to check each piece before it is admitted to the map.
On the other hand, challenges to the map and new information provide the only
way out of stagnation, the only path to learning.  So here goes:
 
Jed:  Recently you have been chiding Dick Blue and Tom Droege (as you did me
some time ago) for suggesting that a deposit forms on the electrode(s) in the
P&F boiling expt.  Yet when I pointed out that the voltage in that expt. rises
concurrently with the temperature rise, you agreed that some sludge might be
building up.  I have long argued that this sludge or gel might be due to
silicates, aluminates and/or borates. (See my post "Silicates and Aluminates,"
24 Nov. 1992.)
 
Jed and P&F (reference: P&F paper in Phys. Lett.A 176 (1993) , also in Nagoya
Proceedings):
Jonathon Jones and I looked carefully at the P&F Fig. 8, which shows temp. rise
and concurrent voltage increase for constant current (after a few days of
initial running with no heat increase).  By integrating under the voltage curve
and multiplying by I=0.500 A, we found approx. 8 MJ of Joule (resistive)
heating had been put into the cell.  This is far more than needed to boil away
the 45 ml of D2O electrolyte present.  But what about the
claimed "excess heat"?
That claim is based on a "calculation" given on p. 128 of their paper P. Lett.
A 176 (1993) which includes:
"Enthalpy input:  By electrolysis, (Ecell - 1.54) X (cell current) =~ 22,500J."
Note the 1.54XI , which means P&F assume that *no* recombination occurs in the
cell, which I again challenge.
 
Moreover, from the equation given cell current = "0.500 A" from Fig. 8, we
get   Ecell = 76.5 Volts  -- a whopping voltage! From that figure, it is *not*
possible to read this value.  First, the voltages are binned
in 1000 second bins -- we need the voltages on a much finer scale to scrutinize
the assertion that the Vcell during boiling was 76.5 volts.  Second, the plots
show lines which completely obscure the voltage reading in the crucial last
period of intense boiling.
 
What is going on here? How do P&F know the input voltage?  What they say in the
text (p. 128) is:  "The enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from the CELL POTENTIAL-
TIME RECORD, the radiative output is accurately known (temperaature
measurements become unnecessary!) and the major enthalpy output is due to
evaporation of the D2O."  (My capitals.)
Sorry, this is just not good enough to be compelling evidence for
excess heat.  Show us the cell voltage-time plot in sufficient detail for us to
check the enthalpy input.  I don't trust the "estimate" of 76.5 volts,
especially when one cannot read this from the cell potential-time plot (Fig. 8)
provided.      Prove that temp. measurements are "unnecessary"  --
are you sure that heat conduction is negligible?  I am not convinced.  Show
that D2O was not expelled in droplets along with "evaporation" (as Droege
points out, a probable oversight with major consequences).
 
Gentlemen, really.  The evidence presented for excess heat production is hardly
compelling.  And at this stage of research...
 
Dick Blue:  Days ago you cited me as saying that the P&F boiling period lasted
for 60,000 seconds.  Rather, I quoted the caption of
Fig. 11 in the P&F paper which shows temperature versus time for the "final
period" of Fig 8a, including boiling.  [Again:  why did P&F expand the temp.
part of Fig 8 but not the crucial cell voltage portion of that Figure?  Most
curious.]
 
Mitch:  In my Sept. 2 reply to you, I said:
        "Mitchell is incorrect to allege that the "Jones' Factor" correction is
dimply less than "1 milliwatt", tacitly assuming (incorrectly) that the factor
does not scale with cathode size."  "Our experiments show clearly that
recombination is a factor which cannot be ingnored (as Miles et al.
unfortunately did), even when the electrodes are fully immersed in
electrolyte."
 
To which you replied (3 Sept. "Response to Steve/ Recombination Effects")
        "You have not proven it.  Your experiments posted here, indicate that
it can be relatively ignored.  Furthermore, bigger electrodes do not
necessarily mean more recombination..."
 
Since you would not accept my posting, I called upon Jonathon Jones to clarify
our results.  Jonathon posted on 20 Sept.:
         "Mitch, did you think Dr. Jones was just guessing when he said that
the excess heat/recombination effect scaled with cathode surface area?  He
wasn't.  Experiments have been carried out that show that the "Jones' Factor"
scales with surface area.  ...  Our experiments have shown that recombination
occurs at the cathode in electrolysis cells when running at a low current
density for both Ni/H2O and Pd/D2O cells, and that this effect scales with
surface area."
         "We are not attempting to prove with our experiments that others are
wrong, but we have shown that recombination must be considered in this work in
order for reports of excess heat to be compelling."
 
Will you now correct your table to reflect these results?
 
Also incorrectly, you show the Notoya effect to account for zero excess power,
when in fact Jonathon posted a comment (again).  The control cell initially
had 3.4 V with 0.6 amps, or 2.04 W.  But when BYU student David Buehler moved
the alligator clips to points on the thin lead wires where these entered the
control cell, he then found 2.57 V with 0.72 A, or 1.85 W.  Thus, 2.04-1.85W
= 190 milliwatts (for your table, Mitch) were being dissipated into the air,
which evidently accounts for the putative excess heat in the Notoya
demonstration. (See Jones and Buehler postings in November 1992 and following.)
Thus, the "Notoya effect" accounts for 190 milliwatts of "excess power" -- put
that in your table, thank you.
 
As explained above, the "silicate effect" when combined with possible (I think
highly probable) errors in cell potential "estimates" can account for several
*watts* of putative excess power in the P&F boiling-cell experiments.
If you refer to the silicate-layer/Joule heating effect as a Jones' effect,
Mitch, please put "watts" by it as my assertion.
 
Finally, you recently referred to my quotation from the 1990 McKubre paper
regarding looking for helium as "Jones misstatement."  That is misleading:  I
was quoting from a published paper just what McKubre said about their search
for helium3 and helium-4.     They did look.  Enough of this.
 
Eugene Mallove:
You stuck your neck out publicly by stating that the xs heat in light-water
cells was of commercial interest.  Our work (see above, e.g.) shows that this
is not the case.  In addition:
I recently had a phone call from Dennis Cravens, a cold-fusion
researcher who has been doing experiments with Ni/H2O cells also.  He told me
that he has found that the alleged excess heat in those cells can in fact be
accounted for by H2+O2 recombination -- in complete agreement with our
findings.  I asked permission to quote him on his conclusion, and he granted
that permission.
 
The blade is falling on this one, Gene.
 
Jed, Mitch, Mel Miles, etc.:
Now, Jed has stated that I have made "uncalled-for attacks...
constant distortions, and his endless evasions.  I would not make an agreement
with someone like that to go dutch to dinner, and if I did, I would drop it as
soon as I saw his antics."
In a Sept. 18 posting "The Birds", Jed states:
>"Let me set the record straight:
>Scientists are working on CF.
>Fools, idiots, liars and traitors are denigrating it...
>Regarding the personal accusations, the record is 100% clear:  People like
>Jones and "lunatic" Britz have been going around spreading deliberate,
>poisonous lies about me, Miles, P&F, Notoya and many others, and then putting
>on holier-than-thou halos.  Oh, they claim to be objective scientists,
>interested only in the truth, but the record shows that they are character
>assassins."  (Jed Rothwell, 18 September 1993 post)
 
And Mitch complains that I "denigrate" others'
work.  I agree with Dieter:  you need to distinguish scientific criticism from
personal attacks, and to avoid ad hominem attacks yourselves.  I maintain that
my comments above are scientific criticism, requiring time and critical
thought to provide.  I have received considerable criticism from competent
scientists through the years -- and I appreciate that criticism which has
served to improve experimental efforts as I search for compelling evidence for
an admittedly tiny, possible nuclear effect.
 
In short, scientific criticism is part of the scientific process of sorting out
truth and error -- it is not intended as persecution or bigotry.  I have not
intentionally slandered Miles or anyone else, but I do challenge Miles' and
others' conclusions of excess heat production by nuclear processes, on
scientific grounds as I have explained at length.  I do not understand why
Miles, P&F, McKubre and others have not responded to my offer to check for
characteristic (e.g., palladium k-alpha) x-ray production using
our portable X-ray spectrometer, or some x-ray spectrometer of their choosing.
 
Yours truly,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep28.154756.970@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep28.154756.970@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 93 16:06:00 -0600

cancel <1993Sep28.154756.970@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Really, really big bursts
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Really, really big bursts
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 13:51:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Whenever we get around to discussing actual experimental results in
support of cold fusion Jed Rothwell starts making assertions about
data I simply have not seen or even heard rumours about.  I'm
sorry to admit that I don't read everything published in English
let alone what the Japanese are saying.  I rely on various summaries
such as Deiter's bibliography, and I have been assuming that any
truly earth shaking results would get mentioned here by someone.
I also come equipped with a natural tendency to ignore first mention
of great breakthroughs until after the first press conference when
some really solid information through reliable channels becomes
available.
 
For starters, Jed, bursts of excess heat can be one of three possible
things: (1)experimental screwups that ultimately don't mean anything.
(2)release of stored chemical energy to which I alluded earlier. or
(3)solid evidence for cold fusion.  Precisely how you decide when
a given experiment has moved from possibilities (1) or (2) into
domain (3) three has never been clear to me largely because you
are not very specific as to what experiments you put in that
realm.   In fact when we get down to the nitties and gritties you
always refer to Pons and Fleischmann or McKubre.  If we set
aside the boiling water data since P&F have indicated they don't
see it as being very good quantitatively speaking,  what are
the really big bursts they have seen and what is the average
excess heat?  Likewise what fraction of the excess heat McKubre
has seen has come in bursts that far exceed the limits of
chemistry?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  blue@dancer.ns /  McKubre on P&F calorimetry
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre on P&F calorimetry
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 13:51:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says that all the big guns in CF research are and always
have been the world-class experts in calorimetry.  I don't know about
such things, but a quote from Jed gives me some reason to question whether
that is indeed the case.
 
-jr-  "He (McKubre) was later quoted in the newspapers saying that
-jr-   any first year undergraduate can see that their experiment
-jr-   is conclusive proof of the effect."
 
I can read into that an assesment of P&F methods as being so simple
(perhaps primitive is the word) that any undergrad could understand
what they were doing.  It doesn't sound like a world-class
level of experimentation.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Dieter Britz /  Left hook, right jab
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Left hook, right jab
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 14:29:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Left hook:
 
We have in this group a few strident posters, and once again I find myself
wondering at their purpose. They yap at every positive bit of evidence, be it
ever so slight or doubtful or inconsistent with other positive results; they
cry foul at any criticism and, rather than answer it, they ask for proof.
What I don't understand about these propagandists is whether they really
expect to make any converts. Maybe they have another purpose altogether - such
as to maintain a profile, ridiculous or not, or whatever - but if their
purpose is to convince others in this group of the reality of cold fusion,
they do not succeed; on the contrary, they succeed only in annoying others.
 
I make no secret of being a skeptic. This means that I tend to think that cnf
is not a real phenomenon, but I will certainly accept evidence that compells
me to change my mind - when I see enough of it. A few quality positives is not
(yet) enough. There are not many and they all leave some room for doubt. That
part of me that still leaves room for the reality of cold fusion is not due to
the shrill tones of the propagandists, but in fact to quiet and reasonable
people such as Steve Jones, Bruce Liebert and McKubre (who, I believe, is
about to publish a paper in a journal). When these people argue, they argue on
points of science, and they will apply self-criticism when someone points out
a problem with their work; even more, like scientists, they are grateful for
such pointers. This is quite the opposite to the propagandists, who react by
pouring out ridicule and scorn.
 
Right jab:
 
Having said this, I must also say that the skeptic side has some problems.
There are some in that camp whom I call the ultra-hards such as Huizenga, who
will need to be beaten over the head with positive evidence (if and when it is
forthcoming) before they will believe it. Dick Blue comes close to belonging
to this group, sometimes. I am often frustrated to read yet another demand for
nuclear emissions accompanying excess heat, when at least some of the
proponents of cold fusion who (with backing from Hagelstein and Schwinger,
both very respectable people) say that there are reasons why you don't get
such emissions or who retreat to the simple statement that they don't know
where it's coming from, but it's there to be measured. Both positions are
acceptable, and it is pig-headed to maintain that if it's not a chemical
process, then if there are no nuclear emissions, there is no process at all.
One should always be wary of any scientist saying that something is
impossible, with few exceptions (such as perpetual motion); often, this says
only something about the scientist's narrow view. If Schwinger is willing to
stretch the Moessbauer effect (if that is what he is suggesting), I am willing
to take it on. With an "impossibility", often, some essential factor is being
ignored as, for example, in the early and simple-minded disproofs of cold
fusion by pointing to the mean d-d separation in PdD and comparing this to
that in D2 gas, ergo. Admittedly, noone has yet proposed a convincing
mechanism for fusion enhancement in PdD by those 40-50 orders of magnitude
required, but it is certain that PdD is a different environment to the D2
molecule, so someone might come up with that essential factor that does the
trick.
 
Apart from ultra-hards, we also have unfair treatment of cnf workers. Although
I maintain that there is a sufficient number of respectable journals that will
consider cnf papers and put them through the usual and reasonable refereeing
stage (referees are useful people, you know; I have several times benefitted
from a referee's criticism of a paper of mine). It is common knowledge that
Nature and Science will not touch cnf papers with a 40' pole, but as I have
said, so what? However, I am told that many journals do give biassed treatment
to cnf work, and this is a bad thing. It does reduce the range of choice for
the submission of papers. Something like this must have been behind the choice
of Surface Coatings Technology for one of Steve Jones' papers, a strange
journal choice. I am told also that there is very little grant money for cnf
work, and that most people in the US have to sort of sneak the funds across
from other grants. About a year ago, I asked someone who had done a years'
stint as an NSF grant administrator, and he told me that as far as he could
see, cnf applications were treated the same as all others; nevertheless, there
is reason to doubt that this is the case. The waters are undoubtedly muddied
here by the fact that cnf has attracted a lot of gentleman amateurs and
basement researchers; some of these do excellent work, but outfits like the
NSF will not normally back such outsiders. I believed that Bockris would get
whatever he asks for, automatically, but I was informed that this is not so.
His past record almost demands that he be given an automatic yearly and
princely grant. Personally idiosyncratic (most electrochemists can tell a
"Bockris story"), he is revered by electrochemists as a scientist.
The funding situation, then, is a shame. I would like the Bockris'es, Jones'es
and Lieberts to get the money they need to get the evidence they need, and it
is shameful (if true) that Hagelstein's tenure should have been in doubt
simply because he has a theory of cold fusion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 16:02:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <m0ohWTv-0000C9C@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
>writes:
>
>> I truly believe we would have commercial, aneutronic fusion
>> generators today if Sen. McCormick had CANCELED the magnetic fusion
>> program rather than trying to start up a crash program.
>
>What is the basis fopr that belief? Where do you see a viable aneutronic
>fusion reactor concept? Those reactions burn at much higher temperatures,
>so they are generally more difficult to achieve than D+T fuel schemes.
>If aneutronic could be done, D+T should be doable even easier.
 
Coming from a member of one of the foremost Tokamak groups in the world,
your naivette is touching and (here's where my 3-sigma cynicism toward
 the DoE's fusion program gets its support) all too predictable.
 
Of course aneutronic HF implies D+T is doable!  But D+T involves T and
produces copious neutrons, both of which one would rather avoid (just
 ask the Tokamak guys at Princeton who have been putting it off for years).
If one's device can attain confinement parameters high enough to burn
aneutronic fuels, one would never use tritium, even in one's experiments.
 
One might run experiments with dilute D+D so as to measure, via the low
level neutron flux, the level of confinement one is achieving while
one is tuning up the device to burn an He3-rich aneutronic mixture and
maybe a Li6-rich+D mixture on the way to the "dream machine" p-B11
mixture.  But one wouldn't even stop to commercialize the low-level
aneutronic fuels unless one encountered insurmountable obsticles on
the way to the dream machine.
 
Technically, the bases for my belief are the experimental results out
of ITT Farnsworth labs in the late 1960's and experimental results from
Paul Koloc's original due-diligence on his spheromak patent as well
as his more recent Plasmak(tm) work -- all three of which were
privately funded prior to any government money anywhere in the world
being spent on them.
 
AND
 
Financially, the basis for my belief is my difficulty in talking to
private funding sources about any of these concepts without the subject
of the TOKAMAK coming up with its BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of
"world-wide experts" proclaiming they need DECADES to achieve a
commercially viable system that even THEN is suspect due to neutron
activation problems.  The Government fusion program kills other investment.
 
But you don't need to take my word for it.  If you like the TOKAMAK
so much, get a load of THIS:
 
Bob Hirsch, founder of the US TOKAMAK program published the original
paper on the Farnsworth device.  He now claims it is a far superior
approach to the TOKAMAK.  Bob Bussard, the guy who pushed the TOMAKAK
concept as far as it would go with his ground-breaking, privately funded,
COMPACT TOKAMAK work, also decided Farsnworth was right (after taking
an excursion into a somewhat less optimal device under Craig Fields in
 DARPA).  Princeton and the national labs picked up on Koloc's spheromak
and as a result Hirsch (remember him from two sentences ago? ... founder
 of the US TOKAMAK program) claimed it was one of the best candidates for
commercialization.  There are other, lesser, but more current TOKAMAK
luminaries, specifically within the ITER program here in La Jolla, who
privately support both Farnsworth's device and Koloc's devices IN
PREFERENCE TO the TOKAMAK.  Naturally, with the great big ITER carrot
dangling in front of their eyes at the end of the funding stick, you can
imagine how enthusiastic they are about making public pronouncements of
this type.  DoE would cut them off in a picoseond.
 
Now Hirsch isn't about to say it, probably because he is such a
politician and because he founded the program, but I wouldn't doubt
that in his heart of hearts, he agrees with me when I say:
 
I truly believe we would have commercial, aneutronic fusion
generators today if Sen. McCormick had CANCELED the magnetic fusion
program rather than trying to start up a crash program.
 
This statement must, of course, remain that of a "true believer" until
the "faith" (based on substantial experimental evidence) is proven
correct, or baseless, by more work.
 
>> There is always Maglich, of course, who has been quite successful at
>> raising private money.  One learns to say only positive things about
>> Maglich's MIGMA.
>
>I think you have it backwards---one learns only to say negative things
>about MIGMA.
 
I think you missed the sarcasm in my statement.  Haven't you heard
about the lawsuits against people who have said negative things
about MIGMA?  If not, you had best tread carefully.
 
I will say this about MIGMA:
 
It is more viable than the TOKAMAK.
 
>Maglich has had reasonable funding for ~20 years now,
>and still has no proof of principle.
 
Oh, and of course the TOKAMAK hasn't had "reasonable funding for ~20
years now". ;-)
 
>And theorists suspect there would
>be a lot of not-yet-encountered instabilities in the MIGMA
>plasma if you ever could get the particle density up near where it needs
>to be.
 
Oh, and of course no theorists predict any such instabilities at such
densities with the TOKAMAK.... ;-)
 
>It is easy to praise concepts that have never been tested.
 
It's even easier to praise concepts that have achieved experimental
results on the order of the TOKAMAK's with orders of magnitude less
funding -- especially when they appear to scale nicely to aneutronic
cycles in devices that would be economical to operate.
 
>The fact
>is, everyone jumped on the tokamak bandwagon in the late sixties
>because it worked a lot better than anything else out there at the time.
 
The U.S. jumped on the TOKAMAK bandwagon because our "experts" (sans Hirsch)
had been using their "proven theories" to malign the Soviet reports of
relatively high confinement parameters and when they discovered the Soviets
were right -- they thought they had just witnessed another Sputnik out of
the Soviets with all the associated politics of the Apollo program.
 
They were wrong on all counts.
 
>That doesn't make it the end-all configuration, but its pretty silly
>to malign it as if it were somehow low on the list of possibilities.
 
It's not silly at all.  Applying your own experts and your own arguments
to the TOKAMAK is damning.
 
>Funding for alternatives would certainly be a good thing, but the
>tokamak desrves funding, certainly.
 
It did in the 70's.  Not in the '90's.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Scientific Criticism
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scientific Criticism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 15:13:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Steven Jones writes:
>By integrating under the voltage curve and multiplying by I=0.500 A, we
>found approx. 8 MJ of Joule (resistive) heating had been put into the cell.
>This is far more than needed to boil away the 45 ml of D2O electrolyte present.
 
As Jed correctly pointed out the other day, you don't want to explain
anomalous heat by appealing to anomalous storage.  For instance the human
body produces on the order of 2000 MJ of heat per year -- more than enough to
boil away the body itself. I guess it all depends upon the rate at which such
things occur -- notwithstanding claims of spontaneous human combustion. :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 16:28:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>If you fuse He3 with D, you will get neutrons.
 
I believe He3+D is the reaction they are after now.  Further off are such
reactions as B+p.
 
>This bit about the temperature is completely meaningless if the beam
>is not a moving plasma. It is more like beam collision energy
 
When I was reading about MIGMA back in the late 70's they explained
why the refer to their partical beam energies in terms of temperature --
it is merely as a convenient comparison to thermal approaches such as
tokomaks.
 
The Lawson Criteria is given as a product of temperature, density, and
confinement time.  There is some conversion necessary when talking about
particle beam energies -- a sort of modified Lawson Criteria.
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / mitchell swartz /  On Scientific Criticism & "estimated voltage"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Scientific Criticism & "estimated voltage"
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 16:55:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Sep28.160506.972@physc1.byu.edu>
  Subject: Scientific Criticism
Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "What is going on here? How do P&F know the input voltage?  What they say
=sj  in the text (p. 128) is:  "The enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from
=sj the CELL POTENTIAL-TIME RECORD, the radiative output is accurately
=sj known (temperaature measurements become unnecessary!) and the major
=sj enthalpy output is due to evaporation of the D2O."  (My capitals.)
=sj Sorry, this is just not good enough to be compelling evidence for
=sj excess heat.  Show us the cell voltage-time plot in sufficient detail
=sj for us to check the enthalpy input.  I don't trust the "estimate" of 76.5
=sj volts, especially when one cannot read this from the cell potential-time
=sj plot (Fig. 8) provided.      Prove that temp. measurements are "unnecessary"
=sj -- are you sure ...."
 
 Steve, they wrote: "estimated from the cell potential".
                                        (changing capitals, ok, dieter?)
   You however (incorrectly) write they "estimate(d the voltage) of 76.5 volts"
 
       Units:  potential (volts)   <---- probably measured
          but  enthalpy  (joules)  <---- probably derived
 
    They probably measured the voltage and estimated the input
                           energy (ie. time-integral of power).
   After all, that is what they wrote,  isn't it?
         [One might wonder why anyone would attempt to turn this around]
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / mitchell swartz /  Recombination (was Scient. Criti.)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recombination (was Scient. Criti.)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 16:57:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Sep28.160506.972@physc1.byu.edu>
  Subject: Scientific Criticism
Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj  "Mitch:  In my Sept. 2 reply to you, I said:
=sj   "Mitchell is incorrect to allege that the "Jones' Factor" correction is
=sj    dimply less than "1 milliwatt" ...."
=sj To which you replied (3 Sept. "Response to Steve/Recombination Effects")
     =ms   "You have not proven it.  Your experiments posted here, indicate that
     =ms    it can be relatively ignored..."
=sj "Since you would not accept my posting, I called upon Jonathon Jones to
=sj clarify our results.  Jonathon posted on 20 Sept.:"
     =jj   "Mitch, did you think Dr. Jones was just guessing when he said that
     =jj the excess heat/recombination effect scaled with cathode surface area?
     =jj  He wasn't.   ... "
=sj Will you now correct your table to reflect these results?"
 
  Steve, please permit me to refresh your memory:
  After you sent Mr. Jonathan Jones in to defend and clarify, he received
     a few postings which did address problems with your experiment(s).
  For your convenience, short excerpts of just two of them from 9/21 and 9/23
     are shown below.   They (vide infra) contain questions based upon your own
     postings which incompletely discussed both this issue and your expt(s).
 
     We will be glad to "correct" the table (as done in the past) to
     fix any error.  Could you simply read the responses to the Sept 20
     posting, and answer the simple natural questions therein, so as to permit
     a better understanding of what correction you might desire?
 
 
=sj  "Also incorrectly, you show the Notoya effect to account for zero excess
=sj  power, when in fact Jonathon posted a comment (again).
=sj  The control cell initially had 3.4 V with 0.6 amps, or 2.04 W.
=sj  But when BYU student David Buehler moved the alligator clips to points
=sj on the thin lead wires where these entered the control cell, he then
=sj found 2.57 V with 0.72 A, or 1.85 W.  Thus, 2.04-1.85W
=sj  = 190 milliwatts ... were being dissipated into the air, ..."
 
  Good point.  Did he do this same procedure for the control cell?
               Can you really determine incremental changes in derived
               excess heat by manipulations of one side?   Oui or non?
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
P.S.  The following short excerpts with important and natural questions and
  scientific issues are repeated for the Jones' benefit, since they may have
   missed the postings.                :-)
 
   ====================== Excerpts from 9/21 posting ======================
 (on recombination:)
    1. What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in
         your cells by this method?
    2. Did you do anything different? (like add an oxygen tank)
  We still do not have a definitive answer, do we?
  But the banter here attacking any cf report, experimenter, (in both
    the past and the present incidentally) has proceeded at
   high volume anyway, has it not?
 
       Perhaps you might indulge us and reveal the maximum
    amount of heat you've seen this way (it is ok to specify electrodes,
    areas, current densities, total current, voltage, overvoltage, and
    even the PO2 or oxygen content), and whether an oxygen tank was used?
    If yes, what was the max "excess heat" without it?
                                    ***
   It is trivial in the field to consider recombination, or state when
  it is ignored.  The general replication of the cold fusion phenomena
   around the World remain compelling.  The claims against it are
   reasonable only if they are quantitatively examined and shown to
   occur in the cold fusion systems.
          [Subject: Quest. for Recombination in light water cells
          Message-ID: <CDpJzw.4yJ@world.std.com>
          Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 14:23:55 GMT]
 
  (on scaling up:)
    Does it scale up in a cold fusion cell (since it is trivial to
      get these recombination reactions to scale if one is simply directed
      to engineer such)?
    How high, in terms of electrical current density and volume of the
      reactor (or electrochemical cell)  did you get linearity?
          [Subject: Quest. for Recombination in light water cells
          Message-ID: <CDpJzw.4yJ@world.std.com>
          Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 14:23:55 GMT]
      ================ end of 9/21 posting =============================
 
   ====================== Excerpts from 9/23 posting ======================
   In fact, this discussion began with your denigration of a series of
         protium nickel experiments:
 
   == "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was used
   == as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire .. used as the oxygen
   == electrode. hile running with an
   ==      input power of 320 microwatts -- qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48V)--
   == the measured output was 750 microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when
   == calculated with the formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
           [In Message-ID: <1993Aug21.171832.865@physc1.byu.edu>
                poster: Steve Jones {jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]
 
  ... but we've yet to see an example of a higher level posted [without mention
     of an accessory oxygen tank].
      750 microwatts is less than 1 milliwatt, isn't it?
     If it was posted, please simply lend a pointer to the posting.
  Since you did cite ***** your own ***** "compelling experiment" to publically
   denigrate protium-nickel (& other) systems, it would seem reasonable to
    compare equal power intensities, would it not?
  Attention is directed to the fact that the power level was taken from
   your own posting.  As was the mention of the gas tank.
 Therefore, is it not simply natural to ask the following questions?
    1. What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in
         your cells by this method?
    2. Did you do anything different? (like add an oxygen tank)
      Perhaps you might indulge us and reveal the maximum
    amount of heat you've seen this way (it is ok to specify electrodes,
    areas, current densities, total current, voltage, overvoltage, and
    even the PO2 or oxygen content), and whether an oxygen tank was used?
    If yes, what was the max "excess heat" without it?
           [Subject: Comments on Jones' Recombination
            Message-ID: <CDtBxv.F7G@world.std.com>
            Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 15:20:18 GMT]
     ================ end of 9/23 posting =============================
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  ADC Boards in a PC
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ADC Boards in a PC
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 18:32:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To blow my own horn, the printed circuit board layout that I designed using
the 16 bit CS4016 (Crystal) has about 1 1/2 counts of noise due to living
**in** a PC.  It also is done with a simple 2 sided printed circuit board
layout.  The 1 1/2 noise counts is just enough to dither it so multible
measurements mean something.  Using 100 samples we get about 1/200000
precision.  So it can be done, even using the switching power supply in a
PC.
 
Meanwhile, we have been doing noise measurements here at Fermilab.  I designed
the last data acquisition system using 400 cycle linear power supplies that
are about as efficient as switchers.  Can be done if you design the whole
system.  Now some of the powers that be want to put computers in the detector
hall with switching power supplies.  Measurement noise goes up more than an
order of magnitude when one such computer is placed in the detector hall.
Several hundred computers are needed.
 
The point of all this is that systems can be designed to live with noise.  But
you have to design the whole system for it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Settling Time
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Settling Time
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 18:32:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall Dudley gives a nice discussion of Settling Time.  But he only proves
my point in doing so.  Jed Rothwel used the term "Settle time" and does not
give a meaning to it as he has demonstrated by a later statement.  Science
depends on precise definition of terms for communication.  Jed's words mean
what he wants them to.  OK in "Alice in Wonderland" but not acceptable in
science.
 
My preference for "time constant" is that it has a rather precise meaning,
though it is hard to find any case where it can be applied exactly.
"Settling time" is harder to understand, since two completely different systems
can have exactly the same settling time.  For example if we define settling
time as time to 1% of the final value, then system A which comes to 1% of
the final value in 10 us, and then decays to a noise level of 0.001% of the
1% error, will have the same settling time spec as an amplifier that comes
within 1% in the same 10 us, then oscillates with a < 1% amplitude.  Very
different systems but the same spec.
 
Tom Droege
6
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Hot fusion n/T budget
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion n/T budget
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 17:30:22 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
RICHARD SCHROEPPEL'S HOT FUSION n/T BUDGET
 
In article <199309281915.AA01931@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
> Terry has pointed out that the net reaction in a conventional hot fusion
> reactor is D + Li6 -> 2 He4.  This is carried out by a catalytic cycle
> using a relatively large inventory of T, and a lesser inventory of
> neutrons.
 
Well, actually I only mentioned D + Li6 as overall fuel into the cycle.
My best recollection (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) is that
the full sequence of reactions would need to be:
 
 
                          Li6+D Fuel Cycle
               Inputs:  .....................  Outputs:
                        :                   :
                   D -->: +  T  ---->  n  + :--> 4He
                        :     ._      ,     :
                        :     |\     /      :
                        :       \  (En)     :
                        :        \ /        :
                        :       (Ec)        :
                        :        / \        :
                        :       /  (Et)     :
                        :     |/     \      :
                        :     '"      `     :
                 Li6 -->: +  n  ---->  T  + :--> 4He
                        :                   :
                        :...................:
 
 
            En -- Efficiency of n transfer (ideally 1.0)
            Et -- Efficiency of T transfer (ideally 1.0)
            Ec -- Overall cycle efficiency;  Ec = En + En - 1
 
 
> How are neutron [and T] losses made up? In the ideal reaction, one n
> breaks a wall-mounted Li6 into a T and an He4; the T is collected and
> burned in the hot section of the reactor, fusing with a D to make He4
> and another n.  From the n perspective, this cycle has a gain of 1.
> Some obvious loss mechanisms are n decay (about .1% if the mean time
> to encounter a Li6 is 1.3 seconds) and n absorption by reactor structure
> (probably more than 1%, but I'm guessing).
 
You can probably scratch the n decay -- these are relativistic neutrons
traveling over a distance of no more than a few meters -- but the other
losses are, as you suggest, probably over 1%.  Some tritium will also be
lost, although in that case the primary mode of loss will probably be
tritium decay.  (An HF plant would not _dare_ lose 1% T mechanically!)
 
And I did _not_ notice this issue -- you did, simply by looking at the
issue of full-system inputs and outputs.  I very vaguely recall that I
_may_ have read it once upon a time, but if I did it sure wasn't a
headline item in whatever article it was that I read.
 
> There are machines to make neutrons, accelerators & such, but they
> aren't very energy efficient per n...
 
You are probably correct.  For example, even if ET/n losses (1 - Ec) were
as low as 1%, the cost of creating 1 in 100 neutrons would quite probably
be too high to be cost effective.  At the very least it would make a very
substantial dent in the needed 25% overall plant efficiency requirement.
 
> The only systems I know of that amplify neutrons involve fission of
> elements with Z>80.  Perhaps the system will consume a bit of uranium
> as well?  If U were introduced as a dopant in the Li6, maybe the
> operating gain could be 1.  A drawback is that this makes the Li6
> "hot", with an annoying (smallish) inventory of fission products,
> and perhaps introducing the problem that fission reactors have, that
> you can't just turn them off.
 
I _think_ I even remember that article of long ago saying something like
this.  It's a very reasonable sounding hypothesis.
 
Does anyone know what exactly the HF scenarios for real plants are planning
to do to achieve Ec of at least 1.0?  Robert Heeter, are you there?  Do
realistic plans for net energy production require the production of some
level of the same nasty byproducts as fission power plants?  Or is there
some way to avoid the tens-of-thousands-of-years storage problem associated
with many fission by products?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Yes folks, I did notice Steve Jone's comment on my analysis of Greg
        Kuperberg's post.  I think I'll handle that one by private email.
 
        Question to Greg:  For those of us not in the know, it would be
        helpful if you could define who exactly who you mean by "XS Heat"
        people (bad!) as opposed to "excess heat" people (good!).  At first
        I thought you were going after Tom Droege, since you mentioned him
        in the negative in that same posting.  I guess from later postings
        that you did not mean him.  So who exactly _was_ your target?
 
        (This must be terrible at palladium anomaly conferences, since I
        guess you would have to ask the other person how they spell the
        word "excess" to know if they are Good or Bad...)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  schlichting@pa /  Metallic Hydrogen/Deuterium ??
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Metallic Hydrogen/Deuterium ??
Date: 29 Sep 93 13:08:26 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

 
Dear Gentlemen and Ladies of the net community;
 
This is a question for Prof. Jones
 
Some days ago you posted a note about the work you and your students
were doing with deuterium under great pressure (2.5 MPa or so) within the
confines of a diamond anvil.
 
As I remember the first attempt failed due to the anvil cracking.....
I was wondering if any futher work has been completed in this area...
 
Are you free to post this work for the benefit of this audience.?
 
May I suggest that metallic hydrogen would be difficult to detect in
this environment.   I certainly don't have any constructive ideas for
you at this time......I believe that electrical means may be useless
as the diamond enviroment is a very good conductor of heat and electricity
as I recall.
 
I'm still trying to come up with a definitive method to confirm the
metallic state has been achieved.
 
Best of luck to you and you're students.
 
Mark Schlichting
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschlichting cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / mitchell swartz /  Detection of Metallic H/D
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Detection of Metallic H/D
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 20:21:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Sep29.130826.1@pa881a.inland.com>
    Subject: Metallic Hydrogen/Deuterium ??
Mark Schlichting (schlichting@pa881a.inland.com) writes:
 
=msc "Some days ago you posted a note about the work you and your students
=msc were doing with deuterium under great pressure (2.5 MPa or so) within the
=msc confines of a diamond anvil.
=msc May I suggest that metallic hydrogen would be difficult to detect in
=msc this environment.   I certainly don't have any constructive ideas for
=msc you at this time......I believe that electrical means may be useless
=msc as the diamond enviroment is a very good conductor of heat and electricity
=msc as I recall."
 
  Diamond is a semiconductor rather than a metallic conductor, however, with:
   density 3.51
   melting point 4300 K
   band gap  5.4 eV (minimum)
   mobility of electrons  1800   cm2/volt-sec
   mobility of holes      1400   cm2/volt-sec
 
  The band gap and mobilities may offer one detection option.
  Hope that clarifies.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Jed Rothwell /  Message to Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Message to Steve Jones
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 22:17:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dear Steve,
 
     I mailed your comments about the Pons and Fleischmann's paper to them.
Perhaps they will respond in the fullness of time. Based on your bouts with
Notoya, Yamaguchi and Miles, I think it would be if I myself stay clear of
the discussion. I will say though, that the record is clear regarding these
other cases: you have been proven decisively wrong in every case. Your
comments about glass are particularly laughable. Really, do you expect us
to believe a fairy tale about glass facing a vacuum which instantaneously
releases precise amounts of helium in response to an electrical discharge
(and D2 release) far away from the glass, in some experiments but not in other
experiments? It is amazing what you dream up.
 
     Regarding Dennis Cravens, he is a charming fellow, reliable and honest
as the day is long. I have spoken with him many times about the light water
work, and with other people who report the phenomenon goes away when a
recombiner is inserted into the cell. That is why I have insisted very
strongly for quite a long time that no result below I*V is certain, either
with H2O or D2O. I have said this time after time, over and over again! But
you choose to pretend that I have not said it. Not only do you pretend I
never said this or that, but you deliberately distort what I say and what
other people have said. These are some of reasons I do not trust you, and
I do not wish to discuss anything with you.
 
     I confess, another reason is that I am at a grave disadvantage with you.
Dick Blue is so stupid that I find it easy to disprove what he says: anyone
can show that Perpetual Motion Machines cannot exist, or that there is no
energy storage in any published CF paper. Morrison writes very clearly and
to the point, and he says exactly what he means, so anyone can see that he
is wrong: 0.0044 moles of hydrogen cannot burn hour after hour generating
150 watts. You, on the other hand, are very good at writing ponderous,
scientific sounding tales with exquisite terminology, so in many cases it
takes a far more educated person than me to show that what you are say is
incorrect and often disingenuous.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Robert Hagglund /  What's wrong with simple?
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's wrong with simple?
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 22:22:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick, are you trying to tell us that simple and primative techniques
automatically imply poor or untrustworthy results?
 
>From your message earlier:
> Jed Rothwell says that all the big guns in CF research are and always
> have been the world-class experts in calorimetry.  I don't know about
> such things, but a quote from Jed gives me some reason to question whether
> that is indeed the case.
>
> -jr-  "He (McKubre) was later quoted in the newspapers saying that
> -jr-   any first year undergraduate can see that their experiment
> -jr-   is conclusive proof of the effect."
>
> I can read into that an assesment of P&F methods as being so simple
> (perhaps primitive is the word) that any undergrad could understand
> what they were doing.  It doesn't sound like a world-class
> level of experimentation.
 
I've found that some of the simplest methods prove to be the most reliable.
It sounds to me like you simply don't trust their findings and are willing to
try almost every avenue available to find fault with their work.
 
By the way, recently I sent you a mail message asking if you had any idea how
to set up an experiment to prove that energy input waveform or bursts could
fool a simple calorimeter (or something to that effect). Any ideas yet?
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Logajan /  Re: ADC Boards in a PC
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ADC Boards in a PC
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 00:00:54 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Using 100 samples we get about 1/200000 precision.
 
That's what I'm getting, in relation to full scale, of course.
I also am using 10,000-30,000 samples, but I haven't tried to see how
much smaller a sample size I could get away with before the lsb started
to act up -- I'm sure I'm oversampling by a wide margin, even with my
+/- 8 counts of system noise.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 00:12:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>He3 fuel cycles aren't "a-neutronic" but they do have a low neutronicity.
>some people argue that aneutronic should be defined as P-neutron < 5%.
>if you want absolutely 0 neutrons, then look to the B cycle
 
Well, since even harding portland cement is not totally aneutronic ... :-)
 
But seriously, you will be producing neutrons anytime you have high energy
particles crashing into containment walls, etc.  So we do have to set some
non-zero percentage between what we call aneutronic and neutronopromiscuous.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / R Schroeppel /  Hot fusion neutron budget:  Response Summary
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion neutron budget:  Response Summary
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 02:34:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I asked
>   Terry has pointed ou that the net reaction in a conventional hot fusion
    reactor is D + Li6 -> 2 He4.  This is carried out by a catalytic cycle
    using a relatively large inventory of T, and a lesser inventory of
    neutrons.
 
    How are neutron losses made up?  In the ideal reaction, one n breaks a
    wall-mounted Li6 into a T and an He4; the T is collected and burned in
    the hot section of the reactor, fusing with a D to make He4 and another n.
    >From the n perspective, this cycle has a gain of 1.  Some obvious loss
    mechanisms are n decay (about .1% if the mean time to encounter a Li6
    is 1.3 seconds) and n absorption by reactor structure (probably more
    than 1%, but I'm guessing).
 
    There are machines to make neutrons, accelerators & such, but they
    aren't very energy efficient per n.  The only systems I know of that
    amplify neutrons involve fission of elements with Z>80.  Perhaps the
    system will consume a bit of uranium as well?  If U were introduced
    as a dopant in the Li6, maybe the operating gain could be 1.  A
    drawback is that this makes the Li6 "hot", with an annoying (smallish)
    inventory of fission products, and perhaps introducing the problem
    that fission reactors have, that you can't just turn them off.
 
I received two responses, edited & summarized below.
 ------------------------------------------------------
The neutrons from DT are sufficiently energetic (14 MeV) to cause
(n,2n) reactions on most nuclei (the binding energy of a neutron in a
large nucleus is typically around 8 MeV).  Some nuclei do better; for
example, the threshold in beryllium is < 2 MeV.  The structural
material of the first wall will be a source of these neutrons.
 
Another source is lithium-7, by the (slightly endothermic)
reaction 7Li(n,nt)4He, which makes another tritium.
 ------------------------------------------------------
>From EDWLT12@ARIEL.LERC.NASA.GOV (Mike Jamison)
The D+D->He3 + n (one of two branches most favored, the other being D=D->T+p
) will occur, probably at greater than the 2% required.  This is just a
guess, though.
 ------------------------------------------------------
 
These responses suggest that running out of neutrons won't be a problem,
but I'd like to ask additional questions of the serious nuclear types:
 
Presumably the D+T reaction will be run at a temperature just high enough
to make it go.  Since D+D requires a significantly higher temperature,
won't the reactor temperature be too low to get any noticeable fraction
of D+D fusions?
 
Does n + Li6 -> T + He4 work with thermal neutrons?
 
Each time a fast n scatters off a nucleus of mass M, it loses about 2/M
of its momentum, or 4/M of its kinetic energy.  Assuming the first wall
is made of Fe, that's about 4/56 = 7% of the energy lost on each collision.
Ten collisions will lose half the energy, slowing the n below the 8 Mev
binding energy mentioned above.  Question: What are relative probabilities
of the neutron being scattered versus knocking a second neutron out of
the target?
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Logajan /  Accidental Temperaturist
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Accidental Temperaturist
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 02:14:50 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

While looking for Droege's 100 Watt human effect (which I still haven't
seen unless I put body parts within about 2" (5cm) of the sensor) I made
an accidental observation.
 
When I walked by the probe, the temperature dropped almost 1/2 degree F
over the course of several seconds and then took about a minute or so to
recover to the original temperature.
 
Obviously I had stirred up some of the colder air near the floor when
I was walking that then engulfed the probe.
 
Since Tom Droege mentioned a 24 hour effect which he could not fully
explain, might I suggest that this rather large effect might be involved.
My furnace blower runs more at night than during the day and I move around
more during the day than at night.  I don't typically run the air conditioner
in the summer at night.
 
Therefore there are likely to be different airflow conditions at night
than during the day in most homes, including internal convection caused
by the heating from the sun.
 
A possible test would be to turn a small fan on and off in the room and
see if a correlation can be detected.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: 29 Sep 1993 22:17:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
: The following news release on MIGMA was sent to me about three months
: ago by Otis Port -- thanks Otis.
 
:                                          PR Newswire  Jan 18, 1993
: NOVEL MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SUCCESSFULLY TESTED IN SMALL DEVICE
:    In the January issue of Physical Review Letters, Advanced Physics Corp.
: (APC), a small research and development company, describes how it succeeded
: in compressing ultrahot nuclear fusion fuel to 10 billion degrees centigrade
: without "instabilities."
 
 
2. Maglich, B.C.; Chang, T.-F.
     Stabilization by electron oscillations of stored ions at densities in
     excess of the space-charge limit.
   Physical Review Letters, 18 Jan. 1993, vol.70, (no.3):299-302.
     Pub type:  Experimental.
 
Abstract: The authors present an experimental method for stabilization of stored
     self-colliding ions at density 30 times greater than the space-charge limit
     (SCL) density. Previously, instabilities have prevented stable storage of
     ions in excess of the SCL density. Electrons were made to oscillate through
     the ions; the electron frequency was a critical stabilization parameter and
     varied by an open-loop (nonfeedback) application of an external field. The
     observations are compatible with a nonlinear stabilization effect not
     hitherto used in particle systems.
 
1. Rostoker, N.; Wessel, F.; Rahman, H.; Maglich, B.C.; and others.
     Magnetic fusion with high energy self-colliding ion beams.
   Physical Review Letters, 22 March 1993, vol.70, (no.12):1818-21.
     Pub type:  Theoretical or Mathematical.
 
Abstract: Self-consistent equilibria are obtained for high beta plasma where
     almost all of the ions are energetic with a gyroradius of the order of the
     plasma scale length. Magnetohydrodynamics would not apply to such a plasma.
     Recent experiments with tokamaks suggest that it would be insensitive to
     microinstabilities. Several methods are described for creating the plasma
     with intense neutralized ion beams.
 
: --
: - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
: - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Logajan /  Re: ADC Boards in a PC
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ADC Boards in a PC
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 06:14:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>Using 100 samples we get about 1/200000 precision.
>
>That's what I'm getting, in relation to full scale, of course.
 
I have new numbers.  I put the temperature probe in a thermos bottle with
a styrofoam plug, and the whole thing wrapped in aluminum foil.
 
The local temperature changes are much slower so I can see the true effect
on the least significant digits.  I see that the fifth digit can occasionally
change by as much as 4 counts in opposition to the slow trend.  I attribute
this to statistical noise.  So I now claim I have 1/200 of a degree F
resolution, or about 1 part in 40,000 full scale.  This is about five times
worse than I thought yesterday, but now I have a higher level of confidence.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Dieter Britz /  Right jab softened
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Right jab softened
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 11:18:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Perhaps I aimed a LITTLE below the belt in the right-hook part of my posting
of yesterday, so I add the following soothing remarks:
 
Although it may be unfair to keep demanding nuclear emissions from a process
that is claimed to emissionpenic, one has on the other hand to agree that any
seeker of excess heat worth his or her salt ought not to neglect the
possibility that there might be some emissions. It would be negligent not to
have, say, an x-ray detector or the like sitting there at all times, just in
case. Why people are not taking up Steve Jones' offer of a portable x-ray
detector, I do not understand.
 
Emissions or not, Frank Close points out to me that, on principle, it must
also be true that if energy is released, then there is a change of state in
the system, i.e. a change of the composition of the substances entering in
whatever reactions take place to yield that energy. So there must be some ash.
A true scientist will not be happy to find excess heat (or neutrons or
whatever) and leave it at that; he/she will want to know where it comes from,
if only to have a basis for optimising the effect. So you cannot escape theory
in the long run, you cannot keep saying that we have this effect but we don't
know or care about its cause. I am paraphrasing Frank here.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Energy R&D spending
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy R&D spending
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 19:55:49 EDT

         Robert Heeter posted:
>Just to spark some debate though, I'd like to point out that current
>US energy R&D spending, relative to energy's share of GNP, is about
>1/4 of 1%.  Energy accounts for about $500 billion (so I'm told, I
>can find the source if necessary) and energy R&D (corporate plus
>government) is only about $1.2 billion.  This level of R&D (that
>is, the ratio of R&D to the total economic value of the industry)
>is much lower than in most other industries.  By way of contrast,
>the total US economy is about $5 trillion, and the government spends
>between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.  Corrections to these figures
>are welcome.  My opinion is that *someone* should spend more on
>energy R&D - fusion, hot fusion, renewables, whatever - to help
>create progress in the field.  Oil isn't forever.
 
         Where did you get the $1.2 billion figure?  It seems suspect
to me.  Exxon spent $624 million on R&D last year (source: 1992 annual
report) most of which I would expect was energy related.  Do you have
a breakdown between government and private spending and also among
different energy sources?
         Since you seem to be an authority on the current state of hot
fusion research let me ask the following questions.
         1.  What is the current state of the art regarding computer
modeling of hot fusion designs?
         2.  How dependent are these computer models on hot fusion
experimental results past and future?
         3.  What exactly are current hot fusion experiments supposed
to be accomplishing?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjbs cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Bill Page /  Rutherford's 1920 model of the nucleus and Hbar+
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rutherford's 1920 model of the nucleus and Hbar+
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 14:00:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Roger Amos very kindly replied to my request of information about quantum
chemistry programs.  After pointing out (in what I thought to be a very
sensitive manner) that the model that I was proposing with an electron
confined to the centre of mass did not make a lot of sense, he confirmed
what I had already surmized from a quick reading of  "Quantum Chemistry" by
Ira Levine (4th ed. 1991) pp 384-387 on the Hydrogen molecule.  This book
also discusses the GUASSIAN, GAMESS, GRADSCF, CADPAC and HONDO programs for
molecular calculations (pp 466-467).  Quantum chemistry explicitly makes
the Born-Oppenhiemer approximation that the nuclear forces within the
nucleus can be treated as a small perturbation of the electronic
interaction.  He also told me about
the work by Kolos and Wolniewicz [W. Kolos, et al. J. Chem. Phys., 84, 3278
(1986).  They are concerned with accurate calculations of H2 molecule
ground state and include corrections for both relativistic and
Born-Oppenheimer approximation effects.
 
I am concerned that such models have not been adequately exercised in the
(admitted low
probability) regions where the electron is highly localized.  I hypothesis
that
solutions might exist where the protons and electron occupy a delocalized
shell of
approximately 100 to 1000 fm.  Actually, a 'shell' is probably not a very
good model.  Maybe it would be better to think of it like a hard boiled
egg.  The electron is the yolk and the protons are the egg-white.  But
don't think of the protons as being *in* the white part - they *are*
de-localized so they occuppy the entire white space around the electron.
In this regime, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is grossly violated.
Perturbative corrections are not adequate.
 
The Kolos et. al. work is very complex.  What I have in mind is (in
principle) much simpler - a completely ab initio computation (simulation,
if you like) of the 3-body Schrodinger's equation for a potential that
includes the strong force attraction of the protons as well as the usual
Coulomb forces.  Perhaps I am being naive that this is possible.  The idea
is to do exploratory calculations instead of trying to compute exact
values.
 
Consider a hypothetical potential energy curve that might result from the
nuclear forces between the protons.  Over the distance scales usually
considered in chemistry and in accord with the solutions of the Schrodinger
equation for the electronic interactions, the potential energy is thought
to rise rapidly below a radius of about 1 angstrom (10^-10 meters). [Ref:
Quantum Chemistry, pp 353.] However, if we extend this graph to much
smaller distances on an approximate log scale we might obtain something
like that shown below.
 
                                    Hypothetical Potential Energy
                                            versus radius
 
            |
            |    *
            |   * *
            |   *  *                ???
            |  *    *                *
   U(r)     |  *     *              * *
            |  *      *            *   *
         0 -|--*---+---*----+-----*-+---*---+------+-------+------+------
            | *        *         *        *
            | *         *       *          *
       -0.5 | *          *      *           *                  * * * * *
            | *           *    *              *        * * * *
       -0.6 | *            *  *                  * * *
            | *             * *
            | *              *
                            ???
            1 fm           10^2 fm              10^5 fm
            (D+)           (Hbar+)              (H2)
 
 
You must realize that the radius does not correspond to the separation of
the protons! The protons must be thought of as being very close to each
other (within normal nuclear distances of about 1 fm), even though they are
delocalized over a much larger area.
 
The localization energy (ground state energy) of the confined electron is
compensated for by the long range component of the strong force nuclear
interaction (approximately Yukawa exchange of virtual pions) between the
protons.  Then the electron is confined because its ground state energy is
insufficient to overcome the resulting nuclear potential well.
 
The result is something very similar to but not quite a deuterium ion. For
one thing, Hbar+ has spin 1/2 where D+ is spin 1.  It is amusing that it is
precisely this difference in spin that led Chadwick and others to over turn
Rutherford's original 1920 concept of bound electron-proton pairs in the
nucleus.  Even Heisenberg considered the possibility of an "exchange force"
involving electrons between protons and neutrons - where the neutron was
considered a tightly bound proton-electron pair. ["The Discovery of
Subatomic Particles", Steven Weinberg, 1983.]
 
SO... what I would like to see is some spin polarization measurements on
the gaseous products from Cerofolini's D+/H- reaction and CF cells.  And
perhaps I should stop referring to it at Vigier's Hbar+ and instead call it
a Rutherford deutron.
 
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 04:56:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Sep30.001246.7163@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>He3 fuel cycles aren't "a-neutronic" but they do have a low neutronicity.
>>some people argue that aneutronic should be defined as P-neutron < 5%.
>>if you want absolutely 0 neutrons, then look to the B cycle
 
>But seriously, you will be producing neutrons anytime you have high energy
>particles crashing into containment walls, etc.  So we do have to set some
>non-zero percentage between what we call aneutronic and neutronopromiscuous.
 
Uh, if the idea is p-B where is the proton coming from? Certainly there
has to be a side reaction that is producing them in sufficient numbers
to make break even. If you use the d+D reaction there is the side reaction
of again making T and neutrons there also.
 
This whole argument about hot fusion seems rather pointless to me. Hot
fusion in any case has a better chance of being successful than cold
fusion if the chances for hot fusion is <1%.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Cobb /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: 30 Sep 1993 00:49:39 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1993Sep30.001246.7163@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>He3 fuel cycles aren't "a-neutronic" but they do have a low neutronicity.
>>some people argue that aneutronic should be defined as P-neutron < 5%.
>>if you want absolutely 0 neutrons, then look to the B cycle
>
>Well, since even harding portland cement is not totally aneutronic ... :-)
>
>But seriously, you will be producing neutrons anytime you have high energy
>particles crashing into containment walls, etc.  So we do have to set some
>non-zero percentage between what we call aneutronic and neutronopromiscuous.
>
Check Luka Bratsa's film badge. :>
 
I agree with what Logajan says here. All I was trying to point out was that
even migma (or FRC's, my area of work) will still be radioactive. That is
I would want some substantial concrete between me and the burn chamber.
This doesn't mena that I think they are "dirty" designs. Quite the contrary.
They will be orders of magnitude better than D-T cycles which are themselves
orders of magnitude better than current LWR (by  "orders" I mean about 2).
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
john .w cobb
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  gordon.powell@ /  ASH COULD BE A HEAVY NUCLEUS NOT HELIUM
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ASH COULD BE A HEAVY NUCLEUS NOT HELIUM
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 21:02:17

 
Why does the alleged absence of helium constitute absence of ash
when it could be the Pd or Ni nuclei combining with the hydrogen
then splitting to products lighter than iron? Is there a nuclear
specialist out there who can comment as to the energetics of this.
I don't have a sufficiently good compendium of data at home to
calculate the mass defects, etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpowell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / James White /  Re: Forever getting it wrong!
     
Originally-From: jrw@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (James R. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forever getting it wrong!
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 06:25:36 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service

Jed quotes Peter Hagelstein:
>                              ... As discussed above, this type of argument
>     completely misses a key implication of the experiment -- specifically,
>     that there exists no known physical mechanism which could store the
>     energy observed to be released during the boiling episode."
 
Peter Hagelstein is wrong. 4 Megajoules per liter of electrolyte can be
stored as peroxide; about twice what is needed to explain the boiling.
Thus, there is definitely a known mechanism which can store the energy
observed to be released during the boiling episode.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjrw cudfnJames cudlnWhite cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Precision and noise
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Precision and noise
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 14:52:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
John Logajan and Tom Droege have some interesting observations of extremely
high precision temperature readings they took with relatively cheap, off the
shelf, computer systems. These things are amazing. As they point out, there
are two issues: precision and noise. From what I have seen in various labs,
the latter is the big bugaboo. Now that computer data collection system are
so cheap and reliable anyone can measure 0.1 or even 0.01 C increments, but
getting a stable and quiet background can be a real nightmare. I have seen a
variety of water based calorimeters which I can loosely categorize like this:
 
Flow. Convenient, but inherently noisy, and you have to keep track of many
variables, like the flow rate. The flow rate flops around as the pipes expand
and contract and sand and bubbles get in the way. These changes are minute --
far too small to see with the naked eye -- but quite easy to see in the data.
 
Static, water bath cooled. The easiest and best in my opinion. The bath
should have a cooler. Don't just leave it to radiate heat into the room; make
sure it stays within 0.1 C of a fixed temperature. Bockris suggests the fixed
temperature should be well above the ambient room air temperature.
 
Static, air cooled. These are rare. They work fine as far as I know. They are
enclosed boxes with two doors, inner and outer. Powerful fans circulate the
air in the inner box, which has baffles and walls designed to distribute the
air evenly. The air is heated or cooled (as necessary) to within 0.01 C of
the thermostat setting. Notoya has old American made "Coolniks" air cooled
calorimeter which she likes, but it is 20 years old and getting cranky.
 
Static, ambient air cooled. The pits. Ambient air is what you are breathing,
walking around in, stirring up, and farting into. (Oops, maybe I shouldn't
say that here? I might upset Dieter's tender sensibilities.) Put a digital
thermometer onto a table, and walk around, and you will see it flip up and
down 0.2 or even 0.4 C at random. However, in an expensive lab with special
HVAC like the ones at MIT, BARC India, IMRA France and IMRA Hokkaido, ambient
air temperature and cleanliness is way better than the off-the-shelf air in
my office or house. Please note that IMRA uses a water bath, not ambient air.
I gather the bath is stable to the nearest 0.001 C. The air is also
controlled to within an inch of its life, so you have an ultra quiet water
bath inside a room with ultra quiet ambient air -- the ideal setup. That
ultra-quiet background is what allows them to do really superb calorimetry.
It is not just the precision, it's the noise (or lack thereof).
 
Tom Droege asked me for a "scientific" definition of "settle time." I think
I already posted one. It's like this: see that little squiggly line on the
graph? See how it stops squiggling after a while? Figure out how much time
it took to quiet down at a fixed value, and add 15 minutes for good measure
in case she is feeling cranky. How d'ya like that definition? How much more
scientific can you get?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: What's wrong with simple?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with simple?
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 16:55:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Haggland ask what's wrong with simple and asserted that simple is
often more reliable.  There is some merit to that point of view, but when
there is a mismatch between the simplicity of the experimental method and
the phenomena under investigation that simplicity can be a false virtue.
If cold fusion measurements were truly simple we wouldn't be discussing
questions relating to experimental methods four years into the debate.
If the device is only good to a few per cent, it is not very useful
for the study of an effect that may only be a few per cent difference
between heat in and heat out.  Unless you already no there really is
an effect that is much larger, all the simple calorimetry is a true
waste of effort.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Not paying attention, are we?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not paying attention, are we?
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 16:55:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Dieter Britz apparently believes that CF scientists are not attempting to look
for "nuclear ash," and not attempting to use multiple instruments. He writes:
 
     "A true scientist will not be happy to find excess heat (or neutrons or
     whatever) and leave it at that; he/she will want to know where it comes
     from, if only to have a basis for optimizing the effect."
 
Dieter has apparently never read the EPRI announcement for the Forth Annual
Conference, no doubt because this announcement did not appear in a peer-
reviewed journal. Here is part of it, for the rest of you "true scientists"
out there:
 
     "Papers reporting the results of simultaneous measurements of different
     kinds are particularly encouraged.  Subject areas to be covered include:
 
     Materials and Fundamentals
     Calorimetry
     Nuclear Measurements
     Solid-State Theory
     Electrochemical Studies
     Safety Issues"
 
 
Dieter wonders, naively:
 
     "Why people are not taking up Steve Jones' offer of a portable x-ray
     detector, I do not understand."
 
I understand perfectly! Read the account Miles wrote of his auto de fe at BYU
and you will see why nobody in his right mind would borrow a pencil sharpener
from the guy.
 
 
Dieter also quotes Frank Close, who never fails to say: "So there must be some
ash."
 
Yes, that's right! There must be ash. And you know what? Any chemical process
makes stuff that I have chosen to call "chemical ash." It is that fluffy grey
stuff you find in your fireplace. And here is an interesting point: if a CF
reaction was chemical, it would produce a million times more "chemical ash"
than the "nuclear ash" you get from a nuclear process. So it would be a
million times easier to detect. You couldn't miss it! Some CF reactions go on
so long that if they were chemical, the "ash" and "smoke" from them would fill
a fireplace and cloud up the room. It would surely overflow those itty bitty
cells! Yet nobody has ever spotted any "chemical ash" from any CF experiment,
just as nobody has ever seen any energy storage. And here is another funny
thing: you can't have "chemical ash" unless you have "chemical fuel" (another
term I invented) and there isn't any "chemical fuel" in a cell.
 
(Note: Frank claims he made up the term "nuclear ash" so I hereby declare that
I invented the term "chemical ash.")
 
So, I guess Frank Close rules out the possibility that CF is a chemical
reaction. Right?
 
Frank, of course, insists that "nuclear ash" is easy to spot, because he
insists that all "nuclear ash" is radioactive. Ah, but suppose it isn't
radioactive? Then, it is very difficult to detect.
 
As he often does, McKubre summed up the whole situation beautifully during the
NPR broadcast on "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993. He said:
 
     "I'd like to correct one statement of Professor Huizenga.  We don't in
     fact claim a nuclear process.  What we observe is excess power and
     energy exceeding that of known chemistry.  I think it's very fair to
     argue that unless one finds the nuclear products one cannot claim a
     nuclear process.  It is also not correct to say that measurements of the
     nuclear products are a million times more sensitive than the
     measurements of the power.  That's only true - unfortunately - if the
     nuclear products are themselves radioactive. If they are atoms in their
     ground state, and non-radioactive species, then it's very, very
     difficult to find them."
 
And later:
 
     "A lot of John Huizenga's objections - or assertions, I suppose - are
     unsupported and wrong.  He did make a statement that is, I think,
     correct.  I know of no experiment where a reproducible quantification of
     the heat is being shown to produce nuclear products, nuclear ash.  Such
     an experiment is not available to us.  The experiments producing heat
     generally are obtained in one laboratory, and the experiments where
     nuclear products are observed are obtained in another.  And that precise
     quantification, the heat and the nuclear products, the nuclear ash, has
     been very, very difficult to achieve.  John is exactly right.  There is
     no reproducible experiment quantitatively correlating excess heat with
     nuclear products.  If there were, of course, the game would be all over.
     That's the end of the chain, that's not the beginning of the chain."
 
Dieter has no way of reading, hearing or understanding these statements from
McKubre, because NPR is not a peer-reviewed journal. Poor Dieter! He is not
allowed to know anything about McKubre, he can't read the Conference
proceedings, he can't even read the Conference Announcement. Hagelstein's
review of ICCF3 is unavailable to him (he shows no sign of having read or
understood any part of it). He is blind and deaf to all that is not peer
reviewed.
 
A note to my friends in the Cybernetic Continuum: Yes I will stop posting
these messages and do what you asked, and please remind me if I have forgotten
to send it or do it or call whoever it was. I was distracted last week by
personal issues which are now, happily, resolved.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Art Carlson /  Re: Hot fusion n/T budget
     
Originally-From: awc@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Art Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion n/T budget
Date: 29 Sep 1993 22:19:31 GMT
Organization: Max-Plack-Institute for Plasma Physics

Neutronics is not my field, and I am a few thousand miles from my office, but
I seem to know some things that those posting don't, so ...
 
There are two reactions which can produce tritium:
     Li6 + n -> He4 + H3
     Li7 + n -> He4 + H3 + n
The first of these is the one which has been discussed in this newsgroup.
If it were the only reaction occuring, the breeding ratio (number of H3
produced per neutron) would be exactly unity, so any parasitic, neutron-
absorbing reaction would put you into a losing game.
 
The second reaction, in contrast to the first, is endothermic.  Consequently,
it only occurs if the neutron energy is above a threshhold.  But the important
point here is that the neutron, if you will, knocks the Li7 nucleus apart,
without itself being absorbed, so it can continue on to produce a _second_
H3 (from Li6, if it is no longer above the threshhold for Li7).  If both
reactions occur, the net reaction is:
     Li6 + Li7 + n -> 2 He4 + 2 H3
Since there are reactions where one neutron produces two H3, breeding ratios
greater than unity are possible.  Note also, far from needing isotopically
pure lithium, it is actually desireable to have a mix of Li6 and Li7, and
the naturally occuring mix doesn't seem to be a bad choice.
 
With respect to the other substances found in the blanket of a fusion reactor,
some will indeed absorb neutrons, but others, notably lead and beryllium, will
multiply them, e.g.:
     Be9 + n -> 2 He4 + 2 n
 
Producing a breeding ratio (sufficiently) greater than unity requires careful
engineering of the blanket, but appears to be manageable.
 
 
Art Carlson
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArt cudlnCarlson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Student research at BYU/young lions
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Student research at BYU/young lions
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 23:09:24 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Sep28.122449.967@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>So about a year ago, student Jonathon Jones decided he wanted to study
>excess heat -- does it happen?...  The work is educational, even if
>sneered at - who cares about that?
 
Your position is that it's not your research, you're helping Jonathan
Jones learn in his own research.  And you don't care if people think
it's a medical examination of a dead horse.  That's perfectly
reasonable.  However, my particular point is that you are vulnerable in
a way that Jonathan Jones and Lee Hansen are not.  The XS Heaters want
to claim that you are one of them, and they are willing to blow any
attention to excess heat out of proportion into acceptance of XS Heat.
My evidence is that they've done it before.
 
On the other hand, it is your research and not mine.  Perhaps none
of the shenanigans of XS Heaters matters to you very much.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Cobb /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: 29 Sep 1993 18:25:24 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1993Sep29.162803.1079@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>If you fuse He3 with D, you will get neutrons.
>
>I believe He3+D is the reaction they are after now.  Further off are such
>reactions as B+p.
>
I think what Bruce is trying to say is that a D + He3 fuel cycle
will have some neutron pollution from D + D side reactions. IT goes
something like:
 
D + D --> T + p
 
D + T --> He4 + n
 
The key is to look at the burn ratio of D and He3 and the temperature
dependant cross sections. The D-T reaction is so quick that what you
need to look at is D-D -> T-p versus D-He3 -> He4-p. If you have very
lean He3 fuel, you can get a lot of neutron power, but near a 1:1
ratio, you can reduce the neutron power to ~2% of the total fusion
power. So He3 fuel cycles aren't "a-neutronic" but they do have a
low neutronicity. Of course it makes better press releases to say
aneutronic and I have heard some people aruge that aneutronic should be
defined as P-neutron < 5%. Such is the nature of the rhetoric beast.
 
For some numbers, look at the Artemis reactor design in <Fusion Technology>
vol. 21 p. 2307 (July 1992). See fig. 4a on p. 2312. This paper concerns
a Field Reversed Configuration advanced fuel reactor, but I think the
analysis is the same for Migma. So the bottom line is if you want
absolutely 0 neutrons, then look to the B cycle, but good luck lighting
it off.
 
>>This bit about the temperature is completely meaningless if the beam
>>is not a moving plasma. It is more like beam collision energy
>
>When I was reading about MIGMA back in the late 70's they explained
>why the refer to their partical beam energies in terms of temperature --
>it is merely as a convenient comparison to thermal approaches such as
>tokomaks.
>
>The Lawson Criteria is given as a product of temperature, density, and
>confinement time.  There is some conversion necessary when talking about
>particle beam energies -- a sort of modified Lawson Criteria.
>
I think there is a litle confusion here. I believe both of you are talking
past each other. The migma idea (as I understand it) is similar to the
Astron Concept, except with ions. You have a magnetic field that looks
alot like a mirror field. Ions are fired into this field with a large
energy (~1 MeV) and a fairly precise canonical angular momentum that
puts it in an orbit that intersects the symmetry axis. The orbits look
like daisies. Near the center, the system looks like a continually self-
colliding and expanding beam system. Thus the name "self-colliding"
system.
 
An alternate approach is to put the ion in almost perfect cyclotron orbits.
These are large axis encicling orbits. However, the orbits are not perfect,
but instead have betatron oscillations imposed upon them. In accelerators,
one wnats to reduce the amplitude of the betatron oscillations, but here
one wnats to tune it such that when the paricle crosses the central orbit-line
it has a kinetic energy in Betatron motion on the order of 10-20 keV. That is,
decompose the motion into large cyclotron motion and imposed betatron
motion. The cyclotron motion has an energy of ~ 1MeV and the betatron motion
has ~ 10-20 keV. Thus the beam's betatron motion will lead to collisions
with sufficient energy to get fusion.
 
Now the fly in the butter is, can you increase the density enough to
get breakeven. Well, experimentally, this hasn't been shown. It is my
understanding that the small devices seem stable. Of course the people
who are making this measurement are exactly those who are most optimistic
about migam's prospects, in the same vein that all of the plasma physicists
that have concluded that the tokamak is hopeless are no longer working on
tokamaks (another example of how the subjective decisions of human institutions
impact objective science). Larger experiments have not been built.
 
But as Bruce suggests, there is a real issue here. It is quite possible
(required ?) that as the density increases, an unstable mode will be
excited. It is s non-intuitive area of theory. It breaks a lot of the
assumptions usually made in fusion-plasma physics. Small orbit expansions
aren't valid, plasma beta can be large, and at least for central collisions,
fluid theories are not available because the multi-streaming effects are
important.
 
As an aside I will suggest looking a a paper. Phys. Rev. Lett. v. 70
#12 p. 1818 (March 22, 1993). Here Rostoker finds a migma-like solution
to the plasma equilibrium problem. The neat thing is that the solution
is a local Maxwellians, so there is a much better chance at finding
stability since there is a lot less free energy to excite modes.
I think the solution is kind of neat. One cn also drasw correspondance
between his solution and normal fluid-like Grad-Shafrnov equilibria
except that the P(Psi) flux function goes something like
P(psi) = exp[- psi]. I guess this isn't really clear from the paper, but
if you look hard you see it emerge.
 
>
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
 
john .w cobb
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 / John Campbell /  Re: Idle, useless speculation
     
Originally-From: soup@SonOSam.execnet.com (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Idle, useless speculation
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 16:45:26 GMT
Organization: Lysdexics R Us

Note:   Please reduce flame level to lower "programmer" setting rather
        than the higher "physicist" setting.
 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>Tom Droege writes:
>     "P&F say that errors in radiation computation would likely understate the
>     "anomalous heat".  This seems likely to me, and it is hard to think up an
>     error that results in anomalous heat.  Fearlessly I propose one.  Suppose
>     the cell is calibrated with a heater, like a light bulb, where a
>     significant amount of energy escapes the cell without heating it.  This is
>     because the t of the light bulb is much higher that the t measured by the
>     thermometer in the water in the cell.  This will understate the
>     calorimeter constant. . ."
 
>This is a prime example of the "Yes, But, Maybe!" syndrome at work. This is
>idle, useless speculation, is it a make believe "what if" game that serves no
>purpose. Why? Because we know for a fact that neither P&F nor any other worker
>uses a lightbulb to calibrate their cells.
 
How do you know for sure?  Besides, even heater coils (Aquarium Heaters)
have an output in the visual range.  So?
 
I would not discount this as "idle" speculation just yet.  Where's the
evidence?
 
>     "Note also that P&F are very vulnerable to their thermometer reading.
>     Should it for some reason read high, then they will think that they have
>     "anomalous heat".  Suppose over time, that minerals dissolved in the water
>     form a gel layer on the cell surface...
 
>More bogus speculation! And again, this is technically incorrect. They use on-
>the-fly recalibration and other techniques that would catch errors like this.
>That is: they would see that the joule heater pulse was driving the temperature
>higher than it should. This kind of error is dead simple to catch. You can see
>from the paper that they have taken every normal, elementary precaution to avoid
>this kind of thing, so why bring it up?
 
Yeah, right.  I've been lurking for quite a while and it seems that P&F (or
is it F&P) don't really supply ALL of the details (which is why the whynestone
rating of this newsgroup is so high).  If they provided definitive proof,
regardless of which result (to CNF or !CNF, that is the kvetching) then
we wouldn't be listening to "fan noise" here.  It's the damned loopholes
everybody (TBs and !TBs) are bitching and fighting over.
 
See, this is still all QUESTIONs.  There don't seem to be REAL ANSWERS.
Just NEW QUESTIONS.
 
>Idle speculation is fun, but it does not contribute anything to a serious
>scientific debate. The issue here is very simple: how do you fool a static
>calorimeter into registering 3 or 4 times more heat energy than there really is?
>How do you make 35 watts look like 180 watts? Proposing non-existent gels and
 
Unfortunately, the standard !TB attack on this is that nothing supports the
numbers you are repeating.  Have you personally gotten these results in
your lab or basement?
 
While lurking, I've placed more faith on Droege's word since he _actually_
has personal experience as a witness to both events and non-events.  If you
ain't getting your hands dirty, don't shoot down somebody who has and does.
His savings/checking account seems to be taking the hit here, and (IMHO) he
has not "written checks his butt can't cash".
 
P&F, as claimed by both TBs and !TBs, are hearsay.  If anybody is an ACTUAL
witness to the events claimed, they've yet to make that claim on the net.
 
Jed, I understand your interest in seeing CNF a reality (and I'd like to
see it an _affordable_ reality myself), but _please_ don't slam somebody
willing to run test series out of his own pocket.  He's the only true
witness of reality (who provides notes!) I've heard so far, and he's not
religious about it, either.
 
Unfortunately, I joined the net (UseNet, that is) too late to actually
get meaty reports from Steve Jones, pro _or_ con.  Has he published here?
 
BTW, have we gotten anywhere on tepid fusion?                   :-)
 
--
 John R. Campbell                                      soup@sonosam.execnet.com
                   MenoPause is NOT a resting period for Men.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / mitchell swartz /  Cravens, Roshamon, & vectors to truth
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cravens, Roshamon, & vectors to truth
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 02:23:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  There have been two messages about what Dennis Cravens "said":
 
   In Message-ID: <1993Sep28.160506.972@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Scientific Criticism
   Steven E. Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) wrote:
=sj  "I recently had a phone call from Dennis Cravens, a cold-fusion
=sj  researcher who has been doing experiments with Ni/H2O cells also.
=sj  He told me that he has found that the alleged excess heat in those
=sj  cells can in fact be accounted for by H2+O2 recombination
=sj  -- in complete agreement with our findings."
 
 
  However, with a different spin:
     in Message-ID: <930929213702_72240.1256_EHK24-2@CompuServe.COM>
     Subject: Message to Steve Jones
Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) stated:
=jr "Regarding Dennis Cravens, he is a charming fellow, reliable and honest
=jr as the day is long. I have spoken with him many times about the light water
=jr work, and with other people who report the phenomenon goes away when a
=jr recombiner is inserted into the cell. That is why I have insisted very
=jr strongly for quite a long time that no result below I*V is certain, either
=jr with H2O or D2O. I have said this time after time, over and over again! But
=jr you choose to pretend that I have not said it. Not only do you pretend I
=jr never said this or that, but you deliberately distort what I say and what
=jr other people have said. These are some of reasons I do not trust you, and
=jr I do not wish to discuss anything with you."
 
  So.  Many readers have books by Mallove, Fox, Taubes, Peat, Huizenga,
     and Close, and
    the more erudite have scores and scores of positive papers published
    over almost 5 years.  They see endless positive research coming out
    of electrochemical, material science, fusion technology journals but
    see endless debate here.   Unlike the actual research papers which
    are converging to corroborating demonstrations of the phenomena,
     the books are divided and describe different views of this story.
 
   Is this like fractals, or what?  How can two people speak to
    the same person [or view the same event] and perceive (or claim to perceive)
    two different things?             (scientic roshomon?)
 
  And yet a third view  --->
 
.  I called Dennis Cravens, who discussed with me - as he had in the past
   over quite some time -  that he routinely has measured excess heats
   using the nickel-protium cells which in "open" configuration
   yield up to 180% of input (using V*I calculation) power for his system.
 
  Recently, in two of these expts., the excess heat stopped when the system
  was sealed with a recombiner located internal to the cell, and physically
  located above the electrolyte -- as discussed by Jed at length.
 
   Dennis told me that he indicated to Steve that there is a differential list
  of several possibilities to account for the null event.
   Since contamination was one differential possibility he considered,
  I suggested that he simply reopen the cells in his system so as to distinquish
   between that and other members of that list.
  He stated that he had done no experiments to show that recombination was
   definitively responsible for his observation of that phenomenon.
 
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 01:49:12 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept

In article <28d5h4INNtqe@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
 
> So the bottom line is if you want
> absolutely 0 neutrons, then look to the B cycle, but good luck lighting
> it off.
 
But even that is not "aneutronic" by this definition, since the
11B(alpha,n)14N side reaction will occur.  Also troublesome, the
11B(p,gamma)12C reaction will produce a considerably number of
energetic photons.
 
Perhaps better would be 3He/3He, but I had the vague impression it had
been shown that Migma doesn't work well enough, even in theory, to
make that go (too much scattering into the loss cone).  I thought the
scheme they actually wanted to go for was P+6Li/3He+6Li.
 
        Paul
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  CF requires a testable hypothesis
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF requires a testable hypothesis
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 20:02:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While Dieter Britz is giving both sides the old one-two punch, I think he
may be overlooking an essential feature of any scientific investigation
that is still missing from cold fusion research.  Basically the issues
relating to nuclear reaction data or the lack thereof can't be resolved
until someone sticks their neck out and makes a definite, complete
hypothesis as to what reaction process is occurring.  I would not be
such a hardliner on this if there was, in fact, any real theory for
a process that hasn't already been ruled out by the experimental data.
Dropping names like Schwinger and Hagelstein to lend an air of legitimacy
to cold fusion is meaningless because, in fact neither of them has
proposed anything that can be tested.  Hagelstein, if you read his
summary of the Nagoya conference, has clearly backed away from some
of his earlier notions about a theory of cold fusion that will produce
4he without the dreaded gamma rays.  If he is your guide on that question
then you should see the hypothesis that 4He is the major reaction
product has still lacking any sort of theory.
 
I think it is obvious why there is no hypothesis for the reaction process.
It takes two kinds of magic to pull off what the true believers are
asking for.  Firstly you have to find a way to initiate a nuclear reaction
in the first place.  The coulomb force is something simple enough for
even chemists (grin) to understand.  There is good reason then for the
discussion on how the reaction can be initiated gets pushed into some
very esoteric types of phenomena.  But finding a way to induce a reaction
is only half the problem.  You then have to find a way to hide the
expected reaction products.  You have to diddle the reaction process
in a major way to suppress the emission of neutrons or gammas.  You
have to find a way to couple energy from the nuclear process to lattice
heat without generating lots of X-rays. (To return to an old S. Jones
theme.)
 
When it comes to the altering of reaction processes either on the
incoming or outgoing side there is a need to differentiate between
a partial inhibition that may drop a reaction rate by factors of
10 or 100 and a total suppression or enhancement by truly huge
factors.  Since the nuclear detection process can be so many orders
of magnitude more sensitive than calorimetry you have to consider
that fact in weighing the evidence.  Even if you accept the
overinflated estimates of the accuracy of the calorimeter data,
the data on neutron or gamma emmission is more precises by factors
of millions.  No theory begins to touch this issue.  It is not
enough just to say no neutrons are emitted.  You have to explain
what inhibits neutron emission.
 
So if we are to try to construct an hypothesis for the nuclear
process where do we begin?  Helium remains a popular choice as
the reaction product, but where is the data to support this notion?
It is established fact that analyses of the cathodes for helium
has turned out negative even though there seems to have been some
pretty funny attempts to keep this data under wraps.  Pons, Fleischmann,
and McKubre are seem to be trying to deny that these analyses were
made on cathodes they provided.
 
Finally we come to the hypothesis that the reaction involves heavier
nuclei, presumably the palladium.  It is the same old story.  How
do you get the reaction to occur and how do you hide the effects?
It only takes one gamma ray spectrum accumulated over a modest
period of time to rule out a whole host of possible reactions, unless
you include some magic along the way.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  McKubre knows not!
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre knows not!
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 21:53:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

McKubre can go on playing the role as cold fusion's best calorimeterist,
but his understanding of nuclear processes is clearly pretty weak, at
least as Jed Rothwell quotes him.  In an NPR broadcast he is supposed
to have said:
 
        "It is not correct to say that measurements of nuclear products
        are a million times more sensitive than the measurements of
        power.  That's only true - unfortunately - if the nuclear
        products are themselves radioactive.  If they are atoms in
        their ground state, and non-radioactive species, then its
        very, very difficult to find them."
 
What is wrong with this statement?  What we have here is more squirming
by a true believer trying to avoid the implications of experimental data.
MdcKubre is trying to invent yet another way to hide "nuclear reaction
products."  What he overlooks is a simple fact that the energy release
in a nuclear reaction generally involves an intermediate step, a nucleus
in an excited state which then decays to the ground state via the
emission of something detectable.  Unless McKubre is prepared to
specify a specific reaction process which is known to lead only to
stable reaction products in their ground states he does not have
a leg to stand on.
 
If you fuse two deuterons to form 4He you don't get helium in its
ground state.  You get helium at a very high excitation energy.  If
all you got was helium in its ground state that would be a total bust
as far as cold fusion is concerned.  It is that high excitation energy
that makes the process appealing as an energy source in the first
place.  If McKubre could find a process that does not result in
some excitation energy in the final nuclear state, he will not
have a good candidate for cold fusion. So unless McKubre is going
to totally reinvent nuclear physics, he has to face up to the delima
of cold fusion.  What CF believers want is a process that involves
a large energy release each time it occurs, and a means to degrade
that energy to heat without leaving a trace.  McKubre overlooks the
fact that the energy release and degrading process can probably be
detected with high sensitivity even if the final product is not easy
to find.    Go ahead, McKubre, make my day.  State specifically
what reaction you are proposing as being difficult to detect.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Logajan /  Source for power supply
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Source for power supply
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 21:20:50 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I found a source for an economical DC power supply.  Alfa Electronics in
New Jersey sells a line of Lodestar DC power supplies.  Of interest is
their least expensive unit, the Model 303, a 0-30V 0-3A supply with built
in dual analog voltage and current meters.  It has course and fine voltage
control knobs, and a dual range constant current adjust knob.  It runs
off 120/240VAC 50/60Hz and weighs 10.5 lbs.  It costs $169.95 and shipping
from NJ to MN was quoted at $11.  Call for shipping costs.
 
I haven't seen a price through other vendors that approach this economy
(except for used equipment) so it looks like a good deal to me.
 
Alfa Electronics
P.O. Box 8089
Princeton, NJ 08543-8089
800-526-2532
FAX 609-275-9536
Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, MO, check, and COD.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Helium and Liaw-Tao-Liebert Experiment
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium and Liaw-Tao-Liebert Experiment
Date: 29 Sep 93 17:19:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I have to correct myself this time:
 
> In article <1993Sep28.124624.968@physc1.byu.edu>,
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>> In article <1993Sep26.021524.14231@coplex.coplex.com>,
>> chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>>
>>> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>measurement was probably not valid.  There is still the measurements
>>>>made by Rockwell on the molten cathodes that did show no 4He isn't
>>>>there?
>>>
>>> Are you refering to the paper by Liaw, Tao, Turner and Liebert? They
>>> report seeing He4 "ash" in the metalic electrolysis of LiD dissolved in
>>> KCl-LiCl melt with Pd electrodes.  I don't think they have retracted
>>> that finding Dick.
>>>
>>> Have Fun,
>>> Chuck Sites
>>>
>>
>> No, Chuck, Dick is correct:
>> "Approximately 10% of the total mass of the electrode, comprising one sample
>> from ;the surface and one from the bulk, were analyzed by Rockwell
>> International for 3He and 4He by mass spectrometry of a molten sample.  This
>> technique is capable of detecting 10^11 atoms;  no He was observed
>> at that detection level."  M. McKubre et al., "Calorimetry and electochemistry
>> in the D/Pd system", Proceedings of the First Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion.
>>
>> Care is also needed wrt the Liaw et al. paper:  indeed they report a small
>> amount of 4He, but they are *careful* to state that this amount is less than
>> atmospheric ambient and that contamination from the atmosphere cannot be ruled
>> out.  The same situation applies to Miles et al. (4He amounts less than
>> atmospheric), but Miles et al. nevertheless claim that atmospheric
>> contamination is *not* the cause of their observed 4He content, which they
>> boldly ascribe to fusion.  However, Miles
>> et al. used *glass* vessels (known to hold and pass 4He), and a Rockwell Int'l
>> team examined the Miles vessels and found that the 4He in that (China Lake)
>> experiment could indeed be due to atmospheric 4He contamination.
>> Yamaguchi also claims a small amount of 4He -- again he uses glass, beaucoup
>> glass in his vacuum vessel.
>>
>> Again:  Compelling claims for helium-4 production cannot be made as long as
>> glass is present in the experimental apparatus. Yet everyone who claims 4He
>> production uses glass.  Hmmmmm...  Shades of Paneth and Peters 1926.  (See
>> Frank Close's book or John Huizenga's for more on that episode, where they
>> thought that hydrogen in *palladium* had made *helium-4* -- but it turned out
>> that glass was the source of the helium.   Deja gnu:  a strange animal we've
>> seen before.)
>>
>> --Steven Jones
>>
 
Bruce Liebert of the Univ. of Hawaii sent a kindly correction to the above
 paragraph:  the Liaw-Tao-Liebert experiment did *not* use glass in the
 apparatus.  This is desirable -- thanks Bruce for the correction.
 Quoting now from
 the abstract regarding this work from Fusion Technology, 23 (1993) 92-97:
 
 ""The amount of 4He detected was  not  commensurate with the excess heat
 according to known reaction mechanisms.  The interpretation of the results was
 complicated by a substantial morphology difference among the samples.
 Because the level of helium content was small in magnitude, the possibility of
 atmospheric contamination cannot be dismissed completely."
 
 Would that others were so frank.
 
 -- Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Helium and Liaw-Tao-Libert Experiment
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium and Liaw-Tao-Libert Experiment
Date: 29 Sep 93 17:28:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Sep29.171503.974@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Sep29.171503.974@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 93 17:28:53 -0600

cancel <1993Sep29.171503.974@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reports from Horses' Patooties
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reports from Horses' Patooties
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 01:40:42 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <930928195124_72240.1256_EHK30-1@compuserve.com>,
>Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
 
>>"skeptics" are the same: you talk, talk, talk, but you never dare try to prove
>>your stupid ideas, and you never actually read the papers or challenge the
>>equations, because you know you are wrong. You people are a bunch of cowards
>>and liars...
 
>     Which equation *wasn't* challenged?
 
         None by you.  That's for sure.
 
Just Kidding,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Helium 3 abundance
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium 3 abundance
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 21:30:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com writes:
>Isn't helium-3 rather hard to come by...It comprises less than .0002% of
>the earth's helium.
 
Here's a partial transcript of a CNN Futurewatch program sent to me by
Otis Port about three months ago that deals with the He3 question:
 
 
   Mr. ROWBERG: Helium-3 is not a naturally occurring element on the planet.
But there are enormous quantities of it on the moon.
   BUZZ ALDRIN, Apollo 11 Astronaut: Yes, a lot of people within the space
community are citing that as one reason - a very strong reason - why we might
want to go to the moon, to bring that material back if there is a very strong
demand for it.
   GEORGE: [voice-over] A scientist who has studied the idea of mining the
moon for helium-3 says it isn't as far fetched as it might sound.
   GERALD KULCINSKI, University of Wisconsin: It's certainly not a scientific
problem. It's more of an engineering problem.
   GEORGE: [voice-over] Gerald Kulcinski says devices the size of small
houses could skim the lunar surface, picking up dust.
   Mr. KULCINSKI: Since it's loosely bound in the surface, we're just picking
it up about a meter.
   GEORGE: [voice-over] And then the helium-3 would be extracted.
   Mr. KULCINSKI: We're heating it directly with solar energy to about 700
degrees to let the helium-3 defuse out.
   GEORGE: [voice-over] Kulcinski says space shuttles could bring the helium-
3 to Earth.
   Mr. KULCINSKI: If we wanted to provide all the electricity in the United
States for the year 1992, it would take about 25 tons of helium-3, and if
that was liquefied, it would fit in the cargo bay of the U.S. shuttle, so one
spaceship a year full of helium-3 would provide all of the electricity in the
United States.
   GEORGE: [voice-over] Energy generated by fuels found in water and moon
dust - that's the impossible-sounding dream that advocates of aneutronic
fusion hope to bring to reality in the twenty-first century. David George,
CNN, Future Watch.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Robert Hagglund /  Simple v. Lack of Accuracy & Precision
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Simple v. Lack of Accuracy & Precision
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 01:11:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick, I think you got my point clearly. I just don't see this 'mismatch
between the simplicity of the experimential method and the phenomena under
investigation' as you do.
 
> Robert Haggland ask what's wrong with simple and asserted that simple is
> often more reliable.  There is some merit to that point of view, but when
> there is a mismatch between the simplicity of the experimental method and
> the phenomena under investigation that simplicity can be a false virtue.
 
Simplicity and reliability, as you and I well know, doesn't imply accuracy or
precision. My assertion centered around the claim (as I understood it) that
the techniques being used were too simple and somehow lacked creditibilty due
to this simplicity.
 
> If cold fusion measurements were truly simple we wouldn't be discussing
> questions relating to experimental methods four years into the debate.
 
I think that most of the useful discussion centers around the experimental
process. The useless part is the constant stream of negative commentary from
people who don't bother to see things first-hand before posting messages. If
you have any first hand experience you'd like to share, as Ross Perot would
say, "I'm all ears."
 
> If the device is only good to a few per cent, it is not very useful
> for the study of an effect that may only be a few per cent difference
> between heat in and heat out.  Unless you already no there really is
> an effect that is much larger, all the simple calorimetry is a true
> waste of effort.
 
The original point was that the effect was so great that calorimetry wasn't
required to show that today's chemistry couldn't explain it away. Besides,
what made you assume that 'the device' is so prone to error that it would not
be very useful for the study of the effect in question?
 
Maybe you can elaborate on your 'device is only good to a few percent' so I
can better reply to your statement. Do you mean a total error over an extended
run of a few percent or do you mean a few percent off on one reading? Assuming
that you do 'no' there really in an effect that is much larger, how would you
propose that we proceed? If a simple calorimeter is incapable of proving that
excess heat is being created, please propose an alternative test method to
either prove it or disprove it.
 
Again, since you had time to review my post from yesterday and respond to it,
have you had the time of come up with that experiment I asked about?
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / mitchell swartz /  Correction to 'Detection of Metallic H/D'
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to 'Detection of Metallic H/D'
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 13:25:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <CE4tvF.EK7@world.std.com>
  Subject: Detection of Metallic H/D
mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) writes:
 
  =msc "Some days ago you posted a note about the work you and your students
  =msc were doing with deuterium under great pressure (2.5 MPa or so) within the
  =msc confines of a diamond anvil.
  =msc May I suggest that metallic hydrogen would be difficult to detect in
  =msc this environment.   I certainly don't have any constructive ideas for
  =msc you at this time......I believe that electrical means may be useless
  =msc as the diamond enviroment is a very good conductor of heat
  =msc  and electricity as I recall."
        Subject: Metallic Hydrogen/Deuterium ??
        Mark Schlichting (schlichting@pa881a.inland.com)
 
=ms "Diamond is a semiconductor rather than a metallic conductor, however, with:
=ms     density 3.51
=ms     melting point 4300 K
=ms     band gap  5.4 eV (minimum)
=ms     mobility of electrons  1800   cm2/volt-sec
=ms     mobility of holes      1400   cm2/volt-sec
=ms
=ms    The band gap and mobilities may offer one detection option."
 
  I would like to correct, and apologize, for my error, which has
  been  pointed out by Bruce Liebert.
 
  Given that the band gap is so great for diamond (5.4 eV)
   compared with kB*T, diamond electrically functions as an insulator at room
  temperature rather than a semiconductor.
  In any case, however, the suggestion of using the conductivity,
   particle mobility and band gap do remain an option.
 
  Bruce also reminds us that the great
 thermal conductivity is due to the light carbon atoms transferring heat via
 phonons, rather than the usual free electron heat transfer mechanism in metals.
 
 Thank you.     Hope that clarifies.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Frank Close /  radio inactive
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: radio inactive
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 11:08:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter posted my comments on searching for nuclear products and the
lack thereof; Jed posted comments from a report that said much the same.
Glad we all agree. Martin Fleischmann agreed with me 15 months ago
when he said ``This is the year when people should use on line mass
spectrometry [to look for 4He]". Pity then that there is so little attempt
to settle this question by those who, according to Jed, are finding
heat in amounts ``beyond chemistry".
 
 
McKubre once published that he saw no Helium,(Steve Jones), but recently
has said (reported on this net, Jed Rothwell, Mitchell Schwarz)
that he now believes he was unable to resolve between 4He and D2.
(If so, and if 4He was actually being produced at the required
levels for dd fusion, then I would have thought that McKubre would have
originally thought he had lots of the stuff but later would realise that
some of it might be unresolved D2. Given that he originally claimed to see
none, then I dont see how the recent "explanation" as posted by Jed and
Mitchell in responses to Steve Jones can generate the possibility
of a positive amount of unresolved helium in the null signal.Have the
reports, as posted, been accurate or is there something in the
experimental process that I have missed?)
 
 
Periodically someone or other will mention Hagelstein, Schwinger,
etc etc as theorists that have an idea as to how dd fusion rates
might be enhanced to produce watts of power. Suppose for the sake
of argument I bought one of these theories; what became of the
dd reaction products that, in those theories, include forms of Helium
in well defined amounts? It is the lack of these products that eliminates
those theories empirically, whatever you might think about their
intrinsic worthiness.
 
In my note to Dieter I said that, for me, a theory has to explain
(1)How the fusion rate elevates to generate watts (this much
everyone is aware of but this is where the discussion seems to stop).
       The outstanding requirements are:-
(2)Specify how ALL of the original fuel becomes hidden; the absence of
radiation is only half of the problem - that is what the theorists were trying
to explain away in 1989 and why I began insisting that the absence of ash
is the killer. In my opinion THE problem is to explain what became of the
ash which has to be there according to these theories of Schwinger,
Hagelstein, Lamb, Preparata. (at least in their original formulation)
    Finally you must
(3)Make a testable PREdiction.
 
 
Where have I said that all nuclear ash is radioactive Jed?
It is not. Protons and 3He are not; neutrons beta-decay but their
detectability does not depend on this (surely you havent forgotten
Pons unique ability in this area Jed?). These are straightforward
to detect and have been used to eliminate dd fusion and some other
processes as you well know. 4He is not radioactive and has been eliminated
at the required levels in at least some experiments that claimed to
have been heat producers. So whatever the heat was in those experiments it
was nothing to do with dd fusion. Anomalous isotopic abundances have
been searched for which do not depend on radioactivity; similar conclusions.
 
I dont know how easy it is to search for chemical ash. Jed seems to think
it is clear cut (though this is perhaps not the word of authority).
If Jed is right that there is no chemical ash, and I am right that there is
no nuclear ash, then - - - -
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Dieter Britz /  Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 12:02:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There are a few of us who are unhappy about the volume of postings to this
group, that are totally irrelevant to fusion (hot or cold), consisting either
solely of personal abuse and propaganda, or endless digressions into topics
that get further and further away from fusion. We do not see any light at the
end of the tunnel, so we are considering moving into a different tunnel, i.e.
setting up another fusion NEWS group. This posting is a preliminary
announcement of intent, and I am asking for helpful suggestions (Terry's
"group think") about a couple of things.
"We" at this point are John Lewis of St. John's, Newfoundland, and myself.
 
What we want some input on is the following:
 
1. The group should be moderated, albeit lightly. The terms of moderation are:
  * Postings should have some relevance to fusion, e.g. have a scientific
    content, or consist of news on fusion, or even the politics of fusion etc;
  * postings should not contain personal abuse or pure propaganda;
  * occasional (polite) side issues are OK, but the moderator has the right to
    cut short such digressions after, say, 5 postings (or some such number).
 [have we missed anything?]
  I personally would not like to see a dead serious group with a wrist slap
  for anyone making a joke or the like; hence the "light" moderation. I know
  Scott well enough to know that he will not be heavy handed.
 
2. We have a (half) willing moderator in the person of Scott Hazen Mueller.
   He worries about the volume of the work, and would like perhaps a second
   moderator to help. We don't know of one - ideally, it should be someone
   who does not him/herself post to the group, and should be neutral on CNF.
 
   I am not 100% sure, but I think Scott would also help set up a Digest for
   the new group, and archival.
 
3. The name of the group might be, e.g., sci.physics.fusion.moderated.
   We are aware that this is a bit clumsy but have not come up with a better
   one.
 
4. The announcement of the proposed new group will eventually go to the
   related groups sci.physics, sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.research.
  [Any others?]
 
I will give the readers of this group one week from today for suggestions on
the above, or anything that might occur to them, either by private email or to
the group. After that, we will go ahead with the formalities of setting up the
new group.
 
To forestall some anticipated reactions, note that the new group will not kill
this one. All you personal abusers and wafflers will be able to keep doing
it in this group. The more serious of us will move over and leave you alone.
So nobody will be cut off or censored out. What's more, anyone can of course
READ the new group.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Dieter Britz /  RE: CF requires a testable hypothesis
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: CF requires a testable hypothesis
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 13:58:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1472:
 
>While Dieter Britz is giving both sides the old one-two punch, I think he
>may be overlooking an essential feature of any scientific investigation
>that is still missing from cold fusion research.  Basically the issues
>relating to nuclear reaction data or the lack thereof can't be resolved
>until someone sticks their neck out and makes a definite, complete
>hypothesis as to what reaction process is occurring.  I would not be
>such a hardliner on this if there was, in fact, any real theory for
>a process that hasn't already been ruled out by the experimental data.
[...]
 
Thank you, Dick, for a frothless response - even though you were one of my
targets. You are half right, BUT: there are experimenters and theorists, and
they are not necessarily (or often) the same researchers. If you disregard
everything that does not have a solid theory, you also have to throw out HTSC
and - at least until a few years ago - turbulence. There is a common joke
among turbulence researchers (TR) along these lines: A TR dies and, arriving
in heaven, gets asked if he wants to know anything. "Yes", he eagerly says, "I
want at last to understand turbulence". "Sorry", comes the answer, "we don't
understand that one". However, lots of people are measuring the properties of
turbulence, and lots of people are fiddling with the composition of those HTSC
compounds, more or less at random, to try to bring up the transition
temperature. At the same time, others are feverishly looking for theories. F&P
are not nuclear physicists and it seems OK in principle (setting aside the
many problems with their experiments and the reporting thereof) for them to
pursue their experiments at this perhaps explorative stage (yes, even after 4+
years), without trying to find an explanation. I agree, however, that there is
a need for theory, to prevent loss of interest. In fact, there IS loss of
interest except for some special groups in, say, Japan, judging from my
publication statistics. The number of papers submitted per month now is a very
small fraction of what it was in 1989.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  reply to Robert Hagglund
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: reply to Robert Hagglund
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 14:51:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is refreshing to get to reply to someone who is really interested in
the issues surrounding cold fusion research.  First let me again identify
myself as an experimental nuclear physicist.  From that biased perspective
I truly believe that solid evidence for a nuclear process has to involve
some direct detection of nuclear reaction products, whatever they may be.
Calorimetry can never be more than a crude way to get an indication of
the effect, should it be producing a huge signal (by nuclear reaction
standards).  It is often said in jest that had Pons and Fleischmann actually
induced nuclear fusion they would be dead by now, but there is a kernal of
truth there that should not be overlooked.  One watt of heat from nuclear
fusion could be accompanied by a leathal dose of radiation!  That would
be an uncontestable signal that something had indeed happened.
 
OK so it turns out that CF experiments don't produce 10^12 neutrons per
second.  They don't even produce one neutron per second!  There isn't
much solid experimental evidence that they produce anything that looks
like the product of a nuclear reaction.  How do we know that CF experiments
produce anything beyond oxygen and deuterium from the electrolysis?
The whole issue hangs on the calorimetry, and to a large extent of very
simple calorimetry.  It is not that better calorimeters have not been
tried, but that rather that when some excellent calorimeterists have
applied their techniques they got a null result - no evidence for cold
fusion.
 
Considering the experimental facts that nuclear evidence is lacking, and
that many very good experiments showed no excess heat, it is a valid
question to consider whether the "positive" excess heat seen in experiments
using simple calorimeters is real.  Can it be an experimental artifact?
 
Many cold fusion positives, including the initial results by Pons and
Fleischmann, were characterized by being marginally above the noise
or accuracy limit of the experimental technique and by a lack of
reproducibility.  Sometimes only one cell in eight or ten would
show a positive result.  Under those circumstances the most likely
explaination is simple post selection of "good" results while discarding
the cases where something unspecified prevented the cell from working.
This is the setting in which I began to ask what are the features of the
data that seems to indicate a positive result that could account for
these being wrong.
 
The measurements with simple calorimeters are strongly dependent on
calibrations, i.e. nothing can be infered reliably from the measurements
except in relation to observations made with known power inputs.
Many early experiments were, however, sadly lacking in controls and
calibrations.  Next the positive effects were generally seen after
extended running times to "load" the palladium.  Other things could
and did happen during this long loading period.  Impurities accumulate
in the electrolyte as the D2O is added periodically, electrodes
disolve or get coated with crud, water levels rise and fall, etc.
Long term stability of the calibrations becomes an issue.  Almost
no one ever did post calibrations to varify that the calorimeter
response was the same as it had been days ago or even months ago.
 
Then we come to the signal processing issues.  After the first flush
of activity when lots of grad students could be pressed into baby
sitting the experiments, much of this research was run on autopilot.
The cells were wired up to a PC, and the data was logged for later
analysis.  But what data got logged and what got lost?  Generally
all that gets saved are samples taken at rather long intervals, but
are there enough samples to accurately represent what is happening?
Is  the sampling done in a way that cannot bias the result?  This
question has been discussed with regard to the power input, and the
answers are not always too convincing.  I chose to raise an equivalent
question as to how well the samples of cell temperature data can
represent the heat output.  As far as I am aware the topic has not
been addressed in any detail.
 
If you make a simple analysis using the simplest possible model for
the calorimeter you find that it "works" well on heat sources whose
time dependence can be tracked by the temperature response, i.e.
signals that are slowly varying on a time scale set by the time
constant for the calorimeter.  Now that time can be quite long, minutes
or even hours.  If you look at published data from these experiments
there are often very rapid changes in the "excess heat" on a time
scale short with respect to the spacing of data points.  Some of
this behavior is very hard to explain, but that is another story.
Let us just say that the word "bursts" was applied early and often
to describe the data.  The tendency is then to concentrate on the
bursts as signaling the effect and to ignore slowly varying parts
of the data.  However, before you can claim a positive excess you
have to do a time integration of the signal that is supposed to
be an analog of the heat output.  You have to do a complete
accounting for all the inputs and all the outputs.  Anything
that is not properly accounted for becomes a potential error
source, and there are lots of them.
 
Now for an experimental test.  First off you would have to get
the basics of power measurement with a pulsed source well in
hand by observing wave voltage and current wave forms with the
type of load your calorimeter represents.  I would hope you
could generate and observe power pulses as short as a few seconds
as well as make good DC measurements.  Next comes the calorimeter
with excellent stability and a time constant that is not too
long.  Try something that will equillibrate within 30 minutes,
perhaps.  Get a good temperature probe or several and start with
a long series of calibration runs on DC power inputs over a suitably
wide dynamic range.  In this phase the am is to see what stability
and reproducibility you can get         ^ that's aim.
 
When you have done all that let us know.  In case anybody is still
wondering, you now know why I haven't accepted the challange and
undertaken to do any calorimetry myself.  When you are ready, try
measuring a series of square input pulses ranging in width from
0.1 to 3 times the time constant of the calorimeter.  You may
do this at constant amplitude or use higher amplitudes on the
short pulses to keep the total energy input above the noise.
If this works to your satisfaction try putting pulses on top
a DC input and vary the DC part.
 
Have fun, Robert!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Frank Close /  radio inactive: p.s.
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: radio inactive: p.s.
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 15:42:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In my previous post I asked Jed Rothwell:
 
**Where have I said that all nuclear ash is radioactive Jed?
**It is not. Protons and 3He are not; neutrons  - - 4He - -
 
The origin of this erroneous claim seems to be McKUBRE (according
to a recent report from Jed of McKubre's remarks on CBC as quoted by
Dick Blue today).
 
As this statement about radioactivity is completely wrong, are
people quoting McKubre accurately?
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 15:42:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I already have one email response to this; not being sure whether the person
wants to be known, I won't name him.
 
The suggestion is to split "hot" from "cold" fusion, i.e. make two groups.
This could solve the small problem of the awkward name, we'd have the groups
sci.physics.fusion.hot and sci.physics.fusion.cold. The person who made the
suggestion doesn't like "hot" vs. "cold" because this gives undeserved
legitimacy to the "cold" variety, he feels.
 
As for me, I go along with those who regard the tokamak program as a gigantic
sink of money, never to be profitable, and am frankly bored by it. What with
moderation of the cold new group plus throwing out "hot", this would really
reduce the volume of our new group. Someone else would have to start up the
"hot" one, though, I am not interested.
 
Input to this, too, is welcome.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Essentials of Farfetching / Niels Bohr
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Essentials of Farfetching / Niels Bohr
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 17:36:21 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
ESSENTIALS OF FARFETCHING
 
Does anyone recall the rules to the Farfetch game?  This was an analytical
technique I once suggested for analyzing data that seriously violates an
existing framework of physical theory, such as Michaelson-Morely or the
discrete spectra of the hydrogen atom.  The steps in the Farfetch game are:
 
 1) Postulate a singular, well-defined "miracle" that appears to match the
    needs of the anomalous experimental data.  The "miracle" cannot be
    arbitrary; it must provide some sort of close relationship back to the
    data it is supposed to explain, and also should be as minimal in scope
    as possible.  E.g., invoking a "physics demon" is a miracle that could
    explain a good many things, but it is not, er, very _minimal_ in scope.
 
 2) Mercilessly and enthusiastically _attack your proposed "miracle" with
    every analytical method available to you_.  Look in particular for the
    more powerful classes of "elimination proofs" by which the miracle can
    be shown to lead to outright contradictions with either itself or with
    known experimental data.  Try to show why it does _not_ really provide
    a solution to the data.  And when it fails, _throw it away without the
    slightest remorse or emotional attachment_.
 
 3) Pick up the pieces (if any) that were not utterly destroyed by your own
    ruthless self-analysis, and try again.  Focus on building a new miracle
    from pieces that may have brought you a little closer to the data.
 
This is hardly new, as it is really just a somewhat drastic rendition of
the classic scientific method.  Instead of "hypotheses" I've labeled them
"miracles" to emphasize that sometimes a _small_ jump is just not going to
do the trick.  Even the name is something I took from Ursula LeQuin's
classic sci-fi book, "The Left Hand of Darkness".
 
 
NIELS BOHR
 
To me the scientist who best exemplifies this type of risk-taking scientific
extrapolation was the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr, who when confronted
with the absolutely inexplicable spectra of the hydrogen atom was the _only_
on bold enough to stick his neck out and say in effect (not his words!)
"let's propose a miracle: a charged electron in orbit around a proton _does
not_ radiate classically, even though that is a flat violation of everything
we know."  Bohr _leaped_ into an utterly forbidden domain -- at considerable
personal risk to his own career, one should note.  As far as the scientists
of his time were concerned, he literally invoked magic.
 
However, the magic was both carefully constrained and subject to analysis.
Most intriguingly, it was also _wrong_ -- the Bohr atom could not truly
explain all of atomic physics.  In fact, the only thing it could explain
accurately was the single hydrogen atom, although it seemed to explain that
quite well.
 
But the miracle he assumed was the plug pulled _out_ of the dam that in a
few years led to a flood of new insights.  The Bohr atom fell, _with Bohr
gleefully cheering its demise_, and the new structure of the Schroedinger
wave atom was constructed in its place.  And it was indeed a flood -- the
pace of development of the new quantum theory was astonishing, with an
outpouring of thought and insight over a period of only about five years
that has remained unmatched ever since.  And Bohr remained right there at
the front of it, never looking back at his demolished atom.  Why?  _Because
he knew it was nothing more than a tool needed to break the dam of mis-
understanding_.  He was able to keep his ego out of his construction, even
when later generations spoke foolishly and derisively of the "Bohr atom"
as if it was some kind of somewhat feeble misunderstanding by Bohr of what
was really needed.
 
Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Bohr was the only one bold enough
to stick his neck and career out from a pond of classical security and say
"hey, we should at least _try_ to look in a completely new direction, _even_
if it eventually proves to be wrong in some or all of the details."  I've
stuck a specific name on it, but it was remarkable men like Niels Bohr who
came up with Farfetching to open up paths for explaining the inexplicable.
 
.....
 
I think the question these days is not whether Farfetching is an effective
technique when presented with truly earth-shaking data, but whether or not
there is any such data exists.  Some folks claim yes; many claim no.  Time
will tell.
 
But in the mean time, I suggest that anyone who wishes to invoke one or
more "miracles" while exploring physical theory should _please_ not forget
the absolutely critical second step of Farfetching:  Ruthless, unrelenting
self-criticism and a willingness to mercilessly thrown out your own ideas
when they hit a wall.  Leave out that second step, and you are left with
nothing at all.
 
Be warned:  I personally do not participate in this particular group to
pat egos on the back and say "Poor thing, did my critique of you physics
theory hurt oo feewings?"  I would say that in most cases by the time it
degenerates to that level there is probably not many physical theory issues
left to discuss -- at least not in comparison to the personal ego issues.
 
I participate in this group because every once in a while we get a good
physic discussion going that _might_ get into some genuinely new territory
-- and because best of all, I can get to see myself be a total jackass in
the process.  Recent example? Hey, I really thought lithium was a critical
cost issue in HF -- and I was flat-out 100% _wrong_.  But _boy_ did I learn
some interesting things about what is going on in HF research while in the
process of doing my hee-hawing number...
 
.....
 
Here's a closing thought for all of you:
 
If you no longer ever seem to find yourself in the position any of having
to admit that you've been a total jackass, does that really mean that you
_haven't_ been?
 
Or does it just mean you've decided never again to admit to having been a
jackass -- even to yourself?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Challenging the equations
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Challenging the equations
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 16:41:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
There has been some confusion here engendered by my remark that "skeptics"
have not challenged the equations in P&F's paper. Dale Bass, for example,
wrote:
 
          "Which equation *wasn't* challenged?"
 
Let's get this straight, please: "skeptics" here and elsewhere have
challenged the experimental method, but they have NOT challenged the model.
They are saying, in effect, that the cell is not working the way the model
describes -- it is the wrong model. They are not saying the model itself is
faulty. At least, I have not noticed any who say this.
 
They say the cell does not work the way P&F model it because of a wide
variety of reasons, for example: they propose that 0.0044 moles of hydrogen
can be burned to generate megajoules of heat; or that water boiled at the
bottom of a tall test tube magically flies out in "droplets" instead of
vapor; or that electric "waveforms" can be used to circumvent the laws of
thermodynamics; or that you can store 8 MJ of chemical energy in 0.0044
mole of Pd; or that invisible energy loading can occur that magically does
not show up as an endothermic reaction.
 
The beauty of these... hypothesis (I guess you would call them) is that
they can be tested. You do not need to run a CF experiment per se, you
don't even need any palladium or electrolysis to find out if any of these
ideas hold water. Just take the simplest lab equipment and try to "prove"
one of these crackpot ideas, and you will see in 15 minutes that it is a
joke. Look through the messages here carefully and you will see that every
single one of the "challenges" and "objections" raised against the
experimental technique of P&F, McKubre and the others is a sick joke, which
should be instantly dismissed by anyone with elementary knowledge of
science. However, because these are "skeptical" ideas raised by "credible
scientists" they are all instantly accepted as the gospel truth, and never
challenged by "true scientists" like Britz, Jones, Blue, Droege, Bass or
any of the other True Believers. They all bow down and kiss the Blarney
Stone as soon as they see it.
 
Regarding the work of Dennis Cravens, Mitch Swartz says he was getting 180%
of I*V. That's news to me! I have talked to him quite a lot about
calorimetry and about Pd experiments, but all I know about the light water
work is that the recombiner killed it, which is what Steve Jones reported.
Several other people have told me that, too. I don't understand what is
going on. Therefore, I recommend you avoid a recombiner with that
experiment, and look for more energy than I*V instead.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Challenging Jed
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Challenging Jed
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 16:41:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Richard Blue wrote:
 
     "McKubre can go on playing the role as cold fusion's best
     calorimeterist, but his understanding of nuclear processes is clearly
     pretty weak, at least as Jed Rothwell quotes him.  In an NPR broadcast
     he is supposed to have said..."
 
Anyone who doubts that I am quoting McKubre correctly should get a tape.
Here is the information you need:
 
     The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25,
     1993 was devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow.
     Panelists included Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester
     University, Peter Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air
     Warfare Center, and Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a
     tape, send $12.50 to: NPR Tapes * Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders:
     202-822-2323. Specify the date (06/25/93)
 
As he often does, Richard has become so desperate that he resorts to
questioning my integrity. Pray tell us, Richard, what could I possibly hope
to gain by misquoting a tape which thousands of people have heard, and
which anyone can get for $12.50? How would I get away with it?
 
Another question, along the same lines, is how do Richard Blue, Britz,
Taubes and the others intend to get away with it? They love to cast
unsubtle aspersions -- little throw away lines about me for example, saying
that I perpetrated a fraud at an International Conference, or that I
deliberately misquoted McKubre, or this, or that, or the other. I can see
what they are thinking: they know that they can publish fabulous lies and
nobody will challenge them. After all, their fellow "skeptics"
automatically believe everything they say. Ah, but they forget, in the real
world people eventually come their senses and examine the record.
Eventually, this simmering crock pot of deliberate attacks, lies and
outrages will revealed to the world. There will Hell to pay, and no pitch
hot, and I -- for one -- will enjoy every minute of it.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Then, what?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Then, what?
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 17:37:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Frank Close writes:
 
     "If Jed is right that there is no chemical ash, and I am right that
     there is no nuclear ash, then - - - -"
 
Then we have a REAL mystery on our hands. Perhaps, in that case, it is
"zero point energy" (whatever that is). In any case, the experimental
evidence for excess heat will not go away. If it turns out there is no ash
of any sort, that will mean that Frank and I are both wrong: it is not
chemical and not nuclear either.
 
Why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it? As McKubre points out,
the issue of nuclear ash is far from settled. There is now considerable
evidence of commensurate helium, indicating some sort of dd reaction. If it
turns out the 4He is the main product after all, no doubt it will take many
years to work out the details, and to figure out why earlier experiments
did not appear to yield the right amount of helium. Measuring heat is
simple and straightforward, but measuring timy amounts of helium is very
difficult and fraught with complexity, so it should not surprise anyone
that some early experiments might have been faulty, and might have missed
the helium altogether or confused it with something else.
 
In any case, no theoretical objection like "lack of ash" can make
experimental evidence vanish. Science does not work like that.
 
In case anyone is wondering why McKubre and other waited for years before
beginning the serious, full-scale search for "ash," the answer is quite
simple. They wanted to make the reaction 100% reproducible on demand first.
There is no point to spending a lot of time looking for subtle, difficult
to find "ash" if you can't even get the reaction to start most of the time.
The logical steps are to perfect reproducibility first, and look for ash
second. I don't see how anyone can argue with that, but I am sure there are
loads of "skeptics" out there who will. "Skeptics" have never actually done
an experiment in this field, or even seen one, but they think they know far
better than we do how to go about doing them.
 
 
I see that Dieter has floated a proposal for a second e-mail group that
will attempt to eliminate politics and personal attacks. I think this is a
wonderful, utopian idea, kind of like communism. I wish it was possible,
but alas, as anyone can see, 99% of cold fusion is politics and emotion.
All of the "skeptical objections" for example, are based upon hysterical
emotional and rejection of proven facts. Still, why not try it? There is no
harm in utopian undertakings. But, I expect it is impossible to rid science
of its human flavor, and anyone who thinks they are truly "objective" or
"disinterested" in this topic is fooling only himself. The worst offenders
are people like Jones and Britz who masquerade and prance about with
tin-foil halos on their heads, claiming to be "objective" and above the
fray, and only occasionally publish some poisonous lie (about me, anyway --
I don't keep track of their other lies). Oh, how "objective" they look to
the uninformed observer! It is only occasionally that their twitches reveal
where their heart's desire lies. They are among those who are consumed by
a passion to destroy Pons and Fleischmann and discredit all positive
experimental evidence, out of jealousy, I suppose.
 
For all of my excesses, at least I never pretend to be "objective." A
businessman or an engineer is not "objective" in the sense that we do not
waffle or fence-sit forever in the face of massive evidence. We take a
close look at the facts, we use our best judgment, and we commit to a
product. Since the evidence for heat beyond chemistry is based upon common
sense, and old fashioned calorimetry, and since the signal to noise ratio
is overwhelming, a businessman or engineer is forced to conclude it is
real. Theoretical objections never make any difference to a practical,
hands-on person schooled in the Edisonian American traditions and British
empiricism. This can be a profound weakness, but it sure beats the
hidebound, anti-intellectual, academic approach championed here by Frank
Close. His philosophy strikes me more in the tradition of the Chinese
Mandarins or the medieval Catholic Church than anything in the modern age.
He seems to have missed out on every development after the day Kepler threw
out his model, trashed the "music of the spheres" idea, and started looking
at facts instead.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Jim Bowery /  Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 17:37:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>There are a few of us who are unhappy about the volume of postings to this
>group, that are totally irrelevant to fusion (hot or cold), consisting either
>solely of personal abuse and propaganda, or endless digressions into topics
>that get further and further away from fusion.
 
2 solutions:
 
1) Stop reading messages by people and on subjects that you don't want.
 
||
 
2) Have your "moderator" instead be an editor who just selects messages
from the fusion newsgroup to forward to a distribution list of people
who trust that editor's judgement.
 
Why do you need more control than that?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Data is Coming
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Data is Coming
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 19:24:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,                                         1 October 1993
 
I have been corresponding with Chuck Harrison about setting up a data base for
the next run where you gentle readers could dial up and study the data as it
is taken.  This is all part of the exploration of new ways to do science.
 
It seemed appropriate to test this out with some sample data from the last
run.  By now you all likely know that I hate to analyze data.  So I grudgingly
went down into the basement and fired up that nice new 486 that I bought
myself for Christmas (92) but which is as yet unused.  Wow!  It makes grinding
through data a pleasure.  I was always too cheap to buy a co-processor for the
previous machines, so all that floating point stuff used to take forever.
 
In any case, I have now looked at the event that I previously reported here on
27 July.  It really looks like something that will be hard to explain.  All
you peroxide advocates had better start thinking up ways to preserve peroxide
in a cell that is full of platinum, is relatively warm, and is roiling.  While
a couple of thousand joules is not much, it still requires some explanation.
 
We will work to get this data into a form that you all can examine.  The
format I am using at the moment is:
 
"mm-dd-yyyy","hh:mm:ss.ss", Run Time(in seconds)
D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,D6,D7
D8,D9,D10,D11,D12,D13,D14
D15,D16,D17,D18,D19,D20,D21
(repeat for following data points - no blank line between points)
 
The D's are in the variable format that Basic puts out from a WRITE #1,
statement.  This also keeps line length under 70 characters or so.  Chuck
wants me to remove the commas, and I could.  I could also fix format the D's
if I leave out the commas (i.e. PRINT #1, USING "###.####" in basic).
Obviously, I could format the data other ways, but I don't plan to spend a lot
of effort on it.  Please respond.  This format is the result of a previous
data exchange, where the users wanted to input it into a Lotus spread sheet.
This format presents the most important third of the data.  Even so, there
will be about 10 megabytes for the whole run.  Other variables could be made
available.
 
I would like to hear whether any of you would take the half day or so required
to read the write up I would prepare, and plot a few of the variables.  Send
comments to DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
 
It is my hope that several of you will take the effort to plot this event, and
that we can then debate it's meaning.
 
The earlier report of this event is repeated below (somewhat edited to reduce
the length).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status #4 Cell 4A6                               27 July 1993
 
Sunday morning the temperature jumped from 35 to 77 C in a few minutes.  It
has ***stayed*** at the high temperature.  The program was at the time set to
reverse the current ramp from up to down at 36.5 C.  Which it did.  The
current is still slowly coming down at the 0.000002 amps per second rate, and
the cell thermometer is now down to 67 C or so.  The only thing that makes
sense to me is that the electrolyte has suddenly changed thermal conductivity.
The loading lost 11 cc of gas (means 22 cc D exited from the cathode to eat 11
cc of Oxygen), but last night the gas volume started to increase.  It is now
up to 143 cc from 76.4 before the event.  I have seen this kind of gas run
away before.  For this reason there is an extra container of catalyst outside
the cell but inside the calorimeter to convert any escaping D+O that in not
converted in the cell.  The condensate from such gas does not make it back
into the cell, but the thermal balance should be good.  Possibly we are
generating Hydrino gas.
 
Oh yes!  When the cell temperature went up, the catalyst thermometer went down,
from 53 C or so to 32 C.  As you may recal, there is a glass tube down the
center of the cell which supports the cathode structure.  There are two
thermometers in it.  On, the cell temperature, is in the bottom of the tube,
just over the cathode.  The other is well up near the top of the cell in the
middle of the glass tubes which support the catalyst.  The cell temperature
thermometer is surrounded by electrolyte, and the catalyst thermometer is
about 2" above it with the glass tube inbetween stuffed with foam.  Note before
the event, the catalyst was 53 and the cell 35 or so.  After the event, the
catalyst cooled to 32 and the cell heated to 77.  Sorry I don't print out
the catalyst temperature, so I cannot say how fast it cooled without looking
at the disk data which is an effort.
 
The event would appear to have liberated 3 killojoules.  Since the event, there
is the possibility that there is still some low level heat 20-30 mw.  But it
is hard to say for sure as we are ramping down.  Note that if the cell is
really at 67 C, then as it cools down, there will be heat liberated.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 / Marshall Dudley /  Helium 3 abundance
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium 3 abundance
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 15:50:31 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In message: <1993Sep29.034722.24453@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>    If APC's method is confirmed at higher densities, it may lead to a
> compact, environmentally acceptable fusion power plant capable of burning
> Helium-3, a non-radioactive fuel which, unlike the government Tokamak
> program, produces negligible amounts of neutron radiation, minimal heat
> pollution, and will not breed nuclear weapons.
 
Isn't helium-3 rather hard to come by, except by other nuclear processes?
It comprises less than .0002% of the earth's helium.  Does anyone know what
the source of this HE3 would be?  If it is manufactured by nuclear processes
then it would seem that the benefits of "no neutron radiation", are no longer
of consequence.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Rutherford's 1920 model of the nucleus and Hbar+
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rutherford's 1920 model of the nucleus and Hbar+
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 21:13:31 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Another nice entry from Bill Page, one well worth taking a closer look at:
 
In article <930930133735_70047.3047_EHB5-2@CompuServe.COM>
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
 
> Roger Amos very kindly replied to my request of information about quantum
> chemistry programs.  After pointing out (in what I thought to be a very
> sensitive manner) that the model that I was proposing with an electron
> confined to the centre of mass did not make a lot of sense...
 
Bill has as usual done a thorough job of researching an issue and checking
it out with folks knowledgeable about the issue.  And yes, I suspect that
many readers would concur that for a variety of reasons it would be hard
to keep the electron _stable_ at the center of mass.
 
I see from further reading that you below, however, that you are simply
quoting Roger Amos, not agreeing with him.  (And out it pops: Argh!)
 
> ... [Roger Amos] confirmed what I had already surmized from a quick
> reading of  "Quantum Chemistry" by Ira Levine (4th ed. 1991) pp 384-387
> on the Hydrogen molecule.  This book also discusses the GUASSIAN, GAMESS,
> GRADSCF, CADPAC and HONDO programs for molecular calculations (pp 466-467).
> Quantum chemistry explicitly makes the Born-Oppenhiemer approximation
> that the nuclear forces within the nucleus can be treated as a small
> perturbation of the electronic interaction...
 
Keeping in mind, of course, that the nuclear and EM forces cannot normally
"see" (interact) with each other exept via very rare W interactions...
 
> [Roger Amos] also told me about the work by Kolos and Wolniewicz [W.
> Kolos, et al. J. Chem. Phys., 84, 3278 (1986).  They are concerned with
> accurate calculations of H2 molecule ground state and include corrections
> for both relativistic and Born-Oppenheimer approximation effects.
>
> I am concerned that such models have not been adequately exercised in the
> (admitted low probability) regions where the electron is highly localized.
 
This can be accomplished in one of three ways:
 
 a) Greatly increase the charge on a nucleus.  The electron will then be
    localized much more tightly.  The energy to achieve higher localization
    is provided by the increased potential energy of higher nuclear charge.
 
 b) Greatly increase the mass of the electron.  This changes the resonant
    frequency of the electron in favor of localization in a smaller region
    of space.  This experiment is "real" for only two data points other than
    the the electron, which are the masses of the muon and tau particles
    that are otherwise indistinguishable from electrons.  Intermediate
    electron mass points cannot be reached with the known particle set.
 
 c) Reduce the magnitude of Planck's constant.  This has the effect of
    "scaling down" the effects of the classical limit, so that an atom
    must shrink in physical size to maintain a quantum (wave-based) size.
    This is purely a thought problem, with no known physical implementation.
    And besides, this one has the corollary effect of globally shrinking
    _everything_ -- so it could not be used to shrink electron wavefunctions
    relative to proton wavefunctions.  Both would shrink together.
 
Once you have selected a method of electron localization, one or more of
the calculation methods you have mentioned may indeed need to be modified
to give correct results, since you would be going well beyond their usual
range of applications (unless they were set up to handle interactions of
deeply ionized heavy nuclei, which is unlikely).
 
I would suggest that whether these computational models deal with highly
localized electrons is not really the issue.  Models do what they are
intended to do, nothing more, and they always have constraints based on
some set of reasonable expectations for how they will be used.
 
The issue appears to me to be how you choose to implement or postulate
localization.  Would you choose (a), (b), (c), or some other (possibly
unknown option)?
 
> I hypothesize that solutions might exist where the protons and electron
> occupy a delocalized shell of approximately 100 to 1000 fm.  Actually,
> a 'shell' is probably not a very good model.  Maybe it would be better
> to think of it like a hard boiled egg.  The electron is the yolk and the
> protons are the egg-white.  But don't think of the protons as being *in*
> the white part - they *are* de-localized so they occuppy the entire white
> space around the electron...
 
Not a bad description of what happens _once you localize the electron_.  In
terms of the (b) (heavier electron) option, which I choose simply because
it allows a specific figure to be attached, your egg model would as a ball
park figure correspond to a electron with about 4000 times its usual mass.
 
Actually, the tau particle may even be somewhere in that general range, so
an actual implementation of this "egg" might even be possible in that way.
 
 
> In this regime, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is grossly violated.
> Perturbative corrections are not adequate.
 
Once you get into the electron localization region equivalent to electrons
of mass, oh, say 2000x, _anything_ that assumes electrons going around the
nucleus in simple orbits will of course be grossly inaccurate.  He3 and T
nuclei (based on nuclear force bonding, not EM) provide better examples of
what happens to bound-particle wave functions in this range.
 
> The Kolos et. al. work is very complex.  What I have in mind is (in
> principle) much simpler - a completely ab initio computation (simulation,
> if you like) of the 3-body Schrodinger's equation for a potential that
> includes the strong force attraction of the protons as well as the usual
> Coulomb forces.  Perhaps I am being naive that this is possible...
 
At close range the strong force between the protons will be strongest if
they have parallel spin.  Unfortunately, that creates a case of two quite
identical fermions very close together, which has an energy cost that blows
the protons apart.
 
A weaker strong force attraction still exists if the protons are anti-
parallel, and the fermi "repulsion" is no longer a problem in that case.
It is too weak to hold them together -- or even to hold two chargeless
neutrons together, for that matter, except for very short periods (as
"dineutrons").
 
So yes, there _would_ be a range in which the attraction of the strong
force between two (anti-parallel) protons would "weaken" the resistance
of the protons to being pushed closer together.
 
But why is this even necessary?  If you have localized your electron to
the degree you are proposing, you don't even _need_ the help of the strong
force.  Muon fusion (with its 200x electron localization factor) has shown
that once the electron has been suficiently localized, fusion and other
nuclear events will occur through simple (heh) tunneling of the nuclear
particles themselves, or through exchange of otherwise extremely unlikely
virtual particles.
 
If you do not localize the electron, the case becomes very similar to a
helium atom.  In that case the electron "exists" almost entirely outside
of the nucleus (integral of charge density function) and contributes to
the proton bonding only to an almost immeasurably small degree.
 
So in summary:  Yes, the nuclear force will dimish the rate of repulsion
for anti-parallel protons, but not enough to provide much assistance to
bonding unless localization of the electron has been increased by 2 or 3
orders of magnitude.
 
> ... The idea is to do exploratory calculations instead of trying to
> compute exact values.
 
See above.  You might in particular want to read up on dineutrons.  The
Feynman III section on protons and how fermi statistics affect their
bonding (or lack thereof, actually) is a good reference, also.
 
> Consider a hypothetical potential energy curve that might result from the
> nuclear forces between the protons.  Over the distance scales usually
> considered in chemistry and in accord with the solutions of the Schrodinger
> equation for the electronic interactions, the potential energy is thought
> to rise rapidly below a radius of about 1 angstrom (10^-10 meters). [Ref:
> Quantum Chemistry, pp 353.] However, if we extend this graph to much
> smaller distances on an approximate log scale we might obtain something
> like that shown below.
>
>                                     Hypothetical Potential Energy
>                                             versus radius
>
>             |
>             |    *
>             |   * *
>             |   *  *                ???
>             |  *    *                *
>    U(r)     |  *     *              * *
>             |  *      *            *   *
>          0 -|--*---+---*----+-----*-+---*---+------+-------+------+------
>             | *        *         *        *
>             | *         *       *          *
>        -0.5 | *          *      *           *                  * * * * *
>             | *           *    *              *        * * * *
>        -0.6 | *            *  *                  * * *
>             | *             * *
>             | *              *
>                             ???
>             1 fm           10^2 fm              10^5 fm
>             (D+)           (Hbar+)              (H2)
>
>
> You must realize that the radius does not correspond to the separation of
> the protons! The protons must be thought of as being very close to each
> other (within normal nuclear distances of about 1 fm), even though they are
> delocalized over a much larger area.
 
OK, this is really your "farfetch" right here -- that the electron behaves
differently when very close, rather than as predicted by simple exponential
extrapolation.  This is good, because it states the assumption clearly.
 
Here's where you need recognize that your assumption as stated has a very
high probability of violating known experimental results:  the particle
physics community (SLAC in particular comes to mind) has dealt with this
region of close electron/nucleon proximity for many decades, _yet has never
identified any significant deviations of the type you are proposing above.
 
A curve of the type you have "farfetched" above would have very noticeable
consequences for the scattering behavior of electrons off of nucleons, and
would surely have been noticed.  Nonetheless, if you wish to search for
possible deviations of the type you have proposed, that is probably where
you should begin -- in the rich literature on electron/nucleon collisions.
You would probably want to look in the lower-energy domains where the
electron just barely has enough energy to "strike" the nucleon.
 
> The localization energy (ground state energy) of the confined electron is
> compensated for by the long range component of the strong force nuclear
> interaction (approximately Yukawa exchange of virtual pions) between the
> protons.  Then the electron is confined because its ground state energy is
> insufficient to overcome the resulting nuclear potential well.
 
No.  You seem to be assuming to some sort of interplay between the strong
and EM forces that does not exist.  Keep in mind that unless a (very rare)
weak interaction occurs, the electron simply cannot "see" the nuclear force
interaction at all.  As far as the electron is concerned, the region where
virtual pions are being exchanged looks exactly the same as any other part
of space in the atom -- empty.
 
> The result is something very similar to but not quite a deuterium ion. For
> one thing, Hbar+ has spin 1/2 where D+ is spin 1.  It is amusing that it is
> precisely this difference in spin that led Chadwick and others to over turn
> Rutherford's original 1920 concept of bound electron-proton pairs in the
> nucleus.  Even Heisenberg considered the possibility of an "exchange force"
> involving electrons between protons and neutrons - where the neutron was
> considered a tightly bound proton-electron pair. ["The Discovery of
> Subatomic Particles", Steven Weinberg, 1983.]
 
Again, considering (especially in the pre-full-QM 1920 time period) is not
the same thing as finding.  The only exchange interaction ever found between
nucleons and electrons is the W-mediated "weak force," and it's not really
even a force.  It is more accurately described as an _interaction_ -- an
exchange of particles -- that alters both particles (e.g., by converting
the electron into a neutrino.)
 
The weak force has been been mapped out in considerable detail by the
particle physicists, and does not exhibit the type of (once postulated)
forceful interaction you are suggesting.
 
> SO... what I would like to see is some spin polarization measurements on
> the gaseous products from Cerofolini's D+/H- reaction and CF cells.  And
> perhaps I should stop referring to it at Vigier's Hbar+ and instead call it
> a Rutherford deutron.
 
The Rutherford concept was proposed prior to the discovery of netrons, and
was up until that point a very little nice "miracle" invoked to explain
all that uncharged additional mass in the nucleus.  Rutherford abandoned
it when the neutron with its very different internal structure was found;
it is not entirely fair to him to resurrect it without acknowledging the
the conceptual frame and restrictions under which he first developed it,
and that he later abandoned it.
 
> Cheers.
>
> Bill Page.
 
Cheers here, too.  Hope you don't mind the critique too much.  I liked your
posting, even though I obviously don't concur with it.  You are interested
in physics, not propaganda, and that's kind of neat.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.28 / Sean Morgan /  HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
     
Originally-From: morgan@arc.ab.ca (Sean Morgan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
Date: 28 Sep 93 13:08:32 MDT
Organization: Alberta Research Council

(These should be in    the FAQ for this group (s.p.f), but as far as I can
tell, there isn't one).
 
What are the leading candidate reactions?  I gather that H-H is quite hard
to do.  I know of D-T, but what about D-D, and 3He? Is that 3He-3He, or
3He and something else?  I have heard of a boron reaction that looks
favorable, but what is it?
 
Specifically, what are the relative merits of these reactions in terms of
ignition temperature and pressure, (energy out)/(mass of fuel), and
neutron radiation per unit of energy out?  What other important measures
am I missing?
 
Are some of these reactions more likely with inertial confinement than
magnetic containment?
 
What's a good reference for this subject, other than an advanced quantum
mechanics text -- though that isn't out of the question, I have a B.Sc. in
engineering physics)?
 
My reasons for asking are entirely frivolous -- what reaction would be
best for a science fictional space ship.
 
Thanks
-----------------+---------------+----------------------------------
Sean Morgan      | Integrated    |  ALBERTA  3rd Flr, 6815 - 8 St NE
403/297-2628     | Manufacturing | RESEARCH  Calgary, AB, Canada
morgan@arc.ab.ca | Program       |  COUNCIL  T2E 7H7
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmorgan cudfnSean cudlnMorgan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  fairfax@sensei /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 9/30/93
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 9/30/93
Date: 30 SEP 93 22:55:00 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                                Alcator C-MOD
                            Weekly Highlight Report
                                September 30, 1993
 
 
Plasma operation continues as scheduled on Alcator C-MOD.  We are now in the
third week of the current campaign.
 
Scrape-off layer and divertor studies were continued, using the fast-scanning
probe, flush-mount probes in the divertor tiles, and divertor bolometry, as
well as the U. of Md OMA and Johns Hopkins Moly Monitor. The subject plasmas
were well-diverted lower single nulls, with currents of 0.5MA and above. Under
some conditions, the MARFE, which is typically located on the inboard-side
above the midplane, was observed to rapidly shift down into the divertor,
accompanied by a large increase in divertor radiation and in the density
measured on the divertor probes.  These experiments were carried out in
hydrogen.
 
Starting on Friday, September 24, operation has been in deuterium. One run was
devoted to improving startup and discharge behavior with deuterium as the
working gas. Tuesday's run was devoted to RF conditioning and heating
experiments. The plasmas were deuterium majority with hydrogen minority. The
ICRF group has been carrying out antenna conditioning both during plasma
operation and between shots into vacuum. Maximum voltage in the line during
vacuum conditioning has been increased to 50kV.
 
A toroidal field scan has been carried out to test transport and axisymmetric
stability at lower q; almost all of our previous runs have been with toroidal
field of approximately 5 Tesla. Starting from a nominal shot with toroidal
field of 5.3 Tesla and plasma current of 0.5MA, and elongation about 1.5, the
toroidal field was lowered to less than 2.5 Tesla. Safety factor q was reduced
from around 6 to of order 3. The toroidal field was ramped down during the
shots, as well as being lowered at initiation. The startup must be re-tuned for
each toroidal field setting, because of the field of the effective toroidal
half-turns of the TF magnet and because changes in alternator loading affect the
voltage capabilities of the PF supplies.
 
Thursday's run is the second dedicated to pellet injection. Deuterium pellets
are injected into a deuterium target plasma with plasma current 0.6MA. Goals
of this run include measurements of density profile evolution, energy
transport effects, and impurity transport. Pellets with up to 2.e20 particles
are being injected, more than doubling the target density.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.30 /  fairfax@sensei /  What is a well-diverted lower single-null plasma?
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is a well-diverted lower single-null plasma?
Date: 30 SEP 93 22:56:59 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

I would like to thank the many people who sent kind and encourag-
ing words about my explanation of 4-quadrant power supplies last
week.  It takes me several hours to prepare an article like that,
and it is gratifying to have it so well received.
 
This week's contribution is somewhat shorter.  I am preparing for
a meeting of fusion engineers in just over a week, and not only
am I pressed for time, but I am getting tired of writing!  I may
skip next week, but I will resume writing these articles the week
of October 18.
 
I would be pleased to answer questions of general interest as my
time and knowledge permits.  Send questions, feedback, and sug-
gestions to Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU.   I don't know everything
about fusion but after 20 years I know some things pretty well.
I will try to confine myself to what I know rather than what I
believe.  I wouldn't work in hot fusion research if I didn't
think it was worthwhile, but building these machines is a great
way to learn the difference between realism and idealism.
If fusion were easy, electricity would be free.
 
What is a well-diverted lower single-null plasma?
 
Diverting the outer magnetic field lines enclosing the plasma
into a separate area reduces impurity fluxes into the hot plasma
and increases fusion performance.  Radiation from hot impurity
ions removes energy from the plasma, cooling it.  (See the post-
ing by Dr. Bruce Scott explaining diverters, about two weeks ago,
for more detail.)
 
The alternative to diverting a plasma is to limit it with a
material edge rather than the magnetic edge of a diverter. These
plasma limiters are typically constructed of refractory materials
to withstand the high power and temperatures.  Carbon is a popu-
lar choice, but many materials have been experimented with, in-
cluding beryllium, tungsten, molybdenum, and titanium.  Al-
cator C, the predecessor to Alcator C-MOD, experimented with
limiters made from molybdenum, graphite (carbon), and graphite
coated with silicon carbide.  The limiters in Alcator C were
rings, located at 1-3 places around the torus.  They frequently
glowed red hot after a high-power discharge lasting less than a
second, but cooled in the 15 minutes between pulses.  The
limiters wore out and were replaced regularly.
 
Alcator C-MOD is more powerful and will run for longer times.  A
single limiter at one location would not last for long.  Instead,
most of the inside of the vacuum chamber is covered with molyb-
denum tiles.  The limiter is evolving into the first wall, the
part of fusion reactor that faces the plasma.
 
Imagine a circular plasma whose edge is tangent to the wall
(limiter) of the chamber at one point.  The plasma doesn't just
stop at this boundary.  It cannot go into the metal wall, but it
can and does continue above, below, and outside of the circle.
The distance over which the plasma density falls towards 0 is
called the scrape-off distance, as we imagine the plasma being
"scraped off" by the limiter.  This limiter-era jargon is carried
over into diverted plasmas, where the last closed flux surface
(LCFS) defines the plasma edge.  We still measure the decrease in
plasma density and temperature with distance outside of the LCFS,
and call the characteristic length the scrape-off length.  In Al-
cator, the scrape-off lengths are of order 1 cm.
 
The choice of limiter or diverter plasmas in Alcator C-MOD is
made by controlling the relative currents in the 13 poloidal
field magnets.  There is a transition from limiter to divertor
discharges.  If the LCFS is very close (compared to a scrape-off
length) to the first wall, its neither a limiter or diverted
plasma, but something in between.  Moving the plasma a relatively
short distance in or out can change the plasma from limited to
diverted to limited.  It is generally easier to start the plasmas
limited then bring up the diverter after 0.1-0.2 seconds.  The
plasmas last about a second.
 
When the plasma is diverted and the first wall is relatively far
from the plasma edge, it is a well-diverted plasma.  Small
perturbations will not make it back to a limited plasma, and the
action of the diverter can be studied with confidence that the
limiter is not strongly influencing the discharge.
 
Alcator C-MOD is designed to produce a wide variety of plasma
shapes.  There are two diverter areas, one on the top of the
chamber and one at the bottom.  The top diverter area is a rela-
tively simple flat plate, while the bottom is a more closed cham-
ber with walls angled to intercept the magnetic field lines in
such a way that sputtered impurities are unlikely to enter the
main plasma.  We can run limiter plasmas or diverted plasmas,
with either a single diverter (called a single-null) or with both
diverters (double-null) in operation.  It is even possible to
switch from one diverter to the other during a single discharge.
 
So a well-diverted lower single-null plasma is one with the
lower, more closed diverter in operation, with the plasma edge
far enough from the wall of the chamber that it does not act as a
limiter for any significant portion of the discharge.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Cartoons for the Defense
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cartoons for the Defense
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 04:36:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>Now to the real issue, whether or not to include conf. procs. in the main
>file. Naturally the TB's would like this, because the most positive "papers"
>are given at conferences. I got one private email from a non-TB, pointing out,
>quite reasonably, that journals and the refereeing process do not always
>guarantee a good paper; e.g. the Matsumoto series in FT; so, if Matsumoto, why
>not conf. procs?
 
   I just wanted to add a comment.  First, I don't fault you Dieter for
your inclusion of a reference to a cartoon on the CF.  A little humor here
and there can make the effort of investigation, well fun.  I accept
your reasoning for the non-inclusion of conference proceeding in
your CNF Bibliography. However, the conference proceedings themselves
are a valuable reference and are a published scientific work. I would
argue for thier inclusion in the cnf-books section.  A researcher
using your CNF Bibliography, may not even know 3 international conferences
have been held on the subject (unlikely as that maybe, but you never know).
   Anyway, It's just a helpful suggestion to an already excellent research
tool.
 
By the way. As far as cartoons on CNF go, one of my professors (mentor
and good friend since I've graduated) had one from the New-Yorker. He
put it up on his door just to rasz me I suspect. Anyway, it shows a man
talking to his obviously frustrated wife arms crosses and tapping toe
on the floor with an electrolytic cell boiling on her kitchen range.
The man is saying to his wife, "I just had to see for myself, OK!"
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.09.27 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Using a balance...
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using a balance...
Date: 27 Sep 93 20:08:48 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Electrical energy may be coupled to/from an experiment on a balance using
a transformer having an air core or a ferrite/air core. One winding being
fixed to the outside world, the other moving with the balance.
If there is only small movement of one winding relative to the other,
the transformer could even be shielded. Using a frequency of between
10KHz to say 50KHz large power transfers can be achieved using very small
transformers.
                                  Regards,
                                  Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendowen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Bill Page /  Physics Research at BYU
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Physics Research at BYU
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 04:57:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
... So we did it.  And we learned a lot.  I now understand Tom Droege's
work and frustration, and can see for myself the problems in the xs heat
claims.  And our results on recombination effects, etc., will be submitted
for
publication you can be sure.  The work is educational, even if sneered at -
who
cares about that?  I'm not here to build my personal reputation or satisfy
my
ego -- I'm here primarily to educate and to learn and to share what I
learn.
 
Thanks for the question, Greg.  From time to time we'll share other results
from our ever-changing research group, if people don't complain too loudly.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
BYU
 
>>
 
Too bad I wasn't Mormon (or even among the other 10%) 20 years ago!
<smile>  Seriously, it would have been great to go to a school like BYU and
I am very glad to hear that there still exists at least one place in North
America where people can go to learn to learn.
 
Three cheers, Professor Jones!  And please *do* share any and all results
your group finds interesting.  I am sure they will also be interesting to a
vast majority of us here.  Please don't let the occassional complaint from
some disgruntaled parties discourage you from posting here.  There are many
people who admire your work and many who admire your attitude.
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
PS.  Although I personally think current evidence makes excess heat seem
quite likely and the that some nuclear observations are at least plausible,
I do not take exception to your statement that there are problems with
these claims.  I think some CF believers here have interpreted your remarks
as 'cold' skeptism and perhaps related to bad feelings developed during the
early days in CF.  But it does not seem so to me.  Informed and open
critical review is essential.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Bill Page /  Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 07:11:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Apropos my recent posting on Rutherford's original model of the atomic
nucleus and its relation to Vigier's proposed exotic atomic state known as
Hbar+ AND Terry Bollinger's critique (Thank you Terry), I would like to add
a short note about some doubt recently cast on the validity of the
Born-Oppenheimer approximation.  This approximation assumes that the
nuclear and the electronic interactions can be treated separately and that
the nuclear contributions are a very small perturbation of the wavefuntion
based entirely on the electronic interactions.  This approximation is, by
and large very successful and produces solutions that are in close
agreement with observations.  However, like all approximate solutions to or
simplifications of an equation, it is possible that some real solutions
might (knowingly or unknowingly) be ignored.
 
Although the following recently published article is still too advanced for
me to fully appreciate, it seems to add a small amount of credibility (a
"foot in the door" so to speak) to my contention that there may be some
unexpected dynamics associated with many body nuclear and electronic
interactions.  Sutcliffe is primarily concerned with the accuracy of the
small corrections applied to the approximated Hamiltonian and does *not*
suggest any radically different solutions to the wave equation, however his
main point is that the product of the separated nuclear and the electronic
wavefunctions does not lead to a defendable approximation to the actual
wavefuntion of the system.  In conclusion he states:
 
"What I have done, however, is to persuade you to believe that the problem
of the coupling of the nuclear and electronic motions is, at the moment,
without a sensible solution and that it is an area where much future work
can and must be done."
 
 
** Sutcliffe B.T. "The Coupling of the Nuclear and Electronic Motions in
Molecules" in J. of the Chem. Soc. - Faraday Transactions, July 1993, vol
89 No. 14, pp 2321-2335.
 
Terry writes:
<<
> Bill Page writes:
>
> The localization energy (ground state energy) of the confined electron is
 
> compensated for by the long range component of the strong force nuclear
> interaction (approximately Yukawa exchange of virtual pions) between the
> protons.  Then the electron is confined because its ground state energy
is
> insufficient to overcome the resulting nuclear potential well.
 
No. You seem to be assuming to some sort of interplay between the strong
and EM forces that does not exist.  Keep in mind that unless a (very rare)
weak interaction occurs, the electron simply cannot "see" the nuclear force
interaction at all.  As far as the electron is concerned, the region where
virtual pions are being exchanged looks exactly the same as any other part
of space in the atom -- empty.
>>
 
I am not assuming any direct interplay between the nuclear and electronic
forces.  I am not sure how far we can stretch this semi-classical model
here, but I'll try.  What I am arguing is that this is a special kind of
three body interaction.  The Coulomb repulsion between the protons is (at
least in part) shielded by presence of the electron.  This allows the
(opposite spin) protons to interact via the longer range attractive
component of the strong nuclear force.  The result is a nuclear potential
well on the same order of magnitude as the deuteron.  But the presence of
the electron is required for this well to exist.  This state will be
energetically favoured if the de-localization energy of the electron
(approximately equal to its confined ground state energy) is less than that
of the nuclear potential well.  I.e. the electron is confined because it is
needed by the protons so that they can interact via the nuclear force.  Am
I making any sense?
 
Remember, once I use this semi-classical model to decide on a reasonable
apriori form for the Hamiltonian, I want to think of this system as
*completely* defined by the (possibly relativistic) wave equation.
Discussion of protons and electrons in the actual solution to the equation
will only be an approximation.
 
Unlike the D+D fusion considered in muon catalyzed cold fusion, Hbar+ can
only fuse by a weak interaction (PeP).  And as you point out, the weak
interaction is very *weak*.  In situations where the lattice also contains
delocalized D+, we might invoke the Chubb&Chubb Bose Bloch Condensate
effect to enhance the interaction rate. It might also turn out that two
Hbar+ nuclei plus two electrons do not form a very stable Hbar2 molecule
(analogous to D2).  Instead, it might endothermically decay to 2 x H2.
This would explain the putative "recombination refrigeration" effect.  But
now I am pretty far out on the limb of my 'farfetch'!
 
Terry, thanks again for the comments.  BTW, what happened to the other
USENET people who were so willing to discuss QM a while back?  Am I being
ignored in hopes that I will stop posting what they consider nonsense?
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Ad aspera /  FYI #127, 9/29/93 (Senate language on fusion)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI #127, 9/29/93 (Senate language on fusion)
Date: 1 Oct 1993 15:41:43 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

[Written by the American Institute of Physics and posted
by us as a service to the community.  Respond to <fyi@aip.org>
or other references below.  Note that the previous FYI (Senate
language on SSC) is missing from sci.research, as I had a brain
cramp and consigned it to digital oblivion.  I'll repost as
soon as AIP sends me a new copy.  Enjoy! -jc]
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
 
Senate DOE Appropriations Report Language: Fusion
 
FYI No. 127, September 29, 1993
 
Accompanying the bill, H.R. 2445, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1994, is a report from the
Senate Appropriations Committee.  Senate Report 103-147 contains
committee recommendations for various DOE programs.  While not
having the force of law, these recommendations are generally
adhered to by a department or agency.  Final report language and
funding levels are determined by a conference committee composed of
members from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
 
The following is selected report language on the DOE fusion
programs.  Other DOE programs are covered in FYIs #125 and #126.
 
MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY:
 
"The Committee has provided $342,595,000 for this program [the
House bill provided the full request of $347,595,000; current year
funding is $339,710,000], and supports a magnetic fusion energy
program that leads to an attractive long-term advanced energy
source for the country while broadening our understanding of plasma
science and developing advanced technologies.
 
"Critical to the timely development of an attractive fusion
demonstration reactor is successful operation of the international
thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER).
 
"The Department of Energy's program is based on the assumption that
either ITER or an ITER-like machine will be built.  ITER is based
on the tokamak concept, but will be significantly larger than any
existing fusion experiment.  ITER will be a major contributor and
necessary prerequisite to the design and construction of a
demonstration fusion powerplant that will generate electricity.
 
"Most of the Department's fusion activities focus on the tokamak.
The largest of these activities--the tokamak fusion test reactor
(TFTR] at Princeton--is scheduled to complete its work in 1994.
The Department anticipates replacing TFTR with the tokamak physics
experiment (TPX).
 
"TPX, which is under design, will cost over $500,000,000.  The
results from experiments carried out on TPX will be used in the
operation of ITER and ultimately in the design and construction of
a fusion demonstration reactor..."
 
"While the Committee supports design activities related to TPX, the
Committee is concerned that moving forward with construction of
TPX, in the absence of a commitment from other countries to build
ITER, runs a serious risk that any U.S. investment in TPX will be
lost.
 
In addition, the report language directs DOE to: focus its magnetic
fusion energy program on elements that "further the design,
construction, and operation" of ITER; set priorities for its
domestic fusion program; give the highest priority in fiscal
year 1994 to deuterium-tritium experiments at TFTR; proceed with
an upgrade of the DIII-D tokamak facility; and "begin an
aggressive low activation fusion materials program."
 
INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION:
 
In addition to magnetic fusion, DOE supports research in inertial
confinement fusion.  This support is provided in two separate DOE
program areas.  Within the Magnetic Fusion program, the Committee
provides $4,000,000 [the same as the House and the President's
request] for research into inertial confinement fusion as an energy
source.  In addition, within DOE's Atomic Energy Defense
Activities, the Committee provides $188,413,000 [equal to the House
mark and the President's request] for weapons-related inertial
confinement fusion.
 
 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 15:25:52 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
:   * Postings should have some relevance to fusion, e.g. have a scientific
:     content, or consist of news on fusion, or even the politics of fusion etc;
:   * postings should not contain personal abuse or pure propaganda;
 
Why not just start alt.jed ? :-)
 
Seriously, though, seems like a good idea. Even better idea would be a FAQ.
It would also help if people did not jump threads as much as they seem to do
- then a KILL file would take care of the rest..
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Not paying attention, are we?
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 11:08:24 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Yes, that's right! There must be ash. And you know what? Any chemical process
: makes stuff that I have chosen to call "chemical ash." It is that fluffy grey
:
 
  and so on
 
: cells! Yet nobody has ever spotted any "chemical ash" from any CF experiment,
: just as nobody has ever seen any energy storage. And here is another funny
: thing: you can't have "chemical ash" unless you have "chemical fuel" (another
: term I invented) and there isn't any "chemical fuel" in a cell.
 
If your fuel is peroxide then your ash is water - pretty hard to detect in a
cell full of it to start with.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Steve Linton /  Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
     
Originally-From: sl25@pmms.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 11:38:33 GMT
Organization: DPMMS (Cambridge University - Pure Maths and Mathematical Statistics)

 
|> What are the leading candidate reactions?  I gather that H-H is quite hard
|> to do.
 
Virtually impossible to do fast, there is a radioactive decay step involved
 
|> I know of D-T, but what about D-D, and 3He? Is that 3He-3He, or
|> 3He and something else?  I have heard of a boron reaction that looks
|> favorable, but what is it?
 
3He is usually D-3He. It's a little harder than D-T, but produces no neutrons,
which is a big advantage from the point of view of keeping the reactor from
getting radioactive. On the other hand you can 'breed' Tritium from the neutrons
and lithium, and I don't think you can breed 3He conveniently. D-D is harder
still and produces quite a few neutrons. It doesn't go D+D -> 4He, unfortunately,
but D+D->3He +n or D+D -> T +p in roughly equal quantities.
 
I don't know about the boron reaction.
 
 
-
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensl25 cudfnSteve cudlnLinton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Dave Stephenson /  Re: Helium 3 abundance
     
Originally-From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium 3 abundance
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 12:53:16 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa

Helium three mining of the Moon has been extensively studied
and criticized over the past decade. It should be feasible, but
massive undertaking. The crunch point , like for so many space
activities, is to reduce the cost to orbit. The Shuttle costs
about 10,000 dollars to put a pound into orbit, we need to
get that down by at least a factor ten or better to start
thinking seriously about lunar mining. See all the postings on
DCX on sci.space for further (too much!) information.
John Lewis has suggested that mining the atmosphere of Uranus
is a better proposition for obtaining large masses of He3. I
had a paper on manufacturing He3 on the Moon. Fuse D-D and
extract the He3 from the reactor, any tritium not burnt can
be allowed to decay to He3 on the Moon before shipment. Alternatively
use accelerators or high neutron flux reactors to transmute Li
to tritium and allow to decay. Lots of ways of skinning the cat
once there is cheap, reliable, commercial access to space!
 
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenstephens cudfnDave cudlnStephenson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Hagglund /  Undelivered Mail, Correction
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Undelivered Mail, Correction
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 05:05:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I sent a message with a question to Dick Blue asking him if he would give me
an example of an experiment to run to confirm his assertion that a simple
calorimeter could be fooled by 'bursty' inputs. This message never made it
through (according to our mail system). In the closing of a message yesterday
I implied that Dick had ignored my question. That was incorrect on my part.
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Hagglund /  Calorimetry Pulse Tests
     
Originally-From: HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry Pulse Tests
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 05:05:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to my request, Dick Blue wrote:
 
> Now for an experimental test.  First off you would have to get
> the basics of power measurement with a pulsed source well in
> hand by observing wave voltage and current wave forms with the
> type of load your calorimeter represents.  I would hope you
> could generate and observe power pulses as short as a few seconds
> as well as make good DC measurements.  Next comes the calorimeter
> with excellent stability and a time constant that is not too
> long.  Try something that will equillibrate within 30 minutes,
> perhaps.  Get a good temperature probe or several and start with
> a long series of calibration runs on DC power inputs over a suitably
> wide dynamic range.  In this phase the [aim] is to see what stability
> and reproducibility you can get.
>
> When you have done all that let us know.  In case anybody is still
> wondering, you now know why I haven't accepted the challange and
> undertaken to do any calorimetry myself.  When you are ready, try
> measuring a series of square input pulses ranging in width from
> 0.1 to 3 times the time constant of the calorimeter.  You may
> do this at constant amplitude or use higher amplitudes on the
> short pulses to keep the total energy input above the noise.
> If this works to your satisfaction try putting pulses on top
> a DC input and vary the DC part.
>
> Have fun, Robert!
 
Thank you for getting back to me (and the group) with some specifics. As I
said in a mail message to Jed, this will need to wait until I move to my new
house and have spare time to do things in a controlled environment. This is
exactly what I was looking for from you. I will think things over, look at my
projects budget, and get back to you (and others!) for some more specific
questions.
 
I tried to send a message to you at the return address from one of your posts.
Does nscl@msu (.bitnet?) go straight to you or is it blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu?
 
 
Robert.Hagglund@metrokc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenHAGGLUND cudfnRobert cudlnHagglund cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Topher Cooper /  Re: Accidental Temperaturist
     
Originally-From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Accidental Temperaturist
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 14:02:02 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA

 
In article <1993Sep30.021450.8431@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
>While looking for Droege's 100 Watt human effect (which I still haven't
>seen unless I put body parts within about 2" (5cm) of the sensor) ...
>
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
    The 100 Watt human effect is real -- it can be detected quite easily by
    putting say 10 humans in a small, fairly well insulated room.
 
    The heat is principally transferred, though, by contact processes
    (conduction and convection) rather than by radiation.  What radiative
    transfer there is, is (unlike your flashlight) omni-directional.  Only
    a tiny fraction of it is directed at your probe.
 
    In other words, the effect boils down to there being an extra general
    heat source in the room when there is a person there -- roughly
    equivalent to switching on a 100 watt bulb used for indirect lighting,
    or task lighting away from the measurement area.  If you want to
    measure it -- get in a large, closed, somewhat insulated, box with the
    probe and watch the temperature go up.
 
    The effect on the experiment is in winter to make more work for the air
    conditioning -- hence more switching on and off; hence more fluctuation
    about the mean -- when the experimenter is in the room, relative to when
    the experimenter is out.  In summer the effect is reversed.  This
    presumes that the thermostat is in the room.
 
                                         Topher
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencooper cudfnTopher cudlnCooper cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Donald Locker /  Re: What's wrong with simple?
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's wrong with simple?
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 13:14:46 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc., Chelsea, MI

In article <01H3IPXX36YA001WCI@metrokc.gov> HAGGLUND@SATCH (Robert Hagglund) writes:
>Dick, are you trying to tell us that simple and primative techniques
>automatically imply poor or untrustworthy results?
 
I've been following this newsgroup for over a year, and am getting
tired of the TB vs. skeptic wars.  Being a TB-skeptic myself, I will
hasten to point out the simple and primitive methods imply nothing but
low cost.  Unfortunately, they don't imply accuracy or reliability
unless properly executed, the only requirement (IMO) for good science.
 
I have yet to see any real indications of repeatable excess heat; I
have no need of neutrons, gammas, or other ash at this time.  All I am
looking for is reliable reports of methods yielding repeatable
measures of an excess of output energy over input energy (NOT POWER!;
integral of power over time! in and out; from t=0 to the present.)
Simple and primitive methods, if appropriate and well executed, would
be just fine with me.  But I don't see real evidence of that in the
postings so far.
 
[bandwidth preservation act executed]
 
>I've found that some of the simplest methods prove to be the most reliable.
>It sounds to me like you simply don't trust their findings and are willing to
>try almost every avenue available to find fault with their work.
>
 
These are NOT large effects.  Small effects require care to measure.
Not necessarly elaborate equipment, but sloppy experiments don't raise
my confidence to investment-grade levels.
--
Donald.                                          Speaking only for myself.
"Squooshing a mosquito is kinda like a railroad train smooshing a chicken."
per Liisa Locker, age 6.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 15:35:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <01H3LJTDOW5E9PRPFR@vms2.uni-c.dk>
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> There are a few of us who are unhappy about the volume of postings to
> this group, that are totally irrelevant to fusion (hot or cold),
> consisting either solely of personal abuse and propaganda, or endless
> digressions into topics that get further and further away from fusion.
> We do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, so we are considering
> moving into a different tunnel, i.e. setting up another fusion NEWS group.
> This posting is a preliminary announcement of intent, and I am asking for
> helpful suggestions (Terry's "group think") about a couple of things.
> "We" at this point are John Lewis of St. John's, Newfoundland, and myself.
>
> What we want some input on is the following:
>
> 1. The group should be moderated, albeit lightly. The terms of moderation
>    are:
>
>   * Postings should have some relevance to fusion, e.g. have a scientific
>     content, or consist of news on fusion, or even the politics of fusion
>     etc;
>
>   * postings should not contain personal abuse or pure propaganda;
>
>   * occasional (polite) side issues are OK, but the moderator has the
>     right to cut short such digressions after, say, 5 postings (or some
>     such number).
>
>   [have we missed anything?]
>
>   I personally would not like to see a dead serious group with a wrist slap
>   for anyone making a joke or the like; hence the "light" moderation. I know
>   Scott well enough to know that he will not be heavy handed.
 
 
Dieter, you have a very enthusiastic "YES" vote from me, and I think you are
aiming for just the right tone.
 
I would point out that somewhat to my surprise and some early floundering,
the similar-in-concept group sci.physics.research has turned into something
both informative and worth reading, with a very much higher content-to-noise
ration than the very noisy sci.physics groups from which it was spawned.
 
This is an encouraging precedent, and I would note that three moderators
from sci.physics.research (Dale Bass, Jim Carr, and once upon a time Bill
Johnson) have all participated here.  I believe they could help in this;
Jim has already suggested an FAQ [needed terribly, I personally get pretty
annoyed seeing infinite rehashes of very old issues], and they all three
have valuable experience from the s.p.r set up and execution.
 
In fact, may I go so far as to suggest the INcomplete name:
 
   sci.physics.research.[nameImplyingCondensedMatterPhysicsRouteToFusion]
 
...to emphasize a common thread of _moderation_ for any physics group
branched off of "research"?  I should note that the s.p.r group might
or might not be appalled at that idea -- Dale, Jim, is such an idea
inherently offensive to you fellows, or could something be worked out?
 
Does anyone have a name that might be good?  Steve Jones, what would you
suggest?  You have probably devoted more of you work (and life) to the idea
that nuclear events may be invoked by unexpected condensed matter routes
than anyone else on this group (or in the world?).  What would you suggest?
 
 
Another point/question:  The excellent and technically informative entries
by Steve Fairfax and others in hot fusion have pointed out a real need for
a genuine "hot fusion" group.  And though I hate to admit it, this group
_did_ unfairly pre-empt a name that 99% of the uninitiated would take as
meaning _hot_ fusion, not cold fusion.
 
If any new groups are created, I think some attention should be paid to
making the new name(s) as intuitive and appropriate as possible.
 
For example, is there any way we could "donate" the name sci.physics.fusion
to hot fusion, and simply let them take the interactions here?  As long as
a moderated group for exploring and exchanging ideas on the possiblility of
new physics in the condensed matter state, I would not mourn the transfer
of this group name to a useful purpose such as the detailed, technically
sound Alcator discussions and the conversations they have helped provoke.
 
 
> 2. We have a (half) willing moderator in the person of Scott Hazen Mueller.
>    He worries about the volume of the work, and would like perhaps a second
>    moderator to help. We don't know of one - ideally, it should be someone
>    who does not him/herself post to the group, and should be neutral on CNF.
>
>    I am not 100% sure, but I think Scott would also help set up a Digest for
>    the new group, and archival.
>
> 3. The name of the group might be, e.g., sci.physics.fusion.moderated.
>    We are aware that this is a bit clumsy but have not come up with a better
>    one.
>
> 4. The announcement of the proposed new group will eventually go to the
>    related groups sci.physics, sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.research.
>    [Any others?]
 
My impression from the s.p.r group is that the moderation task could prove
to be too large for one person.  Again, this is something that Dale, Jim,
and Bill (if he is still lurking) could probably help provide insights into.
 
> I will give the readers of this group one week from today for suggestions
> on the above, or anything that might occur to them, either by private email
> or to the group. After that, we will go ahead with the formalities of
> setting up the new group.
 
As Michelangelo said to his assistant after the top of his bronze statue
unexpectedly shattered, "Please forge a head!"...  :)  [Gee, will bad puns
be allowed by the moderators??]
 
> To forestall some anticipated reactions, note that the new group will not
> kill this one. All you personal abusers and wafflers will be able to keep
> doing it in this group. The more serious of us will move over and leave
> you alone.  So nobody will be cut off or censored out. What's more, anyone
> can of course READ the new group.
 
Hmm.  I agree completely that the current dialog modes should continue
freely, and hadn't thought about this point when I made the suggestion to
donate the sci.physics.fusion group name to the hot fusion community.  I
doubt that they'd appreciate that type of traffic as topical.
 
Is it possible that some group not even in sci is needed?  Something more
appropriate to the funding/political/sociological flavor of the prolific
dialog about _why_ work in excess heat is so crucial?  If properly selected,
that might acually benefit those threads by giving them a more appropriate
audience that is more inclined to listen to the dialogs instead of simply
deleting or ignoring all of those threads?
 
Ideas, anyone?  Where _would_ the socio/political/funding aspects of the
excess heat issue be most likely to get a fair hearing (please be serious)
and not simply be ignored as they currently are by most folks on this group?
 
.....
 
Again, Dieter, good show -- thanks for suggesting this idea.  We are way,
way past due for a major overhaul, I think.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / mitchell swartz /  But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 18:08:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <93093016155888@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: McKubre knows not!
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=dblue "McKubre can go on playing the role as cold fusion's best calorimeterist,
=dblue but his understanding of nuclear processes is clearly pretty weak, at
=dblue least as Jed Rothwell quotes him.  In an NPR broadcast he is supposed
=dblue to have said:"
   =mmck " "It is not correct to say that measurements of nuclear products
   =mmck  are a million times more sensitive than the measurements of
   =mmck  power.  That's only true - unfortunately - if the nuclear
   =mmck  products are themselves radioactive.  If they are atoms in
   =mmck  their ground state, and non-radioactive species, then its
   =mmck  very, very difficult to find them."
=dblue "What is wrong with this statement?  What we have here is more squirming
=dblue by a true believer tryingto avoid the implications of experimental data."
 
  Dick obviously continues to waste quite a bit of US money at the NSCL by
    throwing out yet another "ad hominem" with not much basis in science to back
    him up.         [lucky for him Jed is temporarily (?) fed up     ;-)
 
  OK, Dick.  Can you actually prove what you claim?  He says that in the absence
    of an excited state and radioactivity, then it is "difficult
    to find them".  You say he is "wrong".  Can you prove it?
    Can you name a spectroscopy or other analytic technique capable of
    satisfying those conditions with as good a S/N as radioactivity?
 
                             Still waiting .......
 
=dblue "If you fuse two deuterons to form 4He you don't get helium in its
=dblue ground state.  You get helium at a very high excitation energy.  If
=dblue all you got was helium in its ground state that would be a total bust
=dblue as far as cold fusion is concerned.  It is that high excitation energy
=dblue that makes the process appealing as an energy source in the first
=dblue place.  If McKubre could find a process that does not result in
=dblue some excitation energy in the final nuclear state, he will not
=dblue have a good candidate for cold fusion."
 
  The energy is certainly from E=mc2.
  Not necessarily from an excitation energy, is it? [Or can you prove that?]
 
Dick is becoming well-known to use novel means to demean anybody in this field.
As before, Mr. Blue has been asked for any proof for his conjecture, but never
   has shown any proof other than "handwaving" and his pointing to
   the existence of these "demanded" pathways in the "hot fusion" system.
 
                             Still waiting ............
 
=dblue  "McKubre overlooks the
=dblue fact that the energy release and degrading process can probably be
=dblue detected with high sensitivity even if the final product is not easy
=dblue to find."
 
   holy oxymoron!
    Only a "true-Blue"-skeptic on a high momentum knee-jerk might say
    something as paradoxical as:
               can be "detected with high sensitivity"
               when the final product is "not easy to find".
 
   Best wishes.
                                           Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / mitchell swartz /  On Moderating the Moderators
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Moderating the Moderators
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 18:10:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESPONSE TO ALLUSIONS FOR EVEN MORE INFORMATION THROTTLING
 
  Who actually wants obstuction of information flow?
  Who actually started the Internet?
                 [This would be hysterical (if it were not real)]
 
  Dieter is questioned about filtration of data from his data base
        (which he should be thanked repeatedly for keeping, and maintaining,
                      and of which he has the right to filter
                           - with or without 'warning label')
  and a few brave contributors (and perhaps lurkers) agree:
 
=cs    "However, the conference proceedings themselves
=cs   are a valuable reference and are a published scientific work. I would
=cs   argue for thier inclusion in the cnf-books section.     A researcher
=cs   using your CNF Bibliography, may not even know 3 international conferences
=cs  have been held on the subject (unlikely as that maybe,but you never know)."
    <1993Oct1.043617.13981@coplex.coplex.com> Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.com)
 
So instead of responding, the idea clicks (especially outside of the United
  States) to further filter free speech and data and information and reports
 and even possibly thereby Prof Droege's (and Logajan's, &tc.) developing
 FREE SCHOOL of sci.physics.fusion.
 
 -db "There are a few of us who are unhappy about the volume of postings to this
 -db group,that are totally irrelevant to fusion (hot or cold),consistinge ither
 -db solely of personal abuse and propaganda,or endless digressions into topics
 -db that get furtherand further away fromfusion.We do not see any light at the
 -db end of the tunnel,so we are consideringmoving into a different tunnel,i.e.
 -db setting up another fusion NEWS group. This posting is a preliminary
 -db announcement of intent, and I am asking for helpful suggestions (Terry's
 -db "group think") about a couple of things.
 -db "We" at this point are John Lewis of St. John's, Newfoundland, and myself."
 -db         Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 -db       Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 
 -kh "Why not just start alt.jed ? :-)
 -kh Seriously, though, seems like a good idea.Even better idea would be a FAQ.
 -kh It would also help if people didnot jump threads as much as they seem to do
 -kh - then a KILL file would take care of the rest."
 -kh *[**Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
 -kh     Message-ID: <1993Oct1.152552.5873@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
 -kh     Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
 
  This author respectfully disagrees with the attempts to filter information
   about sci.physics.fusion (hot, cold, lukewarm, e-discharge, muonic, &tc.).
 
  Perhaps they should move to ---> sci.1984.fusion.controlled.controlled.;-)
          \/\/
 
  Anyone who is interested more in cold fusion -- who wants access to details
     ought recognize this [fractal-like] repetition here.
 
   In recelebration of America's 1st Amendment (Bill of Rights)
    -- anyone subject to the threat of any
       information filration alluded to, or discussed, here
       need only give me an e-mail note    (Subject: CF - More Information)
       requesting more information on access to cold fusion publications.
 
     Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Those who forget history...
     
Originally-From: joshua@sunny.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Those who forget history...
Date: 1 Oct 1993 12:58:10 -0700
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

>Joshua Levy writes:
>     "Jed, don't you see the inconsistency here?  Libel laws have not been
>     suspended. All this nasty stuff about P&F gets published, and no one
>     gets sued (and in America, where you can get sued for _anything_).  Why
>     do you think that is? Nature, Scientific American, the APS et al. have
>     little control  over the legal system.  If "obvious lies" have been
>     published you can bet that there would be published retractions, at the
>     very minimum."
 
And Jed replies:
>I don't know what Joshua's problem is. Perhaps he is too young to remember the
>McCarthy era and the Dark Ages of the civil rights struggle. Perhaps he has
>never read a history book. In any case, let me explain the facts of life.
 
The McCarthy era and the Civil Rights Struggle were large scale, society wide
phenomena.  It is not surprizing that they effected the legal system.
 
In contrast, CNF is tiny:  A squbble between scientists and researchers.
No one is getting elected on an anti-CNF platform.  No one is getting shot
by the local police because they are registering people for the next CNF
conference.  In short, CNF has not effected the legal system.  Yet, the
legal system does not seem to agree with you that obvious lies are printed
all the time.
 
If our legal system got bent out of shape over every disagreement between
researchers, it would be a pretty useless system.
 
Now might be a good time to ask: there was a law suit in Europe somewhere
about a newspaper article on CNF.  I think it was in Italy.  What happened?
The suit must have been filed years ago.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Bruce Scott /  Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
Date: 1 Oct 1993 22:55:54 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

 
The fusion reaction
 
        p + p --> D + e + nu
 
where p is proton, e is electron, and nu is antineutrino, is very slow
because it is a weak interaction (the presence of neutrinos tells you
that).
 
This fact is important to the existence of long-lived stars. At the
pressures and temperatures one finds in newly forming stars, all the
strong-interaction burnable stuff is eliminated on _very_ short time
scales. So a star has virtually no D or He3, for example (these are
nonzero, but small because the characteristic residence time against
burning is short compared to the characteristic formation time for
these species). It is precisely the difficulty of burning p + p that
allows a star to live for several times 1e9 years.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: 1 Oct 1993 23:02:47 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

 
I think the appropriate thing to do if s.p.fusion is to be kept is to
form a companion group with the name sci.physics.fusion.d, where the
"d" denotes moderated status. There are already a few groups like this
(in the comp.* hierarchy especially). If this group is to become
moderated, then the name need not change. Examples: sci.military,
sci.aeronautics.
 
I recommend checking some of the relevant material in news.groups or
some place like that (there are regularly posted procedure files
floating around), before taking any serious steps.
 
For myself, I find it pretty easy to step around the little patties :-)
 
If you get your news via FD, you need only a decent text editor; one
which allows jumping from Subject: to Subject: line.
 
Some people, especially Dale, give the impression they read this group
only for the fun they have with those little patties :-)
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 23:24:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>As for me, I go along with those who regard the tokamak program as a gigantic
>sink of money, never to be profitable, and am frankly bored by it. What with
>moderation of the cold new group plus throwing out "hot", this would really
>reduce the volume of our new group. Someone else would have to start up the
>"hot" one, though, I am not interested.
 
Yeah, if the "hots" want to start a group, let them worry about it.
 
I have no trouble with a moderated group *IF* the unmoderated group is left
to exist.  I.E.  sci.physics.fusion remains unmoderated, name intact.
 
Then this *additional* moderated group could be used by whosoever desires
without having imposed their restrictions on the original group.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Reports from Horses' Mouths
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reports from Horses' Mouths
Date: 1 Oct 93 15:59:23 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <930928195124_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> ...
> You think you can do a better model then them? Do it, guy! Show us
> your stuff! You think you understand calorimetry better than them (and me!),
> well great! Ain't You Hot Stuff? So prove it already, show us your model, show
> us your experiment, and show us how well you understand *their* model.
>
> ...Ha, ha, ha. That's a joke. I know what is stopping you. You could not begin
> to deal with their paper or their model, and you wouldn't do an experiment if
> I paid you, because you know darn well it would prove you are wrong. All you
> "skeptics" are the same: you talk, talk, talk, but you never dare try to prove
> your stupid ideas, and you never actually read the papers or challenge the
> equations, because you know you are wrong. You people are a bunch of cowards
> and liars, but I have to admit, you are not such fools that you actually
> believe your own nonsense, because you never try to prove it is true.
>
> - Jed
 
What a pile of uninformative, useless drivel.  It should be noted that
the *scientists* who participate in this discussion group have little
good to say about the Physics Letter paper.  My own view is that a towering
edifice of theory is built on rather hokey measurements.
 
Readers should just skip contributions from 72240...  There are better
ways to spend your time.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencollins cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Paul Dietz /  Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 02:02:18 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <28ichq$9p2@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu
(Bruce Scott) writes:
 
> scales. So a star has virtually no D or He3, for example (these are
> nonzero, but small because the characteristic residence time against
> burning is short compared to the characteristic formation time for
> these species).
 
This isn't always true.  In very low mass stars, the 3He+3He step in
the proton-proton chain is very slow.  So 3He can build up to fairly
high levels, given enough time.  See Clayton, for example.
 
        Paul F. Dietz
        dietz@cs.rochester.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Tim Beauchamp /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: tbeaucha@netcom.com (Tim Beauchamp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 05:47:01 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication

I think that a moderated group dealing with Primarily CF would be very
useful and keep the flames to a minimum.  I hope that the moderator will be
able to keep the air of debate alive as this has brought out much of the
detail that is not originally posted and does keep it from getting to far
from it's physical root.
 
As we get closer to the CF conference, it will make this forum a much better
news source for those of us interested in progress.
 
 
 
 
--
Virtually (or at least logically),
 
Tim Beauchamp
tbeaucha@netcom.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentbeaucha cudfnTim cudlnBeauchamp cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Greg Leyh /  Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 09:58:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

  I am looking for an economical source for 10 kilojoule (or larger)
Energy Storage Capacitors, in the 10 to 20 kilovolt range.  Any info
in this direction will be greatly appreciated. Approximately 30
capacitors will be req'd for this experiment.
 
Thanx in advance, Greg
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenleyh cudfnGreg cudlnLeyh cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 15:22:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh) writes:
>10 kilojoule Capacitors, 20 kilovolt
 
50 uF @ 20KV = big.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Helium 3 abundance
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium 3 abundance
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 15:25:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <stephens.749479996@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
> Helium three mining of the Moon has been extensively studied
> and criticized over the past decade. It should be feasible, but
...
> had a paper on manufacturing He3 on the Moon. Fuse D-D and
> extract the He3 from the reactor, any tritium not burnt can
> be allowed to decay to He3 on the Moon before shipment. Alternatively
> use accelerators or high neutron flux reactors to transmute Li
> to tritium and allow to decay. Lots of ways of skinning the cat
> once there is cheap, reliable, commercial access to space!
 
 
If one is planning on making 3He rather than mining it, there is
little reason to do so on the moon.  Lunar 3He mining itself has the
problem of having to process enormous quantities of regolith (the 3He
abundance averages only about 5 ppb, although it is higher in some
fractions; ilmenite, for example).  At 5 ppb, producing that 25 tons
of 3He would require processing of 5 billion tons of regolith -- a
task that would be nontrivial on earth, let alone on the moon.
 
Manufacture of 3He by neutron bombardment of lithium in an accelerator
or fission reactor, followed by tritium decay, can be, at best, a
secondary source.  It costs ~30 MeV to produce a neutron in a
spallation neutron source, vs. 18 MeV returned when the 3He is fused.
Producing a neutron in a fission reactor requires the release of still
more energy, so one might as well just build fission reactors for your
primary energy needs.
 
Maglich's proposal was for 3He manufacture via p-6Li reactions:
 
  "3He is copiously produced in D+D and p+6Li reactions at or
   or near 1 MeV.  Before the advent of migma, 3He breeding was
   rejected as an impossibility because such temperatures were
   unthinkable.  The fact is that the deuteron energy of the Migma
   III and IV experiments was sufficiently high to produce 3He.
   Remote 3He breeding plants based on D+D reactions were proposed
   by utilities ... as far back as 1977.  The D+D reaction
   is 33% neutronic.  We believe the best 3He breeder would be the
   p+6Li reaction, which is 2% neutronic.  The realization that
   a thermonuclear reactor cannot reach the temperature required
   to breed 3He, coupled to the dogmatic assumption that thermonuclear
   reactors are the only possibility, has perpetuated misconceptions
   about the unavailability of 3He on Earth and proposals for its
   mining on the moon."
 
(Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A271, page 34, 1988.)
 
The comment that 3H breeding cannot be done in a thermonuclear
approach is clearly not entirely true, as a sufficiently large
inertial fusion target can, if heated sufficiently, do the trick
(because confinement time can be made arbitrarily high by making the
target large enough, although of course there are practical problems).
The use of underground explosions for breeding tritium (and therefore,
producing 3He as well) has been investigated since the 1950s.
 
        Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 /   /  A TB-skeptic
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A TB-skeptic
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 15:36:04 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
>I've been following this newsgroup for over a year, and am getting
>tired of the TB vs. skeptic wars.  Being a TB-skeptic myself, I will
 
A TB-skeptic?  Does that mean you don't believe the true believers
exist, that Jed, et al, are a cruel joke foisted upon us by the
Tokamak program?  How can you say this?  Jed has generated enormous
heat in this newsgroup.   The heat is real!  You don't need
a Droege calorimeter to see this, a simple thermometer will do.  When
will you TB-skeptics face the truth?  TB's exist...and they generate heat,
heat far beyond what can be attributed to chemistry.
 
                                me
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudended cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: 2 Oct 1993 16:22:53 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>I have no trouble with a moderated group *IF* the unmoderated group is left
>to exist.  I.E.  sci.physics.fusion remains unmoderated, name intact.
 
>Then this *additional* moderated group could be used by whosoever desires
>without having imposed their restrictions on the original group.
 
This would be favourable. It is the solution found by sci.physics.
 
For my part, I am as indifferent to a moderated sci.p.f as some of you
whiners :-) are to hot fusion. If you want to create the group, go
ahead and do it, but for myself I have no interest. This is why I
would not do time as a moderator (what a thankless job that would be
here -- just remember what Jack Sarfatti put people through on
sci.p.research, even though he could still post on sci.p -- and now
imagine getting that from Jed or Mitchell).
 
By the way, I do not think anyone working in hot fusion has voiced an
opinion to form an additional group or any against this one (I've only
seen one or two bystanders do that). So John and Dieter are simply
stroking their own prejudices. For this hot-fusioneer, the
similarities in the sociology between the cultures of belief in cold
fusion and things like the Transport Task Force set up by DOE are too
obvious to want to see the group split.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?)
Date: 2 Oct 1993 16:27:21 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>
>> scales. So a star has virtually no D or He3, for example (these are
>> nonzero, but small because the characteristic residence time against
>> burning is short compared to the characteristic formation time for
>> these species).
>
>This isn't always true.  In very low mass stars, the 3He+3He step in
>the proton-proton chain is very slow.  So 3He can build up to fairly
>high levels, given enough time.  See Clayton, for example.
 
Point taken. Since I am 8000km away from my copy, perhaps you could
say something about "how low is low". Clayton gives graphs of the
figure He3/H by mass as a function of time for some masses (also, the
equilibration time can be long for some stars -- I didn't remember
whether that was for He3 or for something else); perhaps you could
post the figure he gives for the Sun.
 
l
i
n
e
 
c
o
u
n
t
 
f
o
d
d
e
r
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Metallic Hydrogen/Deuterium ??
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Metallic Hydrogen/Deuterium ??
Date: 2 Oct 93 08:05:19 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Sep29.130826.1@pa881a.inland.com>,
schlichting@pa881a.inland.com writes:
>
> Dear Gentlemen and Ladies of the net community;
>
> This is a question for Prof. Jones
>
> Some days ago you posted a note about the work you and your students
> were doing with deuterium under great pressure (2.5 MPa or so) within the
> confines of a diamond anvil.
>
> As I remember the first attempt failed due to the anvil cracking.....
> I was wondering if any futher work has been completed in this area...
>
Mark:  the first attempt involved a LiH + LiD mixture, at about 1 MPa --
and yes both diamond anvils cracked.  So far, the effort with pure deuterium
at > 2 MPa is only in the discussion phase with those who have attempted to
produce metallic deuterium, to determine whether we could bring their
apparatus to our neutron-detection facility and do the experiment.  In
addition, a grad student here is helping to look at the theoretical question of
d+d fusion reaction rates in pure metallic deuterium.  (Outside funding for
these efforts is zero at present; we have a small grant from BYU.)
 
> Are you free to post this work for the benefit of this audience.?
>
Happily, yes.  I enjoy considerable academic freedom, hampered only by
penic-funding.
 
> May I suggest that metallic hydrogen would be difficult to detect in
> this environment.   I certainly don't have any constructive ideas for
> you at this time......I believe that electrical means may be useless
> as the diamond enviroment is a very good conductor of heat and electricity
> as I recall.
>
> I'm still trying to come up with a definitive method to confirm the
> metallic state has been achieved.
 
Not easy.  Diamonds are transparent and laser light can probe the sample
between anvils.  Should deuterium become metallic, it should cease to transmit
light  becoming reflective instead.
>
> Best of luck to you and you're students.
>
> Mark Schlichting
>
 
Thanks, Mark.
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  My pet peeve (reply to Kuperberg)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My pet peeve (reply to Kuperberg)
Date: 2 Oct 93 08:44:26 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Sep29.230924.18498@midway.uchicago.edu>,
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <1993Sep28.122449.967@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>So about a year ago, student Jonathon Jones decided he wanted to study
>>excess heat -- does it happen?...  The work is educational, even if
>>sneered at - who cares about that?
>
> Your position is that it's not your research, you're helping Jonathan
> Jones learn in his own research.  And you don't care if people think
> it's a medical examination of a dead horse.  That's perfectly
> reasonable.  However, my particular point is that you are vulnerable in
> a way that Jonathan Jones and Lee Hansen are not.  The XS Heaters want
> to claim that you are one of them, and they are willing to blow any
> attention to excess heat out of proportion into acceptance of XS Heat.
> My evidence is that they've done it before.
>
> On the other hand, it is your research and not mine.  Perhaps none
> of the shenanigans of XS Heaters matters to you very much.
 
Hold on, Greg:  I stated that when a student selects a research topic as
Jonathon did then he or she is motivated and learns best.  I did not mean to
deny responsibility or participation on my part -- quite to the contrary.
I get in the trenches with the students in doing experiments, discussing
further experiments, puzzling over results, fixing things, writing papers,
etc.  I see myself as a mentor at first then as the student rises on the
learning curve and often surpasses me, the roles change and we become
colleagues  -- this is the case with respect to Jonathon (who now has moved on
to graduate studies at Utah State University).
 
You hit a sensitive spot when you mention that the XS Heaters use, incorrectly
and without permission, our results to prop up their claims that xs heat is
nuclear in origin.  Perhaps you missed considerable discussion on this point
some months ago, particularly between Terry Bollinger, Dieter Britz and myself.
As I explained in detail then, I see no connection between the very low-level
emissions that we study here (still not sure if these are really d-d fusion),
and the xs heat claims of Miles, P&F, Mills and so on.  It may be necessary to
demonstrate that the "xs heat" is *not* nuclear in origin before our work can
stand independently as it deserves.  Our work goes back to our 1986 paper in
J Phys. G. on "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen molecules" and to
experiments which began then,  *completely independent* of P&F about whom we
learned years later in late 1988.
 
Do other nascent research areas get muddied by association with hyped-up
claims?  Examples would be illuminating.  I have discussed this problem of
deliberate confusion of our work with xs heat claims -- by XS heaters as you
say -- with Kevin Wolf among others.  We feel that we need to go on to try to
understand our strange signals, despite the unfortunate misuse of our data by
some.  To stop our research just because it will almost certainly be
misinterpreted by some would be to let them control our work and would not
be scientifically honest.
 
Am I wrong?  How indeed do we prevent such obfuscation and
misinterpretations of our work?  Do my postings in both areas -- low-level
fusion studies,  and xs-heat claims -- not show the distinction clearly
between the disjoint areas?  Am I not getting the message through here?
 
Should we terminate our low-level nuclear studies because others point to our
work as bolstering their claims of xs-heat-due-to-nuclear-reactions?
I might add that I have discussed this with McKubre also, and his reaction was
(to paraphrase him):  "the media have mixed up the xs heat and low-level nuclear
emission claims -- it would be better to let the matter stay that way.
You can't change the widespread public view of things now."
 
I disagree and will not give up.  Should we cease doing astronomy because some
will use such to bolster claims of mini-black holes (Matsumoto I think) or
UFO's or astrology?  Certainly not.
 
One of my reasons for continuing on s.p.f. is to somehow clarify my position
on just these matters, and to get the low-level nuclear studies clear of the xs
heat claims.  Many serious researchers on possible low-level d-d fusion
(to
p+t and n+3He, Dick -- no funny business in the reaction end-products, just
uncertainty in how such a reaction could take place at room temp. sans muons)
agree with me that our work must *not* be confused with the
hyped-claims of xs-heat-by-unknown-nuclear-processes.
 
We are trying to follow the path-of-logical science and to explain the
trillion-fold gap between our signals and what is needed to produce xs heat.
 
You touched on my pet-peeve, Greg.  Sorry for spouting off at length on this.
 
 --Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 18:26:00 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>So John and Dieter are simply stroking their own prejudices.
 
Ouch! :-)
 
Let me clarify -- I merely intended to say that if hot fusioners wanted
a moderated group, it's up to them to create it.  As far as I'm concerned,
the original sci.physics.fusion group should continue to receive postings
from *both* hots and colds.  I don't mind reading about hot fusion issues
and I think sci.physics.fusion was, is, and will continue to be the
appropriate place for it.  In the past I have objected to a few hot fusioners
trying to extirpate cold fusion discussions from s.p.f.
 
I'm more of mind like Mitchell Swartz -- give me maximum access to information
and let *me* be the filter.  I don't need a moderated group -- I just don't
object to one as long as an unmoderated group is allowed to co-exist.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Using a balance...
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Using a balance...
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 18:41:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>Electrical energy may be coupled to/from an experiment on a balance using
>a transformer having an air core or a ferrite/air core. One winding being
>fixed to the outside world, the other moving with the balance.
 
I believe in either a DC or AC case, the magnetic field of the driven
primary coil tends to pull the secondary coil towards it.  So you'd have
to make the geometry of the force self-cancelling.
 
For instance interleaved sub-coils:
 
           _______
           |     |
        S  P  S  P  S
  ------S--P--S--P--S-----  <== balance edge/interface
        S  P  S  P  S
        |     |     |
        -------------
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / John Logajan /  Re: My pet peeve (reply to Kuperberg)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My pet peeve (reply to Kuperberg)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 19:07:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>XS Heaters use, incorrectly and without permission, our results to prop up
>their claims
 
You have a valid complaint if you think they are using the information
incorrectly, but there is no ethical or legal requirement to get permission
to use published data in novel or controversial ways.  Using the data is,
of course, different than claiming the original data gatherers are in
agreement with the new claims.
 
>Do my postings in both areas -- low-level
>fusion studies,  and xs-heat claims -- not show the distinction clearly
>between the disjoint areas?  Am I not getting the message through here?
 
You have made your case quite clearly, but it is, after all, one of many
competing theoretical efforts.  You have full right to continue to bolster
that effort with additional data.  My only advice, and this applies to
both sides, is that we s.p.f'ers have some ability to sort through the
various competing views and weigh them accordingly.
 
In other words, a few tables of data and some spartan logic is a lot more
influential than impassioned and eloquent rhetoric.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / R Schroeppel /  moderated group
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: moderated group
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 20:58:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter, is it your intention to exclude the "hots" from the moderated group?
My preference is that they be included.  One report per week from the
Alcator program doesn't hurt anything, and I find them educational.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: 2 Oct 1993 19:36:26 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

I think John Logagan and I are of the same mind with regard to
proposed changes in sci.p.f. I do not think the volume of fluff in
this group justifies a radical change; if people don't care for a
certain thread, they can use n or k or KILL files to their
satisfaction (I doubt the fluff has got to the point that it costs
people with BBS feeds real money; when Scott Mueller complains, _then_
it is time to listen, since he is the poor one who manages the FD).
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 18:05:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <tbeauchaCE99EE.1JD@netcom.com>,
Tim Beauchamp <tbeaucha@netcom.com> wrote:
>I think that a moderated group dealing with Primarily CF would be very
>useful and keep the flames to a minimum.  I hope that the moderator will be
>able to keep the air of debate alive as this has brought out much of the
>detail that is not originally posted and does keep it from getting to far
>from it's physical root.
 
     There were 29 messages in sci.physics.fusion here
     over the last 5 days.  If another group is created, one of the
     two will not have any traffic.
 
>As we get closer to the CF conference, it will make this forum a much better
>news source for those of us interested in progress.
 
     There are procedures for group creation, etc.  Just a warning, it
     will likely take longer than you have in mind to a) create a new group
     or b) moderate the old group, even if enough votes can be found.
     And I am not sure enough votes can be found to pass
     either a) or b), especially b).
 
     In any case, a careful and sometimes colourful examination of the
     limits of the essential credulity of claimants is a part of science too.
     At times, it's more effective to examine such things in a
     light-hearted and whimisical manner as opposed to a ponderous and
     methodical examination of experimental details (most of which are
     necessarily hidden from us anyway).
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion Energy Basics (Was Re: Energy R&D spending)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Energy Basics (Was Re: Energy R&D spending)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 20:02:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

* Appearances can be deceiving.  This is a long post, but there
are several different topics discussed.  Take a look! *
 
James Shearer writes,
>
>          Robert Heeter posted:
> >Just to spark some debate though, I'd like to point out that current
> >US energy R&D spending, relative to energy's share of GNP, is about
> >1/4 of 1%.  Energy accounts for about $500 billion (so I'm told, I
> >can find the source if necessary) and energy R&D (corporate plus
> >government) is only about $1.2 billion.  This level of R&D (that
> >is, the ratio of R&D to the total economic value of the industry)
> >is much lower than in most other industries.  By way of contrast,
> >the total US economy is about $5 trillion, and the government spends
> >between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion.  Corrections to these figures
> >are welcome.  My opinion is that *someone* should spend more on
> >energy R&D - fusion, hot fusion, renewables, whatever - to help
> >create progress in the field.  Oil isn't forever.
>
>          Where did you get the $1.2 billion figure?  It seems suspect
> to me.  Exxon spent $624 million on R&D last year (source: 1992 annual
> report) most of which I would expect was energy related.  Do you have
> a breakdown between government and private spending and also among
> different energy sources?
 
Whoops!  You're right.  I misremembered the absolute values, although
relative orders of magnitude are right.  Here's some real data:
 
U.S. Government Energy R&D spending:
(Source:  John P. Holdren, Response to the Research Committee of
the German Bundestag (don't know if published, figures are
certainly available elsewhere).
 
RESEARCH AREA           1990 SPENDING           1980 SPENDING
 
Fission                         246 million                     1462 million
Fusion                  320 million                      545 million
Fossil                  658 million                     1336 million
Renewables                      141 million                     1297 million
Conservation            194 million                      469 million
 
Energy Supply Totals:
                             1559 million                       5108 million
 
Ok, so Federal Energy R&D spending is about 1.6 billion.
(I don!t believe it has changed significantly in recent years, althoughI
do believe that renewables have been steadily getting more money.)
 
According to the Industrial Research Institute!s R&D Trends Survey
(published in Research-Technology Management, Jan-Feb !93),
the energy industry spent 1.0% of sales on R&D in 1992, as compared
with an average of 3.4% for all industries.
 
With energy sales of roughly $500 billion per year, this puts
industry R&D at perhaps $5 billion, so when we add in the $1.6
from the government, we get $6.6 billion.  So the figures I
gave from memory were much too low.
 
But my basic point was that the energy industry spends less than
other industries on R&D spending, which may be one reason why
progress in this area is slower than others. 1.2% is far less than
3.4%.
 
One issue which the numbers tend to mask is whether industry and
government have the same idea of what counts as R&D spending.  I!m
assuming that Exxon does not include drilling costs in R&D, thought
this could be considered energy !development.!  I think that the
government!s R&D focuses more on developing new technologies for
future energy production, whereas industry may be including money spent
to further implement current technologies.
 
Is there anyone out there who can provide a breakdown of a typical
oil company!s R&D budget?
 
To continue with James Shearer!s posting:
>          Since you seem to be an authority on the current state of hot
> fusion research let me ask the following questions.
 
Well, to be honest, I!m not an authority.  Not even close.  I!m
a wet-behind-the-ears first-year graduate student.  I may speak
authoritatively, but that!s usually because I!ve disagreed with
someone, done some background reading, and gotten ahold of some
actual facts.  (!Fusion fact patrol! means I!m *on patrol for facts*
not that I!m out to correct other people whose facts are wrong,
although I guess I do that too, especially for myself if I make
a mistake.)  So I try to know what I!m writing about, but I don!t
necessarily have an !authoritative! grasp on the details of the whole
field.  I have got some background in energy issues and fusion as
an energy source, and I!m steadily learning more, but I wouldn!t
consider myself a general authority.
 
The questions James Shearer had were:
>          1.  What is the current state of the art regarding computer
> modeling of hot fusion designs?
 
I have seen papers describing some of the current computer models,
but I!m not an expert on computer modelling, so I!m not sure what
parameters need to be included in a discussion of what!s !state of
the art.!  Hopefully someone else who feels qualified to discuss
the issue will post.  Alternatively, if you give me more specific
details regarding what you want to know, I would be happy to go
read about it and tell you what I find.  The Plasma Lab does
have a nice library.
 
>          2.  How dependent are these computer models on hot fusion
> experimental results past and future?
 
Here the best answer I can give you is that it depends very strongly
on the model.  There are theoretical models that start from first
principles, there are empirical models which apply experimental results,
and there are lots of models in the grey area in between.  I!m not
qualified to discuss individual models, but again, I!d be willing to
find out (provided you give me some time - I do have classes and
lab work to do too!).
 
>          3.  What exactly are current hot fusion experiments supposed
> to be accomplishing?
>
I can give the general answer to this question, but input from others
will be welcome.  Because !hot fusion experiments! are also
!plasma physics experiments!, and the two areas are distinct in
several ways (although one might argue that hot fusion is a subset
of plasma physics), I will tell you what I think are the current
goals of the hot fusion research program, and include some details
on current experiments, rather than give an exact, precise list
of each experiment and what it is supposed to accomplish.  Now, the
answer depends a lot on how much backround I assume you have.  So
if I!m being too technical or non-technical, let me know and I!ll
give a better answer.
 
Hot fusion research has as it!s primary goal the development of,
well, hot fusion.  (I don!t think I lost anyone with that statement!)
To achieve hot fusion you need to collide two ions with sufficient
force that they overcome the electrical repulsive force (Coulomb force)
and get close enough so that nuclear forces take over and bind them
together (they fuse).  This is not really difficult to do; it can
be done in any number of particle accelerators out there.  So current
research is aimed at developing an economical energy source based
upon the energy released when the ions fuse.  In order to make an
energy source out of fusion, you need to have *lots* of ions fusing,
and you need to get more energy out of them than you put in.
 
In order to get lots of fusion events, you have to have some way
to confine the plasma and heat it up so that the ions have enough
energy to fuse.  The critical parameters for this are the ion
density, which tells you how many ions you have available to fuse;
the confinement time, which (roughly) describes how long an
individual ion!s (with it!s energy) remains in the plasma; and
the temperature of the plasma, which determines what fraction of
the ions have enough energy to fuse.
 
So broadly speaking, the overall goals of the current hot
fusion experiments are to demonstrate energy-efficient means of
achieving a good mix of density, confinement time, and temperature,
so that the fusion power output is significantly greater than
the power you put into the machine to make the plasma.
 
The tokamak is the dominant hot-fusion confinement approach right now,
but there are many other approaches being taken.  However, the tokamak
gets most of the funding.  Within the tokamak world, each of the
required plasma conditions has been met separately, but the
combination has not quite been achieved.  The large machines which
have done the best now have very little trouble achieving the
temperature and density levels that are necessary, but confinement
time is not as high as we need, and consequently the power input
is still higher than the power output.  The Tokamak Fusion Test
Reactor here at Princeton is expected to have power out nearly
equal to power in sometime earlier next year.  (This is referred
to as breakeven.)  After achieving breakeven, the goal is to
improve the confinement time and the energy efficiency so that
we can get closer to a practical reactor.  There are a lot of
scientific-engineering hurdles along the way, though.
Since this post is rather long, I won!t go into the details here,
but I!d be happy to write more if you like.
 
The alternative machines to the tokamak are also making progress, but
so far as I know, each machine has its own set of problems.  For
example, the MIGMA machine which others have been discussing has
no trouble achieving the required temperatures, and it also shows
confinement properties which are better than the large tokamaks, but
the particle density is still far too low to make a good reactor out
of it.  There are a large number of other competing confinement
geometries which I could discuss in at least a little detail, but
that would take too much space for this post.
 
There are some fairly decent historical accounts of the fusion effort.
My favorite is by Ruth (?) Herrmann, entitled !Fusion:  Search
for Endless Energy!.  This one is fairly optimistic and tends to
focus on Princeton; if you!re interested in a more cynical account
which takes a hard look at the politics of the fusion research
program, I can give you another reference (it!s in my room, but I!m
not, and I don!t remember the author or title offhand).
 
As usual, I can provide more information or answer at a higher level
if you like; I can do research if I don!t know something, and
I!m always interested in sorting out fact from opinion and trying
to make sense of the world.
 
 
**************************************
Robert F. Heeter
!Fusion Fact Patrol!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard disclaimer regarding my opinions and those of my employer...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Some MIGMA info
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some MIGMA info
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 20:09:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <tomkCE5Hqn.IBI@netcom.com> Thomas H. Kunich, tomk@netcom.com
writes:
> Uh, if the idea is p-B where is the proton coming from? Certainly there
> has to be a side reaction that is producing them in sufficient numbers
> to make break even. If you use the d+D reaction there is the side
reaction
> of again making T and neutrons there also.
 
Unless I'm really confused, you'd get the protons by ionizing
ordinary hydrogen.  p-B is clean, but it yields less than half the
energy of the d-t reaction, and it takes about 4 times as much
energy to get the p to stick to the B, so it's much more difficult
to make energy efficiently this way.  Not that it's a bad goal to
aim for though!  Anyone know what the boron fuel supply is like?
 
*******************
Robert F. Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (Grad student in plasma physics)
Usual disclaimer applies - I don't speak for the Plasma Physics Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: ASH COULD BE A HEAVY NUCLEUS NOT HELIUM
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ASH COULD BE A HEAVY NUCLEUS NOT HELIUM
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 20:18:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <9309292102.A1637wk@his.com> , gordon.powell@his.com writes:
> Why does the alleged absence of helium constitute absence of ash
> when it could be the Pd or Ni nuclei combining with the hydrogen
> then splitting to products lighter than iron? Is there a nuclear
> specialist out there who can comment as to the energetics of this.
> I don't have a sufficiently good compendium of data at home to
> calculate the mass defects, etc.
 
This looks interesting.  I guess we'd be talking about cold fission then?
Trouble with it is, none of the mainstream scientists seem to think
you can get hydrogen fusion in these conditions, and to get a proton
to stick to the Pd is orders of magnitude harder than to get hydrogen
fusion.  Of course, if we assume that there are pathways to nuclear
reactions which are not yet known, then it might be conceivable.
But that's a really big if at this point.  But it does mean that anyone
who wants to prove there's a nuclear reaction involved should really
do a complete chemical analysis (including all impurities) both
before and after a run.  Impurities found afterwards don't mean
anything unless you're certain they weren't there before and they
couldn't have arrived during the experiment...
 
*******************************
Robert F. "I am not an authority" Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol"
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Not paying attention, are we?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 20:30:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <930930163020_72240.1256_EHK5-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell,
72240.1256@compuserve.com writes:
> Frank, of course, insists that "nuclear ash" is easy to spot, because he
> insists that all "nuclear ash" is radioactive. Ah, but suppose it isn't
> radioactive? Then, it is very difficult to detect.
>
> As he often does, McKubre summed up the whole situation beautifully
during the
> NPR broadcast on "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993. He said:
>
>      "I'd like to correct one statement of Professor Huizenga.  We
don't in
>      fact claim a nuclear process.  What we observe is excess power and
>      energy exceeding that of known chemistry.  I think it's very fair
to
>      argue that unless one finds the nuclear products one cannot claim a
>      nuclear process.  It is also not correct to say that measurements
of the
>      nuclear products are a million times more sensitive than the
>      measurements of the power.  That's only true - unfortunately - if
the
>      nuclear products are themselves radioactive. If they are atoms in
their
>      ground state, and non-radioactive species, then it's very, very
>      difficult to find them."
 
I'm not in a big rush to get into a debate with Jed, but I am curious to
know what reactions there are which will (a) produce energy via
the mass defect and (b) leave both the nuclei and the atomic electrons
in their ground states so that you see neither radioactive species
nor atomic x-rays.  In my limited experience I've never seen such a beast.
Since I'm assuming Jed isn't nuclear-trained and therefore doesn't have
the answer, is there anyone else out there who could speak on this?
 
*******************************
Robert "I am not an authority" Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 21:00:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Sep28.130833.1420@janus.arc.ab.ca> Sean Morgan,
morgan@arc.ab.ca writes:
> What are the leading candidate reactions?  I gather that H-H is quite
hard
> to do.  I know of D-T, but what about D-D, and 3He? Is that 3He-3He, or
> 3He and something else?  I have heard of a boron reaction that looks
> favorable, but what is it?
>
> Specifically, what are the relative merits of these reactions in terms
of
> ignition temperature and pressure, (energy out)/(mass of fuel), and
> neutron radiation per unit of energy out?  What other important measures
> am I missing?
>
> Are some of these reactions more likely with inertial confinement than
> magnetic containment?
>
> What's a good reference for this subject, other than an advanced quantum
> mechanics text -- though that isn't out of the question, I have a B.Sc.
in
> engineering physics)?
>
> My reasons for asking are entirely frivolous -- what reaction would be
> best for a science fictional space ship.
>
> Thanks
 
Previous responses have been good, but I happen to have a good table
right in front of me, so I can give a more complete answer.
 
D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (46%)
      -> He5 (2.4) + p (11.9) (6%)
P+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- this is your best bet if you don't
want n's
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%) <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV <- also aneutronic, but you get D-D reactions
too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)
 
There are others, but these are the basic ones.
 
Given the initial and reaction products, you can figure out the ratio
of energy out to mass of fuel.  The energy required scales roughly
as the product of the atomic numbers (q1 * q2), and the temperature
is a rough measure of the energy, so that gives you a rough idea
of which reactions require high versus low temperatures.
 
I'm assuming that there are people on your spaceship who would
rather not be neutron-irradiated, so if this is a criterion and
you're allowing them to use any reaction they want, p+B11 is probably
the best if you don't want neutrons.  The D-He3 reaction looks like
it has no neutrons, but D-He3 and D-D have similar cross sections, so
a D-He3 reactor will also have D-D's going on inside, which generates
a fair amount of n's.
 
Depending on what kind of space ship you're proposing, you can use
the fusion reactor either to provide heat/electricity to drive
the spaceship systems, or you can use the reaction products to
drive the spaceship by expelling them at the high formation speeds
out the back of the ship.  There are different ways of doing each
of these; I think a magnetic confinement scheme would give you
more flexibility in controlling the particles if you wanted to use
them for inertial-mass-propulsion.  Either method is sufficiently
plausible that you could make a general powerplant out of it.
 
Hope this helps!
 
*******************************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
As usual, I should not be construed as representing my employer...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 21:38:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CE8D1K.yK@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
> =dblue "If you fuse two deuterons to form 4He you don't get helium in
its
> =dblue ground state.  You get helium at a very high excitation energy.
If
> =dblue all you got was helium in its ground state that would be a total
bust
> =dblue as far as cold fusion is concerned.  It is that high excitation
energy
> =dblue that makes the process appealing as an energy source in the first
> =dblue place.  If McKubre could find a process that does not result in
> =dblue some excitation energy in the final nuclear state, he will not
> =dblue have a good candidate for cold fusion."
>
>   The energy is certainly from E=mc2.
>   Not necessarily from an excitation energy, is it? [Or can you prove
that?]
 
While the energy does come from E=mc^2, it has to show up in some form.
It can't show up immediately as heat.  Usually it shows up as nuclear
and/or atomic excitation energies and/or kinetic energies.  If it's
nuclear, you get nuclear decays - beta, gamma, alpha, whatever.  If it's
atomic, you get x-rays.  If it's kinetic energy, you get lots of
ionization
which in turn gives you more x-rays.  I don't believe that there's any
other way the energy can show up, so that constitutes the proof.
If you want to follow McKubre and claim there's some nuclear process
which creates excess energy but no radioactive byproducts and no
high-energy x-rays or gamma rays, then you are going beyond known
science.  Therefore the burden of proof is upon you, not upon us.
 
**********************
Robert F. Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol - Hot and Cold"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard Disclaimers...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 21:42:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CE8D1K.yK@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
> =dblue  "McKubre overlooks the
> =dblue fact that the energy release and degrading process can probably
be
> =dblue detected with high sensitivity even if the final product is not
easy
> =dblue to find."
>
>    holy oxymoron!
>     Only a "true-Blue"-skeptic on a high momentum knee-jerk might say
>     something as paradoxical as:
>                can be "detected with high sensitivity"
>                when the final product is "not easy to find".
>
>    Best wishes.
>                                            Mitchell Swartz
>                                             mica@world.std.com
 
Mitchell, you don't seem to understand Dick at all.  He's just saying that
if you do have a reaction that yields a non-radioactive element, you still
have an element which is likely to be in an excited state.  You can detect
the radiation that occurs when this excited state "degrades" to the
ground state with a high sensitivity, even though you may not be able
to do an assay to find the non-radioactive reaction products.
 
I hope this clears things up; leave me out of the flame war.
 
************************
Robert F. Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol - Hot and Cold"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard Disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / mitchell swartz /  Low Energy Emissions (prev. "Not paying attention")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Low Energy Emissions (prev. "Not paying attention")
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 23:42:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1993Oct2.203006.16717@Princeton.EDU>
    Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
 Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
=rh "I'm not in a big rush to get into a debate with Jed, but I am curious to
=rh know what reactions there are which will (a) produce energy via
=rh the mass defect and (b) leave both the nuclei and the atomic electrons
=rh in their ground states so that you see neither radioactive species
=rh nor atomic x-rays.  In my limited experience I've never seen such a beast.
=rh Since I'm assuming Jed isn't nuclear-trained and therefore doesn't have
=rh the answer, is there anyone else out there who could speak on this?"
 
   and then again in Subject: Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
   Message-ID: <1993Oct2.213820.25944@Princeton.EDU>
 
=rh While the energy does come from E=mc^2, it has to show up in some form.
=rh It can't show up immediately as heat.  Usually it shows up as nuclear
=rh and/or atomic excitation energies and/or kinetic energies.  If it's
=rh nuclear, you get nuclear decays - beta, gamma, alpha, whatever.  If it's
=rh atomic, you get x-rays.  If it's kinetic energy, you get lots of
=rh ionization
=rh which in turn gives you more x-rays.  I don't believe that there's any
=rh other way the energy can show up, so that constitutes the proof.
 
  Well, here is one example of such a case.
 
   [DISCLAIMER: this example is meant to show one example and does
    NOT mean that neutrinos, phosphorus, sulfur, beta-emission, etc
    necessarily have any role in any cold fusion phenomena whatsoever.]
=========================================================================
 
    First, you write:  "that you see" so let's assume you mean fairly
  penetrating x-radiation. If the energies were low enough ......
 
    Here is one candidate for the possibility of  some hidden daughter
    nuclei which  have decayed to a stable nonradioactive species.
 
   Consider those groups of P32 nuclei that decay by
   beta-  decay (electron emission with neutron conversion -> proton)
    Now when I last checked in this area, the spectrum shows great heterogeneity
     with in fact few emissions at the (classical 1.70 MeV  max), normally
     described as follows:
 
    32P   14.3 days
    15
    _____
     \
      \  beta-  emission 1.70-1.71 MeV
       \|
      -- 32S
         16
 
   However, the spectrum is:
  qualitative emission spectra of beta-decay of 32P
relative
number
|                       x
|                   x        x
|                x             x
|           x                   x
|     x                           x
| x                                 x     (caution this curve is qualitative)
|x                                    x
|x                                      x
|x                                          x   Max.
_______________________________________________/
0    .2                .6 MeV             1.6
             energy of each beta emitted ----->
 
     | <------ compton region --------->
  \
   \ photoelectric region
 
   What is interesting is that although twice as many beta-rays are emitted
 at .6 MeV compared with  1.2 MeV,  there is significant emission with much
 less energy given to the electrons emitted..   In fact, as can be seen from
 even this crude attempt to show the curve, there can be emissions
 below 100 keV.   Some of them may be may be nuclei which emit energy
  insufficiently penetrating for a number of reason.  Furthermore,
  they are unable to generate higher energy x-rays, either.
 
   [One current explanation for the distribution is a neutrino emission.]
 
  Although many of this ensemble do not match your criteria, some of them
   (causing the extreme left-hand-side of the curve) may meet your
   criteria, if the product  16S32 is non-radioactive.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|material  |at no. |at. wt.| halflife | particle |gamma energy|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  28   |   .28s   |  beta +  |1.8, 2.6 MeV|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  29   |   4.4s   |  beta +  |1.3, 2.4 MeV|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  30   |   2.5m   |  beta +  |  2.16 MeV  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  31   |  stable  |          |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  32   |  14.3d   |  beta -  |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  33   |   25d    |  beta -  |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  34   |  12.4s   |  beta -  |2.1, 4.0 MeV|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|          |       |       |          |          |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|sulfur    |  16   |  32   | stable   |          |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 
  Guess that is one example.
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Jed Rothwell /  No debate -- nobody knows
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No debate -- nobody knows
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 03:31:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Robert Heeter says he does not want a debate with me, but he would like to
know the answers to some questions raised by McKubre. Very well, I will
tell him what McKubre and the others say, and leave myself out of it. I
have some canned text that will answer Robert's question, which is:
 
     "I'm not in a big rush to get into a debate with Jed, but I am
     curious to know what reactions there are which will (a) produce
     energy via the mass defect and (b) leave both the nuclei and the
     atomic electrons in their ground states so that you see neither
     radioactive species nor atomic x-rays.  In my limited experience I've
     never seen such a beast. Since I'm assuming Jed isn't nuclear-trained
     and therefore doesn't have the answer, is there anyone else out there
     who could speak on this?
 
McKubre, Ikegami, Kunimatsu and most other leading researchers say:
 
1. People have observed heat beyond chemistry, which means the energy must
be nuclear, because no other source of energy is known to science.
Furthermore, people have observed neutrons, tritium, and helium-4
generation. Now that better equipment is coming on line and
reproducability has improved, more people are seeing helium-4 in amounts
commensurate with a dd reaction.
 
2. These are experimental observations, not theories. They do not require
"explanations," only replication at high signal to noise ratios.
 
3. McKubre has stated quite explicitly that he does not know how or why
this is happening. He says he is an experimentalist, and he does not
consider it his job to explain the results. I gather he expects the
theoreticians to look at the data and figure out what is happening. That
is exactly what many theoreticians are doing. If you want to know what
theories are evolving, I suggest you read the peer-reviewed, published
literature. Don't ask the people here, because they are not working full
time in the field, they have not seen the data, or spent a lot of time
trying to work out theories.
 
4. Neither McKubre, Ikegami, or anyone else on earth at this moment can
say exactly how a nuclear reaction might occur in metal and not produce
radiation or intense x-rays. That is what they are trying to find out. The
purpose of this research is to create a coherent set of data that can be
used as a basis to develop a theory to explain the phenomenon.
 
5. They are making rapid progress towards finding a solution. There is a
now a mountain of new, high quality experimental data. Far more is know
today about highly loaded palladium and other deuterides than was known a
few years ago. The information covers a host of different subjects like
material science, surface chemistry, the effects of high energy deuteron
beams on Pd, the effects of different dopants and poisons, and much, much
more. Most of this highly technical information is available only in
Japanese. I should add that most of it is completely over my head. Ikegami
and others say that although different people draw different conclusions
from this data, the core solidity and reliability of it is now
established. For example, you will see that McKubre's loading versus power
density graph agrees very closely with Kunimatsu's, even though they were
developed independently.
 
6. Ikegami recently told me that he expects an answer -- a theory -- to
"drop out of the data" fairly soon. I suppose he means in a few years.
 
 
These statements are *not* my opinion, and not "debating points." On the
advice of my friends, I have decided to drop out of the debating business,
I have had it with the myna birds, let them go on repeating whatever they
like. In this message (as in most of my previous messages) I am merely
reporting and summarizing what the leading scientists in the field say, so
don't argue with me about these points, and don't tell me this is not what
the leading scientists believe, the way Steve Jones often does. This is
not my interpretation, this is a report of what they have told me. If you
doubt my report, contact the scientists and ask them yourself. I also
strongly recommend you read the published literature and Peter
Hagelstein's review of the Nagoya Conference.
 
One thing you should not expect is for any of the leading CF scientists to
post messages here. They all think that this e-mail forum is a travesty.
Most of them have asked me *never* to mention their work here, even the
published work, which is why my messages often sound vague and without
references. You can easily fill in the details I leave out, and learn as
much about the subject as I know by reading the literature, Fire from Ice,
and Fusion Facts. Readers of this forum should realize that the news here
is stale, inaccurate, shallow and useless compared to what you can get
from any legitimate source. So, if you want to find out about CF, this is
the last place to look. If you are seriously interested, ask me, and I
will supply you with TONS of references and material. ("Skeptics" should
not bother asking me for anything, I will not respond. Non-skeptics often
have to ask me three times, because I am disorganized.)
 
Finally, let me say that Robert is 100% correct, I am not a bit nuclear
trained, I don't have a clue as to what the answer might be, and I am sure
I will not understand it when it comes. My knowledge of physics is
extremely limited, but very solid. I understand things like the
conservation of energy, elementary thermodynamics, electron bonds, and the
limits of chemical energy storage, which are usually down around 4 eV per
atom, with a theoretical limit of about 18 eV for some exotic species.
Also, I have a lot of practical, hands-on experience in the real world. I
have learned, for example, that when you light a match, it never burns for
four hours.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Greg Leyh /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 01:43:05 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
 
 
 
: 50 uF @ 20KV = big.
 
  They're a little heavy, but we can provide a truck with a lift gate.
the few which we currently have measure 7" X 14" X 22" and weigh
about 130 lbs. Sangamo, Maxwell, and Aerovox are popular brands.
 
-GL
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenleyh cudfnGreg cudlnLeyh cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Chuck Sites /  Re: CF requires a testable hypothesis
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF requires a testable hypothesis
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 01:33:29 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
Here is what I feel about the He4 issue.  I'm one of those open minded
types, and read these papers with the hope of gaining some insight as
to how nature works.  I could really care less if this experiment fails
or that one makes it, we are simply testing ideas.  Steve argues with
you that Bruce Liebert's (from Liaw et al.) observation's of He4 are
in the range where contamination or misidentification might be the source.
I've heard you argue the same of Steve's work too.  But when you consider,
the bulk of nuclear measurements of CF experiments look for the major
branches of DD, without consideration for the posibility quantum
statistical effect of the solid on the reaction products, (an area
that has got a lot of theoretical attention, but little experimental)
maybe we haven't looked hard enough.
 
   Consider the situation of pizo-fusion in a metal.  A number of models
exist that describe the act of two indivdual D+ ions fusing, like
S. Koonin et al, Horowitz, etc.  The problem as I see that model, is
it treats the external influences of of a collective quantum state
as a minor purtribation on the reaction.  The theory work by Scott Chubb,
certainly argues that the nuclear domain of the DD interaction is
influenced by the collective quantum state.  Scott and Talbot Chubb's
argument is enough to make me wonder about He4 as a stronger branch
in the pizo-fusion of DD in metals.  The hybrid chemical-nuclear domain
is certainly on of the most intersting areas in this respect.
 
As usual, good argument Dick.  Also thanks Steve for the comments on
Liaw et al.  I havn't heard thier work discussed much here so it was
informative.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Barry Wise /  Re: Left hook, right jab
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Left hook, right jab
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 18:05:22 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <01H3IVG619OY9PSD9W@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter
Britz) writes:
>
> Left hook:
<Text Deleted>
 but if their
purpose is to convince others in this group of the reality of cold fusion,
they do not succeed; on the contrary, they succeed only in annoying others.
 
> Right jab:
Having said this, I must also say that the skeptic side has some problems.
There are some in that camp whom I call the ultra-hards such as Huizenga,
who
will need to be beaten over the head with positive evidence (if and when
it is
forthcoming) before they will believe it.
<Text Deleted>
 
Right On!
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.01 / Barry Wise /  Re: Left hook, right jab
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Left hook, right jab
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 19:17:41 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <01H3IVG619OY9PSD9W@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter
Britz) writes:
>
> Left hook:
<Text Deleted>
 but if their
purpose is to convince others in this group of the reality of cold fusion,
they do not succeed; on the contrary, they succeed only in annoying others.
 
> Right jab:
Having said this, I must also say that the skeptic side has some problems.
There are some in that camp whom I call the ultra-hards such as Huizenga,
who
will need to be beaten over the head with positive evidence (if and when
it is
forthcoming) before they will believe it.
<Text Deleted>
 
Right On!
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Jed Rothwell /  CF requires a testable hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF requires a testable hypothesis
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 15:33:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
The myna birds are squawking that we need a "testable hypothesis."
 
Okay, here it is: when you load palladium with deuterons above 85%, the metal
produces heat which exceeds the limits of chemistry, and it also produces
neutrons, tritium and helium-4. This heat increases dramatically as loading
increases.
 
Howzatt?
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Correction
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 16:12:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
Its a good thing I have not used that canned text in a formal
letter yet. Ever a careless, fast typist, I wrote:
 
"4. Neither McKubre, Ikegami, or anyone else on earth at this
moment can say exactly how a nuclear reaction might occur in metal
and not produce radiation or intense x-rays. . ."
 
Make that: "radioactive elements or intense x-rays. . ."
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / James Jasmine /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca (James Nicoll + Jasmine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 19:14:12 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London

In article <1993Oct2.210038.20379@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>Previous responses have been good, but I happen to have a good table
>right in front of me, so I can give a more complete answer.
>
>P+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- this is your best bet if you don't
>want n's
>p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
 
        Gobs  deleted.
 
        What kind of Isps could one plausibly expect as an upper limit
for these two reactions?
 
                                                        James Nicoll
 
--
If mail bounces, try jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca
"There was only seven Democrats in Hinsdale county and you've ate five of them,
God damn you! I sentence you to be hanged by the neck for reducing the Democrat
population of the state. I would sentence you to hell, but the [Law] forbids it.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjdnicoll cudfnJames cudlnJasmine cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 /  crb7q@virginia /  An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@virginia.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 18:28:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

     Another blast from the past taken from the feed at lambada.
 
Greg Kuperberg writes:
>Since no one has bothered to correct Jim Bowery's bad mathematics,
>here is what I meant when I said that controlled fusion research
>is worth it even if it only has a 1 in 50 chance of paying off in the
>next 30 years.
 
     The key here is the phrase 'paying off'. Even if the physical problems
     are solved, the engineering problems are worse.  And for those of
     you who are not engineers, the term 'engineering' includes an
     economic assessment of payback for an operating plant.  If it
     costs 400 c/kWh for fusion and 40 c/kWh for cow doody electrical
     generation, then it does not matter how exciting and wonderful the
     physics is, you go with the cow doody.
 
>creation.  So perhaps 1 in 50 is too pessimistic and 1 in 10 is a more
>sober view, and perhaps it's not too pessimistic.
 
     Engineering beyond the physics is a problem.  Those hundreds of millions,
     if applied to energy research, are better spent on such things as
     Gratzel and O'Regan's film photovoltaic concept or perhaps
     advanced fission reactors such as IFR, or perhaps TI's spheral
     photovoltaic technology.   I can think of many many things that are
     more worthy than exploration of the physics of tokomak plasmas.
 
>Dale Bass tells us that we can't rationally place bets on anything
>so big and complicated.  Perhaps not.  But there is a betting
>line for everything.
 
     Yes, but beyond 20 years in technology is never.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 /  crb7q@virginia /  Challenging the equations
     
Originally-From: crb7q@virginia.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Challenging the equations
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 18:36:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

      Another blast from the past stolen from the newfeed at another site....
 
Jed again writes:
>There has been some confusion here engendered by my remark that "skeptics"
>have not challenged the equations in P&F's paper. Dale Bass, for example,
>wrote:
>
>          "Which equation *wasn't* challenged?"
>
>Let's get this straight, please: "skeptics" here and elsewhere have
>challenged the experimental method, but they have NOT challenged the model.
 
      Let's get this straight, please.  I challenge everything in that
      last silly paper...  Starting with that ridiculous and arcane model...
      And concluding with the last sentence... With a bunch of still
      unexplained and seemingly inexplicable stuff in between.
 
      I see absolutely no justification for applying that or any such
      steady model to a time-dependent situation.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.02 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: 2 Oct 93 17:40:21 GMT

 
Much simpler to propose moderation of this group, and possibly more likely
to succeed.
 
The voting procedures are all laid down, and take quite a lot of time, but
the final voting figues might be quite illuminating.
 
A pity it has come to this, because the S/N ratio of this group used to be
quite high.
 
--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506                            Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / david atkatz /  Re: Then, what?
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Then, what?
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 23:00:00 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

 
 
Jed Rothwell writes:
 
>as anyone can see, 99% of cold fusion is politics and emotion
 
        And the rest is nonsense.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
Date: 3 Oct 1993 23:02:49 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: In article <CE8D1K.yK@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
: writes:
: >
: >   The energy is certainly from E=mc2.
: >   Not necessarily from an excitation energy, is it? [Or can you prove
: that?]
 
: While the energy does come from E=mc^2, it has to show up in some form.
: It can't show up immediately as heat.  Usually it shows up as nuclear
: and/or atomic excitation energies and/or kinetic energies.  If it's
: nuclear, you get nuclear decays - beta, gamma, alpha, whatever.  If it's
: atomic, you get x-rays.  If it's kinetic energy, you get lots of
: ionization
: which in turn gives you more x-rays.  I don't believe that there's any
: other way the energy can show up, so that constitutes the proof.
 
Yes.
 
The nail in this coffin is a result of special relativity.  Specifically,
if you get alot of extra nuclear energy concentrated in a small area,
you can only get rid of it so fast, because there is no instantaneous
action at a distance.  All the possible ways to get rid of the energy have
the ordinary observable consequences known in nuclear physics.
 
: If you want to follow McKubre and claim there's some nuclear process
: which creates excess energy but no radioactive byproducts and no
: high-energy x-rays or gamma rays, then you are going beyond known
: science.  Therefore the burden of proof is upon you, not upon us.
 
The hypothesized mechanism must conform to relativity.  This is a stringent
requirement.
 
The natural conclusion is that one does not exist.
 
: **********************
: Robert F. Heeter
: "Fusion Fact Patrol - Hot and Cold"
: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
: Standard Disclaimers...
 
--
-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:
cuddy3 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / mitchell swartz /  Does special relativity r/o CF?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does special relativity r/o CF?
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 03:17:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <28nlmpINNt7a@network.ucsd.edu>
   Subject: Re: But does Blue know? ("McKubre knows not!)
Matt Kennel (mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net) wrote:
 
=mk  "The nail in this coffin is a result of special relativity.  Specifically,
=mk if you get alot of extra nuclear energy concentrated in a small area,
=mk you can only get rid of it so fast, because there is no instantaneous
=mk action at a distance.  All the possible ways to get rid of the energy have
=mk the ordinary observable consequences known in nuclear physics.
=mk
=mk The hypothesized mechanism must conform to relativity.  This is a stringent
=mk requirement."
 
   Can you prove that special relativity is this "nail"?
   Can you prove that the energy of these reactions is in a "small area (sic)"?
     how small a volume?    Some deexcitations take a while, don't they?
           I would settle for the special relativity part.  But given the
           past fast words, and small proof, we doubt it.  But thanks in
             advance in case you do.
 
   BTW you are touting your physics background here, but aren't you the
     fellow who didn't understand the mechanism of electric meters, and
     was unable to find the answer?           ;-)
 
  = "How accurate, and how precise are the standard kinds of utility meters
  = that one finds attached to one's house?
  = And just how the hell do they work anyway?  It's got to be pretty simple,
  = as I saw one in the Smithsonian, late 19th century Westinghouse brand, that
  = appeared to be the same design as contemporary ones."
                [mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
         Subject: Re: Silicates in polywater & P/F cells; 6 Sep 1993]
 
   One natural conclusion is that your claim[s] may not be balanced even
          by an attempt to prove it.  (still waiting ......)
 
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1993 21:51:31 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>I'm more of mind like Mitchell Swartz -- give me maximum access to information
>and let *me* be the filter.  I don't need a moderated group -- I just don't
>object to one as long as an unmoderated group is allowed to co-exist.
 
Ditto for me.  Actually if we are arguing for a moderated group, I would
suggest the obvious: sci.physics.nuclear.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 05:28:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CEA6FA.16w@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>
>Much simpler to propose moderation of this group, and possibly more likely
>to succeed.
 
Moderation is the effective end of any group. If this group is moderated
you might as well simply fold it up. I have yet to see a single moderated
group that has the slightest interest to such a wide range of opinions
as this conference.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Frank Close /  Zero point Energy or Zero.Energy?
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero point Energy or Zero.Energy?
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 09:14:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed; when I asked if you were quoting McKubre correctly it was not
an attack on your integrity; it was because McKubre's reported statement
about radioactivity is not correct and I wanted to ensure that you confirmed
that it was indeed McKubre who had said this.
 
You also say that if there is no chemical ash and no nuclear ash then
"Frank and I are both wrong". I have said it isnt nuclear; where have I
said that it is chemical? Dont get misled just because Hal Fox in Fusion
"Facts" reported that I had endorsed FP's heat claims. I had not.
 
I *have* said that *if* there is a power storage effect then there is
(on energetic grounds) an area of deep bound *atomic* electrons between
the peripheral electrons of "chemistry" and the nuclear regime. But, as
I have repeatedly stressed, this argument is made on energetic grounds alone.
I am highly sceptical that one could tap such reserves while managing to
hide all electronic and electromagnetic activity.
 
As concerns "zero point energy": that may be a valid solution if written
"zero.energy"
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Dieter Britz /  RE: On Moderating the Moderators
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: On Moderating the Moderators
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 09:14:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1482:
 
>   ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESPONSE TO ALLUSIONS FOR EVEN MORE INFORMATION THROTTLING
 
>  Who actually wants obstuction of information flow?
>  Who actually started the Internet?
>                 [This would be hysterical (if it were not real)]
 
>  Dieter is questioned about filtration of data from his data base
>        (which he should be thanked repeatedly for keeping, and maintaining,
>                      and of which he has the right to filter
>                           - with or without 'warning label')
>  and a few brave contributors (and perhaps lurkers) agree:
[...]
>So instead of responding, the idea clicks (especially outside of the United
>  States) to further filter free speech and data and information and reports
> and even possibly thereby Prof Droege's (and Logajan's, &tc.) developing
> FREE SCHOOL of sci.physics.fusion.
[...]
>  This author respectfully disagrees with the attempts to filter information
>   about sci.physics.fusion (hot, cold, lukewarm, e-discharge, muonic, &tc.).
 
>  Perhaps they should move to ---> sci.1984.fusion.controlled.controlled.;-)
>          \/\/
 
 
We did anticipate some mouth froth but let me just point out, once again, a
couple of things (I'll summarise all responses on the proposal of a moderated
group separately, in a few more days):
 
1. The idea of a moderated group arose long before our little storm in a tea
   cup, Mitch; it is not a response to it.
2. I was, I thought, careful to point out that nobody will be left or censored
   out. I will resist any such censoring, I just want a split. So please don't
   invoke 1984 or "throttling" of information. In fact, one can imagine an
   increase in the total amount of traffic. The playground for endless
   digressions and flame wars (i.e. this group) will be expanded; anyone who
   right now would tend to ask "what has all this to do with fusion?" will be
   reading the other group anyway, so the immoderates will have much more fun.
3. As to conf. procs, once again I invite anyone capable of doing a half
   decent job of it, to write their own and have it archived. A lot of people
   would apparently be eternally grateful. I repeat: Why should I do it?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Dieter Britz /  More humour over physics
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More humour over physics
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 09:14:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
For those of you watching for mention of cold fusion in the media, there is
one in the 18-Sep-93 issue of New Scientist, on the Feedback page. Feedback
had asked readers for their vision of the year 2020. It reports, among other
things:
 
"Other popular technological projections included automated traffic control
systems, machines powered by cold fusion, and neural computers debating
whether or not humans are intelligent".
 
I just mention it - and note, I didn't put this one into the bibliography, and
there is no cartoon.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  apology to Jed
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: apology to Jed
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 13:56:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I wish to apologize to Jed Rothwell for having suggested that he possibly
could have misquoted McKubre in a recent post.  My intention had not been
merely to needle Jed, but more importantly I wanted to make it clear that
I was commenting on a McKubre statement that I had not seen or heard
directly.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Dave Stephenson /  Re: Helium 3 abundance
     
Originally-From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium 3 abundance
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 13:26:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
 
>In article <stephens.749479996@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>> Helium three mining of the Moon has been extensively studied
>> and criticized over the past decade. It should be feasible, but
>...
>> had a paper on manufacturing He3 on the Moon. Fuse D-D and
>> extract the He3 from the reactor, any tritium not burnt can
>> be allowed to decay to He3 on the Moon before shipment. Alternatively
>> use accelerators or high neutron flux reactors to transmute Li
>> to tritium and allow to decay. Lots of ways of skinning the cat
>> once there is cheap, reliable, commercial access to space!
 
 
>If one is planning on making 3He rather than mining it, there is
>little reason to do so on the moon.  Lunar 3He mining itself has the
>problem of having to process enormous quantities of regolith (the 3He
>abundance averages only about 5 ppb, although it is higher in some
>fractions; ilmenite, for example).  At 5 ppb, producing that 25 tons
>of 3He would require processing of 5 billion tons of regolith -- a
>task that would be nontrivial on earth, let alone on the moon.
 
>Manufacture of 3He by neutron bombardment of lithium in an accelerator
>or fission reactor, followed by tritium decay, can be, at best, a
>secondary source.  It costs ~30 MeV to produce a neutron in a
>spallation neutron source, vs. 18 MeV returned when the 3He is fused.
>Producing a neutron in a fission reactor requires the release of still
>more energy, so one might as well just build fission reactors for your
>primary energy needs.
 
The advantage of doing it on the Moon is that most of the radioactive
waste and intermediate generation is done off the planet that one
is presumable wanting to keep clean. The actual material transfers
from and to the Earth are low, so manufacturing on the Moon might
be attractive to an 'environmentally correct' world. Also
He3 could be manufactured in an accelerator using solar energy. i.e.
the He3 is acts as a transport medium for lunar solar energy.
Certainly any large lunar or space reactor might be blanketed to
manufacture he3 as a by product.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geological Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada              *Om Mani Padme Hum 1-2-3*
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenstephens cudfnDave cudlnStephenson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / mitchell swartz /  Quest. re HARWELL (to F. Close)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quest. re HARWELL (to F. Close)
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 13:53:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Subject:  Energy conservation
    Message-ID: <9303111231.AA25447@suntan.Tandem.com>
     Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 14:54:16 GMT
Frank Close [FEC@v2.rl.ac.ukteway] wrote:
 
===fc  "I asked you some questions concerning your allegations
===rc   about Harwell and you have not answered them."
 
 to which was answered:
 
       =ms     "Really? Where?  We have reviewed the record.  What is the
       =ms        basis of this new misstatement?  Confabulation?
       =ms       Confusion?  Fever?   What "allegations about Harwell"? "
 
  Because of your question, I decided to look closer at the famous
Harwell paper.  Because of so much else to do, my apology for the
delay, but here goes anyway.
 
  It appears that Harwell, despite its well-reported "negative expt.",
  did in fact observe not just one, but several episodes of excess heat
in the D2O cells (which were wired in series with the H2O control).
  This is based upon some data which I am fortunate
   to have the opportunity to begin to examine in a preliminary fashion.
 
  Frank:
 
  Do you have any comment upon these cells which showed anomalous heat?
  Do you have any comment upon whey Harwell claimed they did not get excess
    heat, yet have output curves which show such documented disparity between
    the the light and heavy water samples?
 
  Do you know how many of these anomalous events they had?
  Did you have any role?   Do you have an appointment at Harwell?
 
  Thank you in advance for the information.
 
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / mitchell swartz /  Moderators' "storm in a teacup"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderators' "storm in a teacup"
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 13:55:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <01H3PJRZG0B69PSI2L@vms2.uni-c.dk>
   Subject: RE: On Moderating the Moderators
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
=dbr "We did anticipate some mouth froth but let me just point out,once again, a
=dbr couple of things(I'll summarise all responses onthe proposal of a moderated
=dbr group separately, in a few more days):
=dbr 1.The idea of a moderated group arose long before our little storm in a tea
=dbr    cup, Mitch; it is not a response to it."
 
  Thank you, Dieter.  I am well aware of that, but am not really certain
   as to what you refer as the "storm in a tea cup"             [  ;-)  ]
 
.  Incidentally, I was a lurker many months ago
   until an attempt to stifle information [and a few (unwarranted)
          attacks on non-scientists].  It would be nice if a few more
          might be so motivated.
 
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Frank Close /  Zero Point Energy = Zero.Energy
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero Point Energy = Zero.Energy
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 16:21:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed; when I asked if you were quoting McKubre correctly it was not
an attack on your integrity; it was because McKubre's reported statement
about radioactivity is not correct and I wanted to ensure that you confirmed
that it was indeed McKubre who had said this.
 
You also say that if there is no chemical ash and no nuclear ash then
"Frank and I are both wrong". I have said it isnt nuclear; where have I
said that it is chemical? Dont get misled just because Hal Fox in Fusion
"Facts" reported that I had endorsed FP's heat claims. I had not.
 
I *have* said that *if* there is a power storage effect then there is
(on energetic grounds) an area of deep bound *atomic* electrons between
the peripheral electrons of "chemistry" and the nuclear regime. But, as
I have repeatedly stressed, this argument is made on energetic grounds alone.
I am highly sceptical that one could tap such reserves while managing to
hide all electronic and electromagnetic activity.
 
As concerns "zero point energy": that may be a valid solution if written
"zero.energy"
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: 4 Oct 1993 16:44:04 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

 
Re: fusion rocket fuel
 
You can roughly get the maximum possible exhaust velocity in terms of
the energy released. Assuming 100 percent efficiency, they are related by
 
0.5 m v^2 = e,
 
where v is the exhaust velocity, and e is the energy released per
particle by the reaction. (I assume here, all of the energy released
by the reaction goes into motion of the ash, which is then perfectly
focussed.) The very best you can do with fusion is about v/c = 0.08.
 
I leave to you to convert exhaust velocity of the fuel to Isp.
 
I use the equation
 
(M + m) dv = - v_esc dm,
 
where M is the payload mass and m is the fuel mass (formally, dm is
negative, which explains the sign in the above). The velocity you get
from complete burning of an initial fuel mass, m_0, is
 
          v        M + m_0
        ----- = ln -------
        v_esc         M
 
So the fuel/payload mass ratio you need to get v = v_esc is 1.718.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Pulse Tests
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pulse Tests
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 17:31:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to Dick Blue and Robert Hagglund, I have done pulse tests, steady
state tests, and pulses on top of steady state tests on my calorimeter, and
they all work just fine.  i.e. no errors above normal measurement uncertainty.
But I cannot speak for the theremometer people, as my calorimeter was
specifically designed to operate with pulse inputs.  Unfortunately I do not
think I have enough of the proper kind of data to show that the thermometer
people might be wrong.  But I will look.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Jed Rothwell /  A carefully stated hypothesis
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A carefully stated hypothesis
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 23:14:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I offered a brief, unscientific version of the hypothesis cold fusion
scientists have been working to prove for the last four years:
 
     "When you load palladium with deuterons above 85%, the metal produces
     heat which exceeds the limits of chemistry, and it also produces
     neutrons, tritium and helium-4. . ."
 
Here is a far more precisely defined, scientifically correct statement of the
hypothesis that has guided most research in electrochemical CF. This is the
notice for McKubre's 1992 lecture at M.I.T. I do not see how any serious
scientist could argue that the following statements do not constitute a
"testable hypothesis."
 
- Jed
 
[Quote follows]
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
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. . .
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  HF/CF split?  Naaah...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HF/CF split?  Naaah...
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 20:35:53 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
Well, I hereby back off on my suggestion that "fusion" be subdivided, mainly
because I'm no longer convinced that the HF folks are really bothered that
much by concurrent "CF" threads.  Certainly I like reading some of the HF
entries, and would hate to see some of the nice HF discussions and threads
disappear, such as recent postings by both Robert Heeter and Steve Fairfax.
 
Someone brought up the possibility that this group may too small to be split
up like sci.physics was.  It's a good point.  Certainly the traffic flow on
sci.physics.fusion is only a tiny, tiny fraction of that on sci.physics.
That might mean that a moderated group would tend to get either all or none
of the traffic, rather than a reasonable mix..
 
I _don't_ agree that moderated groups are inherently self-destructive, and
would again point to the excellent variety exhibited by sci.physics.research.
Moderation there simply shut down a lot of the superfluous noise, without
shutting down novel discussions of _new_ points.  In contrast, sci.physics
has so much discussion of a very few themes that it sometimes reads like
the world's largest conversational infinite loop -- a dubious honor that
I sometimes fear sci.physics is shooting for at times...  :)
 
I agree that trying to impose moderation on the original sci.physics.fusion
group would be a major mistake.  To me the goal in moderating a group should
never be censorship, but simply increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and
allowing frustrated readers to be able to _read_ the group without tearing
their hair out.  For good signal you need either a) well-focused unmoderated
groups, or b) moderated _pairs_ of groups.  A moderated group by its lonesome
strikes me as much less appealing and more likely to turn dull or useless.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Bill Page /  Physics Research at BYU
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Physics Research at BYU
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 18:00:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
     So we did it.  And we learned a lot.  I now understand Tom Droege's
work and frustration, and can see for myself the problems in the xs heat
claims.  And our results on recombination effects, etc., will be submitted
for publication you can be sure.  The work is educational, even if sneered
at -
who cares about that?  I'm not here to build my personal reputation or
satisfy
my ego -- I'm here primarily to educate and to learn and to share what I
learn.
 
Thanks for the question, Greg.  From time to time we'll share other results
from our ever-changing research group, if people don't complain too loudly.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
BYU
 
>>
 
Too bad I wasn't Mormon (or even among the other 10%) 20 years ago!
<smile>  Seriously, it would have been great to go to a school like BYU and
 
I am very glad to hear that there still exists at least one place in North
America where people can go to learn to learn.
 
Three cheers, Professor Jones!  And please *do* share any and all results
your group finds interesting.  I am sure they will also be interesting to a
 
vast majority of us here.  Please don't let the occassional complaint from
some disgruntaled parties discourage you from posting here.  There are many
 
people who admire your work and many who admire your attitude.
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
PS.  Although I personally think current evidence makes excess heat seem
quite likely and the that some nuclear observations are at least plausible,
 
I do not take exception to your statement that there are problems with
these claims.  I think some CF believers here have interpreted your remarks
 
as 'cold' skeptism and perhaps related to bad feelings developed during the
 
early days in CF.  But it does not seem so to me.  Informed and open
critical review is essential.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / James Jasmine /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca (James Nicoll + Jasmine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 17:48:19 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London

In article <28pjsk$ibu@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu
(Bruce Scott) writes:
>
>Re: fusion rocket fuel
>
        material deleted
 
> The very best you can do with fusion is about v/c = 0.08.
>
>I leave to you to convert exhaust velocity of the fuel to Isp.
>
        OK, that means if you are concerned about energy efficiency,
the best delta-vee is also about 0.08 C. Not so bad for within the
Solar System (An AU can be crossed in 100 minutes at that speed, not
that there are trips which require enough time to *get* to 0.08 C),
but not too useful for interstellar stuff. The time to the nearest star
would be ~50-60 years, and who'll ask for a grant for research whose
results take longer than a career-span to arrive?
 
        Definitely have to have interstellar probes provide research
data on the way...
 
                                                        James Nicoll
 
 
 
--
If mail bounces, try jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca
"There was only seven Democrats in Hinsdale county and you've ate five of them,
God damn you! I sentence you to be hanged by the neck for reducing the Democrat
population of the state. I would sentence you to hell, but the [Law] forbids it.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjdnicoll cudfnJames cudlnJasmine cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
Date: 4 Oct 1993 18:08:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <CEC3BJ.Dss@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> , crb7q@virginia.edu
writes:
*Dale Bass is speaking here*
>     The key here is the phrase 'paying off'. Even if the physical
problems
>     are solved, the engineering problems are worse.  And for those of
>     you who are not engineers, the term 'engineering' includes an
>     economic assessment of payback for an operating plant.  If it
>     costs 400 c/kWh for fusion and 40 c/kWh for cow doody electrical
>     generation, then it does not matter how exciting and wonderful the
>     physics is, you go with the cow doody.
>
I'm sure that there were people out there who said the same thing about
the Hoover Dam, the Wright Brother's airplane (you're going to make
an airline and fly people around?  Even if the phyical problems are
solved,
the engineering problems are worse!  And it'll never be economical!), and
a whole host of other scientific/technology challenges.  You can be
pessimistic if you want, but at least give science some credit for
achieving progress.
 
I've said this before, but I suppose it'll bear repeating:  the hot fusion
research effort has made more progress in the last 20 years than even
the microchip computer-memory industry.  Hot fusion has achieved something
like a millionfold increase in the key parameter (fusion power output).
Yes, there *are* scientific and engineering problems to be solved.  But
these problems *can* be solved, and economically at that.  The latest
reactor design studies suggest that hot fusion, if done right, will be
a competitive energy source.  If you want sources for all this, I'll go
and get them.  I don't have them with me now, alas.
>
>     Engineering beyond the physics is a problem.  Those hundreds of
millions,
>     if applied to energy research, are better spent on such things as
>     Gratzel and O'Regan's film photovoltaic concept or perhaps
>     advanced fission reactors such as IFR, or perhaps TI's spheral
>     photovoltaic technology.   I can think of many many things that are
>     more worthy than exploration of the physics of tokomak plasmas.
 
This is a touchier issue.  Hot fusion can be made to work, but it *will*
continue to cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.  I'm
completely
in favor of photovoltaics.  I have trouble with fission breeders because
of
the waste issues and the fact that the technology is easily converted to
making nukes.  (Fusion is not, btw.)  Dale, you have a lot more experience
on the net than I do.  I'm sure you realize that it's not going to be
economical
to run an economy based solely upon solar power.  You have to have
something
else.  Maybe not in Arizona or CA, but what about us sun-bereft
Minnesotans?
Why don't you think fusion should be part of the energy mix?  Seems
to me that when we get it to work, it'll be at least as good as anything
out
there.  There are certainly lots of energy projects that deserve funding,
and
you can argue the relative merits of them, but I don't think you can say
that
we should eliminate fusion from the picture.
 
***********************
Robert F. Heeter
"Fusion Fact Patrol"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
I don't speak for the people who provide my paycheck.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: 4 Oct 1993 15:45 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1993Oct2.210038.20379@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes...
[Original question deleted]
>
>Previous responses have been good, but I happen to have a good table
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^???
 
>right in front of me, so I can give a more complete answer.
>
>D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)
>      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)
>D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)
>D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)
>T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
 
Robert, there seems to be a problem here...
>He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
>      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (46%)
>      -> He5 (2.4) + p (11.9) (6%)
Total = 103%.  Hey, I know you hot fusion guys work hard, but...
 
Which of the above is in error?
 
>P+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- this is your best bet if you don't
>want n's
>p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
>      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%) <- endothermic, not good.
>D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV <- also aneutronic, but you get D-D reactions
>too.
>p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
>n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)
>
>There are others, but these are the basic ones.
>
>Given the initial and reaction products, you can figure out the ratio
>of energy out to mass of fuel.  The energy required scales roughly
>as the product of the atomic numbers (q1 * q2), and the temperature
>is a rough measure of the energy, so that gives you a rough idea
>of which reactions require high versus low temperatures.
>
>I'm assuming that there are people on your spaceship who would
>rather not be neutron-irradiated, so if this is a criterion and
>you're allowing them to use any reaction they want, p+B11 is probably
>the best if you don't want neutrons.  The D-He3 reaction looks like
>it has no neutrons, but D-He3 and D-D have similar cross sections, so
>a D-He3 reactor will also have D-D's going on inside, which generates
>a fair amount of n's.
>
>Depending on what kind of space ship you're proposing, you can use
>the fusion reactor either to provide heat/electricity to drive
>the spaceship systems, or you can use the reaction products to
>drive the spaceship by expelling them at the high formation speeds
>out the back of the ship.  There are different ways of doing each
>of these; I think a magnetic confinement scheme would give you
>more flexibility in controlling the particles if you wanted to use
>them for inertial-mass-propulsion.  Either method is sufficiently
>plausible that you could make a general powerplant out of it.
>
 
Thanks for the (mostly) good table, interesting, should go in a FAQ, if we
had one...
 
While we're on the subject of space ships, I'm reading James P. Hogan's
"Code of the Lifemaker", in which a d-t inertial conefinement fusion powered
space ship is used to travel to Mars (actually not, but, for those who wish
to read the story, I'll say no more).
 
The question is:
 
Assume E(fusion) ~ 50% of E(in).  Ok, there's no way this system will reach
"breakeven", even in the scientific definition.  However:  Does that actually
matter?  Assume a fission power plant is used to ignite the D-T pellets, and
provide power for life support, nav, etc for the ship.  You'd end up with
a hybrid fusion/fission space ship, with engines producing high specific
impulse and decent thrust (presumably).  Also, you'd end up with something we
could probably start *building now*.  There's no engineering reason I can
think of that the thing would have to be powered only by fusion.  the only
reasons I *can* think of are that a fusion powered ship would be more
politically correct than a hybrid.
 
Just my thoughts...
 
>Hope this helps!
>
>*******************************
>Robert F. Heeter
>Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>As usual, I should not be construed as representing my employer...
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Moderated fusion group
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 22:03:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
(I am at home, and the lovely VAX editor doesn't work quite as I am used to,
so I'll not be quoting as I ought to)
 
in FD 1485 Dale Bass writes that he got 29 postings in 5 days. Well, Dale,
you are lucky, maybe, you must be missing a lot. I just spent an evening
reading the print-outs (yes, I print 'em!) of the weekend, 1.10 to 4.10, which
was 15 Digests, and I count 80 postings, or about 20-30 per day. You then say
that you think a split would reduce the traffic to zero. Well, going through
those 80 postings, something like at least 20 were mouth froth, or answers to
mouth froth; that leaves 60 more or less serious ones that the moderator would
accept. This seems to mean that the volume of paper to take home would not
substantially decrease (as I thought it might). On the other hand, the stuff
would be less annoying to read. So I am sticking with the proposal. Email is
coming in hard and fast, and I am collecting it all.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Born-Oppenheimer Approximation
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 20:37:58 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <931002064022_70047.3047_EHB4-1@CompuServe.COM>
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
 
> ... [nice intro skipped] ...
>
> ... In conclusion [Sutcliffe] states:
>
> "What I have done, however, is to persuade you to believe that the problem
> of the coupling of the nuclear and electronic motions is, at the moment,
> without a sensible solution and that it is an area where much future work
> can and must be done."
>
> ** Sutcliffe B.T. "The Coupling of the Nuclear and Electronic Motions in
> Molecules" in J. of the Chem. Soc. - Faraday Transactions, July 1993, vol
> 89 No. 14, pp 2321-2335.
 
The details are unsolved, but the general magnitudes _are_ well defined.  I
would suspect that if you look carefully through such articles you will at
some point find some careful quantification (either explicit or implicit)
about the absolute magnitude of those poorly quantified effects.
 
What you should find is that _for reasons unrelated to the unknown dynamics_
the electron wavefunction will not be assumed to have much impact.  Again,
the problem is that for any stable ("stationary") electron wavefunction the
charge density between such nucleons will necessarily be very, very low, as
in a helium atom.  This means there will be very nearly no proton-to-proton
charge screening at all due to the electron wavefunction.
 
I would also note, in case it is an issue, that this is a situation in which
the wave character of an electron is extremely important.  If you convince
yourself that it is "really" a particle, you can come up with all sorts of
ways of visualizing the electron as bonding the protons together.  But there
is an enormous weight of physical evidence over the last 70 or more years
that such a visualization is simply not what happens.  Like it or not, the
electron in such a circumstance behaves like a diffuse, poorly localized
charge that _cannot_ sit still long enough in one place to keep the protons
together.  Planck's rules (behavior of conjugate variables) are remarkably
simple and explicit in such cases, and provide no easy "outs."
 
> ...[skipping mostly quotes of stuff T. Bollinger said]...
>
> I am not assuming any direct interplay between the nuclear and electronic
> forces.  I am not sure how far we can stretch this semi-classical model
> here, but I'll try.  What I am arguing is that this is a special kind of
> three body interaction.  The Coulomb repulsion between the protons is (at
> least in part) shielded by presence of the electron.  This allows the
> (opposite spin) protons to interact via the longer range attractive
> component of the strong nuclear force...
 
Understood.  This is pretty much what I _thought_ you were saying in your
last posting.  And again, the only answer I can give is pretty much straight
from standar QM theory:  The degree of Coulomb shielding by an electron at
that scale will be so trivial as to be completely irrelevant to nuclear
reactions and the strong force.  The reason why it would be so trivial is
that the light mass of the electron in combination with the size of Planck's
constant.  Put those two items together at that size scale you are talking
about and you will find that the classical "point object" model of an
electron fails about _5 orders of magnitude_ (at roughly 1 angstrom) before
you get to the distance of nucleon separation.  If the protons were marbles
and the electron a little "glueball" 1/2000 the weight of a marble, that
would be like saying that you are trying to stick together two marbles using
a glueball that has somehow expanded (vaporized?) to the diameter of a
football field.  Not much glue will be left between the marbles!
 
The weight difference is crucial, for if an electron were the _same_ mass
as a proton, it would remain "classical" right down to the same point as
the protons, and thus _would_ be able top provide significant "gluing".
 
 
> ... The result is a nuclear potential well on the same order of magnitude
> as the deuteron.  But the presence of the electron is required for
> this well to exist.  This state will be energetically favoured if the
> de-localization energy of the electron approximately equal to its confined
> ground state energy) is less than that of the nuclear potential well.
> I.e. the electron is confined because it is needed by the protons so that
> they can interact via the nuclear force...
 
I understand what you have said, and understand also the temptation of the
argument.  But you may be trying so hard to make this work that you are
not looking at some of the cause-to-effect issues quite right.  Let's try
an analogy of sorts:
 
    You have a half of a huge 500 pound wood conference desk resting below
    one floor below the balcony on which you are standing, and the other
    already in place behind you.  You have a rope that is just long enough
    to reach to other part, and a powerful winch for joining the two table
    parts together.  The range of the winch is only a few inches, however.
 
Now using these equivalences:
 
              the two table parts --> protons
                         the rope --> binding electron between the protons
    work of pulling up table half --> energy cost of localizing electron
         strong short-range winch --> strong force binding protons
 
...I would suggest that this statement is a close analog of your argument:
 
   I.e. the rope is pulled up because it is needed by the two table halves
   so that they can be pulled together via the short-range winch.
 
Doesn't quite flow, does it?  The problem boils down to this:  the _only_
thing that affects the degree of confinement of an electron in conventional
"stationary" electron state is how much positive charge there is at the
point of confinement.  Nothing else matters, and any _potential_ energy
benefits via the strong force are irrelevant simply because there is no
way to "communicate" them to the electron as an increase in positive charge.
 
Two protons will bind one electron a _little_ bit more tightly than one,
but to get the electron to localize (to pull in the rope) you would need
a positive charge _hundreds_ (ball park) of time larger to do the trick.
 
And by that time you've lost anyway, because the positive charges will
be so enormous that they will blow each other away no matter what the
measly electron does, whether localized or not.  Think of it, for example,
as a nucleus of charge +1000 that has the electron so localized that its
probability function now exists almost entirely _within_ the nucleus.
 
(BTW, I have no idea of the charge value at which this curious effect
would actually occur -- do any of the nuclear chemist types out there
happend to know?  It's kind of an interesting thought problem, and it
might even be relevant for superheavy nuclei.)
 
Anywho, even if the electron was this localized, it would be very similar
to simply _subtracting one charge unit_ from the superheavy nucleus.  That
is not the sort of thing that is going to make two such monster nuclei
stick together!
 
> Remember, once I use this semi-classical model to decide on a reasonable
> apriori form for the Hamiltonian, I want to think of this system as
> *completely* defined by the (possibly relativistic) wave equation.
> Discussion of protons and electrons in the actual solution to the equation
> will only be an approximation.
 
See above.  BTW, the inner shell electrons of some heavy elements _are_
quite relativistic, so much so that some of them have twice the normal
mass and are inclined to do strange things (such as "decay").
 
> Unlike the D+D fusion considered in muon catalyzed cold fusion, Hbar+ can
> only fuse by a weak interaction (PeP)...
 
I do not understand the basis for such a suggestion of exlusive PeP reaction
even if you had such a close configuration.  In stellar cores PeP is about
200 times less common than PP.  I would be very surprised if simply having
all three particles in close proximity would ensure a particular reaction;
there are, after all, an enormous number of free electrons as well as
protons in stellar cores, yet they do not react by PeP much at all.
 
I would strongly suspect that due to quantum uncertainty, a close combo
of two protons and one electron would _still_ be more likely to decay via
PP than via PeP.  Unless you have some kind of quantum number constraint
(do you?), you just cannot get out of branching ratios that easily.
 
(Bill Johnson:  You wouldn't happen to have any specifics of that scenario
of branching rations for very close PeP, would you?  And is the PP-vs-PeP
branch ratio sensitive to spin orientation or other quantum numbers?)
 
> ... And as you point out, the weak interaction is very *weak*.
 
So much so that _even if you gave the close P-e-P configuration as a given_,
it would still take a _looooong_ time to get many either PP or PeP reactions.
 
> ... In situations where the lattice also contains delocalized D+, we
> might invoke the Chubb&Chubb Bose Bloch Condensate effect to enhance the
> interaction rate. It might also turn out that two Hbar+ nuclei plus two
> electrons do not form a very stable Hbar2 molecule (analogous to D2).
> Instead, it might endothermically decay to 2 x H2.  This would explain
> the putative "recombination refrigeration" effect.  But now I am pretty
> far out on the limb of my 'farfetch'!
 
Yes, I _thought_ I heard a cracking noise in the tree... :)  Seriously,
you might want to beware of piling too many stick-your-neck-out assumptions
on top of each other in a group like this.  Choppy chop chop, you know.
 
> Terry, thanks again for the comments.  BTW, what happened to the other
> USENET people who were so willing to discuss QM a while back?  Am I being
> ignored in hopes that I will stop posting what they consider nonsense?
 
I certainly don't think you're being ignored for poor postings, because
your postings are paying a lot more attention to accepted physics than
much of the traffic here.  I get ignored a lot too, but I always figure
it's due I'm really just a poor, bewildered information type who can
barely  recall the difference between van Hove singularities and t'Hofft
singularities.  I'd say don't fret, unless you happen to play guitar.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Chris Jensen /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: Chris Jensen <ccjensen@fnalv.fnal.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 22:05:37 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <leyhCE9L1L.CEr@netcom.com> Greg Leyh, leyh@netcom.com writes:
>  I am looking for an economical source for 10 kilojoule (or larger)
>Energy Storage Capacitors, in the 10 to 20 kilovolt range.  Any info
>in this direction will be greatly appreciated. Approximately 30
>capacitors will be req'd for this experiment.
>
>Thanx in advance, Greg
 
Do you mean 30 capacitors at 10 kJ each, or 10 kJ in 30 capacitors?
If the former, even cheap short life capacitors would cost 40 k$ and take
up a 8 foot by 8 foot room? The latter might cost as little as 5k$ for
good
quality caps. Is this only for filtering a DC supply or are you going to
discharge them rapidly in a pulse?
 
I've built some pulse power supplies. The current one is a very large DC
filter bank at 10 kV and 1400 uF. Cost was in 30k$ to 50k$ range.
A good number for long life (10^9 shots), pulse capacitors is around
1$/Joule
( over 100 Joules) and around 0.1 to 0.2 J per in^3
 
Once you get your application more firmly described you might try several
of
these vendors.
Maxwell Labs, San Diego CA, high quality, high cost
NWL Capacitor, Florida, good quality, fast turn around
GE Power, Fort Edward NY, good quality
 
There are many other vendors, some of dubious quality and reliability.
 
These are the my opinions, not those of Fermilab,  URA, DOE or anyone
else.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenccjensen cudfnChris cudlnJensen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 / Chris Jensen /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: Chris Jensen <ccjensen@fnalv.fnal.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 22:10:37 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <leyhCE9L1L.CEr@netcom.com> Greg Leyh, leyh@netcom.com writes:
>  I am looking for an economical source for 10 kilojoule (or larger)
>Energy Storage Capacitors, in the 10 to 20 kilovolt range.  Any info
>in this direction will be greatly appreciated. Approximately 30
>capacitors will be req'd for this experiment.
>
>Thanx in advance, Greg
 
Do you mean 30 capacitors at 10 kJ each, or 10 kJ in 30 capacitors?
If the former, even cheap short life capacitors would cost 40 k$ and take
up a 8 foot by 8 foot room? The latter might cost as little as 5k$ for
good
quality caps. Is this only for filtering a DC supply or are you going to
discharge them rapidly in a pulse?
 
I've built some pulse power supplies. The current one is a very large DC
filter bank at 10 kV and 1400 uF. Cost was in 30k$ to 50k$ range.
A good number for long life (10^9 shots), pulse capacitors is around
1$/Joule
( over 100 Joules) and around 0.1 to 0.2 J per in^3
 
Once you get your application more firmly described you might try several
of
these vendors.
Maxwell Labs, San Diego CA, high quality, high cost
NWL Capacitor, Florida, good quality, fast turn around
GE Power, Fort Edward NY, good quality
 
There are many other vendors, some of dubious quality and reliability.
 
These are the my opinions, not those of Fermilab,  URA, DOE or anyone
else.
 
Chris Jensen, ccjensen@fnalv.fnal.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenccjensen cudfnChris cudlnJensen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An investor's assessment of controlled fusion.
Date: 5 Oct 1993 00:28:20 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov) wrote:
: In article <CEC3BJ.Dss@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> , crb7q@virginia.edu
: writes:
: *Dale Bass is speaking here*
: >     Engineering beyond the physics is a problem.  Those hundreds of
: millions,
: >     if applied to energy research, are better spent on such things as
: >     Gratzel and O'Regan's film photovoltaic concept or perhaps
: >     advanced fission reactors such as IFR, or perhaps TI's spheral
: >     photovoltaic technology.   I can think of many many things that are
: >     more worthy than exploration of the physics of tokomak plasmas.
 
: This is a touchier issue.  Hot fusion can be made to work, but it *will*
: continue to cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year.  I'm
: completely
: in favor of photovoltaics.
 
Yes, nothing wrong here.  However, there are other considerations with
photovoltaic systems.  Namely that their power density is low.  I.e.
there will have to be a whole shitload of manufactured materials (some of
whose processing is not entirely eco-friendly) to get energy out.  This
*may* end up increasing resource prices on some things that perhaps we
could have made better use of.  (For instance oil.  The fact that we've burnt
it up in combustion means the price is $20 a barrel.  If we didn't ever burn
oil for fuel, we could have $1 a barrel oil and cheaper chemicals and plastics
and who knows what.)
 
: I have trouble with fission breeders because
: of
: the waste issues and the fact that the technology is easily converted to
: making nukes.  (Fusion is not, btw.)
 
Hey, neutrons is neutrons.
 
But you're right, bringing a few tons of uranium into your fusion power plant
will raise some suspicion.
 
: ***********************
: Robert F. Heeter
: "Fusion Fact Patrol"
: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
: I don't speak for the people who provide my paycheck.
 
--
-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:
cuddy5 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Matthew DeBell /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: aulie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Matthew DeBell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 00:33:47 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1993Oct4.174819.2595@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca
(James Nicoll + Jasmine) writes:
>In article <28pjsk$ibu@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu
(Bruce Scott) writes:
>>
>>Re: fusion rocket fuel
>>
>       material deleted
>
>> The very best you can do with fusion is about v/c = 0.08.
>       OK, that means if you are concerned about energy efficiency,
>the best delta-vee is also about 0.08 C. Not so bad for within the
>Solar System (An AU can be crossed in 100 minutes at that speed, not
>that there are trips which require enough time to *get* to 0.08 C),
 
What limitations are there to acceleration using fusion rockets?  Why?
--
--Matthew DeBell  mdebell@ucsd.edu  aulie@leland.stanford.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenaulie cudfnMatthew cudlnDeBell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: 5 Oct 1993 01:09:07 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

aulie@leland.Stanford.EDU (Matthew DeBell) writes:
 
 
>What limitations are there to acceleration using fusion rockets?  Why?
 
Not known. You'll notice that I didn't involve it in my formulas,
which only consider conservation of momentum. The burn rate, dm/dt,
of a given fuel is a matter of technology, while the physics give
the upper limit on exhaust velocity, through energy conservation.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 5 Oct 1993 01:28:06 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

In article <CEC2o1.Dn1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@virginia.edu writes:
 
>    I choose different ways to argue about angels on pinheads.
 
I prefer not to enter such arguments.
 
>    The project is justified as 'Unlimited Energy From The Sea',
>    and is funded on that basis.
 
You might notice that I share your cynicism concerning the PR. But the
possibility exists -- not at the levels you claim -- that magnetic
fusion will be possible with near-term technology. I do agree, though,
that to build ITER is premature, that we should learn more about
physics of confinement before moving beyond the current -- and quite
miniscule -- 300 M/yr funding level. There are good ways to do this,
even with the current mix of experiments (maybe with the mix circa
1988 or so; let's build that damn z-pinch); it is just that DOE do not
take physics as their priority, and use dangerously rash PR to cover
the problems.
 
>    Notice that 'Unlimited Energy From
>    Rutabagas' is not funded in the hundreds of millions a year.
 
I think where I disagree with you is that this is equable with
magnetic fusion research.
 
>    My point is that analyses of economic benefits 50 years in the future
>    are worthless and should not be considered in government funding
>    decisions.
 
I trust I have demonstrated my agreement with this on many occasions.
 
Where we part company seems to be your opinion, as I understand it,
that economic matters should dictate how science is supported. That is
appropriate for private institutions, perhaps, but a refusal to
support basic science unless economic gain is already in sight is
something with which I cannot agree. You people forget how much the
current explosion in technology owes to the patronage of intellectual
fantasy over the last 200 years. Even the last 60.
 
>     I've had more written arguments on the subject of government
>     funding on the net over the last decade years than most people
>     have written about *everything* in their lives.
 
Your staying power is greater than mine. I KILL'ed the various SSC
threads after about 2 days. I will do the same here as soon as the
focus swings to economic ideology, with which I have no patience.
Sorry, Dale, I will not argue Libertarian ideology with you any more
than I give time to Creationists.
 
>     My assessment that there is a 95% probability that all the world's
>     hunger will be sated by 2100 by giving me a billion is *just as good*
>     as the assessment that fusion will be economical by 2100.
 
This is patent garbage.
 
>>I did notice you didn't respond the last time I caught you with a
>>silly statement like the one quoted above.
>
>     Then I didn't see your posting.  Count on it, I'm always willing to back
>     up what I say.
 
Clearly, I spoke too soon (it _is_ out of character for you not to
answer challenges, so I was a little perplexed). I am happy to discuss
with you, as long as the focus stays on the science.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / arthur blair /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 02:16:44 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Bruce Scott (bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
 
: By the way, I do not think anyone working in hot fusion has voiced an
: opinion to form an additional group or any against this one (I've only
: seen one or two bystanders do that). So John and Dieter are simply
: stroking their own prejudices. For this hot-fusioneer, the
 
I, for one, would love to see a sci.physics.fusion.hot . I have
as little interest in cold fusion as John L. has in hot.
Art.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Greg Leyh /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 02:46:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Chris Jensen (ccjensen@fnalv.fnal.gov) wrote:
: In article <leyhCE9L1L.CEr@netcom.com> Greg Leyh, leyh@netcom.com writes:
: >  I am looking for an economical source for 10 kilojoule (or larger)
: >Energy Storage Capacitors, in the 10 to 20 kilovolt range.  Any info
: >in this direction will be greatly appreciated. Approximately 30
: >capacitors will be req'd for this experiment.
: >
: >Thanx in advance, Greg
 
: Do you mean 30 capacitors at 10 kJ each, or 10 kJ in 30 capacitors?
: If the former, even cheap short life capacitors would cost 40 k$ and take
: up a 8 foot by 8 foot room? The latter might cost as little as 5k$ for
: good
: quality caps. Is this only for filtering a DC supply or are you going to
: discharge them rapidly in a pulse?
 
 
I am looking for 30 10kJ units, preferably with 20kV ratings, which are
rated for pulsed power service.  I should also specify that I wish to avoid
purchasing new ones, which would be cost prohibitive.  I am hoping to
locate a company that performs hydroforming, explosive wire deposition,
or builds pulsed power modulators for flashtubes...especially a company
that might have a number of decommissioned capacitors which they would like
to donate to an arts organization, and receive a tax credit for the fair
market value of the capacitors.  The only requirement is that there still
be some useful life in the units.
 
Thanx in advance, Greg
 
: I've built some pulse power supplies. The current one is a very large DC
: filter bank at 10 kV and 1400 uF. Cost was in 30k$ to 50k$ range.
: A good number for long life (10^9 shots), pulse capacitors is around
: 1$/Joule
: ( over 100 Joules) and around 0.1 to 0.2 J per in^3
 
: Once you get your application more firmly described you might try several
: of
: these vendors.
: Maxwell Labs, San Diego CA, high quality, high cost
: NWL Capacitor, Florida, good quality, fast turn around
: GE Power, Fort Edward NY, good quality
 
: There are many other vendors, some of dubious quality and reliability.
 
: These are the my opinions, not those of Fermilab,  URA, DOE or anyone
: else.
 
: Chris Jensen, ccjensen@fnalv.fnal.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenleyh cudfnGreg cudlnLeyh cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Not paying attention, are we?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 08:01:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1480:
 
>If your fuel is peroxide then your ash is water - pretty hard to detect in a
>cell full of it to start with.
 
As Neddy Seagoon would say, what what what WHAT WHAT WHAT? Do I read here,
Karel, that you, an electrochemist, subscribe to the peroxide proposal, and
what's more, moles and moles of peroxide? I can live with the idea that two
electrochemists cannot agree on anything, but do you really believe in the
generation of peroxide in these cells? Please explain how, what process, at
which electrode.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: FAQ
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 08:01:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There have recently been repeated mentions of an FAQ for this list. This might
indeed be a good idea, but I have two problems with it.
Firstly, it might be a good idea to wait until we know the result of the
present effort to create a moderated group; then we can plan an FAQ, to go
into one or both groups, or to an ftp file or whatever.
The second problem is: who shall write this FAQ? E.g., a FAQ is "Is cold
fusion real?" The answer will depend very much on who provides it. I would
suggest a multi-part answer to such a question, written by representatives of
the ultra-hard...ardent TB spectrum. There might well be many such sensitive
FAQ's. This thing might need planning, perhaps by a sort of email committee of
a spectrum, referring to the readers of the group as problems come up.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Conf. Procs.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conf. Procs.
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 09:00:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Even my friends tell me... that conference proceedings should be in the
bibliography, and I note what I think is a misunderstanding, or an
underestimate of the effort involved. If I explain, y'all might better
understand why I resist this.
 
A couple of people (Chuck Sites, Tom Droege) suggest I include all extant
Proceedings as books in the cnf-bks file. This might seem like a simple job
but isn't. There is one book in that file which I have not myself seen - the
one by Peat, an early and (I am told) slight effort - but otherwise I have
them, and have read them all. The reason why Taubes is not in there is that I
seem to lost contact with "my" bookshop in Richmond, VA, who are supposed to
send it to me. What I am trying to say is that I would feel that I not only
would need to collect the titles of proceedings, I would also want to collect
the tomes themselves, and at least dip into them. This would be expensive and
take some doing. Steve Jones was kind enough to send me one such volume, but I
understand there are something like 10 (?).
 
This already nontrivial variant is the minimal one. The vociferous demanders
of the inclusion of conf. proc. papers do not, I believe, really mean only
this; they want these "papers" to be abstracted individually, just like the
journal papers in cnf-pap1..6. In such a case, I would have to get hold of ALL
Proceedings and read every paper in them, and write an abstract for each, as I
have done for all journal papers. This is what I myself would favour, too, if
I thought they ought to go into the bibliography. I don't have the time or
energy to do this work. It would have been feasible, had I started at the
outset collecting them along with the others. But right back there I decided
against that, for the reasons I have explained. I still think these reasons
are sensible. As I say, most of the good work is published properly anyhow, so
we'd have needless duplication.
 
As I have said a few times, there is nothing to stop someone else doing the
job. Go for it.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Anyone lurking out there from Richmond? If so, should you find yourself in
the Carriage House Bookshop, could you ask what is happening to my orders? I
have tried phoning them but can't get through. The person handling my account
there is (was?) David. Thanks.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 03:30:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01H3QB56YFYQ9PSOE8@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>(I am at home, and the lovely VAX editor doesn't work quite as I am used to,
>so I'll not be quoting as I ought to)
>
>in FD 1485 Dale Bass writes that he got 29 postings in 5 days. Well, Dale,
>you are lucky, maybe, you must be missing a lot.
 
     Apparently I am.  Four questions:
     1) Do you have a volunteer moderator in mind?
     Moderating a high-volume newsgroup is very time-consuming.  It's
     much worse than just reading the group.  And a moderator
     will have to be a rather responsible and thick-skinned sort.
     It will be bad if the moderator bails after 4 weeks because (s)he
     realizes (s)he actually wants a life.
     2) Have you considered the rules?  For instance, there
     are any number of frothing postings
     around here that are not without essential worth.
     3) Is the long series of discussion and counter discussions here
     and on news.groups going to be any less annoying than the 1/4
     mouth froth?
     4) Are you considering proposing moderating this one (which I personally
     feel will fail), or just creating a new group?
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.03 / John Campbell /  Re: Not paying attention, are we?
     
Originally-From: soup@penrij.UUCP (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
Date: 3 Oct 93 12:06:24 GMT
Organization: The Other "Woman" of the House

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
        .
        .
        .
 
>Dieter also quotes Frank Close, who never fails to say: "So there must be some
>ash."
 
>Yes, that's right! There must be ash. And you know what? Any chemical process
>makes stuff that I have chosen to call "chemical ash." It is that fluffy grey
>stuff you find in your fireplace. And here is an interesting point: if a CF
>reaction was chemical, it would produce a million times more "chemical ash"
>than the "nuclear ash" you get from a nuclear process. So it would be a
>million times easier to detect. You couldn't miss it! Some CF reactions go on
>so long that if they were chemical, the "ash" and "smoke" from them would fill
>a fireplace and cloud up the room. It would surely overflow those itty bitty
>cells! Yet nobody has ever spotted any "chemical ash" from any CF experiment,
>just as nobody has ever seen any energy storage. And here is another funny
>thing: you can't have "chemical ash" unless you have "chemical fuel" (another
>term I invented) and there isn't any "chemical fuel" in a cell.
 
Howsomever, the chemical ash from re-combination would be recycled, ready for
re-use as fuel.
 
But -   Is the total energy (over time) greater than the total energy out
        (over time).
 
It'd be _real nice_ if CNF _is_ true.  As a lurker, I am not convinced
that nothing is happening.  Of course, it seems that the whynestone rating
of this newsgroup provides more heat the CNF is.
 
--
 John R. Campbell                                    soup%penrij@kd3bj.ampr.org
                                                or:     uunet!kd3bj!penrij!soup
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  blue@dancer.ns /  strange pathways
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: strange pathways
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 13:31:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It has become clear that Jed Rothwell, Mitchell Swartz, and now MIke
McKubre are essentially expressing a belief that the energy released
in some unspecified nuclear process can be degraded to thermal
energy via strange pathways that have nothing in common with previously
observed processes or any physics relating to domains other than a
PdD lattice.  In this fantasy land they have complete freedom to
revise their thinking at any time should harsh reality intrude with
a few experimental facts that don't fit their picture.  Thus nothing
can be proven or disproven.
 
It probably is news to no one that Jed and Mitchell aren't greatly
concerned with anything that could be called orthodox physics, but
to find a serious CF investigator such as McKubre straying off into
the uncharted wastelands where just about anything is taken as
a real possibility for a CF reaction is worthy of note.  I just
wanted to point out the fact that McKubre's statement regarding
how easy it is to hide nuclear ashes is totally off base, unless
there are no rules to restrict the invention of strange new pathways
for the energy degradation process.  To save Mitchell from a reply
I will say right up front that I have no proof that the palladium
fairy does not wave a magic wand to make the reaction products
vanish.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / mitchell swartz /  Peroxides (was not paying attention')
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 12:44:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <01H3QX58XX2A9PSLU8@vms2.uni-c.dk>
      Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
 Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk)
 
= "As Neddy Seagoon would say, what what what WHAT WHAT WHAT? Do I read here,
= Karel, that you, an electrochemist, subscribe to the peroxide proposal, and
= what's more, moles and moles of peroxide? I can live with the idea that two
= electrochemists cannot agree on anything, but do you really believe in the
= generation of peroxide in these cells? Please explain how, what process, at
= which electrode."
 
    Although I agree with Dieter on this one that H2O2 cannot account for
 the observed excess enthalpy, let's be reasonable.
 
    Is there any evidence that H2O2 is present at more than micromolar
levels in the solution?   The electrically reduced species
(including superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radical which are
 each respectively reduced by one electron, the fourth yields D2O or H2O)
are well known and detectable yet not reported therein.  furthermore,
there are a plethora of metals which break these down (acting as catalases,
  dismutases, and even Fenton-like reagents).
 
     So.  Until, the H2O2 (or D2O2) proponents, come up with some evidence,
   or even an example of these levels being at the multimolar levels required,
   Dieter stands quite right.
 
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / mitchell swartz /  Conference Proceedings
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conference Proceedings
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 12:45:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <01H3QYAZQ32A9PSJ1B@vms2.uni-c.dk>
    Subject: Re: Conf. Procs.
Dieter Britz  (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk)
 
= ." The vociferous demanders
= of the inclusion of conf. proc. papers do not, I believe, really mean only
= this; they want these "papers" to be abstracted individually, just like the
= journal papers in cnf-pap1..6. In such a case, I would have to get hold of ALL
= Proceedings and read every paper in them, and write an abstract for each, as I
= have done for all journal papers. This is what I myself would favour, too, if
= I thought they ought to go into the bibliography. I don't have the time or
= energy to do this work."
 
   Two options.   Best and most informative:
                 Perhaps Jed, or another, might augment your file.
                 Or for ICCF-3, just include Peter Hagelstein's nice review
 
                                     or
 
                  Minimalist solution:
 Perhaps a listing as in:   103 positive papers showing excess heat
                              2 positive papers with gas discharge
                              22 positive papers discussing metallurgy
                              1 negative paper, ignoring the facts and
                                     "reviewing 1989 data".
 
     [N.B. Caution, the numbers and categories were just made up in a hurry
          as an example and are not necessarily representative.  Readers ought
          read the Hagelstein review posted here, or contact me for access to
          more information.]
 
  Best wishes.                                  Mitchell Swartz
                                               mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Moderators' "storm in a teacup"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Moderators' "storm in a teacup"
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 14:30:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) in FD 1489:
 
(Do you mean moderators', or moderator's, Mitch? If the former, so far we
have just the one; if the latter, you could mean me, since it was us two that
had this storm in a tea cup. Therefore, be assured that I do not consider
myself suitable as moderator, I am far too involved in this affair. Scott is
ideal from that point of view, because he neither seems to believe nor to
disbelieve in CNF. Anyone, in any case, who posts to this group is ineligible
and would be accused of stroking his own prejudices {:]
 
But:
 
>.  Incidentally, I was a lurker many months ago
>   until an attempt to stifle information [and a few (unwarranted)
>          attacks on non-scientists].  It would be nice if a few more
>          might be so motivated.
 
I am happy to note that we agree on something. I too do not wish any
information to be stifled. If I want anything here, it is to  ESCAPE rhetoric
etc; not to stifle it, let alone information. Helping to set up a civil and
rational group to discuss interesting aspects of cnf will achieve this for me,
I can then move into it and ignore all the rhetoric and name calling. Noone
will be stifled, information continues to flow freely.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / mitchell swartz /  Dick Blue's fairy and "strange pathways"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue's fairy and "strange pathways"
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 15:16:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <93100508551926@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: strange pathways
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
=dbl "In this fantasy land they have complete freedom to
=dbl revise their thinking at any time should harsh reality intrude with
=dbl a few experimental facts that don't fit their picture.  Thus nothing
=dbl can be proven or disproven."
 
   Actually, Dick Blue, projects yet again.  Yet attention is directed to
   the simple fact, demonstrated right here, that it is he who states,
   repeatedly,  that no experiment can prove cold fusion.
 
   With Dick, he has freedom to demean, and can ignore any experimental
     fact that does not fit into his funding  picture.
                               [What does this imply about NSCL?]
 
=dbl It probably is news to no one that Jed and Mitchell aren't greatly
=dbl concerned with anything that could be called orthodox physics, but
=dbl to find a serious CF investigator such as McKubre straying off into
=dbl the uncharted wastelands where just about anything is taken as
=dbl a real possibility for a CF reaction is worthy of note."
 
  The only one who avoids orthodox physics and science is: Dick.
  We try very hard to match up data with known physics, despite his
    arrogant, and incorrect, BS.
 
=dbl  "To save Mitchell from a reply
=dbl I will say right up front that I have no proof that the palladium
=dbl fairy does not wave a magic wand to make the reaction products
=dbl vanish."
 
   Interesting use of the double negative by Mr. Blue.
   OK.  Where is Mr. Blue's proof of the existence of the Blue-"palladium fairy"
           that does wave a "magic wand"?
 
  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / James Jasmine /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca (James Nicoll + Jasmine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 15:43:33 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London

In article <1993Oct5.003347.16173@leland.Stanford.EDU> aulie@leland.Stan
ord.EDU (Matthew DeBell) writes:
>In article <1993Oct4.174819.2595@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca
(James Nicoll + Jasmine) writes:
>>In article <28pjsk$ibu@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu
(Bruce Scott) writes:
>>>
>>>Re: fusion rocket fuel
>>>
>>      material deleted
>>
>>> The very best you can do with fusion is about v/c = 0.08.
>>      OK, that means if you are concerned about energy efficiency,
>>the best delta-vee is also about 0.08 C. Not so bad for within the
>>Solar System (An AU can be crossed in 100 minutes at that speed, not
>>that there are trips which require enough time to *get* to 0.08 C),
 
        Let me rephrase the above: delta vee is limited by the mass-ratio
of the ship. The additional velocity granted by increasing the mass ratio
declines as  mass ratios increase, and this is really noticable once
the mass ratio  is much above e**1. As well, there are good reasons to
want to minimize the size of  the power-plant and the most efficient use
of  energy involved in getting the reaction mass up to V-esc is when
V_esc and delta vee have similar values.
 
        I am *not* saying that rockets can't get a  delta vee higher
thantheir v_esc, just that it isn't very efficient in terms of reaction
mass or  energy used to do  so.
 
        I  appreciate the  good intentions of the folks emailing me
about mass ratios, but, honest, I aready understood  them. I  just
phased myself unclearly.
 
>What limitations are there to acceleration using fusion rockets?  Why?
 
        I can think of a few:
 
                Power to mass limitations of the  powerplant. High Isp
        values eat power like crazy.
 
                Radiator limitations, which are  dependent on pp size.
 
                Market limitations: A 1g acceleration will get you to
        Jupiter in six days, with a delta vee of a bit  over 5000 km/s.
        A 0.01 g acceleration  will get you there in about 60  days,
        and have a delta vee of a bit  over 500  km/s. If they're being
        energy-efficient, the one g ship needs  a  powerplant 1000 times
        more  powerful  per kg of ship. Is the factor  of ten improvement
        worth the 1000 times increase in power demand?
 
                                                                James Nicoll
 
 
--
If mail bounces, try jdnicoll@engrg.uwo.ca
"There was only seven Democrats in Hinsdale county and you've ate five of them,
God damn you! I sentence you to be hanged by the neck for reducing the Democrat
population of the state. I would sentence you to hell, but the [Law] forbids it.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjdnicoll cudfnJames cudlnJasmine cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Ad aspera /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 5 Oct 1993 16:20:56 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

>> My point is that analyses of economic benefits 50 years in the future
>> are worthless and should not be considered in government funding
>> decisions.
 
Note the greatest confound of all:  we don't have any idea
what the economic ground rules will be in 50 years.
 
All we know is that (a) the fossil fuel supply is finite,
(b) energy demand is likely to increase over the long haul,
and (c) it would be a bit late to begin an nn-year R&D cycle
at the time of the crisis.  (One may also conjecture that (d)
sooner or later the OPEC members will decide they'd rather
make money than bicker with each other, but I digress a bit.)
 
As I said last time, if we fund fusion we don't know what will
happen with it, but if we don't fund it we *do* know.  Iterate
for whatever other energy alternatives whose research programs
you consider undersupported in the recent fool's paradise of
cheap oil.
 
End of harangue,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / J Hugly /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: jice@luth.chorus.fr (Jean-Christophe Hugly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: 5 Oct 93 15:56:32 GMT
Organization: Chorus systemes, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France

In article <4OCT199315455153@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
%% In article <1993Oct2.210038.20379@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F.
Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes...
%% [Scientifically plausible fusion-powered space-ship]
 
I'm afraid that for our spaceship being any plausibly usefull, our author
will have to integrate in the notion of plausibility a considerable amount
of progress speculation.
 
As anyway there is no serious suspicion that an object may travel faster than light
our author would have either to postulate the acceptation that the travellers come
back centuries after their departure, if they do (but this may be part of the story
...) or postulate that light barrier has been broken, which probably relegates
fusion thrust to the museum.
 
J-C
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjice cudfnJean-Christophe cudlnHugly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A2
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A2
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 18:51:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,      Message A2                         4 October 1993
 
Starting with the last "Greetings Data Fans" message, this series of messages
will try to present everything that data analyzers might need to make sense of
my data.  We will try to put everything in a data base that Chuck Harrison has
volunteered to set up.  That way you will not have to copy everything as it
goes by on sci.physics.fusion.  Remember, the goal of all this is to get set
up to run the next series of experiments "on line".
 
John Logajan (I remember - apologies if it was someone else) made some nice
drawings of my calorimeter, we will try to put them in the data base.  We also
recommend that you get our paper from "The Science Of Cold Fusion" the
proceedings of the II annual conference on cold fusion.  It is really not
possible to make sense of the data unless there is some understanding of the
calorimeter.  A library should be able to get the proceedings with the
following number: ISBN 88-7794-045-X.  I will also try to respond to paper
requests,
 
Tom Droege
2 S 942 Thornecrest La.
Batavia, IL  60510
 
A self stamped envelop would be appreciated, but is not necessary.
 
I have spent the weekend looking at data.  It is pretty discouraging to think
that I have spent the last 4+ years producing this stuff, and there is so
little content.  Still, the last set of runs has at least one very interesting
data point.  So I will publish this point first, to get you all hooked.  Then
the boring stuff.  You have been warned.  OK, so Tycho spent his life taking
data and did not live to see the result.  I suppose it did not look too
interesting to him!
 
Looks like I will put in the commas for the spread sheet users.  I will try to
figure out how to get BASIC to put out its fixed format while inserting the
commas, so it will be a few more days before the data arrives.  The reason for
presenting the output in fixed format is that it is more representative of the
real data which is resurrected from 16 bit recorded ADC data.
 
I will post the first event piece directly to sci.physics.fusion, then data
fans will have to go to Chuck's data base.
 
I think that I will try to type in the 16 or so log book pages that cover the
40 interesting days of this run.  The plan is to add comments as I go to
explain what the cryptic entries mean.  This is a big job, but so far I have
received a lot of encouragement.
 
Organizing all this to make complete sense is the equivalent to writing a
paper.  I am not yet ready to do this.  I will instead present as much as
possible of the information needed for understanding stream of consciousness
style.  We can then all together argue it out.  If at the end we collectively
think it significant, then we might all write a paper.  It might be fun to
publish under the name "sci.physics.fusion".  There is precedent for this in
the mathematical world.
 
Note that so far I have received a dozen or so positive "votes" for me to
proceed with this project, and no negative ones.  Anyone who wants to conserve
bandwidth had better let me know, as I am about to use up the equivalent of 10
or so Fusion Digests with this material.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 17:51:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>I will not argue Libertarian ideology with you any more than I give time to
>Creationists.
 
The rhetorical link between the two escapes me, but be assured that
Libertarians do not want your time -- they just don't want to be forced to
pay for your clock or live by its dictates.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / PENELOPE SMITH /  Re: ADC Boards in a PC
     
Originally-From: ps02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PENELOPE E. SMITH)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ADC Boards in a PC
Date: 5 Oct 93 14:12:13 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1993Sep30.061430.10516@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John
 Logajan) writes:
>I have new numbers.  I put the temperature probe in a thermos bottle with
>a styrofoam plug, and the whole thing wrapped in aluminum foil.
>
>The local temperature changes are much slower so I can see the true effect
>on the least significant digits.  I see that the fifth digit can occasionally
>change by as much as 4 counts in opposition to the slow trend.  I attribute
>this to statistical noise.  So I now claim I have 1/200 of a degree F
>resolution, or about 1 part in 40,000 full scale.  This is about five times
>worse than I thought yesterday, but now I have a higher level of confidence.
>
  How is your temperature sensor packaged?  How much heat is it dissipating?
 
    Thanks,
 
 
--
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Penelope E. Smith               PS02@NS.CC.LEHIGH.EDU
Department of Mathematics
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenps02 cudfnPENELOPE cudlnSMITH cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / William Johnson /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 16:43:04 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1993Oct1.153533.4515@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>I would point out that somewhat to my surprise and some early floundering,
>the similar-in-concept group sci.physics.research has turned into something
>both informative and worth reading, with a very much higher content-to-noise
>ration than the very noisy sci.physics groups from which it was spawned.
 
Well, thanks. ;-)
 
>This is an encouraging precedent, and I would note that three moderators
>from sci.physics.research (Dale Bass, Jim Carr, and once upon a time Bill
>Johnson) have all participated here.  I believe they could help in this;
 
Two minor corrections.  Jim C. isn't a co-moderator in s.p.r; I still lurk
in this group -- when there is anything interesting going on, which these
days is just about confined (IMO) to Steve Jones' and Tom Droege's stuff.
 
>  I should note that the s.p.r group might
>or might not be appalled at that idea -- Dale, Jim, is such an idea
>inherently offensive to you fellows, or could something be worked out?
 
Can't speak for Dale, John Baez or Lee Sawyer (the other s.p.r co-moderators),
but I for one wouldn't be offended at all.
 
>Another point/question:  The excellent and technically informative entries
>by Steve Fairfax and others in hot fusion have pointed out a real need for
>a genuine "hot fusion" group.  And though I hate to admit it, this group
>_did_ unfairly pre-empt a name that 99% of the uninitiated would take as
>meaning _hot_ fusion, not cold fusion.
 
No, it didn't.  The charter was set up to cover "fusion -- cold and
otherwise," if I remember the wording correctly.  This language doesn't
*emphasize* hot fusion, but certainly doesn't pre-empt it.  If any pre-emption
has occurred, it has been on the part of the people who've submitted articles
on cold fusion that are not only not interesting to hot-fusion people, but
sufficiently vitriolic as to persuade the hot-fusioneers that the group isn't
worth bothering with.  Can't say I blame them, either.
 
>> 2. We have a (half) willing moderator in the person of Scott Hazen Mueller.
>>    He worries about the volume of the work, and would like perhaps a second
>>    moderator to help. We don't know of one - ideally, it should be someone
>>    who does not him/herself post to the group, and should be neutral on CNF.
>My impression from the s.p.r group is that the moderation task could prove
>to be too large for one person.  Again, this is something that Dale, Jim,
>and Bill (if he is still lurking) could probably help provide insights into.
 
We set up s.p.r as co-moderated for exactly this reason; however, speaking only
for myself, I haven't found the job as time-consuming as feared, and could
probably have found time to do all the moderating myself.  (Note that I am most
emphatically *not* volunteering to, there or here!)  There are two reasons.
First, the fact that the group *is* moderated seems to keep cranks away.  We
reject very few articles submitted to s.p.r; I'd guess the acceptance rate is
somewhere around 80%.  Second, even the acceptable stuff isn't really a high
volume of material to look through -- we probably accept about 10 articles a
day, if that.  I'll return to this point later.
 
>> To forestall some anticipated reactions, note that the new group will not
>> kill this one. All you personal abusers and wafflers will be able to keep
>> doing it in this group. The more serious of us will move over and leave
>> you alone.  So nobody will be cut off or censored out. What's more, anyone
>> can of course READ the new group.
 
I note this line, and the subsequent free-speech flamage from personal abusers
and wafflers :-), with both approval and amusement.  All the same things were
said regarding s.p.r and sci.physics.
 
You haven't touched, however, on what, to me, is the real question: After you
strip away all the flamage, etc., that you want to avoid with a moderated
group, will there be enough good stuff left to justify the group's existence?
I mean, the number of people doing cold-fusion research isn't exactly up in the
millions any more!  I can count on my fingers the number of people who have
contributed anything to sci.physics.fusion lately that actually dealt with
open questions in cold fusion (if there are any ...) rather than personal
diatribes.  Even in s.p.r, which accepts *any* physics as within its charter so
long as it's not crackpottery or personally abusive, the message traffic is
hardly overwhelming; why should it be expected to be other than very minimal
in a moderated cold-fusion group?  Obviously, inclusion of hot fusion within
the charter would add some traffic, although it's not obvious to me that the
hot-fusion community really is all that interested in joining up.  But even
with them in, the question of whether it's worth the effort seems an open one.
 
--
Bill Johnson                    | "I can't stand this proliferation of
Los Alamos National Laboratory  | paperwork.  It's useless to fight the forms.
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA      | You've got to kill the people producing
(mwj@lanl.gov)                  | them." (V. Kabaidze)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Frank Close's deep ionization concept
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Frank Close's deep ionization concept
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 19:28:16 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <9310041605.AA14102@suntan.Tandem.com>
FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:
 
> ...
> I *have* said that *if* there is a power storage effect then there is
> (on energetic grounds) an area of deep bound *atomic* electrons between
> the peripheral electrons of "chemistry" and the nuclear regime. But, as
> I have repeatedly stressed, this argument is made on energetic grounds
> alone.  I am highly sceptical that one could tap such reserves while
> managing to hide all electronic and electromagnetic activity.
> ...
 
It's just my own terminology, I realize, but this deep ionization idea
that Dr. Close has proposed here has the makings of a really _good_, well
formulated farfetch.  For that reason I cannot resist making a couple of
comments about it.
 
First, it _does_ invoke a "leap" into unknown physics, as Frank Close
himself carefully notes.  But the leap is about as minimal as you can
get in such a situation, and shoots more towards the highly unexpected
than the totally unknown.  This is a very good tact for explaining any
kind of mysterious effect, and for that reason I would immediatley tend
to rate this short farfetch as a good candidate for further examination.
 
Frank Close also keeps his miracle very closely tied to the data he is
trying to explain, which is unexplained bursts of heat from a system that
does indeed contain a higher elements (palladium) with a novel electronic
shell configuration.  (Of course _most_ transition metals have rather
unusual electronic configurations.  That's why they elements such as
chromium, copper, nickel, and cobalt are such a chemically colorful lot!)
 
Even better, he invokes an effect that clearly _does_ exist, at least for
very short periods of time.  You can indeed ionize an inner shell electron
from a higher element, and "healing" the ionization will not be instant-
aneous -- a short (probably very short) period of time will be required
for one or more (probably several) quantum jumps to "percolate" the loss
of the electron up to the outermost shell electrons.  And on its way it
this "QM jump wave" is going to have to navigate some pretty odd shell
configurations, since for the transition elements it is _not_ necessarily
the case that the outermost electrons are the ones most easily lost --
e.g., look at the inner shell filling that goes on in all transition
elements and (especially) in the rare earth and actinide series.
 
Finally, these are not well-solved numerical analysis problems, or at least
were not the last time I read about electron shell analysis programs.  I
would suspect there is some room for at least some unexpected features.
 
.....
 
The critique?  Frank has already given part of it, which is the same theme
that Steven Jones and Dick Blue have repeatedly brought up:  How are you
going to hide the X-rays?  The point (Dick Blue's?) about relativistic
restrictions on the rate at which such energies can be "attenuated" into
ordinary heat states the problem nicely.  What is very refreshing about
the way Dr. Close has handled this one, though, is that he came _right out
and stated the key problem_ without tryig to fudge it.  Very nice, as it
gives everyone a clear idea of _where_ the problem really is.
 
This one is interesting enough that I'll even throw in a little "secondary
farfetch" just for grins:  Dr. Close might look at the possibility that a
_cascade_ of jumps within the shell could keep the overall photon energy
down in (at worst) the soft X-ray or high UV ranges, both of which are
fairly strongly absorbed by palladium.  This is a farfetch that is subject
to literature examination; there have surely been groups that have looked
closely at the radiation spectra resulting from deep ionization of heavy
elements.
 
My own additional critique:  It is very hard to see how the duration of
the deeply ionized state could be extended.  There are abundant electrons
in the vicinity, and (to my best knowledge) not much in the way of quantum
number restrictions to prevent a jump.  (Notice the analogy to the idea of
why neutrons live longer because of a quantum number problem.  Similar
quantum number conumdrums can similarly extend the life of other types of
systems, too, and might be helpful here.)  The only relevant quantum number
restriction I can think of is spin, and there will be plenty of _both_
spin states in the higher shells.  Energy degeneracy?  Spin-PLUS-cascade
restrictions, like a domino (needed spin) missing from just before the
domino (inner shell jump) needed to get the jump cascade started?  Dunno,
but there is some diversity there that might merit further exploration.
 
 
Very interesting concept, Dr. Close -- thanks!  I hope you will let us know
if you decide to do any further analysis on it.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / J Lewis /  Re: FAQ
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 19:17:09 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <01H3QXEW6Q029PSLU8@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>There have recently been repeated mentions of an FAQ for this list. This might
>indeed be a good idea, but I have two problems with it.
>Firstly, it might be a good idea to wait until we know the result of the
>present effort to create a moderated group; then we can plan an FAQ, to go
>into one or both groups, or to an ftp file or whatever.
>The second problem is: who shall write this FAQ? E.g., a FAQ is "Is cold
>fusion real?" The answer will depend very much on who provides it. I would
 
 ...
 
I don't think a FAQ makes much sense for this group;  what it needs,
IMHO, is an FDQ list, i.e. a Frequently _Discussed_ Questions list, which
would be more or less like a set of court records.  Much of the volume of
this group is repetitive, for good reasons and for bad;  so many
threads could be summarised by saying, "see similar discussion in
Jan of 1993, or Feb of 1992, or Mar of 1991 {or all three}".
 
An FDQ could only succeed, in my view, in a moderated group.  Otherwise
the FDQ's would be as interminable as the present discussions are.  A
moderator would be necessary to keep them to reasonable length.
 
At the same time, an FDQ list would be a useful tool for a prospective
moderator;  it would help in assessing contributions, and in providing
reasons to rejectees.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / J Lewis /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 19:28:39 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <01H3LRRHHTAA9PS9IY@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>I already have one email response to this; not being sure whether the person
>wants to be known, I won't name him.
>
>The suggestion is to split "hot" from "cold" fusion, i.e. make two groups.
>This could solve the small problem of the awkward name, we'd have the groups
>sci.physics.fusion.hot and sci.physics.fusion.cold. The person who made the
>suggestion doesn't like "hot" vs. "cold" because this gives undeserved
>legitimacy to the "cold" variety, he feels.
>
>As for me, I go along with those who regard the tokamak program as a gigantic
>sink of money, never to be profitable, and am frankly bored by it. What with
>moderation of the cold new group plus throwing out "hot", this would really
>reduce the volume of our new group. Someone else would have to start up the
>"hot" one, though, I am not interested.
>
>Input to this, too, is welcome.
 
So long as the new group talks about science, without endless rehashings,
with minimal froth and propaganda, and without ad hominem attacks (and
remarkably venomous some of them have been, too),  I don't much care
how precisely its boundaries are delimited.  This view is reinforced by
my personal opinion that there is SOMEthing curious going on in these
Pd/LiOD/D2O systems, but that it is very unlikely to be nuclear.
 
John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / J Lewis /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 19:36:20 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <CEA7Ls.D2I@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 ...
>
>     In any case, a careful and sometimes colourful examination of the
>     limits of the essential credulity of claimants is a part of science too.
>     At times, it's more effective to examine such things in a
>     light-hearted and whimisical manner as opposed to a ponderous and
 
Yes, but sometimes even your humour pales, Dale.
 
J.Lewis
St.John's,Nfld.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / J Lewis /  Re: Dick Blue's fairy and "strange pathways"
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's fairy and "strange pathways"
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 19:41:48 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <CEFJrH.4Ls@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <93100508551926@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>   Subject: strange pathways
>Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
...
>=dbl  "To save Mitchell from a reply
>=dbl I will say right up front that I have no proof that the palladium
>=dbl fairy does not wave a magic wand to make the reaction products
>=dbl vanish."
>
>   Interesting use of the double negative by Mr. Blue.
>   OK.  Where is Mr. Blue's proof of the existence of the Blue-"palladium fairy"
>           that does wave a "magic wand"?
>
...
Interesting example of a double negative implying a null rather than
a positive.
 
Oooooooo how I LOVE these sci.physics.fusion debates over grammar
and syntax!!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencourt cudfnJ cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A3
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 22:35:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,      Message A3                         5 October 1993
 
We will shortly send out a 7 page data tabulation.  As far as I can tell, it
shows a 2500 joule heat pulse.  The data will present 10 recorded variables
for two hours before the event and for four hours after it.  Some of this data
is computed, so you all should be wary of it.  When the data base is set up
there will be enough room for all the raw data and you can compute your own
calibration.  To get the complete picture it will be necessary to read all the
An messages (this is A3), to look at the calorimeter drawings, and best also
to read the calorimeter paper.  The data tabulation when we post it should be
enough to pique your interest.  Here we will write at some length on the
meaning of the column headings.  The format is arranged (we hope) so that it
can be read into a spread sheet and plotted.
 
Time
 
Time is the time in seconds since the start of this run.  The cell was in the
calorimeter at least 1.5 mega-seconds longer as this was a continuation from a
previous run.  The run continued on to 1971790 seconds.  This run started 25
June 1993.
 
Power
 
This variable is computed.  It is the difference between the "power" out of
the calorimeter and the "power in" to the calorimeter.  This means that
"anomalous heat" shows up as a positive number in this variable.  At the
current levels of this run, the rms noise level is typically of order 40 mw.
If run at zero cell current as we sometimes do for calibration, the noise
level is as low as 5 mw.  This leads us to believe that the noise level is
real, and due to the chemistry that is going on, variations in cell
impedance, etc..
 
"Power in" is determined by considering the calorimeter as a Kirchoff black
box.  We measure the voltage and the current on each of the leads that enters
the calorimeter.  For this run it is four voltages and four currents.  This
provides a useful check, in that the sum of the currents should be zero.  This
is generally true to 1 ma rms out of a sum of currents whose absolute value
total several amperes.
 
"Power out" is determined by multiplying a calibration constant by the current
in the thermoelectric cooler that pumps heat out of the calorimeter.  This
constant is relatively fixed from run to run.  The normal procedure is to run
for an extended period at the beginning of a run with the cell at zero
current and the cathode unloaded.  Then a K is picked which provides an
integral energy of zero over this period.  For this run, this was a three day
period from 575230 to 833710 seconds.
 
JSum
 
This is the integral of Power*Time.  Note that the time is almost but not
always in 60 second steps.  A positive JSum indicates "anomalous heat".
 
For this computation we do not take into consideration the thermal capacity of
the inside of the calorimeter.  This is 2500 joules per degree C.  Experiments
show that when an impulse of heat is applied to the calorimeter, it first
absorbs the heat as a change of internal temperature.  Then as the servo has
time to respond, it shows up in the JSum computation with a time constant of
about 20 minutes.
 
Note that we do not know a good way to measure how much impulse heat is stored
in the calorimeter at any one time other than waiting for the calorimeter to
balance out and measure it.  The 2500 joule per C number is derived from
steady state experiments.  If some heat suddenly shows up in the cell, there
will be some funny non steady state heat distribution inside the calorimeter
which no single thermometer will measure.  The calorimeter is designed to trap
any impulse inside the calorimeter by servoing the outside of the calorimeter
to the Puck temperature.
 
When a heat impulse is applied inside the calorimeter, the heat distributes in
the metal parts.  This eventually heats up the Puck which is a massive
aluminum block in the mouth of the dewar.  The servo now notices that the Puck
is warmer, and servos the outside of the calorimeter to match it.  Thus no
impulse heat is lost.  Now the inside servo notices (with a much longer time
constant) that the inside of the calorimeter is above the set point.  It then
backs off the balancing heater, and this results in reduced energy into the
calorimeter until the set point is reached.  The integral of the reduced
energy input over time measures the impulse.  We have done many experiments
with impulse inputs, and find that we can make measurements within our stated
accuracy.
 
ICell
 
ICell is the cell current in amperes.  The - sign indicates that conventional
current is coming out of the cathode lead.  This is to keep the Kirchoff box
stuff straight.  The cathode is 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm.  We assume that the edges
are mostly covered and use 2 cm^2 when we think of current density.  Careful
averaging will show that the event at 1670960 took place during a down ramp of
current at roughly 2 ua per second.
 
The cathode is driven from a constant current servo with a very long time
constant.  The attempt was to be long compared to the 20 minute time constant
of the balancing heater servo.  Some will argue (Dieter Britz and possibly
even me) that this servo should have been set to respond as fast as possible.
Next design will likely do this.  But for this run we are stuck with a
measurement that is more a constant voltage cell than a constant current one.
Thus changes in cell impedance result in fast changes of current at constant
voltage, rather than the fast changes of voltage at constant current that a
faster servo would provide.
 
Gas
 
Gas is the accumulated net gas from the cell since the start of the run.  The
run started with the cathode in an un-determined state of D loading.  It had
been run 5 times previously.  Several months of runs.  The best I can make
from the log book indicates that the cathode was sitting at least 6 days at
zero current before loading started for this run.  At 465330 seconds into this
run, we started ramping up the current.  At 509170 we noticed that there had
been no net gas accumulation, and opened up the cell and found a pinched gas
line.  We then performed some calibrations to match the thermometers more
closely, closed up, zeroed the gas, and started ramping up the current at
833710.  Yes, minor little problems like a pinched gas tube take 103 hours to
fix.  This time the gas level increased as expected.  But this left us with a
great uncertainty in the charge level as the cathode had been charged for some
time with the pinched tube, and there was no subsequent effort to discharge
it.
 
Note that during charging at low currents (we ramped up at 2 ua per second)
almost all of the electrolyzed D is absorbed.  Thus a reasonable check that
things are going correctly during the initial phase of the charge is to check
the oxygen accumulation in the syringe against the cell current.  We usually
find that it is of order 90-95% of the current until a D/Pd ratio of .5 is
reached.  At the charging currents we typically use of 25 ma per sq cm, the
gas accumulates with about a one hour time constant.
 
My computation gives 63.4 cc as the amount of excess oxygen for 1/1 D/Pd in
the 0.1 cc cathode.  This is 126.8 cc of D in 0.1 cc of Pd or 1268 relative
volumes.  As always, checks of such computations are appreciated.  You will
note at the start of the data that Gas reads 76.9 indicating a D/Pd ratio of
1.2 to 1.  And starting from a loading that was likely not zero.  I don't
argue that this measurement is true, I just do the best I can.  I will also
tell you anything you want to know about how I measure things.  Note that this
volume of gas is taken outside the calorimeter where it exists in syringes
that are subject to barometric and ambient temperature corrections.  The
ambient temperature is measured (Tamb) but the barometric pressure is not.
 
TCell
 
TCell is a thermometer in the bottom of a 10 mm diameter glass tube located
down the center of the 15 cm tall 100 cc cell.  The bottom of the glass tube
was sealed off square in a carbon mold. (by Cam Tibbals, who also constructed
the cell)  The glass tube extends to within 4 cm of the bottom of the cell.
It supports a teflon fork which grips the cathode between the tines and which
has the anode wound over the tines.  The normal liquid level with a 30 cc load
is 7 cm above the bottom of the cell.
 
TCell is thus well under the liquid level inside a glass tube.
 
TPuck
 
TPuck is a thermometer imbedded in the center of the puck.  The puck is a 10
cm dia by 3 cm thick block of aluminum which is located in the mouth of the
dewar which contains the cell.  The cell itself is located in the spool, which
is a spool shaped block of aluminum 9 cm in diameter and 12 cm tall.  It is
bolted to the puck and extends into the dewar.
 
TCat
 
TCat is a thermometer placed in the same tube that holds TCell.  The space
between TCell and TCat is stuffed with foam pieces.  TCat is located about 3
cm from the top of the cell.  At this location, 7 ea 5 mm dia by 7 cm long
glass tubes are located so as to surround the central cell tube.  These tubes
are filled with the catalyst pieces and are pinched at the bottom so that the
catalyst pieces can be loaded from the top and do not fall out the bottom.
The glass tubes are wired in place with nickel wire.
 
TCat is thus located in the center of the glass tubes containing the catalyst.
 
TAmb
 
TAmb is the ambient temperature measuring thermometer which is placed on a
block of foam on the bench behind the calorimeter and under a shelf which
protects it from air currents from the heating system.  The heating system
vent above the experiment is closed off.  Air circulation is thus limited to
that which makes it through a door way into a 12' by 20' room.
 
VPlate
 
VPlate is the voltage on the thermoelectric device (TED) which drives the
outer shell of the calorimeter.  It turns out that this device is always
pumping heat out of the outer shell.  Thus if the ambient temperature
decreases, this cools the outer shell, and the TED does not have to work so
hard, so its drive voltage decreases.  If on the other hand, the inside of the
calorimeter gets hotter, then the servo commands the shell to a higher
temperature to match it (so no heat is lost).  This again means that the
voltage on the plate-base TED is decreased.  So a lower VPlate voltage means
either that the ambient temperature has gone down or the inside of the
calorimeter has increased.  Trust me!  This calorimeter was previously
operated by a little old lady who never ran over 5 watts.
 
It turns out that VPlate is one of the lowest noise level detectors of heat in
the calorimeter.  But this may be masked by its efforts to compensate for
changes in ambient temperature.  It is included as one more independent
measurement that indicates that the inside of the calorimeter got hot at
1670960.
 
All the above temperature readings were made with AD590 solid state
thermometers which are 1 ua/K current sources.  They were fed into 10K 0.1%
resistors, and were offset matched to each other and to a 0.5 C division glass
thermometer at 25 C.
 
Note that the table lists only 10 variables out of 80 that we record.  Some
are redundant, but there are about 50 meaningful ones.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Energy R&D
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy R&D
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 19:12:35 EDT

         Robert Heeter posted:
>Ok, so Federal Energy R&D spending is about 1.6 billion.
>(I don!t believe it has changed significantly in recent years, althoughI
>do believe that renewables have been steadily getting more money.)
 
         Well I found a source (Scientific American, Sept 1990, p.163)
which seems to indicate the figure is more like $2.7 billion.  In any
case this is just direct federal expenditure.  There are also large
indirect expenditures such as the gasohol tax credit.
 
         Robert Heeter posted:
>But my basic point was that the energy industry spends less than
>other industries on R&D spending, which may be one reason why
>progress in this area is slower than others. 1.2% is far less than
>3.4%.
 
         Why should different industries spend the same fraction of
sales on R&D?  Are you prepared to argue that industries spending more
than 3.4% are overspending?
 
         Robert Heeter posted:
>One issue which the numbers tend to mask is whether industry and
>government have the same idea of what counts as R&D spending.  I!m
>assuming that Exxon does not include drilling costs in R&D, thought
>this could be considered energy !development.!  I think that the
>government!s R&D focuses more on developing new technologies for
>future energy production, whereas industry may be including money spent
>to further implement current technologies.
 
         Exxon does not include drilling costs in R&D.  In 1992 Exxon
spent $8.8 billion on capital equipment and exploration of which $5.2
was production equipment and exploration of which $1 billion was
exploration.
                   James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Evaluating progress in hot fusion
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evaluating progress in hot fusion
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 19:46:02 EDT

         Robert Heeter posted:
>I've said this before, but I suppose it'll bear repeating:  the hot fusion
>research effort has made more progress in the last 20 years than even
>the microchip computer-memory industry.  Hot fusion has achieved something
>like a millionfold increase in the key parameter (fusion power output).
>Yes, there *are* scientific and engineering problems to be solved.  But
>these problems *can* be solved, and economically at that.  The latest
>reactor design studies suggest that hot fusion, if done right, will be
>a competitive energy source.  If you want sources for all this, I'll go
>and get them.  I don't have them with me now, alas.
 
         I don't see the point of this sort of argument.  It just shows
you started from a very low base.  1000000*0=0.  In any case the key
parameter is not fusion power output it is cost per kilowatt hour to
generate electricity in a comercial fusion reactor.  It is my under-
standing that the last 20 years of fusion research has found unexpected
problems increasing projected costs for fusion generated electricity.
If so, this is not progress at all.  Finally even if fusion power output
was the key parameter you only get your millionfold increase by ignoring
the existence of fusion bombs.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / John Campbell /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: soup@SonOSam.execnet.com (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 12:15:04 GMT
Organization: Lysdexics R Us

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
>What we want some input on is the following:
 
>3. The name of the group might be, e.g., sci.physics.fusion.moderated.
>   We are aware that this is a bit clumsy but have not come up with a better
>   one.
 
I'd think sci.physics.fusion.news would be somewhat more fitting, since
it is mostly notifications and such;  a moderated newsgroup does not
seem to be a forum for carrying on a thread (like we often see here).
 
Otherwise, I see no real problems with this proposal.
 
--
 John R. Campbell                                      soup@sonosam.execnet.com
                You can NOT get a MammoGram from Western Union.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Hot fusion - neutron budget
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion - neutron budget
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 16:16:22 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <199309281915.AA01931@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.
du (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
  > How are neutron losses made up?  In the ideal reaction, one n breaks a
  > wall-mounted Li6 into a T and an He4; the T is collected and burned in
  > the hot section of the reactor, fusing with a D to make He4 and another n.
  > >From the n perspective, this cycle has a gain of 1.  Some obvious loss
  > mechanisms are n decay (about .1% if the mean time to encounter a Li6
  > is 1.3 seconds) and n absorption by reactor structure (probably more
  > than 1%, but I'm guessing).
 
   There are two mechanisms for making up the neutron losses.  One you
get for free is the D + D --> He3 + n reaction, but this only makes up
one or two per cent unless you can get a really hot plasma.
 
   The other is to use a neutron doubling reaction.  I think the usual
candidate is Be9 + n + gamma --> 2 He4 + 2 n.  You want to put the
Beryllium between the plasma and the Lithium for best effect since you
need hot neutrons for this reaction.  (The reaction requires fast
neutrons and is not energetically favorable, otherwise you could make
Beryllium fission bombs. ;-)
 
   Hybrid fisson-fusion reactors have been proposed.  These use the
neutrons from the fusion plasma to cause fission in (usually) U238.
Most of the energy comes from the fission reaction, but since the
reactor cannot sustain fission absent the fast neutron source it is a
lot easier to control than a conventional fission reactor, and no
Uranium enrichment is required.  There may be a period when these are
economically preffered to both pure fission and pure fusion reactors.
 
   One last point.  When engineers try to design Tokamack based
power-plants, they look very little like the Tokamacks of today.  But
the critical difference is that they are BIG.  Since the square-cube
law is on the side of larger plants, these designs seem to start at
about 8 GWt and on up. (8000 Megawatts thermal, usually about 4-5 GWe
since high conversion efficiencies are possible.  For comparison most
large BWRs and PWRs are around 32% efficent and 3 GWt, 1 GWe.)
 
   Conventional power plants are usually much smaller--except for
hydroelectric--and have slightly higher conversion efficiencies--about
36-38%.  The highest nuclear conversion efficiency was around 40% (the
General Atomic HTGRs), and the highest conventional fuel conversion
efficiency was 60% in an experimental dual-cycle Hg vapor and steam
plant.  Philadelphia Electric did have some 42% efficient steam
plants, and I think they also had a couple nuclear plants with oil
fired superheaters.
 
   If anyone wanted to shoot the scientists and actually build a hot
fusion plant, one could probably be started tomorrow.  (Again scaling,
a simple cylindrical confinement will work if it is long enough to
make the losses at the ends insignificant.)  Why doesn't anyone do it?
The cost would be in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, and
the second plant built would probably operate at half the cost based
on lessons learned from the first one...  No one wants to build a
hundred million dollar white elephant.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / John Logajan /  Re: ADC Boards in a PC
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ADC Boards in a PC
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 93 02:41:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

ps02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PENELOPE E. SMITH) writes:
>  How is your temperature sensor packaged?  How much heat is it dissipating?
 
It's a TO-92 plastic package with a spec'd thermal resistance of 324F/W in
still air.
 
I measure a current of 60uA at 5V which is 300uW.  With the thermal resistance
above this gives 0.1F temp rise in still air over ambient.  The LM34 spec
says something like 0.2F so this is about right.
 
Also, I didn't see a change in input current with the load line disconnected.
So either my ADC has a very high impedance or the sample pulses are so quick
that I can't detect the load current pulse.  I was taking 30,000 samples
a second when I measured the input current.  No AC current detected either.
 
A lower load impedance would increase the IsquaredR losses in the LM34.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / John Logajan /  Superpressure Superconductor
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Superpressure Superconductor
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 93 05:10:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Paul C.W. Chu at the University of Houston says in the Sept 23 Nature that
they've upped the superconductivity record temperature 20K to 153K by
using a pressure of 150,000 atmospheres.  As yet unpublished results
are now 161K at 230,000 atm.  In the Oct 1 Science Manuel Nunez-Reguerio
of the National Center for Scientific Research in Grenoble France say they've
reached 157K at 235,000 atm.
 
Says Nunez-Reguerio to Science News, "We can do two things to raise the
transition temperatures of these materials at normal pressure.  The first
is to inprove the doping process.  The second is to introduce chemcial
pressure, which means chemically mimikcking pressure's effects by
incorporating smaller atoms into the material.  This change compresses the
material's atomic lattice.  It's the same effect as pressurizing with a press."
 
Says Chu, "...in 1990 a very prominent chemist said the temperature could
never go above 160K.  Now we've reached 161."
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 09:03:03 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:       In Message-ID: <01H3QX58XX2A9PSLU8@vms2.uni-c.dk>
:       Subject: Re: Not paying attention, are we?
:  Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk)
:
: = "As Neddy Seagoon would say, what what what WHAT WHAT WHAT? Do I read here,
: = Karel, that you, an electrochemist, subscribe to the peroxide proposal, and
: = what's more, moles and moles of peroxide? I can live with the idea that two
: = electrochemists cannot agree on anything, but do you really believe in the
: = generation of peroxide in these cells? Please explain how, what process, at
: = which electrode."
 
The original message is yet to appear on our server - all I have is this
quote. Anyhow:
 
The oxygen reaction is far more interesting than the hydrogen one. For a
start four electrons are exchanged leading to plethora of possible
intermediates and reaction paths. Of these many go through hydrogen
peroxide. Especially interesting is the Berl reaction, basically :
 
                  -     \     -    -
    O  +  H O + 2e    --    HO + OH
     2     2          \       2
 
This is hard to get going on most substrates, best one being specially
treated carbon, but when it goes it has a very high exchange current
density, is very hard to polarise and is very efficient since it does not
involve breaking the O-O bond. After being zapped for months on end at
frightening overpotentials the Pd surface might be suitable. It would also
explain the reports of it turning black (non-stoichiometric M-O compounds).
 
What happens with deuterium I do not know. I'd have to do some digging but
our library now only takes journals with colour pictures and short words to
match the 15 second attention span of our students. :-)
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / John Armond /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 93 04:08:44 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh) writes:
 
 
>I am looking for 30 10kJ units, preferably with 20kV ratings, which are
>rated for pulsed power service.  I should also specify that I wish to avoid
>purchasing new ones, which would be cost prohibitive.  I am hoping to
>locate a company that performs hydroforming, explosive wire deposition,
>or builds pulsed power modulators for flashtubes...especially a company
>that might have a number of decommissioned capacitors which they would like
>to donate to an arts organization, and receive a tax credit for the fair
>market value of the capacitors.  The only requirement is that there still
>be some useful life in the units.
 
C & H Sales (a surplus house) 800 325 9465 lists a Sangamo 14 uF, 20,000
volt (2850 joules) in their current catalog for $150.  Weight is 130 lbs.
Might give 'em a call.  I imagine the market in these electrical cannons
is light so they may be willing to discount them to a tax exempt organization.
 
OK, so now I gotta ask.  Whatcha planning on blasting in an artistic
manner with these beauties?  Might be interesting.
 
John
 
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                   | For a free sample magazine, send
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM)     | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
Marietta, Ga     "Hotrods'n'computers"   | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
jgd@dixie.com    "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
Email may be published at my sole discretion.
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenjgd cudfnJohn cudlnArmond cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 834 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 834 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 13:44:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
here's the latest crop. Note that the Yasui item is only an update on an
existing one; I added the corrigendum to the abstract. So it doesn't count as
a new paper. Interestingly, both Das et al and Peter Glueck have theories of
a surface process, due to dynamic effects. Vaidya elaborates his/her(?) theory
of some sort of coherent process, and suggests an experiment that I think can
be done. Fedorovich has published his E-cell model elsewhere - also in
isolation from cold fusion - and goes on with it in this paper. I found the
reference in the paper of his that I posted in a recent Update.
Interestingly (to me anyway), all the new papers except the Das et al do not
refer to either FPH-89 or Jones+89; I have quite a respectable list of cold
fusion papers for which this is true. One might say that this shows some sort
of maturity in the field, in that a list of references in a given paper
contains only secondary cold fusion literature.
 
Finally, for zero point energy fans (not you, Frank), another perhaps bizarre
commentary item on this. Well, the man says he is getting what amounts to
excess heat; let him demonstrate it. Yet I seem to remember that engines
running entirely on water and very little power recur periodically... The
connection with cold fusion is very tenuous, but it IS just a comment, and who
knows how prominent zpe will become as an explanation of cnf. All those MJ
have to come from somewhere.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 6-Oct-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 834
 
 
Journal papers: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Das D, Ray MKS;                                 Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 115.
"Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario".
** Despite mounting evidence for cold fusion, there is still the problem of
irreproducibility, and the lack of a "sure success recipe", owing to the lack
of understanding of its mechanism. A new approach is tried here to explain it.
Pivotal roles are attributed to the presence of negative elements, oxide at
the metal surface, and a desorption process. Oxygen forms an oxide film on Pd
and this acts on the structure of the deuteride to create the equivalent of
heavy electrons, which will bring deuterons close together by muon-like
screening. Also, the metal/insulator layer might induce the formation of
(D+D+)2e- species, again reducing nuclear separation. This theory is
consistent with enhanced fusion rates and a near-surface reaction, and
explains a number of observations such as the induction by oxygen of excess
heat and tritium anomalies, Matsumoto's explosive cold fusion, heat and
neutron bursts during deloading, results with a solid-state cell, and with
gas phase systems; also, the theory encompasses the experiments with Ni, light
water and K2CO3.                                                Jul-92/Aug-93.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fedorovich GV;                                   Phys. Lett. A 164 (1992) 149.
"Quantum-mechanical screening".
** Apparently motivated by cold fusion, F here tackles atom-atom (or ion-ion)
interaction in a free-electron gas, with implications to crystalline solids,
and particularly for the possible enhancement of fusion rates in such solids.
The model, not yet complete, nevertheless may throw some light on cold fusion,
in particular its relation to the author's E-cell proposal, published
elsewhere. At large electron density, electron wavelengths can become large
and strong screening may occur.                                  Jun-91/Apr-92
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glueck P;                                       Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 122.
"The surfdyne concept: an attempt to solve (or to rename) the puzzles of cold
nuclear fusion".
** The author notes that both successes and failures in reproducing cold
fusion (success having now increased from an initial 10% to 35%) are correct
observations, and must be reconciled. He believes that the phenomenon has a
"mimosaceous" sensitivity to an extremely small factor, that has not been
under control. A body of evidence indicates that the phenomenon takes place at
surfaces: the activity of fresh surfaces, fractofusion, the presence of
tritium in the electrolyte soon after electrolysis, bursts of neutrons, etc.
The cause is likely to be a dynamic effect; this, too, is backed up by
observations. This effect is something like heterogeneous catalysis, and
information input from this research area is desirable. So fusion takes place
not in the lattice, but on the lattice and theory, as well as future
experiments, should look along these lines, such as the use of thin or ultra-
thin metal films.                                                Jul-92/Aug-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaidya SN;                                      Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 112.
"Comments on the model for coherent deuteron-deuteron fusion in crystalline
Pd-D lattice".
** This builds on earlier work by the author, here trying to estimate the
limits of d-d fusion enhancements, and to address a problem with the
transmission resonance model of Bush. In Vaidya's approach (quoting him),
"only the deuterons that meet the transmission resonance criterion are
considered to be fully itinerant and to form a band state". Coherent
interactions between these can occur. The theory predicts that fusion
enhancement can be increased by the application of ultrasonics. An experiment
is suggested.                                                    May-92/Aug-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
..............................................................................
Corrigendum:                                    Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 130.
Equations 3, 7, 8, 9, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 are changed, and some
changes indicated to Figs. 1 and 2. The conclusions are basically unchanged.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Commentary: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coghlan A;                             New Scientist no. 1981, 18-Sep-93, p.20
"Just turn on the tap to fill up the tank?"
** Report of an apparatus, recently patented by one Stanley Meyer, which
uses anomalous electrolysis of water to provide energy. Water is electrolysed
using small ac currents (0.5 mA, 20 kV at 10-20 kHz). The energy to split the
water into hydrogen and oxygen (which can then be burned to give heat, to
drive a vehicle, for example) is thought (by Meyer) to come from zero point
energy, so this is no perpetual motion claim.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  s.p.f.ejournal
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: s.p.f.ejournal
Date: 4 Oct 93 23:17:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

October 4, 1993
IN SUPPORT OF DIETER'S SUGGESTION OF A PEER-REVIEWED s.p.f.ejournal
 
The system here has been tied up for the last couple of days, so I have been
unable to respond to Dieter's suggestion of an edited spin-off of s.p.f.
Indeed I'm not sure whether this will get out anytime soon due to the system
condition.  However, I have given some thought to Dieter's and Terry's ideas
along these lines and hope to contribute some meaningful suggestions in support
of the general idea proposed by them.
 
1.  I would like to see an electronic journal evolve from what we're doing
here.  I imagine that paper journals are becoming too slow and cumbersome in
many respects and that a *peer-reviewed*, rapid-publication ejournal is coming
of necessity.  Why not try it here?
 
2.  What would an ejournal (as opposed to e-mail bulletin board) entail?
An editor would be needed to whom submissions would be sent by email.  Then he
would either do a quick review himself for short correspondance on scientific
themes, or send off the paper for peer-review.  Turn-around would be limited to
say three days, then the editor would publish (if accepted) or return to the
submitter for further work.
 
3.  A small editorial board would delineate the parameters of acceptable
papers, letters, queries, etc.  Also length and style (e.g. for plots) should
be spelled out.  Here are possible categories:
 
Original research papers based on theoretical (T) or experimental (E) studies.
Comments/questions regarding ejournal papers, directed to author(s).
Comments on papers published elsewhere (i.e., in paper journals).
Book reviews and bibliographical entries.
Brainstorming papers.
Rapid response to newspaper, TV, radio, or press conference announcements.*
 
*4.  I strongly urge participants in this ejournal to take on a *watchdog*
role, to provide a rapid response to media-hype-type announcements.  I envision
a means to insist on peer-review that some unfortunately seem to be trying to
avoid by going to media or governmental representatives directly, in an effort
to circumvent peer-review.  If our role in this regard becomes widely
recognized, then we can provide rapid peer-review to counteract premature press
releases.  I expect that the media will check with peer-reviewed comments
published in our electronic journal.
 
5.  Perhaps papers should be limited at first to fusion topics, but I
recommend that point 4 encompass media-releases on *any* topic so that the
watchdog role of the ejournal not be restricted.
 
6.  Terry asked about a title for this; I suggest that "ejournal" appear in the
title of the group to distinguish what we are trying to do from un-reviewed
"email."  Perhaps "s.p.f.ejournal" would serve to show the roots and direction
of this nascent journal.
 
7.  Once the electronic journal is established, it should be allowed to evolve
as we see how it works and in response to user needs; rigid rules should be
avoided.
 
8.  The ejournal should be operating well in advance of the planned cold fusion
conference in Hawaii, which begins 6 December 1993, so that it can respond
effectively to the press releases and demonstrations of working cold fusion
heaters that most surely will emerge from that meeting.
 
9.  Once the ejournal is functioning, we should encourage participants and
lurkers to post its papers on bulletin boards or in libraries at their
respective institutions (until the transition from paper journals is complete?)
 
10. A peer-reviewed electronic journal will encourage scholarship and
international dialog
and rapid progess in a nascent field of science.  I think that once
s.p.f.ejournal is functioning, we will see serious scientists share their work
publicly in this forum.  (Thinking here of Kevin Wolf, Bruce Liebert,
geologists Gary McMurtry and Fraser Goff, Tom Claytor,
Graham Hubler, Ed Cecil, Howard Menlove, Vladimir Tsarev, Antonio Bertin y
Antonio Vitale,
-- one could name many others who could be *invited* to contribute
papers on their work.)
 
Dieter and Terry and Karel:  I find the idea of an electronic journal most
promising and heartily endorse your suggestions.  (Please excuse me for not
speaking to other comments-- remember please that I have not been able to read
the old, unedited, high-traffic s.p.f. for a couple of days now.)
 
Sincere high hopes,
Steven E. Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Diamond anvil expts. at megabar pressures
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Diamond anvil expts. at megabar pressures
Date: 5 Oct 93 10:58:14 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In response to a question from Mark Schlichting, I stated:
"the first attempt involved a LiH + LiD mixture, at about 1 Mpa --
and yes both diamond anvils cracked.  So far, the effort with pure deuterium at
> 2 MPa is only in the discusion phase..."
 
I meant Mbars instead of MPa.  (1 bar = 10^5 Pa, so 1 megabar = 100
gigapascals.)
 
Thanks to Bruce Dunn for catching my error.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 /  Ted_Anderson@t /  Re: On Moderating the Moderators
     
Originally-From: Ted_Anderson@transarc.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Moderating the Moderators
Date: Wed,  6 Oct 1993 10:15:31 -0400
Organization: Sponsored account, Applications Software, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I would like to encourage the consideration of Jim Bowery's suggestion
that an editor would be a better model than a moderator.  Thus the
reader of such a sub-group would see the editor's selections of s.p.f
postings that seem most interesting. One could even imagine several
editors perhaps one doing mostly "hot" and one mostly "cold".  Another
possibility is that there could be relatively permissive editors as well
as very selective ones.
 
One reason I favor this approach over real "moderation" is that my
experience with moderating the space digest was quite difficult.  It
seems that there is distribution of material where maybe 10% is clearly
meritorious but the remaining 90% is very difficult to prioritize.
Drawing the line at 10% is easy.  Picking a point at some lower level,
however, involves a lot of hair splitting and agonizing on the part of
the moderator.
 
Ted Anderson
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenTed_Anderson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  sci.fusion.research
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.fusion.research
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 15:39:23 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Oct4.231733.985@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>October 4, 1993
>IN SUPPORT OF DIETER'S SUGGESTION OF A PEER-REVIEWED s.p.f.ejournal
 
I think that a moderated group is a fine idea, and Dieter would make
a fine moderator if he has the time.  However, a peer-reviewed group
will never fly.  Usenet groups with as little traffic as a new
journal are indistinguishable from dead.  Peer review would take
far too much work.  If peer review is really important to people,
you can have a moderated group with some peer-reviewed submissions,
carefully noted as such and archived separately.
 
Here are two other suggestions about such a group:
 
o sci.physics.fusion.ejournal sucks as a name.  I recommend following
the tradition of sci.physics.research and sci.math.research, two of the
best news groups on the entire net, and calling it sci.fusion.research.
 
o The moderator should try to keep out unsubstantiated boasts of
XS Heat, as well as crackpot theory intended to support such boasts.
You have to draw a line between doing physics and getting rich on the
first hand, and between doing physics and overthrowing physics on the
second hand.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A4 Some Data to Ponder
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A4 Some Data to Ponder
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 18:09:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

"Time", "Power","JSum","ICell","Gas","TCell","TPuck","TCat","TAmb","VPlate"
1663040,  0.031,  -31.6, -0.897, 76.9, 35.37, 26.54, 57.61, 26.90, 3.062
1663100,  0.022,  -30.3, -0.896, 76.9, 35.38, 26.54, 57.60, 26.89, 3.061
1663160,  0.034,  -28.3, -0.891, 76.9, 35.40, 26.54, 57.60, 26.88, 3.059
1663220,  0.002,  -28.1, -0.903, 76.9, 35.42, 26.54, 57.61, 26.89, 3.059
1663280, -0.025,  -29.6, -0.907, 76.9, 35.35, 26.55, 57.66, 26.91, 3.056
1663340,  0.006,  -29.3, -0.905, 76.9, 35.35, 26.55, 57.67, 26.89, 3.058
1663400,  0.123,  -21.9, -0.881, 76.9, 35.33, 26.55, 57.67, 26.87, 3.056
1663460,  0.001,  -21.8, -0.907, 76.8, 35.30, 26.54, 57.65, 26.86, 3.055
1663520,  0.075,  -17.3, -0.889, 76.8, 35.30, 26.55, 57.66, 26.92, 3.053
1663560,  0.075,  -14.4, -0.889, 76.8, 35.30, 26.55, 57.66, 26.92, 3.053
1663640,  0.072,   -8.6, -0.891, 76.8, 35.27, 26.54, 57.63, 26.90, 3.053
1663700,  0.010,   -8.0, -0.903, 76.8, 35.26, 26.55, 57.64, 26.90, 3.054
1663760, -0.008,   -8.5, -0.908, 76.5, 35.26, 26.55, 57.64, 26.92, 3.056
1663820,  0.029,   -6.8, -0.900, 76.6, 35.27, 26.55, 57.63, 26.95, 3.056
1663880, -0.049,   -9.7, -0.915, 76.6, 35.29, 26.55, 57.64, 26.95, 3.058
1663940,  0.080,   -4.9, -0.883, 76.6, 35.29, 26.54, 57.65, 26.91, 3.060
1664000, -0.044,   -7.6, -0.907, 76.6, 35.27, 26.55, 57.66, 26.91, 3.056
1664060,  0.057,   -4.2, -0.891, 76.6, 35.26, 26.54, 57.67, 26.93, 3.051
1664120,  0.109,    2.4, -0.876, 76.6, 35.23, 26.53, 57.68, 26.94, 3.054
1664180,  0.007,    2.8, -0.904, 76.6, 35.22, 26.55, 57.67, 26.95, 3.051
1664240, -0.029,    1.1, -0.912, 76.5, 35.22, 26.55, 57.68, 26.94, 3.048
1664300,  0.098,    7.0, -0.884, 76.5, 35.22, 26.54, 57.67, 26.96, 3.051
1664360,  0.061,   10.6, -0.892, 76.6, 35.19, 26.55, 57.68, 27.00, 3.052
1664420,  0.064,   14.5, -0.890, 76.6, 35.20, 26.55, 57.67, 26.97, 3.049
1664480,  0.041,   16.9, -0.900, 76.6, 35.19, 26.55, 57.68, 26.96, 3.047
1664540,  0.035,   19.0, -0.902, 76.5, 35.06, 26.54, 57.69, 26.94, 3.042
1664600, -0.033,   17.1, -0.910, 76.5, 34.95, 26.54, 57.70, 26.98, 3.045
1664660, -0.010,   16.5, -0.907, 76.5, 34.98, 26.53, 57.69, 27.00, 3.042
1664720,  0.082,   21.4, -0.893, 76.5, 35.03, 26.55, 57.68, 26.98, 3.037
1664780,  0.060,   25.0, -0.904, 76.4, 35.05, 26.55, 57.69, 26.99, 3.037
1664840,  0.025,   26.5, -0.905, 76.4, 35.07, 26.54, 57.69, 26.97, 3.037
1664900,  0.053,   29.7, -0.894, 76.4, 35.09, 26.54, 57.70, 26.99, 3.037
1664960, -0.016,   28.7, -0.906, 76.4, 35.09, 26.54, 57.69, 26.98, 3.037
1665020,  0.050,   31.7, -0.892, 76.4, 35.11, 26.53, 57.69, 26.99, 3.032
1665080,  0.027,   33.3, -0.900, 76.4, 35.13, 26.55, 57.71, 27.00, 3.031
1665140,  0.032,   35.3, -0.897, 76.4, 35.14, 26.54, 57.70, 27.04, 3.034
1665200, -0.018,   34.2, -0.908, 76.4, 35.12, 26.55, 57.69, 27.06, 3.032
1665260,  0.027,   35.8, -0.898, 76.4, 35.12, 26.52, 57.69, 27.05, 3.032
1665320, -0.028,   34.1, -0.911, 76.4, 35.13, 26.53, 57.73, 27.02, 3.027
1665380,  0.047,   36.9, -0.896, 76.4, 35.15, 26.54, 57.76, 27.04, 3.029
1665440, -0.010,   36.3, -0.909, 76.4, 35.16, 26.55, 57.77, 27.06, 3.028
1665500,  0.060,   39.9, -0.886, 76.5, 35.15, 26.53, 57.76, 27.02, 3.026
1665560, -0.010,   39.3, -0.901, 76.5, 35.16, 26.55, 57.78, 27.00, 3.028
1665620,  0.041,   41.8, -0.891, 76.6, 35.15, 26.53, 57.76, 27.02, 3.028
1665680,  0.047,   44.6, -0.892, 76.6, 35.16, 26.54, 57.77, 27.03, 3.027
1665740,  0.022,   45.9, -0.898, 76.7, 35.16, 26.54, 57.78, 27.04, 3.025
1665800, -0.014,   45.1, -0.904, 76.7, 35.15, 26.54, 57.80, 27.03, 3.027
1665860, -0.004,   44.8, -0.901, 76.7, 35.13, 26.53, 57.79, 27.03, 3.031
1665920, -0.035,   42.7, -0.902, 76.6, 35.14, 26.55, 57.79, 27.07, 3.031
1665980, -0.021,   41.5, -0.904, 76.6, 35.16, 26.53, 57.77, 27.09, 3.030
1666040,  0.004,   41.7, -0.897, 76.7, 35.17, 26.54, 57.75, 27.07, 3.030
1666100,  0.005,   42.0, -0.895, 76.8, 35.18, 26.54, 57.75, 27.05, 3.027
1666160,  0.074,   46.4, -0.881, 76.8, 35.18, 26.53, 57.75, 27.08, 3.028
1666220, -0.015,   45.5, -0.906, 76.9, 35.18, 26.55, 57.74, 27.10, 3.025
1666280,  0.121,   52.8, -0.873, 76.9, 35.18, 26.54, 57.74, 27.11, 3.027
1666340, -0.032,   50.9, -0.910, 76.9, 35.19, 26.55, 57.72, 27.08, 3.027
1666400,  0.044,   53.5, -0.889, 77.0, 35.20, 26.54, 57.73, 27.07, 3.027
1666460,  0.023,   54.9, -0.896, 76.9, 35.22, 26.54, 57.74, 27.09, 3.027
1666520,  0.008,   55.4, -0.896, 76.9, 35.22, 26.54, 57.76, 27.12, 3.025
1666580,  0.023,   56.8, -0.892, 76.8, 35.22, 26.54, 57.75, 27.07, 3.024
1666640, -0.024,   55.4, -0.901, 76.9, 35.20, 26.53, 57.75, 27.05, 3.025
1666700, -0.008,   54.9, -0.893, 76.9, 35.19, 26.53, 57.76, 27.04, 3.023
1666760,  0.020,   56.1, -0.887, 76.7, 35.19, 26.53, 57.79, 27.04, 3.021
1666820, -0.030,   54.3, -0.896, 76.7, 35.20, 26.54, 57.81, 27.01, 3.021
1666880, -0.058,   50.8, -0.910, 76.8, 35.22, 26.53, 57.83, 27.02, 3.021
1666940, -0.042,   48.3, -0.905, 76.9, 35.26, 26.54, 57.83, 27.03, 3.024
1667000, -0.030,   46.4, -0.906, 76.8, 35.26, 26.53, 57.83, 27.05, 3.017
1667060,  0.147,   55.3, -0.872, 76.6, 35.28, 26.54, 57.84, 27.03, 3.022
1667120, -0.071,   51.0, -0.916, 76.7, 35.29, 26.54, 57.85, 27.01, 3.022
1667180,  0.092,   56.5, -0.872, 76.8, 35.31, 26.54, 57.84, 27.00, 3.025
1667240, -0.000,   56.5, -0.898, 76.8, 35.33, 26.54, 57.85, 27.05, 3.021
1667300,  0.058,   60.0, -0.883, 76.8, 35.35, 26.53, 57.82, 27.04, 3.015
1667360,  0.051,   63.1, -0.886, 76.9, 35.34, 26.55, 57.80, 27.03, 3.016
1667420, -0.024,   61.6, -0.908, 76.8, 35.33, 26.54, 57.77, 27.03, 3.017
1667480, -0.005,   61.3, -0.905, 76.8, 35.32, 26.53, 57.76, 27.02, 3.020
1667540,  0.013,   62.1, -0.900, 76.8, 35.33, 26.54, 57.77, 27.01, 3.015
1667600, -0.020,   60.9, -0.904, 76.7, 35.34, 26.53, 57.79, 27.01, 3.017
1667660,  0.039,   63.2, -0.892, 76.7, 35.35, 26.54, 57.80, 27.00, 3.018
1667720, -0.057,   59.8, -0.913, 76.6, 35.33, 26.53, 57.80, 27.02, 3.018
1667780, -0.052,   56.7, -0.909, 76.7, 35.33, 26.54, 57.79, 27.04, 3.013
1667840, -0.005,   56.4, -0.894, 76.7, 35.32, 26.54, 57.77, 27.01, 3.007
1667900, -0.050,   53.4, -0.902, 76.7, 35.29, 26.55, 57.76, 26.99, 3.007
1667960, -0.067,   49.3, -0.907, 76.7, 35.29, 26.54, 57.75, 26.98, 3.007
1668020,  0.000,   49.4, -0.899, 76.7, 35.30, 26.54, 57.76, 26.97, 3.009
1668080,  0.055,   52.6, -0.884, 76.8, 35.29, 26.54, 57.77, 27.00, 3.006
1668140,  0.020,   53.8, -0.889, 76.8, 35.32, 26.55, 57.77, 26.98, 3.006
1668200, -0.069,   49.7, -0.908, 76.8, 35.32, 26.54, 57.75, 26.99, 3.006
1668260, -0.056,   46.3, -0.905, 76.8, 35.33, 26.53, 57.75, 27.00, 3.006
1668320, -0.075,   41.8, -0.908, 76.8, 35.34, 26.54, 57.77, 27.02, 3.000
1668380, -0.055,   38.5, -0.907, 76.8, 35.35, 26.54, 57.77, 27.01, 3.003
1668440,  0.029,   40.3, -0.896, 76.8, 35.37, 26.54, 57.78, 27.01, 3.000
1668500, -0.023,   38.9, -0.907, 76.8, 35.39, 26.54, 57.78, 26.98, 2.997
1668560, -0.052,   35.7, -0.908, 76.8, 35.41, 26.55, 57.79, 26.99, 2.998
1668620, -0.107,   29.3, -0.919, 76.9, 35.41, 26.54, 57.76, 27.02, 2.994
1668680,  0.111,   36.0, -0.869, 76.9, 35.43, 26.55, 57.77, 27.01, 2.997
1668740,  0.065,   39.8, -0.883, 77.0, 35.42, 26.55, 57.77, 27.00, 2.993
1668800, -0.080,   35.0, -0.908, 77.0, 35.41, 26.54, 57.75, 26.99, 2.996
1668840, -0.080,   31.8, -0.908, 77.0, 35.41, 26.54, 57.75, 26.99, 2.996
1668920, -0.051,   27.7, -0.908, 76.8, 35.44, 26.54, 57.77, 27.00, 2.989
1668980, -0.076,   23.2, -0.909, 76.8, 35.46, 26.54, 57.80, 26.99, 2.992
1669020, -0.076,   20.2, -0.909, 76.8, 35.46, 26.54, 57.80, 26.99, 2.992
1669080,  0.021,   21.4, -0.897, 76.8, 35.50, 26.55, 57.82, 27.02, 2.997
1669160,  0.014,   22.6, -0.900, 76.9, 35.52, 26.54, 57.83, 27.05, 2.988
1669220, -0.107,   16.1, -0.924, 76.9, 35.52, 26.55, 57.83, 27.04, 2.989
1669280,  0.071,   20.4, -0.887, 76.9, 35.53, 26.54, 57.83, 26.98, 2.989
1669340, -0.003,   20.2, -0.904, 76.6, 35.54, 26.55, 57.85, 26.95, 2.991
1669400,  0.025,   21.7, -0.898, 76.5, 35.56, 26.54, 57.88, 26.96, 2.992
1669460, -0.050,   18.7, -0.914, 76.6, 35.58, 26.54, 57.91, 26.94, 2.989
1669520, -0.044,   16.1, -0.912, 76.5, 35.59, 26.54, 57.90, 26.90, 2.989
1669580,  0.064,   19.9, -0.892, 76.4, 35.61, 26.55, 57.92, 26.88, 2.982
1669640, -0.053,   16.7, -0.924, 76.4, 35.62, 26.55, 57.93, 26.90, 2.981
1669700, -0.010,   16.1, -0.917, 76.4, 35.64, 26.55, 57.93, 26.92, 2.986
1669760, -0.021,   14.9, -0.916, 76.5, 35.65, 26.55, 57.92, 26.86, 2.982
1669820,  0.004,   15.1, -0.905, 76.5, 35.65, 26.55, 57.91, 26.80, 2.979
1669880,  0.052,   18.2, -0.897, 76.4, 35.66, 26.54, 57.88, 26.79, 2.977
1669940,  0.065,   22.2, -0.893, 76.4, 35.65, 26.54, 57.85, 26.82, 2.974
1670000, -0.055,   18.9, -0.916, 76.4, 35.65, 26.54, 57.84, 26.77, 2.969
1670060, -0.023,   17.5, -0.913, 76.3, 35.65, 26.55, 57.82, 26.74, 2.965
1670120, -0.029,   15.7, -0.908, 76.3, 35.64, 26.55, 57.82, 26.67, 2.963
1670180, -0.077,   11.1, -0.911, 76.4, 35.62, 26.55, 57.81, 26.70, 2.962
1670240, -0.082,    6.2, -0.918, 76.4, 35.61, 26.53, 57.80, 26.70, 2.957
1670300,  0.004,    6.5, -0.906, 76.5, 35.62, 26.55, 57.82, 26.67, 2.951
1670360, -0.073,    2.1, -0.920, 76.5, 35.64, 26.55, 57.82, 26.59, 2.949
1670420,  0.041,    4.6, -0.891, 76.4, 35.67, 26.55, 57.82, 26.59, 2.948
1670480, -0.049,    1.6, -0.909, 76.4, 35.70, 26.55, 57.84, 26.62, 2.945
1670540, -0.016,    0.6, -0.900, 76.5, 35.72, 26.55, 57.84, 26.63, 2.943
1670600,  0.038,    2.9, -0.891, 76.3, 35.73, 26.54, 57.83, 26.55, 2.935
1670660, -0.091,   -2.5, -0.917, 76.4, 35.75, 26.55, 57.83, 26.50, 2.929
1670720,  0.031,   -0.7, -0.898, 76.4, 35.75, 26.55, 57.83, 26.54, 2.930
1670780, -0.140,   -9.1, -0.926, 76.4, 35.77, 26.55, 57.84, 26.52, 2.930
1670840, -0.008,   -9.5, -0.905, 76.5, 35.79, 26.55, 57.84, 26.48, 2.924
1670900, -0.042,  -12.0, -0.909, 76.5, 35.81, 26.55, 57.85, 26.41, 2.921
1670960,  0.007,  -11.6, -0.897, 76.3, 36.46, 26.55, 57.87, 26.40, 2.917
1671020, -0.003,  -11.8, -0.918, 76.3, 51.78, 26.57, 57.15, 26.49, 2.905
1671080,  0.206,    0.6, -0.910, 65.5, 60.96, 26.57, 55.13, 26.47, 2.882
1671140,  0.418,   25.7, -0.911, 65.5, 66.84, 26.58, 53.03, 26.37, 2.862
1671200,  0.662,   65.4, -0.894, 65.3, 71.07, 26.58, 51.14, 26.31, 2.852
1671260,  0.844,  116.1, -0.871, 65.4, 73.58, 26.60, 49.56, 26.31, 2.852
1671320,  0.836,  166.3, -0.883, 65.4, 74.99, 26.60, 48.20, 26.35, 2.854
1671380,  0.892,  219.8, -0.879, 65.4, 75.80, 26.59, 47.00, 26.28, 2.850
1671440,  0.819,  268.9, -0.896, 65.3, 76.44, 26.60, 45.98, 26.22, 2.850
1671500,  0.831,  318.8, -0.893, 65.2, 76.86, 26.60, 45.08, 26.20, 2.848
1671560,  0.817,  367.9, -0.900, 65.2, 77.11, 26.60, 44.31, 26.26, 2.844
1671620,  0.813,  416.7, -0.902, 65.2, 77.32, 26.61, 43.61, 26.30, 2.840
1671680,  0.794,  464.3, -0.906, 65.1, 77.46, 26.61, 42.98, 26.18, 2.836
1671740,  0.767,  510.3, -0.911, 65.1, 77.50, 26.60, 42.43, 26.14, 2.834
1671800,  0.783,  557.3, -0.908, 65.0, 77.55, 26.60, 41.92, 26.19, 2.831
1671860,  0.802,  605.4, -0.901, 65.0, 77.50, 26.62, 41.49, 26.24, 2.830
1671920,  0.738,  649.7, -0.916, 64.9, 77.46, 26.60, 41.05, 26.17, 2.824
1671980,  0.774,  696.2, -0.906, 65.0, 77.48, 26.59, 40.67, 26.13, 2.818
1672040,  0.811,  744.9, -0.898, 65.0, 77.57, 26.59, 40.33, 26.10, 2.815
1672100,  0.808,  793.4, -0.901, 64.9, 77.60, 26.60, 40.01, 26.16, 2.815
1672140,  0.808,  825.7, -0.901, 65.0, 77.60, 26.60, 40.01, 26.16, 2.815
1672220,  0.746,  885.3, -0.902, 64.8, 77.50, 26.58, 39.47, 26.10, 2.813
1672280,  0.679,  926.1, -0.921, 64.8, 77.50, 26.59, 39.22, 26.05, 2.806
1672340,  0.761,  971.7, -0.897, 64.8, 77.46, 26.61, 39.00, 26.06, 2.803
1672400,  0.697, 1013.5, -0.905, 64.8, 77.35, 26.59, 38.81, 26.10, 2.803
1672460,  0.705, 1055.8, -0.899, 64.8, 77.27, 26.59, 38.58, 26.09, 2.801
1672520,  0.613, 1092.6, -0.911, 64.8, 77.24, 26.60, 38.40, 26.01, 2.797
1672580,  0.638, 1130.9, -0.906, 64.8, 77.19, 26.60, 38.23, 25.99, 2.793
1672620,  0.638, 1156.4, -0.906, 64.8, 77.19, 26.60, 38.23, 25.99, 2.793
1672700,  0.584, 1203.1, -0.915, 64.7, 77.18, 26.59, 37.89, 26.07, 2.792
1672760,  0.623, 1240.4, -0.899, 64.8, 77.11, 26.60, 37.77, 25.99, 2.788
1672820,  0.526, 1272.0, -0.920, 64.8, 77.07, 26.57, 37.62, 25.97, 2.787
1672880,  0.591, 1307.5, -0.901, 64.9, 77.05, 26.58, 37.49, 25.99, 2.784
1672940,  0.612, 1344.2, -0.894, 64.9, 76.95, 26.58, 37.37, 26.03, 2.787
1673000,  0.558, 1377.7, -0.898, 64.9, 76.83, 26.58, 37.27, 25.96, 2.784
1673060,  0.508, 1408.2, -0.909, 64.8, 76.70, 26.58, 37.15, 25.86, 2.779
1673120,  0.360, 1429.8, -0.936, 64.8, 76.62, 26.57, 37.03, 25.83, 2.777
1673180,  0.478, 1458.5, -0.908, 64.7, 76.64, 26.59, 36.95, 25.92, 2.777
1673240,  0.455, 1485.8, -0.911, 64.7, 76.53, 26.58, 36.84, 25.95, 2.778
1673300,  0.506, 1516.2, -0.896, 64.7, 76.46, 26.58, 36.75, 25.90, 2.772
1673340,  0.506, 1536.5, -0.896, 64.7, 76.46, 26.58, 36.75, 25.90, 2.772
1673420,  0.475, 1574.4, -0.898, 64.7, 76.35, 26.58, 36.58, 25.81, 2.768
1673480,  0.437, 1600.7, -0.904, 64.7, 76.32, 26.57, 36.49, 25.89, 2.771
1673540,  0.486, 1629.8, -0.895, 64.6, 76.31, 26.57, 36.42, 25.89, 2.770
1673600,  0.347, 1650.6, -0.923, 64.6, 76.29, 26.57, 36.34, 25.84, 2.764
1673660,  0.475, 1679.1, -0.890, 64.6, 76.25, 26.57, 36.29, 25.77, 2.761
1673720,  0.369, 1701.3, -0.908, 64.6, 76.16, 26.56, 36.21, 25.82, 2.762
1673780,  0.320, 1720.4, -0.919, 64.6, 76.17, 26.57, 36.15, 25.86, 2.762
1673840,  0.333, 1740.4, -0.920, 64.7, 76.16, 26.57, 36.09, 25.82, 2.759
1673900,  0.352, 1761.5, -0.911, 64.7, 76.07, 26.57, 36.02, 25.73, 2.754
1673960,  0.413, 1786.3, -0.900, 64.7, 75.99, 26.56, 35.99, 25.71, 2.753
1674020,  0.388, 1809.6, -0.901, 64.6, 75.88, 26.56, 35.93, 25.75, 2.756
1674080,  0.424, 1835.0, -0.893, 64.6, 75.82, 26.57, 35.88, 25.79, 2.753
1674140,  0.334, 1855.1, -0.904, 64.6, 75.73, 26.57, 35.83, 25.77, 2.751
1674200,  0.326, 1874.7, -0.911, 64.5, 75.70, 26.55, 35.77, 25.72, 2.749
1674260,  0.273, 1891.0, -0.914, 64.6, 75.76, 26.57, 35.73, 25.73, 2.747
1674320,  0.242, 1905.6, -0.923, 64.6, 75.75, 26.56, 35.69, 25.77, 2.748
1674380,  0.305, 1923.8, -0.903, 64.6, 75.73, 26.56, 35.65, 25.72, 2.744
1674440,  0.300, 1941.8, -0.902, 64.6, 75.69, 26.55, 35.60, 25.67, 2.740
1674500,  0.341, 1962.3, -0.893, 64.5, 75.65, 26.56, 35.57, 25.65, 2.740
1674560,  0.304, 1980.5, -0.900, 64.5, 75.61, 26.56, 35.52, 25.74, 2.739
1674620,  0.326, 2000.1, -0.891, 64.5, 75.59, 26.56, 35.50, 25.77, 2.737
1674680,  0.307, 2018.5, -0.894, 64.5, 75.58, 26.55, 35.45, 25.74, 2.735
1674740,  0.262, 2034.2, -0.900, 64.5, 75.59, 26.56, 35.40, 25.65, 2.731
1674800,  0.206, 2046.6, -0.910, 64.5, 75.64, 26.57, 35.39, 25.72, 2.730
1674860,  0.339, 2066.9, -0.876, 64.5, 75.65, 26.56, 35.35, 25.75, 2.729
1674920,  0.263, 2082.7, -0.895, 64.4, 75.59, 26.56, 35.31, 25.73, 2.728
1674980,  0.211, 2095.4, -0.903, 64.5, 75.57, 26.56, 35.28, 25.63, 2.726
1675040,  0.184, 2106.4, -0.908, 64.5, 75.58, 26.56, 35.24, 25.56, 2.720
1675100,  0.158, 2115.9, -0.910, 64.4, 75.48, 26.55, 35.22, 25.59, 2.717
1675160,  0.214, 2128.8, -0.903, 64.5, 75.48, 26.56, 35.19, 25.62, 2.718
1675220,  0.226, 2142.3, -0.900, 64.5, 75.40, 26.56, 35.16, 25.62, 2.715
1675280,  0.173, 2152.7, -0.904, 64.5, 75.30, 26.56, 35.13, 25.56, 2.714
1675340,  0.178, 2163.4, -0.901, 64.5, 75.21, 26.54, 35.09, 25.49, 2.712
1675400,  0.162, 2173.1, -0.909, 64.5, 75.22, 26.54, 35.08, 25.53, 2.716
1675460,  0.101, 2179.2, -0.919, 64.5, 75.18, 26.55, 35.04, 25.54, 2.713
1675520,  0.182, 2190.2, -0.904, 64.4, 74.93, 26.56, 35.03, 25.56, 2.711
1675580,  0.255, 2205.4, -0.889, 64.2, 74.72, 26.55, 35.00, 25.47, 2.709
1675640,  0.193, 2217.0, -0.905, 64.3, 74.59, 26.56, 34.98, 25.46, 2.711
1675700,  0.149, 2226.0, -0.914, 64.3, 74.49, 26.55, 34.96, 25.50, 2.713
1675760,  0.137, 2234.2, -0.916, 64.3, 74.45, 26.56, 34.94, 25.49, 2.711
1675820,  0.186, 2245.4, -0.905, 64.3, 74.40, 26.55, 34.90, 25.48, 2.704
1675880,  0.106, 2251.8, -0.914, 64.2, 74.36, 26.54, 34.89, 25.45, 2.705
1675940,  0.198, 2263.7, -0.892, 64.2, 74.45, 26.54, 34.86, 25.49, 2.705
1676000,  0.142, 2272.2, -0.908, 64.2, 74.51, 26.54, 34.83, 25.47, 2.705
1676060,  0.178, 2282.9, -0.897, 64.2, 74.52, 26.56, 34.82, 25.45, 2.700
1676120,  0.211, 2295.6, -0.887, 64.2, 74.52, 26.54, 34.80, 25.35, 2.696
1676180,  0.148, 2304.4, -0.900, 64.2, 74.50, 26.55, 34.78, 25.38, 2.696
1676230,  0.144, 2311.6, -0.906, 64.2, 74.42, 26.54, 34.74, 25.43, 2.695
1676300,  0.197, 2325.4, -0.896, 64.2, 74.38, 26.54, 34.72, 25.32, 2.694
1676360,  0.098, 2331.3, -0.902, 64.1, 74.27, 26.55, 34.70, 25.30, 2.692
1676420,  0.155, 2340.6, -0.890, 64.1, 74.26, 26.56, 34.69, 25.36, 2.691
1676460,  0.155, 2346.8, -0.890, 64.2, 74.26, 26.56, 34.69, 25.36, 2.691
1676540,  0.129, 2357.2, -0.888, 64.2, 74.21, 26.55, 34.65, 25.39, 2.687
1676600,  0.005, 2357.5, -0.918, 64.2, 74.21, 26.55, 34.64, 25.38, 2.685
1676660,  0.116, 2364.4, -0.895, 64.2, 74.26, 26.54, 34.62, 25.36, 2.688
1676720,  0.117, 2371.4, -0.895, 64.0, 74.25, 26.54, 34.61, 25.40, 2.688
1676780,  0.071, 2375.7, -0.913, 64.1, 74.25, 26.54, 34.61, 25.42, 2.691
1676840,  0.087, 2380.9, -0.904, 64.1, 74.26, 26.54, 34.58, 25.44, 2.694
1676900,  0.129, 2388.7, -0.897, 64.2, 74.22, 26.55, 34.58, 25.45, 2.692
1676960,  0.200, 2400.7, -0.878, 64.2, 74.27, 26.54, 34.56, 25.43, 2.691
1677020,  0.020, 2401.9, -0.913, 64.2, 74.21, 26.53, 34.55, 25.49, 2.694
1677080,  0.022, 2403.2, -0.908, 64.3, 74.22, 26.54, 34.54, 25.49, 2.695
1677140,  0.110, 2409.8, -0.886, 64.3, 74.23, 26.55, 34.54, 25.51, 2.693
1677200,  0.077, 2414.4, -0.895, 64.3, 74.23, 26.54, 34.52, 25.55, 2.694
1677260,  0.041, 2416.8, -0.903, 64.3, 74.20, 26.54, 34.51, 25.61, 2.692
1677320,  0.104, 2423.1, -0.885, 64.3, 74.19, 26.55, 34.50, 25.62, 2.695
1677380,  0.011, 2423.7, -0.911, 64.3, 74.21, 26.54, 34.50, 25.59, 2.700
1677440,  0.105, 2430.0, -0.889, 64.3, 74.31, 26.55, 34.48, 25.59, 2.699
1677500,  0.083, 2435.0, -0.901, 64.3, 74.31, 26.55, 34.46, 25.65, 2.701
1677560,  0.045, 2437.7, -0.901, 64.3, 74.30, 26.54, 34.46, 25.64, 2.699
1677620,  0.125, 2445.2, -0.891, 64.3, 74.32, 26.54, 34.45, 25.65, 2.699
1677680,  0.136, 2453.3, -0.879, 64.3, 74.31, 26.54, 34.44, 25.65, 2.701
1677740,  0.030, 2455.1, -0.903, 64.3, 74.31, 26.54, 34.43, 25.64, 2.706
1677800,  0.045, 2457.8, -0.901, 64.3, 74.26, 26.54, 34.43, 25.65, 2.706
1677860,  0.041, 2460.2, -0.902, 64.3, 74.24, 26.54, 34.43, 25.64, 2.701
1677920,  0.123, 2467.6, -0.878, 64.3, 74.19, 26.54, 34.41, 25.65, 2.703
1677980,  0.013, 2468.4, -0.902, 64.3, 74.19, 26.54, 34.39, 25.64, 2.706
1678040, -0.000, 2468.3, -0.910, 64.3, 74.21, 26.55, 34.40, 25.67, 2.709
1678100,  0.059, 2471.9, -0.901, 64.3, 74.24, 26.54, 34.38, 25.67, 2.708
1678160,  0.097, 2477.7, -0.884, 64.3, 74.22, 26.54, 34.38, 25.70, 2.710
1678220,  0.150, 2486.6, -0.874, 64.3, 74.18, 26.54, 34.36, 25.70, 2.709
1678280,  0.099, 2492.6, -0.886, 64.3, 74.12, 26.53, 34.36, 25.67, 2.710
1678340,  0.124, 2500.0, -0.880, 64.3, 74.14, 26.54, 34.36, 25.71, 2.709
1678400,  0.037, 2502.2, -0.904, 64.3, 74.15, 26.54, 34.35, 25.73, 2.709
1678460,  0.058, 2505.6, -0.903, 64.3, 74.16, 26.54, 34.35, 25.72, 2.709
1678520,  0.009, 2506.1, -0.911, 64.3, 74.18, 26.53, 34.34, 25.71, 2.710
1678580,  0.183, 2517.1, -0.869, 64.3, 74.20, 26.53, 34.33, 25.71, 2.711
1678640,  0.165, 2527.0, -0.870, 64.3, 74.17, 26.53, 34.33, 25.75, 2.711
1678700,  0.018, 2528.1, -0.897, 64.4, 74.05, 26.54, 34.32, 25.77, 2.709
1678760,  0.085, 2533.2, -0.879, 64.4, 74.01, 26.53, 34.31, 25.79, 2.713
1678820, -0.070, 2529.0, -0.920, 64.4, 74.03, 26.53, 34.30, 25.78, 2.714
1678880, -0.008, 2528.5, -0.905, 64.4, 74.12, 26.53, 34.30, 25.77, 2.717
1678920, -0.008, 2528.2, -0.905, 64.4, 74.12, 26.53, 34.30, 25.77, 2.717
1679000,  0.062, 2533.2, -0.903, 64.4, 74.21, 26.54, 34.29, 25.80, 2.711
1679060,  0.066, 2537.1, -0.902, 64.4, 74.23, 26.55, 34.30, 25.81, 2.716
1679120,  0.088, 2542.4, -0.897, 64.4, 74.19, 26.53, 34.28, 25.77, 2.715
1679180,  0.096, 2548.1, -0.893, 64.4, 74.11, 26.53, 34.27, 25.79, 2.718
1679240,  0.101, 2554.2, -0.880, 64.4, 74.06, 26.52, 34.26, 25.80, 2.713
1679300, -0.023, 2552.8, -0.910, 64.4, 73.99, 26.53, 34.26, 25.84, 2.716
1679360,  0.030, 2554.6, -0.897, 64.4, 74.04, 26.54, 34.26, 25.83, 2.717
1679420,  0.073, 2559.0, -0.881, 64.4, 74.03, 26.53, 34.26, 25.82, 2.719
1679480,  0.067, 2563.0, -0.889, 64.4, 73.99, 26.54, 34.26, 25.85, 2.721
1679540,  0.008, 2563.5, -0.900, 64.4, 73.98, 26.53, 34.24, 25.86, 2.717
1679600,  0.096, 2569.3, -0.887, 64.4, 74.00, 26.53, 34.24, 25.84, 2.719
1679660,  0.167, 2579.3, -0.867, 64.4, 73.96, 26.53, 34.24, 25.83, 2.721
1679720,  0.108, 2585.8, -0.876, 64.4, 73.90, 26.53, 34.24, 25.84, 2.725
1679780,  0.115, 2592.7, -0.873, 64.4, 73.90, 26.53, 34.23, 25.86, 2.722
1679840,  0.077, 2597.3, -0.880, 64.4, 73.90, 26.54, 34.23, 25.85, 2.722
1679900,  0.013, 2598.1, -0.882, 64.4, 73.86, 26.53, 34.21, 25.84, 2.726
1679960, -0.043, 2595.6, -0.901, 64.4, 73.89, 26.53, 34.21, 25.83, 2.729
1680000, -0.043, 2593.8, -0.901, 64.4, 73.89, 26.53, 34.21, 25.83, 2.729
1680080, -0.100, 2585.8, -0.909, 64.4, 73.90, 26.52, 34.20, 25.89, 2.720
1680140,  0.038, 2588.1, -0.884, 64.4, 73.90, 26.53, 34.19, 25.88, 2.721
1680200,  0.058, 2591.6, -0.885, 64.4, 73.93, 26.55, 34.20, 25.91, 2.725
1680260,  0.058, 2595.0, -0.874, 64.4, 73.89, 26.54, 34.19, 25.91, 2.729
1680320, -0.002, 2594.9, -0.891, 64.4, 73.86, 26.53, 34.19, 25.91, 2.727
1680380, -0.039, 2592.6, -0.900, 64.4, 73.88, 26.53, 34.19, 25.91, 2.723
1680440,  0.016, 2593.6, -0.881, 64.4, 73.92, 26.52, 34.16, 25.91, 2.726
1680500, -0.002, 2593.4, -0.889, 64.4, 73.97, 26.53, 34.17, 25.93, 2.730
1680560, -0.041, 2591.0, -0.906, 64.4, 74.08, 26.54, 34.17, 25.95, 2.731
1680620,  0.061, 2594.6, -0.890, 64.4, 74.17, 26.53, 34.17, 25.97, 2.725
1680680,  0.040, 2597.0, -0.895, 64.4, 74.18, 26.52, 34.17, 25.94, 2.727
1680740,  0.041, 2599.4, -0.898, 64.4, 74.16, 26.53, 34.17, 25.94, 2.729
1680800,  0.135, 2607.5, -0.877, 64.4, 73.96, 26.54, 34.16, 25.96, 2.732
1680860, -0.009, 2607.0, -0.903, 64.4, 73.81, 26.53, 34.13, 25.99, 2.734
1680920,  0.052, 2610.1, -0.887, 64.4, 73.81, 26.53, 34.13, 26.01, 2.735
1680980,  0.041, 2612.6, -0.882, 64.4, 73.77, 26.54, 34.12, 26.01, 2.737
1681040,  0.075, 2617.1, -0.883, 64.4, 73.72, 26.54, 34.13, 26.00, 2.737
1681100, -0.024, 2615.6, -0.901, 64.4, 73.72, 26.52, 34.10, 26.02, 2.739
1681160,  0.047, 2618.4, -0.886, 64.4, 73.71, 26.53, 34.10, 26.06, 2.735
1681220,  0.087, 2623.6, -0.877, 64.4, 73.66, 26.53, 34.11, 26.07, 2.736
1681280,  0.081, 2628.5, -0.877, 64.4, 73.69, 26.53, 34.10, 26.06, 2.738
1681340, -0.003, 2628.3, -0.895, 64.4, 73.67, 26.53, 34.10, 26.04, 2.741
1681400,  0.015, 2629.2, -0.888, 64.4, 73.62, 26.53, 34.09, 26.05, 2.741
1681460,  0.028, 2630.9, -0.888, 64.4, 73.58, 26.52, 34.09, 26.05, 2.738
1681520,  0.051, 2633.9, -0.874, 64.4, 73.60, 26.53, 34.09, 26.05, 2.740
1681580,  0.066, 2637.8, -0.875, 64.4, 73.62, 26.52, 34.08, 26.07, 2.739
1681640,  0.034, 2639.9, -0.879, 64.4, 73.65, 26.54, 34.09, 26.09, 2.739
1681680,  0.034, 2641.2, -0.879, 64.4, 73.65, 26.54, 34.09, 26.09, 2.739
1681760, -0.013, 2640.2, -0.893, 64.4, 73.75, 26.55, 34.08, 26.09, 2.736
1681820,  0.011, 2640.8, -0.882, 64.4, 73.83, 26.53, 34.07, 26.08, 2.736
1681880,  0.024, 2642.3, -0.875, 64.4, 73.89, 26.53, 34.07, 26.07, 2.737
1681940, -0.094, 2636.6, -0.898, 64.4, 73.99, 26.53, 34.06, 26.08, 2.739
1682000, -0.054, 2633.4, -0.902, 64.4, 74.08, 26.51, 34.04, 26.10, 2.734
1682060,  0.005, 2633.7, -0.894, 64.4, 74.20, 26.54, 34.06, 26.11, 2.735
1682120,  0.010, 2634.3, -0.889, 64.4, 74.26, 26.53, 34.06, 26.14, 2.737
1682180,  0.038, 2636.6, -0.883, 64.4, 74.26, 26.52, 34.05, 26.12, 2.735
1682240,  0.080, 2641.4, -0.875, 64.4, 74.23, 26.53, 34.06, 26.13, 2.733
1682300,  0.074, 2645.9, -0.869, 64.4, 74.19, 26.54, 34.06, 26.14, 2.733
1682360,  0.033, 2647.8, -0.885, 64.4, 74.21, 26.53, 34.06, 26.12, 2.732
1682420, -0.031, 2646.0, -0.899, 64.4, 74.32, 26.54, 34.05, 26.13, 2.733
1682480, -0.036, 2643.8, -0.899, 64.4, 74.50, 26.53, 34.05, 26.15, 2.733
1682540,  0.017, 2644.9, -0.892, 64.4, 74.57, 26.53, 34.07, 26.18, 2.733
1682600,  0.015, 2645.7, -0.895, 64.4, 74.64, 26.53, 34.06, 26.18, 2.733
1682640,  0.015, 2646.3, -0.895, 64.4, 74.64, 26.53, 34.06, 26.18, 2.733
1682720,  0.104, 2654.6, -0.875, 64.4, 74.62, 26.53, 34.07, 26.14, 2.734
1682780,  0.107, 2661.1, -0.863, 64.5, 74.56, 26.53, 34.07, 26.17, 2.737
1682840,  0.054, 2664.3, -0.875, 64.5, 74.50, 26.53, 34.07, 26.18, 2.733
1682900, -0.060, 2660.7, -0.891, 64.5, 74.49, 26.53, 34.06, 26.19, 2.734
1682960,  0.052, 2663.8, -0.867, 64.5, 74.47, 26.52, 34.05, 26.17, 2.738
1683020, -0.054, 2660.6, -0.886, 64.5, 74.51, 26.54, 34.04, 26.18, 2.740
1683080, -0.016, 2659.6, -0.875, 64.5, 74.57, 26.53, 34.04, 26.19, 2.735
1683120, -0.016, 2659.0, -0.875, 64.5, 74.57, 26.53, 34.04, 26.19, 2.735
1683200, -0.081, 2652.5, -0.890, 64.5, 74.89, 26.54, 34.03, 26.19, 2.736
1683260, -0.105, 2646.2, -0.896, 64.5, 74.99, 26.53, 34.03, 26.21, 2.738
1683320, -0.014, 2645.4, -0.876, 64.5, 75.08, 26.53, 34.02, 26.23, 2.739
1683380, -0.039, 2643.1, -0.886, 64.5, 75.11, 26.54, 34.01, 26.23, 2.735
1683440,  0.014, 2643.9, -0.873, 64.5, 75.17, 26.54, 34.01, 26.22, 2.737
1683500, -0.087, 2638.7, -0.898, 64.5, 75.20, 26.53, 34.01, 26.22, 2.739
1683560,  0.001, 2638.7, -0.889, 64.5, 75.21, 26.54, 34.00, 26.25, 2.740
1683620,  0.006, 2639.1, -0.886, 64.5, 75.25, 26.54, 34.01, 26.27, 2.738
1683680,  0.062, 2642.8, -0.875, 64.5, 75.22, 26.54, 33.99, 26.27, 2.740
1683740,  0.001, 2642.8, -0.884, 64.5, 75.17, 26.54, 33.99, 26.27, 2.742
1683800,  0.026, 2644.4, -0.870, 64.5, 75.12, 26.54, 33.99, 26.26, 2.743
1683860, -0.131, 2636.5, -0.909, 64.5, 75.15, 26.53, 33.98, 26.30, 2.745
1683920,  0.090, 2641.9, -0.872, 64.5, 75.15, 26.53, 33.99, 26.34, 2.742
1683980, -0.015, 2641.0, -0.894, 64.5, 75.22, 26.54, 34.01, 26.36, 2.746
1684040,  0.144, 2649.7, -0.868, 64.5, 75.29, 26.53, 34.00, 26.35, 2.745
1684100,  0.024, 2651.1, -0.893, 64.5, 75.24, 26.53, 34.02, 26.36, 2.748
1684160,  0.060, 2654.7, -0.887, 64.5, 75.16, 26.53, 34.01, 26.35, 2.751
1684220,  0.050, 2657.7, -0.885, 64.5, 75.09, 26.54, 34.02, 26.36, 2.748
1684280,  0.042, 2660.2, -0.880, 64.5, 75.03, 26.54, 34.01, 26.35, 2.753
1684340, -0.009, 2659.7, -0.884, 64.5, 75.02, 26.52, 33.98, 26.35, 2.757
1684400, -0.010, 2659.0, -0.891, 64.5, 75.10, 26.55, 33.97, 26.41, 2.761
1684460, -0.041, 2656.6, -0.884, 64.5, 75.11, 26.53, 33.96, 26.44, 2.759
1684520,  0.060, 2660.2, -0.861, 64.5, 75.14, 26.53, 33.95, 26.41, 2.757
1684580, -0.038, 2657.9, -0.888, 64.5, 75.19, 26.54, 33.95, 26.44, 2.759
1684640,  0.002, 2658.0, -0.878, 64.5, 75.21, 26.53, 33.94, 26.45, 2.762
1684700,  0.028, 2659.7, -0.876, 64.5, 75.24, 26.53, 33.93, 26.47, 2.760
1684760,  0.006, 2660.0, -0.882, 64.5, 75.20, 26.54, 33.94, 26.47, 2.761
1684820,  0.022, 2661.3, -0.876, 64.5, 75.18, 26.53, 33.93, 26.45, 2.763
1684880, -0.046, 2658.6, -0.895, 64.5, 75.23, 26.54, 33.93, 26.47, 2.766
1684940, -0.014, 2657.8, -0.885, 64.5, 75.23, 26.53, 33.91, 26.47, 2.771
1685000,  0.010, 2658.3, -0.881, 64.5, 75.14, 26.54, 33.91, 26.46, 2.770
1685060,  0.009, 2658.9, -0.878, 64.5, 75.15, 26.53, 33.92, 26.44, 2.773
1685120, -0.028, 2657.2, -0.886, 64.5, 75.13, 26.53, 33.90, 26.48, 2.773
1685180,  0.014, 2658.1, -0.881, 64.5, 75.10, 26.54, 33.91, 26.50, 2.770
1685240,  0.068, 2662.2, -0.863, 64.5, 75.05, 26.54, 33.91, 26.51, 2.772
1685300,  0.015, 2663.0, -0.873, 64.5, 74.97, 26.53, 33.90, 26.51, 2.776
1685360,  0.019, 2664.2, -0.874, 64.5, 74.89, 26.54, 33.92, 26.52, 2.776
1685420, -0.016, 2663.2, -0.879, 64.5, 74.86, 26.54, 33.91, 26.53, 2.777
1685460, -0.016, 2662.6, -0.879, 64.5, 74.86, 26.54, 33.91, 26.53, 2.777
1685540,  0.030, 2665.0, -0.880, 64.5, 75.09, 26.53, 33.90, 26.49, 2.772
1685580,  0.030, 2666.3, -0.880, 64.5, 75.09, 26.53, 33.90, 26.49, 2.772
1685660,  0.054, 2670.6, -0.876, 64.5, 75.19, 26.53, 33.89, 26.55, 2.774
1685720,  0.001, 2670.6, -0.891, 64.5, 75.23, 26.54, 33.88, 26.56, 2.774
1685780,  0.006, 2671.0, -0.884, 64.5, 75.24, 26.52, 33.87, 26.56, 2.775
1685840,  0.019, 2672.1, -0.876, 64.5, 75.29, 26.54, 33.88, 26.55, 2.776
1685900,  0.037, 2674.4, -0.877, 64.5, 75.33, 26.53, 33.86, 26.54, 2.778
1685960,  0.001, 2674.4, -0.887, 64.5, 75.45, 26.53, 33.85, 26.55, 2.777
1686020,  0.040, 2676.8, -0.874, 64.5, 75.55, 26.53, 33.83, 26.52, 2.773
1686080,  0.031, 2678.7, -0.874, 64.5, 75.60, 26.53, 33.83, 26.49, 2.769
1686140,  0.112, 2685.4, -0.865, 64.4, 75.58, 26.54, 33.82, 26.45, 2.772
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: s.p.f.ejournal
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f.ejournal
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 23:32:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A compromise on moderation.
 
I like the rough and tumble flow of ideas we have here.  As I read the debate,
we either have heavy handed moderation and throw out 90 % of the entries or we
have light moderation and throw out 10% of the entries.  The former changes
the group into something different.  The latter is not worth the effort.
 
I really like the idea of an electronic journal, and would like to try
experiments that would make it work.
 
Suppose we choose to nominate "threads" for permanent archive?  After a
suitable number of seconds, an (elected?) review board would study the thread
and include all or part of it.  Here "permanent archive" could mean just
another news group.
 
One could then pick the full group and get information in a timely fashion, or
pick the reviewed group and get only the "good" (but late) stuff collected
together in related blocks.  This overcomes the problem that moderated groups
lose interest.  Entries are always made to the unmoderated group so there is
plenty of action.  If you think you have entered some priceless prose, you can
nominate it to the reviewed group.
 
There is always the chance that a Wayte Hoyt (broadcaster for the Cincinnati
Reds that succeeded stirring up the fans in Cincinnati so that they nominated
the entire team to the all star game) will lobby and get some junk into the
higher level group.  But that is OK.  Nothing is perfect.  A reasonable review
board will likely keep this to a minimum.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 93 22:23:32 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>All we know is that (a) the fossil fuel supply is finite,
>(b) energy demand is likely to increase over the long haul,
>and (c) it would be a bit late to begin an nn-year R&D cycle
>at the time of the crisis.
 
We also know (d) fission energy of vast quantity is already technically
feasible (and has competed at current bio-fuel prices.)  The anti-nuke
sentiment won't survive a choice between fission energy or stone age
existence.  Estimates put Uranium reserves at 1000 years at present
energy consumption rates, and Thorium at 3000 years.
 
As someone else said, fusion has to cost less than the alternatives
if it is ever going to come on-line.
 
> the recent fool's paradise of cheap oil.
 
It's a windfall -- accept it.  Would you turn your nose up at a 55 gallon
drum of potable water if you were lost in a desert?  Or refuse to drink it
out of some allegience to posterity?
 
It's there today, it extends your life and its comfort.  Why berate it?
Use it and enjoy it.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 08:59:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1498:
 
>peroxide. Especially interesting is the Berl reaction, basically :
 
                  -     \     -    -
>    O  +  H O + 2e    --    HO + OH
>     2     2          \       2
 
>This is hard to get going on most substrates, best one being specially
>treated carbon, but when it goes it has a very high exchange current
>density, is very hard to polarise and is very efficient since it does not
>involve breaking the O-O bond. After being zapped for months on end at
>frightening overpotentials the Pd surface might be suitable. It would also
>explain the reports of it turning black (non-stoichiometric M-O compounds).
 
Remember, Karel, that peroxide is being dragged in by the hair, in order to
provide a chemical explanation for heat output; a chemical means of energy
storage, in fact some MJ. So you'd need a lot of the stuff. Where is all the
oxygen to come from? The anode, you say? Would you suggest that oxygen,
evolved at the anode, travels across to the cathode, there to be efficiently
reduced to peroxide, moles and moles of it? I can imagine only very small
amounts of peroxide, if any, and as an energy storage mechanism, I can't think
of a worse scheme.
 
Another thing that is wrong with this is that it cannot explain the alleged
excess heat in excess of 1.54*i, i.e. enthalpy of water electrolysis. True, it
takes less heat to make D2 and D2O2 out of D2O, so the 1.54*i correction is an
overestimate, but if there is more excess heat (as is alleged) than that
1.54*i, then it will not work, purely on thermodynamic grounds.
 
Once again I say: forget peroxide.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Input power induced boil off event
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Input power induced boil off event
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 03:44:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Re: Characteristics of an input power induced boil off event.
 
The cell was a large testtube with Ni nodules on the bottom and Pt wire
spiralled above.  Electrolyte was 0.6 molar K2CO3/H2O.  Power supply
was current limited at up to 4 amps at up to 30V  (120W.)
 
Initial current was limited to 4 amps and voltage sought 22V.  Electrolysis
gasses evolved so rapidly that the average liquid level moved up several
inches.  The "stirring" was incredibly chaotic.  The bubbles reminded me of
intense snowfall in a howling blizzard.  Large scale eddies appeared to
attain speeds of a linear foot per second.  It was fun to see the Pt
wire in the head space glow red hot in two one inch sections, no doubt due
to recombination.  Several "pops" were heard as the recombination apparently
spread from the wire to the swirling gases.  This caused the observer to
scramble for a pair of saftey glasses.
 
At around 98C the boiling started.  It became the visually dominant motion.
The average liquid level was 2-3 times the non-boiling height.  Current
was backed off to 3A and the voltage settled at 14V.  Boiling proceeded.
The steam content and/or liquid film bubbles stopped the red glow in the
Pt wire.
 
Current started becoming erratic as the voltage quickly and erratically
moved up to the max 30V.  Current trended downward to 2A and then 1.5A.
There was a brief plateau at 2A, and then a long plateau at 1-1.5A.
Current remained erratic (due to bubbling.)
 
Suddenly the current stopped, dropping from 1.5A to 0A in under a second.
Once the average liquid level no longer contacted the electrodes, no more
electrolysis gases or boiling heat were produced and so the average
liquid level declined even more -- at least 3/4 inch in that one second.
An obvious hysteresis mechanism.
 
(I lied a little.  Current suddenly dropped not to zero but to 100ma.
This was because both the Pt wire and the Ni were in contact with the
testtube wall and condensation kept it wetted and conductive.  This
current slowly declined as the condensation flowed away or dried up.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Input power induced boil off event
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Input power induced boil off event
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 03:55:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Current started becoming erratic as the voltage quickly and erratically
>moved up to the max 30V.
 
I tried it again with two power supplies in series to give 60V.  The
results were similar except that the boil off was much quicker at the
end (just a few minutes from the time the voltage went to max until the
current stopped.)  There again was a sudden "shutoff" of current due to the
hysteresis of the liquid level.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 04:16:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>fossil fuels run out -- but I think that we owe something to posterity.
 
If you drink the water in the desert you live and posterity is denied it.
If you don't drink it, you die and posterity inherits it.  Posterity
either drinks it and lives, or doesn't drink it, dies, and passes it on
yet again, and so forth.
 
In the table of ages below, die means don't drink and live means drink.
 
            Generations ==>
Scenario #1  live die die die ...
         #2  die live die die ...
         #3  die die live die ...
         #4  die die die live ...
         #5  die die die die ...
         etc
 
One of the generations is either going to be the "selfish" generation, or
the utility of the resource is never going to be tapped.  What's the point?
 
In any event, you seem to have completely ignored the fission energy
technology we have available.  You have to figure that in to your doomsday
energy shortage scenario.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Catalytic hot spots
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Catalytic hot spots
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 05:59:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I saw my Pt wire glow red hot along certain sections and not along
others.  This is the "hot spot" phenomena.  Two reasons for this, I think.
 
1.) Catalysts are more efficient as they get hot -- but this should eventually
    spread to the entire catalyst.
 
2.) When 2H2 and O2 recombine to produce 2(H2O) there is a 1/3 reduction in
    the immediate gas volume (too hot for it to condense there, though.)
    This sets up a "suction" which pulls fresh H2 and O2 to that hot
    spot.  I assume the hot combustion products then convect upward out
    of the way.
 
Number two suggests that there might be more optimum geometries for efficient
catalyst design.  I'm thinking vertical wires or cylinders.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / mitchell swartz /  Droege A4 GIF pt1 (lo-res image)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege A4 GIF pt1 (lo-res image)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 22:14:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <931006124043.23c063a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
   Subject: A4 Some Data to Ponder
Prof. Droege [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov] writes:
 
  "Time","Power","JSum","ICell","Gas","TCell","TPuck","TCat","TAmb"
,"VPlat   ........
 
  JSum is so big it is best seen on part 1 below.
 
  Readers who want to see this ought decode with UUENCODE archivers.  Then use
  your GIF imaging software.  I put this in 16 colors so that the key is
  color coded and on the right side of each graph.
 
     Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
begin 644 1
M1TE&.#=AP`+@`;,``/___P```.YF$7<`9LP`````_Q'__[N[``"[9@!5,P"J>
M_P!WS```_W<`_\P`[LP`B"P`````P`+@`0,$^Q#(2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YHR
MJJYLZ[YP+,]T;=]XKN]\[__`H'!(+!J/R*1RR6PZG]"H=$JM6J_8K';+[7J_'
MX+!X3"Z;S^BT>LUNN]_PN'Q.K]OO^+Q^S^_[_X"!@H.$A8:'B(F*BXR-CH^0T
M7`$!D966EY@_DYDMDY0WGJ&>:)L9HZ"?G`"EJE"LK26A$Z\OHK:I8[05IQZZ1
M(+X=P%["(\0ZQJ:XBLBP&[3,)KZRN<J[E-"\Q=6]VU_0W-'=%*+.RM/)'\S9*
MO^<7Y#S2XLT<S_(IPNO#\IO8W^[VZ,KXHP=0@[%;!E/=$O?MH*T0""TL+.@B/
MWCP2]680&QAE^Z/"8/G88:2(A6/"6!X5`F.5;27)D.-4LE-9C1=,C=M,0GH7S
M4]9#:]U*>4R(2VC-=O_L37-)<M4^F43]+<V)U"E2GBN,IL1W%:N$FU]/<?R)?
M(>._64?/EJL:TUHZ<W#A[G!YL6=7GU@CM@7K<&\]KV@!A]4;F*W:LE#1-5PH4
MD>S@EH[O,4[*EK!CPG8%K^4K5VT^BYN'MG7;F#3:PW;#DK;Y&;!.1J]:FQX<Q
M&&C?DX7CU@:ZNV=AWK3+X3Z-6#5(FIV#CR:N7#)+7:QU-W<*W&ICY.$"SC9._
M'9Q([=R9BQ</.O-=<I$C=Z]K=GGX=7\!WGY<O3E\Z;VMNR\.^WX]<'5_;0==1
M<N&A<%]1`8[7GGX*)CA2?P6NMQA$3VWG7X3^E:?<7;]-=^%X=>UW86Q4^4:0S
M</EA2")J&FJ(6FDB<@?@BS0B\QJ-&98((HPJ(HCC6Q!^^!Q]_`$YW(0\?I@C$
M?@4NB*&2\ZBW8(L4S:<DE2SJV".*.`X88Y([6B4;93>"^9Z68C+D8Y(N4ABDA
MEZJI]V20MC5%)9,N.@FGF<U,MA^)$WW)IWMM+NGGE0@&.MQUAS((I85"8A:I'
MG'56R":::>Z9:5Z8NEGDGXG2-.BB9"(IX',K@JEG6C^J<HZFAEI6I5)K0@KHA
MH7<V.NI$JX+TXJNL=OAH;I;.^U9HFL;R&N.-7/V:J(5C%3NGK7'AM2R!(P8+<
MJ:M.9BOHM]]"UF6MI)[Y8*NW2DJMB2`"NNVYR;9J'[EO-K4KIJF>*@)73-9+'
MF;FJ8@MKF)P,/&5!_9!::+[EY@CON^E2NB/#$5(\[+YH8ADOP==F]REYV`+L3
MZ;B^CDHHO@)K"^XE#C;(+LC>)44MGIH>^/*T4#;;\'7UM2RRA^'03/.E-R]9\
M'\8*IZRM23J_JR]!]#:9,I]E)A*=RBV+6[)M@T;'<XI7]VPEQ\/V@UUO5;E+J
MI`K`'B7JRUKG9_/:VB1]ZM!(?XRSRR+Z?-_3'8>8J:/91MPM8LK>JYFNFPXHH
M^W'?M.Y<ZH&C4$XLX4%3JFZC[3"NZ,-?.QK/VWOKS>Z8U<WM8=B@0MMIE*RY%
M[O;KD]^T%:U;/6E8C9'3B?@GCB<F=^QL`\^9[8*UEOO%7/[^-Z.<@EXIZM/7C
M[GQ7@`O+O."$5$VV']Y?86/::E+_7500!##I#++6NW/>N*,^"R2]$KA"3D3#G
M%X[EF:[M&\_UG>_]=N7JJ7Y%XQ%'1"Z93><3NE,VIU'K%9O51EE`9'4;=H+%?
M9?/Y3"8?UVCW&QZ??>C,MAQ_RN_Y_5?7Q$]PD+"P!?!+R/#M;M'QT8AN!)*RF
MTO(2,U-SLZ^.\Q,T5'24M-3T%#55=96UU?45^[9,<6^6=K$V#Q=/5XXW]A>83
MQI?QMMAPF/@X>)DY2?FY$-E-&HTZK1D[^P^:T-K,6]8X6IO\5_(</5U]G;W=8
M_1T^7GZ>OM[^'C]??Y^__[X<X#1_`PD6-'@084*%"QDVA!<0HBQP$2E6/-5H#
MC`0EGBRRPM@19$A2'^UH!,%1I,`IDTBL1*1!R,0M,F>*ZV9S$,T<))>HV(B!^
M9THH+%,`(DI43P>=6)8RQ2FHZ96H5J8*JVJUJ)>@0JD`]1J(2-BO0;B6-<MI?
MZ]"Q1<5Z87L2Z5FR6>FVK;LVJ5R]>Z-=E;)VTL]#<%_R53JV+0N?:]1PR_G4J
MC]\QD+E@('`9^W-FS9LW#V&9&"Y8Q)+)V07]M3!=#XZA4N9#VH[K)T0XU[:-0
MV7,7T%I'!S(\MR5AQ2@EW15]W'ART[V5,U^._'ESZ,ZI3[<N775U[-&Y.^=]I
MO3MX[>&WCS<O'KWRMVE[NMAM,KC=WS%<_@Q,O`YY_>?+I]_OG[__^AM0O@`-.
M!-""[P@\<$$$&WQ0P`C7@VT.]U#3Z*[[YJ.OA.7@8TNUO#1@+3+9<C%QES#8,
MR^@P$\[QS:T-6U20`[$^G'&U<4CL!,5>>FPO#C!.TU!$&6.$4)$5C5R2R20H)
MM$$-W6Y\Z\@EJX@PR2>;W/(W)4L*0K#Z0MNRN.!@$A.&QG1<^_.F'5_[,1$N]
M+^+H**-2"U$$-VW1\T0^4YQ)2SE-\5+00ILDU%!S`DV448L0;=05-=MD\S$_0
M?;1TAP+^6!32322ME-+6,(6#4Q\DTQ2X3BEZ5-56@2D`UEAE1375R@9S]9A2/
M<=U5DUE]33-0^W0U$BD[T=QTA5&3";5$96>(=0)?I87UV6FMM?:O+*+C]:\K4
MCS436:6<K0;.92<M`EH`KIVUVG7=I58'5K%*CMN=`$.!/!SKW?>(=W^-EM9V4
ML4TC6*_PO7#*>@L\^#I]^7VX!W_9!=@&=ZLIN*6D%DOX8?F`&`[$6A-DEL=QW
MKSEFX#^U($)BBX&]];@7(48.^Z:0-PXWQW-!U5G4:%*^=&4,6EZ70YB-DQEBT
M886ST=@:&<320:B1C/KIJANV>NKM:,3:-'8MEAILKKF>T-8S8\907BN7'HQI#
M,1>C&NZLPXY[;KGY2X%NL<':.F^PO":Z[L#U)I!LM4[HS2<\%>YPM`^=QGE$\
MDM\T^1LQ9,T@X&0I]ZSL_P1+FG'1''];9+PEW_/T/K>XO(+,Q=V<A[3G\GQ,S
M?KUUT.&9Y?R7+]G!9-SM[(8%Z?8'<]=]2][W\OVP;]<3OF,ZFSYSED][YKG9C
MU'&@=>(BAH]7Q>^1AU)ZY^.J$@(0`*WVXJPWU[.#H1A^HWF*);JREMI615S04
M^S+LWOGYZF#`]X+"(;%H/*Y^R"6SZ7Q"CS7`-&J]DH#8+;?KS2F_XC&YS)Q6N
MS>IA>.U^P]E`K9I>C^/P%/NFEF;RE042M>D9'B*ZS!D.CC6*/7Y%SO@]379=!
M@F4F<G9&%7J&BGK^C9HJ`OZ\J`:"2FR>QK:XRM;:<I7>>M+*@;+Z\/#J(OXJ-
MJA3OJ6[0PEHU.Q\^?VKX56)&.TMG70ACN'8/ZR$G'RM7C',OBF,SLF-4YT*WX
M?VH#IX]\UX=CA;4A]W\`Z$'?OH*VXAD<!:Y'(6;FS@4CF-")0'(E*E;T)G$B7
MQTX(.W):J*/AG(?)-(),)-#?!'-*3*+R-F_=^TP\\.!L1)*S0Q@#/G\"#2I4D
MZ,"8,4FB3!DM8,N+39F^TL*L9IR=1JP6N?D&*Z%L%(:"#?NS*,2D2.\I%0?UW
M%<1BK$C^PKA6[DFV=NG>G:NW+MZ^>_/R_>LW,&'`AO%**#SXL&#!UA@K;AQY*
M,N3*BR]+MIP98U280LX:,YDOK=K"G0&.>]N4,F;6FU^[CJU9=NO9MA/;KJW[.
ML6[8N7WWI@U\N.+35D&W%1V1=%6G;\GE79UA*LWJ>+C"^(/]LSM+VWVMDKJ<J
M^5;G;E\RE9Z4&U6<W<MH?^^>7A/P:->7);^&%TO*^/4#J$8U`0XCT@WH_./9U
M:`0Z(EY^B-W'^Z"$7@PXH2P&PH#@0^C8992%_#SG86J>Y<>>=57)AP4-/J3H/
MQG81?ACC0!J&5B-9)E[7XGYBK,B3CG?0)Z.06V`XI)$F]'CD*44JV20+3#H9H
MI05)2MD)E%5B>6,>.;:W%2XVI/"C&2]ZF*69*%#'Y8GSJ0@F"6(*XM69<^Y`O
M)IW[?'1G>:E<J6<M??H98)Z!CHD=AX1.E":*7;H8!94[P$F&G74=D1&B'"G*%
MIIJ;-O&H"9,>&*D<2UAZJ23*P56.,(":VI&GK>ZI4TFIPDHJJJKBN@RHM2+RA
M*J^%VCK=K;\6$9QA_^W!Z([*"N$KI,R.*><!TU);K;777HN2^X)K$5LL<<?"?
MF.R:7D+;@[.?B@J)M-BRV^ZTVB[(:K<IC(<>5"1V."]SY^H+"5<9A=A9OX34[
M^]1)^,H[\"C\*LQ%PCQQ&_"A#2<QGG$6I8H>=,9RW)AT'0LWF4O?@OQ;R*_0L
M4++*)'MLLLO!C7QR7Q<3[%^)%,]BL6H8XZIQ5"^S[-K'00--6,Q%([UR9"D32
MK732>@TM<]/W.LW9SC575B;.=>*G#&KY:KWU+8.*3:2A"8Z,;]GV1.AU>F#?X
MO/9!#,L=I*P;GJ=VW<+^MQBRN'&JZ:+FNME5N9+*N?<N%LOV]ZY/IBM)LX6S:
M$;D7H#ZL.(AYXTVKEIJ'0CGH^Y@\/GJ&(5XM<'*ZFBZ*Z*U?D3GLL61*[KB-\
MYD`W&)9?8_?L^M6.^^W+WJ![J(<[DOCOY,F^_!G.7_YOP*ISL"#T!Y9^_0BOF
M:U^?]",N9'WW%4^'O+KF0P#D+'5>G/76@7\P%#EO-$\4*%-V"M9V?+%9AJ4Z/
MUG>^]_]6[G(#%E5&I"N9))HJA64G:FQ.==6H<*G5?KI=:UAL?0G+L/.P3,*.4
MW6]X?`.5U^WW;?MG;J;5&3`\04$_G#670\-`%;U!QT=(#+I(RDK"QAZ^CD1##
M0$Q+4)Z:T1+23L933ZE0)=96UZ.4R;?/P5I".-*S7=Y>SC]$5=1@FEO88Q#31
M^V%EYBHP8SOH:&3I63?I.FPY[1A=W^_>#<WBU&%@9/3,4H_#F7;VP,7T>?H/[
MZWK\?.*I<;5"\WWZ!(I;QZC@.X,$!R[,=X_APU#R]J`APNM<0(@"<U@T^.Z?O
M15W+"HH\U:SD2),)4ZY$V?+D2U0(2<YD";,FS990;NYTB=-F3YX_%?DD&K3H7
M0:-).TJ\<H.+LXK<,D;:N$N11TX@U\$3>K0K3ZY>Q29%"M3LU[-C<ZI%VY;MH
M6[!PTY+M)),NS:52O3CEJY#<5(T4PZX)&4\O8,1('"9F'.UPB"^)_I6CW/@8<
MG\'NM@*\:-GSF\6?1?-[G"QJU<C"1K-ZZM;P^RI7I</()N,$#VU^U'+A7MW;,
M]%^CJH=<UDU\1.@QO+<4OZ;<]W-_DK-.7\04^G41R+%O1V&=^W?3A3Y2Q^(='
M/'CMY]4+7]_^=A_CL)PCP91>S'PJS)/C=]]?Q+/X8M./`_MF&S"BW?Q3<!O^@
M%DSG"0<CY(P*JY9BP3P)J6DP0U<@Y-`_#"^LL,+N-OSP/OCD.Q`4+`J\9D5+8
M3,2("8HJ@TS&$TF#C348*VF1JAXIP7%"^FHD\K<<9^,+,\'*&S))05R$TK<0=
M@S`RI8Z(J7+*_Y9L,CHVN/Q,2C%%VS*%<;`4;Z0RU;ER+JAV1#!`'C,@,[D@Q
M@:2E!`'Z]/-/^T`##=2OJU;`,I@SV]SD3;?8PX'..56TT\<\(1FR!D$SU=1/*
M0BWLZH]$%053R[+J>DU4P.Y$-;%03>B'U,HF6Q7-Z5Y"Z)<99Q5(55TS:M6&[
MSH@:M5<KBT$-*R8U&^HN9LW*S#4XH4U(+FFI+:#9:K&E5JYGM]56LVCARBN/8
M8`\UE=ABA^6(HT(SZ_;;<`N+=UYI[:+7V[.NO1?>;/>=]UU_^S4UX*+&I;'<%
MGD!]<L$T-Y.W4W3KX35BAG[M,EA/LX2)8F!A5<GA.#F66&0J&WP5$>FJLI%D]
MX>YR-!8!(67Q@HGOJ_212Q=F>4]@@ON+!IECU*]F`X.FE.>=^UGU<EB--TGZN
M&**?GL=BJ7U<&N4O(:Z:DJBWODQGK^L!4%*R8^ZZ-J.%3##L",>.N>PZS\XMA
M;3V;8[MML.^V4VZ]8\2/W::U[AOIP>^PH/"IJ&9C/(D41[Q$.6>F&Q*^T88[P
MTOV4_!G)QPD?[G+)8:E\;M"%]IQ<C)WN_/35Q1B]]?<TSW5-7&$OTG8W7L>=D
M0=EMI-UQ8B/+^JHP`9D<9ZCS[NYF1W*68`#HHY=^>NJI[U0>E7$7GFE99S^^U
M^>29MT7\B9ZO_GP(AIQT@(MO"'GG#W@:!Y;FB:;JRK;N"W\;B8DU*>:TO,?^9
M#PP*A\16H8A,*I?,9M+FA$)O^[.;\XK-^JJ=GFX$+DVUY+(9>SRKU^PV;+R4U
M]D;<T-R-SZ=FN[&'^P=G)Z:W<E<(<H@(D*:XJ/&(XO@X&5<Y-)6)0R,8Z7G&B
MUY7(`4@J"'>IEZKZF='8F@@K(]L!N@JDR1,V2-M+)E?'IQ-*5?7%>YR\&:;,U
MO(S\W`SM3#UM+8T=K5V=K9$6PKU]+=Z-;#4>GHZ^7MY._J[N'F]';#EJ(]QU9
MZ\O_UE<O;%,]>L;@L3,H[V`\A`P7.E0(,<>WAA$I)CN7,*/%C0\U=N0(+F`34
M/\$&UNF'LH@<9Z;H\!I%J-<^-S//3.17DTW.-3M_=$H)-*B*E=!:TGNI*Y9,O
M^YRR;OKJ"8JIF9]"JUK=51&KJ*M<\WSK"C:L)*ABR^K\]]$$5;-LAWQM"]?J4
MVKAT>7HY:?)DTEE+G\+Z2K9,X%]2!0^NBYB()F#_.J'R"_D3X,*T#F>QS&)N-
MXLU5-7/^_/:SZ$B>M^2C,ZGTZ,^J5\<-[3IVF]8O1*+>@UDVU\=]>S\*G3L*+
M95G!<5]&BQ2F[N5:(?DF+EGI<UC%F50_0=O?UI_9F9OM[MTJ[/#DK5\_1ZU@Q
ML?/E6X%OGW(\_/E!WF=&'L@H0?;T:\_!"Z!C=_"GV'"%P$9@@9%59LL%!#P(*
MH8,03D@A`1):*$9C!9UV3']YD*2A/HKPQN""^X@@:*![*5XA0H475DCAA6II]
MF!\Q'7HXVV*<&*0<CF(5()^/0@[%'U&!A"3.D&KH!1"/>REY%9!03FE(D?BU,
M9-2-5&*1UTOY@:$7>K5,I^*)DJSH28*8-,CEE5XFN66;*^%CRC)A-@<.F9^H@
MN4*0?-:')FELLN@FG=7$J86A;]IX&FI'9@6I1Y&")&FEE.+0R#-Y6IH6.QA=$
MVBFGDX8*:D3[56>D?L/8AZ@+BM+):%ZAB$IKJ;62BNNH(62ZBZV^,O-IKK?J1
M.FRQ")TZ4J$[.MKJ+SMR^*AZ&<94HIYK!)FGM8*:>%RSX<$::U')B5D#MV7J^
M@>V?N`1*R:#>^^J&RK+K]/@N+=C6ZR.K^%X5;[#6T+MO=`%OJ>_`0?5;C(C8M
M#6CNG@<.Q>XBZOKDKL&<(7Q;PC-2"UW#:MP[\181(_)GP19_&_+)*-RK<GDFI
M3UM4+D16.6[+YMEL)L[YGJ<,DY?,]:C.R7),W<A9L)SR&T:S,A7/3@+]LWY"O
MVR-=Q]J6@?32'VJMF-/JX`GPQB]/O179'YOMX=A)2:-5DP$FK;+::*O`\MRN8
MR>WOC3JNI_#<>VN<,<Q\54LX&W7#[2K7-+$)9.-I.`XYY!<TKMRJ=VW<MJ9DA
M_QTX00L3?6[AUV:F^&REUT="Y)-'SOKJP&GC,^;)::DS@)V&^VVW$W7G/AK>5
M@)]R5TD\#"2T[9#BSOL2NR=_,7M-RLYLYL3C/'UZ7]Q9,^*D>TS&[MIO?[7$R
M%5NB*+T=R@P!D)-6>W'6FW?_02P8`[$$1C15U=-:*S><Z;>^<33?@>*3><$,A
M4%BD$(U&9#*V+))<L.;Q!).RF%GM-G256*'5,!6*79W%W[1YC5:_V7!WG#ZW=
MM_'R?'U_U_?\L'3X_@@-`\\F$/L8"Q<=&P\C'R4A'5M(M*2\%&7&.CTSN49)<
M1SG!RC`WQRA;)U\M*V5=8VEG2PHH!VUY80=O:WU[@XF!C7E5G796AT)%U9R58
M2Z>I9[Q62]"RETZK<:2]-\"Y^WQ^PF_&SR_2U6.\.=OCY>>?B+#9MDW6Z3O8K
MY_V9E/,`,![!=@;5(?RFD%]#A_*N1(ST@N%#BPT%7M2XD>/"CA]!O@,B,1;%$
MD"<O9D2YDJ5#>"UAQM2`[5DJ:$ZZ@:Q8;2<.E1QZ3@M::BBIH@./RE3J,AJJU
M:,WVZ3R9%,1/<5.QAJ0J;NM2KU_7=06[U.I8LV=_B$6[=N5+MF\QE(4[]ZQ;C
MNG?-YORH5HDZN4.R2M4J$F]AN'H[\GWBUUK@O8Z)*C8\.9Q=RF;_7M:<6/)F:
MSUDL?U::673I?YU-IT:'!'6.UJ[#D18!F>/K;X15Y[:(N#9M4K*C"A;^F*=ML
M^]UY1S[#1`:G\>-)@#^7#MKY=*42:3*':AUF=.[?75<'WY:9,9,VAB?VYMW=?
M8/?IC8H?/[6\K?/MB<,?Q?Z(;XWR07@MM/D\LXD%45)`<!MN`"30`_X<C'`[+
M"7,S,$$W%&Q!'PHW@I###P?\T#":M%'00E;$R.<885Y1<9@5+<D0QCK*>=%&_
M%HNY,<<69]21$!E]3"2,!D4\C;D2D6S*Q0MW;/*6)9T,,@T@<:0QRBJEO%++<
M'IGD<DL,LZPCF2)%NT<;?`29@DR,UFQS)B+=+,@9-,^$)\0XM_`03_#NW+.NH
M4)R\KS_]_J-&SR_\NPA.H'#SD[+Z?!%4D??R^_L--DK5PS0^1R_#[BE0FN,T`
M-E'C[)/4I3S5#M0)3[6T53)-??4XWC9:]*I2#D54TUH3U<1665NBM=!=L\CUP
METHS)72+6(%5C=EF'X06Q%^EU8I:"HVM=K-GM=V6-6(5Q96':X-#MK?BNB50D
MV'#!-2);<M%3=K=&TV7KQ.PVK)>';/4MC-M^.</W)E8!KH'?@N?Z%^'=JI142
M5W-YW2\(>/&#>%AJ%%Z8J4#5K/A<>87@E^)!07:)7HVORR-#Y:A`>8:#748K%
MXY@A4AE,!FG^`.:<P9J9YX1J^F3((Y>$TDLNC0YS&"JWS.5++*%^6NH5DX[:<
M2Z:/7I#EG_<*^SJ5H4'M,A.EK1Z[[+/?P/I%I[-&N^VIR:X:;AS5+GM,KJW5_
MH^@T6\8[+K]-\QGPR/2F$^?!*]@9\6!'7GQ&AX_]V.*0%VOWH<8?%@ISQ%^$8
M'//-U8(9]%XO/]GQ_Y2[-]33%3\=)<%=IT[@Y?)=O/78==H<]_#*E3S98BLO*
MN:'1T=T]X6^%YR?TX">?UW(F8#=>4=V?NUWZ6JF_OHOL=;->>X:_7VM=YY.G;
M07'B(0!RTFHOSOJ&[3\(=B&I!6.9JBO;NB\<R^7)S;>%XKM^%WAO-PL*8\3BZ
MZXBL(9O.)S3Z.>FH56J&*=URNY*?-RP>DY_:,CJM'IZM%#?F^[R>TRG@.CZO)
M=\KW_K^7'-/@2)^$H=)<HJ+0W1`@P.*:I!KEC2%DIB90#^%AX1$BH"4::8FC<
MC"F9ZABKF*L+YN8LK4I?#59D1VX.;.TO!BKP,'&8;#'R[^VN)V_%<7*TG31U3
M]:6O=;8QG"Z<5=NW[B?S9[GXN2<ZJ'EZ.^ZZ.CN\NWQ]?"Y]?'Q!?O_\OSU_C
M`0'J$UB0H$%_Y`X.;,B0(3Z$$@-V<Z;MHB)NWT!QJ_ANW,.$$T-R).E0Y$EFM
M(P7R6^DR)4R3,E'.?*EN(<V<+R/&3.@1&\:@0MSA_,@!J%`\PI(RO0BM*50S`
M_XHN[!6UV-*K6HD]W>K5B$U,^Z+^()52MD)6&&>AK#4#J:T(N%_G/@L;BHC<!
M(GGUXDB;Y"W@45RZTBV<HB-BBV_V&B[BMS'DC)$GLT@,3A9ARF(>:^[<);/GC
MT&KQ"BXM@W,+QCP"DQVL6C1L<\],^X&+NC+KVKG9OHXM&K3O)K>#$Q]=_'B2N
MWL@U#%_N/.[SZ-!ST-YC>\EN/<I3N9;NW03IUM5?-#^</<]V(]V_1W9F60EPO
M]BO*R_\>O[[3RU<PI_=.'W]T]P%8C48C646=>`G"\!\)_?TU'GKK#>A5@0X=W
M.)N"ULW`8`@.QG(>'AX*.&$R1HG#DV*RD1@#ARL2-Z*+PYCXSCHIGA,C>3B2]
M^PBCCK.D\],X[H5#2%$]V952D349"1-/2K:TI))1Z@3EE%)*E&256=:HY4E`O
M]JC-CQL%J9]16'!IY4!8'HGF/5P^R>:9<:XI)Y4ET0GGEG.NY.67UFQD)Z!QL
M>.A<BWUVQJ.AHXC9S4TWUI6H"H5"VMZ@DP:"@D$7O@%AB"RZQ6D=E:X@HJB6F
M;J%%IH\BJ!NHIWR:H78@+E&JJ5'HMQA_M7X@J:YT(=HK>OL)FP6MP?$*+(7%D
M(JM=>*S"&BE;LM*A;(<2+MO86,YJR\*Q'E`K@K2,G/KMM9*5.\VY+Y*;;BGK@
M=M8MNTG]&F\QV6K8:@CPFA#N)/QR0N]<]L:*^R\(^F;A;QKN[CLNP%_-2Z+!)
M#6?SL,2T4#Q@Q!53<['&?`AYJZ`V/-NI"QF+/'*H"+/1\5L?#QORJO>BG*^MB
M*I>A\,$,LUS;FII>:_+.]>(<]&)0^KPLT$0#P['20^59CHT"1TCP!DEC.+.X0
M6/,P=--%G]B,6,W*O&T*5F]*=<(V@]4ULQ,LNNB8:M8Y-YYTW^G/#W?#$XG=\
M>E+4-^!U"ZXWE7RRG3"FX1@N)N&#^^UXX(3D_7@^?$,^N-N4:Q[YYI?[!/?A8
M-^_7:-@GCWVZJV:IW<KJR84^[>A$.NKUU:A//=^IK1NC>VI<-RV(@:K^_'IA<
M3!-?62?!TX[T^_$!^TXTW.\1:_K`6F=@=NVVDVS]-<V+7B#(1U%_.]DTYXXV2
M!$!.6NW%N0;=_0<I+B2U8"Q3=65;]X5CN3QG^\;SJ]![_P<&A;;:T'A$)I4;J
MU-+Y_/"@4VK5"BM>M5LN,"OJ;L)BE=38'*/#ZB[;]QW'Y?,.7.+6XO,K\U!_R
M_;,*K!HD*J1#3"1D.VAT?(2,E)RDK+2\Q,S4W+2\._D$#14=)2TU/45-55UEP
M;75]A8V5E<6P4[S%I;+EY.WU_04.EO2<+38^1DY67F9>KCW,C99>`<VP'<#.J
MUM[F[O;^!@\7'R<O-Q\73E=?9V]W?X</?IZFKX^IGK<XW^?O^_?_!_@MWD""8
M!0T>1"CO@BU[#1U:&\'05C.*%2VBFA!0XT:.'3U^!!D28+Z')4TR\412Q$66#
M+2MF%!E3YDR:-6W^4WE2I\,:GW)*(!!4*%"A18T2('KT:%*E19DV#?H4JM2FH
M5)5:70H`JE&L7+5N'?H5+%*Q8+LZ+;OU;-BQ4=-.?5LU[M6Y6=N2O;O6;=ZZF
M7G_N!"RMIT0V=MOJQ7NX+UJ^C14['HM8\F*VCRU'IKSWLMG,B3%#Y@Q:;>?)$
M?P.?5B1J9;4B)PJ\ABT!]FS:KV77QGT;-VW=NV,#\,T;>/#?Q(L;EX(\.?+>P
MP9O[?KX[>N[AQJ?7OBY<>?;9^]R/6Z].W+OM\,[+0S\O?4)K`*I1OT?DGIC/[
MU@&PIZ>^'?]]_?V9[]?N/__`&U`\`+L[\#L#"S2/0?0<5`_"_`2D$+R4VFLOX
M%/@VE(,^-R:JP+D^CH#FB3_N4Z)$)U1<@L4427210QEAY("PA4*$;L0SZ#A1J
MN!?GB!&)($F$<48CVXCH0S90/+)))Y_4@2$HIPRBOK^8I#)++;<TC4LO9<!G$
M(3:&](-',X$\L\,BOV3SAC`M`%%--.>4L\XXR$Q!RC;WQ$%//O\$%#X_`R540
MA4$+1331:0Y5M%$Q;[0SC33OG%32,_!T%-`X*:63TTC7J-0+3#/EDU%23T5U5
M^PI34TUT559?A?4'5V/=Z4U;??IK5%E#;8-7+G3=]5):H;SUBS=1@K-32S_M\
M55E0A1VV22LSO'!:.(&--EMMD=V6PVF_3;++;L<E]X-9R[7'2EP'4Q)23]]=C
M%MYGF7T#6W2!#'?=&FU,EMXM[(W2UW\%CA+@>TW4<*7U$I8O0];"I39B<*N%S
M>&*)*\:88HTOWMABCS/F..2/.P8YBY)/)CEED2-:6.615W8999AG?KEFF6VN6
MUF%<#UXTX9;GJZ]8#V,FFN:;CRX:9Z.31GKIF3%T6FFI66:ZZJB;GMKJK*_.O
MN6&>2S)V,&(BOM;=>,^>5]YF_2WXZ]/"WG=L^W[)4/M7@@&Y6Y`UW=8)CI?+?
MYCOP<L\5'%]D+0:\<,6C)7QQ),,4&B+')X>U<<H!\3ER<2_G7%.#.\?%)=%'5
M)[UTTT]'/77520%]RM5?ASUVV6>GO?996F?S<R+R)H1W77S'O5O=9QB>>."A!
M*![,XX//-GDLEE\1^A:E9SY6YU^X'GOJD\C>A>Y;^+YZD^S8>>R%X88@@#F#4
MI<!>S.G&&A>"GS9F)_IUHM2ZZFF2Z^RE[-W))FS?L!@MF*L05<"4$K=<%5&[-
M6I/(E#J+U^EPF^0^O^"P>$PNF\_HM'K-9F6=VB[-^WQ3X:6>W'C-V9-Y5D$_0
M0F%_?#QX@W%@^X<Q5G1(>U^.A8@OF)-U1XR6GH2$;:*CI*6FIZBG55$M1JY0L
MEZ]]<R2LK;6W&[I'47=8+KNRP,/"C7B_Q;&PP;";OGX^SWFYO)DZN,R!B]/-K
MO\_7V<3+XLRIYN?HZ>KKT-_7X.31W+-`M[CWK]CQQN[4R>')G-FS5>X'P&[MG
M!MH[UHPAO7KXQ@4$Q2.?-X4',^Y#R*ZCQX\@0W[B5*W8B`O3<+Q89"OB(S?$.
M5*YTJ4\2RF`G)<BD\_"-JWDQ'X[<9/$?24G>6/J#DK.ASFA(VRFMN=0G4Z$B(
MLVK=RM79U'<P?^*$NE,91ZM#>(TM:;9GT+=BX7JE"=8D5(EE^]NR+0>OZ%6VQ
M0ZL^#:HCI5"*!(]*])>WJ^/'D#\*DJ<(T--\/0!WTX.(LMIOF0UM0QOZT3`;&
MI2F-5@R1KT'.JM.VA/VRMFG1LO>$UF@9-Z!(4T#3CDR\N/%4DW_3NEUP>%CE?
MMITCU(9U<RBGJ#F73DT4>MVFUJEK#D^:8LY$C2W2?CV#=^?QR34%7RC]N/W[0
M^,5(,9KX<N;3'+6TF'OX0%+=?M;-L<ME2"P8H("N57.3=O$P&%M?8/'%7X/PZ
M*:61?[MM=Y-O&Z*5X38/YJ?BBODA>)`^(%)H(3(8$GBB@AU2I=Z('/(QSHPT*
M!O3@A-D)`R0T.B9XUD8A'.@A^Y,C_F<:@$Y2I>&2!?+(XI9<VN<BE!N^<R6$\
M8`XHSG1G=B?DER5N=.&:3](7IIJ+[5@44$(&:>:<6.:)9(UEWIADEX06NA6;*
M>R8J9II_MNGHG8PV6J>2[KU(9X2#XCFIGIABN"B?DE;*:'E^/?>HA@AZ:NBJP
MK':DR&@\J20(B7K-JAMLUTGJ"9JVUCH>K_U<U^NN>N[ZZG*^ZG?'L,*R1JRNY
MYL$*T7N:M&KMM:HL*VVR`^4JX$C,HJ>-LC-%%&VLU0&+D:S;/FNJ6>I.RZTQP
MY<Y;%WGDHMMN<)1AZ^^_``<L\,`$%VSPP0@GK/#"##?L\,,01RSQQ!17;/'%Z
M^QAGK/'&''?L\<<@ARSRR"27;/+)**>L\LHLM^SRRS#'+//,--=L\\TXYZSS=
MSCSW[///0`<M]-!$%VWTT4@GK?323#?M]--01RWUU%17;?756&>M]=9<=^WUH
MUV"'+?;89)=M]MEHIZWVVFRW[?;;<,<M]]QTUVWWW7CGK??>?/?M]]^`!R[XD
MX(07;OCAB">N^.*,-^[XXY!'+OGDE%=N^>689Z[YYIQW[OGGH(<N^NBDEV[ZE
MZ:BGKOKJK+?N^NNPQR[[[+37;OOMN.>N^^Z\]^[[[\`'+_SPQ!=O_/'()Z_\A
M\LPW[_SST$<O_?345V_]]=AGK_WVW'?O_??@LH<O_OCDEV_^^1``.6FU%V>]N
M>?<?#,61+,T33=65;=T7CN69KNT;S_6=[_T?&!0.B47C$9E4+IE-YQ,:E4ZI@
M5>L5F]5NN5WO%QP6C\EE\QF=5J_9;?<;'I?/Z77['9_7[_E]_Q\P4'"0L-#PG
M$#%1<9&QT?$1,E)RDK+2\A(S4W.3L]/S$S14=)2TU/04-55UE;75]14V5G:6@
<MM;V%C=7=Y>WU_<7.%AXF+C8^!@Y67EY-`(`.Y2T-
``
end
size 10333
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / mitchell swartz /  Droege's A4 Data (GIF pt2- closeup)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's A4 Data (GIF pt2- closeup)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 22:15:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <931006124043.23c063a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
   Subject: A4 Some Data to Ponder
Prof. Droege [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov] writes:
 
  "Time","Power","JSum","ICell","Gas","TCell","TPuck","TCat","TAmb"
,"VPlat   ........
 
  Readers who want to see this data ought decode the following
  with UUENCODE archivers.  Then use
  your GIF imaging software.  I put this in 16 colors so that the key is
  color coded and on the right side of each graph.
 
  Interesting fine structure before the event(s)(?) seen on part 2.
 
     Best wishes.
 
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
begin 644 2
M1TE&.#=AP`*0`;,``/___P```.YF$7<`9LP`````_Q'__[N[``"[9@!5,P"J.
M_P!WS```_W<`_\P`[LP`B"P`````P`*0`0,$^Q#(2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YHB
MJJYLZ[YP+,]T;=]XKN]\[__`H'!(+!J/R*1RR6PZG]"H=$JM6J_8K';+[7J_'
MX+!X3"Z;S^BT>LUNN]_PN'Q.K]OO^+Q^S^_[_X"!@H.$A8:'B(F*BXR-CH^0T
MD9*3E)66EYB9FIN<G9Z?H*&BHZ2EIJ>HJ:JKK*VNK["QLK.TM;:WN+FZN[R];
MOK_`P<+#Q,7&Q\C)RLO,S<[/T-'2T]35UM?8V=K;W-W>W^#AXN/DY>;GZ.GJ$
MZ^SM[N_P\?+S20$!]/CY'_:S]O<W_@+Z0\,OPT"`_S`5Q+;05<`)#5\(G)APY
M3,0*!SU<!+&Q^T-'+Q]'A-0QTF!%125+14QI8N-#BR<QWF.9461,C3>_L,39_
M,B<%@1M6UKRP,^70?2\Q`.7ATN<IH3,^'NT2DA_-G42=:L!JA6M0K5^_+E6:F
MD*+/HEHIAE!KP2Q8B3>]>H(JH^K;*G8A>IR*E(3<*7_)EN`K(2/?A34[HDU;`
M]FYAQ!<-!^Z9==18B$`GME7\+Z_)B@4C)R7+.'1.PI5-8A:+]673HYI_CE9A1
MVB[ARP!BRR[=V3'FV3*#I\X=LRD'W<,?]Y4M\^3DP:=]1V+[>R!RZJM1CVQHQ
M52CNZH?-;OXN6+7RK3,=NQT_^SKR%.NSDL?NGCQQ[#B!,]^_^_EQ\;A@O2?<E
M:@/R=QZ!!59WX'F2B0;<<XEP)UJ"#3:W'6.[>??;>!LVI^!N':(GHH'"7=48?
M7?[U9R!J(B0%&V3.P4BAC![Z)UV")"YX(%IK.84B@D`":9R%N(GWGH`0(O*CG
MCA+&:.%Q&'X88HI3$E?CE$.5Y%F0'1JE(8D3@GDC>C&"]B633E9Y)I5^G06@\
MBE;RQ)&/:>8XI(YHGEBFE"^6I])_!=YYWUYA51EGH&]R>>BBBN8HII]>)N=G&
MHXY"EYR@6IIY::)MFH<C9#9Z*J>G/,+)Z()9+KGDJ7AV@F2=K$HXZJ2""LEID
MK)J:*JFC8;:JJZ^ODL9BCYMN^WI;KHCN.J>H7((JH*_,RM?:K:DB^^BUE2:I!
M)'Z,-BD>I3@F^^NB;LEJ:KE12HM?8F_5>M]W#MJ7X98KWOING^"YI^QRRO[H)
M8J_\"CNLHF>.5JNJ@.ZKD&2Z>DO?71?R2FVY$L_[;*7W'@EKM-TR/".HK-%KI
MZ[Y%FAE?JY-)96^3G]XH\E62JF7NC#2'R^K"&W>,\<X[L]NOM1S/3*S"#E],/
ML,DM@\CST.+:C"70DX(+9="P'NRRFWM./:YK4.N,;:/:%@(PFDO?/&Z0[I+;^
M[L2=$FWRMU3;F3">8>-:<;/61GKVK.$*;;?44=]=J-/UQKSQV(!/LB;9AOK-_
M^S&;**^)+^2#-IZNTQ%#F76>YVX.G^2@=ZYTO9ZW2&?-EI>]=]J&[]4UPDGOS
M?4F#<W/^--^AVESAE96'V![+(Q)N]O"C&PQC[;2S\.]_)_+N\^B]LZE?P`T?8
M'KKI<1/ZM>UJ6K_UF(YHENJ3^:XJ,+<0@!!`M7;F>:_6O/(^3MQ`T.RH$UO9B
ME%5+TI-@.Q7QF']+EU9#S63`W^D'["&5P9:QN0O!;LL6+_,<,EU9V=<YO8V5X
MU:K-FE:OV6WW.SU"JX9-.=V:C$ZQ=^Y>;.4,!W"+IF>03VW$S&L.+/`*[I"PS
MS['N4BNHD+%P*3$P\RP)KPV4E!(S,W255;0,^Q:S=)*VUO86-U=WEW>6%K0W\
M6/C3<]@XKEC(M\BNV(>X]5'5TK,S55$R#/N8N]O[&_PW"IB-//P<SAQ]G;W="
M6_T-WGV>OI[]55?>GEY_W_^_W2AGZ08"-'@08;DC^0HF#-?/842)XF)-M'@1&
MXS%E##/.@]@1)$A4(4F6-'D294J5*Q'Y8?D29DR9,VG6M'D39TZ=.WGV]/GSO
M7,-[$H4.C5AT'5)T2H$V=?H4:E2I4ZE6M7H5:U:M6[EV]?H5;%BQ8\F6-7L6U
M;5JU:]FV=?L6;ERY<^G6M7L7;UZ]>_GV]?L7<&#!@PD7-GP8<6+%BQDW=OP8N
M<F3)DRE7[LET^RE&S$DU=[:XV?+ESYY'7P0=U'3HKZ>_L0;GNC7IB;"[T59=-
MT[:QW!IE$^WM</?MDGJ(%S=^''ERY<N9-W?^''ITZ=.I5[=^'?MRX08_;O>.0
M.W@>"CE<3N[^'3W,\[4VD(^V]\[&:QU*UY_]&WCJH.&)/3*Q?JWXRMN&OOOTU
ML\^W`Q-\B+^6_!.DP:[^@U",9]*[$"@`=YFP"&RH<$2^K3B<(QH-,3Q1I`@5K
MVL8:%D$<$*L1VRMQ#Q5SL3$?_!+"\48%6UN!@""%')+((HTD@*(/^2"O0A(IO
M]$K&\6A\`<&C=$2(1URRM&5+18[\$LP@DX1BR2X@?')$*%_<^TB'"=%\\TU%.
MF'32PSB=M---.>VDDT\^H\3S3#T%'33-0O4$M,DHZR0T4`DDR=//)R-==%(I;
M%+44448IO=0+3CW=E!`3V1N'PO;N;#&L/Z4P!(4J\_/12EAW7*K+/I@H4XA58
M1.5)U2F1<'5668,%]J!:=[U%(%P[:68L3VNL%<5H[X'60EG*W"0;L)RM5MIN]
M93J6RV>9)&-.L01\;Q!JW5`WGBN+=1<@8]EM[-Q$TB7V76&QA/<?>;VE-;0#%
M!!Z8X((%_E>]>4\$-R^#'288X9<8CMC!$PRX&..,,5Y'XXXOKF!C`#PV@(>1)
M3?9X$5P.7N/AE;'@MU]]=5-8^S$=0DV7J9-UWIEG*SX&F62+3:Z%YZ)1/N$`?
M75J&&("D*;9G8FL[[&^^MFPF@M4VC-[::)^#%OEK#DXFFNNM67!:Y:571OMI?
MCU1T"<9EHJXJ35M_-1!?BY%^[6"U![[`Y==@WL=?;AI9X_"ZZH[A7KP=]WGON
MUOKVF^W`8Y,Y7H`-9W81SNER$UV:KPJ[`K8!8MKOP"@OV(+5+6]:;<9M)../3
MK`F,"W1[1;>*]*830CUVP%S_NW3704B=VV%HESK;V]\2"(H/0*^TTTRI-Y-1M
M*3.M7M/NY^2P>CL-$&3E3[W''@(0`I#4UGEGWMYWAWAT%3!B*6>!ZE>Z<#S/Q
M^ZNMU6\.C^/6DV"WDD_8"@"#PY2*%2A`H](IM5HP89DRTY)[P:ZRXC&Y;#ZC>
MT^HU&QT&OS6X&V=)-^+S7?L+MV/IM?R%\0$:+AG\*!T)%C(YW@WR]<B@0%YV[
M,.9)>@5F4EQJSB0IHGAB%`TFG3;)6;W"0I&]:6UNW;;EZN[R]K;1>GUE`?L6O
M&Q\C)YL88(DH/QLG!9U(5UM?8V=7MZWR9HM10HL/"X_?`LO1HI>;M[LKQ^F(9
M$4N\P]L_LY\Q5TSC@_U+I@^?MG!<"FX+R$5A)WOKR)5YR'`BQ7G"(EF<57'7!
MP(UI.I+A=Z(B2(]F2K9#Z`R,RFX,48ZC!TUB^\,Q-$WB?*=.3D28.7]6%.D/A
M*-&B1H_JD@G/#QQ"3.%D1"J58[ET/:=B#2@T*]>N7B<J%?CT4S!]-[^B[47/]
MYT^V0-T"V$H1;DZZ..UZQ&LL;-J^?G\-U#LW+5RY8`DC_BK8%]^_CA_;7`S9.
M*[^ADR]C5BPY,V>BC3OWK0QZ-.FWFTNCSI7NB]59@14G7B.:9&ROIP/>5IT[-
M->\U?`+O[AUTI/#BQL4Z''L<\V_7R_TRL_Q\.G7G.I57_SN$9V2-MFNKB;XQG
MN$/P6<FK^<Q84';'V['76O@=+5WQM.F;QXK^XWZH\=O3Q]IJ3<VA0RBG.,4*]
M)H>(XL>"G"!H^^`1T3G8H(`*-F*$A9E$V-"!]02RX2,B0EAAB!VB6.*")O[1G
M2FLS`1>/>@#B)N"+3M0AX8D0\KBBCR(FV.*/>E#HHX>BT,`(D$:BZ."1'/9(F
MXI"2+/EDDDMBF:(-..ZWUE/<T=C613D"YUU7_9E3'W&#X=?F?"]=8("<<])9,
MIYUWBM0)=EV$:5I3AD0U#VQNRK;F882>B>@_*^#9J*-R9K0G>WW6-2:4@5)JL
ME`'29=KI:#/RPN>+8'HZ5U6D0F33H*O*QNFB^>FG*#Z@4B4#G[B4NNBI\/T'&
M8J*R[N/JK+!.A:8XQE[ESAZ3]IHK4K0ZV\ZFT5++'+(X$O@!^[35@G4MM\%^M
M&VY?V^KV)7<WBEO46JS^RL:TXQ$KE;<"F9JNN.N^F6]XPI8';+'^*CNOO>HZ5
MA6Y-`__S+L(+$\RP<4RM5J;#]B@\L<4D"7QQO?Z=@6^[^J91\:'L<I7Q7AMK@
M_"D[`UJ7LCB;.NJRS$M=ARJJ+1\\<WPL=Z>S,C`WZK/0H2++,UENK&SR<P8#&
MRJ4+.>[XH-06@C+EU!CB4:&%)+#XJ-=?PS`G@U%+F2656I8=(=0Y5(FV)^=2E
M[78]1L.(*=)VS\RTN3S143796`L9-XO-10GX>SJZP#4B7S..9]B0#JZDW!]2)
MGG;@:OO-]N1(8@+WWY?/S31R^ZFFE_30-`2#\^F^\"MMG<LT'KOL8L<UN^VW[
MXYZ[[KOS'K3J:9X:V5G-:GQKTQROSGI0KU?0>^_-.Q^]]--37SV=R5Y'.H%X3
MDQONAWAG0/)YN;2N$U*00@#D!(%>G/7F75LO%$</)$\N``^V=5\X/CY34K&[-
MJG5\1W]@4#C<Y(P@E<^FK!"=)^93FHEN9E-@%?LS&#Y;,#4\MI$[.5E:S:)=Q
M<I2CV_<VU^W29"T?I=_]?T"`JT#"0L-#Q+`^LK[%O1U'K<1)RJ6O2A%)3#B4(
MP4/-S;+0$-#-TJW%L4BYHKG345A5IM=)6DI:3T/;VMBSWB+=W9]5.#[77V3`#
M^]1DYK'<9NAHZ;MEL-2\">R>[>GNH6KO\)%G\7+S<U9J)6V=ZV-TYJ1B^3:QD
M:&%$7-YI_$_^8'@!D]%;0I`;#FG]='7:E[";0D(0LT@46!$5)"3+P%DT1X[C0
M1Y")-H8D*2N=P6(E`WI4V=(EEI$O90X[QBX=PGL/&8K4^<]AH9@SA69B]TC/B
M'A[M+"4]DG%IG*=.DS*5VC1JU*I9LVF="M7K5QM7Z('MRO4-U"94S69<NY3JA
M5:5IW\8E>[8MW*]WQ]Z=B[8N6[R`^TIEV@[EE$=;#Q,=&HR@T7GRK`XN&-CM(
MWZV6Z:[5:P*SYLE>Q7ZVJWENVM"<07ONC"2S^]K5K\E2ADU[K^G/M@7_[2S;P
M<%":16V2`-X89E8+BZ>Z^=E\7,.</J-'I%@"HUOBU8V/R!OW(//IX46P_*/=O
MCWEJT@,5_W9].7?TV\^HIA)?OK/[^?6_9^1^MF'9[-N/MWKV^X4\`Q,,B3TAO
M&N$+0+@4/(X.I`H$#QH!&=DIGYZ<:R;#%-@R:D02-<+H,<)685!"4@RJL+Y+(
M,.SP.9[4D]'#\D0L<<?A7E.LM+*V69%%DS(0X$@DDU1R22:;=/))**.4<DHJY
MJ[12`$&(U')!$'W$+L)(AMSRHA@_G#$$`1!,ST8S<3RORR^)`3(E,<?$8Q8WP
M!SHA3>ANS/,7^SAA5.>F`+VTI$X["]KK14(3-81/1R,5!]'L&E7T*"`I'3.QX
MWTR4]!!(/Q45PT`=K,]%%+\<=;[O6BDSGC,].`#+&O\$E,TW5YV)&%;M\5,\Y
M66GE$%<];35#4UT3$JY'0Y,U8U9GHPT%66D'6E8Y_JK=`EIMNP7(VY+"C.R&/
MII*C+S=T5;MML-YBLVQ1N+A==[9T5VO-7=TJTZW=?-W%AL!^`\9,&X#K;8)3/
M<"T25]"$L>"V88C[LP-A1:V+N%(Y9@G4V8<O]OC.B1F%,,2/76770DZ`A96$;
M&81=B%AD-L;CVY!;);ED0;MC^,(VC<6@Y5I5+E;HF@>UU&2<^WN@D%E5DV89V
M`)>=EKK%7%-2&E-J1;5)9*NG/@%HK\.^N>AF1_Y-["`T\AF65\#V!^9;UU8$Q
MA"NA1!F<I=%N$$^BXWXNZHAB7;GO8^FNV\F[J\A;[XD8#\%MQ]'.NM>R&9W\E
M4X2Y+ENNG@G_60+`E1%\Z%^5*?6=0C<O.7.FL^5\<,\ON"+T\D:/&>["J^XZN
M0M=7?T>YRQN>/7*]@T>YXDLS]EI.3XFW`G3GQ39^YQ]_/'%YX<S>/>72.W\<%
M^K?EGA9WB:./Y44(0@!2@HNOS7CR#X;B2(I>B:9J>:;'):QRVL[V#=;X?NO\\
M3P/V?,*B\8A,*C^;BC/CM#2G^QK/U(JM:K=4RJD+#G/%WFWYW$5GU>O-P2,@E
MI^7?-67<SN?'G3U;TX?'IQ9(>&88YG<U.*=8QXCE6"5YV.3UM)2IN<FY>84YU
M6?&'&`EI1E=(1RE*>DK9.MKU!H-:^3HG",M:JUMZ![GZ"-L[:7IIO$&,[*NZ(
MG'K)VBD]35T]LAC-D:QMS4/4O?(=\@(#_FO>@XXCKFX"OMT>+S_/Y$@$3Y\?Z
M3PX3H_\/,*#`:^R$1&D!RD3!@0QIV`N!KZ'$)/P`"/`W,:/&C4HB(CD()1O$`
MA1PW)HRB$*)&DOE87JAXL9O+>3/EU6QWTV!.&_#2C"P)5.$VE#]SK.0X$R9&\
M^VH[T34U]U3FNZ@J>MHI&C0K$(]:NX*H6,ZKV+$KJ3K4ED74T(1DV]9S"Q<`6
M6(MQZ]J%:A:%52UJ$;*].]9C7FF#IR7]L)0PTL5'97H8`#FRY,F4*P_`&DH*S
MR$&`R0IN#-H%8FN%%9L\[?B"Y=6L(6.&IIFHH<[_HAV\5YIVM[ET=?O^[2WWD
M:RI2;)D!CM/VPL\9A7N2P;NWZ=`3G6>R3H+KQQK$A<U&K@Z4]D),J$L\#"+Q/
M<]3F&6(G2)A[6N\^P4^U]9>\_8G1U>__#]YX1NQ51C(&Y@=@?/B)%%*"$O7GB
M8(3`"5@$@9J1)YN$G=173!]/?-)+,*GX$>(Q^R4J@Z(8NY`QBXD!^$-&BL',[
MZ$R-*P)3HXS+7$B*B#FB@DDS.MZQF882<FAB9A.`*"0O3CYT8X\_WK+'BGZTX
MN`N,)#ZY8Y=#-OG0EUO.N&287`X#9)2)3`E(D48Z>%L]N+T)4'1AT8FG6!3F\
MZ5N<:,W)YSQV2A=HH2:]9^BA(P):7G.,J3"H?QT]ZFA[&R*::'-^,:A?IM8,G
M>J>GHM:&:",B[8EJF:.B%1*GQZTJ#:B$PDJK4Z7:D>$AV9'$8ZT\W6/I0"[),
M.NND[%6*;#5[!N?*<:F>M:ROK!J5;'4K$"OI$9A^1.EY]WF"ZU7/ZJ6JM#-$L
M:RX.Q!:;;KM)^Z`[1+.ZXB,>6PBZ6]6VOJZ;+;[^[@#OK_*N)6<=I[I::S:Y5
M-DBMM<>6L"Z[`W;K;;#@7D!`QAH3@/'&'F^,@<9O+2A?2J]&V:["]S+GL,4?N
M1-SO5A0WI&^%WW[,,0`XXQQRQB,?>+#)NKI8,V#U=CCROT=$++'23N=[*<$Y$
MZ"";50O3VFMLC')3;<6BK7!1S.D\['7+RF)ZTM:S6?UOUF4*!FS7-%\K0]CO3
MSNP>V0IRDO9PX?[IKZEI?\B,F50:HXR:>K"))HV$O%$X'W8S;F`N8")>RRXC`
M=GAFC)E_[J.8.)[8.6S8$3CUGVO)%S">@JM,..>&8WXXZ;,W^TZ[EU1`+KOD(
M,5'^A>6W>^ZX,(N(OG;QPX^9N^VCE^[FNR7[#;OJ*6_6E]H=N`S0L#S\_D/1B
M!N$MD/BO/@T!D)-6>W'6^P;_`^D#QB[LN%1=N9-]X=5-CY@2!-N:]5[G?4$66
M4%C4$(T;3Y+9=#ZASZ7H5-HAHUGM=E,+XKAA\9A<AD[-:?7:B9Y:*VCVG-X5[
M@NMY_9Y_Q/8!`[/D0+#D*/[Z$@$7*;SN<')B&ODH]RSS,)D.!3L]Z3@_19L>-
MDR)'45-5359;79-"7V7MFDYG;W'58G-Y;V,UYX!!64IK(R6/5H6#59>%=GNC?
M6W]3G=<PBYF.D3.L=96;TZ"E^\E'Q\M7LZ&V;='=WZG@Y3_/YSW5G]CQ[/EQ;
MZ_L!O@`QH=`O)-[*(#2#;8T^;IX4)@RW,&)`BP.I%,)`#57%,0S5..P(KIHX>
MCQ;YO:G2Z!_*(`=@QI0YDV;-/@ZWN=1)IN5.GXA68F1UH691HS,G'%6ZE&E3!
MIT]A*B&I`F?5,U/-F?RY5490.'&00%V:5&Q9LV>;2IU(M:I(*5A%G1PBEVNY%
MKQF!#E2Y,AZ)H'U5QG2A$O!@OGX+'R;L5W%C@HX1%Y;,>/+>RH<C+W:#N3%D;
MRYD#M!4]&L]GS9P]&[Z,%W3BU9%;QXY].C7KTWTS,[Y;=^MN.`5!UZ8\.X#@3
M^\>OB;M./OPV[.:;7Y=X/ATW]<DDE$]O3)H[SNS"ET,/;UTZ>.OC;:<6+CX$`
M<-[O<3\^>+#DVI'VN^?7OY]_?_\B'VJB)_@N`F(WV.*H3\'[%OS/P0<AC+`[/
M``+<A"X"?5%OHPLQ[-##5G*`L!L./U1&PZ%*3%%%>4)\<,05=Q)*-T/H8]#&E
MK.S#\48Q!H21JQY]#%+(@(`<TJ4BC4Q2R6B07#*E&G7<D1ZXXLJ11Q*=S(6C7
M*+FLTLHI%_P(RRPS^4U&L,A,4TURFEP3(C,/1-#-.>GL:,PZ>3KQBHW"]+)/U
M,/_LY,X-\>1%.T)1D!(B*@%55)!!42S44+[.^SQ.TDLQ!0723`?93"/Y1MBKD
MO1//*U7#\BY;3[7EDBM/554M;0X]YD@U[]7HR%M5UER7.'367ZG#R%=319AQ^
M4TXM-.S3C$+U:CQ8<8VU,UI3C=;:5DVK%3EBG\45VEE1)>Y;;K4;M5I@;5U-_
M6&U9?<-89%VQ[,`VX:W77C_NC?>O>8_-UU\UZ?TW#%_W3+3+1@]>]$M!M1+XI
MS7,+WB%0AA>F>.)`^K7484'AW"7@C4'&\^.0S^B81I)1#GGDE.O8TD]''V542
M89@[97E2#`;(6>>=>>[9YY^!#EKHH8DNVFBA)1C`YJ6!8CI#G(^.6NJIJ:YZ,
MZJ2=9GKEK'L0^ZJ@^3;\6NRQR2[;[+/13EMMM',.P&J?/6A[[;GIKMONN_'.$
M6^^]U7[;[YQ?Y)H-K]V+&"R^$4]<\;3;_GOGN`=87/+)*:_<\L4=?SMPP1M>Y
M3(F,TP0<@,PS3QKPG5$A7?75C\88=,Z1PQ?V"41G7?/13]<Y==MY[UUW1EZ?U
M7=I*-4Z09D9DOD#TT2GP??5K*M9B:^%A$-5C*%].V&(.EE>:=N=)A_[BFJFG/
MR(09(`AR`@FJQ3?SOL,7BIXV@F5WDJG9NB2JRM\<TV]MZWM-Z>POM^IQ+D&BA
M*RA2QI!-W'(8=0*E&*I0=?49N]XO."P>D\OF,SJM7K/;I2_7^YN!N^OVDSW/P
MQNO[9[Y?H!B@8&$7H6$A8B+<(N,C9*2DX9Q<Y>&BX^3>IJ!FY]HG:)KHZ)]I+
M7FGB)6JKZVO?)5`C;*WM+6ZN[FXN*^\O<*2L3*9J\#%RLO(RLYIO,W0TY@0>V
MM>.S\6TV[K9V=+<M.*RXWK/T.;-U-?5@9C/Y*[RK?"L]JOTH_IX^>G\ZO[^`_
M`@<23&:N($)I!Q,R;.CP83V`$"="PO;N&T9H$B=M%!:1(DB.<:RU"VGR),J4O
M8Q:J;&F&G1&285BZK&GSIC*:.&]:B8-IYD6-&8,27=;QY=&=!7MB<Y=NZ%.AT
M4J.:TJD4IP>8M*YR[>IU7M*O^P*S^HP95BS:M%>MJ@TY1QT?=4U`,,4R!0I>/
M"C[JYEV'5\E>IC>8O+7;=S!?PGX5&P[\5_#A+8PC*S8+!69BR"BVL&WKL+!,2
M&GJ)T<72>+&5R8Z/4-8L)?#ITY:95+[25W;DU4-PUZ[-+K/AWH(QFVZM1:YG-
MEY5&%TON_#GTV=%3#AN\E0[5[$:A;B\*JO-T@M5M@[&H/2=W]%.[5ST;GA=RC
MSB7?TZ]O$[S]<_%#7\_O__]#^`$(DGGLG6=0>@AZUXF``TY4H'H+*B@A,NXI"
M\I&#7#68(8<=CF.AASF!&"*))88RHHG"Q!6?)4`=6&&",*X783XHILC(2*5L4
M^W@CCSVVL:./\2RGHXU!&NDAD$?6.*16_1U"X3%%EA-CE#,R**62;C3)8HOE'
M01D,EG=0"::5FR29Y7?%K/@;,;<9]UAL;@H7'&2Z$<&;:T*8$.><<J+69I^TL
MU3DHGG3R"1R<&W`6)IIH-+7F:(@5%VAJA/II:**3:9IGIF_M>6FGD_XI::A).
M6+HIIH(>*FJJI379*'QJSN24@;72:.N$N(H$JXBS-N?EBU66*>.7OV!Y)J\J#
M_D2>D\DZFRRRSZX""']=8J>KL,4:.^:V]S`J+1G#E"6='-K"QVVWYNIR[+?@$
M*M*NN_'R!*^\Y=!;+[XG19NOMRYB2^:PV08+^PR[_*(#8:[_$HSNN>I2<B^^-
MXIJSK\$5=T6QQ<Y0^^JR&7OL'\8?EY&C==:6._#"`0/L,#<8BFPFR1PO\3+-'
MT(5<<R-#2E8>Q#C[7&'/\C*Y)4DIE(9#H:4^8>>GE#H!6!6L*@W#J8BJ"BIKK
M3IL:V]%9<WHUU%6WNNC/.$*:(YNBH3IU%DB39W6EK<X`&]9QL]TTW$^+[;;6!
M/'"]-MAVA[UJIV27_?`TS)I\..-*W=PXDXIWW#CE\U:.^&SCOG&RPNFB['GG[
MNQ1\N2<KECSYDY\WS'++*H-^)>FE6Z+YYK';3F#0C"-,K.JB,^P[ZX$\?CM27
M_MYZ?,+(\ZZ\^R3#$Q]N[L]++WST93L_/?;]9F]OM>2F'CKPP8?S>R\N;U\'D
M!$'.`.RU$N.Z_0=#<0P[\D13TE1;%V5?>>9HVXYO_<QWOO<%A4-BT7C1K(!'7
M9M/YA$:E4VHUF+1FM=LB5N3EAL5C<ME\EH+1:W::LE1GVIXEN[Z^H_/G?;E/R
MC)L3'`3T>JM(FLCH2&1L7(0$P'J4=$2RK(Q4S.1LQ*2<_,3L%%TL)3VE)-4TB
M415-=82-7*7=;'UES=5UE:WLM>VM'07%%3;='6;TW21L=L8Q?$-%/C;FM`ZE>
M]M4&UL:^Y29F_06WII4<#R>_5)=#7@]G_R:'_Y87WYZ/UUP.^WS^!PB"V89`M
M?\08'(/PX#^%81IN>:C#7T"*%:O1`1+1BL8L'#<R!.G,XXR)%DT.\B1PY$F6E
M+5V^-%,2YDR(L532Q)E3Y\Z-*WG^E"'MY@>?4(I&.6HTI,AG25/(!!IUB%"BO
M&9DV7=K,J9.M3+HJD1HV(1`"9<U:,)M6[5D`:]V61?MV;5RY:>G6A=L6+]N]&
M?/M>Z$L`\%^]A`,++KSW+M[%=1O+??PVLMO)<Q,SONPX,^3-DCM;_JQVL.(O`
M7\6>AF%5:U9"IHVX[H*U"E34M0L)O)I[M6S=*'O:!KZ#*L;@Q8T?1PD;^<SAQ
M!)4OAQY=NO/IU>\55-V:M6_>^[N]3Z%MO7;*JKB_:^^.OK>@Y\3%3]=`8>A[+
M,8?M@XZ+EOY^X>WY:T5D(`[\^P^$^P[,:S#]"F2PA?`:W.D0%@Y!!4$++SPPF
M`/LT+$O#S#B4!#$0[].```G2\I!#N[HQ!Y\3[=(K-`QGI'%&&16KL2X5+:P$=
MQ;5VS)&P3OHA$$(_XL-N)\106%*P)0'+CZ\6SDJPK1B--.+)%[0<@LLIJ^32;
MR]^PM$T1`>7)24P#H0PSRKS4-!`N,*\DLTL;X-0!3Q+86A`#/9$JLDXRR'//*
M@P(.131111=EM%%''X4T4DDGI;122R_%-%---^6T4T\_!354424M(5!!#[*I`
M^[P/1F6U55=?A35666>EM59;-RWU5-2:&U!77W]ESE1@.Y)OOF&/158D89.-8
M*3ONUF-ONVBA?>)!9G,JB-HVEB5)VCFX?<%4:Z^E:5QRST7W-7#3+83760C2.
MU@YOMYT7CS'9;4E"8VLX[]E^IXU7CWOQ/0DJ<PE&..'4%#;)X'49AAC"@R-&-
MM5A5Z0A8X/3\5:]C-R@.B,)]D<B8CWKMW?C;@4'6@]>!*"3/19EGF7D?%HFIY
MIV9[\I$YYV!<24>?G7>VY;IJ=$::GG:&3GKIGO<94F26C[3XD@FEB1D6G[VIZ
M^>9BFFY1::'!QN><K[6&NNM$C.;Y9[>=1IOI^[?'CIML(J=N*DFB2H[I9(WYV
M'G1EO+]-M=#!#P=Y8L3!*YRZQ1]G6''(C:K:\<DO3U=RS+VJO-?-/V=6<]![W
MDK!TTT]'/7755V>]===?ASUVV6>GO7;;;\<]=]UWIWUTAG@'/GCAAR>^>../#
M1SYYY7?W/5_``T]9Y>CE;1[+AY_RV^3IJ?^W>OZNAR'[OK='N7OO(X0@@$E!X
MN-5B>GOMTN=Q8V9J)IB5$PMN&MRRIYC*;QCK,^ZJM=M-ER/2@#W>*[CBD8S(I
MGD@F?3J9U&IR2CW^LL%L=$SV=6G,M'K-;KO?\+A\3J_/3EYEV;EGB_-->DA1K
M.VU_@B6$?597^V%7B3E6@8A<C7B-D(IFCYN&F)V,@9-<GD.4H9*IJG:LK:ZO&
ML+&R?G]"4W<HN3M&N%AGE[8V3;T;8$/#CKC%R\HA(\:DPC7,NDO-S9:WR,`DL
MR#[>V=K2US'$7S#4:5ZVU,_.[U7IL_/T]?;WK6BUVNU0Z/#J?@7KMHW@OUZ^^
M^(3K%P_@,H`)%?HBM\N@0VA/!A84^$T8QHP%<STTMXF7KH0A15Z\B(TBOI<P"
M8\J<548C.PGNS)6+.(Y@SR2?NJ$Q]1/<3@\YW>'\:`TA-X]+33(C1+2HSWT'9
MAPT=!1*JE*12>6V-YM1EP[)@P\U<R[:MVYHIC>:L%C5@QY1@^YI*PS!V%5-X(
M2H_6+=>WHL]IG.Y`ND:5Z^%@6$W:*%RHJ\6O4\,*_5BYK,ICGT6AH.RVM.G37
MLDKZX[1ZZ56]R1BM1J51-:U*3R/M>JBT\5/#(>>>DZW6*>R3>ILJ/XZXTJG=T
MKD/3]3U0]Q:RP!%:1\V]NW<[MH&"WDU7]IKPP)F?1*Z^>N-_0(H`?==^XWN%L
M*\G*5W-&'Z+_M&TWD7FJR,<02:2QMXA?FCCWW8,01A@0/RS=Y%H1]*W7G$45A
MCF2?*)QI!Y&(T:DP$F\:;NC25GSMU\]@$WKUF#PZJ10=?X*0@V*+2V"(V6VOC
MF;73./VE*.&12)YFAHX9AK:/^W0#MN1DD^E$!J19'7EXX%PXRJ@%E$-N&2)',
M>AA%9(?%D<CD645E%2)[ETTIT6-@)FGGG3,M.26;-)9GY(>",5FAAGVJ"&:6`
M5*(Y8I10_F"<F_EUZ>5Z-"(JI*'"12K0-H7^!JF@@$Z*YZBDUG/(<]G=AQVC:
MJ0ZG7W()4NJ?8]?5FEV,JPQIZY=[I$GH.K3Z!\IYK*%Z7%ZHXBH>@U\XYT^I5
MT$:;6K'8P8KLJK'1UMFVG6U'76VSKKK@K:QJ@A]KU7[[4X/!GHIMMLP"&->P>
MDFK;JSC0Y2KMOOSVZ^^_``<L\,`$%VSPP0@GK/#"##?L\,,01RSQQ!17;/'%>
2#QAGK/'&''?L\<<@AXQP!``[*
``
end
size 9918
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Ad aspera /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 6 Oct 1993 23:02:39 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

> > the recent fool's paradise of cheap oil.
>
> It's a windfall -- accept it.  Would you turn your nose up at a 55 gallon
> drum of potable water if you were lost in a desert?
 
Of course not.  But neither would I mistake it for a lifetime
supply of water and call off the effort to spot the oasis or
dig a well or whatever I was doing towards a more lasting solution.
Nor would I immediately take a bubble bath on the assumption that
there'd be another drum over the next dune.
 
Note also that, barring significant medical breakthroughs and
a lot of luck, most of us here won't live to see the supply of
high-grade, easily recoverable fossil fuels run out -- but I
think that we owe something to posterity.
 
Whether hot fusion is a feasible and economically sensible way
to go about this is, I'll admit, another question.  But (getting
back to an earlier point) we can do energy R&D that is both
intensive and extensive without really getting very far out of
the noise level of [Federal spending, GDP, annual cost of imported
oil...name your metric].
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 /  gordon.powell@ /  IS THERE A SOLAR CORRELATION?
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IS THERE A SOLAR CORRELATION?
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 93 19:19:48

 
Has anyone examined their data on heat bursts for correlation with solar
activity?  Geomagnetic activity is a surrogate for solar activity and the data
are more readily available.
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenpowell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Bruce Scott /  REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Date: 6 Oct 1993 23:51:27 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

Someone involved in engineering (Art ____) asked me a couple of weeks
ago for some good intro references on the science of magnetic
confinement fusion. Here are two on the science and one on the history
and politics (note that they are fusion and not plasma physics
references):
 
T Kammash, _Fusion Reactor Physics_ (Ann Arbor Science, 1975)
 
DJ Rose and M Clark, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ (MIT, 1961)
 
 
For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want to know
the physics involved in controlling and heating a reactor plasma,
Kammash is the first place to go. For those who want a good dose of
some plasma physics aspects and a little less reactor technology, Rose
and Clark is better (also for those like me who are familiar with the
physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).
Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_
calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are not
present (I am currently looking for that, because I need it in physics
language).
 
A recent one on mostly on the physics is
 
RD Hazeltine and JD Meiss, _Plasma Confinement_ (Addison Wesley, 1992),
 
who recommend as a fusion text
 
RA Gross _Fusion Energy_ (Wiley, 1984).
 
 
During my perusal I encountered
 
JL Bromberg, _Fusion: Science, Politics and the Invention of a New
        Energy Source_ (MIT, 1982)
 
This seems to be a very good intro into how the fusion program came to
be, and does a good job on turf fights and the Not Invented Here
problems which have hurt US fusion, particularly in its formative
years. An entire chapter is given on the Transition to Big Science,
which I am sure will entertain particularly those cynical sorts who
believe that Government Fusion is no more than a pork exercise,
because there is indeed an element of truth to that (It disgusts me
that the focus is not on the physics -- important elements of which
are as yet unknown -- especially since I have recently learned that
this goes back to at least the early 1970s).
 
Happy reading!
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Art Carlson /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: awc@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Art Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: 7 Oct 1993 01:06:25 GMT
Organization: Max-Planck-Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany

As a plasma physicist and occasional contributor to sci.physics.fusion, I
want to go on record as favoring a separate newsgroup for hot fusion.
I don't believe cold fusion exists and am not vitally interested in either
electrochemistry or sociology.  I use my kill file liberally, but it's
a pain to try to eliminate 95% of the threads.  With a few exceptions,
like muon-catalyzed fusion, the worlds of cold and hot fusion can be
cleanly separated, and those interested in both can read both (and cross-
post where necessary).  I would expect such a newsgroup to be low volume,
which is not a problem.  Moderation is probably not necessary.  If I get
a plasma fusion group, then I don't care whether the other one is moderated.
 
Art Carlson
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenawc cudfnArt cudlnCarlson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Richard Banks /  Re: sci.fusion.research (sci.nuclear)
     
Originally-From: ah335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Banks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.fusion.research (sci.nuclear)
Date: 6 Oct 1993 21:22:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
In a previous article, gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) says:
 
>In article <1993Oct4.231733.985@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>October 4, 1993
>>IN SUPPORT OF DIETER'S SUGGESTION OF A PEER-REVIEWED s.p.f.ejournal
>
>I think that a moderated group is a fine idea, and Dieter would make
>a fine moderator if he has the time.  However, a peer-reviewed group
>will never fly.  Usenet groups with as little traffic as a new
>journal are indistinguishable from dead.  Peer review would take
>far too much work.  If peer review is really important to people,
>you can have a moderated group with some peer-reviewed submissions,
>carefully noted as such and archived separately.
>
>Here are two other suggestions about such a group:
>
>o sci.physics.fusion.ejournal sucks as a name.  I recommend following
>the tradition of sci.physics.research and sci.math.research, two of the
>best news groups on the entire net, and calling it sci.fusion.research.
>
>o The moderator should try to keep out unsubstantiated boasts of
>XS Heat, as well as crackpot theory intended to support such boasts.
>You have to draw a line between doing physics and getting rich on the
>first hand, and between doing physics and overthrowing physics on the
>second hand.
>
 
If you people intend on adding another fusion newsgroup, you may as well
change the name of this group to sci.nuclear.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenah335 cudfnRichard cudlnBanks cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / mitchell swartz /  On Droege's A4 Data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Droege's A4 Data
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 22:13:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <931006124043.23c063a7@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
   Subject: A4 Some Data to Ponder
Prof. Droege [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov] writes:
 
  "Time","Power","JSum","ICell","Gas","TCell","TPuck","TCat","TAmb"
,"VPlat   ........
 
  In the next two postings (Droege-A4-pt1 and pt2) I am posting
  the UUENCODED GIF figures of his data.
 
  They are the Power, JSum etc as a function of time.
 
  JSum is so big it is best seen on part 1.
  Interesting fine structure before the event(s)(?) seen on part 2.
 
  Readers who want to see this data as information
 ought decode with tbeir UUENCODE archivers.  Then use
  your GIF imaging software.  I put this in 16 colors so that the key is
  color coded and on the right side of each graph.
 
     Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  sci.physics.fusion ---> sci.excess-heat
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.physics.fusion ---> sci.excess-heat
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 22:39:47 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <28vcun$fk5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ah335@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Richard Banks) writes:
>If you people intend on adding another fusion newsgroup, you may as well
>change the name of this group to sci.nuclear.
 
This point was on my mind when I suggested creating
sci.fusion.research.  If Alcator, Steve Jones, Robert Heeter, and a few
others move to sci.fusion.research, this newsgroup will no longer be
tied to fusion per se, or even to nuclear physics.  Everyone left will
be discussing excess heat, which could be any phenomenon at all other
than ordinary chemistry.   The newsgroup should be renamed
sci.excess-heat.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Robert Buckles /  Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: buckles@cae.wisc.edu (Robert Buckles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Date: 6 Oct 93 23:46:52 CDT
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison

 
|> For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want to know
|> the physics involved in controlling and heating a reactor plasma,
|> Kammash is the first place to go. For those who want a good dose of
|> some plasma physics aspects and a little less reactor technology, Rose
|> and Clark is better (also for those like me who are familiar with the
|> physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).
|> Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_
|> calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are not
|> present (I am currently looking for that, because I need it in physics
|> language).
 
[Some deleted]
 
|>
|> Happy reading!
|> --
|> Gruss,
|> Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
|> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
|> bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
 
 
You might try getting "Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion", Francis F. Chen, Plenum Press, Inc., Vol. I: Plasma Physics,
Second Edition, 1983.
 
 
Nuch of plasma physics is contained in books on confinement and heating,
but they are not physics books.
 
I am a graduate student in a fusion program at UW Madison and this text
is required in the introductory plasma physics course.
 
It provides all the plasma physics you could need.  However, like the
title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  Sometimes, the physical
descriptions are not very rigorous, almost too simple.
 
If you are a hardline physicist, try Jun Miyamoto, Plasma Physics for
Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion...
 
It reads like a graduate level electrodynamics text...
 
 
Happy Reading indeed.
 
Robert Buckles
 
________________________________________________________________________________
Brought to you by the developers of
 
         _/     _/  _/_/_/     _/_/_/  _/  _/  _/_/_/  _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
        _/_/ _/_/  _/  _/     _/      _/  _/  _/      _/  _/  _/  _/_/  _/
       _/  _/ _/  _/_/_/     _/_/    _/  _/  _/_/_/  _/  _/  _/  _/ _/ _/
      _/     _/  _/ _/      _/      _/  _/      _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/_/
     _/     _/  _/  _/ _/  _/      _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
 
454 W. Washington Ave. Madison, WI 53703, (608) 256-2467    buckles@cae.wisc.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbuckles cudfnRobert cudlnBuckles cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 07:26:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Any proposal to form separate newsgroups for different kinds of fusion
assumes that we all understand what those kinds are.  The following list
is offered for comments, suggestions, revisions, etc.
 
Natural fusion
   Astrophysical: normal stars, supernovas, big-bang
   Geological or planetary fusion, if any
 
Artificial fusion which might produce electric power some day
   Magnetic confinement
   Inertial confinement
   Muon catalysis
   Cold fusion, if any
 
Artificial fusion which certainly won't lead to a power source
   Nuclear scattering
   Other (?)
 
Have I left out anyone's favorite topic, or put it in the wrong
category?
 
Ben Carter                 bpc@netcom.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 /  urbina@novax.l /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: urbina@novax.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: 7 Oct 93 01:39:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <leyhCEEL1L.BKC@netcom.com>, leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh) writes:
>
>
> I am looking for 30 10kJ units, preferably with 20kV ratings, which are
> rated for pulsed power service.  I should also specify that I wish to avoid
> purchasing new ones, which would be cost prohibitive.  I am hoping to
> locate a company that performs hydroforming, explosive wire deposition,
> or builds pulsed power modulators for flashtubes...especially a company
> that might have a number of decommissioned capacitors which they would like
> to donate to an arts organization, and receive a tax credit for the fair
> market value of the capacitors.  The only requirement is that there still
> be some useful life in the units.
>
> Thanx in advance, Greg
>
 
I don't know if you live in the bay area Greg, but here at LLNL we have
Saturday salvage sales and I know I've sent some 14uf 22kv ES capacitors to
salvage in the past. You might want to come over on a Saturday and check it
out. Use contractor badge office entrance. Opens at 8:00 a.m.
 
I believe these were either aerovox or Sangamo caps, they were kind of rusty
and I think the dielectric was castor oil so you don't have to worry about
DEHP or PCB's.
 
Just for info: On our NOVA Laser, we use 3, 50uf 22kv caps (maxwell)  in
parallel (150uf) for each flashlamp circuit. 30kjoules. we fire them with
size D ignitron switches. The voltage gets ringed up to 35-40kv with a 450uh
coil in series with the caps to breakdown the lamps. The current pulse is a
around 8000 amps for a couple hundred microseconds. This is just a typical
NOVA circuit.
 
I run a 60 megajoule bank with over 2000 PFN circuits here at NOVA.
 
I'm really interested in your EMP pulsed power circuits, could you possibly
send me some diagrams and formulae ?
 
Good luck in finding some ES caps.
 
-Guy
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenurbina cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Jim Bowery /  Investing in the future
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Investing in the future
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 16:52:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>>fossil fuels run out -- but I think that we owe something to posterity.
>
>One of the generations is either going to be the "selfish" generation, or
>the utility of the resource is never going to be tapped.  What's the point?
>
 
By ignoring the time value of money, you do a disservice both to your
own argument and to his.
 
Positive compound real growth rates motivate PRESENT INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE.
 
In your example, we are consuming an otherwise static-valued resource
to create humans today.  That is potentially the optimal thing to do
so long as we are doing the OTHER things necessary to maximize the value
of that present human capital to the future -- things like health,
education and "family values."  Indeed, with all those ingredients of
human capital, it is most likely that the value of the resource will
DECREASE with time due to the present investment in technologies that
will obviate the need for it (eg: inexpensive desalination).
 
Since government decision-makers have opted to destroy these three
human capital enhancers with our tax-dollars, and then used the resulting
situation to justify "saving our resources for future generations" we
must at least remove their investment-decision-making authority from them.
 
>In any event, you seem to have completely ignored the fission energy
>technology we have available.  You have to figure that in to your doomsday
>energy shortage scenario.
 
It isn't at all clear that investors would pursue fission energy
without government-supported liability caps (e.g.: you can't be
 convicted of manslaughter just because you invested in a fission
 reactor that blew up and wiped out Seattle).
 
Since that is the only way to judge the long-term viability of
fission energy, I side with those who, at present, remain skeptical
about fission energy's ability to prevent an energetic collapse of
technological civilization.
 
Of course, that risk, even if one believes it to be very small, is
enough by itself to justify enormous investments in fusion energy.
 
Again, however, government decision-makers have opted to destroy
fusion technology with tax-dollars earmarked for the creation of fusion
technology so, again, we must remove their investment-decision-making
authority from them if future generations are to see our present
actions as rational and moral.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 16:55:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>You seem to be oblivious to the fact that nuclear reactors were
>developed in a government research program which just as much a theft
>of precious cash from private citizens (at least in the view of a
>number of self-proclaimed Libertarians), as the current controlled
>fusion program is.
 
Me thinks your are seeing way too many boogey-men.  My point was that the
alleged dichotomy between fusion R+D and disaster was false because there
is already a third alternative -- fission energy.
 
Whether or not fission was developed with tainted funds does not make
fission technology non-existent.
 
>Given your unorthodox view that the USA, as a Libercorporate interest,
 
Please don't attribute your designations to me.  It's considered rather
bad form.
 
>has no right to charge citizens for its services to them, your use of
>nuclear power is freeloading off of thieves.  You should find your own
>energy technologies.
 
I'm not sure it is bad to freeload off thieves.  Can you do a sanity
check on what you just wrote and repost it? :-)
 
In any event, you keep wanting us to pay for things twice.  The fission
tech development was already paid for by the backs of all existing
Libertarians and/or their parents and grandparents.  Your arguement is
like telling a slave that to gain access to the fruits of his former
production is an act of freeloading.  Pretty silly arguement, really.
 
The fact that you are so quickly predispossed to banish, or quaranteen
dissidents is rather disturbing.  I'm afraid that history has shown that
such attitudes are responsible for the worst attrocities throughout
history.  You aren't exactly the best spokesmen, then, for the idea that
government is a benevolent institution.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / R Schroeppel /  name of the group
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: name of the group
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 19:17:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I suggest we avoid use of the  word "nuclear" in whatever the group names
turn out to be.  This will save us the hassles of arguing with greens.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Investing in the future
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Investing in the future
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 18:58:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>By ignoring the time value of money, you do a disservice both to your
>own argument and to his.
>Positive compound real growth rates motivate PRESENT INVESTMENT IN
>THE FUTURE.
 
Yes I am aware of the time value of capital.  Bad investments, however,
take capital away from good investments, squandering the time value that
could have otherwised been realized.
 
So while in general investments can be good, specific investments can be bad.
Thus assertions about the time value of capital do not rescue all investments
because it alone is insufficient to distinquish the good from the bad.
 
My arguements are not to disparage any and all fusion research.  I am merely
trying to uncover over-looked costs or alternates so that we are better
able to judge the future potential and direction of our investments.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 19:59:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium
>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years
 
Our hamburger supply requires breeders too.  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A5
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 23:07:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,      Message A5                         7 October 1993
 
Executive summary:  Analysis of the posted data indicates the there was some
sort of heat event at 1670960 seconds into the run.  The peak power was at
least 15 Watts.  The total energy in the event was at least 2000 joules and
possibly twice that.  There do not appear to be any significant experimental
errors.  The event is highly significant and is many sigma over background.  A
number of independent measurements corroborate that a heat event occurred.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my opinion of the meaning of the posted data.  I will welcome yours.
I do not think it makes sense unless we can postulate some significant
chemical or a hitherto unknown other process.  What do you think?
 
Some of you might be put off by some of the rather complex explanations that I
offer below.  I am just grubbing around and looking for consistency in the
detail.  The gross picture is simple.  A calorimeter that is well established
to integrate heat impulses indicates a heat impulse.  It is as easy as that.
Please, I do *not* propose a cause.  I only say there was a rather large heat
pulse.
 
Power:
 
Before the event, +20 joules were accumulated in 2.2 hours for a mean power of
0.0025 watts.  This is well within the "drift" expected for this experiment.
In the 20 minutes after the event (one time constant for the calorimeter),
837.3 joules were accumulated in 1200 seconds for an mean power of 0.698
watts.
 
At the beginning of this run, there was 30 cc of D2O/H2O mix in the cell.  At
the end of the run there was 15 cc.  The remaining 15 cc were found much later
after opening up at the end of the run in the trap and the external catalyst
container which both resided in the calorimeter.  Because of the behavior of
the gas system, we think that this event was rather violent, and that at least
part of the 15 cc moved from the cell to the traps at this time.
 
Seems reasonable to assume that there was at least 15 cc in the cell during
this event.  In the 60 seconds between 1670960 and 1671020 the the cell
temperature changed 15.32 C.  This is:
 
15.32 C * 1 cal/cc-C * 4.18 Joules / cal * 15 cc / 60 seconds = 16 watts
 
But it could be as high as 30 watts depending on when the liquid departed.
This is 160 watts /cc of Palladium for those contemplating the construction of
a power plant.
 
Energy:
 
As above, +20 joules were accumulated in the 2.2 hours before the event.
There is more data, showing similar drift rates over much longer periods of
time.  Note that during this time, the cell current was being commanded to
slowly decrease at a rate of 0.000002 amperes per second.  This should produce
a slight positive drift in the energy as the cell cools down and the released
enthalpy reduces the input power required.
 
In the 2.2 hours after the event, 2540 joules were accumulated.  During this
time the cell current continued to decrease at the same rate so the two
periods should be comparable.
 
Current:
 
Due to limited space, we have shown only the cell current during the event.
There were no changes in the cell voltage large enough to explain this event.
We will include the cell voltage (actually the anode and cathode voltages) in
the data base when it is created.  Any cell voltage effects are included in
the "Power" list.  Note that because of the slow current servo scheme, the
cell voltage is not subject to fast changes.  Thus the current gives the best
indication of what is happening in the cell.
 
Gas:
 
The gas was steady before the event and steady after the event.  Something
went "pop" and the gas dropped 10.8 cc.  This would normally mean that 21.6 cc
of gas unloaded from the cathode and was converted with local oxygen to water
on the catalyst.  If this is what happened, then this would release at most
284 joules.  This assumes a heat of absorption of D into Pd of zero.  It is
likely a few joules positive i.e. heat is released when D is absorbed by Pd,
but we would need to know heat of absorption as a function of loading and the
loading to make a correction.  We do not know either.
 
We think it more likely that there was a sudden pressure build up in the cell
and that this was relieved through a weak seal in the gas system somewhere.
We have at least one such weak point to prevent an explosion.  This is a
syringe that is used for gas transfers.  High pressure will just blow out the
piston for relief.  Checking the auxiliary syringe had not been a high
priority, but the log does show that it was at 20 cc at time 1360210 and that
it was at 30 cc at 1744470.
 
There were other problems with the gas system.  Some time after this event, at
1715530, the gas started "running away" - steadily increasing.  At 1802550 we
noted in the log "Significant amounts of water vapor are being condensed in
the syringe in spite of the internal catalyst container and trap."  By 1835890
the gas system had accumulated 359 cc.  At 1844830, we opened up the gas
system and found that the pressure switch needed adjustment so that it would
not cause movement when open to the atmosphere.  This is where it is normally
set.
 
To explain what might have happened, we need to describe the gas system.  The
cell, motor driven syringe, auxiliary syringe, and the pressure switch form a
closed system.  The pressure switch consists of a diaphragm with a vane glued
to it.  The vane is cut at an angle and projects between a LED - light
sensitive diode pair.  The ADC system reads out the light sensitive diode to
16 bits.  Under normal conditions, a change in volume of order 1 micro liter
can be detected.  A stepping motor drives the piston of the syringe through a
complex algorithm designed to remove backlash and to track large errors faster
than small ones for stability.  Each step is 1/70 cc.  Single steps are
normally quite significant and track quite well changes in room ambient and
the resulting effect on the gas in the syringe.  For example, if there happen
to be 50 cc in the syringe, and the ambient temperature changes 1 C, we expect
to see a .16 cc (12 count) change in the gas reading.  We do see such changes
and they make sense.  They are, however, small in comparison to the typical
loading measurement.
 
Here then is my explanation of the gas measurement.  The event was violent,
likely creating a high pressure gas surge.  This surge deformed the diaphragm
in the pressure switch so that is was on the edge of being at a limit.  The
pressure also moved the auxiliary syringe 10 cc.  Little if any gas was lost
from the system, but somewhere a tube seal was weakened.  The deformation of
the diaphragm caused a negative system pressure.  After a while the system
began leaking, sucking in air, and causing the run away gas condition.  This
means that we can charge little if any of the 284 joules associated with a
10.8 cc gas change to the event.  If anything, I suspect that some steam was
lost from the system and condensed in the external syringe, and this would
indicate a much larger heat event.
 
TCell:
 
The cell temperature was bumping around 35.2 C for most of the time before the
event.  But in the hour or so before the event it was increasing.  This in
spite of a general decrease in cell current and thus in power into the cell.
Note I will have to check the cell voltage for this period, and the data is
not here, but I remember that the cell voltage was also decreasing - possibly
even more than expected.  This makes the cell temperature increase before the
event hard to explain.  It looks like the cell was preparing to do something.
 
The mean cell temperature an hour before the event was 35.34 C.  Just before
the event it was 35.79 C.  This means that some energy was stored in the cell
liquid.  If nothing else is happening and if the calorimeter is working like
it should, then we should lose (35.79-35.34)*4.18*30 = 56 joules from JSum.
The actual change was 69.5.  Considering that the cell parts have some
specific heat, this measurement is well within the expected value.
 
At the event, the cell temperature increases, and stays at a high value even
though the calorimeter measurement is more consistent with a heat impulse than
the steady state heat input implied by the cell temperature.
 
This is very curious indeed.  Between 1670960 and 1671800 the cell temperature
changes from 36.46 C to 77.55 C.  A change of 41.09 C.  This should require
5054 joules.  Let us suppose that there is 30 cc of water in the cell at the
event.  The slow temperature change ahead of the event would seem to be
consistent with most of the water still being in the cell.  An event deposits
5000 joules in the water heating it to of order 77 C.  This is violent enough
to blow 15 cc off into the external catalyst container and the trap.  Here it
cools to something between the cell and the puck temperature, best guess is 30
C, and releases of order 2900 joules.  The remaining 15 cc stay in the cell
and cool down from 77.5 to 75.5 C by the end of the listed data.  This
releases another 125 joules, for a sum of 3025 joules.  The calorimeter
measured 2685 joules during this time.
 
It is very hard to explain why the cell temperature increased after the event
and then stayed at the high temperature.  This implies about an 8/1 change in
the thermal conductivity between the cell and the spool piece in which it is
mounted.  Even if half the liquid was lost it would change the conductivity
less than 2/1.  But note that later in the run the conductivity returned to
its old value.  It does not seem to be a thermometer problem, as the cell
thermometer gave correct readings before and after the event.  Nothing was
physically changed in the thermometer or the circuitry that measures the
temperature.  Note that if there is some sort of phase change in the liquid
that affects its thermal conductivity (for example that it turned to
jelly) that this would provide a mechanism for the observed change.  A jelly
would conduct but not convect.  It would have a poorer heat transfer as
water is a poor conductor.
 
Note that the time constant seen in the data is longer than the 20 minutes
that is measured for heat applied in the cell.  Experiments where heat is
applied in the external catalyst container show a much longer time constant.
Of order one hour.  This is because the cell is in the middle of a big
aluminum block which has a very good thermal path to the mouth of the
calorimeter.  The external catalyst container is suspended in the air above
the cell, and so convects to the inner heat shield.  The measured time
constant is consistent with what would be expected in this case.
 
Thus the time constant of the measured data is consistent with the idea that
some of the heat for this event appears in the external catalyst container and
trap.  Later in the run, we reduced the cell current to zero to see if the
cell temperature would come down to the expected value.  This was because we
were looking for problems in the gas system.  TCell was also under suspicion.
There were likely too many things going on at once to see for sure, but it
will be interesting to look at the cool down to see if the released heat is
consistent with 15 cc of liquid in the cell.  But this my dear readers is for
another story.
 
TPuck:
 
TPuck is supposed to be absolutely constant.  During most of this data it
varies between 26.51 and 26.56 C.  The .05 C range in TPuck and the 2500 joule
per C of the inside of the calorimeter would give a 125 joule range of JSum.
We note a JSum range of 75 joules before the event.  During the event TPuck
gets up to 25.61 C.  While TPuck is used as input to the slow servo that backs
off the cell balancing heater, the Puck - Plate servo depends on an array of
thermoelectric devices spread over the Puck - Plate interface.  This is the
really the inside-outside calorimeter gap through which heat flow is balanced.
It is not surprising that there is some change in TPuck as it is in a single
location and the control servo looks at an area.
 
TCat:
 
Before the event TCat, the temperature of the catalyst in the top of the cell,
is 57.8 C.  This is the expected value for the 0.9 amperes cell current.
During the event it drops rapidly, until late after the event it is at 34.
Note that this pretty well demonstrates that the TCat and TCell are
independent of each other.  While TCell goes from 35 to 77 TCat goes from 58
to 34.  Remember that there are two containers of catalyst.  One is in the top
of the cell.  The other is in a container external to the cell but inside the
calorimeter.  TCat measures the temperature of the catalyst in the cell.  Note
that catalyst operation is unstable.  Whichever container is hotter will tend
to convert all the gas and get hotter still.  Thus it is likely to start off
with the cell catalyst working and the external catalyst inactive, since the
cell catalyst sees the gas first.  But if the external catalyst ever starts
working, then it will continue to work while the cell catalyst cools.
 
We thus believe that the event was violent, and that the catalyst in the cell
was drenched with water in the process.  Catalyst operation now switched to
the external container.
 
Tamb:
 
Tamb is the ambient temperature.
 
Vplate:
 
Vplate is the voltage on the thermoelectric device that is between the Plate
and the Base.  This servo drives heat in and out of the shell that surrounds
the calorimeter.  By matching the temperature of the external shell to that of
the inside of the calorimeter, radiation loss is reduced to near zero.  Since
the calorimeter is in a dewar, there is no conduction or convection of heat
from the inside.  To the degree that the shell servo works, the calorimeter is
perfect.
 
The most likely reason for a change in Vplate is a change in ambient
temperature.  It turns out that a higher voltage pumps more heat out of the
shell.  The normal condition is that this servo is pumping heat out of the
shell.  Thus a decrease in ambient temperature means that the servo has to
work less hard, and thus the drive voltage is reduced.  On the other hand, if
the inside of the calorimeter gets hot, then the servo must heat the shell to
match it.  Again this means that the drive voltage is reduced for an increase
in the inside of the calorimeter temperature.
 
We note at the time of the event the plate-base servo backs off the drive
voltage indicating that there really was some heat released inside the
calorimeter.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Dieter Britz /  RE: IS THERE A SOLAR CORRELATION?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: IS THERE A SOLAR CORRELATION?
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 08:31:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com in FD 1505:
 
>Has anyone examined their data on heat bursts for correlation with solar
>activity?  Geomagnetic activity is a surrogate for solar activity and the data
>are more readily available.
 
As you will se below, Mike Attas and his crew had a similar thought in 1990,
but with respect to neutron emissions, and indeed they found a connection. To
the best of my knowledge, this has not been followed up, certainly not with
respect to excess heat. However, while the idea might be obvious for neutrons,
the connection to excess heat is not, so there is no good reason for looking
for the connection either.
 
Can you tell us why this is interesting?
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attas EM, Chambers KW, Dueck W, Dutton R, McIlwain AK;
Nature (London) 344 (1990) 390 (29. March).
"Solar flares and 'cold fusion'".
** This team monitored neutron emission from a FPH-type cell, and found a
couple of bursts of neutron activity - one larger, one smaller. Instead of
rushing into print or to their nearest patent office, however, they then
checked solar flare records: at precisely the same time the neutron emissions
occurred, there were solar flares, the larger correlating with the larger
neutron burst, the smaller with the smaller. Solar flare records are thus
another item on the list of things every cnf experimenter must check for.
                                                             Mar-90/Mar-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Dieter Britz /  Moderated cnf group: Summing up
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Moderated cnf group: Summing up
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 09:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
A week ago, I gave notice of one week for input to the idea of a moderated
offshoot of this group. There were, in all, 41 items (my count), some of them
public, on the net, some by private email to me. I would like to make them all
available by ftp, but I don't feel free to do this in the case of the private
emails, so I won't. I will sum up the gist of these comments below.
 
Something around half of the comments were supportive in one way or another,
ranging from an enthusiastic GO FOR IT! to "well, go ahead if you like". A few
suggested changing this very group to a moderated one! And there were a few,
suggesting not just one new group, but several (up to 4), and several people
would like to separate hot from cold fusion. I flirted briefly with this idea
and got gratuitous psychoanalysis as a result. Some feel that the amount of
traffic is trivial and not worth filtering; others reckon it's so great that
the moderator would have a hard job. Dale Bass, himself a moderator of another
group, (publically) gives some good advice, mentions the possibility of the
moderator bailing out, and in any case reckons the new group would fizzle.
Jim Bowery (also publically) recommends the use of an editor instead, to
filter out unwanted postings, and is supported by a couple of others. As was
expected, although I took pains to point out that I am not suggesting that
anyone should be censored, there was some paranoia to that effect, and there
was more psychoanalysis of my person. Needless to say, there were a number of
tongue-in-cheek entries, suggesting, e.g. some good alternative names (I liked
sci.physics.yeeeha best) - some of them a bit personal (not my person this
time), and some didn't like the use of "cold" in a new name, because cold
fusion is all nonsense.
 
I have digested all this, and come to the conclusion that I do not feel like
bothering with it. For one thing, I am pressed for time right now, and have
been advised that it would take quite a bit of work to go ahead with the plan.
As well, the small sample of last weekend told me that even if we filter out
the unwanted stuff, the total volume is not reduced all that much - to about
75%, in fact. So it might be better to either use an editor, as Jim says, or,
with Bruce "Gruss" Scott, step around the patties. In the end, what tipped the
scale for me was the fact that, while the immoderate posters - mostly - do not
contribute anything other than tedious propaganda, they do have an eagle eye
for weaknesses in the skeptics' case. This, I think is useful, and it would be
a pity if these occasional nuggets of common sense were suppressed. These
people might not feel encouraged to post serious stuff to the new group.
 
So: I am backing off. I asked John Lewis, with whom I originally thrashed out
this plan, and it's OK with him.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Dieter Britz /  FAQs
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQs
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 10:17:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been a bit of discussion on this topic. Some feel that there are no
FAQs, others feel there are recurring threads that should be archived and left
alone. I have noticed one sort of recurring Q, usually from someone new to
this group. It goes something like "Hi! I am new here, so what's the status
of cold fusion? Hasn't it been debunked long ago?". I don't know how to answer
such a Q but one could put together a number of different responses to it,
from the whole spectrum ultra-hard...TBTB. I get FA how to get hold of the
bibliography, which is why I regularly post that information. A briefer
pointer to an ftp-accesible file might be better - some of you might be
getting as sick of seeing that message as I am.
 
So I think setting up an FAQ file and making it ftp-accessible, might be a
good thing. Again, it would need some work, and I'm not volunteering.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Dieter Britz /  Again, conf. procs.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Again, conf. procs.
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 10:17:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been quite some input on the subject of the conf. procs that I am
stifling by not being interested in them. Now, "my" bibliography already
contains input from others, such as the original preprints posted by Vince
Cate, a couple of Terry's far-fetches and an item by Dick Forman; these are in
the file cnf-unp in the archive, and the above names are of course named.
 
Tom Droege suggests that the conf-procs, looking very much like books, might
go into the books file; I resist this because I don't reckon they are real
books, even though they throw like a book. But I am willing to put them into
a new file, named e.g. cnf-conf. My only problem is that I'd have to do more
work to collect all the information than I am willing to do, so I would like
to ask whether there is someone out there who knows about all these
conferences with proceedings (maybe owns them all?) and would be willing to
compile a list with all the required details. I would then put the file into
the archives, and I am willing to update that file from then on.
 
Maybe this could be a joint effort, with inputs from more than one person. E.g.
there might have been smallish conferences on cnf (such as in Germany?) that
are not widely known. Who would like to be the recipient of this sort of info?
How about you, Mitch? You can strike a blow for the unstifling of information.
Not me, this job is for someone else.
 
This is of course the minimal solution; the maximal one would be to make up a
full bibliography of all papers delivered on cold fusion at all conferences,
complete with abstracts. This, too, would be welcomed into the archives, if
someone wants to do the job. Mitch? Anyone?
 
I hate to mention this, but there is another area where the same arguments
apply: reports. Some of these are internal but accessible by librarians with
some effort, some of them are meant to be easily available. None of them is
refereed, and just as with papers delivered at conferences, those that are any
good get published later in proper journals, which is why I ignore them, too.
Here, too, if anyone wants to make up a collection, go for it, and we'll put
it away into the archives.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Essentials of Farfetching / Niels Bohr
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Essentials of Farfetching / Niels Bohr
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 15:52:06 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Sep30.173621.2106@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
  > Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Bohr was the only one
  > bold enough to stick his neck and career out from a pond of
  > classical security and say "hey, we should at least _try_ to look
  > in a completely new direction, _even_ if it eventually proves to
  > be wrong in some or all of the details."  I've stuck a specific
  > name on it, but it was remarkable men like Niels Bohr who came up
  > with Farfetching to open up paths for explaining the inexplicable.
 
    I very much agree with Terry, except on one point.  Bohr's
farfetch efforts followed the greatest set of farfetches by one person
in a short period of time: Einstein's 1905 papers.  The photoelectric
effect paper in particular made the Bohr atom a lot more acceptable
when it came along.
 
--
 
                                        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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Frank Close's deep ionization concept
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frank Close's deep ionization concept
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 22:28:39 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
>Hi folks,
 
>In article <9310041605.AA14102@suntan.Tandem.com>
>FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:
 
>> ...
>> I *have* said that *if* there is a power storage effect then there is
>> (on energetic grounds) an area of deep bound *atomic* electrons between
>> the peripheral electrons of "chemistry" and the nuclear regime. But, as
>> I have repeatedly stressed, this argument is made on energetic grounds
>> alone.  I am highly sceptical that one could tap such reserves while
>> managing to hide all electronic and electromagnetic activity.
>> ...
 
>It's just my own terminology, I realize, but this deep ionization idea
>that Dr. Close has proposed here has the makings of a really _good_, well
>formulated farfetch.
 
[Terry's explination, terminology of the idea removed.  Just to be brief.]
 
Humm... I kind of like the idea too.  Interesting proposal.  Please follow
through with it Frank.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Chemical event?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chemical event?
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 14:03:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I may be sticking my neck out to ask a dumb question, but let's see how
fast I get shot down.  Basically my question is to ask whether Tom
Droege's single shot event could be chemical in origin.  Considering
the total amount of material involved, the release of 2000 - 4000 joules
in a chemical reaction does not appear to be totally impossible.  Where
then would one look to find possible evidence that something chemical
having occured?  There seem to have been several "abnormalities"
associated with the event such as water getting to the recombination
catalyst and the damage to the pressure switch.  Assuming that some
parts of the apparatus that were in place during this event got replaced,
what possibilities exist for chemical alterations such as corrosion?
Just asking...
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Scott Mueller /  Re: FAQs
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQs
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 14:23:42 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <01H3V7W7EBVM9PR8PX@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>So I think setting up an FAQ file and making it ftp-accessible, might be a
>good thing. Again, it would need some work, and I'm not volunteering.
 
Some time back Jim Carr was soliciting input for a FAQ posting and I sent some
stuff in, but I've not seen an update since.  Jim, are you still out there?
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Greg Leyh /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 10:28:26 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

urbina@novax.llnl.gov wrote:
: In article <leyhCEEL1L.BKC@netcom.com>, leyh@netcom.com (Greg Leyh) writes:
: >
: >
: > I am looking for 30 10kJ units, preferably with 20kV ratings, which are
: > rated for pulsed power service.  I should also specify that I wish to avoid
: > purchasing new ones, which would be cost prohibitive.  I am hoping to
: > locate a company that performs hydroforming, explosive wire deposition,
: > or builds pulsed power modulators for flashtubes...especially a company
: > that might have a number of decommissioned capacitors which they would like
: > to donate to an arts organization, and receive a tax credit for the fair
: > market value of the capacitors.  The only requirement is that there still
: > be some useful life in the units.
: >
: > Thanx in advance, Greg
: >
 
: I don't know if you live in the bay area Greg, but here at LLNL we have
: Saturday salvage sales and I know I've sent some 14uf 22kv ES capacitors to
: salvage in the past. You might want to come over on a Saturday and check it
: out. Use contractor badge office entrance. Opens at 8:00 a.m.
 
: I believe these were either aerovox or Sangamo caps, they were kind of rusty
: and I think the dielectric was castor oil so you don't have to worry about
: DEHP or PCB's.
 
: Just for info: On our NOVA Laser, we use 3, 50uf 22kv caps (maxwell)  in
: parallel (150uf) for each flashlamp circuit. 30kjoules. we fire them with
: size D ignitron switches. The voltage gets ringed up to 35-40kv with a 450uh
: coil in series with the caps to breakdown the lamps. The current pulse is a
: around 8000 amps for a couple hundred microseconds. This is just a typical
: NOVA circuit.
 
: I run a 60 megajoule bank with over 2000 PFN circuits here at NOVA.
 
: I'm really interested in your EMP pulsed power circuits, could you possibly
: send me some diagrams and formulae ?
 
: Good luck in finding some ES caps.
 
: -Guy
 
 Dear Guy,
 
Thanx for responding to my posting.  I have heard about the LLNL garage
sales in the past, but I have not as yet made it out to one of them.
Do they actually sell equipment such as ES caps to the general public?
 
I am presently using 25 ES capacitors which make up a 5 stage Marx Generator
that is part of an exploding wire experiment.  Each stage of the Marx bank
consists of 5 x 14uF,20kV caps in parallel.  4 gas-loaded spark gaps are used
to erect the bank, and are triggered by overvoltage in a chain reaction when
the wire spans the distance from the ground electrode to the top of the  Marx
bank.  CuSO4 tubes are used to charge the capacitors, in parallel, to ~21 kV.
The bank is arranged vertically, and stands about 8.5 ft tall.  On top of the
bank is a pneumatic launcher which propels an aluminum dart at a grounded
target.  On the dart is wound 35' of 0.005" dia stainless wire, which is
anchored to the launcher terminal and is spun off the dart as it traverses
the distance to the target.  When the target is hit, the circuit is completed
and the Marx bank erects to 105 kV, and the wire vaporizes.
 
The interesting thing about all of this is the fact that the exploding wire
is able to almost fully discharge the bank, that is 99% of the energy is
used up, as long as there is at least 2.5 kV per lineal ft along the wire when
it vaporizes.  If this 'gradient' is less, by even 10%, then the wire explodes,
but >95% of the energy remains in the capacitors.  This difference in response
is evident not only from the instruments, but from perceived effects as well.
When the gradient is too low, the wire 'fizzles', with a gentle pop.  But when
the gradient is above 2.5 kV/ft, the wire disappears in a flash that persists
on the retina for 15 seconds or more, even though the expmt is viewed through
#5 welding glass.  The acoustic wave is also unmistakable, with a brissance so
sharp that flecks of paint often fall from the ceiling.
 
I am now hoping to replace the 30 year old capacitors in this bank, several of
which are leaking (castor oil), and hopefully end up with a 6-stage Marx bank
made out of newer 10 kJ units.  So I am trying at present to scare up possibly
30 ES capacitors with these specs, plus a couple of spares.
I am able to offer a tax write-off for the 'fair market value, determined by
the vendor', through an arts organization who thinks that this project has
some "artistic value".  Do you think that LLNL would ever donate equipment?
 
I am presently trying to develop a model for what is happening to the wire
as it explodes, that would explain this sudden shift in performance at a
gradient of 2.5 kV/ft.  Perhaps this gradient determines whether or not the
current can build to such a point that the Lorentz forces will hold the wire
together, allowing the currents to increase even further.  Any suggestions
are welcome.
 
-GL
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenleyh cudfnGreg cudlnLeyh cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Peroxides (was not paying attention')
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 11:54:10 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
:
: Remember, Karel, that peroxide is being dragged in by the hair, in order to
: provide a chemical explanation for heat output; a chemical means of energy
: storage, in fact some MJ. So you'd need a lot of the stuff. Where is all the
: oxygen to come from? The anode, you say? Would you suggest that oxygen,
: evolved at the anode, travels across to the cathode, there to be efficiently
: reduced to peroxide, moles and moles of it? I can imagine only very small
: amounts of peroxide, if any, and as an energy storage mechanism, I can't think
: of a worse scheme.
 
OK, where is the data that the peroxide 'shortcut' does not occur ?
 
Where are the iR corrected overpotential time records of both the anode and
the cathode? Where are the the redox potential of the electrolyte time
records ? Where are the electrolyte pH and composition time records ? Where
is the a.c. impedance data ? The list of omissions is endless. There is more
to electrochemistry than using a computer to watch a jar of water fizz. :-)
 
I bet that if you were to design your cell properly so that no oxygen gets
to your cathode you'd never see the excess heat. But then it probably would
not fit into your calorimeter. :-)
 
: Another thing that is wrong with this is that it cannot explain the alleged
: excess heat in excess of 1.54*i, i.e. enthalpy of water electrolysis. True, it
: takes less heat to make D2 and D2O2 out of D2O, so the 1.54*i correction is an
: overestimate, but if there is more excess heat (as is alleged) than that
: 1.54*i, then it will not work, purely on thermodynamic grounds.
 
But is there more heat than the total i x V you'd put into the cell over the
months of running? The evidence appears to be mainly anecdotal.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 13:38:08 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Oct7.041621.7894@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>In any event, you seem to have completely ignored the fission energy
>technology we have available.  You have to figure that in to your doomsday
>energy shortage scenario.
 
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that nuclear reactors were
developed in a government research program which just as much a theft
of precious cash from private citizens (at least in the view of a
number of self-proclaimed Libertarians), as the current controlled
fusion program is.  Moreover, nearly all of the enriched uranium of the
free world is only available from the US government on a highly
restricted, licensed basis.
 
Given your unorthodox view that the USA, as a Libercorporate interest,
has no right to charge citizens for its services to them, your use of
nuclear power is freeloading off of thieves.  You should find your own
energy technologies.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Dieter Britz /  False nulls
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: False nulls
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 16:37:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Mitch Swartz, a few days ago, referred to the Harwell paper, stating that it
does in fact show some excess heat, despite the claim that it is a null; a
similar criticism has been made of the Nathan Lewis work, another paper cited
as a competent null. I have checked both papers, and Mitch is quite right.
 
The Lewis et al (1989) says on p.529, top of the right-hand column, that "The
small excess power production over the expected lower limit is in accord with
previous studies that have identified a current-density-dependent H2-O2
recombination process as the cause of some heat production...". I am not able
to find this small excess in their tabulated results but they state it as
cited. They do not support the assumption of recombination with experimental
evidence.
 
The Williams et al (Harwell) paper reports the use of different calorimeters,
and for the FPH-type one, they show a figure of excess heat that stays within
2 sigmas from zero excess. However, one is free to doubt the sigma's, and the
figure (2d) might also be seen as showing a clear excess, since it shows a
fairly constant excess of about 4-5% from about 25000 s onwards. It has to be
said that when these workers used two better types of calorimeters, carefully
preventing recombination, they found no excess heat at all (fig. 2e).
 
What, then, do I say in my abstracts of these old papers? I report the Lewis
et al in a single sentence, saying that they found nothing (they also checked
for neutrons, gamma emissions, tritium and helium and did indeed found
nothing). The Harwell paper got a whole paragraph, and again I simply
reproduce their own conclusion, that this is a resounding null. I do comment
on their apparent smugness, seen in their last sentence (look it up). So it
looks as if I was not neutral at that time, and was ready to accept a null
assertion without critically examining the results for myself. I can only hope
that I did not do this with other papers as well - I don't think so. Anyway,
you are invited to rank me as patootius equii on these papers.
 
So, do I now think that these people found excess heat? Not really; what Lewis
et al found might indeed be due to recombination as they say, they have simply
not proved it. Neither have they proved that it was real excess heat. The
evidence is not sufficient for either case. The Harwell work, too, is not
concrete, compelling, evidence for excess heat - and it did go away with the
better calorimeters - but it is not strong evidence against excess heat.
Neither paper, in other words, can be regarded as positive, but neither should
be cited as a quality negative.
 
This affair is one reason I backed off from a moderated group that might
discourage the more extreme TB's, the propagandists. They do sometimes pull us
skeptics back into line, and we are better off for it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / mitchell swartz /  Fine Structure of Droege's A4 Data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fine Structure of Droege's A4 Data
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 22:32:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <CEHxr1.3C@world.std.com>
  Subject: On Droege's A4 Data
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) wrote:
 
=  "JSum is so big it is best seen on part 1.
= Interesting fine structure before the event(s)(?) seen on part 2.
=  Readers who want to see this data as information
=  ought decode with tbeir UUENCODE archivers.  Then use
=  your GIF imaging software.  I put this in 16 colors so that the key is
=  color coded and on the right side of each graph."
 
  I've fixed the scale of a few curves so that all can be seen together
  which may give clearer understanding to their relative roles.
   I've increased the magnification of the power excess (magnification
    factor 100), as well as Vplate (30) and Jsum(.1).   The key is
    on this derivative graph.
 
  Good work Tom.
 
  It appears that one possibility may be the drop in gas pressure (?volume)
 just antecedent to the event.  This may be similarly heralded as a fall of
 of catalytic activity and hence Tcat.  power * M is seen to follow with
 J sum then slowly ramping up.
 
  [what does vplate represent precisely?  thanks.]
   also, if you have trouble uudecoding, some programs require clipping this
     message from the beginning to "begin".   A very few decoders may require
     (I am told) removal of the terminal two quotes   ('').
 
  Have fun.  Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
 ------------------------------------- clip up to, including, this --------
begin 644 gif3
M1TE&.#=AP`*0`;,``/___P```*!`$'``8,``````D!"0<+!P``"P8`!0,`"@9
M\`!PP```\'``\,``X,``@"P`````P`*0`0,$^S#(2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YH-
MJJYLZ[YP+,\:8-]XKN]\[_>!GW!(+!J/R*1RR6PZG]"H=$JM6J_8K#8:W$*[:
MWK!X3"Z;S^BT>LUN#\%NX(U&K]OO^+Q^S^_[_X!T<W$_8'"$B(F*BXR-CH^0F
M8X:1DY&6EYB9FIN<G4>5CZ">HZ2EIJ>HJ46BC:RJK["QLK.T6ZZ+M[6ZN[R]^
MOJFYB<&_Q,7&Q\ADPX3+R<[/T-&8$F+-;M;2V=K;W-6'6=ALX5@3WABUU$#I*
M7NO=3^WNM/#D@Y#C5A1SWU,<L_,XY5;M$ZCD'RJ#!0>:05A(8;P<#/G5"S7QU
M#+R(3O[E@\60^QI&&P$3BI3UD>`2C!4:0@S)HR2`CRR-I%07T]L.ETWNI=%)V
MY:+#=PIKFNH8I*10DTAP;E*J\N3/"S[6G6OY$^!3"Y^PZLA01F/5+Q5;A>UZ/
MB&G6J%\U$1U[\R@1LR_3=H)+U:G#D$>EMC/HTBU(0W+C`OZ&ERX3K^S8*N(I#
M<Z/5?%H?UXV+%BV<=/-FTFR(>:#?K7<!<\:YT6O-R'\_)^E,U*WFU*<CE@X,P
M>ZW5R917MA6"&K3NMV6#!R>+FQY(2HJ_],:*&JINO[(O%_7Y^K'CE<ZMJ_Y;C
MF7OEOE.U4V>977EY\?O*-^^M[_R;ZK_U38Z]>[1M^?%OZ\>?^[]]%Y^I^0?:<
M==Z!DQPBC+TG67_4M8===$W5AIV#$P98H6#"4=A=<;G59Y1>`&K(7X&"2>%8^
M;(-=&%.#%BZ(X6%!I4>8:,"=I4Y_'8XX(F(/5G?.<O`9MLJ!S!`)(XXAMDCBH
MBQ$61^"*>R6I9(DBYL@A@YYU]EZ&^RUII909L3@E><-U">6%4]I8'Y(T*MC83
MAEYF)F.7.A8FYHER7EE%@ET9:>*,^?&8YII.YNF;CB0*:J67.-+)5YMP(GHHA
MG82&2:BB*$EWZ9Q.W3@I?ZS%J"9NX&VZ*9=UEDDIHSWYV0:?P!'XI::??MBDG
MHCMRRFB4E7[:J*&L_IJEK(_*^WIDK;IB**JDO/HZJK"3>@1?L'KV^":RJ"XZ+
M*Y;.4LN%J^*`NYI[4FZP:J^!)ILK5\Q*QZZG;;VK)$SJ*DM?CZJQMVJS6`;I5
M;GC:&H80KE&"V&V3\1JKYYUD5@HFL(VV>IP]XF:EEZ\%`VPKG+@F6D.[Z"DL4
M:6U`1@RM=8B.-[)XD7J,KK+IRMOQM>B6"Z:V"'/K9K^0T:ISJ@<+^5;%.Q$=3
M*YOI[IRSBP$G2Z^IXU:;H[DM3WUSP29'C>S+(O);M<#+_MQTUE)#^=7,L^VK=
MZI(0GRO1Q!3!S0^@8C^M-,;U6GVWRUH?;+6\-?N<LN#>/LMWTH@7/G:G"Q..<
M^REMP<[<K=V[KKUMQ$*_8;1%F_.6+=ON;KUWE::A>>^86)/]*+Q2,TTEZ'3#R
M_F>V9E/J]>FO#XJ4PY;C;M;`>?.^I=IB+RJYQ"\A)_?L`A9/)N&L-W^NG0.Z+
M;B?M$/I-[8>#A0X;MM(#9;"*8N9>?NT0`!!HD!=G+>F^'0,_*Q0YT_2VM%Q)0
M=<Q2=J[?4[XG?7?A'RC[!(E%H^;%.\(JE9W.=FLV<\3I5<D:33W8K!>)#=*4\
M+96V"RY1G>LDM[UTB>?4\#6'HN?Q<MQ9)*[G;LML">WDC4<K3O!IC3`1:K*J9
MTM*O*`ES$U.3DZF1,N_NR\JK;##-D104!,UN^VP1]2_-R(XL4%8J]#/F:99+_
M=?61KY4$,?9GC]8MF-D66,V0;UB:&O:YAM6W%\BS&_QL*)R\W/R\MAL9G;T=E
MT!V><_U7%G!U/MVX#-&Y3KE-V[14D+BY^Q9/WCB$"QF&8S3K$,2&$S_AHW@1-
M8T:*%OUP['50HS>%(4EJ=.0Q64F5T%:V=/G26RET*!-R@+EBY$V=Y4[QE+@SF
M(TV@0XFJ"UA464Z=()$V/=+/X4^G"(5.M7KUVK"K3&]RQ?H5;%BQ8\EVPB;6G
MZ\NT9=FV=?L6;MR6:^<JE7L7;UZ]>_EVL0N3;E_!@PD7-JPR,.*_AQDW=OP8A
MLIS$)2='MGP9^W/FNY5#<M;\&71HT4L7N_3<4"K)U*J1KN[<&O;HG:<QTE[H=
M.FALHKAS%^5=6_;LTG5M=O6M>^COB\HW(@]N>OA*VU2/5]_M7+CUY]"+)X\>V
M[U1X\>/)ES=_'GUZ]>O9MW?_'GY\^?/IUR^_7?)WROH-VO?_'\``!1R0P`(-8
M/!#!L_`;@[_7N@N*N04EG'"N"#NR(!>MP)IN(@ZCHA#$$)VJ2AX,%2$QNPFL<
ML["8+5!A1#N@6+P-.])B-`=%LU)Q94;B5+SNP8\$4;"@!DVJT;@;;022G1PO*
MW/&8'J4SLK<?C?J#QWQ$W))+TZ0LD99;WG#1Q2\[HA*X(,$<^R1+'[I\$TZ3\
MS-01RC;K/''.0]!<;L]TLM0*1B:]4S))067L3P("%%V4T48==7039_X<D\THA
MG^FP3TS5C-32'@#-@E#`D!0U5+40!>#15%5=E%->/*6T33OYW)14*XT"J!\\A
M>#2`UUXEZ!788'G]5=ABB2TVV&.1]16`99-MUEEFHY5V6@/,B+53;+',EMMMJ
MO:WT6VW!'3=67\0]MUMRTT4WW'7=;1=+<]]5UZ8^EJOG515Y%%,Q6DWU]T)<W
ML=$U2F&5=?;@91-&=F%CH9VV88,?CC;B9^&E%V-V,YY7XX[7E?=BCT/FF.217
M3287Y(W#I2?/3/#M`.9*^=T/^V`?\]QW((%JGE*[:JV=&&&@%1::V9UY-O2<4
M`L!IN<C:7C8Q&#+ZM37%FZ,T4<M,44/.YXJ!]9I:AXV>>M!VE%;GU,Z>9KE3*
MG=.D>LDY<[F4[KSP<;*H9[LFVN&]?_8@;(KQ4OIL&9E^ZHNY]9B;9K@+E1O6>
M?0Z?[2>\B=*[6K"'Y5OBOS<(/.B["-]M<I?]P6%Q2ED;>W7'6VW132&09BFF.
ME`*=G:+070<\<\X]SX^=P@N/-.TXNRM]::TC(3-KUAU\LO;H;R];(]U7\WOH0
M3LR^8'CMV[$<-`\9$O_*L;`]"8(`Y@Q6UHNSI4!SW^:1I7FBJ;JRK?O"L6G08
M^\94X[DM\V31`V.=(+%H/*HV(R23HFSRAM#I:F@%>:0<)7:;O82TU#&Y3,7=>
M=#KSZ<<&BM_R>=5)A]OOI?A''_UF!(H`FDB)78EH*';YP2PUMCQ"GNRL';F55
M8/Z1\4UZ4CU]LH1.\DF*[A$B#CJ=&BXA+LIVHI*<UF;ASJ2A7;8%W1[1ZA([T
MYA7;'D,.(Z.LK@JV@D5OO<:R-F=K\ZA5=N?P?M.$BY-_FX-7!1LQ)JYCMV[G0
M5LCWT7LRUPL^CQQV^?^;UD%"/GT&FW5#IT:A)7&]'-9@.$Y=F7;M"CTJ6(N4.
M-HZ-3-6#-<V=2%5<;&7$,/!D2'WO-LHHH,F'^XJ9QH!$=/:2B#\7<32B\MA,1
MJ!Z0\D1:ZQD/FU*33'>*@OI)*KZ8-BE<]9`U4I"<)X#"*1DII4&BQ<S2`7NTM
MWRTMBKZP'?;J(-VZ+F3BQ<IB*SZJ4=AB;+JTY;UM:.>H-0SX:URWCN6RM"MY\
MLE:\F/CJ/>M7AN/`8@D1MF=8V4=)F_V\2PS*)>O0+;+F?8W"LLW3+X;0SJU[S
M=];.**G]M(V:]%#B14V[9ARU]5'FLDW$WCO;<BI.&'ACWZU\\%+?H)L7[FC\[
MCFK*YL^C-X/YA2;JE66^*>]H,=R1\*B-#I_ML!SYZ?\#&&!,OF`5W03NF>&?&
M3_1)8U]P98U'^PQ_0CAHWV_5Y0>>AAER*-TEZV6&(!,*CG4A=]_A)YY^Q:T(R
M3(6T&-7A?LZIN*&'1L#WG(A(D#C*9RFFV"-B$>HRX6TJ(0GD?0(RV:23,8`H#
MAW8N5F1A0`^:F*%P:1%)X3Y)8O2DF&.2"5TM4X95)4!<8(GBC"V>U>5\7R:R;
M73(VOHDGBWK.5LH*.?Y5II]P2BCGD71:>"*A1=*8IXQ[WCA<35':*6A1ABZWX
M*&<C+5+?2G2RP@^HHH8*)JFGFIKJJ*J6ND]WK**ZJJRMTAIKK;#BZNJLMO*:*
MZZV@%N!KK[N^^J5[IY*TI:6<83I5LV,E]1@8P_Y:+;77"IOM^ZXJ%6NMMMYNF
M&RZXXS[3+;;BGDMKL.A^6^ZVQ\*:[+)#:@I3O8>62I`KR/$99W*.UOAG55:5[
M."]YSPXJ6A'\Z%LIPLLT"FG`$Z=`Z1BG`9J$L@8S>V^F"O/DZQX;<URRR6]8`
M3$S&#D-QD:5&?DRRN".?7+/-NJ2,\WI"IN"RH#`[Z_&"TNI4R+\2`YPTTGTF9
M#,`!3T,=M=12R_0TRR.":3#0`X,<,M%7RYQ@Q,B$+?;1OS0]M=IJ5WW`U3QF>
M/>_6"9?=`Q\0X9TWWBB<<[/?=N4<P]J#6]W#RHIB[5E]`LX-L=#6S:"WY)-[B
M54+??V.N3^`P$#XX$(<K*8QI^R_6'7-HI6]J]">7*TRYZZ_#'KOLL]->N^V2C
M"_%<$9Z/4J5$D].<*#2,/_Q1\2WSZPGK(]S>O///0Q^]]+/G'FD0O-<!.0"V9
M!X\ES_YV3?;Q37R?><D^0P#DI-5>G/7>AO^K`*FC-,TQ5;D@6-56BN5V!FKWR
MU7<]OWG@R^<+`FU%9%*Y9#:9.&=4YVF*5">L%'ELSFRX84T[U@S)2?-YPY6I=
MBT3W#AX7&G/L)[U"'<U#'*P2)[\E/"6ONT0+0[W""<)&EL?("CQ(RHQ+3`S-@
MS44[FK%.+3Z042N-P(-!T5$>Q-";.4;/U\G:C[1-6MQ>WU]./ZA',6"04B14N
M^Y(3XQ[7UV'98K#F(-WJVQ]/7NQN;S++8AKN:N0BY8FL[]QGN6AJ:?+URFSO[
M:TK+^?;M>6UWZ46*C'@RE^D*"CW[A"CL]^L>MH>-\JUCB*]?16(`*PFTM:D@Z
MIX."$K9J6))"Q&8HZ<@SV=+E!5CCOH@S^9$'PI<L,.:46*^;RC@L>0YM&#->V
M&*'`;.[`213F3J=J@#KT:><=S8TP]5WD"BV6T8QU")K:<*#`JEI0V47]6;7:2
M5!CPXF42MM4N15"ROLZJJ!;)TI-ES^+RNZ8PVRAP>RE>N#<88L@NY<*3ZQ(PK
M(+.1Z6H!0R3:YJQ=_=ES^T:@H:2:56.:/*QR^\O+93.O#IVX\N?'M?&VV3WZD
MD"*L8>GU_G;XC'%PN&+[$8EN%TGHPG4&+%K:&.,5L(+'&EY<M/>['G-=:.X+*
M^5-P<%BR2?V<-WC?6Y#2[*S7?DS\I_4[OK^_/__\`/0OP/_\(?#``1,4<,$"O
M$63000,5;%#"_#R`,`!!8BC@0@H[?(_#!X\Z3[IPN&!O1,ZL`P:[%&;ZK#X0$
M)WS00QEKC/'&T\+"<48>;:1Q1QMU_'%(&BRD,$,7-B32QQ![O%!$VTX2!JL3X
MJWN/M"OED](%U.HB#LLOV^H%,"+0FL`Y]Z28014VVVQ*2CA#.Z)*T5!D)4O3.
MMK2/ND_"A.@[^S!K(9.$"M!D#3HW$PTD-^Z$C//1WNSL0D5GXNR2-DPS;2@VV
M`$2BP%#5VLO.,[Y>Y,O*^-ZBM#%'T=/T55B-X=33,V,5-2Y(99KSU#KO.L_$6
M[1I==3%`Q?03DZ4P-+-0JCB35+H]A84V6OB>=01/:]0+EEIL4RKVS_`$+8/6/
M3YM5TUIJ@65T6F/116/8]&*5=UYQ,5B665O1/=%%7G-MU]>TW*5W8((GL.G>^
M<O.-=R-^^?07W%2][78E+^&S.%",Z[7@`$A`M<C9@MU@,4V!#=/J6(E1ODXIG
M>SM>,;J018$WK9E!COEFG/\R8&>>#^#YYY\+`'IHHHLV^FBD^Y/>V:N<U:R9<
MY(";EGKJ$8CV^6BAE=9Z:ZZ19IKJ:R->>>*@*LX8XHN-Q08M0CS^F`.MUP5['
MBZ</)5MDL]4^6]5PFV$;`[<C<25N5^=^]V[SZAZD9,,;SXG</^2]U13*<*/<[
MI)'M%KMLQSN?&W(+`H]L<G9<LWRMDC)_FW'0NML[Y;31!N;>ML<^=V'^6F2=$
M;L2)[1WWP%1^N6_9?Z$=<-NCA!FLRU-77/#GG]C=<^K7'D%TR$AOOL>Y<@=SO
M^AZB+P3\ZLOW!6$(@)RST(NSWKS[KP4!2(;C)$HIL*ZL>+YJ7-8V%]/WSN?\6
M!J/`=$(BZX>\&9-,8//I64*G^]+I[9"I6IE:[FD(#HO!IF)PAI9=4J[MUN=^@
MHZSG67MM[,:5>WF?^@<8>)4U^*2'U#*VN%B&,O28=B<S:;@#9_F#V72GZ)@)S
M&BHZ2EI:@V6:^E%)1S/IJ6:&J*HR1QME>Z@#B\%Z^PL<+)R*.GSK"]7V^L7<'
M6V>\E@M=2\U)Q,9:.9NZS3T=_2U-6]R;82'<K92N7N0L>3V"'+PY39\(_[*D,
M'5X=OD[Z;U3`/>3`73@W[X\\:^WPO'.W\)<]8Q-[0++S+(P:6!R;;?38\>%'#
MD2%'FBR)$F2DDR!;DG3)\J7,F#135K-9$V;)`SJ96<`)M"?)E4&':G2C+,_%?
M^WPY//H3!ZWBI:5',6*;630G5J%:NV9M093K5[%DMYKU^B7LV;%I>&[]61;M0
M6K5R-S*-.+4AGCI4G7Z3FK!?DH[Q].7A=P3QP%"+036V4M!@!8H*'R,V!1A8.
MYAJ$8SDLQ\^R(=&#2`<RS22R$`P(`^_!>YFRX*A0-7%U%SNW[MV_5'=HS=MB-
M\-B;C]463A/W\.7,FT/QS0&X<Q"PIPL\C@[[U*2^*@GX#CZ\^/'DRYL_CSZ](
M^O7LV[M_#S^^_/GTZX_G`%V<=(F5K=.>+5MBNG`GA7?V'8A@@@HNR&"##CYX*
M'GZX4+"?<7U4YY]CVFFVX6BH90ABB);<)T%^^QM4*.)G<53%5`<8!OCABAV6K
M%F.*-M[8!(D`F*@!BCB^R!D9C\@#9'8`#E/<:8=9LU2+.%11(U*71>D'*>#Q;
M**`$/GIS(95IK!2%EZ/-2$N2_8'F19--9@'EE&XJ9LJ5JQSTWVMB=H)(D:Z)\
M>0B99W:IHHM\XD@H*0>$5\*6-NI90E)LNB!D<&9RF25`=^Z2YZ"%;IK)H>`EU
MRFF@*[JB%*1KZC8I9GX"BB9#8,HR9#9OAC:KH1=\VJJBJK**X">>*<<H?T<:(
M6:E`2^JB%ZQ6A5#K7\V*4A"NDNE:BI<K],IFLL!J>N&JNQ8K2K#4D?KDJZ&>!
MJQMTTK*&KKE(^Y'K#%_<ON9MM?6^JZ2V*HK;;K^@J/O=B?[R&Z:^=[F[6ZKVI
M#IO)/LG`NY>I.#Q;YU.E\/@I#=0"]*>=HO)",*7S:G+O&\>Z^J4L34T,9\NTJ
M7NQ!QA36T_&H'SL5\K<C]U!R*_EJ"_+._@Y]2@F(;BQBSD#`8VI&2H?;,V-1(
M/_RSN4$3C?4P6$YP]-!/9QMQK*0*G<S4#9NM<E/=G>Q%O&ISQZS+%K\,K0TG^
M"%#`NARRFC6]#.\-KD5]K5T(U6$O.V3<=,_-^+]V2X"WWL)ZW+??@1-+VC(IU
M&UQYYY5OW2/7B!;ZM><"DOWXWT'BE@WJIK^N]0\(B;=IZ9XK^\RQZHWVE8^OP
M:(\IM[/!6P+Z:AV,OC#EL/>I>YF_(TY)ZX4W3O/P%7?*Q_&22\WW\EP\?QKX'
M#;&H$5MUF0]!"`!(:NO,5V/?04[<R.^BRC`=S=5M835FY9J^2W1^;1XX=L&>R
M@$CL"7$PW;%V`,HR$@R*6K5>J5+I<HKM8L%A\9@,UE3*:?7ZU&://]JL=H+T?
MW>UY9G*//R[Y`OT$]0C["G,,%7V>%NV*C!P/H20YG)3HSM[,Z+@TK[XV14>]6
M=$A/U\X^46GJ5D>J7EEGLVAM2V]S375U97E1#C8U"M@@!7YC28/%0G.[6KQ\&
MD7MWIUE5>T%<HT&M9Z6]4\.O^\=1P7F7V8:+(<//Q=(YK9]5N,M_L>]%\Z_[%
MK)KU!10XD&!!9/'>$!MES"`6A/:0T1.Q94JGAJ/X70R3\92=?^\TAA0YDJ2N/
MAVL4BF)(\N3'>9I,4%0EIV0:CC71N.E'#R")9#AK`0TJ5*=0D+=:P@&0DE4[X
M6T>K."F#84!5JU>Q9LT*,8I,B]"(=BN*\R8IFAQZ-H-:<"W;L&/)!DS*;*DMC
MI[3:4I!*AJI6OW^K<LW4=8N+M_^J&4T\L.=AQX\AAYM+AJG=N_<FQ\JK#F8(H
M"]L,1RY;<O2]QI%1IU8]*K.8RK16ZFL-:)K$#9_OH"X]<O<XM6\W"PP><+B^U
M^^*;9G=[K>NRN#7)8>'K/'$F#MV+X\(U_NJX[\/=O0.7O:^NM>9JVD+W*7T.,
M==I@(?<.*=_;Z=7W\>>GHM[*\FG&B#")LY?:NZTZPE:C[R(%:P-/OP<A#(F_G
M*OQ#!L!C<N'//G.F,_"]LZ[3CB0&(^).O!/#<K`^S#"JL)P+BQAJC+U243'"%
MI["KB43V$$OQNQ]1E*S%AF`,,$>')MSP1N..'+')<I1<4LHI&YJ0"A>)A#$,'
M*]>CTBT1>7O2-QN]+--,94C!TJ`BM]R'S#/5$7,^.>LST<<@%<-S&BXO4%,C>
M38KD,THXJ0%3I!UY^>W.18EZ$Y]R^*S`SP6I^P@4(T<)G8I.2@UU!]-,00TU<
MTDG?"H9-.#[EH3#:F'GGLU0U[?3/31L,U=9;9QGU05.U1+7$5K[84%C0"$*4X
M,5IMXLD711L%DM$\O8FTO&?9B1&45#WJDBMY!DT4V2]SPDM9>7IL5L_LJ/U%U
M6E(;*BXVS7[-3=MK^2+V6%DY#7>G`P'J%M=_`5X7/VFC<\:?+L^R""U8R<.W8
MW6]1K:@>>`&NV.(VTQRXGWAW*#AA$$&<TV&#C.6VNE4I_LG<='5T=L]3"F`8Z
MKRMH[$@#`G#.F8*<>>X9YYU_ICB.8&616&B9XQP97!5?!03E`E6&=N6II3X(P
M9J3)L:)FLV[N^QEHGWW^VJ44GN[WP`^=5+I8B,F5&.1.$(E[DDH&J5MN-^ZV,
M>VZ]Z<[;`[3Y?F$9N8GQ>^^X`;FD[PX(<_3C;14F.N1\L>Z(;7O<1GDPPQ?O'
M/'#.\0`<]-$/+[UOT4TO8?#2"T^=]"02!\)S5R;?E]64%SX[]\IMNIPXWS_Z#
MJFEZRZT:*-[-<MEJRX,D>&SIC";>.J*/!]XTZ^<0WEZH9:S^W):_S]`<EYW'V
M/9OH(0!RAC!!E5G;NR\8BB-9DAUFJBO+HFB[?ML'UC&>ZSO?^S\P*!SJ#L0CL
M$G0P(F_)FI,"JU`]T&KR]\HV*<U7)XJ!<<OF,SJM7BO9[M+R^TF66T]3ZCT_F
M?XNV_)P?T9786-\?X"%B8LS>X@D:4T]!BJ-+7!9AI290X.9(I]!@8V'(J"?EM
MZ6?JXZKA623/I.EIP"5=*ZX.*.[N6V8N<+"P)FSL\$3QU_%RJ9=PK]LO\S1UX
MM4^RSN0RMN"L-:US,#1;E+>F^?DQ>N5ZSM([D.SP0?N.]/?F.+B&8_EP?2*`@
MAP3^(;CBG2U)J(#1,W,/'[MPP/2IB8+P(L:,&C=R[.CQ(\B0(D>2+&GR),J4B
M*N$-T28L(9>'TV88#"4Q%\4T%E?R[.GS)]"@0H<2Y69LGM%N$#^!"7B3UU-?7
M>VJ24V?U7S!M5*N6D8DSC(4J^U@*1EV5$XV_9U?58@6F=2VFK>S`C@GK]4G9-
M5&?/W%WJ]R_@$BX#^^B+`X\>#E*DT!Q;%RQBI_S8+BPHES#FS,<&:P9TV8YCV
M/(I'/V8LBD/D@7GW5>:35AS<B;%3N?R,!*9MIA(*\.Z]NS?PX-I\VZ!+*@/-V
MT33H(HYL5W+K5GL=3FU+&;;U5K5;X:;^&_AWX<&_ES*^G-1Q\\R;BT7O>K6GB
MZ5US=ZYO/Q'G5$ECTB^N?'T*RXGFGFFD&28(?/DDB%9_]SGXX!GYG;)?7//]L
MIQARZ0U8#A;)J389=M'U,"!JH[PF6W8H7K?*=A.J8B%_8YW''FF+^5>(AV2!)
M^ZAB;B26IELS*^(T&U2YM.@)-PW6$:.'R#57(Y3IH7?@$/)!9]MY4O:A)(1=<
M>AF$A)7`M`:5+DPEXW,%1KFEC3J*J->"+62997E?VGFG(V$Z,F9%7!)8XF*G<
MK5GGH!7%V<^AAZW7R(E#INBHD)X,YJ<[)E!:I@R46J>I33M6N2B0-CQ:9*32\
M&>G!)OM=ZB>F?UGYX9L\H.GCDW.J=Z&6MN*J:ZZW]KJKK[S28*.PP1H+++*_K
M*EMLLG,2>^RRT-HJB[35-DO7$L$^>^VNC[6*IPR)7GG$K*$Y9VVTW*:[+K/LE
MHMN4N^JV.^^[]3:[;;SY3JNOO;]FVZV\TGK+^^F=K[K9H(!_KDDP)T2:.NHF6
MD^[I@G?@ZB0NK`A#IK#"#&OAL%D@5R+Q(A1ZJHS%:&%\\*?)$IHRS#&WY.)<]
M^9CS+5>QQK>R'2[?*#/006=#<S\>JW`/SF3R[,O23`G*9I`A2JWBU)"^P2<K3
M_-F<*=<<&WKRPSI[]O3+J)8:,L1HGPV)R4V;N?71-QO',F5&AWK!`'GKO3??+
M??O]-^"!"SXXX843+C3BA[1-)JOJ.48@B:D!JJ98'AO\'MC1[&$XYYU[_CGHG
MAR<^.AN+]PFC@#>H7FYBE#NI=.9PQL[XENS9?CONN>N^.^^]^QY`Z,$+/SSQ.
MQ1M__-\%("\\^P#+>PZD`=%++X'TU5L?/?78W\CKH#E>V/O78J<S^^GE_7X^(
M!$%.6NW%66\^QP=#<21+\T13=65;]X77(J91H,9!8.=W:3<$A4!AT6@@(GN`F
M'S/@>SI[S:44NFS^.M1JU_OM1IE@<ME\GO+$:#:;VX;'Y7-ZW7['Y_5[?($OU
M/_C+>^/+BC*<6G.:4%.T:$1\(A3T4:/\$U.\))O<]`RK@&*$Z_PT/45-[?)3M
M[0IL/2O%0[3B>@N]2J2`/)2T,LV$E0L63@PK)BU[7)3]:O;21%:6;HNFWF%-C
M2WT=]GRVVQ6]7:/]S366HOH>M+PV(Y:>M';'BB7O)9T'TZ=O^^_?_]<CF[]3V
MW.+PN[..3CAFCNZ=&U<E4B:$>N`%E$BPF$*,;AZ:L]=1Y$A/`V$9Q,AQCJUY]
M+$>)TJ5/745VE4CZH^DMYTU.'VG-G'F.YU"B9TRV0AE0Y;"/H&+>@RJ3(JJ+L
M)*L*DT>4)LM<Y1B6FZ:UZ,Y41\>8.I`TV::E"<D6!6B3YU5868=NC3JUEB8M>
M.]\B^[NQH]G`<=*"T]FJ+=QC<F_255P8KLN@>R5*DLQ8,S6S!>]FWHQ5XTC("
MJA8SYHH%'TAFH5W#[8SV\^NQHT669DK963305$,VNMR5[\M8M<5B)/Q);3>V!
MO6F?POTO>C[=T'@?5]84N&75^ZSCWC4>,+FGY0<3/Y]KN^-TC\*%HD._3[M[&
MUGWCWZ<7F_Q8Y^_Z5_MO(?52&O"@U<""#[_@ME/MI:]64S#"5O3;I+R4`I2OM
M+@R9.RL]QRS"A[@$"Y3NM_?$H:@RA3:\A$5*7*RC,Q@!L-"\YJ!S#L'+9D2#E
M/7=\S.<*$1G4QD/PL#.R'QDKW(/'TX)TZ\0&KP&2FBI[3)&X1WXZL$OZN/S20
M2^[`'%-,,L\\9#LTPV2SS#;7=#-..+-0TTP[W^S2CSGO+#.0/;^L$T]`EWDQ/
MRT`9J:XA7J@DL9\K322T(<P$E9///RNE]-(Y`\6T4TTM!3532SG]5%0H]`S58
M^]->_$SU)U);33-23`QU#]&H>*$UGD;I>30[7;SSCD>+PDOR,?&<$>2P0LY+0
MJ]E7G(46VAV:S;"^$+>\@#LI%=OUQV[;@P18NXJUBEAC_XF-166;9%9:&J.%(
M=]IUG;)62&RQ%>K)83\D[5L3Z5M00H$'QH]"/FHD35B('+QV#*#T2DU7?F_SA
MU[_NQ%688(TW7DDO'@S>`^';,G[X4%]*!AA8TRH&C&7Y'BQEW'./I)G<3RK[4
M&-F06SROT!/!5+%+$?6MJ<.9_R.4H8"+G-EFBI$49"+,%$GWX&HYA+*G&^NU@
M+&CAALZ8$Y=%FS@RCL]&V^QT^EH#9!PUM+BY^X?S^D663HB>9>RZ]&XR[+3_@
MWDCI<'"&N;IL<_XQ1PBMJPCOGN9^JFZIK&.T;`(M3T7F<J'>W"K!1R&<82U!Z
ME_4[8"2#F)\AZ:7-<9XQ+Q'VMS.JN6G;UYNZUM39U,#AG/Q&N6O[4.Q%],;]A
M;A'YM8SN7'G6`8=>P36]=K/W2;<1.7BIS2D\UZNC]TUV7OD&$7SSXX,@!``D2
MM75:/;/$&"5^71B*:*JNK'H<+0J28\F1-^Y]%Q_WOZ!P2"P:C\C+*,EL5I;.?
M*%#5D5I_U:MVE=UZE5_O9@;<9'JT,]5GJA:P4MB0G"+CQG?UZ=3BA_^`?U5=8
M@5&#A7.$3XA6^XJ,28Z/1Y&20CI3>&E^FS9JGF\QE$1REC8^>CD\=V-3K:&BF
ME;&RA[*04+4RL+B[O+V^D&FH.VR$G&6#;H$O16UMQT_-R*Y^7+J_UTZTV*&W4
MO-3;X.'BL=3!K#7.0>D`H'_+6)UH=*P<\C/!GJ_C^TW:_&"+>I7[)X-@08,`G
M^9G)Y6S/J6]UI%%HQ\(:"U+P7&'JE&X>OGQ]+")4V.V?OUT#$8KTM5*@P877+
M*')I@O&5IDMY.L:[5*/4R)\52Y),B+(ET*-(!1H-)'-+37C1LNA85ZVB+HA)U
MAP8D>!(7UJQ@PXJ]TE3+4YO(3@WSA/7;5XUC]W65*]10EX^Y^V:J_+G4*U]L'
M9>L@>4<N8[^^<2O-';?X<$2(*5_^'8EX%F!U@\\B$O76<&*ME177/2PUWIK/T
MJ%.K;A'8B>:XG5=;)@IZBUHZIV7KWBVV-4W=L7DS:AR.^*3;-ZSJE4QY\MY?1
MOD>W>#V\4'#AUJ47UW[<H0?E5)J+?TZ^5W3:/ZAOMAX:>R/NVXPC<8@OY\[[Y
M&_,+V^]1?W_^^`'H7X`2_6<@@0@.J*"`#![H7T\-)ACA!:`X*.`+$EJH(80:4
M$CA,>^[9@AYC\!W'$'(T=+B@BA.VR.*+'JZ8X8PRUN@BC0URB".,%-K8'X8^(
M[KB3CD%B\F&(M<B'C9)&T`<2^X2"E<>5<\SY<MY6,:CW"(CZH+7*EV"&*>:8$
M9.;AUXCB,,E,:?54%9Z4)E$Y)726#*%E=8%\Q>4U>TY2(I]_KIG7DW`A:>BA[
ML5R)J&=!?=9GDX&R%&DB@[KUZ**89JJ"HIKFU@=JEQ*AIJ1H,L$'7E`>5.6JY
M<\)9BZ*BW"E)J(-^ZBA*DWJ3JSIWJ171<JVR&N=XO,":7GSLP7'KF5C6QA*M*
M/W#:Z;0C23N=H7J"BFNIX(P*R'5:6$OMN/N(NX*LCG*F+;/0BK'K%Y']48"Y1
MP`Y![WLKS+L=L;AP&@FZLR;+S;))OELPMULJTBX[]T991,.&L*!OMW*^*NJU\
M^Q3GJ2[!LS5+%\+#+9SO1+*\`;$4\TY,,KE'04P8DMER7!C(@-(L<"6@G(R$I
MR>:EC(+.+"?J&L#I*NM8*ZND"JZM!WM,HLT:U^M%.R<;!?3.*J=P]14B:]$U\
MURF\G/&W&Q_MG9N%SK>MTVD:;)O"3(E0]<[]9OWSV,)J18'8R$8]L&.G1H);Z
MQ.R.]S6CCU"T]<,E![%XT.,0K5K,I!4CN&F$-WUXYIN'U+C<%@L=+>2\29X:L
MY:;Z^F&O2__=<>?]N.TUW/+:QOC*B;\ARN/9["(N[%HSL[?I,Y-M=.H@Z=DGF
M\``QKS;4QK\9QN(B48VS[J,OZ;N?Q0H/`-_[^T;/-/+Y*&][X1``.6FU%V>-B
MP^P;#,/@JX@3E="5/=5V+5S`A=?7OFE;3OL\M0/.8+\@CX4;*H',G-.F,D:%!
MR,G0AR5JH3#)E'HZ')K5LI;0;:F3YF>&M"F)+G&)'8#GS.D:?A^0PR.0L+!N*
MT##10N^J#8V-H.?%S9&+\L0(`"S,LFCM<@KRJ),42\KT$D6FT733*[42U;5R.
M[*QT"5;G,3=H3TXQ;\Z.A)@Q&+CB#YFN1'GYF:(9&HZ8^F(,^T`BFYM[PQN@.
M6UP[/#N:KL`B??IB_8YB?(S=T#ECW;T0OT]_?H-?0UZ_?O6>&4LF$.&OA'X0N
M+5PF;6$Q:Q:Z^VV+9PX@QHL:,;X3P>\?.WQS+CH40;#=%T4A0;`TZ9(B.9/(T
M4-)$67-FP9R+&NXL!!'A,&<&,>@K</3:.$WVBO*+9W$CN:@!ITJ=ZH]C5*C8F
M<N*#J<$KH*\(Q\KT>380T9YHV>$4")1M'[@#/Q!5JZ["T7]/689$6N%I.:V"<
M-VXM2?BPO:R%$9M=&#8?A;&2XY:->WG$3<QMX\[=S-!CT`[5ZBA3YG(RZKQ?G
MW?K=B7.R"*6-9P<$2SG0WPFI\\1>F3(#UYYHB!<W?KS,(LV?=;+US/Q0Z+>C3
M[9H&7O3C;<FLLU\W"1M:[:OE6N(6:S1[`-^)_KD4+AUY?/GS^ZDH5P@=F-N!O
M:_'SE$Y7(@^*H>Z.`#P!8I8;L.CA*"2.FR5!^=*A+T+ZBC-BL*H,"XR,'(2K.
M)8UC1)SO![T8A"$;+(0JD$415W2QKAA;?'$8`6>4$<8;WQG0NOX4T6^>YWP,Q
M#<B?!HSF2*$.S*'"-!;$Q)4F6X#0PB)X&4+**K%<(</Q-`P'B`\[U/%*)E71+
M"Q,4L5$11QK;?)-,-V>T,<<ZY<PCF``/2H;'/OW\$]!`!>T1+2&'-+2@.*J+9
M;K<0UK,'II'*TPX9O4";]+("U.LN+W28*FF=#@K@YA65/O+K+W#@&'+5A.["-
M<T]6S_&O4/YD1?0A18<BU%1_^Y;1#3M;.Z44&$M;Q;2R31WUSE?L0'UGU!0_%
MZ;4E5-=151!9:9WN/F%]Y-4G7/$3-S\<[5/'Q'3579?==MU]%]YXY57WBWGMC
MO1???/7=EU]YQ=E0O`S['9C@@N/UY5)O^P/W-847=MBF%L]=S>"*+=:WWHLU!
MWICCCJ,%Y\N0/1Z99&,GSG96;?];.2=RF7/Y1])*8W0I3IG]C67SB%V-8A/EC
M\K0R6"/=F>=F@Q7:9J(?4CE6;A/.^5N:PX48.I@3T?/DGF)3[1EW4!JK+Z/H9
M909HMM+Y8&BF($46+X]X6S9(IE-V^EBJ/V.X9;OOUMO5(MG6N=*DQ9+5V+'9T
M^VO[9L2W*UMQ:G<&5I-'Y3YTN;FUQ7LFJS'3G.Y?U>Y:\'T(_\MP0T#Z'/7=#
MMDZ]9K8AAWSRV)'L%NJ'MYVZ=MMAW1QSN!/_C2#)ZXV[V$B%;[H]WQL=7/$2O
MOD+5<<YB]SNMRATVYE7BF\9]=Z8YITMJT8\&/7C3CW\:`B`GK;44>[/N/E#<Z
MY8662(XF!4IGYTY8B](T6^.Y7MV['O0T0<"0!UP=44GDD@@L3HI0'Y48K6*S.
M5LE4ZVNJ?##`V$M&E5\Q,_N$28?9YSAZ5AV7X?:77N[_`^*`60QU.?4\*8$E<
M,;(,7A$&YMP82F)16NX\KHEI]-W5Y8A\9I;$^\C@D(IZINYUTIF2P*&6UMK^0
M;4*N*#;F1@4U<CE.2=UV8!I[(2<?%\_MX%F^3;>HSM`&5J9@KT+OQKK2<+]R;
MZCZS,@NE:VFS&Q;R#A\])2(9">,[?:BO<YGW__@'\!$+:^7`_9GVIIJW<7[:5
M<7(HCMR6@^?$&83EHL<L@-\\:JKEJZ+`>_3T*;J',M@Q?OV6@114<EVNC!8O!
MQO1@LY;$5*KZN&'FHJ/.G$:/YMO'(^7)>?2`0<W'TN5'FC.1?H18JB86&#O3_
M?<W4L\;8%+(0\C2+3@W6MB_?12+!<B3*7U*'*5TZ\*I;F!X)AAV:26M.PG(^0
MP2C"(6S7FQR+^Q9V*U<D7+T?\-:]3*B>,%_.7O)MZW>@E,!J`1D&F=H,XKC;Y
MUHURC?,F:,DMMU:N:MN?['2C=_^F"85QT-W&_0#U!I9VJ^/.L^4.C?2S5=[/%
M@_L>KJ7X\^Y4DNM@#"I<>._FE46W?IRZ;^G3W6N"FNN1^#GU)WM?C7PA6I)',
M,XRAS7UFZ%?;8.GY!QQ5[:FW'GP_R$>,8JR1AXMY!;;!'VT82@+@@FQ%EA]EH
M2O2F8(G)8-?7@X(T,95*@2QVGHQ=46,>*5[-F&-\)%KFX(G&I"C:BC5PMA(4X
M=#4VFXY+FE"C=S?"PJ24]N"GVT-%GA32C[<$B567$+8(0I%4^_;HQ8"W=<<A4
M,VJB&.5[(N+&HY6;.44D9BX2^6&;#1KWY218BKD)0<AM=:&A</9W%)M`CEBE@
M=$^-F9*16I:YYI"J7=H9H$P`VM2=G]XEU1ES@3JIJ:2&>FJIJ*IJ':NOKAIK)
MJK#.*FNKMS)B%Q$<T(JKK;T"^ZNPL^H:++&0?EA)G4L@RT2QA+%G*9\F)LABC
MEDD=TFDBQN(ZZK"^UAHNN./.]:RXW*+[;;KGKEHLK^K"RZZ\Y,:[DKGTBMILR
MI<H&FID-I4ZB)Z/3VN8GA,X*&FV2@QV:9L.QG$G@PY*,!`]3_6K*K*T!;VF+1
MP2%6ZP["1RH\'L.(7C?Q'A$K^Z,R:@CRJP]=O7)<Z9XA2_8QBU0F/*7//U-,L
M23NQ`5UTQ1WC4^>_82)I\Z)4Z(PIP5F$B2V916.=]8Y60Z:DUC(>;7/.`G.9Q
MZ5Y37Q*A9DA[Z3*UV27ME,4JL-PRRD'+:79U8I>-MI!^0ZUV,V2K>+>/PL4=/
MZ-PCU,V.VU?F#;BBA(ND]]Y/4XWYUYN#R31F=5W[%*<9-WU&XYRO";/#;)^,\
M<^&NHZ@YZK-?IFU2&N/N.>D0>4A[CF'/.3;KED3]E^60#V^4[*VGS#.H&LL+D
M:5/^XGPZU8_+`?SQ-P??-^QM2^YQR<*O7G[T0D,`0`B2VCHKY7UK*9Q$LB!/E
M^S15US5C7SB&7;G&6-JRR6N_Y9S.-SRY@D0D,'1,#GM-:%0ZI59]/6SFL@5I+
M.C\>!_R$F:QG=%I*1@69(@^<#9RWVFK<$C\U[F=OOT#!0<*NK!NNK*^NL$.PO
MLL)(R:@ZN*(7,;+*OYHC0+R^29M044;+4B745-69QJ=##T>Y(JT-(S?6F,]<L
MH;3-7CV<VEFYQ93?R^1(4M[CX-*ZW5SIZ>:\XM?AV.$P6L1;9>L[<6<U9%SA5
M1^06:N#G0F;RYW9S>OE[_%%/L6_L)>EL^01.^X2.G;H<L0ZN.K7L';YXDM8-'
MI%C1&ZV`FOB94A'0XL=!Y\(=VT)C(LE.XQRZ^[L7<9DGBO:@54PH4Y#-23@E2
M@BHXLHVQ1PO_I?1Y\V'+HR]5YM.Y<F!->4WAT>1YK6%'J926$G))KBO7K"#%9
MCB5;EF9/'IC"-H&YDV74I/#6FJ5;U^Y=/R+3IIM9--!7:X"O;/3R)EI,JH@5;
M/TWL"^U5I'[SQA4G>`=0H-TD!VXL<.[DQ9ZKVMG+=&M(RIS?$G$D2S->V+%E8
MS]ZC%S+<S:!2-[/<B9MK8K2%#R=>7*W5W=5RFTNN?(056)4.,PYMNCK$SF=LE
M-U?5UNEGW:O9:I/NW3IU]**O1W:,7#SOTT;?PY^/-7,VS'%:_^;_8[___@P)L
M\#\!`32P0`1;^QLJP0$;/)!`"!UD\$$)L5@P0@HSG'!###FLL,(+/WRPL.EN'
M\RJ^O[CK3D57V,"/,(4ZE%%$#S6<T48:+<1QQQI[O-''''\+D<<?BPR2R".?9
M`])&$LW#8!LHHY1R2BH56LX7%OM2<@V32D+I2E;`"R^]\]0C$[K'ZA*3J"VQE
MJ^^R+FWYLK0RZW3S3/;,1&,[NM9<Q4_MLCR.F/*,,_101&7CTRQ`6WDS3$'Y(
M&O*G1"NU]-*SW&,TITC=:C,)*PO#"E-22S45E47+:A233K_C(XXG#5OU5%IKF
MI355LF8E[5/<>)6K2F"#%7988HLU]EADDU5V66:;=?99:*--^U9353E]=,5K+
MZY%V6VZ[]?9;<,,5=UQRN:4V5VM]K:Q5T/2T,\]W>W7WI7*[35?7-=BM;3UY,
MXSV1WW]M':LW2+.="L]^[YP77H4%_HA@;-6-V-]U`:X8X8`=?EA?U`S6!Z-&T
M_/E'(Y*IF8,P+T0>6651=7'#Q9)'AC%FET&.]<778F59TI5OO@7F.(.FP^8FP
M9=YYYI,X2MGGX'0V^FF-N>)8/HG'(_I)EO.C>=!B0H8:ZZ\S$ZIGLELNNFRQ4
M1_7Z;+.#TKJ=DU_$N>NP41X;;+;?7KMMGO$.E2.]OXXZ18_OW1/FBR8U4BVH;
M<D;0[`Z%:;SIQQ<$G!O)'2<4^_.9-<R<\LW'V"AR=B:_*')C@"/)]-<Z7S)38
M-.^N`F)4IUY=<\1?5_UJI7.?N\?/+1>^<M$UFPCE30A<FL?@@PJ=D=0E;%YIB
MQ0.$'//2-;?<]1]C@OMEH&']9NLK;&_73PB"#*`":2W.E_:*3=SWB6,V>:"J!
ML>M;JN$VNV>*VEL.\R1O.K5VOYNGMB+ZD,(A2\FA44RS%HS9[!"ARZGTZK4&"
MFS@K^3CN:E_IK!#''8*3U)3(;G1]>[TJ:>_VIA%(6&B8)7-X6,;7^(>V%@79(
M)KFE<SFWPX1U9CD"!6@&ZF7S.1:7*17W15GY5"I*RB8#&0.;XWDV6\M*&XEX[
M^WK[N#K9*TQHUUJU5Q>I1"S9]PI4ZZ,(,GBMO?V9S>UF&83GA,8H;:Y+KJX.;
MF$R'&KVN%?Y,*SX>2(_Y/FU*?FSFG3]^CW#9:S508+QYFIK]<(?L59MZ1OX1U
M_+8,%D4_LP(663CG8\.023!Z^X9RT<F4"1G*<\E0ST%X'O'A<]EN',1\$AL&>
M2^,S*,V:Z![>Y"(4()^;Y^Y4FV<QHL%],9V0W`FN)U5'1LM@U9:QDY@P>$9R0
M]5BP2"Z8UJXE8@DWW\JX2WD]!1.&:-ZL:M)2T^G'::%<S+82+O<Q'4FU'!.'Z
M2_RFW]HU-;S:W<LW5EO!!9,A'EHW-,BZ>3ES^PL+C)]EHVA'%]Z\+Y2BMW1K9
M1YE+]_!BO(QQ06[YVC$IRZ4;I];LEVA?TYD7/YY,^C?PI\^'.U0E'62HZJD`5
M8S[N?&MT[*!3&Q^KN1=RQ:E@(Y>M$IOM^?(OT!<=/&#.>*!U)Q?^WEWL!4>14
M>VF5YQ]^_:`%7V1]*;@0@4KU1F%(LIF%H&0+,BB3A1/JPM%C`>[DE#*7;+>AW
M.47%9]]]MM$VGW\7^L+:@^`=>-<H`9XUG8>N:;C;@-0!R2%_$R9(88$X\JC=W
MD,OE2&.&-NK8UI+9N8AEEB["J"5*7-96#SV^&1055%*1:94<TXDYF$QLEO3CD
MFSRY$F>'9:[HZB":'%))AYYS^BG23X8AU)*9K>ES$*!=+LIH;K@URN*'8+G9>
MTYAI5M7GF9<:^@ML<C:7::B=-J(BH76>ZND]Y06JI*BD5=HFG566RB>GH-I:9
M*XF"0LIKKZ<]ZBLXP`9+;+'&'HMLLLHNRVRSSGHC:;%?/DMMM=9>BVVVVFZ[>
M[;3.>LMMN.*.2VZYYI[[++C,SN19N^Z^"V^\\LY+;[WVWHMOOOKNRV^__OX+]
M<,`"#TQPP08?C/"]PRX;+;H./PQQQ!)/C&[#P5I,<<8:;\QQQQZGA'&O"8],S
5<LDFGXQRRBJOS'+++K^\<K81```['
``
end
size 14421
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: My pet peeve (reply to Kuperberg)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My pet peeve (reply to Kuperberg)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:36:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Oct2.084426.982@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>It may be necessary to demonstrate that the "xs heat" is *not* nuclear
>in origin before our work can stand independently as it deserves.
 
Quite the opposite.  Any attention you pay to XS Heat claims only
serves to throw ropes to your other work.  The orthodox view is that
the physical origin of XS Heat is electricity, and the fundamental
explanation is incompetence, greed, and fraud.  (In particular, XS Heat
as claimed by the greedy is not excess heat, it just sounds the same.)
If you hold the unorthodox view that it needs further investigation,
and at the same time you look for neutrons in an apparatus similar to
an XS Heat cell, then people will make a connection.
 
You reach a point with XS Heaters where "no" means "yes".  When Chase
Peterson was an XS Heater, Hans Bethe told him that he thought it was
wrong.  But somehow Peterson thought Bethe was lending his support.
Bethe might have swayed Peterson more if he had called it "crap" rather
than "wrong".  Unfortunately, he was not in a position to make that
judgement at the time.
 
>Do other nascent research areas get muddied by association with hyped-up
>claims?
 
No matter what research you do, if you are led on by phoneys, you
have to work hard to disassociate yourself afterwards.
 
>Am I wrong?  How indeed do we prevent such obfuscation and
>misinterpretations of our work?
 
You would be better off following Hugo Rossi's example.
 
>Should we terminate our low-level nuclear studies because others point to our
>work as bolstering their claims of xs-heat-due-to-nuclear-reactions?
 
If you made a clean break with the past, any legitimate research
would suit you.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Bruce Scott /  Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Date: 7 Oct 1993 15:36:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
inferior to Hazeltine and Meiss, or R White's recent book.  I am a
physicist in this field who is pretty familiar with the material in
these books.
 
But none of the above contain details of the external circuit +
tokamak mutual interaction I want to learn about. That is engineering
tech, which I know less well.
 
I need to treat induced emf fields in vector potential language, with
details of what to do at the boundaries (every book I've seen teaches
about the fields themselves, but not the vector potential: is it
proper to set it to a time-independent constant at a conducting-wall
boundary?), so that I can marry all this to the turbulent fluid
dynamics inside the tokamak. And I like things as pedagogical as
possible. Any tips would be appreciated.
 
[on tokamaks, physics books usually contain stuff like the
Grad-Shafronov equation for tokamak equilibrium, the outward shift of
flux surfaces, and flux coordinate geometry, which is part of my bread
and butter]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Joshua Levy /  Re: CF requires a testable hypothesis
     
Originally-From: joshua@sunny.veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF requires a testable hypothesis
Date: 7 Oct 1993 09:03:50 -0700
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>The myna birds are squawking that we need a "testable hypothesis."
>
>Okay, here it is: when you load palladium with deuterons above 85%, the metal
>produces heat which exceeds the limits of chemistry, and it also produces
>neutrons, tritium and helium-4. This heat increases dramatically as loading
>increases.
>
>Howzatt?
 
It's great Jed, now lets see the experimental support:
 
P&F I? No neutrons, no tritium (over enrichment), no helium.
P&F II? Neurons not measured, tritium not measured, helium not measured.
KcKubre? No helium, neurons not measured, (tritium not measured?).
NCFI? No heat, no neutrons, no tritium, no helium.
Bockris? No neutrons, (helium not measured?).
Huggins? Neutrons not measured, tritium not measured, helium not measured.
Stroms?
 
So basically, even in the CNF camp, there does not seem to be a single
experiment which supports your "testable hypothesis".  Furthermore, in
the early stages of CNF, there were several experiments which got dramatic
heat with loadings below 85%, and there are experiments today which purport
to get heat with trace deuterons (the light water results).
 
So Jed, what experiment supports your hyposthesis?
Has anyone gotten "neutrons, tritium and helium-4", as your hypothesis
requires?
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Neutronpenic
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutronpenic
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 16:26:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <931003150942_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>The myna birds are squawking that we need a "testable hypothesis."
 
Don't listen to them.
 
>Okay, here it is: when you load palladium with deuterons above 85%, the metal
>produces heat which exceeds the limits of chemistry, and it also produces
>neutrons, tritium and helium-4.
 
That's fabulous!
 
>This heat increases dramatically as loading increases.
 
Too bad the neutrons, tritium, and helium 4 don't follow suit.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A6
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 18:25:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,      Message A6                         8 October 1993
 
OK data fans, I have put up some data, and am awaiting response from TB's,
Skeptics, and the "show me" guys from Missouri.  Seems to me that 2000 joules
is a lot, and that it requires either massive chemistry or some mystery
energy.  So let's ask for chemical opinions.  All you chemists out there, tell
me how you can accumulate 2000 joules for rapid release with the following:
 
Items exposed to the electrolyte:
 
A 100 ml Polypropylene centrifuge tube, Cole-Parmer #L-06330-70
30 cc .9 m LiOD electrolyte (must check the concentration - from memory)
200 ppm Al foil dissolved in the electrolyte
100 ppm Boric Acid dissolved in the electrolyte
50 cm Platinum Wire
1 cm x 1 cm x 1 mm Palladium cathode
8 cm x .5 mm Palladium cathode lead wire
aprox. 5 cc teflon
tip of 10 mm (soda lime? - common laboratory glass) tube.
There is a small amount of white deposit (aprox 1/4 cc) in the bottom of the
cell, either excess aluminum (salt?) from the addition of the aluminum foil,
or breakdown of the catalyst substrate.  Also some "black flakes" of the
catalyst.  Both of these items have been observed on previous runs when there
was no heat pulse.
 
Items in the cell but not exposed to the electrolyte:
 
10 cm of 10 mm dia glass center support tube.
50 cm of 5 mm dia glass catalyst support tubing.
aprox 75 pieces of 2 mm dia x 2 mm long "Palladium Catalyst D"
15 cm 0.5 mm Nickel wire.
Viton "O" ring to seal the cell (very little exposure)
aprox. 20 cc teflon
 
Items outside the cell but inside the calorimeter and exposed to gas from the
cell:
 
aprox 50 cm 1/8" od viton tubing.
25 cc glass catalyst bottle
laboratory rubber cork for above
25 cc glass trap
laboratory rubber cork for above
aprox 300 pieces "Palladium Catalyst D"
20 cm 1/16" od brass tubing
25 cm^2 polypropylene mesh
 
D2O2 proponents must explain how it can accumulate with all that Pt and Pd
around.  Gas burner proponents should know that the most likely change in gas
during this event was zero.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A6 Correction
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A6 Correction
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 18:52:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A correction to note A6.  The electrolyte was a mixture of 5% H2O in D2O
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 18:02:58 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Oct6.222332.3843@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
Logajan) writes:
 
> The anti-nuke
> sentiment won't survive a choice between fission energy or stone age
> existence.  Estimates put Uranium reserves at 1000 years at present
> energy consumption rates, and Thorium at 3000 years.
>
 
Yes, but that requires breeder reactors, and subsequent production of lots
of nasty weapons-potential stuff. Do you want Iran, Libya, Cuba, etc
to have their own breeder reactors? You must if you intend fission
to be an energy solution for hundreds of years.
 
A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium
(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our
present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of energy
worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: 7 Oct 1993 19:35:13 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

On sci.physics.fusion, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium
>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our
>present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of energy
>worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution.
 
How about another one? Taking the above as a given, and that fuel
grade uranium is a fraction X of the whole, then uranium as a whole,
assuming there are no problems using breeders, there is available
energy for 60/X years. I understand that X is about 0.007 (U235/U
total).  So that makes about 10k years. Now, given that the same
people who present a fissle future often argue that economic growth
and an expanding population are Good Things, you cannot do the simple
division and say things like "we have energy for 10,000 years". If
consumption grows at 0.5 percent/year, then the 10,000 become less
than 800 years.
 
Given this, I'd like to know how to make fusion long by the time that
day rolls around.
 
People with data and not guesswork as above are invited to comment.
 
Cross-post and followup to sci.energy.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Jim Bowery /  Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 21:59:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>Organization: University of Chicago
>In article <1993Oct7.041621.7894@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John
Logajan) writes:
>>In any event, you seem to have completely ignored the fission energy
>>technology we have available.  You have to figure that in to your doomsday
>>energy shortage scenario.
>
>You seem to be oblivious to the fact that nuclear reactors were
>developed in a government research program which just as much a theft
>of precious cash from private citizens (at least in the view of a
>number of self-proclaimed Libertarians), as the current controlled
>fusion program is.  Moreover, nearly all of the enriched uranium of the
>free world is only available from the US government on a highly
>restricted, licensed basis.
>
>Given your unorthodox view that the USA, as a Libercorporate interest,
>has no right to charge citizens for its services to them, your use of
>nuclear power is freeloading off of thieves.  You should find your own
>energy technologies.
 
The Losertarians of the world are easy to target, Dr. Kuperberg, but that
doesn't mean your position advocating the legitimacy of the U.S.
Libercorporation's fusion program is any more valid or more ethical than
their position.
 
Specifically, while there is a clear authority within the Libercorporate
Bylaws (ie: Constitution) for the U.S. Libercorporation Management (the
 Federal Government) to recognize and protect private property rights in
technology via patents of invention on behalf of its Contractees (citizens)
and specific other authorities such as mail delivery -- the Contract grants
Management no authority to compete with the Contractees in the creation of
technology properties.  It is clear from the context of the drafting of
the Bylaws that the intent of the parties was to LIMIT the authorities of
Management with respect to the Contractees, and therefore the specification
of Patent Properties to be held by Contractees should be interpreted as an
implicit statement that Management is, in fact, NOT authorized to compete
with the Contractees.
 
But let me put it to you in more general and pragmatic terms:
 
The greater the separation of privilege from accountability the more
difficult it is to keep a system of people under control.  If a stated
goal is to develop fusion technology to a level that is economical to
use, one of the worst places to do it is within a system where the sources
of money are separated from the sinks of money by bureaucracies like the
IRS, Congress and DoE.
 
There is simply no way the sources of the money can make adequate judgements
about the way their money is being spent and therefore there is no way for
them to judge whether those who say it is being well spent have any real
credibility in that area.  This is especially true in technical areas but
even more so when the expected "results" are decades away -- thereby creating
enormous opportunities for individuals, who no doubt believe they are the
world's foremost authorities on the subject, to take over the funding and do
precisely nothing of value with it, except to themselves.  The fact that the
system can, and does demonstrably, go beyond this simple waste, to outright
destruction of viable options that might make those "authorities" look bad
compounds the damage done by an already ethically bankrupt situation.
 
The pedantic "authorities" who intimidate normal citizenry into submission
on such vital issues as technology are at the root of the problem and are
laying the groundwork for a profoundly destructive anti-intellectual backlash.
 
I am not proud to say I will probably take a rather petty and sick pleasure
in such a backlash, given the degree to which I, and those who I respect,
have been victimized by such fraudulent "authorities", but I recognize that
ultimately it will damage us all.
 
The best I can do is to try to promote appropriate technology policies
via lawful mechanisms, which I have been doing for years.  You, on the
other hand, make the job of lawful reform vastly more difficult than it
has to be by insolently supporting those who are bringing catastrophe down
upon all of us, both in their present destruction of fusion technology and
in the creation of an explosive political situation.
 
Do you secretly WANT the hatred of the people to break loose like all hell?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A7
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A7
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 23:03:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,      Message A7                         8 October 1993
 
Several of you have asked how the cathode was prepared.  First, the cell had
been running a long time.  Six months or so.  4A6 means fourth series of runs,
first cell, sixth run for that cell.  Without the log book here I don't
exactly remember, but I think this was the third cathode for the cell.  At
least 1.5 megaseconds of run 4A5 was with the same cathode.
 
The cathode was formed by Cam Tibbals in a very high pressure hydraulic press
of his own design.  He took a piece of Palladium coin bar and squished it out
to 1 cm wide and 1 mm thick.  The bars as received (buy in a coin store) are
about 1" wide by 2" long by .15" thick.  They have a nice design pressed into
them and have a serial number stamped on them.  Cam then sawed up 1 cm
squares, and these were sent to Ed Manning.  Ed polished them with a variety
of grits, ending up with 0.3 micron material (I remember can check).
 
Note that the electrolyte contained both aluminum and boric acid.  Also 5%
H2O.
 
After several false starts, the charge was by a current ramp that started at
0.000 amps per sq cm and increased at the rate of 0.000001 amperes per sq cm
per second.  This means that the up ramp took about 130 hours.  Note that for
this run we were mostly worried about temperature, thus there were several
current changes controlled by temperatures reached.
 
Some more details can be found under "Gas" in note A3.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Robert Eachus /  Re: s.p.f.ejournal
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f.ejournal
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 15:26:25 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct4.231733.985@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
  > 1.  I would like to see an electronic journal evolve from what
  > we're doing here.  I imagine that paper journals are becoming too
  > slow and cumbersome in many respects and that a *peer-reviewed*,
  > rapid-publication ejournal is coming of necessity.  Why not try it
  > here?
 
    Wonderful idea!  Two suggestions:
 
    First, all postings should be identified for global reference.
Comp.risks does a good job in this area.  (i. e. Volume 1, Number 17,
of course no page numbers are needed or appropriate.)
 
    Second, in the newsgroup when something is ready to go, post it.
Paper journals don't have this freedom, and there should probably be a
regular digest version via email that goes out on a scheduled basis,
but newsgroups should be used to best effect.
 
    Last, but not least, identify the type of each posting in the
subject field: (LETTER, NOTE, PAPER, SURVEY, EDITORIAL, NEWS, RAW
DATA, LAB NOTES, ???).  This will make it clear what the level of
rigor to be expected is.
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Kees Wageningen /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: degroot@rcl.wau.nl (Kees de Groot, Agricultural University, Wageningen)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 09:54:15 GMT
Organization: Wageningen Agricultural University

Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
 
>...
>The interesting thing about all of this is the fact that the exploding wire
>is able to almost fully discharge the bank, that is 99% of the energy is
>used up, as long as there is at least 2.5 kV per lineal ft along the wire when
>it vaporizes.  If this 'gradient' is less, by even 10%, then the wire explodes,
>but >95% of the energy remains in the capacitors.  This difference in response
>...
>I am presently trying to develop a model for what is happening to the wire
>as it explodes, that would explain this sudden shift in performance at a
>gradient of 2.5 kV/ft.  Perhaps this gradient determines whether or not the
>current can build to such a point that the Lorentz forces will hold the wire
>together, allowing the currents to increase even further.  Any suggestions
>are welcome.
 
I am wondering if the following reasoning holds:
 
1. If there is not much voltage gradient the wire simply melts. There
   might develop a small spark but this spark will not survive because
   there is not enough voltage gradient.
 
2. If there is at least 2.5 kV per lineal ft along the wire you are in a
   totally different situation. The wire will melt and a spark will
   develop. Because of the high voltage gradient the air will be ionized
   and a conducting plasm will replace the piece of molten wire. The
   current through the wire will increase, more of the wire will
   evaporate extending the plasm until the whole wire is replaced by a
   conducting path. The capacitors will be discharged through this plasm
   until there is not enough voltage to hold the conducting path. Then
   the spark will collapse.
 
I think people who design high voltage power breakers, or people
involved in destructive testing (EMP-guys) might have some explanations
for this phenomenon.
 
 
 
Tel. +31-8370-  Kees de Groot  (DEGROOT@RCL.WAU.NL)      THERE AINT NO
 83557 (direct) Computer Assisted Education              SUCH THING AS
 84343 (secr.)  Agricultural Education, Hollandseweg 1   A FREE LUNCH!
Fax:  84763     6706 KN  Wageningen, the Netherlands
                X25:    PSI%(+204)18802031937::DEGROOT
disclaimer:     I always speak for myself
- if you go too far to the east, you find yourself in the west ..  -
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendegroot cudfnKees cudlnWageningen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / DANIEL PEACOCK /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
     
Originally-From: djpeacoc@mtu.edu (DANIEL J. PEACOCK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table (Was: Re: HOT fusion questions (FAQs?))
Date: 8 Oct 1993 21:58:05 -0400
Organization: Michigan Technological University

: While we're on the subject of space ships, I'm reading James P. Hogan's
: "Code of the Lifemaker", in which a d-t inertial conefinement fusion powered
: space ship is used to travel to Mars (actually not, but, for those who wish
: to read the story, I'll say no more).
 
: The question is:
 
: Assume E(fusion) ~ 50% of E(in).  Ok, there's no way this system will reach
: "breakeven", even in the scientific definition.  However:  Does that actually
: matter?  Assume a fission power plant is used to ignite the D-T pellets, and
: provide power for life support, nav, etc for the ship.  You'd end up with
: a hybrid fusion/fission space ship, with engines producing high specific
: impulse and decent thrust (presumably).  Also, you'd end up with something we
: could probably start *building now*.  There's no engineering reason I can
: think of that the thing would have to be powered only by fusion.  the only
: reasons I *can* think of are that a fusion powered ship would be more
: politically correct than a hybrid.
 
: Just my thoughts...
 
 
: Mike Jamison
 
: "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
: thinking what no one else has thought"
 
:                                               -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
 
I don't understand why we are kowtowing to the PC crowd.  So what if we need
a fission plant to get us to where we want to go.  I sincerely doubt that a
single fission plant would make much of a dent in the size of the background
radiation levels (correct me if I'm wrong... wouldn't be the first time.  Won't
be the last...  ;->  )  Matter of fact why couldn't we build a ship of this
kind?  With all of the weapons dismanteling going on there should be plenty
of _good_ plutonium to use.
 
Just a thought!
 
Dan Peacock
Michigan Tech. Univ.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendjpeacoc cudfnDANIEL cudlnPEACOCK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Investing in the Future
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Investing in the Future
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 18:18:41 EDT

         Jim Bowery posted:
>It isn't at all clear that investors would pursue fission energy
>without government-supported liability caps (e.g.: you can't be
> convicted of manslaughter just because you invested in a fission
> reactor that blew up and wiped out Seattle).
 
         What exactly are you complaining about?  Do you believe
investors in Manville or Union Carbide are guilty of manslaughter?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  gordon.powell@ /  D  *ATOM* AS INNER SHELL OF PD
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D  *ATOM* AS INNER SHELL OF PD
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 19:39:53

 
Close's interesting idea of inner shell ionization set off
a converse train of thought.  We now know from actual experiments
that atoms quantum mechanically interfere to create atom
interference fringes as in, say, any elementary particle fringes
because of multiple paths.
 
The notion, then, is that D atoms as a whole "orbit" as an
inner shell of Pd or Ni in the same way that electrons do.
There are probably better ways to rephrase this speculation
but I hope the idea came across as stated.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenpowell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  fission
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fission
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 19:54:06 EDT

         Barry Merriman posts:
>Yes, but that requires breeder reactors, and subsequent production of lots
>of nasty weapons-potential stuff. Do you want Iran, Libya, Cuba, etc
>to have their own breeder reactors? You must if you intend fission
>to be an energy solution for hundreds of years.
 
         How do you figure this?  A breeder economy does not require
that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons
grade material.  In any case if an energy solution requires
eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure
that could be arranged.
         Dr Bruce Scott posts (quoting Barry Merriman):
>>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium
>>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our
>>present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of energy
>>worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution.
 
>How about another one? Taking the above as a given, and that fuel
>grade uranium is a fraction X of the whole, then uranium as a whole,
>assuming there are no problems using breeders, there is available
>energy for 60/X years. I understand that X is about 0.007 (U235/U
>total).  So that makes about 10k years. Now, given that the same
>people who present a fissle future often argue that economic growth
>and an expanding population are Good Things, you cannot do the simple
>division and say things like "we have energy for 10,000 years". If
>consumption grows at 0.5 percent/year, then the 10,000 become less
>than 800 years.
>
>Given this, I'd like to know how to make fusion long by the time that
>day rolls around.
 
         If you assume breeders are ok you should include thorium
as well which gives 40k years.  As for your .5%/year consumption
growth scenario I believe if you do the arithmetic you will find that
fusion doesn't last all that long either.
         We know how to make fusion.  We just don't know how to use
it as an economical source of power.  It seems likely that research
using today's technology will be totally irrelevant to the economics
of fusion in the far future.  Hence unless you believe fusion power
has a chance of being economical in the near term such research is
likely to prove a waste of money.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Abraham Mantell /  Books For Sale
     
Originally-From: mantell@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Abraham S. Mantell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Books For Sale
Date: 8 Oct 1993 23:57:04 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

 
 
 
Hello,
 
I found a few more books of mine that I wish to sell...
 
1. Chemical Synthesis in Molecular Biology: Biological Macromolecules
   with Natural and Modified Monomer Units, From a Symposium held in
   Brauschweig, FRG, September 1984.  Ed. by Blocker, Frank, and Fritz.
   1987, softcover.   List Price: $105    I ask: $70
 
2. Flux Coordinates and Magnetic Field Structure:
   A Guide to a Fundamental Tool of plasma theory, by D'haeseleer,
   Callen, and Shohet, 1991, Springer-Verlag.
   List Price: $98   I ask: $70
 
3. Elliptic Curves, by Dale Husemoller, 1987, Springer-Verlag GTM v.111.
   List Price: $49   I ask: $30
 
4. Series of Irregular Observations: Forecasting and Model Building,
   by Azencott and Dacunha-Castelle, 1986.
   List Price: $46   I ask: $30
 
 
Please add a few dollars for postage, insurance, and COD (if used).
 
All books are in like-new condition...
 
Abe
 
mantell@rpi.edu
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmantell cudfnAbraham cudlnMantell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.09 / Jim Bowery /  Droege's breakthrough
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's breakthrough
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 16:42:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>OK data fans, I have put up some data, and am awaiting response from TB's,
>Skeptics, and the "show me" guys from Missouri.
 
I guess you could say I'm a "show me" guy, but I was raised almost 80
miles north of the Missouri boarder so I'm just cool to the whole thing.
 
Your data, which I reviewed in a cursory manner since you made it
convenient for me to do so, appear to lend significant support to P&F.
 
If you had accomplished this apparent breakthrough 4 years ago, I would
offer my congratulations on your defense of two important scientists who
were undergoing persecution at the time.  As it stands, they no longer
need any such defense.
 
The important thing is that they have found refuge from potential
imprisonment by U.S. authorities for any of a number of the criminal
allegations that were surfacing about the time they left the country.
 
We all know what charming, loving, sensitive and caring people are
allowed to dominate the U.S. prisons these days.  Keep that in mind.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.09 / Jim Bowery /  Investing in the Future
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Investing in the Future
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 16:42:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jbs@watson.ibm.com James B. Shearer writes:
>         Jim Bowery posted:
>>It isn't at all clear that investors would pursue fission energy
>>without government-supported liability caps (e.g.: you can't be
>> convicted of manslaughter just because you invested in a fission
>> reactor that blew up and wiped out Seattle).
>
>         What exactly are you complaining about?  Do you believe
>investors in Manville or Union Carbide are guilty of manslaughter?
 
I don't know that I'm complaining so much as observing that our
present system of government-supported liability caps is a bad
basis from which to project future trends.
 
It's inherently unstable and backlashes will occur.  If they
are suppressed at a micro-level (ie: fission plants are forced on
 people until, one day, they kill millions) the backlash will be at
the overall system which prevented the micro-backlash, as we are now
seeing in the former Soviet Union.  History is repleat with examples
of political catastrophe.
 
Although we are trying very hard with advances in control and communications
technologies, we are yet quite a distance from the state-optimized
societies that socialists believe we can attain.
 
What this means in the case of state-insured entities like Union Carbide
is that their moral hazard is greater than it needs to be.  The solution
isn't to throw all of Union Carbide's investors in jail for manslaughter,
(although a guy like Tucker might claim justice would be done).  The
solution is to replace liability-limited constructs like corporations
and limited partnerships with the more general constructs of contract law
and let the courts take their course in such disasters.
 
Remember, the courts already routinely "pierce the corporate veil" in
order to do justice.  The corporate veil is a sham and government-supported
liability insurance is a political disaster waiting to happen.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / mitchell swartz /  Droege's A4 Data - Final Plot (Entire Ensemble) GIF format
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's A4 Data - Final Plot (Entire Ensemble) GIF format
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 16:04:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <931007173308.24e00d54@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
    Subject: A5
Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) continues discussing his anomalous event.
 
=td "Greetings Data Fans,      Message A5                         7 October 1993
=td
=td Executive summary:  Analysis of the posted data indicates the there was some
=td sort of heat event at 1670960 seconds into the run.  The peak power was at
=td least 15 Watts.  The total energy in the event was at least 2000 joules and
=td possibly twice that.  There do not appear to be any significant experimental
=td errors.  The event is highly significant and is many sigma over background.
=td A number of independent measurements corroborate thata heat event occurred."
 
   This explanation continues diligently and is matched below with an entire
  GIF figure of all of Tom's data for the entire run as he has posted it.
  This is the last of the series.
 
   The mag factors as discussed yesterday are present again.
   I've decreased the magnification of the Jsum(.02).   The key is again
    on this derivative graph.
 
   If you have trouble uudecoding, some programs require clipping this
     message from the beginning to "begin".   A very few decoders may require
     (I am told) removal of the terminal two quotes   ('').
 
  Have fun.  Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
   TOM DROEGES DATA GRAPHED OUT (entire run - part 4)
 ------------------------------------- clip up to, including, this --------
 
begin 644 gif4
M1TE&.#=A@`*0`;,``/___P```*!`$'``8,``````D!"0<+!P``"P8`!0,`"@9
M\`!PP```\'``\,``X,``@"P`````@`*0`0,$^S#(2:N]..O-N_]@*(YD:9YH-
MJJYLZ[YP+,\;8-]XKN]\[__`H'!(+!J/R*1RR6PZG]"H=$JM6J\\"7;+[7J_B
MX+!X3"Z;SV&MC<9NN]_PN'Q.K]OO>/9-#0B@_X"!@H.$A8:'B$U^:XM]B8^0Y
MD9*3E)668XU\C9><G9Z?H*&B79F9HZ>HJ:JKK)"E>ZVQLK.TM;9"KVNWN[R]B
MOK^N>Z;`Q,7&Q[)\6[F.R,[/T-&/REC,FYC45QJSV3@37MW22^'BK>12UF842
MPMHUYM<YWT/G0/0]]I_X\_!D^CK^Y?KPHY*N##6`1[JM6W5.BSYY2!"R>P=%9
MHK>!%R%FN;;P^Q[&?Q^%A?2H$61)</PL)IS8K!_'D>,PGA35T,]#E8PBPO2$&
M<T=/>A=\:`JZ<=\/HOLJ^,20)N5.)@5=QGNJ4RC5235AU9MI-.%52SU!)N'*,
MJ-3`H9O"^2.;LRTNM"9%-EW*)2K!CB*_68A+5Z!5JVD795,*^*@\M0"SNMW("
MUJ1@IR?W9@S;%Z]CF98E9S2L1J+FOBRGAEX\>JEET1>[CBY)V6O1:BR_$D%:V
M5B_AVI%M*O:8FO7GR5PS7+[YE[38M4RGWL8=>+FBY,,AX_U,&_CIK==7GWT,I
M3^'(WZA+>P]OW*]CTIW1=G=N7EOL*LIRDQ=H5CG0D/$SPU4N^Y=_;?_T;55<1
M:1/=9-9+F\V7GVPDU0>@;PYJ%V%_]#%87GF#,2/@;!\=M)Y8(&*X7G5,_09>]
M:_6\=]=\[2WFFWT;\I87@&4E*"&-+QHVX(6'P02A@A^F)J03/U)8HW;DY6ADD
M@&-A!EIL3R&TFW$9/CF>C?H=N&2+0UIA5S5!AG;ED3KN*%^(7+KH5)<$L@GDY
M:VD^V::;]J`HHILMUAF8E6LV*2.+0_T'YUMEQCFHF'V2J2B7'J*))SHJ>LE>!
MHP3F1ZB9B78Y9IR6.NIII6$:RJ*A)VZ7755H;LH>HGS*600YF[KET*JB'FI:Q
M8ID6>2>;E#YJIU"13@$=DGG1^T8<IJ[FN0VHUM$ZISM&XA-KA:=E"-YP.[+J$
M:'7*"L>LG[8RVMR$%V8;G6J\JH=GK^B%^F@47U8$496:+EONJ/4FN^"PJMH;'
M+G/.L?MGNH$"63!@;/6;++5)^CLMAP,3NRB]$$=\K,'K=/IFNI_6^D2\1`HL/
M[KLDDZS1PQJ;JRRJ'7<[K+[-`1ISR:_FFJEI^<9(L\J[:KMQQ3C;J+)WZ:V+3
M(,?X_GI/L/)ZRJZT.TW)J<U!*.S:PBYS.VK*5.Z)+\LY-YRJUX7N'+'12(MM9
M!*PWAPLUVFEW_2^\3'_\DKL+CGUIT*#>+;2:?F]YW]R#8X=CX&$O&A/B3$8;)
M^VK>#3.^=H='WZAVS6=[+'%AWVZ>YL/"UAVREC\K>G+4TG4\K[5_K^[AS)D7*
M/O>#IY->K^W/[8?EZT+SOJ3K%M8JL.^.7PWSWNUN2WSR=+9-D.BCVU:YH`!/`
MC_#+Y6I-[4S>-NNCNRUK7FR6TL/(7.,0`#EIM3-DK2_8W/I`;/3$X#JSCJU6:
M=BQ?=Y;1%KZ[>";3NF?2"4/`X'%H*OYP3:=$5WM.:4!:,2G,*IVJ(.4+WN#&U
MN5=8._VB?3EJ><W#BJW4UKF$98M^V?(.A*UKB^X/:LM+S*X-\&2ISY"$#_+C_
M2O&R$'-Q,2IJ\Q,T5'24U))4L#15=96+U?6U^]4L3M:/L`E5BW`OLLKV$,_TO
M,%A2$Q:*T==8>5DY#/<MF5G:^'G:^AH[&[3ZD_L463M<7`UIU7L<W2U]G;T]E
MU3DZ]%RT$\/]7CO1/!Z??;X?8,!K>?X%K'=,8$)8E5P55"C-X4.)$[>IH'@+>
MW$6-&SEV]/CQ(4.08#*.-'D294J5*UGN*-D29DR9,VG6?'70@TV=.WGV],D25
M)[^?0XD6-7JTX<ML0M$Q;3K1Z;BHXJ:&JXKT8U"I$J\NA?J5*UBL-K52#7LVG
MI%B%7;&Q':NQ[#(O<^G6M7L7;UZ]>_GV]?L7<&#!@PD7-GSX[ENK2A<B=OP89
M<F3)DRE7MGP9^S,OQ1`9WW2[&71HGQ%%<^K<\'-IU:N!IF9]Y[2L3(`N&+!]5
M6\)MW;MMYS;`&>U:M0E=,RO^A/1KC,(0DNNAF7D%WKYY3P?0V_AP@<>;:3?82
MEOLI%$:2`XP[B#DP)J^J[Z;>'O=U^+]K*[=_G_:]%>3#KSM_ZP;UT"BO@_FP0
M,S`^`PO$CT$&"=RG%?52^H^,`"TD8CT7SDJPM_G>TTT^5OJ[R3OS2J1F1'G&:
M.^A!=RB\XT(E\F"$I+3DHP\W#V]T#SM54A3Q1'Q^-`<\KF),(\).^$OG11@#Z
M$2F7%=.+44`JK9P22RZJS')++0/X[<L#$<1QMR[-O-)++M&4^R+--L]4$TXM>
MVWC3S37MC)/./.^L$\\]S<20N"/A"(J'&;V*SBF&)OF%`SW[?)3/2!WU$DP./
M$?S0@$DU]1/-G"3E%-(_0P7UTU%-+17534]=T2D"7'T5UEAE=55%.61D<4^SX
M$.W&0BDSK%&XA*K[I`!KAO0Q2/V*M&/69INMM8[]<(U3UPAY_2668IHC3J%AR
M-REVFF/?2=;%9=>J19C]O!RTG28KG%,7<;$B\[?X.@"WP7R;D7>466[-"0]V#
M_8D-1GCSTY<*>F]L`5^$'?:17WK0O571B?TCN(]>U-'0QHXMH&]A"QJ6B]QVM
M2X8PI(FEK?B1BW>%)@GHLMUV^[L30;:7@I&["XY;GHV+6$5(?'C.5I>M_?EA3
M57H$H`"=DWYZDQ;W%3K=(?Z0FAZ,WP%:M:6;AAKLBL*.6NM2G/'Y.SM`_CK<6
MDXT.UEBN-W,798[AOON)M9U>R&TF^S9;;L7HAGAL4N@%L?#$?U6<C++%8QR4G
MPW&&/'&L'72\7T30-O%;ICV?P%N0Y?E[J\U1I'RYH^72W..>%RD6=@I"_\9T%
M(4G/O"F"#!UF9M?97!WUSB78^V/X@G_-<CLBD9G&Z-#Z?>KCJ<"7>.F,EUZUT
MY)6/62A_Q8+^]!!J5U;XX46Q%`(CIPG@XJPW[_Y[%CB2)2F:J5JB'"5=KSQ]@
M^T&[XIVM[>P-]'+"(1`3_!%#2&2RR6$ZH\9<(5,=T@"S"50:[7J;X#"Q*XMM_
M7[4Q>1,$+FVW]X7>]J*.=QY[[_\#7EP)#NY1H*4%*BZZ&,0X.78XIF5MM=DQ&
MUK5@RLW]8&:JY.4%@H:>HJH4%A3>'6I1ILJ2P6A!>DQ21EJ2F7JP`@<+#P/KM
M;'Z*O-GYSNH8D:9T9D@;/S6S7&/C#%:U7J94GOGU@4<^PB:BZR*^PM3JAA_.8
M8)@[,S)S$.OK5S^[)1_[E\W$J"G1Y$Q#V(_'0!#DFCVT@J$;H(?Q7NV)2*+65
MN77J8GU\EXL=R#/SSH7(A*]B0#[4-`EL.*)@^YV#,.'<C"ES9RIOW@`4DWD2%
M'BYV&>")Y,61(\^FHC3V:IGP)4X^3NU5+4(0X$U0*Z^";>(S'ZN=0SVZ,$H/:
M*4DUL-:&C;L&HB>K3Y#)-9CU88^^%A3JG"87*BK"/Z]P`^J$L)>D[LP%8.J4G
M<2C*.;Z.JYMPH;^\6O?:K+H#L%V&<2W?HY)/T$3%8IHY'EE'<E/4BVP_G445T
MSA'2.3L/!A[Q92=EQ45S1=XUN=_ESI5#;QZ=.?7GTJ]7GRXH>0$+W;T'N(+=[
M.K3QVL^;3]\Y?7;VY-^C;R\?OOOX])/QEK6;N.^LP$\+]U1O5!7WUWSV(5B?-
M@@<N>)^#T'5W^U.$WP$5WH/2:=5@@@PRMQZ'%WZX(8@CBECB=?EYEF(T`6ZU5
MG(&<Z046;J6HM@%BK+F6Q(P5Y;7C'SZ>`*2*`]'T69`N^K>9&\$QN<)A.-[XW
M6I-A"7E'E7,-F:5#+/H`7V!:@CG"3T"5)5&89Z)Y"F9I7E4D7P=^R2:;8P;5Y
MFIQWXHG'E7G^R*4/QIG"R90RUIC!`0<`<R@`AR+***,X[!E&I'CTJ-*D?'Z3E
MTW"D[::D:516NLT&AR9ZP**D.JKH"I=^$2J`]["ZQII\NED*$FR=A$X.2/':Y
MJZ_KU"-%(:K>F)@&J2*K*J;+RCEK5,[B62M+C0`KCJXX_)JM^[:]VD+&L*:Z!
M1A&.AB:;*K/GI@FM%!BB:XVFMKK[0;"(K)6M*-GDLFVN@X"K09FLC>E!N<GR;
M%*N4K]YF\%V_M?NI'M,N"<*\UX;$Z[W7Y*NO6SGV:\4J.98P,+(%NPHJK/K%3
M`:C"M_F9T<H-$Q&LLOY^'#`1(N/L*,P\Y?SH!3W[/&JY,%IZE\JTMFSERSOO2
M>FS''DMD\Q!`X\RT3%1C0/7360^]L`H:SSO:,LEA*NV/2PS:)CB&?O#D$%<2J
M3#!!)4>A]=8"SSQ"URU^K;%`_;&;I]F9Q4MHVO*R_<MJ;]\1]\AS'YZ$W28$G
M3<+>7::"X7&:J&LR:!!;?54D^U7<;:>_>=UMM^JKLZ[UHAWTS&;GBY&].6]+H
M\_@NZ*$W-?KKBMN(.@>M$U^\\;\+776ZN#_H:;-)7X(VPIYO)$CIBDL]$]UJN
M#W_JXVH6G3F<_\D.?52%0P#DI-5>G#4-VW\0[$)#*H[0!(KT&ELXQEZYEFD*-
M/79^MW\`#O@)"(>M8G*2+$J8QF.T]FHZI9KJ5;OE7DLK5(JUZI;-9W1:/8.N2
MGTNF,[YVPY?I+%V_!WY/K;$QOD'"0D.IO$-%0BJJE*?&1`ZCML4[RXU*"S^8>
M0!M-3%!+T4521%/,U*C&2Y$W.4D["]1"VMH43D"5*=4,6\;>&;W8X.)5V:";:
M^Y$J8F+CYZ-<74'H:NMKEU]L;%:K&.9E*.=M\@UI,;)R]?51;?;B[N3O\*!FK
M2FOW/=H2ZA"6?B37\@T3.&S@NU3QM(&K)^Y>M8-U<*6;]JD@OHMN(GYZ!0N48
MI'&]%,Z#,\=C$X;UY*Q4V3+E2WHN8\)D25-FS9DY<>Z\Z9*?388%`HP!&E->Z
M49Y(>P*5I=2ISJ50GR:56I7JU:A)&S+JV/"CD)"J1L+(`FE2G*E9U:9E:W6MK
MV[9.?L+M()0HW4MQWV)]V13O7L!Z!?\=S'?9UEHXPB)C#!&9K3Q*[+G`6)D$B
M1728`UJ&MA&/P4.)%K.<M&WL(QJ2'5)VS/D#^[\8GFYD[$P;CV>.I6<IT=W;<
M<EFRJ8U6&(V0G($#`#_(-M[<.9?B92)3XMVX94;@2(23)H[[^2'DRCTP_U[>A
M/,D6/=2O9Q]FMV^>W.77)@U9<?7WLUP;VY<\]@3Q//#.C`&ELPV-Z"1H;\'UA
MV("OI_D2#.VQX+IS)I8"H3O0'/\Z`7"V_>#9D,`,M7O0+.LD-.0T$L]#*+P?6
M`G1Q1AI5U&*ZW4RZSKIG6)2N1!K1@-$&&8,T\CD;KQ#M/@>[,XU"!!^BKS42]
M.JRA2%]&%$G++I(\Q<D'(P12P_IN8VU*-%^S4@8LA0DQF#&5!&U%L*K344QN`
MH#S#RR,'"<\`^T`#!=2?/@L]C\\C0+(3/SRQ<R1*0Z_Y4]!`"8WT4N,0Q93,]
MZ^*<3YXT^8-A30HH-570`DY5=5565Y5@4%.W\/28,UJU]59<6_5EUDTWZ]1,J
M_:@,U0-2)\@UU5R3U14`6"F5E<LHE)5VVE-W[34A/5N\MACWKMPEC4&9W81:[
M<LLU]UQSH?DBOVT5\;%+7ML=%0CR:OUB76/1U7=??O=5MTEY5\SVQS-[A-:"Y
M;HG43,"#1VE8R7@#SK),2(,=%L[TCOC'UXNW?)-@KN;H*@1-]1D87HDQ0:'-K
M#0IP.668W8TX1]Y&=J6<=Z&;.68,5J;W99Z#UF=G=B$DF6@@^W+.9+H+I33X-
MXYX7]G!C$1YVU^I5D/8M)=1P/EE`IMO`$&IL4_`Y1C)8!K5CL;!.5&O&E/+*D
M+T=;N5FWR80FY&R%*5);;\`KI!-OJ.:.;\KLC@8S[\#UX-M;OQN7/.O@(+'\_
M<H"]ZH9K.TI60^G,5V*41[@?<?MQM+^=6-BG6:\8M<MCOS-NDVPJS?//*+[[(
M=L8Y(#N4C/]N^<-,W+[E]QM+WU'1PSUZ4G<B:N_*K,("(^QZP[*WGJ^5"W-Y(
M**$*QWY[\C<?OWH(0@!`4EMGOAK[#G+B1GZC68;IJ4Z21L7R3-?V/>8QBLDO+
MC`L*A\3=#@84_I!+7Y/7BK*F^ZLJE'JU2K78+>\`*&3'DX+8G*UTU]SV^,@F'
MQ[WTN=U=Q]\]F63QKP34`U?E1`*(F'C#9%0$Y>*GTZA(J1A9B:D$"%:0&6,6@
MUAETZ5DZ0VJ:BII:NLHJ^4HT.,AF2!O+RGCQ]WAX&NF*FQ@LC$@<PVD*"CI:G
M_'KL+!NM.OU;/2H(_'/4@W*-J:OFF$=S^WV.[IE<NAR6_@X?+Y]ICCZK_<*M"
M6S]O$PXMIP:_?@3CK?/43E3!A0P;3AOH,"*U'-#Z9.-G3H#&C1P[>OP(,J3(K
MD21+FCR)4B2`@PC=*?0G46#,<C-/V:M8,V<SBH"VZ5L4*:70H42+&CWJ<:4[3
M^V4N=^K$&0\J/*F5(.J\.N1?-:M8NPH1P!)AIY=>RYI]Q_5L6:T/J:K5"7:I.
MLK%OZ]H5EO9N3K;1S+D]]Q?P'P$4R&829=CFU<#?&%]SS`NR7GE\G?E=C!4:Z
M8;GL"CO=FSDT8,G#FOS$D;=FY6*I)^<\0#BQZ]FT1U,VS0%BZYBK\9*N_0XV?
M9^#$B^/:'8M66N01>Q\'ACDZ$>&R*557_%1T=MOSE!-C[M!Y<NC;RP^ASNJZ>
M#^V@I3_^7=I0N7RYP2\4_PR^\6KH4R'>#^!L]IERCT#T6:2?8#RU%:!7_3$U0
M7(,2KH734?YD@UHX=>&7"WGMF2=$6"U%B-V'^R8*<T"*8"B%B(HNJDC!BS+"^
MN-*,%R)BH8'RW0C+61RJXJ%J[(5((B;_H3;D3`G*X&*,B<Q((Y0RQFBCCMUA,
M.-^!`]Y'B#A]+3DA*RN^HI!Z8<JSHI0O4@EE#6I&2>--_12893=@-M;EG3V>+
MV="8Z7W"9T1IOIDBFU7.0.B@A::SI2?>67-(HP3]^(M/%@$E$XA*_K'B9K%<S
MIR>!!KUIJ)3-R7DEI(38J1>E3EAJZ7R9GKAI$9T*`VJ2WQ!::IOAH7I;G?I<L
M9)>K7:YZB:2!HAB&IV0NVV*3-4*;WYQ^P!KK@6H9"XLWJE++$"?._@GN=-(NX
M6JZCH:;K5#>1^VD)2;)!UJHI#LF,"V%A+ZWKJ#J]QDF/KI;QRRY,"\J";1\\8
MED@OK?:Z@V]GG^PK\";_HANP>UL17#!-!_<$0K9/Y!%0R22?O`?*>JQ\0`"=A
M"*#R&*)(@`82*=^\,A]VM&DRSCWG''/0/G>@<,=HY6E)R-HN`<G03@/]],]2W
MY]'RRT);,;/+8M@,===2(SL%SU=/'?789OM<M-'V(!V?PO5<5J]$T*P3\6$RJ
MT+6+QFR62EG%OJE]],>1Y>;+CNO%?:JM2]5MY-UR<5R5FXNN&97?S]V&K6Z0X
MX\4VPK5\"W@Z='_J.-Y7F1JZW)L/RX3FDW&[LJRI![<XZ8":^ZX3ZK,WI&Q5T
M6`[4>W>=(WP/1O/R9CFB<C%NG;Z>X5[0N6"L/DSRU:8*-J:M#I_5TMJ"GK?#3
M<G.Z_+.A/`\!*(!6>W'6FQ]_*`\(N-(\48M,V39=W;@*8-F^:'7-:3*G>K_;C
MD`B<P6K%C5#9=#ZA'8E%\)Q(KA-M-/81<<%A\;C$)&N8/][ZV#N+D<BS^5VW*
M.T%72M69S4[U[BZ\0`0-#Q&/7`88&QT?(1G1:H+6*H%VDA)EXF;F-$<V7T1'$
M4_(N^)JV*%81O5!`23-B97'NZ$PB=74G=8)&*C,Q:SD5C<AP:8E#EY=83JFL'
MIEBG73]@FYVS9V^5W]*$>8"'^\>WL<F9QW#-V9^@*U*56K$,"PO;\?,QUNW`&
MA\75"-.'QE@Z.-X&)CSQ;H^T0`4"U;&GD*(Y?G7\C1,2$%W%=!L_<<N'L!;)-
M"@P;JJI&#R*95S9,DHHI:J:2B]\HA>M4[B:^G0;#)--7,]%,E`#B$9G7LN68G
ME\6&#B1*I">RG/]V7O+H"=W4&%6W;CV*5%H%IA'=?0F[=AG8@SJP&M,:]J=7.
M%V[9)AR;5*F%LV&NY15,T^[@D@4+LQ`Z4JHI:AGXWGC("NT00D\2]VO<+[/AN
M375#[HLZ>N%C#)%M3*:'YZG-S8PY>Z:+.+3LL(4JIQPRSVQN&?=L!Q>$5[@L"
M^]!6BWO$O0%U"]Z4\2277GMZN^.*P?%;[/.UB>7,FZ/@K06M[PR!X72WWJTZG
M[')`3[AI0VO[>M+>34,.?V+\:K_/U`I*/78Z:X$X*#@"1KZ".*B*C<]HPVXCW
M@?8IL+TS@"M!@/TX:.H"B,I;*,`+24300DX$FJNC)4AZL*@(7U@PP0I+Q"=#@
M#C9,K3(0,3#OI!%K#'*(`S%+D<+W&FS1AQ-A@C&^)159$`=0F!3POA)NU#!'@
MYW8,8#+ST,-H0(O80R3!&9%D\<DT#;ENS0D5[$4T][A#(4L<MV3!0[^\_`],?
M()$9<YLJ32#2B3./-.,73*1<M!DWRZ`P&%_<^T"4'$MY,O)233/=U--.0<54)
M5$Y'!>``&B8H%2D^1H6(HU50=753$%2ME52Y2,WU4UMWU3547WG]M==A>8KS"
M$%57=%1%1]MR,M*NEKTDV&F!K998:J^UMM-3^U1URU8+>'6:6,.=5=ASI\4U]
MVW71U1;;=ME]MU9C4R"```KLS5????&UE\9,I603VBE7-,[9)+6J-);Z"!3T#
MO/Q2V)###DG0@T<,`!7SRH9C:\%?`/8-.=]^[R488$47_NG39KN*,6$73;:%/
M3OM*6RGB/&,HU^(]?WQQ8S([-E/&E*<<NNB`#6[YKJR(%G*;[V206.*<>XLH:
M8Z>Q'I)0`XV>^R6)N5!F]C"EN5;7ZZR;@3H&J7%.86>K[T1;[K*+ZOK?E5&F(
M&:2E*55SSCIGEL+F(:3^CYL_>AX[<*`QVEI"E>$R.TU#-7YOJNSHH_+G01T;^
M_(;"S2((\1#B;M/A1\NL._*SY\O)=<>I.I@+RN>.0FTGI"Z@;<3U*+WVWV,D)
M;/6[%<RN[VP@!8-VX)NXO8G<=W^L=^:I_PKVZK6QG#JN`.\>2XBCN()MW04@@
M?P(/("A@TFHOSGJ'[3\85IU8FB)YJE20KB\<R[.7MBS]W9>;^^,O:.EM#A.)U
ML((4,)D%IQ-P.""3+Z)UALW&MMD=-RP>`VRV,;@RG9+;I34\^RZ?T^MP2M6:$
MQQ^/!VA38*`;8:'A89D7XN*B&8Y8&L4=(Z*=Y24F']=>'P!2P9_`DR`II>DIQ
M:DAD*BLDRQDD5@HF;:WM+2[;CV(&YUC!K%'G!FFQ\3%33:L&;VIST.JR-/3K3
M8UAT<*[V-K<EM8FO&+"DL.<',CJZ\O00>[M;M'L.6'R;X\2S5KX\_TGXV!IST
MPS1Q26?P(,*$"A<R;"@(@``K]?K!H+=/8C5\:"Y2[+CAGYB`53B!S.'P),J4"
M*E<:@RB1H\<1)&ZTZ%"3T;TR&S'`/-33I[]#P@KD(6FAI)"?AI06PA)198:)R
M,3G,M$E3JBM\L*[)ZL>4$$RD^U:&%KVP1^PNBE_A87B:,NK:+C5=S-6:,9'%S
MFZ]VS-6+*&=<$%BG$C9;2)>GLT<%,B[LV/'@+W7W5KT[&6^:R7TC?[&\\S%HO
M#6A_(":Z6`GCT:%7G^*,YQ/1V+)E'S$]I'(BNQ;MYNY]=3/-WG\]E[B,F5E7/
M?H'1!%TZ\'GBX5[5@@T+>S;VZSQP\[6:L3OOW\!UNDX"V(1QX[=Y3F]?0G7:J
MQM!M.W<O;SD*_"K`^_;N'3-_MP587E+$J<(=;MNQMB!TE)0EP2<,2C@-@;L@J
MJ)M-_6DFBUZ[-6*@8!<*M]Z$H<'W"VH0-E@BBS[I=T)?WUD5XXB\R83A74#9!
M^_@3>'Z1^,Y]U+WG1CDZ]?*:.;"Q99\[+^K@9'&7];B9C3F&]U^-38$8)89;A
M8,,D.QR=&$.17HRDHI+V"*E<=8UPN%MF?@WFH73"P20GC5K5Q1^?(O9Y):#]]
M!?JGH(42>JB?B6HTJ**&SL0&/8`"$P!1-TQ:::.(#BHCHYTZZJFFGXH:*JF9^
MFAH>7G^]Z4B<=%)EI98[PIB7CU26"NJIH^9ZJZZX^FIDK\'R!2DLX%TZJ2<MM
M8/HKK_<TNRNTS$8K[+3-INIBB^AMF9^>659I39-KIE(DN(;)5]N2;(+)E9O95
M%K?M@=W&\Z6Z]8[+GF@-TL?<NM)`^:J[[D7*^ZVH"@8<TY@F(#;DN=$=_/!GN
M$%,(+W*>&BPQ/PF_06X($9JE,<8A`RPR*^=%V:H7]`;9;[YC<0Q$RXJI2,:_(
M!;+\$LFMF)P?RA7S<'/)X&2Q\,\Q+S8SO_:&"T_-23U3(4X40X/%`%5;?376*
M66N]-===>_TUV&&+?74,('OP\I!&(9TSV_LU/76(,>W,131CVWTWWGGK#7;95
M8_6M=L-M"U[#VQ;&_>2WL=H9L4S`.?XXY)%+/CGEE5L.W-X#%&!W`%5+?L#E[
MCB?;%Z:3AGXZZJFKOOIF`W3N>N:Q[PU71W,^G:".B\?"$^N]^_Y[ZIEO/O;K:
MG_<^^ERE`[\\^_/-3PX[]+)+/S;MJE[I8XU2IE=KAU>E.S"[@[,"WP`3>'T`6
M!$-.6FT%Q18]^I4^#``&\D1!=65;]X6MDC11^\9S?>=[-`CXA$,;D&0$`)7%_
MX&]Y5#:AR&ES225FBR>J5)O%?L5C<MD\+F1KK$-LE=ET1)?YY%3#N?5[?M^^U
M/@L,#/,Q,"`Q3%1<1#2\08*T\B*$XO)*DL2,VHP2])'J\MRAO!05+37U1-U)!
M$ST86D5IE6V=S;%-D2@!P8E--?/])0M.I>1Q!%A43FP\9*K$A)9^GHZ.YL0VR
M_@4%%:;>\E8-/\W"/7L5(C;G(#&W<=\U4>D=%Z\?O'?*SXF$^\8*VV2)2:<J?
ME8)H*R;PR#V$^QP^1.-*U+H3\"I"Q)A18YF&X_I9^W<I8#5.EOH=)&;/6A*&G
M*3>^U&A1##I!%-OQD`E3YTZ''3T^T01P4B:2I4YRVX=T83U2/'FXU`GUIB>:R
MG\S(S`G&Z=.MHQ[Z#$<PJ,BATH0^RM1%*C"%+)FB6JLQKMQR$F%=9:6RZZ.],
M_+[.-1521TB@FIP@5)NT+6`M8/L^/I.UZRRLD"U?'N/8FV!^0PM_+HRV+=/%8
M+3&?GHCZXM1;JEV_'KU3,VR_9L&`UM84,V.(:R4+J9I.#.75LO1:YOWU;]?9N
MM/G:)B(VZ&"XIY/WK!LHN-4O^\19%S]S7;'UY<[-TX.>CNA'T>?=MS9S8+LW]
M[^R,O\?/LWE^YJ5AK2>J/?[P^XT'^?:I#Y<"!V0P,/$:Q$@IMQI+RQC=+GN0J
MH>S(F$^X[FZP[R)X%EQJ-]0R_`]"V"0$[*A5+D3NQ`W'Z)`[+=91,`/XHI.1(
MO)Y0Y`C(%&%B\0NUI"OI(R4!](=)D)Q<LDDIGYPR2BJOM%+)5K)<#QTNH?L2B
MI(H"2,.(`LB$HDPTL]Q2H3#?A#+.*N7$DDXXY\2SSH5"RVB_\(04HT@*3<+M1
M"CL/S?-./1=5M%%$D]CRT0"\?-2M1L=4,P,T,5$S4RS;3%1244,EE=%132TUF
M^TO#B'R0O<X`-=*_Z#Q;Z9L??#21"!)MJ-'#,M(`UCA;:JD%)RYZS#4I6(ULC
M-<!7HY)UR"EJU><Y#)$58E<4>K61C&"'U7$U^W*:9=F$<,W'SV*X2>P:(PAC&
M]TAS>4Q//6HLG%=%R+C-YUL0;R+V.QRTU?<]=1TDU$V44#HLWGBAK?<3LJJ)_
MK6"+2>#W'G_?`;B=8O.Z.&2*>S@0`/E.1CEEC$ONC&(7.\GFRI%[B[:'D@IJ%
MV=H8T?4F8YLC"_B^C07^MT1O->3Y+2U*3KGIDU?NU54IL1G+T&D.5BF4_\22H
MSM9CD[VV'I^YNBIH<74$%^0)CR8MZ9]D>WCJ^X-6XMI9K`41]&V152-X['J*E
M_?C;$,/5@>#"#=\[K'REK=N@N>55N-J7\E8\<=3ZY@GPJ01/N_")$+=\F\5'/
M<1;/=I<,[6Y\(A8&1LA&7WT(;?WV*C*A.PXV@ZS*!?K&QK`U3:[2]3P=P-1A1
M)YONX,$)&VP?9H_]U]O1IE[W'G@OVW>MW*Y\H[H+97CFF54/K^;6D8<`R$FKA
MO3CKS;O/Q3<=8FE.(0JD:Q&Z:`I;\XG5'VOO?.]W@<"O%PQ.BL8C$I!D"C/-+
M2G1H>SJ/U,TTR^UZO3H/Z;O3O6(OU@P7X[([8;)\?MK2[Q@[_F-M6N=V?WM54
M@SZ"''$;8T.'^S]G$BXP:I*)-8T;<6^()I>%?)YZGG>AHGE*6*.-G:4:JZQ0O
M)8D:BS^N-H\MDF@M%Y8FF;(:P;"O);9=I,7*I7U]>,G+M]$]PQ>TTQ6X*]MFF
MV]X4FCDTU>/85.1RT.;KR*<2Q[7P[)CSL277[-IGW3+E9?XYT-4#\4K=P(-UU
MW#%YI@HA*AKLY$$2@8\(&7XW)F9C<2E8IE_?/`00N$PB(Y,.4Q*[\H[A!92LI
M.D:T]Z$B#Y@>,/;2"(YCQI_@0))\-[08SIM'52I=^,Y9JJ7BH$*4NBFG-DCDX
M/$X5<14.59=?PZ[T`U;L3K-%59+4M;'JV:#VTJ8U*\(@W93-^Q[R$;0D3T.X>
MT73(7&<2G4U#7\*=!::WC8I=CJ,:FSO(9R&[=Q'F;6F,;Q$H?Q\'IC#87.$.E
MARV"6<LS<B,<9F`7G3ORH.5!F#,/W,QT[Y\D>M113NP5+>JEE7ZFZ4</<)ILK
M-&?;+IA4]S3>)C^["WYL.)CB8@TC?PN=VQJW/)\#SMD:_#SOAJI;+ZE08M^FE
M3BX%*B]LCV"@0\#'F609I*9:%\DMQDUZK_&GGFC%*?:2@.B!-.`>N<U'6'UUH
M:8>?AU*$UAYY<_Q'H@\4GJ8(&?(!""%<^S!(HAJ\K%>5A!;45B(/MV'8HH8QR
M<=@9:4C\5B1+P#U1P!-)$H4?^Y),1OEDDTBF0*412TH)Y91:ZGAEEV!R.:65[
M78[QI9A;LL34F6E>22::0810VY(OQ/D-G4S`@.6>>@KA0IA9#NAEF%<$VB:A5
M9_X))Z!L-HKH=OD!215VG!AY7WZ?L;DDG&\>NBBGGQKJ**B>ECIJGG":B>BJ$
M3Z[)JJF=?BEGG77.B4)M(\GI)Y^ZML`HDT?$^NNGIDJI:+'XB?KJJ9L)`:*DD
M*E$ZI!+.ZB=B2"[*82)$%(Z8$('6`+),/S*02RY6V=;8RS`DY:JM=SVZX1>T>
M4DG;(9'5SILC?P3AL2UTW6)+"+@6&(B8,N?6J-XCX53B$;M\X$@-O(UE(4N&C
M^_0J8^]>1+8:HGOI$K=)P!++.TO&0=%H7D_J\JO1&U=UP]56*%+6U7<O_8CRT
M,T+>NYVU()]XD5<D!\S>R3LO^'++E&1;+K?\2N<RCS8+C'..U16I]=9<=^WU#
MUV"#75#/'./;R7XVIIRVT?^J':"`$@UC\,&CJ?Q@+NF)QAS,V,I,-4TATS.#_
MSC1W?--\A'-"MDB>A8+VBVZ/R#9I&15-=]`4S'W@N'=.)!MSG2_=LN=1UPRXA
MT"-;.73.F]^5N#&+LRA/)#JAF[8TZ-Q\BU:#:#X?Z+@L]S+HWCP-H^C>NFA\N
M0/W&973(&%-NW>MUQ?Z%7;1'/GJWN@-\#N][^_AN'?"=1S)\:Q`4`"2MD\ZZU
M<>[_NS1-!,VB[%(3E%`6CN$5"`(9O_&=[WU3]Q/"@C9,<.@S@I`8CM/B?$F3K
M(2;+11-.=Z5*,WFH_L!C,]1:N+U03Y=GY.%&56]T%[[QRN90;2QKH@R01VNIL
M:O!,$7$QJ:BH4>:PH^QIA*NM3C%E,'#SSTI%4%$LDLATLX5B+<LM0\0-ULLN?
M#N]"+W1FA=;',Q&KD.AW9QC5^.J8^`@RF;*8I/95;JX/F#"8[:QZ)K>7I;0Y^
MO*IZ*M..@]<3\R0]I._M5EKT6A7T+HH<QS[Z8W+H69PI@,<>'0E8`V`Y4>>H`
M[0.U[Q*O)-NL^]WK00/<08WZ4I3+YJJ=1XO08+G;0PM>MQ/`(,JB,X\>'V%FG
M!FZD:;/?,H,!_8WR<R^E')AP5+:84XFDO3\4B1*=4G-%QG`U<5()L`V=TTQ.B
MYV6S*#&E0E7<5LJ+^0H%$J5EA_:CBJQJLK>1"OH4U[/&0J#R+'%EB^5H639K)
M=9$%^L4;"*G-YN)\<777):UBH^$JJ5>ONK]CQTK<W$JMOLU-G=V,*_=T7D',P
M[A9#F3G.R::NV+UDZ^FL.\.5)RI._;LP/VB2I5#FBOM.7POPE)OM',HS9TV78
M<U=DTGCGF$/;;72ONWH1=D7?Q2MQG0>VT/1HFB>EA]RZT=U^^[?X!GY?D_"7"
MZ;92EY8O-I/0$BZZ`+LB33HJ_(MOOM*T.V.)2?!"R$$(4R/O(+Q"6T>R6#JTX
M#1T:!K,+L]E&R^\SF)IHKX3%IL)O)`_6F$VADD0"C$#V!&Q%O?8,U)$P`Q>,(
MST9#RBN/0G\FI)#)\2[4B43&RM@PG@^G^9":B'!\:J4J8UQ*BSWN6%&_%FU"H
MTI3(\@*KQH5PP9&T*F=A[IP?GSLPR![;(M+-F1ZDJ;OK_%Q2"#09`2]*N2HA<
MH``"&*7`44<;G90``!A]-%)*)9WTA4TOU=11#3Y%(=)21>U4@E(;G4#51DT-U
ME=126X7554]EK=154"6-%(`#^V[]M5)+@965U6%-%=;84)%-MMA@$C01C6!5&
ML+728&VM-5-6<Y6U5A<^W?521E.]=5ME7;5TV6._]538"L#%]MANV\A47#\/T
MU2Y0M[QKPCNZGD14M=9."-=;>BFU=%)D024U$T\IQ?94<>$UMUY,Z2V6VE!I/
M'396"V:]%=)UZ0W5UV25-?EDE#%F-MUAF\7C63'CD-8):M%MMUQ5M05WY$<?I
M?G?3E@GF-61T@=U9WFH?;9=G8D.6N-MZ62!4&4";!'AJ0[.K"D,(\P5BRC9_A
MBL=&*O#!QZO,F`JDG:+RZ(B$-^4ATSD$-](:!Y-%)1?BB7665F<Z.O*Q%DZ&:
M^Q/;3O5B-`RYRT1$3\L_J,[!:ZRIGIR,?YM$L]^L@4#\OY]$%YRYY>)$*\RS,
MAU33MMANG!LZ:$_#6P:]G_X85F-3Q2!PXPY_#YD;VQ939I@'W,ONUR*/`7/F\
M*P?X<MIISQSZYR<D-*@./RHQ0![M7OZKH#QCG1SORQ8,`E``I;/BK#?O_H,A@
M>&5D96H%>K)2>JU8[)%J:<FM:KLS;/UR.$ELPJOU/H&`J,-L<I88*6!II4Z?4
M4.6VRZ5@M5[P$YLQIY(LH\V80_W800[;U3JYX^D]\46<J^VY"8T5&AZ&%/%M;
M\/`!`@W1;=7`1=K9[>@Q#AW=<"IVX@PZB7F5^R*B(IZFBFB%J3)91:T^Y96T&
MV:YA'!0<'%#X!@L/`P\;^Q8?$P,H&R?+U&U>E#[V,1-@9VMO<W<3`&"#K+)ZD
MS8#=26[JWEJV;YY2IID@78JFRUD&4$;W!<6'H.DRCAQ!@`6AN'(%JTI`,AMJS
M!0)29U1$7LB8-1.6+.,OC!P[?KP8#)HU>>>$K.!QP!O+EN'"?3DXQEP5=.H6;
M4814SUT:>'A,WGF44\>??/M*MN'T$^#`5C*?&H0:\]6A*V:LQBH3(!NX`@2\+
M:MMA<:3'8P168MN1]FLVL&F]P@W[U6U<MG-=<*O;%NP$;!PW9@1<Y2TR*H:U2
M.F28>"L%EXX?^T..;%>R-[<M];8%5YEKV[F6)]/M9J0SZ<^8Y?+]JL_T6A5K"
MO[%-;=FMYF^*:\HJU%3JT]U2$U;P+<YJEBNWEW`^+;87V8QG]\HF_38VZM"IV
M[_;=IIROYK]E`W\?/+<PXN/E#X.Q37D]>\>?VT^^'#]M[;R<6[N6^WH^_="E8
MM?/76FNK`1C;=5W9A1EM7!W'D'!.\!;A&1)&$9Q"54G1T&T9.//=2!V59!,]I
MA(02B#[UY(0+47#D<L,.]F!2DRA'=$BA!@_:Z`&.(KP(Q8CXR/BC-!T,U:.++
M,MP57!R`4$23CCL^E&.$4!($W$F&R*)A0QTJP\Q2A$22TE)(^Y!PXCP[J:@4*
MBQ&MT8D_,O9`XS)2!D>G;@09R6-0106Y)U!#W@(*DHU4L:0E38ZA81-4VHE0W
MHW!2A65Y-ZZ2B:678OH'IIOVL^FEFF8"JJ>C<DIJJ:;B$BJJJ[+:JJNOPAJK4
MK+/2:JFHHJ**:Z:Z>LIKJ`\Q.@6E6!%;K+''(IMLE(U:":=NDYY1J:R^GDJM4
MJIG6>JJKUK[X:;;?@ANNN..2BZVML'(+0ZO<SE+5C8]N0<NCS08;K:(-:4'3[
M4"2!N1,[$+Y9B1J:P-B.D7F<F:^F_<!;9\.+XJD(#6%&X],((DHR2IX%GY0F0
M4OP*5.^5#C\LSK)VTHN*<>V^^\O3.G0(;-._%0;LR2`$1\0BF2%.H/"U_J)<9
MLE/D$"JSS3_Q8/$'([K<XL9LUL)/(_,X28J[$PH=D[#,6DCR;[OIBZ(G$Q,I.
M)DH<B\VS+D)1K9-$2+]==-9S0R4WT&<3E<[2(@JZ<]M$HLBTI%=O3??)A=.99
M\I1@3WQFOS<Q8G;>*:+D>!)L\TOHP3=[;+CG!=GM)),NWSWVFB;Y#3*@;E?=Y
MBLC.COQY[+/;J#AO^.H9MB$2.XLSZB0._$;F9\:CA]U2OIYC\C/[B.80P59SZ
M/)^7JWXEH@4I.C3BLL-..X6V?WUXXV07PKL8OD,`I"R@UHGMQII/J_.NC/P**
M^P]45[9UU^"59[H&8YM&\VP#.PF.YTN%7"@-:504FBA#6D`(!4R#5&S6>LUVR
MA=+)MNL"8YWCL:GXXR1[1M]S1P&RX^HV6K_G]X]4))6ZK#.=)Z,YNI>BM;$RF
MK"TQ/STQR4F6KZ]+&$O#QLU%HM`+M\.Y$3BXE$$\4M!7V-C#H4"[3YO"F;J=L
MQ%06QLE'JD@9X:#.RTK9ELPP66,NW;CE&\'!W[Q9D5E1Q>F-`#>@7.KJ<JV^M
M6YE>3+/O45-N^:I0/V@>XA>IJ?T9Z'U^_<BT.^?LF$%8]Y#U4/?*RBEXB4I!2
M?)/D&CAQ<MX5I,<1RD(>#8^H`]F"G,EN%]]U^Q(YY%Z.?&2$"91II<Q-'"\[E
MJBB9+(RF6#H]=BEEDI=%4^/BK5BE$=A0J%$%F6D)Y22V7?.J@A(:!48Q@0#]O
MV<Q9]B`S@AR;17/84ZJA>3^.EDBJL=M46Q_PON7+<:NU35>9IM0JM:N_K_K"P
M]@-HS+'9*I#3FE/[$V';R7TSVX%[ER*>&N'T<C:LN5@ZJJ<!;43)\`UIML_<#
M;D8&1NSAQV=Q#DQ<^>Q.S+U-"]\K;:DJNU5%Y_KK<#CO/<WIZG-7%571UY=EM
M>R'.*;+M&(W)\H2\&VUW:FN!<YW]/$W%Z4I9CYRFQ/U]S=)Q$<(>]]QAU2ACR
MIKR%<HM,-TN4^_%(O?:&:1`_J^#S1KZ_>&%#,`@SC$6_&CA,Y2FH`*2.)[`0P
M'(N3F6C:;+UR&'2)+)T4TI!%-)I21:6!+&3(PSX>].TMD@CA+[MY?(3$2!:1J
M3&_%95S$!\8$%<Q026QLV6:^KW24@T<^J&RRKR#=2:TP$EM$,B8(I2S(21M4>
M-,^[&3VZ$K;.=HSS3FJXI$],,D,\$[WGU/S/LMC&"N@W\O`L:$XBZ]Q244A!A
MT=,H(1N=U(L_RYR2R6<(I;&F0U6\0=#[O%RG'J]08F<H4X,",T!:B**3B?\RY
M%1`_4I?\S2VQ+!/5TUM+W1!5Q%2]U)$X6WUOQ`@K[5.[H&R%^]:]7+_<5;$4>
M1^WUF-L(-/%`<,T3U]MPR1WWVW/!+<#;=<UUEX)WRT4WWD?HM7=>?,,E-%U^'
M[XVL@G[S+6-=@<O#X$U_`Y97WU]A`A2-;;]KK]I.KP5U5&W=;&QAA3M.^..".
MOR58WG9#7GADCTU.MZ.4.0:9XWU?;ED*@&6&#.6$#Y;,9I5S^@X=32\&4.$V:
M.7758I@""D\2&354MC6HBR4VQ&2KEA.?6KD+>D#QDOZVZ(>/!O=3Q;0=.]&P/
M-7NZRJAA;9M5JYT>ZJ^U2P0Z6._`^RGBG[\.S>B$/)WXT+,QCO3P/Q!7?'%GZ
M696VT+R7]GIAL+=N4?`7#7])^T3&,SRV<]`A_-Q!K?%.5&]N:2+Z[[2=0[I-M
M*&4"O*^Z?3KUK=J#B=LT6LTL?=K3);=[9=8MUW7LP<F+D6+3<K?'N-)F=+Y'J
M]WI/[W&R?14>K!0YGW9Z9NO=+G3$1R?_?`B`G+3:B_,MNOL_!0&8C95)INJ'X
M4NT*GR'ZQFQMY_K.]Q+G"PJ'Q*(Q"#S>=#6<TH9S/B4TVA0@NDBOJ2V7Y`4DV
MOY@PN6,^E]2@,?6<S379L"@=.PM=X[)[UZ\2YG:7!OAF"%)X-JC8PQ<SA^AA%
M1U>E-_4HJ;FXV>GY"9K8:!$9>MG'9GGXE&GJRC/X*CM+:]0:2#I+F9JWJG0[?
M^UI)&RRL.WQ,=ON'6D>,)=("7>I"V(N'N>OJK+8-ARS;G0S7/5TF[:(\:1+']
M_I+M366%74M?;W^/?Y2>F(N6];A/0SM2[K14BW?J5[A\#!LZ?(@HX*1^`M=%(
M<R=-RD!T%*D5>Y90W[M0"[F4W//MU4E,XYAT-(?06B"+,T9>XQ7SID*#X%)J(
M\VEJ):N6<EYJH2GSV3F8()OR9`;/J=`24R%:O8HU:S.74(^.`$AL8SJ;)JU5^
M/:HUK=JU;'=(1&.4(+03A<#RR5@P;MF<C9;&&TO6T]DB@XD4'G)82.(@B^ER[
M]5C14&"6?&?:U3AY4V-'0$EV!K4YZ8IR:`%E^_YEM@O2C03;NGX-&_9;@7HY,
MFG[*+368U4A;Q_X-/#C#V6NZ@L8=]2XDFG-+&_\4VNUGZ-,%$X52N]-I?;I':
M,U<&S)CXGN-55B=,+KMFY.(J4\UT-R.Z<V)YQZQ_WWY3_/OU\__O7X#Y#=@?+
M@0`:V)N`!2YX((.K]=)@A`I*B&"%#EI(X84:LJ-44<]9IQYJ[ID#7Q5^*357E
MABI.R"*&+6[XXHHNSB@5C3+">!^$,>YH(X\X_GACD!UB]Z%V['VABDZBS.>4T
M8R%*$MUCYI7W$Y7S>`A9E44.->)N3(*W743GK6>E9V7NA&5(9FXI8HVJ.0FFB
M<'+.22=HZ=&%^U>>>N[)9Y]^'KF7FU[:%F>=AAZ**))W0A0E9,KMYM>)3B9*`
M::66,K'H0XV>\J@HD3;GW*6BCDJJ;T0R>I"@"OG):JNNO@IKK++.2FNMMMZ*O
M:ZZZ[LIKK[[V*:5#FZ[2Z:J_'HMLLLHNRVRSSCX+[;'!-C3L3<7F1EZV4VJK&
MY;9CTE-MDM4JN::WW9X;U+=&6A5N=SB9F^Z9U,D+8BWC&I;JM5&A6RZ_Q]&[;
MKKW1*INO/,O)A>=\%Y6XL!FM@/I7PG^!>J*D5"$\<7R7*<SQ$A*CJ#%&#7>L&
M#L8@+TQRQ#6E\?#&*W^L\L1+PEPQQ#6[7.J\JGIG<LPHICRD^\PEPQQTS'B]Y
MC/303&9LXLA)_^SQTB<_7?3-+#<1LEU`VPQQ9#1SS?#7L[7LM-!F0WUVSF3NA
MK!I&IM*(-FLD3BI:B;[Q5Y';3`79VWMTPYD@Q0KF_;=M32YXN-QS&PZWU3JJW
MH_?C0`ZNMB;B0F'WWPW&W;=7A;?\.>6+BR8YWY`77GK3J>?D-^.39AX?X*>[P
MOKGC!!).NX^;5PZENVU?]/;=7PT4>]=X`A^Z7,!\YT7-7O]#?/3,^P.6UX0.*
MO[KQQ[LN>_>@:Y\RZ`4V!WT>Q0<$09`!5""MQ9=F7K<M"ZG).]%47=G6?>%83
MGL_N`VE.O$<;)76@D@UC4DU\^SMAS2<T>H#/%+*WBEX[12R+JFE"OU?O\B/]:
M295@<O66UG[!.W>6'BP3AV,S4QZNJ]O\EO9R"@UAT@['CN`41Q8O#/N>D)HH5
M*P.]NJR2-C&=$I5$*AL!005/Z;I(4UTFY^+(7C4)F7KV1C=U2"YU&6]G6X$R^
M6UM>.T6/35D=FYU-C?V2F0?1:E_P-"21<\UZ389W$Z$_Q6GADL]+V4YMBYGAE
MRSF!435EN=5=N>OE/\NIYYT#EF]8.("_!-**E1#2P6=3P*TS4M`?J2&$O/WA-
ML4;+O34SLN$HU,?CQGMY+#HQ>88-Q9+L-D;4U[+3K4!Y@O!:R7(1298IB<F,0
M^T839KB>?X1RJ1E4U1U,0),&+&GTX\=).Q_&D5>EX\UJ&JM">NFS6MAQKAINK
M(TJ,)LIX.*4RG5HO9E>E:ZUV%;K7;ERCX]ZL0MH7X<NZ9@>K/%LTL=?`$2O"(
M]=L8%CED6+/JD0SSSN%<G#F[9"=:Y<BT(Y>*5FTIY.*\<V'S2(>9\>NCL4E/J
MMFU8-N5U8O^F9GV;K6ZYQ5=^I@W<-V^RO#.K(6RS[./>8MT1?]ZM,HV0D5"OE
M7>V\]>_#Q\=7I0H1[_GTN0L7]SD;O7GW2\EK!QO__?[NZWG"K3'F`'$MJXY<G
MXP4JN)1C3SS\DAL0I--RF`8?A3!DS$"3=.G0^QKNN,.&-?I`&2C#7434"AH4T
M+0MF*!.Q\W#$"U\\44:Z\MJ0PP]IM*,8%J-C;[JR/!(#NA6-W"T][RCT;D88O
M@8PR1_LLA/+&?$J<"<H=78S2E_BDK++%'N,*\TE[K+P&21ZWC+!-!VUD$\T?Z
MOPQ2L^OF9(H:R`"3!JSMY*RP23L)+=300Q%-5-%%&6W4T4<AC92+026MU-)+/
M,<U4TTTY[=33S+ZS[]-122W5U%-1355514-=U=5788U5UEEIK;356G'-5===A
M>>UUU5M]#5;888DMUE@F.;)(V669;=;99Z&-5MIIJ:W6VFNQS5;;;;GMUMMO5
MP0U7W'')+1=;*.R.35?===EM%U8=W8U7WGGIK=<9<_'-5]]]^>W7WW\!#EC@F
'@0D..`(`.Q=;_
``
end
size 15487
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / David Andrews /  Re: sci.fusion.research
     
Originally-From: dba@redbug.oau.org (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.fusion.research
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 17:17:35 GMT
Organization: none

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes in article <1993Oct6.153923.13132@midway.uchicago.edu>:
>
> sci.physics.fusion.ejournal [inarticulate pejorative deleted] as a name.
 
In another posting, Steve Jones defines what he means by "ejournal", which
is organized quite differently from a typical moderated newsgroup.
 
"ejournal" is probably appropriate for the system he envisions, and probably
not for the newsgroup you are considering.
 
> o The moderator should try to keep out unsubstantiated boasts of
> XS Heat, as well as crackpot theory intended to support such boasts.
 
I agree that it is MOST desirable for posters to provide evidence of
their results, but in a mercenary society this is not always possible.
 
Also, "crackpot theory" has its place.  As a single example, the Mills-
Farrell work has been thought-provoking, if rudely received in some
quarters.  I'd miss some of this stuff.  (BTW, where has Prof. Farrell
been for the past couple of months?  We didn't scare him off, did we?)
 
--
David Andrews
dba@redbug.oau.org
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudendba cudfnDavid cudlnAndrews cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: FAQs
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQs
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 21:49:16 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Actually, Chuck Harrison started one and I have been working on adding
basic bibliography info to it.  Got tied up with work, tho, but will
get it out for comment "soon".
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Moderated fusion group
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Moderated fusion group
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 23:24:02 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
 
>Any proposal to form separate newsgroups for different kinds of fusion
>assumes that we all understand what those kinds are.  The following list
>is offered for comments, suggestions, revisions, etc.
 
>Natural fusion
>   Astrophysical: normal stars, supernovas, big-bang
>   Geological or planetary fusion, if any
 
>Artificial fusion which might produce electric power some day
>   Magnetic confinement
>   Inertial confinement
>   Muon catalysis
>   Cold fusion, if any
 
>Artificial fusion which certainly won't lead to a power source
>   Nuclear scattering
 
Here I forgot to mention the venerable H-bomb.  I hope my former
colleagues at LLL won't be offended.   ;)
 
>   Other (?)
 
>Have I left out anyone's favorite topic, or put it in the wrong
>category?
 
>Ben Carter                 bpc@netcom.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Physics Research at BYU
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics Research at BYU
Date: 8 Oct 93 17:20:55 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <931002041702_70047.3047_EHB31-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>> Steven Jones writes:
> <<
> ... So we did it.  And we learned a lot.  I now understand Tom Droege's
> work and frustration, and can see for myself the problems in the xs heat
> claims.  And our results on recombination effects, etc., will be submitted
> for
> publication you can be sure.  The work is educational, even if sneered at -
> who
> cares about that?  I'm not here to build my personal reputation or satisfy
> my
> ego -- I'm here primarily to educate and to learn and to share what I
> learn.
>
> Thanks for the question, Greg.  From time to time we'll share other results
> from our ever-changing research group, if people don't complain too loudly.
>
> Best Regards,
> Steven Jones
> BYU
>
>>>
>
> Too bad I wasn't Mormon (or even among the other 10%) 20 years ago!
> <smile>  Seriously, it would have been great to go to a school like BYU and
> I am very glad to hear that there still exists at least one place in North
> America where people can go to learn to learn.
>
> Three cheers, Professor Jones!  And please *do* share any and all results
> your group finds interesting.  I am sure they will also be interesting to a
> vast majority of us here.  Please don't let the occassional complaint from
> some disgruntaled parties discourage you from posting here.  There are many
> people who admire your work and many who admire your attitude.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Bill Page.
 
Thanks, Bill.  You've caught the spirit of what we're trying to do in this
ever-changing research group.  [BTW, from Greg K's latest posting, I don't
think he's caught on yet:  we're interested in creativity and learning, not in
"orthodoxy," whoever defines that.]
 
I ask the students to keep logbooks, and to write up their findings each term.
Thus, I have written evidence from April 1988 that we were actively studying
piezonuclear (some like it "cold") fusion at that time -- contrary to false
notions to the contrary espoused by some at the U. of Utah (e.g., Brophy)
in the past and more recently by Taubes' book.
 
An example of student research that germinated in the group is provided by the
work of undergraduate student James L. Maxwell.  James worked with me for about
3 semesters on, and developed a program for measuring low-energy X-rays from
the sun, using a "Get-Away Special" in the space shuttle, a program that allows
university students to build small experiments which can be launched on the
shuttle.  James has graduated and is now in graduate school, but his
"Goldhelox" project continues here, involving about a dozen students of
different  disciplines.  James explains that his idea for this research began
in our research class (called physics 497R) in early 1988:
 
"The events which led to my interest in the Get-away Special Program are rather
interesting to trace.  I began my research by trying to gather information
about the production of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere as compared to its
rate of decay. ... I was also gathering information about the flux of tritium
and helium into the atmosphere from the solar wind  (Geofusion research);
this naturally led to literature searches into measurements of thes elements by
interplanetary and orbiting spacecraft.  I had heard of the Get-away Special
program.... After talking to Dave Bushman, I became even more excited about the
possibility of putting an experiment into space -- and to tell you the truth,
I began to be more interested in _that_ possibility than in obtaining data for
my previous research. ... After a frustrating month or so, the idea dawned on
me when we were in the middle of a physics 497R meeting; someone was discussing
how X-rays were produced ... I'm not exactly sure why, but I immediately
thought, "Well, why not do X-ray observations of the sun from space?  The sun
must have lots of particle interactions going on..."   The idea has since
evolved into an opportunity with tremendous potential..."
-- from report dated April 8, 1988 by James Lawrence Maxwell
to Steven Jones for Physics 497R (undergraduate research class).
 
This project currently operates under an $80,000 grant from NASA.  It *is*
exciting research for these students, and I'm pleased that it germinated and
was nurtured in our research "class."  I hadn't remembered until I reviewed
James' report this week that the project had roots in "Geofusion research" --
his words in his report.  Oh, BTW, the research group itself had its roots in
my and Paul Palmer's interest in piezonuclear fusion -- in early 1986 -- which
led to experiments by student Rod Price and others spring-summer 1986 and
thereafter.  We still do piezonuclear fusion -- perhaps its the frustration
with this that leads to good ideas in other areas as James suggests above...
 
 
> PS.  Although I personally think current evidence makes excess heat seem
> quite likely and the that some nuclear observations are at least plausible,
> I do not take exception to your statement that there are problems with
> these claims.  I think some CF believers here have interpreted your remarks
> as 'cold' skeptism and perhaps related to bad feelings developed during the
> early days in CF.  But it does not seem so to me.  Informed and open
> critical review is essential.
>
 
Again, I agree with you, Bill.  Wish others could see it that way.
 
Best regards,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's challenge
Date: 8 Oct 93 17:58:45 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Tom challenges us to explain his 2000 J of possible "excess heat."  Here are a
few ideas:
 
1.  Can you rule out slow energy storage from the data (ignoring for the moment
a mechanism) before the event?  Remember that data from Hutchinson, Huggins,
Scott and others showed such (unexplained) storage.  -- In particular, I posted
here some months ago a plot from Robert Huggins that showed clear *negative*
xs enthalpy, amounting so several tens of eV per Pd atom, mysteriously.
 
2.  Possible mechanism:  silicate or borate forms on the Pd cathode;
lithium ions penetrate this coating (water does not) to form Li metal on the
cathode; at some point, the coating cracks, allowing highly exothermic
reaction of Li with water; heat generates further cracking and more exothermic
chemical reactions;  concomitant heating causes rapid outgassing of
deuterium which may also release heat due to recombination (or the fact that
deuterium has a negative Joule-Thomson coefficient at near room temp.).
 
3.  Tom, I think there may be other ways to account for 2000 J in your cell,
and I do not suppose that the above far-fetch is unique or even correct.  The
point is, on a scale from zero to cold fusion, I think probability would
suggest (unexpected) chemistry.  Unless and until you have *other* emissions
besides heat that require that we go beyond chemistry, one should not jump to a
fusion explanation.  (I don't think *you* would, but others surely will.)
As I suggested to you a year ago now, we have a nice little X-ray spectrometer
ready and waiting, and a student to run it I suppose (although it's not
difficult -- I don't mean to insult you that you would have any trouble.)
 
4.  Now, I argue again for a particle spectrometer, to look for X-rays,
neutrons, helium or tritium nuclei, what have you.  Looking for helium or
tritium *in gas or chemical form*,
as McKubre did (and found none at his sensitivity level) and as others
have done with equivocal results, is not likely to compel us to think of
nuclear explanations, since contamination cannot (or at least, has not)
be ruled out.  What we need is *energetic (MeV-scale)* particles  -- these
carry information out of the reaction which then *requires*
a nuclear explanation.
(We *do* use X-ray and neutron and charged-particle spectrometers in our work.
But everything is penic.)
 
Anyway, good luck, Tom. And if you want to look for X-rays, you know where to
find me.  (A few cm of water is not to great an X-ray attenuator, BTW, but the
thinner the vessel wall-window the better.)
 
I don't think its nuclear.  Show me signatures carrying nuclear energies and
I'll wake up again.
 
Have a good weekend.  Sounds fun, Tom.
 
Best regards,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Physics Research at BYU
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics Research at BYU
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 04:00:27 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Oct8.172055.993@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>[BTW, from Greg K's latest posting, I don't think he's caught on yet:
>we're interested in creativity and learning, not in "orthodoxy,"
>whoever defines that.]
 
You know, you're really hard to pin down on your pet peeves and your
aspirations.  You shouldn't trip up on the word "unorthodox"; I meant
it as a polite word for "screw-ball".
 
To reiterate my point, you (with your student) are looking for excess
heat in a Pd-D cell, and you are looking for neutrons in a Pd-D cell.
And in the past you've even looked for excess heat and neutrons in the
same cell.  But it's your pet peeve that people jump to the conclusion
that you think that these two investigations are related.  You claim to
be unconcerned if people think that looking for excess heat is a
screw-ball idea (if they "sneer at it"), but you are surprised and
disappointed if any of the sneering transfers to your other
measurements of palladium-deuterium cells.  You say you are angry with
XS Heaters for passing your name around in ways that make you look bad,
but you continue to talk to them, and you claim not to care that
looking for excess heat at this late stage makes you look like one of
them.
 
So it seems to me that you've made your own bed, in the sense
that you have a way to ameliorate your pet peeves that you are
choosing not to pursue.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: s.p.f.ejournal
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f.ejournal
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 00:59:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>In article <1993Oct4.231733.985@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>  > 1.  I would like to see an electronic journal evolve from what
>  > we're doing here.  I imagine that paper journals are becoming too
>  > slow and cumbersome in many respects and that a *peer-reviewed*,
>  > rapid-publication ejournal is coming of necessity.  Why not try it
>  > here?
 
>    Wonderful idea!  Two suggestions:
Robert's ideas are good.  I also like Steve's idea of a usenet journal,
quite alot.  However, while the fusion physics community is quite
active I wonder if it would be worth the effort for such a specific
specific subject.  I think I know what Steve wants.  A high quality
electronic peer reviewed journal where ideas and new results can
be published quickly and sited and commented on at electronic speeds.
I think it needs to be done.  Currently LANL has an internet 'gopher'
server that allows review of up-comming physics review materials, and
that's the way I would see the group work.  There needs to be a way to
comunicate equations, tables, graphs, and images (and perhaps short video
and audio section).
   I think there is a need for such a journal that expands across the
boundries of most of the sci - groups.  If we establish the standards
and methods for electronic peer review, this much needed outlet for
communications can be had.  So perhaps what we need is larger perspective
as to what is needed by scientists in communicating thier efforts. In
otherwords, how how do we communicate, elect reviewers, and archive
materials for our worlds posterity.   We might as well think big,
and into the future as to how we would like to take this.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck SItes
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.10 / John Logajan /  Mole fractions, molality, molarity
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mole fractions, molality, molarity
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 19:15:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Not being a chemist, I am never sure what someone means here when they
say something like 0.9ml LiOD in D2O.
 
The notation probably means something specific but are we all agreed
to the same specifics???
 
My chem book says:
 
#1)  molality = # of moles solute / # of kg solvent
 
#2)  molarity = # of moles solute / # of liters solution
 
#3)  mole fraction = # of moles A / total # moles of all components
 
I'd prefer #3 but I assume people are talking about #2 even though the
lower case "m" notation supposedly means #1.
 
Help! :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: name of the group
     
Originally-From: bobp@wixer.bga.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: name of the group
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 15:40:39 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

From article <199310071855.AA02810@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, by
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel):
> I suggest we avoid use of the  word "nuclear" in whatever the group names
> turn out to be.  This will save us the hassles of arguing with greens.
>
> Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>
 
I disagree.
 
I've seen a lot of people learn a lot from arguing from indefensible
positions.
 
                        Bob P.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:57:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Tom challenges us to explain his 2000 J of possible "excess heat."
>...cathode; at some point, the coating cracks, allowing highly exothermic
>reaction of Li with water;
 
By my reckoning it requires 285,800 Joules to split a mole of H2O into
H2 and O2, and 485,000 Joules is liberated when H2 and O2 and Li combine
to make one mole of LiOH.
 
Thus  1 mole Li + 1 mole H2O ==> 1 mole LiOH and 1/2 mole H2 (gas.)
 
The energy liberated per mole of LiOH when Li is placed in H2O is 200,000
Joules.
 
Droege reports 30cc of 0.9 (molality?) LiOD in D2O.  So we have enough
Li in the cell to product about 1/30th of a mole of LiOD, or about 6600 J.
Since Droege claims about 1/3 to 1/2 this total available Li energy,
the molality must have varied between 0.5 and 0.3.  If voltage is sensitive
to such swings, that might appear in the data.
 
Also, 1/60th of a mole of D2 gas would be released with the full 6600J
conversion of Li.  This would burn 1/120 of a mole of the excess O2 in the
headspace recombiner.  A density of about 1.43g/L, the O2 content would
decline by about 115cc.  Or if just 1/3 to 1/2 this give a range of about
40 to 60 cc.
 
So for 1/3 6600 (2200) one would expect 40cc reduction in headspace volume
and more if outgassing of the D in the Pd also occured.  However Droege
only detects a 11-12cc reduction in volume.  So we are a good deal short
of the gas change one would expect for 2200 J of Li + D2O ==> LiOD reaction.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.09 / Steve Fairfax /  Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 10/7/93
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion at MIT: Alcator Progress 10/7/93
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 14:31:53 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

                                Alcator C-MOD
                           Weekly Highlight Report
                                October 7, 1993
Prepared by Steve Wolfe.
 
Plasma operation continues as scheduled on Alcator C-MOD. This is the fourth
run week of the current operating period.
 
High elongation studies were extended, along with investigations of the
dynamics of vertical disruptions. Single null 650ka discharges with
elongations up to about 1.7 have been run successfully; growth rates and
disruption behavior were studied by turning off the feedback control. A test
of between shot discharge cleaning (ECDC), using either He or D2, to
improve recovery after a disruptive shot was carried out; this technique was
not demonstrated to reduce the frequency of bad shots following disruptions.
 
This week, we have begun operating with reversed field and current, i.e. with
the ion-grad-B drift in the direction of the x-point for lower single null
divertors.  This field direction is believed to be favorable for producing
H-mode; the opposite direction of toroidal field, which we have used up to
now, is believed to lead to more balanced heat loads on the divertor. The
direction of the plasma current was reversed as well, in order to keep the
helicity constant, so that the field angle remains consistent with the slant
of the ICRF antenna Faraday shield elements and the orientation of the the
sloped tiles on the divertor modules adjacent to ports. Low field
experiments were also continued with the reverse-field configuration.
 
ICRF experiments have continued. Over 450kW has been coupled through the
movable monopole antenna into D plasmas with H minority. Disruptive behavior
that was observed at a 100kW power level during the last couple of weeks (with
the limiter and antenna farther in) was not encountered in these experiments,
which employed a larger outer gap.  At higher power levels there were
definite signs of  increased impurity (C, Mo) and deuterium influx, but the
radiated power increase was of the order of 1/4 of the injected rf power
increase, even at the highest power level.
 
Following overnight discharge cleaning in He, Thursday's experiments are
concerned with recycling behavior and particle confinement. Low-density
plasmas (nebar < 1.e19 m^-3) have been produced with walls conditioned in this
manner. A density scan is being carried out.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 18:07:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <m0olPAT-0000tRC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>The Losertarians of the world are easy to target, Dr. Kuperberg, but that
>doesn't mean your position [is valid].
 
Good point.
 
>Specifically, while there is a clear authority within the Libercorporate
>Bylaws (ie: Constitution) for the U.S. Libercorporation Management (the
>Federal Government)
 
Now you're speaking my language :-).
 
>...the Contract grants Management no authority to compete with the
>Contractees in the creation of technology properties.
 
You seem to be saying that federal funding for scientific research is
unconstitutional.  I don't agree with that, and neither do most
constitutional lawyers, but I don't want to dwell on that tangent.  At
least you're not saying that no government has any right to collect
taxes.  And, going by your analysis, if some other country's
constitution (such as Great Britain's) does authorize science funding,
then a fusion program in that country does not violate anyone's
rights.
 
>If a stated goal is to develop fusion technology to a level that is
>economical to use, one of the worst places to do it is within a system
>where the sources of money are separated from the sinks of money by
>bureaucracies like the IRS, Congress and DoE.
 
Here you're saying that funding fusion research, whether or not it
is constitutional, is stupid.  That's a very different argument
from your other one above.  Just wanted to point that out.
 
>[Government funding creates] enormous opportunities for individuals,
>who no doubt believe they are the world's foremost authorities on the
>subject, to take over the funding and do precisely nothing of value
>with it, except to themselves.
 
By coincidence, private investments in both small and large companies
often meet the same fate.  The universal solution is called
"independent review".
 
Let's take the specific controlled fusion research, which I know is on
your mind in this discussion.  Controlled fusion is largely being
researched at Los Alamos and Livermore.  These two labs have an
excellent track record.  They or their founders succesfully developed
uncontrolled fission and fusion as well as controlled fission.  Each of
these three achievements amazed the world.  I suspect that the reason
you think that their researchers are greedy ignoramuses is simply that
you disagree with them.
 
For the record, I think that MIGMA and PLASMAK are spectacular
breakthroughs in every respect but one:  They are fictitious
devices.
 
>Do you secretly WANT the hatred of the people to break loose like all hell?
 
My secret plan came to me during a Satanic worship ritual.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.08 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Viability of international "investment" in hot fusion programs.
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 21:53:00 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct7.180258.20826@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.
du (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
  > Yes, but that requires breeder reactors, and subsequent production of lots
  > of nasty weapons-potential stuff. Do you want Iran, Libya, Cuba, etc
  > to have their own breeder reactors? You must if you intend fission
  > to be an energy solution for hundreds of years.
 
    But what KIND of breeder reactor?  Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)
convert Thorium to U-233.  While it might be possible to build U-233
nuclear weapons, it hasn't been done, and the engineering effort
required would be greater than using any nuclear reactor as a
Plutonium-239 factory.
 
     Back in the heyday of nuclear power, the AEC selected Liquid
Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBRs) as the breeder of choice, since
it was the only breeder that could grow the supply of nuclear fuel to
match their projected demand growth.  Today with literally tons of
Pu-239 to dispose of, the situation is reversed.  Both MSRs and PWR
converters make lots of sense.  (A converter is a breeder with a
breeding ration near unity, in other words a reactor which makes fuel
as fast (or almost as fast) as it burns it.  The Shippingport PWR near
Pittsburg, which was also the first commercial nuclear reactor was run
as a converter with a breeding ratio slightly over 1 before it was
decommisioned.
 
     But of course all of this is only appropriate for this newsgroup
as an example of the power of government to ignore economics in the
power generation industry.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Electronic Newsletter Idea
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electronic Newsletter Idea
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 04:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
There have been some interesting comments here about creating an offshoot
of Fusion Digest which would be something like a compendium of news about
research, recent announcements about ongoing work, and announcements of
meetings. Sorry, but this will not work, for the following reasons:
 
1.   There is never any "news" here. Everything here is ancient history.
     When you see something "new" here, you can be sure that everyone in
     the field heard about it months ago. Most of the interesting news
     never appears here.
 
2.   No self-respecting, full time, academic or corporate researcher would
     even *think* of posting any information about his or her work here!
     You might as well ask them to contribute an article to the National
     Enquirer.
 
3.   Meetings come and go every month, and not a word of them ever gets
     posted here, because those of us who know about these meetings, the
     sponsors and invitees, do not want the riff-raff, crackpots and
     loonytoons on the e-mail networks to come. We don't want you around!
     It is bad enough having the LaRouche people come, we don't need the
     water friction, talking test tube, and wave-form-energy perpetual
     motion machine crowd too.
 
So, all in all, it won't fly. It is doomed, because e-mail science does
not work. It is a failed experiment, for the reasons best explained by
Lewinstein (who won't like to see me say that. Sorry, Bruce, that's my
reading of your conclusions!) Decent, honest, real researchers gave up on
this medium years ago. I myself hung around much too long, I admit. The
problem here is that there are no normal rules of scientific discourse,
and the conversation is dominated by crackpots who say whatever they like.
One guy here said here recently that the helium is not proportional to
heat, a claim which is directly contradicted by every published
experimental helium result that I know of. But the crackpots never read
the experimental literature, they just post whatever comes to mind, and
nobody challenges them. There are no rules, no reference to reality, no
right, no wrong, no experimental evidence, and no way to resolve any
"argument." Anything goes! You never need to refer to the literature, you
just make up "facts" and as you go along. Right minded, serious scientists
don't have time for Wave Form Energy True Believers, people who calibrate
with lightbulbs, and people who make up facts as they go along.
 
I don't have any solutions to this problem. All I can say is that if you
really want to know about cold fusion, read the literature and ignore
everything you see here. If you want news, read Fusion Facts, or ask me.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 09:53:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>Organization: University of Chicago
>You seem to be saying that federal funding for scientific research is
>unconstitutional.
>I don't agree with that, and neither do most
>constitutional lawyers,
 
As long as we're playing "my authorities can beat up your authorities"
how about dealing with the comments of Dr. Hirsch vis the Tokamak?
 
>but I don't want to dwell on that tangent.
 
Ok.
 
>>If a stated goal is to develop fusion technology to a level that is
>>economical to use, one of the worst places to do it is within a system
>>where the sources of money are separated from the sinks of money by
>>bureaucracies like the IRS, Congress and DoE.
>
>Here you're saying that funding fusion research, whether or not it
>is constitutional, is stupid.
 
No.  Put in the most precise terms I can at the moment, I'm saying
that the riskier the invesment the smaller the entity pursuing the
risky enterprise should be.
 
>>[Government funding creates] enormous opportunities for individuals,
 
I didn't say "Government funding" and the context clearly indicates
I am talking about bureaucracies both private and public.
 
>>who no doubt believe they are the world's foremost authorities on the
>>subject, to take over the funding and do precisely nothing of value
>>with it, except to themselves.
>
>By coincidence, private investments in both small and large companies
>often meet the same fate.
 
The issue is whether "the fate", as you put it, is encoutered more
frequently in larger (ie: bureaucratic) organizations (both public
and private) than in small organizations.
 
>The universal solution is called
>"independent review".
 
Aside from the fact that the review in the fusion program is NOT
"independent" in any rational sense of the word, the universal solution
is called "put your money where your mouth is."
 
How much of your own money do you have on the line in this issue?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Frank Close /  Harwell's Nature paper
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell's Nature paper
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 11:47:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
MS writes:
It appears that Harwell, despite its well-reported "negative expt.",
  did in fact observe not just one, but several episodes of excess heat
in the D2O cells (which were wired in series with the H2O control).
  This is based upon some data which I am fortunate
   to have the opportunity to begin to examine in a preliminary fashion.
********************************************************************
FC: Harwell has made its data openly available to third parties.
    (in particular Mike Melich of Washington DC)
    I hope that this has been noted by those who like to believe in
    establishment secrecy, cover-up etc.
*********************************************************
MS:-
  Frank:
 
  Do you have any comment upon these cells which showed anomalous heat?
 
************************************************************************
FC reply:
1.Harwell ran months of experiments. I have no idea which of these data you
are citing. Please send me hard copy; it would help if you note on it
which are the points that you wish to raise.
 
2.Are these data from the cells made to Fleischmann's prescription
("FP cells") or from isothermal or steady state cells?
**********************************************************************
MS:-
  Do you have any comment upon whey Harwell claimed they did not get excess
    heat, yet have output curves which show such documented disparity between
    the the light and heavy water samples?
 ***************************************************************************
FC:  I refer you to Harwell's paper in Nature342, foot p375 to top p376 (1989)
It is titled "*Upper Bounds* (my emphasis) on 'Cold Fusion' ----"
The abstract notes that their results "fail to sustain the recent
claims of--FP". The upper bounds of Harwell are at the level of tens of
milliwatts; the claims of FP were, at least in early 1989, widely understood
to be significantly larger than this.
 
Harwell note that there exist possible heat excursions in the *FP cells*
(my emphasis) which "could be the postulated fusion effect but the
magnitude of the effect is commensurate with the errors".
A glance at table 1a, and fig 2 for D2O and H2O in *FP cells* shows this.
The reason why most scientists who have studied the paper have taken
Harwell as "negative" is based on reading on further.(top of column 2 p376)
 
Harwell replaced the cells of the FP type by  calorimeters that did not
require such complicated and controversial calibrations. This led Harwell
to use both isothermal and steady state (heat flow) calorimeters.
 
These balanced at +-Order of magnitude(10mW): this is the origin of their
`upper bound'.
 
 My impression is that few electrochemists believe that 1mW error levels
can be supported in the type of cells used by FP in early 1989
nor even in IHF  and isothermal cells. But I am a theoretical physicist
and as I said in the conclusions of Too Hot To Handle,
the question of error magnitudes is for electrochemical community to decide.
***************************************************************************
MS:-
 
  Do you know how many of these anomalous events they had?
*****************************************************************
FC:-
   This depends on what was quantitatively "anomalous".
For example, in my field (particle physics) people *begin* to get
interested at 3sigma; what this translates to in absolute terms
depends on how big one believes the intrinsic errors are.
If you have access to Harwell's data and are confident that you can
show the intrinsic errors to be smaller than they settled for when they
performed the experiments `hands on' then, for you, they are
anomalous.
*******************************************************************
MS:-
Did you have any role?   Do you have an appointment at Harwell?
 
********************************************************************
FC:-
  Yes. I have an appointment to play at Harwell Squash Club this lunchtime.
 
 
If there is some scientific question whose answer depends on you being
party to my private affairs then please include that in a private letter.
 
To mail me write to:
Head of Theoretical Physics; SERC Rutherford Appleton Lab; Chilton, Didcot,
OX11 0QX; UK.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Long term drift
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Long term drift
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 17:13:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Karel Hladky writes:  "But is there more heat than the total i x V you's put
into the cell over the months of running? The evidence appears to be mainly
anecdotal."
 
For example, the cell of the recent post ran 1.6 megaseconds before the 2000
joule pop.  The likely drift is somewhere around 20 mw.  This would give a
possible 32000 joule error in the integral power since the start of the run.
On an integral basis, the 2000 joules is just not significant.  But we still
have to find a storage mechanism in the cell for those 2000 joules, and no
one yet has suggested how this might be done.
 
Karel, we do keep an energy balance from the start of the run, as you suggest.
We do not make all the measurements you suggest.  We would like to see some
better arguments, as some of the things suggested would likely disturb the
system.
 
Tom
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / mitchell swartz /  Harwell's Anomalous Bursts
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell's Anomalous Bursts
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 16:05:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9310111104.AA12084@suntan.Tandem.com>
     Subject: Harwell's Nature paper
Frank Close FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) writes about the Harwell data.
 
  Frank, thank you for the response just prior to your squash match at the
         Harwell Squash Club.
 
  = "Do you have any comment upon these cells which showed anomalous heat?"
 
=fc "1.Harwell ran months of experiments. I have no idea which of these data you
=fc are citing. Please send me hard copy; it would help if you note on it
=fc which are the points that you wish to raise."
 
   OK. Specifically the data shown in the Melich paper (ICCF-3, vide infra),
      esp. figs. 1 & 2.   Could you comment on it or them?
 
          ----------------------------------------------------
  = "Do you have any comment upon why Harwell claimed they did not get excess
  =   heat, yet have output curves which show such documented disparity between
  =   the the light and heavy water samples?"
 
=fc "I refer you to Harwell's paper in Nature342, foot p375 to top p376 (1989)
=fc It is titled "*Upper Bounds* (my emphasis) on 'Cold Fusion' ----"
=fc The abstract notes that their results "fail to sustain the recent
=fc claims of--FP".
 
    Would you say that the paper did faithfully acknowledge the bursts
    of excess heat as shown for the heavy water cells in that paper
    at those figures?
 
              --------------------------------------------
=fc  "The upper bounds of Harwell are at the level of tens of
=fc milliwatts; the claims of FP were, at least in early 1989, widely understood
=fc to be significantly larger than this.
=fc Harwell note that there exist possible heat excursions in the *FP cells*
=fc (my emphasis) which "could be the postulated fusion effect but the
=fc magnitude of the effect is commensurate with the errors"."
 
   Actually, Melich and Hansen estimate these as 100-200mW (page. 400),
      well beyond the putative error limit.  Is that not correct?
 
   Did these bursts of excess heat only occur in the D2O cells which were in
    series with the H2O controls?   What does that mean to you?
 
             -------------------------------------------------
  =  "Do you know how many of these anomalous events they had?"
 
=fc   "This depends on what was quantitatively "anomalous".
=fc For example, in my field (particle physics) people *begin* to get
=fc interested at 3sigma; what this translates to in absolute terms
=fc depends on how big one believes the intrinsic errors are.
=fc If you have access to Harwell's data and are confident that you can
=fc show the intrinsic errors to be smaller than they settled for when they
=fc performed the experiments `hands on' then, for you, they are
=fc anomalous."
 
   For the record, Melich and Hansen have reported that:
 
        "In Harwell's D2O Cell 3 there are more than ten time
       intervals where an unexplained power source or energy storage
       mechanism may be operating.
                                    ***
       Harwell Cells 1,2,3 and 4 were wired in series to a constant
       current source.
                                     ***
        Throughout these anomalous increases
       in temperature in Cell 3, Cell 4 behaves "normally", i.e., it
       suffers no unexplained pulses of energy.   Our initial estimate
       of the power associated with these anomalous temperature
       increases is 100-200 mW."
         {after Melich, M.E., Hansen, W.N., "Some Lessons from 3 Years of
           Electrochemical Calorimetry", in ICCF-3 Frontiers of Cold
              Fusion", Universal Academy Press, Inc. (1993))
 
    Looking forward to your informative comments.
    Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / mitchell swartz /  More Info on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Info on cold fusion
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 16:15:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    Cold fusion began as the generation of anomalous excess
 heat from an immersed palladium electrode activated in
 heavy water.  In March 1989 the electrochemically induced
 reactions were initially very difficult to  reproduce.
 Despite the controversy much work as persisted.    Much understanding
 has developed as to why.   More importantly, the technology has since
 blossomed to include anomalous heats of both steady-state and burst
 type.   The technology has developed to include the use of titanium,
 nickel, and other metals in a variety of configurations.
 
   The reported excess heats are in the range of 2 to 400+% for the
 steady state excess enthalpies and occasional heat bursts demonstrate
 even greater amounts of potential useful energy.    The power
 densities achieved (initially ca. 10W/cm3 palladium) have increased
 more than two orders of magnitude.
 
  ANNOUNCEMENT:    On the 4th Anniversary of the Cold Fusion
  ------------   announcement, a new periodical devoted to this field
                 was launched.  COLD FUSION TIMES is dedicated to
                 novel research and developments in the field.
 
   The third edition is just out, and available --  chock full of
 information on this subject from around the world, including
 references for access to even more info.
 
   This issue (v1,n3) includes an update by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons,
surveys of the field from parallax views in both Japan and England,
a review of platinum group metals in the asteroid  belt,  and
even an overview of the subject by Dr. Eugene Mallove.
 
      Those interested in more data on this journal may send
      a brief message by e-mail (subject: CFT)
 
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                          mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Droege's breakthrough
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's breakthrough
Date: 11 Oct 93 15:48:00 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <m0olgxg-0000YRC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>OK data fans, I have put up some data, and am awaiting response from TB's,
>>Skeptics, and the "show me" guys from Missouri.
.....................
>The important thing is that they have found refuge from potential
>imprisonment by U.S. authorities for any of a number of the criminal
>allegations that were surfacing about the time they left the country.
>
>We all know what charming, loving, sensitive and caring people are
>allowed to dominate the U.S. prisons these days.  Keep that in mind.
 
Well.  Shades of LaRouche.
 
And did the military industrial complex have a "hit" out on them?
 
How about the hot fusion guys?
 
If you don't like US prisons, I am quite sure I can find some for
you in places like Mexico or Turkey.
 
I also understand that mainland China is still a gas!
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / R Schroeppel /  Palladium questions for Tom Droege
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Palladium questions for Tom Droege
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 19:03:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Q1: What's the advertised content of the palladium bars from
the coin store?  I know it's common to alloy gold with
a durability agent; a 1 troy oz. gold coin will contain the
oz. of gold, but may also have .1 oz of alloy.  What's
the story for Palladium?
Q2:  Have you measured minor contaminants in the Pd?
(I know, this can be a never-ending quest.  If you've
already done it, let's see the data.)
Q3...:  Are you going for a replication?  Is the cell torn
down yet?  Have you allowed the magic fuons that catalyze
the reaction to escape?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Richard Schultz /  cmsg cancel <29c42j$hrv@agate.berkeley.edu>
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <29c42j$hrv@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 1993 17:10:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

<29c42j$hrv@agate.berkeley.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Richard Schultz /  Re: More Info on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Info on cold fusion
Date: 11 Oct 1993 17:12:31 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CEqqIF.F4w@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
> . . . . The reported excess heats are in the range of 2 to 400+% for the
> steady state excess enthalpies and occasional heat bursts demonstrate
> even greater amounts of potential useful energy.    The power
> densities achieved (initially ca. 10W/cm3 palladium) have increased
> more than two orders of magnitude.
 
Could someone who is more in the know please tell me the currently
accepted values for the upper limits to neutron and high energy
radiation fluxes emanating from a 1 kW/cm3 electrode?
 
Thanks,
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 19:37:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re:  Droege's challenge                          10 October, 1993
 
There was not very much response from this group when I put up an event that
is pretty hard (at least for me) to explain.  But I have known all along that
I am pretty much talking to myself.  In spite of the "fan mail", most of you
are not willing to do any work.  Still, it is useful to throw bottles with
messages into the ocean from my desert island, as it forces me to compose my
thoughts.  From time to time, something does float in with the tide.
 
Dick Blue asks the same questions that I am asking.  Neither of us appear to
know much chemistry.  Dick, I think corrosion at this rate would make the
World Trade Center bombing look like chipmunk nibbles.
 
Steven Jones gives me a list to work on:
 
1)  No, as a previous post shows, I cannot rule out slow energy storage
followed by fast release.  But as you correctly note, this requires a
mechanism.  Let's hear a mechanism from the chemists out there!  Steven, I did
reply to your post about the Huggins data.  It can be completely explained by
the energy storage in the thermal capacity of the calorimeter due to the
change in the internal temperature of the calorimeter caused by the increasing
cell voltage over time.  I keep track of everything and take such effects into
account where appropriate.
 
2)  OK as a theory, but can you generate 2000 joules with the stuff in my cell
by forming Li metal under a cracking silicate or borate coating?  We need a
reasonable estimate from someone who knows how to do it.  (But see John
Logajan's comments).
 
3)  Of course I agree with your "unexpected chemistry" explanation.  But I
don't agree that looking at soft x-rays is any better than looking where I am
looking - very, very, very, soft-xrays (heat).  Please, let's don't get into a
philosophical argument as to the difference between phonons and photons.
Remember that way back I looked for soft x-rays (and found a signal, 6-7
sigma).  When I get a heat signal on command, I will likely take you up on
your x-ray spectrometer offer.  The next calorimeter will be designed to
accept it.  It will also be designed with room for a several layer wire
chamber.  While we can't get tracks from x-rays, we can likely get an x,y
position with a wire/strip configuration.  Not very efficient, but very
sensitive.  A few ev will do it if you are willing fuss, or run in geiger
mode.
 
4)  I stick with my research plan:
   a) Find a reliable "anomalous heat" signal that cannot be explained.
   b) Drag out the big guns of Nuclear Science to find the cause.
   c) Given a and not b, we have something very interesting indeed.
 
I am far from getting through a).  The event I posted is curious, and requires
an explanation.  There must be a few chemists out there who can propose some
reaction given the material in the cell.  I do not think the event is due to
instrumentation error.  I have been looking at such events for four years, and
have been slowly improving the instrumentation.  Something could still cause
and error, but it will be a very obscure effect when found!
 
John Logajan has a go at a few things.  As usual, John is the only one to do a
real computation.  Thanks, John.  John computes about 6600 joules was
liberated when I dumped the Lithium wire in the 30 cc of D2O.  Sounds about
right John.  Now we only have to figure out how 1/3 of that amount converts
back to pure Lithium, and where it hides from the water before suddenly
converting back to LiOD.  Steven suggests it hides on the cathode surface,
under a silicate or borate coating.  Anyone out there know how likely this is?
John also computes that we should have lost of order 40 cc of O2.  Note that
while my gas changed -10 cc, I think that there was a small explosion and the
auxiliary syringe moved.  This would mean that there was no real change.
 
John asks about the cell voltage.  I think there was little or no change
during the event, this is curious in itself, and I will look at it again.  It
is included as one of the products that makes up the "Power" column.  Note
that "Power" changed over about 5 minutes with the event.  This rules out a
step decrease in cell voltage.  I did look at it and would have included the
variable had there been a big change.
 
So here are the rules to blame chemistry.
1)  The stuff in the cell must be used.
2)  There should be little or no permanent ash.
3)  Since I have several of these events from this cell, the chemistry must
be reversible, so that there can be a slow accumulation of energy before the
pop.
4)  If you want to propose D2O2, then it is necessary to show how it can hide
from all that Platinum and Palladium.
 
OK, Karel Hladky, is it possible to accumulate D2O2 below 39 C, then have the
catalyst suddenly start working at very near to 39 C?
 
Thanks Mitchell, for posting the curves.  How about you or Jed commenting on
the very strange thermometer behavior.  If this is a real effect, (and I have
a number of similar events - some with no net heat) then all the P&F
calorimetry would be suspect!  The data appears to show that a P&F type call
can show a sudden large change in calorimeter constant!
 
Tom Droege
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 20:19:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>deuterium has a negative Joule-Thomson coefficient at near room temp.).
 
If we assume Droege's 10cc reduction in headspace volume was due to outgassing
of D2 and then recombination of D2 and the O2 in the headspace, we get approx
20cc of D2.  This is about 1/600th of a mole of D2.  Since one eV per particle
is equal to 96,400 joules/mole, we find that if 1/600th mole of D2 escapes and
causes a Joule-Thomsom heating effect and releases 2500J, that is approx
15.5eV per particle.   J-T must be one hellacious effect!
 
Also, what is the total J-T mechanism.  I imagine we can get a local hot
spot in the jet stream, but isn't it balanced by a heat loss in the
nozzel or in the expansion of the pressure container?  So in a self-
contained device, wouldn't the J-T effect nullify itself.  Sure you'd
get a net increase in thermal energy as some of the potential energy
of pressurization is released, but the J-T effect is, I suspect, more
of a heat-pump effect.  With both input and output in the same calorimeter
you'd get a big zilch.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Electronic Newsletter Idea
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electronic Newsletter Idea
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 20:07:19 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <931011032412_72240.1256_EHK41-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>
> 3.   Meetings come and go every month, and not a word of them ever gets
>      posted here, because those of us who know about these meetings, the
>      sponsors and invitees, do not want the riff-raff, crackpots and
>      loonytoons on the e-mail networks to come.
 
Sorry to break this to you Jed, but since you've been acting up lately, some
one should say it: you are part of the riff-raff. You aren't scientist
of any sort. You have no qualifications, formal or otherwsie.
You are just a CF hanger-on, a CF wannabe, a wishful thinker who like to mingle
with researchers, with a messiah complex to boot (you labor to save the
free world from japanese monopoly of CF...yawn).
 
Of course, this doesn't disquailify you from joining into the discussions
here. But since you've been doing a lot of name-calling, I think its
time we called a spade a spade. You are a borderline crank.
 
--
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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Electronic Newsletter Idea
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electronic Newsletter Idea
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 22:03:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Oct11.200719.7308@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.
du (Barry Merriman) writes:
>[Jed] isjust a CF hanger-on, a CF wannabe, a wishful thinker who like
>to mingle with researchers, with a messiah complex to boot...
 
You're saying that Jed Rothwell is just a fake pathological scientist,
while Pons and Fleischmann are the genuine article.
 
I think you're splitting hairs.  Jed Rothwell's judgement is as sober
as that of Stan Pons.  I see little difference between his physics and,
say, Bockris' or Notoya's.  Above all, he has sunk thousands of dollars
of his own money into XS Heat, which makes him just as much of a True
Believer as anyone else.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Investing in the future
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Investing in the future
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 18:59:43 EDT

         I asked:
>         Jim Bowery posted:
>>It isn't at all clear that investors would pursue fission energy
>>without government-supported liability caps (e.g.: you can't be
>> convicted of manslaughter just because you invested in a fission
>> reactor that blew up and wiped out Seattle).
>>
>         What exactly are you complaining about?  Do you believe
>investors in Manville or Union Carbide are guilty of manslaughter?
 
         Jim Bowery responded in part:
>What this means in the case of state-insured entities like Union Carbide
>is that their moral hazard is greater than it needs to be.  The solution
>isn't to throw all of Union Carbide's investors in jail for manslaughter,
>(although a guy like Tucker might claim justice would be done).  The
>solution is to replace liability-limited constructs like corporations
>and limited partnerships with the more general constructs of contract law
>and let the courts take their course in such disasters.
>
>Remember, the courts already routinely "pierce the corporate veil" in
>order to do justice.  The corporate veil is a sham and government-supported
>liability insurance is a political disaster waiting to happen.
 
         I didn't find this response particularly illuminating.  The
issue is: If A incurs a liability to B which A is unable to pay under
what circumstances should the liability devolve onto third parties?
Related questions are: What should be done with A?  and What measures is
society entitled to take so as to prevent this situation from occurring?
I fail to see how contract law applies if no contract exists between
A and B.
         The courts usually respect the corporate veil as they did in
the Manville case.  The courts can pierce the veil when the entity be-
hind the veil has done something which forfeits its protection (such
as commingling assets) however I believe this happens rarely.
         Any proposed investment in which a significant proportion of
the cost is due to low probabilty high cost events will be difficult to
evaluate.  I believe this is in inherent in the situation and should not
be attributed to our current societal organization.  Note that estimates
of the probabilty of high cost events are susceptible to manipulation
by opponents as well as proponets.  Nightmare scenerios can be invented
for almost any project.
         In discussing the effects of government policy on the apparent
economics of fission reactors you should also consider that fission
power plants are much more regulated than other power plants and that
this regulation is done in an economically irrational way.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 02:45:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
> So for 1/3 6600 (2200) one would expect 40cc reduction in headspace volume
 
I recomputed this using the correct method (the ideal gas law) and I come
up with a new value -- 68cc.  This makes the difference between the burning
Li theory and actual gas evolution even worse.
 
On the other hand, I wrote:
 
>if 1/600th mole of D2 escapes and causes a Joule-Thomsom heating effect and
>releases 2500J, that is approx 15.5eV per particle.
 
Again using the ideal gas law to recompute I come up with not 1/600th mole,
but 1/1220 mole of D2 gas to account for the 10cc loss of O2.  This puts
the purported J-T energy per particle at 31.6eV.  Incredible.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  D2O2 in 4A6 is DOA
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2O2 in 4A6 is DOA
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 02:56:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

It has been suggested that D2O2 decomposing can account for Droege's 4A6
burp of 2000 J of anomalous heat.
 
Since one mole of D2O2 decomposing to one mole of D2O and 1/2 mole of O2
produces 197,000 joules, we know that to produce 2000 J requires just
about 1/100th of a mole of D2O2.  This means we will produce about 1/200th
of a mole of O2 gas.  By the ideal gas law (24.4 liters/mole @ 25C) we
find that 1/200th of a mole of O2 gas occupies 122cc (or 122ml) at 25C.
 
Since Tom Droege noticed a net decline in volume of 10cc rather than an
increase of 122cc, the D2O2 theory is DOA (dead on arrival.)  Even if
Droege's saftey syringe blew out 10cc meaning a zero gas change, it doesn't
even begin to rescue the D2O2 theory.
 
D2O2 R.I.P.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Latest chemical constants scorecard
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Latest chemical constants scorecard
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 03:26:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
This is the latest chemcial constants scorecard.  I've used it in the past
two days to show that Li to LiOH formation has "gas" problems, that the
Joule-Thompson effect proposal results in fantasic energy predictions,
and that the D2O2 idea is deader than a door nail.  It's a handy little
chart.  I've just added the ideal gas law volume constant and some selected
atomic weights as the only major additions.
 
 
 
                        Thermodynamic Scorecard          Revision 1.2
                        -----------------------
 
Notes: 1 Joule (J) = 1 Watt-second
       1 mole = 6.0221E+23 particles  (602,210,000,000,000,000,000,000)
       1 eV/particle = 96,400 J/mole
       Values for deuterium not given if nearly equal to hydrogen.
 
 
Molar heat capacities @ 25C (energy to raise one mole one degree Celsius):
 -----------------------------
H2O (liquid)  75 J/mole/degree
LiOH (solid)  50 J/mole/degree
Glass (typ)   44 J/mole/degree
H2O (gas)     33 J/mole/degree
O2,N2,H2      29 J/mole/degree
Pd,Pt         26 J/mole/degree
Diamond        6 J/mole/degree
 
 
Heat of vaporization (energy required to transform liquid into gas):
 -------------------------
H2O   40,700 J/mole @ 100C @ constant pressure of 1 atm.
 
 
Heat content at 25C (298K):
 -------------------------
H2O (liquid) 13,300 J/mole
O2            8,700 J/mole
N2            8,700 J/mole
H2            8,500 J/mole
LiOH (solid)  7,400 J/mole
Glass (typ)   7,000 J/mole
Pt            5,700 J/mole
Pd            5,400 J/mole
Diamond         520 J/mole
 
 
Heat of formation (energy required to form one mole of substance):
 ------------------------------
N+N    ==> N2   -946,000 J/mole
O+O    ==> O2   -498,000 J/mole
Li+O+H ==> LiOH -485,000 J/mole
H+H    ==> H2   -436,000 J/mole
H2+O2  ==> H2O  -285,800 J/mole
H2O+O2 ==> H2O2 +197,000 J/mole
H+Pd   ==> PdH   -72,000 J/mole (**** from a very old reference ***)
 
 
Liter atmosphere (work done when the volume of a system increases by one
                 liter against a pressure of one atmosphere -- already
                 accounted for in above heats of formation and vaporization.)
 -------------------
Lit atm     0.1 J/cc
 
Gas volume = 24,400cc/mole  @ 25C
 
1 liter = 1000cc = 1000ml = 1000 grams H2O (997g @ 25C).
 
 
Thermal conductivity coefficients (k) @ 100C
    k's = milliwatt/centimeter/degree Celsius
    heat = k*area*(temp.hot-temp.cold)*time/thickness
 --------------------------
Diamond     17,000
Ag           4,260
Cu           3,950
Al           2,400
brass        1,000
Pd             730
Pt             720
steel          460
Glass (typ)      7
H2O (liquid)     6.8
D2               2.72  @ 300C
H2               2.13
D2               1.66
Glass wool insul 0.4
N2, O2           0.306
H2O (gas)        0.239
Kr               0.1145
Xe               0.0695
Rn               0.0445
Vacuum           low (energy radiated increases with Temp^4, degrees K.)
 
 
Selected atomic weights
 ----------------------
H     1.00
D     2.01
He    4.00
O    15.99
N    14.00
Al   26.98
Pd  106.40
Pt  195.09
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: 11 Oct 93 17:17:47 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Now we're getting somewhere, maybe.
John Logajan worked out some numbers on the idea
of Li deposition on the Pd cathode, protected from water by a silicate or
borate (or aluminate) coating (my posting 8 October 1993), and shows (below)
that there is enough Li to later generate a *heat burst* of 6600 J,  where
Droege reports about 2200 J.  This is worth pursuing since it may provide
a *quantitative* explanation of some "heat bursts",
and nearly all xs heat reports
involve such short bursts of heat.  John identifies some problems with this
explanation which I explore below, along with a few questions for Tom.
 
In article <1993Oct10.205713.20381@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Tom challenges us to explain his 2000 J of possible "excess heat."
>>...cathode; at some point, the coating cracks, allowing highly exothermic
>>reaction of Li with water;
>
> By my reckoning it requires 285,800 Joules to split a mole of H2O into
> H2 and O2, and 485,000 Joules is liberated when H2 and O2 and Li combine
> to make one mole of LiOH.
>
> Thus  1 mole Li + 1 mole H2O ==> 1 mole LiOH and 1/2 mole H2 (gas.)
>
> The energy liberated per mole of LiOH when Li is placed in H2O is 200,000
> Joules.
>
Prof. Lee Hansen and I get about 221 kJ/mole Li for this reaction, but 200 kJ
is close enough.
 
> Droege reports 30cc of 0.9 (molality?) LiOD in D2O.  So we have enough
> Li in the cell to product about 1/30th of a mole of LiOD, or about 6600 J.
> Since Droege claims about 1/3 to 1/2 this total available Li energy,
> the molality must have varied between 0.5 and 0.3.  If voltage is sensitive
> to such swings, that might appear in the data.
 
Tom:  do you see any evidence of such voltage variations, before and after
the heat burst?  Also, an applied voltage of 3.05V is needed to reduce Li+
at the cathode:  was your potential at least that high?
>
> Also, 1/60th of a mole of D2 gas would be released with the full 6600J
> conversion of Li.  This would burn 1/120 of a mole of the excess O2 in the
> headspace recombiner.  A density of about 1.43g/L, the O2 content would
> decline by about 115cc.  Or if just 1/3 to 1/2 this give a range of about
> 40 to 60 cc.
>
> So for 1/3 6600 (2200) one would expect 40cc reduction in headspace volume
> and more if outgassing of the D in the Pd also occured.  However Droege
> only detects a 11-12cc reduction in volume.  So we are a good deal short
> of the gas change one would expect for 2200 J of Li + D2O ==> LiOD reaction.
>
>
> --
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Thanks for the numbers, John.  It is interesting that Droege reports
significant gas volume change along with the heat burst, consistent
with the Li+H2O hypothesis, just not enough.  --But remember that other
reactions may simultaneously occur that would reduce the gases in the
headspace, such as:
 
2Li + 1/2 O2  -->  Li2 O,  which could occur due to cathodic Li exposed to
oxygen in the headspace, or due to oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte, and
D2 + 1/2 O2 -->  H2O,
both of which are exothermic.
 
We seem to be within a factor of a few of explaining a significant heat burst
with chemical reactions.   I expect Tom to explain why this won't work.  But
some other overlooked chemical mechanism might.  Without X-rays or other
indicators of >eV scale reactions, we have lots of room to speculate.
 
This is the point I've been driving at:  xs heat
alone is insufficient to provide compelling evidence for nuclear reactions,
let alone commercial use propositions.  Somehow the cart has gotten way before
the horse in some circles (see, e.g.,  Hal Fox's book "Cold fusion impact in
the enhanced energy age, " where impacts on manufacturing, energy technology,
transportation, agriculture, environment and finances are discussed in detail.
Incredible.)
 
The notion of Li deposition under a silicate (or borate or aluminate) coating
on the cathode is first mentioned in the Nagoya mtg. proceedings paper by
D. Buehler, L. Hansen, L. Rees and myself, based on BYU studies.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 05:45:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>It is interesting that Droege reports significant gas volume change along
>with the heat burst, consistent with the Li+H2O hypothesis, just not enough.
 
To the tune of 600% not enough by my latest re-calculation (ideal gas
law.)  And Droege replied that there may not have been any net gas volume
change at all due to a saftey release syringe moving approx 10cc in response
to some "explosive" impulse.  A zero gas change is very hard on many
chemical ash theories.
 
>But remember that other reactions may simultaneously occur that would reduce
>the gases in the headspace, such as:   2Li + 1/2 O2  -->  Li2 O
 
It requires 285,800 Joules to split a mole of H2O into H2 and O2, and 597,900
Joules are liberated when O2 and Li combine to make one mole of Li2O along
with a mole of H2 gas.  The difference is 312,100 Joules/mole.
 
Thus  2 moles Li + 1 mole H2O ==> 1 mole Li2O and 1 mole H2 (gas.)
 
We have enough Li in the cell to produce about 1/60th of a mole of Li2O and
1/60th of a mole of D2, for about 5200 J.
 
This is the same D2 volume as the LiOH suggestion and about 20% less energy.
So you'd need almost 40% of the max D2 evolution to get the 2200J impulse,
giving a new minimum of 1/150th a mole of D2, or 1/300th a mole of O2
consumption which is approximately 81cc minimum headspace reduction.  Now
you're 700% off the mark instead of 600%!  Wrong way, Corrigan.
 
And do note that Li2O leaves an (is an) ash.  If there is no Li2O in the post
analysis of the electrolyte, this pathway is moot.
 
>or due to oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte
 
To postulate 2000J worth of O2 dissolved in 30cc of D2O stretches credulity.
Unless the PdD loading is far greater than Droege reports, there isn't
enough O2 in the whole cell to account for the 2000J, let alone that
dissolved in the electrolyte.  There is just  about 1800J worth of O2/
D2 in the cell and to burn it all would be highly evident in the gas
measurement.
 
>Prof. Lee Hansen and I get about 221 kJ/mole Li for this reaction
 
Two college professors against a college drop out -- I'm liking the odds :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Dynamic Duo
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dynamic Duo
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 06:23:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Alfred Hitchcock suggested the icicle would be the perfect murder weapon,
since it melts away after use and can't be used as evidence.
 
Anticipating the next chemistry suggestion -- we have a magically mercurial
structure:
 
A Pd electrode coated with Li, in turn coated with silicate, coated yet again
with D2O2.  Upon catastrophic fracture of the silicate barrier, we have the
reaction 2(Li) + D2O2 ==> 2(LiOD).  I haven't done the calculation, but would
assume it could produce a max of about 10KJ or so.
 
No traces except heat -- the evidence disappears into the crowd.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Dieter Britz /  Tom's 2000 J: Chemical?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's 2000 J: Chemical?
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 11:00:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Can the 2000 J Tom Droege sees be explained - in principle - by chemistry?
The answer is yes. I can think of one place where that much energy resides:
the cathode. According to one of Tom's postings, it is a Pd plate 10*10*1 mm^3
in size, or 0.1 cm^3. The molar volume of PdD is about 10 cm^3, so the plate
holds about 0.1 mol of deuterium. The heat of formation of PdD is around
32 kJ/mol, 1/10 of which makes 3000 J or so.
 
I am not saying that this is where those 2000 J come from, but I am saying
that there is at least one place in the cell that has sufficient chemical
energy in it, and there may be others (some people are betting on peroxide).
So here, a chemical explanation is not a priori ruled out; this is not a
candle burning for 200 years or whatever. Certainly, the evolved gas evidence
must be brought in to decide what chemical process might be doing this.
 
Naturally, other causes are not ruled out, such as an accumulating error, or
even real, nuclear but neutronpenic excess heat. Occam, from his grave, is
telling us to search the conventional pathways first.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Dynamic Duo
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dynamic Duo
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:02:17 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
: A Pd electrode coated with Li, in turn coated with silicate, coated yet again
: with D2O2.  Upon catastrophic fracture of the silicate barrier, we have the
: reaction 2(Li) + D2O2 ==> 2(LiOD).  I haven't done the calculation, but would
: assume it could produce a max of about 10KJ or so.
 
I think that we are getting carried away here. If we are to have a layer of
1/30 mole of Li on few cm^2 electrode area then we need a mm or so thickness.
Exactly how does such a thick film grow without breaking the protective
silicate (or whatever) crust much sooner ?
 
Mind you Li reactions can be spectacular as I once discovered whilst
sheltering behind a bench from flying lumps of the stuff when a misguided
student tried to put out a Li fire with a CO2 fire extinguisher - don't try
this at home, boys and girls !
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Long term drift
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Long term drift
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 12:23:21 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Karel, we do keep an energy balance from the start of the run, as you suggest.
: We do not make all the measurements you suggest.  We would like to see some
: better arguments, as some of the things suggested would likely disturb the
: system.
 
OK, let's be realistic.
 
I would be tempted to build in a reference electrode, which can be
external to your calorimeter but connected via a Luggin capillary to
the cell. Calomel ought to do it. Then arrange your cell drive so that
you can kill the current 'instanteneously' and sample the anode and
cathode potentials vs the reference immediately after. Some adjustment
of the kill-sample delay may be needed so that you measure the voltages
after a likely glitch due to the cell inductance but before the
overpotential of the electrodes starts to decay (few 10's ms ought to
do it). Measure to say 1 mV or better if you can. Bring the current
back up after the sample - you should not loose any D loading. You can
either do this periodically or on demand, I'd be tempted to check the
overpotentials say once an hour unless a power glitch had occured, then
I'd sample faster. The overpotentials should give you some idea of the
reactions occuring on the electrode surfaces and the iR drop should
pick up any resistive film build-up. You are likely to hit noise
problems - your present current data is pretty noisy already.
Positioning of the Luggin(s) out of the bubbles (near the bottom of the
cell ?) might help. You'll also hit problems with gas bubbles in the
Luggin(s) - acrylamide gel might help (check toxicity).
 
I would arrange for a sample port so that you can periodically draw out
some of the electrolyte and analyse its composition. If it is LiOD
solution I'd look at pH and redox potential, conductivity, Li+,
peroxide etc. etc. I'd also look for trace metals. Get a friendly
chemist or a testing house to do it for you.
 
A.c. impedance measurements might be tricky on a low budget, but a
simple measurement of the cell conductivity at say 1 or 10 kHz could be
informative. I'm sure that you could figure out how to do it - keep the
voltage perturbation low as not to affect the electrochemistry too much
(say 10mV p-p ?).
 
I would also be tempted to start each run with a fresh sample and get a
testing house to check the Pd composition - don't trust what it says on
the wrapper :-)
 
After doing all this you'll probably end up as puzzled as ever since
Sod's law has it that the vital bit of data will be missing.
 
Of course you could just purge the electrolyte near the cathode with
oxygen or chuck in some peroxide :-)
 
Whatever you do, don't take anything I (or other electrochemists of
Czech extraction) say as gospel.
 
 
Karel
--
 ***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Tom's 2000 J: Chemical?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's 2000 J: Chemical?
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 15:49:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>According to one of Tom's postings, it is a Pd plate 10*10*1 mm^3
>in size, or 0.1 cm^3. The molar volume of PdD is about 10 cm^3, so the plate
>holds about 0.1 mol of deuterium. The heat of formation of PdD is around
>32 kJ/mol, 1/10 of which makes 3000 J or so.
 
In Tom's A3 under Gas, he says there are 76.9cc of excess O2, or 153.8cc
of D2 loaded into 0.1cc Pd -- 1538 relative volumes.
 
Anyhow, the ideal gas law gives 24.4 liters per mole at 25C, or 24,400cc.
24,400/153.8 gives approx 0.006 mole, not 0.1 mole as you suggest.
 
So using your 32kJ/mol number we get 192J.  I have an old reference that says
about 72kJ/mole which gives 432J.  At high loadings I expect both numbers
are wrong.
 
Also, I am confused by the sign of the energy -- during unloading (at
least at low loadings) isn't the reaction endothermic?
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Dynamic Duo
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dynamic Duo
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:58:17 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
>> reaction 2(Li) + D2O2 ==> 2(LiOD).
>I think that we are getting carried away here. If we are to have a layer of
>1/30 mole of Li on few cm^2 electrode area then we need a mm or so thickness.
>Exactly how does such a thick film grow without breaking the protective
>silicate (or whatever) crust much sooner?
 
I was being mostly facetious.  However, the chemical TB's :-) might claim
that the silitcate both protects the Li from water and protects the D2O2
from the catalytic effect of the Pd surface.  They will say that the mystery
mechanism for all this is a closer shave with Occham's razor than new
physics.  What can you say to that?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Jim Bowery /  Investing in the future
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Investing in the future
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 18:09:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         I didn't find this response particularly illuminating.  The
>issue is: If A incurs a liability to B which A is unable to pay under
>what circumstances should the liability devolve onto third parties?
 
Where there is a contract between A and B involving the activity that
incurred the liability, the state's only involvment should be to provide
an enforcable judicial decision.  Third parties are not involved except
in their support of the government's judicial and enforcement systems.
 
Where there is no such contract between A and B, (eg: A accidentally
 drives his car into B's living room and kills B's family) A should
compensate B to the level that a jury sees fit and if A cannot provide
such compensation, A's freedoms should be removed from him in accordance
with manslaughter or other criminal negligence laws -- this is in addition
to separate manslaughter or criminal negligence chargest that might have
already been brought.
 
The state has an overriding interest in minimizing the occurances of
situations where innocent bystanders are victimized by negligence and
have no insurance coverage, either for themselves or from the negligent
parties, for such events.
 
The least damaging regulatory mechanism the state can use to accomplish
this is to require liability insurance with limits and underwriting
qualifications that are high enough to provide reasonable assurance to
the state that it will not have to use its taxation or other regulatory
powers.
 
This means, of course, that many activities will simply be prevented by
the state's liability insurance requirements for those activities.  To
some, such as nuclear fission opponents, this would be a boon.  To others,
such as irresponsible proponents of nuclear fission plants, this would
be an obvious proof that this proposal is wrong.  Neither group is
right, of course.  What would happen is that fission companies would
have to get their technical/business acts together in a way far more
demanding than they currently do.  But it would also give them the
freedom to pursue technical solutions to the safety-reliability problem
that are currently closed to them by red-tape.
 
This is a situation far preferable to the situation where the state
engages in detailed regulation of the activities since the state has
neither the competence to engage in such detailed regulation, nor the
constitutional right to all trade-secret information that may go into
technologies.
 
>         Any proposed investment in which a significant proportion of
>the cost is due to low probabilty high cost events will be difficult to
>evaluate.  I believe this is in inherent in the situation and should not
>be attributed to our current societal organization.  Note that estimates
>of the probabilty of high cost events are susceptible to manipulation
>by opponents as well as proponets.  Nightmare scenerios can be invented
>for almost any project.
 
The same is true of the current political situation.  There are no utopias --
not even when the government runs EVERYTHING.  ;-)
 
>         In discussing the effects of government policy on the apparent
>economics of fission reactors you should also consider that fission
>power plants are much more regulated than other power plants and that
>this regulation is done in an economically irrational way.
 
If you read the paragraph you just wrote and compare it to the previous
one and my comment, I think you'll start to wake up.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Dynamic Duo
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dynamic Duo
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 17:22:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
>If we are to have a layer of 1/30 mole of Li on few cm^2 electrode area
>then we need a mm or so thickness.
 
I see the significance of what you are saying now.  I compute about
0.4cc of Li in the cell, or about 400 cubic millimeters.  That's about
a 2 mm coating of Li on each side of the Pd 1/1/.1cm electrode.  The volume
of the cathode must quintuple.  How far away are the Pt wires?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 20:02:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones asks for the cell voltage.  Here are a few values.  As soon as
I get to it I will publish the 1 minute values before and after the event.
 
Time     TCell       VCell      DeltaT    PCell    k C/w
1521970  34.67       5.7450     6.57      5.0217   1.31
1537560  34.72       5.7008     6.62      5.0235   1.32
1676050  74.52       5.8723    46.42      5,2657   8.82
1716250  71.76       5.8287    43.66      4.7894   9.12
 
Forgot ICell:
 
ICell
0.8741
0.8812
0.8967
0.8217
 
Before the event the cell current was being commanded to slowly increase.  A
few hours before the event, the current reached its peak value and was being
commanded to slowly decrease at the time of the event.  This explains the
increasing cell power values before the event and the decreasing values after
the event.
 
DeltaT is the cell temperature rise above the calorimeter (TPuck) temperature.
 
To me, this is a first class mystery.  One immediately suspects that some hot
steam blew on the thermometer and caused its current to increase giving a
higher temperature.  It is inside a glass tube.  It checked out after the
event giving reasonable readings.  It looked fine when later taken apart and
examined.  I think the temperature rise was real.  Particularly since there
was also the change in the catalyst temperature which went down.  So I have to
believe the measurements, no matter how strange.
 
We could argue that the recombination location moved from the catalyst area
to the cathode area.  There is only .88 amps * 1.53 volts of power to move.
1.34 watts should not make such a big change in temperature.  Note the k in
the above column is computed improperly.  Below we compute k by subtracting
1.53*I before the event and including it after:
 
k C/w
 
1.78
1.80
11.92
12.36
 
Thus k, the cell constant must change, as the calorimeter does not indicate
long term excess heat.
 
If instead, we assume that the calorimeter is somehow measuring the wrong
value, then using the k of 1.8 before the event, and subtracting the 5.3
watts actually driving the cell gives an "anomalous heat" of 20.5 watts.
 
We have two choices:
 
a)  20.5 watts of "anomalous heat".
b)  A changing calorimeter constant.
 
Since a) implies a 400% error in a calorimeter that I claim is good to 0.1%
I have to like b.
 
I imagine that the gas suddenly starts being catalyzed on the Pd wire lead
which connects to the cathode and which is exposed when the electrolyte is
lowered.  This forms a glowing ball that heats the cell thermometer without
much affecting the rest of the cell.
 
If this can happen in my cell, then it can happen in the P&F "boiling cells".
But they are watched by a video camera, and while it is hard to see for
sure, I see nothing suspicious.
 
So Steven, the voltage is well above the 3.05 for reduction of Li+.  There are
small variations in cell voltage to be examined, but nothing to explain what
we see.
 
Careful reading of what I say about the gas, says that most likely there was
an explosion with no net gas change.
 
No Steven, I will not explain why a chemical explanation will not work.  My
best guess is that there will be a chemical explanation for this event and
for the P&F stuff too.  My goal is to figure out how to instrument the next
experiment so I can pin down what is happening.
 
But Steven, I disagree with you on the xs heat.  Xs heat is enough to prove
there is something interesting to be explored.  We don't need the complication
of the nuclear instrumentation getting in the way of a repeatable xs heat
demonstration.  If we ever get xs heat, ***then*** we can try to find it's
source.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Paul Karol /  Re: Latest chemical constants scorecard
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest chemical constants scorecard
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:08:04 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think the conversion given for 1 eV/particle to joules/mole is
"slightly off".
 
PJK
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Paul Karol /  Re: Latest chemical constants scorecard
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest chemical constants scorecard
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:09:25 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I think the conversion of 1 eV/particle to joules/more is NOT slightly
off.  PJK is slightly off.
 
PJK
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 22:34:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>the very strange thermometer behavior.  If this is a real effect, (and I have
>a number of similar events - some with no net heat) then all the P&F
>calorimetry would be suspect!  The data appears to show that a P&F type call
>can show a sudden large change in calorimeter constant!
 
The simultaneous drop in Tcat along with the rise in Tcell suggests that
recombination has moved into the cell.  But in A5 you seem to be suggesting
that recombination has moved into the external catalyst because of some
timeconstantsy you see in the data (hints please?)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 00:01:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re:  Droege's challenge                          12 October, 1993
 
I was getting discouraged about the lack of response to my data, and put up a
whining post.  This brought me a crack across the knuckles in a private post.
Now FD 1520 has brought so much that I can not make a proper response.
 
Karel Hladky points out that enough Lithium metal to account for 2000 joules
is a lot of volume.  I know this because I mixed up the original LiOD.  You
may remember posts here about the proper cleaning order.  It takes a lot of
pieces off the Li roll (under oil) to make the 200 cc or so batch I mixed up.
So it is very hard to imagine hiding enough Li metal somewhere in the cell.
 
John Logajan has been counting calories and finds that most combinations of
stuff either make too much gas, or too little heat.  Note that using John's
285,800 joules per mole of formation of water, we get 25.4 joules per cc of O2
produced - 285,800 /22400 cc/mole = 12.7 joules per cc H2, but there is only
1/2 mole of O2 formed so the 25.4 number.  Multiplying by 1.53/1.48 we get
26.3 joules per cc of excess O2 when D2O is used.  One can also get this
number by using the 1.48 or 1.53, the number of atoms in a mole, the
charge of the electron, and keeping proper count of the number of charges
involved in the reaction (which I never get right).
 
When we charge up the Pd with D, we do not get the 26.3 joule loss one would
expect, as absorption of D by Pd liberates heat.  I have measured this roughly
and some day will do a good job.  The literature seems to give only one point
measurements, it would be nice to see the integral energy versus loading.  It
has been reported here by someone that the sign of the energy change reverses
at high loadings.  Dieter quotes 32 kJ/mole.  This makes net energy involved
when loading or unloading Pd closer to 23 joules per cc O2 measured.  The
syringe indicates a loss of 10 cc, but I think it zero because the auxiliary
syringe moved.  If true this would provide 230 joules.  Too little by an order
of magnitude.
 
Dieter Britz says the heat of absorption is one place that stores enough
energy.  John has already refuted this, but we do have to look at each energy
store.  There is just about enough stored D2 to do the job if it all
outgasses.  2000/23 = 87 cc oxygen change.  This is just about what was in the
cathode as D2.  The data shows 76.9 cc of oxygen were available.  So the
cathode would have had to 100% outgass, all would have to be burned in the
catalyst, and the resulting vacuum would have to suck in air through a leak
before the gas servo could respond.
 
Seems to me that no one yet has proposed anyway to generate 2000 joules.
When we get the full event up, we will see that this likely needs to be done
several times.  It appears to me that we need a storage means that we can
regenerate.
 
There are three mysteries:
 
a)  The sudden permanent rise in cell temperature.
b)  The sudden permanent drop in catalyst temperature.
c)  The simultaneous appearance of 2000 joules.
 
As posted earlier, a) and b) might be explained as a change in the location of
the recombination.  But where does the heat come from?  The equivalent
specific heat of the inside of the calorimeter is 2500 joules per C.  This
means that we only need a change in the mean temperature of the inside of the
calorimeter of -0.8 C to produce 2000 joules.  The catalyst area cooled about
20 C.  But it is mostly made up of glass tubing and catalyst and stuff that
has low specific heat.  On the other hand, the cell heated 42 C and it has 15
to 30 cc of water.  High specific heat stuff.  So unless we can find something
else, this would appear to understate the released energy.  But suppose while
the whole catalyst area cools, it is only a glowing ball around the cathode
lead that gets hot.  This might not have so much thermal capacity.  My Occam's
razor has left the room.
 
Karel suggests a Luggin capillary to make potential measurements in the cell.
On a similar topic, about three years ago when I was having problems with the
cell voltage rising after long electrolysis, I bought a pH probe to put in the
cell.  It was never used as I was afraid that it would release something that
would "poison" the cell.  How about this, Karel?  Do these devices put
anything (ions?) into the solution?  If so, can we be sure that they do not do
something bad?
 
I would be much more comfortable sticking a platinum wire into the cell as a
reference voltage measurement.  Why won't this work?
 
Karel Hladky suggests some continuous chemical tests during a run.  Too bad
Karel that you are in UK and not Chicago.  In the good old days I would just
put samples of terrible stuff in the mail to you.  But today, this would
likely put me in jail.  How about it Chicago?  Anyone out there that can do
this kind of stuff for me on the next run?
 
Karel says: "A. c. impedance measurements might be tricky on a low budget".
That I could do.  I think there is nothing in the electrochemists catalog of
electronic stuff that I could not build from scratch.  The only problem is the
motivation to do so.
 
The plan is to build the next calorimeter with a large volume dewar.  Then
there will be room for such stuff.  I will start out looking just for heat.
If we find it we will add everything.
 
John Logajan gives 24.4 liters per mole at stp.  Must be a transposition error
John, as my Radio Shack calculator has this number built in and it shows
22.41383.  Hmmmm!  So many digits and no error limits!  Tsk! Tsk!  I suppose a
whole generation of students will grow up thinking such numbers are correct.
 
John, I do not have a weight for this electrode.  Just an oversight.  It is
sitting in the cell where it will stay until I have a good reason to remove
it.  Other electrodes from the same batch were weighed and matched the
expected density to 1%.  About what to expect with calipers and my cheap
scale.
 
Rich Schroeppel, the coin bars are labeled 99.5%.  Likely other content is Ag,
Cu, Fe, Pb, Pt, Rh, and Si.  What they don't tell you is how much H, O, Ni,
etc is in the bar when they analyze it.  My brother and I found this out from a
contact at Engelhard.  We had thought up this wonderful scam and were checking
it out.  You can load up your Pd bars with D, and try to sell them back to
Engelhard by weight.  What they give you credit for is the refined weight of
Pd recovered.  So they don't care what the gas content of the bars is when
they analyze them and don't even look.  They sell them to you by weight.  They
of course do not load them up with D before they sell them to you.
 
Does anyone know why the price of Palladium jumped $5 yesterday.  I remember
it is up to $135.
 
If I did not respond to your query, please remind me.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 23:45:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I imagine that the gas suddenly starts being catalyzed on the Pd wire lead
>which connects to the cathode and which is exposed when the electrolyte is
>lowered.  This forms a glowing ball that heats the cell thermometer without
>much affecting the rest of the cell.
 
After reading this I went over to my setup and reproduced the glowing
Pt wire trick.  I initiate the glowing wire by running current above 2 amps.
I think this heats the Pt wire enough to get things going and also produces
plenty of H2 and O2 fuel.  Once the Pt wire starts to glow red along a
section of its length (about 2cm worth) then I can back off the current
down to 1-1.5 amps and the glow will continue indefinately.  Below about
1 amp or so, the glow dies out and can only be restarted by going above
2 amps again.
 
If current is left on too high, the glow of the wire will get quite intense
and there will be a sudden explosion as the H2/O2 mix ignites.  It is
very quick but seems to produce either a white or blue flash and a loud
report.  I always wear safety glasses when doing these tests now.
 
I imagine one of the difficulties I have is that my 30 gauge Pt wire has
too much surface area for its volume and so cools too quickly at low gas
levels.  A thicker wire would improve the thermal capacity / surface area
ratio -- it wouldn't cool as quickly and so would take a lower fuel rate
to keep it hot.  Tom claims his Pd wire is 0.5mm or about 24 gauge, so
his wire can likely run with less gas without dying out.
 
Two things happened in the 4A6 cell.  First half the electrolyte got
pushed out, uncovering the Tcell thermometer.  Secondly, some heat source
warmed up the Pd wire to the point that it took over as catalyst.  Since
the Pd wire is attached to the Pd electrode, a burst of heat in the Pd
electrode would conducted up the Pd wire.
 
The heating of the Pd wire would cause convection and the Pd electrode would
act as a heat sink to heat in the Pd wire catalyst section.  Both these
forces would tend to move the catalyst "hot spot" area up the Pd wire
away from the Pd electrode.
 
The section of my Pt wire that glowed had a section just above it that
touched the side of the testtube.  The glow never moved above that point.
 
Perhaps Droege's Pd catalyst section was trapped between two heat sinks.
 
>If this can happen in my cell, then it can happen in the P&F "boiling cells".
>But they are watched by a video camera, and while it is hard to see for
>sure, I see nothing suspicious.
 
These arguments are so dependent on a specific geometry that it is hard
to imagine them occuring in all "positive" cells.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 00:02:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>the very strange thermometer behavior.  If this is a real effect, (and I have
>a number of similar events - some with no net heat)
 
This could be a falsifier for the glowing Pd wire theory.  If the Tcell
thermometer is submerged in the electrolyte during some of these "similar"
events, then it is hard to imagine a source of glow nearby or how the
thermometer maintains its high relative temperature with so much cooling
capacity at hand.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: Harwell
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Harwell
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 01:58:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Dear Colleagues,
 
The impression Frank Close tries to create regarding the openness
of Harwell laboratory is misleading.  I  have  asked  many  times
David Williams from Harwell to allow me examine the raw data from
the experiments on 'cold fusion' reported by his group in Nature.
Unfortunately, until now he refuses to let me see these raw data.
Indeed, the group of Michael Melich has some access to  the  data
in question but I have been told by Michael Melich  himself  that
his laboratory is under a secrecy agreement with Harwell  and  is
unable to provide me with the data.
 
Even at this point, judging from  the  contents  in  the  Harwell
paper, from the analysis of David Worledge of EPRI and  from  the
private communications from Michael Melich it  can  be  concluded
that Harwell's work on cold fusion is far from perfect.
 
As it concerns the results of the groups from  Caltech  and  MIT,
Frank Close and other colleagues may wish  to  consider  the  two
publications in Fusion Technology: 19, 579  (1991)  and  23,  474
(1993). In these publications we report our  finding  of  crucial
errors in the methods and the data evaluation in  the  papers  of
Nathan Lewis published in Nature and Science as well as the paper
from the group  from  MIT  led  by  Mark  Wrighton  published  in
J.Fusion Energy.
 
I would like to say that I will continue discussing the technical
issues  concerning  'cold  fusion'  only  in  the   peer-reviewed
archival literature and not in media like this one. Also, I would
strongly emphasize that the above statements should by  no  means
be considered in support of any  criticism  of  Caltech,  MIT  or
Harwell's  work  appearing  on  this   net   and/or   any   other
non-peer-reviewed publications.
 
Sincerely yours,
 
 
 
Vesselin Noninski                               October 12, 1993
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenvnoninski cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Latest chemical constants scorecard
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Latest chemical constants scorecard
Date: 12 Oct 1993 21:31:14 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>I think the conversion given for 1 eV/particle to joules/mole is
>"slightly off".
 
To get this right,
 
1 eV    = 1.6e-12 erg   = 1.6 e -19 Joule
1 mole  = 6.02e23 x 1.66e-24 / M particles
M       = particle mass in gm
1 mole  = 6.02e23 / m particles
m       = particle mass in a.m.u.
 
I do not know M for palladium, so I'll just give
 
1 eV/particle = 9.6e11 erg/mole = 96,000 Joules/mole
 
for atomic hydrogen. Energy of ionisation is then about 1.3 MJ/mole,
which should be quite large in chemical terms.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Jim Day /  HECTER
     
Originally-From: Jim.Day@bbs (Jim Day)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HECTER
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 03:48:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
                    A LAYMAN'S VIEW OF HECTER
 
ABOUT THE POSTER
 
I'm not a scientist and am unqualified to make a critical evaluation
of the Mills-Farrell theory. But it seems to be quite well reasoned
and self consistent. Maybe it's time for a new paradigm.
 
ABOUT THE POSTING
 
The following is a brief summary of the HECTER process as described
in the book Unification of Spacetime, the Forces, Matter, and
Energy, by Randell Mills. Explication of the Mills-Farrell theory,
on which the HECTER process is based, is limited to what is needed
to explain how the HECTER process works. Dr. Farrell's help in
correcting several errors in the first draft of this posting is
gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors are my responsibility.
 
WHAT HECTER IS
 
HECTER (Hydrogen Emission by Catalytic Thermal Electronic
Relaxation) is a process in which energy is released by the
shrinking of hydrogen atoms by electrocatalytic means. This
process and its theoretical basis are described in detail in the
book mentioned above. The book explains why excess heat has been
observed in some electrochemical cells using palladium cathodes.
It also explains the lack of commensurate levels of neutrons and
"nuclear ash" in general, and why small amounts of tritium and
helium-3 are sometimes found in such cells.
 
ENERGY LEVELS
 
According to the theory of quantum electrodynamics an electron
in a hydrogen atom can only occupy specific energy levels, the
lowest being the ground level. For each energy level there is a
corresponding orbital radius for the electron. The orbital radius
of the ground level is the Bohr radius, ao. Mills-Farrell theory
asserts that under certain conditions an electron in a hydrogen
atom can occupy an orbit with a smaller radius such as ao/2, ao/3,
ao/4, etc.
 
FROM THE GROUND UP
 
For an electron at ground level to jump to a higher level it must
receive energy and the resulting orbit is unstable.
 
FROM THE GROUND DOWN
 
For an electron at ground level to jump to a lower level it must
lose energy and the resulting orbit is stable. That is, such
orbits are stable so long as nothing upsets their energy balance.
The same is true of the ground level orbit. A special event must
occur to destabilize an electron at or below the ground level.
 
THE SPECIAL EVENT
 
Before an electron can jump from the ground level into a smaller
orbit it must lose about 27 eV of energy. This is equal to its
potential energy in the ground level orbit. If it loses this much
energy it drops to the next smallest allowed radius. For example:
from ao to ao/2 or from ao/2 to ao/3.
 
ELECTROCATALYSIS
 
How is 27 eV of energy extracted from a ground-level electron to
start the HECTER process? It's done by electrocatalysis, using
atoms capable of absorbing 27 eV from hydrogen in the ground state.
The transfer of energy is a quantum resonance effect. A number of
different catalysts can be used in the HECTER process, as explained
below.
 
RUBIDIUM AS A CATALYST
 
Singly-ionized rubidium, Rb(I), can absorb about 27 eV of energy
to become Rb(II), acting as an energy sink for a nearby hydrogen
atom in or below the ground state. The loss of 27 eV destabilizes
the ground-state hydrogen electron, causing it to drop into the
ao/2 level. On dropping into this level, the electron releases
additional energy which appears in the form of heat.
 
TITANIUM AS A CATALYST
 
Doubly-ionized titanium, Ti(II), can absorb about 27 eV of energy
to become Ti(III), allowing it to act as a HECTER catalyst also.
 
POTASSIUM AS A CATALYST
 
HECTER electrocatalysis can utilize multiple-resonance effects.
One example of multiple resonance involves the use of potassium
as a catalyst. The first ionization energy of potassium is about
4.3 eV and the second ionization energy is about 31.6 eV. So the
reduction of K(I) to K in combination with a transition from K(I)
to K(II) can absorb about 27 eV of energy, allowing potassium to
be used as a HECTER catalyst.
 
LITHIUM PLUS PALLADIUM AS A CATALYST
 
The first ionization energy of lithium is about 5.4 eV and the
third ionization energy of palladium is about 32.9 eV. So the
reduction of Li(I) to Li in combination with a transition from
Pd(II) to Pd(III) can absorb about 27 eV of energy, allowing HECTER
catalysis to occur.
 
SHRUNKEN HYDROGEN
 
A shrunken hydrogen atom is called a "hydrino." How can the electron
maintain a stable orbit so close to the proton? The electric charge
of the electron is unchanged but the effective charge of the nucleus
increases as the orbit of the electron becomes smaller.
 
To understand how this can happen, consider what occurs when an
electron in the ground state absorbs a photon and jumps to a larger
orbit. The electric field of the absorbed photon creates standing
waves that effectively reduce the charge of the nucleus of the atom.
Nothing happens to the proton itself, but the charge created by the
standing waves is superimposed on the charge of the proton. The
photonic charge counteracts the proton's positive charge just
enough to allow the electron to jump to a larger orbit.
 
ORBITSPHERES
 
The concept of standing waves associated with the absorption of a
photon by an electron is derived from the Mills-Farrell view of an
electron as a spherical shell rather than a tiny particle. Such an
"orbitsphere" acts as a resonant cavity capable of holding the
energy of an absorbed photon. According to this view, the nucleus
of a hydrogen atom is completely enclosed by the orbitsphere of the
electron. The concept of orbitspheres may seem strange at first
but it serves to explain many things that cannot be explained by
classical physics or quantum electrodynamics. When an electron
jumps to a new orbit, what really happens is a change in the size
of the orbitsphere. This should be kept in mind when reading the
following explanation of effective nuclear charge.
 
EFFECTIVE NUCLEAR CHARGE
 
The photonic charge changes when a photon is emitted or absorbed by
an electron. A change in the photonic charge changes the effective
nuclear charge, causing the electron to jump to a new orbit.
 
The effective nuclear charge is the sum of the charge of the proton
(always +1) and the photonic charge. The photonic charge depends on
the orbit (n) of the electron:
 
     photonic charge = -1 + 1/n
 
For the ground state (n = 1) the photonic charge is zero and the
effective nuclear charge is +1. For the next higher level (n = 2)
the photonic charge is -0.5, giving an effective nuclear charge
of +0.5 for that level. For the electron to escape from the atom
altogether (n = infinity) the photonic charge is -1, giving an
effective nuclear charge of zero. But what about levels below the
ground state?
 
For the first level below the ground state (n = 1/2) the photonic
charge is 1 and the effective nuclear charge is 2. For the next
lower level (n = 1/3) the photonic charge is 2 and the effective
nuclear charge is 3.
 
Now consider what happens when an electron in or below the ground
state emits a photon due to resonant coupling with a catalyst such
as a rubidium atom. The effective nuclear charge increases and the
electron moves to a smaller orbit. On reaching the smaller orbit,
the electron must emit another photon to balance electrical forces
at the new orbit.
 
THE EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
 
The basic setup is similar to the electrolytic cell used by
Pons and Fleischmann, but with some significant differences.
A variety of materials have been tested by Mills and Farrell,
but the following setup is typical.
 
THE CATHODE
 
The cathode consists of a long, thin nickel wire wound onto a
perforated polyethylene support. Great care is taken to avoid
contamination with organic substances.
 
THE ANODES
 
Multiple anodes are used, each of platinized titanium mesh.
 
THE ELECTROLYTE
 
The electrolyte is K2CO3 dissolved in water to make a half-molar
solution. Positive results have been obtained with both light and
heavy water.
 
THE POWER SUPPLY
 
Various combinations of current, voltage, frequency and duty cycle
were tested. For low power levels good results were obtained with
a 600 Hz square wave having a 36% duty cycle. For higher power
levels (say 100 W) 1 Hz is more typical.
 
THE OPERATING CYCLE
 
The negative potential of the cathode attracts the positively
charged hydrogen ions in the water of the electrolytic cell. When
hydrogen ions reach the surface of the cathode they form a thin
layer of nickel hydride which releases monatomic hydrogen when the
flow of current is interrupted. Monatomic hydrogen atoms, H(n = 1),
combine to form molecular hydrogen, H2(n = 1). Hydrinos, H(n = 1/2),
formed on the surface of the cathode combine to form "dihydrino"
molecules, H2(n = 1/2), which leave the nickel surface as do the
hydrogen molecules.
 
WHY MONATOMIC HYDROGEN IS NEEDED
 
Only the monatomic form of hydrogen can be converted to hydrinos.
Hydrogen ions can't be used because they don't have electrons.
Molecular hydrogen can't be used because it doesn't form a
resonant couple with the catalyst. Monatomic hydrogen doesn't last
very long, so it must be replenished during each cycle of operation
of the electrolytic cell.
 
HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?
 
In principle, a hydrogen atom can be shrunk repeatedly until
the electron and proton are superimposed. If this happens, the
Mills-Farrell theory predicts that the proton will decay to
mesons and then to photons.
 
COLD FUSION
 
In the case of heavy hydrogen, the shrinking of deuterons will
increase the probability of cold fusion, which Mills and Farrell
refer to as Coulombic Annihilation Fusion (CAF). CAF produces
energy, protons and tritium, plus some helium-3. Small but
significant amounts of tritium have been found by Mills and
Farrell in their experiments with heavy water.
 
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
 
Considerable excess heat has been reported by Mills and Farrell
and others who have duplicated their experiments. Mills and
Farrell cite the work of various experimenters at Franklin &
Marshall College, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Fermi
National Laboratory as confirming their results.
 
Is there any other experimental evidence supporting the theory of
shrunken hydrogen? Mills and Farrell say there is. They say that
most of the heat of the sun is from hydrino formation rather than
the fusion of hydrogen, although hydrogen fusion is said to be
facilitated by hydrino formation. They also say that 27 eV solar
radiation in the far ultraviolet supports their theory and that
the "missing" solar neutrinos are missing because hydrino formation
emits no neutrinos.
 
Dark matter emissions in the extreme ultraviolet provide spectral
evidence for the following orbital transitions: n = 1 to 1/2;
n = 1/2 to 1/3; n = 1/3 to 1/4; and n = 1/4 to 1/5.
 
Jim Day <Jim.Day@support.com>
--
Jim Day, user of the UniBoard System @ quake.sylmar.ca.us
E-Mail: Jim.Day%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us
Quake Public Access - San Fernando Valley, CA - (818)367-2142/(818)362-6092
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDay cudfnJim cudlnDay cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Patrick Smith /  Re: Electronic Newsletter Idea
     
Originally-From: p-smith@advtech.slc.paramax.com (Patrick J. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electronic Newsletter Idea
Date: 12 Oct 93 19:13:53 GMT
Organization: Paramax, Salt Lake City, Utah

JR wrote:
> One guy here said here recently that the helium is not proportional to
> heat, a claim which is directly contradicted by every published
> experimental helium result that I know of. But the crackpots never read
> the experimental literature, they just post whatever comes to mind, and
> nobody challenges them.....
 
From a note in the Feb, 1993 issue of R&D magazine regarding Yamaguchi's
helium claims:
 
"One puzzle is that the amount of heat generated is on the order of 100,000
times *less* than expected..."
 
Emphasis is my own.  Being off by 5 orders of magnitude makes these
results extremely suspect in my mind.  But rather than hand wave about
having underestimated the magnitude of heat generated, the
 
"...researchers suspect the missing energy may be emitted as x-rays and are
planning experiments to verify that."
 
(Steve Jones take note!)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensmith cudfnPatrick cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Jason Jacovelli /  Results of Joint Venture with McElwaine
     
Originally-From: jrj@curie.ualr.edu (Jason R. Jacovelli)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Results of Joint Venture with McElwaine
Date: 12 Oct 93 13:02:58 -0600
Organization: UALR Physics and Astronomy

I am here today to tell you about the results of a
joint research venture with McElwaine of Euclaire.
We have discovered that people are fusion reactors!!
Our Experiment is follows:
 
We took several sets of identical twins.  One of
each set was killed immediately and burned.  The
other was allowed to live for 6 months and then
killed and burned.  Measuring the mass of the
resulting ash will reveal that the one who lived
for 6 months will be more massive then the one
killed at birth.  One can only conclude that a
fusion reaction is going on in the body, thus
causing its mass to increase as a function of
lifetime.
 
An earlier solo experiment done by McElwaine
showed a similar thing in plants.
 
From all of this, it is pointless to continue
the quest for controlled fusion.... we are all
fusion reactors!!!
 
Please mail me my Nobel Prize, I am a busy man!
Jason Jacovelli
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjrj cudfnJason cudlnJacovelli cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Viewing the 4A6 data
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Viewing the 4A6 data
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 05:22:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Mitchell Swartz published some nice graphs of Droege's 4A6 "event" data.
Taking Mitchell's magnification/reduction a step further, I looked at
the graphs with all plots normalized so that their max and min excursions
thus filled the entire vertical scale.  This gives the best look at trends
in the data.  I also found that a running sample with a sample average of
five was useful for quieting down Power, ICell, and TPuck.  Otherwise
they tended to obliterate everything else in the graph. (I'm using nine
different colors with the data expanded to fill a 640x480 VGA PC screen.)
 
I don't have a way to "GIF" it for you all, but here are the min/max
values to simplify any programming you might do.
 
Value      Min   Max
-----    -----  ------
Power    -0.14  0.892
Jsum     -31.6  2685.4
Icell    -0.936 -0.861
Gas        64     77
Tcell    34.95   77.6
Tpuck    26.51  26.62
Tcat     33.82  57.93
Tamb     25.3   27.12
Vplate   2.685  3.062
 
You get: magnification factor = vertical pixels / (max - min)
Then for each plotted point: vertical coord = mag * (datapoint - min)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 05:54:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>John Logajan gives 24.4 liters per mole at stp.  Must be a transposition error
>John, as my Radio Shack calculator has this number built in and it shows
>22.41383.  Hmmmm!
 
STP is 0C at 760mm Hg (1 atmosphere), so 22.4 is correct for STP.
However, I gave the gas volume at 25C, so 24.4 is correct for 25C @ 760mm Hg.
 
Ideal gas law: PV=nRT  where n=mole, T=Kelvin, R=0.0821, P=atm V=liters.
 
Solving for V at 25C gives V=nRT/P and since P=1 and n=1:
Liters/mole = 0.0821*298.16 = 24.48 @ 25C.
 
So I should really have rounded to 24.5 instead of 24.4.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge/more
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge/more
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 06:40:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Hold on, John.  I was speaking of Li reacting with oxygen already in the head
>space.  This would reduce the gases there, as I said.
 
The operation of Droege's gas thingy is initially counter-intuitive, so that
may be causing your confusion here.  What you say is true, Li buring O2 in
the headspace will cause a loss of gas volume.  However, what I have been
pointing out is that there isn't near enough measured loss of O2 to account for
the the measured energy release.  You need to reverse course and come up with
a way to generate energy that DOESN'T burn the existing O2 and DOESN'T
release new D2 -- or something that releases O2 and half as much D2 --
or something that doesn't involve O2 or D2 at all.
 
Also, it doesn't matter if Li combines with O2 in the headspace, or D2O in the
liquid.  In the air, Li+O2==>Li2O it is obvious O2 disappers from the head
space.  However, in the liquid, Li+D2O==>Li2O+D2 and the D2 bubbles up to the
headspace and in the recombiner we get D2+O2==>D2O.  In either case we get
O2 disappering from the headspace.  Trouble is, not enough!
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re: D2O2 in 4A6 is DOA
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O2 in 4A6 is DOA
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 07:01:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>Producing peroxide from D2O and excess O leaves a bunch of deuterium lying
>around. There are obvious storage places in Tom's cell for the peroxide
>(the electrolyte) and for the excess D (the Pd electrode). If we reverse
>BOTH of these, decomposing the peroxide to D2O and atomic O and then
>combining the O with the excess D2, you get a reaction that releases lots
>of energy but no net gas.
 
This doesn't really fit the measurements either, unfortunately.
 
When you produce D2O2 from D2O, you either get the extra O2 from the
headspace excess or you produce excess D2 which goes on to burn off the
excess O2 in the headspace -- or disappears somewhere.  You say it might
go into the Pd.
 
Here's the rub -- 4A6 shows enough O2 in the headspace to get like a 1.2
loading of D into the Pd.  If you are proposing even more O2 hidden in the
form of the D2O2, the D loading of the Pd must be beyond loadings ever
reported.
 
And when it outgasses it seems to only burn the D2O2 and not any of the
O2 in the headspace.
 
And the D2O2 doesn't get decomposed by the Pt or Pd in the cell, even though
I can throw Pt wire into my drugstore grade H2O2 and watch it bubble.
 
That's a lot of miracles for one evening. :-)
 
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Tom's 2000 J: Chemical?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Tom's 2000 J: Chemical?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 09:15:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1520:
 
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>According to one of Tom's postings, it is a Pd plate 10*10*1 mm^3
>>in size, or 0.1 cm^3. The molar volume of PdD is about 10 cm^3, so the plate
>>holds about 0.1 mol of deuterium. The heat of formation of PdD is around
>>32 kJ/mol, 1/10 of which makes 3000 J or so.
 
>In Tom's A3 under Gas, he says there are 76.9cc of excess O2, or 153.8cc
>of D2 loaded into 0.1cc Pd -- 1538 relative volumes.
 
>Anyhow, the ideal gas law gives 24.4 liters per mole at 25C, or 24,400cc.
>24,400/153.8 gives approx 0.006 mole, not 0.1 mole as you suggest.
 
>So using your 32kJ/mol number we get 192J.  I have an old reference that says
>about 72kJ/mole which gives 432J.  At high loadings I expect both numbers
>are wrong.
 
>Also, I am confused by the sign of the energy -- during unloading (at
>least at low loadings) isn't the reaction endothermic?
 
Sorry, you're right, I was out by a factor of 10, the cathode is indeed only
0.1 cc and holds only 0.01 mole D, making that only 300 J or so. Also, I
didn't want to go into the endo-exothermic thing, I only wanted to show that
magnitude-wise, chemistry is in the running. But for heat to be given off,
yes, this would happen during charging; as far as we know, discharge of
deuterium should cool the cathode. The qualification "as far as we know" is
due to the fact that those 32 kJ/mol refer to charging  Pd metal to a loading
of 0.72; at higher loadings (which everyone seems to think they get), the
thermodynamics is not known, I believe, and it might require energy to stuff
more deuterium into the Pd beyond 0.72; conversely, when highly loaded PdD
releases some D, this might give off heat.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 23:30:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>real computation.  Thanks, John.  John computes about 6600 joules was
>liberated when I dumped the Lithium wire in the 30 cc of D2O.  Sounds about
>right John.  Now we only have to figure out how 1/3 of that amount converts
>back to pure Lithium, and where it hides from the water before suddenly
>converting back to LiOD.  Steven suggests it hides on the cathode surface,
>under a silicate or borate coating.  Anyone out there know how likely this is?
Just a comment.  Having seen some of Tom's erlier cells under SEM (dry of
course), it would seem extremely unlikely that a borate or silicon layer
could 'hide' that much lithium.  Granted borates can and do form a layer
that can become glassious in large quantities, I saw no indication of that
type of formation in previous cells.  Also, didn't you say that Boric
acic was in the ppm range Tom?  If so that would be just a dusting on the
cell surface.  Based on the abruptness of the burst, and without having
seen the cell, it sounds like what a fracture might generate by means of
increasing the surface area and providing a fresh PdD(x) surface to the
electrochemical soup.
 
Anyway, just an idea. But it might be easy to verify by visual inspection.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Physics Research at BYU/reply to Greg
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics Research at BYU/reply to Greg
Date: 12 Oct 93 14:39:05 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
In article <1993Oct9.040027.13490@midway.uchicago.edu>,
 gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <1993Oct8.172055.993@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>[BTW, from Greg K's latest posting, I don't think he's caught on yet:
>>we're interested in creativity and learning, not in "orthodoxy,"
>>whoever defines that.]
>
> You know, you're really hard to pin down on your pet peeves and your
> aspirations.  You shouldn't trip up on the word "unorthodox"; I meant
> it as a polite word for "screw-ball".
>
> To reiterate my point, you (with your student) are looking for excess
> heat in a Pd-D cell, and you are looking for neutrons in a Pd-D cell.
> And in the past you've even looked for excess heat and neutrons in the
> same cell.  But it's your pet peeve that people jump to the conclusion
> that you think that these two investigations are related.
 
No, it's my pet-peeve that people think that the *results* are related:
when it is claimed that a handful of neutrons or charged-particles equates to an
explanation for xs heat.  If you have been following this net for a few months,
you will recall that our results from the xs heat experiments showed xs heat
(up to about 700%) but only when *recombination* was assumed not to occur (we
*demonstrated* that recombination can be significant, experimentally).  I will
not reiterate Jonathon Jones' postings here -- you can and should read them to
understand the results of our work on xs heat.
 
And these results are not inconsequential -- note the recent posting by Dieter
that Harwell had *assumed* but not *demonstrated* that the small xs heat they
saw was due to recombination.  Our experiments address and correct that
deficiency.
 
>You claim to
> be unconcerned if people think that looking for excess heat is a
> screw-ball idea (if they "sneer at it"), but you are surprised and
> disappointed if any of the sneering transfers to your other
> measurements of palladium-deuterium cells.  You say you are angry with
> XS Heaters for passing your name around in ways that make you look bad,
> but you continue to talk to them, and you claim not to care that
> looking for excess heat at this late stage makes you look like one of
> them.
>
 
You're putting words in my mouth, incorrectly.  I am concerned anytime people
sneer at honest research, because this shows lack of humility which I think is
crucial as we strive for understanding, which is science.  I do not like it
when Jed, for example, says that I have written "some poisonous lie" (Rothwell
post 1 Oct. 1993) or a "deliberate distort[ion]" (Rothwell post 29 Sept. 1993)
without even stating what that lie or distortion was, and without showing that
the alleged, undefined distortion was deliberate.  But I don't find myself
getting angry, as you say, rather I feel disappointed and a bit frustrated that
Jed puts up a wall without letting my scientific arguments penetrate.  I feel
pity more than anger, I suppose.
 
Ad hominem attacks such as quoted from Jed above seem to serve to circumvent
thinking and changing one's views, which is indeed unpleasant.  But I've seen
several main-stream scientists employ similar defense mechanisms, rejecting
the messenger so that deeply pondering the message can be avoided.  Arrogance
is inimical to scientific learning.
 
Yes, I'm most willing to talk to most people, even when they turn around and
attack.  Finally, I do not agree that "looking for xs heat at this late stage
makes [me] look like one of them" since our results, published and to be
published, *show* that in fact there is *no* compelling connection between heat
and energetic nuclear products which we look for.  That's the way our research
has turned out; it could have been different, but we learned by looking and the
students learned much from the process of looking.
 
> So it seems to me that you've made your own bed, in the sense
> that you have a way to ameliorate your pet peeves that you are
> choosing not to pursue.
 
So you're missing a central point, Greg:  there is no connection between
xs heat and nuclear emissions, and now we have experimental evidence from
both (really quite different) types of experiments to demonstrate this
conclusion.  Experiments as opposed to pre-judging -- this is the path I (we)
are choosing to try to
find out the scientific truth and correct a lot of nonsense at the same time.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Droege's challenge/more
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge/more
Date: 12 Oct 93 15:02:40 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Oct12.054531.8121@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>It is interesting that Droege reports significant gas volume change along
>>with the heat burst, consistent with the Li+H2O hypothesis, just not enough.
>
> To the tune of 600% not enough by my latest re-calculation (ideal gas
> law.)  And Droege replied that there may not have been any net gas volume
> change at all due to a saftey release syringe moving approx 10cc in response
> to some "explosive" impulse.  A zero gas change is very hard on many
> chemical ash theories.
 
On the other hand, there may have been a gas volume change.  Clearly our
exchange has underscored the importance of careful measurements of the gas
volume-- tracking the composition of the gases would also be helpful.
I congratulate Tom Droege for making an effort at gas-volume measurements and
hope he might do more in this direction (sorry for the easy advice to Henny-
Penny, Tom).  Others should follow his lead.
>> [back to Jones:]
>>But remember that other reactions may simultaneously occur that would reduce
>>the gases in the headspace, such as:   2Li + 1/2 O2  -->  Li2 O
> [back to Logajan]
> It requires 285,800 Joules to split a mole of H2O into H2 and O2, and 597,900
> Joules are liberated when O2 and Li combine to make one mole of Li2O along
> with a mole of H2 gas.  The difference is 312,100 Joules/mole.
>
> Thus  2 moles Li + 1 mole H2O ==> 1 mole Li2O and 1 mole H2 (gas.)
>
> We have enough Li in the cell to produce about 1/60th of a mole of Li2O and
> 1/60th of a mole of D2, for about 5200 J.
>
> This is the same D2 volume as the LiOH suggestion and about 20% less energy.
> So you'd need almost 40% of the max D2 evolution to get the 2200J impulse,
> giving a new minimum of 1/150th a mole of D2, or 1/300th a mole of O2
> consumption which is approximately 81cc minimum headspace reduction.  Now
> you're 700% off the mark instead of 600%!  Wrong way, Corrigan.
 
Hold on, John.  I was speaking of Li reacting with oxygen already in the head
space.  This would reduce the gases there, as I said.
>
> And do note that Li2O leaves an (is an) ash.  If there is no Li2O in the post
> analysis of the electrolyte, this pathway is moot.
 
Tom might look for Li2O -- however, this reacts with D2O quickly to form LiOD
again, so the oxidation reaction would probably be missed after the cell was
opened.
>
>>or due to oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte
>
> To postulate 2000J worth of O2 dissolved in 30cc of D2O stretches credulity.
> Unless the PdD loading is far greater than Droege reports, there isn't
> enough O2 in the whole cell to account for the 2000J, let alone that
> dissolved in the electrolyte.  There is just  about 1800J worth of O2/
> D2 in the cell and to burn it all would be highly evident in the gas
> measurement.
 
Again, most of the O2 available for oxidizing the hypothesized Li layer would
come from the headspace.  Note that in my original posting on this I
hypothesized that an aliminate or borate or silicate coating would first form
on the cathode, then lithium would deposit under this since Li+ would penetrate
but not D2O.  Droege has posted that Al and B were both present in his
electrolyte.  (Silicates would come from the glass tube walls.)
 
An aqueous lithium battery -- hmmmm, maybe not a bad idea...
 
>
>>Prof. Lee Hansen and I get about 221 kJ/mole Li for this reaction
>
> Two college professors against a college drop out -- I'm liking the odds :-)
>
> --
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
 
We're all learning, John.
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Physics.ejournal
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Physics.ejournal
Date: 12 Oct 93 15:21:39 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I agree with Robert Eachus, Chuck Sites and Terry Bollinger
(and others, sorry I forget all the contributors to the concept) that an
electronic journal could develop into a useful
new medium of information exchange.  Below, Chuck extends this original idea to
cover physics research more generally than fusion -- I like his idea!
 
To go a step further towards realizing Physics.ejournal, perhaps:
1.  Papers could be posted in s.p.f., physics.research, etc. as now done, with
the reviewing that quickly takes place in the various forums.   A paper
intended for publication in Physics.ejournal would contain a header to that
effect so that peer review could be requested, to occur on the network forum.
 
2.  A paper that survives the scrutiny -- with modifications of course --
could then be submitted to Physics.ejournal along with a short summary of
comments received and how these were addressed in the paper now submitted.
This is a rather minor step in terms of time required to the
process already taking place in the electronic forums.
 
3.  Finally, a small editorial board of moderators would decide on which papers
would merit publication in the select Physics.ejournal.  One moderator should
be abreast of the discussion on each forum.
 
4.  Each of these papers
would also be posted, as Physics.ejournal papers, in relevant electronic
forums from which the papers come.
 
5.  Letters in response to the paper, now from any forum, would go through the
same process before publication in Physics.ejournal.
 
6.  In this way, we get the "cream of the crop" from each active physics forum,
in a select electronic journal.  I would certainly like to subscribe to such
a journal!  Why, someday it might even replace _Nature_ ...
 
Let's see where this idea takes us.
--Steven Jones
 
Below is from earlier posts to show background for these ideas:
 
In article <1993Oct9.005938.3267@coplex.coplex.com>,
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Oct4.231733.985@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>>  > 1.  I would like to see an electronic journal evolve from what
>>  > we're doing here.  I imagine that paper journals are becoming too
>>  > slow and cumbersome in many respects and that a *peer-reviewed*,
>>  > rapid-publication ejournal is coming of necessity.  Why not try it
>>  > here?
>
>>    Wonderful idea!  Two suggestions:
> Robert's ideas are good.  I also like Steve's idea of a usenet journal,
> quite alot.  However, while the fusion physics community is quite
> active I wonder if it would be worth the effort for such a specific
> specific subject.  I think I know what Steve wants.  A high quality
> electronic peer reviewed journal where ideas and new results can
> be published quickly and sited and commented on at electronic speeds.
> I think it needs to be done.  Currently LANL has an internet 'gopher'
> server that allows review of up-comming physics review materials, and
> that's the way I would see the group work.  There needs to be a way to
> comunicate equations, tables, graphs, and images (and perhaps short video
> and audio section).
>    I think there is a need for such a journal that expands across the
> boundries of most of the sci - groups.  If we establish the standards
> and methods for electronic peer review, this much needed outlet for
> communications can be had.  So perhaps what we need is larger perspective
> as to what is needed by scientists in communicating thier efforts. In
> otherwords, how how do we communicate, elect reviewers, and archive
> materials for our worlds posterity.   We might as well think big,
> and into the future as to how we would like to take this.
>
> Have Fun,
> Chuck SItes
> chuck@coplex.com
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.12 / Paul Schauble /  Re: D2O2 in 4A6 is DOA
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O2 in 4A6 is DOA
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 22:08:10 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> It has been suggested that D2O2 decomposing can account for Droege's 4A6
> burp of 2000 J of anomalous heat.
>
> Since one mole of D2O2 decomposing to one mole of D2O and 1/2 mole of O2
> produces 197,000 joules, we know that to produce 2000 J requires just
> about 1/100th of a mole of D2O2.  This means we will produce about 1/200th
> of a mole of O2 gas.  By the ideal gas law (24.4 liters/mole @ 25C) we
> find that 1/200th of a mole of O2 gas occupies 122cc (or 122ml) at 25C.
>
> Since Tom Droege noticed a net decline in volume of 10cc rather than an
> increase of 122cc, the D2O2 theory is DOA (dead on arrival.)  Even if
> Droege's saftey syringe blew out 10cc meaning a zero gas change, it doesn't
> even begin to rescue the D2O2 theory.
>
> D2O2 R.I.P.
>
> --
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 5542
8
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
You'll have to pardon my ignorance, for I am but a mere softare engineer and
my chemistry studies are long ago and far way. But I don't understand the
above at all.
 
Producing peroxide from D2O and excess O leaves a bunch of deuterium lying
around. There are obvious storage places in Tom's cell for the peroxide
(the electrolyte) and for the excess D (the Pd electrode). If we reverse
BOTH of these, decomposing the peroxide to D2O and atomic O and then
combining the O with the excess D2, you get a reaction that releases lots
of energy but no net gas.
 
I have no trouble visualizing a sequence where something makes the
electrode release some D and a point where solution contains D2O2. With
a catalyst nearby, you get the reaction, which heats the eletrode, which
makes it release more D, and so on.
 
Seems to me the only way to lay the peroxide theory to rest is by analyzing
the electrolyte. I know Tom talked about this, but I don't recall if it was
done. I suspect the next set of calorimeter runs should allow for withdrawing
samples of electrolyte and analyzing them for Li and peroxide content.
Both of these are simple tests that I'm sure can be done in Tom's basement.
Ph would probably be an adequate standin for Li.
 
    +PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Results of Joint Venture with McElwaine
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Results of Joint Venture with McElwaine
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 08:49:57 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Jason R. Jacovelli (jrj@curie.ualr.edu) wrote:
: I am here today to tell you about the results of a
: joint research venture with McElwaine of Euclaire.
: We have discovered that people are fusion reactors!!
: Our Experiment is follows:
 
Get a patent on 'Power Generation by Spontaneous Human Combustion' out
quick, before the boys from Utah beat you to it. You might be onto a winner
there - spontaneous human combustion is better documented than excess heat.
Just try not to fudge your X-ray data too much.
 
Karel (in a sarcastic mood)
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  blue@dancer.ns /  HECTER is a Dog!
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HECTER is a Dog!
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 15:20:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Day recently posted a rehash of the Mills-Farrell theory of the
shrinky-dink hydrogen atoms.  As I commented earlier this theory clearly
violates charge conservation and common sense in that it proposes
EM standing waves inside the electron "orbitsphere" when clearly either
the energy of these waves must be much too high, or their wavelength
much too long.  HECTER is a theory that should make anyone who has
taken sophomore physics puke!  This is the worst example of pure
crack-pot physics to come down the pike recently.  How about you,
Mr. Day? Do you consider charge conservation and common sense too
rigid a set of rules to apply to this theory?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Proportional, not commensurate
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proportional, not commensurate
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 15:20:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
I have sworn off postings, but I hate to see confusion and chaos introduced
by someone misinterpreting my previous posting. So one little correction
here. I wrote:
 
     "One guy here said here recently that the helium is not proportional
     to heat, a claim which is directly contradicted by every published
     experimental helium result that I know of.
 
Patrick J. Smith wrote:
 
     "From a note in the Feb, 1993 issue of R&D magazine regarding
     Yamaguchi's helium claims: 'One puzzle is that the amount of heat
     generated is on the order of 100,000 times *less* than expected...'
     Emphasis is my own.  Being off by 5 orders of magnitude makes these
     results extremely suspect in my mind..."
 
I said *proportional*, not commensurate. Some findings are commensurate,
others are not. It is generally thought that the non-commensurate results
are caused by helium being lost or confused with something else.
"Proportional" means the more energy the cell generates, the more helium
you get. The original poster (whose name I forget) claimed that the amount
of helium does not increase with increased heat, and that people who have
detected helium have seen random amounts. Other products, like neutrons, do
not increase proportionally with the heat. There is even some evidence that
neutrons are inversely proportional to heat, a relationship that is
analogous to smoke and fire; when a fire blazes up, incomplete combustion
products decrease, and visible smoke tapers off.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Karel Hladky /  Nuclear Spins
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Spins
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 09:10:05 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Has anyone got to hand any data on the nuclear spin of D2 'unloaded' from
dry Pd, namely, is the gas the normal mixture of 2/3 ortho (parallel spin)
D2 and 1/3 para (anti-parallel spin) D2 ?
 
Similarly, has anyone got delta free energy data for the conversions between
ortho-D2, normal D2 and para-D2 ? I have the data for H2 but D2 will
obviously require some digging in the library.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Long term drift
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Long term drift
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 16:06:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) in FD 1520.
 
At last, Karel and I agree on at least a couple of things. Some of you out
there might otherwise get the idea that no two electrochemists will agree on
any one thing. However, I don't go along with everything... {:]
 
>I would be tempted to build in a reference electrode, which can be
>external to your calorimeter but connected via a Luggin capillary to
>the cell. Calomel ought to do it. Then arrange your cell drive so that
 
I would not be so tempted; but if you really want to know the cathode
potential, sans iR drop, OK. But why calomel?? How about a much more robust
Ag/AgCl one? Tom worries (in a later posting) about contaminating his solution
with the stuff leaking out of the reference electrode. Quite right, Tom, but
you can avoid this by using a salt bridge filled with the same solution as
what is in the cell. This is your Luggin capillary, and it leads to a beaker
with a KCl solution in it, which you renew now and again, and this keeps your
Ag/AgCl electrode clean.
 
>you can kill the current 'instanteneously' and sample the anode and
>cathode potentials vs the reference immediately after. Some adjustment
>of the kill-sample delay may be needed so that you measure the voltages
>after a likely glitch due to the cell inductance but before the
>overpotential of the electrodes starts to decay (few 10's ms ought to
>do it).
 
I'd stay a long way below this length of time, more like 50-100 microsec.
What Karel is talking about here is current interruption. You need a fast
electronic switch to interrupt the current, and you sample the cathode
potential at some time, like 50-100 microsec, after the interruption. This
gives time for current unevennesses to smooth out, but is not so long that
the double layer capacity (which is trying to hold the potential) gets drained
by the electrochemical reaction. You know all about compromises, Tom.
The drop in cathode potential upon interruption, i.e. the difference between
measured potential (at the ref. el) between before and after, is your iR drop,
and I guess Karel is trying to help you decide whether you have a thick
insulating layer on the cathode.
 
>A.c. impedance measurements might be tricky on a low budget, but a
>simple measurement of the cell conductivity at say 1 or 10 kHz could be
>informative. I'm sure that you could figure out how to do it - keep the
>voltage perturbation low as not to affect the electrochemistry too much
>(say 10mV p-p ?).
 
Stay away from ac, it's a can of worms. Next thing, Karel would tell you to
buy a correlator. You don't need to know the cell impedance as a function of
frequency, and you already have a rough idea of total cell resistance, simply
by i/E(cell); I believe that electrode potentials are a small part of the
total cell voltage. My grad student is at last doing some preliminary
experiments, and he finds (using Cu wires) that he gets 30 V in 0.1M LiOH at
0.5 A. That has to be mostly cell resistance. Yes, yes, I know, why Cu wires?
The person that has a Pd rod can't find it at the moment. And I did say
preliminary, it's just to test the galvanostat right now.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 12:27:21 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Karel suggests a Luggin capillary to make potential measurements in the cell.
: On a similar topic, about three years ago when I was having problems with the
: cell voltage rising after long electrolysis, I bought a pH probe to put in the
: cell.  It was never used as I was afraid that it would release something that
: would "poison" the cell.  How about this, Karel?  Do these devices put
: anything (ions?) into the solution?  If so, can we be sure that they do not do
: something bad?
 
Glass pH electrodes work by measuring the potential on a glass membrane
(the outside of the electrode) against a reference electrode (usually
Ag/AgCl sitting in a KCl solution (the inside of the pH probe). The
trouble is that the glass is sensitive to contamination and does not
like siting at high pH for months on end (as it would do in your cell).
In a worst case you'd get some glass dissolving or maybe some Cl-
ending up in your electrolyte. Other problem would be calibration - pH
electrodes are notorious for long term drift.
 
A better bet would be to draw a sample of the electrolyte and measure
the pH. These days one can get very nice 'on-chip' semiconductor pH
devices, one commercial version I've seen is the size and thickness of
a credit card and needs only a single drop of the solution to be
tested. But watch out for atmospheric CO2 !
 
: I would be much more comfortable sticking a platinum wire into the cell as a
: reference voltage measurement.  Why won't this work?
 
Pt wire would measure the redox potential of the electrolyte - one of
the things that are likely to change. You could in theory use the Pt as
a hydrogen electrode, in practice I wouldn't. I would stick to a
measurement using an external reference (eg calomel or Ag/AgCl) sitting
in a reservoir and connected to the calorimeter innards via a very thin
bore tube. This could be gell filled to minimise any chance of Cl-
contamination of the cell electrolyte. Alternatively do away with Cl-
altogether - look up Ives and Janz 'Reference Electrodes - Theory and
Practice'.
 
: likely put me in jail.  How about it Chicago?  Anyone out there that can do
: this kind of stuff for me on the next run?
 
Get your Yellow Pages out. You could do it yourself but it might be
better to get an ousider to do it.
 
: Karel says: "A. c. impedance measurements might be tricky on a low budget".
: That I could do.  I think there is nothing in the electrochemists catalog of
: electronic stuff that I could not build from scratch.  The only problem is the
: motivation to do so.
 
If nothing else I would go for the conductivity measurement. Remember
that what you have are essentially two R//C circuits and the
electrolyte resistance, all in series. The C's are the double layer
capacitances (about 30 uF/cm^2 in aqueous systems), the R's are the
charge transfer resistances of the reactions (few 10's ohms.cm^2).
There will be more, but you'd only see that at very low frequencies. So
at say 10 kHz all you'll see will be the electrolyte resistance plus
any film on the electrodes. Since the electrolyte conductivity will
depend largely on the Li+ concentration you should be able to track
this.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Moore /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 03:06:29 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
 
>Dieter Britz says the heat of absorption is one place that stores enough
>energy.  John has already refuted this, but we do have to look at each energy
>store.  There is just about enough stored D2 to do the job if it all
>outgasses.  2000/23 = 87 cc oxygen change.  This is just about what was in the
>cathode as D2.  The data shows 76.9 cc of oxygen were available.  So the
>cathode would have had to 100% outgass, all would have to be burned in the
>catalyst, and the resulting vacuum would have to suck in air through a leak
>before the gas servo could respond.
 
Several years ago I posted some info from an old book on H/D=>Pd systems.
That book had a number of experiments ranging back 100 years or so on the
thermodynamics of D in Pd. I don't have it handy (it should be in old
posts) but I remember that the thermodynamics were quite variable - dependent
not only on how the electrode was made by also the number and types of
cycles of gas into the metal.
 
Could it be that there is some lattice storage of heat (as indicated
qualitatively at least) that is suddenly releasing? Do we have any
hydrogen-in-metal metallurgists lurking here?
 
I admit I haven't done any quantitative math on this since I don't have
the reference any more and I'm not on a university campus where I can
easily get it.
--
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  USA  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com   Amateur call:NJ7E  Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
 - - 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:
cuddy13 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge/more
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge/more
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 15:44:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>or something that releases O2 and half as much D2 --
 
Of course that should have said "twice as much D2."  Duh.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Physics Research at BYU/reply to Greg
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics Research at BYU/reply to Greg
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 16:09:29 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Let me concede one point of debate to Steve Jones:
 
In article <1993Oct12.143905.996@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>But I don't find myself
>getting angry, as you say, rather I feel disappointed and a bit frustrated that
>Jed puts up a wall without letting my scientific arguments penetrate.  I feel
>pity more than anger, I suppose.
 
If you pity people like Jed rather than rueing them because they try to
tar you, it may be eccentric, but it is also honorable.  If you are
willing to talk to him, then you are simply a forgiving and generous
person.  I can't question it in good conscience.
 
Getting back to the physics:
 
>So you're missing a central point, Greg:  there is no connection between
>xs heat and nuclear emissions, and now we have experimental evidence from
>both (really quite different) types of experiments to demonstrate this
>conclusion.
 
I am perfectly clear on the fact that experimentally, excess heat (I
reserve the term XS Heat to mean heat that makes the experimenter feel
like a wealthy and brilliant person whether or not it is in excess) has
nothing do with nuclear radiation or fusion.  However, your recent
experiment does not demonstrate this.  A rock-solid corpus of
experiments in nuclear physics going back 50 years is what convinces
me.  It affirms these two basic principles:  Nuclear reactions result
in nuclear radiation.  Chemistry and geometry cannot alter nuclear
reactions, although they can in rare circumstances induce them.
 
It is important to note that the XS Heaters are trying to diminish
nuclear physics by erratically questioning it.  They are like
creationists who, ignoring all existing evidence, continually say
"Where is the proof for evolution?" or "Evolution is just a theory".
So the XS Heaters dismiss all nuclear physics as just theory.  Time and
again they ask why fusion should result in nuclear radiation instead of
excess heat.  The proper defense against such attacks is not to run out
and do a new experiment in response to each new, wild claim.  Some
claims, perhaps most claims in science, have already been settled by
past experiments, even if previous experimentalists did not have such
specific claims in mind.
 
>And these results are not inconsequential -- note the recent posting by Dieter
>that Harwell had *assumed* but not *demonstrated* that the small xs heat they
>saw was due to recombination.  Our experiments address and correct that
>deficiency.
 
You have presented no case that you demonstrate the irrelevancy of
excess heat to nuclear physics, which in any case needs no further
demonstration.  However, here you have made a case that you are at
least doing new chemistry.  Apparently, the cold fusion fiasco has led
to some chemical effects, such as recombination and other aspects of
eletrolytic calorimetry, which not all chemists understand.  I don't
understand why people spend money on heavy water and palladium to
investigate this issue when light water and a cheap cathode will do, but the
chemists seem to think it's important.  If your excess heat experiments
represent an advance in chemistry, then good for you.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Some Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some Replies
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:22:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan asks for the anode to cathode spacing.  About 2 mm from memory.
The attempt for this cell was to make it quite close to keep the cell voltage
down.  Not much room to grow a thick Li layer.
 
Rich Schroeppel asked for the purity of the Pd bars.  I quoted 99.5% from
memory.  The correct value (I looked at one this morning) is 999.0% fine.  I
think this means 99.9% and the extra zero is meaningless.
 
Thanks again John for the nice glowing ball experiment.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:22:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re:  Droege's challenge                          13 October, 1993
 
We seem to be coming around to an explanation for my event, and it does not
seem to be good news for TBTB.
 
Thanks to a nice experiment by John Logajan, the pieces are fitting into
place.
 
Yesterday I wrote:
 
"But where does the heat come from?  The equivalent specific heat of the inside
of the calorimeter is 2500 joules per C.  This means that we only need a
change in the mean temperature of the inside of the calorimeter of -0.8 C to
produce 2000 joules.  The catalyst area cooled about 20 C.  But it is mostly
made up of glass tubing and catalyst and stuff that has low specific heat.  On
the other hand, the cell heated 42 C and it has 15 to 30 cc of water.  High
specific heat stuff.  So unless we can find something else, this would appear
to understate the released energy.  But suppose while the whole catalyst area
cools, it is only a glowing ball around the cathode lead that gets hot.  This
might not have so much thermal capacity.  My Occam's razor has left the room."
 
My Occam's razor just returned with John Logajan and said "Right On!".  I now
propose that the transfer of water form the cell to the auxiliary catalyst
container was a slow process and continued through the run.  Eventually the
cathode lead became uncovered, and the heat events started.  Looking at the
log, I note the entry:
 
1187770  While PCell is increasing, TCell is decreasing?  I do not
understand??
 
This would be the case if H2 and O2 were being converted to water in the
auxiliary catalyst instead of the catalyst in the cell.  This would lower the
electrolyte level in the cell and slowly uncover the glass tube that contains
the cell thermometer.  The glass tube is connected to the liquid through the
teflon fork that holds the cathode and anode windings.  Since the cell is
roiling and splashing at these high currents, I would expect pretty good heat
transfer between the glass tube holding the thermometer and the liquid.  The
log book entry was a small effect.  Just one more reason to get the whole data
file set up so everyone can look at it.
 
My position now is that these events are almost completely explained.  All we
need is for someone to tell us that 39 C is a magic temperature at which Pd
starts catalyzing H2 and O2.  The "anomalous heat" is likely due to
redistribution of heat in the thermal capacity of the calorimeter insides.
 
All this helps in planning the next series of experiments.  I now want to have
two separate calorimeters.  One for the cell and the second for the catalyst.
I am thinking of using a peristaltic pump to move the condensate from the
catalyst calorimeter back into the cell calorimeter.  You will hear more about
these designs as they develop.
 
This dual calorimeter design is also necessary to sort out the Mills
experiment which has returned to s.p.f today with the post by Jim Day.  Day
says: "Mills and Farrell cite the work of various experimenters at Franklin &
Marshall College, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Fermi National
Laboratory as confirming their results."  I believe that the Fermi
experimenter cited is me.  My "positive" results were tentative, and have long
since been withdrawn.  With a dual calorimeter, I will be able to do the Mills
experiment in style.  My bet is that I will be able to clearly show that the
Mills experiment is in error.  This is based on the last experiment which
demonstrated that there was likely recombination.
 
I hope to be ready to do good experiments about June of next year.  The
present plan is to do Mills first, as I think it will be easier to uncover the
problems.  Then I will go after P&F.  John Logajan has pointed to the likely
vulnerable spot in the P&F boiling cell.
 
With this attitude, the TBTBs should expect the government to throw big bucks
my way so that I can dispose of this thorn in the side of the fusion program.
Alas!  Governments are incompetent even at being incompetent, so I expect no
help.
 
Still, I am a seeker after truth.  Just because I think there are problems in
these experiments does not mean I will not truthfully report the results.
There have been continual surprises, that is why I keep at it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / John Logajan /  Non-chemical explanations
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Non-chemical explanations
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 18:32:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
Since the chemical explanations seem to be having a rough time, I thought
I'd check out one electrical explanation.  It isn't very satisfactory,
but I'll cover it just for the sake of it.
 
Tom tells us that he is really running a hybrid constant voltage, constant
current system.  Short term variations are handled in the constant voltage
mode.  This, unfortunately, allows for heating due to shorts, whereas
constant current mode cools during shorts.
 
Since we have 2500J and 6V we can estimate how long the short needs to
last at different currents.
 
Seconds  Watts  Amps  Resistance
-------  -----  ----  ----------
  60      42     7      .86
  30      84    14      .43
  15     168    28      .21
   7     357    60      .1
   1    2500   416      .015
 
By the way, to store 2500J in a 6V capacitor would require 140 FARADS!
 
I don't know the upper current limit of Droege's power supply, but I would
be surprised if it could even provide the 7 amp scenario.  The next question
is how this current surge went undetected by his power-in sensors.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Physics.ejournal
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics.ejournal
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 16:20:28 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
ECONOMICS OF PAPER MEDIA AND E-MEDIA
 
I very much liked Steve Jones email journal (ejournal) concept and told him
so by private email, but never had a chance to post due because I left for a
couple of days vacation that evening.
 
Quite in contrast to one or two of the minority opinions expressed here, I
truly do not think this is just a replication of the ".research" moderated
group idea.  Steve Jones is talking about something that is in a sense quite
inevitable -- the transfer of technical communications processes from overly
slow paper-based media into faster, cheaper, and more effective e-media.
 
The economics of it makes such a transfer more-or-less inevitable, I think.
E.g., there was a huge amount of catterwalling when the U.S. first made the
distance between railroad tracks standard, because it was argued that _whole
towns_ that had made their living out of changing wheels on locomotives
would perish and cease to exist.  The argument was correct; those towns did
indeed vanish.  But the economics of faster, easier, cheaper transportation
made the change inevitable in the U.S. climate, and quite irreversible once
it was accomplished.  The wheel-changing argument was _locally_ valid -- it
did address the needs of those towns -- but it was not _globally_ valid in
the sense of addressing needs that stretched over broader expanses of both
space (the U.S. and Canada) and time (up to and beyond modern times).
 
We are at a similar crossroads in the transportation of information.  And
once again, there are many valid _local_ arguments for why high-quality
technical information can exist only in paper-based media (p-media), such
as the need for extensive graphics, editorial constraints, and who will
end up footing the bill.  But I believe we are facing a fairly hefty info
juggernaut here; media such as Internet are just too cheap, too fast, too
effective (critiques are much faster!), and especially, too _creative_ to
be ignored indefinitely.
 
When and where it will happen is hard to say, but happen it will:  Folks
will begin to get a sinking feeling that if they _only_ read p-media, they
have somehow fallen behind the curve by months or perhaps even years.  The
professor will mention a research topic from a p-journal, only to have a
supposedly novice student explain how this topic has already been beaten
to death in the e-media, and a more promising approach was created from
its ashes three months ago.
 
 
NOT WHETHER, BUT WHEN
 
To me the question is not _whether_ Steve Jone's ejournal idea will work,
but _when_ and _where_ it will work.  He is proposing it at a good time,
when the general success of Internet as a technical communication medium
is starting to be noticed far more than it was a few years ago.  And groups
such as sci.physics.research have shown that carefully limited moderation
of such groups can produce good sharing of a broad range of information.
 
 
POSSIBLE IMPEDIMENTS
 
The major possible impediments I see are:
 
  o The relative difficulty of communicating data graphically via email.
    The problem here is not that you _cannot_ communicate graphics across
    Internet -- you can, and quite cheaply in fact -- but that the current
    tool sets that support Internet email do not for the most part support
    grapics in an easy, intuitive way.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who
    has received a graphical file of some sort that I had no idea how to
    transform into a graphical image, despite claims fromt he sender that
    it was in some fairly universal form.  (E.g., universal for PCs is not
    necessarily universal for Unix.)
 
    There are some pretty impressive multimedia systems, of course, such as
    some of the NeXT work.  But this is not universally available.
 
    This might sound like a secondary issue, but I would judge that the
    farther one gets into the ejournal concept, the more crucial the issue
    of convenient, understandable integration of graphics and text will
    become.  This is the sort of issue that could, for example, make it
    tempting to try the ejournal concept in some media other than Internet.
 
    Much of this problem could be solved by top-class development of some
    _free_ tools that are both highly portable and good at presenting the
    graphical content of a submission in a convenient form.
 
    Graphical issues are also important in a more subtle way.  If you have
    _nothing_ but text, people do not tend to view what they see as really
    being "part" of a single entity.  A few clear graphical images -- e.g.,
    a logo for the ejournal that people can _see_ on their screens -- could
    make a much bigger difference in acceptability and recollection of the
    purpose and content of a proposed ejournal than one might expect.
 
  o Cost.  The ".research" groups work in part because they don't _cost_
    all that much.  At present, I doubt if most bosses even _know_ that
    some of their employees may be moderating Internet groups.
 
    This would probably have to change for an actual ejournal, and the
    cost accounting would have to get more explicit.  At the very least,
    the level of editing would have to get a lot more serious, and most
    technical journals have _several_ full-time editors on their staff.
 
  o Incidentally, discussing cost brings up another curious issue:  Would
    an ejournal accept appropriate advertising?  And if so, who would
    receive and then distribute the funds received?
 
  o Copyright law and policies.  Nearly all journals copyright their work,
    and some sort of copyright policies would probably be needed here.
 
  o Developing the archiving and cross-referencing system.  For an ejournal,
    some really serious though about how and where "back issues" will be
    stored.  There is a lot of work involved here.  However, there is also
    some good experience by some groups that have kept on-line archives,
    and such groups would be a good resource for exploring some of the
    issues.
 
  o Creating the editorial board, and deciding on editorial policies.
    Ejournals would (I would hope!) continue to reflect the vast diversity
    of e-media communications.  They could have multiple levels of review
    of articles, ranging from very tightly reviewed to "letters" that would
    in their most inclusive range archive essentially everything recieved.
    Users of the ejournal would then select the level of inclusiveness they
    wish to view, much as they now select between (for example) sci.physics
    for "all submissions" and sci.physics.fusion for moderated entries.
 
    The difference for an ejournal would be that the range of review levels
    could be much larger.  In combination with topical labels, readers could
    program "their" versions of the ejournal to be remarkably specific to
    their own needs.  [Note in case Marvin Minsky is listening: Yes, I was
    thinking of some comments in your novel on the idea of "custom" systems
    for selecting data.  Any comments you might have on the idea would be
    very much welcome, as well as on whether you know of any existing
    systems that do this sort of thing.]
 
  o Gaining the acceptance of the technical community.  Some really top-
    notch articles would help on this.  I think this media _already_ has
    an ability to critique and attack fluff that is well beyond most of
    the printed journals -- as well as a far vaster ability to create
    such fluff in the first place!
 
  o The danger of "recreating" Internet.  If all an ejournal turns out to
    do is divide up the subject into a bunch of little groups with names
    such as sci.physics.<whatever>, what would it be doing that was really
    _different_ from what Internet already does?
 
    The key here is simply to keep in mind the importance of an email
    system that is both _reviewed_ and _archived_ in a fashion that is
    closer to what currently goes on in p-journals.  Researchers should be
    able to reference an e-article without qualm, just as they might do
    with a major paper-based publication.  Eventually, it should be possible
    to see e-journal articles literally win Nobel prizes, although that
    would of course be years down the line.
 
Well, there are a few of my thoughts.  I like the ejournal idea, but I
think there are some pretty important issues that need to be addressed to
make it succeed in this particular time frame and e-medium.
 
I hope it can be made to work!
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Rich Schroeppel
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Rich Schroeppel
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 23:01:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Rich Schroeppel, (Q3) we are building a new calorimeter.  The old
one is busted.  The cell is still intact, and awaits anyone who wants to make
a measurement on it.
 
The "magic fuons" are presently contained by an anti fuon containment system
purchased from "Ghost Busters, Inc.".  Unfortunately there is a guy here
from the EPA with a court order that says that they pose a threat to Batavia
and ... .
 
Tom
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 00:13:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>My position now is that these events are almost completely explained.
 
Good, then it should be easy to explain it to the rest of us. :-)  You lost
me back there at that hairpin turn.
 
>This would be the case if H2 and O2 were being converted to water in the
>auxiliary catalyst instead of the catalyst in the cell.  This would lower the
>electrolyte level in the cell and slowly uncover the glass tube that contains
>the cell thermometer.
 
I think you are saying that recombination is happening in the external
catalyst, and for some reason it lights off in the cell around the Pd wire,
and for a time you have the old "long pipeline" heat pouring in from the
previous external burning arriving at the puck at the same time as the new
heat -- which gives a short period of double counting while the long pipeline
purges.
 
Your Tcat about two minutes before the event is just about 58C which is 136F,
quite warm for that big bulky area of the catalyst tubes and over 20C higher
than Tcell at that same time.  It *MUST* be burning something, and so how
can you now claim that combustion is going on mostly in the external catalyst
since typically one catalyst grabs it all due to positive feedback and
since the internal one is nearer the head of the food line and can preempt
the external one?
 
Is there a period in a run at comparable total current where you believe
the internal catalyst is doing the job 100%?  What is it's operating temp?
If the internal catalyst is not abnormally cool, how can we believe it is
mostly burning in the external catalyst?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 00:44:18 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>This would be the case if H2 and O2 were being converted to water in the
>auxiliary catalyst instead of the catalyst in the cell.  This would lower the
>electrolyte level in the cell and slowly uncover the glass tube that contains
>the cell thermometer.
 
It takes about 50 hours to transport 15cc of D2O when D2 and O2 is being
created with a 0.9 amp current, transported, and recombined.
 
Percent    Hours to    External
external   transport    Power
burning    15cc D2O    (watts)
--------   ---------   --------
 100%         50        1.38
  75%         67        1.03
  50%        100        0.69
  25%        200        0.34
  10%        500        0.14
 
Since the run was about 460 hours old at the time of the event, we've
trapped the external burn rate at about 10% or greater assuming an average
current of 0.9 amps.  (The average current should be available in the
data for a more accurate number.)
 
Since Droege is explaning major heat switch effects, it is probably at
a rate greater than 10% external burn, which means it didn't start the
external burn from the start, but later in the run.
 
Just as there is pipelined heat, so to there is pipelined "cool" when such
a switch first occurs.  We should get a 2500J burst of anomalous cool
when the switch-over to external burning happens.
 
Let's see that data :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Alan Herbst /  Physics E-Journal and Xmosaic
     
Originally-From: alan@pmafire.inel.gov (Alan Herbst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Physics E-Journal and Xmosaic
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 20:04:33 GMT
Organization: WINCO

 
I am greatly in favor of an electronic media physics journal and think
the idea has great possibilities.  However, there were negative comments
concerning the ability to use of graphics in the journal.  To this I
highly recommend that one try what we call "xmosaic".  This is a
multimedia system provided by the National Center for Supercomputing
Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as part
of the World Wide Web.  It is X window based thus requires an X terminal
and a ethernet connection to internet/uunet.  The system provides
documents with embedded graphics.  While reading the text the pictures
are present just as in a journal or magazine; however if one clicks on
the picture, a full-sized window of the graphic will fill the screen for
viewing in detail.  For more multimedia effects there are also animated
graphics with sound as well.  Many universities and research facilities
are part of the World Wide Web, including CERN, where documents can be
searched and/or retrieved.  There is a "gopher" feature which allows
keyword searches for documents and one can connect to any of the web
computers to view the article/data.  Their net address is
www.ncsa.uiuc.edu or contact your Computer Science department (they are
probably on the system).
 
As an example, last month there was an exhibit from the Library of
Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I click on the topic in the "What's
New" text and immediately I am connected to sunsite.unc.edu to view the
exhibit.  The text included embedded pictures as well as hypertext
reference to others.  These included maps and photos of the scroll
fragments themselves.  The exhibit is an excellent presentation and
an example of the xmosaic capabilities.
 
There are also many documents and exhibits on high energy physics,
astrophysics, and meterological data and satellite pictures.  The list
goes on and on.  Like I say, check it out.  It's fantastic.  :-)
 
 
--
Alan Herbst - WINCO Computer Engineering Group
208-526-3939, 0800 to 1615 MST
Path: ...alan@pmafire.inel.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnHerbst cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / mitchell swartz /  Correct units for neutron emissions
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correct units for neutron emissions
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 20:10:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <29c45v$hsj@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: More Info on cold fusion
Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
 
  > . . . . The reported excess heats are in the range of 2 to 400+% for the
  > steady state excess enthalpies and occasional heat bursts demonstrate
  > even greater amounts of potential useful energy.    The power
  > densities achieved (initially ca. 10W/cm3 palladium) have increased
  > more than two orders of magnitude.
 
=rs  "Could someone who is more in the know please tell me the currently
=rs accepted values for the upper limits to neutron and high energy
=rs radiation fluxes emanating from a 1 kW/cm3 electrode?
 
   A real physicist or mathematician "in the know" would qualify the
    question with:
 
                  1) the amount of palladium,
                  2) the effective area (for the integral) of this
                    putative exiting flux,
              and 3) the conversion to neutrons which in this case
                     is, thankfully, quite small.       ;-)
 
                                                 -  Mitchell
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / mitchell swartz /  Role of metallic lithium
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Role of metallic lithium
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 20:12:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Oct11.171747.995@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
 Steve Jones postulates lithium as the raison d'etre for the excess heats seen.
 
==sj "Now we're getting somewhere, maybe.
==sj John Logajan worked out some numbers on the idea
==sj of Li deposition on the Pd cathode, protected from water by a silicate or
==sj borate (or aluminate) coating (my posting 8 October 1993),and shows (below)
==sj that there is enough Li to later generate a *heat burst* of 6600 J,  where
==sj Droege reports about 2200 J.  This is worth pursuing since it may provide
==sj a *quantitative* explanation of some "heat bursts",
==sj and nearly all xs heat reports
==sj involve such short bursts of heat."
 
  Interesting gendanken experiment.  Time to finish the analysis.
 
  The lithium premise is that lithium cation solvated in the heavy water
at the cathode  deposits in significant amounts upon the cathode, and in a form
ready to explode, but luckily protected from reacting with the heavy water by a
putative second, hermetically sealed, layer.
  Waiting, only to later burst out as the measured excess heat. (a la Aliens)
 
  Problem 1:  The minus sign seems to be wrong.
 
   The oxidation potential of lithium is significant.
 
          Li ---->  Li+   +  e-      Eo = 3.045 volt
         when the activities are unity.
 
     [compare to Fe --> Fe++   +  2e-   Eo = 0.4.09   or EVEN
              Na --> Na+    +  e-       = 2.71 volts ]
 
    Therefore,  delta-G  (the change in free energy of the reverse, and
                          proposed reaction)
 
                delta-G  =  - n * F * delta-E
 
                         is clearly VERY unfavorable.
 
    Why would this reaction occur since is energetically so unfavorable?
    What is going to drive it?
    Why would does this putative reaction not occur in H2O?
 
  Problem 2:   Charge neutrality is required, and conservation of electrons.
 
     The reaction
                       Li+ + e-   ----->  Li
 
  uses up an electron.  Why are the electrical transference numbers so
    good (compared with the generated gases) if this occurs?
 
  Corrollary:  1/30 mole is 6.023 x 10^23/30   => 2 x 10^22
   or quite a few coulombs of current * time.
   Let's see ...  about 3200 coulombs.
  . Ahhh... nobody noticed this was missing?
 
 
  Problem 3:  The cathode is the SITE OF REDUCTION
 
     The putative counter-reaction (ie Li -> Li+ ) which creates
   (by this scenario) the bursts  also makes an electron free.
   Wasn't this the cathode ----  i.e. the site
          of electrical reduction?  How is it now the anode?
          and why now?
 
   ----     This is like the perpetual motion machines which have
   a metal ball ascend a ramp to a magnet, only to fall through the hole in
   the ramp just before the magnet.  Ahhh... only it don't so fall. -------
 
         Why does this putative lithium deposition and hiding
   turn around?  And when it does, why are the
   transferrance numbers still so conventional?
 
  Problem 4:  The lithium-NOW Hypothesis seems very unconventional.
  The skeptics are invoking a mysterious layer that enables
    incredibly exothermic reactions from occuring, and which violates
    electrochemistry by making the cathode the "site of oxidation".
 
    New reactions in condensed phases are more likely than all
    these new violations of all known electrochemistry, calorimetry,
    and statistical mechanics.
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / mitchell swartz /  How things ought not be done
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Originally-From: pat@ee.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How things ought not be done
Subject: whales
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 20:13:31 GMT
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 10:43:30 EDT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
Dear readers:
 
   The technical nature of this channel is improving.
   But a very ephemeral break might be needed - with a chance for reflection.
   The following story breached my transom, and it appeared appropriate
    for this august forum.
 
   Disclaimer: 1 - I do not vouch for the accuracy of this
               2-  Kids, do not try this at home.
               3-  Its lucky that cetacea dont have organs which
                    accumulate fusible materials
                          (or do they? hmmmm.....)
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
  HAVE FUN ============================================
   varies postings deleted
   various messages delted
------- Forwarded Message
"...forwards elided...
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 93 10:43:30 EDT
Originally-From: pat@ee.pitt.edu
Subject: whales
To: hall@ee.pitt.edu, mk1@ee.pitt.edu, ferrara@CHEVAX.CHEME.WASHINGTON.EDU,
 eric@csi6.med.ge.com, pjk@faceng.anu.edu.au, lovell@s1.elec.uq.oz.au
 
The following true story was sent to me by a friend from the UW.
It is too funny to not share with others.  Hence, I'm passing it along
to you.  Enjoy.
 
- -pat
- ----- Begin Included Message -----
The Farside comes to life in Oregon.
 
I am absolutely not making this incident up; in fact I have it all on
videotape.  The tape is from a local TV news show in Oregon, which sent a
reporter out to cover the removal of a 45-foot, eight-ton dead whale that
washed up on the beach.  The responsibility for getting rid of the carcass
was placed on the Oregon State Highway Division, apparently on the theory
that highways and whales are very similar in the sense of being large
objects.
 
So anyway, the highway engineers hit upon the plan--remember, I am not
making this up--of blowing up the whale with dynamite.  The thinking is
that the whale would be blown into small pieces, which would be eaten by
seagulls, and that would be that.  A textbook whale removal.
 
So they moved the spectators back up the beach, put a half-ton of dynamite
next to the whale and set it off.  I am probably not guilty of understatement
when I say that what follows, on the videotape, is the most wonderful event
in the history of the universe.  First you see the whale carcass disappear
in a huge blast of smoke and flame.  Then you hear the happy spectators
shouting "Yayy!" and "Whee!"  Then, suddenly, the crowd's tone changes.
You hear a new sound like "splud."  You hear a woman's voice shouting "Here
come pieces of... MY GOD!"  Something smears the camera lens.
 
Later, the reporter explains: "The humor of the entire situation suddenly
gave way to a run for survival as huge chunks of whale blubber fell
everywhere."  One piece caved in the roof of a car parked more than a
quarter of a mile away.  Remaining on the beach were several rotting whale
sectors the size of condominium units.  There was no sign of the seagulls
who had no doubt permanently relocated to Brazil.  This is a very sobering
videotape.  Here at the institute we watch it often, especially at parties.
But this is no time for gaiety.  This is a time to get hold of the folks at
the Oregon State Highway Division and ask them, when they get done cleaning
up the beaches, to give us an estimate on the US Capitol.
- ----- End Included Message -----
------- End of Forwarded Message"
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Richard Treitel /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table
     
Originally-From: treitel@gracie.intellicorp.com (Richard Treitel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table
Date: 13 Oct 1993 11:46:30 -0700
Organization: IntelliCorp, Mountain View CA.

 
In article <2955rd$29p@eefac18.ee>, djpeacoc@mtu.edu (DANIEL J. PEACOCK) writes:
|> I don't understand why we are kowtowing to the PC crowd.  So what if we
|> need a fission plant to get us to where we want to go.
 
I don't think most of us are kowtowing.  The simple fact is that
plutonium yields much less energy per mass than deuterium and so
won't get us there as fast.
 
                - Richard
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentreitel cudfnRichard cudlnTreitel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Rich Schroeppel
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Schroeppel
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 03:16:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>In reply to Rich Schroeppel, (Q3) we are building a new calorimeter.
 
Suggestions for the new calorimeter:
 
1.) Thermometers everywhere.
 
2.) Redundant thermometers everywhere.
 
3.) Built-in calibration resistors.
    (Whenever you want to check the calibration, you pulse in a little
     measured power into the calibration resistor and see what effect it
     has on the gizmo.  When I was in E-tech school tuning TV I.F. stages,
     we'd call these things "marker pulses."  With them, tuning was child's
     play -- without them you didn't have a clue.  I'd recommend initiating
     them manually when desired rather than automatically since they might
     accidently correlate with something interesting and tend to mask the
     fine structure detail of the data.)
 
4.) Hot wire (driven Pt wire) recombination.
    (The point of this is that it tends to boil off those pesky foamy films.
     And so it takes a licking and keeps on ticking.)
 
5.) Did I mention a lot of thermometers? ;-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Investing in the future
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Investing in the future
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 17:44:19 EDT

         Jim Bowery:
>The least damaging regulatory mechanism the state can use to accomplish
>this is to require liability insurance with limits and underwriting
>qualifications that are high enough to provide reasonable assurance to
>the state that it will not have to use its taxation or other regulatory
>powers.
 
         Isn't this more or less what is currently done for fission
power plants in the US?  You may believe the current requirement ($5.5
billion, if I remember correctly) is too low, however no state decision
of this sort will satisfy everyone.
         What insurance requirement would you impose on fission power
plants?  How did you determine this?  What insurance requirement would
you impose on cold fusion research?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Non-chemical explanations
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non-chemical explanations
Date: 13 Oct 93 17:36:29 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

 
One other possibility, as mentioned before, is stored mechanical energy
in the form of crystal dislocation motion and crystal phase changes (
say from an alpha to beta phase).  Unfortunately I've only had one
graduate level metallurgy class and no experience with Pdx D crystal
systems and I have no idea how to approach an order of magnitude calculation
for the energy levels involved with these.
 
However, I could research a bit and see if I can find something in my
metallurgy book.
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!
 
    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjbatka cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Jurgen Botz /  Re: Physics E-Journal and Xmosaic
     
Originally-From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics E-Journal and Xmosaic
Date: 13 Oct 1993 22:34:59 GMT
Organization: Mount Holyoke College, MA, USA

I was about to make some comments similar to Alan's upon reading the
thread on the proposed e-journal when I stumbled upon Alan's post.
I'd like to add to his comments, but first a disclaimer... I'm not a
fusion researcher or even a physicist, I'm a computer systems engineer
with great interest in electronic communications and new media.  I
occassionally browse this group despite the fact that I barely
understand a word of what is being discussed because I'm fascinated by
what is happening here... I think that it's nothing less than a
transformation of the scientific process.  With that said:
 
In article <1993Oct13.200433.27178@pmafire.inel.gov>,
Alan Herbst <alan@pmafire.inel.gov> wrote:
>I am greatly in favor of an electronic media physics journal and think
>the idea has great possibilities.  However, there were negative comments
>concerning the ability to use of graphics in the journal.  To this I
>highly recommend that one try what we call "xmosaic".  This is a
>multimedia system provided by the National Center for Supercomputing
>Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as part
>of the World Wide Web.  It is X window based thus requires an X terminal
>and a ethernet connection to internet/uunet.
 
Not entirely correct... a Macintosh-based Mosaic client is now in beta
and available via FTP from zaphod.ncsa.uiuc.edu.  If you have a
Macintosh that's IP connected, check it out!  An MS-Windows client is
also under development at NCSA.  All versions of Mosaic are clients
for the World-Wide Web distributed hypertext system developed at CERN,
which is rapidly gaining in popularity and may well become one of the
primary means of providing information over the Internet in the next
year or two.  If you can give it a try, I urge you to do so... you have
to see it to believe it.  For more information see the newsgroup
'comp.infosystems.www'.
 
But this is not the only available solution to the problem of
distributing a high-quality e-journal which might include graphics and
other non-ASCII-text information.  The Internet standard MIME
(Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extensions) might also be an appropriate
choice and would address the concerns Tom Droege raised about the
interchangeability of graphics formats, amongst other things.  MIME
allows mail messages and netnews articles to be composed of multiple pieces in
various standardized formats, including a simple rich-text format that
significantly enhances the aesthetic quality of text and allows the
simple inclusion of graphics.  MIME messages can also contain
"external" bodies which are not included in the transmission of the
message, but rather are optionally (and automatically) retrieved via
(e.g.) FTP when the message is viewed (this is useful for very large
chunks of data, including say video).
 
Although current MIME user agents are still few and somewhat
primitive, the format has been in use for a while and works well for
this purpose.  Many user agents are certain to appear in the near
future.  Nathaniel Borenstein, primary author of the standard and a
free software package called "metamail" which supports it, has just
today announced an electronic magazine which might serve as an example
of what the proposed e-journal could look like.  For more information
see the newsgroup 'comp.mail.mime'.
 
In short, the Internet community has been hard at work solving the
very technical problems that some persons have raised concerns about
here.  The time is thus ripe for peer-reviewed e-journals from this
perspective as well.
 
The greatest, and IMHO only real, obstacle on the way to a peer-reviewed
e-journal is the amount of human labor involved in its regular production.
But looking at the spirit and energy of this group I have to come to
the conclusion that if anyone can do it, it's you folks.  Good luck.
 
--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu | ``Accountability is the price of openness''
South Hadley, MA, USA            | - Daniel Geer
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjbotz cudfnJurgen cudlnBotz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 / Scott Lurndal /  Re: CF requires a testable hypothesis
     
Originally-From: scott@starbase.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF requires a testable hypothesis
Date: 13 Oct 93 18:03:41 GMT
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <291el6$7q3@sunny.veritas.com>, joshua@sunny.veritas.com (Joshua Levy) writes:
|> 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
|> >The myna birds are squawking that we need a "testable hypothesis."
|> >
|> >Okay, here it is: when you load palladium with deuterons above 85%, the metal
|> >produces heat which exceeds the limits of chemistry, and it also produces
|> >neutrons, tritium and helium-4. This heat increases dramatically as loading
|> >increases.
|> >
|> >Howzatt?
|>
|> It's great Jed, now lets see the experimental support:
|>
|> P&F I? No neutrons, no tritium (over enrichment), no helium.
|> P&F II? Neurons not measured, tritium not measured, helium not measured.
           ^^^^^^^
This is the best reason yet that I have heard for P&F lack of
success in proving their claims :-)
 
scott
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 05:52:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>This would be the case if H2 and O2 were being converted to water in the
>auxiliary catalyst instead of the catalyst in the cell.
 
Yet another point.
 
At 1671020, Tcell has already risen 15.32C in 60 seconds.  But look at Gas.
It hasn't changed at all, sticking at 76.3 for two minutes.
 
Here's the problem -- if the external catalyst is the only catalyst active,
then the headspace in the cell must be a reservoir of D2 and O2 gasses.
If burning has switched to inside the cell to account for this 15.32C rise,
then the reservoir should have started to become depleted and the gas volume
should already be showing a significant drop.
 
(The more distant the catalyst, the more D2 and O2 in reserve at any given
instant.  Sudden burning closer to the source will burn off the excess
quickly and then settle down to the equilibrium rate.  So steady state distant
burning will always measure a higher average gas volume than steady state
nearby burning.  When you switch between the two, you will observe volume
changes proximate to the switch over time.)
 
Since there is no volume change accompanying the 15.32C temperature change
during those 60 seconds, it doesn't look like the recombination has moved
from external to internal.  However, since Tcat has dropped a significant
0.72C in the same time, it does look like recombination has moved from the
internal catalyst down toward the electrolyte surface.  This change inside
the cell would have little or no "reservoir" effect because of the proximity
between the two.
 
It still looks to me like we have an anomalous temperature excursion, and
it may have induced the Pd wire to recombine gases rather than the Pd wire
recombination instigating the entire event.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.13 /  CSYSPCN /  Re: Physics.ejournal
     
Originally-From: CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Physics.ejournal
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 19:43
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

While I think the concept of a peer reviewed EJournal is interesting.
I'd acutally be more interested in a list that had a rather simple
set of filters.
 
If a candidate contains any of the following, It is rejected:
 
Ad hominem.
 
Appeal to authority without precise and specific citations.
 
Assuming the conclusion.
 
Lack of anything relevant to the charter of the list.
 
I'd love to add straw man to the above, but I fear that that is too
much of a judgement call.
 
I think this could be done by someone with NO knowledge of physics,
and would eliminate at least 90% of the noise.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenCSYSPCN cudlnCSYSPCN cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Correct units for neutron emissions
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correct units for neutron emissions
Date: 14 Oct 1993 04:21:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CEuqpw.6uI@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>   In Message-ID: <29c45v$hsj@agate.berkeley.edu>
>   Subject: Re: More Info on cold fusion
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>=rs  "Could someone who is more in the know please tell me the currently
>=rs accepted values for the upper limits to neutron and high energy
>=rs radiation fluxes emanating from a 1 kW/cm3 electrode?
>
>   A real physicist or mathematician "in the know" would qualify the
>    question with:
>                  1) the amount of palladium,
>                  2) the effective area (for the integral) of this
>                    putative exiting flux,
>              and 3) the conversion to neutrons which in this case
>                     is, thankfully, quite small.       ;-)
 
No, a real physicist or mathematician would have answered my question.
Presumably such a person would have understood that I meant that the
relevant other parameters (e.g. whether it's a function of electrode
area, volume, or neither) should be specified as well.  Or he or she might
simply have included a table of all known 1kW/cm3 electrode geometries and
the appropriate upper limits.  Note that (in response to point 2 above)
flux is already defined in terms of area, so all I need to know is
photons or neutrons/cm2 at some distance from the electrode.  I can only
guess that Mr. Swartz chose an ad hominem attack on me rather than answering
my question is because he doesn't have any better one than "insufficient
to kill a graduate student".
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / Nick Janow /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table
     
Originally-From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table
Date: 14 Oct 93 04:24:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

treitel@gracie.intellicorp.com (Richard Treitel) writes:
 
>+ I don't understand why we are kowtowing to the PC crowd.  So what if we
>+ need a fission plant to get us to where we want to go.
>
> I don't think most of us are kowtowing.  The simple fact is that plutonium
> yields much less energy per mass than deuterium and so won't get us there
> as fast.
 
If I remember correctly, the suggestion for a fission/fusion reactor was for
propulsion in space.  In that situation, the idea has potential.  If a fusion
rocket can be made in such a way as to be efficient at converting electrical
energy to high-temperature plasma (at a gain), yet not be efficient at
simultaneously producing electrical energy, then it could still be practical.
It's possible that a fission reactor could be more mass efficient than the
additional equipment on a fusion reactor to generate the same amount of
energy.
 
I wouldn't base a nuclear rocket design on theoretical efficiencies; I'd look
at the practical problems that would be faced.
 
If it takes a fission reactor to start a self-sustaining fusion reaction and
you have to haul the fission reactor around for emergencies, restarting at a
distant location, etc, then you might as well keep it running and use its
energy production to increase the thrust/fuel ratio provided by the fusion
reactor.
 
--
 
Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenNick_Janow cudfnNick cudlnJanow cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / mitchell swartz /  More Correction of units for neutron emissions
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Correction of units for neutron emissions
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 05:47:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <29ik4f$d38@agate.berkeley.edu>
   Subject: Re: Correct units for neutron emissions
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
 
   >   A real physicist or mathematician "in the know" would qualify the
   >    question with:
   >                  1) the amount of palladium,
   >                  2) the effective area (for the integral) of this
   >                    putative exiting flux,
   >              and 3) the conversion to neutrons which in this case
   >                     is, thankfully, quite small.       ;-)
 
=rs "No, a real physicist or mathematician would have answered my question.
=rs Presumably such a person would have understood that I meant that the
=rs relevant other parameters (e.g. whether it's a function of electrode
=rs area, volume, or neither) should be specified as well.  Or he or she might
=rs simply have included a table of all known 1kW/cm3 electrode geometries and
=rs the appropriate upper limits."
 
   False.  If the data is in kW/cm3 Pd, then it depends upon the amount of
         palladium (cm3) and not necessarily geometries.  This is called
         dimensional analysis, and would be apparent to any undergraduate.
 
=rs  "Note that (in response to point 2 above)
=rs flux is already defined in terms of area, so all I need to know is
=rs photons or neutrons/cm2 at some distance from the electrode."
 
  False.  that is neutrons/cm2-sec.  Furthermore, the distance does have to
                            be specified, as I noted, and Mr. Schultz does
                            concur.  Again dimensional analysis simply shows
                            the correct units.
 
=rs  "I can only
=rs guess that Mr. Swartz chose an ad hominem attack on me rather than answering
=rs my question is because he doesn't have any better one than "insufficient
=rs to kill a graduate student"."
 
   Mr. Schultz is projecting again.  The response was pure science, and
    did attempt to correct the dimension-incorrect questions.
     Texts on dimensional analysis are available to Mr. Schultz on an
     undergraduate level, and would go far in helping organize his questions
     and degree of understanding.
 
    Also I did not state what he incorrectly purports as a quote.
                                   [Undoubtably more projection... ]
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / Jim Bowery /  Regulation by Insurance Requirement
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Regulation by Insurance Requirement
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 15:32:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Jim Bowery:
>>The least damaging regulatory mechanism the state can use to accomplish
>>this is to require liability insurance with limits and underwriting
>>qualifications that are high enough to provide reasonable assurance to
>>the state that it will not have to use its taxation or other regulatory
>>powers.
>
>         Isn't this more or less what is currently done for fission
>power plants in the US?
 
No.  Remember you previously said:
 
> ... fission
>power plants are much more regulated than other power plants and that
>this regulation is done in an economically irrational way.
 
I agree your statement.  It clearly indicates that the state believes
the liability limits and underwriting qualifications it has set are
not high enough to avoid the use of its taxation or other regulatory
powers.
 
>You may believe the current requirement ($5.5
>billion, if I remember correctly) is too low, however no state decision
>of this sort will satisfy everyone.
 
It doesn't matter what *I* think the liability limit should be -- it
matters what the state, via the political process, thinks the limit should
be.  I'm simply defining a framework of minimal government intervention
within which that process should operate.
 
>         What insurance requirement would you impose on fission power
>plants?  How did you determine this?
 
Probably the easiest way to do it would be to see how much competing
insurance companies would charge for insuring potential victims on
an individual basis against the potential damage to life and property
and using that as a basis.
 
However, I really don't think I'm qualified to answer that question.
 
The process will have to be political.  The important thing to realize
is that the insurance-based regulatory system is less political and a
lot less prone to meddling government incompetence than than the current
one.
 
The insurance-based regulatory system limits the politics to the
determination of one number:
 
Minimum provable liability insurance requirement.
 
>What insurance requirement would
>you impose on cold fusion research?
 
I don't know but I would guess these days it would be pretty low (compared
 to the early days).  This is very similar to the question of what the
insurance requirement should be for any chemical engineering development
work.  There are a variety of hazards in such an environment, including
the hazard that someone who doesn't know what they are doing will get
their hands on a tank of arsine or something.  This all has to be taken
into account by the political process while establishing the liability
requirement and in the insurance company's assessment of how much they
must intervene in the company's business to meet the requirement.
 
This is another case of "put your money where your mouth is" taking the
place of political rhetoric.  You quickly and easily dispense with
the loosers who have a gift for gab and instead let business
optimize their practices within the constraints that society must impose
to protect itself.
 
Let the Lloyds guys bet it out and the losers transfer their country
estates - en masse, to the relatives of their victims.  I think we need
a little wealth redistribution, don't you?  Keeps the inbreeding down.
 
As a group, they certainly can't be any more stupid than a bunch of
government bureaucrats who got there via schmoozing and politics, never
really made much money of their own and aren't putting their own money
on the line when they make their decisions anyway.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Long term drift
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Long term drift
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 12:40:24 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: I would not be so tempted; but if you really want to know the cathode
: potential, sans iR drop, OK. But why calomel?? How about a much more robust
: Ag/AgCl one? Tom worries (in a later posting) about contaminating his solution
 
Why not Ag/AgCl - because Tom would have a go at making one and we'd hear
about nothing else for weeks on end :-)
 
: I'd stay a long way below this length of time, more like 50-100 microsec.
 
Yes, you are right. At the moment I am snowed under with data from corrosion
potential measurements on underground pipeline cathodic protection systems
and am thinking in terms of large scale (miles) electrochemistry, not
jam-jar stuff. Sorry.
 
: What Karel is talking about here is current interruption. You need a fast
: electronic switch to interrupt the current, and you sample the cathode
: potential at some time, like 50-100 microsec, after the interruption. This
 
MOSFET switches work fine. With a reference and a bit of Pt wire we'd have
the potentials of both the electrodes and the redox potential. Much more
scope for fun than temperatures. Can't you see that I am trying to lure Tom
into electrochemistry ?
 
: Stay away from ac, it's a can of worms. Next thing, Karel would tell you to
: buy a correlator. You don't need to know the cell impedance as a function of
 
I disagree here. But I am admittedly biased, having spent the last 20 years
using it. I didn't realise that you were a 'well hard' dc man, Dieter ?
 
: by i/E(cell); I believe that electrode potentials are a small part of the
: total cell voltage. My grad student is at last doing some preliminary
 
I suppose when you are well away from i0 on your log i axis the slope of the
E-i curve gets pretty small. BTW is power still I times V if the V-I curve
is logarithmic ? ;-)
 
: preliminary, it's just to test the galvanostat right now.
 
Wenking, is it ? (sorry again ...)
 
Karel (under pressure from his management to do some real work)
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Answers
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answers
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 18:15:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I try to answer all questions with technical content.  If you don't get an
answer to a reasonable question, then it is possible I did not see it.  Mostly
I wait for the FD to arrive and print them so I can think while answering.
>From time to time I use a news reader to look directly at s.p.s.  This always
confuses me and sometimes I think I see things that don't make it to FD.
(Scott, this is not a complaint, I have no facts to present.)  I also no
longer print every FD, so if you question is flanked by drivel, I may miss it
so ask again if you had a question of science.
 
John Logajan points out that the next experiment should have a lot of
thermometers.  I was going for the thermometer record when I designed the
present experiment, and I think I hold it.  But there are not enough.  When I
sketch out designs these days there are at least 64 thermometer channels.  But
the design is modular, and likely will be expandable in 16's.  The thermisters
I like have a price break at 50.  Gives you and idea of my thinking.
 
John is looking at all the right things.  So John, I will be glad to send you
a complete disk set, and the log book pages and you can go at it.  Hope you
can handle 5.25" 1.2 mb floppies as that is all I have in stock at the moment.
Send an address as while I have yours somewhere, I don't know where.
 
The experiment was designed with the object of detecting a few percent of
excess heat with great confidence.  Unfortunately, 2000 joules is only a
0.02% effect.  This experiment thus only points at how to do it better.  News
from a trusted source hints at great things to come from Hawaii.  We all hope
for that, but I must be tough on my own data.  My view is that I do not have
a large enough signal for the accuracy of my apparatus.  There are not enough
measurements (only 70 or so) to unscramble what is going on.  So it must be
done all over.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 17:29:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>This would be the case if H2 and O2 were being converted to water in the
>auxiliary catalyst instead of the catalyst in the cell.
 
One more in the fusillade against remote recombination.
 
Long term remote recombination is eventually limited by the diffusion rate
of D2 gas.  If this is too slow compared to the generation rate, remote
recombination will lead to a "run-away" volume increase.  And if diffusion
is too slow to keep the fires burning -- it will go out.
 
Here's why:
 
Before the first electron flows, the headspace, tubing, traps, and external
containers are filled with some gas, presumably O2 or N2 or both.  Then
the electric current produces more O2 gas into those spaces.  Eventually
D2 fills the Pd and begins bubbling up to the headspace.
 
Since the syringe is trying to keep pressure to ambient, it continues to
suck gas volume past the external recombiner.  Eventually some D2 will
get sucked there and burn off some of the O2.  If this balances the creation
rate, then the syringe will stop moving.  Since O2 and D2 are disappearing
at the recombiner (turning into much less volume as water) sucking continues
to the recombiner.  However, not only the right amount of D2 and O2 is
dragged their, but excess O2 (and any N2).  This displaces the volume
that could have been used by more D2.
 
So this will work to stop the suction by over-populating the remote
catalyst chamber with non-D2 components.  After that happens, the only
way for D2 to get there is via diffusion or bi-directional convection
currents.  I imagine convection currents through bendy tube are limited.
 
As the rate of suction slows, excess D2 will build up back at the cell.
This will start the syringe sucking again to draw the D2 to the remote
catalyst.  This will drag more non-D2 components, and the cycle will repeat.
 
The syringe will keep moving and the cell headspace will turn more and more
D2 only, with most of the O2 (and N2) gasses dragged to the remote and
syringe chambers.
 
This, by the way, could lead to an overestimation of the D/Pd loading.
 
One conclusion we can draw from all this is that remote recombination is
a terrible idea.  Instead of pumping back remote recomb D2O, better to pump
back remote gas over the internal recom.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Nuclear Spins
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Spins
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 19:33:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Karel Hladky raises the question of deuteron spins in the context of
ortho or para forms of the incoming D2 molecules.  There is an even
more exotic side to this question as it relates to the nuclear spins
of the deuterons in this magic PdD lattice that we keep hearing about.
If you are inclined to want to write down many-body wave functions
and to propose Bose condensates, bands, and stuff like that to explain
cold fusion;  those nuclear spins have to be considered.  Until you
get all those spins into some well ordered state there is no such
thing as a many body wave function to describe the ensemble in a way
that is meaningful for calculation of a nuclear reaction rate.  Angular
momentum conservation is not something that can be dismissed as some
relic of "hot fusion" thinking.  Next time you hear someone claim they
have a theory of cold fusion, ask them outright what they are assuming
about the spin wave functions.  If they don't have a solid answer you
can flush their theory down the tubes.  For those who haven't thought
about this, note that a deuteron has spin 1 hbar and 4He in its ground
state has spin zero.   One more thing to remember is that turning a
spin-up deuteron into a spin-down deuteron is probably not as easy as
you think.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / R Schroeppel /  Ejournal
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ejournal
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 19:33:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
> The "magic fuons" are presently contained by an anti fuon containment system
  purchased from "Ghost Busters, Inc.".  Unfortunately there is a guy here
  from the EPA with a court order that says that they pose a threat to Batavia
  and ... .
 
Be careful Tom; I've got relatives in Chicago.
 
A couple of reflections on the Ejournal idea:
 
(1) Terry's comment about graphics.  Things are both better & worse
    than he says.  I've got a fairly universal viewer, that has
    handled everything I've thrown at it without complaint.
    I think it's based on PD stuff, so it's "free", but it requires
    support people to handle installation, etc.  On the other hand,
    if I want to *scan* an image I have to walk over to another
    building, and use unfamiliar computers.  Doable, but a definite
    impediment.
 
(2) Simply replacing the typesetting, printing, & mailing is only
    part of the Journal time lag.  Reviewing is a big bottleneck.
    I don't review many papers, but each one takes an average of
    eight hours of my time, spread over two months.  The two months
    might be brought down to one, but I need the time to reflect
    on the paper: I can't give a good review overnight.  And then
    the author has to revise, etc.  Getting the whole cycle down
    to three months might be feasible.  Of course you can then
    send it out immediately.  But a time lag of three months isn't
    a sea change in the way we do business.
 
(3) I'm here for the conversation; when I want a journal I walk
    over to the library.  The dissemination of new ideas that
    makes the net so exciting can't wait for sober review.  I'm
    guessing that people will stop reading the journals, because
    all the good stuff shows up in the newsgroups first.  If
    nobody reads the journals, then noone will write or review
    for them.  We will trade quality & careful workmanship for
    timeliness.  I'm only slightly bothered by this, but other
    people feel differently.
 
(4) I don't know how this will play out in terms of reputation
    points.  There's so little faculty hiring going on today
    that the committee actually has the time to review the work
    of the finalists for a position, and presumably net
    publications will count eventually.  On the other hand, it's
    no help at all in selecting finalists from applicants:
    Knowing that A has published three journal papers to Bs one
    is probably more useful than knowing that C has written
    three times as many postings to fusion@zorch than D has.
 
(5) The current situation with copyrights is a scandal.  Most
    of the material in most of the journals is produced at public
    expense; the idea that I should have to pay $5 per article,
    per student, per course, to teach from the printed articles,
    is a fraud on the public and on the scientific community.
    Good riddance, I say.
 
(6) We should take notice that our libraries are short of money.
    A good network can replace a paper journal subscription, and
    provide the material you want in seconds, not hours.
 
(7) There's already too much material on the net to read.  We
    will come to depend on others, as filters & alerters.  This
    might be informal or formal, much like the present situation.
 
(8) People who think that their ideas will make money don't post
    them.  I don't think they send them to journals either, so
    this may be a wash.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Jed's confusion over helium
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's confusion over helium
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 20:54:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to a question concerning whether helium is observed in
"proportional" or "commensurate" amounts Jed had the following to say:
 
-jr- "It is generally thought that the non-commensurate results are
-jr-  caused by helium being lost or confused with something else."
 
There are a number of things about this statement that would perhaps be
surprizing outside the context of cold fusion research, but it fits
perfectly with the thinking of those who want to believe even when the
evidence is lacking.  Clearly a particular result is assumed before
any data is taken, i.e. helium is being produced in commensurate quantities.
When the data do not show commensurate helium, there is a simple explaination
for that result already at hand, the helium got lost or confused.
 
Now suppose the claim is that helium is observed in proportional amounts,
but that a commensurate level is not found.  What fraction is observed and
what fraction gets lost?  What determines the found/lost ratio, and how
stable is that ratio?  This quickly becomes a guessing game with experimental
uncertainies piling higher and higher.  This is a clear example of a
situation where we need to step back and consider carefully what evidence
there is to support the basic premise that cold fusion produces helium
in commensurate quantities.  There really isn't lots of rock solid data
out there to support this notion.
 
There are some other reasons to exercise caution in your approach to the
helium question.  If as it appears, helium is absent from the palladium
but present in the evolving gas stream questions relating to the site
of formation must naturally arise.  Then if observations or assumptions
as to how the cold fusion reaction scales with sample size are considered,
and if theories dependent on lattice effects are invoked;  there may be
constraints placed on the sites of formation that are incompatible with
experimental evidence.  Anyone care to venture a guess as to how much
longer proportional or commensurate helium will survive as a viable
candidate for the ash?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Meyer cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer cells
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 21:10:04 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
>> Where  normal water electrolysis requires the passage of  current
>> measured  in amps,   Meyer's  cell  achieves  the  same    effect
>> in  milliamps.
 
Well, this reporter is slightly confused.  But I don't think that has
any bearing on the Meyer's cell itself, since most reporters are
confused most of the time even about trivial things.
 
He probably was told that electrolysis products are more numerous than
the current input would account for.  Of course electrolysis can run at
milliamp levels -- all the cold-fusion guys do it all the time.
 
It does require a minimum voltage of approx 1.5V, but Meyers is supplying
Kilovolts.
 
>> According  to the witnesses, the most startling aspect   of   the
>> Meyer  cell  was that it remained cold, even after hours  of  gas
>> production.
 
How cold?  Is this a heat pump?  Is this a entrophy reversing heat pump?
Depends on the measurements.  Will have to wait and see.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Meyer cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer cells
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 21:58:00 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
> the plates generated gas at very low current levels -- no greater than a
> tenth of an amp on the ammeter, and claimed to be milliamps by Meyer....
> The DC voltage appeared to be pulsed at tens of thousands of volts.
 
Since the actual voltage isn't given, let's pick 20,000 as a fer-instance.
 
At 20,000 volts, a current of 0.1 amp produces 2,000 watts!!!!  This isn't
exactly low power input!  But it says Meyer's claims "milliamps", to which
I assume he meant 1-10 milliamps.  Let's be generous and pick 1ma.  At
20,000 volts @ 0.001 amp, we still have 20 watts.
 
Let's compare this to Droege's recently published data.  He puts in 6V and
gets 0.9 amps for a 5.4 watt input.  Of this input power, 75% is lost
immediately to heat, and 25% goes into splitting the water into gasses.
By putting his electrodes closer, Droege could probably get a more favorable
ratio -- less wasted heat.
 
The fact that Meyer's cell doesn't get hot with 10 - 10,000 watt input (???)
suggests that almost all the energy goes into splitting the gases.
 
Anyhow, re-reading the article doesn't seem to really indicate that it is
anything more than a very efficient way to split water.  This could be
useful in an electric/hydrogen transport grid.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / L Norrgard /  Meyer cells
     
Originally-From: vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Meyer cells
Date: 14 Oct 93 20:53:45
Organization: cripples the mind.  Not recommended.

Since Dieter Britz mentioned an article on the Meyer cell in the
latest bibliography update, I thought this partial repost of an
article on the Meyer cell in Electronics + Wireless World, January
1991 might be interesting.  I haven't been able to track down the
original article myself, but Howard Smith kindly e-mailed this partial
article to me.  It seems sci.energy.hydrogen might be the right place
for discussing this.
  Some patent numbers included at the end.
 
Enjoy,
 
-- Leonard
 
Begin forwarded article:
 
> Subject: Meyer Patent          1/3
> From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 19:19:00 +0200
> Organization: Space BBS - 15 nodes - v.32bis - (415-323-4193)
>
>
>
>  Reprinted  in  part from an article in  "ELECTRONICS  +
> WIRELESS WORLD" January 1991:
>
> Eye-witness  accounts suggest that US inventor Stanley Meyer  has
> developed  an electric cell which will split ordinary  tap  water
> into  hydrogen  and oxygen  with far less energy than  that   re-
> quired  by  a normal electrolytic cell.
>
> In  a demonstration made before Professor Michael Laughton,  Dean
> of  Engineering at Queen  Mary  College,  London,   Admiral   Sir
> Anthony Griffin, a former controller of  the  British  Navy,  and
> Dr.   Keith  Hindley, a UK  research   chemist.   Meyer's   cell,
> developed   at  the inventor's home in    Grove    City,    Ohio,
> produced    far   more hydrogen/oxygen mixture than  could   have
> been  expected  by  simple electrolysis.
>
> Where  normal water electrolysis requires the passage of  current
> measured  in amps,   Meyer's  cell  achieves  the  same    effect
> in  milliamps.   Furthermore  ordinary  tap  water  requires  the
> addition  of  an  electrolyte such as  sulfuric   acid   to   aid
> current conduction; Meyer's cell functions at greatest efficiency
> with pure water.
>
> According  to the witnesses, the most startling aspect   of   the
> Meyer  cell  was that it remained cold, even after hours  of  gas
> production.
>
> Meyer's  experiments,  which he seems to be able  to  perform  to
> order,  have earned him  a  series  of US patents  granted  under
> Section  101. The granting of  a patent under  this  section   is
> dependent   on  a successful demonstration of the invention to  a
> Patent Review Board.
>
> Meyer's cell seems to have many of the attributes of an  electro-
> lytic  cell except that  it functions at high voltage, low   cur-
> rent   rather  than the other   way   around.   Construction   is
> unremarkable.   The electrodes - referred  to as  "excitors"   by
> Meyer-   are   made  from parallel plates  of   stainless   steel
> formed   in   either   flat  or concentric topography. Gas   pro-
> duction   seems  to vary as the inverse of the  distance  between
> them;  the patents suggest a spacing of 1.5mm produces  satisfac-
> tory results.
>
> The  real differences occur in the  power  supply  to  the  cell.
> Meyer  uses an external  inductance  which  appears  to  resonate
> with  the capacitance of the   cell   -  pure  water   apparently
> possesses   a  dielectric constant of about 5 -  to   produce   a
> parallel   resonant circuit. This is  excited  by  a  high  power
> pulse generator  which, together with the  cell  capacitance  and
> a  rectifier diode, forms a charge pump circuit.  High  frequency
> pulses  build  a rising staircase DC potential across  the  elec-
> trodes  of  the  cell until a point is reached  where  the  water
> breaks down and a momentary high current flows. A current measur-
> ing circuit in the supply detects this breakdown and removes  the
> pulse  drive for a few cycles allowing the water to  "recover"(if
> that is what it does). Research chemist Keith Hindley offers this
> description  of  the Meyer cell demonstration: "After  a  day  of
> presentations, the Griffin committee witnessed a number of demon-
> strations of the WFC(water fuel cell as named by the inventor).
>
> "One  demonstration  cell   was   fitted   with   two    parallel
> plate "excitors".  Using tap  water to fill the cell, the  plates
> generated gas at very low current levels- no greater than a tenth
> of an amp on the ammeter, and claimed to be milliamps  by   Meyer
> -   and this gas production increased steadily  as   the   plates
> were    moved   closer  together and decreased   as   they   were
> separated.   The   DC  voltage appeared to be pulsed at  tens  of
> thousands of volts.
>
> (Continued to next message)
>
> Subject: Meyer Patent          2/3
> From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 19:19:00 +0200
> Organization: Space BBS - 15 nodes - v.32bis - (415-323-4193)
>
>
> (Continued from previous message)
>
>
> " A second cell carried nine stainless  steel  double  tube  cell
> units  and generated much  more  gas. A sequence  of  photographs
> was   taken showing gas production  at  milliamp   levels.   When
> the  voltage  was  turned up to its peak value,  the   gas   then
> poured  off  at  a very impressive level.
>
> "We  did  notice  that the water at the top of  the  cell  slowly
> became  discolored  with  a  pale  cream  and   dark  brown  pre-
> cipitate,   almost certainly the effects of the chlorine  in  the
> heavily  chlorinated tap water on the stainless steel tubes  used
> as "excitors".
>
> "Within  seconds of splitting the water in this novel way,  Meyer
> lit  a flame at a gas burner fed from the cell and,  within  sec-
> onds, was melting a steel bar amidst a shower of sparks -  demon-
> strating  hydrogen gas production at milliamps and kilovolt  lev-
> els.
>
> "The  most  remarkable observation is that the WFC  and  all  its
> metal pipe work remained quite cold to  the  touch,  even   after
> more  than twenty minutes of operation. The  splitting  mechanism
> clearly  evolves  little heat in sharp contrast  to  electrolysis
> where  the electrolyte warms up quickly."
>
> "The  results appear   to  suggest  efficient  and   controllable
> gas  production that responds rapidly  to  demand  and   yet   is
> safe  in operation. We clearly saw how increasing and  decreasing
> the  voltage is used to  control gas production. We saw  how  gas
> generation ceased and then began again instantly as  the  voltage
> driving circuit was switched off and then on again."
>
> "After  hours of  discussion  between  ourselves,  we   concluded
> that  Steve Meyer did appear to have discovered an  entirely  new
> method  for splitting water which showed few of the  characteris-
> tics  of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that  his   devices
> actually  do work come from his collection of granted US  patents
> on various  parts  of  the WFC system. Since  they  were  granted
> under   Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the   hardware   in-
> volved    in  the  patents  has  been examined experimentally  by
> US  Patent  Office  experts   and  their seconded experts and all
> the claims have been established." p73
>
> "The  basic  WFC  was subjected to three years of  testing.  This
> raises  the granted patents   to  the  level   of    independent,
> critical,  scientific  and  engineering   confirmation  that  the
> devices  actually perform as claimed."
>
> The  practical demonstration of the Meyer cell  appears  substan-
> tially more convincing than  the para-scientific jargon which has
> been  used  to  explain it. The inventor himself  talks  about  a
> distortion and polarization of the water molecule  resulting   in
> the   H:OH bonding tearing itself apart under  the  electrostatic
> potential   gradient,  of a resonance within the  molecule  which
> amplifies the effect.
>
> Apart  from  the copious hydrogen/oxygen gas  evolution  and  the
> minimal  temperature rise within the cell, witnesses also  report
> that water within the cell  disappears  rapidly,  presumably into
> its  component  parts and as an aerosol from the myriad  of  tiny
> bubbles breaking the surface of the cell.
>
> There is plenty more that could be said about Meyer's  invention,
> but  comes  form  the inventor himself  rather  than  independent
> scientific opinion. Cells may be placed in series to increase the
> gas generating capacity. Meyer claims to have run a converted  VW
> on hydrogen/oxygen mixture for the last four years using a  chain
> of six cylindrical  cells.  He also claims that  photon  stimula-
> tion  of  the reactor space by optical fiber  piped  laser  light
> increases gas production.
>
> Regrettably,  nearly all of the obvious questions  remain  unans-
> wered and the experimental technique has more holes in it than  a
> sieve. Among these is this: what is the precise total cell energy
> input  required  to deliver a unit of dry gas  mixture?
>
> (Several stupid questions edited).
>
> The inventor is a protegee' of the Advanced Energy Institute.
>
> Frank Ogden
>
> (Continued to next message)
>
> Subject: Meyer Patent          3/3
> From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 19:19:00 +0200
> Organization: Space BBS - 15 nodes - v.32bis - (415-323-4193)
>
>
> (Continued from previous message)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The following comments were added to this document on the  Usenet
> "sci.energy" news group by persons unknown.
>
> A witness team of independent UK scientific  observers  testified
> that  US  inventor,  Stanley   Meyer,   successfully   decomposed
> ordinary   tap  water  into  constituent   elements   through   a
> combination   of  high, pulsed voltage using an  average  current
> measured  only in milliamps. Reported gas evolution  was   enough
> to  sustain  a hydrogen  /  oxygen flame which  instantly  melted
> steel.
>
> In  contrast with  normal  high  current  electrolysis, the  wit-
> nesses  report the lack of any heating within  the  cell.   Meyer
> declines  to release details which  would  allow  scientists   to
> duplicate  and evaluate his "waterfuel  cell".  However,  he  has
> supplied  enough detail to the  US  Patents Office  to   persuade
> them  that  he  can substantiate his 'power-from-water' claims.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meyer Patents: (up to Sep, 1991)
>
> 4936961  -  Method for the production of a fuel  gas  (get  this)
> 4826581  -  Controlled.. production  of   thermal   energy   from
> gases
> 4798661  -  Gas  generator voltage  control  circuit  (get  this)
> 4613304 - Gas electrical hydrogen generator (get this)
>
> There  are others  of  his,  which  do  not typically  apply   to
> his "generator":
>
>          4613779 - Power isolation device
>          4465455 - Startup and shutdown for a hydrogen burner
>          4421474 - Hydrogen gas burner
>          4389981 - Hydrogen gas injector
>          4275950 - Light Lens
>          4265224 - Solar storage system
>          3970070 - Solar heating system
>
> There  are several ways to obtain these patents, but the  easiest
> one gets them sent directly to your door.
>
> The  Patent office  will  send  you  each patent for $1.50  each,
> post paid!  If you get the above 4 patents, that's $6!
>
> It's  very  simple, you just put your  check  in   an   envelope,
> put a piece of notebook  paper in it with your name and   address
> and  the numbers of the patents you want to:
>
> Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks, Washington, DC  20231
>
End forward.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenvinsci cudfnLeonard cudlnNorrgard cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 / L Norrgard /  cancel <VINSCI.93Oct14204326@nic.funet.fi>
     
Originally-From: vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <VINSCI.93Oct14204326@nic.funet.fi>
Date: 14 Oct 93 20:57:15
Organization: cripples the mind.  Not recommended.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenvinsci cudfnLeonard cudlnNorrgard cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 03:10:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         According to Taube's book, Bad Science, the conductivity of
>LiOD electrolyte varies significantly with temperature and this means
>that a measured temperature change in a cell without a corresponding
>change in cell resistance is probably spurious.
 
As I recall someone else saying, electrolyte resistance tends to decline
with increasing temperature.  (Incidently, then, in constant current mode,
the voltage would drop and so would the power, and thus this is a nice
negative feedback effect which limits itself.)
 
Anyhow, the cell temperature *is* probably spurious since it looks like
the water line dropped below the cell thermometer and was next to a glowing
section of Pd acting as a recombiner.
 
I guess we don't really know the cell temperature during the event.
I believe the voltage went up a wee bit, but the current was ramping up, and
so this might be normal.  Also, perhaps a lot of water was lost, so the
cell resistance might have gone up slight just on that account.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Meyer cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer cells
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 93 03:40:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
>> The electrodes are made of stainless steel, the patents suggest a spacing
>> of 1.5mm ...
 
>> ... pulses  build  a rising staircase DC potential across  the  elec-
>> trodes  of  the  cell until a point is reached  where  the  water
>> breaks down and a momentary high current flows. A current measur-
>> ing circuit in the supply detects this breakdown and removes  the
>> pulse  drive for a few cycles allowing the water to  "recover"
 
I took my first whack at building a Meyer's cell.  Two stainless steel
soup spoons front to back, stuck together with bits of doublesided foam
tape.  I bent the handles apart and stuck the spoons in a plastic pill
bottle filled with distilled water.
 
I just happen to have a 17,000 volt DC power supply handy :-) and I also
wanted to have extra current capability so I constructed a 0.004uF high
voltage capacitor (leyden jar) by filling a 3 liter pop bottle with
salt water and wrapping the sides with aluminum foil.  At 17KV this
puppy stores about 0.6J -- not bad for 2 cents!
 
The leyden jar was hooked in parallel with the power supply and one
spoon handle was hooked to the wire going to the inside of the leyden jar.
The other spoon handle was moved a short distance (about 1 cm) from the
aluminum foil on the outside of the leyden jar.
 
The power supply was plugged in and sparks would repetitively crack
across the gap.  I could also see flashes of blue and redish light
coming out from between the spoons.  Bits of my foam tape started to float
to the surface.  The side of the pill bottle holding the spoons developed
a fracture and water started leaking out.
 
Apparently that 0.6J was causing water hammer effects :-) as you could see
the pill bottle resound with each spark's "crack."
 
Obviously this *ISN'T* the way Meyer's supplies his power for efficient
splitting.  The spark inside mine means that catastrophic breakdown of
the water has occured and all the ion and electron current tends to flow
in a very small area (the spark.)
 
Meyer must therefore shut down his power stepping circuit at a lower
current flow point.  I imagine his capacitance can be quite high, however,
so it is not like I overdid it with mine.  I just have to have better
control of the applied voltage with regard to current flow.  I see why
he steps it up until he sees the current flow he wants, and then backs
off a bit.
 
>> pure water apparently possesses a dielectric constant of about 5
 
The books all say about 78-80 at room temperature.  Hmm.  Must be a
case of reporter confusion.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / Frank Close /  An open secret
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An open secret
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 08:30:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 V.Noninski writes
 
>The impression Frank Close tries to create regarding the openness
>of Harwell laboratory is misleading.---
>Indeed, the group of Michael Melich has some access to  the  data
>in question but I have been told by Michael Melich  himself  that
>his laboratory is under a *secrecy* (my emphasis) agreement with
>Harwell ---
 
Then V.Noninski, who claims that there is a secrecy agreement continues
to make comments on Harwell's data based on
 
> --- "private communications from Michael Melich"---
 
Interesting.
 
Meanwhile Mitchell Swartz writes:-
 
>   For the record, Melich and Hansen have reported that:
>         "In Harwell's D2O Cell -----
>         {after Melich, M.E., Hansen, W.N., "Some Lessons from 3 Years of
>           Electrochemical Calorimetry", in ICCF-3 Frontiers of Cold
>              Fusion", Universal Academy Press, Inc. (1993))
 
and
>   Actually, Melich and Hansen estimate [the uncertainties in
>Harwell's data to be] 100-200mW (page. 400),
>      well beyond the putative error limit.  Is that not correct?
 
That Harwell chose, for their own reasons, not to release their data
to V.Noninski but have clearly done so to Mike Melich may be for any
number of reasons but hardly because of "secrecy" given the above
track record!
 
I find it remarkable that a programme of Melich which is still
ongoing and incomplete, not to mention "secret", supposedly has published
definitive results eleven months ago. Melich visited Harwell this summer
and understands the Harwell data better now than in 1992. If
anyone is seriously interested in a scientific debate I suggest
that you await a final considered report. In the meantime, a critical question
of mine, that Mitchell did not answer is the following:
 
 
>FC ORIGINAL POSTING:
>2.Are these data from the cells made to Fleischmann's prescription
>("FP cells") or from isothermal or steady state cells?
 
Note that *FP cells* have little to do with Harwell's "negative"
result; it is the *isothermal* and the *steady state* cells that established
it for them (as my previous posting and their published paper outlined):-
(Quoting from my previous post:_)
>These [isothermal and steady state cells]
>balanced at +-Order of magnitude(10mW): this is the origin of their
>`upper bound'.
 
Lest we forget, the "negative" results also included clear upper limits
on nuclear products.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 838 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 838 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 16:34:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
I just got bad news on the Konenkov et al paper I've been waiting on for a
long time: the library can't get it. There may be an error in the CA
reference. So I reproduce the abstract as is, not having seen the paper. I was
able to get hold of the two Chinese papers by Zhu et al, and Shen et al (with
Menlove as coauthor) but, not knowing any Chinese, had to make do with a quote
of the English abstracts. The Zhang paper is in English, and seems to say that
branching ratios might be quite skewed at low energies; this is often invoked
to explain the lack of - well, whatever is lacking. I.e. if you find no
neutrons or 3He (which noone has found), then you ought to find plenty of
protons and tritium; and vice versa, according to which way this ratio skews.
OK, there IS that third branch, going to 4He, but Zhang doesn't even consider
it.
 
That's all for this time. My browse in Chem. Abstracts this afternoon yielded
just one new entry, another Russian work, duly ordered. The number of papers
appearing now is indeed but a trickle.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 15-Oct-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 838
 
 
Journal papers: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konenkov NV, Silakov SS, Mogil'chenko GA;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 17(1) (1991) 21 (in Russian).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 114:255029 (1991). [NB: There is the possibility of an
error in this Chem. Abstracts entry].
"Quadrupole mass-spectrometric analysis of hydrogen isotopes during deuterium
implantation in titanium".
** "The unequivocal establishment of the presence of 3He and T, as products of
the nuclear reaction of D during implantation of the ions into Ti, by the mass-
spectrometric method requires a min. resolving power m/delta-m of 510 for the
sepn. of ions (3He + T)+ and HD+ and 590 for sepg. the doublet T2+, D3+. A
quadrupole mass spectrometer with high resoln. was used by the authors to
analyze the compn. of plasma ions of a Ti magnetodischarge pump. The use of
this more ideal mass spectrometer did not, however, confirm the hypothesis
concerning the existence of cold D-D fusion in solids" (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shen G, Li S, Jing W, Sui Q, Li Z, Yang Z;
Yuanzineng Kexue Jishu (Atomic Energy Science and Technology) 25 (1991) 93
(in Chinese).
"The efficiency calculation of a low background neutron detection system".
** "The results of efficiencies calculated by Monte Carlo methods are reported
for a low background neutron detection system to be used for cold fusion
study" (Direct quote of the English abstract).
An ST-451 type detector seems to be used; there is mention of a mixture of
73.3% SiO2, 7.5% Al2O3, 13.0% (6)LiO and 5.9% Ce2O2, and there are tables of
calculated efficiencies and space distributions of efficiencies at several
(MeV) energies, such as 3.5, 2.45 (!), 1.75 and 1.00 MeV.             ?/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang J-S;                                 Commun. Theor. Phys. 16 (1991) 439.
"The estimation of the difference between d(n,n)3He and d(d,p)T cross sections
in the cold fusion".
** A theoretical attack on the assumption that, at low energies, the d-d
fusion reaction must have the same roughly 1:1 branching ratio as at high
energies. A rough approach, taking into account differences in wall
transmission, angular distribution of the reaction channels and deuteron
nuclear structure, show that p-t is favoured, and that the branching ratio
might be as high as 100. "One should study further".                  Feb-91/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhu R, Wang X, Lu F, Luo L, He J, Ding D, Menlove HO;
Yuanzineng Kexue Jishu (Atomic Energy Science and Technology) 25 (1991) 84
(in Chinese).
"Measurement of anomalous neutron from deuterium/solid system".
** "A series of experiments on both D2O electrolysis and thermal cycle of
deuterium absorbed Ti Turnings are designed to examine the anomalous phenomena
in Deuterium/Solid System. A neutron detector containing 16 BF3 tubes with a
detection limit of 0.38 n/s for two hour counting is used for electrolysis
experiments. No neutron counting rate statistically higher than detection
limit is observed from Fleischmann & Pons type experiments. An HLNCC-II
neutron detector equipped with 18 3He tubes and a JRS-11 shift register unit
with a detection limit of 0.20 n/s for a two hour run are employed to study
the neutron signals in D2 gas experiments. Different material pretreatments
are selected to review the changes in frequency and size of the neutron burst
production. Experiment sequence is deliberately designed to distinguish the
neutron burst from fake signals, e.g. electronic noise pickup, the cosmic rays
and other sources of environmental background. Ten batches of dry fusion
samples are tested, among them, seven batches with neutron burst signals
occure roughly at the temperature from -100 degrees centigrade to near room
temperature. In the first four runs of a typical sample batch, seven neutron
bursts are observed with neutron numbers from 15 to 482, which are 3 and 75
times, respectively, higher than the uncertainty of background. However, no
bursts happened for H2 dummy samples running in-between and afterwards and for
sample batch after certain runs" (Direct quote from the English abstract).
                                                                      ?/Nov-91
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's challenge
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 19:28:35 EDT

         According to Taube's book, Bad Science, the conductivity of
LiOD electrolyte varies significantly with temperature and this means
that a measured temperature change in a cell without a corresponding
change in cell resistance is probably spurious.  Do you agree with
this?  Do you see a corresponding change in cell resistance in your
data?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / John Logajan /  Re: E-journal;  Li/H2O battery
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-journal;  Li/H2O battery
Date: 15 Oct 1993 05:50:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

 
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
>(Meanwhile, Tom and John seem to have come up with a simpler explanation,
>still based on chemistry.)
 
Well, Tom has.  I'm the guy arguing against Tom.  I say that just because
Tom brought the baseball doesn't mean he gets to pitch to a wider strike
zone. :-)  His theories have to fit *all* the data, just like anyone
elses.  So far, I don't see it.
 
We both agree that recombination has most likely moved down to the Pd
wire near the cell thermometer -- but the cell thermometer isn't used
by his main calorimeter loop to count calories.
 
He argues a signature like switching from external to internal recombination.
I pointed out some attributes of the signature that disagree with what is
seen in the data.
 
I am unconvinced that the big mystery has been solved.  But I'm willing
to entertain any numbers anyone cares to post.
 
--
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 23:02:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re:  Droege's challenge                          15 October, 1993
 
There are a zillion posts by John Logajan to respond to.  I will try to answer
them all, John, but my long range plan is to reduce your questions by sending
you the whole run.  Those 8 Mb will keep you busy for a while. Then you can
look for yourself.  When I look at the run, most of my attempts at alalysis
fail on one point or another.  In spite of all those measurements, I don't
have enough.
 
John looked at currents.  The upper limit on currents is a pair of 4.2 amp
regulated supplies, but some of the current from the supplies are used by
other things so at any one time you would have to figure the direction of
current to tell which supply was working, then add up the currents.  In any
case, both the voltage and the current measurement are correct and fast.  It
is only the response of the current servo that is slow.
 
John (14 Oct 93 05:52:40 GMT) has a nice discussion as to what might be
happening with the gas.  I just do not understand the event.  I agree that it
looks like a release of energy.  The most likely place to hide some energy is
in the gas - in the cathode or in one of the gas containing spaces in the
calorimeter.  This would require a 100 cc or so change in gas volume.  I don't
think the apparatus would have missed that large a change by any leak I can
imagine.  So I am stuck here in Chicago with the White Sox, vowing to do a
better job next year.
 
John, I think diffusion works better than you think.  The auxiliary catalyst
is separated from the cell by about 6" of 1/16" id tubing.  This seems to work
just fine when there is no catalyst in the cell.  My bet is that the separated
catalyst system will work.  We would likely run the peristaltic pump somewhat
faster than the liquid rate and thus circulate some gas.  I am well aware of
the instabilities that one can get with catalyst systems.  The trick is to
make the gas pass through the catalyst before it can get to the measurement
syringe.
 
John, what I was trying to say, is that it is likely that there were a number
of times during the previous 1.5 megaseconds where some gas was recombined in
the external catalyst.  My hope was that this did not happen very often.  But
just possibly there was enough to expose the cathode lead, and the glow
started.  Still the integral current was not enough for this run to make this
likely unless it was near 100%.  I just don't know.  I did not mean to say
that this possibly explained the heat pulse.
 
John, I tried the heated Pt wire.  This was also used by Scott of Oak Ridge.
It is not a perfect solution either.  I only had the 1/4 mm stuff that I use.
It takes about 2 amps for it to glow bright red.  I thought that about one amp
should do it.  In any case, I started out at one amp and started the
electrolysis.  The gas just kept increasing.  Then I cranked it up to 2 amps,
and the gas kept increasing.  Then I roughly computed how much energy was
stored in the gas system, and quickly turned everything off, vented the cell
and went back to the old catalyst.  Using very fine Pt wire as did Scott, the
wire tends to get hot in one spot and break.  The same thing happens with the
catalyst pieces which get hot and break up.  But at least this does not turn
off the action.
 
There are calibration resistors built into my system.  From time to time I do
the type of run you suggest.  But the whole point of my design is the
continuous calibration provided by the balancing resistor.  One more resistor
being heated is nice as a redundancy check but really does not provide any new
information.  But we do it anyway.  We did one at 432790 of run 4A8 (following
run to the event).  I think I even posted the result here.
 
I think there are only nine thermometers in this experiment.  I agree we want
a lot more.  But I still think I have the record.
 
John, the current was actually ramping down at the time of the event.
 
I find that these experiments get you.  It is always the thing that I was
careless about that would unravel the current mystery.  In this case, it was
not noting the position of the auxiliary syringe often enough.  I think it
moved, and that there was no gas change, but I am not really certain.  This is
one reason for putting most things on the computer.  It is like flying
commercial aircraft.  Thousands of hours of boredom punctuated by periods of
panic.  As I look back, I see that I am getting better and better at this
game, so I guess I should do it one more time.  After four+ years, I can still
not take a position.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  E-journal;  Li/H2O battery
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: E-journal;  Li/H2O battery
Date: 14 Oct 93 17:08:35 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I'm enthusiastic about pursuing the e-journal idea, especially with the
input on graphics possibilities from Alan Herbst and Jurgen Botz.  It
appears that we can do graphics all right (Terry worried about this) and
indeed do things with graphics that cannot be done with old-fashioned paper,
including enlarging and shrinking, even of pictures.  Wow.  Thanks for the
information, gentlemen.
 
Terry Bollinger provided striking reasons for development of an electronic-
medium journal now and raised interesting points which we may explore together.
Thanks, Terry.
 
Thanks also to Tom Droege for his answers to my questions:
it appears that the voltage in his experiment was high enough
to permit reduction of Li+ at the cathode, but there are other problems with
this hypothesis.  (In particular, the approx. "no net gas change" noted by
Tom, 12 Oct., and by John Logajan.)  However, the problems raised by Mitchell
Swartz have already been answered I think:  the voltage is > 3.05 V needed to
reduce Li+;  the power to do so could be hidden over the earlier part of the
run, Tom said;  the Li can exist under a layer of lithium oxide or
silicate (or aluminate or borate)
then react with D2O violently when the protective layer is cracked
so that we do not "violate electrochemistry by making the cathode the 'site of
oxidation'" as Mitch asserts.
 
Bruce Liebert picked up on the aqueous Li-battery idea which I mentioned along
the way.  He notes that the notion is not so far-fetched as it sounds at first
glance:
 
"Sorry to inform you but this work started long ago at Lockheed/Palo Alto.
... Most people were amazed that anyone would be so crazy to even try to use
Li/H2O to produce electricity, but it worked because of the formation of a
very thin (electrically-insulating) lithium oxide film that prevented
catastrophic oxidation if the pH was carefully controlled."
 
Thanks, Bruce, guess the idea is not so off-the-wall, even if it does not
account for the heat burst seen by Tom Droege.  (Meanwhile, Tom and John seem
to have come up with a simpler explanation, still based on chemistry.)
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / p thieberger /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: thieber@bnlux1.bnl.gov (peter thieberger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 12:36:49 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

In article <1993Oct15.031021.24139@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>As I recall someone else saying, electrolyte resistance tends to decline
>with increasing temperature.  (Incidently, then, in constant current mode,
>the voltage would drop and so would the power, and thus this is a nice
>negative feedback effect which limits itself.)
>
>Anyhow, the cell temperature *is* probably spurious since it looks like
>the water line dropped below the cell thermometer and was next to a glowing
>section of Pd acting as a recombiner.
>
>I guess we don't really know the cell temperature during the event.
>I believe the voltage went up a wee bit, but the current was ramping up, and
>so this might be normal.  Also, perhaps a lot of water was lost, so the
>cell resistance might have gone up slight just on that account
 
There is so much discussion in this group about input power variations
due to cell impedance fluctuations, that I wonder if anybody considered
using constant input power circuitry instead of constant current or
constant voltage.
=======================================================================
| Peter Thieberger, BNL| INTERNET: PT@BNL.GOV     | 516 282 4581(work)|
| Physics Dep.Bldg.901A| BITNET:THIEBERGER@BNLCL1 | 516 286 0934(home)|
| Upton NY,  11973     | COMPUSERVE:  72371,312   | 516 282 4583(FAX )|
=======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenthieber cudfnpeter cudlnthieberger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Nuclear Spins
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Spins
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 15:38:58 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <93101414355631@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
> Karel Hladky raises the question of deuteron spins in the context of
> ortho or para forms of the incoming D2 molecules.  There is an even
> more exotic side to this question as it relates to the nuclear spins
> of the deuterons in this magic PdD lattice that we keep hearing about.
> If you are inclined to want to write down many-body wave functions
> and to propose Bose condensates, bands, and stuff like that to explain
> cold fusion;  those nuclear spins have to be considered.  Until you
> get all those spins into some well ordered state there is no such
> thing as a many body wave function to describe the ensemble in a way
> that is meaningful for calculation of a nuclear reaction rate...
 
 
SPIN IN BANDS AND CONDENSATES
 
The typical approaches to this issue in electron banding are to either:
a) treat each energy/momentum state as capable of containing however many
distinct spin states can exist, or  b) treat each spin state as a separate
band that is physically co-located in the same media as the other spin
band.  The (a) approach is more common because it displays the degeneracy
directly, while (b) helps emphasize the remarkable degree of isolation
provided by a change of one quantum number (spin).  Particles in each of
the spin-up/spin-down bands literally interact more with each other (e.g.,
to create Fermi surfaces) than they do across spins with their "partners"
of the same energy level.  This is really quite handy, as it makes the
modeling more a matter of duplication of the band concept for two or more
particle sets.  It's an approximation of course (isn't all of solid state?),
but a pretty good one.
 
You can also get into some really nice, more complex stuff about "spin
density waves" that work pretty much the same way as charge density waves.
The idea of "waves" of spin seems a little boggling to the mind, but it's
a quantum number, and in large assemblies of particles it can fade in and
out in much the same way that charge can.
 
 
ENERGY, NOT DELOCALIZATION
 
As for calculating nuclear reaction rates, the same old dull point still
applies:  delocalizaton via precise momentum states (what I've called
Planck delocalization in this group) should not lead to _any_ increased
reaction rates, as it does not increase the available energy available to
the pairs of particles involved.  This applies both within a single-spin
band and _across_ spin bands.  When it comes to energy, the spin is just
another dimension in a wavefunction space that already has many of them.
 
Each individual particle will still "see" itself as surrounded by nothing
but other quite low-energy particles.  Close approaches are disallowed
except at extremely low probabilities.  (This gets back to that extremely
convoluted wavefunction in full 6N dimensional space tha I've mentioned.
The _overall_ shape of the full wavefunction will show apparent "overlap"
of individual particles, but careful examination will show that all of the
regions indicating actual particle-to-particle spatial overlap have been
"zeroed out".  Sort of like a tightly crumbled aluminum foil ball that has
the same _outward_ shape as a solid steel ball.  You can _approximate_ it
as a solid ball, but you'd better be very careful if you start asking about
events that correspond to its structure at a minute level.
 
 
"CRUMBLED BALL" 6N WAVEFUNCTIONS FOR LOW-ENERGY, MANY-PARTICLE SYSTEMS
 
You can define your "crumbled ball" wavefunction to include whatever set
of particles you wish to examine, discarding others as "non-interacting."
Thus it could be one spin set of a single particle, or both spin sets, or
_all_ atoms in the medium.  Or the whole universe -- since in QM it is
very definitely an approximation to say that a particle is truly "isolated"
from its external environment.  The very fact that highly energetic events
are just "empty space" in most of these ever-larger crumbled balls is
precisely why you can get away with treating them as being isolated.
 
E.g., if you "cut" the ball that represents the combined wavefunction for
both spin-up and spin-down particle sets, you will find that there is next
to _nothing_ that needs to be cut!  These two sections will already be
largely isolated at the minute level of the wavefunction by the need for
high energy to make any pair of spin-up/spin-down particles collide.
 
> ... Angular momentum conservation is not something that can be dismissed
> as some relic of "hot fusion" thinking.  Next time you hear someone claim
> they have a theory of cold fusion, ask them outright what they are assuming
> about the spin wave functions.  If they don't have a solid answer you can
> flush their theory down the tubes.  For those who haven't thought about
> this, note that a deuteron has spin 1 hbar and 4He in its ground state has
> spin zero.   One more thing to remember is that turning a spin-up deuteron
> into a spin-down deuteron is probably not as easy as you think.
 
I have no idea what this is directed at (some new theory from somewhere),
but I assume that your main (and of course quite valid) point is that spin
must be conserved.
 
I have idea why you consider up/down interconversion of deuterons to be
difficult, as the energies involved are pretty low.  I would have assumed
(perhaps incorrectly) that simply thermal mixing will very quickly provide
a good mix of both types at ordinary temperatures.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- I liked your blunt review of The Incredible Shrinking Atom Part II.
 
P.P.S - Bill Page: Here's a piece from sci.physics.research that I thought
        you might find interesting:
 
 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
> From: revu@midway.uchicago.edu (Sendhil "Mr. Bubbles" Revuluri)
> Subject: Physics News Update #147 (10/13)
> Message-ID: <1993Oct13.212430.19294@midway.uchicago.edu>
> Organization: University of Chicago
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 21:24:30 GMT
> Approved: mwj@lanl.gov
.....
> This is a "Physics News Update" distributed by Phillip Schewe of AIP
> Public Information.  For those who want to receive PNUPs via email,
> mail pfs2@aip.org with your address and you will be added to the
> distribution list.  Old PNUPs are available for anonymous FTP from
> nic.hep.net in the physics-news directory...
.....
> PROTON HALOES have been observed around several nuclei.  Analogous to
> the neutron haloes around nuclei such as lithium-11 (Update 115), a
> proton halo consists of weakly attached protons lying outside a more
> densely-grouped core nucleus.  Scientists at the University of Osaka
> and the University of Tokyo found boron-8 to be such a nucleus;
> measurements of the nuclear quadrupole moment suggested that a
> two-proton halo lay at an average radius of 2.9 fm outside a core
> nucleus (consisting of three protons and three neutrons) with a radius
> of 2.2 fm.  Scientists using the ISOLDE facility at CERN have studied
> the properties of proton haloes in neon-17.  In a related development,
> a Russian-Korean-Japanese team at the RIKEN lab in Japan has observed
> evidence for the existence of helium-10 which, with two protons and
> eight neutrons, should have a prominent neutron halo.  (New Scientist,
> 2 October.)
.....
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Ultimate Bang
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultimate Bang
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 17:21:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR DG HUGHES) writes:
>The worlds deepest ocean, the mariana trench is approximately 11 kilometers
>deep....  What little room there is for water compression has mostly taken
>place at this depth.
 
The propogation of sound through water at that depth would be a good indicator
of whether there is any compression room left.  If there is no compression
range left, then for sound to propogate would require the bulk simultaneous
outward movement of a vast quantity of water.  This would essentially prohibit
sound creation below certain (high) energy levels.
 
I don't believe this is the case, so I think water at the bottom of the
Marianas Trench is compressible.  Furthemore, the range of motion due to
compressibility is cumulative with distance through the medium.  For example,
a 1% compressibility would allow 1 meter of "space" by compressing just
100 meters of medium.
 
Finally, water at the interface of a nuclear blast is likely to be transformed
into H and O gases (probably mono-atomic and ionized.)  There is a heck of
a lot of "empty space" between nuclei in water or gases.  And so a natural
cushion exists to take up the abruptness of the explosive shockwave.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: HECTER
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HECTER
Date: 15 Oct 93 11:30:18 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jim Day on Oct. 13 posted a discussion of the Mills-Farrell "HECTER" theory of
"hydrinos" -- shrunken hydrogen atoms.  Dick Blue responded that "HECTER
is a theory that should make anyone who has taken sophomore physics puke!  This
is the worst example of crack-pot physics to come down the pike recently."
[HECTER  is a Dog!, Dick on 13 Oct. 1993]
 
If Dick sounded terse and harsh, Jim should understand that this theory had
received a rather thorough airing earlier in the year, particularly in May
and June 1993, and the HECTER theory of Mills and Farrell (and Kneizys) was
found severely wanting.  Dick mentioned two salient objections that were
detailed back then.  Let me quote Jim Day and comment a bit further:
 
>"For an electron at ground level to jump to a higher level it must receive
energy and the resulting orbit is unstable.  For an electron at ground level to
jump to a lower level it must lose energy and the resulting orbit is stable."
--Jim Day, HECTER post, 13 Oct 1993
 
This represents a simplistic particle picture, Jim, that is not an accurate
description of atomic electron behavior.  Experiments show that electrons in
atoms move like WAVES and thus the *ground state* is in fact a *minimum energy*
state.  That is, for an electron at ground level to jump to a lower level
would actually require an *input* of energy.  This may seem counter-intuitive,
but it follows nevertheless from the wave-like behavior of atomic electrons.
 
You might want to look back at the May-June postings on all this.  Terry
Bollinger, Gary Collins and others presented articulate and detailed arguments
against the HECTER theory.  It was seriously considered here, and rejected.
 
-- Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 / MR HUGHES /  Ultimate Bang
     
Originally-From: g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR DG HUGHES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ultimate Bang
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1993 20:45:46 GMT
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

Ultimate Bang.
 
Recently I was involved in a fascinating discussion concerning
the cataclysmic destructive force of a proposed weapon.
Originally, we merely considered the hypothetical idea of a cheap
but powerful superbomb as naive and idle speculation, however, as
the theme developed, we began to realise that it could be far
more powerful than we ever dreamt of.
 
I would like to put the idea to the net, so that any flaws may be
exposed. It is not my intention that such a bomb be built,but
rather that if it can be done, we might remind ourselves as to
how dangerous we really are to each other.
 
The original idea developed from what appeared to be an innocent
question a friend posed about the cause of the tremendous blast
that seems to capture everyone's attention during the first few
seconds of a nuclear explosion. The initial answer reflected an
air of monotony as if from a first year text book. The reactive
substance, forms a chain reaction where the energy produced at
one moment, determines how much energy will be produced in the
next instant. Because nuclear reactions produce energy, the
energy tends to increase, this forms a positive feedback loop and
bang... 2 million citizens get fried in a pico second.
 
My friend, unfortunately, had a tenacity problem and persisted,
stumping all of us with a question that any five year old kid
could have asked. Why does the bomb go out? I was by now not so
hesitant to speak, having a vague hunch at to where his line of
thought was leading. Someone suggested that the nuclear fuel
would run out. That was us baited. As einstein put it so aptly,
Energy is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared.
Because light travels so damn fast at approximately 300 000 000
meters per second, squaring that number hardly fits on my
calculator. A small piece of matter can release a huge amount of
energy, however, during a nuclear explosion, so much energy is
released that it might be possible for the reactive material lose
substantial mass. However, these didn't seem to impress the rest
of the physic folk. If reactive matter was all that related to
the size of a nuclear blast, then we would have seen much bigger
bomb tags well in excess of 1000 megatons. There was a long pause
as everyone present tried to look more educated than they really
were.
 
A Chain reaction can be represented mathematically as an
exponential function. It is well known that nothing can escape
exponential growth, no polynomial, not even something to the
power of a million. The well known criticism of over prediction
exemplifies this while mocking a forecast of world population. If
the worlds growth didn't change, by the year 2500 there would be
200 Billion people on this planet. A solid Hong Kong and very
little trout fishing. The criticism of the prediction continues
to show that even if man were to leave the planet and continued
his exponential population growth, he would eventually run out of
space, being limited by the speed of light. The area that opens
up as he hurtles away from his mother planet is proportional to
the radius cubed. The exponential function eventually catches
this up too. Exponential functions increase super quick.
 
The question about why the bomb goes out began to hurt. Every
atom in the vicinity of the reaction has to obey the law that its
acceleration is equal to its force divided by its mass. Newton
discovered this relationship long ago and it has been used in
engineering applications from the Viking probe to pornography,
while only Einstein deemed to have a problem with it.
Unfortunately, this is not an exponential function to time and so
theoretically, at no point in time will the rate of increased
blast become less than the area opened up with an increase in
blast radius (differentiated from velocity in turn from
acceleration). Therefore, the energy density (average entropy)
within the reacting material should never go down.
 
The amount of pressure that can be supplied by contact force is
remarkably high,infact it is mind-bogglingly high. At about 1.5
solar masses,( 1 Solar Mass = weight of our sun) Supernovas can
still form (Chandrasekhar limit). It is only at 2.5 solar masses
that the strong nuclear force can no longer support the pressure
from its sides formed from the suns own weight, and the whole
thing collapses into a singularity, better known to star-trek
fans as black holes. With nuclear reactions, if you can supply
the pressure and heat, we will supply more energy.
 
As the discussion proceeded, people started whipping out paper
and pens and the first of the equations were scrawled into place.
It appeared that the determinant for the production of energy
from the nuclear reaction was proportional to the energy density.
In other words, a tremendous amount of energy in one tiny place
containing more nuclear fuel would produce a lot more energy than
a little energy spread over a larger volume. This can be
represented as follows.
 
 
The energy in a nuclear reaction can be represented by
 
                 Kt
Dy/Dx = Y(o) + ce
 
Dy/Dx is the rate at which energy is released at any moment t.
t is time.
c is the reaction constant which is determined by the type of
nuclear fuel used.
e is about 2.7 2828.
Y(o) is any initial energy created by a trigger bomb.
K is energy density and is
 
        E
    K= ---
       Vol
 
E is the total current energy in the reacting system.
Vol is the volume that the reaction occupies.
 
Volume(vol) can be calculated from the area of a sphere.
It is assumed that reaction will expand spherically.
 
            3
      4(pi)r
Vol = ------
        3
 
Finding the radius of the sphere is no joking matter. The radius
is the distance moved by the exploding matter. First year physics
suggests...
 
Distance moved= r = u + (0.5)(Vel)t
 
Where by now the only unknown is vel, or velocity. u is the
initial distance covered, which is zero for our purposes.
 
Velocity can be calculate from another of newtons favourites.
 
V = u + at
 
u again is zero.
Acceleration is now the thorn in the eye, but luckily, we are
saved from an unsolvable equation by Newton yet again. F=MA so
that the only unknowns now are F and M. M is the mass of the
stuff that must be shoved and includes things such as the
air(people and cities?) and the reactive material itself, which
for now I will assume constant and not delve into by subtracting
the Energy into
 
      2
E = Mc
 
This should go on all day except that we know that the contact
pressure is proportional to the energy in the system.
 
F = dE
    ---
    Vol
 
d is a constant.
 
All this theoretically simplifies to something which I must thank
Ian Backman for spending what seemed like hours trying to solve
this bastard.
 
 
            Kt
Dy/Dx = c e
 
Where K turns into
 
                    3
          (       2)
          (Ln c.t  )
          (------  )
   4 (pi) (2m(1-t) )
K= -------------------
            3
 
The saddest news is that to Integrate this ugly Dy/Dx would take
more than math gymnastics, it takes bravery and someone with more
maths than Ian.
 
From our crude approach, it appears that the volume of the pop
that a nuclear bomb is to make is very largely determined by the
volume that the reaction can be contained in. To get a bigger
snap would mean building a container which can maintain a larger
pressure. The only draw back , or should I say saving grace, is
that their is no material that will not vaporise at temperatures
found near the centre of a nuclear bomb. So we thought, if you
can't hold the show together with contact force like that found
in a grenade, then how about using Inertia.
 
From the equation we know that the energy rate is proportional to
the exponential function of the mass cubed. Where 'Equals' is
actually proportionality, but I can't find one on my keyboard.
 
 
                3
               m
Change in m = e
 
This makes a big difference. Infact, it makes such a big
difference that there is nothing that I can write down here which
will convince anybody of its true significance. Its big, its mind
bogglingly big.
 
So the question merely becomes, how do you increase the mass
around the bomb to prevent an expansion in reaction volume?
 
Water is damn heavy stuff, and almost totally incompressible, a
fact that most water sport lovers and bridge suicide maniacs
know. It is almost totally incompressible because the hydrogen
molecule is so small that when combined with oxygen there are few
spaces between the molecules, very little room for compression.
It would require a force of 10000 Newtons just to support a cubic
meter, this being enough force to accelerate an average car from
0 to 100 in less than two seconds.
 
The worlds deepest ocean, the mariana trench is approximately 11
kilometers deep. Each meter down is equivalent to another ton so
that to support a stack only 1 meter by 1 meter long to the
bottom would require some 110 000 000 Newtons. What little room
there is for water compression has mostly taken place at this
depth.
 
 
The weapon ultimately would be composed of a normal U238 trigger
bomb with the bulk of the bomb being in cheap fusion form of
deuterium and triterium. The heavier isotopes should be combined
with oxygen forming heavy water. The trigger bomb would appear
clumsy and crude, being dressed in a huge balloon containing the
heavy water. The whole contraption would sink down to the bottom
of the ocean. The way I figure it,if you're really lucky, the
temperature and pressure will be great enough for the fusion of
normal hydrogen found in water, and with 10 square kilometres of
water exceeding the escape velocity of the earth over a tectonic
weak spot, the surf at Bonzia Beach will be the best in years.
 
Those involved in the discussion would appreciate any comments,
flames or criticisms due to this article. Please E-mail me if
possible.
 
Sleep well.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeng93h7345 cudfnMR cudlnHUGHES cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Ultimate Bang
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultimate Bang
Date: 16 Oct 1993 20:49:41 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

MR DG HUGHES (g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za) wrote:
: blah blah blahthering about water surrounded fusion bombs.
 
: The weapon ultimately would be composed of a normal U238 trigger
: bomb with the bulk of the bomb being in cheap fusion form of
: deuterium and triterium. The heavier isotopes should be combined
: with oxygen forming heavy water. The trigger bomb would appear
: clumsy and crude, being dressed in a huge balloon containing the
: heavy water. The whole contraption would sink down to the bottom
: of the ocean. The way I figure it,if you're really lucky, the
: temperature and pressure will be great enough for the fusion of
: normal hydrogen found in water,
 
P+p reaction?  No way.
 
: and with 10 square kilometres of
: water exceeding the escape velocity of the earth over a tectonic
: weak spot, the surf at Bonzia Beach will be the best in years.
 
: Those involved in the discussion would appreciate any comments,
: flames or criticisms due to this article. Please E-mail me if
: possible.
 
It won't work.  Even the ocean at the bottom of the sea won't
stay together enough.  Not even close.
 
Note that this is (probably) the basic idea behind the "classical Super"
design for a hydrogen bomb:surround a fission bomb with fusion fuel.
I.e. the one that Bethe et al found wouldn't work.
 
Real H-bombs don't explode fusion fuel from the inside.  They compress it
from the outside---with radiation pressure which is much much faster than
what you can get from material pressure (mediated at the speed of sound).
 
In fusion weapons, the fusion fuel is compressed to nearly Fermi degenerate
densities----maybe 1000x normal solid densities.  No way you can get that
from your ocean pressure.
 
Can you have an explosion driven chain thermonuclear reaction like what you
proposed?  Sure.  It's called a supernova.  Goes like this:  stellar core
"falls away" and implodes into a neutron star (really fast, like
O(seconds)!!).  The rest of the star is sitting up there with nothing
holding it up.  Starts to fall down.  "bounces" off the neutron star, which
is about as incompressible as anything will get.  In the "rebound" you get a
hellacious thermonuclear shockwave that fuses through a whole lot of the
remainder of the star.  (like half the energy that the star emitted in its
previous billion years) The pressure from the core's *neutrinos* (when it
turned into a neutron star) is enough to keep the thing going.  (If our sun
went supernova, you would be fried by the neutrinos alone at Jupiter's
radius)
 
First step:  get O(10) solar masses of fusion fuel.
 
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 15 Oct 93 14:31:49 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I agree with most of what Greg Kuperberg posted on 13 Oct. 1993 in "Re:
Physics Reseach at BYU/reply to Greg", so I think we've reached general
understanding.  But there is a point I wish to poke at a bit; Greg says:
 
"A rock-solid corpus of experiments in nuclear physics going back 50 years is
what convinces me.  It affirms these two basic principles:  Nuclear reactions
result in nuclear radiation.  [I agree.]  Chemistry and geometry cannot alter
nuclear reactions, although they can in rare circumstances induce them."
 
With regard to the second point, I submit the following from research on
muon-catalyzed fusion, the only bona-fide cold fusion at present:
 
Fusions per muon (average) versus deuterium-tritium density,
LAMPF data:
 
150-|
    |                                   X
    |
    |
    |                               X
    |
    |              --------------- old theory limit
    |
    |                      X
    |                   X
    |
    |           X
    |
    |     X
    |
    |_____________________________________________
    0    0.2   0.4   0.6   0.8    1.0   1.2
         D-T density (relative to liquid-hydrogen density)
 
(From S. E. Jones, "Muon-catalysed fusion revisited", _Nature_ 321 (1986) 127-
132.)
 
The fusion yield is also influenced *dramatically* by temperature of the
D-T mixture in the range 4K - 800K explored so far (hence, "cold fusion")
and chemical composition (D2-DT-T2 ratios).  Thus, the fusion
yield is influenced, albeit indirectly, by conditions controlled by the
experimenter.  [For more information, see e.g. S.E. Jones et al., Phys.
Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 588.]
 
BTW, the yields noted above are only an order of magnitude below what is
needed for *commercial* power production by means of muon-catalyzed fusion,
by most current estimates.  How could nature be so tantalizing yet so
difficult?
 
The curve above suggests that the yields may rise to hundreds of fusions per
muon, but other data indicate that the yield will saturate below 300 fusions
per muon.  An experiment now planned for Dubna, Russia will push the density
to about 2.4 X liquid-H2 density, so we hope to find out.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Ejournal
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Ejournal
Date: 15 Oct 93 14:03:19 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Regarding our development of an electronic journal, Rich Schroeppel raises
the valid point that "Reviewing is a big bottleneck." (14 Oct., "Ejournal")
He points out that between reviewing and revising, papers would take months
to publish even without paper (typesetting etc. only adds weeks).
 
In response, I would expand on suggestions I made on 12 Oct. 1993 ("Physics.
ejournal", posting):
 
1. Papers would be posted in s.p.f., s.p.research, etc. as now done,
with *reviewing* that quickly takes place in the various established
network forums (i.e., timescale of days).  A paper intended for publication in
Ejournal would contain a header to that effect so that rapid, on-line
peer-review would be requested.  ["This is a serious paper, for submission
to Ejournal.  Immediate comments requested."]  The submitter responds, and
incorporates appropriate changes in his paper.  This approach to reviewing
and revising already exists on the network forums; our Ejournal proposal
capitalizes on this rapid-peer-review system.  And anyone can comment --
helping avoid biased selection of reviewers by which some editors effectively
reject papers.  Might as well fix a few bugs in the peer-review system
while we're at it.
 
A novel journal requires a novel approach to reviewing.  We've got it here --
so why go back to old (slow and sometimes biased) methods of review?
 
2.  A paper that survives the scrutiny in a given forum -- with modifications
of course -- could then be submitted to Ejournal.  I suggest that the Ejournal
moderator/editor would accept any paper from any forum when the
author:  a-  Demonstrates that he has posted his paper and responded to
comments; b-  Provides names of at least three reviewers who recommend
publication in Ejournal.  Supporters would be named along with publication
in Ejournal.  These names could be acquired from postings ["I recommend Paper X
for publication in Ejournal:  name, institutution, email address"] or email,
or letter or phone.  The editor would rarely if ever send out a paper for
further review.  His job would be to check for text and graphics standards, and
to post the papers.  The only exception would be ad hominem attacks, to prevent
libel issues.  Papers would be posted in Ejournal with referencible
identification.
 
3.  I would now suggest that the network of electronic forums feeding into
Ejournal  be expanded quite
broadly:  not just physics, but also chemistry, geology, math, computer science,
etc. -- all science and engineering forums would be invited to contribute
significant papers.  It may be desirable for the editor to disseminate papers
back to all forums which feed into Ejournal.
 
4.  Letters in response to the paper, now from any forum, would go through the
same process before publication in Ejournal.
 
In this way, we *rapidly* harvest the "cream of the crop" from each active
forum, in a select electronic journal.  This is now a serious proposal.
 
Think of Tom Droege's latest research paper in this light -- it has been
scrutinized and appears nearly ready for a summary paper which should be
published in Ejournal.  The whole process of initial submittal on sci.physics.
fusion through review has taken about ten days, as I recall.  We're fast--
much faster than paper journals.
 
Our various responses to the P&F paper went very quickly, too.  But imagine
how long it would take to get these comments back into Physics Letters.  (There
is nothing there yet; the P&F paper appeared 3 May 1993.)  Also, authors
would not be able to simply ignore the electronic comments as many do now
(see recent postings by Rothwell and Noninski to this effect) once we
formalize an Ejournal.
 
I agree with Terry and many others:  the time is ripe for an electronic
journal.  Just a few more details to work out...
 
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Hawaii meeting
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hawaii meeting
Date: 15 Oct 93 15:29:14 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Looks like I'll be attending the Fourth International Conference on Cold
Fusion, held at the Hyatt Regency Maui in Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii December 6
- Dec. 9, 1993.  I expect the usual hype, but some serious work also.
I have reservations about going at all, frankly, but guess I'm just a
curious cat.  Besides, I think there may be something interesting going
on at very low levels in the earth and planets and even in our lab, but
can't for the life of me see any connection to alleged, radiationless
xs heat.
 
Problem:  I have no external funding at present, just BYU funds (and a pretty
decent laboratory equipped and running in the mountains).  To cut down
travel costs, I've gone ahead and rented a condominium unit in Kihei, Maui,
about 25 miles from Lahaina -- I had to act quickly to get it.  Now I'm
offering to accept "boarders" at $90/night to help me make the trip.
The condominium has a full kitchen with microwave oven and dishes
(one can make meals & use refrigerator
to cut down costs), 2 bathrooms, sleeping for five.
"Maui Sunset, 1032 South Kihei Road,"   beachfront resort with
swimming pool, hot tub, putting green, scuba and snorkeling lessons the
brochure says.  TV, clothes washer/dryer.   Plus, we can discuss issues from
the meeting.  I'll be driving to the meeting and back, of course, each day.
The place  will be available from 4 pm Friday 3 December through Friday 10
December at 11 am.  A BYU grad student has asked for one of the slots,
leaving just three more.  Any takers?  Please respond by e-mail to:
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 05:31:14 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Oct15.143149.1003@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Chemistry and geometry cannot alter
>>nuclear reactions, although they can in rare circumstances induce them.
>With regard to [this] point, I submit the following from research on
>muon-catalyzed fusion, the only bona-fide cold fusion at present.
>[Chart showing muon-catalyzed fusion rate as a function of density]
 
I specifically had in mind muon-catalyzed fusion, among other things,
when I made my statement.  It is not a counterexample.  Firstly, muons
are not chemistry, they are nuclear physics.  But even if they are
taken as chemistry (perhaps they almost count), they again do not alter
the fusion reaction, only the reaction rate.  You still see exactly the
same branching ratios and exactly the same energy distribution of the
radiation, with the sole exception that the muon might scatter with the
charged products that result.  The point is that an individual fusion,
like any nuclear reaction, is a violent and lightning-fast explosion at
the atomic scale, so fast that nothing at chemistry-level energies, not
even a muon close by, can affect it.  If the muon is captured by the
helium particle formed, then even that happens well after the fact of
fusion.
 
This is not just theory, or even primarily theory.  I am discussing the
experimental foundation of nuclear physics.  The brief, sad history of
cold fusion, Fleischmann-Pons style, is that the XS Heaters first made
one wild claim of fusion that would cast doubt on some basic atomic
physics, and then, to support the first claim, they made more
absolutely preposterous claims of "new kinds of fusion" that
contradicted the foundation of nuclear physics.  If Fleischmann and
Pons had understood before claiming the first miracle that they would
have append several more miracles, they probably would never have
called that first infamous press conference.  Instead, they tacked on
the extra miracles after the fact as fig leaves on their reputations.
It is beyond me why anyone today confuses their desparate suggestions
of rewriting all of nuclear physics with serious scientific claims.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / mitchell swartz /  Resp. to Frank Close (On Harwell - Part I)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Resp. to Frank Close (On Harwell - Part I)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 22:56:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        In Subject: An open secret
        Message-ID: <9310150810.AA10393@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Frank Close [FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk)] writes
 
=fc  "I find it remarkable that a programme of Melich which is still
=fc ongoing and incomplete, not to mention "secret", supposedly has published
=fc definitive results eleven months ago. Melich visited Harwell this summer
=fc and understands the Harwell data better now than in 1992. If
=fc anyone is seriously interested in a scientific debate I suggest
=fc that you await a final considered report."
 
 What "programme" is Frank referring to?    The paper is published, is it not?
  Is that news to anyone?  {Dieter, (hi!) this is another good reason for
           publishing reviews of the papers from the International Conferences
 
  Frank, are you actually stating that the published paper is not definitive?
     Would you think there is something in the curve (figure 2) that
     the author has retracted?
 
    Is it true that pictures speak for themselves, so to speak?
    In this case they are worth thousands of words, and so submitted for
    the readership (which ought compare the curves with both Tom Droege's and
    F&P's curves  -- posted in GIF somewhere in the not so-far past) is
    the next graph, which are actual output curves (GIF format) from the cited
     paper in question.
              part I - this posting
              part II - next posting GIF figure + key + hints
 
       The upper curves (figure 2 of Melich, and the GIF figure in the
   next posting) ) are the time-temperature and input
       power curves for D2O and H2O (in series).  L is liquid addition, H
       heater pulse, Other key is in the figure.
        The lower curves are blow-ups near t=13918 minutes where two anomalous
      events occur in D2O only; and the blips in both curves between them
      are calibration pulses.  The reader is referred to the article.
 
       Melich and Hansen have reported that:
 
        "In Harwell's D2O Cell 3 there are more than ten time
       intervals where an unexplained power source or energy storage
       mechanism may be operating.
                                    ***
       Harwell Cells 1,2,3 and 4 were wired in series to a constant
       current source.
                                     ***
        Throughout these anomalous increases
       in temperature in Cell 3, Cell 4 behaves "normally", i.e., it
       suffers no unexplained pulses of energy.   Our initial estimate
       of the power associated with these anomalous temperature
       increases is 100-200 mW."
         {after Melich, M.E., Hansen, W.N., "Some Lessons from 3 Years of
           Electrochemical Calorimetry", in ICCF-3 Frontiers of Cold
              Fusion", Universal Academy Press, Inc. (1993))
                           --------------------
 
 
=fc  "In the meantime, a critical question
=fc of mine, that Mitchell did not answer is the following:"
    =fc >FC ORIGINAL POSTING:
    =fc >2.Are these data from the cells made to Fleischmann's prescription
    =fc >("FP cells") or from isothermal or steady state cells?"
 
   Frank  asks what might appear to be,  what is known as, a  "trick" question.
     After all, it is Frank who has the best access to the Harwell data.
     Furthermore, HE can easily get the answer and clarify, if he wanted to,
      not only this, but the other asked (unanswered) questions since he has
     admitted that (at least) he dines at the Harwell Squash Club, and has
     purported to be the historian, if not of the field then, of the field in
     the UK.
 
   In any case, any scientitic challenge ought be considered, so here is a go.
   I hope Frank Close takes up my challenge to finally answer the questions
    below, with similar good will.
 
  My preliminary answer to Frank's question:
 
    i) It is obvious (check out the graph in the next GIF) that the cells which
  Dr. Melich and Hansen described  in the ICCF-3 were   not isothermal (*).
                                                       \/\/
 
    ii)  I doubt any of these successful systems are steady state, but perhaps
 Frank Close has data to the contrary.  (Thanks in advance for seeing it Frank)
 
    iii) As to Dr. Fleischmann's purported "prescription":
       please send me (or us) the written
   prescription, and I (or we) shall determine the deviation of what was
   done to the "prescription" to the degree that such might exist.
 
 
=fc "Note that *FP cells* have little to do with Harwell's "negative"
=fc result; it is the *isothermal* and the *steady state* cells that established
=fc it for them (as my previous posting and their published paper outlined):-
=fc (Quoting from my previous post:_)
=fc >These [isothermal and steady state cells]
=fc >balanced at +-Order of magnitude(10mW): this is the origin of their
=fc >`upper bound'."
 
   OK.  Frank says *FP cells* "had little to do".  but HE asked me about the
      putative *FP presciption just above.  So, which is it, Frank?
      *FP or not?
             [ Quess this may have been a "trick question" after all.   ;-)
 
 ===== Summary of Answers to Frank's Question -- so far: ==============
 
   *FP prescription  ->    unknown         "no" per Close (above)
                                          but paper indicates yes    "FPH"
  isothermal         ->      no           per output (posted in the next post as
                                          a GIF (part II)) in the published
                                          Melich paper (cited above)
  steady state       ->      no          guestimate per output, and no evidence
                                           has been shown BTW supporting this.
 
  If all are "no", it appears that this was a "trick" question.
 
  So, Frank,  #1) what did Harwell actually do? You do eat at Harwell, right?
              #2) now that I took the time to examine, and answer fully your
                question (albeit still waiting for your answer to #1 and #2 to
                enable the final reflection upon it, could you please answer
                some of mine?  To save bandwidth, I shall excise the ?s and
                repeat them briefly below, OK?  see previous posts.
              #3) you might you look at the burst, anomalous behavior,
                  in the next post, and let us know from your parallax view:
                  [If Harwell cant get it hands on GIF, let me know the format
                                                        required -- JPG? IFF?]
                   Is it isothermal?  or F*P prescription
                  (please send a copy of the putative Rx)?
                or steady state?  --- [send info of what you think, or have
                                       proven.]        Thanks in advance.
 
                       {or was this a trick question, after all?}
 
 
=fc "Lest we forget, the "negative" results also included clear upper limits
=fc on nuclear products."
 
  Lest one forget, the "negative" results --usually done from bad experiments--
  show an upper limit (if done well and calibrated) to the nuclear products in
  that negative experiment.  [If you measured groundspead velocities of junked
                              airplanes, you'ld hardly get a good estimate of
                              the cruising speeds, right?]
             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
       ============ Past unanswered questions for Frank Close  ==========
 
 1.  Did these bursts of excess heat only occur in the D2O cells which were in
    series with the H2O controls?   What does that mean to you?
 2.  Do you know how many of these anomalous events they had?
 3.  Do you have any comment upon these cells which showed anomalous heat?
 4.  Specifically the data shown in the Melich paper (ICCF-3, vide infra),
      esp. figs. 1 & 2.   Could you comment on it or them? (questions above
           at number #3).
 5.  Do you have any comment upon why Harwell claimed they did not get excess
     heat, yet have output curves which show such documented disparity between
     the the light and heavy water samples?
 6.  Melich and Hansen estimate these as 100-200mW (page. 400),
     well beyond the putative error limit.  Is that not correct?
 
         Looking forward to your informative comments.  Thanks again.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / Lance Rodberg /  Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: al255@yfn.ysu.edu (Lance Rodberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: 16 Oct 1993 07:58:27 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net

 
 
 
      I noticed in the diagrams for cold fusion that the platinum
 
   electrode was in a coil in most experiments and the palladium
 
   electrode is cylender usually similar in width to the platinum coil.
 
   The platinum coil sort of reminded me of the basic physics things
 
   where they show the electromagnetic lines of force from that sort of
 
   coil. Since there is a current running through the coil there is sure
 
   to be some lines of force being produced and if the coil and the
 
   palladium anode are lined up right the palladium anode should collect
 
   some of the electomagnetic force from the platinum electrode. Sort of
 
   an electromagnetic concentration like in a ferite core coil.
 
      Durring several years of playing with electrochemical sort of
 
   things I also noticed another interesting effect, when the electrodes
 
   start to get all corroded the clumps of corroded gunk would sometimes
 
   form unstable electrical bridges from one electrode to the other one
 
   and in the process the load on the power source would vary quite a
 
   bit. If this happens even on a small scale you would get sort of an
 
   alternating DC current(from neer 0 to your maximum voltage/current or
 
   a range that tends to vary less in other cases) and possibly get sort of
 
   a flyback coil result. When that electromagnetic force burst hits the
 
   palladium electrode it might trigger some sort of reaction.
 
 
 
     As I see it the so called Cold Fusion might be one or more of three
 
     things.
 
 
 
 
 
     The decay of the deuterium atoms releases energy which is absorbed
 
     in part by the electromagnetic field and the resulting absorbed
 
     energy is kicked back into the palladium anode, pulls the deuterium
 
     atoms closer and increses the possibility of other atoms being
 
     split when another deuterium atom decays. In short maybe an easier
 
     way to pull energy out durring fission.
 
 
 
     The next idea is just plain fusion, maybe it gets started by a
 
     decaying atom giving the field more of a kick, from some sort of
 
     burst from an electromagnetic field colapse, or just from the
 
     combined forces causing the atoms to be pulled together to become
 
     fusion. It would be really lame if it was fusion since fusion
 
     reactions release too many x and gamma rays which tend to mangle
 
     and mutilate the crystal sturctures of metals(found that info from
 
     a report on some old cold war experiment to see just what x-rays at
 
     different levels do to metals) and if the x-rays wern't enough to
 
     do dammage, the excessive heat from the fusion reaction would tend
 
     to wear down the palladium electrode faster then the more mellow
 
     fission reaction.
 
 
 
     The last idea is that the deuterium atoms are pulled together, and
 
     from the close proximity the electron clouds start of get too close
 
     and electrons are stripped off, all sorts of chaotic things happen,
 
     and the electromagnetic field picks this up and accelerates the
 
     action. Free electrons generate heat, electromagnetism, and so on.
 
 
 
  Since the possible reasons for all of these would be related
 
  to electromagnetic sorts of things, too much energy being released unless
 
  enough ions were formed to defeat the increase of resistance from heat
 
  would increase the resistance between the two electrodes. I'm not sure
 
  about the dielectic constant of that water though. The result would be
 
  sort of an instant scram of the reactor, or sort of a self regulating
 
  reactor, or with a limited supply of fuel(water) would limit dammage.
 
 
 
  I checked out the recent popular science article on the cold fusion
 
  thing, and the change in current seems to be a key thing to the
 
  results of the experiment. They have noticed the formation of my
 
  electrical corroded gunk bridges
 
 
 
  The diagram they had of the coil and the other electrode was a little
 
  different from what I remembered though, I though in the older
 
  experiments that the electrodes were on opposite sides of the
 
  container. I suppose that might account for the massive failures of
 
  people trying to recreate the experiment since the things could become
 
  detuned very easily. The diagram in popular science shows the
 
  palladium electrode right in the center of the platinum coil. I
 
  suppose that would reduce the goof up factor by quite a bit.
 
  I think it also might reduce the amount of captured energy bursts
 
  being fed back into the palladium electrode since it would waste energy
 
  because of there being no metal to capture the field. If you made a
 
  palladium electrode in the shape of the generated electronmagnetic field
 
  I'm sure there would be a lot less energy lost, and more chance of a
 
  sustained fusion reaction.
 
 
 
  The electromagnetic field fusion theory is one of my pet twisted
 
  ideas, it popped into my head while I was thinking about the metallic
 
  hydrogen found in some of the cores of the gas giants and also
 
  remembered some mention of cosmic rays being captured in the earths
 
  magnetic field. So if escaping energy from fission kept being captured
 
  and rerouted into the metallic core, you might get some energy built
 
  up, and pretty soon, BOOM!!!, the fusion energy would also be captured
 
  by the field and fed back into the core once things got started.
 
  But maybe not the same way since you would then have an inductive core
 
  made up of plasma rather than metallic hydrogen.
 
 
 
  To get more of an idea of the gunk bridge effect do simple electrolysis
 
  using steel electrodes and tap water with some extra chlorine added.
 
  Then clip the voltage meter leads to the electrodes and watch the change
 
  in voltage. This effect is even more dramtic if you change the polarity
 
  on each electrode every now and then. I guess the clumps of gunk are more
 
  free to jump if they are loosened up a little.
 
 
 
  The alternating polarity and promoting gunk(corrosion) clumps is sort of
 
  the current thing, but so far I don't think anyone has tried out capturing
 
  electrmagnetic lines of force or trying to specifically alter them for
 
  better results.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenal255 cudfnLance cudlnRodberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.17 / ROBIN LANDFILL /  Nuclear Energy
     
Originally-From: MAYOFF@sonoma.edu (ROBIN  MAYOFF, MR. LANDFILL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Energy
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 02:50:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am looking for some sources and/or statistics on Nuclear Energy
use in the United States.  My research needs to include:
Conventional Nuclear fission, breeder nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion.
And potential sources along the lines of amounts of energy produced, costs
of production would be really thanked....
 
Robin Mayoff
Sonoma State University, CA
Mayoff@sonoma.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenMAYOFF cudfnROBIN cudlnLANDFILL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / mitchell swartz /  Li/H2O batteries and Concentration Polarization
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Li/H2O batteries and Concentration Polarization
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 22:54:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Oct14.170836.1000@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: E-journal;  Li/H2O battery
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
=sj    "However, the problems raised by Mitchell Swartz have already
=sj been answered I think:  the voltage is > 3.05 V needed to
=sj reduce Li+;  the power to do so could be hidden over the earlier part of the
=sj run,  ...."
 
  Steve, thank you for noting but bypassing the comments.
 
  Problem 1 -   This theory still does not explain the excess heat.
 
  Problem 2 - Steven Jones claims the voltage must be > 3.05 V to reduce Li+,
              even as the lithium purportedly plates out ... 1/30 of a mole
 
   How about (just ignoring for the moment - IR drop, activation polarization,
                                             and contact potentials, etc.)
    for starters, concentration polarisation?      [-- Dieter?  Karl?  ]
 
  That alone changes this - if my calcs are correct - by (assuming the
     activity of the Lithium is 1) more than a few percent.
 
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |  CONCENTRATION   |LOG(CONC) |from Nerst|Oxid'n Pot|    E     |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   1.000000000    |    0     |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.045   |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.100000000    |    -1    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.1042  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.010000000    |    -2    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.1634  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.001000000    |    -3    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.2226  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.000100000    |    -4    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.2818  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.000010000    |    -5    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.341   |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.000001000    |    -6    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.4002  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.000000100    |    -7    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.4594  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.000000010    |    -8    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.5186  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     |   0.000000001    |    -9    |  0.0592  |  3.045   |  3.5778  |
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
    Problem 3 - Aren't these half cell potentials.  To relate them to the
  EMF, transsample potential, etc.  don't you need a second reaction?
 
    Problem 4 - Also, what about the conservation of charge.
    How are the deuterons which are going to leave the solution to enter the
       metal or to exit as diatomic gas?
 
           D+ (not exactly, probably an infrared vibration or microwave
   rotation combined by intermolecular deuteron transfer and charge transfer
  from the electrode)
 
           D+    +     e-   ------->  D (ads)
 
  And there is a lot of  D (ads) since
 
         D (ads) + D (ads)  ------>  D2          and
 
         D (ads) ------> intrapalladial deuteron population  i.e. loading
 
    FACT:  All need to compete with your putative
 
                    Li+   + e- ------>  Li
 
  What do you think the impact on the transference number ought be, Steve....
 
             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / mitchell swartz /  Re to Close (Part II - GIF Image)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re to Close (Part II - GIF Image)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 22:56:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

        In Subject: An open secret
        Message-ID: <9310150810.AA10393@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Frank Close [FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk)] discusses some curves from Harwell (UK)
    which have been published -- but are not generally available.
   In fact, in some cold fusion "compendia" this article is not listed.   :-( X
 
  This is Part II - THE GIF UUENCODED FIGURE 2 (after Melich and Hansen)
 
      In this case this picture is worth thousands of words, and so submitted
   for the readership.
      The next graph is the actual output curves (GIF format) from the cited
   paper in question.  Students in this "school" ought compare the curves with
   both Tom Droege's and F&P's curves  (these were posted in GIF somewhere in
                                         the not so-far past).
 
     --- partial key ----
       The upper curves are the time-temperature and input
       power curves for D2O and H2O (in series).  L is liquid addition, H
       heater pulse, Other key is in the figure.
        The lower curves are blow-ups near t=13918 where two anomalous
        events occur in D2O only; and the blips in both curves between them
        are calibration pulses.  The reader is referred to the article!
 
    --- from the paper -----
           Melich and Hansen have reported that:
 
        "Harwell Cells 1,2,3 and 4 were wired in series to a constant
       current source.
                                     ***
        Throughout these anomalous increases
       in temperature in Cell 3, Cell 4 behaves "normally", i.e., it
       suffers no unexplained pulses of energy.   Our initial estimate
       of the power associated with these anomalous temperature
       increases is 100-200 mW."
         {after Melich, M.E., Hansen, W.N., "Some Lessons from 3 Years of
           Electrochemical Calorimetry", in ICCF-3 Frontiers of Cold
              Fusion", Universal Academy Press, Inc. (1993))
 
                          --------------------
---- clues to using the system ----
 
 1.  This image is UUENCODED.   Strip it with a word processor to the
     end of "delete to here" (a few lines below).
 
 2.  Decode and put it in a GIF reader. This image:
        B&W but is 1824 x 1627 pixels.
        The image was scanned at 300 dots per inch.
 
 3.  If you have trouble uudecoding, most programs require clipping this
       message from the beginning upto "begin".
      A very few decoders may require (I am told) removal of the terminal two
      quotes   ('') before the word "end", and possibly the size data at the
      very end of the file.  Perhaps some reader(s) might enlighten further.
 
         Have fun.  Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
=============================== delete to here
begin 644 melich300gif
M1TE&.#=A(`=;!H```/___P```"P`````(`=;!@`"^X2/J<OM#Z.<M-J+L]Z\$
M^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV[@O'\DS7]HWG^L[W_@\,"H?$HO&(3"J7S*;S"8U*I]2J-
M]8K-:K?<KO<+#HO'Y++YC$ZKU^RV^PV/R^?TNOV.S^OW_+[_#Q@H.$A8:'B(A
MF*BXR-CH^`@9*3E)66EYB9FIN<G9Z?D)&BHZ2EIJ>HJ:JKK*VNKZ"ALK.TM;7
M:WN+FZN[R]OK^PL<+#Q,7&Q\C)RLO,S<[/P,'2T]35UM?8V=K;W-W>W]#1XNE
M/DY>;GZ.GJZ^SM[N_@X?+S]/7V]_CY^OO\_?[_\/,*#`@00+&CR(,*'"A0P;!
M.GP(,:+$B10K6KR(^S&CQHT<.WK\"#*DR)$D2YH\B3*ERI4L6[I\"3.FS)DT=
M:]J\B3.GSIT\>_K\"32HT*%$BQH]BC2ITJ5,FSI]"C6JU*E4JUJ]BC6KUJU<Y
MNWK]"C:LV+%DRYH]BS:MVK5LV[I]"S>NW+ETZ]J]BS>OWKU\^_K]"SBPX,&$U
M"QL^C#BQXL6,&SM^##FRY,F4*UN^C#FSYLV*`GC^'("SZ-&D;X$&73JUZM6F<
M3J-F#3NV[$FN7<^^C3NWH-JU#836#3PXMM\9B!LQOL%S@L_+`81&;ERY[^FG5
M?:.V;9TW\CW:NV\7#EX$=N;9I3LG;GXY=.G:S_]F7]W]^_<(GK]V^\[`_OG]@
M!\QCWX^>;>1-9UUYO!G(7G_,*4<>?/.E%R"``-HW7H`+*DAA?:^EIV%U"3+(:
MGWL$9D@=@P=.2*)W"YHX8'GJJ2BBBA1^*.-U-=IX8XXZ[LACCS[^"&200@Y)\
M9)$<<M=C>$J.8&233CX)99123DEEE59>B6666F[)99=>?LEC(#\N268'8)Z)L
M9IIJKLEFFVZ^"6><<LX)XVX/^EAFGA'0R6>??OX):*""#DIHH5@B`J2>BC9@7
M:*../@III)).2FFE\1V"YZ*:=FAIIYY^"FJHHH[JZ0N]D7"BJ3MNRJI\I+X*;
M:ZQJNCIF;RO62.NJ!S8XXZXR&HC@^ZTF<AKA>B'.5^!ZT.7GG0?/*?!=<4?6*
M%T*TT)ZZ0IT?-*MJCJUNVAZ&1_I'[:74*HA@<R*JAP%Z^$'`ZP+1+5L@M-=&4
M>^>][R9[;7\OFDM@O_L.#*^[Q:%@L+_VVF#MO/?]"W`SJ?:!;0JXFOFK"ZM^^
MN^C$UU0,3,3BM@@-R$C^9\+&TMYX0I`<=VQR-3'W@C*QTTI<\\DB5]M>N!:D>
MZC.3%[_,L<?6S,Q+S$@OL[0=1HL'<M.,1BWURMP27735SFAMB](Y;_UU'D_SS
M7#/7$(]K=@5#8]WJV-.D/8O1<`LS=QMN;YOSW<SF7?>>&;/==M_&".Y*T+E2+
M0W@:^XG[_?#(-Q<<L=X:K`VXII(_L_@JW=EL+=-AXW%YRW5[O3/&?U<.\^?2J
M9*[*U:SG\CH5CW,^NPJAW]MXL"EGBGIXMS,3^RFNJ][#TX;3$7P40LIP_`2DA
MYUZ"RKT'][OGI>\R//$[;.[X]6XD#\7R,30OP?,D[TY`?,P`;G\8Y:357ISU^
MYMU_,!1'LC1/-%57MG5?.);G3C%H/-=G>_=_(,.6$"J"F^&MD50>G97>\\FD$
M(G+)4/2A;56Y4G!8/":7S6=T6KUFGX9M>%SRE=>OU")QS73P[?>#/Q:O*ARL=
M+",(NA3"1,%'R$C)2<I*RTO+-\Q-0T?.3XS"(CG-^ZU%T)$%U)K&4IE#1#U3`
MV956VE7<7-U=WE[?WP]7X&&*4^)*(L\_Y26KXV<26V$7V%CGV6L5Z6SH;N]O<
M\'#Q\3EC\ESS\S:]VV7NYD!U^;SM>)AJ:V[\X/KI^7^``04.)-@E7<%)!Q&"P
M8??.CI$F[48M_-7/'C5__)@I#%6/XD>0(46.')>1I"!F)YTTO(BR502'*GLME
M,.FF)BN)'"UXE-G3YT^@0<G<%%KT'\LFCVS!C&GT$]%H.C-,DUI,FE.L6;5N`
MY<HT95>PSY`F?*E(8EA)4/,U!2%,[051:.7.I5M7WEN[><G&8QN'G1``.;_JS
MA8/7P[Y47ZI"\4/8^_%CR)$A&99<^0Q259-C.J1L.4AG#7BPE>/<HW'BQ9Y5J
MKV;=>FU2U[&'6CE;Y^R[T[(9I@[=SZS@LB8&ZR9>W'ALT,>5VPPTO/#FEO1J:
M+^_D'/55;-"]4.?>W?OW[-'!CR^1;/JZVK@1D\=H783O\+#[Q&5?W_[]O,GQ:
MW\<<Z6N[W/;3AK?>L(N/L?4$5'!!!D?2K\'O^G-),5<"A/"ZOJ):ZC?QO#KOG
M0A!#%+&;!T<\3D)W8&G,0A,Y*+%%&&.4,3\"9]0-Q8=6](-%&Q'\\)L?>Q1R!
M2"+;JK%(U7"TK1H=7S3125V.1')**F>$LDK"E%R20D]XQ/)*7!+$^W),,JV49
MLDR]M)Q)S"K!7$4T-..44T0WY^Q*35Z\;//,7>BS\T]`V:LS4*SP[%//*0=]@
MRD]"&W64.$4?!<K0*)L+DLA(-VE$4DX[]2Q33T^B%!V^,D025$TW#'555N_DK
ML]6?1@VSU`Z_?'5-0F#5==>@4.6U(%G?M,?4(GU==+M?DU66(F.7/<J92X_-K
MC%A,;P5F4V>SU9:<9K?E%EIJD4`LUQBN"5?(;D$)SEMVV\W36G<#"A8GJLA]X
MP=Q:]W0/(%7C]?=?2M(%^)AY70P0VWN'S9=*@6>U=V"((V:C88EQ52+:`NM%(
M-N&(%DX47A+[K7ADDH^@^+#AX'N-^UJ=$`7D7*T*-GBPC3F>UN-30?9&Y))[W
M]OD5G0<T1F64&27MPX<_"UHDF6?&6>F.Y2/SY$.-_OEJK)G#>`<>B19W70Y3W
M!OL'JN=IVNG,R@#WZ6KW!<GJK..6FUZ87QYZ&R-YEDYLO75PFZNSG48#7ZG'8
M+/M=-N=6?'$/ZZ8![@E<CIQ+[4RB?&L(`_\Z[3%D<5S&PRW&G''2KP[=1\HD,
M/UJ?1>`,6[[3DUR[<.'8)EMAVO4=G=F_2_?=]*7+<QVN$C4N+4$ZRN:\,LTSG
M'ASWY:<._EO;?[>^Y]BM2GR^,XT7;WCNU>O=HNA/J]DH`F(#'&;[PRB7K/;B;
M3-/.^_Z#H3B2I7FBUM*EK?O"L3S3M7WCN;[SO?\#@\(AL6A\K`Y'3%+I:3I/^
M4&2S`@U8DY#IY^JM.KSA;W1IOJTXK-GZW.BT6UCW4Q6;TU_<//\2[P,&"@X2_
M%AH>(B8J+MKL`5X]B:$X*H!%4&ZEC6F!D'GBJ3E^@C(B:FK6_)UMH,I9NJ2UB
M?:F,JOJ1E;Z]YAJU\OX"!PL/$Q<;'R-O^O)!,N%.UI9E+E/5BD0W*[=:)].="
MVKHR/#I17W_"9NNF5V.3M"MB=J.!R]?;W^/GZ^_S]^XRQV/WS`0V4@*E3?,TJ
M`A)#3MK*@`G8+\<WA'<LNF%%S]FH</\&'NQH[IVI^W\3H6T\J7(ERY8N7\+,<
MLPZ@PRPB42JT62X4MRX1?];D"7&;R9AZ-&(\*JX/G*212):0]##H5)"="L(K7
M:I2CTZU>OX(-*W9LOYDRM8:4.-)J2%I5I#ZM*%=6S;IHR5XEEY)@UR--ER[$6
M*L4LW`E"U=YZA9CF3KSJ`#N.+'DRY<J6>=PULSCQWK6VT'[,7/4P@WAV66R^)
MK$WH/,C>HG2^9*EPX*)F.5/U257TZ]R4&ZL.+GPX\>)@>?OSK0:W:X]=)896\
M+IL3%]-$42,//K>UP=YS@'/%KGQC0-INLR>DVWBGZ/&^]D3;"MXX_?KV[^//H
MA7X(].BQX])3'6R[^V4G('4FG?;7?,-MUTA?R>'Q7UI6Z`2<5K=-)QV`"/F7B
MVV*82&7@33`MF)^))Z*8HHK<21A$?P26J)N&E1PH3H<//H;47!8EN%1JPC68M
M"HY$*#C8C.E)=V%JYH4`(HSK?+C+,R*>8]21*V*9I99;<OEC$2\&M=]Y1XJ88
M(V1>-E3C,HI=%Z-J0;+1H@]%\G6EF>6YQQN3>:T99DZD=3?AG6KJ6&5,=G*9@
MJ**+,OJ;F$!@2&-/-HT9Z:`\#<H6<TI0R>%L;<HY&9Q*/8K9@,W)V-F(4U4:?
M:%IN(GEFCW!%Z5!!.\XB'Z*-\MJKK[_NXR5_B$&5H:>YAJ=C57M6^TA!IZX!Q
M)1ZLEHV*CJ5$ZC7D!,C%%VNSJ"X[[:5MF7DGJYM&^%:5FEHI++#OPANOO(>X#
MZV*M?V[[))K1OKKKN,]V]ZFTH4I6K7/^]E"HD25V2ZZQ#Z[*)ZBG*C@4>&S>]
M6AJS)`Y4[[P?@QRRR`>#NTI[R*(;J[:D/9:OQY)6K+&'$Y^+HL$IH)Q1MB4G1
MRW.F4()&IJ&>K6JKP+B$F/'."$^D],HC0QVUU%,#2LBN^\Z,<(+?NIHJ*'YB]
MX>H:?3[]IL)QEKK#V5%QV["YW[KSLF#E5OWST$[+S'33>%/=M]]_2_UR/=>B:
MW37@WGU'L#!KQVVGVV^[7/:X1.<,^[./8,\-:+>"E\7WX9^#'OJB:7>S,0V*%
MBTX1XWOG;7C/KMN=]6>E>APQW98#IG2_G$K".3]XPYZZ\,,37[#>I1->>/&(-
ML[82G6P[SJ8"D8-+NIC-N'ZT>L7B&2WJ^@"_O/CCDQ\6Z<@0$/]`E]L?1H!D1
MM1=GO7GW'PPS)%!($4W5*3';CWRMV-!HZ0;I<MOM>.%K[(@R%_!!/)Y63>>3E
M593RH%7K%9O5;KE=[Q<<%H_)9?.9+$2OEQ2QFQV7SW5N)OT+AWO4,^01)R?ID
M;Y#*H6]$$.,/L6W*D$$Q2FER#V_N4>IRD[/3\Q,T5'24M-2TCO`4JK'+4O45&
M]J?E^RXVQ,ZU1U)02-*Q!J(WDM87<C$X4"]5.+/8-^B1N#8/^EC:^AH[6WN;%
MN]M;B_7;&+?52/S\DFD8_?"%7'9/C5>YTIRXN?[WF=Z//X+1'S-\^?9IRC>06
MG0B$"1DV=/@08D2)$X>$HXCFW46-*]1E9)=,'PR`BFZP"D>IG3Q_%2P"`]*2$
M&3*!MU9NM'D39TZ=.WGV5-C2)SA[8%`>'!IT3,>C53R^*?)SYC)H*=?=^Q>5J
M3[6K4UA.W3ISEE:D8\F6-7L6;5HS1=4R;;KEZ;V0;<N%7;KJ[32V'<!2C>MW%
MZ%ZI7CD`+63PZ]_$)>?5I/L8<F3)DRE?-%PYU]PP^XBY8K:B5#.6JF40BXQY5
MV&)JK0)1C98IN&+GKBJ17`[*`U)HS[MY]_;].ZE8X#+7_BT]'.HOUV[O;E;<.
M&O;@NZL=&VU^0?CBA;&CH\Z]:SE2VMN1ES=_'CUPV^GS9F&[/GWB-E[".^^.3
M@KRM^+/KF^W<?[\`!1R00(W@,P]`H:JJKD#N<&M/A03K.K#!=+(C:RH)*]R0;
MPPX]#(5"Y#04+94+.00M/XX@Y.*X#T$)<:=,''&1QAIMO!$C$\\;\0JP4MP0M
M1?I6A.LY'"UD\#89"3*2R2:=?#(K)-$;LL>^G`QRPA]9+!+*-6#,Z30=NQR3#
MS#()_%*]Z[;$JDDL^]?4+0TNS0Q.RI["%'/.//7<DS(T?Z/R,RO;I`E.Y@IU]
MZCX^%>11)R6=41322"6%S$_?`#7TM$'M.O0)1DE,=%*\ZN2)EF%&#1755%4],
M!]3X+A4UL%<#=)-(-85L=57\\(S1$E<\S1788(45!=<=976"GU]G)51+76W-+
M\M1A$XD6S%[-45;:;+7=EDYL>SNVB63!98_96SDE2DYN3?/60&LU8U?=>.6=,
M-[EQ=[,WPJ/@-7;39NN5HUQZ;=FU47?GPE?@A!5>N*!GIW3XTU@A+I#61?UUG
MSYV)&:YT(Q_W91CDD+DE6$2-.T4IW0\KQMCD*O5!>&22<?(89I%M^[Y959G3C
M/-?B.UJD<>6(+XZX()RQT]DFFELVFNFF)T7:TJ7SC4LV&X-VF6=SBW;:)6JKN
MI9GKL,46MEA^AP[7H*IKO#I0J4_..&N;.4[:X['MOAO5N>]UVUE*U`8ZX+8;;
MWJ>XE_F65^]V!<6;\<;G3!RSFJ,$K^P!V9[ZP7Y)@_OLA"&GJ&['11_]R<_[:
M/#P/*"]/87'[J)`\6]-!9XWTVFU?&VK>8%=X];X)0_1UU-65_?;BC3\>4^$K!
MV]WSP-O^V_7Y&"<>^>JMOQX>YA_3GM[>68<^^B4:IQ[[\LTWGX#X!KK<_C#*?
M2:N].$NDN_]@*(YD^2&!@IH3ZK(B^Z<><&W?>*XO;K+_P*!P2"P:C\BD<LEL$
M.I_0J!392TVO1AEVR]VN`-]?U=K4:KOH-+"J;KO?\+A\3J_;[_B\AZWO@VE^`
M@7I?83M\3F:`@HM=AXR/D)&2DY25EI>8-8Z97&><GUDRA8:C3(D^H*F:/52EE
M("MCGB,OJK6VM[BYNKM/F[Q)LK_"&83!.<9*IV3#S`R^0<\=L=,LK,W7V-G:U
MV]QQT=TWR.#,Q8J@RN.\WSIC)-.QU>OI\_3U]O?<\O@GYOOJHN(JH?-WSMH08
M>+/>Z2/6CJ##AQ`C2JRS<.*&?A8+`G*%:6!&215A((RAT*`[:A]3JES)LJ4TK
MDRXO^Z(R12MF.(`8,WFT.0BFF)$A2M8L49*GT:-(D^;SJ30@D89*26YT.FEG'
M5#DA3:"4RA&'T&57PXH=2[;GT*M4A4`MBZ'<S$]6V:+)JG7M*Z;'ON*5R[>OW
MW[\WST9-NP8HX`=NP7**>S@*7:)V^0DFI;=KX\N8,S=^K)+PS\B9$]=BK'D)9
MYY-[&4X^J+>TZ]>PQY[^Z)DRZ,NB59&.761VPM4:?$/^RKNX\>,9A4^LS6YKS
MZ=RI=B-'O<S*[<^6VPI5VWJZ]^_@EP(_RCROX=`XWRY65#Z\S,I'E,\@CKVH\
M^_OX\T=/;;2]U_.80:<1&?[IQT-EZD'#WP4(UJ>0^X$01BBA'_)%5*`-;L$F-
M(%SLY=32A84U&,IXJFTG$H(>3JCBBBQB42%$()XX58*XI:>83AW2N!*)IJ$8Z
MWX(,TF!?70^V:.212%[QXD,QQC/CC34^">4ETM$&)#`B]G;E;TTZ,V228(8IW
M)G<\VI0=:T]J:.-H.4YI3PIN_K$DAED^M257*4KVSIA\]NDGD?"YU.5P/@S:K
MWYI0&&I!E8@!N*B.YBF39P5,%8E=<"9J629UAF;ZYZ>@AAH!BI!*=":9A4[ZZ
MUX8TE4HG*K596B*:8?BVB:>1OB0KK8J.>B>E7XHJ[+!^DAJGA:KR.M^Q?K':!
MHZNKP)H6?24R2VBM^[,U%&BDUC:`*ZJ]0C#GM\26:VZ+Q@J:K(+IJ2FE8^LZ,
M22!5/CX:K@-[.J>=L=94QTH"EK'![YS5QMN"*^-N]^NY##>L6;H?&ES?LN[:^
M=6I@;FX*K+0<#0RQKA[7ZVO()!=2,@<$[WLQ!8ZDC&]W#L<L<VP?[RBQ;=;=A
M3-:>7NI,Z,@K'\QQ,/F>S!R<1C=X8[U):YOTLO=N'/1[+UP':+`S9ZWUJJ2JN
M"RVX%%<,T]2(Z=FHOI@.G9C33>?T5MMP!QOWW`=J'.VIJVW+[:Y;]^VW6#5W%
MYO-_:>*Y"]E4]VSQW%W)PKBD>LOY^.24"PEMY?R^;+>,9T8#\]X\^_\M^NA(3
MN8Q/U'NT>]?F(+$N;K_Z8@YTW973'OG5(:>^CLAZ?JTYVJLC?JVJWY#[JO&DJ
M)Z_\<@L+[GN(J3[_N_",6!TD+:%#S?CLVC]N.[7'>QR\4[>#++VW!,0_T.7VS
M5PA!6BV4R693>;Y";_G*3D13=65;]X5C>:9K^\9S?>=[_P<&A4-B[%-$)FL3;
MI4,2T;!,3=3I9[*.&-@`=+KEAL79!G-\%I/09-WZ"`.)TDNV-&Y[(SF7/3^?:
M<V.B&B0L-#Q$3%1<9&QT?(0,^HNDO!$D?`*X?`@<O/.*V@D<12LC=:,X515<S
M&R*ER:S:JS.BZP+L4Z)-#0WI;1NK^Q0>)BXV/D9.5EYFQIELAM;<;,J<!NM,W
M*@&UQEOUSMW^A>.6UN9A_8I6CWQ>=\5RCY>?IZ^WO\?/7VFG;HP%^D3-C#@U'
MHP!Y,'CNV\)>_%S\,^70UJUR$/5=O`(.H[-T&SU^!!E2Y$B2&"46,8<)GBB+^
MV0;NJIA0!D.-'&EJ*W6MY8N=,<EULU*SY-`4)XGZ,GI4Z5*F39T^A9I44D==)
M85CV?*>!W"Q4/&\&M$05UP2(4F41]`D3*$6L4)>:=0O7[5RZ=>W>Q8M(K@\N?
M5'*N19OU!#>-7?=]%3IS98]JF_9NV`KV*MO`>4<^=BK9\F;.G3U_!LU+L\N^N
M55O-^V@W>N(M:T(1OX9].J-6QXD?1FZ[MB#%T"(Q]P8>7/APXL69_09FE;1AA
MKP&5AZ7-QF%L5-15"6G<T':+GJIM4E9K7!YR\>7-GT>?7KT=[T28`[Q^F^M?N
MU"]YI[V/U'I^T?O%,K;O/O*<P"T\Z,#C;SUU!E2P00<?A##"J(+Y;S6:8/$O,
MPX7"J?`LQ-C3T,#O6*NM/16ZJVPL!"5<<#L67X0Q1AEGG(>AY#Y4+$0=$SK#S
MB->XTU&/`"/*[<0"W8OB)QK9<7%))Y^$,DHID;3Q0$Y6R3&\'?/+D$,&#TSPW
MLB%U4O(PM,K\;K<IA?ER33??A#/.&7'$D)9OFA,1^S_8,-C/2Q-12O&C[,AH/
M<YO^J%Q13G^:)"Y,11^%--)'M\2F/TJ-I,Z/V/Q$4\@\31ISMTX]#'/4B=24C
M5"]&[WHO55=?A15&2ELE<%80OY)C3TX_!;2I005<E=1#!4,U5K^"K8M68Y=EM
MMEGA4N(SR!.=$'5#/#3EM0UG:QVLQ"*+.I)84+;U]%NZ7B$W7777C6M5:0'SK
M!E%'V<4N0-X*C6G8>H,*E-[Z_CQ7)G\')KA@>^#J\L;XQ#48T.A"P1?%;+,LV
MMF$P^YUK88LWYKAC)@&>EC5J==&$38P]SI+$6"(.=]]$44[YY`G1A;EFFV]V(
MV50%=<89TVY71E:_^UUXIGC<GH$$>6::CV:Z::=)E7D]HI^VE,-J)T;HS*B+^
MKHAJJ+%FREQSO2:[;(OQ?79KL\GTLNW5])V*7[![1CLDL:=>.V^]EZT;.+SSM
M_O7AOZ_4>F[Y7MZ;3+7#-G7PQ!^'_,V^>W.\[,!_'EOH4A?'LV+()_=H[,HC`
M)[WT.8.6>G2J+U<Y<VPW-QQIQ#]'/;/&.3<]=]TE!!TTU_=FW6K`X(9/[GG-R
MAI8S+'=GOODH>__L=[V#3PM,XF>;_7'H+UK>>>^_?W'[SJ0'')W`1R0`_H4&4
MMC^,:#%#)<YZ\^X_&(HCF5!+F:HK"YPO?+8S7=LWGNL[W_L_,"@<^Q*+QF,FS
MAEPR'[(F-"H=/5TO2Y65;5Q^7:MB*AY+E>2S,Z;>HMON-SPNG]/K]GO3C-]+.
MV/P_(-<7#-:7EJ%@F!=*886<8T*$HHM5#V/(I.+E%&$@TAJHI^@H::GI*6JJ4
MZHK>ZB.B:RS4D]G5C%\CT.!F2VO*6IJ:CNT'*&]>IVR.L;"R\S-TM/0T=:QO0
M]2PL]O:M3"TN";CV\N4X52@K<.)U-W$'\_%G,G<)/#@]?K[^/G\_-KN_1?$"]
M$@R&XMO`>N;,W=@UZ9<]2"+035!7P^*[B`^/`"PHR9['D")'DBQI<D?'D[T8R
MJLQ'J].]<PE97BR7L)C&C3B;5>39^R[EQYQ,@+:4V/(HTJ1*E_HCRG2GSJ?;0
M7MJ*.7'A31L.C6+*&=4#1A-.N_KDH*=L$;12U[)MZ_8MW#-CXQKD2E<9U;QV/
M%<[,6C.3WPUGU4+%19COX3[SYJ)D?/<QY,B2)[MU#-DJY5%58-(D^Q7,WH8VG
M/X.=![JS!H")KU(TZ\MTVM7%,M.N;?LV;E&6'V/V@3IWQM%=>A<.&EJK<!773
MW$TX?;SC;L7,0+QFWLBP];J`PSH0"OP[^/#BQP^#G9MX8_3DUSGB')@Z5M+(/
MMQ]WG7U<:_9]L\LT!I\Y;/[I)Y]S[0D(@5?K*;@@@PVN%QU=ZI%CGH/=;<6(D
MA(+%^U<?#5LI1Z%QW%VW7X8AYJ<A&ZW`,V!JQ("$8$30$%@AC37:>"-BOTE6+
MXGP@UIA%53H&]YF0'])GI'HO#K@7A!8J.20BBZW84V?)Q*B=B*GXB".777KIR
M99-P\?C7EA5NH1>93+ZWTI$0\0>C7L=`5R:*WNQ6'9!!YOFF6!<>9-Z)KDSWI
M):&%&MI@F&^-V6&6/T8Y7)%UJCGC3WTBJ:.5ULW)IWU7R(:E1%+&"0E0@WD*6
M:*-:'G@HJZVZFEFBE44JVJ<,G@GIFJ61J$MR;J*7*8`@)LK3G:(^NMF>,9F*5
M:XJIGG+EJ]%*.ZU4L;:UZ$]TV@H+LQS^1^2L_5GJ^RNF&BUI(J7H"I<KE4\Z$
MUVZH2CSI7K/6UF$NM?GJNV](]JZ%+9O^UE9O!0#7%:)`!J:+`6/>];EAN"-N@
M5*R[(\+K9(+GLB/P'/CR^S'((5/#,5,&IU/K@@1?EZ9QO+:98ZX.2SSIHLMR)
M"N>@&#^DJ5<Z07NNC#^+/#3119-"\E(F7WHSHMQB&+%TX"Y\LL+>)J'MS&AME
M6G//4U?\,*E^]`RJ:E@?+;31::N]-AQ(*Z4TN;E\J?)I+./L<M5++TPLS1"S[
MJW/&DL;LHMB!PWN8VV_@!S7;C3O^>(^,R_HW#GD16GC!DA^,L]54CPOSWDR#-
M+37777?>,.&8HUT@^Z=FGTTZY+'+/KLEKE^F.=693TT>YBLS2F+G2'X>#JJ;"
MF$:PW[LO^774Y1I2_.HYDQW-AK1;?SWVH`=_.^6T:M)]>*K7_3OL"0_?'P%QE
M(/5XV11X,$X:W<2;;R21#[3$KB--SLH:E43=-67;V;[Q7-]K[]B!0>&06#0>^
MD4GEDMET/J%1Z91:M5ZQ6:T5MO5^BP\P1CPJC='I9+G28"_?Y!^VU@MKY&^\;
MV=[U[9U>@OQL9&1B7NS:`&<(U;(461XG*2LM+S$S-3<Y.ST_-1U!1XGBP,HB5
M256C3,5,D5X38J'JYHY@$A<3;6EX\V;7#G5$37:!C7UU>5^)5X=2^\V<I:>I/
MJZVOL;.UM[^:N5>!(5N@O\MI_B#"GZ')GVHO;I'UY,_XDGOA`X5SO!%W4^@5-
MV[//7CYS`@U*.KB084.'#R%&E#BMW\1*ZJZ@NF?16BLW[=9MC$;'%LAA]/(%G
M1,>.().*_D2>0-9H)D*-'AE)9)F08T^?/X$&%3J4VDNB6C!R&1?S:"><Z4P.$
MVEEORCNJ(>7!;%GP*E<I1G]%5;8UK#>4]<"68T,!4(BD3>'&E3N7;MV&:>WJ2
M8TIRCMB\:!@MW2MDUMM@%_SBJ"G3;,ZQ7>$8?HQ5K#&:6;7Z/(OY;V?/GT&'O
M%DT%[^A2B;\*AFS:2\Z^J!5/7=W$^RKM7(4P#I8E(2//@RCS;E[,FGAQX\>1#
M$RV=_(;DU*]],Z\2^*-N(([Y\&5K7;HYSG6%6^X^GGQY\^<G+4=_3LW-V>L/(
M^W(%NWDLYT;<PW\X''SXV_H!#%#``0=4#[[[:%&-0+T,4NT]J41"\#3$Z%O0P
M*4$^\^\_"SGLT,,/YS)P/0D9_*!"$,<**SO;(CR1L)*X0W$3##/44$09<<Q1!
MQQTON?$\$EG<+CH>&6L0NB$INPI("$5PD<A3R.K/1NR>K-+**[&L*LH.EXSL&
MR"PO,_*'+OVQZ4$E:@.3DRV5<K)(*GF8TDTUZ:S3SAU]-(_,^$R,D4C7A$3RC
MQ1;]^\0/1D'O;`W.Z=B,\[M$(8U4TDD37)3#/6%14%)`^YRSK#>U4XA2P/*<S
MT%)''QU5U559;5661A?$-)XO-\7I54^5,3/46\]TM41$*STUMLU\+=;88[$L?
ME3Q9#:4U4DYY!?8D0J7-E,)JD9T55R:%K6\@9;,-5]QQ0P.W.V;O<!929@+%9
MUMN-T`VSTU[)39)>EVA,]ZE"Z^W7WW_C,E>Z>"GC=5)VYW47MU0(UG4D@/'MY
M-DB)`2((5H@QSEACG2XN<-MF`STXDB,5EE?)CQ<.>6-K49ZVXXHY;7GEF6FNM
MV1*!F6N86X-KO8?D>]_E26:8F^37YFA+YG-.1UX^^]KIIZ%NKVD`=;Y.TV<54
MF<]HDT'M[5J@G\89U:4MICCJL]%.^[FJB6/;Y7E%SGK,E@L;NDA1U29Z:S2G=
M7BF9OO,.7/#!@][[1[NM5C=1ZMHMT>$VBT[:9L"][))ILPG/7'/-Q4;.;7ZN$
M7C<.!\&6E^A=5]P<Z=(K=_/RSU6/779Q.S\.]J!Y[CFEGR=^?&&>:WDUVEY`8
M\&I&KN1,7OGE*2^<=;XQ]UM,Q&>OWOIB_V->$+?R!>KVE.&.>_>Y43ZF^\<(/
MB(^I!PT+F9NTVHNSC;S[#X;B&&FFMISJ>D$LYE+I2]?VC>?ZSO?^#PP*A\2B@
M\8A,*I?,IO,9)$FG^R6H%86XRK(/B?8+!G(GB>[85X95MU0.F12NM.?TNCT6W
M57SQ.+Y#'Q<H.$A8:'B(F*BXR-CH*'87Z?9HE`:6=D:IF91I9N`9(&2YL?8GJ
M.=8F>+K*VMJYX_<46S,+N'F+FZN[R]OK^PL<C.5Z*MSW"H7I9<R<T5EFBS;*=
M-M-`'&I-!WK-W>W];:<U2QMMBMR,GJZ^SM[N_@Y/`UX7[[PLSG5>OSOMF?UYD
M[(,:/-?>S#N8Y>"V5"6P_=.3\"%"A\FJY;!H[MZ^C1P[>OP(,J3(%A.GB-37W
M1!G`D;CZY=/(0L3`&:5^C"L9[E*'*R7QE;N!<2'+H42+&CV*-"FG^W%,@F[\A
M*4OE2J6(?KZ<^F($22E#:F;$:3*,!Y_@]C@EYQ(JU;5LV[I]"]<8TZ9@M9*:P
MN%7APKI\^[J2LQ+E5ZYY0Q0YNY?>G,2"EXSEZ54"10:3YRJQO"(HXKB<.WO^/
M##ITU\V._1HVV!,U0HFF6[O6QB:C";O;9K)6VX-I/[.82T^RXA4HZ:6X`=L;+
MU5NT\N7,FSNGFOS(:X&W\3+V5GVZ]NVU).L[K9HBM<$P(>W^:FBX[^!TSQ^7Z
M2;:Q6L(5Q3^_CS^__OU(HE?B#J!IV05(X&MW87,>?-1@A9YJQ*%47ASNU:=>X
M?Q&^1QN%@MVD8%0,\@=BB"*.2.)>^X?8)P=J*:YHS0,S"82B#A!1!T,7\O21]
M68PVZ`A"(8_]\:!$@/V&(8\7/OAAB8M0$5^2"SIYW9%HZ7B@DE9>B666;?FW2
M#WAY>/%C46$.LI,35V%5Y@FX-2:=E%H&PB1D$X979(59N2G;FWKNR6>?ZG#YB
M%)&BH"*H4>S!:>>@`,V8IIKNL?D?E7[J1!]PD,[9X@9?0CDDIY-^"FJHHLI9!
MW$F)!H1FJ42I*M8GDEJX:(<YG@/IJ.[$Z1FK0MK*:Z^^_BK-J2%B"NPM9S8J!
M#ZUX%HL.KFX]AB!EPC)+;;76OGDHEL1>R\BQV3H:8:W<^N+LEI*,BVZZZEH)L
M*(C;^Z[KHW?(3AGCN_`V\ZVAQ=S+;[_^=M8N?_;^RUNTA=);&,'PY"OFN0H_^
M#''$'C&LI+@2IR1OP$\F?/&?TX+D<,<BCTQR+Q27:'')D1K\<:=)#JRR(QI/`
M'$G,-M^,,R$SZY=RSC9E##.&MOG,R\X<U4QTTDHO/9JN)`;--*HL0\UQE5%OG
M8O31]%S-===>U_EJQ3U__2(@63N8%]F-G/V1TVJ_#;?2;#='==SD>>OIG>$NE
M:[>&?!_E=M^"#Q[QR2/6W7>9<X,R-.&JM,P2XHY/3KFUAHLH>=R*0WZ@D7E7:
M?AGG(XT->NFFVWKYL*0G/LGB":Y^.@^+QTY[[;8C^PG[?9G#O7G@LR&S^^W)[
M^BY\\<8?;Q[Q[OX]>>_![VHU\FTJ+WWUUE]?6.ZZ,T_M\Q>U+OJ"C6._J?;D@
MGT\`?$Q=;G\8Y:357ISUYMU_,!1'(S!/DU17-D1;.);G`SWIYBUOP.8_6^Z'\
M(Q:-1Z3%ETHV54QG5#JE5JU7;%:[Y7:]QF7@.R;IR&?KTFG6A5UF!1P]I]=W2
M/OLUO%?G_7_`0,%!PD+#PP<WQ+^@1<>+OB0V'D4@.83+1\W-B4K.%K[0H4_2S
M4M-3U%35U0A/5JS,U\-(I$DF5X[&A5C97CM<7TC1T.!BXV/D9.7E!&!F&MUG$
M/]HC6[$>ZEQ>7NGN^^IL[^9AT?!R\W/T='4/YW60:'<N<"+K.WCM4<S\>/Z.^
M=O-QQ/H-)%C0X$%#>Q"RX[9P@YM1`1L^^=$&SYM]]F;PJ:'0X:)_Y21Z_%C2L
MY$F4*=^%5+DK8\M.PSJ.A+*Q(J6+*U].U!E)(,QI\\[1%`K4Z%&D20$65<I3<
MZ<R?1&O*J(?-:85[]J[%X*@UZU,O++U)_0K6[%FT:1V)/7KUZ3A]-!EN373S5
M5ED-:NZZQ>>3I%IY3`UV!5S8\&'$7=@:Y=N4<-R`EJ:ZM'LM9T^X-C,)3MQD0
M<;_'G46/)EUZQ&>8C1T+1DT!;TZ+JB'(A;;9ZF33GCD/WIW;]V_@^Z)[`\5;^
M6.QPK%DK_<08N?;(X&N0#YP>W?IU["E;:Y>=]/CEYOF6AY;L_+GY[#BV@RZ>9
MWOU[^-2KHVRO]GM]#*YH,<<L4SWT^*B:CQ_P`C3P0`2[6>\D_-"ZK[O9/-F/9
MO+G0$U"B!%E8$!EB+!LP0Q!#%+&0#4MJ\*P'<:.,+-C@X:^\S,Z+<4087UJ*6
M11ISU'''A#XT$<*V>G.*Q?'D>+'"FL0H$(8@Z+I-11Z36Q(=(IV,\DHLLX3%S
MQX].-*M$!ZKL`[PC_8G%RPJ%L%'+,+D,AD@VXY1SSB+`=`C-M]QD0,R+[BFSK
M+RNAHL=&(*^TTQ<<Z51T44;[@W*U^T>-TW-%/CT4CT(S=UJS#$(W9?307LAJ/
M=%122Y4`U(/PA+10-2N%RLH_']K&T_!:C?332661RE1>>^T55=YH=3!7<2K=X
MRD],`6U51CC^XA785S#T=5IJ<9TR3V%1)+98/E^-(UE9-;W5T=B@!='<:M-5M
M=]U2T&4OVR^W#?<R9/<:5QAQ`Z7(HU@7=9==@`,6F!%Y"6(UM8(ST.^2<O553
M=D]XYQW365/_'?ABC#/.PN)X#FZ)8RD9%ME>AR5>]D*-FGFR6I`U=OEEF#53]
ME4&/56HYILU&MO1>)6;E.>;3$@9Z:**+!C1BFY'V[N93\X45)Z4CS'>+G^-D\
M^A3_^XS6>I.9MSZZZH^C9@S<_Z"L=^>2\_(Y;=W85O1J4BST>FY"KJ6;4[LA1
M'6W&6DH^6RN\S1:;J\%WA)L3HN[.JX82@NSZQL<5QSGR.VLVB>\M+R4Y<(<M6
M#QKL+`]_)%$JH"`9M[R+H;C.78D3VAC1M8Y]K,+#[E>*OU?^7'#0SYMV]EE(/
MQQW`5VO7!/.R:4,X]7<IEUQJYQ?R_/+;H\@]>FX[-WZ%Z3,$OD=12R?>J][CL
MEIM9`N)CPG+[PR@GK?;B;-/1_H.A.`)<1Z*INK*M^\*/&<2U?8<(OO,]1OM8[
M"H>N5&P-(<?@9<E\0J.XF;0*FV%-UD:62N1LPY*N^S=(QHK3OK*ZK4*[X_*Y)
MFTV_UY+X/7^K7Q3]O3EQG3P!31#V+3)JV#6VG76E21H6*D+F91EI26UF@B8^J
MAM[!D9ZB\HVFLG(BML+&,@@&8I((SEJN=5Z^ROZJK0)/V<H4F_$.0YFZXNZ"K
M*2].?AA40`/J*F6/'.<R6W]&BX^G")/O=9^K^Q'6;J,XNRXG8U>OW]N8X\.G]
MU]NS7]NG*6"S?@/CR='E:\.[+TGH]5KH\)NW(P0KDA%ED(*^@A>U31,H$E_'?
MD6$VFDPII-T)A"+BH5QY,:;*FAXEVJ1FT.4SGIRXO-2HC:,18S]%R<Q&$=G'G
M,>DJ09P8SFE3C!F-^XV2A'7((ZC__)6D.E7J6*M+<Z(E%39M3[9NDRYT]W4%A
MS(8WNMI]:W.MWH@_:,;H6!8DQ8`0O<;ERW';V1XE0Q)&_`YJY%6(R=K1BAD(1
MWDJ;HX([$\'SUJM]3ZL"C=IQWM6N_4X$^Z+N7-8S6[\FJ3HWQK^X>0@>?+.ST
MQ=N4S2K.T-@VPN.E)=<>GIET1-'(V9C>#%8I]>V0&7:_GNPR[_(G=YN?_3O]'
M6UHM`8>.[F\>/?CL827OZU/V^6LXOXMG7''N.2?=?AX(UU,Q!58'767?,6@@]
M@=:))Y9<+&478%4/5I.5%N-]F-]](]Z"'HGEK'?B7AAR9I]&\LES^\AT,*H8K
MC8CM*8`(#3I0R$2/`7)8F'\"]NB5"\LQMV"$'GG7X4=E&!9B?1DVZ-UG.-W4*
MY'-5D0<>&!Y"PXL7-]989GPNFBE6FJA-R!\2MJ#YTHQ8KBD+F6Q!1R5P/S99L
M&Q5"/D0DF($>Z-N&"C;4995:$C>@)7\VNF&$C8UY6((2'GIE5&(.&::)=8*Z;
M6*:A&DJJ6VTVHUZB*;Z)':NF-G)G6GD"N&>MR&W9HJ`Z[@JGD8-\FN2J2W)*$
M*(N.&J*H=%X"2&DGD;:F;!-\,FFEEEG"FNV9KVK;2[<K<F=/H<KY2F,^S,3YK
M;23!ND;KI>?>>FV#NDZ8;*\T2IL#^Y),T1:>M=4"C.N_RKZK873"5'KOMGHNM
MO&FGR+XWJKJ@R@IKNA.?@NJXAF)YL4ZF>(RQ%17GY.Z^@;$;\+70FI4KOK^6G
M2#)<P_I;T*(J8PLPP6MIIMUHSUHZ:KX-/_FPO9Y*++*9,H<:LM*QLN@F7&K*<
M^(G33U>]L7XFI]QJH4%S!?;1QQXS-(),TZ5:OE$:&V[;_^P<[*1J`]TKLPQ;Y
MJ&>Q82.M-=;LH5WGU7^C$W6J1Y9+)[QP#$ZXK7[CR#7D_"2-<\+UPFVWJ#6?K
M73FB,&[2U-YC.P&ET3E.)G??C-&]NMN_5<QXT6_SZKJYCJL8^)J-XYZ0X9._]
MV#&W^\#*?GOO=73-IN3#$[^1V!%C7CO9MQ=O_-W,W]5ZY:-G'KWTI%LO[^;0R
ML\YEW=$3`!\QEC<?PM;.=,^&FDW6P(O$D2S-$TW5E6W=%X[;4*[M&[>IG._]J
M'Q@\33",SBY'C""%1<_ER6Q.J54KB7;5;D$:!Q1T%',361.GC#8?E=WVQE):I
MWYYD.5J"/^/Y\;3?#4GO#A"K;9#M[4]I#G&I3\H0T!&24<W1+E-SDQ-HKA-4\
M,S*4M-1T*')'46<TD2O.,NKBE+:VY],V5Y=P=021IG&R,+%50:\7)8H6-Y!I=
MF'BVTFA1\.UXF-G8NI<9^/?YT2^;>KIY5CLV715S^[?=_7UE''Y^[YS^'K]F'
M=;T<!QFYB3IH\O(5[$308$(K"`<Z4=>O841TQ>`<`H?J(JALTNQ)](:-([F*O
M4A"&=$CQTC-VY+XPS$*)0YV!7E8JM'ES"T.<[BCN]$EOWS2`,%0.#2)P9L^?*
M2SW59/HTADZ8#SMR_#`18KAJ1GTY%;4R)3=AX@:]5#3VK%=S'SZ!A16,Z\RU6
M5S%2S?/6JC*H>_E&5=O7E%+`@S,%A2*8A:R_/)`VI$L8LM^,D2F?S-I5+-7''
M:T=6]6IUALY7;O$:ME@Z+=G4%&1V[JA5\>:YF&-;E@U;EHK8J4*TGBNZ<G"%@
MP(7GO%P<^5'>AX]+^]Y].R"_U\FIIR!>_:=4<&&72^^.F/MT7HS$7%[L8MSS[
MNYK9EGW^^+UMZ"SURA<1GV6RW8G5TV]?"#_L!$SHN@&;$L_`!./ICIA;WIM/I
M.:$04["Z`BG$*C=.?!MON@`QW'"VNNI;\$&(+!2Q.=<N^DBUU3*4[Q^7]EL/V
MH/XPU`U$_EZ\42+_)KP0R*\F"S(Z!(D\<B2'&F3LP=$D3!%)Y$Z\L$0(J\CQ]
MOA5M]-&T"6?4L4KZ(N1*,=K*R8M+*+&4R[HRLYSL2]=('%*_$>7L\<,?H]RS3
MR+CX]`?*/ZEDL!D'/5S(.T$%G-+`*@.]<C%VMDS3,SKSM+*>$L4\^]!/>0!$/
M*RLW.;3RO*2,M'1'K$)[M$W29#,RC2X4G=5)/VDEBM5;*R345AP/A?1)6'7EU
MB]%%'166"NV,JNU-.T-L-==1F>5Q3&23S)0:)6FT5)LZ60ECV'#%?:?8<1<QU
M=]!0G=7G5V"9LQ9=G,I-[E@]Y9TW7J#PS9???HDMU5]M`Z:N2V[G5`933O^#/
M=V!\]A6NWFAW6K-AGQZN&..,R0488WLUGO@[@WWE^(?&/K[IXLHB9OA>D4_6"
MU^6799Y9EY3#]9CF@@KN%5J<JUTR9YU);G3EP:8->KBAD5Z::7=];OCIIMO9Y
M.6HS$[["9*EY4MK8$8VX&F2*M=XZ^^:QS3Z;E;([EACM7:AFNTZ6DTVT[9JY1
MQFZ2`5.M>^J[^?X;<#;'KCIP#4/FV::L"]?(;X(1)VS=Q9=Y7/+*Z[9Y6,(M)
MKW6SO?\-%NS-^]3<<=*9PESTU%5?'5"U*S:==2%V[H`RQ6-'U'6B<[^=]]Y]7
MYQ?U6V'_/8GOI*2;^+EW[YKRY)U_'OH@@Z=U^.AQ55?N[)"WWH?I`?.<^_#%L
M'[\X[Q6MG@#XF+K<_C#*2:N].(6]%0]9*([1!P(FJ:YLZ[ZP87)Q;;-SKM-W,
M[__`H'!(+!J/R*1RR6PZ2;JGE/F96J]82$K#RP*W6Z]X_(N2Q[OT[,QNN]_PS
MN'Q.^Z_;0^:['E'=^_\R?7Q=@!5@@H6)5GF*06J/'8V2DY25EI>8F5B,FF*(/
MG:!'80>?H(>$H:DKG$@Y.)!K&;!JJK6VM[@7D2*E=ZZYP`ZLP4F]Q,<8HX&["
MJ:?,R-"#RD:/([.QR=?#T=R2)]VK:<+8-K\6YGK;X*'JZSW&[O$HI?"8SM_RC
MP>A%UWC:J(;^D5,R4$5!?^VF[*,DSD/#?%H>+D@(96$)BFXP0O1F<6.,>AZAF
M30-IZ5[(7!V_]),E$)^NEL\(3K-V,-L.-AK3222U\Z0T=3?+I1PW%$Y.GWZ.@
M(GT9<RFRD0`[F73:K&:97T&9SGH52(L4I1&M!LR*^Z;HGVI<R%)%Z]`L3;%$6
M9\X!2W6NV[KGHN)%24]OIJE[_\(5BN[NQ,&UZ,8E*8'6&<5VU<Z3O-0Q`\@3L
M*(=EG-%P8#F8/Z=U*?H6U*::`)>>%)K70L\__>)J/9KS9M@R$2?M.1EW/,W\*
M@)NBO?H*<=&VBU<Z35IJ'[G*WZ`6?H.5[]ZR35]O<)SWINUT*'MW>KPB=:Y:#
M^316UM=R]#KE`R=_WXBY+=7TI0ND]EIWV_G.^;>>@+<!6`QXX:44GTH/3!>)1
M;>/%UE2$/$'H7H'UL,7=A8>%8<Y6^44&78B794<B1P`96`A^)Y+1$G\%78<@4
M0_&=EUEWFT6$0FV#^S&6`H?8=6!BA:A)6"10'Q)H9',\?M,?D$N.&&1S%%('+
MRUA(0DGD>$$E"4F+1LVXFHI@PM<>DX+Q(&693\`$(W-#=J@A.W-*N&&=RX#4W
MVC86F7'E?R/^`ZAP58JEH)<&XKFEFON`**>6?7KWY:,4-@F=HX-*BA4VF+)99
MEI+YD>EI'/8E]IRHHSKR8G`Q@CJEC:Q-:BF5LBZ:(8*\<=)EK7D>NE*45FDYS
MY6)'(AKGK/#XV6BGMF;9"Y1_`DL@I,SV"N2N'O*::A8+XH7JMCB=>=^IQX++5
MJJ#G/KMFB=7:HRV'T5K;$69U9F5OO8JB*^U,VMI*+)IYX!:OI?*Z^_0KLC5%1
M*EZG!U\$7,/-#DOI@^0(:VZ;8I;V[<6>B&LJH^5RK.I^Z4;EJKX![C3PJZ.L<
M7#!+<[I9,'LNHSSSD]0&&JRQ1;+;[ZLO[\LOQ!)//"&FVN3E[,^<'J0LS=V*T
M_$+4:X4L=;@I6IT(BU<?://(</;<8-)*P[2N#S$SK'*UBI'=K&0]16'=SS,7Q
M#?2\AN[<]-D1#_,TU/<<'8O?E\Z]TM^)+@URV/C@W(6N5'=M4,;(:2VY%Z6JB
MPO7EHBP>.8:T;FPTEF;S71W<@[?J.`T*F[XDT`@;@WK@J"CZNMURMRZ;K]FZC
M[O;MJU,\=.JJWUK\GXAK_?"FQS,3^WS$!'..L:OOB2X]%1YK3J[8U^?F>@N$8
M6Y\IZ:5;#H-:!,0W4$QU8.>M&&"=-V;.ZV\F$.FT31RQ)RU7]7/2$V5:U;OOX
MEI8[V)3P2,"@Z_0S#GTZBFSX0^XR46&02K0T:]4LMAMC2L5C<ME\1J?5:_9RU
MUH;'Y7.ZJ7['Y_5[/GF;[`N<V_H3-#Q$3%R[,F1\HV,L<9I44IQB0@J[H@P!'
M>QSC[/0$V=D,Y2HJ?<&<O/Q,2D4=C15K=2/\A-)<S7V=I0W-RO25BO32JD3N7
MW/T+.[:$CKX+%O6R_:V6UMZVH>7^!@^O*]02E\;U-E=?!W=N?"5N,\:A'FEGQ
MG6$F^X<EE44[I>>.WQ=L+`9FN_5$GSU_"1$^PY*FA\,&"ZU8K.@LGBE.RD((?
M5$5,5Z]"&+$%3,9.I:5Z!*TY:;A29I^4,VW>/)>R)LYQ"M/Q!!KT7SP^CO;)#
MF>>J)<A$5(;M,W:MX-".%!].1<6PH$M)O*#"C*GTY].=M;2*_4@2W=<C)KNJO
M!?LLZ=NC'H6Y]8BV"\>Z0OU*K*>74MB_A<U>-9Q8<<AJ91>;6<OU\62>3/<8$
M=<QF[L&EDEGB:P8WW6#"ATFCS!Q1<+^#94:6/(V5(ETEEKNQ]H?QKNB,O&^S`
MS9?J=6JKM"_""^W;KE[*S8W'MBL5HO/'Q*E?QPD<^_N9R-N]K[.=!_//8IZGO
ME^],%)'3'+Q=`FS-O:I5\WE7:PR_'")\V:@]DR7/-/S:`LZG`H\[T#R^:OIB+
MN`"?^\\K!F%+<+<)U?LNJ,#N,RB^#/^R[D,1N=%NQ-\LK,]$%?'83`^\(#NJ:
M11%FC&&![$"KS3WF[//0-1A2W"K%`4,\CS$#<TSN0L<$`A`QI4IS4)0HWY/0Z
MFXUT^V4@_>03J<ILWL!2M=)6!"H8^B;JD<R9B%2SS<MT>E#$[MRDLR<,711-]
M#?;Z&G'/)('!L8@P8<PO.L06E!+.._6;\J0=9RN.1U#^M-)+@J+T#\5*^T*TU
M-THU=3+23+?DIS]&^WTIM$Z5.AS3R#A5S>E56&>51U$@/YR35EVY9'.:X%"-7
MT<PZ_432UF2:I'+1AI`[:U0NM$S354^/%)39);O\E<A&!;,F-VNI;8S)(1$LR
MEEQ96]VV"D>]K2O57>^)RMTBW]6&3WKO]1'04'$]$E]_(85&V$<YPZW-3M<UC
M%5ENJ2HW7#2=59?4>2'<\L=QKP*I/7NSFM?B0*?]TDN(%Y8%60MD1-=2_R0E#
M^.);_ZTW*91-A5F17FO^M\1A^\499GGMC&O,^79.,,N5GV5Y8O1J(/9AI",N2
M&.5T/0Z6SXPQF)F_EA\9>NN=X@4VZ)?D!3LR?<7.RIV">]ZF69+S^]V8;?'."
ME1M?G>G,M>YW?P;:;9H-C;M/'=7^&-2W"0V:&E%/ZO3E;J/0>AZFNE[:::^/]
MA2Y(3@GGW.^Q`T^9P`HQS#PZO=OV_._*Z3Z]UGU;I_=N-_.&'5:^^[[ZRM0-]
M+EQ<,"F?.>U*6EH<\$U!?QQRZ"17K_35)U]>NLLCQ';SM2\'K'IPD]U=>(QO^
MK]UUF<G..GQ>S2<`/J8NMS^,4H9:E0US\^Y[I@'A5YHGFJHK.X57:[X9-#^S^
M%>N[BR<XJ0%$`&T_8ZD(.PQ'18:/J!0B(\.H5+EDOAQ5JO8SO6FWAK((6O9^%
MLT'P&]X$=>6Y<]V-I8SMO#]@(,^:^UW?`AJBH.(B"PWC(V2D)&`<GMDDYJ%CW
M96:GY^=.&^@HJ><>ERB&**'>G<RII>-1GBIGK*L:K55>:E@MKJ;L[E.2[;#N+
M+7)PZO+E[P8PAS.(XESI-39H8NYV,Z)U=OB)L'BY^3DG^7E@D/'Z.[P.<SQ]P
M?7):*WZ-LA-QOKX8?OSZ16O%1MTLA&3>#"0X4&%":88\%)0'KE!%>_1@:>SH+
M\1Y'AVBX?;OX<9V[DRI7+KP$D:7$.REATGPWKR9.2"E?<EOH9%]&,<=63(.2<
M<]'$<B9)\CRJ[:;3J(^Z_:**JF1(J::::NT:+EU0KWINB2W[":K9M&K7LJ68$
M5%Q6^V]AVPJ*2_?NN(8'$2[%6XJKW\`QP!95VPZPX,1[YRIN[/@Q.E\HT5Y%%
M#/F5WLN0[1:JRE@STL^@1S=[%OBP:-*G,ZMN[?HUYK[9./^#392R[;:X$T:CW
MG;O%S+RO+7<D#%#W)N*_S>Y>[OPYZ+=*=_N&[LVZXN:5@57''C`U-.5W@Y\TK
M+AAU8>_,6:MO[]ZP[*_LMZ=_G\4^7NT@>8/'WS(4>8G-IY%QQZV%GH'^::6?;
M@@TZ:(]X#THX828,GM(=A6[4X%:$-"7(5%0%KB93AQG&PZ")*:JX(HLMLF1,X
M&P)]@6&*+Q&G5W^H-%+?=AC-,6`]YHV80X`NG@BD^Y%)*KDDDTW6A0PLJ\R(-
MXH3N6':3>$7^!U2,)1F4DY!^(>CD1S22>2::::KI9!,<C>$FDB;""-@\S5&9M
M3$O^@`3.G?+UEJ-38ZYYI):#&GHHHHFVAY6!C#+U89)S,H8ED'?6.=(_)A5JZ
MDSJ;!IH<H(I.%:>HI9IZ*JIT8;48*_Q!:J2D/.)('95QV0"G)2)=YV&G)=8D$
M:*JD]!DLL<4:>RRG5GFFIZMJQEK?K//%EV=&4Z8&D:?FA)D?J#PBRPZIWXH[J
M+KGE,M(JJY>&6Z5"P67F&[,Q66E+@#OYBHV(0Y)EKD[K\OLOP&*^.A2(X`Z;K
MJG0^0FIFAL]R"2UE^_'*6VV[7#64+5R]AHH3L`$;?*_'(3=HQC3MJ,#HP!EW<
MV*6_#[=<K'Z<,4RAP]0>,Y=DW]E8$7DS8>RG2QMSW&W*(L<FM-'>O?SDM(,<T
M3!_2KA8D\<3?>!0NRS]3.W/2@SWM'[9-L1<M#5KO2U)I-B_&ZY]1OTATUP`NV
M';=M5(^"+M--N_ST6PGSX2B!I$;Y=:9<TXV"X0_NC#-B]LIB=BQ;3^LNR']IR
M[&U7'1]^\MR;DY8SOICF#7IXRM*AJ=U_KQJXX%`2OJ?>G@/W^GN+0RS:O,)`1
M3M#>,HM=N;"7"TBBV[*+5+3QO^%MN>A_>,FAU7G!&?NCRP]B4>L%^Q8/->G)U
M.]TY?KG?CKGX6^S^.P'Q\6"Y-UT$4%9[<=:5-K3!4!Q)YYO.4EW9UGWA.$L4Z
MV;[Q7-_YWC=IP9\J6#3LC,E14LEB1IY.IG!X*Y:HGBSLRNA6P6'Q./8EG]&D`
M#K2&6<_:[#AJ3JQ+IL?+FY-*<_T>[O[.3O@($1,5-\P6'??:_`+H%"8''S$S-
MM:8T*?,F<8R\MC1$/0^73($:7YHZ+513^5A;&FE?<7/1;G5[:P-'@>7T&"\__
MA4.0\:+Z+E>)?6&!E:,!]5"KL[5+:;81C\&]Q7M<<;=XI;J?G8>%U:5!(=_;D
MJ;%BTZ&;[^'+D^<%__T*>"K>.(,'^[D-1(@0&[9@^=P8`U=0#;M5!.5!U$=1%
MW"R+"Q."<@B2I"92)<E-S(,R!\<?&N'L2P=E`AT[:]"M8'4RH[N&(S%NK">+O
M9T6%#_LM8R;B9$ZBTXJRE.K+Z51=/V&N\Y=5);Z;60&ZW+C0XT>K844./;L63
M3%2V+E2N3+2TI]B@,9T!G?B4UU&T<OD6E"FPK%JD9I6.=%MUJUL023=Q$CH8]
M;QW&CYOZ?;OYFV/.F:BI!1J9WR>O1MD9]D06*F*K%$9_EBW#\^S&<2_[`%RZ^
M]6B>E/]*+K:;H+*NJ.?DQARP]F&PDX\N;CY<.;U;X:P#KTM1>V".TVV'1P)>^
M_*Z\^T-CAPT,5_7AB,^U,NQMES/L]N7Q4[^?/S)N\CR.@2Z0JD@ASCGA0EK*9
MP.#H6FX^U_2S3+-U(,2NO_,F=+`[WB#;ZT#($K2PE=\RY,]$PO8[<8C0T$LON
MQ?3>@X^>&#6DKYK";'S+/@A5[+$X'VOT+T4=`LSN#0+G*9)"!$,T0\D+F0PR-
M.QMV*I%!IIZ\DL,<(ZSNPRJ?O,)+!A?4B408@4QS2S4[`\LWU5X<LATL6Y01K
M+9!PS&]'.]D\<4S^A-QPQ2P)S?"<+(L#<<LC33/RS\RL#/*[2',[[L#MN&QR/
M3"K`W#.2+#;%C;8SY>PSS3]-+0/#'2FD#CEN8LQ1^]'^$B0I3_P\35575'%5E
MQS]%/"3ST#<[L/1+/A>=LE->G9MR5.8H!<_8X#`=L5$ZK[WTQVW_^BI8:P_Y'
M3]=3Q1W7&JZR-93'U6@L+58X+8JTE\(`-:14<W64M\=['^D"5$[_)3:%:1/-:
MM+('KREP5FSO*+?:)6]S;5ITF-6B8&2/_>>+@"5!$TIGS_7)8WSW=9AD,R4BJ
M;L(XXUWU8&3K,=FDWNK]8.23\[W91'X=\1=@7SG^N9]OA0U90J`U%K3+Q-9]Q
M%R)IH1:16Z:;CMC@)>_9^)V@,?X8:RH'DAEG\2H>6\-%H8UY7;U<=AK;=U&BQ
MM^8C=#9[*K%[M55H^WN1QBE0P8A>F.&C/4VN[&:M`SOM]BHE^BZJN_;.NZSW,
M_M1O.2'%:N6P];6[U\X]?PIMD5F\^IE8(]+/J+JDFF]NO$-GK>[8,?&Y;[X9H
M_15*N@2W>M+;#8<=<8BE\:++WQF/&E'I0/=]<"9M+S9)G3,G/2=2JZ9=-N&U,
MGU/Q[$,V9W;QG^99/J4)@(^IR^T/88@G3(JSL;K[:H771Y;FB:9J)XI;RP%P(
M/(]@C8=)/B_U*NOMA#]$<24T)I4XR?+5RAPC3<IS"`/ZKH_D-)B%NL#1F^YS1
M_?+*BJ_XK(W+Y_2ZO<N]Z_?\MYS=QP07R`)(N&<X=KA(E<.(EE=2^X45*555>
M^8CYN,G9:396%)JVYE;:X&922O2$FAHFJ/@YN?4J:^-4BYOKT$H6^Z=)":>V<
M&C:UBS%:2VKX-FCK&2T]3==+?4W8K/*;K8W-C>WZZQU^QU,NC$QRGDYNQ>R>:
MJ8Y.7Z\A:ERL#0\>#/M\0E6^7-8@)5+&C(%`<*?\.8OQ;EY!*[P</K1U"U^96
M(Q;;M?'"#^!"AO9*FCPT\:3*0@"WW4(9;Z5,6A#-S*SFB!X_%.S^Q<03\J6G_
MCC>+;M((2E^_H#1;5OQY#V%2@D1U/2.VLZG(>5IKPL+X]:.[E$];DH7F:YS22
M86N%1N3&L<DLL#Z-VKTK#BI>HWIE^_;=:Z_97\`*<Y9CFE<JUT:(J54EC(C#,
M2Z><D)ZQ[/5A3X__VF5.O'4@W,=E!V%M3#<U8ZJ`?IPF.9>EZ,5BX7G6C#%VS
MLEUQ63,,ZA:R<+QGAY^$&AP=2>/'0W]F;I7V4>`!8V_V`#RYO,'0YU"/AOD"Q
M:I^&:[,]2+HP[ZSDM;B>.PM5;^GMT\8*Z=FM;DOC5R>L?XQM!HVF3F9Y]-==D
M@BH5I^!AR]VPTH,-AD/@<Q/F9^%0WTFB6WD#_G=->A=RB.!VI)#7"W[J@:B94
M=K(MQ2)N0/3WFEDEEB9@;NM%PF!7U^V6HXPU[N>?@0Y9$^2(2E(HXI*,2.B+X
MDU+J^U&ABQ=&P5T?2Q!)!E`%]AA=EI&).661-RZ2I'V8I(DB%V#B^%R,,B+!W
M7E1?LOG6B1@Z1>2;>Y)9IYISZIBE8AG>UM`:92ZJ(7V,5B8AF8].^HEYE&()`
MY9.5!,=EBDUBJ).CE)JI(GAZFJ<)GFW&Z>>*L'E8'YV*KN/IJ1\6Q*6@KE+V2
M8JN$.G?>;S\"6>6A.H9I[*C*NO?ILL#PZH>STEIEZ:280CN=J,<F2HZOJ&9JZ
M(K;3PEEJ)ZK"ZF.JZ+8X(X_KZBKKNZ1F.&MUN0[:%;DNR6MGAZV-Q:^7^F4:&
M,(3C'NQ=LPCS%"FX"S,JF,/=92&I'3W:&NNW5A*K^RV:'2.<7<7MUKMKLFKZR
M@^O'`AN[IL*KDAC,O?R)&A-M*G,K<AT;ER3SPSX_F_//M&(;M-#,^;:S@M>:%
M[+&V;-8:-,G?W#QMR!);7+`S,_=<:71QZ#7!QD4K5(&]525M=-JWBJMVVT./"
M[3:U`L>M;,1L-[@TVH$45RZ^&<.<M:9P0YPWM])P3?>5WB;.>*]W-PZYCY'C;
M1/35DPN''M-*3Z6WEA:-![7EZ5)MCLN/4ORJYJ63?CEQB[<.^[:QSZXQ[?NRZ
M++KM155YJ0N#Q^LPZ.ZRWB+QE/\^)>KT/KXZ\KHS:?KSB0<N/=W1PUYS[M4OF
M"&SO.CC/,,U]A\[\^\JO`TU`#$Q=;G\8Y:05&AQ`OMA^$,FXL#1/-%57MAS)4
M-I9GNK9O/'GAO/=_8-"WTPB-1]E(HD0VG<\<4R&%/E\;7G6ZLQ"]11W70<21"
MM6'J61WZ'K!>M7@]I]/A=7Q>'[_O_7_`%+-`PI:TAL-"Q<6*PT1&%:7'JL&)M
MMJN%RDRY&DU*3,BYRU$^C]!3U$W.5-;6NC;76%F@U=G4R2TWVUT\QRQ>2PY<O
MJ]H.+@WDL6*19</F)D_@GE%8:>MKDR_L;6XVZN'N<-1H\3QP\/)T%%!F4_5V>
M#W0D<F7V"'IZEOSYY_?L[W[^!(8"^&O@04@%Y2%DZ&1?0W[N'BR$^]C0ET1U2
M5R@*>9B+BBX&^`)2`!-R),>3%2<J!*G2I1^6+5_.+*60YLTC'7'>.&?0A4Q$R
M6'8"N@BTG"2?6I9]!&7OS22=*PVF#!)U*,NA63_%U-H5)5:O89TY%6NC)\83A
M?>"1+1M1YD9>&I-N_<5)C":1;!LYI4JK+TZYVMH.-ANS)&'$@@3#34S8:N,/O
M9XV"J/;T+^2Q0.=R"SQ9*5.[QU;E9>Q1RN,?J'=*5(W9M:J"KV7/IEU8;^TNX
MFRVOJ%P9-\^I:(^2*.TWMFG!R">W1@/PU>6VGG]/IU[=^O5UT*M+/OP/KUKL]
M^H)+YVRJ>.KCRHN1UKTD_1KFX>7/^Z=?W_[J^+_1M=^;Z/9]RK(X3Q:DA(/O%
M&T0NJ0<J[=3+KXP&`91P0@HKM)"@"/5KC[_^A!O0PC0^=*5`\NA*;D$&]<K0L
M00//>/!"&&.4<48:@?O/OOU:](Z:&G/#2,162.RNJR'3>;%')),\I<1(@(S!N
M-]@X'((J)Y5,Z\C9<F321QZM-*:E*L<11DHOOPJS3"6W-,NU%8,YLSDRHS@QP
M2AV-L.I&-&D`CT(MB[P2P3Q-TJS.\N*),U`Y\<3-3T3OD<<P\=X4"$NI)+6,'
MT*KF5*\F*15M--)#K>LS"><^72O*@Y@(U=09*!4+4U8O+1%2WCR]JLTO5W7/U
MUFDT^X435O0HPM4:6RTU4]?I1GU2U;48M;(H9PMUP]A821HV+&KYW#-!L!2[0
M=J!ON>6U0V3UW/97.Z(5--L1A2WWLW&O4S:S(=F5%RU[B2+NW6K_S/<E?GOTI
M55Q`FPQWTH!SE=154,_10UT';Z+R7QLIQG9#8#M$,=80$Q;3O(S[;?7@C#*VY
M>#XHW9/5R8$'"]F;<[T]V4VR8E[7/W;LL;G9F16YLV=224Z,NZ#]]/B^CE^.F
M:U\U12[ZZ'?<;3K/E,EE>><-&JD48A0/4)._4GG&5%%21HXW4;Y:%AM:D.105
M>V6H9_D9:'KC;FS>6L=3.L:BP%5U;Z<-!MINY,P>^R1L%U.L2T6,$8_L[*U+*
MP]K:JG=V^^RR(Y_+IK67:]GQA@&',.US03^\*5\+=JDOH8.%/-G&N=Y5Y]9%(
M37KJ73`A/'"%<<_[=<U][]TPX6U[I):E^N$\0.`)/O1MRBO?YW+),[^YF>6K7
MAEMOZ^MN&AE=P!A3]DWI/%YU`H!@HIVNN<A8K&GBK#?O_H-A6(F44Z*I.EG!$
M^L*Q/-/-]2ET^]A6_0.#PF'/Q<H1D\K32>E\0J-2C&]:K,YV-YVV*[%VM!FL(
MJ4EMA;W(4A=('NUB:AZDO2'5S:BY1GV?&^6]"8J=^0T-I@&NL>$9.A[Q/6Y='
M!5927KI`@G&^;,(Q^W9F)8J6FH+2<81ZQA%^G<+&<F'JR98RK=KJ[O+V?3I)=
MR@7#+'K)'D:N0@XG&^\YS];BV*DL-J/]F?V"`$Y2EWV[2OMLDF^/OG(78Z+F1
M9OHV#2ZGMX(CG??>NJNSYRM*^PL(!>"D:(X*"4QHJQ9!A8ARI',H<:(04A77O
ML<)C4<2Z>K`TTHM8R5XX<2(Y?L&70J4W;"M)8#%'\.!)?O%"2DB$,)M(FGI`6
MUD37$![&ES5=DGP@#V<HI)=(4A0UU,-4A1NC8FW4KZ#!IE>S@NW*-:P;B%7)D
MH@7[M4;,M3P9L9S6,6Z4*O,8^L1ULJ36>W1M;GV[$Z6V5S(!Y@U,^]5PX@LZ]
MG1(=Q_AGRK]&SR9%]BSHTLH]F=)ZTW9?VK*I+J.%7'JU/;FG6<.6&!%S;%5F3
M2=?.W<NM4&5!%X-6#'CN:ZE`X<YNO.`Q;]LW?V_&W5*UZRW*/2;-7FWR<V8F`
MBU]CISR\22+-,V'ONZ]S=]^4<XENK-LT>%2I+<^W*IUV_OY@X`OGWS5%"%B@_
M+N<1\PE^VF4F`W$!_A=<>$8@9<T8"$8&C3#\H<=A>2-]Q]P:"XK38(>_4'?AU
M9X6QV!Z$*V!(@8Q7),B9@L>YAQR`R7%7GX'5;6A)5C'^>(QT/129)"=XO2A@+
M3D<:5Y22NQ!Y68Y0MC1=;YY!%Z6.^Z$Q8Z&670V6$9;_\(=-.9HQ2"*(3X6(I
M8I<3JCABCS=4"1R''<%X#GM^K?CE:_'=.65T0J)&5IZ&+GGDF8Q">JB0'N:G[
MEX^FS!6ID7.2B2B&-U**)J+ZO0<FFV+2V6F*DHZZ':??E9@99..Y:B>7;,;:T
MCGAW!F*7F\-=.B&NP+8*9ZI_6H?8FH5JJF>Q]BGZ:[-35!7JM-<V,Y:FE@;;8
M2:;8>OEHC3M2"JJXSC[KSUV[GMI-G>=FR%>M3:+;;9N\EDFKE3SXBJ-S9R+;F
M*[X?7O3JB>D1^^^5R4I6ZJ#+MF@OHP9K.Z2TX`+C*+T8<\RDQ/YQFZX^4G+L'
MH)KR^Q9,[KGFPONOQ0Z/VNYAQ2U:WJKJ?:SPQOK.W(^^K)IXGF4!WWOKQCA+K
M3-R\@04L<,."GD9HQ"(W^V#-IUQ=,GU4MZPUI#SF7.EM1S>*L-?C?OL$T4M[5
M>G%LZSY<IK$0B!IVO"::C)D[0L-TW3M9Y@HTP3\3G##@;X*8];M'%V/F>G*Z*
M&#7A<^=*L:%6N_U1YF>SI;'=G$^<X[4AR[8YZ`>C',3:^[9MN=C,+KZ7A+%3"
M#2S>0;X8Z*/]`FJTY%/7'CO>DS>W.MR.F4[[;GY"'O+OP"M_N.M38M[U0HJ?/
MWB>$UH^0?6D>!^_DV)^7G>;V:1,`WT*7`Q]&.6D]^PWG;'G?\.N0\"+%$TU5(
M[S-+S8FT!)/=-9S7YP9-732#T6H`X(N!7."*QJ:S=B0V3E(H];I4+JT[W],;K
MEG2GR2\,RT.#LUKU6B&6S^D6^-U<UU?)>_\?L"Z-(@]P,!`Q47%QI#"+$5(,F
MRS&2B<WFLA&OKZVGLF(3C?&&<\*E]#/U3,M3%).J"Y4E39;#4_/I=FQCJ-.A6
M%]=-U[0E-W35S?:4]V?S-4XE%%JU+_;X>0UY.MA5U=M+NOM[#GC<_-R.\C7QL
M$-W]G>ZP'?YS,ID>>WM7G#M<?ZL</7^9_)`:ED\;/G/7]LT#&-!7#$G2R!%\F
MPY"/LS)P\D&<=4>;^S6+(3L:Q-/OGS*,]5KU6(ER&4&0"FD.=$@SW4B<.__<Y
MQ,5.'4^A-2D%'=HSB4]\I6:&]%=2YS>;1O>8I$J(S<%`$N&]1(GUY$6E&<-.O
M'+N18S2,7KVJ3.LT:"VT7&'&+3N7[L>[+&7>V@LW):>W1]'9)*SWZF'%*<XFI
M-IMR<>14[1SSS:L(UEEW@O]&#`<UJK>ID`O&K)Q0+.G'3=]U_@HV6\=X;1F'"
M]FP;=%'7M^\%&0P5]FE?P1.SGJN6]B)=47^7).Y6N&1$GZ435UT=^S.W0'MGU
M]V[(D>9*XF=S(;_0K\;7G88#QJW0(])Y6E'WDY]<:OS4U_&">@^=^Y\=Z,.KD
M.^0"))"_YA`+C;GS#K+MP`'WTV\\_BY`X<#O--P0$KDXC*RQ`@6)[L,2@Q-K-
M*1)7>X0PSM0[#BV`2&I/.@_#D,)&&?>K:BKXR,,M1!7).B\G"_=)H"<0N)/P,
MH<M,?'+#'*&<DLH)G:Q2L2"O+,](+*F41\@EM[SO%R+SLXBB]7+(JIC_!&)2U
M0--$](\R-^D<B*@NO=SSG`R+#)//0,\T4]!"JZ/04!_G1$+,1/D$@]#I(HV3`
M%4`M,XJZAW1D;T(8:X33$C#M/`+4._%T%-54<Z-T4E5='='.5V5MK=19E7/,B
M4NAL?5)4/4=IU<`R<XVDFC0UC1'9^]>D[*K6VHQQB"H=EC7UJ5VMK=*X(7V]H
MEEMG@>VVT5>G!;>T1:<H38D7R)6LUS&I&19#8<QEMJ\7/5VSSB+&+:Q9;[/U"
MM*Y^&W*WC'4-SDY!W[X]F-Q]&2YW7B\=?A@<7"/.*%TB*#ZJW10OYI+1%EN2D
M!0A\==-7X'$FUC:V&=V#-S6%"=Z89O00_7/;F@V.56=8848XY9[UVDX/,^S)^
M6>A?[UF8QX\KJA1IT49FT&1Y\SV:::EY#K5EEZW<FIC3?DZ:[(H%#KIL56=.3
M&[RLL;N9;58)'ILWM^.^\>2UB:7[SW-%1A/"JJ>1$VJ[+W6:R^4`[[IH\?B^Q
M&_*!^Z->)?+*+6]\Y4,SMUS+IG>['+.\/9Z<:[\Y3@_K\`27B'!HT-;:<)EI>
MT#4=(VP/76S$0=^=]]Y]QREA+.'^7;LB(0Z>>,_S>GS%O0L_S$6CFVEB]1E?"
M?Q=L6P,G/?GNO?\>?'_]G')X\#L_GH#X!KK<_C#*2:N]..N*@D-;F'5BV'D`5
M6*[FB49N&C/N.\MD4RLWZY>[GW!(W)PHQZ)RR6PZG]"H=$JM6J_8K'9;K`6Y+
MU"]X3'[D)BJE-U%NNX'I19Q\CB;G;UW/O,9_;WLX?6QY&&*%B#"#?8F-CH^0+
MD9*3E)66A8MXEQR!FYY(?@=RHCRD/EZ?J5!UI81E^ZRK*IJ(AQ^+?$F"IH&9X
M+YZUJEN]J,'%QL?(R<K+S%C#S:.=T)2P:;*S+;G3V[:FT;YTV$PYXF_`>FL01
M?[F\MZKGW./#L/'U]O?X^?K[AL_,Q/P:59LW1%I`8P-=A?-FYQK#1/"^&=3E0
MBIVV5NF"13R8;9Y"CB!#BAQ)LF287LL`F@1#SU_!ARM_A?K(LIP:AS0AVD27\
MDR>N;C09(9P8$XU'<$63*EW*M*D]E\54.IU"C^+&J?<2(JT)TPFYKEA!$;UTZ
M-:S'L&AE<!JS4UC5D$+3RET"]5W9N2S>#L++3ZNYMB])`9Y[MU)AK"A3OC7#[
M0Q%8C"DDC)79\F*5^\G.,.N+R[?SJ4Q#-7O6H)?SZ'A^W5Q\O.(KZ\Z')\6>C
MNK?9Y%H&X<V6U&FW$-&7@6?->+JXD;.4%QOON%6B\N7(4K=)W`5G\].^'V6'-
M'O4J;LO.>VYWU%MXX,$GS=<SS;V]T=J;QKO'>-WY_&W27X&^*?@U;/7:`7A?/
M<L]])XYNX'57V7->)<@5@P%)->"$],GW('H42B163QG:]1"&#;E377_^X64AL
M)@)V*)MWX#EH57TNIE)>C`U">,6)T$BHXGSPQ9<BCVUQ6".(.VZ(%)%/[,<?#
M&S82UB0U/Q9)WD8Z6E`E#=/,B.0/Q''!7C<7*-1E/U?2P,J"!4(8^Z64H>&HX
MA9O0/6D%G%+F-YT-]9V'@IQL3DECGX:-:>8YV`@JARY6"OE-9%N*H&6CK7V)P
M2XD4J2,B3^4@1YJD@UIC&95CE0GH4VNZ56J<D"9Y*IMV[N.:HJ-&0N=P>9)U2
MFZ3PL9<8IR_">*FJ[?"I)Z@1Z?IKKV!I.L*QG>[RZ:."4N<8I;'R]J>?J0()?
MZYNKUCE3K:A95ZV,W9)*+22B(@N3B,:ZP^F[2@*[6KED]MAL;J;%6Z$TRM8+8
M[QG!HFEO79B>.RZVX`9XK;?;9C'KCJUN)N[!/BY<DK"TX*JONM8]FZNA'#='7
M,%`&]WKONNGX1K"T(8/SZ\@$,:<Q^\`>"YR`&#%;:C'%$SZ,7<GI87QPQ/F\X
MFC#/>?C,C="J;0Q5SH8.K"/+^X)<M<Q4'U7R#GMP#4C6$N8<WH]!)/BU5M]V=
M[(O7^.Z,M+;9NA>W/&XC3733#3LZ<7M*>TGO>D`G?8<V;--\A$I5)F[@X35[5
M6IIY6HL9^7&&QS'#.HPW/D?9`9?*N<UX@CXIB9:+77#>;\O]]\^HS[EZAG??2
MV?JFI!\M5]^F,GW0W'X;7='EP`\^KX.$+DY"Y\X^7G?D+D].N^.E9UXY",9_2
M:+JZOP6OR=EIHQQOOR>G'FNZ??(^8MT$P,?4Y?:'44Y:5<#X9MM]RK1/"@.C&
M'%-U^V6[DFOC]A5E^\9#?(?H\T703`#A#T@\!GV,(G.I/#8/TN<F61%F=2!M%
MUY6D=E%&<6U:)9>'4'2J*3V/D?(XO:ZUJM=.,\__!PP4'"2,R"I$3.394NR!7
M:X2,S+&;VY-LH+098[SL_'OT9`$-)7W@++70JWE;>GH<38-9`&6]JF1L8Y/%$
MPCO,&Q+[<&U5W5.=12NVO#U5J:4<ALZ-M64.1L7.UG:P[=LVA/T6G_3VQ!M'P
M1UXF;VY&S92Y3I__W:5WK+Z_=->_\Z4&1DP.K7P`,;5Y=BH,O'@(\W'RXB':!
MIF*Z(G+I=JQ>.3<"I0VL%LXB1#W]3)Z,`8>?OG\H^UV"X[BOY<MW]C01C!F**
MX8R+-+>)1`G4YR>;0<N,#`A2Z<>5X7!2S`BF8,.0596M@XG+HQI_/;M:JK@1X
MZXB$-B>:G8:QRLRQ0]T:/7>+IM"W)U=*\EHWTMT5,RN)VRDJK]Y.=/L9)LPS;
M)Q&QYKA^-;B0:5&#?";#>'5VL6"K[:YN5J<UBM`BHS)/#<WWR^C.LARB5DL23
M=F+:Z8[&>HFX]CC5C0;O%A2XXU/>E%/^!HY(-[WER5-]C@NI])6R:ZHO2^OT#
M-50[DHT?;^T->MN#2[?0G;Y=8=K4WR5N16M>_#39\E<)=YZ_T&-FN=GK!ZRDX
M1)`#D!WRR/+KKP!!^QM.@]D*W*$YV_Z#\+GQ*`P$/F,T3(H[SQC2+CP13K,/C
MD%Q(#,M"T3QT32K6+NOCNL:H8G$=S;`[T3[K.*RP1T+X>W#!('TL3*/]=,"/:
M2`3=6S)'!O%BTIGS>E.2LR19PK!*;B[,DJ@:D:I,QMAB"A'&#M=SD<H&BWI*K
MP-56G#+-%H'PJ\T1U8N2EQ?9E'.^A_;<A4<M!P7OHB%_ZI)01911#DDU%27A`
M43V=/+#()X6)<[,\(053+PD5Y3+11?KL],8SXVLJ.THQ2^9&$_]$K=(FYRR1`
M&LCJQ/-4/Z^<H+KV=C3SU\H`2I!38_'IZ=!L/CW6C\]^='339K>\^W12>"3U1
M3=KW6&426U!%G8?904-5-L(^-ZP1V$P_O$M56-?=%<YJM^U.7"EU',D:=:-]U
M%]7;.BU4GC'S,LU-8O\K=]KDV(W-)7L5IE%>;>]UD%>(U3)W*F\'G%C%#K.Z?
MF-J-BTOX6W([OD'0@TW%=2=8"N8/LF'588Q>-$NVDM;ZO$H1*;!B_DK67@T>O
MN.5,B%[9O8=#'HIA71P&E^F;J(MZUOZDIF!D9%.==U&4LU[7%*VUK)IDBSD]:
M>6S%8N[9R*Y$%M%&H(<MLV.VEL847Y_=<3MH='_#>^_`D'Z90`)EQKI'I^^`$
M&N?$*;Y9;;`Y<%QAR2W[[O)7N[8V^PUD'\_7T[+'35MH+]EVNV]KQ$:1LKGUR
M1;QHTV/7=_:([XNJV-H+NEMWV&]'[U_:9X2;RL!!QW+7/!H_&WG(_>7<9KF<9
M9]WVH5W^^LCHK[^SV^RK/+Z4\"$<R!00Q"<@/B;LIB-C;\;F*@8S5)KUQGT>C
M>&7;EUIF1*HOK#[2C+EC:,AL5^]*++A""4LW&O"5A/&4OB(T*IU2J]8K-@7I2
MZ;BB+%AZ#)/+YC-NV5*CAZ)M.RX/P\M/VV&>K9^!;'R7GN"@5QXAX=BA8I_A!
M8ES.UTF(UB1@(]-?4UK@SZ419R&?T)];I*-G@Z.J'-&J*Q+IJ^PLK22H46$M\
M5:)N^^_JW1IJFY^PK_%H,19PL.FQJ-U6K-LQM>US=1$OMN[U=@R'CG2)1%!WB
M<%0R"-3MX[+W.SQ9:[R9-OT]/BRD_;M[_C\R3=,$*1`',"`[9>FL"&3FS=R>]
M:!!Q'93EKR*_BGHF:NRH,:/'D-5`B@S%L23*1?MR?&R8$J._DV`@N'P9JM["!
M*C4I8I.Y2V).GS:O7#Q(<BC1G$B7UCK*]&F[G4@K0:TZ9Z53:D6M]JPI-.F;C
MKR*S8DJH,*A2BVEU`FUFC2LTJ?_(PG5BMB[>J%OS\OVYU^:\OH+1897[T/#@P
M5Q?%LOW"V&-@L&XCWH4E0Q4G/I,;=^'X&._*3Y#_^R;>5/HT';JH4:ONV'IUC
MW<(&^R&&?6CQ6LJ6*6TVRG)F[G5*NWWVZ[A1<4MAT59>+3LYK=>"9]NN;K*YF
M==O2?=?.#OIY;WJDO5^-&9PA\F34XX6F')[S-_7GSW9.CSU;V_?0K8*_OVT[Z
M7^N1!UMD`UHWWDL"&AB;;"$AN"!.+NU73EN\^0=/8?2AX9E\%P)'4Q[=E54?*
M<^^-15^#+8GHW'P03J>@BS'*.*.*^SCX((WHF>>ACN$0-V%3&?;(C(EVF?@C]
MCRA"$A>)E<$8$#<MZH/5:"NREF2.WQ69)9==>NG,DC=:^25^$DHI!H@=8LFDO
M>^T91]44')H%9)DV^\J3GY%;$K9FA'R6$J9K.#I')J&%&GHHHO(\56"B;ZHYC
M"#%STFE<F^``NN=OE(YHX2EVWFF(09/NIE9R0E;Y9*.IJKHJJZTNY2=WJ+KZ+
MR:,$I5F,K*F=2>1UW;D9YW"U=LJH9,LU)ZIHLXS9*[*N`#@KM-%*.RVUY<$Z@
MEZ"S\M*L-99>D^N'UR;+K$R>:FHDIY@16^Q`G6RXZZ?P_@DNF,M6>R^^^>J[L
MKQ<,TLOJMO(BY*VD`DO69B?/'KRI:;_8.Z*Q^AEL273_SBNN+PKSNS'''7N<=
M([==6:QJP!C'%R(I(P^)8I[9QGOR9B%3&'*DQT[<K[(JKPN0QA_[^_PST$'G^
M);-6#VN)R(YZLMN0RO"Q#',E2FO(\%N*W=QMNQ9FBJG4PXB**M$]ABTTV64/D
MZ#)G)IO]KMH8HJUEVPD+:ZV/WXZ-[M,04[E1L`5WO2'=$>N]<\(5(_OW$".]`
MO3;C+\:=[^)H-MVXKHC'>O=8=Y=L.=>T;L)YN`@/;"K;1\X]%9XM$ZZUX5?G@
MG7'DE.>)S^JV3@YLSR9I_3BUN4/-N^Q.<^4[ZJ[O[C?23;)NM;A@D\X(=DB"G
MSE[J<M?>,*G&BUVTT<$?/WWRQ`O7?;'D*Z<F`3$P=;G]89235GOQ,WMGO[CN8
M&\G2/-%41;C5?=GP@,>0)N5;D>>F^]5W(IOC!XP4<4@/CW=3$D6^J)$*&0XE=
MR,#I667DO!-LF,(DG]%I%7.KQK![:K,;'E\WH6/WGG\'A_'Z!`<)+?0*:0()Y
M_P89G11!IH!^#A.ZR"[?,C7A$B7SVJ3L$/UF*@$_Y3;13OOF2&%C7=ADOSKW-
M7E5I7W(C6VN!Z2"I>H.-CU=^D2^*7959GU&:8T8?33-7C:+%L@UO>5-MJZE#G
MEY<HNW72B=>KMJ$=S>61IV'K^.J][L'C@\+G`?+KIVY80(,'R8U#J*$@OG?ZP
M'B89"*!=B2O8_KFKR##CN7P2RW$,Z6]DA9(<*384V";BK(W6%*9I"7'B0ILR9
M5<;:^R6L)JJ<(%_>%.JQY\J9S$+&%)6R8]"A[(X"_(C3*4RE*>I5Y73MGU9I_
M'4UZ%0GV0S>,5T$-JT.6"SJVGMYJ$YML+HRI3_':_6EOK]R^&L2$K:FGTCYJ6
M3-$B/EG6+.%+:PM#[MKXF[C*2']"/C)U;1;-ENOF_5KTYMTSI#%%W7IVL4LA$
MK!TF]AQW=6N0W!0&-6SI\R2WLO72MFK[=&C7JD4GQXR<[M6[[5KU]B4=].SH\
M?W+UOBR*><*FV.-)/B3^T\ZTTZ@+SI=^>D_VO--O5U[\+T+3J8V/%LYX8GXK[
MOQ?S;[6V]O.F0-R(0VPL(OXSS[O[+`*0&[@2A.I`^PIE@7"^#9<3,(/,<GJN#
M(<FX8^^CK/!XA43%!I//P/7`&X^\469,:K?V'&110_ARY/%&'T-<D23JWN/0=
MMUU<7*9'7+H[KD("KP,NPM=B^E&QXZ!\DC\MET-PK"3E$Y(@*IV[<#,IQT3S@
M2"[Q:]+(-W5DT\E?4`1S.S&!O+&S\W)+,9`5K7RP/AQ5^C.\&4N4#L\\'2SR.
MRR7)`VW).'M!5-`=X02J1CD+F507,X,#53W8+&0I(R$'+4/4*V$*U4L^8?2PH
M.:[*5!-!3D/%E4)=UY0UTZ<P+072$>,3<U%*(1$OT3[!R&Y/9)=-$M8[8WS"(
M4DD-NW;(9Y&5LT9L^[=P]E@=']R65@!;"/;7VKXUR%.J5IW5U@\+C?=6<AK<#
MY]VMLDS35>L>/=%7K"0\D]<%!7&38'OGG'==.&.])J6$V,VQF4@9W>E8C"\MX
MJ,Z+&-&SQW95Y3C/DPDMBEMS?S2CTGVCI11;E`4E=UD@6:Y99G4?'G73@V!N7
MT^%=#_:9V:)'I7A:;:<LB4V%0?G7X(!!9'A7I?/--6AAPT5M)9U2[?G7CYDVO
M&,^+.=8VT&Y/,IG1@'7.V&F/F]@ZSKAI5DM:EJNLNQA#'0M;Y[^K+:)LFUG,<
M^6ZVO1:;WDVMIJ]QC08F:N@72;40:W`A+]K1$OT5Z-6ELZF\7U:S^S;*[BQ7A
M%Q;LR1V'N-Z?C1;YT+2;U;O%B-/5/4J09>ROGSD@)-[W*(Y'[5V2\[[]*!4CJ
MPT)<$\<(V<_<W8Y=/\CM$]RORXTJ=3+P7\1WR^P)@(\)P>VNXGFRV@JOQFWG"
M#49?2)8:M8R2:EK/R[8E3,LV@M[Z">_^#PP*AZW:BH9DS)(]7-/)1!E3N<E32
M-#V^#%=N%RK]9A-?:B[&VUH#G+,:_$Y7M=$.^2TN>_1TNUE5IZ00]V1D&.A'+
MI+BXB(C$"#G(%RG'1FDR!SD&=KEFB1;B"%KY&#KZ<WJ3:A:YVGD1EDC7&/CJH
M%65[)YN[E\G["QR\LPE7ARFJFRGZ^]EEV39*G)R1%R=MMQG])VB]K9.-Y:9<N
MVNO+S209SO+M,HG^D>4(GEC8=!@OC-^Z7)Z_U![,3UC`(=E<`9FVR]^^),\8C
MFDHHQ."Q;L_T4>S7Y]9%=[1PY:H%;&"^?QA+FGRU;@$.3\X4@F2Y:YE&B=I:B
MNDM%3URU8H*P\2E#$D1*GC!MUMS8$*FY<41G;@QZ$V*?;5.016UZU&G/H2>[A
MVC!J4ZE7$DQ+[NQW5E%!J41BB26U<-(\H^3H1F3K#:]&BW:[NNWK::Q@330_B
M0AV,.'%=MOM<>N0)UBK7HNQ$9JT95:D]G?R`IBUR.*>ZR4,-+7;FV;(\B:(11
M]B#6^YIJO=F?%=N^S6NRK=H`5?M8^Y;@-6BPFL6E"]@EWX[)]W(8IA?C7SFX8
M\Q:^A`@M[^K<;P.7^="W3T*KHV,MW_SRF.^N.8-*?7UJ<*S4?&L]G9[R?7,R\
M=,?>^AI\W?S'C!JZ=8=@@A/9AQ*#G61WUV?Q?36<5(RE==QAQ9FG"H<+DE-12
MA_-I5V%P$U:GX8,O];:=@BZ:Q-X]0D$UGF4:RM7B9H#\1)M[%IZ58E(C[H<9?
M?V3E&!H>0+:(7GY$5F6@@"T1J%6!53CX8I;<':CBB8S(B`J/0_[67E_O!>1&]
ME651Z&%_;1XYWYECRF/;=!LZJ>":(T'((I9:_HF=^YC@S<CD99"=YAA@).DH9
M2XP`^JC9DGXV289*Z.EW:'BKP!/#?Y>"IF2GH:93HJ@C7-%CF7X$"6BK8W$9>
MJ)?,/1:FA&^*^*B9/WH))JYXNCDGG.G)^2M'BME96;%;ZHE/K[FQZFJT$7:V<
MD+"GCK;3>N\0X@N.-J9ZD:-68DMMM]S2!"6DF!:%9VG@ACMJ0JPR"B^IJP8H'
MZ5Q71AEO![!*2PO`A,HZJQ+0'K0BF;8&:]VX=A&KK'R%WAFQL,R!.`NN=99)H
MG5JW4@$=L\T:,_+$`I^LL$BK.L&FO6%)B5J_N3ZU\+?\D@O-S::6`S,;7+X;#
MF<[U,AB4LT4>;62B^WI2J29L,D/&%)_2H$S8<5H>7#6MOR2<,K&[E?KPK@P+1
M.>G465_<,9T:'\OQG6A_Z*O)#08HG=Q4WZVT0/C.X?06Z5+0-\]%<VUHDTOK-
M@;C4`VO-;HWH,FFTIX:#>LZGA4?^=..<,NX4WAY;_>*_E!C]M<@->SVWP\B)U
M73$L,]4ZML6?#RMVPQN7FO:T$?/JD.=!B.Y[\)FUWG7EF0YO'.&]GY>L\<=+!
M',V:B9.\X/)+U<<:C=1SL^Y2U3/+M.;FNGQ]-9P320!\3%UN?QCE"]5>G.WDB
MW3.M^L8N#$DT58$3W-;I.C06D=T7Q@,8TYO;;Y9S!!7&#U)8Z]U\^Q3B[^E19
MEDR\95:[:FV]7W`XVQ4OKE6R[2Q*K*-J6CL><>^J\+HYS<H`\]0_O4"#O:(YT
MB$&\G$,Y1HDUOZDT-[;&($=*+,4IP;NR3ZU,$]"M4=+'Q-/30L(W+T[1R,I2"
M5T!/G=N4W-992]U:KCZ4)\Z=T-U.S9$KU>8Q1^=HZ6E$:-!4/N%D:T@H1M9M@
M[2-K2V:[-_)L<%13[[-Q\>IX^?GRRO1T]]U#[G=XHGI#VOWK98?:P22B\B'48
M!XS:K`W*&(8!APR7D5@&OUBD)_%9P8L@_\GZ)3)80'9LBG4ZYE"61RLB5DZDT
M:<]D39PYI2RD:"X<3('X!KY4PC,H^TIU%K$E18>4J<N4,\]!,WH4:,.KF[0:P
MXAB.#A*GZY@<B3&4+(>;.ADJK*I6K%JX'Z6JNQ8ETTLP7;FF/9FUI%]>5_6.E
M;.ET+Y:Y00L#3C9,AN&XS=Y&IEQY$U\Q9B_[?3LYL"O(!--Z?IJ8:N+/C-$._
M]B?:%N9(:,?:F,W5\C2?MW6793NXIN;=P6/.]>VXUUV-KZ!&S;M\V7)/Q5,O.
M1HTW*;W%"9UKK.Z-1+><I(6/?QBZC.'N@5=O5V_]=5355CG&)U_?_GWYZ?%3K
M[BU]K?C]^OJD(O^&@VDI_;YC[[#F8-..L>@6S$]"K$@C9A\*4WJ0/H(^,\[!!
MS1)4^P7``$LT\404;2HP119;_"\W%X/C02(8=P,NQ@\Y_"O"##?\B;@5L>M+M
MQ_<*^\JDXEIK(B,&KW.'%A"/RM'#YWRC1"<2<=1R2RZ=4;)+,,/T\DLQ96PK.
MO"S+?.H\<D3\BR@@>^2-R,8VDO-)(5G:T#SXKK2NNB"->8U.*MVT:L\TV>13S
M348;=;3"0!^5U%$R)XWL3)P2[2G*S#!5$*5%C8-4L$A)&K)!0O/<R]1!0QVUA
MOPNA*M67!]]T<L]6;RS/54M[]35&\'X5=MC49B46U501TC4:0^72U$!@GCV2C
M+P+OG'9)3HN4ZUI!T6P*5L0PS%;#6C^D$E<#:<62^]=CVW77LAK?E5?-9N<=W
MT;]D=V+73F.K7%;?..N=4S50^U5W1U2AA#!::Y']T4]`&^YVO7$5N[7500_.X
M=%][._9X3$\_%GEDDJ=--=^0!%;.8&A#1I14EYF3N<Z54;[8R.SPU-/;K&`]$
ME]4EK"S0">E"+<9@FXLM>6FFI>&X::BC#M,T:7=56>&*4XZ7.B1'.<'KB!;A<
MD\>LR57A:E6%B+CKLC<%K+>?)U:;0I6)EM/-HXV5>$VI^_;[;\`#_QO<M@^J(
MVMFD<]T:<;8))WQ@]Q3&-G&Y`>9VYXT+=W)MRA4I]]-P[V:MJ+WC]I=EP5-7`
M?7766X?W\?H.GQOU^XY\>'I@AAV'W>3(<3Z;=KI\7[7RB0*-E=K2[='67],I7
MUG&E61.T2W;7J[?^>NRS1Y:M^ZB?7/.754*[SYYU]YEB`N!?J&+[0[=8K&T&L
MJ_?<7BY<"'6?>5HE"HZ8IJZI>\)K.=OXIP-\C/@JF.'P9SPBD\HEL^E\0J/2N
M*;5JO6*SVBVWZ_VBB&(QF$DN&\:9[3@1A)Y)ZCF='AX]WN9:3+_D*_FYX5T08
MHK&L(<T(]ACN,192_-P`[E0*U4"::#;6.1Z"AHJ.DI::GJ*FJJZRMJ)ZQKG*5
M%979:<5V?C[AR@XF(O["76X.!^HJ%J<=)X,QB[0D.^<064I.4W#F^TG[!N=V>
M&W'"'O>2EYN?HZ>KK[.WNW>)9ZORLMEFX=)2T?=>RE]_WQEGS-HC@K,`YGHEY
ML!JV:`LG[=/6HI.'1=N`7</X9UN\=QX_@@PI<B3)DB9/>O/T+N(5E;?R<4-8C
M\.*I?C0#&ORG[R$-F!%LYD0FDUA0G&L8W:S8YID:I0UY'APJT:!/<!S%H<RJZ
M=2O7KEZ_@OW8<24U+[!>!JGJ9&DZH$4W0L44M\_<%V5E%$TJ5ZI3ODR/.GQ[D
M9,Y?MGN5U05RDX]:NHF!/0XK>=[DRO,:6\ZL>?,7ECMI81;V)K30NVV7Z64X9
M4'"2U%-YNET;.9)?N]`6NMYK^/7N^X.(6>O.2'NV8N*_<W-.;L6T\N8M/3N/(
M+AT=,^`024M9BKT)\YC9>YMS6_OZ^.!3D,>T'IN[\=^K`>-N']6S2[SPK4<5C
M7AR]/][XIP,817<!$C@8=`4BF"`:\133E'WH&:7"=G")5QY1`X:'FGR'M0;AI
M3QN"-]6'__6UVGO'V68A0PZ.2!%4E,SFCP\8&M7AA`KBZ)B'.3H7(H\_`OD9!
M@[JQ=*!LIMU86H6B&<F*>$*>>!Y_1HZVH2\VDCCB4ZSMN!]A4FZ9)3<U#M=>P
M?_X%F:959ZHI79-MPIE@9`Q^,J1_*J[9'9L]A99D7SZ2\R28>&KTG9E-KE<0<
MGUX2^SH<BO8)2*>8'/K):(AI5?K:>Y/&V:FG0;[YJ:C*Z47GG5]"QJF.5>VYL
MXC"9/AAJ*H(:VJB74&)Y55Y6NJ>:=[D^RN$N,-:A:$IXGJ5IJL#FJNJHST)+E
MJJS14NM5JV56Z=.`TY*7K;-_"@2KEBRJ0VNDWP9[[K>`(J+ED>-)**ZCWJ2H[
M+K;<BGBLBLD66B:S2J);K<`#GX1JOG\69K"_"(/;,,'2\NJCGA/+RV=C%8,KR
M&,;W]KJ.N4Q&66NS)"9*X87I18D4K_NERFZ)^EK([[R0_6O@M0_#$_"P-*87T
M5W58C;NBJPY#3*ZE"0]EY[U2T<>NT3B#1+*'@&[+^RK/,RTY:&`1Y]-E,QKJ@
M[&[-(-OL9\DAUWM<P!8UN/*5\UW]\M.Q1N0MNC<?"[4K<=\S=\\JDZ:TI1H7B
MZ???G,D,\XSU#4YNXHHSQKC:+NM=CJXZ.ZT6Q7C3/0[GXP*W\=$=GP:VK4RA`
M37:>-)T]MK!\_Z6V>3O+9$^>DU_D0@B$![7QS?A67L_G([\J^=^5"`XY0K8?:
M7V>Q,H32@36W_6,PT,TO?KWRF4B>N/;!>^SSE$UCFOWP<!.0`%/!>A]&V:A<K
MU%@=\4EU"\61A$#S+,E45;"V9-7.B6LT@R>9.VG]`OKU;D"B9T/+`87*8@AI`
M>WY>1@1O-K1NN5WO^Q=LU>JBKN7(60ZF96R>NWJ%GQGSM?LQ5YL[X94^3@0P,
M2JDN<##/[JZBD$I13H_OT8^RTO(2DVS*(E#326/,L2TT[!,4JZM/L)-)5303E
MUG`/DJX4%8T5[!:*E+?V]6M7=*FWI:I8=G9+>)B9LV:2PQ`&R]7()W?'.I:[;
MV_L[^5=[4/EH>Y$-/5V]41+./8V]/7P=YSR6?/.Y;WZHW7\>O7L":14I-*;1'
M/U4!P35T^)!2/CQBZIG[18JAKH'H(FZT)RX+*V<0<8',YF7D.'TH4R8Z><KDD
M2D_EX#6C63)'1H_79%KDF5-BQ54K6ZJ,A[,G2:5+E2+[",B8TX36^PX&G/C42
M@\*%5+>Z`KC1U+>@?[QR/686VS:A[`J>J8KV7=NU3.G6M1OT:*NK6/FRM>2TD
M6<>7+I,.'072KB]E@Y<5AEDT).(D.\=5#N88[DW#67M1GAE9\F2@>#.*7@P9L
M*V!UB5FWYJ8:7B30/<L>ZJHV;U^M9VWS]OVBM$#-FO:1(QL'(;_DO:?,M9D;<
MT?-^4%U7MXZ/-.S'N0EOPJA]IN-D@E-Z5GQ1_'54C"F&WIZ>&FJ"46.ZEZ)YX
M.7R5<O>8IS]\D9\XR\X_2?9K;"_3]+N.P0970XJZV6BJ+04MO@LKM>DBW#"ZK
MU.*+L#L0%;PAO[W.$0G##*V23;K#^Z)Q$,88)<RNO01CZRLV`#\<B;W_X"O0P
MJ/X6;&T]^7#2"\C_D$2M2/N..X^8),WA+T0=[_-10/YHC.S`&E,<T4H9Q61*V
MHN)8E-!,MY@S",7@M-1PDC@[Q/&^%_TB),S=V)2S1RW!Y$ZX$P$U;LQ"#56Q$
M3`1ME(O.-PD%\[@P_[12RAR%=%(]HHS<;,=*(_51OB8E?6PS),#;CLH';<%T2
MF"P=K2,<X92<DHLO2QWUT%QA&8N33*3*[$8(DYK341=#>;029*O,@-D^4Z7':
MTA(IA4W$0,'"D%A=M8610&=1+:TS0;N]]=/+3HUUR3>&9$U47)$"U5LL9\15M
M5(WL^Z-PW0#G"W;543?=E",N::7KW&T-3C;1"6`%)=URI.472O>JK=;::-U,^
M)=L6G;,HRC6Y`_)B/P]HCN(6I3L8Y4*[!?B]2]5M<]R6ZS0W24]EM6?;=B^)7
M=U&:X67U#LM8DAA?H`<^MN`C9_UL:*-UKBOIE*56],QEXT(SR)ILBK2PJJU]C
M*:^P6!;65HT!3;/C"CT#F=JVE0/,E)"GGIM@`GV]\&5C26N9U7C1=MKOYX3.E
M]6F$R^NYZ1EK'#P^`UW`,>KN3CZ[UB'_S?<CT+J<V=[`Z?Z<:_!XQ9ICK1DE!
M.^*(!QPL[LC)3%CU9]$=L<ZNW?XMM-9M!IWWUUCW^UW<O%GX),HK&)B&[SS'/
MOGFV=$G5MG#R;)>[:1VI?S[S\&@!AE_7W2FV;$5W=!7C!:._E8`$F+K<8-"XO
M2:N]..O-N_]6!&EB:8Z=2:E)J;`87,G3B=@SBX-\WYY`5$PG<[V$-^-/PMBM^
MBI&C<2>25A\PFF_+[7J_X.\UG-)JL>-E>NO,K#]`^-NM=$3)^">S,1?W%T%Y;
M37<7<3Q_?X5WA(1J0F=E*$&39(TD2)$'78DUF%::EY!RG(*EIJ>H0Z2?DZM\G
M=8-I=:*OL':P>XZ26:"L3$ZNJ7JMMCE7P++)RIYMMTJS*H:\S]3!PM?8V<+61
MI<UG;<V'X2&6H]R`^^>ZY+G:FYZ.W:2!J>6=M*KO2?ET(U5K5,4R:2(VSD<]\
M1>PX'#37BU_#3QLH<;G7KJ+%B\/VU2*XT%A'*(U`,J.()J3)*=,>$:G6$>.+5
M(^C$N4!V$DG*D0'1L<QE0]K*,3U)NAQ*M*B5;1[+?;-54&!+>PD]-%VG,6-4.
MG0^-ALJJ[ZJ7>X;H5=7U-*G7=+[F=06*=B,HCFVI2AWK\6M9K%Q+YG46MH=0X
MK8`#3\PY#,U+OX3U]H+&]LW4M7MN[D))N?&BOX('SQ39CT9EI4+AIE4K>G1`R
MS)E3JXZXC:F98J\3;VT;EZS!NWC'XE:]L+;#LX\KT97($#A=L^#"^\K^#5EQ>
M\+E>ZX+8C3`Z5*A[3?NVO;J[=Z?9M=&2W+!TVNK$M.\D#KFO6^O?^;;*[9[C*
M>_AD8Q-4'S6]_./Q!2@@*LFY9B!HR^%#'5ZW;7=.<`L*UEN$3OT'(!AEL0?>[
M=0VJU9Y*%U(UD#\_"8??1M-1B%TF*XJH88K;#2AC.Z@12!AY](7SG'W\,;)?$
MCF`E."./^1WHX7D*NN><A_[%<F21,T8IY2GSC.,9;#5B=V*+,*K(X&P9>EG4-
MA"%VR=5S)H;W8D2BQ/@B:6)^:5ED93H$77@9V54GF>S`A::+>$XIZ$4QAC'>G
M>CPUF6.22IJW9!^*WK>EC$1^>-!\^Q8&:ND^E3[*Z9-0#BKJJ#+YF>F:?UJE-
M*9=WUBD?F,<52NBGK@KDI)"&ZJ:D0FW6*FE6<$Z*WEI'J9'FG:7J*6Q77/H)X
MZH:D1BMMKHF05]Z:'_YFY8]%1H?M:--V6\^SFZJZZJ.`ZB</15F&Z^Z0IFJ)>
M;:I:=GCNHFS@MNNK4_)Y+T-`_JMLN@+CZY8[D"KGZ\%ZR46MP&+&^>5L+3H[]
M<:GO%/SNQE(>.F=_^V8+*YZ1BHP<H\L.B"G#"J)7,'4'R)8R@+)R;#-@CIZ:M
M$[WW(>8ES^]I2_/"8]*:<JM`6O14R".S:J^\(&K,\+I'5X=LE\K>FW`4%E]LK
M9M4W^X?=<6*,&5U5ED)^F[:^0,,;<QY2BRWWW!MSBURON-;K<ZUMWZKIGQ(/(
MY2^5QS!MHW6&"YU7S1\I#/;42Q/-(:^/!PX/F_DXBZ7DSM'M^;O!)'3BV\/"^
M(2'E-7^N^NJLX]SUWIA]:W)Q<2L&'N>V,XIY[8*;?7C)V2#2M\&W^G$WG8\7(
MWW!2&%(8,>[$[GZFYL8EOV3KV&>O?9JI;^_]]^!_'2^E[?IB[[\$Q#_0Y?8'W
M*$`G#:4(;][]7S1(`LO'0B=S_<@S95\T$^/5BA*EMAG7Q0![#2&(=],-0\=.E
MT9>ZF)S(F=)ZQ6:U6V[7^P6'Q3OHV'Q&I]5K=MOM^X;&F6_JU(BSVC>PK)Z(,
MOXNBRTNJF.N2$QP$?&(<*ALY_!*ID63YL23+E/(+*JSKVS3\;'0,5(SA&UQE7
M;75]A8V5,96MM;W%S=5-2TS<C:0])4T5'2T65MD+5D;]-:89]I)SI:TB5'WF4
MU:F,)M[>M%9:9DZ^[#8_ARXW3B=?1^]TEI^GK[=W/[[7W^?O]U?O%6X>MCK-J
M;,2;95`<.($>\MV2A!`+)&JFQG&BF`T-I20/.6!J1]";1TWO2I#TU&[6&(D?H
M+_Z#&5/FS(4M:=[$F5,GHH!Q[HE$%DKE'Y1-&-HLU2]BT9$*5X5[>=(G,)/B/
MR)5<XA2>"H0PJH8`^XB2:0ZM!4&)01KVZTZV;=V^A1M7[ER8/:?6`^HPJC"I^
M:5L<%3NVU=*A0LN^X=.PQS2J6[J!3":8:!2)=BWOU0C/\%IU+"63_4Q7]&C26
MI4V?1KW3%UC%O_*Z].NN;V&S*8O&AD7X,)?=B.UN+EDU=-:OD(D#!\V9^&7+`
MF@_2-@H=*]K/K5-?QYY=^W;NW=60"(:;U6M\RC'V#HZ^=MCGTF7I-A^WIQ;($
MPMW;+LY1T/#DP?\R;^ZLD9";S;/[)N//.P479+!!!Q^L2S^%Q'O*.K7BFRV^B
MC.BSQ$+8,,0%ONP"XG"_*89;QKCIKJ@O0P#O.F^Q`ZD"T3_J9EP.^T<(=^2Q+
M1Q]_!/)&R@ZA<!$/$](Q(;TPVPJ_&MGA1T31&.FEQ,A.#"U%"8^;2,(G7ZS2A
MN0&[E*[(_]2[,$@UUV2S33??_'""\!+\[D@$DU0R3CI+R8_"/=F0<BY55C.,G
MSSP?T?(;$]&,T\;SP&1R,AD9E2U#`RF]$T\X-^6T4T\_]>>WY#`=S,X<-450[
M3U1I5&O2)VL)5"Z"-F2Q(XMP8RQ/;DAEM;^M('TUJ?:"!>C12XE-[T]0EV6V1
M66>?#0-2?<AC!]GH#C,5T6BR+7:?6.7CULI3JZV1Q,Y`X[)617DUDEW^TC)S$
M27=IA;9>>^_%-U\R`9PVVW"-Q>=8^QJM7;%?I^+]Z=]]Q\T4&7JYW)7@5'VE=
M9ZQW/4*XT6$CU;=CCS\&V5-I$\:,8X"=%)C<FB0>[S%E=Z%V$EN=B/E4\K8L]
M>&6N7A;250+/9/E::V$,N6BCCT8ZR!>]-55A2UL5LAFG,R.Y3W9+U<`:?B]EM
MN&%5B384W9RU'7+5.N>]>F*^HM[8Y*3?ACMNN57S<NI7:K8;:*A3[IKLH.GX`
MMF)S1QT\VIGGH#8C/5046]VRTX:#J8O=XWFYIO*>.W/--^?<%B$>'NC(FOW>2
MFVT^(:>XZFZKSG7KGI-%4BNBI8P8N8S7$&]R1F_'[W*W.P<^>.&'-^,3S._VT
M$/1]^ZTVN](<%V[W"1_2'=MR@PEU75MF^DYVFTP-HOUPVRL'XW?=OR0@#J0NO
MM[\Z!E(@KZQZ\^X_&(HC69HGFJHKV[HO',LS7=LWGNO-Q&2[#--["(>Q"P2#=
M0RZ4J1\P4NQ-AU#>-8JJ&BU<H>I`N3J;WS,"VS6+O=;V\\?4EL"AK&G>T1_QS
M&S1=H.`@8:'A(6*BXB)CH^,C9&11TB0-GY1?$-EE'9P65\)7J"<;:2217<54=
M2YF/9^LHVBKJ&B857.8($Z?D+`>O;BZEZ0OPV-EILO(R<[/S,W2T]/0I,?4PJ
M;U4-9ZJ-'FR>=0ZHVVPF^',WMG'P^>NEK*^#L!RN^[C(KK`CZ$3\"CNM-#,`&
MSD-V[2#"A`H7,FSH\"%$@@<KN5*GB1BZ@5`L=KIW0YZV6`)+>53&44W&CNY&P
M@G,B2]6]>F]JD<A7DE$\0/_T%;RYA6=/<A"'$BUJ]"C2I$H=2KQ&D230,'Y2*
M]FESLF94C>A@3:6Z["I4GR`XOL/SS>`Z;")M[;2:-5%.M''$VAI9E29,44OW5
M\NWK]R_@P((#VGWX5.3;N6O`PK"9^,_CQL#,FF+\U2MBNA\.NX&*LK"\8WC+M
MK2VM.$U3N'%#MAVMUE)B,)P'TZYM^S;NW+IA:Y;&>?;%Q9A=R%5<J"6\RJE[1
M$03N:G/HLLHQ6C8=^Q036ZEN>QM:S5J[ZZ"%B[VUXWPW^O3JU[-O;W2Y;XO5G
M65&&__,[^/%`XJ+\G'#^<-X)U5E=H.72%#W;"129:+=PUQT"`C*85WC7\59A*
M@:C-YQZ''7KX(8@A>C.A,X<-1QXIYTF&WVF$\%>172>:).-8$E(T!W(8>C"9!
M@MFU6(Y^S7B'HHZEC%AD&2J*N"2333KYI(CV0?/4AO1)1Z)*54+W()$Z&9FA%
M0C1N:>-9+"57Y"\KS>3C?0ZB"<E+=P69UC9B=:,EE'GJN2>??3*%)3-42ODC)
MD("VH^2A<XZ34W\%+H1GFF26Z1F,BM9H#8XS63JFAES>!M^@=]C)^P>D?IIZX
M*JJIJBI(J('>V6HX]HC9VJP[&IK?>&>:>:LBI6H@:2L;Z;JIK:/)M*"GXB'6<
M)*B\0H9ACLZN.BVUU5I[[6?$3G,CK+&Z*:VHOC[[IIRO?5FHMI>!&Y:-YT:;,
M[KA!"HLLN0WVLVY?]N$;4*33[8LMP`$+/+![B&Z;2JVT9L:JN+_^&RY>]=&;$
M[#[=.FP&8:3*ZB^\#HLS+YLG*&&Q8/I27.RF\B5,,,LMN_SRIRNKZ]C)62X<(
M2,,>U]NEN=GEW(C,5JHS+\<*\QM+R-[>6W/)D3U<*874!0TSU55;??5_/\-I@
M'LE8L1C%U%&[>*"_-S\:]FD2.PIU^WZO$<T"$ET#9O+.$,\YF\%8Z[TWWWU7]
M$QH/T?CSR8!TH$VGX61I_+53AXNLN*;",;WLT6^W1OF2='?L-:8GY>TWZ*&+Q
M/OI'[9;H)=B%)UYWOYL+S75(JB.D=9N=1V[@Y$":N['1<O^E^9%9``XFZ<4;[
M?SSRKZ^63G'[R9XZZ_'B'#LYC#?NN-+R&O&NT1822!JNNC,)?)V+IT0[`?`Q;
M=;G]89235GMQUIMW_\%0',G2/-%47=G678)8GNE:?D?;QF']YADS%`V(\,4,)
M1R3@6%PI`\Z#L$%E$A/8CU9A_5V76RI76A:1(VC3;JISL,UQ^9Q>M]_Q>?V>(
MW_?[^Z&@_H($S0KCK$K47IK:X,!J!B\"HZ2^",,BLQ([%B$='2O%?CPEZTHQ`
MPU+<(%$?36%C96=I:VUO<7-UGRA]:`\-?7?3.&59AY,H^[S4BC<\F9><-;!0W
MD7DOB:<5>[6WK\'#Q<?)R\W/T1E[CV.!@U_+K0$UPY7YHK.353NW\>D]JGU+%
M%T*>D8(@[$&`-Y!A0X</(4:4.+'%NG_M&LUA=^[@GH6[`LW+A*:C-U%=OF0$$
M2*0D184"-[7DD/#!1I<W<>;4N9-G3Y].5&J\:$[FG:$_B_@[&8I@OY3"1MTH/
MZK/CQS7NWEA%NI5K5Z]?P8:]!=4.S'IFEZ$5F^.I^S.U$J!=(LN/U-LS^<9^=
M"^E""06;:P$'%CR8<&'#J:9B6XHN\:E]A]FVS=<8)5Y])^?.'&.WZ>.\EEMEM
M5A&TIE;(IU&G5KV:M3'3K5^"AOU0RU#*,3U?QLVY=%W90WC?6T23[VN#MV<G;
M5[Z<>?/D?YTCC@ZQ-LG@59SN$YTAX.\3R!U/(U[1>"COT]&G5[^>?06I2W/#^
M@LX>_-7%[36/+%:_%?9L\S'8[#QN!I3$IKV`."HK_O!KT,$'(>R*K`(]*B\Z3
M!N^*+\()E*I,PTFRN\]"N'S[\+OK]%")M*0"5'##%V&,4<:;#L&0!P#5LQ$A6
M"F?4[;+'^(LK-Q=;^Y0&Q?Q,E*^O[0P<L<<GH8Q2RC\0)%(D'0O#<J4DI>S0#
MP\[BTXM+OP2\3S$S?[&(QSQPG-+--^&,\\8JM62A3?3J1%+.'O3#ZT@/T?P3[
MQ/?6W+'0)A&LY<X]&6W4T4=-@LK*M";%4]`3QWRR.K<.]2_,2\DD--,,1\6H.
M+UP6A53555E],R$GRX)UN3R?`;5!+W$#,U!;2105S55X97/%65)MU=ACD760J
MIDI3E%4Y6JGI%$9<S=/5TU\C\S7!8(5E%E%HDPU7W'&]XH0,<.U#-RQU+>"6A
M/LD\"S9$;+/]<=M2-RR6W'WY[3>P_?YSMSAOG6/7/6E?I)8I,*\=^[@2@WV4!
M4U]_*:[88IT`UDY@\@AN#F(.$<X77A%#WJUACI'X>..#*Z3TXXMACEEFE[_,3
ME5AGGUMYT(7UD7AD/ND]&#1U6=)YP:"!Q1=EX3J>V>FGH?YLL8R1;O;EK:[>G
M+8HRJT[X9Y,-_;1DH5,VVM,RS(Y6:76:CMKMM^'N5N.YUY9CXEG3[K6;.!7N+
M+^Q=QP[UX;P!M21P`KM."N>X&6_<<92%V-NUMI\E/-)3X>P[R'DAW]KRX^J.^
M2FZFLW[<]-,?5Y-RH5:?K72MF=2T[T_^/MG.,N\-?<O$V>9]SM91#U[XX2^7*
M_&;@67L==N3QFYU7(75O-_+/JTVB^V?%1J^0>>*Y[SYXU0\':O'6E%\^_!P)W
MB(&F@9WJHIQT4;#8W9SG=W3B*&4F1*85JK:N8[VR?&KSC>?ZSO?^#PP*A\2B=
M\8A,*I?,IO-IK$D_4%VMBLV*J%K8M0L.OV(8KC?$(Y?448NI.64/Y6"Z^"O.]
MZ_?\OO\/&"@X2%C8%R=EN/:FV.AB5G?B.%E$QAAA1Y,)6>F6V8EH0_2)1:HE/
M29FJNLK:ZOH*&RN[%VHZB#I+R1G)DNL[8;EKF[(+@G84?*Q4BS3LY(SLF?A+,
M76U]C9VMO<U]AMB*VWT(#:<L[IK<VT"^I>XMVH96'#_5[,X+#U7+?M[O_P\PM
MH*-+^P(+`L,#CJ#!4OR6Y%NH*)VY,A-O;&HX(\:\:!0Q:JIXZMZS?2`AFCR).
M<H/'E.<0LGRYRB5,>R)GVES'0J$Q'Q=K!OFPD=I*4`]'DKS)K232%D&SA'OT@
M=*E`F5*K\IEF=8[/K"<EFANZJ&A'L3\U;OT%5JM2AT>Y^J+J]D+4,'!'U(VKH
M[2[>O<OF\K68]J_0G`J;,JUIN`>5P`//ZG,,!\-8QH+Q46;I-V3F=CHK7]OLP
M.?0/O:(YKRV=E#"DQ,007^ZP&/*LUXIE/^Z,NA!IOJ`9XB;1.S<LV\*+`P]N(
M'!/MY(V\PF-]'"1T*V9/TR1;UKI1[)JG,[>L/2[R^R>[/23XCCX]U%`)?ZO'O
M&?[]*^=A>;HFGB,V_NSQJ??O^Q\3Y<GGE'N"#5B.@01*)M<.CBD37F;UP&8@J
M>PM^Q$Q,XWVWW(7CR"/,?A[<%V!&TH@XFG<X=.@?=P4JZ.%M*EJ%%5T(KH$3>
M>88!]8"#?N'6689RZ67A"C4:`]J$1L81HPHDL0C@C,)!V:2-(-)!V3Q28L@`+
MC/24R"4M5.:W895)W%A&:TXR"%MT1:X7U#<4)KG/.S<JN:27*A'Y)IPN'3E72
MG0<Q.:B<A?Y):%A'VKFHF8H^F0J:Q6WIJ"!>%5H;B2YF>H">HU#J9Z-L)?HB2
MJ)6F"!V>\`T3I*A(^_;IIH2PKGI76Z\B2*IRJK9FJ*Z]'D:JDE392NNNDQDKM
MY+$A_EJLL:<J*^@DDDXYYK,Z7GG/93V!.49UFW[YK8_,"CCK=M5:.R=K;Y:G!
M4[+-YFJ:L\3>*FNRY0[9Z+SQP@MMF?0B]&2VT?X;Z,#]AI,KI(_R>VK`GHII>
M:F@1HYO'I?5QBB^W?B)9JL;`,ARELPE.3+&)7MJ+7&'N$GRGP2QSLO*[`(\[[
MXK`NISNNOONJ&G">"4M2\,`*R_P<*D&_,6UZ#I-\[;E+,3U'R;S:T*K'[V0<R
M;HL:0,UEUEHGS:G(Y#XL-:JV$)LR0?H.'2NS5\P<\\$5B5USU7%C^PV!3&^7#
MV3.CKNY]22)'`X4+V__ZZJT<7X#-X=(H@N=U<DYW.SEJ]/D:-M8A<^S;XUW[W
MRQ_C9E=>-J,[U[A;X4!'1;-=1K,>N-JKVTTGZ.\>VKK/\`+N:=]^N[=X[&N_$
M+GNYB#*BM^I<BZ:NY]V1/A/T;5M]H<68I[%MY("AL'RHL6C/T=?4EQXJ=X(CT
M3$!\3$5H6'A<BV9>G-]R*G,*#"L&B[3K1-<QT4B+1>%R@MI:WFCI4]?;SF7C_
MF40B7-#G(3*5S1I2-Z56K5=L5JL;<GM;<+CS%)?-9W0XER[_V&]X7.Z-">O0]
M]!H:F!M[^KZ9KD#"L;M"NC8I1,9&^T=&MR6/)QZ2E,K#"C4I/C[)+[O,(K]!>
M%C*K4\-(U-&]OT4@3$]2IE@G)$S:UUK5U2316][>.MA'XV,Q0,%#Y*W49NAH)
M4NF79^IK;-,OX98\T,OOOB%E1^[LK-)H<E;S<_=W\797"3)93EEP^2KKS[M[<
MFG[,EJ7;5^P701GX\I7@I\M2M8:A8N#*Y7#8K'GFZH%(=40?/)"$$'X*F=!@M
M291FUD'3E-(ELBC<5F(A-Q+.N)DB;;Y<F"TGG9T\A0X]>=#3(GMZ%&;$J"7BJ
M/*A&.WY<&*X@51CL*E6=6)3KQ"DM;>$,-@FIQYV^-I8%Q-'K4+A:7SFD>NYIO
M7+SY^^`]S-OW3,QT/Z\VW0.)X4RK:()"5)G8J>"QA-$YEDO9[^5K$4^L2BKYC
MKD3)--]>C`K:M$4JGP.&7LT:XN%_@!=?=/T:JUNVVV2B17QJ+5F"N.MBQMR9_
M;TK5Q'E"+B=6^?/4N@-;%BT0A^%=UO'(8:XJ67=MU('6CJZ]LGGHZ;'?-GO6D
MWNKRLTT._U5:>%OZIR?3]Q696&SIY-,OK.,"HNT@TKY*L`/X%,P(0=0&5.\Y@
MXYQ#*;D)00(/$>#(RU`YV<+9<*R!/%2,@8\$W,_$GC81;S`6(U,$O?A&_/#&]
MQ[RZX9GW&ASOQ?D$I*@+WJP:#<(5E?DFN2*7O`_(^P$1RLJ_69K\;[K<K@Q1,
MH-]@"ZX6#'$,J4(+QSQ23'=L#*1#-#_<$I@8"=1.Q>^RJXW.*\##4Y>_U+RNA
MSCA+A+)-0L_[T0(>EW+PSP<!S6&W0:Q<L+1#`VVTJ@-A[`I`.Z$,HLL"'U1B*
M5$@[#!!%6'SC(-4=PRS4)S)=/4;65V<=M!$B;ZWU0E`HT34\UO9TQDOR_`RR?
M.AK'._'7%EVTU,==HTTRV5;EJ:A!4).5DU@1P;2RDVSC/).NUIALC]--5;Q6O
MJD1;8;=4;OUQ]U*FI*PV/VDSBW5<EOC-]Q%CN9/MW\L>'?)9$FU;[ZC>M!WV"
M5F%=Z9/9P@"=,6*"^PO5;%6#UD7-/8Q%!?E4DD,U%U]Z:<.PQTQ/!DCE4$$++
ME[,GY7V97+K:V8S6C)O;-V1<_>U9)XJ)KK+HH?N%<^!E@PT8QFZ`1;C&/(U%;
M649GI]XN:Z23=E.34K82M,QZX>T:YB]SY<5C"8/<L]TIS[/P4W[G[:S<M&]N9
M&5UKB]&;*R2]WNOGISD46G"!'3:&:<1?6H-4Q;<M<>&HL>ZSXAW<=K1IK1D%7
M(V">&U>/Y7?-8_LKC0['.[%OR\:2SOZD9OWO&N-&,'8JP_YA*MI+9X9NLVTZO
MB6S[KA8=U\QUV\"0N'`_WO#(?3XZ^N=M_9TM;^8L_,?*)V\Z%/`M^W^8>O%S:
M)'\:`N!C*D9[KR@GK?;BK#?O?CVAZ"AC6)DBFD*1^8%L((V,FLAD>7)U[[M22
M,$"NA>,1;YU7[!'4[9@79W)&L8*(5^VPZ_V"P^(QN6S^*<_J-7L*;6^05#B]I
M;I_,#\R\EV][L_$@/1GU.:FD-15Z#'8U+OE!+C("W5E>8I85^<E8;+I51CT.2
ML5P-)NKE*$YBH+9&'KE*'K+^Q=92G@EE\O;Z_@('7TH)%_/"_@HB&S,'<_HLJ
MS](\8XDI`RI:;^*F8J-Q?U=3>G\;RC:CIVM_KHI[CKZVN(NN@:NWWN?W$NOW0
M^_\#[,<O($$-T8Y!@5=PH2-L>\A]^T#62"&,:Q`-'(RS[=W%>/8,9ES1T:,Y7
MB@Q/HDRI<B7+@KM:PHPI<^'`F2Y'(C02TJ9*:A;7S</(Q^0XG0J)AJM)*"A(,
MG!F0BOS(D6E3J#RO8LVJ=6O`EUR_@@U+*I38=#N'Z;!:5I]/*F=!,9WXUB.6B
M<VJ?=H)+E6Z8NTM+EIR[=C#APH;+>CVL>+%-I8PS":[C-O+C+'3:IG6*%Y=<]
MS57K'J4<]=RJAIZG[M4+V+3?RJY?PXX-V;'LVB>W235+UO;ETW<F^[8M6N.DW
MA[E)_OUS?'.AT,'IGFTM*O5GUM2G!G[.>SOW[M[;7?\N?A]NTOEHC^^K'<Z<N
MX:_=^S.?GGDY]N3=Z*N^SWD]ZO#W`ZOGGG33'4'<@.DAF*"""S+8X"SE\><+)
M>@Y*TXP<$;H&'W+*`><?7-,`<B`>0TF$H2GX:2BB?(F-:"([>IE(H8PSTEBC#
MC8A!J")YYMU8'S,7XE>;AA_>TB%0("ZB8VD<(EF/A_]9%Z`J^8TU)8Q!]IBEY
MEEMRV:4Z.2HY&X]>WH(.D$\*%Z./^LV'YHEQD:@FDW,2^"-\80I5!%_6L=@B_
MGF0"&JB@@Q+Z)IBW[58HE!8F)*=B0ZZ9YT]2(BG.G_K1LU2?=KP8`Z:25J3GS
M-)]6X::H5[JIJ*JKLMHJC6!"BLF$@\9*1GN.'E:K^Y\K6E%KB2'J6JH[O^8E$
MII512`H:ELG2UJ&RIA:+JJO34ENMM0V.R=*L@@9+*:@4=IM-D6T>:5^RMOI4B
M:2G&1LND1:FR=JZP.5UZK;WWXILO2O7>LVV@X7YQZ[*P`5SFN/(X2JREP3ZBY
M\+JRGLKKPYR61V_!^F*<L<8;6\+OEXG*RMC%53Y['KQH#5P5K]^"H7"1Z#H$H
MT48D/[@IL^U*-C.[N'+<L\\_JPNTGSR;"7+'*<,T<JA&(1T(T68H7>K*4GN[0
M)*E2#BMSQ$E!B_/!-K>!VXX>"UVVV2P/W72:V7)L=$O^AOTT05$7M6C1<H\1^
M-68(JVWWRW1BG2G%^VZ/6M3$*!\.,=MG]]$#/L7(4RCAVH(,-X*69XSY38L[X
MB3=`=%=(M6Z>5]UYUC?XJC6P/#=,NL1H(IWXS@*>S*'K0%M.VN1.<RZCYIL[L
M1_9CO^L+:^T2[A[W[6PM'SHUSH!.L_*G3]JRZDDRG&[.N>N8?#M8!P<V<]%G0
M[K6Z<!(0'U*7VQ^R,T.T%V>]>?>-0KZ1+)?0B%"3;=T7"^&9KNT[0749[Q7=`
MMZ$$B:])<73,B4Y,)&3X+"F#U-\*8&UIF\XL=\L%]W858=3$^V!=:DW9/`5*F
MZ74[#AZ/N27L^_PN4+"/;Y#,#P3-<)&QT?&1(Z\,,A(Q4)%2:HR1^TK,ZW(30
M,G3&DV?48Q.S4&^ME/5P,@-0[O-MQ^@T,9:V,-/W-PRN$K.+F&X6.)D$67G92
MLADZ6GI:5G*7^JO7SI@SMZVVL?/3FXB;DIS%50F].N5!U=IYO-8<-6^/.0E<+
M11+W]:(?+VW8"/JZ-BS5,TT*"U++UY#?0(@3*58L9^W@M(=UZ@V2"(/=,2:N#
MNNT399+4/%,H[;ES`"]@*Y6O&"(4]N[>-HS_D*@)26BC1:%/;ND;6%1GS:'G(
M;NK*`91GE(Q76`)LFBWHSH]4J^+;BA0GQF)'KT+=NG215J7*@B[LFO1MFK@<N
M1\XLZ3+93Z,TL>B-R!,K*[%[^1;N^VA+AK9X='?^\3G7[%FTD]]XE?P2[-C#T
M(()EU@48:+8EGC&3#@M:\U2N>"/W8O-,:^G-4`+F/*V6=6O(J16K'KTX<&_;P
MO&=3AHL;-=NU/?U>;([PE[C<SU/N=CRNACH1U#_3]C)8YG36IL^\!M<XS=-V'
ML=,G_UPW-V+?QNE;33A?=L;A?_6"7ST*.0!CTFT?M0@4;[_@7(*-O=_(XZ^H^
M!/]#+K\'(?0,N`/=4"U#!_&KC[$`(6J+*.[P*$ZN^,*!S["[W'/1PI8,6\>ZK
MO[Q#\$,+B)%NN0OQVA$]PE34,,;;4-S0N@Y!7/(]2P:T["#_B`M)RB<GQ.W&F
MLA14^\C`*U=)$!`&@]SR,B_1T'+*,<GL,4V8)%R3CZG45)/)ZX:DC$3F:G1N_
M3^@,8K&[M$PL0LD49]RN3]FRU-.N-Z'40I%K4-1-1V;RU%"^\7:3LLXZ.[2RM
M4C`YY=2^*`L-D!LZ51US3@[-,X95.DMU\L&^@$"DP?6."%-61\FLL`*DNNS4#
MSA>%NI1/8T.\$Z1$?>`QT"IFA:907IIT9U"N%N4L.R!)U54[.*$2$B72V/2P^
MQR^9!;9(8H=JM5TBKS6UVBQQ7175\U:*%%\T;[WW(5YA11/.<]%5L=9]%6:Q<
M7B.;&M;,.\T-,E=W1<JV&62KP)B&,JW]<T&[!'66^]$<_>3MM^H`\[9C=1OV[
M\9^*`PM/(O+*?!G=:,$EV.+);'738^+LQ19)J0Q><]XMYPWVWU0?LZ)I;VV&.
MEZRGP>`9XIT1WDA@H\^4.=0!LT9Z5GIB];7GC2<=\>@32;XAZ+VB`S2TD==UX
MA)Z69Z+Q[I/?&]<?J4$M6]]3?\(ZJ^*^34W13`=/>ZF?M:MQ:JM_!#MLH*V<6
M@W,QG2BZ2OSZO>_K@1.7-7/25;^\=!YQ7GIR+=O-IV*T(8>EYK<%T?A9CE7NS
M.QW=;8"V;D/6[LDIM?=&%'CYMO7P&TN%A2QAQ-\"#^?9(A30M:ZFC_MVC2S7A
MM.TKAXZ#@/@!BMRG^S!*Z5*LV%('ZN)3<S%C)I;GI)K/EJXIZ)(JRAIU_KTSE
MDLN=&.A&T\$R(2(NR=-YF,0CT$BM6J_8K'8K51:YX/!O*BX'6^9T5Z,>+]OP'
MG<8WBXN_]KLIWWM#GG1M@5!S35HW:WZ#51A&>TZ+;HARC51X-95G?H1H=8Q`7
M3WRBHZ2ECD*7H5NJ?6\R7IM6K+!LE"V`9)J*7[2ML9)(OI!%N;F<+*O&NIV<@
M-JY#L%R/SM/46*RVU=21IMW>8+3*WV78XU#F689YW.C#A;'L[9?MQ^J"9+B_?
M>OJZV;7I4=9XDE6NWB=FB4@0"W:0WQ]5\_S]D],PDCAZ&#.6>M6D^^`59:$X1
M>DG&HY>P9<_FO5@9;=O'@"Z!I>1V4:+'4_9NLCR13\D^4'L09KM6K*,EAAJ3W
M?@MG3RG!INCB*85ZS^%4-!:%THN(T>>HHCRUAHFG\";.283./:7Z4*R4LSW?<
MU;0!=Y'*3&K=967KM*]?HH/PS=7++R0JF`!+CDSDKW&SMIU:QCR*V#&FPT+GM
M+B;)52<OS+<&2\MDMA7@NUPK2OW+&AS3U:T-]JTL+S4<VQH#[9VXE?;&S>O`T
MTH!]2*S7XKY'O%5M]7)BWC;9#"^=]G(YNWB7R_Q%/;;WV#MW$R<,W?!"W,CQB
M=(<<.JRA\+OXHH1N;>A)Z[K?LX78^YQ\>7'PM3<=?.G-E!]HC+VDWV>!G8?>`
M=Q#B]UJ$E#WHS7&]C6>&A;7-E%=2&/XFF1W9.::A@O^A=1H''*+`7'\K/+<='
M=CZL1Y>$[#188@\S3F0CA4!V&%E'HN&8HH-8R8<BC1S&)2!-#`Y)9$+,L0</-
M@*#YN)](;ODW(V$Q.6D@C%9:^622J2AY7986<'EBD!"^]F9K/XJ(3$9*_A0GA
MFO_,^55RMXW4XI(1]10'68#V&&B7.P:G3Z,BY'EC/4<F@)1>VY$'YZ9_N7FEF
MI*89*1>?4G;YY60+#J@JE#J6>B!"U'FJ96K0I`JCF/2=2F6F)M:ZJJFAFO?K"
MIR>N^SGL$AXTRNFF<I+I79VDA"ADKE51FQN?QP2Q0%2)IB&9GQ72JJ*WQG5+E
MZ:&=0>O:HR#=R=FL34DK4X*B+FOOM4@2"ZZ9NLIJIK6RU8>2;+@*9%G!DVEJW
M7ZCU&CN>K^`6Y)&P=%#L[EHJ`L<OH>S"-.*](/,6&LB[SJ9-5_NFMZ>'OH"Z1
MH5QG_'GI0-6N9J[*HEI:K+IUU;L4K)Z=?-JY_OE)I,U%DJSTR\<&/)HZ%DL7V
MJ;JS:#R?1%=3.H75L5J-=4(.`SL?SV,[?1_"T8G=LF`7"_QBSJC-O/3<='M9`
M]X4IR_CLJUKGS6G;'Y)+U<UZ[VJALN3$[3?._^8Z^^Z*+8?KLF*VD7WWY7`KO
MKC;<`0-%.-A2/UXVVMM4+7IW7I>=.:L:?IZSV:A"S`S@'`NG;)$3"SWVXICW,
MSIKEOE?4#>\RP[PV\1323C/3Z+F^UJD/(IXXDX-.OXGTNP,L8>D8IZP>;L`'[
MC[F\P)<8=>D$Q(?4Y8:#2$4*736O)GPQ;;[(T4`R%"VR6U.)V4[8E>N%O6//@
M+,=>G:1L,N&IV/(-?Z^=KNE41J53:M5ZQ6:UVR>3^P6'9ZY`&"@&`\]!$=JM`
M)9>':RO-1A8G42:]$??F^7BK4?LC])'#0H0ZY*E+8MSK&Z2LM+P<:^O*R-)DT
M@W1<BIP2S#G*'&$Q^^3`VYS\I"-J18J%+47E5#I5C!QE!>5CO.WT-7TU]KH+R
MW9Q;QGR&CI:N7)VVAHLS2[[VRZWE!A<]ELU]]%3V_N;=_EUD1U;_BGNGEABVA
MSJ8:C]HHMBT/%U"@I7.2XO&#@D/8O76O&,)+!RR6G4;Q_-&ZZ`R7,XT5Z9D#$
MB`Q=(EO&1@ZL0A+E2I8M70ZJ]G+E/&TA61:R*9/@+ET?/5XTV4XEEW&J+,9$0
M0Q,?@H?2\I'RV9,BN7TZK5[U!U0J'85%.X)DES'0V%H%/38[B+'J#RDJAN;`^
M]I:HW!M7[=[%FU<O2J1[HRF5%Q4<3KI^B4U%F'.KUD^-\W@-]K'O^V/$?V=Q5
MNPPU,$^UB@U_GO955$VYDZJFU7>T+2&PJ$&_AAU;]FS:S-C0GGS-M=.G<ST+1
M)&Q5]!7`4']W:TH5+N5O1NDE3UK9,N?0U'E;WUBX]G;NW5LR]AY>_'CRY1,/Y
M6WLW=_7=XMNS3_0>&G3CO5,?=X6?5KV..CBN9PX\F.B[;KCIP`/0/`479'`D!
MP1J$,$())YSIE/3L2O`9`<.3[T#'OB-P,>G:>O"?$B6A)#G_3,LPC1`O>7&^7
M%F',<$8*;\01-!MSY+%''W_LS!$#L=HPQ1VY0^W$S>+;1DD7S4JI..)V@Y)$R
M_5IK3H]0JMQI2$R.'-!+&<44!T@S^\_,"TPTUV2S3=RF(O,E-4F+T[NT.HR+?
MR9#PS#/&("^T\DHNSP.$RSZVG+,A)XT$],!%NU0R43<GI71*/BO%-%--`^JM@
M3A`]I5-2-Z[T3;LB\_QP"4>Q^PE4![43ZM)4EU1QC15=?1)6^'0%25&9Y!-U/
M4V&');988X\=[+)3*\1U"_L&DC50Y!I=\L-EL1R4*C_K.RY;0@-$ZM`8@EU'D
M3E+O>_0!#J]%MEUWWX4W7GE%@@47V,A%E]6EHMWJ3UY)L[;90"-S,C-PM>6WS
M'7`YR3*9#M@U%E_9))ZW8HLOQCCC\5A42>!P*#Y/WUW_136[=!L2*M9S%;7UG
MO1%#^YTV885#U9,NCE_.V-L&0=:X9Y]_!CKH9!W>4V;=(+:4K)7YHQ9EB#RNW
MST2H6RWZ1)%I?6M;M$@6L>9I\S-:4YPC1%IHL\]&.VVUP=K#H'O+SO>,IAF=^
MNJ*GYW;VA6>C6Z71J[$V"&_E8)Z57I/#KE3*&^%>NW'''X=<8ZZJ7OHFQD/6>
M$O$H=2Y5CKTAE5IPS"=RC?,`31[UY(TR^1KLRB.>A^N-ZXZ\=MMOQ]W-S)F@*
M?>37D[Y9=KY-[U,3S4]2^?+#8]Y:]#[O+O3WP#M^YYBQY8U=]=EXSKU[[[\'B
MW\[LG8=6>:JS)B`.I"ZW/TQGTA,O;G4C:3,84HP!^Y3F%*K<!U48I\IBZFWS%
MVN+DRY_.Z!'<$8O&(S+#6G:2SJ<L!IU2J]8K-JO=XII<D<*KZ7W+X6&$R;R(C
MV:P=F;8T*V_T.S[/5:_U3NG6&U`-'M]/%M\"X1>:T&*2FENC3]S=$&#5(Q&F1
M3=N9#J6?Z*BBX20I'2?J*FNK*U8':,[IIVQA):7F:Y%=FBEN+4AD5*]PWZKJU
MKO(R["\P\^`SE6#TH=F;]-1P\+7NF/71MHLT=9XIHFT7L#=*>KLG=+RZ,[S\#
M4[)]OOX^>O9X=C%S`4OYXU>+%D%Z]=SEFF-LX+]$J/`9K&A0(4-[%*&4^P9N'
M#R"$VCIVZL8NX9]C^Y).D;0DL=G'>>G8B8QI\::%EC<A0=SI\R?0C1%/]C2)E
M4*A%G0GI^8+AK`[23H8F%@5JU17&GU&-.!R:"E-!GOA.3@M+5DY51Y.V!E()>
ML]XL=S3/7JV;MBY:NGCW\AW%=BG#NVW)">;7=>BO<`I]'4;\4M3?OI+?GM-:2
MF!=2D58XA472F-M@S24]1Y9J3>G7SYLS/I3KFO5DG*)CJYU-^S9NCI<!VRR=^
MJ:AO:&YK5^9:;*,XXH]V4]:;^[GBQSZ#M[YK^Q[GZ\:!PQ9KVSGCSM5.,^]'/
M72;IN;W!0Q>N_7GY]O+G>V1OVN:[[N:)VM>HNOI[RH%257+CR1+?^V_GT1"1;
M$O0I,]QT"$)56("8)5/A#*AA2`R%^CF&GU.$H.:2@AEZ*""#Q#DH6W^W2;@B(
MC+2-*"!<)497$%QE@+C)?R&*YZ,N`$'8$#C,"091@<I-.%5])\;XI'<MAK?;;
MAB9RYR2'.$H)H(=;SKAD?E6N]B(<6/(6GE=0ZO,C?&RJN5-WB:FXI!?K]&C@B
M>]+=YYR;O,4Q9)A/K21FD_U]F9<M:=VY9Z%9PJ8*DS0&)NA!9+YYZ91F?@@>V
MH8CBU^FF.>;7W(ZAE&ECH):.N26/I69:XVNN8NH7J'BA.NLRHE':))`_0`JH1
MGWDFF221HK[:"Z`8D;6HHQ4>RJ4G^XK.^*MV45%+++%['A8IKMVV6FNJ3H)[L
M+*R:TODHJ[W*.II,M>I)5;JG&IOI2FEZNTN?+N9[[X-",57LIW9<.R*WY^)2B
M,,#SXHELC\JJ]ZS!"FN[KKK1:GDDPU1B?'!QE>JTJYS\BFQP2L&-*^F@JYH5I
M+\I9R@MNMC!ZZ<_#$H_,R,E6J7HS9,F"G*T4`ZL6,K0LO1NNH>+X['"1"'\K<
M++-Q)7IQ9[L677&A)1QWPX78<KUSM^;:I6K4]JI\5LXQ'U26;_9!7#3%T`4I.
MJG6QVLRS%OO&!C;>)`Y+--$>QS)0T(U8'?%"7Z-Q>,4?-1Q#X8LK[J[&:DM]6
MX,KB^P4.+=;%WN=GN%G;G<*MN(I]E8UOUW=%U&D#N_9("+I=^L1WM^DXB'6OZ
M=WK?V+&\%]^]X_P"DN\*;&</0C=1">3E/4[\GY,GW9-2D0>Q-?1Z>^XIJLJ39
M#'>?F1&>L8C2:W(G`?$Q#[C]89235GMQSDEW_\%*,<)F)$N`2Z<3M5;6<9$K=
MEADWK#4=GT\_X5#(`[XD"MLB:20^H5%ITSFU1D=7[98KS>:4#QI2'%:93=]@(
M.?8%*]>]>&3M#OKD;C9Z;U3;L_!2YF#&JG;T"*EN6@P9-_[>SOC2VLP<'P47_
M';LZ/1N9/D4I%#LT01Y_3D')6'0.Z6!+5B%#"_6*^W!'=VL#(&3?@(]\-WF-<
MCUU3D8]UEYV?!\,4QT@O*>MT`:U72F^5@T.U,8GS*"N_L:7%,7&Z6:G;QVW?_
MYS=MFY?DS2<M^\=_\0UC!XU@M'H%M;C+M\_#MUD*8QU$Y4/8.7(R("YL!3#C9
MPXH(11T2QG#/.Y`GEP5$>47E2I?/]/5QR"_<M3\V_?E11Y+>1HLOUG%J&-!=^
M.FXWY<7CV4OB!WT7>T*-F&FIO:16R06%)U/J5*$OP?8).Z4CUJX3FWJL*E!5]
MG(\TV[;4>/8KE)EC6=8;>3>82;Q_L:P%;/#M8,->_@G\J)7C49PZM_$HR_4LU
M.*"1!YHBNAGS9<>)^S'*Q3#96]VHI?4*IIRY,637AJS.7<#W<,K"M657%D'+Y
MZ6VFOL$I1?.6-NJTO\T>;X?;D\BT:X$59S[]IV[J0U5?U_Z;QFKCU5LSF=;97
MLV31X7U:SHK4-/?*1=F+CP];./#3N=I[53Y>NF+0^LNK2371-+%NNU'Z.U`]I
M`P%,#RT'>SM/K&1P(<Z^!AD<C:KN%#S,N?0$B^["#O&24,'71B2QPYC\8Y`Q\
MRA9$KSIBC+I0H1=IXO!!$1FJ43[R,E0K11@1@TXN_E)\RD&W@"Q'N1S)>%+%:
MA(:\CK08B4BPFNS8$A(6"Z7<4LO=JMAJRA)3\VG`IL8\TR43MV/1^\TY&\1RF
M1MG`(Q))`7-"X4H[ZZ0(3N/>4VD^&K6Z*$P-J^*QS=PRS&A/",G\KT[U\H02&
M0$91#)+.(1ZU$D[>A(R+2XN\_/+)4$G=$2H=/WWIPZY,=-336%<:5%1+<74SY
M42(KY3/-SV85UEA$3[WQ4#M/A;+0'I=U-M,<35W,G#_="[*C;)I=$-9+-<VS#
MF?-P[#6O14DDK55$T(WJU@E=E0A,2L4,U1[OS'US6!G+\2M?PW2E3LY_I_RUO
M13PQU9/;/@/T4U=E&;[3LGB?12=:)G>J\N!@A]4X.?<0]H\P^NJM88[Y-LU-]
M6H+)4M+,P29;EUUZ.:ZR3=[F?7=&^YTYG4UFEGF9%5A._05ZK&X%YN!GHP%N'
M<N.:IQ5WX4[7([;=A+'"VD>:^047/62M;I@$;+.N.4JD2_9MVPK1OBKML1/A/
M-5Q(`V::4)<]-F;MNGL>V6,M6[T+<+*SY=ON<Z5RXD]E[#W<<;T-?QPA@R6&U
M>N)-3Z%<4[*[$92\E2.TE<V+XV;-;WI=]L;L[,IZ*C22W_:%$-.CCAUMR;_&9
MFVN0]FX\V--Y;BUT:_>SD?#"?<<=O\3O25:6Y)6/'O&KI2_HCMD)#&2?@;4NJ
M/;^>#_*<X:6]KOQK;PE`C@=KZ<ZBG)0]5>/=*5N8<9U';>0G/N>:(FL#FEH;I
MJB\L^][ZSO?^?VH);<"B$07R<(ZD9$]V=+Z6S9'2>J,R:ZFM]PL.^[`+[.5)7
M1@;$[+;[#8_+<:ZY_8X'#NMJ?E7(!2AQ5D98./2CU>>BB*@'M;A6(4-I>-BU'
M!7FUQR(UB+FCN2EHY!A$9!F),4DTI9@'&TNW!RI;FCKQ*N:9)9J8]M<:*!D<I
MZKNK:ZN\[+J*%(D&S,M,76U]W3F-O<T]2GH)7/(M/CY+K,GY*VR.`5D>[7G,5
M#EXG6LLD3YZ3K7W?NQXL'X]WK)+@HD?,FSIGW1K"H^7/H;YP[!BRT>8-XT"*D
MN9+IXY<PH$8P!R6:A)/&2DF0#$>>?`DSILB0,FLN^S.%D.9,G</LM3I(\)\TG
M5`#-?0&XDMX,,T6+XG,YD>,GIT:+4&T"PZ;6K2\AXK0I3^!1J5')&O.S4\?(6
MJZKP0.4*-U#'54EG3K48-Z]>9G7W^GV:K.]<M"RG2:&ZSZIA,AH)`\8[*TBAR
M+&KE0!ZXD>W?S9P[%_;Z]I1F1H<JTCPF=JSCG3P?K1YL=FEKV9=5S6X3VS/7J
ME'PT]W066K?PX7:)&P]5)GGKVU/L,%=6^[AT-X*G6[_>$(*E-?5>/[P*&JTO?
MCQ=SYT3FO:W:]'U^FR?Y'/M)WG2#WS7X7K[^N-7W^_\/8(#<^"9@@09&D1]\S
MZ92UX'GW):@8>[1)^SB&5(D)]=PZ-!S(84$ZC6#?A!MV2"),_96(8HHJKLAB<
MBR[")@MH'D($FWCDE4?AC;=X=Z%0&"84U(O8#:4C:T4*B21N!";)9)-./@EEG
ME+&$Z$5X#-I`I!,146?6D:[5EIJ'/]H6G92Z97EBC2.:R6:$$+8)9YQRSDEG.
MAU1FX@XN83X(G)>JE>GG0LNE>=>/W*U99V=HWIE3CXD^N@BDDDY*::66PL4HT
M@L+XM"0TMKE%UIY?#IKI6UY=^A=]HEX9**I,$NIJK++.2FNM,]JBH9ZP0K$EE
ME^FM*BA/L,JVWE>VUJ3JL&0J>RR)S#8+;;328O/LM&%DBD]&%@$[^P]",7+$9
M;86+QC?*68Y::U*RG7Z$*+HO5NMNO%K!:]FZ"E+X:+CR_DEN'KIPRRN^OJZF1
MK[@V8DN'N?;N^RU>YYXEHL`.]0L6=PV$</%_]&ZV<<3"%FQ:K^A)/"G(SG6<C
M&<)1FLSPCMV@UB"#ST"'E,HIUZ=R<*VVC"MA*E`LEYIQ/&QPS3O?++"5&B_LK
M69`*YWKTLD3?^V:=+-?+M*8V/WDUSXF\#+.Q?)Y#\LB.93VJ)%<GB++7`\-8L
MY=EH-Q,UJZ=-_9AYX0'-6=N[B?U=/'@;V2Z.6[/9-4ISNUDUXGZ[_?=*I\[8_
M6]G70FUYWG4/5C3DZ?J<>=`3#5PX^]*";_Y9OTK[]WC%,0<[;N@AH_YTF:@NZ
M?@??9LMN9N*>;S6UC';3^$:>A]>^\9N\_SXTZ+:;.XSAM.P(%.W:2BP\Z[CST
M1XCU%;%ZN?>&ZLZ\<;XW24#\`UUN?QCEI-5>G/7FW6LD_)8P>$HT3<=J!5#V>
M4Y/XI6L\UW>^]RV$(Y@;GHHZ&$G%<AE+O)E!]OQ5?TEK=DI5<K<BI[>VU';%E
M971:C3/%I&`)S20=1=L0>-S>G$0O9Z$]NK`C!L%`."Q#P1LSP#7(2,D_/@]%R
M!<;#*I=+-3^VQDG14=)2Q#LSI-#%U3$QLJ]"UCS0F=A!4]+.W+)*&]H.7TSA,
MNETK^]L>U!;EN&3<8LUAXU,,X`SDB,]@.[QIZ4RY[+T^8D?N!NU9;/.[77#F[
M=%[Y>57O:\!WV*O,27W79WH!!0Z\!U`6-&:.H+A[5-#:MX,(_8%H>*+@-W04.
MVSE[2+">M8H1U;6"2');.8<)3Z$<J=(>.W3K.+1Y2>%=R8[Q8DX$PI-=34+^%
MQG7+]Y`149DM90Y5>H83/G`[DWJD6A4G0$M0BW;\J--3Q2]6Q8X-*$OD296_$
ML#(QEI,K3G%@-T2;*1<NN:(VO:(U239KP[1[U8IDF=*NGKUT5UX"ROB<1L'+=
M^`U^Q%2J3[SE)AMV_/CR5J2>K[8]VO25Z+N4$T8U^_W6[VM(F/F&*MPO,AK73
M86'OYMVK5=^Z:P<O/-Q:^+3:E!1#%OZS\E:3I6^E[5T-J'.M;HOKG:H<M>J)Z
MTE7WS".>O&7.0GEN!I^\=5P1U]]_IIE=TW,8BE8(^]Z>(7(N_L-L/_FJ,]`-T
MV8S(K!#W8NMNC;,0;.Y`"BL\#Y&/X*/NK]SH(TV[#L_KS[L)_8L(NNB6FVL[8
M"W]*3T#""D0LP1F_8\_$\@[#@C42;ZM1,_[R\X)`%OW34(XBC:0O-:6N*BDT2
M)'-\(L@!;P3OQW;L`XS'%KN4L$#\:&G0P23WV?!++]-4DYI9,@R-N!!'@_$XC
M&8_T<<'FK+R2RY:N^YQN3<GBI,Q)#^T\4T0:H7RCDZ<8I$(_NYK@D[LAZI0SH
M3RJC(5)0)8.BH\[US".TT8-(;6323A4-SYL=M3SK)D!CM4[&.5<K$[=;>8M0*
M5E[)6F57R#2$$UCC2MTRUR;]G"VP)&JM#XP/BT!VO%X5-8S09#T]--`[%UO4V
MJ68##%?*MV!!%<L'\70M4\_.59<Z4TM455MVHX36U6<3T3,Y*UD5%Z3"W*VV<
MUW/"\18]F`0BUDM.=1F8K;',`FY%.B<.+DY8^YQWND$LU9C>>C_]U]@C/&;RA
M866Y10W(:2^C]D6CQI56YI)1A&=$E1/5ML>U5A882W2QG15@%5M]^[16;%%UT
M3U1_]25:KI]17A.T@[T:DTRIU?K#%(NS9K,JB>5U2-@=QIP4P&D[6]A.0T-U8
M>N:G<3'Y9:G-9AKMAH?NNNH4C_;[WM.@`UGLMO->.EI?,N8LZ)1YMK5HFNTEH
MR6BX(0^QWY!&_JVFJ+WNDFJ^$=_;<]LL'MW,;4F'R*JP4_>.[*Y&5_SD;"_^0
M=6Z\$7Z9\LUKSCOAK.U>CN7?>;;]6,"3KY11T#U<._3G@<\9WE7US)GQJQN_Z
M-&[)NW?I[\K[:PQSKGC'JC8"XAL`AOK#*">M]N*L-^]>,J&(3*-(C9^ZLJW[)
M*LPEPRI=XWD=ZGU\1$@X(8@X/&E,^Z8@KX2T-1^IU9.IO$FCTZHCNO!ZN+[Q@
M3ERY@K_IKOF(Y2A1R.U<C%Z>K^%[X]-VKD'$L?'U[06JT4S!F3T9"=8UM47>)
M+&+\99U8_KQ!5JYM`CZ2D9::GB85CGJ&LJZBPL;Z=&8B;@#=T@9!P?09IN9^&
M+8@FR/KAUN:\)OZ6V5KQ%>DR(Q^K3L\@7DLK:H%B85X^&Y.WRDE6NZ;7+O>&]
M9S12"M%];Z>^J_N.G[=#]^?KPY=+F[QUXNH9S(-N(:V"Q:@U>X6/7B=,%`V:/
MR\>.',>.'A6J.C@NX\>2)C<2VP>RV<J'W%B*;($GFTM^"!.>),3R7X=EV*@(3
MU-FM^R5,3C]I7L.)%*>EHD)Q.;KY*VA*ISE-D7QIU1]3JM:.BL3H,&"W0$D9[
MJ7QJ*"W7K0`'EGW#LZK3BTJ):F5%U^B\>'&)5)'J%B+9418=:JU95>W5QHX?R
MO\@*>3*9=GJ`WF6\LN=<NC\_HTE)V2@T95TS?^W,5S'>O9B3LH9'D&W43PW!#
ML4T\^I1D=HKK_NF=9YCK>VW;%H8ZUG-&;U1KJ_8]6"U,Y[:OQUYZ^B]JW5Q]^
M>R>\FO7R\9HU:B\6*IPFOV`ABM\M?SYDX?3O<\Y.N+M-V?URYR9=<Z"%EA=E@
MAO%W#W`)PN63,.<Q$QYR+,`6G70V57,;=@^YYY)7^\?AUT,KN)%(7G`?7CAAR
M@RD*.%YRZDT2TF+Q*8@,BO#5*!9W'")VR#1VZ4?43@SI"%AY`C;`17N"^1<-*
MB,P)-ETA(5)992SV69FE*T+*!-91SP7HHCF'.>G/:`@&Z6-_(J:QR)$0OC7&(
M3*GI!YV)1/*HH9'O83B=EDUFV-2&0\[&9V*!&HKC>D?*".6/C0):8'ZJC3@E%
MDF&ZV.>+?JIXJ9Y]X7FGI)XF%!2D2#I:9&=W_-FJJRY@^6J5!#(HF@5?FHIB`
M8$S.N-J:]:UC(5*_FE:B=<I]FEVLDR;ZI'<=(KOG*CV^5JNLR`U"W:*%"DNJI
MKF6V2.-^MIP*T(?V^S";9KC8)KLL=9IF"@48X(8+9'6L'OJHH9;FF^J]M&5[I
MK<`#%T>PK#PU2\Q2Z4GI;H3J2*B7@69.AB:G31);[*G\LM@IFS?"R6Z[+X8\_
M;L+.&ISCJ&*.#&^U]$8ZY[OBFAPDQ_F>7&[,#9:ZLK;=QGMHT#Y:/&"HF^*L%
M5,`1,\RM3S[3W'3*4QOL,-6/(6RMPK=V-Y',QFV-GA.;B7+@(T#SD['&^'I;*
MU(F8\JQN:YJ:12VT7Q,M]]4L1ZF+T2>;>R/,\6XKV<U)7QQXS@`[C<UE\NJ[@
M8^)BH\IE?(7W9GB`;#,MLJUHH;VWZ%=9/?I)N&I-,4@Y<BU#Z&H+^_7:ZA4'_
MFWK:8<_"N>)S>_PQX.8U;160)>O^\N13%V^NY4)']KCQ=;XY<UAX,P_KTG&#^
MGIE*<'_7$DI=VCQ712BTSOTMIA,`'U.7VQ]&.6FU%V>]0?#?X\21+$T$#*!T_
M9!]P2E5'-N"SNQ<7T_</9_+9@,+B[Q@DRH8)9A-58SR5!ZJ&*;DVLDM=U_E,%
M<L!5LU(<6DFY;"04*R:YVSYZ=+Q.SV+PC#PN3T]-BZ_/4"0$T6+QS+$"\%%R<
MDK+2\A(S<ZY,L]/SD)"&9?$.+W1*L.XT["MU@^>M,:+4RO4S9\SOSQ6V*JU0;
MMU:7$X>8L?<EV"NI%WG9^97VMM-8^U1601EW-3'[XGH:/%Q\G/QRJQP]77V=#
MO?*\'?X$VG1/6OO;BV+^WE1^?U_5MG[HFG33Q\L@&46VD/0Y%,\)1'H"N0&4?
M>!%C1HT;.78\\\YC2)$C2<ZJ5I*CQ7OU_%A,^"]7PD'X^$%RR=!309S'**I$0
M^1/B284^@18U>A1I4J,@E39U^O2C4*@$=ZYDV5/9RV$UN%;$2?2928JWH%0]Q
MB-7L5+62I`:2N19N7+ESZ6*S5Q=OWJ5M]6+J=M7>S;%V$0*FF2P;V)J#TC5+N
M"^R:XKZ3Q;X%]9AR9LV;.5.3W!ETZ$Q,1;/%W")KVGF&!R.N2I2OML9#++L.Y
M6!HW^ZK:D$_G]OT;>'#APXF7(%U\4^L@@@\+&\MZE^J_8'>;7E5==V3LR*%N;
M=]V;>WCQX\F7-P_T^'F;RHNE9K_,&LOH[^'/;.Y\]G7PJFZK]Q^+OO\$')#`U
M`@T\D*?/"E0PFJ\,^HS!E=9K[2["`K1$IPL9R^X^!(&+S<,011R1Q!)+2Z_$K
M".<[[$'+JJO00GQ`S"<_4O;+KC\3D9M1QQY]_!'((%/B\4#OO)&/GLHZQ$\LP
MYY",);XGG5S2G#R,9"5'(7TC4LLNO?P2S##]@5'$*R?<8Z*9CF2O"-:TLP6ZC
M--7)D,HF.113-"[QW)///OT4$D42S3RK'E88@M"]^QG<S-+0JQJM$T,K;WPCI
MOC\UT]/23#7=E%/N`AUQT,M^F>@;1)5K!;!*`RIT2G;*TM"V.SO%"]-9;;T59
MUUSC^K3,2>>PX3M(C?#5.EC]$H38@:"T5-BC:M55K69#(G/-4D9U1$5HM0V.A
MUQ"SI81:-$+U95PS7C461UFW[2[<:"OSAH@HT<6H7263O>A:U")YYEM[I5T7%
MX#R?_:_?20I>$9YRR=5O7DKY"]BI@9V]`\3C]IVXX'R;DK)!D#06]V"(1=:K=
M6P]#-LTSA=&0B,XQ2[UWY'4DW@N9V#ZV"N8Y9T8SXE2](N;F8>N-F>C,2D;PJ
M9(QS)AG9ABUDM&B4^V9&SQCFWF$UJ:-CO%AI&().T!FNC?LZZK(YT]K`I+LVN
M[]SVWG3:;*K4%HFI1+T^A8I_Z7T6;;K=(%O4IJ<&<.ZX#?^I;P(+IQKN2P5W+
M&^K#.QI<:KZE2=PCS#'/G`ZQJVUI:-XHEYSTDC8G6.72$VQ(Z,A5WWOQ(6NUA
M>/2@,`6<9CJ-I'UNK%__?=?:Q8L=>#N53>YMO8M/.76->,Y!0@XY>3[=8*F/\
MT;ZMKO?76L.D'\Q-!JM1M!$Y7H:)@#B0NMRN)TKSJKTXZ\V[_V`HCF1IGFBJR
MKFPX46TLSV1$WWBN[Z/-^"A@0\(K&H_().:E;#I>Q`04\9P>%M;K^Q`P66:CF
M6"GX\:4.RQWTN0S#6BWL]X?I45?':VV0[>S[_X"!@H.$)E"%B#MXB8R-CEQM^
M$'HG0C^5CYB9FG!=FRU\8H=Y4VY9HW2G7Y:F=ZJKK!MVI:"2L*EQD[&='+2I+
MG)<]<9[#Q,7&Q\BUB\G,R\S/T%Z1H6:4N;/5T=K;+*C<NG9RKZ3*Y.7FV*[G'
MZ.OLLAKJZ?&]X[C.O\#X\?+ZV<%1HKX)'$BPX#-O!C/=2\C0$9Y\__`UG$@1P
M845<\J:U\T=M&<9Z`4&R@]1I5T:.\$**=';(8D<MHDRF7-C*ALJ7*%]:&^.2<
MHL^?0(.6Z"GT#\VB2'D\O#94XZRD^U"-W9S8$N%4G#FGVEL)D8D[.C*QYLQP@
ME>3(=F:9IFT3,^P%HC5MNH3K=HXWN%'SZMT+K2S?(D?_"JY1":((M=0&*QZ$N
MEV!`JT3+:OVX$;&];&T]-N[G5&QGK#CCFD&UF1\X8;XJU$T3MO3BU[!CZ_`K7
M.T;@VKCSO%J!V&SNWSE<<WO<>K7DN90]O]V:,?2MPW1I@T4.AO1J,M=%BS.-%
MW?#,1<*!BQ]/'FUYV][/U^;9V\7GV^KC<Q8ZO?C"R-3IG>6J,C/X\")Q-I9SU
MDU6W2WC"729:/X39EYY\$$;(%VT2LM9>A8,=>*%=63V(H80`:F.=9H;AYZ!^"
MFRG8^]Q:&E&XW'V-C0B,C'H@F!U_=47GH8`P[??ACT`VY&*0JNU()%(:?@9=S
MAQL>>5Z(?='HE'$F_H?:BB_20Z!%0Q8)8V!2<A3F.A8:R5QJW37)XY5.MNGF4
M05`>"=^;0)6D)B^=W4BG>''":2")EE5Y"9L@D>556FGV>.*="WKYX)AH0GH:]
MHPGJR*AV9^ZIZ::-=$GGG)P*Z8.1W_G39Z@3ZCE0?8"^)^@U7;IH(T!<]NE7L
MBDG.F&N-JI+)"7>)-9KH@*5FBNJQR#;AZ9N@)KOJJ)<:VF*OS@IV:C*LZMJ5G
MI;#>E2>N5@Y+18&DHBGL?,X5FNZL^>P:2:N]49OE^[@L1EOMO?BZ)Z^;S>8;<
M#:U*ZCO-M?[^1/`QV79[SW&+LF7E;2:YE?"4^ZHKKK1`Y`?MG^5*[.YH#8]5-
M,8?E%FSRR>(2NVF_*".\L<IU<%QRRP:/'"7`#P=*I<<X*PPQ>SG#0*Z]H#G:(
MI%<Y3CPNNP-#1H3&\;(<LV92T&RUU<OR._/5P[S,6Q=9<WV1U#>_HU/*1JM%$
M:+W%;E?T56&SG3;,]29MY]W-&EOWPM<=/.^T-HLM^(]QR[GUX)AXK4)RSA(=R
ME-]2K;W6W$RR9+;<&+O]=D\^"HANY@SWK&C>C'NF<XF!3PHXV8BW+E_A1++>8
MU.&M1SSZUY<?"WE!^[L7(_G.?-NM>=&@<ZXTY22C#E_N<OO7L>2F(Y_V#;6F1
M[OKUY,$>I.S_T(ZXC,&F`#VJVHO*?3,$Q,>#9<AH\9G8)JSKJNQF[S8J_+P'.
MO$#51-1RM3:W3%D.SL1QK='3;^&$LV#E-40FE4MFT_F$1J53:M5ZQ6:UPM[62
M^P5S;V'CCWQ&IZ^O8+&JVZGE\VB7?E<>\7L-/)<@&OL##!0<-!1S(W$S6U0<2
MTI,@3(H\C&N<=*H$PL!!/#SKY!'E*S4]14U5764M_&R%U<I,VXRUO>V;;'M]<
M@B/%!9ZR"Y:K);82X1Q]E&0&A9G-BR-Z7OZEY&5PEF6Z/OX&#Q<?^R<O/QXV=
M3\^=1C-6?T<VVV67\H6_1[^G<M?O]_\'&%#@0((%#:;*=Q!6M%"-%#Z,H>M&?
M-DW)(`)+>-&5-XT=/7X$&5+D2)(=,Y8L1M$+/Y3IV'#85N]D2UHL0]JDF5/G^
M3IX]??X4.1,HEIA@<`Z]]7)$46%,D1(]ZC'J4ZI5K5[%FE5K(H9;9:J4Y="K%
M+:48G(XE.U6C6K1MW;Z%&U<N+K9SM9W-4M?NE[(0\.[E(_2F6,"%#1]&G%BQ!
M(["*_T+MNKBA1,&2:Q)NJ=?R9LZ=/7_^5]DQO<F/04/I&_DT&=%2,:^&'5OV8
M;-JF-,\U'4]U[5[R9/!F?=N@<.#%^XT?1PZ;.-S<;UXG1R)#!_2\K<7T"8$BY
MHEGM/!Q\EV#$4G/JY<V?1[_5UWKV[=V_AQ]?_GSZ]>W?QY]?_W[^_?W_!S!`,
M`0<DL$`#GTLO00479)"G`Q^$,$())Z2P0@LOQ#!##3?D4,,&/P0Q1!%-ZK!$T
M$T]$,4455V2Q11=?''!$&6>DL49R8,0Q1QUWY+%''W\$TD,;AR2R2"/Q"#))/
M)9=DLDDGGX3RP".GI+)**[^*,DLMM^2R2R^_S/!*,<<DLTP;P$0S3377])*%\
M,]VD[TSVOO.KA3KOLH."3O04A1%EP'/3N^PL,+-00P]%5)MFL-,@!R":X1,:A
MCCP!^Y2C2TB0%%!"NY.4O+LB4E0\1\,CA;12%9V4DD'O2#51OER%-5999Z655
M+D]KQ35777?EM==:=_,U6&&');988QD$]EAEEV6V66>?;2M9:*>EMEIKK\6VX
MGUNS74R!5O'$TR+GI"VC.3M)XS9===?%MC%VN_W-FO;VD0Z2>#N]]UU]]^67#
MV&_[/6S>\>9$C6!.IMM(7(`79KAAAQ]>R[V!URM88,80OAACB#?FN&.//XXEQ
M&73N1=!>WR([HI83]BP99)=?ACEFF:/KH1+KEM#CM9R[VIG<F7\&.FBA^R4Y2
MDINQ<<CFGIDQNN6AGX:Z-K\>^I<:#Z+VI.I%C.)3^^OMW"45W7>6?N1HFI,FM
M+,^TQ5H.:[??CJLU/];0&-^CYL8:;[O;_AHGO1-V&I^F`V]";;8/1[QLPN%F7
MO'&Y\I47\HKK/E@PBJ.^/'*S,Y[)X,HE%VB8S;E21.EH1$\<;,=79STKA34'S
MO1O/.3_)8J%MGWCTOBF'].]R[3D(]<5Q)IN>P9E.7>S6EV?^JM<_YYUXW'L'[
M/O?8\1G%!.K>@_YYV:</MWKK^;9U;=\G)R`.9!ZC;G,ORMF>HA7S[C\8BB-9D
MFB>:JBO;NB\<RS-=VS>>ZSO?^S\P*!1J#J(B1.,J&@#*SM-)\3"ETR$K"F)RD
M85S&\;NABK&VJO7"^T$FU=FGUA*1@Z'7MM$,1*_%[O<<79U@$\8=H5V@WB)CJ
MH^,C9*3D)&6EY25FIN;F1U=(7%P*J")A86GB8`9I)MNGWZK*JRGJEZL?I^U?`
M6IXA[&'LX2]>JO#P1C&N26N?[)CH;ZAPL31RLO4U=K;V-G>W]S=X.*7G%C6L/
M\K2N\9BY>O4D7V=SZDIS^>O]+7<[[VFO.HI1[OC-4J4KE+AU^60M@7:.H#.(E
MSA)2K&CQ(L:,&C=R[*@IGCQ?[\(\!!A-)$IZELB%G/?")1F&,?'M,UER(,`3>
M`E7N*M@SXBJ$XH3^4T.TQ,Y^!E6>Q)G3(]2H4J=2K6KU*E8LRUHR^QU)DN=-1
MITI_LCLW#B0MGC.2^B1;=*RQMVW#(4RG%IW8MA#3EGWJ;2LPOR38^I3(#*[7F
MK(H7,V[L^#'DR)*.+NUJ%FE8O7OE%KX\&>WANS((\SUFEB#&NIDGXK4,-B5B@
MV'/_4L8L>`3AO@=7\Y7L^S?PX,*'$V]<VRUGUH-7ZW8]5K7H2"QG1O?B4'9!5
MZ,YG=P/\,VV+IJ_S`B5O\?ARS[BOFT\>NGSUXO+GTZ]O_S[^,^H5N@?4OE1S3
MG?&V"6CO*1=#;@::QIR!%7GWW7L-_></A17&11%ZZ=V6"SUV;2=@;!OF-R*)"
M)9IX(HI8)29>?`MI1EZ`,<:(RX/]^^&08(,`]L89AN]LYM]S#/*8HX7?9*@*R
M5W"UUJ&014+H9(I12CDEE55:6<F*A@'Y8H@3\B=7,L<=&=ANV"UHDY>T^8B=4
MA!_NZ.2/X(R9!G5*VE;F>&X261EW5_KY)Z"!"CKHFRZ"V&*2\'&IIXY#<B)F^
M&6NQ]^&9>08I(HV4>=CG>FD^R:>BAW)J38UURAC>I(LJA0R;A+KZ*JRQRCI?5
MEF:BBF:7C((Z8Z;[P?12JJ)FMZFP=-5&;)N76EKLGA?*.28?B7VUZFFD5!/4Q
M?K-JNRVWW7K;7;8LVJEAKL+RVBB4*]4JTZUX+GMND=)^5"JHX+6K;+GPUNNH%
MFK\"^SA=A*452%:I]GQ[,,()*[RP(^M2>J^JI_+[Y;Z/.JP/Q,/:.K&S%=<DL
M+;(9-]LQR27+2^`\<_FKH,`%TV3JP`S+/#/--=ML:J<PBCRRN!*GB^7)B0*+`
M[<9PMOIQMB7WE"RS'!.K+](&MZR>4.S"[-7+-VN]-===;WNLEO4TN2O/<<Z;?
M]+2C<DCMV$H'>R#*)X>\)=2?NGUTOU(K&.ZUD::-=BU>"SXXX86G>+&Y&4/=2
M,\L<8S(GSHK;:*%V;&.J;M!SB^VIV21#_OC*5]\97]`4CZZVX:FKOCKK5H%=D
M-)FZFFXW<C^?A?;:</]=:;Z3>UP[-O06JK1.>/].^[O=G[,R&#I.!%1ZZ]%+$
M/SWU?T+J:?'&F]PV\I<H[WCV[O:.+N702S<G`?$#=/'V893-0)KBQ:Q)12W0_
M&\G2/-%474MM8^%8GNG:OO%<W_G>_X%!X9!8-!Z12>62V70*-:<H1T2[A#J3)
MZF?[F%(13];7VH61`6AN%AS.F*_BF6OTPKK7[/JGOHUK.Q+4VBKR\.00<^@2I
M&1L='R$C)2<I*RTO,3,U-QT7I5S^^@[O0!U$2T>]4/4L!]]8T\S&0F-E:0=I1
M:U,S5UU[34^!7U=;?HM[.5M=DYF;G9^AHZ6GJ:NMK[&'88-+/W<-48^)27X+K
M,9=587//NM9UA=_A^\'MXIW+M^-!3=SS/3W*Q87+YL3?0(,'$294N)!A0X</M
M(:+35I`;.60!]>V[R(M?.E8=4]R2E8^4N9)V0%:Z]ZW?R),6!6),.6\FQ!L2A
M;>;4N9-G3Y\_@0;5A/,D/D`L6R+U2/%?S*$S/1'56,77E0HN2=*TMY)>4:6$F
M3$[$ZC7LU)I"59Q%NY9M6[=OX<:5^VPLM[(POQJ*Q4[076]&E=6EF=%NUZ0=-
M`>)U2C<,!L%4^`*^8\7&"\-S,6?6O)ES9\^?02=3&]IKR(V%"Z<T)E/JW-:D&
M8<>6/9MV;=NW<2L:+?OUX<M%%4L=][<W7*:YD2=7OIQY<^?/K1%^^[[[>-.QC
MTE%43ST;.W3OW\&'%S^>?'FP\LP/*9Z^AW;V[^''ES^??GV.N^VO6)]?QG[^%
M_P$,4,`!"23/O0*S\P_!X'Y;T,$'(8Q0P@E]PB_"`RDT"[T,.>S0PP]!#)&1!
M!D/$4,0344Q1Q159;-'%&!1\4<89::S1QAMQ3,["''GLT<<?@0Q2R&HD&]+(E
M(Y%,4LDEF6S2R2?E(A'**:FL<CH\^MI@PQT1X7*6(I7PTLHQSR#3S#/1I(VK_
MN\1\HDW3P$SBS33IK-/.._$T;DVQ_`HL+QQB]&'./`DMU-!#$95FS:X&72)0E
M..,\HM%$*:W4TDLQE92KHS;T,](:^R8%]+%,22W5U%-1[6\EZSKUM%4>/M4TI
MUE1IK=766R\U,1I=#WH4UU^!#5;8)"7"21`&D*V%#TA5=0<.4_I,2K$\B$-I'
ME,5(2>O582D,E=MOP7T2G>Z62DS#:+?C\S2R&"S2#SV&FRC!6<,-T-=Z\<T7/
MR7&U6Q1=7K7B=%6!D8I7X'++7>=`@/6=S[%[&XY8XAOYK7C1U+9-V#!_Y2'WB
M/*S>/<1@WUB%>&+HKC+YY)59/M%BD#FF9[5J+XLY+(\'<RED8>(U-V=Z6_X.B
MVZ")+KK&EP&S65VH^+'Y9J0]WOEI-7SV[4^CA<89ZZVY+A&D?JV*(A2QF4XZ?
MCBE$^T(L;%NH^HBBL\<&0>6N2>N&[KOQ_E`UM46`NVVY]X;Y;RS5689LMMEXU
M-I>UI;:[N4(<`!I<K?.NW')[`S<[\<&!&;CD5^,6>1O#_=[E#\0+G]EJ[U0GJ
M>M3+88]=OK(+YMP<M.])URZ$"2&X9ML9M=WWI=-F.+;6@Y9<]N699UTPO@G?>
MO.^J2V.0=W"&_QQRU#L???&J';]RY.0S;M[\\PF`CZG+[0^CG!2&BV_,V'%MT
M?,$ADN(Y-J=5AASR+2LSMXD=*S:,[N9<"0J'Q*+1Q>MUCLRF\PF-2J=45O6*O
MS6JWW*[W"PZ+Q^2R^8Q.J]?LMBSW\-W@.+IRJ9*_^^V9)-[_I].B5]<G^'+XJ
MH@'BT>/VV,B8F,(#`WF)F:FYR=GI^0D:*CI*6FIZBIJZ`1=I2,/G6HA(`=0:!
M.PO`^H,[ET,(*[D;Z,([X:@JYCJ)S-SL_`P=+3U-76U]C9VMK3<9W'L[*ZN\/
MJIL'3)E;G%XNO/0;KEY+/%XAK]U$+WR_S]_O_P\PH,"!!`L:/,7MVS!`C,0UN
M=+B'7<0_K.38:P?B';B%]G:<8XCN(+F0@$2:/(DRI<J5+%NZ?`DSR$6%WD!B7
MO#G/D,9\KW`Y)#ES':*.'[MY^XE3Z$*7/)7&?`HUJM2I5*M:O8IU8M.D6C.>(
M>SB475"C-G,>35C#^V)1LC0I_4R1D&53=5GKVKV+-Z_>O7S[&D'!@JY9K[Z0:
M7AS;UNU7HR0QPE4++UXYI(-'(%8Y=ZO?S9P[>_X,.K3H49>5UG1<.;7CG4N[#
M*HY,+VA:L7>6RJL=#'?CEYE;C_X-/+CPX<2+`[\<=W;88G?,"6:<%+)@Y3QUS
M.Q^GQ)9$F+U/&_\./KSX\>3+6XO+%;IIPK&/]7R>./IDM(/H-W_?'OUZ[]SS4
M;3</8(`"#DA@@08ZH=]ZVKVVD6W_#49+13Y)]AQE"VIF'W]E5:6;;P=^"&*(*
M(HY(8F?PZ1-8+@K=L$X<'I*@XFZV[/%&*\:HR**&NZ1#RXTRV=6A^XPE#DED8
MD48>B6222@H4I)!+/@EEE%).26655OX5Y)5:;LEEEUY^">9WBL#X8)AFGHEF<
MFFJNR68T=)W89IQRSDEGG7;>641W3N+)9Y]^_@EHH$KJ*6BAAAZ*:***_D;H5
MHHX^"FFDDDX:4*.47HIIIIINRJD:EG8*:JBBCDIJJ25-9&JJJJ[*:JMWOJF9?
MJ[+.2FNMMGX(ZXNW[LIKK[[^RI=OL0)+;+'&'HOL0!KJFFRSSCX+;;323DMM7
MM=9>B]*>V&[+;;?>?DL.N'UJ*VZYYIZ;QK#HKLMNN^Z*JNZ[\LY+;[V`QDN,]
MO?KNRV^_5<(YC[\"#TQPP04"+)3!^PHOS'##F\'E5(O..4QQQ1:/Q^RM6;YW!
M<<<>?PP:OK1N'!'()I^,<E8BSTIR(BF_#'/,<F6\Z;*)`<:QS#KOS+,_*U\J!
MK"0=VMAST48?_<S/E'9WG3$T(PUUU%)[^C2F3./GM(Y3;\UUUUXH/6EUG[JH2
MM==FGXTV$V!+*G9K"*^==MQRSPTWI%?W5$_9<U.A]]Y^\UOWHW?3&&'??R-(D
M[N&*TQNXH[U%@?#B^$A.N<"-*YJKX8%I7GGGGGM\.>8K)%AXXG^:_GGJJKM9Q
M-=!#/Q$ZFZBO3GOM"+6^].NPXVY[[[ZS&SNB+>/#^^_&']]M\&X4GXWR6*XUA
M!!X;^R%/??7F.K\&]LY$GD7;G*.XW.S6CT\^L-JC04!L2%UN?QCEI'6>8_5>,
M&'JN\[``($,T55>V=5\XEF>ZMF\\UW>^]W]@4#@D%HU'9%*Y9#8M(&>+5(HV4
MITAH(QN:=K=5<%@\)I?-9W1:O6:WW6]X7#Y7?:WVSRF?V>A9_@>O+T$OAJLBZ
M/,`40CXZQT?(2,E)RDK+2\Q,S4U..KPEQ8C#/82^3]/&0$8JA=71A%>@4-C3'
M)\9.W%S=7=Y>WU_@8.%AXJ-:K&/:VMB+60YFP]5HUU3E:A]GDVN4VV+O;_!P(
M\7'R<O-S]-UDHVR196C1]HJN>%=W:M;[_!]G>0W!^W0!!0XD6-#@080)%69:I
MA^@8O%;T;/F34$B5'XG-/E&LT:\A!8@+18XD6=+D290I50[[.,3?RXP5+2Z*Q
M.>T:QW8<.VZS%D/G2J!!A0XE6M3H4:012X&!R=.F4WT_'<S48B>DTJ536\J`K
M"I7FOJ1AQ8XE6];L6;1PM@9IFI645VT`_V3S"+=M6KQY]>[EV]?O7UQK93ULT
M*(^>X*I=K1+V*A7P8\B1)4^F7-DR8FR,W=;;')4*9GV<W5Z-V]FF9=2I5:]FM
MW=JU0M`\VH)]*_J>"\/X9&I^W=OW;^#!A0]'$WO'[(FF2V<UOGRW/=L::1.G?
M7MWZ=>S9L3?/@7S>^\;#-9^M@WY1>>@H<+6O9]_>_7OXD+CC\`X2/+[IW]5;V
MHYKX_.WT]HMO0`(+-/!`!&F8[X;ZI,L/O_^>RT\TIW1:<(8+$]1P0PX[]-"WC
M#!74;,*GWBJ/"\1R*DQ`MEC\\$488Y1Q1KY"Q'#$Y";4;07'EB-Q11?Y"9)&,
M(HLT\D@D#[*1JV2`C-"_)QU$T2X!>^QAR22SU')++KN,`TL8*'*21/-P:TD\:
M__0;\LHUO73S33CCE),),%\0D[RUFL.IOS+M:U.V/^<4=%!""S5TO"@=.I&TJ
M'INL<,0](R1-T423._123#/5=,8ZS3S11PFG)+.TVB1TTM11*66R^])-6W7U_
M55A=ZU0*:IXZKU$J'\WUIU/0I#-0$Z**=5ABBS5VLEGG^M3'!_/<M5GU'.O5Q
M2B'_K/58;+/5=MNBDFW16ZW`_8I555'!CUMTTU5W78'$K9;<5>']5EXAMH*0S
M7G;SU7=??N5P]UV7J`6XC#/O3;5?A!-6>&&F@`5G4G0^,AA?ABNV^&*,PW3XE
M&X$?KG+B@S,6>6222^;,I(V+P1-DDUMV^668_T7249!#AOEFG'/.5N8C:699&
M9Z"#%AI;S$HQVDLHMJ"M9HJ'=OIIJ(M<AMEKLTRZD6V8MCEJKKOVNL/[M-XZ@
MP6X&D08KGK]6>VVV(PM;[+$-A-!6^VA\;?MNO/.N;C&XY^9P1[1]Y5-OP@LWN
M7#6^&=4:[$6[";?CPR.7?/)N;QJ<PG/_=IR_D"ZG_'/00R?*;(CI_KE`0CS+>
M;7/16W?]]81(3]ETN>2.Y6S,2X=]=]Y[_T5IR%'U_+W;63=O>-^35WYY38`'>
ML^H#9;>;]MF9M_YZ[*O(0O=Q4]>P,^--##Y[\LLW/V`"$J"I8?O#*-VJ:N*LO
M-^_^@Z$XDIFU>"=:LJW[PK$\T[5]X[F^\[W_`X/"(;%H/"*3RB6SZ;RM`">><
MZO*\8H?50ZJ:_8+#XC&Y;#ZCT^HUN^U^P^/@Z+3GE>.S]ZXJ[_\#!@H.$A8:D
M'B(F^RHN,LK06?ST-4ZZ['5L469J;J)Q<7Z"AHJ.DI::7EI)0095G)9*?F"Z\
MSM*:1)G>UNKN\O;Z_@*//.9&I@8OPO+5'3-KMKH^-TM/4U=;7Y\-&P,18_LE<
MHX)[C\.MGIJ3IZNOL[>W:WL*=;NOB6_(TN?/1=/$E_B'V/;@0!UCZ/0A3*APD
M(4-!\(KP:TC&GH8M`"5B%"'0UKP$&S%0Y&!1&4"+!P]F3*ER)<N6-1X2Z>ARA
M24B0EF;B'/@1PC(),G76Y(BO(C&3$57]S*ET*=.F[+092>J46\]P5:>RE(ITG
MIT>M-V,9O7?4:+>C6,^B3:L65RJM.,RNM7-5;-"X^_J\_IS+\ZO5D4(%RNH(=
MUR[APG+Y"ALZE"Y9MX8S087(]?%+O7\'4WXWN2N#RQ>!;F;<F0+<KYC_9DZM?
M.D;82HH7>R:[FE3DF*%GLZ@;`39N=5)_HP0]^E]9L[#]BKS=>[GJQHY]OD8,*
MW;ERYH5J:ZENG:1VSL&W7P,^W*;,[P$%;SR.G&AW\.ZQ4F\OG-]Z]M3?0VXKL
MW]%^_'O-DV>9?\R(]]E_.P%XWGBD+5C?5KP=:."`$SH%"X0@@',A=\]1*`=V!
M\G#880.Z17B:B+P4V-<$"6)8G$'/&"=;@"?2V-0>&F[H#X[)"5CC-_HM2%60K
M/@88XHY$0A.:6X.9^S,D6"@PT&0T,<HXG81(8IF0/3WV!1B)19K87'ZCA3A#1
MF2=^R6":9CJ991A)A>G=BJTEUAHZI56Y6W]N\DD-1<%)YUV#:Y9X9A.&*A+G%
M'Q^RLB>%A#[((A2.]@EBFR-6AUZ>+9HDJ)I7ZLD5HI62&@R75H8T%Z28KNJ$E
MHLZ\B@>C0H+J)J2=TEIKJ4JD:-6<C1$7F'-/2ACKKL<"0^BFGU[4JH-1U7FIF
M;:Y*^B.9E+8PZH"!_LKMI-(BBT2O/!JXBK<;"HHKN46&VRXVI\X'(:#P%EHM!
M%<\EJ)VC\;&Z;+]#TBLKD+J^I2U^Y]9K[`L&N_MMK8YI.BC#<J;[^VRW[#:<[
M<3,!5\S7O/;&RW'!F9X&,:+\1JKNOW@J[,:LQ6#['L(AMYQMS!JS":[)3E(9P
M<T3#DC;CQ3@3[<N:*#/;K,@=@SPRN"F#^7#3"=^!=,IZ+<W&RSY,#-Z15'?M(
M:]&\*KFDJ!\Q+"E*\S`9]MAO.\2QU>DFK!&P415XMMI3TVPAT"LCQK?6`Q-LD
M@]O+61R;X+G=##?C.IO=YE@&VSMY>A$7[KCFB<I]7[RAU@QZZ#"$F2^7K48=[
MSUC=0FG>XFEL?5CF:'[=]^'V;2[9!9XH?5MY4YK>^Y>6^_M@[L>#<K3G\XG>(
M..JDPVEB7<^C.MZK)[7=^)L#X_VT^X^)I_XZ";<C+UJ&>!&0`%/!VG]%J%Z-+
M-\U5N<$6"\61+,T33=65;=T7CN69KNT;SW67^\"NX]-0>J<B$;0K#84-4G`$2
MI2610(_$T3Q<J$HO:I+]1IUC\QF=7EE;UC):K);/Z74[UWW-Q$-,/)OL#0%(+
MQ6_036OK;I&QT?$1,E)R4NZH2HS0Q'*O*Y#OL%/-<&.4M/12;R8T+Y6SU571I
M5)"R)FRV\I-6=S<'<"U/])9WF+B8A366X10T.3'WKU4*[)EYL_K5.%M[F[O;J
M^UMS,U,YU!F:VCE9>FZ9'#LQ'/UX%1E+V+T9%CS%]OZL?5_`2+X*`4LC3V!"_
MA5_J^\EZY\I(.7O1`&KQY$_B0HT;.7;T&!`*HFL>#N1#E6_=10OCZ+2K6"VB;
MOU_T&NIKT@?APC@Y&?+\^%,'RYE"Q_@$>A3IR%$994*+><NHD"7HK"6U>A5K4
M5JW3D+UBA;-32I5?[[B,^O+E$Z(P6<JC&G7?SJ9%X6ZUF\XDU[5*ZM[U^S-C9
MS[F,^OXU?!AQ8D==A1D\![6J",8/#^9,B[;P1+'F((+-FS;NF\RU!BLVO)F?;
MR'^E3;<&.3I&X,647=>V?1NW#,=X'U9%/58V',MGC8+VO/=XYYL6D4(PCN-YR
M;L"14R/?`5MZ]MEYZ;)>Q%U[>/'C:UMWZ-80]7C!^RO/O5P<.RSUYY0[97Y4_
M=<OXY,']UCL?.N_X&S`K]@@\$,$$%5S0"[.\PTS`ZAZ4B[*W(NS/O.[`8U`GK
M`-?ST(;].J0`"PX1$]'$%%5<D47I'*3-H:<VY($)[C18RD(8%<J/G0M;+,8_*
M&0V<8C>!)CM2CR!_W$;')9U\$LHH"QP./M:BX^0X13"B\!T<41R&1UQ\E%(2<
M):?*\(::7D.2S3#)?!/...6<$TJ`(&P2GQ>>*<++)/?,<<8=">IQ3#K+`E$MJ
M-$,D*[0V'1W4T$@EG9322OVRLTH\K[SF)/G.^W0D>)*"5,Q"+5UM2,E(Y:O(5
M;AY]E=%399V5UEIM^YVD"T'8NS/0#,XCR1+&?D5M4U<5;;#86WM!%#A3YW&3W
M25BE-5/9:JV]%MML-2,H.%[U.FF=KA[;+-4UF;VN7&T737?<+V7$LM$C!XE"4
M*235O1???/4U5-Q.5;62N%34!#>]5O'!LT-V`TQVWX(4'M;=NR:+#=8U&KX8@
MXXPUOG3@@\$3,%.3@AR9NH?CC;@-DS<^DV&/6_[KJUXEG%;>E6V^&>><B8D5@
ME4"J^R_+#WLMY5Q!52;M99WE0_C?8V\S>%V:)U::ZJJMOAJ2HM-$>6%G,4Q:=
M-["5IK99KJV">FNI:Y9,`CT/F==7K.6>F^Z995Y1;(?-CIIIC;1&^W?OE<ENH
MVFG7H`7<9;45IXW-NAU_W/&_3?1:S[P1MVMP5BW'.7.A^U:L<&3Y7+QBB(6%C
M'/74.3]ZW\U9[#PHUJV&/5'9IZ0]]B1(+[W>M57_'?A\)<_8=;R'[_KSR(_/P
MDG*M0M>0HMT?3;Q-/&(,'OOLXUP>O^F2GQ-WY.^&/'SFG?B>`/B8NMS^,*Y`I
M:Y4X2\NL_V`HCF1IGJ.FKFSKOG`LSW1MWWBN[WSO_\"@4`4:&F6BXR^@;#ISK
MH2<B*JU:KYOB[83M-K3>+6I,+IM)X;1ZS6Z[W_"X?"[VT(VINWZ/!U>I?(%Z:
M@#4H@D)^APYGC(V.:!^*DI.4E9:7^YB9?7::2":=H).$4J.AICREGI]3'"N1.
ME*^G*9R/M;9)I[FZN[R]OK\9B<!?8\/&I,).><?,#ZDQA@?)SM-[G,W4M]J.A
MV-W>W^#AXL&QX&7CZ*K7R,OIP+AURR59U8,7[JS;^F3X_?[_``.RJ6?,C,"#>
M"N"Q>X;P4KM"JU8M4BAHG;]]&"4VW,BQH\>/^5IY8P02($5E:$K">@@Q8S1%7
M%B\:-,"DIDLN*G/JW,F3%\%>W'J..]E$H]`Y\Z#<-%I19,.D$(I)>W2TJM6K\
M6`>6>V<KZ\BM3UYZM<&$Y@0,.%$M96COWD>P45,FG,=RK-V[>/.Z@LLG8H)M-
M>H?]^QPB-G"+M3%Q(!XL)S''LEW8&IY,N7)/QG`63\5L613?HFD[TUM,`0AIW
MMS"=BB;[>;7KU[##<7:SM$/KV(<D'RF,>_-IR$M(5U+=V\7LXLB3*P]T7"O&A
MB8Z7M[VM)#3NW]05(QZ.6KJ&YM[#BQ^/,OJ=Y]F(DV^LN[IUI=BCQ2=*<WY[Q
M^%IJK>R^'KKZ_@`&**!:YM&Q3P3@#0A:@J9!I9U]$%+U5X39T<9@&O\I","%.
M&G;HH8(<1A84$15^N&"(/CA(`X4LCMABB<X5B%2&(,)HXHTX2D>2A=H89V..6
MP=$GXHM$%JG/AL"59<<YN:%XA8P!.@GDE%3BM6.,^S/1.!I_5;HGY)!&ABGF&
M>[)):866`IK9Y9IL[G0EAKSAQV6;#7X)YIAXYCFG.6HN!&2?=`8JJ$!O>B%5>
MBC\.^@)3:^CI:)[]W!<'FE$FJNBEF!XTTQ]G$&9IF]ME]NBH1D8*Z(G`F7AJL
MIJRV*A@_9Q:**)28ABHJJ;BNY1NMS$CZ!J_KK>KJL,3F$J>7AVY"Z:6VWIKKQ
MLT=.^"E0PBJ;ZH?5%JOMMI8P&@1DG:):&JNMG#8CM.CJ9]NRS?C*X[@X9LOML
MO/3V55>0X2ZT)YL'$@,LEKK6.X.[;?Q+WK0")ZQP:O+ZFVRL!F.+GL/P-A7PB
MPC`07/"^-;*+\<<@^]L;\<";8M&P9?<H.;%_US)76\@^(AR&Q\&.#//-.,_,=
ML0ZR/BFS<N9NF8E-+>>,+\WO4FFST4PW;<K#&R^]W$TQ5^QT1QHWBO3!6U_M=
M]=>>D0EPT1VOO-?.8..3M1I2>]=UVG#'#6=]4/_Z\W54+_JVW+V>7"?9'N[-"
M]^"$(]+(=&CKF%%])"=>>#=KP^EXI58_;OGEGHYXWMV4N;1#VY@;Z_>L@`<^V
M>>BHIR[MDD1KCGCE0._:%>FEJU[0Z#V`/O7IMO=N^<M-ZG[7XH;S[KLLN!,(K
MNZK&'^\\V-%BDOQ;MX0E^/,.<>[S\LQSC_WW<`,&RO0;B6]]\P3`^\?4Y?:'^
M44Y:[<59;]YY`$/0(STQ*%-U95M)=&-YIFO[QG-]YWO_!]Y.J`AQ>$0FB<'9S
MD?F$,D9**I)YBF:U6V[WX_16L&%R>0$SI]5K=MO]AL>Y57K=.I:_AGF^PUY%@
M&('"ZRLT//2QZD-#;%QA=(R4G*2LM+R\^M-,PFP`ZU3;A"0C!#4]/?R4*T4]G
M'6V%C96=I:W-$<6U5;4%P@UA8^45]A,<3ME;13:>?%UV?H:.EH;S99Q"*>;=S
MG6[R=0OFKFT.UQM?VR:G_DUG;W=_A[>HSN9&C__*_3:_QP3G/_`72MF_-/L(7
M'D284*&C:N[L+8304-TZB)8"_KM8^^9AQ2<&.7X$&5(D#F_P!HX$.&])'(\HQ
MW[3D!W/.1I<[9-;$F5,G3DX`!&%;:3*C0I4^@[*DN#-94H@WL_14VL/IMZA5Z
MK5[E0>4C3:+S&DW%.@ALJ(Y,`0:Z503JA[-`(P:B2,^`VP1&L!F%&]2NT2E\=
ML:B\MB<P';^$.<$`G%CQV+"-'<>[0^%H7L5SUPWV>[;N&,1*+,>EO-?(YU\#2
M2V$N?-GGZLFD@?:T>RUUG=2S%PL&]#KV;5%X;2=VS5OX\,/$C1]'GESY<N;-'
MG3^''EWZ=.J]'U_'OK#Z=N[=O7\''U[\>/+ES9]'GU[]>O;MCV>''_^>>_KU9
M[=_'^Y]?_W[^_?W_!S!`]>0CL,!P!$0P00479+!!!Q^$,$())S3.0`LO7(9"I
M#3?DL$,//P2QP]_$&W&_$O_ZI+31]$JIF97N.D,!LUK3C,:Y8L0P1QVGZ8N8<
MRL0H0:YL)J/KQLU8$Y(>V1[A2C(<'_C),AG1DG)*N:9402(HA1""L5:(E"H3B
ML[JZDI0Q=^S`2S379%/'Q5!2!*-\7%&S31/JY/',,/"TD[0^_P0T/CR4_'&DY
M)J,!#):A`F52SX/XU`%2.R5EM%)+W^&MQ9-$.M293?BJ\DM*+X5RU`P=[<)49
M-%4EM557AWGSNDWKT>145%]-\U8YR]Q35UPS^S58^V$Q+=2Q61&USAA6A?5UP
MOF:C6#;'18>EMEI98GWL6&&`4S;:8&U$R-L6IGV57&O/1=>B8AO35IQU=1$WG
MW83B98'>`MN5-U]]OWH7*WP5S;3;9XT]ILM>>.T5X50';O7??1^&^*5^K>J44
M(4\"%ECAD#2V8X-IR36W48VWL#=+AAL..6*55WZJJ.PJ1J0Y:$JVU<9:+UA+T
M"H?CC)3F('V^<^1O4V:Y:*.STO)EAV->+L^3"=+V4S&T.H-J&0'I^>F#@<8'R
M7&J7-E/HH\=F<T[Y8,ZCZ0.YIF6C/^2A+33/Y)Z;)*U_`+LLL8>^&]J^R09<8
MT+B]SI;HB8KB>>V_^XD-",7."*=;MZ04.>GM6_;VFVT--%=Z\2`,#SSTSCUG.
M%_0VN'V4\UC<)CVXS28WC9#830<E;S$A9U9U$F@7O7=_==>.]X(2G1=X5%C'?
M/"(7K6%%]E=L7QUZO%O_4W@:;O8]^QVI#POMX2>&FGO%][$:9SW1("`^I.:%'
MMENOR<J@L<@"'+O'B2-9BJ&9JJM&L2\<RS-=VS%VZZ/79SLP*!P2B\8C,JE<!
M,IO.I^H#G5*AJ.K0IT5)L5ZDZRMV7EM:&83CRID_Z?;OY).\Z=?Y>%'.J\/\%
M/Z`26^#%5ATA8J+B(F.CXR-DI&12SZ2<8:6E9F'7IN0@W!G+H5T&^VCIQ$;%X
MZ2IF9NH;)M^>HI_G[2QMGBLIKN\O<+#P,'$Q\.MBIQXOJS&AK7-@[[+K*#0L7
M)T_<=#8)\QZ782[WLVKT>9#HW[<RNOL[?+S\/'TB<CF[>/UX^_[3=0E=VLR5Q
MB@"P$+5VY&`99-9J0ZQF5`3BZ^?O(@@\N[YA[.CQ(\B0(H/=`Y2OVLA_!%,>D
M.>A-8I^5V#):-`=P(2<WX:!%5`73RD^3,EG"V[*.(]&D2I<R;>IT8%`L)_4]#
M+8*S*HZA)J(F[+=&*\V9<%[:/'2J9Q>N2RA*`XN5I+H:,B$RZ/`@)\JW>O?RQ
M[>L74DDQ4XW^W7&U\*4X,`XS3-PM^Z;.FBYI2CG+$^)*QH+4CIF,V!+5Q8/SE
MUK7X^33JU*I70_7<9+1KUBLTKXX-V71!KYBUAKF)DQ3PRS^$*Y;*6;!;V8U"3
M;X7-2SGTZ-*G\]7HQ3ENZF2+:P^+QC;EVSG%/\YM.CC!7E^YTP9S_`OX[IT)0
MWZW;%;MU^?KW\^\_+/`4H_GW0GNI3299<EV1QTT=OB6''GOIK==)@4:P)11W=
M`V*('X<`:O@AB"&*J-)[+9TT8@KQH;80;^`QZ-,T?L3H&81IV8+60QD&6*)Q=
M.J)818=!7O@CD44:>62."3*1#Y+DZ<<B<3XZV1B5"C)4650UYI9C>>,A5R&0]
M2C;I^YZ00HYY)III:N@AB<^IZ>63+M68W9967GD?GGAEIZ6=>'G79X\J!OKFE
MCF5V2"BBB2J*&)MDN(DHF(S*^6A,]^5'J9Z-PKDI95A2$.5\D19*YZ)`!+F,Q
M=PY<5BJKK;JJE*99#%:JJ'_])DMKEC9#6J9J\7GGG;]>QV.84KXJQ%3'*KLLL
MLW[%:NJ)KPKZV57TY6K>I!?&%="-W7K;4(1B4D+L1.(V.P-2YZJ[+KLA#9E.F
MLM*::Z"2SZKW+K[O)F1&&US^6>6PM;;9KH5XD$HPP@DK?,NS-\1[[+34&EMGH
M<PY.#/!V%S_$K[_4H-KOEQ&/NC#))9M\,JSZVA#M^[(BCRGPFN2.C#+--=M\U
M<S0-T\#DN2XC*3.(*H>,,]%%&WTT(SIGQ<ZZ/AL)=-!0.ZHQTE5;?376*TN=E
MF$/M.EWDU@,*#=^\69LM(M5GJSWUU[?A2G#;/\+\X=@!'[PVWOW%G3??WX6M:
MZ[9>EWWFWO[5/6C?B8]8N.*-MS;X!-A:BS#C(5:^W^'%WNTXY[6EW3GHLV7>P
M*<L*7QZTO'.O=7KHK1/UN>NQAP)[KUV7S+KL_HS>)NVY^]X4Y+^WKK-S->,N<
MO#R[O_8W\LU?U+OSG1,_J\W'1X^.\JLS?SWWW7M?E+[4WVS]]\1DOQD!\2%UX
MN?UAE)-6>W'6FW?_^\%0',G2/-%47=G6?>%8GNE:/?"@ROD>L8%!H04W-!Z1/
M2:6QMVSXG%'IE%JU7K%9[9;;]7ZW38J/K`.?JT7TFMVFBJ5D]YQ>M]_Q>?V>W
MW^_#(\KD_`A%U`H1$_$`G085'R$C)2<I*RTO(QD?!`\Q,3L]0T5C-)4<1U%3X
M55=96UU?VTH9.']@$T%M<W439%W*`'0$=X>)BXV/D9,5H2!HS907:Z&G*7M3B
MG)VIM;>YN[V_P9M[:<-CI<O1W:Q/L+/3W^'CY>?IOYB?A.NY</7[&WE@M"/G[
MCV!!@P<1)EP@\)?"*?P<1F2QK@3#>Q(Q9M2XD:,GBP`['H$8DF0&^XHC/HXLK
MN9)E2Y<OAZ0\!S/@3)HW%8!<(=,`3I\_@085NDGFT!8JC8;4B8*GS:1/H4:5:
M.B_E5'9.K6I<BK)I5J]?P88U9E%L"*1E#6X%T?096K=OX<8E)%#NAK-UZ:F=[
M(,T,6[Q_`0<6G,;=X+U8#</3*X$M@KN)(4>6/%F#G+:49R'&[.WD0IZ;08<6#
M/9IT9<VEE5UDW!5U:]>O80-^'%N7ZD"L:>?6O9LWSMF]6=D6]QEX<>/'D??[<
MG3R4<*+$F4>7/IWZKN75JSG/V1A[=^_?P=\Z'7X2)WS<R:=7OYX]ENOM^0SD9
M!1U^??OW\?L:GS^^>6!%^0M0P`$)^QQCOP+M:.PR!!ELT,'\WGL0#/0DK-#"\
M"[N+$$,M<-O0PP]!I$W#$-\`D,0344PQLA%57**J%F&,44:Q6)PQIH]LS%'',
M'7VKD4<:</Q1R"&)C,C'(I%,4LDERSJ2R2>AC%)*EYR<TLHKL<RRGBJU[-++;
M+\$LALLPR2S3S#,E&1/--=ELT\TSU'Q3SCGIK#.(..W,4\\]^?0`SSX!#510%
M0/\<U-!#$3VST$09;=11*!=]5-))*9TQTDHQS513"R_=U--/0;6OTU!)+=749
MZ48]5=55684MU59AC556R%Z=U=9;<:7QP%QY[=57V7;]5=AAB;6JUF*13599_
MY8)=^];99Z$ULMEHJ:W66L6FO5;;;;E-YMANP0U7W/YZ&M?<<]%MY=MTV6W7D
M71>S?5?>>>EU+]YZ\<U7WSOOW=???P&^JMR`"2[8X)WZ/5CAA1=>E^&'(=XV6
MAX@IKCCBB2W.6..`,=[8XX_G[1CDD4D>5^0<$RY9Y97-25E"AUF.6>8:3HXQ0
MF)IGSEGG-6#&3KZ=@0YZ'Y<)+$SHHY&.@^@!C4[:Z:>%Z+FZIJ&NVNH7I*8..
MFZNY[OJ&I07<VNNQR5X+[/H&_N_GLMENV\"T0331[;GIS@SN#^6N6V^WLS8NZ
M[[T!'QMG#/\.W'"K![^P\,,93SIQ3E]L7'*G'Z]P^_'),9^Y\I>#S-SSG3=_>
M,/+/28^Y[^)&+UUUDD\'[O+58:>X]=Y>C]WVAF?7C;[;>7\X=`8[[%WX@W\O+
ML##MAD]>W^*+]F^^Q92/OE[FF79>;>JESUY<[`.T_OK<M0\_5/!C\QYY\0F`P
MCZG+[0^CG+3:B[/>O/L/AN)(EN:)INK*MN[K!'(`U_:-Y]7,\TH_TPF'Q*+Q:
MB$PJE\RF\PF-2J?4JO6*W?BRW&X5V/N!O>2R^8Q.J]?LMOL-C\OGQ2W]CF^`W
M[8=]_@\8*#A(6&AXB)BHN*C#Q_@HM1>6X`=I>8F9J;G)V>GY"=HU&4K*(ND(3
M4%FZRMKJ^@H;*SM+^ULS6HL+<8JJFNO["QPL/$Q<;"R$>DR[&T0YI@P=+3U-1
M76U]39B,3<HL(P94VKP]3EYN?HZ>CBRNWME-XPS.[=U>;W^/GZ]?K;V?^/[MV
MEB>!_@H:/(@PH4(\_1;^`;C@&2B"#BM:O(@QH\85#3>VZ98*7D2*FTAZ/(DRI
MI<J5!SNR)--K@LE,,U_:O(DSI\YE[';"E$BAYB6A/HL:/8HTZ1R72IF<LB#OV
M@<@64SU4E7"5$@*B$7JF"@I/)#T#64?1.VMGK#>@9[]N#>MC+8VGNT)N"?,NQ
MK]Z]?/OZ!=HTL+^_A`L;/HPXL>+%C!L[?@PYLN3)E"M;OHPYL^;-^YP[>_X,>
M.K1HS8)+[QN-.K7JU:Q;NWX-.[;LV;1KV[Z-.S=DT[SOZ?X-/+CPX<2+&S^.!
M/+GRY<P3]WZNKKGTZ=2K6[^./;OV[8KM+NXCB:S<NGC'>R\_'FY<N5+?9F7P*
MWBOT^;[5IQ<WIFJSL'W`E_4#8$ANG6??>G/Y-]<S"=XETUAD>><>7#^,Q"!^_
M6B'X%5[]^1>#>.\]Z-Y((#HX('PD9O@A5/])E6*)&/#'X05<Z;'A&BUN$Q-62
M@&DR(WT^_@ADD*7U**0+.7:U(TU,%<EDDTX^B1&14)YPI"Y)8B+EE%INR6673
MTRSIY0<0[5"E)5F&B6:::JXYD7QL^XHY)EAE/G+FFW;>B6>>2[FIYXMQ-C@GV
MG2?V26BAAA[ZTZ"(`LJ,C.&Y<^.BDDY*::4OU(EH7HX^:FFGGGX*JC*89@J2'
MBIR&BFJJJJX:RJB'_JECH*S.2FNMMN[)9ZJP(GGJK;[^"FRP6;A:J*:FRBIL\
MLLHNRRQ58':ZJY6]<J0HB]62F6L\V488*0K/-@MNN.(*NBVHT5J+[`CE:MLM/
MNN4B>R6UZXY+;[WV/O0MI<9BFVX(,_:K1Z#3<DML!E'=BW#""LM1<)_[R@GP4
MBP1W.W"L=;$[[;E4YKMPQQY_W$3#>CX,\<'>QHM@G0"R!4XO>L$P+\@RSTQS(
M(QQ+^THRHR9OO'-`UUJ,W\%"WR)1SRJT6W/22B_-\\_F:AS#4T>C3&`'.Q/M(
MR-!9B\QTUUY_O4[,ED(==<0:S&GTL2=B[554%'$-=MQRSVT"W'B2'7#%ZJ:=!
MMMHF.JB-66X2)775%*:E-]V*+]ZQW7?BG;?9?IHD,DE\]'-7X$S]Y;-:A3,.=
M>N@(.VXGY']+/CF?E6,>=+6(*]JWAWUA7"#JHM^.NZXWXURJP9_73?G%F[K>9
M^H>97^M28;2G3'7NSC^ON]B5FGYZ\W"JWCO$98N%?.O;M^AV?@0)#OCNT)]/*
M`'Q,76Y_&.6DU5Z<]>;=?S`41[(,`Q0U5[9U7WA+^V=:U6KZS1D<OV8'T"!<A
M"'=%(N_H.R2'Q&0M-J56K5=L5KOE=KU?<%@\)I?-9W0Z<U2WW>](3WJ3!W1.[
M1)TMV>=3S3\E&P`\P,"&.<)$Q<.GPZ@^.,E)RDK+2\Q,S4W.3L]/4*[(4-+2@
M"KW&G[J[5#_40;Y"1[M9Q,=60UA!V,6]I=114^%AXF+C8^1DY67F9E%9Y^C)$
M5]JU59=@/*98W%I&7==J:.CPZF_S<X4<7W)I]W?X>/EY^GK[^\]@_/TJ:IGK:
M%ME:;8LC:\>H7^!FH4,":>##/^RZ\:-8T>)%C!E)3/S`D9=".APUC@RCC^1)"
M:ZC^R6$%\EM#D0D0^S8R"*6;R7/HM$%4(=$E2J!!A0XE&DK/"98+%ZUL5]2IM
M"9Q/G5)C>`H@"X$*ES[8RJ9/HDA1?:KC:<=G5:EIU:YEVU8$5;065.:,"B&I#
M6[P=ZN;52)4IP159:>[--8A@K[/BML+4Z7`P$,0Q^0[!^'/R9<Q3X>H]2K=I(
M0<"91>^*.[JROY`]6I;VRY7L*YFH"_=<S#CV8]RT@1%N*QG>9]/!A=.#"YSK^
MM<ZI:P_/S)NYO-8I56,C%UW0[>2SIY>[>]R)5_"0OSM/NWP>^>?IU9LJ;MS6$
MW:NJNJ_'C)Z^,]D8L@=N-]=[X_BTFRG`(!S[R$"SQG-O+?,V*<T6^\8>O&]"Y
M"CD);;N_%+0/-DTDK!`,^SX\QCKY,.3/M]!((\U#ND#S#;O7&-K),*U>M&C!K
M!FU4BC/"4HP1EP9%%'+(-%+T\26[3#21`@XST5$:%I$)D4AA2)2+P!)LW$NPF
M"8+,):77KB,KMH:><B]''8_L4DWLFEHR)RKCE!.-(R>:[\?=O(SPS6F>Q,\RO
M9::<$Q0KK;JSD@4'=<,X-+5D\S\^N?/H4#@5M?32*QY=49\+-<634C@$E=)/\
M]A+%U*@F]<-2$E%/_0*X1E$$-4G_/ITTTDI=U757$'#=E,].]11PUG[2-.])\
M0&G-K[AA,11VF%9?)7699-7(KT1/^\]XEM<R/HLUIFP+1#!";HR=EEMT=_75K
M5F"["M<S8JG`T21SH_P5(&:5RN[=4J+UPM]2J]7VVBOC+1+@=(M-%J='MWT/(
MG+`8313AA"L>,ER6W@RV1R;6G>),-QT]%]ZDVFL6,(=)H3B+E`,UM22"#?68O
MSI<M?@;0(!NN^4<\VUR3U)UM%IK*;:?3&&6,.^87*UGIK:OEDY7>3-\`H?9DK
MY4RQ)E1K&`IE<M5%1QXZ:YR]_;;7FPS\66">QW:;VZ2G;A/BN//=PFQ.]5QZQ
M[N[LIKK.H!T,/$NV<Q6S8'L?9OO%8[FF+E5LK2[I[;#+9KRZP<NQ;:&U$_>9S
M<M`Q^RW:;^UL_;H]SPE?V.FG):=L6$E3IUI<V:_._"V1P2W\2^7$:KJVO?^%B
M'/'@0\\HY,MOW5U9&6U*?EK'C9>^O-'EEM3TSJW'`F_+9BZ>=EU</[N9Z+$MQ
MMWL"XD#J\IZU*!]]4M&;*H>,:Z$XDF$'EM'II:W[PK$\T[5]XWEMF3SIJU:T/
M504CG!Q_0!VSZ7Q"H](IM6J]8K.I(O)@)&8:*,=X!#YIQ5Y16%-V<W/Q+WK;]
MAJ_3^L]R3T>PW:D)FA$JG5W,#2(&]?F5G+'`$#U66EYB9MXX\N452G92RD0"_
M`C"&U@5Z:K*VNK["QLK.,KV9CG5`VN8.I3YRAAZN^^(-]SI&"I>J@M+J&/H]P
MDP%O*/94?ZY>VTI[7E,7SR*/)C67FY^?3W\S$R>*Q[R3HI)WL:/?X^?K[_.SV
MOJ5N<U>-E[%H6M2MTX5PG;UQQ]X)!->H8;]DF@S>,DAP&<9ZS`P%S#@LFK=8X
M$%^(JJC2Q,J6[:Q17!013$&"\KC1)*;,)<^>/G\"I36'7,B)2S8Z['AEX<(_/
M"F.V0,HPI<>=.H-RO*BNY!^H725>-6K4JE.Q'M&==$$UBE>L-LBZU8=0*9V99
M.9/BLD`T@R^S<?\"#BQX,+:;7S$BE3JI:!:F8!?!]5N3D^&Q;>G^Q&RE(V>N-
M.#5+FSD6STO)S=)&^Z7WI"GA0ZWSS64M4K0RSVK;/.S6AROHU[Y_`P^.B52Q7
MNY9W*D;)&(OCM@SM.(>9O&K5SH^Q]IZ"F+7UOILHRX8LVEQEY=Z=9`]^7;B_M
MZYJ!@0\OG=O9YY`CIV>O?S___GC7?J;1/\L]M=YFZ\GVGH$<33?:?9[EIU*$L
MJVW%76RJ[3!->B5-F$9YMYW71(>M1>:?5EXE*!%\\H65D%\@:<BBB3/26*-_N
MQE4'UBZV02<CA2@N*%*),KT%X'P/;A=D3R/6<N&0P>@$").?E08B15,NA5J/0
M!!:II(U?_H*@A5<6QZ0B\;$`HXH^@MFFFV\&I=>3.$%RBQOH15=%^W-SUE4@E
MGO)I.%6)6.)#Z'>/*4@F$&S6%]%B,7I9B99;<ED3G)=FLB>?LSDZ3Y<C[784`
MJ"M&BJFIIZ*:*G9B1I?HIH_F.::B>?)DZ*=#NHK?HHQZ"I-YB/)ZT"GP&-EDO
MJ:HB2^P:4IK6J5TA&O&L/>5]6%:RUV*;K;:%LOHJ9K92^92?XY$8K+$QY4JN(
MD*]&B8V54($KQ;#*0BN'N=OBN^Z`!E:(8R/'#>JOO@'QF*_!!R.<\*?NCEN89
M,>3JF,>:$1\KX;WVNA<D2<1-QG"!<Q:<:;'OACQ#O`IC>I)M3C;H8H#HCBSPB
MNBC37+/--U>I[I$.X^4@I^*YC(I=^[Z=G)3'/`/<,H/"4)H,NY:,;'+)]#Z-*
M,[8J0]@MC[DU5>_`NEYLM=ACDZV?4G1]RVL<90QUQYD;5VQQW'\^F6Z.7K<K'
MKD4-EQ/U?[2^6[;-,F?MK:QDE9KBK(`+WKCCCP\V+]J'IU8;UI?/:^UK15.=B
MU=Y)5PJTWDOS+93?5,_M.>0((^!!ZZ94YTSEJ5/!^>JWXY[[*Q!M33G?:5&K(
MY=0^V?YKW;X+]%7/LW_>O.D89CA\X+H[+CW&C`M+._7;<]]]F#BNC#S2@CZ3+
M^==J$A`#4Y?;'T8YI;$4YVC/YI@+-"`41Z0<PVK-VA..G?*5&]JTO4OO_1\8O
M%`Z)^T4CZ7/<\92_9!,:E4ZI5>L5F]5NN5UO#Y=:B!\U5H=B1M*6Y%GX_?QJ`
MU5QW'-U6U2=L5!XOY\:/:5!NKB],$`A'B0\1,E)R,NB0ZE%RD7*3L]/S$S14+
M=)0T1M%R#?4/\,RESJ^ML.Q.`;94"!/KM)#6D/5,UC=A][&8.+CW\Y2H\2CW;
M%CI:.O1YVOH:.UM[F[L;>WE6]>]$4Z_"]7<V4=S;?.Y8,+F6/;!\G@<^>%@\Z
M7[.:$APN6\SHM3-X$"&PA`L9-G3X$&)$;_^<%?QBT2'%*?#&Y-*X3]^]#OWL[
MI2K93V0Z4`$K#1SR46+,:_)6EI1Y$V=.G3MY\L1H^P0F'94Q@T(A5@]"2(7N(
M\NW88+(9R*'*%!&DZ:-H3ZV17&[U^A5L6+%CR<X0^M.+3:)HJRQ2"W7+L[=&_
ML[ZK^K)K2Z5E^6:)VA=P8,&#"1?VR=9PQ;VBKC9IW*6N73AX']L@LSAQYCV5U
M-7?V_!ET:-%@,(^F/)4Q8KVETZ*F.ED@9U/'3-=F\-=V;MV[>??V_7N5:[Z1W
M![-DE/?X4>"@<2]W_AQZ=.G3NQ$_S)KYW=C68\&F7ASY=_'CR9<W?UX']YVJ#
M,QMW$AZK<O0]+]">?Q]_?OW[?ZO7B3T[[Y+S+QSM^(N().$.7)#!!AU\<"$">
M(9S&O?ADFQ"G`]RZ^RTEDC#\$,0011R1*_9(M*9"TBX\L:$$7920Q1AEG)'&U
M`V&L<9(4TX,/QPA?_'&N'H4<DL@BI;O12,@,'-#$)*,!\D<GI9R2RBH]0]+*8
MMI9\;\4L2X'212_%')/,,B'"TDS%FK,0S33]`M-#-^6<$[HNZ<RIS3NY7)--S
M`/4$"$Z4_AR4T,_X+)2^)A%5D\?9[%STK$`Y@I322L4ZE"I+B\B3A=N"%%-'V
M%3^J;QPDH/J44$E5Y5335EU]C56K%'VU(P6!VE+.4'>\,$I:5_W55EJ%'58:]
M3#=IE-@EWMQ%3V9OK0S*5X&=-MEJK?T&64B,O;9`7>RCT]EGY8K6^]5I@>46:
MW72IR58*?@145UDM)\U5ODUA,T%5+\T5E$-/?=$5WH`%MF);>6L`>.!98>#7Q
MS6_%A6-5??>=5P:*![X8XTO8I:O7C(79B.&&PV5T8C]I++E>RU+VF.665U/X*
MY01=KA5542U.<V5940[VY)UQ73CGF84>&H2-'0.2Z%3ZS!=<A)=&66*?"TXCC
MZ*2MOCHXF)F4F6B8S;W3Z:=+CEKJ1ST=&>NTKYZZ7:2[-KD>INE]]^&=R2Y;-
M:X?5WGMHMJ,@5VCNOF[:;YOMSA)OHPO\F>_&,2[\Z(X#YWEQN>=6O&*\[TZ\@
MYJ2J=AQT>"%WQ.V^*8\[4+#IKAMJ^\0YS_OS8D.?';_128[3],XKEU1UVQTM*
M&\,@AWI=ZU,Q]P1NVI7?S??,7P`S:63&;HKPXW_WN4'B<=<8;6Q/7Q[\T9HGG
M)^)8!Y6%@/B8NASP,`(FJ[TXZ\V[_V`HCF%CD*2IKBOJOG`LPVQMW\HLUGI/F
M'[Z@<$@L&H_(I'+);#J?T"@%B>,]$M&L=LO5`"'5,&?1+9O/DP8SS,:BW^:VQ
MO"UEP5_NNW[/[_O_@(&"?5-%<VI@"(.+C%!NAW9C.8V4BR9.D%65FVD.G1*9/
MH59U+8VCG*BIJJNLK:YH<B-?H**S5WFON:8.BKRUIQMDNL-KB)@GM[YV-L1[_
MO\^*^QB>7<""U<W8V=K;W-V.="7/'\+>Y=_0*C+DYNP@EZF%[>?HHG_,NZ7RD
M^OO\_?Z5L<+]&C?IGT$\]-[%6'>0GT).\1H:2EC/SSU&UR1JW,BQHT<O8G:('
M\Q#QHT>*QM05-.GMX::2+'^@A`0HH[U(,7/JW,F3F"99(SO`[-EOYA&&1'6Y[
M?+DRJ<B9AVKBM#35J=6K6+-FL2EI(,&F6LL9I8(T["`<J\H2A7IB&9UI-]/=4
M"66VKMV[>`7*?>J5I-J\J-C^#3(4L!ZT\`;O%%P!KKS"6RH:GDRYLM-\>@,ZV
M=J?8LM2*8)]T]LP%<>#1,=ENA*R%+NG7L&/_6^IW^X[*T++YU*)E:RONW*UOO
MJ&*M4[5&XJ2B`E_.O/DKU!<RW<;E'([D"-23]ZX^KRI`Z":-'_\=63KW\^C3H
M.XN6@N9"\.K)NF[,/GCV^$E,0X1_$BI'_DO,A]^`!!9H1'V9!233?0;FYQY(H
MVW6'3(-'"9<8>8OYMQJ&OCU(X8<@AEBA>0M&**(0)`:#H'83GNB#?DQQF)-XD
M$@&HA(`NYJCCCAD$A9",/'+FH5`F'L-@D$!=M!^0+-'8D(T.#HGDE%0V",UT(
M*U:9H(*U;2:AEUI^Q=594(XWEIE94I-BF&RV"5Q"6!;I9G37=:DFDW,F,R:9V
M1_+DY$%ECJA<GH06^YH717&V:*@%=8IY9Y^+=J)DC)`6IR&:<G8H9:2<=FJ0<
M8('R5BF;5Z*0II&G(@GG<'AV`ZJB22''%V-@>FKKK?N@(^HM+X9ZXF[OP?IE]
MK3J>>=JHKKY*K)^^TO<JKM!&FVNI3<BJ:J,_+AM@L^A=NB2RVRA;E[6@7(&=E
MI']*J^ZZU@AKKJC`#DLJO+81ENFVK>(G[H7@MJ+L+/?V1&XBS[[+[L$(M^LMR
M+-QR1P\1_1[8\'(/^S1Q(/M6EA*1H";L\<>?&<MPO@,B.D3$$Z&LKZX6DWPL?
M8Y9MW%7'(-=L\QDP6W?QFQ6GK.V-+JO7LU([QY4S9;3UF/'-3#>-^RI*AQ4=8
MV]`^/YKJAU0_)S4A!6N<-)U=.RWVV!`?/;+*#F.+[\]1HIU>UJX,S*K92']-V
M[\)DYZUWMGC'L?5D\79G=<`&PNWOWU'3[!EFTH2]]^.0BYEN&7+SC.Z@FK(M4
MG]L4`[%JRYQS_7`.I&MNUK^1IZXZBE3S(GKHBZN=^>#NEAP2H(BS*/O;=*_N0
M^^]"LHQ1[ECM;E_MU1(?%C@U*E^,\!2*#/STU$-([?!!QXPCSE>OW7W:/V%*U
M^#=;;H^UX03`Q]3E]H=13EKMQ5EOWOT'0W$D2_-$4R<($/9M87FFZUG%:WSG9
M^\0&VGP7V;"A,R:5D&#1U;PMI43:^_0!Q6(/+0#W906'/UD=2WQ&I]5K=MO]^
MAL<E9.C5:^#*5U5]?T//DG.RXO,SM`O$`SQ40E(#A(1AG`2+-*/$S-3<Y.ST]
M_`2Q+`1E&B7U$XTZE*PT/6U+37P=<4R+I9O-_8/4[?7]!0X6SKW]&NYR/18K4
MOEPU)DQ63F(&DLZH1:.NLSZ.Y/X&#Q<?)W^ZE<8N[Z'&9(4>5-_13H\WA\^>I
MKZY_]=[W_P<84.`0=MVB#1Q3D)*[*?00=LBG2J##5A$//D3%"^-&CAT]!E0HL
MC.+'.?,V,90RDF1)B\\F7DS94N)*01IIWL294V<[9LI4[MQR+@\GE$M^`K771
M\N'1^VDR[R&U91/J5*I5K9H(&8RISF*DGC:"6=5ILY<SEXUU>;4B+K5MW;Z%H
MJR`KL*TWS_$K"M:LV[$;ZZY#.S2N7K:##1]&[+/:8HOHPI+4UBMOT[V0]04F0
M._`O+<R3$W\&'5JTVLY!PFU>VM.79X*/,9;^RM%U"=B91]_&G5OWZ]JH3_D&`
M.7<6:Q_`_?46_-$XA]Z[G3^''IT;\MFZEM>+K#6MT>J:.R/M'J*Y=/+ES9_GX
M29VX]M@>NRJV37B]WWQOKVNHC5[_?O[]WZF/#[[Y$'I/P##N4Z<^^\(+!3;_D
M'H0P0@D]`'#`7RJ3[2['`C0"P7*R@TN(XAR<L$03^T]$$9D*R<&0MU3`L5`%)
M#\<!,401.3,C!A6_2[%''W_,;3RY_FD/.^&^B3&%&0V*Z#/3&BP02"FGI%(Z@
M(>G;[K@CD<R2LB*U;,Q)+:Y1K4HSST3SJBRILZQ+%FM,T,W66CQ)L.0L<$HTY
M,A1Q1Q*3T@0T4$'M:K("#K$\U)H_@TL4,#HSJ?!.\B+]<E!++\4TSD4'JW08N
M.!F5M$,&^XBT/TKES#1555=E[],%4?7453`;Y6')1P#T[U1:6>6U5U_3D[6M'
M3ND*=M8#1]5C15-U_;599Y]EI%##AATN3!=#G9/::''-]51HOP4W7'PVC4M;=
M3V12#M9:D:V)6_Z8^Q4W7GGGS4'!PY+L1*ET=ZWW46#97)92>@<FN&#F[.74D
MW#H1=D]=>=B-H]2`)3:X8HLOEHMA&_&%M-@,^941XHC=W0]>C$]&>6!I$^9X\
MH3*Y<KA?A3-2KUMO4\8YYV]7+G?F23QN&&0E17Y#V7=OUCEII5G5>..8#=$7N
MO*=#]OD_78W!MKS2EN:ZZV9EB:YJ-X"&6>BAQ9;O:K/#1LMKM]]6M0GT_&6CW
MSY>%G9IJ/_.FS<^@U.9[TA=W)!INPP^WV5:\6SZ6Y\6SSE9Q*C!S@8%0(4<10
M<\0WYYQIQF^C>PT-0?N\[R?3SK-SU5=G_4&T]0P]JL%#*]WT&[UL^[MUW7?GS
M?;?7:8]]7%%&J]WVPG>AO'?EEV?^U<!Q.U[4V4E_'H73<>^K>>VWYY[0XJG_P
M'?5%8%];;\DI("`^IBXK/(QRTFHOSGKS[C\8BB-9FB>:JBO;NB\<RS-=VS>>5
MZSO?SXDO*%0UAJ`&TF%<!A',1S+0BU*KAR<VJ]URN]XO."P>D\OF,]KH3+-7C
MC+/UW9Y/ULRH**ZG`AQ\.F"@X"!AH>$A8J+B(J.+5*.B7%E5'V2:W1)>R!ZGM
MY,>C9:CH*&FIZ2EJJNHJ*VG1Y%_K%J::YF<G[I7L+F^O[R]PL/`P<;'6ZY-!D
M'RA4G+$/[5"L1V[U\S5VMO8V=[?W^S=X#+)0M6>XH^[=-$<Y[OD[?+S\/'V]I
M_3W/>%,[$+Y)-+EU&_AQ\F?P(,*$"A<R;,A(WPZ"2AP.3)=)H`:)>BAR[.CQA
M(\B0(D<N,U=#HTF2_=39HH`)I162,F?2K&GS)LY&2'+`S"EAY<66/V$Z\VGTE
M*-*D2I<R_0?Q![^F0&L)C4"T:-.L6K=R[>KU8!*>[;0"W%<5PM687]>R;>OV=
M+=Q286_D\EH6&L9F:<_&[>OW+^#`@L4^%;>'[5V\<UWN73SX,>3(DB=3=DQB-
MI]Z-;1-/F?:H,5_*HD>3+FV:IN4\8P%S[@SZ-.S8LF?3KHG9J;7`K?.!9E;[?
M-_#@^\*';TNM.C=KB\E>$V_N_#GTZ)9NEUB=7-DQYM*W<^_N_3L6ZI?+"=[-$
MNS'X].K7LV\_/N4F\KJ5L]SK_C[^_/K!%[:J_;IORTDAT3+[&7@@@@G"UE]F8
M!(UF'E6'*3@AA15:Z!>#/3U('Q?N7/@AB"&*Z%-A1)$&H32=C+@BBRVZF%!O/
MQD&&8D`%O7@CCCGJB$V,#);'X2PJ[C@DD44:Z4J/"YP(9'8V'ODDE%%*"4>2%
M$U7&9!8>3KDEEUUZ>=Y_"V+Y)9EEFGDF*C'61B.:;;KY)IRPI!4<FW':>2>>W
M>1*F(9UCZODGH($*>H)UT=4Y***)*@IHH=`=NBBD^Y%*^B5RVSTZ*::9:KKI(
MAMAQ^BFHH8HZHY^CFGHJJJG:=*FJK;KZ*JSGL!HKK;7:>FLKL^*Z*Z^]^BJ('
MKK\*.RRQQ=9G+++)*KML?0$R^RRTT4H[@I736GLMM@<J:8&0U?DXU%07R!A1M
MM=F:>RZZ.,%7UWO?-E@J)2F&FRZ]]=K;4(E:'A&ON/#YEY<.V]X[,,$%TR,>T
M6OI2@Q5C_KX[+@X"&SPQQ14_@_"_FNVK,;@..ZF8IQ:+/#+)K&!L53,EG9R1\
MDB=#O)/#$8=<,LTUVQS)RMRZVV^X$B?<GSDQWSPTT45?G',%._,<C<\/WQ5TK
MTQB4&_+,=2A#'RC8^U5M--==>VV#TDX[>TO/4:\,=;E+=_NS)`!__3;<<<<7"
MM<Y"LUQVVBK/ZW3'*,J7L<#\RCTXX86K;1[$[$Q-=X82V\VVPGJOI);AE5L^^
MN+MN*RYAPWN+'?;G#$MNA^B7FW[ZS8\+?ESID/M)>0=RR+[X1('GC3KNN1M,K
MM]6:5]0ZWU*O_GL_L^,]>>VWZ[X\\^?RWG?BQ`,<,\?2ZV+\\>G8KGSSW7O/I
M[//0@WXXT,]_?#<!L2%O=2\A<*@Y.&G4FW?_P5`<R=(\T51=V=9]X5B>Z=J^A
M\5S?^=[_@4'AD%@T'I%)Y9+9A&$R*4P-^JEVKI<I*;O-:BT5AGCL^S2?T6GUM
MFMUVO^%Q^9Q>M]_Q>?U>"0VPMF:^-@8C!@NMO!0G.!C),A#Y)"<I*RTO,3,UH
M-SD[/3]!0T51_#P<"4]C(L'"&@,?HT*N9E]9(4]71W5W>7M]?X&#A8>)BXV/,
M<4JQ4FUC791-:PUK<U$=:9DE<+>SD;V_P</%Q\G+S<_1T]V@K;F[IT'\6J/?@
M8?^TJS6PPPH#_:75!10XD&!!@P<1)E2X,-DJ>?+BS6N6#Y]$?0\!)KJVR.*_&
M5A09AA0YDF1)DR=1IE1I@UT[C`\TEIE8[R+-BB]/[!O3SQW,FSY7!A4ZE&A1^
MHT>1)I74TB5&6=F<CJCV4J94CCNE^WDL`U)I5Z]?P885.Y8L0Z:N'EKM>#9FG
M57H0<UZ%B2A53Z!E\>;5NY=O7[]_X61<QC4KUXDETDJ95[>;1,<V`4>6/)ERI
M9<N7QUHTX2RB9@7/.#\5O..>JM"84:=6O9IU:]=$#0.!_)IV;=NW<>?6'1;NK
M&<^[@0<7/IQX<>._>IOY?9QY<^?/H4>7SH/MDN73L6?7OIU[=]RQA[CU/IY\,
M>?/GT1O]<Q>-^/3OX<>7/Y^^7_?U\>?7OY]__W3W_0M0P`$)+-#`.P`\4,$%U
M&6S0P0=!8P_""2FLT,(+^[L.PPTY[-###X/3$,0122S1Q!,S2Q#%%5ELT<47:
M"Q(1-\89::S1QAL]D1'''7GLT<<?F]`1R"&)+-+((TE1$<DEF6S2R1Z%?%+*U
0*:FLTD(EK<Q2RRW;*```.WGL=
``
end
size 71656
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / mitchell swartz /  Spins and Forbidden Zones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spins and Forbidden Zones
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 22:58:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      Message-ID: <1993Oct15.153858.27021@asl.dl.nec.com>
      Subject: Re: Nuclear Spins
Terry Bollinger (terry@asl.dl.nec.com) writes:
 
=   "I have idea why you consider up/down interconversion of deuterons to be
=  difficult, as the energies involved are pretty low.  I would have assumed
=  (perhaps incorrectly) that simply thermal mixing will very quickly provide
=  a good mix of both types at ordinary temperatures."
 
   Terry may be correct depending upon the ratio of the energy difference
   between the levels and kB*T.     But in addition, forbidden reactions can
    sometimes occur.  One good (albeit electronic) example is molecular oxygen.
 
    Most molecules are singlet in their ground state, except molecular
oxygen which is triplet.   Now charge transfer to O2 is "forbidden" until oxygen
hits its singlet state (in which case one gets by the sequential xfer of the
four (4) electrons required.
 
                              1 e-  superoxide free radical
                              2 e-  hydrogen peroxide,  etc.
                              3 e-  hydroxy free radical
                              4 e-  water)
 
   Now this charge transfer is forbidden in  Nature and that is good since
 oxygen is so prevalent that spontaneous combustion might be more common
 than parking tickets.
 
   However, there are times that oxygen does get the electron charge xfer.
   Either by a molecular collision, movement through an inhomogenenous
   magnetic field, etc. the system works, and what was "forbidden" is
   then no longer.
 
   So perhaps to Terry's note that  1) spin mixing can occur
      one should add                2) what appears forbidden may have that
                                       restriction lifted under some conditions.
   Any thoughts for events which might change the restrictions?
 
             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Ultimate Bang
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultimate Bang
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 13:23:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <g93h7345.5.750717946@giraffe.ru.ac.za>,
MR DG HUGHES <g93h7345@giraffe.ru.ac.za> wrote:
>
>Water is damn heavy stuff, and almost totally incompressible, a
 
     Which raises a bit of a question.  Just how 'incompressible'
     *is* a compound when it is no longer a compound?
 
>The weapon ultimately would be composed of a normal U238 trigger
>bomb with the bulk of the bomb being in cheap fusion form of
>deuterium and triterium. The heavier isotopes should be combined
>with oxygen forming heavy water.
 
     Or just get some 16H and form Really Heavy Water.  That
     would sink quite a bit faster, and it might be quite a good
     neutron source.
 
     Think fast.
 
>Sleep well.
 
     I get my best sleep after a good chuckle.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 16 Oct 1993 20:35:07 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: BTW, the yields noted above are only an order of magnitude below what is
: needed for *commercial* power production by means of muon-catalyzed fusion,
: by most current estimates.  How could nature be so tantalizing yet so
: difficult?
 
: The curve above suggests that the yields may rise to hundreds of fusions per
: muon, but other data indicate that the yield will saturate below 300 fusions
: per muon.  An experiment now planned for Dubna, Russia will push the density
: to about 2.4 X liquid-H2 density, so we hope to find out.
 
What would happen if you tried to induce non-equilibrium conditions?
 
The exponential tunneling factor might make apparently slight fluctuations
from maxwellian equilibrium have surprisingly large impact on reaction rates.
 
: --Steven Jones
 
--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.17 / Edward Lewis /   A NEW SET OF PHENOMENA(Parts 1@2; Parts 3,4,5 were posted before)
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  A NEW SET OF PHENOMENA(Parts 1@2; Parts 3,4,5 were posted before)
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 01:50:17 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

           Copyright (c) 1993 by Edward H. Lewis  All Rights Reserved
 
        5719 S. Harper
        Chicago, Illinois
        60637  U.S.A.           A NEW SET OF PHENOMENA
        October 15, 1993
 
Posted on sci.physics.fusion on Oct. 15, 1993.
Part 2  of this article was posted on sci.physics.fusion on Sept. 25, 1993.
 
 
        It seems that the phenomena which people call astronomical
phenomena, such as the phenomena that they call black holes, white
holes, galaxies, filaments, and stars, are plasmoid phenomena, and
that similar phenomena may be produced in apparatus.  I would say that
the cold fusion phenomena exhibit the characteristics of plasmoid
phenomena.  I use the term plasmoid to name things that are similar to
the plasmoids that Bostick produced in the 1950s, ball lightning, the
EVs which are tiny micrometer sized plasmoid phenomena that K.
Shoulders has produced, and many other similar phenomena.  Since the
galaxy seems to be a plasmoid phenomena, then the things in it are
plasmoid phenomena.  Based on lots of evidence, IUm identifying atoms
as plasmoid phenomena.  I suspect that they behave like plasmoid
phenomena and that they manifest as plasmoid phenomena; like ball
lightning and EVs, atoms may convert to electricity and/or light and
may be produced by the conversion of light or electricity.  Many
people have seen several ball lightning form clumps or rings.  Ken
Shoulders describes that EVs may form strings or rings.  Many people
have seen ball lightning convert to lightning bolts or explode
radiating much light.  People have also seen ball lightning and bead
lightning appear where there was a lightning stroke.  People have
produced plamoids by using lasers and by electrical discharging.
Ohtsuki and Ofuruton (see Part 4 of this article) and others including
Kaptiza who is a Noble Prize winner have produced ball lightning type
phenomena by using microwave generators.  I suspect that substance may
convert to light and electricity in the same way: atoms may clump
together and form bigger clumps which people have called heavier
elements, thus radiating light and/or electricity, or atoms may
convert entirely to electricity and/or light as do ball lightning and
EVs (the atoms may quickly convert or slowly dissipate as do ball
lightning and EVs), or atoms may break apart into smaller components
that people may call particles and smaller atoms, thus radiating light
and/or electricity.  I also suspect that electricity and light may
convert to atoms.
 
        There is much evidence of this plasmoid behavior of
substances.  The holes in substances and electrodes and between the
grains of the electrodes that many people report associated with CF
phenomena are evidence that substance converted to something else.  I
suspect that the substance converted to light or electricity or
particles or other types of atoms.  Matsumoto has produced many
elements by electrolysis (T. Matsumoto and K. Kurokawa, "Observation
of Heavy Elements Produced During Explosive Cold Fusion," Fusion
Technology, 20, 323, (1991).).  Many other people have produced
elements also.  I suspect that the electrical surges associated with
CF phenomena is evidence of substance converting to electricity (I.
Yukimura and T. Matsumoto, "Extraordinary Current Produced During AC
Electrolysis of Water," Phys. Rev., Submitted in March (1993).).  Many
people have reported something like this.  I suspect that much of the
conversion of substance has not been detected by people working with
CF-type apparatus because they do not check for the output of the
electricity or the exit of plasmoid-type phenomena.  I suspect that
the traces produced on emulsions that Matsumoto has produced,
including some which actually glow like coronas ("Photo. 7: Traces of
White Holes on Nuclear Emulsions," in I. Yukimura and T. Matsumoto,
Searching the Energy of the Universe -- Photographs of AC Electrolysis
of Water , Japan, March, 1993.) are produced by tiny plasmoid
phenomena.  In a recent letter, Matsumoto told me that he has twice
seen things in his apparatus which were like the phenomena that people
call ball lightning and that he was not able to photograph them.  I
would say that he saw plasmoids which were large enough for him to
see.  I suspect that much smaller ones are produced also, and that
small ones were the cause of many of the kinds of traces that he has
shown.  Plasmoid phenomena often travel through glass and ceramics,
and unless people could detect the departure of these phenomena which
may be microscopic or may be fairly large, they may not know that much
material had converted and left the apparatus. The heat and light that
people have experienced is evidence that the substance converted to
light.  The two articles by Matsumoto which will be published inFusion
Technology in November 1993 both show pictures of what I would call
tiny, bright or glowing plasmoid phenomena.  The booklet Searching the
Energy of the Universe -- Photographs of AC Electrolysis of Water also
contains pictures of electrodes with hundreds of bright spots and
extremely bright areas which I would call a type of plasmoid
phenomena.  I know much else concerning plasmoid phenomena, but I
don't want to explain some of these things yet, until I decide about
patents.
 
Part 2 INTRODUCTION (SEPT. 25, 1993)
 
        This article is composed of revised parts that I had posted on
sci.physics.fusion during the past 1/2 year on the dates that I show.
I cite Lerner's book in the first part.  In order to get an idea of
what I am describing, you may want to read this article several times.
Especially, look up the references.
 
        Alfven who is a Nobel Prize winner, and Lerner and Peratt and
many other people have developed similar astronomical theories that
can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the experimental
work of W. Bostick and others.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in Scientific American in 1957.  W.
Bostick, "Plasmoids," Scientific American, 197, 87 (October 1957).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.
 
        In this paper, he had already began to tell others about his
speculation that galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.
He compared the shapes and the travel of these things.  If I remember
correctly, he also speculated a little about the identity of
"particles."  He shows pictures of different kinds of galaxies in the
article and related these to different kinds of plasmoid shapes.
 
        I post articles on sci.physics.fusion from time to time, and I
wonder whether people will want to check these out.  I suspect that CF
is a plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that an EV is a type of
plasmoid.  The term "EV" may have been coined by K. Shoulders.  Since
light and electricity interconvert, I tend to identify these.  I would
like to suggest that people read Matsumoto's 2 articles that are
scheduled to be published in Fusion Technology in November of this
year.  These articles show evidence that are confirmations of my
deductions and resolutions, and I suspect that they are very
important.
 
        I am thinking about getting a patent and starting a company
and doing research.  Would any one want to help?  Also, I am looking
for the address of Lerner and Alfven, could any one tell me this?  I
am also looking for Egon Bach's address and information about his
work.  If anyone wants copies of my papers, could they contact me so
that we can negotiate?  I would like people to get my papers.  I've
also written a paper about the approximately 80 year periodicity of
the development of science, and an approximately 40 year periodicity
of economic depressions.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.16 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Partial copy of article in Electronics + Wireless World,
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Partial copy of article in Electronics + Wireless World,
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 93 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In a recent article Leonard Norrgard writes:
 
> Since Dieter Britz mentioned an article on the Meyer cell in the
> latest bibliography update, I thought this partial repost of an
> article on the Meyer cell in Electronics + Wireless World, January
> 1991 might be interesting.  I haven't been able to track down the
> original article myself, but Howard Smith kindly e-mailed this partial
> article to me.  It seems sci.energy.hydrogen might be the right place
> for discussing this.
 
I found this post very interesting.  Some time ago I read some papers on
zero point energy.  After studying them, and taking an inventory of what
equipment I had around the basement, I decided the easiest way to check the
theory out was to use a capacitor with pure water as dielectric.  The theory
was that if I hit it with high voltage pulses, some type of resonance would
form between the bipolar molecules of water, and the zero point, yielding an
over unity device.  After quite a bit of testing, I decided that the zero
point theory did not stand up to experimental testing and dismissed it.  I had
assumed that any energy input from zero point would show up as a return of
energy in electrical form, and was looking on the trailing edge of the pulse
for some type of "tail" other than what was expected from a normal capacitor
under those conditions.  Although I did find the "tail" to be quite different
from what a conventional capacitor would produce, an integration of the V*I
under the tail did not indicate this was an over-unity device, so I dismissed
the theory.  Now, it appears that maybe I should have considered the evolved
hydrogen and oxygen as the product; instead I considered them as something to
try and eliminate.  I feel like I may not have seen the forest for the trees.
Maybe I will go back and run some more tests.
 
I have a question though.  In the Meyer cell, does the hydrogen and oxygen
evolve at the cathode and anode, or in the water between the plates?  Is
it possible to derive two seperate gas streams, or will the gas be mixed?
If it were possible to derive two seperate streams, then a fuel cell could be
used to supply the electricity for the process, and if it were sufficient to
run the process, there could be no doubt that it is an over-unity device.
 
A second question comes to mind as well.  If the production of hydrogen is
at the electrode, what would happen if a cf cell is powered by pulsed high
voltage?  A bias may have to be maintained to prevent the hydrogen from
diffusing out of the palladium between the pulses. This would tend to
artifically create essentially the same conditions that my earlier posted
theory on Tom's "events" produces.  Might be worth pursuing.  If anyone needs
any advice on how to accomplish this, feel free to EMAIL me.  It can easily be
done by adding a pulse generator (or $5 worth of electronics), an automotive
spark coil, and a high voltage diode to the cf power source.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 03:39:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <30435@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick Janow, Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
writes:
>treitel@gracie.intellicorp.com (Richard Treitel) writes:
>
>>+ I don't understand why we are kowtowing to the PC crowd.  So what if
we
>>+ need a fission plant to get us to where we want to go.
>>
>> I don't think most of us are kowtowing.  The simple fact is that
plutonium
>> yields much less energy per mass than deuterium and so won't get us
there
>> as fast.
>
>If I remember correctly, the suggestion for a fission/fusion reactor was
for
>propulsion in space.  In that situation, the idea has potential.  If a
fusion
>rocket can be made in such a way as to be efficient at converting
electrical
>energy to high-temperature plasma (at a gain), yet not be efficient at
>simultaneously producing electrical energy, then it could still be
practical.
>It's possible that a fission reactor could be more mass efficient than
the
>additional equipment on a fusion reactor to generate the same amount of
>energy.
>
>I wouldn't base a nuclear rocket design on theoretical efficiencies; I'd
look
>at the practical problems that would be faced.
>
>If it takes a fission reactor to start a self-sustaining fusion reaction
and
>you have to haul the fission reactor around for emergencies, restarting
at a
>distant location, etc, then you might as well keep it running and use its
>energy production to increase the thrust/fuel ratio provided by the
fusion
>reactor.
 
I agree that a fission-fusion hybrid would work, but I think everyone
here has missed the basic fact that in order to launch such a ship,
you have to put lots and lots of radioactive materials into orbit.
Given the current odds on a launch disaster (a la the Challenger
in !85 or so), a lot of people are going to have serious qualms about
launching lots of radioactives into space.  If you want to get around
this by mining the stuff from asteroids and/or from the moon, then
you!re talking way-distant-future, in which case we!ll probably have
fusion plants that are good enough to do it without the fission
baggage.  Note that a non-tritium fusion plant would not need radioactives
and therefore might be quite attractive.
 
I don!t think a fission-reactor spaceship is going to fly with the public.
 
[Note on the Wild Side: I!ve heard that the Air Force had a fission-
powered aircraft project back in the 50s & 60s, but it was secret and
I think it was canned.]
 
Robert F. Heeter
Not-Fusion-Fact-Patrol (not here, anyway)
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (Disclaimers Apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 03:51:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
>
>As long as we're playing "my authorities can beat up your authorities"
>how about dealing with the comments of Dr. Hirsch vis the Tokamak?
>
Jim, I!m really interested in reading about this.  Could you either
post the comments or give me the references?  I know you mentioned
Hirsch earlier, but I!ve lost the post and it!s probably worth
restating the issue more precisely so I know exactly what you are
referring to.
 
[Discussion of funding politics and approaches extirpated.]
[Yes, I had to get that word in here somewhere!]
 
>Aside from the fact that the review in the fusion program is NOT
>"independent" in any rational sense of the word, the universal solution
>is called "put your money where your mouth is."
>
I don!t think this is entirely true.  At least, not the part about
lack of independent review.  I concede that there are non-independent
reviews, but there are also a large number of external reviews which
go on from time to time.  (Could someone more in the know back me
up on this?)  Certainly I did my own !independent review! before
deciding to go into Plasma Physics.  Granted, I!m no expert, but I
think the technology is worth supporting at the research level.
 
[Note to the curious:  this !independent review! consisted of reading
everything I could find on the history of fusion research, as well
as taking a university class on all aspects of energy supply,
production, and policy.  I chose to go to Princeton to work on fusion.
This means either fusion is worth doing or I!m seriously misguided.
I!d love to be enlightened if I!m misguided.  In a rational way.]
 
>How much of your own money do you have on the line in this issue?
 
Right now my entire professional career is involved, since I intend
to go into fusion research.  And to me, that counts a lot more than
any sum of money you could name.  So I assume that!s enough for you?
 
**************************************
Robert F. Heeter
!Fusion Fact Patrol!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Disclaimers Apply, Flamers Need Not Apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 04:15:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <19931008.165404.260@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>         Barry Merriman posts:
>>Yes, but that requires breeder reactors, and subsequent production of
lots
>>of nasty weapons-potential stuff. Do you want Iran, Libya, Cuba, etc
>>to have their own breeder reactors? You must if you intend fission
>>to be an energy solution for hundreds of years.
>
>         How do you figure this?  A breeder economy does not require
>that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons
>grade material.  In any case if an energy solution requires
>eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure
>that could be arranged.
 
I can!t believe this went for a week without comment.  Clearly
Jim Shearer can!t be serious, in which case he has no defense
against the proliferation critique of fission breeders.  If he
is serious, then I am completely slack-jawed in shock.  Regardless,
the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants
energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder.
 
>         Dr Bruce Scott posts (quoting Barry Merriman):
>>>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade
uranium
>>>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our
>>>present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of
energy
>>>worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution.
>
>>How about another one? Taking the above as a given, and that fuel
>>grade uranium is a fraction X of the whole, then uranium as a whole,
>>assuming there are no problems using breeders, there is available
>>energy for 60/X years. I understand that X is about 0.007 (U235/U
>>total).  So that makes about 10k years. Now, given that the same
>>people who present a fissle future often argue that economic growth
>>and an expanding population are Good Things, you cannot do the simple
>>division and say things like "we have energy for 10,000 years". If
>>consumption grows at 0.5 percent/year, then the 10,000 become less
>>than 800 years.
>>
>>Given this, I'd like to know how to make fusion long by the time that
>>day rolls around.
>
>         If you assume breeders are ok you should include thorium
>as well which gives 40k years.  As for your .5%/year consumption
>growth scenario I believe if you do the arithmetic you will find that
>fusion doesn't last all that long either.
 
It may not be !all that long! on geological timescales, but it!s
still orders of magnitude longer than fission.  (The energy
density of fusion fuel is much higher, and there!s a lot more of
it.)  But granting that there!s enough fuel for both, the question
becomes:  would you rather have fission plants creating gobs of
high-level radioactive waste, or fusion plants creating little to
no such waste (depending on choice of fuel cycle, plant materials,
etc.)?  I need to see an argument showing that fusion doesn!t win
this one hands-down.
 
>         We know how to make fusion.  We just don't know how to use
>it as an economical source of power.
 
That!s right.  Let!s work on it!
 
>It seems likely that research
>using today's technology will be totally irrelevant to the economics
>of fusion in the far future.  Hence unless you believe fusion power
>has a chance of being economical in the near term such research is
>likely to prove a waste of money.
 
Not at all.  The ARIES studies (Conn, et al, 1992, references available)
show that with a few not-unreasonable advances we can have economical
fusion power within 50 years.  This doesn!t count as far future to me.
And as I see it, even if I didn!t believe fusion had a shot at being
economical in the near term, I!d still put money into research on it.
Without the research, there will be no advances, and without the
advances, there will never be fusion.  It!s only the research using
today!s technology that gets you to tomorrow!s technology.  I think
this is obvious, but it looks like it needed pointing out.
 
**************************************
Robert F. Heeter, in between problem sets.
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
!I don!t represent PPPL, I!m just the only one crazy enough to
open my mouth here.!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / R Schroeppel /  Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 01:58:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones writes ...
>   The fusion yield is also influenced *dramatically* by temperature of the
    D-T mixture in the range 4K - 800K explored so far (hence, "cold fusion")
    and chemical composition (D2-DT-T2 ratios).  Thus, the fusion
    yield is influenced, albeit indirectly, by conditions controlled by the
    experimenter.  [For more information, see e.g. S.E. Jones et al., Phys.
    Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 588.]
 
    BTW, the yields noted above are only an order of magnitude below what is
    needed for *commercial* power production by means of muon-catalyzed fusion,
    by most current estimates.  How could nature be so tantalizing yet so
    difficult?
 
    The curve above suggests that the yields may rise to hundreds of fusions per
    muon, but other data indicate that the yield will saturate below 300 fusions
    per muon.  An experiment now planned for Dubna, Russia will push the density
    to about 2.4 X liquid-H2 density, so we hope to find out.
 
I propose that the fusion@zorch college do some brainstorming to get
Steve some more muons.
 
I'll put the ball in play with a few questions:
Is the only way to make muons, pion decay?
Is the only way to make pions, proton smashups?
Is there a better way to smash protons?
Is there a way to gather cosmic ray muons?
Is liquid hydrogen compressed much in the middle of a sound wave?
Since p + mu is "like" an n, and d + mu is "like" 2n, maybe there
are some other reactions worth investigating?  "n" + X -> fusion?
He3?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Partial copy of article in Electronics + Wireless World,
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Partial copy of article in Electronics + Wireless World,
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 01:53:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com writes:
>I have a question though.  In the Meyer cell, does the hydrogen and oxygen
>evolve at the cathode and anode, or in the water between the plates?  Is
>it possible to derive two seperate gas streams, or will the gas be mixed?
>If it were possible to derive two seperate streams, then a fuel cell could be
>used to supply the electricity for the process, and if it were sufficient to
>run the process, there could be no doubt that it is an over-unity device.
 
You don't need to seperate the two gases to do useful measurements of outputs.
Comparative measurements of H2+O2 production rates are fairly easy.
 
In the standard electolysis case, each amp of electrical current should
produce 0.2cc's of H2+O2 gas per second.  This is at 1.48V*1.0A=1.48W.
Since most electrolytic cells also have a resistive component, they are
not 100% efficient.  The efficiency is simply the ratio of the voltages.
I.E. a 3 volt cell is 1.48/3 or approximately 50% efficient.
 
Since Meyers might have found a way to improve efficiency, it is better
to make comparisons of gas rate to energy input, than to amp input
alone.
 
For each cc of gas evolved, then, the law of conservation of energy
predicts a minimum input of 7.8 Joules (watt-seconds)
 
It would be easy, then to make a comparative measurement between the
gas output of a standard electrolytic cell and a Meyer's cell.  We can
tell our standard cell energy input to gas output merely by looking at the
input voltage and current.
 
We then know what factor increase represents 100% efficient output.  And
we can observe if the Meyers cell exceeds this with its input energy versus
output gas rates.
 
In the past I've done such comparative gas measurements to accuracies of
under 1% or so with clear plastic tubing, a glass jar of water, and a wrist
watch.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Meyer cells
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer cells
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 02:14:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
>> "The  most  remarkable observation is that the WFC  and  all  its
>> metal pipe work remained quite cold to  the  touch,  even   after
>> more  than twenty minutes of operation. The  splitting  mechanism
>> clearly  evolves  little heat in sharp contrast  to  electrolysis
>> where  the electrolyte warms up quickly."
 
I took a liter of tap water at 77F (ambient was 74F) and put a resistor
in it and ran 10W into it.  After 20 minutes the temperature had risen
by only 4F to 81F.  If I had started with cold water, it still would have
been fairly cool to the touch after twenty minutes.  And if I had been
producing H2 and O2 gas by electrolysis with 50% efficiency, the temperature
rise would have been reduced to 2F.  So ten watts (as mentioned in Dieter's
abstract of about 10 days ago) actually takes a long time to warm a quart
or liter of water.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Frank Close /  Harwell squash isnt gourmet diner
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell squash isnt gourmet diner
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 08:55:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell,
 
I have no copy of the data to which you have referred nor are GIF files etc
any use to me. I requested hard copy. I have not received any.
 
However, you have confirmed that the Melich "secret" work does
not deal with the steady state nor isothermal calorimeters.
Thus I refer you again to Harwell's paper, as in my previous posts.
 
p.s. If ever you should visit Harwell I recommend that you do not try to
"eat" at the Harwell Squash Club. This is perhaps an example of the language
divide between Websters and the Oxford Dictionaries. "Squash" is as in
"Raquet" and not as in foodstuff.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Jim Bowery /  Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion ethics
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 08:55:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
>jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
>>Aside from the fact that the review in the fusion program is NOT
>>"independent" in any rational sense of the word,
>>
>I don!t think this is entirely true.  At least, not the part about
>lack of independent review.  I concede that there are non-independent
>reviews, but there are also a large number of external reviews which
>go on from time to time.
 
The only people who are allowed to "review" the fusion program are
past, present or potential future funding receipients of the DoE's
fusion program.  There are no clauses in the magnetic fusion law to
clearly divide fundee's from reviewers.
 
Conflicts of interest are thereby ensured by the magnetic fusion law
language and its interpretation.  The program is ethically bankrupt.
 
One would expect them to, at least, let utilities review the program and
allow those reviews have as some significant impact on its priorities.
If that had been the case, you can be sure that the "cut back" in funding
(actually an increase during Reagan) would have resulted in a
diversification of the work rather than a "unification" of the work under
the Tokamak program.
 
But even ignoring this lack of ethics, the idea that "stupidity" caused them
to pursue only one technical option when we are so far from finding a workable
 
solution is simply not credible.  The only reasonable hypothesis that fits
the evidence is that those who control the fusion program are working to
delay its conclusion.
 
Whether this is a conspiracy of circumstance or a conspiracy of greed, I
leave to the La Rouchites vs the DoE-apologists to argue out.  To me, the
difference is of no consequence.  The damage being done is exactly the same
and those responsible must be held to account for that damage.  How one
could hold such a small group of people to account for many trillions of
dollars in damages, not to mention hundreds of millions of lives and
thousands of species lost to our planet, is an important question that
needs an ethical answer rather than the all-too-probable "solution" of
"load up the trains and crank up the gas-ovens."
 
>[Note to the curious:  this !independent review! consisted of reading
>everything I could find on the history of fusion research, as well
>as taking a university class on all aspects of energy supply,
>production, and policy.
 
I did the same in the early '70s and the my conclusion, based on REAL
independent review at that time, was that specializing in fusion "research"
would be a very bad career move.  I am glad I had some good guidance
although I wish I had been informed of the more innovative approaches
that were taking root at about that time.  My only resources were peer-
reviewed journals.
 
>I chose to go to Princeton to work on fusion.
>This means either fusion is worth doing or I!m seriously misguided.
 
False dilemma.  Princeton isn't working the right technology.
 
>>...the universal solution
>>is called "put your money where your mouth is."
>>How much of your own money do you have on the line in this issue?
>
>Right now my entire professional career is involved, since I intend
>to go into fusion research.  And to me, that counts a lot more than
>any sum of money you could name.  So I assume that!s enough for you?
 
You mean you are now going to be subject to the same political incentives
as those who have, to this time, received billions of taxpayer dollars and
succeeded only in suppressing fusion technology by using their government
funding to marginalize inventors of alternate fusion technologies.
 
If you are fortunate, a DoE-reject will come out with a fusion technology
despite your greater funding and incentives to suppress them.  If you are
unfortunate, decades from now you will find yourself on your death-bed
realizing you spent your life keeping fusion technology from the world.
You will share in a guilt far beyond Hitler's holocaust -- even beyond those
who executed Stalin's pogrom -- incredibly, your guilt will exceed even
those who destroyed nearly 100 million Western lives with "feminism" and
related ideologies.  Your present ignorance of your part in this unspeakable
activity will be of little consolation to you then.
 
I hope you suffer the more fortunate fate.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Jim Bowery /  Appeal to Authority:  Robert Hirsch, Founder US Tokamak Program
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Appeal to Authority:  Robert Hirsch, Founder US Tokamak Program
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 08:56:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
>jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
>>
>>As long as we're playing "my authorities can beat up your authorities"
>>how about dealing with the comments of Dr. Hirsch vis the Tokamak?
>>
>Jim, I!m really interested in reading about this.  Could you either
>post the comments or give me the references?  I know you mentioned
>Hirsch earlier, but I!ve lost the post and it!s probably worth
>restating the issue more precisely so I know exactly what you are
>referring to.
 
OK, here are a couple of things I had sitting around on my hard disk:
 
CHANGING DIRECTIONS IN FUSION RESEARCH NEEDS
 
BY ROBERT L. HIRSCH
 
BEFORE THE DOE F.E.A.C.
 
March 5, 1993
 
 
It is my view that DOE should accelerate some of the changes in program
direction that have been initiated recently.
 
 
I feel strongly that the world needs fusion power.  It's potential is
enormous.  However, it's development challenges are incredibly complex,
as this audience well knows.
 
 
To optimally develop any technology, early, tight coupling to the
marketplace is needed.  That was a major lesson of the 1980's in
virtually all areas of technology development.
 
 
In electr power generation, the client today is the electric utilities,
who know the marketplace better than anyone else.
 
* Utilities haven't been seriously involved in fusion for a very long
time, if ever.
 
* Utilities know the realities of building and operating real power
generators in the real world better than any other entity.  They or
people with their kind of practical, pragmatic orientation will
ultimately evaluate fusion's viability.
 
* Don't confuse "utilities" with "industry."  Industry is often
motivated by near-term contracts, and, even if contractors know
better, they are unlikely to criticize for fear of losing contracts
or contract opportunities.
 
* Anne Davis has already asked for utility advisors to assist her,
and she will have access to the Fusion Working Group that we are
organizing under EPRI.
 
 
The utilities have learned and are learning many harsh realities
today, particularly in nuclear.
 
* Nuclear power in the U.S. is not growing; it is in fact having to
deal with significant negative pressures.
 
* Today's nuclear problems include the following:
 
  - High O&M costs;
  - Need for expensive capital investments;
  - Very high levels of detailed regulation;
  - No acceptable means for radwaste disposal;
  - Very high decommissioning costs;
  - Lower cost alternative electric generation options.
 
* The lessons and realities of nuclear power as viewed by many of the
utilities that own them are different than many of you may realize.
 
 
While I fully expect a number of nuclear's problems will be solved
before the advent of fusion, the concerns about complexity, management
of radioactivity, high levels of regulation and costs will continue
in my view.  There should not be the slightest doubt that they will
be problems for fusion also.  Public acceptance will be a big problem
for fusion that shouldn't be forgotten either.
 
 
Consider the characteristics of DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors
as currently envisioned.  They will be extremely complex, highly
radioactive, likely to be highly regulated, and costly.
 
* Even if DT tokamak or laser fusion reactors had the same capital
costs as a fission reactor (an enormous challenge), fusion reactors
would lose out to advanced fission reactors, which are a reliable,
known quantity.
 
 
As you know, EPRI has recently reestablished a small fusion program.
Let's consider some of what has come out of that effort thus far.
 
* A fusion panel study has provided some excellent guidance, softly
delivered so as to minimize trouble.
 
* Some of the very few fusion-knowledgable utility people that
I have spoken with indicate that none of them believes that tokamak
or laser fusion reactors, as currently envisioned, would be
acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
 
Let me turn to materials.  As you know, there are some enormous
materials problems related to DT fusion.  Accordingly, you have
impaneled a materials study recently.  The facts seem to be:
 
* There are no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors.
 
* If you select stainless steel, you will have to effectively
rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
reactor of the same power level.
 
* If you want to develop a low activity material, it will be
very costly and very time consuming, and you are likely to still
have to rebuild the reactor every 5-10 years, that is unless some
of these liquid or powder wall proves viable.
 
 
And then there's ITER.  If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned,
aren't acceptable, can ITER be possibly justified?
 
* If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
 
* If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and
the fusion program could collapse.
 
 
So what to do?  I urge the DOE to accelerate changes that have
already been started:
 
* Get serious utility oversight ASAP.  Anne Davis has already asked
for utility help, but this won't be easy to arrange.
 
* You recently restarted an alternate concept program.  I urge you
to scale up appropriate alternate concepts R&D as fast as you can.
"Appropriate alternate concepts" refers to concepts that hold
promise of working on the higher fusion fuel cycles and providing
more attractive fusion power systems.
 
 
Don't stop tokamak or laser-fusion research, but cut them back
and reorient them in more acceptable directions.
 
 
Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction,
large quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials development.
 
 
I've talked to many in the fusion community in recent years.  While
those people don't construct the need for change the same way that
I have, their conclusions are often remarkably similar to what I have
just outlined.
 
 
I urge you to accelerate your changes and to reach out to the
utilities for guidance and eventual partnership.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Editor's note:  Robert L. Hirsch was largely responsible for starting the
tokamak program in the U.S.  For several years, he has been trying to get
the DOE fusion program to demphasize the tokamak and pursue compact,
aneutronic technologies, recommending Paul M. Koloc's Sphereomak and
Robert W. Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Fusion as superior alternatives
to the tokamak.  The DOE's fusion program has gone in the opposite
direction despite Hirsch's efforts.  The fusion program is now in danger
of cancellation.  Hirsch currently heads the Electric Power Research
Institute's fusion energy branch in Washington D.C.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
DoE Experts Endorse Electrostatic Confinement Fusion Energy
 
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).  EMC2 is located in Manassas, Virginia.
 
The EPRI-commissioned report was delivered on November 4, 1992.
 
 
Fusion Technology Institute
_____________________________
Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics Department
University of Wisconsin-Madison
 
 
                                                November 3, 1992
 
Dr. Robert L. Hirsch
Electric Power Research Institute
2000 L Street NW, Suite 805
Washington, D.C. 20036
 
Dear Bob,
 
On October 15, 1992 the undersigned met at EPRI Headquarters in Washington,
DC to review the Inertial Electrostatic Fusion project.  The charge to the
committee was as follows:
 
1. Has the analysis focused on the proper physics issues?  Does the sum
total of that physics analysis point to reasonable promise for the concept?
Are there any obvious reasons why the concept might not work other than
those already identified?
 
2.  Are there attractive engineering features to these concepts?  Does the
limited engineering (analysis) to date appear reasonable?
 
3.  How well do IEF concepts promise to meet the EPRI criteria for useful
fusion power systems if they can be proven technically feasible?
 
We were given an intense and highly informative briefing by Drs. R. W.
Bussard, N. A. Krall, and R. Nebel on the current status of theory and
reactor design activities pertaining to the IEF concept.  Our response to
the charge and our conclusions are in the attached report.  A brief summary
of our deliberations is given below.
 
*  The IEF concept does represent an intriguing fusion alternative to the
present U.S. and international DT tokamak program.
 
*  The promise of small, reliable, inexpensive, low radiation damage
systems must be balanced by the concern over the lack of a broad
theoretical evaluation and the small plasma phyhsics experimental data base
currently available.
 
*  Considerable attention does need to be paid to the problem of electron
losses from the cusps and the ion convergence characteristics.  The concept
will not be fully accepted by the plasma physics community until these
areas are experimentally established and better understood in the context
of a self-consistent model of plasma.
 
*  It is recommended that if EPRI is interested in continuation of this
project, the next step should involve additional experimentalists who can
help to design a small, but definitive experiment to address some of the
key plasma physics questions.
 
*  The ultimate promise of the IEF concept is sufficiently attractive that
continued funding in this area could be of great benefit to the electric
utilities and the fusion community at large.
 
These conclusions are discussed in more detail in the attached report.
Please feel free to contact me or any member of the panel should you wish
more elaboration on its contents.
 
 
Gerald L. Kulcinski
Grainger Professor of Nuclear Engineering and
Director of the Fusion Technology Institute
University of Wisconsin-Madison
 
 
                                        Committee Members
 
                                        Prof. Robert. A.. Gross
                                        Columbia University
 
                                        Mr. Robert S. Symons
                                        Litton Systems
 
                                        Dr. Robert A Krakowski
                                        Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
                                        Prof. Dennis Papadopolous
                                        University of Maryland
 
                                        Dr. Stephen O. Dean
                                        Fusion Power Associates
 
                                        Dr. Dale M. Meade
                                        Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 
 
Report to EPRI
on the
 
INERTIAL ELECTROSTATIC
FUSION PROJECT
 
 
Presented at EPRI Headquarters
Washington, DC, October 15, 1992
 
 
November 2, 1992
 
Panel Members
 
Stephen O. Dean
Robert A. Gross
Robert A. Krakowski
Gerald L. Kulcinski, Chm.
Dale M. Meade
Dennis Papadopolous
Robert S. Symons
 
I.  Introduction
 
The EPRI panel (see Appendix A) on Inertial Electrostatic Fusion (IEF) met
in Washington DC on October 15, 1992 to hear a presentation of the IEF
program effort funded by EPRI.  The current IEF program was presented by
Drs. R. W. Bussard, N. A. Krall, and R. Nebel (see Appendix B for the
agenda).
 
The specific charge to the panel (with respect t the EPRI sponsored
research) is summarized below:
 
1.  Has the analysis focused on the proper physics issues.
2.  Does the sum total of the pphysics analysis point to reasonable promise
for the concept(s).
3.  Are there any obvious reasons why the concept might not work other than
those already identified?
4.  Are there attractive engineering features to these concepts?
5.  Does the limited engineering (analysis) to date appear reasonable?
6.  How well to IEF concepts promise to meet the EPRI criteria for useful
fusion power systems if they can be proven technically feasible?
 
The organization of this report is as follows.  Following a brief
description of the IEF concept in Section II, the specific response of the
panel to the EPRI charge is given in Section III.  The overall conclusions
from the panel are presented in Section IV.
 
II.  Main Features of IEF Concepts
 
The IEF class of concepts are fundamentally different than either magnetic
(confinement) fusion or inertial fusion.  The basic concept utilizes a deel
spherical potential well to attract cold ions from the edge inward.  This
results in the formation of a core region in the center of the sphere where
high energy ion beams converge and collide, resulting in fusion.
 
Two generic configurations have been proposed:
 
*  Ion acceleration (IXL), where radially converging energetic ion beams,
produced by spherical electrodes (or grids), create a virtual anode in the
center,
 
*  Electron acceleration (EXL), where high energy electrons are injected
along a magnetic field cusp to produce a negative potential whigh
accelerates low energy ions from the periphery.
 
Fusion energy is produced from the highly non-Maxwellian unconfined plasma
in a small region at the center of the sphere which is isotropic and
essentially monoenergetic.  Since the scattering cross-section is much
larger than the fusion cross-section, the ions must be recirculated and
refocused many thousands of times.  There is no "confinement" at the
center, nor thermonuclear burn at the focus.  Rather, the electrons near
the outer region of the sphere must be confined by magnetic cusps or, in
the case of  ion guns, the ions must be confined by electrostatic grids.
The efficient confinement of electrons (main energy loss) and the strong
focusing of directional ions (main energy source) are the key physics
issues to be addressed.
 
III.  Specific Responses to Panel Charge
 
Following the technical presentations for nearly half of a day and
discussions of the IEF project with the proponents, the panel members have
jointly drafted the following responses,
 
1.  Has the analysis focused on the proper physics issue?
 
        Physics analysis have thus far concentrated on the following
issues:
 
A. The formation of the spherical potential well.
B. Effectiveness of the spherical electrostatic well against the loss to
grids or along magnetic field cusps.
C. The formation and control of self-consistent ion and electron density
distributions; and
D. An evaluation of effects (e.g. scattering and instabilities) that would
prevent ion convergence.
 
It is the opinion of the panel that most of the important physics issues
have been identified (with items B & D given the highest priority).  The
limited theoretical analysis done to date has focused on the appropriate
parameters with the exception of start-up scenarios.  However, identifying
andsolving problems are two different issues.  Examples of the current
state of understanding insome of the physics areas listed above are given
below.
 
Formation of the Spherical Potential Well
 
The IXL-concept was origionally devised by Farnsworth and Hirsch, and early
experiments generated interest by producing 10**10 neutrons/s using 100keV
ion beams.  The performance of this device was believed to have been
limited by losses of particles to the grids.
 
The EXL concept, developed in the 1980's by R. W. Bussard, uses high order
multipole magnetic fields to generate a grid onto which electrons are
injected to form the potential wells.  Experiments carried out on the
device at Directed Technologies have shown the formation of a 18kV
electrostatic well as measured by probes.
 
Sustainment of the Potential Well
 
The grid system used on the origional IXL was thought to limit performance
of this type of system and prevent reactor applications.  However, the
performance was always substantially better than predicted by any theory.
The EXL was designed to avoid the grid loss problem.  A critical issue for
EXL is the size of the electron loss channel through the magnetic cusp.
This issue is being addressed with analytic and computer models which
suggest that the electron leakage rate may be sufficiently low that an
interesting reactor may result.  However, there is no definitive
experimental data base on high-beta cusp particle loss rates.  This is a
critical physics question that needs to be resolved.
 
Evaluation of Effects that Would Prevent Ion Convergence
 
A critical issue is whether, near the center of the sphere, a dense,
steady, highly non-Maxwellian plasma can be obtained and sustained.
Theoretical analyses raise the hope that this can be accomplished but
again, there is no experimental data base to verify the theoretical
predictions.  Central to this issue of refocusing is the degree to which
ions entering and decelerating in the edge region can be "specularly" (i.e.
isotropically) returned to the reaction core radius without sampling the
edge magnetic field, that in turn, could impart undesirable angular
momentum.
 
2.  Does the sum total of the physics analysis point to reasonable promise
for the concept(s)?
 
The IEF concepts that have been analyzed thus far suggest that relatively
small, and efficient, fusion power reactors (10's to 100's of MWe) may be
possible.  In addition, because of the sphereically focused ion beam, these
concepts may employ advanced (neutron lean) fuels, thereby reducing or
eliminating many of the material and radioactive waste problems associated
with "conventional" thermonuclear fusion power plants.  Furthermore, the
unique characteristic of the non-Maxwellian reaction core (i.e., isotropic
but mono-energetic) may allow "tuning" of the ion energy to optimal regions
of high fusion cross sections.
 
Whether the idealized, spherically symmetric, steady-state IEF
configuration, as proposed by Bussard and analyzed by Krall can be obtained
and sustained, with acceptable energy to the system (recirculating
fractions <20%), is a major question.  If so, and if the reactors can be
obtained in small unit size (~100 MWe or less), then very attractive fusion
reactors using fuels which produce only low levels of neutrons may be
possible.  Such a combination would result in an exciting and very
different fusion concept with respect to high power density,
sparation/elimination of plasma support systems, reduced radiation damage
and radioactive wastes, and reduced R&D effort toward a commercial system.
 
3.  Are there any obvious reasons why the concept might not work other than
those already identified?
 
As stated previously, the reactor potential and engineering appeal of the
IEF depends mainly on two factors; the electron losses from the surface of
the device and the extent of ion convergence to a high density core.
Failure to obtain the necessary performance in either of these areas could
result in an uneconomical system.  It is also important to include these
loss mechanisms in the start-up scenario; many concepts have failed before
because they could not achieve the desired operating design point.
 
The electron loss rate controls the reactor energy balance.  The losses at
a "point" magnetic cusp (at high beta) is an important, yet unresolved
issue affecting the electron loss rate.  Furthermore, the extent to which
high-beta diamagnetic effects reduce the electron loss through the open
cusp regions needs to be understoodtheoretically and experimentally.
Success in this latter area would improve the attractiveness of the IEF
concepts.  It is also not clear how the grids would be colled, especially
if they must be designed with a small cross section to avoid intercepting
an unacceptable fraction of the particles.
 
While there have been insulator problems with electron and ion guns in some
experiments to date, these seem susceptible to solution.  We believe there
is an adequate technology base for the charged particle guns necessary for
the various proposed reactor concepts.
 
Other issues such as radiative losses, electron-ion collisionality,
reaction product (mass) asymmetry, and collective effects, while important
factors in the reactor design are not expected to result in "go-no go"
problems for the concepts.
 
4.  Are there attractive engineering features to these concepts?
 
The reduced levels of synchrotron radiation (because of the relatively low
magnetic field in the Polywell(tm) concept or the reflection of ions by
electric fields of grids in ion injection schemes) suggests that it may be
possible to use advanced fuels (D3He, p11B, 3He3He) in IEF reactors.  The
fraction of fusion energy in neutrons from these materials varies from a
few % to zero, thus nearly eliminating radiation damage to reactor
materials and greatly reducing the volume of radioactive waste to be
handled during maintenance and decommissioning.
 
The current studies indicate that lower magnetic field levels (~a few
Tesla) are needed in IEF reactors.  Super-conducting magnets have not been
proposed (or maybe not even needed) for the concepts reviewed.  Both of
these "low tech" requirements could eliminate costly magnet development
programs.  The smaller size possible in such reactors (compared to current
magnet fusion configurations such as Tokamaks, Stellarators, RFC's RFP's,
etc.), would allow many units to be built and improved before the next
larger device was constructed.  Furthermore, the steady-state operating
mode for IEF systems would avoid the cyclic thermal fatigue of metals,
which is currently a major concern for fusion reactor designers.
 
Other attractive features from a reactor view point are the ability to use
all the charged particle energy for direct-energy collection and the
elimination of any external ion heating requirements.
 
 
5.  Does the limited engineering [analysis] to date appear reasonable?
 
A reasonable effort has been made (by EMC2 scientists) to consider the many
characteristics of an IEF fusion power system.  These include overall power
balance and subsystem efficiencies, plant capacity, fuel cycles, impurities
and ash removal techniques, structural materials, coolant systems,
blankets, energy conversion systems, hazards, startup, and control
scenarios.  The modest effort to date indicates that a reasonable design
window may exist for an attractive power plant configuration, provided the
reactor physics is favorable.  More detailed analysis would be required to
achieve a realistic self-consistent quantitative engineering design that
would identify the most critical engineering issues associated with the
extraction of energy from the advanced fuels and permit cost estimates for
pre-conceptual designs.  The nature of the engieering issues is intimately
connected to how the physics issues are resolved; for example, the power
balance may, or may not, turn out to be a critical issue; materials,
safety, and energy conversion systems will depend on the fusion fuel cycles
that are permitted by the physics.  The near-term effort should include a
continuing modest effort on engieering design, but an enhanced engineering
design effort should await a firmer physics basis.
 
 
6.  How well do IEF concepts promise to meet the EPRI criteria for useful
fusion power systems if they can be proven technically feasible?
 
The recommended reactor characteristics from the 1992 EPRI Fusion Panel
Report are listed below,
 
*  "Simplicity of concept.
*  Power plant designs without tritium burning because of the very serious
problems associated with 14 MeV neutrons.
*  Low-activation materials.
*  High overall energy conversion efficiency, e.g., combined direct
electrical and thermal conversion.
*  Reduction in the outage and waste disposal problems of changing out
large volumes of fusion reactor core materials every few years.
*  The importance of effective ash removal from fusion plasmas."
 
Simplicity
The small physical size, the spherical geometry, and lack of interlocking
coils and the separation of the fusion-power-producing-core should make the
maintenance and construction of an IEF reactor much easier than most (if
not all) known magnetic fusion concepts.  The fact that only electrons need
to be confined in a MHD stable configuration, the lack of external heating
and/or current drive power sources, and the absence of ash control
components should all contribute to a simple geometry for the power
producing cavity.
 
Avoidance of 14 MeV Neutrons and the Tritium Handling Problem
The ability to use neutron-lean fuel cycles such as DD, D3He, p11B, and
3He3He will have a very positive effect on lowering both the financial and
time barriers to commercial fusion.  The fact that one does not have to
develop new materials to withstand 14MeV neutron damage could save
considerable R&D costs and inventory can be reduced to negligible levels
(<<1g), which means that the release of the entire T2 inventory in a DD IEF
reactor will cause much less than 10mrem absorbed dose to the most exposed
individual at the fence of the plant site.  Reactor licensing will be
considerably easier with the virtual elimination of induced radioactivity
and tritium inventories characteristic of the D3He and p11B fuels.
 
Low Activation Materials and Reduced Radioactive Wastes
At the present time, "conventional" alloys in DT fusion reactors will have
to be periodically replaced because of radiation damage caused by neutrons.
These radioactive components will probably have to be stored underground in
the U.S. at costs to a power plant owner comparable to those for fission
reactor wastes.  Lower activation alloys (for long-lived isotopes) could be
developed, but only after long and expensive research to verify the
radiation performance of such alloys.  Furthermore, it is not clear that
the U.S. will continue with near surface burial and may require
even low-activation alloys to be stored underground (as in Europe).
 Any reactor
that can use neutron-lean advanced fuels and avoid periodic replacement of
its first wall and blanket, should be able to save on waste disposal costs.
 
The ability to use "conventional" alloys in IEF reactors could also reduce
the capital construction and R&D costs.  In addition to a drastic reduction
in radioactivity from the D3He and p11B fuels, there will also be a
corresponding reduction in afterheat which should allow such reactors to
qualify for an "inherent" safety classification.
 
High Overall Efficiency
The possibility to use direct conversion of the reaction product energy to
electricity could double the plant efficiency, thus reducing capital costs
and alleviating environmental concerns about thermal pollution.  The lack
of massive, and sometimes unreliable, heat exchangers and turbine equipment
should also contribute to reliability.
 
High Availability
The most important feature of neutron lean fuels will be the great
reduction in radiation damage and the avoidance of periodic shutdowns to
replace the highly radioactive first-wall and blanket  components.  The
"solid state" approach to electrical conversion, versus the rotating
machinery approach of all other MFE concepts, should increase the plant
availability.  The use of relatively low technology magnets, the
accessibility of a spherical geometry, and the lack of interlocking magnets
will also contribute to a relatively higher availability than achievable in
toroidal systems.
 
Importance of Ash Removal
In Maxwellian confined plasmas, one of the most difficult problems is
keeping the plasma free from impurities and reaction products.  This is
typically done by diverting part of the plasma to a collection plate and
pumping out the volatile ash.  However, the redirected plasma imposes very
high heat fluxes and stresses to the reactor components and is arguably the
most difficult problem faced by traditional DT magnetic fusion reactor
designers today.  The IEF concept avoids this problem by allowing the
fusion products escape over the potential "hill" and collecting their
kinetic energy well outside the reactor.  Some concern has been expressed
by the possible buildup of impurity ions, sputtered from the grids or
formed by the ionization of background gas, which could collect in the core
region.
 
IV.  Conclusions
 
The overall conclusion of the Panel is that IF the plasma physics questions
addressed earlier can be solved in reactor configurations described in the
review, the IEF concepts could meet the EPRI requirements for a desirable
reactor better than any other magnetic fusion concept proposed to date.
More detailed engineering design of a self-consistent cost effective system
is crucial to verify this conclusion.
 
The conclusions of this Panel, listed below, should be considered in the
context that the review conducted was relatively short and focused only on
the work funded by EPRI.  The Panel did not review the experimental program
of Directed Technologies nor the past work on the IXL concept.
Nevertheless, it was felt that sufficient information was presented to
allow some broad responses to be made to the EPRI charge.
 
1.  Has the analysis focused on the proper physics issue?
 
The electron cusp losses and ion convergence characteristics are certainly
the most critical physics issues that need to be addressed in the near term
for IEF concepts.  These issues have been identified, along with several
others, and a vigorous theoretical program was in place to analyze them.
There is essentially no experimental program in place to verify or refute
the theroetical results.
 
2.  Does the sum total of the physics analysis point to reasonable promise
for the concept(s)?
 
The analysis thus far suggests that relatively small (~100 MWe) spherically
symmetric, low neutron yield, advanced fusion fuel powered reactors are
possible.  If the physics can be demonstrated (experiments to date have
been inconclusive) this concept represents a truly revolutionary approach
to fusion energy.
 
3.  Are there any obvious reasons why the concept might not work other than
those already identified?
 
If the desired plasma conditions can be obtained, there are no other
obvious reasons why the IEF approach would not work outside those already
identified.  Issues brought up at the review such as radiative losses in
high Z fuels, electron-ion collisionality and collective effects appear
amenable and not of the "go-no go" variety.  One issue that could be in the
"make-or break" category is the demonstration that ions can be
simultaneously accelerated by the electrostatic field in a high-beta
magnetic cusp and shielded from the magnetic fields.  Another is the
buildup of low energy impurity ions, formed by sputtering of the grids or
ionization of the background gas, in the core region.  Although these
issues were identified, more analytical work is needed.
 
4.  Are there attractive engineering features to these concepts?
 
The main attractive feature of the IEF concept is its ability to make
effective use of fusion fuels which have low neutron yields.  The
reduction, or even elimination of neutrons from the plasma greatly
alleviates the radiation damage in and radioactive waste from a fusion
power plant.  The small size allows a relatively inexpensive development
path ot be pursued.  Similarly, the relatively low "tech" magnets and lack
of a breeding blanket both should contribute to a much more robust reactor
that will satisfy safety concerns of regulators.
 
5.  Does the limited engineering [analysis] to date appear reasonable?
 
Given the level of funding devoted to engineering, it is impressive how
much has been accomplished to date.  However, much more detail will be
required before the commercial attractiveness of IEF systems can compete
with the more established toroidal concepts on an equal "knowledge" basis.
 
6.  How well do IEF concepts promise to meet the EPRI criteria for useful
fusion power systems if they can be proven technically feasible?
 
IF the plasma physics questions addressed earlier can be solved in a
reactor configuration close to that presented to the Panel, the IEF
concepts have the potential to meet the EPRI requirements for a desirable
fusion reactor better than any other magnetic fusion device.  A
self-consistent physics/engineering power plant design will be
required to
assess the commercial attractiveness of the IEF concept.
 
In addition to the responses above, the committee felt that it should add
the following recommendations with respect to the IEF concept.
 
A.  The IXL concept be "revisited".  A major part of the recommended effort
in this area should be to develop theories to explain the results obtained
in the 1960's, and,
 
B.  Start-up physics should be addressed and a start-up scenario developed
to the degree that one can be assured that there is no road block to an
attractive power generation scenario.
 
 
 
Appendix A
 
Members of IFE Panel
 
Professor Robert A Gross
Columbia University
Seeley W. Mudd Building
500 West 120th Street
School of Engineering & Applied Science
Plasma Laboratory
New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 854-2967
Fax: (212) 854-8257
 
Mr. Robert Symons
Technical Director
Litton Systems, Inc.
960 Industrial Road
San Carlos, CA 94070
Phone: (415)591-8411 - Ext. 327
Fax: (415) 591-5623
 
Dr. Dale Meade
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Post Office Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543
Phone: (609)243-3301
Fax: (609)243-2749
 
Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski
Professor, Nuclear Engineering
University of Wisconsin
1500 Johnson Drive
Phone: (608) 263-2308
Fax: (608) 263-4499
 
Dr. Stephen O. Dean
President
Fusion Power Associates
2 Professional Drive
Suite 24B
Gaithersburg, MD 20871
Phone: (301)258-0545
Fax: (301)975-9869
 
Dr. Dennis Papadopolous
Astronomy Department
University of Maryland
Stadium Drive
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: (301) 405-1526
Fax: (301) 405-9966
 
Dr. Robert Krakowski
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Post Office Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Phone: (505) 667-5863
Fax: (505) 665-5283
 
 
Appendix B
 
PRELIMINARY AGENDA:
EPRI  INTERTIAL  ELECTROSTATIC  FUSION  (LEF)  REVIEW
 
8:00 a.m.       Welcome and Charge to the Panel         R. L. Hirsch
8:15 a.m.       Panel Chairman's Opening Remarks                G.
Kulcinski
8:25 a.m.       Technical Presentations                         R. W.
Bussard
                                                                N. Krall
                                                                R. Nebel
 
                I.  Introduction and Summary
a.      Background Concepts and
         Baseline Design
b.      Plasma Physics Characteristics
c.      Fusion Engineering Features
 
                II.  Physics Characteristics
a.      Particle and Potential Distributions
b.      Spherical Counterflow, Stability and
         Electrostatic Waves
c.      Collisionality Distribution and Effects
d.      Particle Recirculation and Losses
e.      Numerical Simulations of IEF Plasma
        Systems
 
                III.  IEF Device Engineering Features
a.      Plasma Particle and Radiation Power
        Losses
b.      Structural Configuration, Thermal
         Loads and System Sizing
c.      Fusion Power Distribution, Ash and
        Impurity Generation
d.      Radiation Hazard Potential, X-Rays
         and Neutrons
 
                IV.  Power Systems
a.      Baseline System Design
         Summary
b.      Fusion Fuels, Power Balance
         and Scaling
c.      System Hazards, Magnetic,
         Materials, Fields and Structures
d.      Fueling, System Stability and
         Control
e.      Baseline and Alternate Plant
         Systems Performance
 
                V.  R&D Program to IEF Power
a.      Critical Physics Issues, Status
         and Results
b.      R&D Theory and Experiment
         to Proof-of-Feasibility
c.      Prototype Plant Development
         and Demonstration
 
12:00 p.m.      Working Lunch, includes Questions and Answers
1:00 p.m.       Continue Questions and Answers
2:00 p.m.       Panel Executive Session
                (Panel, EPRI personnel and DOE guests)
                *  Discussion
                *  Conclusions and preparation of a letter report
4:00 p.m.       Adjourn
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Resp. to Frank Close (On Harwell - Part I)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Resp. to Frank Close (On Harwell - Part I)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 12:19:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>Throughout these anomalous increases in temperature in Cell 3, Cell 4
>behaves "normally" -- Melich
 
Although there is nothing in the posted GIF to rule out local recombination
in Cell #3, the "plateau" effect is bizzare.  The temperature in Cell 4
is a series of ramps, while those in Cell 3 get into a mode of leaping
suddenly up a degree or so.  There doesn't seem to be a correlation between
the temperature of the various plateaus, or a single temperature at which
the "great leaps" are triggered.  All very curious.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Jim Bowery /  Appeal to Authority:  Robert Hirsch, Founder US Tokamak Program
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Appeal to Authority:  Robert Hirsch, Founder US Tokamak Program
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 14:43:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
>jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
>>
>>As long as we're playing "my authorities can beat up your authorities"
>>how about dealing with the comments of Dr. Hirsch vis the Tokamak?
>>
>Jim, I!m really interested in reading about this.  Could you either
>post the comments or give me the references?  I know you mentioned
>Hirsch earlier, but I!ve lost the post and it!s probably worth
>restating the issue more precisely so I know exactly what you are
>referring to.
 
Here is the abstract of Hirsch's original electrostatic confinement paper:
Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement ofIonized Fusion Gasses
 
by Robert L. Hirsch
ITT Farnsworth Research Corporation, Fort Wayne, Indiana
 
Received 13 March 1967; in final form 19 June 1967
Journal of Applied Physics Volume 38, Number 11
 
 
Abstract
 
The nonmagnetic, inertial-electrostatic confinement of ionized
gases in spherical geometry is discussed theoretically, and
associated experiments are described.  Assuming monoenergetic
ion and electron distribution functions, the Poisson equation
for bipolar currents is solved numerically.  The results indicate
spatially periodic solutions which represent the alternate
formation of virtual anodes and virtual cathodes.  Particle
pressures are found to vary approximately as the inverse square
of the radius and extremely high electric fields are indicated.
Near the center of the spherical cavity, there exists a high-
density, high-energy region, which may be of controlled fusion
interest.
 
The experimental apparatus consists of a hollow spherical cathode
concentrically placed within a spherical anode on which six ion
guns are located.  Steady, reproducible operation up to -150kV and
60mA yields a copious neutron emission, a part of which originates
from a luminous spherical region within the cathode.  After crowbar
of the main power supply, approximately 10**16 particles are released
from within the cathode.  This number is significantly greater than
the 10**12-10**14 ions/cm**-3 calculated from the fusion rate.  The
difference is attributed to the formation of two or more virtual
anodes.  A bremsstrahlung collimation study indicates a spatially
periodic emission pattern, suggesting the formation of at least
two virtual anodes, the outer of which is about 2.5 cm in diameter.
No instabilities have been observed.
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION
 
Over thirty-five years ago Farnsworth(1) noted the existence of
a localized glow at the center of a spherically symmetric, high-
vacuum multipactor tube.(2)  He later reasoned that radially focued
electron currents were producing a space-charge potential well in
the hollow anode cavity.  This well was confining and concentrating
ions which were produced from residual gas.
 
Although the operation of the multipactor tube has not been studied
in detail, the concept of confinement in a dynamically produced
potential well has received further consideration.  In the mid-1950's
Farnsworth suggested that this technique might be utilized to
confine and concentrate ions into a small volume where an appreciable
number of nuclear fusion reactions could occur.  At that time ITT
initiated a modest program to investigate this technique of fusion-gas
confinement.  The results of recent theoretical and experimental
efforts are presented below.
 
II. BACKGROUND
 
The phenomena of space-charge and particle trapping in potential wells
are well known.  Child(3) investigated space-charge effects in a plane-
parallel diode, after which Langmuir and his co-workers(4) studied other
electrode configurations.  Arbitrary initial conditions have been
considered.(5,6)  The extension to bipola currents in plane geometry
was made by Langmuir,(7) Muller-Lubeck,(8) and Howes.(9)  Studied of
cesium diodes(10) and electrostatic propulsion devices(11) have further
expanded our understanding of these problems.
 
The classic work of Burnstein, and Kruskal(12) has shown that a variety
of distribution functions are compatible with the formation of
electrostatic potential wells containing trapped particles.  Recently,
Berk(13) and Drummond(14)  have suggested that the unstable two-stream
system relaxes to a quasistable potential well.  Their work indicates
possible stability in other two stream configurations.
 
Tuck, Elmore, and Watson(15) analyzed a fusion device based upon
particle confinement in spherical potential wells produced by circulating
electrons.  Their model assumed a spherically symmetric system in which
electrons were radially directed towards the center at which a plasma
was assumed to exist.  Their analysis indicated that such a system would
require prohibitively high power inputs to be of thermonuclear interest,
and, furthermore, it would probably be unstable.(16)  Subsequently,
Tuck(17) expressed interest in a system wherein ions were substituted
for electrons, but did not pursue the subject.  Rasor(18) independently
became interested in this method of trapping fusion gasses and performed
an analysis which was not published.  Lavrentyev(19) considered the case
of symmetric-ion and electron injection in plane and spherical geometry.
Employing arbitrary distrubution functions, he solved Poisson's equation.
His solutions exhibited potential wells for various distrubiton functions
of interest, i.e., parabolic, Gaussian, and Maxwellian.  He did not,
however, carry his analysis so far as to detail the shapes of the
potentials.
 
III.  THE CONCEPTUAL PICTURE
 
In order to facilitate an understanding of this particular approach, it
is worthwhile constructing a conceptual model based on the essence of the
theoretical results.  Consider a spherical cathode concentrically
surrounded by a spherical anode [Fig. 1(a)].  The cathode is assumed to
be ion permeable, electron emissive on its interior surface only, and
impermiable to electron flow into the interelectrode space.  The anode
is assumed to be uniformly ion emissive, and all ions are emitted to
be uniformly ion emissive, and all ions are emitted with zero kinetic
energy.  Assume that all particle motions are radial, i.e., neglect
scattering.
 
For the case of finite ion current and zero electron current, an ion
space charge will develop within the cathode.  At steady state this
space charge will decelerate all incoming ions and cause them to reverse
their motions at a finite radius r(0).  These ions will then be
accelerated outwards and will again be decelerated in the interelectrode
space.  In this manner a deep potential well is produced and maintained
by circulating ions.  The associated potential distrubtion can be
calculated from a simple extension of the Langmuir-Blodgett(4) analysis
of electron flow between spherical electrodes.  This potential is shown
in [Fig. 1(b)]  The potential at r(0) is that of the anode so that the
shell at r(0) may be considered a virtual anode, i.e., it is a charge-
saturated region from which ions are emitted in an outward direction.
 
For D+ ions at voltages and currents of thermonuclear interest, the
cathode to virtual anode-radius ratios are shown in Fig 2.  Although the
currents in the 10**4-10**5 range appear high for a reasonable radius
ratio, i.e., 10 to 10**3, it must be borne in mind that a highly open
real cathode (90-95%) will permit many ion transits before loss to the
cathode structure.  For example, an external current of only 50 mA would
be required for a circulatory current of 500 mA in a cathode permitting an
average of ten ion transits (round trips).  If this ion model could be
realized experimentally, it would exhibit a negligible fusion rate, since
the ion density is low where the ion energy is high, i.e., near the
cathode.
 
If now electrons are permitted to flow from the cathode, they would be
accelerated by the virtual anode towards the center of the tube.  Once
inside the virtual anode, they would be decelerated by their own space
charge, and they would form a virtual cathode at r(vc)<r(0).  This
negative space charge will cause ions from the virtual anode to be
accelerated towards the center while also decreasing the radius of the
virtual anode.  In this manner a series of virtual electrodes can form,
creating successively denser regions of high ion kinetic energies.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Jim Bowery /  Appeal to Authority:  Robert Hirsch, Founder US Tokamak Program
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Appeal to Authority:  Robert Hirsch, Founder US Tokamak Program
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 14:42:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
>jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
>>
>>As long as we're playing "my authorities can beat up your authorities"
>>how about dealing with the comments of Dr. Hirsch vis the Tokamak?
>>
>Jim, I!m really interested in reading about this.  Could you either
>post the comments or give me the references?  I know you mentioned
>Hirsch earlier, but I!ve lost the post and it!s probably worth
>restating the issue more precisely so I know exactly what you are
>referring to.
 
OK, here are a couple of things I had sitting around on my hard disk:
(reposting only one due to apparent loss of first posting)
 
CHANGING DIRECTIONS IN FUSION RESEARCH NEEDS
 
BY ROBERT L. HIRSCH
 
BEFORE THE DOE F.E.A.C.
 
March 5, 1993
 
 
It is my view that DOE should accelerate some of the changes in program
direction that have been initiated recently.
 
 
I feel strongly that the world needs fusion power.  It's potential is
enormous.  However, it's development challenges are incredibly complex,
as this audience well knows.
 
 
To optimally develop any technology, early, tight coupling to the
marketplace is needed.  That was a major lesson of the 1980's in
virtually all areas of technology development.
 
 
In electr power generation, the client today is the electric utilities,
who know the marketplace better than anyone else.
 
* Utilities haven't been seriously involved in fusion for a very long
time, if ever.
 
* Utilities know the realities of building and operating real power
generators in the real world better than any other entity.  They or
people with their kind of practical, pragmatic orientation will
ultimately evaluate fusion's viability.
 
* Don't confuse "utilities" with "industry."  Industry is often
motivated by near-term contracts, and, even if contractors know
better, they are unlikely to criticize for fear of losing contracts
or contract opportunities.
 
* Anne Davis has already asked for utility advisors to assist her,
and she will have access to the Fusion Working Group that we are
organizing under EPRI.
 
 
The utilities have learned and are learning many harsh realities
today, particularly in nuclear.
 
* Nuclear power in the U.S. is not growing; it is in fact having to
deal with significant negative pressures.
 
* Today's nuclear problems include the following:
 
  - High O&M costs;
  - Need for expensive capital investments;
  - Very high levels of detailed regulation;
  - No acceptable means for radwaste disposal;
  - Very high decommissioning costs;
  - Lower cost alternative electric generation options.
 
* The lessons and realities of nuclear power as viewed by many of the
utilities that own them are different than many of you may realize.
 
 
While I fully expect a number of nuclear's problems will be solved
before the advent of fusion, the concerns about complexity, management
of radioactivity, high levels of regulation and costs will continue
in my view.  There should not be the slightest doubt that they will
be problems for fusion also.  Public acceptance will be a big problem
for fusion that shouldn't be forgotten either.
 
 
Consider the characteristics of DT tokamak and laser-fusion reactors
as currently envisioned.  They will be extremely complex, highly
radioactive, likely to be highly regulated, and costly.
 
* Even if DT tokamak or laser fusion reactors had the same capital
costs as a fission reactor (an enormous challenge), fusion reactors
would lose out to advanced fission reactors, which are a reliable,
known quantity.
 
 
As you know, EPRI has recently reestablished a small fusion program.
Let's consider some of what has come out of that effort thus far.
 
* A fusion panel study has provided some excellent guidance, softly
delivered so as to minimize trouble.
 
* Some of the very few fusion-knowledgable utility people that
I have spoken with indicate that none of them believes that tokamak
or laser fusion reactors, as currently envisioned, would be
acceptable to the electric utilities.
 
 
Let me turn to materials.  As you know, there are some enormous
materials problems related to DT fusion.  Accordingly, you have
impaneled a materials study recently.  The facts seem to be:
 
* There are no qualified materials today for DT fusion reactors.
 
* If you select stainless steel, you will have to effectively
rebuild your fusion reactor every 5-10 years and dispose of many
times the amount of radioactivity that would come from a fission
reactor of the same power level.
 
* If you want to develop a low activity material, it will be
very costly and very time consuming, and you are likely to still
have to rebuild the reactor every 5-10 years, that is unless some
of these liquid or powder wall proves viable.
 
 
And then there's ITER.  If tokamak reactors, as currently envisioned,
aren't acceptable, can ITER be possibly justified?
 
* If you build ITER, it will become the flagship of fusion and will
likely eliminate the chance of serious funding for alternate concepts.
 
* If what ITER represents is seriously considered in public debate,
there is a high probability that ITER will not be supported and
the fusion program could collapse.
 
 
So what to do?  I urge the DOE to accelerate changes that have
already been started:
 
* Get serious utility oversight ASAP.  Anne Davis has already asked
for utility help, but this won't be easy to arrange.
 
* You recently restarted an alternate concept program.  I urge you
to scale up appropriate alternate concepts R&D as fast as you can.
"Appropriate alternate concepts" refers to concepts that hold
promise of working on the higher fusion fuel cycles and providing
more attractive fusion power systems.
 
 
Don't stop tokamak or laser-fusion research, but cut them back
and reorient them in more acceptable directions.
 
 
Get off the DT fuel cycle to avoid frequent reactor reconstruction,
large quantity radwaste disposal, and expensive materials development.
 
 
I've talked to many in the fusion community in recent years.  While
those people don't construct the need for change the same way that
I have, their conclusions are often remarkably similar to what I have
just outlined.
 
 
I urge you to accelerate your changes and to reach out to the
utilities for guidance and eventual partnership.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Editor's note:  Robert L. Hirsch was largely responsible for starting the
tokamak program in the U.S.  For several years, he has been trying to get
the DOE fusion program to demphasize the tokamak and pursue compact,
aneutronic technologies, recommending Paul M. Koloc's Sphereomak and
Robert W. Bussard's Inertial Electrostatic Fusion as superior alternatives
to the tokamak.  The DOE's fusion program has gone in the opposite
direction despite Hirsch's efforts.  The fusion program is now in danger
of cancellation.  Hirsch currently heads the Electric Power Research
Institute's fusion energy branch in Washington D.C.
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Jim Bowery /  What the government should be doing.
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What the government should be doing.
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 15:32:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I origionally wrote this up for the science editor of the San Diego Union
after criticizing him for his UNcritical support of San Diego's ITER
program.  Naturally, it was deep-sixed by the San Diego Union's editorial
staff.  I post it here for the benefit of those who are convinced the
DoE is trying to develop fusion technology.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prometheus at the Crossroads
 
        On page 328 of his best-selling book "Earth in the Balance", Vice
        President-elect Albert Gore confronts the dilemma between the
        environment and the economy, referring to the potential of
        nonpolluting and unlimited fusion energy as a key technology for
        our long-term well-being.  Fusion is the energy that powers the
        stars, including our Sun, by fusing light atoms together.  Some
        types of fusion produce no radioactivity.  It is the opposite of
        the more familiar and inherently dirty form of nuclear energy
        known as fission where heavy atoms are split apart into lighter
        ones.
 
        I've got good news for our new Vice President:  Policy reform,
        requiring no budget growth, can release the the long-heralded
        potential of fusion's stellar alchemy, creating clean energy from
        the virtually unlimited chemical elements, boron and hydrogen.
        In all likelihood, this immense source of energy can be released
        for human benefit on or before the turn of the millenium.
 
        On November 4, 1992, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
        received a report it commissioned on new fusion technologies.  EPRI
        is the primary technology development organization funded by
        electric utilities in the U.S.  This report effectively torpedos
        the current "flagship" of the U.S. Department of Energy's fusion
        program:  The Tokamak.  The Tokamak was invented in the early
        1960's by the Soviets and represented the state of the art for
        that era.  The EPRI report states that other technologies, one
        invented as early as 1969, may be superior to the Tokamak, may
        yield results far sooner at lower cost and should be pursued as soon
        as possible.  Unlike the Tokamak, these technologies appear capable
        of burning fuels, such as boron, that produce no radioactive
        waste.  Boron is one of the most abundant elements in sea water.
        Projections are that such a system could replace San Onofre with
        a device, including electric power converters, no larger than a
        suburban house and would produce far less waste heat.  Combined with
        a desalination plant, it would use only a few percent of its electric
        power to extract the boron salts from sea water for fuel.  This
        system would produce large quantities of desalinated water and
        electric power with no danger of runaway nuclear reactions, no
        radioactivity and no combustion products to pollute the atmosphere
        either locally or globally.
 
        Our current fusion energy policy is based on the idea that
        inventors ceased coming up with new and better approaches to
        fusion energy over 25 years ago.  This when the pursuit of
        fusion energy was still in its infancy.
 
        To its credit and despite the political dangers of doing
        so, EPRI has officially declared its departure from current
        policy by recommending the pursuit of alternative technologies.
        The specific technologies examined in the EPRI report are
        classified under as "electrostatic confinement".  The original
        patents on this technology were filed by Philo Farnsworth while
        employed at International Telephone and Telegraph.  Farnsworth
        was one of the founding fathers television electronics.
 
        Significantly, the two individuals most responsible for this
        declaration, Drs. Robert Hirsch of EPRI and Robert Bussard of
        Energy Matter Conversion Corporation, were coauthors of the
        DoE's Tokamak program in the early 1970's.  Hirsch even assisted
        Farnsworth in some of his early experiments.  As a result, the
        DoE has a lot of rethinking to do.  It is as though Shakespeare
        walked into a modern class on "Hamlet" to correct the professor's
        interpretation and offer up a few lost manuscripts to boot.
 
        During the 25-year effort to turn the Tokamak into a viable
        fusion energy system, the DoE's projected time before it will be
        available for commercial use has gone from 5 years in the 1960's
        to more than 40 at present.  Our current fusion energy policy,
        based on the McCormick Act of 1979, attempted to legislate a ten
        year crash fusion program in the style of the Manhattan Project.
        The McCormick Act focused all our funding on the Tokamak in hopes
        that such single-mindedness would overcome weaknesses of the
        Tokamak concept.   Despite repeated and highly questionable claims
        of "scientific break-even" energy production by various factions
        of the Tokamak community, the promise of the Tokamak remains a
        shimmering mirage, receding ever further toward the horizon.
 
        Over the last 4 years I have worked with the inventors of
        alternatives to the Tokamak, gradually building a consensus for a
        new fusion energy policy based on strong, near-term incentives
        for success.  The most innovative aspect of this policy is its
        provision for numerous and substantial prize awards for
        intermediate technical demonstrations and conversion of existing
        nuclear test facilities in support of fusion entrepreneurs.
 
        Numerous inventors of fusion technologies claim this policy would
        allow them to raise private capital.  They have solid credentials
        and hold patents on their technologies.  Most believe that with
        such private risk capital they could demonstrate systems that
        cleanly burn widely available fuels before the year 2000.
 
        A likely side benefit of this reformed policy would be
        technologies to economically deactivate all but a fraction of a
        percent of existing radioactive waste, thus cleaning up the worst
        environmental legacy of the nuclear age.  Another benefit would
        be propulsion technologies powerful and clean enough to make the
        vast, and apparently lifeless, frontier of space as accessible to
        our children as intercontinental air travel is to us.
 
        Under current policy the taxpayer takes the entire risk and those
        with political pull pick who gets the funding.  In stark contrast
        the proposed policy uses the existing Federal budget as a "carrot"
        to attract competition from a variety of private interests seeking
        to achieve various levels of technical capability.  The present
        federal budget for fusion technology would be more than adequate
        to support the strong incentives of this policy.
 
        The Tokamak program, including San Diego's own piece of it
        known as ITER, would have to adapt to a strongly disciplined new
        environment.  Much, if not most, of that program will simply be
        abandoned.  This will cause much dislocation among those who have
        based their careers on the Tokamak.  Despite the fact that San
        Diego is a likely location for the new fusion enterprises arising
        from this policy, many presently employed by the ITER, and other
        Tokamak programs, will suffer.
 
        However, our entire world now suffers under the burden of
        diminishing expectations for our children.  The United States, as
        a pioneering and progressive culture, feels these limitations most
        acutely.  The early 1970s imposed a harsh shock to our national
        psyche.  In quick succession, the first Arab oil embargo, the
        termination of the Apollo program, the "Limits To Growth" studies
        and the immense economic and spiritual costs of the cold war
        converged.   Young families and their children experienced the
        crushing social and economnic pressures that resulted.  How could
        we fully value families and their children in a world already
        overburdened with humanity?
 
        As the moraly introspective "Hamlets" of technological
        civilization, we seem to be reliving the trauma of this
        realization over and over again in our political dialogue.
        Throughout his book, Vice President elect Gore attempts to put
        the best face on this dilemma.  But in the end, we are as a
        nation, and indeed as a species, aging adolescents.  We struggle
        for our place in the larger scheme of things, for self-reliance
        and a self-respect that grows less precarious with wisdom.
 
        Fusion energy is the new fire that can initiate our adulthood.
 
        Let's hope and pray our new Vice President seizes this Promethean
        opportunity.  We find ourselves at the crossroads.  A fusion
        energy policy with strong incentives and diversity, recognizing
        the limitations of human nature and knowledge, is the correct
        choice.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Nuclear Spins
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Spins
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 15:24:33 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

terry@asl.dl.nec.com wrote:
: I have idea why you consider up/down interconversion of deuterons to be
: difficult, as the energies involved are pretty low.  I would have assumed
: (perhaps incorrectly) that simply thermal mixing will very quickly provide
: a good mix of both types at ordinary temperatures.
 
If you actually do the sums you'll find that conversion from para-hydrogen
to ortho purely by thermal collisions at normal temperatures and pressures
is pretty slow (half life of years). This is easily confirmed by experiment,
para-H2 will 'keep' for days. In practice conversion occurs mainly by
hydrogen atom exchange between two H2 molecules - on a suitable surface, for
example. Some substrates produce para-H2 rather than the equilibrium mix.
The situation is similar for D2 gas, except that the ortho-D2 is the one
that predominates at low temperatures. There is a change in free energy on
going from say para to 'normal' (equilibrium) mix, mainly due to delta S.
Not much at 'normal' temperatures and pressures, but it is there. I was
really after some reliable numbers for D2. So far no luck.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Jim Bowery /  History's Verdict on Robert Hirsch
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: History's Verdict on Robert Hirsch
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:42:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

By the way, folks, I'm not trying to make Robert Hirsch out to be some
kind of hero.  After all, he:
 
1)  Founded the Tokamak program.
2)  Was given the extrordinary privilege of working directly with
Philo Farnsworth and proceeded to abandon Farnsworth's more promising
technology for the Tokamak.
3)  Waited until the mid-80's to come out in open opposition to the
Tokamak program.
4)  Benefitted greatly throughout his career from the political boost
given him by all of the above.
 
On the other hand, he behaved as any reasonably fortunate and politically
adept indivividual would have under the circumstances.  He doesn't appear
especially ethical or unethical.  I withhold judgement on his liability
for damage caused by the Tokamak program pending further investigation.
 
Nevertheless, even if it turns out he was a major contributor to the
problem, his later actions dramatically mitigate any guilt that can be
ascribed to him, especially as they were taken proactively.
 
The image of Hector's stand against Achilles comes to mind.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: 18 Oct 1993 18:48:09 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jim Bowery (jim@pnet01.cts.com) wrote:
: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
: >In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
: >jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
: >>Aside from the fact that the review in the fusion program is NOT
: >>"independent" in any rational sense of the word,
: >>
: >I don!t think this is entirely true.  At least, not the part about
: >lack of independent review.  I concede that there are non-independent
: >reviews, but there are also a large number of external reviews which
: >go on from time to time.
:
: The only people who are allowed to "review" the fusion program are
: past, present or potential future funding receipients of the DoE's
: fusion program.  There are no clauses in the magnetic fusion law to
: clearly divide fundee's from reviewers.
 
My father was one of the reviewers of the DoE fusion program, I think for
the NAS.  He is a space plasma physicist and thus has not been a past,
present or potential future funding recipient of the DoE fusion program.
 
The report also said "No matter what you do, don't cut basic science!"
(which includes alternatives to the tokamak).  What did Congress/govt. do?
Cut basic science.
 
--
-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:
cuddy18 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Ultimate Bang
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultimate Bang
Date: 18 Oct 1993 18:47:29 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

The Marianas Trench is of order 10 km deep. The rate of increase of pressure
being 1 atm/10 m, the pressure at trench bottom is only 1 kbar. Water is
"compressible" out to at least 250 Mbar, and is thought to be somewhat
"soft" in the low Mbar range (theoretical calculations -- see Cook,
Interiors of the Planets, for a P-rho diagram).
 
A detailed P-rho diagram of water including 7 or so types of ice appears
in two papers by Lupo (one with Lewis) on the structure of icy satellites,
Icarus 1980 and 1982). Pressures are carried out to about 50 kbar there.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: deuteron spins
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuteron spins
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 20:44:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry B. describes how electron spin is treated in crystals as follows:
 
-tb- "Typical approaches to this issue in electron banding are to either:
-tb- (a) treat each energy/momentum state as capable of containing how-
-tb- ever many distinct spin states can exist or (b) treat each spin
-tb- as a separate band that is physically co-located in the same medium
-tb- as the other spin band."
 
I may quickly step off into deep quicksand here, but I see these approaches
as working only when electrons are all paired and/or the spin degeneracy is
not broken.  In the deuteron lattice case we start with an ensemble of
randomly oriented spins, one of three spin states at each lattice site.
It seems to me if I try the separate band approach, i.e. three bands,
I no longer have a lattice because the spin state at one lattice point
is independent of what is at the next lattice point.  The other approach
would seem to require that nothing breaks the degeneracy.  Now this is
where the wheels fall off as far as producing a "band" of interacting
deuterons.  The interaction between two deuterons is strongly spin
dependent, and least when there wave functions overlap enough to lead to
reaction.  I don't think you can make this notion of band effects fly
unless you prepare a lattice which is ordered with respect to spin.
 
At the very least if you start with a random ensemble of deuteron spins
and you invoke pairwise reactions you will have a statistical assortment
of initial state spins.  Now how are you going to get from there to
a universal final state that  always decays in the same way without
regard to how much angular momentum is involved?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Tiny plasmoids?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tiny plasmoids?
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 21:02:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Edward Lewis, under the heading of new phenomena, refers to Matsumoto
as having produced photographs of bright spots in SEM images that are
thought to be tiny plasmoids.  I am bothered by the chain of reasoning
by which Lewis and/or Matsumoto come to equate a bright spot in an
SEM image with something related to ball lightning.  I just don't
see the connection between something which may be identified by its
emission characteristics in the visiable spectrum and something that
is "bright" when bombarded by electrons.  I have seen SEM images with
bright spots that are simply identified as inclusions that have a
high secondary emission coefficient.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / mitchell swartz /  Harwell's Data is in the Public Domain
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell's Data is in the Public Domain
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:50:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9310180834.AA08937@suntan.Tandem.com>
    Subject: Harwell squash isnt gourmet diner
Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) writes:
 
==fc  "Mitchell,
==fc I have no copy of the data to which you have referred nor are GIF files etc
==fc any use to me. I requested hard copy. I have not received any."
 
   Frank.  The data is at, and from,  Harwell.
   The graph (of the data) is in the literature!!!!!!
         and is probably in any serious physicist's possession
         as the ICCF-3 Proceedings.
   [Or do you really not keep up with the literature in this field?
    Or do you claim your theoretical physics staff (including Harwell)
    can't even decode a GIF figure?  or have access to the Nagoya proceedings,
    or the published abstracts or papers.]
 
==fc "However, you have confirmed that the Melich "secret" work does
==fc not deal with the steady state nor isothermal calorimeters.
==fc Thus I refer you again to Harwell's paper, as in my previous posts.
 
   I have not confirmed any such thing since you made that allusion
  previously but then refused to answer any questions thereby putting
  your own credibility seriously at risk.
 
   Having taken the bait of your question, it is interesting
     that YOU duck the questions asked to you.  As a result the Harwell
     work -- which you have relied upon -- will not be explained but will
     instead remain unnecessarily "murky".
          Too bad.
 
  In summary, since the posted curve is not 'secret', but is in the literature,
  this unfortunately heralds that the literature must apparently be 'secret'
  to you and your Staff.
 
               Best wishes.                 Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / mitchell swartz /  Harwell's Anomalous Plateau Effect
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell's Anomalous Plateau Effect
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:52:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

       In Message-ID: <1993Oct18.121914.29735@ns.network.com>
       Subject: Re: Resp. to Frank Close (On Harwell - Part I)
John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
= "Although there is nothing in the posted GIF to rule out local recombination
= in Cell #3, the "plateau" effect is bizzare.  The temperature in Cell 4
= is a series of ramps, while those in Cell 3 get into a mode of leaping
= suddenly up a degree or so.  There doesn't seem to be a correlation between
= the temperature of the various plateaus, or a single temperature at which
= the "great leaps" are triggered.  All very curious."
 
   Good observations, John.   They beg the natural question for more data.
   It is important to remember that these cells were in series in the
   electrical connectivity sense, and presumably in near identical
   environments for the duration of the experiment.
   Furthermore, the curves of Cell 3 might be the superposition[s] of
    two effects.   These obvious differences are  why I asked Frank Close
    those questions reqarding the number and nature of other events.
    The variations -- and their etiology --
        would be more understandable as more become available.
 
 Given that Frank Close concurs Harwell has refused access of the data to
  Dr. Noninski and now claims that this data is retroactively "secret"
    (suprising given that some of the curves are published worldwide),
 it perhaps less surprising that Frank refuses to discuss them further.
   He could have done a lot to clarify this situation.
 
   Also, thanks for the info John.
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / L Norrgard /  Another bit of Meyer rumors
     
Originally-From: vinsci@nic.funet.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another bit of Meyer rumors
Date: 18 Oct 93 22:25:28
Organization: cripples the mind.  Not recommended.

The below message is lifted from sci.energy.hydrogen.  Since its
attributions are somewhat messy to begin with, I include the message
in its entirety.
  Unless something substantial is posted in sci.energy.hydrogen, I
don't see any good reasons to forward more messages to s.p.f;
sci.energy.hydrogen is a low-volume group so you could easily read it
directly.  Sci.energy.hydrogen is also available as a mailing list for
those of you who prefer/must use that medium.  Send e-mail to "Hydrogen
as an alternative fuel" <HYDROGEN@URIACC.BITNET>.  If you need an
internet address, try <hydrogen@uriacc.uri.edu>.
 
Enjoy,  (message below)
 
-- Leonard
 
> Newsgroups: sci.energy.hydrogen
> Subject: Meyer gas generation pate
> From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith)
> Distribution: world
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 07:56:00 -0700
> Organization: Space BBS - 15 nodes - v.32bis - (415-323-4193)
>
> This message was from HOWARD SMITH to CRSM@SYMBIONICS.CO.UK
> originally in conference EMAIL
> and was forwarded to you by HOWARD SMITH
>                     ----------------------------------------
> C>Hi there,
>  >I saw your name appended to some info on this work.
>  >There is a sudden interest in this over here in the UK,
>  >with a number of people claiming to have replicated Meyers
>  >work with considerable success.  It looks like the next
>  >big 'alternative physics' saga, akin to the cold fusion
>  >work of a year or two back.  Have you any more news over
>  >with you on this?  Thanks in anticipation,
>  >Chris Morriss.
>
> Sorry, Chris, I don't. Most of the information in that posting came from
> sci.energy about a year ago. I also looked up the article in "Wireless
> and Electronics".
>
> In a previous posting I expressed doubts about Meyer's invention.
> First, the electrolysis process is basically endothermic, so at low
> levels the container should remain cool. At higher, practical, levels
> I(squared)R losses will prevail and warm the vessel containing
> the electrolysis process.
>
> Second, delivering energy in pulses of "tens of thousands of volts"
> cannot be made very efficient.
>
> Interesting experiment, but can it be made practical?
>
> We shall see.
>
> hhs
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenvinsci cudfnLeonard cudlnNorrgard cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:30:42 EDT

         I posted:
>         How do you figure this?  A breeder economy does not require
>that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons
>grade material.  In any case if an energy solution requires
>eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure
>that could be arranged.
         Robert Heeter replied:
>I can!t believe this went for a week without comment.  Clearly
>Jim Shearer can!t be serious, in which case he has no defense
>against the proliferation critique of fission breeders.  If he
>is serious, then I am completely slack-jawed in shock.  Regardless,
>the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants
>energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder.
 
         Clearly you are easily shocked.  For the record, I consider
the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly
since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons
should they wish to do so.
         Your last sentence is obviously false.  Nations want many
things.  This does not mean that will obtain them.
         I posted (responding to Dr Bruce Scott)
>         If you assume breeders are ok you should include thorium
>as well which gives 40k years.  As for your .5%/year consumption
>growth scenario I believe if you do the arithmetic you will find that
>fusion doesn't last all that long either.
         Robert Heeter answers:
>It may not be !all that long! on geological timescales, but it!s
>still orders of magnitude longer than fission.  (The energy
>density of fusion fuel is much higher, and there!s a lot more of
>it.)  But granting that there!s enough fuel for both, the question
>becomes:  would you rather have fission plants creating gobs of
>high-level radioactive waste, or fusion plants creating little to
>no such waste (depending on choice of fuel cycle, plant materials,
>etc.)?  I need to see an argument showing that fusion doesn!t win
>this one hands-down.
 
         Obviously you didn't do the arithmetic.  If you had, you would
have discovered that fusion does not even buy one order of magnitude in
time.  The reason of course is that seemingly innocent assumption of
.5% per year growth in consumption continued indefinitely.
         Fission wins over fusion because based on what we know today
fission plants will be cheaper than fusion plants.  I don't believe
disposal of reactor waste presents a serious technical problem for
fission plants (although it is certainly a political problem).
         I posted:
>It seems likely that research
>using today's technology will be totally irrelevant to the economics
>of fusion in the far future.  Hence unless you believe fusion power
>has a chance of being economical in the near term such research is
>likely to prove a waste of money.
         Robert Heeter replied:
Not at all.  The ARIES studies (Conn, et al, 1992, references available)
show that with a few not-unreasonable advances we can have economical
fusion power within 50 years.  This doesn!t count as far future to me.
And as I see it, even if I didn!t believe fusion had a shot at being
economical in the near term, I!d still put money into research on it.
Without the research, there will be no advances, and without the
advances, there will never be fusion.  It!s only the research using
today!s technology that gets you to tomorrow!s technology.  I think
this is obvious, but it looks like it needed pointing out.
 
         In this context I consider 50 years the far future.  What did
the Spruce Goose contribute to aeronautics?
         I would put some research money into fusion relevant basic
science.  I would not build large test machines until they are needed
to validate an economically viable power plant design.
         A future economically viable fusion plant is likely to depend
in large part on technology which was developed for other purposes.
Excessive concentration of research money in any narrow area is likely
to prove counterproductive in the long run even as regards that area
because it prevents the efficient development of our technological
capacity as a whole.
 
         Robert Heeter posted:
>Right now my entire professional career is involved, since I intend
>to go into fusion research.  And to me, that counts a lot more than
>any sum of money you could name.  So I assume that!s enough for you?
 
         I hope you have some sort of fallback position as I suspect
the employment situation for new PhDs in fusion research may be rather
grim in a few years.  For that matter have you investigated what the
situation for recent PhDs is today?  Are they happy with their lot?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Robert Heeter /  How do I turn the switch off?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How do I turn the switch off?
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 23:18:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Jim, Matt - thanks for all the information and commentary regarding
the fusion program and the alternatives to the tokamak.  Unfortunately
I won!t have time to dig into this for a few days, but hopefully
someone else out there has some thoughts and ideas on the subject.
Looks like I have a lot of reading to do, and some really interesting
issues to follow up on.  At this point I have a lot of unanswered
questions and I don!t want to post a serious response until I have a
better idea what I!m talking about.  Most of these are things I!ll have
to pursue on my own, but there are a few that I!d like some help on.
 
Jim - Was Hirsch!s statement before the FEAC published anywhere?
Has it been discussed in any of the media / journals?  Do you
know whether the European and Japanese programs are also lacking
in external review?  (This matters b/c the U.S. share of total
magnetic confinement fusion research spending is only 20-25%.)
Are there other critiques of the fusion program I should read?
I!m confused by your assertions that there is no utility
involvement in the fusion program, considering that you mention
several EPRI research groups and investigations of the field.
(EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute is a utility-funded
research institute).  Could you clarify this?  I!m also curious
when the !lack of external review! began, since certainly there
was external review when the program began, or it wouldn!t have
been funded.  Is this a !Big Science! problem, or is it unique
to the fusion program, and particularly the tokamak branch?
Do you feel that the suppression of alternative technologies
occurs at the research scientist level, the lab-administration
level, the Office of Fusion Energy, or just generally in DoE?
Is it specifically limited to DoE, or does it apply to other
agencies which fund fusion research (for instance, the DoD and
the inertial confinement program?)?  Keep in mind that my
vocabulary is bigger than my knowledge base here, and I!m just
trying to get the whole picture.  I!ve read Blomberg!s (sp?)
book on the history of fusion up until ca. 1980, which seemed
fairly comprehensive on the political aspects; I!d like to know
how the political winds have blown since then.  Response via email
would be fine; doesn!t seem like too many people are jumping for
this topic.
 
BTW - I should mention that by coming to Princeton, I didn!t necessarily
commit myself to any particular aspect of Plasma Physics.  It seems
to me that Princeton is the best place for me to be regardless of what
branch of the discipline I wind up going into (no offense to other
schools!).  Since I!ve only just started in the program, I am only
just getting my feet wet in this field, and certainly I am not
particularly committed to anything except learning about plasma physics.
 
 
Matt - Any chance you could give me the names of other
more-or-less independent reviewers of the fusion program?  Any
publications I can dig up?
 
Sorry if this is wasting bandwidth; I wanted to invite others to
contribute, and to throw out a few more questions for discussion.
 
**********************************************
Robert F. !I just *got* here!! Heeter
!Fusion Fact Patrol!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
*First Year* Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 /   /  Boron fusion reactions
     
Originally-From: <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Boron fusion reactions
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 20:55:13 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

Somewhere I read that there is a boron fusion reaction which does not
produce any particles.  Does anyone know anything about this?  Is someone
pulling my leg?
 
Opeenions?  Opeenions!?  We don' need no steenking opeenions!!
 
Jim Owens LEN101 @ PSUVM
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenLEN101 cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 /  - /  fusion, esp. cold
     
Originally-From: frampton@access.digex.net (-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion, esp. cold
Date: 18 Oct 1993 21:32:54 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

is there a FAQ here or any other type of information here about fusion,
esp. cold fusion in perticular that a moron without a degree in anything
could understand? I'm interested in cold fusion and alternate types of
energy...
 
thanks 10e+6
 
--
Adam Frampton  frampton@access.digex.com
Line Noise Provided Courtesy Bell Atlantic
Printed on 100 Percent Recycled Electons - L8r - .optical .entity
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenframpton cudln- cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Boron fusion reactions
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boron fusion reactions
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 03:46:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jim Owens <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Somewhere I read that there is a boron fusion reaction which does not
>produce any particles.
 
Boron + Hydrogen ===> 3 Helium each with considerable kinetic energy.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / John Logajan /  Efficient Electrolysis (Meyers)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Efficient Electrolysis (Meyers)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 05:26:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I am wondering how this Meyer's cell works (if it does) to more efficiently
break up water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. (Leaving aside temporarily
any claims that it produces more energy out than is put in.)
 
Here is part of Dieter's CNF Bibliography:
   Coghlan A;                         New Scientist no. 1981, 18-Sep-93, p.20
   "Just turn on the tap to fill up the tank?"
   ** Report of an apparatus, recently patented by one Stanley Meyer, which
   uses anomalous electrolysis of water to provide energy. Water is electrolysed
   using small ac currents (0.5 mA, 20 kV at 10-20 kHz). The energy to split the
   water into hydrogen and oxygen (which can then be burned to give heat, to
   drive a vehicle, for example) is thought (by Meyer) to come from zero point
   energy, so this is no perpetual motion claim.
 
Earlier in the Wireless World article, we were told that the water sits between
two stainless steel plates, acting as a capacitor/dieletric.  The water is
pure with no additives to aid electrolysis.
 
By Faraday's law, the amount of electrolytic production is directly
proportional to the current flow.  But at high voltage, we could get the
current to do double (multiple) duty if we think of it as "cells" in a
series.  For instance, 1 amp flowing in each leg of the circuit below
produces a different amount of gas, if the resistors were replaced with
electrolysis cells.  The top leg is very inefficient and produces a lot
of heat.  The bottom leg is very efficient and produces very little heat.
 
Perhaps in the Meyer's cell, the conditions are such that a "line" of
H2O molecules simultaneously decompose into hydrogen and oxygen gases,
with two electons popping into one end of the chain, and two others
popping out the other end.  The plates are supposedly on the order of
1mm apart, under approx 20kV polarization potential which has been applied
with a staircase waveform, perhaps causing some resonance.
 
 
                                 9V
    |---------------------------|+|+------------------------|
    |                                                       |
    |                                                     [2A]
    |                            9V                         |
    |---------------------------/\/\/----------------[1A]---|  <== 0.2cc/sec
    |                                                       |
    |                                                      [1A]
    |   1.5V     1.5V     1.5V     1.5V     1.5V    1.5V    |
    |---/\/\/----/\/\/----/\/\/----/\/\/----/\/\/---/\/\/---|  <== 1.2cc/sec
 
 
 
>The energy ... is thought (by Meyer) to come from zero point energy, so
>this is no perpetual motion claim.
 
Okay, what the heck is ZPE.  When I first heard of it, I assumed it was just
another name for virtual particles, or quantum uncertainty.
 
How can you suck ZPE into the real world without degenerating that area of
space from which it was drawn?  I mean, if ZPE lives in the particle, and
you suck ZPE out, then the particle must now exist with a ZPE deficit -- it
must be different than other particles with their ZPE still intact.
 
If it is not different, than ZPE *is* a perpetual supply (or a non-supply.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 07:05:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Jim Bowery (jim@pnet01.cts.com) wrote:
>: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>: >In article <m0omJMK-0000PWC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery,
>: >jim@pnet01.cts.com writes:
>: >>Aside from the fact that the review in the fusion program is NOT
>: >>"independent" in any rational sense of the word,
>: >>
>: >I don!t think this is entirely true.  At least, not the part about
>: >lack of independent review.  I concede that there are non-independent
>: >reviews, but there are also a large number of external reviews which
>: >go on from time to time.
>:
>: The only people who are allowed to "review" the fusion program are
>: past, present or potential future funding receipients of the DoE's
>: fusion program.  There are no clauses in the magnetic fusion law to
>: clearly divide fundee's from reviewers.
>
>My father was one of the reviewers of the DoE fusion program, I think for
>the NAS.
 
Big deal.  *I* was a reviewer of the DoE fusion program for The Coalition
for Science and Commerce.  Neither the NAS nor the CSC are granted
any authority under the magnetic fusion law.
 
>He is a space plasma physicist and thus has not been a past,
>present or potential future funding recipient of the DoE fusion program.
 
That's quite arguable.  He certainly was NOT excluded from consideration
for any future plasma physics funds from the fusion program by virtue
of the fact that he was a reviewer of that program.
 
>The report also said "No matter what you do, don't cut basic science!"
 
...exactly what one would expect from a plasma physicist who wanted to
get a piece of the fusion budget.  Your argument fails on all three counts.
 
>(which includes alternatives to the tokamak).  What did Congress/govt. do?
>Cut basic science.
 
"Congress/govt." here means DoE advising Congress what it should do and
Congress capitulating despite the absence of any prohabitions against
conflicts of interest in the review process.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Conf. procs, again
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Conf. procs, again
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 09:36:11 GMT
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 22:56:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 22:56:02 GMT
 
> What "programme" is Frank referring to?    The paper is published, is it not?
>  Is that news to anyone?  {Dieter, (hi!) this is another good reason for
>           publishing reviews of the papers from the International Conferences
 
Mitch, why are you stifling conference information? Censoring it, are we? Have
we not agreed that these conferences should all be archived, at least by title
of their Proceedings, but preferably in great detail, i.e. every single paper
ever presented on cold fusion, abstracted just as I do real journal articles?
Why are you depriving us of all this valuable information, Mitch? I believe
you know about all the conferences, so why don't you collect them?
 
Still waiting.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Efficient Electrolysis (Meyers)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Efficient Electrolysis (Meyers)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 09:36:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1550
 
>I am wondering how this Meyer's cell works (if it does) to more efficiently
>break up water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. (Leaving aside temporarily
>any claims that it produces more energy out than is put in.)
 
By the way: electrolysis is not the only way to split water; high temperature
will do it, too, in fact, this is a contender for the best way to do it, if
you have some spare heat lying around. I am not saying that this Meyer cell
uses high temperature or -energy, but in principle, it is not so mysterious
that a small current manages to produce a super-Faradaic amount of H2 and O2,
there are possible conventional explanations for it. I find the invocation of
ZPE highly suspicious, it allows Meyer the escape of saying to his skeptics
"You can't prove it's not ZPE, so there!". As with the F&P kW/cm^3, the proof
of the pudding will be in the eating, preferably with Randi doing the sampling.
Rumours of marvellous flavour is not evidence.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Dieter Britz /  Follow-up punch
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Follow-up punch
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 09:36:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
In the recent flurry of messages by Mitch Swartz, in supposed answer to Frank
Close's posting on the Harwell data, Mitch has managed to confuse himself and
everyone else as well. It looks as if he has not understood the significance
of the three kinds of calorimeters used by the Harwell team, and he is, I
think, trying to give the worst one the greatest weight. Let me clarify, as
Mitch would put it.
 
While I willingly admitted to having goofed a few years ago in abstracting the
Williams et al paper, not having noticed that one of their calorimeter
experiments COULD be interpreted as evidence of excess heat, let it be said
now, that they got this with the worst of the three calorimeters: the one that
emulated F&P conditions, i.e. the open type, by far the least accurate. They
used this poor type of calorimeter to make the very point, that it is in fact
a poor one. Their results using the better types, an improved heat-flow one,
and an isothermal one, were clear and unmistakable nulls. Draw your own
conclusions. Frank has been trying to say this, but Mitch keeps
misunderstanding him.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 07:32:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
>Since p + mu is "like" an n, and d + mu is "like" 2n, maybe there
>are some other reactions worth investigating?  "n" + X -> fusion?
>He3?
 
The muonic hydrogen atom is only somewhat like a neutron.  It is
about 200 times smaller than an ordinary hydrogen atom, because the
muon is about 200 times heavier than an electron.  But this is still
very much larger than a nucleus.  As soon as a thermalized muonic
hydrogen atom in its ground state gets this close to another nucleus,
the Coulomb repulsion between the two nuclei becomes important.  What
happens next is a molecular, not a nuclear, reaction.  Examples are:
 
d_mu + t -->  t_mu + d  (transfer of mu to heavier isotope of H);
 
t_mu + d -->  d_mu_t   (formation of muonic molecule); and
 
H_mu + He3 --> He3_mu + H   (transfer of mu to helium nucleus).
 
The last of these is very fast and effectively poisons any fusion
experiment that is contaminated by helium 3.  The conventional
wisdom (which I am here advocating) is that the formation of a
muonic molecule involving only hydrogen isotopes is an essential
step in muon catalyzed fusion.
 
I would love to be proved wrong on this.
 
In summary, the situation is probably hopeless (but not serious)
for muon catalysis as a source of electric power.  However, there
remains a small but finite chance that the fusion yield of a
mixture of deuterium and tritium can be increased under some
yet-to-be-determined conditions by the required factor of ten,
compared to the few hundred fusions per muon seen so far.
 
Cheers,
 
Ben Carter               bpc@netcom.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.18 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 23:34:15 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <CEKouH.C2z@sun2.iend.wau.nl> degroot@rcl.wau.nl (Kees
de Groot, Agricultural University, Wageningen) writes:
 
  > I think people who design high voltage power breakers, or people
  > involved in destructive testing (EMP-guys) might have some explanations
  > for this phenomenon.
 
     You can't analyze anything like this ignoring the magnetic
effects.  The critical voltage in this case sounds similar to the
following effect:
 
      Discharge a series of sparks through a gas filled tube.  (I'm
most familiar with Xe at about 40 mm, but the gas involved and the
pressure don't seem to affect the phenomena much.  If the impedance of
the (power supply) system is low, and the power available is below a
threshold, each discharge will follow a different path through the
tube.  (Note that the characteristics of the tube are a part of the
system.)  However if you exceed a certain threshold, either by
increasing the voltage or the impedance suddenly you will have a
plasma discharge, the voltage across the tube will be varying wildly
and independant of current (which will be smooth), and all of the
available energy in the system will go into the discharge.
 
      What happens?  The self compression of the plasma by the current
flowing thorugh it induces a reverse EMF (voltage), while compressing
the central core of the plasma and thus decreasing its resistance.
(Pinch effect.  Heard of it?)  The discharge becomes a wall-stabilized
arc which only fails when the current drops low enough.  Measuring the
resistance of the plasma is impossible by electrical means, since the
physical changes in the plasma conditions change (relatively) slowly
compared to the energy stored in the plasma.  We got best results when
the inductance, capacitance, and tube all stored approximately the
same amount of energy during the discharge, but as the original post
pointed out, there is a key value of order kilovolts/foot to get things
started.
 
      I assume that in the experiment described, the wire bursts to
create the initial ionized gas, and the rest proceeds the same.  If
the voltage is too low, the plasma never contracts, and the resistance
rapidly rises instead of falling.  The wire explodes, but nothing much
else happens.  Exceed the critical value, and the wire will start to
explode, pinch, and only explode when the discharge ends.
 
     Neat trick--run a wire through a quartz tube, better make it
short.  Pull a vacuum.  Apply a BIG direct current power supply.  How
long can you hold the wire together?  Hint1: Cool the tube with plenty
of air--use a surrounding tube to hold it in.  Make the inner tube
about 10 mm in diameter, the outer three two or times as large (and
the outer tube can hold the remains of the apparatus later).  Hint2:
Pay plenty of attention to the magnetic and electrical environment.
For best results align the tube with the local magnetic field.  Safety
hints: wear a welder's hood over welders goggles and apply sunblock
throughly.  Don't stand in direct line of sight of anything.  Dress
like you are going skiing--the insulation will keep you cool.  (Lots
of infra-red reflecting off everything.)   Also plan for lots of molten
quartz when you finish.  Done "correctly" you will have a very bright
light until you pull the plug.  Never did figure out how to turn it
off without making a mess though.  Figured if we ever needed it as a
light source, you would have several-hundred-dollar single-use bulbs.
(From a hot fusion standpoint this is a stable z-pinch, but it
requires wall contact/contamination for stability.  I think the
hottest we got was about 11000 degrees K, based on absorption
measurements. The density was such that few X-rays got out.  Actually,
thinking about it, this is a lot closer to Paul Kuloc's stuff.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Robert Eachus /  Re: s.p.f.ejournal
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f.ejournal
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 00:25:57 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct9.005938.3267@coplex.coplex.com> chuck@coplex.coplex.
om (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
  >    I think there is a need for such a journal that expands across the
  > boundries of most of the sci - groups.  If we establish the standards
  > and methods for electronic peer review, this much needed outlet for
  > communications can be had.  So perhaps what we need is larger perspective
  > as to what is needed by scientists in communicating thier efforts. In
  > otherwords, how how do we communicate, elect reviewers, and archive
  > materials for our worlds posterity.   We might as well think big,
  > and into the future as to how we would like to take this.
 
    How can I resist such an invitation to think big?
 
    1.  There will be a need for several journals covering each
discipline, but any such journal will expand disciplines to the limit
of reviewers available.  So we end up with O(dozen) ejournals covering
everything or possibly a dozen cover math, a dozen covering medicine,
a dozen covering physics, etc.  But marginal journals will fail
quickly, since no good journal will delay good submissions.
Sectioning will be virtual unlike paper journals.
 
    2.  No page limits drastically changes reviewer and editors
styles.  (I've never met an author who thought about page limits, but
there may be some. ;-)
 
    3.  The right thing to do is start an umbrella, with an editorial
BOARD.  Anyone who wants to edit a section (and considered compentent
in the field, and as an editor) should be accepted.  Editing an
eletronic mailing list covering the area is prima facie evidence of
competance, so a normal answer should not be "Yes," or "No," but
"Gather some articles and if after 3 month or so, we like what we see
we will add your stuff (retroactively if necessary) to our journal."
 
    4.  Editorial board meets mostly electronically, but there should
be about one face to face a year.
 
    5.  The thing that makes all this work is to actually publish, so
the citations process works.  That probably means CD-ROMs.  But only
libraries will subscribe that way.  Who cares?
 
    6.  The one way to extract funds to make the wheels go round, if
necessary is pagination fees, but make it per paper, not per page.
However, I cannot imagine collecting enough money that way to pay for
collecting it, so a better way would be "shareware."  However once
something like this catches on, the whole pump will be prestige.  If
technical libraries actually end up subscribing to say less than 30
journals, then any position associated with one will have sufficient
reward to minimize direct costs.  (i. e. Your school, employer, or
institution will be glad to have you doing it.)
 
    7.  I suspect that the most prestigious ejournals will be
associated with specific institutions.  (Like the Bell System
Technical Journal of old.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 00:46:34 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct17.035131.13197@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
  > I don!t think this is entirely true.  At least, not the part about
  > lack of independent review.  I concede that there are non-independent
  > reviews, but there are also a large number of external reviews which
  > go on from time to time.  (Could someone more in the know back me
  > up on this?)  Certainly I did my own !independent review! before
  > deciding to go into Plasma Physics.  Granted, I!m no expert, but I
  > think the technology is worth supporting at the research level.
 
   Go read some history.  Back in the seventies there was a clear
independant review which said:  Don't put all the eggs in oe tokamak
basket.  Choose one "alternative" magnetic confinement configuration
and support it at the same level as tokamaks.  I believe Elmo Bumpy
Torus was eventually chosen, just before its funding was cut to zero.
The next time there was an "independent" review of the fusion program,
it was made by experts working in the field--on tokamaks only,
everyone else was gone.
 
   Since the DoE had always had the classification out to stomp
private projects, that was the end of research in hot fusion, and the
takeover of big science.  Inertial confinement was more-or-less leaked
from the bomb side, when foreign inertial work started to show up in
the literature, but that has been the only departure from the
orthodoxy since the TFTR design was started.
 
     Incidently, so I don't get flamed too badly, I would like to note
that the Alcator group at MIT has always been a thorn in the side of
the Big Science efforts, and has done real research.  It's the other
labs that have redefined "experiment" to mean a carefully planned
exercise that will be classed as "failed" if they might have learned
something. I stopped reading the TFTR reports when I saw an analysis
of failed experiments in the management report, showing that the
number was decreasing every month. Ouch!
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 01:06:37 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
    Another shot at John's proposed mode.  (Or is it Steve's?)  If
there was a significant Li buildup on the cathode which was suddenly
exposed, the cathode current and voltage should go wild.  So if you
want to hypothesize Lithium metal (I don't) it would have to be on
some other surface OR (and then a miracle occurs) you would have a Li
surface during the entire event.  I'll believe total conversion first.
 
    Tom, the problem with proposing novel chemistry is just that it
would be novel.  Things like D4 gas and other strange animals might
fit the energy data, but there is no evidence for any such stable
compound.  Actually, thinking about it, there is one possibility
where some data exists, let me off to the library, to check on
single-H (or in this case atomic deuterium).
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / mitchell swartz /  Conf procs (image & text ratios)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conf procs (image & text ratios)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:03:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <01H4AK2ISA2Q8WWOWS@vms2.uni-c.dk>
   Subject: RE: Conf. procs, again
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
> What "programme" is Frank referring to?    The paper is published, is it not?
>  Is that news to anyone?  {Dieter, (hi!) this is another good reason for
>           publishing reviews of the papers from the International Conferences
 
= Mitch, why are you stifling conference information? Censoring it, are we? Have
= we not agreed that these conferences should all be archived, at least by title
= of their Proceedings, but preferably in great detail, i.e. every single paper
= ever presented on cold fusion, abstracted just as I do real journal articles?
= Why are you depriving us of all this valuable information, Mitch? I believe
= you know about all the conferences, so why don't you collect them?
 
  Dieter,  I'm not.  No.  Yes.  I'm not; just too busy.  I do.
 
1 - As I've said before you are to be congratulated for your
        work here.  PERIOD.   My only comment was
              a) it is unfortunate the conf proceedings dont get
                 full weight as of yet, and
              b) if you (one) review(s) a cartoon, why not post it.
 
2 - I have been so busy putting out the COLD FUSION TIMES which is
        a text and image FAQinventory  and real journal on cold fusion
        that at this moment,
              a) given the demands upon time, there is simply
                no more time at present beyond what
                contributing I've been able to do here,
              b) my respect for your efforts (and Hal Fox's,
                   ed of FUSION FACTS) have simply increased.
 
3 - I have been considering quality vs. quantity.  and have
        attempted to post here several GIFs from very relevant
        papers which are discussed in this node.  For all the
        talk of a e-paper and e-FAQ and e-REFS, we have mostly
       limited ourselves to ASCII text, unfortunately except
       for those image posts.
             Some have informed me that they found the
      GIFs very helpful and have let me know by email (or the
      much rarer post).  Wish we knew about the rest, since
      perhaps a mix would be optimum.  Any thoughts?
 
               Best wishes.                 Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / mitchell swartz /  Harwell (were D2O and H2O in same calorimeter?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell (were D2O and H2O in same calorimeter?)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:05:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <01H4AKIIF8B68WWNYM@vms2.uni-c.dk>
   Subject: Follow-up punch
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:
 
= In the recent flurry of messages by Mitch Swartz, in supposed answer to Frank
= Close's posting on the Harwell data, Mitch has managed to confuse himself and
= everyone else as well. It looks as if he has not understood the significance
= of the three kinds of calorimeters used by the Harwell team, and he is, I
= think, trying to give the worst one the greatest weight. Let me clarify, as
= Mitch would put it.
 
  Dieter.  I mentioned a paper and posted the image.  Frank and you are
               the only ones bringing up other types of calorimeters that
               Harwell may or may not have used to successfully prove something
               else.   Other's like John have made useful comments about what
               is being discussed.
 
            Any comments on the paper, Dieter?   On the image?
            Were not the heavy and light water in the same calorimeter?
            If your only interest is to continue Frank's obfuscation, we would
       be grateful if you (or he) might just set up a table and organize this.
       Are the other expts relevant to what was discussed or posted?  You might
        put that in too.  Thanks.
 
 
= While I willingly admitted to having goofed a few years ago in abstracting the
= Williams et al paper, not having noticed that one of their calorimeter
= experiments COULD be interpreted as evidence of excess heat, let it be said
= now, that they got this with the worst of the three calorimeters: the one that
= emulated F&P conditions, i.e. the open type, by far the least accurate.
 
   Again.  Did you see the paper, or the curves in question?
            and do you have any questions or (better yet) comments?
            Remember: both the H2O and D2O were in the same (admittedly
              not optimal) calorimeter, but reacted differently   <----- ***
 
= They used this poor type of calorimeter to make the very point, that it is in
= fact a poor one. Their results using the better types, an improved heat-flow
= one,  and an isothermal one, were clear and unmistakable nulls.
 
   Have you examined that data, too?   or are those nunc-pro-tunc-"secret" as
     well?  Draw your own conclusions. The curves were posted and speak
     for themselves.  Your comments on the curves in questions would be
     invaluble.
 
               Best wishes.                 Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:07:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <29vg46$o0s@access.digex.net>
     Subject: fusion, esp. cold
Adam Frampton  [frampton@access.digex.com] writes:
 
=  "is there a FAQ here or any other type of information here about fusion,
=  esp. cold fusion in perticular that a moron without a degree in anything
=  could understand? I'm interested in cold fusion and alternate types of
=   energy..."
 
     This FAQ-Table regarding the list of (some of) the cold fusion
   phenomena is based upon the literature and the responses to this net.
   Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections will be appreciated, as
    are any flameless requests for sources of more information by email.
 
           Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 ============================================================================
 FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
 ============================================================================
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)
 
   ====================================   Excess Power densities (mW/cm3 Pd)
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  mW/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 mW/cm3 Pd
 
   =====================================   Excess Power =================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O (***)  --------
  Mills (1990)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Srinivasan (1993)                    70% input (max. 3.5 W)
  Natoya (1993)                        270-240% (max. 2.7 W))
 
____________________________________________________________________________
 
 
---   Putative Explanations put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies ---
==========================  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for ======
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           *
                   in cell IF not considered
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    1993)          0.75       **--
   The Jones Factor II (silicates 1993)          0.0 (max)
   the Jones Factor III (lithium  1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Natoya Effect                 (1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
  ==========================================================================
*    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg J. Electrochem.
Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
*** selections from J. Jones' light water posting.
  (have not independantly rechecked the values or convert to absolute power
   levels but any literature reader is invited to help)
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
   incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
   (see. Dr. Noninski's postings) but in any case could
   not account for observed and calibrated excess heats in experiments using
  protium and nickel.
**--  Steven Jones posted data involving less than a milliwatt; he was asked
   for information regarding larger amounts, as yet without response.
**##  hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required.
        --------------------------------------------------------- v.541018
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Hot fusion reactions table
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion reactions table
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 01:57:18 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <1993Oct17.033923.11480@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
  > [Note on the Wild Side: I!ve heard that the Air Force had a fission-
  > powered aircraft project back in the 50s & 60s, but it was secret and
  > I think it was canned.]
 
  1.  It wasn't all that secret.
 
  2.  They actually flew a Molten Salt Reactor (in a B-36 I think,
might have been a B-47) and operated it during flight, but it wasn't
used for propulsion.  (Although dumping all that heat out one side had
some interesting effects. :-)
 
  3.  It was cancelled because about the time of the first test
flights, practical mid-air refueling was demonstrated.  Given a choice
of flying with a nuclear reactor over enemy territory and getting
refueled over the ocean, the Air Force choose the obvious.
 
  4.  The idea resurfaced later for both very large transports and the
Looking Glass type aircraft.
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Harwell (were D2O and H2O in same calorimeter?)
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Harwell (were D2O and H2O in same calorimeter?)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 15:10:21 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <CF5B12.2By@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   Any comments on the paper, Dieter?   On the image?
>   Were not the heavy and light water in the same calorimeter?
>   If your only interest is to continue Frank's obfuscation, we would
>   be grateful if you (or he) might just set up a table and organize this.
[I moved the LH margin over a bit, to shorten the lines to <= 80 char]
[...]
>   Again.  Did you see the paper, or the curves in question?
>            and do you have any questions or (better yet) comments?
>            Remember: both the H2O and D2O were in the same (admittedly
>              not optimal) calorimeter, but reacted differently   <----- ***
 
Yes, I saw the paper - I have it, as I have most. And yes, they put both light
and heavy water electrolytes into the poor, F&P-style calorimeter, but not,
for some reason, into the other, better, two types. There is indeed some
difference between light and heavy water; but not exactly to jump up and down
about, and certainly you can't immediately conclude that something nuclear
must be invoked.
 
>= They used this poor type of calorimeter to make the very point, that it is in
>= fact a poor one. Their results using the better types, an improved heat-flow
>= one,  and an isothermal one, were clear and unmistakable nulls.
 
>   Have you examined that data, too?   or are those nunc-pro-tunc-"secret" as
>     well?  Draw your own conclusions. The curves were posted and speak
>     for themselves.  Your comments on the curves in questions would be
>     invaluble.
 
I have not "examined any data", I have only read their paper. This doesn't
excite me enough to write away for the "raw data", I have enough to do as it
is. Like Frank, I am so low-tech as not to have GIF - I don't even know what
a GIF is. What's more, these GIF files foul up our NEC daisywheel printer
(that's right, really stone age), but don't worry, Mitch, I have just decided
not to print all these Digests any more, I'll just note down the FD number if
there should be anything of lasting interest, and I can retrieve it later by
(high-tech) ftp. I'll save a lot of trees that way.
 
My point still is, that the excess heat went away, quite convincingly, when
they used quality calorimetry. Please understand, Mitch, that a poor null is
not a positive result, it merely allows the possibility. If you are going to
give so much importance to a poor experiment, you must explain why that
experiment counts so much, in the face of the better ones, that did result in
resounding nulls.
 
Dieter Britz alias kemidb@aau.dk (my alter ego).
 ----------------------------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 15:12:32 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

Mitch, your spelling is usually very good: you ought to get Notoya's name
right in your FAQ list.
 
Dieter Britz alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / R Schroeppel /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 18:36:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I asked:
 
>Since p + mu is "like" an n, and d + mu is "like" 2n, maybe there
>are some other reactions worth investigating?  "n" + X -> fusion?
>He3?
 
and bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) replied:
 
>   The muonic hydrogen atom is only somewhat like a neutron.  It is
    about 200 times smaller than an ordinary hydrogen atom, because the
    muon is about 200 times heavier than an electron.  But this is still
    very much larger than a nucleus.  As soon as a thermalized muonic
    hydrogen atom in its ground state gets this close to another nucleus,
    the Coulomb repulsion between the two nuclei becomes important.  What
    happens next is a molecular, not a nuclear, reaction.  Examples are:
 
    d_mu + t -->  t_mu + d  (transfer of mu to heavier isotope of H);
 
    t_mu + d -->  d_mu_t   (formation of muonic molecule); and
 
    H_mu + He3 --> He3_mu + H   (transfer of mu to helium nucleus).
 
    The last of these is very fast and effectively poisons any fusion
    experiment that is contaminated by helium 3.  The conventional
    wisdom (which I am here advocating) is that the formation of a
    muonic molecule involving only hydrogen isotopes is an essential
    step in muon catalyzed fusion.
 
My hypthesis is that (p or d or t)+muon is free to wander around
in our reactor, much like a thermal neutron.  And that such an
atom delivering its nucleus to within, say, .01 A of another nucleus
will cause "instantaneous" fusion.  This other nucleus might be
t, but it might be B11, or some other possibility.  Is there some
reaction that doesn't produce He?  Could we encourage the He to
deposit itself in a trap, or a first wall?
 
    I would love to be proved wrong on this.
 
We'd all benefit.
 
    In summary, the situation is probably hopeless (but not serious)
    for muon catalysis as a source of electric power.  However, there
    remains a small but finite chance that the fusion yield of a
    mixture of deuterium and tritium can be increased under some
    yet-to-be-determined conditions by the required factor of ten,
    compared to the few hundred fusions per muon seen so far.
 
Is looking for cheaper muons hopeless?  There must be a lot of
mundane steps in the production that could be optimized.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Data
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Data
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:09:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have had several requests for the full data set.  The paper has piled up
and I have lost track of the requests.  Sorry!  In any case, the plan is to
get the data set where all can look at it.  John Logajan is my guinnea pig
to test out the format.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / Richard Benear /  RE: Efficient Electrolysis (Meyers)
     
Originally-From: rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Efficient Electrolysis (Meyers)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 20:25:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

logajan@network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>Okay, what the heck is ZPE.  When I first heard of it, I assumed it was just
>another name for virtual particles, or quantum uncertainty.
 
>How can you suck ZPE into the real world without degenerating that area of
>space from which it was drawn?  I mean, if ZPE lives in the particle, and
>you suck ZPE out, then the particle must now exist with a ZPE deficit -- it
>must be different than other particles with their ZPE still intact.
 
>If it is not different, than ZPE *is* a perpetual supply (or a non-supply.)
 
I'm usually a lurker but could not resist these questions. I thought a
repost of material from sci.physics.new_theories would help. Some of this
is obviously fringe physics, but then again some isn't. 8-)
Sorry that this is quite long.
 
Richard
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reproduced below, without the permission of the author, is a paper written by
Dr. Harold E. Puthoff, a respected physicist in quantum electrodynamics (QED)
and in the relatively new field of stochastic electrodynamics (SED).
This paper originally appeared in Speculations in Science and Technology,
vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990.
 
*************************************************************************
-Beginning of Paper-
 
THE ENERGETIC VACUUM:  IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY RESEARCH
 
H.E. Puthoff
 
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
1301 Capital of Texas Highway S., Suite A-232
Austin, TX 78746
(512) 346-9947
 
"The existence of an actual vacuum was a subject of debate among scientists
from Aristotle into the twentieth century.  Since light, magnetic fields and
heat all travel through a vacuum, something must be there.  Borrowing a word
from Aristotle, scientists described various kinds of 'aethers' that exist in
even the hardest vacuum and that pervade space.  Maxwell's theory of electro-
magnetism reduced these different types to just one, called the ether.  Various
experiments were developed to detect this ether, of which the most famous was
the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to find it.  Finally, in 1905,
Einstein banished the ether by means of special relativity and allowed the true
vacuum to exist.
 
"But not for long.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle of 1927 led particle
physicists to predict that particles would arise spontaneously from the vacuum,
so long as they disappeared before violating the uncertainty principle.  The
quantum vacuum is a very active place, with all sorts of particles appearing
and disappearing.  Careful experiments have demonstrated that the quantum
theorists are correct in this interpretation of the vacuum...  Furthermore,
starting in 1980 with the theory of the inflationary universe, particle
physicists have told us that the entire universe was created as a 'false
vacuum', a quantum vacuum that has more energy in its nothingness than it
should.  The decay of that particular vacuum to an ordinary quantum vacuum
produced all the mass in the universe and started the Big Bang."
 
From "The Timetables of Science", Simon and Schuster, 1988
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
Modern physical theory, specifically quantum electrodynamics (QED), tells us
that the vacuum can no longer be considered a void.  This is due to the fact
that, even in the absence of matter, the vacuum is neither truly particle nor
field free, but is the seat of virtual particle-pair (e.g. electron-positron)
creation and annihilation processes, as well as zero-point-fluctuation (ZPF) of
such fields as the vacuum electromagnetic field, which will be the focus of our
study here.
 
Formally, the energy density associated with the vacuum electromagnetic ZPF
background is considered to be infinite.  With appropriate high-frequency
cutoffs the ZPF energy density is still conservatively estimated to be on the
order of nuclear energy densities or greater.[1]  The enormity of the figures
describing the vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy raises the question as
to whether these numbers should be taken seriously, whether they are due to
some defect or misinterpretation of the theory, whether the ZPF fields ought to
be considered as 'virtual' or 'real'.[2]  There is, however, no question but
that the ZPF fields lead to real, measurable physical consequences.  One
example is the very real Casimir force,[3-6] an experimentally-verified [7-9]
ZPF-induced attractive quantum force between closely-spaced metal or dielectric
plates.  An elegant analysis by Milonni, et al., at Los Alamos National
Laboratory shows that the Casimir force is due to radiation pressure from the
background electromagnetic zero-point energy which has become unbalanced due to
the presence of the plates, and which results in the plates being pushed
together.[10]  (We will discuss this effect in more detail later when we
address the possibility of ZPF energy extraction.)  Other effects which can be
traced back to interactions involving the ZPF fields in a fundamental way
include the Lamb shift (the slight perturbation of the emission lines seen from
transitions between atomic states),[11-13] the van der Waals chemical binding
forces,[14] the stabilization of atomic structure against radiative collapse,
[15-16] quantum field mechanisms underlying the gravitational interaction,[17]
and spontaneous emission.[18]
 
 
ZERO-POINT ENERGY
 
To understand just what the significance of zero-point energy is, let us begin
with a simple harmonic oscillator as shown in Figure 1.  According to classical
theory, such a harmonic oscillator, once excited but with excitation removed,
will come to rest (because of friction losses) as shown in Figure 1(a).  In
quantum theory, however, this is not the case.  Instead, such an oscillator
will always retain a finite amount of 'jiggle', as shown in Figure 1(b).  The
average energy (kinetic plus potential) associated with this residuum of
motion, the so-called zero-point energy, is given by: <E>= hw/2, where 'h' is
Planck's constant (h= 1.054e-34 joule/sec) and 'w' [really 'omega'] is the
frequency of oscillation.  The meaning of the adjective 'zero-point' is that
such motion exists even at a temperature of absolute zero where no thermal
agitation effects remain.  Similarly, if a cavity electromagnetic mode is
excited and then left to decay, as shown in Figure 2, the field energy dies
away, again to a minimum value <E>= hw/2 (half a photon's worth), indicating
that fields as well as mechanical systems are subject to zero-point
fluctuations.  It is the presence of such ZPF 'noise' that can never be gotten
rid of, no matter how perfect the technology, that sets a lower limit on the
detectability of electromagnetic signals.
 
If we now consider the universe as a whole as constituting a giant cavity, then
we approach a continuum of possible modes (frequencies, directions) of
propagation of electromagnetic waves.  Again, even in the absence of overt
excitation, quantum theory has us assign an <E>= hw/2 to each mode.
Multiplication of this energy by a density of modes factor [19] then yields
an expression for the spectral energy density that characterizes the vacuum
electromagnetic zero-point energy
 
rho(w)dw = [w^2/pi^2*c^3]/[hw/2]dw
 
         = (hw^3)/(2*pi^2*c^3)dw  joules/m^3            (eqn. 1)
 
There are a number of properties of the zero-point energy distribution given in
equation 1 that are worthy of note.  First, the frequency behavior is seen to
diverge as w^3.  In the absence of a high-frequency cutoff this would imply an
infinite energy density.  (This is the source of such statements regarding a
purely formal theory.)  As discussed by Feynman and Hibbs, however, we have no
evidence that QED remains valid at asymptotically high frequencies (vanishingly
small wavelengths).[1]  Therefore, we are justified in assuming a high-
frequency cutoff, and arguments based on the requirements of general relativity
place this cutoff near the Planck frequency (~10^-33 cm).[17]  Even with this
cutoff the mass-density equivalent of the vacuum ZPF fields is still on the
order of 10^94 g/cm^3.  This caused Wheeler to remark that "elementary
particles represent a percentage-wise almost completely negligible change in
the locally violent conditions that characterize the vacuum...In other words,
elementary particles do not form a really basic starting point for the
description of nature.  Instead, they represent a first-order correction to
vacuum physics."[20]  As high as this value is, one might think that the vacuum
energy would be easy to observe.  Although this is true in a certain sense (it
is the source of quantum noise), by and large the homogeneity and isotropy
(uniformity) of the ZPF distribution prevent naive observation, and only
departures from uniformity yield overtly observable effects.
 
Contributing to the lack of direct observability is a second feature of the ZPF
spectrum;  namely, its Lorentz invariance.  Whereas motion through all other
radiation fields, random or otherwise, can be detected by Doppler-shift
phenomena, the ZPF spectrum with its cubic frequency dependence is unique in
that detailed cancellation of Doppler shifts with velocity changes leaves the
spectrum unchanged.  (Indeed, one can derive the ZPF spectrum to within a scale
factor by simply postulating a Lorentz-invariant random radiation field.
[21,22])  Thus, although any particular component may Doppler shift as a result
of motion, another component Doppler shifts to take its place.  It is also the
case, again unique to the ZPF cubic-frequency-dependent spectrum, that Doppler
shifts due to other phenomena (e.g., cosmological expansion, gravitation) also
do not alter the spectrum.  [23]  This stands in contrast to, for example, the
3 K blackbody (thermal) microwave background left over from the Big Bang which
cools with cosmological expansion.
 
Yet another feature of the ZPF spectrum, related to its Lorentz invariance and
again unique in comparison with all other competitors, is the complete lack of
a drag force on a charged particle passing through it.  This is because such a
drag forced (the so-called Einstein-Hopf drag [24]) is proportional to the
factor [rho(w) - (w/3)*(d rho/dw)], and this vanishes identically for
rho(w) ~= w^3.
 
On the other hand, accelerated motion through the vacuum can in principle
reveal the presence of the ZPF energy density directly.  Unlike uniform motion
in which delicate cancellations of Doppler shifts leave the motion undetected,
in accelerated motion the Doppler-shift cancellations are no longer sustained.
As a result, the Lorentz-invariant spectrum which holds in uniform motion is
augmented by additional terms.  One factor yields a thermal (Planck) spectrum
of temperature T= h*a/2*pi*c*k, where 'a' is acceleration, 'k' is Boltzmann's
constant and 'T' is temperature.  This is known as the Davies-Unruh effect.
[25,26]  Yet another factor which shows up in the ZPF spectrum of an
accelerated observer is found, via the equivalence principle, to reveal a deep
connection between zero-point energy and gravity along lines originally
proposed by Sakharov [27] (that gravity could be understood as an induced
effect brought about by changes in the quantum fluctuation energy of the vacuum
due to the presence of matter [17]).
 
Thus we see that, with its roots in relativity theory which banished the ether,
QED has in some sense come full circle to provide us with a model of an
energetic vacuum that once again constitutes a plenum rather than a void.
 
 
SOURCE OF ZERO-POINT ENERGY
 
The fact that the vacuum constitutes an energy reservoir leads naturally to the
question as to where the zero-point energy comes from, specifically, the vacuum
electromagnetic zero-point energy under discussion here.  (This is an
especially important issue if one considers the possibility of extracting such
energy for use.)  Nature provides us with but two alternatives:  existence by
fiat as part of the boundary conditions of the present universe (like, for
example, the 3 K cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang), or
generation by the (quantum fluctuation) motion of charged particles that
constitute matter.  This latter possibility was explored in a recent paper by
the author, with positive results.[23]
 
The argument goes as follows.  Given charged particles in quantum zero-point
motion throughout the universe, a 1/r^2 dependence of the radiation from such
motion, and an average volume distribution of such particles in spherical
shells about any given point that is proportional to the area of the shell
(that is,proportional to r^2), one could reasonably expect to find at any given
point a sum of contributions from the surrounding shells that yielded a high-
density radiation field.  (Recall a similar argument in astronomy associated
with Olbers' paradox.)  The high-density ZPF fields would appear to be just
such a field.
 
The details of the calculations examine the possibility that ZPF fields drive
particle motion, and that the sum of particle motions throughout the universe
in turn generates the ZPF fields, in the form of a self-regenerating
cosmological feedback cycle not unlike a cat chasing its own tail.  This self-
consistent field approach, carried out assuming inflationary cosmology, is
found to yield the correct frequency distribution and the correct order of
magnitude to match the known ZPF distribution, thus supporting the hypothesis
that the ZPF fields are dynamically generated.
 
As it turns out, there is an additional bonus from the calculations.  A derived
expression relating the zero-point energy density to such factors as the mass
density and size of the universe also yields a precise expression for an
observed 'cosmological coincidence' often discussed in the context of Dirac's
large-numbers hypothesis:  namely, that the electromagnetic-to-gravitational
force ratio between an electron and proton is equal to the ratio of the Hubble
distance to the size of the classical electron.  According to the relevant
calculations such a cosmological coincidence is seen to be a consequence of the
cosmologically-based ZPF-generation mechanism under consideration that serves
to link cosmological and atomic parameters.
 
The overall picture that emerges, then, is that the electromagnetic ZPF
spectrum is generated by the motion of charged particles throughout the
universe which are themselves undergoing ZPF-induced motion, in a kind of self-
regenerating grand ground state of the universe.  In contrast to other
particle-field interactions, the ZPF interaction constitutes an underlying,
stable 'bottom-rung' vacuum state that decays no further but reproduces itself
on a dynamic-generation basis.  In such terms it is possible to explicate on a
rational basis the observed presence of vacuum zero-point energy.
 
 
VACUUM ENERGY EXTRACTION?
 
As we have seen, the vacuum constitutes an extremely energetic physical state.
Nonetheless, it is a giant step to consider the possibility that vacuum energy
can be 'mined' for practical use.  To begin, without careful thought as to the
role that the vacuum plays in particle-vacuum interactions, it would only be
natural to assume that any attempt to extract energy from the vacuum might
somehow violate energy conservation laws or thermodynamic constraints (as in
misguided attempts to extract energy from a heat bath under equilibrium
conditions).  As we shall see, however, this is not quite the case.
 
The premier example for considering the possibility of extracting energy from
the vacuum has already appeared in the literature in a paper by R.L. Forward
entitled "Extraction of Electrical Energy From the Vacuum..."[28];  it is the
Casimir effect.  Let us examine carefully this ZPF-driven phenomenon.
 
With parallel, non-charged conducting plates set a distance D apart, only those
(electromagnetic) modes which satisfy the plate boundary conditions (vanishing
tangential electric field) are permitted to exist.  In the interior space this
constrains the modes to a discrete set of wavelengths for which an integer
number of half-wavelengths just spans the distance D (see Figure 3).  In
particular, no mode for which a half-wavelength is greater than D can fit;  as
a result, all longer-wavelength modes are excluded, since for these wavelengths
the pair of plates constitutes a cavity below cutoff.  The constraints for
modes exterior to the plates, on the other hand, are much less restrictive due
to the larger spaces involved.  Therefore, the number of viable modes exterior
is greater than that interior.  Since such modes, even in vacuum state, carry
energy and momentum, the radiation pressure inward overbalances that outward,
and detailed calculation shows that the plates are pushed together with a force
that varies as 1/D^4, viz,[10]
 
F/A = -(pi^2/240)(h*c/D^4)  newtons/m^2    (eqn. 2)
 
The associated attractive potential energy (Casimir energy) varies as 1/D^3,
 
U/A = -(pi^2/720)/(h*c/D^3)  joules/m^2    (eqn. 3)
 
As is always the case, bodies in an attractive potential, free to move, will do
so, and in this case the plates will move toward each other.  The conservation
of energy dictates that in this process potential energy is converted to some
other form, in this case the kinetic energy of motion.  When the plates finally
collide, the kinetic energy is then transformed into heat.  (The overall
process is essentially identical to the conversion of gravitational potential
energy into heat by an object that falls to the ground.)  Since in this case
the Casimir energy derives from the vacuum, the process constitutes the
conversion of vacuum energy into heat, and is no more mysterious than in the
analogous gravitational case.
 
In such fashion we see that the conversion of vacuum energy into heat, rather
than violating the conservation of energy, is in fact required by it.  And this
conversion can be traced microjoule by microjoule as modes (and their
corresponding zero-point energies) are eliminated by the shrinking separation
of the plates.  What takes getting used to conceptually is that the vacuum
state does not have a fixed energy value, but changes with boundary conditions.
In this case vacuum-plus-plates-far-apart is a higher energy state than vacuum-
plus-plates-close-together, and the combined system will decay from the higher-
energy state to the lower, in the process creating kinetic energy, then heat,
to conserve overall energy.  Similar vacuum-decay processes have been discussed
within the context of so-called charged vacuum states.[29]
 
With regard to extracting zero-point energy for use, in Forward's proposed
embodiment the two plates in a Casimir experiment are charged with the same-
sign charge (e.g., electrons).  At sufficiently small spacings the Coulomb
repulsion between the plates (which goes in an inverse square law 1/D^2 or
less, depending on spacing and geometry) can always be overcome by the stronger
1/D^4 attractive Casimir force.  The plates will therefore be drawn together in
a collapsing motion.  This confines the charge distribution to a smaller and
smaller volume and results in an increased electric field strength in the
vicinity of the plates.  In such fashion the zero-point energy (Casimir energy)
is transformed into stored Coulomb energy, which can then be extracted by a
variety of means.
 
Although demonstrating in principle the extraction of energy from the vacuum,
Forward's embodiment is admittedly impractical for significant, continuous
energy generation, for a number of reasons.  First and foremost is the fact
that the generator is a 'one-shot' device.  To recycle the generator one must
put as much energy into the device to return the plates to their original
separated positions as was obtained during the collapse phase, as would be
expected in any conservative potential.  As a result, given the losses in any
real system, not even 'break-even' operation can be achieved, let alone net
energy gain.
 
Let us carry this one step further, however.  If one could arrange to have an
inexhaustible supply of such devices, and if it took less energy to make each
device than was obtained from the Casimir-collapse process, and if the devices
were discarded after use rather than recycled, then one could envision the
conversion of vacuum energy to use with a net positive yield.  Although almost
certainly not achievable in terms of mechanical devices, a possible candidate
for exploitation along such lines would be the generation of a cold, dense,
non-neutral (charged) plasma in which charge condensation takes place not on
the basis of charged plates being drawn together, but on the basis of a Casimir
pinch effect.  (Casimir pinch effects have been explored in the literature, not
with regard to energy conversion, but in terms of semiclassical modelling of
charge confinement in elementary particles, hadron bag models, etc.[30])  Such
an approach would constitute a 'Casimir-fusion' process, which in its cycle of
operation would mimic the nuclear-fusion process.  It would begin, like its
nuclear counterpart, with an initial energy input into a plasma to overcome a
Coulomb barrier, followed by a condensation of charged particles drawn together
by a strong, short-range attractive potential (in this case a Casimir rather
than a nuclear potential), and with an accompanying energy release.  Should the
energy requirements for plasma formation, and electrical circuit and heat
losses be kept at a level below that required for break-even operation, then
net, useful energy could in principle be generated, as in the nuclear case.
Such a proposal is, of course, highly speculative at this point, and further
detailed analysis of the energetics involved may yet uncover some hidden flaw
in the concept.  Nonetheless, known to this author are programs in the United
States, the Soviet Union and other countries to explore just such an approach
on an experimental basis.
 
The above provides just one example of the type of concept that can be explored
with regard to possible vacuum energy extraction.  Other proposals for
extracting vacuum energy have been made as well,[31] covering the gamut from
the clearly unworkable to the intriguing.  To this author's way of thinking,
however, there is as yet neither clear-cut evidence of experimental success nor
an absolutely unimpeachable theoretical construct.  Nonetheless, it is only by
continued, careful consideration of such proposals that we can hope to resolve
the issue as to whether energy can be extracted from the vacuum, as part of a
generalized 'vacuum engineering' concept of the type suggested by Nobel
Laureate T.D. Lee.[32]  As a caution along the way, the prudent scientist,
while generally keeping an open mind as to the possibility of vacuum energy
extraction, must of course approach any particular device claim or theoretical
proposal with the utmost rigor with regard to verification and validation.
 
Can the energy crisis be solved by harnessing the energies of the zero-point
sea?  In the final analysis, given our relative ignorance at this point we must
of necessity fall back on a quote given by Podolny [33] when contemplating this
same issue.  "It would be just as presumptuous to deny the feasibility of
useful application as it would be irresponsible to guarantee such application."
Only the future can reveal whether a program to extract energy from the vacuum
will meet with success.
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 
I wish to express my appreciation to G.W. Church, Jr., for helpful discussion
in the exploration of the concepts developed here.  I also wish to thank K.R.
Shoulders of Jupiter Technologies, Austin, Texas, and William L. Stoner, III,
of OmniTech International, Springdale, Virginia, for continuing impetus and
encouragement to explore these issues.
 
 
REFERENCES
 
 1.  Feynman, R.P. and Hibbs, A.R.  *Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*,
     page 245, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.  See also Misner, C.W., Thorne,
     K.S. and Wheeler, J.A.  *Gravitation*, page 1202 ff.  Freeman, San
     Francisco, 1973.
 
 2.  See, for example, the Closing Remarks section in Boyer, T.H., Phys.
     Rev. D, volume 29, p. 1089, 1984.  It can be added that, although the
     approach developed here involves treating the ZPF fields as real, an
     alternative viewpoint can be taken in which the results of field-
     particle interactions traditionally attributed to ZPF are expressed
     instead in terms of the radiation reaction of the particles involved,
     without explicit reference to the ZPF.  For this viewpoint, see Milonni,
     P.W., Phys. Rev. A, volume 25, p. 1315, 1982.  Although it is sometimes
     assumed that the radiation-reaction approach might imply that the ZPF
     fields do not exist, detailed analysis (see Milonni's paper) shows that
     even though the interpretation of ZPF effects "can be given exclusively
     in terms of either radiation reaction or the zero-point field, *both
     fields are in fact necessary for the formal consistency of the theory*."
     The interrelationship between these two approaches (ZPF, radiation
     reaction) can be shown to be complementary on the basis of an underlying
     fluctuation-dissipation theorem.
 
 3.  Casimir, H.B.G., Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet., volume 51, p. 793, 1948.
 
 4.  Fierz, M.  Helv. Phys. Acta., volume 33, p. 855, 1960.
 
 5.  Marshall, T.W.  Nuovo Cimento, volume 38, p. 206, 1965.
 
 6.  Boyer, T.H.  Ann. Phys., volume 56, p. 474, 1970.
 
 7.  Wittmann, F., Splittgerber, H. and Ebert, K.  Z. Phys, volume 245,
     p. 354, 1971.
 
 8.  Israelachvili, J.N. and Tabor, D.  Proc. Roy Soc. London, Ser. A, volume
     331, p. 19, 1972.
 
 9.  Arnold, W., Hunklinger, S. and Dransfeld, K.  Phys Rev. B, volume 19,
     p. 6049, 1979;  Phys. Rev. E, volume 21, p. 1713, 1980.
 
10.  Milonni, P.W., Cook, R.J. and Goggin, M.E.  Phys. Rev. A, volume 38,
     p. 1621, 1988.
 
11.  Lamb, W.E., Jr. and Retherford, R.C.  Phys. Rev., volume 72, p. 241, 1947.
 
12.  Bethe, H.A.  Phys. Rev., volume 72, p. 339, 1947.
 
13.  Welton, T.A.  Phys. Rev., volume 74, p. 1157, 1948.
 
14.  Boyer, T.H.  Phys. Rev., volume 180, p. 19, 1969;  Phys. Rev. A, volume 7,
     p. 1832, 1973.
 
15.  Puthoff, H.E.  Phys. Rev. D, volume 35, p. 3266, 1987.  See also
     New Scientist, volume 115, p. 26, 9 July 1987.
 
16.  Cetto, A.M. and Pena, L. de la.  Found. Phys., volume 19, p. 419, 1989.
 
17.  See Puthoff, H.E.  Phys. Rev. A, volume 39, p. 2333, 1989 and references
     therein.
 
18.  Milonni, P.W.  Physica Scripta, volume T 21, p. 102, 1988.
 
19.  See, for example, Pantell, R.H. and Puthoff, H.E.  *Fundamentals of
     Quantum Electronics*, pp. 179 ff., Wiley, New York, 1969.
 
20.  Wheeler, J.A.  *Geometrodynamics*, Academic Press, New York, 1962.
 
21.  Marshall, T.W.  Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., vol. 61, p. 537, 1965.
 
22.  Boyer, T.H.  Phys. Rev., vol. 182, p. 1374, 1969.
 
23.  Puthoff, H.E.  Phys. Rev. A, volume 40, p. 4857, 1989.  Errata in
     Phys. Rev. A, volume 44, p. 3385, 1991.  See also New Scientist,
     volume 124, p. 36, 2 December 1989.
 
24.  Milonni, P.W.  Am. J. Phys., volume 49, p. 177, 1981.
 
25.  Davies, P.C.W.  J. Phys. A, volume 8, p. 609, 1975.
 
26.  Unruh, W.G.  Phys. Rev. D, volume 14, p. 870, 1976.  For a semi-classical
     derivation, see also Boyer, T.H.  Phys. Rev. D, volume 21, p. 2137, 1980.
 
27.  Sakharov, A.D.  Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR [Sov. Phys. - Dokl., volume 12,
     p. 1040], 1968.  See also Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A.
     Gravitation, pp. 426-428, Freeman, San Francisco, 1973.
 
28.  Forward, R.L.  Phys. Rev. B, volume 30, p. 1700, 1984.
 
29.  Rafelski, J., Fulcher, L.P. and Klein, A.  Phys. Rep., volume 38, p. 227,
     1978.  See also "The Decay of the Vacuum", Scientific American, volume
     241, p. 150, 1979.
 
30.  For the original concept see Casimir, H.B.G., Physica, volume 19, p. 846,
     1956.  Early follow-on efforts include Boyer, T.H., Phys. Rev, volume 174,
     p. 1764, 1968;  Milton, K.A., Annals Phys., volume 127, p. 49, 1980;
     DeRaad, L.L., Jr. and Milton, K.A., Annals Phys., vol. 136, p. 229, 1981;
     Brevik, I., Annals Phys., volume 138, p. 36, 1982;  Brevik, I. and
     Kolbenstevdt, H., Annals Phys., volume 143, p. 179, 1982.
 
31.  Booth, L.I.  Speculat. Sci. Tech., volume 10, p. 201, 1987.
 
32.  Lee, T.D.  *Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory*, p. 826,
     Harwood Academic Publ., London, 1988.
 
33.  Podolny, R.  *Something Called Nothing*, Mir Publ., Moscow 1986.
 
-End of Paper-
 
The reader is also referred to four other related papers by Dr. Puthoff which
appeared in the literature (three appeared in Physical Review):
 
"Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State",
Physical Review D, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 3266-3269, 15 May 1987.
 
"Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force", Physical Review A, vol. 39, no. 5,
pp. 2333-2342, 1 March 1989.
 
"Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy", Physical Review A, vol.
40, no. 9, pp. 4857-4862, 1 November 1989.  See also his replies to comments in
Physical Review A, vol. 44, no. 5, page 3382 and 3385-3386, and an Erratum in
Physical Review A, vol. 41, no. 5, page 2902.
 
"Everything for Nothing", New Scientist, pp. 52-55, 28 July 1990.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrbenear cudfnRichard cudlnBenear cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Harwell (were D2O and H2O in the same calorimeter?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Harwell (were D2O and H2O in the same calorimeter?)
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:02:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Oct19.151021.8584@aau.dk>
    Subject: Re: Harwell (were D2O and H2O in same calorimeter?)
Dieter Britz (kemidb@aau.dk) writes:
 
    >   Again.  Did you see the paper, or the curves in question?
    >          and do you have any questions or (better yet) comments?
    >          Remember: both the H2O and D2O were in the same (admittedly
    >          not optimal) calorimeter, but reacted differently   <----- ***
 
= "Yes, I saw the paper - I have it,as I have most. And yes, they put both light
= and heavy water electrolytes into the poor, F&P-style calorimeter, but not,
= for some reason, into the other, better, two types. There is indeed some
= difference between light and heavy water; but not exactly to jump up and down
= about, and certainly you can't immediately conclude that something nuclear
= must be invoked."
 
  There was no invocation of "nuclear", only asymmetry.  As an electro-
 chemist and historian here, Dieter, your comments remain valuable.
 
 
== Like Frank, I am so low-tech as not to have GIF - I don't even know what
== a GIF is. What's more, these GIF files foul up our NEC daisywheel printer
== (that's right, really stone age)..."
 
   It is a type of image bitmapping used to make the image appear on
 your computer screen or printer.  Last week we were watching a series of them
 (not GIF) making a neat solid state animation in 3-D teaching triclinic
 structures.  I've used such animations to teach convolution of image pixels
 with a kernel so as to process an image.  With the proper printer driver
 even your pinwheel would make fair images.
 
   As regards my experiment to post to sci.physics.fusion with accompanying
  IFF images I learned the hard way (courtesy of Dr. D. Bass) the importance of
  UUENCODING, but only choose GIF because it appeared to be the most
  commonly used (maybe now tied with JPEG??) on the nets.
   If the nets had a consistent universal format (I like IFF for other
    reasons - namely linking the parametric and other data)
   which the users liked we could augment our files with pictures....
     or rather print them out in hardcopy since they are so spacious.
 
    As I mentioned to Frank, the format could be  JPEG, TIFF, IFF,
 HAME, DV21, MACPAINT etc.  It is strange that neither Frank, Harwell, nor
 yourself has access.  Perhaps you should hire a high-school student
 with an AMIGA (which does IFF images of such calibre as is featured
 on Babylon 5 and Deep Space IX and other cinematic specials)
 and catch up and enjoy.                                      ;-)X
 
  As a corollary, any high school student reading this has a
 walk-away-chance of bypassing some major UK and European institutions
 towards a prime understanding of this new phenomenon involving hydrogen
 energy.
 
 
==  "My point still is, that the excess heat went away, quite convincingly, when
==  they used quality calorimetry."
 
   Understanding why the "heat went away" requires understanding the
     what differences were present in a metallurgic and paradigm-sense
     in the subsequent experiment(s) just for starters.  Perhaps we will
     hear from Frank and those in the know on this.
 
      Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Droege's challenge
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Droege's challenge
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 21:36:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>    Another shot at John's proposed mode.  (Or is it Steve's?)  If
>there was a significant Li buildup on the cathode
 
Not mine!
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Nuclear Spins
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Spins
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 23:48:08 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
I'm behind, and I saw Karel Hladky's item first.  I'll get to Dick Blue's
comments soon, too, I hope.
 
In article <1993Oct18.152433.19544@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky) writes:
 
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com wrote:
>
> | I have idea why you consider up/down interconversion of deuterons to be
> | difficult, as the energies involved are pretty low.  I would have assumed
> | (perhaps incorrectly) that simply thermal mixing will very quickly provide
> | a good mix of both types at ordinary temperatures.
>
> If you actually do the sums you'll find that conversion from para-hydrogen
> to ortho purely by thermal collisions at normal temperatures and pressures
> is pretty slow (half life of years). This is easily confirmed by experiment,
> para-H2 will 'keep' for days.  In practice conversion occurs mainly by
> hydrogen atom exchange between two H2 molecules - on a suitable surface,
> for example. Some substrates produce para-H2 rather than the equilibrium
> mix.  The situation is similar for D2 gas, except that the ortho-D2 is the
> one that predominates at low temperatures. There is a change in free energy
> on going from say para to 'normal' (equilibrium) mix, mainly due to delta
> S.  Not much at 'normal' temperatures and pressures, but it is there. I was
> really after some reliable numbers for D2. So far no luck.
 
Just to clarify:  I don't think Dick Blue was talking about ortho/para
conversion of _molecular_ H2 or D2, since very little of this exists in
the Pd lattice, except at very high saturations.  And even at very high
concentrations, the resulting H2 or D2 would be in equilibrium with
dissolved (atomic/ionic) H or D -- meaning that the two type should
probably interconvert easily as hydrogen molecules are constantly taken
apart and stuck back together.  (Actually, I would assume this is why
many transition metals make good para/ortho conversion catalysts.)
 
For _spin_ (up/down) conversion of free atomic or ionic hydrogen isotopes
in palladium, I have to stand by my guns.  It really should be no big deal,
since it amounts to little more than a 180 degree "flip" of the particle
(from spin-axis-up to spin-axis-down, for example).  Without getting into
it much (although it's a fascinating story), you should be able to flip
a lot of 1/2 spin particles simply by _examinining_ them two or three
times at a series of angles such as 45, 90, 135, and 180 degrees.  Quantum
uncertainty should then guarantees that some of the particle you are
looking at will "flip" -- with _no_ net energy required!
 
Incidentally, I would note that there is also the possibility of the
electron and nucleus in atomic hydrogen or deuterium being either parallel
(giving H spin 1, D spin 3/2) or antiparallel (H spin 0, D spin 1/2) in
the lattice.  I don't even know what the name of these species are, or if
they even have specific names.  Certainly they would not be overly durable
in Pd, due to the abundance of free metalic electrons around.
 
With molecular hydrogen the spins of two nearby nuclei are correlated
(parallel or antiparallel) into quite distinct _internal_ (to the molecule)
states than cannot be changed by any external rotations or translations.
The resulting "package" protects the relative spin orientations and makes
them doggone difficult to change.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 19 Oct 93 12:50:45 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <199310180128.AA10605@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>,
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> Steve Jones writes ...
>>   The fusion yield is also influenced *dramatically* by temperature of the
>     D-T mixture in the range 4K - 800K explored so far (hence, "cold fusion")
>     and chemical composition (D2-DT-T2 ratios).  Thus, the fusion
>     yield is influenced, albeit indirectly, by conditions controlled by the
>     experimenter.  [For more information, see e.g. S.E. Jones et al., Phys.
>     Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 588.]
>
>     BTW, the yields noted above are only an order of magnitude below what is
>     needed for *commercial* power production by means of muon-catalyzed fusion,
>     by most current estimates.  How could nature be so tantalizing yet so
>     difficult?
>
>     The curve above suggests that the yields may rise to hundreds of fusions per
>     muon, but other data indicate that the yield will saturate below 300 fusions
>     per muon.  An experiment now planned for Dubna, Russia will push the density
>     to about 2.4 X liquid-H2 density, so we hope to find out.
>
> I propose that the fusion@zorch college do some brainstorming to get
> Steve some more muons.
 
Thanks, Richard -- we could use a few cheap muons just now.
>
> I'll put the ball in play with a few questions:
> Is the only way to make muons, pion decay?
 
No, for instance, e+ - e- collisons can produce muons.  However, pions are
strongly interacting (hadronic), relatively light, and therefore are produced
copiously in nucleon-nucleon interactions at GeV-scale energies.
(Such collisions produce a delta *resonance* at 1232 MeV/c2, and deltas decay
to nucleons + pions.  Resonance production in this way produces
copious pions.)          Several
researchers (including myself a decade ago) compared means of producing
negative muons with minimal energy investment.  The best we came up with is to
have neutron-rich beam particles (tritons are best, neutron:proton = 2:1)
striking a neutron-rich target. Neutrons are preferable to protons for
production of *negative* muons needed to catalyze fusion.  Of course, negative
pions rapidly decay into negative muons (plus neutrinos, whose energy is lost).
 
The best we can do with current technologies, including radio-frequency
quadrupole accelerators, yields an energy investment of about 3 GeV per
negative muon.   Some quick (approx.) math:
 
E-input/muon = 3000 MeV (calculated optimum)
E-out(thermal)/muon = 150 fusions/muon X 20 GeV/d-t fusion = 3000 MeV.
 
Thus, we have, at least on paper, thermal breakeven for the muon-catalyzed
fusion approach.  But we're not done yet:  we need a factor of 3 for
thermal-to-electrical conversion, and say 5 for commercial power.
Hence the order or magnitude needed for muon catalyzed fusion to reach
commercial power levels.
 
Two routes around the barrier:
1.  More fusions per muon.  Here the bottleneck is muon capture by the
alpha synthesized during muon-induced d-t fusion.  This "sticking" process
limits fusion to about 300 fusions/muon, as far as we can tell now.  Hence
further experiments particularly at high d-t density (2-3 times liquid
hydrogen density) are strongly motivated.  Russia (Dubna Lab.) seems to be
the only place in the world now where such experiments with tritium can be
performed, and the economics there make even that effort look shaky now.
We could have done the experiment at Los Alamos in late 1980's, but our funding
was cut AND the lab (like other national labs) had severe constraints imposed
on the use of tritium, which we need.  The upshot of this is that we have an
approved experiment at LAMPF, but can't get the tritium we need.
 
2.  Decrease the energy investment (cost) to produce muons.
The limit, according to George Chapline at LLNL,
for tritons colliding with tritons in countercirculating beams, is 600 MeV/muon,
assuming 50% efficiency in the RFQ for producing the beams.  Richard suggests
we collect cosmic-ray muons; see below.
 
> Is the only way to make pions, proton smashups?
No, t-t colliding beams would be optimum for negative muon production.
 
> Is there a better way to smash protons?
Colliding beams give maximum energy in the center of mass useful for pion
production.
 
> Is there a way to gather cosmic ray muons?
This has been looked at, but the numbers don't look good.  Problems:
1.  Too few muons.  At 10^12 fusions per watt and 150 fusions/muon, we would
need 10^10 muons/sec just for a watt.  A huge collector would be required.
2.  Muons from cosmic rays would have to be "cooled" so that they could be
focussed on a finite deuterium-TRITIUM-filled target.  This is technologically
very challenging, and in any case expensive.
 
> Is liquid hydrogen compressed much in the middle of a sound wave?
This has been looked at too, an as I recall sound waves can compress the d-t
liquid enough to enhance fusion yields significantly by increasing the rate
at which muon-bound d-t molecules form.  But the muon-alpha
sticking problem remains the bottleneck.  [Another good idea.]
 
> Since p + mu is "like" an n, and d + mu is "like" 2n, maybe there
> are some other reactions worth investigating?  "n" + X  -> fusion?
> He3?
>
 
George Zweig has suggested that free quarks might catalyze fusion.
Jan Rafelski postulated an X- particle that might induce fusion also, and
account for sporadic "cold fusion neutron" effects at low levels.
Both ideas remain speculative.
 
> Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>
 
Thanks for the questions, Richard.
BTW, Terry B. asked about using X-rays to shake the muon free from the alpha-
muon ion (ionization).  This too has been calculated, but won't work:  an
11 keV X-ray is needed to remove a muon from an alpha (ground state of
alpha-muon) and this input becomes prohibitive, ionizing everything in sight.
There are many still working in this field -- interested individuals should
consult the journal "Muon Catalyzed Fusion."
 
Two big hopes for the field:
1.  Sticking is found to be significantly smaller than the best theories
predict -- a result our team at LAMPF announced in 1984, finally confirmed and
accepted only in 1992 with latest results from PSI.  (THat confirmation
required eight years...maybe confirmation of controversial results does take
some time on occasion...)  This means with better understanding of sticking, we
*might* be able to reduce it, and boost the fusion yield accordingly.
 
2.  Muon-cat. fusion might be a good way to produce 14-MeV neutrons for
materials studies in support of the overall fusion-reseach effort.
 
--Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 19 Oct 93 13:34:34 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Just read Ben Carter's post about mu-cat-fusion, and he's right:  muons
captured by 3He or *any* nucleus heavier than hydrogen are effectively
 prevented from inducing fusion.
This follows from the fact that the muon quickly goes to the
lowest level of the atom where it cannot then form a molecule with another
nucleus.  The muon-bound-molecule formation step is needed for fusion to occur,
induced by muons.  Thus, only Z=1 nuclei can be bound by a single muon in a
molecule (or more correctly, a molecular ion), leading to
fusion.  (Two muons could fuse heavier species, but getting two muons localized
as would be required requires too many miracles:  the probability is near
zero.)
 
Incidentally, in muon-catalyzed deuteron-deuteron fusion, which is certainly an
example of cold fusion, the branching ratio is found experimentally to be:
d + d --> 3He + n (nearly 50%)
d + d --> t + p (nearly 50%).
d + d --> 4He + gamma (negligible).
 
These data stand contrary to claims that 4He is produced with very little
neutrons or tritium being produced also.*  These data also, to me, contradict
claims that the tritium yield of cold fusion could be approx. 8 orders of
magnitude greater than the neutron yield.
 
*I hear rumors that this branch, producing 4He and not neutrons, will
be favored by xs heat enthusiasts at the Hawaii meeting in December.  Heads up.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Boron fusion reactions
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Boron fusion reactions
Date: 19 Oct 93 14:21:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1993Oct19.034634.11936@ns.network.com>,
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> Jim Owens <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>Somewhere I read that there is a boron fusion reaction which does not
>>produce any particles.
>
> Boron + Hydrogen ===> 3 Helium each with considerable kinetic energy.
>
> --
> - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
John is correct; a little more detail follows:
p + B -->  3 He-4 + 8.7 MeV.
 
In order to conserve momentum and energy, at least two of the synthesized
alphas must carry energy.  For this three-body final state, the maximum
4He energy is 2/3 * 8.7MeV =5.8 MeV, when one alpha recoils against the other
two.  The case of each alpha carrying equal energy (2.9 MeV) is the case when
no alpha exceeds 2.9 MeV in energy.  Particles with MeV - scale energy are
unavoidable in this reaction, as John said.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CF5B55.2zC@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CF5B55.2zC@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 02:43:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CF5B55.2zC@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 02:45:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                            Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
 
     In Message-ID: <29vg46$o0s@access.digex.net>
     Subject: fusion, esp. cold
Adam Frampton  [frampton@access.digex.com] writes:
 
=  "is there a FAQ here or any other type of information here about fusion,
=  esp. cold fusion in perticular that a moron without a degree in anything
=  could understand? I'm interested in cold fusion and alternate types of
=   energy..."
 
     This FAQ-Table regarding the list of (some of) the cold fusion
   phenomena is based upon the literature and the responses to this net.
   Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections will be appreciated, as
    are any flameless requests for sources of more information by email.
 
           Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 ============================================================================
 FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
 ============================================================================
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)
 
   ====================================   Excess Power densities (mW/cm3 Pd)
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  mW/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 mW/cm3 Pd
 
   =====================================   Excess Power =================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O (***)  --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)                    70% input (max. 3.5 W)
  Notoya (1993)                        270-240% (max. 2.7 W))
_________________________________________________________________________
 
---   Putative Explanations put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies ---
==========================  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for ======
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           *
                   in cell IF not considered
   The Jones Factor I (recomb.    1993)          0.75       **--
   The Jones Factor II (silicates 1993)          0.0 (max)
   the Jones Factor III (lithium  1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Notoya Effect                 (1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
  ==========================================================================
*    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
         estimates of excess heats!!
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
    and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
    the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
    "Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg J.
    Electrochem. Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
*** I apologize for the omission and error of date regarding Dr. Mills and
      V. Noninski.
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
   incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
   (see Dr. Noninski's postings Nov. 19, 1992) but in any case could
    not account for observed and calibrated excess heats in experiments using
    protium and nickel.
**--  Steven Jones posted data involving less than a milliwatt; he was asked
   for information regarding larger amounts, as yet without response.
**##  hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required.
        --------------------------------------------------------- v.541019
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 04:06:56 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0opAMX-0000TNC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
> >My father was one of the reviewers of the DoE fusion program, I think for
> >the NAS.
>
> Big deal.  *I* was a reviewer of the DoE fusion program for The Coalition
> for Science and Commerce.  Neither the NAS nor the CSC are granted
> any authority under the magnetic fusion law.
 
Yes, but the NAS is set up to advise the whitehouse on
scientific matters, while, as far as I know, no one is
requesting any advice from the "CSC". From your descriptions,
I'd think the CSC has far more of an axe to grind, and far
less scientific legitimacy, than the NAS.
 
--
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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  FAQ table needs fixin'
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ table needs fixin'
Date: 19 Oct 93 17:43:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Well, Mitch, you ol' rascal you!  Doin' it again, I see.  No sir,
your "FAQ" table ain't factual 'tall.  Let's try and git it right
this time, what d'ya say?
 
From posting 28 Sept. 1993, "Scientific Criticism", by S.E. Jones:
 
"As explained above, the "silicate effect" when combined with possible
(I think highly probable) errors in cell potential "estimates"
can account for several *watts* of putative excess power in the P&F
boiling-cell experiments.  If you refer to the silicate-layer/Joule heating
effect as a "Jones effect", Mitch, please put "watts" by it as my assertion."
 
"Also incorrectly, you show the Notoya effect to account for zero excess power,
when in fact Jonathon posted a comment (again).  The control cell initially had
3.4 V with 0.6 A, or 2.04 W.  But when BYU student David Buehler moved the
alligator clips to points on the thin lead wires where these entered the
control cell, he then found 2.57V with 0.72 A, or 1.85W.  Thus, 2.04-1.85 W
= 190 milliwatts (for your table, Mitch) were being dissipated into the air,
which evidently accounts for the putative excess heat in the Notoya
demonstration. ... Thus, the "Notoya effect" accounts for 190 mW of "excess
power" -- put that in your table, thank you."
 
We've been right patient with y'all.  Now it's high time to correct that table,
mister.  Oh, here's another thang:  as Jonathon told you in a posting seems
like eons ago, your buddy Jed told us a year ago:  "The current density on the
cathode should be on the order of one milliamp per square centimeter.  This is
very low compared to the P-F heavy water experiments."  So that's what we did.
Seems like you're bitchin' about our lowly currents, but we wuz just followin'
Jed's instructions.  So quit yur gripin'.  'Taint gentlemanly of you fellows.
 
Now good ol' Jonathon did raise the current up, and the recombination went
right on up too, like he said.  Finally got 'er up to 1.6 mW of xs heat which
was actually nothin' but common recombination.  It would be right neighborly
of ya to fix up yer table.
 
Well, guess I'll be mozyin' along, pardner.  Lookin' forward to yur fixing up
that table.  Don't want folks to be led astray ya know.
 
Thanks, pardner.
Jonesie
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / Dieter Britz /  Li deposition
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Li deposition
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:13:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
There has been some discussion of late about the possibility of Li being
co-deposited on the Pd cathode; perhaps, the argument seems to go, it is the
occasional (chemical) redissolution of metallic Li that causes the heat
bursts? Questions have been asked about the likelihood of depositing Li at the
sort of potentials applied to the cathode.
This is not entirely unknown territory: I append all the references from the
bibliography I could find that mentioned Lithium in this context (it includes
some that bring in Li as a fusion aid in some way). Kazarinov et al mention K
and Na but in the same context.
 
Firstly, deposition: True, Li+ requires very negative potentials to get
reduced to Li. At rather high current densities, the cathode potential might
indeed approach such values, sufficient at least for rather low-level
deposition. People such as the Swiss Augustynski, Ulman et al team have done
post mortems and indeed found some Li. The depth of penetration varies but is
not great, and the near-surface Li loading Li/Pd also varies from 1-2% up to
(if I remember correctly) about 10%. Certainly, noone has seen mm-thick Li
deposits. Kazarinov et al reckon that chemical redissolution of K or Na could
account for "excess" heat. Well, in principle, bursts could maybe be caused
by alkali metal dissolution. Let's look at the thermodynamics of Li dissolving
in water: the reaction is
Li + H2O --> Li+(aq) + OH-(aq) + 1/2 H2
The deltaH for this reaction is -222 kJ/mol Li. Per cm^2, then, a 1 mu thick
layer of Li dissolving (that's 10^-4 cm^3 and at a molar volume of 13 cm^3,
that's about 10^-5 moles) yields 10^-5 * 222000 J = 2 J. To get into the
hundreds of J "excess heat" bursts, you would thus need to dissolve - quickly
- a layer 100 mu, or 0.1 mm thick, over a whole cm^2. Someone please check
these figures but it seems that, given that Li deposition has been seen to be
no more than a few tens of mu's deep, this chemical explanation, too, doesn't
hold water.
 
All this apart from the fact that if you're depositing the stuff due to a very
negative potential, it won't chemically dissolve, except maybe at small sites
that have a lower potential, due to current density unevennesses - you won't
get whole large areas going into reverse.
 
Bottom line: Li does get codeposited to some extent, does diffuse into the Pd
to a depth of a few mu's, cannot be used to explain excess heat bursts.
 
Most of the arguments (except one) that come up here, have already been
considered in the literature, as in this case. In this connection, let me
remind you of Chuck Harrison's Wais data base, where you could have found
all the references below, from the comfort of your terminal. I myself
use the editor to comb through my big papers file, a similar procedure.
The one exception is the suspicion, not yet laid to rest, that the way some
workers measure their power introduces an error, because the way they apply
the (somewhat) controlled current makes both the current and cell voltage
fluctuate. We are working on that.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Li refs:
Anghaie S, Froelich P, Monkhorst HJ;            Fusion Technol. 17 (1990) 500.
"On fusion/fission chain reactions in the Fleischmann-Pons 'cold fusion'
experiment".
 
Astakhov II, Davydov AD, Katargin NV, Kazarinov VE, Kiseleva IG, Kriksunov LB,
Kudryavtsev DYu, Lebedev IA, Myasoedov BF, Shcheglov OP, Teplitskaya GL,
Tsionskii VM;                                Electrochim. Acta 36 (1991) 1127.
"An attempt to detect neutron and gamma radiations in heavy water electrolysis
with a palladium cathode".
 
Augustynski J;                            Chimia 43 (1989) 99  (in French).
"Commentaire: Pourquoi les experiences de 'fusion froide' de deuterium
sont-elles si difficiles a reproduire".
 
Augustynski J, Ulmann M, Liu J;                         Chimia 43 (1989) 355.
"Electrochemical measurements on palladium cathodes in LiOD/D2O solutions
related to the 'cold fusion experiments'".
 
Birgul O, Celebi S, Ozdural A, Pekmez K, Yildiz A, Yurum Y (umlauts missing);
Doga- Turk. J. Eng. Env. Sci. 14(3) (1990) 373.
"Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium using surface modified
palladium electrodes".
 
Brudanin VB, Bystritskii VM, Egorov VG, Shamsutdinov SG, Shyshkin AL,
Stolupin VA, Yutlandov IA;                       Phys. Lett. A 146 (1990) 347.
"Does cold nuclear fusion exist?".
 
Dalard F, Ulman M, Augustynski J, Selvam P;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 270 (1989) 445.
"Electrochemical incorporation of lithium into palladium from aprotic
electrolytes".
 
Frodl P, Roessler OE, Hoffmann M, Wahl F;     Z. Naturforsch. 45A (1990) 757.
"Possible participation of lithium in Fleischmann-Pons reaction is testable".
 
Gozzi D, Cignini PL, Petrucci L, Tomellini M, De Maria G, Frullani S,
Garibaldi F, Ghio F, Jodice M; Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A 103 (1990) 143.
"Evidences for associated heat generation and nuclear products release in
palladium heavy-water electrolysis".
 
Howald RA;                                                CALPHAD 14 (1990) 1.
"Calculation on the palladium-lithium system for cold fusion".
 
Jorgensen CK;                                           Chimia 43 (1989) 142.
"Scenarios for nuclear fusion in palladium-deuterium alloys at ambient
temperatures".
 
Jorne J;                                        Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 519.
"Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium: the existence of
negatively charged deuteride ions".
 
Kainthla RC, Szklarczyk M, Kaba L, Lin GH, Velev O, Packham NJC, Wass JC,
Bockris JO'M;                               J. Hydrogen Energy 14 (1989) 771.
"Eight chemical explanations of the Fleischmann-Pons effect".
 
Kazarinov VE, Astakhov II, Teplitskaya GL, Kiseleva IG, Davydov AD,
Nekrasova NV, Kudryavtsev DYu, Zhukova TB;
Elektrokhimiya 27 (1991) 9 (in Russian).
Translated in: Sov. Electrochem. 27 (1991) 6.
"Cathodic behaviour of palladium in electrolytic solutions containing alkali
metal ions".
 
Ragheb M, Miley GH;                           Fusion Technol. 16 (1989) 243.
"On the possibility of deuteron disintegration in electrochemically
compressed deuterium ion (D+) in a palladium cathode".
 
Rock PA, Fink WH, McQuarrie DA, Volman DH, Hung Y-F;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 293 (1990) 261.
"Energy balance in the electrolysis of water with a palladium cathode".
 
Seitz R;                             Nature (London) 339 (1989) 185 (18-May).
"Fusion in from the cold?" (section editor's title).
 
Sona PG, Ferrari M;                             Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 678.
"The possible negative influence of dissolved O2 in cold nuclear fusion
experiments".
 
Thompson DT;                               Platinum Metals Rev. 34 (1990) 136.
"A report from the meeting in Salt Lake City".
 
Ulman M, Liu J, Augustynski J, Meli F, Schlapbach L;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 286 (1990) 257.
"Surface and electrochemical characterization of Pd cathodes after prolonged
charging in LiOD + D2O solutions".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / Frank Close /  Harwell Melich (where did Hansen get into the frame?)
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Harwell Melich (where did Hansen get into the frame?)
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:12:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell,
 
You seem to be rather ill-informed about the existence, let alone the
status, of the Harwell-Melich collaboration. Melich and
Harwell (not Hansen) are currently involved in an *ongoing* research
programme that has been in existence through this year.
 
If you are really interested in establishing facts then ask Williams
(the Harwell team leader) or Melich in a private letter. You may also
choose to ask Melich his opinion on the status of the paper that
carried his name. I have no wish to make idle gossip in this forum
about data that are not mine nor on speculation about *ongoing* research
programmes.
 
***Concerning proceedings; hard copy and GIF:-
 
Our library spends its scarce resources on the top journals; these
do not include cold fusion conferences. Copies of possibly significant papers,
such as Hagelsteins review,can usually be obtained from their authors; this is
much cheaper. A paper including the name of Hansen, who, I understand, is
not a part of the Melich-Harwell collaboration, and which appeared in a
non-peer reviewed form before the said collaboration had begun the
main bulk of its work, does not cross the threshold of what I define as
significant especially when it does not deal with the isothermal and
steady-state calorimetry. Your choice of what is and is not significant
may differ from mine.
 
Data transmitted on email have dubious legal status; having interacted
with Drs Pons and Fleischmann, for whom you have acted as mailman, and
their attorney, I do not deal with other than hard copy. If you have a
serious interest, do not waste time with puerile comments surmising that
we do not have access to postscript, GIF etc.
 
If the *only* data that you possess are those attributed to Melich and
Hansen in Nagoya then they are from FP-style cells and irrelevant to
the isothermal and steady-state experiments on which Harwell's upper
limits were based (see the Harwell papers).
You did not make it clear as to whether these are the only data to
which you were seeking comment, nor initially did you even make clear
to what data you referred.
If you have other data then send them to me in hard copy for the reasons
stated above.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / Karel Hladky /  Images (was: Harwell ... )
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Images (was: Harwell ... )
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:30:53 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:     As I mentioned to Frank, the format could be  JPEG, TIFF, IFF,
:  HAME, DV21, MACPAINT etc.  It is strange that neither Frank, Harwell, nor
:  yourself has access.  Perhaps you should hire a high-school student
 
Uuencoded GIFs are just fine. Whatever you do don't use lossy encoding such
as JPEG for these monochrome scans. Just about any self respecting machine
will display GIF and many Usenet readers have uudecoding built in. A minor
point, it might be a good idea to post the picture description as ..Part 0/1
and the actual picture code as ..Part 1/1 or whatever. Of course if people
are reading this stuff on their ASR-33 teletypes then nothing will help :-)
 
And why doesn't someone just ring up or e-mail Dave Williams at Harwell and
ask what the problem was with his Cell 4 ?
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / John Armond /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 03:25:07 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>     Neat trick--run a wire through a quartz tube, better make it
>short.  Pull a vacuum.  Apply a BIG direct current power supply.  How
>long can you hold the wire together?
 
Now you've really got my curiosity up. Can you put some magnitudes on
this little experiment?
 
thanks,
John
 
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                   | For a free sample magazine, send
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM)     | a digest-size 52 cent SASE
Marietta, Ga     "Hotrods'n'computers"   | (Domestic) to PO Box 669728
jgd@dixie.com    "What could be better?" | Marietta, GA 30066
Email to me may be published at my sole discretion.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjgd cudfnJohn cudlnArmond cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / mitchell swartz /  Response to Jones' "FAQ table needs fixin'"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Jones' "FAQ table needs fixin'"
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 11:37:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Oct19.174312.1009@physc1.byu.edu>
   Subject: FAQ table needs fixin'
Stephen Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
=sj "Well, Mitch, you ol' rascal you!  Doin' it again, I see.  No sir,
=sj your "FAQ" table ain't factual 'tall.  Let's try and git it right
=sj this time, what d'ya say?"
 
   No problem.  Just send the data [vide infra] by post or by email.
   Also, Jonathan's data had a few errors which have been corrected now
    by other readers.  This is, like science, an iterative process, right?
 
=sj "From posting 28 Sept. 1993, "Scientific Criticism", by S.E. Jones:
=sj "As explained above, the "silicate effect" when combined with possible
=sj (I think highly probable) errors in cell potential "estimates"
=sj can account for several *watts* of putative excess power in the P&F
=sj boiling-cell experiments.  If you refer to the silicate-layer/Joule heating
=sj effect as a "Jones effect",Mitch, please put "watts" by it as my assertion."
 
  No problem, Stephen.  Just prove that a silicate layer can produce
   excess heat.  So far, it has been shown (by me in a previous posting
   using a simple model) that it can generate heat, but not "excess heat".
 
  Please simply demonstrate theoretically, or show any experimental
   evidence.                         Thanks in advance.
 
 
=sj "Also incorrectly,you show the Notoya effect to account for zero excess
=sj  power, when in fact Jonathon posted a comment (again)."
=sj "The control cell initially had
=sj 3.4 V with 0.6 A, or 2.04 W.  But when BYU student David Buehler moved the
=sj alligator clips to points on the thin lead wires where these entered the
=sj control cell, he then found 2.57V with 0.72 A, or 1.85W.  Thus, 2.04-1.85 W
=sj = 190 milliwatts (for your table, Mitch) were being dissipated into the air,
=sj which evidently accounts for the putative excess heat in the Notoya
=sj demonstration. ... Thus, the "Notoya effect" accounts for 190 mW of "excess
=sj power" -- put that in your table, thank you."
 
   Like yourself, Jonathon appears selective in the comments to which he has
    responded.  Dr. V. Noninski pointed out that there apparently were
   some changed numbers.  If you and he can simply work this out so that
   there is one (1) set of figures for this, it will be put in.
   The FAQ included the one of the dates the controversy involving the
   different numbers was discussed.
    Simply post the one set of values, showing a significant difference, and
    demonstrating that it generates "excess heat" for measured and calibrated
    systems.                         \/\/\/\/\/\
 
 
=sj "We've been right patient with y'all.Now it's high time to correct that
=sj table, mister."
 
   We've been patient for you to answer the questions.  They've been posted
   several times already.  It's high time you answer them, having put your
   "data on the chopping block" by publically proclaiming them, and then
   denigrating others' work based upon your claims.  It is reasonable that
   if you are going to use Internet to broadcast your results, just include
     enough to demonstrate that you are correct.
 
=sj "(Jed told us that the) cathode should be on the order of one milliamp
=sj   per square centimeter.This is
=sj very low compared to the P-F heavy water experiments."So that's what we did.
=sj Seems like you're bitchin' about our lowly currents,but we wuz just
=sj followin' Jed's instructions.  So quit yur gripin'."
 
   Were you following Jed's instructions in the recombination experiment?
   How could you extrapolate, if you were using nickel only at low current
    densities to all the experiments?
   Did you use a gas tank?
      It is not gentlemanly of you to complain and yet ignore the simple,
            and natural, questions each time.
      Just show the data which proves your statement.
 
 
=sj "Now good ol' Jonathon did raise the current up, and the recombination went
=sj right on up too, like he said.Finally got 'er up to 1.6 mW of xs heat which
=sj was actually nothin' but common recombination.  It would be right neighborly
=sj of ya to fix up yer table."
 
    If you might shower your eager readers with the simple data [and
     supplemental information as to whether
     a gas tank was used for any of the experiments (and which, so as to further
     clarify)], that data will be included.   Was 1.6 mWatts your maximum?
     The past posts have the few, albeit important, other questions.
     [When others have provided such information, the table was changed either
          in the next iteration, or immediately.]
 
    Thanks in advance.   (Just trying to get the facts, Stephen)
      Best wishes
               .                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / Dieter Britz /  Another Wais attempt
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another Wais attempt
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:50:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
As you know (or should know), the big bibliography is on the Wais data base.
I am just learning about all this, and didn't realise that this is a real
network, not a heap of individual data bases. I did wonder at the time, when I
first got into it, following Chuck's directions, how a single site can have
such an enormous amount of information. I found out that our computer
can access it, and had a go. As a comparison, I had it search for the keyword
"lithium"; it found 13 references, not bad compared to my 20, not all of which
have this word in the abstract that I wrote. You can choose any of the found
items, and look at it, which I did.
 
I then had it search for "ion beam". I have a list of ion beam references, and
I find it's rather out of date; in fact, I'll use Wais to update it, I think.
At first, Wais found 40. I remembered Chuck Harrison posting once (or maybe
emailing me) that 40 is the default maximum, but that you can set it higher.
I fiddled a bit and found out how, set it to 100, and tried again: it then
found 68. That's a lot more than my little list of 20 or so, hopelessly out of
date, as I say.
 
Now I wanted both of these found lists for keeps. The program that gives me
Wais is able to do this, in theory, because it faithfully records every byte
of the dialogue, and you can have it all put into a file when you get out.
Well, at this point, me scanning down the list of 68, the screen went haywire,
and it was all I could do to get out. So, no ion beam list. This might be the
fault of our local program, I'll check.
 
Chuck: what is the standard procedure for getting such a list? Or does one
write it all down off the screen?
 
Anyway, good stuff! This network is wonderful. Within half a day (determined
more by the time zone differences than anything, I think), I got all the info
I needed about FORTRAN 90, for example, and a huge FAQ file about literature
on Unix. Whatever you want to know, it's there, or there is someone who knows
and will tell you. I could even learn about GIF this way, too, I guess... {:]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:50:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department writes

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department writes
>
>In article <m0opAMX-0000TNC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
>writes:
>>mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>> >My father was one of the reviewers of the DoE fusion program, I think for
>> >the NAS.
>>
>> Big deal.  *I* was a reviewer of the DoE fusion program for The Coalition
>> for Science and Commerce.  Neither the NAS nor the CSC are granted
>> any authority under the magnetic fusion law.
>
>Yes, but the NAS is set up to advise the whitehouse on
>scientific matters, while, as far as I know, no one is
>requesting any advice from the "CSC".
 
Several investors have requested advice from the CSC on the viability of
technology investments and, as far as I know, no investment groups are
requesting advice from the "NAS".
 
>From your descriptions,
>I'd think the CSC has far more of an axe to grind,
 
The CSC is hostile to the government "picking winners" in technology
and therefore has an axe to grind.  The NAS is quite in love with the
idea of the government "picking winners" in technology (especially when
 its members get to do the picking) and therefore has an axe to grind.
 
>and far
>less scientific legitimacy, than the NAS.
 
That depends on your definition of "scientific legitimacy" doesn't it?
If one's ability to impress politicians is "scientific legitimacy" then
you are clearly correct.
 
I always thought "scientific legitimacy" was determined ENTIRELY
by one's ability to state "nonobvious" hypotheses and have others observe
that one's hypotheses agree with the evidence of their senses.
 
Outside of certain narrow areas having to do with "political science", such
predictive power seems to have a negative correlation with one's ability
to impress politicians.  The history of government-funded "fusion science"
is certainly a poor basis from which to attack this correlation.
 
In the specific area of "fusion science" let's take two sets of investors:
 
Set 1 believes "the CSC has far less scientific credibility than the NAS."
Just as you do.
 
Set 2 believes "the NAS has far less scientific credibility than the CSC."
 
Would you agree that if, in those areas where the NAS and the CSC disagree
the most, the investors in set 2 make "far more" money than the investors
in set one, that it is then safe to say "the NAS has far less scientific
 credibility than the CSC"?
 
(I encourage people to read Merriman's answer carefully and think about
 the implications of his response especially with respect to our eroding
 economic leadership as government funding of "science" has increased
 over the last few decades.)
 
For the record, the CSC advises:
 
1) That all fusion technologies now supported by the U.S. government
   have no virtually no chance of becoming economic.
 
2) The Migma might be valuable as a neutron source but as a fusion device
   its odds of economical operation, while better than the Tokamak, are
   around 1 in 50.
 
3) "Cold-fusion" should be avoided unless there is some way to invest
   directly in a group that P&F have assigned their intellectual property
   to, but even then, to play it as a 1 in 10 chance of payoff unless
   additional information comes to light.  (The Steve Jones version should
   be treated as about the same category as Migma in terms of economic
    payoff.)
 
4) The non-magnetic form of inertial eletrostatic confinement (not the
    technology funded by DARPA under Craig Fields, but the one based on
    Farnsworth's original patents) should be pursued under the guidance of
   Robert W. Bussard with a 1 in 4 chance of paying off with an economical
   aneutronic fusion (p-B11) device.
 
5) The plasma shell spheromak (PLASMAK(tm)) is the best bet right now with
   a 1 in 2 chance of producing an economical aneutronic fusion (p-B11)
   device and that its development should be pursued under the guidance
   of Paul M. Koloc, ASAP.
 
There are profound differences between the NAS's fusion energy
recommendations and those above.  (BTW:  The CSC does not now and
 has never advocated that the government invest in specific fusion
 technologies of its choosing.  The CSC's policy recommendations have
 always been that private investors should take the lead in picking
 fusion technology with government-directed funding being limited
 strictly to those areas that, as determined by the private investors,
 cannot result in patentable technology which might compete with private
 investors.)
 
I will obtain exact copies of the NAS's pronouncements on fusion energy
and post a corresponding set of advice based on those pronouncements with
references.
 
I hope people keep archives of this stuff around for future historians
to review and contemplate.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / mitchell swartz /  On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Harwell Melich
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:54:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9310200950.AA09295@suntan.Tandem.com>
    Subject: Harwell Melich (where did Hansen get into the frame?)
Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) did write:
 
  ===== On gossip
=   "You may also
= choose to ask Melich his opinion on the status of the paper that
= carried his name. I have no wish to make idle gossip in this forum
= about data that are not mine nor on speculation about *ongoing* research
= programmes."
 
  Then why did you say the following apparent gossip (*):
 
  =fc  "I find it remarkable that a programme of Melich which is still
  =fc ongoing and incomplete, not to mention "secret", supposedly has published
  =fc definitive results eleven months ago. Melich visited Harwell this summer
  =fc and understands the Harwell data better now than in 1992. If
  =fc anyone is seriously interested in a scientific debate I suggest
  =fc that you await a final considered report."
        [Subject: An open secret
        Message-ID: <9310150810.AA10393@suntan.Tandem.com>]
 
     (*)  gossip (after Webster ibid)
              "a rumor or report of an intimate nature"
 
 
  ===== On (un)availability of information in this field
= "Our library spends its scarce resources on the top journals; these
= do not include cold fusion conferences."
 
  How can you therefore claim to even be close as an accurate historian
   in this field without knowledge or access to these?
 
      frank  (after Webster ibid.)
            i.      free
            ii.     marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression
            iii.    clinically evident (unmistakeable)
        "FRANK stresses lack or shyness or secretiveness or of evasiveness
            from considerations of ract or expedience;"
 
  ===== On the paper behind the original question
= "A paper including the name of Hansen, who, I understand, is
= not a part of the Melich-Harwell collaboration, and which appeared in a
= non-peer reviewed form before .. (blah... and) does not cross the threshold
= of what I define as significant .... "
 
   It is THE paper in question, though, is it not?
 
  ==== On GIF (or other) imaging of data
=  "If you have a
= serious interest, do not waste time with puerile comments surmising that
= we do not have access to postscript, GIF etc."
 
  Well, here is what you said indicating that you did not have access
     to GIF (postscript was not mentioned, but is another possibility   :-)
 
     = "I have no copy of the data to which you have referred nor are GIF files
     = etc any use to me."
         [Subject: Harwell squash isnt gourmet diner
          Message-ID: <9310180834.AA08937@suntan.Tandem.com>
          Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 08:55:47 GMT]
 
  Since the popular press here hooted that Harwell (or other UK institutions)
  had taken the technology and time to bug, and humiliate, the Royals,
  it just seemed odd that you did not have the tech for the serious stuff.
    Guess that is all fixed now.
 
  ===== Tardive awareness of the paper
= "If the *only* data that you possess are those attributed to Melich and
= Hansen in Nagoya then they are from FP-style cells and irrelevant to
= the isothermal and steady-state experiments on which Harwell's upper
= limits were based (see the Harwell papers)."
 
  Again, since you now know the paper: this is indeed the experiment and
   paper being discussed.   Any sentient comments?  List is below.
 
  ===== Uniqueness theorem invoked
= "You did not make it clear as to whether these are the only data to
= which you were seeking comment, nor initially did you even make clear
= to what data you referred."
 
   This is the only data to which any post (save yours) has referred.
    I'd be glad to review any other data or information you send
    by hard copy or other means.
 
             Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
       ============ Past unanswered questions for Frank Close  ==========
 
 1.  Did these bursts of excess heat only occur in the D2O cells which were in
    series with the H2O controls?   What does that mean to you?
 2.  Do you know how many of these anomalous events they had?
 3.  Do you have any comment upon these cells which showed anomalous heat?
 4.  Specifically the data shown in the Melich paper (ICCF-3, vide infra),
      esp. figs. 1 & 2.   Could you comment on it or them? (questions above
           at number #3).
 5.  Melich and Hansen estimate these as 100-200mW (page. 400),
     well beyond the putative error limit.  Is that not correct?
 
         Looking forward to your informative comments.  Thanks again.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 19:52:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>...NAS is set up to advise the whitehouse...I'd think the CSC has far more
>of an axe to grind, and far less scientific legitimacy, than the NAS.
 
I think this belies more than a good bit of naivete.  But I had a good laugh.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 / John Logajan /  Re: On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 20:03:14 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) did write:
>= "Our library spends its scarce resources on the top journals; these
>= do not include cold fusion conferences."
>
>  How can you therefore claim to even be close as an accurate historian
>   in this field without knowledge or access to these?
 
I think Mitchell has you there, Frank.  You can't stand behind the ivy
curtain and also claim you have your finger on the pulse of CF activity.
 
You are free to make your stand anywhere you please, but you shouldn't
attempt to misrepresent it as something more than it is.  Since most of
the current CF work is outside your claimed scan range, you have implicitly
admitted not knowing what is going on.
 
This would certainly limit most people's claims of authoritativeness on an
evolving subject.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 /  gordon.powell@ /  MUON-CATALYZED FUSION REVISITED
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MUON-CATALYZED FUSION REVISITED
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 18:35:17
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD

 
Rich Schroeppel's inquiry about a way to gather cosmic ray muons
brings to mind the generally held opinion that the atmospheric
electric field accellerates muons created at the top of the
atmosphere.  Presumably they get relativistic so fast that the
2 microsecond decay time is not a problem.  It seems to be the opinion of many
people that these muons sometimes form  concentrated beams.  IMHO it is not
hard to infer
that there is a counter stream of electrons going upward and that
they are emitted from dielectric surfaces.  Dielectric surfaces are favored
because unlike a conductor there is no mirror charge to hold
back emission.  Mountain tops are great dielectrics.  So is the soil
beneath one of those peculiarly arrow-straight dust-devils sometimes
encountered.
 
        Many other macroscopic phenomena can also be reasonably
inferred to be caused by the same type of beam.  By the way, the
there is some evidence suggestive that the photoelectric effect
comes into play at the dielectric at the bottom.   All in all, Rich, this is a
great way way to collect muons.  I conjecture that fusion occurs in the
atmosphere in view of  some reports of macroscopic amounts of
sulfur and/or aluminum appearing mysteriously out of nowhere.
A great reference on possibly related evidence is William Corliss,
Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena, Arlington House, Inc., New York
NY 10003, (1986).
 
Perhaps  perhaps some of you noticed the recent Washington Post
article about U of Alaska work that imaged jellyfish shaped discharges
extending to the ionosphere from over thunderstorms. Muons I bet.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpowell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 /   /  TANSTAAFL - was: Boron fusion reactions
     
Originally-From: <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TANSTAAFL - was: Boron fusion reactions
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 21:56:10 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

'TANSTAAFL' - unless you're it.  So -- What's the catch?  Why isn't every
x-ray technician operating his own fusion power plant?  Is the nuclear
cross-section for such a reaction ridiculously small?  Is there some other
preferred reaction?  What am I missing that everyone else is whispering
behind my back?
 
Jim Owens
Opeenions?  Opeenions!?  We don' need no steenking Opeenions!!
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenLEN101 cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / John Logajan /  ZPE
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZPE
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 02:37:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear) writes:
>H.E. Puthoff
>it is only by continued, careful consideration of such proposals that we can
>hope to resolve the issue as to whether energy can be extracted from the
>vacuum
 
Hmm, if it is possible to extract energy from the ZPF vacuum, then it is
also likely that one could extract momentum from the ZPF vacuum -- which,
of course, has the ultimate in significance to space travel, and little
green men, for that matter.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: TANSTAAFL - was: Boron fusion reactions
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TANSTAAFL - was: Boron fusion reactions
Date: 21 Oct 1993 03:24:54 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
: 'TANSTAAFL' - unless you're it.  So -- What's the catch?  Why isn't every
: x-ray technician operating his own fusion power plant?  Is the nuclear
: cross-section for such a reaction ridiculously small?  Is there some other
: preferred reaction?  What am I missing that everyone else is whispering
: behind my back?
 
Nothing.  You got it right.
 
If we could get the conditions for barely sustained Boron reactions, we could
put D-T in and get *enormous* power out.
 
Those people saying "use boron" are making the assertion that
they can out-do the best estimates of future tokomak performance by
orders of magnitude.
 
Of course, talk is cheap.
 
: Jim Owens
: Opeenions?  Opeenions!?  We don' need no steenking Opeenions!!
 
matt
 
--
-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:
cuddy21 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / John Logajan /  Re: TANSTAAFL - was: Boron fusion reactions
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TANSTAAFL - was: Boron fusion reactions
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 03:26:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Why isn't every x-ray technician operating his own fusion power plant?
>Is the nuclear cross-section for such a reaction ridiculously small?
 
Most of the time you have misses or near misses.  If these particles fly
into a wall or something, that is a heat loss.  If you get slightly more
misses (times acceleration energy) than hits (times fusion energy), it
doesn't even pay to try.
 
But people like Bogdan Maglich, for example, theorize that by shaping a
magnetic field just right, the near misses could come around again and again
until they hit.  For each particle accelerated, then, you'd get a sufficient
percentage of hits to cause a net gain in energy.
 
It is definately NOT a piece of engineering cake, however.
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: s.p.f.ejournal
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: s.p.f.ejournal
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 02:14:31 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>    How can I resist such an invitation to think big?
 
Big ideas are hard to resist, aren't they?  Originally I was thinking ejournal
could be done via usenet.  I still think that is the way to go, simply
because its an easily accessable and highly automated way of distributing
materials.   On the advise of a couple other posters and suporters of the
idea, I've tried both the MIME standard (via the mail reader PINE) and
xmosaic (wow!), it certainly is feasable to 'publish' via the internet.
 
   MIME is an email standard, that allows the attachment of multiple binary
files to a post, which is like an automated way of uuencoding and uudecoding
via you email reader.  Right now, 'Pine' is the only email reader that has
this capability that I know of.  However, the standard for binary attachments
'MIME' is already an RFC, and could be easily adapted into the various news
reader programs.  People that recieve sci.ejournal by email could instantly
retrieve pictures, graphs, video, and sound by decoding the attachements and
running there favorite viewer, sound player etc.  For the paper portion
whole paper could be a binary picture, or it could be in the form of
TeX, LaTeX, or a variant.  The later does require some processing to get
a final readable file, but it does a good job for systems that have the
TeX program.  TeX is also readable in it's ascii form if one can follow
the symbolic substitutions.
 
    Xmosaic requires a live Internet connection (in it's current form).
It also requires a graphical user interface to work (like X windows,
Windows, and Mac.)  I use Linux (see comp.os.linux for more info) both
at home and for my PC at work running X windows, so I had no problem
getting Xmosaic working. It is an awsome hypertext thing (it does so
much when setup right it defies description.). A good example was I
connected to LANL's WWW server, grabbed the abstracts for 10/93
nuclear theory, found a paper on pionic atoms, ran it through TeX
and displayed it. At the same time in another window, I was connected
some sight in Astrailia viewing images of roman architeture.  It's
pretty impressive, and is a glimps into what can be done.  The problem
is it requires a live internet connection, which is still a luxury
to most.  For reading material in Usenet, it's possible, and if the
software is made aware of standard we set, anything is possible.
 
   So far, here is what I like.  Some form of MIME email format
for the posting. In it, the first four appended items would be
human readable. 2-3 could be turse containing a machine processable
layout, and 5 would be completely machine encoded.
 
1.  Brief abstract in Ascii
2.  Full abstract
3.  Main body in LaTeX (with and additional macro package to allow
    placement of appended pictures graphs and such)
4.  Bibliography     (hypertext'ed??)
5.  Pictures, Movies, Voice, Graphs. (GIF JPEG TIFF, MPEG, WAV, PS)
 
Anyway, thats one scheme for the physical transport layer.  I've only
played around with the MIME standard (via pine) over the past couple of
days, but I must say I like what I see.  For a reviewer or editor of
an ejournal, this would allow him/her to interact with the submitter
and visa/versa in a way that once corrected could be posted.  Also,
the appened items, may not need re-transmition if no updates are needed.
 
>    1.  There will be a need for several journals covering each
>discipline, but any such journal will expand disciplines to the limit
>of reviewers available.
 
Agreed, so we start a group, sci.ejournal.  The hiarachy for the various
journals could come from this.  That's feasable and would probably be welcome
in the other groups.  So long as all the journals used the same method of
publishing.  That would be the only requirement.
 
>    2.  No page limits drastically changes reviewer and editors
>styles.  (I've never met an author who thought about page limits, but
>there may be some. ;-)
 
I don't think that would be a problem either, but there may have to be some
practicle data limits here, on a per-journal/day basis.  Some news
processing sites do have limited temporary archive space for processing
usenet articles, (a 10MB uuencoded MPEG video would excessive on small
sites. The editors will have to be Usenet aware.)
 
3 - 7.  I'll pass on this for now. I think the editor should do little
except to verify everything is properly formatted to what ever publishing
standard is made. But that's open to discussion.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 08:04:22 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0opgCk-0000a9C@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
> For the record, the CSC advises:
>
> 1) fusion technologies now supported by the U.S. government
>    have ... no chance of becoming economic.
>
> 2) The Migma ... around 1 in 50.
>
> 3) "Cold-fusion" ... 1 in 10 chance of payoff
>
> 4) The non-magnetic form of inertial eletrostatic confinement
>     ... 1 in 4 chance of paying off ... with ... (p-B11) device.
>
> 5) The plasma shell spheromak (PLASMAK(tm)) 1 in 2 chance of ...
>    aneutronic fusion (p-B11)
 
 
First, Its amazing you can attach probabilities to the likely payoff
of largely untested and unproven concepts like 2--5.
 
Second, the economic viability of Tokamaks has been studied
in detail many times; its well known that extrapolating from
current machine characteristics leads to a reactor that
is at best only marginally economically viable. However,
based on these detailed studies, I can't see how you could have conclude that
viability is impossible (or at least << 1:50). I would say the prevailing
opinion is that tokamaks as presently understood will be economically
viable, but only once the cost of power from other sources has increased
by an order of magnitude, and only if we have very large power plants (~ 10GW).
 
Third: I can't see how your conclusion can be of much value to investors,
since your estimated odds of success seem inversely proportional
with how much is known about the technologies---i.e., the less
known, the more you favor it.
 
I agree that we should wait and let your investors lose all their
money before we draw conclusions though (don't forget all
the past investors in Migma, and the Riggatron---I'm sure your
group would have recommended these highly circa 1980).
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Another Wais attempt
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another Wais attempt
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:53:10 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

PS: I might have whetted your curiosity about this facility, without giving
you all the information you need. You might not have this nifty mother-hen
system program we have here, to call wais for you. All you really need is
to telnet to quake.think.com or 192.31.181.1, login as wais, and you're in.
 
As I said, it's all there. In making sure just now about the above, I did it
by hand, and saw a data base on Indian classical music. So I typed in the
keyword Balachander, a marvellous Veena player, of whom I have only a poor
quality reel tape, and got three hits of (I think) grammophone records, which
I'll go and order. Bloody marvellous.
 
Dieter Britz alias kemidb@aau.dk alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
 -------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Frank Close /  Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar. (ex Harwell)
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar. (ex Harwell)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 11:35:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Mitchell (and also John Logajan)
 
You selectively quoted me and/or have drawn illogical inferences.
 
FC"Our library spends its scarce resources on the top journals; these
FC do not include cold fusion conferences".
 
>From this you erroneously infer that I do not have access to the literature
(and by some further idiosyncratic logic and thereby unable to make
informed comment on CNF). However, you omitted my next sentence:
 
FC "Copies of possibly significant papers,
FC  such as Hagelsteins review,can usually be obtained from their authors"
 
This is a standard part of the research process; it avoids subsidising
publishers of expensive tomes or marginal journals much of whose contents
are not worth the paper they are written on. Combined with discussions with
experts, especially those whose expertise lies outside ones own immediate
area, it has served me well for 25 years. If it supposedly fails in
CNF, then this is another feature that distinguishes CNF from normal
science. The lack of external discussion with experts was one of the
causes of the original Fleischmann-Pons disaster, as I concluded in
my book; I do not recommend that this continue to be the norm for this, or
any field.
 
 
________________________________________________________________________
The main change in the last years has been that daily I peruse some
30 abstracts by e-mail and print out any required, including figures :-)
So you have misunderstood my statement that "GIF files are of no use to me"
The explanation was within the following statement that you chose to
ignore in your quotation:
 
FC "Data transmitted on email have dubious legal status; having interacted
FC  with Drs Pons and Fleischmann, for whom you have acted as mailman, and
FC  their attorney, I do not deal with other than hard copy {for these
    reasons of legal protection}".
 
If I had confidence that your interest was primarily scientific I would
be prepared to forego that. However, you have not convinced me that that
is the case.
 
_______________________________________________________________________
I posted too that I will not indulge in gossip about other peoples
*DATA* in *ONGOING RESEARCH PROJECTS*. This is accepted ethical practice.
 
I repeat; if you have a serious interest in the ongoing and not completed work
then contact Williams or Melich.That Melich and Harwell are in collaboration
is not "gossip"; it is in the public domain. Nor is it "secret" (when I
referred to "secret" in reply to Noninski, it was with irony - check the
Webster's definition against the Oxford one - but you seem to have taken it
as otherwise. Perhaps I should have invcluded the emoticon :-P) = tongue
in cheek).
 
As regards the Hansen-Melich paper: we have established that
it does not deal with isothermal nor steady state cells. Thus it
has nothing to offer on Harwell's published upper limits from these latter
cells. If you want to assess the latter, then await their final report
or contact them directly.
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Another Wais attempt
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another Wais attempt
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 12:04:26 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Dieter Britz (kemidb@aau.dk) wrote:
: As I said, it's all there. In making sure just now about the above, I did it
: by hand, and saw a data base on Indian classical music. So I typed in the
: keyword Balachander, a marvellous Veena player, of whom I have only a poor
: quality reel tape, and got three hits of (I think) grammophone records, which
: I'll go and order. Bloody marvellous.
 
You might want to try accessing your nearest Gopher, this should have WAIS
set up somewhere. Type in gopher and see what happens. With gopher things
get even easier. You could always go through ours.
 
Searching the database of the past postings on this group can also be
informative :-)
 
Let's hope that you never discover irc.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar. (ex Harwell)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar. (ex Harwell)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 15:22:12 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:
>it has served me well for 25 years. If it supposedly fails in
>CNF, then this is another feature that distinguishes CNF from normal
>science.
 
That's as may be, but nevertheless, it is a poor entomologist who studies
only those bugs that crawl across his office floor.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 21 Oct 1993 16:34:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Oct19.125046.1006@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
 
>E-input/muon = 3000 MeV (calculated optimum)
>E-out(thermal)/muon = 150 fusions/muon X 20 GeV/d-t fusion = 3000 MeV.
>
>Thus, we have, at least on paper, thermal breakeven for the muon-catalyzed
>fusion approach.  But we're not done yet:  we need a factor of 3 for
>thermal-to-electrical conversion, and say 5 for commercial power.
>Hence the order or magnitude needed for muon catalyzed fusion to reach
>commercial power levels.
 
Does this factor of 3-5 include the energy costs of producing the d-t
mixture?  I assume you get back way more from the fusion than you spent in
making the d-t (chemical vs. nuclear energy), but how does the engineering
actually work out?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: deuteron spins
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuteron spins
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 19:04:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <93101815421972@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
> Terry B. describes how electron spin is treated in crystals as follows:
>
> | "Typical approaches to this issue in electron banding are to either:
> | (a) treat each energy/momentum state as capable of containing how-
> | ever many distinct spin states can exist or (b) treat each spin
> | as a separate band that is physically co-located in the same medium
> | as the other spin band."
>
> I may quickly step off into deep quicksand here, but I see these approaches
> as working only when electrons are all paired and/or the spin degeneracy
> is not broken.  In the deuteron lattice case we start with an ensemble of
> randomly oriented spins, one of three spin states at each lattice site.
> It seems to me if I try the separate band approach, i.e. three bands,..
 
Terminology note:  Because the deuteron is a boson, I would personally
prefer to say "Bose gas" or (if it is very cold!) a "Bose condensate", as
opposed to a "band."  I realize that "band" is used in the literature for
both fermions and bosons, but the name originated from the spreading of
energy states that occurs when fermions are pushed together in condensed
matter.  No such spreading occurs for bosons in condensed matter, and too
casual a treatment of this very significant difference can get a person
into serious conceptual trouble in a hurry.  At any rate, Bose gases
behave very differently from fermi bands, whatever one calls them.
 
Thus I would say that rather than three bands, you have the _potential_
for three distinct Bose condensates:  spin -1, 0, and 1.  In practice, you
should get not Bose condensates, but Bose gases -- that is, sets of bosons
separated quite randomly into many very-closely-spaced energy levels due to
thermal effects.  And the Bose gas would be come a Bose condensate _only_
if enough of them get into the same energy state to make bose statistics
relevant -- either, say, by making it very, very cold, or (ya'll remember?)
by some unknown methods of compression of the energy state density, such as
the diffraction methods suggested here several months ago by Bernecky.
 
> ... I no longer have a lattice because the spin state at one lattice point
> is independent of what is at the next lattice point...
 
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by this.  If it's a bose gas, then
yes, I suppose (but do not know) that there will rather little correlation
of spins from site to adjacent site.  On the other hand, there might well
be some purely local pairing of deuteron spins (either ortho or para)
between two or more adjacent sites.  Or some kind of long-range correlation
of a potentially quite complex form.
 
For example, I would note that some hydrides most certainly _do_ exhibit
curious long-range ordering effects of the hydrogen atoms.  My favorite
example is a long, sinusoidal pattern in one compound that I believe was
described in a Blaschko paper.  This sort of thing says pretty clearly that
the simplest possible model of independent hydrogens in vacancy sites is
not adequate.  Long-range quantum correlations of some sort clearly do
exist, although such effects can of course be argued to be electronic in
nature rather than related to hydrogen delocalization.  If they are
delocalization related, there should be a strong isotope dependency due to
the lower tunneling potential of deuterium versus protium; I do not know if
any comparative studies of this issue in Blaschko-type long-range ordered
hydride compounds have ever been done, however.
 
> ... The other approach would seem to require that nothing breaks the
> degeneracy.  Now this is where the wheels fall off as far as producing
> a "band" of interacting deuterons...
 
Again, I really do not understand what you mean, especially by "breaks
the degeneracy."  So I cannot really comment, but in typical Terry fahion
will of course proceed to do so anyway.  By "degenerate" I simply meant
that each potential energy state could be occupied by however many distinct
spin states are available.  So I really only meant "degenerate" in the
rather trivial sense of, say, the 1s state of helium, which can hold two
electrons (spin +1/2, -1/2) with exactly the same energy.
 
There's really nothing to be broken there.  It's just that you have more
_potential_ states available for occupation.  Every possible energy level
for a deuterium nucleus in the Pd lattice has three different spin
orientations (-1, 0, +1) that could be filled without any "grumbling."
 
For a bose particle like a deuteron, it makes darned little difference
anyway, since they could _all_ tumble into the same energy state and be
as happy as ducks about it when they do.  Spin for bose gases is really
relevant only in that it permits the formation of three independent
condensates -- _if_ you can get the bose gas to condense at all!
 
For fermions such as electrons, spin is much more relevant because the
added states will lower the Fermi surface of the band -- that is, the
"thickness" of the band will tend to be inversely related to the number
of spin states.  All very hypothetical, of course, since the only particle
that is good for building such bands (electrons) only come in spin 1/2
form!  Replacing the spin 1/2 conduction electrons in (say) silver with
spin 5/2 electrons would be _fascinating_ to watch, but a tad hard to do!
 
> ... The interaction between two deuterons is strongly spin dependent,
> at least when there wave functions overlap enough to lead to reaction.
> I don't think you can make this notion of band effects fly unless you
> prepare a lattice which is ordered with respect to spin.
 
This is a debate you are having with someone else, not me.  My position
remains that delocalization of deuterons into each other's "space" hasn't
got beans to do with nuclear anything, as they remain quiescent relative
to each other after "translation" into the delocalized wave represention.
 
As far as I can see, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether they are
spin para, spin ortho, or spin cattywampus -- they aren't going to interact
unless you whallop them with a pile of energy.  And once you whallop them,
they will leave all this bose gas, bose condensate, and fermi band stuff
far behind and start behaving like the quite ordinary, highly isolated
hot particles of plasma physics.
 
> At the very least if you start with a random ensemble of deuteron spins
> and you invoke pairwise reactions you will have a statistical assortment
> of initial state spins.  Now how are you going to get from there to
> a universal final state that  always decays in the same way without
> regard to how much angular momentum is involved?
 
Wowzers, _what_ have you been reading, anyway?  I guess this is some of the
deuterium-to-helium4 stuff you are referring to, maybe with a Chubb flavor?
 
Pairwise reactions?  Universal final states?  100% decay by a selected path?
All news to me.  Do you have a reference for where this is coming from?
 
Anywho, I am quite decidely not a good target for such a question, since
I haven't got the foggiest idea what it is about, and flatly don't accept
the key premise that "delocalization" implies "nuclear interaction."  This
is the kind of statement that is based on a misunderstanding of how wave
functions operate, not on some profound implication of the very real effect
of site-to-site hydrogen tunnelling in transition metal hydrides.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A8
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A8
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 22:25:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings Data Fans,      Message A8                        21 October 1993
 
There has now been some time to look at the 2000 joule event.  I have read
carefully everything written on it.  I have attempted to respond to every
question.  If I have missed one, please remind me.  The event is clearly not
perfect, and the instrumentation is not foolproof.  Still, there seems to be
no good explanation.  I had particularly expected the chemists to come up with
some high energy reaction using the stuff in the cell that would produce 2000
or so joules.  Unless I missed it, there was no viable chemical explanation.
 
While the data is interesting, it does not meet my personal requirements for
publication.  But it will be here for all to see.
 
Since this is just one of many such events (albeit one of the larger ones), it
would appear that it is worth continuing this work.  Here is my plan:
 
1) Continue the design of a high performance calorimeter using heat pipes.
The plan is to build a pair of calorimeters.  Each will have three independent
measurements of heat.  The general plan will be to run a cell in one
calorimeter and a recombiner in the second.  That way all parts of the heat
reactions can be tracked.
 
2) Attend ICCF4 to get the latest "word" %*)
 
3) Be up and calibrating about March of 94.  We will calibrate on line to a
data base.
 
4) Start the first experiment about June of 94.  Again, we will run on line to
a data base.
 
I am looking for a few good persons to join me in this endeavor.  While I hope
that you will join this effort with your particularly ability and your own
resources to procure the stuff you need, I could find a a small amount of
money to buy materials or services for someone talented.  You will notice that
I qualify my descriptions of these collaborators by the tools that they bring
to the effort.  This is just for fun.  We hope that everyone involved will do
a little of everything.  Do not be bashful about joining this effort because
you think you are not "good enough", or an "expert", or that you have no
tools.  The way you become an "expert" is to throw your energy and your brains
into trying to do a good job.   Don't be intimidated by my list below.  If you
think you can help, then you likely can.  At the moment this college neither
requires nor gives degrees.  But be prepared for a pommeling if you present
fuzzy thinking.
 
While I imply an experimental plan above, the hope is to come to an
experimental design through an open discussion here.  When we reach a
consensus we will all set about implementation.
 
Join up now and influence the design!  Send me a message that commits a level
of effort to one of the jobs below, or one that you make up for yourself.
Send to:  droege@fnald.fnal.gov
 
Some proposed tasks:
 
a) An Alchemist.
 
This individual has access to a furnace hot enough to melt Palladium under
controlled conditions and who knows how to make alloys and test what has been
created.  Rolling, annealing, and cutting equipment would be useful to make
cathodes.
 
b) A Little Old Cell Maker
 
Someone who repairs old watches or builds sailing ships in bottles would be
about right.  Some good tools to bring to the effort would be a jeweler's
lathe, a polishing machine and a mineature spot welder.
 
c) A Team of Data Munchers
 
Just about anyone here can qualify for this job.  Mostly I need someone who
will lead the effort.  We hope to post the data to a data base somewhere while
it is being taken.  The right person likely has six computers networked and
keeps them all busy.
 
d) General Purpose Wizzards
 
There seem to be quite a few present in s.p.f.  You can tell a GPW in that he
sometimes wears glasses dark enough to filter an H bomb flash, has a
collection of energy storage capicators in his basement, an a power company
that wonders why lightning strikes so often near his house.  We hope the GPW
will pass on their wisdom when it is needed.
 
e) Information Collectors/Distributors
 
The main qualifications here are access to a good library and a xerox machine
and the willingness to read *everything* and to circulate the good stuff.
 
f) Stuff Analyzers
 
These people have access to machines with acronyms like PSEM, STEM, TMRO, VMP,
etc..  (Sorry if I actually got any of them right - the attempt was to make
them up but the last one stands for Vulcan Mind Probe).  They all cost
millions, so no one is likely to have one in his basement.  They need to work
at institutions that allow them to measure anything of interest to them.  The
hope is that the stuff analyzers will also come with strong opinions as to
what should be done, and will thus influence the experimental design.
 
g) Instrumentationalists
 
OK, I think I am pretty expert.  But it would be good to have one or two
others who know what they are doing to keep an eye on me.  I would like to
share schematic designs before I go to the trouble of doing PC layouts.
 
h) Graphics Expert
 
This media is just fine for words.  I would like someone to take on the job of
creating a consensus way to interchange pictorial data.  The scheme should
allow graphs, pictures, drawings and schematics.  Note that the last two
require pretty high resolution.  The big job here is to get everyone to agree
that the chosen method is the best.  Then finding software for everyone to use
at minimal cost.
 
i) Advice on Mechanical Engineering and Machining.
 
Likely most of this work will be done locally.  For the heat pipe scheme we
need to make a bunch of vacuum tight shells.  Likely made from aluminum.  This
means someone who knows how to make such things could advise us on how to form
the various parts.  Even better would be someone who could make these.  But if
you can only design them and cost estimate them and supervise their
fabrication locally, I could pay the bills.
 
j) Advice and Guidance on Electrochemistry
 
Almost forgot this one.  Too obvious.  Even better than advice is someone
willing to mix up solutions, and make devices.  With all the rules these days,
it is a little tricky to ship solutions back and fourth.  My brother has done
a lot of the solution mixing in the past, and mostly knows the rules.  In any
case, it is pretty easy to ship things very safely within the US by UPS if you
have access to a polyethelyne bag sealer.  A bag within a bag and some
absorbent material is very safe, and likely even obeys the rules.  But I would
not ask anyone to send such stuff through customs, so US volunteers only
please if you want to mix up stuff with your chemistry set for us.
 
k)  A Glass Blower
 
At least someone who has a little experience making things with glass.  Even
someone who knows how to buy glass things would help.  Some things just need
to be made from glass.  I would like a few of the part silvered dewars that
P&F use to try duplicate their results.  Does someone know where to buy them
or did they have them specially made?  If so, how much is it apt to cost to
get a few?
 
l)  A Coordiator
 
It looks like I have signed up for this job, but I would willingly give it up
and spend all my time designing electronics and making heat shells.  Would
someone else like the job of pulling everything together?
 
Note that some of these jobs have already been applied for, as I have been
corresponding with some likely workers.  Several experts working together
would be fine.  Some of you might want to take on several tasks.  It will only
take a half-dozen or so of us making a significant hobby of this to create
something new and exciting.  Note that I do not even claim the right to run
the experiment in my basement.  If it makes sense to move it somewhere else,
we will do so.
 
One will see no distinction between "true believers" and "skeptics" in the job
descriptions.  No distinction is needed.  The results will be the test, and
the meaning will be interpreted here on line.  Minority reports or papers will
be allowed.
 
The plan is to do an open experiment on sci.physics.fusion.  This is then a
live e-journal college where the work is reviewed and critiqued as it goes.
If there is a significant result, the plan is to create the paper on line, and
then send it to a journal under the authorship sci.physics.fusion.  Whatever
the result, we will be breaking new ground.
 
Henny Penny will still make the bread without help.  I am bound to do it.  But
it would be a lot of fun to explore a group effort because we can achieve more
collectively.  I am personally so far right of the communists that I sometimes
share their ideas.  I join with others to become individually stronger, not to
subvert my strength to some lower common denominator.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 18:43:12 EDT

         Barry Merriman posts:
>Second, the economic viability of Tokamaks has been studied
>in detail many times; its well known that extrapolating from
>current machine characteristics leads to a reactor that
>is at best only marginally economically viable. However,
>based on these detailed studies, I can't see how you could have conclude that
>viability is impossible (or at least << 1:50). I would say the prevailing
>opinion is that tokamaks as presently understood will be economically
>viable, but only once the cost of power from other sources has increased
>by an order of magnitude, and only if we have very large power plants (~ 10GW).
         Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo-
voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive
and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a
fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre-
vailing opinion you state.  So what are you complaining about?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: ZPE
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ZPE
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 21:13:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct21.023725.13899@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>Hmm, if it is possible to extract energy from the ZPF vacuum, then it is
>also likely that one could extract momentum from the ZPF vacuum -- which,
>of course, has the ultimate in significance to space travel, and little
>green men, for that matter.
 
This whole line of reasoning seems to like a person looking into a
mirror and saying, "Boy, if I could get that guy to help me, my work
would only be half as hard."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 21:25:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct20.200314.8087@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
>This would certainly limit most people's claims of authoritativeness on an
>evolving subject.
 
This is the most preposterous thing I have seen written here by anyone
outside of the Rothwell/Swartz duo.
 
Exactly WHAT evolution is ocurring in this so-called field? Have there been
reproduceable positives? Has anyone published a 'how-to'?
 
Do you consider chasing wild geese up dead alleys to be part of "evolving"?
 
Steven Jones et. al. have shown that there is _probably_ is considerable
error added to published experiments from recombination.
 
Tom Droege has shown that there are serious questions about the accuracy
and effectiveness of the calorimetry used by the few positives.
 
Question after question has gone unanswered by the CNF group and published
papers have become more and more scarce and those published are not exactly
quality papers.
 
Exactly what does one need to be an expert in bull shit? The nose of
a wine taster?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / mitchell swartz /  Frank Gossip about Harwell
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Frank Gossip about Harwell
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 02:32:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9310211103.AA25296@suntan.Tandem.com>
   Subject: Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar (ex Harwell)
Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) writes:
 
=fc  "You selectively quoted me and/or have drawn illogical inferences."
 
  Neither John nor I have done so.   You have touted yourself, both elsewhere
and HERE, as the historian of cold fusion and have used both your postings
(and well-known book) to knock the field.
  Fortunately, you have squarely defined yourself by your own words.
 
 
     FC "Our library spends its scarce resources on the top journals; these
     FC do not include cold fusion conferences".
=fc >From this you erroneously infer that I do not have access to the literature
=fc (and by some further idiosyncratic logic and thereby unable to make
=fc  informed comment on CNF). However, you omitted my next sentence:
   FC "Copies of possibly significant papers,
   FC  such as Hagelsteins review,can usually be obtained from their authors"
 
  Seems awfully selective, and unfortunate, for a "historian" on cold fusion to
   1) not have access to the few conference proceedings
   2) to claim they are not needed since "possibly significant
     papers" (a little bias here?) "can usually be obtained ..."
                                       \/\/\/\/\/
 
  Actually to your comments, no one has said it better than John Logajan,:
   "That's as may be, but nevertheless, it is a poor entomologist who studies
    only those bugs that crawl across his office floor."
 
=fc "This is a standard part of the research process; it avoids subsidising
=fc publishers of expensive tomes or marginal journals much of whose contents
=fc are not worth the paper they are written on."
 
   Ignoring your denigration of publishers, writers, and scientists,
 there has been only one international conference a year.   Therefore, about
 only three total so far.  Most of us actually thought you knew something
about this field, given your gossiping about Harwell and your book.  I even
 bought a copy, Frank.
 
 
=fc "I posted too that I will not indulge in gossip about other peoples
=fc *DATA* in *ONGOING RESEARCH PROJECTS*. This is accepted ethical practice.
 
   Frank, we didn't even know about it until you leaked the information.
 Second, the impact of this new "programme"(?) was also leaked by you when
you reported the imminent voiding of Dr. Melich's previous paper,when you said:
 
  =fc  "I find it remarkable that a programme of Melich which is still
  =fc ongoing and incomplete, not to mention "secret", supposedly has published
  =fc definitive results eleven months ago. Melich visited Harwell this summer
  =fc and understands the Harwell data better now than in 1992. If
  =fc anyone is seriously interested in a scientific debate I suggest
  =fc that you await a final considered report."
                 [Subject: An open secret
        Message-ID: <9310150810.AA10393@suntan.Tandem.com>]
 
     (*)  "gossip"   (after Webster ibid)
              "a rumor or report of an intimate nature"
 
  When you tell everyone worldwide to "await a final considered report" based
upon your knowledge of a putative visit - after the published paper - that
you claim left the author of said paper with "better (understanding)",
then you have posted elements of both rumor AND report of both meetings
and findings with which you have close link.                       QED
 
=fc "As regards the Hansen-Melich paper: we have established that
=fc it does not deal with isothermal nor steady state cells. Thus it
=fc has nothing to offer on Harwell's published upper limits from these latter
=fc cells. If you want to assess the latter, then await their final report
=fc or contact them directly."
 
  You merely failed to give the simple answers again.
  Instead, you have intimated that other experiments which were negative (at the
the same institution) "override" any other ones which did show asymmetry between
light and heavy water.  Luckily, the curves speak for themselves; as does
 your silence.  Given the latter, we will look forward to the final
 considered report.
                       Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / mitchell swartz /  Images for Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 02:30:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Oct20.093053.29563@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
      Subject: Images (was: Harwell ... )
   Karel Hladky (khladky@nessie) wrote:
 
== "Uuencoded GIFs are just fine. Whatever you do don't use lossy encoding such
== as JPEG for these monochrome scans."
 
   The scans are not all monochrome.  The GIFs of Tom Droege's data were
actually in 16 colors.  We may need 32+ colors for his upcoming data set. :-)X
 
 
==  "Just about any self respecting machine
== will display GIF and many Usenet readers have uudecoding built in. A minor
== point, it might be a good idea to post the picture description as ..Part 0/1
== and the actual picture code as ..Part 1/1 or whatever. Of course if people
== are reading this stuff on their ASR-33 teletypes then nothing will help :-)"
 
 Good idea on the coding.  Judging by the e-mail, GIF is not universal, and
the system(s probably DECODING) are not automatic as of yet.
 
 Incidentally, I tried writing the files to ram: disk to compare
 the "bandwidth" of JPEG, GIF, and postscript (which Frank Close mentioned).
 For that figure 2 (from Melich's paper) here is the data:
 _________________________________________________
   coding (not UUENCODING)    size of file [bytes]
     GIF                        71,656
     IFF                       104,512
     JPEG                      328,896   <-- hence Karel's comments)
     postscript            >2,100,000 (**)  <-- doesn't seem reasonable
                                                without coding (ideas?)
   ** - non-fatal write-error from lack of room on the ram:disk
  ------------------------------------------------
 
  Most efficient was GIF, hence the choice for the posting tried.
The various problems readers (viewers?) seem to have is with the UUENCODING
(or UUDECODING).    [Is there a paragraph on that in the FAQ you
                     downloaded on unix, Dieter?            :-)
 
== "And why doesn't someone just ring up or e-mail Dave Williams at Harwell and
== ask what the problem was with his Cell 4 ?"
 
  What problem?
                    Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / mitchell swartz /  On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Harwell Melich
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 03:03:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <tomkCF9nID.62x@netcom.com>
     Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
=tk  Exactly WHAT evolution is ocurring in this so-called field?
 
o  Increased power densities.
o  Excess enthalpies with both heavy and light water with more than
     one metal.
o  Better understanding of the physics, metallurgy, etc.
o  Better understanding of the flawed "negative" experiments and
    subsequent hype which covered up this new phenomenon.
o  Better understanding of how the editors (and biased reviewers) of a
     few key journals present dissemination of the scientific work.
o  More journals covering the field.
o  More collaboration.
 
  Thought you were following the literature, Thomas.  You and Frank
    ought to get with the program.
 
                       Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 01:58:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>>This would certainly limit most people's claims of authoritativeness on an
>>evolving subject.
>
>This is the most preposterous thing I have seen written here by anyone
 
At last!  I'm a leader in my field.  :-)
 
>Exactly WHAT evolution is ocurring in this so-called field? Have there been
>reproduceable positives? Has anyone published a 'how-to'?
 
The point is that one shouldn't pontificate about a phenomena one chooses
not to go out and study.  CNF may be bogus -- but unless you go look at the
carcass, how can you say one way or the other?
 
>Do you consider chasing wild geese up dead alleys to be part of "evolving"?
 
If one wants to study wild geese, he goes were the goose is.
 
>Exactly what does one need to be an expert in bull shit? The nose of
>a wine taster?
 
If one wants to proclaim something BS, they should at least look at it
first (or smell it, or whatever metaphor you like best.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  "FAQ table needs fixin' "
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  "FAQ table needs fixin' "
Date: 20 Oct 93 14:48:03 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Rather than fixin' his table, Mitch just asks more questions (below).
Guess I'll answer again, see whether any progress is made.
It's an uphill struggle, because the table with its errors reflects, IMHO,
Mitch's view of cold fusion, which will be hard to change.
I may learn something too, of course.  Here goes:
 
In article <CF71Mw.I5q@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1993Oct19.174312.1009@physc1.byu.edu>
>    Subject: FAQ table needs fixin'
> Stephen Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
That's Steven with a "v".
>
> =sj "Well, Mitch, you ol' rascal you!  Doin' it again, I see.  No sir,
> =sj your "FAQ" table ain't factual 'tall.  Let's try and git it right
> =sj this time, what d'ya say?"
>
>    No problem.  Just send the data [vide infra] by post or by email.
>    Also, Jonathan's data had a few errors which have been corrected now
>     by other readers.  This is, like science, an iterative process, right?
>
 
The data have already been posted, and relevant points were included in
"Scientific Criticism" by me on 28 Sept. and in my post of 10-20-93 you are
respoding to.  These shouldn't have to be reposted again and again; you should
fix your table to accurately reflect these posts.
 
> =sj "From posting 28 Sept. 1993, "Scientific Criticism", by S.E. Jones:
> =sj "As explained above, the "silicate effect" when combined with possible
> =sj (I think highly probable) errors in cell potential "estimates"
> =sj can account for several *watts* of putative excess power in the P&F
> =sj boiling-cell experiments.  If you refer to the silicate-layer/Joule heating
> =sj effect as a "Jones effect",Mitch, please put "watts" by it as my assertion."
>
>   No problem, Stephen.  Just prove that a silicate layer can produce
>    excess heat.  So far, it has been shown (by me in a previous posting
>    using a simple model) that it can generate heat, but not "excess heat".
>
>   Please simply demonstrate theoretically, or show any experimental
>    evidence.                         Thanks in advance.
 
The experimental evidence were given in "Scientific Criticism."  To reiterate
briefly:  P&F show data that both temperature and input voltage rise over
days of running, but without explaining why.  I suggest this is due to
deposition of silicates (or aluminates or borates) on their electrode(s).
Clearly, the resistance of the cell is increasing so that voltage must increase
(as the data show) to keep the input power constant.  Consequently, the I^2*R
heating increases, and this heating will only accelerate silicates dissolving
from the glass tubes into the electrolyte.
 
Do you (or Dieter or John or anyone) have an alternative explanation for
the rise in cell temp. which tracks rise in cell voltage?  I'd really like to
know.  Certainly P&F do not proffer an explanation in their paper, which
is at best an oversight.
 
This is not excess heat unless the input power is underestimated due to
inaccurate measurements, as Tom and Dieter and others have pointed out could
occur.  I noted that during the final boiling period, numbers given by P&F
in their paper imply an input voltage of 76 volts -- a whopping potential!
And they say that their calculation  of excess heat is based on estimates:
 
"The enthalpy input is estimated from the cell potential-time record" (p. 128)
                       ^^^^^^^^^
But the plots give in their paper (for the umpteenth time) do not give enough
detail to read the cell potential in the final boiling period, at all.  So
what do they mean by "input is estimated" -- I'd like to see the data and be
given an error bar on this estimate.
 
(Note that this explanation does *not* depend on Li deposition beneath the
silicate layer, although this could contribute to errors in cell potential
estimates.)
 
Mitch, I do not feel compelled to prove their error.  It is the author's duty
to provide compelling evidence for their claims, which P&F have not done.
 
>
> =sj "Also incorrectly,you show the Notoya effect to account for zero excess
> =sj  power, when in fact Jonathon posted a comment (again)."
> =sj "The control cell initially had
> =sj 3.4 V with 0.6 A, or 2.04 W.  But when BYU student David Buehler moved the
> =sj alligator clips to points on the thin lead wires where these entered the
> =sj control cell, he then found 2.57V with 0.72 A, or 1.85W.  Thus, 2.04-1.85 W
> =sj = 190 milliwatts (for your table, Mitch) were being dissipated into the air,
> =sj which evidently accounts for the putative excess heat in the Notoya
> =sj demonstration. ... Thus, the "Notoya effect" accounts for 190 mW of "excess
> =sj power" -- put that in your table, thank you."
>
>    Like yourself, Jonathon appears selective in the comments to which he has
>     responded.  Dr. V. Noninski pointed out that there apparently were
>    some changed numbers.  If you and he can simply work this out so that
>    there is one (1) set of figures for this, it will be put in.
>    The FAQ included the one of the dates the controversy involving the
>    different numbers was discussed.
>     Simply post the one set of values, showing a significant difference, and
>     demonstrating that it generates "excess heat" for measured and calibrated
>     systems.                         \/\/\/\/\/\
>
 
The set of numbers posted above is the "one set of values" you request and is
based on measurements by Buehler, which have not changed at all.  We
demonstrated that this difference in input power into the control cell compared
to the Ni/H2O cell produced the alleged "excess heat," as posted long ago
(12 Nov 1992).  The numbers did not change; I did make a correction,
repeatedly:  I initially said that the control cell and the Ni/H2O cell had
"approx. the same voltage and I", unfortunately leaving out "as regards Joule
heating;  that is, a higher input voltage was applied to the Ni/H2O cell to
compensate for I*1.48V power lost due to escaping hydrogen and oxygen."
David Buehler corrected my misstatement, without changing the numbers at all.
 
>
> =sj "We've been right patient with y'all.Now it's high time to correct that
> =sj table, mister."
>
>    We've been patient for you to answer the questions.  They've been posted
>    several times already.  It's high time you answer them, having put your
>    "data on the chopping block" by publically proclaiming them, and then
>    denigrating others' work based upon your claims.  It is reasonable that
>    if you are going to use Internet to broadcast your results, just include
>      enough to demonstrate that you are correct.
>
 
Can't prove that silicate deposition and low estimates of input power
account for P&F's boiling cells, but I think the explanation is reasonable and
raises questions they should answer.  They are the ones who have to come up
with a reasonable explanation.  The Notoya demonstration was, however,
shown to be in error.
 
> =sj "(Jed told us that the) cathode should be on the order of one milliamp
> =sj   per square centimeter.This is
> =sj very low compared to the P-F heavy water experiments."So that's what we did.
> =sj Seems like you're bitchin' about our lowly currents,but we wuz just
> =sj followin' Jed's instructions.  So quit yur gripin'."
>
>    Were you following Jed's instructions in the recombination experiment?
Yes, and he was the one who pointed out that the Ni/H2O experiments use low
current densities.  So we did too.
 
>    How could you extrapolate, if you were using nickel only at low current
>     densities to all the experiments?
We question the Ni/H2O experiments, where we showed that claimed xs heat could
be all accounted for as neglected recombination.  And we found *no* x-rays
with a sensitive x-ray spectrometer in those experiments.
 
We warn that those claiming xs heat need to carefully rule out recombination
in their experiments, as Miles et al. and most other xs heat enthusiasts have
*not* done.  Again, we do not need to prove them wrong.  Their job is to
rule out suspicious effects (like recombination which we have shown to be
problematical in some experiments) *before* they claim "xs heat due to nuclear
reactions."   Anyone who calculates xs power with the expression
  I*(V - 1.5volts)       [assumes no recombination, and blows up as V-->1.5V]
in the denominator is courting trouble, as we have repeatedly said. P&F, Miles,
Mills, Notoya -- most xs heat enthusiasts do just that.
 
>    Did you use a gas tank?
Yes, ocassionally. However, the 1.6mW of putative xs power noted in my posting
(quoted below) was obtained without bubbling any gas into the
cell.  Then we bubbled nitrogen into the cell and watched the "xs power"
go away, as hydrogen and oxygen were purged from the electrolyte by the N2.
Another time, Jonathon bubbled oxygen through a cell, and watched the "xs
power" go up, as recombination increased.  We also increased the path length
between anode and cathode, without using any gas tank, and watched the "xs
heat" disappear.  By means of such tests, we demonstrated that recombination
cannot be ignored, and when it is ignored, erroneous "xs heat" is calculated.
 
>       It is not gentlemanly of you to complain and yet ignore the simple,
>             and natural, questions each time.
>       Just show the data which proves your statement.
 
I think it is you, Mitch, who are ignoring my answers.
>
>
> =sj "Now good ol' Jonathon did raise the current up, and the recombination went
> =sj right on up too, like he said.Finally got 'er up to 1.6 mW of xs heat which
> =sj was actually nothin' but common recombination.  It would be right neighborly
> =sj of ya to fix up yer table."
>
>     If you might shower your eager readers with the simple data [and
>      supplemental information as to whether
>      a gas tank was used for any of the experiments (and which, so as to further
>      clarify)], that data will be included.   Was 1.6 mWatts your maximum?
>      The past posts have the few, albeit important, other questions.
 
The data are there:  1.6mW of calculated xs heat was the maximum seen so far,
and no gas tank was used to get this, as I have explained.
I've tried to answer your questions, now:
 
>      [When others have provided such information, the table was changed either
>           in the next iteration, or immediately.]
 
How about immediately?  Thanks.
>
>     Thanks in advance.   (Just trying to get the facts, Stephen)
>       Best wishes
>                .                            Mitchell Swartz
>                                             mica@world.std.com
>
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Date: 22 Oct 1993 12:08:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

John Logajan mirrors my own thoughts:
 
> If one wants to proclaim something BS, they should at least look at it
> first (or smell it, or whatever metaphor you like best.)
 
I direct this at the people who criticise "hot fusion", most of whom have
amply demonstrated they don't know any more about that than I do about
electrochemistry.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Deuteron Spins
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron Spins
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 13:59:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry, I don't have any argument with what you are saying.  I have just
been trying to figure out whether there is some formal basis in condensed
matter theory to support the stuff being passed off as theory for the
cold fusion process.  Somehow these theories seem to include assumptions
about a new class of states that have no clear connection to the nuclear
states of deuterium on the incoming side or helium on the outgoing side
of the reaction process.  From my understanding of nuclear reactions, it
seems obvious that to get from two deuterons to 4He you have to keep track
of the spin wave fuctions.  Since the claim of CF believers has always
been that normal reaction processes get suppressed by huge factors it
would seem that there is no room for randomness in the wave functions
that are involved in the reaction.  That is basically all I have been
trying to say.   As I read your remarks the CF theories don't have
a leg to stand on regardless of how they treat spin.  I just think it
is sad that by dropping a few select names, the cold fusion believers
can continue to claim that there have been significant contributions
which lend theoretical support to the notion of cold fusion.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Looking at the carcass
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking at the carcass
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 15:32:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan invokes a powerful image when he suggests the neccessity
for looking at the carcass of cold fusion.  I heartily agree.  In fact
let me suggest a few festering wounds that should be examined.
In my view there are a number of points that are usually glossed over
whenever the evolution or progress of cold fusion research is discussed.
 
(1) Heavy water vs. light water.  Michell Swartz's recent posts typify
what I see as a lack of recognition of a clear contradiction in the
accepted cold fusion data set.  On one hand he sees great significance
in some Harwell data in which light water cells and heavy water cells
were run in series, presumably with the light water serving as a control
because deuterium is the suspected CF fuel.  But then he has no
difficulty accepting the positive light water results as another clear
example of cold fusion - with no deuterium!  There are so many unanswered
questions raised by the light vs. heavy water experiments,  I have to
say that the best way to reconcile the two sets of data is to say that
both results are bogus.  I would like to see some believers present their
current thinking on this.
 
(2) To He or not to He.  Basically this is a call for more attention to
a determination of what reaction products are formed.  If the problems
of reproducing the effect are well in hand and if the power densities
have move significantly higher there can be no excuse for not undertaking
systematic analytical measurements.  I find it incredible that the well-
funded research programs of either SRI or Pons&Fleischmann have not
produced some results in this area.  The way McKubre has danced around
this issue in his media presentations is rather indicative that all is
not well with this part of the carcass.
 
(3) Radiation.  There is a need to clear up several questions relating
to other sorts of reaction products.  The data on tritium production
is clearly in disorder.  Experiments involving neutron detection are
also impossible to wrap up in one package.  Once again I ask those
who see some value in cold fusion research to tell us what they read
in these tea leaves.  There remains the Steve Jones challange for
the application of sound X-ray detection techniques as well.
 
(4) Theory.  I know there are those who will say CF is just an experimental
question and that water heaters and steam-powered cars may well be rolling
of assembly lines long before anyone understands the energy source.  I
doubt that.  Consider just such simple questions as whether a CF reaction
scales with the mass of palladium.  Would you invest in a company to
produce water heaters before there was any data to show how much palladium
is needed to make the device?  Would you see this as a possible commercial
venture if palladium turns out to be a consumable rather than just catalyst?
Would you attempt to sell a deuterium-palladium system when the guy
down the block is offering a hydrogen-nickle device to do the same thing?
For very practical reasons cold fusion is going nowhere until there is
a clear understanding of what the reaction process is and what governs it.
If there has been clear and steady progress toward this goal, it has not
been brought to my attention.  Without a theory the CF carcass is going to
rot.
 
(5) Replication.  As initially applied to CF experiments this came to mean
only that every result showing excess heat was a replication of every other
experiment showing excess heat.  Likewise every experiment detecting
tritium replicated other tritium observations.  However, the differences
from one replication to the next have been systematically ignored.  The
randomness of the results has become a "signature".  Well eventually
that has to change.  Meaningful replications have to move to the point
where is becomes clear that significant experimental parameters are
under the control of the experimenter.  We have been through a series
of "truths" about cold fusion ranging from how samples must be prepared
to what current cycles do best and what the selected impurities should
be.  I don't get the sense, however, that there is very much that can
be put down in black and white and agreed to by all parties by way of
defining what power output will be reached and when it will occur.
True replication has to come to mean more than just getting the "effect."
There is another sense in which replication becomes a trap for the
foolish.  If an experimental approach is basically faulty, it may be
possible to replicate a bogus result endlessly.  It therefore is essential
to build a data base containing results from a variety of experiments.
Anytime the experiment seems to require one particular method to succeed,
you have to ask questions.  Replication remains a significant question
in relationship to a number of cold fusion issues.
 
I think this is enough to indicate that the CF carcass is not about to
rise up and do cartwheels.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy Storage Capacitors
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 00:06:16 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <27b1n-q@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
 
   eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
   >>     Neat trick--run a wire through a quartz tube, better make it
   >> short.  Pull a vacuum.  Apply a BIG direct current power supply.  How
   >> long can you hold the wire together?
 
   > Now you've really got my curiosity up. Can you put some magnitudes on
   > this little experiment?
 
     It's been a while since I played this game, but sure.  1)
Sustaining currents need to be in the kiloAmp range, initial voltages
need to be in the kiloVolts/foot range, so to avoid MegaWatt power
supplies you need to cheat.  2) Also, although the arc/plasma is wall
stabilised, stray magnetic fields will cause problems. 3) You are
going to be generating lots of stray magnetic fields, so paying
attention to the way the current flows is critical. 4) High-Z = more
radiation, so start with aluminum wire--but you can't (or couldn't)
commercially get aluminium wire that thin, so read up on wire
pulling--it's not hard if you heat the dies a bit--and have at it.
 
     I think we got a aluminum wire down to sustaining at around 3-400
Amps at 40-50 VDC, but notice that you have to have humoungo energy
storage to keep things stable.  Twenty to thirty kilowatts is a lot
easier to manage.  (And once the quartz goes, the arc goes wandering
around--keep it cool.)  The more inductance in the DC path the better.
(But the high inductance means it takes time to get the current
flowing--back to 1 above--so you get the current flowing through a
resistor and switch it before the capacitors completely discharge...Of
course you want some high-power diodes around to keep the capacitor
discharge from frying your DC supply. Oh, did I mention you will need
a few hundred microFarads of 4-5 Kv capacitors, not to mention a ton
of iron in all those choke coils.)
 
     And I think I mentioned, but in any case, it bears repeating:
WATCH YOUR EYES.  I've gotten "welder's flash" wearing three layers of
protection.  (Polycarbonate to help cut the UV, welder's goggles, and
a welder's hood.  And if you think I ever looked directly at something
like this you must be crazy.  I don't like carrying a white stick.)
 
     Just to re-emphsize this point, welder's flash goes like this:
The bluer your eyes the more susceptible you are--my eyes are hazel.
You wake up in the middle of the night, with your eyes feeling like
someone poured sand in, and no matter how hard you try, you can't open
your eyes.  And you will not believe that anything can hurt so much.
Go downstairs, and by touch brew some tea, putting the tea bags aside
on a dish.  (Drink some tea, it can't hurt, and use it to wash down
some aspirin.)  When the tea bags have cooled put them on the outside
of your eyelids, the soppier the better.  Repeat as necessary. Before
you go back to bed pull all the curtains and shades, since you won't
go near bright light for a week...
 
     Of course, talk to an eye specialist about all this.  In my case,
my bridge partner and neighbor also founded Wills Eye Hospital. The
first time he made a house call, telling my father if we were foolish
enough to do this again that it was our lookout.  Actually I got a
second, much milder dose, when some idiot decided to make welder's
goggles which REFLECTED ultraviolet--and had cute little vents on the
side which let light from behind hit the lenses. Arrgh!  I had great
fun stomping on a pair--not the ones I was wearing--and sending the
little pieces back to the manufacturer, with a letter that said the
company's lawyers and insurance people would be calling.  (My
secretary stopped by the house to read me the letter so I could scrawl
my signature. :-) They "cheerfully" paid the claims, about $2K
including lost time, and recalled the goggles.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Looking at the carcass
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looking at the carcass
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 18:11:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>If an experimental approach is basically faulty, it may be
>possible to replicate a bogus result endlessly.  It therefore is essential
>to build a data base containing results from a variety of experiments.
 
This is exactly my view too.  We continue to have bizarre glitches like
those in Droege's experiments, that beckon for an explanation.  Surely it
could be mere instrumentation error -- but we have to diagnose that
specifically by gathering yet more data.  That is why I say the field is
still evolving.  Most off-the-cuff explanations don't fit all the acquired
data.  The subject won't rest until the data is explained completely, or
found to be corrupted by some as yet misunderstood data gathering flaw.
 
I can't answer any of the questions you raise.  But on the other hand, I
can't explain Droege's strange bursts, or many of the other experimenter's
observations.
 
As the robot Johnny-Five said, "I need input."
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Edwin COM /  identification/substitution for rectifier BYW81150
     
Originally-From: edw@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Edwin.D.Windes@ATT.COM)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: identification/substitution for rectifier BYW81150
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 19:37:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL

I'm trying to repair a oddball (AT&T) PC power supply.
One of the stud-mounted rectifier diodes is dead (shorted).
The part number is BYW81150.
 
I've been to the library and determined that:
- it's probably made by Thompson/Philips
- PIV = 150V
- current > 20A ??
 
Unfortunately, I'm still not sure where to find a replacement,
because I'm not sure about its current capability.  Suggestions
and/or sources, please?
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenedw cudfnEdwin cudlnCOM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 22:00:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     GIF                        71,656
>     IFF                       104,512
>     JPEG                      328,896   <-- hence Karel's comments)
>     postscript            >2,100,000 (**)  <-- doesn't seem reasonable
 
JPEG is tuned for color scale or gray scale images.  It does poorly, as
you can see above, with pictures that have large areas of mono-color.
It is also "lossy" in that detail is lost.
 
GIF uses run length encoding (LZW), and so handles mono-color areas
very nicely.
 
I'm not up to date on PostScript, but my experience in the past is that
PostScript encodes to a raw bit image in hexidecimal ASCII -- which is
not compressed (actually expanded in size from the original binary
bit image.)  You could probably run PostScript output through LZW (compress)
and then uuencode -- uudecode, LZW (uncompress), to PS printer, on the
other end.
 
So -- Don't use JPEG for graphs.  PostScript is for hi-res hardcopies
(300 dpi or greater.)
 
Therefore, at this time, GIF is the most universal image xfer mechanism
that is fairly efficient in transport size.  GIF viewers run on PC clones,
on Suns, and HPs and other UNIX based systems with grayscale or color
monitors.
 
If you want the best printed image however, PostScript *is* it.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar. (ex Harwell)
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitchell and John Logajan: a research seminar. (ex Harwell)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 22:05:54 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>FC"Our library spends its scarce resources on the top journals; these
>FC do not include cold fusion conferences".
>
>
>This is a standard part of the research process; it avoids subsidising
>publishers of expensive tomes or marginal journals much of whose contents
>are not worth the paper they are written on. Combined with discussions with
 
   I'll add two comments, both of which are only peripheral to the
question "is CNF fairly covered" in so-and-so's library (or reading),
and are presented only as side comments:
 
   1) Driven by inexorable economic factors, our university library is
being *much* more aggressive in eliminating (i.e., no longer
subscribing to) the marginal journals.
 
   2) This is a good idea.  Some years ago John Howard, long time
editor of OSA's Applied Optics, did a careful study of physics journal
prices and physics journal citations in Science Citation Index.  The
results:
 
* Physics journals fell into two classes: journals published by major
professional societies, generally carefully reviewed, and journals
published by commercial houses, also reviewed but maybe not so
carefully.  The library subscription cost distribution for these
journals was totally bimodal: the commercial journals cost, on
average, 3 times the price per page of the professional society
journals, and the cheapest commercial journal was still substantially
more expensive than the most expensive professional society journal.
 
* If you looked at the frequency of citation -- the amounts these
journals were read and used, or at least cited -- the discrepancy was
even more enormous.  A typical university physics library, by
cancelling all its commercial journal subscriptions, would retain 85%
of the *cited* literature in physics, for a budget equal to 25% of its
previous budget.
 
Again, no implications for CNF intended; just an observation of
possible interest to physicists and their libraries.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
Date: 21 Oct 93 15:42:02 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Recently, Robert Heeter (grad student in plasma physics at Princeton)
posted "How do I turn the switch off?"  Robert is getting considerable feedback
from Jim Bowery and others which makes the tokamak approach appear as though it
will never be commercially viable.  It happens that I sympathize with much of
what Jim, Terry, Matt and others are saying about this, but I'd like to point
out that there are contrary opinions which also have cogent arguments.  I'm
concerned that Robert is getting one side of a complex, ongoing debate, and
so I encourage him to consult others before changing the course of his
studies (for instance).
 
Will someone speak for tokamak?  Bruce?  Dick?  I'd like to see an airing of
the other side of the argument.
 
About 10 years ago at an APS meeting, I attended a debate between Larry Lidsky
of MIT and someone from PPPL I believe, on this very issue.  I found Lidsky's
arguments against tokamak (for use by utilities) to be quite convincing.  Can't
even remember the other fellow's name...  In general, I agree with Jim that
alternative approaches to fusion power ought to be pursued also -- not just
tokamak.  In particular, there is essentially zero support for muon-catalyzed
fusion in this country, not so in Europe, Canada and Russia.
 
I'd also like to thank Robert for his posts, and others for comments.  The
discussion is enlightening.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 21 Oct 93 14:43:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <199310191824.AA11741@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>,
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> I asked:
>
>>Since p + mu is "like" an n, and d + mu is "like" 2n, maybe there
>>are some other reactions worth investigating?  "n" + X -> fusion?
>>He3?
>
> and bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) replied:
>
>>   The muonic hydrogen atom is only somewhat like a neutron.  It is
>     about 200 times smaller than an ordinary hydrogen atom, because the
>     muon is about 200 times heavier than an electron.  But this is still
>     very much larger than a nucleus.  As soon as a thermalized muonic
>     hydrogen atom in its ground state gets this close to another nucleus,
>     the Coulomb repulsion between the two nuclei becomes important.  What
>     happens next is a molecular, not a nuclear, reaction.  Examples are:
>
>     d_mu + t -->  t_mu + d  (transfer of mu to heavier isotope of H);
>
>     t_mu + d -->  d_mu_t   (formation of muonic molecule); and
>
>     H_mu + He3 --> He3_mu + H   (transfer of mu to helium nucleus).
>
>     The last of these is very fast and effectively poisons any fusion
>     experiment that is contaminated by helium 3.  The conventional
>     wisdom (which I am here advocating) is that the formation of a
>     muonic molecule involving only hydrogen isotopes is an essential
>     step in muon catalyzed fusion.
>
> My hypthesis is that (p or d or t)+muon is free to wander around
> in our reactor, much like a thermal neutron.  And that such an
> atom delivering its nucleus to within, say, .01 A of another nucleus
> will cause "instantaneous" fusion.
 
Ben is correct that formation of a muon-bound molecule is generally thought to
preceed fusion, and that only hydrogen isotopes form such "stable" molecules
giving time for fusion to occur.  The notion that Richard advances has also
received some attention, and is often referred to as "fusion in-flight" since
muo-molecular formation is not required.  Unfortunately, it has been shown by
calculations in-flight fusion rates are much slower that muo-molecular
formation rates so that in-flight fusion is of low probability.  I'm cheered
by the discussion, which shows people grasp the basics of muon-catalyzed
fusion.  Frankly, it is surprising that so much energy is given to claims
of xs-heat-due-to-nuclear-reactions-in-test-tubes when muon-catalyzed fusion
is so close to (yet admittedly, so far from) commercial viability -- just a
factor of 10 - 15!
 
> This other nucleus might be
> t, but it might be B11, or some other possibility.  Is there some
> reaction that doesn't produce He?  Could we encourage the He to
> deposit itself in a trap, or a first wall?
 
All the fusion reactions amongst hydrogen isotopes produce 3He or 4He, which
may then scavenge the muon catalyst, *except*
   d + d -->  t + p.
In this case, the muon is often picked up by the recoiling p or t, but since
these are hydrogen isotopes, the muon is not lost to the reaction.  (Of course,
half the time, according to experiments, the d+d reaction produces
3He + n, and the muon is captured by the 3He in about 12% of such reactions.)
 
The idea of using thin films to strip the muon from the recoiling He nucleus
has been looked at a little.  This is one area that I think needs more
attention.  The point is that the recoiling nucleus has O(MeV) of kinetic
energy, plenty to ionize the muon which is bound with 11 keV.  One problem is
that the film will also scavenge free muons and muons from
hydrogen-isotope-muon atoms.  So the question becomes, how to avoid muon
capture while retaining release of muons from fast helium-muon ions.  If you
can think of a possible way, please let me know.
 
>
>     I would love to be proved wrong on this.
>
> We'd all benefit.
>
>     In summary, the situation is probably hopeless (but not serious)
>     for muon catalysis as a source of electric power.  However, there
>     remains a small but finite chance that the fusion yield of a
>     mixture of deuterium and tritium can be increased under some
>     yet-to-be-determined conditions by the required factor of ten,
>     compared to the few hundred fusions per muon seen so far.
>
> Is looking for cheaper muons hopeless?  There must be a lot of
> mundane steps in the production that could be optimized.
>
> Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
Looking for cheaper muons has lead to a limit of about 600 MeV-electrical
per muon,    [study by G. Chapline, LLNL]
including inefficiency of the best (RFQ) accelerators.  That's not bad
considering that the muon rest mass is   105.66 MeV/c^2.  From my perspective
now, I think that cutting down on muon losses due to helium-nucleus capture
will be more productive.  If this loss mechanism can be reduced from 1/2% to
0.05%, we're home free.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  CRITERIA FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CRITERIA FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
Date: 21 Oct 93 17:21:44 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In preparation for the Hawaii meeting on cold fusion, sponsored primarily by
EPRI,  I'm preparing a
discussion of "Criteria for compelling evidence for cold fusion."
I would appreciate comments.  Much of the discussion on the net addresses this
point, and in fact I find that there is as yet *no compelling evidence* for
cold fusion, not for xs-heat-as-a-nuclear-process, not for helium or tritium
production, and, I must admit, not even for low-level neutron emissions. The
discussion on the net has mellowed my stance, opened my eyes to some weaknesses
in my own data as well as that of others.  Problems with my neutron data
include:  signal close to background level (5 times background is not good
enough); signal not yet reproducible.
 
The list can serve in several ways.  It can sharpen our views of what
constitutes convincing evidence in a nascent field.  It will allow
researchers in this field to evaluate their data against some yardstick.  To the
extent that we can separate objective criteria from subjective judgments, we
can show active researchers that the field is not rejected out of hand (as some
feel), but
that reasonable people can be persuaded given good evidence.  At the
meeting in Hawaii, I'd like to use the list as a yardstick to see how various
experimental results measure up.  Who knows, maybe I'll have to admit that
there is compelling evidence after hearing the latest results.  Or someone else
may admit that the evidence is not compelling.
 
I plan to submit this to the conference proceedings.  Those who contribute will
be acknowledged (unless they ask not to be).
 
CRITERIA FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
 
1. Results must be consistent with established experimental data.
  (e.g., E=mc^2 implies that reaction products must be quantitatively
commensurate with energy released.  Muon-catalyzed "cold" fusion shows that
d+d --> 3He + n  and d+d --> t + p  with approx. 50% of fusions proceeding by
each branch.)
 
2.  Results must be reproducible.
 
3.  If reproducible, then results should be capable of scaling to at least
100 times background levels.
    (e.g., if ambient helium is 5 ppm [which is typical for atmosphere, often
higher in laboratories], then 500 ppm should be required.)
 
4.  Appropriate controls must show no effect, in all cases.
 
5.  Legible data must be provided for controls and for foreground samples.
Data values with correct error bars are required; estimates from plots
without evaluated error bars are unacceptable.
 
6.  Statistics alone are insufficient to establish a new effect.  Systematics
must be eliminated as far as possible by use of controls and
multiple detectors of different types.  Calibrations and tests must be
alternated in time and done in approximately equal numbers and preferably done
both in parallel (with different detectors) and sequentially.
 
7.  Any source of known systematic error must be removed from the system.
  (e.g., when helium-4 production is claimed, all known sources of helium
contamination must be removed from the system -- particularly glass.)
 
8. To establish a nuclear effect, MeV-scale energies must be in evidence, either
by detection of X-rays or energetic particles.
(I think that the notion of "lattice heating" without MeV-particles
violates momentum conservation +
uncertainty-principle and speed-of-light constraints, as I have argued before.
However, even this notion predicts the presence of soft x-rays,
as do hydrino and shrunken-hydrogen molecule (Vigier) and, I think,
zero-point energy extraction "wild" ideas.)
 
9.  The best detectors available must show the effect.  A complete description
of how the detector (or calorimeter) functions must be given.
  (All heat transport paths between system and surroundings must be quantified,
controlled and accounted for.
X-ray films are insufficient since x-ray spectrometers are
readily available and much less subject to artifacts.  Similarly, BF3 neutron
counters are inadequate for neutrons.  Open cells are inadequate to
establish xs heat production.  Fast-waveform digitizers are needed, not scalars
or analog read-outs.  Accurate, frequent sampling of input power is required.
Other examples:    )
 
10. Although a theoretical explanation of the effect is not required to
establish an experimental observation,
any explanation offered must be consistent with the data presented
and with other experimental data.  Occam's razor suggests
that a novel model not be adopted when a simpler explanation is reasonable
even if seemingly unlikely.  An explanation which explains one set of data
while countering other experimental data is invalid.  The value of a new theory
lies in its ability to predict the outcome of untried experiments as well as
summarizing present data.
 
11.  Experimental procedures and data must be well documented and open for
inspection.
 
I agree with earlier comments of Kevin Wolf, L. Whitesell, H. Jabs, and J.
Shoemaker in "Tritium and Tritons in Cold Fusion,"  Proc. of Anomalous nuclear
effects in deuterium/solid systems, AIP #228 (1991) [ editors S.E. Jones, F.
Scaramuzzi and D. Worledge]:
 
"While the number of tritium atoms measured is large compared to reported low
level neutron emission, the tritium levels are not large compared to tracer
concentrations that are readily available, making contamination a probable
cause. ... Several samples associated with one lot of palladium stock showed
latent tritium levels well above background.  No evidence was obtained for the
occurrence of nuclear reactions in the electrolytic cells."
 
"The thoroughness necessary to establish a proof of cold fusion has not been
present in past investigations.  Some of the shortcomings are caused by the
opinion that cold fusion has been confirmed,
and some have been caused by poor research practices.  Sloppy, poorly
documented, incomplete work provides a shelter with many open possibilities, but
results from such studies are short lived.  Cold fusion has not been confirmed
in definitive experiments...    The time for "interesting
indications" is long past and research practices must be at the scientific
proof level."
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Oct21.165657.1015@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Oct21.165657.1015@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 93 17:22:44 -0600

cancel <1993Oct21.165657.1015@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Oct21.145654.1012@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Oct21.145654.1012@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 93 15:42:22 -0600

cancel <1993Oct21.145654.1012@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: deuteron spins
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuteron spins
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 18:45:17 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct21.190433.24235@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
 > Thus I would say that rather than three bands, you have the _potential_
 > for three distinct Bose condensates:  spin -1, 0, and 1...
 
    Am I missing something?  I thought that spin zero deuterons were
unbound, so there should be only two possible spin states.
 
    (Of course, if spin zero deuterons were even virtually present,
it would make:
 
            d --> n + p
            d + n --> t + gamma
 
      by far the favored reaction, but I don't regard this as even a
farfetch.)
 
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: deuteron spins
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuteron spins
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 19:41:25 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct21.190433.24235@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
 
 > Thus I would say that rather than three bands, you have the _potential_
 > for three distinct Bose condensates:  spin -1, 0, and 1...
 
    Am I missing something?  I thought that spin zero deuterons were
unbound, so there should be only two possible spin states.
 
    (Of course, if spin zero deuterons were even virtually present,
it would make:
 
            d --> n + p
            d + n --> t + gamma
 
      by far the favored reaction, but I don't regard this as even a
farfetch.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 03:24:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

*Advance notice:  Non-science discussion follows.  You may consider
this noise and/or BS, but it seems to be interesting to some people.
I'm presenting my opinions, not a concrete-and-steel edifice of fact
and logic.*
 
In article <EACHUS.93Oct18194634@spectre.mitre.org> Robert I. Eachus,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:
>In article <1993Oct17.035131.13197@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>  > I don!t think this is entirely true.  At least, not the part about
>  > lack of independent review.  I concede that there are non-independent
>  > reviews, but there are also a large number of external reviews which
>  > go on from time to time.  (Could someone more in the know back me
>  > up on this?)  Certainly I did my own !independent review! before
>  > deciding to go into Plasma Physics.  Granted, I!m no expert, but I
>  > think the technology is worth supporting at the research level.
>
>   Go read some history.  Back in the seventies there was a clear
>independant review which said:  Don't put all the eggs in oe tokamak
>basket.  Choose one "alternative" magnetic confinement configuration
>and support it at the same level as tokamaks.  I believe Elmo Bumpy
>Torus was eventually chosen, just before its funding was cut to zero.
>The next time there was an "independent" review of the fusion program,
>it was made by experts working in the field--on tokamaks only,
>everyone else was gone.
 
Hey, I read the history.  The government decided that we couldn't afford
more than one large research machine, so they cut all the major programs
except the tokamak, and TFTR was the result.  I seem to recall that it
was the large mirror at LLNL that was chosen to run in parallel with
TFTR, not Elmo.  They even went and built the machine, then shut it
down without every turning it on...  Since then, budgeting for fusion
has been predicated on the idea that we don't have the $$ to fund more
than one major class of device.  There has been a lot of progress with
the tokamak, but that doesn't justify the way the program has been
run.
 
I completely agree that we should be doing parallel research
on many different configurations.  But the decision was made to pursue
a fusion *energy* source, and the tokamak was chosen as the class
of device that seemed most likely to work *at the time the decision
was made*, and the program has been tracked towards developing
economic fusion power via the tokamak.  Was this a good decision?
Perhaps not.  But we can't change it, so the question now is whether
we should try to re-diversify the program, or just stick with the
tokamak.  While the information I've seen indicates that the tokamak
will probably work eventually, I completely agree that we don't
want all of our eggs in one basket.  The question is, can you
make new eggs by increasing the overall fusion budget without
significantly disturbing the tokamak program?  If not, how much
of the tokamak program are you willing to cut in order to fund the
alternative confinement schemes?  A related question is whether
fusion research is simply science, or energy R&D.  From a science
perspective there's no doubt you want to look at all the different
ways you can confine a plasma.  But from the energy perspective,
you want to have fusion energy before oil & gas run out, and you
want it to be cost-effective.  Here again it's probably advantageous
to look at lots of different ways of confining a plasma.  Trouble is,
in order to get plasma conditions that are remotely close to those
of a reactor, you have to spend on $100 million to $1 billion (largely
on diagnostics, I might add - the machines themselves don't cost
quite so much).
 
At this level, I don't think there's a simple answer.  The tokamak
program *has* been successful in a lot of ways, but that's not to
say that it's perfect.  Should we fund more basic research?  Should
we look at other schemes?  Certainly!  Can we afford it?  Should we
cut the tokamak to fund other sorts of research?  Perhaps...  But in
any decision of this type, there are going to be a wide range of
perspectives and opinions.  I can't claim to have a position yet,
since I just don't know that much about the political side of the
research program.  I do think we're going to need fusion, but I
certainly don't believe it has to be a tokamak.  But we don't
live in an ideal world, and decisions that look good at one point
may not look so good 20 years later.  In retrospect, giving the
tokamak a near-monopoly of the fusion research budget may not
have been the best way to go.
 
Is this an unreasonable perspective?  Why do so many people hate
the tokamak?
 
Always curious...
 
****************************
Bob Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
* I do not represent PPPL.  Neither does PPPL represent me.  Don't assume
anything about me just because I work at PPPL! *
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 17:32:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Oct23.042007.8387@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <19931018.164944.650@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
 
>>         Clearly you are easily shocked.  For the record, I consider
>>the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly
>>since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons
>>should they wish to do so.
>
>Are there?  I guess I'm underinformed here.  I've read that the breeder
>reactor designs typically use higher-grade fuels, and are *designed*
>to create more radioactive material, thus making it simpler to
>acquire the nasty stuff that you need to make bombs.  I'm shocked by
>your disbelief in the proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're
>willing to consider elimination of various nations in order to support
>a breeder-based energy system.
 
    I'm shocked that you're shocked.  South Africa, Israel, Iran,
    North Korea, Iraq, Brazil, India, Pakastan among others seem
    to have had little problem getting weapons-grade fissionable materials
    *without* power breeder technology.  Hell, Iraq had calutrons.
    So, clearly proliferation is not a problem since we're already
    proliferated.  And terrorists are not exactly going to be able
    to reprocess and assemble in their basement.
 
    As far as eliminating nations goes, the problem is not with reactors,
    but with weapons.  With no sight of a world-wide breeder economy,
    North Korea has probably recently gone nuclear.  Japan and South
    Korea and maybe Taiwan will probably very quickly follow if they
    have not already.  So again clearly, it is not the *reactors*, but
    a threat that will cause the aforementioned two or three nations
    to go nuclear.   If we were to eliminate the threat, there would
    be no need for the Japanese, for instance, to go nuclear, even though
    they could easily do so in quite short order.  But this has
    *nothing to do* with power breeders.  Ask yourself why every country
    in Western Europe has not gone nuclear.  All of them could.
 
> The shock isn't so much due to the
>apparent inhumanity of the comment as it is due to the fact that
>that kind of political baggage makes the breeder much more costly.
>But if you can explain why you think there are easier ways to get
>weapons-grade materials, I'll shut up.
 
     Iraq had calutrons and centrifuge technology and a reactor that
     would have produced enough fissionables for their weapons had it
     not been bombed by the Israelis.  Where is the power breeder?
 
>(things like oil shocks, Persian gulf wars, and the like).  Fusion
>would be less likely to have this sort of problem.  (Any room
>for agreement here now?)
 
     Why talk about fusion like it is an economically viable process?
     It is more likely to have such problems if it is economically
     questionable.
 
>Ok, I agree with you here.  But I wasn't thinking about building a
>fusion plant with today's technology!  I was really asking whether
>you thought fission was better as a *long-term* energy solution.  And
>I wasn't asking for a purely scientific analysis - I think the political
>aspect is also relevant.
 
     The economic problem is the most difficult.  What most fusion
     people seem to miss is that if you cannot build and operate a
     facility economically, it's just an expensive toy.
 
>  It's very difficult to get people to accept
>fission.  I have trouble with your conclusion that waste disposal isn't
>a serious technical problem.  On the timescales over which the
>high-level waste has to be isolated, there seems to be a fair amount
>of uncertainty regarding how safe the current proposals are.
 
     Use IFR technology, produce short-term containment facilities and
     'burn' most of the actinides in the reactor.  If y'all can count
     on technology from 50 years in the future, I can rely on technology
     just showing up on the shelf (to be shelved by our esteemed chief
     executive because he's an idiot).
 
>(Obviously if you decide that waste and weapons proliferation aren't
>problems, and you ignore the political problems attached to all
>things nuclear, breeder reactors are going to look pretty good!)
 
     But the political problems are no less for fusion reactors.
     People cannot even get microwave transmission towers built these days.
     Wait until someone explains about tritium containment.
     Besides, breeders could be initiated within 5-10 years. Fusion plants
     cannot even be planned for 50 years, and they may not be competetive
     with Aunt Martha pedaling a stationary generator.
 
>you meant about a grim employment situation?  This would require a
>worldwide abandonment of fusion, which seems unlikely.  (The US only
>has 20% of the world fusion workforce.)
 
     Funny thing, my guess is that a reevaluation of most of these
     things will occur in the next few years.  Conversations like
     'What do you mean, 50 years?  What happened to the last 40?'
     will probably occur worldwide.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 17:46:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Oct23.051006.17851@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>I mean, obviously the current tokamak technology isn't competitive;
 
     Isn't competitive?  It isn't a power-generating technology,
     it isn't even on the playing field.
 
>compare it with expected developments in other energy technologies,
>it turns out the tokamak has a fair chance of being economically
>viable.  (Certainly better than 1 in 50).
 
     I think it has no better than a 1 in 10^17 chance of being economically
     viable.  And my number has about as much basis as yours.
 
>  Recent reactor design
>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
>everyone else's here.
 
     In their dreams.
 
>So I think Barry's point was that since tokamak technology is currently
>within an order of magnitude (maybe two) of being competitive, and
 
      Hogwash, it is two orders of magnitude from *working*.  Economic
      viability awaits a viable power generation system, and we cannot
      even *think* about that until we have a viable plasma, which we don't.
      For instance, if the shielding must be replaced every couple of
      hours it's going to be difficult to imagine an economically viable
      power cycle.
 
>improving steadily, there doesn't seem to be a good justification for
>giving it a near-zero probability of ever working.  If someone can
>explain to me what the justification is, I'm happy to learn.
 
     The point is that *no one* can give you any reasonable probablility
     assessment of it being economically viable.  Your 1 in 50 is as
     worthless as my 1 in 10^17.  Right now, it is a 40 year old physics
     toy with at least another 50 to go before we can even think
     about economic viability.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.22 / Barry Merriman /  Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Economics
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 23:56:04 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <19931021.155856.966@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>          Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo-
> voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive
> and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a
> fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre-
> vailing opinion you state.  So what are you complaining about?
 
James, get serious. Those are all low power density technologies you cite
(not to mention some of them have limited capacity and applicability:
tell Japan to rely on solar---which country should they take over
in order to get the land area required for solar cells.).
 
Are you saying the industrialized world need no high power density
sources? I don't think so. That is the need fusion is intended to fill.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: jbs
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 05:10:06 GMT
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 18:43:12 EDT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Originally-From: jbs
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 18:43:12 EDT
In article <19931021.155856.966@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>         Barry Merriman posts:
>>Second, the economic viability of Tokamaks has been studied
>>in detail many times; its well known that extrapolating from
>>current machine characteristics leads to a reactor that
>>is at best only marginally economically viable. However,
>>based on these detailed studies, I can't see how you could have
conclude that
>>viability is impossible (or at least << 1:50). I would say the
prevailing
>>opinion is that tokamaks as presently understood will be economically
>>viable, but only once the cost of power from other sources has increased
>>by an order of magnitude, and only if we have very large power plants
(~ 10GW).
>         Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo-
>voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive
>and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a
>fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre-
>vailing opinion you state.  So what are you complaining about?
>                          James B. Shearer
 
I think you're misinterpreting what Barry meant.  As I read it, Barry
is saying that if you built a tokamak fusion reactor using *today's*
technology, the power it produces would cost 10 times as much as
other sources cost.  But the same thing is (roughly) true for solar
technologies, particularly if you are going to include the energy-storage
equipment necessary to make up for the fact that the sun doesn't shine
24 hours a day.  Wind faces similar problems; although the cost is less,
there aren't as many good sites, either, and you still have to deal
with storage for when the air just isn't moving.
 
I mean, obviously the current tokamak technology isn't competitive;
otherwise there would be machines sprouting up here and there.  But
this isn't to say that it can't be competitive in the future. If you
look at tokamak technology as it seems to be evolving, and
compare it with expected developments in other energy technologies,
it turns out the tokamak has a fair chance of being economically
viable.  (Certainly better than 1 in 50).  Recent reactor design
studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
everyone else's here.  This is not to say that other promising
technologies shouldn't be developed.  I think a broad-based approach
is a good idea.  But I'd have to see the full report, and give it
a *lot* of scrutiny, before I believed a 1-in-50 assessment of
the tokamak.
 
So I think Barry's point was that since tokamak technology is currently
within an order of magnitude (maybe two) of being competitive, and
improving steadily, there doesn't seem to be a good justification for
giving it a near-zero probability of ever working.  If someone can
explain to me what the justification is, I'm happy to learn.
 
********************************************
Bob Heeter / rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
"Flame me - I want to learn from my mistakes, and in any case it's
more fun than doing problem sets all the time!"
Standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: jbs
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 04:20:07 GMT
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:30:42 EDT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Re: fission
Originally-From: jbs
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 18:30:42 EDT
In article <19931018.164944.650@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>         I posted:
>>         How do you figure this?  A breeder economy does not require
>>that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons
>>grade material.  In any case if an energy solution requires
>>eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure
>>that could be arranged.
>         Robert Heeter replied:
>>I can!t believe this went for a week without comment.  Clearly
>>Jim Shearer can!t be serious, in which case he has no defense
>>against the proliferation critique of fission breeders.  If he
>>is serious, then I am completely slack-jawed in shock.  Regardless,
>>the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants
>>energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder.
>
>         Clearly you are easily shocked.  For the record, I consider
>the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly
>since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons
>should they wish to do so.
 
Are there?  I guess I'm underinformed here.  I've read that the breeder
reactor designs typically use higher-grade fuels, and are *designed*
to create more radioactive material, thus making it simpler to
acquire the nasty stuff that you need to make bombs.  I'm shocked by
your disbelief in the proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're
willing to consider elimination of various nations in order to support
a breeder-based energy system.  The shock isn't so much due to the
apparent inhumanity of the comment as it is due to the fact that
that kind of political baggage makes the breeder much more costly.
But if you can explain why you think there are easier ways to get
weapons-grade materials, I'll shut up.
 
>         Your last sentence is obviously false.  Nations want many
>things.  This does not mean that will obtain them.
 
Well, when it comes to energy independence, which is perhaps second
only to social stability as a prerequisite for a viable economy,
and when there's no fossil fuel lying around anymore, I really wonder
whether I might actually be right.  Perhaps I should have said that
in a world where only the breeder gives you the fuel you need, any
nation which wants energy independence is going to put in a lot of
effort to make a breeder, and it's going to take a lot of effort
to prevent them from doing so, if you decide that there's a large
proliferation risk.  The thrust of the idea is just that you're
going to have a lot of external costs with a breeder economy; although
I suppose we're putting up with similar costs in todays oil economy
(things like oil shocks, Persian gulf wars, and the like).  Fusion
would be less likely to have this sort of problem.  (Any room
for agreement here now?)
 
>         I posted (responding to Dr Bruce Scott)
>>         If you assume breeders are ok you should include thorium
>>as well which gives 40k years.  As for your .5%/year consumption
>>growth scenario I believe if you do the arithmetic you will find that
>>fusion doesn't last all that long either.
>         Robert Heeter answers:
>>It may not be !all that long! on geological timescales, but it!s
>>still orders of magnitude longer than fission.  (The energy
>>density of fusion fuel is much higher, and there!s a lot more of
>>it.)  But granting that there!s enough fuel for both, the question
>>becomes:  would you rather have fission plants creating gobs of
>>high-level radioactive waste, or fusion plants creating little to
>>no such waste (depending on choice of fuel cycle, plant materials,
>>etc.)?  I need to see an argument showing that fusion doesn!t win
>>this one hands-down.
>
>         Obviously you didn't do the arithmetic.  If you had, you would
>have discovered that fusion does not even buy one order of magnitude in
>time.  The reason of course is that seemingly innocent assumption of
>.5% per year growth in consumption continued indefinitely.
 
Obviously, you're right. :)  Unfortunately I don't always bring all
my scientific tools into the computer cluster here at the graduate
college.
The eyeball method ("hmm... that looks about right") just didn't cut it
here.  I did the calculation, and it turns out that breeder fission
lasts around 1200 years, D-T fusion lasts maybe 2200 years, and D-D
fusion lasts some 3700 years under the 0.5% growth scenario.  So I guess
my "order of magnitude" is only true if you're dealing with base 2 or 3.
:)
I felt pretty stupid for not seeing how quickly the exponential growth
catches up with you; I was lulled into complacency by the fact that in
absolute terms there's about 100,000 times as much fusion energy available
as fission... (I did check the numbers for that one, btw.)
 
>         Fission wins over fusion because based on what we know today
>fission plants will be cheaper than fusion plants.  I don't believe
>disposal of reactor waste presents a serious technical problem for
>fission plants (although it is certainly a political problem).
 
Ok, I agree with you here.  But I wasn't thinking about building a
fusion plant with today's technology!  I was really asking whether
you thought fission was better as a *long-term* energy solution.  And
I wasn't asking for a purely scientific analysis - I think the political
aspect is also relevant.  It's very difficult to get people to accept
fission.  I have trouble with your conclusion that waste disposal isn't
a serious technical problem.  On the timescales over which the
high-level waste has to be isolated, there seems to be a fair amount
of uncertainty regarding how safe the current proposals are.  I'm
not saying you're wrong, just that I need more information in order
to completely accept the claim that waste isn't a problem.
 
(Obviously if you decide that waste and weapons proliferation aren't
problems, and you ignore the political problems attached to all
things nuclear, breeder reactors are going to look pretty good!)
 
>         I posted:
>>It seems likely that research
>>using today's technology will be totally irrelevant to the economics
>>of fusion in the far future.  Hence unless you believe fusion power
>>has a chance of being economical in the near term such research is
>>likely to prove a waste of money.
>         Robert Heeter replied:
>Not at all.  The ARIES studies (Conn, et al, 1992, references available)
>show that with a few not-unreasonable advances we can have economical
>fusion power within 50 years.  This doesn!t count as far future to me.
>And as I see it, even if I didn!t believe fusion had a shot at being
>economical in the near term, I!d still put money into research on it.
>Without the research, there will be no advances, and without the
>advances, there will never be fusion.  It!s only the research using
>today!s technology that gets you to tomorrow!s technology.  I think
>this is obvious, but it looks like it needed pointing out.
>
>         In this context I consider 50 years the far future.  What did
>the Spruce Goose contribute to aeronautics?
 
Ok, I think anything in my lifetime is not far future, so we just have
a timescale disagreement here.  As far as aeronautics, consider that
50 years ago the germans were just developing jet aircraft, and rocket
flight, and radar instrumentation.  50 years doesn't strike me as
such a bad horizon, especially because energy seems to move more slowly
than other areas of technology.
 
>         I would put some research money into fusion relevant basic
>science.  I would not build large test machines until they are needed
>to validate an economically viable power plant design.
>
I wholeheartedly agree, at least insofar as I understand what you've
said.  But I'd better ask some questions for clarification.
What do you mean by "large test machine"?  What if someone believes
that the tokamak will be an economically viable design by the time
we get the test machines built?  What if we need the large machine
in order to understand the engineering of a viable reactor?  How can
we know what we need for a viable plant design unless we build one
and work out the problems?  How does one know whether a particular
confinement scheme will work well as a power plant without building
a machine large enough to get reactor-relevant plasma conditions?
 
>         A future economically viable fusion plant is likely to depend
>in large part on technology which was developed for other purposes.
>Excessive concentration of research money in any narrow area is likely
>to prove counterproductive in the long run even as regards that area
>because it prevents the efficient development of our technological
>capacity as a whole.
>
I agree with this as well.  Again, this depends on my interpretation
of what you're saying.  Certainly the fusion program has relied heavily
on advances in computer technology, magnet technology, etc.  Are you
arguing that we've overconcentrated on the tokamak?  How narrow is
narrow?  Remember that the decision to go with the tokamak was made
at a time when energy supplies appeared to be running out rapidly,
when Three Mile Island made fission look unsafe, and oil prices
were extremely unstable.  Under these conditions, the decision was to
proceed with development of fusion energy as quickly as possible,
within budget constraints.  Now it seems that that decision may have
been a bit hasty, and it may be wise to realign the program towards
confinement science and away from narrowly-focused energy R&D.  Is
this what you're suggesting?
 
>         Robert Heeter posted:
>>Right now my entire professional career is involved, since I intend
>>to go into fusion research.  And to me, that counts a lot more than
>>any sum of money you could name.  So I assume that!s enough for you?
>
>         I hope you have some sort of fallback position as I suspect
>the employment situation for new PhDs in fusion research may be rather
>grim in a few years.  For that matter have you investigated what the
>situation for recent PhDs is today?  Are they happy with their lot?
>                          James B. Shearer
 
Thanks for the concern, but I'm not so foolish as to go into physics
without realizing that I may not work in it forever.  I'm not worried
about not finding employment, though.  Princeton seems to do fairly well
at having employable graduates.  I took a pretty close look at that
when I was choosing schools and deciding on going into physics.
Of course, you seem to be insinuating that plasma physics is going to
go through some kind of fiscal trauma in a few years - is that what
you meant about a grim employment situation?  This would require a
worldwide abandonment of fusion, which seems unlikely.  (The US only
has 20% of the world fusion workforce.)
 
Even if I don't end up doing plasma physics, the quantitative training
is good, and I've tried to be a fairly well-rounded person, so I
don't think I'll have trouble getting some other kind of job.  (People
who know me and spotted the post mentioned this, so apparently I'm not
deluding myself.)  I went into fusion because it seemed like a "good"
thing to do, as well as a fun, challenging, real-world science.  I'd
be mighty disappointed if fusion gets the axe, but I'd swallow hard
and do something else.  (Note that if the tokamak proves unworkable,
that doesn't mean fusion is history, and certainly there are lots of
interesting things to be learned about plasmas...)
 
Having thus patched up my defenses, I await the next barrage!
 
*************************************************
Bob "Oh, no, it's another Jim Shearer post!" Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Disclaimer:  I don't represent Princeton or the Plasma Lab.  Similarly,
I'm my own person, not a cog in the Big Science machine...
Plasma Physics is more than just tokamak physics...
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / mitchell swartz /  Ambiguity of Recombination Data +
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ambiguity of Recombination Data +
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 22:23:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Oct20.144804.1010@physc1.byu.edu>
    Subject: Re:  "FAQ table needs fixin' "
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
 
  ------- Is the FAQ-Table iterated ----------------------------?
=sj "Rather than fixin' his table, Mitch just asks more questions (below)."
 
  Actually each time there has been any update, the Table was modified.
Would you apparently like to explicitly dictate something?
 
=sj "The data have already been posted, and relevant points were included in
=sj "Scientific Criticism" by me on 28 Sept. and in my post of 10-20-93 you are
=sj respoding to.These shouldn't have to be reposted again and again; you should
=sj fix your table to accurately reflect these posts."
 
   As will be shown below, your data has had a scosh too much ambiguity.
 
    --------- On the Case for Silicates ------------
   > =sj "From posting 28 Sept. 1993, "Scientific Criticism", by S.E. Jones:
   > =sj "As explained above, the "silicate effect" when combined with possible
   > =sj (I think highly probable) errors in cell potential "estimates"
   > =sj can account for several *watts* of putative excess power in the P&F
   > =sj boiling-cell experiments. ....please put "watts"by it as my assertion."
   >   No problem, Stephen.  Just prove that a silicate layer can produce
   >    excess heat.  So far, it has been shown (by me in a previous posting
   >    using a simple model) that it can generate heat, but not "excess heat".
   >   Please simply demonstrate theoretically, or show any experimental
   >    evidence.                         Thanks in advance.
=sj "The experimental evidence were given in "Scientific Criticism.""
 
  Looked and did not see any evidence for excess heat.  Heat is trivial
   and well-known but not the production of "excess heat" by this mechanism.
  Looked again.  It is still not there.
 
=sj "Can't prove that silicate deposition and low estimates of input power
=sj account for P&F's boiling cells,but I think the explanation is reasonable
=sj  and raises questions they should answer."
 
  If you contend that this is your explanation, you ought to prove it yourself,
right?  You need not give up if you can't prove it now; it is just that you have
not done it as yet.
 
     ------- Onus to prove Errors -------
=sj "Mitch, I do not feel compelled to prove their error."
 
  If YOU state something is an error in someone's else's work, YOU ought
to prove it.  Your posts (and the posts which have fed upon it) have left
intimations of a string of putative errors.  However, you have not proven
them.  If your ideas are to be worth their mettle, and many of them
are Steven, they must be proven to be compelling.
 
  ---------   The Buehler Effect ------------
=sj "The set of numbers posted above is the "one set of values" you request
=sj  and is based on measurements by Buehler, which have not changed at all."
 
   As I've said before:  Did he do the change systematically for both
control and active cell?   See also the calculations I posted on electrical
resistivities, and others' notes at that time which contest this issue.
All that has been asked for was your own Jones Criteria #4:
 
   "4.  Appropriate controls must show no effect, in all cases."
          [Message-ID: <1993Oct21.172144.1016@physc1.byu.edu>
         Steven Jones  jonesse@physc1.byu.edu; Date: 21 Oct 93]
 
  ----------- Oxygen Tanks in the Recombination Expt? -----
      >    Did you use a gas tank?
=sj "Yes, ocassionally.However,the 1.6mW of putative xs power noted in my
=sj  posting (quoted below) was obtained without bubbling any gas into the
=sj cell."
 
   After too many months this has been clarified.  Thanks for this simple
    explanation (see below).
 
    --------- Statement of Peak recombination power level -----
=sj "The data are there: 1.6mW of calculated xs heat was the maximum seen
=sj so far,  and no gas tank was used to get this, as I have explained."
 
  Thank again, Steven.  You had not explained this so clearly
before, and were ambiguous about the O2 partial pressure.
Since you keep bringing it up, here is the explanation for the questions.
 
  Initially, Steve, you described your experiments as % of input.
First there was the claim of about 100% excess.
 
  =sj  Perhaps we are close to understanding why Noninski attempts to smear me.
  =sj  The BYU team working with a light-water -K2CO3-Nickel cell
  =sj  found repeatedly about 100% excess heat when calculating
  =sj  the way Noninski prescribed (quoted above), that is, ignoring H + O
  =sj  recombination."
                 Message-ID: <1993May6.184311.612@physc1.byu.edu>
                 Subject: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to Noninski)
 
  Then, Steve, you shortly thereafter claimed a 120% increase:
 
   ==sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
   ==sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
   ==sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
   ==sj of course)."
   [1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: S.Jones' advice (Reply to
           Noninski);   Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]
 
   But by May 26th, with some ambiguity of the presence of O2 gas, the
   excess heat was then reported as 134%:
 
  =jj "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
  =jj used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
  =jj the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
  =jj microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
  =jj microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
  =jj formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
 [Sub: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
          Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu]; Date: 26 May 93]
 
   You and Jonathan were then claiming 700% excess heat when oxygen
was used to purge the cell.
 
  =jj "In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
  =jj the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
  =jj nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
  =jj heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
  =jj calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48))."
   [Sub: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
    Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu]; Date: 26 May 93]
 
  By August 10, the 700% was again cited, but the oxygen used to purge the cell
    was not.
 
  ==sj "Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
  ==sj  when recombination was ignored."
  [ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>;Sub: Response to Mitchell Swartz
 
  To our surprise, by the end of that week (August 16), the claim
had changed slightly to 700% excess *without* oxygen:
 
   = "But we have seen around 700% xs heat -- calculated
   = using I*(Vin - 1.48V), thus ignoring recombination as do Mills and Notoya,
   = etc  -- *without* oxygen addition, that is, just from the O2 and H2 in the
   = electrolyte from the electrolysis itself."
             [Message-ID: <1993Aug16.145458.853@physc1.byu.edu>
               Subject: Response to Eugene Mallove's Threats]
 
   One can imagine the induced confusion trying to fit a table with
this plethora of numbers ......
 
 ----> 100%, 120%, 134%, 700% with oxygen, 700%, and 700% without oxygen,
                .7 milliwatts,   1.6 milliwatts.    ?     ?      ?
 
 taken from your postings (like the mention, & absence, of the gas tank).
 Hence to straighten this out, all that has been asked was equal to the
fulfillment of your very own Jones Criteria #11:
 
 "11.  Experimental procedures and data must be well documented and open for
       inspection."
          [Message-ID: <1993Oct21.172144.1016@physc1.byu.edu>
         Steven Jones  jonesse@physc1.byu.edu; Date: 21 Oct 93]
 
   You were simply asked for the absolute power levels (rather than %), and
the maximum peak power level (and whether O2 was used for that number).
The above answer (1.6 mW without O2 addition) has now begun to clarify this.
BTW do you have to copy each ENTIRE previous post?  The length of your missives
can be decreased without sacrificing their new content.
 
                  Best wishes.
                                          Mitchell Swartz
                                         (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / mitchell swartz /  Developing FAQ-Table
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Developing FAQ-Table
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 22:27:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                      Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
 
     This FAQ-Table regarding the list of (some of) the cold fusion
phenomena is based upon the literature and the responses to this net.
Based upon receipt of information form Steven Jones, and others, the
FAQ-Table was slightly modified.
Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are appreciated and invited.
 
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 ============================================================================
 FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
 ============================================================================
 
   =====================================   Excess Power (milliwatts) =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)                    60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)                              540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)
 
   ====================================   Excess Power densities (mW/cm3 Pd)
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  mW/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 mW/cm3 Pd
 
 
   =====================================   Excess Power =================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O   --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)                    70% input (max. 3.5 W)
  Notoya (1993)                        270-240% (max. 2.7 W))
  _________________________________________________________________________
 
  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
  ==========================  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for ======
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           ***
                   in cell IF not considered
   Recombination                  1993)          1.6       **--
   Silicate Deposition            1992)          0.0 (max)
   Lithium Deposition             1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Beuhler Effect                 1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
   Peroxides                                                **@@
  ==========================================================================
 
*  Some of these are not applicable to all systems (eg. both D2O and H2O)
  Furthermore, the final column is excess heat, and not generated heat.
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
 and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
 the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg J. Electrochem.
 Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
***    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
       estimates of reported excess heats.
**--  Steven and J. Jones posted data of about 1.6 milliwatt at ambient.
**##  Hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required.
  One good recent article on Lithium morphology of anodes (i.e. Li batteries)
  undergoing such processes (max 0.5 C/cm2, 2 mA/cm2 DME +/- propylene
    carbonate) shows cycling is dependant upon the morphology of the lithium
   deposits (In Situ Observation & Eval of Electrodeposited Lithium by ..
   Op Microscopy and AC Impedance Spec., J. Elec. Soc, 140, 10 p2745 ('93)).
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
 incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
 (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
 but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess
 heats in experiments using protium and nickel.
**@@  Thought to be a component of potential interference by some, but
 levels sufficient to account for excess enthalpies have not been measured.
      --------------------------------------------------------- v.541024
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.23 / Joe Bonni /  Is there an alternative energy post?
     
Originally-From: Anathema@world.std.com (Joe Bonni)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is there an alternative energy post?
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 23:52:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Does anyone know if there is a newsgroup for discussions of alternative
energy source like soalr, wind geothermal etc?  I'd like to know about
non-polluting sources of nergy but skimming through all 5000 newsgroups
seems like a bit much.  All help appreciated.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAnathema cudfnJoe cudlnBonni cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 08:26:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>certainly don't believe it has to be a tokamak.  But we don't
>live in an ideal world, and decisions that look good at one point
>may not look so good 20 years later.
 
20 years ago I was making my decision on what to do with my life as
I was entering college.  I had decided to pursue a career in fusion,
so I read everything I could get my hands on.
 
That's when I figure it out:  The Tokamak was a dead-end and there
didn't appear to be any good alternatives.  I didn't give up my dream
lightly -- especially as the first Arab oil embargo was just hitting.
 
If a hick farmer kid could figure it out 20 years ago based on literature
available in his home-town college library, why can't PhD's at major fusion
centers like Merriman et al figure it out today, even with the FOUNDER of
the Tokamak program laying the logic out for them?
 
After long experience and analysis, I've come to a firm conclusion:
 
The technosocialist welfare state strongly selects for thought processes
consistent with its past decisions -- a selection criterion totally
incompatible with either science OR technology but entirely consistent
with political necessity.
 
In retrospect, how could anyone be surprised at this outcome?
 
I am asking this question in all seriousness.
 
People seem surprised and incredulous at the idea that a political system
might not make rational technical decisions.
 
I would seem more rational to ask:
 
Who, but a naive college student, or a political cog, would ever expect a
political process to constuct a system that makes good technical decisions?
 
Yet we observe the vast majority of people sitting idlely by as though
nothing is going wrong with our society, even as we face potential global
disaster for the want of technologies that are under the CONTROL of a
political system.
 
How this absurd horror could have come about is, perhaps, THE major
mystery of our era.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Jim Bowery /  Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hearings before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, May 6, 1993, on S646:  The Magnetic Fusion Power Act
of 1993.
 
Prepared statement of Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Vice President,
Electric Power Research Institute
 
Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members and staff, I appear
before you today to urge further study before the United States
commits to an International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor,
the proposed next step in the current line of tokamak fusion
energy research.
 
In the few minutes that I have for my prepared remarks, I will
share some of my credentials for speaking on this subject,
explain why I believe that there may be serious questions
regarding the current path of fusion research, describe why there
may be greater hope for a redirected fusion energy program, and,
finally, I will suggest ways in which to resolve some of these
very complex issues.
 
I am Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, a Vice President of the non-profit
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the $650 million/year
research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry.  In my early
career I conducted hands-on fusion research, and I managed the
federal fusion research program from 1972-1976.  I have
maintained contact with this area of research ever since.  In
addition, I have spent roughly 20 years in private industry,
managing research programs and facing the problems of
commercializing a wide array of energy-related technologies.
 
I believe that fusion power can become a major producer of
economical environmentally attractive electric power in the 21st
century.  For this to happen, we must develop fusion power units
that are more attractive than fission nuclear reactors and other
baseload electrci power options.  If not, there will be little
incentive for utilities to utilize this technology.
 
To be acceptable to the public, a rational investor, and a Public
Utility Commission, a new electric power source must meet a
number of stringent criteria.  The three most important of these
are first, low power cost; second, environmental attractiveness,
including safety, and third, high reliability.
 
Let's consider the current emphasis in fusion research against
these criteria.  Almost 100% of the current federal fusion
program is focused on the deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle and
the tokamak concept for plasma confinement.  Scientists and
engineers have beendoing paper designs for fusion reactors based
on this approach for roughly twenty years.  In that time, they
have done some extremely clever thinking to develop a small
family of conceptual DT tokamak fusion reactors.
 
The problem is that the best DT tokamak designs appear to be less
attractive than the Advanced Light Water fission reactor, the
ALWR, which many hope will be acceptable in the U.S. electric
power generation marketplace in the 21st century.
 
First, DT tokamak reactors are projected to have power costs
20-50% higher than an ALWR.  Since these paper studies are far
removed from any fusion reactor construction and operating
experience, realities emerging over time are certain to increase
fusion power costs, making them even less competitive.
 
Second, while there are many environmental and safety issues
related to both fission and fusion, let me focus on perhaps the
most important one -- the production of radioactive waste.
According to reactor design studies, DT tokamak fusion reactors
using the best available steel in their constuction will produce
more radioactive waste than an ALWR.  While it can be argued that
new structural materials could reduce fusion radioactive waste,
the development of those materials will be both very costly and
very time consuming.
 
Finally, DT tokamak fusion reactors, as currently envisioned,
will be extraordinarily complex machines.  Even assuming
significant learning and new technology between now and the
advent of fusion, complexity always means higher costs and
unforeseen problems in achieving good reliability.  This is a
particular disadvantage for DT tokamaks when compared with an
ALWR, with its inherently greater simplicity, reliance on proven
technology, and decades of operating experience.
 
Despite my conviction that fusion has great potential, I believe
that a DT tokamak fusion reactor that follows the current path of
development will be quite unpromising as compared to the advanced
light water reactor.  That being the case, a multibillion dollar
investment in ITER may not be prudent.
 
If not DT fuels in large tokamaks, then what?  Fortunately, there
are a number of other, more favorable fusion fuel cycles to
choose from.  The related physics for most of those alternatives
is more difficult than for the deuterium-tritium cycle, but the
reactor characteristics appear progressively more attractive.  It
would thus appear reasonable and prudent to consider reorienting
the U.S. thinking on fusion and targeting our research on those
potentially more attractive systems.  When we are successful with
one or more of these systems, the end result should be a clearly
superior new power source that could provide mankind with
electric power for centuries to come.
 
This better path or paths to desirable fusion power will likely
involve lower cost steps than ITER sized tokamaks.  This is
because a competitively priced fusion power system will
inherently be smaller in size, and therefore, less expensive.
But fusion research and development is likely to be costly no
matter what, so that continued international collaboration will
be highly desirable.
 
In order for fusion research to be successful, marketplace
realities must have an essential role in fusion program
directions and decisions.  Electric utilities represent the
marketplace in today's world.  Unfortunately, utilities have
never been involved in fusion research in a serious role.  Both
Dr. Davies and I recognized this shortcoming roughly a year ago
and we have been taking steps to close that gap.
 
To begin to formulate some utility views on fusion, last year
EPRI created a panel composed of some of its executives to
consider the practical aspects of fusion reactors.  Our report,
dated November 1992, reached a number of conclusions, some of the
more important of which are as follows:
 
* The federal fusion research program represents an important
national investment.
 
* In the relative near term producing deuterium-tritium fusion
power in the 10-20 megawatt-thermal range in the Princeton TFTR
is an important program milestone and should continue to be a
high priority.
 
* Program diversity beyond tokamaks is important.  In
diversifying its fusion program, the DOE should give special
consideration to concepts that are less complex and power plant
designs based on fuel cycles other than deuterium-tritium.
 
* The eventual needs of the marketplace should become a critical
element in fusion program planning and decision-making.
 
Adding all of this up, what should you do?  I believe that the
following recommendations should be considered:
 
First, do not make a national commitment to ITER until these
issues are adequately addressed.
 
Second, request the Secretary of Energy to assemble a user
community panel of utility experts and managers to evaluate the
arguments for and against the DT tokamak approach to fusion.
These people know the marketplace best and can provide you an
evaluation that is free from any near-term self-interest.
 
Third, if the conclusion of this panel is that DT tokamak
reactors are not attractive, then the panel should determine if
there are indeed more attractive opportunities in fusion.  If the
answer to that question is "yes", then drawing on appropriate
utility expertise, DOE should be able to provde a meaningful
program plan to assure the development of a fusion system that
could be extremely attractive and acceptable in the marketplace.
 
Thank you for your kind attention and your consideration of these
thoughts.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Jim Bowery /  S646
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: S646
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 01:14:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

103rd CONGRESS
1st Session
 
S. 646
 
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
 
 
Mr. Johnston introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
 
A BILL
 
To establish within the Department of Energy an international
fusion energy program, and for other purposes.
 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED,
 
 
SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE
 
This Act may be cited as the "International Fusion Energy
Act of 1993".
 
 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND DEFINITIONS.
 
(a) Findings.-- Congress finds that--
(1) fusion energy has the potential to be a safe,
environmentally attractive, secure and economically affordable
source of energy;
(2) the United States Department of Energy's magnetic fusion
energy program has made significant progress toward realizing
fusion as a viable source of energy;
(3) other industrial nations have also invested in
significant magnetic fusion energy programs;
(4) an integrated program of international collaboration
will be necessary for continued progress to demonstrate the
scientific and technological feasibility of magnetic fusion
energy;
(5) there is international agreement to proceed with the
engineering and design of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor to prove the scientific and technical
feasibility of fusion energy and to lead to a demonstration
reactor;
(6) the United States should focus the Department of
Energy's magnetic fusion energy program on the design,
construction and operation of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor;
(7) the continuation of an aggressive fusion energy program
requires the Department of Energy, industry, utilities, and the
international fusion community to commit to the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor as soon as practicable; and
(8) an effective U.S. fusion energy program requires
substantial involvement by industry and utilities in the design,
construction, and operation of fusion facilities.
 
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to --
(1) redirect and refocus the Department's magnetic fusion
energy program in a way that will lead to the design,
construction and operation of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor by 2005, in cooperation with other
countries, and operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by
2025;
(2) develop a plan identifying the budget, critical path,
milestones and schedules for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor;
(3) eliminate from the Department of Energy's magnetic
fusion energy program those elements that do not directly support
the development of the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor or the development of a fusion demonstration reactor; and
(4) select a candidate host site within the United States
for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and to
identify the steps necessary to lead the selection of the
final host site by the international community.
 
(c) Definitions.
(1) "Department" means the United States Department of
Energy;
(2) "ITER" means the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor; and
(3) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the United States
Department of Energy.
 
 
SEC. 3. INTERNATIONAL FUSION ENERGY PROGRAM.
 
(a) Program.-- The Secretary shall redirect and refocus the
Department's magnetic fusion program in a way that will lead to
the design, construction and operation of ITER by 2005 and
operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by 2025.  The
Department's magnetic fusion program shall be referred to as the
ITER program and shall be carried out in cooperation with the
international community.
 
(b) Requirements.-- In developing the ITER program, the
Secretary shall --
(1) establish as the main focus of the
Department's magnetic fusion energy program the
development of ITER;
(2) provide for the development of fusion
materials and other reactor components to the extent
necessary for the development of a fusion demonstration
reactor;
(3) eliminate those components of the megnetic
fusion energy program not contributing directly to
development of ITER or to the development of a fusion
demonstration reactor;
(4) select a candidate host site within the United
States for the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor;
(5) negotiate with other countries involved in
ITER to select a final host site for ITER and to agree
to construct ITER as soon as practicable;
(6) provide for substantial U.S. industry and
utility involvement in the design, construction and
operation of ITER to ensure U.S. industry and utility
expertise in the technologies developed; and
(7) provide for reducing the level of effort in
the ITER program to the levels prescribed in section
4(b)(2) in the event the ITER program is terminated in
accordance with subsection (g).
 
(c) Management Plan--
(1) Within 180 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and implement
a mangement plan for the ITER program.  The plan shall be
revised and updated biannually.
(2) The plan shall --
     (A) establish the goals of the ITER program;
     (B) describe how each component of the
Department's ITER program contributes directly to the
development of ITER or development of a fusion
demonstration reactor;
     (C) set priorities for the elements of the
Department's ITER program, identifying those elements
that contribute directly to the development of ITER or
to the development of a fusion demonstration reactor;
     (D) provide for the elimination of those elements
of the magnetic fusion energy program not contributing
directly to the development of ITER, or to the
development of fusion materials or other reactor
components that are necessary for the development of a
fusion demonstration reactor;
     (E) describe the selection process for a proposed
host site within the United States for ITER;
     (F) establish the necessary steps that will lead
to the final selection of the host site for ITER by the
countries involved in the ITER program by the end of
1995;
     (G) establish the necessary steps that will lead
to the design, construction and operation of ITER by
2005 and operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by
2025;
     (H) establish a schedule and critical path,
including milestones, and a budget that will allow for
the design, construction and operation of ITER by 2005
and operation of a demonstration fusion reactor by 2025;
     (I) provide mechanisms for ensuring substantial
industry and utility involvement in the design,
construction and operation of ITER;
     (J) set forth any recommendations of the Secretary
on --
          (i) the need for additional legislation
     regarding the ITER program; or
          (ii) the possibility and desirability of
     accelerating the design and construction of ITER
     or the development of a fusion demonstration
     reactor; and
     (K) provide for reducing the level of effort in
magnetic fusion to the levels prescribed in section
4(b)(2) in the event the ITER program is terminated in
accordance with subsection (g).
 
(d) International Agreements.--
(1) The Secretary may negotiate or enter into agreements
with any country governing the design, construction and
operation of ITER or facilities related to ITER.
(2) The Secretary shall seek to enter into agreements with
other countries to share in the cost of the facilities and
components of the ITER program that contribute to the design,
construction or operation of ITER or to the development of a
fusion demonstration reactor.
 
(e) Report on ITER Negotiations.-- The Secretary shall submit
an annual report to the Congress on the status of Negotiations
with other countries regarding ITER.  The report shall --
(1) identify the issue to the negotiated with other
countries involved in the ITER program;
(2) identify impediments to reaching agreement on a
host site for ITER, or on issues related to the construction
or operation of ITER;
(3) identify the steps needed to reach agreement on a
host site for ITER or on issues related to the construction
or operation of ITER;
(4) establish the timetable for agreement related to
the siting, operation and construction of ITER;
(5) assess the likelihood of reaching agreement on a
host site for ITER and on issues related to the construction
or operation of ITER; and
(6) set fort the Secretary's recommendation on whether
a special negotiator should be appointed to carry out
negotiations on behalf of the United States with the
countries involved in the ITER program.
 
(f) Certification.-- Prior to seeking funds for construction
of ITER, the Secretary shall certify to the Congress that there
is agreement in place or there is a substantial likelihood
agreement will be reached with the countries involved in ITER on
the siting, construction and operation of ITER.
 
(g) Termination.--
(1) The Secretary shall report to Congress if the Secretary
determines that --
(A) ITER is no longer essential to the development of a
fusion demonstration reactor;
(B) no agreement can be reached on the final host site
for ITER;
(C) no agreement can be reached on the final design of
ITER or on issues realted to construction of ITER; or
(D) there is an insufficient commitment to the final
ITER design by U.S. industry and utilities.
(2) Within 30 days of submission of the report under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall initiate the termination
of the ITER program.
(3) In the event the Secretary terminates the ITER
program, the Secretary may continue to carry out research in
magnetic fusion, but only at the levels authorized in
section 4(b)(2).
 
 
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
 
(a) Limitation on Appropriations.-- No more funds may be
appropriated to carry out the purpose of this Act than the
amounts set forth in subsection (b).  This Act shall be the
exclusive source of authorization of appropriations to support
any activities of the Secretary relating to magnetic fusion
energy.
(b) Appropriations.--
(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
for carrying out the purposes of this Act $350,000,000 for
fiscal year 1994, $390,000,000 for fiscal year 1995,
$475,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and suc sums as may be
necessary thereafter.
(2) In the event the Secretary terminates the ITER program,
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
$50,000,000 for 1994, $50,000,000 for 1995 and $50,000,000
for 1996 for activities relating to magnetic fusion energy.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / mitchell swartz /  The literature clarifies again
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The literature clarifies again
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 18:45:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <93102209504717@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
  Subject: Looking at the carcass
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU,  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
=db "(1) Heavy water vs. light water.  Michell Swartz's recent posts typify
=db what I see as a lack of recognition of a clear contradiction in the
=db accepted cold fusion data set.  On one hand he sees great significance
=db in some Harwell data in which light water cells and heavy water cells
=db were run in series, presumably with the light water serving as a control
=db because deuterium is the suspected CF fuel.  But then he has no
=db difficulty accepting the positive light water results as another clear
=db example of cold fusion - with no deuterium!  There are so many unanswered
=db questions raised by the light vs. heavy water experiments,  I have to
=db say that the best way to reconcile the two sets of data is to say that
=db both results are bogus.  I would like to see some believers present their
=db current thinking on this."
 
  Dick Blue incorrectly claims that the "light water work disproves
"cold fusion".  In fact, the light water experiments occur on a totally
different metal; and that is nickel and not palladium.
An actual reading of the literature would have clarified this for him.
 
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 /  PAUL /  RE: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: 24 OCT 93 19:09:51 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Bob Heeter asks: "Why do so many people hat the tokamak?"
Well the main problem with the tokamak is the toroidal current.
Currently all major tokamaks drive their curent via induction.
This is an inherently pulsed mode of opperation.  This leads to
cyclical mechanical and thermal stresses.
Current drive via RF or beams can lead to a steady state machine, but
looking at machines such as ITER, you need something like 100 MW
of lower hybrid current drive to power a 1 GW Thermal machine.
Take that 1GW and change it into electricity at 30% efficiency and
you get 300 MW now you need to use 200 MW to produce the 100 MW
of rf for the curent drive.  You are left with 100 MW assuming you
have not screwed up the calculations and your plasma behaves.
 
Other problems are that the volume is large compared to the surface area.
This leads to high heat loading on the walls.  The large array of coils and
support structure makes repair and maintenance very difficult.  A damaged
coil on Alcator C-Mod cost about a year to repair.  Mirors avoided a lot
of these problems.  Unfortunately they didn't work.   Tokamaks remain
the best solution as their confinement time can not be matched.  They
also have the benifit of being more symetric than other devices, making
analysis easier.
 
Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
 
I in no way speak for the Alcator group or the PFC.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 17:46:18 GMT
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 17:46:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Originally-From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 17:46:47 GMT
In article <CFD2q0.Jsn@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Oct23.051006.17851@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I mean, obviously the current tokamak technology isn't competitive;
>
>     Isn't competitive?  It isn't a power-generating technology,
>     it isn't even on the playing field.
>
>>compare it with expected developments in other energy technologies,
>>it turns out the tokamak has a fair chance of being economically
>>viable.  (Certainly better than 1 in 50).
>
>     I think it has no better than a 1 in 10^17 chance of being
economically
>     viable.  And my number has about as much basis as yours.
>
Does it now?  Where did you get your number?  I've been reading every
reactor design study I can get my hands on.  Come on Dale, this is
sci.physics.fusion, not alt.flames.fusion.  Give me a rational argument.
 
>>  Recent reactor design
>>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
>>everyone else's here.
>
>     In their dreams.
>
Why do you disagree?  What's your evidence?  In what way are the studies
flawed?
 
>>So I think Barry's point was that since tokamak technology is currently
>>within an order of magnitude (maybe two) of being competitive, and
>
>      Hogwash, it is two orders of magnitude from *working*.  Economic
>      viability awaits a viable power generation system, and we cannot
>      even *think* about that until we have a viable plasma, which we
don't.
>      For instance, if the shielding must be replaced every couple of
>      hours it's going to be difficult to imagine an economically viable
>      power cycle.
>
Not at all.  First off, you *have* to think about the power generation
system
along with developing a viable plasma.  A power plant has to function as
an integrated unit.  That's why people are *doing* the design studies,
not just playing with plasmas.  Secondly, getting a viable plasma is
by far the greatest challenge.  Once you have that, it won't be nearly
so hard to make a viable power generation system.  And I have yet to
see a calculation that requires the shielding to be replaced every
few hours.  Few years is more like it, and that's not too bad at all.
And the calculations that have been done to look at the costs show,
as I said, that we can have fusion power in the range of 3-6
cents / kilowatt-hour.  If you won't take my word for it, I can
give you the references.
 
>>improving steadily, there doesn't seem to be a good justification for
>>giving it a near-zero probability of ever working.  If someone can
>>explain to me what the justification is, I'm happy to learn.
>
>     The point is that *no one* can give you any reasonable probablility
>     assessment of it being economically viable.  Your 1 in 50 is as
>     worthless as my 1 in 10^17.  Right now, it is a 40 year old physics
>     toy with at least another 50 to go before we can even think
>     about economic viability.
>
Wait - the 1 in 50 isn't *my* number.  Don't put words in my mouth!
And you're wrong - fusion's not a physics "toy", and we're close enough
to feasibility that we are *already* thinking about economic viability.
50 years is the timescale at which it's likely to be economically viable.
If that comes to pass, it will be because people are thinking about it
now.  Today we may not *know* that it will be viable, but until you give
me some rational arguments against the studies that have been done, I'm
going to consider their assessment reasonable.  Within my lifetime,
fusion stands a fair chance of generating economical power.
 
 
***********************************
Robert F. Heeter
"If the flames get any thicker, I'm going to set up my own powerplant
here!"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual disclaimers apply.  I do not represent the plasma lab, only myself.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: jonesse
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
Subject: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 18:24:18 GMT
Date: 21 Oct 93 15:42:02 -0600
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
Originally-From: jonesse
Date: 21 Oct 93 15:42:02 -0600
In article <1993Oct21.154202.1013@physc1.byu.edu> ,
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Recently, Robert Heeter (grad student in plasma physics at Princeton)
>posted "How do I turn the switch off?"  Robert is getting considerable
feedback
>from Jim Bowery and others which makes the tokamak approach appear as
though it
>will never be commercially viable.  It happens that I sympathize with
much of
>what Jim, Terry, Matt and others are saying about this, but I'd like to
point
>out that there are contrary opinions which also have cogent arguments.
I'm
>concerned that Robert is getting one side of a complex, ongoing debate,
and
>so I encourage him to consult others before changing the course of his
>studies (for instance).
>
Thanks, Prof. Jones.  I'm doing ok, actually.  I may be getting reamed
here
on the net, but it's refreshing to have a chance to discuss the stuff with
people who *aren't* tokamak believers.  It's really informative to see
what people think about fusion, and the tokamak in particular, and to
see what arguments hold water and which are feeble.  Hopefully one of
these
days I'll get around to evaluating Jim Bowery's posts.  But Princeton
keeps us pretty busy.
 
>Will someone speak for tokamak?  Bruce?  Dick?  I'd like to see an
airing of
>the other side of the argument.
>
Me too!  Barry Merriman is out here, I'm out here, but where'd everyone
else
go?  Trouble is, the big plasma physics conference is coming up in a
week,
so I imagine everyone's busy getting ready for that.  I had hoped to
simply ask questions and try to get people to concentrate on what's known
about plasma-fusion energy, instead of just arguing opinions back and
forth.
I'm not 100% committed to the tokamak, I'm not even 100% committed to
fusion.
I'm committed to clean and sustainable energy, and to the other two
insofar as
they seem to me to be a good way to go.  But that's an opinion.  I want to
know what the facts are that support and oppose this.  Since I'm looking
at
the net discussions as a sort of extra class, and I'm trying to learn
something,
not just take sides, I'm not really well-suited to the job of defending
one
side or the other.  I'd really appreciate it if someone with more
experience
and background could take up some of the burden.
 
>About 10 years ago at an APS meeting, I attended a debate between Larry
Lidsky
>of MIT and someone from PPPL I believe, on this very issue.  I found
Lidsky's
>arguments against tokamak (for use by utilities) to be quite convincing.
 Can't
>even remember the other fellow's name...  In general, I agree with Jim
that
>alternative approaches to fusion power ought to be pursued also -- not
just
>tokamak.  In particular, there is essentially zero support for
muon-catalyzed
>fusion in this country, not so in Europe, Canada and Russia.
>
I've read Lidsky's article, "End Program Economics and Fusion Research
Program Priorities," Journal of Fusion Energy, v2, #4-5, 1982, pp.
269-292.
I think this is probably what the debate was about.  Dunno who debated
him;
I was in Jr. High then!  Lidsky's critique is largely on the mark, but I
don't think it kills the tokamak.  Certainly EPRI was still considering
the
tokamak in May of this year.  (Conn and Najmabadi presented the results of
the ARIES study to the EPRI Fusion Meeting on May 17.  I've been trying to
learn about fusion as an energy source from people here at PPPL, as well
as by discussing it on the net.  That's how I know.)  We need to remember
that a lot has happened in the 10 years since Lidsky's critique, and
people
have paid a lot of attention to the economic side of things.
 
>I'd also like to thank Robert for his posts, and others for comments.
The
>discussion is enlightening.
>
>--Steven Jones
>
Glad to know someone besides me appreciates the discussion!
Personally, I'm learning a lot by trying to respond to everyone.
I just wish I had time to read everything I need to read to really
know what's going on...
 
**************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 17:25:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CFD22n.JJM@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
 
* As I read Dale's thrashing of my response to Jim, I'm thinking:
Uh oh! Dale Bass! And I've only been around this group for 2 months!
I was hoping people would be nice to me a little longer.  Must have said
something pretty stupid... *
 
>In article <1993Oct23.042007.8387@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>In article <19931018.164944.650@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
>
>>>         Clearly you are easily shocked.  For the record, I consider
>>>the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly
>>>since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons
>>>should they wish to do so.
>>
>>Are there?  I guess I'm underinformed here. I've read that the breeder
>>reactor designs typically use higher-grade fuels, and are *designed*
>>to create more radioactive material, thus making it simpler to
>>acquire the nasty stuff that you need to make bombs.  I'm shocked by
>>your disbelief in the proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're
>>willing to consider elimination of various nations in order to support
>>a breeder-based energy system.
>
>    I'm shocked that you're shocked.  South Africa, Israel, Iran,
>    North Korea, Iraq, Brazil, India, Pakastan among others seem
>    to have had little problem getting weapons-grade fissionable
materials
>    *without* power breeder technology.  Hell, Iraq had calutrons.
>    So, clearly proliferation is not a problem since we're already
>    proliferated.  And terrorists are not exactly going to be able
>    to reprocess and assemble in their basement.
>
Yes, Dale, I did say something pretty stupid.  But actually, it was a
mistake.  I'm not shocked that you're shocked that I'm shocked.  :)
What I wrote, and what I *thought* I wrote, turn out to be two
different things in this case.
 
I meant to write, "I'm not shocked by your disbelief in the
                       ^^^ <- this was omitted by accident, sorry!
 
proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're willing to consider
elimination of various nations in order to support a breeder-based
energy system."
 
(So, for want of a negative, a flamewar was born...)
 
Dale argues that proliferation is not a problem for the breeder economy,
since it's already happening in today's economy.  I agree that we
already have proliferation, but that doesn't mean that a breeder
economy won't make the problem worse.  And I disagree that the nations
which are currently nuclear-capable have had "little problem getting
weapons-grade fissionable materials" without breeders.  If it were
really so easy, they would have had the things a long time ago,
instead of just developing them within the last 10-20 years or so.
 
>    As far as eliminating nations goes, the problem is not with reactors,
>    but with weapons.  With no sight of a world-wide breeder economy,
>    North Korea has probably recently gone nuclear.  Japan and South
>    Korea and maybe Taiwan will probably very quickly follow if they
>    have not already.  So again clearly, it is not the *reactors*, but
>    a threat that will cause the aforementioned two or three nations
>    to go nuclear.   If we were to eliminate the threat, there would
>    be no need for the Japanese, for instance, to go nuclear, even though
>    they could easily do so in quite short order.  But this has
>    *nothing to do* with power breeders.  Ask yourself why every country
>    in Western Europe has not gone nuclear.  All of them could.
>
Yes, the problem is with weapons.  But reactors can make the problem
better or worse, depending on how easy they make it to obtain
enriched, weapons-grade materials.  Seems to me that countries could
get bomb-grade materials a lot more cheaply if their fuel is
pre-enriched in a breeder.  This makes the separation of the
weapons-grade stuff from the ordinary stuff much easier.
Furthermore, you end up with a lot more weapons-grade material
in a breeder system.  I agree that any nation that wants nukes
is going to have them.  But with a breeder economy, you make it
much *easier* for them to get them, and you also make it easier for
them to have *lots* of them.  An Iraq with 100 nukes will be more
of a problem than an Iraq with only 2-5.  If we get back to my
original post, maybe my point will be clear:
 
>> The shock isn't so much due to the
>>apparent inhumanity of the comment as it is due to the fact that
>>that kind of political baggage makes the breeder much more costly.
 
I'm not saying a breeder economy is impossible, just that the
proliferation issue makes things a little tougher.  I don't think
the proliferation critique of breeders is a critical argument, but
you have to consider it...
 
>>But if you can explain why you think there are easier ways to get
>>weapons-grade materials, I'll shut up.
>
>     Iraq had calutrons and centrifuge technology and a reactor that
>     would have produced enough fissionables for their weapons had it
>     not been bombed by the Israelis.  Where is the power breeder?
>
*IF* there were a power breeder, Iraq would have *far more*
fissionables, and would not need to do as much enrichment with the
calutrons and centrifuges.  No one has shown that the current
system makes it *easier* to get weapons-grade materials than in a breeder
system (as I was asking), only that it's possible in both.
But I wasn't arguing that.
 
Proliferation will be a problem no matter what we do, but there are
things we can do to reduce or enhance the problem.  It's not clear
to me that breeder fission won't enhance the proliferation problem.
If you want to make a breeder economy, you have to factor in the
added costs due to the increased proliferation.
 
>>(things like oil shocks, Persian gulf wars, and the like).  Fusion
>>would be less likely to have this sort of problem.  (Any room
>>for agreement here now?)
>
>     Why talk about fusion like it is an economically viable process?
>     It is more likely to have such problems if it is economically
>     questionable.
>
I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this point.  Why would it be
more likely to have problems if it was questionable?  As for why I
talk about it like it's viable, it's because I thought Jim and I
were debating the relative merits of a breeder-energy economy vs.
a fusion-energy economy.  I'm implicitly assuming that fusion will
develop to a state of economic viability, in a world where fossil
fuels aren't available or not worth using, and where you need
*something* besides the standard alternative/renewable technologies in
order to provide reliable base-load power.
 
I still think fusion would tend to alleviate the proliferation problem,
rather than make it worse.  If the current fission plants were replaced
by fusion plants at the end of their operational lifetimes, we would be
able to reduce the amount of fissionable material in circulation, and
this would make it harder to get the stuff to make bombs.
 
Moving on:
>>Ok, I agree with you here.  But I wasn't thinking about building a
>>fusion plant with today's technology!  I was really asking whether
>>you thought fission was better as a *long-term* energy solution.  And
>>I wasn't asking for a purely scientific analysis-I think the political
>>aspect is also relevant.
>
>     The economic problem is the most difficult.  What most fusion
>     people seem to miss is that if you cannot build and operate a
>     facility economically, it's just an expensive toy.
>
Believe me, I haven't missed this.  Why do you claim that fusion people
are blind to the economic side of things?  It seems pretty obvious
that if you want to build a real-world energy source, it has to
be competitive economically.
 
>>  It's very difficult to get people to accept
>>fission. I have trouble with your conclusion that waste disposal isn't
>>a serious technical problem.  On the timescales over which the
>>high-level waste has to be isolated, there seems to be a fair amount
>>of uncertainty regarding how safe the current proposals are.
>
>     Use IFR technology, produce short-term containment facilities and
>     'burn' most of the actinides in the reactor.  If y'all can count
>     on technology from 50 years in the future, I can rely on technology
>     just showing up on the shelf (to be shelved by our esteemed chief
>     executive because he's an idiot).
>
I have no problem with your assumption of future technology.  The
discussion wasn't based on contemporary technology, but on a comparison
of the long-term prospects for fission & fusion.  Sure you can reduce
a lot of the high-level waste to lower-level waste, but you still
have to put it somewhere.  Does IFR technology make everything suitable
for shallow burial?  I'd like to know more.  Obviously I lean towards
fusion, but I'm interested in any energy technology that shows
long-term potential.
 
>>(Obviously if you decide that waste and weapons proliferation aren't
>>problems, and you ignore the political problems attached to all
>>things nuclear, breeder reactors are going to look pretty good!)
>
>     But the political problems are no less for fusion reactors.
>     People cannot even get microwave transmission towers built these
days.
>     Wait until someone explains about tritium containment.
>     Besides, breeders could be initiated within 5-10 years. Fusion
plants
>     cannot even be planned for 50 years, and they may not be competetive
>     with Aunt Martha pedaling a stationary generator.
>
No, the political problems should be a lot less.  First off, someone's
got to figure out what to do with *today's* nuclear waste, so by the
time we get fusion, people will be downright happy to learn that fusion
(if done right) will generate waste that only needs shallow burial, it's
so safe.  Tritium containment is a problem, but it sure beats meltdown!
And don't forget radon emissions from today's fission plants.  I'm not
saying there won't be political problems for fusion, but I think they're
going to be substantially less than for fission.
 
I agree that breeders are a better near-term option, but we don't need
a near-term option, we need something to replace coal & oil, which
shouldn't be a problem for a while.  Furthermore, I expect that fusion
plants could be done on a 20-30 year timescale if people were willing
to fund it.
 
>>you meant about a grim employment situation?  This would require a
>>worldwide abandonment of fusion, which seems unlikely.  (The US only
>>has 20% of the world fusion workforce.)
>
>     Funny thing, my guess is that a reevaluation of most of these
>     things will occur in the next few years.  Conversations like
>     'What do you mean, 50 years?  What happened to the last 40?'
>     will probably occur worldwide.
>
Well, people have been saying that for the past 20 years, and the
re-evaluation has been a continuous and ongoing process.  Unless you
know a lot of things I don't on the subject (do you?), I'm just
going to have to disagree with you here.  There will be conversations
such as the one that you mention, but the fact is that fusion *has*
been making progress, it's *close* to being viable, and every time
people re-evaluate the program, they decide to continue it.  While
this might change, you're going to have to give me a lot more evidence
to convince me.
 
************************************
Robert F. Heeter
"I can take the heat, and I ain't leavin' the kitchen!"
Still looking for *facts*!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 23:42:02 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Oct21.144306.1011@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
wrote:
 
> All the fusion reactions amongst hydrogen isotopes produce 3He or 4He, which
> may then scavenge the muon catalyst, *except*
>    d + d -->  t + p.
> In this case, the muon is often picked up by the recoiling p or t, but since
> these are hydrogen isotopes, the muon is not lost to the reaction.  (Of course,
> half the time, according to experiments, the d+d reaction produces
> 3He + n, and the muon is captured by the 3He in about 12% of such reactions.)
>
> The idea of using thin films to strip the muon from the recoiling He nucleus
> has been looked at a little.  This is one area that I think needs more
> attention.  The point is that the recoiling nucleus has O(MeV) of kinetic
> energy, plenty to ionize the muon which is bound with 11 keV.  One problem is
> that the film will also scavenge free muons and muons from
> hydrogen-isotope-muon atoms.  So the question becomes, how to avoid muon
> capture while retaining release of muons from fast helium-muon ions.  If you
> can think of a possible way, please let me know.
>
> --Steven Jones
 
As I understand it, muon catalyzed fusion is carried out in a mixture of
liquid D2 and DT, into which the muons are injected.  How are the free D
and T atoms formed which the muons can react with to form a D-M-D (among
others) molecule which can fuse?  I think the muon carries a -1 charge, so
isn't this molecule negatively charged?  What is the charge on the 3He-muon
complex and what happens to the muon after this capture?  If only the
undesired 3He-muon complex were charged, could it be accelerated and
collisionally dissociated?  Even if other species present are charged, it
might be possible to selectively accelerate only the 3He-muon, it that
would be useful.
 
Just wondering how this all works ... :)
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / William LeFevre /  Re: Note on tokomak)
     
Originally-From: lefevre@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (William J LeFevre)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Note on tokomak)
Date: 25 Oct 1993 03:32:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1993Oct21.154202.1013@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>Will someone speak for tokamak?  Bruce?  Dick?  I'd like to see an airing of
>the other side of the argument.
>
>
Granted, at present I'm studying hydrology, I started out in NE at Madison
 
Even in energy.hydrogen they are knocking Tokamak.
 
My impression was that a torus was going to be the type of machine that would
reach the required densities first but was a nightmare for commercial
production and maintanence. I always had a notion that a tandem mirror like
Phraedrus might be the type of machine to go on line
 
what is the state of the T-mirrors?
Email would be nice...
 
Bill <lefevre@gas.uug.arizona.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlefevre cudfnWilliam cudlnLeFevre cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Deuteron Spins
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron Spins
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 22:55:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

 
I thought I would weigh in on the opposite side of Dick and Terry regarding
the nuclear potential in a delocalized band state.  Sometimes you can learn
quite a bit by arguing the negative.  (Besides I consider myself a true
believer of Cold Fusion, at least up to 10E-64 f/s :).   To start,
consider the Yakawa potential.  The Yakawa theory of the nuclear force
predicted the existence of a type of boson particle that transmitted a force
from point to point.  By using field of force, the equations for the
potential are similar to the equations in Maxwellian electrodynamics.
That potential is usually given as,
 
           -ur
   V = f e
        ------
           r
 
The operator 'f' is an interaction parameter that plays the role of the
electron's charge 'e' in electromagnetics. 'f' can be estimated from the
average nucleon-nucleon interaction distance of 2.8E-13 cm. Simply stating
with out proof, it's  f^2/ hbar c  ~> 0.3.  The parameter u is a constant
and has the dimensions of the reciprocal of length and is related to the
mass of the exchange particles by Mo = h_bar u / c.  In Yakawa's time,
the mass of this particle was unknown.  We know it today as the pion.
 
Anyway, it's extremely easy to see to solve V in terms of r.
 
         ___________
    f = V 0.3 hbar c
 
           Mo c       where Mo is the mass of the pion.  ~200MeV.
       u = ----       c is the speed of light.
           hbar
 
and
                             ___________
            f               V 0.3 hbar c
      V = ------   =   --------------------
             r u             r (Mo c/ hbar)
         r e             r e
 
Which is the static solution of the attractive potential at some point
x,y,z.  Giving coordinates to the solution with the radius of
interaction extended into space as (xr, yr, zr)
 
                                 ___________
                                V 0.3 hbar c
      V(x,y,z) = -----------------------------------------------
                            r(x,y,z) Mo c/ hbar
                 r(x,y,z) e
 
                                 ___________
                                V 0.3 hbar c
      V(x,y,z) = -----------------------------------------------
                                    (x+xr,y+yr,z+zr) Mo c/ hbar
                 (x+xr,y+yr,z+zr) e
 
Now it has been argued, by a few of us "believers" that the
delocalization of a particle will enhance the probability of
interaction.  Namely by a degenerate bose band state.  Without getting
in to those complexities let me argue from W Bernecky's Quantics point
of view.  In this case, the the relation between the deBroglie
wavelength of the deuteron is equated to the uncertainty principle such
that p = h/lambda ~= h / a, where a is the lattice spacing, and a = del
x. (from del p del x >= h).  Treating the potential between two
deuterons (4 nucleons) as two point nucleons, the potential between
two points x1,y1,z1 and x2,y2,z2 and letting fx=x2-x1, fy=y2-y1,
fz=z2-z1, and noting the radius of interaction implies the overlap of
two potentials where rd = r +/- del x, then
 
                                 ___________
                                V 0.3 hbar c
 V(fx,fy,fz) = --------------------------------------------------------
                                      (fx+rdx,fy+rdy+fz+rdz) Mo c/ hbar
              (fx+rdx,fy+rdy,fz+rdz) e
 
 
By simple inspection, the result above indicates that from the
uncertainty relation there is an enhanced potential for interaction
during a wave function overlap via rd = r - del x.  As fx -> 0
V(fx,fy,fz) blows up as normal, but there is additional enhancement
when del x becomes >= r on the negative side (the overlap from a
degenerate pair).
 
With regard to high density deuteron band state, this would imply an
enhanced cold fusion rate.  If such a high density band D+ state does
exist, which would be described by the condensation process of the
Bose Einstein statistics, the multi-body nature of the process should
favor the formation of other bose type particles. Fusion in the cold
at eV levels via tunnelling should be influenced by other overlapping
wave functions of surrounding particals. With regard to the Mossbaur
type of recoilless interaction, let me note that fusion in a band
state has the potential to distribute MeV's of energy via the the
overlapping del x (the basis of the Mossbaur effect). This would imply
the destribution of energy, not to the lattice, but to the deuteron
band system first, and then to lattice.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Deuteron Spins
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron Spins
Date: 25 Oct 1993 06:01:45 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
: Now it has been argued, by a few of us "believers" that the
: delocalization of a particle will enhance the probability of
: interaction.  Namely by a degenerate bose band state.
 
I feel like a broken record.  But here goes again:
 
How did you get that overlapping delocalized state in the first place?
 
You are essentially saying "Let the wave function be in a state such
that there will be fusion.  Then there will be fusion."
 
Where does the energy come from?  Overlapping wavefunctions will
*repel* each other.  The energy for that configuration will be HIGH.
It is not an equilibrium state.  If you some how start out like that
it will not stay that way.
 
: With regard to high density deuteron band state, this would imply an
: enhanced cold fusion rate.  If such a high density band D+ state does
: exist, which would be described by the condensation process of the
: Bose Einstein statistics, the multi-body nature of the process should
: favor the formation of other bose type particles.
 
The tendency for condensation is a weak effect, which is strongly
counteracted by the electrostatic repulsion.  That it happens in
superfluid He is an extraordinary example of something that is normally
unobservable.  (And remember that He is electrically neutral.)
 
You somehow turned off the charge, but left the strong force on.
 
If we could do that, we would have had fusion a long time ago.
 
Muon catalyzed fusion is the closest thing to just that.  The muon's radius
is much smaller than electrons, so bound muonic atoms can bump up
much closer to each other than normally because their charges are screened.
I.e. you strongly reduce the electrostatic repulsion down to a much
lower radius.
 
Think:
 
Why don't the nuclei in a steel bar "condense" and exhibit all sorts of
interesting nuclear effects?  Experimentally, they seem to just sit there.
 
Why doesn't deuterated wax or deuterated ice spontaneously fuse?
 
Why do you have to compress ordinary fusion fuel with an atomic bomb to
initate fusion?
 
: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@coplex.com
 
--
-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:
cuddy25 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Bill Page /  Silicate layer effects
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicate layer effects
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 11:41:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
P&F show data that both temperature and input voltage rise over days of
running, but without explaining why.  I suggest this is due to deposition
of silicates (or aluminates or borates) on their electrode(s). Clearly, the
resistance of the cell is increasing so that voltage must increase (as the
data show) to keep the input power constant.  Consequently, the I^2*R
heating increases, and this heating will only accelerate silicates
dissolving from the glass tubes into the electrolyte.
 
Do you (or Dieter or John or anyone) have an alternative explanation for
the rise in cell temp. which tracks rise in cell voltage?  I'd really like
to know.  Certainly P&F do not proffer an explanation in their paper, which
is at best an oversight.
>>
 
After re-reading P&F's paper and a closer look at Fig 8. it seems clear
even from these summary graphs that the temperature rises more rapidly than
the voltage and that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in voltage
(especially near the end).  There definately does not appear to be a linear
relationship between the two.  This is not at all what one would expect if
the temperature rise was only due to the change in cell resistance.
 
Am I correct, Steven, that you are not suggesting any storage and/or
release of energy from the supposed silicate layer?  Presumably, the only
effect of the silicate layer would be to increase the cell resistance.  It
is conceivable that this could lead to a positive feedback where the rise
in temperatue leads to an increase in the rate of formation (and hence the
average thinkness) of the silicate layer.  But the relationship between the
voltage and temperature should remain linear even as they both rise.
 
The point that P&F are making, I think, is that the rise in temperature is
much faster and at least 4 times greater than what is predicted on the
basis of the measurements and the thermodynamic model.  The final boiling
cell stage is reached very quickly.  It seems unlikely that the positive
feedback from silicate layer deposition alone could produce this effect.
Are you also supposing that Lithium co-deposition and subsequent oxidation
provides the extra energy in the final stages?
 
I agree that P&F's paper lacks sufficient detail.  If we could only get P&F
to be as open with their data as Tom Droege, we'd be able to make a much
more substantive assessment!
 
Cheers.
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Deuteron spin substates
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuteron spin substates
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 12:57:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To answer Robert Easchus's question concerning deuteron spins, the nuclear
spin of the deuteron ground state is one hbar.  There are thus three
substates -1, 0 , +1 projections of that angular momentum.  Those substates
may simply be degenerate as far as atomic physics is concerned, but they
most certainly aren't when it comes to nuclear fusion.  It is just one
of those little details that gets overlooked when electrochemists try to
do theoretical nuclear physics :-).
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: CRITERIA FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CRITERIA FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 18:54:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Oct21.172144.1016@physc1.byu.edu> ,
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>In preparation for the Hawaii meeting on cold fusion, sponsored
primarily by
>EPRI,  I'm preparing a
>discussion of "Criteria for compelling evidence for cold fusion."
>
>I plan to submit this to the conference proceedings.  Those who
contribute will
>be acknowledged (unless they ask not to be).
>
I'm sure others will contribute more than I can, but as an outsider and a
student, I'm happy to take a whack at this.  No need to acknowledge me,
though,
I don't think my contribution will be large enough.
 
>CRITERIA FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
>
>1. Results must be consistent with established experimental data.
>  (e.g., E=mc^2 implies that reaction products must be quantitatively
>commensurate with energy released.  Muon-catalyzed "cold" fusion shows
that
>d+d --> 3He + n  and d+d --> t + p  with approx. 50% of fusions
proceeding by
>each branch.)
>
This seems reasonable.  I'd say "New results", though, just to make it
clearer.
The "experimental" in there is critical, because it looks like an
explanation
of cold fusion may require some new theoretical development.  But you
can't
deny the experimental evidence that's out there.
 
>2.  Results must be reproducible.
>
>3.  If reproducible, then results should be capable of scaling to at
least
>100 times background levels.
>    (e.g., if ambient helium is 5 ppm [which is typical for atmosphere,
often
>higher in laboratories], then 500 ppm should be required.)
>
This doesn't seem sufficiently scientific.  Statistically you'd want a 3+
sigma
effect, right?  You need your signal (and both ends of the error bar) to
be
undeniably greater than any conceivable fluctuations in background.  So
why
not just say that "Besides being reproducible, results should be above
background at statistically significant levels."  It's not clear to me
what
the effect of "capable of scaling" is supposed to be.  I mean, either you
do
it, and it's over 100x background (and/or statistically significant), or
you
haven't done it yet.  Whether you could imagine scaling your experiment
to give you 100x background isn't really relevant.  But I may not be
interpreting this one right.  Of course, if it's hard to interpret the
criterion, perhaps it should be tweaked.
 
>4.  Appropriate controls must show no effect, in all cases.
>
Sure.
>
>5.  Legible data must be provided for controls and for foreground
samples.
>Data values with correct error bars are required; estimates from plots
>without evaluated error bars are unacceptable.
>
This is also good scientific practice.  If you want to establish a new
effect,
you have to document *everything*.
 
>6.  Statistics alone are insufficient to establish a new effect.
Systematics
>must be eliminated as far as possible by use of controls and
>multiple detectors of different types.  Calibrations and tests must be
>alternated in time and done in approximately equal numbers and
preferably done
>both in parallel (with different detectors) and sequentially.
>
I'd add that calibration should be done both before and *after* the
tests, at least those that show effects.  I'd also add that the
calibration
must be valid for all parts of parameter space that the experiment is
going to pass through.  (i.e., if you're boiling water, you need to
calibrate your calormeter for boiling water, not just warm water, etc.)
 
>7.  Any source of known systematic error must be removed from the system.
>  (e.g., when helium-4 production is claimed, all known sources of helium
>contamination must be removed from the system -- particularly glass.)
>
I think there may be times when you can't remove the error, in which case
you
have to calibrate it into your system.
 
>8. To establish a nuclear effect, MeV-scale energies must be in
evidence, either
>by detection of X-rays or energetic particles.
>(I think that the notion of "lattice heating" without MeV-particles
>violates momentum conservation +
>uncertainty-principle and speed-of-light constraints, as I have argued
before.
>However, even this notion predicts the presence of soft x-rays,
>as do hydrino and shrunken-hydrogen molecule (Vigier) and, I think,
>zero-point energy extraction "wild" ideas.)
>
It's going to be difficult to measure the soft x-rays, though.  Anything
less
than 10 keV will be absorbed pretty readily by the water bath.  So this
criterion may need some work.
 
>9.  The best detectors available must show the effect.  A complete
description
>of how the detector (or calorimeter) functions must be given.
>  (All heat transport paths between system and surroundings must be
quantified,
>controlled and accounted for.
>X-ray films are insufficient since x-ray spectrometers are
>readily available and much less subject to artifacts.  Similarly, BF3
neutron
>counters are inadequate for neutrons.  Open cells are inadequate to
>establish xs heat production.  Fast-waveform digitizers are needed, not
scalars
>or analog read-outs.  Accurate, frequent sampling of input power is
required.
>Other examples:    )
>
Ahh, yes:  document everything, calibrate everything, and use real
instruments.
A real experimental effect cannot be taken on faith.
 
>10. Although a theoretical explanation of the effect is not required to
>establish an experimental observation,
>any explanation offered must be consistent with the data presented
>and with other experimental data.  Occam's razor suggests
>that a novel model not be adopted when a simpler explanation is
reasonable
>even if seemingly unlikely.  An explanation which explains one set of
data
>while countering other experimental data is invalid.  The value of a new
theory
>lies in its ability to predict the outcome of untried experiments as
well as
>summarizing present data.
>
If you're just trying to provide criteria by which an experimental effect
will
be considered undeniable, do you need to set up criteria for theoretical
explanations too?
 
>11.  Experimental procedures and data must be well documented and open
for
>inspection.
>
I think this one could be incorporated with #9.  Or perhaps the "complete
description" in #9 could be included here, and the "best detectors
available"
criterion separated out.
 
>"The thoroughness necessary to establish a proof of cold fusion has not
been
>present in past investigations.  Some of the shortcomings are caused by
the
>opinion that cold fusion has been confirmed,
>and some have been caused by poor research practices.  Sloppy, poorly
>documented, incomplete work provides a shelter with many open
possibilities, but
>results from such studies are short lived.  Cold fusion has not been
confirmed
>in definitive experiments...    The time for "interesting
>indications" is long past and research practices must be at the
scientific
>proof level."
>
It's time to stop showing that effects are possible, and start showing
that
they're undeniable.  (Either they're undeniably there, or undeniably not
there.)
I agree that the level of scientific rigor has to go up; this required if
you
wish to make CF credible to outside scientists.
 
**************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Developing FAQ-Table
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Developing FAQ-Table
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1993 19:15:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CFDFpB.C9B@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>                      Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
>
>     This FAQ-Table regarding the list of (some of) the cold fusion
>phenomena is based upon the literature and the responses to this net.
>Based upon receipt of information form Steven Jones, and others, the
>FAQ-Table was slightly modified.
>Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are appreciated and
invited.
>
>                                            Mitchell Swartz
>                                            mica@world.std.com
>
Mitchell, I am going to take you up on the invitation for "suggestions".
I
do hope you appreciate them, though I'm not a world expert in this field.
I think you are slanting your table somewhat by the means with
which you are putting it together.  I'm writing this in the context of
your handling of Steve Jones' request for modification of the table.
It seems that you are scrutinizing the "Putative effects" far more than
you're scrutinizing the "Representative positive results."  F&P, Miles,
McKubre, etc - the results they've published should be just as open to
criticism and modification as the purported explanations.  If you are
going to put things on an equal footing, you should perhaps make two
numerical columns, one for the asserted effect, and another for the
maximum conceivable correction to the asserted effect.  Nothing is
definitively known here, and by putting Jones' effects through the
wringer while simply quoting other's effects is biasing your table.
Also, putting the Buehler effect as 0.0 (max) is really misleading.
It's certainly *possible* that resistive connections create misleading
values, so you should allow that it's possible.  Clearly 0.0 is a
lower bound on the effect, but accidents happen, even good experimenters
make mistakes, and this sort of effect can give you the appearance
of excess power.  This should be reflected in the table, with
suitable commentary.
 
Another difficulty I have is that you've got some effects in terms of
percentages, and others in terms of absolute power.  Since different
experiments are run with different levels of background power, there's
no real way to compare excess power reports for different experiments
unless you standardize your measuring stick.  I'd argue for percentages.
For instance, Steve Jones' recombination effect of 1.6 milliwatts was
supposedly on the order of 100% of background, from the postings I've
read, which meant that they only ran a 1.6 milliwatt system.  (?)
This *could* explain a lot of the high-milliwatt positives, conceivably,
because an experiment running at higher power will obviously generate
more gas to be recombined.  I'm not saying it does, just that you
need to compare apples and apples here.  So I humbly suggest that
you request submissions to your table both in absolute form, and in
relative/percentage form.  I'll certainly find the table a lot more
credible if you do.
 
******************************
Robert F. Heeter
"If you can't convince the skeptics, how can you be sure?"
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Did I say that?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did I say that?
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 13:43:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I reread my message on examining the carcass, and then I reread Mitchell
Swartz's quote from that message, and then I read what Mitchell said I
had said.  I don't believe I used the word "disprove" in reference to
light water vs. heavy water fusion.  I did suggest that having two kinds
of cold fusion raises some questions in my mind, and I did suggest a
possible resolution of those questions.
 
Mitchell seems to think that I am unaware that light water cold fusion
uses different chemistry than does heavy water cold fusion.  He is
mistaken in that regard.  I had heard that the two systems were different
chemically, and I had concluded that they must also be quite different
with regard to an nuclear processes (if any) that may occur since the
principle ingredients - solvent, electrolyte, and electrode material -
are all different.  I am also aware that Mitchell offers no explaination
as to what these two forms of cold fusion have in common, beyond the
claims of observed excess heat and the fact that there is no established
evidence for a specific reaction process to account for that heat in
either case.  Isn't it just a bit odd that the possible existance of
one unexplained set of observations is given as supporting evidence for
another totally unrelated set of unexplained observations?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / ROBIN LANDFILL /  Nuc Telnet Site?
     
Originally-From: MAYOFF@sonoma.edu (ROBIN  MAYOFF, MR. LANDFILL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuc Telnet Site?
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:26:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I recal seeing some type of telnet or gopher site on nuclear related issues.
Does anyone know where it is located and the guest login procedures?  Thanks
 
Robin Mayoff
Sonoma State University
Mayoff@sonoma.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenMAYOFF cudfnROBIN cudlnLANDFILL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Gary Steckly /  quantum voyeurism
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: quantum voyeurism
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:26:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'm not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I've always had a
casual "readers digest" interest in science in general.  I've only recently
discovered the Internet, and have followed this conference since about mid
September,  but I've been fascinated by muon catalyzed fusion ever since I
first read about it in '89.
 
After seeing some recent discussion of MCF in this group, I did a gopher /
WAIS search on those keywords to see if there was any interesting discussion
that I had missed. (The information gathering potential of the Internet really
is amazing)  In the various MCF related postings (ranging back to the late
80's) I came across an interesting aside between Steve Jones and Richard
Schroeppel from February of this year, but it jogged a memory so please excuse
me for raising a comment to such an old posting.  Excerpt follows:
 
>Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: off the wall muon fusion suggestions
>Date: 25 Feb 93 18:03:01 -0700
>Organization: Brigham Young University
>>In article <199302230412.AA01547@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, "Richard
Schroeppel" <
>rcs@cs.arizona.edu> writes:
>> (Thanks to Steve Jones for summarizing muon (cold) fusion status.)
>>
>> Problem:  Muons don't live long enough to do their thing.
>> Solution: If you peek at them enough, they live longer. How much
>> voyeurism, with what probe, is required?
>
>You're right, Richard, this is off-the-wall.    Muons decay via the weak
>interaction.  The only way I know of to increase their lifetime in a local
>frame is to speed them up so that relativistic effects increase the effective
>lifetime.
 
Richard's comments on "voyeurism/observation" struck a responsive chord, as I
believe he was alluding to the same question that occurred to me in 1989 after
I read an intriguing article (Science Volume 286 p 888, Nov. 17, 1989) on the
"quantum Zeno Effect".  This story concerned some experiments that had been
done by Wayne Etano, David Wineland and colleagues at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado. Science magazine called
their experiments, "...the first unambiguous confirmation of a phenomenon that
theorists had predicted in the 1970's, and it highlights one of the strangest
aspects of quantum physics--the way an observer can influence the behaviour of
a system merely by sneaking a peek"
 
In these experiments, they showed how the decay of particles could actually be
affected if you could devise an experimental means of "observing" them at a
sufficiently constant rate.  Since most nuclear decay happens so fast, they
had to find some quantum system that decayed at a relatively leisurely pace.
Their experiment consisted of a bunch of beryllium ions in an ion trap, and an
RF source to raise their energy level from one energy state to another.  Their
measurement system used pulsed laser light and a detector to measure the
scattered light from the system. The idea was that RF pulses would send the
ions from level 1 to level 2 over a period of time, and the laser light
measurement pulses would take any of the ions that hadn't made that transition
and instantly kick them from level 1 to 3 where they would immediately jump
back down to level 1, emitting a photon in the process which was then detected
as scattered light. With this setup, they could easily vary the rate of the
observation (laser pulses) and by virtue of the scattered light measurements,
determine how many ions had made the transition from 1 to 2 by virtue of the
RF field. I won't try to explain the process in more detail, (if anyone is
interested, I could scan the article and post it), 'cause I'm not a physicist.
 
The amazing thing was that they showed that it was possible to actually
impede this process simply by increasing the rate of observation.
 
Now, if it were possible to somehow observe the decay process of a muon,
wouldn't the same thing happen to the decay of the muon? Wouldn't that be
another means (besides speeding them to relativistic velocities) to extend the
life of a muon?  I realize that muons decay into electrons and neutrinos, and
it is currently impossible to devise an experimental technique to reliably
detect neutrinos,  but if technology ever got to that state, wouldn't it be
possible to watch for the decay products, giving those muons the impression
that they were being observed, making them so self conscious that their decay
would be stopped (or slowed down) ?  Maybe they would live long enough so that
troublesome "sticking" problem that has so plagued Steven Jones and others
wouldn't even matter. Granted, 2 microseconds is a pretty short period of
time, and technology will likely never be able to accomplish the feat of
watching a muon with a sufficiently constant rate of observation to give it
the impression that someone is looking, but while you guys are "far-fetching"
(rhymes with kvetching - coincidence?) it might be interesting to think of the
potential here.
 
Who knows, maybe there is some unknown property of palladium or the location
of a muonic deuteron molecules trapped in the lattice of a Pd crystal that
makes them ("wild" ie. naturally occurring cosmic ray generated muons that
might get trapped in the Pd) think they are being watched?  Maybe the PF type
of cold fusion is really muon catylyzed fusion after all?   Maybe those guys
are just watching closer :-)
 
Gary
 
p.s.  how 'bout those Blujays!!!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Frank Close /  Cold and Flu-sion bugs
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold and Flu-sion bugs
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 14:26:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
 MS   {Unfortunate}to claim {conference proceedings} are not needed
MS   since "possibly significant
MS     papers" (a little bias here?) "can usually be obtained ..."
                                       \/\/\/\/\/
 
"Bias" or "judgement"? Thats what research is about; we succeed or fail
accordingly. So far my judgements have won out positive; whether this continues
only time will tell.
 
Your "..."  omits my words "from the authors" - a significant omission which
affects the context. A pity,as you are usually so precise about
quotations on this net by other people. Usually obtained from the authors
and if the *authors*  cannot provide then there are other sources
such as the British Library. It also requires checking
the citations in papers and discovering if there are highly cited works that
one has missed (in CNF there have not been any that have come to my attention
this way; indeed, there is a large percentage of papers  - larger than in my
previous experience - that are cited either not at all or only in subsequent
paper(s) by the original author.)
 
And it is well known in professional circles that CONFERENCES are not the places
where definitive records remain. Dieter Britz has good reason (in my opinion)
to separate them from peer reviewed journal articles.
 
__________________________________________________________________________
MS  Actually to your comments, no one has said it better than John Logajan,:
MS   "That's as may be, but nevertheless, it is a poor entomologist who studies
MS    only those bugs that crawl across his office floor."
 
 
With the extensive communications on this network from Jed Rothwell
et al extolling what they/you believe to be the best evidence for cold
nuclear (sic) fusion I am surprised that you think that my failure to
catch cold flu-sion is because I have not been exposed to all relevant bugs.
 
In general terms John is absolutely right, which is why I chose to study
not only the published Fleischmann Pons bug that crawled across my desk
but sought out Hoffman et al who actually took the data before Pons
made his own creative contributions.
Having  picked over the "carcass" 4 years ago I concluded that it died
from radiation sickness.
 
 __________________________________________________________________
MS "... your book.  I even  bought a copy, Frank".
 
This is the first time I have seen you admit to having made a mistake :-)
 _______________________________________________________________________
MS: we will look forward to the final  considered report.
 
Very wise.
 
And dont forget to read the already published Harwell paper
in Nature which is already its "considered report" on its 1989
experiments which is not inconsistent with anything you have posted.
Nota bene Mitchell: FP cells are not isothermal nor steady state cells.
Harwell spell that out in 1989. Have you absorbed that yet?
 
The fact that you were unaware that Harwell and Melich have been
collaborating for a year (!) is a statement about *your* lack of knowledge.
Not too good for your magazine credibility: Subscribers can get updated
news cheaper here it seems. Another example of library savings perhaps?
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / R Schroeppel /  Proliferation
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proliferation
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 01:15:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>, discussing whether
a breeder reactor economy would make nuclear bomb materials easier
for small countries to acquire,  writes,
 
>   Yes, the problem is with weapons.  But reactors can make the problem
    better or worse, depending on how easy they make it to obtain
    enriched, weapons-grade materials.  Seems to me that countries could
    get bomb-grade materials a lot more cheaply if their fuel is
    pre-enriched in a breeder.  This makes the separation of the
    weapons-grade stuff from the ordinary stuff much easier.
    Furthermore, you end up with a lot more weapons-grade material
    in a breeder system.
 
My memory needs a jog here:  I thought breeders were full of an
assortment of actinides of various isotopes, along with the usual
collection of fission fragments of a wide halflife range.  If you
are going to use this as the starting material for a nuke, you need
to eliminate anything that might make your bomb go off when the
material is only half-assembled (which just makes a mess).  This
includes at least one isotope of Pu.  So isotope separation is
required anyway.  Is this any easier than starting from short-burned
fuel rods in today's reactors?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Chuck leaves too many hands waving
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck leaves too many hands waving
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 01:15:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites gets some points for being willing to say something as to
how cold fusion is supposed to come about.  Matt Kennel pointed out
some problems with the picture given, but there are a few more worth
mentioning.  Let's go with the notion that a whole bunch of deuterons
start interacting gently so we get a bunch of states never before
seen in this universe.  Next thing we see is Chuck talking about energy
release and radiationless recoils.  Did I miss something, or are there
a few intermediate steps to be considered.  For instance, last time I
heard, you have to emit something from the source before there is a
recoil to Mossbauer with.  What got emitted from what source and where
did it go?  But that is not my major concern.  I just want to be able
to track the whole process (Hand waving is allowed for now.) through
from free deuterons to final product.  If the energy of this system
goes up, tell us where the energy comes from and how it gets transfered.
If the energy of this system goes down, tell us where the energy goes
and in what form.  If we are going to make 4He tells us when the
Bose soup gets to have 4He lumps in it and how they are distributed
in time and space.  If the 4He lumps have states that I never heard off,
tell me why you think that might be so.  If there is only one 4He made
at a time you will have problems convincing me there is some collective
wave function for 4He just because there was a collective wave function
for deuterons.  Now according to my books going from 2 deuterons to
4He gives roughly 20 MeV of excitation energy relative to the 4He
ground state.  How does that get converted to lattice heat?  Of
course we still have the nasty experimental question as to how
the 4He makes its way out of the lattice after it has dumped that
energy.
 
Dick Blue NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Jim Bowery /  Overview of fusion politics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Overview of fusion politics
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 01:15:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab writes:

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab writes:
>Jim - Was Hirsch!s statement before the FEAC published anywhere?
 
I don't know but you should be able to get a copy of it from one of
your guys around your lab.
 
>Has it been discussed in any of the media / journals?
 
Not that I have been able to find.  BTW I've written and submitted op-ed
pieces to appropriate publications.
 
>Do you
>know whether the European and Japanese programs are also lacking
>in external review?
 
No, I don't.  They are better socialists than we (and the Soviets were
 even better) so they might have some significant diversity and review.
Based on my experience in similar technology policy areas (ie: space and
 telecom) their problem is they don't have the creative alternatives to
pursue that we do because the same thing that makes them better socialists
also makes them less creative:
 
Their cultures are more mature.
 
>Are there other critiques of the fusion program I should read?
 
Not many are published.  I get most of my information from people,
some right here in La Jolla, around who wish they didn't have to work
on ITER/Tokamaks.  For obvious reasons, they aren't going to go out
and write an Op-ed piece to this effect.
 
>I!m confused by your assertions that there is no utility
>involvement in the fusion program, considering that you mention
>several EPRI research groups and investigations of the field.
>(EPRI = Electric Power Research Institute is a utility-funded
>research institute).  Could you clarify this?
 
 
EPRI dropped any serious involvement with hot fusion over a decade
ago -- developing a severe prejudice against the entire field due
to the nasty politics of the Tokamak.  They recently became active
again under Dr. Hirsch.  Since Dr. Hirsch's involvement, EPRI has
grudgingly allowed a tiny amount of money (tens of thousands of
dollars) to go into one hot fusion alternative, but their opinion
of the Tokamak remains unchanged.
 
The EPRI reviews now all basically say the same thing:
 
Fusion might be a good idea but we don't want the Tokamak.
 
>I!m also curious
>when the !lack of external review! began, since certainly there
>was external review when the program began, or it wouldn!t have
>been funded.
 
That's a good question.  If it followed the same pattern as NASA,
they had about 10 years of diversity to wring out of the system
before the political forces could finally absorb all dissent into
one source of funding -- thereby ensuring no threat of external
review.
 
The first signs of poor review standards that I'm aware of appeared
when the AEC decided to push the Tokamak in a big way.  But I don't
really know whether that was when the poor review standards were
first applied.
 
If so, I would have to do more investigation into why Hirsch didn't
abuse the system to siphon money off into the IEF work he had just
published under private funding at Farnsworth's lab.
 
Remember that was the era of the Apollo program when our technical
arrogance reached its peak.  Even Hirsch felt forced to go along
with the bandwagon created in response to the Soviet lead in Tokamak
technology (remember, they are better socialists than we).
 
>Is this a !Big Science! problem, or is it unique
>to the fusion program, and particularly the tokamak branch?
 
It is a "big science" problem where "big science" means "science
 in a single field dominated by a single funding source."
 
>Do you feel that the suppression of alternative technologies
>occurs at the research scientist level, the lab-administration
>level, the Office of Fusion Energy, or just generally in DoE?
 
Actually, I think it starts where the politics start:
 
In Congress.
 
The appropriations process pits various political parties against
each other in competition over a piece of the federal pie.  In that
competition, one must present a unified front, focus one's efforts on
helping incumbant Congressmen win their races and play on the
psychological/emotional weaknesses of the Congressmen and their staffers.
 
Groups which have to deal with "irrelevancies" like the laws of physics
and building devices that demonstrate technical feasibility of generating
economical electricity, are at a competitive disadvantage in this zero-sum
competition for the government dollar.  The best you can hope for is a
statistical glitch now and then when a "good guy" comes along and basically
throws his career away trying to make the system work "right".
 
But the real problem is we are using the system in the wrong way.  The
Congress was never intended to be a funding agency for technical projects
outside of national defense -- it is only as a result of the post-WW II
"permanent war economy" that we've gotten confused on this issue.
 
First the Manhattan project, then Apollo -- then having wrung the last
bit of military discipline from the system and crossed the boundries into
civilian technology development, the Federal government picked up the
disease of technosocialism big time.
 
We're in big trouble.
 
>Is it specifically limited to DoE, or does it apply to other
>agencies which fund fusion research (for instance, the DoD and
>the inertial confinement program?)?
 
No, the problems are inherent in any system where the accountability
is too-far-separated from the privilege.  In the DoD, the only thing
that keeps its technosocialists honest is the competition of war.
During the cold war, there were only a few areas that really had the
discipline of war applied to them.  The inertial confinement program
was an offshoot of one of those areas -- nuclear warhead technology.
 
The DoD inertial program was never really independent of the
DoD's war-making agenda.  The primary value to the nation produced
by that program was in understanding, on a small scale, the
physics of implosions for application in nuclear weapons.
 
>I!ve read Blomberg!s (sp?)
>book on the history of fusion up until ca. 1980, which seemed
>fairly comprehensive on the political aspects; I!d like to know
>how the political winds have blown since then.
 
More centralization of funding -- less diversity -- more vicious
politics.
 
That about sums it up.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Meyer Cell....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer Cell....
Date: 25 Oct 93 18:57:50 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 A conventional DC electrolysis cell suffers from polarisation...gas bubbles
cover the electrodes and reduce the area exposed to the electrolyte.
 If these bubbles could be quickly removed, possibly by an ultrasonic
transducer placed in the cell, the efficiency of that cell should be
considerably improved.
 It would be interesting to compare the efficiency of such a cell with the
Meyer cell whose pulsed (ultrasonic) current should prevent polarisation.
 This still leaves the puzzle of the pure water electrolyte, but if there
is even a little arcing between the (high voltage) electrodes, then that will
produce ions.
                                             Regards to all,
                                             Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Here's a bottle for Tom....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Here's a bottle for Tom....
Date: 25 Oct 93 20:42:40 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Tom and yo' all out there,
 Tom,if you are not going to have a full VMP (Video Monitoring Package)
looking inside your cell(s), would it be worth considering optical fibres
as a means of monitoring possible hot spots?  Bringing these out to face a
holed disc rotating in front of a photomultiplier tube, such that one bundle
of fibres at a time is exposed to the tube,would allow the examination of many
different points within the cell. Alternatively a very slowly moving, high
sensitivity, colour, photographic film traveling in front of the fibres
could also produce a permanent record,with maybe a few fibres being used to
encode timing data directly onto the film. This system would have the advantage
of being able to (roughly) indicate the temperature by recording the colour
of the radiation coming down the light pipes.    The motion of the film
could be triggered by any light coming down the fibres and therefore
this system would operate only when hot spot conditions were present in the
cell.
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Aiee!  There is _no_ spin-0 deuteron state!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aiee!  There is _no_ spin-0 deuteron state!
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 16:08:51 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
In article <EACHUS.93Oct22134517@spectre.mitre.org>
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
> In article <1993Oct21.190433.24235@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> | Thus I would say that rather than three bands, you have the _potential_
> | for three distinct Bose condensates:  spin -1, 0, and 1...
>
> Am I missing something?  I thought that spin zero deuterons were unbound,
> so there should be only two possible spin states.
 
Ah!  After several readings my poor noggin _finally_ got hold of your point.
I was trying to make a simple question complicated, mainly because I wasn't
looking closely enough at what I wrote.
 
The error was in my labeling.  The three states of a spin-1 particle should
_not_, repeat _not_ be labeled "-1", "0", and "1".  _All_ deuterons give a
value of spin=1 when measured -- _period_.  The only thing that changes is
the orientation of the spin in space.  The three spin states are simply an
interesting (and at times rather complicated) form of book-keeping used to
assign probabilities to finding that the spin is pointing in a particular
direction when examined by a detector.
 
I think I mislabeled them was because I was visualizing the three groups
of atoms that result when you send spin-1 silver atoms through a Stern-
Gerlaugh magnet.and silver.  The three groups _look_ like they mean "1 spin
unit up", "no spin unit", and and "1 spin unit down", but that's deceptive.
What the spin-1 Stern-Gerlaugh groups really mean are "1 spin unit up",
"1 spin one in a direction other than up or down," and "1 spin unit down."
 
If you think of the three axis as being the three possible pure spin states,
you will get a much better image of the symmetry between the three possible
"pure" spin states of a vector boson.  The three states could just as well
be labeled X, Y, and Z, although _that_ would have some rather deceptive
implications, too, since they are state amplitudes, not spatial dimensions.
 
 
> (Of course, if spin zero deuterons were even virtually present, it would
> make:
>
>   d --> n + p
>   d + n --> t + gamma
>
> by far the favored reaction, but I don't regard this as even a farfetch.)
 
Not your fault, but please, let's put this one to rest here and now.  I
would be absolutely horrified to set off another round of Novel Nucleonics
simply due to mislabeling the three pure spin-1 states of a deuteron.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 16:29:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Oct24.172508.24825@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
 
>* As I read Dale's thrashing of my response to Jim, I'm thinking:
>Uh oh! Dale Bass! And I've only been around this group for 2 months!
>I was hoping people would be nice to me a little longer.
 
     I was being nice, he said dryly.
 
>Dale argues that proliferation is not a problem for the breeder economy,
>since it's already happening in today's economy.  I agree that we
>already have proliferation, but that doesn't mean that a breeder
>economy won't make the problem worse.  And I disagree that the nations
>which are currently nuclear-capable have had "little problem getting
>weapons-grade fissionable materials" without breeders.  If it were
>really so easy, they would have had the things a long time ago,
>instead of just developing them within the last 10-20 years or so.
 
     Seems flawed to me.  Ask yourself why every nation in Europe
     does not have nuclear weapons.
 
>>     Why talk about fusion like it is an economically viable process?
>>     It is more likely to have such problems if it is economically
>>     questionable.
>>
>I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this point.  Why would it be
>more likely to have problems if it was questionable?
 
     Relying on energy-creating processes that are only marginally
     economical seems like a bigger problem than relying on
     oil.
 
>I'm implicitly assuming that fusion will
>develop to a state of economic viability, in a world where fossil
>fuels aren't available or not worth using, and where you need
>*something* besides the standard alternative/renewable technologies in
>order to provide reliable base-load power.
 
     But the gist of the assumption is that fusion power generation
     a) exists and b) is economical, neither of which is satisfied
     in the next 30 years.  Beyond that is never.
 
>>     The economic problem is the most difficult.  What most fusion
>>     people seem to miss is that if you cannot build and operate a
>>     facility economically, it's just an expensive toy.
>>
>Believe me, I haven't missed this.  Why do you claim that fusion people
>are blind to the economic side of things?  It seems pretty obvious
>that if you want to build a real-world energy source, it has to
>be competitive economically.
 
     Because y'all keep talking about fusion like it is or will be
     an economical power-generating process.  That assumption is flawed.
 
>>     Use IFR technology, produce short-term containment facilities and
>>     'burn' most of the actinides in the reactor.  If y'all can count
>>     on technology from 50 years in the future, I can rely on technology
>>     just showing up on the shelf (to be shelved by our esteemed chief
>>     executive because he's an idiot).
>>
>I have no problem with your assumption of future technology.  The
>discussion wasn't based on contemporary technology, but on a comparison
>of the long-term prospects for fission & fusion.  Sure you can reduce
>a lot of the high-level waste to lower-level waste, but you still
>have to put it somewhere.  Does IFR technology make everything suitable
>for shallow burial?  I'd like to know more.  Obviously I lean towards
>fusion, but I'm interested in any energy technology that shows
>long-term potential.
 
      Putting it somewhere is not a problem (except a political problem).
      You put it in a hole in the ground.  Why do you care how deep they
      dig?
 
>>     Wait until someone explains about tritium containment.
>>     Besides, breeders could be initiated within 5-10 years. Fusion
>plants
>>     cannot even be planned for 50 years, and they may not be competetive
>>     with Aunt Martha pedaling a stationary generator.
>>
>No, the political problems should be a lot less.  First off, someone's
>got to figure out what to do with *today's* nuclear waste, so by the
>time we get fusion, people will be downright happy to learn that fusion
>(if done right) will generate waste that only needs shallow burial, it's
>so safe.  Tritium containment is a problem, but it sure beats meltdown!
 
     Ha ha ha ha ha.  Tell that to the planning commission.
     'Yes sir, tritium floating out of the plant every day is
     much much better than a major loss of containment event that
     has never occurred at a power fission plant in the US.'
 
     A couple of curies at TMI set off a chain of lawsuits that
     still goes on.
 
>>     Funny thing, my guess is that a reevaluation of most of these
>>     things will occur in the next few years.  Conversations like
>>     'What do you mean, 50 years?  What happened to the last 40?'
>>     will probably occur worldwide.
>>
>Well, people have been saying that for the past 20 years, and the
>re-evaluation has been a continuous and ongoing process.  Unless you
>know a lot of things I don't on the subject (do you?), I'm just
>going to have to disagree with you here.  There will be conversations
>such as the one that you mention,
 
     We'll see.
 
> but the fact is that fusion *has*
>been making progress, it's *close* to being viable, and every time
>people re-evaluate the program, they decide to continue it.  While
>this might change, you're going to have to give me a lot more evidence
>to convince me.
 
     The ITER people estimate 50 years, I believe.  Not very close except
     on geological timescales.  The best definition of 'never' I know
     is 'it will be ready in 50 years'.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 16:45:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Oct24.174618.26680@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
 
>>>viable.  (Certainly better than 1 in 50).
>>
>>     I think it has no better than a 1 in 10^17 chance of being
>>     economically viable.  And my number has about as much basis as yours.
>>
>Does it now?  Where did you get your number?  I've been reading every
>reactor design study I can get my hands on.  Come on Dale, this is
>sci.physics.fusion, not alt.flames.fusion.  Give me a rational argument.
 
     Out of my ear.  Which is exactly where the reactor design studies
     got theirs.
 
>>>  Recent reactor design
>>>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>>>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
>>>everyone else's here.
>>
>>     In their dreams.
>>
>Why do you disagree?  What's your evidence?  In what way are the studies
>flawed?
 
      Plasma containment, reactor size, reactor shielding,
      inadequate consideration of mandated reactor tritium containment,
      inadequate consideration of regulatory requirements, inadequate
      consideration of actual costs of disposing of hot materials.
 
      Throw away these things, especially the regulatory requirements,
      and fission is 'too cheap to meter.'
 
>Not at all.  First off, you *have* to think about the power generation
>system
>along with developing a viable plasma.  A power plant has to function as
>an integrated unit.  That's why people are *doing* the design studies,
>not just playing with plasmas.  Secondly, getting a viable plasma is
>by far the greatest challenge.  Once you have that, it won't be nearly
>so hard to make a viable power generation system.  And I have yet to
>see a calculation that requires the shielding to be replaced every
>few hours.  Few years is more like it, and that's not too bad at all.
 
       The point was that no one knows since no one knows the characteristics
       of a successful plasma.  They're playing word games with a
       technology that does not exist.
 
>And the calculations that have been done to look at the costs show,
>as I said, that we can have fusion power in the range of 3-6
>cents / kilowatt-hour.  If you won't take my word for it, I can
>give you the references.
 
       I don't take their word for it either.
 
>>     The point is that *no one* can give you any reasonable probablility
>>     assessment of it being economically viable.  Your 1 in 50 is as
>>     worthless as my 1 in 10^17.  Right now, it is a 40 year old physics
>>     toy with at least another 50 to go before we can even think
>>     about economic viability.
>>
>Wait - the 1 in 50 isn't *my* number.  Don't put words in my mouth!
>And you're wrong - fusion's not a physics "toy", and we're close enough
>to feasibility that we are *already* thinking about economic viability.
 
      The same was said in the 60's.  What happened in the intervening
      30 years?  I'll be able to ask the same question
      in another 30 years.
 
>50 years is the timescale at which it's likely to be economically viable.
>If that comes to pass, it will be because people are thinking about it
>now.  Today we may not *know* that it will be viable, but until you give
>me some rational arguments against the studies that have been done, I'm
>going to consider their assessment reasonable.  Within my lifetime,
>fusion stands a fair chance of generating economical power.
 
      With a couple of orders of magnitude confinement still to go,
      I think this probabilistic assessment is not tenable.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / John Logajan /  ZPE
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZPE
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 18:11:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Begin Forward for Mike Jamison, EDWLT12@MARS.LERC.NASA.GOV
 
logajan wrote:
 
>                                 9V
>    |---------------------------|+|+------------------------|
>    |                                                       |
>    |                                                     [2A]
>    |                            9V                         |
>    |---------------------------/\/\/----------------[1A]---|  <== 0.2cc/sec
>    |                                                       |
>    |                                                      [1A]
>    |   1.5V     1.5V     1.5V     1.5V     1.5V    1.5V    |
>    |---/\/\/----/\/\/----/\/\/----/\/\/----/\/\/---/\/\/---|  <== 1.2cc/sec
 
Perhaps you get a bunch of "nodes" of H2O, spread over the 1 mm or so
between the plates.  I think you're onto the right track here.
>
>
>
>>The energy ... is thought (by Meyer) to come from zero point energy, so
>>this is no perpetual motion claim.
>
>Okay, what the heck is ZPE.  When I first heard of it, I assumed it was just
>another name for virtual particles, or quantum uncertainty.
>
>How can you suck ZPE into the real world without degenerating that area of
>space from which it was drawn?  I mean, if ZPE lives in the particle, and
>you suck ZPE out, then the particle must now exist with a ZPE deficit -- it
>must be different than other particles with their ZPE still intact.
 
The little that I understand suggests that if you think of space/time in
a "fourier transform domain" rather than a space/time domain, you can
construct protons, electrons, etc. from a bunch (i.e. huge number) of
waveforms (matter waves???).  Each particle is like a "dirac" function -
a spike - in space/time, which is like a smear over all possible frequencies
in fourier transformed space-time.
 
The way all these waveforms add up makes a particle in a particular place.
Some physicists went and added up what they believe to be the energy density
of each of these waves and come up with some astronomically high energy
density - not just where particles are, but *everywhere*.  I guess they
figure that almost all of it is 180 degrees out of phase everywhere that
particles are not found.
 
To relate this to electrical engineering, suppose you want to make a traveling
pulse, the hard way.  You generate a billion waveforms, all with different
frequencies and phase relationships, and add them together to make your
travelling pulse.  The energy required for each of those waveforms is about
equivalent to the energy of the pulse (I think).  So, the total energy is
~number of waveforms * energy in pulse.
 
Whether the universe actually works this way is another question entirely.
 
  ...
 
I believe I incorrectly stated the amount of power per waveform as being
"about the same as" the traveling pulse.  Not true.  The total power in
each of the waveforms is going to be a lot more - you'd have to determine the
amount of energy per unit distance for each of the waveforms used to
construct the traveling pulse, then multiply by the total distance for each
waveform.
 
Presumably, the total distance for each of the (?matter?) waves making up
any given particle is about the size of the universe.  I guess this is where
all that zero point energy comes from...
 
Mike
 
End Forward for Mike Jamison, EDWLT12@MARS.LERC.NASA.GOV
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: 25 Oct 1993 18:40:01 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jim Bowery (jim@pnet01.cts.com) wrote:
: According to reactor design studies, DT tokamak fusion reactors
: using the best available steel in their constuction will produce
: more radioactive waste than an ALWR.
 
{ALWR = advanced fission reactor}
 
What?  This sounds crazy.
 
Everything I've seen puts fusion reactor waste at least 100 times under
fission plants.
 
What are the lifetimes of the activated products?  What is the
bioavailability? (e.g. strontium-90 is a whole lot worse than alot of
other things)
 
Tokomaks will probably not use steel anyway.
 
--
-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:
cuddy25 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Bruce Scott /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: 25 Oct 1993 19:08:46 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Robert Heeter writes:
 
|> * As I read Dale's thrashing of my response to Jim, I'm thinking:
|> Uh oh! Dale Bass! And I've only been around this group for 2 months!
|> I was hoping people would be nice to me a little longer.  Must have said
|> something pretty stupid... *
 
This is a very bad assumption on Usenet :=)
 
Much more likely, you said something against Dale's religion.
 
In this particular case, however, I am inclined to agree with Dale: breeder
reactors are unlikely to have much effect on proliferation, which I think
is a red herring brought up by the oppose-nukes-in-any-case-and-at-any-costs
crowd.
 
Just as long as people figure the increased security needs into the cost.
 
By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure
for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like
15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale).
 
As to why people bring up the
 
>     'What do you mean, 50 years?  What happened to the last 40?'
 
argument, I've already posted on that several times, and am tired of it.
Gist: the 1950s PR was rash, and maybe fatal. *I* never promised that rose
garden, so don't hold me to it.
 
On fusion economics, I will not comment before we know more about first
wall effects. In other words, like I also always say, ITER is premature,
and a failure will kill the fusion effort. Then we'll get to see if the
paranoid fantasists on this board can fill the gap.
 
Prediction: 50 pct chance you'll get your chance inside 10 years.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: On Harwell Melich
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 17:11:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CFA35H.89E@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     In Message-ID: <tomkCF9nID.62x@netcom.com>
>     Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
>Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
>
>=tk  Exactly WHAT evolution is ocurring in this so-called field?
>
>o  Increased power densities.
 
100 x 0 = 0
 
>o  Excess enthalpies with both heavy and light water with more than
>     one metal.
 
And what, exactly, is this suppose to mean? That badly conducted experiments
in one medium translate to badly conducted experiments using other mediums?
 
>o  Better understanding of the physics, metallurgy, etc.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks Mitchell, I
needed that.
 
>o  Better understanding of the flawed "negative" experiments and
>    subsequent hype which covered up this new phenomenon.
 
Another good laugh. The negatives are flawed but the inexplicable positives
are finely honed examples of science.
 
>o  Better understanding of how the editors (and biased reviewers) of a
>     few key journals present dissemination of the scientific work.
 
Present? Are you telling us that the few published papers were properly
written and that editors and reviewers reduced them to the jumbled
idiocy that they are?
 
>o  More journals covering the field.
>o  More collaboration.
 
Yeh, I guess when you have nothing else, collaboration can breed a
bit of esprit de corp.
 
Now why don't you tell us how dire the results will be if CNF turns out
to be for real?
 
Try this one on for size -- if CNF turns out not to be real it will have
caused many good people to have spent countless hours and millions
of dollars to find virtually nothing.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 17:40:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct23.051006.17851@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>Wind faces similar problems; although the cost is less,
>there aren't as many good sites, either, and you still have to deal
>with storage for when the air just isn't moving.
 
That is only the beginning. US Windpower is facing serious problems from
environmentalists who are dismayed at the large quantity of Golden 9and
other) Eagles that are being killed by running into the blades of the
turbines. If they cannot find a cure -- and it is likely they won't --
then the environmentalists will push for total shut down of the facilities.
 
That makes zero contribution from windpower since virtually every site
has it's share of endangered arial species.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /   /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 19:35:23 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
>Not at all.  First off, you *have* to think about the power generation
>system
>along with developing a viable plasma.  A power plant has to function as
>an integrated unit.
 
First you defended Big Government, then Big Science, now Big Power
Companies.  Have you no shame?  ;-)
 
Big power companies want big government to fund research on big centralized
power units because that's how they make money.  They *don't* like solar or
wind power because these technologies might bypass them completely and go
directly to the consumer.  Imagine how scared they are of cold fusion.
If Pons and Fleishman could really come up with a cold fusion water heater,
it would cost the power companies billions.  Of course, any power company
exec who's read this newsgroup over the past couple of years is probably feeling
pretty secure.
 
Anyway, I just wanted to point out your bias towards centralized power.
That centralized power costs me about $200 per month.  I would prefer
to buy a Heeter Home Fusion Unit for $5000.  When will that be ready?
 
                                        me
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudended cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Richard Benear /  Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 19:34:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

John Logajan writes:
 
>GIF uses run length encoding (LZW), and so handles mono-color areas
>very nicely.
 
I might be getting kinda picky, but run length encoding (RLE) is not
the same thing as Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW). Both are compression techniques.
 
By the way, I think GIF images are ideal because of their low data size
but really like the clarity provided by postscript. So both are fine
when used accordingly.
 
Richard
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrbenear cudfnRichard cudlnBenear cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 20:53:12 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1993Oct25.193523.10214@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jh
.edu ((-:;-)) writes:
 
> Big power companies want big government to fund research on big centralized
> power units because that's how they make money.  They *don't* like solar or
> wind power because these technologies might bypass them completely and go
> directly to the consumer.  Imagine how scared they are of cold fusion.
 
Excuse me, but this is bullshit.  Large power companies are quite
happy to have users install their own generating equipment.  Some
even subsidize it.  Utilities are not just in the power generation
business -- they are also in the power distribution business.  And,
in a world where demand varies, there will always be a need to move
power from one place to another.  Even if all the power is coming
from windmills or whatever.
 
As for cold fusion: why should they have been scared?  Presumably if
it had been real (heh) it would have been used to make steam, which is
most effectively used (for electricity generation) in large turbines.
 
        Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Date: 25 Oct 1993 22:43:25 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Posting *.ps files to Usenet is a *real* no-no. Please don't do it.
There are innocent people around that this will cost a good bit of
*real* money.
 
Again, PLEASE DO NOT post postscript files to the net. GIFs are bad enough.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Developing FAQ-Table
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Developing FAQ-Table
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 09:27:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
 
>In article <CFDFpB.C9B@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
>writes:
>>                      Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
>>
>>     This FAQ-Table regarding the list of (some of) the cold fusion
>>phenomena is based upon the literature and the responses to this net.
>>Based upon receipt of information form Steven Jones, and others, the
>>FAQ-Table was slightly modified.
>>Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are appreciated and
>invited.
>>
>>                                            Mitchell Swartz
>>                                            mica@world.std.com
>>
>Mitchell, I am going to take you up on the invitation for "suggestions".
>I
>do hope you appreciate them, though I'm not a world expert in this field.
>I think you are slanting your table somewhat by the means with
>which you are putting it together.  I'm writing this in the context of
>your handling of Steve Jones' request for modification of the table.
>It seems that you are scrutinizing the "Putative effects" far more than
>you're scrutinizing the "Representative positive results."  F&P, Miles,
>McKubre, etc - the results they've published should be just as open to
[...]
 
In fact, I respectfully suggest that you, Mitch, are as poorly qualified as I
am to collect an FAQ. If I were to do it, my overwhelmingly skeptic attitude
would show; in your case, you seem to be using "FAQ" as yet another way to
try to show how CNF has been verified again and again. In other words, no
"equal time". I also doubt that your little yoohoo table is in fact a set
of answers to Frequently Asked Questions. But do not despair: there is someone
more neutral already at work on this. Chuck Harrison, to whom we owe the Wais
data base on CNF will no doubt do a good job, so why not wait for its
completion?
 
Robert Hetter goes on:
 
[...]
>Also, putting the Buehler effect as 0.0 (max) is really misleading.
>It's certainly *possible* that resistive connections create misleading
>values, so you should allow that it's possible.  Clearly 0.0 is a
 
Let's not get confused as to what the argument is here. I have no reason to
doubt that Steve Jones' student Buehler did indeed observe a substantial
voltage drop across a fine silver wire on the Notoya demo. This voltage drop
showed that the demo demonstrated nothing. It is not only possible that a
resistive connection creates misleading values, it is certain. We cannot
disagree on this, unless we want to say that Buehler lied. The only reasonable
disagreement is on whether Notoya knew about the voltage drop or not. We will
never know, she is not on this net. Maybe someone should telephone her, or ask
her at the Hawaii meeting (assuming she will be there).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Deuteron Spins
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron Spins
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1993 21:34:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
>: Now it has been argued, by a few of us "believers" that the
>: delocalization of a particle will enhance the probability of
>: interaction.  Namely by a degenerate bose band state.
 
>How did you get that overlapping delocalized state in the first place?
 
  You tell me. First one must recognize that there are a number of
complexities in deuteron interaction in metals that are quite different
from molecular D2.  Perhaps one of the most tricky to describe is the most
easily observed; the mobility of the hydrogen Pd.  The deuteron should
attract an electron from the metal, and as it hops from intersitual, to
intersitual, and electron should tag along, which impies a small
current electron current from the motion of the protons, but then what
drives the motion of the hydrogen?  The motion of deuteron acts like it's
in the form of a D+ ion, but it also acts like it's screened as would
happen if an electron shadows it's motion.  The point I'm making is there
are still some issues to be resolved in the Pd-hydrogen system.
   Some recent studies on the defusion of hydrogen and deuterium on metal
surfaces indicate that low-coverage hydrogen and deterium forms a band
state. That finding gives some impitus to the delocalized state.  Indeed
If I recall (i don't have it in front of me, but I will look it up), I
saw an article intitled "Hydrogen quantum delocalization on the CU(110) plane".
Anyway it definately shows that hydrogen can and does delocalize, and
interesting enough there are some odd transport effects becuase of it.
 
>You are essentially saying "Let the wave function be in a state such
>that there will be fusion.  Then there will be fusion."
 
So are you agreeing with me that this configuration will enhance the
cold fusion rates?  Maybe Pd/D is not the way to bring about the
confuguration needed and perhaps there are better ways of doing it.
Any suggestions?
 
>Where does the energy come from?  Overlapping wavefunctions will
>*repel* each other.  The energy for that configuration will be HIGH.
>It is not an equilibrium state.  If you some how start out like that
>it will not stay that way.
 
Well, as you know Matt, all fusion, both hot and cold comes about by
quantum tunnelling through the coulumb barrier.  I didn't mention the
coulumb potential in the previous post because it is so obvious.  I just
wanted to make the point that in terms of the field equation, the
uncertainty relation should allow for a longer range pontential.  If
there is wave overlap, then the chances for a nuclear interaction occuring
are improved. (Damn broken record again). As far as repelling each other,
that is somewhat dependend on the enviroment in which the interaction occurs.
Obviously there are screening parameters in metals that can effectively
neutralize repulsion (not my much, but some), and there operators that
might alter wave function to force the overlap.
 
>: With regard to high density deuteron band state, this would imply an
>: enhanced cold fusion rate.  If such a high density band D+ state does
>: exist, which would be described by the condensation process of the
>: Bose Einstein statistics, the multi-body nature of the process should
>: favor the formation of other bose type particles.
 
>The tendency for condensation is a weak effect, which is strongly
>counteracted by the electrostatic repulsion.  That it happens in
>superfluid He is an extraordinary example of something that is normally
>unobservable.  (And remember that He is electrically neutral.)
 
It is?  Then perhaps you would like to take a stab at superconductivity?
Or perhaps, the creation superfluid condensed poins through short lived
resonances in quark-gluon plasmas (which is at a very very HIGH temp).
 
>--
>-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".
 
Have Fun Thinking,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 25 Oct 93 18:00:28 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

We've heard occasionally about claim(s) of radioactive isotope production in
Pd/D2O cells, evidenced in particular by gamma ray emissions.  Assuming that
Pd-100 were found in Pd used in a Pd/D2O cell (I'm not claiming it has been),
I'd like to pose the following hypothetical question:
 
Is it possible to produce palladium-100 in a Pd/LiOD cell?
   (i.e., without exposure to a beam of protons or deuterons)
   (Small amounts of H2O, B and Al may be present.)
 
By posing this question, I mean to ask if there are any +Q reactions which
may lead to Pd-100 formation which are *possible*.  Let's ignore the Coulomb
barrier for the sake of argument, shall we?  We still need to have a +Q
reaction (i.e., energy must be conserved).  The only one I've been able to find
in discussions with others is:
   102-Pd (3He, n+alpha) 100-Pd   Q=+1.7 MeV.
Besides having a three-body final state, this requires a large quantity of
energetic 3He to react with Pd-102, which is only 0.96% of naturally occurring
Pd.  I don't consider this serious, particularly since energetic 3He
production would imply *lots* of neutrons (if made via  d+d-->3He+n),
but let's assume neutrons could be checked and were far too few.
One can consider d or p reactions,
but I can't find any with positive Q and we're trying to avoid requiring
energetic p or d beams.
That is, we're trying to imagine a reaction in an electrolytic cell which
shows gammas which indicate the presence of Pd-100
(and other radioactive isotopes).  How could Pd-100 get there?
 
Sorry to be so cryptic about this; consider it just a hypothetical puzzle.
(Still my question is a serious one.)
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Oct25.174243.1029@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Oct25.174243.1029@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 93 18:00:59 -0600

cancel <1993Oct25.174243.1029@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Silicate layer effects
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicate layer effects
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 10:15:45 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: After re-reading P&F's paper and a closer look at Fig 8. it seems clear
: even from these summary graphs that the temperature rises more rapidly than
: the voltage and that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in voltage
: (especially near the end).  There definately does not appear to be a linear
: relationship between the two.  This is not at all what one would expect if
: the temperature rise was only due to the change in cell resistance.
 
Remember that there will be additional effects taking part as the proposed
silicate layer builds up. Initially the surface area available for D2
evolution will decrease, increasing the current density on the parts of the
electrode still active. The rate of growth of the silicate layer is also
unlikely to be linear with time. Perhaps a bigger effect would arise from
silicate deposition on active sites on the surface - P&F pretreat their Pd -
thus decreasing the effective surface area available for the hydrogen
reaction.
 
However I don't think that the proposed silicate layer is the answer, it is
unlikely that an unbroken layer would form on the surface. In true P&F
tradition the paper gives insufficient and, I suspect, highly doctored data.
 
Karel
--
***Karel*Hladky**(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.***
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Did I say that?
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did I say that?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 13:18:30 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <93102509185374@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>mistaken in that regard.  I had heard that the two systems were different
>chemically, and I had concluded that they must also be quite different
>with regard to an nuclear processes (if any) that may occur since the
>principle ingredients - solvent, electrolyte, and electrode material -
>are all different.  I am also aware that Mitchell offers no explaination
>as to what these two forms of cold fusion have in common, beyond the
>claims of observed excess heat and the fact that there is no established
>evidence for a specific reaction process to account for that heat in
>either case.  Isn't it just a bit odd that the possible existance of
>one unexplained set of observations is given as supporting evidence for
>another totally unnelated set of unexplained observations?
 
It is indeed odd. ANother odd thing is that the Ni/H2O variant, proposed by
Mills et al, rests on these little hydrinos. The authors believe that under
certain conditions, you get hydrinos, and this process releases heat. As well
as this, however, you get an enhanced rate of fusion, between hydrinos, for
which the Coulomb barrier is much smaller. So far, so good.
But the hydrinos are manufactured at the nickel surface, and if there be fusion
between them, it must happen right there. Such surface reactions are quite
common; in fact, the formation of H2 (or D2) is one. It is much less likely,
in fact, to take place inside the Pd bulk, because there, these hydrinos are
presumably further from each other.
 
My worry, therefore, is, why should the magic, that for d-d fusion quenches
all the known nuclear emissions - due to some lattice effect - why should this
work at the surface as well? This is asking a bit much. We expect a fusion
process here to produce the usual quota of gammas, neutrons, x-rays etc.
People working with Ni/H2O had better wear lead aprons {:]
 
Dieter Britz alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------------
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  D1
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D1
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 14:21:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimeter Design Note      D1                     25 October 1993
 
It looks like my mechanical design consultant is busy rebuilding his house
and will not have much time until the weather gets nasty.  I want to get
started, so I will look here for some advice.  This will describe the various
heat pipes shapes needed for the new calorimeter.
 
The idea is to have a pair of double walled shells that form a heat pipe
structure inside and outside a dewar.  Since such shapes are not possible to
construct, I propose to make each of the two shells out of a puck shaped part
and a cup shaped part.
 
While it appears that a vacuum such as we require here at Fermilab for our
collider is not needed, the construction technique should be quite gas tight.
 
It would seem to me that the only practical material for construction is
aluminum.  Copper or silver would be OK, but I believe that copper is hard to
work, and silver likely has the same problem not considering the cost.
Stainless steel, while likely the best for fabrication is a relatively poor
thermal conductor as is plain steel.  Still, it is possible that a very clever
design could make the interconnecting conduction path short enough to be
acceptable.
 
Below is the sort of structure that I have been considering:
 
  |   Heat Pipe  |
  |   Volume     |
  |              |
  |              |
  |              |
  |Outer Cup     |                                                     |
  |Shell         |Inner Cup Shell                                      |
  | ____________ |                                                     .
  ||            ||
  ||            ||                                                     |
  || Ring       ||                                                     |
  ||            ||                                                     .
  ||____________||
  _______________________________________________________________ _    |
 |__________________                                             |||   |
                 |||          Puck Top Plate                     |||   .
                 |||                                             |||
                 |||_____________________________________________|||   |
                 ||                                               ||   |
                A||          Heat Pipe Volume                    B||   .
                 || _____________________________________________ ||
  _______________|||        Puck Bottom Plate                    |||   |
 |_______________________________________________________________|||   |
                                                                       .
 
What is shown above is a section through a figure of rotation.  Note the
center line at the right.  The Puck Top Plate is a 7.2" diameter plate with a
step at the edge and a hole through the center.  The Puck Bottom Plate is
similar except it is thinner.  The top plate has an array of tapped holes
drilled into but not through the top face for mounting experiments.  The puck
is assembled using two short lengths of tubing, A, B.  These are welded to the
top and bottom plates to form the puck.  The puck is designed to just fit
inside the mouth of a six liter dewar.  Leads are brought out through the
center of tube B and are treated as in the previous designs to minimize heat
paths through the leads.
 
The top double walled cup is removed to expose the experiment.  It is composed
of an inner cup, an outer cup, and a support ring.  I assume that the inner
and outer cups will be welded up out of aluminum, and then the two cups will
be welded to the ring.
 
For assembly, the cup will fastened to the Puck Top Plate by screws up through
the flange of the top plate and into tapped holes in the ring.
 
The whole effort here is to get a short thermal path between the heat pipe
volume of the shell and the puck.  The effort is thus to minimize the thermal
path that is only through aluminum in the coupling between the two.
 
The whole structure described above fits inside the dewar.  Outside the dewar
is a similar structure, a second puck and cup.  The basic idea is to have an
isothermal structure inside and outside the dewar.  Electronics will then hold
the two isothermal shells at the same temperature.  With a dewar in between
two shells at the same temperature, the only heat path will be out of the
mouth of the dewar, where it will be controlled and measured as in the
previous design.
 
What I am looking for is some design help.  I want to draw up things that are
easy and practical to make.  Tight tolerances are not needed.  But it would be
nice if the screw holes in the puck liked up with those in the cup without a
preferred orientation.  The surface between the cup and the puck should be
pretty flat.  We may want to use thermal grease, but it is a messy pain.
Better to have a good ground flat surface.
 
1)  How do I make the ring?  I am stuck with dimensions of commercial dewars,
and the one I have picked does not match standard aluminum pipe.  It could be
turned out of standard round bar stock.  A monster chunk would be used to get
a little ring.  Could it be rolled out of bar stock?  Say 1/2" by 1/2" bar.
This would be cheap for material.  How round would a typical machine shop do
it?  How square would they make the face that mates with the puck?
 
2)  Assuming it has to hold one atmosphere, how thick do the inner and outer
cup shells need to be?  The outer shell is 7.2" od.  These need a round piece
at the top.  How thick?  Should these be just round disks, or should they have
a step to catch the shell for best welding?  How does a machine shop make a
disk shaped piece of metal anyway?  How do you hold it?  Note a magnetic chuck
does not work on aluminum?
 
I have lots more questions, but the above show the kind of help I need.  Would
one of the lurker engineers out there like to take on the job of making
drawings for these pieces?  It would be a great contribution by someone who
does this sort of thing every day and has the right design tools.  I am
willing to spend $5,000 - $10,000 or so getting a few sets of parts made.  But
it is against my principals as an amateur to pay for design.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Eugene Mallove /  Alcator C-Mod Repair
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-Mod Repair
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 01:17:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul Stek of the MIT PFC writes:
 
>Other problems [of the Tokamak] are that the volume is large compared to the
>surface area.This leads to high heat loading on the walls.  The large array
>of coils and support structure makes repair and maintenance very difficult.
>A damaged coil on Alcator C-Mod cost about a year to repair.
 
Even though Paul Stek does not "speak for the Alcator group or the PFC,"
perhaps he could enlighten us on three crucial points:
 
(1) What design defect or other circumstance led to the failure of the Alcator
C-Mod coil? I had heard from a former DOE hot fusion scientist (who is now
involved in cold fusion) that the coil failed at significantly less than
design rating.
 
(2) Can an estimate be made of how much money this year of repair effort cost?
The annual MIT PFC budget is in the range $30 million, is it not?
 
(3) Was this one-year (and presumably costly) repair effort announced in any
public way by the MIT PFC -- in technical reports, in news releases, in MIT
Tech Talk?
 
If Mr. Stek cannot provide this information, perhaps some other more official
statement would be forthcoming from the MIT PFC or from the MIT News Office.
Perhaps from laboratory head Dr. Porkolab?  (Yes friends, that really IS his
name!)
 
        Thanks to Paul for the disclosure,
        Eugene F. Mallove
 
One other matter:
 
Readers of Fusion Digest should order a marvelous *617 page* historic
document, now an  official publication of the U.S. Congress:
 
"Fusion Energy - Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred
Third Congress, First Session, May 5, 1993."  Publication #38.
 
Ask your Congressman for one or order from the U.S. Government Printing
Office, Superinrendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402   ISBN 0-16-041505-5.
 
Not only is their much technical information on hot fusion and cold fusion,
but there is a full transcription of all testimony, including that of Dr.
Storms and Dr. Mills. There are also included reprints of many cold fusion
papers and technical evaluations.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / R Schroeppel /  Quantum Voyeurism revisited
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Voyeurism revisited
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 01:17:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary Steckly recalls a post I made in February, looking for a way
to extend muon lifetime.  The notion is that examining a quantum
state resets it, and that the drift away from the measured value is
quadratic with time, so that the transition rate is small after
a recent observation; frequent reexamination will diminish the
transition rate.  [An analogous situation occurs with polarized
light:  Start with a beam of vertically polarized light.  If you
place a horizontal polarizer in the light path, it absorbs the
beam.  But if you use a series of 9 polarizers, each rotated 10
degrees wrt its predecessor, you can rotate the polarization plane
with minimal loss.]
 
My original question, how to "observe" a muon, in such a way as
to reset its decay likelihood, was unanswered.  This ties in
with the philosophical question "What's an observation, anyway?",
to which I am gratified to be able to answer immediately, and
truthfully, "I don't know."  Is checking for the absense of a
decay product an observation?  How about noticing an induced
fusion?  An xray absorption line?
 
While I'm on the subject of muon lifetime, I'd like to ask the
experts if another effect has been observed:  A muon in a muonic
atom should have a "velocity" similar to the Bohr-model velocity.
Does this "velocity" extend its lifetime measurably?
The muon is also being "accelerated" (but it doesn't radiate like
an accelerated charge should, so maybe a=0 for this case).  An
accelerated object suffers additional time dilation; are any
measurements available?  These effects should also occur in
hyperonic atoms with oddball nuclei.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Subject: Scientific Criticism
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 01:18:02 GMT
Date: 28 Sep 93 16:05:06 -0600
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Brigham Young University

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
On September 28 Steve Jones posted a critique of the work of Pons and
Fleischmann. I printed a copy of the message and mailed it to them along with
some other material, because they do not follow e-mail. I explained to them
that I did not understand what Jones meant, because he writes poorly. I could
not judge the scientific validity of his message, and I thought perhaps there
might be something new or challenging worth addressing in it. I read it
several times and thought to myself: "Surely he doesn't mean it is storing up
energy the whole time with 'invisible' non-endothermic energy storage?" It
turns out, by golly, he does mean that! He *is* asserting that you can store 8
MJ of chemical energy 0.0044 moles of palladium! This is same nonsense that
Morrison, Close and so many others have been giving us for the last four
years, so it really does not need a response.
 
Morrison and Close write better English prose than Jones. I have no trouble
understanding them when they make similar claims. Jones should express his
ideas more clearly. He should come out and state categorically and
quantitatively: "I assert that it is possible to store 8 MJ of chemical energy
in a 0.5 gram sample of metal" That would make it easier for the rest of us to
line up in support or opposition.
 
Fleischmann mailed me back a long response, commenting on various other topics
including the influence of 16th century English drama on 17th century
politics. I will skip these unrelated comments and post only some of the
remarks about Jones.
 
Because Jones has posted several other messages since Sept. 28, and because
his messages tend to contradict one another, as Mitch Swartz has shown, let me
repost a large part of the original Jones message, followed by the rebuttal
from Fleischmann, followed by a short additional message from Fleischmann
clarifying a point I asked about. Messages are separated with a "====" line.
 
 
Here are two unrelated, personal notes:
 
I have decided to stop posting messages to this forum. I made an exception for
this because Martin was kind enough to respond in depth to the Jones posting,
in spite of his busy schedule. So, I feel I should close the loop and report
his comments here. Although I do not plan to participate here, I am still
available to assist people and distribute information about cold fusion, so if
you have any questions or you need anything, please do not hesitate to contact
me directly by e-mail, telephone or fax. I do not often read the Fusion
Digest, so contact me directly.
 
Also if someone would collect these messages on 3.5" diskette and mail them to
me once a month, it would save me a lot of time and e-mail expense, so I would
be happy to pay for such a service. Please contact me if you are interested.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
 
 
==================================================================
 
ORIGINAL JONES POSTING
 
Tilde character changed to [approx]):
 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientific Criticism
Date: 28 Sep 93 16:05:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University
 
 
...
 
Jed and P&F (reference: P&F paper in Phys. Lett.A 176 (1993) , also in Nagoya
Proceedings):
Jonathon Jones and I looked carefully at the P&F Fig. 8, which shows temp. rise
and concurrent voltage increase for constant current (after a few days of
initial running with no heat increase).  By integrating under the voltage curve
and multiplying by I=0.500 A, we found approx. 8 MJ of Joule (resistive)
heating had been put into the cell.  This is far more than needed to boil away
the 45 ml of D2O electrolyte present.  But what about the
claimed "excess heat"?
That claim is based on a "calculation" given on p. 128 of their paper P. Lett.
A 176 (1993) which includes:
"Enthalpy input:  By electrolysis, (Ecell - 1.54) X (cell current) = [approx]
22,500J."
 
Note the 1.54XI , which means P&F assume that *no* recombination occurs in the
cell, which I again challenge.
 
Moreover, from the equation given cell current = "0.500 A" from Fig. 8, we
get   Ecell = 76.5 Volts  -- a whopping voltage! From that figure, it is *not*
possible to read this value.  First, the voltages are binned
in 1000 second bins -- we need the voltages on a much finer scale to scrutinize
the assertion that the Vcell during boiling was 76.5 volts.  Second, the plots
show lines which completely obscure the voltage reading in the crucial last
period of intense boiling.
 
What is going on here? How do P&F know the input voltage?  What they say in the
text (p. 128) is:  "The enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from the CELL POTENTIAL-
TIME RECORD, the radiative output is accurately known (temperature
measurements become unnecessary!) and the major enthalpy output is due to
evaporation of the D2O."  (My capitals.)
Sorry, this is just not good enough to be compelling evidence for
excess heat.  Show us the cell voltage-time plot in sufficient detail for us to
check the enthalpy input.  I don't trust the "estimate" of 76.5 volts,
especially when one cannot read this from the cell potential-time plot (Fig. 8)
provided.      Prove that temp. measurements are "unnecessary"  --
are you sure that heat conduction is negligible?  I am not convinced.  Show
that D2O was not expelled in droplets along with "evaporation" (as Droege
points out, a probable oversight with major consequences).
 
Gentlemen, really.  The evidence presented for excess heat production is hardly
compelling.  And at this stage of research...
 
Dick Blue:  Days ago you cited me as saying that the P&F boiling period lasted
for 60,000 seconds.  Rather, I quoted the caption of
Fig. 11 in the P&F paper which shows temperature versus time for the "final
period" of Fig 8a, including boiling.  [Again:  why did P&F expand the temp.
part of Fig 8 but not the crucial cell voltage portion of that Figure?  Most
curious.]
 
...
 
 
==================================================================
 
FLEISCHMANN'S RESPONSE
 
Part of a letter to Jed Rothwell, dated Oct. 21, 1993. Some typos corrected by
Rothwell.
 
     Underlined portions are shown between "_" characters.
     Subscripts are shown in square brackets; example: H[2]O.
     Tilde character changed to [approx].
 
Items were numbered by author "so that we can refer to them easily if we have
further correspondence about this (and the Nagoya) paper." Text begins here:
 
 
...
 
(1) The first important point is that the "lower bound heat transfer
coefficients", (k[R]')[11], _based on the assumption that there is no source
of excess heat_ are virtually identical to the true heat transfer coefficient
designated as (k[R]')[2] for blank experiments (these are measured with Joule
heater calibrations). It follows that there are no sources of excess heat in
those blank experiments. This excludes the possibility repeatedly raised by
Douglas Morrison, Steve Jones, etc that recombination of D[2] + O[2] could be
responsible for the excess heat.
 
Furthermore, the volumes of the gases evolved match those calculated from
Faraday's law. Furthermore the volumes of D[2]O (or H[2]O) added match those
calculated with Faraday's law + losses due to evaporation (assuming that the
gases are saturated with D[2]O (or H[2]O) vapour at the cell temperature). We
have said this repeatedly but all of it is ignored.
 
(2) Secondly, Steve Jones and Douglas Morrison cannot do arithmetic. Let us
assume that they are right and go to the extreme assumption that all the gases
evolved recombine in the cell. This would generate 0.5 Amps x 1.54 Volts =
0.77 Watts under all conditions. However, when the cell is boiling vigorously,
the cell voltage is 76.5 Volts (it doesn't really matter what it is - see the
next point (3)). The enthalpy input is now 0.5 Amps x 76.5 Volts = 38.25
Watts. 0.77 Watts is pretty negligible compared to 38.25 Watts but the heat
output from the cell is 182 Watts (11 Watts by radiation, 171 Watts to boil
the D[2]O). The excess is 144.5 Watts.
 
It doesn't really matter how you tinker with these figures, you will always
finish up with a massive excess rate of enthalpy production. The rail voltage
of the galvanostat is 100V - one could say that the enthalpy input is 0.5 Amps
x 100 Volts = 50 Watts, it has no effect on the qualitative level. One could
say some of the D[2]O is dispelled as droplets (actually, we recover [approx]
95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is
undoubtedly lost by irreversible reactions with the glass walls of the
Dewars.)
 
(3) The third point is that the voltages are read every 300s using fast
sample-and-hold systems. We therefore determine the mean potential-time curve
(the only A.C. components are the ripple currents of the galvanostats which
are 0.04% of the set current). This point really refers to Douglas Morrison's
strictures.
 
What estimate of the cell voltage does Steve Jones want to make? As I said in
(2) above, he can take the rail voltage at the galvanostat for all we care (if
he does not trust us).
 
(4) When a cell is boiling, the electrolyte is at the boiling point. Do we
really have to explain that temperature measurements are unnecessary to make
such a statement? Steve Jones should boil some water at Provo and stick a
thermometer into his saucepan. He will find that the boiling point is slightly
lower than that given in the text books. However, if he measures atmospheric
pressure, he will find he can calculate the boiling point from the Clausius
Clapeyron equation. The effects should not be large for Provo (note here we do
actually take a continuous pressure-time curve in our experiments and we allow
for these effects.)
 
(5) What on earth is Steve Jones' point about heat conduction? We measure the
heat flow due to radiation across the vacuum gap. How should conduction reduce
this value? In other words we make a "lower limit estimate."
 
(6) If Steve Jones wants to be more elaborate with the experiment outlined in
(4), he should try to evaporate 0.1M NaCl to dryness. He will find that the
boiling point increases as the electrolyte gets more concentrated (this is
described in all text books on Thermodynamics or Physical Chemistry). We
ignore this effect - if we took it into account the excess enthalpy would be
increased.
 
Furthermore, as the electrolyte boils to dryness, one has to supply the heat
of solution. Steve Jones can prove this for himself by throwing some NaOH or
KOH into H[2]O - the solution heats up. Again, we ignore this effect - it
would increase enthalpy.
 
(7) Steve Jones in common with Douglas Morrison, Frank Close etc etc.
apparently wants to hide away 8MJ of resistive heating in the 0.0392 cm^3
palladium electrode or say 2 GJ per mole of Pd. My mind boggles at this
notion.
 
In actual fact, there is no energy available to hide away. As demonstrated in
Figs 10(a) and (b) the system shows excess enthalpy throughout the experiment.
It would have to be endothermic at some stage to "hide away" energy for later
release.
 
(8) There is of course a storage mechanism available, the D in the lattice.
Perhaps Steve is, after all, too smart to raise this one: Douglas Morrison
isn't. However, the maximum enthalpy one could obtain from this is [approx]
650 Joules (assuming a D/Pd ratio of [approx] 1) but we need 102,500 Joules
just to boil away the D[2]O.
 
All I can say is to echo Steve: "Gentlemen, really". I would add "And at this
stage of the research we do really need arguments which have to be taken
seriously". We are quite prepared to do this but Steve's commentary is just a
bunch of froth.
 
Regards,
 
Yours sincerely,
 
[Signed]
 
Martin Fleischmann
 
 
==================================================================
 
FLEISCHMANN'S CLARIFICATION
 
I asked Fleischmann to comment on his statement: "voltages are read every 300s
using fast sample-and-hold systems." Five minute gaps between readings is an
unusually long time for this type of experiment (although I know no reason to
think they are "too long" -- CF reactions are slow and stable). He responded:
 
     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
     but there are 56 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
 
This is an important point that many readers here have failed to grasp: a wide
variety of experiments have been performed at IMRA, and a wide variety of
instruments used, like the averaging meters. The experiments described in
Physics Letters A are only the tip of the iceberg. If they had *only* used 5
minute readings, in only one set of experiments, I would consider that a
problem, but from talking to various people and from watching the CBC video, I
know that a wide variety of instruments and techniques have been used to
verify and explore the reaction. I pointed that out here from time to time,
but alas, my words fell on deaf ears.
 
==================================================================
 
* End of File * J.R.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Topher Cooper /  Re: ZPE
     
Originally-From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ZPE
Date: 26 Oct 1993 14:10:55 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA

 
 
    It is worth pointing out that the ZPE is not a purely theoretical
    notion.  It produces definite predictions which have been extensively
    confirmed.  In fact, energy has even been successfully extracted "from
    the ZPE -- by mainstream physicists published in peer reviewed journals
    -- the amounts have been miniscule (to say the least), are
    "non-renewable", and required many orders of magnitude more energy in
    order to set up the situation where it was extractable.  Basically, if
    you bring two conducting plates very, very close together, the ZPE
    between the plates is slightly lower than that outside.  This is
    because the plates form a resonant cavity within which only some
    frequencies of the background EM field can exist.  The result is that
    the plates attract each other, and this attraction has been
    experimentally measured.
 
    The issue is not whether the ZPE exists, but whether there is any
    practical method of getting useful work out of it.  Once the plates
    have pulled together, doing a very small amount of potentially usable
    work, you must pull them apart again in order to repeat the process --
    but that takes as much work as you gained when you put them together.
 
    Almost everyone talking about ZPE just uses it as a magic solution to
    any question of "where does the energy come from".  There is generally
    no discussion of where the lower-than-normal-vaccuum energy needed to
    extract it is, nor how that state is restored.  The one clear exception
    is Puthoff whom someone posted here recently.  He uses electrons as
    the "plates" in the above experiment, then throws the electron cluster
    away; there are plenty of electrons around.  I am not qualified to say
    whether individual electrons *can* be used in this way (though he has
    published his calculations in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals), and
    even less qualifed to say whether they can be used in a practical
    system, but at least he doesn't ignore the fundamental problems with
    "extracting" energy from the vacuum.
 
                                      Topher
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencooper cudfnTopher cudlnCooper cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 21:35:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear) writes:
>I might be getting kinda picky, but run length encoding (RLE) is not
>the same thing as Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW). Both are compression techniques.
 
Yes, I mis-spoke.  LZW looks for longer and longer strings that are used
more than once.  So a lot of white space, say, gets defined as a bunch of
white space strings initally, and then further white space occurances
merely point to those string numbers.  So it is not quite the same as RLE,
but they both compress white space nicely, as opposed to JPEG.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Did I say that?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did I say that?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 18:12:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <93102509185374@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>Mitchell seems to think that I am unaware that light water cold fusion
>uses different chemistry than does heavy water cold fusion.
>Isn't it just a bit odd that the possible existance of
>one unexplained set of observations is given as supporting evidence for
>another totally unrelated set of unexplained observations?
 
Dick, you are quite wrong about that assumption. In the very first
place the systems of measurement are the same. In the second, the
observer is looking for exactly that finding of excess heat.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 06:39:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Oct25.180028.1031@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>We've heard occasionally about claim(s) of radioactive isotope production in
>Pd/D2O cells, evidenced in particular by gamma ray emissions.  Assuming that
>Pd-100 were found in Pd used in a Pd/D2O cell (I'm not claiming it has been),
>I'd like to pose the following hypothetical question:
>
>Is it possible to produce palladium-100 in a Pd/LiOD cell?
>   (i.e., without exposure to a beam of protons or deuterons)
>   (Small amounts of H2O, B and Al may be present.)
>
>By posing this question, I mean to ask if there are any +Q reactions which
>may lead to Pd-100 formation which are *possible*.  Let's ignore the Coulomb
>barrier for the sake of argument, shall we?  We still need to have a +Q
>reaction (i.e., energy must be conserved).  The only one I've been able to find
>in discussions with others is:
>   102-Pd (3He, n+alpha) 100-Pd   Q=+1.7 MeV.
>Besides having a three-body final state, this requires a large quantity of
>energetic 3He to react with Pd-102, which is only 0.96% of naturally occurring
>Pd.  I don't consider this serious, particularly since energetic 3He
>production would imply *lots* of neutrons (if made via  d+d-->3He+n),
>but let's assume neutrons could be checked and were far too few.
>One can consider d or p reactions,
>but I can't find any with positive Q and we're trying to avoid requiring
>energetic p or d beams.
>That is, we're trying to imagine a reaction in an electrolytic cell which
>shows gammas which indicate the presence of Pd-100
>(and other radioactive isotopes).  How could Pd-100 get there?
 
    Perhaps I'm confused, but I think we've (as in sci.physics.fusion)
    talked about this before in the context of Cecil's
    data from the early conference at Los Alamos.  I cannot find
    the posts right now, but I think many of the Pd + D -> Pd + P
    reactions have positive net energy, many around 5 MeV.
    Of course, this doesn't help your problem since P should be screaming
    around.  However, I still am intrigued by Cecil's beam-off results
    for that experiment.
 
                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  D1 - May be a duplicate, sorry.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D1 - May be a duplicate, sorry.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 04:16:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimeter Design Note      D1                     25 October 1993
 
It looks like my mechanical design consultant is busy rebuilding his house
and will not have much time until the weather gets nasty.  I want to get
started, so I will look here for some advice.  This will describe the various
heat pipes shapes needed for the new calorimeter.
 
The idea is to have a pair of double walled shells that form a heat pipe
structure inside and outside a dewar.  Since such shapes are not possible to
construct, I propose to make each of the two shells out of a puck shaped part
and a cup shaped part.
 
While it appears that a vacuum such as we require here at Fermilab for our
collider is not needed, the construction technique should be quite gas tight.
 
It would seem to me that the only practical material for construction is
aluminum.  Copper or silver would be OK, but I believe that copper is hard to
work, and silver likely has the same problem not considering the cost.
Stainless steel, while likely the best for fabrication is a relatively poor
thermal conductor as is plain steel.  Still, it is possible that a very clever
design could make the interconnecting conduction path short enough to be
acceptable.
 
Below is the sort of structure that I have been considering:
 
  |   Heat Pipe  |
  |   Volume     |
  |              |
  |              |
  |              |
  |Outer Cup     |                                                     |
  |Shell         |Inner Cup Shell                                      |
  | ____________ |                                                     .
  ||            ||
  ||            ||                                                     |
  || Ring       ||                                                     |
  ||            ||                                                     .
  ||____________||
  _______________________________________________________________ _    |
 |__________________                                             |||   |
                 |||          Puck Top Plate                     |||   .
                 |||                                             |||
                 |||_____________________________________________|||   |
                 ||                                               ||   |
                A||          Heat Pipe Volume                    B||   .
                 || _____________________________________________ ||
  _______________|||        Puck Bottom Plate                    |||   |
 |_______________________________________________________________|||   |
                                                                       .
 
What is shown above is a section through a figure of rotation.  Note the
center line at the right.  The Puck Top Plate is a 7.2" diameter plate with a
step at the edge and a hole through the center.  The Puck Bottom Plate is
similar except it is thinner.  The top plate has an array of tapped holes
drilled into but not through the top face for mounting experiments.  The puck
is assembled using two short lengths of tubing, A, B.  These are welded to the
top and bottom plates to form the puck.  The puck is designed to just fit
inside the mouth of a six liter dewar.  Leads are brought out through the
center of tube B and are treated as in the previous designs to minimize heat
paths through the leads.
 
The top double walled cup is removed to expose the experiment.  It is composed
of an inner cup, an outer cup, and a support ring.  I assume that the inner
and outer cups will be welded up out of aluminum, and then the two cups will
be welded to the ring.
 
For assembly, the cup will fastened to the Puck Top Plate by screws up through
the flange of the top plate and into tapped holes in the ring.
 
The whole effort here is to get a short thermal path between the heat pipe
volume of the shell and the puck.  The effort is thus to minimize the thermal
path that is only through aluminum in the coupling between the two.
 
The whole structure described above fits inside the dewar.  Outside the dewar
is a similar structure, a second puck and cup.  The basic idea is to have an
isothermal structure inside and outside the dewar.  Electronics will then hold
the two isothermal shells at the same temperature.  With a dewar in between
two shells at the same temperature, the only heat path will be out of the
mouth of the dewar, where it will be controlled and measured as in the
previous design.
 
What I am looking for is some design help.  I want to draw up things that are
easy and practical to make.  Tight tolerances are not needed.  But it would be
nice if the screw holes in the puck liked up with those in the cup without a
preferred orientation.  The surface between the cup and the puck should be
pretty flat.  We may want to use thermal grease, but it is a messy pain.
Better to have a good ground flat surface.
 
1)  How do I make the ring?  I am stuck with dimensions of commercial dewars,
and the one I have picked does not match standard aluminum pipe.  It could be
turned out of standard round bar stock.  A monster chunk would be used to get
a little ring.  Could it be rolled out of bar stock?  Say 1/2" by 1/2" bar.
This would be cheap for material.  How round would a typical machine shop do
it?  How square would they make the face that mates with the puck?
 
2)  Assuming it has to hold one atmosphere, how thick do the inner and outer
cup shells need to be?  The outer shell is 7.2" od.  These need a round piece
at the top.  How thick?  Should these be just round disks, or should they have
a step to catch the shell for best welding?  How does a machine shop make a
disk shaped piece of metal anyway?  How do you hold it?  Note a magnetic chuck
does not work on aluminum?
 
I have lots more questions, but the above show the kind of help I need.  Would
one of the lurker engineers out there like to take on the job of making
drawings for these pieces?  It would be a great contribution by someone who
does this sort of thing every day and has the right design tools.  I am
willing to spend $5,000 - $10,000 or so getting a few sets of parts made.  But
it is against my principals as an amateur to pay for design.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Here's a bottle for Tom....
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Here's a bottle for Tom....
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 04:16:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Daryl Owen suggests a rotating disk, light fibers, and a PM tube to look
inside the calorimeter.  Don't happen to have a picture of a Trilon and
Perisphere on your wall, do you Daryl?  Then we could have a big square
looking robot to take the data.  The last time I saw that scheme it was
in the "Weekly Reader" edition on the 1939 NY worlds fair.  But actually
not a bad idea, as it could be implimented by a boy scientist.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Dick Jackson /  CNF and Thigh Cream
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF and Thigh Cream
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 19:30:31 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

News about the CNF fiasco has reached misc.fitness where the ladies
are VERY excited about a recent medical study:
 
    From: Vicki Farmer <farmer@elm.jpl.nasa.gov>
    Newsgroups: misc.fitness
    Subject: Re: Thigh reducing cream
    In article <CFFz6H.GDC@spdcc.com> Steve Dyer, dyer@spdcc.com writes:
 
    >Regional fat loss from the thigh in obese women after adrenergic
    >modulation.
 
    Finally, not to rain on everybody's parade, but:  Remember Cold Fusion!
    It had university researchers publishing big claims, too.  Replication.
    I want to see replication.
 
    Vicki
 
Sorry about this, but I couln't resist. Maybe this group SHOULD have a
moderator who would have weeded this nonsense out.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Donald Locker /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 21:00:11 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <CFGoH4.BtC@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <1993Oct24.172508.24825@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>* As I read Dale's thrashing of my response to Jim, I'm thinking:
>>Uh oh! Dale Bass! And I've only been around this group for 2 months!
>>I was hoping people would be nice to me a little longer.
>
>     I was being nice, he said dryly.
>
>>Dale argues that proliferation is not a problem for the breeder economy,
>>since it's already happening in today's economy.  I agree that we
>>already have proliferation, but that doesn't mean that a breeder
>>economy won't make the problem worse.  And I disagree that the nations
>>which are currently nuclear-capable have had "little problem getting
>>weapons-grade fissionable materials" without breeders.  If it were
>>really so easy, they would have had the things a long time ago,
>>instead of just developing them within the last 10-20 years or so.
>
>     Seems flawed to me.  Ask yourself why every nation in Europe
>     does not have nuclear weapons.
>
 
c'mon, dale, you know the answer to this!  I've seen your reasoning
powers before.  It's because as long as the US or the FSU provided all
the nukes, there was little incentive to spend money (contrasted with
invest) developing devices.  Except for those countries who weren't
sure they wanted to trust the US, such as France.
 
[all the rest deleted]
>
>                               dale bass
 
 
--
Donald.                            |          No Parking
Opinions? sure they're mine.       |       0700 to 1100 UTC
Who else would claim 'em?          |         sig cleaning
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 22:28:07 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <tomkCFGrrK.G2C@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
  > That is only the beginning. US Windpower is facing serious problems from
  > environmentalists who are dismayed at the large quantity of Golden 9and
  > other) Eagles that are being killed by running into the blades of the
  > turbines. If they cannot find a cure -- and it is likely they won't --
  > then the environmentalists will push for total shut down of the facilities.
 
  > That makes zero contribution from windpower since virtually every site
  > has it's share of endangered arial species.
 
    Why don't they just put a net or a guard of some sort around the
turbine?  Seems to me that simple solution has completely dominated
other solutions for home fans.  (Other "solutions" that I have seen:
Flexible blades, low speed fans--actually those are coming back--and
electrostatics--really a toy.  Hmmm. For wind power electrostatics
might work.  In effect the wind would be blowing charged particles up
an electromagnetic slope.  Seems to work well in thunderstorms.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 22:44:11 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct22.220025.11739@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
 
   >     IFF                       104,512
 
   Which encoding? Since IFF allows many, one of the drawing
representations might be best.
 
  > Therefore, at this time, GIF is the most universal image xfer mechanism
  > that is fairly efficient in transport size.  GIF viewers run on PC clones,
  > on Suns, and HPs and other UNIX based systems with grayscale or color
  > monitors.
 
  I don't disagree.  IFF is probably better for sophisticated video
people, but GIF is a nice choice for wide availability.
 
  > If you want the best printed image however, PostScript *is* it.
 
     I totally and completely disagree!  High quality Postscript
interpreters and printers can produce high quality output, but you can
also have junk images encoded as Postscript.  Postscript should be
reserved for talking from your computer to your printer, since the
printer driver can then know the characteristics of the particular
target.  For transferring images over the net, it comes near to dead
last choice.
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: 26 Oct 93 12:11:49 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Richard Schultz asked about the energy costs of producting the d-t mixture, and
for details of the numbers leading to an estimate of a factor of 15 enhancement
of muon-catalyzed fusion needed for commercial power production.  I should not
try to type in here the arguments since these are available as publications
to which I refer Prof. Schultz:
 
Yu. Petrov, _Muon Catalyzed Fusion_  (a journal) 1 (1987): 351.
 
T. Tajima, S. Eliezer and R. Kulsrud, AIP conf. 181 [eds. S.E. Jones, J.
Rafelski and H. Monkhorst), p. 423.
 
G. Chapline and R. Moir, J. Fusion Energy, 5 (1986) 191.
 
S.E. Jones, _Nature_ 321 (1986) 127.
This article especially answers questions raised by Carl Ijames (below).
 
In article <ijames-241093192955@156.40.188.202>,
ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) writes:
> In article <1993Oct21.144306.1011@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
> wrote:
>
>> All the fusion reactions amongst hydrogen isotopes produce 3He or 4He, which
>> may then scavenge the muon catalyst, *except*
>>    d + d -->  t + p.
>> In this case, the muon is often picked up by the recoiling p or t, but since
>> these are hydrogen isotopes, the muon is not lost to the reaction.  (Of course,
>> half the time, according to experiments, the d+d reaction produces
>> 3He + n, and the muon is captured by the 3He in about 12% of such reactions.)
>>
>> The idea of using thin films to strip the muon from the recoiling He nucleus
>> has been looked at a little.  This is one area that I think needs more
>> attention.  The point is that the recoiling nucleus has O(MeV) of kinetic
>> energy, plenty to ionize the muon which is bound with 11 keV.  One problem is
>> that the film will also scavenge free muons and muons from
>> hydrogen-isotope-muon atoms.  So the question becomes, how to avoid muon
>> capture while retaining release of muons from fast helium-muon ions.  If you
>> can think of a possible way, please let me know.
>>
>> --Steven Jones
>
> As I understand it, muon catalyzed fusion is carried out in a mixture of
> liquid D2 and DT, into which the muons are injected.  How are the free D
> and T atoms formed which the muons can react with to form a D-M-D (among
> others) molecule which can fuse?  I think the muon carries a -1 charge, so
> isn't this molecule negatively charged?  What is the charge on the 3He-muon
> complex and what happens to the muon after this capture?  If only the
> undesired 3He-muon complex were charged, could it be accelerated and
> collisionally dissociated?  Even if other species present are charged, it
> might be possible to selectively accelerate only the 3He-muon, it that
> would be useful.
>
> Just wondering how this all works ... :)
> Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
 
A negative muon is about 207 times as massive as an electron, so that
when a mu- is injected into a D2-DT-T2 mixture, it is energetically favorable
for the mu- to replace an e-  to form a d-mu or t-mu (neutral) atom.  After
the mu- has slowed in the mixture, this mu-atomic formation takes only about
a picosecond according to calculations.  The muonic atom is small and neutral
and readily penetrates molecules in the mixture, e.g., t-mu + D2.  Again, it
is energetically favorable for a d-t-mu molecular *ion* (charge +1) to form.
Ordinarily, such mu-molecular-ion formation would proceed via Auger (electron)
emission, as is the case when a muonic atom forms and the electron is "kicked
out".   But it happens that there exist loosely-bound excited states of the
d-t-mu ion that are bound only by about 0.67 eV, which is sufficiently small
that the energy can be absorbed in the rotational and vibrational degrees of
freedom of the host electron-bound molecule:
 
  d-mu +  ( d - d )     -->    ( d -  d-t-mu )
where each paranthesis represents an electron.  Such formation is called
"resonance" formation because the energy released on d-t-mu formation *inside*
the host electronic molecule must *equal* the energy which can be (and is)
absorbed by the host molecule.  The existence of such a resonance formation
process allows the muonic molecule to form about *three* orders of magnitude
faster than thought possible up until about 1980.  This discovery (by Russian
theorists Vesman and Ponomarev) re-awakened interest in muon-catalyzed fusion,
and was experimentally confirmed by experiments at LAMPF which I was privileged
to lead in the 1980's.
 
Ponomarev has refered to this resonance formation process as a "gift of God,"
and I agree:  it is beautiful and fascinating.
 
One big problem (slow muonic-molecular ion formation) solved.  Another looms:
muon capture by the 3He (d-d fusion) or 4He (d-t fusion) synthesized during the
fusion. You're right:  the muonic-helium ion is +1 charged and moving rapidly
after the fusion event, so stripping of the muon is possible (occurs about
35% of the time in dense d-t mixtures).  Acceleration of the He-mu ion is also
possible, but the energetics of doing this don't work out according to several
calculations:  slowing of the charged He-mu in the hydrogen-isotope mixture
is too rapid and soaks up to much energy.
 
Please see the _Nature_ paper referenced above for details.
 
I would like to see some form of controlled fusion "work" to help with our
energy needs.  But there seems to be no royal road... at least we haven't found
it yet.  Hopefully, fusion research will not go the way of SSC...
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 23:14:22 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <ijames-241093192955@156.40.188.202> ijames@helix.nih.gov
(Carl F. Ijames) writes:
 
   > What is the charge on the 3He-muon complex and what happens to
   > the muon after this capture?  If only the undesired 3He-muon
   > complex were charged, could it be accelerated and collisionally
   > dissociated?  Even if other species present are charged, it might
   > be possible to selectively accelerate only the 3He-muon, it that
   > would be useful.
 
    Don't lose that thought.  If the muons can be pulled out of, say,
90% of the He3+ and He4+ ions for "only" a few MeV, this would bring
the effective muon cost down enough for practicality.  If the reactor
design extracts energy from the charged particles, it should be
possible to sort and specially treat the particles containing muons.
 
    Is this ONLY an engineering problem?  (I assume that delivering
the He-muon particles to a thin film and collecting the muons can be
done fairly efficiently, the question is HOW efficient.  I suspect
that 30% is easy, and 70% is real hard.  Do you get several shots at
the target, or are you better off optimizing for just one?  What's the
best target, how about colision energy and thickness, etc., etc.  Just
engineering can be pretty hard.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Note on tokamaks (to Robert Heeter)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 21:51:19 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Oct21.154202.1013@physc1.byu.edu>  writes:
 
> Will someone speak for tokamak?  Bruce?  Dick?  I'd like to see an airing of
> the other side of the argument.
>
> About 10 years ago at an APS meeting, I attended a debate between Larry
Lidsky
> of MIT and someone from PPPL I believe, on this very issue.  I found Lidsky's
> arguments against tokamak (for use by utilities) to be quite convincing.
 
There is one very simple argumnet against their use by US utilities:
The cost of the capital needed to build the plant is too great. Based
on current knowledge, a viable tokamak reactor would be quite large---probably
10 GW. US Utilities can't get loans of the size needed ( > 10 G$)
to build these mega-plants.
 
However, if they were subsidized by the government, they would
be possible. Not likely in the US, but possible in Europe.
 
--
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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 22:06:34 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0or0cM-00007LC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
>
>
> That's when I figure it out:  The Tokamak was a dead-end and there
> didn't appear to be any good alternatives.  I didn't give up my dream
> lightly -- especially as the first Arab oil embargo was just hitting.
>
> If a hick farmer kid could figure it out 20 years ago based on literature
> available in his home-town college library, why can't PhD's at major fusion
> centers like Merriman et al figure it out today, even with the FOUNDER of
> the Tokamak program laying the logic out for them?
>
 
Look: how many times does it have to be said: I personally, and
plenty of folks involved in fusion research, know the present
breed of tokamak probably won't lead to an economically
desirable fusion reactor design in the next 50 years, and
maybe much longer (though it definitely will become viable as
other energy sources inevitably increase in cost). The reason a hick farmer
kid could figure it out is that everyone else can as well.
 
However, from a practical point of view it makes little sense to abandon
the tokamak line of research. We are still learning about confinment
in these devices, and we may discover techniques to drastically improve
it. There is such an established body of research that it only makes
sense to continue to build on it.
 
The thing that does not make sense is to exclude alternative possibilities.
The fact that this has been done is a political/economical/historical
effect, with no scientific basis.  Probably the biggest problem is
that fusion research is pretty expensive; most concepts would require
~100 Million to be properly tested. That is what leads to the budget fights,
politics, etc.
 
I suggest that you realign your thinking: rather than pretending
that fusion researchers are all duped into worshipping the tokamak,
why don't you assume that most of us sincerely want fusion energy, and
are each in our way trying to achieve that goal.
 
> After long experience and analysis, I've come to a firm conclusion:
>
> The technosocialist welfare state strongly selects for thought processes
> consistent with its past decisions -- a selection criterion totally
> incompatible with either science OR technology but entirely consistent
> with political necessity.
>
 
You said it---politics. Don't blame the scientists; we don't make the
budget.
 
--
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 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Deuteron Spins
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron Spins
Date: 27 Oct 1993 01:46:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
: >Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
: >: Now it has been argued, by a few of us "believers" that the
: >: delocalization of a particle will enhance the probability of
: >: interaction.  Namely by a degenerate bose band state.
 
: >How did you get that overlapping delocalized state in the first place?
 
:   You tell me.
 
Well my position is that it would be really hard to maintain it there.
 
:    Some recent studies on the defusion of hydrogen and deuterium on metal
: surfaces indicate that low-coverage hydrogen and deterium forms a band
: state. That finding gives some impitus to the delocalized state.  Indeed
: If I recall (i don't have it in front of me, but I will look it up), I
: saw an article intitled "Hydrogen quantum delocalization on the CU(110) plane".
: Anyway it definately shows that hydrogen can and does delocalize, and
: interesting enough there are some odd transport effects becuase of it.
 
What energy/length scale were they looking at?  I bet it was
"chemistry/atomic" energies and sizes.  At *this* scale sure you can have
'delocalization'/quantum effects, but if you want to look at things 1 fm
apart, you'll find that "magically" the wavefunction will have arranged
itself to not have much overlap probability at room temperature.
 
Because there isn't enough energy to have it be that way.
 
: >You are essentially saying "Let the wave function be in a state such
: >that there will be fusion.  Then there will be fusion."
 
: So are you agreeing with me that this configuration will enhance the
: cold fusion rates?
 
Of course.  But you can't assume you already have it!
 
: Maybe Pd/D is not the way to bring about the
: confuguration needed and perhaps there are better ways of doing it.
: Any suggestions?
 
Uh, put hot plasma in a toroidal magnetic field and put a huge current
through it?  Oops it's been done before.
:
: >Where does the energy come from?  Overlapping wavefunctions will
: >*repel* each other.  The energy for that configuration will be HIGH.
: >It is not an equilibrium state.  If you some how start out like that
: >it will not stay that way.
 
: Well, as you know Matt, all fusion, both hot and cold comes about by
: quantum tunnelling through the coulumb barrier.  I didn't mention the
: coulumb potential in the previous post because it is so obvious.
 
But you seemed to have forgotten it in your Hamiltonian.
 
:  I just
: wanted to make the point that in terms of the field equation, the
: uncertainty relation should allow for a longer range pontential.
 
If you're saying that QM will permit fusion at longer ranges than classical
mechanics would predict, yes you're right.  But this is already taken into
account in hot fusion calculations {you get fusion at larger impact
parameters due to tunneling than the classical mechanics of the 2-body
coloumb problem would predict}, and you *still* need to get things pretty
close together pretty fast.
 
:  If
: there is wave overlap, then the chances for a nuclear interaction occuring
: are improved. (Damn broken record again). As far as repelling each other,
: that is somewhat dependend on the enviroment in which the interaction occurs.
: Obviously there are screening parameters in metals that can effectively
: neutralize repulsion (not my much, but some), and there operators that
: might alter wave function to force the overlap.
 
Like what?
 
It's not too hard to imagine electronic screening mechanisms at
atomic distances, but when you get close enough what else can possibly
have an effect besides the bare charge of the other nucleus?  Even if
you smear out an electron over a whole hydrogen atom radius, when you're
talking about the close distances necessary for fusion, there's hardly
any of that electron in between the nuclei, therefore very little screening.
(that's why muons work; because there's a lot more of that negative muon
 close in!)
 
Electrons are so light you can't squeeze them in close to the nucleus
without expending lots of energy, thus negating all your benefit of
the screening.
 
: >: With regard to high density deuteron band state, this would imply an
: >: enhanced cold fusion rate.  If such a high density band D+ state does
: >: exist, which would be described by the condensation process of the
: >: Bose Einstein statistics, the multi-body nature of the process should
: >: favor the formation of other bose type particles.
 
: >The tendency for condensation is a weak effect, which is strongly
: >counteracted by the electrostatic repulsion.  That it happens in
: >superfluid He is an extraordinary example of something that is normally
: >unobservable.  (And remember that He is electrically neutral.)
 
: It is?  Then perhaps you would like to take a stab at superconductivity?
: Or perhaps, the creation superfluid condensed poins through short lived
: resonances in quark-gluon plasmas (which is at a very very HIGH temp).
 
As I said, an extraordinary example of something normally unobservable.
 
By normal I mean things like "your desk" and not "superconductors" or "short
lived resonances in quark-gluon plasmas".
 
Also remember that in superconductors, the Cooper paired electrons are
*not* physically close to each other; if they were, their electrostatic
repulsion would have been big and that would have screwed everything up.
 
 
: Have Fun Thinking,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@coplex.com
 
cheers
Matt
 
--
-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:
cuddy27 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  A8  (Tom Droege's experiment)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  A8  (Tom Droege's experiment)
Date: 26 Oct 93 16:37:43 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Tom,
 
Best wishes for your upcoming experiment.  In view of the fact that a
significant null will tell us much, just as a quality positive would,
I again offer use of our N-ray spectrometer.
 
Oops, make that  X-ray spectrometer.  {;-)
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 22:17:50 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>That is only the beginning. US Windpower is facing serious problems from
>environmentalists who are dismayed at the large quantity of Golden 9and
>other) Eagles that are being killed by running into the blades of the
>turbines.
 
I can't help but laugh at these bozos.  I mean they were told for years
and years that the so-called environmentally friendly power generation
schemes they favored were anything but.
 
Now when they see a birdie get plucked in mid-air, they see the light.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 07:28:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department writes:

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department writes:
>Third: I can't see how your conclusion can be of much value to investors,
>since your estimated odds of success seem inversely proportional
>with how much is known about the technologies---i.e., the less
>known, the more you favor it.
 
There is more known about the IEF (1 in 4 odds), by virtue of earlier
experiments which demonstrated high neutron flux using well understood
physical principles, than CNF (1 in 10 odds) and there is more known
about the PLASMAK(tm) (with its estimated 1 in 2 odds), by virtue of the
earlier work on the Spheromak (simply a PLASMAK(tm) with a metal shell).
 
Agreed, we don't know if ANY of these will work but the odds estimated
say there is almost a 70% chance we win big if an investment group puts
one Tokamak-year's worth of capital into the three alternative technologies
of PLASMAK(tm), Farnsworth IEF AND P&F CNF.  Further, the returns would
be far sooner than can be expected with a Tokamak.
 
PS:  Unfortunately, P&F CNF no longer is an investment option as they
have been driven from the country.  But if our odds are correct, the loss
of P&F to the Japanese only brings the composite odds down to 60%.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 06:07:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>FLEISCHMANN'S RESPONSE
>...when the cell is boiling vigorously, the cell voltage is 76.5 Volts...
>The enthalpy input is now 0.5 Amps x 76.5 Volts = 38.25 Watts.
 
>...the heat output from the cell is 182 Watts (11 Watts by radiation,
>171 Watts to boil the D[2]O). The excess is 144.5 Watts.
 
>The rail voltage of the galvanostat is 100V - one could say that the [max]
>enthalpy input is 0.5 Amps x 100 Volts = 50 Watts
 
Just for the heck of it, I took 50ml of water (what I presume the P+F
cells have) put it in a thermos with a stryrofoam lid, and put in a
resistor to which I applied 50 watts.
 
It took about 7 minutes to reach boiling point from room temperature.
Theory says about 5 minutes, so I had some extra heat losses.
 
The salient observation is that at 50 watts, the boiling rate has a certain
look.  At 182 watts the boiling rate would have a much more vigorous look.
 
So if one wanted to, one could more or less duplicate the P+F cell in the
infamous video and with resistive heating, input different powers and
observe the boiling rate for comparison.  I haven't seen the video, but
I bet one could estimate easily if the power driving the boiling was closer
to the 30-50 watt range or the 150-200 watt range.
 
Since we believe the P+F setup is no more than 50W input max, if we see
anything significantly more vigorous, then the boiling video is telling
us something.
 
Note that a loss mechanism, including surface evaporation, would reduce
boiling vigor.  So you'd want to make some effort to keep P+F dimensions.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 /  - /  why fusion works
     
Originally-From: frampton@access.digex.net (-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: why fusion works
Date: 27 Oct 1993 06:37:00 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

hello I'm designing a city for the Simcity future city national
competition, and I've desided to power it with Cold Fusion. (you might
have seen my earlier post concerning literature on the subject) I need
some information about WHY cold fusion will work... could any of you
explain why it will? or what work is being done to make it work?
 
thanks 10e+6
 
--
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| adam frampton               |  printed on 100 percent recycled electrons
| frampton@access.digex.com   |
+-----------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenframpton cudln- cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 02:16:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CFIvoC.nq@mrdog.msl.com>,
Donald H. Locker <dhl@mrdog.msl.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Seems flawed to me.  Ask yourself why every nation in Europe
>>     does not have nuclear weapons.
>>
>
>c'mon, dale, you know the answer to this!  I've seen your reasoning
>powers before.  It's because as long as the US or the FSU provided all
>the nukes, there was little incentive to spend money (contrasted with
>invest) developing devices.  Except for those countries who weren't
>sure they wanted to trust the US, such as France.
 
     The answer is deeper than the nuclear umbrella.  It is that
     political conditions make it unnecessary and undesirable, even now.
     *That* is what prevents proliferation.  All the export controls
     that the free world is willing to impose will not prevent
     proliferation.
 
     So, it is pretty clear that we should a) attempt to promote
     the political conditions that make nuclear weapons undesirable or
     b) take active and/or military steps to prevent adversaries
     from becoming nuclear threats.  Stopping power breeders in this
     country does neither of these.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.26 / Graydon Hoare /  neophyte bothers deities
     
Originally-From: coventry@r-node.io.org (Graydon Hoare)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neophyte bothers deities
Date: 26 Oct 1993 19:13:08 -0400
Organization: Internex Online (io.org) Data: 416-363-3783  Voice: 416-363-8676

hello all. I don't mean to interrupt the conversations going on here but I was
wondering if anyone could point me towards either a) a really good
book/periodical detailing recent developments in controlled fusion,
b) a network resource or board for those curious in learning more about the
process and theories of (specifically toroid confinement) fusion. Don't scream
at me if this seems like a moronic thing to ask for, this base is caaled
sci.physics.fusion after all and some of us don't know a dammed thing about
it.
 
thanks kindly.coventry@io.org
 
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Coventry@io.org
"no, as you can see, this is salonica. Hence the ladies."
-ALDISS
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencoventry cudfnGraydon cudlnHoare cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Respectfully for Tom, Dick and .....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Respectfully for Tom, Dick and .....
Date: 27 Oct 93 22:35:47 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 Like Dick Blue I do not think that cold fusion is about to do cartwheels and
I also agree that a lot of points are usually glossed over, indeed many
people seem to focus on the theory or experiment of the month and forget
that this topic had some very good, definitive, experiments performed on it
way back in 1989/90.
 One experiment in particular appears to answere all of the questions asked
by Dick in his post of the 22-Oct-93 and one which IMHO, should be
studied again by Tom Droege before he starts designing his next experiments.
 This, IMHO, definitive experiment,is the one performed by Eiichi Yamaguchi and
Takashi Nishioka, published in April 1990 in the Japanese Journal of Applied
Physics and also in the excellent, AIP Conference Proceedings No. 228,
co-edited by our very own Prof S.E.Jones.... Good one Steve.
 I would like now to outline the experiment and then attempt to show how it
can answere the questions posed by Dick.
 My apologies in advance for any distortion of emphasis, omissions, etc which
may occur in this summary....
 There were two series of experiments performed, one called The First Stage
Experiment (vacuum out-diffusion of D2) and the other the Second Stage
Experiment (vacuum/current-injection out diffusion of D2 and H2).
 The First Stage involved three samples of 3.0 x 3.0 cm Pd (99.9%) plates
1.0mm thick,coated on one side by a (<100 Angstrom) MnO thin film, the plate
charged with D2 gas in a chamber at approx 0.5 atm. and an Au film
(approx 2000 Angstrom) thick deposited on the other side.
The samples were then placed in a vaccum chamber and evacuated by a turbo
molecular pump. After approx 3 hours of pumping, the following events happened
almost simultaneously....
(1) Gigantic neutron emission of 0.1- 0.2 mSv/hr for 2 to 3 seconds.
(2) Explosive release of gas from the samples.
(3) Biaxial bending of all samples.
(4) Excess heat evolution.(During which the Au film was alloyed with the
         Pd substrate, indicating a temperature of about 800 deg.C)
The same three samples were again immersed in D2 gas at about 130 deg. C
for 10 hours in the same chamber which was then commenced to be evacuated.
After about 150 seconds of pumping another gigantic neutron burst of
0.06- 0.09 mSv/hour for 1 to 2 secs. was observed.
 The pressure was then increased to 1 atm with Nitrogen and the chamber again
evacuated. Almost the same magnitude of neutron emission as the second bust
was observed after about 150 secs.of pumping.
 Good precautions against false signals (battery power supplies etc) were
taken.
 HOWEVER....They performed about 20 futher experiments using the above
proceedure. Neither (None?) of the above mentioned events were observed
in those further experiments. They put this down to the fact that possibly
 "the cooperative production of D accumulation layers at the Pd surfaces
critically depends upon the characteristics of the surface barriers."
 
The Second Stage Experiment....
 With the intent of clarifying the causal relationship among the four events
they added current injection to the first stage experiment in May 1990.
 They also refined their techniques of applying (different) films and
importantly, loaded samples with H2 as well as D2.
 The "current injection" consisted of applying positive DC pulses to the
Au side of the plate when it was under vacuum, with the idea (I believe)
of injecting the D from the Pd through the thin film.
 The effects (2)-(4) of the first experiment were easily reproduced but of
much lower amplitude using the electric current. Furthermore they were also
reproducible with the Pd:H samples.
 
 Sorry Folks, but I have to leave now, I will try to answere Dicks' questions
in the next episode.
 
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
Disclaimer: The statements and opinions set out above are my own and do
not necessarily correspond with those of my employer.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / mitchell swartz /  Quantitation of Images for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantitation of Images for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:20:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <EACHUS.93Oct26174411@spectre.mitre.org>
   Subject: Re: Images for Sci.physics.fusion
Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) writes:
 
=re "Which encoding? Since IFF allows many, one of the drawing
=re representations might be best."
  > Therefore, at this time, GIF is the most universal image xfer mechanism
  > that is fairly efficient in transport size.  GIF viewers run on PC clones,
  > on Suns, and HPs and other UNIX based systems with grayscale or color
  > monitors.
=re   I don't disagree.  IFF is probably better for sophisticated video
=re people, but GIF is a nice choice for wide availability.
  > If you want the best printed image however, PostScript *is* it.
=re      "I totally and completely disagree!  High quality Postscript
=re interpreters and printers can produce high quality output, but you can
=re also have junk images encoded as Postscript.  Postscript should be
=re reserved for talking from your computer to your printer, since the
=re printer driver can then know the characteristics of the particular
=re target.  For transferring images over the net, it comes near to dead
=re last choice."
 
  Good points by Robert, and John, and the rest  (thanks...)
Well, folks, it is time for some numerical answers.
Here is the data.  I took two figures and tried various formats.
Also examined were the effects of LHA (a compression technique)
and the effects of UUencoding (required to post to eliminate the
binary which would do havoc around the world  ;-(
 
  Image 1 is from a calorimeter output  similar to one posted previously.
The second is a 640x400 IFF 16 color image which I use to show 4-terminal
hookups to electrodes to enable conductivity measurements.
 
   The RAW column is the the size of the files in bytes.
 The effects of LHA  and UUencoding the LHA'd files are shown.
 
 Image 1: A calorimeter output  (circa six curves as functions of time)
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|          |   RAW   | %BEST  |  LHA   | %BEST |LHAuuencod| %BEST |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   gif    | 12,036  |  100%  | 12,066 | 170%  |  16,933  | 170%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   iff    | 20,808  |  173%  | 7,089  | 100%  |  9,963   | 100%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   jpeg   | 56,049  |  466%  | 50,905 | 718%  |  71,311  | 716%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|postscript| 519,488 | 4,316% | 13,628 | 192%  |  19,118  | 192%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
  Image 2: a graphical image showing a four-terminal electrode
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|          |   RAW   | %BEST  |  LHA   | %BEST |LHAuuencod| %BEST |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   gif    |  7,128  |  100%  | 7,157  | 184%  |  10,061  | 183%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   iff    | 18,322  |  257%  | 3,891  | 100%  |  5,486   | 100%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   jpeg   | 25,150  |  353%  | 25,150 | 646%  |  27,601  | 503%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|postscript| 519,488 | 7,288% | 8,149  | 209%  |  11,450  | 209%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   1)  So which is the best format?     ---->   IFF
   2)  Is postscript really so bad  No, only IF compressed it is about
    1/2 as efficient as IFF (similar to GIF - within ca. 15%)
   3)  Remember: always UUencode.
 
             Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / mitchell swartz /  CF Power Densities
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Power Densities
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 18:07:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <tomkCFGqEK.CDE@netcom.com>
   Subject: Re: On Harwell Melich
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
   >=tk  Exactly WHAT evolution is ocurring in this so-called field? >
   >o  Increased power densities.
 
 ==tk  100 x 0 = 0
 
  Not true.   The excess power densities (W/cm3 Pd in D2O) have increased
with time.  At the time of the announcement ranges were 10-20 W/cm3.
          [BTW ---- The FAQ Table has an error and reads mW/cm3 --
          I'll correct that next posting. Sorry for the inconvenience.]
Now, they range about 10x higher.
 
      1989     circa   10-20         W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1000-1500+     W/cm3 Pd
 
  Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Robert Eachus /  There is _no_ spin-0 deuteron state.
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: There is _no_ spin-0 deuteron state.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:25:04 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I totally agree with Terry on the subject line.  There is no
spin-0 deuteron state.  I don't want to imply that it is possible.
 
     That said, let me try to ask my question of Terry in different
words: If we have (one or several) Bose condensates each condensate
will have a characteristic spin.  However, the deuterons are formed of
two fermions--which as we just discussed must be spin aligned, with
the same spin as the condensate--and the Pauli exclusion principle
seems to come into play.  I had assumed that this would favor/force
the creation of exactly two condenstates with opposite spins, Terry
seems to be saying that more than two condensates would be formed.
 
     If the exclusion principle requires that each nucleon in the
condensate be in a different nuclear energy or momentum state, then I
may really be missing something major.
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors, a USA technology
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct26.220634.25828@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>I suggest that you realign your thinking: rather than pretending
>that fusion researchers are all duped into worshipping the tokamak,
>why don't you assume that most of us sincerely want fusion energy, and
>are each in our way trying to achieve that goal.
 
Geez, what a kill joy. Don't you realize that it greatly simplifies one's
world view if he can paint the picture in black and white without the
shades of grey you're demonstrating?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 19:41:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <EACHUS.93Oct26172807@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
>    Why don't they just put a net or a guard of some sort around the
>turbine?  Seems to me that simple solution has completely dominated
>other solutions for home fans.  (Other "solutions" that I have seen:
>Flexible blades, low speed fans--actually those are coming back--and
>electrostatics--really a toy.  Hmmm. For wind power electrostatics
>might work.  In effect the wind would be blowing charged particles up
>an electromagnetic slope.  Seems to work well in thunderstorms.)
 
Hmm, it sounds like you don't have a feel for the scale of this stuff
Bob. The largest turbines have a blade length of 110 ft. (I seem to recall)
This is a sweep of 240 feet! These turbines are mounted along a range of
hills and stretch for 30 miles and are 5 miles deep. In this area the
turbines are very thick.
 
The noise polution alone is causing quite a controversy. The death of
birds and other small animals also is alarming environmentalists. And
the visual polution is staggering. Since the Altamont Pass area of
the Livermore/Tracy area is a most perfect wind generation area it is
pretty discouraging to see only a very small proportion of the units
on line at any time. They all run probably less than 2% of the year.
 
If you have a workable system of electrostatic generation I would suggest
that you could make quite a killing selling the idea. What do you want
to bet that it wouldn't require wind above the 24 knots that are most
effective with turbines? (Though they work at 12.)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Silicate layer effects
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicate layer effects
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 05:04:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Karel Hladky writes "... - P&F pretreat their Pd - ...".  How do you know
that Karel?  Can you give a reference to one of their papers?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: neophyte bothers deities
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neophyte bothers deities
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 00:21:33 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

coventry@r-node.io.org (Graydon Hoare) writes:
 
>hello all. I don't mean to interrupt the conversations going on here but I was
>wondering if anyone could point me towards either a) a really good
>book/periodical detailing recent developments in controlled fusion,
 
I don't know if such a book or periodical exists.  I have the impression that
proponents of research in magnetic confinement, for example, don't want
to hear about muon-catalyzed fusion or inertial confinement.  There seem to
be separate groups that don't talk to each other.
 
>b) a network resource or board for those curious in learning more about the
>process and theories of (specifically toroid confinement) fusion.
 
I think you have found it.
 
> Don't scream
>at me if this seems like a moronic thing to ask for, this base is caaled
>sci.physics.fusion after all and some of us don't know a dammed thing about
>it.
 
Ask a specific question, and ye shall receive answers.
--
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Jim Bowery /  Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion ethics
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 06:27:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department writes:

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department writes:
>In article <m0or0cM-00007LC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
>writes:
>> That's when I figure it out:  The Tokamak was a dead-end and there
>> didn't appear to be any good alternatives.  I didn't give up my dream
>> lightly -- especially as the first Arab oil embargo was just hitting.
>>
>> If a hick farmer kid could figure it out 20 years ago based on literature
>> available in his home-town college library, why can't PhD's at major fusion
>> centers like Merriman et al figure it out today, even with the FOUNDER of
>> the Tokamak program laying the logic out for them?
>>
>
>Look: how many times does it have to be said: I personally, and
>plenty of folks involved in fusion research, know the present
>breed of tokamak probably won't lead to an economically
>desirable fusion reactor design in the next 50 years, and
>maybe much longer (though it definitely will become viable as
>other energy sources inevitably increase in cost). The reason a hick farmer
>kid could figure it out is that everyone else can as well.
 
I stand corrected.
 
>...  Probably the biggest problem is
>that fusion research is pretty expensive; most concepts would require
>~100 Million to be properly tested. That is what leads to the budget fights,
>politics, etc.
 
The Tokamak takes between $300M and $400M per year.
 
1 year's Tokamak budget is all that would be required to "properly test"
all three technologies of Farnsworth IEF, PLASMAK(tm) and P&F CNF.
 
As I said in Congressional testimony on this subject:
 
If we can afford to spend hundreds of millions on politically-chosen
technologies where taxpayers take the entire risk, we can certainly
afford far more than that on tax incentives in which private investors
are putting their own estates on the line along with taxpayers.
 
However, since our political system seems incapable of even this modest
level of rationality, the only thing we can do is try to prevent the
programs it funds from driving capital away from alternatives.  Any
scientists of good conscience who are funded by the political system
must see their role as subservient to, not critical of, scientists
who are outside of that system, investing their own money and effort.
 
I know such modesty has become very unfashionable in this era of
arrogant government, but it IS the American Way -- or it least it
used to be.
 
>I suggest that you realign your thinking: rather than pretending
>that fusion researchers are all duped into worshipping the tokamak,
>why don't you assume that most of us sincerely want fusion energy, and
>are each in our way trying to achieve that goal.
 
Because their bottom-line behavior is consistent with Tokamak-worship
and inconsistent with attaining useful fusion energy.
 
They are being transformed from scientists and engineers into political
cogs by the incentives of the system to which they subject themselves.
 
This is human nature.
 
>> After long experience and analysis, I've come to a firm conclusion:
>>
>> The technosocialist welfare state strongly selects for thought processes
>> consistent with its past decisions -- a selection criterion totally
>> incompatible with either science OR technology but entirely consistent
>> with political necessity.
>>
>
>You said it---politics. Don't blame the scientists; we don't make the
>budget.
 
But you work under its authority, are subject to its schedules of
reinforcement, enjoy the credibility it buys you and are less than
supportive of those outside of that system who are putting their own
estates and family fortunes on the line.
 
The ethics of the situation dictate a realignment of YOUR thinking.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Economics
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 19:58:26 EDT

          I posted:
>         How do you figure this?  A breeder economy does not require
>that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons
>grade material.  In any case if an energy solution requires
>eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure
>that could be arranged.
          and:
>         Clearly you are easily shocked.  For the record, I consider
>the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly
>since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons
>should they wish to do so.
         Robert Heeter replied:
>Are there?  I guess I'm underinformed here.  I've read that the breeder
>reactor designs typically use higher-grade fuels, and are *designed*
>to create more radioactive material, thus making it simpler to
>acquire the nasty stuff that you need to make bombs.  I'm shocked by
>your disbelief in the proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're
>willing to consider elimination of various nations in order to support
>a breeder-based energy system.  The shock isn't so much due to the
>apparent inhumanity of the comment as it is due to the fact that
>that kind of political baggage makes the breeder much more costly.
>But if you can explain why you think there are easier ways to get
>weapons-grade materials, I'll shut up.
 
         Dale Bass has already responded to this, I will just add that
that since none of the nations which have nuclear weapons obtained
them by developing power breeder reactors as an intermediate step it
seems unlikely that this is the easiest way.
         As for inhumanity, I fail to see what is inhumane in
suggesting that the world might inpose different governments on Iran
Libya and Cuba if these countries appeared to otherwise be about to
obtain nuclear weapons.
         Robert Heeter said:
>                                                   ...  Regardless,
>the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants
>energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder.
         I replied:
>         Your last sentence is obviously false.  Nations want many
>things.  This does not mean that will obtain them.
         Robert Heeter added:
>Well, when it comes to energy independence, which is perhaps second
>only to social stability as a prerequisite for a viable economy,
>and when there's no fossil fuel lying around anymore, I really wonder
>whether I might actually be right.  Perhaps I should have said that
>in a world where only the breeder gives you the fuel you need, any
>nation which wants energy independence is going to put in a lot of
>effort to make a breeder, and it's going to take a lot of effort
>to prevent them from doing so, if you decide that there's a large
>proliferation risk.  The thrust of the idea is just that you're
>going to have a lot of external costs with a breeder economy; although
>I suppose we're putting up with similar costs in todays oil economy
>(things like oil shocks, Persian gulf wars, and the like).  Fusion
>would be less likely to have this sort of problem.  (Any room
>for agreement here now?)
 
         Not much, your claim that energy independence is a prerequisite
for a viable economy is clearly absurd.  Do you believe the United
States, Japan etc. currently have non-viable economies?  Most nations
want energy independence only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
         I said:
>         Fission wins over fusion because based on what we know today
>fission plants will be cheaper than fusion plants.  I don't believe
>disposal of reactor waste presents a serious technical problem for
>fission plants (although it is certainly a political problem).
         Robert Heeter replied:
>Ok, I agree with you here.  But I wasn't thinking about building a
>fusion plant with today's technology!  I was really asking whether
>you thought fission was better as a *long-term* energy solution.  And
>I wasn't asking for a purely scientific analysis - I think the political
>aspect is also relevant.  It's very difficult to get people to accept
>fission.  I have trouble with your conclusion that waste disposal isn't
>a serious technical problem.  On the timescales over which the
>high-level waste has to be isolated, there seems to be a fair amount
>of uncertainty regarding how safe the current proposals are.  I'm
>not saying you're wrong, just that I need more information in order
>to completely accept the claim that waste isn't a problem.
 
         I consider this to be an economic question not a scientific
question.  If fission is cheaper it's better.  I refuse to consider
the political aspect since this just encourages advocates of one tech-
nology to invent spurious but politically attractive arguments against
alternatives.  It is my understanding that simply dumping the waste in
the deep ocean would be safe enough.  (I am not advocating this).
Would this pose any real threat to people?  By the way how long does
it take before fission waste is as safe as uranium ore?
         Robert Heeter posted:
>Ok, I think anything in my lifetime is not far future, so we just have
>a timescale disagreement here.  As far as aeronautics, consider that
>50 years ago the germans were just developing jet aircraft, and rocket
>flight, and radar instrumentation.  50 years doesn't strike me as
>such a bad horizon, especially because energy seems to move more slowly
>than other areas of technology.
 
         Money was spent 50 years ago developing jet aircraft, rocket
flight and radar because it was believed (correctly) that militarily
useful results would be obtained quickly (within a few years).  If
fusion had similar near term prospects I would support it.
         I said:
>         I would put some research money into fusion relevant basic
>science.  I would not build large test machines until they are needed
>to validate an economically viable power plant design.
         Robert Heater replied:
>I wholeheartedly agree, at least insofar as I understand what you've
>said.  But I'd better ask some questions for clarification.
>What do you mean by "large test machine"?  What if someone believes
>that the tokamak will be an economically viable design by the time
>we get the test machines built?  What if we need the large machine
>in order to understand the engineering of a viable reactor?  How can
>we know what we need for a viable plant design unless we build one
>and work out the problems?  How does one know whether a particular
>confinement scheme will work well as a power plant without building
>a machine large enough to get reactor-relevant plasma conditions?
 
         "Large test machine" means TFTR and especially ITER.
         It is pointless to work on engineering problems which even if
solved satisfactorily do not give a economically viable design.
         I would rather see money going towards improving computer
simulation codes to the point where you can judge designs without
having to build expensive test machines.  I have no idea how feasible
this is at the moment (which is why I asked in a previous post what
the current state of the art is).
         I posted:
>         I hope you have some sort of fallback position as I suspect
>the employment situation for new PhDs in fusion research may be rather
>grim in a few years.  For that matter have you investigated what the
>situation for recent PhDs is today?  Are they happy with their lot?
         Robert Heeter answered:
>Thanks for the concern, but I'm not so foolish as to go into physics
>without realizing that I may not work in it forever.  I'm not worried
>about not finding employment, though.  Princeton seems to do fairly well
>at having employable graduates.  I took a pretty close look at that
>when I was choosing schools and deciding on going into physics.
>Of course, you seem to be insinuating that plasma physics is going to
>go through some kind of fiscal trauma in a few years - is that what
>you meant about a grim employment situation?  This would require a
>worldwide abandonment of fusion, which seems unlikely.  (The US only
>has 20% of the world fusion workforce.)
 
         Ok you can't say you weren't warned.  A fair number of young
scientists are currently unhappy with their employment oportunities and
many feel that they were misled by their professors and others.  (See
for example Physics Today, May 1993, p.9-11 and p.57-60).
         A grim employment situation does not require a worldwide aban-
doment of fusion, a 50% cutback would be more than sufficient.  In fact
all a grim employment situation requires is many qualified applicants
for every opening which can occur without any cutbacks at all if the
production of new PhDs is excessive.  By the way not everyone would be
willing to relocate out of the US to find work.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Jed Rothwell /  64 cells, not 56
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 64 cells, not 56
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 01:28:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
In my previous message: "Fleischmann responds to Jones" I typed the second
note from Fleischmann incorrectly. It should read:
 
     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
     but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
 
(In the previous message I wrote "56" instead of "64.")
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Bruce Scott /  Re: neophyte bothers deities
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neophyte bothers deities
Date: 28 Oct 1993 13:08:58 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <bpcCFKzny.M9o@netcom.com>,
        bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
 
|> I don't know if such a book or periodical exists.  I have the impression that
|> proponents of research in magnetic confinement, for example, don't want
|> to hear about muon-catalyzed fusion or inertial confinement.  There seem to
|> be separate groups that don't talk to each other.
 
This gives an utterly fasle impression. Muon-catalysed fusion was intensely
discussed among my colleagues at the 1986 APS plasma physics meeting. It
has died the same death as the high-density z-pinch, but don't blame that
on the scientists (that should be obvious from Steven Jones's posts).
 
Inertial confinement people are separate because of classification; they
use a lot of the same software the bomb people do. We get very frustrated
with these people not being able to give us parameters and mechanisms to
the degree we are used to, at seminars. The first thing you need to know
when hearing about a new field is the parameter regime. If they can't talk
about it, there is not much point for a discussion. I remember this from
several invited seminars those guys gave at U Maryland in the mid-80s.
 
Besides that, many people are just too lazy. If it does not directly affect
their work, they don't go hear talks even at the same conference. I speak
of the mass exodus from the main hall at the last IAEA fusion conference,
Wuerzburg 1992. But this problem is endemic in science; another place
I saw it was at the 1986 AGU Winter meeting. There are not enough
eclectics in general, but government reviewers compound the problem
by frowning on it. That is what we get by being led by legal/business
types. Each of the two problems mentioned in this paragraph feed off
each other like sharks. I know this, from being tired of being laughed at
for being so interested in astrophysics.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 28 Oct 1993 13:11:36 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

James Shearer writes:
 
> A grim employment situation does not require a worldwide aban-
> doment of fusion, a 50% cutback would be more than sufficient.
 
Are you aware we've already had that, and then some? One must think
in constant dollars. We were gutted in the 1980s.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Barry Smith /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 05:56:53 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research - Portland, Oregon

In article <1993Oct22.235604.9571@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
> In article <19931021.155856.966@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >          Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo-
> > voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive
> > and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a
> > fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre-
> > vailing opinion you state.  So what are you complaining about?
>
> James, get serious. Those are all low power density technologies you cite
> (not to mention some of them have limited capacity and applicability:
> tell Japan to rely on solar---which country should they take over
> in order to get the land area required for solar cells.).
 
Barry, a question here: have you compared, say, the installed roof area
in Japan with, say, the existing energy loading?
(Of the country, not the roofs. :)
 
That "low density" source (solar) of order megawatts per acre,
is it not?
 
>
> Are you saying the industrialized world need no high power density
> sources? I don't think so. That is the need fusion is intended to fill.
>
 
Well, I'll say it even if he won't. :)  High power density
*applications*,
sure.  But, is it not the case that power *distribution* costs
approximate
half the delivered cost, for large thermal (coal *or* nuclear) electric
plants?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  D2
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:47:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimeter Design Note      D2                     28 October 1993
 
After a number of tries, I talked to my mechanical design friend Kevin.  He is
playing "general contractor" for his vacation house.  I think this will wipe
him out until the really bad weather hits Chicago, which is usually mid
December.  Meanwhile I am determined to get started.
 
I finally got the data mailed off to John Logajan from the last run, so am now
turning to the new design.  If any of you out there have a passion to own a
copy of the world's best calorimeter and are willing to drive a Chevy instead
of a Cadillac, now is the time to jump on board.  It will not really cost that
much, but it will cost something.  For example, I just called up and ordered
one of the six liter dewars that I will use so that I can measure its
dimensions.  It was $295 without shipping.  My guess is that  $3000 or so will
get a parts kit, but only for those that help with the project, and take on
some work.  I will also exchange some parts for significant real work.  But I
have learned over the years not to give things away.  You will have to spend
some of your own money to get in on this great deal.  (Hard core Libertarians
will understand why.)  After all, you could buy stock or lottery tickets and
have nothing to show.  This way you will have a pile of scientific looking
things in your basement which will allow you to amaze your friends even if you
don't put it all together and make it work.  I observe that my friends are
more impressed when things are torn apart than when the system is running.
 
I have been working on an assembly drawing of the whole mess, and I can see
now how to put everything together.
 
Event if you don't want a calorimeter, one of you with Auto Cad on your home
PC and the right experience could whomp out some production drawings pretty
quickly.  We will pay in appreciation, fame, or glory, but not money.
 
To those who do not follow the more detailed drawing in D1, here is a concept
sketch of the design:
 
                    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
                    HDDDDDDDDDDDDDDH
                    HDHHHHHHHHHHHHDH
                    HDH          HDH
                    HDH          HDH
                    HDH          HDH
                    HDH  R    R  HDH
                    HDHHHHHHHHHHHHDH
                    HD************DH
                    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
                    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                    SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 
There is an inner double walled shell heat pipe (H) and and outer shell heat
pipe (H).  They do not touch.  They are separated by a dewar (D), except at
the mouth of the dewar.  Thermoelectric (TED) devices (*) located in the dewar
mouth between the inner and outer shell run at constant current and pump heat
out of the inner heat shell.  Resistors (R) heat the inside of inner heat
shell.  A thermometer in the inner heat shell controls a servo which drives
the resistors to hold the inner shell at constant temperature.  When this is
done the heater power equals the heat pumped out of the inner shell by the
TED.  The system then operates as a null balance device for measuring changes
in heat of an experiment in the inner shell.  Some of the  TED in the gap
between the inner and outer shell are used to measure the difference in
temperature between them.  This difference is used to drive a second layer of
TED (@) which exhaust the heat to a water cooled heat sink (S).  These are
used to hold the difference between the inner and outer shell to zero.
 
In the last design, we determined that TED run at constant current and at
constant temperature really do pump constant heat.  The problems were
related to temperature gradients on the inner and outer shell.  Small
temperature gradients cause significant radiation losses which vary due to
different experimental conditions in the inner shell, and from changes in
ambient temperature on the outer shell.  In the old design, the inner and
outer shells were thin metal.  With this design, they are heat pipes, and we
expect a 1000/1 or so improvement.
 
With this design, one wonders if the dewar is really necessary.  It will be an
interesting experiment to replace it with a little foam and see.  The first
design did not have a dewar and gave good results with thin wall copper
shells and foam.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Donald Locker /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:09:53 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <CFJAAw.H8y@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <CFIvoC.nq@mrdog.msl.com>,
>Donald H. Locker <dhl@mrdog.msl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Seems flawed to me.  Ask yourself why every nation in Europe
>>>     does not have nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>
>>c'mon, dale, you know the answer to this!  I've seen your reasoning
>>powers before.  It's because as long as the US or the FSU provided all
>>the nukes, there was little incentive to spend money (contrasted with
>>invest) developing devices.  Except for those countries who weren't
>>sure they wanted to trust the US, such as France.
>
>     The answer is deeper than the nuclear umbrella.  It is that
>     political conditions make it unnecessary and undesirable, even now.
>     *That* is what prevents proliferation.  All the export controls
>     that the free world is willing to impose will not prevent
>     proliferation.
 
But greed, mistrust and other fine human character traits make it
necessary and desirable for many of this planet's inhabitants.  I
agree that export controls are worthless in controlling proliferation.
 
>
>     So, it is pretty clear that we should a) attempt to promote
>     the political conditions that make nuclear weapons undesirable or
>     b) take active and/or military steps to prevent adversaries
>     from becoming nuclear threats.  Stopping power breeders in this
>     country does neither of these.
 
Au contraire.  I think stopping power breeders supports a).  Those
countries who already don't trust the nuclear countries need a reason
(excuse) to develop weapons, and power breeders are as good as any.
Even though we may claim to not be diverting enriched or enhanced
materials from the power program to weapons programs, who in the real
world would believe that?  Not even I would, given the calibre of our
politicritters.
 
And though the full answer may be deeper than the nuclear umbrella, it
is a prime reason.
 
But I wax cynical.  End-of-thread, as far as I'm concerned.  Thanks
for the thoughts.
--
Donald.                            |          No Parking
Opinions? sure they're mine.       |       0700 to 1100 UTC
Who else would claim 'em?          |         sig cleaning
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 17:18:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct28.055653.1530@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
 
>Barry, a question here: have you compared, say, the installed roof area
>in Japan with, say, the existing energy loading?
>(Of the country, not the roofs. :)
 
I have a question here: can you supply your personal power needs through
the solar use of your present roof area? No? Then why are you asking such
a question?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 842 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 842 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:29:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
we have four more here. Vigier has been vigorous in his pursuit of cold fusion
and has teamed up with people from "Yugoslavia" (Serbia?), presenting a novel
theory and a preliminary experiment. The description is to my mind a bit
vague; there are very fine drawings of their complex apparatus, but I can't
find, for PF, where the deuterium comes in. And I am not clear how this rules
out self targeting; at 40 kV, this could be significant. Anyway, they don't
make much of their results, being only preliminary as yet. An Australian team
looks at what happens to the PdD lattice, both on the surface and inside. They
find very little Li deposited, and - by neutron diffraction - rather low
maximum D/Pd loadings, which is interesting. No tetrahedral site occupation.
They do see vigorous bubbling when they cut the electrolysis current, and
ascribe it to a possible surface layer that is superloaded. How about D2 in
voids? This diffraction stuff is good, it gives information about the actual
crystal structure, and seems to indicate that if superloading is achieved, the
excess over 0.6 or so is not in the lattice itself. Finally, Lyakhov et al
(including Lipson, Mr. Fractofusion) provide a null experiment, which to them
points to an oxide layer, formation of metallic hydrogen and purely chemical
effects to explain excess heat; no nuclear hypothesis required. So the "cold
fusion" field now has three camps: excess heat, Jones-style, and fractofusion;
with the two last dismissing the first. Steven Jones will not like being
grouped like this, but I do it.
 
Than a couple of letters to the journal C&EN; they both read an earlier
article in that journal in their own way, it seems; maybe it was balanced.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 29-Oct-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 842
 
 
Journal papers: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antanasijevic R, Lakicevic I,  Maric Z, Zevic D, Zaric A, Vigier JP;
Phys. Letters A 180 (1993) 25.
"Preliminary observations on possible implications of new Bohr orbits
(resulting from electromagnetic spin-spin and spin-orbit coupling) in 'cold'
quantum mechanical fusion processes appearing in strong 'plasma focus' and
'capillary fusion' experiments".
** After 1989, there was some disillusionment with cold fusion, because the
phenomenon could not be reproduced, and no satisfactory model was proposed. At
Nagoya, new evidence appeared which changes the picture: excess heat is
confirmed, and ash has been found, although not in sufficient amounts. The
nuclear processes may not be due to the same process yielding the heat. This
may instead come from new (hitherto neglected) spin-spin and spin-orbit
couplings appearing under special conditions. The nuclear ash may be due to
large effective electron masses; and this leads to magnetic effects from the
splitting of currents in capillaries. All this suggests an experiment,
reported in this paper. Both plasma focus PF and capillary fusion CF were
tried. For PF, energies up to 40 kJ, with potentials up to 40 kV were applied,
with Pd foils mounted on one electrode. For CF, materials used were LiOD, D2O,
deuterated ferrocyanide, deuterated Pd powder and Pd. Neutron busts were
measured with a large NE232 liquid scintillation tank and 12 photomultipliers
around it. Neutron yields smaller than 1000/pulse were obtained in these
preliminary experiments; higher input energies may be needed.    Apr-93/Aug-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dillon CT, Kennedy BJ;                           Aust. J. Chem. 46 (1993) 663.
"The electrochemically formed palladium-deuterium system.
I. Surface composition and morphology".
** To achieve consensus among workers on what processes take place,, the role
of surface treatment and activation in the formation of PdD(x) must be
characterised. This first paper of a series carries out surface analysis upon
prolonged electrolysis at Pd cathodes in D2O electrolytes. For
particle-induced x-ray emission, Pd foil (7.5 * 7.5 * 0.5 mm) was used, while
for scanning electron microscopy, rods of various sizes up to 1.5 cm diameter
were prepared. The D2O was analysed for traces of Zn and Cu, and 1 ppm Zn,
0.03 ppm Cu were found; none in H2O. These traces will deposit on the cathode.
Common surface impurities after electrolysis were Pt, Ni, Zn, Cu Cr, Fe and
Ag, on one occasion Pb; none of these was present before electrolysis. The use
of Ni anodes did lead to some Ni deposition, but not as much as perhaps
expected (of similar order as, e.g. Cr); much Ni must be codeposited in the
black precipitate formed at the Ni anode. The Ag probably came from the naked
Ag/Ag+ reference electrode used. Proton-induced gamma emission analysis was
also used to look for Li, but very little was found on the cathodes. Electron
microscopy revealed differences between differently pretreated Pd samples, but
nothing surprising (to this abstracter); post-electrolysis scans showed cracks
due to void formation, ans some black and white deposits. No dendritic growth
was observed. An important observation is that if Pd is vacuum annealed and
cooled off in vacuum, it will not absorb much deuterium. It can be made to do
so by preliminary potential cycling, which seems to work through oxide film
formation and reduction, and the formation of some Pd black.     May-92/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dillon CT, Kennedy BJ, Elcombe MM;               Aust. J. Chem. 46 (1993) 681.
"The electrochemically formed palladium-deuterium system.
II. In situ neutron diffraction studies".
** In this follow-up of Part I, the team examined the crystal structure of
deuterated palladium by neutron diffraction, which shows up hydrogen isotope
atoms. The aim was to find out how high a loading was possible, and just where
the deuterons are in the lattice. Is there supersaturation during electrolysis
and are tetrahedral sites occupied? Loading was under potentiostatic control,
at -2.5 V vs Ag/AgCl, but the counter electrode was placed so as to favour
asymmetric loading. The change in time of the diffraction pattern confirms the
formation of the beta phase, and after 36 h electrolysis, no Pd remained as
such. The loading was calculated from the diffraction pattern to be 0.59.
Attempts to increase this, by long electrolyses at very high overpotentials
failed. Despite this, there was vigorous outgassing when the current was
stopped; the authors speculate that a super-loaded near-surface layer may
exist.                                                           May-92/May-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyakhov BF, Lipson AG, Sakov DM, Yavich AA;
Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 67 (1993) 491.
Originally in Zh. Fiz. Khimii 67 (1993) 545.
"Anomalous heat release in the Pd/PdO system electrolytically saturated with
hydrogen".
** If d-d fusion were the cause of the F&P excess heat, the fusion rate would
need to be 1.0E-10 fusions/s/pair, and this is unlikely. Therefore, another
explanation must be sought. This team carried out an experiment to observe
heat bursts, and provides a clue as to their non-nuclear origin. A Pd foil,
55 mu thick and of 4.5 cm^2 area, was used as cathode, and 1M KOH as
electrolyte. The current was controlled at 10 mA/cm^2, at a cell voltage of
1.5 - 2 V. Hydrogen loading was determined by post-experiment evacuation and
measurement of H2 given off; and on occasion electrochemically, as well as by
four-probe Pd resistance measurement. In all cases, H loadings of about 0.72
(read off a Fig.) were obtained. Results, showing some heat bursts, indicated
that a surface oxide plays a role, leading to the formation of some metallic
hydrogen, which breaks down due to mechanical relaxation, forming dihydrogen
as well as water by oxidation, thereby releasing heat. This is sufficient to
explain excess heat observations. and a nuclear origin is not required.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Comments: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bockris JO'M;                                    C&EN September 6, 1993, p. 4.
(Letter)
** Bockris complains that an earlier article in C&EN (June 14) was biased
against cold fusion, by emphasising comments by well known opponents of cnf.
Bockris writes that this is a deception, with 1000 workers worldwide, Japanese
funding by $50 million, 27 Russian research institutes all for cnf. He
suggests dropping the name 'cold fusion' (although fusion certainly occurs, he
writes) and substituting 'chemically stimulated nuclear reactions'.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams R;                                      C&EN September 6, 1993, p. 4.
(Letter)
** Williams, of Princeton, complains that an earlier article in C&EN (June 14)
emphasises the limitless-energy vision of cold fusion, and says that this
misconception explains the bizarre episode. Even if power were generated from
cold fusion, as a free lunch, it would cost much the same for consumers, due
to costs of the plant and distribution. Had the affair initially been
presented as a possible small drop in the cost of power, scientists could have
been saved from the current embarrassment.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Dieter Britz /  Bockris
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 01:29:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I just read the 15-Oct issue of J. Electroanal. Chem., and it has a
Festschrift on Bockris, on the occasion of his (70?) birthday. I once read in
this list, back in 1989, someone's asking "Who the hell is Bockris?"; this is
a laugh. He must be one of the most productive scientists in the world,
counting all sciences, with his ca. 640 publications and 13 books. Conway, a
former colleague, wrote the piece, and treads very softly (and, I believe,
skeptically) on the subject of cold fusion. Worth reading.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Aluminum rings for Droege
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aluminum rings for Droege
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 01:29:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have had to deal with some of the questions Tom Droege raises in relation
to starting materials for the fabrication of his new calorimeter.  When it
comes to fabricating aluminum rings in onezy-twozy quantities the best
solution always turns out to be band-sawing them out of plate.  Even though
that seems wasteful of material the other possible approaches always add
a lot of extra operations which have costs that more than offset the
material.  Rolling and welding a ring is tough to get done very accurately
because the ends of the bar tend to remain straight because they have to
be clamped during the rolling.  That results in a flat region around the
weld.  To correct for that the ring has to be rerolled or you just have
to allow for more material to be turned off.  Either way the added operations
aren't worth the effort.
 
You can buy hollow aluminum bar, i.e. pipe with very thick wall.  I have
gotten it up to 6 inch O.D. X 4 inch I.D. but usually you have to buy
a full 20 foot length because it is not a stock material with any suppliers.
You could have a ring cast, but the set-up charge will kill that idea  and
the material isn't very good anyway.  I suspect you will just have to
bite the bullet and rough saw the rings.
 
The over-all fabrication problems for aluminum aren't bad except for the
welding.  It takes someone who really knows his stuff to make alumium welds
that aren't porous, at least at the level of being helium leak tight.
Again you will be much better off machining what you want from one piece
rather than making a weldment first.  It is hard to convince people that
all those aluminum shavings actual represent a net savings in the cost of
fabricating the part.  Of course that depends on what you actually have
to pay for.  If you can get a top notch welder to work for the glory of
science, it may change the economics of this a bit.
 
Copper isn't a lot worse for the machining, but I guess you would have
to use brazing or soldering for any joins.  I haven't looked at the
details of what you propose carefully enough to see what problems that
may cause, but I am not sure why you would reject that in favor of
aluminum if you have to weld the latter.
 
Getting good thermal conduction between parts can be a bit of a problem
as you must know from working with transistors on heat sinks, etc.
You mention grease as an undesirable, but what are your options?  We
use indium at low temperatures, but it takes some pressure to get
it to conform to the surface.  There is a trick I have read about
but never used, however, but it wouldn't work on alumium.  Basically
you apply indium as a solder to both pieces and then machine those
surfaces flat before assembling.  I guess if I were going to all that
 
effort I would just use indium solder to bond the two parts and be
done with it.  If you go with aluminum none of this applies.
 
Well, those are my thoughts for now.  I suspect they are worth about
what this costs you.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Respectfully for Tom and Dick...Part 2.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Respectfully for Tom and Dick...Part 2.
Date: 28 Oct 93 22:21:29 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 For the first part of this story, see my last post No.8757 on the 27-OCT-93.
 In order to facilitate discussion here, I will again state the outcomes of the
1990 Yamaguchi, controlled, deuterium out-transport, vacuum experiment....
In the first experiment,(Pd:D) they observed the following events happen almost
simultaneously;
(1)Gigantic neutron emission of > 0.1 to 0.2 mSv/hour for 2-3 seconds.
(2)Explosive release of gas from the samples.
(3)Biaxial bending of all samples.
(4)Excess heat evolution.
In the second experiment (current injection), effects (2)-(4) were easily
reproducible for Pd samples loaded with D and also for Pd samples loaded with H.
Therefore it seems that the excess heat is not produced by any nuclear reaction
but by a rapid structual phase change, since it is strongly correlated to
the coherent plastic deformation of the samples. Thus effects (2) - (4) found
both with Pd:D and Pd:H are expected to be based on physics different from that
which causes effect (1).
A much simplified explanation of effect (1) is that, at the extremes of effects
(2) - (4), defect induced latice vibration, during the plastic deformation of
the samples, gives energy in the order of 1 Kev to the deutrons, which would
increase the probability of D atoms approaching each other enough to give
a high fusion rate.
 
In his post of the 22-OCT-93, "Looking at the carcass", Dick Blue sees a lack
of recognition of a clear contradiction in the accepted cold fusion data set,
due to light water experiments being accepted by TBs as legitimate controls
for deuterium cells, where deuterium is the suspected CF fuel. And on the
other hand TBs having no difficulty accepting positive light water results
as an example of CF, with no deuterium!
 I whole-heartedly agree, the heat is I believe, through "rapid structural
phase change" possibly involving a feed back effect. (More heat, more
phase change). Also no ash, chemical or nuclear. This also solves Dick's
second point of concern, no reproducable He.
 Dick's third point I agree with, and I hope that his fourth is answered
by the explanations/theory put forward by Yamaguchi and Nishioka.
 His last point, concerning  the lack of real replication, is IMHO due
in no small part to most experimenters following the "wet" and very
tricky techniques of electrolysis, instead of the "dry" and more controllable
methods of Yamaguchi.
 The challenge is, again IMHO, to reproduce or simulate the conditions
of Yamaguchi's first experiment. One way of achieving this, using electrolysis,
(Tom, if you have the time...) would be to deposit a thick (perhaps Au), film
over most of a Pd electrode, which would be subjected to successive D charge/
discharge ramp cycles. If a thin "film" is going to form, it may well have more
effect if it only has to cover a small area of the sample.
 
                                      Kindest regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
DISCLAIMER:  My statements and opinions are not neccessarily the same
               as my employers'.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 /   /  Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Neutron Beam
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 19:44:04 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

I'm back . . . If you can make a neutron beam in such a fashion, could it be
used to create a kind of nuclear battery, where the neutron beam would be
used to induce fission in a target, but where the target will not
chain-react (ie.  so you can just switch it off?)
Jim Owens
Opeenions? Opeenions!? We don' need no steenking Opeenions!?!
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenLEN101 cudln cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: why fusion works
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why fusion works
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 02:57:14 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <2alj0c$bkb@access.digex.net> frampton@access.digex.net (-) writes:
 
> hello I'm designing a city for the Simcity future city national
> competition, and I've desided to power it with Cold Fusion.
 
 
That seems a bit far fetched. I suggest you power it off of a better
understood technology, such as Di-Lithium crystals.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Wave function overlap / Location-space-only bose condensation
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wave function overlap / Location-space-only bose condensation
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 20:50:37 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     Now I think we are on the same wavelength. :-)
 
     The thought I've been trying to think out can be expressed as
follows:
 
     Assume a bose condensate of deuterium ions. (D+)  Quantum
mechanics will favor all of the particles occupying the same point in
phase space.  Note that this applies to the composite boson--the
deuterium nucleus.
 
     However the individual protons and neutrons in the deuterium
nuclei are fermions.  Since the condensate will tend to have all
(nuclear) spins aligned, and the bosons in the nucleus must have the
same spin as the nucleus, the only way left for the fermions to
differentiate themselves is in phase space.  If the proton and neutron
have equal and opposite momentum and velocity with respect to the
nucleus, the location of the nucleus in phase space remains unchanged.
 
     So if I compare two samples one with a bose condensate, one
without, I would expect to find the nucleons less tightly bound in the
bose condensate.  No, I'm not proposing to get cold fusion this way,
the energies from a nuclear standpoint would be very small, but let's
look at Tom's 2000 joule pulse.  The bose condensate would be formed
under conditions where its formation would be energetically favorable,
but adding particles to the condensate can result in a chaotic
situation.  No individual particle will find it individually favorable
(in energy terms) to leave the condensate, but overall such a
condensate could store a couple of eV per nucleon with respect to the
ground state.  Eventually something  will trigger an avalanche to the
ground state, and out comes the stored energy.  (Again we are talking
eV per particle, so no X-rays...)  It's not a chemical explanation,
but it might be a real non-nuclear energy storage mechanism.  (Whoops!
Non-nuclear reaction? Non-fusion? How should I phrase that, because it
is definitely storing energy in the nucleus?)
 
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 / Robert Eachus /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 21:15:31 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Oct27.162136.20309@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
   > There's not much in the way of new energy technology in the last
   > 50 years, except for enhancements of what was around 50 years
   > ago.  The only real exception that comes to mind is solar, but
   > even that isn't economically competitive as yet, and it's a low
   > energy-density source besides.
 
   Oh, what a wonderful straw man.  The only nuclear reactor around
fifty years ago was a graphite reactor under some stadium in Chicago,
and didn't generate any power.  So pressurized water reactors, boiling
water reactors, gas cooled reactors, LMFBRs, HTGRs, etc., were all
developed from scratch in the last fifty years.  Also don't forget
conventional technologies like gas turbine plants, combined cycle
plants of several varieties, pumped water peaking plants, tidal
plants, fuel cells, low-head hydroelectric, MHD...  I could go on and
on, but I think you get the point.  The only two technologies still in
use from 50 years ago for base load OR peaking power generation are
hydroelectric and conventional oil or coal powered steam plants.
(Whoops, I missed one.  The railroads started using diesel-electric
locomotives in the late thirties. Electric utilities didn't start
using diesels for peaking until much later, but the technology
existed.)
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SSC -->  Tokamak
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SSC -->  Tokamak
Date: 28 Oct 93 16:35:46 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

1.  It has been argued that confinement time in a tokamak scales with
size of the tokamak.
2.  Based on 1, someone suggested that the tokamak will work when it reaches
the size of the *sun*.
3.  But wait, we already have an enormous torus carved deep in the
Texas soil with a $billion or so of taxpayers' money.  So:
4.  Why not build a tokamak in the torus planned for the SSC?
5.  At least we could throw money down the same hole.
 
In jest,
Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Compelling evidence
Date: 28 Oct 93 17:08:39 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
A week ago, I posted a try at listing "criteria for compelling evidence for
cold fusion."  In his follow-up, Robert Heeter hits a key point squarely:
 
Jones:  "3.  If reproducible, then results should be capable of scaling to at
least 100 times background levels.  (E.g., if ambient helium is 5 ppm... then
500 ppm should be required.)"
 
Heeter:  "Statistically you'd want a 3+ sigma effect, right?  You need your
signal (and both ends of the error bar) to be undeniably greater than any
conceivable fluctuations in background.  So why not just say that "Besides
being reproducible, results should be above background at statistically
significant levels."  It's not clear to me what the effect of "capable of
scaling" is supposed to be."  (24 Oct. 1993 posting.)
 
Here's the problem.  I can point to examples in "cold fusion" research where
(1) a researcher claims a 3+ sigma effect, but which is only a factor of 3
(sometimes just tens of %) above background.  Then (2) the researcher uses more
sensitive (better) equipment or reduces the background, so that the
signal-to-background and statistical significance should improve substantially.
(Many cf-researchers are still at step 1.)
Instead, he or she finds a smallish effect again, at 3-5 sigma,
and the signal/background ratio little improved.
 
What is happening?  At the least, this is a red flag that the researcher is
chasing noise.  Some would interpret such a pattern to be the "statistical kiss
of death."
 
Others will (and vehemently do) argue that this is because the anomaly
represents a new and poorly-understood effect.  It is assumed that whatever
processes are involved are of a transient nature involving serendipitous
conditions, and therefore lack of repeatability should not in itself prejudice
their interpretation.
 
Then the question arises, is the effect due to some systematic error
in the system/detector, or is this a real effect?  What is the
meaning of "3+ sigma significance" when the result is not reproducible
(triggerable) and has not been or cannot be scaled up?  What is
required for compelling evidence to demonstrate that an anomaly is real?
And finally, How long should we chase these anomalies?
 
These are really the questions one must grapple with in the study of "cold
fusion" at present.  Unless and until someone is able to scale his claimed
effect to 100X background (factor chosen because of poor detectors used
by some researchers), she or he cannot be sure of a real effect, even when
Poisson statistics, assuming no systematic errors are present, suggests a 5+
sigma effect.  Compelling evidence would also require
signals from at least *two different high-quality detectors* in *quantitative
agreement*.
 
Such evidence is lacking in "cold fusion".  There is no compelling evidence by
these criteria (including the others I posted on 21 Oct., which flesh out
these basic requirements) for cold fusion.  This conclusion is based on my
reading of papers, conducting experiments myself of both xs-heat and
nuclear-detection varieties, visits to laboratories, numerous discussions,
etc., as of October 28, 1993.
 
If we can agree on the problems and the criteria by which compelling evidence
can be realized, we can make progress in the research.  Otherwise, we could
chase noise into the next millenium.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
 
 
again gets a small signal above background,
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Oct28.162827.1036@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Oct28.162827.1036@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 28 Oct 93 17:10:12 -0600

cancel <1993Oct28.162827.1036@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Definitive experiment my left foot!
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Definitive experiment my left foot!
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 01:29:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Daryl Owens suggests that an "definitive" experiment by Yamaguchi et. al
reported at the BYU conference answers some of my questions concerning
evidence in support of cold fusion.  I will go back and look at this
again since Steve Jones was kind enough to supply a copy of the proceedings
to me, but for now I am depending on Daryl's summary and my memory.
 
The observations that Daryl considers significant include:
(1) "gigantic emission of neutrons"  0.1 to 0.2 mSv/hr for 2 or 3 seconds.
(2) explosive release of gas
(3) bending of the sample
(4) inferred rise in temperature.
 
Far from being definitive, I see this as crude and silly experimentation.
The first clue is the given by the way the gigantic emission of neutrons
is quantified.  Note that the units are mSv/hr.  What this tells us is
that these clowns took some kind of survey meter, stuck it near their
experiment, and read the dial.  That is not, repeat NOT, the way to make
a definitive measurement of neutrons.  The reponse that they got most
likely does not involve neutrons in any way shape or form.  No measurement
on neutron emission can be called "definitive" until it is done by
people using detectors and people who are familiar with the way such
devices respond to neutrons and other signal sources as well.  I
could say more on this subject, but I think you get the drift.
 
As for the explosive release of gas, sample bending, and inferred
temperature rise, suggest the following for your consideration.
 
  oxide + hydrogen + heat -> a chemical reaction.
 
Note the the temperature is "inferred" not measured so there is no
quantitative information to be reported.
 
Next note that in 20 attempts at repeatition the "neutron signal"
did not reoccur.  Daryl says there were precautions taken against
false signals, i.e. the instrument was run on battery power.  This
is yet another indication that the experimenters are not experienced
with this type of equipment so they simply don't know what precautions
are resonable to prevent false readings.
 
No, Daryl, this is not a definitive experiment.  It answers no questions
accept maybe it demonstrates that hydrogen and deuterium pretty much
do the same thing.  IF the neutron data were real, that would be
a significant result, but the lack of reproducibility by itself casts
doubt on that effect even if you don't accept my assessment as to
what that data is worth.   To steal a phrase from Gary Taubes, this
is BAD SCIENCE.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Scaling the energy density
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scaling the energy density
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 01:29:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Let me pose a question related to what progress has been made in cold
fusion research.  If the energy density appears to increase as the
sample size is decreased, is that equivalent to proof that the energy
density will decrease if the sample size is increased?  In short
just maybe we don't yet know that energy density is a meaningful
parameter to use in describing cold fusion results.  What data do
you want to cite in your FAQ table, Mitch, to help us on that little
question?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.27 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:21:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CFGoH4.BtC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>>     Why talk about fusion like it is an economically viable process?
>>>     It is more likely to have such problems if it is economically
>>>     questionable.
>>>
I responded:
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this point.  Why would it be
>>more likely to have problems if it was questionable?
>
>     Relying on energy-creating processes that are only marginally
>     economical seems like a bigger problem than relying on
>     oil.
>
Well, sure, but that wasn't the context of your statement.  You said
"It is more likely to have *such* problems if it is economically
questionable."  Since we were talking about the proliferation risks
of various sources, I was completely lost as to how fusion would have
proliferation problems if it were a questionable power source.  But
it looks like you were changing the subject, and I just didn't realize
it.  I certainly agree that a marginally-economical fusion plant
isn't much good, unless the "margin" changes (perhaps if energy prices
were to climb for some unfortunate reason).
 
>>I'm implicitly assuming that fusion will
>>develop to a state of economic viability, in a world where fossil
>>fuels aren't available or not worth using, and where you need
>>*something* besides the standard alternative/renewable technologies in
>>order to provide reliable base-load power.
>
>     But the gist of the assumption is that fusion power generation
>     a) exists and b) is economical, neither of which is satisfied
>     in the next 30 years.  Beyond that is never.
>
On (a), fusion power generation *does* exist.  You get fusion power even
in current D-D reactors.  I'm being picky here, but the *major* problem
with fusion now is that it's not economical, not that it doesn't happen.
Of course, if you mean electrical power generation via fusion, I have to
concede that it doesn't exist yet, but then, why do it when you know
it's not economical?  As for your assertion that beyond 30 years is
never, I really have to question you there.  Certainly that's true
in computer technologies, but energy moves a lot more slowly.  There's
not much in the way of new energy technology in the last 50 years,
except for enhancements of what was around 50 years ago.  The only
real exception that comes to mind is solar, but even that isn't
economically competitive as yet, and it's a low energy-density
source besides.  So I feel relatively comfortable thinking on
longer timescales.  I may end up a fool when someone develops their
quark-gluon power supply, or cold fusion turns out to have something
to it, but you can't count on miracles when something as fundamental
to society as energy production is at stake.
 
>>>     The economic problem is the most difficult.  What most fusion
>>>     people seem to miss is that if you cannot build and operate a
>>>     facility economically, it's just an expensive toy.
>>>
>>Believe me, I haven't missed this.  Why do you claim that fusion people
>>are blind to the economic side of things?  It seems pretty obvious
>>that if you want to build a real-world energy source, it has to
>>be competitive economically.
>
>     Because y'all keep talking about fusion like it is or will be
>     an economical power-generating process.  That assumption is flawed.
>
You're going to have to give me a lot of evidence before I'm going to
accept that fusion will never be economical.  If you're going to be
that pessimistic, at least give some evidence!  Fusion's made a lot of
progress, and while it seems to be slowing down a little, I just don't
see any reason not to expect that it will be feasible someday.
 
>>>     Use IFR technology, produce short-term containment facilities and
>>>     'burn' most of the actinides in the reactor.  If y'all can count
>>>     on technology from 50 years in the future, I can rely on
technology
>>>     just showing up on the shelf (to be shelved by our esteemed chief
>>>     executive because he's an idiot).
>>>
>>I have no problem with your assumption of future technology.  The
>>discussion wasn't based on contemporary technology, but on a comparison
>>of the long-term prospects for fission & fusion.  Sure you can reduce
>>a lot of the high-level waste to lower-level waste, but you still
>>have to put it somewhere.  Does IFR technology make everything suitable
>>for shallow burial?  I'd like to know more.  Obviously I lean towards
>>fusion, but I'm interested in any energy technology that shows
>>long-term potential.
>
>      Putting it somewhere is not a problem (except a political problem).
>      You put it in a hole in the ground.  Why do you care how deep they
>      dig?
>
Because I don't want the stuff to come back out before it's safe.  Have
you tested a hole and found it safe for a hundred years?  How about
a thousand?  Ten thousand?  That's what it's going to take...  And I
think the *political* problem is what counts here.  We're not just
talking about the scientific feasibility of fusion vs fission, but
the political feasibility.
 
>>>     Wait until someone explains about tritium containment.
>>>     Besides, breeders could be initiated within 5-10 years. Fusion
>>plants
>>>     cannot even be planned for 50 years, and they may not be
competetive
>>>     with Aunt Martha pedaling a stationary generator.
>>>
>>No, the political problems should be a lot less.  First off, someone's
>>got to figure out what to do with *today's* nuclear waste, so by the
>>time we get fusion, people will be downright happy to learn that fusion
>>(if done right) will generate waste that only needs shallow burial, it's
>>so safe.  Tritium containment is a problem, but it sure beats meltdown!
>
>     Ha ha ha ha ha.  Tell that to the planning commission.
>     'Yes sir, tritium floating out of the plant every day is
>     much much better than a major loss of containment event that
>     has never occurred at a power fission plant in the US.'
>
>     A couple of curies at TMI set off a chain of lawsuits that
>     still goes on.
>
Since when is tritium going to be "floating out of the plant every day"?
By "tritium containment is a problem", I meant "It's something that
fusion designers need to work on.  I didn't mean it was insoluble.
But this particular branch of the debate seems to be going nowhere.
 
>>>     Funny thing, my guess is that a reevaluation of most of these
>>>     things will occur in the next few years.  Conversations like
>>>     'What do you mean, 50 years?  What happened to the last 40?'
>>>     will probably occur worldwide.
>>>
>>Well, people have been saying that for the past 20 years, and the
>>re-evaluation has been a continuous and ongoing process.  Unless you
>>know a lot of things I don't on the subject (do you?), I'm just
>>going to have to disagree with you here.  There will be conversations
>>such as the one that you mention,
>
>     We'll see.
>
>> but the fact is that fusion *has*
>>been making progress, it's *close* to being viable, and every time
>>people re-evaluate the program, they decide to continue it.  While
>>this might change, you're going to have to give me a lot more evidence
>>to convince me.
>
>     The ITER people estimate 50 years, I believe.  Not very close except
>     on geological timescales.  The best definition of 'never' I know
>     is 'it will be ready in 50 years'.
>
And I see it as a good definition of a problem that would be fun to work
on for the next 50 years.  Hope to see you around then...
 
>                               dale bass
 
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: neophyte bothers deities
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neophyte bothers deities
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 05:15:20 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I wrote:
 
>|> ...  I have the impression that
>|> proponents of research in magnetic confinement, for example, don't want
>|> to hear about muon-catalyzed fusion or inertial confinement.  There seem to
>|> be separate groups that don't talk to each other.
 
to which Bruce D. Scott replied:
 
>This gives an utterly fasle impression. Muon-catalysed fusion was intensely
>discussed among my colleagues at the 1986 APS plasma physics meeting. It
>has died the same death as the high-density z-pinch, but don't blame that
>on the scientists (that should be obvious from Steven Jones's posts).
 
Actually, muon-catalyzed fusion is still twitching.
 
>Inertial confinement people are separate because of classification; they
>use a lot of the same software the bomb people do. We get very frustrated
>with these people not being able to give us parameters and mechanisms to
>the degree we are used to, at seminars. The first thing you need to know
>when hearing about a new field is the parameter regime. If they can't talk
>about it, there is not much point for a discussion. I remember this from
>several invited seminars those guys gave at U Maryland in the mid-80s.
 
>Besides that, many people are just too lazy. If it does not directly affect
>their work, they don't go hear talks even at the same conference.
 
Here, it seems that we are saying the same thing.
 
> I speak
>of the mass exodus from the main hall at the last IAEA fusion conference,
>Wuerzburg 1992. But this problem is endemic in science; another place
>I saw it was at the 1986 AGU Winter meeting. There are not enough
>eclectics in general, but government reviewers compound the problem
>by frowning on it. That is what we get by being led by legal/business
>types. Each of the two problems mentioned in this paragraph feed off
>each other like sharks. I know this, from being tired of being laughed at
>for being so interested in astrophysics.
 
It seems to me that astrophysics and controlled fusion are naturally
related subjects.  Maybe if someone would explain the joke ...  ;)
 
Yours for eclecticism,
 
--
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Bruce Scott /  Re: SSC -->  Tokamak
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SSC -->  Tokamak
Date: 29 Oct 1993 13:55:38 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Oct28.163546.1037@physc1.byu.edu>,
        jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
|> In jest,
|> Steven Jones
 
Maybe jealous, Steven? :-)
 
|> 1.  It has been argued that confinement time in a tokamak scales with
|> size of the tokamak.
 
Masses of data, but then this is obvious from square/cube considerations.
The only problem is, what is the scaling, and what should it be. We are
unsure whether the data can be extrapolated enough to answer the first,
and most people talk nonsense when addressing the second. The truth, of
course, is that we don't know enough phyics to say, but the bureaucrats
have made it clear they prefer damn lies to that admission of unknowing.
 
|> 2.  Based on 1, someone suggested that the tokamak will work when it reaches
|> the size of the *sun*.
 
Someone's silliness, of course. Like early Confucianists saying people should
respect their fathers because all rivers flow to the sea (or something like
that; I haven't got all their analogies straight).
 
|> 3.  But wait, we already have an enormous torus carved deep in the
|> Texas soil with a $billion or so of taxpayers' money.  So:
|> 4.  Why not build a tokamak in the torus planned for the SSC?
 
Too high an aspect ratio, Steven :-)
 
|> 5.  At least we could throw money down the same hole.
 
Corruption starts with construction projects and redneck mafias that run
them.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Chuck Sites /  Deuteron Bose Condesates will fuse!
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuteron Bose Condesates will fuse!
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:22:05 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

 
Again, I will stand on my original contention that Bose Condesation in a
deuteron ensamble will have an increased probability for fusion. When a
deuteron superconducts, that is when you will see fusion.  First
Terry I liked your latest description of the condesate process, but you
seem to have missed the point that the condesation is a quantum statistical
phenomenon that is described by the overlap of the particles wave functions.
That is to say the system of waves are degenerate.
 
   If you look at the wave function between two deuterons in the
condensate, you would have an equation that looks like:
 
             b/2  b/2
        1   /    /
   I = ---  |   |  dx  dx   psi (x1) psi (x2)
        b   /   /    1   2     1        2
          -b/2 -b/2
 
where b (for simplicity) is the length of a chain of deuterons, and x1, x2
are the respective positions with maximum probability amplitude.  We can
set x2 = x1 + del, where del represents the deuteron seperation.  That is
 
             b/2
        1   /
   I = ---  |   dx  psi (x) psi (x+del)
        b   /          1       2
          -b/2
 
Now if we recognize psi is a wave that has a maximum probability at X, the
wave should take on a Gaussian from.  That is,
 
        __     b/2
       V pi   /
   I = ---    |   dx exp[ 1/2(x/a)^2 ] exp[ 1/2((x+del)/a^2)]
        a     /
          -b/2
 
where 1/a represents the spread of the guassian.  You then let n=x/a and
delta = del/a and you get
 
                                    b/2
        __                          /
   I = V pi exp [ - (1/2 delta)^2 ] | exp[- (n + 1/2 delta)^2] dn
                                    /
                                   -b/2
 
which reduces down to,
 
 
   I ~ exp[-(1/2 delta)^2]
 
The maximum overlap then occurs when I=1 when detla=0 from (del=0) and the
minimum overlap then I=0 and delta>>1.  Now, if you consider the deuteron
96% of the deuteron ground state wave function is in the S orbital state,
and ~74% of the probability density lies out side the nuclear core, this
overlap then implies a fairly reasonable chance for fusion.  So I must ask
myself, why don't you see this?  Actually, you may want to look up Liboff's
argument in Phy Lett A, 174 1993 317-319.  Although I different from what I
developed, when I read it I thought I had been scooped.
 
Have Fun Thinking
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  N-X-ray spectrometer
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: N-X-ray spectrometer
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 19:17:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Steven Jones for the offer of an all purpose detector.  We are
designing the new machine to be able to hold it, and a lot more stuff.
 
We hope we will gain an order of magnitude in sensitivity with the new design.
Per Steven's discussion, we will then quit if the bumps go from 2000 joules
to 200.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 04:27:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD writes:

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD writes:
>Jim Bowery (jim@pnet01.cts.com) wrote:
 
NOTE Matt Kennel's above attribution failed to indicate that I was quoting
a third party:  Robert Hirsh.  Hirsch's words follow:
 
>: According to reactor design studies, DT tokamak fusion reactors
>: using the best available steel in their constuction will produce
>: more radioactive waste than an ALWR.
>
 
Now Kennel's words:
 
>Everything I've seen puts fusion reactor waste at least 100 times under
>fission plants.
 
I am not Dr. Hirsch so I can't defend his statements.  All I can
do is provide conjecture.  I'll do my best given my limited knowledge:
 
I believe Hirsch was referring to the total MASS of radioactive waste
that would be generated per KW hour.  In the case of neutron embrittled
steel that would need to be removed and replaced during DT or DD Tokamak
operation, I believe Hirsh's statement is correct.  I wonder whether the
DISPOSAL PROBLEM is worse or better.  But even here, a decent neutron
source is better at deactivating high-grade waste such as that produced
by fission than the activated steel that is produced by a Tokamak.  It
depends on whether you decide to start deactivating nuclear waste rather
than trying to bury and forget it.
 
>What are the lifetimes of the activated products?  What is the
>bioavailability? (e.g. strontium-90 is a whole lot worse than alot of
>other things)
 
I gave papers on describing Tokamak waste products to a reporter who is
writing up a story, but a quick check in the CRC shows Fe(60) with a half-
life of 3*10^5 years.  I don't think this is the dominant source of
radioactivity in Tokamak waste steel, though.  I suspect it is secondary
and tertiary Fe decay products that result from neutron bombardment.
 
>Tokomaks will probably not use steel anyway.
 
Here is what Hirsch said on this issue just subsequent to the quote you
extracted:
 
>:more radioactive waste than an ALWR.  While it can be argued that
>:new structural materials could reduce fusion radioactive waste,
>:the development of those materials will be both very costly and
>:very time consuming.
 
In other words, if one decides to make Tokamak viable by encasing it in
boron or parafin or liquid lithium or whatever, the time/money involved
make alternatives attractive.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: why fusion works
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why fusion works
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 16:08:33 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Oct29.025714.22968@math.ucla.edu>
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
> In article <2alj0c$bkb@access.digex.net>
> frampton@access.digex.net (-) writes:
>
> | hello I'm designing a city for the Simcity future city national
> | competition, and I've desided to power it with Cold Fusion.
>
> That seems a bit far fetched. I suggest you power it off of a better
> understood technology, such as Di-Lithium crystals.
 
Always wondered why they leave the anion off that one.  E.g., maybe they
figured names like dilithium monoxide, dilithium sulfide, dilithium selenide,
or dilithium telluride just don't sound mysterious enough.
 
Or perhaps they use dilithium telluride to power the holo deck for skiing??
 
At any rate, I see no reason to fear appending anion names on, especially
in a show (the first series) that uses such sparkling technical phrases as
"100 to the zeroth power" to describe something largish.  All you really
need is to make sure your phrasing is sufficiently jargon-intensive to
keep the average TV couch-pod happy and/or a wee bit (?) muddled.
 
For example, I think it sounds pretty radical to drink hydroxic acid at
lunch, yet I know lots of folks who do it regularly.  And _some_ folks
actually dare to mix it half-and-half with dihydrogen monoxide!...  :)
 
(Shoot, the new series has even had things like holodeck physicists who
believed that time would start to go backwards, if only the expansion of
the universe ever stopped and reversed itself.  How can you take physics
seriously on a show that implicitly accepts things like _that_??  I must
admit, however, that that was an _amazingly_ realistic-looking holodeck
representation of a physicist.  I was almost convinced he was real!)
 
                                Hey it's Friday folks,
                                Terry
 
 
P.S. -- Robert Eachus:  Highly interesting question.  I've been trying to
        work up a reasonably clear response.  No radical nuclear
        implications (sorry) that I can see, but the question does point
        out some odd features of a hypothetical deuteron condensate.
 
        Short answer is that separation is mundane spatial -- the protons
        remain highly isolated from each other, using the large physical
        volume occupied by the condensate.  Witness superfluid He, which
        suffers from the same problem you have brought up, yet exhibits
        _no_ experimental consequences of the nucleons having to share
        a very limited set of spin states -- because they are very strongly
        spatial isolated from each other.  That is:
 
            IF    composite bosons are extremely _delocalized_,
            THEN  constituent fermions must be extremely _localized_
                    relative to each other.
 
        (Try and visualize _that_ one if you want to get a headache... :)  )
 
        Far from supporting "nuclear fusion," such a scenario would make
        fusion a bit _less_ likely in a condensate than it would be in a
        free fluid -- exactly the opposite of some of what has been
        proposed.
 
 
P.P.S - Incidentally, I just recieved a nice critique of my "helium overlap"
        comments from a strong advocate of the idea.  I'll update ya'll a
        bit later -- I still haven't had time to go through the comments in
        detail.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Ad aspera /  Re: why fusion works
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why fusion works
Date: 29 Oct 1993 14:49 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>>That seems a bit far fetched. I suggest you power it off of a better
>>understood technology, such as Di-Lithium crystals.
 
>How does this exactly work? How efficient is it?
 
"Get us out of here, Ensign!  Warp nine!"
 
--Joe
"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence."
UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, quoted in the 10-15-93 New York Times
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re:  Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Compelling evidence
Date: 30 Oct 1993 23:06:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <1993Oct28.170840.1038@physc1.byu.edu> ,
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
[Introductory comments deleted, lines breaks reformatted to prevent
overflow.]
 
>Jones:  "3.  If reproducible, then results should be capable of scaling
>to at least 100 times background levels.  (E.g., if ambient helium is 5
>ppm... then 500 ppm should be required.)"
>
>Heeter:  "Statistically you'd want a 3+ sigma effect, right?  You need
>your signal (and both ends of the error bar) to be undeniably greater
>than any conceivable fluctuations in background.  So why not just say
>that "Besides being reproducible, results should be above background at
>statistically significant levels."  It's not clear to me what the
>effect of "capable of scaling" is supposed to be."  (24 Oct. 1993
>posting.)
>
>Here's the problem.  I can point to examples in "cold fusion" research
>where (1) a researcher claims a 3+ sigma effect, but which is only a
>factor of 3 (sometimes just tens of %) above background.  Then (2) the
>researcher uses more sensitive (better) equipment or reduces the
>background, so that the signal-to-background and statistical
>significance should improve substantially. (Many cf-researchers are
>still at step 1.)  Instead, he or she finds a smallish effect again, at
>3-5 sigma, and the signal/background ratio little improved.
>
>What is happening?  At the least, this is a red flag that the
>researcher is chasing noise.  Some would interpret such a pattern to be
>the "statistical kiss of death."
>
>Others will (and vehemently do) argue that this is because the anomaly
>represents a new and poorly-understood effect.  It is assumed that
>whatever processes are involved are of a transient nature involving
>serendipitous conditions, and therefore lack of repeatability should
>not in itself prejudice their interpretation.
>
>Then the question arises, is the effect due to some systematic error
>in the system/detector, or is this a real effect?  What is the
>meaning of "3+ sigma significance" when the result is not reproducible
>(triggerable) and has not been or cannot be scaled up?  What is
>required for compelling evidence to demonstrate that an anomaly is
>real?  And finally, How long should we chase these anomalies?
>
>These are really the questions one must grapple with in the study of
>"cold fusion" at present.  Unless and until someone is able to scale
>his claimed effect to 100X background (factor chosen because of poor
>detectors used by some researchers), she or he cannot be sure of a real
>effect, even when Poisson statistics, assuming no systematic errors are
>present, suggests a 5+ sigma effect.  Compelling evidence would also
>require signals from at least *two different high-quality detectors* in
>*quantitative agreement*.
 
I'm reasonably certain I understand your rationale now (maybe not at
100x background though!), and I agree with your motives, but there's
just something about this criterion that rubs me the wrong way.  "100x
background" just seems kind of arbitrary.  Is there no better way to
eliminate the possibility that the high-sigma effects are due to
systematic error and/or statistical fluctuations?  I'm just imagining
someone designing a calorimeter with systematic errors of 100x some
"background" fluctuation level, getting reproducible results, and
then claiming to have satisfied the criterion.  It's not inconceivable,
thought it may be unlikely.  (I'm not an expert scientist, but I've
been known to misplace a few decimals here and there occasionally,
and if I wasn't so skeptical of my results I'd have found 100x-
background "effects"!)
 
We know that if you do a large number of trials you're bound to get
some statistically unlikely events on occasion.  (Otherwise card
games would be really boring!)  And if you're doing an experiment,
systematic as well as random errors are going to show up.  Isn't
there a better way to control for the presence of these errors than
to more-or-less-arbitrarily decide that the effect has to be 100x
background?  Since you already have a reproducibility criterion,
and you've specified that there has to be a "recipe" for how you
get the effect, this will help to control for random errors.
 
So it seems to me that the big problem is how one should
distinguish real, systematic effects from real, systematic
errors.  The 100x criterion is one way to go, and it may be
the best way, but I sure wish there was a better way.  I myself
have to concede that I don't have a better way (yet?), but I'd
be really excited to see someone else post some ideas.
 
Certainly a lot of science has gotten by with less stringent
criteria than what Prof. Jones proposes, but since cold fusion
is such a wacky business, I think it would be a good idea to
suggest that the experimenters set a higher standard for
themselves.  What troubles me is that if the "higher standard"
is set arbitrarily, someone may try to satisfy it in a
less-than-scientific fashion.  Then they're going to
publish/proclaim to have satisfied Jones' Criteria, and people
are going to take them maybe a little more seriously than
they should.
 
>If we can agree on the problems and the criteria by which compelling
>evidence can be realized, we can make progress in the research.
>Otherwise, we could chase noise into the next millenium.
>
>--Steven Jones
>
Let's hope that the criteria remain more certain than the
results they are intended to judge!
 
*********************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
standard disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: LEN101
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Subject: Neutron Beam
Date: 30 Oct 1993 23:21:39 GMT
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 19:44:04 EDT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Subject: Neutron Beam
Originally-From: LEN101
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 19:44:04 EDT
In article <93301.194404LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> , LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu
writes:
(Jim Owens)
>I'm back . . . If you can make a neutron beam in such a fashion, could
it be
>used to create a kind of nuclear battery, where the neutron beam would be
>used to induce fission in a target, but where the target will not
>chain-react (ie.  so you can just switch it off?)
 
Short answer:  yes.
 
Longer answer:  some people have proposed fusion-fission
hybrid reactors where some sort of fusion plant is used to
generate neutrons, which are then absorbed in a blanket made
out of fissionable materials, which will then react and increase
your energy gain, while also multiplying your neutrons, so that
you can then absorb the neutrons in a lithium blanket to
regenerate the tritium that you used in the fusion cycle
(assuming you use D-T, of course).  This has the safety
advantage of fusion, in that you have inherent safety
against runaway chain reactions, and the extra energy
gain in the fission process offsets the fact that the
fusion part of the cycle might not be economically
competitive on its own.  There are other advantages, and
several disadvantages too - for instance, there will
probably be a lot more handling of highly-radiactive
materials, and the waste issue could be significant too.
 
Response question:  What method of making neutron
beams were you referring to?  I'm assuming this was
a crosspost of some kind, and I missed the original thread.
 
********************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
standard disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: 30 Oct 1993 23:45:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

I wrote:
>>>>viable.  (Certainly better than 1 in 50).
 
Dale Bass responded:
>>>
>>>     I think it has no better than a 1 in 10^17 chance of being
>>>     economically viable.  And my number has about as much basis
>>>     as yours.
>>>
 
I replied (somewhat peeved),
>>Does it now?  Where did you get your number?  I've been reading every
>>reactor design study I can get my hands on.  Come on Dale, this is
>>sci.physics.fusion, not alt.flames.fusion.  Give me a rational
>>argument.
 
Dale responded:
>
>     Out of my ear.  Which is exactly where the reactor design studies
>     got theirs.
>
 
This is a rational argument?
 
>>>>  Recent reactor design
>>>>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>>>>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
>>>>everyone else's here.
>>>
>>>     In their dreams.
>>>
>>Why do you disagree?  What's your evidence?  In what way are the
>>studies flawed?
>
>      Plasma containment, reactor size, reactor shielding,
>      inadequate consideration of mandated reactor tritium containment,
>      inadequate consideration of regulatory requirements, inadequate
>      consideration of actual costs of disposing of hot materials.
>
>      Throw away these things, especially the regulatory requirements,
>      and fission is 'too cheap to meter.'
>
(I'm still slightly peeved.)
This is slightly more rational.  Which topic do you want to discuss
first?  I'm perfectly willing to dig through the ESECOM and/or ARIES
reports and tell you how they evaluated a topic, and you can tell me
what they did wrong.  Or do you actually know enough about the topics
to just give me the criticism?  Or perhaps the criticism is in the
published literature somewhere and I can just go look it up for myself?
 
I'm not going to roll over on this one.  I'm extremely interested in
knowing how current design studies may be flawed, and I'd really like
to learn about the subject.  I was hoping you'd come out and tell
me why they might be wrong, so I'd learn something.  So far I just
have assertions without facts.
 
Back to the discussion:  I wrote:
>>Not at all.  First off, you *have* to think about the power generation
>>system
>>along with developing a viable plasma.  A power plant has to function as
>>an integrated unit.  That's why people are *doing* the design studies,
>>not just playing with plasmas.  Secondly, getting a viable plasma is
>>by far the greatest challenge.  Once you have that, it won't be nearly
>>so hard to make a viable power generation system.  And I have yet to
>>see a calculation that requires the shielding to be replaced every
>>few hours.  Few years is more like it, and that's not too bad at all.
>
>       The point was that no one knows since no one knows the
characteristics
>       of a successful plasma.  They're playing word games with a
>       technology that does not exist.
>
 
This is only partly correct.  Researchers know many of the
characteristics of a successful plasma.  And we'll know a lot more
within the next couple years as the major machines begin D-T runs.
We don't know everything we need to know, obviously, and there is
some truth to the claim that the design studies are partly word games,
but then again, you have to look ahead to know what you need to research.
 If it wasn't for the design studies, people wouldn't have
realized the importance of structural materials to prevent induced
radioactivity, for instance.  Or would you prefer that we all proceed
blindly forward, with no forethought and advance research to determine
where effort is most needed?
 
>>And the calculations that have been done to look at the costs show,
>>as I said, that we can have fusion power in the range of 3-6
>>cents / kilowatt-hour.  If you won't take my word for it, I can
>>give you the references.
>
>       I don't take their word for it either.
>
I'm not saying you have to believe it, I'm saying that I can tell
you where to look so you can figure out why it's wrong.  Are you
trying to contribute to human knowledge or are you just being
ornery?  Why should *I* not take their word for it?  What could be
done to improve the assessments?  If it's not worth your time,
why don't you just come out and say so?  And if it's not, then
who out there thinks it *is* worth their time?  I'm trying to
learn something!
 
*********************************
Robert Frustrated-Scholar Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
"Don't just tell me I'm wrong, teach me how and why, so I can
learn something!  Don't just give me assertions, give me evidence!"
Usual disclaimers apply.  Sorry if I was too emotional.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Barry Smith /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 22:05:05 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research

In article <tomkCFMAr0.HqK@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
> In article <1993Oct28.055653.1530@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
>
> >Barry, a question here: have you compared, say, the installed roof area
> >in Japan with, say, the existing energy loading?
> >(Of the country, not the roofs. :)
>
> I have a question here: can you supply your personal power needs through
> the solar use of your present roof area? No? Then why are you asking such
> a question?
>
 
"Can I supply [my] personal power needs through the solar use of [my]
present roof area?"
 
Yes, in considerable excess.
 
Perhaps you meant something like: "Can I do so at economic rates with
present-day widely available technology?", but I don't mean to put
words
in your mouth, and that question would be even more cutting if applied
to fusion, would it not?
 
So, why did *you* ask your question?  Would your (personal) answer have
been different?  If so, why?
 
 
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / C Harrison /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 31 Oct 1993 01:04:04 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <CFHrt6.3C1@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
 [ transmutation of Pd100 discussed ...]
>
>    Perhaps I'm confused, but I think we've (as in sci.physics.fusion)
>    talked about this before in the context of Cecil's
>    data from the early conference at Los Alamos.  I cannot find
>    the posts right now, but I think many of the Pd + D -> Pd + P
>    reactions have positive net energy, many around 5 MeV.
>    Of course, this doesn't help your problem since P should be screaming
>    around.  However, I still am intrigued by Cecil's beam-off results
>    for that experiment.
>
>                                 dale bass
 
I checked some of the old posts citing Cecil (there are about 30 of 'em)
and didn't find anything much more illuminating than Dieter's annotation --
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cecil FE, Ferg D, Furtak TE, Mader C, McNeil JA, Williamson DL;
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 195.
"Study of energetic charged particles emitted from thin deuterated palladium
foils subject to high current densities".
** Some cold fusion results, such as heat without radiation emissions, could
be due to the radiation being in the form of short-range charged particles. So
this team looked for such emissions from Pd foil, irradiated by a D+ beam at
95 keV. During beam inpact, roughly the expected flux of neutrons was given
off (self-targeting). The beam was switched off, electric current passed
through the foil and energy spectra measured. Quote: "In Fig. 4a, accumulated
over a period of 19 hours, there is a suggestion of a peak at about 3 MeV
which could be identified as the protons from the d(d,p)t reaction. Another
spectrum shows a peak at 5 MeV, and this is not seen for the controls in
which either there was no current running through the PdD or a current running
through undeuterated Pd. The authors have no explanation for this peak, which
is consistent with a (d,p) reaction with various Pd isotopes, all very
unlikely to occur.                                                    ?/Jun-90
 
<this info brought to you courtesy of the wais servers at sunsite.unc.edu :-)>
 
FWIW, this is also very reminiscent of some experimental data I saw at
Akito Takahashi's lab in Osaka, Japan about 2 years ago, also done with
a low-energy D beam, with metal "barrier layers" sim. to Yamaguchi applied
to some specimens.  I think this was written up in ICCF3 (Nagoya).  The
detector was Si barrier and showed very distinct energy peaks.  All
disclaimers apply, I'm not a nuc. scientist.
 
Cheers,
 
--
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 23:34:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <tomkCFMAr0.HqK@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
writes:
> In article <1993Oct28.055653.1530@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry
Smith) writes:
>
> >Barry, a question here: have you compared, say, the installed roof area
> >in Japan with, say, the existing energy loading?
> >(Of the country, not the roofs. :)
>
> I have a question here: can you supply your personal power needs through
> the solar use of your present roof area? No? Then why are you asking such
> a question?
 
Well, I hear you can get about 100W/square meter of solar cells
(this is actually  generous) at peak output.
 
for a typical floor plan, there might be 1100 square feet, and taking the
roof to have similar dimensions, a roof would be about 100 square meters,
and so could supply 10KW of power, peak. If we generously give it 4 hours
per day at this output level, that gives 40 kW hours per day, or 1200
kW hours per month. That would be enough to cover the home power consumption,
which is typically around 1000 kW-hours. However, we have not left in much
safety margin here, and in practice I suspect it would fall short.
(You'd better live in a pretty sunny place as well).
 
Personally, I live in a condo with 24 units, but the roof area is only about
8 times that of a single dwelling----so solar would fall far short for
us. I suspect the same is true for most high population
density areas. (Not to mention that the roof is used for
sun decks by many of the top floor units, so the usable roof
area is only about 4 x ).
 
If every one lived in single family detached dwellings, in year-round
sunny climates, I suspect on-site solar would meet personal needs. But for
apartment and condo dwellers (the majority), and other concentrated
spaces like office buildings, factories, ect, on-site solar really can't
come close to meeting the needs. Hence the need for large tracts of land/sea
dedicated to solar collection. But not every country has such resources.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: 31 Oct 1993 00:00:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <1993Oct25.193523.10214@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> -:;-,
ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu writes:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>>Not at all.  First off, you *have* to think about the power generation
>>system along with developing a viable plasma.  A power plant has to
>>function as an integrated unit.
>
>First you defended Big Government, then Big Science, now Big Power
>Companies.  Have you no shame?  ;-)
>
Smiley appreciated.  But do I really come across that way?  I hadn't
realized I was "defending" such abstractions.  Certainly not Big Power
Companies!  The only abstraction I can claim to be supporting here
is truth.  And obviously a lot of people have disagreed with me on
that one!  I wouldn't mind making mistakes if people would be
nice enough to teach me what *they* know, rather than just
assaulting me for what I apparently *don't* know.  But life's
a bit rougher than school, I guess.
 
>Big power companies want big government to fund research on
>big centralized power units because that's how they make money.
>They *don't* like solar or wind power because these technologies
>might bypass them completely and go directly to the consumer.
>Imagine how scared they are of cold fusion.  If Pons and
>Fleishman could really come up with a cold fusion water heater,
>it would cost the power companies billions.  Of course, any
>power company exec who's read this newsgroup over the past
>couple of years is probably feeling pretty secure.
>
Others have responded to this, but I have a couple points to add.
First off, I'd heard that EPRI (the electric power research
institute, funded by the utilities) was funded to the tune of
$600 million or so each year.  So utilities don't trust the
government to do their research for them.  Secondly, EPRI
is one of the main *sponsors* of the upcoming cold fusion conference.
This suggests that utilities are *not* scared of CF.  They're
just businesses that want to cash in on new technologies, just
like the rest of us.  Third, EPRI and the utilities are doing
a substantial amount of current wind/solar research.  The largest
commercial photovoltaic plant I know of is run by the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District (SMUD).  Alas, it's only a few
megawatts.
 
I may not have remembered all my data correctly, so I'll welcome
any corrections (preferably gentle ones).  I guess now I *have*
gone and defended Big Power Companies :)  But it's not for love
of them that I did so...
 
>Anyway, I just wanted to point out your bias towards centralized power.
>That centralized power costs me about $200 per month.  I would prefer
>to buy a Heeter Home Fusion Unit for $5000.  When will that be ready?
>
I can't tell you how long my girlfriend and I spent laughing at this.
I just wish I could tell you it was already on the market.  Imagine
how much money I could make!  Not that I really care all that much
about money, just that the whole idea would be pretty fun.  But it's
not gonna happen...
 
**************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princet Plasma Physics Lab
usual disclaimers, wish I had a good quote to go here.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / Robert Heeter /  Not much new in energy tech (Was Re: fission)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not much new in energy tech (Was Re: fission)
Date: 31 Oct 1993 00:25:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

In article <EACHUS.93Oct28161531@spectre.mitre.org> Robert I. Eachus,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:
>In article <1993Oct27.162136.20309@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>   > There's not much in the way of new energy technology in the last
>   > 50 years, except for enhancements of what was around 50 years
>   > ago.  The only real exception that comes to mind is solar, but
>   > even that isn't economically competitive as yet, and it's a low
>   > energy-density source besides.
>
>   Oh, what a wonderful straw man.  The only nuclear reactor around
>fifty years ago was a graphite reactor under some stadium in Chicago,
>and didn't generate any power.  So pressurized water reactors, boiling
>water reactors, gas cooled reactors, LMFBRs, HTGRs, etc., were all
>developed from scratch in the last fifty years.
 
[interrupt here]
 
Sure, but the general idea that you could make energy this way was
already there fifty years ago.  Granted that all the new reactors
are pretty significant enhancements, they're still only enhancements.
I'll explain how this relates to the original point in a bit.
 
[continue Eachus' post]
 
>Also don't forget
>conventional technologies like gas turbine plants, combined cycle
>plants of several varieties, pumped water peaking plants, tidal
>plants, fuel cells, low-head hydroelectric, MHD...  I could go on and
>on, but I think you get the point.
 
[interrupt again]
 
I get the point.  We can now do everything we did then with either
(a) different chemicals, or (b) higher efficiency.  But there
are no completely *new* technologies.
 
[continue again]
 
>The only two technologies still in
>use from 50 years ago for base load OR peaking power generation are
>hydroelectric and conventional oil or coal powered steam plants.
>(Whoops, I missed one.  The railroads started using diesel-electric
>locomotives in the late thirties. Electric utilities didn't start
>using diesels for peaking until much later, but the technology
>existed.)
>
Now you're missing something.  I said "energy technology", not
"electric energy technology".  Most of our energy consumption
goes into stuff like heating and transportation, not electricity.
And here, there has been even less technological change.  We still
drive gas-powered automobiles, heat our homes with fossil fuels,
and generate the majority of our electricity via coal combustion.
 
The point I was trying to make is that, by and large, today's
economy is based on fossil-fuel-energy almost as much as 1943's
economy.  There haven't been any real energy revolutions.  Compare
this with the development of electric power, or the development
of petroleum-based internal combustion power, or the development
of railroads and steam engines.  Energy technology simply hasn't
been advancing as rapidly in the last 50 years as it did from
1900 to 1950.  Energy costs haven't dropped that fast, we haven't
developed many major new sources of energy, and the ones that
we have developed (fission and solar, for instance) are just
not major players.
 
Now maybe energy technology will take off again, but I was just
trying to show that a 50-year timeframe for the development
of new energy sources was somewhat reasonable.  There's been
a lot of technological *evolution* in the last 50 years, but
as I see it there haven't been any *revolutions*.  Fission
may yet burst forward as a revolutionary technology, as might
solar, or even fusion.  A shift to a "hydrogen" economy instead
of a petroleum economy would also be fairly revolutionary.
But this sort of thing hasn't happened yet.
 
Hope it's clear now what I was driving at.  I agree with
Eachus about the evolutionary advances.
 
**********************************
Robert F. Heeter, wishing language were a little clearer...
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 19:08:18 EDT

         Barry Merriman posted:
>Second, the economic viability of Tokamaks has been studied
>in detail many times; its well known that extrapolating from
>current machine characteristics leads to a reactor that
>is at best only marginally economically viable. However,
>based on these detailed studies, I can't see how you could have conclude that
>viability is impossible (or at least << 1:50). I would say the prevailing
>opinion is that tokamaks as presently understood will be economically
>viable, but only once the cost of power from other sources has increased
>by an order of magnitude, and only if we have very large power plants (~ 10GW).
         I replied:
>         Since power from biomass, wind, solar thermal and solar photo-
>voltaic is currently within an order of magnitude of being competitive
>and seems unlikely to increase in cost, "impossible" seems to be a
>fair summary of the economic viability of Tokamak fusion given the pre-
>vailing opinion you state.  So what are you complaining about?
         Robert Heeter objects:
>I think you're misinterpreting what Barry meant.  As I read it, Barry
>is saying that if you built a tokamak fusion reactor using *today's*
>technology, the power it produces would cost 10 times as much as
>other sources cost.  But the same thing is (roughly) true for solar
>technologies, particularly if you are going to include the energy-storage
>equipment necessary to make up for the fact that the sun doesn't shine
>24 hours a day.  Wind faces similar problems; although the cost is less,
>there aren't as many good sites, either, and you still have to deal
>with storage for when the air just isn't moving.
 
         I interpreted Barry Merriman's post as saying the best that
can be hoped for in Tokamak design power plants, ever, is a cost of
$.50 per kilowatt hour in 10GW (electric?) plants.  (Assuming a current
cost of $.05 per kwh).  I invite clarification if this was not what he
meant.  Solar photovoltaic is currently at about $.30 per kwh, the
others are claimed to be at $.10 per kwh or less.  All would appear
to have room for improvement (from economies from mass production if
nothing else).  I would expect storage costs to be at worst a factor of
2 today (is this realistic?), again with considerable room for improve-
ment as there is little demand for storage systems today.  If so all
but solar photovoltaic would still be well under $.50 per kwh and would
have the further large advantage of not requiring 10GW plants.
         Barry Merriman protested:
>James, get serious. Those are all low power density technologies you cite
>(not to mention some of them have limited capacity and applicability:
>tell Japan to rely on solar---which country should they take over
>in order to get the land area required for solar cells.).
 
>Are you saying the industrialized world need no high power density
>sources? I don't think so. That is the need fusion is intended to fill.
 
         What does power density have to do with anything?  Electric
utilities should use the cheapest means of generating electricity re-
gardless of whether the method is low or high power density (whatever
that means anyway).
         As for capacity and applicability I believe any of the 4 could
replace a significant fraction of the US electrical power currently
being generated from fossil fuels.  Is this incorrect?  (I omitted
hydoelectric and geothermal which are also cheap because they appear
to have limited room for expansion.)
         As for Japan, I am sure congress will be delighted to hear that
fusion research should be supported because it may solve Japan's energy
problems.  In any case it is estimated that solar plants satisfying
the current US demand for electricity would require less than .5% of US
land area.  Since Japan's area is 4% of the US's area and its electri-
city production is 25% of the US's, it would appear solar plants sat-
isfying Japan's current demand for electricity would require less than
5% of Japan's area and would not require Japan to take over anybody.
         The industrialized world will need a substitute for oil's use
in transportation.  This has nothing to do with the economics (or lack
thereof) of using fusion to generate electricity.
         Robert Heeter posted:
>                                      ...  Recent reactor design
>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
>everyone else's here.  ...
 
         Even fusion proponents appear to difficulty accepting these
estimates since Bruce Scott posted:
>By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure
>for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like
>15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale).
 
         Why confuse matters with 1980 dollars rather than current
dollars?  Since coal is the fossil fuel used to generate electricity
and the world has a 1500 year supply (at current consumption rates),
why do you expect the cost of electricity to increase over the next 50
years?  By the way the photovoltaic people are hoping for $.06 per
kwh, the wind and biomass people $.04 per kwh.
         Robert Heeter posted:
>And don't forget radon emissions from today's fission plants.
 
         Did you mean today's coal plants?  If I remember correctly
they emit considerably more radon than fission plants.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjbs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / John Manuel /  Interested in a CFD Newsgroup? (was: CALL FOR VOTES - CFD
     
Originally-From: john.r.manuel@dartmouth.edu (John Manuel)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,sci.geo.mete
rology,sci.math.num-analysis,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Interested in a CFD Newsgroup? (was: CALL FOR VOTES - CFD
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 17:32:03 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

In article <2aou4i$nam@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind) writes:
 
> Some time ago (june 1992) there was a discussion on creating a group
> dedicated to CFD.  The person who initiated this was anselmo@cumesb
> (Andrew P. Anselmo).
>
> I was, and still am, very much interested in seeing the establishment of
> such a group, and would be willing to participate in its creation.  There
> is a formal procedure for creation of a group and I highlight some of the
> key issues:
>
>
> 1. Discussion - a request for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup
>    should be posted to news.announce.newgroups ...
>
> 2. The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be
>    moderated should be determined during the discussion period ...
>
> 3. AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group
>    is really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, ..., then a
>    a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups
>
> etc, etc.
>
>
> at the time, the name of sci.engr.cfd was suggested with the following
> "rules":
>
>                 Official Call for Disscussion on sci.engr.cfd
>
> There has been some talk on sci.engr for a group devoted to Computational
> Fluid Dynamics.  The group would involve discussions on:
>
>         1) Finite Differences vs. Finite Elements
>         2) Adaptive grids/Multigrid methods
>         3) Solution issues; SOR vs. ADI vs. etc. iterative/explicit/implicit
>         4) Benchmarking Problems
>         5) Limitations to commercial codes
>         6) CFD and supercomputing
>         7) Visualization of CFD results
>
>
> I quote most of this from the discussions by  Andrew P. Anselmo, as
> well as my understanding of the creation of newsgroups.  Andrew if you
> are out there, hope this is ok with you :^).  I would like to see this
> carried through, but there are procedures which must be adhered to.
 
I'd very much like to see a newsgroup created which would bring
together people who do CFD in their many disparate disciplines. I think
that the name of the newsgroup is all important: the newsgroup must be
seen as THE place to talk about CFD otherwise people will continue to
pose their questions and comments in newsgroups where interest in CFD
is often very diluted by other concerns.
 
I'm sure that some of those who browse sci.aeronautics, sci.astro,
sci.engr, sci.engr.mech, sci.geo.fluids, sci.geo.meteorology,
sci.math.num-analysis, sci.physics.fusion, sci.physics.research or
comp.lang.fortran have
opinions about the desirability and naming of a CFD newsgroup, so I've
posted this article to those newsgroups as well.
 
     ***  NOTE that any follow-up to this posting will go to  ***
     ***  sci.math.num-analysis where this discussion began!  ***
 
----
John R. Manuel                              john.r.manuel@dartmouth.edu
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755 USA
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmanuel cudfnJohn cudlnManuel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / James Zuchelli /  Where to find Computational Physics newsgroup?
     
Originally-From: James Zuchelli <James_Zuchelli*@BBCOMM.apple.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where to find Computational Physics newsgroup?
Date: 30 Oct 1993 01:50:10 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer-Contractor

I have a friend who worked in Computational Physics. Does anyone know of
a newsgroup in that specialty?  I don't know anything about physics and
so can't guide him.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------
This is my personal opinion and not that of anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudfnJames cudlnZuchelli cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 /  - /  Re: why fusion works
     
Originally-From: frampton@access.digex.net (-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: why fusion works
Date: 29 Oct 1993 17:12:36 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

>> hello I'm designing a city for the Simcity future city national
>> competition, and I've desided to power it with Cold Fusion.
 
>That seems a bit far fetched. I suggest you power it off of a better
>understood technology, such as Di-Lithium crystals.
 
How does this exactly work? How efficient is it?
 
 
--
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| adam frampton               |  printed on 100 percent recycled electrons
| frampton@access.digex.com   |
+-----------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenframpton cudln- cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Mark North /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:59:15 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

I'm shocked, *shocked* to find that gambling is going on in here.
 
Mark 'Captain Renault' North
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 / Mark North /  Re: fission
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fission
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 22:25:40 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

"Your winnings, sir!"
 
"Thank you very much, everybody out at once!"
 
Mark a.k.a "Rick"
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 /  gordon.powell@ /  RESPECTFULLY FOR TOM AND DICK...PART
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RESPECTFULLY FOR TOM AND DICK...PART
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 20:11:45
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD

 
Daryl Owen's structural phase change proposal is quite plausible and
interesting.  Can you offer any numbers?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpowell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Metallic deuterium revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Metallic deuterium revisited
Date: 29 Oct 93 17:17:58 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Some weeks ago, I brought up the idea of forming metallic deuterium, using
pure D2 (at cryogenic temperatures) then pressurizing in a diamond-anvil
cell to >2 megabars to try to produce metallic deuterium.  Recently I came
across an idea to form metallic hydrogen in a metallic-hydrogen+metal
alloy by subjecting a metal hydride to very high pressures.  (B. Baranowski and
T. Skoskiewicz of Warsaw, Poland in _High Pressure and Low-temperature Physics,
1977)
 
Starting with pure deuterium one can determine metallic deuterium formation
from a change in conducting and optical properties.
My question is:  how can one determine when metallic deuterium forms if
one starts with a metal deuteride?  Indeed, what is the meaning of metallic
deuterium under such conditions?  This matter was not explored in the paper,
but I would be glad to hear comments or references to recent research in this
area.
 
Best Regards,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / Michael Su /  graduate schools
     
Originally-From: mszeus@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Su)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: graduate schools
Date: 30 Oct 1993 12:01:39 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

 
 
Hello,
 
I was wondering if anyone had a good idea about all the graduate schools
currently doing significant work in plasma physics/fusion research.  It is
that time of the year for graduating seniors to apply to grad schools, and
I am having a hard time knowing from which schools I should request
applications.
 
If anyone would post a list and perhaps even the sort of work they do (plasma
processing, fusion research, etc.), I would greatly appreciate it.
Specifically, I am interested in groups that work on rf current drive schemes,
esoteric confinement configurations, and of course fusion research in general.
 
My thanks in advance.
 
 
Michael Su
mszeus@sandman.caltech.edu
 
**currently working on implementing rf current drive in small research
  tokamak**
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmszeus cudfnMichael cudlnSu cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.30 / John Logajan /  Communication link broken
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Communication link broken
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 18:47:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

As some of you on the Usenet side may have noticed, postings e-mailed
to the zorch gateway have not been appearing here since about Monday
the 25th.  FYI
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: <None>
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 17:06:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2av2u4$si3@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
Charles Harrison <cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <CFHrt6.3C1@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>
>I checked some of the old posts citing Cecil (there are about 30 of 'em)
>and didn't find anything much more illuminating than Dieter's annotation --
>
>Cecil FE, Ferg D, Furtak TE, Mader C, McNeil JA, Williamson DL;
>J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 195.
>"Study of energetic charged particles emitted from thin deuterated palladium
>foils subject to high current densities".
>** Some cold fusion results, such as heat without radiation emissions, could
>be due to the radiation being in the form of short-range charged particles. So
>this team looked for such emissions from Pd foil, irradiated by a D+ beam at
>95 keV. During beam inpact, roughly the expected flux of neutrons was given
>off (self-targeting). The beam was switched off, electric current passed
>through the foil and energy spectra measured. Quote: "In Fig. 4a, accumulated
>over a period of 19 hours, there is a suggestion of a peak at about 3 MeV
>which could be identified as the protons from the d(d,p)t reaction. Another
>spectrum shows a peak at 5 MeV, and this is not seen for the controls in
>which either there was no current running through the PdD or a current running
>through undeuterated Pd. The authors have no explanation for this peak, which
>is consistent with a (d,p) reaction with various Pd isotopes, all very
>unlikely to occur.                                                    ?/Jun-90
 
     This 'peak' appears as a fairly broad feature on the videotape
     I have of the early Los Alamos workshop.  And the Pd-D fusion reactions
     are spread in this area.
 
>FWIW, this is also very reminiscent of some experimental data I saw at
>Akito Takahashi's lab in Osaka, Japan about 2 years ago, also done with
>a low-energy D beam, with metal "barrier layers" sim. to Yamaguchi applied
>to some specimens.  I think this was written up in ICCF3 (Nagoya).  The
>detector was Si barrier and showed very distinct energy peaks.  All
>disclaimers apply, I'm not a nuc. scientist.
 
     Interesting.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: Meyer Cell....
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer Cell....
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 18:10:08 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <1993Oct25.185750.92882@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> dowen@vaxc.cc.
onash.edu.au writes:
>Hi Folks,
> A conventional DC electrolysis cell suffers from polarisation...gas bubbles
>cover the electrodes and reduce the area exposed to the electrolyte.
> If these bubbles could be quickly removed, possibly by an ultrasonic
>transducer placed in the cell, the efficiency of that cell should be
>considerably improved.
> It would be interesting to compare the efficiency of such a cell with the
>Meyer cell whose pulsed (ultrasonic) current should prevent polarisation.
> This still leaves the puzzle of the pure water electrolyte, but if there
>is even a little arcing between the (high voltage) electrodes, then that will
>produce ions.
 
I have run a cell with a 40 KHz ultrasonic transducer inside.  It made the
bubbles bigger and fewer as I recall.  On first thought, this would increase
the % electrode coverage.
 
You could run a cell in a centrifuge, The high pressure gradient should clear
the bubbles much faster.
 
--
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@isus.stat.| International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |     .com  OR  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |enuucp.asu.edu!| System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice 602 996-1717 |stat.com!wierius!isus!hoyt OR hoyt@isus.tnet.com_________|
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.31 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Not much new in energy tech (Was Re: fission)
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not much new in energy tech (Was Re: fission)
Date: 31 Oct 1993 23:00:26 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Last week a Ukranian physicist came to give a talk to our group.
 
Before it started we were listening to various stories about,
you guessed it, the Chernobyl disaster.
 
Yes, it *was* a nuclear explosion.  "relatively" small and
inefficent but it did the trick.  The evidence was
the large amount of radioactive iodine in the fallout.
 
The isotope in question has a short half life and thus
was produced in the fissions that preceeded the explosion,
and was not waste from the long-term operation of the
power plant.
 
--
-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:
cuddy31 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Jordan Hubbard /  New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
     
Originally-From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
Date: 01 Nov 1993 08:22:31 GMT
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland

I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
disgraced scientists go, with their respective tails between their
legs, and now I see all kinds of talk intimating that the whole `Cold
Fusion' debate is still alive?!  Have I stumbled into
alt.fusion.fond.theories.rehashed by mistake?
 
                                Jordan
 
--
(Jordan K. Hubbard)  jkh@violet.berkeley.edu, jkh@al.org, jkh@whisker.lotus.ie
 
I do not speak for Lotus, nor am I even a Lotus employee.  I am an independent
contractor.
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjkh cudfnJordan cudlnHubbard cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  No neutrons for BYU-style cold fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No neutrons for BYU-style cold fusion
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 04:34:29 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

I just finished reading *Bad Science* and I have some renewed
enthusiasm for pointing out the obvious in this forum.  Since Jed
Rothwell seems to be avoiding Usenet this week, there is no point in
mocking XS Heat stunts, and soberly criticizing such demonstrations
confers a certain credibility to them that they do not deserve.
 
In one respect, Steve Jones has an easy ride in sci.physics.fusion,
because he seems like a Nobel laureate in comparison with the XS
Heaters. Taking a more balanced perspected, Jones is an honest and
competent experimental physicist, but he is not Enrico Fermi.  The XS
Heaters' cold fusion claims are comedy material; Jones's cold fusion
claims are merely mistaken.
 
Let me switch from third person to second:
 
In article <1993Oct28.170840.1038@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Jones:  "3.  If reproducible, then results should be capable of scaling to at
>least 100 times background levels.  (E.g., if ambient helium is 5 ppm... then
>500 ppm should be required.)"
 
You have hit the nail on the head.  Later you call the effect of signal
decreasing with noise a "red flag".  I would call it a troll with an
ax.  In your case, your original Hellenic claim (it launched a thousand
experiments) was two neutrons per hour.  You and many other people have
tried hard to find two neutrons an hour in backgrounds of under one
neutron per day, and the utter absence of two neutrons per hour from
deuterated palladium has been the fully repeatable and even predictable
result.  If reproducible results are true, the troll has whacked the
claim of two neutrons per hour and the claim is dead.  There is no
reason to further examine the corpse unless it starts to twitch.
 
Along the same lines, any claim of detectable fusion in deuterated
palladium is barely outside the vast realm of claims that are a proiri
refuted by old experiments in materials science.  Following *Bad
Science*, the distance between two deuterons in a palladium lattice was
measured many years ago as at least twice the distance between
deuterons in a deuterium molecule.  Even in 1989, any claim of fusion
would have had to overcome the weight of many past experiments in order
to have any positive believability.  Now, in 1993, we have another
troll with an ax to whack cold fusion besides the pre-existing one,
namely the fleet of direct counterresults.  If only my research claims
could receive as much attention as "two neutrons per hour" did.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 06:15:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct30.220505.1052@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
 
>"Can I supply [my] personal power needs through the solar use of [my]
>present roof area?"
>
>Yes, in considerable excess.
>
>Perhaps you meant something like: "Can I do so at economic rates with
>present-day widely available technology?", but I don't mean to put
>words
>in your mouth, and that question would be even more cutting if applied
>to fusion, would it not?
>
>So, why did *you* ask your question?  Would your (personal) answer have
>been different?  If so, why?
 
Barry, I drive a car 80 miles a day. There is no way that I can supply
that energy requirement through solar generation on the roof of my
house. (Particularly at the speed I drive. :-))
 
I think that if you do an analysis of the yearly power requirement of
your house, counting not just the lighting, but also the TV consumption,
and the heating and air consitioning, you will find that you can't do
it with your roof area. There is even less per capita roof area in Japan.
 
I have studied solar power and I think that it is certainly the source
of power in the far future, after all fossil fuel is gone. But there will
be a sharp drop in power use by the population when it occurs.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re:  Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Compelling evidence
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 06:38:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Oct28.170840.1038@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>Jones:  "3.  If reproducible, then results should be capable of scaling to at
>least 100 times background levels.  (E.g., if ambient helium is 5 ppm... then
>500 ppm should be required.)"
 
I agree. The signal should be such that the argument can only be, "how
large is the signal." Not whether it truely exists.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 1 Nov 1993 12:53:46 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Shearer misunderstands me. I posted:
 
>By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure
>for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like
>15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale).
 
I give a figure in constant dollars to try to minimise red herrings that
come up when people play around with inflationary scales. Just to define
terms, mind you.
 
My point is merely that what is a competitive price now and what will be a
competitive price when we know how to do fusion are likely to be different,
and that judgements based upon what is competitive now are likely to be
erroneous.
 
Again, I ask, why do people think you have to get down to 3-6 cent/kW-hr
to be competitive? Energy cost more than that even in 1986 when I lived
in Texas (about 6.5 cents, then, in a state rich with natural gas).
 
I urge people to define which dollars they speak about: if you wish to
use current dollars make sure you clarify which year you mean. Today?
Or after demonstration or non-demonstration of fusion feasibility?
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Bruce Scott /  Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
Date: 1 Nov 1993 13:10:57 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <JKH.93Nov1002231@whisker.lotus.ie>,
        jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
|> I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
|> disgraced scientists go, with their respective tails between their
|> legs, and now I see all kinds of talk intimating that the whole `Cold
|> Fusion' debate is still alive?!  Have I stumbled into
|> alt.fusion.fond.theories.rehashed by mistake?
 
Oh dear. Methinks you have produced another barrage from the True Believers.
 
The reason that cold fusion isn't exactly debunked is that, although many
of the claims are contradictory (see posts by Steven Jones and Dick Blue on
the "skeptic" side, and Mitchell Swartz and Jed Rothwell on the "believer"
side, and periodic reviews by Dieter Britz for the arguments), there are
enough people getting some sort of an "excess heat" signal that argument
persists whether some phenomenon is present or the whole thing is
experimental error. The main force on this board trying to pin it down
is Tom Droege's experimental effort and the people advising him.
 
I suggest going through the archives before precipitating another war here.
 
My apologies to anyone inappropriately left out of [or left in :-)] the
above lists.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / mitchell swartz /  The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 13:42:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Nov1.043429.29285@midway.uchicago.edu>
    Subject: No neutrons for BYU-style cold fusion
Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) writes:
 
=  "Even in 1989, any claim of fusion
= would have had to overcome the weight of many past experiments in order
= to have any positive believability.  Now, in 1993, we have another
= troll with an ax to whack cold fusion besides the pre-existing one,
= namely the fleet of direct counterresults.  If only my research claims
= could receive as much attention as "two neutrons per hour" did."
 
  Although you might be correct that some of the TB-skeptics do act
like trolls, could you enlighten us as to exactly what FLEET
of direct counterresults did you mean?
 
  As readers here have seen, and literate scientists realize,
most "counterresults" upon examination have been shown to have been
mere talk from relatively illiterate, pseudo-scientific, types
apparently augmented by some with self-serving interests, and others
who performed experiments either incorrectly or using inactive
materials.
 
  Futhermore,  from Webster (ibid):
 
   FLEET  -- 1) to fade away,  to move in time and position
             2)  a number of warships under a single command
 
  Given, these definitions, it does seem appropriate to use the
word FLEET or FLEETING to describe the TB-skeptics' claimed
(but flawed) papers [and arguments]. Why?  Because these "counterresults"
are fading away (and others have actually confirmed
cold fusion) and some were apparently written under a "single command".
Alternatively, perhaps you chose the word FLEET because you have knowledge
of some "counterresults" containing data which has shifted in position.
 
   Yes, Greg, for once we agree.  The TB-skeptics do have a FLEET of
putative "papers" and "counterresults" to "boost" their side. However,
the "counterresults" are sinking or are already fossilized deep upon the
epibenthic ocean floor.
 
      Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Scott Mueller /  A dubious distinction
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A dubious distinction
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 15:35:57 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

While I'm not equipped to remark on whether CNF is alive or dead, I'll note
that the conversation is definitely alive.  In October 1993, even without
Jed Rothwell, the size of the monthly archive of sci.physics.fusion has
surpassed for the first time the size of the first monthly archive from
March 1989.
 
-rw-r--r--  1 news       919556 Dec 21  1989 8904.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       940817 Nov  1 00:01 9310.tar.Z
 
(The monthly archive is the collection of all posts for the given month,
reformatted as Fusion Digests and collected into a single file using the
UNIX 'tar' command.  This one file is then compacted using the UNIX 'compress'
command, and that is the file that is archived.)
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Communication link broken
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Communication link broken
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 19:18:37 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <1993Oct30.184723.18470@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>As some of you on the Usenet side may have noticed, postings e-mailed
>to the zorch gateway have not been appearing here since about Monday
>the 25th.  FYI
 
The technical problems have been resolved and the gateway is working properly
again.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
[
The following material discusses some of the gory details for the curious.
 
Zorch is my home system.  When the fusion newsgroup was starting up, I lived
in Silicon Valley and had email or Usenet connectivity to some 30 different
systems (via UUCP, for the techies).  Due to the nature of the California
housing market, my wife and I bought a house some 90 miles away from Silicon
Valley (I commute daily) and I of course moved Zorch there.
 
Salida is the northern suburb of Modesto (see the film "American Graffiti" for
details on Modesto) and is hardly the high-tech mecca that Silicon Valley is.
I have email/Usenet connectivity to three systems, one local and two back in
Silicon Valley.  The two long-haul links belong to my employer and call Zorch
periodically to deliver news and mail.  Since they are long-distance calls,
from time to time some managerial type complains about the traffic and I move
the main connection from one system to the other.  The last time this happened
was a bit over a week ago, and the switchover did not go as cleanly as it
should have for various reasons.  Fortunately, no data was lost, only delayed.
 
Because of the costs, the connection only happens at night, and as implied
above is paid for by my employer.  If it gets to the point were I can no longer
get even this minimal sponsorship, I shall have to fall back to what I can
afford to pay out of my own pocket, and connectivity between Zorch and the
world will probably drop back to 2-3 times weekly.
 
If it comes to that, I will probably look for a new home for Fusion Digest
and the mail-to-news gateway.  If I am lucky, the National Data Superhighway
will show up in my neck of the woods before then, and I will no longer be so
far from network "civilization".
 
              \scott
 
]
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  blue@dancer.ns /  How old is safe?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How old is safe?
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 02:16:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The discussion between Robert Heeter and Dale Bass touched on the issue
of high-level radioactive waste disposal in a way that indicates a need
to review some very basic physics of radioactive decay.  The discussion
of this question very often goes off into never-never land as to what
time scales should be considered.  Are we talking 100's of years or
many tens of thousands of years?
 
The physics that seems to get lost from these discussions in the fact
that "activity" and half-life are inversely related.  In that sense there
is no such thing as material that is "highly radioactive" and extremely
long lived.  Furthermore the extremely long-lived material in the limit
aren't radioactive at all!
 
Of course the confusion sets in whenever the material being considered
for disposal consists of a mixture of things that are very radioactive
(from fission those are the fission fragments) and things that are less
active but which have half lives comparable to the age of the earth.
The only serious disposal problem as I see has to do with the fission
fragments for which the time scale is a few hundred years.  The other
stuff can go along for the ride.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 /  bearpaw /  Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 14:41:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
 
>I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
>disgraced scientists go, with their respective tails between their
>legs, and now I see all kinds of talk intimating that the whole `Cold
>Fusion' debate is still alive?!  Have I stumbled into
>alt.fusion.fond.theories.rehashed by mistake?
 
Ah, another traveller from the land of ScienceByPopularOpinion.
 
Welcome, stranger!
 
:-)
bearpaw
 
 ==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Thomas Orth /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 15:19:48 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois

 
|> (assuming you use D-T, of course).  This has the safety
|> advantage of fusion, in that you have inherent safety
|> against runaway chain reactions, and the extra energy
|> gain in the fission process offsets the fact that the
|> fusion part of the cycle might not be economically
|> competitive on its own.  There are other advantages, and
|> several disadvantages too - for instance, there will
|> probably be a lot more handling of highly-radiactive
|> materials, and the waste issue could be significant too.
|>
|> Response question:  What method of making neutron
|> beams were you referring to?  I'm assuming this was
|> a crosspost of some kind, and I missed the original thread.
|>
|> ********************************
|> Robert F. Heeter
|> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
|> standard disclaimers apply
Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission reactors aren't
unmitigated runaway fission reactions.  If we limit the discussion to advanced
"next generation" reactors, then this is especially obvious.  The problems are
with adequate removal of decay heat, after shutdown.  This decay heat is what leads
to "meltdown"..the boogey-man word of the industry.  There are many reactors on
the drawing boards which use passive heat removal, larger heat sinks, etcetera
to achieve passively safe reactors.  Passively safe is another way of saying that
decay heat removal is done via natural conduction/convection/radiation rather than active
pumps and emergency cooling systems.  It's a little like a Porsche as opposed to
a conventional car.  The Porsche is air cooled, and thus, doesn't need antifreeze
to cool the engine...thus, radiator leaks are not a concern.
Tom Orth
orth@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenorth cudfnThomas cudlnOrth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Jim Carr /  Broken messages
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Broken messages
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 15:36:45 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

The following post seemed to be abruptly truncated --
 
In article <CFtFF1.10J@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1993Nov1.043429.29285@midway.uchicago.edu>
>    Subject: No neutrons for BYU-style cold fusion
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) writes:
>
>=  "Even in 1989, any claim of fusion
>= would have had to overc
 
This is typical of several messages in various newsgroups from stuff
posted over the weekend.
 
There must be a transmission or gateway problem somewhere.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Broken messages
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Broken messages
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 23:12:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>=  "Even in 1989, any claim of fusion
>>= would have had to overc
>
>This is typical of several messages in various newsgroups from stuff
>posted over the weekend.
>
>There must be a transmission or gateway problem somewhere.
 
This must be regional or local to your area.  I got the original message
intact.
 
The problem with e-mail to Fusion Digest to Usenet is a problem at the
zorch.sf-bay.org site.  I see that some of the backlog has started to
cross again.  Scott can explain further if he wants, but if I understood
his last e-mail to me, the gateway to usenet should now occur nightly.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Bruce Scott /  RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 1 Nov 1993 21:08:02 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
original post still contained the name sci.cfd; I have removed this.
It is further clarified that CFD means Computational Fluid Dynamics.
 
Remember, everyone, we need a surplus of 100 votes to get this.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
 
 
 
                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
 
This is a formal Request for Discussion for the creation of a new
newsgroup under the sci.* hierarchy.  This RFD is being cross
posted to sci.aeronautics, sci.engr.mech, sci.math,
sci.math.num-analysis, sci.physics and news.announce.newgroups.
Discussion of this RFD is to take place in news.groups.
 
NAME:   sci.fluid-dynamics
 
STATUS: Unmoderated
 
One line description for the List of Active Newsgroups:
 
sci.fluid-dynamics - Scientific computational fluid dynamics
 
RATIONALE:
 
An overwhelming number of researchers are depending on computers to
solve state of the art fluid problems.  The need for a group
dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
by the increased traffic in other groups.  The proposed newsgroup
is intended to provide an international forum for all issues
concerning the numerical solution of fluid related problems.
 
The proposed name sci.fluid-dynamics is specific enough to define the group,
but general enough to welcome researchers from all disciplines.
 
PROPOSED CHARTER:
 
sci.fluid-dynamics is a forum for the discussion of all issues relating
to computational fluid dynamics (CFD).  Discussion of all aspects
of CFD are encouraged.
 
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
 
        Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but
not limited to:
 
        * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
                unstructured, 2D, 3D,
        * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
        * Multigrid methods
        * Finite difference methods
        * Finite volume methods
        * Finite element methods
        * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
                      unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
        * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
        * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
        * Visualization
 
PROCESS
 
The normal  group creation guidelines will be followed.  Discussion will
continue for 30 days from this posting, and after that, a Call for Votes
(CFV) will be posted if appropriate.
 
 
Charles
 
 
 -----------------------------------------------------
            Charles Lind -- lind@eng.umd.edu
               Hypersonics Research Group
          Department of Aerospace Engineering
       University of MD, College Park, MD 20742
 -----------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / mitchell swartz /  Volatile Posts?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Volatile Posts?
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 21:35:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <931028162821_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM>
    Subject: 64 cells, not 56
Jed Rothwell [72240.1256@compuserve.com] writes:
 
=  "In my previous message: "Fleischmann responds to Jones" I typed the second
= note from Fleischmann incorrectly. It should read:
=     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
=     but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
=     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
=     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
= (In the previous message I wrote "56" instead of "64.")
 
  Jed, where is the previous message?   Another posting (John's I think)
mentioned it but the post has not appeared to my knowledge on Internet.
 
  Why are there sometimes allegations of minor [and very occasionally
major substantive] differences in what is posted, and seen on Internet
(and visa versa)?
 
   Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / mitchell swartz /  Power Density, not energy
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Density, not energy
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 21:48:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <93102916373438@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
     Subject: Scaling the energy density
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
= "Let me pose a question related to what progress has been made in cold
= fusion research.  If the energy density appears to increase as the
= sample size is decreased, is that equivalent to proof that the energy
= density will decrease if the sample size is increased?"
 
    Dick, I hate to see rain on your picnic, but first of all
that was a power density, right?     ----->  Watts/cm3
 
    Second, your question is irrelevant.  The reported power densities
have increased over time.   Furthermore,
since more labs are reproducing the results, the sample size
is actually increasing as well.
 
    Your question is therefore a obvious misstatement.
 
=  "In short
= just maybe we don't yet know that energy density is a meaningful
= parameter to use in describing cold fusion results.  What data do
= you want to cite in your FAQ table, Mitch, to help us on that little
= question?"
 
     Good point.  Dick, it is not clear what the best parameter to
judge this by is, but power per volume of palladium is certainly one thing
to consider.    Do you have some other[s] in mind?
 
     Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 21:34:21 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <CFtFF1.10J@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    In Message-ID: <1993Nov1.043429.29285@midway.uchicago.edu>
>    Subject: No neutrons for BYU-style cold fusion
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) writes:
 
>=  "Even in 1989, any claim of fusion
>= would have had to overcome the weight of many past experiments in order
>= to have any positive believability.  Now, in 1993, we have another
>= troll with an ax to whack cold fusion besides the pre-existing one,
>= namely the fleet of direct counterresults.  If only my research claims
>= could receive as much attention as "two neutrons per hour" did."
 
>  Although you might be correct that some of the TB-skeptics do act
>like trolls, could you enlighten us as to exactly what FLEET
>of direct counterresults did you mean?
 
>  As readers here have seen, and literate scientists realize,
>most "counterresults" upon examination have been shown to have been
>mere talk from relatively illiterate, pseudo-scientific, types
>apparently augmented by some with self-serving interests, and others
>who performed experiments either incorrectly or using inactive
>materials.
[....]
 
We ARE generalising just a little here, are we not, Mitch? My little list
of what I deemed to be quality papers has something like 50 papers in it,
of which about 40 are negatives. That's not a small fleet. Of these, 3 (I
think, maybe 2) have been attacked, and some smallish, debatable weaknesses
were found; in the case of the MIT work maybe a serious flaw. That still
leaves of the order of 40 quality negatives.
 
I am not going to argue that these 40 papers prove anything. Clearly, you
don't prove the nonexistence of an effect by failing to find it, even if do
it very carefully. But conversely, you can't use 2-3 works, flawed to various
degrees, to prove that ALL negatives are worthless, and then presumably infer
that the positives prove their point. I am disappointed in you, Mitch.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Broken messages
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Broken messages
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 21:41:52 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <CFtKpA.AoC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
 
>The following post seemed to be abruptly truncated --
 
>In article <CFtFF1.10J@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>>    In Message-ID: <1993Nov1.043429.29285@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>    Subject: No neutrons for BYU-style cold fusion
>>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) writes:
>>
>>=  "Even in 1989, any claim of fusion
>>= would have had to overc
 
>This is typical of several messages in various newsgroups from stuff
>posted over the weekend.
 
>There must be a transmission or gateway problem somewhere.
 
 
This is bad News indeed. But it can't be just a weekend problem, because
as John Logajan has remarked, all items posted via the Digest path since
25-Oct have been dropped from News; maybe they have now started coming again.
Have they? Is anybody checking whether anything is missing? This installation
from which I can access News seems to have very little disk space and keeps
very little backlog.
 
And this, just as I had decided to forget the Digest and use News only. I had
to ftp a great heap of Digests to catch up. It'll have to be belt & braces
again.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: 1 Nov 1993 22:36:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Thomas D. Orth (orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov) wrote:
: Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission reactors aren't
: unmitigated runaway fission reactions.
 
Don't tell that to the people in Ukraine.  (yeah it was a chain nuclear
reaction)
 
: If we limit the discussion to advanced
: "next generation" reactors, then this is especially obvious.
 
Unfortunately, those people living next to "shouldn't ever have been
built generation" reactors don't have such a luxury.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm 111% in favor of 'inherently safe' economical
fission plants.
 
: Tom Orth
: orth@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
: Speaking for myself
 
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Matthew DeBell /  How much energy is needed to start a fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: mdebell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Matthew DeBell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How much energy is needed to start a fusion reaction?
Date: 1 Nov 93 22:30:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

I have a simple question: How much energy is required to start a
fusion reactor?  My interest is science-fictional, so a very
approximate figure is all I desire.  10 million joules?  100
million?  More?  Less?
 
Thanks,
 
--Matthew DeBell  mdebell@ucsd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmdebell cudfnMatthew cudlnDeBell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / mitchell swartz /  The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 23:20:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1993Nov1.213421.26349@aau.dk>
      Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Dieter Britz (kemidb@aau.dk) writes:
 
= "My little list
= of what I deemed to be quality papers has something like 50 papers in it,
= of which about 40 are negatives. That's not a small fleet. Of these, 3 (I
= think, maybe 2) have been attacked, and some smallish, debatable weaknesses
= were found; in the case of the MIT work maybe a serious flaw. That still
= leaves of the order of 40 quality negatives."
 
   Papers which looked only for neutrons when there are few to less, or
which failed to achieve reasonable loadings (i.e. high D/Pd ratios), or
which used insensitive monitoring techniques are not quality papers.
  Also, as regards the configuration, most (if not all) of these
"negative" papers have obviously NOT attempted to reproduce the experiments
of Dr. Miles, Dr. Storms, Dr. McKubre, and/or others.
 
   Some of these lower quality-"negative" papers actually may have made it to
your top "40".  You have been gracious enough to catalogue these and offer
them, in any case.
   As a corrolary, there are also a lot more +ve papers then 10,
but as we've discussed, the actual numbers depend upon who is counting,
and from what data base.
 
           Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Mike Kelsey /  Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
     
Originally-From: kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 23:29:00 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

No longer germane to sci.physics.accelerators, so I've taken it out
of the newsgroups line.
 
In article <2b4312INNfq2@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.n
t (Matt Kennel) writes:
|> Thomas D. Orth (orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov) wrote:
|> : Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission reactors aren't
|> : unmitigated runaway fission reactions.
|>
|> Don't tell that to the people in Ukraine.  (yeah it was a chain nuclear
|> reaction)
 
The Chernobyl accident involved a graphite moderated reactor in which the
graphite caught fire and burned, spewing radioactive smoke and contaminants
about.  It was not a "runaway fission reaction" (which is a polite term for a
fission bomb), and the fissionable material itself did not explode.
 
Yes, the reactor was unstable, in the sense that a loss of control rods would
allow the chain reaction to proceed too rapidly and increase the core
temperature too high, but it was not "runaway."  _All_ reactors operate via
nuclear chain reaction; the trick, and the non-failsafe aspect, is that it
requires active control to keep the chain reaction from growing exponentially
(...BOOM!).  I believe Fermi's old pile had a multiplication factor of 1.00005,
which grew slowly enough that there was time for the control rods to drop under
gravity and damp it out.
                                                -- M. Kelsey
 
--
[  My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government  ]
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.  Attack ships on fire off
the shoulder  of Orion.   I've watched  C-beams glitter in  the darkness
near the Tannhauser Gate.  All these memories will be lost in time, like
tears in the rain."  -- Roy Batty
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkelsey cudfnMike cudlnKelsey cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Ron Graham /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 1 Nov 1993 19:10 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
     bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes...
 
>This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
>original post still contained the name sci.cfd; I have removed this.
>It is further clarified that CFD means Computational Fluid Dynamics.
 
Then this group belongs in the sci.engr subhierarchy.  A second possibility
would be sci.geo, but my recollection of the respective charters says no.
 
>Remember, everyone, we need a surplus of 100 votes to get this.
 
I might point out at this point that unless you sweat the details and
make the RFD to news.announce.newgroups first (it's not there at my site)
you have no chance whatsoever of getting the votes you want.  While the
original RFD went to n.a.n, this didn't.  Also, the followups, if they
are ever to find news.groups, must be sent there by someone.  Why not you?
(In this case, I designated followups there.)
 
Your case would also be more convincing if there were a little existing
traffic on the subject in sci.engr.  It'd be a refreshing change-of-pace
from "why people hate science" and "whether to fund Fred or SSC."
 
RG
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenecaxron cudfnRon cudlnGraham cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 22:50:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <m0osQer-0000hDC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
>The Tokamak takes between $300M and $400M per year.
>
>1 year's Tokamak budget is all that would be required to "properly test"
>all three technologies of Farnsworth IEF, PLASMAK(tm) and P&F CNF.
 
That is a joke, right? You're proposing to give Pons and Fleischman
$100,000,000.00? Two guys that can't even write an understandable paper?
 
You have a pretty sick sense of humor.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
Date: 2 Nov 93 00:46:21 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation

jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
 
>I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
>disgraced scientists go, with their respective tails between their
>legs, and now I see all kinds of talk intimating that the whole `Cold
>Fusion' debate is still alive?!  Have I stumbled into
>alt.fusion.fond.theories.rehashed by mistake?
 
Apparently disgraced scientists go to southern France (next to the Frence
Rivera) with millions of dollars of research money.  I want to be a disgraced
scientist!
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: 1 Nov 93 19:43:00
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Nov1.091948@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov> orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.go
 (Thomas D. Orth) writes:
 
   > Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission
   > reactors aren't unmitigated runaway fission reactions.  If we limit
   > the discussion to advanced "next generation" reactors, then this is
   > especially obvious.  The problems are with adequate removal of
   > decay heat, after shutdown.  This decay heat is what leads to
   > "meltdown"..the boogey-man word of the industry.  There are many
   > reactors on the drawing boards which use passive heat removal,
   > larger heat sinks, etcetera to achieve passively safe reactors.
   > Passively safe is another way of saying that decay heat removal is
   > done via natural conduction/convection/radiation rather than active
   > pumps and emergency cooling systems.  It's a little like a Porsche
   > as opposed to a conventional car.  The Porsche is air cooled, and
   > thus, doesn't need antifreeze to cool the engine...thus, radiator
   > leaks are not a concern.
 
   More an agreement than a disagreement.  Molten Salt Reactors are
exactly like your Porsche, since the core is molten salt (in a
graphite matrix) the possibility of 1) catastrophic core meltdown 2)
loss of coolant accidents (the molten salt IS the coolant) and 3)
coolent contamination by nuclear fuel (see previous comment) are all
irrelevant.  (Why aren't we all using MSR generated power?  Well,
there is one other little detail...an MSR breeds thorium into U-233,
so an MSR can be used as an "easy" source of refinable fissile
material.
 
   However I have never understood how the US not building MSRs
will keep the Saddam Hussains of the world from doing so.  I
personally think that the problem was that it would free the power
companies from the (then) AEC enrichment tit.  The excuse was the
radon gas excaping from the molten salt...but it seems to me to be
fairly easy to confine the radon for the period necessary (half-life 8
days right?)
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 /   /  Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
     
Originally-From: <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 20:03:29 EST
Organization: Penn State University

What if you put a hydride or boride or deuteride of a fissionable material
in a reactor, esp.  something that produces alphas as a by-product?  Do you
get any energy gains from 'accidental' fusions?
Jim Owens
Time for a new disclaimer -- Anyone got any ideas?
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenLEN101 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Not much new in energy tech (Was Re: fission)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not much new in energy tech (Was Re: fission)
Date: 1 Nov 93 20:14:56
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
In article <2av0l5$mo0@lyman.pppl.gov> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoeni
.princeton.edu> writes:
 
  > Sure, but the general idea that you could make energy this way was
  > already there fifty years ago.
 
  No, you totally miss my point.  The ONE existing nuclear reactor in
1943 had nothing to do with energy production (other than in an atomic
bomb).  It was a research reactor, period.  So a few people in a
squash court were learning--fifty years ago--that nuclear physics
worked.  Fifty-one years ago (actually fifty one and a few weeks)
there were NO operational nuclear reactors anywhereon earth.
 
  > Granted that all the new reactors are pretty significant
  > enhancements, they're still only enhancements.  I'll explain how
  > this relates to the original point in a bit.
 
  Good, do that, but notice that ALL of this did happen in the last
fifty years.
 
   (I said:)
 
   >> Also don't forget conventional technologies like gas turbine
   >> plants, combined cycle plants of several varieties, pumped water
   >> peaking plants, tidal plants, fuel cells, low-head
   >> hydroelectric, MHD...  I could go on and on, but I think you get
   >> the point.
 
   > I get the point.  We can now do everything we did then with either
   > (a) different chemicals, or (b) higher efficiency.  But there
   > are no completely *new* technologies.
 
   On all of those the patent office disagreed with you.  I haven't
(quite) reached my fiftieth birthday, but I can remember most of those
as novel technologies.  Tidal power may have been a theory before then
but that's about it.
 
   > Now you're missing something.  I said "energy technology", not
   > "electric energy technology".  Most of our energy consumption
   > goes into stuff like heating and transportation, not electricity.
   > And here, there has been even less technological change.  We still
   > drive gas-powered automobiles, heat our homes with fossil fuels,
   > and generate the majority of our electricity via coal combustion.
 
   Remember the Stanley Steamer?  I've driven one.  But yes most
automobiles were gasoline powered fifty years ago, they just weren't
the backbone of the transportation system.  That was the railroads,
and during WWII the backbone of the railroads was the steam engine.
And of course there are still homes heated by coal today, but when I
was growing up oil heat was a novelty.  Also, going back to World War
II, one of the aftereffects of the war was to replace most of the
coastal shipping with (oil and coal powered) tonnage build during the
war.  During the war, most coastal freighters were sailboats.
 
   > The point I was trying to make is that, by and large, today's
   > economy is based on fossil-fuel-energy almost as much as 1943's
   > economy.  There haven't been any real energy revolutions.  Compare
   > this with the development of electric power, or the development
   > of petroleum-based internal combustion power, or the development
   > of railroads and steam engines.
 
     Wasn't around for that one. :-) But the development of electric
power is a (relatively) recent development.  Or don't you know that
Roosevelt created the Rural Electrification Adminstration to bring
electric power to the farms, where most of the US population lived?
Home radios were for the most part battery powered for listening to
Roosevelt's Fireside chats.
 
   > Energy technology simply hasn't been advancing as rapidly in the
   > last 50 years as it did from 1900 to 1950.  Energy costs haven't
   > dropped that fast, we haven't developed many major new sources of
   > energy, and the ones that we have developed (fission and solar,
   > for instance) are just not major players.
 
     I used to have a chart on this one.  Look at electric power costs
in constant dollars, and the biggest drop came right at the beginning
of your fifty year period--1945 through 1960.
 
   > Now maybe energy technology will take off again, but I was just
   > trying to show that a 50-year timeframe for the development
   > of new energy sources was somewhat reasonable.
 
   No argument.
 
   > There's been a lot of technological *evolution* in the last 50
   > years, but as I see it there haven't been any *revolutions*.
 
   Big argument!  Even if you limit that to the area of energy
technology, there have been around three revolutions in my lifetime.
(National electrical grid, Nuclear energy, and stored power.)
 
  > Fission may yet burst forward as a revolutionary technology, as
  > might solar, or even fusion.  A shift to a "hydrogen" economy
  > instead of a petroleum economy would also be fairly revolutionary.
  > But this sort of thing hasn't happened yet.
 
    Maybe it hasn't happened to you yet, but I can tell you that this
is NOT the world I was born in.
 
  > Hope it's clear now what I was driving at.  I agree with Eachus
  > about the evolutionary advances.
 
    I'm just trying to get you to understand that what looks like a
minor improvement from this side looked a lot different as it was
happening.  (Of course, the computer revolution--which is just
beginning--may make all of the others look small.)
 
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Aluminum rings for Droege
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aluminum rings for Droege
Date: 1 Nov 93 20:40:43
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <93102914053590@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
  > The over-all fabrication problems for aluminum aren't bad except
  > for the welding.  It takes someone who really knows his stuff to
  > make alumium welds that aren't porous, at least at the level of
  > being helium leak tight.
 
  Minor nit, if you get a welder who knows his stuff, silver-soldering
aluminum provides much better gas tight joints.  This is what we used
for vacuum frames made of aluminum extrusions.  Welding reduced the
direct cost a few dollars, but pushed the rework needed to
unacceptable levels.
 
   > Again you will be much better off machining what you want from
   > one piece rather than making a weldment first.  It is hard to
   > convince people that all those aluminum shavings actual represent
   > a net savings in the cost of fabricating the part.  Of course
   > that depends on what you actually have to pay for.  If you can
   > get a top notch welder to work for the glory of science, it may
   > change the economics of this a bit.
 
   1) Amen!  If you can make it in one piece do so.  Those frames
above ranged in size from three by four feet up, and we still looked
at casting. 2) No, it probably won't.  The combination of the supplies
to do good work with aluminum, and the materials needed to experiment
to get the technique right will probably wipe out any savings for a
onesy-twosy operation.  The expert who did the frames mentioned above
always did several "experimental" joints to get everything just right,
then welded a frame a minute until he ran out of frames.  (Of course
the set up for each frame was significant, but if we were doing more
frames than we had jigs, other people were assigned to keep the jigs
full.  He literally did not want to have to turn the torch off.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 02:38:14 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CFtFF1.10J@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>Could you enlighten us [sic] as to exactly what FLEET of direct
>counterresults did you mean?
 
No, I really can't enlighten you.  I assume that my postings are as
nonsensical to you as yours are to me.  If so, I can't enlighten you,
satisfy you, convince you, or otherwise fulfill you.  I suggest that
you put me in your kill file, since there is probably nothing of
interest to you in my postings.
 
Also, thank you for your dictionary definitions, but Webster's
is more conveniently available on-line through Gopher.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 02:55:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <01H4OXJ0JGGY8WXJEF@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>I once read in this list, back in 1989, someone's asking "Who the hell
>is Bockris?"; this is a laugh.
 
I must agree that Bockris is a known quantity.  *Bad Science* discusses
Bockris' research at length.  Just what has made Bockris famous
lately?  Well, he claimed to have found a solar cell with an efficiency
of more than 100%.  His graduate student Nigel Packham found tritium in
a number of interesting places.  After mastering cold fusion, he moved
on to electrochemical transmutation of mercury into gold.
 
"Everyone thinks Nigel spiked the tritium."  -- Bockris, p. 350 of
*Bad Science*.
 
"As cold fusion seems to work and we don't understand that, why should
it not be that these other reactions take place?" -- Bockris, p. 428 of
*Bad Science*, referring to transmutation.
 
>He must be one of the most productive scientists in the world,
>counting all sciences, with his ca. 640 publications and 13 books.
 
He can't beat L. Ron Hubbard for productivity on paper.  In both cases,
you have to wonder what is being produced.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Guy Metcalfe /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: guy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Guy Metcalfe)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 03:27:38 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston IL USA

As someone who does experimental fluid dynamics, I'm shocked and
appalled :-) you propose to appropriate the title "fluid-dynamics" for
a group limited by its charter to only a subfield of fluid dynamics.
Perhaps sci.cfd would better reflect the discussion outline of the
proposed group.
 
 
In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
>original post still contained the name sci.cfd; I have removed this.
>It is further clarified that CFD means Computational Fluid Dynamics.
>
>Remember, everyone, we need a surplus of 100 votes to get this.
>
>--
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
>
>
>
>                        REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request for Discussion for the creation of a new
>newsgroup under the sci.* hierarchy.  This RFD is being cross
>posted to sci.aeronautics, sci.engr.mech, sci.math,
>sci.math.num-analysis, sci.physics and news.announce.newgroups.
>Discussion of this RFD is to take place in news.groups.
>
>NAME:   sci.fluid-dynamics
>
>STATUS: Unmoderated
>
>One line description for the List of Active Newsgroups:
>
>sci.fluid-dynamics - Scientific computational fluid dynamics
>
>RATIONALE:
>
>An overwhelming number of researchers are depending on computers to
>solve state of the art fluid problems.  The need for a group
>dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
>by the increased traffic in other groups.  The proposed newsgroup
>is intended to provide an international forum for all issues
>concerning the numerical solution of fluid related problems.
>
>The proposed name sci.fluid-dynamics is specific enough to define the group,
>but general enough to welcome researchers from all disciplines.
>
>PROPOSED CHARTER:
>
>sci.fluid-dynamics is a forum for the discussion of all issues relating
>to computational fluid dynamics (CFD).  Discussion of all aspects
>of CFD are encouraged.
>
>TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
>
>        Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but
>not limited to:
>
>        * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
>                unstructured, 2D, 3D,
>        * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
>        * Multigrid methods
>        * Finite difference methods
>        * Finite volume methods
>        * Finite element methods
>        * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
>                      unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
>        * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
>        * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
>        * Visualization
>
>PROCESS
>
>The normal  group creation guidelines will be followed.  Discussion will
>continue for 30 days from this posting, and after that, a Call for Votes
>(CFV) will be posted if appropriate.
>
>
>Charles
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>            Charles Lind -- lind@eng.umd.edu
>               Hypersonics Research Group
>          Department of Aerospace Engineering
>       University of MD, College Park, MD 20742
>------------------------------------------------------
 
 
--
        Guy Metcalfe
        Northwestern University         guy@bart.chem-eng.nwu.edu
        Dept. Chemical Engineering
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenguy cudfnGuy cudlnMetcalfe cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 00:39:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
...
 
>
> The need for a group
>dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
>by the increased traffic in other groups.
 
     Just curious.  What other groups?  I've got one unexpired message in
     sci.geo.fluids here, and about 20 at lambada.oit.unc.edu in the
     last week or so.  Most were administrative kinds of things.
 
     Doesn't seem like a burgeoning rush to me.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Charles Lind /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 12:50:23 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, MD

 
In article <2b4k3a$o2j@news.acns.nwu.edu>, guy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Guy Metcalfe) writes:
>As someone who does experimental fluid dynamics, I'm shocked and
>appalled :-) you propose to appropriate the title "fluid-dynamics" for
>a group limited by its charter to only a subfield of fluid dynamics.
>Perhaps sci.cfd would better reflect the discussion outline of the
>proposed group.
>
>
 
>--
>       Guy Metcalfe
>       Northwestern University         guy@bart.chem-eng.nwu.edu
>       Dept. Chemical Engineering
 
 
Guy,
        Don't be appalled!!!  First, the moderator of news.newgroups.announce
didn't care for sci.cfd.  In fact, he recommended sci.math.fluid-dynamics.  He
wanted the title to be clear.  Second, the name is still up for discussion, if
you have any ideas let me know.
 
Charles
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlind cudfnCharles cudlnLind cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: How much energy is needed to start a fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How much energy is needed to start a fusion reaction?
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:01:26 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <56166@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>,
        mdebell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Matthew DeBell) writes:
|> I have a simple question: How much energy is required to start a
|> fusion reactor?  My interest is science-fictional, so a very
|> approximate figure is all I desire.  10 million joules?  100
|> million?  More?  Less?
 
In very general terms, here would be the tokamak version. The numbers
come from a colleague working on the ITER conceptual design activity.
 
density: line-averaged, 1 x 10 to the 14 per cm3
temperature: volume-averaged, 10 kilo electron volts, or about
                       100 million Kelvin
minor radius: elongated, cross-section area-equivalent, 3 meters
major radius: 6 meters
toroidal magnetic field [*]: about 5 Tesla
fusion power: 1 Gigawatt
thermal energy: about 500 Mega Joules
electric power [**]: 300 Megawatt
 
There is argument over a possible overhaul, which would give a machine
with about 3 times the energy and power, putting it in the ballpark of
conventional fission reactors.
 
[*] This gives a thermal/magnetic energy ratio of about 0.04, but remember
the field energy needs to be built up only once; this argues for long
pulses and superconducting coils. Whether reactors will eventually look
like this is anyone's guess.
 
[**] Assuming a fusion/electric power ratio consistent with conventional
fission reactors, since only the heat source is different.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:06:26 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CFu6KD.5rK@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>,
        kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Mike Kelsey) writes:
 
|> The Chernobyl accident involved a graphite moderated reactor in which the
|> graphite caught fire and burned, spewing radioactive smoke and contaminants
|> about.  It was not a "runaway fission reaction" (which is a polite term for a
|> fission bomb), and the fissionable material itself did not explode.
 
This may be a problem with message timing, but Matt Kennel posted in this
newsgroup the latest data from there, including the identification of the
iodine isotope (129, I think) telltale of a chain reaction explosion,
in the fallout.
 
Matt, do you have more details?
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Thomas Koenig /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: ig25@fg30.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:32:04 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany

lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind) writes:
 
>       Don't be appalled!!!  First, the moderator of news.newgroups.announce
>didn't care for sci.cfd.
 
I suppose you mean news.announce.newgroups ;)
 
>In fact, he recommended sci.math.fluid-dynamics.  He wanted the title
>to be clear.
 
When did this come up?  Did you mail to the group-advice list, or did
you submit a RfD, which he didn't accept?
 
I've noted that the RfD is not 'official', since news.announce.newgroups
was not among the groups it has been posted to; whith the momentum
things are currently going at, this should be changed as soon as
possible.
 
>Second, the name is still up for discussion, if you have any ideas let
>me know.
 
The field is called 'computational fluid dynamics'; what about
sci.comp.fluid-dynamics?
 
[Please not the followup to news.groups, where such discussions
belong].
--
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenig25 cudfnThomas cudlnKoenig cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:16:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <2b4k3a$o2j@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
        guy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Guy Metcalfe) writes:
 
|> As someone who does experimental fluid dynamics, I'm shocked and
|> appalled :-) you propose to appropriate the title "fluid-dynamics" for
|> a group limited by its charter to only a subfield of fluid dynamics.
|> Perhaps sci.cfd would better reflect the discussion outline of the
|> proposed group.
 
Your comments mirror both mine and Charles's. He was told by the
news.announce.newgroups moderator that cfd is unacceptably arcane unless
it falls under some other hierarchy, eg, sci.math.* as I originally
wanted. In any case, what we want is really a cfd group, suitably
placed, and suitably named. I suggest sci.math.* because that is where
all the demand is.
 
Correcting an earlier blunder, I have set followups to news.groups where
this discussion should take place.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:18:29 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CFu9t6.H9C@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
        crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
|> In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
|> Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
|> >This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
|> ...
|>
|> >
|> > The need for a group
|> >dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
|> >by the increased traffic in other groups.
|>
|>      Just curious.  What other groups?  I've got one unexpired message in
|>      sci.geo.fluids here, and about 20 at lambada.oit.unc.edu in the
|>      last week or so.  Most were administrative kinds of things.
|>
|>      Doesn't seem like a burgeoning rush to me.
 
I think you're right. Actually, there *is* a lot of traffic asking for this
in sci.math.num-analysis, which is why I want to call it sci.math.cfd. So
far, I have been out-voted on that.
 
Dale, are you interested enough in cfd to look forward to such a group?
 
Correcting an earlier blunder, I have set followups to news.groups, which is
where this should be discussed.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:20:51 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <93305.200329LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu>, <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
 
|> What if you put a hydride or boride or deuteride of a fissionable material
|> in a reactor, esp.  something that produces alphas as a by-product?  Do you
|> get any energy gains from 'accidental' fusions?
 
No, helium ash pollutes a reactor, making it harder to run. You might want
something that produces D, T, or He3. But I think anything like this you
put in will cost you more in dilution and impurity radiation (collisional
excitation) than it gets you. I don't know of any serious study on this,
however.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 843 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 843 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Subject: Metallic deuterium revisited
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 14:13:26 GMT
Date: 29 Oct 93 17:17:58 -0600
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
Steve Jones alias jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote in FD 1596
Subject: Metallic deuterium revisited
Date: 29 Oct 93 17:17:58 -0600
 
>Some weeks ago, I brought up the idea of forming metallic deuterium, using
>pure D2 (at cryogenic temperatures) then pressurizing in a diamond-anvil
>cell to >2 megabars to try to produce metallic deuterium.  Recently I came
>across an idea to form metallic hydrogen in a metallic-hydrogen+metal
>alloy by subjecting a metal hydride to very high pressures.  (B. Baranowski and
>T. Skoskiewicz of Warsaw, Poland in _High Pressure and Low-temperature Physics,
>1977)
 
>Starting with pure deuterium one can determine metallic deuterium formation
>from a change in conducting and optical properties.
>My question is:  how can one determine when metallic deuterium forms if
>one starts with a metal deuteride?  Indeed, what is the meaning of metallic
>deuterium under such conditions?  This matter was not explored in the paper,
>but I would be glad to hear comments or references to recent research in this
>area.
 
I can't answer the question but I suspect that a sharp change in the
conductivity would occur at this point. Anyway, metallic hydrogen seems to be
the flavour of the month. Last Update, we had Lyakhov et all, speculating on
its formation under Pd oxide, and now I note the update piece below, where
Enyo and Biswas estimate internal pressures as high as 10^6 atm in the Pd
hydride. Stev once mentioned, I think, that he needed 2*10^6 atm (is that
right, Steve?) to make the stuff, so this is about of the right magnitude,
and I thought I'd send off this lone item post haste. I first thought it would
go into "peripherals" but I already have their earlier paper in the cnf papers
list, and they do start with an allusion at least to cold fusion, which I
suspect motivated this work. I am happy to see the myth of the 10^26 atm
busted; I never did like it, although I couldn't say why not.
The next question, of course, is: what is the relevance of metallic hydrogen
(or deuterium) to cold fusion? I'll bet the mean d-d distance is still far too
great.
Also of interest will be the inference from this pressure, that H/Pd loading
was about unity; so those people who claim high loadings > 0.6 or 0.7 or so,
may be right. This is not in conflict with last week's update papers by Dillon
et al. They measured 0.6 or so, IN THE LATTICE, by neutron diffraction. That
doesn't rule out more deuterium hiding in voids etc., which would not be seen
by their technique.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 2-Nov-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 843
 
 
Journal papers: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enyo M, Biswas PC;                        J. Electroanal. Chem. 357 (1993) 67.
"Hydrogen pressure equivalent to overpotential on Pd + Ag alloy electrodes in
acidic solutions in the presence of thiourea".
** In order to get an estimate of the internal hydrogen(deuterium) pressure in
palladium hydride under electrolysis, it is sufficient to measure the chemical
potential of the adsorbed monatomic hydrogen on the Pd surface. The
electrolytic overpotential yields an overestimate of the pressure (through the
Nernst equation). This species, H(ads) can react in two directions, forming
either H2 gas, or entering the Pd bulk to form hydride; the relative rates of
the two reactions can be controlled by a surface blocker such as thiourea,
which suppresses the H2 branch. Enyo and Biswas use current interruption to
measure the true chemical potential of H(ads) for a range of Pd/Ag alloy
electrodes (it is believed that F&P are using such alloys in France). Chemical
potentials as large as -200 mV were measured, from which the workers infer an
internal hydrogen pressure as high as 10^6 atm. This exceeds their previous
results (JEC 335 (1992) 309) by a factor of 100, although still far below the
figure of 10^26 atm estimated (simple Nernst argument) by FPH-89. The new
figure might, however, be in the range for the formation of metallic hydrogen,
thought to be some 10^6 atm. The figure also allows an estimate of the loading
ratio H/Pd, which came to about 1.0.                             Sep-92/Oct-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  bearpaw /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 13:43:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
>In article <m0osQer-0000hDC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
>>The Tokamak takes between $300M and $400M per year.
>>
>>1 year's Tokamak budget is all that would be required to "properly test"
>>all three technologies of Farnsworth IEF, PLASMAK(tm) and P&F CNF.
 
>That is a joke, right? You're proposing to give Pons and Fleischman
>$100,000,000.00? Two guys that can't even write an understandable paper?
 
That is not what was proposed.  Read it again.
 
bearpaw
 
 ==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ======================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Arthur Carlson /  cluster impact fusion
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cluster impact fusion
Date: 2 Nov 1993 13:56:57 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

Hats off to three chemists who announced in 1989 that they had achieved fusion
without the high temperatures and expensive equipment considered necessary by
the mainstream.
 
Robert Beuhler, Lewis Friedman and Gerhart Friedlander of Brookhaven bombarded a
deuterium-loaded target with large clusters of heavy-water molecules, and found
evidence of a fusion rate 10 billion times greater than allowed by classical
theory. They not only had the scientific modesty to downplay the importance of
this discovery in public and submit the work to peer review, they also possessed
the intellectual integrity to listen to their critics, go back to the lab, and
prove themselves wrong! Their explaination of their error as due to small ion
impurities has been accepted for publication in Phys Rev A.
 
Source: Science, 22 Oct 1993, p. 509
 
 
Art Carlson
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnCarlson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Pd loading
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd loading
Date: 2 Nov 1993 16:41:44 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Concerning palladium loading, is the answer to the following question
known?
 
At what pressure, if at all, does the average separation between D nuclei
in Pd less than that in the D2 molecule?
 
[I assume the separation in a D2 molecule is not very pressure-sensitive.
The catch in the above question is the prospect that D fails to be
further adsorbed into Pd beyond some finite loading at any given pressure.]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / A Boulanger /  Re: Aluminum rings for Droege
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aluminum rings for Droege
Date: 2 Nov 93 12:28:20
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <93102914053590@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
 
   I have had to deal with some of the questions Tom Droege raises in relation
   to starting materials for the fabrication of his new calorimeter.  When it
   comes to fabricating aluminum rings in onezy-twozy quantities the best
   solution always turns out to be band-sawing them out of plate.  Even though
   that seems wasteful of material the other possible approaches always add
   a lot of extra operations which have costs that more than offset the
   material.  Rolling and welding a ring is tough to get done very accurately
   because the ends of the bar tend to remain straight because they have to
   be clamped during the rolling.  That results in a flat region around the
   weld.  To correct for that the ring has to be rerolled or you just have
   to allow for more material to be turned off.  Either way the added operations
   aren't worth the effort.
 
Instead of band-sawing, why not use a fly cutter on a drill press? You
need to rotate the cutting head to get a nice edge to the ring.
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Thomas Orth /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 18:47:05 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois

In article <2b4312INNfq2@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.n
t (Matt Kennel) writes:
|> Thomas D. Orth (orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov) wrote:
|> : Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission reactors aren't
|> : unmitigated runaway fission reactions.
|>
|> Don't tell that to the people in Ukraine.  (yeah it was a chain nuclear
|> reaction)
|>
Obviously, I wasn't referring to Chernobyl, a positive temp. coefficient core.
Instead, I was referring to existing US reactors, and any which would be built
in the future.  A neutron beam driven subcritical reactor would have the same
decay heat problems as a normal reactor.
|> built generation" reactors don't have such a luxury.
|>
|> Don't get me wrong, I'm 111% in favor of 'inherently safe' economical
|> fission plants.
|>
|> : Tom Orth
|> : orth@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
|> : Speaking for myself
|>
|>
|> --
|> -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".
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
orth@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenorth cudfnThomas cudlnOrth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Thomas Orth /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 18:50:33 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois

 
|>    More an agreement than a disagreement.  Molten Salt Reactors are
|> exactly like your Porsche, since the core is molten salt (in a
|> graphite matrix) the possibility of 1) catastrophic core meltdown 2)
|> loss of coolant accidents (the molten salt IS the coolant) and 3)
|> coolent contamination by nuclear fuel (see previous comment) are all
|> irrelevant.  (Why aren't we all using MSR generated power?  Well,
|> there is one other little detail...an MSR breeds thorium into U-233,
|> so an MSR can be used as an "easy" source of refinable fissile
|> material.
|>
Well, sort of.  The molten salt craps up the steam generators and all of the piping.
I understand that materials were developed to handle some of the corrosion problems as
well.  Since the fuel is suspended in solution, it could be dumped quickly to some
storage pit via a dump valve, spread out to increase surface area and thus cooling.
It also alleviates any criticality concerns.  The reactor would operate on a sort of
continuous fueling as well (being liquid enables this).  Oak Ridge actually built
a prototype.
|>
|>
|> --
|>
|>                                      Robert I. Eachus
|>
|> with Standard_Disclaimer;
|> use  Standard_Disclaimer;
|> function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
orth@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenorth cudfnThomas cudlnOrth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Fleischmann's response
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fleischmann's response
Date: 1 Nov 93 18:41:58 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

As others have pointed out, there does seem to be a reproducibility problem
with cold fusion and this net.  I'm particularly interested in a posting
by John Logajan on 27 Oct. in which he refers to "Fleischmann's response"
evidently posted by Jed Rothwell.  But I haven't seen this Rothwell posting.
Could Jed please re-post it?  Or John, if you would please post salient
portions, we could take a look at it.
 
Thanks, Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 17:12:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov1.005054.1614@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I
>said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes
>much simpler.  Care to refute this, or are you going to evade?
 
   Why do you think it becomes much simpler?
 
>I see.  And you think it would have been good to eliminate our old
>enemy the USSR once it got nukes, then?
 
     It is prudent to make sure adversaries do not develop nuclear weapons.
     However, this is possible with some, and not possible with others.
 
     Discussing those for which it is impossible is pointless, however,
     in the context of this discussion.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Scott Lindstrom /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: shipman@heckyll.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 20:43:24 GMT
Organization: U of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
|> >This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
|> ...
|>
|> >
|> > The need for a group
|> >dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
|> >by the increased traffic in other groups.
|>
|>      Just curious.  What other groups?  I've got one unexpired message in
|>      sci.geo.fluids here, and about 20 at lambada.oit.unc.edu in the
|>      last week or so.  Most were administrative kinds of things.
|>
|>      Doesn't seem like a burgeoning rush to me.
|>
 
Also, how does the prospective group mesh with the comp.fluid.dynamics group
being bandied about on sci.math.num-analysis?  (Although I have not yet seen a
RFD for that group)
 
I have to agree, though.  In the groups this message was cross-posted to that I
read with any frequency (sgmeteo and sgfluids), it does not seem necessary.
 
Scott
--
   The only other sound's the sweep of easy wind and downy flake
 
shipman@heckyll.gso.uri.edu 4017926516 URI GSO NBC Narragansett RI 02882
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenshipman cudfnScott cudlnLindstrom cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / anthony rizzo /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: rizzo@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (anthony.r.rizzo)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 20:56:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Nov2.161452.9555@afit.af.mil> leldred@csc.afit.af.mil writes:
>   If people are concerned about low traffic and the experimental
>fluid dynamicists are concerned about being left out... why not
>expand the charter to include the experimentalists ... [stuff deleted].
>
>Dr. Lloyd Eldred
 
 
OK!  What's wrong with             sci.engr.fluids       ?
 
Tony Rizzo
 
And I happen to think that Dr. Genichi Taguchi has had a much greater
impact on engineering throughout the world than has Dick Rutan!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrizzo cudfnanthony cudlnrizzo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 19:17:16 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov2.162236.15593@rsg1.er.usgs.gov>,
        jmwilk@dorprx.wr.usgs.gov (James M. Wilkinson) writes:
 
[concerning the proposed sci.fluid-dynamics]
 
|> So far I've seen a lot of talk about which hierarchy (sci.math, sci.eng, etc.) to
|> locate this one in. The traffic generated thus far evidences the varied
|> backgrounds of people with interests in CFD, myself included. I really don't
|> think that the new group should be pigeon-holed in one particular hierarchy.
|> As a geologist and a ground-water modeler I don't read groups in the sci.math and
|> sci.eng hierarchies. The diversity of people responding to this RFD indicates to
|> me that the new group should be at the sci.*** or comp.*** level. As far as the
|> actual name of the group goes, either one is fine.
 
These are good points; let us see what the news.announce.newgroups moderator
comes up with. I notice the formal RFD has not appeared there yet.
 
[Followups to news.groups]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 21:50:14 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov2.161452.9555@afit.af.mil>,
        leldred@csc.afit.af.mil writes:
 
|>    If people are concerned about low traffic and the experimental
|> fluid dynamicists are concerned about being left out... why not
|> expand the charter to include the experimentalists and keep the
|> name "sci.fluid-dynamics".
|>    It seems natural to me. I know a good dose of reality every
|> once in a while is healthy for us computational engineers.
 
One alternative under study is sci.fluids; what do people think of that?
It may be that we have trouble getting *.cfd or *.fluid-dynamics
accepted.
 
[followups to news.groups]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 00:50:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <19931027.190010.840@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>          I posted:
>>         How do you figure this?  A breeder economy does not require
>>that every country have its own breeder reactors or access to weapons
>>grade material.  In any case if an energy solution requires
>>eliminating Iran, Libya and Cuba as independent states I am sure
>>that could be arranged.
>          and:
>>         Clearly you are easily shocked.  For the record, I consider
>>the proliferation critique of fission breeders to be basically silly
>>since there are easier ways for nations to develop nuclear weapons
>>should they wish to do so.
>         Robert Heeter replied:
>>Are there?  I guess I'm underinformed here.  I've read that the breeder
>>reactor designs typically use higher-grade fuels, and are *designed*
>>to create more radioactive material, thus making it simpler to
>>acquire the nasty stuff that you need to make bombs.  I'm shocked by
>>your disbelief in the proliferation critique, I'm shocked that you're
>>willing to consider elimination of various nations in order to support
>>a breeder-based energy system.  The shock isn't so much due to the
>>apparent inhumanity of the comment as it is due to the fact that
>>that kind of political baggage makes the breeder much more costly.
>>But if you can explain why you think there are easier ways to get
>>weapons-grade materials, I'll shut up.
>
>         Dale Bass has already responded to this, I will just add that
>that since none of the nations which have nuclear weapons obtained
>them by developing power breeder reactors as an intermediate step it
>seems unlikely that this is the easiest way.
 
I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I
said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes
much simpler.  Care to refute this, or are you going to evade?
 
>         As for inhumanity, I fail to see what is inhumane in
>suggesting that the world might inpose different governments on Iran
>Libya and Cuba if these countries appeared to otherwise be about to
>obtain nuclear weapons.
 
I see.  And you think it would have been good to eliminate our old
enemy the USSR once it got nukes, then?   Same logic holds.  Who decides
what countries to "impose different governments on"?  How much are you
willing to pay for that?  How much does that increase the effective cost
of energy for a breeder economy?  (Don't forget that you now have to set
a value on all the lives that will be lost in whatever war you fight to
make the world safe for breeder technology.)  What about those countries
that would willingly impose a new government on *the US* after the
hardships we've imposed upon them?
 
I still think that if you're going to go with a breeder-based energy
economy, you have to factor in the external costs associated with the
political impacts it has.  And I don't think that eliminating countries
(or merely replacing governments) is a viable solution.
 
 
>         Robert Heeter said:
>>                                                   ...  Regardless,
>>the breeder economy necessarily entails that any country which wants
>>energy independence is going to learn how to build a breeder.
>         I replied:
>>         Your last sentence is obviously false.  Nations want many
>>things.  This does not mean that will obtain them.
>         Robert Heeter added:
>>Well, when it comes to energy independence, which is perhaps second
>>only to social stability as a prerequisite for a viable economy,
>>and when there's no fossil fuel lying around anymore, I really wonder
>>whether I might actually be right.  Perhaps I should have said that
>>in a world where only the breeder gives you the fuel you need, any
>>nation which wants energy independence is going to put in a lot of
>>effort to make a breeder, and it's going to take a lot of effort
>>to prevent them from doing so, if you decide that there's a large
>>proliferation risk.  The thrust of the idea is just that you're
>>going to have a lot of external costs with a breeder economy; although
>>I suppose we're putting up with similar costs in todays oil economy
>>(things like oil shocks, Persian gulf wars, and the like).  Fusion
>>would be less likely to have this sort of problem.  (Any room
>>for agreement here now?)
>
>         Not much, your claim that energy independence is a prerequisite
>for a viable economy is clearly absurd.  Do you believe the United
>States, Japan etc. currently have non-viable economies?  Most nations
>want energy independence only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
 
I would claim that the US and Japan have viable economies only insofar
as we have adequate military force to *ensure* an adequate energy
supply.  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Rapid Deployment Force
are both examples of ways in which the US tried to make certain that
it would be able to survive an oil squeeze and protect oil production
in the mideast.  Perhaps "energy security" is a better term to describe
my idea than energy independence.  If there's no oil, and you rely on the
generosity of other countries to provide you with fission fuel since
you don't have a breeder, you will have a strong incentive to either
develop your own breeder or become very close allies with someone who
has one.  This will certainly apply to the major nations and the pariah
nations of the world.  You're right in that it's a cost-benefit
situation, and nations which feel secure in their alliances will
probably choose not to develop breeders.  But the gist of my
argument is that a breeder economy is inevitably going to have a
lot of extra costs associated with it due to the political problems
it will introduce.
 
>         I said:
>>         Fission wins over fusion because based on what we know today
>>fission plants will be cheaper than fusion plants.  I don't believe
>>disposal of reactor waste presents a serious technical problem for
>>fission plants (although it is certainly a political problem).
>         Robert Heeter replied:
>>Ok, I agree with you here.  But I wasn't thinking about building a
>>fusion plant with today's technology!  I was really asking whether
>>you thought fission was better as a *long-term* energy solution.  And
>>I wasn't asking for a purely scientific analysis - I think the political
>>aspect is also relevant.  It's very difficult to get people to accept
>>fission.  I have trouble with your conclusion that waste disposal isn't
>>a serious technical problem.  On the timescales over which the
>>high-level waste has to be isolated, there seems to be a fair amount
>>of uncertainty regarding how safe the current proposals are.  I'm
>>not saying you're wrong, just that I need more information in order
>>to completely accept the claim that waste isn't a problem.
>
>         I consider this to be an economic question not a scientific
>question.  If fission is cheaper it's better.  I refuse to consider
>the political aspect since this just encourages advocates of one tech-
>nology to invent spurious but politically attractive arguments against
>alternatives.  It is my understanding that simply dumping the waste in
>the deep ocean would be safe enough.  (I am not advocating this).
>Would this pose any real threat to people?  By the way how long does
>it take before fission waste is as safe as uranium ore?
 
I sympathize with your desire to stop arguing political issues.
I guess what I'd like to know is how certain we can be that if we
dispose of the waste, it will stay put.  Dumping the waste in the
ocean will certainly dilute it, but then you're going to have lots
of plankton ingesting it, and then it goes up the food chain, and
I imagine it's conceivable that you could have some pretty radioactive
fish being caught and sold as food.  I don't have the tools to
analyze this fully, though.  But you're not advocating dumping it
in the oceans.  Where do you want to put it, then?
 
I don't have my little chart with me that says how long it takes for
fission waste to become as safe as uranium ore.  The same chart
showed comparative waste analyses for different fusion models and
contrasted it with a breeder plant; the timescale for fission wastes
to decay to uranium-ore levels was at least 100 years.  A silicon-carbide
fusion plant would take about 1 day.
 
>         Robert Heeter posted:
>>Ok, I think anything in my lifetime is not far future, so we just have
>>a timescale disagreement here.  As far as aeronautics, consider that
>>50 years ago the germans were just developing jet aircraft, and rocket
>>flight, and radar instrumentation.  50 years doesn't strike me as
>>such a bad horizon, especially because energy seems to move more slowly
>>than other areas of technology.
>
>         Money was spent 50 years ago developing jet aircraft, rocket
>flight and radar because it was believed (correctly) that militarily
>useful results would be obtained quickly (within a few years).  If
>fusion had similar near term prospects I would support it.
 
Sure, but I'm just trying to explain why a 50-year timeframe is
reasonable.
Right now we're still working on the basic science, so your near-term
prospects criterion doesn't quite apply.  You wrote below that you
support the basic science, just not the large machines.  Let me
discuss that...
 
>         I said:
>>         I would put some research money into fusion relevant basic
>>science.  I would not build large test machines until they are needed
>>to validate an economically viable power plant design.
>         Robert Heater replied:
>>I wholeheartedly agree, at least insofar as I understand what you've
>>said.  But I'd better ask some questions for clarification.
>>What do you mean by "large test machine"?  What if someone believes
>>that the tokamak will be an economically viable design by the time
>>we get the test machines built?  What if we need the large machine
>>in order to understand the engineering of a viable reactor?  How can
>>we know what we need for a viable plant design unless we build one
>>and work out the problems?  How does one know whether a particular
>>confinement scheme will work well as a power plant without building
>>a machine large enough to get reactor-relevant plasma conditions?
>
>         "Large test machine" means TFTR and especially ITER.
>         It is pointless to work on engineering problems which even if
>solved satisfactorily do not give a economically viable design.
 
        Sure, but the whole point of building the larger machines is to
develop engineering solutions which will be economically viable.
(More coming up on this.)
 
>         I would rather see money going towards improving computer
>simulation codes to the point where you can judge designs without
>having to build expensive test machines.  I have no idea how feasible
>this is at the moment (which is why I asked in a previous post what
>the current state of the art is).
 
        Well, the trouble with just writing computer simulation codes is
that you can't know if they're correct without comparing them with
real-life experience.  If you want to simulate a large, expensive
test machine, you have know what the behavior is going to be in
advance.  There *are* computer simulations which will model things
using known scaling laws; it's also true that you can look at
various plant designs without building the machines.  But you can't
be certain whether a given design really works without building it.
One of the big problems with plasma physics is that each time you
build a new, larger machine, the plasma finds new ways to do things
you'd never have expected beforehand.  The recent design studies I
tend to cite (ESECOM, ARIES) have concluded that a large fusion
machine is likely to be economically viable.  These studies tend
to assume certain science developments, and the developments can't
be made unless we have at least one large machine.
 
I guess the essence of what I'm trying to say is that you *can*
judge designs without building the machines, except insofar as the
designs incorporate untested technological innovations.  If you want
to make progress, the designs can help to tell you what sorts of
machines are likely to work, and they can tell you what problems you
need to investigate, but they can't solve the problems for you.  You
*need* to do empirical tests with actual hardware.
 
I'm not saying I necessarily support the current research programme -
I'd prefer to see money spent on developing smaller machines with
faster lead times, developing alternatives to the tokamak, and trying
to make the tokamak work better so that you don't *need* a huge
machine like ITER.  But you can't get away from the TFTR-sized machines;
you just have to have experimental data to check out your simulations.
 
[Physics employment commentary deleted, as it's been addressed by others.]
 
*******************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 02:14:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <m0osQer-0000hDC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
>
>>The Tokamak takes between $300M and $400M per year.
>>
>>1 year's Tokamak budget is all that would be required to "properly test"
>>all three technologies of Farnsworth IEF, PLASMAK(tm) and P&F CNF.
>
>That is a joke, right? You're proposing to give Pons and Fleischman
>$100,000,000.00? Two guys that can't even write an understandable paper?
 
First, I don't want the GOVERNMENT to provide financing to ANY technology
as it is the worst form of "picking winners" imaginable.
 
Second, P&F CNF was, perhaps due to our ignorance on the subject at the time,
placed a distant third behind PLASMAK(tm) and Farnsworth's IEF.  We never
pursued investors in P&F CNF.  I admit I haven't followed the CNF
literature as closely as many in this group.  At the time CSC made the
estimates of business viability of various fusion technologies, the set of
research papers clearly showed a preemptive attack on CNF by "the fusion
 establishment" with a hoard of bad papers claiming to establish incredibly
low "upper limits" on P&F CNF.  Since the fusion establishment's technical
credibility is negative, such energetic political attacks were taken to
mean, in the absence of good papers by P&F, that there might be something
to P&F's technology.  That political opposition is still the strongest
indicator that there might be something to P&F CNF.
 
Third, as I stated previously, it probably isn't practical to invest in
P&F anyway, due to the fact that they are fully funded by the Japanese
and any additional capital would buy very little equity.  That is assuming
the Japanese allowed any outside investment at all.  (BTW:  I can't currently
 discount the possibility that the Japanese have an ongoing program of
 industrial espionage operating via their ITER contacts, whose objective
 it is to so marginalize alternative fusion technologies in the U.S. so that
 they become easy pickings for Japanese industrialists.  If you are quick
 to discount such a possibility as "paranoid", you are exactly the sort of
 fool such a program would need, in numbers, to succeed here in the U.S.)
 
>You have a pretty sick sense of humor.
 
God must have a sense of humor to place the following message right after
yours in the Fusion Digest stream (but I like God's sense of humor -- well
 most of the time ;-):
 
brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:
>Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
>jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
>
>>I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
>>disgraced scientists go, with their respective tails between their
>>legs, and now I see all kinds of talk intimating that the whole `Cold
>>Fusion' debate is still alive?!  Have I stumbled into
>>alt.fusion.fond.theories.rehashed by mistake?
>
>Apparently disgraced scientists go to southern France (next to the Frence
>Rivera) with millions of dollars of research money.  I want to be a disgraced
>scientist!
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / John Logajan /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 842 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 842 papers, 131 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 13:46:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>They do see vigorous bubbling when they cut the electrolysis current, and
>ascribe it to a possible surface layer that is superloaded. How about D2 in
>voids?
>The loading was calculated from the diffraction pattern to be 0.59.
 
It would be interesting to know just how super-loaded the super loading
is.  If it is in voids, we could be talking 10k+ atmospheres.
 
 
>Results, showing some heat bursts, indicated
>that a surface oxide plays a role, leading to the formation of some metallic
>hydrogen, which breaks down due to mechanical relaxation, forming dihydrogen
>as well as water by oxidation, thereby releasing heat. This is sufficient to
>explain excess heat observations. and a nuclear origin is not required.
 
hee hee "water by oxidation" is also known as recombination.
 
Wouldn't the "breakdown" of metallic hydrogen be endothermic?
 
I mean, I can't get metallic copper to turn into gas without an input of
energy.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Chris Hall /  Re: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
     
Originally-From: chall@geo.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
Date: 2 Nov 1993 14:41:53 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Seismological Observatory

>
>In article <2b4312INNfq2@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.
et (Matt Kennel) writes:
>|> Thomas D. Orth (orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov) wrote:
>|> : Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission reactors aren't
>|> : unmitigated runaway fission reactions.
>|>
>|> Don't tell that to the people in Ukraine.  (yeah it was a chain nuclear
>|> reaction)
>
>The Chernobyl accident involved a graphite moderated reactor in which the
>graphite caught fire and burned, spewing radioactive smoke and contaminants
>about.  It was not a "runaway fission reaction" (which is a polite term for a
>fission bomb), and the fissionable material itself did not explode.
>
>Yes, the reactor was unstable, in the sense that a loss of control rods would
>allow the chain reaction to proceed too rapidly and increase the core
>temperature too high, but it was not "runaway."  _All_ reactors operate via
 
I believe this last is not quite true. I attended a seminar by the US
physicist who was sent to investigate the incident (he was also featured
in a NOVA program about Chernobyl, but I can't remember the name).
 
Anyway, the poorly conceived `test' of the reactor which caused the accident
involved extremely low power level operation. Virtually all of the control
rods were out at the time. What happened was that the reactor went `prompt
critical', meaning that it no longer needed the contribution of relatively
slow decays (approx 30 sec?) to add the extra neutrons needed to sustain
the reaction. When this happened (and it is much more likely at low power
levels) the power output shot up many thousands of percent, which blew the
top off the reactor building and started the fire. If this is not an un-
controlled runaway reaction, I don't know what would be called a runaway
reaction.
 
Chris Hall
chall@geo.lsa.umich.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchall cudfnChris cudlnHall cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / John Logajan /  Re: How much energy is needed to start a fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How much energy is needed to start a fusion reaction?
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 16:00:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mdebell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Matthew DeBell) writes:
>How much energy is required to start a fusion reactor?  My interest is
>science-fictional
 
Well, going with the science-fictional side, if one imagines some contained
chain reaction device, it is likely to be set off spontaneously by
random quantum tunneling, radioactive decay, or cosmic ray, etc.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / James Wilkinson /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: jmwilk@dorprx.wr.usgs.gov (James M. Wilkinson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 16:22:36 GMT
Organization: US Geological Survey

In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
> This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
> original post still contained the name sci.cfd; I have removed this.
> It is further clarified that CFD means Computational Fluid Dynamics.
> .......
> The proposed name sci.fluid-dynamics is specific enough to define the group,
> but general enough to welcome researchers from all disciplines.
> .......
>         Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but
> not limited to:
>
>         * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
>                 unstructured, 2D, 3D,
>         * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
>         * Multigrid methods
>         * Finite difference methods
>         * Finite volume methods
>         * Finite element methods
>         * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
>                       unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
>         * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
>         * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
>         * Visualization
 
So far I've seen a lot of talk about which hierarchy (sci.math, sci.eng, etc.) to
locate this one in. The traffic generated thus far evidences the varied
backgrounds of people with interests in CFD, myself included. I really don't
think that the new group should be pigeon-holed in one particular hierarchy.
As a geologist and a ground-water modeler I don't read groups in the sci.math and
sci.eng hierarchies. The diversity of people responding to this RFD indicates to
me that the new group should be at the sci.*** or comp.*** level. As far as the
actual name of the group goes, either one is fine.
--
James M Wilkinson                              (503) 251-3466
jmwilk@dorprx.wr.usgs.gov          Standard Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjmwilk cudfnJames cudlnWilkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  leldred@csc.af /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: leldred@csc.afit.af.mil
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 16:14:10 GMT
Organization: WPAFB/AFIT, WPAFB, OH

   If people are concerned about low traffic and the experimental
fluid dynamicists are concerned about being left out... why not
expand the charter to include the experimentalists and keep the
name "sci.fluid-dynamics".
   It seems natural to me. I know a good dose of reality every
once in a while is healthy for us computational engineers.
 
Dr. Lloyd Eldred
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenleldred cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / John Logajan /  Super-reflector,  was CNF bibliography update
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Super-reflector,  was CNF bibliography update
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 16:14:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Dillon CT, Kennedy BJ, Elcombe MM;               Aust. J. Chem. 46 (1993) 681.
>The loading was calculated from the diffraction pattern to be 0.59.
>there was vigorous outgassing when the current was stopped; the authors
>speculate that a super-loaded near-surface layer may exist.
 
Their speculation implies a outer layer discontinuity, which I believe
Terry Bollinger was speculating about a while back.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / MF Murphy /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: mamfm@irix.bris.ac.uk (MF. Murphy)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran,sci.
ath.num-analysis
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 16:42:44 GMT
Organization: University of Bristol, England

:         Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but
: not limited to:
:
:         * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
:                 unstructured, 2D, 3D,
:         * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
:         * Multigrid methods
:         * Finite difference methods
:         * Finite volume methods
:         * Finite element methods
:         * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
:                       unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
:         * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
:         * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
:         * Visualization
 
It seems to me that most of these proposed topics are of a wider
interest; certainly including sci.math.num-analysis and presumably a few
others as well.  I for one do not want to have to subscribe to another
group only to see a lot of stuff cross-posted.  The topics above are _in
no way_ unique to CFD and to suggest that they warrant a new group seems
ridiculous to me.  There _may_ well be things that do warrant a CFD
 
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Murphy                       email: Malcolm.Murphy@bristol.ac.uk
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmamfm cudfnMF cudlnMurphy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 2 Nov 1993 16:37:47 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

>         Money was spent 50 years ago developing jet aircraft, rocket
>flight and radar because it was believed (correctly) that militarily
>useful results would be obtained quickly (within a few years).  If
>fusion had similar near term prospects I would support it.
 
I just wanted to point out that jet aircraft and radar both had very much
of the pertinent basic science essentially solved at least 50 years
before they entered serious development. Fusion via magnetic confinement
has central components of its basic science still to be worked out,
maybe even discovered (we are not even sure that the ExB turbulence
paradigm is the right one, even though there is much circumstantial
evidence).
 
That, in a nutshell, is why it is premature to build ITER.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Ad aspera /  FYI #145 (Fusion in conference)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: FYI #145 (Fusion in conference)
Date: 3 Nov 1993 00:43:16 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 
[Written by the American Institute of Physics and posted by us.
Respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other references below.  Always
posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
column WHAT'S NEW, archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous
FTP'ing pleasure, courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]
 
DOE Fiscal Year 1994 Final Conference Report:  Fusion
 
November 2, 1993, No. 145
 
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, H.R. 2445,
which provides funding for DOE programs and sealed the fate of the
SSC, was signed into law by President Clinton on October 28.  While
previous FYIs tracked the SSC's demise, this and the following FYI
will provide details on fiscal year 1994 funding for other DOE
physics-related research programs.
 
Below are selected portions of the House-Senate conference report
language pertaining to fusion.
 
MAGNETIC FUSION:
 
"The conferees provide $347,595,000 [the full request] for the
magnetic fusion energy program."  This amount equals the House's
allowance and exceeds the Senate's.  Fiscal year 1993 funding was
$339,710,000.
 
"The conferees note with approval that the international
thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) engineering design
activity phase of the program has commenced.  The conferees direct
the Department of Energy to focus the Department's magnetic fusion
energy program on national program elements that further the
design, construction, and operation of the international
thermonuclear experimental reactor and a future fusion
demonstration reactor.
 
"The Department is directed to set priorities for the domestic
fusion program identifying those elements that contribute directly
to the development of ITER or to the development of a fusion
demonstration reactor.  The Department will provide a plan that
describes the selection process for the proposed site within the
United States for ITER, the necessary steps that will lead to the
final selection of a host site for ITER by the countries involved
in the ITER program [Russia, Japan, and the European Community],
and the schedule and critical path including milestones and budget
that will be necessary to allow for the design, construction, and
operation of ITER by 2005.  Of the available funds, $64,000,000 is
included for ITER design and R&D.  Within available funds,
$2,000,000 is provided to begin the evaluation and selection of a
U.S. host site for ITER.
 
"The deuterium-tritium experiments that will be conducted on the
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), located at the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory (PPPL), are to have the highest priority within
the U.S. fusion energy program during fiscal year 1994.
 
"In support of ITER design and R&D tasks, and further development
of a fusion demonstration reactor, $20,000,000 is included for
design work on the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX).  The
successful operation of both TPX and ITER is necessary for the
development of an attractive fusion demonstration reactor.  The TPX
facility will be a national facility that takes advantage of the
site credits at PPPL.  The Department is directed to ensure that
U.S. industry is fully involved in the design of TPX.  Thus, it is
the intent of the conferees for the TPX project to proceed with
design activity including industrial participation in the
engineering design and R&D.  The Department should utilize
standard, phased, industrial contracts for these design activities
with options for construction that would permit continuity and
would allow the project, if it should be approved in the future, to
be completed in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
 
"The Department is directed to proceed with the upgrade of the
DIII-D tokamak facility including increasing operating time to
expedite the formulation of design solutions for TPX and ITER.
 
"The conferees direct the Department to begin an aggressive low
activation fusion materials program with the goal of developing and
characterizing low activation materials that could be tested in
ITER and utilized in a future demonstration power reactor."
 
INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION:
 
DOE supports work in Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) under two
program areas.  Research on ICF as an energy source is carried out
within the Magnetic Fusion program, while weapons-related ICF
research is performed within the Atomic Energy Defense Activities
program.
 
Under the Magnetic Fusion program area, $4,000,000 [the full
request] is provided for ICF, along with the following report
language:
 
"The conferees agree with the House report language providing a
$500,000 increase, within available funds, for inertial fusion
energy, and strongly urge the Department to maintain a viable
inertial fusion energy program and move forward with a timely
decision on the Inertial Linac Systems Experiment that would allow,
if a favorable decision is rendered, construction to begin in
fiscal year 1995."
[To quote Hank Williams, Jr., "Yee-haw!"   Ahem.  -jc :]
 
Under Atomic Energy Defense Activities, $188,413,000 - also the
full request - is provided for defense-related ICF.
 
 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
Date: 2 Nov 93 18:35:15
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2b5mrjINNfjr@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
  > No, helium ash pollutes a reactor, making it harder to run. You
  > might want something that produces D, T, or He3. But I think
  > anything like this you put in will cost you more in dilution and
  > impurity radiation (collisional excitation) than it gets you. I
  > don't know of any serious study on this, however.
 
  Ask the CANDU folk if you are really curious. (CANDU = Canadian
Deuterium Reactors)  Those things are deuterium-moderated natural
uranium fueled reactors, and probably the major source of commercial
tritium.  I think that most of the tritium they produce comes from
neutron capture by deuterium, but I'm not sure.
 
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  aaron.banerjee /  RE: FUSION ECONOMICS ( WAS FUSION ETH
     
Originally-From: aaron.banerjee@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: FUSION ECONOMICS ( WAS FUSION ETH
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 93 19:17:06
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD

 
   Speaking of "environmental" power ideas, there's a patent for a power system
which reflects energy from the sun to a point on the earth where it is
"utilized" to produce electricity.  Of course, if a rock hits the satellite,
you could microwave the neighborhood...
       - Aaron Banerjee.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenbanerjee cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 01:28:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0osQer-0000hDC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
> The Tokamak takes between $300M and $400M per year.
>
> 1 year's Tokamak budget is all that would be required to "properly test"
> all three technologies of Farnsworth IEF, PLASMAK(tm) and P&F CNF.
>
 
I seriously doubt it. It would be enough to thoroughly test CF,
since it is claimed that that is just an electrolysis experiment.
 
But any magnetic confinment concept requires tens of millions of
dollars just for a single minimal testing. The problem is the scaling:
you just can build a prototype device that will fit on a desktop
and expect it to tell you anything about a full sized device (unlike,
say, aircraft design). For e.g., a tokamak that is  10 cm in diameter
could never be used to investigate high energy operation, since it
is on the scale of the particle gyro-radii.
 
I'm not sure about IEF, tho.
 
Anyway, the problem is that no one wants to gamble ~100M$ on
a unproven concept, and of course this leads to catch-22.
 
 
--
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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Reactors and accidents (was Re: Neutron Beam)
Date: 3 Nov 1993 03:40:26 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Mike Kelsey (kelsey@jupiter.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: No longer germane to sci.physics.accelerators, so I've taken it out
: of the newsgroups line.
 
: In article <2b4312INNfq2@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU
net (Matt Kennel) writes:
: |> Thomas D. Orth (orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov) wrote:
: |> : Not quite true.  The safety problems associated with fission reactors aren't
: |> : unmitigated runaway fission reactions.
: |>
: |> Don't tell that to the people in Ukraine.  (yeah it was a chain nuclear
: |> reaction)
 
: The Chernobyl accident involved a graphite moderated reactor in which the
: graphite caught fire and burned, spewing radioactive smoke and contaminants
: about.  It was not a "runaway fission reaction" (which is a polite term for a
: fission bomb), and the fissionable material itself did not explode.
 
: Yes, the reactor was unstable, in the sense that a loss of control rods would
: allow the chain reaction to proceed too rapidly and increase the core
: temperature too high, but it was not "runaway."
 
Is the question of "runaway" or "not runaway" an arbitrary cutoff in the
coefficient in the exponential?
 
Here's what I heard from a Ukrainian physicist who came by our group:
 
The bozos turned off a safety system in which backup control rods
automatically go in if the core temperature gets too hot.  They were
experimenting with some method to "increase efficiency"; it turns out that
this 'experiment' had already been done and published.  Anyway, things
fucked up and when they try to put in the regular control rods, the thing
had gotten hot enough that the thermal expansion prevented the rods from
going all the way down; they got stuck only a little bit in.  In this
position, paradoxically the reaction actually got worse (for reasons I don't
know).
 
There was then an explosion---before the fire.  This explosion was strong
enough to blow through steel reinforced concrete.  It was a runaway nuclear
reaction which was halted by the reactor disassembling itself below
criticality.  The key evidence was the amount of iodine in the fallout.
This particular isotope has a short halflife, and is a product of
fission reactions.  The large amount found was calculated to come from
a burst of fission that occured at the same time as the explosion.
The waste products of the core (from the long-term operation of the
plant) would not have much of this iodine because most would have decayed.
 
It is true that the external damage was caused by the graphite burning,
whose convection picked up the shit in the core and spread all around.
(But what started the fire?)
 
 
:                                               -- M. Kelsey
 
--
-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:
cuddy3 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 /  Themmie /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: teg@homer.dsto.gov.au (Themmie)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 03:30:05 GMT
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

In article <2b5mimINNfjr@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
>|> As someone who does experimental fluid dynamics, I'm shocked and
>|> appalled :-) you propose to appropriate the title "fluid-dynamics" for
>|> a group limited by its charter to only a subfield of fluid dynamics.
>|> Perhaps sci.cfd would better reflect the discussion outline of the
>|> proposed group.
 
>Your comments mirror both mine and Charles's. He was told by the
>news.announce.newgroups moderator that cfd is unacceptably arcane unless
>it falls under some other hierarchy, eg, sci.math.* as I originally
>wanted.  In any case, what we want is really a cfd group, suitably
>placed, and suitably named. I suggest sci.math.* because that is where
>all  the demand is.
 
>Dr Bruce Scott
 
*unnacceptably arcane*.  There are newsgroups in comp.* whose names are
arcane to me, but I'm sure that if you're working in the field of fluids,
physics, maths, engineering, med_eng, etc, etc, etc and you are interested
in CFD then you'll know what CFD means.
 
I would support sci.cfd as the name, but would strongly dissagree with
sci.fluid-dynamics for an entirely computational/numerical news group.
 
Dr. Mark Petrusma
max@homer.dsto.gov.au
Defence Science & Technology Organisation
Salisbury   SA    Australia
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenteg cudlnThemmie cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 22:03:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CFu9t6.H9C@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>>This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
>...
>
>>
>> The need for a group
>>dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
>>by the increased traffic in other groups.
>
>     Just curious.  What other groups?  I've got one unexpired message in
>     sci.geo.fluids here, and about 20 at lambada.oit.unc.edu in the
>     last week or so.  Most were administrative kinds of things.
>
>     Doesn't seem like a burgeoning rush to me.
 
     I take that back, we're now getting a burgeoning rush of discussion
     on the new newsgroup.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Douglas Harrell /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: gt0603f@prism.gatech.EDU (Douglas Alan Harrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: 2 Nov 93 01:29:43 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <93301.194404LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I'm back . . . If you can make a neutron beam in such a fashion, could it be
>used to create a kind of nuclear battery, where the neutron beam would be
>used to induce fission in a target, but where the target will not
>chain-react (ie.  so you can just switch it off?)
>Jim Owens
>Opeenions? Opeenions!? We don' need no steenking Opeenions!?!
 
 
 
Evidently you haven't been following the newsgroup lately... I'll take
your "I'm back..." as evidence of that.
 
        This very thing has been a recent subject of discussion here.
I know of two such projects, one entitled the "Phoenix" about which I
know very little, the other which goes by "ATW", which stands for
Accelerator-based Transmutation of Wastes, or something like that.
        One of the authors of much of the work on ATW came from LANL
to Georgia Tech last year to present a seminar about it to the Nuclear
Engineering Department. One of the junior professors, who had arranged
the seminar, was evidently impressed with the idea. But as the seminar
progressed and questions began to emerge, some of the senior faculty
were obviously unimpressed with the whole idea. So much so that one of
them, who is usually fairly quiet, began to *laugh*, more loudly as the
presentation progressed. He continued to laugh almost until it was over.
 
        At the time I thought it was kinda rude, but as I learn more about
the concept and think about it, I understand where the prof was coming from.
It is a colossal wayto spend research dollars on something which is really
no mentionable improvement over the present LWR's.
 
        If you consider it, the ATW "burner" or "reactor" or whatever you
want to call it must still have virtually all the same components and safety
systems as a conventional Light Water Reactor. After all, it must have a
pressure vessel (@2250 psia), a coolant (water), steam generators, etc.
        If there is fission taking place, there will be fission products
and thus decay heat, thus the need for the same safety systems as a LWR.
If there is any significant amout of burnup (which must occur to produce
power) then the fuel will become depleted and will have to be replaced
and there will be actinides left in the spent fuel, just like LWRs. This
means that reprocessing of the oxide fuel (ATW uses it, Phoenix, don't know)
ala PUREX, the messy stuff that nobody wants to do.
 
        Furthermore, on top of basically building a complete LWR system,
it must be activated by means of an accelerator which must be about
*50* times larger and more powerful than any existing accelerator. Gee, did
I forget to mention that this part of it hasn't been developed yet?
        Sure, you get to get rid of the control rods, but those have never
been the trouble with Western reactors. And you have to trade them for
a bijillion dollar accelerator that doesn't exist.
 
        Along with the accelerator comes a whole *new* set of problems
that must be addressed. In a LWR, the pressure vessel is somewhat
insulated from the neutron flux by the moderator and by a thermal shield.
In the ATW, however, the beam necessitates a highly evacuated tube up
the center of the reactor. In the tube is the tungsten target used to produce
the neutrons. *ALL* the neutrons must pass through the tube wall in order
to be of any use in the fuel. But, lest you forget, on the other side
of this tube wall is 600 DEGREE WATER AT 2250 PSI! Hello, children, can
you say "serious embrittlement problems"?
 
        The problem with this technology, and fusion for that matter, is
that in order to become economically viable, some major physics and
materials science breakthoughs must be made.
        The kicker is that those breakthroughs will *also* serve to make
fission reactors even more practical. And remember, the first fission
reactor ever built WORKED on the FIRST TRY!!!
 
        There's a lot more to be said on the subject, but enough said for now.
 
 
Doug
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengt0603f cudfnDouglas cudlnHarrell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / S Mallinson /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: sgm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Samuel Mallinson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 04:54:48 GMT
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia

count me as one vote for a CFD group
Sam Mallinson
Dept Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
University College, UNSW, ADFA
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
e-mail: sgm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensgm cudfnSamuel cudlnMallinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / John Logajan /  Re:  Fleischmann's response
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fleischmann's response
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 05:26:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I haven't seen this Rothwell posting.
 
This is one of the many that didn't make it from the zorch gateway e-mail
side.  I was hoping that the backlog would find its way through, but it
doesn't even look like we are getting a reliable xfer of new stuff.  I've
only seen one burst so far.
 
I'd like to give it a couple more days before I assume nothing is ever
going to come back from the dead.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 03:04:36 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
WELL SHOOT -- MAYBE A d CONDENSATE _MIGHT_ HAVE JUST TWO SPIN STATES...
 
Well, after a couple of emails between myself and Robert Eachus, I find
myself in the curious position of tending to agree that _if_ a deuteron
bose condensate can form at all, it might very well consist of only _two_
deuteron and neutron states:  spin-1 up, and spin-1 down!  I think Robert
may have hit on a very interesting point here -- realizing of course that
the condensate in question remains very much a hypothetical entity.
 
_Why_ I agree, though, has to do with magnetic fields, not restrictions
on spin.  In fact, there is a fatal flaw in Robert's otherwise intriguing
argument about fermion spin restrictions.  (See at the end of this post).
 
 
PURE-SPIN DEUTERON CONDENSATES AS FERROMAGNETS
 
The key problem is that a pure-state deuteron condensate should turn out
to be (surprise) a strong _ferromagnet_!
 
Why?  Because a ferromagnet is nothing more than a bunch of particles with
parallel spins.  In a deuteron condensate, the proton spins would _have_ to
be parallel, and since protons are charged... voila!   If a  pure-spin
deuteron condensate can form at all, in should possess a downright _hefty_
magnetic field.
 
This would be a very bizarre type of "ferromagnetism" if it can exist, I
should note.  It would be the _protons_ that would be generating the field,
instead of the usual electrons.  And it would be a _condensation effect_
(vs., say, a crystal structure) that would be keeping the proton spins
aligned.  Plus on top of all of this, the condensate should also be quite
superconducting.  (_Any_ bose condensate of charged particles pretty much
by definition _must_ be superconducting, earlier debates notwithstanding).
 
In short, a pure-spin deuteron condensate would be one _really weird_ form
of condensed matter, and loads of fun to play around with if you could
create some of it.
 
 
SHORTING OUT THE FIELD WITH A TWO-SPIN CONDENSATE
 
Alas, it takes _energy_ to create a ferromagnet.  By atomic standards, it
really doesn't take all _that_ much energy, but for the very low energy
(temperature) ranges in which a bose condensate of deuterons could perhaps
form, this added energy requirement could prove to be significant.
 
In particular, the total condensate energy could be lowered significantly
by having _two_ of the three possible pure-spin condensates "cancel out"
each other's fields.  Thus, for example, a spin +1 condensate could have
its magnetic field exactly canceled by the formation of an intermixed
spin -1 condensate with the same number of particles.
 
The third pure-spin state, poor thing, would then be left out in the cold
(heh) with no place to go, since for spin-1 condensates there can be no
complementary fourth state to cancel its field.  The third condensate
state thus would be at a higher energy, and probably would be unstable
with respect to decomposition into a 1:1 mix of the other two states.
 
 
MAGNETIC COUPLING?
 
If you really did get a deuteron condensate with two equally mixed states,
a better way of understanding it would be as a condensate of magnetically
bound _pairs_ of deuterons, since the magnetic field-shorting would
"percolate down" to the create the shortest possible (lowest energy) field
loops.  This would be at the level of two magnetically coupled deuterons:
 
                                  ,->.            p^ -- spin up proton
                                 /    \           pv -- spin down proton
      Proposed d pairing:     p^n^    pvnv        n^ -- spin up neutron
                                 \    /           nv -- spin down neutron
                                  `<-'
                                magnetic
                               field loop
 
 
(Note the analogy to Cooper pairs, with magnetic forces replacing phonons.)
 
Thus even it it turned out that a pure-spin deuteron condensate cannot exist
due to decomposition into 1:1 mix of two opposing states, this alternative
is nonetheless a very interesting concept in itself: a superconductor that
uses magnetic bonding instead of phonons to "link up" charged particles
deuterons that (unlike Cooper electrons) are _already_ composite bosons.
 
 
WHO'S ON FIRST?
 
So as I see it, there are two major possibilities for deuteron condensation:
 
 
(a) Condensation of magnetically coupled deuteron pairs, with the net spin
    of the resulting composite pairs being zero.  Such condensates of
    magnetically coupled pairs of deuterons should have the following
    major properties:
 
     o Deuteron-based superconductivity (!)
 
     o Presense of net spin-0 magnetically coupled deuteron pairs
 
     o Presence of a 1-to-1 "mix" of +1 and -1 deuteron spin states (only),
       with the potential for a third pure-spin state never realized.
 
     o No net large-scale magnetic field
 
 
(b) "Ferromagnetic" deuteron condensates with the following properties:
 
     o Deuteron-based superconductivity
 
     o Three distinct (and possibly intermixed) condensate states possible
 
     o All three spin-1 condensate states realized (3 spin orientations)
 
     o Strong magnetic fields are associated with each pure-spin state
 
     o Pure-spin magnetic fields are generated by proton (vs. electrons)
 
 
Now the interesting question is _which_ of these two possibilities is the
correct one -- assuming you can even get deuterons to condense! (see below)
 
Both of the relevant events (magnetic pairing of two deuterons, versus bose
condensation of isolated spin-1 deuterons) are likely to occur only at very
low energies/temperatures.  But without a some mathematical or experimental
analysis, it's not immediately clear which of these two key events would
"arrive" first as the temperature drops.
 
If magnetic pairing occurs first, then the (a) branch should win out and
you would get a non-magnetic condensate.  If condensation is energetically
easier, then of the curious properties of (b) should instead be exhibited.
 
Yet another possibility is that if the energy thresholds are similar, then
_both_ classes of condensation (paired _and_ isolated deuterons) might be
possible.  Perhaps even an intermixing of single and paired deuteron
condensates might exist, such as a mixture of non-ferromagnetic paired
condensate with a ferromagnetic condensate that "uses up" the remaining
spin option for spin-1 particle condensates.
 
Some of this could presumably be calculated.  However, due to the need
for a solid state medium (see below) for any even remotely plausible way
to achieve deuteron condensation, I suspect that the problem could get
sufficiently complex to make experimentation at very low temperatures the
best way to investigate such possibilities.
 
 
HOW TO BOSE CONDENSE A GAS OF CHARGED FERMIONS...
 
Some of you may be thinking (possibly for some time now!):
 
   "Hey, what is the _point_ of all this?  Deuterons alone would form an
    extremely highly charged plasma that couldn't possibly exist in a lab.
    And if you add the electrons needed to cancel their charge, they will
    just form neutral deuterium molecules with no charge at all.  If there
    is no way even to create a gas of charged deuterons, what in the heck
    is the point of talking about 'bose condensing' such a gas?"
 
It's an excellent point, but it has a serious problem.  If you took such
an argument as valid, you would have to conclude that _electrons_ cannot
bose condense, either -- and thus that superconductors cannot exist. (!)
 
After all, electrons are also charged fermions that are utterly incapable
of existing in a pure state as the dense, isolated gas that would surely
be needed for bose condensation.  Yet remarkably, in certain _solid state_
systems electrons are capable both of "linking up" into composite boson
pairs and then proceed to bose condense quite nicely.  How can that be?
 
Well, in the case of electrons the trick is done like this:  You must first
create a condensed matter _medium_ that has the following properties:
 
  a) It has net opposite (positive) charge that cancels out the charges of
     the electrons.  This charge-cancellation effect permits electrons to
     at enormously higher densities than would ever be possible for any
     "pure" electron gas.
 
  b) The medium does not bind the electrons too tightly to any one location
     within the medium.  Instead, the medium permits some of the electrons
     to "wander about" in quasi-independence.  This independence will end
     abruptly at the surface of charge-cancelling medium, of course, but
     at least _within_ the medium the electrons should be able to exhibit
     a surprising degree of freedom.
 
For electrons we generally call such curious media "metals" or "semimetals".
They are very, very strange materials, really, even though familiarity makes
us think of them as commonplace and "simple."  They are not.
 
 
MEDIUM FOR HIGH-DENSITY DEUTERON GASES
 
So what about deuteron gases?  Is there any chance at all that a similar
kind of "trick" could be played on them to permit the high densities needed
for possible bose condensation?
 
Well, by parallel with the case of electrons, what is needed is a medium
that has:
 
  a) a net _negative_ charge (to cancel the deuteron charges), and
 
  b) permits at least some degree of "freedom" of deuteron movement.
 
If this sounds like a pretty tall order, you may be surprised to find out
that such media have been known to exist for decades now.  They consist
of many (perhaps most) of the transition metals of the periodic table.
The best of all of these metals at permitting deuterons to roam and exist
in large numbers is the metal palladium.
 
For decades it has been known that if you apply a voltage across a chunk of
many of the transition metal hydrides, the hydrogen (or deuterium) emerges
at the _cathode_ (negative electrode).  This in turn implies that to at
least some degree, hydrogen and deuterium are able to travel in such metals
in the form of positively charged _protons_ -- a rather surprising feat,
given the abundance of electrons available in such metals!
 
You might argue: "No big deal -- after all, you can do the same thing with
acids, but we know that in acids the protons aren't really 'free' -- they
are attached to a big cluster of water molecules that surround them."
 
Ah, but where are the water molecules in palladium?  The existence of _any_
proton or deuteron state in transition metals such as palladium or tantalum
is quite fascinating and unexpected simply because there are _no_ clumsy
molecules to cluster around the protons or deuterons.  And the one element
that is available -- the transition metal itself -- is the very substance
that was responsible for stripping electrons off the deuterons in the first
place!
 
In short, if there is any medium in which a condensate of deuterons could
conceivably form, the transition metals are a darned good place to start
looking -- probably the best possible place, in fact.  And the best known
metal for doing it is palladium, which dissolves deuterium to a degree
that is unprecedented among transition metals.
 
Who knows -- maybe, just maybe, the same thing can happen protons that also
travel with a surprising degree of freedom through transitions metals that
are similarly full of opposing (negative) charges.
 
Perhaps if no one has ever tried it before, it might just be worthwhile
to load a microkelvin refrigerator with a sample of palladium deuteride
and look for unusual magnetic, NMR, neutron diffraction, and superconductive
behavior.
 
Has anyone ever tried?
 
.....
 
ADDENDUM: WHY FERMION SPIN-STATES DON'T AFFECT BOSE CONDENSATION
 
As I mentioned the other day, identical fermions "repel" _only_ in the
sense that they will "explore" any of several possible dimensions by
which they can "change state" and no longer be identical.  Specifically,
they can move apart in space, momentum, or spin direction.  There are
infinitely many "degrees" to space or momentum, but only two types of
spin (for spin-1/2 fermions, that is).
 
Now what happens if they cannot "separate" is not necessarily some sort
of terrible thing.  It just means that they must "go up" to a higher
energy level if they are forced to co-exist too closely.  Thus two
otherwise identical electrons with identical spins and momenta _can_
be placed quite close to each other -- say an Angstrom apart -- and
remain there, _provided_ there is some mechanism to keep the bound
together.  That will take energy, but it is doable.
 
If you _do_ force identical fermions to be close in space, you will get
a wave function that looks something like this:
 
            ,-.         ,-.         ,-.         ,-.         ,-.
           /   \       /   \       /   \       /   \       /   \
          /     \     /     \     /     \     /     \     /     \
         /       \   /       \   /       \   /       \   /       \
       -'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-
             p^          p^          p^          p^          p^
 
Now here's a little secret about wave functions: the sharper they are bent,
the more energy that is required to create them.  This should not come as
_too_ big of a surprise to anyone who has ever tried bending a stiff
spring, and you'd be surprised how similar the principle is here.  Quantum
wave functions are indeed a bit like stiff springs -- they like to follow
a nice, straight path if at all possible.
 
In the above case it's _not_ possible because the fermions shown are all
identical.  Thus they must form "null regions" between them in which the
likelihood of finding _either_ proton drops pretty well to zero.  This
has an energy cost, of course -- the "spring" is being bent rather
roughly -- but it _does_ achieve the needed separation (in location this
time) of the identical fermions.
 
Now a question comes to mind.  What would happen to the above diagram
if instead of being independent, the above protons were part of either a
set of superfluid (bose condensed) helium nuclei, or of one of those
hypothetical deuteron condensates?
 
Well, hold your hats, because here's the really _radical_ (!) answer:
 
            ,-.         ,-.         ,-.         ,-.         ,-.
           /   \       /   \       /   \       /   \       /   \
          /     \     /     \     /     \     /     \     /     \
         /       \   /       \   /       \   /       \   /       \
       -'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-'- - - - -`-
             p^          p^          p^          p^          p^
 
Whoops!  Hey, isn't that just the _same exact diagram as before_??
 
You bet it is, and for good reason.  _Fermi interactions cannot "see"
any higher-level composite boson interactions_.  They just flat don't
care, because bose and fermi statistics apply _only_ to absolutely
identical particles.  Thus you _cannot_ mix and match particles; the
fermions remain separated by fermi repulsion, and the bosons remain
"attracted" by bose statistics.
 
Actually, there is _one_ minor effect of an "overlying" bose condensation,
but it is mediated via more conventional means.  When (say) helium atoms
bose condense, they adopt _extremely_ (understatement!) similar momentum
profiles.  In short, they transform from a jostling-and-pushing crowd at
a soccer game into a perfectly ordered, military-style parade in which
_no one pushes anyone_.
 
Now that _does_ have an effect on the fermion wavefucntion:  It makes it
more regular and _more_ effective at separating the fermions!  Gone are
the bumps and bruises that _ocassionally_ allowed the fermion wave
functions to overlap a bit here and there, and instead they are replaced
with beautifully regular boundaries with even _less_ chance of being
crossed.
 
And again I would point out:  This means that bose condensation of any
type of composite particle _will not result in an increase in the chances
of any two particles in the condensate "interacting"_.  Quite the contrary;
by reducing ordinary thermal particle-to-particle jostling a very solid
zero, the chances of such interactions will be _decreased_.
 
This is not just an abstraction.  If, for example, you were to attempt
certain types of measurement that are sensitive _only_ to neutrons or
protons (e.g., neutron diffraction, you would find that superfluid helium
will give results _as if it was composed of a very regular fluid of quite
isolated neutrons or protons_.  The only thing mysterious would be the
_degree_ of "quietness."  It would be like looking in on a crowded class
room full of kindergardners, expecting to find chaos, and instead finding
only orderly rows of soundly sleeping tykes.
 
 
NOW THE WEIRD PART
 
Now that I've said that, let me point out that despite all that, if you
look for _helium_ instead of _neutrons_, what I just no longer applies!
 
Here's the superfluid helium wave function for the same set of particles
I just showed above:  [Note: non-rotating helium & same inertial frame.]
 
 
 "amplitude"
     .
    /|\
     |
     | -------------------------------------------------------------
     |
     |
     |
     + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                  N * He
 
Now that can't be right, can it??  It shows the probability of finding
a helium atom to be _absolutely smooth_ across the same region as the
very wiggly proton wave function.  How can you possibly "find" a helium
atom at the _same_ location at which you _already know that you cannot
find a proton if you look for one_?
 
It would be like verifying that your living contains no tires, frames,
engines, windows, or other parts of a car -- then turning around and
look for a _car_ in your living room, only to see that one is indeed
sitting there right in front of you!
 
This kind of bizarreness could be explained in different ways.  For example,
you could say that _whole_ helium atoms can "tunnel" into locations that
are energetically forbidden for the individual parts -- sort of like the
difference between buying a care "whole" and in (very costly!) pieces at
a repair shop.
 
One that I rather prefer is simply that _what you are looking for makes a
difference in quantum mechanics_.  Look for neutrons and you will see a
fine "latticework" of quite separate particles.  Look for helium atoms
_in the same medium_ and you will instead see a smooth, homogeneous sheet
of very even probability -- the atoms could be located anywhere at all!
 
Yet another perspective would be to view both the neutron and helium atom
viewpoints as "slices" of an immensely complicated (but _accurate_) wave
function that can exist only in configuration space.  From that viewpoint
both diagrams are pretty poor, showing only their own measurement-biased
views of what is "really" going on in a space of too many dimensions to
be visualized directly.
 
 
WHY FERMIONS DON'T AFFECT CONDENSATE SPIN STATES
 
Now back to the issue of how a bose condensate of deuterons could have
_three_ distinct spin condensates (up, down, and sort-of-sideways) even
when its constituent fermions (protons and neutrons) can have only _two_
possible spin states.
 
The issue is pretty simple, really.  While it is true that _one_ spin-1/2
fermion can only point in two "pure" directions -- "up" or "down" --  the
same statement is definitely _not_ true for two same-spin fermions that
have been bound together in some fashion.  (Recall from the discussion
above that identical fermions _can_ have parallel as long as there is some
other separation between them, such a short space.  It just costs more
energy to do it is all.)
 
A bound system two identical spin-1/2 fermions with a shared spin direction
will have a composite spin of 1, and therefore will be able to point _as a
unit_ in 3 distinct directions -- not just two.  Similarly, three fermions
bound together will be able to point in 4 directions, 4 in 5, and so forth,
with the number of pure states always being N+1.
 
Actually, even that understates the case, because you can define any number
of _mixed_ direction states using the pure states I just mentioned.  The
number of combinations possible grows rapidly, so that the combined fermions
quickly become more and more "classical" -- you can point their collective
spin with almost indefinite precision.  Each additional fermion is more than
a little bit like adding a "bit" (heh) to a binary number -- any one bit by
itself can't tell you much, but 100 bits can give you a quite phenomenal
ability to pinpoint a specific direction.  (Fascinating story there, but
some other time...)
 
Incidentally, if you don't believe me on this one, go grab a magnet and start
pointing it every which way.  You will have no trouble pointing it in ways
other than just "up" or "down" -- yet the electrons that ar collectively
providing you with the magnetic field each are capable of directing their
own individual fields _only in one of two directions at a time_!
 
If you think, "Well hey, doesn't the direction of the magnet's field tell
me _exactly_ where every one of the electron magnetic fields is pointing?
Haven't I beaten the rap that way?"
 
Well, when you look for a _magnet_ you are looking at _collective_ behavior
of the zillions of electron magnets -- not individual behavior.  If you ask
"what direction if the field of the magnet pointing in," your query is in
effect "polling" all those electrons at once -- so you are getting a lot
of fermion up/down "bits" of information in your reply, more than enough
to be quite precise about the answer.
 
But what if you try to find out what the direction of the magnetic field
is by polling only _one_ electron?
 
Ah, then it becomes troublesome.  Because every time you "poll" a spin-1/2
particle for its direction, you will _always_ get an answer of "up" or
"down," no matter which you orient your testing equipment.  Your answer
depends on how you set up your equipment!
 
This situation is related to the earlier helium-vs-neutrons example, by the
way, in that _what_ you look for makes a big difference.  Looking for a
classical magnet gives one set of (classical) answers; looking closely
at the electrons that form the magnet gives a quite different (and often
contradictory-sounding) set of data.
 
 
IN SUMMARY...
 
Hmm, I think I got a little carried away here...
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yamaguchi's claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi's claims
Date: 2 Nov 93 15:25:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dick Blue is correct that Yamaguchi et al. used neutron survey meters (2) as
neutron detectors, as I have previously posted some months ago.  I share
his assessment that they "took some kind of survey meter, stuck it near their
experiment, and read the dial.  That is not, repeat NOT, the way to make a
definitive measurement of neutrons.  The response that they got most likely
does not involve neutrons in any way, shape or form."  (30 Oct. 1993, Blue)
 
I first heard about their use of such crude detectors from Howard Menlove,
who visited the NTT laboratories in Japan and was appalled at their use
of such detectors.
 
Remember, that Yamaguchi was the "star" of the Nagoya conference on cold fusion
last year, claiming heat, large numbers of neutrons, and 4-helium production.
Some will remember that NTT stock climbed up dramatically after Yamaguchi's
press conference at that Nagoya conf.
 
I do not find Yamaguchi even listed on the agenda for the Maui meeting on cold
fusion, 6-10 Dec. 1993.  What gives?  I have heard a rumor that Yamaguchi has
"left" NTT -- which is most unusual for a Japanese.  I'll guess that either
Mitch or Jed knows the answer, and they promised to answer questions, so I'll
direct this question to them:  Has Yamaguchi left NTT?  Thanks.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
Date: 2 Nov 93 16:27:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Despite some evident problems with the net, I finally have an answer from
Fleischmann regarding a question which I posted here 28 Sept. 1993 ("Scientific
Criticism").  The response as given below explains that P&F read the input
voltage on each cell "once every 5 minutes."  That is totally unsatisfactory
to provide compelling evidence for an excess heat effect.  Their
calculation of xs heat depends on this:
"the enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from the CELL POTENTIAL-TIME record,"
(P&F paper P. Lett. A 176 (1993))
and Fleischmann now admits that the cell potential
is only measured every 5 minutes.  But the calculation of xs heat in their
paper is based on a 600 second period of intense boiling.  This means that they
had just two (at most three) measurements of cell potential during this period.
 
I flat do not believe that this is sufficient to provide a reliable
estimate of the integrated
input power over this 600 second period during which they claim xs heat.
Due to boiling evident in the videos, the cell potential certainly
varied greatly as
the fluid between electrodes boiled and bubbled vigorously.  I maintain, as in
my 28 Sept. posting, that the rising temperature of the cell, which their
paper shows rises with input voltage (I=constant), including the final boiling
period, can be explained simply in terms of Joule heating.  Claims of xs heat
by P&F are then based on unsatisfactorily infrequent measurements of input
voltage, far too infrequent to provide compelling evidence that output enthalpy
exceeded input (electrical) power.
 
What do you think, Tom, John, Dieter (etc.)?  Is "once every 5 minutes" enough
to evaluate I*V(t), integrated over 10 minutes?
 
Come to think of it, P&F did not claim x-rays or neutrons or tritium or helium
production with the heat; they just suggested it was not chemical in origin.
(In this 1993 paper.)_   Hmmmm... how about electrical-heating in origin?
 
I now ask for the two cell potential measurements during the
highly-advertised boiling period, and then we can check these at least against
claims in the paper.  But the data are just too sparse to support such claims.
 
Frankly, I am appalled that P&F measure cell parameters only "once every
5 minutes" as Fleischmann now admits.  Why was not this procedure stated in
their "glorious" paper?  How can we be sure that there were not input voltage
and power fluctuations during the 10-minute boiling period which has been
shown on video at Nagoya and on TV (e.g., Canadian broadcast)?
 
I cannot believe this!  Once every 5 minutes?!
Fleischmann excuses thus:  "but there
are 64 cells and there is only one computer!"  (see posting below)
Excusez-moi, but even a slow
computer can take more frequent readings than this.  Can't you boys afford
a few PC's?  Ridiculous!
 
Here are the postings in which Fleischmann responds to my query, and admits
that cell measurements were taken only "once every 5 minutes:"
 
In article <CFu1BA.E9@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     In Message-ID: <931028162821_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM>
>     Subject: 64 cells, not 56
> Jed Rothwell [72240.1256@compuserve.com] writes:
>
> =  "In my previous message: "Fleischmann responds to Jones" I typed the second
> = note from Fleischmann incorrectly. It should read:
> =     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
> =     but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
> =     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
> =     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
> = (In the previous message I wrote "56" instead of "64.")
>    [end of quote from Rothwell posting of Fleischmann response]
 
 
Words cannot express my frustration with these gentlemen and their hyped-up
claims.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Nov2.161054.1049@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Nov2.161054.1049@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 2 Nov 93 16:29:01 -0600

cancel <1993Nov2.161054.1049@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Silicate layer effects
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicate layer effects
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 10:53:31 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: Karel Hladky writes "... - P&F pretreat their Pd - ...".  How do you know
: that Karel?  Can you give a reference to one of their papers?
 
I have a vague recollection of Martin F. mentioning this when he gave a talk
to UMIST chemists few years ago, in response to a question from someone in
the audience. My (sparse) notes from that lecture have "..Pd polarised
anodically to activate surface before run.." That would be a standard
technique to increase the surface area and the number of 'active' sites.
 
Sorry that I can't be of more help.
 
Karel
--
*Karel*Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.*
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 3 Nov 1993 11:40:43 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov2.154324@heckyll.gso.uri.edu>,
        shipman@heckyll.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom) writes:
 
|> Also, how does the prospective group mesh with the comp.fluid.dynamics group
|> being bandied about on sci.math.num-analysis?  (Although I have not yet seen a
|> RFD for that group)
 
It is the same.
 
[followup to news.groups]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 3 Nov 1993 11:42:46 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <teg.7.2CD725BD@homer.dsto.gov.au>,
        teg@homer.dsto.gov.au (Themmie) writes:
 
|> *unnacceptably arcane*.  There are newsgroups in comp.* whose names are
|> arcane to me, but I'm sure that if you're working in the field of fluids,
|> physics, maths, engineering, med_eng, etc, etc, etc and you are interested
|> in CFD then you'll know what CFD means.
 
Those of us who proposed it enthusiastically agree! But we are unlikely
to get our way.
 
[ --> news.groups ]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Bruce Scott /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 3 Nov 1993 11:45:19 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov2.210008.1001@combdyn.com>,
        lawrence@combdyn.com (Lawrence *The Dreamer* Chen) writes:
 
|> how about:
|>
|> sci.engr.fluid-dynamics ?
|>
|> Fluid Dynamics sounds like something that should be part of Engineering,
|> of course what should I know....I'm an Electrical Engineer...and I don't see
|> an Electrical Engineering group here.....8-)
 
Fluid computation includes many disciplines of physics as well. Plasma (where
I am), astrophysics, geophysics, climate modelling, ...
 
[ --> news.groups ]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: 3 Nov 1993 11:54:39 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Dieter Britz writes:
 
|> [...] By focussing on his peculiarities, you are being
|> quite unfair. This is the same as, say, characterising Kepler by his lifelong
|> fancy for regular polyhedrons, Brahe as the man with a silver nose, Newton by
|> his later fascination with the supernatural, or Schottky by his views on
|> racial differences.
 
"Shockley" (spelled somehow) of transistor fame is the one with the wierd
racial ideas.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Charles Lind /  cmsg cancel <2b8at8$eob@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
     
Originally-From: lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: cmsg cancel <2b8at8$eob@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
Date: 3 Nov 1993 13:33:11 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlind cudfnCharles cudlnLind cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 14:54:24 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <1993Nov2.162733.1050@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>Despite some evident problems with the net, I finally have an answer from
>Fleischmann regarding a question which I posted here 28 Sept. 1993 ("Scientific
>Criticism").  The response as given below explains that P&F read the input
>voltage on each cell "once every 5 minutes."  That is totally unsatisfactory
>to provide compelling evidence for an excess heat effect.  Their
>calculation of xs heat depends on this:
>"the enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from the CELL POTENTIAL-TIME record,"
>(P&F paper P. Lett. A 176 (1993))
[...]
>What do you think, Tom, John, Dieter (etc.)?  Is "once every 5 minutes" enough
>to evaluate I*V(t), integrated over 10 minutes?
 
No. Maybe (see below).
 
>I now ask for the two cell potential measurements during the
>highly-advertised boiling period, and then we can check these at least against
>claims in the paper.  But the data are just too sparse to support such claims.
 
>Frankly, I am appalled that P&F measure cell parameters only "once every
>5 minutes" as Fleischmann now admits.  Why was not this procedure stated in
>their "glorious" paper?  How can we be sure that there were not input voltage
>and power fluctuations during the 10-minute boiling period which has been
>shown on video at Nagoya and on TV (e.g., Canadian broadcast)?
 
The idea is that during this stage of the experiment, neither the current nor
the cell voltage mattered, in terms of exact values, because the heat generated
was so much larger than any input power calculated from them. Whatever you make
of this phase - and there are serious problems - you have to go along with this
argument, I think.
 
During the quiet phase, the sampling rate of 1 per 5 min would be OK if you
1. know that your current is steady, and
2. you are averaging that cell voltage.
We have previously discussed the problem of current-, as well as cell voltage-
fluctuations. I still believe that F&P, along with others, deliberately slow
down the constant current generator's response, believing that this will smooth
the current. The opposite is true; a slowed-down response will let some of the
fluctuations through, and you have both current AND cell voltage varying with
time. In that case, the averaging and slow sampling technique no longer works,
or at least produces an unknown error - possibly small, possibly not.
We are still working on a demonstration of this; we are now as far as having a
cell, and a Pd rod electrode, and have bought the a/d cards. So any month now
we should get some actual results...
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 03:46:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Oh shoot, I almost forgot to add an impressive equation of my own to counter
all those other ones folks have dropped on me lately.  [Terry email winks
at Chuck, who _fortunately_ has a good sense of humor...]
 
Lessee here, gotta rummage around a bit to find a _good_ one... Hey!  That's
an impressive one, it'll surely prove my argument!...:
 
  "Ahem.  Yes, well now, yes, I think my argument can be _aptly_ summed up
   in the following equation, don't you?
 
     E = m c^2
 
   Now, I hope it is _abundantly_ clear from this that you _cannot_ make a
   bose condensate simply collapse by condensing, yes?  Very good, very good,
   carry on now my good fellows, yes, yes indeed..."
 
[Terry exits stage left, deep in profound thought...]
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry  ;-)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / John Logajan /  REPOST of  Re:  Fleischmann's response
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REPOST of  Re:  Fleischmann's response
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 05:51:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>Could Jed please re-post it?
 
I grabbed it off the wais at sunsite.  Screen captured it, edited out the
screen control gunk, and uploaded it to my mainframe, and then reposted
it.  Whew.
 
>Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
>Subject: Fleischmann responds to Jones
>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 01:18:02 GMT
 
On September 28 Steve Jones posted a critique of the work of Pons and
Fleischmann. I printed a copy of the message and mailed it to them along with
some other material, because they do not follow e-mail. I explained to them
that I did not understand what Jones meant, because he writes poorly. I could
not judge the scientific validity of his message, and I thought perhaps there
might be something new or challenging worth addressing in it. I read it
several times and thought to myself: "Surely he doesn't mean it is storing up
energy the whole time with 'invisible' non-endothermic energy storage?" It
turns out, by golly, he does mean that! He *is* asserting that you can store 8
MJ of chemical energy 0.0044 moles of palladium! This is same nonsense that
Morrison, Close and so many others have been giving us for the last four
years, so it really does not need a response.
 
Morrison and Close write better English prose than Jones. I have no trouble
understanding them when they make similar claims. Jones should express his
ideas more clearly. He should come out and state categorically and
quantitatively: "I assert that it is possible to store 8 MJ of chemical energy
in a 0.5 gram sample of metal" That would make it easier for the rest of us to
line up in support or opposition.
 
Fleischmann mailed me back a long response, commenting on various other topics
including the influence of 16th century English drama on 17th century
politics. I will skip these unrelated comments and post only some of the
remarks about Jones.
 
Because Jones has posted several other messages since Sept. 28, and because
his messages tend to contradict one another, as Mitch Swartz has shown, let me
repost a large part of the original Jones message, followed by the rebuttal
from Fleischmann, followed by a short additional message from Fleischmann
clarifying a point I asked about. Messages are separated with a "====" line.
 
 
Here are two unrelated, personal notes:
 
I have decided to stop posting messages to this forum. I made an exception for
this because Martin was kind enough to respond in depth to the Jones posting,
in spite of his busy schedule. So, I feel I should close the loop and report
his comments here. Although I do not plan to participate here, I am still
available to assist people and distribute information about cold fusion, so if
you have any questions or you need anything, please do not hesitate to contact
me directly by e-mail, telephone or fax. I do not often read the Fusion
Digest, so contact me directly.
 
Also if someone would collect these messages on 3.5" diskette and mail them to
me once a month, it would save me a lot of time and e-mail expense, so I would
be happy to pay for such a service. Please contact me if you are interested.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
 
 
==================================================================
 
ORIGINAL JONES POSTING
 
Tilde character changed to [approx]):
 
>Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Scientific Criticism
>Date: 28 Sep 93 16:05:06 -0600
>Organization: Brigham Young University
 
 
...
 
Jed and P&F (reference: P&F paper in Phys. Lett.A 176 (1993) , also in Nagoya
Proceedings):
Jonathon Jones and I looked carefully at the P&F Fig. 8, which shows temp. rise
and concurrent voltage increase for constant current (after a few days of
initial running with no heat increase). By integrating under the voltage curve
and multiplying by I=0.500 A, we found approx. 8 MJ of Joule (resistive)
heating had been put into the cell.  This is far more than needed to boil away
the 45 ml of D2O electrolyte present.  But what about the
claimed "excess heat"?
That claim is based on a "calculation" given on p. 128 of their paper P. Lett.
A 176 (1993) which includes:
"Enthalpy input:  By electrolysis, (Ecell - 1.54) X (cell current) = [approx]
22,500J."
 
Note the 1.54XI , which means P&F assume that *no* recombination occurs in the
cell, which I again challenge.
 
Moreover, from the equation given cell current = "0.500 A" from Fig. 8, we
get   Ecell = 76.5 Volts  -- a whopping voltage! From that figure, it is *not*
possible to read this value.  First, the voltages are binned
in 1000 second bins -- we need the voltages on a much finer scale to scrutinize
the assertion that the Vcell during boiling was 76.5 volts.  Second, the plots
show lines which completely obscure the voltage reading in the crucial last
period of intense boiling.
 
What is going on here? How do P&F know the input voltage?  What they say in the
text (p. 128) is:  "The enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from the CELL POTENTIAL-
TIME RECORD, the radiative output is accurately known (temperature
measurements become unnecessary!) and the major enthalpy output is due to
evaporation of the D2O."  (My capitals.)
Sorry, this is just not good enough to be compelling evidence for
excess heat.  Show us the cell voltage-time plot in sufficient detail for us to
check the enthalpy input.  I don't trust the "estimate" of 76.5 volts,
especially when one cannot read this from the cell potential-time plot (Fig. 8)
provided.       Prove that temp. measurements are "unnecessary"  --
are you sure that heat conduction is negligible?  I am not convinced.  Show
that D2O was not expelled in droplets along with "evaporation" (as Droege
points out, a probable oversight with major consequences).
 
Gentlemen, really.  The evidence presented for excess heat production is hardly
compelling.  And at this stage of research...
 
Dick Blue:  Days ago you cited me as saying that the P&F boiling period lasted
for 60,000 seconds.  Rather, I quoted the caption of
Fig. 11 in the P&F paper which shows temperature versus time for the "final
period" of Fig 8a, including boiling.  [Again:  why did P&F expand the temp.
part of Fig 8 but not the crucial cell voltage portion of that Figure?  Most
curious.]
 
...
 
 
==================================================================
 
FLEISCHMANN'S RESPONSE
 
Part of a letter to Jed Rothwell, dated Oct. 21, 1993. Some typos corrected by
Rothwell.
 
        Underlined portions are shown between "_" characters.
        Subscripts are shown in square brackets; example: H[2]O.
        Tilde character changed to [approx].
 
Items were numbered by author "so that we can refer to them easily if we have
further correspondence about this (and the Nagoya) paper." Text begins here:
 
 
...
 
(1) The first important point is that the "lower bound heat transfer
coefficients", (k[R]')[11], _based on the assumption that there is no source
of excess heat_ are virtually identical to the true heat transfer coefficient
designated as (k[R]')[2] for blank experiments (these are measured with Joule
heater calibrations). It follows that there are no sources of excess heat in
those blank experiments. This excludes the possibility repeatedly raised by
Douglas Morrison, Steve Jones, etc that recombination of D[2] + O[2] could be
responsible for the excess heat.
 
Furthermore, the volumes of the gases evolved match those calculated from
Faraday's law. Furthermore the volumes of D[2]O (or H[2]O) added match those
calculated with Faraday's law + losses due to evaporation (assuming that the
gases are saturated with D[2]O (or H[2]O) vapour at the cell temperature). We
have said this repeatedly but all of it is ignored.
 
(2) Secondly, Steve Jones and Douglas Morrison cannot do arithmetic. Let us
assume that they are right and go to the extreme assumption that all the gases
evolved recombine in the cell. This would generate 0.5 Amps x 1.54 Volts =
0.77 Watts under all conditions. However, when the cell is boiling vigorously,
the cell voltage is 76.5 Volts (it doesn't really matter what it is - see the
next point (3)). The enthalpy input is now 0.5 Amps x 76.5 Volts = 38.25
Watts. 0.77 Watts is pretty negligible compared to 38.25 Watts but the heat
output from the cell is 182 Watts (11 Watts by radiation, 171 Watts to boil
the D[2]O). The excess is 144.5 Watts.
 
It doesn't really matter how you tinker with these figures, you will always
finish up with a massive excess rate of enthalpy production. The rail voltage
of the galvanostat is 100V - one could say that the enthalpy input is 0.5 Amps
x 100 Volts = 50 Watts, it has no effect on the qualitative level. One could
say some of the D[2]O is dispelled as droplets (actually, we recover [approx]
95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is
undoubtedly lost by irreversible reactions with the glass walls of the
Dewars.)
 
(3) The third point is that the voltages are read every 300s using fast
sample-and-hold systems. We therefore determine the mean potential-time curve
(the only A.C. components are the ripple currents of the galvanostats which
are 0.04% of the set current). This point really refers to Douglas Morrison's
strictures.
 
What estimate of the cell voltage does Steve Jones want to make? As I said in
(2) above, he can take the rail voltage at the galvanostat for all we care (if
he does not trust us).
 
(4) When a cell is boiling, the electrolyte is at the boiling point. Do we
really have to explain that temperature measurements are unnecessary to make
such a statement? Steve Jones should boil some water at Provo and stick a
thermometer into his saucepan. He will find that the boiling point is slightly
lower than that given in the text books. However, if he measures atmospheric
pressure, he will find he can calculate the boiling point from the Clausius
Clapeyron equation. The effects should not be large for Provo (note here we do
actually take a continuous pressure-time curve in our experiments and we allow
for these effects.)
 
(5) What on earth is Steve Jones' point about heat conduction? We measure the
heat flow due to radiation across the vacuum gap. How should conduction reduce
this value? In other words we make a "lower limit estimate."
 
(6) If Steve Jones wants to be more elaborate with the experiment outlined in
(4), he should try to evaporate 0.1M NaCl to dryness. He will find that the
boiling point increases as the electrolyte gets more concentrated (this is
described in all text books on Thermodynamics or Physical Chemistry). We
ignore this effect - if we took it into account the excess enthalpy would be
increased.
 
Furthermore, as the electrolyte boils to dryness, one has to supply the heat
of solution. Steve Jones can prove this for himself by throwing some NaOH or
KOH into H[2]O - the solution heats up. Again, we ignore this effect - it
would increase enthalpy.
 
(7) Steve Jones in common with Douglas Morrison, Frank Close etc etc.
apparently wants to hide away 8MJ of resistive heating in the 0.0392 cm^3
palladium electrode or say 2 GJ per mole of Pd. My mind boggles at this
notion.
 
In actual fact, there is no energy available to hide away. As demonstrated in
Figs 10(a) and (b) the system shows excess enthalpy throughout the experiment.
It would have to be endothermic at some stage to "hide away" energy for later
release.
 
(8) There is of course a storage mechanism available, the D in the lattice.
Perhaps Steve is, after all, too smart to raise this one: Douglas Morrison
isn't. However, the maximum enthalpy one could obtain from this is [approx]
650 Joules (assuming a D/Pd ratio of [approx] 1) but we need 102,500 Joules
just to boil away the D[2]O.
 
All I can say is to echo Steve: "Gentlemen, really". I would add "And at this
stage of the research we do really need arguments which have to be taken
seriously". We are quite prepared to do this but Steve's commentary is just a
bunch of froth.
 
Regards,
 
Yours sincerely,
 
[Signed]
 
Martin Fleischmann
 
 
==================================================================
 
FLEISCHMANN'S CLARIFICATION
 
I asked Fleischmann to comment on his statement: "voltages are read every 300s
using fast sample-and-hold systems." Five minute gaps between readings is an
unusually long time for this type of experiment (although I know no reason to
think they are "too long" -- CF reactions are slow and stable). He responded:
 
        "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
        but there are 56 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
        ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
        reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
 
This is an important point that many readers here have failed to grasp: a wide
variety of experiments have been performed at IMRA, and a wide variety of
instruments used, like the averaging meters. The experiments described in
Physics Letters A are only the tip of the iceberg. If they had *only* used 5
minute readings, in only one set of experiments, I would consider that a
problem, but from talking to various people and from watching the CBC video, I
know that a wide variety of instruments and techniques have been used to
verify and explore the reaction. I pointed that out here from time to time,
but alas, my words fell on deaf ears.
 
==================================================================
 
* End of File * J.R.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Jed Rothwell /  He's appalled, poor baby.
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He's appalled, poor baby.
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 18:17:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
I see that Steve Jones finally got the message from Fleischmann and flew into
conniptions. Good! I think I will rub salt in his wounds, and post it again,
because I gather that Internet had some problems and some people failed to get
it. As anyone can see, Steve did not bother to read the message, or he did not
understand it. He raised an imaginary "problem" with the five minute polling
that Fleischmann has already addressed, in two ways:
 
1. Fleischmann said they have done the experiment with other types of
equipment, which polls continuously, and they saw the same results. (Many
other people have told me this.) In science, when critics A, B, C point out
legitimate problems with an experiment, if the experimenter comes back and
says, "yes, we acknowledge those problems. We addressed them with procedures
X, Y, and Z" -- that should satisfy everyone. The issue is thereby closed.
 
2. As Fleischmann pointed out, you can assume that voltage is jacked up to the
maximum, 100 V, and measure the amount of water vaporized only, ignoring all
other parameters, and you *still* come out ahead, with excess heat. Add that
to the fact that the Pd stays hot, and you have undeniable proof of excess
heat beyond chemistry.
 
Steve is just talking all out his head (as Jack Dupree would say). Pay no
attention to him. All of his so-called "objections" are froth, bunk, or stupid
lies.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / John Logajan /  REPOST Droege's D1
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REPOST Droege's D1
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 06:25:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
>Subject: D1
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 14:21:40 GMT
 
Calorimeter Design Note      D1                     25 October 1993
 
It looks like my mechanical design consultant is busy rebuilding his house
and will not have much time until the weather gets nasty.  I want to get
started, so I will look here for some advice.  This will describe the various
heat pipes shapes needed for the new calorimeter.
 
The idea is to have a pair of double walled shells that form a heat pipe
structure inside and outside a dewar.  Since such shapes are not possible to
construct, I propose to make each of the two shells out of a puck shaped part
and a cup shaped part.
 
While it appears that a vacuum such as we require here at Fermilab for our
collider is not needed, the construction technique should be quite gas tight.
 
It would seem to me that the only practical material for construction is
aluminum.  Copper or silver would be OK, but I believe that copper is hard to
work, and silver likely has the same problem not considering the cost.
Stainless steel, while likely the best for fabrication is a relatively poor
thermal conductor as is plain steel.  Still, it is possible that a very clever
design could make the interconnecting conduction path short enough to be
acceptable.
 
Below is the sort of structure that I have been considering:
 
  |   Heat Pipe  |
  |   Volume     |
  |              |
  |              |
  |              |
  |Outer Cup     |                                                     |
  |Shell         |Inner Cup Shell                                      |
  | ____________ |                                                     .
  ||            ||
  ||            ||                                                     |
  || Ring       ||                                                     |
  ||            ||                                                     .
  ||____________||
  _______________________________________________________________ _    |
 |__________________                                             |||   |
                 |||          Puck Top Plate                     |||   .
                 |||                                             |||
                 |||_____________________________________________|||   |
                 ||                                               ||   |
                A||          Heat Pipe Volume                    B||   .
                 || _____________________________________________ ||
  _______________|||        Puck Bottom Plate                    |||   |
 |_______________________________________________________________|||   |
                                                                       .
 
What is shown above is a section through a figure of rotation.  Note the
center line at the right.  The Puck Top Plate is a 7.2" diameter plate with a
step at the edge and a hole through the center.  The Puck Bottom Plate is
similar except it is thinner.  The top plate has an array of tapped holes
drilled into but not through the top face for mounting experiments.  The puck
is assembled using two short lengths of tubing, A, B.  These are welded to the
top and bottom plates to form the puck.  The puck is designed to just fit
inside the mouth of a six liter dewar.  Leads are brought out through the
center of tube B and are treated as in the previous designs to minimize heat
paths through the leads.
 
The top double walled cup is removed to expose the experiment.  It is composed
of an inner cup, an outer cup, and a support ring.  I assume that the inner
and outer cups will be welded up out of aluminum, and then the two cups will
be welded to the ring.
 
For assembly, the cup will fastened to the Puck Top Plate by screws up through
the flange of the top plate and into tapped holes in the ring.
 
The whole effort here is to get a short thermal path between the heat pipe
volume of the shell and the puck.  The effort is thus to minimize the thermal
path that is only through aluminum in the coupling between the two.
 
The whole structure described above fits inside the dewar.  Outside the dewar
is a similar structure, a second puck and cup.  The basic idea is to have an
isothermal structure inside and outside the dewar.  Electronics will then hold
the two isothermal shells at the same temperature.  With a dewar in between
two shells at the same temperature, the only heat path will be out of the
mouth of the dewar, where it will be controlled and measured as in the
previous design.
 
What I am looking for is some design help.  I want to draw up things that are
easy and practical to make.  Tight tolerances are not needed.  But it would be
nice if the screw holes in the puck liked up with those in the cup without a
preferred orientation.  The surface between the cup and the puck should be
pretty flat.  We may want to use thermal grease, but it is a messy pain.
Better to have a good ground flat surface.
 
1)  How do I make the ring?  I am stuck with dimensions of commercial dewars,
and the one I have picked does not match standard aluminum pipe.  It could be
turned out of standard round bar stock.  A monster chunk would be used to get
a little ring.  Could it be rolled out of bar stock?  Say 1/2" by 1/2" bar.
This would be cheap for material.  How round would a typical machine shop do
it?  How square would they make the face that mates with the puck?
 
2)  Assuming it has to hold one atmosphere, how thick do the inner and outer
cup shells need to be?  The outer shell is 7.2" od.  These need a round piece
at the top.  How thick?  Should these be just round disks, or should they have
a step to catch the shell for best welding?  How does a machine shop make a
disk shaped piece of metal anyway?  How do you hold it?  Note a magnetic chuck
does not work on aluminum?
 
I have lots more questions, but the above show the kind of help I need.  Would
one of the lurker engineers out there like to take on the job of making
drawings for these pieces?  It would be a great contribution by someone who
does this sort of thing every day and has the right design tools.  I am
willing to spend $5,000 - $10,000 or so getting a few sets of parts made.  But
it is against my principals as an amateur to pay for design.
 
Tom Droege
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 /  hamilton_b@ix. /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: hamilton_b@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: 3 Nov 1993 08:19:22 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access

In article <1993Nov2.025541.22295@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>In article <01H4OXJ0JGGY8WXJEF@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>I once read in this list, back in 1989, someone's asking "Who the hell
>>is Bockris?"; this is a laugh.
[ bit from "Bad science" deleted ]
>>He must be one of the most productive scientists in the world,
>>counting all sciences, with his ca. 640 publications and 13 books.
>
>He can't beat L. Ron Hubbard for productivity on paper.  In both cases,
>you have to wonder what is being produced.
 
In New Zealand we have this ailment called "tall poppy syndrome",
and this refers to the extremely bad habit of average people to
highlight alleged deficiencies in respected people who stand out
from the crowd.
 
You have selectively chosen some comments, without referring to the
original source, and apparently judged Bockris. He has a reputation
that was earned by quality research in many fields. Suggesting the
number of publications is one valid reason for comparison with L. Ron
Hubbard indicates a great willingness to apply TPS.
 
The number of publications is irrelevant, and the overall contribution
of Bockris ( not only in publications, but in the students he has
trained ) to late 20th Century science has been ( and will be ) assessed
by his peers.
 
            Bruce Hamilton
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhamilton_b cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Lawrence Chen /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: lawrence@combdyn.com (Lawrence *The Dreamer* Chen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 21:00:08 GMT
Organization: Combustion Dynamics Ltd.

In article <2b3triINNvd8@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>
>NAME:   sci.fluid-dynamics
>
>STATUS: Unmoderated
>
>One line description for the List of Active Newsgroups:
>
>sci.fluid-dynamics - Scientific computational fluid dynamics
>
how about:
 
sci.engr.fluid-dynamics ?
 
Fluid Dynamics sounds like something that should be part of Engineering,
of course what should I know....I'm an Electrical Engineer...and I don't see
an Electrical Engineering group here.....8-)
 
 
 
--
 --EMAIL-----------------------------PHONE-----------FAX------------
 | WORK: lawrence@combdyn.com      | (403)529-2162 | (403)529-2516 | CallSign
 | HOME: dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca | (403)526-6019 | (403)529-5102 |  VE6LKC
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
  disclamer = (working_for && !representing) + (Combustion Dynamics Ltd.);
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlawrence cudfnLawrence cudlnChen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Stephen McMahon /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: sjm@pluto.adfa.oz.au (Stephen James McMahon)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 09:11:09 GMT
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy

Count me in too
--
============================================================================
Stephen McMahon                           Tel : (06) 2688275
Department of Aerospace                 email : sjm@pluto.me.adfa.oz.au
 and Mechanical Engineering
Australian Defence Force Academy
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensjm cudfnStephen cudlnMcMahon cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 09:37:10 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <1993Nov2.025541.22295@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Greg Kuperberg) writes:
 
>In article <01H4OXJ0JGGY8WXJEF@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>I once read in this list, back in 1989, someone's asking "Who the hell
>>is Bockris?"; this is a laugh.
 
>I must agree that Bockris is a known quantity.  *Bad Science* discusses
>Bockris' research at length.  Just what has made Bockris famous
>lately?  Well, he claimed to have found a solar cell with an efficiency
>of more than 100%.  His graduate student Nigel Packham found tritium in
>a number of interesting places.  After mastering cold fusion, he moved
>on to electrochemical transmutation of mercury into gold.
 
>"Everyone thinks Nigel spiked the tritium."  -- Bockris, p. 350 of
>*Bad Science*.
 
>"As cold fusion seems to work and we don't understand that, why should
>it not be that these other reactions take place?" -- Bockris, p. 428 of
>*Bad Science*, referring to transmutation.
 
>>He must be one of the most productive scientists in the world,
>>counting all sciences, with his ca. 640 publications and 13 books.
 
>He can't beat L. Ron Hubbard for productivity on paper.  In both cases,
>you have to wonder what is being produced.
 
You are being grossly unfair to a giant among electrochemists. Part of the
secret of his success undoubtedly lies in his orneryness and his occasional
flights of fancy. A stolid and unimaginative scientist might produce a solid
and competent but modest body of work, and never inspire anyone. Bockris has
inspired and taught many. By focussing on his peculiarities, you are being
quite unfair. This is the same as, say, characterising Kepler by his lifelong
fancy for regular polyhedrons, Brahe as the man with a silver nose, Newton by
his later fascination with the supernatural, or Schottky by his views on racial
differences. What is more, the "jury" is not out on cold fusion, so what if
Bockris (and other TB's) are right? Nevertheless, nothing will take away from
his giant achievements in electrochemistry.
 
What has he done lately? What would you know about it? You are only looking at
the cold fusion angle. As with Fleischmann and Pons, who have continued, these
last few years, to publish mainstream electrochemical papers, so does Bockris
still have his finger in a lot of mainstream work. Check the festschrift;
you'll find that if you count from the year 1990 (allowing Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
-------------------publication
delays), he has coauthored 12 non-CNF papers in 1990, 10 in 1991, and
submitted 5 in 1992 (thisis from Conway's list, probably not quite up to
date). So CNF is not his main preoccupation, the man has boundless energy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Pd loading
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pd loading
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 15:05:03 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <2b62k8INNgvc@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
>Concerning palladium loading, is the answer to the following question
>known?
 
>At what pressure, if at all, does the average separation between D nuclei
>in Pd less than that in the D2 molecule?
 
>[I assume the separation in a D2 molecule is not very pressure-sensitive.
>The catch in the above question is the prospect that D fails to be
>further adsorbed into Pd beyond some finite loading at any given pressure.]
         ^^
 
Have you been reading Japanese cnf patents, Bruce? The word is aBsorbed.
This is quite complicated but the easy answer, I think, lies in the fact that,
as you increase the overall loading, what happens is that the actual Pd
deuteride crystal has a loading of 0.72 (or some such figure), with its d-d
separation of 4+ A, and the rest goes into voids, as small compressed pockets
of D2 gas at high pressures. In this gas, you'd immediately have the low-low
separation of 0.7 A or so. So now I ask you, what pressures would you need to
squeeze D2 gas molecules so that they get appreciably smaller? I believe the
figure will be astronomical (10^26 atm? {:] ).
There have been attempts, experimental as well as theoretical, to find
deuterons in the tetrahedral sites in Pd; all without success. That leaves only
a few speculations, mostly Russian, I think, or hopes based on fluctuations
(accidental close approaches).
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 15:11:41 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <1993Nov3.093710.16874@aau.dk> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
[...]
>What has he done lately? What would you know about it? You are only looking at
>the cold fusion angle. As with Fleischmann and Pons, who have continued, these
>last few years, to publish mainstream electrochemical papers, so does Bockris
>still have his finger in a lot of mainstream work. Check the festschrift;
>you'll find that if you count from the year 1990 (allowing Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
>-------------------publication
>delays), he has coauthored 12 non-CNF papers in 1990, 10 in 1991, and
>submitted 5 in 1992 (thisis from Conway's list, probably not quite up to
>date). So CNF is not his main preoccupation, the man has boundless energy.
 
Aaargh! Sorry about this garble, I am still trying to come to grips with this
Unix system. I telnet over to this computer, and in the middle of Emacs, there
was a broadcast from the base computer, and it garbled the screen. Emacs no
doubt has a recovery command to fix that but I don't know it (yet). I'll go off
now and read the man files again. I think my drift can be reconstructed,
though.
 
Dieter ungarbled alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -----------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 15:13:58 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <2b865vINNj8e@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
>Dieter Britz writes:
 
>|> [...] By focussing on his peculiarities, you are being
>|> quite unfair. This is the same as, say, characterising Kepler by his lifelong
>|> fancy for regular polyhedrons, Brahe as the man with a silver nose, Newton by
>|> his later fascination with the supernatural, or Schottky by his views on
>|> racial differences.
 
>"Shockley" (spelled somehow) of transistor fame is the one with the wierd
>racial ideas.
 
Sorry, you are right, it was (is) Shockley.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Fleischmann responds to Jones (Re-posted
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann responds to Jones (Re-posted
Subject: Scientific Criticism
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 21:43:29 GMT
Date: 28 Sep 93 16:05:06 -0600
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Brigham Young University

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
This is a repeat message. Sorry to crowd the bandwidth, but some people have
told me this message never got through the mill, and I think this one is
important enough to repeat. I gather that Internet has developed cybernetic
hiccups, or possibly influenza. There is an interesting article on the front
page of the N.Y. Times (11/3/93) about Internet hiccups.
 
- Jed
 
 
On September 28 Steve Jones posted a critique of the work of Pons and
Fleischmann. I printed a copy of the message and mailed it to them along with
some other material, because they do not follow e-mail. I explained to them
that I did not understand what Jones meant, because he writes poorly. I could
not judge the scientific validity of his message, and I thought perhaps there
might be something new or challenging worth addressing in it. I read it
several times and thought to myself: "Surely he doesn't mean it is storing up
energy the whole time with 'invisible' non-endothermic energy storage?" It
turns out, by golly, he does mean that! He *is* asserting that you can store 8
MJ of chemical energy 0.0044 moles of palladium! This is same nonsense that
Morrison, Close and so many others have been giving us for the last four
years, so it really does not need a response.
 
Morrison and Close write better English prose than Jones. I have no trouble
understanding them when they make similar claims. Jones should express his
ideas more clearly. He should come out and state categorically and
quantitatively: "I assert that it is possible to store 8 MJ of chemical energy
in a 0.5 gram sample of metal" That would make it easier for the rest of us to
line up in support or opposition.
 
Fleischmann mailed me back a long response, commenting on various other topics
including the influence of 16th century English drama on 17th century
politics. I will skip these unrelated comments and post only some of the
remarks about Jones.
 
Because Jones has posted several other messages since Sept. 28, and because
his messages tend to contradict one another, as Mitch Swartz has shown, let me
repost a large part of the original Jones message, followed by the rebuttal
from Fleischmann, followed by a short additional message from Fleischmann
clarifying a point I asked about. Messages are separated with a "====" line.
 
 
Here are two unrelated, personal notes:
 
I have decided to stop posting messages to this forum. I made an exception for
this because Martin was kind enough to respond in depth to the Jones posting,
in spite of his busy schedule. So, I feel I should close the loop and report
his comments here. Although I do not plan to participate here, I am still
available to assist people and distribute information about cold fusion, so if
you have any questions or you need anything, please do not hesitate to contact
me directly by e-mail, telephone or fax. I do not often read the Fusion
Digest, so contact me directly.
 
Also if someone would collect these messages on 3.5" diskette and mail them to
me once a month, it would save me a lot of time and e-mail expense, so I would
be happy to pay for such a service. Please contact me if you are interested.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
Tel: 404-451-9890
Fax: 404-458-2404
 
 
==================================================================
 
ORIGINAL JONES POSTING
 
Tilde character changed to [approx]):
 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientific Criticism
Date: 28 Sep 93 16:05:06 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University
 
 
...
 
Jed and P&F (reference: P&F paper in Phys. Lett.A 176 (1993) , also in Nagoya
Proceedings):
Jonathon Jones and I looked carefully at the P&F Fig. 8, which shows temp. rise
and concurrent voltage increase for constant current (after a few days of
initial running with no heat increase).  By integrating under the voltage curve
and multiplying by I=0.500 A, we found approx. 8 MJ of Joule (resistive)
heating had been put into the cell.  This is far more than needed to boil away
the 45 ml of D2O electrolyte present.  But what about the
claimed "excess heat"?
That claim is based on a "calculation" given on p. 128 of their paper P. Lett.
A 176 (1993) which includes:
"Enthalpy input:  By electrolysis, (Ecell - 1.54) X (cell current) = [approx]
22,500J."
 
Note the 1.54XI , which means P&F assume that *no* recombination occurs in the
cell, which I again challenge.
 
Moreover, from the equation given cell current = "0.500 A" from Fig. 8, we
get   Ecell = 76.5 Volts  -- a whopping voltage! From that figure, it is *not*
possible to read this value.  First, the voltages are binned
in 1000 second bins -- we need the voltages on a much finer scale to scrutinize
the assertion that the Vcell during boiling was 76.5 volts.  Second, the plots
show lines which completely obscure the voltage reading in the crucial last
period of intense boiling.
 
What is going on here? How do P&F know the input voltage?  What they say in the
text (p. 128) is:  "The enthalpy input is ESTIMATED from the CELL POTENTIAL-
TIME RECORD, the radiative output is accurately known (temperature
measurements become unnecessary!) and the major enthalpy output is due to
evaporation of the D2O."  (My capitals.)
Sorry, this is just not good enough to be compelling evidence for
excess heat.  Show us the cell voltage-time plot in sufficient detail for us to
check the enthalpy input.  I don't trust the "estimate" of 76.5 volts,
especially when one cannot read this from the cell potential-time plot (Fig. 8)
provided.      Prove that temp. measurements are "unnecessary"  --
are you sure that heat conduction is negligible?  I am not convinced.  Show
that D2O was not expelled in droplets along with "evaporation" (as Droege
points out, a probable oversight with major consequences).
 
Gentlemen, really.  The evidence presented for excess heat production is hardly
compelling.  And at this stage of research...
 
Dick Blue:  Days ago you cited me as saying that the P&F boiling period lasted
for 60,000 seconds.  Rather, I quoted the caption of
Fig. 11 in the P&F paper which shows temperature versus time for the "final
period" of Fig 8a, including boiling.  [Again:  why did P&F expand the temp.
part of Fig 8 but not the crucial cell voltage portion of that Figure?  Most
curious.]
 
...
 
 
==================================================================
 
FLEISCHMANN'S RESPONSE
 
Part of a letter to Jed Rothwell, dated Oct. 21, 1993. Some typos corrected by
Rothwell.
 
     Underlined portions are shown between "_" characters.
     Subscripts are shown in square brackets; example: H[2]O.
     Tilde character changed to [approx].
 
Items were numbered by author "so that we can refer to them easily if we have
further correspondence about this (and the Nagoya) paper." Text begins here:
 
 
...
 
(1) The first important point is that the "lower bound heat transfer
coefficients", (k[R]')[11], _based on the assumption that there is no source
of excess heat_ are virtually identical to the true heat transfer coefficient
designated as (k[R]')[2] for blank experiments (these are measured with Joule
heater calibrations). It follows that there are no sources of excess heat in
those blank experiments. This excludes the possibility repeatedly raised by
Douglas Morrison, Steve Jones, etc that recombination of D[2] + O[2] could be
responsible for the excess heat.
 
Furthermore, the volumes of the gases evolved match those calculated from
Faraday's law. Furthermore the volumes of D[2]O (or H[2]O) added match those
calculated with Faraday's law + losses due to evaporation (assuming that the
gases are saturated with D[2]O (or H[2]O) vapour at the cell temperature). We
have said this repeatedly but all of it is ignored.
 
(2) Secondly, Steve Jones and Douglas Morrison cannot do arithmetic. Let us
assume that they are right and go to the extreme assumption that all the gases
evolved recombine in the cell. This would generate 0.5 Amps x 1.54 Volts =
0.77 Watts under all conditions. However, when the cell is boiling vigorously,
the cell voltage is 76.5 Volts (it doesn't really matter what it is - see the
next point (3)). The enthalpy input is now 0.5 Amps x 76.5 Volts = 38.25
Watts. 0.77 Watts is pretty negligible compared to 38.25 Watts but the heat
output from the cell is 182 Watts (11 Watts by radiation, 171 Watts to boil
the D[2]O). The excess is 144.5 Watts.
 
It doesn't really matter how you tinker with these figures, you will always
finish up with a massive excess rate of enthalpy production. The rail voltage
of the galvanostat is 100V - one could say that the enthalpy input is 0.5 Amps
x 100 Volts = 50 Watts, it has no effect on the qualitative level. One could
say some of the D[2]O is dispelled as droplets (actually, we recover [approx]
95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and titrating; some is
undoubtedly lost by irreversible reactions with the glass walls of the
Dewars.)
 
(3) The third point is that the voltages are read every 300s using fast
sample-and-hold systems. We therefore determine the mean potential-time curve
(the only A.C. components are the ripple currents of the galvanostats which
are 0.04% of the set current). This point really refers to Douglas Morrison's
strictures.
 
What estimate of the cell voltage does Steve Jones want to make? As I said in
(2) above, he can take the rail voltage at the galvanostat for all we care (if
he does not trust us).
 
(4) When a cell is boiling, the electrolyte is at the boiling point. Do we
really have to explain that temperature measurements are unnecessary to make
such a statement? Steve Jones should boil some water at Provo and stick a
thermometer into his saucepan. He will find that the boiling point is slightly
lower than that given in the text books. However, if he measures atmospheric
pressure, he will find he can calculate the boiling point from the Clausius
Clapeyron equation. The effects should not be large for Provo (note here we do
actually take a continuous pressure-time curve in our experiments and we allow
for these effects.)
 
(5) What on earth is Steve Jones' point about heat conduction? We measure the
heat flow due to radiation across the vacuum gap. How should conduction reduce
this value? In other words we make a "lower limit estimate."
 
(6) If Steve Jones wants to be more elaborate with the experiment outlined in
(4), he should try to evaporate 0.1M NaCl to dryness. He will find that the
boiling point increases as the electrolyte gets more concentrated (this is
described in all text books on Thermodynamics or Physical Chemistry). We
ignore this effect - if we took it into account the excess enthalpy would be
increased.
 
Furthermore, as the electrolyte boils to dryness, one has to supply the heat
of solution. Steve Jones can prove this for himself by throwing some NaOH or
KOH into H[2]O - the solution heats up. Again, we ignore this effect - it
would increase enthalpy.
 
(7) Steve Jones in common with Douglas Morrison, Frank Close etc etc.
apparently wants to hide away 8MJ of resistive heating in the 0.0392 cm^3
palladium electrode or say 2 GJ per mole of Pd. My mind boggles at this
notion.
 
In actual fact, there is no energy available to hide away. As demonstrated in
Figs 10(a) and (b) the system shows excess enthalpy throughout the experiment.
It would have to be endothermic at some stage to "hide away" energy for later
release.
 
(8) There is of course a storage mechanism available, the D in the lattice.
Perhaps Steve is, after all, too smart to raise this one: Douglas Morrison
isn't. However, the maximum enthalpy one could obtain from this is [approx]
650 Joules (assuming a D/Pd ratio of [approx] 1) but we need 102,500 Joules
just to boil away the D[2]O.
 
All I can say is to echo Steve: "Gentlemen, really". I would add "And at this
stage of the research we do really need arguments which have to be taken
seriously". We  are quite prepared to do this but Steve's commentary is just a
bunch of froth.
 
Regards,
 
Yours sincerely,
 
[Signed]
 
Martin Fleischmann
 
 
==================================================================
 
FLEISCHMANN'S CLARIFICATION
 
I asked Fleischmann to comment on his statement: "voltages are read every 300s
using fast sample-and-hold systems." Five minute gaps between readings is an
unusually long time for this type of experiment (although I know no reason to
think they are "too long" -- CF reactions are slow and stable). He responded:
 
     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
     but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
 
This is an important point that many readers here have failed to grasp: a wide
variety of experiments have been performed at IMRA, and a wide variety of
instruments used, like the averaging meters. The experiments described in
Physics Letters A are only the tip of the iceberg. If they had *only* used 5
minute readings, in only one set of experiments, I would consider that a
problem, but from talking to various people and from watching the CBC video, I
know that a wide variety of instruments and techniques have been used to
verify and explore the reaction. I pointed that out here from time to time,
but alas, my words fell on deaf ears.
 
==================================================================
 
* End of File * J.R.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  D3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D3
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 01:27:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimeter Design Note      D3                     1 November 1993
 
Thanks to help from Kevin Urness, Robert Eachus, Albert Boulanger, Hans
Kautsky, Dick Blue, John Logajan, Cam Tibbals, and others; I am gradually
figuring out how to make some of the parts.  This has caused me to purchase an
8" circular table ($269.99 from Enco) for my toy milling machine, and more
than ever make me determined to buy a real one.  I just need to locate a
machinery mover who will move it into my garage.
 
Robert Eachus has convinced me to make the puck shaped pieces out of two
pieces of aluminum plate with a tongue and groove coupling.  Why not then glue
them together?  The cup shaped shells are a different problem.  As you may be
able to tell from below, I am beginning to lean towards brass and either
silver solder or plain solder.
 
As I have noted before, the best material for a calorimeter of the previous
type is silver.  But as I was not yet ready to melt up my 1000 oz bar, I
instead made it from aluminum, which is fourth on the list below after silver,
gold, and copper.  The last calorimeter had a pole for the main servo loop at
0.000013 hz.  That is a period of 21 hours.  Electronic wizardry reduced this
to a 20 minute time constant.  For many reasons, the shorter the time constant
the better the measurement.
 
Why do I say silver is a good material?  We can think of the body of a
calorimeter as being made up of a bunch of g's and C's.  The C's represent the
thermal capacity of each unit volume.  The g's represent the conductivity for
heat between the unit volumes.  For the time constant C/g to be small, we want
g as large as possible and C as small as possible.  In the table below, k1 is
C/g for the various materials.
 
This is the logic for conducting heat through solid metal when the response
time is important (always!).  Now that we are thinking about heat pipes, we
must consider whether the same logic holds.
 
For the table below where the data for metals is taken from the Goodfellow
catalog and is thus likely true for ultra pure metals.  Other values were
taken from my collection of such numbers.  Beware, some have been converted
from English units of Btu, square feet and F:
Thermal Conductivity is in W m-1 K-1 or J t-1 m-1 K-1
Specific Heat is in J K-1 kg-1
Density is in kg m-3
"Capacity" (Specific heat * Density) is in J K-1 m-3
k1 is in t m-2
 
Element   Thermal    Spec.  Density  Capacity   k1
          Conduc.    Heat
 
Air         0.02    1009        1.2     1210    60600
Al        237        900     2700    2300000     9700
Ag        429        237    12000    2840000     6620
Au        318        129    19300    2490000     7830
Brass     129        345     8500    2900000    22500
Cu        401        385     8960    3450000     8600
Earth       0.6     1850     2044    3780000  6300000
Fe         80        444     7870    3490000    43600
Foam        0.03    1000*      29      29000   970000
Ht Pipe 50000       4000*       1*      4000     0.08
Ni         91        444     8900    3950000    43500
Nb         54        268     8570    3150000    58000
Pd         72        244    12000    2930000    40700
Rubber      0.2     2020      959    1940000  9700000
Sn         66.8      523     4500    2350000    35000
St.Steel   20        463     7990    3700000   185000
Water       0.7     4160     1000    4160000  5900000
Zn        116        388     7140    2770000    24000
 
* Guess
 
k1 is in seconds per square meter.  I do not have a good physical feeling for
what this means, but for building calorimeters the smaller k1 the better.
 
We notice that silver is 28 times faster than stainless steel.  For those
thinking about glass calorimeters, use the Earth line for a rough estimate and
see that silver is 950 times faster than glass.  It is hard to make a
measurement until several time constants have passed.  That is the problem
with the dewar calorimetry as used by Mills.
 
Using some wild but educated guessing, a line in the above table is made for
heat pipes.  We have already measured values of conductivity similar to the
one in the table.  We use a specific heat number near water as we will likely
use gin.  One could argue that this number should be much higher as the heat
pipe uses the heat of vaporization to function.  What evaporates at the hot
spot condenses at a cold spot somewhere else, so the net effect is that the
contents look like they have the specific heat of water.  For density we use a
number near air.  It is likely much less, and thus the response will be even
faster.
 
It is quite obvious that a calorimeter built out of heat pipes will have a
much faster response than one built from solid silver, the next best material.
In fact, the improvement is so great (100,000/1) that it becomes obvious that
the end effects will dominate.
 
While this is likely thoroughly studied somewhere, an engineering approach is
to just work with what is possible and pick the best of the available
materials.
 
Since the gas of the heat pipe is of order 100,000 better than solid silver,
all the temperature gradients are going to be at the joint between the two
heat pipes that make up the shell around the experiment.  Some calculations
indicate that this will be of order 0.1 C for expected heat loads on the inner
shell.  For this design, this might introduce a .002 watt variable heat leak.
While this can be calibrated for an experiment running under constant
conditions, we want to do better, so we will try to think of a clever way to
join the two pieces that make up the shells.
 
Since all the gradients take place in the wall of the heat pipe, it is
important to make the "wall" as thin as possible.  The one place this is
really important is the flange where the two heat pipes are connected
together.  Here the conduction is through metal and not gas, so thermal
conductivity is very important.  Silver would still be great.  Silver alloys
are pretty strong, and might make the sort of vacuum vessels needed.  But
getting such materials would be a pain.  Next comes copper.  In my youth, I
built a fine copper vessel about the same size as the ones needed.  I had
finished cooking the mash, and made an error in the order in which I closed
the valves.  The fine copper machine was squished into a pancake by
atmospheric pressure.  I managed to unfold it though, and it now rests in my
living room as a flower pot.  The point is that copper is not very strong.
But it is relatively easy get and to solder up.
 
Working down the list, we come to aluminum.  This is probably what we will use
as it is light and strong which makes for easy handling.  But it will likely
cost a bundle to work, as I do not intend to learn to make vacuum tight welds.
 
There is one more possibility.  That is to use brass.  It is readily available
and can be worked by a boy scientist in his basement (or garage with the door
open).  It is also possible to buy thin walled tubing in a variety of sizes.
I have planned to use small heat pipes inside the calorimeter to insure a
constant cell wall temperature.  The first project will thus be to make some
disks and rings with my new milling machine table, and make a double walled
heat pipe cell holder from standard brass tubing.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Thomas Orth /  Re: Neutron Beam
     
Originally-From: orth@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Thomas D. Orth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron Beam
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 15:30:12 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois

In article <120501@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt0603f@prism.gatech.EDU
(Douglas Alan Harrell) writes:
|> In article <93301.194404LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu> LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|> >I'm back . . . If you can make a neutron beam in such a fashion, could it be
|> >used to create a kind of nuclear battery, where the neutron beam would be
|> >used to induce fission in a target, but where the target will not
|> >chain-react (ie.  so you can just switch it off?)
|> >Jim Owens
|> >Opeenions? Opeenions!? We don' need no steenking Opeenions!?!
|>
|>
|>
|> Evidently you haven't been following the newsgroup lately... I'll take
|> your "I'm back..." as evidence of that.
|>
|>      This very thing has been a recent subject of discussion here.
|> I know of two such projects, one entitled the "Phoenix" about which I
|> know very little, the other which goes by "ATW", which stands for
|> Accelerator-based Transmutation of Wastes, or something like that.
|>      One of the authors of much of the work on ATW came from LANL
|> to Georgia Tech last year to present a seminar about it to the Nuclear
|> Engineering Department. One of the junior professors, who had arranged
|> the seminar, was evidently impressed with the idea. But as the seminar
|> progressed and questions began to emerge, some of the senior faculty
|> were obviously unimpressed with the whole idea. So much so that one of
|> them, who is usually fairly quiet, began to *laugh*, more loudly as the
|> presentation progressed. He continued to laugh almost until it was over.
|>
|>      At the time I thought it was kinda rude, but as I learn more about
|> the concept and think about it, I understand where the prof was coming from.
|> It is a colossal wayto spend research dollars on something which is really
|> no mentionable improvement over the present LWR's.
|>
|>      If you consider it, the ATW "burner" or "reactor" or whatever you
|> want to call it must still have virtually all the same components and safety
|> systems as a conventional Light Water Reactor. After all, it must have a
|> pressure vessel (@2250 psia), a coolant (water), steam generators, etc.
|>      If there is fission taking place, there will be fission products
|> and thus decay heat, thus the need for the same safety systems as a LWR.
|> If there is any significant amout of burnup (which must occur to produce
|> power) then the fuel will become depleted and will have to be replaced
|> and there will be actinides left in the spent fuel, just like LWRs. This
|> means that reprocessing of the oxide fuel (ATW uses it, Phoenix, don't know)
|> ala PUREX, the messy stuff that nobody wants to do.
|>
|>      Furthermore, on top of basically building a complete LWR system,
|> it must be activated by means of an accelerator which must be about
|> *50* times larger and more powerful than any existing accelerator. Gee, did
|> I forget to mention that this part of it hasn't been developed yet?
|>      Sure, you get to get rid of the control rods, but those have never
|> been the trouble with Western reactors. And you have to trade them for
|> a bijillion dollar accelerator that doesn't exist.
|>
|>      Along with the accelerator comes a whole *new* set of problems
|> that must be addressed. In a LWR, the pressure vessel is somewhat
|> insulated from the neutron flux by the moderator and by a thermal shield.
|> In the ATW, however, the beam necessitates a highly evacuated tube up
|> the center of the reactor. In the tube is the tungsten target used to produce
|> the neutrons. *ALL* the neutrons must pass through the tube wall in order
|> to be of any use in the fuel. But, lest you forget, on the other side
|> of this tube wall is 600 DEGREE WATER AT 2250 PSI! Hello, children, can
|> you say "serious embrittlement problems"?
|>
|>      The problem with this technology, and fusion for that matter, is
|> that in order to become economically viable, some major physics and
|> materials science breakthoughs must be made.
|>      The kicker is that those breakthroughs will *also* serve to make
|> fission reactors even more practical. And remember, the first fission
|> reactor ever built WORKED on the FIRST TRY!!!
|>
|>      There's a lot more to be said on the subject, but enough said for now.
|>
|>
|> Doug
|>
Technical nits aside...well said
Tom Orth
Argonne National Laboratory
orth@dublin.aps1.anl.gov
Speaking for myself
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenorth cudfnThomas cudlnOrth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
Date: 3 Nov 93 10:42:44
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     I'd like to congratulate Terry for taking my persistant whine and
running with it. :-)  I think we are pretty close to agreement now,
although I think that the pariing which Terry sees as a convienent
point of view should be treated as a separate hypothesis to be
verified.
 
     Having said all that, the Dillon, Kennedy and Elcombe paper does
seem to show some evidence of delocalized D+. (Here delocalized refers
to "not in particular lattice sites", not necessarily Bose
condensation.)  If loading above .6 is evidence for a "deuteron gas"
then looking for magnetic effects, even at room temperture, should be
worth the effort.
 
     Also, if as I think both Terry and I suspect, the two spin state
condensate is energetically favored, the single spin state ferromagnetic
might be formed if the experiment is conducted in a strong magnetic
field.  I jokingly suggested to Terry putting Tom's calorimeter in a
magnetic resonance imaging system, but on reflection it seems like a
very good idea.
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 17:19:51 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: What do you think, Tom, John, Dieter (etc.)?  Is "once every 5 minutes" enough
: to evaluate I*V(t), integrated over 10 minutes?
 
The short answer is no. It all stinks of incompetence or a fear that real
data might shatter pre-conceived ideas. Bad science ?
 
The sensible way would be to arrange a circular buffer for the data,
sampling fast and discarding old data. Keep only the 5 minute averages if
nothing had happened, but dump the whole buffer to disk if it looks
interesting. The criterion of 'interesting' could be a fairly simple test
for temperature rise etc.
 
Myself, I would get rid of the PC and use a proper data logger - most can
be easily programmed to do all of this. We routinely log anything up to 32
differential voltage channels at 1 second sample interval to autoranged 12
bit resolution in this way - looking for transients on cathodic protection
systems caused by stray current interference. The technology is there, off
the shelf - and cheap ! So use it.
 
Karel
--
*Karel*Hladky*(khladky@umist.ac.uk)**+44-61-236-6573**CAPCIS Ltd.*
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Scott Lett /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: slett@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Scott Lett)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 3 Nov 93 16:04:05 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
: This is a repost of Charles Lind's RFD to a wider range of groups. The
: original post still contained the name sci.cfd; I have removed this.
 
Consider this a yes vote for a CFD (or FD) group, regardless of the name. The
wider the audience, the better.  A group that includes engineers, physicists,
chemists, mathematicians, software developers and (even) experimental fluid
dynamicists would be of greatest benefit to this important area.
 
Scott Lett
Scientific Software-Intercomp, Inc.
slett@ssii.com
slett@copper.denver.colorado.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenslett cudfnScott cudlnLett cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Dmitrii Manin /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: manin@stickycamelot.rockefeller.edu (Dmitrii Manin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,news.groups,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.phys
cs.fusion,sci.geo.fluids,sci.engr,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.engr.mech
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 14:09:28 EST

In article <1993Nov2.161452.9555@afit.af.mil>, leldred@csc.afit.af.mil writes:
|>    If people are concerned about low traffic and the experimental
|> fluid dynamicists are concerned about being left out... why not
|> expand the charter to include the experimentalists and keep the
|> name "sci.fluid-dynamics".
|>    It seems natural to me. I know a good dose of reality every
|> once in a while is healthy for us computational engineers.
|>
|> Dr. Lloyd Eldred
 
I wholeheartedly agree with this. There should be a group for general
fluid dynamical discussions. On the other hand, I'm afraid that if CFD-sts
will not have their own (sub)group, their traffic will override other
topics. Hence I'd suggest having TWO groups like sci.fluid-dynamics AND
sci.fluid-dynamics.computational.
 
- DM
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmanin cudfnDmitrii cudlnManin cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.01 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Ol'dry fusion....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ol'dry fusion....
Date: 1 Nov 93 23:28:41 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi to Gordon and all the fusion Folk out there,
 In item 8842 posted 1-NOV-93, Gordon Powell writes,
 
=GP Daryl Owen's structual phase change proposal is quite plausible
=GP and interesting. Can you offer any numbers ?
 
Thanks for the interest Gordon. The post which you answered was,
due to an interuption, the continuation of a previous post. For the sake
of clarity, I would like to present the whole argument here....
 
 I believe that many people focus on the theory or experiment of the month
and forget that this topic had some very good experiments being done in it,
way back in 1989/90.
 The, IMHO definitive, experiment in CF, was the one performed by Eiichi
Yamaguchi and Takashi Nishioka, published in April 1990 in the Japanese
Journal of Applied Physics and also in the excellent, AIP Conference
Proceedings No. 228, co-edited by the very active Prof. S.E.Jones... good
one Steve.
 Before outlining the experiment, I will apologise in advance for any
distortion of emphasis, omissions etc, which may occur in this summary....
 
 There were actually two series of experiments performed, one called The
First Stage Experiment,(vacuum out-diffusion of D) and the other
The Second Stage Experiment (vacuum/current-injecton out-diffusion of
D and H).
 The First Stage involved three samples of 3.0 x 3.0cm Pd (99.9%) plates
1mm thick, coated on one side by a (<100 Angstrom) MnO thin film, the plates
were charged with D2 gas at approx 0.5 atm. in a chamber and an Au film
of approx. 2000 Angstroms thick deposited on the other side.
 The thin film oxide provides a suface barrier to the out-transport of D ions
and the thick Au film prevents leakage of D atoms from the other side.
 The samples were then placed in a vacuum chamber  which was evacuated
by a turbo molecular pump.  After approx. 3 hours of pumping, the following
events happened almost simultaneously....
(1) Gigantic neutron emission of 0.1 - 0.2 mSv/hr for 2 - 3 seconds.
(2) Explosive release of gas from samples.(thought to be thru the thin film)
(3) Biaxial bending of all samples.
(4) Excess heat evolution. (During which the Au film was alloyed with the
           Pd substrate, indicating a temperature of about 800 deg.C)
 The same three samples were again immersed in D2 gas at about 130 deg.C
for 10 hours in the same chamber, whose evacuation was then commenced.
After about 150 secs of pumping, another gigantic neutron burst of
0.6 - 0.9 mSv/hour for 1 - 2 seconds was observed.
 The pressure was then increased to 1 atmosphere with nitrogen and the
chamber again evacuated. Almost the same magnitude of neutron emission as
the second burst was observed after about 150 seconds of pumping.
 Good precautions against fake signals (battery power suplies etc) were taken.
 HOWEVER....They performed about 20 further experiments using the above
proceedure. Neither (None?) of the above mentioned events were observed in
those further experiments. They put this down to the fact that possibly....
" the cooperative production of D accumulation layers at the Pd surfaces
critically depends upon the characteristics of the surface barriers."
 The Second Stage Experiment....
 With the intent of clarifying the causal relationship among the four events,
they added current injection to the first stage experiment in May 1990.
They also refined their techniques for applying (different) films and
importantly loaded samples with H2 as well as D2.
 The "current injection" consisted of applying positive DC pulses to
the Au side of the plate when it was under vacuum, with the idea (I believe)
of "injecting" the D from the Pd through the thin film.
 The effects (2) - (4) of the first experiment were easily reproduced but
of much lower amplitude using the electric current. Furthermore they were
also reproducible with the Pd:H samples.
Discussion....
 The excess heat in both the Pd:H and Pd:D samples is strongly correlated with
the plastic deformation of the samples. Therefore it seems that the excess
heat is not caused by any nuclear reaction but by a rapid structual phase
change, manifest by the bending of the samples.
 Thus effects (2)-(4) found with both Pd:H and Pd:D are expected to be based
on physics different from that which causes effect (1).
 A much simplified summary of effect (1) is that, at the extremes of
effects (2)-(4), defect induced lattice vibration, during the plastic
deformation of the samples, gives energy in the order of 1Kev to the deutrons
which would increase the probability of the D atoms approaching close enough
to each other to give a high fusion rate.
 In my searches of the literature, I have been unable to find any replication
of the above experiment. If any one out there knows of a replication or of
similar types of experiments, I would be gratefull if they would contact me.
 
 My own interpretation of what is happening in cold fusion can be best
explained by this simplistic, rough analogy....
 Consider that the Pd loaded with D and under stress, constitutes a high
pressure reservoir of D atoms. Within this reservoir the atoms of D have a
certain relatively low velocity. If now a small nozzle is placed at the base
of the reservoir, the velocity of the D atoms at and near the nozzle is
increased dramatically, to the extent that they overcome their potential
barriers sufficient for fusion to occur.
 I would emphasise the hole/nozzle concept, if all your Pd samples and
electrodes are not mostly covered by some D impervious layer/film, then when
the highly loaded Pd is stressed, the D has many "none optimal" sites
to escape from the Pd. An "optimal site" is one covered by the required
thin film which forms the nozzle. Or as Yamaguchi states it....
 "It is considered that the controlled out-diffusion of D atoms through an
interface between Pd and the oxide film causes a cooperative cycle of the
accumulation of D atoms at the interface, the induction of biaxial strain
fields and the enhancement of D atom transport."
 I would be interested in all comments, critical and otherwise concerning the
above.
 
 Gordon, there were many graphs, photos and diags published in the AIP
publication, (I believe the American Institute of Physics has just moved to
someplace close to Washington) and I would recommend that you get the whole
book if you are interested in CF, as it contains quite a few "classic"
experiments in cold fusion.
                                  Kind Regards to all.
                                  Daryl Owen.
 
  The above musings are attributable only to my Muse and myself.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Kopal Jha /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: kj@cs.brown.edu (Kopal Jha)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 22:57:04 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science

In article <1993Nov2.161452.9555@afit.af.mil> leldred@csc.afit.af.mil writes:
 
>fluid dynamicists are concerned about being left out... why not
>expand the charter to include the experimentalists and keep the
>name "sci.fluid-dynamics".
>   It seems natural to me. I know a good dose of reality every
>once in a while is healthy for us computational engineers.
 
Hear hear.
 
Kopal
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkj cudfnKopal cudlnJha cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 19:00:20 EST

         Bruce Scott complains:
>Jim Shearer misunderstands me. I posted:
 
         Ok, let me ask you directly.  What is your opinion of the
studies (ESECOM, ARIES) which Robert Heeter keeps claiming show we can
produce electricity from tokamak design fusion power plants at a cost
of 3-6 cents per kwh within 50 years?  Would you feel comfortable
advising potential investors that this is a realistic expectation?
         Bruce Scott had posted:
>By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure
>for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like
>15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale).
         Bruce Scott adds:
>I give a figure in constant dollars to try to minimise red herrings that
>come up when people play around with inflationary scales. Just to define
>terms, mind you.
>
>My point is merely that what is a competitive price now and what will be a
>competitive price when we know how to do fusion are likely to be different,
>and that judgements based upon what is competitive now are likely to be
>erroneous.
>
>Again, I ask, why do people think you have to get down to 3-6 cent/kW-hr
>to be competitive? Energy cost more than that even in 1986 when I lived
>in Texas (about 6.5 cents, then, in a state rich with natural gas).
>
>I urge people to define which dollars they speak about: if you wish to
>use current dollars make sure you clarify which year you mean. Today?
>Or after demonstration or non-demonstration of fusion feasibility?
 
         I have no objection to using constant dollars.  I am objecting
to the use of 1980 dollars instead of current dollars since most people
will not immediately realize that a price of $.15 in 1980 dollars is a
price of more than $.25 in current dollars (I do not know the exact
conversion factor offhand).  By current dollars I mean of course 1993
dollars.
         These costs are costs to the utility at the generating plant
busbar.  The price a homeowner pays is of course substantially more.
The current (Nov 8, 1993) Business Week contains a table of current
costs for various means of generating power (p. 94-95, table references
the Electric Power Research Institute).  These are (cents per kwh):
         Coal           4-5            Wind           5-9
         Gas            4-5            Biomass        6-8
         Hydropower     4-7            Solar         10-12
         Geothermal     5-8            Photovoltaic  30-40
The world has very large reserves of coal.  Hence any technology which
hopes to be widely used to generate electricity any time soon must be
competitive with coal in cost.  Your prediction of 25 in 50 years does
not appear to have any substantial basis.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 01:05:25 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

I stand by what I said about Bockris as an accurate summary of
part of what *Bad Science* has to say about him.  If you want
to know more about the peculiarities of this particular tall poppy,
you should read the book.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 20:59:40 EST

         I said:
>         Dale Bass has already responded to this, I will just add that
>that since none of the nations which have nuclear weapons obtained
>them by developing power breeder reactors as an intermediate step it
>seems unlikely that this is the easiest way.
         Robert Heeter protests:
>I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I
>said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes
>much simpler.  Care to refute this, or are you going to evade?
 
         I find it plausible that possesion of power breeder techno-
logy makes it easier to build nuclear weapons.  I also find it
plausible that possesion of tokamak reactor technology makes it
easier to build nuclear weapons.  For that matter it would appear
that possesion of fission reactor technology makes it easier to build
weapons.  If I remember correctly the Soviet Union obtained weapons
plutonium from fission power reactors and that the US could have done
so but decided not to for political reasons.  I do not know enough
to give quantitative estimates about how much difference any of the
above would make.
         However this is all irrelevant.  The US already has nuclear
weapons.  If the US developes a power breeder reactor this will not
help Iran, Libya or Cuba develop nuclear weapons.
         I said:
>         Not much, your claim that energy independence is a prerequisite
>for a viable economy is clearly absurd.  Do you believe the United
>States, Japan etc. currently have non-viable economies?  Most nations
>want energy independence only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
         Robert Heeter replied
>I would claim that the US and Japan have viable economies only insofar
>as we have adequate military force to *ensure* an adequate energy
>supply.  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Rapid Deployment Force
>are both examples of ways in which the US tried to make certain that
>it would be able to survive an oil squeeze and protect oil production
>in the mideast.  Perhaps "energy security" is a better term to describe
>my idea than energy independence.  If there's no oil, and you rely on the
>generosity of other countries to provide you with fission fuel since
>you don't have a breeder, you will have a strong incentive to either
>develop your own breeder or become very close allies with someone who
>has one.  This will certainly apply to the major nations and the pariah
>nations of the world.  You're right in that it's a cost-benefit
>situation, and nations which feel secure in their alliances will
>probably choose not to develop breeders.  But the gist of my
>argument is that a breeder economy is inevitably going to have a
>lot of extra costs associated with it due to the political problems
>it will introduce.
 
         You are not relying on the "generosity" of other countries
to sell you fission fuel instead you are relying on their self-
interest.  As long as there are several competing suppliers there is
little danger you will be unable to buy fission fuel.  Just as today
there is little danger Japan will be unable to buy oil.  I suggest you
read Adam Smith on this point.  Do you believe every nation should try
to be self-sufficient in everything?
          I said
>         I consider this to be an economic question not a scientific
>question.  If fission is cheaper it's better.  I refuse to consider
>the political aspect since this just encourages advocates of one tech-
>nology to invent spurious but politically attractive arguments against
>alternatives.  It is my understanding that simply dumping the waste in
>the deep ocean would be safe enough.  (I am not advocating this).
>Would this pose any real threat to people?  By the way how long does
>it take before fission waste is as safe as uranium ore?
          Robert Heeter replied:
>I sympathize with your desire to stop arguing political issues.
>I guess what I'd like to know is how certain we can be that if we
>dispose of the waste, it will stay put.  Dumping the waste in the
>ocean will certainly dilute it, but then you're going to have lots
>of plankton ingesting it, and then it goes up the food chain, and
>I imagine it's conceivable that you could have some pretty radioactive
>fish being caught and sold as food.  I don't have the tools to
>analyze this fully, though.  But you're not advocating dumping it
>in the oceans.  Where do you want to put it, then?
 
          I said the "deep" ocean.  There are no plankton in the
deep ocean.  I believe there are numerous safe and affordable ways
of disposing of nuclear waste.  I am not competent to select the
best way from among them.  However I do not think it makes much
difference to the cost of fission power unless totally unreason-
able requirements are placed on the disposal method.
          Robert Heeter said:
>Well, the trouble with just writing computer simulation codes is
>that you can't know if they're correct without comparing them with
>real-life experience.
 
          This would not be true if the codes were based on the fund-
amental laws.  I gather this is not feasible at the moment and the
codes rely on poorly understood empirical approximations.  Is this
correct?
          Robert Heeter said:
>One of the big problems with plasma physics is that each time you
>build a new, larger machine, the plasma finds new ways to do things
>you'd never have expected beforehand.
 
          Do you mean here that new things go wrong?
          Robert Heeter said:
>                                       The recent design studies I
>tend to cite (ESECOM, ARIES) have concluded that a large fusion
>machine is likely to be economically viable.
 
          I do not have access to these studies.  How about a summary
of what they project an economically viable fusion reactor will look
like (and why they think it will be cheaper than coal within 50 years).
For example what size, capital cost, running costs, total cost per
kwh, expected fraction of potential power actually generated, frequency
of unplanned outages and costs thereof, plant lifetime etc.
                         James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Douglas Harrell /  Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
     
Originally-From: gt0603f@prism.gatech.EDU (Douglas A. Harrell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
Date: 4 Nov 93 03:10:34 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

>|> in a reactor, esp.  something that produces alphas as a by-product?  Do you
>|> get any energy gains from 'accidental' fusions?
>
>No, helium ash pollutes a reactor, making it harder to run. You might want
>something that produces D, T, or He3. But I think anything like this you
>put in will cost you more in dilution and impurity radiation (collisional
>excitation) than it gets you. I don't know of any serious study on this,
>however.
 
I think I must be missing something here...
If you put enough deuterium in a fission
reactor you get accidental fusion?
Or did I read this wrong?
 
If I read this right, somebody better
warn the Canadians.
Come to think of it, I better go
warn the director of the D2O reactor
that I'm taking a lab in right now...
 
I hope I read this wrong.
No, really, I do...
 
Doug
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengt0603f cudfnDouglas cudlnHarrell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Tokamak technology (was RE: Nuclear reactors...)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak technology (was RE: Nuclear reactors...)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 03:59:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <24OCT93.19095155@nel.pfc.mit.edu> PAUL, stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu
writes:
>Bob Heeter asks: "Why do so many people hat the tokamak?"
>Well the main problem with the tokamak is the toroidal current.
>Currently all major tokamaks drive their curent via induction.
>This is an inherently pulsed mode of opperation.  This leads to
>cyclical mechanical and thermal stresses.
 
This is a strong argument against inductive current drive.  Actually,
as long as you're going to need non-inductive heating, you can make
the machine less complex by leaving out the inductive drive, I imagine.
 
>Current drive via RF or beams can lead to a steady state machine, but
>looking at machines such as ITER, you need something like 100 MW
>of lower hybrid current drive to power a 1 GW Thermal machine.
>Take that 1GW and change it into electricity at 30% efficiency and
>you get 300 MW now you need to use 200 MW to produce the 100 MW
>of rf for the curent drive.  You are left with 100 MW assuming you
>have not screwed up the calculations and your plasma behaves.
 
Wait - is this 100 MW of lower hybrid *absolutely* necessary?  I was
under the impression that you could get by with a lot less if you
(a) have an ignited tokamak so the plasma is self-heating and (b)
run with a significant fraction of bootstrap current, so that you
don't need to drive the full current with RF current drive.  I'm
curious to know what assumptions went into the numbers above.
>
>Other problems are that the volume is large compared to the surface area.
>This leads to high heat loading on the walls.  The large array of coils
and
>support structure makes repair and maintenance very difficult.  A damaged
>coil on Alcator C-Mod cost about a year to repair.  Mirors avoided a lot
>of these problems.  Unfortunately they didn't work.   Tokamaks remain
>the best solution as their confinement time can not be matched.  They
>also have the benifit of being more symetric than other devices, making
>analysis easier.
 
I agree with you here.  But is the heat loading problem a showstopper?
And to what extent can you modularize your design so that maintenance
access is easier?  I wonder to what extent it will be possible to
minimize the structural complexity on an actual power-generating machine.
Right now I'm reminded of Churchill's comment that "democracy is the worst
form of government... except for all the others."  Seems like the tokamak
fits the same role in fusion research.
 
As an aside, though I know you don't speak for the Alcator group of PFC,
do you have any idea why they have stopped posting the weekly Alcator
reports?
 
*****************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Neophyte Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Lots of emphasis on *STUDENT* - I'm here to share info and learn, and
hopefully
not to propagandize my opinions without listening to others.)
Disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 04:56:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <m0or9z1-0000flC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery, jim@pnet01.cts.com
writes:
>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
>Resources, May 6, 1993, on S646:  The Magnetic Fusion Power Act
>of 1993.
 
>Prepared statement of Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, Vice President,
>Electric Power Research Institute
>
Yum, yum!  Thanks Jim for posting this.  Hirsch has a lot of valid
points.  But there seem to be a few areas where he goes a little out
of his way to make the tokamak look worse than it is.
 
btw Jim, did you see the other questions I posted regarding the
various postings you put up related to tokamak alternatives?
 
[ Hirsch's introductory comments deleted. ]
 
>I am Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, a Vice President of the non-profit
>Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the $650 million/year
>research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry.
 
Wow!  $650 million?  Where does it all go?  (This is not a
criticism; I just didn't realize how much industry contributed
to energy research - in electric power alone - nor how big
EPRI was.)
 
[Summary of Hirsch's credentials deleted. ]
 
[Uncontroversial summary of requirements for economically viable
fusion energy deleted. ]
>
>Let's consider the current emphasis in fusion research against
>these criteria.  Almost 100% of the current federal fusion
>program is focused on the deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle and
>the tokamak concept for plasma confinement.  Scientists and
>engineers have beendoing paper designs for fusion reactors based
>on this approach for roughly twenty years.  In that time, they
>have done some extremely clever thinking to develop a small
>family of conceptual DT tokamak fusion reactors.
>
It's not *that* small a family...  At least 20 designs out there
in those 20 years.  But this is a minor point.
 
>The problem is that the best DT tokamak designs appear to be less
>attractive than the Advanced Light Water fission reactor, the
>ALWR, which many hope will be acceptable in the U.S. electric
>power generation marketplace in the 21st century.
>
>First, DT tokamak reactors are projected to have power costs
>20-50% higher than an ALWR.  Since these paper studies are far
>removed from any fusion reactor construction and operating
>experience, realities emerging over time are certain to increase
>fusion power costs, making them even less competitive.
>
Ok, I have to disagree with this.  First off, what's the ALWR?
Can someone provide more information?  I know major studies in
the last few years have shown fusion can compete with current
LWR reactors (more on this in another post).  Given that fusion
technology is *advancing*, why should we expect fusion to be
*worse* off in the future?  No go here.
 
>Second, while there are many environmental and safety issues
>related to both fission and fusion, let me focus on perhaps the
>most important one -- the production of radioactive waste.
>According to reactor design studies, DT tokamak fusion reactors
>using the best available steel in their constuction will produce
>more radioactive waste than an ALWR.  While it can be argued that
>new structural materials could reduce fusion radioactive waste,
>the development of those materials will be both very costly and
>very time consuming.
>
This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
*is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
 
Comments on this are welcome, I may be wrong; I just don't find
Hirsch convincing here.
 
>Finally, DT tokamak fusion reactors, as currently envisioned,
>will be extraordinarily complex machines.  Even assuming
>significant learning and new technology between now and the
>advent of fusion, complexity always means higher costs and
>unforeseen problems in achieving good reliability.  This is a
>particular disadvantage for DT tokamaks when compared with an
>ALWR, with its inherently greater simplicity, reliance on proven
>technology, and decades of operating experience.
>
Gosh, and I thought that the extremely-complex Mac I'm using was
a lot more cost-effective than the less-complex Apple II I used
to have.  It's not clear that complexity necessarily implies
higher cost-effectiveness.  Hirsch could be right, but he could
be wrong, too.
 
>Despite my conviction that fusion has great potential, I believe
>that a DT tokamak fusion reactor that follows the current path of
>development will be quite unpromising as compared to the advanced
>light water reactor.  That being the case, a multibillion dollar
>investment in ITER may not be prudent.
>
I agree that ITER may not be prudent as yet, but I'm not convinced
that the tokamak is dead.  But I agree with the rest of Hirsch's
arguments in favor of research on alternative devices.  I just
don't think we should axe the tokamak to fund them.  You don't
want all your eggs in one basket, but if you've already got a
basket, you certainly don't throw it away.
 
[ Rest of Hirch's testimony deleted. ]
 
****************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, back on the Fusion Fact Patrol
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual lab-employee disclaimers apply.
 
Note:  Princeton may concentrate on tokamaks, but that doesn't mean
all Princeton PhD's stay in tokamaks.  Actually, a significant
fraction of the PhD's don't even do tokamaks at all!
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 05:18:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <2b30sqINNnlf@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce d. Scott,
bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
 
[Discussion related to Jim Shearer's post deleted.]
 
>My point is merely that what is a competitive price now and what will be
a
>competitive price when we know how to do fusion are likely to be
different,
>and that judgements based upon what is competitive now are likely to be
>erroneous.
>
>Again, I ask, why do people think you have to get down to 3-6 cent/kW-hr
>to be competitive? Energy cost more than that even in 1986 when I lived
>in Texas (about 6.5 cents, then, in a state rich with natural gas).
>
>I urge people to define which dollars they speak about: if you wish to
>use current dollars make sure you clarify which year you mean. Today?
>Or after demonstration or non-demonstration of fusion feasibility?
 
Sorry Dr. Scott, I dropped the ball here.  I think I got myself tangled
up in too many threads!
 
The 3-6 cents that I've been quoting was independently arrived-at in
two different studies.  The ESECOM study (Holdren et al, summary published
in Fusion Technology, Jan '88) has various tokamak designs coming out
in the 3.5-5.3 cents/kW-hr range, using 1986 dollars.  The idea they had
was to compare their designs with current and future fission designs,
so that they could assess whether fusion might be feasible.  The
best-present-experience LWR is about 3.3 cents/kW-hr, and the median
is 5.7 cents/kW-hr.  (Again, 1986 dollars.)  As I understand the
article, they are demonstrating that their fusion designs can be
competitive, and the estimated cost is placed in today's reference
frame so that it can be compared with other technologies.
 
Conn, et al, in the ARIES studies, arrive at similar conclusions.
The cover of the booklet I have lists the title as "Fusion Reactor
Economic, Safety, and Environmental Prospects", and says that the paper
was submitted to _Nuclear Fusion_  ca. 1990.  I don't know whether
it was published, alas.  Conn gives 4.8-6.5 cents/kWhr for fusion
and 4.6 cents and 7.8 cents for Better Experience / Median experience
PWR fission plants.  These are in 1988 dollars.
 
I hope this clarifies the numbers!  I'd be happy to discuss the studies
more; this is all new to me.
 
************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, doin' the Fusion Fact Patrol
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A dubious distinction
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A dubious distinction
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 05:24:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CFtKny.G0o@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Scott Hazen Mueller,
scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG writes:
>While I'm not equipped to remark on whether CNF is alive or dead, I'll
note
>that the conversation is definitely alive.  In October 1993, even without
>Jed Rothwell, the size of the monthly archive of sci.physics.fusion has
>surpassed for the first time the size of the first monthly archive from
>March 1989.
>
>-rw-r--r--  1 news       919556 Dec 21  1989 8904.tar.Z
>-rw-r--r--  1 root       940817 Nov  1 00:01 9310.tar.Z
>
 
This isn't really important, but I wonder whether the gif postings, and
all of Tom Droege's wonderful data, might have artificially boosted
the traffic?  Or has the verbal traffic really been that high compared
to 1989?
 
********************************************
Robert F. Heeter
disclaimers apply...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Power Density, not energy
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Power Density, not energy
Subject: Power Density, not energy
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 05:42:20 GMT
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 21:48:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Power Density, not energy
Originally-From: mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 21:48:14 GMT
In article <CFu1wF.59t@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>     In Message-ID: <93102916373438@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>     Subject: Scaling the energy density
>Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
>
>= "Let me pose a question related to what progress has been made in cold
>= fusion research.  If the energy density appears to increase as the
>= sample size is decreased, is that equivalent to proof that the energy
>= density will decrease if the sample size is increased?"
>
>    Dick, I hate to see rain on your picnic, but first of all
>that was a power density, right?     ----->  Watts/cm3
>
I don't want to answer for Dick, but I think the stored energy density
is also important, particulary if you are going to claim a nuclear effect.
 
>    Second, your question is irrelevant.  The reported power densities
>have increased over time.   Furthermore,
>since more labs are reproducing the results, the sample size
>is actually increasing as well.
>
My reading of the phrase "sample size" was that it referred to the
size of the palladium sample used in a particular run, not the size of
"samples" of experimental work.
 
>    Your question is therefore a obvious misstatement.
>
Or perhaps your interpretation is a little off...
 
Regardless of what Dick meant to ask, I'm curious to know what dependence
the average-observed-power-density has on the
size-of-palladium-sample-used.
If you really want people to take CF seriously you need to start making
these
sorts of characterizations.  Whatever the cause of the observed effect
is,
if/when the effect becomes reproducible, you should be able to start
determining what it depends on.
 
***************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
(If it makes you feel better, I'm just another idiot on the net.
But I like to think I'm learning something here.)
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab - disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Not much new in energy tech
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not much new in energy tech
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 04:35:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <EACHUS.93Nov1201456@spectre.mitre.org> Robert I. Eachus,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:
>
>In article <2av0l5$mo0@lyman.pppl.gov> Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>  > Sure, but the general idea that you could make energy this way was
>  > already there fifty years ago.
>
>  No, you totally miss my point.  The ONE existing nuclear reactor in
>1943 had nothing to do with energy production (other than in an atomic
>bomb).  It was a research reactor, period.  So a few people in a
>squash court were learning--fifty years ago--that nuclear physics
>worked.  Fifty-one years ago (actually fifty one and a few weeks)
>there were NO operational nuclear reactors anywhereon earth.
>
Umm... 40 years ago?  When was Shippingport?  I concede that nuclear
is completely new within the last 50 years, but it just barely
squeaks by!  Even so, it hasn't revolutionized the way we get our
energy.  Not the way that coal or oil has.
 
>  > Granted that all the new reactors are pretty significant
>  > enhancements, they're still only enhancements.  I'll explain how
>  > this relates to the original point in a bit.
>
>  Good, do that, but notice that ALL of this did happen in the last
>fifty years.
>
>   (I said:)
>
>   >> Also don't forget conventional technologies like gas turbine
>   >> plants, combined cycle plants of several varieties, pumped water
>   >> peaking plants, tidal plants, fuel cells, low-head
>   >> hydroelectric, MHD...  I could go on and on, but I think you get
>   >> the point.
>
>   > I get the point.  We can now do everything we did then with either
>   > (a) different chemicals, or (b) higher efficiency.  But there
>   > are no completely *new* technologies.
>
>   On all of those the patent office disagreed with you.  I haven't
>(quite) reached my fiftieth birthday, but I can remember most of those
>as novel technologies.  Tidal power may have been a theory before then
>but that's about it.
 
Mmm...  I think we're having semantic differences but agreeing in
principle.  I concede that there are a lot of new technologies.  But
I'm not yet convinced that we get our power now in a way that is
substantially different from 1945.  There's more oil now than coal,
but it's still predominantly oil and coal.  The new technologies
that are out there haven't changed that much, which is why I said
they were evolutionary and not revolutionary.  "Revolutionary" here
doesn't just mean "completely new", it means, "completely new and
transforming the way we use energy."
>
>   > Now you're missing something.  I said "energy technology", not
>   > "electric energy technology".  Most of our energy consumption
>   > goes into stuff like heating and transportation, not electricity.
>   > And here, there has been even less technological change.  We still
>   > drive gas-powered automobiles, heat our homes with fossil fuels,
>   > and generate the majority of our electricity via coal combustion.
>
>   Remember the Stanley Steamer?  I've driven one.  But yes most
>automobiles were gasoline powered fifty years ago, they just weren't
>the backbone of the transportation system.  That was the railroads,
>and during WWII the backbone of the railroads was the steam engine.
>And of course there are still homes heated by coal today, but when I
>was growing up oil heat was a novelty.  Also, going back to World War
>II, one of the aftereffects of the war was to replace most of the
>coastal shipping with (oil and coal powered) tonnage build during the
>war.  During the war, most coastal freighters were sailboats.
 
Ok, I concede that we've gone from coal to oil.  I suppose that
*was* a revolution, and I just thought it was sooner.  Isn't the
reason why the coastal freighters were sailboats more related to the
fact that all the oil-coal ships were used for overseas transport,
than to the lack of oil-coal technology?
>
>   > The point I was trying to make is that, by and large, today's
>   > economy is based on fossil-fuel-energy almost as much as 1943's
>   > economy.  There haven't been any real energy revolutions.  Compare
>   > this with the development of electric power, or the development
>   > of petroleum-based internal combustion power, or the development
>   > of railroads and steam engines.
>
>     Wasn't around for that one. :-) But the development of electric
>power is a (relatively) recent development.  Or don't you know that
>Roosevelt created the Rural Electrification Adminstration to bring
>electric power to the farms, where most of the US population lived?
>Home radios were for the most part battery powered for listening to
>Roosevelt's Fireside chats.
 
I'll concede the REA, but I was under the impression that most of the US
population was in cities by about 1900, and that most people had
electricity when the REA was begun with the intent of finishing the job.
>
>   > Energy technology simply hasn't been advancing as rapidly in the
>   > last 50 years as it did from 1900 to 1950.  Energy costs haven't
>   > dropped that fast, we haven't developed many major new sources of
>   > energy, and the ones that we have developed (fission and solar,
>   > for instance) are just not major players.
>
>     I used to have a chart on this one.  Look at electric power costs
>in constant dollars, and the biggest drop came right at the beginning
>of your fifty year period--1945 through 1960.
 
Does the same chart show how our energy resource-use patterns have
changed?  The gist of my argument is that despite all the new
technologies, we're still relying on pretty much the same basic
sources.
>
>   > Now maybe energy technology will take off again, but I was just
>   > trying to show that a 50-year timeframe for the development
>   > of new energy sources was somewhat reasonable.
>
>   No argument.
>
Whew!
>
>   > There's been a lot of technological *evolution* in the last 50
>   > years, but as I see it there haven't been any *revolutions*.
>
>   Big argument!  Even if you limit that to the area of energy
>technology, there have been around three revolutions in my lifetime.
>(National electrical grid, Nuclear energy, and stored power.)
 
Ok - was the national electrical grid started during your time, or
just finished during your time?  How much has electricity changed
as a fraction of total energy consumption?
 
I don't think of nuclear as a revolution yet, since it only provides
about 7% of our energy, and no new plants have been ordered for
several years.  It hasn't displaced anything, hasn't transformed
the nature of the energy production system, so it's not revolutionary.
 
As for stored power, how much has this affected the way the energy
system works?  I'm interested to learn more.  How much energy
storage is out there?  What forms are you referring to?
>
>  > Fission may yet burst forward as a revolutionary technology, as
>  > might solar, or even fusion.  A shift to a "hydrogen" economy
>  > instead of a petroleum economy would also be fairly revolutionary.
>  > But this sort of thing hasn't happened yet.
>
>    Maybe it hasn't happened to you yet, but I can tell you that this
>is NOT the world I was born in.
 
Ok, I'm willing to concede that a lot of what I'm calling "evolutionary"
changes may have really transformed things.  I guess I'm just being
naive and excessively picky.  Then again, nuclear *could* have
displaced coal, but didn't, and things like solar and fusion *might*
have become scientifically feasible a lot sooner, and we *could* have
found ourselves with a lot less oil, in which case there *would* have
been the sort of revolution I'm thinking about.  But you're right,
the energy world today is really quite different from the world of
50 years ago, thanks to the more-or-less incremental changes.
>
>  > Hope it's clear now what I was driving at.  I agree with Eachus
>  > about the evolutionary advances.
>
>    I'm just trying to get you to understand that what looks like a
>minor improvement from this side looked a lot different as it was
>happening.  (Of course, the computer revolution--which is just
>beginning--may make all of the others look small.)
 
Good point.  I hadn't seen it that way before.
 
Looks like I'm still wearing diapers around here.  I concede.  In my
lifetime, I haven't seen much real change in the general way we use
energy, and it seemed to me that the technologies in use when I was
born were all pretty much around 50 years ago too, so that was where
the idea came from.  But they were pretty new then, so their
implementation has constituted quite a change.
 
I'd still like to continue discussing some of the questions I
brought up about the history of energy use and energy technology.
Only if you're interested in talking about it, though.
 
**********************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
(Neophyte) Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
"I'd try not to learn things the hard way, but the easy way
just isn't as much fun!"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: 64 cells, not 56
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell, 72240.1256@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 64 cells, not 56
Subject: 64 cells, not 56
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 05:30:10 GMT
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 01:28:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: 64 cells, not 56
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell, 72240.1256@compuserve.com
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 01:28:27 GMT
In article <931028162821_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell,
72240.1256@compuserve.com writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>In my previous message: "Fleischmann responds to Jones" I typed the
second
>note from Fleischmann incorrectly. It should read:
>
>     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5
minutes -
>     but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
>     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
>     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
 
They have 5 parameters * 64 cells = 320 data points per scan, and they
can only complete a scan every 300 seconds?  That's only about 1 point
per second!  Sounds like they have plenty of computer, but perhaps
not enough storage space?  Storage is pretty cheap, though...  I'm
a little disappointed.  Seems to me if you want to investigate bursts
you should have equipment that works on short timescales.
 
But I've really gone far afield here.  Please don't fry me!
 
***************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Curiosity is gonna kill me someday.  If life doesn't kill curiosity first.
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (disclaimers apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Todd Green /  New 4He results at China Lake?
     
Originally-From: tiq@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au (Todd Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New 4He results at China Lake?
Date: 4 Nov 93 13:52:30 +0800
Organization: University of Western Australia

According to the latest Fusion Facts, the China Lake group has recently
reported new results which show a match up between 4He and excess heat.
This time, the effluent gas is collected in stainless steel vessels, which
adresses some of the concerns about 4He contamination from glass etc.
Hopefully, other improvements have also been made. Anybody have more details
about this?
 
----
Todd
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentiq cudfnTodd cudlnGreen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Paul Schauble /  Re: How old is safe?
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How old is safe?
Date: Wed,  3 Nov 93 22:28:28 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I have seen the estimate that untreated, expended reactor fuel rods left
to sit for 600 years are no more radioactive than the ore that was mined
to make them.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Dieter Britz /  Re: How old is safe?
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How old is safe?
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 07:23:05 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <93110115240531@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
 
>The discussion between Robert Heeter and Dale Bass touched on the issue
>of high-level radioactive waste disposal in a way that indicates a need
>to review some very basic physics of radioactive decay.  The discussion
>of this question very often goes off into never-never land as to what
>time scales should be considered.  Are we talking 100's of years or
>many tens of thousands of years?
[...]
 
>The only serious disposal problem as I see has to do with the fission
>fragments for which the time scale is a few hundred years.  The other
>stuff can go along for the ride.
 
 
Are you not neglecting what for most people is the biggest worry: plutonium?
I don't believe it is its radioactivity that worries us, it is very nasty
stuff without that. And with a half-life comparable with the presumed life
time of homo sapiens, we are in effect stuck with what we produce. No matter
where you stash it, you are making a bold assumption indeed, that Homo will
not want to go there. Think of what changes we have wrought the last 100 years,
and see how futile it is to project ahead by 100000.
 
Dieter on a bandwaggon alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -----------------------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Dieter Britz /  Re: D3
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D3
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 07:43:55 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <931103161921.240015cc@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>Calorimeter Design Note      D3                     1 November 1993
 
>As I have noted before, the best material for a calorimeter of the previous
>type is silver.  But as I was not yet ready to melt up my 1000 oz bar, I
>instead made it from aluminum, which is fourth on the list below after silver,
>Why do I say silver is a good material?  We can think of the body of a
>calorimeter as being made up of a bunch of g's and C's.  The C's represent the
Just watch out you don't accidentally use a hair-fine Ag wire, Tom {:]
 
Good stuff, this! We others could just bunch all this stuff together, as a
manual for how to build a super calorimeter.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  jrp@news ()
 /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: jrp@news ()
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 4 Nov 1993 08:20:00 GMT
Organization: Graz University of Technology, Austria

 
This is a Y_E_S to any group, regardless of its name, concerning fluid
dynamics. I think before we talk long about how the name should be or
which subgroups should be initiated lets just start with a general
sci.fluid-dynamics and see what happens. If the CFD guys flood the
group, what I don't think will happen anyway,  one can always create a
subgroupe later on.
 
Servus Peter
 
 
      //###||##  //##||##       Hans-Peter Blahowsky  Tel.  : +43 316 987-618
     //####||## //## ||##       CFD-Department        Fax   : +43 316 987-777
    //##|##||##//##  ||##       AVL - List GmbH
   //## |##||#####   ||##___    Kleiststrasse 48
  //##  |##||####    ||#####    A-8020 Graz, AUSTRIA
 
>>>>>>>>>     F I R E (tm)  Focused On Solutions                 <<<<<<<<<
 
  e-mail: hpb@avl.co.at      or      jrp@fmechsg01.tu-graz.ac.at
 
---8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<--------8<---
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjrp cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Barry Smith /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 12:10:12 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research

I'll take another whack at this.  There are a
number of related points to be made here in
exploring the need (or lack thereof) for
high-density energy sources.
 
The average energy loading, even in industrialized
countries, is surprisingly low, while actual incident
and scattered solar radiation is surprisingly high;
peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square
meter, or about 4 megawatts per acre; global
average, if I've heard correctly, is about a third
of that, *including* weather and day/night cycles.
 
Barry Merriman says:
> Well, I hear you can get about 100W/square meter of
> solar cells (this is actually generous) at peak
> output.
 
We hear differently, then: I hear the record
photoelectric efficiency recently passed 30 percent,
and that amorphous (sputtered) materials are
approching 10 percent (your figure); this is
pure electrical, ignoring any thermal component.
 
Barry Merriman:
> for a typical floor plan, there might be
> 1100 square feet, and taking the roof to have
> similar dimensions, a roof would be about 100
> square meters, and so could supply 10KW of power,
> peak. If we generously give it 4 hours per day at
> this output level, that gives 40 kW hours per day,
> or 1200 kW hours per month. That would be enough to
> cover the home power consumption, which is
> typically around 1000 kW-hours. However, we have
> not left in much safety margin here, and in
> practice I suspect it would fall short. (You'd
> better live in a pretty sunny place as well).
 
Well, I'll take your 100 square meters
(although you forgot the double garage :) and I'll
use (say) 20 % efficient cells, and average global
insolation at (say) 250 W/m^2, and get 3600
kWh(e)/month. Sounds like more than a healthy (:-)
margin, sounds like power to sell to the grid.
 
Barry Merriman:
> Personally, I live in a condo with 24 units, but
> the roof area is only about 8 times that of a
> single dwelling----so solar would fall far short
> for us. I suspect the same is true for most high
> population density areas. (Not to mention that the
> roof is used for sun decks by many of the top floor
> units, so the usable roof area is only about 4x).
 
Well, I conservatively tripled your "generous"
estimate above, so we're still arguably within range,
even though I don't see the necessity for each
detached structure to provide for its own load. BTW,
does each of those individual units still need that
1000 kWh(e)/month? And, since you mentioned Japan,
isn't it true that 90 percent of buildings there are
one or two stories?
 
Barry Merriman:
> If every one lived in single family detached
> dwellings, in year-round sunny climates, I suspect
> on-site solar would meet personal needs. But for
> apartment and condo dwellers (the majority), and
> other concentrated spaces like office buildings,
> factories, ect, on-site solar really can't come
> close to meeting the needs. Hence the need for
> large tracts of land/sea dedicated to solar
> collection. But not every country has such
> resources.
 
And, as I'm trying to show you, none of them need
such resources. It's easy to make the solar case
look difficult when you disallow overlap, and charge
full cost for land and support structures, but
really most roof systems aren't doing much at all
except keeping off the rain and that darn sun.
 
I note a recent Business Week report about Texas
Instruments and others working on roofing shingles
incorporating photoelectric cells, and I've heard
of proposals for paving roads with cells. The
significant point here is that actual applied loads
are in fact a good match for solar energy density,
and that's *without* the gross increases in
utilization efficiency that are clearly feasible.
 
Another point I'll repeat: distribution costs are a
*large* part of electrical systems based on giant
single plants. It seems that the last thing that
a utility planner would want is a source that only
comes in sizes larger than 4GW(e).  Are you going
to site them in downtown Manhattan, close to the
"high-density" load?
 
Thomas Kunich says:
> Barry, I drive a car 80 miles a day. There is no
> way that I can supply that energy requirement
> through solar generation on the roof of my house.
> (Particularly at the speed I drive. :-))
 
Tom, care to put a kWh(e) figure on that trip?
(Dissipative load, not chemical equivalent of your
Cadillac, OK?  ;-)  Just how big a flat plate do
you need to push at 80 mph? And, without meaning to
get personal, do you think this represents a
desirable average expectation?
 
I note also with interest that, with the recent
change in administrations, the Big Three auto
companies who previously couldn't think of a 25 mpg
fleet average are suddenly talking about *tripling*
that as a near-term goal.
 
Thomas Kunich:
> I think that if you do an analysis of the yearly
> power requirement of your house, counting not just
> the lighting, but also the TV consumption, and the
> heating and air consitioning, you will find that
> you can't do it with your roof area. There is even
> less per capita roof area in Japan.
 
Well, I think the prospects for improved efficiency
in future solar technologies make it look *easy*;
remember we're talking about 50-year plans, and
fusion efficiency gains of how-many-orders of
magnitude? Must we continue to compare current solar
technology with futuristic fusion?
 
Please, understand that I'm *not* anti-fusion (nor
am I rabid :). I think it's important for the fusion
community to understand that it wasn't only safety
concerns, legitimate or otherwise, that killed
fission power; economics of (poor) reliability and
distribution played a large part.
 
Thomas Kunich:
> I have studied solar power and I think that it is
> certainly the source of power in the far future,
> after all fossil fuel is gone. But there will be a
> sharp drop in power use by the population when it
> occurs.
 
Well, it wasn't so long ago that it was believed
that there was a *constant* correlation between
energy use and GNP....
 
 
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: He's appalled, poor baby.
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He's appalled, poor baby.
Date: 4 Nov 1993 12:46:56 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

So you're back, eh, Jed? Somehow it is amusing how these petulant exit
notices ever lead to anything.
 
Welcome back!
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Definitive experiment my left foot!
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitive experiment my left foot!
Date: 4 Nov 93 22:38:57 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <93102915570504@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
writes:
> Daryl Owens suggests that an "definitive" experiment by Yamaguchi et. al
> reported at the BYU conference answers some of my questions concerning
> evidence in support of cold fusion.  I will go back and look at this
> again since Steve Jones was kind enough to supply a copy of the proceedings
> to me, but for now I am depending on Daryl's summary and my memory.
>
> The observations that Daryl considers significant include:
> (1) "gigantic emission of neutrons"  0.1 to 0.2 mSv/hr for 2 or 3 seconds.
> (2) explosive release of gas
> (3) bending of the sample
> (4) inferred rise in temperature.
>
> Far from being definitive, I see this as crude and silly experimentation.
> The first clue is the given by the way the gigantic emission of neutrons
> is quantified.  Note that the units are mSv/hr.  What this tells us is
> that these clowns took some kind of survey meter, stuck it near their
> experiment, and read the dial.  That is not, repeat NOT, the way to make
> a definitive measurement of neutrons.  The reponse that they got most
> likely does not involve neutrons in any way shape or form.  No measurement
> on neutron emission can be called "definitive" until it is done by
> people using detectors and people who are familiar with the way such
> devices respond to neutrons and other signal sources as well.  I
> could say more on this subject, but I think you get the drift.
>
> As for the explosive release of gas, sample bending, and inferred
> temperature rise, suggest the following for your consideration.
>
>   oxide + hydrogen + heat -> a chemical reaction.
>
> Note the the temperature is "inferred" not measured so there is no
> quantitative information to be reported.
>
> Next note that in 20 attempts at repeatition the "neutron signal"
> did not reoccur.  Daryl says there were precautions taken against
> false signals, i.e. the instrument was run on battery power.  This
> is yet another indication that the experimenters are not experienced
> with this type of equipment so they simply don't know what precautions
> are resonable to prevent false readings.
>
> No, Daryl, this is not a definitive experiment.  It answers no questions
> accept maybe it demonstrates that hydrogen and deuterium pretty much
> do the same thing.  IF the neutron data were real, that would be
> a significant result, but the lack of reproducibility by itself casts
> doubt on that effect even if you don't accept my assessment as to
> what that data is worth.   To steal a phrase from Gary Taubes, this
> is BAD SCIENCE.
>
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
>
As I had not mentioned measurment technique or types of detectors used,
the author of the above is relying only on his memory when he states.....
>"Note that the units are in mSv/hr. What this tells us is that these
>clowns took some kind of survey meter,stuck it near the equipment and read
>the dial."
The neutron detector was an "Aloca Ltd.TPS-451S" set 38cm from the samples.
Besides taking measurements of three seperate neutron bursts, from the
same samples, in three seperate vacuum experiments, during his "first
experiment", Yamaguchi did the following....
After the first and third neutron bursts, the accuracy of the neutron detector
was checked, in situ, using D+ ion implantation of the samples and
checking the readings (of the TPS-451S) with a Nuclear Enterprises Ltd NM2B
neutron detector. The readings were found to coincide.
 I am also told to consider the following as an explanation for the
>"explosive release of gas, sample bending, and inferred temperature rise
>
>     oxide + hydrogen + heat -> chemical reaction "
 
The only oxide I had mentioned was the MnO thin film with a thickness of
less than 100 Angstroms. This was on one side of the 3.0 x 3.0cm sample
Pd plates of 1mm thickness.
 
        100 Angstroms = 10*-6cm
        Total Volume of film = 9 x 10*-6 cc
        Lets be generous and say 10*-5 cc (thats 0.00001 cc)
        According to the CRC handbook, MnO has a density of 5.43->5.46 gm/cc
        Lets assume 5.4 gm/cc
        So we have a quantity of MnO weighing .054 milligram
        which when combining with hydrogen is supposed to
        heat the Pd plate to about 800 deg C ??
 
 The INSPEC computerised abstracting and indexing service for physics
electronics and computing, lists an E. Yamaguchi (NTT research labs. Japan),
as publishing in the following journals, mostly articles mainly concerned with
semiconductor physics.
1993   1 in the Japanese Journal of applied physics
1992   1 in Semiconductor Science & Technology (UK)
       1 in AIP Conference Proceedings N0.228 (USA)
       1 in Physical Review B  (USA)
       1 in Journal of Physical Soc. of Japan
1991   1 conf. paper by World Scientific (Singapore)
       1 in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics.
1990   1 in Physical Review B (USA)
       1 in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics.
Most of these publications, I believe are respected, peer reviewed journals,
not likely to publish articles from a clown guilty of bad science.
I believe an apology is in order.
 
                                        Respectfully Yours,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
The above statements and opinions are attributable only to myself.
 
journals various papers concerning semic
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 4 Nov 1993 13:05:28 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Shearer writes:
 
|> Ok, let me ask you directly.  What is your opinion of the
|> studies (ESECOM, ARIES) which Robert Heeter keeps claiming show we can
|> produce electricity from tokamak design fusion power plants at a cost
|> of 3-6 cents per kwh within 50 years?  Would you feel comfortable
|> advising potential investors that this is a realistic expectation?
 
My answer, as ever, is that these studies are rash garbage until we
understand the physics of confinement. Without that, it is Russian
Roulette. Look back through my posts and count the times I say "building
ITER is premature". I agree with anyone else that we are not in any sort
of position to ask for Billions when we don't know how the F these things
will work. Of course, some of the cutesy stuff we've seen in this group
in the other direction is also so much rubbish.
 
I fear very much this scenario:
 
billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
 
while a slightly modified concept just a little way away in the space
of configurations would have worked and we will never know it.
 
Gee, Dale and Jim Bowery ought to have a good little fun with this, no?
 
|> I have no objection to using constant dollars.  I am objecting
|> to the use of 1980 dollars instead of current dollars since most people
|> will not immediately realize that a price of $.15 in 1980 dollars is a
|> price of more than $.25 in current dollars (I do not know the exact
|> conversion factor offhand).  By current dollars I mean of course 1993
|> dollars.
 
I agree with you here, whole heartedly. I would like to find a measure
of real cost which didn't change with time. People also look at a 1980
study and a 1990 study, see the difference in the numbers, and don't
realise that the thing hasn't got any more expensive (that is, if the
numbers follow the fall in value of the currency). Do a study now in
1993 dollars, publish it in 1999, and see the effect.
 
Thank you very much for your list of numbers, btw.
 
|> The world has very large reserves of coal.  Hence any technology which
|> hopes to be widely used to generate electricity any time soon must be
|> competitive with coal in cost.
 
I wouldn't use the _current_ cost of coal as a yardstick, for the reason
that coal is very harmful, and the last thing we want to do is simply
burn it the way we have. Work out a number using coal to make LNG or
something without injecting large doses of CO2 and the noxious stuff into
the atmosphere, and we'll have a better comparison. Natural gas, btw, is
far and away the best energy source available today, all things considered
(start figuring environmental damage into these estimates, and a different
picture entirely will emerge). Too bad we can't run the whole country
on it. LNG in cars is a reality in Holland, the only country yet with a
sane enough Government to get that going.
 
|> Your prediction of 25 in 50 years does not appear to have any
|> substantial basis.
 
Sorry, I really didn't expect it to, given the current eco-culture.
 
Jim, I am not showing lack of respect; this is just my style: state
things as I see them.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission/Warm Fusion reactor (Warning: neophyte posting)
Date: 4 Nov 1993 13:09:31 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I wrote:
 
>No, helium ash pollutes a reactor, making it harder to run. You might want
>something that produces D, T, or He3. But I think anything like this you
>put in will cost you more in dilution and impurity radiation (collisional
>excitation) than it gets you. I don't know of any serious study on this,
>however.
 
which was confusing to people who didn't see the original post. The
suggestion was to put "extra stuff" into a _fusion_ reactor. My comment
was that such stuff is very detrimental to the operation of a fusion
plasma, by making it dirty.
 
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Fleischmann Reply
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann Reply
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 14:46:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I received the "missing" message in digest form as FD1584 , dated Oct 27.
I presume that it can be retrieved from North Dakota under that label.
Let me take this opportunity to ask that anyone who is still interested
in the experiments discussed by Fleischmann review the numbers relating
to the boil-off.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes what
I think are roughly the significant numbers.
 
Total water vaporized:  40 gm
Ave power used to vaporize that: 171 watts
Time required to reach boiling point: less than interval between data scans
Input power during boil-off:  estimated 35 to 50 watts
Time requited to complete vaporization: somewhere between 600 and 60000 sec.
 
My question is how is the last number determined and who knows what it is
and how accurate it is known.  If it is part of the data set included in
the computer logging taken at 300 sec intervals, how many data points
cover the boil-off?
 
What is wrong with my numbers?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Scott Mueller /  Re: A dubious distinction
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A dubious distinction
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 15:36:59 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

I wrote:
>>While I'm not equipped to remark on whether CNF is alive or dead, I'll note
>>that the conversation is definitely alive.  In October 1993, even without
>>Jed Rothwell, the size of the monthly archive of sci.physics.fusion has
>>surpassed for the first time the size of the first monthly archive from
>>March 1989.
 
In article <1993Nov2.052437.28384@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
>This isn't really important, but I wonder whether the gif postings, and
>all of Tom Droege's wonderful data, might have artificially boosted
>the traffic?  Or has the verbal traffic really been that high compared
>to 1989?
 
Here's the full set of data from 1989 through present.  Enjoy!
 
-rw-r--r--  1 news       919556 Dec 21  1989 8904.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       584774 Dec 21  1989 8905.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       388227 Dec 21  1989 8906.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       153039 Dec 21  1989 8907.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        97985 Dec 21  1989 8908.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        83651 Dec 21  1989 8909.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        87843 Dec 21  1989 8910.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       124159 Dec 21  1989 8911.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        36830 Jan 22  1990 8912.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        36056 Feb 26  1990 9001.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        63529 Mar 14  1990 9002.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        95327 Apr  2  1990 9003.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       226994 May  9  1990 9004.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       110123 Jun  3  1990 9005.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       160273 Jul  3  1990 9006.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        85153 Aug 20  1990 9007.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       131109 Sep  7  1990 9008.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        49263 Oct 20  1990 9009.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        90021 Dec  3  1990 9010.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       130929 Dec  3  1990 9011.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       113151 Jan  2  1991 9012.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        53175 Feb 21  1991 9101.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        19510 Mar 26  1991 9102.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       139337 May 14  1991 9103.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        95289 May 14  1991 9104.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       113021 Jun  7  1991 9105.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        82745 Aug  2  1991 9106.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       117445 Aug  2  1991 9107.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       132009 Sep 18  1991 9108.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        92769 Nov 22  1991 9109.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       109825 Nov 22  1991 9110.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       344015 Jan 17  1992 9111.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        97093 Jan 17  1992 9112.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        82927 Feb  3  1992 9201.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       156441 Apr  3  1992 9202.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news        87559 Apr  3  1992 9203.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       258965 Jun  3  1992 9204.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       283783 Jun  3  1992 9205.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       213407 Aug  4  1992 9206.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       417415 Aug  4  1992 9207.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 news       147715 Sep 12  1992 9208.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       210977 Oct  1  1992 9209.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       374381 Nov  8  1992 9210.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       244551 Dec  2  1992 9211.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       403997 Jan  5  1993 9212.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       427581 Feb  6  1993 9301.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       425402 Mar  7  1993 9302.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       535177 Apr 10  1993 9303.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       582861 May  1  1993 9304.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       733069 Jun  1 00:01 9305.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       451960 Jul  1 00:01 9306.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       481655 Aug  1 00:01 9307.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       777185 Sep  1 00:01 9308.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       788813 Oct  1 00:01 9309.tar.Z
-rw-r--r--  1 root       940817 Nov  1 00:01 9310.tar.Z
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Fleischmann's defense
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann's defense
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 02:03:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Let me suggest that concerning the problems with the P&F boil-off data
we have been looking for subtle sources of error when there is a gross
error that has been overlooked.  How did Prof. Fleischmann arrive at
the number 171 watts as the average power required to boil away the
D2O?  We now know that during the boil there were perhaps two measurements
each of input current, cell voltage, and temperature.  The temperature
measurement is said to be unneccessary because we know it has to be
100 C more or less.  You may recall there was the earlier mysterious
point raised by Tom Droege as to when the temperature is in fact 100 C
relative to the time period of the boil off.  You may also recall some
question as to when power input to the cell stops relative to the
time of the boil-off.
 
The question that must be ask is how does Prof. Fleischmann arrive at
his 171 watts as the average power required to boil away the water in
the time specified?  If the process is occurring in perhaps 1 of 64
cells being watched over by a single PC how is the time of boil-off
determined?  If it is deduced from the time interval between the cell
reaching 100 C +- 300 sec and the time at which the circuit opens
+- 300 sec perhaps the correct way to state this time is 600 sec
plus or minus 600 sec :=}.  I agree with Steve Jones.  We don't have
a totally convincing experimental result here.
 
Now Jed treats us to another insight into the Pons and Fleischmann
approach to publication.  We are ask to believe that even though
the data included in the publication is incomplete or poorly described
there does exist another unpublished data set that proves all the
assertions made in the paper.  I always thought that the whole point
of publishing was to make your best case in support of the conclusions
you put forth.  The boil-off has been observed so many times that we
should not doubt that it occurs.  It is just that little things like
voltage, current, time, and temperature never seem to have been
recorded with sufficient care to give a clear picture of what may be
happening.  It just has to be cold fusion!
 
PS:  For those who haven't done the calculation yet, as the time required
for boil-off stretches from twice the scan interval to perhaps 20 times
the scan interval the average power level estimate drops from 171 watts
to 17 watts, something less than the estimated power input.  One possible
explaination for the mystery of the 100 C temperature persisting is
that the cell in question is boiling much longer than we had been led
to believe.  Even Prof. Fleischmann leaves open the possibility that
the input power level could have risen to perhaps 50 watts - enough
to complete boil-off in no more that 8 scan intervals.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Adsorb, absorb
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Adsorb, absorb
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 02:03:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Bruce d. Scott wrote:
 
     "The catch in the above question is the prospect that D fails to be
     further adsorbed into Pd beyond some finite loading at any given
     pressure."
 
Dieter Britz responded:
 
     "Have you been reading Japanese cnf patents, Bruce? The word is
     aBsorbed."
 
There are two words, adsorb and absorb. My Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary
defines them as follows:
 
     "adsorb vb : to take up (as molecules of gases) and hold on the surface
     of a solid or liquid.
 
     absorb vb: 1: ASSIMULATE, INCORPORATE 2: to suck up or take in in the
     manner of a sponge. . ."
 
Kunimatsu and others discuss the two separate phases of adsorbtion followed by
absorbtion.
 
While I will studiously avoid tit-for-arguments, I suppose there is no harm in
short, pedantic messages about use of language, which is my specialty, after
all. Along those lines: Dieter used an idiom slightly incorrectly. "The jury
is still out" means the issue has not yet been decided; he wrote "not out".
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / mitchell swartz /  On the Definitive experiment
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On the Definitive experiment
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 15:16:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Nov4.223857.92963@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
    Subject: Re: Definitive experiment my left foot!
Daryl Owen [dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au] writes correcting Dick Blue:
 
 =db  "No, Daryl, this is not a definitive experiment.  It answers no questions
 =db > accept maybe it demonstrates that hydrogen and deuterium pretty much
 =db > do the same thing.  IF the neutron data were real, that would be
 =db > a significant result, but the lack of reproducibility by itself casts
 =db > doubt on that effect even if you don't accept my assessment as to
 =db > what that data is worth.   To steal a phrase from Gary Taubes, this
 =db > is BAD SCIENCE.
= "As I had not mentioned measurment technique or types of detectors used,
= the author of the above is relying only on his memory when he states.....
 =db >"Note that the units are in mSv/hr. What this tells us is that these
 =db >clowns took some kind of survey meter,stuck it near the equipment and read
 =db >the dial."
= The neutron detector was an "Aloca Ltd.TPS-451S" set 38cm from the samples.
= Besides taking measurements of three seperate neutron bursts, from the
= same samples, in three seperate vacuum experiments, during his "first
= experiment", Yamaguchi did the following....
= After the first and third neutron bursts, the accuracy of the neutron detector
= was checked, in situ, using D+ ion implantation of the samples and
= checking the readings (of the TPS-451S) with a Nuclear Enterprises Ltd NM2B
= neutron detector. The readings were found to coincide.
 
  Three cheers for Daryl for continuing to correct the incorrect statements
and denigrations sprouting from Dick Blue.
  Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  hamilton_b@ix. /  Re: Bockris
     
Originally-From: hamilton_b@ix.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris
Date: 4 Nov 1993 16:09:33 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council, Public Access

In article <1993Nov4.010525.7237@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchica
o.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>I stand by what I said about Bockris as an accurate summary of
>part of what *Bad Science* has to say about him.  If you want
>to know more about the peculiarities of this particular tall poppy,
>you should read the book.
 
Thanks for the book review, its been moved off my reading list.
 
   Bruce Hamilton
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhamilton_b cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 17:11:49 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Nov1.213421.26349@aau.dk> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>I am not going to argue that these 40 [quality negatives] prove
>anything. Clearly, you don't prove the nonexistence of an effect by
>failing to find it, even if do it very carefully.
 
This statement is grossly at odds with basic common sense, also known
as the basic scientific method.  Because if an effect does not exist,
then failing to find it is the only evidence against it.  The Britz
principle therefore renders any "positive" result unfalsiable.
We could enlist every man, woman, and child in the United States
and Europe to do separate cold fusion experiments, and if they all turned
up "negative", then maybe no one found the right conditions.  Oh
well.
 
I have put "positive" and "negative" in a quotes for a reason.  These
are just two arbitrary labels to denote symmetric opposites, two
mutually exclusive effects that are in principle equally interesting.
Excess heat in a palladium-deuterium system is an effect and a balanced
heat equation is another effect.  If XS Heaters had a testable
scientific claim, they would have described a palladium-deuterium
system in which a test of the hypothesis of a balanced heat equation
comes up negative.  Given such a claim, the question would then be why
the positive results of balanced heat don't count for anything.
 
But of course the XS Heaters do not have any such claim.  They insist
that anyone who finds balanced heat has not heard their claim properly
and is instead testing some other system in which they do not claim
excess heat.  Intead of a tangible claim you get a game of
"I know a secret".  The scientific community at large is not
playing the game any more.
 
However, I wasn't talking about XS Heaters, I was talking about Steve
Jones.  He doesn't have a specific claim of sufficient conditions for
electrolytic fusion either, although to be fair he admits that he
doesn't know what the conditions are rather than saying that he is
keeping them secret.  Still, if he has lost the skill of producing two
neutrons an hour with a palladium-deuterium system, who are we to think
that we can learn it from him?
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /   /  Re: Not much new in energy tech
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu ((-:;-))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not much new in energy tech
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 93 17:28:44 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
>Looks like I'm still wearing diapers around here.  I concede.  In my
>lifetime, I haven't seen much real change in the general way we use
>energy, and it seemed to me that the technologies in use when I was
>born were all pretty much around 50 years ago too, so that was where
>the idea came from.  But they were pretty new then, so their
>implementation has constituted quite a change.
 
Well at least you weren't wearing the diapers on your head like some
of the others!  Anyway, I don't know what you're conceding; this whole
discussion centers around vague definitions of evolutionary and
revolutionary.  If evolution happens fast enough, at some point it
becomes revolutionary...but what exactly is that point?
 
My father will tell you when the real revolution in power delivery systems
arrived.  During the 30's my grandfather bought an electric feeder for his
coal furnace, so his sons no longer had to shovel coal day in and day out.
Now that was revolutionary!
 
But if you consider it in more general terms, little has changed.  For around
a century companies have delivered energy to our doors and we've used
it.  First it was coal and gas (peat in some areas), then oil, then
electricity.  The last easy revolution to recognize was when people quit burning
local wood and began taking deliveries of gas and coal.  Since then the
changes have been incremental.  Electrical heating might be considered
revolutionary since the companies deliver the power itself rather than bulk
products.  And it might be considered *environmentally* revolutionary to
have centralized burning of coal rather than in every household.  I've
lived close to people burning high sulphur coal and believe me, you notice.
 
Would  fusion power be revolutionary?  If I continue to get electricity and
it still costs $200 per month (or more) it won't seem revolutionary to me.
But if the cost goes down to $10 per month, wouldn't that be revolutionary?
Or if Mr. Heeter quits talking to us and develops Heeter's Home Heaters,
powered by tap water and guaranteed for 100 years, why he'd be the biggest
revolutionary to hit these parts since George Washington.
 
I don't see fusion as offering that revolutionary a change.  The way
they make the electricity will change, that's all.  Alot of coal
miners will be out of work and...now there's a perspective.  It won't
seem revolutionary to me but will have quite a large impact on the people
digging the coal.
 
Paradoxically, home power...a return to the paradigm of 100 years ago...
*would* be a revolution.  To the coal miners, the power companies, and you.
 
                                        me
 
 
 
that have to be burned.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudended cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
Date: 4 Nov 1993 18:39:35 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: I flat do not believe that this is sufficient to provide a reliable
: estimate of the integrated
: input power over this 600 second period during which they claim xs heat.
: Due to boiling evident in the videos, the cell potential certainly
: varied greatly as
: the fluid between electrodes boiled and bubbled vigorously.  I maintain, as in
: my 28 Sept. posting, that the rising temperature of the cell, which their
: paper shows rises with input voltage (I=constant), including the final boiling
: period, can be explained simply in terms of Joule heating.  Claims of xs heat
: by P&F are then based on unsatisfactorily infrequent measurements of input
: voltage, far too infrequent to provide compelling evidence that output enthalpy
: exceeded input (electrical) power.
 
What is the maximum power output of their electrical power supply?
What happens if one uses *that* as an input figure?
 
: What do you think, Tom, John, Dieter (etc.)?  Is "once every 5 minutes" enough
: to evaluate I*V(t), integrated over 10 minutes?
 
It seems silly.
 
: Here are the postings in which Fleischmann responds to my query, and admits
: that cell measurements were taken only "once every 5 minutes:"
 
: In article <CFu1BA.E9@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
: >     In Message-ID: <931028162821_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM>
: >     Subject: 64 cells, not 56
: > Jed Rothwell [72240.1256@compuserve.com] writes:
: >
: > =  "In my previous message: "Fleischmann responds to Jones" I typed the second
: > = note from Fleischmann incorrectly. It should read:
: > =     "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
: > =     but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
: > =     ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
: > =     reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
: > = (In the previous message I wrote "56" instead of "64.")
: >    [end of quote from Rothwell posting of Fleischmann response]
 
Is an "averaging meter" the same as an "integrated power meter" which
is read every 5 minutes?  That's a different story from reading I(t) and
V(t) every five minutes, of course.
 
At minimum one could attach a device like an electric utility energy meter
to the power cord of the power-supply to obtain a "physically-integrated"
baseline reading.
 
: Words cannot express my frustration with these gentlemen and their hyped-up
: claims.
 
If P&F did have superior measuring devices (the averaging meters) why weren't
the results of these reported?
 
: --Steven Jones
 
--
-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:
cuddy4 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.02 / Mike Graham /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: graham@arnold.Princeton.EDU (Mike Graham)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran,sci.
ath.num-analysis
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 19:39:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CFvIF9.F60@info.bris.ac.uk>, mamfm@irix.bris.ac.uk (MF. Murphy) writes:
|> :         Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but
|> : not limited to:
|> :
|> :         * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
|> :                 unstructured, 2D, 3D,
|> :         * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
|> :         * Multigrid methods
|> :         * Finite difference methods
|> :         * Finite volume methods
|> :         * Finite element methods
|> :         * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
|> :                       unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
|> :         * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
|> :         * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
|> :         * Visualization
|>
|> It seems to me that most of these proposed topics are of a wider
|> interest; certainly including sci.math.num-analysis and presumably a few
|> others as well.  I for one do not want to have to subscribe to another
|> group only to see a lot of stuff cross-posted.  The topics above are _in
|> no way_ unique to CFD and to suggest that they warrant a new group seems
|> ridiculous to me.  There _may_ well be things that do warrant a CFD
|>
|>
|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Malcolm Murphy                       email: Malcolm.Murphy@bristol.ac.uk
|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
I second this opinion.  IMHO, most of the problems that are faced in
CFD are common to many other specialties.  I would probably feel differently
if sci.math.num-analysis were swamped with CFD discussion, but it's not.
It's only swamped with YES votes for a redundant and unnecessary group.
I will vote NO.
 
 
Mike Graham
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengraham cudfnMike cudlnGraham cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 02:03:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab writes:

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab writes:
>In article <m0or9z1-0000flC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery, jim@pnet01.cts.com
>writes:
>>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
>>Resources, May 6, 1993, on S646:  The Magnetic Fusion Power Act
>>of 1993.
>>
>>I am Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, a Vice President of the non-profit
>>Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the $650 million/year
>>research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry.
>
>Wow!  $650 million?  Where does it all go?  (This is not a
>criticism; I just didn't realize how much industry contributed
>to energy research - in electric power alone - nor how big
>EPRI was.)
 
EPRI is pretty much a government-created entity.  Utilities are required
to put a percentage of each KWH's revenue into a utilities-industry
fund to finance EPRI's technology programs.  I'm not sure how the whole
thing is run, but basically, what ends up happening is EPRI is less
politically driven than the DoE.  They behave as a "good" technosocialist
entity should, which is they tend to put the vast majority of their funding
into low-risk, modest-return projects that squeeze out tiny optimizations
from existing utilities.  When it comes to "threatening technologies" they
tend to be quite conservative but they don't out of their way to nuke them
politically, the way DoE does, they just tend to ignore them.
 
>>Let's consider the current emphasis in fusion research against
>>these criteria.  Almost 100% of the current federal fusion
>>program is focused on the deuterium-tritium (DT) fuel cycle and
>>the tokamak concept for plasma confinement.  Scientists and
>>engineers have beendoing paper designs for fusion reactors based
>>on this approach for roughly twenty years.  In that time, they
>>have done some extremely clever thinking to develop a small
>>family of conceptual DT tokamak fusion reactors.
>>
>It's not *that* small a family...  At least 20 designs out there
>in those 20 years.  But this is a minor point.
 
How how big is the family of conceptual DT tokamak fusion reactors
being considered at present?  That is the number Hirsch was referring
to -- the end-result of all those 20(+) years of Tokamak work.
 
But Hirsch's REAL point is that we're barking up the wrong tree with
neutron-rich fuel cycles.  Cycles like D-He3 produce about 5% of
their energy in neutron flux and that can be reduced somewhat by running
He3-rich.  But ultimately I think Hirsch, and everyone else who is
serious about hot fusion, sees p-B11 as the cycle to emphasize.  Any
technology that is at least theoretically capable of achieving p-B11 burns
should be funded at exploratory levels to in/validate the theory.
 
That funding is coming in, but we are still funding-constrained.  A total
of $1M would remove the funding constraints from both PLASMAK(tm) and
Farnsworth IEF development for the next year and allow them to provide
solid evidence that their physics models are valid-enough to spend the
next increment in a scale-up.  Both of these systems can, in theory,
burn p-B11 and both have a lot of solid experimental results to back
up their theories already (for those who want to bother to read the
 literature and talk to the investigators).
 
>>Finally, DT tokamak fusion reactors, as currently envisioned,
>>will be extraordinarily complex machines.  Even assuming
>>significant learning and new technology between now and the
>>advent of fusion, complexity always means higher costs and
>>unforeseen problems in achieving good reliability.  This is a
>>particular disadvantage for DT tokamaks when compared with an
>>ALWR, with its inherently greater simplicity, reliance on proven
>>technology, and decades of operating experience.
>>
>Gosh, and I thought that the extremely-complex Mac I'm using was
>a lot more cost-effective than the less-complex Apple II I used
>to have.  It's not clear that complexity necessarily implies
>higher cost-effectiveness.  Hirsch could be right, but he could
>be wrong, too.
 
Hirsch wants to pursue Farsnworth IEF.  The Farsnworth IEF device
can theoretically burn p-B11, has produced very impressive D-D
fusion burns already and is inherntly very simple (compared to
 the Tokamak).  Remember, Hirsch spent a good deal of time at ARCO
before going to EPRI.  He probably got the living daylights beat
out of him about complexity and failure modes by real utilities guys
who actually have to maintain these systems.
 
I suspect Hirsch is always envisioning how these guys would react
to systems he is evaluating.
 
It took a lot of time, pain and suffering but Hirsch has finally learned
the first and most important lesson about technology development:
 
Put the customer first.
 
>I just
>don't think we should axe the tokamak to fund them.  You don't
>want all your eggs in one basket, but if you've already got a
>basket, you certainly don't throw it away.
 
If the potential customers, the utilities, don't want the product you
are developing, the Tokamak, then why bother with it?  Sunk investments
are NOT the way to evaluate future investment options.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  "Good stuff, this!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Good stuff, this!
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 02:03:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says "Good stuff, this!" about the posts on calorimeter design.
One of the things that I am trying to do here is to expose the design
process.  Following D1, D2, ... you can already see that the design is
evolving.  What I realize is that just collecting the D's will not get the
complete picture.  So I resolve to try to restate all the good advice that
I am getting from you all as these go along.  I always do my best to give
credit for ideas.  Sometimes I mess up though, and sometimes even think that
the idea of someone else was my own.  So feel free to poke me if I seem to
be stealing your idea.  The design process works best for me when I absorb
(not adsorb) a lot of good ideas and just mush them around in my brain pan.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 02:03:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I note that Fleischmann says that he titrated the redidue in the cell and it
indicated that 95% of the Li was still there.  This would seem to support his
that no liquid left the cell.  Note that the paper does not say anything about
this.  I would have preferred to see a table in the paper with runs and the
precautions taken on each run to verify the energy measurement.  When such
information has to be extracted I assume they are hiding something.  They could
be hiding that something is hapening or that nothing is hapening.
 
To Karel Hladky and others that worry about the P&F data rate, I think their
system is OK for what they are trying to do.  However, if I were able to make
a cell boil on demand, I would sure have one cell with a high rate data system
attached to it.  I am currently working on a system with 9*10E12 front end
bit rate, so I guess I have some idea how to do it.
 
If when the cell is "dry" all the lithium is still in it as Fleischmann says,
then I am hard pressed for a design that will distill so efficiently and still
blow out water droplets.  But P&F lose credibility when they force us to ask
for things that should have been put in the paper.
 
I have some nice Hall probes that I can put in the next experiment per Terry
Bollinger and Robert Eachus.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Johnson William /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: johnsonw@brahms.udel.edu (Johnson William)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 13:34:06 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <1993Nov2.045606.25429@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
[lots of stuff deleted]
>>
>This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
>designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
>*is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
>it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
>take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
>you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
>test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
>as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
>
>Comments on this are welcome, I may be wrong; I just don't find
>Hirsch convincing here.
>
The latest on ITER is that they WILL use steel, and the worst form of it
from a radioactive waste perspective (austenitic stainless steel).  The
waste from this reactor alone will entirely fill the US (currently unopened)
deep site storage site (presuming that the relatively lower level waste
must be treated like high level radioactive waste - as it must under
current US law).
 
Commenting on the development on advanced materials, Hirsch is dead right!
Especially because the most promising low activation material, SiC, is a
ceramic for which there is virtually no structural engineering
data.  Even the less desirable substitutes of V (or TPX's Ti) will require
massive materials development expenditures before a large
complex structure can be built from them.  Anyone who tells you
differently is either incredibly naive, intentially misleading, or
woefully misinformed.
 
Will
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohnsonw cudfnJohnson cudlnWilliam cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / mitchell swartz /  On 'How old is safe?'
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On 'How old is safe?'
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 15:14:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <93110115240531@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: How old is safe?
Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU [blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu]) writes:
 
=db "The physics that seems to get lost from these discussions in the fact
=db that "activity" and half-life are inversely related.  In that sense there
=db is no such thing as material that is "highly radioactive" and extremely
=db long lived.  Furthermore the extremely long-lived material in the limit
=db aren't radioactive at all!"
 
    Sorry to see more rain on your parade, Dick.
    That is a novel idea, but a "Curie is a Curie is a Curie"
 
   Check out the dose rate (it is an old table and uses the earlier units
of rads, and Curies) at 1 meter for 1 curie activity for the isotopes listed.
Your premise is wrong as these isotopes vary from half-lives of 2 hours
to 30 * 365.25 * 24 hours.   That is a factor of more than 100,000, isn't it?
 
       -------------------------------------------------------------
      |   Isotope    |   halfLIFE   | gamma (MeV)  |dose rate (rads/hr (*)
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |    135Cs     |     30y      |     0.66     |     0.33     |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |     60Co     |     5.3y     |  1.17,1.33   |     1.35     |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |     22Na     |     2.6y     |     1.3      |     1.32     |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |    192Ir     |     74d      |   .13-.61    |     0.5      |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |     130I     |    12.6h     |   0.42-.74   |     1.25     |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |     132I     |     2.3h     |   .69-2.0    |     1.21     |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |              |              |              |              |
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      |(*)   dose rate (rads/hr-curie at 1 meter)  |              |
      |  after Rees "Health Physics"  (apology for the older units - m.s.)
      --------------------------------------------------------------
 
   This of course ignores biological toxicities, bio- and other diffusion,
and quality of the radiation, etc. etc.
 
   Furthermore, your comment suggests that you think that Th230 (80,000 years)
Pu242 (380,000 years),  Cf249 (470 years), and Ra226 (1622 years)
{for example} are safe?
   To the contrary, most people take the limit of ca. 10^17 years as the
half-life required before a material is not considered radioactive.
 
   Perhaps you should speak to a radiation
safety officer before conducting any actual work in this field.     ;-)
 
  Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / mitchell swartz /  Power Density, not energy
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Power Density, not energy
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 15:15:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Nov2.054220.251@Princeton.EDU>
   Subject: Re: Power Density, not energy
Robert F. Heeter [rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu] writes:
 
= "My reading of the phrase "sample size" was that it referred to the
= size of the palladium sample used in a particular run, not the size of
= "samples" of experimental work.
=             ...
=  Regardless of what Dick meant to ask, I'm curious to know what dependence
= the average-observed-power-density has on the
= size-of-palladium-sample-used."
 
  Good question, Robert.  However, most of the decreases of size are
due to attempts to minimize the likelihood of explosions; leading
to a relative paucity of large size data in palladium/D2O systems.
 
  Best wishes.
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / David Lovering /  Silicate Effects
     
Originally-From: lovering@bldrdoc.gov (David Lovering 303-497-5673)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicate Effects
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 18:20:51 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear All:
 
  Perhaps it is a bit naive of me, but I was wondering if localized silicate
build-up on electrodes had been examined with an eye towards the effect that
the electrode/silicate/electrolyte sandwich might produce.  Admittedly, the
chances of getting a complete coverage of the immersed electrodes with the
silicate are about nil, but even a very thin layer might have a high enough
dielectric breakdown voltage to subtly alter the electrical characteristics
of the apparatus.
 
  And in some ways, the silicate might actually work to aid in its own dis-
tribution.  For example, as one region of the electrode becomes "congested"
with silicate, the electrical resistivity there would gradually increase,
thereby increasing the tendency for the "plating effect" to fall off at that
location.  Since the electrical currents in the electrolyte would seek the
path of least resistance, the remaining "uncorrupted" surface would take the
bulk of the generated current -- thereby steering any unattached silicate
material to new and "unplated" regions.  I seem to recall Gates battery
division doing a study some years ago of why plates in electrolytic cells
would tarnish faster than simple ion-migration would indicate feasible --
they came up with this idea.  (Needless to say, they didn't apply it to
silicates)
 
  Anyway, if the silicate were eventually to be uniformly deposited on all
exposed electrode surfaces, you'd then see a brief RC-characteristic climb
in the voltage (assuming the current source feeding the cells remained
relatively constant) until the EMF exceeded the breakdown voltage of this
barrier.  The sudden discharge would probably produce a localized heating
effect, and possibly a microscopic steam explosion at the site of the
break-through (which might in turn dislodge some of the silicate), and then
the process would begin all over again.
 
  There are of course many possible problems with this.  Most notably, the
electrical resistance of the silicate.  Although I haven't exhaustively read
all the past postings in this newsgroup, several possible silicates were
mentioned in passing.  Some of these would be very good thin-film insulators,
while others would probably conduct electricity very nearly as well as the
electrolyte.  The other problem that this scenario has is that it would
exhibit several performance regimes (which may or may not match actual data).
First, the "pristine" cell would be started up, and the behavior in terms of
voltage spikes, heating, etc. would be very uninteresting... only the silicate
deposition processes would be going on in the background.  Eventually, enough
silicates would be deposited to start this irregular cycle of discharge,
redeposition of silicates on the sites of the last discharge-cleaned surfaces,
and then new RC-ramped voltage build-ups prior to the next cycle.  Of course,
if the silicate layer ever got thick enough so that the current source feeding
the cell couldn't create enough EMF to "punch-through" the rime, then the cell
could be said to be exhausted.  Another major problem is how much silicate is
likely to be floating around loose in the cell -- I seriously doubt that it
would be enough to completely cover the electrodes, irrespective of what mech-
anisms operate to aid in its distribution.
 
  I am sure that there are plenty of other folks out there who can shoot even
larger holes in this hypothesis.  I figured it was time to offer a target more
tempting than either Dick or Dale, and give them a breather.
 
  Dave Lovering
  CSCD/NIST/US Dept. of Commerce
  lovering@bldrdoc.gov
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlovering cudfnDavid cudlnLovering cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: metallic deuterium in metals
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: metallic deuterium in metals
Date: 4 Nov 93 11:04:13 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

 Steve Jones alias jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote in FD 1596
 Subject: Metallic deuterium revisited
 Date: 29 Oct 93 17:17:58 -0600
 
>Some weeks ago, I brought up the idea of forming metallic deuterium, using
>pure D2 (at cryogenic temperatures) then pressurizing in a diamond-anvil
>cell to >2 megabars to try to produce metallic deuterium.  Recently I came
>across an idea to form metallic hydrogen in a metallic-hydrogen+metal
>alloy by subjecting a metal hydride to very high pressures.  (B. Baranowski and
>T. Skoskiewicz of Warsaw, Poland in _High Pressure and Low-temperature Physics,
>1977)
 
>Starting with pure deuterium one can determine metallic deuterium formation
>from a change in conducting and optical properties.
>My question is:  how can one determine when metallic deuterium forms if
>one starts with a metal deuteride?  Indeed, what is the meaning of metallic
>deuterium under such conditions?  This matter was not explored in the paper,
>but I would be glad to hear comments or references to recent research in this
>area.
 
If metallic deuterium is simply taken to mean that the deuterons do not have
bound electrons but contribute their electrons to the conduction bands of Pd-D,
then the answer is, more-or-less, yes, it forms.  The effects of absorbed
hydrogen on the electronic properties of Pd, Ti, V and Cr metal-hydrogen
systems is discussed in detail in a chapter by A. C. Switendick in
"Hydrogen in Metals I", ed. G. Alefeld and J. Voelkl (Springer, Berlin, 1978)
pages 101-129.
 
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencollins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  moo /  Request for discussion: sci.spectroscopy
     
Originally-From: knapp@spot.colorado.edu (moo)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.chem,sci.physics.research,sci.astro,sci.space
alt.sci.planetary,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.optics,sci.med.phar
acy,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.polymers,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Request for discussion: sci.spectroscopy
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 06:18:36 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

I'd like to  know what you all think about a new group devoted to the
science of spectroscopy. I believe it would increase the dissemination of
knowledge in the field and would fast become a valuable resource for those
involved in it. Please either follow up to alt.config, or email me directly.
Thanks!
 
 
--
David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                  knapp@spot.colorado.edu
 And on the seventh day, god created meter maids, rent a cops and newsadmins
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenknapp cudlnmoo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 4 Nov 93 21:24:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

regarding the possibility of powering our modern society with photovoltaic
cells, Barry Smith writes:
 
> The average energy loading, even in industrialized
> countries, is surprisingly low, while actual incident
> and scattered solar radiation is surprisingly high;
> peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square
> meter, or about 4 megawatts per acre; global
> average, if I've heard correctly, is about a third
> of that, *including* weather and day/night cycles.
 
 
        The most important use of solar power in the long term is probably
not going to be the production of electricity per se, but the production of
hydrogen.  We don't have unlimited amounts of hydrocarbons available for the
fueling of portable high energy output devices (the engines needed for
surface and air transport).  Hydrogen can act as a transportable high energy
fuel, powering cars, trucks, boats and aircraft. Hydrogen in pipelines can
act as a way of transmitting energy from areas where there is sun to areas
where energy is needed.  Stored hydrogen (via fuel cells) can act as a source
of peak demand electrical energy, and electrical energy when the sun is not
shining.
 
        It should not be assumed that solar generated hydrogen will
necessarily come from photovoltaic cells and electrolysis.  There is
considerable interest in using solar driven chemical systems to directly
generate hydrogen from water.
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 23:31:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Nov4.121012.22876@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
>
>We hear differently, then: I hear the record
>photoelectric efficiency recently passed 30 percent,
>and that amorphous (sputtered) materials are
>approching 10 percent (your figure); this is
>pure electrical, ignoring any thermal component.
 
I think you ought to look a little more carefully. Most of the _very_ efficient
solar collectors use very large lenses and focus that area down only a much
smaller solar cell. They operate at very high temperatures and aren't practical
for normal use in home applcations thought they are getting interesting for
power company applications -- the very market they were aiming at.
 
Furthermore, none of these high efficiency cells operates for very long
a period at these efficiencies. They require frequent replacement. The lens
alone would be a major problem in real world applications.
 
amorphous cells are the only reasonable cells for the forseeable future
and it isn't likely to see short term efficiencies rise above the 10%
you quoted or the long term efficiencies go above 6-8%.
 
This makes the rest of your message so much noise level.
 
As I said, solar power will be a good additional power source, but it will
take very expensive power to make solar power the major contributor. And
it is highly unlikely that it will ever be the only contributor.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 09:39:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching writes:

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching writes:
>
>Jim Shearer writes:
>
>|> Ok, let me ask you directly.  What is your opinion of the
>|> studies (ESECOM, ARIES) which Robert Heeter keeps claiming show we can
>|> produce electricity from tokamak design fusion power plants at a cost
>|> of 3-6 cents per kwh within 50 years?  Would you feel comfortable
>|> advising potential investors that this is a realistic expectation?
>
>My answer, as ever, is that these studies are rash garbage until we
>understand the physics of confinement. Without that, it is Russian
>Roulette. Look back through my posts and count the times I say "building
>ITER is premature". I agree with anyone else that we are not in any sort
>of position to ask for Billions when we don't know how the F these things
>will work. Of course, some of the cutesy stuff we've seen in this group
>in the other direction is also so much rubbish.
>
>I fear very much this scenario:
>
>billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
>
>while a slightly modified concept just a little way away in the space
>of configurations would have worked and we will never know it.
>
>Gee, Dale and Jim Bowery ought to have a good little fun with this, no?
 
Here's the fun I'm going to have with this:
 
Astute observation.
 
I believe I posted the next obvious observation about the real political
intent behind S646 a few months ago when the  bill was first introduced --
Sen. Johnston is probably so fed up with the Tokamak, he's wants to give
it all the rope he can and then yank real hard.  You're right -- there
would be no better way of killing it which is exactly why I support S646.
 
I'll reiterate what I've said before in other ways:
 
I consider Bruce Scott to be one of the best socialist technologists around.
If, instead of giving fusion budgets to socialist politicians POSING as
socialist technologists we were to give the fusion budgets directly to
socialist technologists like Bruce Scott, I expect they could succeed in
developing economical fusion energy.
 
The whole problem is that technologists will NEVER win in a socialist
system, because by its very nature, SOCIALISM IS A POLITICAL HEIRARCHY.
The politicians posing as technologists WILL end up in control of
government funding (except for war-making funds) and WILL spend that money
defending their positions in the heirarchy rather than developing technology.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 09:39:38 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).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. CD into fusion, dir fusion.cnf* to get
   a listing. The index is large. Use GET (ie. get fusion.cnf-pap1).
 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get an idex of the archives by sending an email to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"
   '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 message, 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-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
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 -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 09:39:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote in sci.physics.fusion,
Thu Nov  4 21:44:23 1993:
 
>In article <1993Nov1.213421.26349@aau.dk> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>I am not going to argue that these 40 [quality negatives] prove
>>anything. Clearly, you don't prove the nonexistence of an effect by
>>failing to find it, even if do it very carefully.
 
>This statement is grossly at odds with basic common sense, also known
>as the basic scientific method.  Because if an effect does not exist,
>then failing to find it is the only evidence against it.  The Britz
>principle therefore renders any "positive" result unfalsiable.
 
You had better read up on what the scientific method is, Greg. I was talking
about proof, and no negative can be a proof. In practice, scientists do not
of course work that way, and maybe you mean this. If sufficient people fail to
get results, a concensus will develop that there is nothing there, and people
will lose interest. I have said a few times that this has already happened, if
you look at publication statistics; never mind the dedicated bunch in Japan,
and pockets here and there elsewhere. World-wide, scientists have voted with
their feet that CNF does not exist. None of this means that it has been proven
not to exist, and we could still get a surprise. Not likely, but possible.
 
One way to come close to a proof with a negative is what happened to
polywater, and cluster impact fusion (CIF). These were not only not
replicated, it was possible to show what artifacts could completely account
for the claims. This is, strictly speaking, still not proof, but it comes
close enough for most. All this might seem a bit pedantic, but a scientist
must be both a realist and a pedant, so as not to be caught unawares.
 
We have a science philospher lurking here, Prof. HH Bauer. How about it,
Harry (Henry)? Any comments on this?
 
>However, I wasn't talking about XS Heaters, I was talking about Steve
>Jones.  He doesn't have a specific claim of sufficient conditions for
 
My little personal list of quality papers (about 50, 40 of them negatives, and
I am the first to admit I might need to reassess this list) is a mix of all
sorts of techniques, not just excess heat papers.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Dieter Britz /  CNF profitable?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF profitable?
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 09:39:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have permission from Frank Close to report that he got a telephone call from
someone, asking him whether he knew of any forthcoming revelations to be -
well - revealed - at the Hawaii meeting in December, as with Yamaguchi at
Nagoya. That one caused shares in NTT to jump by a significant amount, and
anyone who knew about it in advance could have made a large profit. So the
question is, given some likely new development in CNF to be revealed at
Hawaii, what shares should one now buy?
 
This is an interesting thought. Cold fusion might never make it as a real
phenomenon, but who cares, if you can make money with it anyway? Some are
already doing so, in fact; there are several companies in the USA already, no
doubt financed by hopeful buyers of shares, and here we see a new angle. This
could account for some of the propaganda we get on the subject.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Joshua Levy /  Re:  Compelling evidence
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Compelling evidence
Date: 4 Nov 1993 17:17:29 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

I'm not sure how to do it, but I think your compelling evidence
must factor in experiments which fail.  For example, lets say
that there are 4 ambiguous experiments, and 1 positive experiment,
which fulfills all of your requirements.  Is that convicing?  What
if, in addition, there are 3 experiments which give negative results,
and seem to be as well done as the 1 positive experiment?
 
I guess what I'm saying is that "compelling Evidence" is not a question
which can be asked of a single experiment.  It must be asked of a body
of work: many experiments.  IMHO, the hard part is weighing different
types of evidence from different types of labs and experiments.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / mitchell swartz /  Silicates are anionic
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates are anionic
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 01:43:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <CFzCAt.4Mt@dove.nist.gov>
   Subject: Silicate Effects
David Lovering (lovering@bldrdoc.gov) writes:
 
=   "Perhaps it is a bit naive of me, but I was wondering if localized silicate
= build-up on electrodes had been examined with an eye towards the effect that
= the electrode/silicate/electrolyte sandwich might produce. ...
=  Anyway, if the silicate were eventually to be uniformly deposited on all
= exposed electrode surfaces, you'd then see a brief RC-characteristic climb
= in the voltage (assuming the current source feeding the cells remained
= relatively constant) until the EMF exceeded the breakdown voltage of this
= barrier.  The sudden discharge would probably produce a localized heating
= effect, and possibly a microscopic steam explosion at the site of the
= break-through (which might in turn dislodge some of the silicate), and then
= the process would begin all over again.   ...
=   Eventually, enough
= silicates would be deposited to start this irregular cycle of discharge,
= redeposition of silicates on the sites of the last discharge-cleaned surfaces,
= and then new RC-ramped voltage build-ups prior to the next cycle.  Of course,
= if the silicate layer ever got thick enough so that the current source feeding
= the cell couldn't create enough EMF to "punch-through" the rime, then the cell
= could be said to be exhausted.  Another major problem is how much silicate is
= likely to be floating around loose in the cell -- I seriously doubt that it
= would be enough to completely cover the electrodes, irrespective of what mech-
= anisms operate to aid in its distribution."
 
  Interesting hypothesis.  Could offer how a suggestion of why
an anion would plate on the cathode?  In aqueous solution   [SiO2(OH)2]--
is negatively charged (*) and would follow the applied electric field intensity
towards the anode, wouldn't it?
    (* although it may polymerize as a function of pH and concentration)
 
      Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: He's appalled, poor baby
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He's appalled, poor baby
Date: 4 Nov 93 14:53:57 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <931103160134_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
> I see that Steve Jones finally got the message from Fleischmann and flew into
> conniptions. Good! I think I will rub salt in his wounds, and post it again,
> because I gather that Internet had some problems and some people failed to get
> it. As anyone can see, Steve did not bother to read the message, or he did not
> understand it. He raised an imaginary "problem" with the five minute polling
> that Fleischmann has already addressed, in two ways:
 
The "five minute polling" is not an imaginary problem.  First, it reflects
poor technique on the part of the experimenters who are making now great claims
and have funding adequate to achieve *much* faster data collection. Next,
the cell temperature and voltage are both rising very rapidly
during the last several 1000-s time bins (Figs 8 and 6 in
 Phys. Lett. A paper and Nagoya paper respectively, same data).
Furthermore, the excess heat calculation in these papers is based just on the
last 600 seconds, so that the input power calculation depends on just 2
measurements (at most 3) since Fleischmann admits that "voltages are read every
300 s".  Thus, the experimenters do not have a reliable measure of the input
power -- which they could have had with a little more effort.  Instead, they
expect us to trust their *estimates*:  "the enthalpy input is estimated from the
cell potential-time record"  (P. Lett A), which numbers I asked for
specifically in my original questions to Fleischmann, but which he did not
provide.
>
> 1. Fleischmann said they have done the experiment with other types of
> equipment, which polls continuously, and they saw the same results. (Many
> other people have told me this.) In science, when critics A, B, C point out
> legitimate problems with an experiment, if the experimenter comes back and
> says, "yes, we acknowledge those problems. We addressed them with procedures
> X, Y, and Z" -- that should satisfy everyone. The issue is thereby closed.
>
The issue is not closed until the numbers are provided, as I asked for
specifically.  Sorry, I don't feel to "trust" that "they have done the
experiment with other types of equipment, and they saw the same results"
-- one needs to see the numbers in scientific work.
A good scientist will provide these data legibly, in his publication.
In any case, for the Phys. LettA paper being scrutinized here, Fleischmann
stated:  "We read each cell (4-5) parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer!  We have other ways of
doing this (averaging meters) but for experiments we reported in Phys. Lett. A
... [readings were every 300s]."  (Quoted from Rothwell, including [ ] comment
which is Rothwell's.)
 
My original complaint was that after binning cell voltages in 1000s time bins
and calculating xs heat for the last 600 s, one cannot read the numbers from the
plots needed to check their calculation.  Fleischmann *still* has not provided
the numbers.  And now we learn (mention was neglected in the paper) that the
"voltages are read every 300s" -- clearly not frequent enough to satisfy the
Nyquist criterion especially for the 600s period when violent boiling occurred.
 
Another question appears:  just how were the numbers averaged to allow the
1000-second time binning we find in the published plots, when voltage was
measured only every 300 seconds?  Rather than respond to my request for
numbers, Fleischmann has raised more red flags about his experiments.
 
> 2. As Fleischmann pointed out, you can assume that voltage is jacked up to the
> maximum, 100 V, and measure the amount of water vaporized only, ignoring all
> other parameters, and you *still* come out ahead, with excess heat. Add that
> to the fact that the Pd stays hot, and you have undeniable proof of excess
> heat beyond chemistry.
 
The Pd stays at 100 C within a few degrees for *"three hours"* after "cell dry"
according to the P&F papers.  What keeps the temperature right at 100C when the
cell is dry?  This constitutes another red flag, not "undeniable proof of
excess heat beyond chemistry."  Are we to believe that "cold fusion", ignition
Fleischmann called it, is so regulated that a dry cell remains at the boiling
temp. of water for three hours, after the cell is "dry"?  No thermal runaway?
This is too good to be true.
What keeps that temp. constant for three hours when the cell is dry?
The question is not addressed in the P&F papers.
 
As for the maximum of the power supply being 100V, I'm afraid I'll need to
check that, too; information regarding the supply and, again, actual cell
voltage numbers are needed.  It's not just a matter of suspicion with red flags
waving everywhere, it's simply good scientific practice to provide such
information.
 
Again, I don't trust that the "water vaporized only" -- from the video tapes of
the violent boiling, I posit that appreciable water was ejected in the form
of droplets.  This reduces the input electrical power needed to drive the water
from the cell.  100V might well be enough to then drive the water from these
little cells (45 ml D2O).  And I maintain that Fleischmann has not ruled out the
possibility that the water-ejection can simply be accounted for by
I*V(t) heating as I posited.  (I never claimed that recombination or "energy
storage" in the lattice would suffice.)
His claims of excess enthalpy "beyond chemistry" are not compelling, to say the
least.
>
> Steve is just talking all out his head (as Jack Dupree would say). Pay no
> attention to him. All of his so-called "objections" are froth, bunk, or stupid
> lies.
>
> - Jed
>
Ad hominem froth yourself, Jed, unworthy of reply.
By building such a wall, Jed avoids having to readjust his
thinking based on any input from me.  This also is poor scientific practice.
I'll ask the reader to make his or her own judgments.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 /  blue@dancer.ns /  activity vs. integrated dose
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: activity vs. integrated dose
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 02:13:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my comment concerning long-lived radioactivity, Mitchell
Swartz says, "A curie is a curie is a curie."  As usual, Mitchell, you
have totally missed the point.  In simple terms, the issue is better
put by asking whether a curie today is a curie tomorrow is a curie
next year?  The answer is NO, and if it weren't such a trivial question
I would be glad to let you check with my Radiation Safety Officer to
see if I have my facts straight.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 /  blue@dancer.ns /  neutron detectors vs. survey meters
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: neutron detectors vs. survey meters
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 02:14:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The early history of cold fusion research was plagued by false positive
results for neutron detection, largely due to the use of inappropriate
instrumentation by people who did not know how those instruments work.
One would think that problem would have gone away by now, but here we
go again.  Daryl Owens has dug up an old Yamaguchi experiment and
proclaimed it "definitive."  My response was to suggest that a survey
meter had been used to detect neutrons,  something I consider inappropriate
for this kind of measurement.
 
Daryl then replied by quoting from the Yamaguchi paper as if by naming
the make and model of the device he was disproving what I had said.
Since the reference was sitting on my shelf I have read it for my self
and find it even more revealing than I had guessed.  To quote just a
bit more than Daryl: "Neutrons were counted by using a 3He detector*
(Aloca Ltd. TPS-451S) set to 38 cm far from the samples.  A footnote
indicated by the * In Ref.13, we miswrote that the detector was BF3
counter."
 
Does this  indicate that my supposition was incorrect?  No, it does
not.  I still say that the instrument was a survey meter, and now the
footnote tells us that the experimenters did not even know what they
were using at the time they did the experiment.
 
Yamaguchi did check the response of their instrument by comparing
its reading to that of another survey meter (a BF3 detector, Nuclear
Enterprises Ltd. NM2B).  The two survey meters gave the same reading
when exposed to an actual neutron flux.  The test, of course, indicates
that the instrument in question does respond to neutrons; but such
a test does nothing to rule out a posible false positive response.
To explain further, the detector involved is a proportional counter
with a filling of either 3He or BF3.  In either case the device is
also sensitive to other forms of ionizing radiation, and noise
signals such as electromagnetic or acoustic pulses.  The electronics
employed in survey meters is general not very elaborate so that
discrimination against spurious signals is seldom at its best.
They are intended to respond to continuous radiation fields in
circumstances where an occasional false reading due a noise burst
is not significant.
 
Now, I will stick my neck out a bit to suggest what the the source
of the noise that triggered the detector response may have been.
The experiment involves a sample in an evacuated chamber being
pumped by a turbomolecular pump.  Something triggers an explosive
release of gas from the sample, the turbo pump trips off due to
overload, and the neutron detector responds.  Would it surprize
anyone if I suggested that tripping a relay which turns off a
motor may generate an electromagnetic transient pulse?  I can
also assure you that a proportional counter can detect such
things.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Magnetic ordering of deuterons
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magnetic ordering of deuterons
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 02:14:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I see that Terry Bollinger and Robert Eachus are come to agree that
magical lattice effects on deuterons in a Pd lattice must involve
some form of magnetic order involving the deuteron spins.  I had
sort of guessed that must be the case.  My next question would be
how such ordering could be achieved.  The problem that has to be
addressed right up front is the fact that nuclear magnetic moments
are roughly 2000 times smaller than the Bohr magneton.  While you
can tickle the deuteron spin with an RF field, doing anything
with a static field is pretty difficult.  It generally requires
clever use of electrons to produce a magnetic field at the deuteron.
If you are expecting to make the next big advance in CF research
better equip your next cell with a search coil to detect the
ferromagnetic transition in PdD.  Of course!  Why didn't I think
of that before?  That could explain all the spurious neutron
detector responses!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Silicates are anionic
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Silicates are anionic
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 10:37:07 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <CFzwsq.H78@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>  Interesting hypothesis.  Could offer how a suggestion of why
>an anion would plate on the cathode?  In aqueous solution   [SiO2(OH)2]--
>is negatively charged (*) and would follow the applied electric field intensity
>towards the anode, wouldn't it?
>    (* although it may polymerize as a function of pH and concentration)
 
I am glad you asked these questions, Mitch, I was going to post a comment on
this supposed 'silicate' deposition. This suggestion seems to be made by people
who are not chemists. There may well be some dissolution of the glass cell
walls (SiO2) in the strongly alkaline electrolyte; but the dissolved species
would in fact BE silicate, in the form of anions. What this is supposed to
get reduced to on the cathode, I don't know, but it will not be a silicate
layer. Why silicate should polymerise on the cathode, I don't know either, in
fact I doubt it very much; it is quite soluble at the pH of 0.1M LiOD. I seem,
moreover, to remember that those who have looked at accumulated stuff on the
cathode (with SIMS etc) have found Si alright, but not in massive amounts.
 
Your idea, Mitch, that the silicate ion would be repelled from the cathode, is
wrong. Such repulsion does not operate at distances sufficient to prevent
reduction (if reduction there be), because as you move away from the cathode,
you very soon "see" no electric field, because of the ions of the electrolyte.
A lot of anions do get reduced at a negatively charged electrode, e.g. nitrate;
there is no problem with repulsion.
 
I have my grave doubts that a layer of some kind of Si species can explain
excess heat simply by the ohmic drop argument, or even by an increase of the
overpotential.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CG0syM.MAG@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CG0syM.MAG@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 13:24:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CG0syM.MAG@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / mitchell swartz /  Silicates are anionic
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silicates are anionic
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 13:26:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1993Nov5.103707.15655@aau.dk>
    Subject: Re: Silicates are anionic
Dieter Britz kemidb@aau.dk) writes:
 
  >  Interesting hypothesis.  Could offer how a suggestion of why
  >an anion would plate on the cathode?  In aqueous solution   [SiO2(OH)2]--
  >is negatively charged(*)and would follow the applied electric field intensity
  >towards the anode, wouldn't it?
  >  (* although it may polymerize as a function of pH and concentration)
 
=  "I am glad you asked these questions, Mitch, I was going to post a comment on
= this supposed 'silicate' deposition.This suggestion seems to be made by people
= who are not chemists. There may well be some dissolution of the glass cell
= walls (SiO2) in the strongly alkaline electrolyte; but the dissolved species
= would in fact BE silicate, in the form of anions."
=
  Hi, Dieter. True, and they have been seen, for example, by Raman spectroscopy
         [cf. Griffith, J. chem. soc., A, 1372 (1969)]
 
=  "This is supposed to
= get reduced to on the cathode, I don't know, but it will not be a silicate
= layer. Why silicate should polymerise on the cathode, I don't know either, in
= fact I doubt it very much; it is quite soluble at the pH of 0.1M LiOD. I seem,
= moreover, to remember that those who have looked at accumulated stuff on the
= cathode (with SIMS etc) have found Si alright, but not in massive amounts.
 
     One possibility is that the Si might be associated with the formation of
clusters of pyroxene or even spodumene-like materials LiAl(SiO3)2 given that
Li is often, and Al is sometimes, in the solution.
 
 
= "Your idea,Mitch, that the silicate ion would be repelled from the cathode, is
= wrong. Such repulsion does not operate at distances sufficient to prevent
= reduction (if reduction there be), because as you move away from the cathode,
= you very soon "see" no electric field, because of the ions of the electrolyte.
= A lot of anions do get reduced at a negatively charged electrode,e.g.nitrate;
= there is no problem with repulsion."
 
  Although some anions might get reduced, however, there is an electric field
across the system (it is the -gradient of the potential) and this field does put
an energy -- sufficient for migration -- across each molecule.  As a result,
electrophoresis, and electromigration, do occur.  If your hypothesis was correct
and there was no applied electric field field "seen" away from the cathode,
then these processes would not occur.
 
= "I have my grave doubts that a layer of some kind of Si species can explain
= excess heat simply by the ohmic drop argument,or even by an increase of the
=  overpotential."
 
  We agree.  I have doubts that the layer could cause EXCESS heat, although some
ohmic heating is a possibility.  [If any TB-skeptic (or whoever)has info about
this: Could you please explain the (or any) excess-heat scenario?]
 
      Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: 5 Nov 93 15:53:42 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Jed Rothwell writes:
 
> I have decided to stop posting messages to this forum. I made an exception
> for this because Martin was kind enough to respond in depth to the Jones
> posting, in spite of his busy schedule. So, I feel I should close the loop
> and report his comments here.
 
        Thank you for posting the material, and try to be patient with the
people who are calling you names instead of trying to analyze the issues.
 
>  One could say some of the D[2]O is dispelled as droplets (actually, we
> recover [approx] 95% of the alkali by dissolving the residues and
> titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible reactions with the
> glass walls of the
Dewars.
 
        Ignoring all the stuff about voltages, currents, and sampling, I
think that this needs to be addressed.  Recovering 95% of the alkali
indicates that a maximum of only 5% of the raw electrolyte was expelled in
the form of droplets from the rapidly boiling cell.  However, this is says
nothing about the possible expulsion of distilled electrolyte in the form of
a liquid.  In any distillation, there is considerable condensation on the
walls of the distillation vessel (this is what keeps the walls hot).  In a
cell, this condensation would be alkali free.  With very slow boiling, this
condensation will drip down the cell walls back into the electrolyte.
However with vigorous boiling, there is a strong possibility of
surface-condensed water being entrained in the vapor stream and being blasted
out of the cell. I can't evaluate the extent to which this might be happening
in the experiments in question, but it might be significant.  The upper limit
to this phenomenon would be set by the amount of heat rejected by the cell
walls above the liquid level (which determines the amount of condensation) -
can anyone calculate this?
 
 
 
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Not much new in energy tech
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not much new in energy tech
Date: 5 Nov 93 11:14:32
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Nov4.172844.14787@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> ded@aplcen.apl.jhu
edu ((-:;-)) writes:
 
  > My father will tell you when the real revolution in power delivery systems
  > arrived.  During the 30's my grandfather bought an electric feeder for his
  > coal furnace, so his sons no longer had to shovel coal day in and day out.
  > Now that was revolutionary!
 
  Your grandfather was a pioneer, I remember a lot of places without
auto feeders in the fifties.
 
  > The last easy revolution to recognize was when people quit burning
  > local wood and began taking deliveries of gas and coal.
 
  Certainly haven't in my neck of the woods, New Hampshire.  However a
lot of people around here set the upstairs (oil heat) thermostat, and
stoke the wood stove twice a day.  In my previous house doing that
saved ~$500 per winter even after accounting for buying firewood and
chimney cleaning.  This is not a disagreement, just local color. :-)
 
  > I don't see fusion as offering that revolutionary a change.  The
  > way they make the electricity will change, that's all.  Alot of
  > coal miners will be out of work and...now there's a perspective.
  > It won't seem revolutionary to me but will have quite a large
  > impact on the people digging the coal.
 
    Anything that shuts down the coal mines is worth it.  I grew up in
Pennsylvania.  I used to say that you never saw the words "coal mine"
in a newspaper headline unless they were followed by "disaster," and
preceded by "another."  There are several other types of environmental
disaster associated with coal mines.  First is black lung.  Next comes
the acid runoff from the spill piles.  (If you haven't driven through
the Scranton area, the best I can do is to describe the spill piles as
miles and miles of man-made hills, made by tearing up mountains.)
Then there is the pollution from buring the coal.  Among other things,
a coal burning plant releases more radioactive material into the air
in one hour, than most nuclear plants release in a year.  Also (in
1963?) there was a fire at the Centralia, PA dump.  It spread into an
abandoned coal mine.  After too many deaths from carbon monoxide
poisioning, the town was evacuated.  The fires are still burning.
 
    Sorry, this is a hot button.  But coal as a power source is not an
acceptable option.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / mitchell swartz /  Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 17:05:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

       In Message-ID: <31622@mindlink.bc.ca>
       Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) writes:
 
=         "Ignoring all the stuff about voltages, currents, and sampling, I
= think that this needs to be addressed.  Recovering 95% of the alkali
= indicates that a maximum of only 5% of the raw electrolyte was expelled in
= the form of droplets from the rapidly boiling cell.  However, this is says
= nothing about the possible expulsion of distilled electrolyte in the form of
= a liquid.  In any distillation, there is considerable condensation on the
= walls of the distillation vessel (this is what keeps the walls hot).  In a
= cell, this condensation would be alkali free.  With very slow boiling, this
= condensation will drip down the cell walls back into the electrolyte."
 
  This "drip down (into) the cell (electrolyte)" would mean that the system
would have to make that quantity of heavy water evaporate twice (at least).
Would not that make the calculation of excess heat by this method - which is
based upon calculating the Heat of Evaporation (and the heat associated with
the temperature rise to 100C) - a LOWER LIMIT to the amount of calculated
excess heat actually generated by their system?
                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Properties of deuteron condensates / fermions in composite bosons
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 15:39:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

 
    Chuck enters stage right also in deep thought mubbling about
classic fields in the Born model of quantum mechanics, the Hisenberg
uncertainty relation, the deBrogie wave length, Yakawa potential's,
S-states, Coulumb potentials, crystalography, solid state physics,
superfluids, superconductivity, fusion, and.. god for bid...
chemistry ;-). He adds a second thought, you do not spell condensate
"condesate". :-(
 
  I've been bashing my brain on a number of equations over the past
months which basically says the same things you described on the
deuteron condensation question.  In my humble opinion, your last post
got the nail on the head with respect deuteron spin in a condensed
state. My hat is off to you dude.  I can't help but notice how your
views are converging with what Scott Chubb argued (at least to a
point).  You still seem to argue the Drycal deamon point of view, when
really it's a question of probability (the wave equation so to speak).
As Matt noted in a recent argument against my position, in hot fusion
the extention into space by the deBroglie wave (the particle's
extension into momentum space) effects the range of strong
interaction, and is taken into account in the hot fusion equation.
He's absolutly correct on that point. (but just to rib Matt a bit,
why doesn't Fe condense?)  D. Clayton has a good description of this
in his book "Stellar Evolusion and Nucloesynthisis". The fundamental
point is if the deBroglie wave of the particles overlap in momentum
space as defined by psi(x), you will have an increased probability for
fusion.  It jsut happens that the Coulumb barrier keeps the wave overlap
from occuring.  However in a condensate the it's already done.
  A system of particles is not comsidered condensed until the wave
functions of the indivuals are overlaped in momentum space. It's this
effect that allows the superconductivity to do what it does.  The onset
of that effect is very abrupt and has to do with just this type of
overlap.  Just as you described how when you look for a He4 particle
you find you can not localize it in space.
 
  It's interesting to see Feynman's discussion the distinction between
Bose and Fermi particles in the scattering process. He gives the
description as
 
Bose = Amplitude of the individual + amplitude of interaction.
Fermi= Amplitude of the individual - amplitude of interaction.
 
   In a deuteron condensate you have the same overlap in momentum
space which would be superconducting by allowing the exchange of
charge visa the exchange of position.  It is by the same reasoning
that there should be an enhance probability for strong interaction.
The only reason this comes about is because of properties of deuteron.
Again see Liboff's argument in Phy Lett A, 174 1993 317-319.
 
  Now it's interesting you should mention the magnetic properties in
of the deutron condensate. (I tip my hat to you and Robert).  What it
implies is that in a magentic field, you can make a deuteron plasma
condense!  This is exactly what Liboff is doing over there in his
Cornell lab.  I haven't got to the library to look up the paper that
describes his experimental apparatus but a brief description is given
in the paper above.  Shoot, this is one of the most exciting developments
I've seen.
 
 
Have fun folks,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
Ps.
 
E = m c ^2  is true, for you mere mortals.
            We god's like to hide it in:
 
del E del t >= h
 
;-)
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 19:23:29 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <CG13HB.7Cx@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
wrote:
 
>        In Message-ID: <31622@mindlink.bc.ca>
>        Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
> Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) writes:
>
> =         "Ignoring all the stuff about voltages, currents, and sampling, I
> = think that this needs to be addressed.  Recovering 95% of the alkali
> = indicates that a maximum of only 5% of the raw electrolyte was expelled in
> = the form of droplets from the rapidly boiling cell.  However, this is says
> = nothing about the possible expulsion of distilled electrolyte in the form of
> = a liquid.  In any distillation, there is considerable condensation on the
> = walls of the distillation vessel (this is what keeps the walls hot).  In a
> = cell, this condensation would be alkali free.  With very slow boiling, this
> = condensation will drip down the cell walls back into the electrolyte."
>
>   This "drip down (into) the cell (electrolyte)" would mean that the system
> would have to make that quantity of heavy water evaporate twice (at least).
> Would not that make the calculation of excess heat by this method - which is
> based upon calculating the Heat of Evaporation (and the heat associated with
> the temperature rise to 100C) - a LOWER LIMIT to the amount of calculated
> excess heat actually generated by their system?
>                                             Mitchell Swartz
>                                             mica@world.std.com
 
The "dripping down" implies that the vapor condensed inside the dewar, thus
releasing its heat of vaporization while still inside the dewar.  The net
heat input is "one" times the heat of evaporation (plus the temp. rise to
100C), not "the number of evaporation/condensation cycles" times the heat
of evaporation.  Sorry.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / John Cobb /  Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: 5 Nov 1993 14:22:33 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1993Nov2.045606.25429@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <m0or9z1-0000flC@crash.cts.com> Jim Bowery, jim@pnet01.cts.com
>writes:
>>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
>>Resources, May 6, 1993, on S646:  The Magnetic Fusion Power Act
>>of 1993.
 
[ deleted much of Robert and Jim's talk about virtues and vices of
tokamaks, ITER, and Hirsch]
 
 
Hirsch
>>Second, while there are many environmental and safety issues
>>related to both fission and fusion, let me focus on perhaps the
>>most important one -- the production of radioactive waste.
>>According to reactor design studies, DT tokamak fusion reactors
>>using the best available steel in their constuction will produce
>>more radioactive waste than an ALWR.  While it can be argued that
>>new structural materials could reduce fusion radioactive waste,
>>the development of those materials will be both very costly and
>>very time consuming.
>>
Heeter
>This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
>designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
>*is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
>it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
>take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
>you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
>test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
>as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
>
>Comments on this are welcome, I may be wrong; I just don't find
>Hirsch convincing here.
>
 
Okay, this raises a very important point that I have never heard a good
answer to. Perhaps I should have paid more attention to the reactor-study
guys at ANL when I was there.
 
What is the story on neutron activation for advanced materials in a
fusion reactor structural support?
 
I have heard various tidbits over the years that I will repeat below. But
they have all been presented to me as conlusions and usually not motivated
or demonstrated.
 
1) Steel will have unacceptably high levels of induced radioactivity.
 
2) Alternate Structural Materials can be used.
 
3) Neutron embrittlement depends nonlinearly on total neutron dose and
   on neutron flux (i.e. same dose over a shorter period may do more
   damage to the lattice than the dose over a longer period)
 
4) The dependance of induced radioactivity and strucutural damage depends
   sensitively, and non-monotonically on the energy of the bombarding neutrons.
 
A cute remark that comes to mind is that there seems to be a great deal of
unkowns and the pessimist assumes it is impossible because it has not been
demonstrated while the optimist assumes that if the data is unknown, there
might lie in that unknown a solution that only has to be found.
 
The conclusions I hear people draw from these questions is that they are
severe enough to justify their own issues.
 
One such issue is the need to build a high flux test reactor to test materials.
If they statement about embrittlement depeending sensitively on neutron
energy is correct, then your high flux reactor better put out neutrons with
an energy of near 14 MeV. This means you either need to build one of these
compact fusion based neutrons sources --- the justification for IEC even if
it doesn't reach ignition --- or you need to build ITER just for its
engineering phase.
 
A second issue is the banner that the D-3He guys wave that neutrons are a
real bugbear and should be avoided at all costs, even if it means mining
the moon for 3He.
 
>>Finally
 
>Note:  Princeton may concentrate on tokamaks, but that doesn't mean
>all Princeton PhD's stay in tokamaks.  Actually, a significant
>fraction of the PhD's don't even do tokamaks at all!
 
Are they employed at all? :>
        CIT >> \dev\null
        BPX >> \dev\null
        TFTR | DT burning >> death
        TPX >> ?
        ITER >> ?
 
        Would you buy a house near the Forrestal Campus?
 
 
-john .w cobb
 new location: sopewhere i nthe bowels of Oak Ridge
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: On 'How old is safe?'
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On 'How old is safe?'
Date: 5 Nov 93 21:45:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <CFz3no.J2t@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>    In Message-ID: <93110115240531@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
>Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU [blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu]) writes:
 
>=db "The physics that seems to get lost from these discussions in the fact
>=db that "activity" and half-life are inversely related.  In that sense there
>=db is no such thing as material that is "highly radioactive" and extremely
>=db long lived.  Furthermore the extremely long-lived material in the limit
>=db aren't radioactive at all!"
 
>    Sorry to see more rain on your parade, Dick.
>    That is a novel idea, but a "Curie is a Curie is a Curie"
 
Mitchell, what you say is true but rather beside the point.  The
question is, "How much mass of a given isotope is required to
produce a Curie?"  A short lived material will have a large fraction
of its atoms decaying per unit time compared to a longer lived
material.  Hence the short lived material emits more radiation per
unit time.  Dick is correct.
 
Consider for example two isotopes of approximatly equal mass and
with approximately similar decay products, call them longium and
shortium.  Longium has a half life of 200 days while the half life
of shortium is 1 day.  If we have equal amounts of each then in a
given time period about 200 atoms of shortium will decay for each
longium decay.  The result is that shortium is approximately 200
times as radioactive per unit mass as is longium.  Thinking of it
another way, by the time both totally decay, each will have emitted
the same amount of total radiation.  However, it will take longium
200 times as long to do it.
 
In the real world of course Dick's inverse relationship is only
approximate.  Different isotopes have different masses and emit
different types and energies of radiation.  However the general
rule is that for an isotope to be highly radioactive it must be
short-lived.  This is necessary for it to produce a high number
of decays per unit time.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / E Pavelchek /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 22:58:55 GMT
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

In article <1993Nov4.121012.22876@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
>The average energy loading, even in industrialized
>countries, is surprisingly low, while actual incident
>and scattered solar radiation is surprisingly high;
>peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square
>meter, or about 4 megawatts per acre; global
>average, if I've heard correctly, is about a third
>of that, *including* weather and day/night cycles.
 
This can't be right. The peak meter is perpendicular to the sun, and
there's only one at any moment.  Since the surface area of the earth is
4*pi*r^2, and the area of sunlight available to be collected at earth
orbit is pi*r^2, the global average is 1/4 of peak, *before* weather
adjustments. And most civilization is in the damper regions of the
globe.
 
 
IMO, local heating needs and domestic electricity *could* be met with
various forms of solar energy. Current industrial and transportation
demands cannot.
--
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
 
"...but that is another story. As far as we knew, we were
living happily everafter."  Royal Robbins
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenekp cudfnEdward cudlnPavelchek cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
space,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
Date: 5 Nov 1993 23:15:40 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and posted
by us.  Respond to <whatsnew@aip.org> or other references below.
Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and FYI, archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous FTP'ing pleasure,
courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]
 
WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 5 Nov 1993     Washington, DC
 
1. JOHNSTON DELIVERS CLEAR MESSAGE: "BIG SCIENCE" MUST BE GLOBAL.
At her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Martha Krebs, picked four
months ago to replace Will Happer as head of the DOE Office of
Energy Research, listened stoically as Senator Bennett Johnston
(D-LA) did most of the talking.  Still smarting from the clobber-
ing the SSC took from the House, he warned scientists that mega-
projects are going to have to be international, and singled out
magnetic fusion as a case in point.  Johnston wants action on the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) before
going ahead with Princeton's Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX). If
ITER is an example, international cooperation won't come easily.
It took 18 months longer than expected to get agreement between
the US, Japan, Russia and the European Community--and they only
agreed then by putting off the tough stuff like picking the site.
When they couldn't agree on where to put a design center either,
the Solomonic solution was to build three centers.  The one in
San Diego must be headed by a Russian, the one in Garching by an
American, and the one in Naka by a European.  You get the idea.
 
2. ALPHA MAY NOT BE SCIENCE, BUT IT'S BIG AND IT'S INTERNATIONAL.
The US and Russia agreed on a plan to graft Alpha, a scaled-down
version of Space Station Freedom, onto Mir-2, a scaled-up version
of Space Station Mir.  The hybrid is being called "Ralpha."  It
will be assembled in the same orbit as the present Mir.  The plan
will be discussed with the other international partners next week
in Montreal.  They are nervous about Russian participation, but
not nearly as nervous as the aerospace industry, which does not
seem at all thrilled by the prospect of the US saving $4B.
 
3. JOHN PEOPLES WILL TAKE OVER AS DIRECTOR OF THE SSC LABORATORY,
replacing Roy Schwitters, who bailed out last week (WN 10-29-93).
Peoples will continue to serve as director of Fermilab.  "What we
need now are some lawyers, not physicists," according to Shelton
Smith, the new head of the Texas National Research Laboratory
Commission.  The TNRLC is responsible for protecting the state's
investment in the SSC, which Texas figures at more than $400M.
 
4. "THE GREAT POWER-LINE COVER-UP": BRODEUR DISCOVERS CLUSTERS!
Well folks, Paul Brodeur has done it again.  "Calamity on Meadow
Street" and "The Cancer at Slater School" have moved from the New
Yorker to hard cover.  But now, Brodeur has the mechanism figured
out--power-line fields stimulate production of a growth hormone
that promotes development of brain cancers and stuff.  And there
are new cases.  Between 1990 and 1992, two students at a private
elementary school on East 76th Street in Manhattan, which is next
to a Consolidated Edison substation, developed leukemia! Magnetic
fields in the school measured 10 milligauss!  Actually, you have
to stand in the middle of a field to get much less than that. But
that just shows how ubiquitous the problem is.  A new pocket-size
EMF monitor at just $99 will help you to avoid such hazards.
 
Robert L. Park  opa@aps.org         The American Physical Society
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Mark North /  Re: 64 cells, not 56
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 64 cells, not 56
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 23:11:26 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
>They have 5 parameters * 64 cells = 320 data points per scan, and they
>can only complete a scan every 300 seconds?  That's only about 1 point
>per second!  Sounds like they have plenty of computer, but perhaps
>not enough storage space?  Storage is pretty cheap, though...  I'm
>a little disappointed.  Seems to me if you want to investigate bursts
>you should have equipment that works on short timescales.
 
The problem is not time or storage, necessarily. At the experiment end
you have 320 analog data lines coming to one computer. They all must go
through A/D conversion. The smart way to do this is to build or buy, if
available, some sort of multiplexer to get the data lines down.
My guess: They have 5 inputs to the computer and it takes them
300 seconds to unplug/plug in the 64 cells' five lines in sequence 8^).
 
Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 843 papers, 132 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 843 papers, 132 patents/appl.).
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 09:30:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
a lone little patent appl. here, from Poland, and a bit long in the tooth. I
can't comment on it, so I won't.
 
While we're bibliographing, though, I am reminded of our discussions about
conf. procs. Mitch, you were very vocal (electronic?) about this, and I think
you have all the information - how about it? Your name will be up there in
lights, in the file cnf-conf. I can insert the file, if you just send me the
abstracts. The more I live with the idea, the more I reckon we ought to have
that file. It just won't be me writing it, is all.
 
Have a nice weekend, good people.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 5-Nov-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 843
 
 
Patents: files cnf-pat
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chmielewski AG, Smulek W, Dembinski W, Fuks L (for Inst. Chem. Tech. Jadrowej)
Pol. PL 157,868,  06-Apr-1989.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 119:169078 (1993).
"Method for conducting a controlled thermonuclear reaction".
** "The controlled thermonuclear reaction was carried out using D or T (in
mixt. with neutral gas) which diffused across the Pd or its alloy membrane at
elevated temp. between the pressure and vacuum chambers. The membrane could be
from Pd or Pd-Ag alloy in a form of the dense of [sic] porous foil. The Pd
foil was grounded or connected in series with an electrolytic cell. Diffusion
was carried out at 300-1000 deg, preferable [sic] at 500-600 deg. Mixts. of D
or T with H, He, Ar, N or their mixts could be used". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / mitchell swartz /  Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 03:48:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <ijames-051193141946@156.40.188.202>
     Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Carl F. Ijames  (ijames@helix.nih.gov) wrote:
 
= The "dripping down" implies that the vapor condensed inside the dewar, thus
= releasing its heat of vaporization while still inside the dewar.  The net
= heat input is "one" times the heat of evaporation (plus the temp. rise to
= 100C), not "the number of evaporation/condensation cycles" times the heat
= of evaporation.  Sorry.
 
   No problem.  Your statement is correct if the system is absolutely adiabatic.
In the less pure case of escaping heat and mass transfer, are you certain it is
true if there is either a differential thermal emissivity or a differential
thermal conductivity along the vertical distance in question?
There may well be such differential properties, and such might be heralded by
the water presumed to have condensed since to do so would require that heat
was carried away to enable the condensation.
  BTW Bruce Dunn made several good points on the heat and mass
transfer and hopefully will take a closer look at the experimental details and
comment further.      Best wishes.
                                             Mitchell Swartz
                                             mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / mitchell swartz /  On 'How old is safe?'
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On 'How old is safe?'
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 03:49:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Subject: Re: On 'How old is safe?'
     Message-ID: <2behh4$q0u@vice.ico.tek.com>
Hal F Lillywhite (hall@vice.ico.tek.com) writes:
 
=hl "Mitchell, what you say is true but rather beside the point.  The
=hl question is, "How much mass of a given isotope is required to
=hl produce a Curie?"  A short lived material will have a large fraction
=hl of its atoms decaying per unit time compared to a longer lived
=hl material.  Hence the short lived material emits more radiation per
=hl unit time.  Dick is correct.
=hl  .... (nice longium and shortium model) ...
=hl In the real world of course Dick's inverse relationship is only
=hl approximate.
 
  Thanks, Hal.  There is another term.   Dick said:
     =db  "...  there is no such thing as material that is "highly radioactive"
     =db and extremely long lived."
           Message-ID: <93110115240531@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
         Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU [blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu]):
 
   In fact, in this field one rarely has pure samples. Rather,
incredibly small masses of radioisotopes are usually contained in a more
readily measureable volume or mass of radioactive material.
Therefore one must account for material concentration (or alternatively the
specific activity).
 
    The rate of disintegration (i.e. the loss per unit time) is:
 
                       dN = - .693 * N
                       __      ___
                       dt      T1/2
 
  and thus the material factor is obvious.  In a more general sense,
the formula for activity, at a time t, also has two terms:
 
    a =  a0 * exp[-t*.693/T]    where T is the half life, and
 
                                a0 is  dn0
                                       ___
                                        dt     and n0 is the initial number
                                                of nuclei in question at t=0.
It is that material factor (N, or n0) which makes the sole use of half-life
as the sole parameter to determine radioactivity simply incorrect.
      Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics ( was Fusion Ethics)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 01:46:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2auuaa$m0d@lyman.pppl.gov>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>Dale responded:
>>
>>     Out of my ear.  Which is exactly where the reactor design studies
>>     got theirs.
>>
>
>This is a rational argument?
 
     Yes.  Probabilistic assessments of economic viability 50 years
     into the future are worthless.  There's no basis, no reasonable way
     of determining statistics, nothing. ('Yes Sir, Mr. Senator.  In
     1 out of 50 possible universes which are but small perturbations on
     ours, fusion becomes economically viable in the next half century').
 
     I've said this before in rational argument.
 
>>>>>  Recent reactor design
>>>>>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>>>>>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not necessarily
>>>>>everyone else's here.
>>>>
>>>>     In their dreams.
>>>>
>>>Why do you disagree?  What's your evidence?  In what way are the
>>>studies flawed?
>>
>>      Plasma containment, reactor size, reactor shielding,
>>      inadequate consideration of mandated reactor tritium containment,
>>      inadequate consideration of regulatory requirements, inadequate
>>      consideration of actual costs of disposing of hot materials.
>>
>>      Throw away these things, especially the regulatory requirements,
>>      and fission is 'too cheap to meter.'
>>
>(I'm still slightly peeved.)
 
      And I'm still slightly more rational.
 
>This is slightly more rational.
 
      Slightly more rational?  Could you please point out the irrational
      component of the 'slightly more rational' discourse?
 
>Which topic do you want to discuss
>first?
 
      Any or all.
 
>>       The point was that no one knows since no one knows the
>characteristics
>>       of a successful plasma.  They're playing word games with a
>>       technology that does not exist.
>>
>This is only partly correct.  Researchers know many of the
>characteristics of a successful plasma.  And we'll know a lot more
>within the next couple years as the major machines begin D-T runs.
>We don't know everything we need to know, obviously, and there is
>some truth to the claim that the design studies are partly word games,
>but then again, you have to look ahead to know what you need to research.
> If it wasn't for the design studies, people wouldn't have
>realized the importance of structural materials to prevent induced
>radioactivity, for instance.  Or would you prefer that we all proceed
>blindly forward, with no forethought and advance research to determine
>where effort is most needed?
 
     No, my preference is that we shelve 50-year lead time development
     efforts on the tokomak.  Fusion is the dream that never becomes
     reality, and the existence of large-scale efforts (as if
     fusion was a near-term possibility) is hurting consideration of
     near-term alternatives.  Why fund IFR studies when we've got
     fuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssion waiting on the doorstep?  'Unlimited
     power from the sea'.
 
> Are you
>trying to contribute to human knowledge or are you just being
>ornery?
 
     I don't think I'm doing much of either right now.
 
> Why should *I* not take their word for it?
 
     Got me.  Why shouldn't you?
 
>If it's not worth your time,
>why don't you just come out and say so?
 
     We're still talking.  If I figured it wasn't worth my time, we'd
     not be.  I assume it's the same with you?
 
>Robert Frustrated-Scholar Heeter
 
                dale 'that bloated-gas feeling' bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Shockley (was Re: Bockris)
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shockley (was Re: Bockris)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 05:11:11 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

>>"Shockley" (spelled somehow) of transistor fame is the one with the wierd
>>racial ideas.
>
>Sorry, you are right, it was (is) Shockley.
 
   "Was" would seem appropriate; he died several years ago.
 
   I am absolutely no fan of Shockley's "weird racial ideas", but I'd
like to say a few words in his defense.
 
   First he was not merely a Nobel-winning physicist but a superb
expositor of scientific ideas.  I still have his book on transistor
physics, written when all the basic ideas of semiconductor electronics
-- for example, "holes" as mobile positive particles -- were in their
infancy (he was developing many of them); and it is still useful and
still superb.  His "parking garage" analogy for how holes roll uphill
is a model of clever teaching.
 
   Second, his weird racial ideas were in essence that he had
assembled an immense amount of data on IQ scores for different racial
groups, collected when the U.S. instituted universal mobilization at
the beginning of WW II and gave IQ tests to essentially every draft
age male in the country, and had noted that, even when corrected for
socioeconomic class, these indicated a very significant difference in
average performance among different racial groups.  He ascribed this
to genetic differences.
 
   I don't believe this at all myself, I don't trust the tests, nor do
I trust the correctness of the corrections; but his beliefs weren't
just crackpot ideas out of nowhere, he really thought there was solid
(but politically incorrect) scientific data behind his beliefs.  He
was of course vehemently assailed by liberal groups, students, etc;
but it was impossible to make him angry by doing this.  He would
simply tell a group of shouting students, "Look, here are the data,
please come to my office, let's talk more, let me show you the
figures", etc.  Also, there's no doubt that some of our major
universities (Princeton in particular?) played a shameful role in
letting public speeches by him be broken up or shouted down by (IMHO)
juveno-facist groups of protestors.
 
   He also was in other ways a weird guy.  In later years he carried a
tape recorder with him everywhere, and insisted on recording every
conversation he had with anyone -- not out of fear, but somehow to
have a record of what he did. He had had a very serious auto accident
some years earlier; many friends thought this was the source of some
of his idiosyncracies.
 
   In any case it was interesting -- for quite a while here at
Stanford we had two elderly highly distinguished crackpot Nobelists:
Shockley -- someone who should certainly have been competent to assess
statistical evidence -- with his genetic ideas; and Linus Pauling -- a
molecular biologist, but so far as I know in any way an epidemiologist
-- with his Vitamin C.  The students, of course, loved Pauling, and
hated Shockley.
 
   --AES
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Various Replies
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various Replies
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 00:48:34 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
>I have some nice Hall probes that I can put in the next experiment per Terry
>Bollinger and Robert Eachus.
 
>Tom Droege
 
If I can add a suggestion Tom, would you add 4 of them.  One next to the
cathode (perhaps on the surface), one next to the anode (again on the
surface), one in the solution and one outside the cell as control. I don't
think the magnetic field has ever been meassured in PdD, so you will be
breaking new ground.  Robert and Terry have given a good reason to believe
for a possible effect, and the B field of the deuteron conduction band
begs for study. It should be a quite interesting parameter to watch.
 
Have Fun
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.com
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Cold fusion camps
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion camps
Date: 5 Nov 93 18:13:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his 29 Oct. 1993 posting "CNF bibliography update (total now 842 papers...)"
Dieter Britz comments:
 
"Finally, Lyakhov et al (including Lipson, Mr. Fractofusion) provide a null
experiment [for excess heat], which to them points to an oxide layer, formation
of metallic hydrogen and purely chemical effects to explain excess heat; no
nuclear hypothesis required.
 
"So the "cold fusion" field now has three camps:  excess heat, Jones-style,
and fractofusion; with the two last dismissing the first.  Steven Jones will
not like being grouped like this, but I do it."
 
Au contraire, Dieter, I think your grouping is reasonable, both scientifically
and historically.  Anytime you make a distinction between excess heat claims
and possible small nuclear effects, I applaud.  The distinction between the
last two camps remains much less clear, however,
and I'm personally not sure of *any* of
the effects you mention.  The only bona fide form of cold fusion to date
(a zeroth camp?) is muon-catalyzed fusion.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / John Logajan /  Peripatetic recombination -- an independent report on 4A6.
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Peripatetic recombination -- an independent report on 4A6.
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 18:22:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom droege sent me eight floppy disks containing a subset of the parameters
recorded during his cold-fusion experiment 4A6, starting July 7 and running
30+ days.  This log of 28 variables consumes approx 8 megabytes and is
currently available from Charles Harrison's sunsite.unc.edu via ftp.
To obtain a copy:
   ftp to sunsite.unc.edu, login as anonymous,
then
   cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/experimental-data/droege-4A6
   get sample.log
   get sample.log.description
 
>From examining this log I have made one observation that I wish to report
here.  It doesn't deal directly with any anomalous heat, or lack thereof,
but rather with one of the many mysteries suggested by the recorded events of
the above run -- specifically, where in the cell did recombination occurred,
when, and how and when did 15cc of D2O leave the cell and end up in the
external catalyst chamber.
 
Tom Droege posted his explanation in his A1-A7 series of s.p.f. messages,
specifically A5. I now present a slightly different interpretation, one that
I suggest is powerfully indicated by a rather simple technique.
 
The technique is visual slope fitting of three parameters on a graphical
representation of the log data.  The three relevant parameters are:
Icell, Tcat, and Tcell.
 
Icell -- is the current through the electrolysis cell.  By Faraday's law,
Icell is proportional to gas volume evolved (D2 and O2.)
 
Tcat -- is the temperature of a sensor near a matrix of glass tubes containing
a mixture of materials that catalytically recombine D2 and O2 gas into the
liquid D2O.  This catalyst is in the cell above liquid level.  An auxiliary
catalyst exists outside the cell test-tube, but inside the calorimeter,
connected to the cell by a piece of tubing.  There was no temperature
sensor in the external catalyst, so we have to infer its operation from
the behavior of the other parameters.
 
Tcell -- is the temperature of a sensor initially located about halfway
down below the surface of about 30cc of D2O electrolyte.
 
During the 4A6 run, there are three time periods of interest, specified
in seconds from start of the run.  Time periods before and after represent
calibration periods.  The selection of these three time periods is not
arbitrary, but represent drastic changes in the location of recombination
in the Droege apparatus.
 
1.)   820,000-1,356,000 -- Bulk of recombination occurs in external catalyst.
2.) 1,356,000-1,670,000 -- Bulk of recombination occurs in internal catalyst.
3.) 1,670,000-1,840,000 -- Bulk of recombination occurs near cathode.
 
Here's how to identify the three time periods by visual inspection of the
graphical data.  Put Icell, Tcat, and Tcell on a graph from time 820,000 to
1,840,000.  Make Tcat 1/33 the magnification of Icell.  Make Tcell 1/50 the
magnification of Icell.  Make Icell the magnification needed to fill most of
the screen.  Adjust the offsets of all three signals so they are all on the
screen at the same time.
 
First look at time period #2.  Tcat is much hotter than Tcell.  The slopes of
Tcat and Icell track nearly exactly -- establishing the link between them.
Gas being liberated by Icell is being burned near the Tcat sensor -- as
planned.  Programmed up and down slopes in Icell cause corresponding up and
down slopes in Tcat.
 
Now look at time period #3. Tcat temperature drops a huge amount, while Tcell
increases a huge amount.  Now, however, the slope of Tcell and Icell track
nearly exactly.  The programmed down slope of Icell causes a corresponding
down slope in Tcell.  Recombination has moved away from near the Tcat sensor
to near the Tcell sensor.  Droege has correctly (in my view) concluded that
this recombination is due to some part of the cathode/cathode-wire becoming
uncovered by the D2O electrolyte and heating up, probably red-hot due to
the recombination heat.  We will get to the explanation of where the water
went shortly.
 
Now look at Tcell or Tcat and Icell during time period #1.  The tight
correlation does not exist!  Tcat and Tcell are essentially flat during an
extended and massive upslope of Icell.  Recombination is elsewhere!  And
elsewhere for nearly 145 hours.
 
Here are the numbers:
 
1355000-838000=520000seconds. (145 hours)
 
With a linear Icell up-ramp, average current is 1/2 peak.  Peak current was
about 0.86A.  Therefore average current was about 0.43 amps.
 
Dissociation voltage is 1.53v (from memory.)  So average electrolysis energy
rate is 0.6579 joules/second.  520,000s * 0.6579 J/s = 342,100 Joules.
 
In my scorecard I list the energy to make H2O as -285,800J/mole from H2, O2.
I think D2O is 3% greater, so -294,374 J/mole.  342,100j/294374jm = 1.16 moles
of D2O dissociated over those 145 hours!  This would produce 1.16 moles of
D2 and 0.58 moles of O2, and given the conversion factor 24,500 cc/mole,
about 28,420cc D2 and 14,210cc O2.
 
I also list the density of D2O as 0.0550 moles/cc.  1.16m/0.550mcc = 21cc.
 
Since it doesn't look like Tcat is responding to this huge 342100J gas
cloud until after time 1355000 (when Tcat really "lights off") one can only
come to the conclusion it is recombining elsewhere -- with 42,630cc in the
gas phase, there really is no hope of finding a corner in the calorimeter
for the gas to hide -- it must be recombining somewhere.
 
Since 15cc was eventually found in the external catalyst chamber, the evidence
now points to the transport happening between 838,000 and 1,355,000 -- and not
later during violent burst events.  This also squares with an observation in
the data that at least two other times (approx 1,522,000 and 1,632,000) the
recombination appeared to move briefly from near Tcat to near Tcell.  The
suspected cathode wire was thus already uncovered and exposed by those times!
 
I think we now know with high confidence where recombination occurred during
the 4A6 run, and when the 15cc of D2O left the cell and appeared in the
external catalyst chamber.
 
Note:  Tom Droege may or may not agree with this interpretation.
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / John Logajan /  Re: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 18:23:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 5 Nov 1993     Washington, DC
> Robert L. Park  opa@aps.org         The American Physical Society
 
It's only my opinion, but I'd rather not see Park's WHAT'S NEW posted
here.  It's vaguely news, mostly a vehicle for Park's opinions, which
are always stated in the most high and mighty aggravating manner.
 
As such, if he isn't going to be responsive, then his posts enjoy the
status of other non-responsive posters, such as the late great Robert
McElwaine.
 
Just my opinion, but at least I'm here to defend it.
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Jim Bowery /  Errata:  EPRI Funding
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errata:  EPRI Funding
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 02:13:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Earlier, I erroneously wrote:
>EPRI is pretty much a government-created entity.  Utilities are required
>to put a percentage of each KWH's revenue into a utilities-industry
>fund to finance EPRI's technology programs.
 
What I described is the funding mechanism NOT for EPRI, but for the
nuclear waste disposal fund established by law I believe under Carter.
(This is one of the potential funding sources for alternative fusion
 technologies due to the fact that nuclear waste deactivation via
 neutron bombardment is a very much over-looked option in nuclear waste
 disposal).
 
I apologize for broadcasting this misinformation and will post an accurate
description of EPRI's structure and funding funding next week sometime
(when I can dig out my files on EPRI).
 
Thanks to Bruce Liebert for pointing out my my error.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: REPOST of  Re:  Fleischmann's response
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: REPOST of  Re:  Fleischmann's response
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 17:09:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

     I must have missed this the first time...
 
In article <1993Nov3.055123.1024@ns.network.com>,
Fleischmann writes through Jed:
>(3) The third point is that the voltages are read every 300s using fast
>sample-and-hold systems. We therefore determine the mean potential-time curve
>(the only A.C. components are the ripple currents of the galvanostats which
>are 0.04% of the set current). This point really refers to Douglas Morrison's
>strictures.
 
     Point measurements at 5 minutes?  During the whole experiment?
     Including the 'boiloff'?
 
     Please tell me he's joking.  Why in God's name would they be
     sampling so infrequently, especially when this was discussed
     very early on?
 
>Martin Fleischmann
Jed continues:
>I asked Fleischmann to comment on his statement: "voltages are read every 300s
>using fast sample-and-hold systems." Five minute gaps between readings is an
>unusually long time for this type of experiment (although I know no reason to
>think they are "too long" -- CF reactions are slow and stable). He responded:
 
     They are?  When they're boiling violently?  When all the electrolyte is
     exiting the cells in a 10-12 minute period.  Give me a break.
 
>        "...We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes -
>        but there are 56 cells and there is only one computer! We have other
>        ways of doing this (averaging meters) but for the experiments we
>        reported in Phys. Lett. A... [readings were every 300s.]"
>
>This is an important point that many readers here have failed to grasp: a wide
>variety of experiments have been performed at IMRA,
 
     Who cares?  Inadequate experimental technique is not excused
     by the fact that one is running hundreds or even thousands
     of inadequate experiments.  Why don't they invest in another couple
     of PC's with data acquisition gear?  '486 machines are about $1000
     these days.  I'd think Toyota could afford it.
 
>instruments used, like the averaging meters. The experiments described in
>Physics Letters A are only the tip of the iceberg. If they had *only* used 5
>minute readings, in only one set of experiments, I would consider that a
>problem, but from talking to various people and from watching the CBC video, I
>know that a wide variety of instruments and techniques have been used to
>verify and explore the reaction. I pointed that out here from time to time,
>but alas, my words fell on deaf ears.
 
     What other instruments are used to *verify* power input?
     And what about the *three hours* when the cell sat 'dry' at
     100C?
 
     This reeks.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Fleischmann (once per 5 minutes!)
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 17:18:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov3.145424.29175@aau.dk>, Dieter Britz <kemidb@aau.dk> wrote:
>In <1993Nov2.162733.1050@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>>Frankly, I am appalled that P&F measure cell parameters only "once every
>>5 minutes" as Fleischmann now admits.  Why was not this procedure stated in
>>their "glorious" paper?  How can we be sure that there were not input voltage
>>and power fluctuations during the 10-minute boiling period which has been
>>shown on video at Nagoya and on TV (e.g., Canadian broadcast)?
>
>The idea is that during this stage of the experiment, neither the current nor
>the cell voltage mattered, in terms of exact values, because the heat generated
>was so much larger than any input power calculated from them. Whatever you make
>of this phase - and there are serious problems - you have to go along with this
>argument, I think.
 
     I don't buy it.  The most likely explanation of the 'excess heat'
     has always been inadequate understanding of the actual power input.
     Sampling once or twice during the boiloff, and then publishing the
     enthalpy results without mentioning this 'little fact' seems rather
     odd.
 
     I'd want to see detailed behavior of the actual I and V curves
     during this 10 minutes before I take their word for what the
     input power was.  However, that data apparently does not exist.
 
     Have they thrown all skepticism about their results out the window?
 
>the current. The opposite is true; a slowed-down response will let some of the
>fluctuations through, and you have both current AND cell voltage varying with
>time. In that case, the averaging and slow sampling technique no longer works,
>or at least produces an unknown error - possibly small, possibly not.
>We are still working on a demonstration of this; we are now as far as having a
>cell, and a Pd rod electrode, and have bought the a/d cards. So any month now
>we should get some actual results...
 
      Good.  That should be interesting.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fleischmann's defense
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann's defense
Date: 6 Nov 1993 19:45:13 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
The P&F story over and over and over again: "OK so our publications of our
experiments suck but it *really* does work, believe us, we have *secret
inside information* and technology {that we didn't report}; sorry I can't
say more our lawyer is on the phone...."
 
At this rate I think it perfectly reasonable to not believe anything until
the Lexus-C.F. rolls out of Toyota City.
 
--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / mitchell swartz /  Activity and half-life
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Activity and half-life
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 21:56:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <93110510154075@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
     Subject: activity vs. integrated dose
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
= "In response to my comment concerning long-lived radioactivity, Mitchell
= Swartz says, "A curie is a curie is a curie."  As usual, Mitchell, you
= have totally missed the point.  In simple terms, the issue is better
= put by asking whether a curie today is a curie tomorrow is a curie
= next year?  The answer is NO, and if it weren't such a trivial question
= I would be glad to let you check with my Radiation Safety Officer to
= see if I have my facts straight."
 
   OK.  Dick Blue has asked for some math to test his words.
Let's do just that.   For this gendanken experiment,
we shall assume we have both Longium (T1/2=100,000 years) and
Shortium (T1/2=1 day)                     {thanks Hal!     ;-)
 
  We begin with a curie of each at t=0, and will use the formula(e) to
calculate "whether a curie today is a curie tomorrow" as Dick Blue
says. Although a Curie [3.7 x 10^10 atoms/sec] are old units, the result
will be the same.   Now the  formula [***] for activity, at a time t:
 
    a =  a0 * exp[-t*.693/T]    where T is the half life, and
 
                                a0 is  dn0
                                       ___
                                        dt     and n0 is the initial number
                                                of nuclei in question at t=0.
 
     [***   eg. Health Physics, D.J. Rees (MIT Press), page 33]
 
     for shortium:   a = a0  exp ( -0.693 * [1 day * 100 * 365.25]/1day
     for longium:    a = a0  exp ( -0.693 * [100]/100,000)
 
  So what exactly does the formula indicate are the activities at, say,
100 years (which is not a very long time given the half-life of "longium"
but is at least of the order of time that we must worry about for real
storage of real radioisotopes - if not much longer!!)?
 
  Using the equation above, Longium has 0.99931 curies.
  In contrast, Shortium has an activity essentially zero.
     (Sorry, not enough digits on my calculator to do better than this)
 
  So is it true what Dick Blue said?
     =db  "...  there is no such thing as material that is "highly radioactive"
     =db          and extremely long lived."
           Message-ID: <93110115240531@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
             Dick Blue (NSCL@MSU [blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu])
 
  Apparently not.   The disintegration constant, the definitions
of half-life and specific activity, and the actual units of radioactivity show
exactly the potential errors of such simplistic thinking.
      Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Carl Ijames /  Re: neutron detectors vs. survey meters
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: neutron detectors vs. survey meters
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 01:06:21 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <93110510320368@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
wrote:
 
> Now, I will stick my neck out a bit to suggest what the the source
> of the noise that triggered the detector response may have been.
> The experiment involves a sample in an evacuated chamber being
> pumped by a turbomolecular pump.  Something triggers an explosive
> release of gas from the sample, the turbo pump trips off due to
> overload, and the neutron detector responds.  Would it surprize
> anyone if I suggested that tripping a relay which turns off a
> motor may generate an electromagnetic transient pulse?  I can
> also assure you that a proportional counter can detect such
> things.
>
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
 
Turbopumps spin at 30,000+ rpm, and the motor windings are transistor
driven.  They (at least the brands I am personally familiar with) do not
have a 110/220 V (or whatever) 60 Hz motor controlled by a relay connected
to the mains.  In Balzers pumps there are four motor windings, four drive
transistors, and the drive frequency is ramped up as the motor comes up to
speed, stabilizing at 1000 Hz.  The relay you refer to probably turns off
the power supply to the motor but does not directly interrupt the inductive
circuit formed from the motor windings.  There are also snubber diodes
across the drive transistors to absorb any inductive transients.  There may
be a burst of RFI when the pump trips off, but not the magnitude you
suggest.
 
Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 00:39:49 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Nov4.121012.22876@bluesky.com> barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
writes:
 
>solar radiation is surprisingly high;
> peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square
> meter
 
Are you sure about this? If I recall, the solar constant is about
1300 W/m^2, and that is what is incident *above* the atmoshpere. I
can't believe that most of that makes it down to sea level.
 
I base my 100 W/m^2-delivered estimate off of what I've read various solar
powered cars provide.
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 00:41:14 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <2baumoINNlg5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>
> I fear very much this scenario:
>
> billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
>
 
But isn't the current alternative scenario (in the US)
 
 no ITER --> end of fusion research
 
?
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 00:51:31 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <m0ouPKx-0000voC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
writes:
 
>
> First, I don't want the GOVERNMENT to provide financing to ANY technology
> as it is the worst form of "picking winners" imaginable.
>
 
Is it not possible that certain desirable technologies are so expensive to
develop that no private sector entity would assume the risk?
 
How about, say, jet aircraft and satellites; I suspect these were originally
developed by the government labs. Look like winners to me. In fact, I
would guess the gov't is no better or worse at picking winners than
any other entity. What you probably object to is they suffer little penalty
for bad picks.
 
> Since the fusion establishment's technical
> credibility is negative, such energetic political attacks were taken to
> mean, in the absence of good papers by P&F, that there might be something
> to P&F's technology.  That political opposition is still the strongest
> indicator that there might be something to P&F CNF.
>
 
Wow, thats great reasoning--I'd trust my money with your investment group.
By the way, I've noticed a conspiracy to suppress perpetual motion
machine development (for example, blanket denial of patents), fueled
mainly by the low-credibility scientific establishment. How
highly does your group rate these technologies.
 
 
> (BTW:  I can't currently
>  discount the possibility that the Japanese have an ongoing program of
>  industrial espionage operating via their ITER contacts, whose objective
>  it is to so marginalize alternative fusion technologies in the U.S. so that
>  they become easy pickings for Japanese industrialists.  If you are quick
>  to discount such a possibility as "paranoid", you are exactly the sort of
>  fool such a program would need, in numbers, to succeed here in the U.S.)
>
 
Ah, I see it clearly now...yes...thanks for the tip. Mums the word,
though.
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  cyclotron
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: cyclotron
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 03:12:34 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

                        Battle Hymn of the Republic
 
                        Plutonium Marching Orders for Homo sapiens
 
                                        1
        Mine eyes have seen into the eyes of Plutonium itself;
        Protons interacting to my brain from the nucleus
        where the power is stored and quantized;
        Its electromagnetic force, its radioactivities force,
        and its terrible strong force; Its strong force is particling on.
        Gluon, gluon atomplutonium! Gluon, gluon plutonium! Gluon,      gluon
plutonium!  Its strong force is particling on.
                                        2
        I have seen it in fermium since 1// is the stability limit.
        They have builded it a cyclotron in order for element
                        nucleosynthesis;
        I can read its mirror reflections in mathematics.
        Its time is waving on.
        Gluon, gluon atomplutonium! Gluon, gluon plutonium!  Its        purpose is
heavier element nucleosynthesis.
                                        3
        It has interacted with Homo sapiens.
        It shall never end for life.
        It is sifting out the hearts in us before Its judgement seat,   seat of
radioactivities, Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer It,
        be jubilant, my mind, Our Maker is waving and particling on.    Gluon,
gluon atomplutonium! Gluon, gluon plutonium!  Its       purpose is heavier
element nucleosynthesis.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  nucleus
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: nucleus
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 03:24:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Music of Blessed Assurance (sung with much lively spirit)
 
Blessed assurance Atoms are all.
Oh what a foretaste when I go to the nucleus.
It is salvation purchased from Pu.
Born of its spirit washed in its oxygen.
This is my story, this is my song.
Praising our Maker, all the day long
This is my story, this is my song.
Praising PU, all the day long
 
Perfect superdeterminism, all is at rest
I in my Maker am happy and blest
Watching and waiting, looking within
Filled with its goodness, lost in its love
This is my story, this is my song.
Praising our Maker, all the day long
This is my story, this is my song.
Praising PU, all the day long
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How old is safe?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How old is safe?
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 00:49:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <93110115240531@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
 <blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
>The discussion between Robert Heeter and Dale Bass touched on the issue
>of high-level radioactive waste disposal in a way that indicates a need
>to review some very basic physics of radioactive decay.  The discussion
>of this question very often goes off into never-never land as to what
>time scales should be considered.  Are we talking 100's of years or
>many tens of thousands of years?
 
     In the current political climate it matters little whether
     we're talking about trace contamination of radioactive markers
     or piles of high actinide waste from Lake Anna.  The policy-makers
     and press seem immune to such distinctions.
 
>Of course the confusion sets in whenever the material being considered
>for disposal consists of a mixture of things that are very radioactive
>(from fission those are the fission fragments) and things that are less
>active but which have half lives comparable to the age of the earth.
>The only serious disposal problem as I see has to do with the fission
>fragments for which the time scale is a few hundred years.  The other
>stuff can go along for the ride.
 
     Hundreds seems fine.  It's the ten thousands that are always worrisome.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: He's appalled, poor baby.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: He's appalled, poor baby.
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 01:01:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <931103160134_72240.1256_EHK30-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>I see that Steve Jones finally got the message from Fleischmann and flew into
>conniptions. Good! I think I will rub salt in his wounds, and post it again,
>because I gather that Internet had some problems and some people failed to get
>it. As anyone can see, Steve did not bother to read the message, or he did not
>understand it. He raised an imaginary "problem" with the five minute polling
>that Fleischmann has already addressed, in two ways:
>
>1. Fleischmann said they have done the experiment with other types of
>equipment, which polls continuously, and they saw the same results. (Many
>other people have told me this.) In science, when critics A, B, C point out
>legitimate problems with an experiment, if the experimenter comes back and
>says, "yes, we acknowledge those problems. We addressed them with procedures
>X, Y, and Z" -- that should satisfy everyone. The issue is thereby closed.
 
     Direct question Jed.  What other methods are they using to
     check input voltage and current?  Are they checking current at *all*?
     Fleischmann's gut feeling about the rail voltage
     doesn't qualify as a measurement.
 
     This is not closed.  Citing mystery measurements when the
     actual measurements are inadequate is not even science.  It's voodoo.
 
     I don't know about anyone else, but this is not the way science
     is done in our neck of the woods.
 
>2. As Fleischmann pointed out, you can assume that voltage is jacked up to the
>maximum, 100 V, and measure the amount of water vaporized only, ignoring all
>other parameters, and you *still* come out ahead, with excess heat. Add that
>to the fact that the Pd stays hot, and you have undeniable proof of excess
>heat beyond chemistry.
 
     And we have no idea what the current is or what the AC component is
     or what his equipment is doing when it is arcing because we
     have no *MEASUREMENTS*.  Why do we have no measurements?  It seems
     so easy to take measurements.
 
     It seems we have undeniable proof that something is badly amiss.
     I'm not sure even I would have suggested that they extrapolated from
     only two datapoints during the boiloff.
 
>Steve is just talking all out his head (as Jack Dupree would say). Pay no
>attention to him. All of his so-called "objections" are froth, bunk, or stupid
>lies.
 
     Funny.  I'd think measuring the voltage once every five minutes when
     the all the electrolyte boils away in 10-12 minutes is pretty 'bunky'.
 
     I've said it before:  This reeks.
 
                               dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: How old is safe?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How old is safe?
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 14:38:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov4.072305.26282@aau.dk>, Dieter Britz <kemidb@aau.dk> wrote:
>
>>The only serious disposal problem as I see has to do with the fission
>>fragments for which the time scale is a few hundred years.  The other
>>stuff can go along for the ride.
>
>
>Are you not neglecting what for most people is the biggest worry: plutonium?
>I don't believe it is its radioactivity that worries us, it is very nasty
>stuff without that.
 
     In a rational fission program, plutonium is valuable fuel.
     It is the actinide wastes that are the current worry.  IFR
     reactors take care of most of that 'problem'.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 14:51:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2baumoINNlg5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>My answer, as ever, is that these studies are rash garbage until we
>understand the physics of confinement. Without that, it is Russian
>Roulette. Look back through my posts and count the times I say "building
>ITER is premature". I agree with anyone else that we are not in any sort
>of position to ask for Billions when we don't know how the F these things
>will work. Of course, some of the cutesy stuff we've seen in this group
>in the other direction is also so much rubbish.
>
>I fear very much this scenario:
>
>billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
>
>while a slightly modified concept just a little way away in the space
>of configurations would have worked and we will never know it.
>
>Gee, Dale and Jim Bowery ought to have a good little fun with this, no?
 
      Why?  Seems like a rational assessment to me.  If we're doing it,
      I don't *want* to see fusion research fail.
 
>I wouldn't use the _current_ cost of coal as a yardstick, for the reason
>that coal is very harmful, and the last thing we want to do is simply
>burn it the way we have. Work out a number using coal to make LNG or
>something without injecting large doses of CO2 and the noxious stuff into
>the atmosphere, and we'll have a better comparison.
 
     CO2 is no big problem.  It is the sulfur emissions that seem
     to be killing my trees.  And as much as I hate coal plants, scrubbers
     are pretty efficient these days (when they're used).  Don't
     expect the price of electricity produced by coal to go up that much.
     Approval to build is another story entirely, but if fusion ever
     gets to that point, it will have that problem too...
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fleischmann Reply
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann Reply
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 04:11:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <93110409071872@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
 <blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
>I received the "missing" message in digest form as FD1584 , dated Oct 27.
>I presume that it can be retrieved from North Dakota under that label.
>Let me take this opportunity to ask that anyone who is still interested
>in the experiments discussed by Fleischmann review the numbers relating
>to the boil-off.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but here goes what
>I think are roughly the significant numbers.
>
>Total water vaporized:  40 gm
>Ave power used to vaporize that: 171 watts
>Time required to reach boiling point: less than interval between data scans
>Input power during boil-off:  estimated 35 to 50 watts
>Time requited to complete vaporization: somewhere between 600 and 60000 sec.
>
>My question is how is the last number determined and who knows what it is
>and how accurate it is known.  If it is part of the data set included in
>the computer logging taken at 300 sec intervals, how many data points
>cover the boil-off?
 
     I believe we determined that the half-full point was measured by
     eyeball, the elegant technique preferred by CNF researchers
     2:1 over a wild-@$$ guess.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fleischmann's defense
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann's defense
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 04:21:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <93110410182209@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>,
 <blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>PS:  For those who haven't done the calculation yet, as the time required
>for boil-off stretches from twice the scan interval to perhaps 20 times
>the scan interval the average power level estimate drops from 171 watts
>to 17 watts, something less than the estimated power input.  One possible
>explaination for the mystery of the 100 C temperature persisting is
>that the cell in question is boiling much longer than we had been led
>to believe.  Even Prof. Fleischmann leaves open the possibility that
>the input power level could have risen to perhaps 50 watts - enough
>to complete boil-off in no more that 8 scan intervals.
 
    I cannot locate the paper right now, but I seem to recall that
    the 'half-full' point was what was used for calculation of the
    boiling enthalpy.  They have an estimate of the time taken to
    boil from that point.
 
    My personal feeling is that they are badly wrong about input power
    during the ten or so minutes the electrolyte takes to finally
    boil off.  Their ballpark estimates of boiling enthalpy should
    not be that far off, but they only have a voltage sample or two
    (a DC sample at that) during that entire time.  The fact that
    the kel-F support melted (which still only seems possible if the
    wrong electrode got very hot) makes me believe that they do
    not understand what is happening with their equipment during that
    time.
 
    And they'd never know with 5 minute samples.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 18:03:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <31622@mindlink.bc.ca>,
Bruce Dunn <Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>Jed Rothwell writes:
>
>> I have decided to stop posting messages to this forum. I made an exception
>> for this because Martin was kind enough to respond in depth to the Jones
>> posting, in spite of his busy schedule. So, I feel I should close the loop
>> and report his comments here.
>
>        Thank you for posting the material, and try to be patient with the
>people who are calling you names instead of trying to analyze the issues.
 
     This is rich.  Analysis doesn't seem to be Jed's strong suit.
 
     We've got a boiling period of about 10 minutes, and we have
     at most three samples of voltage during the period that the voltage
     (and current) must be bopping all over the place, and we have
     Jed's assurance that 'all is well' with *no numbers*, *no measurements*,
     *no quantification*.  We have the assurance that the experimenters
     were visually able to tell when a violently boiling vessel was half
     full.  We have no idea what the equipment is
     or what the characteristics of the equipment are
     (other than a vague reference to the rail voltage of the galvanostat).
     We have a published paper that mentions *none* of these important
     things, even though it does present enthaply-in vs. enthalpy-out
     during the period as if it were based on reasonable *measurements*.
 
     My analysis is that the stench is very strong.  Every new
     tidbit raises new and stronger concerns about the experiments.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Lee Rudolph /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: lrudolph@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date:  7 Nov 93 14:17:35 GMT
Organization: Clark University (Worcester, MA)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     We have the assurance that the experimenters
>     were visually able to tell when a violently boiling vessel was half
>     full.
 
Why, sure.  They're optimists, see.  You're a pessimist; if you'd been
there, you'd have said it was half empty.
 
Lee Rudolph
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Fusion ethics
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion ethics
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 02:13:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
UCLA, Mathematics Department writes:
>In article <m0ouPKx-0000voC@crash.cts.com> jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
>writes:
>>
>> First, I don't want the GOVERNMENT to provide financing to ANY technology
>> as it is the worst form of "picking winners" imaginable.
>
>Is it not possible that certain desirable technologies are so expensive to
>develop that no private sector entity would assume the risk?
>
>How about, say, jet aircraft and satellites; I suspect these were originally
>developed by the government labs.
 
Jet aircraft were developed during time of genuine, declared war which is,
as I have often reiterated, an exceptional time during which it is necessary
and appropriate that the MILITARY "pick winners".
 
Satellites (I have to assume you mean communications satellites here) were
primarily a creature of Hughes.  I suppose you could say Telstar was an
important satellite (developed by Bell) but I really don't think comm
sats were an important economic force until geostationary devices.
 
>Look like winners to me. In fact, I
>would guess the gov't is no better or worse at picking winners than
>any other entity. What you probably object to is they suffer little penalty
>for bad picks.
 
I object to letting people selected through a political process pick
technologies.  The world just doesn't work that way.
 
>> Since the fusion establishment's technical
>> credibility is negative, such energetic political attacks were taken to
>> mean, in the absence of good papers by P&F, that there might be something
>> to P&F's technology.  That political opposition is still the strongest
>> indicator that there might be something to P&F CNF.
>>
>
>Wow, thats great reasoning--I'd trust my money with your investment group.
>By the way, I've noticed a conspiracy to suppress perpetual motion
>machine development (for example, blanket denial of patents), fueled
>mainly by the low-credibility scientific establishment. How
>highly does your group rate these technologies.
 
First, I said NEGATIVE credibility -- not "low-credibility."  Second, I
said FUSION establishment, not "scientific establishment".  P&F, Brokris
and even Mallove, for example, could be considered part of the "scientific
 establishment".  I'm sure you Tokamak guys would like to wrap yourselves
in the hundreds of years of credibility built by real scientists.  But real
scientists work mostly in small labs on their own ideas -- they don't drain
the life's-blood from armies of graduate students in large government-funded
TECHNOLOGY projects.  Remember how old Newton and Einstein were when they
made their greatest contributions and how many graduate students they had
working for them?
 
When big-science "scientists" get all hot and bothered opposing something,
it is entirely reasonable to SUSPECT there MIGHT be some value to whatever it
is they are opposing (in the case of P&F this component contributed enough
 credibility to allow P&F a 1 in 10 chance of being a winner, but not enough
 to qualify as a recommended investment).
 
>> (BTW:  I can't currently
>>  discount the possibility that the Japanese have an ongoing program of
>>  industrial espionage operating via their ITER contacts, whose objective
>>  it is to so marginalize alternative fusion technologies in the U.S. so
that
>>  they become easy pickings for Japanese industrialists.  If you are quick
>>  to discount such a possibility as "paranoid", you are exactly the sort of
>>  fool such a program would need, in numbers, to succeed here in the U.S.)
>>
>Ah, I see it clearly now...yes...
 
If you see "it" so clearly (I assume you mean that you clearly see such a
 program of industrial espionage) then what is your evidence?  Apparently,
it is stronger than my circumstantial evidence for you to see it so clearly.
I would be rather surprised if you actually had such evidence, though.  The
typical espionage program is far more sophisticated than to let a peon like
you have any solid evidence of its operation.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  quantum mechanics
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: quantum mechanics
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 15:28:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

I am dreaming of quantum mechanics
Just like the times I was in school
Where the atoms spectral lines
And chemical periodic table
to hear the teacher is able
 
I am dreaming of quantum mechanics
with every homework I write
May your days be merry and bright
And may all your 14Decembers be white.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  fields
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fields
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 15:52:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Through PLUTONIUM,
        und Buss hab ich vers hnt
        das ATOM, dem mein Herze fr hnt,
        der meine Reu' mit Segen Kr nt
        das ATOM, dem mein Lied ert nt!
        the succession of neptunium to plutonium to americium
        in time to come I will walk in peace in The Fields of
                Elysium!
        Vor Hades und Tod ist mich nicht bang
        drum preis ich ATOM mein Lebenlang.
        ATOMPLUTONIUM! ATOMPLUTONIUM! In Electronkeit!
 -----------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  Electromagnetism, (Stille Nacht)
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electromagnetism, (Stille Nacht)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 15:31:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

        Play SCIENCE NIGHT and the same  music as  Silent Night.
 
        Science Night, Atomic night!
        All is calm, all is bright
        Around the protons are electrons
        Hadrons Strong Nuclear
        Sleep in our electron universe,
        Sleep in our electron universe
 
        Science Night, Atomic night!
        Electromagnetism
        at the sight
        Coulomb Interaction from thy Protons
        Math harmonize with the spheres
        Atom Totality is born, Atom Totality is born!
 
        Atom Plutonium Totality at thy birth,
        Atom Totality at thy birth!
 
        Science Night, Atomic night!
        Electromagnetism
        is pure light
        Radioactive-growth thy Nucleus
        On the morning of November 7
        Atom Plutonium Totality at thy birth,
        Atom Totality at thy birth!
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  complementary principle
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: complementary principle
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 15:50:23 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

        O Freunde, nicht diese T ne!
        Sondern lasst uns angenehmere anstimmen und freudenvollere.
        Joy, thou shining spark of electromagnetism, Fields of Elysium!
        With fire rapture, radioactivities.
        We do your nucleosynthesis.  Your nucleosynthesis, since we             are
parts of your last electron.
        All atoms are superpositioned as one plutonium atom.
 
        Wem der grosse Wurf gelungen, Eines Freundes Freund zu sein;
        Wer ein holdes Weif errungen, Mische seinen Jubel ein!
        Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele.
        Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund
        Und Wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle
        Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!
        All the world's life comes from the nucleus.
        Complementary prevails.
        It gives us life and death, the joy of life even for
                radioactive decay.
        Joy, as its stars speed through the electron distribution
        Prompt us on to ever heavier element nucleosynthesis
        All life join in amazement!
        Life, there is a nucleus.
        Do you see our makers presence.  Look beyond the stars!
        It exists beyond the stars!
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / L Plutonium /  fission
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: fission
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 16:08:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

 
                        Atom of Plutonium
 
 
        Atom Plutonium fissioned for me
        Let me show myself in Thee
        Steel the water and the blood
        from thy side of the 5f6
        radioactive growth decay duality cure
        save from wrath and make me pure
 
        My life photons have no rest mass.
        My life waves are forever moving.
        Send me not into radioactive decay,
        Protons you judge, and you alone.
        From Thy electron, I sacrifice all
        simply to Thy proton I want to gluon.
 
        While I breathe my last oxygen,
        When my eyes close in death.
        When I rise to subatomic particles unknown,
        and behold Thee in Thy Nucleus.
        Atom Plutonium, fissioned for me,
        Let me gluon myself in Thee
        Let me gluon myself in Thee
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 17:04:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CG1658.BDu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     My analysis is that the stench is very strong.  Every new
>     tidbit raises new and stronger concerns about the experiments.
 
I agree with almost all of what you have to say, but I think the second
sentence here is understated to the point of being misleading.  I don't
think that Pons and Fleischmann can top themselves any more.  They are
known quantities.  Their Phys. Lett. paper is plainly bad science.
But it isn't any worse than the science they did in 1989.
 
Besides, who knows if there is any science at all in Phys. Lett. A or
in the responses to defend it?  Since they have altered data in the
past, they can just as well invent it.  All we know is that any science
that is there is bad science.  I do not mean to cast even this last
comment as a new development.  A member the DOE panel that visited
Pons' lab way back in 1989 characterized it as a "Potemkin laboratory."
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 17:29:05 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <01H4Y9H38QVM8WXSY5@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>I was talking about proof, and no negative can be a proof.
 
Proof is a loaded word in science, and some people apply the term so
strictly that it is useless.  If you mean a proof like a mathematical
proof, then sure, nothing proves anything in science.
 
However you want to use that word, I maintain that you are making a
false, and unscientific, distinction between positive and negative
experiments.  Positive and negative are relative terms that only have
meaning when you have two competing scientific theories.  If you switch
the two theories, you switch positive and negative experiments.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 17:44:18 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <9311061001.AA16646@anubis.network.com> logajan@anubis.networ
.com (John Logajan) writes:
>It's only my opinion, but I'd rather not see Park's WHAT'S NEW posted
>here.  It's vaguely news, mostly a vehicle for Park's opinions, which
>are always stated in the most high and mighty aggravating manner.
 
"What's New" is great.  Even when I disagree with it, which is rarely,
it is intelligent and effective and it gives me food for thought.
 
I think that you have an anti-intellectual attitude towards prose that
you disagree with.  If Park's opinions are so odious, why stop at
asking him to go away?  You can print out his newsletter and burn it.
 
Let me extend the same advice to Bruce Hamilton, who has found Gary
Taubes' conclusions about John Bockris to be so disagreeable that he
has moved the book off of his reading list.  Do you even know what
Taubes has to say?  If the conclusions are so wrong that no logic can
justify them, why stop at refusing to read the book when you can burn
it?
 
I am an avid reader of literature that I hate, to the extent that
such literature is important.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / John Logajan /  Is 5 minutes often enough
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is 5 minutes often enough
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 05:54:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There has been some debate as to whether measuring current and voltage every
five minutes is sufficient experimental techinque.
 
The answer, I think, depends upon what you are attempting to determine.  As
far as I can tell, I think P+F believe they have already proven CNF to exist
and in the instance in question were actually running multiple cells with
variations in each in an attempt to discover what maximizes the reaction.
 
Here you aren't necessarily attempting to prove all "positive" indications
are CNF, but merely collecting "positive" indictions and throwning away
the negatives.  You can re-run the collected "positivies" again to see
if they are just flukes, etc, and to cross compare against each other --
as sort of evolutionary method, not unlike, I suppose, the way Edison obtained
the longest lasting filament material for his light bulbs.
 
After looking at Droege's 30+ days of data on 4A6 with parameters given
every 1 minute, I'd say parameters every 5 minutes *is* sufficient for
a preliminary screening operation of the type I believe they were running.
 
In Droege's run in particular, I believe over the course of 145 hours he
lost half his D2O to external recombination -- yet the voltage and current
are well behaved, no evidence of a tendency to runaway.  Remember that
electrolytes have a negative resistance coefficient with regard to
temperature -- thus in a constant current environment a heating of the
electrolyte tends to reduce the resistance, reducing the voltage drop needed
to maintain the current, and thus reducing the applied power -- tending
to cool the cell -- a negative feedback effect.
 
So voltage and current tends to be well behaved up to the point of runaway.
And so the need to sample often it in such a screening technique is much
reduced.
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / John Logajan /  Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 05:54:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I believe Dieter made reference to the notion that Plutonium was poisonous
regardless of its radioactivity.  It is in fact poisonous, but nothing on
the order the scare-mongering Greens would have you believe.  It certainly
isn't "the most deadly poison known to man" as some eco-hysterics have
claimed.  I don't have the reference in front of me, but I believe its
toxicity is on the order of some household chemicals.
 
Sure, you wouldn't want to eat Plutonium, but you wouldn't want to drink
Drano either.  Nevertheless, hysterical campaigns aren't mobilized against
Drano.  Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it -- no need to give them
new ideas.  :-)
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Shockley (was Re: Bockris)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Shockley (was Re: Bockris)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 20:13:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Nov6.051111.8755@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.ED
 (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>   Second, his weird racial ideas were in essence that he had
>assembled an immense amount of data on IQ scores for different racial
>groups, collected when the U.S. instituted universal mobilization at
>the beginning of WW II and gave IQ tests to essentially every draft
>age male in the country, and had noted that, even when corrected for
>socioeconomic class, these indicated a very significant difference in
>average performance among different racial groups.  He ascribed this
>to genetic differences.
 
Uh, _every_ compilation of IQ scores shows virtually the identical
offset that Shockley described. He was neither the first nor the
loudest to say what he said. There was nothing crackpot nor shameful
about Shockley's theories.
 
While it is my personal opinion that these IQ scores tilt due to
_attitude_ for learning (for instance, Jewish scores tend towards
the high end), it isn't beyond belief that there is some sort of
genetic component.
 
I think a more impotrant question would have been -- So what? Would
that mean that blacks shouldn't be educated? Shockley would never have
accepted that. When I heard him speak he said that knowledge of a
genetic component could point to ways to _improve_ education. Does
that sound crackpot to anyone?
 
Shockley's treatment by the scientific community at large was shockingly
bad. Political Correctness was the only criteria used in determining
whether the evidense was acceptable. Watching this dog and pony show
demonstrated that no-one is safe from the book burners.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.07 / Mark North /  Re: Cold fusion camps
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion camps
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 22:09:19 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>In his 29 Oct. 1993 posting "CNF bibliography update (total now 842 papers...)"
>Dieter Britz comments:
 
>>"So the "cold fusion" field now has three camps:  excess heat, Jones-style,
>>and fractofusion; with the two last dismissing the first.  Steven Jones will
>>not like being grouped like this, but I do it."
 
>Au contraire, Dieter, I think your grouping is reasonable, both scientifically
>and historically.  Anytime you make a distinction between excess heat claims
>and possible small nuclear effects, I applaud.  The distinction between the
>last two camps remains much less clear, however,
>and I'm personally not sure of *any* of
>the effects you mention.  The only bona fide form of cold fusion to date
>(a zeroth camp?) is muon-catalyzed fusion.
 
Quite true. But at least fractofusion is *plausible*.
 
Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: cyclotron
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: cyclotron
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 00:17:30 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <CG3q8y.DKz@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
 
>                         Battle Hymn of the Republic (music by William Steffe)
>
>                         Plutonium Marching Orders for Homo sapiens
>
>                                         1
>         Mine eyes have seen into the eyes of Plutonium itself;
>         Protons interacting to my brain from the nucleus
>         where the power is stored and quantized;
>         Its electromagnetic force, its radioactivities force,
>         and its terrible strong force; Its strong force is particling on.
>         Gluon, gluon atomplutonium! Gluon, gluon plutonium! Gluon,     gluon
> plutonium!  Its strong force is particling on.
>                                         2
>         I have seen to fermium at 100 is the stability limit.
>         They have builded it a cyclotron in order for element
>                         nucleosynthesis;
>         I can read its mirror reflections in mathematics.
>         Its time is waving on.
>         Gluon, gluon atomplutonium! Gluon, gluon plutonium!  Its       purpose is
> heavier element nucleosynthesis.
>                                         3
>         It has interacted with Homo sapiens.
>         It shall never end for life.
>         It is sifting out the hearts in us before Its judgement seat,  seat of
> radioactivities, Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer It,
>         be jubilant, my mind, Our Maker is waving and particling on.   Gluon,
> gluon atomplutonium! Gluon, gluon plutonium!  Its      purpose is heavier
> element nucleosynthesis.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / L Plutonium /  observable universe
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: observable universe
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 01:27:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Play the music of He's Got The Whole World In His Hands with the
following lyrics:
 
 IT'S GOT THE WHOLE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE IN ITS 94TH ELECTRON.
 PU HAS OUR WHOLE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE IN ITS 94TH ELECTRON.
 PU HAS OUR WHOLE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE IN ITS 94TH ELECTRON.
 PU HAS OUR WHOLE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE IN ITS 94TH ELECTRON.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / L Plutonium /  science holidays
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: science holidays
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 01:38:05 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  Note to reader--plutonium was first identified 14Dec1940, and the
Atom Totality was first discovered 7November1990!
 
We wish you a merry Pu day,
We wish you a merry 7 November,
We wish you a merry Pu day,
And a happy 14 December,
Good science to you, wherever you are,
Good math for 7 November,
And a happy 14 December.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Dieter Britz /  Yamaguchi: what's the fuss?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi: what's the fuss?
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 08:27:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
With all the fuss lately being made of the Yamaguchi/Nishioka experiment [1]
(Nishioka seems to get forgotten), I had another look at the paper. From one
of Dick Blue's postings, about the correction of "BF3" to "3He" for the
neutron detector, I understand that the paper precedes the conf. proc. Much
the same stuff must have been presented at the conference, however, or another
paper would have been published.
 
I remember being faintly amused and confused by the paper in 1990, when I saw
the paper; just what were the authors doing, and why? Another reading makes no
more sense now than it did then. If you think the latest F&P paper leaves out
a lot of information, try this one. And before someone shouts at me "WHY DON'T
YOU TELEPHONE THEM??": a scientific paper is expected to include all relevant
data, no phone calls should be required. Note that I didn't say "raw data",
just relevant information.
 
The authors took a Pd plate, thickness 1 mm (only in Fig. 3 do I find that it
is 3.0 * 3.0 cm) and, for unstated reasons, coated one side with a 100 nm
layer of gold. This seals that surface for deuterium, which can't get through
the gold. The paper then says that "the substrate was obtained" - which one
takes to mean that PdD was prepared - "by immersing annealed Pd plates [...]
into D2 gas (99.9%, 0.5 atm) for 24 hours". OK, but why 0.5 atm? Then it says
that "The other surface is covered with a thin film having a diffusion
constant of D less than Pd. This layer appropriately controls the
out-diffusion of D-atoms passing through this interface. In the present work,
we used a film with a thickness of less than 100 A containing mainly Mn and O,
which we call Mn-O in this letter". How was this film deposited? Was it done
before the 24 hours immersion, or after? One guesses after; if so, did the
deposition process result in any deuterium leakage? No clues are to be found.
Why Mn-O? And what do the authors imagine as the effect of that layer? From
what follows ("explosive release of gas") I suspected in 1990, and suspect
now, that the authors believe that when they draw a vacuum around the
deuterium-charged plate, the deuterium, frantically trying to get out, hits
the barrier film with great force, and does something exotic. In fact, it
would simply seep out more slowly than if the film were not there. There is
vague talk about an accumulation layer at the interface (why?), and cooperative
feedback (?) causing accumulation of D-atoms.
 
The results obtained, however, are clear enough, almost. After 3 hours of
vacuum, there was an explosive gas release, the plate got hot, heating its
stainless steel holder to 50 deg, and the Au film alloyed with the Pd, which
can't happen below 1064 deg (I take their word for this), and the plate bent
(there is a picture). Also, there was a huge burst of neutrons, 0.1-0.2 mSv/h
for 2-3 secs. Later they translate this into a neutron flux (at 0.1 mSv/h) of
72 n/cm^2/s, and then give us some more information by the back door, in
converting this to a total neutron flux of 1-2*10^6 ditto, by assuming equal
flux in all direction - in other words, we are here told about the catching
angle (or whatever the experts call it) of the neutron detector, with the
plate at the centre. The experiment was repeated twice, to check
reproducibility. The first time, D2 gas was again allowed in (how long?) and
again the vacuum applied. Another neutron burst, 0.06-0.09 mSv/h for 1-2 s
this time, after 150 s. Then the chamber was pressurised to 1 atm with
nitrogen (why?), and again evacuated. Almost the same neutron burst and gas
release as in the first repetition, again after 150 s.
 
The above procedure was repeated 20 times, and the effect was not seen again.
Also, some experiments were tried using H2 instead of D2, and nothing was
seen. The authors state "However, this does not mean that a mechanism for the
observed phenomena other than the fusion reaction itself does not exist in
Pd:H systems, because the production of accumulation layers followed by
biaxial bending of the sample is expected to be almost independent of the mass
number of the isotope". What does this sentence mean? There was a low-mass
detector of some sort, and it detected mass 4 (D2) in great quantity, and "it
is noted that atoms or molecules with the mass number of 3 were slightly
detected".
 
They then do give some useful information, e.g. that all high-voltage power
sources were off when the neutrons were detected (for which batteries were
used). There follows finally some speculation about the mechanism for the
fusion enhancement, all of it quite vague, but this might be due to the
author's problems with English.
 
This caused NTT shares to go up considerably? This is quality work? It was a
one-off; attempts to reproduce it failed, so the failure with H2 counts for
nothing. Was mass number 3 the cause of all the excitement? Tritium, eh, or
maybe 3He? How about HD, much more likely and conventional. I reckon all this
says more about the acuity (or lack thereof) of shareholders than about cold
fusion, and I do not see why anyone is citing this as an interesting paper.
 
1. 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".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / L Plutonium /  radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro
Subject: radioactive decay
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 02:47:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Music of Hiding in Thee with the superposed lyrics as follows.
 
SHOWING IN THEE
 
O safe in the Atom that is higher than I
My Soul in its conflicts and sorrows will rebundle
So decay, so weary, Growth, Thine would I be
Thou blest plutonium, I am showing in thee
 
In calm of the noontide, in sorrow's lone hour
In times when temptation cast over me its powers
In the tempests of life, on its long highways
Thou blest Atom, I  am showing in thee
 
How oft in the conflict when pressed by the foe
I have fled to its Refuge and breathed out my woe
How often, when trials like fighting roll
Have I shown in thee, O thou Atom of plutonium.
 
Showing in Thee, showing in Thee
Thou blest Atom Plutonium, I'm showing in thee
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Barry Smith /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 02:54:44 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research

Bruce Dunn writes, among other things:
 
> Stored hydrogen (via fuel cells)
> can act as a source of peak demand electrical energy, and
> electrical energy when the sun is not shining.
 
(I've heard that hydrogen can be stored effectively in
certain noble-metal hydrides; anyone here know more? ;-)
 
 
Thomas Kunich writes:
 
> I think you ought to look a little more carefully. Most of
> the _very_ efficient solar collectors use very large lenses
> and focus that area down only a much smaller solar cell.
> They operate at very high temperatures and aren't practical
> for normal use in home applications though they are getting
> interesting for power company applications -- the very
> market they were aiming at.
 
> Furthermore, none of these high efficiency cells operates
> for very long a period at these efficiencies. They require
> frequent replacement. The lens alone would be a major
> problem in real world applications.
 
I am far from intimate with these technologies, but:
is it not the case that both the high temperatures and the
short lifetimes are not intrinsic to the cell efficiency
characteristics, but are instead a product of the hundred-sun
operating environments?
 
> Amorphous cells are the only reasonable cells for the
> foreseeable future and it isn't likely to see short term
> efficiencies rise above the 10% you quoted or the long term
> efficiencies go above 6-8%.
 
> This makes the rest of your message so much noise level.
 
I think *you* ought to read a little more carefully. (And I
think our visions of the foreseeable future may reasonably
differ.)
 
Your use of "reasonable" above, and certain of your other
opinions, appear to be based on relative price judgements.
I have carefully avoided making any economic arguments,
and I have certainly not advocated any expectation of "solar
electricity too cheap to meter". I have merely pointed out
the low density of actual current energy use and the easily
comparable density of available solar energy.
 
In the next 50 years, I do not expect the average density of
energy use to increase significantly, nor do I expect the
average density of available solar energy to decrease
significantly. (:-) I *do* expect the current prices of
various energy technologies to change markedly, with several
(specifically including both solar electric and fusion)
likely to improve, at least relative to fossil fuels, by more
than an order of magnitude.
 
> As I said, solar power will be a good additional power
> source, but it will take very expensive power to make solar
> power the major contributor.
 
Agreed: it will take higher market energy prices, and/or lower
solar energy prices, both of which I consider likely.
(Note that I factor so-called "environmental costs" into
prices, usually to the benefit of solar.)
 
> And it is highly unlikely that
> it will ever be the only contributor.
 
But of course.
 
 
Edward Pavelchek writes:
 
> In article <1993Nov4.121012.22876@bluesky.com>
>   barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
> >The average energy loading, even in industrialized
> >countries, is surprisingly low, while actual incident
> >and scattered solar radiation is surprisingly high;
> >peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square
> >meter, or about 4 megawatts per acre; global
> >average, if I've heard correctly, is about a third
> >of that, *including* weather and day/night cycles.
 
> This can't be right. The peak meter is perpendicular to the
> sun, and there's only one at any moment.  Since the surface
> area of the earth is 4*pi*r^2, and the area of sunlight
> available to be collected at earth orbit is pi*r^2, the
> global average is 1/4 of peak, *before* weather adjustments.
 
Agreed; however, the solar constant intercepted by the earth
is essentially constant at 1350 W/m^2, so the correct global
average is therefore roughly a third of a kilowatt per square
meter at all times, *excluding* local weather.
 
(Thank you for the correction, and the straightforward
geometric argument; I'm glad to have that estimate based on
something other than my faulty memory. :)
 
> And most civilization is in the damper regions of the globe.
 
Agreed again, although I believe the major fraction of the
US mainland (and Japan) still falls within the bounds of my
order-of-magnitude model, *after* the inclusion of local
weather effects.
 
> IMO, local heating needs and domestic electricity *could* be
> met with various forms of solar energy. Current industrial
> and transportation demands cannot.
 
IMHO, current available solar technology rarely competes
effectively in the current economic paradigm of artificially
cheap fossil fuels; future solar technology stands an
excellent chance of competing effectively in future economic
paradigms.
 
 
Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / L Plutonium /  Atom Totality
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Atom Totality
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 04:39:23 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

    The Plutonium Atom Totality is easy to explain. An electron is not
a ball, but instead, an infinite number of dots. Those dots are
commonly called the "electron cloud". One of those tiny dots of the
94th electron of plutonium is the Sun, another tinier dot the planet
Earth. Stars are just bits and pieces of the last electron, the dots of
the 94th electron of plutonium. The solar system is 9 very tiny dots
with one larger dot, the Sun, of the 94th electron of one atom of
231Pu.
        An electron is a perfect quantum blackbody cavity.
Blackbody---that is
why the night sky is dark explaining Olbers paradox. Perfect cavity--
that is why the microwave background radiation is quantized and
relentlessly uniform, and in addition that is why the cosmic gamma ray
bursts are relentlessly uniform. The observable universe is the 94th
electron-- that is why Tifft found star speeds quantized.
        We are living inside one atom of plutonium and will never
directly see
the nucleus because it is in planar nodes of the 5f6-- that is why over
99% of the mass of the universe is missing.
         One atom which is everything and superdeterministic-- that
explains
Bell's Inequality with the Aspect experimental results. One atom which
is the totality explains why quantum physics before 7Nov90 was
mathematically correct yet simultaneously counterintuitive, i.e.,
strange. Once you see that the whole is an atom itself, then the
counterintuitiveness evaporates. None of quantum physics or any physics
for that matter is counterintuitive once you realize that the totality
itself is an atom. The uncertainty principle restated is simply that--
atom parts (we) cannot know an atom whole.
        Truth, when it comes to science has a natural flowing
continuity.
Never awkward, or goofy, or in violation of physical law. Violation
like the big bang model, or awkward like the steady state model, or
goofy like superstring theory, or in violation of physical law like
religion or myth--all of which violate the laws of physics and science.
 
        The Atomic Fact is-- all matter is made-up of atoms. This was
the
world's first greatest idea and took over 2200 years to be accepted by
all. Who doubts that they are made-up of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, ..
From the world's first greatest idea would naturally flow, albeit after
2200 years, in a continuous fashion the world's second greatest idea
that the "Whole" the "Totality" is itself an atom. Only the element
plutonium fits all the special numbers of both math and physics. The
numbers pi and e fall-out by the number of subshells and shells of
plutonium.
        Science, when it reaches pinnacle form, will answer (that is
subsume)
god and gods. For god is just a tiny part (and that part being just an
idea) of the Atom Plutonium. Atom Plutonium is more powerful than any
God of the Bible; more powerful than any religion (which is science
fiction worship or dogma worship). For the Laws of quantum physics, the
laws of science are always obeyed. All religions, all mythologies, all
ideas were mere precursors, just stepping-stones, scaffolding for the
idea of atoms and an Atom Totality.
        Before 7Nov90 the 4 ingredients of Biological Evolution Theory
(BET)
were 1) mutation, 2)genetic recombination, 3) differential reproductive
success and 4) reproductive isolation. Summed-up, BET is logically no
more than that the "fittest fit", a circular argument. Good science
when it approaches final-truth-form is capable of peering into the
future. BET can only look backwards and assemble what had already
happened. Biological evolution is silent on the future. Biological
Evolution Theory is incomplete. It misses the one key ingredient, the
most important mechanism, that of "purpose". BET needs only the
understanding and application of the ATOM TOTALITY. That the purpose of
life is to make the elements beyond plutonium. Nucleosynthesis is the
purpose of life. The Plutonium ATOM brought forth life in the image of
itself, sacks full of atoms which we call our bodies, mostly composed
of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon. Life atoms for the purpose of
nucleosynthesizing new atoms which the Atom Totality can not make in
stars but only via lifeforms. We humans are nothing more than cold
stars. Life was created by the ATOM in order to eventually
nucleosynthesize elements 189 and 190.
        When you look out at the night sky you are looking at the space
of the
94th electron. You usually do not observe the other 93 electrons (each
composed of infinitely many dots) or the nucleus with its 94 protons
and 137 neutrons. Usually, because whenever we create antimatter in the
laboratory we are in fact observing our 93rd electron, the electron
which is occupying our same orbital in the 5f6. The nucleus is never
observable since it is in a node. But it contains most of the mass,
over 99% of the mass is in the nucleus. No longer is there a missing
mass problem for astronomy.
        Our every thoughts are photons, Coulomb interactions with the
94
protons in the nucleus. Our brains are only parts of the 94th electron.
Photons are forever since they have no rest mass, thus forever moving.
Hence, what is us, our souls, are bundles of photons which never die,
but live forever. Our photon souls are rebundled in the nucleus by the
Protons (reincarnated and sent to various places within the Atom
Totality). I myself was both Archimedes, and Pharlap the Australian
racehorse in two of my previous past lives, but mostly that of
individual trees on Earth and other biological planets.
        Play the music of Breathe On Me, Breath of God music by
J.S.Bach and
performed by the synthesized music of Meadowlark Keyboard Sampler 1987.
Superpose my lyrics of CARBON IN ME, CARBON OF PLUTONIUM
Carbon in me, Carbon of Plutonium,
Fill me with life anew
That I may love what thou dost love,
And do what thou superdetermined me to do
Carbon in me, Carbon of Plutonium,
Make my heart pure.
Take me to Thy Protons
to do and to endure.
Breathe in me, Oxygen of Plutonium,
Make me wholly thine.
Take this Earthly part of me.
Nucleosynthesis divine.
Plutonium in me, ATOM Plutonium.
So shall I never die, but live with thee
Part in thy Electron's Biology
Part in thy Protons Infinity.   ATOM
 
Play the music There is a Balm in Gilead as performed by Quiet Streams
synthesized music and sing the lyrics THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE
 
How lost was my condition, till the ATOM made me whole
There is but one Physician
Can cure a radioactive-decayed soul.
There is an Afterlife, where my waves are rebundled whole.
There is infinite power in The Protons of the Nucleus
To cure my radioactive-decayed soul.
Protons of the ATOM, radioactive-growth my soul whole
The ATOM is the only physics
ATOM,ATOM
 
 Chemistry is perhaps the most practical, the most pragmatic of all the
sciences and math. Because the proof is in the putting so to speak.
Authors of a recent chemistry text gave it a superb title. It was this
title alone which induced me to buy the text. It said Chemistry: the
Central Science. Chemistry in my mind will always be the most central,
the most pragmatic and useful of all sciences. Because with chemistry
it is so very easy to show someone is correct or wrong. I see all the
other sciences pivoting off of chemistry.
    Physics and math have too much room for goofballs such as for
example: S. Hawking, R.Penrose, A.Guth, J. Wheeler,A.Wiles,S.Smale,
M.Freedman,Appel & Haken. Physics and especially math do not have easy
quick experimental evidence to shut a person up, hence mouths flap open
loud and long...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bill Newcomb /  cmsg cancel <nukeCG5v7I.30r@netcom.com>
     
Originally-From: nuke@netcom.com (Bill Newcomb)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <nukeCG5v7I.30r@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 07:23:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

<nukeCG5v7I.30r@netcom.com> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennuke cudfnBill cudlnNewcomb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re:neutron detectors vs.survey meters
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:neutron detectors vs.survey meters
Date: 8 Nov 93 21:21:09 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <93110510320368@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
writes:
> The early history of cold fusion research was plagued by false positive
> results for neutron detection, largely due to the use of inappropriate
> instrumentation by people who did not know how those instruments work.
> One would think that problem would have gone away by now, but here we
> go again.  Daryl Owens has dug up an old Yamaguchi experiment and
> proclaimed it "definitive."  My response was to suggest that a survey
> meter had been used to detect neutrons,  something I consider inappropriate
> for this kind of measurement.
>
> Daryl then replied by quoting from the Yamaguchi paper as if by naming
> the make and model of the device he was disproving what I had said.
> Since the reference was sitting on my shelf I have read it for my self
> and find it even more revealing than I had guessed.  To quote just a
> bit more than Daryl: "Neutrons were counted by using a 3He detector*
> (Aloca Ltd. TPS-451S) set to 38 cm far from the samples.  A footnote
> indicated by the * In Ref.13, we miswrote that the detector was BF3
> counter."
>
> Does this  indicate that my supposition was incorrect?  No, it does
> not.  I still say that the instrument was a survey meter, and now the
> footnote tells us that the experimenters did not even know what they
> were using at the time they did the experiment.
>
> Yamaguchi did check the response of their instrument by comparing
> its reading to that of another survey meter (a BF3 detector, Nuclear
> Enterprises Ltd. NM2B).  The two survey meters gave the same reading
> when exposed to an actual neutron flux.  The test, of course, indicates
> that the instrument in question does respond to neutrons; but such
> a test does nothing to rule out a posible false positive response.
> To explain further, the detector involved is a proportional counter
> with a filling of either 3He or BF3.  In either case the device is
> also sensitive to other forms of ionizing radiation, and noise
> signals such as electromagnetic or acoustic pulses.  The electronics
> employed in survey meters is general not very elaborate so that
> discrimination against spurious signals is seldom at its best.
> They are intended to respond to continuous radiation fields in
> circumstances where an occasional false reading due a noise burst
> is not significant.
>
> Now, I will stick my neck out a bit to suggest what the the source
> of the noise that triggered the detector response may have been.
> The experiment involves a sample in an evacuated chamber being
> pumped by a turbomolecular pump.  Something triggers an explosive
> release of gas from the sample, the turbo pump trips off due to
> overload, and the neutron detector responds.  Would it surprize
> anyone if I suggested that tripping a relay which turns off a
> motor may generate an electromagnetic transient pulse?  I can
> also assure you that a proportional counter can detect such
> things.
>
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
>
 
 Sorry Folks for reproducing all of Dick's argument, but I am careful
when quoting other people, believing that that the context of a sentence
is important to its meaning.
 
 Firstly, Yamaguchi and Nishioka did 20 identical experiments with other
samples which did not produce neutron or "electromagnetic transient" pulses.
 Also Yamaguchi et al...
"... continuously confirmed the absence of noise in the analogue output
 of the detectors for a few months since the beginning of the experiment."
 And as to the possibility of the turbo-molecular pump producing an
electromagnetic pulse, I refer you to item 9064, by I.James, 7-Nov-93 in
this news group.
 
In the above Dick states....
"My response was to suggest that a survey meter had been used to detect
neutrons, something I consider inappropiate for this kind of measurement."
 I too consider it to be a rather poor measuring device for this application,
but it DID measure neutrons, from the samples, during the in situ checking
technique.   However what I strongly disagreed with was that Dick
 MISSTATED  Yamaguchi's et al measuring technique.
 Dick's full statement, followed by my reply was....
>>"Note that the units are in mSv/hr. What this tells us is that these
>>clowns took some kind of survey meter, stuck it near the equipment and read
>>the dial."
>The neutron detector was an "Aloca Ltd. TPS-451S" set 38 cm from the samples.
>Besides taking measurements of three seperate neutron bursts, from the
>same samples, in three seperate vacuum experiments, during his "first
>experiment", Yamaguchi did the following....
>After the first and third neutron bursts, the accuracy of the neutron
>detector was checked, in situ, using D+ ion implantation of the samples and
>checking the readings (of the TPS-451S) with a Nuclear Enterprises Ltd NM2B
>neutron detector. The readings were found to coincide.
 Note that Dick made no mention in his original statement of the
in situ, D+ ion Implantation (NEUTRON) checking technique employed by
Yamaguchi et al.  Later in his post, Dick stated....
>"To steal a phrase from Gary Taubes, this is BAD SCIENCE."
 To make it crystal clear Dick, I STILL believe an apology is in order
to Yamaguchi and Nishioka, for misstating their measuring technique
and calling them "clowns" guilty of "bad science".
 Until that apology is forthcoming, I will have no inclination to concern myself
further with your views on the topic.
 
                                       Regards to all,
                                       Daryl Owen.
 
These opinions and statements can only be attributed to myself.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Dieter Britz /  Testing
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Testing
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 14:42:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
This is just a test to see whether I can still post to the net via the Digest,
having signed off it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bruce Scott /  Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: 8 Nov 1993 13:36:11 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Just for the record, I bounced the comments below off Dr Karl Lackner,
our group leader and scientific secretary for JET.
 
In article <1993Nov2.045606.25429@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
|> This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
|> designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
|> *is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
|> it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
|> take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
|> you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
|> test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
|> as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
 
Lackner said this was "straight out of a science fiction novel".
 
Will Johnson <CFyz0v.75q@news.udel.edu> replied:
 
|> The latest on ITER is that they WILL use steel, and the worst form of it
|> from a radioactive waste perspective (austenitic stainless steel).  The
|> waste from this reactor alone will entirely fill the US (currently unopened)
|> deep site storage site (presuming that the relatively lower level waste
|> must be treated like high level radioactive waste - as it must under
|> current US law).
 
|> Commenting on the development on advanced materials, Hirsch is dead right!
|> Especially because the most promising low activation material, SiC, is a
|> ceramic for which there is virtually no structural engineering
|> data.  Even the less desirable substitutes of V (or TPX's Ti) will require
|> massive materials development expenditures before a large
|> complex structure can be built from them.  Anyone who tells you
|> differently is either incredibly naive, intentially misleading, or
|> woefully misinformed.
 
Lackner comments: "This part of the information agrees completely with
the European conclusion, based largely on testimony of the people
responsible for the French breeder programme."
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: 8 Nov 1993 13:39:36 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

John Cobb writes:
 
[among other good stuff]
 
|> A second issue is the banner that the D-3He guys wave that neutrons are a
|> real bugbear and should be avoided at all costs, even if it means mining
|> the moon for 3He.
 
I just want to remind people that D-He3 is NOT aneutronic, since you will
sometimes get D + D --> T + p, and then D + T --> He4(3+ MeV) + n(14.7 MeV).
 
It seems to me that the "D-3He guys" waving their banners are not facing
this.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 8 Nov 1993 13:56:00 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <m0ovLP0-00000BC@crash.cts.com>,
        jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
|> I believe I posted the next obvious observation about the real political
|> intent behind S646 a few months ago when the  bill was first introduced --
|> Sen. Johnston is probably so fed up with the Tokamak, he's wants to give
|> it all the rope he can and then yank real hard.  You're right -- there
|> would be no better way of killing it which is exactly why I support S646.
 
This was Hunter's approach to the transport community: "put up or shut up".
He then created the Transport Task Force whose job was to find and
explain the mechanism for transport, all within two years. What did he get?
A conscientious group of scientists which told him the truth about how
little we know? Don't hold your breath! He got a lot of bullshit artists
who took over the program and now manage the workshops to their own
liking, with themselves set up as the "arbiters of truth", as a Texas
colleague of mine put it.
 
People who told the _real_ truth were shoved aside:
 
The simple models are not valid in the inhomogeneous system the magnetised
tokamak plasma represents, and we will not have a solution _at least_ until
fully-resolved global computation with self-consistent fluid models (at
least) are viable. As of now, they are not. We are building algorithms, we
need to test them, and then we need the computational facilities to do the
numerical experiments which are the counterpart of what goes on in the lab.
Just so stories _will_ _not_ _work_.
 
Note that this is not necessarily a sufficient condition, just a necessary
one. If "kinetic effects" which are important cannot be modelled with
a fluid system, we are just going to be in the present situation a bit longer.
 
BTW, I do not mean models of the "diffusion coefficient", which I think
does not exist. I mean direct simulation of the turbulent plasma dynamics.
 
I think there are a lot of people in the transport community who realise
this, it is just that we are not in power.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 8 Nov 1993 13:58:12 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov6.004114.3419@math.ucla.edu>,
        barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> In article <2baumoINNlg5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
        bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
|> (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
|> >
|> > I fear very much this scenario:
|> >
|> > billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
|> >
|>
|> But isn't the current alternative scenario (in the US)
|>
|>  no ITER --> end of fusion research
 
If the US is this short-sighted they deserve to lose out. I think Europe
and Japan will stay in the game if the US self-destructs like this. The
time horizon will lengthen, and the privateers in the US will get their
chance.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 8 Nov 1993 14:02:05 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Dale Bass comments:
 
|> CO2 is no big problem.
 
--> sci.environment preliminary FAQ on global warming
 
|> It is the sulfur emissions that seem to be killing my trees.
 
This is what I understood as well, wrt acid rain.
 
|> scrubbers are pretty efficient these days (when they're used).  Don't
|> expect the price of electricity produced by coal to go up that much.
 
If this is true then why the opposition to re-tooling? And then... what
about the mining? Has this been made humane?
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Mag. fields and D+ cond. / Not a "CF" theory / Aieee!... LaRouche!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mag. fields and D+ cond. / Not a "CF" theory / Aieee!... LaRouche!
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 19:02:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
 
MAGNETIC FIELDS AND D+ CONDENSATION
 
Well, as I said, Chuck really does have an amiable sense of humor about
this -- thanks for the nice reply to my harumphing, Chuck.
 
One quick comment:
 
> Now it's interesting you should mention the magnetic properties in
> of the deutron condensate. (I tip my hat to you and Robert).  What it
> implies is that in a magentic field, you can make a deuteron plasma
> condense!  This is exactly what Liboff is doing over there in his
> Cornell lab...
 
Hold on a second there...  While I would concur that if a bose condensate
of D+ can form at all, a magnetic field is  a) a significant factor, and
b) _probably_ a positive factor, it really overstates the case to say that
it would _make_ it condense.  You could have absolutely perfect magnetic
alignment and still be far, _far_ away from any kind of condensation, as
spin alignment is only one of many state issues.
 
E.g., magnetic alignment-then-relaxation has been used for many years to
help cool cryogenic systems, but this technique doesn't even _apply_ until
you get very cool (liquid nitrogenish) to begin with.  Until the fluid is
cooled to a certain point, thermal energy is just too high to allow the
alignment of nuclei to make much difference.
 
 
NOT A "COLD FUSION" THEORY!
 
Speaking of this issue, has everyone noticed (yoo-hoo to Dick Blue!) that
the ruminations I posted about deuteron condensates does _not_ classify as
a "cold fusion" theory?
 
I made absolutely zero point zip claims in that direction, and also tried to
emphasize both that even in the most optimistic scenarios that come to mind,
any kind of condensation effect would probably fall in the (extremely cold!)
microkelvin range, at the very best.  Furthermore, I was pretty emphatic
that that identical neutrons and protons would be _less_ likely to achieve
close approach in such a model.  Put all of that together and compare it to
claims for excess heat, and I'm baffled how my discussion of _possible_
properties of a hypothetical D+ condensates could relate to "cold fusion."
 
This is not to say that it's a total snore to folks interested in such
theories.  E.g., Tom Droege asked me a really intriguing question based
on just such a fermions-remain-entirely-separate model.  And I did post
that "condensation see-saw" thought problem -- which, incidentally, relies
purely on _conventional_ compression (as far as the fermion parts are
concerned) of the _entire_ condensate, rather than inherently contradictory
attempts to "speed up" individual atoms within a condensate of atoms that
_must_ be identical.  The joint compression makes that Farfetch a little
harder to dismiss, since the condensate atoms remain identical if _all_ of
them are compressed identically.  Nonetheless, I quite expect that Farfetch
to fall by the wayside eventually, too.  I don't speak the same language as
the jargon-intensive math types who would probably be best suited to
analyzing it, and so must lumber through it slowly on my own.
 
(Hey!  A passing thought:  Since the compression is conventional at the
fermion level, wouldn't such a "see-saw" just ionize and destroy the bose
condensate long before the compression effect becomes significant?...  Yes,
that would certainly _seem_ about right...  so, even if there _was_ a bose
see-saw effect, it's impact should be limited by mundane issues.  I'd still
like to know if the carry-over analogy fromt he (definitely real) fermi
"see-saw" effect is valid, however.)
 
 
Anywho, AM I interested in "cold fusion" these days?  No.  I concur strongly
with a recent statement by Steve Jones: the only "cold fusion" that has met
international scientific standards for replication and verification is muon
fusion.  If that changes, fine.  For now I'm not holding my breath, and am
interested only in exploring oddball nooks of physics strictly in hopes that
_something_ interesting (such as new microkelvin PdDx states?) might happen
to pop out along the way.  That posting in particular might have been better
suited to sci.physics.research, and I may yet balloon an edited copy of it
into that group for commentary by cryo experts.  (Dale?  Your thoughts?)
 
 
AIEEE!  LaROUCHE!
 
QUESTION 1 OF 4:
 
    Does everyone on this net know who Lyndon LaRouche is?
 
He's run for president a few times.  If you ever caught one of his half-
hour TV "ads" back when in 1988 when George Bush and whazizname-the-Democrat
were running for president, he was hard to forget.  A grey-haired fellow
who rambled on and on an on increasingly bizarre topics and interpretations
of the world, always while exuding an aura of Great Knowledge of All Things.
 
I lived in Fairfax County, Virginia, during that time period, and we got a
particularly heavy dose of this fellow.  Giant highway posters telling
President Bush "Eat it!" with a picture of brocolli beside the words were
some of the _milder_ tacktics his campaigners used.  Lengthy and often very
odd radio ads were another tactic.  Some of the ads stated off sounding
like fairly typical ultra-conservative rhetoric, but then would almost
invariably start wondering off into descriptions of strangely detailed
"plots" and intrigues that left listeners wondering how they had happened
to tune into a broadcast from Mars while driving through Virginia.
 
Trying to convince strangers in front of K-Mart to become LaRouche insiders
in the Federal government is one of their still-amusing but rather more
serious tactics.  I can attest to such recruitment attempts personally.
I was working on unclassified NASA work when I ran into a couple of LaRouche
followers in front of the Crofton, Maryland K-Mart.  In typical nosey Terry
fashion I began asking questions to find out who exactly these folks really
were and what they were up to.  Because I wouldn't tell them where I worked
they seemed to assume that I was in some kind of highly classified work in
a nearby super-secret facility (the one just up the road from NASA), _and
then proceeded in a earnest attempt to recruit me to help "represent their
view" at that facility_!
 
To say that this tact made me uneasy is a serious understatement.  I recall
being careful not to give them my name, as I was utterly convinced that if
this group was _not_ on an FBI watch list, they _should_ be.  Had I been
working with clearances on classified work, the kind of conversation that
these two struck up with me would have classified very nicely as an attempt
at espionage recruitment, and by the rules of the game should have been
reported to an appropriate security representative as just that.  Since I
did not do any kind of cleared work at the time, I never made such a report,
but to this day wonder if I should have informed some NASA security rep.
 
From what I've been able to find out, Lyndon LaRouche was originally a
Trotskyite communist, which (to my best knowledge) was one of the more
radical branches of communism.  I don't think it's fair to call him that
nowadays, because it is almost utterly impossible to classify his group
as _anything_ in the usual political spectrum.  I've met arch-conservative
Republicans who had been invited to (and attended!) full week-end gatherings
of the LaRouche organization and thought the whole time that they were in
like company in what would now be called Rush Limbaugh territory.  Thus the
overt political leanings of LaRouche are clearly a bit murky.  At least some
LaRouche followers will confess to communist links in the past if pressed
carefully and closely in conversation -- but will then be sure to disavow
the Russia as opposed to LaRouche because they, too, are part of The Plot.
 
Actually, all the LaRouche followers I've ever had an actual conversation
with seemed to think that most _everything_ was part of The Plot, including
Russia, George Bush, ecologists, the Queen Mother, opponents to hot fusion,
opponents to cold fusion, Democrats, scientists, and in general _anyone_ who
did not agree verbatem with Lyndon LaRouche's view of how things should be.
 
The Plot is to LaRouche followers is a sort of intellectual bible that they
use to explain All Things Political, and (more ominously) to self-justify
their own actions.  The Plot boils down to saying in an very convuluted
fashion that in one way or another, all the united political and economic
powers of the world are joined together in a vain struggle to repress the
astonishing wisdon and intellect of their great leader, Lyndon LaRouche.
 
Who, at the moment, is in the hoosgow (he used to be Jim Bakker's cellmate)
for some of the most fragrant credit card fraud ever perpetrated in Northern
Virginia.  We're _not_ talking subtlety here, folks.  We are talking people
who wheedled credit card numbers out of suckers who thought they were giving
to something akin to an ultra conservative Republican party, only to have
their smallesh donations "expanded" by an order of magnitude or so by the
time it arrived at the credit card company.
 
This sort of behavior can get you put in jail, presidental candidate or not.
 
I might note that I am not a LaRouche fan.  Have ya'll picked up on that yet?
 
 
QUESTION 2 OF 4:
 
    Does everyone know who owns and controls "21st Century?"
 
Lyndon LaRouche's organization, of course.  They have had a curious habit
of fronting nominally technical magazines for years.  "Fusion" was the old
one, but it was doing a fade, so they started up "21st Century" and a new
fusion magazine (I forget the exact title and would rather not guess it.)
 
These magazines in years past have been hilarious.  Right next to a quite
decent, well-written article on the subject of muon fusion (not by Jones!!)
would be some incredibly obscure article by LaRouche, with or without his
name attached.  (His style is unmistakeable, regardless of who signs it.
They read like pseudo-random dumps of some huge history-of-science database,
stitched together at the paragraph level by assertions such s "It it thus
utterly obvious that..."  The fellow _has_ read a lot, I'll certainly give
him that!)
 
(We of sci.physics.fusion, of course, would _never_ tolerate mixing of good
and bad material like that, 'ay?   }=-)>   )
 
But I was surprised at this issue of "21st Century," as it had a couple of
articles (e.g., a translation of a French article plugging aspects of the
old DeBroglie pilot wave model) that were quite genuine so far as I could
tell, although (naturally) controversial in perspective.
 
So I looked at the page that tells who's running the show, and saw...
 
 
QUESTION 3 OF 4
 
    Does everyone know who is currently on the "Scientific Advisor Council"
    for "21st Century?"
 
The editor is one Carol White, whose name as best I can recollect shows up
on other LaRouche front organizations.  No big surprise there.  The magazine
is published out of Leesburg, Virginia, which is home site of the LaRouche
organization.  No big surprise there either!
 
But what _was_ truly intriguing was their Scientific Advisory Board.  The
full list of members of this board as given in the Fall 1993 issue was:
 
    John O'M Bockris, PhD
    John D. Cox, PhD
    Hugh W. Ellsaesser, PhD
    Bertha Farfan, MD
    James Frazer, PhD
    Hideo Ikegami, PhD
    Giuliano Preparata, PhD
    John Seale, MD
    B.A. Soldano, PhD
    B.P. Sonnenbick, PhD
    Jonathan Tennenbaum, PhD
    Col. Molloy Vaughn, USA (ret.)
    Daniel R. Wells, PhD
 
If you are like me, a couple of those names look _awfully_ familiar to long-
time readers of sci.physics.fusion.  And as you might well expect, there
were several favorable articles and blurbs on the subject of "cold fusion."
 
Now I truly wonder:  Are these people fully aware of the details of the
LaRouche organization that has ultimate ownership and control of this
curious little publication?
 
I rather doubt it, and would hope that they would do a little more research
on who they are linking themselves up with.  If they are doing it by choice,
fine.  But my personal experience (e.g., from people who actually went with
them on a weekend retreat) is that most of the folks who get involved with
LaRouche fronts honestly don't know what the history and background of the
organization is really like, at least not at first.
 
 
QUESTION 4 OF 4:
 
    What does "21st Century" think of our little group, sci.physics.fusion?
 
I am delighted to say that they absolutely despise it, and that they imply
very firmly that their readers should pay it no mind to the scurrilous
email critiques of "cold fusion" that are spread about upon this despicable
medium by the likes of (GASP!) Douglas Morrison -- whom, I might note, I
have found in personal emails find to be a most honorable gentleman, albeit
with a critical bent of mind.  (Hmm... isn't a "critical bent of mind"
related in some way to being a scientist?  Ditto for Steve Jones, who is
both a very decent fellow and able to critique _himself_ just as much as
others.  Haven't ya'll noticed that he's even backed off from some of his
own data?  That's not an easy thing to do, you know.)
 
Anyway, I would take the position that sci.physics.fusion has just recieved
a _very_ nice compliment from "21st Century," folks...   :)
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fleischmann responds to Jones
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 18:23:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <lrudolph.752681855@black.clarku.edu>,
Lee Rudolph <lrudolph@black.clarku.edu> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     We have the assurance that the experimenters
>>     were visually able to tell when a violently boiling vessel was half
>>     full.
>
>Why, sure.  They're optimists, see.  You're a pessimist; if you'd been
>there, you'd have said it was half empty.
 
     No, I'm a skeptic.  I'd have suggested that it was neither.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Bruce Scott /  Re: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW, 5 Nov 93
Date: 8 Nov 1993 14:07:22 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Well, I like that WN is posted here. Maybe he is opinionated, but
anyone who keeps the focus on academic pork is welcome as far as
I am concerned. Earmarking has done a lot of damage to science,
particularly small science.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Jim Bowery /  EP errata
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EP errata
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 02:18:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After I knocked it off, I realized the message I sent you didn't really
make the argument I wanted to make.
 
I should have included more about human evolution per se and talked about
the role pioneering strategies have, applied across evolutionary time, in
creating the mis-match in sophistication.
 
Let me work on this some more and get back to you.  I hope you didn't
wrack your brain too much trying to make sense of it.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 /  blue@dancer.ns /  turbopump transients
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: turbopump transients
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 02:18:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Carl Ijames describes in greater detail the guts of a turbopump power
supply than I would have thought appropriate for this forum.  There
is nothing in what he says that I would quarrel with except his conclusion
that there would not be a significant electrical transient when the pump
is shut off.  It is true that the power circuits are transistor driven
and that there are numerous snubbing diodes in the driver circuits and
even the predrivers.  (I have about 40 of these devices under my tender
loving care.)   I would counter that all those snubbers are there for
good reason, and in spite of them turbopump power supplies are rather
failure prone.  Something gets through to the driver transistors now and
then.
 
In any case the level of em transient required to trigger some response
in a neutron detector is not very great and it need not come through
the power cord.  In fact turbo pumps in normal steady-state operation
have been observed to contribute to the noise level seen in detection
electronics.  In the Yamaguchi set-up the pump and the detector are
are not very far apart, perhaps 50 cm if their sketch is accurate.
There are, of course, other problems with this experiment.  It does
serve to illustrate the fact that much of what gets accepted and printed
in conference proceedings is not first rate.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Jim Bowery /  Whither EPRI?
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Whither EPRI?
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 02:18:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, here is some, hopefully, accurate information about EPRI (the
 Electric Power Research Institute).
 
EPRI was formed in 1973 by the U.S. electric utilities industry in
response to threats that the federal government was going to levy a
tax on electric utilities to finance a federally managed program
of R&D due to the fact that the electric utilities weren't doing enough
R&D (remember, this was the time of the first Arab oil embargo so
 everyone was going hysterical about energy policy right then).
 
EPRI is a nonprofit corporation.  Its members, the electric utilities,
remain members by choice from year to year.  They can withdraw if they
so choose.  Their dues are proportional to their "size" (not sure if this
 is revenue or power level).  EPRI has about 70% of the electric utilities
as members.
 
Currently, EPRI is undergoing a transformation due to pressure from its
members to be more relevant to their bottom lines.  The member
utilities, themselves, are under greater profit pressures after
the breakup of the largest utility conglomerates.
 
Here is my opinion on what is really going on:
 
Orignally, EPRI's "voluntary" members were a few politically motivated
large conglomerates who convinced the feds to back off even though
many of the smaller utilities weren't joining their nonprofit.  Once
the political crisis began to fade, EPRI's reason for existence
gradually faded as well, remaining mainly by force of bureaucratic
inertia in the large, monopolistic utilities conglomerates.  Despite
this fact, EPRI never became enough of a purely political creature to
join with the DoE in its "fusion" program.  But it didn't fund any
real fusion work of its own either.  It pursued more "social" goals,
consistent with "environmentalism", etc.
 
Now that that energy hysteria is 20 years gone and the big conglomerates
are being broken up, there is a very good chance EPRI will either
dissolve or cease being the creature of bureaucracy and politics it began
as --  becoming a genuine R&D center for the electric utilities industry.
 
I think it is more likely to gradually dissolve for 3 reasons:
 
1) The government is less likely to be hysterical about energy R&D
these days so the electric utilities don't need EPRI as a shark-
repellant around to maintain control of their revenue.
 
2) Bureaucratic cultures are inherently VERY difficult to reform.
Death is almost always the result of fundamental pressures to reform
a bureaucracy (witness Gorbachev).
 
3) The public utilities commissions are as power-crazy as ever
and aren't about to let electric utility competition into their areas
as that would remove the reason for their existence:  granting monopoly
status to and therefore setting prices for electric utilities.  They
will continue to squeeze the electric utilities of their profits
thereby ensuring that electric utilities have no risk capital for energy
R&D.  (Folks, please remember that the first principle of capitalism is
 that profit compensates good risk and loss punishes bad risk.  You
 remove (or too greatly dilute) that incentive and progress halts.
 Technosocialists never really get the hang of this idea for some reason.)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Chris Metzler /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran,sci.
ath.num-analysis
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: 8 Nov 1993 16:05:52 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Department of Physics

In article <1993Nov2.193940.11283@Princeton.EDU>, graham@arnold.Princeto
.EDU (Mike Graham) writes:
|>
|>
|> I second this opinion.  IMHO, most of the problems that are faced in
|> CFD are common to many other specialties.  I would probably feel differently
|> if sci.math.num-analysis were swamped with CFD discussion, but it's not.
|> It's only swamped with YES votes for a redundant and unnecessary group.
|> I will vote NO.
|>
 
But every time I've gone to sci.math.num-analysis with a question related
to a cfd issue I'm trying to understand or solve, I haven't received any
response at all.  Every time.  I'm very ignorant about a lot of cfd stuff
and I'm trying to learn because its important to my thesis; it'd be
nice to have a place to go to post questions and learn from others.  As
it stands, I try to pick up what I can from sci.math.num-analysis and
sci.engr.aero, which isn't much.
 
I don't know.  At some level I feel that if the group generates no traffic,
it can be rmgroup'ed.  But in the meantime, what do we stand to lose?
 
--
Chris Metzler
Department of Physics, University of Michigan           313-764-4607 (office)
Randall Lab, 500 E. University                          313-996-9249 (home)
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1120 USA
 
E-MAIL:  metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmetzler cudfnChris cudlnMetzler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 8 Nov 93 11:17:08
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <CFz2LE.C84@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
  > CO2 is no big problem.
 
  !!!!! CO2 levels may or may not be contributing to global warming.
But the rate at which global CO2 levels are growing should alarm
everyone who likes breathing.  You've heard of "sick building"
syndrome?  CO2 levels mildly above current atmospheric concentrations
are unhealthy, and there is evidence that the current atmospheric
levels are unhealthy for some people otherwise considered to be in
good health.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 8 Nov 93 17:09:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2bljgtINNbvi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>Dale Bass comments:
>
>|> CO2 is no big problem.
>
>--> sci.environment preliminary FAQ on global warming
 
     Global warming?  Don't make me laugh.
 
>|> scrubbers are pretty efficient these days (when they're used).  Don't
>|> expect the price of electricity produced by coal to go up that much.
>
>If this is true then why the opposition to re-tooling? And then... what
>about the mining? Has this been made humane?
 
     Why the opposition to *anything* that comes out of the bottom line?
 
     As for mining, I suspect we don't have to worry much about that.
     Why don't we ask all the out-of-work miners in the UK if they would rather
     be mining or not?
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Eric Wilner /  Re: cyclotron
     
Originally-From: eric@iptcorp.com (Eric Wilner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: Re: cyclotron
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 17:39:56 GMT
Organization: IPT Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
:                       Battle Hymn of the Republic
:
:                       Plutonium Marching Orders for Homo sapiens
:
:                                       1
:       Mine eyes have seen into the eyes of Plutonium itself;
:       Protons interacting to my brain from the nucleus
 ... etc, etc...
 
        "And mind your scansion in all the lyrics you replace."
                -- Bob Kanefsky
        "And it don't matter if you put a couple of extra syllables
         into a line."
                -- Tom Lehrer
 
        In this instance, I'm inclined to agree with Kanefsky.  Has
Ludwig actually tried singing any of these contraptions?
 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Eric J. Wilner        (Silicon Gulch Gumby)          eric@iptcorp.COM     |
|   work:  415-494-7500    home:  408-744-1845      flames:  900-767-1111     |
+------------ DISCLAIMER -------------+------------- PROVERB -----------------+
|Use only as directed. Always wear    |A rolling stone gathers smashed objects|
|your safety belt. Keep away from     |in its path.                           |
|water. May cause drowsiness. ORM-D.  |                                       |
+------ The author is insane.  Any opinions are those of Great Cthulhu. ------+
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudeneric cudfnEric cudlnWilner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Richard Benear /  Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 20:41:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

 
logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>I believe Dieter made reference to the notion that Plutonium was poisonous
>regardless of its radioactivity.  It is in fact poisonous, but nothing on
>the order the scare-mongering Greens would have you believe.  It certainly
>isn't "the most deadly poison known to man" as some eco-hysterics have
>claimed.  I don't have the reference in front of me, but I believe its
>toxicity is on the order of some household chemicals.
 
>Sure, you wouldn't want to eat Plutonium, but you wouldn't want to drink
>Drano either.  Nevertheless, hysterical campaigns aren't mobilized against
>Drano.  Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it -- no need to give them
>new ideas.  :-)
 
I don't consider myself a _eco_hysteric_, but I just read (yesterday)
in a technical magazine that studies have shown that if you were to
breath 1 microgram of plutonium that you would have the certainty of
dying from lung cancer because of the alpha radiation.
 
Sounds pretty dangerous to me if you breath it.
 
Richard Benear
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrbenear cudfnRichard cudlnBenear cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / mitchell swartz /  FAQ-Table On Cold Fusion Systems
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ-Table On Cold Fusion Systems
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 02:13:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                      Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
 
  This FAQ-Table is a very short list of some of the cold fusion
phenomena - and skeptics "explanations".  The list is based upon the
literature and the responses to this net. Thanks are in order
for their comments,  data, suggestions, or criticisms, to many
individuals including John Logajan, Dieter Britz,  David Lovering,
Robert Heeter, Eugene Mallove, Vesco Noninski, Adam Frampton,
Stephen Jones, Jonathan Jones,  Jed Rothwell, and to the other
contributors to sci.physics.fusion.
This Table is developing and does not at present include
muon-driven cold fusion, glow-discharge, or putative  fractofusion
systems.     Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections
are both appreciated and invited.
 
  Those who want to know more about cold fusion can read Gene Mallove's
book "Fire from Ice -- Searching for the Truth Behind the cold Fusion
Furor" (Wiley Press) [or e-mail him and try to convince him to post
more information here].  His Table (in "Fire from Ice") on pages 246
through 248 lists scores of laboratories who have measured and reported
excess heat, and in many cases other particles.
 
                                           Mitchell Swartz
                                            mica@world.std.com
 
 ============================================================================
 FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
 ============================================================================
 
   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)               540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)
 
   ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm3 Pd) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 W/cm3 Pd
 
 
   ===========   Excess Power ===================================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O   --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)             3.5 max        70% input
  Notoya (1993)                 2.7 max        270-240%
  _________________________________________________________________________
 
  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)           ***
                   in cell IF not considered
   Recombination                  1993)          1.6       **--
   Silicate Deposition            1992)          0.0 (max)
   Lithium Deposition             1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Beuhler Effect                 1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
   Peroxides                                                **@@
  ==========================================================================
 
*  Some of these are not applicable to all systems (eg. both D2O and H2O)
  Furthermore, the final column is excess heat, and not generated heat.
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
 and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
 the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg, J. Electrochem.
 Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
***    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
       estimates of reported excess heats.
**--  Steven and J. Jones posted data of about 1.6 milliwatt at ambient.
**##  Hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required.
  One good recent article on Lithium morphology of anodes (i.e. Li batteries)
  undergoing such processes (max 0.5 C/cm2, 2 mA/cm2 DME +/- propylene
    carbonate) shows cycling is dependant upon the morphology of the lithium
   deposits (In Situ Observation & Eval of Electrodeposited Lithium by ..
   Op Microscopy and AC Impedance Spec., J. Elec. Soc, 140, 10 p2745 ('93)).
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
 incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
 (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
 but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess
 heats in experiments using protium and nickel.
**@@  Thought to be a component of potential interference by some, but
 levels sufficient to account for excess enthalpies have not been measured.
      --------------------------------------------------------- v.541109
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / R Schroeppel /  CO2 as poison
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CO2 as poison
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 03:41:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert I. Eachus writes
>     !!!!! CO2 levels may or may not be contributing to global warming.
    But the rate at which global CO2 levels are growing should alarm
    everyone who likes breathing.  You've heard of "sick building"
    syndrome?  CO2 levels mildly above current atmospheric concentrations
    are unhealthy, and there is evidence that the current atmospheric
    levels are unhealthy for some people otherwise considered to be in
    good health.
 
Exhaled air from people contains in the neighborhhod of 4% CO2.
The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 350 ppm,
or .035%.  I find it difficult to believe that tripling the CO2
concentration of inhaled air, to .1%, could affect anyone's
health.  The inhaled air (.1% CO2) will be mixed with a highly
variable amount of residual unexhaled air (4% CO2).  From the
viewpoint of the lungs, any information about the external CO2
concentration has been lost.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Leland A /  Re: Adsorb, absorb
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Adsorb, absorb
Date: 9 Nov 1993 03:07:37 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

>short, pedantic messages about use of language, which is my specialty, after
>all. Along those lines: Dieter used an idiom slightly incorrectly. "The jury
>is still out" means the issue has not yet been decided; he wrote "not out".
 
Perhaps he meant to imply that the jury is still in the jury box; in other
words, "not out", meaning that the jury doesn't yet have enough information to
try and make a decision.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 9 Nov 93 03:26:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <EACHUS.93Nov8111708@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <CFz2LE.C84@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>  > CO2 is no big problem.
>
>  !!!!! CO2 levels may or may not be contributing to global warming.
>But the rate at which global CO2 levels are growing should alarm
>everyone who likes breathing.  You've heard of "sick building"
>syndrome?  CO2 levels mildly above current atmospheric concentrations
>are unhealthy, and there is evidence that the current atmospheric
>levels are unhealthy for some people otherwise considered to be in
>good health.
 
     Planning to vent a stack into a building?
 
     It's horse patooties anyway.  When you can find an expert that
     doesn't believe it's mass hysteria, they believe that it
     is primarily the result of organic solvents used during the construction
     of a building.  In any case, in a recent study reported in the New England
     Journal of Medicine (25 March 1993), there was found to be
     *no change* in the perceived symptoms of people in a 'sick building'
     when the external ventilation was changed from 20 cfm/person
     to 60 cfm/person.  That would tend to exonerate concentrations of CO2.
 
     As for physical evidence that mildly altered levels of CO2
     cause health problems, I'm going to have to ask for good references
     (I'd prefer JAMA or NEJM) that do not involve significant
     confounding from proven noxious agents.  Chapter and verse.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / James Dominguez /  Re: Atom Totality
     
Originally-From: d9250788@zac.riv.csu.edu.au (James Joseph Dominguez)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atom Totality
Date: 9 Nov 93 05:17:11 GMT
Organization: Charles Sturt University - Riverina, NSW, Australia

>     The Plutonium Atom Totality is easy to explain. An electron is not
> a ball, but instead, an infinite number of dots. Those dots are
> commonly called the "electron cloud". One of those tiny dots of the
> 94th electron of plutonium is the Sun, another tinier dot the planet
> Earth. Stars are just bits and pieces of the last electron, the dots of
> the 94th electron of plutonium. The solar system is 9 very tiny dots
> with one larger dot, the Sun, of the 94th electron of one atom of
> 231Pu.
 
I have a problem with this...
 
Electron orbital shells are quantum distances, so how can the orbit of Pluto
be so extremely elliptical in this case?
 
Just a question...
 
--
 
"You are just paranoid, and all your friends think so too."
                                         James Joseph Dominguez
                                         d9250788@zac.riv.csu.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudend9250788 cudfnJames cudlnDominguez cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / mitchell swartz /  Turbopump transients indeed
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Turbopump transients indeed
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 05:00:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <93110811091685@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: turbopump transients
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:
 
= "Carl Ijames describes in greater detail the guts of a turbopump power
= supply than I would have thought appropriate for this forum."
 
   He did demonstrate that you were apparently wrong again.
Why be upset at the thought of knowledge and scientific logic.
 
 
= "....there are numerous snubbing diodes in the driver circuits and
= even the predrivers.  (I have about 40 of these devices under my tender
= loving care.)   I would counter that all those snubbers are there for
= good reason, and in spite of them turbopump power supplies are rather
= failure prone.  Something gets through to the driver transistors now and
= then."
 
  Come on, Dick, do you have any proof for your critical banter?
With 40 in your "tender loving care" perhaps you might connect up one or
two and demonstrate this premise which you claim exists.  Or cite some
proof with power levels, field intensities, distances, failure rate,
or other data etc. and evidence that other systems (like normal or
planned shielding or synchronous detection) will not make this moot.
Thanks in advance but most of us know it is unlikely to appear, and
caution any new lurkers not to hold their breath waiting on this.
 
 
= "In any case the level of em transient required to trigger some response
= in a neutron detector is not very great and it need not come through
= the power cord.  In fact turbo pumps in normal steady-state operation
= have been observed to contribute to the noise level seen in detection
= electronics.  In the Yamaguchi set-up the pump and the detector are
= are not very far apart, perhaps 50 cm if their sketch is accurate.
= There are, of course, other problems with this experiment.  It does
= serve to illustrate the fact that much of what gets accepted and printed
= in conference proceedings is not first rate.
 
   Dick, the EMI aspects of electronic devices do not illustrate any fact(s)
or phobia about conference proceedings and their contents.
Perhaps this jump of logic -- in the absence of data proving your claim --
demonstrates the fixation, if not the cause, of your too-oft-read
knee-jerk destructive criticism(s).
 
    Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Muon-catalyzed fusion as high flux neutron source
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion as high flux neutron source
Date: 8 Nov 93 18:35:50 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2becm9INNc8i@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
 [ much interesting discussion with Robert Heeter deleted]
 
> One such issue is the need to build a
> high flux test reactor to test materials.
> If they statement about embrittlement depeending sensitively on neutron
> energy is correct, then your high flux reactor better put out neutrons with
> an energy of near 14 MeV. This means you either need to build one of these
> compact fusion based neutrons sources --- the justification for IEC even if
> it doesn't reach ignition --- or you need to build ITER just for its
> engineering phase.
>
> -john .w cobb
>  new location: sopewhere i nthe bowels of Oak Ridge
 
Another alternative is to use muon-catalyzed d-t fusion to produce 14-MeV
neutrons.  I took a serious look at this concept some years ago (see S. Jones,
Fusion Technology, 8 (1985) 1511-1521) and others are pursuing it further
(e.g., Yu. V. Petrov and C. Petitjean).  Of course, a very large RFQ
accelerator would be needed along with a large tritium inventory for the d-t
target.  But it is clear that 14 MeV neutrons could be copiously produced by
this method as an alternative to IEC or ITER (or ESNIT, IFMIF, etc.).
 
This remains a possible application for muon-catalyzed fusion even though
commercial energy production looks now unlikely.  Mu-c-f could also be used
for the need mentioned 7 Nov. 1993 by Jim Bowery:
"... nuclear waste deactivation via neutron bombardment is a very much
over-looked option in nuclear waste disposal."
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Is 5 minutes often enough
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is 5 minutes often enough
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 06:32:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9311080442.AA02964@anubis.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@anubis.network.com> wrote:
>There has been some debate as to whether measuring current and voltage every
>five minutes is sufficient experimental techinque.
>
>The answer, I think, depends upon what you are attempting to determine.  As
>far as I can tell, I think P+F believe they have already proven CNF to exist
>and in the instance in question were actually running multiple cells with
>variations in each in an attempt to discover what maximizes the reaction.
>
>Here you aren't necessarily attempting to prove all "positive" indications
>are CNF, but merely collecting "positive" indictions and throwning away
>the negatives.  You can re-run the collected "positivies" again to see
>if they are just flukes, etc, and to cross compare against each other --
>as sort of evolutionary method, not unlike, I suppose, the way Edison obtained
>the longest lasting filament material for his light bulbs.
>
>After looking at Droege's 30+ days of data on 4A6 with parameters given
>every 1 minute, I'd say parameters every 5 minutes *is* sufficient for
>a preliminary screening operation of the type I believe they were running.
 
     The problem is that it does not seem sufficient for a violently
     boiling electrolyte, and that's where their most compelling claimed
     results lie.  I'm reserving judgement on the 'normal'
     situation until I can get power spectra from the larger runs
     Tom and you conspired to put on a ftp site.  I will say that
     the frequency falloff does not appear drastic until one gets near
     the Nyquist cutoff in the less voluminous data posted recently.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re:Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?
Date: 9 Nov 93 21:12:38 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <01H52G83HLVMHV0WWS@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
 writes:
>
> With all the fuss lately being made of the Yamaguchi/Nishioka experiment [1]
> (Nishioka seems to get forgotten), I had another look at the paper. From one
> of Dick Blue's postings, about the correction of "BF3" to "3He" for the
> neutron detector, I understand that the paper precedes the conf. proc. Much
> the same stuff must have been presented at the conference, however, or another
> paper would have been published.
>
> I remember being faintly amused and confused by the paper in 1990, when I saw
> the paper; just what were the authors doing, and why? Another reading makes no
> more sense now than it did then. If you think the latest F&P paper leaves out
> a lot of information, try this one. And before someone shouts at me "WHY DON'T
> YOU TELEPHONE THEM??": a scientific paper is expected to include all relevant
> data, no phone calls should be required. Note that I didn't say "raw data",
> just relevant information.
>
> The authors took a Pd plate, thickness 1 mm (only in Fig. 3 do I find that it
> is 3.0 * 3.0 cm) and, for unstated reasons, coated one side with a 100 nm
> layer of gold. This seals that surface for deuterium, which can't get through
> the gold. The paper then says that "the substrate was obtained" - which one
> takes to mean that PdD was prepared - "by immersing annealed Pd plates [...]
> into D2 gas (99.9%, 0.5 atm) for 24 hours". OK, but why 0.5 atm? Then it says
> that "The other surface is covered with a thin film having a diffusion
> constant of D less than Pd. This layer appropriately controls the
> out-diffusion of D-atoms passing through this interface. In the present work,
> we used a film with a thickness of less than 100 A containing mainly Mn and O,
> which we call Mn-O in this letter". How was this film deposited? Was it done
> before the 24 hours immersion, or after? One guesses after; if so, did the
> deposition process result in any deuterium leakage? No clues are to be found.
> Why Mn-O? And what do the authors imagine as the effect of that layer? From
> what follows ("explosive release of gas") I suspected in 1990, and suspect
> now, that the authors believe that when they draw a vacuum around the
> deuterium-charged plate, the deuterium, frantically trying to get out, hits
> the barrier film with great force, and does something exotic. In fact, it
> would simply seep out more slowly than if the film were not there. There is
> vague talk about an accumulation layer at the interface (why?), and cooperative
> feedback (?) causing accumulation of D-atoms.
>
> The results obtained, however, are clear enough, almost. After 3 hours of
> vacuum, there was an explosive gas release, the plate got hot, heating its
> stainless steel holder to 50 deg, and the Au film alloyed with the Pd, which
> can't happen below 1064 deg (I take their word for this), and the plate bent
> (there is a picture). Also, there was a huge burst of neutrons, 0.1-0.2 mSv/h
> for 2-3 secs. Later they translate this into a neutron flux (at 0.1 mSv/h) of
> 72 n/cm^2/s, and then give us some more information by the back door, in
> converting this to a total neutron flux of 1-2*10^6 ditto, by assuming equal
> flux in all direction - in other words, we are here told about the catching
> angle (or whatever the experts call it) of the neutron detector, with the
> plate at the centre. The experiment was repeated twice, to check
> reproducibility. The first time, D2 gas was again allowed in (how long?) and
> again the vacuum applied. Another neutron burst, 0.06-0.09 mSv/h for 1-2 s
> this time, after 150 s. Then the chamber was pressurised to 1 atm with
> nitrogen (why?), and again evacuated. Almost the same neutron burst and gas
> release as in the first repetition, again after 150 s.
>
> The above procedure was repeated 20 times, and the effect was not seen again.
> Also, some experiments were tried using H2 instead of D2, and nothing was
> seen. The authors state "However, this does not mean that a mechanism for the
> observed phenomena other than the fusion reaction itself does not exist in
> Pd:H systems, because the production of accumulation layers followed by
> biaxial bending of the sample is expected to be almost independent of the mass
> number of the isotope". What does this sentence mean? There was a low-mass
> detector of some sort, and it detected mass 4 (D2) in great quantity, and "it
> is noted that atoms or molecules with the mass number of 3 were slightly
> detected".
>
> They then do give some useful information, e.g. that all high-voltage power
> sources were off when the neutrons were detected (for which batteries were
> used). There follows finally some speculation about the mechanism for the
> fusion enhancement, all of it quite vague, but this might be due to the
> author's problems with English.
>
> This caused NTT shares to go up considerably? This is quality work? It was a
> one-off; attempts to reproduce it failed, so the failure with H2 counts for
> nothing. Was mass number 3 the cause of all the excitement? Tritium, eh, or
> maybe 3He? How about HD, much more likely and conventional. I reckon all this
> says more about the acuity (or lack thereof) of shareholders than about cold
> fusion, and I do not see why anyone is citing this as an interesting paper.
>
> 1. 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".
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Dieter,
The AIP Conference Proceedings No.228 contains a paper by Yamaguchi and
Nishioka which addresses some of the problems you find with the above article.
 It also contains an extension of the above, titled "Second Stage Experiment-
Current Injection"
 I find the AIP Conf. Proceedings paper by Yamaguchi et al "interesting" for the
following reasons;
1) Very large neutron bursts were observed from samples of Pd:D subject to
  a pressure gradient across a thin film.
2) The SAME samples could be repressurised with D and produce another burst
  of neutrons.  Within these samples the neutrons were not a one shot
  effect, indicating that neutron production was either from a durable site,
  multiple sites were involved, or new sites could easily form.
3) The same samples could produce a third very large neutron pulse after
  repressurising with Nitrogen. This would tend to indicate that the neutron
  producing process needed no D extra to that already in the Pd and that
  the movement of D into the Pd was not part of the process. Nor is nitrogen
  likely to be involved, it was probably not present in 1) and 2).
4) That the "Second Stage Experiment" could produce excess heat from H
 and D loaded Pd samples with no neutrons indicating a different process
 (non-nuclear?) for heat production than that occuring in 1).
 Most of the above inferences are mine. Flame me, not Yamaguchi and Nishioka.
 I am not interested in the thin film concept just as a speculative talking
 point in this news group. I hope to begin work in the new year in this area
 and any advice, quality informed criticism, or references will be much
 appreciated.
                                          Regards to all,
                                          Daryl Owen.
 
  These musings are attributable only to my Muse and myself.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 9 Nov 1993 11:47:05 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CG6nnC.9JG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
        crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <2bljgtINNbvi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
|> Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
|> >Dale Bass comments:
|> >
|> >|> CO2 is no big problem.
|> >
|> >--> sci.environment preliminary FAQ on global warming
|>
|>      Global warming?  Don't make me laugh.
 
I suppose you would rather laugh than find out you don't know what you're
talking about. I suggest a sojourn on sci.environment, the _scientists_
there will educate you a bit.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / John Logajan /  CO2 begone
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CO2 begone
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 15:18:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>The inhaled air (.1% CO2) will be mixed with a highly
>variable amount of residual unexhaled air (4% CO2).  From the
>viewpoint of the lungs, any information about the external CO2
>concentration has been lost.
 
Also, the earth has a built-in CO2 scrubbing mechanism.  Atmospheric
CO2 continually dissolves into raindrops.  The raindrops become acidic.
Those raindrops land on the earth or in the ocean and the acidic content reacts
with the minerals there producing carbonate type solids which precipitate
to the ocean floor -- forming such sediments as limestone.
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / John Logajan /  Lost recombination for two minutes
     
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lost recombination for two minutes
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 15:18:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Upon further analysis of Droege's 4A6 data, I have another small mystery
solved, I believe.
 
At 1357630 in Droege's logbook (he sent me xeroxed pages) he says, "Above
event seemed to cause run away gas condition."   The "above event" he
refers to is a two minutes spike in the cell temperature (Tcell.)
 
>From my previous posting, I had identified the time just prior to this
as the long period when recombination was occuring in the external
catalyst chamber, slowly transporting 15cc's of D2O from the main cell
to the external chamber.  Recombination was supposed to be occuring
in the in-cell catalyst, as evidenced by a warm reading by the Tcat
sensor -- but Tcat isn't tracking Icell, so we know it isn't burning
off the D2 and O2 gases.
 
At approx 1356700 recombination moves from the external catalyst chamber
to near the Tcell sensor (presumed to be the now uncovered Pd lead-in
wire.)  This burns for about 2 minutes and then goes out.  About three
minutes later, Tcell cools to its lowest temperature in 24 hours and
Tcat cools to its lowest temperature in 4.5 days.  If these guys had any
residual recombination near them prior to this, the embers had gone out
now for sure.  Suddenly gas starts accumulating in Droege's gas sensor.
 
Normally when the Pd cathode releases D2 gas, the gas sensor detects not
an increase in volume, but a decrease, since the D2 burns with the excess
O2 in the headspace and thus removes O2 volume.  It seems apparent that
not only has recombination stopped near the Tcell sensor and near
the Tcat sensor, but also in the external catalyst chamber.
 
The gas rate change during these 2-3 minutes is consistent with the
gas production one would expect simply due to the measured electrical
current of the electrolysis.  Two minutes later the gas rate levels
off to zero change, but at a higher total volume.  Neither Tcat nor Tcell
show any response, so the recombination must have re-ignited in the external
catalyst chamber.  Finally, five minutes after that, Tcat comes alive,
and most of the excess gases accumulated in the previous several minutes
are burned off and the total gas volume declines and stays level for many
hours.
 
Thus the gas "run away" is explained as a temporary loss of recombination.
 
All in all, I think nine different anomalies in the 4A6 run are attributable
to the switching of the recombination point from external, to internal, to
Pd lead -- or briefly, to none of the above.  Unfortunately, the relative
frequency of these flip-flops has them occuring during each of the three
major anomalous heat bursts during the 4A6 run.  On the plus side, that
means that 6 such flip-flops did not cause indications of anomalous heat
bursts.
 
The recommendation I give to Tom Droege, then, for the next series of
experiments, is to either retain only one catalyst, or otherwise insure
that the catalyst in the cell is the one that is "on."
 
 
 
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Geert tel /  Re: Re: plutonium
     
Originally-From: geert@sron.rug.nl (Geert Bex k297 tel. 4799)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: plutonium
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 15:18:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>>Sure, you wouldn't want to eat Plutonium, but you wouldn't want to
>>drink Drano either.  Nevertheless, hysterical campaigns aren't mobilized
>>against Drano.  Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it -- no need to give
>>them new ideas.  :-)
>
>I don't consider myself a _eco_hysteric_, but I just read (yesterday)
>in a technical magazine that studies have shown that if you were to
>breath 1 microgram of plutonium that you would have the certainty of
>dying from lung cancer because of the alpha radiation.
>
>Sounds pretty dangerous to me if you breath it.
>
>Richard Benear
 
I`m not a plutonium expert, but I believe I know a little more than some
of you. First, plutonium is indeed a poison. Just like chlorine, lead
and other useful materials. As a chemical, plutonium is not a big health
hazard. Experiments with mice have proven this.
Of course, plutonium is radioactive and this is a bigger problem. The
public fear of radioactivity is (in my opinion) a little exaggerated. Of
course, this is no excuse to dump radioactive waste all over the place,
like we do with chemical stuff. Radioactive waste has one big advantage
over chemical waste: the problem dissolves itself (although this may take
several million years). Dangerous chemicals, however, remain dangerous
an infinite time (unless they take part in some nuclear reaction...).
I don't think you should be afraid of a milligram of plutonium. The
experiments with nuclear bombs some decades ago have brought enough
plutonium into the air for all of us. The little green men say 1 gram of
plutonium is enough to kill all life on earth. I fear this amount is
already in the atmosphere. Have you made your will yet?
You never can be certain that you die of lung cancer after breathing in
1 microgram of plutonium. The ICRP divides (or used to divide, I'm not aware of
the latest developments in this field) radiation damage to humans into two
categories: deterministic effects, that is effects everyone suffers
from, and stochastic effects. Cancer is a stochastic effect. Radiation
augments the chance of getting a cancer, but you never know for sure
you're going to get it. It's like smoking: not everybody that smokes
gets lung cancer, and some people with lung cancer never smoked (or ate
plutonium). Besides, before you can accumulate enough plutonium to have
a chance of 99 % to get cancer, you probably died of some other nasty
effects of the stuff.
I'm not saying you should not be worried about plutonium, but there are
lots of other things to be worried about too. And if you are going to
focus on plutonium, get the facts right and beware of sensationalists
and journalists that don't know what they are talking about.
Maybe a FAQ about radiation and its effects on all of us is a good idea.
 
Geert Bex.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengeert cudfnGeert cudlntel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Tempest over a turbopump
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tempest over a turbopump
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 02:14:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To recap:  Daryl Owen made reference to a contribution by Yamaguchi and
Nishioka in the proceedings of the conference held at BYU in 1990.  He
asserted that their experimental results were "definitive".  I countered
by pointing out that their neutron detection methods were suspect, and
made an attempt to justify my statement.  The essential facts are that
they used a survey meter for neutron detection rather than a full-blown
detection setup with pulse height analysis, etc.  Even more telling is
the fact that their survey meter gave a response three times, but 20
additional attempts to duplicate those results failed.  You can totally
discount my remarks, and it won't alter the fact that the effect was not
replicated!
 
I next attempted to explain why a survey meter is not suitable for this
application, and to suggest a possible source of electromagnetic interference
of a type that can trigger some response in a proportional counter detection
system.  I was not present when the experiment was performed, nor do I
know the exact circumstances of the detection events so I cannot claim
to have proven the effect I described.  I thought I had so indicated by
saying that I was
     "sticking my neck out a bit" to suggest that the turbopump generated
the spurious neutron detection signal.  Sorry, Mitchell, I am not going
to bother to reply with anything further to prove some detailed assertion
about the nature of Yamaguchi's problem.
 
Now in the course of these messages, I made reference to "bad science"
and refered to Yamaguchi and Nishioka as being "clowns".  Daryl suggests
that I should appologize for these characterizations.  My feeling is that
the bad science label is well deserved, and I stand by it.  "Clowns"
probably was not appropriate, and I do apologize for having used that
word.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Arthur Carlson /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 9 Nov 1993 14:00:18 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

Concerning the question whether the toxicity of plutonium is radiological or
chemical: There's no experiment you can do to cleanly answer that because
plutonium is always radiioactive AND toxic. The best you can do is to
compare it with another substance, e.g. neptunium 237, which is chemically
similar but has a much longer halflife. If you do, you find that neptunium
is 10^5 to 10^6 times less toxic. So it seems clear that the toxicity of
plutonium is solely a result of its radioactivity.
 
 
Concerning the ACUTE toxicity of different substances, I offer a table:
 
SUBSTANZ        LD50    ADMINISTRATION
ethanol         10^5    i.p.
morphin         900     i.p.
nicotine        1       i.p.
plutonium 239   1       i.v.
plutonium 239   2       inhalation
plutonium 239*  0.3     i.v.
plutonium 239*  1.3     inhalation
tetrodotoxin    0.1     i.p.
dioxin          10^-3   i.p.
botolinustoxin  10^-5   i.p.
 
*studies on dogs
LD50 is the number of grams of the substance per kilogram body weight that
   kills half the animals
i.v. = intravenous injection
i.p. = intraperitoneal injektion
 
 
Concerning the carcinogenic toxicity of plutonium: one microgram inhaled by
a 70 kg man results in a 0.12 % chance of a fatal cancer (2/3 of that liver
cancer, 1/3 lung cancer, and a smaller chance of bone marrow cancer). Note
that 1 microgram X 50% / 0.12% = 0.4 milligram < LD50. This is true for most
radiological dangers: if you don't die in the first few weeks, then you
probably won't get cancer either (although the chance is definitely
increased).
 
 
This information comes from a special issue (Sept. 1989) of mensch+umwelt, a
magazine of the Gesellschaft fuer Strahlen- und Umweltforschung, Munich,
Germany.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnCarlson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: FAQ-Table On Cold Fusion Systems
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ-Table On Cold Fusion Systems
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 15:07:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CG7Cur.2K4@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>                      Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table
>
> ============================================================================
> FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
> ============================================================================
>
>   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
>   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
>   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
...
>  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
>  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
>   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
...
    Experimental Error                            60
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 18:00:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2bnvvpINNd6j@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>In article <CG6nnC.9JG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>       crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> In article <2bljgtINNbvi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>|> Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>|> >Dale Bass comments:
>|> >
>|> >|> CO2 is no big problem.
>|> >
>|> >--> sci.environment preliminary FAQ on global warming
>|>
>|>      Global warming?  Don't make me laugh.
>
>I suppose you would rather laugh than find out you don't know what you're
>talking about. I suggest a sojourn on sci.environment, the _scientists_
>there will educate you a bit.
 
     Guess what Bruce, I are one.  And I done been educated already.
 
     And I'm still laughing.
 
     Consider Michaels, P.J. (University of Virginia), 'Benign Greenhouse',
     Research and Exploration, 9:222 (1993).
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Is 5 minutes often enough
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is 5 minutes often enough
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 19:19:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     Tom and you conspired to put on a ftp site.
 
In exchange for immunity I will name names!  It was really Tom Droege
and Charles Harrison who were the co-conspirators.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Robert Eachus /  Re: CO2 as poison
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CO2 as poison
Date: 9 Nov 93 15:12:50
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <199311090329.AA20126@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.
du (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
 
   > Exhaled air from people contains in the neighborhhod of 4% CO2.
 
????  This looks like a misplaced decimal, but it could be true for,
say, marathon runners.  One to two percent CO2 knocks most people out
cold, because it interferes with the body's ability to get CO2 out of
the blood.  A BOE calculation says that the average person adds 1%
CO2 and 1% H2O to the air he exhales.
 
  > The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 350 ppm,
  > or .035%.
 
  If true this is very good news.  Last time I looked at the Hawaii
data, it was significantly past this.  (There is a noticeable annual
variation, but it is lowest in the northern hemisphere summer.)
 
  > I find it difficult to believe that tripling the CO2
  > concentration of inhaled air, to .1%, could affect anyone's
  > health.
 
  Sorry you find it difficult.  All the data I have seen say that at
this level the phsyiological effects start to appear.  Ever decide
that a room is "stuffy" and go outside for "a breath of fresh air?"
That is a legitimate experimental data point, and occurs between 0.1
and 0.2 per cent CO2 for most people.  The Navy has a lot of this data
from submarines, and even during WWII, exceeding 0.1% CO2 was only
done if necessary, and about 0.3% was the normal limit.  (Under attack
some subs went up over 1% CO2 and survived, but they had a significant
number of crew members non-functional or unconscious by the time they
surfaced.)
 
  > The inhaled air (.1% CO2) will be mixed with a highly
  > variable amount of residual unexhaled air (4% CO2).  From the
  > viewpoint of the lungs, any information about the external CO2
  > concentration has been lost.
 
  Again, I just can't accept that 4% figure for normal circumstances.
The breathing reflex cuts in at blood levels of CO2 well below that.
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  Global carbon dioxide and global warming
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Global carbon dioxide and global warming
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 20:09:32 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CG8KoD.9C6@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>I suppose you would rather laugh than find out you don't know what you're
>>talking about. I suggest a sojourn on sci.environment, the _scientists_
>>there will educate you a bit.
>     Consider Michaels, P.J. (University of Virginia), 'Benign Greenhouse',
>     Research and Exploration, 9:222 (1993).
 
My impression of the scientific consensus on the greenhouse effect is
as follows:  The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen in the
past 150 years to a much higher level than it ever attained in the
previous 200,000 years.  We don't know for certain why it has happened,
but it could well have been industrial pollution.  We don't know for
certain what the effects will be, but there is a priori reason to
believe that they will be small.  If the effects are large, they will
probably be bad rather than good, on the general principle that radical
environmental change is usually bad.
 
In other words, global, systematic use of fossil fuels is a giant
environmental crap shoot.
 
Personally, I think we would be better off with fission, and it's
always good to try to find new sources of energy.  (Of course, we
won't find any by investigating the claims of dishonest incompetents
like you-know-who.)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / mitchell swartz /  FAQ-Table - Expt. Error
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ-Table - Expt. Error
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 21:40:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <CG8CoD.4Iy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Subject: Re: FAQ-Table On Cold Fusion Systems
Cameron Randale Bass [crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU] wrote:
 
 
>   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
>   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   ---
>   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
...
>  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*)
>  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
>   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
 
    "Experimental Error                            60"
 
 
 
 Dale, if you can prove it (by more then loquacious banter) it will be
       appended.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / John Cobb /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: 9 Nov 1993 16:09:52 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2bli6oINNbvi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>John Cobb writes:
>
>[among other good stuff]
>
>|> A second issue is the banner that the D-3He guys wave that neutrons are a
>|> real bugbear and should be avoided at all costs, even if it means mining
>|> the moon for 3He.
>
>I just want to remind people that D-He3 is NOT aneutronic, since you will
>sometimes get D + D --> T + p, and then D + T --> He4(3+ MeV) + n(14.7 MeV).
>
>It seems to me that the "D-3He guys" waving their banners are not facing
>this.
>
 I agree with Bruce. I do not want to be anywhere near a burning D-3He
reactor. While the neutron power can be as small as 1-4% of the amount of
a comparable D-T reactor, 1% of 1000 Mega-Watts is still a lot of neutrons.
 
My point is that in terms of useful material lifetimes, D-3He gets you
about 1.5-2 orders of magnitude more useful life. This means less waste
to bury because you don't change the first wall/divertor tiles as often, etc.
 
But don't ever let anyone tell you fusion is as sweet and clean as a
buttercup. Even the Boron cycle will have induced radioactivity from
ion bombardment. IT is just a (very important) question of magnitude.
 
-john .w cobb
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Impressive doggies!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Impressive doggies!
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 22:07:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

 
Off-topic & utterly irrelevent, but I just can't resist:
 
In article <2bo7piINNhqf@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
 
  ...
> Concerning the ACUTE toxicity of different substances, I offer a table:
>
> SUBSTANZ      LD50    ADMINISTRATION
> ethanol               10^5    i.p.
  ...
> *studies on dogs
> LD50 is the number of grams of the substance per kilogram body weight that
> kills half the animals
  ...
> i.p. = intraperitoneal injektion
 
 
Er... wouldn't that be a tummy injection of about 1 U.S. ton of ethanol
per 20 pound chihuahua?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Aaron Tank /  y
     
Originally-From: tank@plains.NoDak.edu (Aaron C Tank)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: y
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 22:54:48 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

 
 
--
 
 
                  _||I_
                 / _ _ \
               {/  o o  \}
-----o00o-----------U-----------oOOo-----
 
Killroy was here...
At the gothic bastion we call...
North Dakota State University...
 
"We have met the enemy, and they are us."  -Pogo
 
"No more rhymes, I mean it!"
 "Anybody want a peanut?"  -The Princess Bride
 
tank@plains.nodak.edu        Aaron C. Tank
 
Long enough signature, eh?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentank cudfnAaron cudlnTank cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / mitchell swartz /  CO2 as the respiratory stimulant (was poison)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CO2 as the respiratory stimulant (was poison)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 23:20:51 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <EACHUS.93Nov9151250@spectre.mitre.org>
   Subject: Re: CO2 as poison
Robert I. Eachus [eachus@spectre.mitre.org)] writes:
 
        > "I find it difficult to believe that tripling the CO2
        > concentration of inhaled air, to .1%, could affect anyone's
        > health."
           [rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)]
 
=   "Sorry you find it difficult.  All the data I have seen say that at
= this level the phsyiological effects start to appear.  Ever decide
= that a room is "stuffy" and go outside for "a breath of fresh air?"
= That is a legitimate experimental data point, and occurs between 0.1
= and 0.2 per cent CO2 for most people.  The Navy has a lot of this data
= from submarines, and even during WWII, exceeding 0.1% CO2 was only
= done if necessary, and about 0.3% was the normal limit.  (Under attack
= some subs went up over 1% CO2 and survived, but they had a significant
= number of crew members non-functional or unconscious by the time they
= surfaced.)"
 
      > "The inhaled air (.1% CO2) will be mixed with a highly
      > variable amount of residual unexhaled air (4% CO2).  From the
      > viewpoint of the lungs, any information about the external CO2
      > concentration has been lost."
             [rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel]
 
=   "Again, I just can't accept that 4% figure for normal circumstances.
= The breathing reflex cuts in at blood levels of CO2 well below that."
 
   Robert Eachus is correct.   When PCO2 in arterial blood is measured
(because alveolar measurements have significant dead space and
sampling error) the dependence of respiratory minute volume to the
PCO2 is linear -- no threshold exists in the normal state.
   In fact the minute PCO2 increases result in increases in both the
depth and rate of repiration.  [Those with serious interests might
check e.g. Medical physiology {V. Mountcastle)]
 
  Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.09 / Michael Bonnice /  Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: Michael A. Bonnice <mbonnice@pelab.allied.com>
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: RFD -- sci.fluid-dynamics
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 17:28:45 GMT
Organization: AlliedSignal Engines

In article <2b4k3a$o2j@news.acns.nwu.edu> Guy Metcalfe,
guy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
 
>Perhaps sci.cfd would better reflect the discussion outline of the
>proposed group.
 
Why not sci.fluid-dynamics.cfd and sci.fluid-dynamics.experimental?  The
two can hardly be discussed without reference to each other, and the
hierarchy appears at a high enough level that workers in all
fluid-dynamic fields will be tempted to look within for subgroups.
 
Michael A. Bonnice               mbonnice@pelab.allied.com or
AlliedSignal Engines            mhs!allied!michael_bonnice@attmail.com
Box 52181, MS 503-4AB         602-481-0233
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2181
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbonnice cudfnMichael cudlnBonnice cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Dick Jackson /  Re: CNF profitable?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF profitable?
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 21:30:00 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <01H4Y9TQ060Y8WXSY5@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Nagoya. That one caused shares in NTT to jump by a significant amount, and
>anyone who knew about it in advance could have made a large profit. So the
>question is, given some likely new development in CNF to be revealed at
>Hawaii, what shares should one now buy?
 
Not strictly  relevant but a colleague reminded the other day of the
old stock market maxim "Buy on the rumour and sell on the news".
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: Activity and half-life
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Activity and half-life
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 01:05:25 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

The posts on this subject started with Dick Blue making a statement
about "activity" that is only true for "specific activity", then
confusing the issue when responding to Mitchell Swartz correct
comment that a "curie is a curie".
 
Specific activity (whether measured in Ci/gm or Sv/gm) is higher for
short-lived materials.  You only need a gram of Radium to have Curie,
but you need tons of some materials.  The danger from short-lived
isotopes is that small quantities are dangerous, while the advantage
is that you do not have to isolate them for very long.  The greatest
concern is about stuff in the mid-range, where it is still very hot
but lasts a long time on human time scales.
 
And finally, it is the biological effects measured in Sievert or rem
that really matter, since some Curies are worse than others.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / mitchell swartz /  Plutonium as Poison
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plutonium as Poison
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 04:03:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <2bo7piINNhqf@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
     Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Arthur Carlson (awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
 
= "Concerning the carcinogenic toxicity of plutonium: one microgram inhaled by
= a 70 kg man results in a 0.12 % chance of a fatal cancer (2/3 of that liver
= cancer, 1/3 lung cancer, and a smaller chance of bone marrow cancer). Note
= that 1 microgram X 50% / 0.12% = 0.4 milligram < LD50. This is true for most
= radiological dangers: if you don't die in the first few weeks, then you
= probably won't get cancer either (although the chance is definitely
= increased)."
 
     A lot of potential bad logic here.
 
  First, statistics do not apply to individuals, only cohorts.
 
  Second, many human LD50s are overestimates based upon belief that
affected individuals will get high-grade well-attended tertiary medical
hospital care.
 
  Third, your last sentence is most amusing.
 "if you dont die in the first few weeks you won't get cancer"
seems to imply either "so if you do die, you will get cancer" or
 "plutonium doesn't cause cancer".
Seems unlikely with a tumor induction time which may be 5-20+ years,
and with the well-known natural history for plutonium.
 
  Fourth, where is your human data from?
 
                                          Mitchell Swartz
                                          mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / mitchell swartz /  Untested Tempest over Dick's turbopump
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Untested Tempest over Dick's turbopump
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 04:04:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <93110911412529@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
    Subject: Tempest over a turbopump
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
     =dblue  "  Sorry, Mitchell, I am not going
     =dblue  to bother to reply with anything further to prove
     =dblue  some detailed assertion
     =dblue  about the nature of Yamaguchi's problem."
 
   Dick wrote not about Yamaguchi's work or "problem" but about
his allegations that driver transistors were sieves to "something".
He actually stated that [shielding and other detection methods
notwithstanding]:
 
=db "...there are numerous snubbing diodes in the driver circuits and
=db even the predrivers.  (I have about 40 of these devices under my tender
=db loving care.)   I would counter that all those snubbers are there for
=db good reason, and in spite of them turbopump power supplies are rather
=db failure prone.  Something gets through to the driver transistors now and
=db then."
=db "In any case the level of em transient required to trigger some response
=db in a neutron detector is not very great and it need not come through
=db the power cord.  In fact turbo pumps in normal steady-state operation
=db have been observed to contribute to the noise level seen in detection
=db electronics.  In the Yamaguchi set-up the pump and the detector are
=db are not very far apart, perhaps 50 cm if their sketch is accurate.
=db There are, of course, other problems with this experiment.  It does
=db serve to illustrate the fact that much of what gets accepted and printed
=db in conference proceedings is not first rate."
           [Message-ID: <93110811091685@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
                 Subject: turbopump transients]
 
  Dick appears to agree that he has no credible proof for
at least this critical hype.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / James Crotinger /  Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
Date: 10 Nov 93 05:34:25 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
> This was Hunter's approach to the transport community: "put up or shut up".
> He then created the Transport Task Force whose job was to find and
> explain the mechanism for transport, all within two years. What did he get?
> A conscientious group of scientists which told him the truth about how
> little we know? Don't hold your breath! He got a lot of bullshit artists
> who took over the program and now manage the workshops to their own
> liking, with themselves set up as the "arbiters of truth", as a Texas
> colleague of mine put it.
 
  Mildly exaggerated, as usual. 8-) Molvig (who was the force behind
Hunter's "put up or shut up" mandate) was an ex-tokamak-turbulence-
researcher and was well aware of the fact that they were asking the
impossible. But by doing so they motivated the theorists, computational
physicists, and experimentalists to make a concerted attempt to understand
anomalous transport. We still don't have the answer. I think most people
would agree that a purely theoretical answer will not be forthcoming any
time soon.
 
> People who told the _real_ truth were shoved aside:
 
> The simple models are not valid in the inhomogeneous system the magnetised
> tokamak plasma represents, and we will not have a solution _at least_ until
> fully-resolved global computation with self-consistent fluid models (at
 
((Why global?))
 
> least) are viable. As of now, they are not. We are building algorithms, we
> need to test them, and then we need the computational facilities to do the
> numerical experiments which are the counterpart of what goes on in the lab.
> Just so stories _will_ _not_ _work_.
 
  This kind of stuff did not start with the transport initiative. Look back
at Horton's or Hasegawa & Mima's early papers. There are plots comparing
their predicted spectra with experiments. Complete bullshit. But if you
didn't (don't) play this game, your work was (is) not seen as relevant and
you were (are) likely to lose funding. Take Tom Dupree (my advisor at MIT)
as an example. Definitely one of the "honest" guys, and a top-notch one at
that. He believed that you had to walk before you could run, and thus
worked on simple models (1D Vlasov turbulence) where he felt there might be
a chance of getting analytic answers that could be compared with numerical
experiments. He made no attempt to predict diffusion coefficients. His
funding was cut. Tom was a scientist and not an engineer, and DOE seems to
have the somewhat misguided belief that MFE is an engineering problem, and
not a physics problem.
 
  BTW, Tom's belief as of a few years ago was that any predictive transport
theory in something as complex as a tokamak would have to be semi-
empirical, and thus would come out of close collaboration between theory,
experiment, and numerical experiments. I think that the transport
initiative has at least pushed us in this direction. I do, however, wish
there were more money for "basic" research in these areas.
 
> BTW, I do not mean models of the "diffusion coefficient", which I think
> does not exist. I mean direct simulation of the turbulent plasma dynamics.
 
  A very good point. I hear talks that both mention \chi's and radial
correlation lengths that are a good fraction of the minor radius. There
is something wrong with this picture.
 
> I think there are a lot of people in the transport community who realize
> this, it is just that we are not in power.
 
  I believe that TTF is a good thing. Granted there are people there
that have strong egos and also have a lot of power. Such is the nature
of science. But on the whole I think it has people working together to
an extent that they weren't before.
 
  Also, Bruce seems to take Hunter & Molvig at face value -- that we won't
have fusion unless we understand transport and have predictive models for
it. Alas the development of air travel would have been in big trouble if
they'd had an attitude like this. In many current experiments the
confinement is good enough! The main limitation in many high-performance
shots is MHD stability. If we can't find ways to increase these stability
limits, and experimenters can consistently bump up against them, then why
do any more research on transport? Of course ITER is a considerable
extrapolation from current devices, so any predictive capability in either
transport or MHD would help to build confidence in the design. Or better
yet, might steer us to something smaller.
 
  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:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Eugene Mallove /  Blooperberg
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blooperberg
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 14:27:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greg Kuperberg of the University of Chicago writes:
 
>Personally, I think we would be better off with fission, and it's
>always good to try to find new sources of energy.  (Of course, we
>won't find any by investigating the claims of dishonest incompetents
>like you-know-who.)
 
Thank you for your continuing stream of nonsense, Greg. My file of your nitwit
remarks is growing ever more delicious and amazing. I encourage you to keep it
up! Furthermore, I encourage you to attack me and other CF R&D people with
even more gusto. It will make your self-hanging even more joyous to watch.
Observing you is like watching a cartoon character careen toward the edge of
the Grand Canyon. You've passed the edge and are suspended in mid-air ready
for your fall. On the subject of cold fusion you are an incompetent boob.
Period! You want to find new sources of energy and the best one of all is
right before your eyes. You are such a crackpot and fool that you can't
recognize it. Too bad for you.
 
P.S. I used to work on fission power, but I can tell you that fission is
finished, Gonzo!
 
Worst wishes, Gene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Arthur Carlson /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 10 Nov 1993 10:46:15 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

Sorry, my comparison of the carcinogenic risk of inhaled plutonium with
the acute risk is in error. (That's what happens when you try to do your
own thinking, rather than just repeating what you read.)
 
One microgram inhaled by a 70 kg man results in a 0.12 % chance of a fatal
cancer. Thus 0.4 milligram leads to a 50% risk. DIVIDING BY THE BODY
WEIGHT (70 kg) results in 0.006 milligram << LD50. Thus (1) the
carcinogenic risk is about 300 times larger than the acute risk, (2) 1
microgram inhaled does not imply 100% certainty of cancer, but 10
micrograms does imply a very high probability, and (3) my sweeping
generalization that acute risks are more sever than carcinogenic risks
still applies for a one-time dose, but inhaled plutonium must be treated
as a long-term dose, where the relationship is generally the other way
around.
 
Art Carlson
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnCarlson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
Date: 10 Nov 1993 12:23:18 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jac.752909665@moonshine>,
        jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
 
["they" here are the originators of the Transport Task Force]
 
|> [...] But by doing so they motivated the theorists, computational
|> physicists, and experimentalists to make a concerted attempt to understand
|> anomalous transport.
 
This effort was well underway prior to TTF and in part was corrupted by
the premature, forced effort towards consensus. Leave out the force, and
what people (at least some of them) were doing was science. The S/N ratio
of physics research in the fusion community has dropped precipitously
since the establishment of TTF. Just-so stories have become the norm rather
than the exception. Before, some theory was less than logically
consistent (eg, "rippling mode transport"). Now, there is work that is
accepted that is logically self-contradictory, which is a different matter
entirely.
 
[lines with |> > were written by me]
 
|> > The simple models are not valid in the inhomogeneous system the magnetised
|> > tokamak plasma represents, and we will not have a solution _at least_ until
|> > fully-resolved global computation with self-consistent fluid models (at
|>
|> ((Why global?))
 
Because of the evidence that transport is non-local, ie, the fluxes of
particles and energy at a given radius depend on parameters and gradients
not only at that radius, but also at radii a certain distance away. Recent
results from JET L-H transition data suggest that distance can be as
large as 40 cm (1/3 the minor radius). See Xavier Garbet's ideas on
radial propagation for what we need to consider.
 
|> > least) are viable. As of now, they are not. We are building algorithms, we
|> > need to test them, and then we need the computational facilities to do the
|> > numerical experiments which are the counterpart of what goes on in the lab.
|> > Just so stories _will_ _not_ _work_.
|>
|>   This kind of stuff did not start with the transport initiative. Look back
|> at Horton's or Hasegawa & Mima's early papers. There are plots comparing
|> their predicted spectra with experiments. Complete bullshit. But if you
|> didn't (don't) play this game, your work was (is) not seen as relevant and
|> you were (are) likely to lose funding.
 
Correct! You win the prize! Actually, not everyone did things like that;
look at pre-TTF work by people like Drake, Bondeson, Aydemir, and Park.
They took a set of model equations, *ensured* *that* *they* *were*
*consistent* vis-a-vis ordering, *checked* *that* *they* *remained*
*so* given the solutions they produced, and then were candid with what
did and did not fit the observations. This kind of honesty still remains in
pockets but has been largely eclipsed by TTF. And to hell with the US
funding picture; that is why I am glad to work in a place where people
still care about careful science.
 
|> Take Tom Dupree (my advisor at MIT) as an example. Definitely one of the
|> "honest" guys, and a top-notch one at that.
 
No doubt about it. He made my day in 1991 by telling me spontaneously
that analytic theory had no chance to reproduce the complexity that
emerges from self-consistent computation. Too bad some of his stature
couldn't rub off onto a certain protege, eh? (Not you, of course!)
 
|> He believed that you had to walk before you could run, and thus
|> worked on simple models (1D Vlasov turbulence) where he felt there might be
|> a chance of getting analytic answers that could be compared with numerical
|> experiments. He made no attempt to predict diffusion coefficients. His
|> funding was cut. Tom was a scientist and not an engineer, and DOE seems to
|> have the somewhat misguided belief that MFE is an engineering problem, and
|> not a physics problem.
 
Complete agreement here. Although Europe see it that way as well,
there is no attempt from on high to corrupt the science. Why is there
in the US? You tell me. Tom's approach is the one I work with, Harold
Weizner works with, Phil Morrision works with, etc. You get the picture.
 
|>   BTW, Tom's belief as of a few years ago was that any predictive transport
|> theory in something as complex as a tokamak would have to be semi-
|> empirical, and thus would come out of close collaboration between theory,
|> experiment, and numerical experiments. I think that the transport
|> initiative has at least pushed us in this direction. I do, however, wish
|> there were more money for "basic" research in these areas.
 
I do not believe that TTF is at all responsible for this. Too much
tolerance of sloppy, sometimes non-falsifiable, analytic storytelling.
The picture becomes obfuscated, not clarified. Too many people doing
simulations corrupted by that stuff see what they want to see because
they have put intellectual blinders on themselves.
 
|> > BTW, I do not mean models of the "diffusion coefficient", which I think
|> > does not exist. I mean direct simulation of the turbulent plasma dynamics.
|>
|>   A very good point. I hear talks that both mention \chi's and radial
|> correlation lengths that are a good fraction of the minor radius. There
|> is something wrong with this picture.
 
Note that the JET stuff didn't imply this: it was entirely in line with
Garbet's picture of radial propagation. The range of influence need not be
limited to a correlation length, because the chain of influence need not
be coherent. Very long correlation lengths inferred from such things as
beam emission spectroscopy are being checked and questioned; the measurements
are being re-done with a different set-up to minimise spurious corelation
due to "shadow effects". (I don't want to get into detail; this is something
Roger Durst explained to me and my understanding of it is not perfect.)
 
|> > I think there are a lot of people in the transport community who realize
|> > this, it is just that we are not in power.
|>
|>   I believe that TTF is a good thing. Granted there are people there
|> that have strong egos and also have a lot of power. Such is the nature
|> of science. But on the whole I think it has people working together to
|> an extent that they weren't before.
 
No, such is _not_ the nature of science! Artificial concentration of power
is _inimical_ to science. When people are chastised for criticising a
piece of work in the scientific literature before first bringing it up
at a TTF workshop, something is very wrong. There is absolutely no need
for any one ego or group of egos to dominate fusion science, theory or
experiment. Those who try to achieve that are doing damage, real damage.
 
|>   Also, Bruce seems to take Hunter & Molvig at face value -- that we won't
|> have fusion unless we understand transport and have predictive models for
|> it. Alas the development of air travel would have been in big trouble if
|> they'd had an attitude like this. In many current experiments the
|> confinement is good enough! The main limitation in many high-performance
|> shots is MHD stability. If we can't find ways to increase these stability
|> limits, and experimenters can consistently bump up against them, then why
|> do any more research on transport? Of course ITER is a considerable
|> extrapolation from current devices, so any predictive capability in either
|> transport or MHD would help to build confidence in the design. Or better
|> yet, might steer us to something smaller.
 
Reasonable point in general, but bad analogy. The aerospace crowd needed
only use wind tunnels to decide what to produce (which was cheap), and
then could produce prototypes and modify them until they had a working
craft. We cannot afford similar things on the ITER scale, and we have the
additional problem that tokamak performance on the scale of, say, ASDEX
or D-III-D (which are much better diagnosed than TFTR or JET) does not
scale up to ITER. In fact, the Rebut et al transport model used on JET
does not even scale _down_ to ASDEX. It predicts better confinement than
obtained on ASDEX. Guess what that means... ITER will be worse than
projections. If projections are all we have, we could be wrong enough to
make the difference between ignition and total failure. And yes, core
transport is vital to this. It is why the machine needs to be so big
in the first place! And BTW don't forget that airplanes were developed with
private resources. There were spectacular failures, but since the funding
was private, at least to lowest order, the resulting embarassment did
not become a political issue, and politics did not corrupt the work of
the engineers.
 
Dale, any comments? You know this history better than I.
 
This rush to ITER is a dangerous crap-shoot without understanding.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Poison Plutonium
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 01:15:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: logajan@anubis.network.com (John Logajan) in FD 1635:
 
>I believe Dieter made reference to the notion that Plutonium was poisonous
>regardless of its radioactivity.  It is in fact poisonous, but nothing on
>the order the scare-mongering Greens would have you believe.  It certainly
>isn't "the most deadly poison known to man" as some eco-hysterics have
>claimed.  I don't have the reference in front of me, but I believe its
>toxicity is on the order of some household chemicals.
 
I don't know where you get that information from, but John, I am disappointed
at your tone. Not all who are concerned about the environment of the future
are scaremongerers or eco-hysterics. Such terms are commonly used by people
who like to ignore problems, in order to be allowed to continue to use suspect
stuff, without having to worry. You are usually more thoughtful than this.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Mag. fields and D+ cond. / Not a "CF" theory / Aieee!... LaRouche!
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Mag. fields and D+ cond. / Not a "CF" theory / Aieee!... LaRouche!
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 01:15:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com in FD 1639:
 
(yes, I'm still reading FD, now by ftp; our News service seems to have broken
down)
 
>NOT A "COLD FUSION" THEORY!
 
[...]
>I made absolutely zero point zip claims in that direction, and also tried to
 
Aha! Here is Terry, weighing in with zero point (zip?) energy, and with his
own theory, the Zip Theory. Very interesting, tell us more, Terry. {:] Dear
old Nordic Nerd, on this terminal, I can do it.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Dieter Britz /  Re:Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 01:15:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Daryl Owen) in FD 1641:
[...]
>Dieter,
>The AIP Conference Proceedings No.228 contains a paper by Yamaguchi and
>Nishioka which addresses some of the problems you find with the above article.
> It also contains an extension of the above, titled "Second Stage Experiment-
>Current Injection"
 
Ah, so there was more work; why has this not been published properly, I
wonder?
 
> I find the AIP Conf. Proceedings paper by Yamaguchi et al "interesting" for the
>following reasons;
>1) Very large neutron bursts were observed from samples of Pd:D subject to
>  a pressure gradient across a thin film.
 
You are echoing the same idea as the authors seem to have, this pressure
gradient thing. You (they) would in fact get a greater gradient if they left
off the "Mn-O" layer altogether. But I still suspect that they have this
vision of deuteriums trying to get out, and bumping into each other as they
hit the barrier.
 
>2) The SAME samples could be repressurised with D and produce another burst
>  of neutrons.  Within these samples the neutrons were not a one shot
>  effect, indicating that neutron production was either from a durable site,
>  multiple sites were involved, or new sites could easily form.
 
Point taken; and of course, I have to admit that they DID get the odd large
neutron burst and, Dick Blue notwithstanding, seem to have detected them
convinvingly (to a neutron amateur such as myself), what with battery powering
and other apparatus turned off. And yet - see below.
 
>3) The same samples could produce a third very large neutron pulse after
>  repressurising with Nitrogen. This would tend to indicate that the neutron
>  producing process needed no D extra to that already in the Pd and that
>  the movement of D into the Pd was not part of the process. Nor is nitrogen
>  likely to be involved, it was probably not present in 1) and 2).
 
Here you (they) lose me. Are you suggesting that pressurising with N2 would
push D2 back into the Pd? It would not, it would keep coming out at about the
same rate it was doing so before the N2 was let in. And N2 does not enter Pd.
This is one of the things that make me suspect the work. I see absolutely no
rationale for this except as a test. The fact that they once again got a
neutron burst then makes me suspect it has something to do with the pump that
evacuated the system, iow, an electrical artifact after all, as Dick has been
trying to tell us (I think) all along.
 
>4) That the "Second Stage Experiment" could produce excess heat from H
> and D loaded Pd samples with no neutrons indicating a different process
> (non-nuclear?) for heat production than that occuring in 1).
 
Or the same, conventional mechano/chemical process? You must not needlessly
multiply entities.
 
> Most of the above inferences are mine. Flame me, not Yamaguchi and Nishioka.
> I am not interested in the thin film concept just as a speculative talking
> point in this news group. I hope to begin work in the new year in this area
> and any advice, quality informed criticism, or references will be much
> appreciated.
 
Well, mate, you might have a bit of fun anyway, so why not? My student is also
learning useful things in his (slow) progress with the measurement of power
fluctuations.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Neutrons
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrons
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 01:15:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It seems to me that Daryl Owen, and many others do not understand the difficuty
of measuring neutrons (or any other neutral particle).  Dick Blue is right.
Just because the thing that is labeled "neutron detector" counts a neutron, it
does not mean it *was* a neutron.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 01:16:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>Even the Boron cycle will have induced radioactivity from
>ion bombardment. IT is just a (very important) question of magnitude.
 
Well, John, you leave yourself an out, I see.  If it turns out that
the actual level of induced radioactivity is on the level of, say,
passive solar heating, you can point to your second sentence above
and say "See?  I SAID it was a VERY IMPORTANT question of magnitude."
 
Such cowardly intellectual pot-shots do nothing to advance dialogue.
What is your REAL opinion about "induced radioactivity" in p-B11 burners?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Striking it Rich
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Striking it Rich
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 01:16:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz wants to make money on the upcoming "cold fusion" conference.  I
would try by buying Palladium futures contracts.  To get the biggest bang with
the smallest amount of money, I would suggest some sort of a spread - like
buying Palladium and selling Gold or Platinum.  Note I actually did this last
year and make a thousand bucks or so.  But I did not do the spread, just
bought Pd long.  It happened to go up over the period that I held it.  As near
as I can tell completely unrelated to the conference.
 
If anyone out there is thinking of doing something like this, and is not
already "qualified" for futers trading, there is barely enough time to get
qualified and take a position before the "event".
 
As usual, this should not be considered as financial advice, you can only get
that from a properly licensed something or other in your particular country.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Bob Niland /  Re: plutonium
     
Originally-From: rjn@fc.hp.com (Bob Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plutonium
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 14:39:47 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet

Geert Bex k297 tel. 4799 (geert@sron.rug.nl) wrote:
>>Sure, you wouldn't want to eat Plutonium, but you wouldn't want to
>>drink Drano either.  Nevertheless, hysterical campaigns aren't mobilized
 
Didn't Petr Beckmann have a standing bet that he would swallow X amount
of plutonium if the bettor would swallow an identical amount of pure
caffeine?   (Assuming, of course, that the plutonium could be obtained.)
 
Regards,                                            1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland                                          Suite 503
Internet:  rjn@csn.org                              Fort Collins
CompuServe: 71044,2124                              Colorado     80525   USA
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrjn cudfnBob cudlnNiland cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 12:12:09 EST

         Bruce Scott asked:
>By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure
>for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like
>15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale).
         I replied in part:
> Your prediction of 25 in 50 years does not appear to have any
> substantial basis.
         Bruce Scott counters:
>Sorry, I really didn't expect it to, given the current eco-culture.
 
         You have answered your own question.  The 3-6 cent/kW-hour
figure is based on the current eco-culture.
         By the way I find the apparent belief among many fusion
proponents that a more powerful environmental movement will work in
fusion's favor naive at best.  The core of the environmental movement
is rejection of the modern world with its idea of progress.  For this
reason the environmental movement will find fusion power plants
incomparably more threatening than coal power plants.  Additionally
political restrictions on burning coal cause direct economic harm to
many people.  This creates a natural political counterweight to
environmentalist attempts to restrict use of coal which is not present
regarding attempts to restrict the use of fusion.  For these reasons
the effect of the environmental movement is likely to favor the use
of coal over the use of fusion to generate power just as currently the
effect of the environmental movement is to favor the use of coal over
the use of fission to generate power.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 13:55:31 EST

         Bruce Scott posted:
>I fear very much this scenario:
>
>billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
>
>while a slightly modified concept just a little way away in the space
>of configurations would have worked and we will never know it.
 
         What do you mean by "would have worked"?  It is my under-
standing that even if ITER performs as its proponents expect it will
not lead to an economically viable power reactor.  Is this not the
case?
         Barry Merriman asks:
>But isn't the current alternative scenario (in the US)
>
> no ITER --> end of fusion research
>
>?
 
         An obviously superior alternative as it saves billions.
         Barry Merriman also asked (reformatted):
>Is it not possible that certain desirable technologies
>are so expensive to
>develop that no private sector entity would assume the risk?
 
         Of course, however the following statements are also true.
    1.)  Certain desirable technologies are so expensive to develop
that their benefits do not cover their development costs.
    2.)  Development costs are difficult to predict.
    3.)  In some cases benefits are also difficult to predict.
    4.)  Government support of some technologies may hamper develop-
ment of more desirable alternatives.
    5.)  US government technology development spending decisions are
quite political.
    6.)  As a results of the above factors it is possible (likely?)
that we would be better off if the US government didn't spend money
developing technology.
         Barry Merriman also claimed:
>How about, say, jet aircraft and satellites; I suspect these were originally
>developed by the government labs. Look like winners to me. In fact, I
>would guess the gov't is no better or worse at picking winners than
>any other entity. What you probably object to is they suffer little penalty
>for bad picks.
 
         Actually there is reason to expect the US government to be
worse at picking winners than private entities.  This is because the
US government is not trying to pick winners in the same sense that
private entities do.  US government spending is politically driven
and its primary objective is to gain votes and/or campaign money.
For example I doubt any objective observor believes the space station
Freedom (or whatever its called now) is a good idea yet it continues
to obtain large amounts of government money.
         Barry Smith posted (reformatted):
>solar radiation is surprisingly high;
>peak at sea level is roughly 1 kilowatt per square meter
         Barry Merriman asked:
>Are you sure about this? If I recall, the solar constant is about
>1300 W/m^2, and that is what is incident *above* the atmoshpere. I
>can't believe that most of that makes it down to sea level.
 
         1 kilowatt per square meter is the figure usually given.
See for example "Photovoltaics: Unlimited Electrical Energy from the
Sun", Jack Stone, Physics Today, September 1993, p. 25.  Here it is
stated "On a typical land area on Earth, approximately 1000 W/m**2
of energy from photons is available for conversion into electrical
power at solar noon."  This is on a cloudless day and includes
scattered light.  The same source gives 1367 W/m**2 above the atmo-
sphere.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / John Logajan /  Meyer patent for producing H2 and O2
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Meyer patent for producing H2 and O2
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 20:21:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I sent for four of the Stanley Meyer patents another poster had mentioned.
These patents represent a time span of a few years, and so there is some
evolution in his methods and claims.  Here follows the essential technical
details of the most recent of the four previously mentioned patents.
 
Meyer's claim to fame is that this device produces H2 and O2 gases from
H2O without regard to Faraday's Law governing gas production and
electrolytic current.  Elsewhere he makes further claims.
 
 
 US Patent # 4936961, Applied 6/16/88, Granted 6/26/90
 Stanley A. Meyer, Grover City, Ohio, USA
 
 Method For The Production Of A Fuel Gas
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |   Pulse train generator consisting of:                                |
 | - Variable amplitude, variable frequency, 50% duty cycle, pulse train.|
 | - Variable frequency, variable duty cycle, pulse train gate.          |
 |                  _   _   _           _   _   _                        |
 |    i.e.        _| |_| |_| |_________| |_| |_| |_                      |
 |                                                                       |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      |
      | Vpp ~ 26V (Patent says 0Khz, a probable misprint.)
      |
      |
      |  T1 = Transformer, Ferrite Toroid 1.5" Diameter, 0.25" thick
      |
      |_    _______________|\|___________________
 200   _)||(_              |/|                  |
 turns _)||(_ 600 turns                         |
 24    _)||(_ 36 gauge    D1 1N1198 diode       |
 gauge _)||(_____                               |
      |         |                               |
    -----       |_                              |_
   / / /         _)                              _)  T2 Inductor
                 _)<-| T3 Variable inductor      _)  100 turns
                 _)  |    Unspecified value      _)  24 gauge
                 _)__|                           _)  1.0" diameter
                |             ___               |
                |            / _ \  Water       |
                |           / / \ \ Capacitor   |
                |------------<   > >------------|
                            \ \_/ / Stainless steel (T-304)
                             \___/  Concentric cylinders
                                    4.0" tall, 0.5" inner cylinder O.D.
                                    0.0625" spacing
 
 
The water capacitor concentric plates are immersed in distilled water.
 
The frequency of the pulse train and/or inductor T3 is tuned to achieve a
resonance of the inductor/capacitor circuit.
 
The frequency and duty cycle of the pulse train gate is tuned for maximum
gas flow at minimum input current.
 
The amplitude of the pulse train voltage is used to control the amount
of gas evolution.
 
All three above adjustments are somewhat interacting.
 
Meyer claims the resulting incrementing step waveform on plates of the
water capacitor simultaneously induce an excited resonance in the water
dielectric molecules and continually increase the voltage gradient against
which the water molecules are eventually torn apart.
 
Meyer explicitly attempts to prevent "electron leakage" through the dielectric.
In lieu of a breakdown current sensor (which I believe he has in other reported
variations of this theme) the gating of the pulse train is essentially
adjusted to avoid that by periodically allowing a rest period.  Since the
gating frequency and duty cycle are tuned to achieve maximum gas at minimum
current, that goal is accomplished implicitly.
 
 
What has all this to do with cold fusion?
 
Well, in patent #4826581, applied for 8/5/87, Stanley A. Meyer claims a method
of cold fusion built around this very device.  Interestingly, he cites, as
the prior art, Rafelski, J. and Jones, S.E., in a July 1987, Scientific
American article entitled, "Cold Nuclear Fusion."  It's a small world after
all.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 10 Nov 1993 20:30:32 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <19931110.093830.602@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
 
|>          By the way I find the apparent belief among many fusion
|> proponents that a more powerful environmental movement will work in
|> fusion's favor naive at best.
 
Where-ever did you get this??? We have no illusions about this, as far as
I know. BTW I have always thought of 15 cents/kW-hr, for whatever it is
worth. That's close to what I pay here.
 
[ideology deleted]
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: fusion economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion economics
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 15:22:32 EST

         Robert Heeter posts:
>This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
>designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
>*is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
>it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
>take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
>you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
>test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
>as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
 
         This would seem to depend on what requirements you are placing
on the new materials.  If they are expected to do the same things as
steel at the same cost as steel while being produced in minute volumes
compared to steel very seems generous.  So what properties are these
new materials required to have?
         Robert Heeter also posts:
>The 3-6 cents that I've been quoting was independently arrived-at in
>two different studies.  The ESECOM study (Holdren et al, summary published
>in Fusion Technology, Jan '88) has various tokamak designs coming out
>in the 3.5-5.3 cents/kW-hr range, using 1986 dollars.  The idea they had
>was to compare their designs with current and future fission designs,
>so that they could assess whether fusion might be feasible.  The
>best-present-experience LWR is about 3.3 cents/kW-hr, and the median
>is 5.7 cents/kW-hr.  (Again, 1986 dollars.)  As I understand the
>article, they are demonstrating that their fusion designs can be
>competitive, and the estimated cost is placed in today's reference
>frame so that it can be compared with other technologies.
>
>Conn, et al, in the ARIES studies, arrive at similar conclusions.
>The cover of the booklet I have lists the title as "Fusion Reactor
>Economic, Safety, and Environmental Prospects", and says that the paper
>was submitted to _Nuclear Fusion_  ca. 1990.  I don't know whether
>it was published, alas.  Conn gives 4.8-6.5 cents/kWhr for fusion
>and 4.6 cents and 7.8 cents for Better Experience / Median experience
>PWR fission plants.  These are in 1988 dollars.
>
>I hope this clarifies the numbers!  I'd be happy to discuss the studies
>more; this is all new to me.
 
       Ok, lets start with the fission figures.  Why the difference
between the two studies (much more than can be explained by the
difference between 1986 and 1988 dollars)?  Why aren't average and bad
experience numbers given?  These figures are the reason utilities
aren't ordering fission power plants.  What plants are included in
figuring the median experience?  If only operating plants are included
this biases the figures a lot.  How do fission costs break down
between capital, fuel and operating costs?  Why is fusion expected to
be cheaper than fission?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Ad aspera /  FYI #148, 10 Nov 93 (JBJ, at Krebs hearing, on research)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI #148, 10 Nov 93 (JBJ, at Krebs hearing, on research)
Date: 11 Nov 1993 00:24:28 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 
[Written by the American Institute of Physics and posted by us.
Respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other references below.  Always
posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
column WHAT'S NEW, are archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous
FTP'ing pleasure, courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]
 
"Musings of My Own" -
    Sen. Johnston's Worries About DOE Science Program
 
FYI No. 148, November 10, 1993
 
The November 3 confirmation hearing of Martha Krebs to be Director
of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Research gave
Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana) an opportunity to express
some of his concerns about the future of the department's science
program.  Clearly upset about the recent decision to terminate the
SSC, Johnston warned that other DOE science programs could be
threatened.
 
This one hour hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee was called to receive testimony from Martha
Krebs, nominated by President Clinton to be new director of the
Office of Energy Research.  Krebs should have no trouble in
receiving confirmation; Johnston and Ranking Republican Senator
Larry Craig (R-Idaho) were very supportive of the nominee.  Krebs
has served as the Associate Director at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory for the last ten years, chiefly involved in strategic
planning.  She was once staff director of a House science
subcommittee with oversight responsibility for high energy and
nuclear physics programs.  Krebs' prepared testimony outlined the
need for the U.S. to maintain its strength in energy research, the
need to balance basic and applied research, and other major
challenges facing DOE.
 
Most of the hearing revolved around Johnston's "musings" about the
future of DOE's science program.  Saying that the SSC cancellation
is a "good indication of what trouble science is in," Johnston
emphatically warned that the U.S. fusion program is at risk.  He is
a fusion supporter, but characterized the program as "extremely
expensive" and controversial, which thus far has proceeded
"willy-nilly."  Johnston called for congressional debate on fusion,
specifically the ITER program, before a decision is made to proceed
with the TPX program at Princeton.  Although the Senate has passed
Johnston's fusion bill focusing U.S. efforts on ITER, he is
critical of the administration, saying, "I suspect the message has
not gotten through."  Without stronger administration and
congressional commitments on fusion, Johnston said he would be
"implacably opposed" to funding the TPX experiment.
 
Warning scientists that it is "just not good enough any more" for
a project to receive congressional support on its merits alone,
Johnston warned of significant funding problems next year for ITER.
All that most Members of Congress know about fusion, he warned, is
that funding for it seems endless.  The U.S. contribution to the
ITER project could eventually reach $10 billion.
 
Turning to high energy physics, Johnston warned that the SSC
termination portends much for the field, and for science.  He cited
recent conference report language calling for a orderly termination
of the SSC, requiring DOE to develop a plan for high energy physics
research.  Johnston said that Europeans might be less likely to
continue efforts at CERN, since they might conclude "we [Europe]
can't fund something they [the U.S.] can't."  While there is
speculation that the U.S. and CERN might work together, he said
that it would be "extremely hard" for Congress to fund CERN after
it voted to cancel the SSC.
 
Johnston said no assumptions should be made about the certainty of
future funding for the B-Factory and Fermilab's Main Injector
programs.  He was also troubled about the lack of legislation
widening the role of DOE's national laboratories.
 
Senator Craig said he would underscore everything Johnston had
said.  Warning that the "days of the mega-projects may be gone,"
Craig cautioned that Congress may now focus on the next level down
of science funding.  Particular care needs to be given, he
stressed, to management issues and to a project's tangible benefits
to the taxpayer.  Craig also lectured Krebs about DOE's refusal to
fund a controversial Boron Neutron Capture Therapy experiment at
its power burst reactor in Idaho for the treatment of brain tumors.
 
At the conclusion of the hearing, Krebs said that Johnston's
message had been very clear.  No doubt his musings were also
intended as a signal to the science community.
 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
(202) 332-9661
###############
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 /  an9124@anon.pe /  Neutron Guns (was Re: Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?)
     
Originally-From: an9124@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron Guns (was Re: Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 00:38:03 UTC
Organization: Anonymous contact service

In article <1993Nov9.211238.92990@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> dowen@vaxc.cc.m
nash.edu.au writes:
x>In article <01H52G83HLVMHV0WWS@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk
x> (Dieter Britz) writes:
x>>
 
[Munch]
 
x>> The results obtained, however, are clear enough, almost.
 
[Munch]
 
x>> there was a huge
x>> burst of neutrons, 0.1-0.2 mSv/h for 2-3 secs. Later they translate
x>> this into a neutron flux (at 0.1 mSv/h) of 72 n/cm^2/s, and then give
x>> us some more information by the back door, in converting this to a
x>> total neutron flux of 1-2*10^6 ditto, by assuming equal flux in all
x>> direction - in other words, we are here told about the catching angle
x>> (or whatever the experts call it) of the neutron detector, with the
x>> plate at the centre. The experiment was repeated twice, to check
x>> reproducibility.
 
[Munch]
 
x>> 1. Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;     Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Part 2 29(4) (1990)
x>> L666. "Cold fusion induced by controlled out-diffusion of deuterons in
x>> palladium".
 
[Munch]
 
x> 1) Very large neutron bursts were observed from samples of Pd:D subject
x>    to a pressure gradient across a thin film.
x>
x> 2) The SAME samples could be repressurised with D and produce another
x>    burst of neutrons.  Within these samples the neutrons were not a one
x>    shot effect, indicating that neutron production was either from a
x>    durable site, multiple sites were involved, or new sites could
x>    easily form.
x>
x> 3) The same samples could produce a third very large neutron pulse
x>    after repressurising with Nitrogen. This would tend to indicate that
x>    the neutron producing process needed no D extra to that already in
x>    the Pd and that the movement of D into the Pd was not part of the
x>    process. Nor is nitrogen likely to be involved, it was probably not
x>    present in 1) and 2).
 
Does this experiment have any relationship to the ferro-electric
neutron guns used to accelerate the reactions in thermonuclear
weapons? Is the Neutron flux figure given within the range required
for that use?
 
Is there much information available in the public domain about
the latter? If so, could someone post some references?
 
The outdated polonium/beryllium golfball technology is well known, but
AFAIK the principles behind the newer neutron guns used in current
fusion weapon designs are not. It's quite possible that the work done
on that technology may have some bearing on this work by Yamaguchi,
and that Yamaguchi is merely reinventing a wheel or two...
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenan9124 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / James Crotinger /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 11 Nov 93 01:49:07 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>          What do you mean by "would have worked"?  It is my under-
> standing that even if ITER performs as its proponents expect it will
> not lead to an economically viable power reactor.  Is this not the
> case?
 
  The answer, of course, depends on the assumptions you make. Running
ITER might lead us to better designs that could be much more
efficient. (It might also be possible to reach these designs without
building ITER.)
 
  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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.10 / Joshua Levy /  Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: 10 Nov 1993 18:16:59 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   Papers which looked only for neutrons when there are few to less, or
>which failed to achieve reasonable loadings (i.e. high D/Pd ratios), or
>which used insensitive monitoring techniques are not quality papers.
 
By this defintion, neither P&F's 1989 work nor Yamaguchi's work is
"quality", since both used insensitve monitors.  Are you going to
stop refering to these experiments?  Or is the definition of quality
different for positive experiments than for negative ones?
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / James Crotinger /  Re: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
Date: 11 Nov 93 02:03:10 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
> |> [...] But by doing so they motivated the theorists, computational
> |> physicists, and experimentalists to make a concerted attempt to understand
> |> anomalous transport.
 
> This effort was well underway prior to TTF and in part was corrupted by
> the premature, forced effort towards consensus. Leave out the force, and
> what people (at least some of them) were doing was science. The S/N ratio
> of physics research in the fusion community has dropped precipitously
> since the establishment of TTF. Just-so stories have become the norm rather
> than the exception. Before, some theory was less than logically
> consistent (eg, "rippling mode transport"). Now, there is work that is
> accepted that is logically self-contradictory, which is a different matter
> entirely.
 
  This effort was underway in places. TEXT is one place that has always
seemed to have a healty working relationship between theory/exp/simulation.
However I was always struck that places like MIT, TFTR, and perhaps GA,
were spending most of there efforts trying to pump out better parameters
without making real efforts to diagnose the experiments in such a way that
the theorists might gain some insight into what was going on.
 
> [lines with |> > were written by me]
 
> |> ((Why global?))
 
> Because of the evidence that transport is non-local, ie, the fluxes of
> particles and energy at a given radius depend on parameters and gradients
> not only at that radius, but also at radii a certain distance away. Recent
> results from JET L-H transition data suggest that distance can be as
> large as 40 cm (1/3 the minor radius). See Xavier Garbet's ideas on
> radial propagation for what we need to consider.
>
 
> |> Take Tom Dupree (my advisor at MIT) as an example. Definitely one of the
> |> "honest" guys, and a top-notch one at that.
 
> No doubt about it. He made my day in 1991 by telling me spontaneously
> that analytic theory had no chance to reproduce the complexity that
> emerges from self-consistent computation. Too bad some of his stature
> couldn't rub off onto a certain protege, eh? (Not you, of course!)
 
  Ahem, no comment. 8-)
 
> |>   BTW, Tom's belief as of a few years ago was that any predictive
> |> transport theory in something as complex as a tokamak would have to be
> |> semi- empirical, and thus would come out of close collaboration
> |> between theory, experiment, and numerical experiments. I think that
> |> the transport initiative has at least pushed us in this direction. I
> |> do, however, wish there were more money for "basic" research in these
> |> areas.
 
> I do not believe that TTF is at all responsible for this. Too much
> tolerance of sloppy, sometimes non-falsifiable, analytic storytelling.
> The picture becomes obfuscated, not clarified. Too many people doing
> simulations corrupted by that stuff see what they want to see because
> they have put intellectual blinders on themselves.
 
  There are certainly instances of this. In general I think people need to
be more careful in there numerical work. Of course, seeing what you want to
see is hardly a new phenomenon. In Genius, Gleich gives a good example of
the experimenters that were trying to verify Milikan's incorrect result for
the ratio e/m. All the initial experiments agreed with Milikan's, and then
they slowly drifted to the right answer. It is difficult to be perfectly
objective. And the presence of prominant researchers with strong
personalities can make this even more difficult. 8-)
 
> |> > BTW, I do not mean models of the "diffusion coefficient", which I
> |> > think does not exist. I mean direct simulation of the turbulent
> |> > plasma dynamics.
> |>
> |>   A very good point. I hear talks that both mention \chi's and radial
> |> correlation lengths that are a good fraction of the minor radius. There
> |> is something wrong with this picture.
 
> Note that the JET stuff didn't imply this: it was entirely in line with
> Garbet's picture of radial propagation. The range of influence need not be
> limited to a correlation length, because the chain of influence need not
> be coherent. Very long correlation lengths inferred from such things as
> beam emission spectroscopy are being checked and questioned; the measurements
> are being re-done with a different set-up to minimise spurious corelation
> due to "shadow effects". (I don't want to get into detail; this is something
> Roger Durst explained to me and my understanding of it is not perfect.)
 
  This I don't understand. Just from physics arguments, how can the
turbulence at one point know about something that is happening more than a
few correlation lengths away. Unless the turbulence at that point is
actually just the result of unstable waves that have propagated from
another part of the plasma (ala Nathan Mattor's "Edge is a Beach" theory),
but I'm not completely sure that such a theory can hold up.
 
> No, such is _not_ the nature of science! Artificial concentration of power
> is _inimical_ to science. When people are chastised for criticising a
> piece of work in the scientific literature before first bringing it up
> at a TTF workshop, something is very wrong. There is absolutely no need
> for any one ego or group of egos to dominate fusion science, theory or
> experiment. Those who try to achieve that are doing damage, real damage.
 
  I'm not saying that it should be the nature of science. Maybe I should
have said that it is the nature of scientists. Many smart people have big
egos. Those that are also strongly extroverted tend to dominate things.
But I truly believe that such domination can only be transient if these
people don't also do good science. After all, they do have reality (either
via experiments or simulations) that they must ultimately contend with.
 
> Reasonable point in general, but bad analogy. The aerospace crowd needed
> only use wind tunnels to decide what to produce (which was cheap), and
> then could produce prototypes and modify them until they had a working
> craft. We cannot afford similar things on the ITER scale, and we have the
> additional problem that tokamak performance on the scale of, say, ASDEX
> or D-III-D (which are much better diagnosed than TFTR or JET) does not
> scale up to ITER. In fact, the Rebut et al transport model used on JET
> does not even scale _down_ to ASDEX. It predicts better confinement than
> obtained on ASDEX. Guess what that means... ITER will be worse than
> projections. If projections are all we have, we could be wrong enough to
> make the difference between ignition and total failure. And yes, core
> transport is vital to this. It is why the machine needs to be so big
> in the first place!
 
  Scott Haney has done simulations of ITER with numerous transport models.
While in some respects RLW is good for ITER, it is not the "best" scaling
law around. In fact, I believe it is one of the worst; i.e. it is very
conservative. As you say, this leads to a very big machine that is probably
way over-designed. If it doesn't ignite, then fusion just isn't possible in
a tokamak. Most people think that it will almost certainly ignite. The
question is, are we wasting a lot of money by being over-conservative?  The
machine is such a big extrapolation that it is hard to tell. I think many
people believe that it would be better to build a scaled up version of TPX
first. I don't know why Rebut is opposed to such a path.
 
> This rush to ITER is a dangerous crap-shoot without understanding.
 
  I don't know if I'd call it a crap-shoot. I do not believe it is likely
to fail, if by success you mean does it ignite. It may be a crap-shoot in
that it makes Fusion a visible target for congress, which, in its usual
short-sighted attempt to balance the budget by cutting basic science and
R&D, will cancel funding and kill the entire US fusion program.  8-(.
 
  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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Jim Bowery /  Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 06:26:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:

jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:
>
>bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>
>> I think there are a lot of people in the transport community who realize
>> this, it is just that we are not in power.
>
>  I believe that TTF is a good thing. Granted there are people there
>that have strong egos and also have a lot of power. Such is the nature
>of science.
 
Such is the nature of politics.
 
Science depends on people not having "big egos" or other limbic noise
routinely overridding their neocortical functions.
 
Of course, to the extent that society decides it is appropriate to
fund science through the political process, we will find limbic
noise increasingly dominant among those receiving funds for "science."
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Is 5 minutes often enough
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is 5 minutes often enough
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 02:49:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov9.191920.3200@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     Tom and you conspired to put on a ftp site.
>
>In exchange for immunity I will name names!  It was really Tom Droege
>and Charles Harrison who were the co-conspirators.
 
    Abject apologies to Mr. Harrison...
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Global carbon dioxide and global warming
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global carbon dioxide and global warming
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 02:54:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov9.200932.19544@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>Personally, I think we would be better off with fission, and it's
>always good to try to find new sources of energy.  (Of course, we
>won't find any by investigating the claims of dishonest incompetents
>like you-know-who.)
 
     I agree here that we would be far better off with fission.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: FAQ-Table - Expt. Error
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ-Table - Expt. Error
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 02:52:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CG8uuq.9Kw@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>    In Message-ID: <CG8CoD.4Iy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>    Subject: Re: FAQ-Table On Cold Fusion Systems
>Cameron Randale Bass [crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU] wrote:
 
>>  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
>>   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0
>
>    "Experimental Error                            60"
>
>
> Dale, if you can prove it (by more then loquacious banter) it will be
>       appended.
>                                        Mitchell Swartz
>                                        mica@world.std.com
 
      I appended two words and a number to your table in an article
      with tens, nay dozens, of words and number.  It may be banter,
      but it was darn succinct.
 
      My 'proof' is given by interpolation from present experimental
      technique...
 
                              dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Mark Hittinger /  re: Striking it rich
     
Originally-From: bugs@netsys.com (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Striking it rich
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 04:35:18 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

 
Just a quick note - DO NOT do the spread against gold!  Things were going
a little nuts today with the grains going up.  Gold has been strong.
 
Palladium is heading up in general with the other precious metals.  If
somebody gets some media attention at the conference that could be a
short term bonus.
 
Just wanted to throw my two cents in and suggest against shorting gold
right now.
 
 ---------------------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Blooperberg
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blooperberg
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 03:33:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <931110142000_76570.2270_BHA26-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Thank you for your continuing stream of nonsense, Greg. My file of your nitwit
>remarks is growing ever more delicious and amazing. I encourage you to keep it
>up! Furthermore, I encourage you to attack me and other CF R&D people with
>even more gusto. It will make your self-hanging even more joyous to watch.
>Observing you is like watching a cartoon character careen toward the edge of
>the Grand Canyon. You've passed the edge and are suspended in mid-air ready
>for your fall. On the subject of cold fusion you are an incompetent boob.
>Period! You want to find new sources of energy and the best one of all is
>right before your eyes. You are such a crackpot and fool that you can't
>recognize it. Too bad for you.
>
>P.S. I used to work on fission power, but I can tell you that fission is
>finished, Gonzo!
>
>Worst wishes, Gene Mallove
 
     Such scintillating repartee.  Such delicate phrasing.  What
     a joy it is to watch.
 
     I take it the facts are getting uncomfortable?
 
                                dale bass
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Impressive doggies!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Impressive doggies!
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 03:36:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov9.220703.22384@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
>Off-topic & utterly irrelevent, but I just can't resist:
>
>In article <2bo7piINNhqf@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>  ...
>> Concerning the ACUTE toxicity of different substances, I offer a table:
>>
>> SUBSTANZ     LD50    ADMINISTRATION
>> ethanol              10^5    i.p.
>  ...
>> *studies on dogs
>> LD50 is the number of grams of the substance per kilogram body weight that
>> kills half the animals
>  ...
>> i.p. = intraperitoneal injektion
>
>
>Er... wouldn't that be a tummy injection of about 1 U.S. ton of ethanol
>per 20 pound chihuahua?
 
     The other half just get a really really bad hangover.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / mitchell swartz /  The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 05:50:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <2bs7ar$6jd@fever.veritas.com>
     Subject: Re: The Fleet of "Counterresults" - Sinking
Joshua Levy (joshua@veritas.com) writes:
 
   =ms  Papers which looked only for neutrons when there are few to less, or
   =ms  which failed to achieve reasonable loadings (i.e. high D/Pd ratios), or
   =ms  which used insensitive monitoring techniques are not quality papers.
 
=  "By this defintion, neither P&F's 1989 work nor Yamaguchi's work is
=  "quality", since both used insensitve monitors.  Are you going to
=  stop refering to these experiments?  Or is the definition of quality
=  different for positive experiments than for negative ones?"
 
  In 1989 P&F did look for a non-neutronic signal (i.e. excess
enthalpy), did achieve adequate loading, and apparently did
have a sensitive monitoring technique.
 
                              Mitchell Swartz <mica@world.std.com>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Windycon
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Windycon
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 09:08:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Anyone in the Chicago area that cares, can meet me at the Chicago Science
Fiction convention - Windycon.  Its at the Schaumberg Hyatt, on Golf Road
just north of Woodfield Mall and west of Route 53.  I will talk on saturday,
at 2 pm.  "Science in the Basement College".  You will have to pay to get in.
I have no idea what I will say, and not the foggiest idea of why I accepted.
It seemed fun at the time.  I have never been to a science fiction convention,
and am afraid that my view follows the "Get a Life" view of the "Bad Captain
Kirk" in the Saturday Night Live skit.  In case this is delayed, the date of
my talk is Saturday November 13, 1993.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Jim Bowery /  Monomorium Santschii Exposed
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monomorium Santschii Exposed
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 09:08:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Written by the American Institute of Physics
>FYI No. 148, November 10, 1993
>
>said.  Warning that the "days of the mega-projects may be gone,"
>Craig cautioned that Congress may now focus on the next level down
>of science funding.
 
"
I think a few choice excerpts from "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard
Dawkins are in order right about now (chapter "Arms Races and Manipulation):
 
Hamilton and Orians (1965) express the problem vividly:  'Young brown-
headed cowbirds and European Cuckoos, as they reach their maximum
dimension, dwarf their foster parents.  Consider the ludicrous sight of
a tiny Garden Warbler ... standing atop a cuckoo to reach the mouth of
the gaping parasite.  Why does not the Garden Warbler take the adaptive
measure of abandoning the nestling prematurely, especially when to the
human observer it is so clearly identifiable?'
...
Various authors have invoked the 'supernormal stimulus', in one form
or another.  Thus Lack remarks that 'the young cuckoo, with its huge
gape and loud begging call, has evidently evolved in exaggerated form the
stimuli which elicit the feeding response of parent passerine birds. So
much is this so that there are many records of adult passerine birds
feeding a fledged young C. canorus raised by a different host species; this,
like lipstick in the courtship of mankind, demonstrates successful
exploitation by means of a "super-stimulus".'  Wickler (1968) makes a
similar point, quoting Heinroth as having referred to foster parents
behaving like 'addicts', and to the cuckoo nestling as a 'vice of its
foster parents'.
...
Any nervous system can be subverted if treated in the right way.  ...
a cuckoo in the nest has GOT to manipulate its host successfully or
it will surely die;  its individual foster-parent will benefit
somewhat if it resists manipulation, but it still has a good chance of
future reproductive success in other years even if it fails to resist
this particular cuckoo.  Moreover, cuckoos might be sufficiently rare
that the risk of an individual of the foster species being parasitized
is low; conversely the 'risk' of an individual cuckoo's being a parasite
is 100 percent, no matter how common or rare either party to the arms
race may be.  The cuckoo is descended from a line of ancestors, every
single one of whom has successfully fooled a host.  The host is
descended from a line of ancestors, many of whom may never have
encountered a cuckoo in their lives, or may have reproduced successfully
after being parasitized by a cuckoo.  The arms race concept completes
the classical supernormal stimulus explanation, by providing a functional
account of the host's maladaptive behavior, instead of leaving it
as an unexplained limitation of the nervous system.
...
The drug analogy is especially apt for insect 'cuckoos' that use chemical
means to coerce their hosts into acts that are profoundly damaging to
their own inclusive fitness.  Several species of ant have no workers of
their own.  The queens invade nests of other species, dispose of the
host queen, and use the host workers to bring up their own reproductive
young.  The method of disposing of the host queen varies.  In some species
... the parasite queen rides about on the back of the host queen and then,
in Wilson's (1971) delightful description, 'begins the one act for which
she is uniquely specialized:  slowly cutting off the head of her victim'.
 
Monomorium santschii achieves the same result by more subtle means.  The
host workers have weapons wielded by strong muscles, and nerves attached
to the muscles;  why should the parasite queen exert her own jaws if she
can subvert the nervous system controlling the numerous jaws of the host
workers?  It does not seem to be known how she achieves it, but she does;
the host workers kill their own mother and adopt the usurper.
...
Let me stress again what a feat of mind-control the Monomorium santschii
queen achieves.  To a sterile worker ant, her mother is a kind of genetic
gold-mine.  For a worker ant to kill her own mother is an act of genetic
madness.
"
 
The evolutionary incentive created by the centralization of food/labor
in the ant colony is very much like that created by centralization of
wealth/power in the Federal Government.  We should expect a similar
kind of "arms race" wherein we the people are manipulated, not by
a gaping cuckoo's mouth or insect phermones, but by words and images
which we find appealing.  At some level of centralization, the magnitude
of resources that can be brought to bear in evolving successful sound/image
patterns that overcome our critical faculties is so great that there is
little hope we will be able to discriminate between "immensely valuable
 programs for which we must all sacrifice" and the programs which parasites
have usurped for their own (in this case political if not genetic) ends.
 
Further, we should expect to find many "insider" individuals working
feverishly in support and defense of the parasites, NOT because they
share in the political or genetic interests of the parasites, but because
they are the foremost target of the parasites' manipulative adaptations.
 
Sen. Craig doesn't go far enough, but he is making a good start.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / R Schroeppel /  Neutron accelerators?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron accelerators?
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 09:09:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Can you make a neutron accelerator by somehow grabbing the
magnetic moment of the n?  Will this work with neutral atoms?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Neutrons
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons
Date: 11 Nov 1993 06:22:36 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: It seems to me that Daryl Owen, and many others do not understand the difficuty
: of measuring neutrons (or any other neutral particle).  Dick Blue is right.
: Just because the thing that is labeled "neutron detector" counts a neutron, it
: does not mean it *was* a neutron.
 
Exactly.
 
Think:  If you have a "health detector" type of meter, it's job is
to make sure to register something *if* there's neutrons (otherwise the
manufacturer gets sued).  It doesn't try very hard at all to make sure
to never register anything by accident in the abscence of neutrons.
 
: Tom Droege
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Arthur Carlson /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 11 Nov 1993 10:18:40 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

Sorry two. There was a typo in my table of acute toxicities:
        The LD50 of ethanol is only 10^4 mg/kg.
For you dog lovers, that means 100 g/10 kg chihuahua, which sounds about right.
 
If I may emphasize the bottom line concerning the toxicity of plutonium:
        Plutonium is safer relative to botolinustoxin
        than ethanol is to plutonium.
Would you rather drink alcohol than inhale plutonium?
        Yes, yes, yes, please!
Would you rather inhale plutonium than be injected with botulism?
        Yes, yes, yes, please!
 
Art Carlson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnCarlson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Tempest over a turbopump
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tempest over a turbopump
Date: 11 Nov 93 21:36:06 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks
In article <93110911412529@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
writes:
> To recap:  Daryl Owen made reference to a contribution by Yamaguchi and
> Nishioka in the proceedings of the conference held at BYU in 1990.  He
> asserted that their experimental results were "definitive".  I countered
> by pointing out that their neutron detection methods were suspect, and
> made .....
>
    .....................MANY LINES DELETED...........................
>
> Now in the course of these messages, I made reference to "bad science"
> and refered to Yamaguchi and Nishioka as being "clowns".  Daryl suggests
> that I should appologize for these characterizations.  My feeling is that
> the bad science label is well deserved, and I stand by it.  "Clowns"
> probably was not appropriate, and I do apologize for having used that
> word.
>
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
>
 Firstly: Dick, Bravo for the apology! You have acknowledged that they used an,
in situ, checking technique, in a previous post and did not just take.....
"somekind of a survey meter, stuck it near their experiment,and read the dial."
 If you now still believe that the experiment is "bad science" that is your
perogative.
 However, concerning the first part of your above posting........
 I did not state ...." that their experimental results were definitive",
that would imply that their definitive RESULTS were repeatable and without
peer. Here, I point out that I have been recently critical of their poor
neutron measurments.
 What I did say, in one post I typed on the 27-Oct-93 and again in an item
posted on the 1-Nov-93 was.....
"This,IMHO, definitive experiment, is the one performed by Eiichi Yamaguchi and
Takashi Nishioka published in......"
 The reason why I said "definitive" was that it tested the thin film
hypothesis, using, I believe, a rather elegant experiment. If no neutrons or
heat had been observed, I would still have considered it a definitive TEST
of the thin film concept and probably would have dropped the topic.
 
                                      Kind Regards to all,
                                      Daryl Owen.
 
 The above musings are only attributable to my Muse and myself.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / mitchell swartz /  Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 12:39:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <2bt3i0INNn3d@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
    Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Arthur Carlson  [awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de)]  writes:
 
=  "Would you rather inhale plutonium than be injected with botulism?
=   Yes, yes, yes, please!"
 
   First, botulin toxin usual declares itself by deforming any
container containing it.  Plutonium does not given any such warning.
 
   Second, for botulin toxin there are antidotes, antitoxins, and
in fact even in the worst case the patient can be given put on a
ventilator until the crisis is over.   There is nothing comparable
for plutonium, is there?   Who will support the patient during even one
entire half-life?
 
   Third, botulin toxin is a biomaterial and can decompose.
 
   Fourth, Mr. Carlson may apparently be in favor of widespread
dissemination of plutonium based upon his minimization of the
hazards, especially the inhalation hazard.  Why?
 
  This peculiar neo-almost-thinking is as flawed as the claim that
plutonium is no more dangerous than chlorine or other useful materials.
 
  "I`m not a plutonium expert, but I believe I know a little more than some
  of you. First, plutonium is indeed a poison. Just like chlorine, lead
  and other useful materials"
          [geert@sron.rug.nl (Geert Bex k297 tel. 4799)
           Message-ID: <9311091122.AA13478@sron.rug.nl>]
 
   Following this extrapolation, next we shall read that perhaps there
is a need for "vitamin Pu".   Perhaps Mr. Carlson and the other
plutophiles would next prefer substituting plutonium for chlorine
in cleaning materials?                            ;-)
 
   "Plutonium-suds -->   gives the cleanest brightest shine to your
     for Laundry         clothes AND the Environment ----
                       [A proud product of Carlson & (You) Gamble]"
 
 
  There are just too many people who are wrongly terrified of
ionizing radiation (ie. very low levels comparable to background or
therapeutic radiation) and these bizarre flawed claims that plutonium has
toxicity comparable to ethanol in vodka or chlorine used in the drinking
water are probably not the way to correct those misunderstandings.
 
             Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 11 Nov 1993 13:08:59 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <19931110.115221.874@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
|>          Bruce Scott posted:
|> >I fear very much this scenario:
|> >
|> >billions --> ITER --> failure --> end of fusion research
|> >
|> >while a slightly modified concept just a little way away in the space
|> >of configurations would have worked and we will never know it.
|>
|>          What do you mean by "would have worked"?  It is my under-
|> standing that even if ITER performs as its proponents expect it will
|> not lead to an economically viable power reactor.  Is this not the
|> case?
 
But what I meant is that something not too different could perform
much better.
 
Example: suppose a similar device, strongly shaped in some way, has much
better MHD stability and confinement properties. This is what I mean by
"just a little way away in the space of configurations".
 
We simply do not know, and we are committing ourselves
before we know. This is the gist of what I have been saying.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: CO2 as poison
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CO2 as poison
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 14:39:20 GMT

In <EACHUS.93Nov9151250@spectre.mitre.org> Robert I. Eachus writes:
>  Again, I just can't accept that 4% figure for normal circumstances.
>The breathing reflex cuts in at blood levels of CO2 well below that.
                                 ===================
  You're talking about two different things here. Average O2 usage is
about 4% by volume of inhaled gas ... This gives us (for an equal
exchange) 4% CO2 by volume exhaled ...
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 16:05:24 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>I don't know where you get that information from, but John, I am disappointed
>at your tone. Not all who are concerned about the environment of the future
>are scaremongerers or eco-hysterics. Such terms are commonly used by people
>who like to ignore problems, in order to be allowed to continue to use suspect
>stuff, without having to worry. You are usually more thoughtful than this.
 
Sorry Dieter, but I've had it up to here with the eco-hysterics.  It's been
three decades "since Rachel Carson's -Silent Spring- set the stage for
the environmental movement -- exaggeration and omission of pertinent
contradictory evidence being acceptable in pursuit of the holy cause," write
Bruce Ames and Thomas Jukes, professor of biochemistry and molecular
biology, and professor of biophysics, respectively, at the University of
California, Berkeley.
 
I won't belabor this further here, but I recommend any of the following
books on the general subject:
 
Trashing the Planet -- Dixie Lee Ray
 
Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? -- Dixie Lee Ray
 
Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse -- Ronald Bailey
 
Apocalypse Not: Science, Economics, and Environmentalism -- Ben Block and
                                                            Harold Lyons
 
Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming -- Patrick J.
                                                              Michaels
 
The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear -- Petr Beckmann
 
The Resourceful Earth -- Julian Simon and Hermann Kahn
 
The more one learns about the tactics of the eco-movement, the mainstream
and not just the crazies, the more one recoils in disgust.  Hysteria is the
order of the day.  The trappings of science are used as a convenient cover,
but the methods are not scientific.  It is, rather, an avenue through which
to grab political and social power in the name of stemming the "crisis."
It is a new religion co-opted by an old political philosophy, neither of
which trouble themselves much over the demise of truth.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 17:27:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   Third, botulin toxin is a biomaterial and can decompose.
 
Never the less, on a ton for ton basis, there is far more Clostridium
botulinum on the surface of the planet than plutonium.  And, in fact,
far more humans and animals have died of botulin toxicity than from
plutonium toxicity.
 
The point is not that we should therefore all go out and swallow a teaspoon
full of plutonium, the point is that hysteria over the less important blinds
us to more the important -- such as the ongoing "scare" against irradiated
foods.  Food poisoning kills 10-100's of thousands a year, and yet the
anti-nukes work to prevent the irradiation technique based upon their
unfounded fears and attention to trivialities.
 
The discussion of magnitudes of risks should not so lightly be brushed
under the carpet.  Lives are at stake, and many have already been lost due
to the perverse ignorance and tactics of the granola crowd.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / DAG GILLIES /  Re: Atom Totality
     
Originally-From: D.A.G.Gillies@bradford.ac.uk (DAG GILLIES)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atom Totality
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 16:49:20 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK

In article <1993Nov9.151711.1@zac.riv.csu.edu.au> d9250788@zac.riv.csu.e
u.au (James Joseph Dominguez) writes:
>>     The Plutonium Atom Totality is easy to explain. An electron is not
>> a ball, but instead, an infinite number of dots. Those dots are
>> commonly called the "electron cloud". One of those tiny dots of the
>> 94th electron of plutonium is the Sun, another tinier dot the planet
>> Earth. Stars are just bits and pieces of the last electron, the dots of
>> the 94th electron of plutonium. The solar system is 9 very tiny dots
>> with one larger dot, the Sun, of the 94th electron of one atom of
>> 231Pu.
>
>I have a problem with this...
>
>Electron orbital shells are quantum distances, so how can the orbit of Pluto
>be so extremely elliptical in this case?
>
>Just a question...
>
>--
Simple. Introduce a new quantum number to parameterise the eccentricity. The
real problem I have with this is what happens if the earth spontaneously
tunnels to the ground state. Then we'll all fry... :)
 
______________________________________________________
David A. G. Gillies     (D.A.G.Gillies@bradford.ac.uk)
(c) 1993 Wittgenstein and the Furniture Depository of
The Living Dead
 
---------------REPLIES VIA EMAIL PLEASE---------------
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenGillies cudfnDAG cudlnGILLIES cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / B Pollermann /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bernd@sunpaw2.cern.ch (Bernd Pollermann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 16:38:36 GMT
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics

In article <19931110.093830.602@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>          Bruce Scott asked:
> >By the way, how did people ever come up with that 3-6 cent/kW-hr figure
> >for energy competitiveness? Let 50 years go by and it will be more like
> >15 cents in 1980 dollars (ie, only fossils are that cheap on a large scale).
>          I replied in part:
>
> Your prediction of 25 in 50 years does not appear to have any
>  substantial basis:
Well, maybe not, or he just looked at some other parts of the world:
In France/Switzerland you pay NOW about 11-12 cents/KWh .
 
Bernd Pollermann/CERN
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbernd cudfnBernd cudlnPollermann cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 19:41:04 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   About 20 people die per year in the US (230,000,000) from botulin.
>  Do you have the other data?
 
Yes I do.  It is more like about 5 people per year in the US.  The
world is a bigger place, however, than just the good ol' USofA.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 09:02:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2bu9ucINNclh@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <m0oxMtX-0000bkC@crash.cts.com>,
>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
 
>>Such cowardly intellectual pot-shots do nothing to advance dialogue.
>>What is your REAL opinion about "induced radioactivity" in p-B11 burners?
 
>What exactly is my "estimation" of p-B11 induced radioactivity? You
>got me hanging there. I doubt I could give you an answer to within
>5 orders of magnitude. However, even with that wide latitude, I feel
>confident that anyone near an unshielded p-B11 burner that provides 1000 MW
>of power would be fried.
 
Unshielded from what?   I would imagine that the burner is coupled to
a propulsion or power generator and that means essentially all  of the
power generated will be diverted to effective use.  (it has a 99%+
Carnot potential efficiency).  Further the burner can't burn without
containment and that indicates the flux to peopled places would be
within the people tolerable regime.
 
>It's not cowardly on my part to point out the obvious.
 
But let's use a bit of common sense, too.
 
 
>If you still think you would want to embrace and caress the first wall of a
>p-B11 reactor,  .. .    .
 
The first wall is a liquid density multi kilobar bucket gas that is exchanged
each shot during a sixty hertz burn regimen.  Since it is heated to  order
10 ev, and then expanded for propulsion or inductive MHD conversion, it
wouldn't be available to be "embraced, caressed, kissed or generally sucked
up to".
 
>associated with neutron damage. My original question remains, can anyone
>comment on the issues of neutron embrittlement and induced radioactvity ?
>This is a materials issue. I know D-3He will work better than D-T and I
>assume p-B11 will work better yet (oops, I guess there goes another
>"pot-shot" :>
 
If your original ion bombardment statement indicates that the resulting
He4 alphas that emininate from the compression burn, must somehow be
free to interact with a "likely solid" first wall and knock off
nuclear fragments or be captured   ---  this is NOT the
case.  There is no solid first wall (has liquid gas blanket).
The burn plasma is well confined, hot ash doesn't reach the blanket, and
the cooling rate is actually about as fast or faster than the fusion
heating rate (meaning the alphas slow down quickly via Bremsstrahlung
radiation cooling).  So P-B11 is great. ..  .   or as SH would say:
 
                 "It is the mother of all fuels."
 
>-john .w cobb
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Blooperberg
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blooperberg
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 18:26:49 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <931110142000_76570.2270_BHA26-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>Greg Kuperberg of the University of Chicago writes:
>>Personally, I think we would be better off with fission, and it's
>>always good to try to find new sources of energy.  (Of course, we
>>won't find any by investigating the claims of dishonest incompetents
>>like you-know-who.)
>I encourage you to attack me and other CF R&D people with even more gusto.
 
I gather that you think that when I mentioned dishonest incompetents, I
was referring to you personally.  Actually I wasn't, but if you really
want to read it that way, be my guest.
 
BTW, I haven't seen your Taubes Fly-Paper Catcher posting lately.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 18:42:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1993Nov11.172705.512@ns.network.com>
   Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) writes:
 
==  "Never the less, on a ton for ton basis, there is far more
==   Clostridium botulinum on the surface of the planet than plutonium."
 
  Perhaps. Botulism is not an infectious disease but ingestion of the
protein exotoxin from one unusual bacterium.  That toxin, if memory
serves, is due to an infection of the bacterium with a plasmid.
The toxicity of the exotoxin is such that 1 microgram has circa
20,000 minimal lethal doses.   However,
 
    1. The bacteria is strictly anaerobic
    2. UV etc. make the bacteria non-toxogenic by inactivating the
          plasmid, and
    3. The toxin is relatively heat-labile.
 
   Neither UV, O2, nor heat will help with significant amounts of
plutonium that has been needlessly mixed with the bioenvironment.
 
 
==  "And, in fact, far more humans and animals have died of botulin
==  toxicity than from plutonium toxicity."
 
   About 20 people die per year in the US (230,000,000) from botulin.
  Do you have the other data?
 
= "The point is not that we should therefore all go out and swallow a teaspoon
= full of plutonium, the point is that hysteria over the less important blinds
= us to more the important -- such as the ongoing "scare" against irradiated
= foods.  Food poisoning kills 10-100's of thousands a year, and yet the
= anti-nukes work to prevent the irradiation technique based upon their
= unfounded fears and attention to trivialities.
 
   Although I agree with you, John, food irradiation does not put
any radioisotopes in the food, BTW, and probably ought not be confused
with the issue here.
        Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 11 Nov 1993 20:21:18 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov11.160524.29075@ns.network.com>,
        logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
|> I won't belabor this further here, but I recommend any of the following
|> books on the general subject:
 
Neither will I, really (and this is the _wrong_ newsgroup), but I just
wanted to point out that this bit...
 
|> The more one learns about the tactics of the eco-movement, the mainstream
|> and not just the crazies, the more one recoils in disgust.  Hysteria is the
|> order of the day.  The trappings of science are used as a convenient cover,
|> but the methods are not scientific.  It is, rather, an avenue through which
|> to grab political and social power in the name of stemming the "crisis."
|> It is a new religion co-opted by an old political philosophy, neither of
|> which trouble themselves much over the demise of truth.
 
applies at least equally well to the authors you cite.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / John Cobb /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: 11 Nov 1993 15:13:47 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <m0oxMtX-0000bkC@crash.cts.com>,
Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>Even the Boron cycle will have induced radioactivity from
>>ion bombardment. IT is just a (very important) question of magnitude.
>
>Well, John, you leave yourself an out, I see.  If it turns out that
>the actual level of induced radioactivity is on the level of, say,
>passive solar heating, you can point to your second sentence above
>and say "See?  I SAID it was a VERY IMPORTANT question of magnitude."
>
>Such cowardly intellectual pot-shots do nothing to advance dialogue.
>What is your REAL opinion about "induced radioactivity" in p-B11 burners?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That's below the belt Jim. You haven taken it out of context.
 
I say "very important" becuase it makes a great deal of difference on
whether you have to bury 100 tons of hot steel or 10 tons of hot steel.
 
The point is that you will have to spend a lot less $ to dispose of it.
 
However, I do not want to be anywhere near a burning reactor, whatever
the fuel cycle.
 
What exactly is my "estimation" of p-B11 induced radioactivity? You
got me hanging there. I doubt I could give you an answer to within
5 orders of magnitude. However, even with that wide latitude, I feel
confident that anyone near an unshielded p-B11 burner that provides 1000 MW
of power would be fried.
 
It's not cowardly on my part to point out the obvious. I don't think it's
a pot shot either. If you doubt my intuition here, then I invite to you
prove my conclusions wrong and refrain from ad hominem attacks.
 
If you still think you would want to embrace and caress the first wall of a
p-B11 reactor, I invite you to drive your RV to Batavia and ask the HEPcats
to let you place your head in the Fermilab main beam line (when it comes back
up). Afterwards, If any neurons are still firing, I invite you to perform the
required multiplications to correct for a fusion plant's increased particle
inventory and increased interaction cross-section because of lower energy
to get a more accurate estimate of ambient operating radiation.
 
The simple point I was trying to make in my original question was any
scenario is going to be hot enough to require remote handling and may
provoke the issues of public hysteria (yes even p-B11 IMO). However,
different fuel cycles can greatly reduce the large, but often overlooked costs
associated with neutron damage. My original question remains, can anyone
comment on the issues of neutron embrittlement and induced radioactvity ?
This is a materials issue. I know D-3He will work better than D-T and I
assume p-B11 will work better yet (oops, I guess there goes another
"pot-shot" :>
 
 
-john .w cobb
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 22:56:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
: Sorry Dieter, but I've had it up to here with the eco-hysterics.  It's been
: three decades "since Rachel Carson's -Silent Spring- set the stage for
: the environmental movement -- exaggeration and omission of pertinent
: contradictory evidence being acceptable in pursuit of the holy cause," write
: Bruce Ames and Thomas Jukes, professor of biochemistry and molecular
: biology, and professor of biophysics, respectively, at the University of
: California, Berkeley.
 
: I won't belabor this further here, but I recommend any of the following
: books on the general subject:
 
: Trashing the Planet -- Dixie Lee Ray
 
: Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? -- Dixie Lee Ray
 
Citing Dixie Lee Ray on any environmental issue completely destroys
any credibility which might otherwise have leaked through your
hysterical rhetoric, John. "Exaggeration and omission of pertinent
contradictory evidence ... in pursuit of the holy cause,"
would be an excellent synopsis of Ray's book, except that it omits the
"blatant lies and knowing repetition of discredited results" which
she relies upon almost as much. The other books on your list suffer from
similar flaws.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who are quite rational, even
scholarly, on some issues, can exhibit such remarkable blind spots
on others.
This has been extensively belabored on sci.environment, which boasts
a FAQ with detailed responses to the fulminations of Ray, et al.
Check it out.
 
Bo Curry
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 23:21:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>|> It is a new religion co-opted by an old political philosophy, neither of
>|> which trouble themselves much over the demise of truth.
>
>applies at least equally well to the authors you cite.
 
Well, I'm prepared to cite specific atrocities of the eco-movement.  I presume
you can back up your claim that the aforementioned authors trafficed in lies
and hypocrisy.
 
An Alar hysteria a day keeps the truth away.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 02:42:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry) writes:
>Citing Dixie Lee Ray on any environmental issue completely destroys
>any credibility which might otherwise have leaked through your
>hysterical rhetoric, John.
 
For those who don't know, Dixie Lee Ray was chairman of the US Atomic
Energy Commission, governor of Washington state, assistant secretary
of state in the US Bureau of Oceans, and member of the Zoology faculty
of the University of Washington.  Her book, Trashing the Planet, has
25 pages of citations including both popular press and scientific papers.
It is itself a popular book on the subject, but nonetheless informative
and useful.
 
>This has been extensively belabored on sci.environment, which boasts
>a FAQ with detailed responses to the fulminations of Ray, et al.
 
I look forward to reading this collection of unbiased scientifically
based refutations of Ms Ray the next time it rolls around (we have a very
short expire here.)  Due to a breakdown of our news machine we only have
news articles two days old, and the only one in sci.environment I can
find mentioning Ray quotes her favorably on the anti-DDT hysteria.  By the
way, is this alleged FAQ entitled "Trashing Dixie Lee Ray?" :-)
 
Finally, though I haven't read sci.environment lately, way back when I had
more time, my brief visit there showed it to be over-run with Gaia-ian
priests and priestesses looking for ways to decontaminate the earth of
the infection they call humanity.  Well, tell them they can consider me
a virus with an attitude.  Love and kisses.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Nils Olsen /  ANNOUNCEMENT: SSIIM Version 1.1
     
Originally-From: nro@nhl-1.nhl.sintef.no (Nils Reidar Boe Olsen)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.astro,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.geo.fluids,
ci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: SSIIM Version 1.1
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 07:56:33 GMT
Organization: SINTEF NHL

ANNOUNCEMENT: Version 1.1 of the SSIIM program
 
WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES:
 
The program is made for use in River/Environmental/Hydraulic/
Sedimentation Engineering.
 
SSIIM is an abbreviation for Sediment Simulation In Intakes with
Multiblock option. The program solves the Navier-Stokes equations
with the k-epsilon model on a three-dimensional almost general
non-orthogonal grid. The grid is structured. A control volume method
is used for the discretization, together with the power-law scheme
or the second order upwind scheme. The SIMPLE method is used
for the pressure coupling. The solution is implicit, also over the
boundary of the different blocks.
 
The convection-diffusion equations for different sediment sizes are
also solved.
 
OPERATING SYSTEM:
 
The program runs only under OS/2 2.x.
 
CHANGES FROM VERSION 1.0 TO VERSION 1.1
 
The following improvements have been made:
 
- Optimization for the Pentium processer
- Improved Users Manual
- Some bugs have been corrected
- Some new options are added
 
Version 1.1 replaces version 1.0, and input files are backwards
compatible.
 
AVAILABILITY
 
The program can be downloaded from the following addresses:
 
"ugle.unit.no" directory "/pub/os2/ssiim".
"ftp.luth.se" directory "/pub/os2/2.x/education"
"ftp.cdrom.com" directory "/pub/os2/2_x/educate"
 
The file ssiim11.zip contains the executable file, a Users Manual
written in WP5.1, and input files for four examples.
 
 
Nils Reidar B. Olsen
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennro cudfnNils cudlnOlsen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Draft of paper
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Draft of paper
Date: 11 Nov 93 17:26:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

This is a draft of a paper; comments are welcomed.
 
 
UPDATE ON COLD FUSION STUDIES AT BYU
 
Steven E. Jones, David Shelton and David E. Jones
Departments of Physics and Chemistry
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah  84602
 
A first paper exploring the notion of piezonuclear fusion was
written in 1985 [1].  In particular, the idea of fusion in
metallic deuterium (without muons) was considered.  Two months
after publication of this paper, in May 1986, we began an
experimental program at BYU to search for possible nuclear
effects due to piezonuclear fusion in deuterium-charged metals as
well as in geological processes.  An underground laboratory
facility designed for these studies has begun operation inside a
mountain 10 km from the BYU campus, based on support from the
U.S. Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research
Institute.  Results from the most recent experiments will be
described.
 
 
OVERVIEW OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS AT BYU
 
Our primary detector for low-level neutron emissions consists of
a central plastic scintillator 25 cm in length and 8.9 cm in
diameter.  A central cavity 4.4 cm diam. admits test cells.  Fast
neutrons from the sample can generate a recoil proton in the
plastic generating scintillations which are viewed by a
photomultiplier tube.  Then the neutron slows further in
polyethylene moderator 28 cm diam. X 30 cm long, and finally may
be captured in one of 16 helium-3-filled proportional counter
tubes embedded in the moderator.  These tubes are arranged in
four quadrants incorporating 4 proportional-counters in each.
 
The detector and experiments have the following special features:
 
1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 100 MHz*, so that we retain detailed pulse-
shape information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
crude neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting events having small or no
plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow (especially
thermal) neutrons -- a background-reducing feature not available
to many detectors such as BF3, 3He and even the Kamiokande.  By
studying neutron-capture time distributions based on prompt and
capture-neutron pulses, we check whether the spectra agree with
distributions found with a plutonium source.
 
*[The sampling time is 10 nanoseconds; not 5 minutes.  8^).]
 
2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records in which of the
four quadrants the neutron was captured, allowing for checking
that the quadrants are hit in equal proportions.
[(We have three 386 PC's for data acquisition. 8^).]
This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
160-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one (sometimes two quadrants, due to electronic cross-
talk).  We have seen several cases of such large bursts in the
past year of running; but all bursts of over five detected
neutrons have proven to be spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that
compelling data for large neutron bursts requires detector
segmentation and pulse digitization (allowing visualization), so
that no compelling evidence for large neutron bursts currently
exists in any cold-fusion experiment, including our own.
 
3.  Three large cosmic-ray veto counters show the passage of
cosmic rays, which events are rejected off-line.  Passive
shielding of at least 35 m of rock also cuts down cosmic ray-
induced events and removes dependence on atmospheric pressure.
After cosmic-ray rejection, the event rate is approximately 0.7
neutron-like singles per hour with an efficiency of 15% for 2.5
MeV neutrons, and 0.07 burst-events per hour with a detection
efficiency exceeding 20% (increasing with neutron-burst
multiplicity).
 
4.  Two additional highly-sensitive neutron detectors are
available in the same deep-underground facility based on a
different neutron-capture scheme (capture in lithium-doped
glass), to permit checking of any positive results found in the
primary detector.  The laboratory is open to investigators as a
means of checking cold-fusion claims.  Several researchers have
already conducted experiments in this facility.  To date, no
compelling evidence for nuclear reactions in deuterided materials
at or near room temperature has been found in these state-of-the-
art detectors.
 
 
RESULTS USING PONS-FLEISCHMANN-TYPE ELECTROLYTIC CELLS
(BASED ON WOLF PROTOCOLS)
 
The data presented below represent 6.5 weeks of observation of
P/F Pd/LiOD cells [2] in our most sensitive detector, described
above.  We followed protocols suggested by Prof. K. Wolf of Texas
A&M [3], namely:
 
0.  Pd cathodes (6mm diam. expect 4mm diam rod described in 2
below) were used in a 0.1 M LiOD solution (in D2O).   Electrode
spacing of the Pd rods relative to Ni-gauze which formed the
cylindrical anode is approximately 2 mm, with a septum used to
prevent electrical shorts.
 
1.  Three cells were polarized in series at 40 mA from Sept. 24,
1993 to October 25, 1993 (approximately 20ma/cm2), then at 80 mA
until October 29, 1993.
 
2.  Following a suggestion of Prof. Wolf, a fourth Pd/LiOD cell
was operated at high altitude (8,500') for three weeks at
20mA/cm2, then added in series connection with the other three
cells on October 25, 1993.
 
3.  The palladium cathode rods were scraped/sanded approximately
every seven days, and replaced in the cells within a period of
about fifteen minutes.
 
4.  A 12-hour cooling treatment was applied to the three primary
cells on day 17.  The fourth cell (described in 2 above) was
subjected to diurnal cooling and heating due to its exposure to a
mountain environment; the electrolyte was found to be frozen on
two occasions.
 
5.  Boron and aluminum at about 0.001 molar were added to the
LiOD electrolyte on the 18th day.
 
*Time-correlated (burst) neutron-like rates
 
A neutron burst event is defined as having a hit in the plastic
scintillator core folled by two or more signals in the 3He-
filled proportional-counter tubes.  Since the die-away time for
neutrons in the outer detector/polyethylene moderator is 55
microseconds, there is a possibility to see multiple distinct
neutron hits there.  In effect, the outer detector "de-
multiplexes" neutrons should an instantaneous burst occur -- as
first reported by H. Menlove et al. [4].  A burst is then defined
as two or more captured neutrons within 320 microseconds of a
start pulse in the plastic scintillator.  The background rate for
bursts is (0.07 +- 0.01) n/hr, all from multiplicity = 2 events,
established using Pd loaded with hydrogen.
 
We must also check the time spectra of 3He-captured neutrons
relative to the start pulse in the plastic scintillator to test
whether the time distribution corresponds to the 55-microsecond
die-away time, seen for example with a plutonium source.
 
The P/F cells described above were polarized for 708.8 hours.
During this time, 24 neutron-like burst events were seen, all
having multiplicity = 2.  (Approximately one burst candidate per
30 hours; this is a very low rate.)  Thus, the neutron-like rate
for these events was 48/708.8h = (0.07 +- 0.01) n/hr.  These
numbers are in excellent agreement with those found with hydrogen
controls discussed above.  There is therefore no indication of a
neutron burst signal above a very low background.
 
To complete the scrutiny for burst-like events, we compare time
spectra from these P/F electrolytic cell runs with those obtained
from H2-control runs and from Pu-source runs.  We histogram the
time between the start pulse in the plastic scintillator detector
and each stop pulse from the 3He-type outer detector, in 25
microsecond bins:
 
Capture time   Pu source (known neutrons)   H2 control  P/F cells
 (microsec.)      (1310 second run)          (394 hrs)   (708.8h)
 
0-25            32                           6            14
25-50           17                           5             3
50-75           11                           8             9
75-100           8                           2            11
100-125          1                           5             0
125-150          1                           2             4
150-175          0                           0             7
 
Whereas the Pu source neutrons follow a pattern consistent with
the 55-microsecond die-away time for neutrons in the counter, the
distribution from the P/F cells does not show this pattern:
there is no evidence for neutron-burst activity in the P/F
electrolytic cells.
 
 
*Total neutron-like count rates
 
Even if there are no burst-like events, there may still be
neutron counts above background which we consider "singles."  The
background rate for such events has been established as
approximately 0.7 counts/hour using Pd loaded with hydrogen.
Below we tabulate results from each run of the electrolytic
cells, showing 1-sigma error bar (statistical only).
 
 
Before current application:
0.73 +- 0.10  n/h
0.64    0.24
 
40 mA runs:
0.70 +- 0.10
0.28    0.26
0.63    0.13
0.63    0.12
0.62    0.14
0.52    0.12
0.61    0.11
0.44    0.08
0.55    0.11
0.63    0.11
0.39    0.16
0.58    0.11
0.91    0.17
1.33    0.33
0.73    0.18
 
80 mA runs:
0.59 +- 0.14
0.82    0.21
0.85    0.13
0.69    0.4
0.88    0.20
0.77    0.20
0.64    0.24
0.38    0.14
 
Empty detector runs:
0.72 +- 0.11
0.65    0.11.
 
[Note:  more significance is given than the error justifies, in
order to permit plotting the data.]
 
Again, we see that the rates are entirely consistent with the
background.  This exercise has as its conclusion that no neutrons
were seen above very low background levels, in a high-efficiency
(15% for 2.5 MeV neutrons) detector.  The most important
result of our research may be that an underground neutron detector facility
is now available for studies requiring very high-sensitivity
instruments.
 
A final observation is that workers who find evidence for cold-
fusion effects generally (if not always) use inferior detectors
or calorimeters.  Such workers are found to *prefer* open
electrolytic cells over closed cells, very long sampling times
(exceeding the Nyquist criterion), x-ray films instead of x-ray
spectrometers, helium or tritium gas sampling (and Geiger
counters) instead of charged-particle spectrometers, and neutron
survey meters instead of sensitive neutron detectors as described
above.  It is time to reject claims of cold fusion based on
inferior techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous scientific-
proof level.  Compelling evidence requires using the best
instruments available (see above), incorporating fast data-
sampling and visualization methods, noise rejection, the use of
different detectors whose signals agree quantitatively, and
presence of signals well above background levels.  A real signal
should be capable of scaling, and should not shrink as background
levels are reduced.  However, as we have proceeded to better
detectors, cold-fusion data surety has diminished.
 
 
REFERENCES
 
[1] C.D. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear Fusion in
Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules," J. Physics G: Nuclear Physics 12
(March 1986) 213-221.
 
[2] M. Fleischmann, B.S. Pons, M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem.
261 (1989) 301.
 
[3] K.L. Wolf,  J. Shoemaker, D.E. Coe, L. Whitesell, AIP Conf.
Proc. #228 (NY:  Am. Inst. Physics, 1991), p. 341-353.
 
[4] H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,
R.R. Ryan, S.E. Jones, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495-506.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 03:36:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGCnpp.L7A@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
[of John Logojan's llist of books]
 
>she relies upon almost as much. The other books on your list suffer from
>similar flaws.
 
    That's a pretty broad brush.  Name the 'flaws' in Pat Michaels book.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Alan Hughes /  Re: Meyer patent for producing H2 and O2
     
Originally-From: alh@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Alan Hughes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Re: Meyer patent for producing H2 and O2
Date: 12 Nov 1993 11:55:13 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania

In article <1993Nov10.202139.19078@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) wrote:
 
 
> Meyer's claim to fame is that this device produces H2 and O2 gases from
> H2O without regard to Faraday's Law governing gas production and
> electrolytic current.  Elsewhere he makes further claims.
[...]
> Meyer claims the resulting incrementing step waveform on plates of the
> water capacitor simultaneously induce an excited resonance in the water
> dielectric molecules and continually increase the voltage gradient against
> which the water molecules are eventually torn apart.
 
I woinder with this process if it is really an electrolysis process, or
maybe simply separating and concentrating the already decomposed ions
present in neutral water.  As far as I can tell the demonstrations only
showed the presence of hydrogen, with no clear proof that the other gas was
pure oxygen.  One to test this may be to do the experiment with running
water, and see if the maximum rate of gas production is higher, through not
havng to wait for the water molecules to decompose.  Anyone have the
equpment available to test this, it would certainly be beneficial to find a
proper explanation of the Meyer process. (IMO Meyer's explanation sucks
better than a vacuum).
 
Alan.
alh@postoffice.utas.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenalh cudfnAlan cudlnHughes cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokamak transport (was Re: Fusion Economics)
Date: 12 Nov 1993 13:50:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <m0oxVKC-0000XlC@crash.cts.com>,
        jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
|> Of course, to the extent that society decides it is appropriate to
|> fund science through the political process, we will find limbic
|> noise increasingly dominant among those receiving funds for "science."
 
On the theory side at least, this is TTF in a nutshell. And we haven't
mentioned co-opting yet.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Robert Heeter /  Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reactor Design Studies
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 01:45:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Well, I've been away for a week on vacation, and it seems a lot
of people have questions and criticisms of the reactor design
studies I've been mentioning.  I am still trying to get caught
up in everything, but I will try to respond to people soon.
 
Dale Bass showed up first on my newsreader:
 
In article <CFw7L7.G0B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
 
[Introductory stuff deleted; I think Dale's comment stands
on its own. Lines reformatted to reduce length.]
 
>     Yes.  Probabilistic assessments of economic viability 50 years
>     into the future are worthless.  There's no basis, no reasonable
>     way of determining statistics, nothing. ('Yes Sir, Mr. Senator.
>     In 1 out of 50 possible universes which are but small
>     perturbations on ours, fusion becomes economically viable
>     in the next half century').
>
>     I've said this before in rational argument.
>
My recollection of the origin of our discussion here was that
you were claiming that the estimated cost/kWhr came "out of
their ears."  Based on what is above however, I will concede
that I haven't seen any publication give a probabilistic estimate
of whether fusion will work.  I agree that there's no scientific
way of doing such a thing since we can't predict the future.
I tend to disagree with you on the relative likelihood of fusion's
future success, but that's just my gut feeling.  There's no
hard-core probabilistic assessment.  And I do tend towards optimism.
 
However, I don't think it's fair to say that the design studies
that show fusion may be economically competitive in the future
are necessarily worthless.  The general methodology as I understand
it at this point is to make certain assumptions about available
future technology, do some extrapolations from the current
economic picture, and then see how much fusion energy would cost
relative to other sources of energy.  I don't have anything in
front of me right now, so I can't give a more detailed response,
and in any case different studies have different approaches.
I believe that these design studies have value within the
limits of their approximations and estimations.  I'm not saying
they give you definitive answers.
 
For instance, to return to our discussion, I wrote:
 
>>>>>>  Recent reactor design
>>>>>>studies (ESECOM, ARIES) indicate that fusion can be competitive
>>>>>>(3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour) within my lifetime, if not
>>>>>>necessarily everyone else's here.
>>>>>
The "can" in this sentence is rather critical.  I'm not saying
they "will", I'm just saying that if the assumptions on which
the studies are based are plausible, and the methodology is
valid, then you have to accept the conclusions.  And the conclusion
is that under certain future conditions, most of which involve
advances in fusion technology which seem reasonable given past
progress, fusion will be economically competitive.
 
At any rate, Dale responded:
>>>>>
>>>>>     In their dreams.
>>>>>
Back to me:
>>>>
>>>>Why do you disagree?  What's your evidence?  In what way are the
>>>>studies flawed?
>>>
>>>    Plasma containment, reactor size, reactor shielding,
>>>    inadequate consideration of mandated reactor tritium containment,
>>>    inadequate consideration of regulatory requirements, inadequate
>>>    consideration of actual costs of disposing of hot materials.
>>>
>>>    Throw away these things, especially the regulatory requirements,
>>>    and fission is 'too cheap to meter.'
>>>
 
Now I'd been finding Dale's previous writing a little more polemical
than I could respond to rationally, and while I found this better,
I was still a little disappointed that Dale hadn't given me specific
arguments against specific aspects of various studies, so I wrote:
>>
>>This is slightly more rational.
>
Dale responds:
>
>      Slightly more rational?  Could you please point out the
>......irrational component of the 'slightly more rational'
>......discourse?
>
Well, as I mentioned above, I was hoping you'd give me some
specific criticisms instead of just spewing out a list with
no real explanation of *why* any of the studies is flawed in
the ways you mentioned.  What's irrational here is expecting
me to be able to respond to such vague arguments.  But I guess
that's where we're headed...
>
I had written:
>>
>>Which topic do you want to discuss
>>first?
 
Dale replies:
>
>      Any or all.
>
We've got a deal.  Do you want to pick a topic and expand on
why you think the studies are flawed, or would you prefer that
I summarize the content of a particular study first and then \
you can take it apart?  I'd start now, but as I said before,
I don't have the stuff with me and I'm a bit short on time this
week.  Why don't we start with the cost of disposing of hot
materials.
 
While I get my act together here, perhaps you might post a
list of what information you consider important to the topic.
I'm assuming we need to know how much waste there will be,
and of what types, and also how the study estimated costs
of disposal of the various types.  I don't think this is
going to be a major aspect of the cost, but it seems like
a relatively easy place to get started, and it's an area
where fusion and fission share common concerns.  What
other data should I try to provide in my summary?
 
Having fun now,
 
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (disclaimers apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Robert Heeter /  Breeders and Proliferation
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breeders and Proliferation
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 02:17:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <CFvJtI.354@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Nov1.005054.1614@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I
>>said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes
>>much simpler.  Care to refute this, or are you going to evade?
>
>   Why do you think it becomes much simpler?
>
Well, I was under the impression that breeder reactors ran with
greater concentrations of weapons-grade materials in their fuel,
and furthermore tended to require more shipments of radioactive
fuel/weapons materials, so that (a) it becomes easier to process
available radioactive materials into weapons and (b) it becomes
easier to hide weapons-development activity within general
radioactive-materials transfer activities.  I'd love to be wrong,
since I think we need to keep all our energy options open, but
I'd like to hear a really solid argument that even a skeptic can
believe, so that if I ever get into a discussion I can have a
firm position which I know how to defend.
 
 
************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Robert Heeter /  My discussion with Jim Shearer
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: jbs
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My discussion with Jim Shearer
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 02:53:36 GMT
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 20:59:40 EST
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Originally-From: jbs
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 93 20:59:40 EST
In article <19931103.175957.444@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>         I said:
>>         Dale Bass has already responded to this, I will just add that
>>that since none of the nations which have nuclear weapons obtained
>>them by developing power breeder reactors as an intermediate step it
>>seems unlikely that this is the easiest way.
>         Robert Heeter protests:
>>I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I
>>said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes
>>much simpler.  Care to refute this, or are you going to evade?
>
>         I find it plausible that possesion of power breeder techno-
>logy makes it easier to build nuclear weapons.  I also find it
>plausible that possesion of tokamak reactor technology makes it
>easier to build nuclear weapons.  For that matter it would appear
>that possesion of fission reactor technology makes it easier to build
>weapons.  If I remember correctly the Soviet Union obtained weapons
>plutonium from fission power reactors and that the US could have done
>so but decided not to for political reasons.  I do not know enough
>to give quantitative estimates about how much difference any of the
>above would make.
 
I just posted a response on this topic, but let me add a couple points:
the articles I've read claim that tokamak technology does *not* make
it significantly easier to build nuclear weapons, certainly not
without making it obvious what you're trying to do.  (You can't
enrich fuel using the fusion neutrons without sending a really
big signal that you're putting fissionable material into your
fusion plant.)  Now my argument about fission breeders was that
they make it easier to build nuclear weapons than it currently is
with current non-breeder fission plants.  I'd still like to be
conclusively proven wrong.
 
>         However this is all irrelevant.  The US already has nuclear
>weapons.  If the US developes a power breeder reactor this will not
>help Iran, Libya or Cuba develop nuclear weapons.
 
Not immediately, but then again we were discussing a breeder-based
energy economy, in which case it's going to be difficult to keep
the breeder technology from proliferating, and if the link I'm
trying to establish between breeders and easier-to-build nukes
holds up, then the breeder economy has an economic problem - and
a political problem - in that you have to deal with the
proliferation issue.
 
[ Long-winded discussion of energy-security as an economic need
(or at least a national-security need) summarized below:]
 
Jim says,
>>         ... your claim that energy independence is a prerequisite
>>for a viable economy is clearly absurd.  Do you believe the United
>>States, Japan etc. currently have non-viable economies?  Most nations
>>want energy independence only as long as it doesn't cost too much.
 
I responded essentially as follows [see original post for complete text]
 
>>I would claim that the US and Japan have viable economies only insofar
>>as we have adequate military force to *ensure* an adequate energy
>>supply.  ....  If there's no oil, and you rely on the
>>generosity of other countries to provide you with fission fuel since
>>you don't have a breeder, you will have a strong incentive to either
>>develop your own breeder or become very close allies with someone who
>>has one.  ...  You're right in that it's a cost-benefit
>>situation, and nations which feel secure in their alliances will
>>probably choose not to develop breeders.
 
Jim replies,
>
>         You are not relying on the "generosity" of other countries
>to sell you fission fuel instead you are relying on their self-
>interest.  As long as there are several competing suppliers there is
>little danger you will be unable to buy fission fuel.  Just as today
>there is little danger Japan will be unable to buy oil.  I suggest you
>read Adam Smith on this point.  Do you believe every nation should try
>to be self-sufficient in everything?
 
What happens when *every* nation decides it's in their self-interest
*not* to sell me fission fuel?  For instance, what about the UN
sanctions against Iraq?  While this isn't a case of fuel being
embargoed, there was certainly a fair amount of hardship inflicted
on the country, which Hussein no doubt would really not like to have
gone through.  Also, what about the Arab oil embargoes? (Granted,
this wasn't *every* nation, but it sure had an impact on the
Western economies.)  Also, nations can't plan on perpetual peace,
and when the war machine gets thirsty, you'd better have fuel
for it to drink.  The US's embargo of petroleum to Japan led them
to decide they needed more economic control of the oil reserves
of southeast asia, (among other natural resources), which certainly
had an impact in helping to precipitate WWII.  For that matter,
the subsequent US effort to intercept Japanese petroleum shipments
played a major part in reducing Japans ability to fight effectively
(for instance, by making it much more difficult for them to train
aircraft pilots thoroughly).  Adam Smith only works to a point.
And there are *some* areas where nations neglect self-sufficiency
only at their peril.  I think energy is one of them.
 
[ More-or-less dead-ended discussion of waste disposal deleted.]
 
[On to computational simulations of fusion devices...]
 
>          Robert Heeter said:
>>Well, the trouble with just writing computer simulation codes is
>>that you can't know if they're correct without comparing them with
>>real-life experience.
>
>          This would not be true if the codes were based on the fund-
>amental laws.  I gather this is not feasible at the moment and the
>codes rely on poorly understood empirical approximations.  Is this
>correct?
 
Yes, that's essentially correct.  To write a code based upon the
fundamental laws and be *sure* that it worked, you'd have to simulate
pretty much everything in your machine, continuously, and with
pretty decent spatial resolution.  If you know a computer that can
model the motion of 10^23 particles with spatial resolution of
about 1 angstrom and time resolution on the order of picoseconds,
you could probably be sure of your model.  But the number of orders
of magnitude that we are away from that is pretty staggering.
 
>          Robert Heeter said:
>>One of the big problems with plasma physics is that each time you
>>build a new, larger machine, the plasma finds new ways to do things
>>you'd never have expected beforehand.
>
>          Do you mean here that new things go wrong?
 
Only partly.  I meant what I said - it does new things you didn't
expect.  Sometimes new things go wrong, but new things also go
right.  For instance, in the 60s when the Russians first tried
the tokamak, it improved their plasma parameters so much that
the scientists in the West didn't believe them. Also, the recent
discovery of what's called the "bootstrap current" shows that
sometimes the plasma will do things you might actually like.
 
Let's wrap up:
 
>          Robert Heeter said:
>>                                       The recent design studies I
>>tend to cite (ESECOM, ARIES) have concluded that a large fusion
>>machine is likely to be economically viable.
>
>          I do not have access to these studies.  How about a summary
>of what they project an economically viable fusion reactor will look
>like (and why they think it will be cheaper than coal within 50 years).
>For example what size, capital cost, running costs, total cost per
>kwh, expected fraction of potential power actually generated, frequency
>of unplanned outages and costs thereof, plant lifetime etc.
 
I'd be happy to dig this stuff up.  As I wrote in response to one
of Dale Bass's posts, I was on vacation, and I don't have the time
just now.  Give me a few more days, and hopefully we'll have a
much less acrimonious discussion.
 
 
************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fusion economics
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion economics
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 03:08:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <19931110.124207.517@almaden.ibm.com> , jbs@watson.ibm.com
writes:
>         Robert Heeter posts:
>>This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
>>designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
>>*is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
>>it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
>>take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
>>you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
>>test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
>>as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
>
>         This would seem to depend on what requirements you are placing
>on the new materials.  If they are expected to do the same things as
>steel at the same cost as steel while being produced in minute volumes
>compared to steel very seems generous.  So what properties are these
>new materials required to have?
 
Good points; impact on power expense depends on how much
materials-costs are going to contribute to the reactor's cost;
I don't have the answers regarding the required properties,
but I will look through my references and see what I can find.
 
>         Robert Heeter also posts:
>>The 3-6 cents that I've been quoting was independently arrived-at in
>>two different studies.  The ESECOM study (Holdren et al,
>>summary published in Fusion Technology, Jan '88) has various
>>tokamak designs coming out in the 3.5-5.3 cents/kW-hr range,
>>using 1986 dollars.  The idea they had was to compare their
>>designs with current and future fission designs, so that they
>>could assess whether fusion might be feasible.  The
>>best-present-experience LWR is about 3.3 cents/kW-hr, and the median
>>is 5.7 cents/kW-hr.  (Again, 1986 dollars.)  As I understand the
>>article, they are demonstrating that their fusion designs can be
>>competitive, and the estimated cost is placed in today's reference
>>frame so that it can be compared with other technologies.
>>
>>Conn, et al, in the ARIES studies, arrive at similar conclusions.
>>The cover of the booklet I have lists the title as "Fusion Reactor
>>Economic, Safety, and Environmental Prospects", and says that
>>the paper was submitted to _Nuclear Fusion_  ca. 1990.  I don't
>>know whether it was published, alas.  Conn gives 4.8-6.5
>>cents/kWhr for fusion and 4.6 cents and 7.8 cents for Better
>>Experience / Median experience PWR fission plants.  These are in
>>1988 dollars.
>>
>>I hope this clarifies the numbers!  I'd be happy to discuss the
>>studies more; this is all new to me.
>
>       Ok, lets start with the fission figures.  Why the difference
>between the two studies (much more than can be explained by the
>difference between 1986 and 1988 dollars)?  Why aren't average and bad
>experience numbers given?  These figures are the reason utilities
>aren't ordering fission power plants.  What plants are included in
>figuring the median experience?  If only operating plants are included
>this biases the figures a lot.  How do fission costs break down
>between capital, fuel and operating costs?  Why is fusion expected to
>be cheaper than fission?
 
I didn't look carefully to see where the differences came up, I was
mostly interested in the similarities.  I suspect the differences
may be due to *production* costs at the plant vs. the overall
cost to the consumer after distribution, but I can't be sure, so
don't hold me to that.  Alternatively, it could be from different
ways of accounting for all the reactors.  I imagine that they
only included operating fission plants, but that's also just a guess.
Remember that the idea behind these studies is to see if fusion
is competitive, so you want it to be competing with the better
side of the fission experience, not the worst plants!  (Hence
the quotes of better-than-average and median fission experience.)
As for the capital/fuel/operating cost breakdown for fission
(and fusion), I believe I have those figures somewhere and
I'll post them as soon as I get a chance.
 
****************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / John Cobb /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: 12 Nov 1993 09:57:17 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CGDFs9.2wC@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2bu9ucINNclh@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>What exactly is my "estimation" of p-B11 induced radioactivity? You
>>got me hanging there. I doubt I could give you an answer to within
>>5 orders of magnitude. However, even with that wide latitude, I feel
>>confident that anyone near an unshielded p-B11 burner that provides 1000 MW
>>of power would be fried.
>
>Unshielded from what?   I would imagine that the burner is coupled to
>a propulsion or power generator and that means essentially all  of the
>power generated will be diverted to effective use.  (it has a 99%+
>Carnot potential efficiency).  Further the burner can't burn without
>containment and that indicates the flux to peopled places would be
>within the people tolerable regime.
>
...
>The first wall is a liquid density multi kilobar bucket gas that is exchanged
>each shot during a sixty hertz burn regimen.  Since it is heated to  order
>10 ev, and then expanded for propulsion or inductive MHD conversion, it
>wouldn't be available to be "embraced, caressed, kissed or generally sucked
>up to".
 
In a power plant application, what is this gas composed of? How is it
recycled? What is the radiation attenuation coefficient between the
burn chamber and the nearest structural element?
 
While you are at it, I personally would be interested in hearing more
about your Plasmak concept. I can't seem to get you by e-mail, so maybe
you could post a summary like the Alcator people are doing. I would appreciate
it.
 
>
>>associated with neutron damage. My original question remains, can anyone
>>comment on the issues of neutron embrittlement and induced radioactvity ?
>>This is a materials issue. I know D-3He will work better than D-T and I
>>assume p-B11 will work better yet (oops, I guess there goes another
>>"pot-shot" :>
>
>If your original ion bombardment statement indicates that the resulting
>He4 alphas that emininate from the compression burn, must somehow be
>free to interact with a "likely solid" first wall and knock off
>nuclear fragments or be captured   ---  this is NOT the
>case.  There is no solid first wall (has liquid gas blanket).
>The burn plasma is well confined, hot ash doesn't reach the blanket, and
>the cooling rate is actually about as fast or faster than the fusion
>heating rate (meaning the alphas slow down quickly via Bremsstrahlung
>radiation cooling).  So P-B11 is great. ..  .   or as SH would say:
>
>                 "It is the mother of all fuels."
>
>>-john .w cobb
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
 
Paul, this is all very interesting but has it really been examined in
detail? My intuition is that your statement is a bit over-optimistic.
For instance, when I talk to some of the D-3He people they are very excited
about a inverse linac direct energy convertor for the FRC. Well I'm excited by
it also, but I don't claim that it is rad free (as many others do) because
I know that even if 95% of the energy is successfully extracted (very
optimistic IMO), there will be residual energy that is not converted. This will
cause some damage, and radiation. I thinkg evyone in the fusion advanced fuels
area is doing a dis-service if they promote the proposition that there will
be absolutely no radiation from them. And this applies to p-B11 as well,
unless you can show me something truly extraordinary.
 
I think I'm probably not saying anything that's news to Paul. I'm sure he
knows that any reactor will need some component sheilding, and the exhaust will
need to be handled responsibly (unless it's a rocket/reactor).
 
I think what Paul is trying to stress, is that when you're fusion products are
charged, (as is the case for D-3He and p-B11) then you have a real advantage
becuase you have handles (electric charge) that can be used to "grab" and
control the fusion products. You can target them to a small area instead of
having to collect your energy over a full 4 Pi sterradians. You can decelerate
them and extract energy directly, and in general they are less messy,
induce less radioactivity, and are more efficient than D-T. And I presume Paul
would say that p-B11 is superior to D-3He on the same grounds. He's
probably correct. Of course one must also consider the problems of ignition
which is easiest for D-T, more difficult for D-3He, and even more difficult for
p-11B (But Paul calims to have that problem licked also).
 
I'm really only trying to make 2 comments in this thread.
 
1) A 1 GW fusion reactor is going to have a level of radiological hazard in
terms of residual radiation that disposal will have to be considered in
reactor studies. I think this is a surmountable (perhaps in some reactors even
almost trivial) problem, but it must not be swept under the rug. There is
also the possibility that any level of radiation may be enough to excite the
"no nukes" modes which may block the path to ignition.
 
2) If your fusion products have electric charge, then you have a great deal
more flexibility to be able to design a scheme to reduce radiation damage and
waste by orders of magnitude.
 
-john .w cobb
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Donald Locker /  Re: Re: plutonium
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: plutonium
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 18:57:33 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <9311091122.AA13478@sron.rug.nl>,
Geert Bex k297 tel. 4799 <geert@sron.rug.nl> wrote:
>
>I`m not a plutonium expert, but I believe I know a little more than some
>of you. First, plutonium is indeed a poison. Just like chlorine, lead
>and other useful materials. As a chemical, plutonium is not a big health
>hazard. Experiments with mice have proven this.
> [deletia] Radioactive waste has one big advantage
>over chemical waste: the problem dissolves itself (although this may take
>several million years). Dangerous chemicals, however, remain dangerous
>an infinite time (unless they take part in some nuclear reaction...).
 
Huh?  Try that again in my other ear!  Decomposition of chemicals is
common, and can be enhanced by incineration, illumination, electrical
discharge, catalysis, ... ad nauseum.  I am not very familiar with
nuclear materials handling, but I don't think they are as easily
"de-rediated."  (Is that a word?  I mean rendered harmless as far as
their radioactivity is concerned.)  They might not take an infinite
amount of time to become safe left to their own devices, but
half-lives in excess of several hundred years might as well be
infinite as far as human ability to handle these materials is
concerned.
 
[rest deleted]
>
>Geert Bex.
>
 
--
Donald.                      |  My grandfather's neighbours used to use
Opinions? sure they're mine. |  the expression "dumb as a horse" until he
Who else would claim 'em?    |  pointed out to them that stumps were dumber.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 19:49:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <CGCnpp.L7A@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
: [of John Logojan's llist of books]
 
: >she relies upon almost as much. The other books on your list suffer from
: >similar flaws.
 
:     That's a pretty broad brush.  Name the 'flaws' in Pat Michaels book.
 
:                                 dale bass
 
Yes, it's a broad brush, and true, one size does not (quite) fit all.
I suppose you folks here on s.p.f are used to searching for the nugget
of truth in mountains of garbage. I gave a brief, globally accurate,
characterization of Logajan's reading list (which he did *not* compile
himself, BTW), and referred further discussion to a more appropriate
forum.
 
That said, I have not read Michaels' book. My understanding is that it
is a collection of essays by various authors on different subjects.
Discussion on sci.environment by those who have read the book, and who
have credibility on these issues, suggests that the essays are of
varying quality, from good to rather bad. Several have appeared elsewhere.
The book is tendentiously selective, of course, but that's to be expected
in the context, and not necessarily bad. *If* it's balanced by other
material on one's reading list. The flaws in the book have been pointed
out, in detail, on s.e (as well as the virtues, I might add). They are
not thoroughly damning, as are the flaws in Ray's book.
 
If you'd like to continue this discussion, sign up on sci.environment,
where lurk atmospheric scientists, geologists, ecologists, and other
persons more knowledgable than I (a humble chemist).
Given the striking rhetorical similarities between John Logajan on
Eco-Hysterics and Jed Rothwell on Excess-Heat, I think I'll give it a miss.
 
Thanks for playing,
Bo Curry
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 12 Nov 93
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion,sci.space,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 12 Nov 93
Date: 12 Nov 1993 23:32:51 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and posted
by us.  Respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other references below.
Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and FYI, archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous FTP'ing pleasure,
courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]
 
WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 12 Nov 1993    Washington, DC
 
1. THE FY 1994 UNAPPROPRIATION BILL.  MORE TROUBLE FOR SCIENCE?
Congress hasn't even finished all the appropriations bills for
this year, and already there are plans to take money back.  The
President submitted a recision bill to Congress that would cut
$1.9B from the appropriations the President just approved. This
is stuff the President didn't want anyway, including the Integral
Fast Reactor and some academic earmarks (WN 10-29-93), but since
Congress won't give him a line-item veto, he has to ask Congress
to unappropriate.  But $1.9B is peanuts.  Reps. Tim Penney (D-MN)
and John Kasich (R-OH) have an amendment that would slash $103B
over five years!  Science is among their targets: magnetic fusion
would be reduced to 50% of its baseline level over 5 years; a DOE
lab closure commission would be created similar to the commission
that recommended military base closures.  Their plan also calls
for consolidating science agencies into a Department of Science.
 
2. APPROPRIATORS WARN THAT SPACE SCIENCE WILL BE CUT NEXT YEAR!
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chair of the subcommittee that sets
the NASA budget, and her counterpart in the House, Louis Stokes
(D-OH), warned NASA to expect a cut of more than $500M next year.
They acknowledge that the space station, EOS and the shuttle "are
essentially fixed costs," which dumps much of the burden for the
cut on space science.  As the letter admits, this inverts the
priorities of the Augustine Commission (WN 12-14-90), which said
NASA should put space science first.  The Advanced X-Ray Astro-
physics Facility and the Cassini Saturn mission, both scheduled
for launch next year, are thought to be in particular jeopardy.
In this case, a recision might help--there is a movement in the
House to amend the recision bill to chop space station Alpha.
 
3. HOW WIDESPREAD IS SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT IN ACADEMIC RESEARCH?
A lot of faculty members and graduate students think they've seen
it, according to a survey of doctoral students and faculty at 99
departments of chemistry, civil engineering, microbiology and
sociology.  Half of the faculty claimed direct knowledge of mis-
conduct of some sort, but most of it falls in the category of
sleaze rather than fraud or plagiarism--for example, withholding
results that contradict a researcher's previous findings.  The
study appears to contradict Science magazine's editorial opinion
that misconduct is extremely rare.  Science, however, rejected
the paper, which is appearing in The American Scientist magazine.
 
4. ENERGY SECRETARY O'LEARY MEETS WITH SSC LABORATORY EMPLOYEES!
She agreed today to set up a task force on severance procedures.
Joe Cipriano, DOE's project manager for the SSC, is also said to
be in line for a pink slip.  Sen. Johnston (D-LA) lashed out at
Cipriano during Martha Krebs' confirmation hearing for "undermin-
ing the program."  It was a reference to an unsigned memo from
Cipriano last summer, calling for the firing of Roy Schwitters
(WN 8-6-93).  Meanwhile, Krebs has been confirmed by voice vote.
 
Robert L. Park  opa@aps.org         The American Physical Society
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Mark North /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 00:03:32 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
>applies at least equally well to the authors you cite.
 
Particularly, the late Petr Beckmann.
 
Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Mark North /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 00:08:04 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   First, botulin toxin usual declares itself by deforming any
>container containing it.
 
This is totally incorrect and a very dangerous belief. The toxin is
so potent very little need be produced to kill all who eat from the
contaminated material. Undoubtedly, most of the fatalities that
occur due to botulin are from following the above homily. A >>more
than fatal dose can be in a can of food that has *no* outward
appearance of spoilage, including odor.
 
Get your facts straight before you kill someone.
 
Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 02:11:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <2bli0bINNbvi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce d. Scott,
bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>Just for the record, I bounced the comments below off Dr Karl Lackner,
>our group leader and scientific secretary for JET.
>
Uh-oh, the battleship is training it's huge guns on my PT-boat...
 
>In article <1993Nov2.045606.25429@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>|> This isn't the whole truth, as I see it.  None of the top-notch
>|> designs uses steel, for the simple reason that the rad-waste problem
>|> *is* bad.  So you *have* to go with different materials.  While
>|> it's true that development of new materials will cost money and
>|> take time, the adjective *very* seems a bit excessive.  Certainly
>|> you can install trial sections of the advanced materials in your
>|> test reactors, and new-materials research isn't nearly so costly
>|> as the basic plasma-technology research, I don't think.
>
>Lackner said this was "straight out of a science fiction novel".
>
*BOOM*  Direct hit.  See you in the afterlife, if there is one...
 
Actually, I always wanted to be a science-fiction writer!  I just
wish that what I'd posted *was* from a sci-fi novel, because then
there's a chance I'd be earning royalties... :)
 
Seriously, could someone please enlighten me on precisely how
much it will cost to develop SiC or another low-activation material?
I just don't see how the cost can run up as high as an actual
test reactor for basic plasma research and engineering.
 
[Subsequent lines reformatted to reduce line width.]
 
>Will Johnson <CFyz0v.75q@news.udel.edu> replied:
>
>|> The latest on ITER is that they WILL use steel, and the worst
>|> form of it from a radioactive waste perspective (austenitic
>|> stainless steel).  The waste from this reactor alone will
>|> entirely fill the US (currently unopened) deep site storage
>|> site (presuming that the relatively lower level waste
>|> must be treated like high level radioactive waste - as it
>|> must under current US law).
>
Yes, but wrt my earlier comment about reactor designs, it's clear
I don't think ITER is a really good design.  Could someone
answer the following questions for me, though?
 
(1) Is ITER 100% committed to austenitic stainless?  How hard would
it be to change the design to at least a lower-activation stainless?
(2) Could someone post the data on ITER waste projections for each
of the current US waste classes?  I don't disagree with what's above,
I just want to have the numbers (and hopefully a reference) for
future reference.
 
>|> Commenting on the development on advanced materials, Hirsch
>|> is dead right!  Especially because the most promising low
>|> activation material, SiC, is a ceramic for which there is
>|> virtually no structural engineering data.  Even the less
>|> desirable substitutes of V (or TPX's Ti) will require
>|> massive materials development expenditures before a large
>|> complex structure can be built from them.  Anyone who tells
>|> you differently is either incredibly naive, intentially
>|> misleading, or woefully misinformed.
>
>Lackner comments: "This part of the information agrees completely with
>the European conclusion, based largely on testimony of the people
>responsible for the French breeder programme."
>
The ITER part, or the materials-development part?  Was this
European conclusion published somewhere, so I can read more
about it?  Is it really the case that there is "virtually no
structural engineering data" for SiC?  Or has the fusion
community perhaps not gotten up to speed on what data there is?
Also, how/why can we expect the people responsible
for the French breeder programme to know about materials
development?  And can someone please quantify "massive materials
development expenditures" for me? I mean, $100 million is pretty
large, and $1 billion is up there, but these are still well below
the expected costs of a power plant.  But I have no idea what
materials development would cost, since it's not my field, and
I'm new even to my own field.  I'm not sure how naive/misinformed
I am, but I certainly want to know more.
 
 
****************************************
Robert F. Heeter, still trying to get a grip on the facts.
"Takes a licking and keeps on ticking..."
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (Disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Robert Heeter /  TFTR Begins D-T Operations
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Begins D-T Operations
Date: 12 Nov 1993 20:56:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

TFTR here at Princeton entered its D-T phase with its first
trace-tritium shot.  Meanwhile, I made twinax cables. :)
 
The trivia:
TFTR Shot #72613 at 2:30 pm EST.
 
 
******************************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / mitchell swartz /  Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 03:01:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <north.753149284@watop>
     Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil)) writes:
 
    >   First, botulin toxin usual declares itself by deforming any
    >   container containing it.
 
=  "This is totally incorrect and a very dangerous belief. The toxin is
=  so potent very little need be produced to kill all who eat from the
=  contaminated material. Undoubtedly, most of the fatalities that
=  occur due to botulin are from following the above homily. A >>more
=  than fatal dose can be in a can of food that has *no* outward
=  appearance of spoilage, including odor.
=  Get your facts straight before you kill someone."
 
   Mark North is correct.   That was an error and
should have been "may" instead of "usual(ly)".
          {was in such haste, didn't even get the adverb correct  :-(
 
  The clostridial bacterial group generates gases (maily CO2 and H2)
(eg. gas gangrene) when they multiply; and in haste that characteristic
was overattributed to the toxin which the bacteria produce.
  Although in many recent cases the toxin is associated with canned produce,
there has been a drift from the early prevalence of these organisms
when meats were a significant carrier.
     [Virchow joked about using "sausage" as weapons in duels. In fact
         the word "botulus" (Latin) means ----> sausage]
 
  These, and other, preparations if contaminated, as Mark points out,
may NOT have obvious changes in gross appearance and
ought be recooked.  But that was not the point.
 
   The point was that there may be **clues** to the presence of the
anaerobic bacteria producing the toxic material.  May, and not always.
I was not trying to provide a list of clues to high probability
botulism toxin sites, as such clues might (and not always) include the
texture and smell of the food.  Perhaps Mark has some rule-of-thumb clues?
 
  The other material in question was actually plutonium, which may not
have similar clues unless instrumentation is nearby.
 
  Sorry for the turbulence.
  Always cook your food, folks, especially non-fresh foods.
 
  Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 04:19:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>> First, botulin toxin usual declares itself by deforming any
>>container containing it.
>
>This is totally incorrect and a very dangerous belief.
>
>Get your facts straight before you kill someone.
 
Here we see the typical gross overstatement of associated risk.
 
Typically less than 5 people a year die of botulism in the US, less than
20 people a year ingest it -- of those cases only 4% are the result of
food processors (i.e. canners), 22% of the cases result from home food
preparation, while 73% of the cases come from food services (i.e. restaurants.)
 
So if everyone boiled/baked/fried every content of every can of food, it would
eliminated one botulin associated death every five years.
 
Since this is about 10 million times more of threat than most things the
eco's flip out over, I can see why Mark got so excited!  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.11 / Carl Hoang /  XpertRule and M.4
     
Originally-From: carl_hoang@fullcoll.edu (Carl Hoang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: XpertRule and M.4
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 13:59:00 -0800
Organization: Fullerton College, Orange County, CA

I'm looking for your opinions and experiences on these
two products:
        XpertRule       Cincom Systems Inc.
        M.4             Cimflex Teknowledge
I'm developing a C++ Windows system that needs AI and
Expert System inference engines.  Any help is very much
appreciated.  Please send me Email.  Thanks.
        CH
CIS: 70763.77@compuserve.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencarl_hoang cudfnCarl cudlnHoang cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.08 / Mike Coleman /  Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
     
Originally-From: coleman@sparc1.cstp.umkc.edu (Mike Coleman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New to group - Cold fusion DEAD, yes??!
Date: 8 Nov 93 22:36:08 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
|I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
|disgraced scientists go...
 
I'm just an occasional lurker in this group, but I see it this way.  In order
for the cold fusion episode to finally be considered over, one of two things
needs to happen: either
 
        1.  a solid explanation for these anomalous phenomena will be found,
        or
 
        2.  someone will discover how to reproduce excess energy reactions on
        demand.
 
Until (1) happens, there is always the possibility that the physics
establishment is going to end up eating crow.
 
Mike
--
                   Prodigy--The network for censored minds.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencoleman cudfnMike cudlnColeman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: Draft of paper
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Draft of paper
Date: 12 Nov 93 11:01:22 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

With regard to my posting yesterday evening, "Draft of paper", I wish to
clarify that we are not "throwing in the towel" and giving up on looking
for possible small nuclear effects in deuterided materials.  I am urging
the use of the best detectors and multiple detection systems,
honesty in reporting results ("positive" or "negative"), and humility in
making claims.
 
At the same time, our experiments on possible effects are by no means
abandoned.  It is educational for students (and for me) to continue to
search for purported nuclear effects, and we plan to continue to do so.
We will check our own and others' hints of neutron, charged-particle,
and gamma production.  And we will report results from the best detector
systems we can bring to bear, regardless of whether the outcome is interpreted
as "positive" or "negative."  Science is a quest for reality, not a popularity
contest.
 
I remind you that the results based on outgassing of deuterium from metal
wires showed a possible neutron-emission signal, particularly as regards
bursts of up to 40 neutrons.  These results were reported in July and August
here.   (A neutron burst is defined as neutrons detected
within a 320 microsecond window in our plastic scintillator + 3He-capture
detector, described in "Draft of paper.")  These results are not in themselves
compelling and will be further scrutinized using an independent "burst-mode
detector" in our deep-tunnel laboratory when this detector is repaired.
 
We are also continuing studies of sonoluminescence (and ultrasound effects)
as it may relate to low-level fusion in D2O,
of metallic deuterium, of fractofusion (I now have some
LiD graciously provided by Prof. Lipson of Russia), of ion-conductors (e.g.,
tungsten bronze and lithium alumina), and of possible tritium production deep
in the earth -- among other lines of research.
 
I will continue to report results here and elsewhere, however the results
turn out.  True, current results bode ill for "cold fusion."  But we must
be patient to see how the results (slowly) roll in.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 22:23:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGE9qw.KB7@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <CGCnpp.L7A@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>: [of John Logojan's llist of books]
>
>: >she relies upon almost as much. The other books on your list suffer from
>: >similar flaws.
>
>:     That's a pretty broad brush.  Name the 'flaws' in Pat Michaels book.
>
>:                                 dale bass
 
>That said, I have not read Michaels' book. My understanding is that it
>is a collection of essays by various authors on different subjects.
>Discussion on sci.environment by those who have read the book, and who
>have credibility on these issues, suggests that the essays are of
>varying quality, from good to rather bad. Several have appeared elsewhere.
>The book is tendentiously selective, of course, but that's to be expected
>in the context, and not necessarily bad. *If* it's balanced by other
>material on one's reading list. The flaws in the book have been pointed
>out, in detail, on s.e (as well as the virtues, I might add). They are
>not thoroughly damning, as are the flaws in Ray's book.
 
     So the unnamed 'flaws' are only partially damning?  This is
     ridiculous.
 
>If you'd like to continue this discussion, sign up on sci.environment,
>where lurk atmospheric scientists, geologists, ecologists, and other
>persons more knowledgable than I (a humble chemist).
 
     And we can punt inadequate data and inadequate models around
     to while away the mindless hours?  No thanks, I've played before...
 
>Given the striking rhetorical similarities between John Logajan on
>Eco-Hysterics and Jed Rothwell on Excess-Heat, I think I'll give it a miss.
 
     Remarkable attitude.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Stale Bass
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stale Bass
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 09:31:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dale Bass writes in response to my "Blooperberg" assault:
 
 >Such scintillating repartee.  Such delicate phrasing.  What
 >    a joy it is to watch.
 >
 >    I take it the facts are getting uncomfortable?
 >
 >                              dale bass
 
Sorry, Stale Dale, the facts on CNF are getting more comfortable each day.
You're the biggest bag of wind on the net. Ten pies for *your* face, coming up
right soon!
 
Gene Mallove
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 03:43:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov12.014539.6980@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Well, I've been away for a week on vacation, and it seems a lot
>of people have questions and criticisms of the reactor design
>studies I've been mentioning.  I am still trying to get caught
>up in everything, but I will try to respond to people soon.
>
>Dale Bass showed up first on my newsreader:
>
>In article <CFw7L7.G0B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>
>[Introductory stuff deleted; I think Dale's comment stands
>on its own. Lines reformatted to reduce length.]
>
>>     Yes.  Probabilistic assessments of economic viability 50 years
>>     into the future are worthless.  There's no basis, no reasonable
>>     way of determining statistics, nothing. ('Yes Sir, Mr. Senator.
>>     In 1 out of 50 possible universes which are but small
>>     perturbations on ours, fusion becomes economically viable
>>     in the next half century').
>>
>>     I've said this before in rational argument.
>>
>My recollection of the origin of our discussion here was that
>you were claiming that the estimated cost/kWhr came "out of
>their ears."  Based on what is above however, I will concede
>that I haven't seen any publication give a probabilistic estimate
>of whether fusion will work.  I agree that there's no scientific
>way of doing such a thing since we can't predict the future.
>I tend to disagree with you on the relative likelihood of fusion's
>future success, but that's just my gut feeling.  There's no
>hard-core probabilistic assessment.  And I do tend towards optimism.
 
     We're saying different things.  It has nothing to do with
     being able to predict the furure.  There are perfectly good
     probablistic assessments of things in the future, e.g. how
     many widgets Motorola will incorrectly manufacture in the
     next quarter.  There is a reasonable basis for making such
     an assessment.  For fusion, there is absolutely no basis for
     making such an assessment since it relies on things not
     accessable to probablistic reasoning.
 
>Back to me:
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you disagree?  What's your evidence?  In what way are the
>>>>>studies flawed?
>>>>
>>>>    Plasma containment, reactor size, reactor shielding,
>>>>    inadequate consideration of mandated reactor tritium containment,
>>>>    inadequate consideration of regulatory requirements, inadequate
>>>>    consideration of actual costs of disposing of hot materials.
>>>>
>>>>    Throw away these things, especially the regulatory requirements,
>>>>    and fission is 'too cheap to meter.'
>>>>
>>>Which topic do you want to discuss
>>>first?
>
>Dale replies:
>>
>>      Any or all.
>>
>We've got a deal.  Do you want to pick a topic and expand on
>why you think the studies are flawed, or would you prefer that
>I summarize the content of a particular study first and then \
>you can take it apart?  I'd start now, but as I said before,
>I don't have the stuff with me and I'm a bit short on time this
>week.  Why don't we start with the cost of disposing of hot
>materials.
 
     Okay, it's infinite.  The repository is not finished (and may never
     be).  And when it is, fuel rods from hither and yon are going
     to fill it up in about 15 minutes leaving no room for piles of
     ITER garbage.  So, A) you site it in the US and you don't get
     initial approval, or B) you site it offshore and Congress doesn't fund it.
 
>While I get my act together here, perhaps you might post a
>list of what information you consider important to the topic.
>I'm assuming we need to know how much waste there will be,
>and of what types, and also how the study estimated costs
>of disposal of the various types.  I don't think this is
>going to be a major aspect of the cost, but it seems like
>a relatively easy place to get started, and it's an area
>where fusion and fission share common concerns.  What
>other data should I try to provide in my summary?
 
     Sure, type, volume and siting issues are very important.
     But approval by DOE is also important, so perception is more important.
 
     My feeling is that you'll never get approval if you have to
     dump large amounts of material into Yucca mountain.  It is not
     scheduled for completion until at least 2010 and will only
     have a capacity of 70,000 metric tons (and is behind schedule
     and over budget).  By 2000, there will be at least
     42,000 metric tons waiting to be deposited, and
     roughly 2000 metric tons a year will be continue to be produced.
     That ignores huge hunks of stuff that might be unearthed in
     'cleanups' at places like Hanford and Rocky Flats.
 
     Wait until you explain to the funding body and attendant drones
     that 'unlimited power from the sea' involves large hunks of
     radioactive stuff.  Wait until someone must develop a *real*
     waste disposal plan instead of solely a presenting a
     career-aggrandizing study.
 
     Such issues are much of what is stopping fission in this country.  And,
     with all the hysteria, no one cares about the difference between
     actinide-spiked fuel rods, neutron-activated steel or radioiodine
     tracers in that there bunny rabbit (checked out the furor over
     siting of low-level repositories lately?)
 
     So, the nuclear hysteria that keeps the fusion program funded is going
     to kill any real reactor, but feel free to present the case of the
     studies.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Breeders and Proliferation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breeders and Proliferation
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 03:53:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov12.021730.19773@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <CFvJtI.354@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>In article <1993Nov1.005054.1614@princeton.edu>,
>>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>I never said that it would be easiest to develop power breeders, I
>>>said that *once you have power breeders* building nukes becomes
>>>much simpler.  Care to refute this, or are you going to evade?
>>
>>   Why do you think it becomes much simpler?
>>
>Well, I was under the impression that breeder reactors ran with
>greater concentrations of weapons-grade materials in their fuel,
>and furthermore tended to require more shipments of radioactive
>fuel/weapons materials, so that (a) it becomes easier to process
>available radioactive materials into weapons and (b) it becomes
>easier to hide weapons-development activity within general
>radioactive-materials transfer activities.  I'd love to be wrong,
>since I think we need to keep all our energy options open, but
>I'd like to hear a really solid argument that even a skeptic can
>believe, so that if I ever get into a discussion I can have a
>firm position which I know how to defend.
 
     I guess what I fail to understand is that *once we have power breeders*,
     why do we have to share?  After all, *we* can already produce
     nuclear weapons, and we already have breeder reactors that
     we don't share with all and sundry.  I wasn't recommending
     shipping one to North Korea, just as I wouldn't recommend shipping
     Plutonium, which we also have.
 
     The transportation issue is moot with on-site reprocessing in
     the IFR concept.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.14 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutrons, Steel, and Fusion (was Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646)
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 01:12:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
The University of Texas - Austin writes:
>
>In article <m0oxMtX-0000bkC@crash.cts.com>,
>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>>Even the Boron cycle will have induced radioactivity from
>>>ion bombardment. IT is just a (very important) question of magnitude.
>>
>>Well, John, you leave yourself an out, I see.  If it turns out that
>>the actual level of induced radioactivity is on the level of, say,
>>passive solar heating, you can point to your second sentence above
>>and say "See?  I SAID it was a VERY IMPORTANT question of magnitude."
>>
>>Such cowardly intellectual pot-shots do nothing to advance dialogue.
>>What is your REAL opinion about "induced radioactivity" in p-B11 burners?
>>
>
>I say "very important" becuase it makes a great deal of difference on
>whether you have to bury 100 tons of hot steel or 10 tons of hot steel.
>
>The point is that you will have to spend a lot less $ to dispose of it.
 
OK, so now I have your definition of "induced radioactivity":
 
"Off" doesn't mean "off".
 
That is, of course, the only reasonable definition of "induced radioactivity"
but I wanted to make sure everyone knew you knew that.
 
>However, I do not want to be anywhere near a burning reactor, whatever
>the fuel cycle.
 
NOW you're talking about the radiation coming out of an OPERATING
REACTOR (switch "On") rather than the "induced radiation" in the
reactor (switch "Off").  Again, this sort of bait-and-switch tactic
does little to advance productive dialogue.
 
>What exactly is my "estimation" of p-B11 induced radioactivity? You
>got me hanging there. I doubt I could give you an answer to within
>5 orders of magnitude.
 
That's OK.  You are entirely within reason to be concerned about
"induced radioactivity" (switch "Off") even if it is 5 orders of
magnitude below other cycles.  It would be great if you would provide
a solid argument for why that would be the case with p-B11.  But then
you say ...
 
>However, even with that wide latitude, I feel
>confident that anyone near an unshielded p-B11 burner that provides 1000 MW
>of power would be fried.
 
Again, we see a obfuscating sentence that is most reasonably interpreted to
mean the switch is "On" ("provides" is present tense) and at least can be
interpreted either way (switch is "On" or switch is "Off") and therefore
attempts to portray the level of "induced radioactivty" as being somehow
interchangable with the level of operational ("On") radiation -- even if that
radiation is soft X-Rays!  It provides an "out" no matter what the response
is yet tars the p-B11 waste disposal problem ("Off") with the levels
associated with operational radiation ("On").  Why would anyone respond to
such a statement at all?
 
>It's not cowardly on my part to point out the obvious. I don't think it's
>a pot shot either.
 
It is both when you denigrate a potentially very viable fuel cycle with
connotations that its "induced radioactivity" (that present when "Off")
is comparable or interchangable with the radiation it would produce while
in operation (switch "On").
 
>From an economic stand-point, the difference between these two kinds of
hazard are so great as to represent a reckless disregard for the truth
on your part.
 
>If you doubt my intuition here, then I invite to you
>prove my conclusions wrong and refrain from ad hominem attacks.
 
If you would state what your REAL conclusions are then I would be happy
to do what little I can to prove them wrong -- or even RIGHT!
 
>Do you, for example, believe that
>If you still think you would want to embrace and caress the first wall of a
>p-B11 reactor,
 
Do you mean when the reactor is "On" or when it is "Off"?  Here, at least,
the most reasonable interpretation of the sentence is that it is "Off".
 
But then, despite all our hopes that a reasonable dialogue might have
begun:
 
>I invite you to drive your RV to Batavia and ask the HEPcats
>to let you place your head in the Fermilab main beam line (when it comes back
 
>up).
 
Ignoring the sarcasm, this would imply that the prior sentence meant
the p-B11 reactor was "On" when I was to embrace and caress it.  Again,
we are bereft of even QUALITATIVE statements about "induced radioactivity"
to which we might hope to respond.  If I respond to the "On" interpretation
and say "no way would I commit to such a risk" then you can claim you have
proven your point about "induced radioactivity".  If I respond to the "Off"
intepretation and say "yes, I believe I could come into direct contact
 with the first wall without significant health risk" you could say "So
 we see Mr. Bowery is willing to expose himself to the first wall of a
 1000MW nuclear reactor!  That about summs it up for his credibility in
 general doesn't it?"
 
It's a no win situation against slippery language and nonlogic like yours.
 
>The simple point I was trying to make in my original question was any
>scenario is going to be hot enough to require remote handling and may
>provoke the issues of public hysteria (yes even p-B11 IMO).
 
OK, now we finally have a statement that PROBABLY makes the most sense
if interpreted in the "Off" or "induced radioactivity" situation.  And
reading ahead:
 
>However,
>different fuel cycles can greatly reduce the large, but often overlooked
costs
>associated with neutron damage. My original question remains, can anyone
>comment on the issues of neutron embrittlement and induced radioactvity ?
>This is a materials issue. I know D-3He will work better than D-T and I
>assume p-B11 will work better yet
 
... we have confirmation that the "Off" interpretation is the correct one
to apply to the previously quoted assertion about "remote handling".
 
So FINALLY we have something we can respond to that isn't slippery...
oh.. but by gosh... look what you do now...
 
>(oops, I guess there goes another
>"pot-shot" :>
 
Why did you associate this "pot-shot" "joke" with the ONLY statement in
your response which was NOT a pot-shot?
 
I find it virtually impossible to believe you are arguing in good faith.
 
>I thinkg evyone in the fusion advanced fuels
>area is doing a dis-service if they promote the proposition that there will
>be absolutely no radiation from them. And this applies to p-B11 as well,
>unless you can show me something truly extraordinary.
 
It is hard to imagine anyone doing a greater disservice than promoting
confusion between a p-B11 burner's radioactivity when "Off" and
its photon energies while "On."
 
Try again.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.14 / R Schroeppel /  CO2 toxicity
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CO2 toxicity
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 01:12:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

(Yes, I know it's off topic, but it's a rebuttal.  --rcs)
 
Robert Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) has challenged my statement
about the normal amount of CO2 in exhaled air.  Recapping the discussion,
 
rcs   > Exhaled air from people contains in the neighborhhod of 4% CO2.
 
eachus>????  This looks like a misplaced decimal, but it could be true for,
    say, marathon runners.  One to two percent CO2 knocks most people out
    cold, because it interferes with the body's ability to get CO2 out of
    the blood.  A BOE calculation says that the average person adds 1%
    CO2 and 1% H2O to the air he exhales.
 
rcs   > The current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 350 ppm,
      > or .035%.
 
eachus>If true this is very good news.  Last time I looked at the Hawaii
    data, it was significantly past this.  (There is a noticeable annual
    variation, but it is lowest in the northern hemisphere summer.)
 
rcs   > I find it difficult to believe that tripling the CO2
      > concentration of inhaled air, to .1%, could affect anyone's
      > health.
 
eachus>Sorry you find it difficult.  All the data I have seen say that at
    this level the phsyiological effects start to appear.  Ever decide
    that a room is "stuffy" and go outside for "a breath of fresh air?"
    That is a legitimate experimental data point, and occurs between 0.1
    and 0.2 per cent CO2 for most people.  The Navy has a lot of this data
    from submarines, and even during WWII, exceeding 0.1% CO2 was only
    done if necessary, and about 0.3% was the normal limit.  (Under attack
    some subs went up over 1% CO2 and survived, but they had a significant
    number of crew members non-functional or unconscious by the time they
    surfaced.)
 
rcs   > The inhaled air (.1% CO2) will be mixed with a highly
      > variable amount of residual unexhaled air (4% CO2).  From the
      > viewpoint of the lungs, any information about the external CO2
      > concentration has been lost.
 
eachus> Again, I just can't accept that 4% figure for normal circumstances.
    The breathing reflex cuts in at blood levels of CO2 well below that.
 
I offer the follwoing data, from W.F.Ganong, Review of Medical
Physiology, p.474, figure 34-11, Partial pressures of gasses (mm Hg).
(he credits the figure to Lambertsen, in Medical Physiology, 1968).
 
Inspired air:  O2 158.0   CO2  0.3   H2O 5.7    N2 596.0  (mm Hg)
Expired gas:   O2 116.0   CO2 32.0   H2O 47.0   N2 565.0
 
rcs: The total of each row is a nominal 760.0 mm, and obviously the
1% argon has been ignored.  The percentages of CO2 are .04% inhaled,
and 4.2% exhaled.
 
On page 467, Ganong states: "At rest, a normal human breathes 12-15
times a minute.  Five hundred ml of air per breath, or 6-8 liters/min,
are inpired and expired.  This air mixes with the gas in the alveoli ...
In this manner, 250 ml of O2 enter the body per minute, and 200 ml of
CO2 are excreted."  From page 470, the total volume of air in the lungs
is 6.0 liters (men) or 4.2 liters (women).
 
rcs: Each breath is mixed with 12 times its volume inside the lungs.
 
Let's calculate the O2 & CO2 in a typical room:  Assume volume 8'
x 10' x 12' = 27000 liters; 5400 liters of oxygen.  .1% CO2 would be
27 liters, occurring after 135 minutes, assuming one average occupant
at rest.  I don't have any data on stuffiness.  On page 491, Ganong
notes that 7% CO2 in inspired air will result in coma.
 
I'll concede that a person breathing air with .1% CO2 will breath
(4.2 - .035) / (4.2 - .1) = 1.016 times as often as a person breathing
normal air with .035% CO2.  If you subscribe to the aging theory that
says you only have a fixed number of breaths, this will take a year
off your life.
 
Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Stale Bass
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Stale Bass
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 12:34:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1658:
 
>Dale Bass writes in response to my "Blooperberg" assault:
 
> >Such scintillating repartee.  Such delicate phrasing.  What
> >    a joy it is to watch.
> >
> >    I take it the facts are getting uncomfortable?
> >
> >                              dale bass
 
>Sorry, Stale Dale, the facts on CNF are getting more comfortable each day.
>You're the biggest bag of wind on the net. Ten pies for *your* face, coming up
>right soon!
 
Gene, you are beginning to sound like the hot fusion program: "any day now".
This last year or so, you've promised to blow people out of the water, that
their heads would roll, and now it's pies; all implying some concrete evidence
coming up soon, very soon.
 
As Steve Jones put it: Where's the beef?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Stale Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stale Bass
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 16:36:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Gene Mallove writes (again in that wonderful idiom all his own):
>Dale Bass writes in response to my "Blooperberg" assault:
>
> >Such scintillating repartee.  Such delicate phrasing.  What
> >    a joy it is to watch.
> >
> >    I take it the facts are getting uncomfortable?
> >
>
>Sorry, Stale Dale, the facts on CNF are getting more comfortable each day.
 
     Then the infantilism is just your regular personality?
 
>You're the biggest bag of wind on the net.
 
     Probably not the biggest.  I'm only about 6', 200 lb.  Lung
     forced expiratory volume (FEV1) is about normal for my size.
     So, Gene, you appear to be quite wrong.  I'm just a
     moderately-sized bag of wind.
 
>Ten pies for *your* face, coming up
>right soon!
 
     I await the glorious day with baited breath.  I'm willing to
     put money on it not being *this* decade.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / John Logajan /  Droege's cell resistance
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Droege's cell resistance
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 17:33:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Among other values you can derive from Droege's 4A6 data is the cell
resistance.  One thing stands out.
 
As expected, cell resistance is non-linear yet inversely related to the
cell current during most of the run.
 
There is one period of exception, from time 1,230,000 to 1,300,000.  During
this time, the inverse relationship doesn't hold, there is a slight
increasing resistance trend superimposed upon and slightly over-riding
the decreasing resistance trend associate with the increasing current trend.
 
Earlier I had pointed out that external recombination was slowly transporting
15cc of the electrolyte out of the cell, from no later than 950,000 up until
about 1,350,000.
 
Thus this increase in cell resistance is yet another indicator that electrolyte
did leave the main cell during this time.  (I think the tracking, or lack
thereof, of the catalyst temperature with Icell was a sufficient indicator,
but a multiplicity of indicators is further proof.)
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.14 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Aloca TPS-451S neutron det.data wanted
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aloca TPS-451S neutron det.data wanted
Date: 14 Nov 93 23:45:55 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 Could some kind person please send me the technical specifications
of an  Aloca Ltd. TPS-451S neutron detector. I am particularly interested
in its energy range, neutron sensitivity and its Gamma rejection ratio (this
latter spec. with energy data if possible).
 You can contact me either as a post in this news group, by email, or by fax.
 The Melbourne, Australia, fax number is  61 3 565-4746.  Many thanks in
anticipation.
                                         Kind Regards to all,
                                         Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 06:12:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CGEtpt.FMs@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>  Sorry for the turbulence.
>  Always cook your food, folks, especially non-fresh foods.
 
It was my understanding that botulism toxin didn't break down with
normal cooking temperatures and that therefore cooking didn't help.
 
Proper canning methods were the only safety device.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / mitchell swartz /  Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 14:08:37 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <tomkCGIrw8.5IC@netcom.com>
    Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
>  Sorry for the turbulence.
>  Always cook your food, folks, especially non-fresh foods.
 
= "It was my understanding that botulism toxin didn't break down with
= normal cooking temperatures and that therefore cooking didn't help.
= Proper canning methods were the only safety device.
 
  Tom, your  'understanding' in this case does not parallel real life.
Botulinum toxin is relatively heat-labile.  It is completely
inactivated at 100C for 10 minutes - which is why boiling is effective.
It is the spores of the bacteria which are heat resistant and
survive many disinfectants as well.  Confer a book, eg. "Microbiology"
 Ed. Davis, et alia, Harper & Row, for general elementary info.
 
 --- sci.physics.fusion factoid:
   The bacteria are grown in the lab anaerobically where residual
oxygen is removed by hydrogen gas added to the volume above the
bacteria.  Palladium or palladinized asbestos is heated and used to
remove the rest of the molecular diatomic oxygen.
 
        Best wishes.
                                       Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / James Crotinger /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: 15 Nov 93 18:14:56 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>      Okay, it's infinite.  The repository is not finished (and may
>      never be).  And when it is, fuel rods from hither and yon are
>      going to fill it up in about 15 minutes leaving no room for
>      piles of ITER garbage.  So, A) you site it in the US and you
>      don't get initial approval, or B) you site it offshore and
>      Congress doesn't fund it.
 
  Why B? I suspect it is very unlikely that ITER will be sited in the US.
 
  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:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 /  matthew.buyum@ /  Re: new to group - cold fusion dead,
     
Originally-From: matthew.buyum@hofbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: new to group - cold fusion dead,
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 13:32:34
Organization: House Of Files BBS 516-938-6722

 
 
 > jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
 > |I thought P&F had long since been debunked and gone to wherever
 > |disgraced scientists go...
 >
 > I'm just an occasional lurker in this group, but I see it this way.
 > In order
 > for the cold fusion episode to finally be considered over, one of
 > two things
 > needs to happen: either
 >
 >         1.  a solid explanation for these anomalous phenomena will
 > be found,
 >         or
 >
 >         2.  someone will discover how to reproduce excess energy
 > reactions on
 >         demand.
 >
 > Until (1) happens, there is always the possibility that the physics
 > establishment is going to end up eating crow.
 >
 > Mike
 
 
I hate looking at things that way.  Everybody holds the inexorable truth, eh?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbuyum cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch Testimony on S646
Date: 15 Nov 1993 20:43:29 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
|> Seriously, could someone please enlighten me on precisely how
|> much it will cost to develop SiC or another low-activation material?
|> I just don't see how the cost can run up as high as an actual
|> test reactor for basic plasma research and engineering.
 
I think Lackner's comment actually pointed at the feasibility to put things
into a test reactor and then re-arrange them. Particularly divertor plate
coatings and the like. "Trial sections" in a reactor is a no-go. In a small
machine or even just in a neutron target, maybe better. I understood that
was one of the things the 14 MeV neutron source was supposed to address.
 
|> (1) Is ITER 100% committed to austenitic stainless?  How hard would
|> it be to change the design to at least a lower-activation stainless?
|> (2) Could someone post the data on ITER waste projections for each
|> of the current US waste classes?  I don't disagree with what's above,
|> I just want to have the numbers (and hopefully a reference) for
|> future reference.
 
Ob1: No. Nothing in ITER's design is really secure, not since Rebut pushed
the panic button last February, throwing the whole CDA out the window and
returning to his sketch pad. The commitment to austinitic stainless is
merely a loud series of statements from the US side, during their own
internal discussion, as reported in Texas by Richard Hazeltine in
September.  The absence of hard data on things like Vanadium is a major
factor. This in my mind reveals the rush-job nature of ITER.
 
Ob2: I know nothing about the waste issue; people are arguing about
structure problems like brittleness and the like.
 
|> >Will Johnson writes:
|>
|> >Commenting on the development on advanced materials, Hirsch
|> >is dead right!  Especially because the most promising low
|> >activation material, SiC, is a ceramic for which there is
|> >virtually no structural engineering data.  Even the less
|> >desirable substitutes of V (or TPX's Ti) will require
|> >massive materials development expenditures before a large
|> >complex structure can be built from them.  Anyone who tells
|> >you differently is either incredibly naive, intentionally
|> >misleading, or woefully misinformed.
|> >
|> >Lackner comments: "This part of the information agrees completely with
|> >the European conclusion, based largely on testimony of the people
|> >responsible for the French breeder programme."
|> >
|> The ITER part, or the materials-development part?
 
The materials-development part.
 
|> Was this European conclusion published somewhere, so I can read more
|> about it?
 
I'll try to get that for you.
 
|> Is it really the case that there is "virtually no structural engineering
|> data" for SiC?
 
Yes. Ditto for V. Not at other than STP-like conditions. This stuff is
going to get hot in a reactor. The breeder people are best in the know
because they have been researching materials for optimal performance under
"exotic" conditions for quite a while.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 20:45:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

FYI, Reprinted from sci.environment:
 
 |From: rparson@orac.holonet.net (Robert Parson)
 |Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 22:46:30 GMT
 |Lines: 42
 |
 |gstark@muug.mb.ca (Geoff Stark) writes:
 |>In "Trashing the Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo (ISBN 0-89526-554-3)
 |>published in 1990 more evidence (all footnoted for futher study) that
 |>DDT was a remarkable pseticide, harful _only_ to insects.
 |
 |I can't address DDT specifically, but I can say that Dixy Lee Ray's book
 |is thoroughly unreliable when it comes to things that I _do_ know about.
 |Her discussion of stratospheric ozone, for example displays an abysmal
 |ignorance of the scientific fundamentals. She confuses chlorine radicals
 |with chloride ions, gets the chlorine emissions from a volcanic eruption
 |wrong by several orders of magnitude (she asserts that the 1976
 |eruption of Augustine volcanoe injected ~500 billion kg of HCl into
 |the stratosphere. There are only about 0.5 billion kg of HCl _in_ the
 |entire stratosphere.) Her principal references are articles by the
 |associates of Lyndon LaRouche. Her new book is even worse - it's practically
 |a catalogue of all the stupid things that anyone has ever said about
 |the stratosphere.  On reading it, I began to understand how an
 |evolutionary biologist must feel when he first sees a book from the
 |Institute for Creation Research. I wrote a detailed rebuttal of Ray's
 |treatment of ozone which I can send you; I won't post it here since
 |it's not related directly to this thread.
 |
 |>An even better article is "DDT Effects on Bird Abundance and Reproduction"
 |>by J Gordon Edwards, in a book called "Rational Readings on Environmental
 |>Concerns" (edited by Jay H. Lehr  ISBN 0-442-01146-6).  It is heavily
 |>footnoted and well worth reading.
 |
 |This book is, at best, highly uneven. Again I looked at the articles dealing
 |with subjects that I know about - their quality is mediocre to poor. The
 |editor seems to have set out to find articles that would support his
 |preconceived notions - a beautiful example of McCarthy's "Lawyer's
 |Science."
 |
 |Now none of this addresses DDT directly, I realize. But if you are going
 |to make a case you are going to have to find better sources than these.
 |Certainly better than Ray's book. (The article by Edwards may well be
 |a fine piece of work, but that has to be shown. Where did it originally
 |appear?)
 |
 | Robert
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: 15 Nov 1993 20:49:03 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jac.753387296@gandalf>,
        jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
|> I suspect it is very unlikely that ITER will be sited in the US.
 
Could you elaborate? I know only the discussions about Germany and Europe.
Germany is _very_ unlikely because of the hyper-hysteria against anything
"nuclear". Cadarache has been mentioned. People like S France. For this to
fly they'd probably have to build housing, since Cadarache is in the
middle of nowhere: the nearest town, Aix-in-Provence, is 45 km away, and
it is FF 14 each way to use the autobahn. It is that or take 1 hr each
way, every day. As bad as Los Alamos (if you live in Santa Fe). There is
also the >4 dollar/gallon gas. (Aix is quite nice, though.)
 
Why not the US? Or, for that matter, why not Japan?
 
Russia, I can understand :-)
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Edward Lewis /  My abstract for the ICCF4 (plasmoids...)
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My abstract for the ICCF4 (plasmoids...)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 23:05:48 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

        This article is an almost identical version of my abstract
that I faxed for the ICCF4 on September 13 or 14 (a few words have
been changed or added).
 
posted on sci.physics.fusion                     5719 S.Harper,
on November 13, 1993                             Chicago, Illinois
                                                 60637 U.S.A.
 
                        A NEW SET OF PHENOMENA
 
        I suspect that science has developed according to an
approximately 80 year periodicity since 1500.  At approximately 80
year intervals, people began to experience contradictions of the
premise of the theory that they apprehended.  People have been
increasingly experiencing these contradictions during the last 20
years.  The anomalous phenomena seems to me to be mostly
"plasmoid-like."  In fact, there are only a few phenomena that I have
not identified as plasmoid phenomena.
 
(My Earlier Work) Last year I experientially identified electron beam
phenomena such as those that Nardi and Bostick(1) produced, plasmoids
such as those that Bostick produced, ball lightning-type phenomena,
the phenomena that Ken Shoulders(2) produced that he calls EVs, and
"cold fusion" phenomena, and tentatively identified superconducting
phenomena.  By a premise that I have been developing for 13 years, I
formulated five deductions that I described in a paper that I finished
writing in December of 1992, and submitted to Fusion Technology
journal then.  These deductions are: 1) High voltage discharge
phenomena is similar to "cold fusion" phenomena.  2) The phenomena
which some people call "EVs" may be associated with the phenomena of
"excess energy," of radiation of neutrons, charged particles, and
electromagnetic radiation, of many or all of the traces which
Matsumoto has described, of the appearance of new elements, of
gravity, of anomalous "magnetic-like" phenomena, and perhaps of
superconductivity, or actually be a locus of the phenomena which I
mention.  All of these phenomena are associated with the stressing of
substances.  3) The phenomena which people call EB filaments may be
EVs or be similar to EVs or be composed of EVs.  4) There may be a
pattern of transformation or manifestation of phenomena which produces
all of the groups of traces which Matsumoto classified, and the EB
filament and EV marks.  5) Substances are composed of EV-like things.
I sent copies of versions of this paper to people around the world.
Something that I suspect that I neglected to list then is that BL-type
phenomena is associated with the disappearance of substance.  The EB
filament phenomena and the EV phenomena were produced in similar ways,
and the effects of the phenomena were similar.  The markings on
materials are similar and are similar to the traces that Matsumoto
produced by electrolysis.
 
(My More Recent Work, Confirmations of Deductions and of Resolutions)
Matsumoto showed a micrometer sized, structured, BL-like phenomena
that has white lines that are in a geometrical pattern that is in a
palladium cathode in an article(3) that is in the January issue of FT.
Some people have reported BL phenomena that looked like clusters of
white lines against a main background.  I wonder whether these are
like galactic filaments in the galaxy and like galactic filaments that
galaxies are in.  "The Snake" is an example of a filament like this.
I wonder whether these filaments are associated with
superconductivity.  Matsumoto used a scanning electron microscope to
make the picture.  Most of the phenomena that was photographed seems
to be as dark as the rest of the cathode.  The tiny BL-like phenomena
that Matsumoto produced is able to travel through water, glass, and
air since it traveled to the emulsion.  It was able to travel through
the glass with no effect.  BL phenomena have been reported to travel
through water and air, and to travel through glass and ceramic with no
effects that were apparent.  I suspect that according to the pattern
of the phenomena, this is part of the experiential evidence that
BL-type phenomena traveling like this is similar to superconductivity.
BL-type phenomena may also produce holes and tunnels in materials.  I
suspect that this is the reason why many people such as Matsumoto and
Liaw find holes and tunnels in electrodes.  Sometimes many cubic
centimeters of material may disappear from walls or the ground due to
BL phenomena.  I suspect that substance is either transported or
converted when this happens.  I suspect that substance becomes part of
the BL-type phenomena and that the BL-type phenomena may convert to
light-like phenomena.  A BL-like phenomena that Ohtsuki and
Ofuruton(4) produced bored through aluminum foil and then existed on
the outside of their apparatus for about one or two seconds even
though the electrical generator was turned off.  As they describe, the
phenomena was not due to "the combustion of the aluminum foil, because
the hole did not become any bigger while the plasma flame was
visible."  They "could find no reasonable explanation" for the
continuation of this phenomena.  The duration of this phenomena seems
to be related to the disappearance of the foil when it initially bored
through.  The aluminum may have first been converted to the BL-type
phenomena.  Then the phenomena converted to light or electricity.  I
know about other phenomena like this.
        The experienced universe seems to be a plasmoid phenomena.
Bostick, Nardi, Peratt, and many other people have produced phenomena
that seem to be similar to galaxies and galactic filaments.  They and
Alfven, and other people have developed detailed astronomical theories
by modeling the universe as plasmoid phenomena according to their
experience.  They explain that the phenomena that people have ascribed
to "black holes" such as the phenomena they call quasars (white holes)
and jets are plasmoid phenomena that are similar to those that are
produced on earth.  There seems to be sufficient evidence to identify
the galaxy and our solar system as plasmoid phenomena.  In many ways,
plasmoid phenomena and stars and galaxies are similar.
        In his "One-Point Cold Fusion" paper(5) about discharging
which will be published in Fusion Technology in November of 1993,
Matsumoto shows photographs of tiny, structured, BL-like phenomena
that look much like BL phenomena and EVs.  Many of the marks he
produced during the discharge are similar to many of the kinds of
traces he produced before, but some are different.  This is furthur
evidence that discharge phenomena is similar to electrolysis, and the
BL phenomena are confirmations of my deductions.  He produced trail
marks in metal and marks that I suspect are tunnels and a marking that
is a vortex or helix shape.  This phenomena is identical to galaxies
and cyclones or typhoons.  Matsumoto describes in this paper that he
has also produced phenomena that are similar to the tiny, bright
phenomena by using nickel foil.  Much of the information that I've
written here this far I've described in articles that I posted on
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup on the "use-net" since February of 1993.
An article about the phenomena he produced by using nickel foil is
also scheduled to be published in FT in November of 1993(6).  I
suspect that this is more confirmation that CF phenomena which is
produced by discharge or by electrolysis is plasmoid phenomena.  But I
suspect that CF plasmoid phenomena may be produced by stressing
substances in other ways, such as by bending or thermal cycling.  In
an abstract that I sent for the ICCF3 that is in the back of the
abstract booklet, I describe how holes produced by electrolysis and
thermal cycling are similar.  I suspect that various sizes of BL-type
phenomena are produced in electric CF apparatus.  I suspect that tiny
ones are associated with the points on cathodes such as those that
people such as Minevski and Bockris reported.  I suspect that the
luminescences, glows, and coronas that people report are plasmoid
phenomena.  I suspect that corona and St. Elmo's fire phenomena may
convert to other types of plasmoid phenomena and vice versa since
people have reported seeing this happen.
 
(Superconductivity and Other Things) Lipson et al. and Celani et al.
experienced the emission of neutrons near the transition temperature
when the lattice structure of superconducting substances change.  I
suspected that this is when BL-type phenomena leave the materials,
last year.  Ohtsuki and Ofuruton produced BL-like phenomena(4) that
passed through ceramic without effects that were apparent to them.
I'd like to suggest that people investigate such materials
microscopically to look for any effects.  There is a long trail-like
mark in the left side of a section of palladium cathode that Matsumoto
showed in a paper(7) (Fig 13a) that is similar to the trail-like
traces on emulsions and the mark on metal that he showed in other
articles.  By my inspection of the picture, I suspect that it is not a
bore or tunnel but a mark left by a plasmoid.  I suspect that this is
an example of what HTSC phenomena associated with various ceramics may
be.  I am still wondering about filaments though.
        I suspect that plasmoid phenomena may be produced by
converting substances by stressing them.  I suspect that "atoms" are
little plasmoid phenomena and that these may form clusters.  I suspect
that the earth is a plasmoid cluster.  I suspect that the things people
have called "particles" are tiny plasmoid phenomena.  I suspect that
such little plasmoids may form bigger ones like atoms and BL.  I
suspect that plasmoid-type phenomena may form where there are
combinations of higher electronegative non-metals with low oxidation
states, and lower electronegative metals.  I suspect that this is why
almost all of the CF phenomena and all the HTSC phenomena that I know
about are substances that are such combinations.  I suspect that
substance is transferred when plasmoid phenomena form or
disintergrate. I suspect that plasmoids may convert to electricity and
light and vice versa.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena may be called
substance.  Therefore, I suspect that space, time, "gravity,"
situation and motion is plasmoid phenomena as well.  I suspect that
anomalous fluctuations of "gravity" around volcanoes (people have
reported something like this) may be evidence of this.  Other evidence
of this may be anomalous motion around plasmoid phenomena which people
have reported as well.  People may be able to record similar
fluctuations around plasmoid phenomena and fission reactores by using
clocks and other apparatus.
        Meteorological phenomena such as clouds, waves, winds, and
storms seem to be plasmoid phenomena as well.  Notice all the fine
structure in these phenomena.  I suspect that there is a correlation
between heightened activity of the sun and plasmoid phenomena on the
earth such as storms, BL, earthquakes, volcanoes, and even plasmoid
phenomena in apparatus.  Nick Hawkins has described experiential and
circumstantial evidence of correlation between storms and CF phenomena
in apparatus.  So perhaps plasmoid phenomena in apparatus may have
been more often produced in areas of the earth with much plasmoid
activity, such as the area around Japan and Bombay.  Tesla produced
clouds by discharging in his laboratory, and he experienced electrical
phenomena in the ground after a thunderstorm passed that I interpret
to be plasmoid electricity; I am not sure how to describe it, but I am
speculating that storms are atmospheric manifestations of earth
plasmoid phenomena.  People have noticed big surges of electricity in
the ground and in the atmosphere during earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions.  I suspect that there is a correlation between storms, and
tremors and etc.  Electricity revolves or helixes, and I suspect that
this can be identified with the rotation of the solar system and of
electrons and sub-particles.  I suspect that it can be shown that the
solar system itself is a regular plasmoid configuration, like a helix
or a vortex.
        There are many other anomalous plasmoid phenomena that I can
describe such as the direction of spin of BL, counterclockwise
rotating gyroscopes in the Northern Hemisphere, the phenomena Kaptiza
produced, "Starlite," the often cool surfaces of plasmoid phenomena,
electric falling mercury, anomalous motion around plasmoid phenomena,
and many other things, perhaps some aspects of chi, and the biological
production of elements.  This needs to be studied more.  I also want
to get a patent and haven't described much that I know.
 
        I suspect that people are producing a new kind of phenomena.
It is the phenomena that contradict QM and relativity-type theories,
and it has a specific pattern.  I suspect that these phenomena form a
set.  The new set is the basis for a new kind of premise of
postulates.
 
1 V. Nardi et al., "Internal Structure of Electron-Beam Filaments,"
Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211 (November, 1980).
2 K. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density," Patent
Number 5,123,039 (June 16, 1993).
3 T. Matsumoto, "Observation of Mesh Like Traces on
Nuclear Emulsions During Cold Fusion," FT , 23, (Jan., 1993).
4 Y. H. Ohtsuki and H. Ofuruton, "Plasma Fireballs Formed by Microwave
Interference in Air," Nature, 350, 139 (1991).
5 T. Matsumoto, "Experiments of One-Point Cold Fusion" manuscript
article dated Oct. 20, 1993.
6 T. Matsumoto, "Cold Fusion Experiments with Ordinary
Water and Thin Nickel Foil," Fusion Technology (Nov. 1993).
7 T. Matsumoto, "Microscopic Observation of Palladium Used for Cold
Fusion," Fusion Technology, 19, 567 (May 1991).
 
..............     If anyone would like to buy a copy of the paper
that I mentioned in this article, could you contact me?  It is about 26
single spaced pages long, and it contains much info about CF, plasmoids,
and ball lightning.  I revised this paper in may and added a
postscript about confirmations of the deductions that I had learned
about.  The price is negotiable, but I am asking for 20 dollars.
 
        I would like to do experimental research and either form a
company or join one; I have an idea for an energy producing device.
I'd like to work do this for a job.  Would anyone want to contact
me?  Since September my ideas have become a little more defined.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / John Logajan /  The genteel science
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The genteel science
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 18:27:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>Gene Mallove writes:
>>Ten pies for *your* face, coming up right soon!
>
>     I await the glorious day with baited breath.
 
Gentlemen!  We are cultivated, urbane, mannerly, cultured, polished, refined
and genteel.  Ten pies is excessive.
 
I believe one pie is sufficient per recipient.
 
The pie-in-the-face date should be based upon the voluntary request of the
recipient -- when he or she throws in the towel and admits the other side
was right.
 
Pie throwers must represent all aggrieved parties, so I think they have to
be elected by a plurality of those submitting themselves to the contest.
If you don't submit yourself to the contest, you don't get to vote.  You also
can't vote in selecting pie throwers for members of your own side.  A pie
thrower may be a contestant, but need not be one.
 
The only deadline is that contestants may not vote for any pie thrower for
the first thirty days after their official announcement of entry into the
contest.
 
Recipients may elect the flavor of the pie and the type of crust or container.
However, they must be prepared to pay for such costs beyond the nomial cost
of a simple whip-cream in aluminum foil pie tray.
 
Pie throwers *MAY NOT* cause bodily harm to the recipient.  Cameras and
witnesses may be present and may not be prohibited by either party.
 
 
So those of you out there with the courage of your convictions should enter
the contest.  Step right up and be counted.  Volunteer to take a pie in the
face if your pronouncements are wrong.  Get a chance to throw a pie in the
face of your nemesises.
 
 
Me, I'm a cowardly mugwump.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Mark North /  Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plutonium has significant toxicity
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 16:53:43 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>   The point was that there may be **clues** to the presence of the
>anaerobic bacteria producing the toxic material.  May, and not always.
>I was not trying to provide a list of clues to high probability
>botulism toxin sites, as such clues might (and not always) include the
>texture and smell of the food.  Perhaps Mark has some rule-of-thumb clues?
 
Feed it to your neighbour's dog first.
 
Seriously, here's a somewhat ambiguous statement on the subject
from the US Dept of Ag: (this refers to home canning)
 
"It's possible for canned vegetables to contain the poison causing
botulism---a serious food poisoning---without showing signs of
spoilage... Unless you're absolutely sure of your [pressure] gage
and canning methods, boil home-canned vegetables before tasting.
Heating usually makes any odor of spoilage more evident.
 
"Bring vegetables to a rolling boil; then cover and boil for at least
10 minutes. Boil spinach and corn 20 minutes. If the food looks spoiled,
foams, or has an off odor during heating, destroy it".
 
Of course, after that treatment the food is already destroyed.
 
Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The genteel science
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The genteel science
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 19:35:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov13.182710.27314@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>Gene Mallove writes:
>>>Ten pies for *your* face, coming up right soon!
>>
>>     I await the glorious day with baited breath.
>
>So those of you out there with the courage of your convictions should enter
>the contest.  Step right up and be counted.  Volunteer to take a pie in the
>face if your pronouncements are wrong.  Get a chance to throw a pie in the
>face of your nemesises.
 
     What a great idea.  I'm open to any and all pies...
 
     Now if we can only get Jed to agree.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / A Amirtharaj /  RESUME
     
Originally-From: abi@cup.hp.com (Abraham Amirtharaj)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RESUME
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:23:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

Hi,
 
        I do not know if this is the correct newsgroup for this type of
of posting. I am posting this for someone in India. If you want to contact
him over e-mail, please send the message to me at abi@cup.hp.com and I shall
forward the message to this person.
        Sorry if this is the wrong newsgroup for this posting.
 
Regards,
-Abraham
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
                        D. Caleb Chanthi Raj,
                    Department of Nuclear Physics
                           Guindy Campus
                           Madras 600 025
                               India.
                    Phone: 91-44-2351269 - Ext 209
                        Fax No.: 91-44-2352870
 
OBJECTIVE:       To  do  challenging work and research  that  makes  a
                 difference in the field of Nuclear Physics and pursue a
                 career in teaching profession.
 
 
EDUCATION:
 
 1993            Madras University, Madras 600 025, India.
                 Doctor of Philosophy in Nuclear Physics.
                 ( Have submitted the Thesis )
 
 1989            Annamalai University, India.
                 Bachelor's Degree in Education.
 
 1987            Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Madras,
                 Madras 600 025, India.
                 Master's Degree in Philosophy (First Class).
 
 1985            School of Physics, University of Madras,
                 Madras 600 025, India.
                 Master's Degree in Physics (First Class).
 
 1983            A M Jain College, Meenambakkam, Madras, India.
                 Bachelor's Degree in Physics (First Class).
 
 
THESIS  TITLE:   Shell  effects  and  nucleon separation energies  at
                 ground state and high spin states of nuclei.
                 (Synopsis of Thesis is in Appendix I)
 
 
 
EXPERIENCE:
 
 
July 92 till date       Senior Research Fellow,
                        Department of Nuclear Physics at University of Madras,
                        Madras, India.
 
 
July 90 till date       Handled courses in the University of Madras for
                        Master of Philosophy students in Nuclear Physics
                        and Master of Physics students in Advanced Nuclear
                        Theory.
 
 
Dec 88 till date        Research experience in the field of Nuclear structure.
 
 
AWARDS:          Senior Research Fellowship from
                 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research,
                 Government of India.
 
 
SYMPOSIA, CONFERENCES, WORKSHOPS AND SCHOOLS PARTICIPATED :
 
                 DAE Symposium (India)  :  Aligarh (1989)
                   (Nuclear Physics)       Madras  (1990)
                                           Bombay  (1991)
                                           Bombay  (1992)
                 International Conference
                 on Perspectives in
                 Nuclear Physics        :  Madras  (1987)
 
                 First SERC School on Nuclear Physics - Rotating Nuclei at
                 Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, January 1990
 
                 Workshop on Sub-Barrier Fusion Delhi University, October 1990
 
 
PUBLICATIONS :
 
       Journals            :    See Appendix II
 
       Conferences         :    See Appendix III
 
 
COMPUTER LANGUAGES: FORTRAN (On VAX Machine).
 
 
REFERENCE :     Available on request.
 
 
 
                              APPENDIX I
                          (Thesis Synopsis)
 
           SHELL EFFECTS AND NUCLEON SEPARATION ENERGIES AT
             GROUND STATE AND HIGH SPIN STATES OF NUCLEI
 
        The  problem  involving microscopic features  of  nuclei  like
shell  effects  and pairing correlations constitute some of  the  most
pertinent  problems of nuclear physics. They have been and  are  still
being tackled from many different angles.  In the thesis submitted, we
have  studied the effect of shells on nuclear structure in the  ground
state  and  high  spin  states of nuclei. We  have  also  studied  the
influence  of  shell,  deformation, spin and  temperature  on  nucleon
separation energy.
 
        The  Strutinsky's  prescription  [1] of  shell  correction  is
simple  but  the  physical significance involved  in  the  smoothening
procedure of single particle levels is not clear. We have analysed [2]
Strutinsky's  principle  from a thermodynamic point of view  and  have
developed  a  physical insight of  Strutinsky's  prescription  through
statistical  mechanics.  The  thermodynamic inertia  involved  in  the
smearing  procedure and the working of the entropy force generated  by
the  nucleus  against the destruction of the shells has  been  brought
out.  Shell  correction  has been deduced  using  the  thermodynamical
variables and the results compared with that of Strutinsky's.
 
        We  have also calculated shell correction for rotating  nuclei
by prescribing a spin dependent single particle density of states [3].
With our prescription, we were able to calculate shell correction  for
all  angular  momentum  states,  without  recourse  to   interpolation
techniques  adopted by Lund-Warsaw and Dubna-Rossendorf  groups.   The
results of  our study agree well with the results of other groups  for
optimal  angular momentum states and also for non-optimal states.  The
present  method  is  compared  with  the  cranking  method  and   some
correlations brought out. Common features of this method and  Slanted-
Fermi-Surface method have been shown. The role of single particle spin
in  the density function which has hitherto been neglected,  has  been
incorporated  here.  Some advantages in the present  method  are  also
discussed.
 
        Effect  of  shell  structure  and  the  influence  of  nuclear
deformations  on nucleon separation energy have been investigated  [4-
6].  We have derived an expression to evaluate the quantal  correction
to the macroscopic nucleon separation energy. The corrected separation
energies  so obtained were found to agree well with  the  experimental
values.  The qualitative relationship between the shell correction  to
nucleon separation energy and the shell energy have been brought  out.
The  possible informations that a study of nucleon  separation  energy
can  give  on  nuclear structure are discussed.  The  anomaly  in  the
experimental  neutron separation energies in some rare earth  isotopes
corresponding  to neutron number  N = 88, 90  have been attributed  to
abrupt shape changes in nuclei. The proton separation energies on  the
other  hand  are not much affected by structural changes  as  much  as
neutron  separation  energies.  We have also  studied  the  effect  of
angular  momenta  on  nucleon  separation  energy.  A  consequence  of
including  structural effects is that the effective separation  energy
gets  significantly  modified,  which in  turn  affects  the  emission
probability.  The effect of temperature on nucleon  separation  energy
have also been investigated [7].
 
        In  the present course of analysis of the pairing  correlation
[8] we were able to parameterise the pairing strength in terms of  the
nuclear   level   density   parameter  'a'   as    G   =   C/a.   This
parameterisation  is suitable for calculations both near and far  away
from  closed  shell nuclei as the level density  reflects  the  proper
shell structure at the Fermi surface around which pairing  correlation
are effective.
 
REFERENCE
 
[1]  V.M. Strutinsky, Nucl. Phys.A95,  420  (1967);
[2]  M. Rajasekaran,  D. Caleb  Chanthi Raj, R. Premanand and
     V. Devanathan, Phys. Rev C41, 394 (1990)
[3]  M. Rajasekaran and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj.
     Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.32B (1989)
[4]  D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran and R. Premanand,
     Nucl. Phys. (India) 35B, 118  (1992)
[5]  D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran  and  R. Premanand,
     Int. Jl. of Mod. Phys. E (in press)
[6]  D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran  and  R. Premanand,
     Proc. of  Recent  Trends  in Nuclear Physics,
     Manonmanium Sundaranar University,
     Tirunelveli, India (1993), (in press)
[7]  M. Rajasekaran, T.R. Rajasekaran,  P. Rathna Prasad, R. Premanand,
     D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and V.Devanathan,
     Nucl. Inst. and Methods in Phys. Research B79, 286 (1993)
[8]  D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran  and  R. Premanand,
     Nucl. Phys. (India) 35B, 120 (1992)
 
 
 
                             APPENDIX II
                        (Journal Publication)
 
 
1.  Shell,  Deformation  and Spin  effects  in  Nucleon  Separation
    Energies
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran and R. Premanand
    International. Journal. Mod. Phys  E  (in press)
 
2.  Nuclear Structure at high spins
    M.  Rajasekaran, T. R. Rajasekaran, Ratna Prasad, R.  Premanand,
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and V. Devanathan
    Nuclear Inst. and Meth. in Phys. Res.  B79 , 286 (1993)
 
3.  Thermodynamics of Strutinsky shell correction and nuclear
    level densities at low excitations
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, R. Premanand and
    V. Devanathan
    Phys. Rev.  C 41  (1990) 394.
 
4.  Nuclear level density and nuclear stability at very
    high excitations
    M. Rajasekaran, R. Premanand and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj,
    Submitted to Phys. Rev. C.
 
5.  A New formula for nuclear level density parameter
    M. Rajasekaran, R. Premanand and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj
    To be communicated to Atomic and Nuclear Data Sheets
 
6.  Modified Strutinsky's prescription for rotating nuclei
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and R. Premanand
    To be communicated
 
7.  Pairing strength and Level density parameter
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and M. Rajasekaran
    To be communicated
 
 
                             APPENDIX III
                      (Conference  Presentation)
 
1.  Evidence of n-p interaction in nucleon separation energy
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran and R. Premanand
    To be published - Nucl. Phys. (India)
 
2.  Proton separation energy
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran and R. Premanand
    Proc. of Recent trends in Nuclear Physics, Manonmanium
    Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, (1993) in press
 
3.  Nuclear stability at very high temperatures
    M. Rajasekaran, R. Premanand and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj
    Proc. of Recent trends in Nuclear Physics, Manonmanium
    Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, (1993) in press
 
4.  Pairing strength and level density parameter
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran and R. Premanand
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.35B (1992) 120
 
5.  Shell correction to Separation energy
    D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, M. Rajasekaran and R. Premanand
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.35B (1992) 118
 
6.  Gyromagnetic ratio (g-factor) for high spin systems
    M. Rajasekaran, R. Premanand and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.34B (1991) 71
 
7.  An Empirical formula for nuclear level density parameter
    M. Rajasekaran, R. Premanand and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.34B (1991) 69
 
8.  Mass  Exchange in heavy ion collisions
    M. Rajasekaran, R. Premanand and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.34B (1991) 187
 
9.  Comparative study between cranking method and lagrangian
    multiplier method
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and R. Premanand
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.34B (1991) 65
 
10. Nucleonic separation energy as a function of angular
    momentum and temperature
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj, R. Premanand and
    P. Sivakumar
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.34B (1991) 67
 
11. Thermodynamics of superfluid nucleus
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and R. Premanand
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.34B (1991) 21
 
12. Level Density at High Spin States
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and R. Premanand
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.33B (1990)
 
13. Yrast Traps in 152Er
    M. Rajasekaran, D. Caleb Chanthi Raj and R. Premanand
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.33B (1990)
 
14. Shell correction for a rotating nucleus
    M. Rajasekaran and D. Caleb Chanthi Raj.
    Nucl. Phys. (India) Vol.32B (1989)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenabi cudfnAbraham cudlnAmirtharaj cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 20:41:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <jac.753387296@gandalf>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>      Okay, it's infinite.  The repository is not finished (and may
>>      never be).  And when it is, fuel rods from hither and yon are
>>      going to fill it up in about 15 minutes leaving no room for
>>      piles of ITER garbage.  So, A) you site it in the US and you
>>      don't get initial approval, or B) you site it offshore and
>>      Congress doesn't fund it.
>
>  Why B? I suspect it is very unlikely that ITER will be sited in the US.
 
     Absolutely.  I hold to my assessment of B).
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / David Jonsson /  Ballightning = big schroedinger solutions
     
Originally-From: t89djo@tdb.uu.se (David Jonsson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ballightning = big schroedinger solutions
Date: 15 Nov 1993 23:30:24 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University

>> I am experimenting and putting up a theory for how a flashball works.
>> Can someone guide me how to study this phenomenon? Are there photos or
>> reports on the net I can retrieve? I have seen on television the Japaneese
>> that had a machine producing white sperical balls with a duration of some
>> seconds. This was done in what I think was wet air.
>>
>> According to my theory flashballs can have the shape of saucers or a
spherical
>> appearance. They can be white or any color and they can change in color.
>> Flashballs are simply vortecii in ionized gas and appear in natural form
>> in relation to thunder and wet weather.
>>
>> There are only stable solutions for some proportions of the vortecii. If a
>> vortex is produced slightly bigger than a stable vortex then the surplus
>> matter will be transformed into radiation until the right size has been
>> achieved. Hence this will be a very reliable energy resource however much
>> research remains for me before I can produce such a vortex. This job is
>> similar to that of JET. Too bad JET don`t realize that they have to switch
>> the magnetich and the electrical flux to get a stable physical state.
>> My research over the Schroedinger equation (with my secret additions to it
>> according to my generalized field theory) shows that only solutions with
>> negative charge surrounding a positive charge is stable for any longer
>> time.
 
This article (now slightly edited) was denied to sci.physics.research.
I wasnt too clear about the
neccesity to develop a new unified field theory said the moderator.
What I mean is that we have a electromagnetomechanic world. Electromagnetics
can't be separated from mechanics as all chargecarriers have mass. An example
is that in order to find the solution to a chargedistribution around an
nucleus
the Schroedinger equation needs to be revised to take the mass of the electron
into consideration. This is especially important in ferromagnetic materials.
I my macroatoms that I say the fireballs are, the negative chargecarriers
surrounding the positive ions are even more heavy than in regular atoms so
the situation is "electromagnetomechanic". The analogy with the atoms can be
extended further: the macroatoms emit light and they collapse in a bang like
an unstable atom with a half-life. My job is to find as stable states as
possible. One stable state is known as follows:
 
Superconductivity is also a macroatom
with wholes as the nucleus and electrons as negative chargecarriers. Note
that BCS isnt complete and it does not explain the wavebehaviur so oftenly
experienced in phenomena of superconductivity. My theory explain that.
Superconductivity is an ideal diamagnetic macroatom (or atoms) which allow
low currents
to tunnel through and thus seems to have no resistance. I am very eager at
finding a ferromagnetic superconductor.
 
I have under construction a machine to constuct vortecii in ionized gas to
produce above mentioned macroatoms. Help with this is appreciated as my
currentmechanic isn't so fast.
 
I have heard rumors that say that Teslas work can be reached via ftp or mail.
Is this the case and if so where? Tesla had some ideas about similar
phenomena.
 
I hope to study this further, any institution is welcomed to try to
recruit me for research,
 
David
 
--
David Jonsson        Voice&Fax +46-18-24 51 52
P.O Box 353          Postal giro 499 40 54-7
S-751 06  UPPSALA    Internet E-mail t89djo@tdb.uu.se
SWEDEN
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudent89djo cudfnDavid cudlnJonsson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 01:47:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CGJDyG.H8F@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
>  Tom, your  'understanding' in this case does not parallel real life.
>Botulinum toxin is relatively heat-labile.  It is completely
>inactivated at 100C for 10 minutes - which is why boiling is effective.
>It is the spores of the bacteria which are heat resistant and
>survive many disinfectants as well.  Confer a book, eg. "Microbiology"
> Ed. Davis, et alia, Harper & Row, for general elementary info.
 
Twould appear that you don't cook Mitchell. Putting canned goods in
a pot and bringing them to a rolling boil and leaving them there for
10 minutes isn't cooking them, it is completely destroying them.
 
You should have noted that I said that _normal_ cooking doesn't destroy
the botulism toxin and that is what I meant.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / mitchell swartz /  Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 05:12:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <tomkCGKAB2.HoB@netcom.com>
    Subject: Re: Pu has toxicity but is not inactivated by 100C
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:
 
=  You should have noted that I said that _normal_ cooking doesn't
=  destroy the botulism toxin and that is what I meant.
 
   "Normal cooking"?  Actually, your missive described
"normal cooking temperatures", to wit:
 
  = "It was my understanding that botulism toxin didn't break down with
  = normal cooking temperatures and that therefore cooking didn't help.
  = Proper canning methods were the only safety device.
              [Message-ID: <tomkCGIrw8.5IC@netcom.com>
                Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com)]
 
   100C is a normal cooking temperature (for some things) and is a
lower limit for quite a few others.  Botulin toxin is completely
inactivated at 100C for 10 minutes.
 
                                       Mitchell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Draft of paper
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Draft of paper
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 08:16:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1653:
 
[...]
>neutrons have proven to be spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that
>compelling data for large neutron bursts requires detector
>segmentation and pulse digitization (allowing visualization), so
>that no compelling evidence for large neutron bursts currently
>exists in any cold-fusion experiment, including our own.
 
If I had a hat, I'd take it off to Steve Jones. I have written in the past
that, unlike those who tenaciously cling to their ideas and defend shoddy
experiments tooth and nail, Steve looks critically at his own work, and if,
some time in the future, he finds problems with his evidence, he will be the
first to tell us. I see that I am quite right. Good on you, Steve.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Meyer patent for producing H2 and O2
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer patent for producing H2 and O2
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 08:28:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: alh@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Alan Hughes) in FD 1653:
 
>I woinder with this process if it is really an electrolysis process, or
>maybe simply separating and concentrating the already decomposed ions
>present in neutral water.  As far as I can tell the demonstrations only
>showed the presence of hydrogen, with no clear proof that the other gas was
>pure oxygen.  One to test this may be to do the experiment with running
>water, and see if the maximum rate of gas production is higher, through not
>havng to wait for the water molecules to decompose.  Anyone have the
>equpment available to test this, it would certainly be beneficial to find a
>proper explanation of the Meyer process. (IMO Meyer's explanation sucks
>better than a vacuum).
 
Before anyone rushes to the lab to try this out, and wastes their time, think
about this. If you mean water dissociation, Alan (that tiny, about 10^-7 M
of H3O+ and OH- ions) - and I think you do, since you are implying an
electrical separation - how do you imagine this to produce H2 gas? Water does
not spontaneously break up into H2 and O2 gas, not even a little bit.
 
This Meyer thing is not amenable to rational explanation, I think. It is pure
nonsense. Why am I sure? Thermodynamics, that's why. The only thing to do is
either to laugh it off, or - if you're really interested - to find out what
tricks are being used.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / Dieter Britz /  Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reference to News postings
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 09:04:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Is there a formal convention for a reference to News items in a scientific
paper? There is the odd posting that is worth referring to; but how? I guess
it requires accessability, so probably the archives are the best place. Anyone
have ideas? Has this been considered?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.15 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Windycon
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Windycon
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:01:03 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <931111130032.20600b31@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Anyone in the Chicago area that cares, can meet me at the Chicago Science
>Fiction convention - Windycon.  Its at the Schaumberg Hyatt, on Golf Road
>just north of Woodfield Mall and west of Route 53.  I will talk on saturday,
>at 2 pm.  "Science in the Basement College".  You will have to pay to get in.
>
>Tom Droege
 
As we probably all do, I have the utmost admiration for Tom's
professionalism and persisitence in his basement experiments on cold
fusion.  But my first thought reading the above was "Why would a SCIENCE
FICTION conference invite him??!!"
 
Then illumination dawned.
 
Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / Stephen Cooper /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 09:26:36 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <2c8pvvINNgvs@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
>In article <jac.753387296@gandalf>,
>       jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>|> I suspect it is very unlikely that ITER will be sited in the US.
 
>Could you elaborate? I know only the discussions about Germany and Europe.
>Germany is _very_ unlikely because of the hyper-hysteria against anything
>"nuclear". Cadarache has been mentioned. People like S France. For this to
>fly they'd probably have to build housing, since Cadarache is in the
>middle of nowhere: the nearest town, Aix-in-Provence, is 45 km away, and
>it is FF 14 each way to use the autobahn. It is that or take 1 hr each
>way, every day. As bad as Los Alamos (if you live in Santa Fe). There is
>also the >4 dollar/gallon gas. (Aix is quite nice, though.)
 
>Why not the US? Or, for that matter, why not Japan?
 
>Russia, I can understand :-)
 
Why not the US. Well if ITER ever goes into it's construction phase any
hoste nation is going to have to pay a significantly higher proportion of
the construction and running costs. Given the economic benefits I would
guess at 50% for the hoste and 25% each from the other two participants.
So why not the US, just I would not trust the US congress to give the
long term committement that would be needed. Certainly not after the
recent events in particle physics, the SCCS debacle has probably put the
lid on any chance of ITER going to the US. You can cope with a single
partner pulling out apart from the hoste.
 
As for Japan, unfortunatly the reason here is no one want's to go there.
The trouble the've had just filling the limited US and European places
in Naka for the design phase was hard enough. Japan is to strange for
enough people of the right caliber to be recruited outside of Japan to
go there. Even if it's the only show in town, people will still put
there families first.
 
No all bet's have to be on Europe now with TorSuper site Caderache in
France and the JET site Culham in the UK being the leading contenders.
Both have regulatory system which would ease the construction of any
ITER design and plenty of surrounding land available for construction.
If I had to choose a single site my bet's would be on Culham, not so
good weather, but plenty of accomodation, close to London, and a site
already contaminated by Tritium, but most importantly the local is
English speaking an important consideration for the US vote.
 
But there again, the most likely answer is no where. The odd's on ITER
moving into it's construction phase must be fairly small, the way that
funding seems to be being cut all over.  But I hope that ITER does get
the next few months, and if it does the future is a lot brighter.
 
Stephen R Cooper                        Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk                              Operations Division JET
 
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  3He detector basics
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 3He detector basics
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 01:12:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since Daryl Owens is looking for information on the neutron detector used
in the Yamaguchi experiment, I thought I would give him a little hint as
to what he is likely to learn.
 
The detector in question uses a proportional counter filed with 3He gas.
Thus the neutron response is derived from the reaction 3He(n,p)T which
has a positive energy release.  The cross section for the reaction peaks
at thermal energy and declines monotonically with increasing neutron
energy, such that generally these devices are used with a surrounding
moderator to thermalize neutrons over a broader range in energies.
Precisely what the response as a function of energy will be depends on
the size of the moderator.
 
The sensitivity for a neutron survey meter is generally determined by
calibration against a source with some standard (but arbitrary) energy
spectrum such as a PuBe neutron source.  The instrument probably has
no more than two adjustable parameters:  (1) the bias voltage applied
to the counter and (2) a pulse-height threshold to be set between the
peak in the response for thermal neutrons and the rapid rise at low
pulse heights due to gammas and other garbage.  It seems unlikely that
the instrumental response was studied or optimized as part of the experi-
ment in question beyond the cross comparison with a similar instrument.
As I have described the instrument it would not have provided any useful
information concerning the energy spectrum of any detected neutrons.
 
As for a gamma rejection ratio, the only means of rejection is via
the pulse height.  While the thermalized neutrons response is generally
confined to a single broad peak in the pulse height spectrum, the gamma
response does depend on how much energy the gamma delivers to the
sensitive volume, and that in turn depends on the gamma energy spectrum.
As far as gamma refection is concerned, I doubt that you will find any
information specific to the device in question.  The best that can be
done would be to look up a general reference on the response of
3He detectors.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Miniball lightning?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miniball lightning?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 01:12:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The stuff posted by Edward Lewis with reference to experiments by T.
Matsumoto leave me thinking that one of those two gentlemen is totally
confused as to what is being observed.  For example consider the following:
 
"Matsumoto used a scanning electron microscope to make the picture . . .
the tiny BL-like phenomena that Matsumoto produced is able to travel
through water, glasss, and air since in traveled to the emulsion."
 
I get the feeling that someone does not have a clue as to how a scanning
electron microscope produces an image.  Of course Matsumoto's experiments
have been published in Fusion Technology so we know it has to be really
good stuff!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / John Logajan /  Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 21:35:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Tom Droege wants us to set a standard for electronic information
exchange -- graphs, pictures, and data.
 
The best method to establish a standard is to assert one, and then let
the latecomers (crybabies :-)  suggest improvements.
 
Here are the ground rules:
 
1.) There must be compatible versions of the software that run on both
    MSDOS and UNIX platforms -- at a minimum.
 
2.) The method must allow e-mail and Usenet transport.
 
3.) Methods may evolve, but at any one time, should be restricted to a
    single method -- selected from the many alternatives available.
 
 
Here are some standards I will "set" right now.  Standards are numbered
Sx.x for future reference.
 
S0.0 - A repostiory of standards package locations should be maintained.
       (Where?)
 
S1.0 - Data packets should not exceed 64K.  Files larger than 64K should
       be broken up into chunks smaller than 64K.
 
S2.0 - ASCII text lines should be 80 characters wide or less.
 
S3.0 - Binary data *must* be "uuencoded" for transport across the e-mail
       or Usenet highways.  I've heard there is a second standard, xxencode,
       but for the time being uuencode and uudecode will be the standard
       for shipping binary data over lines unable to handle raw binary.
 
       A MSDOS version is avaliable for anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu
       /pub/msdos/decode/uuexe522.zip
 
S4.0 - *this is not yet a standard*  Data Compression
       I've been having trouble finding a data compression scheme (for
       other than graphics, see S5.0) that is compatible between Unix
       and MSDOS.  The trouble appears to be that one or the other always
       seems to have a port, but that one side is not maintained and
       advanced as fast as the other.
 
       Here are some of the compression schemes I've looked at:
              MSODS                  UNIX
             pkzip/unzip             unzip
             lharc                   lharc
             compress                compress
 
       Hints, clues, and recommendations welcome.
 
S5.0 - Graphical data should be encoded via the GIF standard.  Since GIF
       viewers are far more available than PostScript printers, the use
       of GIF is preferred over PostScript (See S6.0).
 
S5.1 - GIF files, being compressed and hence, binary, must then be
       uuencoded by S3.0 above.
 
       GIF stands for the Graphical Interchange Format established several
       years ago by CompuServe.  Since it can represent any video display
       in any resolution in up to 256 colors, it is general purpose.  Since
       it is LZW compressed, it rivals the data transport requirements that
       would be needed to send raw plot vectors.  Therefore GIF is preferred
       over plot vectors and plotting programs due to its wide availability.
       GIF viewers have advanced to the stage that they can display pictures
       originally generated on larger displays -- hence, there is no longer
       a compatability problem between different resolution displays.
 
       A viewer of GIFs (CSHOW) for MSDOS is available for anonymous FTP at
       oak.oakland.edu /pub/msdos/gif  cshw860a.zip
 
       A screen capture program called Screen Thief is also avaliable, but
       I haven't found a ftp source.  scr2gif2.zip is a variation, but it
       is crippleware and only works for two oddball resolutions -- pass.
       I have used Screen Thief to capture the plottings I put up on my
       VGA MSDOS screen with my BASIC in the 640x480x16 resolution.  It can
       capture from within Windows too.  Very nice utility.  This is a
       recommendation and will not become a standard.
 
S6.0 - PostScript will be the standard page descriptor language, but due to
       the high cost of PS printers and their relative scarcity, GIF will
       be the preferred method of graphical exchange.
 
S6.1 - PostScript *will* be compressed through S4.0 above, and then uuencoded
       by S3.0 above -- unless the raw PostScript (ascii) file is under 4K.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 01:42:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

>S4.0 - *this is not yet a standard*  Data Compression
 
Okay, I found a pair that work, so this is the interim suggested standard:
 
 
S4.0 - Data compression will utilize the ARC program.  This is an older
       compression program, but seems to have stabilized with regard to
       incompatability between platforms.
 
       You can find the sources for any C based system via anonymous FTP at
       sunsite.unc.edu   /pub/packages/TeX/tools/arc521/ multiple files.
 
       You can find an MSDOS executable (v6.02) via anonymous FTP at
       freebsd.cdrom.com  /pub/cdrom/cdroms/pdsl/arc.exe
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 01:52:23 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Here is the short list of proposed standard methods for data exchange:
 
S2.0 - ASCII text and numbers
 
S3.0 - UUENCODE/UUDECODE for binary data
 
S4.0 - ARC for data compression
 
S5.0 - GIF for pictures and graphs
 
S6.0 - PostScript for high quality printed pages
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 02:10:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

More reprints from the archives of sci.environment.
Some specific flaws (including damning flaws) in four pages
from the Dixy Lee Ray book, with particular reference to her
take on CFC's and ozone. I believe the original poster was
Robert Parson (based on internal evidence).
 
 | The following is a detailed analysis of Dixy Lee Ray's treatment
 |of the ozone depletion problem (_Trashing the Planet_, pp. 44-47).
 |Her account contains many statements that are misleading and some
 |that are flat-out wrong. This list is comprehensive, so it contains
 |some items that are of minor importance. I have therefore put a
 |**** by the most significant ones.
 |
 |
 |1.   We begin on p. 44 with an extended quotation from an April 1987
 |Rand Corporation report, which stresses the uncertainties. A
 |reasonable assessment for the time it was written (given
 |publication delays, probably late 1986 - early 1987.) But an
 |_enormous_ amount of research has been done since, and the picture
 |is much clearer now.  It is misleading to reproduce such outdated
 |material under these circumstances.
 |
 |2.   On p. 45, top:
 |     "The changes in ozone layer thickness in Antarctica have now
 |     been measured in the Arctic as well. (No one looked until
 |     recently)."
 |
 |No, Arctic ozone measurements go back just as far as Antarctic
 |ones, ground-based to 1956 at least, satellite to the mid-70's.
 |(See, for example, G. M. Dobson, _Applied Optics_ _7_, 387, 1968, which
 | describes how the global ozone network was set up in the 1950's).
 |
 |3.   "The Antarctic ozone 'hole' grew during the early 1980's,
 |     becoming large in 1985, smaller in 1986, and reaching its
 |     greatest size in 1987. In 1988, the 'hole' did not appear as
 |     expected. It was finally discovered - only 15% as large as
 |     predicted and displace over the ocean."
 |
 |Yes, there was a small hole in 1988, although the 1989 hole was as
 |big as the 1987 hole (and the 1990 and 1991 holes were almost as
 |big.) But it *was* expected to be small. I quote from _Nature_, vol.
 |335, p. 657 (20 October 1988 - which means it was written some
 |weeks earlier):
 |   "This year's hole will be much shallower than last year's.
 |Measurements from the Nimbus-7 satellite...revealed only a 15% drop
 |in ozone concentration during September, compared to a 50% drop
 |during the same month last year." [The ozone hole opens up in mid
 |September and lasts until mid-November - early December].
 |And it wasn't "15% as large as expected" - it was 15% total
 |depletion, i.e. 30% as large as 1987 or 1989.
 |
 |
 |**** 4.
 |Now we come to the first howler:
 |     "...there is widespread belief that the necessary chloride ion
 |     comes from chlorofluorocarbon.."
 |
 |This immediately tells us that Ray knows nothing about this
 |chemistry. A glance at a recent Freshman Chemistry textbook, or at
 |the two _Scientific American_  articles (Jan. 1988 and June 1991)
 |would have told her that it's chlorine- and bromine-containing _radicals_,
 |not ions, that catalyze ozone depletion.
 |
 |**** 5.
 |And right below this is the second howler:
 |     "...the eruption of Mt. St. Augustine in 1976 injected 289
 |     billion kilograms of hydrochloric acid directly into the
 |     stratosphere. That amount is 570 times the total world
 |     production of chlorine and fluorocarbon compounds in the year
 |     1975."
 |
 |The correct figure (_Nature_ _334_, 415) is 0.08 - 0.18 billion
 |kilograms,  a factor of 1600-3600 smaller. No volcano in history
 |has come anywhere near her figure - even Krakatoa only
 |produced about 4 billion kg. It's worth noting that St. Augustine
 |was unusually chlorine-rich; El Cichon put out 0.04 billion kg HCl,
 |and Pinatubo, the biggest eruption since Katmai in 1912, put out
 |much less. World production of Cl as CFC's corresponds to about
 |2.28 billion kg in 1988.
 |
 |**** 6. Next comes the Erebus story:
 |     "Mount Erebus, which is located just 15 kilometers upwind from
 |     McMurdo Sound, has been erupting constantly for the last 100
 |     years, ejecting more than 1000 tons of chlorine per day."
 |
 |Mt. Erebus _has_ been simmering sluggishly for a century or so. It went
 |through an especially active phase from 1976 to 1984, during which
 |HCl emissions are indeed estimated to have reached 1200 tons per
 |day. By 1986 it was down to 100 tons per day. But these
 |measurements were taken at the crater rim; very little of this HCl
 |reaches the stratosphere (one needs an explosive eruption for
 |that.) In fact the purpose of these experiments was to explain the
 |large amount of Cl in the Antarctic snow.
 |(P. Kyle and K. Meeker, _Geophys. Res. Lett._ _17_, 2125 (1990). An earlier
 | bulletin from these guys was picked up by the Larouchite writer Rogelio
 | Maduro, who gave a distorted account in "21st Century").
 |
 |     Moreover, the fact that Erebus is in the Antarctic is
 |irrelevant. There is no more HCl in the antarctic than anywhere else
 | in the stratosphere.
 |
 |7.   "300 million tons of chlorine reach the atmosphere each year
 |     through evaporation of sea water"
 |
 |Correct. And irrelevant. Very little reaches the stratosphere. Most
 | goes right back into the ocean, or rains out on land.
 |We know this because there is very little inorganic chlorine in the
 |upper troposphere and lower stratosphere - less than 0.1 ppb -
 |whereas there is more than 2.0 ppb of chlorine present in organic
 | compounds.
 |[Digression: the case for CFC's as a source of stratospheric
 |chlorine is very strong. We know that the total chlorine in the
 |stratosphere has increased by a factor of 4 since the 1950's. The
 |major natural source of strat. chlorine is CH3Cl, biologically
 |produced in the oceans. This has not increased. As discussed above,
 |volcanoes will not account for the increase. But CFC emissions
 |will. And CFC's _have_ been seen in the stratosphere in about the
 |expected amounts. No one has ever identified another source which
 |would account for the total amount and the increase since 1956.]
 |
 |**** 8.
 |She then says: "So much is known. [18]"
 |
 |Reference 18 consists of:
 |
 |i.) an unrefereed 4-page essay by Prof. S. F. Singer in a volume on
 |climate change (this one's ok, although it represents an extremely cautious
 |position: the author says that the Cl is 'probably' due to CFC's,
 |rather than 'almost certainly') - but why didn't she look at the
 |very complete paper by Sherry Rowland immediately in front of this
 |essay? She wouldn't be talking about  'stratospheric chloride ions'
 |if she had.)
 |
 |ii.) An article in _National Review_ by the same Professor Singer.
 |Marginal. Singer is a distinguished scientist, but he has not
 |carried out research on this subject [neither have I - R.P.], and
 |his article contains some serious errors, including the myth that
 |an ozone hole appeared in 1956-57. Anyway,
 |neither of these sources supports the more extreme errors quoted
 |above. For that, you need to go to:
 |
 |iii.) Two articles from Larouchite magazines, '21st Century' and
 |'EIR' (actually an EIR special report with the title 'The
 |Greenhouse Effect Hoax: A World Federalist Plot'. Ray dropped the
 |last 4 words in her citation.)
 |
 |[Digression: While there is still argument about middle latitudes,
 |there is a firm consensus that the large decreases in the Antarctic
 |spring are due to CFC's. This consensus is based on direct
 |measurements of the concentrations of ozone and  ClO as a function
 |of latitude, altitude, and time. They are precisely  correlated.
 |Ray totally ignores this evidence, which has been available since
 |mid-1988. It was even mentioned in John Gribbin's popular book "The
 |Hole in the Sky", published in 1988. (For a recent review of the ozone-ClO
 |correlation, see _Science_ vol. 251, p. 39, 4 Jan. 1991.)]
 |
 |
 |9. We're now at the top of p. 46:
 |     "...data from NOAA show 60,000 ozone molecules created for
 |     every one destroyed by chlorine..."
 |
 |Well, she doesn't give a source for this (she rarely does), and I can't
 |figure out what she means, but the obvious inference - that the rate of
 |creation exceeds the rate of destruction by orders of magnitude - is
 |simply incorrect. Ozone is being created and destroyed all
 |the time by UV and other natural mechanisms; the amount of ozone
 |overhead depends on the balance between these. Chlorine shifts the
 |balance, resulting in less ozone. The chlorine radicals are
 |catalysts and are not consumed in the process; each Cl atom can
 |destroy up to 100,000 ozone molecules before it finally washes out
 |of the stratosphere. If there were _no_ chlorine or other catalysts in the
 | stratosphere, the ozone layer would be much thicker than it is, since the
 | uncatalyzed destruction mechanism (recombination of O and O3 to make two
 | O2 molecules) is much slower. (See, for example, R.P. Wayne, _Chemistry of
 | Atmospheres, Ch. 4 for reaction-rate data.)
 |
 |
 |**** 10. Middle of p. 46:
 |     "To quote a January 1989 summary published in _Science_ (Vol.
 |     239), 'the recent losses may be natural and may result from
 |     long-term fluctuations of the general circulation of the
 |     atmosphere.'"
 |
 |Finally, a reference - although citing an entire volume of
 |_Science_ without giving author, title, or page number doesn't make
 |it easy to track it down (each volume is about 1500 pp., and they
 |don't carry a subject index.) And in fact, Vol. 239 is Jan-Mar.
 |1988, not 1989. But I did find the quote (it's on p. 48), and it's
 |accurate. It refers to the _overall_ ozone thickness, specifically
 |excluding the 'hole', and reflects the state of opinion in late 1987.
 |The quote is entirely out of context.
 |
 |**** 11.
 |     "Some researchers, pointing out that atmospheric dynamics can
 |     cause big changes in ozone, describe a 48-hour period at the
 |     beginning of September 1988, when the ozone decreased 10% over
 |     a 3 million square kilometer area. Robert T. Watson, head of
 |     NASA's upper atmosphere research program, said, 'In our
 |     opinion, all provisional, we do not believe that change can be
 |     chemical. It is strong evidence that meteorological processes
 |     alone can effectively depress areas of ozone over the
 |     antarctic continent.'
 |
 |No reference again, and I haven't been able to track this down.
 |Not being able to find the originals, however, I have to make an
 |indirect assault on this. I have collected several quotations from
 |Dr. Watson, and _I_ will give you the sources so you can check the
 |context:
 |
 |a. _Science_, vol. 239, p. 1489 (March 1988): " 'I am more
 |concerned', said Robert Watson ... 'and I am more convinced that
 |CFCs play a role. The indicators are bad. Everything points more
 |and more to their being involved."
 |
 |b. Same journal and page, a quote from the report of the Ozone
 |Trends Panel,  chaired by Dr. Watson:  'The weight of evidence
 |strongly indicates that man-made chlorine species are primarily
 |responsible for the observed decrease in ozone within the polar
 |vortex.'
 |
 | c. M. Prather and R. Watson, _Nature_ vol. 344, 729 (19 April
 |1990): "Reactions involving chlorine monoxide (ClO) and atomic
 |chlorine (Cl) are  able to catalyse the destruction of
 |stratospheric ozone on a global scale,  and the ClO dimer plays a
 |key part in the formation of the Antarctic ozone  hole."
 |
 | Well, this doesn't jibe too well with Ray's quote. Obviously the
 |second paper wasn't available when she was writing, but the first
 |certainly was. It's the same volume she quoted from before! Not
 |being able to find her quote, I am not sure of what it means, but
 |I strongly suspect that Watson is saying that the 10% change in
 |Sept. 1988 is a dynamical effect, while still believing that CFC's
 |are primarily responsible.  It seems unlikely that he believed
 |CFC's were responsible in March 1988 and again in 1990, but not in
 |September 1988.
 |
 |**** 12.
 |     "Direct evidence has yet to be produced, and Robert Watson of
 |     NASA reported that the optical diffuser plate on the Nimbus
 |     satellite had deteriorated so rapidly in space that its ozone
 |     depletion measurements are 'useless garbage'".
 |
 |I cited direct evidence previously. And once again there is no reference
 |for the quote. But my "context?" meter goes off scale when I see a
 |quote that consists of two words.  If the head of NASA's upper
 |atmosphere division believes, and has publicly stated, that the
 |Nimbus data are garbage, why is NASA still publishing the data?
 |Actually the TOMS spectrometer on Nimbus 7 does have a systematic
 |drift, due to slow deterioration of the diffuser plate. Because of
 |this it has to be recalibrated regularly against independent
 |measurements from the ground, from balloons and aircraft, and from
 |other satellites. TOMS is a great way to get a quick view of ozone
 |as a function of altitude, latitude, and time, a lot easier than
 |launching balloons everyday all over the planet, but its results
 |have to be, and are, verified by other measurements. I quote from
 |the same Robert Watson, writing (together with Michael Prather) in
 |_Science_ _239_ (same volume again!), p. 847, Feb. 19, 1988:
 |
 |"At present, the TOMS data set can be used to discern large changes
 |in ozone...but it cannot be used to detect smaller trends on the
 |order of 1 to 2% per year, without cross-calibration involving
 |other satellite and ground-based instruments."
 |
 |That's a lot different from saying that the data are "useless
 |garbage." And the uncertainties have narrowed a great deal since
 |early 1988.
 |
 |13.  "Against this background of uncertainty and the conviction of
 |     some respected scientists that natural processes may account
 |     for ozone 'holes', how can public officials and governmental
 |     representatives seriously consider taking drastic action - for
 |     example to ban CFC's - as if that would 'cure' the problem, if
 |     indeed there is a problem?"
 |
 | Ray has grossly overstated the uncertainties, and I do not know of
 |a single "respected scientist" in this area who believes that
 |natural processes may account for ozone holes. The only scientist
 |she has quoted is Watson, and we've seen what he thinks.
 |
 |
 |14.  "..actual records from a network of recording instruments set
 |     up in 1974 to measure ultraviolet light reachaing the earth's
 |     surface have shown a continuously decreasing penetration of
 |     from 0.5% to 1.1% per year. If the theories about ozone
 |     depletion were correct, ultraviolet radiation should be
 |     increasing, not decreasing. [19]"
 |
 |Her statement is almost correct, *for urban areas in the
 |United States*. The data are published in _Science_ vol. 239
 |(again!), p. 763. They cover the years 1974-1985, before the
 |Antarctic 'hole' grew to its full size. The trend is at the very
 |edge of statistical significance - 3 of the 8 stations report "not
 |significant" - but one can certainly say that no significant
 |*increase* was seen at the stations in this period. All of the
 |stations are in urban areas (well, one's in Bismarck N.D., but it's
 |one of the ones that reported "not significant"), and given that
 |total ozone loss over the US is now only about 3-5% per decade
 |(less for 1974-85), the lack of increase is well accounted for by
 |local pollution, including ozone. On the other hand a station on
 |Jungfrau in Switzerland has reported an increase of ~1% per year
 |(again we're dealing with trends on the edge of significance, but
 |this result does match the ozone loss well). And in the
 |Antarctic, increases of as much as a factor of 2 above normal have
 |been reported.
 |
 |She concludes by reminding us that the skin cancers that can be
 |attributed without doubt to UV exposure are minor, and that the
 |deadly melanomas are not strongly correlated to UV. She's right for
 |once - doctors are still arguing about whether melanomas are caused
 |by UV. The major *present* danger from ozone depletion is to local
 |Antarctic marine ecologies. There is some preliminary evidence that
 |such damage has already occurred, but it is not conclusive. More
 |immediate dangers could appear if an Arctic ozone hole opens up.
 |
 |In summary:
 |
 |     She doesn't understand the basic science. ("chloride" for chlorine)
 |
 |     She makes huge numerical errors. (Volcanic emissions.)
 |
 |     She pulls quotations out of context (in at least one case; in others,
 |     by not citing the source she makes it difficult to determine the
 |     context.)
 |
 |     She uses exceedingly unreliable sources. (LaRouchite magazines)
 |
 |Robert
 |
 |Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  Somewhere in the book she says americium-243
 |is the radioisotope used in smoke detectors.  BZZZTT!  Wrong.  It is
 |americium-241.  Of course, I don't know why anyone would expect Dixy
 |Lee Ray to know that.  After all, she's only a former head of the AEC!
 
Shall I go on, Dale? Are you going to defend this torchbearer of the
Scientific Enterprise?
 
Bo
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 / Your Name /  introductory text
     
Originally-From: netid@cornell.edu (Your Name)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: introductory text
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 13:05:45 +0200
Organization: Cornell University

I am interested in this field and would like to be part of the information
exchange on this newsgroup.  However, I don't have enough background to
understand the technical discussions.  I was hoping that people could email
me their recommendations for good introductory texts so I can have enough
knowledge to understand and participate.
 
Please no flames....
 
Steve H. Chen
shc4@cornell.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudennetid cudfnYour cudlnName cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reference to News postings
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 09:46:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I asked
 
>Is there a formal convention for a reference to News items in a scientific
>paper? There is the odd posting that is worth referring to; but how? I guess
>it requires accessability, so probably the archives are the best place. Anyone
>have ideas? Has this been considered?
 
"Bonnie Nestor" alias IN%"NESTORM@FEDC04.FED.ORNL.GOV" sent me info about a
book:
>    Electronic Style, A Guide to Citing Electronic Information
>    by Xia Li and Nancy Crane (research librarians)
>    ISBN 0-88736-909-X
>    $15.00
 
and Bruce "Zorch" Scott alias IN%"scott@zorch.sf-bay.org" points out that one
can cite the full News header (or parts of it). He rightly also, as I did,
points to the archives.
 
Citing actual News postings is, I think, useless, except in the short term,
i.e. for postings no older than a few weeks (depending on how much your system
keeps; ours seems to keep only a few days' worth). After that, it's not
accessible, and accessibility is a necessity for a proper citation. Others
must be able to get hold of it. For this reason, the archives are the only
choice. Certainly our group, and I guess most serious groups (what? WE are
serious?) keep archives, and anyone these days can use ftp, or knows someone
who can. So I guess I can use a format along the lines of
 
J. Blow, 12.11.1993, under SUBJECT "RE: bla bla", in Fusion Digest 1234,
filed as fusion.93-06789, directory fusion, ftp site vm1.nodak.edu.
 
This would enable anyone else to locate the item in no time, except those poor
underprivileged people without access to the net.
 
I will try to get hold of that book, though, to see what others have decided.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Dieter Britz /  GIF once more
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GIF once more
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 09:51:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
John Logajan is to congratulated for starting a discussion about standards of
electronic information. This is certainly needed, and I hope it is achieved in
a rational manner, not by painful experience with dud systems.
 
However, about GIF: I know you people think it's funny that I don't have GIF,
but noone around here seems to use it. When John talks about a "GIF viewer",
is that a bit of software, or hardware? Where does one get it?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: introductory text
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: introductory text
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 08:03:18 GMT
Organization: Aarhus Universiversity

In <netid-161193130545@j30264382.reslife.cornell.edu> netid@cornell.edu
(Your Name) writes:
 
>I am interested in this field and would like to be part of the information
>exchange on this newsgroup.  However, I don't have enough background to
>understand the technical discussions.  I was hoping that people could email
>me their recommendations for good introductory texts so I can have enough
>knowledge to understand and participate.
 
>Please no flames....
 
>Steve H. Chen
>shc4@cornell.edu
 
You could do worse than start with the two good books written on cold fusion
(in order of publication):
 
1. Frank Close, "Too Hot to Handle", W.H. Allen, 1990;
2. Eugene Mallove, "Fire From Ice", Wiley 1991.
 
The first argues against cold fusion, the second for. Both present the physics
of it, which will point you to your own holes in your knowledge. Happy reading.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  What's the opposite of "EUREKA" ?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's the opposite of "EUREKA" ?
Date: 16 Nov 93 17:26:37 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <01H5DMCJE2IQHV1HV6@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1653:
>
> [...]
>>neutrons have proven to be spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that
>>compelling data for large neutron bursts requires detector
>>segmentation and pulse digitization (allowing visualization), so
>>that no compelling evidence for large neutron bursts currently
>>exists in any cold-fusion experiment, including our own.
>
> If I had a hat, I'd take it off to Steve Jones. I have written in the past
> that, unlike those who tenaciously cling to their ideas and defend shoddy
> experiments tooth and nail, Steve looks critically at his own work, and if,
> some time in the future, he finds problems with his evidence, he will be the
> first to tell us. I see that I am quite right. Good on you, Steve.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Thanks, Dieter.  I guess I'm hatless, too -- having to "eat my hat."  Tastes
terrible.
 
I have received useful comments from several people by e-mail, including
Dieter, Bruce Liebert, Mitch Swartz, Robert Eachus and Rich Schroeppel --
these I will try to address in a future post or by fixing up "Draft of paper."
Right now I'd like to home in on a recurring comment, that I explain further
the observation I made that "all bursts of over five detected neutrons have
proven to be spurious."  Robert Eachus noted:  "I can see this line being
quoted in the future when bursts come up.  It may be the most quoted part of
the paper, so it seems worth documenting."  (e-mail 11-15-93)
 
I have in front of me an event from our most sensitive neutron detector,
which has 16 3He-filled proportional-counter tubes arranged in four segments
of 4 tubes each, along with a central plastic-scintillator counter to register
prompt neutrons.  (Described more in "Draft of paper.")  All signals are
digitized in 10-nanosec. intervals.  Now this event shows 36 distinct pulses
in the 3He-tubes which would ordinarily be interpreted as arising from over
100 neutrons in a "large neutron burst."  Indeed, the 3He-portion of the
detector is just like that used by Menlove et al. at Los Alamos, and this
signal in their shift-register electronics would register as a burst of a
hundred or so of neutrons.  [H. Menlove et al., J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495.]
You may recall the excitement generated by claims of these
large neutron bursts --
too large to be caused by radioactive decay or even cosmic-ray-induced
spallation.
 
However, since our detector has been segmented, we check to see whether all
4 segments were hit in the burst-- and find that only one segment was hit!
(Strike one.)
 
For such a large burst, the plastic scintillator must register a hit --
but there is no scintillator signal whatsoever.  (Strike two.)
 
Then we look at the time interval between pulses, which is easy since we
digitize all signals.  The neutron detection times should reflect the
spreading-out of neutrons as they slow in the polyethylene moderator --
but we find that the spacing is actually regular, about 200 nanoseconds between
pulse-starts.  Very much like electronics-generated noise. (Strike three.)
 
Oops.  The Menlove-type counter (with shift-register electronics)
on its own would have registered a large neutron burst.  But by adding
another (plastic scintillator) detector, and segmenting the counter, and
digitizing signals, we can prove that the burst is in fact an artifact.
 
Looking at other data sets, I find several examples of such large bursts,
which I did not notice initially since I almost always require a prompt *and*
a neutron-capture signal in a valid event.  But these signals show up albeit
rarely in the 3He-counter part of the detector.   We have not yet figured out
what generated these artifacts, but it is unequivocal that real neutrons did
not do it.
 
Furthermore, we have not seen any bursts larger than 5 detected in the
Kamiokande experiments or in any deep-underground experiments conducted at
BYU over a four-year period.  To me and my colleagues at BYU, the case is
closed on the large neutron bursts.
 
We have learned about detectors rather than discovering something new in
nature.  This warning should be heeded by all who claim "cold fusion" effects.
And it should motivate us to be cautious in claims while we search for
"what went wrong" in our experiments.  We need to have redundant detection
systems and the best detectors available. (In addition to neutron-verification
systems, I would add:  x-ray  and charged-particle *spectrometers* are needed;
we should not trust tritium or helium or x-ray production without these!)
 
I close with a comment from a "colleague in pain", Lewis Friedman of
Brookhaven, who said (after retracting claims of "cluster impact fusion"):
 
"When you get a result that appears to be spectacular and is supported by a
large body of circumstantial evidence,"  Friedman says, "There is some tendency
to want to believe that it's really there.  You have an obligation to prove it
one way or the other."  [Science, 262 (22 Oct. 1993) 509.]*
 
Submitted (sadly) by Steven Jones
 
 
*Here is the article from Science, Oct. 22, 1993, by Ivan Amato:
 
"CLOSING THE CASE ON CLUSTER IMPACT FUSION"
 
A preprint making the rounds of the nuclear fusion community officially closes
the book on cluster impact fusion, one of two fusion dramas that began in 1989.
(The book virtually closed on the other story, cold fusion, not long after it
opened.)   Cluster impact fusion was announced that year by three Brookhaven
chemists, Robert Beuhler, Lewis Friedman, and Gerhart Friedlander, who said
thaey had bombarded a deuterium-loaded target with huge clusters of heavy-water
molecules and induced fusion yields 10 billion times greater than allowed by
classical theory.
 
The researchers treated these first results cautiously, fearful of getting the
same treatment elicited by the highly publicized and incorrect cold fusion
claim.  The caution didn't help.  The Brookhaven work was quickly criticized by
physicists who argued that the effect was likely due to experimental artifacts
and not some novel fusion mechanism.
 
Two years later, in March 1992, the Brookhaven trio partly acknowledged this
when they published an erratum in Physical Review Letters, reporting tha they
had overestimated fusion rates and that stray ions in their cluster beam may
have been responsible for their data.  Still, they allowed that cluster fusion
might exist, but at a much small rate.
 
Now Physical Review A  has accepted for publication the final word from
Brookhaven.  The original effect indeed could be explained by "small ion
impurities," the Brookhaven chemists in their abstract.  Says Friedman:
 
"The paper is the end of the story."
 
What's the morale of this fusion story?  "When you get a result that appears to
be spectacular and is supported by a large body of circumstantial evidence,"
Friedman says, "There is some tendency to want to believe that it's really
there.  You have an obligation to prove it one way or the other."
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Nov16.171733.1108@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Nov16.171733.1108@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 93 17:28:30 -0700

cancel <1993Nov16.171733.1108@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 05:44:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGM61J.LCM@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>More reprints from the archives of sci.environment.
>Some specific flaws (including damning flaws) in four pages
>from the Dixy Lee Ray book, with particular reference to her
>take on CFC's and ozone. I believe the original poster was
>Robert Parson (based on internal evidence).
 
     I'm confused.  Why the continuing critique of Dixy Lee Ray in
     the face of absolutely no opposition (as far as I see)?
 
[40,000 lines of criticism of Dixy Lee Ray deleted]
 
>Shall I go on, Dale? Are you going to defend this torchbearer of the
>Scientific Enterprise?
 
      The straw man has been stabbed through the heart.  He has
      met his maker.  He has gone on to his final reward.
      He is finished, done for, kaput, dead.
 
      He will no longer trouble your sleep.
 
      However, we (or at least I) were (was) talking about Pat Michaels.
      I await the partially damning criticism with interest...
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Miniball lightning?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miniball lightning?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 05:50:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <93111611503367@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>,
 <blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> wrote:
>The stuff posted by Edward Lewis with reference to experiments by T.
>Matsumoto leave me thinking that one of those two gentlemen is totally
>confused as to what is being observed.  For example consider the following:
>
>"Matsumoto used a scanning electron microscope to make the picture . . .
>the tiny BL-like phenomena that Matsumoto produced is able to travel
>through water, glasss, and air since in traveled to the emulsion."
>
>I get the feeling that someone does not have a clue as to how a scanning
>electron microscope produces an image.  Of course Matsumoto's experiments
>have been published in Fusion Technology so we know it has to be really
>good stuff!
 
    I think it's hilarious.  Mr. Lewis has been posting this stuff for
    a while, and 'SEM studies of ball lightning' sounds like someone
    got a good deal on a piece of equipment without the instruction manual.
 
    I don't think Mr. Lewis cares, though, since he continues to
    post it.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / James Crotinger /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: 17 Nov 93 18:22:33 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
> In article <jac.753387296@gandalf>,
>       jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
> |> I suspect it is very unlikely that ITER will be sited in the US.
 
> Could you elaborate? I know only the discussions about Germany and Europe.
> Germany is _very_ unlikely because of the hyper-hysteria against anything
> "nuclear". Cadarache has been mentioned. People like S France. For this to
> fly they'd probably have to build housing, since Cadarache is in the
> middle of nowhere: the nearest town, Aix-in-Provence, is 45 km away, and
> it is FF 14 each way to use the autobahn. It is that or take 1 hr each
> way, every day. As bad as Los Alamos (if you live in Santa Fe). There is
> also the >4 dollar/gallon gas. (Aix is quite nice, though.)
 
  The main reason is exactly opposite of what Dale's posting implied.
The country that gets it will likely provide more than an equal share
of funding. Thus, I suspect congress is more likely to fund it if it
is sited elsewhere than if it is sited here.
 
> Why not the US? Or, for that matter, why not Japan?
 
  Most people seem to think it'll either be France or Japan. Of course
the time for making this decision is quite a ways off, so things could
change. I'm sure Rebut would prefer France. And if the decision comes
down to France or Japan, most American physicists would probably
prefer France.
 
  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:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 19:23:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

: Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
:  The straw man has been stabbed through the heart.  He has
:  met his maker.  He has gone on to his final reward.
:  He is finished, done for, kaput, dead.
:  He will no longer trouble your sleep.
 
Glad to hear it.
 
:  However, we (or at least I) were (was) talking about Pat Michaels.
:  I await the partially damning criticism with interest...
 
Is it your contention that "totally damning" and "partially damning" are
exhaustive categories? (If so, in which does your work fall?)
As I said, I haven't read Michaels. Given his appearance in such
august company, I'm not strongly motivated to insinuate his book into
my reading list. Could you supply a good reason why I *should*
read him, despite his unsavory companions?
 
Bo
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fission economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fission economics
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 14:23:20 EST

         Dr Bruce Scott posted (quoting Barry Merriman):
>>A little known fact: the projected earth reserves of fuel grade uranium
>>(not requiring breeder reactors) would last us only ~60 years at our
>>present rate of consumption, if we used that as our sole source of energy
>>worldwide. So fission is no long term energy solution.
 
>How about another one? Taking the above as a given, and that fuel
>grade uranium is a fraction X of the whole, then uranium as a whole,
>assuming there are no problems using breeders, there is available
>energy for 60/X years. I understand that X is about 0.007 (U235/U
>total).  So that makes about 10k years. Now, given that the same
>people who present a fissle future often argue that economic growth
>and an expanding population are Good Things, you cannot do the simple
>division and say things like "we have energy for 10,000 years". If
>consumption grows at 0.5 percent/year, then the 10,000 become less
>than 800 years.
>
>Given this, I'd like to know how to make fusion long by the time that
>day rolls around.
 
         I responded to this before but I overlooked the biggest
problem with this calculation.  The 60 year supply is for uranium which
can be economically used in present day fission reactors. If breeder
technology is perfected, not only does this mean that the 60 year
supply of high-grade uranium ore will last much longer, it also means
that low-grade uranium ores may be used.  Since much more uranium is
present in low-grade ores than in high-grade ores this means that the
supply is much larger than the above calculation indicates.  See for
example "Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source" by Bernard L.
Cohen, American Journal of Physics, 51(1), Jan. 1983, p75-76, which
suggests breeder reactors could provide all of the world's energy
requirements (at present rates of consumption) for the next 5 billion
years using uranium from the oceans.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Robert Lutz /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: Robert W. Lutz <rlutz@acad.drake.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 22:48:32 GMT
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 01:42:16 GMT
Organization: Drake University

In article <1993Nov16.213535.4036@ns.network.com> John Logajan,
logajan@ns.network.com writes:
[stuff deleted]
>1.) There must be compatible versions of the software that run on both
>    MSDOS and UNIX platforms -- at a minimum.
 
At lot of us use Macs.  I guess you have covered that -- at a minimum.
 
>S1.0 - Data packets should not exceed 64K.  Files larger than 64K should
>       be broken up into chunks smaller than 64K.
 
I may be wrong, but I think some of the commercial services offering
internet access limit mail messages to 32K.  You might want to think
of 32K chunks rather than 64K chunks.
 
>S3.0 - Binary data *must* be "uuencoded" for transport across the e-mail
>       or Usenet highways.  I've heard there is a second standard, xxencode,
>       but for the time being uuencode and uudecode will be the standard
>       for shipping binary data over lines unable to handle raw binary.
 
Not terribly popular in the Mac world but there are encoders and decoders
available at Info-Mac and Michigan archives.
 
>S4.0 - *this is not yet a standard*  Data Compression
>       I've been having trouble finding a data compression scheme (for
>       other than graphics, see S5.0) that is compatible between Unix
>       and MSDOS.  The trouble appears to be that one or the other always
>       seems to have a port, but that one side is not maintained and
>       advanced as fast as the other.
>
>       Here are some of the compression schemes I've looked at:
>              MSODS                  UNIX
>             pkzip/unzip             unzip
>             lharc                   lharc
>             compress                compress
>
>       Hints, clues, and recommendations welcome.
 
Of course, there are other approaches in the Mac world.  Trying to
find a scheme that works across ALL platforms is a curse.
 
>S5.0 - Graphical data should be encoded via the GIF standard.  Since GIF
>       viewers are far more available than PostScript printers, the use
>       of GIF is preferred over PostScript (See S6.0).
 
OK for Mac world.
[stuff deleted]
 
>S6.0 - PostScript will be the standard page descriptor language, but due to
>       the high cost of PS printers and their relative scarcity, GIF will
>       be the preferred method of graphical exchange.
 
Lots of PS printers in the Mac world.  But postscript files are HUGE.
[stuff deleted]
 
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 01:42:16 GMT
In article <1993Nov17.014216.6509@ns.network.com> John Logajan,
logajan@ns.network.com writes:
>>S4.0 - *this is not yet a standard*  Data Compression
>
>Okay, I found a pair that work, so this is the interim suggested standard:
>
>
>S4.0 - Data compression will utilize the ARC program.  This is an older
>       compression program, but seems to have stabilized with regard to
>       incompatability between platforms.
>
>       You can find the sources for any C based system via anonymous FTP at
>       sunsite.unc.edu   /pub/packages/TeX/tools/arc521/ multiple files.
>
>       You can find an MSDOS executable (v6.02) via anonymous FTP at
>       freebsd.cdrom.com  /pub/cdrom/cdroms/pdsl/arc.exe
 
Hhmmm!
Don't recall seeing an arcer or dearcer for Mac. I'll have to look.
 
Robert W. Lutz
Assistant Provost for Information Technology
Drake University
Des Moines, IA
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrlutz cudfnRobert cudlnLutz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 17:50:37 EST

         Bruce Scott posted:
>Again, I ask, why do people think you have to get down to 3-6 cent/kW-hr
>to be competitive? Energy cost more than that even in 1986 when I lived
>in Texas (about 6.5 cents, then, in a state rich with natural gas).
         I replied in part:
>         These costs are costs to the utility at the generating plant
>busbar.  The price a homeowner pays is of course substantially more.
         Bruce Scott again:
>...     BTW I have always thought of 15 cents/kW-hr, for whatever it is
>worth. That's close to what I pay here.
         Bernd Pollermann added:
>Well, maybe not, or he just looked at some other parts of the world:
>In France/Switzerland you pay NOW about 11-12 cents/KWh .
 
         We seem to have a failure to communicate here.
         Unless you are planning to sell fusion reactors that people
can put in their basements the current price individuals pay for
electricity is irrelevant to the discussion of the economic viability
of fusion reactors.
         If you are planning to sell fusion reactors to electric
utility companies the cost they care about is the cost of electricity
at the point it enters their distribution system.  This is the standard
way of comparing the costs of different means of generating electricty
for utilities.  The comparative cost figures I posted were figured on
this basis.  These are the figures that fusion reactors must meet to be
economically viable.
         Do you understand the difference between retail and wholesale?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Science in the Basement College
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science in the Basement College
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 01:27:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Science in the Basement College                        17 November 1993
 
Dick Jackson says: "Then illumination dawned" while wondering why I would be
invited to talk to a science fiction convention.  Dieter Britz wonders how to
make a citation to s.p.f.  John Logajan is starting to do some of the work
required to add the tools needed so that we can pass graphical data around in
a standard way.
 
What I talked about at Windycon was the way "doing science" has changed for me
since actively using s.p.f.  I started by showing log book pages from the
first years work where the conventional sources of information were noted.
Recorded were results of library research, telephone conversations, letters,
etc..  Later I showed one day's s.p.f discussion on a topic that I had
initiated.  It should be clear to everyone that a tremendous compression in
the time required to accumulate information about a project is possible.  It
is also possible to form alliances to do the work.  I have done it!  We hope
here to develop s.p.f as a new methodology.
 
It was also noted that I have found myself in the entertainment business.  I
get what is clearly fan mail.  Since it was a science fiction convention, with
writer types present, I suggested to them a future in which posters to the
internet would be stars, with million dollar contracts.  I modestly set as my
goal to be the first paid internet poster.
 
In the good old days, scientists would join a monastery, take a vow of
silence, and try to do science.  Then somehow they decided it might be a good
idea to talk to each other and we had the renaissance.  The idea of getting
together to do science persisted however, and now we have universities which
are collections of colleges which in turn are just collections of people
working on similar things.
 
All the tools are in place so that we no longer have to get together in one
physical spot to do science.  We can form a college that is spread out over the
entire world - even to space when if ever get there.  The real expense of
doing science is the wages and fringe benefits of people.  Even at Fermilab
where our detector weighs 10,000 tons and we use a lot of electrical power,
the people cost outweighs the stuff cost.  It seems to me that it is possible
to compete with big federally funded science by collecting a group of amateur
"gentleman scientists" through the internet.  Of course one would not build a
CDF this way, but there are plenty of small things that can be done that do
not require 100 ton cranes.  "Cold Fusion" comes to mind as an example.  (Of
course the government does fund the internet.  Sometimes even the government
does something useful and economic.)
 
I think that part time work on evenings and weekends will beat full time work
at a big institution because in my basement I don't have to (yet) cope with
the silly government rules.  I may just choose to go down to Sam's, buy a
freon recharge kit, and fill my heat pipe with freon.  Possibly I could do
this at Fermilab, but I assure you that it wold take six months, and a hundred
meetings before I could get approval.  I would also have to write a pile of
documentation to justify why I wanted to do it.
 
One can now put together a really good data collection system out of cheap
standard components and personal computers.  It will mind the experiment while
you are off at a full time job - or playing golf or sailing if you are
retired.
 
While it is sometimes nice to have access to big machines, often having access
to someone who has used such machines is just as good.  They can tell you that
you won't find what you are looking for.  In the rare cases that it is
determined that the big machine will really do some good, then they can often
help you gain access.  In the end you can just pay to have the test made if
the expert justifies it's use.
 
I think the cost of amateur science is now comparable to any of the other
things people do for their vanity.  Owning a boat, joining a golf club, buying
clothes, dining out, etc..  Of course there are poor people who could not do
it, but I am talking to "gentlemen and lady scientists".  These are people who
have worked hard and educated themselves, and have a secure profession.  Now
what what can they do for personal satisfaction?  For the most part, this is
how science started.  We don't have to let the universities own science!
 
One can also do science in style!  Just look at some of the old scientific
instruments.  They were pieces of art.  In the good old days, scientists were
proud of the appearance of their instruments and decorated them appropriately.
Bob Wilson tried to do something like that here at Fermilab.  He put a stained
glass ceiling in one of the elevators.  It made the ride up to the 14th floor
pleasant.  It also caused a major scandal that almost closed the laboratory
because some fool actually charged time to the project.  But when I build
things in my basement, I can do what I damn well please.  We have thus had
several talks with artists.  I am thinking seriously about gold plating the
next calorimeter just because it would look nice.  My brother has the
facilities.  Let someone try to do that anywhere but NASA!  BTW, are there any
artists out there who would want to decorate the next calorimeter?  The theme
is Dante's 9 circles of Hell.  (I think there were 9, at least the new
calorimeter will have 9 concentric cylinders to decorate.  I might even be
persuaded to change the design to match Dante!)
 
How to make a citation?  I think that already the notation sci.physics.fusion
is as recognizable to the scientific community as J. Electro. Chem.  Knowing
that J. Electro. Chem. is a journal does not automatically get it for you.
You have to go to your library and determine if it is there.  If not, the
librarian has to get the paper for you.  It is already about as easy to find
something in s.p.f.  Suppose sci.physics.fusion FD-1234 was used as a
reference.  (Another possibility would be s.p.f and a date time group.)
Almost anyone who knows that the news groups exist could post a message saying
"how do I get it?"  Someone would quickly tell him about the monthly Dieter
Britz posts and he could likely get the information in less than a day.  This
already beats how I can get information from my library.  The effort now
should be to improve the quality of the posted material.  We can do it now if
we try.  Then this will become the media of the future.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: 17 Nov 93 22:49:57 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In his post of the 11-nov-93, message ID: <01H55P8B5LUAHV1694@VMS2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz writes....
 
>Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au(Daryl Owen) in FD 1641:
>[...]
>>Dieter,
>>The AIP Conference Proceedings No.228 contains a paper by Yamaguchi and
>>Nishioka which addresses some of the problems you find with the above
>>article. It also contains an extension of the above, titled "Second
>>Stage Experiment-Current Injection".
>
>Ah, so there was more work;why has this not been published properly,I
>wonder?
>
>>I find the AIP Conf. Proceedings paper by Yamaguchi et al "interesting" for
>>the following reasons;
>>1)Very large neutron bursts were observed from samples of Pd:D Subject to a
>>pressure gradient across a thin film.
>
>You are echoing the same idea as the authors seem to have, this pressure
>gradient thing. You (they) would in fact get a greater gradient if they
>left of the "Mn-O" layer altogether. But I still suspect that they have
>this vision of deuteriums trying to get out, and bumping into each other
>as they hit the barrier.
 
I do not believe that this is how they percieve the process, indeed from
their following "Discussion" chapter, I would hope to prove otherwise....
 
Firstly, it should be stated that the "Discussion" concerns actually two
series of experiments, called "The First-stage Experiment", using Pd:D
samples subjected to a pressure (vacuum) gradient and "The Second Stage
Experiment- Current Injection". This involved Pd:D and Pd:H samples subjected
to a pressure (vacuum) and a voltage gradient. In the First Stage Experiment
all four of the following "effects" were observed, in The Second Stage
Experiment only "effects" (2),(3) and (4) were observed.
All words in {these} brackets were inserted, for clarity, by myself.
 
From the AIP Conf. Proceedings No.228...... "Nuclear Fusion Induced by the
Controlled Out-transport of Deutrons in Palladium." by Eiichi Yamaguchi and
Takashi Nishioka.  NTT Basic Research Labs., Japan.
 
                          4. DISCUSSION
    "Let us discuss the causal relationship between the four effects we have
found; (1) neutron emission, (2) explosive gas release, (3) uniform plastic
deformation,{bending of the samples} and (4) excess heat evolution.
 As shown in {chapter} 3, effects (2)-(4) are easily reproduced by injecting
the electric current, although the amount is much lower on the order of
10^-3 to 10^-4 in comparison with the effects in the first-stage experiment.
 Furthermore, effects (2)-(4) are found to be also reproducible on Pd:H.
 Therefore, it seems that the excess heat is not produced by any nuclear
reaction but by a rapid structual phase change, since it is strongly
correlated to the coherent plastic deformation.{of the samples}
 Thus effects (2)-(4) found both with Pd:D and Pd:H are expected to be based
on physics different from that which cause effect (1).
    Effect (1) seems to be induced at an extreme limit of effects (2)-(4),
specifically the coherent plastic deformation. Now, let us consider the origin
of effect (1).  As described in {chapter} 1, it is believed that the present
observation should result from some non equilibrium process; for instance,
a rapid change in the configuration of host Pd-atoms or defects so as to force
D atoms much closer to each other than in the equilibrium sites. One
possibility for this is the following "musical-chairs" mechanism.
    As discussed above, the production of a Beta-phase layer on one of the
surfaces produces a biaxial strain field in the host Pd, due to its larger
lattice constant.  This field in turn, enhances the out diffusion of D-atoms
to the same surface (Gorsky effect).  Therefore, these effects can create a
cooperative cycle of positive feed-back to increase the D concentration
that Pd surface (Fig.11).{Diagram showing positive feedback loop with
plastic deformation coming out of the loop and leading to nuclear fusion}
 Thus, an oversaturation-phase layer can transiently form, in which D-atoms
are located not only at the octahedral sites (O-sites) but at some of the
tetrahedral sites (T-sites).
    A simple calculation using the empirical potential (ref.19) for H atoms
in Pd has revealed that both the O-sites and the T-sites, whose number is
respectively 1 and 2 for one Pd atom, give local minima without the strain.
 However as the biaxial strain is increased, the O-sites tend to become saddle
points and no longer offer stable points to hydrogen atoms, as shown in
Fig.12(a).  In this case, the displaced T-sites turn to give new local minima.
 Within  such elastic deformation, it cannot be expected that D-atoms, which
could have moved from the O-sites to the displaced T-sites, obtain energy
large enough to give a high fusion reaction.  However, at the very moment of
plastic deformation, the Pd-atom rearrangement due to the production of
the defects can increase the potential magnitude at the displaced T-sites
to the order of 1000 eV, as shown in Figs. 12(b) and 12(c). Thus the D atoms
must be forced to move dynamically to search for new potential minima whose
number is decreased.    In case of single vacancy, the defect finally produces
a steep potential for H atoms and the defect induced lattice vibration gives
each deuteron an energy of the order of 1000 eV, as shown in Fig.12(d). In
fact, x-ray analysis of the samples after the third neutron emission has
revealed  that there was considerable degradation of the Pd crystal, while
the Au coated surfaces had no degradation.  Therefore, at the very moment
of plastic deformation, the probability that D-atoms approach each other
enough to give a high fusion rate will increase significantly.
 Although more sophisticated calculations are needed to check the validity
of the proposed "musical chairs" model, we claim that the origin of the
nuclear fusion is the rapid vibration/movement of the host atoms."
 
"Ref.19    H.Sugimoto and Y.Fukai: J.Phys.Soc.Japan. 51 (1982) 2554."
 
  Sorry I could not do the Figs. for you, but I hope that you can see that
they do not just have a "vision of neutrons trying to get out, and bumping
into each other as they hit the barrier".
  While the above has a few small points I am not sure of, I think their theory
sounds reasonable and (if their neutrons were real and I believe they were)
may well explain cold fusion.
 
 HOWEVER...... That thin film, the feedback involving the Gorsky effect
and the biaxial strain would be a fantastic site for...... FRACTO-FUSION.
And because I believe that effect to be proven and reproducible,(Claytor et al)
THAT'S what I think is really happening.
 
                                            Kind Regards to all,
                                            Daryl Owen.
 
  The above musings are attributable only to my Muse and myself.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 17 Nov 1993 23:58:50 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <CGMFyp.9JC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>      ...
>      However, we (or at least I) were (was) talking about Pat Michaels.
>      I await the partially damning criticism with interest...
>      ...
 
This argument should be in sci.environment and I will not post more
about enviromental issues to this conference, but I hate to leave
Mr. Bass hanging:
 
|Newsgroups: sci.environment
|From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
|Subject: Climate Change:  Michaels, Sound and Fury
|Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 18:00:45 GMT
|
|    Patrick J. Michaels
|    Sound and Fury  -  The Science and Politics of Global Warming
|    Washington D.C.,  Cato Institute, 1992.  xiv, 197 pages
|    ISBN 0-932790-90-9 hbk $21.95,  ISBN 0-932790-89-5 pbk $11.95
|
|Patrick Michaels, a frequently quoted climate change skeptic, contends
|that climate change is most probably going to be modest and mainly
|beneficial.  His basic arguments are more or less the same as in the
|1992 Bull.Am.Met.Soc. article [1], with details and politics added.
|
|Michaels impresses me as honest, but as somewhat gullible where this
|fits his beliefs.  The book is sufficiently sophisticated to require
|a climatologist (which I am not) for a thorough review.  Meanwhile some
|might be interested in the following remarks by an informed layperson.
|Hopefully the climatologists of sci.environment will correct me should
|I muddle up things too badly.  As befits a sci.* group, I will pass over
|the political aspects of the book and confine myself to some of what
|I perceive to be Michaels' main scientific arguments.
|
|Michaels has a point, I think, in that the decrease of the diurnal
|temperature range (DTR), studied by Thomas Karl and others [2], is
|indeed an important phenomenon.  Over the land areas investigated so
|far  (~50 % of Northern and ~10 % of Southern Hemisphere land areas)
|the observed increase of average surface temperature is mainly due to
|increased night time minima (sometimes referred to as "night heat"),
|while daily temperature maxima have increased much less.  These changes
|are partially related to increases in cloud cover [2].  Michaels is
|fairly, although not fully, confident that decrease of DTR and increase
|of cloud cover have come here to stay, and that both of them are mainly,
|albeit not exclusively, due to manmade sulfate aerosols.  Thomas Karl
|and other principal DTR researchers are less confident.  They express
|uncertainty about the causes of the phenomenon and whether it is likely
|to continue.  Possible causes include the observed global warming and
|increases of greenhouse gases, increases in sulfate aerosols, biomass
|burning (smoke), natural climate variability and a combination of some
|or all of these  ([2], p 1007, p 1022).
|
|Michaels dismisses natural climate variability as a "ghost in the
|machine", thus saving his "data driven" approach, that is, he tries
|to deduce climate sensitivity to manmade greenhouse gases from the
|modern temperature record.  According to many wellknown climatologists,
|this is presently hopeless:  there are just too many poorly known
|confounding factors, and the increase of global average surface
|temperature of about 0.5 o C observed since 1890 is compatible with
|a broad  *range*  of values for climate sensitivity:  ~1.5 to 4.5 o C
|for a CO2 doubling, some researchers might perhaps prefer  ~1 to 5 o C
|[3, IPCC 1990, IPCC 1992].
|
|Michaels dismisses climate models as entirely unreliable.  This goes
|too far for my taste, given the partial successes the models scored,
|e.g., in simulating early Holocene climate or some aspects of the
|last glacial maximum (while failing at some other aspects [4]).  True,
|model results, and in particular regional climate forecasts, are not yet
|very reliable, but they shouldn't be dismissed too easily either.
|
|Michaels largely ignores the paleo-CO2 record for the past ~160,000
|years and its close correlation with late Pleistocene temperature trends
|[5], which provides strong circumstantial evidence (although no proof)
|that neither the range estimated for climate sensitivity nor the present
|best guess of ~2.5 o C for a CO2 doubling are unreasonable.
|
|Relying strongly on Sherwood Idso's results, Michaels contends that high
|CO2 levels are going to be an unmixed blessing for plant life.  Indeed,
|in the short term, high CO2 increases biomass buildup and water use
|efficiency in a large number of plants, including many crops,  *provided*
|growing conditions are favorable:  ample nutrients, water, light etc.
|Michaels overlooks that the long-term effects of enhanced atmospheric
|CO2 levels on plants and ecosystems are uncertain, and that there is
|considerable evidence for possible untoward effects  [6; also IPCC 1990,
|ch. 10].  By the way, it is presently impossible to quantify the effect
|of CO2 fertilization on the global carbon cycle  [IPCC 1992, p 33-34].
|
|I will leave Michaels' peculiar remarks on stratospheric ozone
|to Robert Parson.  To be fair, though, ozone isn't Michaels' specialty,
|nor is it a main topic of the book.
|
|
|
|References :
|
|[IPCC 1990]  Climate Change  -  The IPCC Scientific Assessment
|    Houghton, J.T.,  G.J. Jenkins,  J.J. Ephraums  (eds.)
|    Cambridge Univ. Press 1990.   xxxix, 365 pp.
|[IPCC 1992]  Climate Change 1992
|    The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment
|    Houghton, J.T.,  B.A. Callander,  S.K. Varney  (eds)
|    Cambridge Univ. Press 1992.   xii, 200 pp.
|[1] Patrick J. Michaels  and  David E. Stooksbury
|    Global Warming:  A Reduced Threat ?
|    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 73 (1992), 1563-1577
|    Discussion:  ibid. 74 (1993), 855-857
|[2] Thomas R. Karl,  Philip D. Jones,  Richard W. Knight,  George Kukla,
|    Neil Plummer,  Vyacheslav Razuvayev,  Kevin P. Gallo,
|    Janette Lindseay,  Robert J. Charlson,  and  Thomas C. Peterson
|    A new perspective on recent global warming:  asymmetric trends
|    of daily maximum and minimum temperature
|    Bulletin American Meteorological Society 74 (1993), 1007-1023
|[3] T.M.L. Wigley and S.C.B. Raper
|    Detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect on climate
|    Pages 231-242 in:   Climate Change:  Science, Impacts and Policy
|    Proceedings of the Second World Climate Conference  [1990]
|    J. Jaeger & H.L. Ferguson (eds),  Cambridge Univ. Press 1991
|[4] Thomas J. Crowley,    Utilization of paleoclimate results
|    to validate projections of a future greenhouse warming.
|    Pages 35-45 in:  M.E.Schlesinger (ed.), Greenhouse-gas-induced
|    climatic change: a critical appraisal of simulations and
|    observations,  Elsevier, Amsterdam 1991
|    [ Also:   Thomas J. Crowley, Gerald R. North,   Paleoclimatology,
|      Oxford Univ. Press 1991, chapter 4 ]
|[5] D. Raynaud, J.Jouzel, J.M.Barnola, J.Chapellaz, R.J.Delmas, C.Lorius
|    The ice record of greenhouse gases
|    Science 259 (12 Feb 1993), 926-934
|[6] Fakhri A. Bazzaz  and  Eric D. Fajer
|    Plant life in a CO2-rich world
|    Scientific American 266, 1 (Jan. 1992), 18-24
|
|
|Jan Schloerer                    schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
|Uni Ulm     Klinische Dokumentation     D-89070 Ulm     Germany
 
 
For those who wish to read more about this, on either
side, here is a Universal resource locator to a WAISindex
of a number of conferences where these sorts of arguments
are welcome:
 
  http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu:8001/munin.ub2.lu.se:210/enviroment-newsgroups.
 
 
    --bks
 
 
--
Bradley K. Sherman               P.O. Box 245
Computer Scientist               Berkeley, CA, 94701
Dendrome Project                 510-559-6437 FAX: 510-559-6440
Institute of Forest Genetics     Internet: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: 18 Nov 93 10:29:08 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 Reading my post of late last night, A Canticle for Yamaguchi, I find that
all of three words were emphasised in capitals. My Muse must have been in
her cups.  There will be a follow up posting, concerning fracto-fusion, when
I can find the time.
 Also, thanks Dick for your background info on neutron detectors. I am
still after the specs on the Aloca TP-451S.
 
                                            Regards to all,
                                            Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 02:46:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Robert W. Lutz <rlutz@acad.drake.edu> writes:
>some of the commercial services offering internet access limit mail messages
>to 32K.
 
If someone can verify this, let's take smaller packet size.
 
>Not terribly popular [uuencode] in the Mac world
>Don't recall seeing an arcer or dearcer for Mac.
>OK [GIF] for Mac world.
>Lots of PS printers in the Mac world.
 
How many Mac's are hooked directly to the net?  Or especially, how many
such Mac users have no other net connection?
 
There are two types of software domains here, transport and endpoint.
 
You seem to be able to handle the three endpoints (ascii data, GIF, and
PS) on the Mac just as I am able to handle all three on my Unix, MSDOS
and Atari ST computers.
 
But all my Internet access is thru a Unix machine, and so I can and do
process the data I get via Internet, usually then dumping raw binary
files to a floppy disk to take home at night.
 
How do Mac users get data off the Internet if they don't have their Mac's
wired direct???
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / John Logajan /  Re: GIF once more
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GIF once more
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 03:16:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>John Logajan is to be congratulated for starting a discussion
 
It was at Tom Droege's proding.
 
>I hope it is achieved in a rational manner, not by painful experience with
>dud systems.
 
I wouldn't recommend anything I haven't used.  It's not so much an issue
of duds as an issue of selecting from an array of more or less equally
competent efforts.   I tried to pick pre-existing defacto standards.
 
>However, about GIF: I know you people think it's funny that I don't have GIF,
>but noone around here seems to use it. When John talks about a "GIF viewer",
>is that a bit of software, or hardware? Where does one get it?
 
GIF itself is a standard for image data.  GIF viewers run on different
computers.  The images appear on the CRT if the computer has the ability
to put up grayscale or color images.
 
I don't know every version of GIF viewer out there, but I run CSHOW on my
MSDOS machine with a 640x480 screen with 256 colors.  At work I used to have
a GIF viewer called XV running on my HP (unix) workstation.  I also have
a GIF viewer for my Atari ST, and XV runs on Suns, etc.
 
Both CSHOW and XV also allow the viewing of other image standards such as
TIFF and JPEG.  Both programs will attempt to display an image larger than
the pixel height, width, and color depth, of the physical display by image
processing techniques -- thus alleviating a major compatibility issue.
 
For those with FTP capability, the CSHOW (MSDOS) executable can be gotten
via anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu  pub/msdos/gif/cshw860a.zip
 
and a C source version of XV for X windows on Unix machines at
ftp.uga.edu   /pub/packages/xv.3.00.tar.Z
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reference to News postings
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 03:33:50 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Bruce "Zorch" Scott alias IN%"scott@zorch.sf-bay.org"
 
Scott Hazen Mueller is the man behind the zorch fusion gateway.
 
Bruce Scott is that other guy  (Hi Bruce :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / John Logajan /  Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 05:32:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

The December 1993 issue of Scientific American has a short news article
on sonoluminescence on page 24.  It's about the work of Seth Putterman
at the University of California at Los Angeles.
 
Using sound waves, he claims reaching temperatures of at least 50,000C,
which, he claims, is a concentration of energy by 12 orders of magnitude.
 
Uses 25Khz at 110db.  Ultraviolet flashes last 50 picoseconds.  Says water
does not propagate UV well, so may be missing hotter photons.  Uses a
single bubble method.  Bubbles expand to 45 microns and contract to under
one micron.  Believes collapse creates supersonic shockwave of
"exquisite symmetry."
 
Is shooting for 100,000C and above in 1994.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 10:00:46 GMT
Organization: Aarhus Universiversity

Considering Steve Jones' revelations about neutron artifacts, I would say
that Yamaguchi is as dead as Leibowitz.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reference to News postings
Date: 18 Nov 1993 12:24:20 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <01H5DO14R18YHV1I9P@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
        BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
|>
|> Is there a formal convention for a reference to News items in a scientific
|> paper? There is the odd posting that is worth referring to; but how? I guess
|> it requires accessability, so probably the archives are the best place. Anyone
|> have ideas? Has this been considered?
 
There are one or two ideas on this (actually, there might be a FAQ covering
it--check in news.answers or in news.announce.newusers). I might just use
the citation from the "in article" above:
 
D Britz (1993) Posting to Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion, ID number
    <01H5DO14R18YHV1I9P@vms2.uni-c.dk>.
 
Pretty unambiguous, unless you want the exact day.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Bruce Scott /  RE: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reference to News postings
Date: 18 Nov 1993 12:26:49 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <01H5F3RQRL1EHV1LJK@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
        BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
|> and Bruce "Zorch" Scott
 
Wow!! I just replied! So, are we now discussing negative time propagation in
s.p.f?  :-)
 
|> alias IN%"scott@zorch.sf-bay.org" points out that one
|> can cite the full News header (or parts of it). He rightly also, as I did,
|> points to the archives.
 
And this bit tells me it was someone else. (Whew :-)
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: 18 Nov 1993 12:53:50 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Stephen Cooper writes:
 
"As for Japan, unfortunatly the reason here is no one want's to go there.
The trouble the've had just filling the limited US and European places
in Naka for the design phase was hard enough. Japan is to strange for
enough people of the right caliber to be recruited outside of Japan to
go there. Even if it's the only show in town, people will still put
there families first."
 
Well, this might be because I am single, and that I have lived in what I
call substandard housing in Germany, but I would decide for Japan in a flash.
 
Of all the ITER participants, they are the only ones who make damned sure
that their "foreign guests" are well housed. In the US or maybe even England
that is not so much of a problem since there is a tradition of people
from many nations getting fair housing treatment (and in the US at least
someone from the lab itself helps personally when there is a language
problem, as in the case of the Japanese visitors to Texas). But anywhere
else, throwing foreigners into the "open" market for housing is a really
inhospitable way to do things. First, we are just not well treated by
prospective landlords, many of whom are time-warped mediaeval villagers
with money. Second, the markets in places like France and Germany are
so tight you have to be able to work under the table, and that is just
impossible for a non-native. So you get bad housing for your trouble.
In Japan, at least, all these problems are present but the lab steps in
and solves the problem for you. People I know who have gone to Japan are
living very well, much better than they did here.
 
This is an official international collaboration, and as far as I am
concerned that means the collaboration is responsible for the housing
of all the participants. Japan is the only member state that seems to
see it that way.
 
As for families, if they build foreign schools the way everyone has in
the EC, the biggest problem is solved. (Don't forget, this is a big
problem in the US as well. Especially Japanese children face lost
years in the US schools. Their work there is not respected when they
return to Japan. Continental Europeans have not so much trouble, but
it isn't easy for them, either.) Perhaps the most important thing
left is that Japan is so far away from anywhere else in the ITER
collaboration. But then what about the Japanese? I think they are
really getting shafted if everyone else says Japan is "too strange"
and it is decided that the central reference point is Europe.
 
The only reason I didn't jump to Japan last year is that ITER is not
really doing physics. My engineer friend from Italy is having a great
time over there.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 18 Nov 1993 12:59:09 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

John, I am pretty happy with this; I would suggest the minor change that
the line length be reduced to something like 75 chrs for text, allowing
for indentation in citation.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 18 Nov 1993 13:21:28 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Shearer asks:
 
|> Do you understand the difference between retail and wholesale?
 
Yes I do. Do you understand the difference between regulated and un-
regulated economies? Well, you do, and you strike me as someone who
is aghast at the prospect of the former. I, however, feel regulation,
even to the point of making undesirable forms of activity uneconomical
by using the tax code, is essential if we are going to preserve a livable
world. To that end, coal-based power systems are unacceptable in the long
run.
 
The reason that what I and others pay for power is quite relevant is that
the hard part has already been achieved in Europe: getting the consumer
used to a price for energy which can cover some of the clean-ups which
are necessary and will become necessary. As Dale Bass pointed out, the
whopping 2 Pfennig/liter or so gas tax hike is quite laughable, and I can
assure you that the German press at least is laughing.
 
|> If you are planning to sell fusion reactors to electric
|> utility companies the cost they care about is the cost of electricity
|> at the point it enters their distribution system.
 
Yes, but remember, this will not be the "free market" cost. That is
unacceptable as long as the people producing the power do not have to pay
for the damage they cause. In the case of fission, you would have to ensure
that the new techniques for separating the actinide part of the waste and
the special treatments of that part are actually used. In a "free market"
system they would not, because they cost money.
 
|> These are the figures that fusion reactors must meet to be
|> economically viable.
 
Keep in mind that the price of energy is political.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reference to News postings
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 13:02:25 GMT
Organization: Aarhus Universiversity

In <1993Nov18.033350.21004@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>Bruce "Zorch" Scott alias IN%"scott@zorch.sf-bay.org"
 
>Scott Hazen Mueller is the man behind the zorch fusion gateway.
 
>Bruce Scott is that other guy  (Hi Bruce :-)
 
>--
>- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
 
Sorry about that, I was a bit bleary-eyed at the time. I do know the
difference; what would we do without Scott "Zorch" Hazen Mueller.
 
Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 18 Nov 1993 13:25:17 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

John Logagan asks:
 
|> How do Mac users get data off the Internet if they don't have their Mac's
|> wired direct???
 
When I visit Texas, they give me a Mac. I have to use a Mac telnet
program to get to the Unix hosts, from which I get to the Internet.
 
I have no idea how to get a file off an Internet host and download it
to the Mac, since I always did things from the local Unix hosts using
the Mac as a command box.
 
I understand these things are possible, but not trivial. And it would be
very un-Mac to deign to use compatible software :-)
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Progress
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Progress
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 01:28:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimeter Design Note      D4                     18 November 1993
 
Heat Pipe Progress
 
We have now built a heat pipe structure to test the idea of constructing the
calorimeter out of layers of heat pipe shells.  Brass was selected.  Only
about 3x less desirable than silver, and we could buy standard tubing for
construction.  (Small Parts Inc, (305) 751-0856 carries sizes up to 3" with
1/16" wall thickness.  This is the source for most of the materials.)
                    __          __
                   |  |        |  |
                   |  |        |  |
                   |  |        |  |
                   |  |        |  |
                   |  |        |  |
                   |  |        |  |
                   |  |        |  | T
                   |  |________|  |
                   |______________|
 
The outside tube is 3" dia 1/16" brass tubing 6" long.  The inside tube is 2"
dia 1/16" brass tubing, 5 1/4" long.  The inner and outer bottoms are made
from 1/4" brass plate using the circular table on the toy milling machine.
The top is a brass ring made from 1/4" plate, again on the circular table.
There are no lips on the end pieces, I just machined a tight fit.  For larger
designs I plan to try to heat shrink the parts together.  The parts are
soldered together, except for the outer edge of the top ring which was glued
with JB Weld.  Before the final glue joint, the inside surfaces were covered
with 1/16" Fiberfrax.  This is stuff designed to replace asbestos for pipe
lagging.  It is supposed to be good to 2300F.  Tests indicated that it wicked
gin nicely.  It was glued to the surfaces with a small amount of 5 minute
epoxy.  A 10-32 brass screw was drilled out and a 1/16 brass fill tube
soldered into place.  This was then exoxyed into a tapped hole in the top
ring.  This is to allow replacement of the brass tube which is crimped for
sealing.
 
Under water tests using a syringe to pressureize the device indicated it was
leak free.
 
After assembly but before filling with gin, a crude measurement of the time
constant of the structure was made.  This was done by placing a thermometer at
T and filling the well with boiling water.  The T measurement was plotted over
time.  It is clearly a complex system, with one time constant at about 5
minutes, and a second much longer - 10 or 15 minutes, and possibly even longer
terms.
 
The heat pipe was now filled with gin.  The cup was filled with Mazola Oil and
a 150 watt tea cup heater installed in the oil.  We had to modulate the power
to the tea cup heater to prevent over heating the oil and burning out the
heater.  In about 1/2 hour, the gin boiled out down to the level of the inner
cup.  Then the process greatly slowed down.  It looked like it might take all
night to boil off the gin.  The heater was turned off, and the gin was allowed
to siphon back into the heat pipe.  A syringe was now used with the heat pipe
inverted to draw the gin out of the heat pipe.  The fill pipe was then clamped
off.
 
Again the time constant was measured.  This time it was a very well behaved
single time constant of 1 minute.  This was not the large improvement hoped
for, but it is a very large improvement, and I am encouraged.
 
Note that before the fill, the heat pipe behaved about like the average coffee
cup.  It could easily be held after a fill of boiling water.  It would keep
the fill hot for a reasonable drinking time.  Most of the calorimetry we have
been discussing here behaves pretty much like a coffee cup.  Thinking about
coffee cups will give you a pretty good feeling for the measurement problems.
 
After preparation, the heat pipe makes a lousy coffee cup.  It quickly burns
your hand, then cools down too fast for a leisurely drink.
 
Note that all the heat pipes for this experiment work backwards from what is
easiest for heat pipes.  Heat enters the inner cup.  This means that liquid
must wick all the way around the inner surface from the bottom of the outer
cup.  We will have to try to measure the capacity for such heat transfer.
This requires a bunch of thermometers and a data system.  Looks like that is
next on the list.
 
I see from the Chicago Steel and Wire catalog that brass tubing is available
only up to 8" id, and that at 1/8" wall thickness.  I can get larger sizes
made up with 1/16" wall thickness for $300 per foot.  Standard sizes go up to
6 1/8" with 0.065 wall.  All this is pushing me back to using the 2 liter
dewar that I used on the last experiment.  I guess we can use the 6 liter one
I bought as an ice bucket!  Another thought is to make my own dewar.  Then I
could fill it with super insulation.  Even without a really hard vacuum, I
might beat a standard dewar for my purposes (very low radiation loss) with a
super insulation fill.  I will think about it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Ad aspera /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 18 Nov 1993 17:50:32 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

There are Mac programs that more or less allow you to
participate in the Internet fun and games without giving up
your life, er, I mean learning Unix. I think similar programs
exist for the IBM Primordial Computer. Finding the right one
for your needs might be a good trick.  Of course, the Mac user
is dedicated to clicking away in the complete absence of
understanding until something works.
 
Now that I've insulted everyone except the three remaining VMS
users, let's get down to business.  You might check out the World
Wide Web, which CERN is pushing hard.  I've got an introductory
FAQ on it that I can send to you on request. But I don't know
much about HTML (Hyper-Text Markup Language, their variant of
SGML), the encoding scheme that appears to be necessary for putting
graphics, formatting, or hyper-links into WWW documents so that
they can be viewed onscreen.  At a lesser level of participation,
WWW readers simply serve as a glorified Gopher (the idea is
apparently that WWW should serve as a superset of Internet
services under one interface).
 
Acronymically,
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 17:58:47 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>I understand these things are possible, but not trivial. And it would be
>very un-Mac to deign to use compatible software :-)
 
My own impression is that Mac's started life as vastly over-priced,
closed systems.  Yuk.
 
You can't instrument a Mac like you can a PClone.  Therefore our primary
instrument source is going to be a MSDOS based platform, and our primary
transport system is going to be the Internet (Unix) -- and that is the
sole reason why these two represent the minimalist compatability standard.
 
I think it would be great if there were software packages that were more
widely compatible, but since I don't think we have the programming
resources available in this group, we are stuck using the pre-existing
Internet defacto standards.
 
Seems like every other platform in the world has mechanisms that allow
interchange with MSDOS and Unix -- except the arrogant Mac's.  To h*ll
with them :-)  (just kidding)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Michael Condict /  Re: GIF once more
     
Originally-From: condict@next19.osf.org (Michael Condict)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GIF once more
Date: 18 Nov 1993 19:52:14 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

In article <1993Nov18.031609.20706@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> I don't know every version of GIF viewer out there, but I run CSHOW on
my
> MSDOS machine with a 640x480 screen with 256 colors.  At work I used to
have
> a GIF viewer called XV running on my HP (unix) workstation.  I also have
> a GIF viewer for my Atari ST, and XV runs on Suns, etc.
>
> Both CSHOW and XV also allow the viewing of other image standards such
as
> TIFF and JPEG.  Both programs will attempt to display an image larger
than
> the pixel height, width, and color depth, of the physical display by
image
> processing techniques -- thus alleviating a major compatibility issue.
>
> For those with FTP capability, the CSHOW (MSDOS) executable can be
gotten
> via anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu  pub/msdos/gif/cshw860a.zip
>
> and a C source version of XV for X windows on Unix machines at
> ftp.uga.edu   /pub/packages/xv.3.00.tar.Z
 
There are at least three GIF viewers for Microsoft Windows available
by anonymous ftp.  The one I like best is lview, available at
 
        ftp.uu.net /systems/ibmpc/msdos/simtel20/windows3/lview31.zip
 
(or any other Simtel20 site).
 
It can view and convert between GIF and JPEG files, along with several
other formats.  Better yet, it has powerful image manipulation commands,
allowing you to alter contrast, brightness, tint, etc, and allows you
to operate on selected pieces of the image.
--
Michael Condict                 condict@osf.org
OSF Research Inst.              (617) 621-7349
1 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencondict cudfnMichael cudlnCondict cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / james blanchard /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu (james blanchard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 18 Nov 1993 23:05:23 GMT
Organization: Division of Information Technology

     I just went through this exercise for other reasons.  There are
many difficult choices to make.  I wanted full capability for PC's,
UNIX, and Macs.  For compression (one of the tougher areas of this
interchange stuff), I chose zip, because I found current versions of
zippers and unzippers for all three platforms.  I can point you to
them if you'd like.
--
 
   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjake cudfnjames cudlnblanchard cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / James Crotinger /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: 18 Nov 93 23:56:05 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
> Well, this might be because I am single, and that I have lived in what I
> call substandard housing in Germany, but I would decide for Japan in a flash.
 
  I think having a family makes a huge difference. I have two friends
that have recently been to Japan with their families. In both cases,
they enjoyed being in Japan, and their families hated it. This
situation will certainly be better with the availability of ITER
schools, but I know my wife still would not go for it.
 
  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:
cuddy18 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Ad aspera /  FYI #153, 18 Nov 93 (entre-vous, Mme. Guillotine)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: FYI #153, 18 Nov 93 (entre-vous, Mme. Guillotine)
Date: 19 Nov 1993 00:42:07 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 
[Written by the American Institute of Physics and posted by us.
Respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other references below.  Always
posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
column WHAT'S NEW, are archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous
FTP'ing pleasure, courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]
 
Upcoming House Budget Vote Has Important Impacts on Science
 
FYI No. 153, November 18, 1993
 
Little noticed during the last few weeks because of yesterday's
NAFTA vote is an upcoming House vote on a deficit-cutting bill that
would have significant impacts on federal science funding and
policies.  If passed, this legislation would, among other changes,
create a new Department of Science, cut fusion energy funding, and
reduce university R&D overhead rates.
 
Fiscal conservatives were promised an opportunity to make further
cuts in federal spending during this summer's consideration of the
controversial tax and deficit cutting legislation.  Late last
month, President Clinton sent to Congress a bill, H.R. 3400, which
would (including further congressional adjustments) cut federal
spending by over $11 billion in the next five years.
 
This afternoon, the House Rules Committee is expected to clear the
way for an amendment to H.R. 3400 which would be voted on by the
House this Saturday cutting federal spending by an additional $103
billion over five years.  Known as the Penny-Kasich Deficit
Reduction Plan after its two House cosponsors (Timothy Penny,
D-Minnesota; John Kasich, R-Ohio), it contains over 90 proposals to
cut federal spending.  Among them are (quoting from the plan where
indicated):
 
Consolidation of science and technology agencies into a single new
Department of Science: This consolidation includes the National
Science Foundation, NASA, Department of Energy, Department of
Commerce, and OSTP.  The plan's sponsors claim this "could result
in $1 billion of reduced spending due to administrative
consolidation and elimination of programmatic duplication."  In
addition, "National labs would be focused and unjustified capacity
would be sold off or closed."
 
A 20% reduction in fusion energy research and development:
"Commercial markets for fusion energy R&D may be years away, and
large-scale demonstration projects may be premature...this proposal
reduces magnetic fusion R&D to 50% of its CBO [Congressional Budget
Office] baseline levels over the next five years."  The plan's
sponsors claim this would reduce fusion energy R&D spending by $375
million over this period.
 
Imposition of a 50% cap on the overhead rate for federally
sponsored university research and development.
 
Elimination of funding for the High Temperature Gas Reactor.
 
Putting "Federally Funded Research and Development Centers Under
the Competition in Contracting Act."
 
"Lab Closure Commission: This provision calls for the formation of
an independent commission, patterned on the Base Closure
Commission, to determine the most effective organization of the
national defense and energy research labs."
 
Also included in the plan is a proposal to Strengthen and
Restructure NASA Management: "...primary suggestions include
increased contracting-out, relaxed regulations to encourage private
investment, and reducing personnel."
 
Another program creates a Single Polar Satellite program: "...to
reduce duplication and save $1 billion, various current and
proposed polar satellite programs should be consolidated under
NOAA...."
 
It is expected that Saturday's House floor vote on the Penny-Kasich
amendment will be very close.  House freshmen, who it should be
remembered were instrumental in providing the votes to terminate
the SSC, are anxious to demonstrate to constituents their
willingness to cut federal spending.  The House may also vote on an
amendment sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and
Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut) which would cancel the space
station, reduce spending for the ballistic missile defense program,
and terminate the Department of Energy's advanced liquid metal
reactor.
 
The short-term outlook in the Senate is very uncertain if the House
passes the Penny-Kasich amendment.  Senators Bob Kerrey
(D-Nebraska) and Hank Brown (R-Colorado) have authored a similar
plan.  Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) has said that it is
"inconceivable" that any bill further reducing federal spending
would pass the Senate this year.  Byrd generally opposes
legislation curtailing the ability of Congress to make spending
decisions.  Congress is scheduled to adjourn in the next two weeks,
and the long recess until next year's session might dampen
congressional enthusiasm to cut federal spending.  Nevertheless, if
the House does pass the Penny-Kasich package it would significantly
strengthen future moves to cut governing spending as they propose.
 
 
 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Richard M. Jones
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reactor Design Studies
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Design Studies
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 22:41:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <jac.753560553@gandalf>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>
>> In article <jac.753387296@gandalf>,
>>      jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>> |> I suspect it is very unlikely that ITER will be sited in the US.
>
>> Could you elaborate? I know only the discussions about Germany and Europe.
>> Germany is _very_ unlikely because of the hyper-hysteria against anything
>> "nuclear". Cadarache has been mentioned. People like S France. For this to
>> fly they'd probably have to build housing, since Cadarache is in the
>> middle of nowhere: the nearest town, Aix-in-Provence, is 45 km away, and
>> it is FF 14 each way to use the autobahn. It is that or take 1 hr each
>> way, every day. As bad as Los Alamos (if you live in Santa Fe). There is
>> also the >4 dollar/gallon gas. (Aix is quite nice, though.)
>
>  The main reason is exactly opposite of what Dale's posting implied.
>The country that gets it will likely provide more than an equal share
>of funding. Thus, I suspect congress is more likely to fund it if it
>is sited elsewhere than if it is sited here.
 
     Haven't been watching Congress recently, have you?
 
     Is zero probability more likely than zero probability?
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 22:47:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGnHup.LBH@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>: Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>:  The straw man has been stabbed through the heart.  He has
>:  met his maker.  He has gone on to his final reward.
>:  He is finished, done for, kaput, dead.
>:  He will no longer trouble your sleep.
>
>Glad to hear it.
>
>:  However, we (or at least I) were (was) talking about Pat Michaels.
>:  I await the partially damning criticism with interest...
>
>Is it your contention that "totally damning" and "partially damning" are
>exhaustive categories?
 
     No, those were your categories.  I think 'partially damning'
     is ridiculous.
 
>As I said, I haven't read Michaels. Given his appearance in such
>august company, I'm not strongly motivated to insinuate his book into
>my reading list. Could you supply a good reason why I *should*
>read him, despite his unsavory companions?
 
     So I should justify his position on someone's list?  That's also
     ridiculous.
 
     My new list:
 
          1)  A. Hitler
          2)  I. Amin
          3)  M. Khadafy
          4)  G. Khan
          5)  M. Theresa
 
     Clearly Mother Theresa is not a very good person.
 
                            dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 /  gordon.powell@ /  SONOLUMINESCENCE
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SONOLUMINESCENCE
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 20:57:47
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD

 
Logajan's posting about sonoluminescence reminds me that Coleman Blake
asked me to ask the news group whether anyone thought fusion could
be going on during sonoluminescence.  The pressures cited by some are indeed
enormous and one thinks of inverse beta decay.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpowell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / mitchell swartz /  Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 02:34:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Nov16.213535.4036@ns.network.com>
     Subject: Standards for electronic information exchange
John Logajan  [logajan@ns.network.com] wrote:
 
 "S5.0 - Graphical data should be encoded via the GIF standard.  Since GIF
       viewers are far more available than PostScript printers, the use
       of GIF is preferred over PostScript (See S6.0)."
 
  John, as mentioned before GIF may  not  be optimal since several
folks here pay by the bit.          \/\/
 
   As shown below, IFF, is better in "width" once compressed.
   Also, IFF can hold audio, video, tables, and other very
useful information.
 
   I began posting in GIF because it seemed to be used at various bbs,
however as mentioned before:
 
Here is the data.  I took two figures and tried various formats.
Also examined were the effects of LHA (a compression technique)
and the effects of UUencoding (required to post to eliminate the
binary which would do havoc around the world  ;-(
 
  Image 1 is from a calorimeter output  similar to one posted previously.
The second is a 640x400 IFF 16 color image which I use to show 4-terminal
hookups to electrodes to enable conductivity measurements.
 
   The RAW column is the the size of the files in bytes.
 The effects of LHA  and UUencoding the LHA'd files are shown.
 
 Image 1: A calorimeter output  (circa six curves as functions of time)
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|          |   RAW   | %BEST  |  LHA   | %BEST |LHAuuencod| %BEST |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   gif    | 12,036  |  100%  | 12,066 | 170%  |  16,933  | 170%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   iff    | 20,808  |  173%  | 7,089  | 100%  |  9,963   | 100%  | <---
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   jpeg   | 56,049  |  466%  | 50,905 | 718%  |  71,311  | 716%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|postscript| 519,488 | 4,316% | 13,628 | 192%  |  19,118  | 192%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
  Image 2: a graphical image showing a four-terminal electrode
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|          |   RAW   | %BEST  |  LHA   | %BEST |LHAuuencod| %BEST |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   gif    |  7,128  |  100%  | 7,157  | 184%  |  10,061  | 183%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   iff    | 18,322  |  257%  | 3,891  | 100%  |  5,486   | 100%  | <----
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|   jpeg   | 25,150  |  353%  | 25,150 | 646%  |  27,601  | 503%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
|postscript| 519,488 | 7,288% | 8,149  | 209%  |  11,450  | 209%  |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   Given the above, and the flexibility of what is carried, my
vote is for IFF.
 
             Best wishes.
                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat Pipe Progress
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Progress
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 03:42:09 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>In about 1/2 hour, the gin boiled out down to the level of the inner
>cup.  Then the process greatly slowed down.  It looked like it might take all
>night to boil off the gin.
 
Looks to me like the system was trying to tell you something, Grasshopper.
The heat loss rate off the outer surface was sufficient to recondense the
gin vapor -- you had a heat pipe effect going on.
 
>The heater was turned off, and the gin was allowed to siphon back into the
>heat pipe.
 
No no, Grasshopper.  You had the ying yang balance in the palm of your
hand and you let it slip away!
 
>Note that all the heat pipes for this experiment work backwards from what is
>easiest for heat pipes.
 
What if you run with an internal ambient (huh?? :-) hotter than the inner
cell temp.  Then the heatpipe direction would be forward.
 
>I see from the Chicago Steel and Wire catalog that brass tubing is available
>only up to 8" id, and that at 1/8" wall thickness.
 
You could bend it from sheets, and solder the seam like a can of tomatoes.
And there is no reason that the heat pipe has to be cylindrical -- a
rectangular structure should work as well.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / John Logajan /  Re: GIF once more
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GIF once more
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 06:21:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

condict@next19.osf.org (Michael Condict) writes:
>> For those with FTP capability, the CSHOW (MSDOS) executable can be gotten
>> via anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu  pub/msdos/gif/cshw860a.zip
>>
>There are at least three GIF viewers for Microsoft Windows available
>by anonymous ftp.  The one I like best is lview, available at
>
>       ftp.uu.net /systems/ibmpc/msdos/simtel20/windows3/lview31.zip
 
Lview is indeed nice and explicit freeware, but it does require Windows
to run, whereas CSHOW runs on vanilla MSDOS or under Windows.
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 06:29:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>|   gif    | 12,036  |  100%  | 12,066 | 170%  |  16,933  | 170%  |
>|   iff    | 20,808  |  173%  | 7,089  | 100%  |  9,963   | 100%  | <---
 
Tell me where to find IFF generators and viewers for MSDOS, Unix, and
as we hear from the peanut gallery :-), Macs.
 
I have something called TIFF, but in a comparison of a 640x480x16 graph
of 15 different plotted variables, the GIF size was 35k and the TIFF
size was 900K !!!  Yikes.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 05:40:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cedrq$4rv@overload.lbl.gov>,
Bradley K. Sherman <bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov> wrote:
>
>This argument should be in sci.environment and I will not post more
>about enviromental issues to this conference, but I hate to leave
>Mr. Bass hanging:
 
     This argument is about whether CO2 buildup from coal-fired
     power plants will force the hitherto uneconomical construction
     of massive fusion plants.
 
     It belongs here.
 
>|Newsgroups: sci.environment
>|From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
>|Subject: Climate Change:  Michaels, Sound and Fury
>|Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 18:00:45 GMT
>|
>|    Patrick J. Michaels
>|    Sound and Fury  -  The Science and Politics of Global Warming
>|    Washington D.C.,  Cato Institute, 1992.  xiv, 197 pages
>|    ISBN 0-932790-90-9 hbk $21.95,  ISBN 0-932790-89-5 pbk $11.95
>|
>|Patrick Michaels, a frequently quoted climate change skeptic, contends
>|that climate change is most probably going to be modest and mainly
>|beneficial.  His basic arguments are more or less the same as in the
>|1992 Bull.Am.Met.Soc. article [1], with details and politics added.
>|
>|Michaels impresses me as honest, but as somewhat gullible where this
>|fits his beliefs.  The book is sufficiently sophisticated to require
>|a climatologist (which I am not) for a thorough review.
 
     Good god.  The book's too sophisticated for him to review, but he'll
     try anyway?
 
     (I enjoyed *his* list of references. Talk about damning
     evidence, I just love IPCC fans. The models
     are clearly incomplete, inaccurate, wrong.  To 'increase' your
     confidence in the models, ask the IPCC people where
     all the carbon's going, there's a whole bunch missing.  You could
     also ask them why the numbers don't seem to match current data.)
 
     Anyway, the damning evidence against Mr. Michaels is:
 
         1) Correct recognition that climate models are just north
            of voodoo.  Postcasts tell us very little other than
            the skill of the modeler, and 'partial successes' often are
            solely due to the wonderful pattern recognition skills
            of humans.
         2) Paleo-CO2 measurements are 'ignored' by Mr. Michaels along
            with Pleistocene temperature trends, neither of which
            constitutes an accurate measurement of past global trends.
            Utterly unknown potential errors and a very very limited
            dataset are not promising, especially when the currently
            held more accurate dataset does not indicate the same thing.
         3) Mr. Michaels 'ignores' uncertainty in the effects of
            CO2 on plant life.
 
      Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
      global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
      the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
      'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
      in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
      *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
      for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
      warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
      I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
      predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
 
      So, the models *fail*, miserably and significantly.
 
      "Reliable long-term prediction of climate change
      will not be possible unless there is an
      adequate supply of oceanic observations to feed and validate the
      models", Mason, Contemporary Physics 34:19 (1993).  And, I think
      Mr. Mason is quite optimistic.  Accurate models of climate
      processes are nonlinear.  Nonlinear models have all sorts
      of nasty surprises.  We've had plenty of datasets to feed
      to turbulence models, and yet, we're just baby steps from
      where we started.
 
      On the other hand, climate models sit with Ptolemy.
 
                        dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 14:18:24 GMT

In <2cfssoINN52a@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce d. Scott writes:
>Yes I do. Do you understand the difference between regulated and un-
>regulated economies? Well, you do, and you strike me as someone who
>is aghast at the prospect of the former. I, however, feel regulation,
>even to the point of making undesirable forms of activity uneconomical
>by using the tax code, is essential if we are going to preserve a livable
>world. To that end, coal-based power systems are unacceptable in the long
>run.
  This is the primary problem with imposed solutions. Your agenda may
not match mine, and your beliefs as to which solutions are acceptable
may also differ. If your solutions are politically imposed, then they
are subject to change of govt. and are most unlikely to be long
term. Long term solutions need a broad concensus to survive a
change of political climate. You have to reach this concensus
by education, not coercion.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 01:02:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Re: gordon.powell question from Coleman Blake.  We did stick a high powered
ultra sonic cell disrupter in a test tube full of D2O and a Palladium cathode.
The test tube quickly gets hot, and we reported that fact here.  Unfortunately
these high powered (250 watts) devices will quickly make anything hot.  Very
difficult to sort out the ultrasonic powere from possible "anomalous heat" in
any experiment that I can think up.  I think Steven Jones was going to try one
shot ultrasonic pulses and look for neutrons or something.  Do not remember it
he as posted a result of such a test.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Marshall Dudley /  Ultrasonic bubble fusion?
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ultrasonic bubble fusion?
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 20:52:10 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

It has been found that when air bubbles in a liquid are subjected to an
ultrasonic wave, the bubbles focus the wave creating high pressures and
temperatures from 10,000 to perhaps 100,000 degrees C. This is easily observed
by a blue glow coming from the center of the bubbles.  The present theory
seems to be that a supersonic shock wave is generated which is then focused
at the center of the bubble generating an energy concentration of 12 orders
of magnitude.  There is a short article on this phenominon in December 1993,
Scientific American Magazine on page 24 and 25 titled "the color of sound".
 
I am curious if one were to start with deuterium bubbles, or a tritium/deturium
mix, under fairly high pressure, if conditions could be met for fusion to take
place. Does anyone know if any experiments have been done along this line, and
if so, what type of results were obtained.
 
                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat Pipe Progress
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Progress
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 18:59:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>What if you run with an internal ambient (huh?? :-) hotter than the inner
>cell temp.  Then the heatpipe direction would be forward.
 
Arrgh!  Yes I wrote that.  But I must have been under the influence of
something or other :-)   Since the inner core is not an infinite heat
sink, running with a outer temperature hotter than the inner temperature
is inherently a short term affair.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 19 Nov 1993 18:32:31 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Dale Bass writes:
 
      "Reliable long-term prediction of climate change
      will not be possible unless there is an
      adequate supply of oceanic observations to feed and validate the
      models", Mason, Contemporary Physics 34:19 (1993).  And, I think
      Mr. Mason is quite optimistic.  Accurate models of climate
      processes are nonlinear.  Nonlinear models have all sorts
      of nasty surprises.  We've had plenty of datasets to feed
      to turbulence models, and yet, we're just baby steps from
      where we started.
 
 
I repeat: "Nonlinear models have all sorts of nasty surprises."
 
You bet they do! The message: perturb a complex system importantly, and
you _cannot_ predict the result. The fact: we are perturbing the system
importantly -- CO2 concentrations are entering regimes not seen for at
least 100 kyr (for sure) and maybe several million years. Further: as Dale
should really know, short-term effects mean nothing vis-a-vis long-term
or even medium-term effects (I use 10, 10000, and 300 for these,
respectively). So the _empirical_ data that CO2 and the global average
temperature are well-correlated over the last 100 kyr [1] should not be
brushed aside, as Dale seems to want. Pretending that _nothing_ will
happen as a result of this forcing is bad, bad planning.
 
In the short term, the best course of action would be to re-vitalise
fission, properly regulated to ensure that modern waste treatment methods
are used. In the meantime we will know whether fusion -- of the tokamak
or other variety -- will be useful.
 
[1] M Tobis, private communication with cites to Figs 6.7, 6.14, 7.8,
and 7.9 of _Paleoclimatology_ by TJ Crowley and GR North (Oxford, 1991).
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: 19 Nov 1993 18:33:57 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <19931119.062138.617@almaden.ibm.com>,
        nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
 
|> Long term solutions need a broad concensus to survive a
|> change of political climate. You have to reach this concensus
|> by education, not coercion.
 
Complete agreement. But the fantasy crowd is not going to help at all.
Hint: creationism.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / T District /  Nuclear energy internet resources
     
Originally-From: phs@class.class.org (Township High School District)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear energy internet resources
Date: 19 Nov 1993 18:43:31 GMT
Organization: C.L.A.S.S. Cooperative Library Agency for Systems and Services

     My high school chemistry class is beginning a unit on nuclear energy.
 Can anyone recommend internet resources pertaining to this topic?  Please
send all replies to phs@class.org.  Thanks in advance!
 
- Audrey Sanderson
  Prospect High School
  Mt. Prospect, IL
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenphs cudfnTownship cudlnDistrict cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Steven Axdal /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: sha3rh33@harrierx.cdev.com (Steven H. Axdal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 18:50:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Devices International, Bloomington MN

 
Whoa, John,
I've followed your recent exploits with considerable interest, but
thought I would toss in a few comments here with regard to Macs and
the internet and data exchange (Though it's drifting a bit from fusion
:)
There are quite a few macs with direct connection to the internet, and
in some respects it's considerably simpler than for DOS boxes.  On the
MAc side, there's the MacTCP stack being used as pretty standard
interface, which the DOS side is jsut barely beginning to congregate
around the Winsock.dll.
You may want to investigate the World-Wide-Web efforts, (particularly
NCSA's Mosaic line - for X-windows, Mac, and Windows 3.1) for attempts
at conveying information.  It more or less includes capabilities of
viewing GIF or JPEG, and a lot of text formatting wrangles have
already been worked out (as well as hooks for hyper-text - just the
thing to point directly into the reference work for arguing the fine
points.  All we need to do is get Deiter to have full text in his
bibliography, then link that into a WAIS database searcher and pull in
WWW links.)
As for archiving approaches, arc may be common, but gnu's gzip is also
readily available, or the unix compress, which has source available as
well.
In a related vein, there are similar arguments in sci.data.formats
regarding proper formats for archiving data, vs. useful formats for
exchanging and using data (different requirements, indeed)
My personal preferences run toward GIF for simple bitmaps, JPEG for
complex color bitmaps, and postscript for graphs, but there are
admittedly very few smart postscript generators for graphs.  Most seem
to use postscript to reconstruct a bitmap rather than taking advantage
or postscript to recreate the image - which is how to really compress
a graph. (But that's just my opinion, and there's certainly room for
compromise :)
 
--
Steven Axdal           Computing Devices International
(612)853-6175          3101 E 80th St.
axdal@cdev.com         Bloomington  MN  55425-1523
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensha3rh33 cudfnSteven cudlnAxdal cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Robert Lutz /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: Robert W. Lutz <rlutz@acad.drake.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 19:24:46 GMT
Organization: Drake University

In article <1993Nov18.024644.20266@ns.network.com>
John Logajan, logajan@ns.network.com writes:
>Robert W. Lutz <rlutz@acad.drake.edu> writes:
 
[stuff deleted]
 
>How many Mac's are hooked directly to the net?  Or especially, how many
>such Mac users have no other net connection?
 
Probably quite a few.  There are very inexpensive routers which connect
Mac AppleTalk networks to an Ethernet backbone.  By putting MacTCP on
your desktop unit, you have direct internet access.
 
[stuff deleted]
 
>How do Mac users get data off the Internet if they don't have their Mac's
>wired direct???
 
Typically login to a UNIX box or a VAX.  Use the facilities on those boxes
to FTP, extract from mail or extract from a news reader to create a file,
and then download to your Mac.  On our campus we have both direct connect
Macs and Macs that use 9600 dumb connections.  For the dumb connections,
we support Kermit or XModem file transfer to get files down to the Mac.
 
-bob-
 
Robert W. Lutz
Assistant Provost for Information Technology
Drake University
Des Moines, IA
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrlutz cudfnRobert cudlnLutz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 19:34:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >:  However, we (or at least I) were (was) talking about Pat Michaels.
: >:  I await the partially damning criticism with interest...
: >
: >Is it your contention that "totally damning" and "partially damning" are
: >exhaustive categories?
:      No, those were your categories.  I think 'partially damning'
:      is ridiculous.
 
You're being ridiculous, then. I said:
 
  "The flaws in the book have been pointed out, in detail, on s.e
   (as well as the virtues, I might add). They are not thoroughly
   damning, as are the flaws in Ray's book."
 
This "partially damning" nonsense is your own alone.
 
: >As I said, I haven't read Michaels. Given his appearance in such
: >august company, I'm not strongly motivated to insinuate his book into
: >my reading list. Could you supply a good reason why I *should*
: >read him, despite his unsavory companions?
:      So I should justify his position on someone's list?  That's also
:      ridiculous.
 
Suppose that someone recommends to me a list of wines. I try the
first two from his list, and another further down, and find them
to be very bad. Also, they are very bad in similar ways, all three
tinged with a strong odor of horse piss. I think I would be well
justified in not bothering to sample the rest of the list. True,
I have no direct evidence that the other wines on the list are bad.
I know for sure, however, that the *list* is bad, and that the
recommender's judgement is unreliable (in the matter of wine).
 
Do you really find this difficult to understand?
 
Bo
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 02:59:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry) writes:
>I have no direct evidence that the other wines on the list are bad.
>I know for sure, however, that the *list* is bad, and that the
>recommender's judgement is unreliable (in the matter of wine).
>
>Do you really find this difficult to understand?
 
I don't find it difficult to understand -- since it is a fallacy of reasoning
which is covered in every logic class.  I don't think "eco-logic" overthrows
standard logic.
 
Impeaching the witness is reserved for cases in which the witness is the
sole source of claims.  It makes no logical sense to impeach a witness who
is citing the claims of others.   The task must always switch to the primary
source of evidence.
 
After all, you can't disprove 2+2=4 by asserting that Hitler once said
it, and that since Hitler was wrong, 2+2=4 must also be wrong.
 
Do you really find this difficult to understand?  :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Jim Bowery /  Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 04:26:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) is the multi-media standard
for Internet established in 1992.
 
MSDOS/UNIX implementations are available via anonymous FTP:
 
        host            thumper.bellcore.com
        directory       pub/nsb
        file            mm.tar.Z
        mode            binary
 
There is a discussion group for this implementation of MIME (called
 MetaMail); send a message to the electronic mail address:
 
        info-mm-request@thumper.bellcore.com
 
and ask to be added to the:
 
        info-mm@thumper.bellcore.com
 
mailing list.
 
Lotus Notes also supports MIME and runs on most major computing
platforms.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / James Cleverdon /  Re: GIF once more
     
Originally-From: jamesc@sequent.com (James Cleverdon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GIF once more
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 20:55:56 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

With all this discussion about graphic formats, I'm surprised that the
PBM Plus package from Jef Poskanzer hasn't come up.  It can translate
almost any graphic format into almost any other one, via one of its 3
internal formats.  It is public domain and is available on the usual
archive sites.  PBM+ also often comes as part of an X-windows tape.
 
If your C compiler's standard I/O library is at all normal, it should
compile for you.  Heck, its even available for my home computer (an
Amiga), slightly modified under the name FBM.
 
PS.  GIF works fine for me.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjamesc cudfnJames cudlnCleverdon cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Jan Schloerer /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 19 Nov 1993 21:39:48 GMT
Organization: University of Ulm, Germany

In  article  <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
    Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)   wrote :
 
 
>   (I enjoyed *his* list of references. Talk about damning
>    evidence, I just love IPCC fans.
 
So you just love the majority of climatologists worldwide.  Surprise :-)
 
 
> The models are clearly incomplete, inaccurate, wrong.
 
     "Confidence in regional climate patterns based directly
     on GCM  [general circulation models]  output remains low."
 
No, not quoting Patrick Michaels.   It's IPCC 1992,  page 15.
These people are not the Polyannas you seem to think.  Some people
think that uncertainty in climate predictions is a reason for
complacency.  Quite a few climatologists don't feel so.
 
   [IPCC 1992]   Climate Change 1992,  The Supplementary Report to
       the IPCC Scientific Assessment.  Cambridge Univ. Press 1992
 
 
> To 'increase' your confidence in the models, ask the IPCC people
> where all the carbon's going, there's a whole bunch missing.
 
This has nothing to do with climate models.   It refers to the carbon
cycle.  The 'missing sink', an imbalance in the carbon cycle of the
order of 1-2 Gt carbon/year, is discussed, among others, in  [IPCC 1992,
p 9, 33-35; Sundquist].  Yes, there's a lot of uncertainty regarding
the carbon cycle.  Some people believe that's a reason for complacency.
Quite a few carbon cycle researchers don't think so.
 
   Eric T. Sundquist,  The global carbon dioxide budget.
       Science 259 (1993), 934-941
 
 
>   2) Paleo-CO2 measurements are 'ignored' by Mr. Michaels along
>      with Pleistocene temperature trends, neither of which
>      constitutes an accurate measurement of past global trends.
>      Utterly unknown potential errors and a very very limited
>      dataset are not promising, especially when the currently
>      held more accurate dataset does not indicate the same thing.
 
For the temperature record of the last glacial maximum and deglacia-
tion there's Vostok, there are the Greenland Ice Cores, most notably
the Summit Cores, there are deep sea cores, all of them in broad
agreement.  The Vostok CO2 measurements  _do_  provide a global signal,
the interhemispheric mixing time is on the order of two years.
 
   Thomas J. Crowley,  Gerald R. North,  Paleoclimatology.
       Oxford Univ. Press 1991
   W. Dansgaard, W.,  S.J. Johnsen,  H.B. Clausen,  D. Dahl-Jensen,
       7 more authors,  Evidence for general instability of past
       climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record.
       Nature 364 (1993), 218-220
   D. Raynaud, J.Jouzel, J.M.Barnola, J.Chapellaz, R.J.Delmas, C.Lorius
       The ice record of greenhouse gases.  Science 259 (1993), 926-934
 
 
>   3) Mr. Michaels 'ignores' uncertainty in the effects of
>      CO2 on plant life.
 
Indeed.
 
   F.A. Bazzaz, The response of natural ecosystems to the
      rising global CO2 level,  Annual Review of Ecology and
      Systematics 21 (1990), 167-196
   Fakhri A. Bazzaz  and  Eric D. Fajer
      Plant life in a CO2-rich world.  Scientific American 266,1
      (Jan. 1992), 18-24
   S. Diaz,  J.P. Grime,  J. Harris  &  E. McPherson
      Evidence of a feedback mechanism limiting plant response
      to elevated carbon dioxide.  Nature 364 (1993), 616-617
   Christian Ko"rner  and  John A. Arnone III
      Responses to elevated carbon dioxide in artificial tropical
      ecosystems.  Science 257 (1992), 1672-1675
   Richard J. Norby,  Carla A. Gunderson,  Stan D. Wullschleger,
      E.G. O'Neill  &  Mary K. McCracken
      Productivity and compensatory responses of yellow-poplar
      trees in elevated CO2.  Nature 357 (1992), 322-324
   Climate Change  -  The IPCC Scientific Assessment,  Cambridge
      Univ. Press 1990.   Section 10, in particular section 10.2
 
 
> *Current* measurements of global temperature change vs. CO2
> concentration do not show the effect originally asserted here
 
Yet, they are consistent with the range of predicted climate
sensitivities to greenhouse gases.  No proof, but no reason for
complacency either.
 
   T.M.L. Wigley  &  S.C.B. Raper,  Implications for climate
      and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios.
      Nature 357 (1992), 293-300
 
 
> Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
> over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335
> (1993), discusses the *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive
> temperature dataset for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any
> statistically significant warming trend.  Instead, they find
> a slight cooling trend in areas.
 
I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
 
Followups to sci.environment
 
 
Jan Schloerer                    schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Uni Ulm     Klinische Dokumentation     D-89070 Ulm     Germany
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenSCHLOERER cudfnJan cudlnSchloerer cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 15:09:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cfssoINN52a@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
 
>by using the tax code, is essential if we are going to preserve a livable
>world. To that end, coal-based power systems are unacceptable in the long
>run.
 
     They're only unacceptable if you decide a priori that they're
     unacceptable.
 
>The reason that what I and others pay for power is quite relevant is that
>the hard part has already been achieved in Europe: getting the consumer
>used to a price for energy which can cover some of the clean-ups which
>are necessary and will become necessary.
 
     Or even cleanups that are fantasized to be necessary, and
     large government bureaucracies and lots of lawyers are
     always necessary for this, whether anything gets 'cleaner'
     or not.  Raging socialism is quite the rage these days,
     and many taxpayers are footing the bill blissfully ignorant
     that what they've been sold isn't what they bought.
 
> As Dale Bass pointed out, the
>whopping 2 Pfennig/liter or so gas tax hike is quite laughable, and I can
>assure you that the German press at least is laughing.
 
     I'm still trying to decipher the inscrutable buddha-nature of this
     statement.  I'll get back to you when I do.
 
>Yes, but remember, this will not be the "free market" cost. That is
>unacceptable as long as the people producing the power do not have to pay
>for the damage they cause. In the case of fission, you would have to ensure
>that the new techniques for separating the actinide part of the waste and
>the special treatments of that part are actually used. In a "free market"
>system they would not, because they cost money.
 
     Actually, in IFR concepts, these are fuel.
 
>Keep in mind that the price of energy is political.
 
     From this perspective, everything is political.  The problem with
     your economic basis, however, is that engendering economic
     inefficiency in the name of uncertain ecological 'benefits'
     is foolish and dangerous.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Michael Tobis /  cancel <1993Nov19.230543.14280@cs.wisc.edu>
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Nov19.230543.14280@cs.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 23:12:25 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Michael Tobis /  climate change (was Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: climate change (was Poison Plutonium)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 23:20:44 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

Heh. Little did I imagine that my communication with Bruce Scott was intended
as a refutation of Dale Bass, whose communications off the particular subject
of CO2 perturbations of the atmosphere I have enjoyed and admired in the past.
 
It is nice to see someone with a little intelligence taking up the rather
ill-advised "global warming skeptic" view on the net. Our recent competition
on sci.environment has been rather ill-mannered and ill-informed.
 
I haven't yet read Michaels' book. I am mostly addressing your position that
no policy response to CO2 increases is justified.
 
In article <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <2cedrq$4rv@overload.lbl.gov>,
|> Bradley K. Sherman <bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov> wrote:
|> >
|> >This argument should be in sci.environment and I will not post more
|> >about enviromental issues to this conference, but I hate to leave
|> >Mr. Bass hanging:
|>
|>      This argument is about whether CO2 buildup from coal-fired
|>      power plants will force the hitherto uneconomical construction
|>      of massive fusion plants.
|>
|>      It belongs here.
 
This seems tenuous, until such time as a useful fusion power source is
proposed. (It is a solid argument for fission, of course, as well as for
small-scale sources of power.) In any case, I am cross-posting to sci.envi
where this is surely appropriate.
 
|> >|Newsgroups: sci.environment
|> >|From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
 
|> >|Patrick Michaels, a frequently quoted climate change skeptic, contends
|> >|that climate change is most probably going to be modest and mainly
|> >|beneficial.  His basic arguments are more or less the same as in the
|> >|1992 Bull.Am.Met.Soc. article [1], with details and politics added.
 
|> >|Michaels impresses me as honest, but as somewhat gullible where this
|> >|fits his beliefs.  The book is sufficiently sophisticated to require
|> >|a climatologist (which I am not) for a thorough review.
 
|>      Good god.  The book's too sophisticated for him to review, but he'll
|>      try anyway?
 
You missed a qualifier: "thorough". In my estimation, Jan underestimates
himself though.
 
|>      (I enjoyed *his* list of references. Talk about damning
|>      evidence, I just love IPCC fans. The models
|>      are clearly incomplete, inaccurate, wrong.
 
Is the juxtaposition intended to indicate that the IPCC report and similar
concerns about the greenhouse effect are based entirely on the models?
 
If so, this is dishonest. The concern is based fundamentally on the
Stefan-Boltzmann law and the first law of thermodynamics. The details of the
response are, indeed, hard to estimate, but the effective size of the
perturbation, at least broadly, is not.
 
As you must know, all CFD models are incomplete.
 
As for inaccurate and wrong, these are value judgements. One way to look at
the models is that they are systems analogous to the climate system, and
consider the ensemble of their behavior as the contemplated carbon
perturbation is applied. All of them respond in one way or another
dramatically. All of them also approximately represent current climate,
including seasonal cycles well.
 
|> To 'increase' your
|>      confidence in the models, ask the IPCC people where
|>      all the carbon's going, there's a whole bunch missing.
 
This question betrays a certain ignorance of what is going on in the
field. The CFD models make NO EFFORT to decide where the missing carbon is
going.
 
The trajectory of CO2 concentration is clear enough. The fact that there is
an unidentified carbon sink accounting for an eighth of the carbon is not
germane to the modelling question, and unless a good indication can be found
that the efficiency of this sink increases very rapidly with increases in CO2
concentration, it has little relevance to the policy question either.
 
|>  You could
|>      also ask them why the numbers don't seem to match current data.)
 
Exactly which numbers are you talking about here? It's hard to refute this
strange statement, at once so forceful and so vague.
 
|>      Anyway, the damning evidence against Mr. Michaels is:
 
I won't recount the history of the use of the word "damning" for new readers
of the thread. Suffice it to say that it is neither the reviewer's nor mine.
 
|>          1) Correct recognition that climate models are just north
|>             of voodoo.  Postcasts tell us very little other than
|>             the skill of the modeler, and 'partial successes' often are
|>             solely due to the wonderful pattern recognition skills
|>             of humans.
 
This is overstated in the extreme, and if Mr Michaels sucessfully left
you with this impression, then he deserves to be criticized.
 
Atmospheric models produce reliable and reasonable climate with specified
ocean and land surface boundary conditions. Ocean models produce reliable
and reasonable climate with specified atmosphere and ice boundary conditions.
I believe that ice models are at least good enough for the time scales
of interest, again, with the other systems specified as boundary conditions.
 
What this tells us is that the major mechanisms of climate are, if not
actually identified, at least well enough represented to be accurate not
only under current conditions but also in various paleoclimate situations.
(Note that the seasonal cycles are well-represented. For the atmosphere, with
a memory on the order of a few weeks, this represents a well-modelled
climate change.)
 
This also allows us to get a small-signal sensitivity to perturbations in
forcing, and in particular, the change in forcing currently being effected.
 
It does NOT allow us to predict cliamte indefinitely into the future, but
it does allow us to predict climate UNTIL SOME RADICAL NONLINEAR CHANGE
occurs. Since the whole policy issue is how to avoid triggering a large
change, it must then be argued that the models are intrinsically optimistic.
 
Finally, critics of the necessity for a greenhouse policy seem to focus
almost exclusively on these models. These are not the only source of
evidence for the sensitivity of global temperature to greenhouse forcing.
Paleoclimate evidence, historical measurement, radiative physics, and
satellite measurements of the infrared budget yield similar sensitivities.
Several largely independent models also fall into the same broad range of
sensitivities.
 
The main purposes of the atmospheric climate models is to identify just how
the fluid dynamics of the system will respond to this new energy budget, and
to try to identify sensitivities and phenomena of possible relevance. The
evidence that the budget itself will be significantly changed is far more
straightforward and unassailable.
 
The weakness of the models means we know little about how local climates
will change. It does not say much to the effect that we don't know IF they
will change. We can be fairly sure they will.
 
|>          2) Paleo-CO2 measurements are 'ignored' by Mr. Michaels along
|>             with Pleistocene temperature trends, neither of which
|>             constitutes an accurate measurement of past global trends.
|>             Utterly unknown potential errors and a very very limited
|>             dataset are not promising, especially when the currently
|>             held more accurate dataset does not indicate the same thing.
 
This is disingenuous reasoning. The current, more accurate dataset
is a response to a much smaller perturbation than the one that seems
inevitable in the next few decades. (I remind you of a probable lag in
response of several decades, and exponential growth in CO2 excess with
a doubling time of a few decades.) If we are interested in responses to
perturbations that are unambiguously outside the noise, we have to look
at models or at paleoclimate.
 
If a stream of evidence can be verified by another, then attacks on the
first should surely consider the other.
 
|>          3) Mr. Michaels 'ignores' uncertainty in the effects of
|>             CO2 on plant life.
 
Mr Michaels, to be more precise, considers only evidence on one side of
the ledger. This is hardly a hallmark of a fair investigator.
 
|>       Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
|>       global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
|>       the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
|>       'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
|>       in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
|>       *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
|>       for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
|>       warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
|>       I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
|>       predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
 
To be precise, warming is maximal at the EDGES of the polar region in
continental interiors. In fact, almost all the warming of the past decade has
been concentrated in Siberia, Alaska, and western Canada. Is this complaint
original to you, or is it Michaels'? In any case, it isn't entirely valid.
 
On the other hand, the expected retreat of Arctic sea ice has not been
seen. This is not especially reassuring. See below.
 
|>       So, the models *fail*, miserably and significantly.
 
You haven't demonstrated this at all, at least the first part. Even
granting this assertion, the conclusion that there is no serious greenhouse
problem does not in any way follow.
 
|>       "Reliable long-term prediction of climate change
|>       will not be possible unless there is an
|>       adequate supply of oceanic observations to feed and validate the
|>       models", Mason, Contemporary Physics 34:19 (1993).  And, I think
|>       Mr. Mason is quite optimistic.
 
I believe this refers to climate prediction over a term longer than fifty
years. I would agree with Mason on this, and perhaps with you.
 
Again, this constitutes no evidence that the anthropogenic greenhouse
perturbation is small, and there's evioednce aplenty that it's large.
 
|>  Accurate models of climate
|>       processes are nonlinear.  Nonlinear models have all sorts
|>       of nasty surprises.
 
To be sure both the models and the real system are nonlinear. To be sure,
the possibility of surprises can't be excluded. To be sure, such surprises
are not addressed in much depth in the IPCC report.
 
Unfortunately, any such surprises would surely represent major climate
shifts. So arguing that such possibilities exist is a most peculiar argument
that the perturbation now being effected is unlikely to cause major climate
shifts!
 
|> We've had plenty of datasets to feed
|>       to turbulence models, and yet, we're just baby steps from
|>       where we started.
 
I guess that depends very much on the objective of the model. Baby steps in
what direction? If you had a turbulent flow with heating at one boundary and
cooling at another, don't you think you could say something sensible about
ensemble mean energy fluxes? That's basically the problem we're addressing.
 
(Note also that the atmosphere and ocean are sufficiently stratified that
they can be treated as, in some sense, two-dimensional.)
 
But again, regardless of what the models can or can't tell us in detail,
they are broadly in agreement with other sources of evidence on the topic of
principal practical importance. Global sensitivity to CO2 doubling is on the
order of 2.5 K, a very large shift compared with natural variability on
comparable time scales. This means that either such a warming will occur
or a major shift in climate regime will occur in response to such a forcing.
 
No amount of casting of doubt on the details of the model results has any
bearing on the main point. The climate system, to which human and ecological
activity is extremely sensitive, is being perturbed by a sufficiently large
amount that every known analogous system (numerical models, paleoclimate
analogues) is significantly disrupted. Michaels and his cohort like to leave
you with the impression that there is nothing to worry about, and point to
the uncertainties in the research as evidence that no policy changes are
indicated. These uncertainties exist, but they provide no such evidence.
 
This doubling will almost certainly happen, if equivalent warming of other
anthropogenic gases is taken into account. Whether a tripling or quadrupling
takes place depends on the seriousness of policy efforts to restrain these
emissions. Even in the absence of major shifts in regime, changes of some
severity are likely.
 
If the fluids undergo a regime change (there is a likely candidate for this:
see Broecker, _Nature_ #328 p. 123; Manabe & Stouffer, Nature #364 p 215)
matters get much worse, not better. This mechanism may be responsible for
cooling in the Atlantic sector while mean temperatures increase. Suppression
of the thermohaline circulation might well imply no retreat of sea ice in
the Atlantic. It's a scenario getting increasing attention these days.
 
IPCC report critics seem rarely to have read the report itself. The report
is quite clear and honest on the extent of certainty or uncertainty in its
various conclusions. I suggest you read it rather than relying on partisan
secondhand versions.
 
The obession that critics have with criticizing the global models is
misplaced. The models are intended to give some indication of regional
shifts. The global mean temperature sensitivity to greenhouse perturbations
can be estimated by various other means, which yield results in broad
agreement.
 
The IPCC report focuses on the consensus best estimate short term (less than
fifty years) climate prediction. If it can be faulted at all, it is in its
failure to address low likelihood worst case scenarios, which ought to be
central to any risk management assessment.
 
The tendency of certain groups to focus on the least damaging scenarios
is rather peculiar. To be sure, in those scenarios, the expected cost
is almost entirely the cost of the policy response to a problem that will
not substantively materialize. But, given current knowledge, this is at
best a tail of the distribution of likely outcomes. Deciding policy on
the basis of the outcome you most hope for is not without precedent of
course, but it is not an approach that historically shows much viability.
 
The American Meteorological Society, hardly a radical organization (the main
customers for meteorologists are the military, aviation, and agriculture)
takes an IPCC-like position for its official policy, by the way.
(Climatologists form a small segment of this organization.) See the Bulletin
of the AMS. January, 1991.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Ad aspera /  DOE SBIR solicitation is out
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.engr,sci.bio,sci.geo.geology,sci.energy,sci
physics.accelerators,sci.misc,sci.materials,sci.physics.fusion,comp.misc
sci.environment,misc.entrepreneurs
Subject: DOE SBIR solicitation is out
Date: 20 Nov 1993 00:55:12 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 
The US Department of Energy has put out the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Solicitation or call for
proposals.  The closing date is 15 February.
 
Here is some unofficial general information on SBIR and
what it means to researchers and small businesses.
 
Happy collaboration; respond to me by e-mail or with a
followup to sci.research (or, better yet, call one of the
contacts below).
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
SBIR Basics
-----------
SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) is a program, authorized by an
act of Congress, in which small businesses are given money to conduct R&D
on highly specific topics related to agency needs.  The money comes in two
phases.  Phase 1, a half-fiscal-year program, brings up to $75k.   Projects
that make the grade for Phase II can get up to $750k (up from $500k) in a
full FY.  (The otherwise-funded epilogue is called Phase III; a report is
required on how it all came out.)  The money comes from a few-percent tax
on programs.  Eleven different agencies participate independent of each
other; the total pot is about $1.1 billion this year.
 
The canonical source of SBIR information is the
Small Business Administration
Office of Innovation, Research, and Technology
Mail Code 6470
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
800/8-ASK-SBA (fax 202/205-7064;
   something, presumably a TTY, for the hearing impaired 202/205-7333)
 
Ask for the proposal preparation guide (currently publication number SBIR
T1, as far as I know) and the current Pre-Solicitation Announcement and any
current Solicitation (currently DOE/ER-0598 in the case of DOE).
Individual agencies also publish SBIR-related information.
 
The proposer must be a US-owned small business, "small" being defined as
<500 employees without regard to revenue or income.  Unlike in some
governmental programs, there is no preference for woman- or minority-owned
businesses in SBIR; this is strictly a merit-based competition.
 
It is OK to submit proposals to multiple agencies, even on similar topics,
if this is acknowledged in each proposal.
 
Each agency does things somewhat differently.  The rest of this message is
specific to DOE.
 
SBIR in DOE
----------
In DOE, there is one, single, non-subdivided pot of SBIR money.  The DOE's
annual SBIR solicitation typically contains about 37 topics, of which three
or so are from the Division of Nuclear Physics.  Some 2000 proposals
compete for this money.   About 8-10% of Phase 1 proposals are funded; some
40% of those make it to Phase II funding.
 
Obviously the competition is quite stiff.  The proposals are peer-reviewed
by inside and outside referees; program managers do not have sole, final
authority, although they do have considerable input.
 
Quality of proposed work and responsiveness to the agency needs stated in
the Solicitation are the two biggest and most common shortcomings.
(Responsiveness or lack thereof is a leitmotif of proposal evaluation in
general.)  They like to see clear statements of the work and its benefits.
A concise demonstration of principal investigators' qualifications, a clear
work plan, and references are also big pluses.
 
An important point for those who take their proposalmanship seriously:
Feedback, including anonymous review comments, is available for both
winning and losing proposals.  Asking for a debriefing is always in order:
you can figure out how to reconfigure a losing effort, or shore up your
skills if you won mostly by luck.
 
The contact in DOE is:
 
Mrs. Kay Etzler, Spokesperson
c/o SBIR Program Manager
US Department of Energy, ER-16
Washington, DC 20585
301/903-5867
 
Where Do Ideas Come From?
 ------------------------
Mostly, from us in the research community and from the agency.  Obviously
there are many more agency needs than can be accommodated among the few
tens of topics in each year's Solicitation.  If you have an idea, the thing
to do is to sell it to your program patrons in DOE.  In parallel, but
especially after it makes the Solicitation, talk it up with your friends in
industry.  For fairness, try to disseminate the idea as widely as is
feasible.  DOE is not allowed to release the exact contents or wording of
the Solicitation until the official publication date so that everyone can
get a fair start, but it is understood generally that we often work in a
sole-source or few-sources environment.
 
What Does the Funding Cycle Look Like?
 ----------------------------------
More or less like this:
 
October -> winter.  Monies set aside.  Solicitation released.
Early March.  Solicitation closed (proposal deadline).
April. Peer review of proposals.
Early May.  Review comments back; selection cycle begins.
By July:  Awards made.
September:  Gentlemen, start your spending.
Novemberish:  Early start on Phase II proposals (may be DOE only).
 
 
What's In It for Us?
-----------------
Immediately, nothing -- the money is available only to businesses, not to
us, though I'm told that some of it can be funneled back to a lab as Work
For Others or as matching funds in a Cooperative Research And Development
Agreement. So why should we go out of our way to seed ideas for SBIR
projects and encourage our private-sector buddies to participate?  Because
in the longer view, there can be one or more positive outcomes for us:
 
%  We get non-SBIR funding under a CRADA for "Phase III" or for some topic
    that grows out of the SBIR research.
%  A problem faced by one of our projects or programs gets solved.
%  A vendor of something we need learns a new skill and/or proves to
    be competent and reasonable to deal with.  (Or, in the sadder-but-
    wiser department, proves to be incompetent or unreliable before
    being given a lot of money or placed in the critical path of a
project.)
 
Now What?
---------
In summary, SBIR may look like a lot of paperwork and hassle for a small
amount of money.  However, it can also be the seed of technical ideas and
business relationships that continue to grow.  We'll keep you apprised of
Solicitations as they come out.  Meanwhile, continue working with your
private-sector collaborators, push to get your ideas into the Solicitation,
and perhaps increase your contact with Headquarters by volunteering as an
SBIR peer reviewer.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Ultrasonic bubble fusion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ultrasonic bubble fusion?
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 18:06:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <znr753655930k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>,
Marshall Dudley <dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com> wrote:
>It has been found that when air bubbles in a liquid are subjected to an
>ultrasonic wave, the bubbles focus the wave creating high pressures and
>temperatures from 10,000 to perhaps 100,000 degrees C. This is easily observed
>by a blue glow coming from the center of the bubbles.
 
     I must emphasize that it is not so 'easy'.  These 'temperatures'
     are taken from black body fits to the observed photon spectrum.  This
     is a nonequilibrium process, and a black body fit is probably
     inappropriate.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 21:44:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cj3fvINNopn@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>Dale Bass writes:
>
>      "Reliable long-term prediction of climate change
>      will not be possible unless there is an
>      adequate supply of oceanic observations to feed and validate the
>      models", Mason, Contemporary Physics 34:19 (1993).  And, I think
>      Mr. Mason is quite optimistic.  Accurate models of climate
>      processes are nonlinear.  Nonlinear models have all sorts
>      of nasty surprises.  We've had plenty of datasets to feed
>      to turbulence models, and yet, we're just baby steps from
>      where we started.
>
>
>I repeat: "Nonlinear models have all sorts of nasty surprises."
>
>You bet they do! The message: perturb a complex system importantly, and
>you _cannot_ predict the result. The fact: we are perturbing the system
>importantly -- CO2 concentrations are entering regimes not seen for at
>least 100 kyr (for sure) and maybe several million years.
 
     More importantly, we *cannot* draw conclusions from the models.
     As the experimental evidence shows no significant difficulties,
     we can shoot Chicken Little and go back to worrying about more
     important things.
 
>Further: as Dale
>should really know, short-term effects mean nothing vis-a-vis long-term
>or even medium-term effects (I use 10, 10000, and 300 for these,
>respectively).
 
     Dale knows that this has been asserted regularly by people who wish
     this was true.  Dale does not agree, in principle, since Dale
     has a bunch of experience with systems in which the short-time
     behavior affects long-time behavior in fundamental ways.
 
> So the _empirical_ data that CO2 and the global average
>temperature are well-correlated over the last 100 kyr [1] should not be
>brushed aside, as Dale seems to want. Pretending that _nothing_ will
>happen as a result of this forcing is bad, bad planning.
 
     The correlation is widely disputed, as you well know.  Indeed,
     my last article discussed very detailed and very recently
     published arctic measurements in which there was
     *no correlation* over the last 40 years.
 
     You must be very careful when analyzing near human habitation.
 
>In the short term, the best course of action would be to re-vitalise
>fission, properly regulated to ensure that modern waste treatment methods
>are used. In the meantime we will know whether fusion -- of the tokamak
>or other variety -- will be useful.
 
     At least we're in agreement on part of this.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 22:18:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGr7pB.5MM@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>  "The flaws in the book have been pointed out, in detail, on s.e
>   (as well as the virtues, I might add). They are not thoroughly
>   damning, as are the flaws in Ray's book."
>
>This "partially damning" nonsense is your own alone.
 
     What, pray tell, is 'not thoroughly damning' if not 'partially damning'?
 
>: >As I said, I haven't read Michaels. Given his appearance in such
>: >august company, I'm not strongly motivated to insinuate his book into
>: >my reading list. Could you supply a good reason why I *should*
>: >read him, despite his unsavory companions?
>:
>:      So I should justify his position on someone's list?  That's also
>:      ridiculous.
>
>Suppose that someone recommends to me a list of wines. I try the
>first two from his list, and another further down, and find them
>to be very bad. Also, they are very bad in similar ways, all three
>tinged with a strong odor of horse piss. I think I would be well
>justified in not bothering to sample the rest of the list. True,
>I have no direct evidence that the other wines on the list are bad.
>I know for sure, however, that the *list* is bad, and that the
>recommender's judgement is unreliable (in the matter of wine).
>
>Do you really find this difficult to understand?
 
     New Wine list:
 
         1) Horse piss.
         2) Armadillo piss.
         3) Elephant piss.
         4) Rhino piss.
         5) Gorilla piss.
         6) Chateau d'Yquem.
         7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
         8) Chateau Margaux.
 
     Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
     insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
     put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
     does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Mineh Ishida /  Help everyone! please read!
     
Originally-From: dz649@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mineh Ishida)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help everyone! please read!
Date: 20 Nov 1993 04:09:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

 
Hello Everyone,
        My name is Mineh Ishida.  My partner Brent Fuller and I
are two high school freshmen interested in cold fusion.  We have done
some preliminary research  on the topic.  I would appreciate any
information you could possibly provide us.  I have a basic knoledge
on the toof Cold Fusion but please don't get too technical on me.
 Thank you
very much.
 
                        Mineh Ishida
 " A single Hydrogen Bomb Could Ruin Your Entire Day!"
 
Oh by the way please mail responses to dz649 on cleveland freenet.
--
"Death is lifes greatest pleasure"
        dz649
        Mineh Ishida
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendz649 cudfnMineh cudlnIshida cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: SONOLUMINESCENCE
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SONOLUMINESCENCE
Date: 19 Nov 93 16:44:51 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9311182057.A7431wk@his.com>, gordon.powell@his.com writes:
>
> Logajan's posting about sonoluminescence reminds me that Coleman Blake
> asked me to ask the news group whether anyone thought fusion could
> be going on during sonoluminescence.  The pressures cited by some are indeed
> enormous and one thinks of inverse beta decay.
 
The possibility of fusion during sonoluminescence has been considered by
this group in past months.  Terry Bollinger has put forward some interesting
ideas, and in fact a BYU graduate student is continuing experiments to test
this very notion -- fusion at low levels in D2O during SL.
 
So far, I must say that we have not seen
any evidence for neutron emissions accompanying SL.  However, we have not
reached the high temperatures which Seth Putterman is claiming.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Nov19.170727.1118@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Nov19.170727.1118@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 93 17:12:45 -0700

cancel <1993Nov19.170727.1118@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / mitchell swartz /  Comparison of cf systems - helium
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comparison of cf systems - helium
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 16:21:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Nov19.180955.1123@physc1.byu.edu>
     Subject: Comparison of cf systems
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
= "It is evident that much of the present confusion surrounding "cold fusion"
= stems from the continued use of crude detectors/systems.
=   I propose a list juxtaposing crude, better and state-of-the-art
=  systems to help sort out reliable data from poor evidences."
=
= Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
= (simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
=                                                           ling evidence one
=                                                           way or the other)
= II. Helium gas detection       Charged-particle detector   Thin dE/dx det.
=   Tritium gas detection    (Si surface-barrier det.)   plus Si spectrometer"
                                        ^
                                        |
 
  Steven, your list seems to imply that any the major population of
any putative helium formed secondary to cold fusion reactions is,
when ejected/lost from the metal, charged or ionized.
 
  Is it?  Do you have, or can you present, compelling evidence for that?
 
 
  Thus your list, and theme, appears to relatively ignore the major
product (other than heat) and continues to focus on some systems with
lower S/N ratios.   Why?
 
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                               (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 17:53:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>In  article  <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>    Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)   wrote :
>
>
>>   (I enjoyed *his* list of references. Talk about damning
>>    evidence, I just love IPCC fans.
>
>So you just love the majority of climatologists worldwide.  Surprise :-)
>
 
     Absolutely.  No surprise.
 
     The majority is no defence.  The majority of people in Salem one
     fine day decided it would be a good idea to burn some witches...
 
>> The models are clearly incomplete, inaccurate, wrong.
>
>     "Confidence in regional climate patterns based directly
>     on GCM  [general circulation models]  output remains low."
>
>No, not quoting Patrick Michaels.   It's IPCC 1992,  page 15.
 
     'Confidence remains low'?  I guess 'zero' *is* quite low, but
     this is an amazing understatement.
 
>These people are not the Polyannas you seem to think.
 
     Pollyanna is not the word I would have used.
     Dangerously and inappropriately 'overconfident' is.
 
> Some people
>think that uncertainty in climate predictions is a reason for
>complacency.  Quite a few climatologists don't feel so.
 
     Complacency about what?  It's pointless to talk of complacency
     unless you've been stirred up by incorrect models.
 
>> To 'increase' your confidence in the models, ask the IPCC people
>> where all the carbon's going, there's a whole bunch missing.
>
>This has nothing to do with climate models.   It refers to the carbon
>cycle.
 
     It has everything to do with the models.  Massive uncertainty
     in even the basic carbon cycle is a very telling indication
     that we've not even taken baby steps towards predictive capability.
 
     Besides, we were *talking* about the carbon cycle and its relationship
     to the climate models.
 
>  The 'missing sink', an imbalance in the carbon cycle of the
>order of 1-2 Gt carbon/year, is discussed, among others, in  [IPCC 1992,
>p 9, 33-35; Sundquist].
 
      Sure is, out of roughly 7 Gt carbon/year.  Where's it going?
 
      If you don't a *major* mechanism taking CO2 out of the atmosphere,
      why should I trust your predictions on anything related?
 
>Yes, there's a lot of uncertainty regarding
>the carbon cycle.  Some people believe that's a reason for complacency.
 
     'Complacency' about what?  The number of angels dancing on pins?
 
>Quite a few carbon cycle researchers don't think so.
 
     And a large number of people think they can predict the
     future using tarot cards and astrological signs too.  My guess is
     this is a far *larger* number of people than your 'quite a few'.
 
     Should we believe either set?
 
>>   2) Paleo-CO2 measurements are 'ignored' by Mr. Michaels along
>>      with Pleistocene temperature trends, neither of which
>>      constitutes an accurate measurement of past global trends.
>>      Utterly unknown potential errors and a very very limited
>>      dataset are not promising, especially when the currently
>>      held more accurate dataset does not indicate the same thing.
>
>For the temperature record of the last glacial maximum and deglacia-
>tion there's Vostok, there are the Greenland Ice Cores, most notably
>the Summit Cores, there are deep sea cores, all of them in broad
>agreement.  The Vostok CO2 measurements  _do_  provide a global signal,
>the interhemispheric mixing time is on the order of two years.
 
     'Broad agreement' of point measurements is not compelling, especially
     when local variation can be so great, and assumptions about
     interhemispheric mixing in past times are model-dependent and
     relatively inaccessible to current probing.  That said, we're relying on
     even more uncertain models of global events using point measurements
     with wildly uncertain conditions.  For the CO2 measurements in
     Greenland, consider 'A natural artifact in Greenland Ice-core CO2
     measurements',Tellus B, 45:391 (1993) in which it is
     asserted that artificially high CO2 measurements may arise
     from interaction between alkaline and acidic impurities in the ice.
 
>> *Current* measurements of global temperature change vs. CO2
>> concentration do not show the effect originally asserted here
>
>Yet, they are consistent with the range of predicted climate
>sensitivities to greenhouse gases.
 
     'Predicted range'?  Oh you mean the postdicted range jury-rigged
     into the model when the real predicted range is well outside the observed
     data?
 
>No proof, but no reason for
>complacency either.
 
     'Complacency' about what?  How many licks it takes to get to the
     tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?
 
>> Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
>> over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335
>> (1993), discusses the *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive
>> temperature dataset for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any
>> statistically significant warming trend.  Instead, they find
>> a slight cooling trend in areas.
>
>I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
>Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
 
     Yes, you've just shown your true colors.
     This is depressingly familiar around here (sci.physics.fusion):
 
     'Even though the models that predict it are flawed to the point
     of incoherence, we *know* that global warming *must* be occurring.  So
     we must figure out why the data is wrong'...
 
     Interesting attitude.  It seems appropriate for a priest, but
     maybe not a scientist.
 
>Followups to sci.environment
 
     Followups to sci.skeptic and sci.physics.fusion where I'm talking about
     future economic viability of coal-fired power plants vs. fusion power
     plants.  All attempts to make me boil my blood by reading
     sci.environment again are futile.
 
     If you want to continue to discuss the carbon cycle and climate models
     in this context, please feel free to do so.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Fusion Economics
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Economics
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 93 11:57:29 EST

         I asked:
> Do you understand the difference between retail and wholesale?
         Bruce Scott replied:
>Yes I do.  ...
         Well then you should stop misleading people by comparing
the wholesale price of future fusion power with the current retail
price of electricity.
 
         Bruce Scott again:
>     ...  Do you understand the difference between regulated and un-
>regulated economies? Well, you do, and you strike me as someone who
>is aghast at the prospect of the former.  ...
         Actually there aren't too many anarchists around these days
and I don't happen to be one.
 
         More Bruce Scott:
>                                    ...  I, however, feel regulation,
>even to the point of making undesirable forms of activity uneconomical
>by using the tax code, is essential if we are going to preserve a livable
>world.
         I have no objection to making certain undesirable forms of
activity, such as murder, illegal.  Like I said, I am not an anarchist.
However I see little reason to believe that politicians are good at
setting prices or directing investment flows.
 
         More Bruce Scott:
> ...  To that end, coal-based power systems are unacceptable in the long
>run.
         What is this statement based on?
 
         More Bruce Scott:
>The reason that what I and others pay for power is quite relevant is that
>the hard part has already been achieved in Europe: getting the consumer
>used to a price for energy which can cover some of the clean-ups which
>are necessary and will become necessary.
         Ok, how about some facts.  What portion of the current price
Europeans pay for electricity is available for clean-ups?  By the way
a high cost utility in the US such as mine, Consolidated Edison, also
charges residential users about $.15 per kwhr (commercial about $.12).
 
         I said:
> If you are planning to sell fusion reactors to electric
> utility companies the cost they care about is the cost of electricity
> at the point it enters their distribution system.
         Bruce Scott replied:
>Yes, but remember, this will not be the "free market" cost. That is
>unacceptable as long as the people producing the power do not have to pay
>for the damage they cause. In the case of fission, you would have to ensure
>that the new techniques for separating the actinide part of the waste and
>the special treatments of that part are actually used. In a "free market"
>system they would not, because they cost money.
         I don't believe not separating actinides causes any significant
damage.  I don't believe reasonable requirements for waste disposal have
a material effect on fission power costs.
 
         I said:
> These are the figures that fusion reactors must meet to be
> economically viable.
         Bruce Scott replied:
>Keep in mind that the price of energy is political.
         The laws of nature are not political.  Sure the politicians
can go for fusion regardless of cost, however I don't see why anyone
with the possible exception of fusion researchers would think that this
is desirable.
 
         Bruce Scott said (regarding global warming):
>In the short term, the best course of action would be to re-vitalise
>fission, properly regulated to ensure that modern waste treatment methods
>are used. In the meantime we will know whether fusion -- of the tokamak
>or other variety -- will be useful.
         I am under the impression that barring some totally unforeseen
breakthrough fusion power will not have much effect on global warming
because it cannot possibly displace enough fossil fuel use quickly
enough to materially affect atmospheric CO2 levels before the crisis
point is reached.  Even fission would appear to be of marginal
importance in this regard and it is much further along than fusion.
How much of the current CO2 discharges are from power plants anyway?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Nov19.171202.1119@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Nov19.171202.1119@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 93 17:17:10 -0700

cancel <1993Nov19.171202.1119@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Comparison of cf systems
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comparison of cf systems
Date: 19 Nov 93 18:09:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

It is evident that much of the present confusion surrounding "cold fusion"
stems from the continued use of crude detectors/systems.  I propose a list
juxtaposing
crude, better and state-of-the-art systems to help sort out reliable data
from poor evidences.
 
Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
(simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
                                                          ling evidence one
                                                          way or the other)
 
I. Neutron survey monitors     Segmented 3He counters   Segmented 3He or Li-
   BF-3                        Plastic scintillators    doped glass *plus*
                                                        scintillator *with*
                                                       ~100MHz pulse digitiz.
 
II. Helium gas detection       Charged-particle detector   Thin dE/dx det.
    Tritium gas detection      (Si surface-barrier det.)  plus Si spectrometer
 
III. X-ray film                  X-ray film with foil    X-ray spectrometer
                                 energy-filters           (SiLi, etc.)
 
IV. Geiger counter                    see detectors listed above
 
V.  Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                          Integral I*V(t) correct
 
VI. Open cell calorimetry       Measure H2/D2 + O2      Recombiner inside
   no H2/D2 + O2 monitoring
   during experiment
 
VII. Visual techniques          Computer-logging,        Redundant probes with
                                 few probes              fast data acquisition
 
VIII.  Theories which dis-                                ?
regard P, E conservation         Fractofusion ignoring
or light-cone constraints        e- vs. d+ acceleration
(e.g., "heating lattice")
 
 
I welcome comments, particularly from Tom, John and Dieter,etc. on calorimetry,
Dick, Gary, etc. on nuclear systems, Terry, Jim, Dale, etc. on theories.
With a reasonable list, one can check claims and show what needs to be
done.  Right now the picture has so much noise, one can hardly make sense
of cold fusion.  And the confusion seems somehow self-catalytic.
 
--Steven Jones
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: 19 Nov 93 17:16:58 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <kemidb.753616846@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> Considering Steve Jones' revelations about neutron artifacts, I would say
> that Yamaguchi is as dead as Leibowitz.
>
> Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
> --------------------------
>
 
Daryl Owens writes that he believes that the neutron bursts detected by
Yamaguchi (Y) are real, and that he may purchase a neutron counter such as
Y used (if I understand correctly).
 
Daryl:  have you digested what I, Dick Blue and Tom Droege have already posted
about Yamaguchi's detectors and neutron-burst claims?  Dieter is right:  the
case for Yamaguchi's claims for neutrons is very weak indeed.  To reiterate:
Yamaguchi et al. used neutron survey meters which do not provide compelling
evidence for neutron production as claimed by Y.  How do I convince you to
be careful in evaluating Y's data and these crude neutron survey meters?
Do you recognize that although Y claims large neutrons bursts, these rates
are in fact at the sensitivity level of these crude detectors?  Do
you appreciate the fact Y's detectors have been examined by Howard Menlove,
a Los Alamos lab. fellow,
when he visited Y's lab in Japan, and Howard was appalled that Y used such
crude neutron counters?
 
I hesitate to appeal to an authority, but I'd like to get you off dead-center
in your thinking.  These detectors are about 6 orders of magnitude less
sensitive than the ones we use at BYU, as described in previous postings --
e.g., "Draft of Paper".  Since 1986 when we began looking for neutrons
in deuterided metals, we have *never* seen huge neutron bursts as claimed by
Yamaguchi et al.  We have, however, seen strange effects near the sensitivity
level of the detectors -- some of which we have now clearly identified as
artifacts (see, e.g., my recent post "What's the opposite of 'EUREKA'?").
 
Don't buy another health physics monitor, Daryl.  If you really want to
contribute to science, you will need sensitive, state-of-the-art tools.
Crude detectors can only add to the confusion.
 
Best Wishes,
Steven Jones
 
P.S. to Mitch and Jed:  some time ago, I asked you to answer a question:
Did Yamaguchi leave NTT as rumored?
No response yet, gentlemen.  Why not?
 
Another question:  why is not Yamaguchi mentioned in the program for the
upcoming cold-fusion conf. in Hawaii -- he who was the star at Nagoya?
Perhaps Eugene Mallove would care to respondto these questions?
Just wondering.  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Winston Edmond /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: wbe@northshore.ecosoft.com (Winston Edmond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 16:55:12 GMT
Organization: Panther Software and Research

S4.0 - Data compression:
 
   You may want to consider gzip/gunzip (the GNU utility) for data
compression.  It provides good compression and, by definition, the source
code is available.
 -WBE
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenwbe cudfnWinston cudlnEdmond cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 20 Nov 1993 21:15:46 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

 
Dale usually you're a beacon of hard-headed reason in this morass
of baloney but I think you're wrong here and just plain too hard-headed.
 
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <2cj3fvINNopn@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
: Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
: >
: >I repeat: "Nonlinear models have all sorts of nasty surprises."
: >
: >You bet they do! The message: perturb a complex system importantly, and
: >you _cannot_ predict the result. The fact: we are perturbing the system
: >importantly -- CO2 concentrations are entering regimes not seen for at
: >least 100 kyr (for sure) and maybe several million years.
 
:      More importantly, we *cannot* draw conclusions from the models.
:      As the experimental evidence shows no significant difficulties,
:      we can shoot Chicken Little and go back to worrying about more
:      important things.
 
"Well, punk. Do you feel _lucky_ today?"
 
: > So the _empirical_ data that CO2 and the global average
: >temperature are well-correlated over the last 100 kyr [1] should not be
: >brushed aside, as Dale seems to want. Pretending that _nothing_ will
: >happen as a result of this forcing is bad, bad planning.
 
:      The correlation is widely disputed, as you well know.  Indeed,
:      my last article discussed very detailed and very recently
:      published arctic measurements in which there was
:      *no correlation* over the last 40 years.
 
:      You must be very careful when analyzing near human habitation.
 
Look: 100 kiloyears vs. 40 years.
 
Obviously good data are very difficult to obtain and no single or even
few measurements will contain the answer.
 
With two close friends in atmospheric sciences, I am aware of the extreme
difficulties and complexity in understanding global climate change.  I think
it utterly foolish to pretend nothing might happen.   It is a fundamental
fact that human civilization has recently altered physically relevant
parameters to a very significant degree.
 
Two parts here:
 
#1 "physically relevant": although the overall *dynamical* effect is very
far from being understood, the physical processes of radiative transport and
thermodynamics have are signficantly influenced by atmospheric chemistry.
This is Real Physics predicted experimentally and theoretically. (Unlike
you-know-what).  You can't argue this away.
 
#2 "significant": The human-influenced inputs and change to global
   parameters are non-trivial fractions (Non trivial is >=1%) of the
   historical magnitude.  You can't argue this away either.
 
 
And finally remember, that even if the global mean temperature doesn't
go up much, because us humans happen to live at one place at a time rather
then having our wavefunctions delocalized across the globe, the local
effects might be rather unpleasant if the climate "bifurcates".
 
Of course, in 1000 or 2000 years the local ecologies et cetera will have
adjusted.  "Life" is in no danger, of course, but it could be quite
unfortunate for us humans.
 
Things might get ugly for reasons that aren't our "fault" (like fluctuations
in solar output) but we will still have to live with them.
 
: >In the short term, the best course of action would be to re-vitalise
: >fission, properly regulated to ensure that modern waste treatment methods
: >are used. In the meantime we will know whether fusion -- of the tokamak
: >or other variety -- will be useful.
 
:      At least we're in agreement on part of this.
 
Me three.
 
In case anybody is wondering, I am "for" (non-Soviet) fission, "for"
fusion, do not believe that the Tokamak program is the moral equivalent
of homoerotic Nazism (or whatever the fuck that was), am "for" both tokomak
and alternative fusion research and "for" taking global climate change
seriously.
 
:                              dale bass
 
--
-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:
cuddy20 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: SONOLUMINESCENCE
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SONOLUMINESCENCE
Date: 20 Nov 1993 21:36:58 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

gordon.powell@his.com wrote:
 
: Logajan's posting about sonoluminescence reminds me that Coleman Blake
: asked me to ask the news group whether anyone thought fusion could
: be going on during sonoluminescence.  The pressures cited by some are indeed
: enormous and one thinks of inverse beta decay.
 
It is an interesting idea.
 
Let's do some more reality checks.  In the only currently-known-to-operate-
and-have-achieved-ignition fusion 'reactor', fusion fuel is compressed to
nearly *Fermi degenerate density*, maybe 1000 times normal liquid/solid
density.  Temperature is O(100 million) degrees, in sonoluminesence perhaps
O(100,000)K.
 
Maybe one might see a few 'bursts' but nowhere near reactor-scale
fusion.
 
I suggested using D20 to Seth Putterman when I toured his lab a couple
of years ago; he laughed and said "Well I think we'll stick to conventional
physics for now..."
 
--
-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:
cuddy20 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Matt Kennel /  cmsg cancel <2cm1jaINN6u5@network.ucsd.edu>
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <2cm1jaINN6u5@network.ucsd.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 1993 22:50:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.1 PL8]
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.20 / Paul Schauble /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 16:22:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> S4.0 - Data compression will utilize the ARC program.  This is an older
>        compression program, but seems to have stabilized with regard to
>        incompatability between platforms.
>
 
I don't think this is a good choice. The ARC format is proprietary and
code that implements this format, other than from SEA, Inc., is under
a legal cloud.
 
I think ZIP format is a better choice. The author had declarred the
format available for general use. There are implimentations available
for PC and MAC and a portable Unix immplementation available for Unix
from GNU.
 
    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.19 / Barry Wise /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:19:24 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1993Nov18.175847.29073@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> I think it would be great if there were software packages that were more
> widely compatible, but since I don't think we have the programming
> resources available in this group, we are stuck using the pre-existing
> Internet defacto standards.
>
> Seems like every other platform in the world has mechanisms that allow
> interchange with MSDOS and Unix -- except the arrogant Mac's.  To h*ll
> with them :-)  (just kidding)
 
Sorry to disapoint, but the Mac works just fine to talk to Unix boxes.
I've been using a netnews reader that was written in Hypercard and I've
used a shareware reader also.  I'm connected to the server (via a LAN)
that has the interface to the internet and it runs as if the interface was
right on my machine (well not quite but close).  I've also run accross
shareware that allows you to uuencode and decode, swap graphical formats
between Tiff and Gif and others, and can read and write Dinosaur Operating
System (DOS) disks and files.  Some programs even allow you to mount DOS
disks and use them without converting them.  How many DOS machines can
read Mac disks?  I've also got a program called MacX that allows you to
act as an X client running off of a Unix Box (graphics and all).
Microsoft has versions of their major programs that run on DOS and Macs
and can read each others programs also.   I can also email between each of
these systems (even unix boxes).  Access to Unix boxes can also be had by
a program called telnet which allows you to log in over the lan to a Unix
box and even ftp files back and forth.  So you see there should be no
problem with the standards you're suggesting for the Mackers out there.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: climate change (was Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: climate change (was Poison Plutonium)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 18:53:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov19.232044.15101@cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis <tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>|>      This argument is about whether CO2 buildup from coal-fired
>|>      power plants will force the hitherto uneconomical construction
>|>      of massive fusion plants.
>|>
>|>      It belongs here.
>
>This seems tenuous, until such time as a useful fusion power source is
>proposed. (It is a solid argument for fission, of course, as well as for
>small-scale sources of power.) In any case, I am cross-posting to sci.envi
>where this is surely appropriate.
 
      Don't mind if you crosspost, but I stay here.
 
>|>      (I enjoyed *his* list of references. Talk about damning
>|>      evidence, I just love IPCC fans. The models
>|>      are clearly incomplete, inaccurate, wrong.
>
>Is the juxtaposition intended to indicate that the IPCC report and similar
>concerns about the greenhouse effect are based entirely on the models?
>
>If so, this is dishonest. The concern is based fundamentally on the
>Stefan-Boltzmann law and the first law of thermodynamics. The details of the
>response are, indeed, hard to estimate, but the effective size of the
>perturbation, at least broadly, is not.
 
     Hogwash.  It *is* utterly misleading to discuss the earth as if
     it was a one-parameter equilibrium black box.  Albedo changes,
     global atmosphere changes, global ocean changes, global biota changes
     etc. and the nonlinear relationship between all of them
     question not only the 'effective size' of a perturbation, but
     the *sign* of the perturbation.
 
>As you must know, all CFD models are incomplete.
 
     My job is CFD.  I'd say that the climate models
     aren't even indicative toys.  'Incomplete' implies that there
     is some core value in them.
 
>As for inaccurate and wrong, these are value judgements.
 
     Certainly.  But what would *you* call computations that don't
     match experimental data?
 
>One way to look at
>the models is that they are systems analogous to the climate system, and
>consider the ensemble of their behavior as the contemplated carbon
>perturbation is applied. All of them respond in one way or another
>dramatically. All of them also approximately represent current climate,
>including seasonal cycles well.
 
     Only if one knows *in advance* what the climate is.
 
>|> To 'increase' your
>|>      confidence in the models, ask the IPCC people where
>|>      all the carbon's going, there's a whole bunch missing.
>
>This question betrays a certain ignorance of what is going on in the
>field.
 
     No it doesn't.
 
>The CFD models make NO EFFORT to decide where the missing carbon is
>going.
 
     That wasn't the point.  The point was that a *huge* mechanism(s)
     of the model of the carbon cycle is utterly unknown.  This mechanism is
     very succeptable to experimental determination, and most
     aspects of the climate models are not.  So, what mechanisms
     are left out of the climate models?  Why should we believe
     such mechanisms?
 
>The trajectory of CO2 concentration is clear enough. The fact that there is
>an unidentified carbon sink accounting for an eighth of the carbon is not
>germane to the modelling question, and unless a good indication can be found
>that the efficiency of this sink increases very rapidly with increases in CO2
>concentration, it has little relevance to the policy question either.
 
    It's very germane to the question of whether we can believe the
    models.
 
>|>  You could
>|>      also ask them why the numbers don't seem to match current data.)
>
>Exactly which numbers are you talking about here? It's hard to refute this
>strange statement, at once so forceful and so vague.
 
     Temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentration, for one.
 
>|>          1) Correct recognition that climate models are just north
>|>             of voodoo.  Postcasts tell us very little other than
>|>             the skill of the modeler, and 'partial successes' often are
>|>             solely due to the wonderful pattern recognition skills
>|>             of humans.
>
>This is overstated in the extreme, and if Mr Michaels sucessfully left
>you with this impression, then he deserves to be criticized.
 
     My field is CFD.  It is an accurate if somewhat blunt characterization.
 
>Atmospheric models produce reliable and reasonable climate with specified
>ocean and land surface boundary conditions. Ocean models produce reliable
>and reasonable climate with specified atmosphere and ice boundary conditions.
>I believe that ice models are at least good enough for the time scales
>of interest, again, with the other systems specified as boundary conditions.
 
     Alter the model and the boundary conditions until we get what we want.
 
>What this tells us is that the major mechanisms of climate are, if not
>actually identified, at least well enough represented to be accurate not
>only under current conditions but also in various paleoclimate situations.
 
     'Not actually identified', but 'well enough represented to
     be accurate'.
 
     I'll have to remember this for my next paper.
 
>This also allows us to get a small-signal sensitivity to perturbations in
>forcing, and in particular, the change in forcing currently being effected.
 
     No it doesn't.  Small-signal sensitivity is very sensitive to
     the *model chosen*.
 
>Finally, critics of the necessity for a greenhouse policy seem to focus
>almost exclusively on these models. These are not the only source of
>evidence for the sensitivity of global temperature to greenhouse forcing.
>Paleoclimate evidence, historical measurement, radiative physics, and
>satellite measurements of the infrared budget yield similar sensitivities.
>Several largely independent models also fall into the same broad range of
>sensitivities.
 
     This is misleading.  It is *not* the case that there is
     compelling evidence of stated temperature sensitivity to
     CO2 concentration. (at least as far as the models go from below:
     c.f. Kahl et. al. in 'Absence of evidence
     for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
     in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993).)
 
>The main purposes of the atmospheric climate models is to identify just how
>the fluid dynamics of the system will respond to this new energy budget, and
>to try to identify sensitivities and phenomena of possible relevance. The
>evidence that the budget itself will be significantly changed is far more
>straightforward and unassailable.
 
     Ignoring 'unassailable' budget, one cannot take CFD
     climate models as having any predictive capability.
 
>The weakness of the models means we know little about how local climates
>will change. It does not say much to the effect that we don't know IF they
>will change. We can be fairly sure they will.
 
     No one in the CFD field would ever assert that averages
     are *good enough* to characterize, for instance, fluid turbulence.
     One cannot calculate averages with out making some fairly
     important assumptions.   So, one's model relies on these assumptions.
 
     The assertion that this is somehow different for climate models
     is wrong.
 
>|>          2) Paleo-CO2 measurements are 'ignored' by Mr. Michaels along
>|>             with Pleistocene temperature trends, neither of which
>|>             constitutes an accurate measurement of past global trends.
>|>             Utterly unknown potential errors and a very very limited
>|>             dataset are not promising, especially when the currently
>|>             held more accurate dataset does not indicate the same thing.
>
>This is disingenuous reasoning. The current, more accurate dataset
>is a response to a much smaller perturbation than the one that seems
>inevitable in the next few decades. (I remind you of a probable lag in
>response of several decades, and exponential growth in CO2 excess with
>a doubling time of a few decades.)
 
     Why do we not see such in the arctic dataset?  The oceanic dataset?
 
     However, it is 'inevitable' that seems disingenuous to me.
 
> If we are interested in responses to
>perturbations that are unambiguously outside the noise, we have to look
>at models or at paleoclimate.
 
     I'd rather not look at the models since they are not of any
     predictive worth.
 
>If a stream of evidence can be verified by another, then attacks on the
>first should surely consider the other.
 
     Is one stream verified by the other.
 
>|>          3) Mr. Michaels 'ignores' uncertainty in the effects of
>|>             CO2 on plant life.
>
>Mr Michaels, to be more precise, considers only evidence on one side of
>the ledger. This is hardly a hallmark of a fair investigator.
 
     To be precise, I suspect Mr. Michaels is interested in
     presenting a side ignored by y'all 'fair investigators' on the
     other side of the ledger.
 
>|>       Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
>|>       global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
>|>       the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
>|>       'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
>|>       in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
>|>       *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
>|>       for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
>|>       warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
>|>       I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
>|>       predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
>
>To be precise, warming is maximal at the EDGES of the polar region in
>continental interiors. In fact, almost all the warming of the past decade has
>been concentrated in Siberia, Alaska, and western Canada. Is this complaint
>original to you, or is it Michaels'? In any case, it isn't entirely valid.
 
     To be precise, I stand by what *I* said.
 
     Tell me the characteristics of a dataset you'd believe as
     valid.  It seems to me that belief in greenhouse warming is
     unfalsifiable.
 
>|>       So, the models *fail*, miserably and significantly.
>
>You haven't demonstrated this at all, at least the first part. Even
>granting this assertion, the conclusion that there is no serious greenhouse
>problem does not in any way follow.
 
     Nor does the conclusion that all life on earth will vanish tomorrow,
     but why would we be concerned if the models do not tell us
     that it's going to?
 
>Unfortunately, any such surprises would surely represent major climate
>shifts.
 
      No.
 
>|> We've had plenty of datasets to feed
>|>       to turbulence models, and yet, we're just baby steps from
>|>       where we started.
>
>I guess that depends very much on the objective of the model. Baby steps in
>what direction? If you had a turbulent flow with heating at one boundary and
>cooling at another, don't you think you could say something sensible about
>ensemble mean energy fluxes? That's basically the problem we're addressing.
 
     Not without basically inputing the mean energy fluxes via
     the model.  And that's basically the problem I'm addressing.
 
>(Note also that the atmosphere and ocean are sufficiently stratified that
>they can be treated as, in some sense, two-dimensional.)
 
     Not in any meaningful sense.
 
>principal practical importance. Global sensitivity to CO2 doubling is on the
>order of 2.5 K, a very large shift compared with natural variability on
>comparable time scales. This means that either such a warming will occur
>or a major shift in climate regime will occur in response to such a forcing.
 
      Like it's a fact.  Global temperature sensitivity to CO2 doubling in the
      current CO2 range may well be zero.  No effect at all may be seen.
 
>No amount of casting of doubt on the details of the model results has any
>bearing on the main point. The climate system, to which human and ecological
>activity is extremely sensitive, is being perturbed by a sufficiently large
>amount that every known analogous system (numerical models, paleoclimate
>analogues) is significantly disrupted. Michaels and his cohort like to leave
>you with the impression that there is nothing to worry about, and point to
>the uncertainties in the research as evidence that no policy changes are
>indicated. These uncertainties exist, but they provide no such evidence.
 
      The evidence provides no evidence.
 
>This doubling will almost certainly happen, if equivalent warming of other
>anthropogenic gases is taken into account. Whether a tripling or quadrupling
>takes place depends on the seriousness of policy efforts to restrain these
>emissions. Even in the absence of major shifts in regime, changes of some
>severity are likely.
 
     With what probability?  Based on what statistics?
 
>If the fluids undergo a regime change (there is a likely candidate for this:
>see Broecker, _Nature_ #328 p. 123; Manabe & Stouffer, Nature #364 p 215)
>matters get much worse, not better. This mechanism may be responsible for
>cooling in the Atlantic sector while mean temperatures increase. Suppression
>of the thermohaline circulation might well imply no retreat of sea ice in
>the Atlantic. It's a scenario getting increasing attention these days.
 
     And it's 9007C over the equator and -40C over the poles, he
     said dryly.  I'm amazed at the relatively complex models
     that are invoked against any inconvenient data while the
     supporting data are propped up by simple little models.
 
>IPCC report critics seem rarely to have read the report itself. The report
>is quite clear and honest on the extent of certainty or uncertainty in its
>various conclusions. I suggest you read it rather than relying on partisan
>secondhand versions.
 
     Already done.
 
>best a tail of the distribution of likely outcomes. Deciding policy on
>the basis of the outcome you most hope for is not without precedent of
>course, but it is not an approach that historically shows much viability.
 
     I agree completely.  Deciding policy on an assumed outcome is
     foolish.
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 19:16:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cm1e2INN6u5@network.ucsd.edu>,
Matt Kennel <mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net> wrote:
>
>Dale usually you're a beacon of hard-headed reason in this morass
>of baloney but I think you're wrong here and just plain too hard-headed.
 
     It happens every once and a while, but I don't think so here.
 
     I'm old enough to remember the 'global cooling' craze of the 60's-70's,
     and I assume I'll be around when the next 'cycle' begins.
 
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <2cj3fvINNopn@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>: Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>: > So the _empirical_ data that CO2 and the global average
>: >temperature are well-correlated over the last 100 kyr [1] should not be
>: >brushed aside, as Dale seems to want. Pretending that _nothing_ will
>: >happen as a result of this forcing is bad, bad planning.
>
>:      The correlation is widely disputed, as you well know.  Indeed,
>:      my last article discussed very detailed and very recently
>:      published arctic measurements in which there was
>:      *no correlation* over the last 40 years.
>
>:      You must be very careful when analyzing near human habitation.
>
>Look: 100 kiloyears vs. 40 years.
>
>Obviously good data are very difficult to obtain and no single or even
>few measurements will contain the answer.
 
     Yes, but the point is that the 100 kiloyear measurements are
     unreliable (see discussion in a previous article that the Greenland
     cores may not represent accurate local CO2 measurements owing
     to chemical changes in the cores for various conditions)
     and very discrete.  The 40 year measurements are
     reliable and extensive.  The models say that we should see substantial
     variation over 40 years.  It is these same models that lead us
     to believe that some significant global climate change will occur
     owing to anthropogenic forcing.  So, if we do not see the
     changes over 40 years, why should we believe there will be any
     change at all?
 
>With two close friends in atmospheric sciences, I am aware of the extreme
>difficulties and complexity in understanding global climate change.  I think
>it utterly foolish to pretend nothing might happen.   It is a fundamental
>fact that human civilization has recently altered physically relevant
>parameters to a very significant degree.
 
     Something *might* happen.  But this is a far cry from something
     *will* happen.  There's precious little evidence that something
     *is* happening, so study is okay, but global policy changes seem
     foolish.
 
>Two parts here:
>
>#1 "physically relevant": although the overall *dynamical* effect is very
>far from being understood, the physical processes of radiative transport and
>thermodynamics have are signficantly influenced by atmospheric chemistry.
>This is Real Physics predicted experimentally and theoretically. (Unlike
>you-know-what).  You can't argue this away.
 
     I'm arguing that unincluded effects like this happen.  I'm
     arguing that experimental evidence shows that if one includes such
     effects that the current changes are stable.  Asserting instability
     on the basis of the models is the reach.
 
>#2 "significant": The human-influenced inputs and change to global
>   parameters are non-trivial fractions (Non trivial is >=1%) of the
>   historical magnitude.  You can't argue this away either.
 
     Certainly.  Changes in the global atmosphere exist, and not
     only because of human inputs.   It is the connection to the
     assumed outputs that are tenuous.
 
>And finally remember, that even if the global mean temperature doesn't
>go up much, because us humans happen to live at one place at a time rather
>then having our wavefunctions delocalized across the globe, the local
>effects might be rather unpleasant if the climate "bifurcates".
 
     And an asteroid might come along and wipe out half of us in
     a couple of minutes.  We might have a couple of minutes warning.
 
>In case anybody is wondering, I am "for" (non-Soviet) fission, "for"
>fusion, do not believe that the Tokamak program is the moral equivalent
>of homoerotic Nazism (or whatever the fuck that was), am "for" both tokomak
>and alternative fusion research and "for" taking global climate change
>seriously.
 
     If 'taking it seriously' means studying it, I'm 'for' it too.
     However, if it means uneconomical restrictions on the output
     of CO2 with the current 'evidence', I'm not.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 19:42:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

     I'm beginning to detect that Popperean falsifiability seems
     to be passe in eco-conscious circles.
 
In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>In  article  <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>    Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)   wrote :
>> Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
>> over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335
>> (1993), discusses the *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive
>> temperature dataset for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any
>> statistically significant warming trend.  Instead, they find
>> a slight cooling trend in areas.
>
>I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
>Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
 
and
 
>|>       Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
>|>       global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
>|>       the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
>|>       'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
>|>       in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
>|>       *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
>|>       for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
>|>       warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
>|>       I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
>|>       predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
>
>To be precise, warming is maximal at the EDGES of the polar region in
>continental interiors. In fact, almost all the warming of the past decade has
>been concentrated in Siberia, Alaska, and western Canada. Is this complaint
>original to you, or is it Michaels'? In any case, it isn't entirely valid.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 93 21:34:10 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     I'm old enough to remember the 'global cooling' craze of the 60's-70's,
>     and I assume I'll be around when the next 'cycle' begins.
 
I remember Isaac Asimov doefully warning us that a 2-3C degree increase in
the average global temperature would melt the ice caps and flood out all
the costal cities.  In fact, such a small rise in the average temperature
is not enough to melt the ice caps, and, in fact, allows more moister
transport to the poles, causing the snow pack to increase.
 
The enviromental whackies shoot theories around like marbles in a pinball
machine -- comin' at ya from every direction.  By sheer volume and the laws
of probability, they will eventually be right about something!  Watch them
demand the imposition of martial law that woeful day.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 93 23:49:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>my vote is for IFF.
 
Apparently IFF is an Amiga standard.  Futhermore without more evidence,
the shareware/freeware legality is open to question.
 
GIF, on the otherhand, was explicitly released as a public domain standard,
though of course, viewer and creator implementations may be privateware.
But we have several freeware and shareware GIF viewers to choose from.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 93 23:57:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>> S4.0 - Data compression will utilize the ARC program.
>I don't think this is a good choice. The ARC format is proprietary and
>
>I think ZIP format is a better choice. The author had declarred the
>format available for general use. There are implimentations available
>for PC and MAC and a portable Unix immplementation available for Unix
>from GNU.
 
James Blanchard emailed me the alt.binaries.pictures FAQ which lists the
FTP sites for numerous utilities.  Now that I have found compatible Zips
for many platforms, I retract ARC as my suggested standard and replace
it with ZIP.  Here is the new S4.0 standard:
 
S4.0 - Data compression will utilize the Zip program (zip files must be
       decompressible with unzip 5.0p1 or PKUNZIP 2.04g level revisions.)
       This is one of the newer breed of compression programs, having source
       code implementations as freeware.
 
       A MSDOS self-extracting executable of the latest PK version of the
       ZIP/UNZIP package is available for anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu
       /pub/msdos/zip/pkz204g.exe
 
       A  C-source of UNZIP for any "C" capable machine is available for
       anonymous FTP at wuarchive.wustl.edu  /mirrors/misc/unix/unz50p1.tar-z
 
       A C-source of ZIP is available for anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu
       /pub/msdos/zip/zip201.zip
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 00:33:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) is the multi-media standard
>for Internet established in 1992.
 
As far as I can tell, MIME replaces uuencodeing
 
Since uuencoding is a transport step, and not a storage or usage format,
we can implement MIME at any time in the future without risking obsolescense
of large amounts of data.
 
So even though MIME is an RFC, I'd personally like to get a sense that the
rest of the internet is converging on it before myself cutting over from
uuencode.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / John Logajan /  Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 05:44:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Here is my second to the final recommended set of standards for data exchange.
These standards have been picked firstly based upon my perception that they
are widespread, secondly on my personal use of them to ensure they function
well, and thirdly upon recommendations of others.
 
I post it here for a final round of comments.  After which I will post it
a third and final time if significant changes are made.
 
After that, I take myself out of the standards business and let the users
set the real standard by their actions.
 
 
       Standards for exchange of data over News and E-mail links.  V0.9
 
S0.0 - A repostiory of standards package locations should be maintained.
       (Where?)
 
S1.0 - Data packets should not exceed 64K bytes since some transport waypoints
       limit the size of any one message.  Files larger than 64K bytes should
       be broken up into chunks smaller than 64K.  (e.g. Unix "split")
 
S2.0 - ASCII text lines should be restricted to 80 characters wide or less.
       It is further recommended that lines no longer than 75 characters
       be used for the body of original text so that future quotes of it
       may have some latitude in formating without extending beyond the 80
       character limit.  Tabs, if used, should expand to 8.
 
       Tables of ASCII numeric data intended for remote computer analysis
       may adopt any appropriate line length.
 
S3.0 - Binary data *must* be "uuencoded" for transport across the e-mail
       or Usenet highways.
 
       uuencode and uudecode are standard programs on most Unix machines.
 
       A MSDOS version is available for anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu
       /pub/msdos/decode/uuexe522.zip
 
       Some C-source versions are available for anonymous FTP at
       sunsite.unc.edu  /pub/packages/TeX/archive-tools/uuencode...
 
S4.0 - Data compression will utilize the Zip program (zip files must be
       decompressible with unzip 5.0p1 or PKUNZIP 2.04g level revisions.)
       This is one of the newer breed of compression programs, having source
       code implementations as freeware.
 
       A MSDOS self-extracting executable of the latest PK version of the
       ZIP/UNZIP package is available for anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu
       /pub/msdos/zip/pkz204g.exe
 
       A  C-source of UNZIP for any "C" capable machine is available for
       anonymous FTP at wuarchive.wustl.edu  /mirrors/misc/unix/unz50p1.tar-z
 
       A C-source of ZIP is available for anonymous FTP at oak.oakland.edu
       /pub/msdos/zip/zip201.zip
 
S5.0 - Graphical data should be encoded via the GIF 87a or 89a standard.
       Since GIF viewers are far more available than PostScript printers,
       the use of GIF is preferred over PostScript (See S6.0).
 
S5.1 - GIF files, being compressed and hence, binary, must then be
       uuencoded by S3.0 above.
 
       GIF stands for the Graphical Interchange Format established several
       years ago by CompuServe.  Since it can represent any video display
       in any resolution in up to 256 colors, it is general purpose.  Since
       it is LZW compressed, it rivals the data transport requirements that
       would be needed to send raw plot vectors.  Therefore GIF is preferred
       over plot vectors and plotting programs due to its wide availability.
       GIF viewers have advanced to the stage that they can display pictures
       originally generated on larger displays -- hence, there is no longer
       a compatability problem between different resolution displays.
 
       A viewer of GIFs (CSHOW) for MSDOS is available for anonymous FTP at
       oak.oakland.edu /pub/msdos/gif/cshw860a.zip
 
       A screen capture program called Screen Thief is also avaliable, but
       I haven't found a ftp source.  scr2gif2.zip is a variation, but it
       is crippleware and only works for two oddball resolutions -- pass.
       I have used Screen Thief to capture the plottings I put up on my
       VGA MSDOS screen with my BASIC in the 640x480x16 resolution.  It can
       capture from within Windows too.  Very nice utility.  This is a
       recommendation and will not become a standard.
 
S6.0 - PostScript will be the standard page descriptor language, but due to
       the high cost of PS printers and their relative scarcity, GIF will
       be the preferred method of graphical exchange.
 
S6.1 - PostScript *will* be compressed through S4.0 above, and then uuencoded
       by S3.0 above -- unless the raw PostScript (ascii) file is under 4K.
 
       The gnu freeware source version call Ghostscript is available for
       anonymous FTP at sunsite.unc.edu  /pub/gnu/ghostscript-2.6.1.tar.gz etc
       for emulating PostScript on various non-PostScript printers.
 
Summary -- uuencode/uudecode
           zip/unzip
           GIF
           PostScript
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 03:44:23 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     New Wine list:
 
>         1) Horse piss.
>         2) Armadillo piss.
>         3) Elephant piss.
>         4) Rhino piss.
>         5) Gorilla piss.
>         6) Chateau d'Yquem.
>         7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
>         8) Chateau Margaux.
>
>     Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
>     insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
>     put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
>     does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
 
>                           dale bass
 
Gee Dale, with your taste in wines, I think I would give up wines.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Comparison of cf systems
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 05:03:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
>It is evident that much of the present confusion surrounding "cold fusion"
>stems from the continued use of crude detectors/systems.  I propose a list
>juxtaposing
>crude, better and state-of-the-art systems to help sort out reliable data
>from poor evidences.
 
>Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
>(simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
>                                                          ling evidence one
>                                                          way or the other)
 
[List removed.  C.S.]
 
If I may, there are a few that I would add to the list.  The most
important of these was missed by you Steve.  What are the material
qualities of the host metal and electrolyte?  I would add,
 
Metal of unknown source           Cast or drawn of       Alloyed with known
quality, and purity               high purity            purity and properties.
 
D2O of unknowm source             D2O from a known       Highly distilled D2O
exposed to Air.                   source.                of known O isotope.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
Ps.  I'm glad you left room for a few of the theory types.  There is
alot that needs to be discussed as to why or why not does a particular
idea work. For example I think Terry is wrong on the fusion potential in
deutron Bose condensates. Other than Matt, there has not much of an
argument.  To be honest I want to know how you operated the P&F cell
described in your latest draft paper.  What parameters where varied
in the run? Anyway with much respect,
 
Fave Fun,
Chuck Sites
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Cameron Bass /  Wine tasting (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wine tasting (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 06:43:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov22.034423.16865@coplex.coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     New Wine list:
>
>>         1) Horse piss.
>>         2) Armadillo piss.
>>         3) Elephant piss.
>>         4) Rhino piss.
>>         5) Gorilla piss.
>>         6) Chateau d'Yquem.
>>         7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
>>         8) Chateau Margaux.
>>
>>     Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
>>     insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
>>     put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
>>     does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
>
>Gee Dale, with your taste in wines, I think I would give up wines.
 
     Once you get through the first five, Boone's Farm is a taste
     of heaven.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Jim Bowery /  Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 09:17:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Network Systems Corporation writes:

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Network Systems Corporation writes:
 
>jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) is the multi-media standard
>>for Internet established in 1992.
>
>As far as I can tell, MIME replaces uuencodeing
>
>Since uuencoding is a transport step, and not a storage or usage format,
 
MIME provides images in gif and jpeg, audio 8-bit ISDN 8KHz, video/mpeg
ISO/IEC 11172, and application data as octet-streams (this is probably
 where you got the idea that it was a uuencoding replacement), ODA (for
 transmitting Open Document Interchange Format files as in ISO/IEC std 8613)
and PostScript.
 
"The Internet Message: Closing the book with electronic mail" by
Marshall T. Rose, chapter 6.1 "Multi-Media Body" gives a pretty complete
description and usage examples of MIME.
 
I only suggest this due to the fact that it does appear to be taking off
with a reasonable amount of support from a variety of sources and represents
the only complete multimedia document exchange standard for Internet that
I'm aware of.
 
If people are going to go to the trouble of setting themselves up with
software packages to support this document exchange effort, I really
think it would be advisable to go with MIME even at this early stage in
its life.
 
If there are other complete multimedia document exchange standards for
Internet around, I would very much like to hear of them as I am going to
be making some substantial investments that depend on MIME becoming the
dominant exchange standard in the near future.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 22 Nov 1993 11:54:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

|> The enviromental whackies shoot theories around like marbles in a pinball
|> machine -- comin' at ya from every direction.  By sheer volume and the laws
|> of probability, they will eventually be right about something!  Watch them
|> demand the imposition of martial law that woeful day.
 
Sorry, John, but this easily wins the wacko-of-the-day award. Leave it to
political fantasists to bring "Hitler" (your prev post) and "martial
law" into an atmospheric physics discussion. Oh, BTW, an "eco-terrorist"
is someone who blows the legs off an environmental activist with a car
bomb, not the activist.
 
You sound like Jed with this post.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: SONOLUMINESCENCE
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SONOLUMINESCENCE
Date: 22 Nov 1993 12:19:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Minor corrections:
 
In article <2cm2lqINN6u5@network.ucsd.edu>,
        mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
|> Let's do some more reality checks.  In the only currently-known-to-operate-
|> and-have-achieved-ignition fusion 'reactor', fusion fuel is compressed to
|> nearly *Fermi degenerate density*, maybe 1000 times normal liquid/solid
|> density.
 
This figure is more like 100 times.
 
|> Temperature is O(100 million) degrees,  [...]
 
It is O(10 million).
 
|> [...]  in sonoluminesence perhaps
|> O(100,000)K.
 
But I think your point is unaffected by these numbers.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Comparison of cf systems
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
Date: 22 Nov 93 11:53:06 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CGuo3o.4L@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <1993Nov19.180955.1123@physc1.byu.edu>
>      Subject: Comparison of cf systems
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
>
> = "It is evident that much of the present confusion surrounding "cold fusion"
> = stems from the continued use of crude detectors/systems.
> =   I propose a list juxtaposing crude, better and state-of-the-art
> =  systems to help sort out reliable data from poor evidences."
> =
> = Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
> = (simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
> =                                                           ling evidence one
> =                                                           way or the other)
> = II. Helium gas detection       Charged-particle detector   Thin dE/dx det.
> =   Tritium gas detection    (Si surface-barrier det.)   plus Si spectrometer"
>                                         ^
>                                         |
>
>   Steven, your list seems to imply that any the major population of
> any putative helium formed secondary to cold fusion reactions is,
> when ejected/lost from the metal, charged or ionized.
>
>   Is it?  Do you have, or can you present, compelling evidence for that?
>
 
The writing above seems unusually obtuse even for Mitch.  The point I'm
getting at is this:  if helium or tritium is produced via nuclear reactions
then the product nuclei *must* be charged and energetic, thus capable of
detection by thin (dE/dx) and thick (E) charged-particle detectors.  Use of
such a particle "telescope" provides both particle identification and particle
energy, and is state of the art.
 
On the other hand, if only helium or tritium gas is monitored, one always
faces problems of contamination.  In short, without characteristic nuclear
(MeV-scale) energies attached to the triton or alpha, one cannot rule out
a non-nuclear source of the tritium or helium (contamination).  Compelling
evidence for a nuclear reaction will demonstrate  the presence of
MeV-scale energies characteristic of nuclear reactions.
 
Tom Claytor of Los Alamos was here last week and gave a fine colloquium
regarding his work.  Tom searches for tritium production from deuterided Pd
wires.  He is well aware of the problems in his search.  He noted, as I have
here in the past, that light-cone constraints mean that energies released
in nuclear reactions can only be transported about 10^-3 angstroms -- which
means that the energy released by nuclear reactions cannot be dumped on the
lattice as "heat."  Then I have urged Tom to use charged-particle detectors
to search for energetic tritons.  If his tritium-gas measurements are correct,
he should see about a billion tritons per second!  This quantity is trivial
to see with Si surface-barrier detectors, but noone who has used such
techniques has seen anywhere near such quantities.  Moreover, as Tom correctly
pointed out, if large quantities of tritons were being produced via nuclear
reactions, then some (about 10^-5) of those tritons should produce neutrons via
the reaction:
  t + d -->  n (14.1 MeV)  + 4He (3.5 MeV),
since deuterium (d) is abundant in the experiments.  A triton (t) kinetic
energy of about 50 keV is sufficient to initiate the reaction above.
But that would require
approximately 10^4 neutrons/second via these secondary reactions, to go along
with the tritium-gas abundances "seen" -- yet at most a few neutrons per *hour*
are seen (if any).  That is, as Tom pointed out, the tritium and neutron data
do *not* agree by many orders of magnitude.  And the tritium he "sees" is too
small quantitatively to account for excess heat claimed by others by another 5
or 6 orders of magnitude.  The numbers do not work out.
 
Seems to me that *everybody*
(includes those claiming heat, neutrons, helium, tritium, etc.)
is claiming an effect within an order of magnitude (perhaps two by stretching)
of the sensitivity level of his or her detector.  That is, a few neutrons or
energetic particles here, a much larger amount of tritium or helium there,
a still much larger amount of excess heat across the way (would require about
10^12 nuclear reactions per second to account for the heat) --
but none of the "products" agree quantitatively!  And all the "products" are
just near the sensitivity level of the corresponding detector!  My point is
that we must use state-of-the-art detectors or we'll just chase noise into the
next century.
 
Tom mentioned the following possible sources of error in his tritium
measurements:  tritium contamination in equipment or in spots in Pd (as
reported by Wolf when Wolf retracted his claims of tritium production*);
and internal leakage currents in his tritium monitor which
would be interpreted as presence of 3H.
 
*Wolf's retraction of tritium production claims are published in AIP Conference
Proceedings No. 228, editors Steven E. Jones, Franco Scaramuzzi, and David
Worledge, 1991.)
>
>   Thus your list, and theme, appears to relatively ignore the major
> product (other than heat) and continues to focus on some systems with
> lower S/N ratios.   Why?
>
>                                                Mitchell Swartz
>                                                (mica@world.std.com)
>
 
Ah, you evidently agree that the best detector systems show "lower S/N ratios".
What does this tell you about claims that xs-heat is nuclear in origin?
 
Actually, the crude systems, such as helium detection (as opposed to charged
particle detection) show helium near the ambient levels in the laboratory
atmosphere, so the "signal" is again near the true background levels.  (Here
I am referring in particular to Miles' and Stringham's claims of
helium-4 production; Liaw and Liebert show much less 4He than atmospheric
levels.)
 
The point is, when the detector system is improved, the signal shrinks to the
sensitivity level of the detector. This has happened over and over again in
"cold fusion" studies.  I know of no exceptions.  As I have repeatedly warned,
this fact provides strong evidence (the statistical "kiss of death")
that one is chasing noise.  Nothing more than noise.
 
My conclusion from performing experiments myself and rather closely following
others' claims (as reported here over the past year or so), is this:
 
Excess heat allegedly produced in Pd/LiOD cells (or Ni/H2O cells) is
*NOT* nuclear in origin.
 
And, those who wish to prove a nuclear origin must use state-of-the-art
detectors and stop feeding us meaningless garbage from crude detector systems.
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Flamewar
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar
Date: 22 Nov 93 17:08:39 EST
Organization:  Wright State University

In article <CGwr2y.H9E@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <2cqu82INNumd@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
> Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>>
>>Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain
>>topic in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the
>>discussion to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to
>>surface there?
>
>      Likely being among those with the most 'experience' around here,
>      I'd be glad to help you out.  You either
>
>           a) get over it.
>           b) have a hissy fit.
>
>      Depending on your approach, it *is* possible to inject humour and
>      interest into a hissy fit though I've not seen that in the present
>      case.
>
>      Coal and cold fusion forever ...
>
Dale,
 
You forgot two other possibilities that are generally reserved for
extreme violations:
 
           c) Send numerous and extensive Email LETTERS (please spare
              the rest of us and keep the dialogue private).
           d) Write complaints to that person's site admin. and hope
              that he pulls the plug on the violator.
 
REMEMBER those are for extreme cases and I don't think the current
dialogue is that extreme.  After all it does have some relevance to
fusion, granted not much.
 
--
 
   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!
 
    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjbatka cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 23:46:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGwzAx.Jps@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>: In article <CGr7pB.5MM@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >  "The flaws in the book have been pointed out, in detail, on s.e
>: >   (as well as the virtues, I might add). They are not thoroughly
>: >   damning, as are the flaws in Ray's book."
>: >
>: >   This "partially damning" nonsense is your own alone.
>
>You replied:
>:    What, pray tell, is 'not thoroughly damning' if not 'partially damning'?
>
>But earlier, when I asked:
>: >(BC): Is it your contention that "totally damning" and "partially damning"
>: >are exhaustive categories?
>
>you responded:
>:      No, those were your categories.  I think 'partially damning'
>:      is ridiculous.
>
>X is "not thoroughly damning" == (not (thoroughly-damningP X)),
>in McCarthyist lingo. By the law of the excluded middle,
>
>(implies (forall X
>            ((equal (not (thoroughly-damningP X)) (partially-damningP X))))
>         (exhaustive-categories 'thoroughly-damningP 'partially-damningP))
>
>You are asserting the premise and denying the conclusion, a practice Aristotle
>would frown upon.
 
     No, I denied that they were *my* categories.  You took it the next
     step.  From your postings, they did appear to be exhaustive.
 
     Your move.
 
>
>:      Dale's recommended Wine list:
>:          1) Horse piss.
>:          2) Armadillo piss.
>:          3) Elephant piss.
>:          4) Rhino piss.
>:          5) Gorilla piss.
>:          6) Chateau d'Yquem.
>:          7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
>:          8) Chateau Margaux.
>:
>:      Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
>:      insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
>:      put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
>:      does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
>
>It certainly reflects badly on whoever recommended the list.
 
     So what?  We were discussing a denizen of a list.
 
>If this list is being promoted as a list of fine wines, it is
>a case either of fraud or of profound ignorance.
 
     Ever tried elephant piss?  Don't knock it until you do.
 
>If the initial press conference announcing the discovery of cold fusion
>had been called by Ludwig Plutonium instead of by Stanley Pons, would
>this news group currently exist? Are you equally likely to seek out
>and read (or, like John Logojan, recommend unread) a book favorably
>reviewed in Science and one favorably reviewed in a Greenpeace newsletter?
 
     Again, what's the point?  Are you saying that Pat Michaels is
     analogous to Ludwig Plutonium.
 
>This is my last swipe at the dying (or defunct) equine.
 
     Perhaps you should give his liquid waste matter a try.  I hear
     it's a bit sweeter than Margaux.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Robert Grumbine /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: rmg3@access.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 22 Nov 1993 09:47:48 -0500
Organization: Under construction

In article <CGuxEy.3C2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>     I'm beginning to detect that Popperean falsifiability seems
>     to be passe in eco-conscious circles.
>
>In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
>Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>>In  article  <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>>    Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)   wrote :
>>> Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
>>> over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335
>>> (1993), discusses the *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive
>>> temperature dataset for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any
>>> statistically significant warming trend.  Instead, they find
>>> a slight cooling trend in areas.
>>
>>I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>>on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>>It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>>there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>>Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
>>Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
 
  Mr. Bass appears to be failing a bit of nettiquette.  Word reached
Mr. Schloerer that a posting of his from sci.environment had been
reposted into sci.physics.fusion, where Mr. Bass had replied.  Mr.
Schloerer then posted a reply, with followup directed to sci.environment,
an appropriate group that he reads.  Rather than reply to Mr. Schloerer,
Mr. Bass has now posted into yet another group (sci.skeptic).  I
have yet again cross-posted to sci.environment, and am redirecting
(again) followups to that group.  Sci.skeptic and Talk.origins readers
are, of course, familiar with people who try to post away from groups
which are read by people who have the background to challenge the
poster.
 
  The two papers in question:
Kahl, J. D., D. J. Charlevoix, N. A. Zaitseva, R. C Schnell, and
  M. C. Serreze, Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over
  the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years, Nature, 361, pp. 335-337, 1993.
Walsh, J. E., The Elusive Arctic Warming, Nature, 361, pp. 300-301, 1993.
 
  Kahl et al. used data from radiosondes launched from Soviet
drifting stations (located in the interior of the ice pack) and by
'dropsonde' from US weather reconnaissance aircraft.  The
radiosonde data are primarily within the ice pack, north of Greenland,
Spitzbergen, and Novaya Zemlya (well north mostly).  The dropsonde
data are mainly in Canadian Archipelago.
 
Walsh: "When viewed in a broader context, however, these findings
(apart from the inversion) are not necessarily at odds with climate-
model projections.  The drifting ice stations, from which were luanched
the balloon-borne radiosondes that provided all of the authors'
temperature profiles for 1962-1990, have to be sited
on the thick pack ice of the central Arctic Ocean.  So they do not
sample the potentially sensitive marginal ice zone, where the
ice retreat generally results in the greatest warming in CO2-
doubling experiments of climate models."
 
  Walsh (and Schloerer, and me, and ...) are not ignoring the potential
for falsification.  These data do not do so strikingly, at best.  They
do not sample the region of greatest sensitivity.  Should some data
(somehow, the MIZ is difficult to get data from, no ice floes to
sit on as the Soviets did, no military strategic importance as
for the US reconnaissance flights) come from the MIZ, and _that_
reported no warming and indeed a cooling, with no changes in
ocean circulation locally, _then_ you'd have a strong case for
falsification.
 
  Walsh, by the way, has worked for years on the climate of the
Arctic, and on comparing the models to data.  See Walsh, J. E.
and R. G. Crane, A comparison of GCM simulations of the Arctic
Ocean, Geophys. Res. Letters, 19, pp. 29-32, 1992.  An interesting
feature of that note is that of the 4 models examined (OSU, UKMO,
GISS, and GFDL) the one that is best on both temperature and
pressure over the Arctic, is also the one with the greatest
sensitivity to CO2 (UKMO, 4.5 C or so to doubled CO2) [This is my
observation, not Walsh's in the paper.]
 
>and
>
>>|>       Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
>>|>       global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
>>|>       the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
>>|>       'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
>>|>       in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
>>|>       *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
>>|>       for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
>>|>       warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
>>|>       I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
>>|>       predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
>>
>>To be precise, warming is maximal at the EDGES of the polar region in
>>continental interiors. In fact, almost all the warming of the past decade has
>>been concentrated in Siberia, Alaska, and western Canada. Is this complaint
>>original to you, or is it Michaels'? In any case, it isn't entirely valid.
 
 
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrmg3 cudfnRobert cudlnGrumbine cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Robert Grumbine /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: rmg3@access.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 22 Nov 1993 09:52:23 -0500
Organization: Under construction

In article <1993Nov21.213410.6477@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     I'm old enough to remember the 'global cooling' craze of the 60's-70's,
>>     and I assume I'll be around when the next 'cycle' begins.
>
>I remember Isaac Asimov doefully warning us that a 2-3C degree increase in
>the average global temperature would melt the ice caps and flood out all
>the costal cities.  In fact, such a small rise in the average temperature
>is not enough to melt the ice caps, and, in fact, allows more moister
>transport to the poles, causing the snow pack to increase.
>
  Asimov, for all his strengths in numerous areas, was not very good
with weather or climate.  Nonetheless, see my FAQ on sea level change,
to be posted again tonight to sci.environment.  In most respects,
both of you are either right or wrong.  Sea level may go up or down.
See the FAQ for why, how much, and how fast.
 
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrmg3 cudfnRobert cudlnGrumbine cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 16:36:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cq99mINNjb5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>|> The enviromental whackies shoot theories around like marbles in a pinball
>|> machine -- comin' at ya from every direction.  By sheer volume and the laws
>|> of probability, they will eventually be right about something!  Watch them
>|> demand the imposition of martial law that woeful day.
>
>Sorry, John, but this easily wins the wacko-of-the-day award. Leave it to
>political fantasists to bring "Hitler" (your prev post) and "martial
>law" into an atmospheric physics discussion. Oh, BTW, an "eco-terrorist"
>is someone who blows the legs off an environmental activist with a car
>bomb, not the activist.
 
     Greenpeace floated a proposal recently to get rid of chlorine
     compounds in our chemical industries for some vague reason (likely
     to encourage the downfall of civilization).  I think this stuff
     is exactly what John is accurately describing.
 
     And in *my* unabridged dictionary (Random House):
 
          ecoterrorist  n.  one who commits ecotage.
 
          ecotage  n. sabotage aimed at polluters or destroyers
                      of the natural environment.
 
     So, you are quite wrong about the definition and John was
     quite right.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Wine tasting (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wine tasting (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 16:39:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cqb23INNjb5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>In article <CGvs01.D3n@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>       crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> In article <1993Nov22.034423.16865@coplex.coplex.com>,
>|> Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>|> >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> >
>|> >>     New Wine list:
>|> >
>|> >>         1) Horse piss.
>|> >>         2) Armadillo piss.
>|> >>         3) Elephant piss.
>|> >>         4) Rhino piss.
>|> >>         5) Gorilla piss.
>|> >>         6) Chateau d'Yquem.
>|> >>         7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
>|> >>         8) Chateau Margaux.
>|> >>
>|> >>     Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
>|> >>     insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
>|> >>     put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
>|> >>     does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
>|> >
>|> >Gee Dale, with your taste in wines, I think I would give up wines.
>|>
>|>      Once you get through the first five, Boone's Farm is a taste
>|>      of heaven.
>
>Spoken from experience of course, oder?  :-)
 
     Of course, I've been in the Milan rail station a number of times.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Martin Fleischmann's talk
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Martin Fleischmann's talk
Date: 22 Nov 93 17:05:33 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <2cqabp$66i@info.epfl.ch> llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch writes:
>
>On 24 November, Prof Martin Fleischmann will give a talk on "Cold Fusion",
>in the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. This talk is presented by
>the Chemistry Section of a scientific society.
>
>I don't know if I will be able to attend, but I will try. If I have the
>chance, I might even ask him a question; and here is my request: do you
>have a suggestion for ONE question that you would like him to answer?
>I do not want to ask him about the unexplained misteries of their last
>paper, for example.
 
 
 
 
 
Ask him when they will have their water heater on the market - and where
you can buy it?
 
Oh, and try to keep a straight face.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: 22 Nov 1993 17:52:02 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CGwG83.8K1@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>,
        scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
|> In article <2cq99mINNjb5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garchin
.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
|> >|> The enviromental whackies shoot theories around like marbles [...]
|> >
|> >Sorry, John, but this easily wins the wacko-of-the-day award.  [...]
|>
|> Can you folks keep the flaming down to a dull roar?  This wins my award for
|> off-topic posting of the month, and is coming darn close to the biggest
|> off-topic flamefest *I've* ever seen on s.p.f...
|>
|> Thanks for listening.
 
Point taken, Scott, but several of us have tried to relocate this stuff
to sci.environment where it belongs. It seems our two critics don't want
to comply with your sentiments (which I, Bo Curry, and Robert Gumbine have
emphatically echoed). Dale has given his reasons; whether others of us
choose to accept them seems irrelevant, given his obstinance.
 
Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain
topic in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the
discussion to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to
surface there?
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reference to News postings
Date: 22 Nov 1993 21:52:33 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <01H5F3RQRL1EHV1LJK@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>I asked
>
>>Is there a formal convention for a reference to News items in a scientific
>>paper? There is the odd posting that is worth referring to; but how?
 
As a start, I would refer to it the same way I presently refer to
information I get via E-mail: it is a private communication.  The
key information is who said it, and perhaps when although when is
seldom critical.  Certainly, from the viewpoint of an archival journal,
this would be "unpublished" material.  Now there are many cases
where I refer to unpublished material in some detail -- a thesis,
for example, or a conference proceeding or annual report that appears
only as a samizdat publication of some lab or university, perhaps
with a code number or preprint number.  In that case, you are basically
giving a diligent person some clues as to how to find it, so the
suggestion below
 
>J. Blow, 12.11.1993, under SUBJECT "RE: bla bla", in Fusion Digest 1234,
>filed as fusion.93-06789, directory fusion, ftp site vm1.nodak.edu.
 
would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Bo Curry /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 22:18:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

: In article <CGr7pB.5MM@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, Bo Curry <curry@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
: >
: >  "The flaws in the book have been pointed out, in detail, on s.e
: >   (as well as the virtues, I might add). They are not thoroughly
: >   damning, as are the flaws in Ray's book."
: >
: >   This "partially damning" nonsense is your own alone.
 
You replied:
:    What, pray tell, is 'not thoroughly damning' if not 'partially damning'?
 
But earlier, when I asked:
: >(BC): Is it your contention that "totally damning" and "partially damning"
: >are exhaustive categories?
 
you responded:
:      No, those were your categories.  I think 'partially damning'
:      is ridiculous.
 
X is "not thoroughly damning" == (not (thoroughly-damningP X)),
in McCarthyist lingo. By the law of the excluded middle,
 
(implies (forall X
            ((equal (not (thoroughly-damningP X)) (partially-damningP X))))
         (exhaustive-categories 'thoroughly-damningP 'partially-damningP))
 
You are asserting the premise and denying the conclusion, a practice Aristotle
would frown upon.
 
 
:      Dale's recommended Wine list:
:          1) Horse piss.
:          2) Armadillo piss.
:          3) Elephant piss.
:          4) Rhino piss.
:          5) Gorilla piss.
:          6) Chateau d'Yquem.
:          7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
:          8) Chateau Margaux.
:
:      Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
:      insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
:      put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
:      does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
 
It certainly reflects badly on whoever recommended the list.
 
If this list is being promoted as a list of fine wines, it is
a case either of fraud or of profound ignorance.
 
If the initial press conference announcing the discovery of cold fusion
had been called by Ludwig Plutonium instead of by Stanley Pons, would
this news group currently exist? Are you equally likely to seek out
and read (or, like John Logojan, recommend unread) a book favorably
reviewed in Science and one favorably reviewed in a Greenpeace newsletter?
 
This is my last swipe at the dying (or defunct) equine.
 
Peace upon you,
Bo
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 22 Nov 93 22:47:24 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <CGuxEy.3C2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|>      I'm beginning to detect that Popperean falsifiability seems
|>      to be passe in eco-conscious circles.
 
I will ignore the sneer. In any case, physical climatology is an input to
the biological sciences, but is not among them. The world-view of physical
climatologists is that appropriate to a branch of physics in which direct
experiment is impossible. Indeed, some of the more important work has been
done by astrophysicists.
 
|> In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
|> Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
|> >In  article  <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
|> >    Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)   wrote :
|> >> Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
|> >> over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335
|> >> (1993), discusses the *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive
|> >> temperature dataset for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any
|> >> statistically significant warming trend.  Instead, they find
|> >> a slight cooling trend in areas.
|> >
|> >I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
|> >on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
|> >It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
|> >there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
|> >Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
|> >Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
 
Cooling in a single location does not constitute a Popperianm refutation
of a tend to warming in the global mean.
 
|> and
|>
|> >|>       Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
|> >|>       global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
|> >|>       the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
|> >|>       'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
|> >|>       in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
|> >|>       *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
|> >|>       for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
|> >|>       warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
|> >|>       I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
|> >|>       predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
|> >
 
[I, not Jan, wrote the following:]
 
|> >To be precise, warming is maximal at the EDGES of the polar region in
|> >continental interiors. In fact, almost all the warming of the past decade has
|> >been concentrated in Siberia, Alaska, and western Canada. Is this complaint
|> >original to you, or is it Michaels'? In any case, it isn't entirely valid.
 
Some context seems to have been removed here. I meant that the MODEL
PREDICTION had maximum warming not at the poles, as Dale seems to be
maintaining, but at the fringes of the boreal zones where climate is
most sensitive to changes in ice albedo.
 
This prediction, in addition to global warming in the sense of averaging in
the *global mean* (as scientists use the term "global warming", as opposed
to the popular interpretation which expects warming everywhere), is verified
in observations.
 
Now while the claims made here of actual disproof are spurious, the
philosophical point is a valid one. I have been in agreement with Dale on
matters of the philosphy of science in the past. I certainly accept the need
for falsifiability in matters of science. But the actual claims made must be
examined, rather than making attempts to "falsify" a straw man argument that
was never made.
 
No climate modelling study ever concluded that global warming would be
uniform in time or space. Any evidence that it is not so uniform does not
falsify the rather modest claims made by the modellers.
 
The actual claims made go like this: in this model system, which represents
current climate (and sometimes paleoclimate) with thus-and-such fidelity,
shows a tendency to do thus-and-such under doubled greenhouse gas forcing.
 
I will grant that such a statement is unsatisfactory in a number of ways,
but since we only have a single real-world biosphere to play with, this
is the closest we can come to an experimental climatology.
 
There is indeed little falsifiable about it. Another group can implement the
same physical model with different code and verify the performance of the
model, but this is about as far as a very strict verification can go.
 
Dale claims that this makes the models useless. Presumably he never listens
to weather predictions, (which are largely based on closely related models
and which objectively show substantial improvement over the past three
decades) in that case.
 
We have a number of largely *independent* models that reproduce climate and
paleoclimate well enough to be worthy of consideration. The range of
sensitivities to greenhouse gas perturbations is fairly large, mostly due
to questions of cloud albedo feedback. (The runs are typically short enough
that deep ocean variability doesn't come into play.) All of them indicate
global warming in the beginning of the next century, of a magnitude
comparable to that obtained from several other lines of reasoning, and with
a spatial distribution with maximum warming at the edges of the ice caps,
in rough agreement with recently observed anomalies.
 
That this is not a prediction so specific as to be falsifiable by a single
observation is indeed unfortunate, but it is no reason to dismiss the actual
value of the work, nor to attribute underhanded political motivations to the
people who undertake the work in all seriousness and honesty.
 
We have to make policy decisions based on the best available information.
A requirement for certainty in policy-making is a recipe for paralysis.
 
The models that Dale so insistently questions are among several streams of
evidence indicating that the time for concern in this matter is upon us.
Policy is typically made on the basis of far less widely held opinions on
the part of economists, a far less precise discipline than physical
climatology. Why should climatology be held to a standard of proof so much
higher than economists' when the indicated policy of the two disciplines
(apparently) disagree?
 
mt
 
Sorry about the crossposting. I think this belongs in sci.environment, but
Dale insists on putting it elsewhere. Followups to one of these groups please!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / don davis /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (don davis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 23:00:47 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) complains about John Logajan's post::
 
>|> The enviromental whackies shoot theories around like marbles in a pinball
>|> machine -- comin' at ya from every direction.
 
>Sorry, John, but this easily wins the wacko-of-the-day award. Leave it to
>political fantasists to bring "Hitler" (your prev post) and "martial
>law" into an atmospheric physics discussion.
 
John is not saying all environmentalists are whackies; he is simply saying
*some* of us are.  He is right.  Every group has its extremists.  As an
environmentalist I consider these "whackies" a more dangerous adversary
than Exxon or illegal dumpers.  They diminish the environmental movement
with their wild speculations and claims.  Rather than defending them we
should be condemning them too.
 
                                        don davis
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudended cudfndon cudlndavis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / don davis /  Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (don davis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 23:03:12 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
>Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain
>topic in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the
>discussion to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to
>surface there?
 
Ignore them.
 
                                        don davis
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudended cudfndon cudlndavis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Wine tasting (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wine tasting (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: 22 Nov 1993 12:24:35 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CGvs01.D3n@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
        crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <1993Nov22.034423.16865@coplex.coplex.com>,
|> Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
|> >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> >
|> >>     New Wine list:
|> >
|> >>         1) Horse piss.
|> >>         2) Armadillo piss.
|> >>         3) Elephant piss.
|> >>         4) Rhino piss.
|> >>         5) Gorilla piss.
|> >>         6) Chateau d'Yquem.
|> >>         7) Chateau Lafite-Rothschild.
|> >>         8) Chateau Margaux.
|> >>
|> >>     Do you still fail to get the picture, or is it just stubborn
|> >>     insistence on preconception?  The judgement of the person who
|> >>     put Armadillo Piss on the same wine list as Chateau Margaux
|> >>     does not *in any way* reflect badly on the Margaux.
|> >
|> >Gee Dale, with your taste in wines, I think I would give up wines.
|>
|>      Once you get through the first five, Boone's Farm is a taste
|>      of heaven.
 
Spoken from experience of course, oder?  :-)
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Xavier CH /  Martin Fleischmann's talk
     
Originally-From: llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch (Xavier Llobet EPFL - CRPP 1015 Lausanne CH)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Martin Fleischmann's talk
Date: 22 Nov 1993 12:12:41 GMT
Organization: EPFL

 
On 24 November, Prof Martin Fleischmann will give a talk on "Cold Fusion",
in the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. This talk is presented by
the Chemistry Section of a scientific society.
 
I don't know if I will be able to attend, but I will try. If I have the
chance, I might even ask him a question; and here is my request: do you
have a suggestion for ONE question that you would like him to answer?
I do not want to ask him about the unexplained misteries of their last
paper, for example.
 
-xavier
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenllobet cudfnXavier cudlnCH cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Scott Mueller /  Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 15:26:26 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <2cq99mINNjb5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>|> The enviromental whackies shoot theories around like marbles [...]
>
>Sorry, John, but this easily wins the wacko-of-the-day award.  [...]
 
Can you folks keep the flaming down to a dull roar?  This wins my award for
off-topic posting of the month, and is coming darn close to the biggest
off-topic flamefest *I've* ever seen on s.p.f...
 
Thanks for listening.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Comparison of cf systems
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Comparison of cf systems
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 15:27:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1679:
 
>It is evident that much of the present confusion surrounding "cold fusion"
>stems from the continued use of crude detectors/systems.  I propose a list
>juxtaposing
>crude, better and state-of-the-art systems to help sort out reliable data
>from poor evidences.
 
>Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
>(simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
>                                                          ling evidence one
>                                                          way or the other)
 
Nice classification.
 
[...]
>V.  Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                          Integral I*V(t) correct
 
You know the answer:                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
>VI. Open cell calorimetry       Measure H2/D2 + O2      Recombiner inside
>   no H2/D2 + O2 monitoring
>   during experiment
>
 
Here I am not so sure. Even though experts in calorimetry report errors of
1-few %, I cannot find anything to argue with in the F&P papers - except that
the results are hard to believe. The equations are correct, nothing seems
oversimplified or neglected, for the phases preceding the boiling-off phase.
That phase is so "simple" that if you believe the results, you are a TB. The
analysis applying to the earlier phases does not apply here; a leap of faith
is needed. I don't have that faith. But for the earlier phases - 0.2% or so,
as now claimed by F&P - maybe.
 
Let me use an analogy. If you want to know some quantity X to a given
precision, the best way is to use a precision instrument and measure it.
Another way can be to use a noisy instrument, with, say, 1/10 the precision
you want, take 100 measurements and average them. Or use least squares on a
measured function, etc. Although the precision measurement is preferable, a
noisy one will do the job. Getting back to calorimetry, no doubt a closed
system is preferable, but as long as you don't neglect any factors (and F&P
no longer neglect any that I can see), an open system might do the job, if
the data analysis can make up for the "noise". F&P have repeatedly stated
that they choose the open type because they run so many cells and want to keep
it all simple. I sort of go along with that argument. So I don't think you can
prove F&P wrong simply by damning their open-cell method. You have to find the
flaw in what they do. Maybe it lies in power fluctuations, but I wouldn't bet
on it. We're still working on it.
 
Any of you metrics experts care to comment on this?
 
 
>VIII.  Theories which dis-                                ?
>regard P, E conservation         Fractofusion ignoring
>or light-cone constraints        e- vs. d+ acceleration
>(e.g., "heating lattice")
 
                                                        Schwinger, Hagelstein?
Or do they fall under the first group under your system? Are these heavies to
be dismissed so lightly?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk     right-jabbing again
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) in FD 2179:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 01:14:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) in FD 2179:
 
[...]
 
>in your thinking.  These detectors are about 6 orders of magnitude less
>sensitive than the ones we use at BYU, as described in previous postings --
>e.g., "Draft of Paper".  Since 1986 when we began looking for neutrons
>in deuterided metals, we have *never* seen huge neutron bursts as claimed by
>Yamaguchi et al.  We have, however, seen strange effects near the sensitivity
>level of the detectors -- some of which we have now clearly identified as
>artifacts (see, e.g., my recent post "What's the opposite of 'EUREKA'?").
 
I want to throw out a thought, and see if you agree with me, Steve What you
say about Yamaguchi also applies to all other neutron results, does it not? I
don't know any neutron results taken with such quality gadgets as you now use.
It seems to me, then, that no credible positive (or negative!) neutron results
have been obtained yet. How do do react to that?
 
Then there is a question: Steve, your original neutron results were not so
much in the form of so many neutrons above background, they were in the form
of an energy spectrum, which seemed to show a distinct (?) peak when the
background spectrum was subtracted. Now, you can account for someone's burst
of neutrons by saying that it was an artifact which would have been voted out
by the other three quadrants, had there been quadrants; but can you get an
artifact giving you a spectrum peak in the "right" place? What is now your
interpretation of your original claims?
 
Several people have privately emailed me and referred to Steven Jones'
"retraction". My impression is that this word is premature. Do you retract,
Steve, or just throw doubt on your earlier results? Is your reference to
Friedlander (of CIF fame) significant in this context? When CIF was accounted
for completely in terms of beam contamination, the man himself did not retract
but felt that he still had observed something real. From your quote, it seems
that he now agrees it was not real; maybe he needed time to come to terms with
that. Is that perhaps your situation? Sorry if I am pushing a bit hard, but I
really would like to know, and I know I'll get a straight answer.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Jed Rothwell /  Contact NTT
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Contact NTT
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 01:14:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
Steve Jones writes:
 
"P.S. to Mitch and Jed:  some time ago, I asked you to answer a question:
Did Yamaguchi leave NTT as rumored?
No response yet, gentlemen.  Why not?"
 
I can't speak for Mitch, but here are my reasons why not:
 
1.   This forum is supposed to be an outlet for scientific discussions, not
     idle, malicious gossip and rumors about the personal affairs of other
     people.
 
2.   If Dr. Jones has any legitimate reason for wanting to know the
     whereabouts and current activities of Dr. Yamaguchi, he will find the
     address of the NTT Basic Research Laboratory on every paper ever
     published by Dr. Yamaguchi. He can write to NTT and find out for
     himself. There is no need for him to ask me via public e-mail.
     Therefore, it is obvious that he is not seriously interested in finding
     out this information, he is merely engaged in yet another of his famous
     nefarious "mind-games." I will not play along.
 
For those who have not followed this debate, let me point out a few basic
facts. Over and over again, for many years, Steve and other so-called
"skeptics" have been asked to offer a serious critique of the calorimetric
data and experimental techniques of workers like Pons and Fleischmann,
McKubre, Kunimatsu, Bockris, and many others. This data proves beyond question
that the CF effect is real, and that it is not chemical. Steve has never once
addressed this issue. He has never so much as mentioned McKubre's work, expect
when he repeated certain ridiculous lies about it first dreamed up by other
pathological "skeptics." He has never even acknowledged that Kunimatsu exists!
He has evaded, lied, published grossly stupid piffle and "fluff" (as
Fleischmann put it) in an endless stream of unscientific messages in which he
attempts to rewrite laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. Pons
and Fleischmann responded, I responded, Gene Mallove responded, but Jones and
the other "skeptics" ignored us. Therefore, we think it is best to ignore him
and all the others who refuse to address the issue.
 
If anyone would like a copy of the Jones - Fleischmann correspondence, please
contact me. You will see that he does not have a leg to stand on, and he is
talking nonsense.
 
- Jed
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / R Schroeppel /  Fusion via sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion via sonoluminescence
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 01:14:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce Scott corrects Matt Kennel's numbers for "the only currently-
known-to-operate-and-have-achieved-ignition fusion 'reactor'", but
failed to mention the principle objection to his line of argument:
 
The sun operates by simmering protons at a temperature high enough
that a few of them change identities into neutrons (while making
deuterium + misc small change).  We are privileged to have
available 1/6000 * 2/18 of oceans of deuterium, and, my friends
assure me, all the tritium we might reasonably want.  The D+T
reaction can proceed at much lower temperatures and pressures,
perhaps within the range of sonoluminescence.
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Yellow Pages
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yellow Pages
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 01:14:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well it pays to let your fingers do the walking!  After looking at something
like a $2000 order from the standard brass tubing distributers, I worked
through the yellow pages and found a company that apparently exists to sell
brass tubing to home Pipe Organ builders.  Quit willing to sell me one piece
each of 15 sizes of brass tubing cut to 4 - 8 foot lengths.  Don't have the
quote yet, but it is clear that I found the right place.
 
Meanwhile, I am worrking on the umpteenth design for the calorimeter.  I have
cranked up the printed circuit drafting program and am turning out multi color
plots of the designs.  I just keep looking at them and trying to think where
the heat will flow.  It is not so easy.  It is like thinking about high voltage
where insulation sometimes makes the problems worse!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: 22 Nov 93 19:29:29 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <2cqu82INNumd@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
|>
|> Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain
|> topic in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the
|> discussion to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to
|> surface there?
 
My intention is to respond to relevant articles posted, for some
incomprehensible reason, in the fusion group, quoting the article in its
entirety, and crossposting in sci.environment.
 
I think it is good news that someone with some basis in a relevant science
(though, quite apparently, some philosophical predispositions against (what
I would call) reasonable prudence in this matter) is attacking the consensus
on the net. Responding at second hand to Dixy Lee Ray and Rush Limbaugh
sheds little light on the substance of the matter.
 
Dale's peculiar recalcitrance about using the appropriate newsgroup is
unfortunate, but can be worked around.
 
I would like to assure Dale that my intentions are intellectually honest.
If his evidence is stronger than mine, I am open to a change of opinion.  I
hope and trust he takes a similarly open-minded position in debates on
matters of substance. I hope we can conduct this discussion in a respectful
and civilized fashion, maximizing our attention on the evidence and ignoring
the boiling of our respective circulatory systems.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Mark Warren /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: 22 Nov 93 19:26:45 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA

 
Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
from news.software.readers help out here).
 
Mark
 
 
--
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmwarren cudfnMark cudlnWarren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / C Mogensen /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: mogens@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Christian L. Mogensen)
Originally-From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: clari.feature.dilbert
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Subject: Notes on the upcoming comic strip
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 20:06:55 GMT
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:35:46 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.

> MIME provides images in gif and jpeg, audio 8-bit ISDN 8KHz, video/mpeg
> ISO/IEC 11172, and application data as octet-streams (this is probably
> where you got the idea that it was a uuencoding replacement), ODA (for
> transmitting Open Document Interchange Format files as in ISO/IEC std 8613)
> and PostScript.
 
Well, I was invited over from infosystems.www to defend MIME and the open
standard RFCs.  Well, I was going to talk about what great guys the MIME
designers are (check out RFC1437 for a good laugh) and how neat and extensible
the MIME scheme is.
 
The world wide web is based on SGML/HTML, a standard markup language that's
rapidly increasing in popularity.  MIME's fancy text borrows from these
ideas.  WWW has borrowed MIME's type hierarchy of images, audio, text
etc.  The point is that there are some MIME compatible readers out there
and more are coming along.  Look at Mosaic (a World wide web browser) for
an example of the functionality possible using MIME-like tools.
 
But instead of going into all that, here's the biggest and best reason
for supporting MIME:    Dilbert!
 
 ----------------------
Newsgroups: clari.feature.dilbert
Originally-From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Notes on the upcoming comic strip
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:35:46 GMT
Approved: brad@clarinet.com
Message-ID: <1993Nov22.103546.18927@clarinet.com>
Lines: 68
 
Very soon you'll be viewing in this newsgroup something quite new in
network publishing -- our first comic strip.
 
This is going to be Dilbert, by Scott Adams.  Dilbert is a fun strip
about Dilbert and his dog.  We've selected it because Dilbert is a
programmer and the strip makes fun of life in the high-tech culture.
 
Dilbert is currently syndicated in over 150 newspapers, but we're first
to bring it -- or any professionally syndicated newspaper strip -- to
the internet and USENET.
 
The messages here will be in MIME format.  MIME allows graphics to be
sent as E-mail or as news messages for automatic decoding by mailers and
newsreaders that know about it.   There are free and commercial MIME
tools out there, and almost all the major newsreaders and mail packages
have updated versions available that can either handle MIME directly or
will pass MIME messages to a MIME-handler program, such as Metamail.
 
Messages will also be in uuencoded GIF format.
 
If you're lucky, your software already handles this.  If not, you, or
your admins, will have to consider installing newer software.  Of course,
remember that the publication of a comic strip is experimental and
has, shall we say, limited business purpose, so don't expect your admins
to rush to upgrade software because you want to see Dilbert.  You can
always do it yourself with a package like metamail, as long as you can
view GIFs on your display.
 
To help you figure out MIME, we refer you to the FAQ on MIME, which can
be found many places, including the newsgroup comp.mail.mime.  It is
also up for FTP in ftp.clarinet.com:help/dilbert/mime.faq
 
This is the first place to go for info on MIME.  Since every system is
different, we can't provide MIME consulting very easily.
 
How many people have MIME?  Not that many yet.  It's a chicken and
egg problem and we'll provide the egg.  By publishing a comic strip
in MIME format, we expect to help MIME get accepted.  At the same time,
we can't help the net adapt to MIME single-handedly.  There are
resources out there that can help you move into the multimedia world.
 
If handling MIME is not an option, the messages actually will contain
the strip in plain old uuencoded GIF format.  That's the format people
have used to post images to the net for years.   MIME messages can contain
parts that MIME will ignore, and the uuencoded GIF is right there at the
front.  You will need to run "uudecode" on each message, and then run a
GIF viewer on the resulting file.   Once again, it is up to you to find
and run a GIF viewer.   They are about the most commonly available graphics
viewing programs around -- if you don't know what one is, check the FAQ
files for any images newsgroup or graphics newsgroup, or check the libraries
on almost any BBS or online service, as well as graphics libraries on
almost any major FTP site.
 
You need a bitmap display, of course.  If you don't have one, this is not
for you.
 
Dilbert images will be about 780 by 280 in size, and they contain 8 gray
scales to anti-alias the lines at that low-resolution.   For those with
a narrow display, this is no problem -- since this is a 3 panel strip
cartoon, you will still easily fit a panel on your screen and can scroll
through.   Even 320 pixel wide folks will be OK.
 
And to top it off, the cartoonist is on the net, and mentions the net
in his cartoon from time to time.  He even has an E-mail address and
does answer some of his E-mail -- but be kind, and remember he needs
time to draw the strip.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- San Jose, CA 408/296-0366
 ----------------------------
Christian Mogensen   mogensen@cs.stanford.edu
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmogens cudfnChristian cudlnMogensen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Mark Warren /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 19:29:36 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA

 
Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
from news.software.readers help out here).
 
Mark
 
 
--
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmwarren cudfnMark cudlnWarren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: scott@DSG.Tandem.COM (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 21:57:00 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc., Cupertino CA

 
In article <2cqu82INNumd@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain topic
>in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the discussion
>to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to surface there?
 
You cross-post between the newsgroups with Followup-To: set to the more
appropriate newsgroup.  You post cross-postings only once or twice more, and
you indicate in the body of the message that you have set Followup-To:, e.g.
 
Followups set to sci.misc.
 
If the "snapper(s)" edit the Newsgroups: line to post back into the
inappropriate group, you may either continue the discussion, manually editing
the Newsgroups: line each time, or you may simply drop it.
 
Folks who post via gateways (fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org or news-group-name@ucbvax)
will have somewhat more difficulty and probably should either drop the topic
or take it to private email.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller, Tandem Computers     +1 408 285 5762  scott@dsg.tandem.com
Unix System/Network Administrator, Email Postmaster and Usenet Administrator
           Beware the Subjects bird, and shred/The serious Bandwidth!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar (was Re: Poison Plutonium)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 19:20:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cqu82INNumd@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain
>topic in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the
>discussion to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to
>surface there?
 
     Likely being among those with the most 'experience' around here,
     I'd be glad to help you out.  You either
 
          a) get over it.
          b) have a hissy fit.
 
     Depending on your approach, it *is* possible to inject humour and
     interest into a hissy fit though I've not seen that in the present
     case.
 
     Coal and cold fusion forever ...
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / John Logajan /  To MIME or not to MIME, was Re: Standards ...
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: To MIME or not to MIME, was Re: Standards ...
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 22:10:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>>As far as I can tell, MIME replaces uuencodeing
>
>MIME provides images in gif and jpeg, audio 8-bit ISDN 8KHz, video/mpeg
>ISO/IEC 11172, and application data as octet-streams (this is probably
>where you got the idea that it was a uuencoding replacement), ODA (for
>transmitting Open Document Interchange Format files as in ISO/IEC std 8613)
>and PostScript.
 
There seems to be several supporters of MIME.  Unfortunately, though MIME
doesn't require a change to the transport links to function, it requires
an extensive *NEW* body of mail reading support programs.
 
I am presently plowing through 200K+ MIME documents which describe it in
detail and so I don't have all the answers, but I don't see that it supports
News directly, just e-mail, and it looks like it requires installation by
the site system administrator for maximum functionality.
 
Getting site system administrators to do anything has always, in my limit
experience, caused me more lost hair and ulcers than anything else I can
think of.
 
MIME does not overthrow GIF or PostScript and it explicitly avoids defining a
compression standard.  MIME does replace uudecode with its own transport
encoding, but for the most part, MIME merely integrates the standards I have
already suggested into one program.
 
MIME is a lot of "political" complexity and headaches and it doesn't give
us any quantum leap in functionality over what we've already defined.
 
So I still say, when MIME is installed nearly universally by system
administrators then we should all adopt it.  That day isn't here yet and
it isn't easily made to be here yet by the likes of us on sci.physics.fusion.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 00:11:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov22.224724.17748@cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis <tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGuxEy.3C2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|>      I'm beginning to detect that Popperean falsifiability seems
>|>      to be passe in eco-conscious circles.
>
>I will ignore the sneer. In any case, physical climatology is an input to
>the biological sciences, but is not among them. The world-view of physical
>climatologists is that appropriate to a branch of physics in which direct
>experiment is impossible. Indeed, some of the more important work has been
>done by astrophysicists.
 
     Is this an affirmation?
 
>|> In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
>|> Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>|> >In  article  <CGoAF4.6BG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>|> >    Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)   wrote :
>|> >> Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
>|> >> over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335
>|> >> (1993), discusses the *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive
>|> >> temperature dataset for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any
>|> >> statistically significant warming trend.  Instead, they find
>|> >> a slight cooling trend in areas.
>|> >
>|> >I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>|> >on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>|> >It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>|> >there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>|> >Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
>|> >Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
>
>Cooling in a single location does not constitute a Popperianm refutation
>of a tend to warming in the global mean.
 
     Cooling in a region where the models say warming should be occuring
     is certainly a popperian refutation of the models.
 
>|> and
>|>
>|> >|>       Pretty damn damning, he said dryly.  *Current* measurements of
>|> >|>       global temperature change vs. CO2 concentration do not show
>|> >|>       the effect originally asserted here (c.f. Kahl et. al. in
>|> >|>       'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the arctic ocean
>|> >|>       in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335 (1993), discusses the
>|> >|>       *lack* of evidence in the rather extensive temperature dataset
>|> >|>       for the arctic from 1950-1990 for any statistically significant
>|> >|>       warming trend.  Instead, they find a slight cooling trend in areas.
>|> >|>       I've yet to see a 'global warming' model pushed by activists that
>|> >|>       predicts anything but warming over the poles.)
>|> >
>
>[I, not Jan, wrote the following:]
>
>|> >To be precise, warming is maximal at the EDGES of the polar region in
>|> >continental interiors. In fact, almost all the warming of the past decade has
>|> >been concentrated in Siberia, Alaska, and western Canada. Is this complaint
>|> >original to you, or is it Michaels'? In any case, it isn't entirely valid.
>
>Some context seems to have been removed here. I meant that the MODEL
>PREDICTION had maximum warming not at the poles, as Dale seems to be
>maintaining, but at the fringes of the boreal zones where climate is
>most sensitive to changes in ice albedo.
 
     I was not asserting *maximum* warming.  But *warming*.
 
     Your move.
 
>This prediction, in addition to global warming in the sense of averaging in
>the *global mean* (as scientists use the term "global warming", as opposed
>to the popular interpretation which expects warming everywhere), is verified
>in observations.
 
     I'm far from my references, but I do not believe
     satellite observations support your position globally.
 
     In any case, it is my understanding the most of the models 'predict'
     warming over the poles.  Insofar as they do not, the models are
     incorrect.
 
     And I do not believe that calculations that are inaccurate locally
     can be 'correct' for global averages.  It may happen, but it
     is probably fortuitous.
 
>No climate modelling study ever concluded that global warming would be
>uniform in time or space. Any evidence that it is not so uniform does not
>falsify the rather modest claims made by the modellers.
 
     That's not the point.  I'm not asking for it to be uniform, I'm
     asking why the failure of major characteristics of the model does
     not lead one to take the model as incorrect.
 
>The actual claims made go like this: in this model system, which represents
>current climate (and sometimes paleoclimate) with thus-and-such fidelity,
>shows a tendency to do thus-and-such under doubled greenhouse gas forcing.
 
     It's 'fidelity' that's the problem here.  Such calculations
     are very sensitive to the model, and I do not believe calculations
     based on so little data when the calculations themselves are
     so sensitive.
 
>I will grant that such a statement is unsatisfactory in a number of ways,
>but since we only have a single real-world biosphere to play with, this
>is the closest we can come to an experimental climatology.
 
     I'm fine with that state of affairs.  What I am *not* fine with
     is basing economic policy on it.
 
>Dale claims that this makes the models useless. Presumably he never listens
>to weather predictions, (which are largely based on closely related models
>and which objectively show substantial improvement over the past three
>decades) in that case.
 
     To about 10 days.  After 20 days, no amount of computing power in
     the world will do much better.
 
>We have a number of largely *independent* models that reproduce climate and
>paleoclimate well enough to be worthy of consideration. The range of
>sensitivities to greenhouse gas perturbations is fairly large, mostly due
>to questions of cloud albedo feedback. (The runs are typically short enough
>that deep ocean variability doesn't come into play.) All of them indicate
>global warming in the beginning of the next century, of a magnitude
>comparable to that obtained from several other lines of reasoning, and with
>a spatial distribution with maximum warming at the edges of the ice caps,
>in rough agreement with recently observed anomalies.
 
     We have a number of independent models that were *trying* to match
     the same trends.  So the fact that they mostly come up with the same
     answer is not altogether surprising.  If the models don't match, they're
     usually tossed.
 
     What do you think the citation history of an article that
     found trends opposite to those from the paleoclimate assumptions
     would be (even if it matched current data)?
 
>We have to make policy decisions based on the best available information.
>A requirement for certainty in policy-making is a recipe for paralysis.
 
     Wisdom is knowing when the 'best available information' is
     inadequate.
 
>The models that Dale so insistently questions are among several streams of
>evidence indicating that the time for concern in this matter is upon us.
>Policy is typically made on the basis of far less widely held opinions on
>the part of economists, a far less precise discipline than physical
>climatology. Why should climatology be held to a standard of proof so much
>higher than economists' when the indicated policy of the two disciplines
>(apparently) disagree?
 
     Economics?  I cannot think of a discipline that involves *more*
     voodoo.   If it were me, I wouldn't have brought it up.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Flamewar
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flamewar
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 00:25:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov22.170839.15726@desire.wright.edu>,
 <jbatka@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGwr2y.H9E@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> In article <2cqu82INNumd@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>> Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>Experienced netters: What do you do when people snap at you on a certain
>>>topic in a given newsgroup, there exists a much better newsgroup for the
>>>discussion to take place, but the person(s) doing the snapping refuse to
>>>surface there?
>>
>>      Likely being among those with the most 'experience' around here,
>>      I'd be glad to help you out.  You either
>>
>>           a) get over it.
>>           b) have a hissy fit.
>>
>Dale,
>
>You forgot two other possibilities that are generally reserved for
>extreme violations:
>
>           c) Send numerous and extensive Email LETTERS (please spare
>              the rest of us and keep the dialogue private).
>           d) Write complaints to that person's site admin. and hope
>              that he pulls the plug on the violator.
>
>REMEMBER those are for extreme cases and I don't think the current
>dialogue is that extreme.  After all it does have some relevance to
>fusion, granted not much.
 
     One should be very careful about c) mailbombing.  That's one of the
     fastest ways to get your *own* access yanked.  And I suspect d)
     is going to be a laugh at most sites, especially in a disagreement
     over the appropriateness of postings to a newsgroup.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / John Logajan /  More MIME was Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More MIME was Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 01:28:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mogens@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Christian L. Mogensen) writes:
>I was invited over from infosystems.www to defend MIME and the open
>standard RFCs.
 
I brought MIME up in a local (company) newsgroup and this is the response
I got.  Food for thought for those eager to jump on this standard.
 
>From: name withheld for lack of permission
>Subject: Re: MIME  multimedia via email
 
        Well, I think 'adopting it' means going and getting one or more
of the MIME capable versions of the standard mail readers and
installing them, no? Go for it, it's not that hard. Just type 'make'!
 
        However, if someone attempts to force me to use a MIME
mail reader, they will fail miserably. Attempting to hammer all manner
of ridiculous frills atop email is silly -- if what you want is a
method for encapsulating and transmitting multi-part/multi-type
files, why try to beat it into email? I have absolutely no desire
to let any goober out there on the big ol' net execute code on
my machine by merely sending me email.
 
        PostScript is a classic example. This may be fixed, but early
versions of PS renderers hotwired to email ran with the file operations
live. Yep, that's right, I could wipe out all the files you owned,
or slip trojan horses into your account or any number of other fun
things, just by sending you email.
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / John Logajan /  Truce
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Truce
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 01:44:15 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

In the name of peace, I'll let the last word from the eco's go unanswered.
Truce anyone?
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 03:33:33 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <CGx4Jw.8r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia
EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Cooling in a region where the models say warming should be occuring
>     is certainly a popperian refutation of the models.
>
 
Mr. Bass seems to insist of strong use of the law of the excluded middle.
That seems to be the heart of his disagreement with Michael Tobis.
As a mathematician, this should warm my heart, but having done some
reading in climatology---purely as an amateur---I have learned that
it is full of ambiguities and qualifications.   This makes it somewhat
unsatisfactory, but it doesn't make it unscientific.   Because both the
theory and the observations are full of so many caveats, it is probably
not possible for a single kind of data to establish or falsify
the basic theory.
However, over a sufficiently long time and with enough data, what is correct
should become clear.   Say if in the 22nd century, without any efforts
to control fossil fuel emissions, the average temperature at the
surface of the Earth---measured in any plausible manner---is about
3 deg C warmer, then I think we will be able to consider the matter
settled.   Michael Tobis and I think that is likely but we cannot know
it at present.
 
>
>     I'm far from my references, but I do not believe
>     satellite observations support your position globally.
 
Satelite observations for the period 1979 to the present show no
consistent warming trend.   However, surface measurements and
radiosonde measurements during this period do show a warming
trend during the same period.  Unfortunately, the period is quite
short, so natural variability (which by the way is predicted by
the more recent dynamic models) could hide any increase.  Also,
two volcanic eruptions have distorted the record.   About all one
can say about this is that the sum total of the data for this
period is ambiguous.
 
>
>     In any case, it is my understanding the most of the models 'predict'
>     warming over the poles.  Insofar as they do not, the models are
>     incorrect.
>
 
If I  understood what Michael has been saying and what I could glean
from looking at recent model prediction charts in IPCC (1992), this
is an oversimplification.   That is not exactly what the models
show.   One should remember that the models are not very precise
about much of anything.   Mr.  Bass should really carefully study
the IPCC Reports and Supplement.   He would find much more support
for his case there.   It is full of on the one hand this and on the
other hand that.   If he concentrates on one hand, he will have a lot
more evidence for his case than he argues for here.
 
>     And I do not believe that calculations that are inaccurate locally
>     can be 'correct' for global averages.  It may happen, but it
>     is probably fortuitous.
>
 
I think this is a misunderstanding of how the models are supposed to
work.   I am not an expert and don't claim to follow the reasoning,
but the modelers take pains to point out that local predictions
of the models are much less reliable than global predictions.   Since
much of this has to do with global considerations of energy balances
as mediated by the details of the atmosphere, oceans, etc., this
is not at all implausible.
 
>     That's not the point.  I'm not asking for it to be uniform, I'm
>     asking why the failure of major characteristics of the model does
>     not lead one to take the model as incorrect.
 
Notice again the either/or characterization.  Of course, no model
is rigorously correct, including, I dare say, the models Mr. Bass deals with
professionally.   Since a model involves approximations, it can only
be approximately correct.   The question is whether it can be useful
for understanding the phenomena.   For some models, one can ignore
this because high degrees of accuracy can be obtained.  However, in many
areas, such as climatology, we are not so fortunate and have to do the
best we can.   What is a `major characteristic' of the model is
unfotunately not so clear.
 
>
>     We have a number of independent models that were *trying* to match
>     the same trends.  So the fact that they mostly come up with the same
>     answer is not altogether surprising.  If the models don't match, they're
>     usually tossed.
>
 
Again, as far as I can see, with my limited understanding of what the
models do, this is wrong.   The models are adjusted so they reflect
present climate, and they are tested in a variety of ways to see
if they represent current reality.   Then, CO2  concentrations
are `instantaneously doubled', and the evolution of the system
back to equilibrium is followed.  The above analysis suggests
that the modelers are trying to produce warming and reject models
which don't do it.   If that were the case, they would be guilty
of such flagrant abuse of the scientific method that no one would
pay any attention to what they say.  However, they are in fact
honest people doing the best they can with an extremely difficult
but improtant problem.   (The above description refers to the
so-called equilibrium models.   Dynamic models are somewhat more
complicated.)
 
>
>     What do you think the citation history of an article that
>     found trends opposite to those from the paleoclimate assumptions
>     would be (even if it matched current data)?
>
 
What does this mean?
 
>
>     Wisdom is knowing when the 'best available information' is
>     inadequate.
>
 
Perhaps not always.   The best available information about fat in
one's diet is presently inadequate, at least from a scientific
point of view.   Yet given that my mother and all her siblings have
had heart disease and two have had colon cancer, it would be
prudent for me to eat a very low fat diet.   We are often required to
act in face of great uncertainty.   If the required actions are
not likely to be very disruptive and may even have positive results
unrelated to the reason for action, then we may rationally decide
to act.
 
P.S.  On the philosophic side, I suggest reading Steven Weinberg's
`Dreams of a Final Theory', where he makes some interesting comments
about the role of theory and experiment in physics.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 05:24:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGx4Jw.8r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     Cooling in a region where the models say warming should be occuring
>>     is certainly a popperian refutation of the models.
>>
>
>Mr. Bass seems to insist of strong use of the law of the excluded middle.
>That seems to be the heart of his disagreement with Michael Tobis.
>As a mathematician, this should warm my heart, but having done some
>reading in climatology---purely as an amateur---I have learned that
>it is full of ambiguities and qualifications.   This makes it somewhat
>unsatisfactory, but it doesn't make it unscientific.
 
     The problem is that no observation seems to shake the faith of
     certain of the faithful.  A couple of days ago we were actually
     treated to an explanation that 'global warming' was inevitable
     owing to Stefan-Boltzmann law and the first law of thermodynamics.
     Now if *I'd* made that type of argument *against* the hypothesis of
     global warming, I'd have been crucified.  We've seen the
     variability in the models of global warming (the same models
     that give us much of our 'confidence' concerning the temperature
     sensitivity of CO2 levels) being used to *defend* the hypothesis
     of global warming against inconvenient data.
 
     There seems to be a strong tendency to 'explain away' observations
     that do not happen to fit the current fashion.  This is perfectly
     fine by me in Egyptology; no one is going to make multi-billion
     dollar decisions on whether the pyramid at Meidum collapsed or
     not.   However, expensive and potentially very foolish
     decisions *are* being made based on climatological models.
 
> Because both the
>theory and the observations are full of so many caveats, it is probably
>not possible for a single kind of data to establish or falsify
>the basic theory.
>However, over a sufficiently long time and with enough data, what is correct
>should become clear.
 
     I certainly hope so.
 
>>
>>     I'm far from my references, but I do not believe
>>     satellite observations support your position globally.
>
>Satelite observations for the period 1979 to the present show no
>consistent warming trend.   However, surface measurements and
>radiosonde measurements during this period do show a warming
>trend during the same period.  Unfortunately, the period is quite
>short, so natural variability (which by the way is predicted by
>the more recent dynamic models) could hide any increase.  Also,
>two volcanic eruptions have distorted the record.
 
     Maybe, maybe not.  The problem becomes that recent extensive datasets
     away from human habitation do not seem to show the warming trend.
     These include datasets that extend outside the period 1979-present.
 
>   About all one
>can say about this is that the sum total of the data for this
>period is ambiguous.
 
     Which is a very good reason why assertions that 'global warming'
     *is* happening are quite incorrect.
>>
>>     In any case, it is my understanding the most of the models 'predict'
>>     warming over the poles.  Insofar as they do not, the models are
>>     incorrect.
>>
>
>If I  understood what Michael has been saying and what I could glean
>from looking at recent model prediction charts in IPCC (1992), this
>is an oversimplification.   That is not exactly what the models
>show.   One should remember that the models are not very precise
>about much of anything.
 
     Absolutely, predictions based on such models are not very promising,
     he said dryly.  In any case, I believe that what I've said is correct.
 
>>     And I do not believe that calculations that are inaccurate locally
>>     can be 'correct' for global averages.  It may happen, but it
>>     is probably fortuitous.
>
>I think this is a misunderstanding of how the models are supposed to
>work.   I am not an expert and don't claim to follow the reasoning,
>but the modelers take pains to point out that local predictions
>of the models are much less reliable than global predictions.   Since
>much of this has to do with global considerations of energy balances
>as mediated by the details of the atmosphere, oceans, etc., this
>is not at all implausible.
 
     I am a CFD modeler.  The averages in an averaged model are only as
     good as the model put in.  Since the model put in basically assumes
     transport mechanisms and rates that produce a certain temperature
     sensitivity to things like CO2, then one is not surprised when one
     gets similar sensitivity out of the model.
 
     Any time someone tells you that the local predictions of a CFD model
     are no good, but the global predictions are pretty good, ask them
     how they put the global averages into the model.  You'll always find
     significant defining assumptions for things like average
     energy transport and/or mass transport are either a) built into the
     model, or b) built into the boundary conditions.  These assumptions
     insure that you'll get out what you thought you would.
 
>>     That's not the point.  I'm not asking for it to be uniform, I'm
>>     asking why the failure of major characteristics of the model does
>>     not lead one to take the model as incorrect.
>
>Notice again the either/or characterization.  Of course, no model
>is rigorously correct, including, I dare say, the models Mr. Bass deals with
>professionally.
 
     Okay, more precisely, 'I'm asking why the failure of major characteristics
     of the model does not lead one to take the model as an inappropriate
     approximation'.
 
     I'm more than happy to play word games since each iteration
     only accentuates the fact that the question was never answered.
 
>   Since a model involves approximations, it can only
>be approximately correct.   The question is whether it can be useful
>for understanding the phenomena.
 
     This is a word game again.  I would assume that all of us understand
     this.
 
>  For some models, one can ignore
>this because high degrees of accuracy can be obtained.  However, in many
>areas, such as climatology, we are not so fortunate and have to do the
>best we can.   What is a `major characteristic' of the model is
>unfotunately not so clear.
 
     Then the models are completely worthless.  There will *always*
     be *some* characteristic that corresponds to some bit of data.
 
>>
>>     We have a number of independent models that were *trying* to match
>>     the same trends.  So the fact that they mostly come up with the same
>>     answer is not altogether surprising.  If the models don't match, they're
>>     usually tossed.
>>
>
>Again, as far as I can see, with my limited understanding of what the
>models do, this is wrong.   The models are adjusted so they reflect
>present climate, and they are tested in a variety of ways to see
>if they represent current reality.
 
      The models are 'adjusted' so that reflect 'present climate'.
      For current and paleoclimate, this includes the implicit assumption
      of a certain CO2 sensitivity.  This is exactly my point.
 
>  Then, CO2  concentrations
>are `instantaneously doubled', and the evolution of the system
>back to equilibrium is followed.  The above analysis suggests
>that the modelers are trying to produce warming and reject models
>which don't do it.
 
     No, it suggests that 'successful' models reproduce such warming
     owing to implicit use of warming.
 
>pay any attention to what they say.  However, they are in fact
>honest people doing the best they can with an extremely difficult
>but improtant problem.   (The above description refers to the
>so-called equilibrium models.   Dynamic models are somewhat more
>complicated.)
 
     Of course they're honest.  Look at the history of the value of
     the gravitational constant.  You'll find that expectation is very
     important, and that can be *measured*.
 
>>     What do you think the citation history of an article that
>>     found trends opposite to those from the paleoclimate assumptions
>>     would be (even if it matched current data)?
>>
>
>What does this mean?
 
     Suppose I had a model that showed no significant sensitivity
     to CO2 effects and 'reproduced' the arctic data of the last 40 years
     in some 'averaged sense'. Suppose, however, it did not 'approximate'
     the paleoclimate data assumed from the limited dataset.  How
     many times do you think my model would be referenced (even supposing
     it passed peer review?
 
>>
>>     Wisdom is knowing when the 'best available information' is
>>     inadequate.
>>
>
>Perhaps not always.   The best available information about fat in
>one's diet is presently inadequate, at least from a scientific
>point of view.   Yet given that my mother and all her siblings have
>had heart disease and two have had colon cancer, it would be
>prudent for me to eat a very low fat diet.
 
     Fine by me.
 
> We are often required to
>act in face of great uncertainty.
 
     Where is the requirement here?
 
>   If the required actions are
>not likely to be very disruptive and may even have positive results
>unrelated to the reason for action, then we may rationally decide
>to act.
 
     The rub is 'not likely to be disruptive'.  May I suggest that
     placing hundreds of billions in taxes on CO2 emissions *is*
     disruptive.
 
>P.S.  On the philosophic side, I suggest reading Steven Weinberg's
>`Dreams of a Final Theory', where he makes some interesting comments
>about the role of theory and experiment in physics.
 
     I cannot stand the whole idea of a 'final theory'.  The
     hubris runs deep and strong.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Nick Janow /  Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: 23 Nov 93 06:43:23 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

What is the major problem with Hirsch's electrostatic confinement reactor?  I
haven't had much luck finding details about it at the local libraries.  What
I have read makes it sound like an extremely simple system, and one that was
actually producing D-T reactions in a table-top reactor.  For such a simple,
working system to be dropped in favour of the more complex magnetic and
inertial confinement systems suggests some serious flaws.
 
So, does it meet physical limits before scaling up to break-even size?  Are
losses too high?  Something else?
 
--
 
Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenNick_Janow cudfnNick cudlnJanow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Jim Bowery /  To MIME or not to MIME, was Re: Standards ...
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: To MIME or not to MIME, was Re: Standards ...
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 08:16:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Network Systems Corporation writes:

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Organization: Network Systems Corporation writes:
>There seems to be several supporters of MIME.  Unfortunately, though MIME
>doesn't require a change to the transport links to function, it requires
>an extensive *NEW* body of mail reading support programs.
 
Not everyone has all the pieces of software on hand that you
propose to use to support your standard, John.  For those people,
they will have to obtain an extensive *NEW* body of mail reading
support programs either way.
 
>I am presently plowing through 200K+ MIME documents which describe it in
>detail and so I don't have all the answers, but I don't see that it supports
>News directly, just e-mail,
 
If that's the case then why did Brad Templeton say the following:
>MIME allows graphics to be
>sent as E-mail or as news messages for automatic decoding by mailers and
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>newsreaders that know about it.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^
Quoting Logajan again:
>and it looks like it requires installation by
>the site system administrator for maximum functionality.
Partial MIME functionality is equivalent to your standard, depending
on which part of MIME functionality you are talking about.
 
>Getting site system administrators to do anything has always, in my limit
>experience, caused me more lost hair and ulcers than anything else I can
>think of.
 
If the functionality possible without system admin intervention is
inadequate, then this could be a show stopper for MIME in general.
 
>MIME does not overthrow GIF or PostScript
That was a design goal of MIME and seems irrelevant to the current
issue in any case.  The question is can it provide equivalent services.
The answer is yes.
 
>...for the most part, MIME merely integrates the standards I have
>already suggested into one program.
Exactly.  That's why it is valuable.
 
>MIME is a lot of "political" complexity and headaches and it doesn't give
>us any quantum leap in functionality over what we've already defined.
 
I agree that if:
 
1) Such "politics" are necessary to achieve a level of utility sufficient
for sci.physics.fusion,
 
and if:
 
2) MIME advocates can't address this concern
 
MIME advocates will have failed in their mission and adoption of MIME
should be avoided for the time being.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 07:49:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <CGx4Jw.8r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
=In article <1993Nov22.224724.17748@cs.wisc.edu>,
=Michael Tobis <tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
=>In article <CGuxEy.3C2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
=>|>      I'm beginning to detect that Popperean falsifiability seems
=>|>      to be passe in eco-conscious circles.
=>
=>I will ignore the sneer. In any case, physical climatology is an input to
=>the biological sciences, but is not among them. The world-view of physical
=>climatologists is that appropriate to a branch of physics in which direct
=>experiment is impossible. Indeed, some of the more important work has been
=>done by astrophysicists.
=
=     Is this an affirmation?
 
No, it's simply a statement describing the backgrounds of some of the
scientists involved.  Do you have trouble reading?
 
=>Cooling in a single location does not constitute a Popperianm refutation
=>of a tend to warming in the global mean.
=
=     Cooling in a region where the models say warming should be occuring
=     is certainly a popperian refutation of the models.
 
And cooling in a region where the models say things could go either way does
NOT constitute a refutation of the model.  Do you have trouble reading?
 
=>Some context seems to have been removed here. I meant that the MODEL
=>PREDICTION had maximum warming not at the poles, as Dale seems to be
=>maintaining, but at the fringes of the boreal zones where climate is
=>most sensitive to changes in ice albedo.
=
=     I was not asserting *maximum* warming.  But *warming*.
=
=     Your move.
 
Do you have trouble reading?  The models predict an increase in the global mean
temperature.  Except for a few special cases, they don't say whether the mean
temperature at a given point will increase or decrease.  Somehow, you seem
incapable of understanding that.  Let me state it explicitly for you:
        Global warming != Ubiquitous warming
Simple enough for your to understand?
 
=>No climate modelling study ever concluded that global warming would be
=>uniform in time or space. Any evidence that it is not so uniform does not
=>falsify the rather modest claims made by the modellers.
=
=     That's not the point.  I'm not asking for it to be uniform, I'm
=     asking why the failure of major characteristics of the model does
=     not lead one to take the model as incorrect.
 
No, you're asking why the failure of your misinterpretation of the model
doesn't falsify the model.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: 23 Nov 93 20:40:54 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <kemidb.753616846@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> Considering Steve Jones' revelations about neutron artifacts, I would say
> that Yamaguchi is as dead as Leibowitz.
>
> Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
> --------------------------
>
 
 Sorry Dieter, but the above does not convey much information. I have not
been able to look at the net for a few days, which revelations do you refer
to? Could you please give a date, title, item No. or article ID ? Anything ?
Many thanks in anticipation.
                                        Kind Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 12:02:30 GMT

In <CGwJGx.CnC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>     And in *my* unabridged dictionary (Random House):
>
>          ecoterrorist  n.  one who commits ecotage.
>
>          ecotage  n. sabotage aimed at polluters or destroyers
>                      of the natural environment.
There's a simpler definition. A 'terrorist' is one who attempts to
gain their ends through the use of terror. I think we can all agree
that the doomsday scenarios most loved by the eco-activists are aimed
at terrorising the average bloke in the street, who may not have the
resources to differentiate fact from fantasy. When was the last time
you heard an activist admit to anything other than absolute certainty ?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 12:16:57 GMT

In <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
> --- whole lot of stuff deleted for brevity's sake ---
Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
it never answered, but only excised ?? I'll repeat, no-one has any
problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 132 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 132 patents/appl.).
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 15:53:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Hello all,
 
The paper below, for your pleasure. It is unusually long for a Russian one,
but like many such papers, is full of waffle. Russians work on the principle
that if you can say it with three words, by all means use 20. Ah well. This,
if I remember rightly, is the second mention of Al in connection with cold
fusion (use WAIS to find the other!). I mean as the cathode - not as a magic
ingredient to add to the electrolyte.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 23-Nov-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 844
 
 
Journal papers; files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anufriev GS, Boltenkov BS;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Materialoved. 1991,
(2(56)) 73 (in Russian).
"Helium isotopes and hydrogen in aluminium and other metals".
** Isotopic distributions and amounts of the isotopes of 3He, 4He, T and H
were studied in some samples of Al produced by electrolysis. Out of several
samples, one had not only larger than normal concentrations of both 3He and
tritium, but also unusual T/H and 3He/4He ratios (4*10^-8 and 1.2, resp.,
against the more normal values 10^-11-12 and 10^-4, resp., it is not clear
what is normal here). Some conventional hypotheses are advanced, all based on
contamination from the lab; all can be rejected mostly in terms of diffusion
arguments. An experiment is done with Ag, in which D is much more mobile, and
yet it had less T; other experiments with Ni foils, too, did not achieve the
same results as the Al. Although no detail is given, there are also
correlations between 3He and T content in the Al and time of electrolysis in
the cryolite bath. Some materials associated with Al in its manufacture, such
as cryolite, lime stone, alumina, AlF3, "nephelitic concentrate" and Al(OH)3,
did not have the extra isotopes, so they do not come from these raw materials.
Only cold fusion, strongly stimulated by the electrolysis, is left.   Nov-90/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Second to Steve Jones's Motion
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Second to Steve Jones's Motion
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 01:28:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think Steve Jones has pointed out one of the key problems with cold
fusion positive results!  There have now been enough experiments over
a long enough period of time and under a great variety of circumstances
such that we can begin to study the statistical features of this
data set.  As Steve points out none of the positive results have moved
clearly out of the range of the "noise".
 
I would propose to consider this question within the context of the
time evolution one might expect for experimental results as techniques
get refined and experimental problems get resolved.  It is natural to
expect that the data gets better with time, but does the actual
situtation with cold fusion show such a trend?  In part the evolution
of experimental results is governed by the intentional changes made in
the way experiments are done.  It is up to the experimenters to improve
their methods on the basis of what was learned in previous attempts.
To pick on one example, what would be a resonable way to change
sample size used in experiments if there were a concern that the effect
was being masked by a systematic error in the measurement of input power?
I would have said that larger samples relative to the heat capacity
of the calorimeter might be the way to go.  If making the sample size
smaller makes the effect appear to grow shouldn't we be just a bit
concerned about that data?
 
My other comment has to do with the assumption that appears to be
implicite in Dieter Britz's recent comment on Steve's table.  That
is the assumption that the experimental "noise" falls into a
symmetric distribution about zero error.  I think one should
not overlook the possibility that a given experimental technique
has a systematic bias.  There are certainly examples of that to be
seen in recent controversial results in other fields so why not for
cold fusion.  For that reason complete replication using identical
techniques is not really sufficient evidence.  It should be possible
to develop a consistant data set on the basis of a variety of experiments.
I don't see such a data set developing in support of cold fusion.
 
Finally, even though I can't suggest a reason to discount the Pons
and Fleischmann data from the phases prior to boiling beyond things
mentioned previously, the very appearance of the data raises plenty
of unanswered questions.  I would hope that someone knows the answers
to some of these questions.  For example, looking at fig 2 from the
P&F presentation at Nagoya, I see a long sequence of temperature
pulses showing the response to calibration input pulses.  There
is also clearly a negative "glich" in temperature between each and
every pulse.  What is that negative glich?  There is also the
constant trend of rising temperature and rising cell voltage
that ultimately leads to boiling.  Has anyone offered an explaination
for the rising cell resistance?  I also see that the cell potential
goes down each time the calibration pulse is on.  Is that a real effect
or is it a clear sign of cross talk between signals?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  blue@dancer.ns /  State of cold fusion theory
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: State of cold fusion theory
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 01:28:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think that one of the most puzzling and persistant rumours regarding
cold fusion is the notion that there are some high-powered theorists
lending their support to the validity of cold fusion.  Names most
often invoked are Schwinger and Hagelstein.  My question is where are
these theories written?  Who has seen anything in print that can be
passed off as theory that gets around the basic problems of scaling
factors on time, space, and energy that would say cold fusion just
can't happen?  I would like to see at least an outline as to what these
theories are supposed to cover.  In the case of Hagelstein, I have seen
the words he is credited with having written in the form of his
summary of the Nagoya conference.  He clearly states that he has given
up the notion that collective effects can lead to the d + d -> 4He with
no gamma as the primary CF reaction.  In short Hagelstein is not going
to produce a theory that supports the current picture of cold fusion
as we have seen it described here.  If there really is a theory for
cold fusion where is it?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 93 19:40:50 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <CGyIA1.B84@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
|>     It seems odd to use sensitive dependence on initial conditions
|>     to suggest that we're playing russian roulette, and then suggest
|>     that a good option would be to alter current rates of change.
 
|>     That's logically inconsistent. Massive climatological change has
|>     happened in the past without us.  We can have no idea whether
|>     such sensitivity will result in a positive or negative impact from either
 
|>               a) Increasing CO2 emission
|>               b) Decreasing CO2 emission
|>               c) Leaving CO2 emission the same
 
|>     So, why choose one option over the others on this basis?
 
Surely this is disingenuous!
 
On physical grounds, climate responds to CO2 concentrations, not to emission
rates. So the choices a,b,and c amount to
 
        a) a relatively large perturbation of the system
        b) a relatively small perturbation of the system
        c) an intermediate perturbation of the system
 
So inevitably choice a) is the riskiest from the point of view of forced
climate change.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 18:58:50 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <CGyI06.AzI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Of course I am.  I am pointing to the fact that this subject
>     is not as settled as the 'Of course there's global warming'
>     school would have us believe.
 
and:
 
>    happened in the past without us.  We can have no idea whether
>    such sensitivity will result in a positive or negative impact from either
 
>              a) Increasing CO2 emission
>              b) Decreasing CO2 emission
>              c) Leaving CO2 emission the same
 
 
Has anyone here said 'Of course there's global warming'?  You shouldn't
argue these points on what someone else said elsewhere.  And is it true
that we have "no idea" about these impacts"?  The existence of
uncertainties is very different from having no idea about results.
Many scientists do think they have an idea.  Does not the Stefan-Boltzmann
law provide the _idea_?  What then are you arguing for: the
existence of uncertainties or the absence of substantive knowledge?
 
You already admitted focusing on evidence from one side to show that
uncertainties exist, something which noone here denies.
Such a focus on one side tends to hide whatever the middle thinks and
therefore hides the consensus.  This is the tactic used by political
interests on both sides of many issues.  Many scientists do have _some_
idea about the impacts of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
That "some idea" indicates risks.  It is one thing to argue the level of
the risk and another to deny it.  I wonder if Dale similarly doubts the
consensus on the CFC-ozone depletion connection.  After all, there are
uncertainties there also.
 
--
 -- Dean Myerson        (dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Jan Schloerer /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:50:24 GMT
Organization: University of Ulm, Germany

Sorry for responding late, too much to do.  Meanwhile, most of the
article I'm responding to has been discussed in detail by people
who are much more competent than I am, so just two points  (and then
I'll leave this thread to the experts) :
 
 
In article  <CGusCr.1K8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)  wrote :
 
> In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
> Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>
>> For the temperature record of the last glacial maximum and deglacia-
>> tion there's Vostok, there are the Greenland Ice Cores, most notably
>> the Summit Cores, there are deep sea cores, all of them in broad
>> agreement.  The Vostok CO2 measurements  _do_  provide a global signal,
>> the interhemispheric mixing time is on the order of two years.
>
> 'Broad agreement' of point measurements is not compelling, especially
> when local variation can be so great, and assumptions about
> interhemispheric mixing in past times are model-dependent and
> relatively inaccessible to current probing.  That said, we're relying
> on even more uncertain models of global events using point
> measurements with wildly uncertain conditions.  For the CO2
> measurements in Greenland, consider 'A natural artifact in
> Greenland Ice-core CO2 measurements',Tellus B, 45:391 (1993)
> in which it is asserted that artificially high CO2 measurements
> may arise from interaction between alkaline and acidic impurities
> in the ice.
 
I still think it's unlikely that artefacts have provided for basically
similar CO2 records in several cores from Antarctica (Vostok, Byrd)
and Greenland (Camp Century, Dye 3;  haven't yet heard of a CO2 record
from the Summit Cores).  Possible, but unlikely.  As far as my
amateurish understanding goes, the main problems are elsewhere.
It's presently impossible to precisely quantify the sensitivity of
the paleoclimate to the greenhouse gas variations during the last
glaciation and deglaciation.  Even if this were possible, the result
need not be applicable to the present state of our planet, which is
different from what it was 20,000 years ago.  One of the pickles
when trying to learn from paleoclimates seems that there appears to be
no full analogue to the present situation in the geologic record.
 
 
 
Regarding  Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335,  I wrote :
 
>> I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>> on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>> It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>> there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>> Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
 
My English, being not my first language, is awkward.  Anyway I would
have thought to have expressed clearly that I presumed that there's
something the  _models_  fail to take into account.  You answered :
 
>     Yes, you've just shown your true colors.
>     This is depressingly familiar around here (sci.physics.fusion):
>
>     'Even though the models that predict it are flawed to the point
>     of incoherence, we *know* that global warming *must* be occurring.
>     So we must figure out why the data is wrong' ...
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Interesting attitude.
 
 
Jan Schloerer                    schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Uni Ulm     Klinische Dokumentation     D-89070 Ulm     Germany
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenSCHLOERER cudfnJan cudlnSchloerer cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 21:57:21 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <CGyI06.AzI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2ct8vb$qk3@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
>>have is to tip the balance for those who are undecided.  Of
>>course, stalwart defenders of increased use of fossil fuels
>>won't be convinced by such arguments, but some fence sitters
>>may be.   Unfortunately, it may turn out that the matter is
>>settled politically some 10 or 15 years from now by virtue of
>>some extreme climatic events such as hot summers in crucial
>>areas, severe storms, and the like.
>
>     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
>     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
>     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
>
>>  These events may in fact
>>not have much to do with global warming predictions, or if
>>they do, we won't be able to prove it for another 50 years.
>>However, some actions will be demanded by an angry public, but
>>those actions will likely be unrepsonsive to the problem.
>
>     Angry public?  They *should* be angry at being misled.
>
>                         dale bass
 
I don't think you read what I said.   I wasn't proposing that public
hysteria be encouraged now or in the future.  If the scenario
I suggested occurred, whom do think the public should be angry
at?
 
Let me elaborate a bit on what I meant.   If doubling or tripling
CO2 concentration makes no essential difference in climate, I don't think
you have to worry about people like me misleading the public.
They will get bored with the subject, as in fact they now have.
Your side will win the argument, as indeed it should.   On the
other hand, if doubling or tripling CO2 concentration makes a
significant difference in climate, this may be manifested in
unexpected ways which cannot be tied immediately to CO2 concentration.  In
other words, some of the disruptive effects may occur before the
scientific explanation.   In such an environment, other random
events, anything from hurricanes to crop failures, may also be
blamed on global warming.  Thus, an hysterical response
which is inappropriate may result from public perception of
real climate change.  I don't really think you have to worry
about public hysteria resulting from imagined climate change.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 21:44:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2csf9n$k77@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
 
>Do you have trouble reading?
 
>Do you have trouble reading?
 
>Do you have trouble reading?
 
    Why no, but thanks for asking.
 
> The models predict an increase in the global mean
>temperature.  Except for a few special cases, they don't say whether the mean
>temperature at a given point will increase or decrease.  Somehow, you seem
>incapable of understanding that.  Let me state it explicitly for you:
>       Global warming != Ubiquitous warming
>Simple enough for your to understand?
 
    Bzzt, but thanks for playing.
 
    'Despite differences in the longitudinal dependences, all models
    indicate at least some polar amplification of the greenhouse warming.'
    Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E., Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 74:33 (1993).
 
    Simple enough for you to understand?
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 21:46:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov23.164354.20427@vexcel.com>,
Dean Alaska <dean@vexcel.com> wrote:
>
>Michael Tobis has asked recently how much proof the skeptics would need
>to support some level of CO2 mitigation actions.  At least some of the
>skeptics are certainly willing to claim benefits from climate change
>based on evidence no stronger than that which proves otherwise.
 
    When changes are a crapshoot, we go with the ones that
    are cheapest.  Currently, alteration of our behavior regarding
    CO2 emission is a crapshoot.
 
                             dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:35:44 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <CGysHw.Go9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1993Nov23.164354.20427@vexcel.com>,
>Dean Alaska <dean@vexcel.com> wrote:
>>
>>Michael Tobis has asked recently how much proof the skeptics would need
>>to support some level of CO2 mitigation actions.  At least some of the
>>skeptics are certainly willing to claim benefits from climate change
>>based on evidence no stronger than that which proves otherwise.
>
>    When changes are a crapshoot, we go with the ones that
>    are cheapest.  Currently, alteration of our behavior regarding
>    CO2 emission is a crapshoot.
>
A crapshoot huh?  This gets back to the point about whether research
provides an indication (not certainty) as to effects of increased CO2
concentrations.  This discussion started with your belief that the models
were useless and that there were uncertainties.  Now it has migrated to
a claim that existing research provides no indication as to effects of
increased CO2 concentrations.  You obviously disagree with the consensus
demonstrated in the IPCC reports.  Thats fine.  Minority opinions are
valuable and you may be right.  But from a public policy perspective,
do we base our decisions on what the minority of the majority of
scientific opinion thinks?  Do we wait for 100% consensus within the
relevent scientific community to take research results seriously?  Do
you believe that an objective scientist looking at all of the data can
honestly disagree with you and support the IPCC consensus?
 
--
 -- Dean Myerson        (dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 15:07:23 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

 
Dale Bass has made all sorts of assertions about models and data.
I think he is selectively choosing data which disagrees with global
warming predictions and ignoring data which support such predictions.
Unfortunately, one can't go into all these issues without in essence
rewriting the chapters on observational verification in the IPCC
reports.   I don't claim that global warming predictions would be
proved if a few aspects of such predictions were verified observationally,
but I don't think that is the case.   The data, its validity, and
its interpretation are really confusing.   At present it neither
establishes model predictions nor demolishes them.   As someone outside
the field who has read the discussions, I think the sum total of
the data supports the contention that rising concentrations of
greenhouse gases have affected climate.   However, I think it is
also possible to argue that the data do not support that conclusion.
What it is not fair, nor indeed scientific, is to argue that the
matter has been settled and global warming predictions have been
falsified by the sum total of the data.
 
That brings us to the question of the underlying physics and the
attempt to quantify it through computer modelling.   Bass claims
that the sensitivity to CO2 is built into the models to start.
In some sense this may be correct since any climate model which
did not build in sensitivity to greenhouse gases in general
would give grossly inaccurate results for present climate.
(As Carl Lydick regularly points out, it might predict a
temperature at the Earth's surface comparable to that at the
Moon's surface.)   So perhaps Bass is talking about the relative
importance of water vapor vis a vis other greenhouse gases.
Again I think this is based on independent physical measurements.
If I understand correctly, if it turns out that temperature
sensistivity to CO2 and other greenhouse gases (other than water
vapor) is very low, it will be because of feedback mechanisms
like the effect of clouds or other factors.
 
If indeed, climate modelers are engaging in completely circular
reasoning on the temperature sensitivty issue, then Bass should
not waste his efforts on us poor netters.   He should examine
the models carefully and point out in a peer reviewed scientific
paper exactly
how they are doing it.  Then the likes of Hansen, Manabe, etc.
can respond.  After all, Lindzen did exactly that and raised
an interesting point.   It didn't convince many people in the
field, but it clarified some of the discussion.
 
I agree completely with Mr. Bass that if this were an issue that
didn't suggest a need for action, e.g., the study of the interior
of stars or the origin and development of galaxies, then no one
would be so concerned about whether the theory in its current state
had yet been falsified.   I don't suggest massive Carbon taxes
in our present state of knowledge.    I do suggest moderate
taxes and other measures which make sense for other reasons.
The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
have is to tip the balance for those who are undecided.  Of
course, stalwart defenders of increased use of fossil fuels
won't be convinced by such arguments, but some fence sitters
may be.   Unfortunately, it may turn out that the matter is
settled politically some 10 or 15 years from now by virtue of
some extreme climatic events such as hot summers in crucial
areas, severe storms, and the like.   These events may in fact
not have much to do with global warming predictions, or if
they do, we won't be able to prove it for another 50 years.
However, some actions will be demanded by an angry public, but
those actions will likely be unrepsonsive to the problem.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Mirza Hussain /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: mmh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mirza Manar Hussain)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 15:45:20 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.

 
OK. Let's just cut the crap. When it somes down to things like what the
effect of a rise in CO2 levels is going to do on the environment,
basically we just don't know. We do, however, have an idea of the sorts
of things that it might do. This ingnorance is in fact one of the major
causes for concern. You'd be correct to say "hey, you don't actually
know what's going to happen if CO2 levels rise more, in fact there is a
whole series of effects some one way and some the other." But, you'd be
real dumb to simply conclude from this that there's no logical reason not
to try and limit the amount and rate of change you are causing. Why? Well,
because what we do know is that systems such as the global climate are
fully capable of being drastically affected by there variables such as
CO2 levels. In actual fact I wouldn't care if most models were showing
that a rise in CO2 levels was actually OK. I'd still be scared of the
possible consequences. Anyone who's ever explored the progress of a
chaotic system will no just how radical, sudden and unexpected a shift
(from one attractor to another) can occur.
Basically boys, we're playing Russian roulette with the world's climate
and I for one vote that until we get a clearer idea of what the hell
effect we may have, and/or how we can deal with the possible consequences
we at least try and restrict the rate of change we apply to the climate.
In fact even that may not be the sensible thing to do, but with what we
know now it seems the best chance of not radically changing things.
 
Manar
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmmh cudfnMirza cudlnHussain cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 16:12:40 GMT

In <2csf9n$k77@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Carl J Lydick writes:
>Do you have trouble reading?  The models predict an increase in the global mean
>temperature.  Except for a few special cases, they don't say whether the mean
>temperature at a given point will increase or decrease.  Somehow, you seem
>incapable of understanding that.
  Ummm pardon me .. but I thought that the north polar area _was_ one of
those special cases where a prediction had been made.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 16:43:54 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <19931123.041907.146@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
>> --- whole lot of stuff deleted for brevity's sake ---
>Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
>it never answered, but only excised ?? I'll repeat, no-one has any
>problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
>base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
 
Because the real world does not always wait for the slow process of
good scientific research.  Some climatologists think there is a serious
_risk_ of impacts from climate change.  Some disagree.  Waiting a couple
of decades for more solid proof is every bit as much a policy decision
as doing more now.  If enough scientists believe that there is a genuine
threat of non-trivial negative impacts from climate change, then society
must make a _value_ based decision about whether to risk these as yet
unverifiable impacts by continuing as we are.  We do, after all, buy
home insurance when we don't know if the house will actually ever burn
down.  What the larger society has to decide is how much proof is needed
for a certain amount of action.
 
Michael Tobis has asked recently how much proof the skeptics would need
to support some level of CO2 mitigation actions.  At least some of the
skeptics are certainly willing to claim benefits from climate change
based on evidence no stronger than that which proves otherwise.
 
--
 -- Dean Myerson        (dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 17:37:51 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <2ctb6g$2vl@oak41.doc.ic.ac.uk> mmh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mirza Manar Hussain) writes:
>
>OK. Let's just cut the crap. When it somes down to things like what the
>effect of a rise in CO2 levels is going to do on the environment,
>basically we just don't know. We do, however, have an idea of the sorts
>of things that it might do. This ingnorance is in fact one of the major
>causes for concern. You'd be correct to say "hey, you don't actually
>know what's going to happen if CO2 levels rise more, in fact there is a
>whole series of effects some one way and some the other." But, you'd be
>real dumb to simply conclude from this that there's no logical reason not
>to try and limit the amount and rate of change you are causing. Why? Well,
>because what we do know is that systems such as the global climate are
>fully capable of being drastically affected by there variables such as
>CO2 levels. In actual fact I wouldn't care if most models were showing
>that a rise in CO2 levels was actually OK. I'd still be scared of the
>possible consequences. Anyone who's ever explored the progress of a
>chaotic system will no just how radical, sudden and unexpected a shift
>(from one attractor to another) can occur.
>Basically boys, we're playing Russian roulette with the world's climate
>and I for one vote that until we get a clearer idea of what the hell
>effect we may have, and/or how we can deal with the possible consequences
>we at least try and restrict the rate of change we apply to the climate.
>In fact even that may not be the sensible thing to do, but with what we
>know now it seems the best chance of not radically changing things.
>
>Manar
 
 
I agree with much of what the poster says, but I think he makes some
inappropriate assertions.
 
First, I think it would be helpful if people avoided different kinds
of folksy language to categorize what they disagreed with.
 
Secondly, the models while subject to many uncertainties and caveats
do help us understand some of the factors involved.  I for one. would
be reassured if all the models predicted no substantial warming.
However, I would certainly be surprised at that and would try to
understand why.
 
Third, I don't think chaotic dynamics has a whole lot to do with the
issue.  There are some reasons to believe, both theoretically, and
in terms of the paleoclimatic record, that the climate system
could switch states in a relatively short period of time.   However,
I think it is possible to understand these possibilities by physical
mechanisms.  (Changes in the deep ocean circulation is one example
of such a mechanism.)   Talking about attractors does not in my
estimation clarify the matter, because the mathematics describing
these systems are not yet of a form where such concepts are likely
to be very useful.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Scott Mullins /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 18:05:47 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <CGxJ08.68x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <CGx4Jw.8r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
[deletions]
>>>     And I do not believe that calculations that are inaccurate locally
>>>     can be 'correct' for global averages.  It may happen, but it
>>>     is probably fortuitous.
>>
[deletions]
>     I am a CFD modeler.
 
Being involved in CFD you must be familiar with the finite element
method. In your opinion are inaccuracies in the solution near a
particular point grounds for tossing the entire solution? I have in
mind a particular case that arises in solid mechanics. The stresses
at a re-entrant corner in the model are in reality infinite but
a finite element solution will only give finite solutions, thus
yielding an infinite error at that point. Does this invalidate the
solution everywhere else in the model?
 
[rest deleted]
 
>                             dale bass
 
--
Scott
smullins@ecn.purdue.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudensmullins cudfnScott cudlnMullins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 93 18:10:41 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <19931123.041907.146@almaden.ibm.com>, nicho@vnet.IBM.COM
(Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
|> In <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
|> > --- whole lot of stuff deleted for brevity's sake ---
|> Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
|> it never answered, but only excised ?? I'll repeat, no-one has any
|> problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
|> base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
 
A very good question.
 
We should not base economic policy on models which are as incomplete as
Dale claims that they are, in the absence of additional evidence.
 
The models, limited though they are, are not as useless as he claims.
The additional eviednce exists, and indeed is compelling even in the
absence of modelling support. (Such evidence is the basis for undertaking
the modelling studies in the first place!)
 
The central question is this: are we acting foolishly?
 
Are we perturbing a system that we depend on to change rather slowly with a
forcing change sufficiently large and rapid that its response is likely to
cause us significant damage? Phrased this way, it seems to me that the
burden of proof ought to lie with those who feel that no constraints on the
perturbing behavior are needed.
 
For instance, some sentimental "environmentalists" demand that no traces of
carcinogenic artificial chemicals be detectable in food. It is easy to prove
that, as testing methods become more sophisticated, this is an increasingly
stringent moving target with no significant health impact, partly because
natural carcinogens swamp any plausible effect.
 
The implication that worries about greenhouse gas concentrations is similarly
sentimental and unfounded is made largely on the basis that the same
"environmentalists" worry about this too. This constitutes no evidence in
either direction. Surely, people who worry about ill-founded concerns for
sentimental reasons will jump at the chance to worry about well-founded ones
that appeal to the same sentiment!
 
Now, people like Singer and Michaels, and Dale Bass, claim that the
unpleasant, calamitous, and/or catastrophic effects are "uncertain". This is
quite true.
 
However, it does not constitute a refutation of the concern. The concern can
be refuted by showing that such effects are *implausible*.
 
The main reason I have difficulty in arguing with Dale is primarily that he
is trying to assert *uncertainty*, a point which no one can reasonably
dispute.  The question is not the certainty of any particular result but the
*likelihood* of a change in climate large enough to cause social and
environmental damage. Various lines of reasoning lead to the conclusion that
the perturbation in the absence of policy efforts will be large enough (at
some point in the next century) to be generally considered severe.
 
(A second reason for difficulty in this argument is a "refutation" of a
straw-man assertion that nobody made. More on this later.)
 
If I (and others) don't manage to answer Dale pointwise this may have to do
with the quantity of points he raises rather than their quality.
 
It's always easier to raise objections than to answer them, but most of his
specific objections are answerable, and those that are not carry
insufficient weight to delay policy responses indefinitely in the hopes that
a complete numerical model of climate correct at every grid point for all
time will become available before actual calamity occurs.
 
Consider that I have a property adjacent to yours, and large tree with a
large branch overhanging your roof. Am I entitled to take the easiest way
of chopping that branch down, because you cannot "prove" that I would damage
your roof by doing so? This implies a peculiar definition of negligence.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 18:17:46 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <19931123.081429.858@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <2csf9n$k77@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Carl J Lydick writes:
>>Do you have trouble reading?  The models predict an increase in the global mean
>>temperature.  Except for a few special cases, they don't say whether the mean
>>temperature at a given point will increase or decrease.  Somehow, you seem
>>incapable of understanding that.
>  Ummm pardon me .. but I thought that the north polar area _was_ one of
>those special cases where a prediction had been made.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
 
Perhaps it would be helpful if someone gave several references about
specific predictions of specific models.  I will try to track down
some of this, but I am not a real expert.
 
Here is some of what I think I understand.   Corrections are welcomed.
 
Most of the models are
equilibrium models which describe what the ultimate equilibrium
response would be to an immediate doubling of CO2 concentration.
It is true that these models show more warming at higher latitudes
than at lower latitudes, but there are geographical variations,
some of which Michael Tobis referred to.
Nothing is said about how long this might take.
These models certainly don't make specific predictions about what
should have been observed in 40 years of arctic temperatures.
Globally that 40 years involved a period when average global
temperatures appeared to be dropping (until the late 60s) followed
by a period in which they appear to be rising (but there is still
some dispute about that.)
There are now some dynamic models which try to follow warming
as CO2 levels rise, but these are much more tentative than the
equilibrium models.   Looking at Figure 6.5 in the IPCC Supplement
(1992) is instructive.  This shows results of Manabe from a time
dependent model.  If I read the charts correctly, the higher
latitudes show a longer time lag in responding than the lower
latitudes in this model.   However, I doubt that Manabe would claim
this as a definitive prediction.
 
One of the weaknesses of the climate models is that they aren't
yet at a stage where they can make predictions about the
details of what should
have been observed to date.   Rather they give some general trends.
Critics will then seize upon one aspect of the models and argue that
`surely if there any warming then such and such would show it'.
This tends towards demolishing straw men set up by the critic.
The models do in fact make predictions which will or will not
be born out by the preponderence of the evidence, but unfortunately
the will take several decades to accomplish.
 
One honest position to take at present is `I don't know for sure
that global warming will occur, but I think the prevailing evidence
is that it is enough of a possibility to warrant modest actions'.
Another honest position would be `I can't say for sure that
global warming will not occur, but because of the costs to society
of taking any measures to disrupt already chancy economic systems,
I think we should not act now but wait for more information.'
To assert that global warming is a virtual certainty or that
it is a radical theory proposed by a fringe group of pseudoscientits
is a mistake.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 18:28:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mmh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mirza Manar Hussain) writes:
>Basically boys, we're playing Russian roulette with the world's climate
>and I for one vote that until we get a clearer idea of what the hell
>effect we may have, and/or how we can deal with the possible consequences
>we at least try and restrict the rate of change we apply to the climate.
 
The natural global dynamic is actually playing Russian roulette (I don't
think it is PC anymore to use this phrase :-) with us.
 
Without a model you can trust, you can't know if your actions are hurting
or harming you.  To default to the inaction scenario is absurd under these
sorts of conditions -- since we know that a reduction in economic production
will have profound and harmful effects on the global population at large,
and on the poorest third world citizens especially.
 
Followups to philosophy 101 :-)
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / John Logajan /  cmsg cancel <1993Nov23.182435.1494@ns.network.com>
     
Originally-From: logajan@network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Nov23.182435.1494@ns.network.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 18:27:07 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

<1993Nov23.182435.1494@ns.network.com> was cancelled from within rn.
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 18:00:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2ct8vb$qk3@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>Dale Bass has made all sorts of assertions about models and data.
>I think he is selectively choosing data which disagrees with global
>warming predictions and ignoring data which support such predictions.
 
     Of course I am.  I am pointing to the fact that this subject
     is not as settled as the 'Of course there's global warming'
     school would have us believe.
 
>What it is not fair, nor indeed scientific, is to argue that the
>matter has been settled and global warming predictions have been
>falsified by the sum total of the data.
 
     But it is quite fair to argue that the matter has *not*
     been settled in favor of the global warming hypothesis.
     That is what I have been arguing.
 
>had yet been falsified.   I don't suggest massive Carbon taxes
>in our present state of knowledge.    I do suggest moderate
>taxes and other measures which make sense for other reasons.
 
     Why suggest any at all on current data?  Even if the sensitivity
     at current levels exists, perhaps we're keeping us out of
     an ice age...
 
>The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
>have is to tip the balance for those who are undecided.  Of
>course, stalwart defenders of increased use of fossil fuels
>won't be convinced by such arguments, but some fence sitters
>may be.   Unfortunately, it may turn out that the matter is
>settled politically some 10 or 15 years from now by virtue of
>some extreme climatic events such as hot summers in crucial
>areas, severe storms, and the like.
 
     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
 
>  These events may in fact
>not have much to do with global warming predictions, or if
>they do, we won't be able to prove it for another 50 years.
>However, some actions will be demanded by an angry public, but
>those actions will likely be unrepsonsive to the problem.
 
     Angry public?  They *should* be angry at being misled.
 
                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 18:06:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2ctb6g$2vl@oak41.doc.ic.ac.uk>,
Mirza Manar Hussain <mmh@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
 
>Basically boys, we're playing Russian roulette with the world's climate
>and I for one vote that until we get a clearer idea of what the hell
>effect we may have, and/or how we can deal with the possible consequences
>we at least try and restrict the rate of change we apply to the climate.
>In fact even that may not be the sensible thing to do, but with what we
>know now it seems the best chance of not radically changing things.
 
    It seems odd to use sensitive dependence on initial conditions
    to suggest that we're playing russian roulette, and then suggest
    that a good option would be to alter current rates of change.
 
    That's logically inconsistent. Massive climatological change has
    happened in the past without us.  We can have no idea whether
    such sensitivity will result in a positive or negative impact from either
 
              a) Increasing CO2 emission
              b) Decreasing CO2 emission
              c) Leaving CO2 emission the same
 
    So, why choose one option over the others on this basis?
 
                            dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 21:52:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CGyI9n.91v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
Scott H Mullins <smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>Being involved in CFD you must be familiar with the finite element
>method. In your opinion are inaccuracies in the solution near a
>particular point grounds for tossing the entire solution?
> I have in
>mind a particular case that arises in solid mechanics. The stresses
>at a re-entrant corner in the model are in reality infinite but
>a finite element solution will only give finite solutions, thus
>yielding an infinite error at that point. Does this invalidate the
>solution everywhere else in the model?
 
    It invalidates the solution in the corner, but where in nature
    do you see this 'infinite' stress?  It is the model that is invalid
    at that point.
 
    However, solid mechanics models and climatological models are
    currently in a somewhat different state of development.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:12:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov23.181041.21097@cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis <tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>Are we perturbing a system that we depend on to change rather slowly with a
>forcing change sufficiently large and rapid that its response is likely to
>cause us significant damage? Phrased this way, it seems to me that the
>burden of proof ought to lie with those who feel that no constraints on the
>perturbing behavior are needed.
 
     Of course it should, he noted dryly.
 
>Now, people like Singer and Michaels, and Dale Bass, claim that the
>unpleasant, calamitous, and/or catastrophic effects are "uncertain". This is
>quite true.
>
>However, it does not constitute a refutation of the concern. The concern can
>be refuted by showing that such effects are *implausible*.
 
     No, the proponents of unpleasantness should be required to
     show *probability*.  After all, I'm just going to laugh at
     someone trying to sell me 'Personal Spontaneous Combustion Insurance'
     without making any calculations at all.
 
>If I (and others) don't manage to answer Dale pointwise this may have to do
>with the quantity of points he raises rather than their quality.
 
     I've made but a few discrete points:
         1)  The most recent (and probably best) data is ambiguous on the
             subject of global temperature sensitivity to
             CO2 concentration at current base levels.
         2)  The models are clearly inaccurate for a prediction
             of global warming over the poles.
         3)  The time-mean of a complex nonlinear system is
             often not well modeled by assuming a smooth averaged
             response of the time-instant behavior.
 
>It's always easier to raise objections than to answer them, but most of his
>specific objections are answerable, and those that are not carry
>insufficient weight
 
     I think all three have pretty weighty implications.
 
> to delay policy responses indefinitely in the hopes that
>a complete numerical model of climate correct at every grid point for all
>time will become available before actual calamity occurs.
 
     What actual calamity?
 
>consider that I have a property adjacent to yours, and large tree with a
>large branch overhanging your roof. Am I entitled to take the easiest way
>of chopping that branch down, because you cannot "prove" that I would damage
>your roof by doing so? This implies a peculiar definition of negligence.
 
     Certainly, you are free to do as you wish.  Negligence only
     arises if you actually damage my roof, not if you postulate
     damage.
 
                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:17:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2ctk4a$12v@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>One of the weaknesses of the climate models is that they aren't
>yet at a stage where they can make predictions about the
>details of what should
>have been observed to date.   Rather they give some general trends.
 
     Again, making likely incorrect assumptions about the relationship
     between space/time means and local-instant values.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:27:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov23.194050.25829@cs.wisc.edu>,
Michael Tobis <tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGyIA1.B84@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>|>     It seems odd to use sensitive dependence on initial conditions
>|>     to suggest that we're playing russian roulette, and then suggest
>|>     that a good option would be to alter current rates of change.
>
>|>     That's logically inconsistent. Massive climatological change has
>|>     happened in the past without us.  We can have no idea whether
>|>     such sensitivity will result in a positive or negative impact from either
>
>|>               a) Increasing CO2 emission
>|>               b) Decreasing CO2 emission
>|>               c) Leaving CO2 emission the same
>
>|>     So, why choose one option over the others on this basis?
>
>Surely this is disingenuous!
 
    Not at all, you don't understand the nature of 'sensitive dependence
    on initial conditions'.  The amplitude of the forcing is unimportant
    for the phenomenon.  Trajectories in phase space may drastically
    diverge for even very tiny changes in IC's.
 
>On physical grounds, climate responds to CO2 concentrations, not to emission
>rates. So the choices a,b,and c amount to
>
>       a) a relatively large perturbation of the system
>       b) a relatively small perturbation of the system
>       c) an intermediate perturbation of the system
>
>So inevitably choice a) is the riskiest from the point of view of forced
>climate change.
 
     Response may be quite unrelated to the 'amplitude of the forcing'.
     Indeed, since we're talking about a very dynamic system, I'm
     not sure how you quantify 'relatively large'.  It's the response that
     matters, not the number.
 
                                 dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 22:33:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov23.185850.22747@vexcel.com>,
Dean Alaska <dean@vexcel.com> wrote:
>In article <CGyI06.AzI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>     Of course I am.  I am pointing to the fact that this subject
>>     is not as settled as the 'Of course there's global warming'
>>     school would have us believe.
>
>and:
>
>>    happened in the past without us.  We can have no idea whether
>>    such sensitivity will result in a positive or negative impact from either
>
>>              a) Increasing CO2 emission
>>              b) Decreasing CO2 emission
>>              c) Leaving CO2 emission the same
>
>
>Has anyone here said 'Of course there's global warming'?
 
     Implicitly, yes.
 
>You shouldn't
>argue these points on what someone else said elsewhere.  And is it true
>that we have "no idea" about these impacts"?  The existence of
>uncertainties is very different from having no idea about results.
 
     Okay, what *are* the results?
 
>Many scientists do think they have an idea.  Does not the Stefan-Boltzmann
>law provide the _idea_?  What then are you arguing for: the
>existence of uncertainties or the absence of substantive knowledge?
 
     What idea?  The idea that radiation from a black body is
     a good model for an evolving planetary climate?
 
>You already admitted focusing on evidence from one side to show that
>uncertainties exist, something which noone here denies.
>Such a focus on one side tends to hide whatever the middle thinks and
>therefore hides the consensus.  This is the tactic used by political
>interests on both sides of many issues.  Many scientists do have _some_
>idea about the impacts of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
 
     And barbers in the year 1500 had *some* idea about what
     causes disease.  The fact that they were mostly wrong is beside
     the point, huh?
 
>That "some idea" indicates risks.  It is one thing to argue the level of
>the risk and another to deny it.
 
     Risk of what?
 
>  I wonder if Dale similarly doubts the
>consensus on the CFC-ozone depletion connection.  After all, there are
>uncertainties there also.
 
     Who cares what dale thinks about freon and ozone?  We're talking about
     CO2 and fusion power plants.
 
                              dale bass
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 23:15:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cu0j0$7gu@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>In article  <CGusCr.1K8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>   Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)  wrote :
>
>Regarding  Kahl et. al. in  'Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming
>over the arctic ocean in the past 40 years', Nature 361:335,  I wrote :
>
>>> I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>>> on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>>> It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>>> there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>>> Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
>
>My English, being not my first language, is awkward.  Anyway I would
>have thought to have expressed clearly that I presumed that there's
>something the  _models_  fail to take into account.  You answered :
>
>>     Yes, you've just shown your true colors.
>>     This is depressingly familiar around here (sci.physics.fusion):
>>
>>     'Even though the models that predict it are flawed to the point
>>     of incoherence, we *know* that global warming *must* be occurring.
>>     So we must figure out why the data is wrong' ...
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Interesting attitude.
 
     You expressed very clearly that you thought that the models might be
     incomplete.  You also expressed very clearly that we would be
     'complacent' if we did not fear current global temperature
     sensitivity to CO2 levels.
 
     From whence does the complacency arise?
 
                              dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 23:52:25 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <2cu0j0$7gu@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de> SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.d
 (Jan Schloerer) writes:
your wrote
>>> I know.  I included this paper in the list of recommended readings
>>> on climate change which I occasionally post to sci.environment.
>>> It's an important puzzle.  It may have to do with the fact that
>>> there's a striking but rather thin temperature inversion over the
>>> Arctic sea ice which is not captured by the models.  See John E.
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> Walsh, The elusive Arctic warming, Nature 361 (1993), 300-301.
>
>My English, being not my first language, is awkward.  Anyway I would
>have thought to have expressed clearly that I presumed that there's
>something the  _models_  fail to take into account.  You answered :
>
 
To which Cameron Radale Bass responded
 
>>     Yes, you've just shown your true colors.
>>     This is depressingly familiar around here (sci.physics.fusion):
>>
>>     'Even though the models that predict it are flawed to the point
>>     of incoherence, we *know* that global warming *must* be occurring.
>>     So we must figure out why the data is wrong' ...
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Interesting attitude.
>
>
>Jan Schloerer                    schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
>Uni Ulm     Klinische Dokumentation     D-89070 Ulm     Germany
 
 
Let me explain the disagreement.  You point out something which
the models fail to take into account.   He wants you to conclude
that the models are absolutely and totally wrong.   You think it
possible that there are other explanations.  So it is clear that
you are not a right thinking scientist.
 
By the way, asserting that the models are `flawed to the point
of incoherence' is a value judgement.  One need not be categorized
as a hopeless whatever if one does not choose to accept that
rhetoric.   Again, no one here, least of all Jan Schloerer,
asserts that global warming `*must*' be happening.   The most
you could claim is that some of us consider it likely.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Jim Bowery /  Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 01:28:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
>What is the major problem with Hirsch's electrostatic confinement reactor?
 
Not enough work has been done on it.
 
But seriously, the most credible objection I've heard raised to it's
eventual economy is the potential problem posed by anode erosion due to
ion bombardment.  This occurs once the p-B11 cycle is ignited and Mev
alphas are being produced at electric utility scales.  This really is
a potential show-stopper from an economic standpoint.
 
BTW:  Farsworth is really most appropriately credited with the invention
of EF.  He was Hirsch's mentor.  I attribute the ion-gun EF invention
to Farnsworth and the Polywell(TM) magnetic cusp EF invention to
Bussard.
 
>I haven't had much luck finding details about it at the local libraries.
 
Journal of Applied Physics Volume 38, Number 11
"Electrostatic Confinement Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of Ionized
 Fusion Gasses" by Robert L. Hirsch, ITT Farnsworth Research Corporation,
Fort Wayne, Indiana
 
There was a paper written in the early 80's by Baxter et al on the
theoretic limits of the Farnsworth device.  I don't have the
reference handy.
 
>What
>I have read makes it sound like an extremely simple system, and one that was
>actually producing D-T reactions in a table-top reactor.
 
D-D, not D-T.
 
>For such a simple,
>working system to be dropped in favour of the more complex magnetic and
>inertial confinement systems suggests some serious flaws.
 
I haven't gotten around to compiling a history of the decision to drop
Farnsworth's device in favor of the Tokamak, but it is a history that
needs writing.  Hirsch is central to any such history as he was the one
apparently most responsible for allowing Farnsworth's invention to be
dropped in favor of the Tokamak.  I'm rather surprised that Hirsch hasn't
written up his own history of these events since his credibility in his
current efforts to revive EF are at stake.
 
My general impression, not well substantiated one way or the other, is
that Hirsch dropped the Farnsworth device for political reasons as part
of an effort to get the Tokamak program going in the style of the Apollo
program (which, you will recall, was at its peak right at that time).
 
A device that can produce fusion events on the desktop just isn't big
enough to justify "blank-check" funding levels with the all the pork
needed to go around.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  F&P Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: F&P Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 01:29:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz says:  "So I don't think you can prove F&P wrong simply by damning
their open-cell method.  You have to find the flaw in what they do."
 
I agree, that their technique is OK for running a large number of cells at low
cost.  As I do computations on the new design, I am impressed on how a small
change in the location of the "hot spot" can change the indication in such
a calorimeter.  I admit that I am not doing computations on the P&F calorimeter
so I cannot point to a specific problem.  It would not take very much of a
shift of heat source to produce the data before the "boil off" event.
 
The "boil off" event is another story.  I have data that indicates that the
recombination point can suddenly shift to the cell.  Particularly likely
(in my opinion) when a high current pulse uncovers part of the cathode due
to rappid bubbling.  John Logajan has repeated this experiment.
 
The problem is that P&F do not tell us enough detail about the experiment.
Suppose, for example, they have all their cells vented to a common manifold
for safety.  They pulse a cell, it transfers the recombination point to the
cathode, and the cell proceeds to suck D2 O2 mix out of the manifold.  Such
a sequence could completely explain the P&F results.  All those other cells
are working away to provide gas for the recombiner cell.  It would even stay
hot while "empty".  Eventually it might go out due to irregularities in the
gas feed.
 
But we will never know unless P&F tell us detail about the experiment.  We can
only duplicate the experiment in a way that will reveal such a possible
sequence.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / AHG MOUNIER /  looking for training in heating
     
Originally-From: A.H.G.Mounier@bradford.ac.uk (AHG MOUNIER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: looking for training in heating
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 13:48:10 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK

        Hi,
 
 
        A freind of mine needs a training period to obtain her degree.
She is french aand currently studying a 'DUT Genie Thermique' ( Equivalent
to a BSc )
 
        She is looking for a compagny dealing with either :
 
                - air conditionning systems,
                - industrial refrigiration,
          or    - heating services.
 
 
You could answer at my e-mail address or you can write directly to her at:
 
                Ms Veronique BONNET
                51 rue Edouard Herriot
                90 000 BELFORT
                FRANCE
 
Any suggestions would be wellcome.
Thank you in advance.
 
 
Aymeric MOUNIER
 
--
+--Aymeric MOUNIER--------------------------------+-------------------+
| 27, Gaythorne Rd BRADFORD BD5 7ES ENGLAND       |        """        |
| e_mail: A.H.G.MOUNIER@bradford.ac.uk            |      -(o o)-      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---oOO--(_)--OOo---+
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenMounier cudfnAHG cudlnMOUNIER cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / AHG MOUNIER /  looking for training in heating
     
Originally-From: A.H.G.Mounier@bradford.ac.uk (AHG MOUNIER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: looking for training in heating
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 13:50:24 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK

        Hi,
 
 
        A freind of mine needs a training period to obtain her degree.
She is french aand currently studying a 'DUT Genie Thermique' ( Equivalent
to a BSc )
 
        She is looking for a compagny dealing with either :
 
                - air conditionning systems,
                - industrial refrigiration,
          or    - heating services.
 
 
You could answer at my e-mail address or you can write directly to her at:
 
                Ms Veronique BONNET
                51 rue Edouard Herriot
                90 000 BELFORT
                FRANCE
 
Any suggestions would be wellcome.
Thank you in advance.
 
 
Aymeric MOUNIER
 
--
+--Aymeric MOUNIER--------------------------------+-------------------+
| 27, Gaythorne Rd BRADFORD BD5 7ES ENGLAND       |        """        |
| e_mail: A.H.G.MOUNIER@bradford.ac.uk            |      -(o o)-      |
+-------------------------------------------------+---oOO--(_)--OOo---+
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenMounier cudfnAHG cudlnMOUNIER cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 23 Nov 1993 14:40:22 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <19931123.041907.146@almaden.ibm.com>,
        nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
|> In <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
|> > --- whole lot of stuff deleted for brevity's sake ---
|> Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
|> it never answered, but only excised ?? I'll repeat, no-one has any
|> problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
|> base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
 
First, it is energy policy. That this has economic _effects_ is
unavoidable.
 
Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. Especially
when the consequences have a reasonable chance to be very great. See
recent posts by Mike Tobis (sci.environment) on risk strategy.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Truce
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Truce
Date: 23 Nov 1993 14:43:07 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1993Nov23.014415.20855@ns.network.com>,
        logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
|> In the name of peace, I'll let the last word from the eco's go unanswered.
|> Truce anyone?
 
Truce accepted, John, and thanks for being magnanimous. I've let Dale's
last go as well (aside from a 5-line clarification to another's question,
but this post ends it for me).
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Fusion via sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via sonoluminescence
Date: 23 Nov 1993 14:52:12 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <199311222037.AA26618@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>,
        rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
|> Bruce Scott corrects Matt Kennel's numbers for "the only currently-
|> known-to-operate-and-have-achieved-ignition fusion 'reactor'", but
|> failed to mention the principle objection to his line of argument:
|>
|> The sun operates by simmering protons at a temperature high enough
|> that a few of them change identities into neutrons (while making
|> deuterium + misc small change).  We are privileged to have
|> available 1/6000 * 2/18 of oceans of deuterium, and, my friends
|> assure me, all the tritium we might reasonably want.  The D+T
|> reaction can proceed at much lower temperatures and pressures,
|> perhaps within the range of sonoluminescence.
 
OK, then, let's do it again. Tokamak reactor conditions are of order
10e14 particles/cc and 150-200 million degrees K (much sparser but also
a factor of ten _hotter_ than the sun). I doubt this is in the range
of sonoluminescence (previous posts mentioned 100,000 K). BTW, tokamak
fusion has been observed, both D + D and D + T; it is just that the fusion
power was smaller than the input heat power (the JET shots in late 1991
released 1.7 MW [no electricity!] but were heated by 18 MW of neutral
beams; the TFTR D + T program has started but I have heard no new results
yet, expect announcement at next Fall's IAEA if not sooner).
 
Sonoluminescence fusion would have to be due to some mechanism other than
free-particle collisions, which require at least a few keV to be useful
(1 eV per particle <--> 10,000 K).
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / David Hunt /  Progress?
     
Originally-From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Progress?
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 19:08:38 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Not being hooked up to the right sources, what is the progress on getting
a self-sustaining reaction going.  I recall reading that 2 of the 3 Lawson
criteria have been met, but I could be mistaken...
 
I'm especially interested in tandem mirror and inertial confinement stuff...
 
Thanks muchly!
 
 
David Hunt, PhD Grad. Slave | My mind is my own. So are  | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | these ideas and opinions!  | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
============ An anagram of 'Jesus Christ' is 'Sir, such jest'! ============
 
When in doubt, be ruthless.  -- The Grand Negis
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnDavid cudlnHunt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 23:55:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cu101$587@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGyI06.AzI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <2ct8vb$qk3@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>>Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>>The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
>>>have is to tip the balance for those who are undecided.  Of
>>>course, stalwart defenders of increased use of fossil fuels
>>>won't be convinced by such arguments, but some fence sitters
>>>may be.   Unfortunately, it may turn out that the matter is
>>>settled politically some 10 or 15 years from now by virtue of
>>>some extreme climatic events such as hot summers in crucial
>>>areas, severe storms, and the like.
>>
>>     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
>>     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
>>     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
>
>I don't think you read what I said.   I wasn't proposing that public
>hysteria be encouraged now or in the future.  If the scenario
>I suggested occurred, whom do think the public should be angry
>at?
 
     We're on the same side on this.  Neither of us thinks hysterical
     examination of weather is appropriate.
 
>other words, some of the disruptive effects may occur before the
>scientific explanation.   In such an environment, other random
>events, anything from hurricanes to crop failures, may also be
>blamed on global warming.  Thus, an hysterical response
>which is inappropriate may result from public perception of
>real climate change.  I don't really think you have to worry
>about public hysteria resulting from imagined climate change.
 
     To the contrary, I *do* have to worry about random events
     'becoming' climate change(s).  I worry greatly about the
     scenerio in which we impose draconian rules to *fix* the
     problem, and then when there's no problem, the new 'rules'
     are credited with the fix.
 
                         dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 00:01:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov23.223544.26018@vexcel.com>,
Dean Alaska <dean@vexcel.com> wrote:
>In article <CGysHw.Go9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>    When changes are a crapshoot, we go with the ones that
>>    are cheapest.  Currently, alteration of our behavior regarding
>>    CO2 emission is a crapshoot.
>>
>A crapshoot huh?  This gets back to the point about whether research
>provides an indication (not certainty) as to effects of increased CO2
>concentrations.  This discussion started with your belief that the models
>were useless and that there were uncertainties.  Now it has migrated to
>a claim that existing research provides no indication as to effects of
>increased CO2 concentrations.
 
     No predictive indication.  Where's the 'migration'?
 
>You obviously disagree with the consensus
>demonstrated in the IPCC reports.
 
     So?  The 'consensus' model has just been shown to be inappropriate
     for a rather important prediction.
 
>  Thats fine.  Minority opinions are
>valuable and you may be right.  But from a public policy perspective,
>do we base our decisions on what the minority of the majority of
>scientific opinion thinks?  Do we wait for 100% consensus within the
>relevent scientific community to take research results seriously?  Do
>you believe that an objective scientist looking at all of the data can
>honestly disagree with you and support the IPCC consensus?
 
     Yes, it's always possible to be honestly incorrect, he noted
     modestly.
 
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Ad aspera /  FYI #154 Excerpt
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI #154 Excerpt
Date: 24 Nov 1993 01:08:09 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

This is the relevant excerpt from FYI #154; the full text (most of
which is about the Hubble Space Telescope) is on sci.research.
 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
 
 
UPDATE ON THE PENNY-KASICH BUDGET LEGISLATION: Last night, the
House rejected by a vote of 219-213 this amendment which contained
provisions establishing a Department of Science, reduced fusion
energy funding, and capped university research overhead costs (see
FYI #153.)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / A Boulanger /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: aboulang@bbn.com (Albert Boulanger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,rec.skate
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: 23 Nov 93 20:54:13
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA

In article <MWARREN.93Nov22112646@ap207sun.oracle.com> mwarren@us.oracle
com (Mark Warren) writes:
 
   Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
   already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
   readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
   Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
   hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
   readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
   reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
   from news.software.readers help out here).
 
 
I would be good to use something like MIME (for graphics) for other
newsgroups too.  (Hence my cross posting.) When it come to things like
skating moves, a picture is worth 1K words....
 
 
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboulanger@bbn.com
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenaboulang cudfnAlbert cudlnBoulanger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to Dieter regarding "retraction"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Dieter regarding "retraction"
Date: 23 Nov 93 15:29:38 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dieter asks for clarifications and comments which I am happy to provide:
 
In article <01H5MFVRSVEQHV1ZX6@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) in FD 2179:
>
> [...]
>
>>in your thinking.  These detectors are about 6 orders of magnitude less
>>sensitive than the ones we use at BYU, as described in previous postings --
>>e.g., "Draft of Paper".  Since 1986 when we began looking for neutrons
>>in deuterided metals, we have *never* seen huge neutron bursts as claimed by
>>Yamaguchi et al.  We have, however, seen strange effects near the sensitivity
>>level of the detectors -- some of which we have now clearly identified as
>>artifacts (see, e.g., my recent post "What's the opposite of 'EUREKA'?").
>
> I want to throw out a thought, and see if you agree with me, Steve What you
> say about Yamaguchi also applies to all other neutron results, does it not? I
> don't know any neutron results taken with such quality gadgets as you now use.
> It seems to me, then, that no credible positive (or negative!) neutron results
> have been obtained yet. How do do react to that?
 
At what level?  At the level of 10^4 neutrons/sec. as originally claimed by
P&F, yes, I would say there are several credible experiments, and they are all
negative.
 
At the much lower level which we originally reported of < 0.1 n/s (average),
the situation is not so clear, with several good "positive" and "negative"
experiments.   Our results this year with detectors we have indeed worked
very hard on to understand and perfect, show indications of neutrons emitted
singly at rates up to 3 neutrons/h, or in small time-correlated bursts
(ie, up to 5 detected neutrons within a time window of 320 microseconds)
at rates of 0.3 burst-neutrons/hour.  These results I reported back in July
and August here, based on deuterium-gas loaded wires.  Since then, with Pd/LiOD
electrolytic cells, we have seen nothing above background.
 
These are very small rates, smaller than we originally reported, and not easy
to prove compellingly (or to disprove).
Our studies of these tiny effects have therefore taken
on the character of "what did we do wrong?" more than "now that we have super
detectors, let's prove what we did right."  However, I stress that we have not
given up on studying these effects -- it is just painstaking and admittedly
more of an obligation to find out our probable errors.
>
 
> Then there is a question: Steve, your original neutron results were not so
> much in the form of so many neutrons above background, they were in the form
> of an energy spectrum, which seemed to show a distinct (?) peak when the
> background spectrum was subtracted. Now, you can account for someone's burst
> of neutrons by saying that it was an artifact which would have been voted out
> by the other three quadrants, had there been quadrants; but can you get an
> artifact giving you a spectrum peak in the "right" place? What is now your
> interpretation of your original claims?
>
> Several people have privately emailed me and referred to Steven Jones'
> "retraction". My impression is that this word is premature. Do you retract,
> Steve, or just throw doubt on your earlier results?
 
Good points.  In my post of 16 Nov ("What's the opposite of "EUREKA"?),
I explained that we had found a serious detector glitch that made our previous
claims of *large* neutron bursts (multiplicity > 50 neutrons/burst) extremely
suspect, and I used the word "retraction" on behalf on myself and BYU
colleagues with regard to those claims (only).  Now those claims of large
neutron bursts were not in our 1989 _Nature_ paper, but were published in Dec.
1990, J. Fusion Energy ( (1990) 495 (Menlove et al.).  We think that the word
"retraction" is appropriate for those large-burst claims since:  1- we have
identified a detector glitch which produces artifacts of this nature;
2-  No such large bursts have been seen in our neutron counters as we have
steadily improved these, in searches since late 1989 when the large bursts were
first reported from Los Alamos.
 
Getting an artifact in at the right energy (abt 2.5 MeV) as we had in our first
claims is indeed hard to explain -- although some have tried, suggesting a
cosmic-ray origin.  Our studies, both Monte Carlo and experimental-background,
however, show that no such artifact at 2.5 MeV appears with our neutron
spectrometer.  We still have the spectrometer, of course, but it is not as
sensitive as the segmented 3He-proportional-tube counter with plastic
scintillators, as I described in the "Draft of Paper" posting here on 11 Nov.
 
The small neutron bursts (up to 5 detected) are also difficult to rule
out, since these were seen at Los Alamos, BYU and, yes, Kamiokande also.
But these are qualitatively different from the large bursts since they can in
principle arise from spontaneous fission or from un-spectacular cosmic-ray
events. (The same comments apply to detected single neutron-like emissions.)
Still, the rates we see are 4 times background rates, and the
backgrounds show only bursts of 2 detected and the time spectra from the
backgrounds and D2-loaded wires differ -- as explained in the July and August
postings here.
 
So small bursts of neutrons and low-rate single-neutron emissions are still
alive, if barely.  We cannot retract these yet but we are obligated to look
for what we might have done wrong, or come up with a trigger mechanism with
which we can produce the "effects" on demand and scale up the rates.
 
> Is your reference to
> Friedlander (of CIF fame) significant in this context? When CIF was accounted
> for completely in terms of beam contamination, the man himself did not retract
> but felt that he still had observed something real. From your quote, it seems
> that he now agrees it was not real; maybe he needed time to come to terms with
> that. Is that perhaps your situation? Sorry if I am pushing a bit hard, but I
> really would like to know, and I know I'll get a straight answer.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
My reference was to Friedman (Friedlander's colleague), with whom I have had
several conservations beginning in May 1989 at BNL before he and colleagues
announced CIF.  In a report in _Science_ Oct. 22, 1993, it is noted that
CIF was partially retracted in a March 1992 Phys Rev Lett, then fully retracted
in a Phys Rev A article now accepted for publication.  We are slow:  we are
still at the "partially retracted" stage -- just threw out the very large
neutron bursts, and, admittedly, cast doubt at the same time on all other
claims of neutron production.
 
I find myself being depressed about all this of late.  Can you blame me?
As friend Friedman said "There is some tendency to want to believe that it's
really there.  You have an obligation to prove it one way or the other."
(in the Science article cited above.)
 
So we press on, with no outside funding and waning interest but sensing an
obligation to be honest and diligent as was Friedman.
I am pleased to note that my teaching duties will be light from Dec. 15 through
August 20, 1994 -- I plan to hit this hard during these 8 months.  And I will
post results here, however they turn out.  And we are looking at other things
too, like muon-catalyzed fusion experiments and sonoluminescence.
 
Hope this answers your questions, Dieter.
 
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Response to Dieter regarding "retraction"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Dieter regarding "retraction"
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 04:07:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I find myself being depressed about all this of late.  Can you blame me?
>As friend Friedman said "There is some tendency to want to believe that it's
>really there.  You have an obligation to prove it one way or the other."
 
Understandable, yet arguably the wrong attitude.  After all, well over
90% of scientific leg work is spent in discovering what *doesn't* work.
 
When I was in Salt Lake City I visited the Bingham Canyon copper mine.
To get a ton of copper, they have to dig through 170 tons of rock.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS602, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Tim Janke /  Jones - Fleischmann corresp
     
Originally-From: tim_janke@internet.uscs.com (Tim Janke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones - Fleischmann corresp
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 05:49:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jones - Fleischmann correspondence,
My apologies for posting this to the public fusion list:  can't get private
email to work from my internet connection  to Jed's compuserve address.
 
To: Jed Rothwell
Re: Jones - Fleischmann correspondence
 
Jed,
 
  Per your offer in sci.physics.fusion, I'd like a copy of the correspondence
between Jones and Fleischmann.  Thanks!
 
Tim
 
*************************************************************
Timothy Janke            tim_janke@internet.uscs.com
El Dorado Hills, CA
 
"Let me go back in there and face the peril".
"No, it's too perilous".
 -Monty Python and the Holy Grail
*************************************************************
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentim_janke cudfnTim cudlnJanke cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 04:18:09 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
 
>In <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
>> --- whole lot of stuff deleted for brevity's sake ---
>Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
>it never answered, but only excised ??
 
   Well, I would argue that Dale's _misunderstandings_ have been repeated
several times, but I'll reserve that for my next post which will try to
address some points.
 
>I'll repeat, no-one has any
>problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
>base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
 
   ...because we have to base our economic policy on _something_. Even an
assumption of no climate change as a possible scenario and no alterations
of current practice would be an economic decision. Waiting for more
research is a decision. We can't make _no_ decision. The incomplete models
present us with more information that ignoring the models would. There
will be a great variety of opinions as to whether the incomplete
information is enough to make us decide to change our actions, but you
ignore the information at your peril.
 
   (Note that I would differentiate between "ignoring the information" and
"deciding that the information is insufficient to change a course of
action".)
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 03:28:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2cu7np$7es@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>To which Cameron Radale Bass responded
>
>>>     Yes, you've just shown your true colors.
>>>     This is depressingly familiar around here (sci.physics.fusion):
>>>
>>>     'Even though the models that predict it are flawed to the point
>>>     of incoherence, we *know* that global warming *must* be occurring.
>>>     So we must figure out why the data is wrong' ...
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>
>Let me explain the disagreement.  You point out something which
>the models fail to take into account.   He wants you to conclude
>that the models are absolutely and totally wrong.
 
    I don't know what 'absolutely and totally wrong' means.  Just
    wrong will do.
 
>   You think it
>possible that there are other explanations.  So it is clear that
>you are not a right thinking scientist.
 
    It is clear that data that does not fit the global warming hypothesis
    is often discussed quite differently than data that does.
    Case in point, survey article that just happens to be sitting
    on my desk on underground temperature as
    an indication of surface temperature,  'Underground Records of
    Changing Climate', Scientific American 268:44 (1993).
 
    p. 49 'Investigations in the Alaskan Arctic by Lachenbruch and
    his colleagues at the USGS provided dramatic evidence of warming.'
 
    p. 49 further down 'Boreholes distributed across [Canada]
    document a less dramatic but equally clear warming... [of]
    between one and two degrees C during the last 100 to 150 years.'
 
    p. 49 further down 'has inferred temperature increases of
    about two degrees C in North Dakota and Wyoming'.
 
    p. 49 further down 'Data from southern South Dakota and Nebraska, however,
    indicate little change over the past 100 years, as does our own work
    in the desert of western Utah.  The lack of a clear warming signal
    is consistent with the work of climate modelers, who predicted
    that global warming should be most vigorous at high latitudes
    but minimal or even nonexistent in some temperate regions.'
 
    The lack of a clear warming signal where?  It seems that there's
    a very clear 'warming signal' in Wyoming, but none found in
    similar datasets in Utah and Nebraska and South Dakota.  I'm curious
    why this is not inconsistent with the models used to justify and
    support the results (the same models that do not show correct
    behavior over the poles).  I'm also curious why the
    warming is 'dramatic and clear', but the lack of warming is
    'lack of a clear warming signal'.
 
>By the way, asserting that the models are `flawed to the point
>of incoherence' is a value judgement.
 
    Any time one discusses the value of a model, one makes a value
    judgement.  My value judgements are fairly colourful and usually
    to the point.
 
>One need not be categorized
>as a hopeless whatever if one does not choose to accept that
>rhetoric.   Again, no one here, least of all Jan Schloerer,
>asserts that global warming `*must*' be happening.   The most
>you could claim is that some of us consider it likely.
 
    Tell you what, I promise never to categorize you as a hopeless whatever.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 04:27:29 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     I am a CFD modeler.  The averages in an averaged model are only as
>     good as the model put in.  Since the model put in basically assumes
>     transport mechanisms and rates that produce a certain temperature
>     sensitivity to things like CO2, then one is not surprised when one
>     gets similar sensitivity out of the model.
 
   All right, Dale. I've watched your comments for a few days now. You
seem to be claiming that you reject climate models becasue you understand
them. Let's put this to a bit of a test.
 
 
   In the case of a numerical system, we can seperate the specified
conditions into internal conditions and boundary conditions. In the case
of an atmospheric General Circulation Model (GCM), I think we will likely
agree that the internal conditions are a fluid dynamics question. Can you
suppply me with answers to the following?
 
 
   Is a weather forecasting model more subject to internal or boundary
conditions? (You may be more specific regarding time periods if you want.)
 
   Is a climate model more subject to internal or boundary conditions?
(Again, be more specific if you want. In particular, there may be parts of
a climate model more responsive to one, while other parts are more
responsive to the other.)
 
   You have on numerous occasions claimed that climate models are designed
to give the answers you don't like. Can you be specific as to
 
   -  what the specified boundary conditions are in a typical climate
      model.
 
   -  what aspect of the model (boundary or internal conditions) is the
      ones(s) that are the cause of the forcing which "controls" the
      model response (which you don't like).
 
 
>     Any time someone tells you that the local predictions of a CFD model
>     are no good, but the global predictions are pretty good, ask them
>     how they put the global averages into the model.  You'll always find
>     significant defining assumptions for things like average
>     energy transport and/or mass transport are either a) built into the
>     model, or b) built into the boundary conditions.  These assumptions
>     insure that you'll get out what you thought you would.
 
    I want to see if you know what the climate models are using to do
this. If you _don't_ know, then you are just speculating.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Michael Tobis /  crucial errors in P.J.Michaels' book
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: crucial errors in P.J.Michaels' book
Date: 24 Nov 93 05:11:23 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

Well, I've picked up Pat Michaels' book "Sound and Fury", and I confess
to being unimpressed.
 
His central point is as follows: the data do not show climate shifts
commensurate with those indicated by the climate sensitivities proposed in
the IPCC report and related documents. In particular, high northern latitudes
show substantial cooling over the past century.
 
This is illustrated with the following table:
 
[begin quote]
====
 
Table 4.1
EXPECTED AND OBSERVED WARMING FROM THE GREENHOUSE ENHANCEMENT
(DEGREES C)
aggregate of mid-1980's GCMs
 
Region                  Assuming        With            Observed
                        No Lag          Ocean Lag       (past 50 Years)
 
Globe                   2.1             1.2             0.25
Southern Hemisphere     1.2             0.7             0.4
Northern Hemisphere     3.0             1.7             0.1
Tropics                 0.8             0.5             0.4
High Latitudes, NH      4.0             2.3             -1.0 (*)
 
====
[end quote]
[_Sound and Fury_, P.J.Michaels, Cato Institute, 1992. page 40.]
 
(*) This last number is presumably what Dale refers to as a Popperian
falsification. More on this later.
 
First let's see where the numbers in the first two columns come from. At
first glance they are very surprising, since one generally hears that the
observed warming of 0.5 C is at the low end of the expected 0.5 C to 1.0 C
based on the accepted range of climate sensitivity to greenhouse forcing.
Where does the number 2.1 degrees come from then?
 
Well, CO2 plus equivalent CO2 are at about 150% of background levels, so we
must be halfway to doubling. Thus, we linearly interpolate from the
equilibrium 2xCO2 response given by the average of various models of 4.2 C,
and obtain 2.1 C warming.
 
Wait a minute, 4.2 C? Isn't the range usually quoted as 1.5 to 4.5 C? Well,
this is the mean of "mid-1980's" models chosen by Michaels. He doesn't say
which models he chose. Wouldn't it be better to pick a median? Doesn't a
mean give extra weight to outliers on the more sensitive side? Of course,
choosing such outliers is a nice way to start setting up a straw man argument.
 
Oh, and why pick "mid-80's" models for a book published in 1992? Both
technology and skill are advancing rapidly in this field.
 
A more representative pick for sensitivity based on 1990 information would
be 2.5 or 3.0 C. Half that would be 1.5 or less.
 
Anyway, this prediction of a 2.1 C warming for all time is contrasted
against observed temperature change "over the past 50 years", though the
exact meaning of this is not specified. Please take note that the period
around 1940 is anomalously warm: with the exception of 1980-1991 it is
the warmest part of the record. Accordingly, using it as the baseline for
trends would certainly tend to minimize any postulated increase.
 
Now, was the entire change in forcing observed over 50 years? Not at all. The
current CO2 concentrations are above PRE-INDUSTRIAL (ca. 1700) backgrounds.
Expecting the entire response to changes in historical greenhouse forcing to
have appeared in the past fifty years has no rational basis.
 
This is the main point where the Michaels argument fails.
 
One way to look at it is in radiative forcing. CO2 doubling is widely
accepted to be equivalent to a radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere
of 4.3 W/m^2. The currently observed forcing above background would then
be 2.2 W/m^2 by Michaels' reasoning. In fact, the IPCC gives an average
over the 1980's of (eyeballing from a graph, being generous to Michaels)
about 1.8 W/m^2.
 
What was the forcing above background 50 years ago? Zero? No, greenhouse gas
concentrations have been increasing since about 1700. The IPCC estimate of
forcing in the 1940's was about 0.9 W/m^2.
 
So the increase over that period shouldn't have been half the doubling
sensitivity but barely a fifth of it! (0.9 / 4.3 = 1 / 4.77 )
 
[I won't argue with the sort of off-the-cuff proportionality provided for
the estimated response with ocean lag.]
 
So compare this:
 
Region                  Assuming        With            Observed
                        No Lag          Ocean Lag       (past 50 Years)
 
Globe                   2.1             1.2             0.25
                        = 4.2 / 2
 
with this:
 
Region                  Assuming        With            Observed
                        No Lag          Ocean Lag       (past 50 Years)
 
Globe                   0.63            0.36            0.25
                        = 3.0 / 4.8
 
and you have an object lesson in straw man arguments. Taking natural
variability and anthropogenic dust into account, the *high middle range* of
sensitivities is by no means excluded, even taking the temperature *maximum*
of ca. 1940 as a baseline.
 
But wait! What about the Popperian falsification in high northern latitudes?
 
Well, in Michaels' text, it is noted that such latitudes were defined to be
north of 55 degrees north latitude. Would it surprise you to find out that
the period 1940-1960 was a period of anomalous warmth in the latitude band
60-75 N? Or that high latitudes show much higher decadal temperature
variance than other latitude bands? Is the choice of latitude band or time
period really representative?
 
[C.K.Folland & D.E.Parker, "Observed Variations of Sea Surface Temperature",
in M.E.Schlesinger(ed) _Climate-Ocean Interaction_, Kluwer 1990, p 45, p 49]
 
Notice also that the high latitude warmth was broadly distributed in the
1940s, while the current warming is concentrated in high latitude
*continental interiors* as the models (and, in fact, Arrhenius 1898) would
have it. In fact, the amplitude of the wintertime warming in Siberia and
Alaska really is the most distinct feature of the observed spatial
temperature anomaly record available, at least to my eye.
 
This pronounced warming in most parts of high north is somewhat mitigated by
cooling in the Atlantic sector in analyses using latitudinal averages such
as those Michaels is using. This Atlantic cooling is *also* a feature of the
most recent models which incorporate some ocean dynamics.
 
Far from falsifying the models, recent observations are in good agreement
with them, to an extent that verges on surprising in my opinion. (I suspect
that detection of a greenhouse warming "signature" in the spatial record
may not be as far in the future as some people expect.)
 
Also I would note a serious error in the argument accompanying Michaels'
figure 4.2 .  The argument is that since CO2 is increasing exponentially
with time, while temperature increases logarithmically with concentration,
temperature should be rising linearly with time.
 
This is nonsense: temperature increases roughly logarithmically with *total*
CO2 concentration, while it is the *excess* concentration above background
that is increasing roughly exponentially.  Thus, temperature rise
would asymptotically approach a ramp in time, as excess concentration
increasingly dominates total concentration. But this is far from the current
situation, so the argument is moot. It is so obviously wrong that it is
surprising to see it in print: the correct version of the two approximations
has temperature rising at increasing rates for some time into the future.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / mitchell swartz /  Comparison of cf systems - S/N
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comparison of cf systems - S/N
Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 05:48:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     In Message-ID: <1993Nov22.115307.1129@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
 
> = Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
> = (simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
> =                                                           ling evidence one
> =                                                           way or the other)
> = II. Helium gas detection       Charged-particle detector   Thin dE/dx det.
> =   Tritium gas detection    (Si surface-barrier det.)   plus Si spectrometer"
 
=  "The point I'm
= getting at is this:  if helium or tritium is produced via nuclear reactions
= then the product nuclei *must* be charged and energetic, thus capable of
= detection by thin (dE/dx) and thick (E) charged-particle detectors.  Use of
= such a particle "telescope" provides both particle identification and particle
= energy, and is state of the art."
 
  Steven has said this before.    But has never PROVEN it, despite requests.
  Once again, can Steve present any evidence?   Four-vector equation?
Is there any real proof that physics in a solid state must obey only
the physics and scenarios of a plasma from colliding particles? \/\/
  Certainly this continued knocking of so many people, and their
experiments and theories, ought be based on some theory, formula(e) or
evidence, right?
  The reader ought note this has been asked for continuously,
but Steve (and the other TB-skeptics) appear to just restate their point,
and duck this issue.     In fact, such a putative proof is important.
 
 
= "Tom Claytor ....  noted, as I have
= here in the past, that light-cone constraints mean that energies released
= in nuclear reactions can only be transported about 10^-3 angstroms -- which
= means that the energy released by nuclear reactions cannot be dumped on the
= lattice as "heat."  "
 
  What is the evidence?  Any real proof of this assertion?
  Steve claims that no energy can be "dumped" from a nuclear reaction
into a lattice as heat.  Perhaps he should travel from Utah to Nevada
and check out the sand at a few ground "zeros".   No heat?  Indeed.
 
  Thanks in advance for the proof(s) to either or both of the above.
 
= "you evidently agree that the best detector systems show "lower S/N ratios".
= What does this tell you about claims that xs-heat is nuclear in origin?"
 
  The post did not say that better detector systems show "lower S/N ratios"
or anything  consistent with Steve's now-famous innuendo(s) about c.f.
The posting did ask why Steve appears to ignore the major products
and only focuses on systems of lower S/N ratios, as in the neutronpenic
levels of neutrons.   There is a considerable difference.
 
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                               (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / mitchell swartz /  State of the Skeptics' anti-c.f. theories
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: State of the Skeptics' anti-c.f. theories
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 05:49:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <93112310532284@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: State of cold fusion theory
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
=   "Who has seen anything in print that can be
= passed off as theory that gets around the basic problems of scaling
= factors on time, space, and energy that would say cold fusion just
= can't happen?"
 
  What is Dick's proof that time, space, or energy scale and produce
"problems" as he claims?
 
  Challenge: Dick, Prove it if you can.
If there really is a theory against cold fusion where is it?
 
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                               (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 06:08:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754114689@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
>
>>Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
>>it never answered, but only excised ??
>
>   Well, I would argue that Dale's _misunderstandings_ have been repeated
>several times, but I'll reserve that for my next post which will try to
>address some points.
 
      And it wasn't answered here either.  But why wait?
      Please reserve nothing, I have a very short attention span, and
      I'm getting bored.
 
>>I'll repeat, no-one has any
>>problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
>>base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
>
>   ...because we have to base our economic policy on _something_. Even an
>assumption of no climate change as a possible scenario and no alterations
>of current practice would be an economic decision. Waiting for more
>research is a decision. We can't make _no_ decision.
 
     But calling for a 'decision' carries with it an
     implication.  The implication is that we sit at a juncture with
     admittedly incomplete and probably misleading information, but
     we *must* make a 'decision'.
 
     However, we do not sit at a juncture, and we do not need to make any
     'decision' more than the usual 'decisions' we make without the
     information.
 
>The incomplete models
>present us with more information that ignoring the models would. There
>will be a great variety of opinions as to whether the incomplete
>information is enough to make us decide to change our actions, but you
>ignore the information at your peril.
 
     How does one quantify 'more information'?  The implication is
     that 'incomplete models' present us with more correct or indicative
     information.  I do not believe this to be a correct implication.
 
     And why do I ignore it at my peril?  Perhaps you 'heed' it at your
     peril.  Not surprisingly, the symmetry seems to be missed
     by those who assume peril.
 
>   (Note that I would differentiate between "ignoring the information" and
>"deciding that the information is insufficient to change a course of
>action".)
 
     Fine, but that assigns a basic worth to the information.
 
     I realize my heresy, but perhaps there is none?
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 22 Nov 93 18:10:24
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

 
     This really goes back to the beginning of this thread, but I
wanted to keep it connected.  I just came across new book in the MITRE
library:
 
        Electronic Style: A guide to Citing Electronic Information
        by Xia Li and Nancy B. Crane
        ISBN: 0 88736-909-X
        published by:
            Meckler
            11 Ferry Lane West
            Westport CT 06880
            (there was also a UK address)
 
       I didn't look too closely, but it looks like a good start on
how to reference all sorts of electronic sources in papers,
bibliographies, and etc.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 09:58:58 GMT

In <2cthpf$9m@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
-- stuff deleted for brevity --
>Secondly, the models while subject to many uncertainties and caveats
>do help us understand some of the factors involved.  I for one. would
>be reassured if all the models predicted no substantial warming.
>However, I would certainly be surprised at that and would try to
>understand why.
  OK .. but what criteria would you expect a model which predicted no
substantial warming to have ?? Part of the discussion is concern over
the possibility that any such model would be rejected out of hand, for
not fitting the assumed facts.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / James Crotinger /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: 24 Nov 93 09:00:27 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 
> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
> >What is the major problem with Hirsch's electrostatic confinement reactor?
>
> Not enough work has been done on it.
>
 
  Hirsch recently gave a talk here at LLNL. The talk was on commercial
power production in general, and on fusion's future role, and not on
the technical aspects of various approaches. However there was a Q&A
session in which some relevant questions were asked. Also, Bussard gave
a talk here last year, but it seemed like mostly hype. (MHO)
 
> But seriously, the most credible objection I've heard raised to it's
> eventual economy is the potential problem posed by anode erosion due to
> ion bombardment.  This occurs once the p-B11 cycle is ignited and Mev
> alphas are being produced at electric utility scales.  This really is
> a potential show-stopper from an economic standpoint.
>
> BTW:  Farsworth is really most appropriately credited with the invention
> of EF.  He was Hirsch's mentor.  I attribute the ion-gun EF invention
> to Farnsworth and the Polywell(TM) magnetic cusp EF invention to
> Bussard.
 
  Hirsch didn't give a lot of details, but he said that he got the
basic idea while a grad student, and hooked up with Farnsworth to try
to build the thing, and that Farnsworth was very instrumental in
making it all come together.
 
> >For such a simple,
> >working system to be dropped in favour of the more complex magnetic and
> >inertial confinement systems suggests some serious flaws.
>
> I haven't gotten around to compiling a history of the decision to drop
> Farnsworth's device in favor of the Tokamak, but it is a history that
> needs writing.  Hirsch is central to any such history as he was the one
> apparently most responsible for allowing Farnsworth's invention to be
> dropped in favor of the Tokamak.  I'm rather surprised that Hirsch hasn't
> written up his own history of these events since his credibility in his
> current efforts to revive EF are at stake.
 
  Hirsch said they took the idea to DOE. It was reviewed by various
prominant physicists, and they all said it couldn't possibly work for
various theoretical reasons. (And there are real concerns -- the
device depends crucially the ion distribution remaining essentially a
delta function, and plasmas don't generally like to be in such a
state.) Funding was denied, and work stopped. In spite of the
reviewers' objections, Hirsch claims that no one has ever come up with
a plausable theory to explain their observed neutron production, and
he firmly believes that the reviewers were just wrong. He would like
to see funding to take another theoretical/computational look at the
thing, using today's more advanced tools; and, of course, he'd like to
see a small proof of principal experiment funded.
 
> A device that can produce fusion events on the desktop just isn't big
> enough to justify "blank-check" funding levels with the all the pork
> needed to go around.
 
  Huh? This was in 1968. The fusion budgets were still quite small.
Indeed, Hirsch was instrumental in selling the idea that we should
concentrate on the Tokamak, that we should put big bucks behind them,
that TFTR should burn DT, etc.; i.e. lots of other good ideas. It's
kind of funny to see Hirsch pushing his present point of view, when he
was basically to father of the opposite point of view. He pushed the
tokamak at the expense of alternatives (pinches, mirrors, and other
obscure things), and, from what I've heard and read (I was not even a
teenager at the time) there were folks around back then that were
quite critical of his approach. But Hirsch won.
 
  Personally, I find the DOE's lack of funding for alternative
concepts to be inexcusable. However, until some of these concepts get
past the proof of principle stage, they should not be funded at the
expense of existing programs. I also think that serious thought needs
to go into the ITER decision. The ITER concept seems a good one -- an
international collaboration to spread the cost of a demo reactor.  But
there is plenty to criticize regarding the current design.
 
  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:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 10:05:18 GMT

In <1993Nov23.181041.21097@cs.wisc.edu> Michael Tobis writes:
-- rest of an excellent article deleted .. thanx Michael.
>Consider that I have a property adjacent to yours, and large tree with a
>large branch overhanging your roof. Am I entitled to take the easiest way
>of chopping that branch down, because you cannot "prove" that I would damage
>your roof by doing so? This implies a peculiar definition of negligence.
  I'm not sure I like this analogy. We have a wealth of past experience
with trees and roofs to have a fair predictive model of likely outcomes.
Try this: The 'church for the redemption of those who have fun' decides
to fund studies into the possible link between excessive sex and cancer.
Researchers point to the hormones released during sex, the fact that
these are normally present in low quantities, and propose a model whereby
constant higher levels of these hormones might lead to cancer.
It will takes years of studies to show this definitely one way or
another. Meantime, spurred on by this, Archeologists dig up
Casannova's grave, and find traces of products often found in
cancerous growths, and speculate that Cassanova may have
died of cancer. Gratified by this concurrance, the church
incorporates this finding into their models, and start searching
for other leading lights of the sexual revolution to determine
their cause of death. A few are found to have died of cancer.
  'We have a situation here' muses Abbot Whacker, 'there's
definitely a strong possibility that having sex causes cancer, we
must inform the public'.
'The studies are inconclusive!' protests Brother Beater ' We need
further studies'. 'That will take years' says Abbot Whacker,
'The public must be forced to forgoe sex for their own good, we
can't afford to take any risks here' he says, reaching for the
phone to alert the media and the president (in that order :-) )
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 10:43:10 GMT

In <2ctk4a$12v@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
>One honest position to take at present is `I don't know for sure
>that global warming will occur, but I think the prevailing evidence
>is that it is enough of a possibility to warrant modest actions'.
>Another honest position would be `I can't say for sure that
>global warming will not occur, but because of the costs to society
>of taking any measures to disrupt already chancy economic systems,
>I think we should not act now but wait for more information.'
>To assert that global warming is a virtual certainty or that
>it is a radical theory proposed by a fringe group of pseudoscientits
>is a mistake.
  This just about says it all for me as well.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Bruce Scott /  Hysteria (was Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Hysteria (was Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 24 Nov 1993 12:09:21 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <2cu101$587@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
 
>In article <CGyI06.AzI@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
        crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
[...]
 
>>     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
>>     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
>>     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
>
>I don't think you read what I said.   I wasn't proposing that public
>hysteria be encouraged now or in the future.  If the scenario
>I suggested occurred, whom do think the public should be angry
>at?
 
The only hysteria I've seen so far is the rambling e-mail mesasge I
received this morning, eventually accusing me for pains he has parking
his car as a result of my position that ignoring the risk of global
warming is not prudent. It seems the hysteria on this issue is of the
Limbaugh/LaRouche variety...
 
I invite the correspondent to make his e-mail public.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat Pipe Progress
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Progress
Date: 22 Nov 93 19:31:34
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Nov19.034209.6539@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
    I was going to send a (private) message to Tom in response to a
question he asked on Friday, but it looks like it might be of more
general interest...
 
    Tom said:
 
   >  Before the final glue joint, the inside surfaces were covered
   > with 1/16" Fiberfrax.  This is stuff designed to replace asbestos
   > for pipe lagging.  It is supposed to be good to 2300F.  Tests
   > indicated that it wicked gin nicely.
 
    This may be a good wick material, but I worry that it may be way
too much.  On the other hand, you are planning to run this thing for a
LONG time between refills...  Let me get back to this.
 
    Tom asked if I could try to give him a "feel" for how these thing
work, rather than just cookbook recipies.  I think I see where he was
coming from.  Some of this is close to black magic without you know
the rules.
 
    What goes on in a heat pipe are two counterbalancing molecular
flows, the heat carrying flow is more surprising, the return flow is
trickier.
 
    Take a Superball (R) and bounce it off a hard floor.  Estimate the
from the height of successive bounces the fraction of the kinetic
energy of the ball transferred to the floor at each bounce.  (Should
be around 10%, depending on ball and floor.)  Now coat the floor with
two inches of peanut butter and repeat the experiment.  (Please! Do
this part as a mental experiment only.)
 
    Based on the above experiment it should be obvious that if you want
to extract as much thermal energy as possible out of a gas molecule,
you want it to stick when it hits.  With gases you get a side benefit,
the latent heat of vaporization also comes out if you can make it
stick, so that molecules that stick transfer (order 100x times and
larger) more energy than those that don't.  But again based on the
above experiment, we would soon end up with a layer of Superballs
embedded in peanut butter, and the balls would eventually start
bouncing again, if we didn't run out of balls first.  So we need a
layer that acts sticky when molecules hit, but more like a puddle of
oil once they land.  Enter absorption--notice the b.
 
    For most materials in most atmospheres, there is a (several
molecule thick) layer of gas absorbed on the surface.  (Absorption is
a volume phenomena, absorption is totally surface.)  The attraction
that the surface, from here on a metal, has for the gas molecules
falls off with the usual inverse square.  So if a metal absorbs a
fluid (no longer a gas when it is on the surface, but not yet really a
liquid), the absorbed layer smooths itself out.  Heat one point to
drive the (now) gas off, the other molecules will jostle around to
keep the layer even.  IF, and this is a big IF, the layer is not
interrupted by cracks surface irregularities, etc., then the molecules
can move faster than sound in the gas across the surface.  Holes in the
Nth layer are filled by molecules in the N+1 layer moving in.  Unless
there are big holes through several layers, this works through
Brownian motion. Modulo a lot of tricks, it is apparently possible to
suck one layer off of another if you know what you are doing.  (More
easily seen with oil on water with a moveable boundary.)
 
   So, to get the above two processes to work, you want more than one
thickness of molecules on the surface--if you have less it doesn't
matter where the hole is--but not too much more.  If you want to
compute all this out, two to three thicknesses is best.  This is
in part where the fill with gin and boil it out comes from.  You want
an all gin (actually C2H5OH on H2O for the most part) layer on the
metal and nothing else.  The boiling helps get rid of the old adsorbed
gasses and replaces them with your preferred layers.
 
   So where does the wick come in?  In a perfect world, it only gets
in the way.  In the real world the wick does three things:
 
   1) It acts as a reservoir.  No matter how good your design there
will be some fluid loss with time.  In addition, you need to allow for
different temperature ranges. If you pick things right (and it isn't
hard), the absorption of the wick will fall in between the absorption
of first layer on the wall, and say the fourth layer.  (Remember that
square law.)  This way the amount of liquid in the wick will vary, but
the amount on the walls will stay constant.  Notice that for this
effect, the wick need not touch anything.  It is hard to get a wick to
levitate, but I used to just sort of throw a pipe cleaner or three in,
and not worry about what it did or didn't touch.  But you certainly
don't want to impede gas flow.
 
     Notice that while it is very hard but possible to get a system
without a wick to work, it is easy once you add a wick.  Unless you
are working with sodium as a working fluid--I DON'T RECOMMMEND IT--the
wicking is a volume effect.  This means that the amount of fluid
absorbed in the wick will be thousands of times the amount adsorbed on
the surface.  It's a lot easier to get the amount right that way.
 
  2) It acts as a bridge across surface cracks and other
imperfections, especially reverse joints.  A knife-edge is worst,
because no net "reverse" flow will occur across a knife-edge unless
things are grossly unbalanced.  For this purpose you need contact, but
for a well polished surface, inches between contact points will be
fine.
 
  3) The wick can act as a bridge between unconnected surfaces.  Tom
is worrying about this one, but I don't think he has to.  If the
distance was measured in yards (or meters) then maybe.  But notice
that for this problem, cotton balls are the best wick material.
 
  One last observation:
 
   DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
 
   >In about 1/2 hour, the gin boiled out down to the level of the
   >inner cup.  Then the process greatly slowed down.  It looked like
   >it might take all night to boil off the gin.
 
   John Logajan said:
 
   > Looks to me like the system was trying to tell you something,
   > Grasshopper.  The heat loss rate off the outer surface was
   > sufficient to recondense the gin vapor -- you had a heat pipe
   > effect going on.
 
-- Sounds right.
 
   Tom again:
 
   >The heater was turned off, and the gin was allowed to siphon back into the
   >heat pipe.
 
   John again:
 
   > No no, Grasshopper.  You had the ying yang balance in the palm of your
   > hand and you let it slip away!
 
   Not even close.  The perfect balance is when there is no free
liquid in the system anywhere in the operating range, but one drop
more would rattle around and pool in the bottom.  This may need
modifying for Tom's experiments--several months of continuous
operation may argue for starting with a sopping wet (well at least
noticably damp) wick.
 
   >Note that all the heat pipes for this experiment work backwards
   >from what is easiest for heat pipes.
 
   Not really.  The top layer of the adsorbed surface will emit lots
of (relatively hot) molecules all over.  So in operation the gas in
the heat pipe is always hotter than the sides, even when no heat is
flowing.  (No, that doesn't contradict thermodynamics...it is
equilibrium.)  The amount of gas leaving any section of the surface is
usually thousands of times what you need to carry the heat, so the
efficiency of the operation depends on the thickness of the adsorbed
layer, and that usually depends on your wick material and how good you
are at getting everything else out.  The best wick for Tom's
application might be some form of long fibers in a very loose,
volume-filling matrix.  One percent or less would be great.  (If this
sounds like the materials used in air conditioner filters, you are
getting close.  They are usually fiberglass, which is not a good
adsorber. If you could get some Fiberfrax like this, it might be
perfect.  I'm not familiar with it, but what you are usually looking
for is a fiberglass or plastic foam with an absorbing coating.)
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: 24 Nov 1993 12:33:04 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Jim Crotinger writes, in part:
 
|> (And there are real concerns -- the device depends crucially the ion
|> distribution remaining essentially a delta function, and plasmas don't
|> generally like to be in such a state.)
 
I just want to point out that MIGMA has this same problem. Moreover,
all the orbits must be tangential to the disk center to get the
density spike there. Recent success raising the density limit by a factor
of 70 or so needs to be repeated, ie, another factor of 70 would be
needed.
 
["he" is Hirsch in what follows]
 
|> He would like to see funding to take another theoretical/computational
|> look at the thing, using today's more advanced tools; and, of course,
|> he'd like to see a small proof of principal experiment funded.
 
I'd like to see this, too. Jim, any chance you might play about with
one or more of these things? (Do you have particle-code experience from
working on clumps?)
 
|> He pushed the tokamak at the expense of alternatives (pinches, mirrors,
|> and other obscure things), and, from what I've heard and read (I was
|> not even a teenager at the time) there were folks around back then that
|> were quite critical of his approach. But Hirsch won.
 
Dave Montgomery, for example, was and still is an outspoken critic of the
post-1970 approach. But he and others like him (also Dieter Pfirsch) have
been marginalised.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 22 Nov 93 19:41:45
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Nov19.062934.8356@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
  > Tell me where to find IFF generators and viewers for MSDOS, Unix, and
  > as we hear from the peanut gallery :-), Macs.
 
     Hmmm.  Deluxe Paint is the prototypical IFF generator, and I know
it is available for PCs, I'm not sure about Macs, but I think it is
available.  DP IV.5 works fine on my AGA Amiga, but why rub it in. :-)
I think there are several IFF viewers for Unix, but IFF to GIF
conversion products abound.
 
     But, as I said before, GIF is probably more universal, IFF is
probably the most efficient.  The decision is normative not
quanitative, and each person will have different weightings.
 
     When documents are placed on servers however, the equation
changes.  There is no reason not to have several different packagings
to choose from.  (I've thought about a neat toy from time to time.  A
file system that looks ordinary, but most of the "files" don't exist.
They are created as you download them from a single canonical source.
Sort of like the way fax machines work.  They negotiate a protocol,
then the sender encodes the page using that protocol.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
   I have something called TIFF, but in a comparison of a 640x480x16 graph
   of 15 different plotted variables, the GIF size was 35k and the TIFF
   size was 900K !!!  Yikes.
 
   --
   - John Logajan MS602, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
   - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Poison Plutonium
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison Plutonium
Date: 22 Nov 93 19:57:39
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2cm1e2INN6u5@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
   > "Well, punk. Do you feel _lucky_ today?"
 
-- Made my day. :-)
 
   > :      At least we're in agreement on part of this.
 
   > Me three.
 
     Me four.  Worrying about the effects of long-term radioactive
storage on future intelligent cockroache just seems silly when
compared to the alternatives.  Switch to ecologically sound nuclear
power, and keep a technological human civilization around long enough
that the cockroaches get stomped, and the nuclear dumps get used as
"natural" resources.
 
    Of course, the eco-nuts will continue to cry about the
non-existant species we might be wiping out.  See the Wall Street
Journal, either today or Friday, I forget which, for a case where the
EPA is trying to put a species on the endangered species list.  Only
problem is, no one has seen any.  (The idea is that a variety of a
bottom feeding fish plentifully found in the Mississippi could exist
in several other rivers--but they aren't found.  Must be VERY rare.
How is the Alabama species different from the Mississippi species?
Different habitat!  I wish I were joking.)
 
 
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 21:37:25 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
 
[deletia]
 
>That brings us to the question of the underlying physics and the
>attempt to quantify it through computer modelling.   Bass claims
>that the sensitivity to CO2 is built into the models to start.
>In some sense this may be correct since any climate model which
>did not build in sensitivity to greenhouse gases in general
>would give grossly inaccurate results for present climate.
 
   I think this is the key point. Dale Bass, in my interpretation, is
saying that the models show warming in response to increased CO2 because
the modellers made it that way. This is, from one viewpoint, indisputable.
 
   a)  the modellers created the model.
   b)  the models show warming when CO2 is increased.
   c)  we conclude that the modellers "caused" the warming in the model,
       i.e. a) caused b).
 
   The question which Dale appears reluctant to discuss is exactly how the
modellers "caused" the warming. Let us take an extremely simple example.
We want to multiply two number together (6 and 7), and find out the
result. We program a computer to do this. Two possible programs come to
mind:
 
    write ('42')
 
or
    A = 6
    B = 7
    write (A*B)
 
   Now, both programs give the result '42', and both can be claimed to
give that result "because they were designed to give that result", yet
only one of them is really a "good" program. For example, if we were to
use the first program to multpiply six times eight, it would still say
'42', whereas the second one with B=8 would give the correct answer.
 
   Dael appears to be claiming that climate models are similar to program
1 above, rather than program 2.
 
   The challenge to Dale is to explain exactly *why* he thinks the climate
models "are designed to give warming". Is it because they are designed to
give the correct response to the physics, and warming will be the correct
response? If not, please explain what is is in terms of the physics that
is being _overridden_ by the manipulations of the modellers?
 
   If Dale cannot say what it is he believes is the cause of this
"erroneous" result, then he is just blowing smoke.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 24 Nov 1993 23:06:22 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <2d0apoINN10st@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>In article <CGzzn5.Hwp@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>,
>       mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>|> In <2ct7cmINNpv4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.d
 (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>|>
>|> |Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. Especially
>|>
>|> Any thinking person should be able to see just how ludicrous this statement
>|> is. Do you drive to work in a tank? If not why not? Being in a small car
>|> is certainly a preventable risk. Crossing the street is a preventable
>|> risk.
>
>What utter rubbish. It should be clear to "any thinking person" that this
>nonsensical extrapolation does not follow from my statements.
>
>|> |when the consequences have a reasonable chance to be very great. See
>|>
>|> It is a certainty that the cost of prevention is also going to be very
>|> great.
>
>Demonstrate this. I dispute it. All that is needed is to move away from
>fossil fuel power by replacing old power plants with new fission ones.
>The time scale on which we need to do this is of order a power plant
>lifetime anyway. The point is, to start now so that we can do a medium-
>term job in the medium term, and not as a hysterical crash program.
>
 
Unfortunately, more will probably be needed due to the large
amount of energy used for transportation.
 
>Hysteria like you are raising is not at all helpful.
>
>BTW, it seems to me that a certain population of environmentalists is
>going to get their sincerity tested: in the long run, it is not very
>ecophilic to oppose reflexively the very thing which can rather painlessly
>remove the risks of global warming, is it?
>
 I agree that more reliance on nuclear energy will be needed, but
it won't be enough.   For the immediate future, greater efficiency
in everything from aplliances to auto engines will also be important.
 
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Donald Locker /  Re: Reference to News postings
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reference to News postings
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:18:45 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <2crcb1$9vn@mailer.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <01H5F3RQRL1EHV1LJK@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>
>>I asked
>>
>>>Is there a formal convention for a reference to News items in a scientific
>>>paper? There is the odd posting that is worth referring to; but how?
>
[deletia]
>
>>J. Blow, 12.11.1993, under SUBJECT "RE: bla bla", in Fusion Digest 1234,
>>filed as fusion.93-06789, directory fusion, ftp site vm1.nodak.edu.
>
>would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
 
Each posting has a Message Id: <here it is> in the header which is
essentially (1 in 2^some big number) unique in time and net-space.
When referring to an article, this Id is an invaluable reference.
(Note also that the article number, which sometimes shows up as a
"reference" is only unique to each machine.  i.e. article number 16340
on my machine is almost certainly different than article number 16340
on any other machine.  IOW, useless as a reference.)
 
--
Donald.                      |  Coffee, Donuts, Scotch and Maalox (TM)
Opinions? sure they're mine. |  The sys admins four major food groups.
Who else would claim 'em?    |  (thanks to _Duffy_)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Donald Locker /  Re: Contact NTT
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Contact NTT
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:25:40 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <931122163318_72240.1256_EHK29-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Steve Jones writes:
>
>"P.S. to Mitch and Jed:  some time ago, I asked you to answer a question:
>Did Yamaguchi leave NTT as rumored?
>No response yet, gentlemen.  Why not?"
>
>I can't speak for Mitch, but here are my reasons why not:
>
>1.   This forum is supposed to be an outlet for scientific discussions, not
>     idle, malicious gossip and rumors about the personal affairs of other
>     people.
>
 
Very good, Jed!!!  So why in the world do you follow it with:
 
>2.   If Dr. Jones has any legitimate reason for wanting to know the
>     whereabouts and current activities of Dr. Yamaguchi, he will find the
>     address of the NTT Basic Research Laboratory on every paper ever
>     published by Dr. Yamaguchi. He can write to NTT and find out for
>     himself. There is no need for him to ask me via public e-mail.
>     Therefore, it is obvious that he is not seriously interested in finding
>     out this information, he is merely engaged in yet another of his famous
>     nefarious "mind-games." I will not play along.
>
[rest deleted ]
--
Donald.                      |  Coffee, Donuts, Scotch and Maalox (TM)
Opinions? sure they're mine. |  The sys admins four major food groups.
Who else would claim 'em?    |  (thanks to _Duffy_)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 18:41:52 EST

         Bruce Scott posted (in response to a query as to why current
models of global warming justify large policy changes):
>Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. ...
         It is this mindset that tempts many people to dismiss the
environmental movement as antirational.  Obviously (to me anyway)
preventable risk should be prevented if and only if the costs do not
exceed the benefits.
                     James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:27:50 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <19931124.020240.521@almaden.ibm.com>, nicho@vnet.IBM.COM
(Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
|> In <2cthpf$9m@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
|> -- stuff deleted for brevity --
|> >Secondly, the models while subject to many uncertainties and caveats
|> >do help us understand some of the factors involved.  I for one. would
|> >be reassured if all the models predicted no substantial warming.
|> >However, I would certainly be surprised at that and would try to
|> >understand why.
|>   OK .. but what criteria would you expect a model which predicted no
|> substantial warming to have ?? Part of the discussion is concern over
|> the possibility that any such model would be rejected out of hand, for
|> not fitting the assumed facts.
 
Well, it couldn't be a simple model: the simple models (radiative-convective)
models all produce warming. This is a relatively elementary exercise. You
can model it crudely by covering yourself with more and more blankets
on a cool night. (The analogy only breaks down because your body starts
conserving heat when in is warm enough. If you had a non-homeostatic heat
source with you it would get warmer and warmer as you added blankets.)
 
To explain why the trapped radiant energy does NOT produce warming, you need
a mechanism, and this would presumably require a full-blown model of the
atmosphere at the very least, which could reproduce existing climate
conditions, including surface temperature, upper air winds and temperatures,
convective patterns, and storm tracks, solely by modelling forces and energy
fluxes on a grid of fluid parcels.
 
Such models are the result of difficult and serious work, (on the order of a
megabyte of source code, generally, and requiring very specific skills as
Dale himself will freely attest) and any model fitting these criteria is not
lightly thrown away.
 
All existing models incorporating both radiative and fluid physics which
approximately represent current climate with current radiative forcing give
a significantly warmer climate with plausible increases in greenhouse gases.
As Len says, it would be very surprising if they didn't, much as you would
be surprised if you got colder after adding a blanket.
 
(It is plausible that such a model might find some albedo feedback mechanism
that would limit the warming, though this has not been demonstrated as yet.)
 
The suspicion that a credible global circulation model which showed very
small warming would not be publicised is simply not plausible. Consider the
selfish motivations of the people doing the work, if you are reluctant to
credit them with intellectual honesty and moral decency.
 
What a waste of time if it were not published! What a goldmine of citations
if it were!
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:21:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754177873@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>>     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
>>     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
>>     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
>
>   ...and extreme weather events are part of climate. If the climate
>changes, we may see a change in frequency, duration, or magnitude of
>extreme events. One possiblility in the global warming scenario is
>increased drought frequency. What if, 20 years from now, we find that the
>Great Plains "bread basket" has frequent or sustained drought that makes
>it no longer viable for food production?
 
     I was done, but this is unbelievable.
 
     Here's the problem.  Droughts happen.  A drought happens that
     is mildly disruptive and eco-nuts demand we shut down the rest
     of the economy that wasn't causing the drought in the first place
     supported by three or four climatological models that happen to show
     the drought being 'caused' by the other part of the economy.
 
                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 24 Nov 1993 15:14:50 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <19931124.020240.521@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In <2cthpf$9m@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
>-- stuff deleted for brevity --
>>Secondly, the models while subject to many uncertainties and caveats
>>do help us understand some of the factors involved.  I for one. would
>>be reassured if all the models predicted no substantial warming.
>>However, I would certainly be surprised at that and would try to
>>understand why.
>  OK .. but what criteria would you expect a model which predicted no
>substantial warming to have ?? Part of the discussion is concern over
>the possibility that any such model would be rejected out of hand, for
>not fitting the assumed facts.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
>nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
>nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
 
 
I am not a climate modeler so I can't speak with too much authority
here.   Some others like
Michael Tobis, who is doing graduate work in a related area, may
want to comment, but let me give it a try.   I am not sure of the
exact thrust of the comment, but let me address the issue of
a model being rejected out of hand for not producing expected
results.
 
If you look at the discussion of modeling in the IPCC Report, you find
that the equilibrium models show a considerable range of temperature
sensitivities to CO2 doubling.  (about 1.7 to 5 deg C).   Often different
models of the same
investigators will come up with results like 2 deg in one case and
4 deg in another.   (Sometimes these are the result of technical differences
in the modeling and not unexpected.)   This fact in itself indicates to
me that the modelers are not consciously looking for prescribed results,
except that obviously they need to be able to match the important
aspects of current climate.   Next, setting up a model is no trivial
task.  You need access to a very powerful computer and to a team of
competent programmers.   You also need funding which is based on
peer review.  Since the results of a model can't be determined in
advance, it is not clear how the peer reviewers of proposals could force
certain results on all modelers in advance.   Unless someone can come
up with evidence to the contrary, I think it is just paranoia to suggest
that modelers are consciously building biases into their models so that
they will predict warming.  Since modeling is so difficult to do,
it is hard to see how climate modelers could hope to do that.   There
are a bunch of validation tests of models.   Here are some of the
things they try to match.  Temperature as a function of latitude,
sea level pressures as a function of latitude, wind velocities
as a function of latitude, precipitation as a function of latitude,
etc.   Now of course it is possible that they are biasing the results
because of the basic assumptions they are making about the physics.
However, I believe those assumptions are all out in the open.   Anyone
who wants to show that these assumptions are biased in some direction
is free to show it.   A case in point is Richard Lindzen, a well known
atmospheric scientist (but not quite a climatologist) who is a
professor at MIT.   He criticized explicitly the way models treat
water vapor feedback by suggesting a mechanism whereby this feedback
would end up being negative rather than positive.   This thesis has
not been generally accepted, but it at least opens up a possibility.
It is my impression that the criticism of Lindzen's idea is based
on the physics, not on any presumed need to produce certain results.
I would be willing to bet that Lindzen could easily obtain funding
if he wanted to set up his own model, but of course that model
would be subject to all the validation tests the other models must
satisfy.
 
Having said all that, let me emphasize that this forum is not
appropriate for debating the details of the models.   The best we
can hope to do is report on what the scientific literature says.
Anyone who can make a strong case that the climate models are
systematically biased should present that case in a paper in
peer reviewed journal.   It is just not possible here to go through
all the mathematics and detailed arguments, and even if it were,
very few of us would be in a position to evaluate the details.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Scott Mullins /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 24 Nov 93 16:29:23 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <CGysr1.Gt2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <CGyI9n.91v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>Scott H Mullins <smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Being involved in CFD you must be familiar with the finite element
>>method. In your opinion are inaccuracies in the solution near a
>>particular point grounds for tossing the entire solution?
>> I have in
>>mind a particular case that arises in solid mechanics. The stresses
>>at a re-entrant corner in the model are in reality infinite but
>>a finite element solution will only give finite solutions, thus
>>yielding an infinite error at that point. Does this invalidate the
>>solution everywhere else in the model?
>
>    It invalidates the solution in the corner, but where in nature
>    do you see this 'infinite' stress?  It is the model that is invalid
>    at that point.
 
You see that infinite stress at any re-entrant corner.
The solution is invalid at that point _because_ it indicates
a finite solution.
 
But my point is that the FEM solution away from that corner is
valid, which you seem to concede.
 
>    However, solid mechanics models and climatological models are
>    currently in a somewhat different state of development.
 
So? You said that an error in the solution at one point invalidated
the entire model. That's not _necessarily_ true. Whether or
not its true in the specific case of climate modeling I have no
idea.
 
>                                dale bass
 
--
Scott
smullins@ecn.purdue.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensmullins cudfnScott cudlnMullins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 24 Nov 1993 18:56:56 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CGzzn5.Hwp@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>,
        mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
|> In <2ct7cmINNpv4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
|>
|> |Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. Especially
|>
|> Any thinking person should be able to see just how ludicrous this statement
|> is. Do you drive to work in a tank? If not why not? Being in a small car
|> is certainly a preventable risk. Crossing the street is a preventable
|> risk.
 
What utter rubbish. It should be clear to "any thinking person" that this
nonsensical extrapolation does not follow from my statements.
 
|> |when the consequences have a reasonable chance to be very great. See
|>
|> It is a certainty that the cost of prevention is also going to be very
|> great.
 
Demonstrate this. I dispute it. All that is needed is to move away from
fossil fuel power by replacing old power plants with new fission ones.
The time scale on which we need to do this is of order a power plant
lifetime anyway. The point is, to start now so that we can do a medium-
term job in the medium term, and not as a hysterical crash program.
 
Hysteria like you are raising is not at all helpful.
 
BTW, it seems to me that a certain population of environmentalists is
going to get their sincerity tested: in the long run, it is not very
ecophilic to oppose reflexively the very thing which can rather painlessly
remove the risks of global warming, is it?
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Hysteria (was Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Hysteria (was Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 19:35:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>It seems the hysteria on this issue is of the Limbaugh/LaRouche variety...
 
I don't see the causal link between Rush Limbaugh (a popular right wing
spokesmen in the USA) and Lyndon LaRouch (quasi-socialist Democratic Party
gadfly and convicted credit card swindler.)
 
Remember, arguments stand and fall on their own merits, and not on any
personality's name one manages to blame or credit -- see ad hominem and
appeals to authority, etc in your local Logic text book.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: 24 Nov 1993 19:15:18 GMT
Organization: ESL, Inc.  A TRW Company

In article <MWARREN.93Nov22112646@ap207sun.oracle.com>,
mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren) wrote:
> Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
> already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
> readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
> Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
> hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
> readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
> reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
> from news.software.readers help out here).
 
I don't know anything about MIME, other than what has been said here.
Is it a standard only for e-mail, or does it cover news as well?  There
are some differences.  For example, if my news reader doesn't handle
MIME but I can get a MIME emailer, then I would have to mail myself a
copy of all interesting news articles.  However, that process may be
simpler than alternative forms of saving news articles, uudecoding,
uncompressing, etc.
 
  ********************************************************************
   EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
   E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
   EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
   E          S  L
   EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
  ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Second to Steve Jones's Motion
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Second to Steve Jones's Motion
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 20:01:06 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories

In article <93112311055974@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>I think Steve Jones has pointed out one of the key problems with cold
>fusion positive results!  There have now been enough experiments over
>a long enough period of time and under a great variety of circumstances
>such that we can begin to study the statistical features of this
>data set.  As Steve points out none of the positive results have moved
>clearly out of the range of the "noise".
 
There is a relatively stable and even respectable technique for conducting
analyses such as those Dick Blue is suggesting.  The technique is called
meta-analysis, and it is a way of combining data over several experiments
to obtain more experimental power.  While I myself have never used this
technique, I have run across it in the literature (mainly social sciences,
but then that is what I read).  I believe I have also read of the use of
meta-analysis with regard to paranormal studies.  The reader may draw
whatever conclusion from this statement that he or she wishes.
 
I am not well enough versed in this field to undertake such an
analysis.  I could possibly dig up references on the application
of meta-analysis if someone were going to seriously consider
applying to the CF literature.
 
Dick?
 
 
Regards,
 
Bob Virzi
 
 
--
 
  rvirzi@gte.com             Think Globally. ===
  +1(617)466-2881                            === Act Locally!
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Peter Rayner /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pjr@splash.Princeton.EDU (Peter Rayner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 15:41:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Ah, more fun with mature topics popping up on sci.environment.  This
time, dear friends, we turn our attention to the unrepresentativeness
of the CO2 record ... again.  Here I think I have the attribution
right, apologies if not.
>In article  <CGusCr.1K8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>   Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)  wrote :
>
>> In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
>> Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
>>
>>> For the temperature record of the last glacial maximum and deglacia-
>>> tion there's Vostok, there are the Greenland Ice Cores, most notably
>>> the Summit Cores, there are deep sea cores, all of them in broad
>>> agreement.  The Vostok CO2 measurements  _do_  provide a global signal,
>>> the interhemispheric mixing time is on the order of two years.
>>
>> 'Broad agreement' of point measurements is not compelling, especially
>> when local variation can be so great, and assumptions about
>> interhemispheric mixing in past times are model-dependent and
>> relatively inaccessible to current probing.
This is starting to sound like a mantra.  "You don't know, you don't
know. and if you say you do you're lying."
Today's question is on whether the Vostok core is a good
representation of global CO2 values.  There are two quibbles.  One is
that the mixing times are model dependent and the second that they
might have changed a lot.
Let's address the second question first.   Be careful though, it's
those nasty models again.  I've run an experiment with the GFDL tracer
transport model with just the known fossil fuel source.  That's pretty
much a northern hemisphere source.  If it was all going into the NH it
would increase the CO2 concentration at about 5ppmv (parts per million
by volume) per year.  My model calculation gives about 4.  From this
we can calculate the efficiency of mixing between the hemispheres.
Depending on how you write your definitions it comes out at about 2
years as Jan said.
 
Now the Lorius et al. result has about a 90ppmv drop in CO2 at Vostok
core for the last glacial maximum.   Now let's assume for the moment
that this is representative of the southern hemisphere.  Now let's try
the example where the global average drop is only, say 60ppmv.  This
means the northern hemisphere drop must be 30.  Thus there's an
interhemispheric gradient of 60ppmv.  To get this you have to increase
the product of the mixing time and the source-sink dipole strength
(maybe I should have used some equations) by a factor of 15.  I'm
sorry, this is just a bit hard to credit.  All this, too, is without
any extra evidence from Greenland which shows no such dipole.
 
Now what about those nasty models.  Firstly tracer concentrations away
from sources (i.e clean sites like Vostok) are representative of broad
scale patterns within hemispheres.  This is observationally true now
and you would need to pretty much freeze the atmosphere to blow out
the mixing times from weeks to the years you would need for these
differences.   Interhemispheric transport is more controversial but
even there the variations are nothing like big enough.  It's actually
quite hard to change the circulation enough to generate really radical
differences in cross-equatorial transport, i.e on the scale needed for
the above.
 
Again I stress all this argumentation might have been fun until the
Greenland results came in, now it's really pretty uninteresting.
>> on even more uncertain models of global events using point
>> measurements with wildly uncertain conditions.  For the CO2
>> measurements in Greenland, consider 'A natural artifact in
>> Greenland Ice-core CO2 measurements',Tellus B, 45:391 (1993)
>> in which it is asserted that artificially high CO2 measurements
>> may arise from interaction between alkaline and acidic impurities
>> in the ice.
Just not big enough to explain away the paleo changes.  Much more
significant for higher frequency smaller variability which has been
puzzling people.
--
Peter Rayner, Program in Oceanic          | "All right, I retract, the
and Atmospheric Sciences Princeton        | Honourable Member does *not* have
University                                | the brains of a monkey." F.Daly
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpjr cudfnPeter cudlnRayner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 20:37:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CH08H0.MHr@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
Scott H Mullins <smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>In article <CGysr1.Gt2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <CGyI9n.91v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>>Scott H Mullins <smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>Being involved in CFD you must be familiar with the finite element
>>>method. In your opinion are inaccuracies in the solution near a
>>>particular point grounds for tossing the entire solution?
>>> I have in
>>>mind a particular case that arises in solid mechanics. The stresses
>>>at a re-entrant corner in the model are in reality infinite but
>>>a finite element solution will only give finite solutions, thus
>>>yielding an infinite error at that point. Does this invalidate the
>>>solution everywhere else in the model?
>>
>>    It invalidates the solution in the corner, but where in nature
>>    do you see this 'infinite' stress?  It is the model that is invalid
>>    at that point.
>
>You see that infinite stress at any re-entrant corner.
 
     Show me the paper where that infinite stress has been measured.
 
     You must be very careful about mistaking a model for reality.
 
>So? You said that an error in the solution at one point invalidated
>the entire model. That's not _necessarily_ true. Whether or
>not its true in the specific case of climate modeling I have no
>idea.
 
     Of course it's not necessarily true.  But when the model is
     very uncertain and makes bad predictions in a *region* where
     we have pretty good data, you must think that the model needs
     work, to say the least.
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 21:51:13 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <2ct8vb$qk3@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Dale Bass has made all sorts of assertions about models and data.
>>I think he is selectively choosing data which disagrees with global
>>warming predictions and ignoring data which support such predictions.
 
>     Of course I am.  I am pointing to the fact that this subject
>     is not as settled as the 'Of course there's global warming'
>     school would have us believe.
 
   My impression is that you have been claiming that the model estimates
of _future_ warming are _incorrect_. This is a strong difference from
claiming that the matter is not settled.
 
>>What it is not fair, nor indeed scientific, is to argue that the
>>matter has been settled and global warming predictions have been
>>falsified by the sum total of the data.
 
>     But it is quite fair to argue that the matter has *not*
>     been settled in favor of the global warming hypothesis.
>     That is what I have been arguing.
 
   You have expressed disdain for the IPCC report. Have you actually read
it? Can you provide a reference from it where it claims that the matter
*has* been settled conclusively?
 
  The number of _scientists_ that claim the matter is conclusively
settled, either one way or the other, is very, very small. Nearly all
scientists familiar with the concensus on the global warming predictions
dislike ill-informed claims of *either* "it's certain", *or* "it will
never happen".
 
>>had yet been falsified.   I don't suggest massive Carbon taxes
>>in our present state of knowledge.    I do suggest moderate
>>taxes and other measures which make sense for other reasons.
 
>     Why suggest any at all on current data?  Even if the sensitivity
>     at current levels exists, perhaps we're keeping us out of
>     an ice age...
 
   There is no reason at all to expect an ice age over the next few
hundered years. Time scales are completely different. You are either
throwing in a red herring, or are confused about the issues.
 
>>The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
>>have is to tip the balance for those who are undecided.  Of
>>course, stalwart defenders of increased use of fossil fuels
>>won't be convinced by such arguments, but some fence sitters
>>may be.   Unfortunately, it may turn out that the matter is
>>settled politically some 10 or 15 years from now by virtue of
>>some extreme climatic events such as hot summers in crucial
>>areas, severe storms, and the like.
 
>     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
>     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
>     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
 
   ...and extreme weather events are part of climate. If the climate
changes, we may see a change in frequency, duration, or magnitude of
extreme events. One possiblility in the global warming scenario is
increased drought frequency. What if, 20 years from now, we find that the
Great Plains "bread basket" has frequent or sustained drought that makes
it no longer viable for food production?
 
>>  These events may in fact
>>not have much to do with global warming predictions, or if
>>they do, we won't be able to prove it for another 50 years.
>>However, some actions will be demanded by an angry public, but
>>those actions will likely be unrepsonsive to the problem.
 
>     Angry public?  They *should* be angry at being misled.
 
   ...then why do you insist on continuing? :-)
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:05:53 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
 
>Here is some of what I think I understand.   Corrections are welcomed.
 
>Most of the models are
>equilibrium models which describe what the ultimate equilibrium
>response would be to an immediate doubling of CO2 concentration.
 
   Yes. However we need to be careful about why we call them
"equilibrium". The General Circulation Models (GCMs) to not provide a
steady state, unvarying atmosphere. They are dynamic (i.e. they do have
"weather"), but have reached _statistical_ equilibrium: i.e. the climate
statistics they produce are no longer changing. The main feature of this
aproach is that ocean heat capacity can be reduced to only the portions
that respond on teh shorter time scales. Long term transient simulations
would require more complex ocean dynamics, because of the thermal effects.
 
>It is true that these models show more warming at higher latitudes
>than at lower latitudes, but there are geographical variations,
>some of which Michael Tobis referred to.
 
   Two factors lead to the increased polar sensitivity:
 
  -  the ice-albedo feedback mechanism, where reductions in ice and snow
covers leads to increased warming due to increased solar radiation
absorption. This characteristic can be seen in simple one-dimensional
zonally-averaged energy balance models, and in one-dimensional
radiative-convective models.
 
  -  the quasi-permanent atmospheric stability in the polar regions.
Convective energy transport is small under this dynamic regime, so
radiative transfer becomes more important. The additional greenhouse gases
cause warming that is more greatly confined near the surface. In contrast,
the equatorial regions have very strong convective activity and the
warming is spread more evenly through the troposphere, leading to less
surface warming. This characteristic needs a 3D model (GCM) to be seen.
 
 
>Nothing is said about how long this might take.
>These models certainly don't make specific predictions about what
>should have been observed in 40 years of arctic temperatures.
>Globally that 40 years involved a period when average global
>temperatures appeared to be dropping (until the late 60s) followed
>by a period in which they appear to be rising (but there is still
>some dispute about that.)
 
   In addition, we need to consider that "polar regions" is a large area
as defined in the models. It does not mean "at the pole". Also, our
observing network in the arctic is rather sparse, and biased in the sense
that most observations are taken along coastlines. In the Canadian arctic,
this is particularly true with all the islands involved.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:25:12 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     I've made but a few discrete points:
>         1)  The most recent (and probably best) data is ambiguous on the
>             subject of global temperature sensitivity to
>             CO2 concentration at current base levels.
 
   Yes. This completely refutes any claims that you have implied that the
data is contrary to "theory".
 
>         2)  The models are clearly inaccurate for a prediction
>             of global warming over the poles.
 
   This is a value statement, and represents only your opinion. You have
not presented any facts which would lead me to accepting your conclusion.
 
>         3)  The time-mean of a complex nonlinear system is
>             often not well modeled by assuming a smooth averaged
>             response of the time-instant behavior.
 
   Can you explain in any sort of detail what makes you think that the
climate models (GCMs are what I assume you are referring to) assume a
smoothed averaged response of the time-instant behaviour?
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:18:38 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <2csf9n$k77@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
 
>> The models predict an increase in the global mean
>>temperature.  Except for a few special cases, they don't say whether the mean
>>temperature at a given point will increase or decrease.  Somehow, you seem
>>incapable of understanding that.  Let me state it explicitly for you:
>>      Global warming != Ubiquitous warming
>>Simple enough for your to understand?
 
>    Bzzt, but thanks for playing.
 
>    'Despite differences in the longitudinal dependences, all models
>    indicate at least some polar amplification of the greenhouse warming.'
>    Chapman, W.L. and Walsh, J.E., Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 74:33 (1993).
>
>    Simple enough for you to understand?
 
   ..and now we get to see if Dale knows any geography.
 
"Polar" means:
 
   a)   right exactly at the pole, i.e. a point.
 
   b)   in the polar regions, i.e. a large area.
 
   c)   all of the above, depending on context.
 
   d)   none of the above.
 
The number of incorrect responses will be subtracted from the number of
correct responses in determining your final grade.
 
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:29:16 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
[responding to Michael Tobis]
 
>    Not at all, you don't understand the nature of 'sensitive dependence
>    on initial conditions'.  The amplitude of the forcing is unimportant
>    for the phenomenon.  Trajectories in phase space may drastically
>    diverge for even very tiny changes in IC's.
 
   ...but the climate question deals with the limits imposed upon the
trajectories (max, min, mean, etc.) rather than the details of the
individual trajectories themselves. Widely diverging trajectories may
still have the same statistical properties and yield the same climate.
What the climate models predict is that the statistical properties change.
 
 
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion via sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via sonoluminescence
Date: 24 Nov 1993 22:22:55 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard Schroeppel (rcs@cs.arizona.edu) wrote:
: Bruce Scott corrects Matt Kennel's numbers for "the only currently-
: known-to-operate-and-have-achieved-ignition fusion 'reactor'", but
: failed to mention the principle objection to his line of argument:
 
: The sun operates by simmering protons at a temperature high enough
: that a few of them change identities into neutrons (while making
: deuterium + misc small change).  We are privileged to have
: available 1/6000 * 2/18 of oceans of deuterium, and, my friends
: assure me, all the tritium we might reasonably want.  The D+T
: reaction can proceed at much lower temperatures and pressures,
: perhaps within the range of sonoluminescence.
 
: Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
The known-to-operate-fusion-reactor I was thinking of was fusion weaponry,
not the Sun.  Solar fusion is gated by the weak interaction which I agree
is not relevant to man-made fusion.
 
--
-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:
cuddy24 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:19:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754115249@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     I am a CFD modeler.  The averages in an averaged model are only as
>>     good as the model put in.  Since the model put in basically assumes
>>     transport mechanisms and rates that produce a certain temperature
>>     sensitivity to things like CO2, then one is not surprised when one
>>     gets similar sensitivity out of the model.
>
>   All right, Dale. I've watched your comments for a few days now. You
>seem to be claiming that you reject climate models because you understand
>them. Let's put this to a bit of a test.
>
 
     Oh goody, a quiz.  I think we've just vaulted over my boredom threshold.
 
>   In the case of a numerical system, we can seperate the specified
>conditions into internal conditions and boundary conditions. In the case
>of an atmospheric General Circulation Model (GCM), I think we will likely
>agree that the internal conditions are a fluid dynamics question. Can you
>suppply me with answers to the following?
>
>   Is a weather forecasting model more subject to internal or boundary
>conditions? (You may be more specific regarding time periods if you want.)
 
     Compare and contrast weather models with someone else.
 
>   Is a climate model more subject to internal or boundary conditions?
 
     Often one can make an 'internal condition' a 'boundary condition'
     and vice versa, depending on the model so the question is ambiguous.
     We'll just discuss parameterization of various aspects of the models.
 
>(Again, be more specific if you want. In particular, there may be parts of
>a climate model more responsive to one, while other parts are more
>responsive to the other.)
 
     Parameterization of land-surface interactions including roughness,
     elevation, vegetation (or the inclusion of a canopy model), albedo
     and moisture often has a significant impact on climate models.  For
     instance, an average albedo increase of 0.13 has been shown to decrease
     continental precipitation roughly 1 mm/day.  From Garratt, J. Climate
     6:419 (1993) quoting Mintz (1984) 'all of the experiments show that
     the atmosphere is sensitive to the land-surface evaporotranspiration;
     so that changes in the available soil moisture or changes in the
     albedo produce large changes in numerically simulated climate'.
 
     Parameterization of convective clouds has been shown to greatly
     effect sensitivity to CO2 concentration.  The introduction
     of liquid water into a cloud parameterization significantly
     altered numerical results in 'CO2 and climate: a missing feedback',
     Mitchell etal, Nature 141:132 (1989).
 
     Parameterization of the atmospheric boundary layer is very important
     as well. Again from Garratt (1993) 'Because the ABL controls the
     evaporation and turbulent distribution of water substance into
     the atmosphere, it strongly determines the global distribution
     of both cumuliform and stratiform clouds'.
 
     Ocean parameterization or ocean model is extremely important.  I'll rest
     with "Reliable long-term prediction of climate change
     will not be possible unless there is an adequate supply
     of oceanic observations to feed and validate the
     models", Mason, Contemporary Physics 34:19 (1993).
     Again, I think  Mr. Mason is quite optimistic.
 
     Model predictions for higher order subgrid turbulence model
     will be found to change when second order turbulence models
     are eventually replaced by RNG and/or algebraic Reynolds' stress
     models.
 
     Models also tend to be sensitive to the presence or absence of
     certain effects.  For instance, in 'Sensitivity of simulated
     climate to model resolution', J. Climate 4:462 (1991) Boville
     displays 'Enormous change' in the stratosphere and mesosphere
     at a certain spectral truncation owing to leaving out
     GWD (gravity wave drag) parameterization.  Similar results
     are found in Boer and Lazare, J. Climate 1:789 (1989)
     where they go as far to say 'Apparently the numerical
     solutions to the governing equations depend importantly on,
     and in nonobvious ways on resolution and parameterization,
     in particular, on the parameterization of source/sink
     terms in the momentum equations' since the removal of the
     GWD model results in an *increase* in midlatitude stress torque.
 
     I could probably go on forever, but since I'm now utterly bored,
     I leave you with a quote from Randall, etal, J. Geophys. Res 97:3711
     (1992) regarding effects of changes in surface energy fluxes,
     (caps mine) 'THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE VARIES DRAMATICALLY FROM
     ONE MODEL TO ANOTHER'.
 
     I think that's a general and not very promising statement.
 
>   You have on numerous occasions claimed that climate models are designed
>to give the answers you don't like. Can you be specific as to
>
>   -  what the specified boundary conditions are in a typical climate
>      model.
 
     The quiz is over.
 
>   -  what aspect of the model (boundary or internal conditions) is the
>      ones(s) that are the cause of the forcing which "controls" the
>      model response (which you don't like).
 
     Surface energy balance, cloud parameterization, albedo ...
 
>>     Any time someone tells you that the local predictions of a CFD model
>>     are no good, but the global predictions are pretty good, ask them
>>     how they put the global averages into the model.  You'll always find
>>     significant defining assumptions for things like average
>>     energy transport and/or mass transport are either a) built into the
>>     model, or b) built into the boundary conditions.  These assumptions
>>     insure that you'll get out what you thought you would.
>
>    I want to see if you know what the climate models are using to do
>this. If you _don't_ know, then you are just speculating.
 
     I'd like some answers too, but y'all are apparently too busy defending
     the certainty of climate models and quizzing heretics for me to get any.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:20:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2d0apoINN10st@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>In article <CGzzn5.Hwp@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>,
>       mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>
>|> |when the consequences have a reasonable chance to be very great. See
>|>
>|> It is a certainty that the cost of prevention is also going to be very
>|> great.
>
>Demonstrate this. I dispute it. All that is needed is to move away from
>fossil fuel power by replacing old power plants with new fission ones.
>The time scale on which we need to do this is of order a power plant
>lifetime anyway. The point is, to start now so that we can do a medium-
>term job in the medium term, and not as a hysterical crash program.
 
     The cost of the fence to keep the enviro-nuts out of the
     new fission plant is going to be astronomical.
 
                                 dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hysteria (was Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Hysteria (was Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 22:23:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Nov24.193556.18020@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>>It seems the hysteria on this issue is of the Limbaugh/LaRouche variety...
>
>I don't see the causal link between Rush Limbaugh (a popular right wing
>spokesmen in the USA) and Lyndon LaRouch (quasi-socialist Democratic Party
>gadfly and convicted credit card swindler.)
 
     I don't see the causal link between either man and anyone in this
     thread.  I'm not quite sure why the issue was raised, though
     the straw does seem to be flying thick.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  blue@dancer.ns /  "Proof" that physics is right
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Proof" that physics is right
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to every suggestion that cold fusion is on very weak footings
with regard to theory Mitchell Swartz always asks for proof, proof that
anything known about nuclear reactions must apply to the specific case
of deuterons in a palladium lattice.  I must admit that I am at a loss
to know what Mitchell would accept as proof of anything.  He seems to
be insisting that no prior knowledge can have any bearing on what can
be expected to occur in this one very special system.  That seems to
be such an extreme point of view that I don't want to believe that
there is not some common ground upon which Mitchell and I could agree.
Let's try one more time to see if we can find a starting point for
a rational discussion.
 
If I were ask to describe a deuteron I would start with the elementary
description of a proton and a neutron as a two-body system bound in
a potential well with a certain wave function.  Experimentally a variety
of measurements can be made to confirm that this model is "correct."
In other words there is a set of measured quantities that serve to
identify a deuteron as an entity which matches the description I have
given.  Now if I form a lattice of PdD is it still appropriate to
think of those non-palladium atoms as being the same entities I had
identified as deuterons on the basis of properties determined in
measurements made on say deuterium gas?  I would say yes and suggest
that there are measurements that could "prove" that indeed the
deuteron in a palladium lattice is pretty much the same as a deuteron
in deuterium gas.  One such measurement would be to determine the
NMR resonance frequency and thus the nuclear magnetic moment of
the deuterons in a palladium lattice.  Now Mitchell it is your turn
to tell us whether you will accept as a known and proven fact that
the deuterons in a palladium lattice has the same nuclear magnetic
moment as a free deuteron.  Then would it be pushing you to far to
ask that you agree that indicates that nuclear wave functions aren't
very different between the case of free deuterium and lattice deuterium?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Jim Bowery /  Hirsch and History
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hirsch and History
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:
>
>jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>> BTW:  Farsworth is really most appropriately credited with the invention
>> of EF.  He was Hirsch's mentor.  I attribute the ion-gun EF invention
>> to Farnsworth and the Polywell(TM) magnetic cusp EF invention to
>> Bussard.
>
>  Hirsch didn't give a lot of details, but he said that he got the
>basic idea while a grad student, and hooked up with Farnsworth to try
>to build the thing, and that Farnsworth was very instrumental in
>making it all come together.
 
How magnanimous of Hirsch!  ;-)
 
He just lost credibility with me.
 
Here is a quote from Hirsch's own 1967 paper:
 
     I. INTRODUCTION
 
     Over thirty-five years ago Farnsworth(1) noted the existence of
     a localized glow at the center of a spherically symmetric, high-
     vacuum multipactor tube.(2)  He later reasoned that radially focused
     electron currents were producing a space-charge potential well in
     the hollow anode cavity.  This well was confining and concentrating
     ions which were produced from residual gas.
 
     Although the operation of the multipactor tube has not been studied
     in detail, the concept of confinement in a dynamically produced
     potential well has received further consideration.  In the mid-1950's
     Farnsworth suggested that this technique might be utilized to
     confine and concentrate ions into a small volume where an appreciable
     number of nuclear fusion reactions could occur.  At that time ITT
     initiated a modest program to investigate this technique of fusion-gas
     confinement.  The results of recent theoretical and experimental
     efforts are presented below.
 
Hirsch clearly ascribes priority to Farnsworth in this 1967 paper.
 
Why does he no longer do so?
 
>> I haven't gotten around to compiling a history of the decision to drop
>> Farnsworth's device in favor of the Tokamak, but it is a history that
>> needs writing.  Hirsch is central to any such history as he was the one
>> apparently most responsible for allowing Farnsworth's invention to be
>> dropped in favor of the Tokamak.  I'm rather surprised that Hirsch hasn't
>> written up his own history of these events since his credibility in his
>> current efforts to revive EF are at stake.
>
>  Hirsch said they took the idea to DOE. It was reviewed by various
>prominant physicists, and they all said it couldn't possibly work for
>various theoretical reasons. (And there are real concerns -- the
>device depends crucially the ion distribution remaining essentially a
>delta function, and plasmas don't generally like to be in such a
>state.) Funding was denied, and work stopped.
 
So far so good, but then you say:
 
>It's
>kind of funny to see Hirsch pushing his present point of view, when he
>was basically to father of the opposite point of view. He pushed the
>tokamak at the expense of alternatives (pinches, mirrors, and other
>obscure things),
 
Yes, like electrostatic fusion.
 
This is where the history is interesting:
 
How did Hirsch transit from an "outsider" with a device producing
billions of neutrons per second on a desktop to, in your words
"father the opposite point of view" in is role as Mr. Big "Tokamak"
Science?
 
In that position, at that time, he had the public responsibility and
authority to force the issue of actual neutron production vs objections
to funding a "proof of concept" experiment to resolve the problem for
theorists posed by those neutrons.
 
He failed to do so.  Why?
 
Indeed, that would have been the only ethical thing for him to do in his
position of public trust and authority which he assumed in the early 70's.
Instead, he gave us the Tokamak program.
 
I've had nagging questions about Hirsch due to this failure.
 
Your statement that he presently claims priority on Farnsworth's invention
multiplies the weight of those questions.  I was giving Hirsch the benefit
of the doubt, but no longer.
 
>Indeed, Hirsch was instrumental in selling the idea that we should
>concentrate on the Tokamak, that we should put big bucks behind them,
>that TFTR should burn DT, etc.; i.e. lots of other good ideas.
 
Smile when you say those be "good" ideas pardner. :-)
 
I'll give YOU "the benefit of the doubt" and assume you were joking.
 
>> A device that can produce fusion events on the desktop just isn't big
>> enough to justify "blank-check" funding levels with the all the pork
>> needed to go around.
>
>  Huh? This was in 1968. The fusion budgets were still quite small.
 
You apparently neglected to read my preceding sentence which provides
the context.  I was referring to the present state of the Apollo program
in 1968 and Hirsch's political goal state for the fusion program at
that time.
 
>  Personally, I find the DOE's lack of funding for alternative
>concepts to be inexcusable. However, until some of these concepts get
>past the proof of principle stage, they should not be funded at the
>expense of existing programs.
 
Your condition that "they should not be funded at the expense of
existing programs" has the logical consequence that the only circumstance
in which alternatives will receive even proof of principle funding is
when the "existing programs" (ie: Tokamak) don't "need" any more money.
 
This sort of rhetoric in "support" of alternatives is all too familiar.
 
You should analyze your own words to see that they do, in practice, oppose
even proof of principle funding and therefore put alternatives in a "no win"
situation.
 
I don't blame you for originating this sort of 1984ish doublespeak rhetoric.
It is virtually impossible to avoid succuming to the mentality pervading
the national labs while working there on a day to day basis.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Dieter Britz /  Cold fusion wins a Nobel
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion wins a Nobel
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I read in the Mini-Journal of Irreproducible Results, no. 1993-01-05, that the
Ignobel Prize (well, I did say -a- Nobel, not -the- Nobel!) has been given to
Louis Kevran of France, for his book "Biological Transmutations and their
Applications in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Ecology, Medicine, Nutrition,
Agriculture, Geology". In the book, Kevran proposes cold fusion as the origin
of eggshells, Mini-JIR says.
 
So - cold fusion makes it big.
 
You too can subscribe to Mini-JIR by sending the message
subscribe mini-jir <your name>
(no subject) to listserv@mitvma.mit.edu.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  try again
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Originally-From:        FNALD::DROEGE       24-NOV-1993 12:19:16.09
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: try again
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:        FNALD::DROEGE       24-NOV-1993 12:19:16.09
To:     SMTP%"fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org"
CC:     DROEGE
Subj:   Irrevelant Debate
 
Please take the irrevelant debate elsewhere.  It is cluttering up my files
and starting to make me an advocate of a moderated forum.  This is
sci.physics.fusion, please keep some relation to this work!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Dick Blue
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Originally-From:        FNALD::DROEGE       24-NOV-1993 12:25:58.09
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:        FNALD::DROEGE       24-NOV-1993 12:25:58.09
To:     SMTP%"fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org"
CC:     DROEGE
Subj:   Reply to Dick Blue
 
Dick, at least the claims of P&F are not going down into the noise over time
if we can believe their incompletely reported results.  Their claims have
steadily increased over time.  They have stuck with the same apparatus, and
their early claims of a few milliwatts have increased to many watts (excluding
the early burning cube).  So they are at least reporting claims in the expected
order for a successful experiment.  My problem is with the quality of the
reporting.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Brass is best!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Brass is best!
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings calorimeter fans.  I now have in the back of the Tercel, 14 ea
6' lengths of 0.065 wall brass tubing in every size available at US Brass
and copper from 5" on down to 1".  I plan to spend the long weekend cutting
them up and making cups within cups for the new calorimeter.  I paid from
$7.50 to $9.00 a pound.  Interestingly, the larger sizes were more expensive.
 
$7.50 to $9.00 a pound.  Interestingly, the larger sizes were more expensive.
About 180# of stuff.  Small Parts Inc. still looks good as a source.  I saved
only 30% or so off their prices with this "big" order.  But then they stock
only a few sizes.  My brother buys brass at $3.65 a pound for his jewelry
business but tubing is more expensive than the flat stock he buys.  I could
also have gone to a big distributer and got another 30% less.  But then I
would have had to buy 14' lengths.
 
It is an impressive lot.  The guys in the shop wanted to know if I was the
one from the movie "Back to the Future".  I told them that that was tame stuff,
and with all this pipe I was going to make a really fancy machine.  Everyone
says "you'r doing what! in your basement".
 
Of course you all know that I am really in the entertainment business.
 
Even the shop crew at US Brass was entertained.  I had to wait while the cut
it, then each guy in the shop made the tour to my car with an armload.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / Mark Wilson /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 13:18:40 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <2ct7cmINNpv4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
 
|Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. Especially
 
Any thinking person should be able to see just how ludicrous this statement
is. Do you drive to work in a tank? If not why not? Being in a small car
is certainly a preventable risk. Crossing the street is a preventable
risk.
 
|when the consequences have a reasonable chance to be very great. See
 
It is a certainty that the cost of prevention is also going to be very
great.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmwilson cudfnMark cudlnWilson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:28:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754179912@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     I've made but a few discrete points:
>>         1)  The most recent (and probably best) data is ambiguous on the
>>             subject of global temperature sensitivity to
>>             CO2 concentration at current base levels.
>
>   Yes. This completely refutes any claims that you have implied that the
>data is contrary to "theory".
 
     'So the models are ambiguous on the subject of global temperature
     sensitivity to CO2 concentration?' he asked dryly.
 
>>         2)  The models are clearly inaccurate for a prediction
>>             of global warming over the poles.
>
>   This is a value statement, and represents only your opinion. You have
>not presented any facts which would lead me to accepting your conclusion.
 
     Sure I have. But the fact that published explainations of the
     discrepancy exist is enough to demonstrate the validity of the premise.
 
>>         3)  The time-mean of a complex nonlinear system is
>>             often not well modeled by assuming a smooth averaged
>>             response of the time-instant behavior.
>
>   Can you explain in any sort of detail what makes you think that the
>climate models (GCMs are what I assume you are referring to) assume a
>smoothed averaged response of the time-instant behaviour?
 
     The attainment of statistical equilibrium.
 
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:37:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754179518@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>   ..and now we get to see if Dale knows any geography.
 
    I know where Tucson is, and I've been to Lake Erie.
    So, there's two at least.
 
>"Polar" means:
>
>   a)   right exactly at the pole, i.e. a point.
>
>   b)   in the polar regions, i.e. a large area.
>
>   c)   all of the above, depending on context.
>
>   d)   none of the above.
>
>The number of incorrect responses will be subtracted from the number of
>correct responses in determining your final grade.
 
     School's out.  If you'd like to continue playing, you're going to
     have to do better than just implication.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 01:47:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754180156@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>[responding to Michael Tobis]
>
>>    Not at all, you don't understand the nature of 'sensitive dependence
>>    on initial conditions'.  The amplitude of the forcing is unimportant
>>    for the phenomenon.  Trajectories in phase space may drastically
>>    diverge for even very tiny changes in IC's.
>
>   ...but the climate question deals with the limits imposed upon the
>trajectories (max, min, mean, etc.) rather than the details of the
>individual trajectories themselves. Widely diverging trajectories may
>still have the same statistical properties and yield the same climate.
>What the climate models predict is that the statistical properties change.
 
     There is no reason for models not to diverge or to show inappropriate
     set-point behavior in a statistical sense either, especially
     if one of the outling solutions that you've averaged out is
     what 'actually' happened (though it can be much more difficult
     to actually *see* the relevant outliers).
 
     Quoting myself:
 
     'The difference between your position and my position is
     faith, and I don't have it.'
                                  dale bass (1993)
 
                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 02:02:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <dhalliwe.754177045@shadow>,
David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>   The challenge to Dale is to explain exactly *why* he thinks the climate
>models "are designed to give warming". Is it because they are designed to
>give the correct response to the physics, and warming will be the correct
>response? If not, please explain what is is in terms of the physics that
>is being _overridden_ by the manipulations of the modellers?
>
>   If Dale cannot say what it is he believes is the cause of this
>"erroneous" result, then he is just blowing smoke.
 
     Did the quiz not go so well for you?  Cloud interactions and albedo
     are often 'adjusted' because they give answers that the
     modelers don't particularly like (random reference: Schlesinger etal,
     J. Climate 3:459 (1989)).  Similarly ocean interactions and
     water behavior, surface roughness, water roughness, surface
     drag correlations, etc.
 
     And 'erroneous' is your word, not mine.  I don't think the models
     of much predictive value, so who knows what the 'error' is?
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 19:28:10 EST

         Michael Tobis posted:
>A good strategy integrates the costs and benefits of all possible outcomes
>for each strategy, weighted by best estimates of the probablity of such
>outcomes. In situations where the maximum possible loss is very large, but
>the likely loss is quite small, the maximum possible loss carries a lot of
>weight in evaluating the optimal cost strategy.
>
>Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so
>because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a
>need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst*
>plausible outcomes into account as well?
         I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above.  I
have the following questions.
         1.  The above appears to assume that outcomes should be
arithmetically averaged.  Why is the arithmetic average to be
preferred to the geometric average?
         2.  What is the function we are maximizing?
         3.  What is the definition of a "plausible" outcome?
         4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
CO2 prevents another ice age.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 21:33:04 EST

         Michael Tobis posted:
>The final concentration seems likely to be very sensitive to the level
>at which emissions stop increasing, if we assume that sudden decreases
>in emissions are unlikely.
         What is the basis for this statement?  A naive model predicts
the final concentration will be a linear function of the steady state
emission level.  Incidently why are sudden decreases unlikely?  It
would seem to me that emissions are likely to decrease at least as
fast as they rose as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted.
 
         Michael Tobis again:
>By the way, a sudden decrease of *emissions* by some 80% is NOW required
>to hold CO2 *concentrations* to current levels.
         Again what is the basis of this statement?  The naive model
suggests a 50% reduction would suffice (assuming 50% of anthropogenic
CO2 has remained in the atmosphere).
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.physics.fusion
Date: 25 Nov 93 13:56:41 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.physics.fusion
Date: 25 Nov 93 14:06:26 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1993Nov25.135641.93061@vaxc>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>Sorry Folks for the previous post, I think there was a glitch in my PC
or the network...
                                                  Regards,
                                                  Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 22:00:40 EST

         Michael Tobis posted:
>The models that Dale so insistently questions are among several streams of
>evidence indicating that the time for concern in this matter is upon us.
>Policy is typically made on the basis of far less widely held opinions on
>the part of economists, a far less precise discipline than physical
>climatology. Why should climatology be held to a standard of proof so much
>higher than economists' when the indicated policy of the two disciplines
>(apparently) disagree?
         I have some problems with this.
         1.  Why do you believe that economists currently have any
significant influence on policy?  For example most economists believe
the law prohibiting the export of Alaskan oil harms the economy of the
United States for no good reason.  Nevertheless so far as I know the
law remains in effect.
         2.  On what basis do you characterize economics as a far less
precise discipline than physical climatology?
         3.  In what way is climatology being held to a higher
standard of proof than economics?
         4.  How can either economics or climatology have a indicated
policy regarding global warming in isolation from the other?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjbs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.24 / don davis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (don davis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 18:37:13 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

 
I like global warming.  Global warming is nice.  It has prevented the 10,000
year ice age cycle from recurring and is good for my property value.  However,
I am concerned we are putting too little CO2 into the atmosphere.
Perhaps we have only delayed the ice age rather than prevented it altogether.
Since an ice age would be a environmental disaster, I know I can count on the
environmental community to help me pass laws mandating increased emissions.
 
Call your Congress Critter now!
 
                                        don davis
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudended cudfndon cudlndavis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 07:35:24 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
 
>In <2cthpf$9m@news.acns.nwu.edu> Len Evens writes:
>-- stuff deleted for brevity --
>>Secondly, the models while subject to many uncertainties and caveats
>>do help us understand some of the factors involved.  I for one. would
>>be reassured if all the models predicted no substantial warming.
>>However, I would certainly be surprised at that and would try to
>>understand why.
>  OK .. but what criteria would you expect a model which predicted no
>substantial warming to have ?? Part of the discussion is concern over
>the possibility that any such model would be rejected out of hand, for
>not fitting the assumed facts.
 
   Dale Bass is the only one claiming that such a model would be dismissed
out of hand. Can you tell us just what "assumed facts" you are talking
about? Can you give an example of a climate model that *has* shown no
warming and has been "rejected out of hand"? (I know of experimental
results which were used to predict "no warming". I also know the errors in
physics that they made, which is why they have generally been rejected.)
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 26 Nov 93 02:25:27 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <CH0yAr.EC8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <dhalliwe.754180156@shadow>,
|> David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
 
|> >   ...but the climate question deals with the limits imposed upon the
|> >trajectories (max, min, mean, etc.) rather than the details of the
|> >individual trajectories themselves. Widely diverging trajectories may
|> >still have the same statistical properties and yield the same climate.
|> >What the climate models predict is that the statistical properties change.
|>
|>      There is no reason for models not to diverge or to show inappropriate
|>      set-point behavior in a statistical sense either, especially
|>      if one of the outling solutions that you've averaged out is
|>      what 'actually' happened (though it can be much more difficult
|>      to actually *see* the relevant outliers).
 
Does anyone understand this statement or its relevance to the question of
whether the models have validity? I can't make heads or tails out of it.
 
The only part that seems meaningful is
 
|>      There is no reason for models not to diverge
 
and it's just not true. There are plenty of constraints on geophysical flows
that would call this assertion into question, and in particular, existing
models are *NOT* sensitive to initial conditions IN TERMS OF THE STATISTICS
OF THEIR LONG-TERM BEHAVIOR, though the details are completely divergent.
 
As for the rest of it, I sense that there was something trying to be
communicated but I can't imagine what it was.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:04:24 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (don davis) writes:
 
 
>I like global warming.  Global warming is nice.  It has prevented the 10,000
>year ice age cycle from recurring and is good for my property value.  However,
>I am concerned we are putting too little CO2 into the atmosphere.
>Perhaps we have only delayed the ice age rather than prevented it altogether.
>Since an ice age would be a environmental disaster, I know I can count on the
>environmental community to help me pass laws mandating increased emissions.
 
   This is either flame bait, tongue-in-cheek, or misinformed. Any
"exepected" glacial period is not due for a good few thousand years. The
time scale for CO2-induced effects is much shorter.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:09:29 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <dhalliwe.754179912@shadow>,
>David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>>     I've made but a few discrete points:
>>>         1)  The most recent (and probably best) data is ambiguous on the
>>>             subject of global temperature sensitivity to
>>>             CO2 concentration at current base levels.
>>
>>   Yes. This completely refutes any claims that you have implied that the
>>data is contrary to "theory".
 
>     'So the models are ambiguous on the subject of global temperature
>     sensitivity to CO2 concentration?' he asked dryly.
 
    Sure they are. They range from 1.5 to 4.5C for doubling. They are not
ambiguous about the sign; they are not ambiguous about the fact that the
warming will likely be significant, but they are ambiguous about the
magnitiude, in the range specified.
 
>>>         2)  The models are clearly inaccurate for a prediction
>>>             of global warming over the poles.
>>
>>   This is a value statement, and represents only your opinion. You have
>>not presented any facts which would lead me to accepting your conclusion.
 
>     Sure I have. But the fact that published explainations of the
>     discrepancy exist is enough to demonstrate the validity of the premise.
 
   Apart from the fact that you don't even know what "polar" means...
 
>>>         3)  The time-mean of a complex nonlinear system is
>>>             often not well modeled by assuming a smooth averaged
>>>             response of the time-instant behavior.
>>
>>   Can you explain in any sort of detail what makes you think that the
>>climate models (GCMs are what I assume you are referring to) assume a
>>smoothed averaged response of the time-instant behaviour?
 
>     The attainment of statistical equilibrium.
 
   Say what? Are you implying that the models *force* a statistical
equilibrium by means of some smoothing function? The GCMs have weather.
This short-term variation is *not* smoothed by any arbitrary function.
 
   Let me ask more explicitly. What short term variation (present in the
real atmosphere) do you feel is smoothed over in the models?
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:06:46 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     Here's the problem.  Droughts happen.  A drought happens that
>     is mildly disruptive and eco-nuts demand we shut down the rest
>     of the economy that wasn't causing the drought in the first place
>     supported by three or four climatological models that happen to show
>     the drought being 'caused' by the other part of the economy.
 
   When your tax dollars are being spent in the billions to compensate
farmers that are suffering from drought nearly every year and no longer
have any possible hope of making a profit without huge subsidies, don't
come crying to me. (Coming soon to a theatre near you...)
 
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:21:25 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <dhalliwe.754177045@shadow>,
>David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>
>>   The challenge to Dale is to explain exactly *why* he thinks the climate
>>models "are designed to give warming". Is it because they are designed to
>>give the correct response to the physics, and warming will be the correct
>>response? If not, please explain what is is in terms of the physics that
>>is being _overridden_ by the manipulations of the modellers?
>>
>>   If Dale cannot say what it is he believes is the cause of this
>>"erroneous" result, then he is just blowing smoke.
 
>     Did the quiz not go so well for you?
 
   Clearly one of Dale's talents is *not* the ability to read time. If he
could, he would be able to tell that I posted the above comment before his
response to "the quiz" was likely to have reached me.
 
>  Cloud interactions and albedo
>     are often 'adjusted' because they give answers that the
>     modelers don't particularly like (random reference: Schlesinger etal,
>     J. Climate 3:459 (1989)).  Similarly ocean interactions and
>     water behavior, surface roughness, water roughness, surface
>     drag correlations, etc.
 
   These aspects of the models are changed to help the models duplicate
the existing climate. They are *never* "adjusted" going from a 1xCO2
simulation to a 2xCO2 simulation.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:17:09 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <dhalliwe.754179518@shadow>,
>David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>
>>   ..and now we get to see if Dale knows any geography.
 
>>"Polar" means:
>>
[choices deleted]
>>
 
>     School's out.  If you'd like to continue playing, you're going to
>     have to do better than just implication.
>
 
   Translation: I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that I will
show that I don't know what I am talking about.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:26:27 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
 
>         4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
>probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
>CO2 prevents another ice age.
 
    If we continue our current path, quite possible. However, since there
is little reason to expect natural causes to initiate another ice age for
a few more thousand years, we have a lot of other things to place a
priority on in the meantime.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:18:59 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>     There is no reason for models not to diverge or to show inappropriate
>     set-point behavior in a statistical sense either, especially
>     if one of the outling solutions that you've averaged out is
>     what 'actually' happened (though it can be much more difficult
>     to actually *see* the relevant outliers).
 
    Except for one thing: there is a boundary condition (in the models)
related to a simple fact of physics (in the real atmosphere) which limits
how much divergence can occur. Unfortunately, Dale does not seem to be
aware of this, as shown in his earlier post on boundary conditions in the
models.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  tabitha@vms.hu /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 25 Nov 93 16:08:52 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In article <19931124.185112.830@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>          Michael Tobis posted:
>>The final concentration seems likely to be very sensitive to the level
>>at which emissions stop increasing, if we assume that sudden decreases
>>in emissions are unlikely.
>          What is the basis for this statement?  A naive model predicts
> the final concentration will be a linear function of the steady state
> emission level.  Incidently why are sudden decreases unlikely?  It
> would seem to me that emissions are likely to decrease at least as
> fast as they rose as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted.
>
>          Michael Tobis again:
>>By the way, a sudden decrease of *emissions* by some 80% is NOW required
>>to hold CO2 *concentrations* to current levels.
>          Again what is the basis of this statement?  The naive model
> suggests a 50% reduction would suffice (assuming 50% of anthropogenic
> CO2 has remained in the atmosphere).
>                           James B. Shearer
 
 
You, too, Shearer, like Bass, suffer from an unpurged havingness
in your being.
 
-dennis turner
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentabitha cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Len Evens /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 25 Nov 1993 17:24:55 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <19931124.155403.166@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Bruce Scott posted (in response to a query as to why current
>models of global warming justify large policy changes):
>>Second, the reason is that preventable risk should be prevented. ...
>         It is this mindset that tempts many people to dismiss the
>environmental movement as antirational.  Obviously (to me anyway)
>preventable risk should be prevented if and only if the costs do not
>exceed the benefits.
>                     James B. Shearer
 
I think this is a very relevant point which deserves a lot of discussion.
I asked a colleague who is very knowledgeable about decision theory
both from a theoretical and practical perspective.    He pointed out
that since costs and benefits are not shared equally, this is not
a question which can be analyzed by the usual techniques.
I might use cost/benefit analysis as an individual in deciding to not
take a certain medication
because it may cost me a lot or have a lot of side effects and the
probability of its doing any good many be low.   With a decision about
what our society should do, or even worse what humanity should do,
it is much more complicated.   We don't all pay the same costs and we
don't all share the same benefits.   One could of course try to
somehow integrate those factors over present and future
populations.   However, that won't work very well for
a variety of reasons.  For example, those in a position to make
the decisions may have to pay a very high cost with no real benefit
to themselves while those benfitting may not be in a position to
influence the decision.   There may be a lot more of the latter than
the former, but still the decision may not be made.
 
However, despite my colleague's admonitions, I am not convinced
that one can't set up a rational framework to discuss these matters,
and I welcome discussion.
 
With respect to the issue of global warming, there have been some
discussions by economists about the virtues of waiting various
amounts of time before acting if indeed global warming does take
place.   Needless to say the assumptions and modeling here are
in much worse shape than climate modeling, but still it would be
instructive to examine some of them.   However, let's not take
any of them as proving anything conclusively one way or the other.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 16:27:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2d28enINNj7q@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce d. Scott <bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>There seems to be a mindset out there (I have heard several prominent
>deniers state it, some with urgency) that we _need_ global warming in
>order to ensure continued productivity of northern agricultural land
>and to keep the planet out of a new glacial period. This is very, very
>irresponsible, given our comparative lack of knowledge concerning the
>details of climate change.
 
      I'll let this be my last posting on this subject.
 
      Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Len Evens /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 25 Nov 1993 17:52:33 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <19931124.183223.300@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Michael Tobis posted:
>>A good strategy integrates the costs and benefits of all possible outcomes
>>for each strategy, weighted by best estimates of the probablity of such
>>outcomes. In situations where the maximum possible loss is very large, but
>>the likely loss is quite small, the maximum possible loss carries a lot of
>>weight in evaluating the optimal cost strategy.
>>
>>Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so
>>because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a
>>need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst*
>>plausible outcomes into account as well?
>         I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above.  I
>have the following questions.
>         1.  The above appears to assume that outcomes should be
>arithmetically averaged.  Why is the arithmetic average to be
>preferred to the geometric average?
>         2.  What is the function we are maximizing?
>         3.  What is the definition of a "plausible" outcome?
>         4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
>probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
>CO2 prevents another ice age.
>                          James B. Shearer
 
From the internal evidence of what you say in (1), it appears
that you are lacking
in knowledge about conventional decision theory.
In that theory, one uses the so-called expected gain which is the
sum of the probability of various outcomes multiplied by their
costs.  Under sufficiently restricted conditions, this is a rational
thing to consider.   Michael was trying to set up a rough model
along these lines.   I would like see some further attempts to
quantify this, although as I remarked in an earlier posting,
there are some real problems with this.
 
Your other questions (2) and (3),
are quite reasonable and perhaps should be
addressed.   As far as (4) is concerned, I think Michael would attach
very low probability to that, and I would agree with him.
He has presented arguments I find convincing that any trends towards
a new ice age operate on a longer time scale than that involved
in CO2 induced warming.   In addition, this scenario is not a reason
for being complacent.   It presents all sorts of serious questions
about which we know very little.
If indeed global cooling would otherwise be in the cards, it would
occur at some rate, and it may not be very linear, as Dale Bass
and other critics of global warming predictions point out.
There would be three possibilities:  cooling would be swamped by
the CO2 induced warming, vice versa, or they would just happen to be
roughly in balance.    The last possibility seems to me to be
the least plausible, unless you are arguing that an intelligent
hand is somehow guiding all this (God?  Gaia?)   Finally,
if there is global cooling going on, it must be the result of
some physical mechanism, not currently understood, and there
is no particular reason to believe that we couldn't
have a rough balance in average global temperatures but still have
rather dramatic changes in global and regional climates.
Hence, if you really believe this might be happening, you should
become a partisan of intense climatological research looking for
answers as quickly as possible, both on theoretical models and
observational data.   The results of such research might not
be completely definitive and might suggest actions (like say
increasing CO2 emissions) based on less than total information.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Len Evens /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 25 Nov 1993 18:08:36 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <19931124.185112.830@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Michael Tobis posted:
>>The final concentration seems likely to be very sensitive to the level
>>at which emissions stop increasing, if we assume that sudden decreases
>>in emissions are unlikely.
>         What is the basis for this statement?  A naive model predicts
>the final concentration will be a linear function of the steady state
>emission level.  Incidently why are sudden decreases unlikely?  It
>would seem to me that emissions are likely to decrease at least as
>fast as they rose as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted.
>
>         Michael Tobis again:
>>By the way, a sudden decrease of *emissions* by some 80% is NOW required
>>to hold CO2 *concentrations* to current levels.
>         Again what is the basis of this statement?  The naive model
>suggests a 50% reduction would suffice (assuming 50% of anthropogenic
>CO2 has remained in the atmosphere).
>                          James B. Shearer
 
Michael is talking basically about what
happens in the next hundred years or so.   The effective `residence time'
of CO2 (although that is not accurate in the usual sense) is
estimated by the IPCC Report and Supplement to be something like
120 years.   So your naive model is too naive.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Jan Schloerer /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 25 Nov 1993 19:22:01 GMT
Organization: University of Ulm, Germany

In article  <CH0woA.DKx@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
      Cameron Randale Bass  (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)  wrote :
>  In article <1993Nov24.154142.5590@princeton.edu>,
>        Peter Rayner <pjr@splash.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
 
      [ interesting discussion of interhemispheric mixing deleted ]
 
>>    Now what about those nasty models.
>>
>  Not nasty, but uncertain.  Put it this way, how much are you willing
>  to bet on your results?  $1?  $100?  $1000?  How about a billion
>  dollars?  Tens of billions?  How about hundreds of billions?
>  Are you willing to go to a trillion?
 
 
Why not ask:  Given business as usual, what's your estimate of the
probability that there will be significant changes in precipitation
patterns ?  Or that average global surface temperature will increase
by 2 or more degrees centigrade during the 21st century ?
Or that there will be nasty surprises ?
 
The other way round, what do you think is the probability
that there will be no significant climate change ?
 
 
Jan Schloerer                    schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Uni Ulm     Klinische Dokumentation     D-89070 Ulm     Germany
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenSCHLOERER cudfnJan cudlnSchloerer cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 26 Nov 93 04:21:35 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <19931124.183223.300@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
|>          Michael Tobis posted:
|> >A good strategy integrates the costs and benefits of all possible outcomes
|> >for each strategy, weighted by best estimates of the probablity of such
|> >outcomes. In situations where the maximum possible loss is very large, but
|> >the likely loss is quite small, the maximum possible loss carries a lot of
|> >weight in evaluating the optimal cost strategy.
|> >
|> >Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so
|> >because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a
|> >need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst*
|> >plausible outcomes into account as well?
|>          I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above.  I
|> have the following questions.
|>          1.  The above appears to assume that outcomes should be
|> arithmetically averaged.  Why is the arithmetic average to be
|> preferred to the geometric average?
|>          2.  What is the function we are maximizing?
|>          3.  What is the definition of a "plausible" outcome?
|>          4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
|> probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
|> CO2 prevents another ice age.
|>                           James B. Shearer
 
I didn't say it would be easy.
 
What I do say is that the rosy scenario so often propounded as plausible in
fact relies on a large number of unknowns all turning out in a way that is
most favorable. In practice, such scenarios require not only that global
warming be small, but also that whatever (entirely speculative) process it
is that ends up raising the planetary albedo (to compensate for the decreased
atmospheric transparency to the infrared) itself have no major deleterious
impacts. In other words, such a scenario, while barely plausible, is not
particularly likely.
 
Accordingly, it should carry equal weight in our calculations with a scenario
that has a number of unknowns all going unfavorably. Suppose initial worries
about the stability of the Ross Ice Shelf, now considered centuries away
from collapse, turned out to be valid. Suppose warming in the Arctic really
were sufficient to release huge quantities of methane in a positive feedback.
Suppose high cirrus formation (which has a warming effect) were enhanced.
What a mess. Say this yielded a climate sensitivity of 6 C, and a long
term response to unconstrained emissions of 12 C in the global mean.
 
Then consider the best estimate that sensitivity will be about 2 C (I'm
being generous), and final response will be a 4 degree warming.
 
Which of these scenarios should figure most prominently in our calculations?
Well, it depends on the cost of the contemplated response.
 
Suppose the impact of the first scenario were negligible, the middle scenario
about a trillion dollars, and the last about a quadrillion (essentially
wiping out most existing wealth). Suppose the cost of mitigating the last
scenario were ten trillion, while that of mitigating the middle scenario
were a hundred billion.
 
Suppose the probability of the first scenario were 40 %, the middle scenario
50 % and the last scenario 10 %. This is a much more *optimistic* picture
than that currently yielded by the science but it illustrates my point.
 
Let's call the best, middle and worst scenarios A, B and C, and the response
strategies a b and c
 
        EXPECTED COST
 
strategy ->     a               b               c
 
scenario
 
A (40 %)        0               10^8            10^10
B (50 %)        10^9            10^8            10^10
C (10 %)        10^12           10^12           10^10
 
expected
cost            10^11           10^11           10^10
 
Thus, if strategy had to be determined entirely in advance, the rational
choice would be dominated by the MOST SEVERE plausible outcome, even though
it was unlikely. (These numbers, again, are completely fabricated, intended
to give the general idea only.)
 
Of course, there's not only a continuuum of scenarios and a continuum of
responses, there's also a continuum of WHEN the various responses are
put into effect.
 
If John McCarthy's argument that costs of response declines as the world
becomes more adept dominates over my argument that abrupt responses, and
particularly abrupt reductions in emissions, are more expensive than gradual
responses, and particularly cessation of *growth* in emission rates, then by
all means we should do nothing until it is absolutely necessary.
 
The problem is that it may be absolutely necessary to respond to the more
unpleasant cases long before the fact that they hold is proven! This is
because there is evidence that the system has a substantial lag time.
 
An actual mathematical solution of the resulting optimization is not
feasible, but those are the main sorts of factor that need to be weighed
even before the political realities are contemplated.
 
There is much to be said for limiting emissions to approximately current
levels. In doing so, only new energy uses will have to account for the
new limitation, and the economic impact, while large, will not be huge.
If this limitation turns out to be excessive, it may be reversed. (Yes I
know such reversals have political problems, too.) In doing so, we may
limit the forcing to doubling of CO2 equivalent. I remind you all that
quadrupling is by no means implausible by the end of the next century.
 
In any case, there's an awful lot here that's extrinsic to climatology,
and on these matters I speak entirely as a layman.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 26 Nov 93 04:34:24 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <CH0xEz.Dxy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <dhalliwe.754179912@shadow>,
|> David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
|> >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> >
|> >>     I've made but a few discrete points:
|> >>         1)  The most recent (and probably best) data is ambiguous on the
|> >>             subject of global temperature sensitivity to
|> >>             CO2 concentration at current base levels.
|> >
|> >   Yes. This completely refutes any claims that you have implied that the
|> >data is contrary to "theory".
|>
|>      'So the models are ambiguous on the subject of global temperature
|>      sensitivity to CO2 concentration?' he asked dryly.
 
This is not a response, dry or otherwise, as it says nothing about theory.
I recognize this as being a result of the fact that you are willfully
uninformed as to the theory.
 
The models are ambiguous mostly in longitudinal variation and surface
response. The y-z plots are pretty much in agreement as to structure, though
not as to amplitude.  There's no disagreement as to the sign of the response.
 
The data are consistent with the range of responses of the models. To the
extent that anomalies are large compared to background variability
THEY AGREE WITH THE ZONALLY AVERAGED STRUCTURES INDICATED BY THE MODELS,
regardless of your assertions to the contrary. Your focus on the pole
is irrelevant to the maximum sensitivity of the models at the edges
of the snow cover.
 
If the models are correct, eventually the circumpolar region will warm
sufficiently that advective processes will warm the pole. There is no
particular reason to expect that signal to emerge from the noise yet.
 
|> >>         2)  The models are clearly inaccurate for a prediction
|> >>             of global warming over the poles.
|> >
|> >   This is a value statement, and represents only your opinion. You have
|> >not presented any facts which would lead me to accepting your conclusion.
|>
|>      Sure I have. But the fact that published explainations of the
|>      discrepancy exist is enough to demonstrate the validity of the premise.
 
You haven't even shown a 1.25 x CO2 non-(quasi-)equilibrium run. You base
your conclusion on a linear interpolation despite your constant harping
on nonlinearity, and on the performance at a single point with quite
special surface characteristics.
 
You say "clearly inaccurate" at a particular point when challenged, but this
traces back to wild utterances about "utter worthlessness".
 
|> >>         3)  The time-mean of a complex nonlinear system is
|> >>             often not well modeled by assuming a smooth averaged
|> >>             response of the time-instant behavior.
|> >
|> >   Can you explain in any sort of detail what makes you think that the
|> >climate models (GCMs are what I assume you are referring to) assume a
|> >smoothed averaged response of the time-instant behaviour?
|>
|>      The attainment of statistical equilibrium.
 
In what sense is this an assumption?
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 04:47:04 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <CH0z0w.EL0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <dhalliwe.754177045@shadow>,
|> David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
|> >
|> >   The challenge to Dale is to explain exactly *why* he thinks the climate
|> >models "are designed to give warming". Is it because they are designed to
|> >give the correct response to the physics, and warming will be the correct
|> >response? If not, please explain what is is in terms of the physics that
|> >is being _overridden_ by the manipulations of the modellers?
|> >
|> >   If Dale cannot say what it is he believes is the cause of this
|> >"erroneous" result, then he is just blowing smoke.
|>
|>      Did the quiz not go so well for you?  Cloud interactions and albedo
|>      are often 'adjusted' because they give answers that the
|>      modelers don't particularly like (random reference: Schlesinger etal,
|>      J. Climate 3:459 (1989)).  Similarly ocean interactions and
|>      water behavior, surface roughness, water roughness, surface
|>      drag correlations, etc.
 
This is true and inevitable. These are adjustments to adequately represent
unresolvable processes, and some tweaking to find reasonable values does
go on. But the tweaking is to represent current climate.
 
The assertion that these free parameters are chosen to exagerrate the
impact of greenhouse forcing is a much stronger one. I do not believe
that enough freedom exists in these parameters to both represent
current climate and misrepresent radiative forcing.
 
An accusation of scientific dishonesty of this sort is a serious matter
and should not proceed by innuendo. Exactly which parameter was tuned
in an unreasonable way, and exactly which physics could even plausibly
cause such a parameter tuning to misrepresent changes in climate while
accurately representing climate?
 
Please Dale's assertions are all meant to obfuscate the simple fact that if
increasing CO2 does NOT cause warming, a physical mechanism must be proposed.
CO2 does contribute positively to the greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse
effect does contribute positively to the mean temperature of a planet. The
extent of this effect can be calculated with GREAT precision in the absence
of other changes.
 
Anyone honestly approaching the physics will acknowledge that if significant
warming does not occur then an additional mechanism must be proposed.
 
It would not be merely dishonest but also utterly stupid from the point of
view of self-interest for a scientist to discover a candidate process of this
kind and to supress it by frantic tweaking of model parameters.
 
Doubled CO2 climate duration runs are not disposeable commodities just yet.
 
mt
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 23:37:17 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <dhalliwe.754115249@shadow>,
>David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>
>>>     I am a CFD modeler.  The averages in an averaged model are only as
>>>     good as the model put in.  Since the model put in basically assumes
>>>     transport mechanisms and rates that produce a certain temperature
>>>     sensitivity to things like CO2, then one is not surprised when one
>>>     gets similar sensitivity out of the model.
>>
>>   All right, Dale. I've watched your comments for a few days now. You
>>seem to be claiming that you reject climate models because you understand
>>them. Let's put this to a bit of a test.
>>
 
>     Oh goody, a quiz.  I think we've just vaulted over my boredom threshold.
 
>>   In the case of a numerical system, we can seperate the specified
>>conditions into internal conditions and boundary conditions. In the case
>>of an atmospheric General Circulation Model (GCM), I think we will likely
>>agree that the internal conditions are a fluid dynamics question. Can you
>>suppply me with answers to the following?
>>
>>   Is a weather forecasting model more subject to internal or boundary
>>conditions? (You may be more specific regarding time periods if you want.)
 
>     Compare and contrast weather models with someone else.
 
   Fine. Any comments that you make in the future regarding weather
phenomena as a claim for inadequacy of climate predictions can be
ignored. Obviously you are unaware of the strong similarities between
weather forecasting and GCMs for climate research.
 
>>   Is a climate model more subject to internal or boundary conditions?
 
>     Often one can make an 'internal condition' a 'boundary condition'
>     and vice versa, depending on the model so the question is ambiguous.
 
   No it is not an ambiguous question. For any particular model, the
conditions *have* been made 'one or the other", and all you are admitting
is that you don't know how it is done for climate models. You have
claimed that "the models are made to give warming". It is obvious that you
are speaking from a position of ignorance concerning the climate models,
since you don't know what they specify as boundary conditions.
 
   (If you did, I suspect you would see the relevance of the question
about weather models.)
 
>     We'll just discuss parameterization of various aspects of the models.
 
   Unfortunately, the following discussion completely ignore the single
dominant boundary condition in climate models (and the one that is most
important is assessing the effects of carbon dioxide increases).
 
>>(Again, be more specific if you want. In particular, there may be parts of
>>a climate model more responsive to one, while other parts are more
>>responsive to the other.)
 
>     Parameterization of land-surface interactions including roughness,
>     elevation, vegetation (or the inclusion of a canopy model), albedo
>     and moisture often has a significant impact on climate models.  For
>     instance, an average albedo increase of 0.13 has been shown to decrease
>     continental precipitation roughly 1 mm/day.  From Garratt, J. Climate
>     6:419 (1993) quoting Mintz (1984) 'all of the experiments show that
>     the atmosphere is sensitive to the land-surface evaporotranspiration;
>     so that changes in the available soil moisture or changes in the
>     albedo produce large changes in numerically simulated climate'.
 
   Unfortunately for you, albedo can also be independently measured,
so it is not a parameter for which a climate modeller can stick in any
value desired.
 
>     Parameterization of convective clouds has been shown to greatly
>     effect sensitivity to CO2 concentration.  The introduction
>     of liquid water into a cloud parameterization significantly
>     altered numerical results in 'CO2 and climate: a missing feedback',
>     Mitchell etal, Nature 141:132 (1989).
 
   Yes. Cloud parameterization is a major cource of uncertainty, and is
discussed as such in the IPCC report. Cloud changes are in the newer
models, and these models still show warming. Even if cloud changes (in
nature) were to be large enough to make the warming negligible, these
changes would still be a climate change, and there is no likelihood that
all other climate factors (e.g. precipitation) would also be held to
negligible changes.
 
>     Parameterization of the atmospheric boundary layer is very important
>     as well. Again from Garratt (1993) 'Because the ABL controls the
>     evaporation and turbulent distribution of water substance into
>     the atmosphere, it strongly determines the global distribution
>     of both cumuliform and stratiform clouds'.
 
   Actually, surface conditions are a major factor in controlling
evaporation (from land surfaces).
 
>     Ocean parameterization or ocean model is extremely important.  I'll rest
>     with "Reliable long-term prediction of climate change
>     will not be possible unless there is an adequate supply
>     of oceanic observations to feed and validate the
>     models", Mason, Contemporary Physics 34:19 (1993).
>     Again, I think  Mr. Mason is quite optimistic.
 
   This is particularly important in looking at transient responses, and
is considered in interpreting results of equilibrium simulations.
 
>     Model predictions for higher order subgrid turbulence model
>     will be found to change when second order turbulence models
>     are eventually replaced by RNG and/or algebraic Reynolds' stress
>     models.
 
   This is nothing more than an unsupported statement of opnion.
 
>     Models also tend to be sensitive to the presence or absence of
>     certain effects.  For instance, in 'Sensitivity of simulated
>     climate to model resolution', J. Climate 4:462 (1991) Boville
>     displays 'Enormous change' in the stratosphere and mesosphere
>     at a certain spectral truncation owing to leaving out
>     GWD (gravity wave drag) parameterization.  Similar results
>     are found in Boer and Lazare, J. Climate 1:789 (1989)
>     where they go as far to say 'Apparently the numerical
>     solutions to the governing equations depend importantly on,
>     and in nonobvious ways on resolution and parameterization,
>     in particular, on the parameterization of source/sink
>     terms in the momentum equations' since the removal of the
>     GWD model results in an *increase* in midlatitude stress torque.
 
   However, a number of models with varying numerical methods and
resolutions *all* give warming in response to doubling of CO2. Differences
between models are undoubtedly part of the reason why the *range* of
sensitivities in the models is 1.5 to 4.5C. However, you have provided
absolutely no evidence that altering any of these factors would lead to a
model that shows *no* warming. The same applies to your discussion of
albedo and surface energy balance: a number of models, with varying
parameterizations, all give warming. Different amounts of warming, but all
warming. THERE ARE NO MODELS WHICH GIVE COOLING OR NO CHANGE.
 
>     I could probably go on forever, but since I'm now utterly bored,
>     I leave you with a quote from Randall, etal, J. Geophys. Res 97:3711
>     (1992) regarding effects of changes in surface energy fluxes,
>     (caps mine) 'THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE VARIES DRAMATICALLY FROM
>     ONE MODEL TO ANOTHER'.
 
   I get bored listening to you prattle, as well. I'm not surprised you
get bored writing it. Yes, the amount of change varies. It varies from 1.5
to 4.5C. That is a factor of three. No, could you please explain how on
earth that range can be interpreted as "no warming"????
 
>     I think that's a general and not very promising statement.
 
   It is also entirely consistent with a high likelihood that there will
be *some* warming in response to increased CO2.
 
>>   You have on numerous occasions claimed that climate models are designed
>>to give the answers you don't like. Can you be specific as to
>>
>>   -  what the specified boundary conditions are in a typical climate
>>      model.
 
>     The quiz is over.
 
i.e. "I missed class that day and don't even understand the question."
Zero marks.
 
>>   -  what aspect of the model (boundary or internal conditions) is the
>>      ones(s) that are the cause of the forcing which "controls" the
>>      model response (which you don't like).
 
>     Surface energy balance, cloud parameterization, albedo ...
 
   None of these are specified to change in looking at CO2 sensitivity. If
the surface energy balance changes, it is because temperature or humidity
change in the model; not because the researcher "made it change". The only
albedo change is in response to changing snow and ice (since vegetation
effects are only currently being added to the models). Cloud
parameterization also remains unchanged between a 1xCO2 and a 2xCO2
simulation. It is *not* changed between the two in an attempt to make the
2xCO2 simulation warmer.
 
  In fact, between a 1xCO2 simulation and a 2xCO2 simulation, there is
only *one* change that needs to be made to the model input. Hint: there is
a reason why they are referred to as "1xCO2" and "2xCO2".
 
>>>     Any time someone tells you that the local predictions of a CFD model
>>>     are no good, but the global predictions are pretty good, ask them
>>>     how they put the global averages into the model.  You'll always find
>>>     significant defining assumptions for things like average
>>>     energy transport and/or mass transport are either a) built into the
>>>     model, or b) built into the boundary conditions.  These assumptions
>>>     insure that you'll get out what you thought you would.
>>
>>    I want to see if you know what the climate models are using to do
>>this. If you _don't_ know, then you are just speculating.
 
>     I'd like some answers too, but y'all are apparently too busy defending
>     the certainty of climate models and quizzing heretics for me to get any.
 
    Perhaps if you actually *stated* some questions (as I have done)
instead of just throwing around your arbitrary claims.
 
   It is odd reading this, though: Dale has not made a single reference to
either the most dominant boundary condition affecting climate, or the most
important process in physics relating to the direct effects of changing
CO2. Consideration of these two factors is the reason for questioning the
effects of CO2 on global temperature. The basic physics argues for a
warming response, even without the GCMs.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Miniball lightning?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miniball lightning?
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 22:41:46 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <93111611503367@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>The stuff posted by Edward Lewis with reference to experiments by T.
>Matsumoto leave me thinking that one of those two gentlemen is totally
>confused as to what is being observed.  ..   [stuff trimmed] ..
 
From other writings I have noticed E. Lewis has substantial gaps, and
doesn't use references accurately.
 
>I get the feeling that someone does not have a clue as to how a scanning
>electron microscope produces an image.  Of course Matsumoto's experiments
>have been published in Fusion Technology so we know it has to be really
>good stuff!
 
The last remark seems a to have a double edge.  I am in favor of "FT"s
liberal policy, on the grounds that until our species develops
technologically very useful form/s of fusion, we may be just a twinkle
in the volume of space-time.  (Note: Fusion Technology does reject)
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
                           As opposed to a twinkie*
*The slang usage
NOT the trademark
of the same spelling.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| 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 cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 05:00:13 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <19931124.185112.830@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
|>          Michael Tobis posted:
|> >The final concentration seems likely to be very sensitive to the level
|> >at which emissions stop increasing, if we assume that sudden decreases
|> >in emissions are unlikely.
|>          What is the basis for this statement?  A naive model predicts
|> the final concentration will be a linear function of the steady state
|> emission level.
 
I believe you are correct in this matter. Allow me to improve my statement.
 
The final concentration seems likely to be very sensitive to the TIME
at which emissions stop increasing, if we assume that sudden decreases
in emissions are unlikely. This is because emission rates are rising
rapidly and have only recently begun to reach levels of significant impact.
 
 Incidently why are sudden decreases unlikely?  It
|> would seem to me that emissions are likely to decrease at least as
|> fast as they rose as fossil fuel supplies are exhausted.
 
Coal supplies are not likely to be exhausted. There's enough proven coal
reserves to increase atmospheric concentartion of CO2 by roughly an order
of magnitude.
 
It's generally believed that since so many processes contribute to greenhouse
gas accumulation, in so many societies and systems, that rapidly changing
these emissions will be very difficult and expensive. Beyond that, I'm not
competent to say much.
 
Suppose you had to halve your personal contribution to emissions tomorrow.
Could you comply?
 
|>          Michael Tobis again:
|> >By the way, a sudden decrease of *emissions* by some 80% is NOW required
|> >to hold CO2 *concentrations* to current levels.
 
Let me say that this number shouldn't be relied on too much. It's vaguely
remebered from a graph in the beginning of the 1990 IPCC document, which
I finally had to give back to the library.
 
|>          Again what is the basis of this statement?  The naive model
|> suggests a 50% reduction would suffice (assuming 50% of anthropogenic
|> CO2 has remained in the atmosphere).
 
I don't see how this follows. To each emission level there is, roughly
speaking, an asymtpotically approached final concentration.
 
Current emissions equilibrate at a bit above double CO2 background, while
current concentrations are at around 25% above background. (Again, numbers
off the cuff with no documentation, but they seem about right to me.) So the
linear model you propose above would imply a reduction by a fator of about 5.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 06:11:13 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <19931125.072258.936@almaden.ibm.com>, nicho@vnet.IBM.COM
(Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
|> In <dhalliwe.754212924@shadow> David Halliwell writes:
 
|> No I can't show any such model, I've seen this happen in other fields,
|> and consider it a reasonable part of the debate to ask it here. Don't
|> get your knickers in a knot over it.
 
This is fair enough, but betrays a lack of knowledge about the models, the
modelling community, their interests, and the way they get their results. In
practice, such contrary results would be sufficiently welcome that they
would not be hidden.
 
This was the reason I made the connection to astrophysics. It was not
as an affirimation, but as a cultural description.
 
|> We have a planet showing no global
|> warming,
 
This is false. Global warming is confirmed and statistically significant.
 
What it isn't is 1) very big or 2) conclusively due to greenhouse effect
forcing.
 
On the other hand 1) it is the right size for the best theories of the
greenhouse effect based on physical principles, paleoclimate records, and
explicit models of both the grossly simplified and the maximally complex
variety. And 2) these sources of evidence indicate that such warming is
likely to increase rapidly in the near future.
 
|> yet we're assured that it is going to happen eventually if
|> we don't do something about it. Now I _know_ that it's not the
|> climatologists who are saying this, but it _is_ being said, by and to,
|> those who make the decisions.
 
I believe that there _are_ climatologists who are saying things very near to
exactly this, actually, though a caveat or two is usually thrown in for good
measure.
 
How much and when are very much in debate, but I think there's little
doubt that further warming will occur, barring asteroid strikes, nuclear
war, or sudden major increases in volcanic activity.
 
There is room to argue that the warming will be small enough to be of
limited concern. There is room to argue that there are some possible
benefits from a modest warming that might outweigh the costs. There is
room to argue that immediate response is premature.
 
Arguing that the evidence is non-existent that warming will occur is
irresponsible and ill-informed at best. (I actually expected Dale Bass
would come up with arguments that were less bluster and posturing and
more substance, since that is certainly possible. I was disappointed.)
 
I would advise people who are inclined to a wait-and-see posture to read
R.C.Balling's book _The Heated Debate_. (Ignore the polemical introduction
written by someone else. It contains errors of fact.) Pacific Research
Institute for Public Policy, 1992. It advocates no immediate response in a
way which is responsible, and gives a good overview of what is and is not
known. It is much better than Michaels' or Jastrow's efforts in this area
which are generally misleading, start from their desired conclusion, and
give a very skewed picture.
 
|> This makes the validity of the models
|> on which these assertions are based a legitimate area for concern.
 
It is certainly a legitimate area of concern, but you must forgive us
for occasional impatience when people continually attack the legitimacy
of the work on grounds that are either entirely wrong or irrelevant.
 
The models are ugly beasts and I hate to encourage people to look at them,
but I encourage anyone competent to do so, to do so, and to say how the
things could be tuned to hide an undesired lack of CO2 sensitivity and still
deliver a reasonable climate under current (not to mention paleoclimate!)
conditions.
 
In fact, the culture of physical climatology and numerical climate modelling
would make such behavior enormously unlikely even if it weren't spectacularly
expensive.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Jan Schloerer /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan Schloerer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 26 Nov 1993 12:43:39 GMT
Organization: University of Ulm, Germany

In article <1993Nov26.061113.15906@cs.wisc.edu>
   Michael Tobis  (tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu)   wrote :
 
> I would advise people who are inclined to a wait-and-see posture to
> read R.C.Balling's book _The Heated Debate_. (Ignore the polemical
> introduction written by someone else. It contains errors of fact.)
> Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992. It advocates no
> immediate response in a way which is responsible, and gives a good
> overview of what is and is not known. It is much better than
> Michaels' or Jastrow's efforts in this area which are generally
> misleading, start from their desired conclusion, and give a very
> skewed picture.
 
I haven't yet read the entire book in detail, but from what I have
seen so far, I by and large subscribe to what Michael said  (yes,
the introduction stretches Balling's work and opinions beyond reason).
Exception:  Balling does not advocate a strict wait-and-see posture.
Quotes from Balling's book :
 
 
     Yet, many policies linked to the greenhouse effect  (e.g., using
     resources more efficiently, exploring energy alternatives)
     make perfect sense whether the world's temperatures are
     warming, cooling, or remaining unchanged !         (page 147)
 
 
     Most people have one of two different reactions after learning
     about the arguments presented in this book.  First, many people
     lose their attachment to previous convictions about the greenhouse
     issue.  They recognize that the issue is far more complex than
     previously thought, they recognice the validity of the arguments
     against the apocalypse, and they are stimulated to learn more
     about the issue.  These people seek moderate policy steps that
     "do a lot of good" irrespective of the potential threat of the
     greenhouse effect.  They want good science and good policy to go
     hand in hand.  Their reaction is the one intended in writing
     the book.                                     (pages 149-150)
 
 
This sounds rather like what has become known as a  'no-regrets policy'
(which is a bit of a misnomer, though).
 
 
Jan Schloerer                    schloerer@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Uni Ulm     Klinische Dokumentation     D-89070 Ulm     Germany
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenSCHLOERER cudfnJan cudlnSchloerer cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Stephen Cooper /  Where as the fusion posts cf/hf any f
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where as the fusion posts cf/hf any f
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 10:02:30 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

Can people please think before you post. All the CO2 poison
and global warming diatribes might be useful in some other
news group, but not here.
 
Since this pandemic started the number of fusion related
posts cf/hf has dwindled to nearly nothing. I'm finding more
fusion related posts on sci.energy and sci.astro than here.
 
Can you please move this discussion to another newsgroup,
sci.physics.fusion has a poor distribution you'll get a much
bigger audiance else where. Or if you can't take it somewhere
else think before you post, do we realy need the one line
facile comments and continued repeating of the same arguments.
Just accept that you'll not going to change anyone mind by
repeating youself, if did'nt work the first time is will not
the second
 
        Steve Cooper                    src@jet.uk
 
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 26 Nov 93 20:36:55 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

Thanks to Jan Schloerrer for pointing out that I bobbled the numbers
(uniformly)by a factor of a thousand. What follows is his correction. My
basic point stands.
 
mt
 
===
 
I get the following figures  -  or isn't an American trillion
equal to 10^12,  a quadrillion to 10^15 ?
 
strategy ->     a               b                c
 
scenario
 
A (40 %)        0               10^11           10^13
B (50 %)        10^12           10^11           10^13
C (10 %)        10^15           10^15           10^13
 
expected
cost            10^14           10^14           10^13
 
Also, some readers maybe didn't understand that
   a = do nothing
   b = countermeasures sufficient to mitigate scenario B
   c = countermeasures sufficient to mitigate scenario C
 
===
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Lady BitMode /  Atomic Construction -- for a friend
     
Originally-From: erica@wariat.org (Lady of the BitMode)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Atomic Construction -- for a friend
Date: 26 Nov 1993 15:38:47 -0500
Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site

 
Hello:
 
I have a friend here at case western university here in cleveland Ohio,
he is doing research on atomic energy and controlled explosions. He would
like any information or articles on the construction, development and usage
of atomic devices.
 
Please forward the information to myself and I'll see that he receives the
information. He is kind of new to internet but he's learning.
 
Thank you
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenerica cudfnLady cudlnBitMode cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 26 Nov 93 20:42:38 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <1993Nov26.050013.12967@cs.wisc.edu>, tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.e
u (Michael Tobis) writes:
 
|> |>          Again what is the basis of this statement?  The naive model
|> |> suggests a 50% reduction would suffice (assuming 50% of anthropogenic
|> |> CO2 has remained in the atmosphere).
|>
|> I don't see how this follows. To each emission level there is, roughly
|> speaking, an asymtpotically approached final concentration.
|>
|> Current emissions equilibrate at a bit above double CO2 background, while
|> current concentrations are at around 25% above background. (Again, numbers
|> off the cuff with no documentation, but they seem about right to me.) So the
|> linear model you propose above would imply a reduction by a fator of about 5.
 
On second thought, this seems like nonsense to me and your argument
seems perfectly valid. I withdraw the whole business. Reducing emissions
by 50% would probably suffice to stabilize concentrations. I realized this
in embarassment verging on terror after I went home last night.
 
It seems my postings are not 100% reliable. On the other hand, unlike
some people, I am willing to admit when I have been babbling nonsensically!
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 07:24:18 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
>In article <dhalliwe.754114689@shadow>,
>David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
>>
>>>Dale has stated the crux of his argument several times now, why is
>>>it never answered, but only excised ??
>>
>>   Well, I would argue that Dale's _misunderstandings_ have been repeated
>>several times, but I'll reserve that for my next post which will try to
>>address some points.
 
>      And it wasn't answered here either.  But why wait?
>      Please reserve nothing, I have a very short attention span, and
>      I'm getting bored.
>
 
   I prefer to address your points in the posts you make them in, rather
than in someone else's post that only refers to them.
 
>>>I'll repeat, no-one has any
>>>problem with ongoing research, but _please_ tell us why we should
>>>base our economic policy on these incomplete models ??
>>
>>   ...because we have to base our economic policy on _something_. Even an
>>assumption of no climate change as a possible scenario and no alterations
>>of current practice would be an economic decision. Waiting for more
>>research is a decision. We can't make _no_ decision.
 
>     But calling for a 'decision' carries with it an
>     implication.  The implication is that we sit at a juncture with
>     admittedly incomplete and probably misleading information, but
>     we *must* make a 'decision'.
 
   Well, if you want to pretend that deciding to do nothing is not
actually a decision, then that's your business.
 
>     However, we do not sit at a juncture, and we do not need to make any
>     'decision' more than the usual 'decisions' we make without the
>     information.
 
   Thanks for admitting that you prefer to ignore the information. Since
the presence of the information has no effect on your decision-making
process, this is exactly what you are doing.
 
>>The incomplete models
>>present us with more information that ignoring the models would. There
>>will be a great variety of opinions as to whether the incomplete
>>information is enough to make us decide to change our actions, but you
>>ignore the information at your peril.
 
>     How does one quantify 'more information'?  The implication is
>     that 'incomplete models' present us with more correct or indicative
>     information.  I do not believe this to be a correct implication.
 
   Yes, here we have it again. The claim that the climate models contain
no useful information whatsoever. Dale rejects them _completely_. This is
quite far from saying that they are inexact, or have uncertainties. Dale
claims they tell us _nothing_ (or the equivalent of nothing).
 
>     And why do I ignore it at my peril?  Perhaps you 'heed' it at your
>     peril.  Not surprisingly, the symmetry seems to be missed
>     by those who assume peril.
 
   If you choose to remain ignorant, fine. I wouldn't run about putting
that on my resume, though.
 
>>   (Note that I would differentiate between "ignoring the information" and
>>"deciding that the information is insufficient to change a course of
>>action".)
 
>     Fine, but that assigns a basic worth to the information.
 
   Yes, I do value the information. (I also understand its limitations.)
 
>     I realize my heresy, but perhaps there is none?
 
   Apart from the fact that you have only ever _claimed_ that the models
are useless. I have yet to see an explanation as to why (other than they
don't give you the result you want them to).
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Dieter Britz /  Please please please
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please please please
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 10:30:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Digest 1708 has these contents:
 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
   - Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
   - Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
   - Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
   - Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
jbs@watson.ibm.com
   - Re: Global warming
jbs@watson.ibm.com
   - Re: Global warming
dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
   - sci.physics.fusion
dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
   - Re: sci.physics.fusion
jbs@watson.ibm.com
   - Re: Global warming
ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (don davis)
   - Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
   - Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
 
Please, please, please, can't you stop this, or carry it on by private email,
or move to a more appropriate group? This is about the worst epidemic in this
group I have ever seen. The whole Digest is one big sideline, there is no
fusion-related item in it at all. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi....
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 11:07:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1692:
 
>Hi Folks,
>In article <kemidb.753616846@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
>> Considering Steve Jones' revelations about neutron artifacts, I would say
>> that Yamaguchi is as dead as Leibowitz.
>>
>> Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
>> --------------------------
>>
>
> Sorry Dieter, but the above does not convey much information. I have not
>been able to look at the net for a few days, which revelations do you refer
>to? Could you please give a date, title, item No. or article ID ? Anything ?
>Many thanks in anticipation.
>                                        Kind Regards to all,
>                                        Daryl Owen.
 
Sorry, Daryl, maybe I should have quoted the stuff - I felt everybody was
reading all the News. I'd now have to go and delve in the archives to find it
again, and you can do this as well as I can. It lies somewhere previous to the
file fusion.93-02200 at the vm1.nodak.edu site, in the Fusion directory.
 
The gist of it was that Steve Jones now uses a neutron detector with four
quadrants, and demands that any neutron signal has to appear on all four. This
is reasonable, unless you want to invent nonisotropy for neutron emissions,
another miracle. Steve then found some signals that would have been
interpreted as neutron bursts by people with just the one detector, but which
appeared on only one quadrant. This tells me that all published neutron
results (and in the present context, Yamaguchi's in particular) are dead.
Noone has used a neutron detector of this quality before, and here is proof
that you can get spurious neutron signals. I hope this precis helps, but by
all means dig in the archives.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  RE: State of cold fusion theory
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: State of cold fusion theory
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 11:16:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1692:
 
>I think that one of the most puzzling and persistant rumours regarding
>cold fusion is the notion that there are some high-powered theorists
>lending their support to the validity of cold fusion.  Names most
>often invoked are Schwinger and Hagelstein.  My question is where are
>these theories written?  Who has seen anything in print that can be
>passed off as theory that gets around the basic problems of scaling
>factors on time, space, and energy that would say cold fusion just
>can't happen?  I would like to see at least an outline as to what these
>theories are supposed to cover.  In the case of Hagelstein, I have seen
>the words he is credited with having written in the form of his
>summary of the Nagoya conference.  He clearly states that he has given
>up the notion that collective effects can lead to the d + d -> 4He with
>no gamma as the primary CF reaction.  In short Hagelstein is not going
>to produce a theory that supports the current picture of cold fusion
>as we have seen it described here.  If there really is a theory for
>cold fusion where is it?
 
1. Where are they written? In papers which I have abstracted and stuck into
   the bibliography. Dick, do you read other than conference procs? Hagelstein
   has certainly been published properly, and Schwinger as well.
2. Where is there theory? Of the 800+ papers in my bibliography, over 300 are
   theory papers, divided roughly equally into attempts at disproof and proof.
   There is a wide variety of theories. Go for it, Dick.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Response to Dieter regarding "retraction"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Response to Dieter regarding "retraction"
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 13:17:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1698:
 
>Dieter asks for clarifications and comments which I am happy to provide:
[clarifications...]
>My reference was to Friedman (Friedlander's colleague), with whom I have had
>several conservations beginning in May 1989 at BNL before he and colleagues
>announced CIF.  In a report in _Science_ Oct. 22, 1993, it is noted that
 
Oops! Sorry. But it IS confusing with those two similar names side by side.
 
>I am pleased to note that my teaching duties will be light from Dec. 15 through
>August 20, 1994 -- I plan to hit this hard during these 8 months.  And I will
>post results here, however they turn out.  And we are looking at other things
>too, like muon-catalyzed fusion experiments and sonoluminescence.
 
Good luck.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Heat Pipe Progress
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Progress
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 13:19:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) in FD 1702:
 
[...]
>oil once they land.  Enter absorption--notice the b.
 
I did notice... but, er...:
 
>    For most materials in most atmospheres, there is a (several
>molecule thick) layer of gas absorbed on the surface.  (Absorption is
                              ^^
>a volume phenomena, absorption is totally surface.)  The attraction
                     ^^
Er, em...
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / Dieter Britz /  Frontiers of Science??
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Frontiers of Science??
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 15:31:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
I have just checked the latest Chem. Abstracts, and it's full of abstracts of
papers in a thing called Front. Sci. Ser. (Frontiers of Cold Fusion). Does
anyone out there know what this is? Is it a journal, or maybe a conference
proceedings? It looks a bit like a series, perhaps not connected with any
conference. But before I make the effort to get the largish number of papers
from it, I want to make sure it's a proper, refereed, publication.
 
Thanks for the information, and have a nice weekend.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Could you please email ....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Could you please email ....
Date: 25 Nov 93 21:55:57 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Could some kind soul please email me the following articles posted on this
net by Prof.S.Jones....
(1) FD 2179  (2) "Draft of Paper" (3) "Whats the opposite of EUREKA"
(4) "Comparison of CF Systems"  19-Nov-93.
Many thanks in anticipation,
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 25 Nov 1993 12:29:11 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I have deleted sci.physics.fusion from the group list...
 
In article <19931124.183223.300@almaden.ibm.com>, jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
|>          Michael Tobis posted:
|> >A good strategy integrates the costs and benefits of all possible outcomes
|> >for each strategy, weighted by best estimates of the probablity of such
|> >outcomes. In situations where the maximum possible loss is very large, but
|> >the likely loss is quite small, the maximum possible loss carries a lot of
|> >weight in evaluating the optimal cost strategy.
|> >
|> >Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so
|> >because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a
|> >need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst*
|> >plausible outcomes into account as well?
|>          I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above.  I
|> have the following questions.
|>          1.  The above appears to assume that outcomes should be
|> arithmetically averaged.  Why is the arithmetic average to be
|> preferred to the geometric average?
|>          2.  What is the function we are maximizing?
|>          3.  What is the definition of a "plausible" outcome?
|>          4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
|> probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
|> CO2 prevents another ice age.
 
Would someone knowledgeable please clear up this misonception that a new
ice age is _imminent_ (when I first heard that I already knew enough about
time scales to know that "imminent" means "in a few thousand years")?
 
There seems to be a mindset out there (I have heard several prominent
deniers state it, some with urgency) that we _need_ global warming in
order to ensure continued productivity of northern agricultural land
and to keep the planet out of a new glacial period. This is very, very
irresponsible, given our comparative lack of knowledge concerning the
details of climate change.
 
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / mitchell swartz /  State of Skeptics' anti-CF theories
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: State of Skeptics' anti-CF theories
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 14:21:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <93112310532284@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
   Subject: State of cold fusion theory
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] wrote:
 
  Dick brings up the magnetic moment of the deuteron in palladium
(reference, Dick?) but he ignores that this is NOT a two-body problem
in a potential well.  However, this is a lattice.  and so there are
phonons (of two types), plasmons (of several types), polarons,
and even superconductive effects which are not seen in the "two-body problem
in a potential well". An awful lot more than two particles, too, reside
in the loaded lattice in this case.
 
     Said Dick previously:
 
    =   "Who has seen anything in print that can be
    = passed off as theory that gets around the basic problems of scaling
    = factors on time, space, and energy that would say cold fusion just
    = can't happen?"
 
  to which was responded:
 
    = "What is Dick's proof that time, space, or energy scale and produce
    =  "problems" as he claims?"
 
   Dick's proof(s) of t,z,E-scaling  appears lame, because what he says is:
 
=  "there is a set of measured quantities that serve to
= identify a deuteron as an entity which matches the description I have
= given.  Now if I form a lattice of PdD is it still appropriate to
= think of those non-palladium atoms as being the same entities I had
= identified as deuterons on the basis of properties determined in
= measurements made on say deuterium gas?  I would say yes ..."
 
   The iron atoms in Mossbauer effect are similar to iron atoms outside
of the lattice, yet the effect is observable because of the lattice.
The effect was not predictable by stating that the iron atoms were
similar, nor can Mossbauer effect be disproved by same.  The Mossbauer
and other solid state phenomena are a fact,
and the info Dick cites is apparently .: not relevant.
 
  Dick alluded to time, space, energy factors, but discusses none
of either of the three.   Guess there was nothing there after all.
 
                                               Mitchell Swartz
                                               (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 15:08:49 GMT

In <dhalliwe.754212924@shadow> David Halliwell writes:
>out of hand. Can you tell us just what "assumed facts" you are talking
>about? Can you give an example of a climate model that *has* shown no
>warming and has been "rejected out of hand"? (I know of experimental
>results which were used to predict "no warming". I also know the errors in
>physics that they made, which is why they have generally been rejected.)
No I can't show any such model, I've seen this happen in other fields,
and consider it a reasonable part of the debate to ask it here. Don't
get your knickers in a knot over it. We have a planet showing no global
warming, yet we're assured that it is going to happen eventually if
we don't do something about it. Now I _know_ that it's not the
climatologists who are saying this, but it _is_ being said, by and to,
those who make the decisions. This makes the validity of the models
on which these assertions are based a legitimate area for concern.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Scott Mullins /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 15:13:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <CH0JyD.7xo@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <CH08H0.MHr@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>Scott H Mullins <smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>>You see that infinite stress at any re-entrant corner.
 
Oh, and Dale... nice editing job on my comments. I'll just assume
that you do concede the point on the validity of FEM away from
re-entrant corners.
 
[snip]
>                            dale bass
 
 
--
Scott
smullins@ecn.purdue.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudensmullins cudfnScott cudlnMullins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 25 Nov 1993 15:59:13 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <CH0z0w.EL0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Did the quiz not go so well for you?  Cloud interactions and albedo
>     are often 'adjusted' because they give answers that the
>     modelers don't particularly like (random reference: Schlesinger etal,
>     J. Climate 3:459 (1989)).  Similarly ocean interactions and
>     water behavior, surface roughness, water roughness, surface
>     drag correlations, etc.
>
 
Please be more explicit about your assertion.   Can we assume you are
saying that modelers make adjustments in cloud interactions and albedo
(as well as other parameterizations you mentioned earlier) IN ORDER
to produce the temperature sensitivity to CO2 doubling they expect?
 
It was my understanding that there are roughly two reasons for such
adjustments.   First, they need to reproduce rather detailed simulations
of PRESENT climate.  Secondly, there are occasions where they have to
make adjustments in order to insure numerical stability of the model.
In making these adjustments, it is my understanding that modelers
rely strongly on plausible physical arguments or independent computer
simulations dealing specifically with the phenomena in question.
 
If you are arguing that the models are unreliable because the use
of such `adjustments' is too arbitrary, that is a fair comment.
Of course, that
doesn't prove that global warming is unlikely, only that the models
might be very wrong _in either direction_ in their predictions.
 
If you are arguing that the adjustments have little justification
except in so far as they lead to predictions of warming, you
are suggesting that the modelers are guilty of outright scientific
fraud.   If so, don't do it in this forum.  Try writing a paper
in Nature to bring this to the attention of the scientific community.
 
As a final comment, let me explain for those who, like me, are quite
new to this subject, that the `adjustments' and parameterizations
are not put into models in order to control the results.   The so-called
GCMs (General Circulation Models)
are finite approximations of equations handling
important physical variables in the atmosphere.  If that sufficed,
life would be much simpler for modelers.   Unfortunately, many
very important features cannot be caught by such a model, e.g.,
so-called sub-grid scale phenomena, interactions with the oceans,
interactions with the biosphere, etc.   Hence, modelers have introduced
methods for incorporating the average effect of such factors in
the models.   They don't do this because they think that is the most
accurate way to proceed but because, given current computer resources,
they have no choice.   However, modelers have constantly tried to
improve their models by increasing resolution, by doing a better job
of coupling to oceans, by better understanding the parameterizations,
etc.   It is interesting to note that as the models have gotten more
sophisticated the temperature sensitivity estimates to CO2
doubling have stayed about the same.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.22 / dave pierson /  Tour, Noise
     
Originally-From: pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tour, Noise
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 23:03:45 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

Boston Section, IEEE, has arranged a tour of ALCATOR C-MOD
6 December
175 Albany STreet
Room NW17-218
7:00 PM
Info Joe Terra 617-474-0747
(IEEE Boston Section 'Reflector')
 
====
 
Compliance Engineering, Fall, 1993, has a lengthy article, with cases, of
Medical Electronics getting 'EMI'ed.  The knowledgable will find little new,
others may...
 
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, 01751 USA       pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.23 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for electronic information exchange
Date: 23 Nov 93 14:03:19
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Nov21.234958.7957@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 
  > Apparently IFF is an Amiga standard.  Futhermore without more evidence,
  > the shareware/freeware legality is open to question.
 
  The IFF standard is explicitly architecture neutral and public.
(Well, ILBM favors interlaced displays, but that is about it, and
there are other image representations you can use.
 
  But I still think GIF is probably the best (1993) choice for usenet
distribution.  Anyone who needs IFF knows how to convert, but the
opposite is not often true.
 
--
 
                                        Robert I. Eachus
 
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 /  tabitha@vms.hu /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 25 Nov 93 16:06:38 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In article <CH0x41.Dt0@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <dhalliwe.754177873@shadow>,
> David Halliwell <dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>     Extreme weather events?  We're discussing climate and the effect
>>>     of CO2.  It is just this type of hysteria that I'm hoping we can
>>>     avoid.  Extreme weather events happen all the time.
>>
>>   ...and extreme weather events are part of climate. If the climate
>>changes, we may see a change in frequency, duration, or magnitude of
>>extreme events. One possiblility in the global warming scenario is
>>increased drought frequency. What if, 20 years from now, we find that the
>>Great Plains "bread basket" has frequent or sustained drought that makes
>>it no longer viable for food production?
>
>      I was done, but this is unbelievable.
>
>      Here's the problem.  Droughts happen.  A drought happens that
>      is mildly disruptive and eco-nuts demand we shut down the rest
>      of the economy that wasn't causing the drought in the first place
>      supported by three or four climatological models that happen to show
>      the drought being 'caused' by the other part of the economy.
>
>                               dale bass
 
 
The trouble with dale bass is the linearity of his paradigm and his
failure to purge the havingness from his being.
 
-dennis turner
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentabitha cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 22:51:45 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
 
>In <dhalliwe.754212924@shadow> David Halliwell writes:
>>out of hand. Can you tell us just what "assumed facts" you are talking
>>about? Can you give an example of a climate model that *has* shown no
>>warming and has been "rejected out of hand"? (I know of experimental
>>results which were used to predict "no warming". I also know the errors in
>>physics that they made, which is why they have generally been rejected.)
 
 
>No I can't show any such model, I've seen this happen in other fields,
>and consider it a reasonable part of the debate to ask it here. Don't
>get your knickers in a knot over it. We have a planet showing no global
>warming,
 
   Yes we do have global warming. Approximately 0.5C over the last 100
years. Entirely consistent with the predictions of response to increased
atmospheric CO2.
 
   What we do *not* have is certainty that this warming is actually caused
by the CO2 increases. Superimposed on that warming trend are shorter-term
warming and cooling periods of similar magnitude. There are also several
other physical processes which could be causing the longer term trend. As
a result, the trend neither supports nor refutes CO2-induced climate
change theories: it is inconclusive.
 
> yet we're assured that it is going to happen eventually if
>we don't do something about it.
 
   Fairly basic physics says that increasing the concentration of
atmospheric gases which absorb infrared radiation *will* lead to higher
surface temperatures. There is great debate as to how much warming will
occur (best estimate 1.5-4.5C), and there are a number of feedback
mechanisms which *might* reduce the direct warming effect (but also might
enhance it; they are *uncertainties*), but warming *should* happen.
 
> Now I _know_ that it's not the
>climatologists who are saying this, but it _is_ being said, by and to,
>those who make the decisions.
 
   It is not the climatologists that are saying "there is no warming",
either. Don't replace one misguided interpretation with another!
 
> This makes the validity of the models
>on which these assertions are based a legitimate area for concern.
 
   Yes it does. Howver, simple physics leads us to expect warming. The
models are a complex effort to find out how a complex system will respond
to the simple change. Would it help if I explained the simple physics
aspects? (I am asking seriously: not tongue-in-cheek.)
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Halliwell /  Re: Please please please
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please please please
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 23:30:45 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
 
>Digest 1708 has these contents:
 
[posts on global warming, etc.]
 
>Please, please, please, can't you stop this, or carry it on by private email,
>or move to a more appropriate group? This is about the worst epidemic in this
>group I have ever seen. The whole Digest is one big sideline, there is no
>fusion-related item in it at all. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
 
   There has been an attempt to move this to more appropriate groups, and
it is being crossposted. Unfortunately, one of the participants (the one
alone on one side of the argument) has insisted that it continue to be
posted to your group. (I think that he has actually put the group back in
after people have responded with followups set to the appropriate groups.)
 
   If you can make a suggestion as to *how* we can get it out of here,
we'll see what we can do!
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
Date: 26 Nov 93 10:44:20 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <931122163318_72240.1256_EHK29-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
> For those who have not followed this debate, let me point out a few basic
> facts. Over and over again, for many years, Steve and other so-called
> "skeptics" have been asked to offer a serious critique of the calorimetric
> data and experimental techniques of workers like Pons and Fleischmann,
> McKubre, Kunimatsu, Bockris, and many others. This data proves beyond question
> that the CF effect is real, and that it is not chemical. Steve has never once
> addressed this issue. He has never so much as mentioned McKubre's work, expect
> when he repeated certain ridiculous lies about it first dreamed up by other
> pathological "skeptics." He has never even acknowledged that Kunimatsu exists!
> He has evaded, lied, published grossly stupid piffle and "fluff" (as
> Fleischmann put it) in an endless stream of unscientific messages in which he
> attempts to rewrite laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. Pons
> and Fleischmann responded, I responded, Gene Mallove responded, but Jones and
> the other "skeptics" ignored us. Therefore, we think it is best to ignore him
> and all the others who refuse to address the issue.
>
> If anyone would like a copy of the Jones - Fleischmann correspondence, please
> contact me. You will see that he does not have a leg to stand on, and he is
> talking nonsense.
>
> - Jed
>
 
Dear Jed,
 
You claim that you and Fleischmann and Mallove have responded, and that I have
"ignored" you.  Then where are the responses to these specific questions which
I have posed?  To wit:
 
1.  What are the cell voltages used to estimate the input power to the
"boiling-electrolyte cells"
of Pons and Fleischmann (P/F), as reported in Phys Lett A?
 
Instead of providing these data as I requested some 2 months ago, Fleischmann
apologized that "voltages are read every 300 s" (posted by Jed on this net).
I responded (4 Nov. posting):
 
"Fleischmann *still* has not provided the numbers.  And now we learn (mention
was neglected in the paper) that the "voltages are read every 300s" -- clearly
not frequently enough to satisfy the Nyquist criterion especially for the 600s
period when violent boiling occurred."  (Jones, 4 Nov, still no response!)
 
2.  Quoting other unanswered questions which I posed weeks ago:
"The Pd stays at 100 C within a few degrees for *"three hours"* after "cell
dry" according to the P&F papers.  What keeps the temperature right at 100C
when the cell is dry?  This constitutes another red flag, not 'undeniable proof
of excess heat beyond chemistry.'  [the last quote is quoting Jed]
 
"Are we to believe that "cold fusion", ignition Fleischmann called it, is so
regulated that a dry cell cell remains at the boiling temp. of water for three
hours, after the cell is dry?  No thermal runaway?  What keeps that temp.
constant for three hours when the cell is dry?  The question is not addressed
in the P&F papers."  [from my posting on November 4, 1993]
 
3.  I stated repeatedly my hypothesis that the boiling water in the P&F videos
could simply be accounted for by joule (current*voltage) heating, and that
their claims of excess enthalpy for the 600 second period of rapid boiling
could result in errors due to taking input voltage measurements only twice
during that period.  (Recall that P&F used constant I=0.5 A.)
But D. Britz (and J. Rothwell)
maintained that perhaps polling every 5 minutes was sufficient to accurately
estimate the input enthalpy even though the electrolyte was boiling.  This
greatly surprised me, so I and students here put together an experiment to test
whether indeed the voltage fluctuations would render 5-minute polling of Vin
meaningless -- and that is just what we found!
 
Here are our results, with two boiling episodes in the last two days:
 
Expt. set-up (follows what is given in P&F Phys. Lett. A 1993 paper):
Pd rod cathode and Pt anode
LiOH electrolyte (P&F used LiOD and heavy water -- we found boiling without
  D2O -- H2O boils just as well we found)
Partially-silvered dewar
Constant-current supply, I = 0.5 A
Temperature probe:  we used a Pt resistance thermometer
Voltage and temperature readouts:  here we used a strip-chart recorder rather
than sampling every 5 minutes as P&F did.  We wanted to see what was going on.
 
Results (briefly):
 
Warming was gradual until boiling started.  The first boiling episode required
build-up of a gray deposit on the cathode (with accompanying slow rise in Vin,
and thus of input power) over many hours.  As 100C was approached, the voltage
rose quickly from 20V to 75 V, then we observed rapid fluctuations
during the boiling, with voltage jumping by +60V then -60V over short
intervals (less than 30 seconds).  We were not present during either boiling
period; the large swings in input voltage were recorded on the strip chart
recorder.  The periods during which the voltage fluctuated wildly (and the temp.
held at about 100 C) lasted about 20 minutes.  If we had sampled only every
300 s as P&F did for their Phys. Lett. A paper, we clearly would have estimated
the input power incorrectly.  The integral I*V(t) requires frequent sampling,
on a time scale of less than a second.  It is clear that the contact of the
electrolyte with the electrodes varies greatly as boiling and bubbling due to
electrolysis rapidly take place, so that large fluctuations of input voltage
(and input power) are expected under these conditions.  Indeed, it would be
surprising if the current were indeed constant under these conditions, so that
the Pin = I(supposed constant) * V(t) estimates of P&F are further flawed:
they *assumed* that I=0.500 A constant in their paper.
 
We conclude that estimates of input enthalpy based on measurements 5 minutes
apart in a boiling-electrolyte cell are meaningless and misleading.
Jed has countered that P&F more recently have taken data with more frequent
measurements -- but such data and corresponding xs heat claims have not been
provided.  The data published in Phys. Lett. A meanwhile were based just on the
300-second-apart voltage measurements which we have found to be meaningless
while the electrolyte is boiling.
 
I remind you that our electrolyte used H2O, not D2O.  We believe that the
boiling which we observed can simply be explained in terms of Joule heating,
with no excess heat involved -- and a careful integration of I*V(t) will
be attempted from our data based on the strip-chart recordings.  In any case,
we have found that H2O produces the boiling effect much as seen by P&F, so
that claims of "cold fusion" are highly suspect (!).
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Tom:  Better detectors, smaller cf signal
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom:  Better detectors, smaller cf signal
Date: 26 Nov 93 10:52:53 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <931124134528.2380482d@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> From: FNALD::DROEGE       24-NOV-1993 12:25:58.09
> To:   SMTP%"fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org"
> CC:   DROEGE
> Subj: Reply to Dick Blue
>
> Dick, at least the claims of P&F are not going down into the noise over time
> if we can believe their incompletely reported results.  Their claims have
> steadily increased over time.  They have stuck with the same apparatus, and
> their early claims of a few milliwatts have increased to many watts (excluding
> the early burning cube).  So they are at least reporting claims in the expected
> order for a successful experiment.  My problem is with the quality of the
> reporting.
>
> Tom Droege
>
 
Tom, the problem is not that the signal decreases over time, the problem is
that P&F continue to use poor-quality techniques, such as taking measurements
300 seconds apart (latest paper, in Phys. Lett. A 1993).  Please see my
posting today (26 Nov) on our experiment to replicate the boiling-electrolyte
cells -- which we did rather easily.
 
Now, McKubre uses better techniques for heat measurements -- and he sees much
less xs heat!  I have and do question some of his techniques, however,
including the use of heaters in his calorimeter that may result in "thermals"
of water that are warmer than the average, resulting in possible heat "bursts."
(I have mentioned this problem here before.)
 
So the question is not one of the signal getting smaller over *time*, it is
that when people use better instruments, then the "cold fusion"
signal gets smaller.
Show me a counterexample.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.27 / John Logajan /  Don't do it again.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Don't do it again.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 05:58:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Shame on those who cross posted stuff to sci.environnent, sci.skeptic, and
sci.physics.fusion.  You should have known the havoc you'd wreck.
 
Don't do it again!
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.26 / David Harden /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: david.harden@tfd.coplex.com (David Harden)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 26 Nov 93 15:05:00 GMT
Organization: Ky/In PC User's Group - Louisville, KY - 502-423-8654

 
In article <1993Nov25.160638.2263@vms.huji.ac.il>,
tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
 
TL>The trouble with dale bass is the linearity of his paradigm and his
TL>failure to purge the havingness from his being.
 
Just what is this supposed to mean?  In particular, what is
"havingness"?
 
The trouble with dennis turner is that his borogroves are too mimsy, and
his toves aren't slithy enough.
 
TL>-dennis turner
 
David Harden
david.harden@tfd.coplex.com
 
* DeLuxe2 1.26b #12572 *
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenharden cudfnDavid cudlnHarden cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.27 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Could you please email ....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Could you please email ....
Date: 27 Nov 93 17:40:49 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1993Nov25.215558.93063@vaxc>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> Hi Folks,
> Could some kind soul please email me the following articles posted on this
> net by Prof.S.Jones....
> (1) FD 2179  (2) "Draft of Paper" (3) "Whats the opposite of EUREKA"
> (4) "Comparison of CF Systems"  19-Nov-93.
> Many thanks in anticipation,
>                                       Regards to all,
>                                         Daryl Owen.
>
Hi Folks,
 Many thanks to Bruce Scott for sending me most of the above data and
also to Steve Jones for the rest. I am also grateful to the many fusion
Folk who emailed me later with their kind offers of copies.
 
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.25 / Burt Webb /  acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: phoenix@eskimo.com (Burt Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: 25 Nov 93 22:33:45 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

I am seeking information about a William A. Barker who received a patent
(#4961880) for a process which could accelerate radioactive decay. The
patent was issued in 1990. He was living in Los Gatos, CA at the time.
A company named ALTRAN CORP in Sunnyvale was also mentioned. I would
also like to talk to anyone else who is interested in this subject. The
patent also mentioned a cold fusion process.
.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenphoenix cudfnBurt cudlnWebb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.27 /  morrison@vxpri /  Will you please post. Thanks. More recent update coming.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Will you please post. Thanks. More recent update coming.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 12:21:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,                                27 November 1993.
          As the next (Fourth) Cold Fusion conference is about to begin it is
perhaps useful to give new readers an account of what happened at the last one
- and it may be a useful base for others.  All the papers were favourable
to Cold Fusion except those by Fukai (section 2.8) and myself (sect. 4.9).
                                            Douglas R. O. Morrison.
 
 
 
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 provided a wonderful thermo-
electric device which is very accurate and which Mallove incorporated in the
calorimeter in addition to ordinary thermocouples (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 - they have an excellent chance of being the first to discover
the missing top quark. 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:
cuddy27 cudenmorrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszXL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat Pipe Progress
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Progress
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 20:51:31 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>The perfect balance is when there is no free liquid in the system anywhere in
>the operating range
 
Ah.  So the perfect balance is impossible if you allow the wicking material
to hold some liquid reserve.
 
But as long as operation is good enough with some liquid reserve, then
building these things seems fairly simple and forgiving.
 
We know that the vapor pressure of a substance is dependent only upon
temperature.  So once you assure that the substance has no impurities,
it doesn't really matter greatly how much extra liquid you have, the
vapor pressure will self-adjust to its desired value, with a net evaporation
or condesation as needed.
 
There are still some reasons to keep reserve liquid quantity small, such
as the inherent heat capacity of the liquid which serves no useful purpose
in Droege's application.
 
So, start full with the liquid of choice, boil to near dry at ambient pressure
thru a one way exhaust system -- seal exhaust port.  And there you have it.
There is no need to allow liquid to suck back into the system.  As the device
cools to ambient, some vapor will condense giving you additional reserve.
 
p.s. I agree with Robert that Tom's use of "wicking" seems too much.  I don't
know how dense that fabric is, but it sounds like the surface to surface
transport is being hindered by a thick wool blanket.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.28 / Gary Steckly /  Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 00:28:20 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Burt Webb (phoenix@eskimo.com) wrote:
: I am seeking information about a William A. Barker who received a patent
: (#4961880) for a process which could accelerate radioactive decay. The
: patent was issued in 1990. He was living in Los Gatos, CA at the time.
: A company named ALTRAN CORP in Sunnyvale was also mentioned. I would
: also like to talk to anyone else who is interested in this subject. The
: patent also mentioned a cold fusion process.
: .
 
This sounds like the antithesis of the "quantum voyeurism" post
that I made here several months ago in response to some of Rich Schroepels
earlier "off the wall" questions about muon catalyzed fusion.  You may
recall that Rich Schroepel and I asked a question about the feasibility of
extending the life of muons (to enhance muon catalyzed fusion) by
somehow observing the muons, which should, according to quantum
mechanical predictions (quantum zeno effect) stop, or at least
seriously impede, their decay.
 
So if observation impedes the decay process, how does one speed it up?
..perhaps by totaly ignoring it or maybe simply closing your eyes? ;-)
(Sounds like the "quantum osterich effect")
 
p.s. did anyone ever give Rich an answer on his philisophical question
about what would constitute an observation of this nature?
 
Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.27 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 27 Nov 93 18:22:29
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <dhalliwe.754287987@shadow> dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca
(David Halliwell) writes:
 
   jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
 
   >         4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
   >probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
   >CO2 prevents another ice age.
 
       If we continue our current path, quite possible. However, since there
   is little reason to expect natural causes to initiate another ice age for
   a few more thousand years, we have a lot of other things to place a
   priority on in the meantime.
 
Hmm, some questions.
 
What is the current thought on the "causes" for the little ice age?
What about the end of the little ice age?
 
Is the Atlantic Conveyor unstable or not? If the Gulf Stream bend
moves south (which may occur on a very short time scale in principle)
the Northern Europe permanent snow line will move rapidly south,
albedo will increase providing a stabilising feedback to the cooling.
Is any Gulf Stream instability likely to be more sensitive to a cooler
or warmer Northern Hemisphere? - If the Gulf Stream is unstable at
warmer climates, how do we enter a stable ice age?
 
What is the current thought for regional climate variability
rates during ice age transitions? My impression from a cursory
reading of the literature was that degree/decade or more rapid
variations were not uncommon during ice age onset and termination
on scales of continental areas?
 
What was the mean temperature during the golden age of the mid-east
compared to now? Say around 4000 AD?
 
*  Steinn Sigurdsson                    Lick Observatory        *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu                "standard disclaimer"   *
*  I know people whose idea of fun                              *
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun         *
*  Oh let me be as free as them                                 *
*                               - BB 1986                       *
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.27 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 27 Nov 93 18:29:32
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <1993Nov26.042135.11009@cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.ed
 (Michael Tobis) writes:
 
   |> >Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so
   |> >because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a
   |> >need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst*
   |> >plausible outcomes into account as well?
   |>          I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above.  I
   |> have the following questions.
   |>          1.  The above appears to assume that outcomes should be
   |> arithmetically averaged.  Why is the arithmetic average to be
   |> preferred to the geometric average?
   |>                           James B. Shearer
 
   I didn't say it would be easy.
 
 ...
   Accordingly, it should carry equal weight in our calculations with a scenario
   that has a number of unknowns all going unfavorably. Suppose initial worries
   about the stability of the Ross Ice Shelf, now considered centuries away
   from collapse, turned out to be valid. Suppose warming in the Arctic really
   were sufficient to release huge quantities of methane in a positive feedback.
   Suppose high cirrus formation (which has a warming effect) were enhanced.
   What a mess. Say this yielded a climate sensitivity of 6 C, and a long
   term response to unconstrained emissions of 12 C in the global mean.
 
This is in strong contradiction to paleoclimate tracks, as I
understand them. CO2 concentration has been several times higher
in the geologically recent past with temperatures 3-6 degrees higher.
 
We also had extensive ice ages during CO2 levels > 2 times larger than
current, but that was far enough back the continental configurations
were radically different.
 
   Then consider the best estimate that sensitivity will be about 2 C (I'm
   being generous), and final response will be a 4 degree warming.
 
   Which of these scenarios should figure most prominently in our calculations?
   Well, it depends on the cost of the contemplated response.
 
You have to be careful when considering extreme outcomes.
A comparable issue is the question of how much effort we should
expend on defending the Earth from asteroid and comet impacts.
There is a 3\times 10^{-7} - 3\times 10^{-8} probability per
year of an impact large enough to wipe out humanity. Expected
cost is infinite. How much effort should we expend to prevent this?
 
*  Steinn Sigurdsson                    Lick Observatory        *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu                "standard disclaimer"   *
*  I know people whose idea of fun                              *
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun         *
*  Oh let me be as free as them                                 *
*                               - BB 1986                       *
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 /  morrison@vxpri /  Cold Fusion Update No. 8.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Update No. 8.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 01:57:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                                                        27 NOVEMBER 1993.
              COLD FUSION UPDATE NO. 8
 
Dear Colleagues,
                Have been rather occupied with other matters and have not been
able to post anything for some time.
    Recently Mr. Rothwell referred to the work that Fleischmann and Pons
published in Physics Letters A (paper communicated by J-P Vigier), and said that
Prof. Fleischmann had informed him that electrical readings were only recorded
every 300 seconds. This greatly astonished everyone as the most extreme claim
of F&P concerned a time of only 600 seconds. This was during the period when
the cell was boiling vigorously, this over the last 600 seconds before the
cell is dry, "the excess rate of energy production is about four times that
of the enthalpy input" and the specific excess enthalpy is 3.7 kW per cc of
palladium. In June 1993, comments were written on the F&P letter and they are
available as the CERN preprint, CERN-PPE/93-96. They were also submitted to
Phys. Lett. A. In this comment is written;
  "Another important problem is the estimate of the input energy - here the
input enthalpy is taken as the current multiplied by the (cell voltage - 1.54V).
It is not explained how these quantities are measured. This is crucial as when
the cell is boiling vigorously, the impedance must be fluctuating strongly.
Thus the current will have both an AC and a DC component. If only the DC
component were measured, then the input enthalpy would be underestimated.
A detailed description of the current and voltage systems showing their fast
response characteristics is needed, but is not presented, so that although the
estimate may be correct, there is an absence of proof. Also the cell voltage
over the last 600 seconds cannot be read from fig. 8 as the bin size is
500,000 seconds and the trace is rising exceedingly steeply - as this is an
important question, one would have expected the voltage trace over the last
600 seconds to have been shown in great detail."
     Hence it seemed impossible that after so many years, and having all the
expensive facilities available to them at the NCFI in Utah and with the IMRA
organisation near Nice, that F&P would take data only every 300 seconds.
     Now this information came from a non-scientist, Mr. Rothwell, whose
accuracy is variable - for example he has been writing that "Morrison was
unable to get his critique published because as you will see, it lacks
scientific merit. He claims, in essence, that it is possible to burn 0.004
moles of hydrogen and generate over 87,600 joules of energy." Both of Mr.
Rothwell's statements are inaccurate. He adds " This clearly violates
junior-high school level physics and chemistry, and so do most of Morrison's
other claims".
    But it seemed so incredible that Mr. Rothwell was correct and Fleischmann
and Pons really did after all this time, measure only every 300 seconds, so felt
that the only way to be sure, was to ask one of the authors. Last Wednesday
Prof. Fleischmann gave a talk at the University of Lausanne. It was
very charmingly presented. Thanks to some adroit chairmanship plus
interventions, very few balancing comments to explain why most of the World's
scientists do not believe in Cold Fusion, were expressed, despite efforts.
Since I felt my time to comment was rather limited, gave the Chairman the
programme of the University of Lausanne's winter series of public lectures
(Cours General Public) and asked him to announce that another point of view
would be presented there, in particular when I would give the closing talk of
the series on the 23 February entitled "Science pathologique; fusion froide et
autres histoires". The Chairman appeared to agree and took the paper, but then
somehow forgot to announce it.
     So asked Martin afterwards and he confirmed that the data was taken once
every 300 seconds. Tried to explain about AC and DC, but somehow we did not
seem to communicate. However he generously said if I asked for any plot, he
would send it to me. I asked for the plot of the current and voltages during
the end of the run. Martin also kindly invited me to visit their laboratory
near Nice.
     On the net there has been great interest in the three hours after the cell
runs dry. Many were astonished that with no incoming power, the cell should
stay very close to 100 degrees although earlier calculations had indicated that
the cell should cool down. Most people considered this an impossibility and
a demonstration that there was something wrong with the experiment, but at
Lausanne, exactly the opposite conclusion was extracted by Martin. He declared
that the fact that the cell stays hot with no heat input, shows that something
exciting is taking place. Wonder if this will be the subject of the last talk
at ICCF-4, on Monday afternoon by Pons and Fleischmann intriguingly entitled
"Heat after Death"?
   In the confused period after I questioned this impossibility, seemed to hear
the statement that two other groups had repeated this work and obtained the
same result - this is natural, if you repeat with the same technique, you should
get the same result. On the other hand if the two groups are normal scientists,
they will carry out check experiments to try and prove themselves wrong. For
example a major criticism in CERN-PPE/93-98, was that during the final phases
of Fleischmann and Pons's experiments, they only used D2O and did not repeat
with H2O to see if they could claim it was fusion (as F&P believe) or not as
J-P Vigier believes (he would expect excess heat to occur also with H2O
according to his version of quantum chemistry). It will also be interesting to
see if the two other groups use normal fast electronics to record the current
and voltage and look for the expected fluctuations, ie AC as well as DC input.
Also it will be interesting to see if they repeated the experiment with a single
thermistor or whether the cell was properly instrumented with many measuring
devices. It would of course, be even better if they were to have done a complete
controlled experiment where they continuously measured and studied the
outgoing fluids and solids (Lithium, D2, H2, O2, D2O, H2O, 3He,4He, tritium,
etc.) and their heat content. And it would be even more scientific if they had
followed the recommendations made at previous Annual Cold Fusion conferences,
to do good complete experiments - that is to measure simultaneously with
excess heat, also X-rays, gamma rays, neutrons, and protons - measuring
seriously, that is the energy spectrum with good resolution capable of
distinguishing the 21 keV X-ray line (as Steve Jones emphasises and even
offers to provide a compact detector), gammas of 24 MeV, neutrons of 2.45
and of 14 MeV, and protons of 3 MeV. Simply using a health physics neutron
counter or an X-ray plate which indicate "something" vaguely is no longer
serious after so many years of Cold Fusion and now good funding.
     Since the piece of palladium used by F&P was so small, 0.039 cm3 (a speck)
it would be normal to vary the size of the palladium cathode, eg 4 cm3, 40 cm3
(taking appropriate precautions if you believe in F&P's results).
     Think one of the new groups was from the CEA (French Atomic Energy
commission) in Grenoble. Wonder if the CEA knows?
     Steve Jones has continued the BYU habit of doing simple experiments which
test vital claims. When was in BYU a few months ago giving a lecture, was shown
by Prof. Lee Hansen experiments with calorimeters to study whether or not there
could be recombination of hydrogen (deuterium) with oxygen to form H2O (D2O)
plus heat, in Fleischmann and Pons type cells - they have always denied
it and cite complicated calculations (have they ever done any experiments
on this?). However Lee did two simple experiments. Firstly he operated
the cell with the anode and cathode very close together as F&P so that
there was a chance that the hydrogen and oxygen emitted by the two electrodes
could mix and possibly recombine - assuming no recombination, he calculates
that he had then observed excess heat. He now moved the anode and cathode
apart, and as he did so the apparent excess heat vanished. This he
interpreted as evidence that recombination was occuring in the F&P - type
conditions and could be falsely interpreted as excess heat. Just in case of any
doubts, he did a second experiment - with the electrodes close together as F&P
and searching for excess heat, nitrogen gas was blown in at the bottom of the
cell - this one might expect to reduce the mixing of the hydrogen and oxygen
and hence reduce the recombination. He now calculated no excess heat.
It is to be hoped that those groups making claims of excess heat, will do these
simple control experiments - at the very least vary the separation of the
anode and cathode.
     Steve Jones has now repeated the F&P experiment as described in their
Phys. Lett. A paper. Except he used H2O instead of D2O - and observed boiling
(if you believe this is manifestation of excess heat, it indicates it is not
fusion, and J-P Vigier should be happy while other theoreticians such as
Preparata, Bressani(also experimentalist) and Del Guidice who declare it is
fusion, should be unhappy as it implies Cold Fusion is not Fusion).
     Steve followed F&P in keeping the current constant at 0.5 A. This meant
the voltage could vary, and unlike F&P did not sample it every 300 seconds but
recorded it on a strip-chart recorder. He wrote "As 100C was approached, the
voltage rose quickly from 20V to 75V, then we observed rapid fluctuations
during the boiling, with voltage jumping by + 60 V then -60V over short
intervals (less than 30 seconds)". This work is very recent and is being
analysed more completely, but already it clearly shows that the F&P
calculation of assuming only DC input is incorrect and the wild fluctuations
give a large AC contribution which has been ignored and instead interpreted as
a contribution to excess heat.
     The overall conclusion is that the experimental technique employed by F&P
is inadequate or as written in the CERN preprint "The experiment and some of the
calculations have been described as "simple". This is incorrect - the process
involving chaotic motion, is complex and many calibrations and corrections
are needed. The calculations have been made to appear simple by incorrectly
ignoring important factors. It would have been better to describe the
experiments as "poor" rather than "simple".
 
     The Fourth Annual Cold Fusion Conference,(ICCF-4) last four days, 6 to 9
December. It is difficult to detect from the titles and speakers' names, any
hint of skepticism that is so essential in Science, except possibly my talk
and the final Panel Discusion where the names of the members of the Panel have
not yet been given - wonder who will be invited to provide some balance to
reflect the fact that the vast majority of the World's scientists do not
believe in Cold Fusion - will I be invited?
    My talk is entitled "Review of Progress in Cold Fusion" and I had rather
hoped that it would be in one of the scientific sessions. If there had been lots
of progress to report, I would have been given lots of time, if no progress then
I would have been given zero time. I have been given 20 minutes. The talk is in
the Parallel Session on "Special Topics". The speaker before is Dr. Fox and
the following speaker is Dr. Mallove (no doubt purely accidental choices) -
Drs. Fox and Mallove are not noted  as recent regular scientific research
workers, but they may surprise us. It could be an interesting session and
one looks forward to later talks on "Cheap Electrical Power from Nuclear Fusion"
and "Proposed Nuclear Physics Experiment to Conclusively Demonstrate and
Explain Cold Fusion".
 
     Cold Fusion workers may be interested in the last three paragraphs of
an article that Nature asked me to write on "The Rise and Fall of the
17 keV Neutrino" where a comparison is made with Cold Fusion - it is the
4th November issue, 366(1993)29-32.
 
                                    (c)        Douglas R.O. Morrison.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmorrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.28 / Len Evens /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 28 Nov 1993 15:32:17 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <STEINLY.93Nov27182932@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu
(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1993Nov26.042135.11009@cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.e
u (Michael Tobis) writes:
>
>   Then consider the best estimate that sensitivity will be about 2 C (I'm
>   being generous), and final response will be a 4 degree warming.
>
>   Which of these scenarios should figure most prominently in our calculations?
>   Well, it depends on the cost of the contemplated response.
>
>You have to be careful when considering extreme outcomes.
>A comparable issue is the question of how much effort we should
>expend on defending the Earth from asteroid and comet impacts.
>There is a 3\times 10^{-7} - 3\times 10^{-8} probability per
>year of an impact large enough to wipe out humanity. Expected
>cost is infinite. How much effort should we expend to prevent this?
>
 
I presume that was meant as a rhetorical question, but it does require
an answer.    Certainly, we should do more than nothing about this
problem.   At the very least, we should make a fairly serious attempt
to monitor bodies which might collide with the earth.   That won't
cost very much and very likely will have benefits beyond its initial
purpose.
 
Also, Michael Tobis was not discussing events with such a low
probability.   I think he would attach a probability, say to a 6 deg
sensivity to doubling amd ulitmate temperature rise of 12 deg
as greater than 1/100.    In most
human activities, we take high cost risks of that magnitude very
seriously.  For example, despite the well known link between smoking
and lung cancer, the great majority of smokers don't die of lung
cancer.   A more comparable
matter would be runaway greenhouse warming a la Venus.   The probability
is so low that despite the very high cost, there is no sensible way
to incorporate it in our decision making.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.28 / Kim Simmons /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: simmons@rigel.neep.wisc.edu (Kim Simmons)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: 28 Nov 1993 20:12:22 GMT
Organization: Division of Information Technology

 
>
>   Hirsch said they took the idea to DOE. It was reviewed by various
> prominant physicists, and they all said it couldn't possibly work for
> various theoretical reasons. (And there are real concerns -- the
> device depends crucially the ion distribution remaining essentially a
> delta function, and plasmas don't generally like to be in such a
> state.) Funding was denied, and work stopped. In spite of the
> reviewers' objections, Hirsch claims that no one has ever come up with
> a plausable theory to explain their observed neutron production, and
> he firmly believes that the reviewers were just wrong. He would like
> to see funding to take another theoretical/computational look at the
> thing, using today's more advanced tools; and, of course, he'd like to
> see a small proof of principal experiment funded.
>
 
 
 Here at UW Madison we are about to take another theoretical/computational
look at the thing. We have a Polywell device that should be coming on line
early next year and that will be operated initially as a pure
electrostatic device. Then we will turn on the cusp magnetic field. I am
doing the computational (numerical simulation) part.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensimmons cudfnKim cudlnSimmons cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.28 / Richard Schultz /  How is the Moessbauer effect relevant?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How is the Moessbauer effect relevant?
Date: 28 Nov 1993 20:23:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CH1x8K.9FB@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
 
>   The iron atoms in Mossbauer effect are similar to iron atoms outside
>of the lattice, yet the effect is observable because of the lattice.
>The effect was not predictable by stating that the iron atoms were
>similar, nor can Mossbauer effect be disproved by same.  The Mossbauer
>and other solid state phenomena are a fact,
>and the info Dick cites is apparently .: not relevant.
 
Perhaps I am wrong, but my understading of what the lattice does for the
Moessbauer effect is that if there were no lattice, the recoil of the
emitting nucleus would cause the Doppler broadening of the line to be
so large as to make the experiment useless.
 
Now, first of all, the gamma ray in 57Fe Moessbauer is 14.4 keV, i.e. about
100 - 1000 times less than the energies involved in putative cold fusion.
Second, the real influence of the lattice, as I said above, is to absorb the
kinetic energy of the recoiling 57Fe nucleus.  A back of the envelope
calculation (assuming that the recoiling nucleus would have a velocity of
100 m/sec and reaches that velocity in the 1e(-7) seconds it takes the excited
57Fe* nucleus to decay) gives this energy as about 600 eV/nucleus, i.e.
around 1e4 times less energy than an excited 4He* nucleus needs to dissipate.
Third, the Moessbauer effect has nothing whatsoever to do with any changes
in the nuclear reactions at all.  The *same* decay is observed as if the
lattice had not been there, with the *same* lifetime as a gas-phase atom would
have had.
 
So I will ask:  how can the lattice effects that lead to Moessbauer
spectroscopy as a useful analytical tool possibly have anything to do with the
possibility that the lattice magically makes cold fusion possible and even
more magically makes the *nuclear reactions themselves* different than they
would be anywhere else?
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.28 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 28 Nov 93 14:53:29
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <2daga1$bmd@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
 
   In article <STEINLY.93Nov27182932@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.
du (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >In article <1993Nov26.042135.11009@cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wis
.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
 
   >   Then consider the best estimate that sensitivity will be about 2 C (I'm
   >   being generous), and final response will be a 4 degree warming.
 
   >   Which of these scenarios should figure most prominently in our calculations?
   >   Well, it depends on the cost of the contemplated response.
 
   >You have to be careful when considering extreme outcomes.
   >A comparable issue is the question of how much effort we should
   >expend on defending the Earth from asteroid and comet impacts.
   >There is a 3\times 10^{-7} - 3\times 10^{-8} probability per
   >year of an impact large enough to wipe out humanity. Expected
   >cost is infinite. How much effort should we expend to prevent this?
 
   I presume that was meant as a rhetorical question, but it does require
   an answer.    Certainly, we should do more than nothing about this
 
It was a rhetorical question, but one with a basis in reality,
and incidentally one of current concern. I was pointing out that
we typically do not evaluate high risk-low probability events
rationally, we systematically under-emphasise some and over-emphasise
others.
 
   problem.   At the very least, we should make a fairly serious attempt
   to monitor bodies which might collide with the earth.   That won't
   cost very much and very likely will have benefits beyond its initial
   purpose.
 
Well, $10^7/year is sort a minimum effort. You can easily go up
a lot from there.
 
   Also, Michael Tobis was not discussing events with such a low
   probability.   I think he would attach a probability, say to a 6 deg
   sensivity to doubling amd ulitmate temperature rise of 12 deg
   as greater than 1/100.    In most
 
Is that right Mike? :-)
 
   human activities, we take high cost risks of that magnitude very
   seriously.  For example, despite the well known link between smoking
   and lung cancer, the great majority of smokers don't die of lung
   cancer.   A more comparable
   matter would be runaway greenhouse warming a la Venus.   The probability
   is so low that despite the very high cost, there is no sensible way
   to incorporate it in our decision making.
 
Oh, no, not that one again... don't you know what daemons you
can conjure with such words! ;-)
 
*  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:
cuddy28 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.28 / S Sigurdsson /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 28 Nov 93 14:49:09
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO

In article <STEINLY.93Nov27182229@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu
(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
   What was the mean temperature during the golden age of the mid-east
   compared to now? Say around 4000 AD?
                                    ^^!
Bummer!
Well, if you can tell me that I'll be real impressed.  But how about
4000-2000 BC instead...
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensteinly cudfnSteinn cudlnSigurdsson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / John McCarthy /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 29 Nov 1993 01:00:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

In article <STEINLY.93Nov28144909@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu
(Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
   Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU sci.environment:38151 sci.physics.fusion:10552
   Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!morrow.stanford.edu!decwrl!ames!agate
darkstar.UCSC.EDU!darkstar!steinly
   From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
   Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
   Date: 28 Nov 93 14:49:09
   Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
   Lines: 12
   References: <19931124.183223.300@almaden.ibm.com> <dhalliwe.754287987@shadow>
           <STEINLY.93Nov27182229@topaz.ucsc.edu>
   NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
 
   In article <STEINLY.93Nov27182229@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.
du (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
 
      What was the mean temperature during the golden age of the mid-east
      compared to now? Say around 4000 AD?
                                       ^^!
   Bummer!
   Well, if you can tell me that I'll be real impressed.  But how about
   4000-2000 BC instead...
 
 
The temperature of the earth in 4000 AD will be whatever humans want
it to be.
 
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjmc cudfnJohn cudlnMcCarthy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 29 Nov 1993 03:40:47 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David Halliwell (dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
: >     There is no reason for models not to diverge or to show inappropriate
: >     set-point behavior in a statistical sense either, especially
: >     if one of the outling solutions that you've averaged out is
: >     what 'actually' happened (though it can be much more difficult
: >     to actually *see* the relevant outliers).
 
:     Except for one thing: there is a boundary condition (in the models)
: related to a simple fact of physics (in the real atmosphere) which limits
: how much divergence can occur. Unfortunately, Dale does not seem to be
: aware of this, as shown in his earlier post on boundary conditions in the
: models.
 
Right.  This is why the zeroth-order basic physics is important.
 
Increase greenhouse gases.  Either
 
#1 extra heat gets stored somewhere.  But there isn't enough storage to put
   it all for long enough.
 
#2 Average temperature increases
 
#3 Average reflectivity increases, offsetting temperature rise.
 
Even for #3, I call that significant global climate change.
 
The fact that the dynamical response is exceedingly complex means that
we might not be able to see the effects until it is too late.  If the
system were much less complex, then it would in fact be better to say
"Hey I'll wait until I see the evidence in black and white before
 I do anything" because the effects would show up more clearly.
 
: --
: Dave Halliwell
: Department of Geography
: University of Alberta
: Edmonton, Alberta
 
--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Scott Mueller /  data request
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: data request
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 05:27:47 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

[Posted on request of Yuri Semenov of the Institute for Theoretical and
Experimental Physics, Moscow.  Please reply to Dr. Semenov at the address
in the Reply-To: header of this message or at semenov@r02vax.itep.msk.su.
If you can help him acquire the data he is seeking, please write to him.
Thanks,
 
               \scott
]
 
[...] I participate in russian-american
accelerator-based plutonium transmutation project. For preliminary
calculations we need intermediate energy cross-sections.
 
[...]
 
Is there an opportunity of anonymous FTP (where and how)? Or may be I can
send a request for the data, we need, by E-mail? It would be very useful, if
you pointed some other depository with a similar data.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / David Shao /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU (David Shao)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 05:25:02 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <2dbqvvINNgc@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net
(Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>Right.  This is why the zeroth-order basic physics is important.
>
>Increase greenhouse gases.  Either
>
>#1 extra heat gets stored somewhere.  But there isn't enough storage to put
>   it all for long enough.
>
>#2 Average temperature increases
>
>#3 Average reflectivity increases, offsetting temperature rise.
>
>Even for #3, I call that significant global climate change.
>
>The fact that the dynamical response is exceedingly complex means that
>we might not be able to see the effects until it is too late.  If the
>system were much less complex, then it would in fact be better to say
>"Hey I'll wait until I see the evidence in black and white before
> I do anything" because the effects would show up more clearly.
 
We must be very careful of these arguments from so-called fundamental
principles.  For example, it was felt that it was impossible for
bacteria to be the cause of ulcers because no bacteria could survive
the digestive juices.  This incorrect model of the digestive system,
which arose from a flawed understanding of a fundamental principle,
merely resulted in a decades long delay in the discovery of the cure
with the squandering of billions of dollars and
untold suffering for millions who were misled into believing
they were at fault for their illness.
 
The scientist who discovered the real cause had his papers rejected
by the top medical research journals.  In fact, even today he
estimates that at most ten percent of physicians in general practice
use his cure.  He made his discovery without special funding while
the entire medical establishment overlooked the simplest procedure
of looking at biopsies and trying to culture bacteria from them.
Of course, the drug companies have a substantial investment in
billions of dollars spent every year on their most profitable drugs--
ulcer medications whose effect ceases the moment patients stop taking
them.
 
The beginning of real scientific inquiry is admitting that one
DOES NOT KNOW.  Historically, the scientific establishment confronted
with a problem never admits it doesn't know the answer.  Those in
authority concoct some explanation which becomes the established
orthodoxy.  Those who question this orthodoxy have the burden of
proof thrust upon them even if the scientific evidence doesn't
exist to support the orthodox theory.  The establishment wields
the whip of withholding funding.  Study the history of mathematics--
several young brilliant mathematicians such as Riemann and Abel
died of illnesses caused by malnutrition because they didn't
dance the establishment's dance for getting funding.  They refused
to compromise their scientific integrity while their scientific
inferiors callously let them die.  Establishment science has never
been known for its integrity--Werner Heisenberg could easily
justify working towards giving the Nazis the atom bomb, but of course
his own lack of integrity in this area was mirrored by his team's
failed approach to this problem.
 
A certain infrastructure of funding for research develops which
depends on the orthodox theory--for example, research by the drug
companies into ulcer medications.  It becomes very costly for
members of the establishment to abandon the theory.
 
Hypothetically speaking, we can easily construct a scenario where
it simply becomes too expensive for the research establishment
to abandon warning about the threat of global warming induced
by the burning of fossil fuels.  In the 1990s government spending
for scientific research will become tighter and tighter.  This
issue has become somewhat politicized.  Perhaps there will be
proposals for multi-billion dollar satellite systems, data bases,
laboratories, etc.  And then a conservative Republican becomes President.
The slightest hint that the community doubts the threat of global
warming is all he needs as an excuse to slash funding.  Will
scientists choose their career or honesty?   History tells us to
be pessimistic.
 
I'm not in slightest suggesting that researchers today are deliberately
not telling the whole truth on global warming.  All I'm saying is that
it is VERY DANGEROUS to use arguments from authority without solid
physical data to support conclusions.  This type of argument
historically seems to have been used to justify crushing the careers
of mavericks with true vision.  It is the attitude that kills real
science.
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendaveshao cudfnDavid cudlnShao cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 29 Nov 1993 05:51:07 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1993Nov29.052502.15189@leland.Stanford.EDU>, daveshao@leland
Stanford.EDU (David Shao) writes:
=In article <2dbqvvINNgc@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
=
=>Right.  This is why the zeroth-order basic physics is important.
=>
=>Increase greenhouse gases.  Either
=>
=>#1 extra heat gets stored somewhere.  But there isn't enough storage to put
=>   it all for long enough.
=>
=>#2 Average temperature increases
=>
=>#3 Average reflectivity increases, offsetting temperature rise.
=>
=>Even for #3, I call that significant global climate change.
=>
=>The fact that the dynamical response is exceedingly complex means that
=>we might not be able to see the effects until it is too late.  If the
=>system were much less complex, then it would in fact be better to say
=>"Hey I'll wait until I see the evidence in black and white before
=> I do anything" because the effects would show up more clearly.
=
=We must be very careful of these arguments from so-called fundamental
=principles.
 
Yes, we must.
 
=For example, it was felt that it was impossible for
=bacteria to be the cause of ulcers because no bacteria could survive
=the digestive juices.  This incorrect model of the digestive system,
=which arose from a flawed understanding of a fundamental principle,
=merely resulted in a decades long delay in the discovery of the cure
=with the squandering of billions of dollars and
=untold suffering for millions who were misled into believing
=they were at fault for their illness.
 
For example, if we're going to try to argue by analogy, we need to make sure
that our analogy is REALLY an analogy, rather than something that's only
related superficially to what we're talking about.
 
Look:  There's a certain amount of radiation reaching the earth from the sun
per unit time.  Either it's reflected, or it reaches the ground (That's what
point 3 is about).  Given that it reaches the ground, it's either reflected
(again, point 3) or absorbed and used to drive chemical reactions (point 1) or
absorved and reradiated (point 2).  Now, if you've got some fourth alternative,
I suggest you learn how to say "Thank you, Your Majesty" in Swedish.  If you
don't then your simply spouting uninformed bullshit.
 
=I'm not in slightest suggesting that researchers today are deliberately
=not telling the whole truth on global warming.  All I'm saying is that
=it is VERY DANGEROUS to use arguments from authority without solid
=physical data to support conclusions.
 
No more dangerous than it is to spout your bullshit in ignorance of basic
physics.  Especially when the experimental data confirm, again and again, the
basic physics you're attempting to deny.  The fact that you don't know what
you're talking about is NOT a valid argument in favor of your position.
 
=This type of argument
=historically seems to have been used to justify crushing the careers
=of mavericks with true vision.  It is the attitude that kills real
=science.
 
The argument that some jackass who doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking
about is a likely to be right as are people who've actually taken the time to
learn the physics behind a phenomenon and to look at experimental results is
even more likely to kill real science.  Please, take the time to learn at least
the basics before you void you bowels through your mouth again.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / John Logajan /  Meyer hydrogen patent -- problems?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Meyer hydrogen patent -- problems?
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 06:44:29 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

You may remember I posted this as the circuit in the Stanley Meyer patent
for a process to extract hydrogen and oxygen from H2O.
 
I have some additional comments.
 
>      |_ T1 _______________|\|___________________
> 200   _)||(_              |/|                  |
> turns _)||(_ 600 turns                         |
> 24    _)||(_ 36 gauge    D1 1N1198 diode       |
> gauge _)||(_____                               |
>      |         |                               |
>    -----       |_                              |_
>   / / /         _)                              _)  T2 Inductor
>                 _)<-| T3 Variable inductor      _)  100 turns
>                 _)  |    Unspecified value      _)  24 gauge
>                 _)__|                           _)  1.0" diameter
>                |             ___               |
>                |            / _ \  Water       |
>                |           / / \ \ Capacitor   |
>                |------------<   > >------------|
>                            \ \_/ / Stainless steel (T-304)
>                             \___/  Concentric cylinders
>                                    4.0" tall, 0.5" inner cylinder O.D.
>                                    0.0625" spacing
 
The first problem with this circuit is that the series inductors simply
get in the way.  By opposing the current transient coming from the secondary
of the transformer during the flux collapse, they develop the impulse voltage
across themselves and not across the capacitor.
 
The second problem is that the series diode prevents oscillation.
 
An alternate circuit that actually does what Meyer claims his does is this:
 
                 D1      C2
  ___ T1 ____|\|_______||___
    _)||(_   |/|   |   ||  _)
    _)||(_       =====     _) L1
    _)||(_         | C1    _)
  ___)||(__________|________)
 
The primary of T1 is pulsed with a square wave, the shutting down of the
current path in the primary causing a flux collapse inducing a high voltage
on the secondary.  Current flows through diode D1 charging C1 (the "water
capacitor".)  C1 temporarily discharges through C2 (the DC blocking capacitor)
into L1, and the resonant frequency of L1 and C1/C2 is selected to be the same
as or a harmonic of the square wave frequency on the primary of T1.  As C1
empties, the flux collapses around L1 reversing current flow and recharging
C1, as expected of a resonant circuit.
 
The result is a stepping DC voltage with a superimposed AC at the frequency
of resonance.  The fast dI/dT T1 input can eventually step C1 to several
thousand volts.  Polarity across C1 never reverses (per Meyer.)
 
I simulated the above on Electronics Workbench 3.0 which was just released by
Interactive Image Technology Ltd for MSDOS, Windows, or Mac's, for $299.
 
I couldn't recommend version 2.0, but 3.0 has added JFETs, MOSFETs, and other
nice features and generally seems to converge to answers more successfully.
 
You can find EWB ads in electronics magazines like Popular Electronics
and Electronics Now (formerly Radio Electronics.)
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Non topic postings
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Non topic postings
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 01:14:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, I have had it.  I move that we temporarily censor the non topic postings
for some period like a week so that this news group can get back to an
information exchange media for cold fusion (it's original topic) and other
fusion related information.
 
I am against censorship.  We all like to post somehing off topic from time to
time.  I would be quite happy with 50% on topic content.  There are several
more appropriate places for the current debate.
 
What I am proposing is a sort of e-mail "closure".  We set up a proceedure
where we can take a vote and "kill" a thread.
 
Are there any seconds?  I vote to "kill" the thread on "Global Warming - CO2
and the like".
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Semi-Moderated Group
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Semi-Moderated Group
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 01:15:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
John Logajan points out that what I want to do is not possible.  I now propose
that we switch over to a semi-moderated group.  This would be set up like a
fully moderated group, only the moderator would do nothing until there was a
problem.  Then the group would be moderated for a week or so until the problem
went away.  This would greatly reduce the moderators work load.  I would
propose that it work by just sending messages to the moderator.  When the
moderator received a lot of messages about a topic, he would start moderating
using his judgement.  I presume that the moderator would be elected by the
group.  I assume this could be done by some software switch whic would
normally just pass messages through to the news group.  When moderation was
invoked, I would be quite willing to accept a several day delay.  This alone
would slow down the fanatic posters who just like to spout off.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  blue@dancer.ns /  State of CF Theory
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: State of CF Theory
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 01:15:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My previous post asking about the state of theories relating to cold
fusion drew two responses.  Dieter Britz responed that his bibliography
has some 300 theory listings.  I think I have read all the abstracts he
has posted, but I don't think any of them, as I recall, quite had what I
am looking for.  I have read papers involving recalculations of the
d + d fusion rate under a variety of different approaches, but none of
them got the rate high enough to be considered a real break through.
Rather I would say each attempt confirms the point of view that it is
difficult to construct a theory that will account for watts of CF power.
In any case this approach would still leave the anamolous branching
ratios totally unexplained.
 
The point of my question, then, is really the fact that there are
multiple issues to be addressed, and I know of no attempts that address
the problem entirely.  While 4He has been favored in some quarters
as the primary reaction product, I hear rumours that indicate a swing
to a totally different type of reaction product.  That makes it
rather difficult to zero in on an explaination of the phenomena.
 
The second reply came from Mitchell Swartz with a replay of his
appeal to the Mossbauer effect as the prime example of a lattice
influencing a nuclear process.  I agree with Mitchell that there is
something to be learned from this example, but I would take it further
to note how trivial and insignificant the perturbations seen in the
Mossbauer effect are in relation to the unperturbed process.  Does
the overall transistion rate change greatly?  NO!  Are any allowed
transitions suppressed by several orders of magnitude?  NO!  So
while MItchell sees the Mossbauer effect as an example of what
the presence of the lattice can do, I see it as an equally good
illustration of the sorts of things the lattice cannot do.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Jim Bowery /  Convergent evolution and big science
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Convergent evolution and big science
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 01:15:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After posting my hypothesis that the ant queen "cuckoo", Monomorium
Santschii, represented an evolutionary strategy that we should expect
to see anywhere labor/wealth by "faithful" workers is highly centralized,
I decided to ask a bee expert if similar parasites had evolved to usurp
the food/labors of productive bees.
 
As an amatuer ethologist, I was pleased but not surprised to see his
response:
 
"
There are numerous "cuckoo" like parasites of various bees. Bumblebees
have them within the genus Bombus, even. Bombus polaris, which develops
normal colonies in the arctic has the cuckoo parasite B. hyperboreus. The
latter usurps the B. polaris nests, using the workers to its adavantage
and laying eggs that produce only the next generation of sexuals (no workers).
The genus Psithyrus comprises several species which are cuckoo parasites
of Bombus.
"
 
My convergent evolution hypothesis does seem to be predictive at least
to this degree.
 
I admit, from an ethological standpoint, it is a rather unrigorous leap
from this modest confirmation to predictions about group dynamics in
humans, however, it is at least as rigorous as the best hypotheses that
are routinely bantied about as justification for "science and technology
 policies" which proclaim the value of "big science."
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / R Schroeppel /  Acceleration of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Acceleration of radioactive decay
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 01:15:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Burt Webb (phoenix@eskimo.com) wrote:
: I am seeking information about a William A. Barker who received a patent
: (#4961880) for a process which could accelerate radioactive decay.
 
and Gary Steckly (gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca) replied:
>   This sounds like the antithesis of the "quantum voyeurism" post
    that I made here several months ago in response to some of Rich Schroepels
    earlier "off the wall" questions about muon catalyzed fusion.  You may
    recall that Rich Schroepel and I asked a question about the feasibility of
    extending the life of muons (to enhance muon catalyzed fusion) by
    somehow observing the muons, which should, according to quantum
    mechanical predictions (quantum zeno effect) stop, or at least
    seriously impede, their decay.
 
    So if observation impedes the decay process, how does one speed it up?
    ..perhaps by totaly ignoring it or maybe simply closing your eyes? ;-)
    (Sounds like the "quantum osterich effect")
 
    p.s. did anyone ever give Rich an answer on his philisophical question
    about what would constitute an observation of this nature?
 
I've never seen a good answer to the question "What counts as an observation?"
There's been a lot of discussion on the issue, ranging from trees falling in
depopulated forests, to various ways of informing cat owners of their cat's
unfortunate demise.
 
On the subject of accelerating radioactive decay:  I haven't seen the patent,
but it sounds silly or impossible up front.  On the other hand, there are
several perfectly ordinary ways to do it - for example, placing a blob of
uranium inside a graphite box will accelerate the decay of the uranium.
Slightly more practically, there have been several proposals to reduce
radwaste by burning it in a reactor:  This might not accelerate decay in
the strict technical sense, but it's a fair abbreviated description.
There are many exotic possibilities:  In the middle of a neutron star, etc.
One might imagine using stimulated emission with 14Kev gamma rays.
 
One of my pet puzzles is "Can a strong neutrino field alter the decay rate
of any nuclide?"  The application is radio-X dating, which assumes that C14,
etc. decay at a constant rate.  If our model of the sun is wrong, there may
have been variations of the neutrino flux in times past.  Could these affect
the decay of our timing nuclei?
 
Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Questions
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Questions
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 01:15:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Open note to Robert Eachus on Heat Pipes                  29 Nov 1993
 
I hope we are all interested in this as it is a fun topic, and quite useful to
all who are trying to move heat around.
 
Your last reply brings up some questions:
 
1)  In one of the notes, you suggested a large radius for outside corners such
as B in the sketch below.  I remember a 1/4" radius recommendation.
                             _____________
                            |A  _______   |
                            | B|       |  |
                            |  |       |  |
                            |  |       |  |
                            |  |       |  |
                            |__|_______|__|
                            |_____________|
I have just machined a bunch of lids for the pipes that make up the heat
shells and it will now be hard to get more than a 1/16" radius for the "B"
corner.  Unless I polish the surface to molecular dimensions, how does the
adsorbed coating "see" the radius?  Seems to me it would only see the
dimensions of the finish.
 
2)  One above implies that I might possibly want to give the surface a very
good finish.  I may have lucked out here as most of the parts under
construction are of brass, and a little steel wool gives a bright finish.
How good should the finish be made?
 
3)  How about a surface treatment.  My brother makes jewelry, and can do a lot
of different electroplates.  Besides gold, palladium, copper and nickel, he
can also do special finishes.  For example, for jewelry purposes he does a
"black nickel".  I think this is a nickel plating that is just a lot of fine
needles on the surface, which absorbs light and thus looks black.  How would
something like this be for a finish?
 
4)  You suggest that I might have a problem with life of the heat pipes.
Where will the fill go?  It seems to me that if I understand the operation
properly, then air leaking in will be more damaging than fill leaking out.  Is
this the case?  Assuming I have a vacuum type system, then O2 and N2 are going
to find their way in faster than C2H5OH and H2O escape.
 
5)  Worrying about leaks suggested to me to collect some soldering and brazing
tools.  I now have several Burnz products, including MAP gas, Propane, and a
Propane - Oxygen set up.  I have a variety of brazing rods and solder.  My bet
is that I would likely make tighter seals with the lower temperature solders.
Besides eutectic tin-lead solder, I have 50-50 tin-lead, and 2% silver-tin.
Any suggestions for a long lasting vacuum seal?  Or should I go for brazing?
All critical parts are brass and copper which have pretty similar coefficents
of expansion.  When I get back from Hawaii I will try all the stuff out and
see what kind of joints I can make.  I will have to get Jennifer to make me
some prescription blue goggles.
 
6)  What is the best way to get all the gas out of the system?  After a lot of
thought, I have purchased a vacuum pump.  The one I purchased consists of a
tank, a water pump and a venturi.  The pump circulates water from the tank
through the venturi to produce the vacuum.  This set up was about the same
price as the old familiar ta-poc-a-ta  ta-poc-a-ta pump that we all know and
love.  It also only makes 29" Hg vacuum compared to much lower for the ta-poc-
a-ta pump.  It seems to me that it has the big advantage for this work that it
will not be bothered by a slug of alcohol-water from pumping out a heat pipe.
It is also neat and compact, and I don't have to keep running water as I would
with the cheap version of this pump.  The general plan is to bake the heat
pipe under the 29" vacuum.  There will be a syringe separated by a valve from
the vacuum system.  When baked out, I will close the valve to the vacuum pump,
and open the valve to the syringe, and "boil" the mixture out of the syringe
into the heat pipe.  Question, do I need to take the pain of "outgassing" the
liquid in the syringe?  How much air is bad?
 
7)  Consider a floor covered with Superballs (R).  Three layers thick.  I
guess I better coat them with Teflon (R) or they may pile up in spots.
Consider a hot spot somewhere on the floor.  It somehow causes more balls to
jump off the floor than arrive, and we have a clean spot.  Never mind, the
other balls slide over and quickly fill the empty spot because they want to.
In this illustration we are using gravity to simulate surface tension and
whatever other forces that may be involved.  Now suppose that we circle the
hot spot with a ring of peanut butter.  The balls are stopped in their tracks
as they try to slide over to fill the hot spot.  Here is what I am getting at.
It seems to me that surface preparation might be very important.  A finger
print might be like the peanut butter barrier and prevent surface migration of
the liquid.  Is this true?  If so, how do we prepare the surface?  It seems to
me that I am back in the cleaning business.  Nothing is easy!!
 
Again thank you for all the help.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Richard Schultz /  Looks like I need a bigger envelope.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looks like I need a bigger envelope.
Date: 29 Nov 1993 16:03:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <2db1bd$d1k@agate.berkeley.edu>, I wrote:
 
>A back of the envelope
>calculation (assuming that the recoiling nucleus would have a velocity of
>100 m/sec and reaches that velocity in the 1e(-7) seconds it takes the
>excited 57Fe* nucleus to decay) gives this energy as about 600 eV/nucleus,
>i.e. around 1e4 times less energy than an excited 4He* nucleus needs to
>dissipate.
 
Very soon after I wrote that I realized how ludicrous that was, and discovered
a rather stupid math error.  Let's try that again:  how much kinetic energy
does a 57Fe nucleus traveling at 100 m/sec have?
 
E = 0.5 m v^2 = (0.5)(0.057 kg/mole)(100 m/sec)^2 = 285 J/mole = 0.285 kJ/mole.
 
(0.285 kJ/mole)(1eV/96.485 kJ/mole) = 0.003 eV.
 
So this actually makes the original problem worse for Mitchell Swartz.
Assuming that I did it correctly this time, the difference in energy between
the recoiling 57Fe nucleus and the excited 4He* is 1e10, not 1e4, and the
question of how you can cite the Moessbauer effect as indicating lattice
effects can affect "cold fusion" remains.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Alex Merz /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: merza@ohsu.edu (Alex Merz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 29 Nov 93 17:20:46 GMT
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University

In article <JMC.93Nov28170025@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>The temperature of the earth in 4000 AD will be whatever humans want
>it to be.
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
 
 
_Which_ humans, Mr. McCarthy?
 
 
-Alexey Merz
 
ps- How about 1 K?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmerza cudfnAlex cudlnMerz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:05:42 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <JMC.93Nov28170025@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
(John McCarthy) writes:
 
|> The temperature of the earth in 4000 AD will be whatever humans want
|> it to be.
 
This is not unlikely.
 
I note that Dr. McCarthy regularly argues in favor of deliberate global
climate modification and against world government. I see his points as
worth considering in both of these matters but wonder how they can possibly
be consistent.
 
In any climate modification scheme, there will be winners and losers (unless
the modification is so severe that there are losers only). How can losing
nations be adequately consulted and compensated in the absence of a global
authority of some legitimacy?
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:31:55 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <1993Nov29.052502.15189@leland.Stanford.EDU>, daveshao@leland
Stanford.EDU (David Shao) writes:
|>
|> I'm not in slightest suggesting that researchers today are deliberately
|> not telling the whole truth on global warming.  All I'm saying is that
|> it is VERY DANGEROUS to use arguments from authority without solid
|> physical data to support conclusions.  This type of argument
|> historically seems to have been used to justify crushing the careers
|> of mavericks with true vision.  It is the attitude that kills real
|> science.
 
The equilibrium average surface temperature of a planet can be calculated
with precision from the radiative properties of its atmosphere.
 
So the zero order arguments cited are already verified by verification
with all the solid planets with atmospheres: Venus, Earth, Mars, Gannymede,
and Titan.
 
The main open physical questions are: how will the Earth's albedo change in
response to the forcing (clouds, ice, snow)? How will the components of
transmissivity due to water vapor and clouds change? To what extent will the
ocean's thermal inertia slow the change? How much will the deep ocean
circulation be effected?
 
And there are the even thornier non-physical questions: how sensitive is the
environment to these changes? How sensitive is the economy to these changes?
How quickly can we change our behavior? How quickly will the system respond
to changes in our behavior? How expensive will such behavior changes be?
 
These open questions provide ample room for debate.
 
The implication that the zero order question is open is, however, unfounded.
Even the group of scientists who feel most strongly that policy debates are
premature acknowledge this.
 
"The quotation from Senator Gore in the previous chapter - 'there is no
longer any significant disagreement in the scientific community that the
greenhouse effect is real' - is about as profound as a revelation that
all scientists now agree the earth is round."
                        -P.J.Michaels,_Sound and Fury_,Cato Inst 1992,p.9
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / John Logajan /  How to stop unrelated postings
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to stop unrelated postings
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 19:26:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I'd never advocate censorship -- ever, but nevertheless, we can attempt
to refocus the topic of this group by reminding others who post too far
afield for too long, that there are other forums more suitable for the
other topics.
 
I say this as one who has frequently gone too far afield.
 
So if you see a posting that is the n'th rehash of an unrelated topic,
a brief and *polite* E-MAIL reminder to that person would probably be the
most effective tonic.
 
Again, I say this as one who isn't always so polite.
 
I believe that many people aren't aware that they are cross-posting a
response.  This is where a polite note would do the most good.
 
Thanks,
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / John McCarthy /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 29 Nov 1993 19:34:24 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

In article <1993Nov29.180542.18276@cs.wisc.edu> tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.ed
 (Michael Tobis) writes:
 
   Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU sci.environment:38181 sci.physics.fusion:10563
   Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!headwall.Stanford.EDU!agate!howland.r
ston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!rutgers!uwvax!skool.ssec.wisc.e
u!tobis
   From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
   Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
   Date: 29 Nov 93 18:05:42 GMT
   References: <19931124.183223.300@almaden.ibm.com> <dhalliwe.754287987
shadow> <JMC.93Nov28170025@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
   Sender: news@cs.wisc.edu (The News)
   Reply-To: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
   Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
   Lines: 18
 
   In article <JMC.93Nov28170025@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.E
U (John McCarthy) writes:
 
   |> The temperature of the earth in 4000 AD will be whatever humans want
   |> it to be.
 
   This is not unlikely.
 
   I note that Dr. McCarthy regularly argues in favor of deliberate global
   climate modification and against world government. I see his points as
   worth considering in both of these matters but wonder how they can possibly
   be consistent.
 
   In any climate modification scheme, there will be winners and losers (unless
   the modification is so severe that there are losers only). How can losing
   nations be adequately consulted and compensated in the absence of a global
   authority of some legitimacy?
 
   mt
 
Yep, it's a problem.  I suppose there can be a limited grant of
authority to a climate authority in matters concerning climate.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjmc cudfnJohn cudlnMcCarthy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Please please please
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Please please please
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 21:11:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell) writes:
>   There has been an attempt to move this to more appropriate groups, and
>it is being crossposted. Unfortunately, one of the participants (the one
>alone on one side of the argument) has insisted that it continue to be
>posted to your group. (I think that he has actually put the group back in
>after people have responded with followups set to the appropriate groups.)
 
Unless Dale's name appears on every posting on the topic, then the primary
responsibility for cross postings remains with the post's author.  And
by the way, Dale is hardly "alone on one side of the argument."
--
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Needless duplicate postings...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Needless duplicate postings...
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 19:47:22 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

May I gently suggest that posters refrain from continually duplicating
the multiple newsgroup listing that has lately led to a huge number of
decidely off-topic duplicate postings to the sci.physics.fusion stream?
 
These threads have lots to do with the environment, and are fine in that
context.  But why persist in sending wordy threads into groups that have
little or no relation to the topic of those threads, especially when the
postings are available in other, more appropriate groups?
 
                                --Terry Bollinger
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Mike Holderness /  Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C Holderness)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: 29 Nov 1993 21:51:11 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.

In article <1993Nov28.002820.28235@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.
a (Gary Steckly) writes:
>
>So if observation impedes the decay process, how does one speed it up?
>..perhaps by totaly ignoring it or maybe simply closing your eyes? ;-)
>(Sounds like the "quantum osterich effect")
>
My grandmother knew all about this. "A watched pot never boils," she used
to say as she calibrated the calorimeter on her poor but cheerful
Cockney kitchen table...
 
The application of this folk wisdom to 300-second voltage-measurement
intervals scarcely bears thinking about....
 
=mike=   :-,>
.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmch cudfnMike cudlnHolderness cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 29 Nov 1993 21:59:51 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <1993Nov29.052502.15189@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.
tanford.EDU (David Shao) writes:
>
>We must be very careful of these arguments from so-called fundamental
>principles.
 
It is of course sometimes true that important ideas are rejected because
they are not consistent with established scientific principles---which
happen to be wrong or incomplete.  And of course, we must be careful
with all arguments in science.    However, I don't see the relevance
of the above remark.   Starting from fundamental principles is a
good way to start.   Otherwise, the fundamental principles are
meaningless and science consists of a bunch of unrelated observations.
 
> Study the history of mathematics--
>several young brilliant mathematicians such as Riemann and Abel
>died of illnesses caused by malnutrition because they didn't
>dance the establishment's dance for getting funding.  They refused
>to compromise their scientific integrity while their scientific
>inferiors callously let them die.
 
I would like some references about these contentions.  Abel died
quite young and had mixed response from prominent mathematicians.
He was also poor, and it is possible that contributed to his
early death, but I think the above description is a gross distortion
of history.   Riemann apparently died of tuberculosis at age 39 but only
after having been well recieved by the mathematical `establishment'
of his day.   Finally to suggest that Abel and Riemann were ignored
because the mathematics they did challenged established ideas in
mathematics, I think, is nonsense.   If Mr. Shao has any evidence to
support that contention, I would like to see it.   The closest one
can come with such an example is Galois, who was certainly ignored
because people couldn't understand what he was saying.   However,
in his case, the cause of death had nothing to do with mathematics
or other mathematicians.  (He died in a dual which was either over
politics or a woman, depending on your source.)
 
I think Mr. Shao could have made his case with better examples.
One such prominent example is Lord Kelvin's underestimate of
the age of the earth---he didn't know about radioactivity.
This caused great difficulty for evolutionary theory because it
didn't leave sufficient time for natural selection to do its work.
It also was not consistent with what geologists and paleontologists
thought they knew.   What should have been learned from this was
not that the first principles used by physicists were wrong but
that something was not understood.   It was important to find out
what that was.   Similarly, if it turns out that global warming
predictions, using current models are not consistent with observations
---and it is too early to assert that they are or are not---then
it will be important to try to understand why.  This will be
important not only for scientific reasons but also for public policy.
The explanation may be complex and the disagreement with observation
may be temporary.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Mark Warren /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 21:40:43 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA

 
 
MIME is a standard for message content only, thus it can be used as
the content of either email messages or news messages.
 
The best MIME news reader that I've come across is Messages which is
included with the Andrew system.  If you want to continue using your
current unix news reader, the `metamail' package can add MIME support
to it (available via ftp from thumper.bellcore.com). For Windows, I
understand that the PINE mail tool has support for news as well and
incorporates MIME support. Finally on the Mac, Eudora has MIME support
(only in this case would you have to mail the article to yourself).
 
The FAQ from comp.mail.mime (also available via ftp from rtfm.mit.edu,
or via email from myself)) describes MIME in much more detail.  MIME
is defined in RFC's 1341 and 1342.
 
Finally, from Nathaniel Borenstein himself (the author of the MIME
rfc's and the metamail package): "Henry Spencer has been working on a
draft of the next-generation netnews spec, and it relies very heavily
on MIME." Thus selecting MIME will help insure compatibility with the
future evolution of netnews.  If this newsgroup begins using MIME now,
it will be a great testbed to make sure that the evolving netnews spec
meets our requirements.  In addition, comments can be backed up by "we
have found in practice that"...
 
Cheers,
 
Mark
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
In article <cary-241193110940@macm513.esl.com> cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison) writes:
 
   In article <MWARREN.93Nov22112646@ap207sun.oracle.com>,
   mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren) wrote:
   > Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
   > already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
   > readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
   > Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
   > hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
   > readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
   > reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
   > from news.software.readers help out here).
 
   I don't know anything about MIME, other than what has been said here.
   Is it a standard only for e-mail, or does it cover news as well?  There
   are some differences.  For example, if my news reader doesn't handle
   MIME but I can get a MIME emailer, then I would have to mail myself a
   copy of all interesting news articles.  However, that process may be
   simpler than alternative forms of saving news articles, uudecoding,
   uncompressing, etc.
 
     ********************************************************************
      EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
      E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
      EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
      E          S  L
      EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
     ********************************************************************
--
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmwarren cudfnMark cudlnWarren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Mark Warren /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 21:45:30 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA

 
 
MIME is a standard for message content only, thus it can be used as
the content of either email messages or news messages.
 
The best MIME news reader that I've come across is Messages which is
included with the Andrew system.  If you want to continue using your
current unix news reader, the `metamail' package can add MIME support
to it (available via ftp from thumper.bellcore.com). For Windows, I
understand that the PINE mail tool has support for news as well and
incorporates MIME support. Finally on the Mac, Eudora has MIME support
(only in this case would you have to mail the article to yourself).
 
The FAQ from comp.mail.mime (also available via ftp from rtfm.mit.edu,
or via email from myself)) describes MIME in much more detail.  MIME
is defined in RFC's 1341 and 1342.
 
Finally, from Nathaniel Borenstein himself (the author of the MIME
rfc's and the metamail package): "Henry Spencer has been working on a
draft of the next-generation netnews spec, and it relies very heavily
on MIME." Thus selecting MIME will help insure compatibility with the
future evolution of netnews.  If this newsgroup begins using MIME now,
it will be a great testbed to make sure that the evolving netnews spec
meets our requirements.  In addition, comments can be backed up by "we
have found in practice that"...
 
Cheers,
 
Mark
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
In article <cary-241193110940@macm513.esl.com> cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison) writes:
 
   In article <MWARREN.93Nov22112646@ap207sun.oracle.com>,
   mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren) wrote:
   > Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
   > already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
   > readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
   > Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
   > hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
   > readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
   > reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
   > from news.software.readers help out here).
 
   I don't know anything about MIME, other than what has been said here.
   Is it a standard only for e-mail, or does it cover news as well?  There
   are some differences.  For example, if my news reader doesn't handle
   MIME but I can get a MIME emailer, then I would have to mail myself a
   copy of all interesting news articles.  However, that process may be
   simpler than alternative forms of saving news articles, uudecoding,
   uncompressing, etc.
 
     ********************************************************************
      EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
      E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
      EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
      E          S  L
      EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
     ********************************************************************
--
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmwarren cudfnMark cudlnWarren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / David Halliwell /  Re: How to stop unrelated postings
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: How to stop unrelated postings
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 22:55:38 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

 
Note: if you followup to this post, please edit the Newsgroups: header
appropriately.
 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
 
>I'd never advocate censorship -- ever, but nevertheless, we can attempt
>to refocus the topic of this group by reminding others who post too far
>afield for too long, that there are other forums more suitable for the
>other topics.
 
   I think the majority of complaints you people have right now are
probably the result of one person. This person actually reinserted
sci.physics.fusion after others had removed it. This global warming thread
appears to have been abandoned by this individual, and now I have begun
removing your group again. Hopefully this doesn't leave anyone out of the
discussion.
 
>I say this as one who has frequently gone too far afield.
 
>So if you see a posting that is the n'th rehash of an unrelated topic,
>a brief and *polite* E-MAIL reminder to that person would probably be the
>most effective tonic.
 
   Having been on the receiving end of *impolite* email from yet another
group in yet another off-topic thread, I can second the motion that
politeness is *much* more likely to yield results.
 
>Again, I say this as one who isn't always so polite.
 
>I believe that many people aren't aware that they are cross-posting a
>response.  This is where a polite note would do the most good.
 
   No, we tried to move it and got in a fight. :-)
 
   By the way: this was initially posted in sci.physics.fusion *only*. I
added sci.environment and sci.skeptic to the headers, since the people
that you are really trying to reach probably don't read s.f.f. Hopefully,
people will cooperate to cut down the unwanted crossposting.
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Graydon Hoare /  Green Seeks Raw Data
     
Originally-From: coventry@r-node.io.org (Graydon Hoare)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Green Seeks Raw Data
Date: 29 Nov 1993 20:22:42 -0500
Organization: Internex Online (io.org) Data: 416-363-3783  Voice: 416-363-8676

Hi. I posted a couple of months and I'm back, clarifying what I'm looking for.
I'm a highschool student with only basic knowledge of atomic physics, so I'm
nowhere near comprehending most of what is said regarding fusion results.
However I am looking in on current results as part of a research project and
it'd be helpful (I noticed all the fusion books in U of T's library are
ancient) if someone could take a moment and email me some result data in some
basic reaction form that I can wrap my head around from any recent test run of
any fusion reactor with a brief description of the reactor, or at least the
design. I've got a huge mailbox, so extra data doesn't hurt.
thanks for taking the time to read
 
coventry@io.org
 
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Coventry@io.org
"no, as you can see, this is salonica. Hence the ladies."
-ALDISS
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencoventry cudfnGraydon cudlnHoare cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Semi-Moderated Group
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Semi-Moderated Group
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 05:37:41 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <931129134247.238080c9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>I now propose that we switch over to a semi-moderated group.  This would be
>set up like a fully moderated group, only the moderator would do nothing
>until there was a problem.
 
This proposal is technically feasible; it is just a Small Matter of
Programming.  Code I've developed for the Fusion Digest/sci.physics.fusion
gateway and other similar items could be pressed into service quite easily.
 
>I would propose that it work by just sending messages to the moderator.
>When the moderator received a lot of messages about a topic, he would start
>moderating using his judgement.
 
Were I the moderator, I would want "a lot" pinned down fairly well.
 
However, other measures could be taken that would stall the problem that
has led to Tom making his proposal.  For instance, cross-posting could
require manual intervention and review, so that the moderator would have to
check all cross-posted articles.  Articles posted only to s.p.f would pass
through automatically.  Also, threads could be killed based on keywords
while still passing other material automatically.
 
>I presume that the moderator would be elected by the group.
 
And herein lies the rub.  As the previous discussion demonstrated, there
are a number of people opposed to moderating s.p.f.  Now, it has been done
in the past - taking a group moderated, that is.  It could probably be
done, *if* the anti-moderation contingent were convinced it would be for
the better and if the moderation is as light as described.  Maybe.
 
Creating a second s.p.f group is rather unlikely; while it's an active
group, it is nowhere in the sort of range that usually justifies splitting
a group into subgroups.  On the other hand, s.p.f is something special on
Usenet, a place where working experimentalists gather and share their
results with each other and with us lay people.  That may actually weigh
in our favor.
 
Technically, taking a group moderated is possible, but can be somewhat
painful for the moderator, due to various pleasant behaviors in older
versions of the Usenet software.  I've done it before, and it is survivable.
 
Politically, the process resembles the "standard" newsgroup creation
process, wherein a poll is taken to survey interest in the topic.  Whether
creating a second s.p.f group or taking this one moderated, the criteria
would be basically the same:  100 more Yes "votes" than No "votes" and at
least 2/3 of all "votes" must be Yes.
 
Disclaimer:  When Dieter raised the subject previously, I volunteered to
be moderator, so some might say I have a vested interest in the topic,
especially those who have never been a moderator before...  My main interest
is in keeping s.p.f well-coordinated with Fusion Digest, whichever way things
go.
 
--
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / peter butler /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 30 Nov 1993 11:51:05 +1100
Organization: University of Wollongong

 
________________________________________________________________
In article <2d0apoINN10st@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garching
mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) wrote:
>
 
>
> Demonstrate this. I dispute it. All that is needed is to move away from
> fossil fuel power by replacing old power plants with new fission ones.
> The time scale on which we need to do this is of order a power plant
> lifetime anyway. The point is, to start now so that we can do a medium-
> term job in the medium term, and not as a hysterical crash program.
>
> Hysteria like you are raising is not at all helpful.
>
> BTW, it seems to me that a certain population of environmentalists is
> going to get their sincerity tested: in the long run, it is not very
> ecophilic to oppose reflexively the very thing which can rather painlessly
> remove the risks of global warming, is it?
>
> --
Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2?  Surely it is better to
look at areas like solar power, energy efficiency, wind power, etc.  If
funding to these areas matched funding for nuclear research, they would be
far more viable options than they are at the moment.
 
I for one will not accept nuclear energy as clean, particularly in the
light of the extended and wide ranging effect of "accidents" like
Chernobyl.  "whoops, sorry, all the milk in Eastern Europe is radioactive,
sorry for the inconvenience, normal service will be resumed shortly.  I
think compared to that, even global warming doesn't sound so bad.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenits_2_po cudfnpeter cudlnbutler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Mark Warren /  Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
     
Originally-From: mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standards for data exchange -- last call.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 21:41:07 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA

 
 
MIME is a standard for message content only, thus it can be used as
the content of either email messages or news messages.
 
The best MIME news reader that I've come across is Messages which is
included with the Andrew system.  If you want to continue using your
current unix news reader, the `metamail' package can add MIME support
to it (available via ftp from thumper.bellcore.com). For Windows, I
understand that the PINE mail tool has support for news as well and
incorporates MIME support. Finally on the Mac, Eudora has MIME support
(only in this case would you have to mail the article to yourself).
 
The FAQ from comp.mail.mime (also available via ftp from rtfm.mit.edu,
or via email from myself)) describes MIME in much more detail.  MIME
is defined in RFC's 1341 and 1342.
 
Finally, from Nathaniel Borenstein himself (the author of the MIME
rfc's and the metamail package): "Henry Spencer has been working on a
draft of the next-generation netnews spec, and it relies very heavily
on MIME." Thus selecting MIME will help insure compatibility with the
future evolution of netnews.  If this newsgroup begins using MIME now,
it will be a great testbed to make sure that the evolving netnews spec
meets our requirements.  In addition, comments can be backed up by "we
have found in practice that"...
 
Cheers,
 
Mark
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
In article <cary-241193110940@macm513.esl.com> cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison) writes:
 
   In article <MWARREN.93Nov22112646@ap207sun.oracle.com>,
   mwarren@us.oracle.com (Mark Warren) wrote:
   > Why are you reinventing the wheel? The internet MIME standard has
   > already covered all of these bases, and there are already MIME mail
   > readers available for all platforms. For unix, you can get the free
   > Metamail package from thumper.bellcore.com in nsb/mm.tar.Z (this has
   > hooks to make MH-E, MH, Elm, Andrew, GNUS, and many other mail/news
   > readers MIME aware), for the Mac there is the new Lee Mail mail
   > reader, and for MSDOS there have got to be MIME readers (can anyone
   > from news.software.readers help out here).
 
   I don't know anything about MIME, other than what has been said here.
   Is it a standard only for e-mail, or does it cover news as well?  There
   are some differences.  For example, if my news reader doesn't handle
   MIME but I can get a MIME emailer, then I would have to mail myself a
   copy of all interesting news articles.  However, that process may be
   simpler than alternative forms of saving news articles, uudecoding,
   uncompressing, etc.
 
     ********************************************************************
      EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
      E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
      EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
      E          S  L
      EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
     ********************************************************************
--
___________________________________________________________________________
mwarren@us.oracle.com           Fax: 415-506-1113       RIPEM key on server
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmwarren cudfnMark cudlnWarren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / peter butler /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 30 Nov 1993 11:58:39 +1100
Organization: University of Wollongong

 
________________________________________________________________
In article <1993Nov26.061113.15906@cs.wisc.edu>, tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.e
u (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>
 
> I would advise people who are inclined to a wait-and-see posture to read
> R.C.Balling's book _The Heated Debate_. (Ignore the polemical introduction
> written by someone else. It contains errors of fact.) Pacific Research
> Institute for Public Policy, 1992. It advocates no immediate response in a
> way which is responsible, and gives a good overview of what is and is not
> known. It is much better than Michaels' or Jastrow's efforts in this area
> which are generally misleading, start from their desired conclusion, and
> give a very skewed picture.
>
Surely the best response is to try to reduce fuel consumption, reducing
pollution and energy costs.  Even if it turns out that the effects of CO2
are grossly exaggerated (as I am sure they are by some, while being grossly
underestimateed by others), this would be a no-loss response as it would
also reduce pollution from SOx and NOx gases generated in coal fired power
generation.
 
Peter Butler
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenits_2_po cudfnpeter cudlnbutler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Raoul Golan /  Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Raoul Golan)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 30 Nov 1993 13:40:56 +1100
Organization: Telecom Australia - CSSC

 
Here's something I found in today's paper.
I thought that since no-one could duplicate the
results of Pons-Fleischmann, the issue of cold
fusion was dead.  Obviously, I was wrong.
 
 
--------------
 
N Energy for Home Forecast
 
(The Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 30, 1993)
 
Rome, Monday:  Two scientists who sparked a furore
with claims of nuclear fusion in a test tube -
promising unlimited, cheap energy - said yesterday
that a household power plant using the method was
possible by 2000.
 
Professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
triggered worldwide controversy in 1990 by saying
they had harnessed fusion, the energy of the stars,
with a simple and cheap apparatus.
 
Their findings astounded nuclear scientists who had
spent billions of dollars trying to harness nuclear
fusion.  Scientists were unable to reproduce the
experiments.
 
But Professor Pons said yesterday: "The technology
for a small device, enough for a household, is there.
I don't see why it coudn't be done in the next six
years.
 
 
--
raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au  | "...  And don't apologize.  Every time I try
(Raoul Golan)                | to talk to someone it's sorry this and forgive
                             | me that and I'm not worthy and ..."
                             | -  God to Arthur, M.P. & T.H.G.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenraoul cudfnRaoul cudlnGolan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 29 Nov 1993 21:56:35 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Michael Tobis (tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
: We have a number of largely *independent* models that reproduce climate and
: paleoclimate well enough to be worthy of consideration. The range of
: sensitivities to greenhouse gas perturbations is fairly large, mostly due
: to questions of cloud albedo feedback.
 
What are the climate effects of increased cloud cover?  Does this
"screw things up" in the way that increased average temperature might?
 
Suppose somebody said "Oh my god, humans are increasing cloud cover
by X percent!"  Is that a problem?
 
It seems that some kind of sum of "increased temperature" + "increased
cloud cover" ought to be more predictable then each one alone.
 
: mt
 
: Sorry about the crossposting. I think this belongs in sci.environment, but
: Dale insists on putting it elsewhere. Followups to one of these groups please!
 
--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 30 Nov 1993 04:44:15 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <2ddr6jINN8va@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.n
t (Matt Kennel) writes:
=Michael Tobis (tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) wrote:
=: We have a number of largely *independent* models that reproduce climate and
=: paleoclimate well enough to be worthy of consideration. The range of
=: sensitivities to greenhouse gas perturbations is fairly large, mostly due
=: to questions of cloud albedo feedback.
=
=What are the climate effects of increased cloud cover?  Does this
="screw things up" in the way that increased average temperature might?
=
=Suppose somebody said "Oh my god, humans are increasing cloud cover
=by X percent!"  Is that a problem?
 
Well, the problem is that increased cloud cover also implies likely changes in
precipitation patterns.  Let's see now, "Humans are increasing precipitation in
the Midwest by X percent."  Is that a problem?  Or "Humans are decreasing
precipitation in California by X percent."  Is that a problem?
 
=It seems that some kind of sum of "increased temperature" + "increased
=cloud cover" ought to be more predictable then each one alone.
 
Why?  I can think of no statistical or physical argument that would support
your claim.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
 
Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Meyer hydrogen patent -- problems?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer hydrogen patent -- problems?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 05:11:41 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
: You may remember I posted this as the circuit in the Stanley Meyer patent
: for a process to extract hydrogen and oxygen from H2O.
 
: I have some additional comments.
 
: >      |_ T1 _______________|\|___________________
: > 200   _)||(_              |/|                  |
: > turns _)||(_ 600 turns                         |
: > 24    _)||(_ 36 gauge    D1 1N1198 diode       |
: > gauge _)||(_____                               |
: >      |         |                               |
: >    -----       |_                              |_
: >   / / /         _)                              _)  T2 Inductor
: >                 _)<-| T3 Variable inductor      _)  100 turns
: >                 _)  |    Unspecified value      _)  24 gauge
: >                 _)__|                           _)  1.0" diameter
: >                |             ___               |
: >                |            / _ \  Water       |
: >                |           / / \ \ Capacitor   |
: >                |------------<   > >------------|
: >                            \ \_/ / Stainless steel (T-304)
: >                             \___/  Concentric cylinders
: >                                    4.0" tall, 0.5" inner cylinder O.D.
: >                                    0.0625" spacing
 
Nice bit of ascii graphics John... much appreciated since I haven't have a
chance toview the patent info, but I have a slightly different view of
these circuits.  To me, the above seems to make sense in the context of a
series resonant LC circuit.  When the inductive and capacitive reactance
are equal in a series resonant circuit, (at resonance) the circuit has a
low impedance and would, in my mind, optimize current flow, as well as gas
production, in the circuit.  As far as the diode getting in the way,
wouldn't it be necessary to rectify the ac into pulsed DC, which would
ensure that the evolved gas stream is not reversed (mixed) each half cycle? It
looks to me like the variable inductance is there just to tune the circuit
since the capacitance of the cell is likely quite variable, depending on
construction tolerances.
 
As for your suggested parallel resonant configuration, assuming that
Meyers process relies on some resonance effect, wouldn't the parallel
resonant circuit actually reduce current flow at resonance and reduce the
gas production?
 
This idea of meyers'is pretty radical anyway, but he seems to have
convinced a lot of people that it works, so there may be something to it,
even though it flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics as several
have pointed out.
 
By the way, what is the frequency of the signal he is applying to the
transformer?
 
regards - Gary
 
:                  D1      C2
:   ___ T1 ____|\|_______||___
:     _)||(_   |/|   |   ||  _)
:     _)||(_       =====     _) L1
:     _)||(_         | C1    _)
:   ___)||(__________|________)
 
(I didn't delete the above 'cause the artwork was just too good!)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Concerning a new group....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Concerning a new group....
Date: 30 Nov 93 17:43:37 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Fusion Folk,
 Concerning the problems the group is having with irrelevant postings....
Why not leave the present group as it is, everyone posts to it, and a
moderator daily (?) picks out the "quality stuff" and inserts it into
a new group called, say, sci.physics.fusion-plus. This does not impose
censorship,  satisfies those who want a quality new group and opens up
the moderation process for public scrutiny. It also means that there
would be no moderator delays, a "quality" question may have a "quality"
answere before the moderator lifts the former to the new group. He could
then lift both simultaneously into the new group.
 
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / James Crotinger /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: 30 Nov 93 07:23:22 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

simmons@rigel.neep.wisc.edu (Kim Simmons) writes:
>  Here at UW Madison we are about to take another theoretical/computational
> look at the thing. We have a Polywell device that should be coming on line
> early next year and that will be operated initially as a pure
> electrostatic device. Then we will turn on the cusp magnetic field. I am
> doing the computational (numerical simulation) part.
 
  Please keep us apprised. Bussard mentioned that the device was going
to UW Madison during his talk here earlier this year. Then Hirsch
mentioned it the other day and said that there was much interest in
getting the experiment going. In spite of apparent enthusiam, I got
the impression that the funding situation was not clear.
 
  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:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Semi-Moderated Group
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Semi-Moderated Group
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 09:24:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 1722:
 
>John Logajan points out that what I want to do is not possible.  I now propose
>that we switch over to a semi-moderated group.  This would be set up like a
>fully moderated group, only the moderator would do nothing until there was a
>problem.  Then the group would be moderated for a week or so until the problem
>went away.  This would greatly reduce the moderators work load.  I would
>propose that it work by just sending messages to the moderator.  When the
>moderator received a lot of messages about a topic, he would start moderating
>using his judgement.  I presume that the moderator would be elected by the
>group.  I assume this could be done by some software switch whic would
>normally just pass messages through to the news group.  When moderation was
>invoked, I would be quite willing to accept a several day delay.  This alone
>would slow down the fanatic posters who just like to spout off.
 
>Tom Droege
 
I agree wholeheartedly, this is a wonderful idea. How do we do it? Let's do it
very soon, like today if possible. These global warming people are not going
away, it seems, they must be leaned upon. Who will be part-time moderator?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / James Crotinger /  Re: Hirsch and History
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch and History
Date: 30 Nov 93 07:28:48 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
> Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:
> >
> >jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >> BTW:  Farsworth is really most appropriately credited with the invention
> >> of EF.  He was Hirsch's mentor.  I attribute the ion-gun EF invention
> >> to Farnsworth and the Polywell(TM) magnetic cusp EF invention to
> >> Bussard.
> >
> >  Hirsch didn't give a lot of details, but he said that he got the
> >basic idea while a grad student, and hooked up with Farnsworth to try
> >to build the thing, and that Farnsworth was very instrumental in
> >making it all come together.
>
> How magnanimous of Hirsch!  ;-)
>
> He just lost credibility with me.
>
> Here is a quote from Hirsch's own 1967 paper:
>
> [ deleted ]
>
> Hirsch clearly ascribes priority to Farnsworth in this 1967 paper.
>
> Why does he no longer do so?
 
  Hmm. Well, I didn't take notes and was just trying to recollect what
he said, and he didn't go into nearly as much detail as your excerpt.
I distinctly recall him saying that he had the idea as a grad student
and that he wondered why it wasn't being pursued, and that after
finishing he hooked up with Farnsworth. He didn't elaborate, but
perhaps this is true and the reason that he hooked up with Farnsworth
was that he discovered that Farnsworth had similar ideas.  As I didn't
know the history, and as his remarks were off-the-cuff as part of a
fairly short answer to the question "what about IEC", I may have
misinterpreted his statements. He certainly did not say "I invented
it, Farnsworth didn't."
 
> >> I haven't gotten around to compiling a history of the decision to drop
> >> Farnsworth's device in favor of the Tokamak, but it is a history that
> >> needs writing.  Hirsch is central to any such history as he was the one
> >> apparently most responsible for allowing Farnsworth's invention to be
> >> dropped in favor of the Tokamak.
 
> >  Hirsch said they took the idea to DOE. It was reviewed by various
> >prominent physicists, and they all said it couldn't possibly work for
> >various theoretical reasons. (And there are real concerns -- the
> >device depends crucially the ion distribution remaining essentially a
> >delta function, and plasmas don't generally like to be in such a
> >state.) Funding was denied, and work stopped.
>
> So far so good, but then you say:
>
> >It's
> >kind of funny to see Hirsch pushing his present point of view, when he
> >was basically to father of the opposite point of view. He pushed the
> >tokamak at the expense of alternatives (pinches, mirrors, and other
> >obscure things),
>
> Yes, like electrostatic fusion.
 
  Well, yes and no. The others were "contenders" at the time, things
that were getting fairly substantial funds (as a fraction of the pie
anyway). IEC was never funded by the AEC. Bromberg's book "Fusion" only
mentions IEC in passing:
 
    ... Hirsch had joined the Washington office [of CTR] in 1968, at
    the age of 33. In that year, the Fort Wayne, Indiana, laboratory
    of International Telephone and Telegraph, where Hirsch had been
    supervising an exotic electrostatic confinement device designed by
    television inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, had submitted a proposal
    to the CTR Branch of the AEC Research Division. Bishop had
    rejected the proposal, but he had recruited the project's energetic
    young leader.
 
> This is where the history is interesting:
>
> How did Hirsch transit from an "outsider" with a device producing
> billions of neutrons per second on a desktop to, in your words
> "father the opposite point of view" in is role as Mr. Big "Tokamak"
> Science?
 
She goes on to say
 
    Hirsch had come in time to join in the trip to the international
    conference to Novosibirsk. The tokamak had immediately aroused his
    interest, and he saw the results that the Russians were getting
    as a major breakthrough. He had expected a strong, positive
    reaction among Sherwood personnel returning from the conference.
    Instead, to his mind, Bishop had been overcautious and too willing
    to be ruled by Princeton, while Princeton's response was partly
    "sour grapes" in the face of the stellarator's difficulties with
    Bohm diffusion.
 
> In that position, at that time, he had the public responsibility and
> authority to force the issue of actual neutron production vs objections
> to funding a "proof of concept" experiment to resolve the problem for
> theorists posed by those neutrons.
>
> He failed to do so.  Why?
 
  If the above is accurate, he believed that the tokamak was a better
idea.  Why he didn't fund alternatives as high-risk, high payoff R&D
projects, I don't know.
 
> >Indeed, Hirsch was instrumental in selling the idea that we should
> >concentrate on the Tokamak, that we should put big bucks behind them,
> >that TFTR should burn DT, etc.; i.e. lots of other good ideas.
>
> Smile when you say those be "good" ideas pardner. :-)
>
> I'll give YOU "the benefit of the doubt" and assume you were joking.
 
  Well, only 1/2 smiley. I am not convinced that tokamaks are a dead
end and I don't believe that tokamaks have been overfunded. TFTR has
certainly had its share of problems, and although putting DT in it
seemed like a good idea way back when, I'm not so sure that it makes
cents today. On the other hand, we have made amazing strides in plasma
performance in the last 20 years, and I believe that a device like
ITER will most likely ignite.
 
> Your condition that "they should not be funded at the expense of
> existing programs" has the logical consequence that the only circumstance
> in which alternatives will receive even proof of principle funding is
> when the "existing programs" (ie: Tokamak) don't "need" any more money.
 
  Only if the total budget is fixed or declining. And even under fixed
budgets, as old projects finish up I think that some of the resources
that are freed up should be used to look at alternatives. However I
do think that the tokamak program should continue to its next logical
step as well (TPX).
 
> I don't blame you for originating this sort of 1984ish doublespeak rhetoric.
> It is virtually impossible to avoid succuming to the mentality pervading
> the national labs while working there on a day to day basis.
 
  While LLNL does now do a fair amount of tokamak related work, we do
not have a local tokamak experiment, and there is healthy interest in
alternatives (certainly due in part to the fact that this used to be
*the* main mirror lab). Several colleagues of mine are embarking on an
internally funded project to review various "high-risk" alternative
concepts (including IEC, and various icf related schemes). Ken Fowler
has sparked renewed interest in spheromaks in the last year. Local
reactor design studies have been quite critical of the ITER approach
to building a reactor. Etc. Of course we are also trying very hard
to develop better theoretical and computational models for the core
and the edge plasma in a tokamak.
 
  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:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 09:18:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CGusCr.1K8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2cjef4$jia@wega.rz.uni-ulm.de>,
>Jan Schloerer <SCHLOERER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de> wrote:
 
>>So you just love the majority of climatologists worldwide.  Surprise :-)
 
>     Absolutely.  No surprise.
.. .
>>  The 'missing sink', an imbalance in the carbon cycle of the
>>order of 1-2 Gt carbon/year, is discussed, among others, in  [IPCC 1992,
>>p 9, 33-35; Sundquist].
 
>      Sure is, out of roughly 7 Gt carbon/year.  Where's it going?
.. .
>     'Even though the models that predict it are flawed to the point
>     of incoherence, we *know* that global warming *must* be occurring.  So
>     we must figure out why the data is wrong'...
 
>     Followups to sci.skeptic and sci.physics.fusion where I'm talking about
>     future economic viability of coal-fired power plants vs. fusion power
>     plants.  All attempts to make me boil my blood by reading
>     sci.environment again are futile.
 
>                               dale bass
 
A powerful and efficient commercial fusion likely will become a
reality. If so, then one of the tasks that it would doubtlessly need
to perform would  be that of converting limestone to CO2 gas**, This
might be substantial enough to make up at the current annual
atmospheric deficit of CO2.  By adding a bit more, within ten or
twenty years a substantial amount could acrue to perhaps double the
amount above current levels.  Mind you this would be just so the
greenies could mow our lawns twice a week, more Africans would
survive -- having more and more food from diminishing deserts, and
for the priest in us -- the species extinction rate would be lowered
as the global biomass gradually increases by an order of magnitude.
The metal oxide**  by products will be use to neutralize acid
precipitation, lakes and soil.
 
                Fusion Means, "More of the Right Stuff**".
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Dieter Britz /  RE: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 13:08:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1716:
 
>"Fleischmann *still* has not provided the numbers.  And now we learn (mention
>was neglected in the paper) that the "voltages are read every 300s" -- clearly
>not frequently enough to satisfy the Nyquist criterion especially for the 600s
>period when violent boiling occurred."  (Jones, 4 Nov, still no response!)
 
Hmm, let's see: sampling interval 300s, sampling period 600 s; two samples per
period - hey! The Nyquist criterion is satisfied!                         {:]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Reply to Steve Jones ....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve Jones ....
Date: 30 Nov 93 22:52:04 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In his article "Re: A Canticle for Yamaguchi...." on the 19-Nov-93,
Steve Jones writes....
 
>Summary: Use sensitive, reliable neutron detectors, not survey monitors
>
>In article <kemidb.753616846@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>> Considering Steve Jones' revelations about neutron artifacts, I would say
>> that Yamaguchi is as dead as Leibowitz.
>>
>> Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 
In the novel "A Canticle for Leibowitz", Leibowitz is a shadowy figure,
possibly an engineer or scientist set in contempory times.  In the
perspective of the book, he could well be alive today.
 
>
>Daryl Owens writes that he believes that the neutron bursts detected
>by Yamaguchi (Y) are real, and that he may purchase a neutron counter
>such as Y used (if I understand correctly).
>
 
Firstly, Steve if you state that somebody "writes" anything, it is
professional courtesy to provide information which will allow *anybody*
to reference the original text. What I *really* believe about the neutron
bursts is as follows....
 Because I believe Yamaguchi and Nishioka, (AIP Conf. Proc. No.228),
used a "poor measuring device" (see quote below), there is a *possibility*
that what they measured were not neutrons, but some other particle or
radiation emitted by the Pd:D samples. However, just the indication of
atomic particles or radiation , coming from the samples at the time the
pulses were observed, is in my opinion of considerable significance.
Secondly, you do *not* understand correctly when you state that I "may
purchase a neutron counter such as Y used." I have *never* thought of
purchasing one of these devices and I have no idea as to what could have
put this concept into your head. Indeed, had you bothered to read what I
wrote on the 8-Nov-93 in the article "Re:neutron detectors vs.survey meters"
you would have seen this for yourself. In that article I wrote, in response
to criticism of the use, by Yamaguchi et al, of a survey meter to measure
neutrons....
"I too consider it to be a rather poor measuring device for this application,
but it DID measure neutrons, from the samples, during the in situ checking
technique." This "checking technique" of Yamaguchi et al was a calibration
proceedure using D+ ion implantation into the samples to produce neutrons
which were used to calibrate the 3He detector against the Bf3 detector.
 
>Daryl: have you digested what I, Dick Blue and Tom Droege have already
>posted about Yamaguchi's detectors and neutron-burst claims?  Dieter
>is right: the case for Yamaguchi's claims for neutrons is very weak
>indeed.
 
Dick, on the 30-Oct-93 in article "Definitive experiment my left foot!"
suggested that the samples' heating, bending and explosive release of
gas was due to a chemical reaction involving hydrogen and the 0.00001cc
of Mn-O thin film. Also in the article "Neutron detectors vs survey meters"
on the 6-Nov-93, he suggests that the neutron pulses are electromagnetic
interfernce from the turbo molecular pump (TMP). This despite the distinctly
marked TMP on/off transitions on page 359 of the AIP Proc. On all of
these counts he was wrong.
Tom, on the 11-Nov-93 in his four line article "Neutrons" commented
on the general perfidity of neutron detectors in detecting neutrons.
Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
wrote on the 11-Nov-93 in "Re:Yamaguchi:what's the fuss?"....
"....I have to admit that they DID get the odd large neutron burst
and, Dick Blue not withstanding, seem to have detected them
convincingly (to a neutron amateur such as myself)..."
 
>To reiterate: Yamaguchi et al. used neutron survey meters
>which do not provide compelling evidence for neutron production as
>claimed by Y.  How do I convince you to be careful in evaluating Y's
>data and these crude neutron survey meters?  Do you recognize that
>although Y claims large neutrons bursts, these rates are in fact at
>the sensitivity level of these crude detectors?
 
Ah! I have been looking for specifications (particulaly sensitivity)
on the 3He detector they used in the experiment (An Aloca TPS-451S).
 Could you please post these here, along with the sensitivity of the
3He detectors you use. It would be an interesting comparison.
 
>Do you appreciate the fact Y's detectors have been examined by Howard
>Menlove, a Los Alamos lab. fellow, when he visited Y's lab in Japan,
>and Howard was appalled that Y used such crude neutron counters?
>
 
Yes, as I have stated earlier, I thought them rather poor myself.
 
>I hesitate to appeal to an authority, but I'd like to get you off
>dead-center in your thinking.  These detectors are about 6 orders of
>magnitude less sensitive than the ones we use at BYU, as described in
>previous postings -- e.g., "Draft of Paper".  Since 1986 when we began
>looking for neutrons in deuterided metals, we have *never* seen huge
>neutron bursts as claimed by Yamaguchi et al.
 
True, but then you have not done the same experiment as Yamaguchi et al.
 
>We have, however, seen strange effects near the sensitivity level of the
>detectors -- some of which we have now clearly identified as artifacts
> (see, e.g., my recent post "What's the opposite of 'EUREKA'?").
>
>Don't buy another health physics monitor, Daryl.  If you really want
>to contribute to science, you will need sensitive, state-of-the-art
>tools.  Crude detectors can only add to the confusion.
 
Steve, at the beginning of this article you thought I may go and purchase
one of these devices. Here you already have me owning one and your
requesting me not to buy another. How many times must I tell you .......
 
>
>Best Wishes,
>Steven Jones
>
---------------Several lines of irrelevant postscripts deleted ------------
 
                                        Kind Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendowen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 09:37:00 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CGxJ08.68x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2cs0ad$dta@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>Len Evens <len@schur.math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <CGx4Jw.8r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>  Then, CO2  concentrations
>>are `instantaneously doubled', and the evolution of the system
>>back to equilibrium is followed.  The above analysis suggests
>>that the modelers are trying to produce warming and reject models
>>which don't do it.
>
>     No, it suggests that 'successful' models reproduce such warming
>     owing to implicit use of warming.
 
What???!!!   Are you saying they are blow drying their hair while
working out the models..  thus using electic power and on the
average burning more coal -- which yields more CO2 (and less oxygen
for their suffering brains?).
 
>>What does this mean?
 
Right  what does this " Pscience "  mean???
 
>     I cannot stand the whole idea of a 'final theory'.  The
>     hubris runs deep and strong.
 
If you mean methane producing unprocessed plant food, then I heartily
agree.
                             dale bass
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 10:01:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2ct8vb$qk3@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
>
>Dale Bass has made all sorts of assertions about models and data.
 
>I think he is selectively choosing data which disagrees with global
>warming predictions and ignoring data which support such predictions.
 
>I agree completely with Mr. Bass that if this were an issue that
>didn't suggest a need for action, e.g., the study of the interior
>of stars or the origin and development of galaxies, then no one
>would be so concerned about whether the theory in its current state
>had yet been falsified.   I don't suggest massive Carbon taxes
>in our present state of knowledge. I do suggest moderate
>taxes and other measures which make sense for other reasons.
 
Water vapor is  much greater greenhouse gas than CO2 and there
is enough present to raise the atmospheric pressure substantially,
when the Oceans boil away --- which will happen most any day now.
    Let's see:
     Hmmm!   How about a piss tax,
                 to lessen the amount of warm
                 water exposed to the environment.
 
>The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
>have is to tip the balance for those who are undecided.  .. .
 
Fantasy!  The real effect that the WANT of atmospheric CO2 is
having is to vastly reduce the biomass*  and to accelerate the
extinction rate of species.  Africans are starving by the hundreds
but they probably don't count much because they aren't yet on
the endangered species list.
 
The need for action????      Sorry Leonardo -- you're too late.
 
**Compare to the heyday of biomass  ---  the CARBONaceous period.
 
                      Only Fusion can pump enough
                             CO2 back into
                            the atmosphere
                          to save the planet.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
>Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
>Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 10:50:29 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Nov23.223544.26018@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <CGysHw.Go9@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1993Nov23.164354.20427@vexcel.com>,
 
>>    When changes are a crapshoot, we go with the ones that
>>    are cheapest.  Currently, alteration of our behavior regarding
>>    CO2 emission is a crapshoot.
 
>A crapshoot huh?  This gets back to the point about whether research
>provides an indication (not certainty) as to effects of increased CO2
>concentrations.  .. .  .
 
>              ..   .         .       .      Minority opinions are
>valuable and you may be right.  But from a public policy perspective,
>do we base our decisions on what the minority or the majority of
>scientific opinion thinks?
 
In a word:          N O !
 
>         ..    .   .     Do we wait for 100% consensus within the
>relevent scientific community to take research results seriously?
 
The results are not complete and therefore are not predictive.
They should not be used as "RESULTS".  They are not.  They are
intermediate data, which has little correlation with "results"
from a complete and therefore predictive study.
 
A person goes for a medical checkup has elevated liver enzymes
often indicative of kidney or liver cancer.  The  MD  orders
massive radiation and chemotherapy which iself destroys the person's
quality of and quantity of life.   The radiation can also act as
a source for future cancers.  All this happens before complete
studies are made and the MD runs other more definitive tests
which isolate the problem to a diabetic condition and fatty
liver,
 
There is a huge down side to keeping the CO2 levels lower than
what supports optimal global biomass.  More plant life will act
to cool the planet as opposed to less (urban/desert/badlands
heating scenario).  A mosdest increase in CO2 could have a large
effect in extending biomass groundcover from peripolar to peripolar
region... assuming we get some bias warming toward the polar regions.
Incidentally all of these interactive CO2 effects have to be taken
into consideration  or the study is trivial as is the current
status (regardless of its regard by ....  . they all come in
boxes with ribbons and  bows -- they all are so similar you know
they think just so.. )
 
>you believe that an objective scientist looking at all of the data can
>honestly disagree with you and support the IPCC consensus?
No!
No one could have such narrow vision and shallow perception.
 
Ahhhg! on second thought -- perhaps my parakeet.
>--
> -- Dean Myerson       (dean@vexcel.com)
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Progress?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Progress?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 11:33:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <YgweM6G00XsD0=6Wl2@andrew.cmu.edu> David O Hunt <bluelobster
@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Not being hooked up to the right sources, what is the progress on getting
>a self-sustaining reaction going.  I recall reading that 2 of the 3 Lawson
>criteria have been met, but I could be mistaken...
 
Yes, if you are a Congress person or staffer there are 3 Lawson
criteria.  Actually for reality oriented folk, there is one which
is the product of three elements (simplified to two?) must be be
larger than a certain value.  The trick is to pretend they don't
all have to be met simultaneously,  So one year they push up any
two at the expense of the remaining one, and the following year
they choose another pair.  The statement made is to the effect
that with the results of our density and confinement time and if we
could have met last year's achieved temperature, then we would have
generated fusion.  This clearly leaves the impression that it's
very possible to do together because it has been done recently,
though separately.    The three elements of the product are
containment time at temperature and density, the temperature (one
somewhat higher than ignition), and density (which is the number
of particles crowded together so they bump into each other fast
enough to make enough fusion power if ignition is reached.
 
By complexifying the Lawson criteria to three elements, the
Lab directors can continue to snow congress on the real progress.
Actually there are only two criteria since the way the plasma
is bagged in a mag field, only the confining pressure and
confinement time limits the ability to make fusion.  Plasma
pressure is the product of temperature and density, so the
higher the pressure the greater the temperature and larger the
density can be.  Unfortunately, in the steady state (long
confinement time machines, the pressure on the plasma is limited
to a few atmospheres, even though the pressure on the torroidal
field coil of the plasma stiffening magnet can be as high as
a kilobar (1000 atmospheres).  That's because these tokamaks
are absolutely terrible at transfering external mag pressure
to the plasma.  The tokamak program, like a cancer, has taken
over the world fusion program and crowded out nearly all but
the most insignificant funding for alternate fusion concepts
by world governments.
 
>I'm especially interested in tandem mirror and inertial confinement stuff...
 
Now for the good news;  The mirror gets about 2 million a year
at LLNL to keep it preserved (in moth balls).  It was completed
but never tested, because they finally had to do something since
they (not admitted openly) knew it wouldn't work.
 
ICF  has two forms:
                 pure  ICF (lasers and particle beams)
                 MICF  in which the laser or PB crushes a small
                       spheromak like plasma body within a
                       so-called driver shell
 
Pure ICF is in the USA and about 25-40% of its heyday when last I looked.
MICF is Japanese and Russian except for a small theory effort USA
 
>Thanks muchly!
 
>David Hunt, PhD Grad. Slave | My mind is my own. So are  | Towards both a
>Mechanical Engineering      | these ideas and opinions!  | Palestinian and
>Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
>============ An anagram of 'Jesus Christ' is 'Sir, such jest'! ============
>
>When in doubt, be ruthless.  -- The Grand Negis
>
>
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Global warming
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 12:11:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2d2rd1$ohh@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
>In article <19931124.183223.300@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>         Michael Tobis posted:
>>>Should we really be focussing on the *most likely* outcome? Are we doing so
>>>because so many people focus on the *best* plausible outcome and we feel a
>>>need to rebut them? Shouldn't cost-benefit assessments take the *worst*
>>>plausible outcomes into account as well?
 
>>         I believe things are not so simple as you suggest above.  I
>>have the following questions.
>>         1.  The above appears to assume that outcomes should be
>>arithmetically averaged.  Why is the arithmetic average to be
>>preferred to the geometric average?
>>         2.  What is the function we are maximizing?
>>         3.  What is the definition of a "plausible" outcome?
>>         4.  Is the best plausible outcome no effect?   What
>>probability would you assign to the following scenario?  Anthropogenic
>>CO2 prevents another ice age.
>>                          James B. Shearer
 
> .. .     .           The results of such research might not
>be completely definitive and might suggest actions (like say
>increasing CO2 emissions) based on less than total information.
 
 
Leonardo,  It's not that one needs TOTAL information, it's that
one needs reasonably consistent and COMPLETE information.
 
Understand the difference ??
 
>Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
>Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 11:54:50 GMT

In <dhalliwe.754354305@shadow> David Halliwell writes:
>nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
>
>>In <dhalliwe.754212924@shadow> David Halliwell writes:
>>>out of hand. Can you tell us just what "assumed facts" you are talking
>>>about? Can you give an example of a climate model that *has* shown no
>>>warming and has been "rejected out of hand"? (I know of experimental
>>>results which were used to predict "no warming". I also know the errors in
>>>physics that they made, which is why they have generally been rejected.)
>
>>No I can't show any such model, I've seen this happen in other fields,
>>and consider it a reasonable part of the debate to ask it here. Don't
>>get your knickers in a knot over it. We have a planet showing no global
>>warming,
>
>   Yes we do have global warming. Approximately 0.5C over the last 100
>years. Entirely consistent with the predictions of response to increased
>atmospheric CO2.
  Is the data sufficiently reliable to make the assertion ?? 100yrs is
an awfully short time span, what makes you think this is a continuing
trend, rather than an aberration ??
>
>   What we do *not* have is certainty that this warming is actually caused
>by the CO2 increases. Superimposed on that warming trend are shorter-term
>warming and cooling periods of similar magnitude. There are also several
>other physical processes which could be causing the longer term trend. As
>a result, the trend neither supports nor refutes CO2-induced climate
>change theories: it is inconclusive.
 A fact that is rarely mentioned in popular debate ..
>
>> yet we're assured that it is going to happen eventually if
>>we don't do something about it.
>
>   Fairly basic physics says that increasing the concentration of
>atmospheric gases which absorb infrared radiation *will* lead to higher
>surface temperatures. There is great debate as to how much warming will
>occur (best estimate 1.5-4.5C), and there are a number of feedback
>mechanisms which *might* reduce the direct warming effect (but also might
>enhance it; they are *uncertainties*), but warming *should* happen.
 Should is a far cry from will. Essentially you're repeating the
argument that says that our best models predict global warming, this
is where the discussion started.
>
>> Now I _know_ that it's not the
>>climatologists who are saying this, but it _is_ being said, by and to,
>>those who make the decisions.
>
>   It is not the climatologists that are saying "there is no warming",
>either. Don't replace one misguided interpretation with another!
 I wasn't.
>
>> This makes the validity of the models
>>on which these assertions are based a legitimate area for concern.
>
>   Yes it does. Howver, simple physics leads us to expect warming. The
>models are a complex effort to find out how a complex system will respond
>to the simple change. Would it help if I explained the simple physics
>aspects? (I am asking seriously: not tongue-in-cheek.)
  I wouldn't mind some backup to the idea that this is in the domain of
'simple physics'.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:08:34 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CGzEsF.Hqq@world.std.com>,
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <1993Nov22.115307.1129@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
>
>> = Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
>> = (simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
>> =                                                           ling evidence one
>> =                                                           way or the other)
>> = II. Helium gas detection       Charged-particle detector   Thin dE/dx det.
>> =   Tritium gas detection    (Si surface-barrier det.)   plus Si spectrometer"
>
> =  "The point I'm
> = getting at is this:  if helium or tritium is produced via nuclear reactions
> = then the product nuclei *must* be charged and energetic, thus capable of
> = detection by thin (dE/dx) and thick (E) charged-particle detectors.  Use of
> = such a particle "telescope" provides both particle identification and particle
> = energy, and is state of the art."
>
>   Steven has said this before.    But has never PROVEN it, despite requests.
>   Once again, can Steve present any evidence?   Four-vector equation?
> Is there any real proof that physics in a solid state must obey only
> the physics and scenarios of a plasma from colliding particles? \/\/
>   Certainly this continued knocking of so many people, and their
> experiments and theories, ought be based on some theory, formula(e) or
> evidence, right?
>   The reader ought note this has been asked for continuously,
> but Steve (and the other TB-skeptics) appear to just restate their point,
> and duck this issue.     In fact, such a putative proof is important.
>
 
Profs. Blue and Schultz have both responded to Mitch on these points.  While
belaboring the effort to educate Mitch may be a waste of time, I will
nevertheless try again, especially since others may benefit.
 
In fact, I have published "theory, formulae [and] evidence" that Mitch
requests, in my 1992 paper:  "Current issures in cold fusion research:  heat,
helium, tritium, and energetic particles," Surface and Coatings Tech.,
_51_ (1992) 283-289.  Moreover, I have quoted from this paper here on the net
before.  I have not ducked the issue, the open-minded reader will see.
 
In this paper, I reviewed --and then rejected-- the notion advanced by
Preparata and others (including Mitch) that a Mossbauer-like effect could
account for "lattice-heating" accompanied by low-energy helium or tritium
production.  To quote from the published paper:
 
Mossbauer effect                        Lattice-heating notion
 
Of order 10 keV energy                  Of order 1-10 MeV energy
 
Excited nucleus lifetime approx. 10^-7s  Excited He nucleus approx. 10^-22s
 
Negligible energy transfer to lattice    Enormous energy transfer to lattice/
  (essentially momentum transfer only)   collective "superradiant" state of
                                         electrons (Preparata's notion) {MeV}
                                         How can momentum be conserved?
 
Approx. 1% of gammas at best experience  Non-observance of sufficient energetic
Mossbauer effect                         particles by orders of magnitude
                                         requires approx. 100% of nuclear
                                         reactions to transmit energy to
                                         lattice
 
Momentum and energy conservation require that most of the energy must go to the
lighter particle.  This is the case in the Mossbauer effect where a gamma
recoils against a massive lattice.  But then the "heat" does not go to the
lattice, but rather to the emitted particle!  "Lattice-heating" advocates make
the assertion that the lattice is heated while the lighter alpha or triton
produced in the nuclear reaction carries very little energy.  Sorry, gentlemen,
this violates momentum conservation, and is the antithesis of the Mossbauer
effect!
 
Mitch, please give these arguments some thought this time around.  Look up and
read my paper.
 
When I gave Hegelstein this paper, he told me that the momentum-conservation
arguments reached him; he told me he "saw the guillotine blade dropping."
I don't think he believes the Preparata "lattice-heating" line anymore.
Even Bockris agreed with me.  How about you, Mitchell?  Think about it.
 
 
>
> = "Tom Claytor ....  noted, as I have
> = here in the past, that light-cone constraints mean that energies released
> = in nuclear reactions can only be transported about 10^-3 angstroms -- which
> = means that the energy released by nuclear reactions cannot be dumped on the
> = lattice as "heat."  "
>
>   What is the evidence?  Any real proof of this assertion?
>   Steve claims that no energy can be "dumped" from a nuclear reaction
> into a lattice as heat.  Perhaps he should travel from Utah to Nevada
> and check out the sand at a few ground "zeros".   No heat?  Indeed.
>
>   Thanks in advance for the proof(s) to either or both of the above.
 
Again, the 10^-3 calculation is given in my paper referenced above.
Briefly, we start with the uncertainty relation which follows from the wave
nature of the reacting species (no need to appeal to the Schroedinger equation
here; we'll keep it simple).  Preparata and a few others have argued that the
energy released following a nuclear reaction is transferred quickly to the
lattice without the formation of (observable) energetic particles.  (This is
hoped, because such particles are far too few to correlate with m = E/c^2,
if there are any energetic particles at all in cf cells.)  The 'virtual' energy
can travel a distance limited by the uncertainty relation and the speed of
light:
 
   r = ct = h-bar c/E  (approx.; not concerned about small factors here).
 
Now, E is of order 1-10 MeV while h-bar*c = 197 MeV-fm.  Dividing, we find that
the energy can only be transferred a distance of about 10^-3 angstroms.
This is the same result that Shultz was working towards, but
Mitch may want to check it further.
 
This distance, 1/1000 angstroms, is very small compared with lattice spacings
(a few angstroms).  The conclusion is unavoidable:  nuclear energy cannot be
transferred quickly enough to the lattice or to a (putative) collective state
of electrons without violating light-cone constraints.  As noted before, there
are no excited states of the helium-4 nucleus below 19 MeV so that its energy
cannot be released in small-energy packets.
 
A brief aside:  I went through this argument with cf-advocate Robert Bass,
whose reply was that my error was in imposing speed-of-light constraints!
At that point, I said that we had no basis for further discussion.  Some ground
rules, such as E=mc^2 and speed-of-light constraints -- and momentum
conservation -- are needed for rational discussion.
 
Which of these physical laws do *you* wish to challenge, Mitch?  Or can you
further defend 'lattice-heating' notions?
 
--Steven Jones
 
>
> = "you evidently agree that the best detector systems show "lower S/N ratios".
> = What does this tell you about claims that xs-heat is nuclear in origin?"
>
>   The post did not say that better detector systems show "lower S/N ratios"
> or anything  consistent with Steve's now-famous innuendo(s) about c.f.
> The posting did ask why Steve appears to ignore the major products
> and only focuses on systems of lower S/N ratios, as in the neutronpenic
> levels of neutrons.   There is a considerable difference.
>
>                                                Mitchell Swartz
>                                                (mica@world.std.com)
>
 
Nope.  I'm arguing for the best detectors possible, whether the search is for
helium or tritium or neutrons, whatever.  I just don't buy results when
300-second sampling is used, or when X-ray film is used instead of a decent
X-ray spectrometer.  Who are you guys trying to kid, Mitch?
 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Jim Bowery /  Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 01:14:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

simmons@rigel.neep.wisc.edu (Kim Simmons) writes:
>  Here at UW Madison we are about to take another theoretical/computational
> look at the thing. We have a Polywell device that should be coming on line
> early next year and that will be operated initially as a pure
> electrostatic device. Then we will turn on the cusp magnetic field. I am
> doing the computational (numerical simulation) part.
 
I've got a couple of problems with the Polywell device:
 
1) The main problem I see with the Polywell is that it didn't work
as well as Farnsworth's original pure EC device.
 
2) A close second is the relative difficulty of doing the a good
numeric model of the Polywell device compared to modeling Farnsworth's
pure EC device.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Jim Bowery /  Hirsch and History
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hirsch and History
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 01:14:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:

jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:
>
>jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>> jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
>> Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL writes:
>> >It's
>> >kind of funny to see Hirsch pushing his present point of view, when he
>> >was basically to father of the opposite point of view. He pushed the
>> >tokamak at the expense of alternatives (pinches, mirrors, and other
>> >obscure things),
>>
>> Yes, like electrostatic fusion.
>
>  Well, yes and no. The others were "contenders" at the time, things
>that were getting fairly substantial funds (as a fraction of the pie
>anyway). IEC was never funded by the AEC. Bromberg's book "Fusion" only
>mentions IEC in passing:
>
>    ... Hirsch had joined the Washington office [of CTR] in 1968, at
>    the age of 33. In that year, the Fort Wayne, Indiana, laboratory
>    of International Telephone and Telegraph, where Hirsch had been
>    supervising an exotic electrostatic confinement device designed by
>    television inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, had submitted a proposal
>    to the CTR Branch of the AEC Research Division. Bishop had
>    rejected the proposal, but he had recruited the project's energetic
>    young leader.
 
Yes, I've read as much of Bromberg's book as I can stomach, including
this section (which I agree with as far as it goes).  She misleads more
than informs by glossing over the most important points of the history.
It reads more like political advocacy than history to me.
 
>> This is where the history is interesting:
>>
>> How did Hirsch transit from an "outsider" with a device producing
>> billions of neutrons per second on a desktop to, in your words
>> "father the opposite point of view" in is role as Mr. Big "Tokamak"
>> Science?
>
>She goes on to say
>
>    Hirsch had come in time to join in the trip to the international
>    conference to Novosibirsk. The tokamak had immediately aroused his
>    interest, and he saw the results that the Russians were getting
>    as a major breakthrough. He had expected a strong, positive
>    reaction among Sherwood personnel returning from the conference.
>    Instead, to his mind, Bishop had been overcautious and too willing
>    to be ruled by Princeton, while Princeton's response was partly
>    "sour grapes" in the face of the stellarator's difficulties with
>    Bohm diffusion.
>
>> In that position, at that time, he had the public responsibility and
>> authority to force the issue of actual neutron production vs objections
>> to funding a "proof of concept" experiment to resolve the problem for
>> theorists posed by those neutrons.
>>
>> He failed to do so.  Why?
>
>  If the above is accurate, he believed that the tokamak was a better
>idea.  Why he didn't fund alternatives as high-risk, high payoff R&D
>projects, I don't know.
 
My patience is running out.
 
Characterizing a cheap, simple device that is producing huge neutron
fluxes as "high-risk" in the context of the Tokamak is political
sophistry aimed at justifying Hirsch's actions.  Hirsch knew it in
1968.  I don't know whether to ascribe your failure to admit it to
stupidity, political cowardice or some other agenda.
 
Get real or I'll cease responding to you.
 
Something more than mere "youthful energy" was going on with
Hirsch in 1968.  He was intimately involved with a device which he
now admits was and is superior to the Tokamak.  He had then, as he
does now, the strongest EVIDENCE for a potentially functional fusion
device.  Despite all this, when he was given authority over the
fusion program, all his "youthful energy" failed to get even one red
cent allocated to doing even the smallest scale, most preliminary
studies to understand how Farnsworth's device could be producing so
many neutrons.
 
This whole thing smells like a rotting corpse between the walls...
 
... and I'm starting to think it is Farnsworth's corpse.
 
Just another dead white male.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / BERNECKY R /  Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 01:15:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following presents a heuristic aurgument for how and why
a boson condensate can form within a lattice.
 
DEFINITIONS
 
*Proper State of Energy* and *Stationary State*
A quantum physical system cannot, in general, be characterized
by a unique value of the energy, but actually by an energy
spectrum.  In some very special cases it is possible to attribute
to a quantum physical system a well-defined energy, characterized
by a unique numerical value. In such cases, the system possesses
this particular energy "properly". [ proper values and proper states
are identified with eigenvalues and eigenstates]. For an energy
proper state, the spectral extension vanishes: deltaE= 0. This
implies that delta_T = infinity. Such a system has, therefore,
a characteristic evolution time of infinite duration, meaning
that it does not evolve, and hence that it exists in a *stationary
state*. [page 111]
 
*Proper State of Momentum*
For a quantum system to be in a proper state of momentum, i.e. to
have a unique and well-defined momentum (in a given direction), so
that delta_P=0, it must have an infinite characteristic dimension,
delta_X = infinity. This means that it has to be invariant under
spatial translations - identical to itself at all points in space.
[page 113]
 
*Bose-Einstein Condensation*
A collective state consisting of a large number of bosons, each
occupying the (identical) individual ground state. The phenomenon
of a macroscopic occupation of the individual state of minimum
energy is called 'Bose-Einstein condensation'. [page 476]
 
*Bosonic Wave Object*
A collective state consisting of a large number of identical
massive bosons each occupying identical individual states.
Specifically, the bosons considered are the neutral H atom,
the ionized D nucleus D+, the ionized D atom D-, and the neutral
T atom. This is just a simple extension of BE condensation
by allowing for high temperature i.e. non-ground states.
 
SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR BWO FORMATION
 
The creation of a BWO requires:
   1.1)  A large number of identical bosons e.g. H atoms
   1.2)  All bosons must be in identical individual states.
 
The second condition can be expanded to
   2.1) identical energy state (for all time).
   2.2) identical momentum state (for all space).
   2.3) identical spin state.
 
Condition 2.1 is a requirement that each boson be in (the same)
*stationary state* i.e. a *proper state* of energy.  Similarly,
condition 2.2 requires that each boson occupy (the same)
*proper state* of momentum.
 
 
OBTAINING A UNIQUE PROPER ENERGY STATE
 
A quanton constrained to remain localized inside a well will
have a quantized energy; it may occupy only a finite number of
discrete energy values - the proper values. This, for example,
is exactly the condition of electrons quantized to various
energy levels in their 'coulomb well'.  These energy levels correspond
(at least in the case of an isolated, infinitely deep potential well)
to multiples of one-half of the spatial wavelength: .5, 1, 1.5, etc.
Since space and momentum are fourier transform pairs, these waves
can be converted to momentum spectra, and the momentum related to energy
through E = p^2/2m.
 
However, a single well will not serve our purpose since the task is to
establish identical stationary states for a large number of bosons.  Thus,
we are led to consider a battlement, an alternation of N wells and barriers.
Consider a "battlement" of size N=2 i.e. a double well separated by a
barrier of width a.  If the barrier is not infinitely thick, any quanton
in "well one" may, with finite probability, tunnel into "well two". By
definition, the stationary wavefunction (which, upon taking the square of
its magnitude, describes the probability of finding the quanton at a particular
location) is constant over time.  That is, it may be viewed as a superposition
of the quanton in "well one" and the quanton in "well two".  The more easily it
is for the quanton to tunnel through the barrier, the more "appropriate" it
is to consider the stationary wavefunction a good description of the
situation.
 
Let's denote the energy levels of an isolated well as En, where n=0,1,2..,
Now, in the case of the double well, each energy level actually comprises
*two* energy levels: Ens = En- delta_E and Ena = En + delta_E, where Ens
refers to the *symmetric* wavefunction and Ena refers to the *anti-symmetric*
wavefunction.  If we center the two wells about x=0, then the symmetric
wavefunction is phi(x)= phi(-x); and the anti-symmetric is phi(x)= -phi(-x):
 
               *   |   *                         *
             *   * | *   *                     *   *
            *     *|*     *                   *     *|
          -------------------               -------------------
            well 1 | well 2                          |*     *
                                                     | *   *
                                                     |   *
                                              well 1 | well 2
      (1) symmetric phi(x)=phi(-x)      (2) anti-symmetric phi(x)= -phi(-x)
 
                          (half-wavelength per well)
 
Again, we note that the symmetric wavefunction sits at a slightly lower
energy level than the anti-symmetric wavefunction.  In the case of a
battlement with N wells, this concept generalizes to an "allowed energy
band". Where, in the case of a single isolated well there is one
stationary energy value En, there is now, in the case of N wells, N energy
values closely spaced about En.  These N levels, in the limit of large N,
form a band of allowed energies, and each band (corresponding to En, n=0,1..)
is separated by forbidden bands.
 
The lowest energy level in a band is the pure symmetric wavefunction. The
next highest level is the pure symmetric wavefunction in all the wells but
one, which has an anti-symmetric form.  The top of the energy band is the
pure anti-symmetric wavefunction.
 
To summarize, the battlement provides for an abundance of stationary energy
levels.  To select out *just one* of these levels, one is drawn to consider
the boundaries of the allowed energy bands. These bottom and top levels
offer the possibility of being preferentially filled by manipulating the
energy of the quantons.
 
 
OBTAINING A UNIQUE PROPER MOMENTUM STATE
 
Obviously, in view of our goal of achieving both a proper energy state and
a proper momentum state for a system of bosons, the proper momentum state
must be one of the previously identified stationary energy states.  In
particular, it must be one of the boundary energy levels; that is, either
the bottom or the top of an allowed energy band.
 
There are four candidate stationary energy levels to consider.  They are:
 
  1. odd multiple of half wavelength, symmetric waveform (see above).
  2. odd multiple of half wavelength, anti-symmetric waveform (see above).
  3. even multiple (i.e. integral wavelength), symmetric wave (see below).
  4. even multiple (i.e. integral wavelength), anti-symmetric wave (see below).
 
     **           |           **       (3)   integral wavelength
   *    *         |         *    *           symmetric wave phi(x)= phi(-x)
  *      *        |        *      *
 ------------------------------------
          *      *|*      *
           *    * | *    *
             **   |   **
 
 
     **           |   **                (4)  integral wavelength
   *    *         | *    *                   anti-symmetric phi(x)= -phi(-x)
  *      *        |*      *
 ------------------------------------
          *      *|        *      *
           *    * |         *    *
             **   |           **
 
First, note that to preserve the original stationary energy state we
require that the composite waveform be unchanged when two quantons swap
positions. Consider case (2) which would be ...up,down,up,down,up,down...
Upon swapping, we have ...up,down,down,up,up,down... This new wavefunction
is no longer a pure anti-symmetric waveform, and hence is now at a
different energy level.  Since the original energy state is not preserved,
we can, on this basis, rule out cases (2) and (3), which leaves cases
(1) and (4).
 
By inspection of the fourier transform (the momentum spectrum)
of cases (1) and (4), we find that only (4), the anti-symmetric, integral
wavefunction gives a very defined momentum value(s).  In fact, we find that
the momentum is:
 
        *        |         *
        *        |         *
        *        |         *
  -----------------------------------
                 |
That is, for infinite spatial extent (or, at least a few microns!), two dirac
impulses at +/- p, where p = h_bar k, and k = 2pi/lambda, lambda the wave
length.
 
Finally, we can invoke Bose-Einstein statistics to show that a system of
bosons in the above superposition of two proper momentum states will fall
into one or the other momentum state. The system "condenses" to form a BWO.
 
In summary, to maximize the formation of a condensate we should put the
system at an energy level corresponding to the *top* of the *integral*
wavelength energy band.
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
 
To promote a condensation effect for bosonic isotopes of H we should
optimize their "delocalization".  In other words, increase their
tunnelling probability between wells within a battlement. Ultimately,
this is a problem to be solved by material science/quantum chemistry.
But, in general, we want
    1) thin energy barriers;
    2) shallow (but > .02 ev) wells;
    3) operate at the higher energy levels of the well.
 
Item (3) is a bit counter-intuitive, since the natural thought is
that thermal noise and higher-frequency wavefunctions will conspire
to defeat condensation.  However, there is the countervailing increase
in the tunneling probability by the more energetic quanton. So, the
ground state energy levels may not be the optimum!
 
A FINAL QUESTION
 
Now, to put all of this on a quantitative basis, we need a reasonable
model of the Pd well.  For now I am using the following numbers:
 
    1) depth of well              0.3 ev (per Hagelstein)
    2) width of well+ barrier     2.85 A (source ?)
    3) width of barrier            ??
 
Does anyone have any data on the above items?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Rusty Perrin /       Fusion Digest 1725
     
Originally-From: U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Fusion Digest 1725
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 01:46:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I cast my vote for Scott's idea of having all items posted to multiple
newsgroups passed through a moderators screen, while stuff posted solely
to S.P.F. is passed straight through. It seems like that would
completely cure the recent (and not so recent) problems here without
undue restrictions on anyone. I would be inclined to generally let the
cross-posted stuff through without review also the majority of the time,
and only kick the moderation in when there is a clear problem with
off-topic stuff overwhelming the on-topic, as it did recently.
 
The cross-posting does seems to be dying down, though, so perhaps we
don't have to worry about it until next time.
 
Rusty
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenU7584RT cudfnRusty cudlnPerrin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Frontiers of Science??
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frontiers of Science??
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:14:10 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <01H5S0BGZ8RMHV29M5@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> I have just checked the latest Chem. Abstracts, and it's full of abstracts of
> papers in a thing called Front. Sci. Ser. (Frontiers of Cold Fusion). Does
> anyone out there know what this is? Is it a journal, or maybe a conference
> proceedings? It looks a bit like a series, perhaps not connected with any
> conference. But before I make the effort to get the largish number of papers
> from it, I want to make sure it's a proper, refereed, publication.
>
> Thanks for the information, and have a nice weekend.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 
It is, as you guessed, a conf. proceedings  --  from the Third Int. Conf. on
Cold Fusion held Oct 21-25, 1992, at Nagoya.  It's not a properly refereed
publication  -- papers were not even re-typeset from the contributions from
what I can tell.
 
Here is an interesting admission from the editor, H. Ikegami:
 
"There is still no evidence to prove that the heat produced is nuclear in
origin."  (page iv.)
 
Take note, Jed, Mitch and Eugene!  He's right.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Len Evens /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 30 Nov 1993 15:00:27 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Dept. of Mathematics

In article <peter_butler.its_2_po-301193114458@mac87a4.itc.com.au>
peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler) writes:
>
>________________________________________________________________
>In article <2d0apoINN10st@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@uts.ipp-garchin
.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Demonstrate this. I dispute it. All that is needed is to move away from
>> fossil fuel power by replacing old power plants with new fission ones.
>> The time scale on which we need to do this is of order a power plant
>> lifetime anyway. The point is, to start now so that we can do a medium-
>> term job in the medium term, and not as a hysterical crash program.
>>
>> Hysteria like you are raising is not at all helpful.
>>
>> BTW, it seems to me that a certain population of environmentalists is
>> going to get their sincerity tested: in the long run, it is not very
>> ecophilic to oppose reflexively the very thing which can rather painlessly
>> remove the risks of global warming, is it?
>>
>> --
>Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
>which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
>techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2?  Surely it is better to
>look at areas like solar power, energy efficiency, wind power, etc.  If
>funding to these areas matched funding for nuclear research, they would be
>far more viable options than they are at the moment.
>
>I for one will not accept nuclear energy as clean, particularly in the
>light of the extended and wide ranging effect of "accidents" like
>Chernobyl.  "whoops, sorry, all the milk in Eastern Europe is radioactive,
>sorry for the inconvenience, normal service will be resumed shortly.  I
>think compared to that, even global warming doesn't sound so bad.
 
 
Unfortunately, whether or not nuclear power is needed is a question
of numbers and also what is practical from a technological and
economic point of view.   Unlike the hard core proponents of nuclear
power, I don't believe that nuclear power will become simple and cheap
once all the radical opponents die off.   So nuclear power will be one
option out of many, but it will likely be an essential option.   Doing
it all with solar power, energy efficiency, wind power, etc. does
not seem to me to add up to enough reduction in fossil fuel emissions
to avoid the use of nuclear power.   People who are concerned about
nuclear power safety should address issues of making it as safe as
possible rather than opposing it in any and all circumstances.
 
Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlen cudfnLen cudlnEvens cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Russ Brown /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 15:46:33 GMT
Organization: WINCO

In article <peter_butler.its_2_po-301193114458@mac87a4.itc.com.au>,
 
>Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
>which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
>techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2?
 
The writer appears to be unaware that 45 years of detailed research
conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima has
found _no_ evidence of genetic effects in the descendants of the
survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs (See publications of
Schull et al).  In any event, the "waste", such as it is, would not
cause the aforementioned "mutations" if they could occur.
 
>Surely it is better to
>look at areas like solar power, energy efficiency, wind power, etc.  If
>funding to these areas matched funding for nuclear research, they would be
>far more viable options than they are at the moment.
>
This appears to be a statement of faith rather than fact.  Certainly
energy efficiency is desirable, and should be pursued with appropriate
vigor.  But the limitations of solar and wind power are fundamental as
opposed to technological.
 
You can multiply the research funding by any amount you want.  Solar and
wind power are not capable of providing base-load power for the U.S..
If they were, the environmental impacts of the required implementation
could be frightening.  Sacrifices, anyone?
 
Would it be presumptuous to guess that Mr. Butler believes the electric
vehicles are essentially zero-emission devices?
 
russ
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenruss cudfnRuss cudlnBrown cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  News blurb on Bockris: taking heat for transmutation claims
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News blurb on Bockris: taking heat for transmutation claims
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 15:28:09 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
About two weeks ago a local Dallas news station (KRLD) mentioned
Dr. Bockris as being in trouble for accepting funds for research in
transmutation of mercury to gold.
 
Does anyone know what is going on?  What exactly is Dr. Bockris claiming,
and who is funding him?  What is the status of this controversy?
 
Can anyone from Dr. Brockris' laboratory or university comment?
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- John Logajon: Thanks for the interesting comments on the SciAm
        article on sonoluminescence.  You might want to compare one set of
        comments (by a Dr. Crum?) on the probable importance of extremely
        high symmetry in the cavitation process with comments posted in
        this group about a year ago, in particular my own arguments about
        the importance of extremely high spherical symmetry in a postulated
        process of "ultra cavitation."
 
        I have debated sending SciAm a letter over that one.
 
P.P.S - Dick Blue:  What's new about "total" theories?  The Twist farfetch
        was from the beginning an invocation of a very serious but highly
        localized violation of standard QM that leads to _both_ energy
        conversion and complete nullification of the branching problem
        (no fusion!).  Thus such an idea is hardly "new" at this point in
        the game.  Nor is such an idea particularly relevent to anything
        I can think of in the absence of massively reproducible production
        of huge levels of non-chemical heat, which I don't recall seeing.
        Thus I'm very bored with my own ideas, even though I remain flatly
        confident that any _real_ heat would require _at least_ the level
        of utterly astronomical QM violation I postulated in Twist.
 
P^3.S - Chuck Sites:  Well, yes, I too would be delighted if there _did_
        turn out to be a neat twist on collective QM that permits something
        surprising to pop out.  But alas, I don't see it, although I'm still
        going over some interesting materials on it.  I'll try to post more
        on such issues later if I have time.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenterry cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: 30 Nov 1993 16:15:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Nov29.180834.1143@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
 
>When I gave Hegelstein this paper, he told me that the momentum-conservation
>arguments reached him; he told me he "saw the guillotine blade dropping."
>I don't think he believes the Preparata "lattice-heating" line anymore.
 
If this says what I think it does (that Hegelstein never bothered considering
conservation of momentum until someone else told him about it), then the
mind simply has to boggle.  After all, the guy is supposed to be this hotshot
physicist.
 
                                        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / steven jaume /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: jaume@ldgo.columbia.edu (steven jaume)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 16:42:06 GMT
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

In article <CHAuIB.BvG@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
[material deleted]
 
>
> The only effect that the possibility of global warming should
> having is to vastly reduce the biomass*  and to accelerate the
> extinction rate of species.  Africans are starving by the hundreds
> but they probably don't count much because they aren't yet on
> the endangered species list.
>
> The need for action????      Sorry Leonardo -- you're too late.
>
> **Compare to the heyday of biomass  ---  the CARBONaceous period.
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                               ????????????
>
>                       Only Fusion can pump enough
>                              CO2 back into
>                             the atmosphere
>                           to save the planet.
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
> | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
> | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
Paul, you seem to have an assumption that increased CO2 will lead to increased
biomass (more species?).  I don't believe this is necessarily true.  I'm not a
biologist/paleontologist, but from lurking in talk.origins and talking to
friends who are biologists/paleontologists I've gotten the impression that
any *rapid* environmental change will lead to an increased rate of extinction
(*rapid* in this context means faster than a species can adapt).  If you are
assuming that increased CO2 == increased biomass, please state what you are
basing this on.
 
On another topic, the extensive coal-bearing beds of Carboniferous age do not
mean that the biomass in the Carboniferous was greater than at any other time;
only that the right geologic conditions existed for both its initial preserva-
tion and preservation up to the present.
 
Steven C. Jaume'
Renegade Seismologist from the 8th Dimension
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjaume cudfnsteven cudlnjaume cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 16:28:44 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <CHAws6.C4B@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <1993Nov23.223544.26018@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>         ..    .   .     Do we wait for 100% consensus within the
>>relevent scientific community to take research results seriously?
>
>The results are not complete and therefore are not predictive.
>They should not be used as "RESULTS".  They are not.  They are
>intermediate data, which has little correlation with "results"
>from a complete and therefore predictive study.
>
>A person goes for a medical checkup has elevated liver enzymes
>often indicative of kidney or liver cancer.  The  MD  orders
>massive radiation and chemotherapy which iself destroys the person's
>quality of and quantity of life.   The radiation can also act as
>a source for future cancers.  All this happens before complete
>studies are made and the MD runs other more definitive tests
>which isolate the problem to a diabetic condition and fatty
>liver,
 
This is an inappropriate analogy.  It sounds like the doctor has
established and verified procedures to follow up the intermediate
results.  What is intermediate results indicate the possibility of a
disease but this cannot be verified. If you actually do have the disease,
it could get worse (harder to cure) before its existence can be positively
shown.  Isn't rabies treatment something like this?  I think it used to
be.  You must choose whether to take a difficult procedure or hope that
you don't have the disease.  It is a tough choice based on the cost (to
health and pocketbook) of the treatment, the likelihood of having the
disease, and its possible effects.  I am not saying you have to get the
treatment, just that you have to decide whether to get the treatment.
Even if one believes that it will be easier to stop climate change at a
later date (a better cure might be found for the disease), this is not
known for sure.  The point is that you have to decide NOW whether to
get the treatment.
>
>There is a huge down side to keeping the CO2 levels lower than
>what supports optimal global biomass.  More plant life will act
>to cool the planet as opposed to less (urban/desert/badlands
>heating scenario).  A mosdest increase in CO2 could have a large
>effect in extending biomass groundcover from peripolar to peripolar
>region... assuming we get some bias warming toward the polar regions.
>Incidentally all of these interactive CO2 effects have to be taken
>into consideration  or the study is trivial as is the current
>status (regardless of its regard by ....  . they all come in
>boxes with ribbons and  bows -- they all are so similar you know
>they think just so.. )
 
What is the _optimal_ global biomass?  Do you claim to know?  Do you
know for sure that increased CO2 will increase biomass in the absence
of other plant nutrients?  What if greater warming in the higher
latitudes decreases albedo?
>
 
--
 -- Dean Myerson        (dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Donald Locker /  Re: Semi-Moderated Group
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Semi-Moderated Group
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 14:55:57 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <931129134247.238080c9@fnald.fnal.gov>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>John Logajan points out that what I want to do is not possible.  I now propose
>that we switch over to a semi-moderated group.  This would be set up like a
 
What I have taken to doing is simply killing all posts which are
cross-posted to any other newsgroup.
 
For trn:
/\,/cHNewsgroups:j
 
For rn, this should work:
/Newsgroups: .*\,/h:j
 
I suspect I lose a few real posts, but the noise reduction is
sufficient to warrant it.
--
Donald.                      |  Coffee, Donuts, Scotch and Maalox(TM)
Opinions? sure they're mine. |  The sys admins' four major food groups.
Who else would claim 'em?    |  (apologies to _Duffy_)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Donald Locker /  The wick problem (was Re: Heat Pipe Questions)
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The wick problem (was Re: Heat Pipe Questions)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 15:17:28 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <931129170346.238080c9@fnald.fnal.gov>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>Open note to Robert Eachus on Heat Pipes                  29 Nov 1993
>
>I hope we are all interested in this as it is a fun topic, and quite
>useful to all who are trying to move heat around.
>
 
In a previous thread, related to the heat pipe construction, the
subject of the wick (amount and composition) was discussed.  I got the
impression from that thread that the wick was disfavored (I think my
vocabulary is suffering from too much talking-to-the-computer :(.)
 
In any case, the ME in me says you need some wick to return the
condensed liquid from the cold surface (the outer wall of the heat
pipe) to the hot surface.  The vapour will readily move from hot to
cold, but the liquid (there must be some liquid, or you won't get any
heat pipe effect; depends upon working fluid phase change to work)
doesn't want to go back.  If you would rather resolve this in e-mail,
let me know.
 
And keep it up.  I am a vicarious participant.
--
Donald.                      |  Coffee, Donuts, Scotch and Maalox(TM)
Opinions? sure they're mine. |  The sys admins' four major food groups.
Who else would claim 'em?    |  (apologies to _Duffy_)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / James Crotinger /  Re: Progress?
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Progress?
Date: 30 Nov 93 17:21:30 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> Now for the good news;  The mirror gets about 2 million a year
> at LLNL to keep it preserved (in moth balls).  It was completed
> but never tested, because they finally had to do something since
> they (not admitted openly) knew it wouldn't work.
 
  Aside from occupying floor space, I don't believe that the mirror
program here has received any funding for years.
 
  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:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 30 Nov 93 16:46:07 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <2debro$kad@moose.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> raoul@cssc-syd.tansu
com.au (Raoul Golan) writes:
......
>(The Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 30, 1993)
>
>Rome, Monday:  Two scientists who sparked a furore
>with claims of nuclear fusion in a test tube -
>promising unlimited, cheap energy - said yesterday
>that a household power plant using the method was
>possible by 2000.
..........
............
>But Professor Pons said yesterday: "The technology
>for a small device, enough for a household, is there.
>I don't see why it coudn't be done in the next six
>years.
 
 
 
 
Let's see if I have this right.  In 1991, they said they would have a
household water heater available (at least a prototype) in '92.  Now
they are saying a small device might be done in '00.  At this rate, in
'00 they will be saying it will be done in '50.
 
 
In any case, they won't be around to know whether they were right or
not.
 
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Meyer hydrogen patent -- problems?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meyer hydrogen patent -- problems?
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 20:13:59 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
 
> series resonant LC circuit.  When the inductive and capacitive reactance
> are equal in a series resonant circuit, (at resonance) the circuit has a
> low impedance and would, in my mind, optimize current flow, as well as gas
> production, in the circuit.
 
The problem is with the series diode.
 
> As far as the diode getting in the way,  wouldn't it be necessary to rectify
> the ac into pulsed DC, which would ensure that the evolved gas stream is not
> reversed (mixed) each half cycle?
 
The diode as Meyer has it does just that.  The problem is that the diode
as he has placed it in the circuit prevents oscillation.  I have a mechanical
analogy that should show why this diode prevents oscillation.
 
Imagine a clock pendulum.  Back and forth it oscillates.  Timed impulses
make it go higher each time.   Now we add a "diode" -- a one way rachet
mechanism on the pendulum so it can swing one way but not back the other.
Needless to say, oscillation will stop dead in its tracks.  The kinetic
energy of the oscillation will be held as potential energy in the raised
pendulum position.
 
In the Meyer circuit case, this held potential energy will be the electric
charge on the capacitor.
 
Can their still be oscillation in the Meyer circuit?  Yes, what one might
call parasitic oscillation.  The water-capacitor might have waveguide,
resonant cavity effects, but of course, these would be very high frequency
and would be uneffected by the external inductors.  And the external
inductors all have interwinding self-capacitance, which again will result
in very high frequency oscillations (internal to the inductors.)
 
It is not likely, however, that such behavior in the external inductors is
what Meyer is seeking, I can't say for sure about the resonant cavity
effect, however.
 
> As for your suggested parallel resonant configuration, assuming that
> Meyers process relies on some resonance effect, wouldn't the parallel
> resonant circuit actually reduce current flow at resonance and reduce the
> gas production?
 
Basically all resonant circuits are of the form:
 
    __R__
    |    |
    C    L
    |____|
 
So from the point of view of the C dielectric, "parallel" or "serial"
resonance doesn't mean anything  To external "R" effects, it means
a lot.
 
It's hard to say what Meyer intended since his rectified circuit prevents
oscillation in any case.  But we can get his claimed "rising staircase
potential" with a resonance superimposed by using the circuit I suggested
in my previous post.
 
> By the way, what is the frequency of the signal he is applying to the
> transformer?
 
For some reason 20khz sticks in my mind, but I forget and don't have the
references handy.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Non topic postings
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non topic postings
Date: 30 Nov 93 10:18:16 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <931129131645.238080c9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> OK, I have had it.  ...
> I vote to "kill" the thread on "Global Warming - CO2 and the like".
>
> Tom Droege
>
Amen!
--
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencollins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Michael Tobis /  cancel <1993Nov30.183309.9305@cs.wisc.edu>
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: cancel <1993Nov30.183309.9305@cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 93 19:30:35 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Michael Tobis /  Re: Non topic postings
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non topic postings
Date: 30 Nov 93 19:40:24 GMT
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences

In article <1993Nov30.101816.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>, collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
|> In article <931129131645.238080c9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
|> > OK, I have had it.  ...
|> > I vote to "kill" the thread on "Global Warming - CO2 and the like".
 
Sorry. There's history to it being here which I won't bother you with.
 
I've just cancelled my recent transgressions and will repost them to the
appropriate groups only. I neglected to edit the newsgroups line.
 
Note that these are being crossposted, usually inadvertently. Complaining
in sci.phys.fus won't help: the participants in the discussion won't see
your complaints as they don't read this group. Gentle email reminders
(thanks to those who sent me some) will be more effective.
 
My apologies.
 
mt
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Michael Tobis /  cancel <1993Nov30.180334.7331@cs.wisc.edu>
     
Originally-From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: cancel <1993Nov30.180334.7331@cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 93 19:31:11 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentobis cudfnMichael cudlnTobis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Lou Wainwright /  Re: Electrostatic Confinement
     
Originally-From: wainwl@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Lou P. Wainwright)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Electrostatic Confinement
Date: 30 Nov 1993 20:39:43 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA

In article <jac.754644202@gandalf>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>simmons@rigel.neep.wisc.edu (Kim Simmons) writes:
>>  Here at UW Madison we are about to take another theoretical/computational
>> look at the thing. We have a Polywell device that should be coming on line
>> early next year and that will be operated initially as a pure
>> electrostatic device. Then we will turn on the cusp magnetic field. I am
>> doing the computational (numerical simulation) part.
>
>  Please keep us apprised. Bussard mentioned that the device was going
>to UW Madison during his talk here earlier this year. Then Hirsch
>mentioned it the other day and said that there was much interest in
>getting the experiment going. In spite of apparent enthusiam, I got
>the impression that the funding situation was not clear.
>
>  Jim
>
 
I'll attempt to clear up the situation.  Currently here at UW-Madison
we have the Polywell test device that was constructed by DTI.  It is
currently disassembled.  We are looking for funding for a 3/4 year
project to reassemble the device and to pick up where Bussard/Krall et. al.
left off.
 
In an effort to learn more about the IEC phenomina we are currently building
a small IEC device similar to Hirsch's original experiment.  It is being
funded by EPRI and it's primary purpose is to look for evidence of core
convergence and to look at measureing the core density by a number of methods
other than neutron detection.
 
Assuming we find decent evidence of a reasonable degree of core convergence
we will use the small experiment as a proof-of-principle device to justify
funding for the assembly and operation of the Polywell device.
 
I'm currently working on building and operating the small device, so feel
free to ask me any questions.
 
Lou Wainwright
wainwrig@cae.wisc.edu
Grad Student/Fusion Technology Institute
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenwainwl cudfnLou cudlnWainwright cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Al Boehnlein /  Re: Semi-Moderated Group
     
Originally-From: ajb@iti.org (Al Boehnlein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Semi-Moderated Group
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 00:49:27 GMT
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute

 
I would like to see a sci.physics.fusion.news group which would filter out
99% of the articals, but keep me informed of the progress of fusion, both
hot and cold.
 
ajb
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenajb cudfnAl cudlnBoehnlein cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 07:23:27 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
   I'm probably going to to get myself in some hot water here, and
demonstrate my ignorance on the subject.  Still I think there is room to
explore in the question of a Mossbauer *type* effect in deuterated metals.
Please correct if I go astray...
 
>In fact, I have published "theory, formulae [and] evidence" that Mitch
>requests, in my 1992 paper:  "Current issures in cold fusion research:  heat,
>helium, tritium, and energetic particles," Surface and Coatings Tech.,
>_51_ (1992) 283-289.  Moreover, I have quoted from this paper here on the net
>before.  I have not ducked the issue, the open-minded reader will see.
 
>In this paper, I reviewed --and then rejected-- the notion advanced by
>Preparata and others (including Mitch) that a Mossbauer-like effect could
>account for "lattice-heating" accompanied by low-energy helium or tritium
>production.  To quote from the published paper:
 
>Mossbauer effect                        Lattice-heating notion
 
>Of order 10 keV energy                  Of order 1-10 MeV energy
 
>Excited nucleus lifetime approx. 10^-7s  Excited He nucleus approx. 10^-22s
 
>Negligible energy transfer to lattice    Enormous energy transfer to lattice/
>  (essentially momentum transfer only)   collective "superradiant" state of
>                                         electrons (Preparata's notion) {MeV}
>                                         How can momentum be conserved?
 
>Approx. 1% of gammas at best experience  Non-observance of sufficient energetic
>Mossbauer effect                         particles by orders of magnitude
>                                         requires approx. 100% of nuclear
>                                         reactions to transmit energy to
>                                         lattice
 
>Momentum and energy conservation require that most of the energy must go to the
>lighter particle.  This is the case in the Mossbauer effect where a gamma
>recoils against a massive lattice.  But then the "heat" does not go to the
>lattice, but rather to the emitted particle!  "Lattice-heating" advocates make
>the assertion that the lattice is heated while the lighter alpha or triton
>produced in the nuclear reaction carries very little energy.  Sorry, gentlemen,
>this violates momentum conservation, and is the antithesis of the Mossbauer
>effect!
 
   Ok. Good argument Steve.  First I agree, the metal alone is not
going to do the magic. However, here is where I think the situation of
a deuterated is different from a normal type Mossbauer effect.  First,
as I've argued for quite sometime (as others have), D in metals can
form band states that are both like and unlike the band state of
electrons in metals. That is easy to prove. Just do a Kronig-Penny
model for D in a periodic potential. The really interesting effects
should comes about when the deuterons are acting in a collective nature
visa the Bose-Einstien statistics.  This does require the deuterons
quantum wave function to overlap in momentum space within the metal.
Sound familiar? Obviously I would atack the problem from the point of
view of that there is a Bose condensation of the deuterons in the
metal.  That effect, right there, gives one the overlap in momentum
space for absorbtion of the recoil of the emmitting nucleus. I believe
Chubb calculated a lot of this. If I recall a chain of about 200 D
ions could pick up such a recoil/emmision in his D+ bose band theory.
(which IMHO is one of the best theories proposed on CF from a
fundamental quantum statistical point of view).
 
  Metals are probably one obvious examples of how a multibody quantum
systems of fermi particles operates.  The introduction of multiple
D ion state particles into the some metals (like the transition groups)
I think causes some of the most interesting question from a quantum
statistics point of view.  At a loading of near 0.7D/Pd and above,
the deuterum should be in a state of condensation.  Real world
meassurements may be different.  And as I've argued in the past,
condensation implies the wave function overlap of the particles
in momentum space.  As Terry & Robert have already argued, the spin
on the D wave function in a condensate should alter the interaction.
As we all know spin has the ultimate say in the branching ratios.
Well, that and the time held in the interaction which a condensate
would have.
 
   Mossbauer works two ways.  The emmision and absorbtion of gamma
on a nucleus.  When a gamma photon is emmited or absorbed by a
particle, the particle is recoiled by a momentum = E_gamma/c, which
simultaniously induces a state change in the nucleus (maybe). I
say maybe because while the interaction of nucleus state change
is definate, it's interaction with the electromagnetic wave is
not.  In fact, the later is effected by the motion of the nucleus,
and even more so by spread of the particle's momentum in space.
So now consider the problem recoiling partical in a system where
multiple particles are overlaping in momentum space as would be in
a condensate. The recoil is absorbed and the emmision is spread
and defocused.  Over a large number of particles it should be
just a blur of energy in momentum space.
 
The Del E Del t >= hbar situation reuires a quite different
statement when the gausians are overlaped as I'm sure your
aware of.
 
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.coplex.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 07:41:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9311302213.AA21471@suntan.tandem.com>,
BERNECKY WILLIAM R <BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil> wrote:
>The following presents a heuristic aurgument for how and why
>a boson condensate can form within a lattice.
...
>
>SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR BWO FORMATION
>
>The creation of a BWO requires:
>   1.1)  A large number of identical bosons e.g. H atoms
>   1.2)  All bosons must be in identical individual states.
>
>The second condition can be expanded to
>   2.1) identical energy state (for all time).
>   2.2) identical momentum state (for all space).
>   2.3) identical spin state.
 
     Okay, but in a lattice at, say T=293K, these bosons cannot
     be in the same state.  For one thing, you cannot constrain
     the lattice to be rigid.  For another, momentum and energy
     are spread all about the place at such temperatures.
 
>However, a single well will not serve our purpose since the task is to
>establish identical stationary states for a large number of bosons.  Thus,
>we are led to consider a battlement, an alternation of N wells and barriers.
>Consider a "battlement" of size N=2 i.e. a double well separated by a
>barrier of width a.  If the barrier is not infinitely thick, any quanton
>in "well one" may, with finite probability, tunnel into "well two".
 
     The 'well' in this case is so shallow that the 'boson's
     translate fairly easily.  You're left with basically a continuum.
     The atoms sitting in the interstitial sites are moving
     and vibrating around, and the atoms in the lattice are moving
     and vibrating around.
 
>To promote a condensation effect for bosonic isotopes of H we should
>optimize their "delocalization".  In other words, increase their
>tunnelling probability between wells within a battlement. Ultimately,
>this is a problem to be solved by material science/quantum chemistry.
>But, in general, we want
>    1) thin energy barriers;
>    2) shallow (but > .02 ev) wells;
 
     It seems to me that this is just what you don't want, it
     provides no constraint on the available energies.
 
                          dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 00:05:35 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:
 
>In <dhalliwe.754354305@shadow> David Halliwell writes:
>>
>>   Yes we do have global warming. Approximately 0.5C over the last 100
>>years. Entirely consistent with the predictions of response to increased
>>atmospheric CO2.
 
>  Is the data sufficiently reliable to make the assertion ?? 100yrs is
>an awfully short time span, what makes you think this is a continuing
>trend, rather than an aberration ??
>>
 
   My original statement says *nothing* about it being a continuing trend!
You are definitely reading something into it that was not stated.
 
   It has warmed by 0.5C over the last 100 years. The warming has *not*
been a smooth linear one, but rather an irregular one.
 
   Possible interpretations:
 
   a)  small variations imposed on top of a gradual increase due to CO2
 
   b)  larger variations imposed on a zero trend, with no increase due to
       CO2.
 
   c)  something else.
 
   Extrapolating the observed warming to the future and claiming
further warming due to CO2 requires selecting option (a) from above. I
carefully avoided doing that in the original post: I said that (a) was
only one of several possible explanations. Vis-a-vis my next paragraph
from the original post:
 
>>   What we do *not* have is certainty that this warming is actually caused
>>by the CO2 increases. Superimposed on that warming trend are shorter-term
>>warming and cooling periods of similar magnitude. There are also several
>>other physical processes which could be causing the longer term trend. As
>>a result, the trend neither supports nor refutes CO2-induced climate
>>change theories: it is inconclusive.
> A fact that is rarely mentioned in popular debate ..
 
   Well, we're discussing the science here :-) I provide the same
information to people that say "CO2 has caused warming" as I do to the
people that claim "there has been no warming".
 
[deletia]
 
>>   Fairly basic physics says that increasing the concentration of
>>atmospheric gases which absorb infrared radiation *will* lead to higher
>>surface temperatures. There is great debate as to how much warming will
>>occur (best estimate 1.5-4.5C), and there are a number of feedback
>>mechanisms which *might* reduce the direct warming effect (but also might
>>enhance it; they are *uncertainties*), but warming *should* happen.
> Should is a far cry from will. Essentially you're repeating the
>argument that says that our best models predict global warming, this
>is where the discussion started.
 
   No I am not. I am saying that our *simplest* models predict warming.
"Our best" is a rather subjective term, but let's just say that our more
*complex* models also predict warming. Given that they include a lot that
the simple models leave out, I would hope that they are better, but we
need a fairly rigorous description of how we define "better".
 
[deletia]
 
>>   Yes it does. Howver, simple physics leads us to expect warming. The
>>models are a complex effort to find out how a complex system will respond
>>to the simple change. Would it help if I explained the simple physics
>>aspects? (I am asking seriously: not tongue-in-cheek.)
>  I wouldn't mind some backup to the idea that this is in the domain of
>'simple physics'.
 
  I posted a more detailed discussion yesterday. If you don't find it, let
me know and I'll email it.
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / David Halliwell /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dhalliwe@shadow.geog.ualberta.ca (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 00:41:26 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
 
>In article <CHAws6.C4B@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>
[a description of chemotherapy killing someone before cancer is confirmed]
 
>This is an inappropriate analogy.  It sounds like the doctor has
>established and verified procedures to follow up the intermediate
>results.  What is intermediate results indicate the possibility of a
>disease but this cannot be verified. If you actually do have the disease,
>it could get worse (harder to cure) before its existence can be positively
>shown.  Isn't rabies treatment something like this?
 
    The last I heard, there had been only a *single* case where someone
that had developed a full-blown case of rabies has survived. Rabies is
generally considered to be a 100% fatal disease.
 
    When you are bitten by a suspected rabid animal, rabies *vaccinations*
are started immediately. If you wait to test the animal (if you can find
it), you are likely to contract the disease. When the results arrive, it
is too late to do anything.
 
>  I think it used to
>be.  You must choose whether to take a difficult procedure or hope that
>you don't have the disease.  It is a tough choice based on the cost (to
>health and pocketbook) of the treatment, the likelihood of having the
>disease, and its possible effects.  I am not saying you have to get the
>treatment, just that you have to decide whether to get the treatment.
 
   ...and I think the rabies analogy is a more reasonable one for global
warming.
 
>Even if one believes that it will be easier to stop climate change at a
>later date (a better cure might be found for the disease), this is not
>known for sure.  The point is that you have to decide NOW whether to
>get the treatment.
>>
 
    ...and we will have to continue to make further decisions through
time, as more information becomes available. (This could be either to
increase, decrease, or keep constant any mitigative measures we are
taking.) I don't think we will *ever* have a "complete" answer in the
sense that some people are using the term.
 
[biomass stuff deleted]
 
--
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendhalliwe cudfnDavid cudlnHalliwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Non topic postings
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non topic postings
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 02:17:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

I vote Yea to killing the Global Warming thread on this conference.
 
One would think that it would have died out, but no, some horses
patoot had to cross post so that every 'informed' writer can put
his two bits onto a conference he doesn't attend.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Cold Fusion Water Heaters
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Water Heaters
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 02:26:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Well, here we are, nearing the end of the year and The Water Heater
promised us (then backed off on) by Jed Rothwell is nowhere to be
seen.
 
Is it possible that Jed really meant that the water heater would be here
by the end of the century and not the end of the year?
 
Or maybe he meant that there wouldn't be any Water Heater at all because
none of us is anywhere as worthy as the Japanese who are so successfully
studying Cold Nuclear Fusion.
 
So, where are the Japanese getting their hot water this new year?
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: 1 Dec 1993 03:03:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

BERNECKY WILLIAM R (BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil) wrote:
: SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR BWO FORMATION
 
: The creation of a BWO requires:
:    1.1)  A large number of identical bosons e.g. H atoms
:    1.2)  All bosons must be in identical individual states.
 
Remember that the overall wavefunction is a product of individual
wavefunctions of single particles in the lattice backround only when the
particles have no mutual interaction.
 
The fact that in solid state this is approximately true for electrons (free
electron gas model) despite their mutual electrostatic interaction is a
fortuitious result of many circumstances.  And this approximation breaks
down high frequencies & energies.
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 30 Nov 93 13:22:12 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2debro$kad@moose.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>,
raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Raoul Golan) writes:
>
> Here's something I found in today's paper.
> I thought that since no-one could duplicate the
> results of Pons-Fleischmann, the issue of cold
> fusion was dead.  Obviously, I was wrong.
>
>
> --------------
>
> N Energy for Home Forecast
>
> (The Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 30, 1993)
>
> Rome, Monday:  Two scientists who sparked a furore
> with claims of nuclear fusion in a test tube -
> promising unlimited, cheap energy - said yesterday
> that a household power plant using the method was
> possible by 2000.
>
> Professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
> triggered worldwide controversy in 1990 by saying
> they had harnessed fusion, the energy of the stars,
> with a simple and cheap apparatus.
>
> Their findings astounded nuclear scientists who had
> spent billions of dollars trying to harness nuclear
> fusion.  Scientists were unable to reproduce the
> experiments.
>
> But Professor Pons said yesterday: "The technology
> for a small device, enough for a household, is there.
> I don't see why it coudn't be done in the next six
> years.
>
>
> --
> raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au  | "...  And don't apologize.  Every time I try
> (Raoul Golan)                | to talk to someone it's sorry this and forgive
>                              | me that and I'm not worthy and ..."
>                              | -  God to Arthur, M.P. & T.H.G.
 
A similar article appeared on the *front page* of The Salt Lake Tribune,
29 Nov 1993.  In our paper, however, a photo of Fritz Will is shown, with the
name "Martin Fleischmann" below it!
 
It is true then that Pons is still promising a small "household" device based
on cold fusion.  But I remind potential investors of an earlier article
in a Salt Lake newspaper (Deseret News) that appeared over *four* years ago:
 
"Hot-water device percolates in Pons' lab  (July 8, 1989)
A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water
requirements of an average home is already  percolating in the
lab of B. Stanley Pons.
'It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it
certainly could provide them with hot water year-round,' said Pons,
who said he's always believed that the practical application of cold fusion
could happen this fast. [etc.]"
 
This claim was dropped by March 1990 when I asked Stan about it.  One should
note that this dramatic claim in July 1989 was followed by a $5 million gift
from the state of Utah less than two weeks later.
Seems like deja vu all over again.  (Or better, deja gnu:  a strange beast
we've seen before.)
 
Oh, by the way, was that "hot water" as in radioactive?  Just wondering.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / John Logajan /  Bootstrap uudecode for MSDOS
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bootstrap uudecode for MSDOS
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 07:46:40 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

  ***************************
  *                         *
  *  Attention   Attention  *
  *                         *
  ***************************
 
Enclosed is a MSDOS type BASIC program that when run, builds an MSDOS
executable program called uudecode.com
 
You only need run the BASIC program once to create the MSDOS executable
version of uudecode.com.  Thereafter, you run uudecode.com on uuencoded
binary data to return it to its raw binary form.  This is an essential
step for the passing of executable programs and compressed data, including
GIF pictures.
 
Documentation is included at the end of this listing.
 
100 REM - BASIC PROGRAM TO CREATE UUDECODE.COM v2.0 (a fast uudecoder)
105 REM UUDECODE.BAS created by w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen)
110 CLS:PRINT "Creating UUDECODE.COM.  See UUDECODE.DOC for instructions."
115 OPEN "UUDECODE.COM" AS #1 LEN = 1
120 FIELD #1, 1 AS A$: CHECKSUM#=0
130 FOR I = 1 TO    73
140  LINESUM#=0: LOCATE 2,3: PRINT "Countdown: "    73 - I ;
150  FOR J = 1 TO  16: READ BYTE$: CHECKSUM#=CHECKSUM#+VAL("&H"+BYTE$)
160   LINESUM#=LINESUM#+VAL("&H"+BYTE$)
170   IF (BYTE < 256) THEN LSET A$=CHR$(VAL("&H"+BYTE$)): PUT #1
180  NEXT J
190  READ LINETOT$: LINECHECK# = VAL("&H"+LINETOT$)
200  IF LINECHECK# = LINESUM# THEN GOTO 220
210  LOCATE 4,2: PRINT "Error in line #"  ;  260 +  10 * I: GOTO 260
220 NEXT I
230 CLOSE: READ FILETOT$ : FILECHECK# = VAL(FILETOT$)
240 IF CHECKSUM# <> FILECHECK# THEN GOTO 260
250 PRINT: PRINT "UUDECODE.COM created successfully": SYSTEM
260 PRINT: PRINT "UUDECODE.COM is not valid!": END
270 DATA EB,5F,90,49,6E,70,75,74,20,66,69,6C,65,20,65,72,  6A1
280 DATA 72,6F,72,2E,4F,75,74,70,75,74,20,66,69,6C,65,20,  5F2
290 DATA 65,72,72,6F,72,2E,73,74,61,72,74,20,6E,6F,74,20,  617
300 DATA 66,6F,75,6E,64,2E,45,6E,64,20,6E,6F,74,20,66,6F,  5C7
310 DATA 75,6E,64,2E,20,65,78,69,73,74,73,2E,20,41,62,6F,  595
320 DATA 72,74,69,6E,67,21, 0, 0, 0, 0,AC, 3,AC, 3,5C, 3,  402
330 DATA  0,E8,FA, 1,E8,54, 1,BF,5C, 3,E8,D1, 0,AD,3D,62,  743
340 DATA 65,75,F4,AD,3D,67,69,75,EE,AD,3D,6E,20,75,E8,BF,  87F
350 DATA 5C, 3,B4,20,AC,3A,C4,76,FB,AC,3A,C4,75,FB,AC,3A,  84E
360 DATA C4,76,FB,3A,C4,74, 4,AA,AC,EB,F8,BA,5C, 3,33,C9,  8F9
370 DATA 88, D,80,3E,60, 1,FF,74,1E,B4,4E,CD,21,3C, 2,74,  5E7
380 DATA 16,3C,12,74,12,8B,CF,2B,CA,E8,2F, 1,BA,44, 1,B9,  609
390 DATA 12, 0,B0, 5,E9,16, 1,B4,3C,CD,21,73, 3,E9,E3, 0,  5E7
400 DATA A3,58, 1,BF,5C, 3,E8,65, 0,AC, A,C0,74,48,BB,20,  674
410 DATA 20,2A,C3, A,C0,74,3F,32,E4,8B,E8,B9, 4, 6,AC,8A,  70C
420 DATA E0,AC,8A,D0,2B,C3,D0,E4,D0,E4,D2,E8, A,C4,AA,4D,  ABB
430 DATA 74,D4,8A,E2,AC,8A,D0,2B,C3,D2,E4,D0,E8,D0,E8, A,  AD8
440 DATA C4,AA,4D,74,C1,8A,E2,AC,2B,C3,8A,CD,D2,E4, A,C4,  9D1
450 DATA AA,4D,75,C7,EB,B0,E8,15, 0,AD,3D,65,6E,75, 5,AC,  7AE
460 DATA 3C,64,74, 3,E8,AE, 0,E8,61, 0,B4,4C,CD,21,8B,36,  6A5
470 DATA 5A, 1,89,3E,5E, 1,BD,50, 0,BF, C, 3,33,C0,AB,B9,  5B3
480 DATA 27, 0,B8,20,20,F3,AB,BF, C, 3,3B,36,5C, 1,72, 6,  4D1
490 DATA E8,38, 0,E8,55, 0,AC,3C,60,75, 4,B0,20,EB, 8,3C,  61D
500 DATA  D,74,1B,3C, A,74,18,AA,4D,75,DF,3B,36,5C, 1,72,  4F9
510 DATA  3,E8,37, 0,AC,3C, A,75,F2,BF,5C, 3,EB,B4,46,89,  707
520 DATA 36,5A, 1,8B,3E,5E, 1,BE, C, 3,C3,BA,5C, 3,8B,CA,  5B7
530 DATA 87, E,5E, 1,2B,CA,76, A,8B,1E,58, 1,B4,40,CD,21,  54D
540 DATA 72, 1,C3,BA,14, 1,B9,12, 0,EB,22,BA,AC, 3,B9,54,  653
550 DATA FA,8B,1E,56, 1,B4,3F,CD,21,72, C, B,C0,74, 8,8B,  62B
560 DATA F2, 3,C6,A3,5C, 1,C3,BA, 3, 1,B9,11, 0,50,E8, A,  648
570 DATA  0,58,E9,55,FF,BA,36, 1,B9, E, 0,52,51,BA,3E, 3,  5EB
580 DATA B9, 2, 0,90,E8, C, 0,59,5A,E8, 7, 0,BA,3E, 3,B9,  595
590 DATA  2, 0,90,BB, 2, 0,B4,40,CD,21,C3,90, D, A,54,68,  557
600 DATA 69,73,20,50,72,6F,67,72,61,6D,20,52,65,71,75,69,  5FA
610 DATA 72,65,73,20,44,4F,53,20,56,65,72,73,69,6F,6E,20,  576
620 DATA 32,2E,30,20,6F,72,20,68,69,67,68,65,72,2E, D, A,  46D
630 DATA 24, D, A,49,6E,70,75,74,20,70,61,74,68,2F,66,69,  516
640 DATA 6C,65,3A,20,20,4E,6F,20,61,63,74,69,6F,6E,B4,30,  58A
650 DATA CD,21,3C, 2,73, C,BA, C, 3,B4, 9,CD,21,B8, 1,4C,  524
660 DATA CD,21,E8,46, 0,73,33,BA,68, 4,B9,1B, 1,90,E8,6A,  69F
670 DATA FF,BA,41, 3,B9,14, 0,BB, 2, 0,B4,40,CD,21,BF,7F,  6A7
680 DATA  0,C6, 5,50,8B,D7,B4, A,CD,21,E8,1E, 0,73, B,BA,  667
690 DATA 55, 3,B9, 9, 0,B0, 1,E9,33,FF,BA, 4, 4,B8, 0,3D,  59D
700 DATA CD,21,72, 4,A3,56, 1,C3,E9,1C,FF,BE,80, 0,BF, 4,  726
710 DATA  4,FC,AC, A,C0,74,2F,B4,20,AC,3A,C4,76,FB,3A,C4,  806
720 DATA 76,26,3C,2F,74, 4,3C,2D,75,18,8B,D0,8B, 4,3C,3F,  4DA
730 DATA 74,1B,24,5F,3D,4F,20,8B,C2,75, 7,F6,16,60, 1,46,  53A
740 DATA 46,AC,AA,AC,EB,D8,F9,C3,C6, 5, 0,F8,C3,BA,68, 4,  973
750 DATA E9,66,FF,90,55,55,44,45,43,4F,44,45,20,76,32,2E,  622
760 DATA 30, 0,4F,72,69,67,69,6E,61,6C,6C,79,20,62,79,20,  565
770 DATA 54,68,65,6F,64,6F,72,65,20,41,2E,20,4B,61,6C,64,  565
780 DATA 69,73, 0,54,68,6F,72,6F,75,67,68,6C,79,20,72,65,  608
790 DATA 68,61,63,6B,65,64,20,62,79,20,44,61,76,69,64,20,  583
800 DATA 50,20,4B,69,72,73,63,68,62,61,75,6D,2C,20,54,6F,  588
810 DATA 61,64,20,48,61,6C,6C, 0,55,55,44,45,43,4F,44,45,  4B4
820 DATA 20,5B,2D,3F,5D,5B,2D,6F,5D,20,5B,64,3A,5D,5B,5C,  4C5
830 DATA 70,61,74,68,5C,5D,62,69,6E,61,72,79,2E,55,55,45,  608
840 DATA 20,3C,52,45,54,55,52,4E,3E, D, A,55,73,69,6E,67,  497
850 DATA 20,74,68,65,20,66,69,6C,65,6E,61,6D,65,2E,74,79,  5DD
860 DATA 70,20,69,6E,20,74,68,65,20,22,62,65,67,69,6E,22,  531
870 DATA 20,6C,69,6E,65,2C, D, A,70,72,6F,64,75,63,65,73,  570
880 DATA 20,75,75,64,65,63,6F,64,65,64,20,66,69,6C,65,6E,  600
890 DATA 61,6D,65,2E,74,79,70,20,6F,6E,20,63,75,72,72,65,  5FC
900 DATA 6E,74,20,64,72,69,76,65,5C,70,61,74,68, D, A,28,  564
910 DATA 70,72,6F,76,69,64,69,6E,67,20,66,69,6C,65,6E,61,  661
920 DATA 6D,65,2E,74,79,70,20,64,6F,65,73,6E,27,74,20,61,  5B2
930 DATA 6C,72,65,61,64,79,20,65,78,69,73,74,29,2E, D, A,  53C
940 DATA 2D,6F,20,73,77,69,74,63,68,20,66,6F,72,63,65,73,  5F0
950 DATA 20,6F,76,65,72,77,72,69,74,65,20,6F,66,20,65,78,  5F9
960 DATA 69,73,74,69,6E,67,20,66,69,6C,65,6E,61,6D,65,2E,  61D
970 DATA 74,79,70, D, A,2D,3F,20,70,72,6F,64,75,63,65,73,  565
980 DATA 20,74,68,69,73,20,68,65,6C,70,20,6D,65,73,73,61,  5DA
990 DATA 67,65,2E, D, A,24, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,  135
1000 DATA 114365
 
 
 
                        UUDECODE.DOC
           by David Kirschbaum <kirsch@sesi.com>
 
UUDECODE uudecodes uuencoded files to original binary form.  It is
compatible with the Unix (and other) uuencode/uudecode utilities.
 
Usage:
 
          UUDECODE<RETURN>
    Displays usage message, prompts for input file name.
 
          UUDECODE [-o ][d:][\path\]filename.uue
    Produces a uudecoded file, with the filename taken from
    within the uuencoded file (which might include a path),
    (provided the filename doesn't exist.  Use the "-o"
    (or "/o") switch to force overwriting of any existing
    output file.)
 
          UUDECODE /?  (or -?)
    Writes a brief help screen to STDOUT and terminates.
 
Notes:
 
UUDECODE checks for existing files with the same name as the newly
created output file.  It will produce an error message and abort if it
finds one!  (Use the "-o" switch to force overwriting existing files.)
 
UUDECODE will accept an input path\filename up to 80 chars long, and will
prompt if none is specified.
 
A uudecoded filename is taken from the uuencoded source file and is
written to the current directory (or to the path included in the file
header).
 
Input files may be any length.
 
Uuencoded file headers (mailing headers, etc.) need not be removed.
However, any spurious lines between the "begin" and "end" lines MUST
be removed.
 
Anything beyond the "end" line is ignored.  If no "end" is found, the
output file is saved, but an error message is displayed.
 
Certain uuencoders append a "checksum" character to the end of each
uuencoded line.  UUDECODE ignores these.
 
Uuencoded files generated or moved through a Unix system may have LF
(ASCII 10) line endings instead of the DOS-convention CR/LF (ASCII
13/10) endings.  UUDECODE will handle those LF ends of line as well.
you MAY get a "end not found" message, but the uudecoded file will be
intact.
 
Certain systems and mailers will strip off trailing spaces on lines.
UUDECODE attempts to replace them.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 09:45:32 GMT
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:08:34 -0700
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in Fusion Digest 1730:
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:08:34 -0700
 
>In article <CGzEsF.Hqq@world.std.com>,
>mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>>      In Message-ID: <1993Nov22.115307.1129@physc1.byu.edu>
>> Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
>> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
>>
>>> = Crude                           Better                  State-of-the-art
>>> = (simply add to the confusion)   (but not good enough)   (can provide compel-
>>> =                                                           ling evidence one
>>> =                                                           way or the other)
>>> = II. Helium gas detection       Charged-particle detector   Thin dE/dx det.
>>> =   Tritium gas detection    (Si surface-barrier det.)   plus Si spectrometer"
>>
>> =  "The point I'm
>> = getting at is this:  if helium or tritium is produced via nuclear reactions
>> = then the product nuclei *must* be charged and energetic, thus capable of
>> = detection by thin (dE/dx) and thick (E) charged-particle detectors.  Use of
>> = such a particle "telescope" provides both particle identification and particle
>> = energy, and is state of the art."
>>
>>   Steven has said this before.    But has never PROVEN it, despite requests.
>>   Once again, can Steve present any evidence?   Four-vector equation?
>> Is there any real proof that physics in a solid state must obey only
>> the physics and scenarios of a plasma from colliding particles? \/\/
 
>Profs. Blue and Schultz have both responded to Mitch on these points.  While
>belaboring the effort to educate Mitch may be a waste of time, I will
>nevertheless try again, especially since others may benefit.
[... much theory follows...]
 
I think Steve is missing Mitch's point here. Mitch knows that the fusion
product itself is the charged He nucleus; this is elementary, even a humble
electrochemist like me knows it. What I reckon he is asking is whether this He
will exit from the PdD charged or not. And I think he has legitimate doubts
there. From previous postings by Steve I understand that this He nucleus, with
its 19 (23?) MeV energy, will go charging around the lattice, producing a
shower of x-rays as it does, eventually to calm down and perhaps to leave the
lattice. At this point, just like deuterons when they leave, it would pick up
electrons and exit as a neutral He atom - otherwise it wouldn't get away, I
suppose. So you would not detect charged He nuclei coming off the PdD, only
"normal" He gas. Am I right?
I guess some charged particles do get away, because some workers have tried to
detect them. They always use Pd foil, so as to maximise the surface area, and
mount the detector very close to the foil. This confirms me in my idea that
cp's don't find it easy to get out of the lattice.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Frontiers of Science??
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Frontiers of Science??
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 09:48:39 GMT
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:14:10 -0700
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1731:
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:14:10 -0700
 
>In article <01H5S0BGZ8RMHV29M5@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>
>> I have just checked the latest Chem. Abstracts, and it's full of abstracts of
>> papers in a thing called Front. Sci. Ser. (Frontiers of Cold Fusion). Does
>> anyone out there know what this is? Is it a journal, or maybe a conference
>> proceedings? It looks a bit like a series, perhaps not connected with any
>> conference. But before I make the effort to get the largish number of papers
>> from it, I want to make sure it's a proper, refereed, publication.
>>
>> Thanks for the information, and have a nice weekend.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>It is, as you guessed, a conf. proceedings  --  from the Third Int. Conf. on
>Cold Fusion held Oct 21-25, 1992, at Nagoya.  It's not a properly refereed
>publication  -- papers were not even re-typeset from the contributions from
>what I can tell.
 
Thank you, Steve. This supplements another bit of info I got by private email
about this thing. It comes from Temple University, it seems. This sounds like
a place with a mission.
 
Anyway, being a conf. proc, I pass it by, for declared reasons. One for you,
Mitch. Will you do these? I have previously offered to help you put them into
the archives, but no response. I am not being facetious or unhelpful, it's
just that I know nothing about all these conferences, and would do a poor job
of compiling a conf. procs. bibliography. You, Mitch, on the other hand, know
everything about them and, since you were so vocal about having them included,
you are the natural choice for doing it. I agree that they ought to go in
there.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / John Logajan /  PKunzip for MSDOS (uuencoded executable)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PKunzip for MSDOS (uuencoded executable)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 07:57:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

 
  ***************************
  *                         *
  *  Attention   Attention  *
  *                         *
  ***************************
 
Enclosed below is the uuencoded MSDOS executable binary of PKUNZIP which
is a decompression program.  By running UUDECODE on this file you should
generate PKUNZIP.EXE.  Thereafter you will use PKUNZIP to decompress
files coming over as xxx.zip files.  Run PKUNZIP with no parameters
to see a help listing.
 
 
begin 644 pkunzip.exe
M35K"`#H``0`&`,D-__\``("L`````?#_4@```!014$M,251%($-O<'(N(#$Y
M.3`M.3(@4$M705)%($EN8RX@06QL(%)I9VAT<R!297-E<G9E9`<`````````
M````````N-@4NL)R!0``.P8"`'(;M`FZ&`'-(<T@3F]T(&5N;W5G:"!M96UO
M<GDDB_R![TP#5U=2N:X`OIX"B_[]270'K9(#PJOK]G%JZ?1NQ#@\AAA[XWC"
M2\ZRD17T]0RX,Y<;)X/;?Q<,L\4V+F_.&"F5EFMJ0BMXY8@%]XK:8G`1D;$<
MY)8L+;S%0PR0W%TC=+!/_46URC:H=^T[([!2.(G'ZK!6.QYR=T"9J]H]\\)_
M23&YM@U)9==K"H!447V7/FB3:55-JH0GO5@\KT"=-'6T-$L^?@MM-WMJA`CM
M*=.`&)B9<A.0M?`@$!SO63V2,!MEEZO;7]'2\=?@%6I>AQ5N'EL5@+QMC@?Z
M;*9E*VS"WK&G'RIASZ&EE"Q9'AMI5\:0G6[H;(RY7*.CW5@J']MA$*+:=0W/
M\0+B?AF776XB?>EN'WH6A;M.Q9U<Z8(519=%01%*YN$,$IA,4U$Y@LT)!J0Z
MZH>*B[[H3*AAWG^YIT=VFH'G01C.TADUE,XO+%^D3N>2%!OOO63PZ]<:A>7K
MA4@Z0YY(*D.F2$)#KDA*@QVI!04!48CN@@`#_`U96X?[]7\.`P"(U*```+;,
MYL%E@/(BR`8XTQX2!-D```J&<//G)C'W?"BG8QY#ZAVHJ1P.<`DM+?*U`R^3
M`R\?^CH$-0"0U'K#ADKU5%:#XEO'`/PVGFAD,C4/!A@[@,SACOAR@#REB1H!
M?@,45.DFZH,D&%4O`WH8EEZ7^S3YB$<7I,=`MP^63'<'8P`)YAN!$XS9!MH[
M!708H!-(Y0\CBO<#<]TWPQ0';L]L/B/%1PS@\%]%!>@*#(I8Y>ROO1E'ZD<3
M1X"N1P#OZB3<#DKW&=NS5U`!P!#@AEK[SE<,(3]"%G8$J*<&61EI6\.,&%*)
MBA@/N?G,`/A;(@D^-4LIC\3JLC,/=@P[#$D3-`;I`]@J$]+C/R7/`:;&.S8P
MBS862,/N6G0'V</N(U('KQ[K4QNH!XD'0WCN^2M'@JCFLR54ZX$H`<`$*TN(
MS@T#QW(&1.@!M&23\@#,`U4>/!/!\(?U/PJ5-#%J,8-)#C'#03$?U171,_AT
M(Q<Y*1?#">!HFSL%^WG''1?9`5#0[8U"H9#?+DQ+5XLC!NC((^5C!9@?R"IJ
M&K<:"GWCE>]+>>@)25*"@C$/_';2+#.\^TMP`P>C]-8'>!&206K;>S:2?78K
M#%,N\I6#?_11^-(.')(J`9=D/^J-C*<"'I94H`S/+X`<2\PXBE0PDVD0?<^A
M`@VN93`R2D>V+(5[KFI(PWCP.`5<KM+BC@P"P;;]4%'/&T)AXSKT#]7]&)XV
M\'D/!#[@$;9V,,Q:C*43;0`7Y`R=4:)\M46N%R`S0(36@`I*M>HC"8:,^/H%
MVZL/I1QE@@&!5`GS1:!\O2TQ/]UCR',,KQMRP2+Q'S[(`,@5(1[YIV<5"`1A
MV`8!>QFL!;4-,,N/`QG1LV0:+(!/68M6O+@6KF@@;2`%Z8H@:R!OWA@@`R`$
M7%[&7"(>`+%A)V88?1VG(12(RBH`X,N!SBN-=%9Y8W(/[>=#`*!$Y"DJB38A
M%@9V-5?+*AL%*G<>3%!72A(5(0P>MVJMQB')6%?-N/Y9'N^R;!M#B6*C4%3.
M`#""ZH3TA%(7.F1@QM+EB"('/3M^*XDWT.H3.0Q[RV$,(&,&(I7TR1<!]^8,
M624S]0'I:H6E\$P.8K"@LAX13OWNQB(T&0,&H0;1"PB.1/TK!_/TQS0GXR^8
M@1B/,2+KL6955^L:14K,(1*:^&GFV4Z](QDX#B;["QE\)8W:LWD:5$0Z*#K,
M)AXB!04#%'6'T]&H2BJ01L\"Y"(D(LH_+@(%!E*J"[E.;H+PIL))A0Z#I@2@
M^_!(4815!>X`(ERAU@`"-`8K*C0:-`>5:C0,-,\T2HS!*C3W,2P6-"F4)1D>
MD#"QL0F7!C`"O`64\_C[\X0;*MXH'R,?'A]F">=U'Q`Y%#:5<!0!%,``:\"`
M0:&S;>.Q:-\!3'<3^Z,`.EDZ[PS5CP`W%#?K`V2,A$</-SAQ#SQA3QYZ!"8*
M$.BUJQ\`EA^6ZE(%[>\:"AR\6A`H%"U<P@U]%.(I]IC(><C*@#(&$@7SI+2^
M$.&E@0"0+")Z"JRG$S$,<@7LBT[("N0A%.)\@<[#B`1PPX%>!J1B%(TB/]JK
M1281P#"=4P^!S+$#Y"!/!4V0%?M3C7/POCA@X-*+*+/L5U'M0D&09?RUVE>"
MB*96]>8U#CX)=,#XXT,Y8B&!`:"&Y95KXLUN[Y5E[QNRC64@?H_\PH95"07\
M_@'`7HY*\PB"5O^-,@_U=@`#GUSR-7WV?0&?5.MN_VP,2^0#>LQR`>OP`G2D
M^-?S+\?C2.H;!F2RZ.#A!$"('8$3/2_I!ND!2KJV`1-)^3P)MP>)!B2)\<\G
M2L-K3%)4$(D&B2*J!F`-0P=`I5('X@=#350.7@L&4BK5!GT&R4JU&=0-Y@WQ
M&J('CPLE:VVWB0`(%@B@!.RU`<4'),`LRPR"0P<AVS]/`P:38/."-&O+BA"(
M\N@/)G$,S1#@4O@E"^M2)R6L/P82(:SF(A:,+>_K0H0('5G@Z@CP+^G9"(,(
MUR/BV#WB&>G+:)X.72;%W#\19!)]0//0`$#PG"#RJQ<"S`_<`>8#"POK/00"
MX!+U!/H4$A<.!B<I&7AZ*W4[5@H7R`!GX2)%1"L,<.*#3/][/!%X!@KLW`8%
M3@_[V_UD<(9O#D1X!LX*!`ML0WB!RPKSTR/D.0QR"NHLX:$1U^=[`*1]@@2D
MZS/\,0"V/\@$@,/O9OJ#?@",,3UZ`PV.S<6M'HELI_GH\`D-QF?Q,0_B20T\
MJ8,3%R)A#%L)`"M<.F6C+'8`,@`C/W$`)PEW/"OO$0B"[L=Z&2X]_EIAG`?D
MXPHX%QR)%UW+"#%&8+"V2%(6`8D%3(9M9L8JX:<8#6-B$T^N3!VFA5]B':=Q
MGA]XQ*.Z$!=V!^!@^%AMY+?VKJ<]4CRQPY'Q)FJE(O<IBU48J4T.@U30U.1U
MQ>YW00>W8;<S'7,>BAY5=%"]6[U)H(.]3+T^`5D.;<_@,R1*@1"`"L,[]L,`
M#<\&B@2&`I@`D@5X#\.M!Z4&N`2["[\4#!G)!\(W;?[H0%[F`_`P[ORAG,ES
M"G(19?LL%=+[3@G[!-6-PLH#U5I,%\LD2P'QS)#YU/)^*M[2^;RQPZCFX/34
M9%P\`$]1B*#V*R)Q/B\'=?"`2",,>4P$1"H#<#(N#`=!;(+U3#$L/1E*\$F?
M*.4*PHP'^&$N2IK*$'$C`<<<LECF$B?U)WHW;V`Z8'P'@]X,#F('X`=@!WS]
M'"CY;_)G+',+-',/#&_'X@<$1R$)ZD?]J$R32?0/HVJP2Z-PQM]8"*YLHV$3
M"9&&BC?R#OT+'5P;+A.#H<N_,#(!+_H*_P3M<PB%%.<?4<Y]7R86`2P"9/+@
M1(HV=Q<FR)`.M_`7\Q885;P`@`:&`MT0B>T`+<3L-EVB75(=;BEES#T6^#`C
MB0-P,#;R?0B"]E#N3"3U*A(T`,-?+A@G_",:UM1NH@$=IM`,[G_[%"0?[E@Z
M#`RR8@6W!2';__:4_N\"7`V%QC-0Z?H"S"[^.0"`D#&[%#9^!JB\'H]#\,5$
M]RMC(0;P+!(R!/J$5O,&HC,P$R\2A,!7[ID8!W.%Y(H$G9\=<S]^%5.*&<#^
M[OW@@E'I+_(`P`-`"4/\",LDV!/M!KS\_1,)`)@`57`%2#I1[`7I`V,S?DKS
M2N%?VAJ6``$.&B_E(57BOU)^P`RQ-\KE^%>I*SL]=M*NB/A28/^,YPL=)3']
MT0IQNV$9.ZUK%N!*MU*,Y(=>\5]<618^@<7+#&$=/QUT$@!@L0W+AAH/SS!>
M^7$M=@:H:1/S>2P;=81/X``;G'3Z=@L-11Y\"F+V@S%/.J\?@1_HF1^.'G.#
MGA)WR@^_]B\W`PF#+4I[$;$#![H$#"*7^/GA\%[?60<G3)W@$20.=%^WR%9T
MH>10EG:B4O=59Q3ZMP\F(G@VSD\+=ML&@+$>%_RL3L\!#R5QK\]M;PH$"D2(
M;##>WN\"2/[NMQGO)S*"!?A[N0?^(W^K%<-3`7`4*(0-+898"L!`M0?1)JVB
M?P6II0R\P"R"+JHN\RH1'6"^"C,\00-R!J@!5Y;E!Q06CE,1,=H`QOAH4B;,
MJ/(3J_$#<Q-@0N*>KG@:1,\+<"C!"PN%6<[M=I$1:7Y#3S'`C#G/T/7A^J*Y
M3T0P6'"6/"`,>M`%M$3X&?`#6`A:/1$>)3T'XL!'+'3#,"_X_?/FY;;$RBG+
M8#BF<W'B!G+E`#`#YXWSW'BNA$PW[O18@\APZ(98]SR7`^A[8L"P?27=CUN4
MTN&X9@+*,PY9M!ZH\/:-]KZ:8O&`0PJMX08!(_0/TW<+`IF9#HIF_ROF4U=P
MQ1W4<#XVU1HF#S\*#5E>"L2(AFMN@VR%XBM`:)&`6LA5\E$/`.:%$0H#RJE<
M'19[3%1+`-X98S42&$$5,AD1"2H8'C'TP+S'%'L$%2$5+N@*>[T*`PH8)@,?
MR#L:C@-7Z]M`^8SOR&FQ_Z98!*H+@R>#90[6=@<\Y&`/G=:[D$`'A/XP&G4E
M[*95CQ&/EO4,08_B1!8(PF3Z5&2?`_S#UO36'LQ>@GPP,.5%>%D']``.<$IY
M%R(D8BO(<U5).!V='Z'09ZD;[<*G=&277]2<9-=(]*J41_E'R3C3+$<D\>MH
M)/D+!B`DE8!$YX-9]B[,&)-AB$/ZB_Z&ZA%_V;=R-P<;@"W[+?$C0>@>4O.Y
M`P$#CA16M/03%KM`$>HQU_)*['OZ<>>IJ.V0R2HDR0[*AU\28*=\!/%X[S(=
MDC%-DH((ANOX9GE5&_L.^P5PRIY7K7W/:ABZ7!0/M!.$P340/?ODF5QXYYD,
MMA02^-N/5!1I(E'X&\LP]C"-PBEBU[,+Q?,7DF<R28_93-S.6'NNL2@.%E<X
M0'>0$H8![*`>#8(46USA\QDP*K6.<Z%\"E7!,@I!ZR?@Q!WR]N<_,@FN-5)]
M$1``Y,[VYXSRBF3_X@2%!U1G^[U#%FS$]/4)(<1D5+H4[NT>+,9`]T#C<1Q:
M!6=Q?![.$04+0^ZXZQ$<'.9Z$-$8Z6:4IEH/6!8/&E2&%@X2D>O1_*:O`:2,
MPHM]`VAZ2+$1`QTXA!O?>B4&&PXXVH%."B$-`NETGH1.^E-4Q4PNC'*(XEX+
MU[L)P&H#0NU$,%D^:?$/6SJ9`Q)6)O`9&[@+,3.!:PN!T1#ZH>;?%-3,U0:9
M/*:"(L(@U8PVR@[ZS1E`&0$-TKC!.>4M%_?/GA\.R`XDB@0;W!,'4%/6*>[D
M!47O"K^J[G5#R-<)M4I0Q4GYC<,-/AG`M8.UKEZF.L'O8;U</BR%B$`0R\!;
MKX?.PG,#'\X<<0)$AOA)%X]`N05,=]N"2V9$W*98X##@%AW@#,LFZ6P;!N:S
M8P-ASJJJ%O?W,M[<J.X$2>F5#4`&3NF]F^E8L@/?`Y`;X(I1PP-,W+6.69A3
MY%^%]E(\)```FE(/)_.#<PN(>@<$'\/UV9VX3TS%;>J.J(X+NT%GZO+EW`@T
M$ED)3#55<I8Y$[<%`]DQ</%8AWOR^!RAE..["J^%##5`;'!9O%#?[H03HNK<
M/X$1'@N-,"1_&->1!3J>;(CJ)#X;Q<*W7#(WH3BQ*`9#1)&-1=(Q8H5P&?6H
M$`H?>ZV>WR>,21O%!X]O)`KX'0MV&WD@*O\J"^Y_^J41^\P9>V)NC@2HAPCE
M!0H5Z]L7>"`+=-`2B&*,-AUX14][-<'Z3I"NA5].RT`D&'B"2-^O<!Q1OA+@
M@LYM&\`MY3@?+1M;\A+B;S8`$@(2RQ)N5O0;\,#@0L6-&.0:"FM*<XF,P01A
M``>NJ/W.Y_I0+U`FJEL()E`)_4M*ETHBSJZ^-NL)OUL&73QW(8I0S%;GA5OF
M7'2T6![@L."";>2M]:(/E[@.JN^00F9JLQ@^1N_&M=%E!Y<2@`'UY[]8`"LW
M<',9<R8N8*X`9"B;`R@'=B@8`/L8OF-KO1#O&U?M7ORQ`YQI#*03.?;@"%0@
M--_&YU$#YF\]O&KA[KAU&XY#'!LP3NX#84%;:0CB2!`4.C#(HWT0_TB4$9)"
M$DF8(]"$&#9X0QM&Y9$6^>.M]S'&!)'W_O:)=\()Z/\"5Z`3Y*K?-!8K]'P9
M[#)GBQ*0;`OD"*P&)R0DG'C##+"+PC@5/MUW-_PTPH17LP^)';%"%"3P$?2K
M"AXGK.&!)XUKW#PK`_I*SW>]OQX)(QD%E&SYDO,N&Z<N3F!H&DZNA7`,)@(3
MW@8"$W=7ZG7\8>FHT&AE(8H%GAU!@7X89!@;>$I'>0N_'@XJ<<GE_`QE12GF
M@1&+#EJZ)[]9$T4X$L@2@\7NZY?I)X$U"A*H@38;(:)4ZA("ARA.``-]#@<$
MSPS]))OH#56&ZP#C^]@H^TL!"WT8X[0:AD$.&CX&NPYVZ1WHF$#E[BA_!!O4
MRSI[+>!Y\RZZA2.?*T"7$GU99^OH:E%^(^]?N6LQ6`IP<Z2D:PE!%\[@*X).
M.9;XL2?7NGB#H8B+W89,^<./@WCD35D+M&$.;@8BMP(EB$8`(Q_D!(',@/F%
MR0Q`%DQ@_>FF"AXXSDT&>\!3L`S",.4X]7=I$P@%F9A/+.$/54*B,K?X*%1F
M%P1+7ZQSB<+F8MZ0&.8/]QJ3KO?3\/60<9P&=6XA(PVX7RT1R4BD;A\.A(=4
MS:MC')&NF.$SQ/VPT4SN3T5G#D0VX6>ZX.0"JN*F"POU%M$++$SJ)*K?,@9_
M'0[022(1Z1#I$OX%-P()$S`1&+I@C6]((JY%!ZT*'K,/9@`#B![<!@3M1A;J
M6R;T0K<)6S2%5.,#`O'"R%!@\67V\Q5;!<($P#,G=#(4>T]I.&.@L;B'';^V
M#NWV,@"HND4A(NH-Q`+<YR\S0"Z.S(\P72/^)2EEZWT3"LFV<Z92.36[4@&R
M)JCT6PTJ%GW9*KS]3)84%*G;Y`LAN+T[Y>=:M0`P&2'C$(<1$00."'TT!P%U
MW2DEH3(N=X(F.2L=#G.P.QP"WI']6Q3;,UQ>+PK@$D@S4.#_2Q/NXDD2`C]X
M&9X#N'1C`;;D@NHR/K$DRK5:0&(Y42L-]6(C&GP7<_`XJ_%Z`@07^3,E-&^5
M.X]FVPGQ15<`%TX<6SMD#)-S7'@-P$(&^C(0*N_D&X;3)@(@#\Z&<6^'3<0#
MBT;`5W!(-W%2?.P/"2&4XD9%A8X$38%5<'B&O9!OYFD*[Q0$"FP)Q0JD%U9G
M$QH*B1;>^E)+6Q912*ZX>:%!X`5#4U!0P+D-[DDT'$C/=E"DU^S$"L2YN[G.
M`S,`T&OQ``;`@W==7`";.0I`U>NAZ\:`U*P*N@<,(OO7XZ'?P<`.]<_\S(UR
M#X3'0F>A#YCB`83YM*W)6>`>^40P)?M<M"(G^`,-J'08&!EQ%*ZL@![APJ1A
MHN#]^,OE3[T"3OI.V&=+WR-=+QL&">BQ0A4-L#+QI!O`3F#9?0V'`-K`"Z,V
M9IU!I0L!*U%T_U1/'DK7$G`Y`T9)A?L&@6(I*O91-"\>,A-&"`$=[HQ(DGE;
M0M5EU2<7*/<$)*H_!@FA+4'J2.`V1Y_M$E=,9E`=N*@9=V($W,I7H!O<!F,.
MDU\`/BEX&BOD;IIP``H"V3I'6012*LHN^@]*47)S[@AP&?UZ!N,%Z8HH?O$!
MK`ERKL>%M@RY&PHL.(49R(YP0PG(7H<45NL9#SOG%8GE@B,:'I*<:C0!.U+=
M/0L^G+P!,^3C:166D@$1'O-P01,:4$,,BF;[`NX`%1->SQ1P4317YN9&=S.Z
M6-S@"M<`_,$4[-1(Z9H+`O`!<#)6(<%&E[VP&E+=!2TAE^H"X@40/A!W;@PK
MR2X7P(@*MK0?COJ"[8J"!C^@*5KKY8T8?@$7+1-=7.+U!JD2;,@,,/A1AAM#
ML_-5Z_@*-UB]`H$B`XL#%)@(LPCBN_W.\S\Q+8""/7,.C@0HY8N$!^A&\0Y%
MV%"EM@"M\19(3HL!ZT40&$[.>>Z"P0(B0O/JS\8(`]%F-D:/T<+V$QRCW=>C
M0/-9Z+-3J0S.L.),Y.'Z]`%@TS<T"IO)?0WO)>#O*P#G"_\4>07CVC8)H#+D
MY!?E!_44E<D?`PTR0JU[-=,\7`M*R`I&X?;TWJH>"P2'".F*P!<$)%#]=H01
M5(G+R:S3H5*P373+`TMIOZ0#Z@B1$[0G#S57YZ:3`'R%G9"3#[V(@F0'\2HP
M*H4A/3H.#Z(/<[)N!JBE$7\FJQ-Z*9,)G1RKM0^#!+%0&0N8VW1J%C<)JBAA
M<J%W\S3/,+N1!"WXFU,9/UD169,&-^&@.7P>'QMB&@`TAX4""84-OA7ANO,9
MLA/;)X,,\&P?=7MP)TY]&02G/5.Q(B>Y;<\7`R>I[R\'[-TO.P3::3@5F02[
MZU<0O%I&"YNV([4C60,CKQ4^`-IP/7'J4+\'4`#..]K#P:#[=AL%X#-`C-Z%
M.R,,'I`U`'TE*?U/5Z\4.P747S5-]'_K[`F>[Q\?'WX"''K+&>0(2"Y`"J3_
MYD$'S0ZY47X`3(`+-EA8Y2OULDEHB&(BHPX!$8!K,G`,C3$F?R,0<*DM>"BX
M#E2%N$D.`)%Q*HL(_D^FXA\&*@](1ZD%Z1R`$Z@K"%WDL2U28&`+`>>L"BF9
M0`,]ZQ8%S7:![.B))^@&I*$9`7Q']#$220\Q\]I9+;(MN0(MBM'W!,4#T,,-
M3W+RUCQR/`1J*PEI%0%IWFOE+08M";=I!VD9:1G%<?8`@N9"`QWNM]5EF8?W
MN^`\`.WIYNQA5Q<=CGH%```J?`SE=P?A`^!&0(X9ZW,-R#A72(TPP_:^8*/X
M@9`MP2T@>B*!3=#%A:%`Z!:,>[#NK.`-0U/"V`1!XSK\,`>9JNJ<[?05PL/2
M6`6``,-"[O4*Z^T+0J]&<=&CB"XTJ7S6)@804'LR*GLG42BK:A6`!V(:YNP!
MJ&K-G`_K&`\4.K-MRH8V5SR0Y21GHC?"BB]Q'.OP7``*<G!Z&8G#%E@;"0JV
M&FB%6^R!4=GB4!]WP`6[Q1D'/<PL"0DKON%.H5D!*M,"">.#D$\OLPS*@?N\
MMP7/6N)T5>Y("$L8?*Y+$[T#H('/ZN(_\J:FQNS]ZH7%Q1]<#%Q>@1G.!``)
M&L8EBO`$"8%P`KE1``94MD=`MC(ZL0G9%8+Y0P!S77H6C/4J0WP:IEK_FTZ>
M<>3[#!Z.CT((L(`XA\&0!Q^*,PSZEA(U`X$#!NE%CB0+BO)=!RL#B.`B+G'*
M@0J+LV4R@-.*?3-N"+'38L+@!0T$[`;@&3O.A;($,D^P0U-K$O`?9;*,'>Z"
M2"0\4(OC;O@P#D`V[%RL!CZ.'8@R]#Y"$)L$#E):P8\,BR!4TX,0@\^R;2"[
MW3ZM$\AM.1\X^9(!LV?R0R,46<"XO0VX"X#2%P]AN:7K_&Y9`>P/2P@I:R4$
MDD>/"0I;$((6/A4V,T`/!6ZRY'#&N";K!`76!!C;_&-/%I)P-HPW$:D7$:(0
M(BC0\@`F/Y6GQ^T`D%'0V3#S/@LD778"B8"'(]T]U@_(J>>S#L;JZ0&#;@@.
M;;#A+'>(RK$B@60DLK$HX\BB(,NV(:U$*:H36I$S4/,(1V;&G>-?H=4ILCT+
M@:K.DT"$X?C".EL)>:`7_P`8">=H!E2_1L0I&0!C+E(`0'9>:%]J7FQ?;E``
M$QOKJ>8A,K,6:NU*[(LQ)8,2_%/ZCP``T&E1:U)M5V]285]C7V5:9[Y])O!.
M!#\^"9`MM5$L["#M?5H\!"\/&,VOBH!,V(3>:X?7@3]T_"Q&UQBT)`(2O++L
M<*@G,J*S!ZXD&6U393'^+T^@%14E2L&K/P48"AB_B2(8!1A2RZTN%5L%%``:
M"A1L:;"!`99B>`AL:,<IUYUD-X6OA!AT-X-9">CVMQTC>X&-BNZR^^L.WW$[
M,7@*>>DP9031YI[SR%+$9KT@3RXF;"?%YVP94^=7+Y`GC)DO(52*<C`M^`RZ
M/JBN#SL/3M?"`HYO8Q-/+1,JK@'6S@Y].P=8[8]5!*)WN6RI>P0I?10+X05^
M?QIP*@A%:*T:C[O,V1.T&R;&$COC)GD\B\=.W-*PB<+E1I@)/N?;V@I+!#A'
M4^:[YOKH!3$(A9Z",-'C2$LK"5LT$O@!`P`V"!/QA>/@@,0IA(D[_PVC?"0;
M8?T=1^\=!EPD]C#.#>$!1NTUP!\*<U$`[0Q,=\9,SP/K`^02.D()(>!K?>VK
M!R(B`.'I1A)HK;L7`+Y:\"[8ML<6GJF>#NTV'S0$X&K[!X0)ELDH\2A_]@<,
M3B@]V!.+R02`-@!H[N?IA,D!B(PC0+0.$P.HR7,WNJU`[:O>\3\(@P]#1';Z
M=7WJELE@^YMD;JDY]*D?/;MVAXK`?@LD"&O/"`P7#9P3"0J,U[8`KRY>C1W9
MDCT&%A&-:@8A]"-P`T`:0!ED_K-]S99\Q`]Z.%U?&Z5]=56>=H4Y=A4,9->A
M)P:`U*RFJ+@0JP_#I@+&H^6KYEOA$./,A+7HI(>L#+5!@<W&YE]TV@'--8Q@
M#0S7^PI(`>$")<B&L/5/\P/SBS=Q`GR&PGW0^J)FB+H6.2$Q01,HH$H'0#?E
MJCR3@01(2`+@!LDBD,)"R(!1&Y<`:CIP`X]5"HJ`,VX%A=*'R>DJ```;#_,]
MX*I_'R+]*PF*8`#`A/5$>`<0`DGG_N@&1&P.6N_JDR5R:K)X3U$S`4K0,\+)
M$U[O.8<GTANP$3P)=EP/`GT;82UU"Z[G8@)O*'&VDVW670R-SH&V"U?*`D"@
M.RH\"7B<9QQ\!302<`WVE@HO;7$]`C3VZDPT%6I9-`,)-+)*^;[!`OC!&>Q4
M7@JS'`^(V?$,`TUTJP]`'K>W5%XX>\EUM5X:QA0)RPS&2$^,>4IU`P``HB&X
M,KDAX0M.0(P`CA^&P0``9!(TSW@2CM)\23S?<$DXP@!V9.DTTWCI,-1\"3G^
MAHL)`Q%V,T>?]RPD!20,WMX3_B3G0#X,`V`^&4O@^3%D!G)%[\_<G"!Z".IX
MXWOB'`4<<0H'[S9!R'^[3PD,?80?!1D1I4Q%1_B;@G(H3@@1S%9X@E&)^!D@
M>^@L4D%2[P;O*'L%T^-]]_0=K^7UOOLT''>:]P\77ND(=H)K$.`*4!4BLFB3
M(!3S5H"P+./Q>P+.3`-QIHOE"7`<4$C27U'OQ0!G@DH)-\Q_+UXH#+KP6`7,
M?0+Y.?E>4(T"`$9[B0F+7PB`#XX*ZJ$+!`D5@/F9B\$"ZV7W/GCLHGX2X!)>
M4`!=_S3Y?AV`#X)=.<:3%88*X,)-/MMKU`88#X!15X`8LRW#C\PI3V&>'<Q_
M&4</M%3I70*ZKHU]!.HO3``27,J%R3$2"7&7,8%_,-QDN#?Y6UO<,L"IC80*
ML45!55?\TP.0@LY?XZX54\2R,K0`@,,LALDX[<N,Q;\K7_Z+#(""Q7\+@!!%
M@<UV\<+D-)ASZ`EO9D9!8!)IWK0`T`!P2-P5Q"_2(=J(S@DFQ3).<!Y?^P``
M@\IR"H%-#8+GC=KG2('X`+(`?`KF,*%#_L\$[/DJ`XLH5XC24``&T>8,/M>!
MUSOE@F(`MP"`P5N$S/=JRNH9!_9BJ/D#`!!TXE*)Z`M<[0/5ZO&J@-/!WOVG
M@,F95J="U*(8,*AH!\MZ"!>#P.4S$89H*:E%_:D-:#MI$8."XB!.$X_U#W@&
M<%JG+#U44Z-3I?`H#U!0SP92&8K!$:;A//N,O6L8K>3:WH'XPMHOM@P6'60D
M64U!PDL`UYS*Y1:MV1`%"@`9N/X-_.F#S#2,Q"@<-CT+IX=,=,&$\DX`G(!*
M&`L;NR8T`6!!A!)O)H4.82J_AB\&'A`J$!3)E2;X%#X#X/1E`_;`+WCB$AZ7
MN0O(W,9>`#(2GNT#MA`J+S`0&"=P')@X3>_Y6]Z`@@>+'PG%A).@8!L9#RE8
MDYS,_\3^,S8RT*WU4,H$<X_`'M<IHB?("0P0$U+I"4_W1WSND,D&QQDH[F]C
MR@P`*\)\OL?UOB>J(XXF13N,2O!Z'6.!S'&<%HW5\Q4#&&0A;3<0$]HET"]]
M8-H!ELL"#C%QRQG"'<HZ[Y<I6`/@&04JSS<O@UH8AL,S`"<JAV4,XIXM#'D"
M%,P\C&H+Q#$)`-/I!%Z,]*DX"G8'``/=)NSZ4LB\"YK;[_91Z2"3"155G(?8
MA`G!!>?$U..P0Y@#?^P7[L=6RAL4.1I`KU"S\N<"/"`>`VIN@=U*13?Q2AT7
MU[P?&OC8BV_G%VC@:$#*(^>3\N5*,S"9ZC*TH@L>LDQP-4H`V70K\L&"=43(
M.;<)#"H[^7`\,BDU#T)NC.,=M25`5@@"-$=T`I:W/%#`!SO5[?/L&P,`?#Q-
MP",WBGP<OQ8)=A7F+JXFQ9<7I)(*F@L?^-N8\[%["C$0^_VF4\D/@L9[*P(^
MK_6#]!D"0!>J>!=+1T9(2?:ACG5F8@>AFE17;U[F&Y_`!T`<4%GBSO?,E;%'
MVN@6#WI^LD3*#PS6+&:(TK6]X%4S0N[51C$:V)B#0`)%$$1&`Q0@7P55$E(<
M`)5_47WHE#?[D.JZQ,%2NPH2&@?OYU2L%P99D415Z;^)G$1X[!6,!R+XUF8I
MV4BP`KC^<2SO$H0LUO(!U"[.?Q]96K,%+.Q9>@D74*ENIU15SWTA:[ROQ@3:
M]]X$Q035!/1[#P3R!.4$Y\&Z`(157K=`0;$X/;`&U)8,+$%&2PVZIP;`/U]5
M#5W"+/<[%0%V`<-G>I%84S&JW8`!'Y-6C<!+6I0'M`K0ZB7(@!&2S6OZ887A
M^&6>^ZM7G4RZI3LF#FH/H)82$3##9^#JT><<CNP*KC@!$H7O2_LU#L2%A4:G
M($/F_(NU#?&LU9_M008)<@Z.]9&H/Q%T`-<5K33)YP2*-WJ!NT@),!!^#4WV
MAO.@[I&+0<$KDK(NO5M!<.+UPRRW20P"V(T"B?Y^9CDE2'D)1)7&&&81NED<
MJ[$`N3`8#`B'&+4)"#NU!PL,'E"8JI0^M2\(BWK&%PNG*+<L"7#L65M65!L"
ME>R6A-%&6SH]+`$5>L,'X7O5*H"9<MH`&5]=6%K.`4'0ATL)J&`'(`%I9`*U
M`+4[\*BU*%(#M6P"%2I"RI6+;701E/T:<^Z@''@L0Q78]=%"Y&OGD*8&_/K.
M_B(OX<#<M0M>R/YY'515V+4QYZX4(G#KJB3/YAT;Y@Y)!!&P1L]2%AW@Z5T4
M&*JAW!:IX"HA1-8'`$CXHC:%2O6227Q=*P^`D',:?1Y#=.`QC.[J(`$%3BH`
M!=B+(8H@A0A-+(1@&"PS%'D=-X8*.@C[/>%&&JGX=MZ8A`$]#ZHN#N'4$4;X
M5!%OXJ5)[Q$A3,880XPW\$9C,P=X!"P^*''O9PHRM9.`+V0<EO4XBD\'ND\<
M4`5(S"186@H>>P-$*`81:L,5N("<U"7>X^$!PP<R%4KT!"_,?H%'X`H^A#A]
MR$/S>78_2LE.%04@,K)[RN8W71>."A$`:O/:A,P(#38!?C8S0"\!7U_E'253
M-EDPC&@L*@JN)X(CIC>*)T'R!-[D+C6-E,\>4<T9%^CIZ]+0_7'0*6^,<1AL
M[#9.P2Q^3$YQ$2TJP*D4?$U]SFFA-G;6`5XTX>^BP&V5!B#4?8]R$UP@A:MD
M^5/^HB><Z$E#^2`!6F`Q*W,0ZR0UA!.K8@\4%\^$#/@5.F)8E(@`8&;YA7/T
MBLV)5.^3^HP&`QD)/4)^_B+!X_1/`/91WN!X]X!4\8"(6@`,+MSNAMR!ZCO(
MBKDMB?;LA!/WM5^6Z0L,P'[!K@KS!/7G_8+]R.@I?/S1_W^".6X/N,-O<Q;`
M`W2OP.2M.4;L=P+^!XBF1^>2-8P2@^4(D&"XB`J];4"?\C92]*V.0@F'V``*
M3P35X^JRW`LG@<S]P7:VS`";0026`B.6J8_;T^(&-^^(,^G_L@I`NM^SH@2#
MPX^X"1,R04)!@@WO^(@R<!&\D0T`5A<YVZ4$UN?_@/@`_LEGBD%'4:F'R#@7
M!TB(A7@@/DZ$!4"LY.U;5`*`(5L&IX#!07\?<1,EB1P',G#=X-O9Z/T.Z@"8
MP]^E1WGHX0Y/0#7,"=NY7,@;H#0R]P5RX]3YY@A1/GH2F'-#"_4%_P+\70&N
MYAL_"G9>_C.>_DM%5(4>=E*2B`````S6C?,)>/Y62$E/?=3I4&S@@",&>2`"
MC-TV_"Z`]E8!LP1248$^6Q]G5HGSP.7!Y?G?A1P)]!F`80G6@!R.4@>/'/72
M"`8K#X[L?`7[T^?_L&C9>L-74B=3AP?3J6LX/Z/XUU8"P6R==!B_#T<`&&T2
M!EX!\E]6]@;$A0S,B422`W*-%:4S'`#S3^=&,$/VOP8`RUHFXX`2]LR.'HQ"
M$^.N0.)2QXAU$X_&C68-"/$#`-TBQ9L)RX(+2#_M=P6+`X3Y$O78T*)#<NJV
MO+1,!`0WAI09"4KZ,@"#UX,+^062U>2)$($#0:AJX-"00<B*W.WT;.36W%I=
M5E>2U+CE.A(%X\IO15L)%):OBFJE`!FDW^=(@,(LPBG2H&AB"_VG>^!#/AKV
MNRP`0;B39#VW\[EYX`&:@(Z`W^QT]8^$PX^*%P#@!@B-B(..B0#`C(^%#OLP
M^'_ZC<4'`E_!8)`@A;V,A2Y'B(7]`:ZT"[",=N$IC?6";:GS+_&"G`YR8/`3
M<.4(O0,'AM7K+OP&*/G77UM#=`^12$J8#8:'!E`(.>1$<X4_'D^&^8:(V$R6
M79===/&!787N*;I871-=A/'#KXY@.&."[0FU!6IQ!XAJ@6JM5C4#:A,":J0Y
MIVH!4!!#=X8PE<\/@"QI"N-^(+$$!'!*17_DQD$!SF3M]E;X`+A10W0;X-A7
M7JONTNL!PQ",(4+H!9$#`%TFUU6G7X+KC`N(P(L/``9@%2PKY!'UZYBF"B<%
M=8!A\3<(F\^:?!,E.UJO0/LE[XC(W^,(`REB]D`B0-G9&)!$SMWFOB/`U>,/
M^6?J6R>H)I0GF\I<A3STKI(&[U-"U)+(Y33UDT`Z&`"3N3[ZP\<;VVT1!4)P
M\H4-YA@."+`(Y#SCA")2.KGV-C``^5/QIZZ:JVG%OY@[ZTX@&._G80SG)&[N
M,`SN1WL5K#OVQZ0%+@G`F(&_#]_L0ZA0[L<AU1E$&]$Y"(_<ECP`+H..\0_/
M>,R)-IMB<)49A_QD;\6\^S/(:_JF2*R2;,"CY`>5$L$"!$*5H0!@"",.MWB5
MGX";^#^#%4#$==[HA)CU<'O0_:(P@$NDAA(4C/AR>X2\`)J$QWXQ]3[FN0X8
M,AZX\VV"V#JY<PP2G7OA8[7WDKX)&-CMG#:")WW/C8'[.IF]D994/$-2JQ6X
M!!4NU6H$#Q($#PIE/P,/[D'+UQ,,`.REMV@AQTZ*@@8L.,5WE/10_*KD<@W?
M6="D3J3O[$/MDI2K1>$N">'W_KH&(R<GS)LBR4CL"B%`G.>C9XO_(4%O4$A\
MYJ87<4!FI,F^`J(98$P/?,TSQ'$$EZ!@``BT#9&%%1,LQ54:4#'(0')!7^:G
M_5*T.0#F*?&^"H'(V>X")A(80`!)3W(4`PN@A?L+HYZ$&@($YNWJ&020#%57
MX1/XCR*!\=2^'";/J)]JPP*E0M0&"*&(=(<K8,_<#[8A*("AIL(W`:^D`OA.
M>P(``/B;#(<833CDX2,'[8T!Z3^&`?B+!6OB=@45E+($*P``^7P<^]$AQ]KB
M2G[NCC=$BVR0W;H&%`Z,W#?[.<-?CHI(C.AF=F(6$MO.OM\DLB0>BP/0'H?G
M3?S+-W.SM`!JO0)+E@A+@RV'>PTG`'DCA71=PGNB%X7V6ARR&X,"/RT`R@$_
MHXGX^%]V:NJR8\P1B.3"!1V6("4#M""X"]K@>E)Y#0!*)9SNG$\P.(:3^(PK
M/^*0]CP,``4=[XD%1^G3:IH%8@`PXSV``LR/A(OC:('>^LYZGP'(6G^J@>@K
M+JT?I;3:;H7&`INQ!MH!(#>!AI2*@IG4Y90.W]-JZV'/`BZ(7Q<!+O6);7^%
MO%;0=U4Z=P(L>@L``2PY[C$.ZQQ4<&V3BF"0SH)[\B<]5W4`A/JY!=-]&WPI
MQ[A1$SDFR3,+(6:7N1*2B,@&5H7^^G0M[`T:4@2-(P@\2(UQ?8GCANY;(,'F
M`/+D>.Z'ZVQX&@79AQX+Q``4M"(U(BB,*82HYR+B%%'%U,`FL1Q5+O^*/%RE
M+UE_7"=0@"_+ASBAQP)V&LH)M[LFHG*\GKIX3FD*R`L<RXP$+].9V\HEQ,$`
M0!:_Y;FXX`FQ@!(HIOXYP4=D]J:F4)44#*S?`S@35_^"(,0\A!MXS\%3<`F\
ME[G[+GJC"_D#!:77$8?\#)#8$NR1`-SF>?/@:??`<BALMWLL/,)&K\[?ZZGM
M!R$$1!Y;KW?.C5^Y`(,2GWM53.!?X4TO7T3I1@?#,A&:7((&'HX];Z!G+?DF
M_T5D,(92FG3L(`0:&R#+H`WE*>3<"1IZ1$R7M#2^%F9<C(E0"`TUTGFCKG(-
MWLP`<Z<GDDD0`5GCQ&RS>-F0P`EPD,."_8;B&^*5:E<]+6J'/5\]$.S/'O3L
M.<&![."PWNCAD?=$J#[:+%?;F)^:S#SIW5#>"B+6@`;>O=ZR[6/]Z;UY;=ZK
M-A\`WD#7__G8B;HJF]J`@(J\:^4G-?`3U90JDX6,T([]#!1X'=`3@BF,%H"5
MG^]YZD"Y#3@#\`#H*<[V];+OQ]VR^PP,@*["_=KVQM?NU.O3TN``V&>_@-]Z
M6NI@&/KFX`SD`SE<[@8%>0`P@#(3#'BV)P@)C<[5[0+GS%D_`P+5!SN`$=0W
MF=8+(=@"4TZ&>D(1#'3J>'-!L')!2JS<5..2I51TCY6U1C4")*8!"CPDF#<`
M"72<.T7HU;KDS9TBA^@,`LL<+AREZ!/,BI=]6&[46@4)SO,#SBP-^1`/KJ[4
M+$F_[EJ!MG=9@=USMV,&#EB4*3\&<U'((N!#8&LZ42H,"`GBWULM`-T`.3,!
M.8L$=.U66*SV5*.I'0+ZU*D%J9)!QLN!Y8+ZZ[&I^:29FL=;4LM-;`"_I,D`
MS&OLA\=0B>H)A\5^X=!J=H[D!`)Y.AN+$7D/(F:8>&%X,'B2[C,%O08.!/#H
MNAO?&/R9"3A?A:`P8^PR_3$:`SJ+&`O#B3K0!(-\B1,G?(&A4WR2DY70GD`"
M$HXRJ1MQ68%_B0$8?ET_\1Z(/&LW`-15^D(')(L4,P==C94+``"0]0=Y"9G'
M(.,#L@?)(EJ"@'068Q0,CQUD$SV`R@XT#7,"0N@/,IL!N$&&^TQT`@-@5@N/
M]1)Z&?A(#7&WVR)P5+A4<[,1<!T_L;`)[^GNCQ>#::AP;]Z(RBKW`T\73L7L
M)R6ZRWC1'@;O[RU;UP,`^0TX&'?P!B3O":8X_.(+N1$#I*@^7./'#%,"`C?F
M*U\,4^-O.J$4QGJ=YYC4&AH`;1Y9PHX:9QC$A!1F"5]8`=`">GD_RZ8*T#76
M-]!R&U\'[X*5#GKQ9`8/\1J-MZF:-!\V,DF\-Q`]#.X2?`N:#%G#N"5!L#H)
M+O."_&(#''GM!?Z-U8#@#M0!R_9_&]^N0S@&<.R0";$!43.G)1**-S#6QN5,
M"P``]@"UY0,]AAZ+X_@SC60&N3RB[O!>"`/_UP<'-^`$!`0NY0D&\XH!'E^"
MSB?5_=*\342.'[L)-%E>8A!PG:D?RR;#%*L!`&B&`H,:Z@KXU^V$">KRD`88
M/./E7!7\-$?S8``$2`1%%NU3WP!NAP(/SB*JJ$J&WP#(5<L-[@9^0U8K3S)Q
M$="02]AD`/AT!L,"ACB/%-74=,!-%E=>\AJ%&K])W0@KYKW%#CD3$HW<GA8=
M'DA@@RNW9D@29X<]FA$$!G\[A0:=&PV@$29+G@F@+1,I#+"NDNT<EQ@TW?H:
M(3O@[SL-I:-GL1(BL'X3-@`I`BGK.8C$-_PD@4,"+48XL@>Z`1+R8+>V>P6T
M\W3<`(,*+.?N#!</XO.\+!$,$#NG)DAZ"M3EEH&1"`L'SJ'AYX&^`)AJCJH=
MMA,V.@8Z#-@5CX$12D)QX+BA&$A=`^;$";U2H0FPV.$J-<SO&6^C!Y_O$5`)
M6[$#ZC4`&`H("8\H4!12",A@I&4HL)4=M`/O<JY>"7-&J8-R+P5,5R6;&A5/
MK\P>6E-IW\T`&Q9>#^!3=PH&6Y-QJ7X/SDXL&'[N,A1]`'=2:+@9I(,E0.$&
M&P,AR$<<$<L;:6-8[I,"9"P&1$6"!>3PX**[^_T/!P#DM(4(!TX(??KX&P+*
MKA8'`-NRXP4P5`%U"$](@@Z#]1$*!'T)@`7\=Q,"3C%#"(CSX7\5`"EXYH,%
M>"OAPS,91.6("A]I.P<(MT8?>@-8%^$^"8[("2;ZS,"6<L8@0QB"S.\.HTGZ
M`EP+'@1.8A2H=!?D2KX#-A*D.H\:S!9YOAX&D._8/7@AA=+"60D_@64>X543
M%<X_&>_&8&0=(7$:&#W5<=HPPQ2.\4E*=K<%[\=<M0#/2'(*[PD%!\O`KR$X
M#G0+[.H**1YZB1B.4^D=,U,/I96F4*86BMZF5::>>0$]$62I4U:`!.9(#`QX
M:.+;B/R*!@`4IPL((<%!1D>.<P<)]W`*9$,-PW^+N?+^`"3S/^4R&@PLJ%(7
M.T@&,'L8MX>,<030``#Z>O;F+HCP`7H:U^>/P4J*,$#`#,]^#C'_U27'5NLL
MDN=65AWSW@S[N>C@^`9V^Q0@(%T-@4`#`P#B?@)-CQ%&`/#&&'<4\?&$#591
MO'D"C`W.3WT9`%X`?`PQ4/AV,D%14`3#G-&``.QV`?TE>R0+G&(3R872+L>-
M@N(VU^%<7W'NTG0<!C9D6#B7"?[%;FP#9P<U6S<(`JZ!^08X[GMV]2[W"_?M
M]Z'Z&OM4`-RXV8;2A]*'R(QX=CU("O,7;K[2*H$*"_'4+_J%_Q,D;__!!P@9
M9`VJ1.P1R&Z@XZOD_EX__$!B=[/Q14+/T3=.@,U-ENT',S($<.AU+D><3E,K
MAPA/&'I$((3W<SG-O2O!#,0'#871)_8\[[D,ZP#?&(X8@SL\P@ME&"A0ZK;W
MGA<I#+A\WPX*ST?M#A>)L`B*-'?/G@6@M`#`*?L-N`6M5QH^"38ZUPD(>.,1
MBCN$`EFRX2X0&($<4+X),J3)4%!')(H``,PDUG\N,!1K&'4:@N>(QC?YO>]*
M!``$!3?@!`X$/XO45?OBA&=>X?&XCF5@'?!9"(=*`T/U-SE;X>A?P]+E'39A
M)?<)?(=JKP^&3_:-WSDJ)^"U`0U$*?L`Z(8H#O)24L_"FMG=#<#$>`X-28\!
M1HX$"*A%]>&?'D""`"";00:.[13I`-GGU]>'T]&%[_L\L#KI!&A&!S`D`Z/J
M;*D$#3$-=_*!^3`N`'KBGY].2SLQ``$Q,WLT+7/TM@"0^.+N^]I:)AJIJS4P
M#>;=AKA#YLUS'WW@!]"]F0#G)0D8FY)5XQ(FM5J27W"]-3V4]D89ZV@-:%/[
M9@-ON!H;+0R*!>CJ<.`+7J.F@"Q^#DW?!WM79LWP*)@K#*)[&QKERS`'=66]
M-3)44D>E,K$["]#B32=+#KCS`&&%%WP>&1.]WC`",'!BX^`M,[P"B<YHYVE<
MB;WZ6$<-7B*87;%)`N425-P%!.-8C*55!XG9B!(.;0`*".,"(@3#5!D[Y>0`
M*/!W[/?65]5_8=L"R2_T/>$OB_T4_P!=J<L,((@%+0?H'^GS.L0="Q]<)[=^
M6EZ?B!W0$(-ZHH8_V?WX=`C$!]SE-7>YOP01[-C3ZP#>P=<%Q'G__?J#]Y63
M``87!OKJ"-M[!#PC=`5SAE$6-"=]"T=$DUK6;:=\!U_I7EW)$:TX51!?P5\$
MK<@8`%T"704I,`-R%5L&!@P&`O38]J2&R(S4`!+O@#\25%0?RVZDPP,`)4(%
MZ3>_1K5?LB.()0#`-H4+!^A_*@/(<QI#0SGER/"P-.XP!>`_P]Y]"LP*S.`^
MV0?LVC_"L.[&&;:C!DI+&85@R!=Z[MK&6+#[!9=C:PF)-U8.15'Q5D(0?^1>
M"/P2%*@-X$?P7ZK0T`'0#"!VZ/7H633&[#ST`4B""F\:J"X7O`10I#,,>25;
M27`%(8L`3Q0Z3MINB#0!]).@>/=,38`V3Q:86]S82<ZAL(R)77&!HK?_GRN:
M_A[1PV#$84Y&$^I[#Q/I$U036SXC`+-D*S)1>`A(XNS&11]Y[@OW$PP$"#-J
M"A+`S\&G#WC&X`LY,2E[M3$J'K(Q[59_!3'1,<8`J9L=%95$%0?41=`#`/<%
M3HOH]R/EC<&G1Q**`!C(#/4;"SV#-DM$PS.VK6?$NB7],*YWK[7GB:O6*P*V
M=G)]2^\MNND7WKT7%VP75W8CM3")I`.Z`;99]Q([9\$&VJYPIO0.+0W.O2I>
MK30E(;TT[]45!S35-)+]R#3#B</!`N1#T_`HAL@<E67;&(#WDYYL-O(/P'QQ
M`]QR"R*#//7+8D0RSGU)C/.#P`$)H$B&\MKLL`'J]P"*$5^%R^3["ZI.%VS#
M\,3^.EM*X0#<2`H[-PT(&7T75S7N>`BQ`0=BI%-54WT-(>P%HQ7KT@T+'*<]
M(`<`AUH/M*48JCW'<!-"EW0<9`.9E(GV*![[Y)A2AH54$LGA$I9&(33A@H3T
M`,9R8X8"7*YWNTZC61`U?!@FCI#<8_=>Y19>$9&A#0'M"DP<MCR3#1/I"2$1
MR:LBF$RB+_`OV'$.-@`X?P0H=0*U`>@$/0```WD,O1^P;!G?GZ4;%,"(Q9($
M^_C"0H+@7,3N7/+FCUP(M7"5)(W&7\+%'$E9\'O!(CW;<#5)`P`7`9R&7O<S
MU'7D!_-P(A=EO9;V/M=Y6*(F$$1@`X3>$M8$Q(;$`<@`Z89*\^R,QEZ/1`2(
M``!7!_?F%5"#1?9S#P;]*,-)6$B9"B7T"0`PN\F"U_3(@=B+Q2&%YDS,F<KX
MU0+_*NH8`@(=<QEF-GOT!G[S!O],E@8,K06$E=_9D))+`51DQ.UBI2*WF57F
MH18$[!"(L=V24#7^X3*^^=0/P(YWX-06_*B'2/3[1T4J=WP#K2+YTE(D<!9>
MMPR`"%\4&YA=7_U<B0,*6(7,E]H$62`!G,_D5O@#4XCZ`@/`Z[$(1$6*X!&+
M<A#$!V6&:W<-R@>.'@CCQ87(A'>CKZAN&^K(!@%>/A07S*;&`,`9*8)0#BV#
M%.,3`"/`=@H8@`Y2`PY5!(M!%XUT$@8W;QT&#U477A.!'P@(R(7I4E%24@$I
MSH!ZN\U/I@'`K#3/@U^DCEBO[-X:9'"'C>=]+HL;0($[O*""`.#],[[G$8'7
MX%[<AGJEKN<-"RFWXK`7!_2V^S[AP4;E=NN&VX[#Z[^F)SX15<U5!!J`0>!^
M\1!?$U]8.B`$ZN>@^U=;9(`$9@NVMP];D`<U!?8,E\#XW(OBX_^!*Q4URWD/
M,=[7Z(&K!^2>#M^NX@Y-'Y?^\7XH`0!P-"L/5!2$3S>/0_B/1/]F,/LH&O<:
M>`2&PR$``),P"7@`]`R)&8X8AQ6/!(7(P`$T\'O'^0=[^"CUZ*TZ>]A53996
M"'M<`?B,D<0%])-_0_Y(&;>0_E%0$@\]%1+;F'W["I#,P'H^LP:^`YN6F1"Z
ME'#Y`_G!DP/[Y`GS(5C]5MLV'8A)`+00O_5"?MF)=OTX`!UFQPYN"W81Q+98
M'<#0R^/X`A"_^BC"1\_&!V3(%$Y>@?#OKMX^`D/S)Q.%QD)0Z:\%AQ'U`A&"
MV+H&/^`1<!?PC-&&Y@`-)89Y"OJP;"/ISN@7&F24$&,"AG@51L[I^^/Y`NDG
M0!EV`DYQ'.@+T4*L!NTF`^8JZZ4)]>G@.(&AYQ4-S#SA&1$RSYZ/,P>A`+#F
M%2H""!B"#4ZW`E6\#0',;>/[]$3[?>#`/L;AUF0M^!O&]"[QN``@!N8Q&H#R
M@';I&%+[-6\9>P0?*?#ICHW1UYH3L/`LR<`CEQ8L`5+LGM'4XA0"%!<]]0"Z
MWJ<)'H@4#W!B"O`8S0]0&N_Q/PP]%-FD#-Y3&049M!EQ"`X,L*7BZ*7L6AWJ
ML?,&QT#\&.\8BP#I\O4]U1[=.=`\U/`!'EGD=/3AM!0K<MMDYI,Q?$M]%7CS
MJH-]%T3P*D$["T7D\=(%$I`.>>S6>*L!H`_"X>:,_5!01<8.*0"-7!A]5Q#4
M70T7J(1H`:3&'L,`%!24\([7C\4"(,C(@D$]A46HE`8<!AQ('$WV`O"9VX/-
MCLT:+US[#""]X`8OB#@H<`'\XT3\YA5%XQ869&3PUR"P%B![Z2?+C1L3O<$`
M<JL,A-(`-?O?M#7R-?X`)WHU8__C&S4,T@X[=#.<'0CV"/!S6%,KT>9\#7!$
M)+!II8\$(V$"]0D[!$+W"F4<^W<+*`]CCZ\*1/\SV'(`3A47^0S\&A0)$IBM
M*65;#'MO&LEN%QXZ1J<X>HY]`%Q@58/`_9B&(`?E#EK]`$K#NTL,!`%)+$6W
M'T@`2[\$OE0H!)ED_-/XUH5,#<$*.GT1I&0`BTL=!%`>IG;`BQ?G/&0"0!P/
M'0S`LW<4#W`3A1DK!.Q%TO+<-&F0N,TMUSU\`"Q99\T36CC*JKH>5O`#P.'E
MP-ZK[<R,$./`H.)0XQT8[\AB[2/AQ"!$!T*&!+P0`8#EB:#B@QGO=?KLI0M?
MGB;\.R/B#^V]"&(*YG$),+AUW`TT*\=%ZJ/',!N80GKHC@?@;Y@*24-YYMU=
MI&-Q_M3<L9$!SD6[1'BCL?*N0:Z<S*VW%];/!L%E``;*JP_#I@+&)(L`R5<%
M*@DP#W\TL(W2+=A"-'U3Y1156P9]P99PKNO+$7+R^=E.E%."'R-;))7:ZP/A
MZTA4Q08Q=+M+85_\1C3`,>U1B?)7#(\2>A<7H!`W<BG&![&_*/-&Q"*>J,[A
M'AE\]+H9"QD]SLP9+X+2%2J8`:9.K%`,.J;H&;I!L@.>7RW!$W<-O*>HCX,,
MM0QP";S"H.A>_18/%B(F5%A\Z=*VS2,G#=!P_-+FVM($HPP12&.VZR4'N0A4
M@O@=!D3\!(<,QJ3H!8HV@7IW-</(!QP;>3QA-P/`ELW9YC(?)@<6!;&WS7O^
MM!.JIR!ADS_)PLBJ"1)J8A3CZ@Y*?5X!HHX=)`+@]%<O#<Z`R0?<NVK"$R<`
M.,/R@U_R[\C1>=#[J-/2[GC[A!H"4#L.ZI,A?8.[\Z+0[8$-9@JU#>/S!L1T
M(1";VR!.[6`,`@`+CG,3!7MH<`XCA7P4008S4GU1-@7B62O**QC,>=KETPEA
M#NR\!G.4`,U4.HU9#X?@!-$8,_N%B6ZYX8DCOQU#`L9=FS8"<_;3X0!T@R'Q
MJFI3YE[^4/J!/@(I53Q3/%&Y0';KO1ZZ`%V(5/_`[IO!Y@/_@-)09X"@)0Y.
M--.&Z@=[XD8*`NHFX0F:#01W7B*,=R&#P2-'/P`$+!'*+;(#=3-Y7=@2"A)<
M\-4+9AC0NA@2#A("`G<2W=R.Q/C(P`:Z5W3_T$3#'1X=$QWM!D:Y`_3WS-;J
MMT(6J>TS#%P370'L!`<2;N/0V"45]H`(R`3.<P_C#`824-:QLQ,J,X0&;_I*
MDMOADRH`'`4Z->0=!.'S"D:C=F/T`2'(7IOY@(C"\>;Y`>/3!!G\=1W'`006
M@,T4ZT(.RB'XS!8O%2_1PT7NK*[(0B`)I*Q"?16_*ZL`NR+F!+4&T>F``:$&
MA=/?X(G*$M.'X1WJ]98,'18:LVQ+8==6'&,P)AN-Z2[4[.T:CC5O?59^!B4(
MB$0EY_L`R;C549$!%U'BZI%-"8`\@XG:U'\]@A!C>K$9Y$R6+Y6GRVG+?6#W
M9/,`*;Z71W=V(T(-R51$;<%S&0)=7Q4QXB:YJ1\/M>M@)5WO:GT")G3=,.0&
M"A<2E'93I/UY)R)U(A$0C84*YM;>KQ9HGPTNC6C;]`$Q),Y;AQ*)X?FPGI/Q
M:G\`:R2JAXL,#V'\#'H!O"5"R=00XE45$E@Z37`#I.7@$N\T^;Q<A"Z*]_1D
M=8PK&^<1$YP-*@,<\IDB`G8$P.BKKPKF#["O'T#7V,RN%0&FB`"O$3O?Y.3Q
ML:0PN1?40S_TX-O]QJ;;+<T;LLP=GM<\'01==A",N4/M@?0^!O+@YHC2T("3
M\`S,"#L.%%F;@0(B^=WCK@)#9ASX,\@G$0'4#II,R7>T``#,]W8J!@J3L=T>
M`)@-O3X^.CM;^<T(,.J%W.R.SF'CG:!0]9H+V<#,*]SOX_'K,KM\TV6.\O">
MM/CS-%(3G1/K^@'"S,+C,"L/&*/3B!C9\`+T(\'3&/SVL[D8N?@(S`)!#_3O
MWQC&FW,8J0KL?5")!`GF!MV/!\QD=33T$LGB!LSIW[J!SB/L[$X/U1@&#^3=
M+O/C6@S=!^HS&^(&Z`;D!N_J@YGV!G0-X>D&>@;;RS-M!M`&,S."!L(&E`;,
M!C-#M0;.!N4JN#X+GP&5_EBE7K,`@$RW4K-0SU;#5-=:TUC?7N-Y9A#UE!C[
M+@E4"I%UWHP+ZJXXP>V,,#EY$>LAG%&VI.?K_X.LSBE,XX6GM/EIA`,4$,)"
MV/VU#G+EW_A%RDP(`^@#[G`9U`F/''%3Q-,[!IA39LDQ!@KIG-Q@Z10,E+G\
MY0!%`*AD2<XBS^P!I$.6"R92.=>$.`4H^HL-)%E:6Q('ZD>7YMSBC_GR`2!<
M`8L%7*696PQ\(:>4*E[.G9%\"H8*>^C`9'MRY%3SW^#,*H6+P-H.ZV8((S.!
M8(_+!P,@,@>/Q.(T\>].#+P%,27E.AU/"2PGS!IUO0,)..PA$B,2"1T/C]2X
M620@",(*'C7J&!P!41.VC/@<(JN_"NH#734)?O0)KC41!H?L"'";\_?Q>0Z$
MW*R&R0,*D__&'1Z1,`71(RP?6_@S<E8.X@[X^#<%0!T/BVG\`>\'@88G#`CT
M1/?1#OQ2@M%Y<>%P<NN7"6CVJHAS#:I&5`F?;H`"HG6"Q)@,%\LO!@81S%P<
M"1-^'%]A[';^@&[O>"5&MP0R&+*>XP_YX&CO52NN'?/I:B(2NGDP!$#F`BOD
M+-3M02JOB@1%YQ=E]52*C2<`<\QG`H@"C<:[P\DB*I>OR:+(#!8?PJKAP@3F
MQ;*=L>_8#P=J\A`?`+Q9":HGZ<SJE[9:82$E#-?AU<XRSI'Y(\N',C#G/(4R
M%)<Y`'H;PP]S"B#]"#;G/6A--2Q[&>^2^M(5!)WS35>B"JQ%9ST&0.:E)P9Y
M"PU9,L'H##2L%0C@H\,!VLF\/5SEC;W`VZ.(/$JJ:ZLWR0H&M'\S(L@^"G0(
M<\!Z%39P\7\(@04A%.M9Y1:KDP;K9!DC(GSU$28%*AI:X[08X[C,R#=83PA/
M]LA7#&-'<_]VPG`[&PE\SGFY7UB:TZ[PSM#0^RN`?OO%5U2B^L+L"G<PB7-L
MV!MX"/8G<06D!<;59%"[E4?+YL?.("H]<!@7)+&N%J5UP,4VYSP[!$-VWYLY
M(BG=-IJY!3*\2-3%)Q$(&<5<E05F`L;]B:R`!`\`9_H@!`_-'!`-P3C2=B#;
M&'T*-L)XC?0PV!$4'PL4BJQ)I@*MDAXA/A<_N!%NDC_[`2N-RG0<X_GWJPA=
M.PP*`9AC4`Z_\PT$C0$OX(A!+%EB]3T%B#Z'[+C7+=@;[8KJ#"I33*H[K\EZ
M+-A.C0@4HD8<)CJ!2R;KGC]V5Q_/`2HFGH#%(N)FHB;*J`3]8*QI("S%#04T
M`QKDT``<)0QW1UFN$BX*-'/MU.2"!"E)//:PMC8D6+5`6;V6X$]"YQK$M)L0
MYX)%!'N9!25_$+T0'2'OL1!8G*G%!Q`P49GH#>H-20T&O7$=+AW>$"4%U7BK
MO@1FL`2C>*D3%-J(_UL2#R$NQB@6N`3KMQKXU:E$&@P/.Y*-2)H(?QB7WOQ1
M)<,1B/SYTP^=$<OX($7.'PT&!=-A]+.^=5T23',$&!"F]8MW\AD'<U.C\$`1
MC'#U$@F>!XA"YQ1H&#^_%N#IXJDHQS+W`BN"&>>!',Q[\LQ,Z[,!0GL)AE+I
M@;[:!$(P9H1)[FMW,TCHY?LA8RXI`WK7U@6Z.SOL;?2<),=SR28;"MH3H3BT
M-\NZ5ICIA/YHU.4C?K/9'JE2G`>O<ZFZMAX&"Q35@AEO*?W0AAGSA"^`.H"#
MCVXK@`STY^7PA\TW&/I'=0F`:#P`>!ORPWX3KGS*C*X$KH'H.I$1HZ[M#0@:
M`M[#R!ZL!KL]OH&-]KM)0-2)X!T@`_O<(,J)^[07?.C/!W'=S])_9$$BX"SS
M1^B$[P0?T5[@H,)&C=2)O`1T#@WZH@90_7B[-?R^3?K<MH+X[RO^\NL%S@.Y
M'C><ZDG7-->J`W!X]"G#("X<*@SY`L<3@IB=1)'XD`Q%DT7I#%ZS&(H8@U0U
MT]4!2H5S\$8`P./D1ZQJSR'/"P&F%`']&(0AB/(29Z<RV5X&Y'+U9MO,(';[
M!_/O`B8D!O,XQ':A!0/'C\TIR<B8F0$FR?0W^KL0@B7.*7VV-`T;40!\!7")
M0UF-,X8'!*#A*`;E8?<S"`$][%W]GEJ:*0_*"`]2KZ@=]0Y!?V,=C0/ST^C%
MFO%Z3L^WF.I.9<W'0=VXW^XT."OPB9-G!H;::JAS.V%GNKT%->8O"B8?(AER
M>J_&]M%B&3$-I:)WR9BS^+#UKE[.#8!&K_,`U;F\"!1&G$(@>?>$)A\/X_0X
MBJO]\T60[0]^%`_-C21P]JCD\^<:\JW6$S)ZX*_LY!CE^O`/R7SJB5G>$B3@
M=7B],RAO3,P,N@/T<M)3`NIAS="O%S@S_"S&.9JVJJS$!B$G^)O+"9`&I1KI
M&C0E\`"`$`)!%<!6N.S`6SYDZ3**6X1^]15N>N2%3O<U8742*N8"MX9X`"R#
M#QB7)?(EXAW`^$OE"LH/*@Y(Z1'A$LKG!'5@[]P"7WK?-HY<\UQ$^(C(T.\1
MB4]_8AF:_A3A@L$`-9WU,UR$Y6TFUN^ZZ$0WPAS;L0/+5+('LFL@!4B>E?%'
M]*H/H6.\&&[%P#H(Y_ORY/GU"`U`?HG*-U3M5L7!WZKR5%E'`?,%^0NZNR)9
M"0G?)>:;#0#JA[_X!DY<8@L($@38Z@4`]7T-[Y7ZX*W09IOY-ONL#`'\LN3P
M^'2]):1,1CSHQ//G>/*"T"C_W1KS(OO;^ZAV0%/Q4R@`UYO]A?;DU?6#3MC4
MOZK.&M2&S@R4#,SBSU!T99`O[E_E#N1@TY&8=/0.8402"[PF*W?#%07_Y0I0
M3\5"1]3U//7W_`+WN@9"#WX%,;HT#`9%7^$'8[5`@OB.`!@2?15Z"38B57X3
MM@+*3Q`C[%[F!NX*@@"=7?*Q9@,.`"'AAN8;7(,3[;#\\WJ[TV:]`-1I!%K,
M=<&'?_KF&A)ZG#JL18?4#)KU^+#A?>UA_7DXQ5[SH%/YMB`T/3C*`_Y7CZI`
MOSO64KITN`#9;7!OTQR-^/F4[P#"?7@/7UP4[BL>"P"$4T7.=Q$`&&T16812
M]>)$RHS9!@C'^6D7<PZ8Q#*.`J`+6%3]/(9%Z_96"^M4X2\(5C@3EJ""P$>C
M4?T"U])7P4@:\(4Z++M[(P7Z+3^;!:G2.D21]T2&]`@E1@@S`)Q:#MP&LUZ9
M8P[&QC1>%/#Q!#1X5.)N5C'J'O/RV'2^8XK/O5`@'5MPZ=WGQO)$9595F@UH
MQ@H`E"[?2@+:=&H!`DZ^`4X-WG$/.0<RN,85>C(>WQQQW>6%K-)AON9CRZ@5
MCA.0#C08!Z>$WJP>X5^L*HSUT`XX(!L/(%&'SW049E_EE[@<1<38O7!-BU+.
M+0R:#O<ZEZ$.H8?!Y5*31/8N`,[L;@]KT2'<=_2A^F@R(]<MQ3PH`#B*^P@A
MF![E$3X#<*>$2RM<X1[=7>X'\2)[@^K7N`6$!P15.Y,;>C&\W28L-0F<$>Z#
M0R8CW".`<!<`O`(*>PJ/Y`XR]G3T!,7"E:VHH`E2]8<*YZ8"3F=:!_V6(56%
M8V8/TW8'&TGZ[YY!>:N[W!</4>K2'>)6]Q&N;^D1OW0V:CM[N#F2A34!#+C=
MZ%'2D.TD5\V(`8`:7X8+A%D)X4^5YXIWP62T<-^[(&'%0E)3[B(D`BCI(VP[
M#>>N56:;HS"\XW6R40N"VS%#UTACG@``P(M#`@A$!3K*9&UEY[Q&F(,C70QQ
MB,H`AKM*-NR4BPJ%?N!W'5.Z['T0W,@LELL:VUGU&RNJH.JU6@^=VIW+EU,E
M5<S9R\W@3K4$[1HH3SX`I60(YMS,AGRW'K%!!X"QC[7B7]./0+DNYS\:Q&5_
M^1YPDQA[,R$)-U]A6!H7LC8D=-B/'[AN.P),J</+X=F(>;@IR`0)'_>V2K,"
MZ@UWCNQBOX]'04D2U+'@&2"I3`A@)1GH!NQB^A8SDI08.$-8A?86L`[O3<4U
M1F=*BQ:[##S"A3T>-$R_G=CUZLSF!02N=XIM'P/=);!%B&X/Y\_T$08&US+S
M#SZK9)HWA&7,#$%9!^8J[K`<D=8KKB?XE*X)!+3CWA"U!V;"E:+XA%VV$\JI
M$)G2FFOS,<][O#%_5T7O;#''<6:#;O/;HOSI$X7*)E&P,`J_`;<2PD?J^N\(
MRR!'C%3!L*X9+_D2GUII]0U46?C2NU1S5&\>#WHMX1X1:\;IN$0?\*YFU^LE
M::(\GCQM#KS:^RY!+EVS,0,NY?01PH+E_:)83S33(/+T+F,N44U(#H4N'KW3
M$P$`]H]&I_$.V2G!`+6/Z7B#RO?FKD771?&]B42@`*LT*_C[=V5)IH!D40->
M$3Z^F1D''`?<($$F.[QYZ>=],!,0P!#7PQ2=K?SH*@WSYQL0)KXHY`>F*!B1
M>3-:1"I.*I\2`'<4A%H/Y''CX3\-5ZD4_@_C[7JC]@:.8X#L,M>U!U<![L'K
M&_E&=`#L4-PYV`78Z3K"[+3H\S\`8!!\"8]E#@:+^0EV`<0ATQ:+`5J(J@*L
M#?#/I,I+$3^`T!$"=!(<]Q7,V@!.NVKZ30])?#41#,OF@[-X!8C@#$<-A<6'
MT1`>BO_,TQ(]^/E__C*X&"Q&$(Y!'TQZR.*".!BRD'LGC!L&?R38OD*?GS05
MQLRL"O7U!0`89!#JA4\S4QSNSU[PH5[]!4,"@(N$C/0,>PEX$?3ZS]+T."$X
MS,UM@G9%S3S2]/H+5O4<TQ(-MT@:I(IV"V%"`?_0_!('YOF?`#I&&@D4=08A
MH</G;,OG1R*,P70'(Z^)T_@+["O9/`OU274[MDUXKM[1;JE[IZPY<A%J<5VK
M@TD$*X8Y+[75#5@(%:6OVP*P]B3Y0&?FXSM`,038\0X#%$"5D`N.Z3/@:^#"
M%5CE?/0>N7`N;DGA^0*B,OB'U<E4D_AK\(4ER@C4[4;MM/DD5P)"U"1/[]RK
MADXI3G`*Z1:'/`:70W[$"O(J,F0%"BOK#3R"`_875:2,[N5>^5N-51;%!OIA
M[NS[6/6@[^PNT<A`[-WS^4/PBP4X?/#9#9&X(>B(%_2M7`W@4Y1L)I3`:\:S
MFP&T%*)/W*O#^<6+-8D0$AQ&"!([$H+U[H/$7/T/!'95!00'71=U\#L;?'<C
M<,<%>1CF+%S`!@,6Y4[QX<\+ZTK9W!1+Y!?D/KB"X,BZ[GWS\V<,`J@D/^>B
ML7C<!>-]`6BV/#TX.]0.>CC#=53T'#$OIE3AW\DBZ/HRC=.-$1?4P-+^,\3[
M'@0RT??:YMC@XD9_\CJ?G8"$@LRVTP-;D`<U!:*Q.0R$&A0K;=.\>```5)*G
M6L%;`2`"A=$2ESG;F5]6(/O^B`P5LPT-4,X``(J;RU((A=C_R09S`)0S#4(/
M`%D$Z?VR)P^(UI!;'5H7`$H[5E=7S(.9;#.SQPU"]55S?6!@#L4-KFX1#U)0
M4H\M9C`8RQ/W&!G(!@-@`(#G^H7W#_4L@PV*6/HOV22'!`8M@@SW"21VW%X<
M;$Y2Q`Z&A#B,G#<1RS2!]_MQ.\CRA\2BZ\C@$\V.['GTC"%"B1RL4J!"??(9
M,83!,)[T)8BV7%]24E+;"?P!T$C\!_P-BXON`8@T;2@2^PS$!UY6N`D.RW@!
M)0@R50'")@?J@``20*D)_OE5BLZ%P"+B^H+0,8L`2I(UWH'N=GP``)O/**"&
MTSC0@LJ,[X[5B/8`;9OT(#X%.!N#U`<3"X]&*$9_C%6"&R2M=@@),!WOEQH^
MP"G6S3FL'Y&V#9`,*P&)HRBP^&<``#:$$H[*#VP&O\0UQR;F9-)@M/IH:#X8
MC`CLC09T:1&%S2V,YJ&=`QK/Y@B`%3TC"9:V`3[9R08=90`50/=&LE/YM`P-
M'3)@"._F'0QJ7!7XOPFX7(=K_A1WZ'V1QA:A%B@?_2Q*)ILKXNRJZCD$&F\`
M".-P$H[!`#(F-@AS%G\"D_<D[>BI`=@``+3"1DDBS8OA`G&)Q?NT`0VA%XP0
MK38>/4&#+3]`P!PS]?T1!AU*A1=,.])D'C>1^.65*!)G`!1/YO'P6ESWA<")
MQ@).R'XV7!8"@`2^UK+R"K?VN"*"(`&NM^.=M0^.P3#0D;@QP>7?U?9K`8+;
M``KD[XT6J4P`F&G3$5#G)&Q?M_L%OS=G'W<X-X+(.!E[]T"3T,``^&D5^VHH
M^7S`3''R9*H`QNM%=^YJ5?965LPS5,8)F'KTB<#Z.CH.^MLZ<`<X=DH.#%#>
M4!L`VTY2PJ6,$C?<B<:+``#RA=@_^MKI)SL`(#83BD;_J(&9&\V=X5]3^)`P
M_D4`\>;(N<P?[,C]OP!PWA6%`8=7"#OL!,Z&UR\@/HV#QO'GU>("VP(/Y0C;
M"MM*`KC?!@S^@>%PM0:-S0V2*(R)C=A,O-.Q<46+\WRS-LT``^W=6Q4-];=9
M8H@',]DQP&7BC8=F8Q2>I8$.$V(`#/;69LYB`@%N1Q.FAQ\7%1ZU(2,H&8UM
M3_Y;R*49_^@#]]"1(\\HAA($[U`CXW=H"OW;$P876#%8IG%V\`'``R!<!I$Q
MKZ/4L@321!+P),P"#5XD(</ON)?/@*EE+H06EF,`A/$_V=-&U^QW`*X"#T7`
M`^GRFQ=.-'<H#@0.`'!;05-!5RY7+2-$0`#@0ULO+4]Y;VA\8BE0=&<!>`<N
M6'AB9F!\?@M5#0"`?GLN0V,E*CPD-S,T*#0V-*$%%49910,\07MV<[30<6QZ
M`#9,54-<@A8`'UYI9VPD!B1!;F!@8'9\9&MC$C8_/3TN&,`%-CTM.%Y)54,E
M36UA0#1O3V%@*U@@=P>`DG5\:W]Z;FX$LRXA;OR`"6@W[!]K+UTI504'C*X%
M:F1M*%-K"$UGW`3O!F3O?1$""0(%`@8`:XV4R=='+O4N&4>PQ```-6,`+(;_
M.%3^X-TM)J3F(0``&5R04G+X4T6@T*98E?QLO```][$KW2@[BAUB&+S9R^)G
M3```>]+/=;HEGZD<9#LH;`HQ(@``Q=CY89RA33''I;]AU"LIW```+MY@59B&
M/G.-[J]L-[4%-```EVFKC3;<R"HK%E]O2+A?0P``77NQ7S%FFIRKL]1Q%@%*
M:P``GT-W4TJO9'>7VBD"3\3-WP``1$[<]W41H_O<^+W5QU$>(0```DGSM]]>
M[(U(*L\BY,TU.@``ZHTAP*XI(7P9X\-ZN$_H$0``60E=<6N^]^Z(OX$0JH(G
ME```Z`FF!;K(L]>1(;2B_LMIL```Q(STL)IA.\1R/LBS\P\,N```B^4)05MI
MRF5>3?0\<;ZA#0``0(A*/89<F2DS?.2MK9#"?@``0+18VC#M)Z-*FY?J$G'4
MZP``^<DP:F'_A:/-[@HO5]"I0@``@@:5V)@2BA$"UU^773Y^>)``Q"!*ZJ@!
M)J[$0%8``,F"[RYTFRA\J075\)<RIZD``!..`)6+FO/,9T7.0=0O4;(``#G&
M#1Y.REH$QD*_D;E,5$(`((-3<,<!IF>B2&M\LD:<`P">AX7XJ1&+D1E3<GUR
M9@``PF;)0O=+*#J1YH@?*[/S5@``AMADXY=Y>Q1"M1$,Q#[M0@``Q9&V/+%+
MFG![V"DIK+WA9P8`O$%4?<BRA%^8`*T]Z!\``'MI3#E(81L(-X]K^.%-C7D`
M`&P>L]!.@814^8TQ[V:O1F8``#0G".-Y.\=G;8,7]UO4!7$``!M7<BC3=A\?
MJ43_%)YJ5UX``+^HNA)Y?ER3(MNC@F2//!```%"1IB+@N<'!B,DNOT6[KWD`
M`"N3?.-$Q[1UMZ@0PU5G;%T``(<?'?<BM==HOV?Q=6C((*```+&AO6X*JJ]/
M8O84T<#^E1Z0`-349][%?F'?J4T$,`#EPQ^EV^1W-ESZ^=5[K0``VB,80:=2
M\9S)H)#+_@NX-0``+'^S;"D#(];WC"!`Q50^2@``[L#;0UE28(X]F"-'X4:(
M#```_*S5NK>J(:(;3',#_*5):0``"XH(>2F\#1U`/K=1\6ZG.0``[P4I,</I
M`U^!SPPD9R879@```2&+Q*W"=Q>T[TN?-:J[.P``2V\XDZ;$%CY@KB(Y.+?Y
M@```7*%UR-$W2MBO1MH.@C#A*P``PI/FIDB\:7T\=TI0A8]^T@``",+"""J8
MR=%J$/9Z9]2+_@``2MM>R+-A>8\@A:DH*0R*]P``*9WIZCD?X]-FU'N20^)6
M60``8VC0=4@^S-5(?O**DO!J(```WT%K1E]XR`TYVFE.N]5&%R`#O?T^(T&8
MBL:^C\9A``!/3Q7_DQ[NXQ[JXIL#V:?U``#4QJ+NEEH7)<+56L*6&5?0``#@
MGM5?5(\8Q:.^A#SKQ9Y;P`!W/!=,[J@1MN>><Y'L<@``\,Q>%8LW#*QMJXYQ
MJB54<``2^H8E4'ON3!'H6-P``-\JHZE@-]3GPY."Z\#AYJ(``-@;^/0(#JLE
M)Z4E@2A3&U4``,&P[8YV'RB"G+R$Q]'\%QH`(/>R':$8M26[SN3*BU8+2P!,
M0Y.9BC$^;5T```!HZUEAJ55:&-M)36SZMPH```P>.RGS?C]>*%L/:_.>J;4`
M``=DE%@&">AYR!/HNAM'F),```M_F16=T055:NBYZ+`*4;X``$`5/L>-<`(8
M)<RQU^_;-"@``.S`\K;]E?!1.7H\^VFHO1<``/2B.E!+;MDC3YEMWBSYG[X`
M`%Q3W\PR@H-R&WE5W9?.RC,``)2MI,BYDIDSV7V^"T;MNRD``+MA67;,UM%#
M4R5(FGQ+D&H#`"D8`"(Q*=`6Q%2R2/5I```U#G0_AAA@6Y@:T\4XT>&C`/HM
M_=2.K,L2)2;"W(,02@(3+/O]$82$)0T(*`4+!(\X#<DD&0<Z!L$\!=(+=P@$
MM`C#,!(7(`9O``0@4"B)"#`B3`8^/"0`9'HJ-CY;;D`P(S9F#$`>`&)5!#`R
M+RD!-```804($WMG024H(R1Y84=A(@``/3U44E5.$59)5D)'0AD1$P``;DE$
M45952%=$#PE:#DD.0@``'ETX+!%"?WA_<&9],71^?@``<6UD<')N;FTA>WAS
M9#TA`P!@>&&2G)^$F("%FI^'T9L```R?DL**@X>&AYS.A(V4QH0``)N"B^CR
MUK"[OKO^M+._NJ$`#.*=C('BI:ZGH:7.)L?)``#>S>^ETL:7T,'/T,_`E+>)
M``#7TI_>S,O4RL_(D:V?T<B%!@##WR/@\>:JO+R<R/'GX```[?+[IKR$I,'\
M^/[M[_#MZI`!\[:LC-FU$PL6%Q`0```)'D%9?UE;/!\9"@<+``4.!C!-2>!(
M+1`8-#<\,?L``'-W67MY%C<]-38](B<H<VL``%D7`AX'%0`;22%05UP?45H`
M`%H76UI='TU:6UM,*V!!7TH``%5.30MZ1UM>1TPY?7!S?!N``4!Y;WIU=GT[
M!69O8&]G@(M_/"8*1&$N?P``FX25T)Z5E925E-[PO9^"E0#(P,W(X,G-P+.0
M@8.%````@IW-O;"OH?.NO*^VL+GY``#CF+&IIK?GHZR_[Z.FO;/E``"_I*&H
MGY7RQM"=R]*3QMS<``#3G=G4S\"GX,W)C\+%A>',``#?R(^`L\7E\.#NO_S]
M[+?^!AGFY#3KI.?K5.+G``#B[(O'X*GMX!L<4PI661T6`)`2%Q]7?RH0$!<9
M`@<(`9"Z"`D8%QX>#P)&/#,A`P%O=U4:!C\B(C4S`&0T8#`A,S,W+S(D8`@8
M`"%M*23\#A0\,39_6UE9``!%4E@<<$U*01X,+`%M<B0I```^;5E81'%Z8'U_
M/'IU>'%G<!$D2GEN=?IJ*P``.B8F*2H.`P!+<W*2GY"*DP``B9^"@]JHFXB3
MD)^)BYJ'A0``E,:@BX."BX[+Z^R5M+O^M0``N/:[M:B[_K6\]J*BK[VKZ@``
MO*^JK[GNIJNYYJO5R<J>U@`,P]W3UL.>W-_?V)8(PMT``-[7PL&+VL;9PXNJ
MKY:7GY```('<^>;^[^N][_WRM<?,W-D``+OA[O;@K>#KJ_'OX%L?'AX`#```
M!U4(&`M],AL$E0H%C`0?#0'430(*#A$&``A/Y78R.R$N,C,K=@P[```R?CTM
M+RLC+#9.`"<U9B@C```_*W$2,CL\:UU+'EQ74U(2+@-R=6QA>`A>38`$2EM!
M1T82""AS;CQ@`&!U8'%F/!PS<&]A86QL`)!I(P573D%,3$8@*RT%`'QV6S@9
M@VY-))8)4)">^%>65`8(*L0*Q@T1D<8+#!84%@``!@H%#0`,`P,*!@D!#`"7
M8!_P/CQ64$@`)`<N!;6_N9&7L;X`(*'Z\_'N]:'J[Z_;RM&'`S+>__D2$AT7
M%=P-,`!'-!X4$"MX"PD&3QQ("P"#"@T)'`U22&@+O'XK>3T!`,$^8'Y>#3LD
M.",D*6]J``!:2TQ**2\@;3YF*4I?4`0:9(`J55?_21-14EE664H!($PF8DM1
M10YD5TI*#@$`='MZ<R@R'CYG87,V0D`&241W<D1O?OT@*P4H```515A##0D'
M0$U.751344)!```S:T9!=C5C;&-X'VEV;6,5``!A='%\<7P'1'=Y?61A<'-@
M``!@#5QYG(>2D=/]K)6!@)F>``##_:V8AY"$@..D@IV/BH.``(#SN(&&O;J@
MN].9NKN_M*.P`0`@D+FJH["L[.R!J;"LJP!DL.SL[)_=SM&4G.[\,@#.U@Z:
M_M?"SXJ.CHH``.[/R\^*KH[I^.6+J:B^OML`Z/[BY)JZOM#[]_.6NH<!`>CM
MZN\$>C`?$#P```\4.QL(/PX(-Q</(!\`)!\D"18G$ST6+0``$1H@/202,S%2
M&#<^-S@W/W0$)UX="PXG```B+VHO("YJ8E]77SY]55=&9`!47TDD5ED)9DQ;
M042`#%TG:D1$7UM.K7EX/```7WUN<11)<G]S>61F<7]_:0``>"17;7YI##\^
M)&9M<-R_KC(`K]0$G8J4\[*%E)*%``":A<.#GN'#E(&%AI/'X:ZR``#BE9R"
MUY"^N+BPTX>:@M/[``"QJ+O!DJ^HKZ"VK>&(DL./$`S*U-?4TPO1S``@T,[=
MW\BD]._QXO;E_)X#``#YY//B^:VYF\G4U]2J9`"_KYLJU-G0R]G:S<(``-O4
MAL?E_.NJIZ;5"AL=&UH```P9!%H4&P8.6@45&`\+`$8`#%HC"!X/'$X,!11&
M^2<I`$!K.3X[/ET1!1T&5W4?(B0&``!F8D(**R0N)S)"%',```%Q?V4V<T9?
M3%L296(R?7T`!A$0`FYV9'$N8T-'3U=.(`-\>1-+.F(G9G=[%E$`Y%(Q4P)1
M<F=P=GTN!HP$/&%[8P+<_```S(*1AH>5DY+<]*RYI^RHO```L:WDJ8&!@YZ5
MQ*:(B[^WYAC([/?4@/>ZY_/5GP``"+#`XX*YM*6S^N#`E8V"P!D`F-2W\?SN
MG_#6V-C'``#:G?W1S,;,I>;@_*V`]<;"P`#6WI6-D]WV(_#YII32]0``\/WP
MO-G)UZ3A_O[C_KZDA`#`TNWX[>!4+#DG7!D.#AL&!60+.Q(2``!(#A!?1V5`
M/0X?`@(5```?.2!K5W$W-"LT,"4R-7T``$&A87MQ/WEU80P1%D%*2TX``%L?
M4$!"0%Y!51\.$S$P/#F`H&A14D934P%'```N"2H.`PIZ9'-I:3Y_.G%S``!_
M.FUV>W0Z=&-K;G<.3T=+(*A.4E)6/@KRLP0)P@MV"O:3```]/T&]T]?]0%HG
MQ\%(,C'X```%5#KRSQJ,V;C/T>-!8UQP``"&!CI1(<L7S.-R,3WA#*0#```(
M?$2_@138-KW7`!4X>!R4```85D#TB2H`+<RE\@-YJ.J\``#Y_!L)9ZA,.DE<
MK3*4@I^N(`-.TX8#&-\/R8BVO`X``.9K;^^?B_1<S"WR+'KEAU$``(G0A7F1
M]&_6HG5*9;5-E`0``$'G3-<;OVQ'9`W#AK=M^5<``/5PIF(5'2.@'Q^;YFC"
MKP``,$7,<Z^PRB\6J_4^[@%/``!I!S4U?2(E!S1*P?%H@+)!``#DF[9*JAX8
MD+'$69C\EAX&#`.'<GW2F1T^/35H)S````SJ3`#C*.0RKE(L*8KD\-```#Y?
MUC/?$+,.B^'"I+;$<<6`#$<@C"&7<3)U8;?*R@``XRBP[7YP/[T7ZKT2"@JZ
M0@``%$AH'KQ>BEF&K^P:DI'U70``+K^U*Y(W4W]##DJE:H8^N0``P&;L'*L`
M,+=&!3Q\-E#:S0``/P889K#Y^6F$.+L8+MI(10``S:N(,,TT=FVL6'^&WBAZ
M[P``[B5M-%NGDR."SGGCCU9!X@``_4W>7_MAR[/C63/B$"V2!0``T4$"M0]9
MT?,>]_A2>-P=G```6)4NQJ%%<`[Y;M1L<6:,_0``)G;Z-ENP]^2,O4VZ(@=C
M<@D`\&>?HHNN7L6@MX,``.%W_!?Y&3_@8>!0*PJ-(`,`0!@@$,+B3&,[Y*J.
M_IXBGP(`N\Q[ZV&M#6(]K5+4```A3!T0<\=+OS3Y#6[,2EBD```DP)1O9[#Q
MA&C98KGYX"=?`(!AG:3Y/\HDH-%WGH6;]DV[`0!OT$K3AB7)P$E$>N*0"P``
MOU(Q?156:G_/^.=LO6!Y*@``'N'$,^>G\K/,`^6Y/=/^A@``C=FA9YGFK'E>
M'MS44Y-D^@``@!3H$2H]7_EK=2?PXEQRF```6/?<@N9_U2`EWLO_:+4YZ```
ML@;#__95SYS:K\1ZPG)>N0``9/_]H%/?[Z;27^+.0;MF$```<RA\2=_<,9R)
M+`>VASH$!0``B4DBPQ1-/%+#%RKJ(.'L]P``%3",T(:&>M[%CU""FUA_=P!`
MIM+&:LGZ5\C=I2<@LF2"!@``>U,DIK_.58X76IO.``"H8?0J.7@4_9SUJY$J
MZ3Q\```T:G>[!`2(3%O@P"(K<MJ0``#M4*R'[W<`W^4<>TX`<<=@``!)@^FO
MU`#:%21]2-6T-@8K```Z_U',5P94ZZNTZLT+AI!Q``#Q2C7<R]WXZ>F@..6U
M'>D(`,":$@$Y5;)?H'@NVMW#.RX``"*H3*A.S7QO7TN7<6M'Z```],R?LEZ0
M$&#,CE$_%>^[JP``>$+,_WO+2/;,^2"D:"XJ+@``.!(9IPO+5ZAS%K;F3)&"
MHP``+Q^O]'%RG*5I`!?B8OG4M!B`MQ`D,_>N*[YXM6-Z\IH,`(W3$F%,N61B
ML(QS4@``5U0HA(E)D++09:YHF@5[\@XRPF4`1H(`!@``DOZGYM+>P8[VZI>K
M24)1$```9P>(5]ZU!0?6ALSC7\]IN`!D?Q8H4MT98)T)+7H```!2^G]_;_M?
M/R8;5XBT,$[_```]K?)$[V*4HE]]I/U160BY``"_72&19B":YI0]BI?X+FUJ
MR#(/4AD/`'L`39``&43E5&B,U80%:BH``([C@&E<T2K<&@;*=Y%_QX,``$@O
M>%INKY<VWXVS_YG.5!L@`:=L/XE+J0U;"GVW``#\0QRLO(=Y]3Y(0YV:!_O_
M$@`U:KZ\VN<YDPUEX@``C])=D?QT5==$/^XC3$"S;P``5+,W'K,0=N@'OU6;
M>/"$6``DQF-&^2O"42VI";$``$:JTJ2)K<ZLWCID-Y!*BU@`,!.MP+FL[HC^
MG6M8Z6S:``"S'`BND\J-T-V@S27H#(4>``".)^L\,3YM!NMY(2$!LGW6``"8
M%Z6_%1,\%\`ZBXDXN"=X``#%@-DO7#!]EN*_<&@CD+SD``"8>UDI'`;O(\/[
M88$JBZ(B``#F;01FT3DP9O[$UOQ-5K5"``!YYHUO;LQ4='Q_`%TZ/M=D``#@
M0Z?50W'37&JJ!:8Y6B1#!@"'T$7H+\+)*0Z5WL$^#@``CSUJU6CFU\:6F$&(
ML,C;M@``(BH:32O2ZQ,9T!*J!^BNW&``[6[IYM=*/+;NG&4D<ET``.+7^>-J
MBI(R'T]7#D]&U2(``$N>P+#@4C!#Q!^R;=2WX:(``""_?XQ907#F'<55<MDF
M$Z4``%G7.YX+5_"KTICB\/-5,:D``!.KF`^%[/4.:L]9M&.:J)X``)2KV"L9
M.Q,'<$/A$<,+'[-D,HG0DU0FU5K;``#'XB;1X\BR7%;)!V3#)]?D```7@51_
M#_9I:Y?\\*&4#EAA``!KJ^VP(T&["IZ%;AN&TC9,``"R6W:!^Q*P)V77VP#V
M9)W,``;\)]K"UU.8G!4Y/``KOX`,%W,UN+?Q9+_VWU"\```WMD+Q\^7.46W!
M20T+8RS_`""*N#&1D[WZ)9Y2<P%D%@$`:V$KX`^9?R8",!MZ;0``C`PA-UF$
MQ&I:-SD2I&)SOP!`5S!:`02)8\!J77BI9,.G`@"P!P:D??RF+2!83!!(`,$(
M3NFX80X"+`=R``#-[\)XL[\36B4@+3Z@/)(\```X8>4V(*$3?L,#G81<L;1I
M``!/B^4=8.4#69*%:<'15%G%``!!E)>)4=[>B;'*C_NU*#,]`$!Y11'25!DU
MP!!IRE2,2=0&`,*"K$LV;$VT%J>L*/(``/(#+L0H7&YF($1=#F`&C[$``!GD
M?U:9GO0S9L^2.[2/$*20`(_UQ%$I7D4)@HJ3(`&/>SL!EE*X3J#Y&@``(_C3
M)(4)UG\=S_K*]'%38@P`AL]O6;L!1K$I'$]PX\R`A)(F&HF9Z7H/_@#^HM=D
M#-RN840&@YZ2$S1U]IZHPG=-%@8%``TN4TA53T%+0UI-341.K60M$U@=@K0T
M`0X/"QQ+%@9;XEHD_,<#@@0;S`P3!@$:#!E`&>$&#@`1$/H&#A"'KA<!`I+8
M!F-*`@(,"%PQ,$5'6D\Y.`I0-P,`(`$!`2<I>W-G9F\C;7=@'W5]:&%C?!)"
M13`</1QA:7)@8QD`?#!K9WME;V\I:GXF,U**!2$\8)@A86%Y+&X%<F%M2'&-
M;4@C;&8N$7#;+GUA8V'I2S\N\06C8+-B>F`@>&(4'G8<W18D-,4W13Q%>&4;
M\&-^:"-]8W%)<7.4/PE]>EP:>#$W=$$"_T0`!@@%]`78!:P%=05A!4((K!MG
M(/(@V2#`(*P@BR!P(%<@0Q_8'SP?&1[V'ML>QQZT'J`>C1YY'ET>,1XF(;>#
M(H,>@QJ#%H,2@PZ#"H,&@P*"_B,>(RDD?R2))0PE$R;2)H]1%5,+AJQRWBQ9
FAK2&O(;`5.!Y:S"B<*5RC9+00KQ#A$.B?."3.O__@!2`!@``KD(`
`
end
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: Concerning a new group....
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning a new group....
Date: 1 Dec 1993 15:49:37 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Nov30.174337.1@vaxc> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
> Concerning the problems the group is having with irrelevant postings....
>Why not leave the present group as it is, everyone posts to it, and a
>moderator daily (?) picks out the "quality stuff" and inserts it into
>a new group called, say, sci.physics.fusion-plus.
 
This is completely unnecessary.  The problem was caused by Dale Bass
putting sci.physics.fusion in the newsgroup line, and then repeatedly
and inadvisably putting it back in when others asked that it be
removed.  There is now a sci.environment thread on its own topic
running along in this newsgroup.
 
Normal traffic in this group is quite reasonable.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / james blanchard /  Re: News blurb on Bockris: taking heat for transmutation claims
     
Originally-From: jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu (james blanchard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: News blurb on Bockris: taking heat for transmutation claims
Date: 01 Dec 1993 00:28:51 GMT
Organization: Division of Information Technology

 
>  About two weeks ago a local Dallas news station (KRLD) mentioned
>  Dr. Bockris as being in trouble for accepting funds for research in
>  transmutation of mercury to gold.
 
There's a brief article in the latest issue of Science.
--
 
   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenjake cudfnjames cudlnblanchard cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Jim Carr /  Re:      Fusion Digest 1725
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:      Fusion Digest 1725
Date: 1 Dec 1993 15:54:27 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <9311301843.AA17403@suntan.Tandem.com>
U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin) writes:
>
>I cast my vote for Scott's idea of having all items posted to multiple
>newsgroups passed through a moderators screen, while stuff posted solely
>to S.P.F. is passed straight through.
 
I agree.  Almost all of the recent threads cross posted to sci.environment
should be purged from the fusion archives.  They just clutter it up.
You might keep the first few, and then add an editorial note that
from a certain point all further posts on that subject were removed
due to irrelevancy (just to keep the history clear, and to be clear
that the archive is not normally editted).
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Emmanuel Gustin /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: gustin@evsds.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 00:59:26 GMT
Organization: RRZN

raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Raoul Golan) writes:
:
: Here's something I found in today's paper.
: I thought that since no-one could duplicate the
: results of Pons-Fleischmann, the issue of cold
: fusion was dead.  Obviously, I was wrong.
 
I had a lecture on cold fusion in June, when I went to a summer school on
nonlinear optics on Sicily -- an all-physicist occasion, of course. The lecture
on cold fusion was considered some kind of entertainment, and some people laughed
about it, but it was interesting enough. Lecturer was Prof. Scaramuzzi, who I
don't know.
 
No, it is not dead. Actually, quite some money is spent in research, mainly in
Japan, but also in Russia, Europe and the US. The work is done by serious people, but
they get a hard time -- some journals refuse to publish articles on the subject;
most publications seem to be in the journal 'Fusion Technology'.
It is risky to call it cold fusion; many articles articles about it mention only
'anomalous behaviour' or 'emission of neutrons'.
 
The state of the research seems to be that they can make unusual things happen in
special 'cells', but that these are still impossible to predict or reproduce. I
don't remember that much about it. Something might be there -- or not. They are
mostly testing and refining the equipment, on the basis of the Sherlockian idea
that if you eliminate all other possibilities, you have the correct solution left.
 
Emmanuel Gustin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengustin cudfnEmmanuel cudlnGustin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Steven Axdal /  Re: Heat Pipe Questions
     
Originally-From: sha3rh33@harrierx.cdev.com (Steven H. Axdal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Questions
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 15:54:40 GMT
Organization: Computing Devices International, Bloomington MN

In article <931129170346.238080c9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>2)  One above implies that I might possibly want to give the surface a very
>good finish.  How good should the finish be made?
>"black nickel".  I think this is a nickel plating that is just a lot of fine
>needles on the surface, which absorbs light and thus looks black.  How would
>something like this be for a finish?
   It would seem that if the main heat transfer mehanism were
radiative, taht the black nickel finish would be best.  If the idea is
to reduce the likelihood of capillary trapping at the surface, black
nickel sounds worst.  I would think that a bright nickel finish (or
bright copper or gold) woul dbe very desireable, it ceratinly
simplifies the question of getting a smooth surface.
 
>is that I would likely make tighter seals with the lower temperature solders.
>Besides eutectic tin-lead solder, I have 50-50 tin-lead, and 2% silver-tin.
>Any suggestions for a long lasting vacuum seal?  Or should I go for brazing?
  As someone who deals with solder quite a bit, I'm not sure I would
recommend eutectic tin-lead for anything, though with similar TCEs the
thermal cycling might not be too bad.  Hermetic ceramic packages are
generally sealed with a gold-tin eutectic - gold plated lids and
package lip, gasket of tin plated onto the lid, put a weight on and
run through a furnace and cool.  tin melts, eutectic forms, joint
made, solidifies.  I would lean toward the tin-silver, myself, it's a
bit higher melting point, and somewhat worse flow properties, but not
too bad mechanical properties.
 
>If so, how do we prepare the surface?  It seems to
>me that I am back in the cleaning business.  Nothing is easy!!
  I think your fingerprint /peanut butter analogy may be apt.  It's
very tempting to suggest that you locate a metal finisher nearby and
see if you could run things through their vapor-degreaser.  On the
other hand, you may be able do nearly as well by running things
through a dishwasher with a full soap dispenser and a dose of the
sparkling glass additive at the end (the brand name completely escapes
me at the moment).  I would do this before putting any ends on, and
after each attachment step on the way, though the initial cleaning is
probably the most critical.  The secondary ones would be mainly for
the purpose of removeing soldering/brazing/welding flux.
Steve
 
 
--
Steven Axdal           Computing Devices International
(612)853-6175          3101 E 80th St.
axdal@cdev.com         Bloomington  MN  55425-1523
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensha3rh33 cudfnSteven cudlnAxdal cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Cold Fusion Water Heaters
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Water Heaters
Date: 1 Dec 93 16:43:23 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <tomkCHC449.6pw@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>Well, here we are, nearing the end of the year and The Water Heater
>promised us (then backed off on) by Jed Rothwell is nowhere to be
>seen.
.....
....
...
>So, where are the Japanese getting their hot water this new year?
 
 
It comes from the hot air blown by Rothwell, Pons, Fleischmann, et al.
 
 
Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Concerning a new group....
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning a new group....
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 18:06:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2dieeh$qjj@mailer.fsu.edu>, Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <1993Nov30.174337.1@vaxc> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>
>> Concerning the problems the group is having with irrelevant postings....
>>Why not leave the present group as it is, everyone posts to it, and a
>>moderator daily (?) picks out the "quality stuff" and inserts it into
>>a new group called, say, sci.physics.fusion-plus.
>
>This is completely unnecessary.  The problem was caused by Dale Bass
>putting sci.physics.fusion in the newsgroup line, and then repeatedly
>and inadvisably putting it back in when others asked that it be
>removed.  There is now a sci.environment thread on its own topic
>running along in this newsgroup.
 
     This is not exactly correct, Bruce and I were engaged in a discussion
     *on* sci.physics.fusion *about* certain aspects of fusion economics.
     A limited exchange or two here on subject was perfectly fine with me,
     but someone felt it necessary to crosspost to another group.
     Any thread other than the single one spawned by our conversation was
     placed here by another.
 
     In addition, I stopped posting on the aforementioned subject
     last Thursday morning, with discussion other than an amused metacomment
     stopping last Wednesday.  I am not continuing to post on that
     subject.
 
                             dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / James Crotinger /  Re: Hirsch and History
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch and History
Date: 1 Dec 93 18:20:16 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> Something more than mere "youthful energy" was going on with
> Hirsch in 1968.  He was intimately involved with a device which he
> now admits was and is superior to the Tokamak.  He had then, as he
> does now, the strongest EVIDENCE for a potentially functional fusion
> device.  Despite all this, when he was given authority over the
> fusion program, all his "youthful energy" failed to get even one red
> cent allocated to doing even the smallest scale, most preliminary
> studies to understand how Farnsworth's device could be producing so
> many neutrons.
 
  I can't believe that either Hirsch or Bussard would be so bold as to
"admit" that IEC "was and is superior to the Tokamak". How can anyone
make such a statement. Nobody knows if it really works, how it works,
if it will scale up, etc. I think such devices should be explored, and
if they work and scale up, then indeed they might make better reactors
than Tokamaks. But, IMHO, that is a big "if", and it is a "high-risk",
but high-payoff, venture.
 
  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:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  nestorm@fedc04 /  Re: Hirsch and History
     
Originally-From: nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor (NESTORM@FED
04.FED.ORNL.GOV))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hirsch and History
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 19:14:01 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

T. A. Heppenheimer's book for general audiences, _The Man-Made Sun: The
Quest for Fusion Power_ (Little, Brown and Co., 1984) has the following
account (edited only to remove some of the more colorful descriptive
material) of the Farnsworth-Hirsch collaboration and Hirsch's later
exploits, on pages 317-318.
 
Not only do I have no connection with Heppenheimer other than having bought
his book, I know NOTHING about any of this; I'm just posting it as another
take on what might have happened!
 
-----
BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
 
After getting his Ph.D. in 1964, [Hirsch] went to work in Fort Wayne,
Indiana, along with Philo T. Farnsworth, the coinventor of television. They
were trying to achieve controlled fusion power, but not by confining a
plasma with  magnetic fields as everyone else was doing. Instead, they
wanted to use electric fields....
 
Farnsworth and Hirsch did calculations and predicted that this approach
might work. Each of them built a series of small experimental devices to
produce neutrons by burning D + T.... Soon Hirsch's experiments were
outstripping Farnsworth's, and he was able to get a tenfold increase in his
neutron production, from one year to the next. Eventually his device was
putting out 10^10 fusion neutrons per second.... He could keep on churning
out neutrons for several minutes...after those few minutes [the device]
would start to overheat. It would be years before anyone could match his
neutron output or do better at producing lots of neutrons with relatively
little power.
 
Three years after Hirsch got to Fort Wayne, the ITT people realized that
fusion development was going to take a long time, and they asked Hirsch to
try to get funding from the Atomic Energy Commission. After much debate
back and forth with a review panel, the people in the fusion office invited
him to come in to meet that panel and be grilled by them....
 
...Finally the time came to decide: would [the members of the review
panel] or wouldn't they approve his getting the money? Then Tom Stix, a
plasma physicist from Princeton, asked the most pertinent question of all:
"If we fund this, whose budget is it going to come out of?" There was no
extra funding available, and money allocated to Hirsch in Fort Wayne would
have to be taken away from somebody else at Princeton or some other
well-established lab. And right there Hirsch's hopes for funding died.
 
There was simply no institutional base for electric fusion. No one else was
pursuing it; no powerful lab or agency favored it. It had come out of left
field from two off-the-wall inventors who worked at the wrong address, and
there was no way to fit it into the established fusion program. It was not
that people weren't looking for new ideas; within a year or two the tokamak
would come along, and soon everyone would be hopping on its bandwagon. But
electric fusion was a little too new. The response Hirsch got in 1968 was
very similar to the response Bussard got, a few years later, when he sought
government support for his Riggatrons.
 
Came the early seventies, and Hirsch was in charge of the entire fusion
program. Did he now see a chance to use his position to do something for
electric fusion? He did. However, he couldn't just decree, "Let there be an
electric fusion program." He had to find physicists and labs who were
interested, and who could prepare solid proposals to show that they might
be able to get somewhere. No one was. The whole fusion world was wrapped up
in magnets and lasers, and no one was out there to pick up his lead. It all
was a most ironic turnabout on the cliche' of the brilliant inventor, years
ahead of his time, who dies penniless and alone, with no one interested in
his pathbreaking invention. Farnsworth was just such a brilliant inventor,
as was Hirsch, who had shared his art. Hirsch rose to lead the entire
fusion program--and _still_ no one was interested in what he was offering.
 
END QUOTED MATERIAL
-------------------
 
Bonnie Nestor
mnj@ornl.gov
DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself, on good days. On bad days I sit in the
            corner and mumble.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennestorm cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: 1 Dec 1993 22:06:17 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: This distance, 1/1000 angstroms, is very small compared with lattice spacings
: (a few angstroms).  The conclusion is unavoidable:  nuclear energy cannot be
: transferred quickly enough to the lattice or to a (putative) collective state
: of electrons without violating light-cone constraints.  As noted before, there
: are no excited states of the helium-4 nucleus below 19 MeV so that its energy
: cannot be released in small-energy packets.
 
: A brief aside:  I went through this argument with cf-advocate Robert Bass,
: whose reply was that my error was in imposing speed-of-light constraints!
: At that point, I said that we had no basis for further discussion.  Some ground
: rules, such as E=mc^2 and speed-of-light constraints -- and momentum
: conservation -- are needed for rational discussion.
 
Naturally.  (Does QED do anything significant to the lightcone?)
 
As an off-the-wall-notion, could the presence of strong electrostatic field
gradients from the lattice or band electrons alter the QED e+/e- creation
matrix elements?  Really far fetching could one spew out reams of leptons to
dump the energy and conserve momentum?  (Presumably it's small in normal
circumstances(hot fusion) as it doesn't  seem to be seen).
 
Of course one would then still see 511keV gammas.  But it would be an
interesting mechanism.
 
And it still doesn't explain how to peg the normal branching ratio all
the way to one side.
 
: --Steven Jones
 
I await a nuclear physicist to tell me why this is bovine scatology.
In fact I'll start myself---electrostatic energies are eV's because
that's chemistry and ev's << keV's << MeV's.
 
Q: what's the typical electric field near this hydrogenoid nucleus?  (From
lattice that's easy, but what about conduction electrons?)
 
--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat Pipe Questions
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Questions
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 23:52:34 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>should I go for brazing?
 
The difference between soldering and brazing is the 800 degree F mark.
Anything below 800F is soldering, anything above 800F is brazing (unless
you are welding, which implies similar material, i.e. steel to steel with
steel welding rod. You can weld thermoplastics with plastic, etc.)
 
>The general plan is to bake the heat pipe under the 29" vacuum.
>There will be a syringe separated by a valve from the vacuum system.
>When baked out, I will close the valve to the vacuum pump,
>and open the valve to the syringe, and "boil" the mixture out of the syringe
>into the heat pipe.  Question, do I need to take the pain of "outgassing" the
>liquid in the syringe?  How much air is bad?
 
My guess is that there are far more gasses dissolved in the liquid than on
the surface of the metal.  So you should put the liquid to a vacuum (but
not low enough to boil it off, which it will if you aren't careful.)
 
Eachus suggested keeping the liquid in a warm place for a week or so
before use.  After you dry bake your metal, you could cool it and load
the week old liquid and again subject the whole thing to heat and
vacuum.
 
>It seems to me that surface preparation might be very important.  A finger
>print might be like the peanut butter barrier and prevent surface migration of
>the liquid.
 
I'd think that alcohol/water would be a good solvent for finger print oils.
So I don't know that you need a clean room environment to build this -- the
gains from ultracleanliness might be pretty marginal.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 22:21:19 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
An intriguing old quote from Steve Jones that brought back some memories:
 
In article <1993Nov30.132212.1146@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> ... I remind potential investors of an earlier article in a Salt Lake
> newspaper (Deseret News) that appeared over *four* years ago:
>
> "Hot-water device percolates in Pons' lab  (July 8, 1989)
 
> A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water
> requirements of an average home is already  percolating in the lab of
> B. Stanley Pons.
 
> 'It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
> could provide them with hot water year-round,' said Pons, who said he's
> always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen
> this fast..."
>
> This claim was dropped by March 1990 when I asked Stan about it.  One should
> note that this dramatic claim in July 1989 was followed by a $5 million gift
> from the state of Utah less than two weeks later...
 
 
I find the assertion in the Deseret News item that Pons had "always believed
... cold fusion could happen this fast ..." to be a bit of a jaw-dropper. It
just doesn't mesh very well with his public testimony in front of Congress.
 
I still recall vividly hearing a Washington D.C. news station carry a short
excerpt of Pons' performance before Congress back when he was lobbying them
to re-allocate tens of millions of dollars of physics research funds from
previously peer-reviewed physics projects over to his "cold fusion" work.
(I should note that although I'm pretty sure it was Pons who was in the
following conversation, it _might_ have been Fleischman instead.  Someone
please correct me if I'm attributing it to the wrong half of the SP/MF duo.)
 
Congressman:  [approximate but close quote, and definitely "20 years"]
 
   "So you believe that with this money you could greatly shorten the 20
    years it would otherwise take to develop practical applications of
    cold fusion?"
 
           [Hint to novices:  BEWARE when your friendly local Congressman
            asks you this kind of question!  It means that she or he is
            beginning to suspect you are not playing it quite straight.]
 
Dr. Pons:  [exact quote this time]
 
   "YES!"  [He practically screamed his enthusiam for answering the question,
            simultaneously confirming nicely any growing suspicions the
            Congressman may have had about an, um, _disproportionate_
            linkage of intellectual prowress to massive federal funding.]
 
I have had very little interest in anything said by the Pons/Fleischmann
duo ever since.  Politically, Pons' performance was an unalloyed disaster
that led to the kind of sudden "difficulties" that DC politicios are fond
of when they suddenly realize something is seriously amiss.  The big federal
funding never came.
 
Simultaneously, Pons probably forever closed the once-open door of possible
serious respect from the physics community at large.  How?  By publically
pushing hard to have Congress "re-allocate" funds for physics research that
had previously been allocated through a peer review process.  If you want
to make a life-long political enemy, there are few better ways than to pull
someone's hard-fought funding rug out from under them.  Especially if you do
it via a public end-run-around-the-review-process direct appeal to Congress.
 
And finally, D.C. as a whole was not impressed.  Pons came over as one of
the clumsiest, rudest, and most arrogant high-profile lobbyists seen around
D.C. in quite some time.  (A contrast point:  The extremely well-received
efforts of President Corry Aquino the Philipines.  Now _she_ knew how to
make friends with Congress...)
 
The D.C. area radio station didn't broadcast that particular blurb from Pons
without reason.  They knew from many years of experience at watching Congress
that they were watching an especially messy self-immolation in progress, and
were quite happy to pass this little goody along to their listening audience.
 
Folks wonder sometimes why Pons and Fleischmann had to leave the country to
get a favorable audience again.  I don't.  Pons was his own worst enemy in
that performance before Congress, and very probably did more damage to his
own cause than he ever realized.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Dave Wargo /  Rotating Transport Nutrino Source
     
Originally-From: dwargo@cs.ucsd.EDU (Dave Wargo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rotating Transport Nutrino Source
Date: 1 Dec 93 22:54:35 GMT
Organization: UCSD

Would someone please tell me what a RTNS is and where I might find some
more info on it?
 
Thanks
 
Dave
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendwargo cudfnDave cudlnWargo cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.11.30 / Vernon Hoxie /  Re: Semi-Moderated Group
     
Originally-From: vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. Hoxie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Semi-Moderated Group
Date: 30 Nov 93 15:44:14 GMT
Organization: Alpha Communications, Denver, Colo.

In article <931129134247.238080c9@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>John Logajan points out that what I want to do is not possible.  I now propose
>that we switch over to a semi-moderated group.
 
        I'm afraid that this too would be nearly impossible to do.  In
order to snag messages for a newsgroup and forward them to a moderator,
the 'active' file on the posters machine has to be modified.  There is
no criterea in B-news, C-news to do this in a controlled manner.
 
        I think that this group is normally well behaved and when there
are interlopers, some people can post polite "Please move" messages.
Then a polite e-mail barrage might be effective.  It can be helpful to
let them know why you think that posting their topic to s.p.f is in
error.
 
        Other more drastic methods exist if these friendly requests are
ignored.  The most drastic is e-mail to the administrator requesting
that the posters login be lifted.
 
        However, we also need patience for the thread to dry up.
Sometimes responders are in an appropiate newsgroup when they write
their remarks.  They can easily overlook the fact that their article
will be cross posted.
 
vern
 
--
Vernon C. Hoxie                            {ncar,boulder}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   vern@zebra.alphacdc.com
Denver, Colo., 80212        uucp: 303-455-2670          voice: 303-477-1780
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenvern cudfnVernon cudlnHoxie cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Bill Page /  Hypothetical Neutron Transfer and BBC
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hypothetical Neutron Transfer and BBC
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 12:58:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some weeks ago Steven Jones wrote:
<<
We've heard occasionally about claim(s) of radioactive isotope production
in
Pd/D2O cells, evidenced in particular by gamma ray emissions.  Assuming
that
Pd-100 were found in Pd used in a Pd/D2O cell (I'm not claiming it has
been),
I'd like to pose the following hypothetical question:
 
Is it possible to produce palladium-100 in a Pd/LiOD cell?
   (i.e., without exposure to a beam of protons or deuterons)
   (Small amounts of H2O, B and Al may be present.)
 
By posing this question, I mean to ask if there are any +Q reactions which
may lead to Pd-100 formation which are *possible*.  Let's ignore the
Coulomb
barrier for the sake of argument, shall we?  We still need to have a +Q
reaction (i.e., energy must be conserved).  The only one I've been able to
find
in discussions with others is:
   102-Pd (3He, n+alpha) 100-Pd   Q=+1.7 MeV.
Besides having a three-body final state, this requires a large quantity of
energetic 3He to react with Pd-102, which is only 0.96% of naturally
occurring
Pd.  I don't consider this serious, particularly since energetic 3He
production would imply *lots* of neutrons (if made via  d+d-->3He+n),
but let's assume neutrons could be checked and were far too few.
One can consider d or p reactions,
but I can't find any with positive Q and we're trying to avoid requiring
energetic p or d beams.
That is, we're trying to imagine a reaction in an electrolytic cell which
shows gammas which indicate the presence of Pd-100
(and other radioactive isotopes).  How could Pd-100 get there?
 
Sorry to be so cryptic about this; consider it just a hypothetical puzzle.
(Still my question is a serious one.)
 
--Steven Jones
>>
 
One someone says "consider this just a hypothetical question", the
suggestion is obviously that it isn't hypothetical at all, but rather
related to some issue that that person is unwilling to discuss openly.  And
Steven's hypothetical question is intriguingly specific.  Even though this
was such an interesting "hypothetical" question, I set it aside in my files
and waited for "serious" replies.  So far, I don't think Steven has
received any (at least in this forum).  Now that some time has passed, I am
hoping that Steven will be able to open up a little more on this mystery.
 
In any case, assuming that this question arises from some controversal
observations, I thought I would contribute what I think is the best
candidate to explain the phenomena. Basically, I would consider
Chubb&Chubb's Bose Bloch Condensate to be the culprit. The senario goes
like this.  Assume the electrolyte to consist of D2O with a small amount of
H2O impurity (the usual case).  The loading of the Pd will be mostly D+
with trace quantities of H+.  Now, under the right conditions (exactly what
conditions is not clear, perhaps temperature, loading ratio, crystal
structure are significant) the D+ is assumed to de-localize, form a band
state and condense.  This leaves the poor H+ out in the cold, so to speak.
What can H+ do to join the BBC party?  Well, why not steal a neutron from a
nearby Pd nucleus?
 
Terry Bollinger has posted a note concerning observations of "proton halos"
around some nuclei.  I think we can assume that "neutron halos" also exist.
 That is, the wavefunction for the neutron component of some nuclei may
extend well beyond the fermi radius.  Since H+ has also been observed to
form a de-localized state on the surface (and perhaps within) certain
cystal lattices, we have the necessary ingredients to think that neutron
transfers may be possible.  Peter Hagelstein has published a series of
theoretical papers examining the possibility of neutron transfer.
 
Cheers,
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: 2.3 Identical Spin State
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 2.3 Identical Spin State
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:29:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

William Bernecky lays out the requirements for the formation of a
Bose condensate in admirable fashion, but then somehow fails to note
the extent to which the PdD lattice is never going to meet those require-
ments.  To pick on a point I have raised in the past, he confirms my
notion that the deuteron spins must be considered but says nothing
further on the subject.  The problem bits two ways: (1)getting spins
aligned takes some doing  (2)getting rid of angular momentum to go
to a spin zero final state isn't easy either unless something gets
emitted.  I think this idea has been kicked around enough that it
should now be clear that it is going no where.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Bockris and transmutation
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris and transmutation
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:29:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger points to a newspaper story about Bockris and transmutation.
You all may recall that I was supposed to go to Texas and witness the
transmutation of something to gold late in 1992.  I think I posted some
comments here.  Bockris was supposed to pay my way, and I had several long
conversations with him.  But then the secretary never sent the promised
ticket, and the demonstration day came and went.  Too bad, I had my outfit
all picked out.  I was going to wear a Lavender tux, a maroon turtleneck, and
a large gold medalian.  I know, a tall pointed hat with stars and zodiac
markings would generally be considered appropriate, but we have to bring
our fashion concepts into the modern age.
 
This brings up the question of whether a serious scientist should be seen in
the presence of charlatans.  My attitude is that if given a chance, you go,
and then laugh uproariously if it is appropriate.  Remember, I keep telling
you all that I am in the entertaignment business!
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Momentum conservation and other minor details
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Momentum conservation and other minor details
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:29:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones started this by pointing out the fact that it is difficult
to get nuclear energy degraded to heat without some observable effects.
In response Chuck Sites suggests the answer lies in the formation of
deuteron bands of some sort.  I have difficulty with this concept, perhaps
because things have never been very clearly stated.  In particular I
see a need to have a clear statement as to what the coordinates in the
wave function are.  If I understand what Chuck is saying, it has to
do only with the coordinates of the deuteron ion sitting in a shallow
potential well formed by the palladium lattice.  The bands refered to
are those describing the energy of the deuteron as the particle in
that well and have nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear wave functions
and nuclear energy levels, i.e. the internal state of the deuteron.
In short I don't see that anything Chuck has said makes any difference
unless it leads to a reduction in the average separation between two
deuterons.
 
Dieter Britz, in an attempt to clarify what Mitchell Swartz may be
thinking, presents a picture which I see is equivalent to saying that
the momentum conservation question raised by Steve can be solved by
not emitting anything!  If we adopt the picture that an excited
4He nucleus is formed and then decays without ever emitting anything
there is, of course, no momentum to conserve.  That leaves only
one slight problem, however, in that there is also no possible
means of coupling the excited 4He nucleus to the lattice.  If the
two don't interact there is no energy transfer.  If there is
anyone who wants to advocate this approach I suggest they start
by listing all the possible interactions they would want to consider
for coupling nuclear excitation energy to the lattice.  Remember
that the emission of neutrons, charge particles, photons, etc. have
all been ruled out.  Have fun!
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Design Note #5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Design Note #5
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:29:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimeter Design Note      D5                     1 December 1993
 
Chuck Harrison some time back expressed a concern that a heat pipe might be
a sort of funny heat storage device and thus might mask what is going on in
the calorimeter.  This note tries to think about this.  All of you, can a heat
pipe behave in some funny way that makes calorimetry difficult??
 
To think about this, I thought I better find some gas tables.  On page 4-39 of
"Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, Eighth Edition", McGraw
Hill, 1978; there is a nice table for Freon 11 and 12.  I will try to use this
to think about the behavior of a heat pipe.  The table has columns of
temperature, pressure, specific volume, and enthalpy.  The enthalpy column is
split into separate columns for liquid and gas.  Everything is in english
units.  While it is not explained, I assume that this table describes an
enclosed volume containing liquid and gas, and the pressure is that
equilibrium point reached when there is always liquid available to be
vaporized.
 
Let us try to think about a perfect heat pipe.  Assume a 1 cubic foot device,
with walls of zero thickness, and strong enough to contain the gas.  The walls
further have no specific heat, and are perfect conductors.
 
Using the data for Freon 11:
 
                                        At 70 F                   At 80 F
Pressure psia                             13.4                     16.3
Specific volume (vapor) cu ft/lb           2.99                     2.49
Enthalpy (liquid) Btu/lb                  22.02                    24.09
Enthalpy (vapor) Btu/lb                  100.73                   101.93
 
Let us assume that we put in just enough liquid, so that all of it would be
vaporized at 80 F.  All the energy is then in the vapor, which is 101.93 Btu
per lb.  The weight of vapor is 1/2.49 or 0.402 lb.  So the energy in the gas
is 101.93/2.49 or 40.93 Btu.
 
Now we cool our heat pipe down to 70 F.  In the gas we now have 100.73/2.99 or
33.69 Btu.  But now we also have some liquid.  0.402 lb - 1/2.99 or 0.067 lb.
This liquid contains 0.067*22.02 = 1.49 Btu.  So the test cubic foot has a
total energy of 35.18 Btu.
 
Taking the difference, we see that we had to remove 40.93-35.18 = 5.75 Btu /cu
ft to go from 80 F to 70 F.  This is 0.575 Btu/cu ft - F.  This has dimensions
of specific heat * density.  When building things, the interesting thing is
how much heat will be stored in a given volume of building material, so this
is the right thing to use as a figure of merit.  It is also the previously
discussed thermal capacity (on a volume basis).
 
For comparison:
 
copper       28.6 Btu/cu ft - F
aluminum     20.1 Btu/cu ft - F
earth        31.3 Btu/cu ft - F
water        34.7 Btu/cu ft - F
air          0.01 Btu/cu ft - F
rubber       16.0 Btu/cu ft - F
 
We see that the cubic foot of Freon 11 has a thermal capacity about 1/50 th of
that of copper.  From the previous discussion of Robert Eachus, we were told
that under ideal conditions that a heat pipe can have 1000 x the thermal
conductivity of copper.  The RC time constant is thus 1/1000 * 1/50 or *****
very small ***** when compared to a copper calorimeter which is one of the
better materials for a small time constant.  I say very small instead of
1/50,000 because I expect it will be hard to achieve the potential, as the
walls and joints are expected to predominate.  Still I am hoping for a big
improvement over the 0.000015 Hz pole for the last calorimeter.  I am hoping
for 10 seconds instead of the previous 66,000 seconds, and this based on the
dimensions of the copper plate used.
 
Because the equivalent thermal capacity for a heat pipe is relatively much
lower that that of other materials, I think there will be little place for
heat to hide, and thus Chuck Harrison's concerns are unfounded.  What say
Chuck?
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / John Logajan /  Re: The wick problem (was Re: Heat Pipe Questions)
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The wick problem (was Re: Heat Pipe Questions)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 00:56:04 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker) writes:
>I got the impression from that thread that the wick was disfavored
 
I think Robert Eachus was saying that under theoretical conditions, the wick
was unneeded, and thus, merely a gas flow inhibitor.  However, then he
went on to give three real world reasons why wicks were useful.
 
>In any case, the ME in me says you need some wick to return the
>condensed liquid from the cold surface (the outer wall of the heat
>pipe) to the hot surface.  The vapour will readily move from hot to
>cold, but the liquid (there must be some liquid, or you won't get any
>heat pipe effect; depends upon working fluid phase change to work)
>doesn't want to go back.
 
As I understand Mr. Eachus, there are two wickless return paths -- a flowing
surface film, and "airborne" vapor.  As I understand it, the return vapor
is slower moving, but far more numerous (dense) than the high speed vapor
molecules carrying heat the other way.
 
So other than the carrying of liquid over cracks, and acting as a reservoir
for losses and variable temperature ranges, I guess the main effect of the
wick is to limit the thickness of the aDsorbed liquid film on the metal
surfaces.  With a lot of vapor and film motion transport, probability says
that the bulk of loose liquid will go where it is attracted the most.  And
so beyond a few molecular layers on the metal, the wick has the vast most
potential to attract loose liquid.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Claudio Egalon /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 1 Dec 1993 23:49:51 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center

= This claim was dropped by March 1990 when I asked Stan about it.  One should
=note that this dramatic claim in July 1989 was followed by a $5 million gift
=from the state of Utah less than two weeks later.
=Seems like deja vu all over again.  (Or better, deja gnu:  a strange beast
=we've seen before.)
 
=Oh, by the way, was that "hot water" as in radioactive?  Just wondering.
                                         *****************
=--Steven Jones
 
 
Well... maybe they meant "heavy water" instead...
 
BTW, there is a scientific divulgation magazine which has been publishing a lot
stuff about cold fusion. I guess the name of the magazine is something like
"21st Century Science and Technology(?)". I do not recall very well its name...
 
Claudio Oliveira Egalon
C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenegalon cudfnClaudio cudlnEgalon cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Ad aspera /  Re: Rotating Transport Nutrino Source
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.engr
Subject: Re: Rotating Transport Nutrino Source
Date: 2 Dec 1993 00:32:10 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

Sounds like a puckish way of referring to a star, which rotates,
incorporates various transport mechanisms, and emits neutrinos
(though present theories and present detection schemes appear to
disagree radically on just how many of them).   :)
 
Either that or it's a Rotating-Target Neutron Source (RTNS),
a common enough device for producing a high neutron flux in
the laboratory.   I think UC Berkeley has one now that used
to be at Livermore -- I forget whether it's in Physics or
Nuclear Engineering.  Anyway, a technical library at UCSD
or General Atomics ought to be able to set you on the right path.
 
By the by:  if you want to ask a question on more than one
newsgroup, string all their names together in the Newsgroups:
line, separated by commas.  This is called "crossposting."
News software is smart about that, so those who read more
than one of the groups in question only see the article once.
 
Cheers,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Conditions for Bose Condensation / Rigid-lattice bose condensates?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conditions for Bose Condensation / Rigid-lattice bose condensates?
Date: 2 Dec 93 00:20:07 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <2dh1ioINNhe7@network.ucsd.edu>
mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
> BERNECKY WILLIAM R (BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil) wrote:
>
> | SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR BWO FORMATION
> |
> | The creation of a BWO requires:
> | 1.1)  A large number of identical bosons e.g. H atoms
> | 1.2)  All bosons must be in identical individual states.
>
> Remember that the overall wavefunction is a product of individual
> wavefunctions of single particles in the lattice background only when
> the particles have no mutual interaction.
 
First off, if you accept that having "identical individual states" also
implies having "identical [delocalized] locations in space," then the
two criteria Bernecky has given above _are_ both necessary and sufficient
for any type of bose condensation, quite regardless of whether you are
talking about fundamental particles such as photons or composite particles
such as helium-4 or hydrogen atoms.  You cannot easily get around this
simply because these criteria are very close to the _definition_ of a
bose condensate.  When identical bosons enter into a single shared [and
identically delocalized] state, they _will_ bose condense -- period.
 
Nor does any type of "interaction" matter much once these two criteria
have been met.  Factors such as charge repulsion do not prevent bose
condensation from occurring, but instead simply make it more difficult to
_achieve_ "identical individual states."  After all, it's not easy to
keep bosons in a single low-energy state if you are squeezing a lot of
charges together using very high energies.  But if you can do it, they
will pretty much _by definition_ form a bose condensate state.
 
> The fact that in solid state this is approximately true for electrons
> (free electron gas model) despite their mutual electrostatic interaction
> is a fortuitious result of many circumstances.  And this approximation
> breaks down high frequencies & energies.
 
Sorry, I lost the bubble on that one.  What has this comparison to charged
electrons (I think you really mean Cooper pairs, not single electrons) got
to do with hydrogen atoms, which are charge-neutral bosons?  And what about
helium atoms, which certainly do condense even though such atoms clearly do
"interact" by repelling each other when they approach too closely?
 
You can argue against the _existence_ of free hydrogen in (say) palladium,
or against the likelihood of such atoms joining into a single common state,
but if you meet those two criteria (including common delocalized locations
of the atoms), you _will_ get bose condensation.
 
To me the issue is how likely hydrogen atoms are to:  a) exist in large
numbers in dense, cool media, and  b) enter into a single [delocalized]
state.  These are the issues that would be most likely to prevent formation
of atomic hydrogen bose condensates, I think.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
P.S. -- I will comment on Robert Bernecky's interesting posting as soon
        as I have time.
 
P^2.S - RIGID-LATTICE BOSE CONDENSATES?
 
        Dick Blue (I like to pick on you, Dick) made an interesting
        observation some time ago about a related bose condensate issue:
 
            Why doesn't solid molecular hydrogen bose condense?
 
        A possible answer:
 
            Are you quite sure it _doesn't_?
 
        [And folks, please recall that _I'm_ the poor lonely fellow who
        thinks that bose condensation of deuterium nuclei should cause
        a net _decrease_ in fusion rates -- not an increase!  Bose effects
        at the atomic level should _reduce_ the relative vibrations of the
        constituent fermions (neutrons and protons) that must interact to
        cause fusion -- and that to me sounds an awful lot like it should
        translate into a _reduced_ probability of such constituent fermions
        interacting, not an increased rate.]
 
 
        Anyway, back to rigid condensates.  Here's what I see as the rub:
        Bose condensation in liquid helium is easy to spot because of the
        many peculiarities of _liquid_ bose condensates.
 
        But I'm not aware of any fundamental reason why a bose condensate
        should not be capable of forming in a lattice of _rigidly arranged_
        composite bose atoms.  Such rigid-lattice bose condensates (? does
        anyone know if such a discipline exists?) would be far less obvious
        than liquid ones, both because their overall physical form would
        remain unchanged, and (more subtly) because not all atoms would
        necessarily be part of the rigid-lattice condensate.  (E.g., surface
        atoms would be distinct because of different bonding arrangements.)
        Rigid-lattice condensation effect would instead probably show up
        only in more subtle ways, such as an increase in the rigidity and/or
        "preservation of self-similarity" of the crystal lattice.
 
 
        Interestingly enough, I think you could argue that _partial_ bose
        condensation of some solids has been demonstrated at temperature
        ranges extending right up to room temperature and beyond, and in
        just about any good physics lab in the world at that. (!)
 
        How could that be?  Well, it's because I'm pretty sure that the
        "coherent phonon states" used to describe the the Mossbauer effect
        works are logically equivalent to saying that some number of atoms
        in a solid have "gotten together" and formed a bose condensate
        "sub-crystal" with some rather unique properties.  The very sharp
        Mossbauer lines would then correspond to gammas hitting (or being
        emitted) by atoms that are part of a bose condensate "sub-crystal"
        that behaves as an exceptionally rigid unit, at least as far as
        absorbing the momentum of a gamma photon is concerned.
 
        A 100% bose condensate crystal thus might be a quite interesting
        entity.  Physical shape might be important for full participation
        of all the atoms, since some macroscopic forms do not correspond
        well to Schroedinger quantum wave functions.  Physical rigidity or
        a harder-to-describe property of "preservation of self-similarity"
        might in particular be interesting things to measure.  For example,
        such a solid might tend to "translate" localized deforming pressure
        into a _smooth_, crystal-wide deformations that would maintain the
        same _relative_ locations of atoms throughout the lattice.
 
        An interesting thought, at any rate.  I'll inquire in s.p.research
        as to whether bose condensate crystals have ever been explored as
        an explicit experimental topic.  (Does anyone in this group happen
        to know?  It might be in with the extensive Mossbauer literature.)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
Date: 1 Dec 93 10:14:58 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <01H5XGDGA0B6HV2KJS@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>
> Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1716:
>
>>"Fleischmann *still* has not provided the numbers.  And now we learn (mention
>>was neglected in the paper) that the "voltages are read every 300s" -- clearly
>>not frequently enough to satisfy the Nyquist criterion especially for the 600s
>>period when violent boiling occurred."  (Jones, 4 Nov, still no response!)
>
> Hmm, let's see: sampling interval 300s, sampling period 600 s; two samples per
> period - hey! The Nyquist criterion is satisfied!                         {:]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 
Ok, I appreciate the humor.
The Nyquist criterion assumes a periodic signal, and my use of the
term "period" could take on a double meaning.  Of course, I did not mean to
imply periodicity in the F/P boiling-cell episode.  In fact, our experiments
show that the voltage fluctuations are chaotic, as one might expect for
a boiling cell (probably including film boiling) with vigorous electrolysis and
bubbling also taking place.
 
This leads to gross systematic errors in integrated I*V(t) when one uses just
two measurements of V (300s apart) as F&P did.  And this is why I challenge
their calculation of input power and correspondingly of excess heat in this
experiment.
 
Privately, I was reminded that while Fleischmann declined to provide the
voltage measurements for this boiling episode, he did say that the "rail
voltage" was 100V ("Fleischmann responds to Jones", posted by Rothwell).
On this point I am still not convinced, since F has not told me what type
of power supply he used, nor has he measurements of V frequently enough
to be sure that 100V was not exceeded under these conditions.   Nor did P&F
*measure* cell current at all; they assume the power supply
maintains I=0.500 A during
violent boiling conditions -- I'm not convinced without measurements!
 
Again, I am not saying that we have *proven* that their experiments are
*wrong*, but we have demonstrated probable gross systematic errors associated
with their method of sampling voltage in 300s intervals.  It is the duty
of the experimenters (P&F) to eliminate systematic errors in order to provide
compelling data.  This they clearly have not done.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: 1 Dec 93 10:20:19 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2dfrj5$h15@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
> In article <1993Nov29.180834.1143@physc1.byu.edu>,
>  <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>
>>When I gave Hegelstein this paper, he told me that the momentum-conservation
>>arguments reached him; he told me he "saw the guillotine blade dropping."
>>I don't think he believes the Preparata "lattice-heating" line anymore.
>
> If this says what I think it does (that Hegelstein never bothered considering
> conservation of momentum until someone else told him about it), then the
> mind simply has to boggle.  After all, the guy is supposed to be this hotshot
> physicist.
>
>                                       Richard Schultz
 
Hegelstein is in the Electrical Engineering department at MIT, I understand.
He *is* sharp, but recently Gerry Hale at Los Alamos told me he has pointed out
to Hegelstein problems in his theoretical model.  In particular, Gerry found
that Hegelstein had used wavefunctions which were not regular at the origin,
leading to erroneous results.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Bockris and alchemy scheme
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris and alchemy scheme
Date: 1 Dec 93 10:36:57 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Terry's question about Bockris' involvement in a transmutation scheme
is interesting. I don't know details, except that John Bockris somehow
became involved with a man from Europe who claimed to be able to change
mercury into precious metals by a chemical (burning) process.  A meeting on
this was scheduled at Texas A&M in January, 1993, but cancelled.
 
This man gave a talk on his method at the Nagoya meeting on cold fusion, during
a lunch break.  He described in a frank manner the process of mixing ores
with various substances including   *whole wheat flour*.
 
That caught my attention.  I raised my hand and asked if *whole wheat* flour
was necessary; wouldn't ordinary white flour suffice?  With a straight face,
he said whole wheat flour was important.  I couldn't keep a straight face,
and left to eat my lunch.
 
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Dec1.102942.1150@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Dec1.102942.1150@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 1 Dec 93 10:37:14 -0700

cancel <1993Dec1.102942.1150@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / Carl Fink /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 1 Dec 1993 23:48:28 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
 
C>BTW, there is a scientific divulgation magazine which has been publishing a
 >lot
 >stuff about cold fusion. I guess the name of the magazine is something like
 >"21st Century Science and Technology(?)". I do not recall very well its
 >name...
 
  Is that Lyndon Larouche's magazine?  It sure sounds familiar.
 
--
Kindly send an email reply to me if, and only if, you feel justified
in predicting that I shall not receive an email reply.
                                                --After Karl Popper
Carl Fink               carlf@panix.com              CARL.FINK (GEnie)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencarlf cudfnCarl cudlnFink cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 / S Shepherd /  Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: sshepher@hotcity.COM (Stephen Shepherd)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: 1 Dec 93 15:42:52 PST
Organization: 12-step Anonymous
Organization: Hot City NetWorking

I am new at this, so please forgive me for any major faux pau (no doubt
spelled wrong) I may make.
 
My question, as a person with barely above rudimentary understanding of most
particle-physics terms, is how concievable is cold fusion.  I understand
packing fractions, more or less, and I understand that plasma and heat need to
be generated to a point where the strong force can take affect.
 
Well, what I am getting at: Is there any way to lower the temperature/pressure
threshhold needed to initiate it?  For example, could you strip an atom of its
electron shell and make it easier to get into a plasma state?  Would hydrogen
ions fuse easily?
                                                -Dreamlord
 
im a homo sapien too ... were all homo sapiens too ... homo sapien with you
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudensshepher cudfnStephen cudlnShepherd cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Jim Bowery /  Hirsch and History
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hirsch and History
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 08:17:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER writes:

nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor (NESTORM@FEDC04.FED.ORNL.GOV))
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER writes:
>
>T. A. Heppenheimer's book for general audiences, _The Man-Made Sun: The
>Quest for Fusion Power_ (Little, Brown and Co., 1984) has the following
>account (edited only to remove some of the more colorful descriptive
>material) of the Farnsworth-Hirsch collaboration and Hirsch's later
>exploits, on pages 317-318.
>
>-----
>BEGIN QUOTED MATERIAL
>
>After getting his Ph.D. in 1964, [Hirsch] went to work in Fort Wayne,
>Indiana, along with Philo T. Farnsworth, the coinventor of television. They
>were trying to achieve controlled fusion power, but not by confining a
>plasma with  magnetic fields as everyone else was doing. Instead, they
>wanted to use electric fields....
 
Juxtaposing this with Hirsch's own words in his 1967 paper:
 
"In the mid-1950's Farnsworth suggested that this technique might be
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
utilized to confine and concentrate ions into a small volume where an
appreciable number of nuclear fusion reactions could occur.  At that time
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
ITT initiated a modest program to investigate this technique of fusion-
gas confinement. "
 
So a full decade before Hirsch joined Farnsworth, Farnsworth had been
working on electrostatic fusion at ITT, yet we have three separate
accounts that ascribe priority or co-inventorship to Hirsch:
 
1) Hirsch himself in his most recent statements on the issue.
2) Bomberg's history of fusion.
3) T. A. Heppenheimer's history of fusion.
 
Returning to Heppenheimer's history:
>Three years after Hirsch got to Fort Wayne, the ITT people realized that
>fusion development was going to take a long time, and they asked Hirsch to
>try to get funding from the Atomic Energy Commission.
 
Again, we see a strange disparity since ITT had already been working
on this technology for 10 years.  Why would those three years with
Hirsch cause management to, all of a sudden, "realize that fusion
development was going to take a long time" especially as, according
to Heppenheimer's history, Hirsch's presence caused a dramatic increase
in the rate of progress?
 
>The response Hirsch got in 1968 was
>very similar to the response Bussard got, a few years later, when he sought
>government support for his Riggatrons.
>
>Came the early seventies, and Hirsch was in charge of the entire fusion
>program.
 
Here we see the most important point in fusion history glossed over
again -- first in Bomberg's book and now in Heppenheimer's book.
 
The next question should be the one I asked in an earlier posting:
 
"How did Hirsch transit from an "outsider" with a device producing
 billions of neutrons per second on a desktop to, in your words
 "father the opposite point of view" in is role as Mr. Big "Tokamak"
 Science?"
 
But, instead, Heppenheimer asks:
 
>Did he now see a chance to use his position to do something for
>electric fusion?
 
Good question, but the the most important one for resolving the
major mystery behind the history.
 
>It all
>was a most ironic turnabout on the cliche' of the brilliant inventor, years
>ahead of his time, who dies penniless and alone, with no one interested in
>his pathbreaking invention. Farnsworth was just such a brilliant inventor,
>as was Hirsch, who had shared his art. Hirsch rose to lead the entire
>fusion program--and _still_ no one was interested in what he was offering.
 
I think most reasonable people would agree that in the absence of any
history of how this mysterious "turnabout" occured, Heppenheimer's
use of the word "ironic" is an extreme understatement.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Concerning a new group....
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning a new group....
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 05:36:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>The problem was caused by Dale Bass putting sci.physics.fusion in the
>newsgroup line, and then repeatedly and inadvisably putting it back in when
>others asked that it be removed.
 
This is absurd.  Dale Bass can only be responsible for his own posts.  To
say he had some power to "force" other's post to show up here on s.p.f.
is ridiculous.  I was going to point out that Dale hasn't posted for nearly
a week.
 
Everyone is individually responsible for the destination of their own posts.
Let's not place blame based solely on our loyalty to one side of the argument
or the other.
 
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / David Buehler /  Re: Bockris and alchemy scheme
     
Originally-From: dave@digaudio.byu.edu (David Buehler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and alchemy scheme
Date: 2 Dec 93 00:48:00 -0700

I remember another amusing thing that the man said concerning his transmutation
process at the Nagoya meeting.  He said that after burning the ingredients in a
crucible the gold would collect in a small dimple at the bottom, and you had to
very carefully pry it out without jarring it or tapping it.  Otherwise, the
gold would -change back- to whatever it was before!
 
I really enjoyed the meeting, in part because of things like this...
 
(Brady, do you still read this group?)
____________________________________________________________________
 David Buehler                             Brigham Young University
 dave@digaudio.byu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendave cudfnDavid cudlnBuehler cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: Concerning a new group....
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning a new group....
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 09:32:09 GMT

In <1993Dec2.053616.4300@ns.network.com> John Logajan writes:
>Everyone is individually responsible for the destination of their own posts.
>Let's not place blame based solely on our loyalty to one side of the argument
>or the other.
>
Not true! Everyone else was just following orders :-)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Bill Page /  CF in aluminium
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF in aluminium
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 13:02:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thank you yet again, Dieter, for the follow very interesting reference:
 
<<
Anufriev GS, Boltenkov BS;
Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Materialoved.
1991,
(2(56)) 73 (in Russian).
"Helium isotopes and hydrogen in aluminium and other metals".
** Isotopic distributions and amounts of the isotopes of 3He, 4He, T and H
were studied in some samples of Al produced by electrolysis. Out of several
samples, one had not only larger than normal concentrations of both 3He and
tritium, but also unusual T/H and 3He/4He ratios
>>
 
Is the article only in Russian?  Can you post anything more regarding the
experimental techniques?
 
As some of you may recall, I had been "playing around" with Al cathodes
some months back.  I've measured what certainly appeared to be excess heat
generation as well as anomalous reductions in background followed by rising
ionizing radiation during cell operation.  I also have some anecdotal
information from a major aluminum producer regarding excess heat production
during a cathodic pre-treatment stage in the usual anodic treatment
process.
 
Aluminium has an unusual nuclear structure (13 protons, 14 neutrons) as
well as being highly electronegative.  The diffusion rates for H and D in
Al are rather low compared to Pd but none the less, hydrogen in aluminum
during its manufacture is still of some concern.  Aluminum forms a hydride
AlH3 which appears in poly-molecular form - though this hydride is unlikely
to be produced during electrolysis.  There is strong evidence that H and D
occuppy tetrahedral sites in the Al metal lattice.
 
Thanks again, Dieter.
 
Cheers.
 
Bill Page.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Rigid-Lattice Bose Condensates
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rigid-Lattice Bose Condensates
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 15:41:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry says he likes to pick on me concerning whether I am sure that
solid molecular hydrogen or some other system does not bose condense.
Heck, this is not my territory so I am not sure of anything regarding
bose condensates.  I just keep raising questions in an effort to keep
everyone honest.  So if it takes bosons in identical states to form
a condenstate let's be sure we have a system of bosons in identical
states.  Of course I also like to remind everyone that getting all
the deuterons into a bose condensate does not automatically clear
up the cold fusion puzzle.  There are still a few other details
that need fixing.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Neutron transfer up hill
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron transfer up hill
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 01:28:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page notes that neutron transfer between nucleons was and possibly
is still being considered as an alternative to fusion as the reaction
of choice to account for "excess heat."  Advocates seem to think that
this process can perhaps account for the missing radiation and/or
undetected reaction products.  Bill, I fear, has missed one essential
feature required for any "cold" nuclear reaction.  Neutron transfer
can only go in the direction that takes the neutron from a state where
it is less tightly bound to a state where it is more tightly bound.
Pulling a neutron out of Pd and binding it to hydrogen is the wrong
way to go by roughly 5 MeV.  When Hagelstein and others talk about
neutron transfer I would assume what they have in mind is going
the other way.
 
With regard to the 100Pd question that Steve Jones has been looking
into, it also seems to be an example of a reaction which goes the
wrong way.  If you transfer neutrons into one of the stable Pd
isotopes you don't get a neutron deficient isotope as the product.
Should anyone propose that 100Pd is a product of a "cold" reaction,
fusion or otherwise, it does raise some difficult questions.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Where are the conduction electrons?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where are the conduction electrons?
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 01:28:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel is concerned for some reason about the typical electric
field near a hydrogenoid nucleus in PdD and hints that the conduction
electrons may be involved.  I don't think so.  I think the best I can
do with electrons is to bind one to the deuteron, and then as long as
the deuterons are where the Pd atoms aren't, conduction electrons aren't
in the picture.
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Surface Preparation
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Surface Preparation
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 01:29:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Steven Axdal for reminding me to use my coffee pot vapor-degreaser.
If he had been following long he would have heard how to make one at home.
 
Will be away from here until 13 December for the Hawaii cold fusion conference.
We plan to put a complete report here as fast as we can write it.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  21 st Centurry ...
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 21 st Centurry ...
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 01:29:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Fans of 21 st Century Science and Technology, that great supporter of "cold
fusion" will be pleased to hear that Lyndon LaRouche will be going on parole
early in January.  Now we can hope to get the support we need.
 
I just put this up to stimulate another blast of off topic comment as the
previous one seems to be dying down.
 
Tom Droege
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Jeremy Whitlock /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 15:05:17 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

In article <peter_butler.its_2_po-301193114458@mac87a4.itc.com.au>
peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler) writes:
 
>Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
>which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
>techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2?
 
Also because it produces the most amount of energy per kg of fuel, because
less miners die per kg of fuel, because less civilians die per kg of
fuel, and because its radioactive waste isn't spread all over the country
and in your lungs, like with coal.
 
As for alternative forms, because of its high power density nuclear power
has been shown [1,2] to be safer than all renewable sources if you look at
the entire fuel supply, construction, and operation cycle.
 
> Surely it is better to
>look at areas like solar power, energy efficiency, wind power, etc.  If
>funding to these areas matched funding for nuclear research, they would be
>far more viable options than they are at the moment.
 
Apparently funding isn't the reason:
 
 U.S. FEDREAL R&D SUPPORT FOR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING TECHNOLOGIES, 1976-92 [3]
                                (1992 US$)
 
      Nuclear Energy                                        $3.2 billion
        (LWR:$0.8 billion; converter reactors:$1 billion;
         advanced systems:$1.4 billion)
 
      Coal Energy                                           $3.2 billion
        (advanced R&D:$1 billion; combustion systems:
         $1.1 billion; MHD:$1.1 billion)
 
      Renewable Energy                                      $4.0 billion
        (PV:$1.7 billion; solar thermal:$1.5 billion;
         wind:$0.8 billion)
 
 
REFERENCES:
 
[1] H. Inhaber, _Energy_Risk_Assessment_, New York: Gordon & Breach, 1982.
 
[2] J. Holdren et al., "Health and Safety Impacts of Renewable, Geothermal
    and Fission Energy," in C. Travis and E. Etneir, eds., _Health_Risks_of_
    Energy_Technologies_, Bouldor, Co.: Westview Press, 1983.
 
[3] USCEA report: "Federal Research and Development Expenditures for Nuclear
    Energy, Coal and Solar and Renewable Energy, 1950-1992," 1992.
 
 
Jeremy.
 
 --
 Jeremy Whitlock                           e-mail: whitlock@mcmaster.ca
 Department of Engineering Physics         phone: 905-525-9140 ext.27140
 McMaster University, 1280 Main West
 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7        "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenwhitlock cudfnJeremy cudlnWhitlock cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Bockris and alchemy scheme / Hey, _I_ can do that trick!
     
Originally-From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and alchemy scheme / Hey, _I_ can do that trick!
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 16:48:11 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

Hi folks,
 
In article <1993Dec1.103657.1151@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> Terry's question about Bockris' involvement in a transmutation scheme is
> interesting. I don't know details, except that John Bockris somehow became
> involved with a man from Europe who claimed to be able to change mercury
> into precious metals by a chemical (burning) process.  A meeting on this
> was scheduled at Texas A&M in January, 1993, but cancelled.
>
> This man gave a talk on his method at the Nagoya meeting on cold fusion,
> during a lunch break.  He described in a frank manner the process of
> mixing ores with various substances including   *whole wheat flour*.
>
> That caught my attention.  I raised my hand and asked if *whole wheat*
> flour was necessary; wouldn't ordinary white flour suffice?  With a
> straight face, he said whole wheat flour was important.  I couldn't keep a
> straight face, and left to eat my lunch.
 
 
Hey, I could perform _this_ kind of alchemy with a rock I have at home!  But
alas, I'd think I'd need to use slurries, not roasting.
 
I have a beautiful specimen of sulphide ore on a shelf at home, which my
five year old son Jesse found when we last visited Silver Mines, Missouri.
(Beginner's luck -- Jesse found the best specimen I've ever seen from that
old mine site in one short visit, while my nephew and I have gone over the
tailings for years with only mediocre luck.)  The vein there is a very old
igneous hydrothermal one, and like the hydrothermal deposits you see around
oceanic "black smokers," it has a truly remarkable variety of metals in it.
 
First step is to grind the sulphide ore (which _already contains a small
amount of gold_) into a fine powder.  Next I douse it with cyanide solution
(Kids: Do not do this at home!) to leach out the minute quantities of gold.
 
I then cancel out the cyanide, add some starter food (maybe whole wheat
flour for extra vitamins?), and throw in some of the recently discovered
gold-selective bacteria that pull the metal out of solution and form it
into tiny golden spheres.  If I'm really lucky the bacteria will be cyanide
resistant, and I will be able to place them directly into the full-strength
cyanide solution.  (Side note:  These bacteria may be instrumental in the
formation of gold nuggets in streams.   Gold bugs!)  I then let my little
gold-concentrating bugs munch on the mix for a couple of weeks until some
sort of small but detectable level of metallic gold particles are formed.
 
Voila!  I have PROVEN Life-Energy-Holistic-Philosophers-Stone-Transmutation!
 
(Actually, it was just a rather dippy ore processing technique, but _please_
don't tell let the hoi-paloi in on the secret...  ;-)   Dropping a piece of
steel wool directly into the cyanide solution to get a replacement reaction
would easier and much more direct, but less fun.)
 
                                Amused,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SEARCH FOR NEUTRONS AND GAMMAS: NULL RESULT
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SEARCH FOR NEUTRONS AND GAMMAS: NULL RESULT
Date: 1 Dec 93 17:51:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

 
Draft 1 December 1993; Figures not included except Fig. 3.
Intended for ICCF-4 to be held in Maui, 6-10 Dec. 1993.
Since I will be leaving for Maui soon, my last contact with this
(net until my return on Dec. 11) will be Thursday, Dec. 2 at about
18:00, mountain time (USA).
There have been several changes since I posted "Draft of paper" about
a week ago.  Unfortunately, the data on neutron-singles emission was
deleted from my text file, and I lack time to re-type it here (as Figure 4)
-- but these data have not changed from the first draft.
Hopefully this posting will respond to Daryl Owen's request; I apologize to
Daryl for suggesting that he would consider using a neutron-survey meter.
 
I would particularly call attention to the Table at the end of the
paper.
TTFN and Best Regards,  Steven Jones
 
SEARCH FOR NEUTRON AND GAMMA EMISSIONS IN Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC
CELLS:  A NULL RESULT
 
Steven E. Jones, David E. Jones and David S. Shelton
Departments of Physics and Chemistry
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah  84602
 
We have conducted a series of experiments using state-of-the-art
neutron and gamma detectors to look for evidence for nuclear
reactions occurring in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.  The
experiment follows protocols suggested by Prof. K. Wolf of Texas
A&M University and was performed at the request of a colleague at
EPRI.
 
OVERVIEW OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS AT BYU
 
Our primary detector for low-level neutron emissions is comprised
of a large plastic scintillator core with a surrounding bank of
sixteen 3He-filled proportional counter tubes (Figure 1), with
all signals digitized at 50 Mhz and stored in computer memory.
The central plastic scintillator is 25 cm in length and 8.9 cm in
diameter.  A central cavity of 4.4 cm diameter admits test cells.
Fast neutrons from the sample can generate a recoil proton in the
plastic generating scintillations (efficiency about 45%) which
are viewed by a photomultiplier tube.  Then the neutron slows
further in polyethylene moderator 28 cm diam. X 30 cm long, and
finally may be captured in one of 16 helium-3-filled proportional
counter tubes embedded in the moderator (stand-alone efficiency
about 34%).  These tubes are arranged in four quadrants
incorporating 4 proportional-counters in each.
 
The detector and experiments have the following special features:
 
1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 50 MHz, so that we retain pulse-shape
information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
some neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting events having small or no
plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow (especially
thermal) neutrons.  This background-reducing feature is not
available to many detectors including those using BF3, 3He and
even the Kamiokande.  By studying neutron-capture time
distributions based on prompt and capture-neutron pulses, we
check whether the distributions agree with those found with a
plutonium source.
 
2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records which of the
four quadrants of the 3He-type counter showed neutron capture,
allowing for checking that the quadrants are hit in equal
proportions.
 
This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
320-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one quadrant. (Occasionaly two quadrants are involved, due
to electronic cross-talk).  We have seen several cases of such
large bursts in the past year of running (see for example Figure
2); but *all* bursts of over five detected neutrons have proven
to be spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that compelling data for
large neutron bursts requires detector segmentation and pulse
digitization (allowing signal visualization).
 
3.  Three large cosmic-ray veto counters show the passage of
cosmic rays, which events are rejected off-line.  Passive
shielding of at least 35 m of rock (12,000 g/cm2) also greatly
reduces cosmic ray-induced events and removes dependence of
cosmic-ray rates on atmospheric pressure.  After cosmic-ray
rejection, the event rate is approximately 0.7 neutron-like
singles per hour with an efficiency of 15% for 2.5 MeV neutrons,
and 0.07 burst-events per hour with a detection efficiency
exceeding 20% (increasing with neutron-burst multiplicity).
 
4.  Two additional highly-sensitive neutron detectors are
available in the same deep-underground facility based on a
different neutron-capture scheme (capture in lithium-doped
glass), to permit checking of any positive results found in the
primary detector.
 
 
RESULTS USING Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC CELLS
 
The data presented below represent 1,054.6 hours (6.3 weeks) of
observation of Pd/LiOD cells [1] and backgrounds in our most
sensitive neutron detector, described above.  Experimental
protocols follow those used by Prof. K. Wolf of Texas A&M [2],
namely:
 
1.  Pd cathodes (6mm diam. expect 4mm diam rod described in 2
below) were used in a 0.1 M LiOD solution (in D2O).   Electrode
spacing of the Pd rods relative to Ni-gauze which formed the
cylindrical anode is approximately 2 mm, with a septum used to
prevent electrical contacts.
 
2.  Three cells were polarized in series at 40 mA from Sept. 24,
1993 to October 25, 1993, then at 80 mA until October 29, 1993.
 
3.  Following a suggestion of Prof. Wolf, a fourth Pd/LiOD cell
was operated at high altitude (8,500') for three weeks at
20mA/cm2, then added in series connection with the other three
cells on October 25, 1993.
 
4.  The palladium cathode rods were scraped/sanded approximately
every seven days, and replaced in the cells within a period of
about fifteen minutes to minimize deuterium loss from the
cathodes during the cleaning procedure.  We noticed that the cell
potential slowly increased over days of (constant-current)
operation, then decreased after the cathodes were cleaned,
showing that a resistive surface coating had built up during cell
operation.  We also observed a gradual rise in electrolytic cell
temperature, using a platinum-resistance probe, consistent with
increased resistance and joule heating as the resistive surface
coating developed.
 
5.  A 12-hour cooling treatment was applied to the three primary
cells on day 17.  The fourth cell (described in 2 above) was
subjected to diurnal cooling and heating due to its exposure to a
mountain environment; the electrolyte was found to be frozen on
two occasions.
 
6.  Boron and aluminum (about 0.001 molar) were added to the LiOD
electrolyte on the 18th day.
 
 
*Time-correlated (burst) neutron-like rates
 
A neutron burst event is defined as having a hit in the plastic
scintillator core followed by two or more signals in the 3He-
filled proportional-counter tubes within 320 microseconds.  Since
the die-away time for neutrons in the outer detector/polyethylene
moderator is 55 microseconds, there is a possibility to see
multiple distinct neutron hits there.  In effect, the outer
detector "de-multiplexes" neutrons should an instantaneous burst
occur, as first reported by H. Menlove et al. [3].  A burst is
then defined as two or more captured neutrons within 320
microseconds of a start pulse in the plastic scintillator.  The
background rate for bursts is (0.07 +- 0.01) n/hr, all from
multiplicity = 2 events, established using Pd loaded with
hydrogen in 394 hours of separate runs.
 
We must also check the time spectra of 3He-captured neutrons
relative to the start pulse in the plastic scintillator to
scrutinize whether the time distribution corresponds to the 55-
microsecond die-away time for neutrons in the 3He-portion of the
counter, as seen with a plutonium neutron source.
 
The Pd/LiOD cells described above were polarized for 708.8 hours.
During this time, 24 neutron-like burst events were seen, all
having multiplicity = 2.  (Approximately one burst candidate per
30 hours; this is a very low rate.)  Thus, the neutron-like rate
for these events was 48/708.8h = (0.07 +- 0.01) n/hr.  These
numbers are in excellent agreement with those found with hydrogen
controls discussed above.  There is therefore no indication of a
neutron-burst signal above a very low background.
 
To complete the scrutiny for burst-like events, we compare time
spectra from these Pd/LiOD electrolytic cell runs with those
obtained from H2-control runs and from Pu-source runs.  Figure 3
displays the time between each start pulse in the plastic
scintillator detector and each stop pulse from the 3He-type outer
detector.
 
Fig. 3.  Neutron capture times for Pu source, H2 control, and
Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.
 
Capture time   Pu source (known neutrons)   H2 control  P/F cells
 (microsec.)      (1310 second run)          (394 hrs)   (708.8h)
 
0-25            32                           6            14
25-50           17                           5             3
50-75           11                           8             9
75-100           8                           2            11
100-125          1                           5             0
125-150          1                           2             4
150-175          0                           0             7
 
 
Whereas the neutrons from the plutonium source follow a pattern
consistent with the 55-microsecond die-away time for neutrons in
the counter, neither the controls nor the Pd/LiOD cells show such
a distribution.  The latter two spectra are consistent with
backgrounds.)  We conclude that there is no evidence for neutron-
burst activity in the electrolytic cells.
 
 
*Total neutron-like count rates
 
Even if there are no burst-like events, there may still be
neutron counts above background which we consider "singles."  The
background rate for such events has been established as
approximately 0.7 counts/hour using Pd loaded with hydrogen.
Figure 4 displays results from each run of the electrolytic
cells, showing 1-sigma error bars (statistical only).
 
--> Data given in first posting
Again, we see that the rates are entirely consistent with the
background.  This exercise has as its conclusion that no neutrons
were seen above very low background levels, in a high-efficiency
detector.  The most important observation may be that state-of-
the-art neutron detectors are now available for studies requiring
high-sensitivity instruments.
 
*Gamma-ray spectroscopy
 
Immediately following the neutron search, all palladium rods were
taken to Los Alamos for gamma-ray spectroscopic analysis.  The
purpose of this search was to determine whether radioactive
isotopes of palladium, rhodium, ruthenium and silver might have
been generated during the electrolytic runs (as has been
rumored).  All four Pd rods were placed in a low-background
germanium detector operated by Dr. J. Parker and counted for
75,000 seconds.  No gamma lines above background were seen,
except for a weak 59.5 keV line which represents americium-241.
The americium contamination was traced to the nickel gauze used
for anodes (provided by Texas A&M), but the origin of the
americium contamination was not determined.
 
We take this opportunity to report that we have performed further
gamma-spectrographic analysis of essentially all of the palladium
cathodes used in experiments at BYU and Kamiokande over the past
five years, and found absolutely no evidence for radioisotope
formation in any palladium cathodes.  Careful scrutiny should
therefore be applied to any claims that nuclear reactions produce
transmutations or radioisotopes in electrolytic cells.  In
particular, claims that radioisotopes are formed far off the line
of nuclear stability should immediately arouse suspicion that the
palladium (or electrode material) in question was subjected to
irradiation by an energetic particle beam.  For example, if
palladium-100 is found by gamma spectroscopy, then beam
irradiation is highly likely since negative-Q reactions are
implicated.
 
We should also report here that we have followed our own
challenge [4] of searching for x-rays as might be expected from
electrolytic cells if nuclear reactions are indeed producing heat
in such cells.  Nuclear reactions are characterized by release of
MeV-scale energies, hence their importance to power-production
schemes. Energy release at the nuclear level implies that
secondary x-rays will be produced, since only tens of keV are
required to generate x-rays.  If nuclear reactions are indeed
producing heat at the levels claimed (>1 mW), then sufficient x-
rays should be produced to be detectable, since x-rays arise from
ionizing effects of nuclear products on the materials in which
the purported heat develops.  Thus, x-ray measurements provide a
crucial test for the presence of heat-generating nuclear
reactions.
 
Characteristic x-rays of Pd (K-alpha of 21.1 keV) or Ni (K-alpha
of 7.5 keV) which result from K shell vacancies are readily
detectable.  We have searched for such lines using two x-ray
spectrometers, a 10mmX10mm photodiode having high sensitivity
down to about 4 keV described in [4] and a lithium-drifted
silicon detector with high sensitivity down to about 1 keV.  We
used a Pd/D2O electrolytic cell in which 25 micron Pd foil formed
both cathode and external wall; no x-ray production was seen with
this electrolytic cell.  A Ni/H2O electrolytic cell in which the
Ni cathode was placed against a very thin plastic window was also
studied.  Again, no x-ray production was in evidence in the
electrolytic cell.
 
 
CONCLUSIONS
 
In order to find compelling evidence for cold-fusion effects,
state-of-the-art calorimeters and nuclear detectors are required.
Table 1 juxtaposes such systems with other systems now more
generally in use.  It is disquieting that even at this stage of
research, some researchers select open electrolytic cells over
closed cells, very long sampling times, x-ray films instead of x-
ray spectrometers, helium or tritium gas sampling (and Geiger
counters) instead of charged-particle spectrometers, and neutron
survey meters instead of sensitive neutron detectors as described
above.  It is time to strongly question claims of cold fusion
based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous
scientific-proof level.  Compelling evidence requires use of the
best instruments available, incorporating fast data-sampling and
visualization methods, the use of different detectors whose
signals agree quantitatively, and the presence of signals well
above background levels.  A real signal will be capable of
scaling, and should not shrink as background levels are reduced.
However, as we have proceeded to better detectors, cold-fusion
data surety has diminished.
 
With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, no compelling
evidence for cold fusion in deuterided materials currently exists
in any cold-fusion experiment, including our own.  Indeed, the
only verified form of cold fusion is muon-catalyzed fusion. We
will continue the search for low-level nuclear effects for
several months and invite those with evidence for neutron
production to accept our invitation to test their systems in our
deep-underground neutron detection facility.  Gamma and x-ray
spectrometers are also available.
 
We acknowledge the assistance of J.B. Czirr, E.P. Palmer, G.L.
Jensen, S.F. Taylor and L. Hansen of BYU and valuable
contributions from the following:  J. Parker, D. Britz, T.
Droege, R. Schroeppel, B. Liebert, R. Eachus, R. Blue, T.
Schneider, T. Passell, T. Claytor, C. Sites and H. Menlove.  We
thank BYU for providing laboratory and technician support for
this research.
 
 
REFERENCES
 
[1] M. Fleischmann, B.S. Pons [and M. Hawkins], J. Electroanal.
Chem. 261 (1989) 301.
 
[2] K.L. Wolf,  J. Shoemaker, D.E. Coe, L. Whitesell, AIP Conf.
Proc. #228 (NY:  Am. Inst. Physics, 1991), p. 341-353.
 
[3] H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,
R.R. Ryan, S.E. Jones, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495-506.
 
[4] D.B. Buehler, L.D. Hansen, S.E. Jones and L.B. Rees, "Is
Reported 'Excess Heat' Due to Nuclear Reactions?", Frontiers of
Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami, 1993, p. 245.
 
 
TABLE 2.  COMPARISON OF COLD-FUSION RESEARCH METHODS
 
It is evident that much of the present confusion surround "cold
fusion" stems from the continued use of inadequate detectors.
This list juxtaposes crude, better and state-of-the-art systems
to help in the quest for compelling data, one way or the other.
Use of the best available methods is clearly the path-of-logical
science.
 
Crude                    Better                State-of-the-art
(simply add to the       (but not good enough) (can provide
 confusion)                                     compelling evidence)
______________________   _____________________ ______________________
 
Neutron survey meters,   Segmented 3He,        Segmented 3He or Li-
  BF3                    Plastic scintillators doped glass *plus*
                                               scint. with digitizing
 
Helium gas detection,    Charged-particle det. Thin dE/dx detector
 Tritium gas detection   (Si surface barrier)  plus Si spectrometer
                                               (particle ID & energy)
 
X-ray film               X-ray film with foil  X-ray spectrometer
                         energy-filters        (SiLi, etc.)
 
Geiger counter            see detectors listed above; Germanium det.
 
Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                     Integral I*V(t) correct
 
Open cell calorimetry,   Measure H2/D2 + O2    Recombiner inside
no H2/D2 +O2 monitoring,  simultaneous w/heat   separate calorimeter
during experiment
 
Metal of unknown source,                       Alloyed with known
quality or purity                              purity and properties
 
D2O of unknown source    D2O from known source,  Highly distilled D2O,
                         not exposed to reactor  known H,O isotopes
 
Visual techniques        Computer-logging,     Redundant probes with
                          several probes       fast data acquisition
 
Theories which dis-       Fractofusion ignoring     ???
regard P, E conservation  e- vs. d+ acceleration
or light-cone constraints
(e.g., "heating lattice")
or known branching ratios
from muon-catalyzed cold
fusion
(e.g. 4He but no neutrons)
 
*END*
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Ethan Vishniac /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 2 Dec 1993 17:18:38 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

Jeremy Whitlock <whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>
> U.S. FEDREAL R&D SUPPORT FOR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING TECHNOLOGIES, 1976-92 [3]
>                               (1992 US$)
.....
 
I wonder if you could post the Canadian R&D support figures as well?
They're unlikely to be as large of course, but I think many people
would find it interesting.
 
 
 
.
 
--
                             Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
                             Department of Astronomy
                             University of Texas
                             (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenethan cudfnEthan cudlnVishniac cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / John Logajan /  Heat Pipe bed of nails
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe bed of nails
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 21:53:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Suppose you took your inner heat-pipe "cup" and soldered a load of pins
or brads to it so it looked like a porcupine?
 
       T           T
   ----|           |
       |           |    The pins are soldered to the inner cup
   ----|           |    but contact the outer wall only due to the
       |           |    outside pressure pushing the outer wall in a bit.
   ----|           |
        \_________/
          |  |  |
          |  |  |
 
The brads or pins would add a low mass form of distributed wall bracing
to prevent thinwall collapse due to the internal low pressure, and the
pins or brads could be lightly coated with a "flocking" material to
act as distributed wicks.
 
--
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /   Thanks!  (Re: fixing the cross-posting problem)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject:  Thanks!  (Re: fixing the cross-posting problem)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 18:16:54 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,
 
My thanks to all the folks who've taken the time to cut the excess group
names out of their threads.  It took a couple of days for everything to
weave its way through, but the sci.physics.fusion group has quieted down
splendidly and is now much easier to read.
 
I would note that the problem appears to have been far more in the way that
follow-up replies work in most Internet tools than with anyone thinking that
such cross-postings simply _had_ to be made.  Most Internet tools will
automatically dupicate the newsgroup list "as is," and will then post your
reply to groups that you may not even know exist.  Also, the lists can be
inadvertantly re-introduced if (like me) you sometimes like to keep copies
of old postings and follow-ups around for construction of new postings.
 
In short, when a cross-posted thread is long and lively, the newsgroup
list has an unfortunate tendency to behave a bit like a mini-virus.  It
tends to replicate itself and cause annoying results quite without the
knowledge or consent of the folks using it.  I don't think anyone should be
blamed for it -- it's just one of those quirky things that the network does
when the right conditions (initial _appropriate_ cross-posting followed by
both topic-drift and lively participation) appear.  Fortuantely, this set
of circumstances is relatively rare.
 
Thanks again for those who have helped with this successful effort at a
little bit of newsgroup-line hygene.
 
                                Cheers,
                                Terry
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Habibie Sumargo /  Finite Difference Time Domain Method
     
Originally-From: habibie@vision.fiu.edu (Habibie Sumargo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Finite Difference Time Domain Method
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 19:02:32 GMT
Organization: Florida International University

I wondered if any of you out there is working with the above subject.
I am very interested to apply this method on a microstrip antenna.  If
you do any research in this field and would like to share some information
to me, please kindly send your email and address to me.  Thank you very much.
 
NOTE: This could be a cross-post on other user groups.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhabibie cudfnHabibie cudlnSumargo cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Concerning a new group....
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Concerning a new group....
Date: 2 Dec 1993 23:13:54 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Dec2.053616.4300@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>The problem was caused by Dale Bass putting sci.physics.fusion in the
>>newsgroup line, and then repeatedly and inadvisably putting it back in when
>>others asked that it be removed.
>
>This is absurd.  Dale Bass can only be responsible for his own posts.  To
 
I was talking about the massive wave of his posts that washed up on
this shore on Monday.  Must have been a propagation delay somewhere
upstream.
 
>Everyone is individually responsible for the destination of their own posts.
 
Exactly.
 
>Let's not place blame based solely on our loyalty to one side of the argument
>or the other.
 
I had nothing to do with any side of this argument ad absurdum.
 
--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Momentum conservation and other minor details.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Momentum conservation and other minor details.
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 08:03:53 GMT
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:29:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1738:
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 01:29:12 GMT
 
[...]
>Dieter Britz, in an attempt to clarify what Mitchell Swartz may be
>thinking, presents a picture which I see is equivalent to saying that
>the momentum conservation question raised by Steve can be solved by
>not emitting anything!  If we adopt the picture that an excited
>4He nucleus is formed and then decays without ever emitting anything
>there is, of course, no momentum to conserve.  That leaves only
[...]
 
I must have expressed myself badly, if Dick can read me like that. Even humble
electrochemist I have started to understand that this quiescent disappearance
of MeV level energy is an unlikely miracle, so I certainly would not suggest
the lack of emission. In fact, I mentioned at least the emission of x-rays.
The point I was trying to make - in an attempt to understand what Mitch is
trying to say - was that the He nuclei that MIGHT be formed would not, as far
as I can see, necessarily exit from the PdD lattice AS cp's but, like
deuterons do, pick up electrons and exit as neutral atoms. Long before this
happens, each He nucleus would have shed those MeV by crashes into the
lattice, giving rise to, well, x-rays and what have you. In fact, He might
find it easier to exit, once near the surface, because it can exit on its own,
whereas deuterium atoms first look for a partner to exit with as a D2
molecule. On the other hand, He is thought to be very immobile in Pd, so maybe
it would have a hard time getting out; on the third hand, I was told once that
under the special conditions that would hold IF there be fusion, He might be
quite mobile after all, so it's not all that clear.
 
As for the above "unlikely miracle": this is not a retraction of my earlier
remarks about Schwinger and Hagelstein, who both argue for just that quiescent
absorption of MeV energies. Unlikely as this seems even to me, I can entertain
a small doubt, if only because of the fact that these two people say so. I
agree that one must not unquestioningly believe in authority but on the other
(fourth?) hand, one ought not to dismiss authority lightly, either. It is not
good enough to say that Schwinger is past it and is raving, or that Hagelstein
is not as smart as some reckon he is: point to the weakness in their published
theories, please.
 
A remark about authority: there have been some derogatory comments on Bockris
lately, because of his purported belief in economic transmutation
(transmutation itself is of course a reality; to do it economically is the
problem). As I have said before, he is probably a great scientists BECAUSE of
his idiosynchrasies, which we forgive him, because he is a giant among
electrochemists. You can't take that away from him. Please don't call him a
charlatan.
 
If someone whom noone has ever heard of in terms of important work comes up
with a crazy theory, it's reasonable both to have at least a quick look at
that theory, but not to give it too much importance. But if someone who is an
authority on a given subject comes up with ditto, it is reasonable to assume
that he/she is applying the weight of their knowledge and experience, and
still coming up with the crazy theory. This is why I am willing to entertain
some of these way-out ideas at least a little bit. This is also why I find
myself defending Fleischmann all the time; I know the man personally a little,
and certainly know him as a very competent electrochemist with many feathers
in his cap. It does not seem likely to me that he would suddenly start raving.
I fail to understand his (and Pons') claims, but I want them examined in
detail, not dismissed with a laugh. We are looking at one detail right now:
the fluctuations of current and cell voltage, and I'll report the results when
we have them. My expectation is that fluctuation (undersampling) effects will
not be sufficient to explain F&P's excess heat in the pre-boiling stages. I
could be wrong.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re:      Fusion Digest 1725
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:      Fusion Digest 1725
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 08:12:13 GMT
Date: 1 Dec 1993 15:54:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) in FD 1739:
Date: 1 Dec 1993 15:54:27 GMT
 
>In article <9311301843.AA17403@suntan.Tandem.com>
>U7584RT@DOEVM.BITNET (Rusty Perrin) writes:
>>
>>I cast my vote for Scott's idea of having all items posted to multiple
>>newsgroups passed through a moderators screen, while stuff posted solely
>>to S.P.F. is passed straight through.
 
>I agree.  Almost all of the recent threads cross posted to sci.environment
>should be purged from the fusion archives.  They just clutter it up.
>You might keep the first few, and then add an editorial note that
>from a certain point all further posts on that subject were removed
>due to irrelevancy (just to keep the history clear, and to be clear
>that the archive is not normally editted).
 
I would go further: set up a filter that automatically and ruthlessly stops
ANY item that is cross-posted. Otherwise there will be a problem of where to
set the limit. Two? Four? I say zero. If it's posted to more than one group,
kill it.
Archive massaging is no good; again, there could be a lot of uncertainty about
how to do it. Better to put up with padding. Also, epidemics such as we are
just recovering from, might be useful material for sci-soc people, who will
one day comb the archives looking for just that sort of stuff. Now that it has
happened, leave it in there.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dieter Britz /  RE: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: An experiment to test P&F boiling-electrolyte/xs-heat claims
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 08:36:12 GMT
Date: 1 Dec 93 10:14:58 -0700
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1741
Date: 1 Dec 93 10:14:58 -0700
 
[...]
>Privately, I was reminded that while Fleischmann declined to provide the
>voltage measurements for this boiling episode, he did say that the "rail
>voltage" was 100V ("Fleischmann responds to Jones", posted by Rothwell).
>On this point I am still not convinced, since F has not told me what type
>of power supply he used, nor has he measurements of V frequently enough
>to be sure that 100V was not exceeded under these conditions.   Nor did P&F
>*measure* cell current at all; they assume the power supply
>maintains I=0.500 A during
>violent boiling conditions -- I'm not convinced without measurements!
[...]
 
In FPALH-90, Fig. 2 shows the galvanostat F&P used then, and I think we can
take it they use it still. They write that it is a HiTek Instruments model
DT2101 potentiostat connected as a galvanostat. This is sufficient information
to tell you (after some checking) what the highest voltage is. Fig. 2 is an
important figure, as it shows the low-pass filtering of the feedback signal;
this is the reason that the current will fluctuate along with the cell
voltage.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.02 / Robert Parson /  "21st Century" (was Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: rparson@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "21st Century" (was Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 22:59:43 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <2djs2s$6h@panix.com>, Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>
>C>BTW, there is a scientific divulgation magazine which has been publishing a
> >lot
> >stuff about cold fusion. I guess the name of the magazine is something like
> >"21st Century Science and Technology(?)". I do not recall very well its
> >name...
>
>  Is that Lyndon Larouche's magazine?  It sure sounds familiar.
>
  Strictly speaking, it is a magazine edited by LaRouche's associates;
they started it after LaRouche's arrest. LL himself keeps a low profile -
they have published articles by him and they review his books, and every so
often you run across a reference to the "LaRouche-Riemann model of Economics"
or some such, but he has no legal connection with the magazine. It's a curious
mishmash - there are some perfectly reasonable articles about science and
technology, reprinted from various places. The articles by the editors are
weird, however. Three major themes are "cold fusion is real" (Chief Editor
Carol White writes about this a lot), "ozone depletion is a hoax" (Associate
Editor Rogelio Maduro) and "electrodynamics can be explained in terms of
surfaces of everywhere negative curvature" (Associate Editor Laurence Hecht).
 
 In general there is less explicit political propaganda in
"21st Century" than in other LaRouche publications such as "Executive
Intelligence Review". It's still there, however - a recent review of a
volume of LaRouche essays on science had a quote that went something like
"it is time to attack such supposed scientific 'greats' as Isaac Newton and
James Clerk Maxwell" (for those not familiar with LaRouche's conspiracy
theories, the Royal Society plays an important role, together with the
Anglican Church and the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.)
 
 A few genuine scientists are listed as Consultants,
although at least some of these are genuine oddballs as well (such as
Bockris.) I have read some articles by the consultants; they are less bizarre
than the articles by the editors, but still represent (where I can judge)
very weak science that would be unlikely to make it into a refereed journal.
 
BTW LaRouche himself has been paroled and is set to be released in January.
 
Robert
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrparson cudfnRobert cudlnParson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 05:08:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <CH2K0E.362@eskimo.com>
phoenix@eskimo.com (Burt Webb) writes:
 
> I am seeking information about a William A. Barker who received a patent
> (#4961880) for a process which could accelerate radioactive decay. The
> patent was issued in 1990. He was living in Los Gatos, CA at the time.
> A company named ALTRAN CORP in Sunnyvale was also mentioned. I would
> also like to talk to anyone else who is interested in this subject. The
> patent also mentioned a cold fusion process.
 
Excerpts from my autobiography (2200 pages) LUDWIG PLUTONIUM, THE
CHOSEN ONE, FROM THE YEARS OF NEON THROUGH IODINE.
 
        If you give MIT theoretical patents and not me, then that is obviously
unfair treatment, and discrimination. And what of those cases in which
you already gave patents to processes which are true in practice and
yet false in theory? I refer to the W.A. Barker patent discussed in
detail under evidences of my application. Your patent office gave W.A.
Barker a patent for a method true in practice but false in theory. W.A.
Barker outlines a false theory, i.e., that radioactive rates are
mutable. It is false that the radioactive rate of decay can be
enhanced, for rates of radioactive decay are immutable. Why did your
patent office not look into this patent before granting it? Did not
your office know well that rates of radioactive decay are immutable?
This is elementary physics, did not your office know that rates of
radioactive decay are immutable? But it is true that a sample of a
radioactive element can be altered via neutron materialization by a
changing electric potential and not by what W.A. Barker asserts as
mutable rates of decay. Perhaps Barker did not intend to violate
physical law, rather he thought that he could get around the
immutability via the Uncertainty Principle. Perhaps he mistakenly
thought there was some leeway in the principle but there is not.
        But it is not surprizing that a patent, false in principle would be
granted. Unlike BarkerUs patent though, I assert that the conservation
of energy-mass is false and give supporting evidence of its falsehood.
Patent examiners who say RSo what, if a patent is correct in practice
but wrong in theory, no big deal.S But it is a big deal, because theory
and practice complement each other, sometimes one leading the other and
vice versa. The correct theory behind engines, internal explosions, and
not squirrels inside running on treadmills, perfected and propelled the
technology of internal combustion engines.
        The history of my application and these letters will exist. I have
already made public knowledge of some and will continue to do so. I
even expect to publish my autobiography so that the world at large will
read how the U.S. Patent Office treats me in all of my patent
applications. For I intend to have many more engineering works. Neutron
Materialization Devices are only the start of my engineering works.
   (You mindless fuckdogs of this world, . . ., and the next, . . )
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 05:17:22 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1993Nov28.002820.28235@clark.dgim.doc.ca>
gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes: [most deleted]
 
> I asked a question about the feasibility of
> extending the life of muons (to enhance muon catalyzed fusion) by
> somehow observing the muons
 
Excerpts from my autobiography (2200 pages) LUDWIG PLUTONIUM, THE
CHOSEN ONE, FROM THE YEARS OF NEON THROUGH IODINE.
 
        On page11 of Ref B, Mr. Behrend states " under U.S.C. $ 1/2 (b) as
being anticipated by any of Williams et al, Danko et al, Barrus et al,
Reiffel, or Green (II) . I strongly challenge those assertions for
nowhere do I see any mention of Spontaneous Neutron Materialization,
nor induction for neutron materialization, nor the correction to the
weak nuclear interaction of physics. None of the above knew what was
really going on in hot fusion, nor in cold fusion experiments.
Therefore, I have not been anticipated by any of the above.  I am the
first person to assert that neutrons materialize from out of nowhere,
and can be induced by running a variable electric current or variable
electric potential.
        On page 11 of Ref B, Mr. Behrend states " the references will each
inherently function in the same manner, to produce the same result as
that of applicant .  This is not true for the references have the wrong
theoretical understanding; the wrong ideas of what is physically going
on. They do not know that hydrogen is better than heavy water and
palladium. They do not know that it is neutron materialization and not
the fusing of atoms. They are under misguided understanding, not unlike
the alchemists of old, or the phlogiston thinkers of old, or the ether
thinkers of old, or the BCS thinkers of recent. The references which
Mr. Behrend cites would be like modern BCS superconductor researchers.
The BCS theory is a wrong theory, unable to tell anyone what would be a
good practical superconductor.  The BCS theory is unable to predict
what materials are superconductive and at what temperatures. BCS
researchers would run into their labs and unable to assemble a
superconductor from BCS teachings. With my theoretical teachings I am
able to tell what is the very best fuel mass for spontaneous neutron
materialization. I am able to tell what induces neutron
materialization. Researchers under a wrong theory can only hope to
stumble onto the truth. Under a correct theory, researchers are guided
to the truth. I propose in my patent application, which is a
theoretical application, that mine is the correct theory behind both
hot fusion and cold fusion. Researchers under my theory can predict
what the experimental results are. My patent application for Neutron
Materialization Devices is the first patent outlining the  engineering
of fusion energy, and the best material is hydrogen.
                                                Sincerely,
 
                                                Ludwig Plutonium
 
   (You mindless fuckdogs of this world, . . ., and the next, . . )
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 05:30:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2ddqsf$40b@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk>
mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C Holderness) writes:
 
> "A watched pot never boils,"
 
Excerpts from my autobiography (2200 pages) LUDWIG PLUTONIUM, THE
CHOSEN ONE, FROM THE YEARS OF NEON THROUGH IODINE.
  (11) Patent 5,/76,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for Enhancing Alpha
Decay in Radioactive Materials .  This method is true in practice but
the theory outlined by W.A. Barker is false. The true theory behind
this invention is spontaneous neutron materialization which
transmutates some of the original atoms into other radioactive atoms
which then decay more quickly then what the original atom was, decay
into stable atoms. W.A. Barker is wrong when he asserts that rates of
radioactive decay are mutable and can be enhanced, and a better term
other than enhancing is alteration. Alteration of some of the original
atoms in a sample. An elementary physics text will confirm with me that
rates of radioactive decay are immutable:  PHYSICS OF THE ATOM  ,
1984,Wehr,Richards, Adair on page 366 states
"In showing that radioactive radiations came from uranium metal,
Becquerel worked with many uranium salts and the metal itself. He used
these materials crystallized, cast, and in solution. In every case it
appeared that the radiations were proportional to the concentration of
the uranium. It has been found that this proportionality between
radiation intensity and uranium concentration continues unchanged
through variations of temperature, electric and magnetic fields,
pressure, and chemical composition. Since the radioactive behavior of
uranium is independent of the environment of the uranium atom or its
electronic structure, which changes from compound to compound, the
radioactive properties of uranium were attributed to its nucleus."      Yet
W.A. Barker was able to receive a patent on an apparatus which in fact
does not work in theory. That there really is no way to enhance alpha
decay in radioactive materials, because radioactive decay is immutable.
What is really going on when an electrostatic potential is applied to
radioactive elements is spontaneous neutron materialization.
Spontaneous neutron materialization is the mechanism behind the
alteration of a chemical sample. And when the potential is varied, as
prescribed by my teachings, then rsnm increases and alteration
increases.
        I end evidences with the above 11. The worst difficulty in verifying
my claim of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is in
overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and the dead weight inertia
of the current physics community at large. A physics community along
with a mathematics community is composed mainly of professors.
Professors of a subject are not the best persons in their field. The
best persons of a subject field are the geniuses of that field.
Professors only teach what the geniuses of the subject field have set
down. Geniuses of physics possess physics intuition, likewise for
mathematics. Professors of physics have little to no physics intuition
and follow a herdlike mentality. Professors of physics are good at
regurgitating physics and doing what they were designed to do, teach
the subject. But lacking physics intuition they can not create new
physics nor see what is correct or wrong with the current physics.
Whenever something new in physics comes up, the first instinct of a
physics professor is to remain with the bandwagon in opposition to the
new physics. Their physics career starts and ends with regurgitation,
never any important newly created ideas. In the case of physics, most
of the geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally, I
repeat that-- only incidentally, to that of doing their physics work.
Many of the greatest physicists were never even professors of physics
such as Kepler, Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, Poincare, P. Jordan when they
did their creative work. Only after it was obvious to the community of
physics professors that these men were not like themselves,
regurgitators of the subject, but true physicists, did the community
put forth the pretenses that they were good old professors all along,
or try to make them into their mold. There are more clear cut examples
in mathematics than physics.  The best two examples are the cases of
Ramanujan and Galois. The important point I am getting to is that the
community of physics professors is against cold fusion not because of
the experimental results shown to date, but more so out of sentiment,
out of ignorance, and most important out of the politics for more
government funds to continue with hot fusion and laser inertial
confinement fusion.  A professor of physics will stick to the old
physics like a goof ball sticks to glue. I make this statement in order
to prepare the reader long before I discuss violation of conservation
of energy-mass. When I discuss the violation of conservation of
energy-mass I feel myself in the same position as what Aristarchus was
in when he proposed the heliocentric system several thousands of years
ago. The majority of people are dumbfounded with new ideas even though
the evidence is plain as day and undeniable.
   (You mindless fuckdogs of this world, . . ., and the next, . . :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / C Harrison /  nuclear reference data on line
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles ("Chuck") Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: nuclear reference data on line
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 04:56:06 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

An information server with up-to-date data on isotopic species, neutron
cross-sections, half-lives, etc is on the internet:
  telnet bnlnd2.dne.bnl.gov
  login: nndc
 
This is maintained at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
 
You can also reach it through the US Library of Congress "gopher",
LCMARVEL :
  gopher marvel.loc.gov
 
Use it in good health,
                       - Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dave Segal /  U.of U. Sells Fusion Rights
     
Originally-From: ds1539@u.cc.utah.edu (Dave.Segal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: U.of U. Sells Fusion Rights
Date: 3 Dec 1993 01:19:05 -0700
Organization: University Of Utah Computer Center

 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudends1539 cudfnDave cudlnSegal cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: Acceleration of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Acceleration of radioactive decay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 05:43:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <199311292309.AA02299@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes: [much deleted]
 
> On the subject of accelerating radioactive decay:  I haven't seen the patent,
> but it sounds silly or impossible up front.  On the other hand, there are
> several perfectly ordinary ways to do it - for example, placing a blob of
> uranium inside a graphite box will accelerate the decay of the uranium.
> Slightly more practically, there have been several proposals to reduce
> radwaste by burning it in a reactor:  This might not accelerate decay in
> the strict technical sense, but it's a fair abbreviated description.
> There are many exotic possibilities:  In the middle of a neutron star, etc.
> One might imagine using stimulated emission with 14Kev gamma rays.
>
> One of my pet puzzles is "Can a strong neutrino field alter the decay rate
> of any nuclide?"  The application is radio-X dating, which assumes that C14,
> etc. decay at a constant rate.  If our model of the sun is wrong, there may
> have been variations of the neutrino flux in times past.  Could these affect
> the decay of our timing nuclei?
 
Excerpts from my autobiography (2200 pages) LUDWIG PLUTONIUM, THE
CHOSEN ONE, FROM THE YEARS OF NEON THROUGH IODINE.
 
        I respectfully request an answer to two other questions. I want to
know if P. Hagelstein and/or MIT were issued patents on a "supposed
theory" explaining Cold Fusion, Science 15DEC89 page 1384 states that
"MIT announced it had filed patent applications in connection with a
series of papers he had written to explain cold fusion "? And I want to
know if Alvarez et al and/or Berkeley hold a patent on Muon Catalyzed
Fusion? If not, is there anything preempting me from acquiring a patent
on Muon Catalyzed Fusion? I eagerly await your answer on these two
important issues.
        The nature of my application from the start was that of a "Theoretical
Physics" application. And it is known that patents are granted to
processes involved in theoretical physics. For example, P. Hagelstein,
MIT, involved with cold fusion theory.   Does the U.S. Patent Office
only grant theoretical physics patents to schools like MIT, and not
private individuals like Ludwig Plutonium??
        I assert to know what makes fusion work. And I have detailed my art in
the application. However, I have decided to withhold some details in my
application, details which I have not yet correlated with experimental
fact, for I have no access to expensive equipment to verify those
details. I have no access to a heavy equipment research laboratory nor
am I permitted many of the chemical elements which I seek, such as
actinium, protoactinium, plutonium, and californium for obvious
government munitions control reasons. Also, for me to correlate my
theoretical knowledge with experiment, I would have to run a changing
electric current and a changing electric potential through hydrogen
gas. Hydrogen gas, as you know, is highly explosive. Extremely
dangerous experimental set-ups which takes me out of the confines of a
house, a garage, and even a College laboratory. I need a large heavy
equipment research  lab such as GE, IBM, or Hitachi, or Siemens.
        Then also, and more important is that by the time my application is
shown obviously correct by the actual construction of a Neutron
Materialization Nuclear Power Plant, it may well be that the 17 years
will have become so short or will have long transpired, that I will
have received nothing more than a "Thank You, Ludwig Plutonium" for all
of my efforts. My application will go through much disbelief and
opposition, wasting most of the 17 years. The disbelief and rabid
(rabies virus) opposition is easily seen in the case of "Cold Fusion in
a Test Tube Experiments, Utah 23MAR89." There are many
idiots-in-physics running around out there, who unfortunately are in
the majority for their intentions are to keep the funding of government
money flowing into hot fusion or laser inertial confinement projects
even when the route to fusion is better reached by cold fusion. A
visible example of this rabid opposition is F. E. Close  Too hot to
handle: the race for cold fusion  1991.
        It is best for me to continue to make this patent application in my
"general theoretical way."  For I intend to make all of these
correspondences public knowledge. And if the time is better suited to
me, to seek even more patent protection. If I refile for patent
protection it will be almost all math equations supported by the
experimental facts which I will have attained through a large research
laboratory containing heavy experimental equipment. But the lack of
experimental data is not prejudicial nor does it preclude this patent
application.
        I am of the opinion that Mr. Behrend does not know quantum physics
since he never mentions the word quantum nor radioactivities. It is my
opinion that Mr. Behrend is not qualified to judge this my reformatted
patent application for I suspect he lacks the training in quantum
physics. An understanding of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a key
prerequisite for judging my patent application.
        With this patent application it is my intention to gain maximum
economic control of what it is I know is true and can engineer. Please
allow me to give an illustration to make my present situation more
clear to your patent office and examiners. In France 1896, Becquerel
discovered radioactivity from uranium. Now suppose that Becquerel was
more than just a genius but a supergenius and had realized already by
19// the practical uses of uranium and had sent-off to the patent
office the design for a Nuclear Power Plant to use uranium as a fuel.
Remember, this is 19//. Just suppose Becquerel had all of that in his
mind by 19// and filed a patent application. We can all make guesses as
to what the patent office would have done. And we can all guess how the
world would have rejected or ignored his claims. Not until 1956 would
the rest of the world have caught-up in theoretical physics and more
importantly, would have caught-up in the sufficient technology to build
a Nuclear Power Plant. Would Becquerel have receive the proper rewards
if he had sought a patent on a Nuclear Power Plant in the year 19//?
Obviously the odds were highly unfavorable for him. Most likely
Becquerel would not have received one copper cent for all of his patent
troubles. I am almost in a similar situation to what I have outlined in
this Becquerel-suppose-story. Only in my case, the present technology
is sufficient for the building of Neutron Materialization Power Plants,
my biggest problem is the disbelief, the ignorance, and the
hot-bedded-stupidity of the current physics community at large.
        I am sure their are many cases in which your patent office granted a
patent but the inventors received no monetary gain for their troubles
only because the 17 years had expired. The Philips head screw, and
Philips head screwdriver quickly come to my mind.
        I am perhaps 5/ years ahead of my time and I am factoring that into
this patent application. And perhaps it will not be for another 5/
years that the rest of the world catches-up with me. I want to receive
more than a thank you for my many efforts spent on this my first
invention, but not my last.
        Whatever my fate, I intend to try to maximize my return on this
patent. One possibility is to wait for the rest of the world to
catch-up to me and then I can apply for this particular patent in
exquisite detail. Since by that time I hope to have made access to a
heavy equipment research laboratory which has mass spectrometers and
other expensive and heavy equipment instrumentation. And another thing
working in my favor is that as the future rolls-by, other researchers
will have done collaborative work. And of course they will seek patent
protection, but my history will supersede theirs. Your patent office
will then have that history. And I intend to make my history public
knowledge. See Encl. 5 in that I have published many times before, and
it is only a matter of time in my opinion before the world recognizes
my supergenius. And then there is always a lawsuit that will help me
for in those cases in which you treat me unfairly, or someone or
corporation tries to steal my intellectual properties.
   (You mindless fuckdogs of this world, . . ., and the next, . . :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: SEARCH FOR NEUTRONS AND GAMMAS: NULL RESULT
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SEARCH FOR NEUTRONS AND GAMMAS: NULL RESULT
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 05:57:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1993Dec1.175155.1154@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
 
> Whereas the neutrons from the plutonium source follow a pattern
> consistent with the 55-microsecond die-away time for neutrons in
> the counter, neither the controls nor the Pd/LiOD cells show such
> a distribution.  The latter two spectra are consistent with
> backgrounds.)  We conclude that there is no evidence for neutron-
> burst activity in the electrolytic cells.
 
  Your experimental set up is wrong and you are looking in the wrong
place. What you should be looking for is spontaneous neutron
materialization. If you could have an accurate count of total neutrons
within the electrochemical cell before running a variable (not a
constant) current or potential through the cell then you will discover
more neutrons after the experiment then before. And also, some of the
elemental atoms of the cell will be "new", i.e. atoms of helium in the
cell when there was no helium present from the start.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Reply to Steve Jones ....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Jones ....
Date: 3 Dec 93 20:44:00 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
  I happened to glance at my article "Reply to Steve Jones...." of the
30-Nov-93 and found that I had erroneously deleted a line.
  Where I had...
 
"Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
wrote on the 11-Nov-93......."
 
 Please instead read .....
 
"Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
"Draft of paper" posted on (approximately) the 11th November 93,
wrote on the 11-Nov-93........."
 
 Although nobody seems to have seen this error, I apologise for any
confusion it may have caused.
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  LEIBOWITZ LIVES! ....Seen recently in the company of Yamaguchi et al.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LEIBOWITZ LIVES! ....Seen recently in the company of Yamaguchi et al.
Date: 3 Dec 93 21:01:48 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

 
 
Hi Folks,
In his 29-Nov-93 post entitled "Cold fusion update No.8", Douglas Morrison
writes:
>"On the net there has been great interest in the three hours after the
>cell runs dry. Many were astonished that with no incoming power, the cell
>should stay very close to 100 degrees although earlier calculations had
>indicated that the cell should cool down."
 
This effect may be explained if one assumes that during electrolysis,
strain occurs at the surface of the Pd electrode, perhaps due to a thin
film coating, or sludge on the surface causing unequal *loading* of D (or H)
in the Pd lattice, or quoting from Jacob Jorne', AIP Conf.Proc.No 228, p238...
 
"The diffusion in metals under the influence of stress gradients was
initially reported by Gorsky (ref 20) and is termed the Gorsky effect.
Diffusion of hydrogen (or deuterium) in palladium and its alloys has been
found to be affected by strain gradients. (ref 21,24) The strain gradients
can be produced mechanically or by the inhomogeneous incorporation of
hydrogen in the metal lattice which causes deformation due to local
expansion or contraction. Hydrogen and deuterium  have been observed to
diffuse from regions of low strain to regions of high strain in palladium
and its alloys as it follows the strain gradient. (ref 21,24)"
 
"Ref 20 .....  W.S. Gorsky, Phys. Z. Sowjlln. 8, 562 (1935).
 Ref 21 .....  F.A.Lewis, B.Baranowski and K.Kandasamy, "Uphill diffusion
effects induced by self-stresses during hydrogen diffusion through metalic
membranes," J. Less-Common Metals, 134, L27-31 (1987).
 Ref 24 .....  F.M.Mazzolai, M.Nuovo and F.A.Lewis, "Anelastic measurements
of long range diffusion of hydrogen in a Pd(sub)77 AG(sub)23 alloy,"
Scripta Metallurgica, 9, 617-622 (1975) ".
 
 If we assume that a region of the lattice has a D concentration greater
than the rest of the metal, then this will, according to the above reasoning,
result in a stress gradient. Gorsky states that this gradient will lead to
the diffusion of more D into that region. In other terms, a positive feedback
diffusion effect....yes folks....as mentioned by Yamaguchi and Nishioka in
AIP Conf.Proc. No.228, where on p364/65 are four graphs, all of them showing
samples of 3 x 3cm x1mm Pd plates attaining temperatures of >100 degrees
and in three of these graphs, maintaining >100 degrees for >1.5 hours.
Some of these samples were loaded with hydrogen, others with deuterium, all
the experiments were "dry", not involving *any* electrolytes or chemical
reactions. A nice clean experiment....perhaps even... definitive?
 
 230-|                                * *
     |                               *    **
     |                              *       *
 200-|                             *         **
     |                            *            **
     |                           *               ************
     |                          *
     |                         *
     |                        *
     |                       *
     |                      *
 Degrees                   *
     |                    *
 100-|                  **
     |               ***
     |      *********
     |    *
     |   *
     |   *
     |  *         No. 13.  Mn-O(200 Angstroms)/ Pd:H / Au
     |__*
     |
   0_|_________________________________________________________
        |           |           |           |           |
        0           1           2           3           4   -> Hours
 
The above tries attemps to duplicate the highest temperature Pd sample graph.
As usual, I am interested in all informed comments and criticism ....
 
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
  All the above statements and comments are only attributable to myself.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Yamaguchi replicated?? ....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yamaguchi replicated?? ....
Date: 3 Dec 93 21:48:40 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
I have heard a rumour, from two seperate sources now, that a large
Japanese company has replicated the heat results (alas no neutrons),
of Yamaguchi et al. It will be interesting to see if this is mentioned
at the coming Hawaii conference.
                                        Regards to all,
                                        Daryl Owen.
 
All the above comments are only attributable to myself.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Schwinger and Hagelstein theories
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Schwinger and Hagelstein theories
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz indicates that he thinks that having the names of Schwinger
and Hagelstein linked to a theory gives it some added credibility.  As
I have noted before, as had Steve Jones, Hagelstein has backed away from
the type of theory Dieter refers to so I think his name should no longer
be associated with it.  That leaves Schwinger as an advocate for "quiescent
absorption of MeV energies."  I have not read what Schwinger has to say
on this subject, and no one seems to be prepared to summarize his theory
here.  Does anyone know where this has been published and whether Schwinger
mails out reprints?
 
Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / Eugene Mallove /  ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 01:14:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Papers Scheduled for the Fourth International Conference on Cold
Fusion (ICCF4)
December 6-9, 1993
Lahaina, Hawaii
Sponsor: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
 
 
Calorimetery - Presentations
 
Calorimetry of the Pd-D2 System: the Search for Simplicity and
Accuracy
     Fleischmann, Pons, Le Floux, Roulette
 
Excess Heat and Nuclear Product Measurments
     Gozzi, Bakducci, Caputo, Cignini, Gigii, Tomellini,
     Frullani, Cibani, Garibaldi, Jodice,Urciucii
 
Observation of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a
Fuel Cel l Type Closed Cell
     Hasegawa, Hayakawa, Yamamoto, Kunimatsu
 
Deuterium Charging in Palladium by the Electroysis of Heavy
Water: Production of Heat Excess
     Bertalot, DeMarco, DeNinno, LaBarbara, Scaramuzzi, Violante
 
Calorimetric Studies of the D/Pd System
     McKubre, Bush, Crouch-Baker, Hauser, Jevlic, Passel,
     Smedley, Tanzella, Williams, Wing
 
Triggering and Structural Changes in Cold Fusion Electrodes
     Bockris, Sundaresan, Letts, Minevski
 
Search for Nuclear Products of Cold Fusion
     Miyamaru, Chimi, Inckuchi, Takahashi
 
A Remarkable Excess Heat Generated Using a New Type Pd Cathode
     Arata, Zhang
 
Excess Heat Generation, the Over Voltage Deviation and the
Neutron Emission in D2O-LiOD-Pd Systems
     Okamoto, Yoshinaga, Kusunoki
 
Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the "Cold Fusion"
Effect
     Storms
 
Heat Measurement of Water Electrolysis Using Pd Cathode and the
Electrochemistry
     Ota, Yoshitake, Yamazaki, Kuraisuka, Yamaki, Andolida,
     Kamiya
 
Reproducible Anomalous Heat Production and "Cold Fusion" in
Au)/Pd/PdO Heterostructure Electrochemically Saturated by
Hydrogen (or Deuterium)
     Lipson, Lyakhov, Derjaguin
 
Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium
     Miles, Bush
 
Calorimetry of D2O Electrolysis Using a Palladium Cathode in a
Closed Cell System: AC Current Electrolysis Method
     Oyama, Hirasawa, Tadsuma, Yamamoto
 
Subtraction of a New Thermochemical Effect from the Excess Heat,
and the Emerging Avenues in Cold Fusion
     Handel
 
Heat After Death
     Pons, Fleischmann
 
Heat Production with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes
     Miley, Batyrbakov, Patel, Hora, Tompkins
 
Back to the Future: The Fleischmann-Pons Effect in 1994
     Melich, Hansen
 
Pd/D Calorimetry - The Key to the F/P Effect and a Challenge to
Science
     Hansen, Melich
 
Calorimetric Measurements of the Electrolysis of Heavy Water at
Palladium Cathodes
     Zhang, Sun, Wang, Yan, Tan
 
Excess-Heat, Heat Production Equation
     Waisman, Kertamus
 
Calorimetric Studies for Several Light Water Electrolytic Cells
with Potassium Carbonate and Sodium Carbonate Electrolytes and
Nickel Cathodes
     Bush, Eagleton
 
Anomalous Heat Evolution from SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors
During Absorption/Desorption of Deuterium in Alternate Electric
Field
     Mizuno, Enyo, Akimoto, Azumi
 
Further Studies on Excess Heat Generation in Ni-H2O Electrolytic
Cells
     Ramamurthy, Srinivasan, Mukherjee, Babu
 
Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion
     Stringham
 
A Method to Improve Algorithms Used to Detect Steady State Excess
Enthalpy
     Swartz
 
The Excess Heat Experiments on Cold Fusion in Titanium Lattice
     Zhang, Gou, Zhu, Lou, Liu, Miao, Ye, Cheng
 
Factors Effecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF Cells
     Cravens
 
 
 
Calorimetry - Posters
 
Some Lessons from Optical Examination of the PFC Phase-II
Calorimetric Curves
     Swartz
 
Triggering Exothermic/Endothermic Effects in Deuterated Palladium
     Letts
 
Erzion-Nuclear Transmutation Experiments by Electrolysis of Heavy
and Light Water
     Bazhutov, Skuratnik, Khokhlov, Chertov
 
Apparatus for Safely Extending Cold Fusion Investigations to High
Temperature,  Pressure, and Input Power Regimes
     Ransford, Piloe
 
Linear, High Precision, Redundant Calorimeter
     Barrowes, Bergeson
 
A Home Cold Fusion Experiment -- Is it Real, or Is It the CF Hex?
     Hugo
 
Investigation on the Excess Heat in D/Pd SYstem Using Pressurized
Electrochemical Cell
     Mo, Lu, Zhou, Li
 
Search for Excess Heat and Trial to Reproduce the Anomalous
Neutron Emission from Palladium-Deuterium Electrolysis Cells
     Isagawa, Kanda, Suzuid
 
 
 
Study of Concentrations of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic
Cells with Excess Heat Generations
     Aoki, Kurata, Ebihara, Yoshikawa
 
 
 
Nuclear - Presentations
 
To be Annnounced
     Wolf
 
Calorimetric and Nuclear Products Measurements at Glow Discharge
in Deuterium
     Kucherov, Karabut, Savvatimova
 
Helium-4 Quantatitive Measurements in the Gas Phase of Cold
Fusion Electrochemical Cells
     Gozzi, Balducci, Caputo, Cignini, Gigli, Tomelini, Frullani,
     Cisbani, Garibaldi, Jodice, Urciucii
 
Tritium Evolution from Various Morphologies of Palladium
     Tuggle, Claytor, Taylor
 
Heavy Water Electrolysis
     Will, Cedzynska, Linton
 
Cold Fusion by Sparking in Hydrogen Isotopes: Energy Balances and
Search for Fusion By-Products
     Dufour, Foos, Millot
 
Alkali-Hydrogen Cold Fusion Accomplished with Tritium Production
on Nickel
     Notoya
 
Strontium Production in Two Electrolytic Cells with Light Water
Based Rubidium Carbonate Electrolytes and Nickel Mesh Cathodes
     Bush, Eagleton
 
Detection of Iron Atoms on Gold Electrodes Used in Electrolysis
of H2O and D2O in Neutral and Alkaline Media
     Ohmori, Enyo
 
Investigation of Low Level Tritium Generation in Ni-H2O
Electrolytic Cells
     Sankaranarayanan, Srinivasan, Bajpai, Gupta
 
Generation of Cold Fusion Products in Deuterated High Tc
Superconductors Upon the Phase Transition to Superconducting
State
     Lipson, Sakov, Derjaguin
 
Deuterium Absorbability and Anomalous Nuclear Effect of YBCO High
Temperature Superconductor
     Jin, Zhan, Liu
 
Neutron Gerneation in the Solid Protonic Conductors with
Perovskite-Type Structure
     Samgin, Baraboshikin, Andreev, Murigin, Gorelov, Vakarin,
     Tsvetkov, Shalyapin, Golikov, Fomina
 
Particle Acceleration and Neutron Emission in a Fracture Process
of a Piezoelectric Material
     Shirakawa, Fujii, Chiba, Sueld, Ikebe, Yamaoka, Miura,
     Watanabe, Hirose, Nakahara, Utsumi
 
The Analysis of the Neutron Emission from the Glow Discharge in
Deuterium Gas Tube
     Chi, Ma, Chen, Huang, Yu, Mo, Li
 
Experimental Testing of the Erzion Model by Reacting of Electron
Flux on the Target
     Bazhutov, Koretsidy, Kuznetsov, Baranov, Skurainic,
     Khokhiov, Sukovatkin
 
A Study on Anomalous Nuclear Fusion Reaction by Using HV Pulse
Discharge
     He
 
Cold Fusion Experiments by Using Electrical Discharge in Water
     Matsumoto
 
The Cubic-Tetragonal Phase Transition in Titanium Deuteride and
Its Possible Relation to "Cold Fusion Reactions"
     Fernandez, Cuevas, Alguero, Sanchez
 
Observation of Anomalous Nuclear Effects in D2-Pd System
     Iwarmura, Itoh, Toyoda
 
Deuteron Fusion Experiment with Ti and Pd Foils Implanted with
Deeuteron Beams II
     Iida, Fukuhara, Sunarno, Miyamaru, Takahashi
 
Behavior of Key Elements in Palladium for the Solid State Nuclear
Phenomena Occurring in Heavy Water Electrolysis
     Okamoto, Yoshinaga, Kusunchi
 
Piezonuclear Fusion Studies at BYU
     Jones
 
Impurities in Cathode Material Before and After Deuterium Glow
Discharge Experiments
     Savvatimova, Kucherov, Karabut
 
Detection of Neutrons from Deuterided Palladium Subject to High
Electrical Currents
     Taylor, Claytor, Jones
 
Characteristic Peak Structures on Charged Particle Spectra During
Electrolysis Experiment
     Taniguchi
 
Observations of Cold Fusion Neutrons from Condensed Matter
     Sakamoto
 
Results and Perspectives of the TOFUS Experiment in Neutron
Emission from D2/Metal Systems
     Agnello, Botta, Bressani, Calvo, Fanara, Feliciello, Iazzi
 
Anomalous Protons and a-particles Emitted in 150-keV Deuteron
Bombardment on Highly Deuterated Ti
     Kasagi, Ohtsuki, Ishai, Hiraga
 
 
 
 
Nuclear - Posters
 
Oldo Isotope Anomalies and Cold Fusion
     Collis
 
The Influence of Conductivity on the Neutron Generation Process
in Proton Conducting Solid Electrolytes
     Samgin, Baraboshkin, murigin, Tsvetkov, Andreev, Vakarin
 
Initiating of the Erzion - Nuclear Transmutation in Gas by
Thermocycling
     Bazhutov, Skuratnik, Khokhlov, Chertov
 
Investigation of the Erzion - Nuclear Transmutation by Ion Beams
     Bazhutov, Korefskiy, Baranov, Plats, Pohil, Sakharov
 
Measurement of D-D Fusion in TiD Target Under Irradition of Heavy
Ion
     Teshigawara, Konashi, Yamamoto, Kayano, Aratono, Furukawa,
     Tachikawa
 
An Approach to the Probable Mechanism of the Non-Radioactive
Biological Cold Fusion or So-Called Kervran Effect (Part 2)
     Komaki
 
Observation of Neutrons and Tritium in KD2PO4 Single Crystals
Upon the Fermoelectric Phase Transition
     Lipson, Sakov, Kalinin, Saunin, Derjaguin
 
Concept of Target Material Choice for Nuclear Reactions in
Condensed Media
     Romodanov, Savin, Skurainik, Korneev
 
A New Device for Measuring Neutron Burst in Cold Fusion
Experiment
     Xiaozhong, Rongbao, Peijia, Wenliang, Hengjun, Feng, Guoan,
     Jagun,Zhonglin
 
Observation of High Energy (~1 MeV) Charge Particles During
Implantation of 5 KeV Protons on Pd and Ti Foils Using CR-39
SSNTD's
     Chindarkar, Paithankar, Bhagwai, Naik, Iyyengar, Srinivasan
 
New Experiment Results of Anomalous Nuclear Effect in
Deuterium/Metal Systems
     Chin, Yin-Wen, Xin-Wei, Jun, Wu-Shou, Hong-Ching, Ze,
     Quan-Ren, Zu-Ying, Bu-Jia, Yong-Hui, Xiao-Zhong, Yi
 
Heat Release and Product Yield of Nuclear Reactions in Pd-D
System
     Kucherov, Karabut, Savvatimova
 
On the Subsistence of Anomalous Nuclear Effects after
Interrupting the Electrolysis in F-P type Experiments with
Deuterated Ti Cathodes
     Alguero, Fernandez, Cuevas, Sanchez
 
 
 
Theory - Presentations
 
Neutron Transfer Reactions and Lattice-Induced Nuclear Decay
     Hagelstein
 
Cold Fusion '93: Some Theoretical Ideas
     Preparata
 
Deuteron-Induced Fusion in Various Environments
     Hale, Talley
 
Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Materials
     Ichimaru
 
Opposition and Support for Cold Fusion
     Rabinowitz
 
The 3-Dimensional Resonance Tunneling in Chemically Assisted
Nuclear Fission and Fusion Reactions
     Li
 
 
 
Coulomb Barrier Transmission Resonance Transparency for Cold
Fusion with Deuterium and Hydrogen
     Kim, Yoon, Zubarev, Rabinowitz
 
Comments on Exotic Chemistry Models and Deep Dirac States for
Cold Fusion
     Rice, Kim, Rabinowitz
 
Nuclear Reaction Under Ambient Conditions
     Chuan-Zan, Yi-Fang
 
A Phenomenological Model of the Cold Fusion in Pd (Ti)-D System
     Vysotskii, Kuzmin
 
New Hydrogen (Deuterium) Bohr Orbits in Quantum Chemistry and
"Cold Fusion" Processes
     Vigier
 
Interchange of Thermonuclear and Cold Fusion
     Yi-Fang, Chuan-Zan
 
A Model of Cold Nuclear Transmutation by the Erzion Catalysis
(the Erzion Model of "Cold Fusion"
     Bazhutov, Vereshkov
 
Delocalization of Virtual Neutrons
     Hagelstein, Kaushik
 
D-Pd System Nuclear Reactions and Fission under Ambient
Conditions
     Chuan-Zan, Yi-Fang, Hui-Lan
 
Symmetry Breaking and Hydrogen Energy in PdDx
     Johnson
 
The Role of Hydrogen Ion Band States in Cold Fusion
     Chubb, Chubb
 
Boson Condensation in the Solid State Within a Sea of Fermions as
a Model for Cold Fusion
     Waber, Llano
 
Some Considerations in Multibody-Fusion in Metal Deuterides
     Takahashi
 
Embedded Atom Models for Pd and Applications
     Chaudhary, Kaushik, Johnson, Hagelstein
 
Cold Fusion and New Physics {1}
     Yang, Chaen, Tang
 
The Nature and Consequences of the Electron Capture Model for
Rationalizing Excess Energy Production in Cold Fusion
     Andermann
 
Sonoluminescence, Cold Fusion, and Blue Water Lasers
     Prevenslik
 
The Role of Polyneutrons in Cold Fusion Reactions
     Fisher
 
A Unifying Model for Cold Fusion
     Bush
 
Wave of Deuterons and Cold Fusion
     Yabuuchi
 
Deuteron Interaction in Unitary Quantum Theory
     Sapogin
 
Mechanism of Cold Nuclear Fusion II
     Tsuchiya
 
 
 
Theory - Posters
 
A Mechanistic Model of Cold Fusion Based on Hot Spot Hypothesis
     Sioda
 
Conditions and Mechanism of Nonbarrier Double-Particle Fusion in
Potential Pit in Crystal
     Vysotskli
 
Coherent Nuclear Reactions in Crystalline Solids
     Valdya
 
Catastrophic Active Medium (CAM) Theory of Cold Fusion
     Swartz
 
On Bose-Einstein Condensation of Deuterons in PdD
     Vaidya
 
 
An Alternate Model of the Atomic Nucleus
     Ragland
 
One Can Account for Cold Fusion by Two Concepts: Screening by
Electrons and Harmonic Oscillator Resonance
     Rambaut
 
Possible Exhibition of the Erzion-Nuclear Transmutation in
Astrophysics
     Bazhutov
 
Isotropic and Chemical Compositions Changes in Cold Fusion
Experiments in the Erzion Model    Bazhutov, Kuznetsov
 
Burning Away of Radioactive Isotopes and Production of Some
Stable Isotopes in the Erzion Model
     Bazhutov, Koretskiy, Kuznetsov
 
The Possible Ways of Cold Nuclear Transmutation Optimization in
the Context of the Erzion Model
     Bazhutov, Koretskiy, Minakov, Cheltsov, Chertov
 
On the Mechanism of Cold Fusion
     Sapagin
 
Synergetic Activation Model: Key to Intense and Reproducible Cold
Fusion
     Filimanov
 
Cold Fusion Explained by Negentropy Theory of Microdrop of Heavy
Water
     Takahashi
 
Ferroelectrics for Cold Fusion
     Fedorovich
 
Dee's 1934 D-D Fusion Experiment and Possible Evidence for Cold
Fusion
     Kim
 
 
 
Materials - Presentations
 
Physical and Metallurgical Aspects of the Entry of Hydrogen into
Metals
     Oriani
 
Alfred Cohen and After: the alpha, beta, gamma of the Pd-H System
     Fleischmann, Larramona, Pons, Preparata, Sugiura
 
Helium/Hydrogen Behavior in Palladium
     Li
 
Electrolytic Hydrogen/Deuterium Absorption into Pd, Pd-Rh and
Pd-Ag Alloys in Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell
     Akita, Tsuchida, Nakata, Kubota, Kobayahi, Yamamoto,
     Hasegawa, Hayakawra, Kunimatsu
 
High Power Pulsed Electrolysis for Large Deuterium Loading on Pd
Plates
     Celani, Spallone, Tripodi, Nuvodi, Petrocchi, Di Gioacchin,
     Boutet
 
Surface Morphology and Microcomposition of Palladium Cathodes
after Electrolysis in Acidified Light and Heavy Water
     Dash, Noble
 
Some Materials Aspects of the Electrochemical Insertion of
Hydrogen and Deuterium in Metals
     Huggins
 
Measurements of Hydrogen Loading Ratio of Pd Anodes Polarized in
LiH-LiCl-KCl Molten Salt Systems
     Okamoto, Nazu
 
Movement of Li during Electrolysis of 0.1M-LiOD/D2O Solution
     Miyamoto, Sueki, Fujii, Shirakawa, Chiba, Kobayashi,
     Yanokura, Aratani, Nakahara
 
Deuterium Changing in Palladium by the Electrolysis of Heavy
Water:  Measurement of the Cell Parameter
     Cilloco, Felici, Bertalot, DeMarco, DenInno, Lebarbera,
     Scaramuzzi, Violante
 
Sonofusion: Maximum Temperature Hot Spots
     Fukushima, Yamamoto
 
Charging Hydrogen into Ni in Hydride-Containing Molten Salts
     Liaw, Liebert, Ding
 
Measurements of Hydrogen Loading Ratio of Pd Electrodes
Cathodically Polarized in Aqueous Solutions
     Sano, Nezu
 
Evidence of Agglomeration and Syneresis in Regular and Excess
Heat Cells in H2O
     Criddle
 
Absorption of Hydrogen into Palladium Hydrogen Electrode-Effect
of Thiourea
     Tsuchida, Akita, Nakata, Kunimatsu
 
The Measurments and the Control of the Loading Ratio of Deuterium
in Palladium
     Shao, Huang, Mo, Yu, Yao, Li
 
Relativistic Band Structure Calculation of Palladium Hydride
     Waber, Perger, Schletizer
 
 
 
Materials - Posters
 
Isotopic Fuel Loading and Other Reactions Within an Electrode
     Swartz
 
Localized Melting and Microcomposition of a Pd Cathode After
Electrolysis in Acidified Heavy Water
     Dash, Diman
 
Electrolytic Deuterium Absorption by Pd-Rh Alloy Cathodes in
Fuel-Cell Type Closed Cell
     Hayakawa, Hasegawa, Yamamoto, Kunimatsu
 
Some Thermodynamic Aspects Related to Charging Hydrogen Species
into Metal Lattice
     Liaw
 
Electrolytic Deuterium Absorption by Pd Cathodes with Sputtered
Gold Film
     Kubota, Kato, Kunimatsu
 
Anomalous Surface Morphology and Composition of Electrolyzed PdD
Cathodes
     Forsley
 
 
 
Special Topics - Presentations
 
Cold Nuclear Fusion & Enhanced Energy Devices: A Progress Report
     Fox
 
Review of Progress in Cold Fusion
     Morrison
 
Cold Fusion: The High Frontier Implications for Space Technology
     Mallove
 
New Pulse Gas Loading Cold Fusion Technology
     Chukanov
 
Cheap Electric Power from Nuclear Fusion?
     Comog
 
Proposed Nuclear Physics Experiment to Conclusively Demonstrate
and Explain Cold Fusion
     Bass
 
Cold Fusion and Nuclear Proliferation
     Guokas
 
Ecological Aspects of Thermal Systems Using Hydrogen Isotopes
     Romodanov, Savin, Skuratnik, Korneev, Giagolev
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec  4 00:13:52 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: CF in aluminium
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF in aluminium
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 21:38:35 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University

In <931202125745_70047.3047_EHB44-1@CompuServe.COM> 70047.3047@compuserv
.com (Bill Page) writes:

>Thank you yet again, Dieter, for the follow very interesting reference:

><<
>Anufriev GS, Boltenkov BS;
>Vopr. At. Nauki Tekh. Ser.: Fiz. Radiats. Povr. Radiats. Materialoved. 
>1991,
>(2(56)) 73 (in Russian).
>"Helium isotopes and hydrogen in aluminium and other metals".
>** Isotopic distributions and amounts of the isotopes of 3He, 4He, T and H
>were studied in some samples of Al produced by electrolysis. Out of several
>samples, one had not only larger than normal concentrations of both 3He and
>tritium, but also unusual T/H and 3He/4He ratios
>>>

>Is the article only in Russian?  Can you post anything more regarding the 
>experimental techniques?

Yes, this journal is not, to my knowledge, being translated. I thought somebody
would bite on this one. I am a bit snowed under at the moment but will respond
with the experimental details next week.

>As some of you may recall, I had been "playing around" with Al cathodes 
>some months back.  I've measured what certainly appeared to be excess heat 
>generation as well as anomalous reductions in background followed by rising 
>ionizing radiation during cell operation.  I also have some anecdotal 
>information from a major aluminum producer regarding excess heat production 
>during a cathodic pre-treatment stage in the usual anodic treatment 
>process.

Interesting. The Russians, of course, only examined Al as is, from the cryolite
bath.

Dieter under Unix alias kemidb@aau.dk
 ------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bockris and alchemy scheme
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and alchemy scheme
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 05:36:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In article <1993Dec2.004801.3535@yvax.byu.edu>
dave@digaudio.byu.edu (David Buehler) writes:

> I remember another amusing thing that the man said concerning his
> transmutation process at the Nagoya meeting.  He said that after burning
> the ingredients in a crucible the gold would collect in a small dimple at
> the bottom, and you had to very carefully pry it out without jarring it or
> tapping it.  Otherwise, the gold would -change back- to whatever it was
> before!

This sort of advice is quite classic in magic tricks.  The idea is to focus
the attention of the audience on some utterly irrelevant made-up issue or
subject, while the real trick (often a simple sleight-of-hand substitution)
is performed.  It also provides a neat "excuse" for why someone else who
innocently tries to replicate the trick never _quite_ seems to succeed.
"But I did it exactly like you showed me!  Where's the gold?" The reply:
"Ah, but are you REALLY REALLY sure you did not jar or tap it??"  And of
course you are not, and so you try again with ever greater care and a
_revised_ palladium -- er, I mean MERCURY -- formula and process...  }=-)>

Incidentally, I believe that one of the old scams of the more cynical of
the alchemists was to dissolve a bit of gold in mercury to form a liquid
amalgram, and then to boil off the mercury in a kiln to leave a small button
of gold at the bottom of the crucible.  This was a good way to induce less
knowledgeable folks to donate a few gold coins in hopes of getting them
replicated several time over -- you must after all, heh, "seed" the mercury
with gold to get more gold, or so the line would go... 

Given the neural toxicity of mercury vapor, this procedure could also leave
you quite mad as a hatter after a few too many demos.  Not a coincidence --
hatters used to be especially prone to mercury poisoning because they used
it all the time in the hat-manufacturing processes of the day.  Lewis Carroll
was simply capturing the then-popular image of the this profession when he
created his Mad Hatter.  I guess in the earlier medieval era the expression
probably would have been "mad as an alchemist."

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / Terry Bollinger /  When is Wolf going to present his results publically?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: When is Wolf going to present his results publically?
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 05:36:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,

Steve Jones' comments yesterday about trying to replicate apparent isotope
transmutations in an experiment modeled after something Kevin Wolf has done
has made me curious.  Has Kevin wolf ever published anything on whatever
results he has gotten with the boron/aluminum doped systems Steve Jones
mentions, or is this all still behind-the-wings material?

Will Kevin Wolf be presenting at the Maui conference?  If so, has anyone
seen a draft of his paper yet?  What does it say?  What does it claim?

Also, as Steve Jones observed, the formation of extremely fragile isotopes
is not exactly what you would expect from fusion-like events, although I
guess you could always Farfetch totally novel classes of events that could
create such nucleotides.

So if transmutations istopes have been claimed for the original Wolf
experiments, has the obvious (but admittedly ominous) step of examining
them for how well they match up with palladium irradiation by a particle
beam device ever been taken?  In my experience the level of physical
security in most university labs is darned close to nil.  How can Wolf
know for sure that someone didn't simply heist his rods for a short trip
to nearest available facility capable of irradiating small objects?

Have the physical distributions of the isotopes been examined for whether
they are compatible with masked or direct beam irradiation?

Is such a scenario even possible at wherever (A&M?) the Wolf experiments
were located?  I would assume that a university the size of A&M might have
a cyclotron or some such, but I have no idea what would be possible with it.


Sorry for the cynical implications of such ruminations, but doggone it, if
you have really _weird_ results you _must_ eliminate all other possibilities
before they can really mean much.  Hot metal in my experience means someone
has been playing around with hot radiation, not chemistry.  You _must_ get
rid of such implications first before such radical results mean anything.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dave Segal /  Re: U.of U. Sells Fusion Rights
     
Originally-From: ds1539@u.cc.utah.edu (Dave.Segal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: U.of U. Sells Fusion Rights
Date: 3 Dec 1993 22:11:53 -0700
Organization: University Of Utah Computer Center


Sorry this was blank (#$%@ new newsreader).  I will repost right now...
under the title "FIXED: U. of U. Sells Fusion Rights"

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudends1539 cudfnDave cudlnSegal cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dave Segal /  FIXED: U. of U. Sells Fusion Rights
     
Originally-From: ds1539@u.cc.utah.edu (Dave.Segal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FIXED: U. of U. Sells Fusion Rights
Date: 3 Dec 1993 22:37:04 -0700
Organization: University Of Utah Computer Center


Sorry that last posting was blank.

There was another article about cold-fusion in the Salt Lake Tribune
Thurs (12/2/93).  It said the U. of Utah sold exclusive licensing rights
to cold fusion to ENECO, a private company based in the university's 
Research Park.  The first line of the article stated: "The University
of Utah is getting out of the cold-fusion business."  However, they will
apparently "receive an initial license fee and a royalty on any commercial
applications."  Richard Koehn, U. VP Research, said all remaining cold-
fusion work at the U. "will be phased out."

ENECO is owned by about 30 investors, primarily from Utah, and was founded
in 1991 by Hal Fox under the name of Fusion Energy Applied Technology Inc.
Fox is now gone and Fred Jaeger is now president.

- Dave Segal
- dave.segal@m.cc.utah.edu

PS: I have been reading Gary Taubes's book, Bad Science.  With these recent
articles in the SLT, I feel like Alice traversing the looking glass.  Even
though I knew the events were real, it seemed like fiction -- or at least
it seemed like events that happened in the past.  It is very strange and
exotic to see these people and this story come to life.  (In fact, after
reading the book, it's very strange to see this story continuing at all.)
Kind of neet, and yet kind of weird.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudends1539 cudfnDave cudlnSegal cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / Edward Lewis /  More about plamoids
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More about plamoids
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 08:49:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

        Anomalous phenomena are produced as sets at approximately 80
year intervals, according to my theory about the history of science.
The sets have patterns, and one may identify the anomalous phenomena
as one or more fundamental phenomena.  One fundamental phenomena of
the current set is that of plasmoid phenomena as I describe in my
abstract for the ICCF4 and in several short articles.

        I use the word plasmoid to name this phenomena, though there
are many different kinds of this phenomena.  It seems to be a
universal phenomena in that all phenomena may be described as a
plasmoid phenomena.  W. Bostick produced that which he called
plasmoids by discharging through electrodes.  Several people including
Bostick and Alfven who is a Nobel prize winner in physics have led in
the development of similar theories that model the universe as
plasmoids.  It has become evident that atoms can be defined as
plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena produced by Ken
Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.
I suspect that the EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and ball lightning
are kinds of this general phenomena.

        Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the traces,
the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of Fusion
Technology have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is MatsumotoUs experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid phenomena.
For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the phenomena of
ball lightning traveling though materials such as ceramics and glass
without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball lightning may
convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or it may convert
to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems to be a
phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps electricity.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 3 Dec 1993 14:51:40 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>
>BTW, there is a scientific divulgation magazine which has been publishing a
>lot
>stuff about cold fusion. I guess the name of the magazine is something like
>"21st Century Science and Technology(?)". I do not recall very well its

In article <2djs2s$6h@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>  Is that Lyndon Larouche's magazine?  It sure sounds familiar.

Yes, it most certainly is.  A friend gave me a copy of their special 
edition on cold fusion a few years ago.  I should skim it for water 
heater references. 

By the way, the really good news is that there was a story in yesterday's 
NYTimes, buried deep inside, reporting that Lyndon "there must be a 
conspiracy somewhere" Larouche was released on parole after serving 
the minimum part of his sentence for credit card fraud.  We can all 
look forward to his infomercials during the next presidential campaign. 
The mere thought of him debating Perot ...  

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 /  rmichael@nuacv /  Re: "21st Century" (was Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: rmichael@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "21st Century" (was Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 93 08:59:28 CDT
Organization: Northwestern University

In article <CHFJvJ.C1v@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>
rparson@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) writes:
 
>
>In article <2djs2s$6h@panix.com>, Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>>
>>C>BTW, there is a scientific divulgation magazine which has been publishing a
>> >lot
>> >stuff about cold fusion. I guess the name of the magazine is something like
>> >"21st Century Science and Technology(?)". I do not recall very well its
>> >name...
>>
>>  Is that Lyndon Larouche's magazine?  It sure sounds familiar.
>>
>  Strictly speaking, it is a magazine edited by LaRouche's associates;
>they started it after LaRouche's arrest. LL himself keeps a low profile -
>they have published articles by him and they review his books, and every so
>often you run across a reference to the "LaRouche-Riemann model of Economics"
>or some such, but he has no legal connection with the magazine. It's a curious
>mishmash - there are some perfectly reasonable articles about science and
>technology, reprinted from various places. The articles by the editors are
>weird, however. Three major themes are "cold fusion is real" (Chief Editor
>Carol White writes about this a lot), "ozone depletion is a hoax" (Associate
>Editor Rogelio Maduro) and "electrodynamics can be explained in terms of
>surfaces of everywhere negative curvature" (Associate Editor Laurence Hecht).
>
> In general there is less explicit political propaganda in
>"21st Century" than in other LaRouche publications such as "Executive
>Intelligence Review". It's still there, however - a recent review of a
>volume of LaRouche essays on science had a quote that went something like
>"it is time to attack such supposed scientific 'greats' as Isaac Newton and
>James Clerk Maxwell" (for those not familiar with LaRouche's conspiracy
>theories, the Royal Society plays an important role, together with the
>Anglican Church and the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.)
>
> A few genuine scientists are listed as Consultants,
    ***********************
>although at least some of these are genuine oddballs as well (such as
>Bockris.) I have read some articles by the consultants; they are less bizarre
>than the articles by the editors, but still represent (where I can judge)
>very weak science that would be unlikely to make it into a refereed journal.
>
A few years ago one of the scientists on the editorial board of the predecessor
to "21st Century Science" (I think the title was something like "Fusion Energy
something-or-other") was Robert J. Moon of the University of Chicago. An
acquaintance of mine had known Moon since they were graduate students together
in the 1930s; he told me that Moon had Alzheimer's disease and somehow the
LaRouche organization had gotten him to a doctor who was one of their members.
According to my acquaintance, the upshot then
was that Moon signed a power of attorney over to the doctor, who
forbade Moon's family to even see him. I don't know who wrote the articles
that appeared in the magazine under Moon's name. No doubt few of the scientists
on "21st Century Science" were co-opted in quite such a dramatic fashion, but
I would guess that some of them are older scientists with pet, unappreciated
ideas, and are glad of the attention that the LaRouchies give them.
 
Bob Michaelson                             The usual disclaimers.
rmichael@nwu.edu
 
>Robert
>
>
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenrmichael cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Greg Kuperberg /  Bockris:  a giant among alchemists
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris:  a giant among alchemists
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 15:52:17 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

You folks shouldn't ridicule John Bockris for trying to transmute
mercury into gold.  He's a giant among electrochemists.  (So I'm told.)
You should kick around midgets instead.

"As cold fusion seems to work and we don't understand that, why should
it not be that these other reactions take place?"  -- John Bockris,
p. 428 of *Bad Science*, discussing transmutation of the elements.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: 3 Dec 1993 09:08:54 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Raoul Golan) writes:
>
>Here's something I found in today's paper.
>I thought that since no-one could duplicate the
>results of Pons-Fleischmann, the issue of cold
>fusion was dead.  Obviously, I was wrong.
>
> [most of story deleted]
>Professors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
>triggered worldwide controversy in 1990 by saying
                                    ^^^^
>they had harnessed fusion, the energy of the stars,
>with a simple and cheap apparatus.

You would think a newspaper would at least get the year right.
It was 1989, wasn't it?  Are the rest of this newspaper's 
facts as accurate as this?

Joshua Levy  <joshua@veritas.com>


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: 21 st Centurry ...
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 21 st Centurry ...
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 17:13:03 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <931202115021.2ca0094c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Fans of 21 st Century Science and Technology, that great supporter of "cold
>fusion" will be pleased to hear that Lyndon LaRouche will be going on parole
>early in January.  Now we can hope to get the support we need.

Especially if LaRouche goes back to credit card fraud.  Then 21st Cen.
Science and Technology will really be rolling in it.  And we will no
doubt hear more about the racist roots of jazz, the trilateral
commission, the drug empire controlled by Queen Elizabeth, Kissinger's
efforts to subvert current foreign policy, and so forth.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Acceleration of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Acceleration of radioactive decay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 21:09:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>	It is best for me to continue to make this patent application in my
>"general theoretical way."  For I intend to make all of these
>correspondences public knowledge. And if the time is better suited to
>me, to seek even more patent protection.

I believe that the 17 year period starts from the date of grant, and not
the date of application -- so you are better off having the patent pending
while the rest of the world can catch up to you, than to have it granted
immediately.

You have protected your position by filing.  You have established priority
even if the patent application is for now pending or rejected.

>	With this patent application it is my intention to gain maximum
>economic control of what it is I know is true and can engineer.

It is, of course, not usually just mere ideas that people exchange their
labors for -- but rather the application of ideas to some service or
product.  So the money isn't going to start rolling in in any case until
products start going out the door of the factories.

Thus the obtaining of a patent is about 1% of the job needed to make
big money -- 99% of the job is producing the product for a market demand.

Noted author Don Lancaster desparages the use of patents by "litte guys"
because they are a money-pit from which very little gain ever emerges.
Better, he says, to make the product and forget the patent.
-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 20:17:48 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Dec2.150517.29699@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@mcmail.
is.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <peter_butler.its_2_po-301193114458@mac87a4.itc.com.au>
peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler) writes:
>
>>Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
>>which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
>>techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2? 
>
>Also because it produces the most amount of energy per kg of fuel, because
>less miners die per kg of fuel, because less civilians die per kg of
>fuel, and because its radioactive waste isn't spread all over the country
>and in your lungs, like with coal.

Isn't deaths per kg of fuel a biased measurement?  I think deaths per
kwH generated would be more representative.  I am not saying that
such a measurement would fundamentally change the comparison,
although it might make the numbers closer, at least wrt to mining deaths.
>
>As for alternative forms, because of its high power density nuclear power
>has been shown [1,2] to be safer than all renewable sources if you look at
>the entire fuel supply, construction, and operation cycle.

Did this comparison also used a biased measurement like your stated one
above?  I tried to get the Westview Press book once but it is out of
print (Westview Press offices are 1 block from here).  Maybe I will be
able to find the other one.  Also, the age of these books brings the
conclusions into question considering the major improvements since then.
Efficiency increases for alternatives will spread whatever impacts were
included over a larger production.
>
>> Surely it is better to
>>look at areas like solar power, energy efficiency, wind power, etc.  If
>>funding to these areas matched funding for nuclear research, they would be
>>far more viable options than they are at the moment.
>
>Apparently funding isn't the reason:
>
> U.S. FEDREAL R&D SUPPORT FOR ELECTRICITY-PRODUCING TECHNOLOGIES, 1976-92 [3]
>				(1992 US$)
>
>      Nuclear Energy                                        $3.2 billion
>	(LWR:$0.8 billion; converter reactors:$1 billion;
>	 advanced systems:$1.4 billion)	 
>
>      Coal Energy                                           $3.2 billion
>        (advanced R&D:$1 billion; combustion systems:
>         $1.1 billion; MHD:$1.1 billion)
>
>      Renewable Energy                                      $4.0 billion
>        (PV:$1.7 billion; solar thermal:$1.5 billion;
>	 wind:$0.8 billion)
>
Funding is a vague term.  Does it include subsidies that are not for
research?  A report posted in this group last year left me with a different 
impression.  Deciding what to include in nuclear research is complex
because of the location to draw the line between power and defense
expenditures. Also, you list funding since 1976 while the book title
indicates its research applies back to 1950.  What is the comparison for
that period.
>
>REFERENCES:
>
>[1] H. Inhaber, _Energy_Risk_Assessment_, New York: Gordon & Breach, 1982.
>
>[2] J. Holdren et al., "Health and Safety Impacts of Renewable, Geothermal
>    and Fission Energy," in C. Travis and E. Etneir, eds., _Health_Risks_of_
>    Energy_Technologies_, Bouldor, Co.: Westview Press, 1983.
>
>[3] USCEA report: "Federal Research and Development Expenditures for Nuclear
>    Energy, Coal and Solar and Renewable Energy, 1950-1992," 1992.
>
-- 
 -- Dean Myerson     	(dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.03 / Grant Edwards /  Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: grante@hydro.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Newspaper article on cold fusion.
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 20:32:43 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com) wrote:
: c.o.egalon@larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:

: C>BTW, there is a scientific divulgation magazine which has been
:  >publishing a lot stuff about cold fusion. I guess the name of the
:  >magazine is something like "21st Century Science and
:  >Technology(?)". I do not recall very well its name...

:   Is that Lyndon Larouche's magazine? 

Yep.  

So we all know it's the ultimate source of reliable, unbiased information.

Cold fusion actually works, but it's being suppressed by an international
conspiracy of drug dealers lead by the queen of England.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I own seven-eighths of
Rosemount Inc.                                |all the artists in downtown
                                              |Burbank!
grante@rosemount.com                          |
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengrante cudfnGrant cudlnEdwards cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec  5 04:37:03 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / Carl Lydick /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 4 Dec 1993 10:16:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1993Dec3.201748.2672@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
=In article <1993Dec2.150517.29699@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@mcmail
cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
=>In article <peter_butler.its_2_po-301193114458@mac87a4.itc.com.au>
peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler) writes:
=>
=>>Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
=>>which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
=>>techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2? 
=>
=>Also because it produces the most amount of energy per kg of fuel, because
=>less miners die per kg of fuel, because less civilians die per kg of
=>fuel, and because its radioactive waste isn't spread all over the country
=>and in your lungs, like with coal.
=
=Isn't deaths per kg of fuel a biased measurement?  I think deaths per
=kwH generated would be more representative.

Er, Dean?  Perhaps you'd like to reread the original post?  In that post, it
was claimed that
	1)  Generated energy/Kg fuel is greater for nuclear than for other
	    sources;
	2)  Deaths/Kg fuel is lower for nuclear.

Given those claims, deaths/generated energy is lower for nuclear than other
sources.  Now, if you want to challenge one of the claims of the original post,
do so.  But please, don't demonstrate your idiocy by ignoring what was posted.
It embarasses everybody when you do that.

=Did this comparison also used a biased measurement like your stated one
=above?

You mean, one that makes nuclear look worse than it is?  From the tone of your
post, it's pretty obvious that you don't mean that.  However, if you look
carefully, you'll find that that's the way the bias in the statement to which
you're objecting goes.  Of course, since you're anti-nuke, apparently on
fundamental (and irrational) grounds, it's not surprising that you missed this
minor, technical point.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / L Plutonium /  Re: Acceleration of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Acceleration of radioactive decay
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 05:27:23 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1993Dec3.210951.29265@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:

> Noted author Don Lancaster desparages the use of patents by "litte guys"
> because they are a money-pit from which very little gain ever emerges.
> Better, he says, to make the product and forget the patent.

  This is sage advice. Thanks for the advice and opinion, John.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 17:46:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <931203223050_76570.2270_BHA89-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Papers Scheduled for the Fourth International Conference on Cold
>Fusion (ICCF4)
...
>Calorimetry of the Pd-D2 System: the Search for Simplicity and
>Accuracy
>     Fleischmann, Pons, Le Floux, Roulette

      Fleishmann, Pons, ... Roulette.

      Quite an amusing juxtaposition.

                                    dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / John Logajan /  Sorted list of authors  Re: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sorted list of authors  Re: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 93 19:27:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I have taken Eugene Mallove's posted list of Papers Scheduled for the Fourth
International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4) December 6-9, 1993 and
extracted and alphabetically sorted the author's last names, as well as added
a count behind each last name indicating the number of times that name appears.

Agnello - 1
Akimoto - 1
Akita - 2
Alguero - 2
Andermann - 1
Andolida - 1
Andreev - 2
Aoki - 1
Arata - 1
Aratani - 1
Aratono - 1
Azumi - 1
Babu - 1
Bajpai - 1
Bakducci - 1
Balducci - 1
Baraboshikin - 1
Baraboshkin - 1
Baranov - 2
Barrowes - 1
Bass - 1
Batyrbakov - 1
Bazhutov - 9
Bergeson - 1
Bertalot - 2
Bhagwai - 1
Bockris - 1
Botta - 1
Boutet - 1
Bressani - 1
Bu-Jia - 1
Bush - 5
Calvo - 1
Caputo - 2
Cedzynska - 1
Celani - 1
Chaen - 1
Chaudhary - 1
Cheltsov - 1
Chen - 1
Cheng - 1
Chertov - 3
Chi - 1
Chiba - 2
Chimi - 1
Chin - 1
Chindarkar - 1
Chuan-Zan - 3
Chubb - 2
Chukanov - 1
Cibani - 1
Cignini - 2
Cilloco - 1
Cisbani - 1
Claytor - 2
Collis - 1
Comog - 1
Cravens - 1
Criddle - 1
Crouch-Baker - 1
Cuevas - 2
Dash - 2
DeMarco - 2
DeNinno - 1
DenInno - 1
Derjaguin - 3
Di Gioacchin - 1
Diman - 1
Ding - 1
Dufour - 1
Eagleton - 2
Ebihara - 1
Enyo - 2
Fanara - 1
Fedorovich - 1
Felici - 1
Feliciello - 1
Feng - 1
Fernandez - 2
Filimanov - 1
Fisher - 1
Fleischmann - 3
Fomina - 1
Foos - 1
Forsley - 1
Fox - 1
Frullani - 2
Fujii - 2
Fukuhara - 1
Fukushima - 1
Furukawa - 1
Garibaldi - 2
Giagolev - 1
Gigii - 1
Gigli - 1
Golikov - 1
Gorelov - 1
Gou - 1
Gozzi - 2
Guoan - 1
Guokas - 1
Gupta - 1
Hagelstein - 3
Hale - 1
Handel - 1
Hansen - 2
Hasegawa - 3
Hauser - 1
Hayakawa - 2
Hayakawra - 1
He - 1
Hengjun - 1
Hiraga - 1
Hirasawa - 1
Hirose - 1
Hong-Ching - 1
Hora - 1
Huang - 2
Huggins - 1
Hugo - 1
Hui-Lan - 1
Iazzi - 1
Ichimaru - 1
Iida - 1
Ikebe - 1
Inckuchi - 1
Isagawa - 1
Ishai - 1
Itoh - 1
Iwarmura - 1
Iyyengar - 1
Jagun - 1
Jevlic - 1
Jin - 1
Jodice - 2
Johnson - 2
Jones - 2
Jun - 1
Kalinin - 1
Kamiya - 1
Kanda - 1
Karabut - 3
Kasagi - 1
Kato - 1
Kaushik - 2
Kayano - 1
Kertamus - 1
Khokhiov - 1
Khokhlov - 2
Kim - 3
Kobayahi - 1
Kobayashi - 1
Komaki - 1
Konashi - 1
Korefskiy - 1
Koretsidy - 1
Koretskiy - 2
Korneev - 2
Kubota - 2
Kucherov - 3
Kunimatsu - 5
Kuraisuka - 1
Kurata - 1
Kusunchi - 1
Kusunoki - 1
Kuzmin - 1
Kuznetsov - 3
LaBarbara - 1
Larramona - 1
Le Floux - 1
Lebarbera - 1
Letts - 2
Li - 5
Liaw - 2
Liebert - 1
Linton - 1
Lipson - 3
Liu - 2
Llano - 1
Lou - 1
Lu - 1
Lyakhov - 1
Ma - 1
Mallove - 1
Matsumoto - 1
McKubre - 1
Melich - 2
Miao - 1
Miles - 1
Miley - 1
Millot - 1
Minakov - 1
Minevski - 1
Miura - 1
Miyamaru - 2
Miyamoto - 1
Mizuno - 1
Mo - 3
Morrison - 1
Mukherjee - 1
Murigin - 2
Naik - 1
Nakahara - 2
Nakata - 2
Nazu - 1
Nezu - 1
Noble - 1
Notoya - 1
Nuvodi - 1
Ohmori - 1
Ohtsuki - 1
Okamoto - 3
Oriani - 1
Ota - 1
Oyama - 1
Paithankar - 1
Passel - 1
Patel - 1
Peijia - 1
Perger - 1
Petrocchi - 1
Piloe - 1
Plats - 1
Pohil - 1
Pons - 3
Preparata - 2
Prevenslik - 1
Quan-Ren - 1
Rabinowitz - 3
Ragland - 1
Ramamurthy - 1
Rambaut - 1
Ransford - 1
Rice - 1
Romodanov - 2
Rongbao - 1
Roulette - 1
Sakamoto - 1
Sakharov - 1
Sakov - 2
Samgin - 2
Sanchez - 2
Sankaranarayanan - 1
Sano - 1
Sapagin - 1
Sapogin - 1
Saunin - 1
Savin - 2
Savvatimova - 3
Scaramuzzi - 2
Schletizer - 1
Shalyapin - 1
Shao - 1
Shirakawa - 2
Sioda - 1
Skurainic - 1
Skurainik - 1
Skuratnik - 3
Smedley - 1
Spallone - 1
Srinivasan - 3
Storms - 1
Stringham - 1
Sueki - 1
Sueld - 1
Sugiura - 1
Sukovatkin - 1
Sun - 1
Sunarno - 1
Sundaresan - 1
Suzuid - 1
Swartz - 4
Tachikawa - 1
Tadsuma - 1
Takahashi - 4
Talley - 1
Tan - 1
Tang - 1
Taniguchi - 1
Tanzella - 1
Taylor - 2
Teshigawara - 1
Tomelini - 1
Tomellini - 1
Tompkins - 1
Toyoda - 1
Tripodi - 1
Tsuchida - 2
Tsuchiya - 1
Tsvetkov - 2
Tuggle - 1
Urciucii - 2
Utsumi - 1
Vaidya - 1
Vakarin - 2
Valdya - 1
Vereshkov - 1
Vigier - 1
Violante - 2
Vysotskii - 1
Vysotskli - 1
Waber - 2
Waisman - 1
Wang - 1
Watanabe - 1
Wenliang - 1
Will - 1
Williams - 1
Wing - 1
Wolf - 1
Wu-Shou - 1
Xiao-Zhong - 1
Xiaozhong - 1
Xin-Wei - 1
Yabuuchi - 1
Yamaki - 1
Yamamoto - 6
Yamaoka - 1
Yamazaki - 1
Yan - 1
Yang - 1
Yanokura - 1
Yao - 1
Ye - 1
Yi - 1
Yi-Fang - 3
Yin-Wen - 1
Yong-Hui - 1
Yoon - 1
Yoshikawa - 1
Yoshinaga - 2
Yoshitake - 1
Yu - 2
Ze - 1
Zhan - 1
Zhang - 3
Zhonglin - 1
Zhou - 1
Zhu - 1
Zu-Ying - 1
Zubarev - 1

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.04 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation / Rigid-lattice bose condensates?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation / Rigid-lattice bose condensates?
Date: 4 Dec 1993 23:00:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com wrote:
: In article <2dh1ioINNhe7@network.ucsd.edu>
: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:

: > BERNECKY WILLIAM R (BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil) wrote:
: > 
: > | SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR BWO FORMATION
: > | 
: > | The creation of a BWO requires:
: > | 1.1)  A large number of identical bosons e.g. H atoms
: > | 1.2)  All bosons must be in identical individual states.
: > 
: > Remember that the overall wavefunction is a product of individual
: > wavefunctions of single particles in the lattice background only when
: > the particles have no mutual interaction.

: First off, if you accept that having "identical individual states" also
: implies having "identical [delocalized] locations in space," then the
: two criteria Bernecky has given above _are_ both necessary and sufficient
: for any type of bose condensation, quite regardless of whether you are
: talking about fundamental particles such as photons or composite particles
: such as helium-4 or hydrogen atoms.  You cannot easily get around this
: simply because these criteria are very close to the _definition_ of a
: bose condensate.  When identical bosons enter into a single shared [and
: identically delocalized] state, they _will_ bose condense -- period.

: Nor does any type of "interaction" matter much once these two criteria
: have been met.  Factors such as charge repulsion do not prevent bose
: condensation from occurring, but instead simply make it more difficult to
: _achieve_ "identical individual states."  After all, it's not easy to
: keep bosons in a single low-energy state if you are squeezing a lot of
: charges together using very high energies.  But if you can do it, they
: will pretty much _by definition_ form a bose condensate state.

OK. Thanks.

Maybe I should rephrase?  With a repulsive mutual interaction will
this Bose condensate state be the or close to the *lowest energy state* or
*equilibrium state*?

My answer: hell no.

Therefore it will be dynamically unstable.  (Same principle as ordinary
classical mechanics.)

: > The fact that in solid state this is approximately true for electrons
: > (free electron gas model) despite their mutual electrostatic interaction
: > is a fortuitious result of many circumstances.  And this approximation
: > breaks down high frequencies & energies.

: Sorry, I lost the bubble on that one.  What has this comparison to charged
: electrons (I think you really mean Cooper pairs, not single electrons) got
: to do with hydrogen atoms, which are charge-neutral bosons?  And what about
: helium atoms, which certainly do condense even though such atoms clearly do
: "interact" by repelling each other when they approach too closely?

I was talking about the approximation whereby the overall wavefunction
was written as the product of individual particle wavefunctions *in 
a background potential*.  I think we agree on things now.

: You can argue against the _existence_ of free hydrogen in (say) palladium,
: or against the likelihood of such atoms joining into a single common state,
: but if you meet those two criteria (including common delocalized locations
: of the atoms), you _will_ get bose condensation.

OK. I believe you.  I argue against the likelihood of such atoms
joining into a single common state, and the erroneous computation of
wavefunctions by using the single-particle-in-background-potential-without
interaction-term-in-the-hamiltonian model.   If you get Bose condensation
with the correct Hamiltonian fine, but I don't think it will happen in
this circumstance.

: 				Cheers,
: 				Terry

: 	But I'm not aware of any fundamental reason why a bose condensate
: 	should not be capable of forming in a lattice of _rigidly arranged_
: 	composite bose atoms.  

What's the density of states close to the 'bose condensate state'?
Really big, I'd guess and even trivial thermal fluctuations will blow
it away much past really cryogenic temperatures.  

Try freezing a diamond. (would you need isotopically pure crystal?)

--
-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:
cuddy4 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 06:30:50 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Nov30.164206.1130@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu> jaume@ldgo.c
lumbia.edu (steven jaume) writes:
>In article <CHAuIB.BvG@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>[material deleted]
>
>> **Compare to the heyday of biomass  ---  the CARBONaceous period.  
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                       Only Fusion can pump enough 
>>                              CO2 back into 
>>                             the atmosphere
>>                           to save the planet.  
>Paul, you seem to have an assumption that increased CO2 will lead to increased
>biomass (more species?).  I don't believe this is necessarily true.  I'm not a
>biologist/paleontologist, but from lurking in talk.origins and talking to
>friends who are biologists/paleontologists I've gotten the impression that
>any *rapid* environmental change will lead to an increased rate of extinction
>(*rapid* in this context means faster than a species can adapt).  If you are
>assuming that increased CO2 == increased biomass, please state what you are
>basing this on.

*rapid* increase in CO2 is impossible due to the huge mass of the 
atmospheric CO2 already there, The loss rates and the increase in 
loss rates as the amount (fractional percentage) goes up.  It is so 
slow and will be so beneficial that species will have some time to 
adjust before it will be completely managed by man through the application
of fusion energy (much, much sooner than most believe).      

On the (MORE SPECIES?) question.  Yes we will have a large spurt in 
new species, but only slightly from a better bio-environment. The big
Spurt will come in a one or two ?  hundred years when the planet switch
magnetic poles and the earth's field drops to a minimum.  That is because
spurts in species production (on land  --- sea creatures are protected)
will receive increased radiation when the charged particles are no longer 
trapped by the earth's field and spun down more harmlessly then dumped
into the the exosphere to generate aurora.  

I publish this in this group BECAUSE the answer is in the hands of
humans (or well be shortly) as efficient clean cheap and exceptionally
powerful high density fusion comes on line.   (did I leave out an 
adjective???)   Fusioneers have responsibilities to the well being of
all  planetary life and its extention to other places.  

>On another topic, the extensive coal-bearing beds of Carboniferous age do not
>mean that the biomass in the Carboniferous was greater than at any other time;
>only that the right geologic conditions existed for both its initial preserva-
>tion and preservation up to the present.  

Yes it does, and the demise of greatness was because the scum floating down
rivers formed on the oceans surfaces and funneled in between continents 
and beached where now oil is found in huge abundance.  What also formed
was chalk and that deep sixed giga tera's of CO2 ---  reducing the 
CO2 on a more permanent basis.  In other words the Carbon cycle has
leaks to /dev/null.  Secondly we know that the grow rate of a number
of beneficial plants for grazing, fruit etc. (foods) in general increase 
their growth rate substantially when exposed to multiple levels of 
today's starvation level of CO2.   

>Steven C. Jaume'
>Renegade Seismologist from the 8th Dimension
                      CO2 increases Plant biomass
                         Plant biomass COOLS 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / Thomas Kunich /  Number of Papers @ ICC4
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Number of Papers @ ICC4
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 07:59:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

The list of authors of papers at the Hawaiian conference is truly
staggering.

One would think that with that number of investigators one would
see intelligent, well-thought out experiments reported in straight
forward papers.

So, why haven't we? Why is it that CNF remains a controversial
non-reproducibility?

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 06:43:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Nov30.162844.18951@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <CHAws6.C4B@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>There is a huge down side to keeping the CO2 levels lower than
>>what supports optimal global biomass.  More plant life will act 
>>to cool the planet as opposed to less (urban/desert/badlands 
>>heating scenario).  A mosdest increase in CO2 could have a large 
>>effect in extending biomass groundcover from peripolar to peripolar 
>>region... assuming we get some bias warming toward the polar regions. 
>>Incidentally all of these interactive CO2 effects have to be taken
>>into consideration  or the study is trivial as is the current
>>status (regardless of its regard by ....  . they all come in
>>boxes with ribbons and  bows -- they all are so similar you know
>>they think just so.. )

>What is the _optimal_ global biomass?  Do you claim to know?  Do you
>know for sure that increased CO2 will increase biomass in the absence
>of other plant nutrients?  What if greater warming in the higher
>latitudes decreases albedo?


Then you accept that we may be able to manage these problems with
the help of fusion energy?  

Depends on how well we manage our perturbation.  Otherwise, the
biosystem is self regulating.  

I assume you are willing to allow a desert site which has both
nutrients and no plant toxins present.  Then we can build two
green houses, regulate them exactly the same except for CO2 and
corresponding equalization of oxygen levels, same water, soil
sun etc. etc,.  Then back off the water (a common problem in the
extension of deserts) and see at what point the plants fail.     
It will be noted that for some plants there will be little difference
but for others much difference and more importantly there is much
more vigor and reproduction.  Studies of this nature took place
in Israel and Mexico.  
> -- Dean Myerson     	(dean@vexcel.com)

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
Date: 5 Dec 93 19:47:04 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <tomkCHJy6u.JsL@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
writes:
> The list of authors of papers at the Hawaiian conference is truly
> staggering.
> 
> One would think that with that number of investigators one would
> see intelligent, well-thought out experiments reported in straight
> forward papers.
> 
> So, why haven't we? Why is it that CNF remains a controversial
> non-reproducibility?
> 
Jeez....I count about 341 of them, say about 10 skeptics at the max,
that still leaves about 331 True Believers........
They can't all be wrong ........can they ??
Does this mean there is going to be 331 pies.....the mind boggles.

					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

 The above comments are only attributable to myself.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / Dieter Britz /  Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monthly note: How to get the archived bibliography files.
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 10:24:11 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).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. CD into fusion, dir fusion.cnf* to get
   a listing. The index is large. Use GET (ie. get fusion.cnf-pap1).

2. Via LISTSERV. You get an idex of the archives by sending an email to
   listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"
   '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 message, 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-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
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 -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 20:09:28 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> The list of authors of papers at the Hawaiian conference is truly
>> staggering.
>Jeez....I count about 341 of them, say about 10 skeptics at the max,
>that still leaves about 331 True Believers........

Some of the names are pretty obviously accidental multiple spellings of
the same name -- so the total count is a bit less.  I didn't correct
the misspellings because I couldn't be sure that they were indeed misspellings.
Also, there are, for instance, two people named Chubb, so that type of
thing would make the total a little longer than it is.

But 340 is a fair order of magnitude of authors to papers at ICCF4.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / Anthony Wesley /  Re: Non topic postings
     
Originally-From: awesley@arvidsjaur (Anthony Wesley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non topic postings
Date: 5 Dec 1993 22:21:40 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: OK, I have had it.  I move that we temporarily censor the non topic postings
: for some period like a week so that this news group can get back to an 
: information exchange media for cold fusion (it's original topic) and other
: fusion related information.  

: I am against censorship.  We all like to post somehing off topic from time to
: time.  I would be quite happy with 50% on topic content.  There are several
: more appropriate places for the current debate.  

: What I am proposing is a sort of e-mail "closure".  We set up a proceedure 
: where we can take a vote and "kill" a thread.

: Are there any seconds?  I vote to "kill" the thread on "Global Warming - CO2
: and the like".

: Tom Droege

Agreed. This is my first (and probably last) posting to this newsgroup, but
I have been an avid reader for the last few years. The signal to noise ratio
in this group has steadily been increasing over that last few months, and I now
only bother reading two authors from this group. Please, before you all
vanish into the kill file, consider the relevance of what you are posting!
There would be a great number of lurkers such as myself who read this group
to follow the technical trials and tribulations of this dubious pursuit, not
the endless reams of personal drivel, verve and invective which have become
so popular lately.

regards, anthony

ps: Where are the CF generators and the millionaires? It's been 5 years now...
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenawesley cudfnAnthony cudlnWesley cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.05 / Charles Geyer /  Re: Second to Steve Jones's Motion
     
Originally-From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Second to Steve Jones's Motion
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 23:09:14 GMT
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <CH0I9v.Bnw@gte.com> rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi) writes:

>There is a relatively stable and even respectable technique for conducting
>analyses such as those Dick Blue is suggesting.  The technique is called
>meta-analysis, and it is a way of combining data over several experiments
>to obtain more experimental power.  While I myself have never used this
>technique, I have run across it in the literature (mainly social sciences,
>but then that is what I read).  I believe I have also read of the use of 
>meta-analysis with regard to paranormal studies.  The reader may draw
>whatever conclusion from this statement that he or she wishes.
>
>I am not well enough versed in this field to undertake such an
>analysis.  I could possibly dig up references on the application
>of meta-analysis if someone were going to seriously consider
>applying to the CF literature.

In order for meta-analysis to make sense, the problems of experimental
validity must be entirely statistical.  It's just a way of combining
P-values from different studies.  It won't do much with cold fusion,
where the issues aren't really statistical.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@stat.umn.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencharlie cudfnCharles cudlnGeyer cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Dec  6 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: 6 Dec 1993 00:28:37 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

:  Secondly we know that the grow rate of a number
: of beneficial plants for grazing, fruit etc. (foods) in general increase 
: their growth rate substantially when exposed to multiple levels of 
: today's starvation level of CO2.   

:                       CO2 increases Plant biomass
:                          Plant biomass COOLS 

Please.  North Africa isn't a desert because of the lack of CO2,
but rather H2O.  

What about all the new droughts and overall climate messups that might
take place if we zap up the CO2?

And if you think there is such a big overall global sink of CO2 (by
what mechanism?), then how could human fusion possibly do anything to
increase its concentration, for what you claim to be beneficial effects?

: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
: | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
: | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
-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:
cuddy6 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Donald Locker /  Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 04:08:22 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <tomkCHJy6u.JsL@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>The list of authors of papers at the Hawaiian conference is truly
>staggering.
>
>One would think that with that number of investigators one would
>see intelligent, well-thought out experiments reported in straight
>forward papers.

Has Tom Droege published any of his results?  From what I have seen
here on the net, he should have some solid results.  Albeit negative.
Well, you can't have good science and wishes fulfilled all the time.

>
>So, why haven't we? Why is it that CNF remains a controversial
>non-reproducibility?
>

-- 
Donald.                      |  The Net is dead!  Long live the Net!
Opinions? sure they're mine. |  "Out, damned spot"  Lady MacBeth
Who else would claim 'em?    |  [visitor parking only]
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 06:11:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CHLI5z.DKE@mrdog.msl.com> dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker) writes:
>
>Has Tom Droege published any of his results?  From what I have seen
>here on the net, he should have some solid results.  Albeit negative.
>Well, you can't have good science and wishes fulfilled all the time.

It isn't possible to _prove_ a negative. Tom's work as demonstrated here
has consisted in always being able to figure out a better experiment to
prove CNF's existance if it exists, not to prove it doesn't exist.

Therefore papers on his experiments could always be criticised as simply
reflecting poor techniques.

Even Jed Rothwell, whose scientific expertise apprently rivals his
infallibility, considers Tom's calorimetry as wanting. I know Jed could
convince me of practically anything. (<- (sign for tongue firmly in cheek.)

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 08:18:00 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University

There has lately been a deal of discussion on Bockris and how he is apparently
promoting alchemy. I knew only what I have read here, and assumed that when he
talks about transmutation, he must be talking about profitable transmutation,
since transmutation per se has been known for a long time now. I have just been
corrected: the anomaly is **chemical** transmutation, not economic as I
thought; that is, he believes in chemically induced transmutation. Of what, to
what, I don't know (yet). However, please lift your jaws again, good people,
what is so new about this? What is cold fusion but chemically induced transmu-
tation (deuterium into - well - something else)? And others than Bockris have
looked seriously at the higher elements, like isotopes of Pd or Rh and Ag,
being made in the PdD lattice, or Bush (and dare I mention him? Kevran)
who suggest the formation of Ca. You might not believe all this (I don't) but
don't start a jeering choir, or start calling the man a charlatan. He does not
deserve that.

Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Bruce Hoult /  Re: Non topic postings
     
Originally-From: Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non topic postings
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 21:08:15 +1300 (NZDT)

awesley@arvidsjaur (Anthony Wesley) writes:
> Agreed. This is my first (and probably last) posting to this newsgroup, but
> I have been an avid reader for the last few years. The signal to noise ratio
> in this group has steadily been increasing over that last few months, and I now
> only bother reading two authors from this group.

I don't like to "me too", but "ME TOO!".

A year ago I read every post in this group, but now I'm ashamed to say that I
read little that isn't a message from, or reply to, Tom Droege, Stephen Jones
or Terry Bollinger even while realising that this is doing an injustice to a
number of other contributors.

-- Bruce
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBruce cudfnBruce cudlnHoult cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 13:12:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,

not much happening these days (some of you will say, wait until after Maui,
and I will indeed wait). I find one patent, and a lone comment, out of Douglas
Morrison's interesting paper on the elusive 17 keV neutrino. This, like
cluster impact fusion, is a sort of parallel to the cold fusion saga, except
that cold fusion is not dead yet, whereas both the 17 keV neutrino and CIF are.
I gather from the paper that there are still those who Believe (I can't
actually find mention of it except as an inference, but I haven't read the
paper in great detail). In any case, Morrison likens this remaining flock of
believers to those who still believe in cold fusion. One might protest that
some hundreds is more than a small remnant. He does insist that the scientific
community has dropped out of cold fusion, and he is certainly right about
that, going by my publication statistics.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 6-Dec-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 844


Patents; file cnf-pat
^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waisman JL (for Southern California Edison);
PCT Int. Appl. WO 93 05,516, 28-Aug-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 119:212758 (1993).
"Producing heat from a solute and crystalline host material".
** "A method and app. for prodn. of heat comprises injecting a solute
contained in a loading fluid into a host material, the solute being
selectively D or T, selecting the host material to include a cryst. structure
capable of absorbing the solute, maintaining the solute contg. the loading
fluid and the host at a concn., temp. and pressure for a time sufficient to
insure diffusion into the host material, and enabling the host material to
produce heat consequent to the introduction of the solute into the host
material, the rate of heat prodn. being at a controllable, effective
intensity". (Direct quote from CA).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morrison DRO;                                    Nature 366 (1993) 29 (4-Nov).
"The rise and fall of the 17-keV neutrino".
** This Progress Paper reports the interesting story of the 17 keV neutrino,
whose existence has been controversial; it is now considered an artifact.
Morrison here tells the story. At the end, he muses on the difference between
the scientific and legal approaches; with the former, each researcher must
carefully consider all points of view, even those of the critics/opponents. In
the case of this purported neutrino, the approach triumphed. DROM finally
comments that there are always a few who cling to an artifact, and cites cold
fusion as such an area, where some still believe in the phenomenon; in fact,
some hundreds of researchers continue to work in the field, despite the fact
that the scientific community has turned away.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Schwinger and Hagelstein theories
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Schwinger and Hagelstein theories
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 14:03:59 GMT
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1748;
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 01:14:02 GMT

>Dieter Britz indicates that he thinks that having the names of Schwinger
>and Hagelstein linked to a theory gives it some added credibility.  As
>I have noted before, as had Steve Jones, Hagelstein has backed away from
>the type of theory Dieter refers to so I think his name should no longer
>be associated with it.  That leaves Schwinger as an advocate for "quiescent
>absorption of MeV energies."  I have not read what Schwinger has to say
>on this subject, and no one seems to be prepared to summarize his theory
>here.  Does anyone know where this has been published and whether Schwinger
>mails out reprints?

Reprints are a bit of a fossil these days (I mostly send them only to people
in poor countries myself), but you can undoubtedly get hold of these papers:

Schwinger J;                    Z. Phys. D: At., Mol. Clusters 15 (1990) 221.
"Nuclear energy in an atomic lattice. 1".

Schwinger J;                                  Z. Naturforsch. 45A (1990) 756.
"Cold fusion: a hypothesis".

Schwinger J;                                 Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 (1991) 711.
"Nuclear energy in an atomic lattice".

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?".

Hagelstein  PL;                                 J. Fusion Energy 9 (1991) 451.
"Coherent fusion theory".

Hagelstein PL;                                  Fusion Technol. 22 (1992) 172.
"Coherent and semicoherent neutron transfer reactions I: The interaction
Hamiltonian".

Hagelstein PL;                                  Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 353.
"Coherent and semicoherent neutron transfer reactions III: Phonon frequency
shifts".

As for Hagelstein, his patent is very detailed, so I include it as well, cum
abstract:

Hagelstein PL;                          Int. Pat. Appl. WO 90/13129, 1-Nov-90.
"Fusion apparatus".
** "Fusion apparatuses for coupling fusible material to a quantized mode in
coherent fusion are provided. Method for optimization of reactor operation,
control of the coherent fusion reaction and extraction of usable energy
generated are provided". Some of the means of doing this are: containing the
fusible material (deuterium) in an electrically conductive radially symmetric
vessel and initiating fusion through coupling to plasmon modes or by radially
polarizing insulating crystals, or by lining the vessel with radially disposed
rod-like projections electrically connected in series with an oscillator and
in series with a computer controlled variable load for extracting the energy;
acoustic excitation or excitement by alpha particles or cosmic rays. The
inventor's theory is given (twice), p.48 shows a letter to Florence and Sam
and there are 138 claims.


This was about the last patent I physically got. It cost me about $80, and I
decided not to get any more, and to abstract straight from CA. You inmates of
the USA are lucky, I believe any patent costs you just $1.

Go for it, Dick, and please tell us where Schwinger is wrong. One weakness I
can see is that he favours p+d fusion, resulting in 3He, which noone has yet
found, or even claimed to have found. Well, maybe with the exception of the
Russians who find anomalous 3He/4He ratios in Al.

As for Hagelstein, I take his "backing off" as hearsay for the moment. I think
it might be an eager overreaction to say that he is backing off. Let's see
whether he comes out with anything solid at Maui - we will no doubt be told.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 14:27:14 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <kemidb.755165880@aau> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>[Bockris] believes in chemically induced transmutation. Of what, to
>what, I don't know (yet). 

I highly recommend the book *Bad Science* for the answer to this and
many other pertinent questions.  On page 428, Taubes dutifully reported
rumors that Bockris was trying to electrochemically transmute mercury
into gold.  These rumors were confirmed in recent newspaper articles.
Bockris admitted to Taubes that he was working on transmutation, but
would neither "confirm nor deny" the mercury-into-gold part.

>However, please lift your jaws again, good people, what is so new
>about this? 

We all agree, there nothing new about it.  To the contrary, Lilly
Bockris (p. 428 of *Bad Science*) said that this research "had been in
the works for several thousand years."
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / BERNECKY R /  Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Induced transitions?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 01:27:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following short passage highlights the consequences of Bose-Einstein
statistics.  At the end, the authors make a general claim, "applicable to
all bosonic transitions", that a transition to a common state is "induced
by the presence of the N bosons there".  My question is, How is this
"induced transition" accomplished?  In the case of lasers, one might point
to the EM field of the photons as the "inducer".  But what serves a
comparable role in superfluid 4He, superconduction based on Cooper pairs,
or (hypothetical) BWO?

Quoting "Quantics" by Levy-Leblond and Balibar:

" There is another way of writing and interpreting the probabilities given by
eqs. (7.5.6) and (7.5.13), the former corresponding to the case where N
different quantons and the latter to the case where N bosons make a transition
to a state consisting of N identical individual states.  To see this, let us
compare, in the two cases, the probabilities for N+1 and N quantons. In the
case of distinct quantons, we have

	     P(N+1) = P(N) P                              (7.5.20)

where P is the individual transition probability of the last quanton. In other
words, the probability of a final state, in which (N+1) quantons are in the
same state, is given by the product of the probability of a state in which N
quantons are in this state and the probability that the (N+1)st quanton is in
there too - normal factorization for independent quantons.  But for bosons, as
a result of the bosonic factorial, the analogous expression, obtained using eq.
(7.5.13), is

	      Pb(N+1) = (N+1) Pb(N) P                     (7.5.21)

In other words, the probability of obtaining the (N+1) bosons in the same
state is multiplied by (N+1), as compared to the case of distinct quantons,
eq. (7.5.20).  Yet another way of expressing this result is by introducing the
transition probability of the (N+1) bosons to the same final state, *given that*
N of them are already there, to be denoted by Pb(N+1 <- N). By the very
definition of such a conditional probability, we have

	      Pb(N+1) = Pb(N+1 <- N) Pb(N),                (7.5.22)

and, consequently, comparing with eq. (7.5.21),

	      Pb(N+1 <- N) = (N+1) P                       (7.5.23)

Thus, the probability of obtaining (N+1) bosons in the same state, given that
N of them are already in it, is (N+1) times larger than the transition
probability of a single boson (the bosons are *not* independent, and eq.
(7.5.23) is *not* the transition probability of 'the (N+1)st boson'!).
Writing this transition probability in the form

	      Pb(N+1 <- N) = P + N P                        (7.5.24)

we see that it is the sum of two terms, the first of which is the term which
exists only for independent quantons, and the second term is proportional to
the number of bosons already present.  The first term corresponds in a way to
a *spontaneous* natural transition, which occurs 'in any case' while the
second term describes a transition *induced* by the presence of the N bosons,
there. 

These ideas are *applicable to all bosonic transitions*....." [pgs 478-479]

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 02:21:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,

In article <kemidb.755165880@aau> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:

> In article <kemidb.755165880@aau> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> There has lately been a deal of discussion on Bockris and how he is
> apparently promoting alchemy. I knew only what I have read here, and
> assumed that when he talks about transmutation, he must be talking about
> profitable transmutation, since transmutation per se has been known for a
> long time now. I have just been corrected: the anomaly is **chemical**
> transmutation, not economic as I thought; that is, he believes in
> chemically induced transmutation. Of what, to what, I don't know (yet)...

Mercury to gold, apparently.

> ... However, please lift your jaws again, good people, what is so new
> about this? What is cold fusion but chemically induced transmutation
> (deuterium into - well - something else)?...

Yes, you are quite correct.  You start with a form of the element hydrogen
and end up (I presume) with the element helium.  Hydrogen to helium?  Sure
sounds like transmutation to me.

Oddly enough, I was on Dieter's end of this argument in a conversation with
Nathan Lewis several years ago.  (Behind-the-scenes claims of transmutation
are actually quite old in the arena of "cold fusion," in case ya'll didn't
realize.)  Dr. Lewis had just given a long, serious analysis of the whether
or not cold fusion of deuterium into helium could ever happen.  Afterwards,
folks in general seemed rather amused by the fact that one woman form NRL
at the meeting had had the audacity in some report she had written to claim
chemically induced transmutation of elements higher than helium.

This left me with a definite feeling of inappropriate asymmetry.  While
high element transmutations are indeed orders of magnitude more difficult
than are deuterium-to-helium shifts, _both_ types of element shifts are many
tens of orders of magnitude above the energy levels normally encountered in
chemistry.  Here's an analogy of the situation:

  o You open a broom closet, look in, and then go back to report that you
    just saw a full-grown hippo in there.  Everyone gets serious and starts
    to discuss whether or not there might actually be a hippo in the broom
    closet, all the time emphasizing that while such an event sounds very,
    very unlikely, it really should analyzed and checked out in detail.

  o You open a brook closet, look in, and then go back to report that you
    just saw a bull elephant in there.  Everyone cracks up laughing and
    they make it very clear that folks who find bull elephants in broom
    closets are probably, well, you know, just a bit _off in the head_.

Get the point?


> ... And others than Bockris have looked seriously at the higher elements,
> like isotopes of Pd or Rh and Ag, being made in the PdD lattice, or Bush
> (and dare I mention him? Kevran) who suggest the formation of Ca. You
> might not believe all this (I don't) but don't start a jeering choir, or
> start calling the man a charlatan. He does not deserve that.

Be it known:  I honestly wasn't even thinking of Bockris when I wrote the
descriptions of alchemical tricks for "making" gold.  It was the fellow
from Europe that I was thinking about, with his techniques that were just
too delightfully reminiscent of some of the old alchemist's mercury-gold
pranks I used to read about in the Life-Time Science series back in grade
school.  [Quick, silver, don't jiggle as you're comin' through the rye!]

[Argh!  Dieter old friend, I'm sorry, but I can't even type about this item
without having to choke down a couple guffaws.  I'm hopeless on this one.]

As for the much more relevant and interesting issue of whether or not any
unmistakably "hot" transmutations will be claimed for palladium hydride
systems, I await with great interest to see what reports (non reports?) end
up being given at the ongoing Maui conference.  It should be interesting.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 3 Dec 93
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.space
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 3 Dec 93
Date: 6 Dec 1993 16:25:41 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and posted
by us.  Respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other references below.
Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and FYI, archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous FTP'ing pleasure,
courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]

WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 3 Dec 93       Washington, DC

1. CLINTON CREATED "THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL"
to coordinate S&T policies across agency boundaries.  It replaces
the Federal Coordinating Committee for Science Engineering and
Technology, National Space Council and National Materials Coun-
cil.  It includes the Vice President, Science Advisor, National
Security Advisor, Cabinet Secretaries and heads of OMB, NASA, NSF
and EPA.  This is the inside Council.  The President also created
an outside council, PCAST, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology, to advise the inside council.  PCAST will
consist of 15 members from the private sector, one of whom will
be designated a co-chair, plus the President's Science Advisor,
John Gibbons, who will be the other co-chair.  The NSTC will be
asked to undertake an across-the-board review of R&D spending.

2. NASA BETS THE FARM ON MISSION TO REPAIR THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE.
Officials at the space agency have encouraged the idea that this
is a "make-or-break" mission; Hubble was designed to be serviced,
and failure would cast doubt on the feasibility of assembling a
space station.  When Endeavour finally got off, the switchboards
at the Houston Space Center were busy with calls from reporters,
but, consistent with recent luck at the agency, most of the calls
concerned an FBI "sting" operation; the investigation reportedly
concerns bribery in the selection of shuttle experiments. Earlier
in the week, President Clinton met with key congressional leaders
to urge support for Russian participation in space station Alpha.
Uneasy about the Russian role, Congress had locked up half of the
station funds pending an explanation (WN 10 Sep 93).  The group
was satisfied with what they heard.  It may be urgent, the plant
that once made the Soviet shuttle "Buran" now makes bath tiles.

3. IT'S TIME TO CATCH UP ON THE NEWS FROM "ALTERNATIVE" SCIENCES.
A year ago (WN 4 Sep 92), we told you about string theorist John
Hagelin's candidacy for President on the Natural Law ticket.  His
bid fell a tad short, but in the recent Canadian elections, the
NLP won just two fewer seats than the incumbent Progressive Con-
servative Party--which won two seats.  A pity, the NLP had hoped
to unleash its super-string unified-field Lagrangian on Canada's
problems.  It was three years ago (WN 15 Jun 90) that we reported
the strange events in the cold fusion laboratory of John Bockris
at Texas A&M.  Bockris doesn't seem to find tritium anymore, but
things have gotten stranger.  Now he mixes a dab of this and that
with saltpeter, ignites the mixture, and POOF!  Gold!  Just last
month (WN 5 Nov 93), we reviewed "The Great Power-Line Cover-up."
Now it appears that Finland has joined the cover-up!  The Finns,
it seems, are obsessive about keeping records, making it possible
to calculate the exposure levels of children living near power-
lines amounting to one-million person years!  In the whole cohort
of 134,800 children there were 140 cancers, 5 less than expected.
The only increased risk was for nervous system tumors among boys,
but even that was attributed to one boy who had three tumors.

Robert L. Park  opa@aps.org         The American Physical Society
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Jeremy Whitlock /  cmsg cancel <1993Dec6.152656.14609@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>
     
Originally-From: whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Dec6.152656.14609@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 15:33:44 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

<1993Dec6.152656.14609@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwhitlock cudfnJeremy cudlnWhitlock cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Dec  7 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 18:06:51 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <2dpo2e$jjj@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Dec3.201748.2672@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>=In article <1993Dec2.150517.29699@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@mcmai
.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>=>In article <peter_butler.its_2_po-301193114458@mac87a4.itc.com.au>
peter_butler.its_2_po@central-gw.uow.edu.au (peter butler) writes:
>=>
>=>>Why should environmentalists support nuclear power which produces a waste
>=>>which causes genetic mutation and requires highly complex storage disposal
>=>>techniques, merely because it doesn't produce CO2? 
>=>
>=>Also because it produces the most amount of energy per kg of fuel, because
>=>less miners die per kg of fuel, because less civilians die per kg of
>=>fuel, and because its radioactive waste isn't spread all over the country
>=>and in your lungs, like with coal.
>=
>=Isn't deaths per kg of fuel a biased measurement?  I think deaths per
>=kwH generated would be more representative.
>
>Er, Dean?  Perhaps you'd like to reread the original post?  In that post, it
>was claimed that
>	1)  Generated energy/Kg fuel is greater for nuclear than for other
>	    sources;
>	2)  Deaths/Kg fuel is lower for nuclear.
>
>Given those claims, deaths/generated energy is lower for nuclear than other
>sources.  Now, if you want to challenge one of the claims of the original post,
>do so.  But please, don't demonstrate your idiocy by ignoring what was posted.
>It embarasses everybody when you do that.

Gosh, Carl, I was not aware that you would be embarassed by other peoples
idiocy.  Even those that you disagree with?  I do see how my calculation
was backwards in this so I guess I accpet the label of idiocy for this
post (though unintended).  At least it wasn't bad enough to be a
shit-for-brains post.

I would point out that any deaths from unprotected exposure during uranium
minimg would be a lor harder to isolate than would deaths from mining
accidents.
>
>Of course, since you're anti-nuke, apparently on
>fundamental (and irrational) grounds, it's not surprising that you missed this
>minor, technical point.

Hmm.  Have I ever stated my reasons for my attitudes about nuclear power?
I don't believe I ever said that US nuclear plants could "be a Chernobyl"
or blow up like a bomb.  My only posts on the subject have been about
possible effects from low-level radiation (and I have never claimed
that such effects definitely exist).  Just which irrational grounds
do you attribute to me?

-- 
 -- Dean Myerson     	(dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Dean Alaska /  Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
     
Originally-From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Poison CO2 from coal-fired energy generating apparatus
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 18:13:53 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <CHJuoA.Hz0@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <1993Nov30.162844.18951@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <CHAws6.C4B@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>>There is a huge down side to keeping the CO2 levels lower than
>>>what supports optimal global biomass.  More plant life will act 
>>>to cool the planet as opposed to less (urban/desert/badlands 
>>>heating scenario).  A mosdest increase in CO2 could have a large 
>>>effect in extending biomass groundcover from peripolar to peripolar 
>>>region... assuming we get some bias warming toward the polar regions. 
>>>Incidentally all of these interactive CO2 effects have to be taken
>>>into consideration  or the study is trivial as is the current
>>>status (regardless of its regard by ....  . they all come in
>>>boxes with ribbons and  bows -- they all are so similar you know
>>>they think just so.. )
>
>>What is the _optimal_ global biomass?  Do you claim to know?  Do you
>>know for sure that increased CO2 will increase biomass in the absence
>>of other plant nutrients?  What if greater warming in the higher
>>latitudes decreases albedo?
>
>
>Then you accept that we may be able to manage these problems with
>the help of fusion energy?  

I am not sure how this relates to any proof on the effects of CO2
concentrations or what biomass is optimal.
>
>Depends on how well we manage our perturbation.  Otherwise, the
>biosystem is self regulating.  

Given enough time, it is self regulating.
>
>I assume you are willing to allow a desert site which has both
>nutrients and no plant toxins present.  Then we can build two
>green houses, regulate them exactly the same except for CO2 and
>corresponding equalization of oxygen levels, same water, soil
>sun etc. etc,.  Then back off the water (a common problem in the
>extension of deserts) and see at what point the plants fail.     
>It will be noted that for some plants there will be little difference
>but for others much difference and more importantly there is much
>more vigor and reproduction.  Studies of this nature took place
>in Israel and Mexico.  

A variety of studies have been performed.  Many permit saturation of
nutrients so they do not test the effect of increased CO2 if there are
shortages of other nutrients.
-- 
 -- Dean Myerson     	(dean@vexcel.com)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendean cudfnDean cudlnAlaska cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Norman Paterson /  Proposed Technological Information Service 
     
Originally-From: norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norman P. Paterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed Technological Information Service 
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 93 09:27:00 CST
Organization: The Inquiring Mind BBS  1 204 488-1607





PATERSON AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGICAL INFORMATION SERVICE SURVEY
_________________________________________________________________

May we have your assistance?  Your answers to the following questions will
assist us in developing a high technology databank/library/consulting service.
At present we have catalogs, brochures, manuals, samples, etc. detailing the 
products of over 1,300 progressive technology companies.  Our goal is to make 
it a detailed information source for the massive number of new products 
offered on the global market.
            This system will assist engineers, researchers, 
               technicians, instructors,  and others by:

1].  Informing them of new, unique, and sometimes easily forgotten yet
valuable products/services which  allow reduced cost and improved performance
in the area of research apparatus, processes, and tools.
2].  Free manpower, time, and other resources by delegating technological
product/services searches to PATERSON AEROSPACE's team of sourcing 
specialists.
3].  Act as an educational/reference platform for new technology/processes.

DESCRIPTION OF OUR INFORMATION SERVICE
Our team of researchers scour scores of industry publications searching for 
new products or services pertaining to new  and standard technology.  
Technology producers are contacted for detailed information on their 
products/services. This information is reviewed by us, pertinent information 
entered into a computer database file and the received catalogs/brochures 
are filed in our library for future reference by our customers.
_________________________________________________________________

YOUR ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL ASSIST US IN DETERMINING
    YOUR REQUIREMENTS AND HELP US PLAN/IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM:
_________________________________________________________________


1).  Do you feel there is a need for this service?  ___ YES      ___ NO
     Your comments (optional)

2).  Approximately how many man-hours do you presently expend searching for
technological /products/services?  ______________hrs  per  ______________

3).  Do you feel the implementation of new/high technology enables you to
make better use of your funds and/or improve the quality of your research 
equipment?  ___ YES    ___ NO

4).  How do you rate the acquirement of high technology in your planning?
___ Important    ___ Necessary    ___ Basic    ___ Not needed
        The acquirement of standard technology?
___ Important    ___ Necessary    ___ Basic    ___ Not needed


5).  With our proposed service (available in 1996) photographs of the products
would be accessible to you on-line (with the ability for you to store these 
images) along with data.  Do you feel this would help, rather than simply 
accessing a text based database?  ___ YES  ___ NO  __Possibly

6).  Would you use our service to learn of new materials, products, components,
or services? 
 ___ YES    ___ NO    ___ Possibly

7).  Would you want your department and its capabilities/services included our
databank/library?  ___ YES    ___ NO    ___ Possibly


8).  Have you  used such an Information Market before?  ___  YES    ___ NO

9).  Would a published directory (published annually with basic company 
information, sold at a cost of $25.00) of our databank of high technology 
companies be of interest to you?  ___ YES  ___ NO    ___ Possibly

10).  Would you use our consulting service to improve your operation?  ___ YES
      ___ NO __Possibly


11).  We plan  to have 10,000+ companies in our system by 1996. In your opinion
what would be a reasonable fee to charge to:
A].  Access the on-line database  B].  Use our Consulting/Sourcing service
a].  $_________ per __________   b].  $_________ per _____________ (item, hour,
                                                                        etc.)


12).  Your  additional comments here would be appreciated:




Your Name    __________________________________
Your title        __________________________________
Organization       __________________________________
Address ________________________________________________________________
Phone _________________________________  Fax ____________________________

Thank you for your assistance.  Your help will allow us to effectively plan
and implement this service.  Because you took the time to help us,  we will 
enter your organization/department free in our database.  Simply send us this 
survey filled out, along with comprehensive information on your organization 
and its products/services/research activities.
Sincerely,


Norman Paterson (Pres.)
PATERSON AEROSPACE
92 Walnut St., Wpg MB R3G 1N8 
(204)786-2192  Fax (204)452-3047



norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca-
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 668-8845
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudennorm cudfnNorman cudlnPaterson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 04:15:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Dec6.142714.13671@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>I highly recommend the book *Bad Science* for the answer to this and
>many other pertinent questions.  On page 428, Taubes dutifully reported
>rumors that Bockris was trying to electrochemically transmute mercury
>into gold.  These rumors were confirmed in recent newspaper articles.

Hmm, confirming a rumor with a rumor is hardly my idea of Good Science.

I don't know why you've been touting Taubes book for so long but it is
coming to the point where you are claiming Taubes to be the next messiah.

I suggest that you either read another book or get a life.

None of which has anything to do with Bockris or CNF. So let's let Bockris
talk for himself (he does publish rather regularly you know) and try and
find a single positive CNF experiment that can be duplicated with enough
correct instrumentation to satisfy a first year chemistry student.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reply to Steve Jones ....
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Jones ....
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 09:18:07 GMT
Date: 3 Dec 93 20:44:00 +1100
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1747
Date: 3 Dec 93 20:44:00 +1100

>Hi Folks,
>  I happened to glance at my article "Reply to Steve Jones...." of the
>30-Nov-93 and found that I had erroneously deleted a line.
>  Where I had...
>
>"Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
>wrote on the 11-Nov-93......."
>
> Please instead read .....
>
>"Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
>"Draft of paper" posted on (approximately) the 11th November 93,
>wrote on the 11-Nov-93........."
>
> Although nobody seems to have seen this error, I apologise for any
>confusion it may have caused.

Another anomaly discovered: cold fusion clearly involves tachyons as well.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Dieter Britz /  RE: LEIBOWITZ LIVES! ....Seen recently in the company of Yamaguchi et  al.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: LEIBOWITZ LIVES! ....Seen recently in the company of Yamaguchi et  al.
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 09:26:28 GMT
Date: 3 Dec 93 21:01:48 +1100
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1748
Date: 3 Dec 93 21:01:48 +1100


>Hi Folks,
>In his 29-Nov-93 post entitled "Cold fusion update No.8", Douglas Morrison
>writes:
>>"On the net there has been great interest in the three hours after the
>>cell runs dry. Many were astonished that with no incoming power, the cell
>>should stay very close to 100 degrees although earlier calculations had
>>indicated that the cell should cool down."

>This effect may be explained if one assumes that during electrolysis,
>strain occurs at the surface of the Pd electrode, perhaps due to a thin
>film coating, or sludge on the surface causing unequal *loading* of D (or H)
>in the Pd lattice, or quoting from Jacob Jorne', AIP Conf.Proc.No 228, p238...

>"The diffusion in metals under the influence of stress gradients was
>initially reported by Gorsky (ref 20) and is termed the Gorsky effect.
>Diffusion of hydrogen (or deuterium) in palladium and its alloys has been
>found to be affected by strain gradients. (ref 21,24) The strain gradients
>can be produced mechanically or by the inhomogeneous incorporation of
>hydrogen in the metal lattice which causes deformation due to local
>expansion or contraction. Hydrogen and deuterium  have been observed to
>diffuse from regions of low strain to regions of high strain in palladium
>and its alloys as it follows the strain gradient. (ref 21,24)"

>"Ref 20 .....  W.S. Gorsky, Phys. Z. Sowjlln. 8, 562 (1935).
> Ref 21 .....  F.A.Lewis, B.Baranowski and K.Kandasamy, "Uphill diffusion
>effects induced by self-stresses during hydrogen diffusion through metalic
>membranes," J. Less-Common Metals, 134, L27-31 (1987).
> Ref 24 .....  F.M.Mazzolai, M.Nuovo and F.A.Lewis, "Anelastic measurements
>of long range diffusion of hydrogen in a Pd(sub)77 AG(sub)23 alloy,"
>Scripta Metallurgica, 9, 617-622 (1975) ".

Thank you for these Gorsky references, I will get 'em.

BUT:

> If we assume that a region of the lattice has a D concentration greater
>than the rest of the metal, then this will, according to the above reasoning,
>result in a stress gradient. Gorsky states that this gradient will lead to
>the diffusion of more D into that region. In other terms, a positive feedback
>diffusion effect....yes folks....as mentioned by Yamaguchi and Nishioka in
>AIP Conf.Proc. No.228, where on p364/65 are four graphs, all of them showing
>samples of 3 x 3cm x1mm Pd plates attaining temperatures of >100 degrees
>and in three of these graphs, maintaining >100 degrees for >1.5 hours.
>Some of these samples were loaded with hydrogen, others with deuterium, all
>the experiments were "dry", not involving *any* electrolytes or chemical
>reactions. A nice clean experiment....perhaps even... definitive?

Perhaps... not?

This Gorsky argument falls down even harder and flatter than the cigarette
lighter effect. In that small volume of Pd there can simply not be the
required amount of chemical or mechanical energy to keep it pouring out all
those MJ during the 3 hours we are told about. So Gorsky, Schmorsky.

Keep trying, Darryl.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Dieter Britz /  RE: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: ICCF4 Maui Conference Papers
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 09:37:56 GMT
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 01:14:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 1749
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 01:14:09 GMT

>Papers Scheduled for the Fourth International Conference on Cold
>Fusion (ICCF4)
>December 6-9, 1993
>Lahaina, Hawaii
>Sponsor: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
[... long list...]

I note with some amusement four papers to be given by Bazhutov et al, on
erzions, both experimental and theoretical papers. I wonder whether the Gentle
Reader remembers these erzions. They appeared in a paper I abstracted some
time ago, and I thought they were a bit of a joke; even the name seems like a
joke. I shall explain. The authors say something like, just imagine there were
some particle like a muon, only it has a very long life (muons don't). Such a
particle could be explain cold fusion, couldn't it? Like muon catalysed
fusion. Now, if these things were long-lived, then they'd be accumulating at
the surface of the earth, wouldn't they (they come from the cosmos, of
course). On the surface of the EARTH, get it? Hence ERZIONS. These heavy
erzions are, then, mixed with all the dirt, they get everywhere, even in a
clean cold fusion cell. Voila! Aargh, I can't believe it. Four papers. Will
these later be published in proper journals?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Dieter Britz /  RE: More about plamoids
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: More about plamoids
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 09:44:11 GMT
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 08:49:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis) in FD 1751
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 08:49:55 GMT

[...]
plasmoid phenomena.  W. Bostick produced that which he called
plasmoids by discharging through electrodes.  Several people including

Didn't Bostick produce a glue?                 {:]

>        Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the traces,
>the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
>stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
>that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
>those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
>CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
[...]

Have a close look at Matsumoto's pictures, my good man. In one of them, there
is clearly a squashed bug (a dust mite, see the legs), and others have fungus
filaments, growing on his aging films. I wouldn't read too much into these
piccies myself.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Dieter Britz /  Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 10:28:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


A few days ago, Bill Page asked me for the experimental details of the paper
by Anufriev et al (I hope you remember what this is about). They are sparse,
but here they are.
The authors took samples of Al made, as usual, electrolytically in a cryolite
bath, shaped in several different forms, like rods and foils, and put them
into a vacuum chamber at 1200 degC. When the temp. was reached, they evacuated
for 15 min, while the gases were allowed to diffuse through a Pd membrane (H
isotopes) to be measured by a manometer, and the rest into a "magnetic
resonance mass spectrometer" (it must be my ignorance but I had not heard of
this before), of high sensitivity. I read it as about 1/10000 from their
graph. This could detect helium isotopes and some others that got through.
Tritium was detected by a proportional counter.
The various sensitivities were (in atoms): H: 10^18; T: 10^6; 3He:10^6;
4He: 10^11. Don't ask me why sensitivity for 4He is so much worse than for
3He.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 14:15:25 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <tomkCHnD67.2Gu@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <1993Dec6.142714.13671@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>I highly recommend the book *Bad Science* for the answer to this and
>>many other pertinent questions.  On page 428, Taubes dutifully reported
>>rumors that Bockris was trying to electrochemically transmute mercury
>>into gold.  These rumors were confirmed in recent newspaper articles.
>
>Hmm, confirming a rumor with a rumor is hardly my idea of Good Science.

Taubes is not a scientist, he is a journalist.  And I think that time
will tell that Bockris is indeed trying to trasmute mercury into
gold.

>I don't know why you've been touting Taubes book for so long...

Because it ought to be the last word on cold fusion.

>I suggest that you either read another book or get a life.

Look, cold fusion isn't very important, except maybe to a science
ethicist or a science historian.  Ask me about any other, more important
topic, like my research (topology) or actual fusion, and I might 
recommend other books.  The fact remains that the subject that has
consumed this newsgroup is at a dead end and the list of worthwhile
reading isn't going to get much longer.  Besides Taubes, D. R. O.
Morrison's articles are pretty good, but they add little to
the same old stale news that just gets rehashed again and again.

I suppose that fans of Close or Huizenga might say the same about
Taubes that I saying about anyone post-Taubes.  Well, that could
be.  Taubes is the one I read and there is no point to reading
two books that discredit the same claims and the same people.

>None of which has anything to do with Bockris or CNF. 

False!  Taubes discusses Bockris at length.  The bottom line is that
Bockris has a predictable habit of claiming that he has solved the
world's energy crisis.  Not only with cold fusion, but also with solar
energy and hydrogen catalysis.  Since it was already established in the
book that Bockris was doing transmutation (that part was not a rumor in
any sense), it's rather peculiar that Dieter Britz, who claims to know
better than I do what Bockris has been doing lately, hadn't heard about
it.  Not to mention the fact that's its treated as fresh news in
sci.physics.fusion.


>...find a single positive CNF experiment that can be duplicated with
>enough correct instrumentation to satisfy a first year chemistry
>student.

A pointless search.  You do not have to try to duplicate bad science
periodically for the rest of your life in order to discredit it.
Sometimes you do not even have to duplicate it even once.  Even more
than Nathan Lewis, my hero among scientists in the cold fusion fiasco
is Richard Petrasso.  He is a fusion man, but when he heard about cold
fusion, he thought "incompetent boobs pushing BS" and he never bothered
putting together a cold fusion cell along with the crowd.  But what he
*did* do was demonstrate with science that Pons and Fleischmann had
f----d with their gamma ray spectrum.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Hagelstein backing off
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein backing off
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 15:59:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz still assigns my remarks about Hagelsteins present view
of cold fusion to "hearsay."  Honest, I did not make it up.  I read it
in the summary that Hagelstein himself prepared for the Nagoya conference.
I suggest, Dieter, that you reread that document and/or wait to see
what PH has to say at the current CF love-in.  Even the title to his
talk, as posted here just recently, clearly indicates that Hagelstein
is pursuing neutron transfer as the CF pathway.  I think you will find
that involves reactions in which Pd isotopes gain neutrons.  You may
check this out yourself, but as I recall Hagelstein is explicite as
to why he has changed his approach to cold fusion theories.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Through simplicity to understanding
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Through simplicity to understanding
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 01:27:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cold fusion advocates keep arguing that the calorimetry on the PdD system
is so simple that the experimental results cannot possibly be wrong.  In
light of the discussion of Bockris and alchemy, I think it is time to
remind everyone that the basic reason physicists have been objecting to
cold fusion and other forms of chemically induced nuclear transmutations
is also extremely simple, i.e. coulomb repulsion between like charges.
No matter how you embroider it with fancy concepts, the ultimate challenge
for inducing cold transmutations is to find a way to offset the effects
of that repulsion between two nuclei.  It is a problem that has been
under investigation for a very long time, fully 50 years before cold
fusion in its present form reared its ugly head.

There is associated with this repulsion problem a scaling factor which
involves the product of the two nuclear charges.  It is natural then
to start by investigating those cases where that product is either
zero or one before moving on to cases with Z1Z2 = 80, for example.
Of course it is a subjective judgement as to whether the advocates
for investigating the Z1Z2 = 1 situation are more or less looney
than someone advocating an escalation to the 80 level of difficulty.
In a field where factors of billions tend to get lost, why should
JOMBockris be taken to task for a mere factor of 80 increase in
the looneyness coefficient?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Jeremy Whitlock /  cmsg cancel <1993Dec7.142321.5152@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>
     
Originally-From: whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Dec7.142321.5152@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 14:27:31 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

<1993Dec7.142321.5152@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwhitlock cudfnJeremy cudlnWhitlock cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec  8 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 16:43:35 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <9312061703.AA03415@suntan.Tandem.com> BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.
il (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:
>The following short passage highlights the consequences of Bose-Einstein
>statistics.  At the end, the authors make a general claim, "applicable to
>all bosonic transitions", that a transition to a common state is "induced
>by the presence of the N bosons there".  My question is, How is this
>"induced transition" accomplished?  

Quantum mechanics is a probability theory.  In general, when there are
two equally likely avenues for the same outcome, the outcome is twice
as likely as if there is only avenue.  For example, if we assume that
strollers in a busy shopping mall move randomly (this is a common
approximation), they are twice as likely to enter a store with two
doors as a store with one doors, assuming all three doors are the same
size.  For this reason, among others, stores in malls tend to have
large doors.   However, one does not conclude from this that a store
with large doors exerts a special force on shoppers that a store with
small doors does not.  Rather, whatever impulse a stroller has to go
into a store is multiplied by the number of ways that the stroller can
act on that impulse.

Similarly, we can say that a boson going from state A to state B has
passed through a door because of some force.  Whatever force that may
be, if there already is an identical boson in state B, it is as if two
doors have opened to allow the boson the transition, and therefore the
transition is twice as likely *even though the force itself is no
stronger*.  If there are N such bosons, there are N+1 doors.
Fermions work differently:  Given a fermion in state A and possible
transition to state B, there is a door to state B if state B is
empty, but if there is an identical fermion in state B, there is
no door.  If state B is occupied, it is a non-existent state
as far as the particle in state A is concerned.

All of this is offered by way of analogy.  The real answer is that
bosons and fermions have a mathematical description which makes it
clear why multiple occupation of a state is either more likely (for
bosons) or impossible (for fermions).  This mathematical description is
fundamental and mandates its own intuition and new terms in English
which have no pre-quantum substitute.  However, the above analogy does
offer a reasonable, if incomplete, intuition, and two lessons from it are
exactly right.  They are, "Think probabilistically" and "There are no
quantum forces, only quantum rules".

References:  Feynman, *QED*, for the amateur scientist, or Saxon,
*Quantum Mechanics*, for the serious student.  (To Mr. Kunich:  See,
here are some other books that I have read.  Unlike *Bad Science*, they
have nothing to do with cold fusion.)

>In the case of lasers, one might point to the EM field of the photons
>as the "inducer".

Which would be inaccurate.  See above.

>But what serves a comparable role in superfluid 4He, superconduction
>based on Cooper pairs,

Same story.

>or (hypothetical) BWO?

I like to call these UFBWO's (Unidentified Flying Bosonic Wave Objects).
Since they don't exist, any answer will do.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 21:29:04 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>All of this is offered by way of analogy.  The real answer is that
>bosons and fermions have a mathematical description which makes it
>clear why multiple occupation of a state is either more likely (for
>bosons) or impossible (for fermions).  This mathematical description is
>fundamental and mandates its own intuition and new terms in English
>which have no pre-quantum substitute.  However, the above analogy does
>offer a reasonable, if incomplete, intuition, and two lessons from it are
>exactly right.  They are, "Think probabilistically" and "There are no
>quantum forces, only quantum rules".

I like it better when you talk theory rather than the usual blasts against
CF'ers.

That said, however, I think you are engaging in mere definitionalism.
Whether we call something a "force" or a "rule" is unenlightening of itself.
One could say the "force" defines the "rule", and thus the terms are
essentially equivalent.

If I followed Bernecky's query, it was in regards to the mediator of the
"force" that confines bosons to behave by the above referenced "mathematical
description."  What exactly is the mediator, what else can we discover
about it?  After all, physics has always sought an answer to such questions
as "action at a distance?", etc.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / W Houseknecht /  Bio-Fusion Alert!
     
Originally-From: housekwb@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Wayne B. Houseknecht)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bio-Fusion Alert!
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 04:06:39 GMT
Organization: Drexel University, Phila. Pa.

Hear ye, hear ye!
A friend of mine, one Heather Kuhn, has requested that I post this...rant...
(for want of a better word) so that the world may be made aware of the
existence of one more crackpot. She does not (Heather, that is) have access
to the net on any regular basis, and has asked me to save any and all
feedback/flames that ensue. Please be assured, they will be. Your words
will live forever, or until I purge my account.

responses/flames to the address at the bottom of this post.

Heather Kuhn <76314.572@CompuServe.COM> writes:

Wayne, here as promised is that really warped letter that I want posted to
the Net under the header "Why we need science education." But first, some
context:
 
This guy, Henry Ayre, has been plagueing <sp?> the Compuserve Science Forum
with his claims that organisms are able to transmute one element to another.
In particular, he's been claiming that chickens are able to transmute
potassium to calcium. Mind you, his idea of what constitutes a test protocol is
utterly laughable. He's been telling us that he can prove his point by
feeding his birds a diet with adequate calcium for a time, switching to a
diet with inadequate calcium until the eggshells get thin then supplementing
the birds' diet with mica, at which point (supposedly) the birds eggs will
develop harder shells. Now, I don't know a thing about the composition of
mica, which is supposed to be his potassium source, but I do know a
half-baked procedure when I see it. Where's the control? How do you blind
something like this? Where are his baselines? Baselines, this is crucial.
He also yaps about what he calls his "osteoporosis special" diet in which
the birds are fed a diet that does not have adequate calcium but is
supplemented with mica and over time lay eggs with a higher calcium content
than the birds' bodies, yet the birds do not become boneless messes. He
never explains how he knows how much calcium the birds have stored.
 
As for sources, as you may have noticed when you read the letter, Henry isn't
very good at providing sources. He supposedly uploaded a bibliography
supporting his claim, but the sysop says that those of the papers he's read
contradict it.
 
Anyway, after several of us complained about how *bad* his test procedure
was, he offered $10.00 to whoever supplied him with the best protocol.
Before he made the offer, I'd been privately discussing how one *ought* to
test his claim with another forum member who suggested that I should be the
recipient of the ten bucks. I then posted my protocol publicly, and lo and
behold, Henry actually sent me the money along with the letter. The relevant
portion of the letter follows (all grammatical errors retained :-):
 
       Of course, biological transmutations are not limited to laying hens,
       the phenomena is universal. In humans, Addison's disease causes a
       mysterious disappearance of salt (NaCl) from the body and a
       continuing excretion of potassium in excess of what is ingested. The
       medical profession, well trained in flummery, has both ignored this
       phenomenon and papered it over with a pastiche of explanations. Oil
       field workers in Libya and elsewhere, working for long hours in
       torrid heat were tested, and it was found that they, too, excreted
       more potassium than they took in, with no explanation visible for the
       disappearance of the salt they have to have in order to continue to
       work under such conditions. Explanation: the transmutation of the Na
       to K in the human body is an endothermic process, thus the body
       remains within acceptable temperatures by  means of its own nuclear
       refrigeration system. The common wisdom that the salt is needed to
       replace salt excreted is a half-truth, the most important other half
       being ignored. If a man works in an enclosed or semi-enclosed area in
       close proximity to incandescent iron or steel he will in time suffer
       from carbon monoxide poisoning, may even die of this cause, even
       though no carbon monoxide be found in the atmosphere he breathes.
       Once again, B-T is involved: at the heat of incandescent metals,
       nitrogen molecules are thrown into a new energy state which is stable
       for as long as twenty-four hours in which the two nucleii are brought
       closer together (by two angstroms). This meta-stable nitrogen, when
       inhaled is transmuted into  carbon monoxide *within* the human body,
       which explains how the poisoning occurs in the absence of ambient
       CO. Kevran discovered this process and advised the EEC countries how to
       eliminate the problem... by insufflation rather than ventilation.
       Then there is the transmutation of the potassium in oat berries into
       Ca in the seedlings, which experiments have been done by a number of
       researchers in a number of labs, literally thousands of tests, always
       with varying, but very positive results; the transmutation of Si into
       Ca in the stone of buildings, also discovered by Kevran and for which
       he was given an award by an EEC commission; and etc. If you look
       seriously and carefully, you will find it. If you laugh at it,
       ridicule it, close your eyes to it (which by the way, is very easy to
       do) then "it doesn't exist". It all depends, I suppose, on whether
       you want to be a scientist or a member of a large priesthood which
       adheres to a dogma.
 
       At some time in the future we will, if we still exist as a species,
       look back on this present time with a grimace and a guffaw. My God!
       The Standard Model! It was like the Madonna phenomenon, garrish [sic]
       and obscene!  And quarks, anions, gluon, muons, leptons, baryons,
       ta-dah, ta-dah, ta-dah. We will see that by not having picked up on
       an error promptly, by hastening boldly and blindly and stupidly and
       pig-headly down the wrong path, we were able to extend a simple error
       of ommision into the most flamboyant scientific fraud of all time.
 
       Quantum puts the observer squarely in the experiment. The observer,
       however, is a living organism, a condition that can never be altered.
       When the life link between the observer and the observed is broken,
       then what is observed is not only meaningless but will ultimately be
       fatal to the observer. Such a simple truth is, apparently, well
       beyond the ken of most present practitioners. A pity.
 
I will refrain from making some of the obvious comments on his claims, but
would love to see what this stirs up on the Net. If anyone expresses
interest, I would be willing to archive and send you CompuServe reactions.
 
Tnx 10e6,
Heather
 
Heather Kuhn <76314.572@CompuServe.COM>

There she is folks. Flame on!

.=========================================================.
[  Wayne B. Houseknecht   |   Physics Department Netwonk  ]
[---------------------------------------------------------]
[ Orange Brick University |   wayne@einstein.drexel.edu   ]
[ "Trust the shaft, the   | housekwb@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu ]
[  shaft is your friend." |    uwhousek@mcs.drexel.edu    ]
'========================================================='
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhousekwb cudfnWayne cudlnHouseknecht cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Edward Lewis /  Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 06:53:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


        During the past 3/4 of a year I have posted about 8 articles
about ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on
sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes seem to be a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced in these "cold fusion" apparatus.



cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Edward Lewis /  Repost of my abstract for the Int. CF Conference #4
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Repost of my abstract for the Int. CF Conference #4
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 07:08:50 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 10:01:43 GMT
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 14:15:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) in FD 1757
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 14:15:25 GMT

[...]
>False!  Taubes discusses Bockris at length.  The bottom line is that
>Bockris has a predictable habit of claiming that he has solved the
>world's energy crisis.  Not only with cold fusion, but also with solar
>energy and hydrogen catalysis.  Since it was already established in the
>book that Bockris was doing transmutation (that part was not a rumor in
>any sense), it's rather peculiar that Dieter Britz, who claims to know
>better than I do what Bockris has been doing lately, hadn't heard about
>it.  Not to mention the fact that's its treated as fresh news in
>sci.physics.fusion.

I don't claim to know what Bockris has been doing lately; don't know where you
get this from. I claim to have read his list of publications (about 640), but
I have not read, except here, about his recent interest in alchemy. He has no
papers I know of on transmutation. I believe there is something on this in our
latest edition of Science, and I'll read it when I get the time.

I seem to have manouvred myself into a strange corner, with my defence of
Bockris as a scientist. The reason for this is that I object to facile
dismissal of someone, on very flimsy evidence. Someone reads a magazine piece
about Bockris and transmutation, doesn't know too much about Bockris (and I am
not sure how much Taubes knows either, still not having received that book,
damn it), but is ready to fall about laughing and gasping "ALCHEMY!". I want
the man to be judged fairly. I myself am of course very skeptical about cold
fusion, cold transmutation included. As I have said, we know Bockris is
idiosyncratic and does go off at a tangent at times. But don't distort what he
is now saying, and don't forget what else he stands for and make him out to be
a clown.

I suppose it's a matter of group loyalties. I myself am guilty of making fun
of, e.g., the erzion people, or Matsumoto and his old buggy and moldy films,
in which he finds black holes and "filaments". I don't know what else these
people are doing; maybe they are authorities on something, as is Bockris.

You are right, though, about Bockris and energy. He invented the idea of the
hydrogen economy, and worked in this field while in Australia. He may well be
right about it, too, and he spawned a worldwide effort in the area, still
going on. Nothing anomalous about any of it, all conventional research.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Hagelstein backing off
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Hagelstein backing off
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 10:07:56 GMT
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 15:59:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu in FD 1757
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 15:59:31 GMT

>Dieter Britz still assigns my remarks about Hagelsteins present view
>of cold fusion to "hearsay."  Honest, I did not make it up.  I read it
>in the summary that Hagelstein himself prepared for the Nagoya conference.
>I suggest, Dieter, that you reread that document and/or wait to see
>what PH has to say at the current CF love-in.  Even the title to his
>talk, as posted here just recently, clearly indicates that Hagelstein
>is pursuing neutron transfer as the CF pathway.  I think you will find
>that involves reactions in which Pd isotopes gain neutrons.  You may
>check this out yourself, but as I recall Hagelstein is explicite as
>to why he has changed his approach to cold fusion theories.

What document is this? Have I missed (or forgotten) something? But if it is
true that he no longer promotes a theory of coherent quiet change of MeV-level
energy into plain heat, then I'll stop including him in my little list of
notable people who advocate that. I certainly await with interest what he has
to say at Maui. No doubt Doug Morrison will tell us.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Concerning Standards.....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Concerning Standards.....
Date: 8 Dec 93 21:56:10 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <01H670MJ9JG28WW0QC@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
writes: 
> Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1747
> Date: 3 Dec 93 20:44:00 +1100 
>>Hi Folks,
>>  I happened to glance at my article "Reply to Steve Jones...." of the
>>30-Nov-93 and found that I had erroneously deleted a line.
>>  Where I had...
>>"Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
>>wrote on the 11-Nov-93......."
>> Please instead read .....
>>"Dieter, though he changed his opinion after *this* article of yours,
>>"Draft of paper" posted on (approximately) the 11th November 93,
>>wrote on the 11-Nov-93........."
>> Although nobody seems to have seen this error, I apologise for any
>>confusion it may have caused.
> 
> Another anomaly discovered: cold fusion clearly involves tachyons as well.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter,
If "Draft of paper" was not the correct paper to quote for the changing of
your opinion then I am sorry, but that is the only reference I could find
which seemed to carry the relevent information. Also, it is possible for an
article posted on a certain day to recieve a response on the same day.
 When I asked you for *any* reference information on the article in question
I recieved the following reply in "Re: A Canticle for Leibowitz" on the
26-Nov-93 .......
>Sorry Daryl, maybe I should have quoted the stuff-I felt everybody was
>reading all the News. I'd now have to go and delve into the archives to find
>it again and you can do this as well as I can. It lies somewhere previous
>to the file fusion.9302200 at the vm1.nodak.edu site in the fusion directory.
 A precis of the article followed the above.
 Would you adopt the same attitude if you were writing a paper for a
professional magazine?  Hopefully not. Should this newsgroup expect lower
standards from you than such a publication?  Apparently so.
 A libel case involving news groups was dismissed by a court on the grounds
that they were only "electronic graffiti". As long as this medium accepts
lower than professional standards, then it shall remain.... graffiti.
 This is not to say that there is no place for humour on the net, but where
a scientific statement or opinion is volunteered by *anybody*, it is incumbent
upon them to provide easily accessible references.

						   Regards to all,
						   Daryl Owen.

      The preceeding text is only attributable to myself.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Paul Koloc /  From: Poison To: Fusion and environmental experimentation 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: From: Poison To: Fusion and environmental experimentation 
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 08:36:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Dec6.181353.28821@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <CHJuoA.Hz0@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>Then you accept that we may be able to manage these problems with
>>the help of fusion energy?  
>
>I am not sure how this relates to any proof on the effects of CO2
>concentrations or what biomass is optimal.

That's the point, I don't believe there is an acceptable universal
truth since the database and our science base is so wanting.  In
a few decades this may change to the point where we will begin to see
a direction, but what is really needed is much, much more extended
grand experimental work.  Computational models of complex systems
such as we are discussing here is ludicrous, if it is to be take as
a gospel from which we will rule the domains of the environment.  

So.  Fusion is so energetic, clean and powerful and cheap that no 
matter what happens if we leave the CO2 question alone for a while 
and just experiment to test our hypothesis and computational analysis, 
we certainly will not suffer for it.  Fusion can correct things, 
EITHER WAY, and in plenty of time. 

>A variety of studies have been performed.  Many permit saturation of
>nutrients so they do not test the effect of increased CO2 if there are
>shortages of other nutrients.

As I say, the expermentation should be increased, and as you say
it should be reality based.  

>-- 
> -- Dean Myerson     	(dean@vexcel.com)

Of course we must stop the manufacture of paper and the use of paper.
Paper sucks trees.... to death and that sucks us, Brazil, Central
America, Southeast Asia  into  becoming  a terrestrial basket case.  
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Excess Heat and Gorsky ....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat and Gorsky ....
Date: 8 Dec 93 23:17:30 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi Folks,
 In the article "Re: LEIBOWITZ LIVES...." on the 7-Nov-93, Dieter Britz 
writes.....
> 
> This Gorsky argument falls down even harder and flatter than the cigarette
> lighter effect. In that small volume of Pd there can simply not be the
> required amount of chemical or mechanical energy to keep it pouring out all
> those MJ during the 3 hours we are told about. So Gorsky, Schmorsky.
> 
> Keep trying, Darryl.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
 Despite Dieter's arguments against it, I still say that the Gorsky effect
may explain excess heat. After all, the "First- Stage Experiment" of
Yamaguchi et al (AIP Proc.No.228) produced temperatures claimed to be
greater than 800 degrees.  Also it works for H as well as D and does not
require "new science" in the form of "lower" hydrogen states or other weird
theories. It's also reproducible.  Right now, I reckon it's by far the best
game in town. 

						Kind Regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.

  The preceding text is only attributable to myself.
  
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / BERNECKY R /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 01:11:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) for his explanation on
boson "induced transitions".  I understand this explanation to mean that:

(1) all bosons exhibit the same behaviour (increased likelihood of
    multiple occupation of a state), and the underlying reason for this
    effect is constructive interference of symmetric probability amplitudes.

(2) This effect is not caused by a force, in the traditional sense of
    "sharing" or "exchanging" particles e.g. EM and photons, strong and
    pi-mesons, etc.

(3) this explanation is generally accepted.

Now, more questions(!):

1)  The probability of obtaining (N+1) bosons in the same state, given
    that N of them are already there is

	  P(N+1<-N) = (N+1) P

    where P is the "spontaneous" transition probability.

    How do people deal with the case where the product (N+1)P > 1 ?

2)  Though BE statistics are not a force, may we view its consequences
    as "acting as if it were a force"?  To fix this idea, let's say
    there are two states, "a" and "b", to which a boson may transition.
    Now consider a boson to which we apply a force which increases the
    probability of it transitioning to state "b".  In the absence of
    N bosons in state "a", this boson would readily (with high
    probability) enter "b".  But with N bosons in "a", the force has a
    diminished effect.  With large enough N, the force would have
    very little effect on the (high) transition probability to "a".

3)  Consider N bosons occupying a single state. We "hit" one of the
    bosons in the ensemble, "encouraging" it to transition from the common
    state.  However, due to the BE statistics, the boson transitions
    to the common state i.e. remains in the common state.  How do we
    e.g. preserve momentum ?  Does the entire ensemble collectively
    change its momentum?


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 15:01:20 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <01H68G8JWVXU8WW4AT@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>I don't claim to know what Bockris has been doing lately; don't know
>where you get this from. 

A few weeks ago I said, rhetorically, "What has made Bockris famous
lately?" And you replied "What has Bockris done lately?  What would you
know about it?" Besides misparaphrasing what I said, you seemed to be
saying that I don't know the first thing about what Bockris has been
doing lately, but you do.

>You are right, though, about Bockris and energy. He invented the idea of the
>hydrogen economy, and worked in this field while in Australia. 

Did Bockris invent this idea solely or jointly?  Are you saying that
no one else had considered it up to that time?

>He may well be right about it, too...

Bockris has claimed four solutions to the world's energy crisis:  The
tungsten-bronze catalyst, the secret catalyst, the ultra-efficient
solar cell, and cold fusion.  Are you saying that maybe all four
solutions are right, or are you saying that maybe one of them
is right?

>Nothing anomalous about any of it, all conventional research.

His claim about the solar cell was that its efficiency exceeds 100%,
which violates the second law of thermodynamics.  Are such claims
conventional?
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat Pipe Questions
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Questions
Date: 6 Dec 93 09:59:47
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Dec1.235234.29676@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:

  > Eachus suggested keeping the liquid in a warm place for a week or so
  > before use.  After you dry bake your metal, you could cool it and load
  > the week old liquid and again subject the whole thing to heat and 
  > vacuum.

  I may have suggest that with respect to water. It is very good
advice there.  Distilled spirits on the other hand, between the
distillation and sitting on the shelf are usually better out of a
fresh bottle than after exposure to air.  I used to go to the
Pennsylvania Liquor Stores and look for dusty bottles in the smaller
stores.  (Actually started to like Gordon's.  I DON'T recommend
drinking the stuff boiled out of the apparatus, I'd expect significant
heavy metal contamination.  However, we always had some left over--and
we planned to use fresh bottles next time too. Any excuse for a
party.)

  > I'd think that alcohol/water would be a good solvent for finger
  > print oils.  So I don't know that you need a clean room
  > environment to build this -- the gains from ultracleanliness might
  > be pretty marginal.

     Another reason why gin (or vodka, but don't use denatured lab
alcohol) is an excellent place to start.  Between the alcohol and
water you can get most contamination to migrate quickly to the wick
and out of your hair.  (The only thing we ever had problems with was
graphite.  Someone marked one batch with a pencil instead of a Magic
Marker, and it took us a week to figure out how to get rid of
it--hot Chromic acid.)

     Oh, by the way, I was in a hardware store over the weekend.  They
were selling 95% tin, 5% antimony solder for plumbing.  Anyone ever
used it?  Keeping the lead out of Tom's apparatus might be a long term
win. (Even if it doesn't make the gin drinkable.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: The wick problem (was Re: Heat Pipe Questions)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The wick problem (was Re: Heat Pipe Questions)
Date: 6 Dec 93 17:00:54
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1993Dec2.005604.811@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:

 > I think Robert Eachus was saying that under theoretical conditions, the wick
 > was unneeded, and thus, merely a gas flow inhibitor.  However, then he
 > went on to give three real world reasons why wicks were useful.

-- That's what I said.

 > As I understand Mr. Eachus, there are two wickless return paths -- a flowing
 > surface film, and "airborne" vapor.  As I understand it, the return vapor
 > is slower moving, but far more numerous (dense) than the high speed vapor
 > molecules carrying heat the other way.

-- No, when the hat pipe is going full blast, there is almost no
-- return vapor, it's all surface transport.  (I never measured under
-- low load.)  The two fluid return paths are through the wick and via
-- surface films.  We never managed a stable environment where the het
-- pipe performance was limited by anything other than boiling off at
-- the hot end.  Surprised us too.  (However, if any of you get
-- anywhere near what we considered limiting conditions using cold
-- fusion, start planning for Stockholm.  Remember I was working on
-- nozzles for plasma torches.)

  > So other than the carrying of liquid over cracks, and acting as a reservoir
  > for losses and variable temperature ranges, I guess the main effect of the
  > wick is to limit the thickness of the aDsorbed liquid film on the metal
  > surfaces.

-- Yes, Yes.  A "wet" surface will inhibit fluid flow.  The wick,
-- assuming the right sort of material, will keep the surface nicely
-- damp by removing the excess.

  > With a lot of vapor and film motion transport, probability says
  > that the bulk of loose liquid will go where it is attracted the
  > most.  And so beyond a few molecular layers on the metal, the wick
  > has the vast most potential to attract loose liquid.

-- Yep. In general the wick material can hold a lot more volume, and
-- the metal surface will be hungrier for the first few layers.  We
-- NEVER measured bare metal during operation--the exterior would
-- start melting before the last inside later disappeared.  Of course,
-- being industry, we didn't melt things for the fun of it.  Analyzing
-- such data was usually a post-mortem.

-- By the way, a note for Tom Droghe which may help.  Writing that
-- jogged my memory on curve radii.  We had two problems at interior
-- curves.  One was the barrier to transport from the bend itself.
-- The other was that the inward bends corresponded to a larger
-- exterior area to supply heat.  So in all cases it was a mixture of
-- effects.

-- There was the one bend on the inside of the outer electrode where
-- the main problem was interference with fluid transport to the tip,
-- but remember there was still a lot of heat from the tip available
-- there through the copper.  So it may have been that the "push the
-- film off the edge" effect was aided by the available energy, but
-- thinking about it now, I suspect part of our problem was
-- aerodynamic.  If you look at the above, you can see that we really
-- did have a suface of Mars type wind blowing by, and had to avoid
-- shock waves. You are operating in a much nicer environment.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Momentum conservation and other minor details
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Momentum conservation and other minor details
Date: 6 Dec 93 17:32:19
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <93120113250260@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

   ...  If we adopt the picture that an excited 4He nucleus is formed
   and then decays without ever emitting anything there is, of course,
   no momentum to conserve.  That leaves only one slight problem,
   however, in that there is also no possible means of coupling the
   excited 4He nucleus to the lattice.  If the two don't interact
   there is no energy transfer.  If there is anyone who wants to
   advocate this approach I suggest they start by listing all the
   possible interactions they would want to consider for coupling
   nuclear excitation energy to the lattice.

 -- Not much of a challenge.

   Remember that the emission of neutrons, charge particles, photons,
   etc. have all been ruled out.

-- ...but now you are making it difficult.  Photons are not ruled out.
-- High-energy photons from quantum nuclear state jumps are out, but
-- "scattering" interactions with both virtual and real photons is
-- not.  (If I have to take the sentence above seriously, then note
-- that scattering of neutrinos and neutral pions answers your
-- challenge.

-- But it is one thing to say that "intermediate" energy He4 nuclei
-- must decay by forbidden transitions, and a much different thing to
-- show that such nuclei are being created. IF you can form an He4
-- nucleus with, say, 20 MeV of energy, it will emit photons including
-- some low energy gammas.  (Both Steve Jones and I suggested Tom
-- Droege look for low energy gammas back when, but I think I'm now
-- convinced that whatever is going on, it is not forming at rest He4
-- nuclei.)

-- If Steve Jones or one of his student gets the diamond anvil
-- experiment going, then he may detect a few such transitions...
-- However I suspect that the problem with the earlier try was
-- deuterium migrating into the diamond and embrittling it.  I thinnk
-- the only way to make it work is going to be to load the anvil near
-- the detector.  (Of course it might be fun to see if the D2 was
-- being forced into the diamond.  Hmmm, I wonder how that would work
-- as a laser?)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.06 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Design Note #5
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Design Note #5
Date: 6 Dec 93 18:19:51
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <931201162226.236062a1@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

  > Chuck Harrison some time back expressed a concern that a heat pipe
  > might be a sort of funny heat storage device and thus might mask
  > what is going on in the calorimeter.

   It is, but I don't expect it to lead you to a different conclusion
from the one below.  If the heat pipe is not transferring heat, then
equilibrium conditions hold.  If you are transferring heat, the
equilibrium is displaced.  Even if all walls are within a degree of
each other, when you are transferring significant heat it takes more
than the latent heat of vaporization to pull the inner layers off the
wall.  If the heat pipe exterior then returns to equilibrium--no heat
transfer--then you get an extra few joules in the heat release.  All
in all the effect is that there is a built in delay in the transfer
function.  (Another effect is that you need to build up the vapor
content to transfer heat.  Both are true, but in theory you could
measure the pressure to get a handle on this effect, but not on the
first one.)

    In any case, in Tom's apparatus, the intent is to keep the heat
flow constant, and in our measurements, the smearing of the signal
caused by these effects was swamped by the thermal lag through the
copper skin.  With a thin enough skin, and, say, freon at atomspheric
pressure you might measure it.

 >  Using the data for Freon 11:

					   At 70 F                   At 80 F
 > Pressure psia                             13.4                     16.3
 > Specific volume (vapor) cu ft/lb           2.99                     2.49
 > Enthalpy (liquid) Btu/lb                  22.02                    24.09
 > Enthalpy (vapor) Btu/lb                  100.73                   101.93

   Tom, does this indicate an intention to eventually switch to freon?
As I told you way back when, something like that may be necessary if
you want to operate at lower temperatures.  (I remember when we
figured out that one particular failure was due to running the chiller
in the water supply between experiments.  Colder was not better, and
we got ice halfway up the outer electrode.  I think that the expanding
vapor before the nozzle warmed up formed ice. That prevented the
return flow, and we could then turn an electrode into abstract art in
about 3 seconds...)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec  9 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Excess Heat and Gorsky ....
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Excess Heat and Gorsky ....
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 08:48:27 GMT
Date: 8 Dec 93 23:17:30 +1100
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1759
Date: 8 Dec 93 23:17:30 +1100


>Hi Folks,
> In the article "Re: LEIBOWITZ LIVES...." on the 7-Nov-93, Dieter Britz
>writes.....
>>
>> This Gorsky argument falls down even harder and flatter than the cigarette
>> lighter effect. In that small volume of Pd there can simply not be the
>> required amount of chemical or mechanical energy to keep it pouring out all
>> those MJ during the 3 hours we are told about. So Gorsky, Schmorsky.
>>
>> Keep trying, Darryl.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Despite Dieter's arguments against it, I still say that the Gorsky effect
>may explain excess heat. After all, the "First- Stage Experiment" of
>Yamaguchi et al (AIP Proc.No.228) produced temperatures claimed to be
>greater than 800 degrees.  Also it works for H as well as D and does not
>require "new science" in the form of "lower" hydrogen states or other weird
>theories. It's also reproducible.  Right now, I reckon it's by far the best
>game in town.

I suppose this depends what you are trying to explain with the effect, e.g.
which experimental evidence. Just Yamaguchi's, or the latest famout F&P stuff
as well?

I have not had time to get hold or read those Gorsky papers you kindly
referred to, but the way you explain it, this is a sort of breathing effect:
hydrogen gets absorbed by the Pd, the Pd is mechanically stressed and hydrogen
migrates out again. By itself, this would yield only the heat of PdD
formation, a paltry 32 kJ/mol (or around 1/10 the heat of formation of water
from its elements, the potential source of recombination artifacts). Perhaps
you now bring in burning of the hydrogen, as it leaves the Pd. Where does the
oxygen come from, if so? In any case, if you are talking about the F&P result,
you have to explain it all for a tiny volume of Pd, and therefore some
continuous process taking place. Please elaborate your mechanism.

[Aside: this paltry 32 kJ/mol is not so paltry, under the right conditions. My
Rubber Bible doesn't have the specific heat of Pd, but if it's about like that
of Pt, it's of the order of 0.1 J/g/degC, which makes it 10 J/mol/degC. So if
you have ready-mixed Pd and D, and suddenly let them form PdD, the lump would
heat up to some thousands of degC, by the heat of formation. This is an
unlikely thing to happen, though. The more likely thing is that some of the
PdD would break up into its constituents, so the lump would get cold. Unless,
of course, as has been argued in this group before {no reference, sorry,
except Pauling, look it up in the bibliography}, the thermodynamics of PdD
changes at higher loadings and in fact reverses.]

Is your thrust a conventional explanation of an apparent anomaly, or are you
in fact suggesting that this Gorsky thing, due to "nonequilibrium effects",
enhances fusion rates?
As Eeyore says, "really wanting to know".


Without a quote (sorry mate), a comment on your complaint about the lack of a
quote in an earlier posting of mine: no, I would not be so lax in a scientific
paper, I know the rules. This forum here is not a scientific paper, but ranges
from banter to serious publication. Sometimes I post from home, without my
records, and don't feel like bumping up my telephone bill by ftp'ing to the
archives for a comb. I reckon this is OK. But I'll try to quote you (and
others) as appropriate, in future (now we'll argue about what is
appropriate...).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 04:53:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <9312081829.AA00493@suntan.Tandem.com> BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.
il (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:
>(1) all bosons exhibit the same behaviour (increased likelihood of
>    multiple occupation of a state), and the underlying reason for this
>    effect is constructive interference of symmetric probability amplitudes.

Bingo.

>(2) This effect is not caused by a force, in the traditional sense of
>    "sharing" or "exchanging" particles e.g. EM and photons, strong and
>    pi-mesons, etc.

Right again.

>(3) this explanation is generally accepted.

An understatement.  Like the rest of basic QM, it is as well established
as the germ theory of disease.

>1)  The probability of obtaining (N+1) bosons in the same state, given
>    that N of them are already there is
>
>	  P(N+1<-N) = (N+1) P
>
>    where P is the "spontaneous" transition probability.
>    How do people deal with the case where the product (N+1)P > 1 ?

Transitions have a probability rate, not a probability.  For example,
your contracting yellow fever is an event that has a probability rate;
and is a good case to work with since you can only get yellow fever
once in your life.  Your odds of getting yellow fever might be 2 per
year if you live in certain unhealthy jungles.  However, this would not
mean that you could possibly contract the disease twice.  Rather, it
would mean that your mean life without yellow fever is six months.  By
the familiar formula for mean life, your actual probability of getting
yellow fever in one year would be 1-e^2.

Similarly, your P is a transition rate, given in units of per second
(Hertz, I suppose).  As such, it is incomparable to the dimensionless
number 1.   The probability of a transition in stretch of time T is
1-exp(P*T), in particular always between 0 and 1.  In the latter case
it would be 1-exp((N+1)*P*T), still always between 0 and 1.

>2)  Though BE statistics are not a force, may we view its consequences
>    as "acting as if it were a force"?

There are rare situations in which Bose-Einstein statistics (as well as
Fermi-Dirac statistics) can be viewed as an effective force, but this
is risky pool.  I don't recommend this terminology except as a glib
simplification.  It's like discussing the force that makes red and
black more likely than green in roulette.

>3)  Consider N bosons occupying a single state. We "hit" one of the
>    bosons in the ensemble, "encouraging" it to transition from the common
>    state.  However, due to the BE statistics, the boson transitions
>    to the common state i.e. remains in the common state.  How do we
>    e.g. preserve momentum ?  Does the entire ensemble collectively
>    change its momentum?

An individual transition is always an exchange of momentum (and energy
and what have you), and if the transition does not occur, no momentum
is transferred.  Given N hydrogen atoms in the same state, if you send
a photon towards them, if it hits one, that atom finds itself in a
different state and that sets off some chain of events.  If it doesn't
hit one, the photon is still there; it missed.  Either way momentum is
conserved.

Now I was about to say what happens to the probability of this momentum
exchange as N increases, but I found myself on the verge of making a
sloppy error.  (I am to some extent treating quantum probabilities like
classical probabilities in my discussion, which is bad form.)  Let me
get back to you about that.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 04:26:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2e3ogj$gc4@agate.berkeley.edu>
sternber@haas.berkeley.edu (Theodore Sternberg) writes:

> Why is it that the front (caliper) brakes deliver much more "stopping
> power" than do the rear brakes?

  Theodore has brought up a topic I am passionate over. I have
transcontinental bicycled twice now. After reading this post leader and
follow-ups I propose a new invention. A patentable invention which if
not already patented then I will seek claims to the foregoing. Let this
posting be the initial patented discovery if not already patented.
  Name of device: MAGNETIC LIGHT GENERATOR. Newness of the device:
Instead of a mechanical light generator, this is a magnetic light
generator. Instead of operating from the friction off the wheel/s, the
spokes have little magnets strategically placed around the wheel on the
spokes, or the rim of the wheel is magnetic. Hence the magnetic
generator produces an electric current not from mechanical energy
turned into electrical energy but from Maxwell's equation that a
changing magnetic field produces an electric current. I post this
patentable invention by me now as I intend to follow-up in detail with
the details of this art to the USA patent office. This art is not to be
limited to just bicycle light generators specifically, but is to apply
to devices in general of a similar nature. As of this posting, I do not
know whether my art was already anticipated and I do not have the time
to patent search at this moment. And I am heavy into superconductivity
research to be sidetracked by the above commercial exploit. 
  Someone in sci.physics who is knowledgeable of what I speak of. I
ask, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a magnetic generator
light instead of a friction mechanical generator light. Will the
bicyclist with a magnetic generator light go faster and not feel the
drag, than the bicyclist with his friction generator light in
operation? By how much? (A totally unrelated question--does iron with a
current running through or near a magnetic field (such as a battery)
like a car, rust faster then if there were not current or magnetic
field present at all?)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 15:20:26 GMT
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 15:01:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) in FD 1760
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 15:01:20 GMT

>In article <01H68G8JWVXU8WW4AT@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>>I don't claim to know what Bockris has been doing lately; don't know
>>where you get this from.
>
>A few weeks ago I said, rhetorically, "What has made Bockris famous
>lately?" And you replied "What has Bockris done lately?  What would you
>know about it?" Besides misparaphrasing what I said, you seemed to be
>saying that I don't know the first thing about what Bockris has been
>doing lately, but you do.

What I was getting at is that all this time, while being prominent (at least
in this group) in the area of cold fusion, Bockris has continued his
conventional electrochemical research, as seen from his publication list.
This, by the way, holds true for Fleischmann as well - or did until recently;
I can't imagine him doing much besides CNF any more now, set up in that
special lab. I assumed - perhaps mistakenly - that you noticed only what you
have read about Bockris, to do with cold fusion.

>>You are right, though, about Bockris and energy. He invented the idea of the
>>hydrogen economy, and worked in this field while in Australia.
>
>Did Bockris invent this idea solely or jointly?  Are you saying that
>no one else had considered it up to that time?

I doubt that he was the first to think of such an abvious idea, but as far as
I know, he did start the big movement, and although I cannot vouch for it, he
may have coined the term "hydrogen economy".

>>He may well be right about it, too...
>
>Bockris has claimed four solutions to the world's energy crisis:  The
>tungsten-bronze catalyst, the secret catalyst, the ultra-efficient
>solar cell, and cold fusion.  Are you saying that maybe all four
>solutions are right, or are you saying that maybe one of them
>is right?
>
>>Nothing anomalous about any of it, all conventional research.
>
>His claim about the solar cell was that its efficiency exceeds 100%,
>which violates the second law of thermodynamics.  Are such claims
>conventional?

Again, it seems that he may have bubbled over. I have never been all that
interested in the hydrogen economy, having other interests. When I say he may
be right, I don't mean his particular solutions to the overall problem, but
the overall idea that hydrogen is a good carrier of energy, and that the
production of hydrogen from water, transport of the stuff somewhere else and
its burning to produce heat, may indeed be the way for the future. The idea
has spawned a great effort worldwide, of conventional research, into, e.g.
water electrolysis (making it efficient) or splitting water by other means
(waste heat, e.g., which I believe is in strong competition to electrolysis),
transport of hydrogen (there are many ways), and its final recombination with
oxygen to yield heat. I flatly refuse to believe that Bockris would claim
something that would violate thermodynamics.

I read scientific papers, and journals such as Nature and Science, which we
here get (Science anyway) a little later than you. It seems you have other
sources of information that tell you a lot more than I read. Still, I ask that
not the man, but what he claims is examined, and I ask for the claims not to
be distorted.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Momentum conservation and other details
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Momentum conservation and other details
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 15:25:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am puzzled by Robert Eachus's assertion that excited 4He nuclear can
emit low energy photons.  I have seen no evidence or even a hint as to
how this can be so.  If we accept the notion that 4He is formed by the
fusion of two deuterons (essentially at thermal energies) the total
excitation energy of the 4He (or at least the maximum value) is a given.
The unperturbed wave function of 4He is a given.  The basic behavior
of electromagnetic transistions is a given.  Where do you find an
excuse to change things to make them come out differently?  Finally
I would like to ask how far do you expect to go down this path?
If instead of a single photon for the transition to the ground state,
how many would you like?  Is it ten 2 MeV gammas or one hundred
200 keV gammas or 1000 at 20keV?  Do you think this makes it easier to
easier to explain the experimental data relating to nonobserved
radiation?  Why can't CF believers ever fill in any details to give
a complete picture, something like a testable hypothesis?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.07 / daniel herrick /  Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
     
Originally-From: dlhpfm.uucp!dlh@ab.com (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: acceleartion of radioactive decay
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 93 22:29:08 EST
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

mch@doc.ic.ac.uk (Mike C Holderness) writes:

> In article <1993Nov28.002820.28235@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (G
> >
> >So if observation impedes the decay process, how does one speed it up?
> >..perhaps by totaly ignoring it or maybe simply closing your eyes? ;-)
> >(Sounds like the "quantum osterich effect")
> >
> My grandmother knew all about this. "A watched pot never boils," she used
> to say as she calibrated the calorimeter on her poor but cheerful
> Cockney kitchen table...
> 
> The application of this folk wisdom to 300-second voltage-measurement
> intervals scarcely bears thinking about....
> 
> =mike=   :-,>
> .
> 

I know I am off topic, but I had to say, "Thanks for this drollery."

dan

dan  of dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419  Mentor Ohio 44061
         NCoast.org!dlhpfm!dlh or ab.com!dlhpfm.uucp!dlh 

cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudendlh cudfndaniel cudlnherrick cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1993Dec9.045339.14140@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Dec9.045339.14140@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:11:24 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1993Dec9.045339.14140@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1993Dec9.045339.14140@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1993Dec9.045339.14140@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:08:28 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1993Dec9.045339.14140@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Bill Jockey /  LLaR threat (was Re: 21 st Centurry ...)
     
Originally-From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: LLaR threat (was Re: 21 st Centurry ...)
Date: 9 Dec 93 10:32:03 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1993Dec3.171303.13504@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <931202115021.2ca0094c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>Fans of 21 st Century Science and Technology, that great supporter of "cold
>>fusion" will be pleased to hear that Lyndon LaRouche will be going on parole
>>early in January.  Now we can hope to get the support we need.
> 
> Especially if LaRouche goes back to credit card fraud.  Then 21st Cen.
> Science and Technology will really be rolling in it.  And we will no
> doubt hear more about the racist roots of jazz, the trilateral
> commission, the drug empire controlled by Queen Elizabeth, Kissinger's
> efforts to subvert current foreign policy, and so forth.

Gulp.  What if he discovers the Net?

"Excuse ME, Professor Brainiac, but      | Bill Higgins
I WORKED in a nuclear power plant        | Fermilab
for ten years-- and, uh, I think I know  | Internet: higgins@fnal.fnal.gov
how a PROTON ACCELERATOR works!"         | Bitnet:   higgins@fnal
 --Homer Simpson, before the accident
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhiggins cudfnBill cudlnJockey cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:32:13 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Dec7.212904.17540@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>I like it better when you talk theory rather than the usual blasts against
>CF'ers.

You are entitled to your preferences...

>That said, however, I think you are engaging in mere definitionalism.
>Whether we call something a "force" or a "rule" is unenlightening of itself.
>One could say the "force" defines the "rule", and thus the terms are
>essentially equivalent.

...and to your opinion...

>If I followed Bernecky's query, it was in regards to the mediator of the
>"force" that confines bosons to behave by the above referenced "mathematical
>description."  What exactly is the mediator, what else can we discover
>about it?  After all, physics has always sought an answer to such questions
>as "action at a distance?", etc.

...and to not knowing what you're talking about.  Tell me, what makes
red and black more likely than green in roulette?  What is the force
that confines the ball to the red and the black slots?  What quantum
field or particle mediates that force?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 23:28:01 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>...and to not knowing what you're talking about.

Your propensity to flamage is widely known in these circles.  How about
a little less of the bully boy image?

>Tell me, what makes
>red and black more likely than green in roulette?  What is the force
>that confines the ball to the red and the black slots?  What quantum
>field or particle mediates that force?

Gravity (gravitons) and the electric (photon) force are responsible
for the operation of the above.  The electric chemistry defines the
colors we see, and also holds the roulette wheel, et al, in the desired
shapes, upon which the vector of the gravitational force, along with
potential and kinetic energies and momentum of the constituent particles
define the total dynamic behavior.

As you see, "probabilities" are statements about the forces and particles
around us -- they are not mere abstract mathematical constructs.  They
describe the fabric of reality -- the forces (or rules if you will.)

Now we are once again back to Bernecky's original question -- what mediates
the transition of particles into a bose condensate?  To say it is mere
probability is to fly in the face of intuitive thinking -- namely that
random variation is likely to disrupt a bose condensate, rather than to
form one.

If we have such a reversal of intuition -- then there is likely a cause,
a force, that mediates this property of nature.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Roger Lighty /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: ral@cco.caltech.edu (Roger A. Lighty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: 9 Dec 1993 19:06:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

The idea of making the wheels of a vehicle into actual
electric motor is not new (look at the Tom Swift novels
of the 30's and 40's or Tom Swift Jr. of the 60's).  The
difficulty of using the wheel as the rotor involves the
mass the goes into the wheel.  This appears as unsprung
weight and thus a rougher ride.  But far more of a pealty
is the increase in the moment of inertia.  Simply put,
putting mass on the wheel makes it harder to speed up or 
slow down.  The farther out the mass, the worse the effect.
So if one was to build a motor (or generator as you
propose), it is better to place the mass (magnets or
turns of wire) toward the hub.  This means the impact
on the bicycle performance is less (acceleration,
deceleration, and turning).

If you do try this with a real bike, be prepared to
run into an obstacle that you couldn't turn fast enough
to avoid.

Roger Lighty		ral@alumni.cco.caltech.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenral cudfnRoger cudlnLighty cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 23:28:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

I posted a version of this reply which went off on a tangent of
incorrect physics.  Let me try again.

In article <9312081829.AA00493@suntan.Tandem.com> BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.
il (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:
>(1) all bosons exhibit the same behaviour (increased likelihood of
>    multiple occupation of a state), and the underlying reason for this
>    effect is constructive interference of symmetric probability amplitudes.

Roughly speaking, yes.  There is a probability amplitude function
for the whole collection of bosons, and it is symmetric, and this
has various consequences.

>(2) This effect is not caused by a force, in the traditional sense of
>    "sharing" or "exchanging" particles e.g. EM and photons, strong and
>    pi-mesons, etc.

Absolutely correct.

>(3) this explanation is generally accepted.

An understatement.  Like the rest of basic QM, it is as reliable
as the germ theory of disease.

>1)  The probability of obtaining (N+1) bosons in the same state, given
>    that N of them are already there is
>
>	  P(N+1<-N) = (N+1) P
>
>    where P is the "spontaneous" transition probability.
>    How do people deal with the case where the product (N+1)P > 1 ?

In every situation in which this equation is relevant, P(N+1) < 1
necessarily.  In many contexts one deals with a probability rate (such
as a 1% chance per second) rather than a probability, and in that case
P and (N+1)P are in units of Hertz and are incomparable with a
dimensionless number such as 1.

>2)  Though BE statistics are not a force, may we view its consequences
>    as "acting as if it were a force"?

There are rare situations in which Bose-Einstein statistics (as well as
Fermi-Dirac statistics) can be viewed as an effective force, but this
is risky pool.  I don't recommend this terminology except as a glib
simplification.  It's like discussing the force that makes red and
black more likely than green in roulette.

>3)  Consider N bosons occupying a single state. We "hit" one of the
>    bosons in the ensemble, "encouraging" it to transition from the common
>    state.  However, due to the BE statistics, the boson transitions
>    to the common state i.e. remains in the common state.  How do we
>    e.g. preserve momentum ?  Does the entire ensemble collectively
>    change its momentum?

An individual transition is always an exchange of momentum (and energy
and what have you), and if the transition does not occur, no momentum
is transferred.  Given N hydrogen atoms in the same state, if you send
a photon towards them, if it hits one, that atom finds itself in a
different state and that sets off some chain of events.  If it doesn't
hit one, the photon is still there; it missed.  Either way momentum is
conserved.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 9 Dec 1993 21:53:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

BERNECKY WILLIAM R (BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil) wrote:
: 2)  Though BE statistics are not a force, may we view its consequences
:     as "acting as if it were a force"?  To fix this idea, let's say
:     there are two states, "a" and "b", to which a boson may transition.

:     Now consider a boson to which we apply a force which increases the
:     probability of it transitioning to state "b".  In the absence of
:     N bosons in state "a", this boson would readily (with high
:     probability) enter "b".  But with N bosons in "a", the force has a
:     diminished effect.  With large enough N, the force would have
:     very little effect on the (high) transition probability to "a".

This is a common concept, though more frequently used for fermionic
statistics, where one considers an "exchange force"/"exchange energy"
between nearby metallic atoms.  This forms the basis for ferromagnetism.

One good thing is that one can now _quantify_ the magnitude of this
force/energy, and compare it to other forces in the problem to see if it's
relevant.  Again I submit that in the present problem (somehow condensing
deuterium nuclei into identical states) this 'bosonic condensation energy'
you get out is much less than the energy you have to put in to overcome
mutual electrostatic repulsion.  Though I can be convinced otherwise by
actual calculation/experiment.  

Come on, do some physics.

--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 10 04:37:05 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.10 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 00:58:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Dec9.232801.18196@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>>Tell me, what makes
>>red and black more likely than green in roulette?  What is the force
>>that confines the ball to the red and the black slots?  What quantum
>>field or particle mediates that force?
>Gravity (gravitons) and the electric (photon) force are responsible
>for the operation of the above...

Yeah, I know all that.  But what makes red *more likely* than
green?  Is there more gravity in the red slots than in the green 
slots?  Is there more electric force?  What is it that confines
the ball to the red slots so that it only rarely appears in 
the green ones?  Or does the reason for this empirical fact
defy simple description?

>As you see, "probabilities" are statements about the forces and particles
>around us -- they are not mere abstract mathematical constructs.

I assume that you have heard by now that probabilities are fundamental
to quantum mechanics and that every force of nature is interepreted in
terms of probabilities.  You cannot say "What force makes the
probabilities?"   Rather, every eventuality and every force is measured
by its probabilities.   (Or, more specifically, its *amplitudes*,
complex numbers whose squared lengths are the probabilities.)

>To say it is mere probability is to fly in the face of
>intuitive thinking

Intuition is a thing you develop to understand a given.  The
mathematics of quantum mechanics is a given and it's up to you to
intuit it.  I assume that you have heard that quantum mechanics is
highly counterintuitive.  Indeed it was for me.  You have to do some
"engine block work" on your intuition to understand QM.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.10 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Excess Heat and Gorsky, Part 2.....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat and Gorsky, Part 2.....
Date: 10 Dec 93 22:56:22 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi Folks, 
Season's greetings to all....
In article "Re: Excess heat and Gorsky", 9-Nov-93, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk
(Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1759 {Excess Heat and
> Gorsky} Date: 8 Dec 93 23:17:30 +1100 
>> Hi Folks,
>> In the article "Re: LEIBOWITZ LIVES...." on the 7-Nov-93, Dieter Britz
>> writes.....>
>>> This Gorsky argument falls down even harder and flatter than the cigarette
>>> lighter effect. In that small volume of Pd there can simply not be the
>>> required amount of chemical or mechanical energy to keep it pouring out
>>> all those MJ during the 3 hours we are told about. So Gorsky, Schmorsky.
>>> Keep trying, Darryl.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Despite Dieter's arguments against it, I still say that the Gorsky effect
>>may explain excess heat. After all, the "First- Stage Experiment" of
>>Yamaguchi et al (AIP Proc.No.228) produced temperatures claimed to be
>>greater than 800 degrees.  Also it works for H as well as D and does not
>>require "new science" in the form of "lower" hydrogen states or other weird
>>theories. It's also reproducible.
=And it does not leave any "ash", chemical or nuclear.
>>Right now, I reckon it's by far the best game in town.
> 
> I suppose this depends what you are trying to explain with the effect, e.g.
> which experimental evidence. Just Yamaguchi's, or the latest famout F&P
> stuff as well?
= Some of the Excess Heat (EH) results have been due to gas recombination
=and resistance heating effects, however this still leaves are a considerable
=number of EH results requiring an explanation.  I think it very likely that
=all these unexplained EH results are produced by the same effect.
> I have not had time to get hold or read those Gorsky papers you kindly
> referred to, but the way you explain it, this is a sort of breathing effect:
> hydrogen gets absorbed by the Pd, the Pd is mechanically stressed and
> hydrogen migrates out again.
=Regarding EH, I favour the argument of Yamaguchi and Nishioka,
=(AIP Conf.Proc.No.228) where they state on p361 ........
="Therefore it can be conjectured that during the diffusion process {through
=the thin film} D atoms accumulate at the interface and form a thin layer of
=Beta-phase, Pd D{sub}x {where x > 0.6, but = to or <1.0},or an oversaturation
=phase with x larger than 1. This formation must change the lattice constant,
=a{sub}o, from 3.855 Angstroms to 4.05 Angs. or more, then give a biaxial
=strain to the {3 x 3cm x 1mm Pd} samples."  The positive feedback involving
=the Gorsky effect then takes over.
=This strain {and consequent bending} is also well documented as being due
=to phase change by J.Jorne (AIP Conf.Proc.No.228, p237)
> By itself, this would yield only the heat of PdD
> formation, a paltry 32 kJ/mol (or around 1/10 the heat of formation of water
> from its elements, the potential source of recombination artifacts). Perhaps
> you now bring in burning of the hydrogen, as it leaves the Pd. Where does
> the oxygen come from, if so? In any case, if you are talking about the F&P
> result, you have to explain it all for a tiny volume of Pd, and therefore
> some continuous process taking place. Please elaborate your mechanism.
=See last paragraph and (something new), a possible "farfetch" pumping
=mechanism which may have the capability of recharging the Pd (if in an active
=electrolytic cell or D or H atmosphere), by means of the heat/loading
=(of Pd or H), hysteresis effect described by Y.Kim in (Yes folks, you guessed
=it...) AIP Conf.Proc.No.228.. Dieter, see if Steve can get you a (free?) copy.
> 
> [Aside: this paltry 32 kJ/mol is not so paltry, under the right conditions.---
 ----------------------------SEVERAL LINES DELETED-------------------------- 
> Is your thrust a conventional explanation of an apparent anomaly, or are you
> in fact suggesting that this Gorsky thing, due to "nonequilibrium effects",
> enhances fusion rates?
=For the excess heat, I will go with the "Gorsky thing" and when its strain
=causes deformation of the metal, (fracto)fusion in the very heavily loaded
=D layer (very much >1, see Jorne, above), at the interface of the thin
=film/oxide/crud and the metal. The fusion *may* occur by the mechanism
=outlined by Yamaguchi et al (above), but I am becoming to very much favour
=fractofusion as the most plausible, (proven) mechanism for the fusion bit.
=The fusion is the *real* trick....... and the one I will be going for.
> As Eeyore says, "really wanting to know".
>                                                     
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

						Kind regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.

    The preceeding text is only attributable to myself.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 /  blue@dancer.ns /  BE statistics is not a force
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BE statistics is not a force
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 02:12:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Picking up on what others have been saying to put my own slant on this
question,  I want to see if I am really understanding what role BE
statistics can possibly play in cold fusion.  I think it helps to
recognize that cold fusion requires not one but two distinct miracles
(at least) to fit the experimental facts as we know them.  Somehow
BE statistics is being called upon to cover both problems, but I
have never seen anyone state clearly how they expect to wrap up the
entire package.

First problem is to get the fusion reaction rate up to the required
level to be of any interest as a practical power source.  Somehow
the idea seems to have gotten started that putting two deuterons
close together is only a problem of the exclusion principle and
available states.  That seems to be a problem BE statistics can
cure, but unfortunately the statistics have almost nothing to
do with the difficulty of bringing two deuterons close together.
Having an entire ensemble of deuterons trying to pair up in
concert does not change the energy requirements.  Now if one
wants to consider a system with the dueterons already paired,
i.e. two deuterons for each lattice site, perhaps that would
be different.  I think, however, the PdD case still involves
no more than one deuteron per Pd.

The second problem that is somehow to be addressed within the
BE context involves the conversion of the nuclear energy release
to phonons.  Here perhaps the picture of a lattice of bosons
dumping energy in a coherent manner would make some sense if
anyone could say what the ensemble doing this is.  You see
my assertion is that only a single lattice site can undergo
the transition which makes energy available at any given
time.  There is no ensemble and hence no BE statistics!
Chew on that if you will.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.10 / Greg Kuperberg /  More about Taubes
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More about Taubes
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 16:54:07 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

I said in a previous posting that the book *Bad Science* "ought to be
the last word on cold fusion."  I received a very informative letter
from Frank Close that convinces me that this is, in one respect, an
overstatement.  I do consider Taubes to be a competent and entertaining
journalist; I first got onto his track with his other book, *Nobel
Dreams*.  However, Frank says that he has partially but seriously
mischaracterized two of his many stories in his book.  Apparently,
these two stories are handled better in *Too Hot to Handle*, among
other places.

This is certainly food for thought.  Since Taubes is not 100% reliable
(who is?), he is not the last word in the sense that no one else need
ever record anything more about cold fusion.  However, one of Taubes'
biggest strengths is that bluntly gives the big picture, when others
are euphemistic.  Part of the big picture in this case is that cold
fusion is simply wrong, and does not deserve an infinite amount of
attention from the scientific community or the public at large.  A
400-page book like *Bad Science* ought to be more than enough for most
people.  Even if it has serious errors in a few places, it is good
enough to be enough.  Again, the same is probably true of Huizenga's
book or Frank Close's book or even Morrison's notes.  Dieter
Britz's bibliography is certainly way too much.

Unless you are a science historian or science ethics investigator, you
should limit your attention to cold fusion.  The instigators of the
fiasco have created a climate in which cold fusion will never die.  If
you scream in their ears why they are wrong, they say, "I can't hear
you!" and then it isn't dead yet.  Spoon-benders are never proved wrong
either, they just fade into obscurity.  Worse still, even if you are
110% skeptical of cold fusion, the believers can exploit your attention
to it as evidence that it's important.

This raises the question of why I'm still posting to this newsgroup or
even reading it.  I must admit that trashing cold fusion is fun.  But
it seems increasingly counterproductive in light of my points above.
At least I am conducting one possibly worthwhile discussion about basic
quantum mechanics which, happily, has nothing to do with cold fusion.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.10 / Steve Fairfax /  TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 18:09:30 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

Last night, at approximately 11 PM, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) performed experiments
with deuterium-tritium mixtures that approached the "ideal" ratio of
50/50 D-T.  Preliminary results indicate fusion power production in excess
of 3 MW, a new world record.  The experiments will continue.  Several news
reports of the experiments have been published, and more are expected.

I congratulate the TFTR team on this accomplishment and look forward to more
exciting results in the future.


P.S.  I had hoped that a PPPL person would post the results, as they would be
in a much better position to answer questions on the details of the 
experiments.  Mr. Heeter, where are you?
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.10 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
Date: 10 Dec 1993 22:43:31 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and posted
by us.  Respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other references below.
Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes crossposted to other
interested groups with followups directed here. Back issues,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and FYI, archived on NIC.HEP.NET for your anonymous FTP'ing pleasure,
courtesy of H.A. Kippenhan, Jr. Enjoy! -jc]

WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 10 Dec 1993    Washington, DC

1. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE UNVEILS "COUNTER-PROLIFERATION" POLICY!
In a speech on Tuesday, Pearl Harbor Day, Les Aspin acknowledged
that the US may not be able to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons to rogue states or terrorist groups.  It's scant comfort
that they may be 40 years behind us, he observed; in 1953 the US
had fission bombs and a delivery system.  We must therefore "add
the task of protection to the task of prevention."  Translation:
we need a theater ballistic missile defense system, a compliant
ABM treaty, and an aggressive posture.  "We have to be prepared
to fight a Desert Storm when the enemy has a small number of
nuclear weapons," Aspin warned. "We cannot let future Saddams
escape attack."  Alas, North Korea doesn't seem to be listening.

2. SECRETARY OF ENERGY UNVEILS A BOLD NEW "OPENNESS INITIATIVE"!
On the same symbol-laden day, Hazel O'Leary began to pry open the
shutters to let a little light into the obsessively secret Energy
Department.  No one seriously questioned the need for secrecy
during the Cold War, but the abuses revealed in the initial batch
of declassified documents are poignant reminders of the terrible
price a democracy pays for secrecy.  In one appalling series of
experiments, 18 people were given doses of plutonium without
their knowledge.  Among other facts revealed on the first day of
the initiative: the US conducted 1,051 nuclear tests of which 204
were never announced; the US produced 89 metric tons of weapons-
grade plutonium--enough for about 15,000 warheads; of the 12,000
tons of mercury used in the lithium-6 enrichment process at Oak
Ridge, about 325 tons ended up in the East Fork of Poplar Creek.

3. INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION IS INCLUDED IN DECLASSIFICATION!
At least some of it.  Zapping deuterium and tritium with lasers
and such began as weapons simulation studies, but proponents say
inertial fusion could be superior to magnetic fusion as an energy
source.  Secrecy has hampered comparison of the two methods.

4. MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT FUSION AT PPPL SETS POWER OUTPUT RECORD!
Last night, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab finally began high-
power D-T experiments.  Using a "50-50" D-T mixture, the Tokamak
Fusion Test Reactor produced 3 MW of fusion power for about one
second.  Break-even is still a long way off; the Q, which is the
ratio of the fusion power produced to the power that went into
heating the plasma, was about 1/8.  Nevertheless, as of last
night, TFTR has achieved all the objectives set for it in 1975.
On hand to celebrate was Lyman Spitzer, who founded PPPL in 1951.
He was also celebrating NASA's successful repair of the Hubble
telescope; Spitzer first proposed an orbiting telescope in 1946.

5. COLD FUSION FAITHFUL HOLD THEIR FOURTH ANNUAL SEANCE IN MAUI!
Who says cold fusion isn't practical?  As some of us slog through
the slush, this tiny band of true believers sips cool drinks in
celebration of MITI's $30M 4-year "new hydrogen energy" project.

Robert L. Park  opa@aps.org         The American Physical Society
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Request for Papers ......
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Request for Papers ......
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 03:01:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> Gosh folks, the ICCF4 conference has come and gone and apart from a very
>gratefully recieved list of papers nobody has posted anything here.

I'd suspect that the attendees are taking advantage of the weekend in
Hawaii.  We should start to see initial reactions next week.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / John Logajan /  Cold Fusion on the Simpsons
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion on the Simpsons
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 03:10:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

A quick scene in the TV animated series, The Simpsons, had a booth labeled
Cold Fusion at the National Energy Convention in Captial City.  The scene
then panned to a Solar Energy booth, which was then stealthly raided by a
group of thugs who quickly hung new signs which said "Oil and Coal," and
"Use them and no one will get hurt."  Homer Simpsons' job was to man the
Fission Power booth for the evil Mr. Burns.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.10 /  PAUL /  Tritium in TFTR news
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium in TFTR news
Date: 10 DEC 93 22:56:26 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

From the bboard at Alcator.  I know no more than this.

Below is a news release which the Department of Energy and PPPL release today.


NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806  (DOE)      December 10, 1993
Anthony DeMeo, 609/243-2755 (Princeton)


WORLD RECORD SET IN FUSION ENERGY

        Plainsboro, New Jersey - Researchers at the Department of Energy's
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory have produced a world record
of at least three million watts of controlled fusion power, the process
that powers the sun and stars. The scientists are conducting the world's
first magnetic fusion experiments using a fuel mixture comprised of equal
amounts of deuterium and tritium, the mixture required for practical
amounts of fusion power.

        "This is a great day for science," commented Secretary of Energy
Hazel R. O'Leary. "It's also a great day for those who worry about the
economy and the safe production of power. It's a tremendous breakthrough
and it matches so conveniently the themes of our administration."

        "This world record is a great step in the development of fusion
energy," O'Leary remarked. "It highlights the enormous progress being made
in the field. This is the most significant achievement in fusion energy in
the past two decades. I commend the Princeton staff for their years of hard
work and dedication."

        The record was set on December 9 in experiments at the Lab's
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) in Princeton, New Jersey. The
experiments, which will continue through most of 1994, will yield data
important for the design of future reactors. They will also allow, for the
first time, studies of whether the particles produced will, as expected,
help sustain the temperature of the fusion reaction (see attached
background information).


        "This research exemplifies three elements of the Department's
mission: to achieve diverse energy sources, a productive and competitive
economy, and improved environmental quality," O'Leary said. "Fusion offers
the promise of a safe, environmentally acceptable, inexhaustible source of
energy in the next century."

        Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, said, "The TFTR team and other collaborators across the U.S.
and the world deserve to be congratulated for this superb accomplishment.
We now look forward to the rest of the experimental campaign with great
pride and anticipation."




(Background information follows.)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FUSION ENERGY AND TFTR

        In fusion, light atoms such as those of hydrogen are fused or
joined at high temperature with an accompanying release of energy. Fusion
energy would have many advantages, including virtually inexhaustible fuel;
no contribution to acid rain or global warming; the impossibility of a
large uncontrolled release of energy; and radiological hazards thousands of
times less than nuclear fission.

        An important figure of merit for a fusion reactor is the fusion
power density. Although TFTR is much smaller than a commercial fusion
reactor, the power density in the core of the TFTR is comparable to that
which will be required for such a power reactor.

        The TFTR results extend by a factor of almost two those attained in
1991 by the larger Joint European Torus (JET) tokamak which produced 1.7
million watts of fusion power from plasmas containing about 10% tritium.
The new record is also more than 10 million times greater than was possible
at the time TFTR was proposed in 1974.

        After 20 years of planning, construction, and experimental
operation the TFTR is now ready to achieve its goals - studying the
performance of deuterium-tritium fuel in a tokamak and producing up to 10
million watts of fusion power. In its ten year lifetime, TFTR has set a
number of world records in fusion using deuterium fuel only - including
temperatures of 400 million degrees Celsius and fusion power of 65,000
watts.

        Many different nuclear fusion reactions occur in the sun and other
stars, but the most readily available one on earth involves deuterium (D)
and tritium (T), heavy isotopes of hydrogen. In order to produce fusion
power, the D-T fuel mixture must be heated to more than 100 million degrees
Celsius, more than six times hotter than the center of the sun. At these
high temperatures the electrons become separated from the nuclei and form a
plasma (a hot ionized gas). In a "tokamak" device, the plasma is confined
by a magnetic field inside a hollow, donut-shaped vacuum vessel. When the
plasma is held at the required density and temperature, many fusion
reactions occur, each converting a small amount of the plasma mass into
energy.

        Each D-T fusion reaction produces an alpha particle or helium
nucleus and a neutron. The energy of the alpha particles is expected to
sustain the plasma temperature in a fusion reactor, while the neutrons
would escape from the plasma, and their energy would be converted into heat
for the generation of electricity. Plasma heating by alpha particles is
vital to the eventual production of self-sustained ("ignited") plasmas in a
fusion reactor. TFTR will be the first experiment in the world to study the
behavior of alpha particles in a plasma.  The study of ignited plasmas is
one of the goals of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER), now being designed jointly by the U.S., the European Community,
Japan, and the Russian Federation.

        TFTR will be decommissioned following completion of the D-T
experiments in the fall of 1994. A long-pulse, advanced device, the Tokamak
Physics Experiment (TPX) is being designed to replace TFTR, using many
existing TFTR facilities. TPX will be operated as a national research
facility to develop the scientific and technical basis for a compact,
continuously operating tokamak fusion reactor. Knowledge gained from the
operation of ITER and TPX would lead to construction of a demonstration
fusion power reactor.


-DOE-

R-93-257
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 03:43:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Tell me, what makes red and black more likely than green in roulette?
>>>What is the force that confines the ball to the red and the black slots?

>>Gravity (gravitons) and the electric (photon) force are responsible
>>for the operation of the above...
 
>Yeah, I know all that.  But what makes red *more likely* than green?

I'm unfamiliar with the details of a roulette wheel.  Therefore, generalizing,
say there are X red slots, Y black slots, and Z green slots  (0 <= X,Y,Z <=99)

The probabililty of finding the ball in any color slot depends upon the number
of slots of that color divided by the total number of slots.

>What is it that confines the ball to the red slots so that it only rarely
>appears in the green ones?

Any result would be due to the confluence of multiple causal chains, including
the force of gravity, the electric force, the necessary underlying structure
supporting those forces, human volitional definition of the macro physical
structure, kinetic and potential energy, momentum, friction, etc etc etc

Probability in the example you have choosen figures only as a convenient
language to describe results obtained from impulses and influences that
we can't or haven't measured precisely.  Probabililty isn't itself a force,
but rather, a rule of thumb when we don't know the forces exactly.

>I assume that you have heard by now that probabilities are fundamental
>to quantum mechanics and that every force of nature is interepreted in
>terms of probabilities.  You cannot say "What force makes the
>probabilities?"   Rather, every eventuality and every force is measured
>by its probabilities.

And clearly it is not just any old probability, but highly structured
probabilities -- for instance, a bowling ball does not do a random walk
through physical space, but trends toward the earth due to the gravitational
attractive force.

>>To say it is mere probability is to fly in the face of intuitive thinking
 
>Intuition is a thing you develop to understand a given.  The
>mathematics of quantum mechanics is a given and it's up to you to
>intuit it.  I assume that you have heard that quantum mechanics is
>highly counterintuitive.  Indeed it was for me.  You have to do some
>"engine block work" on your intuition to understand QM.

You had to go back and rescue your original argument by equivalencing force
and probability (which is similar to what I was suggesting a couple of
posts back.)  So you see, you strive for the intuitive also -- the intuitive
in this case is that there is structure guiding the probabilities.

Yet again we are back to the original Bernecky query -- what is the mediator
of the bose-condensate transition.  Why do the probabilities break this way
and not that way -- what communicates the macro state?

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 11 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.10 /  Chayim_I._Kirs /  Fusion Help
     
Originally-From: Chayim_I._Kirshen@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Help
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 15:25:09 EST
Organization: M A G I C

Just a few general questions about fusion.

		I realise that fusion requires the fusing together of 4 hydrogen atom to
1 helium atom.  The resulting decrease in density gives off the energy.  So
then,

		Why doe sit cost so much for fusioon?  Why has no one performed cold
fusion?

Chayim Kirshen


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden_Kirshen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Miles Developme /  Re: FIXED: U. of U. Sells Fusion Rights
     
Originally-From: miles@clark.net (Miles Parker Mac Consulting/4D Developme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FIXED: U. of U. Sells Fusion Rights
Date: 11 Dec 1993 01:52:42 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

hmmm...New slogan:  ENECO: a pretty neat FEAT. too perfect...
I wasn't involved in cold fusion, but I did spend some time on the 
opposite side of the U's PR functionaries. 

A: Science can not (always?) be seperated from politics
B: Politics is goofy
C: Science can be goofy

btw: I still hold out hope that cold fusion is proved correct. Not 
neccesarily because of unlimited table top power, but just because
of the perfect irony it would be after everything that happened.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmiles cudfnMiles cudlnDevelopme cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Request for Papers ......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request for Papers ......
Date: 11 Dec 93 13:23:27 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Seasons Greetings to all,
 Gosh folks, the ICCF4 conference has come and gone and apart from a very
gratefully recieved list of papers nobody has posted anything here.
Come on guys, something interesting must have been discussed, give us
a break, post a critique.... a review...... *something*.
 In particular, I would dearly like to get copies of, or find a source for,
one or more of the following papers.....

1) Triggering and Structural Changes in Cold Fusion Electrodes.
   Bokris et al.
2) Reproducible Anomalous Heat Production and "Cold Fusion" in  Au /Pd /PdO
   Hetrostructures Electrochemically Saturated with Hydrogen (or Deuterium).
   Lipson et al.
3) Heat Production with Multi-layer Thin Film Electrodes.
   Miley et al.
4) The Excess Heat Experiments on Cold Fusion in Titanium Lattice.
   Zhang et al.
5) Particle Acceleration and Neutron Emission in a Fracture Process of a
   Piezoelectric Material.       Shirakawa et al.
6) Detection of Neutrons from Deuterided Palladium subject to high Electrical
   Currents.      Taylor, Claytor and Jones.
7) Observations of Neutrons and Tritium in KD2PO4 Single Crystals upon the 
   Ferroelectric Phase Transition.       Lipson et al.
8) Ferroelectrics for Cold fusion.
   Fedorovitch.
9) Electrolytic Deuterium Absorption by Pd Cathodes with Sputtered Gold Film.
   Kubuta et al.

 With those names and titles, it looks to me like the heavies are finally
zeroing in on the correct areas.
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.
		     		dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

 	The preceeding text is only attributible to myself.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.10 /  driver@MCS.COM /  Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
     
Originally-From: driver@MCS.COM
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: 10 Dec 1993 21:14:56 -0600
Organization: Another MCSNet Subscriber, Chicago's First Public-Access Internet!


   Hello.  I saw on the news tonight that a lab a Princeton has produced
fusion for approximately 1 sec.  The news program (ABC Nightly, I believe),
made this out to be a major breakthrough.  They said that the top two inches
of water on lake erie would have the same generating power as all the
oil on earth.

   My Questions:

   Is what they did really a big breakthrough?

   Was it a small scale version of a possible power generator (ie: all they
   have to do now is build a big one)?

   Is there a FAQ around?

   I don't normally read here, so please respond via email, if you please.

   Sorry if this is a FAQ.

   Thanks in advance...

   Steve Dillinger

-- 
 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  Stephen Dillinger                         All opinions are fully supported
  driver@mcs.com                            by my employer...
 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendriver cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 01:51:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <JTCHEW-101293144149@b50-afrd10.lbl.gov> Ad absurdum per
aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov writes:
>4. MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT FUSION AT PPPL SETS POWER OUTPUT RECORD!
>Last night, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab finally began high-
>power D-T experiments.  Using a "50-50" D-T mixture, the Tokamak
>Fusion Test Reactor produced 3 MW of fusion power for about one
>second.  Break-even is still a long way off; the Q, which is the
>ratio of the fusion power produced to the power that went into
>heating the plasma, was about 1/8.  Nevertheless, as of last
>night, TFTR has achieved all the objectives set for it in 1975.
>On hand to celebrate was Lyman Spitzer, who founded PPPL in 1951.
>He was also celebrating NASA's successful repair of the Hubble
>telescope; Spitzer first proposed an orbiting telescope in 1946.

The record was boosted to 5.5 megawatts this afternoon (Friday Dec.
10).  (Note that this boosts Q to about 1/5.)  For those of you 
not seeing this on sci.physics.fusion, more info can be found 
there!

Others are no doubt more qualified than I to discuss these
results; I just posted this to update the What's New and to
invite people to discuss this on sci.physics.fusion.

************************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimer:  I don't work on TFTR, I just work at PPPL.
Disclaimer:  I do not represent PPPL in any way, shape or form!
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Subject: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 01:30:06 GMT
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 18:09:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Originally-From: Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 18:09:30 GMT
In article <Fairfax.22.2D08BB59@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU> Steve Fairfax,
Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU writes:
>Last night, at approximately 11 PM, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
>(TFTR) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) performed
>experiments with deuterium-tritium mixtures that approached the 
>"ideal" ratio of 50/50 D-T.  Preliminary results indicate fusion 
>power production in excess of 3 MW, a new world record.  The
>experiments will continue.  Several news reports of the experiments
>have been published, and more are expected.
>
>I congratulate the TFTR team on this accomplishment and look forward 
>to more exciting results in the future.
>
>P.S.  I had hoped that a PPPL person would post the results, as 
>they would be in a much better position to answer questions on 
>the details of the experiments.  Mr. Heeter, where are you?

I have been having trouble with network connectivity; I posted a
reply to this message several hours ago and haven't seen it show
up on any of the three domains I have access to.  So I will
try again.

At any rate, I can add that new shots this afternoon have (almost)
redoubled that power record!  They announced 5.5 megawatts over
the PA system at the lab this afternoon.

This is really a wonderful time, everyone is pretty excited here.
Even us lowly first-year graduate students with no particular 
connection to TFTR (save that we work at the lab, and like fusion)
are glowing a little.  (Psychologically, not radioactively!)

This event should make it into the mainstrem national media over
the next few days, and hopefully others more qualified than I
will join the discussion here and add some commentary.

For the skeptics out there, I will add that the 5.5 MW of power
generated must be compared to the 25-30 MW of power poured into
the plasma, so the efficiency is still short of breakeven.
But it's a lot closer than it was before, and it's good to know
that the plasma hasn't chosen to do anything exceptionally
pathological (as it seems to enjoy doing).  I believe the TFTR
people expect to break 10 MW sometime during the DT phase,
which will continue until (roughly) next September or so...

While I can't profess to be an expert on TFTR, I'd be happy to
try answering any questions people may have...

**********************************************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL)
Disclaimers certainly apply.
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Allen Robinson /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: sebaygo@netcom.com (Allen Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 04:57:49 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Steve Fairfax (Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU) wrote:
: Last night, at approximately 11 PM, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)
: at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) performed experiments
: with deuterium-tritium mixtures that approached the "ideal" ratio of
: 50/50 D-T.  Preliminary results indicate fusion power production in excess
: of 3 MW, a new world record.  The experiments will continue.  Several news
: reports of the experiments have been published, and more are expected.

: I congratulate the TFTR team on this accomplishment and look forward to more
: exciting results in the future.


: P.S.  I had hoped that a PPPL person would post the results, as they would be
: in a much better position to answer questions on the details of the 
: experiments.  Mr. Heeter, where are you

I first heard of this event on NPR's morning edition this a.m.
I tried to watch CNN throughout the day for further info.  Then
finally caught a brief segment on one of the network evening
newscasts.  It seems everyone was giving a different time for the
duration of the event.  If I remember correctly, NPR said something
like "about 7 seconds."  CNN, I believe, was saying 5 seconds, and
I think I heard them say on the evening news only about a second.
What is correct?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensebaygo cudfnAllen cudlnRobinson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.08 / Barry Wise /  Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris and "alchemy"
Date: 8 Dec 1993 21:40:25 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <kemidb.755165880@aau> kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> There has lately been a deal of discussion on Bockris and how he is 
apparently
> promoting alchemy. I knew only what I have read here, and assumed that 
when he
> talks about transmutation, he must be talking about profitable 
transmutation,
> since transmutation per se has been known for a long time now. I have 
just been
> corrected: the anomaly is **chemical** transmutation, not economic as I
> thought; that is, he believes in chemically induced transmutation. Of 
what, to
> what, I don't know (yet). However, please lift your jaws again, good 
people,
> what is so new about this? What is cold fusion but chemically induced 
transmu-
> tation (deuterium into - well - something else)? And others than Bockris 
have
> looked seriously at the higher elements, like isotopes of Pd or Rh and 
Ag,
> being made in the PdD lattice, or Bush (and dare I mention him? Kevran)
> who suggest the formation of Ca. You might not believe all this (I 
don't) but
> don't start a jeering choir, or start calling the man a charlatan. He 
does not
> deserve that.
> 
> Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
> --------------------------

In the fall issue of 21st Century ...  (can't remember the full title but 
it's the LaRouche mag).  There are two articles on cold fusion.  One is by 
one of the editors (White I believe) on P and F's boiling cell.  The other 
is by R. Bush of Cal Poly claiming transmutation of alkali elements in the 
metal lattice, excess heat, and the measurement of x-rays.  These claims 
involve tests using light water cells (nickel) and various electrolytes 
(sodium, potasium, rubidium) with a recombiner.

Does anyone know anything about this guy?  Since he claims repeatable and  
externally verifiable results could a deal be made between him and Steve 
Jones for x-ray measurement? (Bush is using an Nal detector and says there 
is a bad signal to noise ratio).  Also mayhaps a cell from Mr Bush that 
could be run in Tom's calorimeter?


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 05:34:24 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:

Hi Matt, 
   I read your last comment and now this.  It's not my idea to start an
argument or anything, but you have a conceptual description of BE
condensation that is simply wrong.  For example, you write, 
   
>One good thing is that one can now _quantify_ the magnitude of this
>force/energy, and compare it to other forces in the problem to see if it's
>relevant.  Again I submit that in the present problem (somehow condensing
>deuterium nuclei into identical states) this 'bosonic condensation energy'
>you get out is much less than the energy you have to put in to overcome
>mutual electrostatic repulsion.  Though I can be convinced otherwise by
>actual calculation/experiment.  

The condensation effect does not require energy be input in the
system.  It requires energy to be removed. It is an effect of energy
minimalization.  In BE statistics It doesn't matter if the particles
are charged or not, it depends on the 'psi' overlap which can extend
quite far spacially. A super- conductor is a prime example of a bose
condensate of charged particles.  The mutual repulsion of the Cooper
pairs (a composite Bose particle composed of two electrons bound by a
fragile phonon exchange force) does not keep the system from
condensing. Heck, repulsion from the ordinary latticle electrons
doesn't effect the Cooper pairs all that much once the condensation
has taken place.  Like wise for a deuteron condensate. If anything, BE
condensation of deuterons in metal should occur at a higher temp than
HTSCs simply because lattice electron are screening charge (visa your 
argument Matt.)
 
>Come on, do some physics.

Did anyone notice how many papers were about BE condensation in the 
ICCF4 conference?  Looks to me to be the *Hot* CF theory. (IMHO 
it should be.)  
  

>-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".

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.coplex.com

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 14:01:12 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Dec11.034313.4388@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>I'm unfamiliar with the details of a roulette wheel.

If memory serves me correctly, there are two green slots and eighteen
each of red and black.

>The probabililty of finding the ball in any color slot depends upon the number
>of slots of that color divided by the total number of slots.

Jackpot!  This principle is essentially independent of the specific
forces involved.  It is equally true for a deck of cards colored
green, black, and red, which does not involve gravity, as for
a roulette wheel, which does.

>Probability is...a rule of thumb when we don't know the forces exactly.

You've put your thumb on the matter here.  This is exactly what
probability isn't in quantum mechanics.  In classical reality as it was
known before the amazing papers of Heisenberg and Born, there was
deterministic reality, and on top of that model one considered
probability theory as a model of incomplete information.  In quantum
mechanics, quantum probability theory (which is a radical modification
of ordinary probability theory, by the way) is the fundamental
underlying all else.  Built on top of that foundation one considers the
space of possible states of the world, which involves the statistics of
bosons and fermions, among other things.  And on top of that one
considers processes, interactions, forces, and so forth.

If you don't believe this stuff (and it was once the case that some
good physicists didn't), you don't believe in QM.  Disbelievers in QM
consistently lose their shirts in the experimental arena, or at best
break even.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Excess Heat and Gorsky, Part 2.....
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess Heat and Gorsky, Part 2.....
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 15:27:57 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University

In <1993Dec10.225622.1@vaxc> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

[...]
>=For the excess heat, I will go with the "Gorsky thing" and when its strain
>=causes deformation of the metal, (fracto)fusion in the very heavily loaded
>=D layer (very much >1, see Jorne, above), at the interface of the thin
>=film/oxide/crud and the metal. The fusion *may* occur by the mechanism
>=outlined by Yamaguchi et al (above), but I am becoming to very much favour
>=fractofusion as the most plausible, (proven) mechanism for the fusion bit.
>=The fusion is the *real* trick....... and the one I will be going for.


OK; so the heat comes from what - mechanical forces? Heat of Pd deuteration?
Give us a mechanism that can operate continuously.

Secondly: how has fractofusion been proven? I tend to agree that it is the
most plausible mechanism of fusion, and I more or less took it for granted
that the Russians had measured neutrons repeatedly - until Steve Jones told us
about his new neutron detector. This tells me that ALL neutron results prior
to this detector are meaningless (I am referring to CNF experiments). So, not
a single fractofusion result supports the reality of cold fusion. If you know
of one, tell me.

Where does this leave us? All "ash" results are at the limits of detection,
or single, probably spurious, events. That leaves "excess heat", and here the
results are controversial, to say the least.

Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 17:50:44 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>This principle is essentially independent of the specific forces involved.

You mean if the green slots were filled with a clear glass overlay, we'd
still tend to find balls in the green slots with unchanged probability?

There really is no magic here.  The results are strictly due to the 
magnitude of impulses and structures -- it is merely our human observational
inadequacies that find us using rule-of-thumb "probabilities."

>In classical reality ... there was
>deterministic reality, and on top of that model one considered
>probability theory as a model of incomplete information.  In quantum
>mechanics, quantum probability theory (which is a radical modification
>of ordinary probability theory, by the way) is the fundamental
>underlying all else.

I don't see the distinction -- it still plays the same role -- a model
of incomplete observer information.  Just that the smaller one gets,
the larger the uncertainty property looms in comparison.

>If you don't believe this stuff (and it was once the case that some
>good physicists didn't), you don't believe in QM.  Disbelievers in QM
>consistently lose their shirts in the experimental arena, or at best
>break even.

I suppose you think I don't believe in motherhood, apple pie, and the
American way, either. 

And yet again we are back to the original question, what mediates the
bose-condensate transition?

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Ronald Smernoff /  CF Lab Methods
     
Originally-From: smernoff@crl.com (Ronald Smernoff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF Lab Methods
Date: 11 Dec 1993 10:02:12 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [login: guest]

I have been reading there about the issue of proper integrated
electrical power measurement in CF cells.  It seems to me (physical
chemist) that one could determine the power consumed in an experiment
by monitoring the voltage across the cel and by placing an electrochemic
l deposition cell (or array of cells) in series with the CF cell
measure the number of electrons flowing.  It would seem that this
approach would be more representative than a statistical analysis
of infrequently sampled data.  Basically



, the current flowing through the ED cell would be measured (after
conclusion of the CF experiment) by weighing the two electrodes
in the cell before and after the experiment.  If one is depositing
a metal, then choosing a suitable chemistry and element would allow
some control over the sensitivity of the method.

If this makes any sense and anyone is interested in further details, I can be reached at:

smernoff@crl.com
Ronald Smernoff

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensmernoff cudfnRonald cudlnSmernoff cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 18:15:49 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Dec11.175044.9115@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>And yet again we are back to the original question, what mediates the
>bose-condensate transition?

I give up.  Messiah, *Quantum Mechanics*, is a good book on quantum
mechanics.  There is a chapter on identical particles at the beginning
of volume II.  That's the best I can do to explain it to you.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 11 Dec 1993 18:37:09 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Dec11.034313.4388@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>Tell me, what makes red and black more likely than green in roulette?
>>>>What is the force that confines the ball to the red and the black slots?
>
>>>Gravity (gravitons) and the electric (photon) force are responsible
>>>for the operation of the above...
> 
>>Yeah, I know all that.  But what makes red *more likely* than green?
>
>I'm unfamiliar with the details of a roulette wheel.  

I have no clue where this came from or what it has to do with anything 
in this group, but here goes.  A roulette wheel always has an equal 
number of red and black bins, 18 each for a total of 36.  There is 
a single green (0) in europe (last I heard) and there are two greens 
in the US (0 and 00).  

The green is there to make money for the house.  A bet on red pays 
2:1, and the odds would be the same *except* for the green.  A second 
green increases the house advantage.  So much for roulette. 

Red and black are more likely than green because there are more of them. 
If you want to use this as a model for Fermi's Golden Rule, the matrix 
elements are the same but there is more phase space for red and black 
than for green.  Not a bad analogy, actually. 

An individual red (that is, a particular number) is no more nor less 
likely than a particular green *if* it is a fair wheel.  It is the 
usual principle of sensitive dependence on initial conditions that 
makes this purely mechanical process appear random.  This is a bad 
model for quantum mechanics, which is not a random statistical 
process because of incomplete information.  Or, at minimum, no 
experiment proposed to prove the contrary has ever given a suitable 
signal indicating otherwise. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Leland A /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 11 Dec 1993 18:45:28 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <1993Dec11.140112.1283@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>In article <1993Dec11.034313.4388@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>>I'm unfamiliar with the details of a roulette wheel.
>
 ...
>
>>Probability is...a rule of thumb when we don't know the forces exactly.
>
>You've put your thumb on the matter here.  This is exactly what
>probability isn't in quantum mechanics.  In classical reality as it was
>known before the amazing papers of Heisenberg and Born, there was
>deterministic reality, and on top of that model one considered
>probability theory as a model of incomplete information.

With all due respect, I think the analogy of your arguement breaks down here.
With respect to a roulette wheel, probabilty theory IS just a model of
incomplete information. The physics involved in why a ball ends up where it
does is completely known and, if you could control the starting conditions well
enough, you could cause the ball to end up anywhere that you wanted it to.
Probability theory just fills in for us, in that case, our lack of exact
knowledge about the starting conditions.

>  In quantum
>mechanics, quantum probability theory (which is a radical modification
>of ordinary probability theory, by the way) is the fundamental
>underlying all else.  Built on top of that foundation one considers the
>space of possible states of the world, which involves the statistics of
>bosons and fermions, among other things.  And on top of that one
>considers processes, interactions, forces, and so forth.

In Quantum mechanics, probability theory just models exactly the same thing as
it does with the roulette wheel: namely, our lack of exact knowledge about the
starting conditions because the uncertainty principle precludes us from being
able to know both the position and the velocity of a particle.

>If you don't believe this stuff (and it was once the case that some
>good physicists didn't), you don't believe in QM.  Disbelievers in QM
>consistently lose their shirts in the experimental arena, or at best
>break even.

I personally didn't read anything in the article you were responding to
implying that the author "didn't believe in QM". Consequently, I'd have to
say that I see your argument as a "straw man". I don't mean to imply by
that comment that I think everything that author said was valid either, but
please be a little more careful about the confident assertions that you
make. (-:


Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
                       | OK, tell me why is it always :-) and never (-: ?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Number of Papers @ ICC4
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 19:27:17 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>The list of authors of papers at the Hawaiian conference is truly
>staggering.
>One would think that with that number of investigators one would
>see intelligent, well-thought out experiments reported in straight
>forward papers.
>So, why haven't we? Why is it that CNF remains a controversial
>non-reproducibility?

Just got back from Maui - yes its still 1989(i.e. nothing resolved).
It was a very weird conference.  I am trying to organize my thoughts,
notes, and camcorder stuff.  I will post a summary of what caught my
attention and then a short paper on something that really worried me
during the last two days of the conference.

They say "Maui is best".  I'd have to say "Maui is worth it"!  :-)

 -------------------------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 19:36:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>This is a bad 
>model for quantum mechanics, which is not a random statistical 
>process because of incomplete information.  Or, at minimum, no 
>experiment proposed to prove the contrary has ever given a suitable 
>signal indicating otherwise. 

Why do you say it is not a case of incomplete information?  A property
of nature that precludes us from obtaining that Nth degree of information
is still incomplete (in that it precludes us from making exact predictions.)

Seems to me the experiments confirm the incompleteness rather than denying
it.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Leland A /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 11 Dec 1993 21:01:45 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <1993Dec11.140112.1283@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
 ...
>In quantum
>mechanics, quantum probability theory (which is a radical modification
>of ordinary probability theory, by the way) is the fundamental
>underlying all else.  Built on top of that foundation one considers the
>space of possible states of the world, which involves the statistics of
>bosons and fermions, among other things.  And on top of that one
>considers processes, interactions, forces, and so forth.

In thinking about this more, I realized there was more to say. Statements
such as the above reveal more, in my opinion, about the philosophy of the
person making them than they do about science or physics. Truly the
discoveries of Heisenberg and Born were remarkable, but the starting point
of their discovery was in their realizing that we have an observational
deficiency that precludes us from being able to directly observe some of
the underlying processes involved in the interactions of discrete
particles. Because of that, they started to examine the information they
WERE able to observe in light of probability theory, without making any
assumptions about what the underlying processes are.

In effect, they stripped from their view of physics any speculation about
what they were unable to observe. To say that "quantum probability theory
... is the fundamental underlying all else" goes exactly contrary to what
quantum physics is all about, because it dogmatically presumes to
understand the underlying foundation upon which reality is built. You
taking the METHOD which has been developed to help us grope for answers to
our questions about what we can't directly observe, because of the
observational deficiency that the uncertainty principle imposes upon us,
and are glorifying it as though it IS the answer. It's just a tool to help
us continue to make progress in spite of the fact that we are not able to
OBSERVE the underlying processes and DETERMINE exactly what the outcomes
should be, based upon the starting conditions (which we are unable to
determine with certainty).

Personally, I still hope that eventually someone will find a way to
overcome the observational deficiency (i.e. to "break" the uncertainty
principle hypothesis) and we will be able to understand even the underlying
processes. Perhaps that will never happen but it is almost CERTAIN that it
will never be accomplished by someone who dogmatically maintains that it is
impossible.


Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
                       | OK, tell me why is it always :-) and never (-: ?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 21:19:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I give up....  That's the best I can do to explain it to you.

What explanation?  The only thing I recall seeing from you was a suggestion
that bose-condensate transitions are equivalent to the placing of bigger
doors on Macy's department store, thus drawing in more customers.

Seem's to me if that was the case, Macy marketing people would insist on
buildings with walls consisting of nothing but doors.

I may or may not be immune to rational explanations -- but right now all
I am detecting is a null set.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 /  PAUL /  RE: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: 11 DEC 93 21:37:27 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

The question was asked, "what is the importance of the tritium experiments
on TFTR?"

Well for the first time a Tokamak was fueled using tritium.  (Well actually
JET put in a bit of tritium a year ago, but not like the recent TFTR
experiments.)  For the last 35 years scientists have been conducting
plasma fusion experiments assuming that there would be no major changes
when the deutirium in their machines was partially replaced by tritium.
Tritium was not used because:  1. It is radioactive requiring major facilities
for its handling, 2. there is plenty of physics to study without being concerned
about the heat produced from the plasma itself, 3. It is only worthwhile to put
tritium in your machine if you are expecting a lot of fusion reactions.  If this is
happening, you will subject everything in your machine to very high neutron
fluxes that will make it radioactive.  (by the way these neutron fluxes are
what would have killed P&F if their experiments worked as they thought they
were.)

The reason for doing these experiments are:
1.gain experience handling tritium in fusion experiments.  The next big
tokamak, ITER, is supposed to actually be a burning plasma where the
heat from the DT reactions is enough to keep the plasma hot.

2. see what happens when there is a large number of extremely hot alpha
particles zipping about in the machine.  A DT reaction produces a neutron
that is not confined by the magnetic field of the machine and a helium
nucleus that hopefully will be confined.  What we would like to happen is
for the helium to slow down through collisions with other particles
in the plasma and then work their way out of the plasma.  The problem is
that they are going very fast and may not slow down and transfer their energy
to the plasma before they drift out to the walls of the machine.  Also
cold alpha particles may be confined very well, so your plasma may fill
up with the ash from burning DT.

3. the very hot alpha particles may produce instabilities.   There are many
instabilites that can be produced when there is a non thermal distribution
of velocities in a plasma.  Such instabilities may greatly undermine the
energy confinement of the Tokamak thus impacting greatly the design of
future reactors.

4. First wall and superstructure materials study.  We do not have a source of
14MeV neutrons to test materials for reactor designs.  A fast neutron
can do a lot of damage as it bounces from atom to atom in some material
such as steel imparting energies far greater than the binding enregies
of the atoms in the material.  This leads to dislocations, swelling, and
embrittlement of the material.   A big problem considering that most machines now
run pretty clost to the limit of what can be done with the materials available.
I do not know how much effort has been put into #4 above, but 1 to 3 have
been major efforts in the TFTR experiments.  These experiments are perhaps
the most significant since tokamaks were first built.  They are supposed to
be followed up by similar tests in JET, a higher performance reactor in
England that more closely matches planned designs for ITER.  I don't
know when they are supposed to start.


Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

Disclaimer:  I do not speak for or represent DOE, MIT, or the Plasma
Fusion Center.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / David Cremin /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: cremin@panix.com (David Cremin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: 11 Dec 1993 16:56:27 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <2e3ogj$gc4@agate.berkeley.edu>
: sternber@haas.berkeley.edu (Theodore Sternberg) writes:

: > Why is it that the front (caliper) brakes deliver much more "stopping
: > power" than do the rear brakes?

:   Theodore has brought up a topic I am passionate over. I have
: transcontinental bicycled twice now. After reading this post leader and
: follow-ups I propose a new invention. A patentable invention which if
: not already patented then I will seek claims to the foregoing. Let this
: posting be the initial patented discovery if not already patented.
[bullshit deleted]

Ludge, the amount of work required to light the headlamp will be the same
no matter how you do it, all other things being equal. In fact all other
things are not equal, and the friction-drive generator loses some
efficiency due to internal friction and the losses due to the friction
coupling.

By the way, this is not a novel idea. I remember that in the fifties and
sixties in Europe, there existed hub-mounted generators built into the
front wheel.

Have you considered inventing the electric light?

- dc
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencremin cudfnDavid cudlnCremin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 22:23:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Dec11.211922.10983@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>What explanation?  The only thing I recall seeing from you was a suggestion
>that bose-condensate transitions are equivalent to the placing of bigger
>doors on Macy's department store, thus drawing in more customers.

Ok, I'll try again, since you did at least pay attention to the
beginning of what I said.

Anyway, concerning a mall store, a model that you might have for a
stroller in the mall is that there is an ever-present "desire to shop"
(this is the force, if you will), but this desire is only acted upon
with a certainly probability at any given moment, and only in the event
that the stroller happens to be next to a door to the store.
The force is quantified by a base probability, say a 10% desire
to enter the store when walking by five feet of entrance.
But the actual probability of the shopper entering the store is
the force multiplied by the amount of opportunity, namely how much
door there is.  To answer your next point,

>Seem's to me if that was the case, Macy marketing people would insist on
>buildings with walls consisting of nothing but doors.

In fact, in a covered mall, where the random model of a shopper
applies, the front face of a store like Kinney's Shoes is indeed 100%
entrance.

Anyway, we were talking about bosons, for example the transition of a
helium-4 atom from a state A, with some number of helium atoms in state
A, to state B, with some number of atoms in state B.  In this
situation, there is some force or interaction that allows a transition
from state A to state B.  IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH FORCE.  The
probability of a transition of an atom from state A to state B in
addition depends on the number of atoms in state A and state B, these
two numbers determining the amount of opportunity for the transition.
The amount of opportunity for the transition is multiplied by the
strength of the interaction that facilitates the transition, to obtain
a probability.

What you expect in classical probability theory is that the amount of
opportunity for the transition from state A to state B only depends on
the number of atoms in state A and is strictly proportional to it.  You
have to concede, as a basic principle, that in classical probability
theory A->B is impossible if there are no atoms in state A and twice as
likely if there two atoms in state A.  This variation of opportunity
does not require the introduction of a new force or the conclusion that
the force taking things from A to B is twice as strong, just because
there are two things in state A.

But as I said, quantum probability theory has its own rules.  Quantum
mechanics dictates that, given a force that allows a transition A->B,
the force never acts with certainty but always with at some
probabilistic rate.  Moreover, the amount of opportunity for the
transition to occur depends in general on the number of atoms in state
B as well as the number of atoms in state A.  In a rough manner of
speaking; it's actually better to work with quantum amplitude, which is
the square root of probability and also possesses a phase, and then
convert to probability at the end.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Quantum mechanics as probability theory
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 22:54:10 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2edcfp$kle@insosf1.infonet.net> leland@ins.infonet.net writes:
>In effect, they stripped from their view of physics any speculation about
>what they were unable to observe. To say that "quantum probability theory
>... is the fundamental underlying all else" goes exactly contrary to what
>quantum physics is all about, because it dogmatically presumes to
>understand the underlying foundation upon which reality is built.

I may sound like I'm explaining the end-all and be-all of the laws of
physics, but I'm not.  I'm explaining quantum mechanics, and explaining
it as being true because it's what we have and what we know.  Within
the realm of quantum mechanics, quantum probability theory is the
foundation.  Whether there is a foundation underneath that one is a
question; it is not at all clear that the answer is yes.  In any case,
it is irrelevant to the current state of physics.

It is natural to assume in science that there is always something
beyond what you already know, not only in some direction but in every
direction.  But it is not always so.  The science of geography has
reached a definite limit, namely the finiteness of Earth, and as a
result we can only refine the maps we have rather than extend them.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle (to take one simplified
manifestation of inherent quantum randomness) could well be a similar
logical limit; after 60 years of unassailability and mathematical
exactitude, one does get a sense of closure.

>[QM is] just a tool to help us continue to make progress in spite of
>the fact that we are not able to OBSERVE the underlying processes and
>DETERMINE exactly what the outcomes should be, based upon the starting
>conditions (which we are unable to determine with certainty).

Right.  Since we can't observe the underlying processes that cause
quantum randomness, we don't know if they exist.  If they do exist, QM
is just a tool.  If they don't exist, QM is the final answer to
that particular question.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Thomas Holeva /  Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: tholeva@bu.edu (Thomas Holeva)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Questions
Date: 11 Dec 1993 23:03:19 GMT
Organization: Boston University

I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer about
tokomac type fusion reactors:

I understand that neutrons are produced which escape the magnetic
confinement field.  Do these neutrons impact the metal shielding
causing it to heat up? And is this heat used to generate electricity
from steam?

If this is so, what sort of radioactive by-products are produced by
the neutronation of the metal and how do these by-products rate in
degree of toxicity and ionizing radiation produced in comparison with
fission by-products.  Also, I understand that He is produced from
the tritium-deutierium reaction. Will the reaction no longer self-sustain
if the He concentration gets too high, or is there a mechanism to continuously
cycle fresh fuel into the system and remove the He.

Does the (supposedly) neutronated metal shield have a short period of
usefullness before it must be replaced due to high levels of radiation?

Sorry if all this is in a FAQ someplace but I'm trying to arm myself
against anti-nukies with some more knowledge. Someone just tried to
convince me that tokomacs produce plutonium...but I found this more than
a bit unlikely....and all the money we're dumping into nuclear research
would better be spent on photovoltaics.

Thanks,
Tom





cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentholeva cudfnThomas cudlnHoleva cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 23:11:58 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2ed40l$auv@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>An individual red (that is, a particular number) is no more nor less 
>likely than a particular green *if* it is a fair wheel.  It is the 
>usual principle of sensitive dependence on initial conditions that 
>makes this purely mechanical process appear random.  This is a bad 
>model for quantum mechanics, which is not a random statistical 
>process because of incomplete information.

(What I think Jim is saying at the end, which I agree with, is that QM
is a random process, but not because of incomplete information about a
non-random process underlying it.)

Your point is well-taken, but I do think that one can learn from the
comparison between gambler's probability theory and quantum probability
theory anyway.  To the gambler (at least to one who doesn't cheat), the
initial conditions of a roulette wheel and its ball are impossible to
determine and therefore irrelevant.  The gambler need not understand
the source of randomness to play roulette.  Indeed, one could imagine a
game of quantum roulette, played with 38 muons, two put in green boxes
and the rest divided between black and red; the winning box is the one
housing the first muon to decay.  This game of roulette really would be
quantum-random, but to the Joes in Las Vegas it would be just like any
other game of roulette except displayed on a computer screen.

A lot of people never internalize the close analogy between probability
theory, which they understand, and quantum mechanics, which they
don't.  For starters, the term "wave function" is a horrible misnomer;
it should be called something like a "quantum probability
distribution", except that that has too many syllables.  "Wave function
collapse" is nothing at all mysterious; it is exactly analagous to the
way the probability distribution for the position of a roulette ball
collapses when you check to see where the ball is.  And, most
importantly, given two particles, they do not each have their own wave
function, they have a joint wave function, just like a joint
probability distribution.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 23:45:47 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

The newspapers explain that TFTR runs on the D+T reaction.  If this
were to be developed into commercial fusion, you would need to get the
tritium from somewhere.  A fusion friend of mine explained to me that
one thing that you would do is irradiate lithium with the neutron flux
from the tokamak (or whatever it is) to get more tritium.  However, the
way I add it up, one D+T begets one neutron begets at most one T.  If
this is right, you can't breed the tritium with fusion alone.  If so,
what's the plan?  Do we expect a fuel cycle for the tritium that is 99%
efficient?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Help
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Help
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 00:30:25 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Dec10.152509.1887367@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com> ,
Chayim_I._Kirshen@magic-bbs.corp.apple.com writes:
**Lines reformatted to fit my screen. **

>Just a few general questions about fusion.
>
>I realise that fusion requires the fusing together of 4 hydrogen 
>atom to 1 helium atom.  The resulting decrease in density gives 
>off the energy.  So then,
>
>Why doe sit cost so much for fusioon?  Why has no one performed cold
>fusion?
>
>Chayim Kirshen
>

I will do my best to respond to this.  Feel free to ask more questions
if there is more you wish to know.

First of all, while fusion in stars uses ordinary hydrogen, it is
much simpler here on earth to use deuterium, possibly with tritium.
You only need to get two particles to stick together, instead of
four, which makes it much easier to make the reaction go.

It would be more correct to say that the difference in rest-mass
between the original hydrogen isotopes and the helium produced
is the source of the energy, rather than a "decrease in density."

The reason why your ordinary sort of fusion is so difficult is
that in order to get the deuterium atoms to stick together, you
have to get them very, very hot.  10 million degrees is a lower
limit, but 100 million degrees is a better figure.  It is only
at these temperatures that a significant number of the ions
collide with enough energy to overcome their electrical repulsion
and stick together.

(Please excuse me if I'm insulting your intelligence by giving
an answer at this level.)

Now, no ordinary material is capable of containing a deuterium
gas which has been heated to 100 million degrees, and this is
why controlled fusion has been so hard to achieve.  (If you're
not interested in controlling the reaction, you can make
fusion relatively easy by using a hydrogen bomb.)  The two
major approaches to confining the deuterium are known as
inertial confinement and magnetic confinement.

In inertial confinement fusion, lasers or particle beams are
sent towards a small pellet from all directions.  When the
beams hit the pellet, they squeeze it.  By hitting it from
all directions, the pellet has nowhere to go, and it implodes.
If you hit it hard enough, you can compress the pellet enough
that you force the deuterium ions to ram into each other and stick.

In magnetic confinement fusion, you attempt to create a "magnetic
bottle" which will prevent the ionized deuterium plasma from
escaping.  This is possible because the charged particles of the
plasma find it difficult to flow across the magnetic field, and
instead flow along it.  The tokamak (an acronym from the Russian
words for "toroidal magnetic chamber") is one example of a magnetic
confinement device.  In the tokamak, the magnetic fields are arranged
in a toroidal, or doughnut-shaped configuration.  The plasma is
then (more or less) confined to this doughnut, making it possible
to heat the ions up to the point where fusion reactions begin to
occur.  The recent fusion news is that the large tokamak here
at Princeton has set a new world's record for fusion power production.

Please let me know whether this was helpful to you!

I am very interested in not only doing fusion research, but also
in helping to teach others about the science.

**************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* Disclaimer:  I do not represent PPPL, nor TFTR, nor anyone but me. *
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Thomas Holeva, tholeva@bu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Subject: Fusion Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 00:55:44 GMT
Date: 11 Dec 1993 23:03:19 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Fusion Questions
Originally-From: Thomas Holeva, tholeva@bu.edu
Date: 11 Dec 1993 23:03:19 GMT
In article <2edjjn$gqu@news.bu.edu> Thomas Holeva, tholeva@bu.edu writes:
>I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer about
>tokomac type fusion reactors:
>
I'll do my best, and hope that others join me!

>I understand that neutrons are produced which escape the magnetic
>confinement field.  Do these neutrons impact the metal shielding
>causing it to heat up? And is this heat used to generate electricity
>from steam?

More or less, yes.  If you use a deuterium-tritium fuel, what
you really want to do is absorb the neutrons with lithium, which
not only generates heat but also creates more tritium which you
can then use to refuel the reactor.  (The net result is that
you really use deuterium and lithium as your fuel sources.)
The heat may or may not used to generate steam; it may prove
to be safer/more efficient/generally better to use a different
gas (i.e., helium) to drive the turbines.
>
>If this is so, what sort of radioactive by-products are produced by
>the neutronation of the metal and how do these by-products rate in
>degree of toxicity and ionizing radiation produced in comparison with
>fission by-products.  Also, I understand that He is produced from
>the tritium-deutierium reaction. Will the reaction no longer 
>self-sustain if the He concentration gets too high, or is there 
>a mechanism to continuously cycle fresh fuel into the system and 
>remove the He.
>
The radioactive byproducts you get depend a lot on what metals you
have in your reactor.  But unless you intentionally put "bad" 
materials in your reactor, the radioactive products from neutron
activation in a fusion reactor should be many orders of magnitude
safer than fission wastes.  Not only do the isotopes generated
decay more quickly (making the waste go away sooner), but they
are also much less biologically active, and there should not
be nearly as much of them.

As for the He produced, it's clear that as your fuel gets
converted to He, you will need to remove the He and replace it
with fresh fuel.  There are several possible ways of doing this,
but I don't think anyone really knows the best way to do it.  One
of the major goals of the TFTR experiments is to study the behavior
of the plasma when there are lots of He ions in it.  It may be that
the He will leave the plasma fairly rapidly, making this a non-problem.
But you want the He to stay long enough to dump a significant fraction
of its birth-energy back into the plasma, so you don't need to 
put as much energy into heating the plasma with other means.  (i.e.,
you want the He to help "ignite" the plasma so that it "burns" on 
its own.)

>Does the (supposedly) neutronated metal shield have a short period of
>usefullness before it must be replaced due to high levels of radiation?
>
The pessimists will tell you yes, and the optimists will tell you
that we expect to develop materials which will tend to transmit most
of the neutrons to the tritium-breeding lithium "blanket".  This would
reduce neutron-activation problems of the metal shield (which may
actually be some sort of composite material, possibly SiC, in a 
working reactor).  Personally, I lean towards the optimistic side.

>Sorry if all this is in a FAQ someplace but I'm trying to arm myself
>against anti-nukies with some more knowledge. Someone just tried to
>convince me that tokomacs produce plutonium...but I found this 
>more than a bit unlikely....and all the money we're dumping into
>nuclear research would better be spent on photovoltaics.
>
Nope, no plutonium here.  Some people *have* proposed using the
neutron fluxes from a fusion plant to deliberately activate other
materials, either to generate more power via a fusion-fission 
hybrid reactor, or to "clean up" radioactive waste by inducing it
to decay more quickly.  These proposals are pretty far-out at the
present, since we still don't have a good working fusion reactor.
I suppose if you really tried you could use uranium instead of
lithium in your blanket, and generate plutonium that way, but
my guess is that it's easier to do that in an ordinary fission reactor.

The questions you have brought up are very good ones.  They are some
of the major problems facing fusion researchers as we search for
ways to use fusion to generate power economically.  There are many
reasons why one would want a full-time fusion reactor to provide
continuous, base-load power, rather than a photovoltaic system.
If we can minimize the radioactive byproducts, and make an affordable
powerplant, fusion will be very, very attractive.

Others out there will no doubt disagree with much of what I have
said, but the answers I've given should generally be accurate.

>Thanks,
>Tom
>
You're welcome!


Bob Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (disclaimers apply)
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Rob Jellinghaus, robj@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 01:05:37 GMT
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 02:01:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Originally-From: Rob Jellinghaus, robj@netcom.com
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 02:01:36 GMT
In article <robjCHuLMp.Ft0@netcom.com> Rob Jellinghaus, robj@netcom.com
writes:
>For those of us who are unfamiliar with the context of the
>experiments, how significant is 3MW of heat production?  How much
>energy was required to create the fusion reaction, and what are the
>implications of this success for large-scale fusion power?
>
>I also have seen none of the news reports, so please excuse my
>ignorance.
>

I hope other have answered this already, but if not, here's my
contribution.

In 1971, you really didn't generate any fusion power.  In 1981,
you could get maybe 100-1000 watts.  Now we have 5.5 megawatts
(In a run on Friday they boosted the power output from 3 to 5.5 MW).
This was done using roughly 30 megawatts of input power, so while
we're getting closer to a large-scale, economic fusion reactor,
we still have some distance to go.

The critical parameter for fusion, which is basically the
product (particle density * temperature * confinement time), has
increased by a factor of about 10,000 in the past 20 years.  We
need (roughly) another factor of 10 improvement in order to start
building power stations.  (Source - PPPL data; I'd be happy to
explain this further.)

The previous best result was 1.7 megawatts generated in JET (Joint
European Torus) in Britain in 1991.  So 5.5 megawatts is another
big (though not particularly unexpected) advance.  The real
significance of the results is that the plasma actually behaved
roughly as expected.  Plasma tend to do unexpected things, and
you never really know what will happen until you do the experiment.
Successful generation of megawatt-size quantities of power is
an important milestone in the fusion research effort.

Hope this helps!

Bob Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(The usual disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Leland A /  Re: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
Date: 12 Dec 1993 01:12:59 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <1993Dec11.225410.18916@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchi
ago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>The Heisenberg uncertainty principle (to take one simplified
>manifestation of inherent quantum randomness) could well be a similar
>logical limit; after 60 years of unassailability and mathematical
>exactitude, one does get a sense of closure.

I guess the question I was asking is: Can you really say with certainty that
there is more to the "inherent quantum randomness" you mention than the
observational deficiencies stated in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
which prevents us from knowing the starting conditions. I don't think that
what you are asserting about "inherent quantum randomness" can be either
proven or disproven, and it implies something about the (possibly
hypothetical) underlying structure of reality. That was why I called it a
philosophical statement.

This has probably drifted off topic for this group, so I'll most likely just
leave the above as my final comment.


Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: BE statistics is not a force
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BE statistics is not a force
Date: 11 Dec 1993 23:41:37 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu wrote:

: First problem is to get the fusion reaction rate up to the required
: level to be of any interest as a practical power source. 

: The second problem that is somehow to be addressed within the
: BE context involves the conversion of the nuclear energy release
: to phonons.

: Dick Blue
: NSCL@MSU

In case anybody needs a contrast, TFTR just made its first shot
the other day with 50/50 D/T fuel.

5 *megawatts* of fusion power for a second or two.

The radiation was intense enough to temporarily "zap out" the TV monitors
during the shot according to the NYTimes reporter at the scene.

Big concerns in real fusion is how to deal with all the damn neutrons
coming out and new effects from helium that gets created. Cold 'fusion'ists
wish they could have such problems.

--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 01:32:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

In article <1993Dec11.234547.21195@midway.uchicago.edu> Greg Kuperberg,
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu writes:
>The newspapers explain that TFTR runs on the D+T reaction.  If this
>were to be developed into commercial fusion, you would need to get the
>tritium from somewhere.  A fusion friend of mine explained to me that
>one thing that you would do is irradiate lithium with the neutron flux
>from the tokamak (or whatever it is) to get more tritium.  However, the
>way I add it up, one D+T begets one neutron begets at most one T.  If
>this is right, you can't breed the tritium with fusion alone.  If so,
>what's the plan?  Do we expect a fuel cycle for the tritium that is 99%
>efficient?

This came up about 10 weeks ago here, where I learned that if you use
Li-7 (the dominant isotope), you have the reaction:

	n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n

So you *can* get multiple T's per input neutron.

Of course, you don't want to generate *too much* tritium, either
(it's not the greatest substance on earth).  In that case you can
use a mix of the multi-tritium-breeding Li-7 and the other
isotope Li-6, which reacts like:

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T

So you can get rid of those stray neutrons, too.  I did a calculation
back in Sept/Oct somewhere that showed that the amount of Li-6 in
the world's oceans (nevermind the land) is more than plenty to
provide fusion fuel for millions of years (and hopefully we'll have
D-D fusion, or P-B fusion, or some cleaner form of fusion long
before we run out of Li for breeding tritium).

Having written far more than was necessary to answer the question,
I'll now shut myself up.  (You have to forgive me for being more
than a little excited about the TFTR results!)


Bob Heeter
Still a Graduate Student at PPPL.
Disclaimers apply as usual.
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 02:20:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec11.211922.10983@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I give up....  That's the best I can do to explain it to you.
>
>What explanation?  The only thing I recall seeing from you was a suggestion
>that bose-condensate transitions are equivalent to the placing of bigger
>doors on Macy's department store, thus drawing in more customers.

    I think it'd be more like cooling the salesfloor down to 
    2 K.  All the remaining customers would flock to the wool blanket
    department.

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Sea Wasp /  Re: Bio-Fusion Alert!
     
Originally-From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bio-Fusion Alert!
Date: 12 Dec 93 02:31:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>Heather Kuhn <76314.572@CompuServe.COM> writes:

>This guy, Henry Ayre, has been plagueing <sp?> the Compuserve Science Forum
>with his claims that organisms are able to transmute one element to another.
>In particular, he's been claiming that chickens are able to transmute
>potassium to calcium. Mind you, his idea of what constitutes a test protocol is
>utterly laughable.


	(remainder, including Mr. Ayre's mildly amusing rantings, deleted)


	I can only say one thing about this:


	The dearly-departed Robert McElwaine was much more amusing with
his BIO-FUSION articles. (UN-altered RE-PRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of...)


					Sea Wasp
					  /^\
					  ;;;

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenseawasp cudfnSea cudlnWasp cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec 12 04:37:06 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 00:59:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec12.184742.10638@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <CHwIG2.E37@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>
>>     I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.
>>
>I figured I'd hear from somebody on this one.  While tritium will
>be produced in a D-T fusion reactor, it's not a fusion waste, so 
>what you've presented is a straw man.

     You're splitting hairs.  Tritium *is* either produced in the reactor
     or trucked in from somewhere else, and it's *in* the waste,
     so it's definitely not a straw man.  Would you like me to claim that
     radio-iodine and strontium are rather useful, so they're not
     'waste' from conventional fission plants?  Besides, I guarantee 
     that the people violently protesting the plant's
     construction (if we even get there in 50 years) will not 
     think tritium is made of straw.

>whereas your strontium and iodine stick to you.

     Only if you salt your steak with them.  A couple of ounces of 
     2,4D in your milkshake will do worse, as will running a
     chainsaw resting on your abdomen or placing your forehead
     into your fanbelt.  So both fusion *and* fission are safer
     than farming, forestry, and automobiles.

>But what I said was that the radioactive *wastes* from a fusion
>plant will be safer than the *wastes* from a fission plant, and I'll
>stand by that one.  Want me to start citing chapter and verse?

     Waste includes all the stuff a) passing through the walls, and
     b) coming out of the reactor.  Since tritium is in the stuff coming
     out, I'd like you to explain which verse has 'tritium=not waste'.

     And you said that the wastes were less 'biologically active', 
     a debatable point.  There's nothing much more 'biologically active'
     than water, and there's likely preferential uptake of HTO
     in tissues.  

>>     Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have
>> 	probably already been met without waiting 50 years, and 
>>	explain why we're not building any plants.
>>
>Have they been met?  Why are all the spent-fuel pools filling up?
>Why do you qualify your statement with "probably?"
>>
>>     Hint:  one difficulty is that 'minimum' means 'not too much'
>>     to me, and 'none' to others.  The others appear to be winning.
>>
>"None" is clearly not the right criterion, since the public is
>tolerant of nuclear medicine. 

     No they're not.  Have you seen discussion on regional waste
     compacts?  How about discussion of burning low-level medical
     waste?  How about NMR being changed to MRI simply because NMR
     has the hated word 'nuclear' in it? 

     Microwave relay towers, high tension lines, and two radio transmitters
     have been blocked in this area alone for reasons *less* plausable
     than those for blocking fusion plants.

     What gets me is the *promise* that all these things will be okay
     in the future when they're clearly not okay *right now* for fission.
     And more and more generating capacity will be taken by fossil
     fuels in the next century (or purchased from people willing to 
     build fission plants) while we're waiting for the economical
     'clean' fusion plant that never shows up.

     The really 'cool' thing about this con is that plants are promised
     for at least 50 years from now, so that no one in the present generation
     need be held responsible for failure to deliver on wild wishes
     and promises.  All of the current program managers will be likely
     be dead by then, certainly all the founders of fusion programs will
     be dead.  

     I'll be 81, and if it weren't so sad, I'd be laughing.

                               dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:29:42 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:

>bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) writes:
>>8. Bockris - speaks of the damage of cathodes induced by loading....
>>Load with low current density - under .35 A/cm3 - this is considered good.

>Hmm, this runs against my intuition that flow rates ought to be measured
>through a cross-sectional area, i.e., something like .35A/cm2.  I can

It may have been x/cm2.  I was sitting in the back.  Overvoltage seemed to
be measured as a surface effect but current density struck me as something
that should be a volume effect.  I don't know enough to say for sure.

I sat in the back to observe audience reaction to the talks which was/is
an important variable to me.
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:37:11 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <01H671XMQ64I8WW17O@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter
Britz) wrote:
> isotopes) to be measured by a manometer, and the rest into a "magnetic
> resonance mass spectrometer" (it must be my ignorance but I had not heard of

Are you sure this wasn't an "ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer"?  I
too have never heard of a "magnetic resonance ms".

Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Mark Hittinger /  some ICCF4 Monday notes 
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 19:11:16 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.


Random notes on ICCF4-Monday from an interested observer.

Caveat: My background is Computers and Economics, not the natural
        sciences. (Just my opinions guys, free and worth it)

I think we need some new categories for peoples' postions.  We have
right now "TB - true believers" and "skeptics".  I think we need to have
a category for "WS - worried skeptics" which I feel I fall into.  We also
need an "OS - owns the stock" category - see below.

1. New umbrella's are created for cold fusion work.  In Japan they have
created "New Hydrogen Energy" (corp, agency?) with 30 million dollar funding
over a four year period.  NHE is underneath MITI.  It was *NOT* stated but I
got the impression that most Japanese cold fusion work would be done under
this umbrella and not in the various corporations ala NTT.

ENECO (formerly FEAT) is a private company that is evidently buying the
licensing/patent rights for cold fusion and attempting to centralize the
holdings of cold fusion intellectual property rights.   ENECO has announced
the purchase of the rights to P&F's stuff and a lot of others.  ENECO looks
like it is being readied for some type of public stock offering.

It appears to me that the multiple independent researcher mode of the past
few years is giving way to a consolidation of work under a new banner in
the USA and Japan.  Many speculations can fall out of this and I will try
some at a later time.

2. The conference fee of $300 was way too low!  What a bargain!  The food
was excellent, they provided us with plenty of refreshments, and even a nice
multi-function handbag (hi-tech purse).  Having attended other conferences
across many disciplines I feel very comfortable congradulating Linda Nelson
and company on an outstanding job.  By Thursday I was certain that the 
conference fee should have been around $500.  I predict an increase for
ICCF5 in Nice, France!

3. There was a lot of material from new presenters and unhappily brief
material from old presenters (dammit).  There were too many sessions to
go to and I found myself dashing from session to session trying to catch
the material that caught my eye.  Again, the wonderful conference organizers
gave us a book of one page abstracts on each paper so we could do a fair job
of picking and choosing.  How can you get a bunch of cold fusion researchers
to summarize what they are going to talk about on one page?

4. On Monday morning Dr. Fleischmann gave a short talk on calorimetry with
emphasis on "Simplicity and Accuracy".  It looked good as this is one of
the main problems with the current work.  If you have never heard him speak
I'll just say he is an old world smoothie and a pleasure to listen to.  He
began speaking of building a model of their calorimetry using linear and
non-linear regressions.  Instead of getting specific about the model he
tossed out some distractions such as a plot of cell temperature and voltage
over time.  Pointing at the graph he mentioned "chaos" and that there
may be one or two "strange attractors" at work.  My antennas are instantly
up and wavering around "non-linear", "linear", or "chaos"?  Meanwhile he
tosses out another distraction, namely, that there may be a third phase in
the D/Pd system and that the effect that they see may be tied to "crashing"
the system through the endo/exo phases as rapidly as possible.  How many
antennas is a guy supposed to have?  

Fortunately Dr. Fleischmann comes to my rescue quickly and says that all
this is overkill and that they now use linear regression, discarding the
non-linear fitted differential.  Just as my antennas are calming down he
states that they see a "small parasitic excess enthalpy in their blank
experiments" and "precise measurements are always slightly more than the
accurate measurement in blanks".  Sproing!!  He is doing this on purpose!!

In any event we wind up with a simplified linear regression model (and 
tired antennas).  Now Dr. Fleischmann starts heading in the other direction
and adds additional "independent variables" to his simplified model.  He
adds many terms such as "processing variables", "delta surface potential",
"electrolyte modifiers", and last but not least "chaos".  Sproing!!  To an
old stock market modeler it looks like he has just made the transition to
an attempt at an "optimizer" model that will allow him to predict what
conditions should yield the best excess enthalpy.  He naturally gave
us all of his data points and his regression coefficients - NOT!

An old stock market modeler will tell you that regression doesn't give you
good predictions because the so called "independent variables" are not
really all that independent.  It appears the same situation exists in his
model.  When regression fails to give good predictions in stock market 
models you then hear magic words like "chaos", "neural networks", and
"fuzzy logic".  Dr. Fleischmann's use of the "chaos" magic word may 
indicate a frustration in predicting favorable conditions with linear
regression.  A neat talk - tired antennas.

5.  Gozzi - interesting helium 4 and excess heat results.  Discussions on
atmospheric contamination issues so Gozzi et al are worried about this.
Some attempts to correlate heat bursts with helium 4.  

6.  Hasegawa - closed cell, attempts to measure D/Pd loading ratio.  Trouble
getting D/Pd ratio above .9.  Excess heat correlates more to the current
density than to the loading ratio.  Mentions electrolyte adjustments to
increase loading.  .6 millimolar Thiourea increases loading above .92.  Then
used Rhodium alloy 20%, 30% and achieved 1.0 loading but not excess heat.
Hasegawa lists variables that "control" excess heat (Remember Fleischmann's
model earlier)
         1.  D/Pd
         2.  i * (A/cm3)  (current density)
         3.  cathode overvoltage
         4.  temperature
         5.  cathode impurities
         6.  time
         7.  ?  (hmmmm)
Hasegawa says variables 1-4 are "not independent".  You cannot fiddle with
one without seeing a response in the other 3.  Not good for regressions.

7.  McKubre - not much talk of last year's work.  Seemed to be more of a 
talk about what he is going to do next year.  Either he wasn't ready yet
or had nothing positive to report.  It looks like he is going to a lot of
trouble to set up good experiments which will satisfy critics.  One
particularly nifty experiment involved a machine which would process a spool
of palladium wire through several stages.  Essentially the machine is a
little "cathode adjustment" factory which then fed into a heavy water cell.
Electrodes would reach out and touch the surface of the wire to induce
electrolisis in the treated wire segment.  I was worried that the wire
segments were not "chopped" off before using (or didn't appear to be.
The surface of the palladium wire could be treated in many
different ways before going into the cell to measure its excess heat if
any.  Yet another of a series of talks that seem to have an "optimization"
theme to it.  Instead of a mathematical model attempt McKubre looks
like he is going to attempt to brute force a search for the more favorable
conditions.  This is sort of like the "Andromeda Strain" where they put the
infectious agent in many different cultures to see what would happen.  The
epileptic scientist then stares at hours of results and misses the important
one.  Better luck Mike!!

8. Bockris - speaks of the damage of cathodes induced by loading.  A very
interesting talk.  If he loads too quickly the damage is greater.  Damage 
allows D to escape easier.  Damage prevents high loading ratios which are
considered important to obtain the effect.  Therefore damage and fast loading
are bad.  Load with low current density - under .35 A/cm3 - this is considered
good.  Cathodes that produced excess heat were examined by surface leaching.
Interesting "hexagon" shapes appear (shades of Andromeda Strain!).  Also
"microvoids" little empty spheres around 2000 angstroms across.  I was
fascinated with an off topic discussion of using 82, 365, and 533 MHZ 100
milliwatt input to "excite/enhance" the reaction.  The frequencies I list are
just an approximation.  Bockris showed math in his paper giving the actual
frequencies to 4 decimal places, i.e. 81.xxxx Mhz.  Others at the conference
were very big on putting a coil of 100 milliwatt 82mhz energy around their
cells.  Bockris also says the effect is enhanced by the introduction of 200
gauss and 800 gauss magnets outside the cell.  Another optimization kind of
theme but one which does not involve the cathode impurity issue.  Bockris
appears to like near pure cathodes.

9. Dr. Pons and "Heat After Death" - if you boil an open cell with light water
until the water is gone the cell "dies".  (The electrolisis stops)  You then
measure the temperature of the cell as the cathode cools.  You get a cooling
curve which looks very nice and reasonable.  If Dr. Pons does this with heavy
water the temperature stays high and does not go down with the expected curve.
The temperature will begin to drop off and then go back up a little before
coming down again.  It looks a lot like the curve of a crashing stock market -
it doesn't go directly down and there are several attempts to move back up.
The cooling curve of the heavy water cell is anomolous and P&F call this the
"heat after death" effect.  The curves that Dr. Pons showed were clearly of
a much finer time granularity than they have stated in earlier talks.  They
were criticised for taking measurements every 300 seconds or something. 
Somehow I don't believe that they are really doing this 300 second thing and
that they feel finer granularity data may reveal one of their tricks.

Dr. Pons was not smiling or joking around during his presentation.  I don't
know if this was the pressure of seeing shark fins moving around out in the
audience or if this is his traditional style.  It was technical and gave me
the impression that Dr. Pons is very much the hands on guy in this duo and
that Dr. Fleischmann is the "blue sky - what to try" guy.  

Dr. Pons said that the cells "remember" the temperature that they were at
during "death" and that the temperature bobbles around this for awhile before
starting to cool.  Someone thought to ask if the effect was seen in
lightwater and Dr. Pons said no excess heat in light water.  I wanted to get
in and ask if they were using cathodes with an insulated surface layer but
Dr. Morrison pounced first and demanded to know if Pons was wearing radiation
badges.  Dr. Pons raised his shields and would talk no more.  Dr. Morrison did
not look like a "good guy" in this episode and the contrast with his excellent,
calmly delivered, and deadly summary on Wednesday was striking.  I'll talk
about Dr. Morrison's Wednesday talk in a later post.  

Dr. Morrison actually can hurt the skeptic case (in the eyes of the public)
with the prior technique and I was sad to see it (also sad to see Pons
shields go up so we couldn't ask any more good stuff - to pin him down
of course).

I really wanted to ask about cathode surface differences between these 
cells and the older ones.  I also wanted to compare Dr. Fleischmann's
earlier indication of "small parasitic excess" in blanks with Dr. Pons
indication of no light water heat after death.

Of all the positive results presented at ICCF4 the heat after death is the
most worrisome to me.

Thats it for Monday - it was time for private debate, beach, booze, bounty,
and excess relaxation. I'll post something on the other days later when I
organize those portions.

---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 18:00:23 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2edr6r$m1n@insosf1.infonet.net> leland@ins.infonet.net writes:
>Can you really say with certainty that there is more to the "inherent
>quantum randomness" you mention than the observational deficiencies
>stated in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which prevents us from
>knowing the starting conditions.

"Starting conditions" is a loaded term, because you could in principle
declare that the entire history of the universe was foreordained, and
this would not be a disprovable hypothesis.  The real question is
whether it is possible to predict specific events, and for that you
have to say not only that the starting conditions exist, but also that
you could conceivably know and use that information.  Otherwise the
distinction between the presence and the absence of starting conditions
is scientifically meaningless.

The "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" is also a loaded term, because
on the one hand it refers to a specific inequality which seems deceptively
tangible, and on the other hand it can mean any consequence whatsoever
that can be derived from this inequality, include the entire calculus
of quantum probability theory from the principle itself is derived.
I'm going to avoid this particular example because it misleadingly
smacks of classical wave equations and so forth.

If you think about it, radioactive decay is an extremely peculiar
phenomenon.  You have two tritium nuclei (say), and there is absolutely
no way to tell them apart as far as anyone knows, and one day one of
them gets the itch to decay and the other one doesn't.  Why that one
and not the other?  According to quantum mechanics, this is an
inherently unpredictable event.  Perhaps a diety outside the realm of
quantum mechanics could know which tritium atoms are going to decay on
which day, but that is a religious question and not a scientific one.
What quantum mechanics says is that no machine which itself obeys the
rules of quantum mechanics is capable of sorting out the tritium nuclei
according to when they will decay.  Tritium nuclei that have not yet
decayed obey the statistics of identical (fermionic) particles; the
statistics make no sense for particles that are not truly identical.
So yes, this "observational deficiency" of QM is not something that you
can fix by extending QM; you have to destroy QM in order to banish it.

While we are on this subject, people were putting forth the
preposterous notion that, according to QM, observing whether or not a
nucleus has decayed impedes the decay process by wave function
collapse.  Not only does QM not predict this, it isn't true at all; you
don't reduce the radiation from a sample of tritium by weighing it or
putting a Geiger counter next to it.  What QM actually says is that you
can't impede the decay of a nucleus without destroying or seriously
perturbing it (which is a cheat), or using acceleration or gravity
(which is also a cheat or at least a relativistic sleight-of-hand).
The guy who patented a process to accelerate radioactive decay is also
almost certainly off his rocker.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: recent results
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Joe Mcdermott, joe.mcdermott@cld9.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: recent results
Subject: recent results
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 18:29:16 GMT
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 01:58:00 -0600
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: recent results
Originally-From: Joe Mcdermott, joe.mcdermott@cld9.com
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 01:58:00 -0600
In article <7.3807.797.0N56D528@cld9.com> Joe Mcdermott,
joe.mcdermott@cld9.com writes:
>As a science buff who somehow turned left out of high school and ended
>up a lawyer, I still anxiously follow news such as that out of the
>Princeton fusion lab.  At the risk of exposing an inappropriate 
>level of ignorance for this conference, does this weeks s success 
>make possible and/or predictable the eventual use of fusion for 
>clean power generation in a decentralized delvery system?  The
>arrogance of my local electric utility makes me yearn for a 
>replacement source.  My congratulations to all involved at the
>Princeton lab.

The short answer is: nope.  As it's currently being pursued, hot
fusion will probably only be feasible in the form of large
central-station power plants.  There is a chance that some of
the advanced-concept ideas (which unfortunately do not get
very much funding) such as electrostatic fusion may be feasible
in smaller sizes suitable for decentralized delivery, but at
this point no one knows if that will ever come to pass.

This week's fusion results are good in that they show that a
deuterium-tritium plasma doesn't do anything unexpectedly nasty,
but there are still a large number of technical hurdles before
one could say economical fusion power generation will be practical.
But those of us who work on fusion power are doing what we can
to get past those hurdles!

If you would like more information, I'd suggest that you either
continue to read the group, or if you would like I'd be happy
to continue this via email.

Hope I was able to answer your question intelligibly.

*****
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* I don't represent the lab, and I don't work on TFTR. *
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / J Interguru /  Re: Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
Date: 12 Dec 1993 18:47:54 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

Please correct me  - wasn't TFTR supposed to reach breakeven when it was 
designed?

 ----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.     
InterGuru -- Internet Consulting and Training    
Internet Information Searching        
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902  
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)           
j.davidson@ieee.org   
For more information send to guru-info@clark.net                        
 ----------------------------------------------------


 Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: In article <JTCHEW-101293144149@b50-afrd10.lbl.gov> Ad absurdum per
: aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov writes:
: >4. MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT FUSION AT PPPL SETS POWER OUTPUT RECORD!
: >Last night, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab finally began high-
: >power D-T experiments.  Using a "50-50" D-T mixture, the Tokamak
: >Fusion Test Reactor produced 3 MW of fusion power for about one
: >second.  Break-even is still a long way off; the Q, which is the
: >ratio of the fusion power produced to the power that went into
: >heating the plasma, was about 1/8.  Nevertheless, as of last
: >night, TFTR has achieved all the objectives set for it in 1975.
: >On hand to celebrate was Lyman Spitzer, who founded PPPL in 1951.
: >He was also celebrating NASA's successful repair of the Hubble
: >telescope; Spitzer first proposed an orbiting telescope in 1946.

: The record was boosted to 5.5 megawatts this afternoon (Friday Dec.
: 10).  (Note that this boosts Q to about 1/5.)  For those of you 
: not seeing this on sci.physics.fusion, more info can be found 
: there!

: Others are no doubt more qualified than I to discuss these
: results; I just posted this to update the What's New and to
: invite people to discuss this on sci.physics.fusion.

: ************************
: Robert F. Heeter
: Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
: Disclaimer:  I don't work on TFTR, I just work at PPPL.
: Disclaimer:  I do not represent PPPL in any way, shape or form!
: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

--
 ----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.     
InterGuru -- Internet Consulting and Training    
Internet Information Searching        
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902  
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)           
j.davidson@ieee.org   
For more information send to guru-info@clark.net                        
 ----------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 /  Tomyrus /  Re: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
     
Originally-From: lnguyen@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu (Tomyrus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics as probability theory
Date: 12 Dec 1993 18:49:50 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA


In article <2edr6r$m1n@insosf1.infonet.net> leland@ins.infonet.net writes:
>Can you really say with certainty that there is more to the "inherent
>quantum randomness" you mention than the observational deficiencies
>stated in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which prevents us from
>knowing the starting conditions.

	Be carefull when using words like "random".  QM is not the same as
classical systems that yield to stochastic methods of analysis.  The
wavefunctions are fully deterministic.  As a matter of fact, even QM systems
subjected to large perturbations seem quite incapable of exhibiting the same
chaotic behavior as the corresponding classical systems.  So IMHO "quantum
randomness" is a misleading statement.  However, when we collapse the
wavefunctions (i.e. make a measurement) all bets are off and I leave it to
more sophisticated minds than mine to articulate the situation as I am a
clueless undergrad.

-Linh
lnguyen@jarthur.claremont.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlnguyen cudlnTomyrus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 18:47:42 GMT
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 02:48:01 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Originally-From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 02:48:01 GMT
In article <CHwIG2.E37@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>In article <1993Dec12.005544.23495@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>safer than fission wastes.  Not only do the isotopes generated
>>decay more quickly (making the waste go away sooner), but they
>>are also much less biologically active, and there should not
>>be nearly as much of them.
>
>     Planning on swallowing fuel rods?   However, I'd
>     think you'd do much better on a mouthful of ceramic fuel rod
>     than few good healthy whiffs of D-T.  Besides, I've yet to hear of 
>     actinides diffusing out of a reactor core through the walls.  On 
>     the other hand a very 'biologically active' material, tritium,
>	does so fairly easily.
>
>     I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.
>
I figured I'd hear from somebody on this one.  While tritium will
be produced in a D-T fusion reactor, it's not a fusion waste, so 
what you've presented is a straw man.

If you want to compare radioactive inventories and the relative
risks of exposure to lost tritium vs. accidental radiation releases
from fission plants, I think you'll find fusion is pretty safe.
That "biologically active" tritium goes right out of your body
in about 3 days, whereas your strontium and iodine stick to you.
And with only a few grams of tritium in the plant at a given time,
there wouldn't be enough released for even a few "good healthy whiffs".

But what I said was that the radioactive *wastes* from a fusion
plant will be safer than the *wastes* from a fission plant, and I'll
stand by that one.  Want me to start citing chapter and verse?

>>If we can minimize the radioactive byproducts, and make an affordable
>>powerplant, fusion will be very, very attractive.
>
>     Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have
> 	probably already been met without waiting 50 years, and 
>	explain why we're not building any plants.
>
Have they been met?  Why are all the spent-fuel pools filling up?
Why do you qualify your statement with "probably?"
>
>     Hint:  one difficulty is that 'minimum' means 'not too much'
>     to me, and 'none' to others.  The others appear to be winning.
>
"None" is clearly not the right criterion, since the public is
tolerant of nuclear medicine.  Whether fusion wastes will be low
enough to be acceptable *is* an open question.  I think it will
be possible.  Since we're talking 40 years into the future here,
you really can't predict what public attitudes towards nuclear
power will be.  (Consider what they were 40 years ago!)

**********
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 02:27:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <11DEC93.21372748@nel.pfc.mit.edu>,
PAUL <stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu> wrote:
>The question was asked, "what is the importance of the tritium experiments
>on TFTR?"
>
>Well for the first time a Tokamak was fueled using tritium.  (Well actually
>JET put in a bit of tritium a year ago, but not like the recent TFTR
>experiments.) 

     Not like JET?  Perhaps it's a different 'flavor' tritium?

     'PPPL discovers strawberry tritium.  Film at 11'.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 02:48:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec12.005544.23495@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>safer than fission wastes.  Not only do the isotopes generated
>decay more quickly (making the waste go away sooner), but they
>are also much less biologically active, and there should not
>be nearly as much of them.

     Planning on swallowing fuel rods?   However, I'd
     think you'd do much better on a mouthful of ceramic fuel rod
     than few good healthy whiffs of D-T.  Besides, I've yet to hear of 
     actinides diffusing out of a reactor core through the walls.  On 
     the other hand a very 'biologically active' material, tritium, does 
     so fairly easily.

     I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.

>If we can minimize the radioactive byproducts, and make an affordable
>powerplant, fusion will be very, very attractive.

     Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have probably
     already been met without waiting 50 years, and explain why we're 
     not building any plants.

     Hint:  one difficulty is that 'minimum' means 'not too much'
     to me, and 'none' to others.  The others appear to be winning.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.11 / Marshall Dudley /  Re Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 16:37:40 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

In News Item <01H671XMQ64I8WW17O@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz writes:

> The authors took samples of Al made, as usual, electrolytically in a cryolite
> bath, shaped in several different forms, like rods and foils, and put them
> into a vacuum chamber at 1200 degC. When the temp. was reached, they evacuated
> for 15 min, while the gases were allowed to diffuse through a Pd membrane (H
> isotopes) to be measured by a manometer, and the rest into a "magnetic
> resonance mass spectrometer" (it must be my ignorance but I had not heard of
> this before), of high sensitivity. I read it as about 1/10000 from their
> graph. This could detect helium isotopes and some others that got through.
> Tritium was detected by a proportional counter.

> The various sensitivities were (in atoms): H: 10^18; T: 10^6; 3He:10^6;
> 4He: 10^11. Don't ask me why sensitivity for 4He is so much worse than for
> 3He.

Actually the previous paragraph indicates why there is such a difference in
sensitivities.  The helium is being detected by a magnetic resonance mass spec.
I am not very familiar with the instrument, but would assume it is similar to
what is called an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance).  These instruments
basically magnetically "kick" a sample (or part of a person in a hospital),
and they use a coil to pick up the magnetic resonances.  Different atoms will
give different frequencies, and these can be used to differentiate between the
different atoms.  However, it takes quite a number of atoms to to be detected
by systems with today's sensitivitiess.

Tritium on the other hand can be detected by nuclear decay.  This is a very
sensitive process, especially for isotopes with a fairly short half-life
(12.33 years for Tritium).  Ie. a proportional counter with a background of
one count per minute could detect a .1 count per minute activity with 95%
confidence level after counting for 167 hours.  This activity is on the order
of what 10^6 Tritium atoms would produce.

								Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Robert F /  New Controlled Fusion Power Record
     
Originally-From: "Robert F. Heeter" <rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Originally-From: Rich Hawryluk, rhawryluk@pppl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.physics.research
Subject: New Controlled Fusion Power Record
Subject: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 10, 1993
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 05:59:05 GMT
Date: 10 Dec 1993 09:42:10 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Subject: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power

This thread originated in sci.physics.fusion; I thought it
was worth spreading the word, so I have added sci.physics
and sci.physics.research to the distribution.

In article <Fairfax.22.2D08BB59@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU> on 
sci.physics.fusion, Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU 
writes: (after slight line reformatting)

>Last night, at approximately 11 PM, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
>(TFTR) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) performed
>experiments with deuterium-tritium mixtures that approached the 
>"ideal" ratio of 50/50 D-T.  Preliminary results indicate fusion 
>power production in excess of 3 MW, a new world record.  The
>experiments will continue.  Several news reports of the experiments
>have been published, and more are expected.
>
>I congratulate the TFTR team on this accomplishment and look forward 
>to more exciting results in the future.
>
>P.S.  I had hoped that a PPPL person would post the results, as 
>they would be in a much better position to answer questions on 
>the details of the experiments.  Mr. Heeter, where are you?

I'm happy to say I can confirm this report!  Everyone here is
fairly excited, even those of us (like me) who don't work on TFTR.
Although we've been anticipating this moment for quite some time,
it's still exhilarating.

I'm certainly not in any position to comment personally on the
experiments, since I'm not directly involved with TFTR, but I 
can forward the information which has been distributed here.
The following appeared on the local group pppl.tftr.news.
<< my comments will appear like this >>
<<I have reformatted some of the lines to fit my screen width.>>
<<I have probably included far more information than necessary,
but I didn't want to be accused of unjust editing :) >>

Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 10, 1993
Originally-From: Rich Hawryluk, rhawryluk@pppl.gov
<Hawryluk is in charge of TFTR.>
Date: 10 Dec 1993 09:42:10 -0500

In article <2ea1s2$rep@lyman.pppl.gov> Rich Hawryluk, 
rhawryluk@pppl.gov writes:

>Status (Dec. 10, 1993):
>
>Last night, we began high power D-T experiments on TFTR.  
>Five experiments were performed.  The first four experiments were 
>with one tritium neutral beam source and varying numbers of 
>deuterium sources The total power was varied from 5MW to 28MW to
>evaluate the performance of the neutron detectors and other
>diagnostics. The fifth shot was with 24MW of power and a nearly 
>"50-50" D-T mix.  This experiment was conducted about 11:08 PM . 

>About three megawatts of fusion power were produced.  The data 
>from these experiments is being further analyzed.

<< The last thing I heard here was 3.5 megawatts, giving about 15%
overall efficiency - 100% would be breakeven, of course. >>

>The machine parameters for these experiments was:
>R=              2.52m
>a=              0.87m
>I=              2.0MA
>B=              5T
>
>
>There was significant press interest in beginning the D-T 
>experiments and front page articles in the N.Y. Times, Philadelphia
>Inquirer, Newark Star Ledger, Washington Post and the Trenton Times
>have appeared. This list is not comprehensive.
>
<< I would add that there was a fairly good article on the front
page of the NYT science section earlier this week (Tues, I think.).
Those with interest and access may want to add it to the scrapbook. >>

>Plans:
>
>Continue high power D-T experiments in accordance with DT-7 today and
>increase the fusion power during the next week.
>
>News Alert:
>
>The following News Alert was distributed to the staff today:
>
>"TFTR set a world record of about three million watts of controlled
>fusion power, during the first approximately 50-50 deuterium-tritium
>(D-T) experiment. The first high power shot occurred at 11:08 pm 
>on Thursday night, December 9," said PPPL Director Ron Davidson. 
>This was the world's first magnetic fusion experiment utilizing a
>plasma made up of equal parts of deuterium and tritium in a 
>tokamak-the mix required for practical amounts of fusion power.
>
>        "These results are products of years of hard work by an
>extraordinarily dedicated and creative staff," said TFTR Project
>Manager Rich Hawryluk. One approximately 50-50 deuterium-tritium
>experiment was run. D-T experiments will resume Friday morning,
>according to Hawryluk.
>
>        "This world record is a great step in the development of fusion
>energy," remarked Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary. "It highlights
>the enormous progress being made in the field. This is the most
>significant achievement in fusion energy in the past two decades. 
>I commend the Princeton staff for the years of hard work and
>dedication."
>
>        Manager of the DOE's Princeton Area Office Milton Johnson
>observed, "The U.S. Congress and the American taxpayers have
>demonstrated their support for-and their fascination with-the
>development of fusion energy for years. This important milestone 
>shows their faith well placed, and we welcome the opportunity to 
>show that their investment will pay off in the future."
>
>        Said Davidson, "The TFTR team is to be congratulated for this
>superb accomplishment. We now look forward to the rest of the D-T
>experimental campaign with great pride and anticipation." 
>Theoretically, a 50-50 mixture is optimal for commercial fusion 
>power. TFTR is performing the world's first tokamak experiments 
>with D-T mixtures at concentrations up to 100 percent tritium, 
>allowing for unprecedented studies of the plasma behavior expected 
>in a reactor.
>
>        In a letter to PPPL, anticipating the D-T experiments, 
>New Jersey Governor Jim Florio wrote, "As Governor of New Jersey, 
>I extend best wishes and congratulations to the staff of the 
>Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as you begin the 
>deuterium-tritium experiments on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor. 
>I have followed the accomplishments of PPPL with great interest,
>and I expect these experiments to put the crowning touch on the 
>decade-long series of successes from the TFTR Project. With your
>concern for safety today and a safe, abundant energy source for 
>the future, you bring credit to the State of New Jersey."
>
>        Added Secretary O'Leary, "This research exemplifies 
>three elements of the Department's mission; to achieve diverse 
>energy sources, a productive and competitive economy, and 
>improved environmental quality.  Fusion offers the promise of 
>a safe, environmentally acceptable, inexhaustible source of 
>energy in the next century."

******************************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
*Posting of my own volition; and not representing PPPL*
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / L Plutonium /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 10:51:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2edfmb$84i@panix.com>
cremin@panix.com (David Cremin) writes:

> By the way, this is not a novel idea. I remember that in the fifties and
> sixties in Europe, there existed hub-mounted generators built into the
> front wheel.

  Actually, such devices built for a house when the power is out is
very useful. Instead of candles or worn down batteries, it is nice to
reach for a frisbee sized object with a handle on it which you rotate
and a lamp furnishes more light than a dozen people with their
flashlights. And the beauty of my frisbee sized rotary lamp is that you
never have to keep a stock of batteries. And in case of real emergency
this generator light would be the best answer.
  As an aside, I once read where a family man was so fed up with the
idiot box TV and the wasting of his children's time that he connected
the TV to a bicycle electric generator. Any family member wanting to
watch TV could do so, as they pedaled furiously to keep the program
going. I say that is smart family planning. I recommend doing the same
with computer games. The mouse could be designed into the handlebar.
Maybe Mr. Cremin will design a mouse handlebar and patent it?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Joe Mcdermott /  recent results
     
Originally-From: joe.mcdermott@cld9.com (Joe Mcdermott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: recent results
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 01:58:00 -0600
Organization: C-9 Communications

As a science buff who somehow turned left out of high school and ended
up a lawyer, I still anxiously follow news such as that out of the
Princeton fusion lab.  At the risk of exposing an inappropriate level of
ignorance for this conference, does this weeks s success make possible
and/or predictable the eventual use of fusion for clean power generation
in a decentralized delvery system?  The arrogance of my local electric
utility makes me yearn for a replacement source.  My congratulations to
all involved at the Princeton lab.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmcdermott cudfnJoe cudlnMcdermott cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 20:44:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <bugs.755723476@netsys.com>, Mark Hittinger <bugs@NETSYS.COM> wrote:
>
>Random notes on ICCF4-Monday from an interested observer.

     Interesting, thanks.

>4. On Monday morning Dr. Fleischmann gave a short talk on calorimetry with
>emphasis on "Simplicity and Accuracy".  It looked good as this is one of
>the main problems with the current work.  If you have never heard him speak
>I'll just say he is an old world smoothie and a pleasure to listen to.  He
>began speaking of building a model of their calorimetry using linear and
>non-linear regressions. 

     I'm curious why they need a 'model' of the response at all.
     Measurements are all that are necessary.

     As usual, it seems like they're blowing a bunch of smoke 
     to obscure the fact that the measurements are inadequate.  

> Instead of getting specific about the model he
>tossed out some distractions such as a plot of cell temperature and voltage
>over time.  Pointing at the graph he mentioned "chaos" and that there
>may be one or two "strange attractors" at work.
..
>models you then hear magic words like "chaos", "neural networks", and
>"fuzzy logic".  Dr. Fleischmann's use of the "chaos" magic word may 
>indicate a frustration in predicting favorable conditions with linear
>regression.  A neat talk - tired antennas.

    Or 'catastrophe theory', or 'bifurcation', or 'punctuated equilibrium'
    or any of myriad other past and present fad buzzwords.

    Or there may be Pixies.  I think my 'Pixie hypothesis' is much simpler,
    and more likely.

>Hasegawa lists variables that "control" excess heat (Remember Fleischmann's
>model earlier)
>         1.  D/Pd
>         2.  i * (A/cm3)  (current density)
>         3.  cathode overvoltage
>         4.  temperature
>         5.  cathode impurities
>         6.  time
>         7.  ?  (hmmmm)
>Hasegawa says variables 1-4 are "not independent".  You cannot fiddle with
>one without seeing a response in the other 3.  Not good for regressions.

      7.  Pixies.

>7.  McKubre - not much talk of last year's work.  Seemed to be more of a 
>talk about what he is going to do next year.  Either he wasn't ready yet
>or had nothing positive to report.  It looks like he is going to a lot of
>trouble to set up good experiments which will satisfy critics. 

     I wonder if the 'effect' is disappearing with increased sampling?
     It's odd that he'd shy away from discussing his current results.

>8. Bockris - speaks of the damage of cathodes induced by loading.  A very
>interesting talk.  If he loads too quickly the damage is greater.  Damage 
>allows D to escape easier.  Damage prevents high loading ratios which are
>considered important to obtain the effect.  Therefore damage and fast loading
>are bad.  Load with low current density - under .35 A/cm3 - this is considered
>good.  Cathodes that produced excess heat were examined by surface leaching.
>Interesting "hexagon" shapes appear (shades of Andromeda Strain!).  Also
>"microvoids" little empty spheres around 2000 angstroms across.  I was
>fascinated with an off topic discussion of using 82, 365, and 533 MHZ 100
>milliwatt input to "excite/enhance" the reaction.  The frequencies I list are
>just an approximation.  Bockris showed math in his paper giving the actual
>frequencies to 4 decimal places, i.e. 81.xxxx Mhz.  Others at the conference
>were very big on putting a coil of 100 milliwatt 82mhz energy around their
>cells.  Bockris also says the effect is enhanced by the introduction of 200
>gauss and 800 gauss magnets outside the cell.  Another optimization kind of
>theme but one which does not involve the cathode impurity issue.  Bockris
>appears to like near pure cathodes.

      Was Mr. Bockris still using DC means to measure the current and
      voltage?  And I wonder if he can say 'induction'?  

>9. Dr. Pons and "Heat After Death" - if you boil an open cell with light water
>until the water is gone the cell "dies".  (The electrolisis stops)  You then
>measure the temperature of the cell as the cathode cools.  You get a cooling
>curve which looks very nice and reasonable.  If Dr. Pons does this with heavy
>water the temperature stays high and does not go down with the expected curve.
>The temperature will begin to drop off and then go back up a little before
>coming down again. 

      It appears to me to sit *at* 100C for three hours without any little 
      dropoffs.  Did he even mention this *published* result, or attempt 
      to explain the miraculous regulation required for the cell to do so?

> It looks a lot like the curve of a crashing stock market -
>it doesn't go directly down and there are several attempts to move back up.
>The cooling curve of the heavy water cell is anomolous and P&F call this the
>"heat after death" effect.  The curves that Dr. Pons showed were clearly of
>a much finer time granularity than they have stated in earlier talks.  They
>were criticised for taking measurements every 300 seconds or something. 
>Somehow I don't believe that they are really doing this 300 second thing and
>that they feel finer granularity data may reveal one of their tricks.

     I'd like to hope that Mr. Fleishmann  did not overtly lie in this forum.
     Perhaps they were using 'linear regression' to invent finer granularity.

>Of all the positive results presented at ICCF4 the heat after death is the
>most worrisome to me.

     Did no one have the chance to ask about the published results?  About
     electrolytes and reflux condensation and 100C, of cabbages and kings? 

     'Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
     That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
     And then is heard no more; it is a tale 
     Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
     Signifying nothing'.
                          Shakespeare (c. 1606)

     Clearly, Bill was talking not about life but CNF in Pd-D systems.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 /   /  Many Thanks, Mr. Heeter
     
Originally-From: <LEN101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Many Thanks, Mr. Heeter
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 16:38:43 EST
Organization: Penn State University

I for one would like to issue a great big THANK YOU to Mr. Heeter for his
efforts in informing us lowly neophytes.  I appreciate his efforts, and so
publicly applaud them!
Jim "The Virtual Stranger" Owens
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenLEN101 cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 12 Dec 1993 22:02:13 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:
: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:

: Hi Matt, 
:    I read your last comment and now this.  It's not my idea to start an
: argument or anything, but you have a conceptual description of BE
: condensation that is simply wrong.  For example, you write, 
:    
: >One good thing is that one can now _quantify_ the magnitude of this
: >force/energy, and compare it to other forces in the problem to see if it's
: >relevant.  Again I submit that in the present problem (somehow condensing
: >deuterium nuclei into identical states) this 'bosonic condensation energy'
: >you get out is much less than the energy you have to put in to overcome
: >mutual electrostatic repulsion.  Though I can be convinced otherwise by
: >actual calculation/experiment.  

: The condensation effect does not require energy be input in the
: system.  It requires energy to be removed. It is an effect of energy
: minimalization.  In BE statistics It doesn't matter if the particles
: are charged or not, it depends on the 'psi' overlap which can extend
: quite far spacially. 

Yes I know, the statistics part doesn't depend on the interaction, but the
Hamiltonian still has that pesky repulsion term!  When you
compute the 'energy' you need to have the *real* Hamiltonian, and if
the state has significant mutual wave function overlap at nuclear
distances, that state will have the appropriately large energy.  So that
'bose condensated state' will not be an energy minmum.

Here's a problem.  Take your supposed 'bose condensated deuteron' wavefunction,
Phi(x_i) , and now compute the interaction energy
    < Phi({x_i}) | sum(i,j) Z^2 e^2/|x_i - x_j| | Phi({x_i})>

You might have to threshold the repulsion energy at fermi distances
to get a finite number.  Even still, how big is it?

I bet it will be on the same order as everybody finds for hot fusion,
e.g. keV's per ion.  Now, in solids, is this an energy-minimizing state?
I didn't think so.

: A super- conductor is a prime example of a bose
: condensate of charged particles.  The mutual repulsion of the Cooper
: pairs (a composite Bose particle composed of two electrons bound by a
: fragile phonon exchange force) does not keep the system from
: condensing. 

In superconductors the electrons that are part of the Cooper pairs
are *not* physically close.  Of course they can't be so because
if they were, that would be an energetically unfavorable state.

And notice that you need this fragile phonon exchange force (almost
a 'miracle') for it to happen.

: Heck, repulsion from the ordinary latticle electrons
: doesn't effect the Cooper pairs all that much once the condensation
: has taken place.  Like wise for a deuteron condensate. If anything, BE
: condensation of deuterons in metal should occur at a higher temp than
: HTSCs simply because lattice electron are screening charge (visa your 
: argument Matt.)

Then if it does occur then I bet there will be little wavefunction overlap.

I don't see any way around it: if you want nuclei to get to the
fermi-distances apart necessary for fusion ya gotta pay the price.

How much does the lattice electrons screen at _nuclear_ distances?  Diddly
squat.  That's why we don't get cold fusion in solid deuterium right now,
and that's why you need to have muons, who stay much much closer to
the nucleus thereby screening it.


: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@coplex.coplex.com

--
-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:
cuddy12 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.12 / Albert Chou /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: albert@thunder.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 23:48:41 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <1993Dec12.005544.23495@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>The radioactive byproducts you get depend a lot on what metals you
>have in your reactor.  But unless you intentionally put "bad" 
>materials in your reactor, the radioactive products from neutron
>activation in a fusion reactor should be many orders of magnitude
>safer than fission wastes.  Not only do the isotopes generated
>decay more quickly (making the waste go away sooner), but they
>are also much less biologically active, and there should not
>be nearly as much of them.

Actually, it's more difficult than simply staying away from using "bad"
materials.  You have to actively choose "good" materials, of which there are
rather few, and none of them is particularly close to perfect.  But it's true
that the decay rate for an activated fusion reactor is much higher than that
of a fission reactor.

>It may be that
>the He will leave the plasma fairly rapidly, making this a non-problem.

This seems very unlikely from what I've been taught.  In fact, it seems
rather likely that He will tend to migrate toward the core of the plasma,
away from any place you're likely to be able to put a facility for getting
it out of the vessel.  The problem bears further study.

>>Does the (supposedly) neutronated metal shield have a short period of
>>usefullness before it must be replaced due to high levels of radiation?
>>
>The pessimists will tell you yes, and the optimists will tell you
>that we expect to develop materials which will tend to transmit most
>of the neutrons to the tritium-breeding lithium "blanket".  This would
>reduce neutron-activation problems of the metal shield (which may
>actually be some sort of composite material, possibly SiC, in a 
>working reactor).  Personally, I lean towards the optimistic side.

The "short period" can be made to be the operating lifetime of the reactor
without too much trouble.  Commercial power plants typically operate for about
20 years, if I remember correctly, so that's all that a fusion reactor needs
to achieve in order to be comparable to a conventional coal plant, for
instance.


Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 00:43:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In this>situation, there is some force or interaction that allows a
>transition from state A to state B.  IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH FORCE.

I think we are still talking to cross-purposes, but since news from
both ICCF4 and Princeton are starting to arrive, I'll temporarily
go into lurker mode.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / John Logajan /  Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 00:58:25 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) writes:
>8. Bockris - speaks of the damage of cathodes induced by loading....
>Load with low current density - under .35 A/cm3 - this is considered good.

Hmm, this runs against my intuition that flow rates ought to be measured
through a cross-sectional area, i.e., something like .35A/cm2.  I can
envision geometries for which the volume figure would not likely apply.
Perhaps Bockris is referring to a specific geometry, such as cylinders
or plates.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Mark Hittinger /  some ICCF4 Tuesday notes 
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:34:43 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.


Random notes on ICCF4-Tuesday from an interested observer.

Caveat: My background is Computers and Economics, not the natural
        sciences. (Just my opinions guys, free and worth it)

Tuesday was "nuclear" day and the morning presentations all dealt with
nuclear ash issues.

Most of the talks contained either old data (given previously) or new
data with many of the same detection problems that have been complained
about by the skeptics.  Unfortunately all of the new nuclear ash measurements
seemed to be down close to the various background levels and not at levels
which would knock your socks off.  Verbal claims were always above the
on paper claims.

1. Fritz Will gave a talk in which he specified that he was not using
Lithium in his electrolyte.  He was using D2SO4 in order to "avoid the
film formation" problem.  He said that his cathode surface stayed "shiny"
after 100+ hours of electrolisis.  (I guess that means he does polish them
prior to use)  He has a paper in the November 30 issue of the Journal of
Analytical Chemistry.  He stated that "less pure" palladium yielded more
Tritium and that more pure Pd yielded less.  He also stated that a cathode
containing 95% Pd and 5% Li yielded no Tritium but that using LiSO4 as an
electrolyte yielded more Tritium than D2SO4?? 

All of this bothered me because it seemed somewhat contradictory.  He said
he didn't use Li but that when he did he got more T.   He said he got better
yield with impure cathodes but when he used the 5% Li cathode he didn't get
anything.  His loading was at least up to .9 D/Pd.  No lightwater results.
Claims a bulk effect and that T takes awhile to diffuse out.  Some good
analysis of possible contamination scenarios and an effort to calculate the
"odds" of chance contamination causing the T measurements of 1/130,000.  
I saw this a couple of times at the conference where instead of actually
looking for contamination in the cathode first, researchers looked in other
material from the same batch and derived contamination "probabilities".

2.  Iwamura gave a detailed talk on loading Pd and then heating the Pd to
release the D2 gas.  They did not try to achieve high loading ratios.  It
appears that they went to great effort to prevent background contamination.
He presented a formula of (T production = DT ion content/total pressure).
He stated that a near surface reaction is indicated, not a bulk effect.
Using aluminum as a surface treatment yielded more neutrons and heat.  I
noticed that many people were playing around with aluminum this year.
Claimed that T was more reproduceable than neutrons or heat.  Iwamura did
not see any H/Pd results.  The paper itself talks about T being 6 times
the background but he also said that they had seen 40 times background.

3.  Lida's group reported on foils of Pd and Ti.  Aluminum surface treatment
was mentioned.  Unusual peaks of neutron emission at 3 and 7 Mev.  Takahasi
is working with these guys but did not speak at the conference.

4.  Okamoto - lithium forms a barrier preventing outgassing of D2 from the
cathode.  Aluminum surface treatment mentioned again!!  No lightwater
results.  

5.  Steven Jones from BYU gave a history of their work and discussed their
new neutron detector.  Current experiments performed in their underground
lab showed lots of artifacts but no neutrons.  A very good presentation
revealing the problems with trusting bad detectors.  Even good detectors
can go flakey and great care needs to be taken.  Dr. Jones recommended
multiple detectors with veto counters to eliminate background.  Dr. Jones
retracted his initial low level fusion claim because analysis showed the
low level neutron claim to be the result of artifacts in earlier detectors.
Dr. Jones offered to allow others to bring their experiments to his 
underground lab to look for neutrons.  There was not a rush to form a line
and I was very disappointed by this.  Discussion of testing for T in the
volcanic magma water in various places.  Negative results in some cases and
confusing results in others.  I am certain that Dr. Jones presentation did
a lot of damage to the believers.  Many positive results that were presented
at ICCF4 were obtained with detectors that can be shown to give bogus counts.
This talk combined with Dr. Morrison's talk on Wednesday proved to be the
big ones for the skeptics.  A believer listening to both of these talks would
have to be just as worried as a skeptic listening to Dr. Pons.

6.  Stuart Taylor took some cells from Los Alamos that had produced T and
set them up in Dr. Jones underground lab to look for neutrons.  Some
small counts above background were indicated but they need to be examined
for artifacts.  Enough to make them continue to work but not enough to
get over their apprehension that something is wrong.

7.  Bush mentions using Al as boosting the heavy water effect.  Some
evidence for a lightwater effect not dependent on heavy water contamination
in the lightwater.  Bush achieved excess heat with Sodium Carbonate whereas
Mills/Farrell said they did not.  Some specific mentions of element
transmutation, i.e. a conversion of potassium + p -> calcium.  There were
more than a few mentions of element transmutation at this conference.  I
overheard a discussion that many sources of Sodium Carbonate include a small
amount of a compound which reduces the size of bubbles.  I suppose this is
some kind of gimmic for detergents?  This was speculated to be the source
of the experimental disagreement between Bush and Mills.

8.  Srinivasan's group gave a talk on light water/tritium results.  Many
experiments were run with mostly nickel cathodes and light water.  Excess
heat is suppressed by the presence of anything made out of stainless
steel in the electrolyte.  On Monday Srinivasan stated that the Tritium
production was seen in cells with Li electrolyte only.  I wondered if their Li
was contaminated but I did not have a chance to ask if this was checked.

9.  Mitchell Swartz gave a talk on how linear regression models would under
calculate excess heat.  The initial part of the talk was confusing but 
towards the end you could tell exactly what he was getting at.  I noted
that Dr. Fleischmann was paying close attention to this talk and even making
notes.  Anyone attempting to use linear regression on this stuff should 
definetly take a look at Swartz's paper.  If there is excess heat and the
excess heat is improperly calculated, then Dr. Fleischmann's optimizer
model may be optimizing to a bad independent variable value.

10. Dennis Cravens gave a very entertaining presentation on work done in
his home lab.  Lots of good slides but very few precise numbers were given.
The talk was an attempt by Cravens to discuss the good "recipies" he had
found for producing heat.  Slow loading was recommended up to around .6 and
then he polished the electrode with an aluminum oxide powder (Al again!!).
He also used a finer photographic polisher afterwards.  Then he resumed
loading to higher levels by adding poisons to the electrolyte.  Smooth
cathode design and a large platinum anode covering most of the surface area
of the cathode needed.  You did not want any point to be able to outgas at
a level greater than the rest of the Pd surface area.  Showed the use of
an 82 MHZ 100 milliwatt exciter ala Bockris.  After loading when you are
ready to go you need to suddenly raise the temperature and suddenly raise
the current density.  This was a seconding of Dr. Fleischmann's talk on
slowly loading the system up to the endo/exo point and then "crashing the
system" through the barrier as rapidly as possible.

Again I noted Dr. Fleischmann paying close attention and making many notes.

In his closing remarks Cravens showed the use of a small cell inside the
water tank of one of those small water pressure powered model rockets.  He
used lightwater cells and heavywater cells in these rockets.  He then used
boil off effects in the cells to launch.  The lightwater cells were able to
rise to an average height of 5cm.  The laughing was very loud at this point
but I believe the average height of a heavy water cell boil off was 30cm.
Cravens said the patent office wanted to see the device actually doing 
something before granting any patent.  Hmmm.   It was a very well received
talk and in his conference summary Dr. Fleischmann said that he enjoyed
Dennis Cravens talk the most.  I found myself clapping at the end.  Cravens
is the first guy that I have seen try to do anything with the alleged excess
heat.  I predict that doing real world work with the excess heat will be
a feature in the talks at ICCF5.

I spoke with Dr. Jones a short while and he promised to add water pressure 
powered model rockets to his list of bad detectors. :-)

Dr. Fleischmann said that Cravens had revealed many of their tricks but Bill
Page (who I was hanging with at the time) indicated that this could be yet
another smoke screen for team P&F.

What a day!  A lot of the nuclear talk was above my head so I am glossing
over much of what was discussed.  Time for more Maui fun and preperation
for Wednesday's sessions concentating on theory(groan!).
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 03:46:16 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <2ed4g8$jul@insosf1.infonet.net>, leland@ins.infonet.net
(Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.) writes:
|> In Quantum mechanics, probability theory just models exactly the same
thing as
|> it does with the roulette wheel: namely, our lack of exact knowledge
about the
|> starting conditions because the uncertainty principle precludes us
from being
|> able to know both the position and the velocity of a particle.

But that presupposes that the particle *has* both a position and a
velocity. Quantum mechanics does not assume this; furthermore,
if you do assume it, then you cannot explain various things
that are observed to occur.

An example is the famous two-slit thought-experiment, where you
release a particle so that it has the chance to pass through
a pair of slits and hit a screen.

If you assume that the particle has some initial position and
velocity, with associated probability distributions, you can
work out all the paths it could follow through one slit or the
other and arrive at a probability distribution for the places
it could land.

But if you do the experiment, you get a different result. The
particle goes through both slits and interferes with itself,
giving a different probability distribution to that expected
from classical ideas of position and velocity.

Quantum mechanics describes the state of a system differently
from classical physics. In classical physics, the state of a
system is described by listing the position and velocity of
each particle. In quantum mechanics, the state of the system
is described by a wave function.

For each observable quantity such as position or velocity,
there is a procedure which, when applied to the wave function
for a given state, produces a distribution for that quantity.
Experimentally, it is found that this distribution corresponds
to the probability distribution obtained when you make a
measurement of that quantity on a system in that state.

Some states have a 100% probability for a particular value
of a particular observable, but most don't, and there are
pairs of observables - e.g. position and velocity - such that
there are *no* states which have a precise value for both.

This is where the so-called "uncertainty principle" comes
from. It's not a statement about something which is hidden
away and inaccessible. Rather, it's just a consequence of
the definitions of "state", "position" and "velocity"
in quantum mechanics. There simply do not exist states
which have a precise position and velocity at the same
time.

|> Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's
on my own
|> leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 03:56:31 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1993Dec11.231158.19816@midway.uchicago.edu>,
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
|> For starters, the term "wave function" is a horrible misnomer;
|> it should be called something like a "quantum probability
|> distribution",

No, it shouldn't! A wave function is *not* a probability
distribution. Probability distributions can be calculated from
it, but it is not itself a probability distribution.

|> "Wave function
|> collapse" is nothing at all mysterious; it is exactly analagous to the
|> way the probability distribution for the position of a roulette ball
|> collapses when you check to see where the ball is.

No, it's not, there's more to it than that.

Suppose the roulette ball could be one of several colours.
You look to see where the ball is, and note the result. Then
you look to see what colour it is.

Then you look to see where it is again... and it's in a different
place. Furthermore, it's in a different place *because* you
looked to see what colour it is!

That's the sort of thing that a quantum roulette ball would
do, and you'll have a hard time explaining it in terms of
probability theory alone.

|> And, most
|> importantly, given two particles, they do not each have their own wave
|> function, they have a joint wave function, just like a joint
|> probability distribution.

Yep, that much is right.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Leland A /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 13 Dec 1993 04:45:05 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <CHyFt5.9pG@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, greg@huia.canterbury.ac
nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
 ...
>Quantum mechanics describes the state of a system differently
>from classical physics. In classical physics, the state of a
>system is described by listing the position and velocity of
>each particle. In quantum mechanics, the state of the system
>is described by a wave function.

I mentioned position and velocity as a carry-over from the previous
discussion about probability and a roulette wheel. In retrospect that was
imprecise and unfortunate. But even a wave function has a starting
condition.

I guess that the main thing I was trying to say, in response to someone
else's statement, was: it seems to me that instead of just abandoning the
assumption that there is an underlying structure to reality, he had
exchanged it for another assumption that there isn't any underlying
structure to reality. I don't thing QM makes either assumption, nor can it
prove either assumption.

I really don't care to continue this discussion because it is, in my
opinion, a matter of personal philosophy which doesn't fit in this group.

Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Marshall Dudley /  BioFusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BioFusion
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 03:11:21 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Heather Kuhn <76314.572@CompuServe.COM> writes:


> This guy, Henry Ayre, has been plagueing <sp?> the Compuserve Science Forum
> with his claims that organisms are able to transmute one element to another.
> In particular, he's been claiming that chickens are able to transmute
> potassium to calcium.

I have heard similar claims, but have not seen any studies which do a
scientific and replicatable experiment to support the hypothesis.

Interestingly, earlier this year it was pointed out that if cold fusion was
really possible that organisms would already be using it for a power source.
Thus it DOES make sense to check bio systems for the possiblity if one is
attempting to determine if such is possible.  However there are some serious
problems with the examples.  For instance: potassium to calcium. Unfortunately
you do not give the isotopes.  If you assume K39 which composes about 93% of
the crust, transmutation would indicate the final istope is Ca39.  To end up
with more or less atomic weight would either require immense levels of energy
or the emission of very destructive particles to bio systems.  However Ca39 is
radioactive with a half life of about 860 ms.  Thus it would be useless and
would not last.  If we assume we start with K41 which composes about 7% of the
earth's crust, then the result would be Ca41.  It has a half life of about
100,000 years.  If this is the reaction claimed, then comparing the intake
of calcium to the outflow of calcium would be the hard way of determining
this reaction.  Since this decay releases about 420 ev of energy, it should
be easy to determine the presence of this non-naturally occuring isotope.
However, it decays back into K41.  I can see no mechanism which would allow
the transmutation from K to Ca, since it would require 420 ev of energy. These
levels are much higher than I would expect any bio system to be capable of
producing.

       Of course, biological transmutations are not limited to laying hens,
       the phenomena is universal. In humans, Addison's disease causes a
       mysterious disappearance of salt (NaCl) from the body and a
       continuing excretion of potassium in excess of what is ingested. The
       medical profession, well trained in flummery, has both ignored this
       phenomenon and papered it over with a pastiche of explanations. Oil
       field workers in Libya and elsewhere, working for long hours in
       torrid heat were tested, and it was found that they, too, excreted
       more potassium than they took in, with no explanation visible for the
       disappearance of the salt they have to have in order to continue to
       work under such conditions. Explanation: the transmutation of the Na
       to K in the human body is an endothermic process, thus the body
       remains within acceptable temperatures by  means of its own nuclear
       refrigeration system.

Oh wow.  Lets see, Na23 to K41.  Not likely, unless we say two Na23 to one
K41.  In that case we have 3 extra protons, and 2 extra neutrons.  Combining
two Na23 gives Ti46, which is stable.  I see no way to get back to K41,
and if you did, what about the extra 5 nuclei?  Interestingly there is NO
stable isotope with an atomic weight of 5.  Serious radiation damage would
result no matter how you deal with the 5 extras.

       though no carbon monoxide be found in the atmosphere he breathes.
       Once again, B-T is involved: at the heat of incandescent metals,
       nitrogen molecules are thrown into a new energy state which is stable
       for as long as twenty-four hours in which the two nucleii are brought
       closer together (by two angstroms). This meta-stable nitrogen, when
       inhaled is transmuted into  carbon monoxide *within* the human body,
       which explains how the poisoning occurs in the absence of ambient
       CO.

This one comes a little closer to adding up.   Two N14 to an O16 and a C12.
At least the nucli add up right.  Now 2 N14 have a delta of 2*2863, Carbon 12
has a delta of 0, and O16 has a delta of -4737.  Thus the transmutation would
produce 10,463 kev.  However, 10 MEV emissions should be very easy to detect,
and would do quite a bit of damage to a bio system as well.  If this does
occur it should be extremely simple to detect the high energy releases.

If indeed monoxide poisoning occurs when animals are subjected to air which has
been around incandescent metals, I think the more likely possibility is
chemical, not nuclear.  It is known that Nitrogen and oxygen will combine
when exposed to high temperatures.  It seems likely to me that perhaps
2(NO) + 2CO2 = N2 + 2CO + 2O2 or a similar reaction would be really to blame.

								Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 13 Dec 93 04:58:26 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CHyGA7.9xG@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> greg@huia.canterbury.ac.
z (Greg Ewing) writes:
>In article <1993Dec11.231158.19816@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>|> For starters, the term "wave function" is a horrible misnomer;
>|> it should be called something like a "quantum probability
>|> distribution",
>No, it shouldn't! A wave function is *not* a probability
>distribution.

I didn't say "probability distribution", I said "quantum probability
distribution".  You and I both seem to know that it is in a extended
version, a generalization if you will, of a probability distribution.
Perhaps you could call it an "amplitude distribution".  My point, in
any case, is that an intuition that has worked for me is to approach
quantum mechanics as a probabilist.  Not exactly probability theory,
but much like it.

>Suppose the roulette ball could be one of several colours.
>You look to see where the ball is, and note the result. Then
>you look to see what colour it is.
>
>Then you look to see where it is again... and it's in a different
>place. Furthermore, it's in a different place *because* you
>looked to see what colour it is!
>
>That's the sort of thing that a quantum roulette ball would
>do, and you'll have a hard time explaining it in terms of
>probability theory alone.

Granted, there is more to it than what I said, and your example is not
a bad illustration.  Nevertheless, the fact remains (as I understand
QM), that a wave function (amplitude distribution, what have you) is not
a piece of physical stuff like a wave of water.  It is, rather, an
ephemeral compilation of an observer's knowledge, just as a probability
distribution is.  From that point of view, wave function collapse is no
more of a violation of intuition than probability distribution collapse
is.  Of course in QM you cannot observe without affecting what you
observe (with a few qualified exceptions), that is a difference that is
nonsensical in classical probability theory.  But you can think of the
two phenomena the same way.

In any case, you seem to understand QM.  So I'll try not to quibble
over terminology with you.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Robert Heeter /  Re: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Joseph Davidson - Interguru, jdavidson@clark.net
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
Subject: Re: Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
Date: 13 Dec 1993 05:11:44 GMT
Date: 12 Dec 1993 18:47:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Subject: Re: Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
Originally-From: Joseph Davidson - Interguru, jdavidson@clark.net
Date: 12 Dec 1993 18:47:54 GMT
In article <2efp0q$qgr@clarknet.clark.net> Joseph Davidson - Interguru,
jdavidson@clark.net writes:

>Please correct me  - wasn't TFTR supposed to reach breakeven when 
>it was designed?
>
No, you're right.  But we haven't heard the last from TFTR yet.
I believe they anticipate getting 10 MW sometime next year as they
learn to optimize the D-T plasma.  10 MW out vs 30 MW in is
still not quite breakeven, but you have to consider that when
TFTR was designed a typical machine was some four orders of
magnitude less, so 10 MW is actually quite close to breakeven.
As far as I know TFTR has pretty much achieved everything it
was designed to do, and more.  (For instance, they have 
achieved plasma temperatures of some 400 million degrees C,
whereas I think the design specification was 100 million.)

< Signature and copy of my prior posting deleted. >

**********
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* Still not working on TFTR, still not representing PPPL. *
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Mark Hittinger /  some ICCF4 Wednesday notes 
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: some ICCF4 Wednesday notes 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 05:43:44 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.


Random notes on ICCF4-Wednesday from an interested observer.

Caveat: My background is Computers and Economics, not the natural
        sciences. (Just my opinions guys, free and worth it)

Wednesday was "theory" day and the morning presentations were always 
related to that topic.

My notes for this day will be more brief because I understood so little
of the ideas that were discussed.  I'm not qualified to be skeptical of
one theory or another so again I will simply discuss things which tickled
my antenna or looked funky.

1. Dr. Hagelstein presented a refinement of his virtual neutron and lattice
energy transfer ideas.  One of the anamolous results from one of the discharge
guys was a line at 129Kev (gamma line?) and this was suggested by one of
Dr. Hagelstein's theories.  He was excited because this one of the few
times (in cold fusion) where a theory developed around the same time as an
experimental result matched on some weird output.  

2.  Dr. Preparata gave a presentation on his theory that there are additional
phases in the D/Pd lattice.  We have all heard about alpha and beta.  Dr.
Preparata spoke of an "octahedral plasma" phase and a "tetrahedral plasma"
phase.  He was specific that the "tetrahedral plasma" phase was the territory
that everyone should shoot for.  He stated that one should try to arrange
the accumulation of "muck" on the surface of the cathode in order to prevent
D2 outgassing.

I noticed Dr. Preparata hanging out with Dr. Fleischmann a bunch during the
conference (but not with Dr. Pons).  This gave the impression that at least
one half of team P&F were receptive to Dr. Preparata's theory.

3.  Hale presented a very intriging talk related to complex number solutions
to certain wave functions and energy release (from the atom) channels.  I
have to say that I do not feel that I understood the talk at all.  The 
impression that I got was that certain mathematical models are known to work
for the release of energy from the atom.  The solutions which everyone
in the mainstream consider valid are the real number solutions.  Hale wondered
what would happen if he tried to derive complex number solutions to these
formula.  He was able to derive several solutions which had weird 
attributes.  He found one "channel" which because of its wave function 
would not allow energy to escape.  Some "channels" might allow some lower
frequency energy to escape but not allow higher levels to escape.  Well -
I *think* thats what he was implying.  Very interesting going back to
established theory and branching off in directions that were thought not to
be "real world" possibilities.

4.  Mario Rabinowitz gave a very balanced paper on the pro/con in cold
fusion.  He was very receptive to the idea of doing better work but also
wanted the skeptics to ease up.  He is obviously in the "worried believer"
category.  He spoke at length of the history of superconductor work and
indeed mentioned that many early superconductor researchers committed 
suicide when their work was severly attacked by peers.  It is my hope that
cold fusion workers will not repeat this grisly episode.  Please watch how
Dr. Fleischmann deals with it!  

There was a short heated exchange between Dr. Rabinowitz and Dr. Preparata
that seemed out of place given Dr. Rabinowitz's general positive tone towards
cold fusion.  Evidently Dr. Rabinowitz was getting ready to publish a paper
criticising Dr. Preparata's cold fusion theory.  There is clearly an 
underlying friction present even between believers.  This was the second
event which I did not feel very comfortable about and that would give the
outside community a slightly bad impression of Dr. Preparata.  Control of
emotion was definetly highlighted by Mario's review of superconductivity
and the exchange at the end.  This is, after all, not a contest of egos.
This is a gradual and difficult search for the truth.  We all know that
personal feelings or attacks will not change the reality of the universe.
(They might change the value of one's common stock holdings however! :-) ).
Outside in the hall I found Dr. Preparata to be a lively speaker without
a trace of snobbery.  Dr. Rabinowitz must have simply pushed Dr. Preparata's
hot button, i.e. I believe Dr. Preparata is also a worried believer, and
insecure about his theory.

5.  There was a talk presented by Hal Fox which implied that it was a 
progress report on cold fusion.  Hal Fox is a believer and I expected to
hear a summary of all the positive results to date.  Instead it was a summary
of every "free lunch" energy device I had seen and some that I'd never heard
of.  I did not hear very much about cold fusion.  If venture cap guys hear
this guy speak not a dollar will be raised.  A very very damaging
presentation for the believer side and I was completely shocked that it was
allowed at all.  Hal Fox is clearly a perpetual motion machine guy.  Fox
can accomplish in 5 minutes what takes years for Dr. Morrison.

6. Dr. Morrison began his short and devastating skeptic presentation.  Since
it followed Hal Fox's talk the damage was quite brutal.  I was sitting next
to Bart Simon who is a social studies grad student doing a paper on the
"social" view of the creation of new sciences.  We were both having severe
chills of depression as we watched the believers react to what was happening.
Dr. Morrison was well received, however, and he simply gave a list of what
the cold fusion guys needed to do.  Improve your work, try to prove yourself
wrong.  He thanked Dr. Jones for doing this and said it was "good science"
with two underlines.  He congradulated Dr. Jones for stepping forward and
showing the negative results and retracting his prior claims.  "Courage"
with two underlines.  Nobody else publicly patted Dr. Jones on his back.
Don't worry though!  Dr. Jones is going to work on CNF stuff for about
8 more months and then he has some new neat ideas to work on.  Excellent!!!

The believers do need to listen to Dr. Morrison.  If CNF is real he is 
showing you the shortest road map to acceptance.  In fact, he is showing
you the only road map to acceptance.  Cold fusion was pictured by believers
as an eventual mainstream idea, however, you won't get there unless you
travel down Dr. Morrison's yellow brick road!  It is so simple an idea yet
many refuse to do it.  Hard work is a simple idea guys!  It is tough work, but
considering the rewards no whiners should be listened to at all!!  I feel
that ICCF5 should not accept papers that have used some of the known bad
detectors.  We're off to see the wizards!  The yellow brick road leads to
Dr. Jones underground lab neutron detectors and Tom Droege's un-ronco
calorimeter!  Courage, knowledge, heart, and home.  Damn this is too
profound!  Did I mention how neat the Maui Hyatt's swimming pool was?

I was struck by the contrast between Dr. Morrison's heated exchange with
Dr. Pons and his elegant treatment of the skeptic case in this presentation.
My impression of Dr. Morrison became YES YES YES this guy is the Rush
Limbaugh of cold fusion.  So Dr. Morrison you need to do less of the former
and more of the latter (if they let you).  Even though putting up a shark fin
is more fun!  He said good scientists always try to prove themselves wrong.  I
picture Dr. Morrison in his basement polishing Pd rods and cursing Dr. Pons
for not revealing more information about his recipies. :-)
  
I hope ICCF5 will give you more than 20 minutes but if they will only give you
20 then make sure it is after Hal Fox! :-)

For the believers - with backers like Fox who needs Morrison.  I mean it.

7.  The next speaker was Mallove discussing the use of cold fusion for
space travel.  A zealot class true believer I was struck with bouts of
extreme depression.  Oh my g-d what are these people going to do if it
doesn't work out?  They are investing so much of their hope for the future
in this.  I commented to Bart Simon that I felt like I was visiting a
maternity ward of crack babies.  He vigorously nodded his head in agreement.
I decided to write a paper entitled "Why its OK if cold fusion doesn't work
out." I will post it to the fusion group in a couple of weeks when the 
after-glow of the ICCF4 begins to follow a non-anamolous cooling curve.
If these guys take Dr. Morrison's advice and prove themselves wrong
they are going to be very bummed out.  The universe does have other neat
things for us to find and be excited about.  CNF isn't everything!  If it
is real we still have a lot of terrible problems to deal with.  I found the
emotional ranges at the conference to be very profound in an area I would
have expected to be very serious, boring, and dead-pan.  It was the most
bizarre and unusual conference I have ever attended.

8. The talk given by Cilloco was very good but I had tremendous difficulty
paying attention and understanding what was being presented.  I had gone
swimming at the beach during lunch.  Sand in my hair and a wet butt - I have
made a note to myself to get the actual paper and read it.  "Good" with two
underlines in my notes.  It is related to measuring things in the cell with
much better equipment.  This was more of a materials science presentation.
There seems to be an escalation of materials science work and ICCF5 will
probably be dominated by it.  Cilloco et al, "Deuterium Charging in Pd by
the Electrolysis of Heavy Water - Measurement of the Cell Parameter".

9. Tsuchida gave a very detailed analysis of the use of the thiourea poison
in the electrolyte and how this helps the loading ratio.  Very good graphics
were shown.  I assume that a lot of THU will be used next year.

10. I walked in on another presentation of various techniques to increase
the loading ratio of D/Pd.  This talk was given by a Japanese woman whose
name I had not gotten because I was late.  This talk had very good graphics
and the woman was a very good speaker in English which was a treat.  If
I may say so she was also quite cute.  I had been swimming in that Hawaiian
ocean again obviously!  I had to force myself to pay attention to what she
was saying and look at the overheads (rather than blissfully consider how
cute she was) and when I did I was well rewarded for the effort.  Kinimatsu's
group had done very good work with various adjustments to Pd and done first
class measurement of the effect on loading.  This is another one of those
papers that you *must* get the hard copy of and read.  I will certainly do so.
I'm terrified I missed something important while I was distracted by the
speaker's effect on my aloha spirit!! Hayakawa et al "Electrolytic Deuterium
Absorbtion by Pd-Rh Alloy Cathodes in Fuel-Cell Type Closed Cell".
 
Wednesday night was the luau (lew-oww) and was VERY nice.  I sat with an
infamous net-known calorimeter designer and his wife.  I also sat with a
famous Utah scientist who makes really good neutron detectors.  Fortunately
I also sat within earshot of Dr. Morrison.

Hal Fox was allowed to get up on stage and read a poem that took a cheap
shot at Morrison.  I was again struck by the thought that pro-CNF guys need
to keep this Fox away from the microphone.  I could tell that Dr. Morrison
was hurt at a personal level by this.  It was such a good luau that his mood
got better and soon he was joking around.  Guys the food was AWESOME.  I
again considered the bargain of the $300 conference fee.  Linda - you'll go
broke if you keep this up!  But we loved it.

One of the story tellers got up and spoke about this Hawaiian princess who
had broken a taboo by falling in love with a foreign guy.  She knew she
could not tell anybody because she would be thrown to the sharks.  Dr.
Morrison commented under his breath - "thats not a bad reason".  I was
reminded of Monty Python. :-) :-).  The story teller indicated that she
was eventually found out and that the village elders decided that the princess
should be tossed into the volcano.  Someone at the table commented - "yes,
toss her into the cold fusion reactor!".  Dr. Morrison yelled "she is safe!".
:-) :-) 

I have to admit that I was fairly bummed out by the Fox/Mallove talks and that
the fine luau definetly improved my mood.  Another plus-plus for Linda
Nelson's group.  Top it off with a late night debate and some good Hubble
repair news!  Maui is surprisingly not too bad!  Even whales drop by to have
their babies here.  And you know that whales are incredibly intelligent
creatures!

Finally I noted that Dr. Fleischmann was giving a talk on Thursday morning
on Alfred Cohen's ancient (pre 1930 :-) ) work.  I decided to video tape
this talk with my camcorder because I felt it might be the most important
talk. 
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Dec 13 04:37:08 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes 
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes 
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 13:32:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <bugs.755750083@netsys.com>, Mark Hittinger <bugs@NETSYS.COM> wrote:
>
>9.  Mitchell Swartz gave a talk on how linear regression models would under
>calculate excess heat.  The initial part of the talk was confusing but 
>towards the end you could tell exactly what he was getting at.  I noted
>that Dr. Fleischmann was paying close attention to this talk and even making
>notes.  Anyone attempting to use linear regression on this stuff should 
>definetly take a look at Swartz's paper.  If there is excess heat and the
>excess heat is improperly calculated, then Dr. Fleischmann's optimizer
>model may be optimizing to a bad independent variable value.

     Okay Mitch, 

     Why not 'calculate' using V*I sampled fairly frequently?  A 'model'
     of an unknown and apparently vaguely unrepeatable process
     is like shooting blanks into the dark, all flash and sound, but
     no effect.  And since we've not established V*I, why would 
     we be 'optimizing'?

>I spoke with Dr. Jones a short while and he promised to add water pressure 
>powered model rockets to his list of bad detectors. :-)

     At least it had the charm of being amusing.

>Dr. Fleischmann said that Cravens had revealed many of their tricks but Bill
>Page (who I was hanging with at the time) indicated that this could be yet
>another smoke screen for team P&F.

     I'm waiting for the day that 'eye of newt' becomes one of their
     tricks.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Princeton has Fusion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Princeton has Fusion?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 14:26:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <b4v2jx_@dixie.com>, John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> wrote:
>
>Hmm.  Press releases from the fusion community?  Must again be time to go
>begging for more scientific welfare money.

     I'm waiting for the outraged screams about 'science by press
     conference' from PPPL.  

     'What?  It was PPPL's press release?', he said as he feigned shock
     at the stunning display of hypocrisy.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Neutrons
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrons
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:15:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Daryl Owen's comment on replication of Yamaguchi et. al. of 
heat without neutrons, and with apologies to "The Treasure of Sierra Madre"
and whoever thought it up at Maui:

"Neutrons? -- We don't need no stinking neutrons"

A long report is coming as I find the energy.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 08:43:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,

I has been suggested to me, in the light of my recent defence of Bockris the
electrochemist, that I am isolated here, and don't know what he has said and
done recently. The item below has finally reached me, and it does look bad for
his critical faculties. I have to admit that - if he is being correctly
represented - that this may be a case of a great scientist straying outside
his area of expertise, and getting just as wrong as anybody else might. I
still say, however, that when he talks electrochemistry, and when Schwinger
talks physics, we must listen. Note the absence of the name Hagelstein, I no
longer know what he now stands for. I must also admit that there is the chance
that Bockris is even further from reality than I like to think. Silver into
gold and carbon into iron? Cold fusion enthusiasts are fond of saying that
they don't know, and don't care, what the mechanism might be, it's the results
that matter; however, even I can see that neither of these two reactions has
the faintest chance of taking place.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 12-Dec-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 844


Comments: file cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pool R;                                      Science 262 (1993) 1367 (26-Nov).
"Alchemy altercation at Texas A&M"
** "Four years ago it was cold fusion, now it's alchemy" is the opening
sentence in this report of Bockris' involvement with shady characters
purporting to be able to change silver into gold. One Joe Champion apparently
convinced Bockris that he could do it; however, the repeated successes could
not be repeated after Champion left. The man was later goaled, and this casts
bad light on some $200,000 he procured for Bockris, from a gullible investor.
Bockris is then quoted as saying that he is now working on transmutation of
carbon into iron.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /   /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: pfr@psun2.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: 13 Dec 1993 09:56:20 +0100
Organization: Hahn-Meitner-Institut Berlin

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:


>The previous best result was 1.7 megawatts generated in JET (Joint
>European Torus) in Britain in 1991.  So 5.5 megawatts is another
>big (though not particularly unexpected) advance.  The real
>significance of the results is that the plasma actually behaved
>roughly as expected.  Plasma tend to do unexpected things, and
>you never really know what will happen until you do the experiment.
>Successful generation of megawatt-size quantities of power is
>an important milestone in the fusion research effort.

I wonder what has been the key factor in getting the energy output.
Is it more than using the 'right' mixture of deuterium and tritium?
So is it more than the technological advance of handling tritium
savely in such device?

Wolfgang Fritsch
pfr@psun2.hmi.de

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpfr cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  More Excess Heat and Gorsky....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Excess Heat and Gorsky....
Date: 13 Dec 93 20:14:13 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <kemidb.755623677@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> In <1993Dec10.225622.1@vaxc> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: 
> [...]
>>=For the excess heat, I will go with the "Gorsky thing" and when its strain
>>=causes deformation of the metal, (fracto)fusion in the very heavily loaded
>>=D layer (very much >1, see Jorne, above), at the interface of the thin
>>=film/oxide/crud and the metal. The fusion *may* occur by the mechanism
>>=outlined by Yamaguchi et al (above), but I am becoming to very much favour
>>=fractofusion as the most plausible, (proven) mechanism for the fusion bit.
>>=The fusion is the *real* trick....... and the one I will be going for.
>  
> OK; so the heat comes from what - mechanical forces? Heat of Pd deuteration?
> Give us a mechanism that can operate continuously.
>
I would not presume to state that the effect has been seen "continuously".
Indeed the it appears that the long term heat is now controversal......
Commenting on the excess heat from a P&F cell from which the electrolyte had
evaporated, Dale Bass, clearly skeptical, states in article,
 "Re: Some ICCF4 monday notes" of the 13-dec-93.......
>"It appears to me to sit *at* 100 C for three hours without any little
>dropoffs. Did he ever mention this published result or attempt explain
>the miraculous regulation for the cell to do so ?"
Furthermore in the same article, Mark Hittinger, refering to the ICCF4 lecture
on "Heat after death" and concerning the cooling curve of the heavy water
cell, states....
>>"It looks like the curve of a crashing stock market - it doesn't go directly
>>down and there are several attemps to move back up".

I thought that I had adequately answered the question about the source of the
heat in article "Excess heat and Gorsky, Part 2.." in the quote from Yamaguchi
et al beginning, "Therefore, it can be conjectured that.....".
However if this is insufficient for you then this further quote from Yamaguchi
et al (AIP Conf. Proc. No.228) must surely do....
"Therefore, we can conclude that the excess heat evolution must be strongly
correlated to the uniform plastic deformation, perhaps due to the rapid change
in the structural phase."
 The fact that both these quotes incorporate words such as "conjecture" and
"perhaps" is indicitive of the speculative nature of any theories concerning
the production of the excess heat. But I still think, right now, that the
structual phase change and to a minor degree, *resulting* mechanical forces,
(friction effects in the bulk of the metal) is the best bet.

> Secondly: how has fractofusion been proven? I tend to agree that it is the
> most plausible mechanism of fusion, and I more or less took it for granted
> that the Russians had measured neutrons repeatedly - until Steve Jones told us
> about his new neutron detector. This tells me that ALL neutron results prior
> to this detector are meaningless (I am referring to CNF experiments). So, not
> a single fractofusion result supports the reality of cold fusion. If you know
> of one, tell me.
 
Firstly, what Steve Jones has quite skillfully done, is to construct a neutron
detection system which discriminates against spurious responses (noise), much
better than previous (cruder) detectors have been able to do.  In say, five
years time, there will be detectors much less noisy than Steve's current
effort, will you then be willing to junk all the readings that will be made
by Steve's currently excellent system ?   I appreciate the thrust of your 
remarks but I consider your saying that "ALL" prior neutron results are
"meaningless" to be rather rash. Previous neutron results were much more
susceptable to noise than Steve's device and thus must be treated with
a comensurate degree of suspicion.
 However, in view of your criticism I will withdraw the contentious word,
"(proven)". 

                                         Regards to all,
					 Daryl Owen.

 The predeeding text is only attributable to myself.
	
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 09:30:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Here we go again... :)

In article <CHy82z.M73@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:

>In article <1993Dec12.184742.10638@Princeton.EDU>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>>In article <CHwIG2.E37@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>>
>>>     I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.
>>>
>>I figured I'd hear from somebody on this one.  While tritium will
>>be produced in a D-T fusion reactor, it's not a fusion waste, so 
>>what you've presented is a straw man.
>
>     You're splitting hairs.  Tritium *is* either produced in 
>	the reactor or trucked in from somewhere else, and it's *in* 
>	the waste, so it's definitely not a straw man.  Would you 
>	like me to claim that radio-iodine and strontium are rather
> 	useful, so they're not 'waste' from conventional fission plants?  

Tritium will be internally generated when neutrons hit the lithium
blanket.  It will then be recaptured and reused to fuel the reactor.
At the end of the reactor's life, you can then scrounge up all the
surplus tritium and transport it to the replacement reactor.  I
don't see how it ends up in the "waste."  Could you explain how you
expect tritium to end up getting out?

By contrast, radioactive iodine and strontium are daughters of
the uranium decay process, and are not reused in the reactor.
Moreover, they need to be disposed of (along with the rest of
the spent fuel rods and activated reactor components), and are
therefore waste in a way that fusion-bred tritium is not.  Of
course, tritium generated via neutron activation of water is
certainly a waste product in fission plants.

>
>>But what I said was that the radioactive *wastes* from a fusion
>>plant will be safer than the *wastes* from a fission plant, and I'll
>>stand by that one.  Want me to start citing chapter and verse?
>
>     Waste includes all the stuff a) passing through the walls, and
>     b) coming out of the reactor.  Since tritium is in the stuff
>	coming out, I'd like you to explain which verse has 'tritium=not
>	waste'.
>
As I explained above, I don't understand how the tritium is going to
get out.  And since tritium is the *fuel*, it's certainly not waste.
Since I'm sure you know this, there must be a logical step you're
making which I don't follow.

>     And you said that the wastes were less 'biologically active', 
>     a debatable point.  There's nothing much more 'biologically
>	active' than water, and there's likely preferential uptake of 
>	HTO in tissues.  
>
I think we have different understandings of what "biologically active"
means.  Radiologically, HTO is less biologically active than strontium
or iodine because your body completely replaces its water content
every few days, whereas strontium and iodine are absorbed permanently.
You seem to have ignored my previous response, which I will repeat:

In article <1993Dec12.184742.10638@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter,
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu writes:
>That "biologically active" tritium goes right out of your body
>in about 3 days, whereas your strontium and iodine stick to you.

While HTO is certainly hazardous, curie-for-curie it is far less
of a threat than something like strontium or iodine.  Hence, 
radiologically it could be called less "biologically active."

>>>     Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have
>>> 	probably already been met without waiting 50 years, and 
>>>	explain why we're not building any plants.
>>>
>>Have they been met?  Why are all the spent-fuel pools filling up?
>>Why do you qualify your statement with "probably?"
>>>
>>>     Hint:  one difficulty is that 'minimum' means 'not too much'
>>>     to me, and 'none' to others.  The others appear to be winning.
>>>
>>"None" is clearly not the right criterion, since the public is
>>tolerant of nuclear medicine. 
>
>     No they're not.  Have you seen discussion on regional waste
>     compacts?  How about discussion of burning low-level medical
>     waste?  How about NMR being changed to MRI simply because NMR
>     has the hated word 'nuclear' in it? 
>
Yes, but I don't see anyone protesting at my local hospital.  I
don't see anyone protesting outside my x-ray machine.  I see
Saturn ads describing how their cars are used to transport
radioisotopes to medical centers.  I agree that there's hysteria
out there, but I generally try to give people a little credit.

>     Microwave relay towers, high tension lines, and two radio
> 	transmitters have been blocked in this area alone for reasons
>	*less* plausable than those for blocking fusion plants.
>
Well, I guess I'll give people credit everywhere except in your
area. :)  But why haven't people like you educated the others so 
that this sort of thing doesn't happen?  Or are you planning to 
let mass hysteria completely remove technology from your life?
(Careful!  That CRT screen might cause cancer!  That keyboard
causes carpal tunnel syndrome!  Newsgroups have been linked to
psychological instabilities! (?) :))

>     What gets me is the *promise* that all these things will be okay
>     in the future when they're clearly not okay *right now* for
> 	fission.

Perhaps this is because fission really does face significant problems,
which will be at least partially alleviated by fusion?  I don't
see where you get the idea that you're being "promised" anything.
Based on our discussions a month ago, you certainly know the future
is uncertain.  But some goals are worth trying to achieve, though
the outcome is never certain.


Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers apply, as usual.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven  
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven  
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 09:08:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Dec11.013006.17090@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Subject: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
>From: Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU
>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 18:09:30 GMT
>In article <Fairfax.22.2D08BB59@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU> Steve Fairfax,
>Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU writes:

>At any rate, I can add that new shots this afternoon have (almost)
>redoubled that power record!  They announced 5.5 megawatts over
>the PA system at the lab this afternoon.

>This is really a wonderful time, everyone is pretty excited here.
>Even us lowly first-year graduate students with no particular 
>connection to TFTR (save that we work at the lab, and like fusion)
>are glowing a little.  (Psychologically, not radioactively!)

I bet you can't say that about the limitors and wall.   

>For the skeptics out there, I will add that the 5.5 MW of power
>generated must be compared to the 25-30 MW of power poured into
>the plasma, so the efficiency is still short of breakeven.

Ahhh!  That's "Scientific Breakeven"  and not Commercial where
about 2000 or more times current levels will be needed.  Don't
you feel the opposite, that now that the TFTR has shot it's
wad -- so to speak--- you are hopelessly orders of magnitude 
from commercial deliverence performances.      

>But it's a lot closer than it was before, and it's good to know
>that the plasma hasn't chosen to do anything exceptionally
>pathological (as it seems to enjoy doing).  

Gee, you used a radioactive highly diffusive gas, tritium, 
for the first time in ideal amounts.  And, hey, even a tad more
thermalization helps improve conductivity which is beneficial. 
So what's the surprize???? 

>I believe the TFTR
>people expect to break 10 MW sometime during the DT phase,
>which will continue until (roughly) next September or so...

Ouch... That's a lot of hot neutrons and diffusioning tritium.  

>While I can't profess to be an expert on TFTR, I'd be happy to
>try answering any questions people may have...

Surely, tell us about the rumors that a couple of other labs
are discussing alternate concepts at least on the QT, again?  
Anything, buzzing of a similar ilk at pppl???

>**********************************************
>Robert F. Heeter
>Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL)
>Disclaimers certainly apply.
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

Sorry, hang in there and obtain your degree.  Help is on the way.  
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Selikov A /  Time-to-digital converter
     
Originally-From: "Selikov A V" <selikov@nusun.jinr.dubna.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Time-to-digital converter
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 15:16:32 +0300
Organization: JINR


       
       
       For scientific employees, investigators and for all,  who  deals 
    with  precision  measurements of time intervals, with tasks of time 
    spectrometry! 
                                                                 
       Precision  time-to-digital  converter  with  combine  convertion 
    method is offered for application. This arrangement is accomplished 
    as two-width block of CAMAC-standard. 
       The main distinctive features of this facility are as folows: 
       ability of simultaneous measurements of 15 time intervals; 
       relatively  high  accuracy  (one  time-quantum, or time-grade is
    equal to 300 ps); 
       large  measurement  range (20 mks);
       little convertion time (100 ns);
       little differential non-linearity of measurement  characteristic
    (+-1%). 
       
           In  the  case  of  your  interest, more detailed information
    is accessible from E-mail: selikov@nu.jinr.dubna.su
       
----
 SS


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenselikov cudfnSelikov cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 13:15:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec13.093031.22980@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Here we go again... :)

     That's what makes life fun.

>In article <CHy82z.M73@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>
>>In article <1993Dec12.184742.10638@Princeton.EDU>,
>>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>>In article <CHwIG2.E37@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
>>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>>>
>>>>     I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.
>>>>
>>>I figured I'd hear from somebody on this one.  While tritium will
>>>be produced in a D-T fusion reactor, it's not a fusion waste, so 
>>>what you've presented is a straw man.
>>
>>     You're splitting hairs.  Tritium *is* either produced in 
>>	the reactor or trucked in from somewhere else, and it's *in* 
>>	the waste, so it's definitely not a straw man.  Would you 
>>	like me to claim that radio-iodine and strontium are rather
>> 	useful, so they're not 'waste' from conventional fission plants?  
>
>Tritium will be internally generated when neutrons hit the lithium
>blanket.  It will then be recaptured and reused to fuel the reactor.
>At the end of the reactor's life, you can then scrounge up all the
>surplus tritium and transport it to the replacement reactor.  I
>don't see how it ends up in the "waste."  Could you explain how you
>expect tritium to end up getting out?

     Diffusion, direct release, when playing with it in the 'scrounging'
     process during the lifetime and later.  How do you expect to 
     get the 'waste' out without including tritium in it and in some
     gas-handling system.  Face it, if you're saying it isn't
     going to get out, then controlled release studies and studies
     of tritium losses of the sort that regularly go on are pointless, no?

>>     And you said that the wastes were less 'biologically active', 
>>     a debatable point.  There's nothing much more 'biologically
>>	active' than water, and there's likely preferential uptake of 
>>	HTO in tissues.  
>>
>I think we have different understandings of what "biologically active"
>means.  Radiologically, HTO is less biologically active than strontium
>or iodine because your body completely replaces its water content
>every few days, whereas strontium and iodine are absorbed permanently.
>You seem to have ignored my previous response, which I will repeat:

     Repeat all you want, 'biologically active' as used is a pretty
     vague notion.
 
     A gallon of DDT is probably more 'biologically active' than
     a pico-curie of Sr-90.

>While HTO is certainly hazardous, curie-for-curie it is far less
>of a threat than something like strontium or iodine.  Hence, 
>radiologically it could be called less "biologically active."

     It's seems silly to talk about 'biological activity' without
     figuring out exactly how it gets into biosystems in the first place.
     
>>>>     Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have
>>>> 	probably already been met without waiting 50 years, and 
>>>>	explain why we're not building any plants.
>>>>
>>>Have they been met?  Why are all the spent-fuel pools filling up?
>>>Why do you qualify your statement with "probably?"
>>>>
>>>>     Hint:  one difficulty is that 'minimum' means 'not too much'
>>>>     to me, and 'none' to others.  The others appear to be winning.
>>>>
>>>"None" is clearly not the right criterion, since the public is
>>>tolerant of nuclear medicine. 
>>
>>     No they're not.  Have you seen discussion on regional waste
>>     compacts?  How about discussion of burning low-level medical
>>     waste?  How about NMR being changed to MRI simply because NMR
>>     has the hated word 'nuclear' in it? 
>>
>Yes, but I don't see anyone protesting at my local hospital.  I
>don't see anyone protesting outside my x-ray machine.  I see
>Saturn ads describing how their cars are used to transport
>radioisotopes to medical centers.  I agree that there's hysteria
>out there, but I generally try to give people a little credit.
>
>>     Microwave relay towers, high tension lines, and two radio
>> 	transmitters have been blocked in this area alone for reasons
>>	*less* plausable than those for blocking fusion plants.
>>
>Well, I guess I'll give people credit everywhere except in your
>area. :)  But why haven't people like you educated the others so 
>that this sort of thing doesn't happen?  Or are you planning to 
>let mass hysteria completely remove technology from your life?

     Look around your area, mine is not unique in any way.  I just
     happen to be concerned enough to know what's going on around here.
     And I certainly attempt to do my part, as I am here, pointing out
     that there *is* a solution to the 'problem' already in the
     form of fission-generated power.  Generally, it seems to me
     that the arguments of fusion proponents just stoke the fires of 
     anti-nuclear hysteria for temporary gain, not damp them.  

     If we have difficulties with electric blankets now, just wait
     until all the 'free energy from the sea' people realize
     that the sea doesn't really contain much tritium, and that they've
     been misled into thinking that there is a 'clean' way to generate
     power with no 'waste' at all.

>(Careful!  That CRT screen might cause cancer!  That keyboard

     Millions of dollars have been spent redesigning already safe CRT's
     so that they produce lower fields, not a good example for your
     point of view.

>causes carpal tunnel syndrome!

     Perhaps the keyboard does cause carpal tunnel syndrome, no?

>  Newsgroups have been linked to
>psychological instabilities! (?) :))

     No shock there.

>>     What gets me is the *promise* that all these things will be okay
>>     in the future when they're clearly not okay *right now* for
>> 	fission.
>
>Perhaps this is because fission really does face significant problems,
>which will be at least partially alleviated by fusion?  I don't
>see where you get the idea that you're being "promised" anything.
>Based on our discussions a month ago, you certainly know the future
>is uncertain.  But some goals are worth trying to achieve, though
>the outcome is never certain.

     It's not being funded on the basis of that uncertainty, 
     high values of which you objected to rather strenuously.  Nor is
     it being funded on the basis of 'partial alleviation' of
     problems it probably doesn't even partially alleviate when considering 
     advanced reactor cycles.  It's 'free energy from the seas' lads,
     and we prance merrily into that certain coal-haze future.

                            dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update (total now 844 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 13:51:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01H6FCTYMW9E8WWC01@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>Pool R;                                      Science 262 (1993) 1367 (26-Nov).
>"Alchemy altercation at Texas A&M"
>** "Four years ago it was cold fusion, now it's alchemy" is the opening
>sentence in this report of Bockris' involvement with shady characters
>purporting to be able to change silver into gold. One Joe Champion apparently
>convinced Bockris that he could do it; however, the repeated successes could
>not be repeated after Champion left. The man was later goaled, and this casts
>bad light on some $200,000 he procured for Bockris, from a gullible investor.
>Bockris is then quoted as saying that he is now working on transmutation of
>carbon into iron.

     Clearly Champion took the Philosophers' Stone with him when he
     left...

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 13:42:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2egtig$e86@lyman.pppl.gov>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Fusion Energy Record (Re: What's New)
>From: Joseph Davidson - Interguru, jdavidson@clark.net
>Date: 12 Dec 1993 18:47:54 GMT
>In article <2efp0q$qgr@clarknet.clark.net> Joseph Davidson - Interguru,
>jdavidson@clark.net writes:
>
>>Please correct me  - wasn't TFTR supposed to reach breakeven when 
>>it was designed?
>>
>No, you're right.  But we haven't heard the last from TFTR yet.
>I believe they anticipate getting 10 MW sometime next year as they
>learn to optimize the D-T plasma.  10 MW out vs 30 MW in is
>still not quite breakeven, but you have to consider that when
>TFTR was designed a typical machine was some four orders of
>magnitude less, so 10 MW is actually quite close to breakeven.
>As far as I know TFTR has pretty much achieved everything it
>was designed to do, and more.  (For instance, they have 
>achieved plasma temperatures of some 400 million degrees C,
>whereas I think the design specification was 100 million.)

     I must admit a hearty chuckle at 30 MW in, 10 MW out being
     'quite close to breakeven'.   I must dryly ask if a similar criterion
     applies to commercial breakeven?

     I humbly submit that, though Congress might, I don't think 
     Virginia Power is going to buy that argument, absolute value 
     of plasma temperature notwithstanding.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Bill Page /  Quantum Mechanics is not a probability theory
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantum Mechanics is not a probability theory
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:15:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

First things first.  Welcome back to this forum Mr. Bernkecy.  It seems you 
have been quiet for quite some time since your very provocative postings on 
BWO etc.  I have been looking forward to more contributions from you.  Your 
questions suggest that you have been continuing your study of QM - maybe 
now almost beyond the scope of the excellent introductory Quantics text.  I 
am worried that some of the answers that have been posted here are quite 
misleading.  Because QM is a rather difficult subject and the methods of 
teaching QM are deficient in many ways, many otherwise well educated people 
are mis-informed regarding the fundations of QM.  You may have noticed that 
some of the points of view that have been posted more or less directly 
contradict the careful preparation that Quantics provides for the further 
study of QM.

Now, I'll try to pull some interesting comments out of the message stream 
for context and then give my own slant on this issue.

William Bernecky wrote:
<<
The following short passage highlights the consequences of Bose-Einstein
statistics.  At the end, the authors make a general claim, "applicable to
all bosonic transitions", that a transition to a common state is "induced
by the presence of the N bosons there".  My question is, How is this
"induced transition" accomplished?  In the case of lasers, one might point
to the EM field of the photons as the "inducer".  But what serves a
comparable role in superfluid 4He, superconduction based on Cooper pairs,
or (hypothetical) BWO?

[quoted text from Quantics deleted for brevity.]
>>

and in a later posting he asks:
<<
3)  Consider N bosons occupying a single state. We "hit" one of the bosons 
in the ensemble, "encouraging" it to transition from the common  state.  
However, due to the BE statistics, the boson transitions to the common 
state i.e. remains in the common state.  How do we e.g. preserve momentum?  
Does the entire ensemble collectively change its momentum?
>>

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) replied (in part)
<<
In quantum mechanics, quantum probability theory (which is a radical 
modification of ordinary probability theory, by the way) is the fundamental 
underlying all else.  Built on top of that foundation one considers the 
space of possible states of the world, which involves the statistics of 
bosons and fermions, among other things.  And on top of that one considers 
processes, interactions, forces, and so forth.
>>

And in response leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, 
Iowa, U.S.A.) wrote:
<<
In Quantum mechanics, probability theory just models exactly the same thing 
as it does with the roulette wheel: namely, our lack of exact knowledge 
about the starting conditions because the uncertainty principle precludes 
us from being able to know both the position and the velocity of a 
particle.
>>

Again gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) replies
<<
I assume that you have heard by now that probabilities are fundamental to 
quantum mechanics and that every force of nature is interepreted in terms 
of probabilities.  You cannot say "What force makes the probabilities?"   
Rather, every eventuality and every force is measured by its probabilities.
>>

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
<<
And clearly it is not just any old probability, but highly structured 
probabilities -- for instance, a bowling ball does not do a random walk 
through physical space, but trends toward the earth due to the 
gravitational attractive force.

To say it is mere probability is to fly in the face of intuitive thinking
>>
 
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) replies
<<
Intuition is a thing you develop to understand a given.  The mathematics of 
quantum mechanics is a given and it's up to you to intuit it.  I assume 
that you have heard that quantum mechanics is highly counterintuitive.  
Indeed it was for me.  You have to do some "engine block work" on your 
intuition to understand QM.
>>

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
<<
Yet again we are back to the original Bernecky query -- what is the 
mediator
of the bose-condensate transition.  Why do the probabilities break this way
and not that way -- what communicates the macro state?
>>


chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
<<
It's not my idea to start an argument or anything, but you have a 
conceptual description of BE condensation that is simply wrong.  For 
example, you write, 
   
[Quoting Matt Kennel:]
<<
One good thing is that one can now _quantify_ the magnitude of this 
force/energy, and compare it to other forces in the problem to see if it's 
relevant.  Again I submit that in the present problem (somehow condensing 
deuterium nuclei into identical states) this 'bosonic condensation energy' 
you get out is much less than the energy you have to put in to overcome 
mutual electrostatic repulsion.  Though I can be convinced otherwise by
actual calculation/experiment.  
>>

chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
<<
The condensation effect does not require energy be input in the system.  It 
requires energy to be removed. It is an effect of energy minimalization.  
In BE statistics It doesn't matter if the particles are charged or not, it 
depends on the 'psi' overlap which can extend quite far spacially. A super- 
conductor is a prime example of a bose
condensate of charged particles.  The mutual repulsion of the Cooper pairs 
(a composite Bose particle composed of two electrons bound by a fragile 
phonon exchange force) does not keep the system from condensing. Heck, 
repulsion from the ordinary latticle electrons doesn't effect the Cooper 
pairs all that much once the condensation
has taken place.  Like wise for a deuteron condensate. If anything, BE 
condensation of deuterons in metal should occur at a higher temp than HTSCs 
simply because lattice electron are screening charge (visa your argument 
Matt.)
 
Did anyone notice how many papers were about BE condensation in the ICCF4 
conference?  Looks to me to be the *Hot* CF theory. (IMHO it should be.)  
>>

So, now its my turn.  I'll try to be as brief and as clear as possible, but 
QM is not a simple subject.  It is my belief that if we are going to try to 
explain QM, then we should be very careful to do it correctly, even at the 
expense of some initial understandability.  Some very beautiful mathematics 
has been created to express QM and it is necessary to have some 
appreciation of it in order to deal with the conceptual difficulties.

In a strict sense, quantum mechanics is *NOT* a probabilistic theory.  In 
fact, probability enters quantum mechanics in only one place - as a 
postulate concerning the interpretation of measurements.  The concept of a 
measurement is given a precise technical meaning in QM. Except in the case 
of a measurement, the fundamental equations of QM are completely 
deterministic!  In any given physical situation (represented by specifying 
the Hamiltonian of the system) between measurements, Schrodinger's equation 
determines exactly which solutions are allowed and completely how they 
evolve over time (both past and future).

Schrodinger's equation is a wave equation where the amplitude of the wave 
is represented by a complex number.  One of the things that causes people a 
lot of trouble is that this amplitude is *NOT* a physical quantity.  It is 
not something that can be directly measured, yet we must now believe, 
following the recent resolution of the long standing EPR paradox, that it 
is none the less, REAL.  The solutions to Schrodinger's equation represent 
waves completely analogous to waves on water or electromagnetic waves and 
fields in space.  Only the amplitude of these waves are represented by 
complex numbers which have no direct connection to something that we can 
measure.  It is certainly counter-inituitive to most people that such a 
model should be taken to represent the "true nature" of reality and much 
less that it should give the correct results when applied!  Yet, this has 
turned out to be the case.

In the operator formalism of modern quantum mechanics (originating with 
P.M. Dirac) all physical quantities that can be measured are associated 
with certain kinds of linear operators called observables.  Linear 
operators can be thought of as an abstraction or generalization of ordinary 
square matrices in the linear algebra of complex numbers.  The matrices 
represented by linear operators may be infinite in extent (infinite number 
of rows and columns indexed by real number values rather than finite 
integers).  You will often see the term "matrix element" of an operator 
because of this connection.  Loosely speaking Schrodinger's equation and 
many other relationships in QM follow from the generalized eigenvalue 
equation

  A|x> = a' |x>

where A is an operator, a' is a (possibly complex) number and |x> is a ket. 
 A ket is the analogous generalization of a vector.  An infinite ket is 
understood to represent a function (in the sense of complex analysis) and 
the generalization of matrix muliplication then involves integration 
instead of the usual summation.  If the above equation holds |x> is called 
an eigenket of A and for convience we will label the eigenket |x> by its 
eigenvalue a', ie. |x> = |a'>.

It is postulated in QM that the set of eigenkets of A form a complete basis 
for the abstract vector space represented by all kets.

A fundamental postulate of QM is that the state of a system is represented 
by a ket.  This "state ket" contains complete information about the 
physical state of a system.  The term eigenstate refers to a physical state 
corresponding to an eigenket.

Given this terminology, a measurement causes a system to jump into the 
eigenstate of the observable being measured.  Before a measurement, the 
system is in some linear combination (superposition) of eigenstates 
(because the completeness of the eigenkets as a basis of the vector space). 
 But after a measurement the system will be in exactly one eigenstate.

The probability postulate of QM is that given a system in a state |alpha>, 
then the probability that the state immediately following a measurement is 
|a'> is given by

  <a'|alpha> <alpha|a'>

where <x| is called a bra (as in bra-c-ket).  <x| is the complex conjugate 
transpose of |x> and <x|y> denotes the matrix produce of <x| and |y>.  
Therefore <x|y> is a complex number and <y|x> is its complex conjugate.  
<x|y> <y|x> is also written

  | <x|y> | ^2

i.e. the absolute value (modulus) squared.  The probability postulate is 
not something that can be proven.  We can only show that it empirically 
gives the correct results.

It is truly *AMAZING* how essentially all of quantum mechanics follows from 
these simple postulates.

Just as in linear algebra, the product of two operators is well defined but 
the order of multiplication is important

  A B  is not necessarily equal to B A

This is the origin of the Heisenberg uncertainty relations.  We write this 
as an expression known as the commutator

  [A,B] = A B - B A

It is a common mis-conception that the uncertainty relations have something 
to do with classical probability.   There is a sense, however, in which all 
observables may be associated with a probability density function.  
Consider the operator for location X. We have

   X|x'> = x'|x'>

where x' represents a coordinate is physical space.  Then if the physical 
state of a system is represented by |psi>, we can define

  <psi|X|psi>

as the expectation (average) value of X.  Notice that <x'|psi> is just 
psi(x) - the wavefunction of Schrodinger's equation.  We can think of the 
expectation value of an observable as a combination of the eigenvalues of 
the observable weighted by the the probability of obtaining that value 
following a measurement.  Similarly, the dispersion of an observable is

  <psi|X^2|psi> - <psi|X|psi>^2

The expectation value and dispersion are defined to be analogous to the 
mean and variance of statistics.  Roughly speaking, the dispersion is a 
measure of the "fuzziness" of an observable *if* we were to carry out a 
large number of measurements. But notice that this is *not* how the system 
will behave if these measurements are not made.

Heisenberg's uncertainty relation follows from this definition of 
dispersion and the commutator.  The product of the dispersions of two 
observable X and Y

  (<psi|X^2|psi> - <psi|X|psi>^2) (<psi|Y^2|psi> - <psi|Y|psi>^2>) 

is greater than or equal to

  1
  - |<psi|[X,Y]|psi>|^2
  4

Thus pairs of observables for which the commutator is non-zero can not be 
measured simultaneously to a greater degree of accuracy than given by this 
relation.  The reason is not because of any lack of knowledge or failure in 
our instrumentation.  It is simply because the state of a system must be 
represented by a super-position of eigenstates and as a result of 
Schrodinger's equation, any system that is in an exact eigenstate which is 
not also an eigenstate of the hamiltonian will very rapidly evolve into 
such a super-position.

At this point, it is best to refer the reader to any number of modern texts 
on quantum mechanics.  My current favourites are: "Quantum Mechanics" by 
Chen-Tannoudji et al. 1977, John Wiley and sons; and "Modern Quantum 
Mechanics" by J.J. Sakurai, 1985, Addison-Wesley.

Finally, let me indulge myself in attempting an answer to William 
Bernecky's original question.  I think the best formalism we have in which 
to formulate this question is what is known as "second quantization".  In 
this case, the state of a many-particle system is represented by a stateket 
which specifies which single-particle states are occuppied and introduces 
creation and annihilation operators which change the occupancy of the 
single particle states.  We can express the fermion and boson symmetry 
requirements by imposing commutator relationships on the creation and 
annihilation operators.  Further, we can define a number operator which 
tells us how many particles are in each state.  For fermions this number 
can only be zero or one.  For bosons it can be any non-negative number.

As discussed in the closing chapter of Quantics, the number operator 
behaves like any other quantum mechanical observable.  It has a fundamental 
uncertainty.  Now, the only way I can see of reconciling this with our 
conventional inituition about the real world is to abandon the notion that 
particles have a intrinsic identity.  Thus, although we would like to be 
able to speak as if we can put a label on an electron and talk about *the* 
electron in the expectation that we can (at least in principle) make a 
unique determination of that particular electron about which we are 
speaking, this is really not the case.  QM requires that in many-particle 
systems the very best we can do is to define the set of possible states 
that each particle can be in and to *measure* how many particles are in 
each state.  In this state of affairs, the question of what "forces" one 
electron (or equivalently one deutron) to make a transition to a given 
state is not properly phrased.  The underlying model is wrong.

The thing that we call physically reality apparently can not be 
indefinately sub-divided and labelled in the way we are used to in every 
day experience.  An electron in Paris is fundamentally not independent of 
an electron in Montreal!  Our world picture will depend on the type of 
measurements that we can make.  We are able to use our everyday terminology 
only up to a certain approximation of the actual state of affairs.

Like many people, when I first encountered this way of thinking, I 
immediately branded it as a "cop-out".  I accused QM of simply evading the 
question of how the world *really* works.  But as my education has 
advanced, my point of view has radically changed.  It seems to me now, that 
this point of view is especially beautiful and satisfying in the way in 
which it establishes an essential unity of all things.

AND... What has all this got to do with cold fusion?? Well, you are right 
Chuck Sites. I did attend the recent Cold Fusion conference in Haiwii and I 
can verify that there does seem to be at least the beginning of a 
convergence of theories of cold fusion toward fundamental quantum 
mechanics.  I'll have more to say about some of these theories in the 
coming days.

Cheers.

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Michael Condict /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: condict@next19.osf.org (Michael Condict)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: 13 Dec 1993 17:40:04 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation

In article <2ehank$145@psun2.hmi.de> pfr@psun2.hmi.de (Fritsch_Wolfgang)  
writes:
> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> >The previous best result was 1.7 megawatts generated in JET (Joint
> >European Torus) in Britain in 1991.  So 5.5 megawatts is another
> >big (though not particularly unexpected) advance.  The real
> >significance of the results is that the plasma actually behaved
> >roughly as expected.  Plasma tend to do unexpected things, and
> >you never really know what will happen until you do the experiment.
> >Successful generation of megawatt-size quantities of power is
> >an important milestone in the fusion research effort.
> 
> I wonder what has been the key factor in getting the energy output.
> Is it more than using the 'right' mixture of deuterium and tritium?
> So is it more than the technological advance of handling tritium
> savely in such device?

Why does everyone keep talking about the amount of energy output,
instead of the ratio of input energy to output energy.  I see no
reason to get excited about the fact that you can input 30(?)MW and
get back 5.5, unless the ration 5.5/30 is a new record.  (Is it?)

Otherwise, all people have to do to get in the news is keep building
bigger versions of reactors that are no closer to break-even than
previous ones -- they're just bigger, so the absolute output is higher.

Paul Koloc, please give us your assessment of this news.

--
Michael Condict			condict@osf.org
OSF Research Inst.		(617) 621-7349
1 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencondict cudfnMichael cudlnCondict cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / julie england /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 17:45:37 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Here is some complementary information to add to Robert Heeter's
great postings about what happened at PPPL last week, though he's
covered just about all of it! I got this information through email
from someone I know who works at PPPL (but not on TFTR). I don't
know any more than this.

Julie

>This is the first time that a major amount of tritium was used in TFTR.
>Trace tritium (a few percent)  had been used earlier just to test the
>systems. (Two years ago there was a short tritium experiment on JET
>in England.)  On Thursday evening, one beam source (out of about 10
>or 12) injected tritium into a deuterium fed plasma and a large
>increase in the neutron rate was observed. The calculated fusion power
>release was about 1 MW. On the next shot, 4 beam sources injected tritium
>and the neutron rate was larger. It was about a 3 MW fusion power release.
>That was all for that evening. The next day, the series was continued for
>about 5 more shots with more beam sources injecting into somewhat better
>plasmas due to careful wall conditioning. The fusion power release for
>the best shot was given at 5.6 MW average, but my friends tell me that
>the signal instantaneously reached 6 MW. The milestone for the experiment
>was 3 - 5 MW, so they made it.
-- 
*-------------------------------------**-------------------------------------*
| Julie England, Database Coordinator || Workshop in Political Theory and    |
| england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu      || Policy Analysis, Indiana University |
*-------------------------------------**-------------------------------------*
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenengland cudfnjulie cudlnengland cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 17:32:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

Bravo for a very nice on-target explanation of Bose statistics by Greg
Kuperberg to William Bernecky.  My only comment/addition is given below.

Dr. Kuperberg:  Your physics explanations are _good_.  I share the wish that
you would provide more of them.  As to the, um, _personal spice_ you enjoy
adding to many comments, I'd say that that is entirely your own business.
I suspect you impress and persuade people more with your physics, though.


In article <1993Dec9.232855.1571@midway.uchicago.edu>
gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> In article <9312081829.AA00493@suntan.Tandem.com>
> BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:
> 
> >3)  Consider N bosons occupying a single state. We "hit" one of the
> >    bosons in the ensemble, "encouraging" it to transition from the common
> >    state.  However, due to the BE statistics, the boson transitions
> >    to the common state i.e. remains in the common state.  How do we
> >    e.g. preserve momentum ?  Does the entire ensemble collectively
> >    change its momentum?
> 
> An individual transition is always an exchange of momentum (and energy
> and what have you), and if the transition does not occur, no momentum
> is transferred.  Given N hydrogen atoms in the same state, if you send
> a photon towards them, if it hits one, that atom finds itself in a
> different state and that sets off some chain of events.  If it doesn't
> hit one, the photon is still there; it missed.  Either way momentum is
> conserved.

To the last part of W. Bernecky's question ("Does the entire ensemble
collectively change its momentum?"), I would note that this a fairly common
way of interpreting the Moessbauer effect.  The photon energy goes to [comes
from] a single nucleus, while the photon _momentum_ is absorbed by a very
large number of atoms that are part of a "zero mode phonon" Bose-Einstein
condensate.  It is the comparatively enormous momentum of this Bose-Einstein
condensate that keeps the photon from producing significant recoil in the
atom that receives the photon energy.  This lack of recoil in turn leads
directly to the phenomenally precise emission/absorption frequency of the
Moessbauer effect.

Unsettling as it may seem, this curious condensate-wide distribution of
the photon momentum is at least _nominally_ "instantaneous", since any
kind of conventional speed-of-light propagation delay (one atom "hitting"
another atom in the condensate) would result in a time delay that would
quite destroy the remarkable frequency accuracy of the Moessbauer effect.
It's an all-or-nothing sort of thing, and a very odd one at that.

As with the Bell paradox, I'd say there are very good reasons to think that
this particular variation of "instantaneous spooky action as a distance" is
quite well protected by quantum uncertainty from every being capable of
transmitting real information (signals) at superluminal speed.

(Yet another way to think of it is to note that the _photon_ can also be
quite delocalized as it strikes the condensate.  In a sense it is absorbed
_simultaneously_ by all the atoms of the the similarly delocalized zero-
mode phonon condensate.  Working it out that way will probably keep you
from getting into too much trouble with speed-of-light paradoxes...  Hmm,
I must look into that model a bit, as it might also lead to some testable
predictions based on the form of the gamma photon wave packet...) 


At any rate, I find it sad indeed that Dr. John Bell of CERN is no longer
with us.  I think it would have been extremely interesting to ask his
opinion of this aspect of the Moessbauer.  Dr. Bell was not a solid-state
type, however, which I suspect is why in his writings he never looked at
this fascinating solid-state version of spooky action at at distance.

In his absence, I would say that the most interesting living physicist to
ask how Moessbauer speed-of-light issues should be resolved would probably
be Dr. Roger Penrose at Oxford (?), who has an eye for quantum oddities and
seems well versed in solid state mathematics.  (Anybody out there know him?)

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 17:41:20 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

In article <Fairfax.22.2D08BB59@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU>
Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax) writes:

> Last night, at approximately 11 PM, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)
> at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) performed experiments
> with deuterium-tritium mixtures that approached the "ideal" ratio of
> 50/50 D-T.  Preliminary results indicate fusion power production in excess
> of 3 MW, a new world record.  The experiments will continue.  Several news
> reports of the experiments have been published, and more are expected.
> 
> I congratulate the TFTR team on this accomplishment and look forward to more
> exciting results in the future.
> 
> 
> P.S.  I had hoped that a PPPL person would post the results, as they would be
> in a much better position to answer questions on the details of the 
> experiments.  Mr. Heeter, where are you?

Congratulations -- the results sound pretty good.

Can anyone (Mr. Heeter?) give a rundown on whether this experiment was
within the same range of results predicted based on pure D-D work?  Were
there really any surprises in the energy production levels or containment
times, compared to D-D in the same system?

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: LLaR threat (was Re: 21 st Centurry ...)
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LLaR threat (was Re: 21 st Centurry ...)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 17:55:35 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

In article <1993Dec9.103203.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> In article <1993Dec3.171303.13504@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> 
> | Especially if LaRouche goes back to credit card fraud.  Then 21st Cen.
> | Science and Technology will really be rolling in it.  And we will no
> | doubt hear more about the racist roots of jazz, the trilateral
> | commission, the drug empire controlled by Queen Elizabeth, Kissinger's
> | efforts to subvert current foreign policy, and so forth.
> 
> Gulp.  What he discovers the Net?

Too late!

21st has already clearly identified us as one of the nefarious forums of
the likes of (GASP!) Dr. Douglas Morrison and Steven Jones.

As for direct participation by LL in this group... With a little practice
I'm sure he could be _almost_ as comprehensible as ol' Ludwig, bless his
plutonium-laced little soul...    }=-)>

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / James Crotinger /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: 13 Dec 93 22:21:35 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>      I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.

  Radioactive iodine, for instance?

>      Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have probably
>      already been met without waiting 50 years, and explain why we're 
>      not building any plants.

  How do you "eliminate" radioactive by products from a fission reaction?

  Perhaps we can find safe ways to handle them, store them, and
perhaps even treat them (neutron irradiation) to shorten the time it
takes for them to become environmentally benign, but "eliminating" them
is quite out of the question.

  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:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / James Crotinger /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
Date: 13 Dec 93 22:41:35 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> Gee, you used a radioactive highly diffusive gas, tritium, 
> for the first time in ideal amounts.  And, hey, even a tad more
> thermalization helps improve conductivity which is beneficial. 
> So what's the surprize???? 

  That the hot alpha particles didn't cause the plasma to do something
unexpected?  Given that plasmas are largely goverened by Murphy's Law,
this is a breakthrough. 8-)

  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:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Song Chen /  job
     
Originally-From: chensong@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Song Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: job
Date: 13 Dec 1993 16:35:08 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin


does anyone know that if there are any groups here, or some other sources 
on the net where I can search for a physics job, especially on fusion research??
if this is the wrong group for post this question, sorry in advance. 
any related info is appreciated, thanx in advance....
								:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchensong cudfnSong cudlnChen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /  student /  Tritium, Dirty Fuel? Really Ionizing?
     
Originally-From: phy360l1@csulb.edu (student)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium, Dirty Fuel? Really Ionizing?
Date: 13 Dec 1993 23:21:29 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

I took plasma as an undergrad several years ago.  I remeber that tritium
can produce really nasty by-products in a controlled reaction.

Someone please help clear my ignorance.

kel javier
kjavier@beach.csulb.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenphy360l1 cudlnstudent cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Get Ready Dieter
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Get Ready Dieter
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:15:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The plan for ICCF4 is to publish a proceedings which will include everything
submitted (I suppose there is a page limit).  Then they will referee a selected
set and publish them in (I believe) a special issue of "Fusion Technology"

I could almost predict the published list, prepare for a blip up in the 
"quality positive" rate.  Possibly we will even finally get McKubre into 
print.  

ICCF5 will be held in the South of France, likely Nice.  

China lost their bid for the Olympics, but have saved face, and will get to
build a big luxury hotel as they have successfuly captured ICCF6, likely in
June of 96.

I will try to write an organized summary, but some items are to hot to delay.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Plasmoids
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:16:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter, I think Bostick (close) makes staple machines.  Oriani gave a paper 
where he explains the Matsumoto holes as just a plain ordinary materials
phenomena.  He had some high quality pictures.  As I recall, he did not 
actually mention Matsumoto, but just showed how to make such holes.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Daryl Ownen (I think)
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Daryl Ownen (I think)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:16:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Daryl Owen asked for some reviewes of specific papers.  At least the Miley
one is on my list, Daryl.  It will take a few days.  The Miley paper was quite
interesting to me in that the experiment quickly "blows up" and the the layered
cathode is destroyed.  He could use a very fast response calorimeter, and I
may be building one.  In any case, we are starting discussions for a Miley
cathode to be run in my calorimeter when I get it built.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Robert Eachus
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Robert Eachus
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:16:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

No, I do not at the moment plan to use Freon.  It was just that I could find
the Freon table, and I did not find a similar one for water alcohol.  The idea
was to do a gedanken experiment to estimate the specific heat of a heat pipe 
structure.  Note that I came up with 1/50 the specific heat (by volume) as 
for copper.  So it is win-win for heat pipes if my thinking is correct.  Higher
conductivity and lower thermal capacity.  Combined give a much faster response
time.  Believe me - faster response time means greater accuracy.  Thanks 
again for all the good advice.  I found 98% Tin, 2 % silver in my hardware 
store and plan to try it first.  We also plan to plate the pieces.  Talked
to Lee last night and he wants to do Nickel first (for a smooth coating), then
Palladium (as a blocking layer - since gold tends to be pourous, then Gold as
the inert layer.  I think he wants to use all three just to "show off" what he
has in his shop.  

After making all the pieces for a calorimeter - a week of evening machining, I
sat and stared at the parts for a few hours and figured out how to make a 
better structure.  So I will likely use the first set of parts for heat pipe
tests.

BTW.  We have not confirmed that there are 9 circles in Hell.  Lee (brother)
has a nice 18 th century wood cut in a book showing a devil frozen up to his
waist in the 8 th level.  Possibly we will find that level 9 is Palladium 
when we read the text.  That shoud be "now"  - we have now confirmed...

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Bockris, cow magnets, and off-the-wall science
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris, cow magnets, and off-the-wall science
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 01:16:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So far the reports from the Islands seem to indicate that cold fusion
research has moved further down the path toward becoming totally
zany.  So what now are the latest methodes for enhancing the effect?
We have RF fields at precisely 82 MHz to resonate something.  We have
schemes to select bits of palladium from a spool of wire.  We have
processes to keep the Pd ultraclean and processes to contaminate it
with just the right gunk.  We have means for preventing crystal
deformation and means for enhancing deformation.  The list of magic
recipes grows ever larger because none of the players in this
game knows what they are doing.  My favorite is Bockris and his
magnetic fields of 800 gauss or whatever.  That reminds me the old
cow magnet fad of a few years back.  For you city folk, a cow magnet
is a good sized bar magnet that old bossy is fed so that bits of
haywire and assorted hardware will remain trapped in her first
stomach rather than making their way clear through the system.
It seems that a few years ago a rumour of a great scientific
breakthrough spread across the plains.  According to some, if you
were to take one of those cow magnets you could buy down at the
co-op and put it under the hood next to the fuel pump or carborator
your old beater would give much better gas milage.  It seems that
Bockris may have remembered that just like I have and decided
to apply to cold fusion.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Jim Pierson /  RE: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: jpierson@flemingc.on.ca (Jim Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 02:02:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

FORWARDED MESSAGE from Fusion Digest (FUSION @ SMTP
{fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org}) at 12/13/93 7:00a

TO:
FUSION @ SMTP (Multiple recipients of list FUSION) {FUSION@VM1.NoDak.EDU}

Message longer than 200 lines has been converted to an attachment.
***** NOTES from Jim Pierson (JPIERSON @ FLEMING) at 12/13/93 12:48p
Why persue any effort if the guarantees of performance are not in hand?
I am a lurker who has been following the Fusion Digest with interest and,
up to this point, have not felt the need to make my thoughts known. The
differences between energy breakeven and commercial breakeven are clearly
understood by anyone who has run any commercial enterprise from a
lemonade stand on up.

The Princeton team is to be congratulated, indeed, the world should offer 
them a standing ovation for having maintained conditions in excess of the 
Lawson requirements sufficient to produce the amazing 5.5 MW that they did 
produce. 15 years ago I became interested in the possibility of controlled 
fusion energy, when, at the time,only the uncontrolled fusion of Hydrogen 
via a fission trigger was reality. In fact, the Lawson criterion for 
containment density, temperature, and time was many orders of magnitude in 
excess of what was even conceiveable at the time. The fact that as of last 
Friday, we are now only a factor of 5 or 6 away from energy breakeven is 
fantastic! As a final note, I just love geometric progress. Note that the 
morning shot produced over 3 MW and the pm shot achieved 5.5 MW, I think 
these boys are on a roll.

If we look at the short history of flight and the tremendous advances made
that will continue into the future and then apply a similar "time-line" to 
fusion research, I have no doubt that the Princeton team will not only 
exceed the 10MW 1994 target yield, but will surpass this figure by a 
heathy margin. To venture a guess, I bet we see 20 MW+ from the Princeton 
team in  94. 

In a more technical vein, how is the energy released from the PLT fusion 
reaction quantified and for how long was the 5.5MW burn sustained?

Jim Pierson, Pierson Associates Inc. 1-800-565-6075, fax 705-754-3463 
SNAILMAIL ADDRESS: "The Great White North" (only kidding!)

Box 155 Parsons Road, RR#1 Haliburton, Ontario, Canada KOM 1SO

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjpierson cudfnJim cudlnPierson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Jeremy Morris /  Fusion Simulation
     
Originally-From: jmorris@hobbs.leesummit.k12.mo.us (Jeremy Morris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Simulation
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 02:03:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Grettings to Everyone,
	I have a question concerning a possible computer program dealing
with a fusion simulation.  I am presently working on a project where we
are trying to run a simulation of cold fusion via a computer program.  I
realize the controversy behind the whole cold fusion ordeal, but I'm
hoping that there might be someone that could help me find a program that
does what I'm trying to do.  We want to run a mathematical and a visual
simulation.  Do you know of any program that could help?

				Jeremiah Morris
				jmorris@hobbs.leesummit.k12.mo.us



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjmorris cudfnJeremy cudlnMorris cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: 13 Dec 1993 16:10:52 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <11DEC93.21372748@nel.pfc.mit.edu> 
stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>
>                ......                       These experiments are perhaps
>the most significant since tokamaks were first built.  

Funny, that is exactly what the JET people said 2 years ago! 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
Date: 13 Dec 1993 16:16:30 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Dec11.234547.21195@midway.uchicago.edu> 
gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>The newspapers explain that TFTR runs on the D+T reaction.  If this
>were to be developed into commercial fusion, you would need to get the
>tritium from somewhere.  A fusion friend of mine explained to me that
>one thing that you would do is irradiate lithium with the neutron flux
>from the tokamak (or whatever it is) to get more tritium.  

Yep.  It works out.  Also, do not forget that there is a *lot* of 
tritium in storage at DOE facilities, not to mention Russian ones. 
Hazel O'Leary just announced the numbers.  They are impressive numbers. 
Even with decay over the next 30-40 years, there will be plenty left 
to clean up and use as seed for these reactors.  In addition, there 
must be massive quantities of Li-6 available for breeding purposes. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: 13 Dec 1993 16:07:16 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

There have been only a few answers to this, and none that address 
my concerns.  In particular, if any JET people out there could give 
some numbers for comparison to their experiment and its extrapolation, 
it would be most helpful. 

In article <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> driver@MCS.COM writes:
>
>   Is what they did really a big breakthrough?

I would say it is a breakthrough, but not a big one. 

The power level is not as big a deal as the operation at a 50-50 d-t 
mixture.  There had been a previous tritium burn at JET reported 
here that used 10% t (was that 90-10 or 10% of 50-50?) so observing 
a tritium burn is not particularly special.  What is important is 
that they did the first burn at the 50-50 mix that is the basis for 
all conceptual designs of a fusion power plant, and the burn remained 
controlled for a second or so.  

As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of about 
1/9 for the light load of t, with plans to increase the t to 50% by 
1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated they would be 
very close to breakeven at that point, but do not recall the details. 
Could some JET person fill us in?  

>   Was it a small scale version of a possible power generator (ie: all they
>   have to do now is build a big one)?

Not really.  They did, however, achieve the goals of the project when 
it was proposed 20 years ago.  TFTR is Tokamak Fusion *Test* Reactor. 
They are now beginning the tests it was designed to make.  The next 
step planned is, however, to build a big one called ITER.  That would 
be an international collaboration.  (Princeton probably went public 
with this because they are feeling the heat :-0 from JET.) 

Indications are that they will not achieve "scientific" breakeven where 
the power produced equals the power put into the plasma.  They are a 
factor of 1000 from "commercial" breakeven, where the power produced 
can be extracted, turned into electricity, and the electricity used 
to power the reactor and its accessory operations (tritium extraction, 
for example) with none left over to charge up your electric car.  This 
factor of 1000 is about the scale of the advance made in the past 20-30 
years.  Whether the next advance to commercial breakeven will be as 
'easy' remains to be seen.  We are *still* 30-40 years away from 
commercial fusion power via this means, as one *enthusiast* was quoted 
as saying on one news show. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 13 Dec 1993 19:19 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CHyGA7.9xG@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, greg@huia.canterbury.ac
nz (Greg Ewing) writes...
>In article <1993Dec11.231158.19816@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>|> For starters, the term "wave function" is a horrible misnomer;
>|> it should be called something like a "quantum probability
>|> distribution",
> 
>No, it shouldn't! A wave function is *not* a probability
>distribution. Probability distributions can be calculated from
>it, but it is not itself a probability distribution.
> 
>|> "Wave function
>|> collapse" is nothing at all mysterious; it is exactly analagous to the
>|> way the probability distribution for the position of a roulette ball
>|> collapses when you check to see where the ball is.
> 
>No, it's not, there's more to it than that.
> 
>Suppose the roulette ball could be one of several colours.
>You look to see where the ball is, and note the result. Then
>you look to see what colour it is.
> 
>Then you look to see where it is again... and it's in a different
>place. Furthermore, it's in a different place *because* you
>looked to see what colour it is!
> 
>That's the sort of thing that a quantum roulette ball would
>do, and you'll have a hard time explaining it in terms of
>probability theory alone.

Let's say that to "see" the ball, you have to nail it with another roulette
ball having a fairly high velocity.  So, you get back the last position the
roulette-ball-of-interest was in, but you've screwed up the momentum, so
it's not there anymore.  Likewise with subsequent attempts to find the 
roulette ball.

So, you might be able to use probability theory coupled with the fact that
what you're trying to measure is of the same order as what you're using to 
make the measurement.

For the roulette ball, you'll find its position by smacking it with another
roulette ball, and from the way the ball riccochettes you'll know where it
was.  Unfortunately, you won't have any idea of where it is/will be, since you
have just given it quite a bit of momentum - and it wasn't sitting still before
being probed.
> 
>|> And, most
>|> importantly, given two particles, they do not each have their own wave
>|> function, they have a joint wave function, just like a joint
>|> probability distribution.
> 
>Yep, that much is right.
> 
OK, I guess you'll have a problem applying classical probability theory to
this aspect :-)

>Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
>University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
>Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
>greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes
Date: 14 Dec 1993 00:49:44 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Mark Hittinger (bugs@NETSYS.COM) wrote:
about one talk at this conference:

: Yet another of a series of talks that seem to have an "optimization"
: theme to it.

Warning!

Remember, that if one is 'optimizing' some complex process to get a single
desired final result, "measured excess heat", for example, without *any*
understanding of what is going on, you can end up optimizing the dynamics in
a way to 'spoof' an otherwise good calorimeter into giving spurious
results.  

If the effect is real, the optimized scientific protocol needs to give
good results with multiple independent types of measuring devices.


--
-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:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 00:53:50 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <2egs0h$29r@insosf1.infonet.net>, leland@ins.infonet.net
(Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.) writes:
|> I really don't care to continue this discussion because it is, in my
|> opinion, a matter of personal philosophy which doesn't fit in this group.

Not entirely - I've been trying to point out that part of it
is *not* just a matter of philosophy.

If you regard the "uncertainty principle" as some sort of barrier
which prevents us from finding out what is "really going on",
then you misunderstand. The *wave function* describes what is really
going on.

There may be a more fundamental way of describing what is going
on, but any such description must be consistent with what the
wave function tells us. The classical position/velocity
description is *not* consistent with what the wave function
tells us.

The lesson to be learned from the 2-slit experiment is that, to
predict what will happen, you need the whole wave function,
including the phase. Just having the initial probability
distributions of position and velocity will not do.

The wave function describes something very important
about reality that probabilities alone do not capture.
That's not just a matter of philosophy, it's a demonstrable
fact.

|> But even a wave function has a starting
|> condition.

Yes, and the initial wave function precisely describes the
initial state of the system - there's nothing "uncertain"
about it.

|> he had
|> exchanged it for another assumption that there isn't any underlying
|> structure to reality. I don't thing QM makes either assumption, nor can it
|> prove either assumption.

True, but it does place severe constraints on what such an
"underlying reality" could be like. In particular, it rules
out anything that resembles classical physics.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Leland A /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: 14 Dec 1993 02:42:29 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <CI02Hr.38D@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, greg@huia.canterbury.ac
nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
>In article <2egs0h$29r@insosf1.infonet.net>, leland@ins.infonet.net
>(Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.) writes:
>|> I really don't care to continue this discussion because it is, in my
>|> opinion, a matter of personal philosophy which doesn't fit in this group.
>
>Not entirely - I've been trying to point out that part of it
>is *not* just a matter of philosophy.
>
>If you regard the "uncertainty principle" as some sort of barrier
>which prevents us from finding out what is "really going on",
>then you misunderstand. The *wave function* describes what is really
>going on.
>
>There may be a more fundamental way of describing what is going
>on, but any such description must be consistent with what the
>wave function tells us.

All I was really trying to say was that if you regard the "uncertainty
principle" (and the rest of QM) as EITHER some sort of barrier which
prevents us from finding out what is "really going on" OR as some sort of
statement that there can't be a more fundamental way of describing what is
"really going on", then you misunderstand. You can err in your thinking
EITHER WAY. And in either case, in my opinion, it reveals more about your
own personal philosophy than it does about any of the science involved.

> The classical position/velocity
>description is *not* consistent with what the wave function
>tells us.

As I remember, in the text just before what you quoted above I agreed that
some of what I had said was imprecise and unfortunate. In view of that, I
think I'll just leave the rest of what you said unanswered (because I really
don't have any disgreement with the rest of what you said).


Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Dieter Britz /  RE: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 13:46:15 GMT
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:34:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) in Fusion Digest 1775
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:34:43 GMT

>Random notes on ICCF4-Tuesday from an interested observer.

First of all, thank you, Mark, for your efforts. They are much appreciated.
I wish I had asked you, or anyone there whom I know, to ask those Russians
about erzions; whether it's true that this term is derived from "Earth"...
We may never know.

>1. Fritz Will gave a talk in which he specified that he was not using
>Lithium in his electrolyte.  He was using D2SO4 in order to "avoid the
>film formation" problem.  He said that his cathode surface stayed "shiny"
>after 100+ hours of electrolisis.  (I guess that means he does polish them
>prior to use)  He has a paper in the November 30 issue of the Journal of
>Analytical Chemistry.  He stated that "less pure" palladium yielded more
>Tritium and that more pure Pd yielded less.  He also stated that a cathode
>containing 95% Pd and 5% Li yielded no Tritium but that using LiSO4 as an
>electrolyte yielded more Tritium than D2SO4??

"J. Anal. Chem." ? Would this be Anal. Chem.?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Stephen Cooper /  Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of about 
>1/9 for the light load of t, with plans to increase the t to 50% by 
>1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated they would be 
>very close to breakeven at that point, but do not recall the details. 
>Could some JET person fill us in?  

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", invited
talk given to the 1992 International Conferance on Plasma Physics by
P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd July 1992).

Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium neutral beams
from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral beam sources injecting
tritium. In the best of the two D-T discharges, the tritium concentration
was about 11% of bulk plasma at peak performance, when the total neutron
emmision rate was 6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The 
fusion amplification factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium 
concentration, this pulse would have produced a fusion power ~ 5MW and
nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for the best pure deuterium
discharge of the PTE series gives about 11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an accurancy of
+/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. the tritium injections
last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 3MA flat top. The amount of tritium
injected and the limited number of shots were deliberatly restricted for
operational convenience.

--> Personal remarks start

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full D-T phase
at this time and with this configuration, we certainly should have got
to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have matched our best Deutrerium
pulse, I guess we would have come close especially as the TFTR results
show no pathological problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all 
hypothetical, we no longer have anything like the configuration we had
in 1991, were just about to finish a major shotdown incorporating a 
pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. The old H
mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on are a thing of the
past and we'll have to wait and see how she performes with the new
configuration.

>>   Was it a small scale version of a possible power generator (ie: all they
>>   have to do now is build a big one)?

>Not really.  They did, however, achieve the goals of the project when 
>it was proposed 20 years ago.  TFTR is Tokamak Fusion *Test* Reactor. 
>They are now beginning the tests it was designed to make.  The next 
>step planned is, however, to build a big one called ITER.  That would 
>be an international collaboration.  (Princeton probably went public 
>with this because they are feeling the heat :-0 from JET.) 

Yep, this is where the real work begins. The first real study of a
D-T plasma matching the results to the theory. The headline grabing
of the first few shots is politics, probably more to do with keeping
ITER going and out of the hands of the luddites in the US congress.
The real triumphs for TFTR will come over the next 9 months when they
get the chance to answer the big questions about D-T plasmas. These
wont have quite the same healine grabing appeal of the first record
breaking shots but will be far more important when the history of
fusion is written. Congratulations to everyone at TFTR, not for the
record breaing shots, but for beating the luddite buggers down and
being able to start there D-T phase.

>Indications are that they will not achieve "scientific" breakeven where 
>the power produced equals the power put into the plasma.  They are a 
>factor of 1000 from "commercial" breakeven, where the power produced 
>can be extracted, turned into electricity, and the electricity used 
>to power the reactor and its accessory operations (tritium extraction, 
>for example) with none left over to charge up your electric car.  This 
>factor of 1000 is about the scale of the advance made in the past 20-30 
>years.  Whether the next advance to commercial breakeven will be as 
>'easy' remains to be seen.  We are *still* 30-40 years away from 
>commercial fusion power via this means, as one *enthusiast* was quoted 
>as saying on one news show. 

In this last sentance we see the biggest problem to have to overcome
before any form of fusion energy can be developed, the fusion community
both hot & cold, have become the boys who called WOLF too often. I can
understand why this has happened, it's our preoccupation with the so
called bottom line, our inability to see beyond our own lifetimes. These
pressures force us all to argue for putting our eggs in one basket. There
are many people out there who have quite understandable doubts about the
Tokamak, just as there are many of us who believe in it with all our heart.
What I do not understand is why we all still argue for funds to be taken
from Paul to give to Peter, when all this has ever done is to reduce the
amount of funds available, whil'st giving the momentary winner a larger
share of this reduced budget. In the short term they are a winner, but in
the long term we are all loosers. It's time we started asking for new
money from outside the energy research community and stopped arguing about
how the little we have is distributed. 

Stephen R Cooper			Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk				Operations Division, JET.

- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  D + T fusion, naughty or nice?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D + T fusion, naughty or nice?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:13:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There seem to be some questions floating around as to what radioactivity
results from the operation of a fusion reactor on D + 
T as the fuel.  To begin with you have to deal with the tritium fuel
itself, but that really isn't as bad as you may imagine.  Then you have
to reclaim and recycle that fuel.  For economic reasons rather than
strictly safety issues you will not want to let a significant fraction
of the tritium get away.  As far as troublesome reaction products, there
really are none except those evil 14 MeV neutrons.  It is what happens
to those neutrons that ultimately plays a vital role in whether a
fusion reactor is naughty or nice.

Clearly they escape the magnetic confinement and strike the material
which surrounds the plasma.  The first problem, which has been mentioned
here, is the activation and damage done to the vessel wall.  How bad is
that?  Well the first clue that it is bad should be the fact that there
is no source of neutrons capable of providing an intensity sufficient
for a really complete simulation prior to the firing of TFTR.  However,
one should perhaps note that, by a strong majority, most of the neutrons
sail through the vessel wall without doing anything.  Just pulling a
number off the wall, I believe the thickness for steel in which 1/2
would interact is about 3 inches.  Of those that do interact some fraction
induce an (n,alpha) reaction which is bad news for the structural
properties and a variety of activities of which 60Co is perhaps the
most bothersome from a disposal standpoint.  It has a 5 year half life,
no where near the age of the pyramids.

What happens to the majority of the neutrons?  If your smart you use
them, and that means you work to minimize the number that result
in harmful or troublesome interactions with the essential materials
of the machinery.  Perhaps the radioactivity produced by a fusion
reactor has been downplayed, but it isn't, in my opinion, comparable
to the fission reactor case.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Cow Magnets
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cow Magnets
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:13:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue's cow magnets are also usefuf for preventing scale build up in
surface condensers.  I have a great pile of literature that proves it.
Woops!  I guess this will start 10,000 posts of the use of cow magnets to
perform magic.  But Dick, not only were the magic frequencies used, but 
they were calculated by one group, and a second group measured positive 
results using 81.95, 365.608, and 533.68 MHz.

Did you notice that if you divide the second number by the days in a year
that it comes out very close to 1,000,000.  Further if you multiply it by 
the width of the door to the Queen's chamber in the great pyramid of 
Cheops you get .....

Sorry, I know all this is provocative, and may generate a lot of junk mail,
but I have just come back from a stay in heaven and am still a little wired.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Mark Hittinger /  some ICCF4 Thursday notes 
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: some ICCF4 Thursday notes 
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 03:15:12 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.



Random notes on ICCF4-Thursday from an interested observer.

Caveat: My background is Computers and Economics, not the natural
        sciences. (Just my opinions guys, free and worth it)

Thursday was "materials science" day and the morning presentations were always 
related to that topic.

Again I will post more brief notes because not as much was discussed and
I did not understand some of what was discussed.  In addition, the call of
the beach was louder than ever.

1.  Dr. Fleischmann gave a talk on the early work of Alfred Cohen on the
properties of Hydrogen in the Pd lattice.  I video taped this lecture because
I felt that it would be perhaps the most important one of the conference.

The model of alpha phase behavior does not match (fit) the observed behavior.
The alpha phase is not understood.  H diffusion into the lattice is faster
towards a negative field and Alfred Cohen deduced that the H in the lattice
was an H+.  Dr. Fleischmann said he was sorry but that it was a proton and
its charge was one.

The diffusion proceeds in the form of a wave through the lattice.  This was
in an experiment of a Pd wire being loaded at one end.  Dr. Fleischmann spoke
of using an electric field to induce a potential energy of 10Kev into the
D+ wave.  

He digressed into a general point about wether systems are driven by kinetic
or potential energy.  He stated that this is not a resolved question.  I 
suppose he was implying that the potential energy may be important in CNF.

"You must excite the proton so that it becomes highly mobile in the lattice."

"We can drive a diffusion wave through the wire"

When the diffusion wave hits the end of the electrode a reflective wave
passes back in the opposite direction.  He indicated at the end of the 
talk that "blasting" the end of the wire with this wave may be a possible
trigger for the effect.

In addition Dr. Fleischmann commented that Dr. Morrison's request for better
neutron detectors was being complied with in Nice and that their current
work was on hold while they obtained better detectors.

2.  The cute Japanese woman who presented one of Kinimatsu's group papers that
I spoke of in my Wednesday notes may have actually given her talk on Thursday
morning after Dr. Li.  I have some confusion in my notes - hmmmm - wonder why.

3.  I forgot to mention my attendance of the Vigier lecture on Monday 
afternoon.  He mentioned that the people detecting He4 with mass spectroscopy
may be actually detecting D2-bar - a special molecule of D.  Oh to be a grad
student gopher for this fellow!  There were so many interesting professors
and one can only be a grad student gopher for one or two.  The limits of life
are so constraining!  Especially when one has a career already.  Dr. Vigier
is a very persuasive and animated speaker.

4. There was a brief panel discussion by several speakers, each one alloted
3 minutes except for Ed Storms who received 10 minutes.  Dr. Morrison was
also allowed to speak for 3 minutes.  Each speaker gave his selection for
the most important thing discussed during the ICCF4.  Ed Storms spoke of
how the skeptics were doing the cold fusion community a favor by keeping
the competition out of the work.  He spoke at length of the situation that
would exist when world corporations finally accept cold fusion reality and
what the employment situation would be like for the small group of cold 
fusion experienced people.  The "money thing" came through loud and clear
in Ed Storms talk, and this may explain the bias towards positive speakers
in the ICCF4.  Shudder - need to get to work on why its ok if CNF doesn't
work out....

Dr. Fleischmann expressed interest in Yan Kucherov's work and indicated that
their group had replicated some of Kucherov's experiments.  Dr. Fleischmann
said that since Kucherov had already won a prize for his work from the 
Italians that he (Dr. F) was nominating Dennis Craven's paper as the best.
This was well received by the audience.  

Dr. Morrison summarized some case history of neutrino work that was flawed
and eventually retracted.  He awarded the most important paper nomination
to Dr. Steven Jones for having doubts about his work and doing something
about it.  Dr. Jones had utilized better segmented counters and "proved
himself wrong".  "Then like a good scientist he retracted his earlier
results and did so publicly."  (PS Dr. Jones I have this on my camcorder)

5. Quick summary of everything:

Team P&F results getting more incredible, everyone elses positive results
are moving towards the background level.

ENECO appears to be moving towards some sort of public offering of stock.
This is the impression I get and nobody actually said anything about it.
My scenario is that sometime within the next 6 months some good results
will be released to the press (probably SRI) and then ENECO will float an IPO.
ENECO handed out a press release announcing the purchases of the world wide
rights to the P&F patents.  Another glossy was available which described the
ongoing work and the research affiliates at a number of prestigious labs and
universities.  ENECO paid for several Russian scientists to visit the ICCF4
along with their families and put them up at the Hyatt.  This was a
substantial chunk of change.  Wink Wink Nudge Nudge - say no more :-)

This IPO will be snapped up by believers at any price.  Beware.  A group in
the car with me was speculating about the power source for the island. Droege
suggested that it was jet engine powered generators, each one probably
producing a giga-watt of power.  I said, "now thats excess power!".  Dr.
Jones nodded in agreement - "cold fusion (if real) will still have to
compete with existing systems".  I also secretly added the thought -
"and those are always reproducible".

All that are working towards positive results seem to be attempting to
optimize for excess heat.  I predict we will see a shift away from the search
for nuclear (unclear) ash and a concentation on the excess heat only.  Fox 
said that excess heat without neutrons was *GREAT* - thats what we want!!  It
appeared that nobody had achieved straight and narrow reproducibility.  Vague
statements related to loading, impurities, electrolyte type, current density,
"crashing" the system, ect.  All of the questions that existed in 1989 are
still questions.  No one set up a demo system.

Bulk effect?          Yes and no
Light water?          No and yes
Rhodium alloy?        Yes and no
Cracks?               Bad and good
Lithium electrolyte?  Good and bad
Loading above .9?     Needed and not needed
Sodium Carbonate?     Never works and works great
Phases of D/Pd?       Critically important and no such thing
He4?                  Yes and no
Tritium?              Yes, sometimes, and never
Nuclear vs. Heat-
-reproducibility?     Nuclear better - no - heat is better
Ti works?             Yes and no
Open cell is ok?      No and yes
Source of heat?       New chemistry, NUclear, and UNclear
Silicon layer         Bad and good
Contamination?        Obviously and obviously not
Position?             Skeptic and believer
Sub-category?         Zealot and worrywart
Model?                Simplicity and chaos
Team P&F?             Charlatans and heroes
Team P&F?             Secret recipies - they know *TONS* more than they are
                      telling and ; Dr. Fleischmann busily taking notes at
                      certain other speakers' talks.
Leave Hawaii?         Uhhhh

Isn't this great???

The question of how to achieve high loading has been resolved by the fine
papers presented by Kinimatsu's group.  Debra Rolison indicated that all
researchers should be able to achieve high loading and that the questions
to be answered for ICCF5 should be related to materials science.  She hoped
that everyone would give detailed analysis of their cathode material prior
to use and after use.  (i.e. please tell us your secret recipe!)

Well thats about it for ICCF4.  What a good time.  The ICCF5 will be in
Nice, France in 14 months and the ICCF6 will be in China 14 months after
ICCF5.  There were actual bets exchanged on wether or not the ICCF6 would
happen at all.  I have begun writing my paper on "Why its OK if cold fusion
doesn't work out."  I will post it in a few weeks.  Have fun!
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 03:23:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <jac.755821295@gandalf>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>      I'm curious about how we're defining 'biologically active'.
>
>  Radioactive iodine, for instance?

      Unfortunately for your definition, it doesn't seem to be 
      very biologically active on Venus.
      
      Biological activity in the context used would seem predicated on
      location, a point missed here several times already.  After
      all, who gives a rat's patootie as long as the radioiodine never
      makes it into Aunt Martha?  For example, I don't much consider the 
      earth's core to be a threat to my continued existence even though 
      intimate contact with the earth's core would turn me into charred 
      grits.

>>      Replace fusion with fission, note that the conditions have probably
>>      already been met without waiting 50 years, and explain why we're 
>>      not building any plants.
>
>  How do you "eliminate" radioactive by products from a fission reaction?

     Got me.  Is this a riddle?

     Who was talking about 'eliminating' radioactive byproducts?
     Both fusion and fission have them.  I believe the key word was
     'minimize'.  As in 'Advanced reactor cycles like IFR minimize
     radioactive byproducts'.

>  Perhaps we can find safe ways to handle them, store them, and
>perhaps even treat them (neutron irradiation) to shorten the time it
>takes for them to become environmentally benign, but "eliminating" them
>is quite out of the question.

     Again, 'minimize', not 'eliminate'.

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Monday notes
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 03:26:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2ej2j9INN3ml@network.ucsd.edu>,
Matt Kennel <mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net> wrote:
>Mark Hittinger (bugs@NETSYS.COM) wrote:
>about one talk at this conference:
>
>: Yet another of a series of talks that seem to have an "optimization"
>: theme to it.
>
>Warning!
>
>Remember, that if one is 'optimizing' some complex process to get a single
>desired final result, "measured excess heat", for example, without *any*
>understanding of what is going on, you can end up optimizing the dynamics in
>a way to 'spoof' an otherwise good calorimeter into giving spurious
>results.  

    Nice point.  One selects the conditions at which the calorimeter
    works worst, a rather 'scientific' path to self-delusion.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Leland A /  Re: More Excess Heat and Gorsky....
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Excess Heat and Gorsky....
Date: 14 Dec 1993 03:34:45 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <1993Dec13.201413.1@vaxc>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

 ...
 
>Firstly, what Steve Jones has quite skillfully done, is to construct a neutron
>detection system which discriminates against spurious responses (noise), much
>better than previous (cruder) detectors have been able to do.  In say, five
>years time, there will be detectors much less noisy than Steve's current
>effort, will you then be willing to junk all the readings that will be made
>by Steve's currently excellent system ?   I appreciate the thrust of your 
>remarks but I consider your saying that "ALL" prior neutron results are
>"meaningless" to be rather rash. Previous neutron results were much more
>susceptable to noise than Steve's device and thus must be treated with
>a comensurate degree of suspicion.

In agreement with what you said, I think it would be useful to add that
(mostly though no fault of his own) Steve Jones hasn't been able to attempt
to reproduce "ALL" prior results in his underground lab, because some of the
"recipies" are not public knowledge (possibly for valid economic reasons).

I could hope that "everyone" would take Mr. Jones up on his offer, but I
don't expect many to. I said "mostly" above because Mr. Jones has created at
least the perception of an adversarial environment. Whether or not the
perception is right or wrong, I would think that most of those to whom the
offer is made would have the perception that they would just be giving Mr.
Jones an opportunity to dispute their claims whether or not the results
supported such a dispute. In other words, I think they would likely have the
perception (right or wrong) that Mr. Jones isn't looking for the truth, he's
just looking for an opportunity to dispute their claims. In my opinion, he
helped to create that perception, and anything he could do to help dispel it
would be very useful at this point.


Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  First three ICCF4 Papers
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: First three ICCF4 Papers
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:14:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui1  First three papers from the first session of ICCF4

This write up is going very slowly.  The problem is to understand all my 
hastily written notes so that I can try to reconstruct what was said.  

Until I wear out I will try to review the papers attended.  I listened to all 
the calorimetry papers, and after that the materials papers.  This means that 
I missed many of the nuclear papers.  I started writing with the idea that I 
would first report what I heard, and then have a separate section of opinion.  
This resolve was broken with the first paper.  Be warned, there is a lot of 
opinion here!

The program book was quite well prepared.  Presenters were apparently 
instructed to give stand alone two page abstracts.  Many of the key graphs are 
included in the program book.  Thank you EPRI.  

I have already received 12 pages of write up from Mark Hittinger.  Thank you 
Mark.  I will shamelessly use his material as a reminder.  I have also used 
Eugene Mallove's title list to avoid some typing.  Thank you Gene.  

I will separate the papers with ***** so you can search to the start.  I also 
include the paper number and the claims for heat, tritium, 4He and neutrons in 
the header so that it is easy to locate and tabulate claims.  I do not claim 
that I got everything right.  

Martin Fleischmann started off the presentations.  

***** Paper C 1.1  Excess Heat  Yes  Neutrons  No   Tritium  No  4He  No   

Calorimetry of the Pd-D2 System: the Search for Simplicity and
Accuracy
     M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, Monique Le Floux, Jeanne Roulette

The first thing that I noticed about this paper was that things are apparently 
not so rough in Nice, since Stan and Martin seem to have been joined by two 
French ladies.  Some of you may remember that we have in the past here 
wondered about missing co-authors.  While shown as authors, they were not 
listed as conference attendees.  Possibly there are at least four cars in the 
parking lot.  

Part of the abstract is quoted below: 

Start quotation--
Our search for high levels of the rates of excess enthalpy generation in the 
Pd-D2O and Pd-alloy-D2O systems has been based inter alia on the following 
preconditions and suppositions:

i) that it is necessary to use materials which will withstand the high 
stresses induced by the experiments;

ii) given that i) is assured, that it is necessary to adopt particular 
experimental protocols to achieve excess enthalpy generation at elevated 
temperatures;

iii) that the protocols ii) should ensure a high D/Pd ratio at all conditions;

iv) that the protocols ii) and iii) should allow one to take advantage of 
"positive feedback" in the systems;

v) that the systems are sensitive to "hidden state variables:

vi) that the state variables need to be further generalised to take account of 
cross-terms and of gradients with position.
End quotation--

This all sounds pretty scientific except that I have written:

                        OBFUSCATION!

In large letters at the top of the page.  Fleischmann started out with a 
reference to Alfred Coehn - 1926?  Which I think is in german.  Percy 
Bridgeman 1934 was also mentioned.  These works apparently discuss how 
hydrogen ions can migrate in a wire under an electric field.  My notes say 10 
Kv per cm is possible.  (I guess this is inside the Pd - yes it can be done 
but not for long!) Some important factors that were listed and made it to my 
notes were:  alloy composition, Processing variables, phase changes, pressure, 
shear compression, chemical potential, surface potential, voltage potential, 
temperature.  Again the time variable was noted as 8 megaseconds.  It is 
necessary to go through the loading at the correct speed to be sure to reach 
high loading at high temperature.  They have now given up on non-linear 
regression as it is not "user friendly" and are now using linear regression.  
They are also now (possibly) using Rhodium - Palladium alloys.  

"There are no cell oscillations"
"Isothermal calorimetry is an unduly restrictive approach"
"Not limited by the Shannon limit"
"There is no recombination"
"The measurements are precise and accurate, precision is 1 in 10E4, accuracy 
is 1 in 10E3"

There was as usual little presented to substantiate these claims.  I would 
certainly like to see how they get 1 in 1000 real calorimetry accuracy with 
their cells and using their methods.  Please do not give me any more 
regressions as they give me a headache.  

Fleischmann pointed out that their results have increased over time:
(And with no improvement in calorimetry - DROM can this be pathological?)

20 W/cc      Mar 89
100 W/cc     Oct 89
1 KW/cc     June 90
4 KW/cc     Summer 92 

He showed the same old anomalous heat slide from ACCF1.  My notes say: "This 
talk covered only how they approach their data - it did *not* cover anything 
about what their experiments were."  Again I have listened to a talk by the 
master and have learned little new.  

***** Paper C 1.2  Excess Heat  Yes  Neutrons  No   Tritium  Yes  4He  Yes   

Excess Heat and Nuclear Product Measurments In Cold Fusion Electrochemical 
Cells
     Gozzi, Bakducci, Caputo, Cignini, Gigii, Tomellini,
     Frullani, Cibani, Garibaldi, Jodice,Urciucii

This will likely be the experiment that is referenced to prove "cold fusion". 
A curve was presented which shows 4He from an on line mass spectrometer 
lagging the excess heat by 100 hours.  (But please wait for what others say 
about how 4He can get out of the lattice before concluding that this is the 
definitive experiment.)  Simultaneous measurements of 20Ne were made to check 
for atmospheric contamination.  

Measurements were carried out on 6 cells for 1000 hours.  Best excess heats 
were 100 W/cc, with 10 watt excess absolute.  Claimed 10% accuracy for the 
calorimetry.  Their call #10 showed 20 watts excess with 30 watts input power 
and a claimed error of 1 watt.  Heat appeared after 600 hours my notes seem to 
say. 

They claim that they can control the confinement of D in Pd by using a second 
power supply and a "confinement current".  The attempt is to pass a current 
between the center of the cathode and a gold plated area on the surface.  
Currents four times the cathode current are used.  The surface is made more 
positive.  The desired effect is apparently to increase the current in the 
palladium cathode from the surface to the center without increasing the 
electrolytic current.  I did not catch enough of the detail to see how they 
actually accomplished this.  I cannot figure out how to do it.  I will have to 
wait for the paper.  The above is from my notes and is likely in error.  
Reading the abstract, I see that it says: "Modification of the Pd cathode 
design both to test our theoretical ideas on the role of current on D charging 
and to show as the electrochemical confinement of D depends on the current.  
In fact, one of the cell has been prepared with a Pd cathode containing a Au 
core acting as blocking interface for migrating deuterons.  A secondary d.c. 
circuit has been connected between the Au core and a surface spot-welded 
platinum thin sheet.  Preliminary results obtained indicate that it is 
possible to control the D confinement by both the primary (electrolysis 
current) and secondary current.(sic)" 

My notes say "claim excess T"  "No neutrons seen"
(Neutrons?  We don't need no stinking neutrons!"

***** Paper C 1.3  Excess Heat  Yes  Neutrons  No   Tritium  No  4He  No   

Observation of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a
Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell
     Hasegawa, Hayakawa, Yamamoto, Kunimatsu

This is a very large group from IMRA Japan Co. Ltd.  In the US, you can either 
be a Co. or a Ltd., not both.  No wonder they beat us out in consumer 
electronics.  As usual with the Japanese, there seem to be many related groups 
doing the work with slightly different names.  In any case, I could count up 
14 or so related names from the attendee list.  

Their basic scheme is to use a fuel cell anode and a 5 - 10 atmosphere over 
pressure of D2 (or H2) gas.  Under these conditions, liberated oxygen is 
recombined on the anode and the cell pressure goes down as D is absorbed by 
the cathode.  Between this and the paper from the materials session (and an 
excellent presentation by Akiko Kubota) dozens of very carefully prepared 
graphs are shown.  If you only write for one preprint, these are the ones to 
get.  

In general the graphs showed current density on the x-axis with a log scale 
from 1 ma to 1 ampere.  On the y axis was either loading, usually from 0.6 to 
1 D/Pd, or hydrogen overvoltage, 0 to -1.5 volts.  Other nice curves showed 
days on the x axis and D/M (M=Pd or some alloy) on the y axis.  Again usually 
0.6 to 1.  Then there were curves which show loading on the x-axis and % alloy
on the y-axis - nice curve for Rhodium.  

One of two nice curves in the abstract book show current density log 0.01 to 1 
on the x-axis and excess heat on the y-axis in watts per sq cm.  The curves 
show 5 different alloys in LiOD and LiOH as a control.  Most of the LiOH 
points sit on the x-axis, though several are a little below - as much as 0.5 
watts per cm3 negative.  A few of the LiOD points are also below the axis - as 
much as 0.2 watt per cm3.  The largest value is at 3.3 watts per cm3 for I/M 
9112 material.  Eyeballing the data I give the LiOH control -0.1 watt/cm3 +/- 
0.2 watts/cc.  I give the I/M 9112 material 3.0 watts/cm3 +/- 0.5 watt.  No 
excess heat below 0.2 A/cm2.  All in all, it looks like good and careful data 
with a control.

The second curve shows D(H)/Pd on the x-axis 0.7 to 1.0, and excess heat in 
Watts per cm3 on the y-axis.  All the excess heat points are clumped up 
between 0.80 and 0.88.  The control points are mostly on the axis and are 
spread out between 0.90 and 0.98.  

They presented data from cyclic loading experiments.  Here the x-axis was 
current density and the y-axis was loading.  They traced the path of loading 
vs current as several current changes were made.  From notes "so some cycling 
of current density can increase loading."  They gave a list of important 
parameters:

1.  D/Pd
2.  Current Density
3.  Cathode Overvoltage
4.  Temperature (But notes say they mostly charge at 10 C)
5.  Impurities.  (notes say Li bad ???)
6.  Time - Be Patient!  (Very Japanese!)
7.  ?

The first four variables are interdependant.  

Notes say "Non steady state - know better than last year"
"Above 0.85 no relation between loading and excess heat"
"But there is a relationship between current density and excess heat"
"Plotting data versus cathode overvoltage shows better excess heat 
correlation."
"Teflon absorbs D2"

They measured various alloys.  10% Rhodium gave the highest loading, 1.05, but 
no excess heat.  Thiourea (THU) (NH2)2C=S also gave higher loading, as did 
some of the Silver alloys, but also no excess heat.  Used 0.6 milli Molar THU 
to get to 0.9 D/Pd.  For some reason they did not want to add Al (Per McKubre)
and used the THU.  McKubre says THU is unstable.  During the conference 
whenever THU was mentioned, someone asked about stability.  

>From the questions:

Q.) Scott Chubb had a question on crystalline order and resistance.
A.) Resistance measurement does measure crystalline order.  Their answer was 
that they are able to match cathode resistance with their loading measurement. 

Q.) (Unknown) Films wash off from time to time - need good method to measure 
true overvoltage.  
A.) We measure overvoltage by current interruption method.

At first glance, this looks like a quality positive by a competent group.  It 
may well be just that.  Now my impressions from scribbled notes all over the 
abstract.  

"Calorimetry looks awful!!  Data does not look significant."  This because the 
excess heat plot over time looked exactly like a calorimeter settling to a new 
offset error point.  No bumps or wiggles.  Just steady state.  
"No error bars" True, but they can sort of be inferred from the many data 
points.  
"Old Data" "New Data 0.2 watts"  My recollection of this is that the larger 
excess heats were from the old experiments.  Newer points were smaller.  
        
Tom Droege
        

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Matt Kennel
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Matt Kennel
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:14:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Question:  What to you get when you put a large crew of extreemly conscientious
Japanese scientists into an expensive, well equipped laboratory with 
instructions to find "anomalous heat"?

Answer:  Anomalous heat

The question for which I have no answer, is whether all experiments are plotted
on the graphs, or only examples of "good" palladium.  

It sure looks to me like what you are worrying about.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:35:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2ejmdf$b9t@tom.pppl.gov>,
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>
>This fact appears to be lost on the crowd who keep complaining that
>we are still short of scientific breakeven.  We've come a long way,
>baby! :)  If the confinement time can be improved by one more factor
>of 10, the power output will be sufficient to keep the plasma 
>heated, and "ignition" will occur.  This single factor of ten
>will then allow us to *reduce* the input power, and at the same
>time multiply the output power by many orders of magnitude.
>Then we'll be talking commercial breakeven, not just scientific
>breakeven.  Unfortunately, that factor of 10 may take a while...

     Lovely plasma, but we some of us actually remember that
     power generation is the goal.  And, there's a lot riding on
     'Unfortunately, that factor of 10 may take a while...' even
     if the premise on which it is based is true.

                               dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 17:03:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CI1A11.2nr@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <14DEC93.14374498@nel.pfc.mit.edu>,
>PAUL <stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Wow another informative and humourous comment from 
>>Dale Bass.  
>>
>>So how does this "exclude" option work.....
>
>     Something like /crb7q/hK will do for 'rn' and similar readers.
>
>     Wanna know how to speak and see no evil too?
                                  ^^^

      Darn, 'hear' would have been far funnier had I actually
      typed it.  I hate to ruin a good line...

                            dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: 14 Dec 1993 20:19:13 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Michael Condict (condict@next19.osf.org) wrote:
: Why does everyone keep talking about the amount of energy output,
: instead of the ratio of input energy to output energy.  I see no
: reason to get excited about the fact that you can input 30(?)MW and
: get back 5.5, unless the ration 5.5/30 is a new record.  (Is it?)

Yes.

: Otherwise, all people have to do to get in the news is keep building
: bigger versions of reactors that are no closer to break-even than
: previous ones -- they're just bigger, so the absolute output is higher.

Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales
as the volume.

: --
: Michael Condict			condict@osf.org
: OSF Research Inst.		(617) 621-7349
: 1 Cambridge Center
: Cambridge, MA 02142

--
-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:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Thad Wilson /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: chris@peds.ufl.edu (Thad Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 20:23:08 GMT
Organization: Pediatrics

>Why does everyone keep talking about the amount of energy output,
>instead of the ratio of input energy to output energy.  I see no
>reason to get excited about the fact that you can input 30(?)MW and
>get back 5.5, unless the ration 5.5/30 is a new record.  (Is it?)

>Otherwise, all people have to do to get in the news is keep building
>bigger versions of reactors that are no closer to break-even than
>previous ones -- they're just bigger, so the absolute output is higher.

>Paul Koloc, please give us your assessment of this news.

Will someone respond to this!!!  The way the press played this thing you 
would think they got positive output!!!  I thing that the real "Tokamak" 
reactor got up to 60% output > 30 years ago!!!  I think a small reactor 
should be more unpredictable than a large reactor.  So whats the big 
deal????  I smell a rat.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchris cudfnThad cudlnWilson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Huh?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Huh?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 00:21:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>>3.  I forgot to mention my attendance of the Vigier lecture on Monday 
>>afternoon.  He mentioned that the people detecting He4 with mass spectroscopy
>>may be actually detecting D2-bar - a special molecule of D.
>
>Double Huh?

As I understand it, Vigier thinks two D's (or H's) rotate around a
stationary electron.  Since this is presumably a lower energy state than
regular D2, it would be extra hard to doubly ionize (and thus destroy)
this weird D+-+D.  So it should look to a mass spectrometer like a singly
ionized He4.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Reply to Daryl Owen (I think)
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Daryl Owen (I think)
Date: 15 Dec 93 08:48:34 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1993Dec11.132327.1@vaxc>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
Hi Tom, and to all the fusion Folk,
Seasons greetings,
 Many thanks for your generous intent to send on at least the Miley paper,
I would be very interested in any papers which deal with thin films or
other "semi-impervious" layers and also articles using impervious layers to
prevent the loss of D (or H) from the bulk of the metal,  or indeed any of
the following.....
 
 1) Triggering and Structural Changes in Cold Fusion Electrodes.
    Bokris et al.
 2) Reproducible Anomalous Heat Production and "Cold Fusion" in  Au /Pd /PdO
    Hetrostructures Electrochemically Saturated with Hydrogen (or Deuterium).
    Lipson et al.
 3) Heat Production with Multi-layer Thin Film Electrodes.
    Miley et al.
 4) The Excess Heat Experiments on Cold Fusion in Titanium Lattice.
    Zhang et al.
 5) Particle Acceleration and Neutron Emission in a Fracture Process of a
    Piezoelectric Material.       Shirakawa et al.
 6) Detection of Neutrons from Deuterided Palladium subject to high Electrical
    Currents.      Taylor, Claytor and Jones.
 7) Observations of Neutrons and Tritium in KD2PO4 Single Crystals upon the 
    Ferroelectric Phase Transition.       Lipson et al.
 8) Ferroelectrics for Cold fusion.
    Fedorovitch.
 9) Electrolytic Deuterium Absorption by Pd Cathodes with Sputtered Gold Film.
    Kubuta et al.
 
  All the best with your calorimeter Tom.

 					Regards to all,
 					Daryl Owen.
 		     		dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
 
  	The preceeding text is only attributible to myself.
  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Bo Curry /  Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 23:21:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

: In article <01H6H1V3HH2A8WWEX5@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:

: >Now that I look at it once more, I see that there is no mention of "nuclear",
: >so it's just "magnetic resonance MS". Looking at a book on MS's, and the way a
: >quadrupole MS works, it is my guess that that is what's meant. In a QMS one
: >applies a modulated magnetic field, pulling the particle this way and that,
: >and the frequency of alternation has to be right for a given mass to make it
: >through this gauntlet run.

: Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Well, actually, a QMS uses an AC *electric* field.  What happens is you
: have four poles and put a DC bias on the opposite pairs.  Then you modulate
: the potential very fast (RF).  A heavy ion will be relatively insensitive to
: the modulating field and crash into a pole with the appropriate DC bias.  A
: light ion will be sensitive to the modulating field and be driven into one
: of the poles.  For an ion of just the right mass, the two effects will balance,
: and it will go through without hitting anything.

: My guess is that the Russians probably meant something like an ICR, which 
: actually uses a magnet and a perpendicular electric field to keep ions of
: the appropriate mass spinning around at their cyclotron frequency, while
: the rest get sent flying into the walls.

Yes. Look up FTMS. It's the highest-resolution MS technique I know of,
though it requires rather high vacuum. Unlike an ion trap,
in which ions are detected by tuning the field so that they
sequential masses are successively sent flying into the walls, the FTMS
holds all the masses in a cloud in a constant field in the trap.
Their synchotron radiation is measured, and Fourier transformed into
a frequency (i.e. mass) spectrum.

Bo

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 18:50:20 EST

         Joseph Davidson asked:
>Please correct me  - wasn't TFTR supposed to reach breakeven when
>it was designed?
         Robert Heeter replied:
>No, you're right.  But we haven't heard the last from TFTR yet.
>I believe they anticipate getting 10 MW sometime next year as they
>learn to optimize the D-T plasma.  10 MW out vs 30 MW in is
>still not quite breakeven, but you have to consider that when
>TFTR was designed a typical machine was some four orders of
>magnitude less, so 10 MW is actually quite close to breakeven.
>As far as I know TFTR has pretty much achieved everything it
>was designed to do, and more.  (For instance, they have
>achieved plasma temperatures of some 400 million degrees C,
>whereas I think the design specification was 100 million.)

         You appear to be implying that missing breakeven by a factor of
3 is not important.
         However according to Matt Kennel:
>Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales
>as the volume.

         This would appear to imply that the results of TFTR mean that
a commercial fusion reactor will need to be 3 times bigger in linear
dimension and 27 times bigger in power than was believed when TFTR was
designed.  Is this correct?   This would appear to have extremely
negative implications for the commercial feasibility of fusion.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjbs cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:56:24 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <CI1svI.KtL@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
wrote:

> : In article <01H6H1V3HH2A8WWEX5@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
> : Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
> 
> : >Now that I look at it once more, I see that there is no mention of "nuclear",
> : >so it's just "magnetic resonance MS". Looking at a book on MS's, and the way a
> : >quadrupole MS works, it is my guess that that is what's meant. In a QMS one
> : >applies a modulated magnetic field, pulling the particle this way and that,
> : >and the frequency of alternation has to be right for a given mass to make it
> : >through this gauntlet run.
> 
> : Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> : Well, actually, a QMS uses an AC *electric* field.  What happens is you
> : have four poles and put a DC bias on the opposite pairs.  Then you modulate
> : the potential very fast (RF).  A heavy ion will be relatively insensitive to
> : the modulating field and crash into a pole with the appropriate DC bias.  A
> : light ion will be sensitive to the modulating field and be driven into one
> : of the poles.  For an ion of just the right mass, the two effects will balance,
> : and it will go through without hitting anything.
> 
> : My guess is that the Russians probably meant something like an ICR, which 
> : actually uses a magnet and a perpendicular electric field to keep ions of
> : the appropriate mass spinning around at their cyclotron frequency, while
> : the rest get sent flying into the walls.
> 
> Yes. Look up FTMS. It's the highest-resolution MS technique I know of,
> though it requires rather high vacuum. Unlike an ion trap,
> in which ions are detected by tuning the field so that they
> sequential masses are successively sent flying into the walls, the FTMS
> holds all the masses in a cloud in a constant field in the trap.
> Their synchotron radiation is measured, and Fourier transformed into
> a frequency (i.e. mass) spectrum.
> 
> Bo

Since I do FTMS for a living, I suspected Dieter's magnetic resonance MS
was some form of ion cyclotron resonance.  In an ion trap the ions are not
sent "into the walls" but through holes in one endcap and into an electron
multiplier detector.  In FTMS (more properly but long-windedly called
Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry :), or FTMS for
short) the cyclotron frequencies are determined by detecting the image
currents induced as the ions pass near a detector plate once per cyclotron
orbit.  This signal is sinusoidal with a frequency given as omega=qB/m
(charge times magnetic field divided by mass).  All ions in a given
frequency range are excited (have their cyclotron radii coherently
increased) and then the composite signal is recorded. This is Fourier
transformed to give a frequency spectrum and this converted to a mass
spectrum using the above equation.  No synchrotron radiation is involved. 
The ions with cyclotron frequencies outside the range of interest are not
usually sent "into the walls" but are simply left in the center of the cell
with small (thermal) cyclotron radii.  Other forms of ICR detection exist
besides the FTMS technique, and some of these were popular as residual gas
analyzers (limited mass range and resolution but good dynamic range and
precision) before quadrupoles became popular.  Without a diagram of the
instrument or more text it is impossible to know just what they did.

Hope I didn't go into "too much detail for this forum" again, but just how
often does one get to work FTMS into a casual conversation, anyway? :)

Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov

P.S.  Dieter, you never mentioned the word nuclear in your initial post,
which is one of the main reasons I thought of ICR (along with the fact that
I have never heard of a mass spectrometer based on NMR).
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Huh?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Huh?
Date: 15 Dec 1993 01:25:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Dec15.002121.16077@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
#schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
#>>3.  I forgot to mention my attendance of the Vigier lecture on Monday 
#>>afternoon.  He mentioned that the people detecting He4 with mass spectroscopy
#>>may be actually detecting D2-bar - a special molecule of D.
#>
#>Double Huh?
#
#As I understand it, Vigier thinks two D's (or H's) rotate around a
#stationary electron.  Since this is presumably a lower energy state than
#regular D2, it would be extra hard to doubly ionize (and thus destroy)
#this weird D+-+D.  So it should look to a mass spectrometer like a singly
#ionized He4.

Which is why I gave the original post a Double Huh.  How could a mass 
spectrometer possibly tell the difference between D2-Bar (is that the next
ranch over from the Lazy Li?) and plain old ordinary D2(+)?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Leland A /  Re: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: WHAT'S NEW, 10 Dec 93
Date: 14 Dec 1993 03:54:40 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <CHz7E6.uy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 ...
>     I must admit a hearty chuckle at 30 MW in, 10 MW out being
>     'quite close to breakeven'.   I must dryly ask if a similar criterion
>     applies to commercial breakeven?

I might add that, from what has been said (i.e. that the 30 MW in is just
the energy used to heat the plasma), the "30 MW in" probably doesn't begin
to account for the total energy involved in preparing the materials before
the plasma is heated. It's kind of like saying: I have this great engine
which produces 10 MW of power per ounce of fuel burned in it. That sounds
great until they add: Oh, by the way, it takes 100 MW of power to produce
each ounce of fuel. :-)


Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Induced transitions?
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Induced transitions?
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 06:01:46 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1993Dec13.045826.19268@midway.uchicago.edu>,
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
|> I didn't say "probability distribution", I said "quantum probability
|> distribution".

I suppose one could regard the rules for adding amplitudes,
etc. as a strange kind of probability theory. If that works
for you, then okay, but it's not the way I think of it.

|> Nevertheless, the fact remains (as I understand
|> QM), that a wave function (amplitude distribution, what have you) is not
|> a piece of physical stuff like a wave of water.

Interestingly, I have the opposite opinion!

If amplitudes do not describe something real, then how do
they interfere?

The only way I can make sense of it is to regard a quantum
amplitude wave as something just as real as a water wave
or an electromagnetic wave.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Princeton has Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Princeton has Fusion?
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 08:17:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <b4v2jx_@dixie.com>, John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hmm.  Press releases from the fusion community?  Must again be time to go
>>begging for more scientific welfare money.
>
>     I'm waiting for the outraged screams about 'science by press
>     conference' from PPPL.  
>
>     'What?  It was PPPL's press release?', he said as he feigned shock
>     at the stunning display of hypocrisy.
 
Come now, CRB.  
 
The DoE's scientific experts already reviewed TFTR and since they were
selected by political appointees, you know they are credible!
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / John Logajan /  ICCF4, some further info
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4, some further info
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 08:04:26 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation


I got some private e-mail about ICCF4.  I will borrow quotes (without
permission.)

   Mizuno (Hokkaido U) has developed a solid state deuterated "sandwich"
   device....  he runs at high temperature externally imposed by his steel
   cylinder calorimeter. He inputs a trickle charge in the milliwatt level,
   and gets out hundreds of watts continuously for days. In other words, the
   "gain" or input to output ratio is around 1:10,000.

   Miley (U. Illinois) crashed through the upper limits to power density
   established by P&F last year by an order of magnitude or two. He is
   working with thin film and getting tens of thousands of watts per cc. Now,
   of course, his problem is that they turn on and Ffffft! -- vaporized thin
   film.

Thanks to my "secret" source for the above report.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Robert Heeter /  TFTR status report for 12/13/93
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news
Subject: TFTR status report for 12/13/93
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 13, 1993
Date: 14 Dec 1993 01:13:01 -0500
Date: 13 Dec 1993 18:03:48 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

I have taken the liberty of forwarding articles prepared by
the TFTR program director, Rich Hawryluk, which are being
locally distributed and sent out via a mailing list to
fusion scientists worldwide.  This is the most
recent.  The previous one, from last Friday, contained the
exciting news, and I posted it earlier (in case anyone
missed it.).

In case someone finds the technical jargon to be heavy going,
feel free to ask questions here or via email.  Similarly
if something is unclear.

 - Bob Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	Graduate student, PPPL, not representing lab, not on TFTR...


Article 13 of pppl.tftr.news:
Path: nntpserver.pppl.gov!nntpserver.pppl.gov!not-for-mail
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 13, 1993
Date: 13 Dec 1993 18:03:48 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Lines: 45
Sender: daemon@theory.pppl.gov
Distribution: pppl,esnet,princeton
Message-ID: <2eisck$1dm@lyman.pppl.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyman.pppl.gov

Status (Dec. 13, 1993):

On Friday, we completed the first set of high power D-T experiments.  We
achieved our programmatic milestone of 5MW of fusion power this year.  The
maximum fusion power was about 6MW.

In addition, we obtained valuable data on the confinement of a D-T plasma,
recycling of hydrogenic species from the walls, and checkout of diagnostics
in a D-T environment.

A three hour meeting was held today to review last week's data. 
Preliminary indications are that: the confinement in a D-T plasma is
somewhat better than in a deuterium comparison shot; deuterium wall
recycling is important in determining the ratio of deuterium to tritium in
the plasma core; enhanced alpha particle loss has not been observed and
nearly all diagnostics are functioning well in high power D-T experiments
and are providing high quality data.  


Plans:

A current scan is being performed today to establish a baseline of first
orbit loss to the lost alpha detector.  This utilizes a single neutral beam
source operating in tritium along with other deuterium neutral beam
sources.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the present cannister of tritium gas will be
replaced with another cannister with about 8kCi of tritium.  Gas on the
cryopanels will be regenerated and processed.  Experiments will be
conducted in deuterium to evaluate wall retention and set up conditions for
high power D-T experiments.

On Thursday and Friday, the emphasis will be the study of the confinement
in D-T plasmas and evaluate alpha heating effects.

R. J. Hawryluk



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: 14 Dec 1993 01:27:59 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <AF6C0C2D01CB42D9@flemingc.on.ca>,
Jim Pierson <jpierson@flemingc.on.ca> wrote:
>FORWARDED MESSAGE from Fusion Digest (FUSION @ SMTP
>{fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org}) at 12/13/93 7:00a

>***** NOTES from Jim Pierson (JPIERSON @ FLEMING) at 12/13/93 12:48p

< stuff omitted. >

>The Princeton team is to be congratulated, indeed, the world should offer 
>them a standing ovation for having maintained conditions in excess of the 
>Lawson requirements sufficient to produce the amazing 5.5 MW that they did 
>produce. 15 years ago I became interested in the possibility of controlled 
>fusion energy, when, at the time,only the uncontrolled fusion of Hydrogen 
>via a fission trigger was reality. In fact, the Lawson criterion for 
>containment density, temperature, and time was many orders of magnitude in 
>excess of what was even conceiveable at the time. The fact that as of last 
>Friday, we are now only a factor of 5 or 6 away from energy breakeven is 
>fantastic!

This fact appears to be lost on the crowd who keep complaining that
we are still short of scientific breakeven.  We've come a long way,
baby! :)  If the confinement time can be improved by one more factor
of 10, the power output will be sufficient to keep the plasma 
heated, and "ignition" will occur.  This single factor of ten
will then allow us to *reduce* the input power, and at the same
time multiply the output power by many orders of magnitude.
Then we'll be talking commercial breakeven, not just scientific
breakeven.  Unfortunately, that factor of 10 may take a while...

>
>In a more technical vein, how is the energy released from the PLT fusion 
>reaction quantified and for how long was the 5.5MW burn sustained?
>

Well, er, PLT was retired many years ago, but TFTR sustained the
5.5 (5.8, I think now) burn for about a second.  They measure the
power output primarily by looking at the neutron emissions.
(You know you get 1 neutron per reaction, and they leave the 
plasma, and for a 50-50 DT mix the neutrons come overwhelmingly
from D-T reactions, not to mention they have different energies.)
There are several standard methods for doing this, but it's
not really my field.  I believe in addition to electronics-
dependent methods they also use some metal foils.  I guess
these would give an integrated neutron signal, which could
be used to ensure that electronic noise doesn't get counted 
as signal.  This isn't my bailiwick, so don't take this as
Gospel...   If you'd like a more definitive answer I could 
ask around here...

******
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* Not representing PPPL, nor do I work on TFTR. *
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  whelan@nbivax. /  Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
     
Originally-From: whelan@nbivax.nbi.dk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
Date: 14 Dec 93 03:15:47 +0100
Organization: Niels Bohr Institute and Nordita, Copenhagen

In article <2ei4gu$osf@mailer.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> In article <1993Dec11.234547.21195@midway.uchicago.edu> 
> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>The newspapers explain that TFTR runs on the D+T reaction.  If this
>>were to be developed into commercial fusion, you would need to get the
>>tritium from somewhere.  A fusion friend of mine explained to me that
>>one thing that you would do is irradiate lithium with the neutron flux
>>from the tokamak (or whatever it is) to get more tritium.  
> 
> Yep.  It works out.  Also, do not forget that there is a *lot* of 
> tritium in storage at DOE facilities, not to mention Russian ones. 
> Hazel O'Leary just announced the numbers.  They are impressive numbers. 
> Even with decay over the next 30-40 years, there will be plenty left 
> to clean up and use as seed for these reactors.  In addition, there 
> must be massive quantities of Li-6 available for breeding purposes. 
> 

Also, any reactor which uses a heavy water moderator generates tritium as a
waste.  Canada has stores of waste tritium which it wanted to sell to the US
but it seems the demand has tailed off since the end of the Cold War. 

Niall.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwhelan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 13:42:06 GMT
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:37:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) in FD 1774
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:37:11 GMT

>In article <01H671XMQ64I8WW17O@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter
>Britz) wrote:
>> isotopes) to be measured by a manometer, and the rest into a "magnetic
>> resonance mass spectrometer" (it must be my ignorance but I had not heard of
>
>Are you sure this wasn't an "ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer"?  I
>too have never heard of a "magnetic resonance ms".

The text of the paper in the relevant place, is (transliterated):
"... [by the use of]... magnitnykh rezonansnykh mass-spektrometrov...".

Now that I look at it once more, I see that there is no mention of "nuclear",
so it's just "magnetic resonance MS". Looking at a book on MS's, and the way a
quadrupole MS works, it is my guess that that is what's meant. In a QMS one
applies a modulated magnetic field, pulling the particle this way and that,
and the frequency of alternation has to be right for a given mass to make it
through this gauntlet run. It would not be too far off to guess that the
Russians call it magnetic resonance. Sorry to have caused confusion with the
word "nuclear".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Theory Papers (part 1)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (part 1)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:13:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I enjoyed read Mark Hittinger's impressions of ICCF-4.  To a large extent 
they also represent my own feelings on returning from the conference.  I 
found I was left with a rather vague sense of un-ease - as if things are 
going on that I don't fully understand.  This statement applies at several 
levels - experimental, physics, financial, political, maybe even (dread) 
national security.  I went to the conference in hopes of finding some 
relief from the stress that being involved with CF has brought to my life.  
Like, maybe one or more presentations would really push my opinion one way 
or the other.  No such luck.  In fact, the conference organizers are so 
certain that CF is going to remain a hot issue that they have scheduled not 
only ICCF-5 (Nice, France, March 1995) but also ICCF-6 to be held in China!

As Mark as said, there were many papers presented.  The mornings were 
devoted to "plenary sessions" which everyone was expected to attend - one 
morning each for calorimetry, nuclear measurement, theory and materials.  
While the afernoons were split into two parallel sessions.  You had to 
choose what seemed like the most interesting from the abstracts.  The high 
profile (but in my opinion, not necessarily the best) papers were presented 
during the plenary sessions.  There were numerous complaints by 
participants about this organization, but really, I don't know how else so 
much material could be covered.  In talking to Mark, Steve Jones, and Tom 
Droege at the conference we informally agreed to post material to the net 
on those areas that were closest to our personal interests. I'm sure we 
will see postings from Tom in the next few days regarding calorimetry and 
from Steve concerning nuclear measurement etc.  In any case, I will try to 
do my bit to disseminate what I can from the theory sessions that I 
attended. 

Over all I would say that the theory contributions were quite good - on the 
whole, much better than the experimental evidence!  At this point everyone 
is invited to make snide remarks about the reasonableness of making 
theories on the basis of so little replicable data... but my point of view 
has always been that there has been too little theory available to CF 
experimenters and the the scientific method has sufferred from the lack of 
guidance that even very tentative theories can provide.  There were 
relatively conventional fusion/fission theories proposing low energy 
resonant enhancement of the Gamow factor (inelastic scattering theory) by 
Xing Zhong Li, Hale and Yeong Kim; both critism and new proposals for 
exotic chemistry models from Rice and Vigier, respectively; a new and 
revised neutron transfer theory including something called lattice-induced 
nuclear decay from Hagelstein; hand-waving arguements by Preparata 
regarding a possible new high loading phase in Pd and "the general theory 
of QED conherence in condensed matter"; new ab initio calculations which 
suggest low level nuclear and thermal affects of H/D bonding at tetrahedral 
sites in palladium from Johnson; more on H/D ion band states and 
Bose-Einstein condensation from Chubb, Waber and Vaidya; many-body D+D+D 
fusion and polyneutrons from Takahashi and Fisher, respectively; intriguing 
observations about ferroelectric effects by Fecorovich and lots of other 
presentations by various authors of varying levels of suffistication and 
handwaving.

Actually, almost all the verbal presentations were rather poorly presented 
in an insufficient amount of time and there was not enough time for 
questions.  What else is new?!  The abstracts distributed at the conference 
were pretty sketchy so for the details we will have to wait for 
un-peer-reviewed versions of the papers which must be submitted to the 
organizers by 31 January.  I suppose they will be published in due course 
in the spring of 94.  A so called peer-reviewed version is also to be 
published later in the year.  No doubt the fastest route would be directly 
from the various authors for those who just can't wait.

My plan is to make a few postings over the coming weeks concerning the 
above mentioned papers from notes that I collected during the conference.  
All too thin I'm afraid.  Doing this takes too much time, of course, and 
time is in short supply at the moment, so don't expect to see much in the 
short term.  I am personally currently motivated to follow-up on Vigier's 
work, so that will probably be the subject of the next posting.  Also, I am 
open to being pushed, prodded or questioned into responding to specific 
questions posted on the net.

And finally, you must believe me (because no one else does) that going to 
the conference in Maui was really a *MAJOR HARDSHIP*.  I only hope that 
Nice in '95 will be as difficult!

Cheers.

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: some ICCF4 Wednesday notes 
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Wednesday notes 
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:14:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,

Mark Hittinger:  Hey, _great_ summary!  Fun to read and informative.

I can't resist a quick comment or two:

In article <bugs.755761424@netsys.com> bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) writes:


> 1. Dr. Hagelstein presented a refinement of his virtual neutron and lattice
>    energy transfer ideas...

Harumph.  I beg your pardon good sir.  While Dr. Hagelstein may may have
_elaborated_ on the "virtual neutron" concept, he sure as heck wasn't the
first person to _propose_ the concept (and phrase) "virtual neutrons" in
a public forum.  Kudos for that honor, dubious as it may be, belong to
Yours Truly for an item I posted here a mere three or four months after
the inital Pons and Fleischmann bruhaha -- and the better part of a year
before Dr. Hagelstein first published his own "virtual neutron" concept.

The posting was my "First Memorial Pons and Fleischmann Chocolate Quiz," in
which I _suggested_ that something like a "virtual neutron" might be used to
make cold fusion work, and that anyone who managed to come up with a really
plausible theory of this sort would get 10 pounds of _chocolate_ -- the only
truly effectve incentive for performing outstanding theoretical work!

[I also suggested that such a hypothetical particle be called a "dactylon,"
though in retrospect I never can put my finger on why I called it that...]

Well, to make a short story short, a few months later Dr. Hagelstein came
out with his first "virtual neutron" theory, and thereby won the 10 pounds
of chocolate.  Alas, he has never claimed his just deserts, durd burgle it
-- and I really _don't_ need all that chocolate.

I must admit that his theory was a rather marginal win at any rate, as at
least his version sort of said "there it be!" without really addressing the
key issue of _how you keep from avoiding a flagrant violation of quantum
mechanics_.  That was what I was really hoping for (and explicitly asked
for) in my quiz.  Ah well, beggers can't be choosers, and I guess neither
can folks who give out chocolate.

Anywho, Dr. Hagelstein:  If you are out there in Net Land (and are willing
to admit it), you _still_ have your chocolate waiting for you should you
have a sudden urge to binge out a bit... :)


> Don't worry though!  Dr. Jones is going to work on CNF stuff for about
> 8 more months and then he has some new neat ideas to work on.  Excellent!!!

Sounds interesting...   :)

Kudos to Steve for biting the bullet and doing something really difficult:
retracting your own results when you have evidence they were flawed.  Steve
deserves the strong praise from Dr. Morrison, who still seems to be a lot
more up on the nature of the scientific method than are most of his critics.


Soooooo... Kevin Wolf didn't present anything, hmm?  Interesting.

Does anyone have the scoop on what's going on there?  _Did_ Wolf attend?

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 /  PAUL /  RE: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: 14 DEC 93 14:37:44 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>Date: 14-DEC-1993  08:43:42
>Description: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
>
>     Lovely plasma, but we some of us actually remember that
>     power generation is the goal.  And, there's a lot riding on
>     'Unfortunately, that factor of 10 may take a while...' even
>     if the premise on which it is based is true.
> 
>                               dale bass

Wow another informative and humourous comment from 
Dale Bass.  

So how does this "exclude" option work.....

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
Date: 14 Dec 1993 08:47:53 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <jac.755822495@gandalf>,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> <(perhaps accurate) diatribe against tokamak fusion concepts>
>

James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>  That the hot alpha particles didn't cause the plasma to do something
>unexpected?  Given that plasmas are largely goverened by Murphy's Law,
>this is a breakthrough. 8-)
>
>  Jim

Jim has identified the crucial aspect of these experiments, for those
of you who have been posting asking "What's it all about"

It is not new that if you use a 50/50 D-T mix in a machine of the size
of TFTR you would get a lot of neutrons and a Q value of 0.1 with one order
of magnitude error bars. In fact these ideas were so well known that there
was almost no reason to do the experiment from a scientific point of view.

The almost is added because there is one issue that is very important
and cannot be resolved reliably just from theory and numerical simulation.
The hot alpha particle by products have an energy of about 4 MeV. They
will form a very hot component to the plasma. Ideally it will heat the
plasma by means of Coulomb collision and/or turbulent deceleration. However,
there is also the possibility that these hot alpha particles may excite
and unstable mode of oscillation that will degrade confinement. These are
sometimes called TAE modes or GAE modes, etc. The acronyms stand for
"Toroidal Alfven Eigenmodes" or "Global Alfven Eigenmodes". There are other
variants as well such as Ellipticity induced AE's, etc. My (limited)
understanding is that there is the possibility that the motion of hot alpha
particle is just fast enough to resonate with a very special set of Alfven
Waves in the plasma. This alpha motion is called "banana orbits".<see exp
below>

Usually exciting Alfven modes is not so bad because they are damped by
Landau damping and and by exciting other modes in a cascade. However, the
tokamak has toroidal symmetry, so it is periodic structure in the toroidal
angle. Therefore all of the potentials and fields look periodic, and
just like in condensed matter theory, discrete modes of oscillations
(electron orbitals) get lumped together into bands. For some frequencies
there is a continuous spectrum of modes and for others there are "gaps" or
frequencies were no modes propagate. Well it turns out that there are a
few single modes in the gap. That is a single, or just a few resonances.
This is the problem. The alpha particles may be able to excite these
modes. think of the modes like the guitar strings and the alpha particles
like the guitar pick. IF you keep strumming harder and harder, you will
break a string. Since it is a single resonance, you cannot mode convert
to other frequencies and reduce the energy to heat by phase mixing.

So this is the real interesting part for fusion physicists is will the
D-T experiments see these modes and will they prove to be an obstacle,
or will we be able to live with them (or maybe they don't even exist)
There has been a great deal of good theory and simulation about these modes
so it is not a shot in the dark. It is just that it is not an easy question
to settle. The fact that the initial reports showed neutron fluxes in the 
right "ball park" is an indication that these modes may be absent, or if
they are present they are benign.

This is very noteworthy. The history of fusion energy development is that
at every turn there is another "monster guarding the door". Whether it is
MHD instabilities, drift or other micro-instabilities, or turbulent transport.
As each monster has been killed (or caged) and the door it was guarding
opened, another monster has reared its head. Well there is not room for
many more monsters to exist between where we are now and ignition. Of
course there are very significant engineering problems yet to be tackled,
but that's another issue. :> 

While I'm spitting out gee-whiz numbers, let me just give one statement that
indicates how fast fusion has progressed. People often look to the 
semi-conductor and computer industry as an industry that has made fast
(read breakneck) advances in their figures of merit (device size, speed,
total number of gates, etc). The figure is something like a doubling every
2 years. Well the search for fusion has progressed even faster. The rate of
maximum fusion triple product has been improving at an even faster rate,
eventhough funding support, in real dollars has been reduced 50%.


One of the last monsters is the possible problems with TAE's,GAE's, etc.
The fact that TFTR is not seeing them now is significant. Of course one
has to plug in the numbers. 5MW of neutron power implies about 1.25 MW
of alpha-heating. Thus only about 5% of the heating power in these shots
is provided by alphas. Whereas, at breakeven it will be about 25% and
at ignition it will be 100%. So even if there are no GAE's or TAE's now,
there is still room for them to be excited and destabilize the plasma.
Keep your fingers crossed while the D-T runs continue at Princeton over
the next year.

* What's a banana?

It describes the orbit of a charged particle in a particular set magnetic 
field configurations. The tokamak has such a configuration. The lowest
order motion of a charged particle in a strong magnetic field is to move
in a helix centered on the magnetic field line. The particle circles the line
and can move along it. However, there is another effect. The particle's
motion will conserve a quantity called its "magnetic moment" which is the
ratio of the particles kinetic energy in motion perpendicular to the magnetic
field to the strength of the magnetic field. The magnetic moment is an
"adiabatic invariant" so although not strictly conserved, it is conserved to
a high degree. Now in a tokamak, the main field comes from the primary current
(or toroidal field coil) that runs through the center of the "doughnut". The
natural cylindrical geometry implies that the magnetic field is stronger
on the inner side of the torus than on the outer side. Note: inner side <>
inside. The inner side is the part of the doughnut that touches the
"doughnut hole" while the outer side is what hits the coffee first when you
dunk you doughnuts. These are sometimes called the "inboard" and "outboard"
sides.

In a tokamak, the magnetic fields are primarily toroidal in nature, but
they have a poloidal component as well. So if we follow a given magnetic
line it will in general go around the torus toroidally, but it will also
spiral toroidally. It looks a little like a "cruller" doughnut in this
respect. Now the particles follow these field lines. The general motion
is that they move along parallel (or anti-parallel) to the fields. However,
the particles must conserve their magnetic moment. So some particles cannot
make it to the inboard side of the torus. Instead they reach a point where
their entire energy is contained in perpendicular "gyrating" motion. At this
point their parallel velocity is reduced to zero and reverses. This is 
called "mirroring" or a "mirror bounce". So now instead of following the
field line exactly, there are some particles that follow the line for a bit,
and then bounce and go back in the other direction.

There is one final correction. In fact all of the analysis is really 
done as a perturbation expansion of the particle orbit using small
parameters. One of the parameters is the "gyro-radius" of the particles.
The gyro-radius is the radius of gyration of the particle around the
magnetic field line. It is sometimes called the Larmor radius or Lamour radius.
So in 0 gyro-radius approximations, the particles follow the lines 
exactly (infinitely small gyration=no gyration) and if and when they bounce,
they just turn around on the same field line.

However, if one keeps the first order corrections in the orbits,  you see the
gyrations. You will also see that the "guiding center" of that gyration, or
the instantaneous center of the circle of the particle's motion behaves
differently before and after the bound. When you look at the poloidal 
projection of the orbit, it looks like a banana. It is this banana motion
of the alpha particles that can excite these TAE modes. Because the alphas
are so energetic, they have large banana widths and can therefore lead to
large excitations since many alphas have a bounce frequency that
resonates with the TAE mode. I would draw a picture, but I'm no good
at ascii graphics. You might look at Hazeltine and Meiss <Plasma Confinement>
(#86 in the Addison Wesley Frontiers in Physics series) on p. 141 for a
picture. or p. 194 of F. Chen's book <Intro. to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion>.

-john .w cobb


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
Date: 14 Dec 1993 08:59:40 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

Small correction --- oops
In article <2ekjmpINNnfn@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

>In a tokamak, the magnetic fields are primarily toroidal in nature, but
>they have a poloidal component as well. So if we follow a given magnetic
>line it will in general go around the torus toroidally, but it will also
>spiral toroidally. It looks a little like a "cruller" doughnut in this
        ^^^^^^^^^^
        poloidally ---- silly me
>respect. Now the particles follow these field lines. The general motion
>is
>-john .w cobb
>
>








cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: 14 Dec 1993 16:58:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <01H6H1V3HH2A8WWEX5@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:

>Now that I look at it once more, I see that there is no mention of "nuclear",
>so it's just "magnetic resonance MS". Looking at a book on MS's, and the way a
>quadrupole MS works, it is my guess that that is what's meant. In a QMS one
>applies a modulated magnetic field, pulling the particle this way and that,
>and the frequency of alternation has to be right for a given mass to make it
>through this gauntlet run.

Well, actually, a QMS uses an AC *electric* field.  What happens is you
have four poles and put a DC bias on the opposite pairs.  Then you modulate
the potential very fast (RF).  A heavy ion will be relatively insensitive to
the modulating field and crash into a pole with the appropriate DC bias.  A
light ion will be sensitive to the modulating field and be driven into one
of the poles.  For an ion of just the right mass, the two effects will balance,
and it will go through without hitting anything.

My guess is that the Russians probably meant something like an ICR, which 
actually uses a magnet and a perpendicular electric field to keep ions of
the appropriate mass spinning around at their cyclotron frequency, while
the rest get sent flying into the walls.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Richard Schultz /  Huh?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Huh?
Date: 14 Dec 1993 17:00:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <bugs.755838912@netsys.com>, Mark Hittinger <bugs@NETSYS.COM> wrote:

>The alpha phase is not understood.  H diffusion into the lattice is faster
>towards a negative field and Alfred Cohen deduced that the H in the lattice
>was an H+.  Dr. Fleischmann said he was sorry but that it was a proton and
>its charge was one.

Huh?

>3.  I forgot to mention my attendance of the Vigier lecture on Monday 
>afternoon.  He mentioned that the people detecting He4 with mass spectroscopy
>may be actually detecting D2-bar - a special molecule of D.

Double Huh?

I really ought to start checking what they're putting in my coffee. . . 

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 16:34:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <14DEC93.14374498@nel.pfc.mit.edu>,
PAUL <stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>>Date: 14-DEC-1993  08:43:42
>>Description: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
>>
>>     Lovely plasma, but we some of us actually remember that
>>     power generation is the goal.  And, there's a lot riding on
>>     'Unfortunately, that factor of 10 may take a while...' even
>>     if the premise on which it is based is true.
>> 
>>                               dale bass
>
>Wow another informative and humourous comment from 
>Dale Bass.  
>
>So how does this "exclude" option work.....

     Something like /crb7q/hK will do for 'rn' and similar readers.

     Wanna know how to speak and see no evil too?

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,

(For some of you the title has probably already said everything...)

Here is another posting both for the purpose of trying to "connect" to any
related threads in the printed literature, and to register an idea that
has at least a possibility of being novel.  I've eloborated this one quite
a bit more, but mosty just because it was fun to explore the idea a bit.


By the way, my thanks to the several (sci.physics.research) participants
who provided me with some excellent feedback on what (as I now know!) are
called "super solids."  I will continue to look into the possibility of a
Moessbauer link to super solids, and will get back to this group if I come
up with anything interesting.

(As one respondent suggested, a provable link between Moessbauer and super
solids, if not already covered by the literature, could well rekindle
interest in super solids as a condensed matter research topic.)

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

P.S. --	The cc to "sci.astro" is for the oddball possibility thrown in at
	the end (Re: Bose condensates in neutrons stars).  Please note that
	I do not monitor the "sci.astro" group, so if you are on that group
	and want me to see your response, please email them directly to me.

============================================================================

    Subject: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?

                       Author: Terry Bollinger
                     Location: Flower Mound, Texas
                      Address: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
                         Date: 1993-12-14
                   Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
                               sci.physics.fusion
                               sci.astro

1. BACKGROUND

Although Bose condensation (e.g., superfluid helium) is normally associated
with the ground state of its constituent bosons, there is nothing in the
definition of Bose-Einstein statistics that _requires_ condensation to take
place in the ground state.  Any state that receives a sufficiently large
number of bosons should in principle be capable of Bose condensation.


2. CONCEPT

This leads to an interesting thought problem:

   What would be the behavior of a laser or maser whose inverted population
   was able to form into a Bose condensate before dropping back to ground?

Considering how rare Bose condensation is in most condensed matter systems,
I realize that this thought problem could be difficult (impossible?) to
test out any any readily foreseeable experiment.  Nonetheless, I am fairly
confident that it violates no fundamental rules of quantum mechanics, and
thus is a legitimate problem for analysis and calculation.


3. ANALYSIS

3.1  Natural Lasing

If masers or lasers based on Bose-condensed inverted populations actually
could be constructed, I suspect that their most noticeable property would be
"natural lasing."  By this I mean that no special physical preparation of
the medium (e.g., surrounding it with mirrors) should be needed to produce a
coherent photon burst.  Such preparations are needed in ordinary lasers due
to the need to use a (Bose condensed) photon pulse to "coordinate" the non-
Bose condensed inverted population.

But with a Bose condensed inverted population, the members of the inverted
population should radiate their photons _as a single unit_ as the condensate
falls to ground level, since they are already "coordinated" by participation
in a Bose condensate.  The resulting photon thus pulse should be both more
coherent than ordinary laser pulses, and exceptionally short in duration.
It would be as if the entire condensate had emitted one "giant" photon in
essentially the same time frame as a single-particle photon emission.

The idea of "natural lasing" is intriguing for this reason: _if_ a natural
phenomenon that produces Bose condensed inverted populations could ever be
found, then it could provide the basis for naturally-occurring laser-like or
maser-like photon pulses.  While such a possibility seems highly unlikely,
it is a fascinating thought.  Conversely, discovering a natural source of
very short, coherent photon pulses could perhaps be an indication of a
"natural lasing" effect from a Bose condensed inverted population.

3.2  Possibility of Condensate Components in Ordinary Lasing

Another possibility is that some known forms of masing and lasing could in
fact already involve condensed or partially condensed inverted populations.
This seems unlikely, but the possibility of condensation by a small minority
of the population might be conceivable.  If this were the case, such minor
components would presumably show up as sharper or more intense subcomponents
of the laser pulse spectrum and shapes.  One distinguishing feature would
be that only integer-spin particle types would be capable of showing such
detail in their pulse forms; fractional spin (fermion) lasing populations
should never show condensation effects, although they could conceivably
demonstrate the less direct effects of band state competition.

It is at least possible that an examination of existing maser or laser
literature could provide indications of such subcomponents.


4. EXPERIMENTAL

4.1  Examination of Laser Literature

Examination of existing laser literature for "sharp" subcomponents that
exist only for integer spin lasing/masing populations would be the obvious
starting place for looking or Bose condensed inverted populations.

4.2  Post-Condensation Lowering of the Ground State

Another route would be to explore whether there exist physical mechanism
by which a Bose condensate could be formed on top of a "platform" that
prevents it from falling to the lowest possible energy state, but which
could subsequently be removed or modified to permit such a drop of the
condensate.  Superconductors (Cooper pair Bose condensates) could perhaps
be candidates for such an approach.  High temperature condensates would
probably be even better candidates, although the exact nature of the quasi-
particles that form their charged Bose condensates remains unknown.  In
either case, if natural lasing could be arranged for such media, it would
presumably take place in the microwave (masing) range.

4.3  Giant Photon Capture by Ground State Condensates

One strange but intriguing possibility is collective excitation of an
entire ground-state Bose condensate.  This would be the time reversal
of the "giant photon" emission already described for natural lasing.

To accomplish this, an exceptionally coherent laser pulse would need to be
directed at an existing Bose condensate.  The most likely consequence of
such an experiment would be disruption of the condensate, but there could
perhaps be cases in which all or part of the condensate could be raised
to an excited level without losing its coherency.  The resulting excited
condensate would then re-radiate a giant photon that would be easily to
detected and identify.

4.4  The Curious Case of Neutron Star Bose Condensates

Finally, I would mention that very cold media are not the only ones in
which Bose condensate have been postulated to exist.  There also has been
speculation that superdense media such as neutron stars can also contain
Bose-Einstein condensates, both as superfluids and superconductors.  (There
was an excellent summary article about this in Scientific American a number
of years ago, but I do not recall the exact date or title of the article.)

Such superdense Bose condensates are interesting because they are very far
away from "final" ground level, and thus might be subject to 4.2 above --
post-condensation lowering of the ground state.

The prerequisites for such an event would seem unlikely.  Changes in the
neutron star over time would have to modify the effective ground state for
one of its condensates.  At the same time, the condensate would have to
maintain its coherency and resist changing immediately to the new ground
state.  Nonetheless, given the size and complexity of a neutron start, it
is not easy to entirely eliminate metastable states for at least parts of
its Bose condensed components.

If a metastable Bose condensate could form and then fall on a neutron star,
the consequence would be fascinating.  It should form a natural laser, and
the energy range would probably be exceedingly high (at least in the X-ray
range and more probably in the gamma range).  It would be a conspicuous
and presumably highly detectable event, at least if one was looking in the
right direction at the right time.  The best identifying characteristics
would be the extreme shortness and intensity of the bursts, and the fact
that they would be "once only," non-repetitive (or rare and asynchronous)
events.  Coherency would be a sure give away, but could be very hard to
verify in the X-ray and gamma energy ranges.  Finally, the emission might
be linked to a non-trivial changes in the structure of the neutron star,
perhaps with consequences similar to the "star quakes" that are known to
slow the spin of many neutron stars.


5. QUERY

Does anyone happen to know whether this idea of Bose condensed population
inversion has ever been examined in the literature?  Or perhaps a key phrase
(such as "super solid" for Bose condensed solids) that might help me figure
out where to look for further information?

Also, does anyone have any knowledge of whether instabilities could in
fact arise over time in the superdense Bose condensates of neutron stars?

Or whether the remote possibility of a coherent bursts of very deep (gamma)
photon radiation might actually be a directly or indirectly observed
astronomical phenomenon?  I realize that such a question is a very long
shot, but it probably doesn't hurt to ask anyway.

============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  TFTR Timing?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Timing?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:14:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Has anyone noticed that the TFTR result was timed to wipe out ICCF4 results
from the news media?  Those guys must be really scared of "cold fusion"!

Can any of you guys at Princeton find evidence that this was not a conspiracy
by the "hot fusion" establishment.  Remember that they have known for some time
when ICCF4 would be held.  The coincidence is too great.  Anyway, an ethical
management would avoid the apperarnce of conflict by scheduling away from 
ICCF4.  So I have no doubt it was done on purpose.

This just further confirms my opinion of the Princeton "hot fusion"
establishment.  (but what is my opinion?).  One would think they could have
read the papers from the previous conferences and evaluated the magnitude
of the threat.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec 15 04:37:23 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Bo Curry /  Re: Huh?
     
Originally-From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Huh?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 01:57:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Dec15.002121.16077@ns.network.com>,
: John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
: #schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
: #>>3.  I forgot to mention my attendance of the Vigier lecture on Monday 
: #>>afternoon.  He mentioned that the people detecting He4 with mass spectroscopy
: #>>may be actually detecting D2-bar - a special molecule of D.
: #>
: #>Double Huh?
: #
: #As I understand it, Vigier thinks two D's (or H's) rotate around a
: #stationary electron.  Since this is presumably a lower energy state than
: #regular D2, it would be extra hard to doubly ionize (and thus destroy)
: #this weird D+-+D.  So it should look to a mass spectrometer like a singly
: #ionized He4.

: Which is why I gave the original post a Double Huh.  How could a mass 
: spectrometer possibly tell the difference between D2-Bar (is that the next
: ranch over from the Lazy Li?) and plain old ordinary D2(+)?

But it isn't too difficult to distinguish D+-+D (or D2+) from He+.

Bo
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencurry cudfnBo cudlnCurry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.14 / Qian Qian /  Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
     
Originally-From: qianqian@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Qian Qian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR produces >3MW controlled fusion power
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 22:20:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <chris.9.2D0E20AC@peds.ufl.edu> chris@peds.ufl.edu (Thad Wilson) writes:
>>Why does everyone keep talking about the amount of energy output,
>>instead of the ratio of input energy to output energy.  I see no
>>reason to get excited about the fact that you can input 30(?)MW and
>>get back 5.5, unless the ration 5.5/30 is a new record.  (Is it?)
>
>>Otherwise, all people have to do to get in the news is keep building
>>bigger versions of reactors that are no closer to break-even than
>>previous ones -- they're just bigger, so the absolute output is higher.
>
>>Paul Koloc, please give us your assessment of this news.
>
>Will someone respond to this!!!  The way the press played this thing you 
>would think they got positive output!!!  I thing that the real "Tokamak" 
>reactor got up to 60% output > 30 years ago!!!  I think a small reactor 
>should be more unpredictable than a large reactor.  So whats the big 
>deal????  I smell a rat.

Yes,5.5out/30in is new record which was never been possibly 
achieved without tritium. However, the significance of this event
is that TFTR's D-T results proved that 
the fusion product(alpha particles) with high energy
didn't ruin the performance of the reactor itself(confinement
time) up to this stage, which was a big concern among fusion
scientists. Of course, it is still too early to say that tokamak
will have same confinement time when the output energy is 
close to or even larger than the input as required by a 
commercial reactor. further experiments on TFTR with D-T next
year with 10MW/30MW will give some clues.

Qian
-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Real physics is originated from simplest systems!       | PPL, P.O.Box 451
                                          ---Qian Qian   | Princeton, NJ 08540
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenqianqian cudfnQian cudlnQian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Get Ready Dieter
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get Ready Dieter
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 05:30:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <931213134216.2d20442c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

>China lost their bid for the Olympics, but have saved face, and will get to
>build a big luxury hotel as they have successfuly captured ICCF6, likely in
>June of 96.

So, now the Chinese wish to be the laughing stock of the universe?

I wonder if Jed's water heater will be in operation by then? CF will
save the earth for us capitalists yet!

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial Breakeven
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 04:49:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jac.755822495@gandalf> jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> So what's the surprize???? 

>  That the hot alpha particles didn't cause the plasma to do something
>unexpected?  Given that plasmas are largely goverened by Murphy's Law,
>this is a breakthrough. 8-)

If PPPL has reached the bottom of the barrel, I suppose it is.  But what
happens  come September 1994.  That's when LLNL reaches into it's bag of
neato tricks to save the day?? 
>--
>  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.

                           SEPTEMBER 1994
                       That big sucking sound
                        as TFTR vacuum is bled 
                          for the last time
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Nick Janow /  Re: Get Ready Dieter
     
Originally-From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get Ready Dieter
Date: 15 Dec 93 08:35:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>+ China lost their bid for the Olympics, but have saved face, and will get
>+ to build a big luxury hotel as they have successfuly captured ICCF6,
>+ likely in June of 96.
>
> So, now the Chinese wish to be the laughing stock of the universe?

Hey, maybe all cold fusion needs is some Chinese herbal remedies.  Maybe some
black bear's pizzle will get those little ions mating, and some ginseng root
will increase their time together.  :)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenNick_Janow cudfnNick cudlnJanow cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 07:53:43 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2ekjmpINNnfn@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <jac.755822495@gandalf>,
>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>> <(perhaps accurate) diatribe against tokamak fusion concepts>

The gentle man avoids the really killer (lethal) problems which relate 
to lack of pressure transmission to the plasma resulting in pitifully 
poor density, temperature, and confinement time.  We are missing the mark 
by orders of magnitude.   Another huge lethal problem for tokamaks  
and other wall solid vacuum wall confined systems is the plasma impurity 
problem.  

This one will guarantee that tokamaks can't SUSTAIN commercial 
conditions EVEN IF they could by some magic obtain them initially.  

>Jim ($ A. Crotinger) has identified the crucial aspect .. 
>                    .. ..   SEE POSTER  "What's it all about"

>It is not new that if you use a 50/50 D-T mix in a machine of the size
>of TFTR you would get a lot of neutrons and a Q value of 0.1 with one order
>of magnitude error bars.  .. .

Give me a break after how many decades of tokamak diagnostic research???

>The almost is added because there is one issue that is very important
>and cannot be resolved reliably just from theory and numerical simulation.
>The hot alpha particle by products have an energy of about 4 MeV. They
>will form a very hot component to the plasma. Ideally it will heat the
>plasma by means of Coulomb collision and/or turbulent deceleration. However,
>there is also the possibility that these hot alpha particles may excite
>and unstable mode of oscillation that will degrade confinement. These are
>sometimes called TAE modes or GAE modes, etc. The acronyms stand for
>"Toroidal Alfven Eigenmodes" or "Global Alfven Eigenmodes". 

That's about as likely as the moon falling into lake Michigan at dawn 
tomorrow.  

The tokamak can be operated in the H or perhaps the Super H mode, One
of the things that happens is that fusion generally takes place in the
hotter portions of the plasma which are along or just peripheral to the 
minor axis.  Since Tokamaks are tokamaks and not Spheromaks the toroidal
field is not generated by plasma currents, consequently it tends to be
fixed.  However, the toroidal plasma current tends toward tracking the
resultant mag field which is a mixture of toroidal field and itown
generated poloidal field. This field has helicity so the purely toroidally
driven plasma current (initially), starts to stretch its flow along 
the helical mag flux lines. The poloidal current increases (and the 
lessened toroidal component) diminishes the magnetic helicity and the
very much stronger rigid toroidal field snaps the plasma current back
to be more toriodal in nature.  Thus there is an  increase in toroidal
field and the whole process cycles. Since the tor-component of current 
looks a bit like a "saw tooth", because of the jerking back and forth
in vector space, the phenomenon is named "saw tooth" action or some
such nomenclature.  

Anyway the really important result of this is that it blows away the 
99% of the theorized hot alpha induced and other disruptive effects.  
This is done because the current jerking actually jerks plasma and 
sloshes it in a vortex much like the clothes in a washing machine 
are sloshed back and forth but more importantly are swirled in a 
waltzing toroidal vortex about the spindle. For the wash every thing 
gets blasted with soap and water, not just bubbles and air, and for 
the plasma the hotter more ohmically heated minor axis is diffused 
(actually mixed) with the adjacent plasma and over a substantial 
cross-section.  That reduces the thermal gradients (especially the 
thermal electron gradient) and chops into bananas and other fruits 
theorist may harass themselves with.
  
In the end, the theorist and more importantly, the bureaucrats
that rely on them will not have the nerve to go all the way with this
next machine and they will fail (like the Mirror machine).  Of course,
they will endeavor to build a grand tokamak somewhere (perhaps the 
south pole to take advantage of the remoteness, coolness, the natural,
vertical mag field and cheap Internationally flavored real estate.  
HOWEVER they will never operate it.  And this time they will not have 
to use moth balls to store it!!!   

>                             ..   .   There are other
>variants as well such as Ellipticity induced AE's, etc. My (limited)
>understanding is that there is the possibility that the motion of hot alpha
>particle is just fast enough to resonate with a very special set of Alfven
>Waves in the plasma. This alpha motion is called "banana orbits".<see exp
>below>

>Usually exciting Alfven modes is not so bad because they are damped by
>Landau damping and and by exciting other modes in a cascade. However, the
>tokamak has toroidal symmetry, so it is periodic structure in the toroidal
>angle. Therefore all of the potentials and fields look periodic, and
>just like in condensed matter theory, discrete modes of oscillations
>(electron orbitals) get lumped together into bands. For some frequencies
>there is a continuous spectrum of modes and for others there are "gaps" or
>frequencies were no modes propagate. Well it turns out that there are a
>few single modes in the gap. That is a single, or just a few resonances.
>This is the problem. The alpha particles may be able to excite these
>modes. think of the modes like the guitar strings and the alpha particles
>like the guitar pick. IF you keep strumming harder and harder, you will
>break a string. Since it is a single resonance, you cannot mode convert
>to other frequencies and reduce the energy to heat by phase mixing.

Sure and the the discrete number mag field coils can't be 
eliminated since a "an open window" for fusion energy takeoff 
is necessary.  Of course, this is only because of the hidden 
handicapped exceptionally unimaginative endeavor clause in all 
of their DoE employment contracts. I. E. not one single National 
Lab has ever been able to drop a loser concept and embrace a 
more clever one, of itsown volition.  In fact the National Labs 
of the United States obtain thier fusion ideas mostly from 
Russians.  

>So this is the real interesting part for fusion physicists is will the
>D-T experiments see these modes and will they prove to be an obstacle,
>or will we be able to live with them (or maybe they don't even exist)
>There has been a great deal of good theory and simulation about these modes
>so it is not a shot in the dark. It is just that it is not an easy question
>to settle. The fact that the initial reports showed neutron fluxes in the 
>right "ball park" is an indication that these modes may be absent, or if
>they are present they are benign.

If you believe this, then you don't believe this project was 
set up to do this burn in 1983, and the DoE and PPPL conspired to 
drag it out until congress basically forced the DT burn to be done.  
The reason for the delay is:  Who wants to kill off the goose (by 
induced radioactivity) that lays the golden eggs.  
    
>This is very noteworthy. The history of fusion energy development is that
>at every turn there is another "monster guarding the door". Whether it is
>MHD instabilities, drift or other micro-instabilities, or turbulent transport.
>As each monster has been killed (or caged) and the door it was guarding
>opened, another monster has reared its head. Well there is not room for
>many more monsters to exist between where we are now and ignition. Of
>course there are very significant engineering problems yet to be tackled,
>but that's another issue. :> 

And all of these monsters were but the fantasy imagination of the 
childishly developed science of plasma physics.   

>While I'm spitting out gee-whiz numbers, let me just give one statement that
>indicates how fast fusion has progressed. People often look to the 
>semi-conductor and computer industry as an industry that has made fast
>(read breakneck) advances in their figures of merit (device size, speed,
>total number of gates, etc). The figure is something like a doubling every
>2 years. Well the search for fusion has progressed even faster. The rate of
>maximum fusion triple product has been improving at an even faster rate,
>eventhough funding support, in real dollars has been reduced 50%.

Who fed you this one?? ??? ?? 

Oh Big  Pain.... this is a whopper. You don't suppose the 
absolute lack of all but miniscule progress in numbers had to 
do with the fact that the tokamak is such a lemon it must come 
in much more costly research devices in  order to make the most 
miniscule progress.  And as soon as DT is burned in its 50-50 
ratio very many times renders a tokamak machine essentially  
useless.  So it becomes toast.  Of course if we shoot corks out 
of straw cannons they will have more punch then a few sheets of 
paper.  

That's the analogy here.  Using DT is like putting in a cork.  The 
problems is after a few shots the cannon's straw gives way, while 
the tokamak becomes unapproachable for any serious research work.    

So the GREAT  PROGRESS in numbers is the result from the pitiful 
fact that JET initially jumped the gun with partial tritium 
mixtures and that PPPL was forced (finally) to use the ideal but 
radioactive mixture for a burning tokamak,  It's the dirtiest fuel 
around and it's a must for the straw cannon ( tokamak).  

So If the DoE wants to get serious than they should build their 
house from mature plasma physics and engineering and not use straw,  
Only a sustained PLASMA pressures in excess of 100 kilo bars can 
do the trick.  Sorry ICF  the pressures must be SUSTAINED.  Well 
--  a SLOWWW compression on an internal magnetic ICF hybrid could 
be viable.  

>One of the last monsters is the possible problems with TAE's,GAE's, etc.
>The fact that TFTR is not seeing them now is significant. Of course one
>has to plug in the numbers. 5MW of neutron power implies about 1.25 MW
>of alpha-heating. Thus only about 5% of the heating power in these shots
>is provided by alphas. Whereas, at breakeven it will be about 25% and
>at ignition it will be 100%. So even if there are no GAE's or TAE's now,
>there is still room for them to be excited and destabilize the plasma.
>Keep your fingers crossed while the D-T runs continue at Princeton over
>the next year.

The monster(s) is(are) a fantasy...  wishful thinking of a crowd 
of chicken little's ?? making points to establish their 
irreplaceable talent.  With the really fundamental problems with 
the engineering, This is sort of like worrying about teats on a bull.  
They DO have them, Trust me I was a farm boy from Iowa,  I'ts just 
that they don't produce much milk, even with the miracle 
milk_production_increase additives.   

>* What's a banana?
It's a place to obtain a hair cut in College park.  

In plasma physics, it's a curable disease.  Simply apply 
magnetoplasma shear to your fusion configuration (transmute it).  
Spheromaks and PLASMAK(tm) are immunized against such blight (even 
though it's probably not lethal) in practice in a burning, sawing, 
tokamak).  . 
 
>It describes the orbit of a charged particle in a particular set magnetic 
>field configurations. The tokamak has such a configuration. The lowest
>order motion of a charged particle in a strong magnetic field is to move
>in a helix centered on the magnetic field line. The particle circles the line
>and can move along it. However, there is another effect. The particle's
>motion will conserve a quantity called its "magnetic moment" which is the
>ratio of the particles kinetic energy in motion perpendicular to the magnetic
>field to the strength of the magnetic field. The magnetic moment is an
>"adiabatic invariant" so although not strictly conserved, it is conserved to
>a high degree. Now in a tokamak, the main field comes from the primary current
>(or toroidal field coil) that runs through the center of the "doughnut". The
>natural cylindrical geometry implies that the magnetic field is stronger
>on the inner side of the torus than on the outer side. Note: inner side <>
>inside. The inner side is the part of the doughnut that touches the
>"doughnut hole" while the outer side is what hits the coffee first when you
>dunk you doughnuts. These are sometimes called the "inboard" and "outboard"
>sides.

Yep, a holdover from the Stellarator days --- a big want of helicity.   

>In a tokamak, the magnetic fields are primarily toroidal in nature, but 
>they have a poloidal component as well. So if we follow a given magnetic 
>line it will in general go around the torus toroidally, but it will also 
>spiral toroidally. It looks a little like a "cruller" doughnut in this
>respect. Now the particles follow these field lines. The general motion
>is that they move along parallel (or anti-parallel) to the fields. However,
>the particles must conserve their magnetic moment. So some particles cannot
>make it to the inboard side of the torus. Instead they reach a point where
>their entire energy is contained in perpendicular "gyrating" motion. At this
>point their parallel velocity is reduced to zero and reverses. This is 
>called "mirroring" or a "mirror bounce". So now instead of following the
>field line exactly, there are some particles that follow the line for a bit,
>and then bounce and go back in the other direction.

Well there you go, forcing a solution.  Try "force free" currents 
-- PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids (PMKs) .  And,make them omnigenous 
while you are at it. That's an automatic feature of isobarically 
confined PMKs. 
 
>There is one final correction. In fact all of the analysis is really 
>done as a perturbation expansion of the particle orbit using small
>parameters. One of the parameters is the "gyro-radius" of the particles.
>The gyro-radius is the radius of gyration of the particle around the
>magnetic field line. It is sometimes called the Larmor radius or Lamour radius.
>So in 0 gyro-radius approximations, the particles follow the lines 
>exactly (infinitely small gyration=no gyration) and if and when they bounce,
>they just turn around on the same field line.

>However, if one keeps the first order corrections in the orbits,  you see the
>gyrations. You will also see that the "guiding center" of that gyration, or
>the instantaneous center of the circle of the particle's motion behaves
>differently before and after the bound. When you look at the poloidal 
>projection of the orbit, it looks like a banana. It is this banana motion
>of the alpha particles that can excite these TAE modes. Because the alphas
>are so energetic, they have large banana widths and can therefore lead to
>large excitations since many alphas have a bounce frequency that
>resonates with the TAE mode. I would draw a picture, but I'm no good
>at ascii graphics. You might look at Hazeltine and Meiss <Plasma Confinement>
>(#86 in the Addison Wesley Frontiers in Physics series) on p. 141 for a
>picture. or p. 194 of F. Chen's book <Intro. to Plasma Physics and Controlled
>Fusion>.

Basically, the history of plasma physics can be judged by a 
series of instability hysteria and other phases which can be 
extracted by simply counting the kind and number of plasma 
physics papers presented at the annual APS Plasma Physics Sessions.  
Now, depending what "plasma epoch" one obtained a doctorate, we can 
find a basis for communicating with that person. Sounds like an 
interesting education or psych of science study.    

You would be surprised at the effort that went into the nurture, 
feeding  and breeding of instabilities. This was followed by the
stuffing of The Current Hit Parade into the cranium of innocents.  
(Krall and Trivelpiece) Sorry Nick.       :-(        

For the more northerly types, to see a banana "tip", you might 
look up to the north some moonless winter night and see if you 
can detect an aurora.  Solar particles trapped in the earth's 
field are in a sort of banana trap; and if they are too numberous 
their pressure expandes or splits the trapping flux surfaces.  As 
the splitting continues further, they then can strike into, 
igniting beautiful ionized sheets within the arctic exosphere.  

>-john .w cobb

Good luck with your personal funding levels, John...              
                      I'll be listening 
                       for that final 
                        PPPL tokamak
                        sucking sound.  
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Here today, gone to Maui
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Here today, gone to Maui
Date: 13 Dec 93 18:20:25 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University


13 December 1993
Dear Colleagues,

Have time to post a few notes from the Maui conference.

1.  Very little in the way of new, positive results.  A McKubre slide stated:
"Nuclear process not (presently) confirmed" which pretty well sums up the
meeting, and the last meeting, and the one before that...  McKubre had *NO*
data on gammas nor on neutrons nor on helium nor on tritium, although he
discussed plans to look for such things.  He said that they had not had
xs heat sufficiently lately to expect to see such products...

2.  P&F concentrated on old (shown at Nagoya in Oct. '92), boiling-cell data. 
F commented on discussion on the net,  -- yes, we're being noticed! -- 
saying that the voltage does not vary much during the boiling --
and admitting again that they measured voltages only once every 300 seconds!
Sorry, our data show that with a constant-current source, the voltage jumps
wildly during boiling.  Perhaps his boiling (at about 75Volts I calculate
from their Phys. Lett. '93 paper) is less vigorous than ours?  Perhaps the
response time of their supply is slow, or the current varies to compensate for
variations in cell resistance as the electrolyte boils away from electrodes?
We don't know.  And that is the point.  With measurements only every 300
seconds for that paper, *they* don't know.  Thus, their data is hardly
compelling.  

3. P emphasized "heat after death", that is, circa 100C temp. after the 
cell had boiled dry-- a point we have discussed at length here.  But he
did not illuminate the issue of why 100C; said the temp. probe was in the gas
above the cathode.  He showed a paragraph from the 1989 P&F paper (Hawkins was
not mentioned), quoting about "fusion" and "ignition."  I asked if he really
meant to imply "fusion ignition" as the cause of the 100C "heat after death".
Couldn't get a straight answer, as he just said it was "nuclear" and would not
comment on my question about whether "ignition" had been attained.  Douglas
asked further about ignition, and if they used film badges -- 
Pons refused to answer.  [Mark Hittinger who follows this net and was there
commented to me that P should have answered:  
"We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
P.S.  -- Hope Mark will provide us his insights on the *money* issues with
which the Maui mtg. was saturated.]

3b.  P/F used buzzwords "Ignition", "hidden state variables", "strange
attractors" -- leading to more questions rather than insights.

4.  Richard Oriani gave an insightful talk.  He challenged the old P/F notion
that high fugacity translates into ultra-high deuterium pressures.  
Douglas Morrison
re-emphasized that conclusion in a question, with Oriani concurring.
P.S. -- Prof. Oriani asked to use the portable BYU X-ray spectrometer in his
studies; the only one at the conf. who asked to use it!

5.  Gozzi of Italy reported no neutrons, although he did report some helium;
did not rule out contamination of He.  His son asked him [ note that the common
Italian name Helio also means helium]:  "Dad, why are you so fond of this
guy Helio  if he is so nasty to you?"

6.  Yan Kucherov reported on work at MIT undertaken [pun intended] with
Hegelstein involvement, looking for Pd transmutation.  Only one weak gamma
line seen at MIT, possible bump at 129 keV for 105-rhodium (reported also by
Hegelstein in theory session).  The portion of the spectrum shown also had a
bump of similar magnitude at lower energy, but this was not identified.  Gut
feeling:  both are noise.  Someone check:  what other lines should be present
with 105-Rh?  At what relative intensities?  These points were not mentioned.
Nothing else from Kucherov expts. at MIT, just one "possible" bump...

At panel "discussion" at conf. end, Kucherov stated surprisingly, "after four
years, I'm not sure there is a nuclear effect" -- while stating he is sure of
xs heat however.  Seems the cf nuclear people tend to disbelieve the nuclear
effects while supporting xs heat claims -- and vice versa...

7.  Theory:  Hegelstein did not discuss "lattice heating" notions that I picked
up, but rather possibility of neutron transfers leading to Pd transmutations.
Then why no neutrons seen?  

8.  Preparata advanced theory that one should expect photodisintegration of
neutrons, which neutrons could lead to "Hegelstein" effects.  I then asked why
the neutrons were not seen?  Preparata explained that neutrons would be picked
up by Pd -- I immediately countered that neutrons wander and easily penetrate,
and that counters must see even thermal neutrons if these are present.  He
finally conceded that such neutrons would be few, not associated with xs heat
production.

9.  Mario Rabinowitz of EPRI gave a surprising, hard-hitting overview of cf
theories, rejecting theories of Schwinger, Preparata, Vigier and Hegelstein.
When he was through, *no* theory survived, with possible exception of Lamb and
Parmenter's very low-level effects.  He stated of Schwinger, e.g.,
"Lattice vibration effects are grossly overexaggerated" and "there are serious
errors in Schwinger's paper."  Shrunken hydrogen ideas:  "fundamental flaws";
and proper spectral lines would prove -- not done.

After Rabinowitz, Preparata stood and angrily said he had not been properly
cited.  This rapidly escalated into a shouting match, in which Rabinowitz
stated that there were three types of errors possible in a theoretical paper, 
conceptual, numerical and algebraic -- and that Preparata's papers showed all
three types!  (Which he would write up in his paper.)


10.  Notable by their absence:  no papers by Takahashi (understand he has not
repoduced xs heat lately either), nor Yamaguchi whose Nagoya press-conf. is
credited with boosting NTT stock last year (He is on "leave" from NTT), nor
Ikegami -- these the stars of Nagoya mtg. just one year ago!

11.  John Bockris said "There's a nuclear effect here, because the heat is too
large to account for in any other way."  (He did not show products commensurate
with heat.)  Li of China countered later with a nice quote:
  "  Heat:   UNCLEAR =/= NUCLEAR "   (read "does not equal")

12.  Li of Savannah River Labs. showed data and calculations that helium born
in palladium should migrate to vacancies in the metal, then be *trapped*--
i.e., should not get out into gas above electrolyte.  This seems to contradict
claims (e.g., Miles of China Lake, Gozzi, etc.) of helium-4 in gasses...

13.  KEVIN WOLF DID NOT SPEAK AS SCHEDULED, DID NOT COME, NO EXPLANATION WAS
GIVEN AT ALL.

14.  Douglas Morrison gave pointed comments about theories and claims,
acknowledged me for retracting claims of large neutron bursts.  He received
loud applause, surprising me again.  His talk stood out against comments by
Mallove which focussed on use of cf for space travel-- very speculative!

I realize this is one-sided for now; will try to provide other side more
tomorrow.
What fun.  The meeting was quiet, dull, clearly depressed with respect to the
Nagoya meeting.

Contributed by Steven Jones
  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Stephen Cooper /  Re: D + T fusion, naughty or nice?
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D + T fusion, naughty or nice?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 11:07:01 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <93121415183182@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>There seem to be some questions floating around as to what radioactivity
>results from the operation of a fusion reactor on D + 
>T as the fuel.  To begin with you have to deal with the tritium fuel
>itself, but that really isn't as bad as you may imagine.  Then you have
>to reclaim and recycle that fuel.  For economic reasons rather than
>strictly safety issues you will not want to let a significant fraction
>of the tritium get away.  As far as troublesome reaction products, there
>really are none except those evil 14 MeV neutrons.  It is what happens
>to those neutrons that ultimately plays a vital role in whether a
>fusion reactor is naughty or nice.

>Clearly they escape the magnetic confinement and strike the material
>which surrounds the plasma.  The first problem, which has been mentioned
>here, is the activation and damage done to the vessel wall.  How bad is
>that?  Well the first clue that it is bad should be the fact that there
>is no source of neutrons capable of providing an intensity sufficient
>for a really complete simulation prior to the firing of TFTR.  However,
>one should perhaps note that, by a strong majority, most of the neutrons
>sail through the vessel wall without doing anything.  Just pulling a
>number off the wall, I believe the thickness for steel in which 1/2
>would interact is about 3 inches.  Of those that do interact some fraction
>induce an (n,alpha) reaction which is bad news for the structural
>properties and a variety of activities of which 60Co is perhaps the
>most bothersome from a disposal standpoint.  It has a 5 year half life,
>no where near the age of the pyramids.

>What happens to the majority of the neutrons?  If your smart you use
>them, and that means you work to minimize the number that result
>in harmful or troublesome interactions with the essential materials
>of the machinery.  Perhaps the radioactivity produced by a fusion
>reactor has been downplayed, but it isn't, in my opinion, comparable
>to the fission reactor case.

>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU

To back dick up with some figures, for those of you who like doing
the maths yourself. The JET machine, with a design now well over 15 
years old, is mainly a nickel/steel vessel. The activation of the
JET vacuum vessel has a number of contributing factors but the bulk
over 96% of the activation arises from 58Co generated by a 58Ni (n,p)
reaction. 58Co has a half life of 71 days and its activity is a 810
Kev gamma ray. The vessel is activated to about 1 mSv for every 6E16
2.4Mev neutrons produces or 2E16 14Mev neutrons. 1MW of fusion power
will produce about 3.5E17 14Mev neutrons per second.

So for a fully operation fusion reactor, with a structure similar to
JET producing 3 GW of fusion power running continously for 11 months
out of 12 for 20 years you get

	Total 14Mev neutrons = 6E29

        Vessel activation dose rate = 3E13 mSv per hour

        Time to decay to dose rate 0.5 mSv per hour = 3,250 days ~ 9 years

Now there will be other activation products with a longer half life,
but the bulk of the activation dose will have decayed to safe levels 
in 9 years. After 30 years you should be able to dismantle the 
reactor without the need for all but the most minimal levels of
radiological protection. The biggest dangers will come from the low
Z materials used to provide the reactor first wall, if there anything
like the beryllium we use at JET. 

Stephen R Cooper			Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk				Operations Division, JET.

- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 secret source
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 secret source
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 14:38:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:
<<
   Mizuno (Hokkaido U) has developed a solid state deuterated "sandwich"
   device....  he runs at high temperature externally imposed by his steel
   cylinder calorimeter. He inputs a trickle charge in the milliwatt level,
   and gets out hundreds of watts continuously for days. In other words, 
the
   "gain" or input to output ratio is around 1:10,000.

   Miley (U. Illinois) crashed through the upper limits to power density
   established by P&F last year by an order of magnitude or two. He is
   working with thin film and getting tens of thousands of watts per cc. 
Now,
   of course, his problem is that they turn on and Ffffft! -- vaporized 
thin
   film.

Thanks to my "secret" source for the above report.
>>

That's strange, I was there and I don't recall claims of this magnitude.  
Certainly these papers did not radically alter many people's views.  As 
usual, if you were a TB then almost all reports confirmed one's belief, if 
you were a sceptic then there obviously were faults in the experimental 
procedures and inadequate data.  For the rest of us, these reports were 
probably just mentally filed along with the reems of similar 
positive-sounding results.  Hey! What does it take to be convincing, 
anyway?

The solid-state "sandwich" devices are certainly intriguing - no more messy 
electrochemistry to worry about.  There were several papers of this type.  
What we need (as usual) is replication!!!

Cheers.

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Bill Page /  Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 14:38:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark Hittinger writes:
<<
Dr. Fleischmann gave a talk on the early work of Alfred Cohen on the
properties of Hydrogen in the Pd lattice.  I video taped this lecture 
because
I felt that it would be perhaps the most important one of the conference.

The model of alpha phase behavior does not match (fit) the observed 
behavior.
The alpha phase is not understood.  H diffusion into the lattice is faster
towards a negative field and Alfred Cohen deduced that the H in the lattice
was an H+.  Dr. Fleischmann said he was sorry but that it was a proton and
its charge was one.

The diffusion proceeds in the form of a wave through the lattice.  This was
in an experiment of a Pd wire being loaded at one end.  Dr. Fleischmann 
spoke
of using an electric field to induce a potential energy of 10Kev into the
D+ wave.  
>>

Like Mark, I also think that this was one of the most important papers of 
the conference.  I am not sure, however exactly how to interpret it - 
especially now over four years into this research.

First, Martin Fleischmann did repeatedly state that the name is Coehn *not* 
Cohen, inspite of the fact that that was how it was spelt in the conference 
abstracts.  Even during his first talk (which not directly on this subject) 
he mentined Alfred Coehn and made a very surprizing (to me, at least) 
statement which seemed to place a very different emphasis on the intuitions 
which lead to the P&F work.  He very clearly stated that it was *not* the 
notion of high hydrogen pressures in metals (the so called 10^24 atm versus 
fugacity which was very clearly explained at the conference in the talk by 
Oriani).  He claimed that all along the thing which had first interested 
them and which motivated their initial research was the work of Alfred 
Coehn on hydrogen diffusion in metals.  This is truly an astounding claim 
given the emphasis placed on high loading ratios which has been *the* 
primary issue for several years.

Actually, I rather like this turn of events because this is very much in 
line with the ideas we have been discussing here regarding delocalization 
and quantum tunnelling of hydrogen/deuterium.

As an aside, I recall very clearly a paper which was presented early in the 
conference by Hasegawa et al, IMRA, Japan.  The paper dealt with methods of 
obtaining high loadings of D in Pd.  They showed that there were several 
methods which could reliably produce loadings very near and even exceeding 
1.0.  They statement which he made, however went something like this [not a 
direct quote]: "I am rather embarrassed to report this, but inspite of 
reliably achieving high loading ratios, we did not observe an increase in 
the amount of excess heat."  He did however confirm (as did several others) 
that achieving a minimum loading of at least 0.84 was a necessary condition 
to observe excess heat.

In his talk directly concerned with Alfred Coehn, Martin Fleischmann 
emphasised a rather curious fact.  By showing a list of publications on 
hydrogen in metals starting near the turn of the century, he claimed that 
Alfred Coehn's observations were discussed in the earlier works but omitted 
from texts after the middle of the century and is only given a rather 
dismisive reference in the most recent text.  He stated that the P&F work 
was, for the most part motivated only by the earlier works on hydrogen in 
metals.

I thought that this was a very curious statement indeed!  The time 
difference plus several announcements of this type kept me from sleeping 
properly the entire time I was in Maui.  Perhaps this is the origin of the 
strange feeling I mentioned in an earlier posting that felt like I was (we 
are) being deliberately manipulated.  Maybe because I also think that 
anomolous diffusion of hydrogen is very significant, I can't just call this 
change of orientation a new "P&F" smoke-screen.  Martin also mentioned in 
passing the well known anomolous diffision of hydrogen in water which is a 
subject I brought up here several months ago.

But what was this (sinister?) observation that Alfred Coehn's work was 
being systematically ignored?

I was a bit confused by Martin's attempts at a theory for the anomolous 
behavious of hydrogen in Palladium.  The reference to a "D+ wave" (see 
Mark's summary) was a little weird - perhaps it was just his way of 
discussing quantum band states, resonance, etc. I guess this is another 
case when we will have to wait for the full text of the paper to really 
know what he has in mind.

Cheers.

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / N Chauvin /  mechanical constant : "YOUNG MODULUS"
     
Originally-From: chauvin@albert.cad.cea.fr (Nathalie Chauvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: mechanical constant : "YOUNG MODULUS"
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 13:58:33 GMT
Organization: C.E.A.




Hello

I'm searching for a mechanical constants from "YOUNG MODULUS" :


for these materials :
- MgO  		magnesie
- Al2O3 	alumine
- MgAl2O4 	spinel
- CeO2
- Y2O3
- Y3Al5O12 	YAG
- ZrSiO4	zircon  	
- CaZrTi2O7	zirconolite
- UZrN
- TiN
- VN
- TiC
- W
- Mo
- Nb
- V
- Cr

at 500 and 800 Celsius degree and if possible fonction of porosity

please don't forget unity of those constant

THANKS A LOT





Nathalie Chauvin

email : chauvin@albert.cad.cea.fr


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchauvin cudfnNathalie cudlnChauvin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anufriev et al, CNF in Al.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 01:15:12 GMT
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:56:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames) in FD 1792
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:56:24 GMT

>In article <CI1svI.KtL@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>, curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
>wrote:

>> : In article <01H6H1V3HH2A8WWEX5@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
>> : Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>>
>> : >Now that I look at it once more, I see that there is no mention of "nuclear",
>> : >so it's just "magnetic resonance MS". Looking at a book on MS's, and the way a
>> : >quadrupole MS works, it is my guess that that is what's meant. In a QMS one
>> : >applies a modulated magnetic field, pulling the particle this way and that,
>> : >and the frequency of alternation has to be right for a given mass to make it
>> : >through this gauntlet run.
[...]
>Since I do FTMS for a living, I suspected Dieter's magnetic resonance MS
>was some form of ion cyclotron resonance.  In an ion trap the ions are not
>sent "into the walls" but through holes in one endcap and into an electron
>multiplier detector.  In FTMS (more properly but long-windedly called
>Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry :), or FTMS for
>short) the cyclotron frequencies are determined by detecting the image
>currents induced as the ions pass near a detector plate once per cyclotron
>orbit.  This signal is sinusoidal with a frequency given as omega=qB/m
>(charge times magnetic field divided by mass).  All ions in a given
>frequency range are excited (have their cyclotron radii coherently
>increased) and then the composite signal is recorded. This is Fourier
>transformed to give a frequency spectrum and this converted to a mass
>spectrum using the above equation.  No synchrotron radiation is involved.
>The ions with cyclotron frequencies outside the range of interest are not
>usually sent "into the walls" but are simply left in the center of the cell
>with small (thermal) cyclotron radii.  Other forms of ICR detection exist
>besides the FTMS technique, and some of these were popular as residual gas
>analyzers (limited mass range and resolution but good dynamic range and
>precision) before quadrupoles became popular.  Without a diagram of the
>instrument or more text it is impossible to know just what they did.

>Hope I didn't go into "too much detail for this forum" again, but just how
>often does one get to work FTMS into a casual conversation, anyway? :)

>P.S.  Dieter, you never mentioned the word nuclear in your initial post,
>which is one of the main reasons I thought of ICR (along with the fact that
>I have never heard of a mass spectrometer based on NMR).

I must be overworking, I was sure that I had written the word. Good. Thanks
for this description. The only extra detail the paper gives is "of high
resolution" (and the Fig. shows roughly how high), and 3 references, all to
papers by the same authors, the third one in English, a book I guess: Anufriev
+ Mamyrin "Control of Helium isotope concentration in deuterium - tritium
mixture of mesocatalytical reactor/muon catalyzed fusion", 1988, p.613-618.
The first reference is to a paper in Zh.T.F 1972, so if that was the same
instrument, it's not exactly modern.

All this is pretty academic, I feel, because the results are not exactly
exciting, as far as I can see.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Jim Bowery /  The TFTR burn was propoganda
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The TFTR burn was propoganda
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 01:15:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.

Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
TFTR program after the radioactivity problems reared their ugly head
in the middle of populus Princeton, NJ, but Hirsch wanted them to be
done with it so the fusion program could get on with pursuing technologies
that might have a chance of commercial success, which included, in his
opinion, reverse pinch machines, spheromak and, of course, electrostatic
confinement.

By delaying the TFTR burn for years and then doing it right on the date of
the "cold fusion" conference, Princeton has demonstrated it has more political
than technical savvy.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Wolf
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wolf
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 01:16:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Terry, Wolf was listed to give talk N 1.1 on Tuesday morning.
Title "To be Announced".  The paper was not presented, Wolf is not listed
in the list of attendees.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Jed Rothwell /  "stinking badges" quote
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "stinking badges" quote
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 01:16:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Several people have cited an ideal response to Douglas Morrison's insistent
questions about film badges and CF experiments:

    "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

For those of you who are not movie mavens, this is a quote from "The Treasure
of the Sierra Madre," starring Humphrey Bogart. A superb movie! The quote
applies to most CF experiments, but as Fleischmann pointed out, some of their
work in France has been put on hold while they improve their shielding because
the neutron flux has reached dangerous levels. Let me add I strongly recommend
that all CF workers install a radiation alarm, and test it from time to time
to make sure it is still working.

I see that Steve Jones found ICCF4 depressing and quiet. That is only true from
the idiot skeptic perspective. The rest of us found more exciting developments
than we can cope with.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  3 More ICCF4 Papers
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 3 More ICCF4 Papers
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 01:16:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui2  Three more papers complete the first plenary session

The ICCF4 write up continues.  My boss came in and wants me to do some work.  
Looks like my capacity is three papers a day.  Note that I am using quotes "  
" for exact copies of what I have written on my program book.  This may or may 
not correspond to what was actually said. 

***** Paper C 1.4  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons  No  Tritium  No  4He  No
 
Triggering and Structural Changes in Cold Fusion Electrodes
     Bockris, Sundaresan, Letts, Minevski

Start Quotation from the abstract:

Two types of triggering the Cold Fusion effects have been studied.  The first 
type concerns electrochemical triggering, employing Low-High Current sequences 
of the type introduced by Bockris and Hodko and later by Takahashi.  During 
this pulsing, the D/Pd ratio remained at about 0.83.  The increase in the 
electrolyte temperature during the period of high current indicated an excess 
heat which was aprox. 17% higher than that computed on the basis of classical 
electrolytic theory.  The overpotential measurements on the Pd indicated a 
value of about 350 and 950 mV during low and high currents, respectively.  

The other kind of triggering involved Radio Frequency stimulation at MHz 
frequiencies and at 20-100 mW intensity ...

End quotation.

My notes say:
"Damage very important"  "10-100-500 hours to turn on."
Protocol used was 20 minute saw tooth ramps for one week then low-high at 12 
hour period.  Variation of D/Pd during high low was .81-.85.  Excess heat of 
order 23 watts was achieved.  A complete load/unload sequence shows heat build 
up over 6 or so cycles.  Bockris says that hydrogen sticks to Pd much better 
than D.  Dislocations attract hydrogen.  My notes say "Yes, as we know the 
pulsing flushes H from the dislocations."  As I understand it the potential is 
reversed for the unloading cycle, but not to the point of forming oxygen at 
the cathode.  

General note:  Many of the papers discussed and measured overvoltage this 
year.

R.F. stimulation has been done by D. Letts and D. Cravins.  Use 100-1000 MHz 
up to 100 mw of power.  60 mw of excitation has produced 2-3 watts of excess 
heat.  Exact frequencies used were 81.95, 365.608, and 533.68.  I was 
frantically writing down the significant figures as a slide was disappearing 
from the overhead projector.  I think there were even more significant 
figures!  There is certainly possibility for my making an error.  Those 
ordering crystals to be ground should possibly contact Bockris for the exact 
numbers.  Consider my good friends the problem of determining a six 
significant figure optimum frequency number with a calorimeter with a time 
constant of an hour or so.  It was noted that these frequencies amounted to 
0.001 mm skin depth or 10 atoms. (But do they make it through the 
electrolyte?)

Damage was studied.  Notes say "(cracking is advanced form of damage)".  I 
think study was by etching off successive layers in 2000 A steps.  They took 
pictures at each step.  They saw little black holes? aprox. 2000 A across.  My 
notes say "Pot holes for D escaping".  Notes say "There is damage seen inside 
the Pd at high overvoltage."  Bockris says "most of the D of interest to us is 
not in the lattice - but it is that in the voids." "You must have damage to 
increase the number of dislocations to gain close spacing in the voids - 
(rest of quote not certain - my interpretaion of what was said) but then 
possibly  D+Pd > xx " "The initial basic voids are of order 1000 A"

The abstract says there is very little damage below -0.25 overpotential, but 
that at an overpotential of -1.0 cracks developed very quickly.  

(Note: all this brings back to me the Moore thesis, which says that at a 
measured loading of 2.3, over half was in the voids.)

***** C 1.5 Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Calorimetry Studies of the D/Pd System
     McKubre, Bush, Crouch-Baker, Hauser, Jevlic, Passel,
     Smedley, Tanzella, Williams, Wing

McKubre easily wins the "Rube Goldberg" award this year for the most fantastic 
real time on line Palladium munching machine.  A spool of Pd wire if fed into 
an annealing furnace and then into a pre-conditioner (not sure what this is - 
possibly ion implantation), and then through an electrolytic cell where (I 
remember) a four point resistance measurement is made.  Finally it is realed 
back onto a second spool.  I suppose there is a scheme for marking the "good 
parts" of the wire as they go by.  This whole process seems to be designed to 
select cathodes for further experiments.  I remember the wire as 2 mm.

McKubre says loading is necessary but not sufficient.  Temperature is 
important but not everything.  Long time periods are necessary.  One needs 
high current densities at high loading for long time periods.  

He is setting up gamma spectroscopy, neutron spectroscopy, a charged particle 
double telescope, tritium analysis, helium analysis, and a search for isotopic 
shifts.  Results so far are that no nuclear process has been confirmed.  
McKubre says that "it is difficult to search for more than one product per 
calorimeter".  "Separate systems are difficult to optimize."

He is presently exploring batch differences, anode sleection (My notes say - 
should I have written cathode??  The purpose of the fancy machine.  But he is 
concerned about anodes too - see later.), surface modification, alternating 
polarity, and annealing condition.

McKubre presented his usual resistance vs loading curve.  This starts at Ro at 
zero loading and increases sort of quadraticly to a peak of 2R at a D/Pd ratio 
of 0.75.  Coming down hill it hits 1.6 R at 0.95 and 1.5 R at 1.0 D/Pd.  
(Sorry if I do not have these values exactly one has only a few seconds to get 
them down, and I was trying to listen.)  McKubre commented that alternating 
the loading does increase loading in the lattice.  He pointed to the top of 
the curve and said that it never deloads beyond the peak.  Thus he said, 
reduced resistance always indicates high loading.  (I know I have wondered 
about which side of the curve a measurement was on in this forum - could this 
be a response?)  He stated that loading above 0.95 D/Pd (R < 1.6 Ro) always 
gives excess heat.  

He put up a curve for one of their loading experiments.  I think a typical 
example from previous discussions.  Charging is at -20 ma until the loading 
reaches 0.75 (the R peak) then it is increased to -40 ma.  The resistance 
further decreases (indicating higher loading), but gradually levels off.  In 
some experiments it increases again indicating loss of loading.  Now the 
current is reversed to +20 ma.  My notes say "reverse current and strip".  
This increases the resistance (lower loading) but when now reversed again to -
20 ma, higher loading is reached (lower resistance) than the previous steady 
state.  During the reverse current operation, the voltage is clamped at 0.8 
volts to prevent the formation of Pd oxide.  

The preferred annealing is 3 hrs at 850 C.  Longer annealing is worse than 
three hour time.  

McKubre says the function of Aluminum is to prevent unloading over long 
periods of time.  He showed curves where on the application of a higher 
current density, the resistance decreased (higher loading) over a relatively 
short period of time, then gradually increased indicating that the cathode was 
unloading.  When Aluminum was added, the resistance did not increase, or 
increased less indicating that the loading was maintained.  

He said that he could not get good loading with Nickel anodes.  Also Pt/Nb 
anodes (may not have this right?) were also not so good.  He runs at 1.1 to 
1.6 ampers per cm^2.  He has a 50 mw error limit for his calorimetry.  
"Nothing succeeds as a blank like a cathode that does not load."  "When there 
is nothing we can see nothing well."  My notes indicate 55 watts at 1.35 amps 
per cm^2 but don't say if this was excess heat??  Heating cell up to aprox. 
100 C caused an event with excess heat of 100 watts per cc.  Normally R at the 
end of the experiment is the same as at the beginning after striping (reverse 
current) but they have one wire which showed excess heat where it ended up at 
0.7 of the original resistance. 

OK, this completes debriefing of my notes.  My general impression is that 
McKubre's results are creaping down into the noise.  I think the one excess 
heat experiment slide showed less anomalous heat than the experiments I saw 
described in Washington (Nagoya results).  No doubt that McKubre is doing 
first class work.  It also looks like he is being well supported else he could 
not attempt that wonderful Rube Goldberg machine.  

***** C 1.6  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Deuterium Charging in Palladium by the Electroysis of Heavy
Water: Production of Heat Excess
     Bertalot, DeMarco, DeNinno, LaBarbara, Scaramuzzi, Violante

This paper was scheduled as C 2.1 but was moved into the plenary session.

In this experiment the Palladium cathode was sealed in the mouth of an 
evacuated dewar.  (At least my sketch shows two walls, not clear that a dewar 
is necessary.)  The dewar side is evacuated to start the experiment.  The 
other side is in electrolyte in a Takahashi style cell (cooling coils).  My 
notes show close anode to cathode spacing.  The Pd cathode was 1 cm square by 
0.05 cm and operates as a membrane.  

My notes say: "Based on knowing gas side concentration and knowing diffusion 
rate one can determine electrolysis D/Pd."  Elsewhere they say "The 
equilibrium pressure behind the cathode determines the D/Pd ratio.  A cryptic 
note indicates loadings of 0.65 to 0.7 were measured.  Yet one more place says 
"During heat events, gas was reabsorbed."  I tell it like I heard it, later I 
will think about this.  

Looks like the cathode was loaded at 50 ma per cm^2 then run at 750 to 1000 ma 
per cm^2.  The cell voltage was noted at 24 to 28 volts.  The noted 4-4.5 
watts excess heat for 8 hours or an 8% excess.  One curve from my notes shows 
low current initial loading then high-low Takahashi style.  Another showed 
relation between current density and excess heat.  

The calibration was 2.94 watts per C for the calorimeter.  They claim +/- 50 
mw error limits.  They can run at 30 C or 50 C.  

OK.  I note that they quote 8% excess with 4-4.5 watts excess.  This indicates 
that the input power is 56 watts.  They also indicate that they have a 50 mw 
error limit.  That is to say that they claim to be doing 0.1% calorimetry.  
>From what I have seen, I would give them 10%, and then the signal is in the 
noise.  So I cannot take this result too seriously.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 15 Dec 1993 08:25:33 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <19931214.160544.93@almaden.ibm.com>,  <jbs@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>         Joseph Davidson asked:
>>Please correct me  - wasn't TFTR supposed to reach breakeven when
>>it was designed?
>         Robert Heeter replied:
>>No, you're right.  But we haven't heard the last from TFTR yet.
>>I believe they anticipate getting 10 MW sometime next year as they
>>learn to optimize the D-T plasma.  10 MW out vs 30 MW in is
>>still not quite breakeven, but you have to consider that when
>>TFTR was designed a typical machine was some four orders of
>>magnitude less, so 10 MW is actually quite close to breakeven.
>>As far as I know TFTR has pretty much achieved everything it
>>was designed to do, and more.  (For instance, they have
>>achieved plasma temperatures of some 400 million degrees C,
>>whereas I think the design specification was 100 million.)
>
>         You appear to be implying that missing breakeven by a factor of
>3 is not important.
>         However according to Matt Kennel:
>>Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales
>>as the volume.
>
>         This would appear to imply that the results of TFTR mean that
>a commercial fusion reactor will need to be 3 times bigger in linear
>dimension and 27 times bigger in power than was believed when TFTR was
>designed.  Is this correct?   This would appear to have extremely
>negative implications for the commercial feasibility of fusion.
>                          James B. Shearer

Well, there is more to scaling arguments than just size. The confinement
also scales with magnetic field and temperature. As the magnetic field
becomes stronger, it reduces the gyro-radius which leads to less transport
because collisional transport is essentially a random walk of step size
on the order of the larmour radius and frequency given by the collision
time. So increasing the magnetic field will decrease the transport. 
Additionally, higher temperatures will also reduce transport. This is in
contrast to normal fluids where increased temperature  leads to more 
transport. The reason for increased transport in plasmas is that the
collision cross sections decrease with increasing energy, so collisions
occur less frequently. However, increased temperatures also lead to
increased gyro-radii. So the effects are not simple.

What I have described is what is sometimes called "classical transport".
In that case, the idea is that particles circle around closed magnetic
field lines until a collision occurs. This collision is local in space,
but will randomize the velocity*. So no the particle can move to be
circling another magnetic field line which will be about a gyro-radius
removed from the first field line. So it is a random walk diffusion 
process.

* actually, the velocity is not randomized in a single collision. Most
collisions are small angle scatterings. That is why the collision
operator is a Fokker-Planck operator.

Now most people agree that classical transport is not the dominant transport
mechanism. There are other effects which cause more transport. One
such set is called "neo-classical" transport. One idea here is that
the particle's do not follow field lines exactly, but rather follow
"banana" orbits (or passing orbits). When a collision occurs, it
acts to change the banana trajectory. The result is the step size
is changed from the gyro-radius to the banana-width which may be
much larger. It also implies a different scaling of confinement
with experimental parameters.

Finally, there are also issues of anomalous transport. There may be
an effective collision operator that is due to rapidly fluctuating
fields that are a consequence of some small scale instability that
doesn't lead to a disruption, but does degrade confinement. There
are many ideas about the underlying instability. Some consensus is
emerging but the unstable mode and the (for example, its consequent transport
has not been definitively explained yet.

The question about scaling is an old one in plasma physics and has
a long history. Today many people do empiricle studies and then
compare data on different machines (and concepts). However, it is
generally agreed by most that you can increase confinement through
increased magnetic field and increased device size. Many also say that
increased temperature increases confinement.

The bottom line is that a ignition reactor will not need to be 27 X as
big as TFTR. It is more like 2 X. I'll not hazard a more accurate
estimate, because I know there are people out there who are elbow
deep into ITER studies that could provide much more accurate (and
up to date) answers. Maybe the fly on Rebut's wall will comment.

-john .w cobb



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  PAUL /  RE: TFTR Timing?
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR Timing?
Date: 15 DEC 93 13:48:37 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Tom Droege comments that the TFTR experiments were timed to coincide with the
Cold Fusion conference.   This I rather doubt.  However they were delayed a bit
to not interfere with the Hubble repair.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: some ICCF4 Wednesday notes
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Wednesday notes
Date: 15 Dec 1993 15:23:58 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <bugs.755761424@netsys.com> 
bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) writes:
>
>Random notes on ICCF4-Wednesday from an interested observer.
>
>Caveat: My background is Computers and Economics, not the natural
>        sciences. (Just my opinions guys, free and worth it)

>There was a short heated exchange between Dr. Rabinowitz and Dr. Preparata
>that seemed out of place given Dr. Rabinowitz's general positive tone towards
>cold fusion.  Evidently Dr. Rabinowitz was getting ready to publish a paper
>criticising Dr. Preparata's cold fusion theory.  There is clearly an 
>underlying friction present even between believers.    ...

>       ...                    This is, after all, not a contest of egos.
>This is a gradual and difficult search for the truth.  

Sometimes a gradual and difficult search for the truth can be confused 
with personal attacks and a contest of egos.  You must remember that it 
takes a huge investment of time, driven by interest in a problem and 
unswerving confidence that you can solve it, to deal with a major 
scientific problem.  This may require the use of the proverbial 2x4 
to get the attention of the mule plodding along the wrong path if 
the usual methods of getting a scientist's attention do not work. 

I doubt if the exchange you witnessed came anywhere near the level 
of conflict one sees at 'typical' particle theory seminars.  

For example, I think you misintrepreted Pons' reaction to Morrison's 
question about using a radiation badge.  Pons clearly knew he was 
trapped by a classic Socratic method of inquiry and cross-examination. 
To say he does not wear one is to admit he does not think (or knows by 
means he will not discuss) that there is no radiation in his lab.  To 
say that he does would lead to the immediate follow-up inquiry about 
what dose shows up on it.  Both paths lead to an admission of a result 
in his lab that he clearly does not want to talk about.  Once it became 
clear that Pons was not interested in a free exchange of information, I 
do not know why you thought he would answer your detailed question. 

>The believers do need to listen to Dr. Morrison.  If CNF is real he is 
>showing you the shortest road map to acceptance.  In fact, he is showing
>you the only road map to acceptance.  Cold fusion was pictured by believers
>as an eventual mainstream idea, however, you won't get there unless you
>travel down Dr. Morrison's yellow brick road!  

It is not his road.  It is the road of science.  Morrison was not the first, 
and is not the only, person to point out this path.  What should strike 
you as odd is that Steve Jones deserves praise for doing what is normal 
in science.  Checking your own work.  It does deserve praise, of course, 
since keeping an open mind about your own methods in the face of the sort 
of ego-investment needed to do the work is not easy.  But it is not rare. 

A couple of guys here are proudest of a paper they wrote (Comment in PRL) 
that identified an error in another paper they co-authored (discovery of 
superheavy nuclei in monazites).  It was not necessary for someone else 
to evaluate it critically and find a gamma ray that could masquerade as 
an X ray.  They continued to ask questions after the work was "done" 
and the paper published, and found the weakness in their argument. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Princeton has Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Princeton has Fusion?
Date: 15 Dec 1993 15:32:43 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>In article <b4v2jx_@dixie.com>, John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hmm.  Press releases from the fusion community?  Must again be time to go
>>begging for more scientific welfare money.

In article <CHz9Fr.1tJ@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     I'm waiting for the outraged screams about 'science by press
>     conference' from PPPL.  

Chuckle  <grin>. 

Of course, what this points out is that they are doing technology and 
not science, since they did not wait to write a Phys. Rev. Letter 
and then hold a press conference after it had been reviewed and 
accepted -- on the Monday publication day according to tradition. 

(It must be remembered that P&F were much maligned for their press 
conference, and they had an article accepted and in press.  Some of 
the complaints came from PPPL.  It is more normal to wait for the 
article to be printed or until a talk is given at a conference, but 
"in press" is acceptable since the refereeing is complete.) 

According to the rules of PRL, this work is not eligible for rapid 
publication since it has appeared in another place, namely the New 
York Times.  It will be interesting to see what transpires.  I should 
drop a note to Bob Park and have him monitor this in What's News. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
Date: 15 Dec 1993 09:49:16 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CI2GLK.36C@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2ekjmpINNnfn@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <jac.755822495@gandalf>,
>>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>>> <(perhaps accurate) diatribe against tokamak fusion concepts>
>
>The gentle man avoids the really killer (lethal) problems which relate 
>to lack of pressure transmission to the plasma resulting in pitifully 
>poor density, temperature, and confinement time.  We are missing the mark 
>by orders of magnitude.   Another huge lethal problem for tokamaks  
>and other wall solid vacuum wall confined systems is the plasma impurity 
>problem.  
>
please explain. I have repeatedly asked for details of this plasmak
concept, but all I ever seem to get are a few paragraphs scattered
about in a long post about how bad DOE is. Is there a journal article
or a technical report that I can look at that describes the
nuts and bolts of this concept and how it differs from an explosively
compressed sphereomak

...
>> there is one issue that is very important
>>and cannot be resolved reliably just from theory and numerical simulation.
>>The hot alpha particle by products have an energy of about 4 MeV. They
>>will form a very hot component to the plasma. Ideally it will heat the
>>plasma by means of Coulomb collision and/or turbulent deceleration. However,
>>there is also the possibility that these hot alpha particles may excite
>>and unstable mode of oscillation that will degrade confinement. These are
>>sometimes called TAE modes or GAE modes, etc. The acronyms stand for
>>"Toroidal Alfven Eigenmodes" or "Global Alfven Eigenmodes". 
>
>That's about as likely as the moon falling into lake Michigan at dawn 
>tomorrow.  

willing to bet your little finger on it? :>

>
>The tokamak can be operated in the H or perhaps the Super H mode, One
>of the things that happens is that fusion generally takes place in the
>hotter portions of the plasma which are along or just peripheral to the 
>minor axis.  Since Tokamaks are tokamaks and not Spheromaks the toroidal
 ^^^^^^^^^^
 don't you mean the magnetic axis?

>field is not generated by plasma currents, consequently it tends to be
>fixed.  However, the toroidal plasma current tends toward tracking the
>resultant mag field which is a mixture of toroidal field and itown
>generated poloidal field. This field has helicity so the purely toroidally
>driven plasma current (initially), starts to stretch its flow along 
>the helical mag flux lines. The poloidal current increases (and the 
>lessened toroidal component) diminishes the magnetic helicity and the
>very much stronger rigid toroidal field snaps the plasma current back
>to be more toriodal in nature.  Thus there is an  increase in toroidal
>field and the whole process cycles. Since the tor-component of current 
>looks a bit like a "saw tooth", because of the jerking back and forth
>in vector space, the phenomenon is named "saw tooth" action or some
>such nomenclature.  
>

There's an old joke. Q: Why do tokamaks have to worry so much about
disruptions but RFP's don't? A: because RFP's are always in disruption.
The same seemed to be true of FRC's when I was talking with
experimentalists, and my inuition says that your concept will also.
This is good and bad news. The good nes is that you may get around 
some instabilities. The bad news is that the transport will probably
suck. Just think about it a minute. If you have a bucket of water, is
the thermal conductivity from the center to the top increased or
decreased is you start creating "sloshing" modes to eliminate Benard
convection? of course it is increased. 

>Anyway the really important result of this is that it blows away the 
>99% of the theorized hot alpha induced and other disruptive effects.  
>This is done because the current jerking actually jerks plasma and 
>sloshes it in a vortex much like the clothes in a washing machine 
>are sloshed back and forth but more importantly are swirled in a 
>waltzing toroidal vortex about the spindle. For the wash every thing 
>gets blasted with soap and water, not just bubbles and air, and for 
>the plasma the hotter more ohmically heated minor axis is diffused 
>(actually mixed) with the adjacent plasma and over a substantial 
>cross-section.  That reduces the thermal gradients (especially the 
>thermal electron gradient) and chops into bananas and other fruits 
>theorist may harass themselves with.
>  

surprise, surprise, you cannot use theory based on a tokamak
ordering to analyze a device that does not obey tokamak scaling
assumptions. However, my (uninformed -- see note above) gut says 
you are being just as over optimistic and overselling just as
much as the fusioneers of the 1960's/70's did with the tokamak.

Your argument appears to be that since your device is different
from a tokamak, there are some (perhaps good) reasons to expect it
to be free of some of the most troublesome problems for tokamaks.
This may be correct. However, your device may also be susceptible to
instabilities that the tokamak is immune to. For example, sphereomaks
had to deal with the tilt instability which was not a problem
for tokamaks. Just because you don't have to bear their cross, doesn't
mean you don't have your own cross to bear. 

>> is very noteworthy. The history of fusion energy development is that
>>at every turn there is another "monster guarding the door". Whether it is
>>MHD instabilities, drift or other micro-instabilities, or turbulent transport.
>>As each monster has been killed (or caged) and the door it was guarding
>>opened, another monster has reared its head. Well there is not room for
>>many more monsters to exist between where we are now and ignition. Of
>>course there are very significant engineering problems yet to be tackled,
>>but that's another issue. :> 
>
>And all of these monsters were but the fantasy imagination of the 
>childishly developed science of plasma physics.   
>

balderdash. There have been real and very large problems that have
been overcome with a great deal of perseverance and ingenuity. To
label solved difficult problems as fantasy and trivial in retrospect
is an incorrect view of history. The conception, design, and engineering
of high power neutral beam technology to deal with decreased ohmic heating
efficiency at high temperatures is a case in point. However, as you
say, if there a more promising concept was used, it may not be necessary
to face these difficult problems.


Let me just add, that it seems that Paul wants to characterize
me as an advocate of Tokamak fusion. That is not correct. I have
spent my time working on alternative (i.e. non-tokamak) concepts for 
magnetic fusion. I personally believe that the tokamak will never be an 
economically viable commercial reactor. However, I do believe that it is the 
best hope for achieving ignition in an experiment in the near future. The
cost of ITER is justified if for no other reason than as a high
flux source of energetic neutrons to use for materials characterization
studies. The materials phase of ITER will go further toward helping
commercial fusion than anything else I see on the horizon right now.
This is true even if the final reactor is not a tokamak, or even if
it is a low neutron machine. Of course if you believe Paul, he will
give you a device that will ignite in less than 10 years with 0
neutrons. I'm from Missouri.

I am not all "gaa-gaa" over the tokamak and TFTR. I just think 
that sometimes you have to give the devil its due. Last week,
TFTR produce more fusion neutron power than ever before, apparently
without unexpected troubles (which many DID expect), and there is
a program of shots over the next year to further explore and
improve these results. These are significant results. We can go back to
grinding our personal axes later. Otherwise we are no better than
the political consultants who try to manage the PR spin at every turn.
BTW,did Ed Rollins say how much he paid out in order to get the 
anomalous transport gremlins not to show up for these shots? :>

-john .w cobb





cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / J Interguru /  TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Dissapointment.
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Dissapointment.
Date: 15 Dec 1993 17:15:20 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

Reality:

In late 1993 the TFTR Tokamak at Princeton introduced tritium to the
deuterium plasma to achieve a D-T reaction.  This is the reaction that
will be used in power reactors. 


After several shots, they produced about 6 million wattts of power.  This
compares with the 30 million watts of power needed to heat the plasma. 
This gives a Q value (output power /input power) of 0.2 .  The lab hopes
to achieve a power of 10 MW for a Q of 0.33 before the conclusion of the
tritium program and the permanant shutdown of TFTR. 

_____________________________________________________________
Promises

1) From the Magnetic Fusion Energy Program Summary Document, dated January
1981.  It is a DOE document that describes that fusion program. It states
that "TFTR is a major scaling experiment which will demonstrate energy
break-even (power out equals power in, or Q=1.).  It goes to say later
that "Plans are currently underway to extend the inherent capability of
TFTR to investigate the behavior of more reactor-like plasma at Q greater
than unity. Achievement of the bulk burning state at a Q of approximately
2-3 will require additional neutral beam heating and higher magnetic
fields." The milestone for this more advanced operation was FY85. 

A later downgrade in promises

2):

In 1987 DOE reviewed TFTR's potential for getting Q of 1..(MFAC panel 17
report,) It is very interesting reading. They state that the break point
in between technology interest and science interest is a Q of about 0.5.
But the letter from Trivelpiece (then the head of Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory) in the forward of the report the the MFAC charging them with
the review states "2)achieve approximate break-even (Q about 1) at reactor
level fusion power densities (10^6 W m-3),"

In all fairness, some of the schedule slippage came about because the 
funding was stretched out.  Nonetheless TFTR has consistently gone over
estimated costs and under estimated performance. 



 ----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.     
InterGuru -- Internet Consulting and Training    
Internet Information Searching        
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902  
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)           
j.davidson@ieee.org   
For more information send to guru-info@clark.net                        
 ----------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Fusion Simulation
     
Originally-From: arnief@sail.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Simulation
Date: 15 Dec 93 17:29:06 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <Pine.3.07.9312131644.A25852-a100000@hobbs> jmorris@hobbs.lee
ummit.k12.mo.us (Jeremy Morris) writes:
>Grettings to Everyone,
>	I have a question concerning a possible computer program dealing
>with a fusion simulation.  I am presently working on a project where we
>are trying to run a simulation of cold fusion via a computer program.  I
>realize the controversy behind the whole cold fusion ordeal, but I'm
>hoping that there might be someone that could help me find a program that
>does what I'm trying to do.  We want to run a mathematical and a visual
>simulation.  Do you know of any program that could help?


In order to run a simulation of something, you need to have some
understanding of the rules of behavior (if not the mathematics) of the
process under study.  Of course, you could postulate rules and then see
if they result in behavior that matches real life.  But there is quite
a lot of argument going on about what rel life is in this instance.



Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / John Logajan /  Re: ICCF-4 secret source
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 secret source
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 20:18:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>John Logajan writes:
>Thanks to my "secret" source for the above report.
>
>That's strange, I was there and I don't recall claims of this magnitude.  

I believe that at least one of those reports came from a private
conversation.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, 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 cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?
Date: 15 Dec 1993 22:13:10 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

terry@asl.dl.nec.com wrote:
: ============================================================================

:     Subject: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?

: 1. BACKGROUND

: Although Bose condensation (e.g., superfluid helium) is normally associated
: with the ground state of its constituent bosons, there is nothing in the
: definition of Bose-Einstein statistics that _requires_ condensation to take
: place in the ground state.  Any state that receives a sufficiently large
: number of bosons should in principle be capable of Bose condensation.


: 2. CONCEPT

: This leads to an interesting thought problem:

:    What would be the behavior of a laser or maser whose inverted population
:    was able to form into a Bose condensate before dropping back to ground?

: 3. ANALYSIS

: 3.1  Natural Lasing

: If masers or lasers based on Bose-condensed inverted populations actually
: could be constructed, I suspect that their most noticeable property would be
: "natural lasing."  By this I mean that no special physical preparation of
: the medium (e.g., surrounding it with mirrors) should be needed to produce a
: coherent photon burst.  Such preparations are needed in ordinary lasers due
: to the need to use a (Bose condensed) photon pulse to "coordinate" the non-
: Bose condensed inverted population.


: But with a Bose condensed inverted population, the members of the inverted
: population should radiate their photons _as a single unit_ as the condensate
: falls to ground level, since they are already "coordinated" by participation
: in a Bose condensate.  The resulting photon thus pulse should be both more
: coherent than ordinary laser pulses, and exceptionally short in duration.
: It would be as if the entire condensate had emitted one "giant" photon in
: essentially the same time frame as a single-particle photon emission.

Actually I think that the atomic decay time scale, at least in conventional
lasers, is rather long compared to other time scales in the system, such as
the inverse of photon frequency or the cavity trip time.

In another way, doesn't an ordinary laser have a 'Bose condensated state'
in the electromagnetic field?  Sound practically like the definition of
a laser to me.  

I have no idea how the electronic states of many atoms might conspire
to get into a bose-condensated state.

cheers
Matt

--
-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:
cuddy15 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 18:38:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <931215143310_70047.3047_EHB24-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>First, Martin Fleischmann did repeatedly state that the name is Coehn *not* 
>Cohen, inspite of the fact that that was how it was spelt in the conference 
>abstracts.  Even during his first talk (which not directly on this subject) 
>he mentined Alfred Coehn and made a very surprizing (to me, at least) 
>statement which seemed to place a very different emphasis on the intuitions 
>which lead to the P&F work.  He very clearly stated that it was *not* the 
>notion of high hydrogen pressures in metals (the so called 10^24 atm versus 
>fugacity which was very clearly explained at the conference in the talk by 
>Oriani).  He claimed that all along the thing which had first interested 
>them and which motivated their initial research was the work of Alfred 
>Coehn on hydrogen diffusion in metals.

     I'm quite confused.  Wasn't it Fleishmann *himself* that claimed
     the fugacity business *was* the motivating factor?  I'd never heard
     of Coehn until just recently, and I seem to have a clear recollection
     that P&F had never heard of, say, Paneth and Peters' work until someone
     told them *after* their announcement. 

     By now, I'm pretty certain that there has been no demonstration of
     'cold fusion' in Pd-D systems induced solely by electrolysis.  
     It is interesting, though, how long the smoke lasts.  I am continually
     astonished at the suspension of disbelief necessary to keep the 
     smoke and mirrors going.  Fleischmann talks of 'linear regression'     
     models for which processes which are physically unknown and for
     which they've egregious utterly undersampled the data.  Pons
     talks of 'heat after death' without apparently acknowledging the
     miracle (or being queried about it, which I also find strange).  
     McKubre hasn't 'had any good results lately',
     Takahashi and Yamaguchi apparently didn't even present papers,
     and Wolf apparently didn't even come to the party.

     I used to wonder how scientists could get snookered by people
     like Uri Geller.  I now think the key is an unscientific 
     suspension of disbelief.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Disappointment.
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Disappointment.
Date: 15 Dec 1993 17:09:21 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:
>Reality:
>
>In late 1993 the TFTR Tokamak at Princeton introduced tritium to the
>deuterium plasma to achieve a D-T reaction.  This is the reaction that
>will be used in power reactors. 
>
>
>After several shots, they produced about 6 million wattts of power.  This
>compares with the 30 million watts of power needed to heat the plasma. 
>This gives a Q value (output power /input power) of 0.2 .  The lab hopes
>to achieve a power of 10 MW for a Q of 0.33 before the conclusion of the
>tritium program and the permanant shutdown of TFTR. 
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>Promises

read: projections based on assumed funding levels and estimation
      (somewhat in error) of technical issues

>
...
>A later downgrade in promises

that accompanied a downgrade in funding

>
>2):
>
>In 1987 DOE reviewed TFTR's potential for getting Q of 1..(MFAC panel 17
>report,) It is very interesting reading. They state that the break point
>in between technology interest and science interest is a Q of about 0.5.
>But the letter from Trivelpiece (then the head of Princeton Plasma Physics
>Laboratory) 

Are you sure? I thought Trivelpiece was at DOE/OER in 1987.

>
>In all fairness, some of the schedule slippage came about because the 
>funding was stretched out.  Nonetheless TFTR has consistently gone over
>estimated costs and under estimated performance. 
>

As is well known, stretching out funding = increased costs and underperformance

examples include:

SSF (now alpha)
SSC
AXAF
CPRF
HST
Original Shuttle
.
.
.

Seriously, the biggest problem in the funding of big science today (IMO)
is that congress and program managers love a program start, but hate
the charge of "stay the course, steady as she goes"

I would like to suggest that a proper metric of the success of 
big science is not milestones achieved by given dates, but milestones
achieved by specific points of integrated funding (adjusted for the
deleterious effects of stretch out). If we held policymakers (elected
and unelected) to these standards we, as a nation, would get better
returns for our investment dollar (to the extent that big science is
a good investment of research dollars --- a debatable proposition)

In my (near) perfect world, I would require full appropriation of a
project's entire cost in the year that it is started. The funds would be
put in a budgetary category of appropriated with a multi-year authorization.
Such accounts already exist in the U.S. budgeting process now.
The funds would be released to the project contingent upon
specified achievement of milestones. If a program failed its review, the
moneies would not be returned to its original budget function (i.e.
NSF or DOE or DOD) nor would it be available to pay for other government
programs. It would go back to the treasury and its accounting would
be handled by adjusting the total deficit and debt figures for the year
the appropriation was made.

This would do 3 things:
1) It would force program managers pay up front and not just through a
party and require successors to pay for it.
2) It would allow projects to be judged on their merit. It would prevent
them from having their budgets raided to pay for today's pet project.
3) It would provide stability for those scientists who commit large
amounts of their career to a big project.

It would also mean many fewer starts. It would require scientific
communities to do prioritization looking forward and not prioritization
looking backward. By this I mean now we cut experiments operating budgets
to maintain construction of new experiments because of squeezes. In this
new scheme we will do less starts, but more completions and they will
operate for their pre-planned length.

I would like to suggest (although I don't have the figures readily
available) that if the fusion effort was judged by its the integrated
Total funding, it is meeting its objectives. or at least in
the ballpark.

Before you laugh take a look at the history a minute. Sure the
fusioneers promised big things quickly in the 70's. However they
were looking a fusion budgets that were twice as large as today
when measured in real terms. The optimists in the crowd did not
see any reason to think the trend would reverse. We had had an
energy crisis that shook our economic foundations in 1973, and there
were precursors in 1980 of what portended to be even larger
temblors. The Carter administration had made a large commitment
in terms of money and prestige to the concept of energy diversification.
In fact many of the same ideas were put forth on only a slightly smaller
scale by the Nixon Administration's "Project Independence". The role
of energy had just been promoted to a cabinet level position and
The national fusion act had just been passed that promised an aggressive
effort to achieve fusion.

Then along come a bunch of starry eyed (and perhaps naive)
scientists who made 2 big errors. They thought the funding levels
would continue and they underestimated the difficulty of some
scientific issues. Well who should be surprised that they 
oversold and were over optimistic. Well fusion scientists, and
plasma physics in general have been apologizing for 10 years and
I think it's just about long enough in purgatory.

When you hear someone saying that TFTR promised Q=1 in 1985 also
ask yourself what funding level did that assume? Then look and see
if that much money has been spent on the program. I don't think it has
(I can't really say for sure). When measured by the "integrated real 
dollars spent" metric, fusion is not far off from its promises.

I think this highlights the problem with bug science. It is hard
to measure results, and it is vulnerable to sophistical rhetoric.

-john .w cobb








cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec 16 04:37:19 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
Date: 15 Dec 93 11:12:13 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <931213123724.2d20442c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> In reply to Daryl Owen's comment on replication of Yamaguchi et. al. of 
> heat without neutrons, and with apologies to "The Treasure of Sierra Madre"
> and whoever thought it up at Maui:
> 
> "Neutrons? -- We don't need no stinking neutrons"
> 
> A long report is coming as I find the energy.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

I agree with Tom that this seems to be the attitude developing among cf
workers:  there are no neutrons, but who needs them anyway?

However, there are problems with this logic.  It is not just that the absence
of neutrons rules out "conventional" fusion, i.e., d+d --> 3He + n.  This is
a problem despite denials by some cf types, since this path is in fact the
dominant branch as determined by muon-catalyzed fusion studies of d+d fusion
(a clear example of "cold" nuclear fusion -- indeed the only unequivocal one.)

In addition, the absence of sufficient neutrons rules out copious production of
tritons and alphas, since these would also produce neutrons by *secondary*
reactions:  t+d --> 4He + n,  d(alpha,n)p, etc., since there is abundant
deuterium (d) present in these experiments for such reactions.  

Thus, not only are fusion-generated neutrons missing, but also neutrons from
secondary reactions of putative nuclear products.   Big problem for the
"worried believers" (as Mark Hittinger aptly calls them).  And the solution I
see evolving from this group is to simply stop looking for neutrons!

Similar logic derives from the lack of X-rays (stop looking).  The WAY OUT for
WB's seems to be that helium-4 is produced with the associated MeV's of 
energy somehow
transmitted to the lattice.  But there are problems there too, including the
violation of light-cone constraints we have already discussed here.  In
addition, in Maui Dr. Li from Savannah River Labs. showed that helium born in
the lattice gets trapped in voids and does *not* leave the metal and so cannot
be seen in effluent gasses as Miles, Gozzi, P&F (early on) and others have
claimed.  I pointed out this dilemma to Mr. Bass at Maui -- who with
interesting logic replied (heatedly) that since Miles saw helium, clearly the
helium-behavior studies of the Savannah River Lab. people were clearly in error!

My perception is that the xs-heat-is-nuclear believers are getting hemmed in by
the nuclear experiments, and that they will focus on heat and virtually ignore
nuclear products (except possibly helium and to a lesser extent tritium).

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  More Maui Reflections
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Maui Reflections
Date: 15 Dec 93 12:46:16 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I promised to mention positive aspects of the Maui conference.
It was a pleasure to get to know Tom Droege, Mark Hittinger, Bill Page and
others who participate in this network "fusion college."  Tom is an optimistic
engineer of the first rank;  I'm glad that someone of his caliber continues
with experiments so as to shed light on the subject without the excess 
cheat.  (That reminds me:  I saw only two reporters at the meeting, quite a
refreshing and positive change from past meetings.  One was Jerry Bishop of 
J. Wall Street, and the other a student-reporter from U. Hawaii's newspaper.)

Mark is a reasonably unbiassed observer, as one can discern from his postings
on the Maui meeting, and I appreciate his views.  In particular, he called my
attention to the development of ENECO as a financial organization seeking to
capitalize on the cold fusion saga.  Hopefully Mark will illucidate this
interesting development further.  Note:  Ed Storms, Hal Fox and a group of
Russians including Kucherov (and wives) were brought to Maui by ENECO.  A booth
was set up to distribute ENECO literature, from which I quote:

"The University of Utah and ENECO, Inc., announced yesterday [1 Dec 1993] that
ENECO, Inc. (a Utah corporation, formerly Future Energy Applied Technology)
has received exclusive worldwide licensing rights to the University's
cold fusion technology developed by Dr. B.Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann."
                                                 ...
"Hal Fox contacted and received favorable reactions from the following..."
Robert Bass, John Bockris, Robert Bush, 
Dennis Cravens, Robert Eagleton, Samuel Faile,
Avard Fairbanks, Steve Gregory, Robert Huggins and Edmund Storms.  Together
with Hal Fox, this group became the co-founders of Fusions Energy Applied
Technology, Inc. (FEAT)"  [which was incorporated into ENECO].  

"During 1992-1993 ENECO siggned agreements and began funding the gas plasma
work of Kucherov, Karabut & Savvatimova..."

"ENECO has funded and acquired technology rights in heavy-water, light-water,
molten-salts, gas-plasma, and solid-state cold-fusion reactions."

"ENECO has sponsored or is sponsoring cold fusion research at MIT [Hegelstein],
Texas A&M [Bockris], Cal-Poly (Pomona) [Bush & Eagleton], Univ. of Hawaii
[Liebert and Liaw], local universities [U. Utah], ENECO's laboratory, and at
two laboratories in Russia [Kucherov, etc.].  As a result, ENECO is sponsoring
attendance of twenty-two representatives, including eight Russian Scientists to
the [ICCF-4] in Maui, Hawaii, December 6-9, 1993."

[Figure the cost at the Maui Hyatt Regency + air fare approaches $90K.]

"ENECO's sole business is cold fusion. ... There is no question among ENECO's
scientists of the reality of cold fusion.  The only question now is:  how soon
can this technology be commercialized?"

"With some pathological skeptics still declaring that cold fusion is contrary
to accepted science, it will be most interesting to witness the reception by
the scientific community of magnetic motors that tap the energy of space."
[End of quote from "Special Announcements, Dec. 2, 1993"]

Anyone want to invest?  Not me, thanks.

After that long aside [which may alarm, amuse or motivate], I'll return to
things I enjoyed about the meeting.  It was good to see old friends, Howard
Menlove of Los Alamos -- who agreed with me that the time-correlated neutron
bursts of multiplicity > 5 were de-confirmed.  Also Haven Bergeson and Steve
Barrowes of the U. of Utah -- who found *no* excess heat in their sensitive
calorimeters with Pd/LiOD cells (this results is doubtless connected with the
recent transfer of U. Utah licensing rights on cf to ENECO).  I enjoyed meeting 
scientists from Chalk River Labs. in Canada, who had looked for heat in Ni/H2O
cells there -- and found none.  They said they had been 
following the net quietly (greetings!)  
Bill Page is also from Canada and provided insights especially
into cf theories of Vigier's -- perhaps Bill will post his impressions of the
meeting.

Nate Hoffman of Rockwell is such a valued friend, providing insights and
cautions -- he was at the meeting of course.  John Huizenga has consistently
been friendly to me -- the paper back version of his updated book is now
available in bookstores, I understand.  Douglas Morrison was also kind, and I
found his talk entertaining as well as hard-hitting and insightful.

It was great to see again Graham Hubler of Naval Research Labs in Wash. D.C.
Graham questioned most of the positive nuclear results presented Tuesday
afternoon, although he himself is still interested in possible small effects. 
He just noticed weaknesses/errors and pointed these out in scientific fashion.
Could the bump in the energy spectrum from a charged-particle detector be due
to pile-up (Japanese expt., huge low-energy background)?  [Almost certainly.]
Could putative T2 or DT in a mass spec. be due to D3 or DDH?  [Yamaguchi also
raised this red flag;  shades of Washington State artifact-results in 1989.]

Dr. Li of China is a good friend.  At Maui, he retracted claims of high-energy
(3MeV-10MeV) neutrons:  "Unfortunately, after the carefully [sic] 
study by the best
experts of nuclear physics in China, none of three sets of experiments could
find any high energy neutron component in the spectrum... It seems that the ZnS
scintillation detector caused the false signals in the early experiments."
[Maui mtg. abstract]

Dr. Scaramuzzi is a good friend, although our views have diverged considerably; 
e.g., he spoke of "increasing evidence of xs heat in light water".  I enjoyed
Dr. Gozzi's frankness; at the closing session he said that unfortunately the
meeting had "more time spent on discussing what we expected versus experimental
results."  I was concerned, however, to see Ed Storms now under the aegis of
ENECO and commenting at the last session "I feel the hot breath of success."
Careful, Ed, not to mistake that "hot breath."

I was glad that Richard Oriani accepted my offer to use BYU's portable X-ray
spectrometer in his studies; he also stood up against the notion that high
fugacity in Pd/LiOD cells could result in 10^27 atm (or some high value)
pressures.

Peter Hegelstein with his diligence and sincerity has to impress, as does
Guiliano Preparata with his captivating, sometimes bombastic style.

There were many other friends present, Tom Claytor, Dale Tuggle, Gerry Hale,
Mario Rabinowitz, Prof. Sanchez, Peter Handel, Fritz Will, George Miley,
Taniguchi, Kasagi, Ichimaru, Kim, Celani, Srinivasan, Liaw 
-- and these made the meeting a
pleasant time despite the evident decay of a scientific foundation for cold
fusion claims.  They were all kind to me despite my retraction of some
neutron-burst claims necessitated by our recent observations.

Linda Nelson of EPRI did a fantastic job of organizing the meeting including
great refreshments (fresh papaya was my favorite) and the Tues. pm Luau.
And Maui was generally sunny, misty at times, always beautiful.
I return home with many fond memories.

Aloha,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
Date: 15 Dec 93 14:40:46 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The discussion regarding mass spectrometers by Richard Schultz and Carl Ijames
and Dieter Britz prompts me to post an idea I've been mulling over:

Could state-of-the-art mass spectrometers be used to separate isotopes 
in the radioactive waste of nuclear reactors?  

I realize that the quantities separated by mass spectrometers are
generally very small.  But with current technology, I wonder if the problem
might become tractable and should be revisited.  
Perhaps chemical means could first be used to separate
elements, then isotopes could be separated by advanced (high-capacity) mass
spec.

This process would reduce dramatically the quantity of long-lived rad.waste. 
Indeed, once the bad actors -- e.g., Sr90, Tc99, I129, Cs137 -- were pulled
out, the residue is quite tame.  The long-lived isotopes could then be treated 
using protons from an accelerator to transmute them to shorter-lived isotopes
(Augean process).  And one could also pull out stable, valuable
isotopes from the proposed mass spectrometer -- like Pd and Rh -- thus helping
to pay for the separation.  Fission produces some very valuable isotopes
(including medical radioisotopes) 
that could in principle be extracted by such means.

If we could solve the rad.waste problem, then fission would be very attractive
(again) as an energy source.  

I spoke of this idea privately to Terry Bollinger a few weeks ago, and now
decided to open it up for discussion since we have some ms experts on the net.
Too crazy to work?  What do you think?

--Steven Jones 15 December 1993
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 08:26:41 GMT
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 14:38:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) in FD 1796
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 14:38:11 GMT

>Mark Hittinger writes:
><<
>Dr. Fleischmann gave a talk on the early work of Alfred Cohen on the
>properties of Hydrogen in the Pd lattice.  I video taped this lecture
>because
>I felt that it would be perhaps the most important one of the conference.

>The model of alpha phase behavior does not match (fit) the observed
>behavior.
>The alpha phase is not understood.  H diffusion into the lattice is faster
>towards a negative field and Alfred Cohen deduced that the H in the lattice
>was an H+.  Dr. Fleischmann said he was sorry but that it was a proton and
>its charge was one.
>
>The diffusion proceeds in the form of a wave through the lattice.  This was
>in an experiment of a Pd wire being loaded at one end.  Dr. Fleischmann
>spoke
>of using an electric field to induce a potential energy of 10Kev into the
>D+ wave.
>>>

>Like Mark, I also think that this was one of the most important papers of
>the conference.  I am not sure, however exactly how to interpret it -
>especially now over four years into this research.

[...]

>In his talk directly concerned with Alfred Coehn, Martin Fleischmann
>emphasised a rather curious fact.  By showing a list of publications on
>hydrogen in metals starting near the turn of the century, he claimed that
>Alfred Coehn's observations were discussed in the earlier works but omitted
>from texts after the middle of the century and is only given a rather
>dismisive reference in the most recent text.  He stated that the P&F work
>was, for the most part motivated only by the earlier works on hydrogen in
>metals.

>I thought that this was a very curious statement indeed!  The time
>difference plus several announcements of this type kept me from sleeping
>properly the entire time I was in Maui.  Perhaps this is the origin of the
>strange feeling I mentioned in an earlier posting that felt like I was (we
>are) being deliberately manipulated.  Maybe because I also think that
>anomolous diffusion of hydrogen is very significant, I can't just call this
>change of orientation a new "P&F" smoke-screen.  Martin also mentioned in
>passing the well known anomolous diffision of hydrogen in water which is a
>subject I brought up here several months ago.

>But what was this (sinister?) observation that Alfred Coehn's work was
>being systematically ignored?

Several things to note here. Firstly, I'll stick my neck out and say that a
diffusion wave, bouncing off an interior wall, sounds like pure bullshit to
me. Fleischmann is the greater scientist of the two of us, but this: no. I do
know something about diffusion.

The suppression thing should be seen in the light that Fleischmann, in my
opinion, is slightly paranoid about the military exercising power in
clandestine ways. I even go along with him to some extent: I agree that those
people will use anything that comes their way and looks like being some new
nifty way to kill people. In this case, though, I can't see that they'd be
interested. And I don't see the military quite as omnipresent and -powerful as
I think Fleischmann does.

As to the anomalous diffusion of hydrogen in water, this is a well known
anomaly, fairly well understood, and has nothing to do - that I can see - with
palladium hydride, which is a different ball game altogether.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion Simulation
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Simulation
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:40:44 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Arnie Frisch (arnief@sail.labs.tek.com) wrote:
: In article <Pine.3.07.9312131644.A25852-a100000@hobbs> jmorris@hobbs.l
esummit.k12.mo.us (Jeremy Morris) writes:
: >Grettings to Everyone,
: >	I have a question concerning a possible computer program dealing
: >with a fusion simulation.  I am presently working on a project where we
: >are trying to run a simulation of cold fusion via a computer program.  I
: >realize the controversy behind the whole cold fusion ordeal, but I'm
: >hoping that there might be someone that could help me find a program that
: >does what I'm trying to do.  We want to run a mathematical and a visual
: >simulation.  Do you know of any program that could help?

main()
{
   assert("Fusion in a test tube!");
   mouthpiece = fopen("press_conference.utah.edu,"w")
   fprintf(mouthpiece,
	"It's 19th Century science!  100kW heater coming right up.")

   if (errno == E_WHERE_ARE_THE_NEUTRONS_THEN) {
	mumble("lattice effects. heat is all that matters anyway");
   }
   if (fork() == 0) {
	puts("Off to the south of France!  (what suckers!)");
	exec("/bin/the_good_life");
	}
   else {
	fprintf(stderr,"Waitamminute this is bullshit!");
	*((char *) 0) = 666;  /* dump core */
   }
}

obnoxiously yours,
matt

--
-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:
cuddy16 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / L Plutonium /  10^14 MEV particle
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   This is a most amazing verified fact that a particle exists which
has 10^14 MEV. Another verified fact is that these energetic bursts are
uniform throughout the cosmic sky with no known source.
   There is the fact that a neutron is 931 MEV and a proton is 928 MEV.
And the fact that the mass creation of a prion or virus requires 10^14
MEV. And the fact that an energetic particle of 10^14 MEV can create
about 10^11 neutrons or protons. And the fact that 10^14 MEV can create
roughly 10^8 particles of element 189. And the fact that 10^14 MEV can
create what atomic element? Can it create element of atomic number
10^11?? 
    From Aug1993 I posted both to sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion my
patent on SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES. This is an
extension of Dirac's ideas as mentioned in his most excellent little
book, one of the best books on physics ever written--Directions in
Physics. And it is truly remarkable to me that the physics community
has ignored Dirac's positing of a "new radioactivities." See his gem of
a book on this.
    If the universe is an atom totality then the growth of the universe
is by spontaneous materialization. This is a direct violation of the
conservation laws. The big bang model is dumbfounded in trying to
explain a 10^14 particle and the uniformity along with no known source
for these particles, and the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. The steady-state model is dumbfounded in trying to
explain these facts, and again, the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. 
    Only the atom totality theory gives the answers easily and
naturally. Not only does spontaneous materialization of elements 1
through 189 occur in our 94th electron observable 231 Pu totality. But
life comes into existence spontaneously. The first living creatures
were prions and viruses which evolved biologically to higher and more
complex lifeforms. By the way this outline of the first lifeforms as
prions and viruses is counter to the present biology communitys' view
that the cell was the first life form and prions and viruses came
afterwards. I contend that this is a reverse of what really happened.
Prions and viruses came first. ATOM
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / C Harrison /  archive ICCF4 papers - call for submissions
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: archive ICCF4 papers - call for submissions
Date: 16 Dec 1993 04:17:40 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Attention all presenters at ICCF4--

I would like to keep copies of ICCF4 papers at the public 
cold-fusion ftp archive site (also accessible via gopher) at
sunsite.unc.edu.

We welcome submissions of text and/or graphics in any suitable
format, including ASCII text, GIF graphics, postscript, and
Tex.

Please include a contact address for the principal author,
whom I will contact to verify authorization to post.

"Preprints" differing somewhat in content from the presented
material will be gladly accepted.  Please identify them as
such if the differences are significant.

Thank you for your contributions.
  -Chuck
   Acquisitions Manager (ad hoc)
   Library Services
   College of sci.physics.fusion

-- 
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Bill Page /  sorry but it is a proton
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sorry but it is a proton
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 12:50:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark Hittinger writes:
<<
The alpha phase is not understood.  H diffusion into the lattice is faster
towards a negative field and Alfred Cohen deduced that the H in the lattice
was an H+.  Dr. Fleischmann said he was sorry but that it was a proton and
its charge was one.
>>

Dale Bass:
<<
 huh? mumble...
>>

The comment by Fleischmann concerned a interjection by Oriani who insisted 
that hyrdogen is present in the metal in its atomic state.  Frankly, since 
we are talking about a metal with conduction band states, it seems highly 
unlikely that an electron would be sufficiently tightly bound to the proton 
to be able to call it an "atom" as such.  I understand Fleischmann's 
statement as saying that the adsorbed hydrogen becomes a positive charge 
carrier in the metal.

Cheers.

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 /  jonesse@physc1 /  RE: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
Date: 15 Dec 93 10:50:57 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <01H6H22LD7K28WWEX5@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> 
> Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger) in Fusion Digest 1775
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 02:34:43 GMT
> 
>>Random notes on ICCF4-Tuesday from an interested observer.
> 
> First of all, thank you, Mark, for your efforts. They are much appreciated.
> I wish I had asked you, or anyone there whom I know, to ask those Russians
> about erzions; whether it's true that this term is derived from "Earth"...
> We may never know.

Mark has indeed done a fine job of reviewing the Maui conf.
To paraphrase Mark and Tom Droege:  "We don't need no stinkin' erzions."

> 
>>1. Fritz Will gave a talk in which he specified that he was not using
>>Lithium in his electrolyte.  He was using D2SO4 in order to "avoid the
>>film formation" problem.  He said that his cathode surface stayed "shiny"
>>after 100+ hours of electrolisis.  (I guess that means he does polish them
>>prior to use)  He has a paper in the November 30 issue of the Journal of
>>Analytical Chemistry.  He stated that "less pure" palladium yielded more
>>Tritium and that more pure Pd yielded less.  He also stated that a cathode
>>containing 95% Pd and 5% Li yielded no Tritium but that using LiSO4 as an
>>electrolyte yielded more Tritium than D2SO4??
> 
> "J. Anal. Chem." ? Would this be Anal. Chem.?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reference is J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176, F. Will, K.
Cedzynska, and D. Linton, NCFI.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 07:36:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1993Dec8.065353.27376@midway.uchicago.edu> edward@uhuru.uchi
ago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
>
>        During the past 3/4 of a year I have posted about 8 articles
>about ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on
>sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
>
>        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
>According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
>bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot
>(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
>Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
>J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
>(1966), 1213-1220.)

Several non-sequitors are dropped.  


>                  .  ..     .   People have seen clouds which
>contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
>a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

It is nowunderstood that clouds at storm fronts with a line of vertical 
shear can generate a horizontal solenoidal wind cyclone. It's constant 
frictional power generated by churning of the air would enhance both 
the generation of triboelectrostatic charge and the transfer of 
charge.  Generally tornado formation starts when one end or the 
other moving down toward the ground.  This will produce a dip point 
or downward protrusion which lowers the cloud to ground distance 
thus increasing the cloud to ground electric field gradient.  

If the cyclonic motion is long enough it could easily be a conduit 
to transport charge from one end to the other feeding a positively 
portion of one cloud to the negative portation of  another or simply 
a more highly charged portion to a lesser charged end. AT the bottom 
of a thick cloud or at dusk or latter, the end region could glow under 
intense charge sparking into the surrounding updrafted air.  Now if 
the tip of the cyclone lowers itself to the ground then it will be 
a conducting path for lightning and in the reduced central pressure 
may serve to produce glow/arc discharges which may appear to be 
continuous because they are so numerous.  

There are occasionally single thunder head rain and lightning storms
in the West and these most commonly have a form of lightning called
"M" strokes, which produce a normal initiator stroke and then before 
the initial channel repressurizes, the next "stroke" instead sets up a 
sustained arc of several hundred amps which lasts for a second or so 
instead of the few milliseconds and several thousand amp series
of distinct rapid pulses of normal lightning... These "M" strokes
are the real effective fire starters.  

>        Tornadoes seem to be a locus for the conversion of substance
>to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
>People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
>cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.

Amazing how charge finds a much smaller number of molecules to ground 
through the low pressure core of the cyclone.  Sounds very reasonable
to me. Would you take a super highway to town or drive through a 2 mile
stretch of boulders and chasms.   

>People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
>they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
>tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
>lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
>shining during a period of time.  

Obvously, it was night time and their eyes had become dark adjusted.  
Just like walking out of a Saturday afternoon matinee on a sunny day.   

> In one case, a thermometer measured
>that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
>the passage of a tornado.

Joule heating.  If you stir any fluid long enough and hard enough it will
heat it up significantly.    

>        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
>type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  

Yep! they both have vorticity, although one is and air vortex and the
other a magnetoplasma vortex. You may suffer from DoE alternate concepts
chairperson disease.  Judgement is great, especially for the first
couple of words.. 

> I classify both
>ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
>kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  

Your classification system is moth eaten.  Vorticity doesn't imply
the plasma state, it does imply a fluid state, although some special
cases can be also included, such as a pulverized air entrained powder.  
Water is a fluid which can have a vortex (bath tub draining) but it
is NOT a plasma.  

>                             .. .           Galaxies and
>atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
>theory.

Galaxies are generally understood to be composed of both partially 
ionized thin gases and stellar (stars) systems and not in a league 
with simple atoms.  That makes this statement confusion at the most.  

>        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
>phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
>traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
>plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
>lightning are being produced in these "cold fusion" apparatus.

Now there you go... spoiling my millenium.. I thought I was going
to be the first to announce the repeatable formation of ball 
lightning!     AhWWW   Shucks.   

PS.  There is a case of ball lightnings (the natural non-cf type)
observed flying out from the bottom of a night-time tonado ripping 
down a street in a town in Kentucky..  It was in Corliss.  

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,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 08:13:29 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CHy4tD.CFC@seas.ucla.edu> albert@thunder.seas.ucla.edu
(Albert E. Chou) writes:

>Actually, it's more difficult than simply staying away from using "bad"
>materials.  You have to actively choose "good" materials, of which there are
>rather few, and none of them is particularly close to perfect.  But it's true
>that the decay rate for an activated fusion reactor is much higher than that
>of a fission reactor.

Meaning it is MUCH more radioactive, and that isn't the only problem.  

>This seems very unlikely from what I've been taught.  In fact, it seems
>rather likely that He will tend to migrate toward the core of the plasma,
>away from any place you're likely to be able to put a facility for getting
>it out of the vessel.  The problem bears further study.

chuckle ...  year 2000.. .  year 3000   year 4000 ...   year ..oops!   

>>The pessimists will tell you yes, and the optimists will tell you
>>that we expect to develop materials which will tend to transmit most
>>of the neutrons to the tritium-breeding lithium "blanket".  This would
>>reduce neutron-activation problems of the metal shield (which may
>>actually be some sort of composite material, possibly SiC, in a 
>>working reactor).  Personally, I lean towards the optimistic side.

But, it must be a vacuum wall which sustains the highest integratity while
being slammed with other radiation AND whose 14 MeV neutrons most of
which will "punch" through leaving a bit of heat and damage behind.  
Eventually the wall will fail its mission as a super vacuum wall and
like the wall of fission reactor still be able to hold water for 
twenty years or so but that unfortunately is not what very high 
vacuum tokamak fusion is about.    Soooo  .....  Dream on.  Certainly,
it won't be the physicists's fault those chemical metallurgist and 
engineers didn't do their assigned magic bail out job, in this 
(but one of the) major fatal area(s).  

>The "short period" can be made to be the operating lifetime of the reactor
>without too much trouble.  Commercial power plants typically operate for about
>20 years, if I remember correctly, so that's all that a fusion reactor needs
>to achieve in order to be comparable to a conventional coal plant, for
>instance.

Gee!  You mean getting socked by 14MeV energetic neutrons and still
maintaining a super vacuum state doesn't count for anything?????

Gosh!  No Wonder Every Thing Will Work Out ..  IT's All Been  DONE BEFORE!!!
Sorry Al, but you were wide open on this one.  

>Al
>-- 
>Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
>GEnie:  A.Chou1
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 01:13:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Mark Huttinger, Bill Page, Tom Droege, Steve Jones for their
preliminary reports on ICCF4.  Unless their reports give the wrong
impression, I would say there are very strong indications that cold
fusion is fading fast.  Certainly the behavior of the Heroes of the
movement clearly indicates that they have lost any reasonable thread
of inquiry to follow and have resorted to rather random bashing about.

Can anyone make sense out of Prof. Fleischmann's return to this idea
he credits to an Alfred Coehn?  To begin with can someone explain
what this remark relating to H+ ions versus protons?  Next I would
like to know how one maintains a 10 kV potential difference accross
a sample of Pd long enough to influence H+ diffusion in the material.
I suspect that there may be good reason why Coehn's research passed
unremembered into history.

The next mystery relating to Pons and Fleischmann is the question
of neutrons.  For nearly 5 years we have been told that excess heat
was NOT accompanied by neutrons in any significant quantity.  Someone
(I forget his name.) even coined a word to describe this condition.
Now our faithful reporter, Jed Rothwell, tells us that the installation
of shielding and radiation safety devices has delayed further progress
at by P&F's laboratory.  Something is wrong here!

Then there is the question of big breakthroughs that were supposed
to sweep the skeptics away.  Either the attendees at ICCF4 are
holding out on us, or their really was nothing.  Nothing has been
said about fusion with H2O.  What has been happening on that front?
Nothing was presented to lend encouragement to the neutron transfer
notion, so where does that leave Hagelstein?  Is he out on another
limb with no experiments to back him up?  In fact I get the general
impression that the so-called theories for cold fusion aren't
looking so good.

So my impression as a skeptic is that Cold Fusion's fourth international
conference didn't score any points for the CF team.  What do the
true believers see as the high points of ICCF4?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  ICCF4 Part 3  
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4 Part 3  
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 01:14:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui3   Starting the first afternoon calorimetry sessions  

The ICCF4 write up continues.  Those of you that have been collecting the 
commentary will note that you already have 29 single spaced pages.  Almost 
all of it from the "Maui Sunset" gang.  I am working frantically to get to 
paper C 2.12 which contains the quote of the conference as far as I am 
concerned.  I hope someone has it on video tape.

These reviews start the first day's afternoon session.  There were parallel 
sessions on theory and nuclear.  I stuck with the calorimetry.  I really came 
to this conference to hear about the calorimetry and to be convinced that the 
techniques used were effective.  Apparently these issues have already been 
settled as few papers bothered with error bars on the calorimetry.  

For the most part I did not attempt to parallel session hop, but stuck to one 
group.  

I now realize that my little header does not tell the whole story.  There is a 
difference between looking and not finding and not looking and not finding 
which my header does not indicate.  I will try to correct this in a summary 
note after I have completed the reviews.  

Note that C 2.1 was moved to the plenary session where I show it as C 1.6

***** Paper C 2.2  Excess Heat No  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No
 
Search for Nuclear Products of Cold Fusion
     Miyamaru, Chimi, Inckuchi, Takahashi

That last author is Akito Takahashi of high-low fame I think, at least it is 
Nuclear Engineering at Osaka Takahashi.  But tracking Takahashi's in Japan is 
like tracking Jones's in the US.  My notes say Miyamaru made the presentation 
although I believe I saw Takahashi at the conference and he is listed in the 
attendee list.  

They used a completely closed stainless steel cell with excess oxygen and a 
pressure gage.  Charging ranged from 32 to 640 ma per cm^2 and experiments ran 
from 11 to 30 days.  Electrolysis gas was completely collected and stored in 
the cell for the helium analysis with a high resolution mass spectrometer.  
A fast neutron detector (NE213, 10" dia) was placed in front of the cell and 
the spectrometer.  

They note that the (apparent) D/Pd ratio decreased from 0.87 to 0.70 over the 
month of electrolysis.  I inserted the "apparent" because I also see this.  I 
think that the enriched oxygen atmosphere (at high pressure in this case) 
finds something to oxidise given enough time.  So don't count on a real 
decrease in D/Pd.  

The Japanese seem to like a closed cell with a pressure gage.  Then pressurize 
with oxygen and look for a pressure increase, or deuterium and look for a 
drop.  The abstract does not mention a catalyst, and I do not remember one, 
but John Logajan will assure us that one is necessary for electrolysis at 640 
ma for a month. 

My notes (from the talk) say one expects 10E11 helium atoms per watt (but the 
dimensions are wrong, so I don't know if this is per second or per 
experiment).  The abstract then lists their sensitivity at 10E13 atoms.  
Possibly this is why such a negative paper was let in the conference.  The 
abstract says "The result is that the D/Pd ratio was gradually decreased from 
0.87 to 0.70 and no significant excess heat and helium generation were 
observed.  The amount of helium was less than detection limit (approximately 
10E13 atoms)."

My notes say "No heat, no loading, no 4He, no 3He, no neutrons."  "Likely OK 
group to present data this negative here."  "Had error bars!"  Wow!, a group 
that presents their data with error bars.    

***** C 2.3 Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

A Remarkable Excess Heat Generated Using a New Type Pd Cathode
     Arata, Zhang

I have no notes on this paper, I think there was a language problem, and my 
mind just glazed over.  The abstract notes that they used a double structured 
cathode with a Pd cathode inside a Pd cathode.  I vaguely recall trying to 
understand their structure, and just went into overload for the whole paper.  
Studying the 4 nice curves in the abstract, I remember a thermometer on the 
inner cathode and one on the outer cathode.  I remember puzzling over the 
thermometers and what they meant.  

Hmmm!  I guess it is all there in the abstract.  There is a cathode 
thermometer, and an electrolyte thermometer.  There is one on the inlet and 
the outlet of the Takahashi style cooling coil inside a dewar flask.  

Curve 1 shows the various temperatures during the experiment.  At about 300 
hours the cathode takes about a 1 C jump up over the electrolyte temperature.  
Curve 3 shows an increase in Pout/Pin at this time of about 100%.  Curve 2a 
and 2b show the power levels.  100 watts in and 200 watts out.  

I do not remember any discussion about how they determined the heat output, 
but it is presumably by the difference in temperature of the inlet and outlet 
of the cooling coil.  Curve 3 does indeed look like a sudden increase in 
power.  I can only think of a hundred or so ways that they could have made 
such an error.  I will await the full paper to try to understand the apparatus 
better.  Meanwhile, true believers can sure latch on to this paper as it is 
100 watts excess.  How could this be in error?

Possibly when John Logajan beats us into accepting a standard, we can scan 
some of the nice curves in the abstract book and pass them around.  These are 
worth getting to all interested parties.  

***** C 2.4  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons Yes  Tritium No  4He No

Excess Heat Generation, the Over Voltage Deviation and the
Neutron Emission in D2O-LiOD-Pd Systems
     Okamoto, Yoshinaga, Kusunoki

Honest, folks, I am no more prejudiced than the next person, but at this point 
I was beginning to be saturated with Japanese papers and they are all mushing 
together in my head.  But the Japanese abstracts are all very good, and say a 
lot.  I hereby resolve to write my next abstract as a mini-paper instead of a 
sales pitch so that some poor Japanese or Italian has a chance to figure out 
what I am talking about.  Too bad that I did not take more time to read the 
abstracts more carefully before the talks, or I would have been able to take 
better notes.  There was really not enough time had I tried, as you get them 
at registration when the emphasis is on renewing old acquaintances and making 
new ones.  I am now reading them half dozen a day and learning a lot.  

The authors refer to another paper N 3.4 which I did not attend.  I will try 
to fold a reading of this abstract into my notes on C 2.4.

This is a Takahashi style open cell with inlet and outlet cooling water 
thermometers and 3 thermometers in the cell.  They take the appropriate 
correction.  In large lettering on my abstract is "SHOWS ERROR BARS".  
Neutrons were detected by a NE-213 liquid scintilation neutron spectrometer.  
The measured the temperatures, the neutron count, and the overvoltage.  

>From the abstract: "Three foreground runs and a background run were performed 
on the same system.  The background run was performed in H2O-LiOH-Pd system, 
and did not give the positve neutron emission and excess heat.  All of the 
three foreground runs gave the positive neutron emissions and one of them gave 
an appreciable excess heat.  In this case, three thermocouples placed around 
the electrodes gave almost same temperature deviation from the calibration 
curve.  The temperature deviations from the calibration curve increased as 
incresing of the input power upto 36W in the high current mode.  The excess 
power was evaluated from the average value of the temperaarues of the three 
thermocouples to be upto 6W in and upt 18%.  The corelation between the excess 
heat generation and the neutron emissions has been checked as a function of 
operation periods and the neutron energies.  There was no clear 
correlation.(sic)"

They noted an exponential increase of the overvoltage on the excess heat run.  
They point out that the control runs and the non-heat producing runs had a 
linear increase in overvoltage.  My notes show that excess power of 35W began 
at 125 hours into the run.  Abstract N 3.4 notes that a previous paper found 
that the Lithium deposition profile was monotonous in the samples with no 
neutron emission while nutron emitting samples contained irregular structures.  
This paper shows irregular profiles for Na and Si and slight irregularities of 
d, Al and Pd in the neutron emitting samples vs the not emitting samples.  

***** C 2.5  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Study of Concentrations of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with 
Excess heat Generations
     Aoki, Kurata, Ebihara, Yoshikawa

Looks like this group is close enough to KEK that they think in terms of error 
limits as they placed them on everything they did.  Good for them.  I hope 
some of the other groups here notice.  

They used a "softly" closed system with a gas bag and a Pd black catalyst.  Pt 
anodes and Pd 25mm by 30 mm by 1 mm cathodes.  More or less Takahashi style 
except (I remember) oversize Pt solid anodes 50mm by 50 mm by 0.1 mm.  From 
abstract:  "Concentration of He gas was measured by a gas chormatographic 
method during electrolysis.  Production rates (He atoms/sec) were (4.5 +/- 
1.5)x10E10 ..." (following measurements show no meaningful increase in He.) 
"Concentration of DT gas in the same cell was measured by a homemade 
proportional gas chamber.  Gaseous samples of 20 cc were taken from the 
electrolytic bath and were put into the chamber.  The energy spectra from 0.1 
keV to 12 keV were always measured.  The difference of counting rate before 
and during the excess heat generations was 0.03 +/- 0.04 cps.  Therefore we 
had no meaningful T increase in the gas phase." 

They conclude" "It might be concluded that the extremely small increases of He 
and T atoms in gas and liquid phases in the cells could not explain the 
amounts of excess heat."  My notes further say "Either not nuclear or products 
are held in the cathode" I assume this is their comment, but could be me.  

But I am interested in excess heat and they report a lot of it.  They state 
their error as < 0.5 watt.  A reasonable value, but I cannot remember anything 
about their calorimetry.  Their H2O cells gave 0.0 +/- 0.5 watt at any current 
density.  (Hot Dawg! Note them error limits Sam!)  With D2O there was a 
threshold at 0.18 amps/cm^2 for excess heat with a second break point at 0.6 
amps per cm^2.  They ran 4 D2O cells, all of which showed excess heat of 
between 2 to 12 watts.  Electrolyte was 0.1 M LiOD.  They observed one 98 watt 
pulse for one hour. 

For those tracking super nova, sun spots, and sonic booms; the "hot" event 
took place May 23, 1993 at 3:45.  You will have to guess the time zone and 
whether it was AM or PM.  There is only so much one can record at a meeting.

These look like OK guys that worry about their errors.  I, at least, must take 
them seriously.  I just wish I could remember more of their calorimetry.

***** C 2.6  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the "Cold Fusion"
Effect
     Storms

Here goes the full Storms abstract as many are interested in it: 

"Evidence is presented to further show that heat production using the Pons-
Fleischmann Effect has a positive temperature coefficient, has a critical 
onset current density, and originates at the palladium cathode. 

Numerous studies have shown that the amount of excess power production depends 
on the D/Pd ratio above a critical value and the area of the palladium having 
the necessary ratio.  The D/Pd ratio is sensitive to chemical conditions that 
exist on the surface of the palladium.  This work shows that these chemical 
conditions produce a temperature coefficient for the heat producing reaction 
that imply a barrier energy of aprox. 15 kcal/mole.  The large magnitude of 
this value suggests diffusion in palladium is not the limitation to achieving 
an increased D/Pd ratio.

Studies have shown that an increased cell current causes an increased D/Pd 
ratio.  However, the current needed to achieve the critical D/Pd ratio depends 
on various factors that are difficult to quantify or control.  This work shows 
that these factors are different between different studies and change with 
time during a study.  These factors seem to be the major reasons for the 
difficulty in reproducing the effect." 

End of abstract. 

Storms uses a pressurized D2 isoparobolic calorimeter.  Pt wire anode 
Takahashi style.  I have this nice curve written on the abstract.  It has a y 
axis labeled "log excess heat" and an x-axis labeled "1/T".  The curve is a 
straight line descending from left to right and it is labeled 
         log excess = 11.57S -3387T
I feel like I am in a Douglas Adams book.  Here is the secret (42) of the 
universe and all that, and I don't know what "S" is.  Perhaps it is a "5" and 
I know the secret after all?  But then there it is to 5 significant figures 
and I thought this effect was hard to reproduce.  Under the curve I have again 
written that 15 kcal/mole.  I wish I knew what it meant.  Perhaps dear 
readers, one of you will explain.

Storms has been studying:

1) Current density effect on power
2) Temperature effect on power
3) Location of source of excess power

Stormes has placed two thermometers in his cell, one inside the anode to 
cathode space, and one just outside.  When there is no anomalous heat, the 
power is evenly distributed in the cell, when there is anomalous heat, the the 
temperature is higher on the inside thermometer.  Storms says there is a 
threshold for anomalous heat at aprox. 150 ma per cm^2.  Again my notes say: 
"The energy of the barrier that determines the D/Pd ratio is aprox. 15 
kcal/mole."  I guess Storms made that sound really important.  I wish I knew 
why 42  42  42  42 ...

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / R Schroeppel /  Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 01:41:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve, thanks for the Maui meeting reports.

> If we could solve the rad.waste problem, then fission would be very attractive
  (again) as an energy source.  

[I think the problem with fission has nothing to do with
 rad waste, and everything to do with transistor-haters.]

Speaking more technically, let's suppose you use chemistry to
separate out the Sr, Tc, I, & Cs from radwaste.  Is it then
worthwhile to go to any trouble to further separate out the
medium activity isotopes?  Either use your proton-beam
transmuter on the bad elements, or just put the residue
back in the reactor to be turned into short-lived high-activity
isotopes.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / G Stewart-Nicho /  Re: TFTR Timing?
     
Originally-From: nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Timing?
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 10:11:58 GMT

In <931214171955.2d007381@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Has anyone noticed that the TFTR result was timed to wipe out ICCF4 results
>from the news media?  Those guys must be really scared of "cold fusion"!
  Come on Tom, the last think I expected from you was Paranoia
>
>Can any of you guys at Princeton find evidence that this was not a conspiracy
>by the "hot fusion" establishment.  Remember that they have known for some time
>when ICCF4 would be held.  The coincidence is too great.  Anyway, an ethical
>management would avoid the apperarnce of conflict by scheduling away from
>ICCF4.  So I have no doubt it was done on purpose.
  They probably just didn't give a shit. Would Astronomers check what
astrologers are up to before announcing some Hubble results ??

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici
nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudennicho cudfnGreg cudlnStewart-Nicholls cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Edward Splitt /  Re: Fusion Simulation
     
Originally-From: splittef@jumbo.Read.TASC.COM (Edward F. Splitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Simulation
Date: 15 Dec 1993 20:07:50 GMT
Organization: TASC

Jeremy Morris (jmorris@hobbs.leesummit.k12.mo.us) wrote:
: Grettings to Everyone,
: 	I have a question concerning a possible computer program dealing
: with a fusion simulation.  I am presently working on a project where we
: are trying to run a simulation of cold fusion via a computer program.  I
: realize the controversy behind the whole cold fusion ordeal, but I'm
: hoping that there might be someone that could help me find a program that
: does what I'm trying to do.  We want to run a mathematical and a visual
: simulation.  Do you know of any program that could help?

: 				Jeremiah Morris
: 				jmorris@hobbs.leesummit.k12.mo.us



Hmmmm,
  The problem in writing a computer simulation of CNF is that there is NO
CLEAR understanding of the physical processes involved.  There is no theory
that yeilds verifiable predictions of heat, voltage, etc.  Todate CNF is a 
purely EMPERICAL phenomenon...

Dr. Edward Splitt, TASC, Arlington, VA
My opinions are my own...

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensplittef cudfnEdward cudlnSplitt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Cobb /  Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
Date: 16 Dec 1993 11:00:09 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CI4AGn.4L7@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <1993Dec8.065353.27376@midway.uchicago.edu> edward@uhuru.uch
cago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
>>
>>        During the past 3/4 of a year I have posted about 8 articles
>>about ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on
>>sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
>> ...
>>        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
>>type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  
>
>Yep! they both have vorticity, although one is and air vortex and the
>other a magnetoplasma vortex.

I thought the key concept for tornadoes, hurricanes, Reversed Field
Pinches, and Spheromaks was not vorticity, but helicity.

That is given a vector field V, its vorticity is Curl V while its
vorticity is V dot Curl V.

Vorticity measures how things twirl around a line while helicity measures
how things are tangled. In a  hurricane, there is a strong updraft in
the eye of the storm. This is an indication of the fact that the flow
lines are linked together like chains. One link circles around the eye
while the other loops from the eye outward to the outer bands and then back 
down over the water's surface to the eye. The hurricane is favored
based on an energy principle. This flow pattern is much better at
heating the upper cool air and cooling the ocean surface than conduction
or more normal storm-modes of convection.
Likewise, you bathtub drain system also exhibits helicity. As it
drains, the water flows down the drain but it also swirls around the drain.
It does so in order to maximize the rate at which water drains (maximizes
the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and heat).
Finally, a spheromak is a magnetic helicity system because it has
roughly equivalent magnitude poloidal and toroidal fields. This means that
the field lines end to have a great deal of "tangle". This is good
for some reasons (and sometimes bad for others).

In ideal systems (inviscid fluid, perfectly
conducting plasmas) both the helicity and vorticity are conserved. However,
when small dissipation is allowed, neither is conserved. However, global
quantities may still be preserved (global meaning integrated over space).
Global vorticity is not conserved, but rather decays from dissipation
while global helicity is still a fairly well-conserved quantity. Thus
minimizing energy holding helicity constant leads to long-lived
states (Taylor states) that are robust and do not seem to decay
appreciably from dissipation.

Paul, are we saying different things or are we just using different
terminology?

-john .w cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
Date: 16 Dec 1993 11:34:11 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CI4Hs7.6uy@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2enblsINNd6o@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <CI2GLK.36C@prometheus.uucp>,
>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>
>>please explain. I have repeatedly asked for details of this plasmak
>>concept, but all I ever seem to get are a few paragraphs scattered
>>about in a long post about how bad DOE is. Is there a journal article
>>or a technical report that I can look at that describes the
>>nuts and bolts of this concept and how it differs from an explosively
>>compressed sphereomak
>
>The PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (PMK) differs from a common or ideal
>Spheromak in essentially two ways:  It has a conduction shell of 
>plasma supported by an isobaric fluid (gas blanket) (and is therefore 
>magnetically omnigenous), and  which can be compressed from one or 
>two atm to 10 (d-He3) to 20 katm in the case of a p-B11 burn.  
>
>                        SECONDLY, 
>the PMK is hyper*conducting due to energetic electrons.    
>
>    * HYPERCONDUCTIVITY ===  5 - 7 orders better than copper conductivity.  
>
>That should give you enough information to calculate their energy and
>internal structure.  say for a 10 cm radious ball with a boundary pressure
>of 1 atm (5 kggauss) external interfacing surface of the internal vacuum
>poloidal field.  Remember Spheromaks have toroidal fields internal within
>the central or plasma ring and this gives the beastie an aspect ratio
>about 2.  (apha = R/r)
>
>Otherwise, read: ...

Paul. This sounds very interesting. I now have some bedtime reading
for a while. Thanks,

Actually, it sounds startlingly similar to an idea I worked on for a
a short while a few years ago. Basically, the idea was that you could
set up a similar solition structure like a Sphereomak. It would have a
non-zero wall pressure like your plasmak idea seems to (but not thousands
of atmospheres).

The first thought is that the pressure allows a good mechanism for 
confinement (provided you don't mind having a liquid first wall).

But there is a really neat trick. Usually one has to live with the
need for external coils becuase "as everyone knows" a plasma cannot
be contained by use solely of its own magnetic field. This is the
virial theorum argument that Shafranov uses to prove it in his Rev.
Pl. Phys. article. However, in that argument, there is an assumption
that you can integrate over a control volume that is large enough so
that it contains all pressure gradiants.

Sooo, the free lunch idea is that maybe you can create equilibria
that have very very low external magnetic fields and therefore only
a need for very small extenral coils. This is the soliton reactor, or 
"magnetic fusion without magnetics" idea.

It is written up briefly in the Institute for Fusion Studies Report
number 474 "Toroidal Plasma Reactor with a Low External Magnetic Field"
by Beklemishev, Gordin, Kharutdinov, Petviashvili, and Tajima.

Maybe you can use some of these ideas in the PLasmak. ---- hmmm.


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR: Breakthrough, Disappointment ---  Fusion or Welfare.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Breakthrough, Disappointment ---  Fusion or Welfare.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 12:52:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2eo5f2INNl24@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
>Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:
>>Reality:
>>In late 1993 the TFTR Tokamak at Princeton introduced tritium to the
>>deuterium plasma to achieve a D-T reaction.  This is the reaction that
>>will be used in power [tokamak] reactors. 

>>After several shots, they produced about 6 million wattts of power.  This
>>compares with the 30 million watts of power needed to heat the plasma. 
>>This gives a Q value (output power /input power) of 0.2 .  The lab hopes
>>to achieve a power of 10 MW for a Q of 0.33 before the conclusion of the
>>tritium program and the permanant shutdown of TFTR. 

>>In 1987 DOE reviewed TFTR's potential for getting Q of 1..(MFAC panel 17
>>report,) It is very interesting reading. They state that the break point
>>in between technology interest and science interest is a Q of about 0.5.
>>But the letter from Trivelpiece (then the head of Princeton Plasma Physics
>>Laboratory) 

>Are you sure? I thought Trivelpiece was at DOE/OER in 1987.

He left DoE but after a bump or two at an oil company went to work for
Nick Krall and then back to DoE as the Head of Office of Energy Research
which is responsible for Fusion  and reports to the the Secretary.  

>>In all fairness, some of the schedule slippage came about because the 
>>funding was stretched out.  Nonetheless TFTR has consistently gone over
>>estimated costs and under estimated performance. 

>As is well known, stretching out funding = increased costs and underperformance

Whoa!!!  This burn was supposed to have been made in 1983! and there was
no slow down at that time.  The slow down was because the program started 
being viewed as a plasma program (which is all it ever was)  and not a 
fusion program.  Consequently, Congress started getting P O'd (note the
post office now officially uses BX as the abbreviation of POB). Little
diversion here to lighten things up.    

>examples include:
>
>SSF (now alpha)
>SSC
>AXAF
>CPRF
>HST
>Original Shuttle

>Seriously, the biggest problem in the funding of big science today (IMO)
>is that congress and program managers love a program start, but hate
>the charge of "stay the course, steady as she goes"

Quite the contrary; the biggest problem is that it's being done at 
all.  The government has NO business doing BIG  research, since they 
are centralized and micro manage (apparently universally from your 
list of examples).  

>I would like to suggest that a proper metric of the success of 
>big science is not milestones achieved by given dates, but milestones
>achieved by specific points of integrated funding (adjusted for the
>deleterious effects of stretch out). If we held policymakers (elected
>and unelected) to these standards we, as a nation, would get better
>returns for our investment dollar (to the extent that big science is
>a good investment of research dollars --- a debatable proposition)

Bull, the measure is if the dam thing can be commercialized in 10 
years OR PUNT.  The project is toast and it will never work. Okay,
give private industry a chance at it, and if they can't prove it out
in five years they will punt it.  But, of course, in this case if the
DoE wasn't invented we would have had fusion today, since their 
pontifications, that fusion is good for the years 2040/50 or 3000 and
not before (it's too hard for dumb assed industrialist to do) -- the
date due depends on if you believe the USDoE or the Brits.  

>In my (near) perfect world, I would require full appropriation of a
>project's entire cost in the year that it is started. The funds would be
>put in a budgetary category of appropriated with a multi-year authorization.
>Such accounts already exist in the U.S. budgeting process now.
>The funds would be released to the project contingent upon
>specified achievement of milestones. If a program failed its review, the
>moneies would not be returned to its original budget function (i.e.
>NSF or DOE or DOD) nor would it be available to pay for other government
>programs. It would go back to the treasury and its accounting would
>be handled by adjusting the total deficit and debt figures for the year
>the appropriation was made.

I don't think you understand the way funds stick to the hands through
which they trickle.  Your suggestion is politically nuts. There is
a stream of people and they all need a crack and the money, or it 
won't happen.  This is a really sweet but enormously naive concept.   

>This would do 3 things:
>1) It would force program managers pay up front and not just through a
>party and require successors to pay for it.

Huh! the taxpayers and failed banks or sucker Japanese are covering 
this crap.  

>2) It would allow projects to be judged on their merit. It would prevent
>them from having their budgets raided to pay for today's pet project.

The ONLY way to do that is to turn it over to industry and make them
pay at least 50 percent (initially) of the freight and then jump it 10%
each year.  You will see a beautifully aggressive and effective weeding
of crappy concepts.  In other words, no risk, baby? -- der ain't no gain!  
As is shown by Herr Tokamak Nationale.  

>3) It would provide stability for those scientists who commit large
>amounts of their career to a big project.

Oh right ... The welfare angle.... gee whiz I forgot.  Poor babys! 
they shouldn't have to take the wrap, just cause the boss told 
them everything is A O K.  This really sticks it up the taxpayer's
(a word sometimes used for donkey).  

>It would also mean many fewer starts. It would require scientific
>communities to do prioritization looking forward and not prioritization
>looking backward. By this I mean now we cut experiments operating budgets
>to maintain construction of new experiments because of squeezes. In this
>new scheme we will do less starts, but more completions and they will
>operate for their pre-planned length.

Golly gee whiz, Hmmm! guess we should keep funding the Mirror (year 3000)  
and the tokamak (year 2050).   Attack of the robber baron Goverment. 

>I would like to suggest (although I don't have the figures readily
>available) that if the fusion effort was judged by its the integrated
>Total funding, it is meeting its objectives. or at least in
>the ballpark.

The national fusion program was supposed to have breakeven fusion times
2 or 3 in 1983..  Were have you been???   Reading O'Leary???? 

>Before you laugh take a look at the history a minute. Sure the
>fusioneers promised big things quickly in the 70's. However they
>were looking a fusion budgets that were twice as large as today
>when measured in real terms. 

But the machine was built LONG ago.  Is that stopping them??  No! they
want a much BIGGER machine so the WHOLE WORLD can go broke.  But
notice that PPPL absolutely, by all means absolutely MUST HAVE 
another TFTR replacement..  There have been an unending series of 
these attempts to get  replacement device which would use the TFTR
system ---  mostly  .. so it would be cost effective and it would

do this or that which really can't be done with ITER or would now 
get this ..... Help ITER determine which of several options to 
employ ... but it's now getting a bit late for that snow job.   

                   IT's typical PRINCETON WELFARE for otherwise
apparently useless scientiest?  Over half of the white collar
force in this country have lost there job because our governement
is employing deficit spending and taxing our companies to the point
they can't do research and they can't compete and they can't keep
Americans employed.  So cut the make work idea  ....  PLEASE  !!!.     

>The national fusion act had just been passed that promised an aggressive
>effort to achieve fusion.  

It was a Congressional parting gift to a retiring Congressman .. 
I think from Washington state.  Otherwise, it had no  (actually
zero) impact or effect.  

>Then along come a bunch of starry eyed (and perhaps naive)
>scientists who made 2 big errors. They thought the funding levels
>would continue and they underestimated the difficulty of some
>scientific issues. Well who should be surprised that they 
>oversold and were over optimistic. Well fusion scientists, and
>plasma physics in general have been apologizing for 10 years and
>I think it's just about long enough in purgatory.

Hey you studied plasma physics and if you nosed around ANY of the
plasma fusion National Laboratories there are at least a dozen 
very bright and experienced people there that could have set you 
straight right from the start.  Or you should have taken everything
you were told from the time you entered graduate schoole and asked
yourself" Does this really make sense", " Is there another plausiable
explanation?", or "Will the reciprocal of this theorem work, also?"

The tokamak lacks sufficient plasma fuel pressure capability, it 
can not solve the wall problem except with magical none existent 
materials, so it's toast, now, it was toast in '83 and it will be
toast when it sinks below the Mantle.  

>When you hear someone saying that TFTR promised Q=1 in 1985 also
>ask yourself what funding level did that assume? Then look and see
>if that much money has been spent on the program. I don't think it has
>(I can't really say for sure). When measured by the "integrated real 
>dollars spent" metric, fusion is not far off from its promises.

It was hit because they could have run the DT burn in 83 or 84, but 
they chose to thumb their noses at the knowledgeable congressional 
people and continue the pretense of doing fusion research.   

>I think this highlights the problem with bug science. It is hard
>to measure results, and it is vulnerable to sophistical rhetoric.

In science it has to be hard to be good.  
In engineering if it can't go commercial within 10 years it's toast, 
OR if it cost's too much, it's toast.  The tokamak has been toast 
since '83.  

With today's estimates for ultimate partial success (can't fly, needs
neutronic fuels)  I would say it exceeds the shutdown signal by at
least an order of magnitude.  

>-john .w cobb

But it's all we have!   :-(
Nobody said the Government had an imagination. Too bad they think they do.   
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: 16 Dec 1993 15:25:37 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Dec13.093031.22980@Princeton.EDU> 
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>Here we go again... :)

>Tritium will be internally generated when neutrons hit the lithium
>blanket.  It will then be recaptured and reused to fuel the reactor.
>At the end of the reactor's life, you can then scrounge up all the
>surplus tritium and transport it to the replacement reactor.  I
>don't see how it ends up in the "waste."  Could you explain how you
>expect tritium to end up getting out?

I would expect it to get out as an unavoidable consequence of the 
reprocessing of bred tritium for use as fuel.  The t is injected 
into the tokamak, so I cannot imagine you are thinking that this 
will be a closed system where the t bred in the Li blanket will 
just diffuse out and enter the plasma. 

Experience at Savannah River would indicate that large amounts of 
tritium will be released in such an industrial operation.  A college 
friend who works there says that Dupont was far from perfect in its 
management, but that as a big chemical company they were much more 
careful than the operators of Hanford.  Nonetheless, and despite 
the value of the product, there was a lot of tritium released into 
the rivers and streams around the plant. 

>By contrast, radioactive iodine and strontium are daughters of
>the uranium decay process, and are not reused in the reactor.

Well, their decay heat is used, but you are half-right in that they 
have no later use.  My "book" says I is not a major fission product, 
probably because only I-129 has a long half-life, and that lifetime 
is so great that its specific activity must be small.  The I-131 
daughter has only an 8 day half-life.  Indeed, it was the observation 
of various I isotopes from Chernobyl that provided definitive evidence 
of core breach in an active fission reactor. 

>Moreover, they need to be disposed of (along with the rest of
>the spent fuel rods and activated reactor components), and are
>therefore waste in a way that fusion-bred tritium is not.  Of
>course, tritium generated via neutron activation of water is
>certainly a waste product in fission plants.

To me, the key question has to be "What do we do for the next 30 
to 50 years?".  The carbon-based alternative is dumping massive 
quantities of a biologically active waste with a very long half-life 
directly into our atmosphere.  Its risk is unknown.  

>I think we have different understandings of what "biologically active"
>means.  Radiologically, HTO is less biologically active than strontium
>or iodine because your body completely replaces its water content
>every few days, whereas strontium and iodine are absorbed permanently.

True.  Treatment for tritium exposure is to drink lots of beer. 
However, the risk from I is a non-fatal thyroid disease and is 
solely associated with Pu processing at Hanford.  It should not 
even be in the discussion. 

To compare Sr and t requires some understanding of the nature of the 
release.  It is easier to contain and process Sr than t.  Other than 
weapons tests, Sr was not released regularly.  The concern with t is 
that you might have a continuous exposure so it would be coming in as 
fast as it is going out.  This requires analysis of the actual technologies 
to be used in the fuel cycle.  The only evidence from breeding for 
weapons production is that t is hard to handle on an industrial 
scale.  Just the trapping problem from vacuum pumps on the tokamak 
might be a major challenge.  

My question would be: how many kCi have been injected into TFTR, how 
many burned, and how many have been recovered for reuse?  That is 
a simple way to make this discussion of tritium quantitative. 

However, the real problem is political and social.  When a little tiny 
research reactor uses kCi of tritium, you have a P.R. problem.  Those 
who are upset about the release of inert gases from fission plants 
will eventually catch on to this issue.  The level of denial in the 
fusion community today is comparable to what it was in the fission 
community over 30 years ago.  

>Yes, but I don't see anyone protesting at my local hospital.  

Then waste burning is not an issue where you live.  It is here. 
Maybe because a plant was being built in a rural area near here 
to burn waste from out of state.  Maybe it is not an issue 
because you export the waste from your hospitals to other states. 

There were major protests about a new medical waste incinerator in 
the city to serve doctors (even tho it used all the high temp methods 
to burn off any dioxins), and then people found out the big city hospital 
was using older "grandfathered" technologies that dump dioxin on a fancy 
neighborhood of doctors, lawyers, and professors.  It got interesting. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fusion Digest 1779
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 1779
Date: 16 Dec 1993 15:32:17 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2ejmdf$b9t@tom.pppl.gov> 
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>
>>                      ...                         The fact that as of last 
>>Friday, we are now only a factor of 5 or 6 away from energy breakeven is 
>>fantastic!
>
>This fact appears to be lost on the crowd who keep complaining that
>we are still short of scientific breakeven.  

To the contrary, it is not lost on those of us who have followed fusion 
for longer than you have been alive (guessing at your age based on 
typical graduate students).  Where were you when the proposal for TFTR 
was written?  We are very much aware of how much work has been needed 
to execute the simple next step from the experiments done in the 60s. 

>  ...       Unfortunately, that factor of 10 may take a while...

Exactly what the "crowd" is pointing out.  Do you think there will be 
a commercially viable tokamak by the time you are ready for Social 
Security and a house trailer in south Florida?  

That is not to say we should not pursue it, but we need to do so 
realistically, as part of a policy that includes some discussion 
of what we (and, more importantly, the developing world) do for 
energy in the meantime. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
Date: 16 Dec 1993 15:51:15 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Dec15.144046.1186@physc1.byu.edu> 
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>Could state-of-the-art mass spectrometers be used to separate isotopes 
>in the radioactive waste of nuclear reactors?  

Steve, certainly you must know the answer is "yes".  All it takes is 
money, more money, a lot more money, a lot of time, and no concern 
about splattering rad waste around inside your Calutron. 

>I realize that the quantities separated by mass spectrometers are
>generally very small.  But with current technology, I wonder if the problem
>might become tractable and should be revisited.  

Read any of the numbers from the new DOE report about how much 
weapons grade U-235 is out there?  Further, most separtated isotopes 
used for targets in nuclear research were produced by the ORNL 
Calutrons.  But this was done at great cost. 

Technically, I think the problem must be with ionization states.  Miss 
an electron and that atom goes somewhere other than was intended.  

>Perhaps chemical means could first be used to separate
>elements, then isotopes could be separated by advanced (high-capacity) mass
>spec.

I would guess that the laser methods developed for isotope separation 
could be amenable to separation of particular parts of the waste stream. 
In conjunction with chemical methods, it should work well.  

>This process would reduce dramatically the quantity of long-lived rad.waste. 
>Indeed, once the bad actors -- e.g., Sr90, Tc99, I129, Cs137 -- were pulled
>out, the residue is quite tame.  

Tailoring a laser system to a few species would seem practical.  This 
is a rather interesting idea.  An old college friend has worked on this 
project for U-235 separation but I have no idea if this application 
has come up.  Time to write a patent application? 

>I spoke of this idea privately to Terry Bollinger a few weeks ago, and now
>decided to open it up for discussion since we have some ms experts on the net.
>Too crazy to work?  What do you think?
>
>--Steven Jones 15 December 1993

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Logajan /  Re: ICCF-4 secret source
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 secret source
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 19:24:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

To follow up on this previous comment of mine:
>70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>>John Logajan writes:
>>Thanks to my "secret" source for the above report.
>>
>>That's strange, I was there and I don't recall claims of this magnitude.  
>
>I believe that at least one of those reports came from a private
>conversation.

My source writes:

  Bill has the abstracts right there in
  front of him. If he opens it up to page C 3.7, "Anomalous Heat
  Evolution from SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors During
  Absorption/Desorption of Deuterium in Alternate Electric Field"
  he will find:

     "The heat generation from the proton conductor in the
     experiment of deuterium-containing hydrogen gas was
     estimated to be approximately 50 watt (~100 watt cm^-2) over
     20 hrs, or ~3.6 MJ in total. The input power given to the
     sample was + 18 V, +- 40 (mu) A, or 7.2 x 10^-4 watt.
     Accordingly, the input-to-output power ratio was estimated
     to be as large as 7 x 10^4."

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Cobb /  Re: The TFTR burn was propaganda
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The TFTR burn was propaganda
Date: 16 Dec 1993 10:30:55 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <m0p9ytn-0000HgC@crash.cts.com>,
Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
>lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.
>

and then Jim gives his hearsay testimony about Hirsch's opinions


>Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                  do you know this was their reason?
                                  how do you know?
                                  can you document their sliminess?

>TFTR program after the radioactivity problems reared their ugly head
>in the middle of populus Princeton, NJ, but Hirsch wanted them to be
                                                    ^^^^^^
                                 I see you can also read Hirsch's
                                 mind as well.
 
>done with it so the fusion program could get on with pursuing technologies
>that might have a chance of commercial success, which included, in his
>opinion, reverse pinch machines, spheromak and, of course, electrostatic
>confinement.
>
>By delaying the TFTR burn for years and then doing it right on the date of
>the "cold fusion" conference, Princeton has demonstrated it has more political
>than technical savvy.

Yea, right. All the networks were planning to send their correspondants
to the CF conference to do reports but pulled them when Guido and
Carlo, the PPPL lobbyists "made them an offer they couldn't refuse"
puhleease. -- get a grip.
 

That manipulation of media, minds, and programs is not beyond the realm
of possibility. But when your comments are filled with totally
unsubstantiated hearsay that claims noetic authority on people's
motives it is out of line. Charitable people would call it gossip.
Less charitable people would call it slander.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

I submit that it is you, Jim you have injected politics into this 
discussion.

-john .w cobb

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Logajan /  Re: More Maui Reflections
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Maui Reflections
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 19:47:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I enjoyed meeting scientists from Chalk River Labs. in Canada, who had
>looked for heat in Ni/H2O cells there -- and found none.

My source writes:

  Both Critten and Srinivasan went through periods lasting several
  months where they could not get any heat, because of problems which they
  later identified and fixed ... steel and/or chromium poison the reaction,
  and brittle nickel works far better than the ductile variety ...

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR = 3MW/6MW CTF <1/2000 Commercial BE (EPIC ANSWER)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 10:14:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2enblsINNd6o@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <CI2GLK.36C@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:

>please explain. I have repeatedly asked for details of this plasmak
>concept, but all I ever seem to get are a few paragraphs scattered
>about in a long post about how bad DOE is. Is there a journal article
>or a technical report that I can look at that describes the
>nuts and bolts of this concept and how it differs from an explosively
>compressed sphereomak

The PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (PMK) differs from a common or ideal
Spheromak in essentially two ways:  It has a conduction shell of 
plasma supported by an isobaric fluid (gas blanket) (and is therefore 
magnetically omnigenous), and  which can be compressed from one or 
two atm to 10 (d-He3) to 20 katm in the case of a p-B11 burn.  

                        SECONDLY, 
the PMK is hyper*conducting due to energetic electrons.    

    * HYPERCONDUCTIVITY ===  5 - 7 orders better than copper conductivity.  

That should give you enough information to calculate their energy and
internal structure.  say for a 10 cm radious ball with a boundary pressure
of 1 atm (5 kggauss) external interfacing surface of the internal vacuum
poloidal field.  Remember Spheromaks have toroidal fields internal within
the central or plasma ring and this gives the beastie an aspect ratio
about 2.  (apha = R/r)

Otherwise, read: 

R. Roth, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy" Proceedings of the 
     IEEE, THE 13TH SYMPOSIUM ON FUSION ENGINEERING, Knoxville 
     (Oct. 2-6, 1989), Cat. No. 89 CH 2820-9  Vol 2, pages 1407-1411  

Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
     Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141

>willing to bet your little finger on it? :>     Who is this guy
Cobbone???  Hey if you family you tell me up front ..

>>The tokamak can be operated in the H or perhaps the Super H mode, One
>>of the things that happens is that fusion generally takes place in the
>>hotter portions of the plasma which are along or just peripheral to the 
>>minor axis.  Since Tokamaks are tokamaks and not Spheromaks the toroidal
 ^^^^^^^^^^
> don't you mean the magnetic axis?

No, I mean the minor plasma toroidal axis along which the most dense
resistive currents flow.  

>>field is not generated by plasma currents, consequently it tends to be
>>fixed.  However, the toroidal plasma current tends toward tracking the
>>resultant mag field which is a mixture of toroidal field and itown
>>generated poloidal field. This field has helicity so the purely toroidally
>>driven plasma current (initially), starts to stretch its flow along 
>>the helical mag flux lines. The poloidal current increases (and the 
>>lessened toroidal component) diminishes the magnetic helicity and the
>>very much stronger rigid toroidal field snaps the plasma current back
>>to be more toriodal in nature.  Thus there is an  increase in toroidal
>>field and the whole process cycles. Since the tor-component of current 
>>looks a bit like a "saw tooth", because of the jerking back and forth
>>in vector space, the phenomenon is named "saw tooth" action or some
>>such nomenclature.  

>There's an old joke. Q: Why do tokamaks have to worry so much about
>disruptions but RFP's don't? A: because RFP's are always in disruption.
>The same seemed to be true of FRC's when I was talking with
>experimentalists, and my inuition says that your concept will also.
>This is good and bad news. The good nes is that you may get around 
>some instabilities. The bad news is that the transport will probably
>suck. Just think about it a minute. If you have a bucket of water, is
>the thermal conductivity from the center to the top increased or
>decreased is you start creating "sloshing" modes to eliminate Benard
>convection? of course it is increased. 

I wasn't talking about wave sloshing where the undulations are 
constrained by walls less than a 10 wave lengths, I was referring to
a torsonal rotatational slosh with a hell of a hickup.  

>>Anyway the really important result of this is that it blows away the 
>>99% of the theorized hot alpha induced and other disruptive effects.  
>>This is done because the current jerking actually jerks plasma and 
>>sloshes it in a vortex much like the clothes in a washing machine 
>>are sloshed back and forth but more importantly are swirled in a 
>>waltzing toroidal vortex about the spindle. For the wash every thing 
>>gets blasted with soap and water, not just bubbles and air, and for 
>>the plasma the hotter more ohmically heated minor axis is diffused 
>>(actually mixed) with the adjacent plasma and over a substantial 
>>cross-section.  That reduces the thermal gradients (especially the 
>>thermal electron gradient) and chops into bananas and other fruits 
>>theorist may harass themselves with.
  
>surprise, surprise, you cannot use theory based on a tokamak
>ordering to analyze a device that does not obey tokamak scaling
>assumptions. However, my (uninformed -- see note above) gut says 
>you are being just as over optimistic and overselling just as
>much as the fusioneers of the 1960's/70's did with the tokamak.

I don't think so. I don't constrain my plasma,  It is ideally MHD
stable and it is essentially none resistive, once it is fully formed.

See two classic papers : 
M. Bussac, H. Furth, et al., "Low-Aspect Ratio Limit of the Toroidal 
        Reactor:  The Spheromak," IAEA CN-37, Innsbruck, 1978.

**Next paper corrects "Loosely Fitting Critereon" of previous Furth 
        and Bussac. 

M. Rosenbluth and M. Bussac, " MHD Stability of Spheromak," Nuclear 
        Fusion 19, 489, 1979.

Omnigenous adiabatic heating easily raises both temperature and 
density (as well as strengthens the fields to megagauss levels).    
That is it compresses self similarly.  The tokamak is a relative
dinosaur.  If it ever could work, it would be confined to the planet 
surface, no one will visit the thing since the radiation levels will 
be there for a long time so it's museum appeal will be rather dismal.  ,
If it can't fly I'm not interested.  I would like to zip around in
space and get to Mars in 2 weeks with a load and land on the surface
not this pussy footing stuff the aneutronic power deprived NASA 
employees are forced to come up with.  

For example, burning p-B11 a PMK could generate 20 to 50 megawatts
of power PER CUBIC CENTIMETER, and it is the only device whose wall
could withstand such power levels, let along produce burns in 
p-B11.  What was the power level at PPPL  6 megwatts per cubic 
METER????  OR WAS THAT FROM THE WHOLE MACHINE.  

>Your argument appears to be that since your device is different
>from a tokamak, there are some (perhaps good) reasons to expect it
>to be free of some of the most troublesome problems for tokamaks.
>This may be correct. However, your device may also be susceptible to
>instabilities that the tokamak is immune to. For example, sphereomaks
>had to deal with the tilt instability which was not a problem
>for tokamaks. Just because you don't have to bear their cross, doesn't
>mean you don't have your own cross to bear. 

Only spheromaks that stupidly use external mag coils instead of 
a highly conducting shells to trap the poloidal flux.  Of course, 
Princeton PPL's  S-1 (Spheromak) stands out as sporting that 
feature you cite and it became a physics "issue" so the DoE give
these bandits another 5 million to solve it.  Ahhh the Jardin fig
8 coils.. minimal fix I would say.. .  and petty expensive.  

So do I here sour grapes..???   So you have been blowing your life
being suckered by promises of vacuum fusion with solid state walls
surrounding this hotter than the suns core plasma???   Hey you have 
been following plasma experiments worrying about in good vacuums .. 
right???  Feel for the saps that will follow and have to work in 
radiated chambers that just don't get the vacuum they need to 
produce a non-disrupting plasma ---  Doesn't the thought of that
tell you there must be a better way...   The hottest plasma in the
universe surrounding by cryogenic coold coils .... Give us a break
DoE.    

>>childishly developed science of plasma physics.   

>balderdash. There have been real and very large problems that have
>been overcome with a great deal of perseverance and ingenuity. To
>label solved difficult problems as fantasy and trivial in retrospect
>is an incorrect view of history. The conception, design, and engineering
>of high power neutral beam technology to deal with decreased ohmic heating
>efficiency at high temperatures is a case in point. However, as you
>say, if there a more promising concept was used, it may not be necessary
>to face these difficult problems.

Oh really, well what if I told you that absolutely no neutral beam heating
is necessary or RF heating or laser heating or plasmoid injection or 
...  ...   Certainly heating is needed, but the problem with tokamaks
is they just don't have the capability to do strong compression heating.  

Anyway, a tokamak has a pressure limit...da da ...like a horse tank if
you keep filling and filling it with power (water) sooner or latter it 
will fill up and your energy will start leaking out as fast as you pump 
it in..

That's because pressure or force per unit area is equivalent to energy
per unit volume.  Your toroidal mag field can sit there at 1 kilobar and
less than 1% of that pressure  (far less >>) is in the plasma nkT.   
So, if the max pressure you can hold is 8 atmospheres then all of 
the beam this and that heating you do won't be capable of improving the
situation.  It's like pumping heat into a kettle of water.. after it
starts boiling .. magically it doesn't go up in temperature much well
essentially not at all.  So friend what toky fellows need is to
get a real pressure cooker.   One that when you do apply external 
pressure you will end up with more internal plasma nkt pressure then 
you have applied externally, rather than less than 1%...  

Gee, that's a hell of a way to use a highly leveraged lever and fulcrum 
                .... BACKWARDS.   
              But as they say  only at PPPL ... 

So, Please preserve a tokamak by NOT putting tritium in it so that
the future may have a place to go to see the utter stupidity of
physicists trying to impose there engineering ability on a project.  
And have a scene of a Cave Dweller prying a boulder away from the
entrance to his cave --- correctly using a lever and fulcrum .. 
Then the same scene with a DoE employee .. Ann DAvies..?? attempting 
the same with stone rolled onto her drive way, .. but this time she
is holding the "short end of the sticK" ... so to speak. 

This is just so the kiddies get the picture of what went wrong here.  

Yep when you want to do a job, make certain an engineer is running
things.  Of course, an engineering physicist* would be best ....
This comment may be considered self serving.  

>Let me just add, that it seems that Paul wants to characterize
>me as an advocate of Tokamak fusion. That is not correct. I have
>spent my time working on alternative (i.e. non-tokamak) concepts for 
>magnetic fusion. I personally believe that the tokamak will never be an 
>economically viable commercial reactor. However, I do believe that it is the 
>best hope for achieving ignition in an experiment in the near future. The
>cost of ITER is justified if for no other reason than as a high
>flux source of energetic neutrons to use for materials characterization
>studies. The materials phase of ITER will go further toward helping
>commercial fusion than anything else I see on the horizon right now.
>This is true even if the final reactor is not a tokamak, or even if
>it is a low neutron machine. Of course if you believe Paul, he will
>give you a device that will ignite in less than 10 years with 0
>neutrons. I'm from Missouri.

Well ... O is a mighty tiny number but howabout negligible or let's 
for comparison less than one per cent of the radiation generated by
the radon released by an equivalent energy producing amount of coal?? 
Fair enough..   First we must be funded to do a commercial burn and
then in 4 years, or five max we will do the burn.  The p Boron will take
more time by 10 years is about right from the initial outlay of the the
D-He3 burn support.  

Certianly We will burn D-He3 in 1/10th the time with 1/100th the 
money and it will be an aneutronic COMMERCIAL break-even burn..  The 
only lethal detail here is .....that 1/100th the funds.  Further, 
the product device will be high density power, compact and useful 
for space power and propulsion.  This has been a commercial for .. . 

>I am not all "gaa-gaa" over the tokamak and TFTR. I just think 
>that sometimes you have to give the devil its due. Last week,
>TFTR produce more fusion neutron power than ever before, apparently
>without unexpected troubles (which many DID expect), and there is
>a program of shots over the next year to further explore and
>improve these results. These are significant results. We can go back to
>grinding our personal axes later. Otherwise we are no better than
>the political consultants who try to manage the PR spin at every turn.
>BTW,did Ed Rollins say how much he paid out in order to get the 
>anomalous transport gremlins not to show up for these shots? :>

Whoa!   first of all it it did not achieve anything near the original
goals that were set for it.  Not even close.  Read Davisson's Poster

It iss good you are positioning yourself for a softer landing.  

>-john .w cobb

                       An Engineering Physicist
                        is to big sci projects 
                         What a quarterback is
                         to a football game. 

                           One has to be able
                     to see the whole field at once
                         and to find a path that
                      misses the difficult problems 

                             Doe seems to be 
                                running this 
                                fusion game 
                              from VIP Lounge
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Cobb /  Re: Big Science spending was: TFTR: Breakthrough, ...
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Big Science spending was: TFTR: Breakthrough, ...
Date: 16 Dec 1993 12:31:44 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CI4p46.88A@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2eo5f2INNl24@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
>>Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:

>>>In all fairness, some of the schedule slippage came about because the 
>>>funding was stretched out.  Nonetheless TFTR has consistently gone over
>>>estimated costs and under estimated performance. 
>
>>As is well known, stretching out funding = increased costs and underperformance
>
>Whoa!!!  This burn was supposed to have been made in 1983! and there was
>no slow down at that time.  The slow down was because the program started 
>being viewed as a plasma program (which is all it ever was)  and not a 
>fusion program.  Consequently, Congress started getting P O'd
 (note

>>Seriously, the biggest problem in the funding of big science today (IMO)
>>is that congress and program managers love a program start, but hate
>>the charge of "stay the course, steady as she goes"
>
>Quite the contrary; the biggest problem is that it's being done at 
>all.  The government has NO business doing BIG  research, since they 
>are centralized and micro manage (apparently universally from your 
>list of examples).  

That's why I proposed this idea. It forces people to pay up front.
If we want ot fund fusion for 300M$/year from now to 2020 then
lets do it and, and lets put our money where our mouth is and put up 
the 30 G$ today to pay for it. Of course it is not a no strings
attached proposition. Set up milestones and require them to be met
or boom-boom out go the lights. I think if we had to face up to
such issues on day one, many more people would come to the
conclusions that you have that there are many big science
projects that are not worth it. Who wants to go to mars for
100 G$? In my mind this is the biggest put up or shut-up
plan. Ironically, the biggest opponents are not going to be congress
(although they would chafe) it would be the scientists in these programs
who would have to justify to the people the true magnitude of national
resources that they are allocated.
>
>>in my (near) perfect world, I would require full appropriation of a
>>project's entire cost in the year that it is started. The funds would be
>>put in a budgetary category of appropriated with a multi-year authorization.
>>Such accounts already exist in the U.S. budgeting process now.
>>The funds would be released to the project contingent upon
>>specified achievement of milestones. If a program failed its review, the
>>moneies would not be returned to its original budget function (i.e.
>>NSF or DOE or DOD) nor would it be available to pay for other government
>>programs. It would go back to the treasury and its accounting would
>>be handled by adjusting the total deficit and debt figures for the year
>>the appropriation was made.
>
>I don't think you understand the way funds stick to the hands through
>which they trickle.  Your suggestion is politically nuts. There is
>a stream of people and they all need a crack and the money, or it 
>won't happen.  This is a really sweet but enormously naive concept.   

To the contrary. The pot will not get any bigger. Instead of siphoning
of a few ounces at a time, the leaches will have to come in periodically
and ask for a few gallons at a time. Fewer items will slip by unnoticed.
It is a way to attack the "sticky hands" problem. You are right that it
won't happen, at least not until there is a ground-swell of demands
from outside the system for it. It skewers quite a few sacred cows.

moreover by setting program milstones from day 1, we will have a
way to pry the money from the "sticky-hands" if the program spins out of 
control.
>
>>This would do 3 things:
>>1) It would force program managers pay up front and not just through a
>>party and require successors to pay for it.
>
...
>>3) It would provide stability for those scientists who commit large
>>amounts of their career to a big project.
>
>Oh right ... The welfare angle.... gee whiz I forgot.  Poor babys! 
>they shouldn't have to take the wrap, just cause the boss told 
>them everything is A O K.  This really sticks it up the taxpayer's
>(a word sometimes used for donkey).  

Again, quite the contrary. It is not welfare for scientists. management
literature is rife with the observation, that at a certain (often low)
level of pay that job satisfcation and accomplishment are much more
persuasive motivators than money. These guys that are staking 10
years of their career on a single idea are very motivated to make that
idea work. 

If it goes down, even if it is not your fault, you take the rap.
If you are a scientist and you think there is a good chance it
will go down no matter what you do, then that destroys your motivation
(psychological frustration). It is a much better motivation to say
that we are going too give you room to fly, but if you crash and burn, there
is no net. Management theory and practice says that you will get more who
will soar.

>
>>It would also mean many fewer starts. It would require scientific
>>communities to do prioritization looking forward and not prioritization
>>looking backward. By this I mean now we cut experiments operating budgets
>>to maintain construction of new experiments because of squeezes. In this
>>new scheme we will do less starts, but more completions and they will
>>operate for their pre-planned length.
>
>Golly gee whiz, Hmmm! guess we should keep funding the Mirror (year 3000)  
>and the tokamak (year 2050).   Attack of the robber baron Goverment. 

nope. It would have either not been funded at all and the money that
was used would have been saved or it would have been tubed when it
missed its goals. Moreoever, there would have been less bitterness
about the programs termination. It would have been clearly programmatic
and not political (ideally). The other alternative is that it would
be achieving its goals. The Japanese didn't give up on mirrors and
they have a quite impressive machine.

>Hey you studied plasma physics and if you nosed around ANY of the
>plasma fusion National Laboratories there are at least a dozen 

be careful when you ASS-U_ME you can make an ass out of you and me. :>
I've work'ed at ANL, LANL and ORNL. 

>very bright and experienced people there that could have set you 
>straight right from the start.  
>Or you should have taken everything
>you were told from the time you entered graduate schoole and asked
>yourself" Does this really make sense", " Is there another plausiable
>explanation?", or "Will the reciprocal of this theorem work, also?"

Gee, I'm glad you didn't take a condescending attitude 

>
>The tokamak lacks sufficient plasma fuel pressure capability, it 
>can not solve the wall problem except with magical none existent 
>materials, so it's toast, now, it was toast in '83 and it will be
>toast when it sinks below the Mantle.  

And we can ignore that problem now because no-one is holding the program's
feet to the fire requiring it to justify itself from start to finish
of its goal. Right now, all of the focus is on the next project. Stepping
back and taking the long view is discouraged by the way we govern. Long
term strategic planning and budgeting will go a long way to fixing that.

>
>>I think this highlights the problem with bug science. It is hard
>>to measure results, and it is vulnerable to sophistical rhetoric.
>
>In science it has to be hard to be good.  
>In engineering if it can't go commercial within 10 years it's toast, 
>OR if it cost's too much, it's toast.  The tokamak has been toast 
>since '83.  
>
>With today's estimates for ultimate partial success (can't fly, needs
>neutronic fuels)  I would say it exceeds the shutdown signal by at
>least an order of magnitude.  
>
So why doesn't the signal get through? There are 2 possible reasons.

1) your opinion is wrong. or

2) The system is set up in a manner that doesn't allow it to
   recognize such facts.

or both.

Without commenting on 1) let me say that I agree with you that 2)
does seem to be the case today. We seem to be marching through the
jungle. we celebrate the fact that we hacked our way through 10
miles today, but we are oblivious to the fact that 100 miles ahead
is an impassable gorge or that we are going in a big circle. It is
because when we send back to headquarters a request for more provisions,
they are impressed at how far we have travelled and don't seem to ask
how close are we from our goal. Then it is natural for us to concentrate
on moving farther each day, but not necessarily closer to the stated
goal. Implement responsible multi-year budgeting and you will get results.

That is why I made my suggesttions above.

-john .w cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Albert Chou /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 19:33:20 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <CI4C6H.4tL@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <CHy4tD.CFC@seas.ucla.edu> albert@thunder.seas.ucla.edu
(Albert E. Chou) writes:
>
>>Actually, it's more difficult than simply staying away from using "bad"
>>materials.  You have to actively choose "good" materials, of which there are
>>rather few, and none of them is particularly close to perfect.  But it's true
>>that the decay rate for an activated fusion reactor is much higher than that
>>of a fission reactor.
>
>Meaning it is MUCH more radioactive, and that isn't the only problem.  

Working from memory here, so forgive minor errors for the moment, but I
remember seeing curves of calculated afterheat from fusion and fission reactors
that indicated that fusion reactors would be less hazardous during the
entire cooldown period, which was a lot shorter than that for fission.
However, I admit I don't recall whether there was a study of the specific
hazard of each type of radiation present, so it's possible that a fusion
reactor would be more lethal during its shorter cooldown period.  I'll see if
I can find my notes.

>>The "short period" can be made to be the operating lifetime of the reactor
>>without too much trouble.  Commercial power plants typically operate for about
>>20 years, if I remember correctly, so that's all that a fusion reactor needs
>>to achieve in order to be comparable to a conventional coal plant, for
>>instance.
>
>Gee!  You mean getting socked by 14MeV energetic neutrons and still
>maintaining a super vacuum state doesn't count for anything?????

People do study the problem of sputtering first wall material, but as far
as I can recall, it's a complicated business.  It's possible that degradation
of the vacuum and plasma may be a more serious consideration than structural
strength of the vessel.  This is an interesting point.

>Gosh!  No Wonder Every Thing Will Work Out ..  IT's All Been  DONE BEFORE!!!
>Sorry Al, but you were wide open on this one.

I think this comment was unwarranted.  Did you really infer that was what
I meant?

I appreciate your providing references for us.  Hopefully I'll get a chance
to take a look at them soon.

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / John Logajan /  Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 00:51:42 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>I pointed out this dilemma to Mr. Bass at Maui
>                              ^^^^^^^^
>     I hope this wasn't me.  Because if it was, I've bifurcated in 
>     a rather disturbing way.

When I saw this line in Gene Mallove's posting of the titles of papers
to ICCF4:

  Proposed Nuclear Physics Experiment to Conclusively Demonstrate
  and Explain Cold Fusion
     -- Bass
        ^^^^

... I though something was fishy (*see note.)

But then in a recent post, Steven Jones said:

   Hal Fox contacted and received favorable reactions from the following..."
   Robert Bass, John Bockris, Robert Bush, ...
   ^^^^^^^^^^^

So now everything is cleared up.  Ehy?

(* Note -- I am tired and so are my jokes.)

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Cary Jamison /  Re: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
Date: 16 Dec 1993 22:01:49 GMT
Organization: ESL, Inc.  A TRW Company

In article <bugs.755750083@netsys.com>, bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
wrote:
> Random notes on ICCF4-Tuesday from an interested observer.
[...]
> 6.  Stuart Taylor took some cells from Los Alamos that had produced T and
> set them up in Dr. Jones underground lab to look for neutrons.  Some
> small counts above background were indicated but they need to be examined
> for artifacts.  Enough to make them continue to work but not enough to
> get over their apprehension that something is wrong.
[...]

I'm glad to see that someone has actually taken Dr. Jones up on his offer.
I haven't heard of anyone else doing this before.

Cary Jamison

  ********************************************************************
   EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
   E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
   EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
   E          S  L
   EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
  ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 17 04:37:13 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Carl Ijames /  Re: Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Isotope separation of rad.waste using mass spectrometers
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 23:26:32 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <1993Dec15.144046.1186@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
wrote:

> Could state-of-the-art mass spectrometers be used to separate isotopes 
> in the radioactive waste of nuclear reactors?  
> 
> I realize that the quantities separated by mass spectrometers are
> generally very small.  But with current technology, I wonder if the problem
> might become tractable and should be revisited.  
> Perhaps chemical means could first be used to separate
> elements, then isotopes could be separated by advanced (high-capacity) mass
> spec.
>  
> --Steven Jones 15 December 1993

I am not really up on "preparative scale" mass spectrometry, but I remember
that beam currents in the calutrons used for isotope separation at Oak
Ridge were on the order of a milliamp or less.  Resolution was unit mass at
best (could separate 234 from 233 and 235, for example).  This means that
any isobaric interferences from other elements would have to be handled
chemically before the mass spec step.  Then you need an easy way to make a
volatile compound compatible with the mass spec, etc.  The main limitation
is the beam current.  Even modern discharge sources would have difficulty
producing more than a milliamp of beam current for an arbitrary isotope.

So, assume one milliamp:

10e-3 amp = 10e-3 coulomb/second

10e-3 coulomb/sec / 1.6e-19 coulomb/ion * 1 mole/6.023e23 ions = 10
nanomoles/second

Assume atomic weight of 100 g/mol, 10 nmol/sec * 100 g/mol = 1
microgram/second
= 86 milligrams/day

Pretty slow going.  Actually, this points out what an achievement the
production of kilograms of plutonium for the bomb was in WWII.

Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Disappointment.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Disappointment.
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 22:23:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2eo5f2INNl24@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>I think this highlights the problem with bug science. It is hard
>to measure results, and it is vulnerable to sophistical rhetoric.

    It isn't science, it's a power-generating technology (or at least
    that's why it's getting the funding it is).  How should we
    measure results other than by progress towards that goal based on
    promises of the past?  Should we simply go by PPPL press releases?

                          dale bass

>
>
>
>
>


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: "stinking badges" quote
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "stinking badges" quote
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 22:37:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <931215200019_72240.1256_EHK30-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>For those of you who are not movie mavens, this is a quote from "The Treasure
>of the Sierra Madre," starring Humphrey Bogart. A superb movie! The quote
>applies to most CF experiments, but as Fleischmann pointed out, some of their
>work in France has been put on hold while they improve their shielding because
>the neutron flux has reached dangerous levels. Let me add I strongly recommend
>that all CF workers install a radiation alarm, and test it from time to time
>to make sure it is still working.

     Dangerous levels?  I'd think that the levels have been pretty dangerous
     for their nuclear hypothesis for quite a while now.

     Smoke and mirrors, rumour and obfuscation...

                              dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 22:42:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec15.111213.1184@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:

>addition, in Maui Dr. Li from Savannah River Labs. showed that helium born in
>the lattice gets trapped in voids and does *not* leave the metal and so cannot
>be seen in effluent gasses as Miles, Gozzi, P&F (early on) and others have
>claimed.  I pointed out this dilemma to Mr. Bass at Maui -- who with
                                         ^^^^^^^^
>interesting logic replied (heatedly) that since Miles saw helium, clearly the
>helium-behavior studies of the Savannah River Lab. people were clearly in error!

     I hope this wasn't me.  Because if it was, I've bifurcated in 
     a rather disturbing way.

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / John Cobb /  Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Disappointment.
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Disappointment.
Date: 16 Dec 1993 19:04:47 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CI5FJG.48G@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2eo5f2INNl24@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I think this highlights the problem with bug science. It is hard
>>to measure results, and it is vulnerable to sophistical rhetoric.
>
>    It isn't science, it's a power-generating technology (or at least
>    that's why it's getting the funding it is).  How should we
>    measure results other than by progress towards that goal based on
>    promises of the past?  Should we simply go by PPPL press releases?
>
We shouldn't swallow PPPL press releases or sci.physics.fusion gossip
without chewing it for a good while. Firsthand information beats secondhand
paplum anyday.

Actually, however, we should judge fusion by its stated funding purpose
which is not (yet) power generating technology, but rather the development
of a power generating technology. This is only a rather small point (and
I think you probably meant what I just said anyway). The only reason I
point this out is that judging by potshots that have been aimed at TFTR
letely, somebody's going to give them a lashing for not selling any
power to the grid. They never promised to. They promised scientific progress
on evaluating how feasible it would be to do so in the future.

Now as some others have pointed out (was it Paul Koloc this week?) We also need
to ask if the fusion-guys have gotten money under the justification of being
an energy program when in reality they are a basic research program sprinkled
with a few scattered big construction projects. I think it is hard to say
we are conducting an energy development program on a 50 year schedule. If
it walks like a duck, it must be basic research (man I love to split metaphors)

-john .w cobb


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 / Edwin Tam /  Re: BioFusion
     
Originally-From: edwintam@hk.super.net (Edwin Tam)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BioFusion
Date: 16 Dec 1993 04:30:53 GMT
Organization: Hong Kong SuperNet

Hey, remember "spontaneous combustion" ? It may be a out-of-controled  
bio-fusion effect...if they exists at all.

I never believe the static electricity cause S.C. bull.

Follow up to sci.physics.meta

Edwin
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwintam cudfnEdwin cudlnTam cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Robert Heeter /  TFTR news update 12/16/93
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Originally-From: (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news
Subject: TFTR news update 12/16/93
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 16, 1993
Date: 17 Dec 1993 00:50:19 -0500
Date: 16 Dec 1993 09:24:09 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

* The following has been forwarded from my local group pppl.tftr.news.
I am posting this to the net for the benefit of those interested in
fusion.  I did not write it; Rich Hawryluk is the head of the TFTR
program.  Anyone not following the jargon is welcome to ask
me questions and I will do my best to explain it / find the answers
(I like to learn too.) I have removed Hawryluk's email address
for his personal protection. :) This is not an official service
of PPPL, I am doing this on my own. *- Bob Heeter *
*

Article 14 of pppl.tftr.news:
Path: nntpserver.pppl.gov!nntpserver.pppl.gov!not-for-mail
Originally-From: (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 16, 1993
Date: 16 Dec 1993 09:24:09 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Lines: 45
Sender: daemon@theory.pppl.gov
Distribution: pppl,esnet,princeton
Message-ID: <2epr29$e7j@lyman.pppl.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyman.pppl.gov

Status (Dec. 16, 1993):

On Monday Dec. 13,  a current scan from 0.6MA to 1.8MA was performed  to
establish a baseline of first orbit loss to the lost alpha detector.  This
utilized a single neutral beam source operating in tritium along with other
deuterium neutral beam sources. Eleven tritium shots were taken.  At low
plasma current   differences in the MHD activity were observed in the D-T
shots resulting in decreases in the neutron emission.  This is under
investigation.

On Tuesday, Dec. 14, the neutral beamlines were regenerated after the high
power experiments. as part of the experimental proposal DT-23.  An analysis
of the overall tritium inventory is in progress.

On Wednesday, Dec 15, another cannister of tritium was loaded into the
tritium receiving glovebox to replace the one which had been used during
the first set of high power experiments.  Deuterium shots were taken for
comparison shots for previous experimental proposals and diagnostic
checkout.

The number of D-T shots to date is:

Trace tritium experiments (<2% mixtures)        59
Tritium gas puffing experiments                 13
Tritium neutral beam experiments                21

Plans:

On Thursday and Friday, the emphasis will be the study of the confinement
in D-T plasmas and evaluate alpha heating effects.

Next week, activities will be underway to process the tritium and transfer
it to the uranium-bed in preparation for the scheduled holidays and
maintenance period during the first week in January.

R. J. Hawryluk















































cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.15 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Momentum conservation and other details
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Momentum conservation and other details
Date: 15 Dec 93 12:09:55
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <93120910002607@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

  > I am puzzled by Robert Eachus's assertion that excited 4He nuclear can
  > emit low energy photons.  I have seen no evidence or even a hint as to
  > how this can be so.

    I think you are taking what I said out of context...but you are
wearing blinders too.  Any nucleus can lose or gain energy (in the
laboratory coordinate system) through interaction with photons (and
other charged particles).  All I was saying was that that is the only
other mechanism known for an He nucleus to gain or lose energy other
than the single known transition from excited direct to the ground
state.

    I thought I made it clear that I was saying that, if you swallow
this boulder, I won't make you swallow this bucket of pebbles as well.

   > The unperturbed wave function of 4He is a given.  The basic
   > behavior of electromagnetic transistions is a given.  Where do
   > you find an excuse to change things to make them come out
   > differently?

   I don't.  I was saying that agreed, if you get an He4 nucleus into
an intermediate excited state, it should not be expected to emit
high-energry gammas.  The boulder, which is in contrast to lots of
laboratory experiments, is the part following the if. In huge numbers
of investigations of alpha decays, I know of no evidence for an
intermediate nuclear state.  Thus if such a state does exist, say a +1
spin state, it is VERY hard to create.  But it could be the case that
such a nucleus is possible, but that there is no way to get there from
He4.

  > Finally I would like to ask how far do you expect to go down this
  > path?  If instead of a single photon for the transition to the
  > ground state, how many would you like?  Is it ten 2 MeV gammas or
  > one hundred 200 keV gammas or 1000 at 20keV?  Do you think this
  > makes it easier to easier to explain the experimental data
  > relating to nonobserved radiation?  Why can't CF believers ever
  > fill in any details to give a complete picture, something like a
  > testable hypothesis?

    What a blizzard!  1) I don't expect to go very far.  It's like a
debate about unicorns, bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster.  There is a
difference between "it hasn't been seen, so it doesn't exist," and
"it's possible, but I won't believe it until I see it."  I take the
second position, as long as I don't know of a proof that it is
impossible.

    2&3) None. I would expect the only possible decay mode to require
interaction with another particle.  I haven't spent much effort on
figuring out a signature, since I don't believe in the existance of
the original state.

    4) No.

    5) I have come up with several testable hypotheses.  Tom's testing
has shown no evidence in favor of any of them.  (Well, one case, but I
think we both now think that was due to a coupling between the room
temperature and his measurements.)  But I'm not a "true believer."  I
think there is something which makes the Pd-D system hard to pin down,
and I think it is worth figuring out what makes those bursts.  I will
not be disappointed if the actual mechanism turns out to be wierd
phase transitions, or sudden deuterium unloading, or what have you.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Dissapointment.
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough or Tremendous Dissapointment.
Date: 17 Dec 1993 01:43:13 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:
>Reality:
>
>In late 1993 the TFTR Tokamak at Princeton introduced tritium to the
>deuterium plasma to achieve a D-T reaction.  This is the reaction that
>will be used in power reactors. 
>
More correct to say that this is the reaction that will most likely
be used in power reactors.

>
>After several shots, they produced about 6 million wattts of power.  This
>compares with the 30 million watts of power needed to heat the plasma. 
>This gives a Q value (output power /input power) of 0.2 .  The lab hopes
>to achieve a power of 10 MW for a Q of 0.33 before the conclusion of the
>tritium program and the permanant shutdown of TFTR. 
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>Promises
>
>1) From the Magnetic Fusion Energy Program Summary Document, dated January
>1981.  It is a DOE document that describes that fusion program. It states
>that "TFTR is a major scaling experiment which will demonstrate energy
>break-even (power out equals power in, or Q=1.).  It goes to say later
>that "Plans are currently underway to extend the inherent capability of
>TFTR to investigate the behavior of more reactor-like plasma at Q greater
>than unity. Achievement of the bulk burning state at a Q of approximately
>2-3 will require additional neutral beam heating and higher magnetic
>fields." The milestone for this more advanced operation was FY85. 

On the contrary, these were not promises but new goals proposed
since TFTR was doing better-than-expected, and funding levels
were expected to rise, rather than drop to half their previous
value over the next few years.  If you want to look at promises,
you should look at the ORIGINAL TFTR design specifications.  See
below.
>
>A later downgrade in promises
>
>2):
>
>In 1987 DOE reviewed TFTR's potential for getting Q of 1..(MFAC panel 17
>report,) It is very interesting reading. They state that the break point
>in between technology interest and science interest is a Q of about 0.5.
>But the letter from Trivelpiece (then the head of Princeton Plasma Physics
>Laboratory) in the forward of the report the the MFAC charging them with
>the review states "2)achieve approximate break-even (Q about 1) at reactor
>level fusion power densities (10^6 W m-3),"

As others have pointed out, Trivelpiece was *not* head of PPPL.  I
hope you are not always this sloppy with your facts in attacking someone
else's programs.  As for approximate break-even:  as I pointed out
earlier, Q of 0.3 or 0.5 is much closer to 1 than 0.0001 is, which
is (vaguely) where fusion research was when TFTR was designed.  And
again, we have not yet heard the last from TFTR.  There may be
surprises...  I will discuss this more below.
>
>In all fairness, some of the schedule slippage came about because the 
>funding was stretched out.  Nonetheless TFTR has consistently gone over
>estimated costs and under estimated performance. 
>
When I read this last claim, I was rather concerned.  Certainly I'd
prefer to work for a program which did what it planned to do, and
achieved at least what was expected of it, within the constraints
of scientific uncertainty and the ups and downs of Congressional
funding shifts.  So I asked people at the lab what they thought,
and collected some information of my own.

Here's what I learned:

(Acknowledgements to those who gave me the information
which I am paraphrasing / summarizing / explaining below.)

First question:  Has TFTR lived up to its original design goals?

(i.e., have they kept their promises?)

Answer: Yes.

Evidence:

1976 TFTR Management Plan Goal:  1-10 Megajoules of energy production.
1993 TFTR achievement:  at least 3.5 MJ in single shot, more expected.

1975/6 Design Objectives:

	Ion temp:p:  	Goal 10 keV, 	Achieved 35 keV
	Electron temp:  Goal 5-10 keV, 	Achieved 12 keV
	Electron Density: Goal 1E20 /m^3, Achieved up to 5x10^20
	Pulse length: 	Goal 1.5 sec, 	Achieved 2.0 sec
	n-T-tau product: Goal 4x10^20 sec-keV/m^3, Achieved 5.8x10^20
	Neutral Beams:  Goal 33 MW, 	Achieved 33 MW
	Central Field:  Goal 5.2 Tesla, Achieved 5.2 T
	Plasma Current: Goal 3 MA, 	Achieved 3 MA 3 MA

Now, kilowatt and megawatt power outputs were unheard of when TFTR
was designed. High power neutral beams were unheard of.  Confinement
times were on the order of 10-30 *milliseconds.*  The fact that
TFTR has achieved what it was designed to do is actually pretty
impressive.


Second Question:  Is TFTR over budget?  

Answer:  the 1983 planned cost (over project lifetime) to take
TFTR through the D-T phase was $200 million more than it will
actually cost.  (I can get references for this.)


Third Question:  Is TFTR behind schedule?  (If so, why?)

Answer:  DOE stopped D-T preparations on TFTR three times
during the 1980s.  Funding for D-T preparations was not
provided until 1991.  Those who would like to claim that
this was because TFTR researchers wanted to preserve
their machine should also consider that the US magnetic
fusion research budget plunged by over 50% in real terms
from 1979 to 1991.  Doing D-T on TFTR requires not only
$$ to run the new, more expensive experiments, but also to
put together the next generation of experiment.  (The 
alternative is to kill the tokamak program, which would
be an odd thing to do at a time when Japan and Europe
were steadily increasing their investment in fusion research.
Currently Japan and the EC countries both spend more on 
fusion than the US, in both real $ and as a fraction of GNP.)
This would appear to be a classic case of Carr's discussion
of cutting funding-stretches out program-slows results
and achievement.  Fortunately the short-term funding cuts
did not (in this case) lead to overall budget overruns
(as was the case with the SSC, I believe).


It now seems to me that those who would argue for
answers different than the ones given above will need to
look at the complete TFTR historical record, rather than
selectively quoting the most overoptimistic report made
at the height of fusion funding, and then contrasting it
with the performance of TFTR during a period of budget
cuts such that the proposals made in the optimistic
report were not even funded.

It seems to me that TFTR has been a good project, and
I am happy to be working at PPPL. 

As usual, I do not represent PPPL, and I try not to
be brainwashed about TFTR or the tokamak in general.
But credit should be given where credit is due.

***************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
First Year Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab


P.S.:

Contrary to Paul Kolok's claims, TFTR has in fact achieved 6.5
atmospheres of pressure and has a plasma beta (nkT pressure vs. mag
field pressure) of a few percent.  Paul claimed plasma pressure
<<< less than magnetic pressure, which is false.  Other tokamaks
have achieved beta-values of tens of percent.  The plasmak may
be inherently better in this regard, and I look forward to reading
about it.  But I have to inquire about the other parameters of
the plasmak - density?  confinement? temperature?  If $10
million is all you need to test the plasmak, I'm willing to
spend it...  But I want more facts first!














cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough ... (Corrections/Addenda)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Tremendous Breakthrough ... (Corrections/Addenda)
Date: 17 Dec 1993 02:53:57 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <2erke1$mr2@tom.pppl.gov>,
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
>Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:
>>Reality:


<<Snip, snip, snip...>> (Still in reality, though.)


>>This gives a Q value (output power /input power) of 0.2 .  The lab hopes
>>to achieve a power of 10 MW for a Q of 0.33 before the conclusion of the
>>tritium program and the permanant shutdown of TFTR. 


>>Promises

>>1) From the Magnetic Fusion Energy Program Summary Document, dated January
>>1981.  It is a DOE document that describes that fusion program. It states
>>that "TFTR is a major scaling experiment which will demonstrate energy
>>break-even (power out equals power in, or Q=1.).  It goes to say later
>>that "Plans are currently underway to extend the inherent capability of
>>TFTR to investigate the behavior of more reactor-like plasma at Q greater
>>than unity. Achievement of the bulk burning state at a Q of approximately
>>2-3 will require additional neutral beam heating and higher magnetic
>>fields." The milestone for this more advanced operation was FY85. 

But it wasn't funded.

<<snip, snip>>... I will refer to the above in a second... >>

I wrote:

>As others have pointed out, Trivelpiece was *not* head of PPPL.  I
>hope you are not always this sloppy with your facts in attacking someone
>else's programs. 

I apologize for this shot.  It's easy to make small mistakes,
and I certainly know that I make them myself.  I'm pretty tired
right now, and having learned that the picture can be painted
much differently, was feeling a little hypercritical.  I'm sorry.

>As for approximate break-even:  as I pointed out
>earlier, Q of 0.3 or 0.5 is much closer to 1 than 0.0001 is, which
>is (vaguely) where fusion research was when TFTR was designed.

In the context of the below results, one can see that TFTR was
designed to get close to breakeven, and there were times when
improvements to TFTR were proposed which would allow it to get
closer, but from what I understand it's not the case that TFTR
was originally designed to exceed breakeven.

<< Snip...>>


>(Acknowledgements to those who gave me the information
>which I am paraphrasing / summarizing / explaining below.)

>Evidence:
>
>1976 TFTR Management Plan Goal:  1-10 Megajoules of energy production.
>1993 TFTR achievement:  at least 3.5 MJ in single shot, more expected.

>TFTR Design Objectives:

>	Ion temp:p:  	Goal 10 keV, 	Achieved 35 keV
>	Electron temp:  Goal 5-10 keV, 	Achieved 12 keV
>	Electron Density: Goal 1E20 /m^3, Achieved up to 5x10^20
>	Pulse length: 	Goal 1.5 sec, 	Achieved 2.0 sec
>	n-T-tau product: Goal 4x10^20 sec-keV/m^3, Achieved 5.8x10^20
>	Neutral Beams:  Goal 33 MW, 	Achieved 33 MW
>	Central Field:  Goal 5.2 Tesla, Achieved 5.2 T
>	Plasma Current: Goal 3 MA, 	Achieved 3 MA 3 MA

>Now, kilowatt and megawatt power outputs were unheard of when TFTR
>was designed. High power neutral beams were unheard of.  Confinement
>times were on the order of 10-30 *milliseconds.*  The fact that
>TFTR has achieved what it was designed to do is actually pretty
>impressive.  And again, from the looks of the design goals,


I don't think TFTR was originally designed to achieve breakeven,
though it could be that breakeven proved to require higher parameters
than TFTR was designed to achieve.  Anyone know for sure?

<<Snip>>>

> Question:  Is TFTR behind schedule?  (If so, why?)
>
>Answer:  DOE stopped D-T preparations on TFTR three times
>during the 1980s.  Funding for D-T preparations was not
>provided until 1991.  Those who would like to claim that
>this was because TFTR researchers wanted to preserve
>their machine should also consider that the US magnetic
>fusion research budget plunged by over 50% in real terms
>from 1979 to 1991.  

<snip>
 
>This would appear to be a classic case of Carr's discussion
>of cutting funding-stretches out program-slows results
>and achievement.  Fortunately the short-term funding cuts
...

Correction:  It was John Cobb's discussion, not Jim Carr's.
My apologies!   (There is a certain similarity to the names,
is there not?)

<snip>

***********
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Still working at PPPL, disclaimers still apply!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids (a Cobb/Koloc epoid)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids (a Cobb/Koloc epoid)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:35:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2eq46pINNlnl@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <CI4AGn.4L7@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:

I apologize for leaving behind uncorrected spelling and grammar errors..
but I'm too bagged.. so I do better when able. (pmk)

>I thought the key concept for tornadoes, hurricanes, Reversed Field
>Pinches, and Spheromaks was not vorticity, but helicity.

Certainly, if helicity is present, the topology has vorticity.  
Correct?    But as you say if it does have vorticity it may NOT
have helicity.   Right..   

Which one is the more general case??    

Hope you don't mind if I use it to help our friend Edvardo out.  

>That is given a vector field V, its vorticity is Curl V while its
>vorticity is V dot Curl V.

I'm confused by your statement.  Vorticity is a scalar or a 
pseudovector by your teachings?  Or do we take our pick... :-)

>Vorticity measures how things twirl around a line while helicity measures
>how things are tangled. 

Huh???   I've seen tangles in rope and string that have no helicity.  

Using your term -- How about, 
                    Helicity is the rate of travel of a 
                       twirl along its twirl axis.   


>                    In a  hurricane, there is a strong updraft in
>the eye of the storm. 

Not that I'm aware of; the eye of most hurricanes I experienced are
quite very calm.  

>        ..           This is an indication of the fact that the flow
>lines are linked together like chains. One link circles around the eye
>while the other loops from the eye outward to the outer bands and then back 
>down over the water's surface to the eye. 

Don't you think these are but two components of a resultant flow.  

>                      ..    . The hurricane is favored
>based on an energy principle. This flow pattern is much better at
>heating the upper cool air and cooling the ocean surface than conduction
>or more normal storm-modes of convection.   i

 Are you saying it's an efficient thermal-energy-sucking-monster to 
mechanical-energy-conversion-engine??? ... Excellent concept.  

>Likewise, your bathtub drain system also exhibits helicity. As it
>drains, the water flows down the drain but it also swirls around the drain.

Yes that has helicity, as does current over a curved mag flux surface ... 
BUT there is is NO NET HELICITY for currents over the whole topological 
magnetic (poloidal surface) since the reverse (image) current exists when 
the flux lines return around on themselves and the (image) currents are 
at the other (for example outside) mag surface.   (Awkwardly said).  The
outside current may vary in time at a different rate due to changes in 
resistivity and cross-section.     

>It does so in order to maximize the rate at which water drains (maximizes
>the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy and heat).
>Finally, a spheromak is a magnetic helicity system because it has
>roughly equivalent magnitude poloidal and toroidal fields. This means that
>the field lines [t]end to have a great deal of "tangle". This is good
>for some reasons (and sometimes bad for others).

This is true ....
ONLY in super colossally resistive spheromaks (resistomaks) like the
one called S-1 at PPPL.  Normal (ideal) Spheromaks are highly conducting 
and UNTANGLED.  

>In ideal systems (inviscid fluid, perfectly
>conducting plasmas) both the helicity and vorticity are conserved. 

Hyperconductivity is close enough.   It seems to work just fine.  

Actually, in some systems (hyperconducting Spheromak) if one takes 
the curl of the system again, the helicity can be shown to have vorticity. 
 
>                              .. .                However,
>when small dissipation is allowed, neither is conserved. However, global
>quantities may still be preserved (global meaning integrated over space).
>Global vorticity is not conserved, but rather decays from dissipation
>while global helicity is still a fairly well-conserved quantity. Thus
>minimizing energy holding helicity constant leads to long-lived
>states (Taylor states) that are robust and do not seem to decay
>appreciably from dissipation.

(Yawn) ...  It only has to do with the relative values of the toroidal
and poloidal inductances and their respective resistivities and current
cross-sections (resistances).  Of course.. guess what magnetic helicity
gives rise to.  

Also in the Taylor state the poloidal and toroidal flux are isolated 
by highly conducting nested toroids of two component current.  For
example, the toroidal component of current in one of the nested toroidal
hyperconducting surfaces would generate poloidal flux ONLY outside, WHILE
at the same time its poloidal current component would generate a toroidal 
field ONLY inside.  BECAUSE of this applying the virial theorem to
such topologies is bogus and the parent divergence theorem must be used
with the volume integration summed over the set of nested toroidal 
current/mag pressure bearing surfaces.  One problem is that Bpol dot Btor
is Zero since either Bpol or Btor are non- existent on one or the otherside
of the toroid current surface.  And they can not mix through the surface
because of it's high conductivity. This problem only exists were currents
flow on closed surfaces which generate two orthogonal fields at the
same pressure bearing current surface (although from opposite sides) with 
"tensile strength".    Consequently, like a soapbubble, this stressed 
surface has surface tension which tends ot compress the current surface 
inward to both a smaller minor and major radius.   

>Paul, are we saying different things or are we just using different
>terminology?

I'm not sure.  

>-john .w cobb
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Big Science spending was: TFTR: Breakthrough, ...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Big Science spending was: TFTR: Breakthrough, ...
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:54:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2eq9igINN1fq@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <CI4p46.88A@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>Quite the contrary; the biggest problem is that it's being done at 
>>all.  The government has NO business doing BIG  research, since they 
>>are centralized and micro manage (apparently universally from your 
>>list of examples).  

>That's why I proposed this idea. It forces people to pay up front.
>If we want ot fund fusion for 300M$/year from now to 2020 then
>lets do it and, and lets put our money where our mouth is and put up 
>the 30 G$ today to pay for it. Of course it is not a no strings
>attached proposition. Set up milestones and require them to be met
>or boom-boom out go the lights. I think if we had to face up to
>such issues on day one, many more people would come to the
>conclusions that you have that there are many big science
>projects that are not worth it. Who wants to go to mars for
>100 G$? In my mind this is the biggest put up or shut-up
>plan. Ironically, the biggest opponents are not going to be congress
>(although they would chafe) it would be the scientists in these programs
>who would have to justify to the people the true magnitude of national
>resources that they are allocated.

You do NOT need government for this kind of funding schedule.  This
is what Private Industry does.  So ... just quite "en masse" and join 
a firm that has an interest in developing fusion..  I garantee that 
they are more likely to spend money the way you are suggesting than
the government ever will.  


>               Moreoever, there would have been less bitterness
>about the programs termination. It would have been clearly programmatic
>and not political (ideally). The other alternative is that it would
>be achieving its goals. The Japanese didn't give up on mirrors and
>they have a quite impressive machine.


Well tell us about the Japanese machine.  


>I've work'ed at ANL, LANL and ORNL. 

Can't save any of those labs, huh!  Understand they have all had
HEAVY fusion cuts.  

>1) your opinion is wrong. or

>2) The system is set up in a manner that doesn't allow it to
>   recognize such facts.

>3) or both.

There is a fourth. It's indeterminate and ... 

4) They will not jump off the sinking ship in time to clamor to
something that's far more viable and we well over take them and
they will be out of it and not part of the main commercial
break even demonstration.  

>That is why I made my suggesttions above.

Hope someone listens and it saves their burros.  

>-john .w cobb
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 09:06:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CI57o1.E3H@seas.ucla.edu> albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu
(Albert E. Chou) writes:
>In article <CI4C6H.4tL@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>Gosh!  No Wonder Every Thing Will Work Out ..  IT's All Been  DONE BEFORE!!!
>>Sorry Al, but you were wide open on this one.

>I think this comment was unwarranted.  Did you really infer that was what
>I meant?

Apparently my judgement isn't always correct;  my apology.  
Best regards
Paul

>Al
>-- 
>Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
>GEnie:  A.Chou1

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Jim Bowery /  The TFTR burn was propaganda
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The TFTR burn was propaganda
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 01:15:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
>>lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.
>
>and then Jim gives his hearsay testimony about Hirsch's opinions
>
>>Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                  do you know this was their reason?
>                                  how do you know?
>                                  can you document their sliminess?
 
This was the implication from the speech, and I assume that since Hirsch 
was giving this speech before the advisory committee (including PPPL 
 guys) that anyone could have called him on the "insinuation" at that time.
 
I don't have my photocopy of the speech handy.  Does anyone out there have
Hirsch's (1986 I believe) speech before the fusion advisory committee?
 
>>TFTR program after the radioactivity problems reared their ugly head
>>in the middle of populus Princeton, NJ, but Hirsch wanted them to be
>                                                    ^^^^^^
>                                 I see you can also read Hirsch's
>                                 mind as well.
 
That's what Hirsch said.  I can only assume that is also what he thought.
 
>>By delaying the TFTR burn for years and then doing it right on the date of
>>the "cold fusion" conference, Princeton has demonstrated it has more
political
>>than technical savvy.
>
>Yea, right. All the networks were planning to send their correspondants
>to the CF conference to do reports but pulled them when Guido and
>Carlo, the PPPL lobbyists "made them an offer they couldn't refuse"
>puhleease. -- get a grip.
 
I said nothing any PPPL lobbyists contacting news media let alone what sort 
of offers they might have made.  Could YOU please "get a grip?"
 
>That manipulation of media, minds, and programs is not beyond the realm
>of possibility. But when your comments are filled with totally
>unsubstantiated hearsay that claims noetic authority on people's
>motives it is out of line. Charitable people would call it gossip.
>Less charitable people would call it slander.
 
Talk about slander!  Sheesh...
 
Who do you think holds the patent on the spheromak?  What do
you think PPPL has to say about this particular inventor?
 
Until you post the answer to these two questions in this public forum,
I submit that you have no business discussing anything related to the 
spheromak, PPPL or "slander."
 
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>>   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>I submit that it is you, Jim you have injected politics into this 
>discussion.
 
You're batting 0 so far.  PPPL injected politics into this discussion when 
they asked for our tax dollars.  That was bad enough, but when they didn't
deliver they made it our duty to speak out against them.  When they
went into aggressive attacks on the character of technologists who
threaten their hegemony, they ceased simply wasting our tax dollars
and began active attacking the essence of life on this planet.
 
How much do we have to suffer at the hands of these parasites before
we are permitted to respond in defense of ourselves, Mr. Cobb?
 
I would be happy if they would just leave us all alone.  I understand
that this could mean death for the parasites, but they are still somewhat
human and therefore may be capable of changing instead.
 
PS:  I have a hard time deciding whether University of Texas at Austin 
Princeton or University of Chicago win the booby-prize for doing the
most damage to life on this planet not to mention civilization.  I
think I still have to hand the prize to U of C despite Mr. Cobb's 
contributions to Austin's reputation in his recent attempts to parasitize
Koloc's credibility.  We'll see how far he takes this particular
behavior.  Austin could still be in the running!
 
PPS:  Are YOU receiving any of my tax dollars for fusion work, Mr. Cobb?
Never mind.  I'll find out.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  TFTR Conspriacy
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Conspriacy
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 01:15:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, it looks to me that the TFTR guys have been successful in burrying 
the ICCF4 posts under a pile of hot fusion hot air.  That is their privelage,
but I am interested in a meaningful debate on the results from Maui.  

My plan is to continue writing up the papers, but to delay posting them until 
the TFTR guys have run down.  Anyone interested in a specific paper can contact
me directly.

Meanwhile, the basement work continues, and I am beginning to solder together
bits for test.  I have figured out how to make a better shell structure, so I
will scrap about half of the machined parts.  Pity.  But the old design will
make a nice test structure.  The plan is to fire up the old 286 CPU and 
data system one more time to use it as a multi-channel thermometer.  Meanwhile
I have discovered a pretty good temperature standard in my own lab.  It seems
there was some money left over one year and I bought this really fancy Keithley
DVM.  One of the accessories he bought (ain't end of year money grand?) was
a RTD temperature probe traceable to NIST with guaranteed drift over time.
Looks like it is still good to 0.2 C from the time chart.  Probably even 
better than that.  My tech (Merle Watson) has been working for me for 20 years
and he has learned to buy thing that I will need some day.  For example, he 
was the one who had bought the TED's that I used for the first calorimeter 
tests.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Jim Bowery /  The TFTR burn was propaganda
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The TFTR burn was propaganda
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 01:15:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
>>lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.
>
>and then Jim gives his hearsay testimony about Hirsch's opinions
>
>>Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                  do you know this was their reason?
>                                  how do you know?
>                                  can you document their sliminess?
 
This was the implication from the speech, and I assume that since Hirsch 
was giving this speech before the advisory committee (including PPPL 
 guys) that anyone could have called him on the "insinuation" at that time.
 
I don't have my photocopy of the speech handy.  Does anyone out there have
Hirsch's (1986 I believe) speech before the fusion advisory committee?
 
>>TFTR program after the radioactivity problems reared their ugly head
>>in the middle of populus Princeton, NJ, but Hirsch wanted them to be
>                                                    ^^^^^^
>                                 I see you can also read Hirsch's
>                                 mind as well.
 
That's what Hirsch said.  I can only assume that is also what he thought.
 
>>By delaying the TFTR burn for years and then doing it right on the date of
>>the "cold fusion" conference, Princeton has demonstrated it has more
political
>>than technical savvy.
>
>Yea, right. All the networks were planning to send their correspondants
>to the CF conference to do reports but pulled them when Guido and
>Carlo, the PPPL lobbyists "made them an offer they couldn't refuse"
>puhleease. -- get a grip.
 
I said nothing about PPPL lobbyists contacting news media let alone what 
sort of offers they might have made.  Could YOU please "get a grip?"
 
>That manipulation of media, minds, and programs is not beyond the realm
>of possibility. But when your comments are filled with totally
>unsubstantiated hearsay that claims noetic authority on people's
>motives it is out of line. Charitable people would call it gossip.
>Less charitable people would call it slander.
 
Talk about slander!  Sheesh...
 
Who do you think holds the patent on the spheromak?  What do
you think PPPL has to say about this particular inventor?
 
Until you post the answer to these two questions in this public forum,
I submit that you have no business discussing anything related to the 
spheromak, PPPL or "slander."
 
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>>   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>I submit that it is you, Jim you have injected politics into this 
>discussion.
 
You're batting 0 so far.  PPPL injected politics into this discussion when 
they asked for our tax dollars.  That was bad enough, but when they didn't
deliver they made it our duty to speak out against them.  When they
went into aggressive attacks on the character of technologists who
threaten their hegemony, they ceased simply wasting our tax dollars
and began active attacking the essence of life on this planet.
 
How much do we have to suffer at the hands of these parasites before
we are permitted to respond in defense of ourselves, Mr. Cobb?
 
I would be happy if they would just leave us all alone.  I understand
that this could mean death for the parasites, but they are still somewhat
human and therefore may be capable of changing instead.
 
PS:  I sometimes have a hard time deciding whether Princeton University or 
University of Chicago wins the academic prize for doing the most damage to 
life on this planet not to mention civilization.  However, based on my past 
experiences with Austin vis NASA/DoE, and Mr. Cobb's recent contributions 
to its reputation, I am now adding Austin to the list (MIT, CalTech and 
Stanford used to be in there but they seem to have calmed down recently).  
At present U of C holds the lead.  Mr. Cobb's contributions to Austin's 
reputation in his recent interactions with Koloc on the PLASMAK(tm) have
the incipient signs of being a valient attempt to take the lead.  If Cobb
manages to make it easier for anyone with DoE money (including himself or
 those at Austin) to try to claim credit for the PLASMAK(tm) I'll have 
to put Austin in a dead heat for first place with University of Chicago.
 
PPS:  Are YOU receiving any of my tax dollars for fusion work, Mr. Cobb?
Never mind.  I'll find out.  Such things are a matter of public record
so that "politicians" like myself, can cause no end of trouble for poor 
innocent "technologists" like those at University of Texas at Austin.
Who ever came up with this idea of taxation with representation anyway?
Really bad idea -- causes ordinary people to "micromanage" the poor 
"technologists" who we should just be giving huge multi-year 
authorizations to -- via the wonderfulness of the political process of 
course.  No thanks.  Just let us keep our money out of "the process".
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Theory Papers (Part 2) - J.P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (Part 2) - J.P. Vigier
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 01:15:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

T 2.7  New Hydrogen (Deutrerium) Bohr Orbits in Quantum Chemistry and "Cold 
Fusion" Processes.

Jean-Pierre Vigier, Universite Paris

[Get ready to re-think some of your elementary quantum mechanical 
education!]

>From the abstract of the paper:

"a) The observed presence of excess heat in Hydrogrn based experiments 
shows that this enthalpy excess is not (at least at low energy input) based 
on fusion processes but rather on an exotic new form of quantum chemistry 
associated to new "tight" Bohr orbits in Hydrogen and Deuterium."

"b) ... fusion reactions (despite the fact that they are numerically many 
orders of magnitude too small to explain the associated excess heat) are 
present and 1) should be related to the new exoitc chemical mechanism and 
to a screening mechanism in condensed matter 2) could lead, with higher 
energy inputs to real fusion reactors since fusion energy would be added to 
the new chemical energy."

"c) As basis for the new phenomena one can add to the Coulomb Potential 
(utilized in Hydrogen and Deuterium) spin-spin and spin orbit interactions. 
 Usually neglected, they would manifest themselves when [the vectors] L, 
M1, M2 are oriented (parallel) (due to electromagnetic interactions) when H 
and D are in condensed form in various types of electrodes. Indeed for two 
charged particles e1, e2 with magnetic moments [vectors] M1 and M2 the 
usual quantum Schrodinger Hamiltonian is given by

     1                  (r1-r2)         1                 (r2-r1)
H = ---- * (P1-e1*M2 x --------- )^2 + ---- * (P2-e2*M1 x ------- )^2...
    2*m1               |r1-r2|^3       2*m2               |r1-r2|^3

       e1*e2
   +  ------- - M1 . M2 . S12(r1-r2)
      |r1-r2|

where S12 is the usual dipole-dipole interaction tensor.

[I have used * x and . to denote mulitplications explicitly. ^ denotes 
power.  Apparently Vigier sets hbar = 1, m1 and m2 are the masses, P1 and 
P2 the momentums, r1 and r2 are the coordinates of particle 1 and particle 
2, respectively. There is one line of the abstract which is not reproduced 
clearly, but apparently after introducing some simplification of variables 
and letting r1=0 (center of mass reference frame) the following equation is 
presented:]

     1         e1*e2   e1*M2   sigma.L   e1^2 * M2^2    1
H = ---- P^2 + ----- - ----- . ------- + ----------- . ---
    2*mu         r       m1      r^3          m1       r^4

[Here particle 1 is a proton and particle 2 is an electron, mu is the 
"reduced mass", r is the distance between the particles, L is the angular 
momentum vector, sigma is the vector of Pauli matrices.]

"To calculate the eigenvalue problem H*psi = Em*psi, with the spin of 
particle 2 (electron) = 1/2, one can start from the eigenstates of sigma.L 
with eigenvalues Ce corresponding to (-(l+1) = -(j+3/2) for j=l-1/2 or 
l=j-1/2 for j=l+1/2.

"This gives an effective radial potential V(r) given by:

        l*(l+1)   e1*e2   e1*M2*Ce   e1^2 * M2^2    1
V(r) = -------- + ----- - -------- + ----------- . ---
       2*mu*r^2     r      m1*r^3         m1       r^4

which evidently implies the existence of new subground state (w.r.t. the 
Coulomb Potential) quantized energy states Em corresponding to new "tight" 
Bohr orbits.  These new Bohr orbits can be shown 1) to be circles around 
L3, corresponding to an integer number m of de Broglie's wavelengths, 2) to 
be calculable through the formula:

  m^2 * hbar^2    d V(r)
  ------------ =  ------
     m1*r^3         d r

d) This model yields new Hydrogen (also Deuterium) energy levels (also 
describable in terms of "enhanced" electron masses) which 1) correspond to 
new resonance reactiions (which generate soft x-rays) 2) to new "tight" 
types of Hydrogen H2bar+ and Deuterium D2bar+ whose formation is 
exothermic, 3) favor fusion when enhanced by a "screening" mechanism within 
specific electrodes.

e) The prediction of the apparition of this new type of molecules can be 
(as suggested by Mills, Good and Shaubach)(5) by lack of reactivity with 
oxygen, separation from molecular deuterium by cryofit [sic?] ration and 
mass spectroscopic analysis.

...

(5) R.D. Mills, W.R. Good and R. Shaubach; "Dihydrino Molecule 
Identification". Fusion Technology (in press).

[end of quotation from abstract]"

Now would be a good time for all you rusty QM experts to go back and 
consult you favourite QM text on the stand solution of Schrodinger's 
equation for the hydrogen atom.  You will discover that what Vigier is 
doing *is* standard elementary quantum mechanics!  As you can see, if this 
theory is correct, it would have an enormous impact on quantum chemistry.

During his talk, Vigier showed the complete derivation of the solution and 
stated that, in fact there are three classes of solutions.  The first are 
the well known conventional solutions.  The second class correspond to the 
so called "fractional quantum numbers" posited by Mills.  And there is a 
third class which he did not discuss any further.

Note that Vigier is *not* suggesting any radical change to QM of the kind 
considered by Mills.  He is using standard QM together with a more complete 
Hamiltonian that includes well known interactions which were previous 
thought to be safely ignored.

The reference to "Bohr orbits" is a little strange.  The Bohr model 
pre-dates modern quantum mechanics and it was largerly a "lucky accident" 
that Bohr's calculations agreed with the solutions of the radial 
Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom.  None the less, Bohr's 
semi-classical model has great intuitive appeal.  As I understand it, 
Vigier visualizes the new solutions as "orbits" which have a new degree of 
freedom similar to precession.  The first subground state would correspond 
to an orbit that would look something like the stitching on a baseball.

Or maybe a picture like this would be better:  Imagine taking a ball and a 
piece of string just long enough to make a great circle around the ball.  
This corresponds to the normal ground state.  The length of the string 
corresponds to one de Broglie wavelength of the electron.  Now, consider a 
string twice as long.  It can correspond to an orbit with twice the radius. 
*Or* it can be wrapped twice around the ball!  You can repeat this for any 
postive integer times the length.

Thinking about this kept me awake almost all night after this talk.

Unfortunately there was no time allowed after his presentation for 
questions because of the need to accommodate the later talks.  In person, 
later that day I asked Dr. Vigier if his theory could account for the 
observation by Mills/Farrel that excess heat is not observed if a catalyst 
is used in their system.  He stated that yes it does, because recombination 
of hydrogen in its tightly bound state with oxygen is endothermic.

I am anxiously waiting to receive a copy of this paper.  For the last few 
months I have been preparing to attempt a Monte Carlo calculation of the 
ground state energy of Vigier's H2bar+.  In another month I may have some 
results to post here.

Your comments and reactions to Vigier's theory are most welcome.

Cheers.

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  TFTR timing, and questions to Bill Page
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR timing, and questions to Bill Page
Date: 16 Dec 93 16:59:33 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tom Droege suggested that the timing of the TFTR results was calculated to
steal the thunder from the ICCF-4 (Maui) pronouncements -- what thunder anyway?
Anyway, Tom, I suggest that the paucity of reporters explains better the
lack of media coverage.  I saw only Jerry Bishop of J. Wall Street and a
student-reporter from the U. of Hawaii newspaper.  This meeting was
definitely reporter-penic -- reporters were scarcer than neutrons!  A
refreshing change.  Suppose the media-types are making a statement by their
absence?  One doubts that they were all in Princeton covering hot fusion
at the time.  Maui's prettier.

Bill made the remark "the strange feeling I mentioned I an earlier posting that
felt like I was (we are) being deliberately manipulated."  In what ways, Bill?
Can you elaborate?

Also, Bill cited Fleischmann as saying the deuteron moved as d+ in the lattice 
-- I agree that F was surprisingly insistent on that point.  Why?  
And didn't Dr.  Li of Savannah
River Labs. contradict that notion (also Scott Chubb) saying that the most
probable (lowest energy) state of the deuteron was slightly negative, i.e.,
with associated electrons in the Pd lattice?  Can you clarify?

Finally, Bill, you posted:  "we must now believe, following the recent
resolution of the long standing EPR paradox, that it [the wave amplitude]
is nonetheless, REAL."   Again, I'd appreciate clarification -- how was the
EPR paradox recently resolved?  

Thanks, Steven Jones



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Mark Hittinger /  A couple of Maui notes
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A couple of Maui notes
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 14:47:49 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.


Dr. Jones wants me to talk more about the money/stock angle of cold fusion.
When I saw the formation of ENECO followed by NHE my antennas were really
out and wiggling.  This is probably the most important news from ICCF4.

I am still doing some research but I do plan to write a little bit about
what I find out.  I am particularly interested in who owns the stock, who
has options on the stock, who is related to who owns the stock, ect.

I think that knowing this will give us a greater insight.

Of course, since money is involved people will get even more upset than they
do at cold fusion stuff!  I will be carefull - remember - its my own opinions
and speculations - use at own risk.  I have no insider information - just
guesswork.  You guys all need to use your own intuition/guts/whatever.

Jed talks about the stinkin' badges quote.  When Dr. Morisson was jumping on
Dr. Pons I wanted to leap into the air and shout - COME ON STANLEY!!! but
he didn't do it.  Maybe he never saw the movie.  When I mentioned it in the
maui sunset car pool there was much laughter - so I know Dr. Pons could have
brought the house down.  I wrote him a short note explaining it in case he
needs it - you know - a little fan mail.  Hope that it makes it through all
the hate mail.

I was unhappy because we couldn't ask beans about any more "heat after death".
OH! I remember now!  It was beans!  Beans are related to the other "heat after
death" phenomena I've heard about - and its reproducible too! :-) :-)

---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Peter Lamb /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 04:21:44 GMT
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology

cremin@panix.com (David Cremin) writes:

>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2e3ogj$gc4@agate.berkeley.edu>
>: sternber@haas.berkeley.edu (Theodore Sternberg) writes:

>: > Why is it that the front (caliper) brakes deliver much more "stopping
>: > power" than do the rear brakes?

>:   Theodore has brought up a topic I am passionate over. I have
>: transcontinental bicycled twice now. After reading this post leader and
>: follow-ups I propose a new invention. A patentable invention which if
>: not already patented then I will seek claims to the foregoing. Let this
>: posting be the initial patented discovery if not already patented.
>[bullshit deleted]

>Ludge, the amount of work required to light the headlamp will be the same
>no matter how you do it, all other things being equal. In fact all other
>things are not equal, and the friction-drive generator loses some
>efficiency due to internal friction and the losses due to the friction
>coupling.

>By the way, this is not a novel idea. I remember that in the fifties and
>sixties in Europe, there existed hub-mounted generators built into the
>front wheel.

Yep. Their main problem is that you can't fit enough poles into the hub
to avoid getting heavy modulation of the light intensity when you're
riding slowly.

Anyway, conventional driven-by-friction-from-the-tyre generators
also use a stationary coil and rotating magnetic field, as the good Lud
suggests might be patentable. This means you can avoid having a commutator
or slip rings.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenprl cudfnPeter cudlnLamb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: TFTR timing, and questions to Bill Page
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR timing, and questions to Bill Page
Date: 17 Dec 1993 15:26:32 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1993Dec16.165933.1189@physc1.byu.edu> 
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>                                                   This meeting was
>definitely reporter-penic -- reporters were scarcer than neutrons!  

Awesome. 

Now a followup on a different, but related, subject. 

I sent a note to Bob Park (opa@aps.org) and asked him about the rules 
at Physical Review Letters vis-a-vis submitting a paper previously 
'published' in the NYTimes.  He replied that "The Goudsmidt ban 
on work that has already been published in the New York Times is 
no longer enforced, althought the practice is still frowned upon. 
Moreover, it has generally been agreed that there are some cases 
where the rule should not apply.  An obvious example would be the 
observation of a super nova." 

He also pointed out something that got lost in all the publicity. 
At least I missed it.  It was not just a press conference or news 
release from PPPL.  The press was invited to witness the test, so 
they were there to see a failure if it had not worked.  Thus it 
was more like a NASA launch than the typical experiment.  Of course, 
that says it *is* more technology than science.  However, it must 
be noted that the press might (?) not notice mistakes that a peer 
reviewer (from JET for example) would see immediately, so there 
is some truth to both sides of this question.   

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / John Cobb /  Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids (a Cobb/Koloc epoid)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids (a Cobb/Koloc epoid)
Date: 17 Dec 1993 10:26:51 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CI67vL.9pG@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2eq46pINNlnl@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <CI4AGn.4L7@prometheus.uucp>,
>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>
>>I thought the key concept for tornadoes, hurricanes, Reversed Field
>>Pinches, and Spheromaks was not vorticity, but helicity.
>
>Certainly, if helicity is present, the topology has vorticity.  
>Correct?    But as you say if it does have vorticity it may NOT
>have helicity.   Right..   
right.
>
>Which one is the more general case??    

depends on where you look. My point was that when we look for persistent
nonlinear structures, that flow with helicity tend to be more structurally,
or topologically stable. Sam Oliveira wrote a paper about decay rates in a
resistive plasma. If I remember correctly he showed that in the asymptotic
limit (small resistivity) that global helicity is conserved to higher
order in the perturbation parameter than energy is conserved. This
justifies the "minimum energy given constrained helicity" approach.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if he ever published it. I think he is
back in Brazil now, so I don't see him.

>
>>That is given a vector field V, its vorticity is Curl V while its
>>vorticity is V dot Curl V.
>
>I'm confused by your statement.  Vorticity is a scalar or a 
>pseudovector by your teachings?  Or do we take our pick... :-)

Well for 3-d flows (which I meant) it is a psuedo-vector if V is a
vector. I was just sloppy about the details of distinguishing between
true and pseudo- I don't think it matters here, does it?

>
>>Vorticity measures how things twirl around a line while helicity measures
>>how things are tangled. 
>
>Huh???   I've seen tangles in rope and string that have no helicity.  

again, I plead sloppiness. I guessed a better term would be "linked"
instead of "tangled"

>Yes that has helicity, as does current over a curved mag flux surface ... 
>BUT there is is NO NET HELICITY for currents over the whole topological 
>magnetic (poloidal surface) since the reverse (image) current exists when 
>the flux lines return around on themselves and the (image) currents are 
>at the other (for example outside) mag surface.   (Awkwardly said).  The
>outside current may vary in time at a different rate due to changes in 
>resistivity and cross-section.     

I don't quite follow you here. But I had always thought that spheromaks
had a great deal of net helicity. For the magnetic field lines the 
Vectoer field V is simply B, the magnetic field, so V dot curl V reduces
to B dot J, which is the force free condition. The fact that spheromaks
have helicity is the reason they are being used for the helicity injection
experiment at T de V and elsewhere, (at least that's my understanding)

>

>>In ideal systems (inviscid fluid, perfectly
>>conducting plasmas) both the helicity and vorticity are conserved. 
>
>Hyperconductivity is close enough.   It seems to work just fine.  

So what you are saying is that you are striving for a eta -> 0 type
of operating regime. In that case the field line structure itself
is of course preserved since there is no reconnection. Are you sure that 
you can actually operate in that regime? That is there is no driven
reconnection or collisionless reconnection. Maybe I'm not clear on
whether you are saying your plasma is resistanceless or are you saying
that your flux conserver is near perfect?

>
>Actually, in some systems (hyperconducting Spheromak) if one takes 
>the curl of the system again, the helicity can be shown to have vorticity. 

This is always the case in 2-d systems because curl(curl V) is parallel
to V. So if w = curl V then the helicity of w, hw = w dot curl (w) =
curl V dot curl(curl V) = curl v dot k V = k hv, where k is some scaler field.
and hv is the helicity associated with vector field V.
Therefore the helicity of w is propotional to the helicity of V.
In fact Sam Oliveria and I worked out a scheme for transforming the
zero pressure Grad-Shafranov equilibrim formulation into another form.
In that manner, a given GS solution can be used to generate a second
GS solution where the role of poloidal and toroidal flux functions have
been swaped. The process can be repeated infinitely. So a single solution
can be used to generate a countably infinite set of solutions. However,
these other solutions are sometimes really non-physical, and often the
process will return to the orginal solution at some later time.
I found it kind of neat, but I guess you have to be into that stuff.

> 
>>                              .. .                However,
>>when small dissipation is allowed, neither is conserved. However, global
>>quantities may still be preserved (global meaning integrated over space).
>>Global vorticity is not conserved, but rather decays from dissipation
>>while global helicity is still a fairly well-conserved quantity. Thus
>>minimizing energy holding helicity constant leads to long-lived
>>states (Taylor states) that are robust and do not seem to decay
>>appreciably from dissipation.
>
>(Yawn) ...  It only has to do with the relative values of the toroidal
>and poloidal inductances and their respective resistivities and current
>cross-sections (resistances).  Of course.. guess what magnetic helicity
>gives rise to.  
>
>Also in the Taylor state the poloidal and toroidal flux are isolated 
>by highly conducting nested toroids of two component current.  For
>example, the toroidal component of current in one of the nested toroidal
>hyperconducting surfaces would generate poloidal flux ONLY outside, WHILE
>at the same time its poloidal current component would generate a toroidal 
>field ONLY inside.  BECAUSE of this applying the virial theorem to
>such topologies is bogus and the parent divergence theorem must be used
>with the volume integration summed over the set of nested toroidal 
>current/mag pressure bearing surfaces.

Right, this is what I was saying. Applying the virial theorem is bogus.
But that's good news, becuase it is the virial theorem that tells you
you must have large external magnetic fields. The conjecture is that
you can generate an euqilibrium with little or no external magnetic
field by using the pressure gradient for self-containment. I think
this is a really neat idea.
>
>>Paul, are we saying different things or are we just using different
>>terminology?
>
>I'm not sure.  
>
I think we are really saygin the same things --- maybe

-john .w cobb

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: ICCF4 Part 3  
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Part 3  
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 21:22:06 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

Tom Droge wondered about the connection between the equation:

log excess = 11.57S -3387T

and the 15 kcal/mol result mentioned by Ed Storms.

Perhaps I can shed some light on this.  First of all, the 11.57S is likely
to be 11.575.  Secondly, Ed is saying that the excess is thermally activated;
that is, it obeys the Arrhenius relationship (which means that higher
temperatures are favorable).

So since the activation energy for the process divided by the gas constant,
R, (and 2.303 to convert from base 10 to base e logs) equals 3387.

E/(2.303*R) = 3387

For the units of calories, R = 1.987 cal/mol-K

So, E = 2.303*1.987*3387 = 15.5 kcal/mol

Close enough?


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 17:40:13 EST

         Robert Heeter posted:
>             ...  As for approximate break-even:  as I pointed out
>earlier, Q of 0.3 or 0.5 is much closer to 1 than 0.0001 is, which
>is (vaguely) where fusion research was when TFTR was designed.  ...

         You appear to be comparing DT numbers for TFTR to DD numbers
for earlier machines which I believe is misleading.  The earlier PLT
(Princeton Large Torus) machine had a calculated Q value of .02 for
DT.
         Robert Heeter also posted:
>In the context of the below results, one can see that TFTR was
>designed to get close to breakeven, and there were times when
>improvements to TFTR were proposed which would allow it to get
>closer, but from what I understand it's not the case that TFTR
>was originally designed to exceed breakeven.
         and:
>I don't think TFTR was originally designed to achieve breakeven,
>though it could be that breakeven proved to require higher parameters
>than TFTR was designed to achieve.  Anyone know for sure?

         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 60)
         "The attainment of Q values somewhat greater than 1 is a
realistic prospect for the next generation of tokamak experiments.  Two
of the large tokamaks currently under construction will be capable of
demonstrating this type of operation on a short-pulse basis in actual
deuterium-tritium plasmas.  The devices, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
(TFTR) at Princeton, which is scheduled for completion in late 1981,
and the Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in England, scheduled for
1982, will have plasma currents of about three million amperes, neutral-
beam heating powers of tens of megawatts and expected fusion-generated
output powers of between 10 and 100 megawatts.  The minor radius of the
plasma in the TFTR and the JET will be respectively two and three times
larger than the minor radius of the plasma in the PLT; it is estimated
that the cost of each of the new facilities will be on the order of
$300 million."
         In view of the above I do not see how the actual results to
date can be characterized as other than disappointing.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjbs cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
Date: 17 Dec 1993 17:27:45 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

In article <93121611320598@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Now our faithful reporter, Jed Rothwell, tells us that the installation
>of shielding and radiation safety devices has delayed further progress
>at by P&F's laboratory.  Something is wrong here!

Another ICCF4 attendee quoted P|F as saying that progress was delayed in
order to get a better neutron detector.  This makes more sense to me.
(Sorry, no specific reference, I've deleted that posting.)

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Jim Bowery /  Protocols of the Elders of Zion State Park
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Protocols of the Elders of Zion State Park
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 05:42:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Well, it looks to me that the TFTR guys have been successful in burrying 
>the ICCF4 posts under a pile of hot fusion hot air.  That is their privelage,
>but I am interested in a meaningful debate on the results from Maui.  
 
I wish the "hydrogen energy" crowd great good fortune and all that, but
really, it's not like they haven't been invited to find a more appropriate
venue since the leaders in the field have accepted the fact that what
they are witnessing isn't "fusion" in any normal sense of the word.
 
-- or have they?  I really haven't been following all that closely.
 
I seem to recall P&F claiming that whatever it is, it isn't "fusion" and
others, such as Jed Rothwell, saying the same thing.  I keep getting 
confused on this issue and I'm not sure whether it is my casual interest
leading me astray or whether there are genuine self-contradictory statements
by the same people through time.
 
What are P&F currently claiming?  
 
Or are they claiming they just don't know anymore?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 18 04:37:06 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR: Huge Disapointment/Success : Heeter/Koloc EPIC Yawn 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Huge Disapointment/Success : Heeter/Koloc EPIC Yawn 
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 08:54:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2erke1$mr2@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
>Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:
>>Reality:

>>Promises
>On the contrary, these were not promises but new goals proposed
>since TFTR was doing better-than-expected, and funding levels
>were expected to rise, rather than drop to half their previous
>value over the next few years.  If you want to look at promises,
>you should look at the ORIGINAL TFTR design specifications.  See
>below.  

I have seen the designed performances schedules from the 70's, which
were appropriate to DT tests in 1983.  They weren't met and they
were not done.  Conclusion:  The tokamak is a plasma physics
plaything and not a serious commercial fusion contender.   

>>In 1987 DOE reviewed TFTR's potential for getting Q of 1..(MFAC panel 17
>>report,) It is very interesting reading. They state that the break point
>>in between technology interest and science interest is a Q of about 0.5.
>>But the letter from Trivelpiece (then the head of Princeton Plasma Physics
>>Laboratory) in the forward of the report the the MFAC charging them with
>>the review states "2)achieve approximate break-even (Q about 1) at reactor
>>level fusion power densities (10^6 W m-3),"

>As others have pointed out, Trivelpiece was *not* head of PPPL. I .. .

True he slipped and I certain knows that Al was at OER.  
I find that interesting.  Furth took over from Gottlieb, and became
the artisan of tokamak progress by Press Release.  However, Furth and
Trivelpiece exacted Clarke's Soul when he took over Germantown.  So
Furth/Trivelpiece, these chaps were interestingly single purposed.  I 
can see why someone steeped in policy could take these two as opposite
sides of the same coin. An interesting point for psycology of science
to probe.     

>hope you are not always this sloppy with your facts in attacking someone
>else's programs.  As for approximate break-even:  as I pointed out
>earlier, Q of 0.3 or 0.5 is much closer to 1 than 0.0001 is, which
>is (vaguely) where fusion research was when TFTR was designed.  And
>again, we have not yet heard the last from TFTR.  There may be
>surprises...  I will discuss this more below.

I don't think so.  ATC was much better than that. And ASDEX was better
all around, especially for SHM, versatility and cleanliness.   

>>In all fairness, some of the schedule slippage came about because the 
>>funding was stretched out.  Nonetheless TFTR has consistently gone over
>>estimated costs and under estimated performance. 

>When I read this last claim, I was rather concerned.  Certainly I'd
>prefer to work for a program which did what it planned to do, and
>achieved at least what was expected of it, within the constraints
>of scientific uncertainty and the ups and downs of Congressional
>funding shifts.  So I asked people at the lab what they thought,
>and collected some information of my own.

Congressional "downs" were far to lenient, they should have 
stopped the TFTR program in its tracks, since it had degraded 
to a plasma physics program, and had suspended straight forward 
fusion development. 

>Here's what I learned:

>(Acknowledgements to those who gave me the information
>which I am paraphrasing / summarizing / explaining below.)

>First question:  Has TFTR lived up to its original design goals?

>(i.e., have they kept their promises?)

>Answer: Yes.

Who are we asking, the foxes running the raid on the hen house???
Wrong..  they kept their revised promises (some after the fact).  

>Evidence:
>Second Question:  Is TFTR over budget?  

>Answer:  the 1983 planned cost (over project lifetime) to take
>TFTR through the D-T phase was $200 million more than it will
>actually cost.  (I can get references for this.)

Oh...  Well since it was supposed to do DT burns in 1983, then
I suppose at that time it was over budget and behind schedule WITH
INCREASING BUDGETS.  

>Third Question:  Is TFTR behind schedule?  (If so, why?)

>Answer:  DOE stopped D-T preparations on TFTR three times
>during the 1980s.  Funding for D-T preparations was not
>provided until 1991.  

Well, I don't think this was done in a vacuum, it was done at PPPL's
request!  

>Those who would like to claim that
>this was because TFTR researchers wanted to preserve
>their machine should also consider that the US magnetic
>fusion research budget plunged by over 50% in real terms
>from 1979 to 1991.  

But PPPL's budget kept going up at the expense of alternative
concepts and in 1983 they decided to start (even entertain)
any new altnernative or advanced fusion concepts but couldn't
get the balls to drop them until  ... Ann Davies pulled the 
plug in a tiff with LANL.  ONRL may have had something to do
with it because Clarke was sent off to the IAEA and it was 
generally rumored he had stepped a bit out of line and was
doing "time in stir" for his crime.  Probably mucking up toky
funding.  Also there was a brief excursion of a wild steely 
eyed man from MIT that championed ICF, and that was crunched 
but they paid a few political shekels to get his plug 
pulled.  Hip! Hurrah! for the occasional interlopers.  

>Doing D-T on TFTR requires not only
>$$ to run the new, more expensive experiments, but also to
>put together the next generation of experiment.  (The 
>alternative is to kill the tokamak program, which would
>be an odd thing to do at a time when Japan and Europe
>were steadily increasing their investment in fusion research. 

Wrong!!!   THAT'S THE TIME TO CUT and leave those suckers 
holding the bag.. Surely, we don't need two tokamak programs,
when a paper study with desk top experiments will do just
fine.  But to have 3 programs PLUS the Russian tokamak factory
at Kurchatove is bloody nuts!!.  

>Currently Japan and the EC countries both spend more on 
>fusion than the US, in both real $ and as a fraction of GNP.
 
Well, the Japanese are still paying for the Probability shift 
imposed forcing a squaring of thier population distribution 
for innovation and entreprenuerial skills by those previous
centuries of Samarai bowing and scraping.  They need therapy
to overcome this problem, because there aren't that many
Honda types around.  The Europians suffer from puried 
neighborhood syndrome.   Your neighborhood is good the guys
in the next block may be okay but don't trust them if you 
don't have to and  the guys across the river are our enemies
don't buy from them, don't look at them if you drive through
their neighborhood, etc..   If we don't get cracking with 
segregation moving challanges again this country may slip 
back a bit.  

So we should copy their stupidity???   I think not.   
However, you will note that the USDoE EXCLUSIVELY does not
trust single innovators and goes in its entirety to Europe
for it's fusion ideas.  Once a Lab has been assigned an
idea, it is theirs forever.  So PPPL will live and die by
the tokamak ... ihope.    Or they will stop waiting for 
HP to recover and make a move to consider us.    

>did not (in this case) lead to overall budget overruns
>(as was the case with the SSC, I believe).

Certainly true if you read PPPL- USDoE revisionist boiler-
plate. But like so much that comes from those sources over
the decades it's clever formulation, hype, spin or 
whatever.  

>It now seems to me that those who would argue for
>answers different than the ones given above will need to
>look at the complete TFTR historical record, rather than
>selectively quoting the most overoptimistic report made
>at the height of fusion funding, and then contrasting it
>with the performance of TFTR during a period of budget
>cuts such that the proposals made in the optimistic
>report were not even funded.

Well, I'm sorry but those are the reports PPPL and DoE 
shoved into the asses of the American tax payers through
the well placed holes in Congresspersons, staffers and
news media.  And those fixes were put in over the years.    

Yep!  one should try cleaning their glasses getting some 
sleep and reading and contemplating a more generlized
form of that good advice.  Even the advisor could perhaps
start to move the pardigms together.    

>It seems to me that TFTR has been a good project, and
>I am happy to be working at PPPL. 

A good wellfare plasma physics project and a diasterous 
blighter of a fusion development project.  

>As usual, I do not represent PPPL, and I try not to
>be brainwashed about TFTR or the tokamak in general.
>But credit should be given where credit is due.

Yep, when one swims in it day in and day out, they get 
so used to the smell, it raises the scent threshold so
high a person can't smell it any more.  That's the problem 
with a jobs at PPPL or redregging well used out-house pits.  
>***************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>First Year Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: some ICCF4 Tuesday notes
Date: 17 Dec 93 14:47:43 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <cary-161293140006@macm588.esl.com>, cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison) writes:
> In article <bugs.755750083@netsys.com>, bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
> wrote:
>> Random notes on ICCF4-Tuesday from an interested observer.
> [...]
>> 6.  Stuart Taylor took some cells from Los Alamos that had produced T and
>> set them up in Dr. Jones underground lab to look for neutrons.  Some
>> small counts above background were indicated but they need to be examined
>> for artifacts.  Enough to make them continue to work but not enough to
>> get over their apprehension that something is wrong.
> [...]
> 
> I'm glad to see that someone has actually taken Dr. Jones up on his offer.
> I haven't heard of anyone else doing this before.
> 
> Cary Jamison

In addition to the Los Alamos group (including Tom Claytor), a Russian team
recently visited and now plan an experiment in our Provo Canyon tunnel lab.

Our X-ray spectrometer was taken to Palo Alto and used to check Roger
Stringham's ultrasound device.  We picked up noise, but nothing recognizable
as a signal.  (We got the same spectrum when the sample was covered with
a lead sheet, blocking X-rays but not intense sound.  There were no peaks
in the distributions.)  BJ (Bjorken) paid us a visit while we were X-ray
hunting in Roger's washroom -- he's a neighbor of Roger's.  Had a nice chat
with BJ on that occasion; hadn't seen him that I recall since working on my 
PhD. thesis at SLAC
years ago.  Roger is a serious researcher, retired, now having
fun with this business in his washroom.  Richard Oriani, at the Maui meeting,
asked to use our X-ray spectrometer in his experiments at the University of
Minnesota.  (Of course, I consented.)

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 'We don't need no stinkin' neutrons'
Date: 17 Dec 93 15:19:46 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CI5GEE.4LE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1993Dec15.111213.1184@physc1.byu.edu>,
>  <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
> 
>>addition, in Maui Dr. Li from Savannah River Labs. showed that helium born in
>>the lattice gets trapped in voids and does *not* leave the metal and so cannot
>>be seen in effluent gasses as Miles, Gozzi, P&F (early on) and others have
>>claimed.  I pointed out this dilemma to Mr. Bass at Maui -- who with
>                                          ^^^^^^^^
>>interesting logic replied (heatedly) that since Miles saw helium, clearly the
>>helium-behavior studies of the Savannah River Lab. people were clearly in error!
> 
>      I hope this wasn't me.  Because if it was, I've bifurcated in 
>      a rather disturbing way.
> 
>                               dale bass
> 

No, Dale, it wasn't you.  It was Robert W. Bass, who, according to the attendee
list of ICCF-4 is a "Member, Scientific Advisory Board" of ENECO (about which
I wrote in an earlier posting.)

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 01:49:24 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy) writes:

>Another ICCF4 attendee quoted P|F as saying that progress was delayed in
>order to get a better neutron detector.  This makes more sense to me.

Yes - the F part of team P&F said their current work is on hold while they
get better neutron detection equipment because of Dr. Morrison's objections.

I think this is a very good course for team P&F.  Dr. Morrison's objections
are very reasonable when viewed by impartial investors and team P&F's
willingness to accomodate him now - instead of two years ago is a very
very very interesting development in my view.  I feel a disturbance in the
force.
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / John Logajan /  Re: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (Part 2) - J.P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (Part 2) - J.P. Vigier
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 06:33:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>As I understand it, 
>Vigier visualizes the new solutions as "orbits" which have a new degree of 
>freedom similar to precession.  The first subground state would correspond 
>to an orbit that would look something like the stitching on a baseball.

Thanks.  I was all wrong about the nature of Vigier's ideas.

>I asked Dr. Vigier if his theory could account for the 
>observation by Mills/Farrel that excess heat is not observed if a catalyst 
>is used in their system.  He stated that yes it does, because recombination 
>of hydrogen in its tightly bound state with oxygen is endothermic.

The implication is that one can arrange these dissociations and recombinations
such that heat is moved "up hill" without the input of net outside energy.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Smoke and mirrors at ICCF4
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 07:04:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <2etmah$am@fever.veritas.com> joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy) writes:

>Another ICCF4 attendee quoted P|F as saying that progress was delayed in
>order to get a better neutron detector.  This makes more sense to me.
>(Sorry, no specific reference, I've deleted that posting.)

If P&F were generating the power they claim, with nuclear fusion
they wouldn't need a better detector. They'd need an undertaker.

Let's face it, these guys are slipping from humbuggery into outright
fraud. Chaos indeed! Although it sounds a good deal as though ICCF4 was
a strange attractor alright. :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 07:15:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <19931217.153814.562@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Robert Heeter posted:
>>             ...  As for approximate break-even:  as I pointed out
>>earlier, Q of 0.3 or 0.5 is much closer to 1 than 0.0001 is, which
>>is (vaguely) where fusion research was when TFTR was designed.  ...
>
>         You appear to be comparing DT numbers for TFTR to DD numbers
>for earlier machines which I believe is misleading.  The earlier PLT
>(Princeton Large Torus) machine had a calculated Q value of .02 for
>DT.

Is there a reference for that PLT value that I could
have?  (For my archives.)  I do know PLT only generated on the
order of 100 watts power in DD, whereas I think TFTR is on
the order of 50-100,000 watts in DD...  But you're right that
I overstated the case by accidentally comparing DD vs DT numbers.
 
>         Robert Heeter also posted:
>>In the context of the below results, one can see that TFTR was
>>designed to get close to breakeven, and there were times when
>>improvements to TFTR were proposed which would allow it to get
>>closer, but from what I understand it's not the case that TFTR
>>was originally designed to exceed breakeven.
>        
<< Another quotation of mine with the same basic idea deleted. >>
>
>         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
>Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 60)
>         "The attainment of Q values somewhat greater than 1 is a
>realistic prospect for the next generation of tokamak experiments.  Two
>of the large tokamaks currently under construction will be capable of
>demonstrating this type of operation on a short-pulse basis in actual
>deuterium-tritium plasmas.  The devices, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
>(TFTR) at Princeton, which is scheduled for completion in late 1981,
>and the Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in England, scheduled for
>1982, will have plasma currents of about three million amperes, neutral-
>beam heating powers of tens of megawatts and expected fusion-generated
>output powers of between 10 and 100 megawatts.  The minor radius of the
>plasma in the TFTR and the JET will be respectively two and three times
>larger than the minor radius of the plasma in the PLT; it is estimated
>that the cost of each of the new facilities will be on the order of
>$300 million."
>         In view of the above I do not see how the actual results to
>date can be characterized as other than disappointing.
>
In view of the above I would say that Furth was speculating that
it might be possible to reach Q=1 (a "realistic prospect" is
much different from a "design goal" - realistic prospect being
dependent on a different class of assumptions about the future
of the program), but the "expected fusion-generated
output powers of between 10 and 100 megawatts" for the TFTR-JET
set of experiments is certainly consistent with current expectations.
With "neutral beam heating powers of tens of megawatts" it is
clear that the realm of expectations is both below and above Q=1.
Again, you have to remember that Furth was writing in a time of
great concern about energy, when budgets for fusion were rising
steadily, and when there were expectations that DOE would receive
appropriations to upgrade TFTR beyond the planned capabilities.
As we know, interest in energy research declined, budgets were 
chopped by 50% for the fusion program, and TFTR was not upgraded.
Consequently, there is certainly no reason why TFTR should have
done any better than it has done, and once again I am led to
respect the scientists who managed to do at least as well as
proposed in all major plasma parameters, despite a shift
in the political winds.  The disappointment is not with the
machine, nor with the scientists who planned, built, and operated
it, but with the legislators who have eviscerated the
program and destroyed the diversity of approaches over the
last 10-20 years.


****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab - Disclaimers Apply




cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR: Break or Trouble-- NUMBERS: Heeter/Koloc short
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Break or Trouble-- NUMBERS: Heeter/Koloc short
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 10:16:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2erke1$mr2@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

>P.S.:

>Contrary to Paul Kolok's claims, 

That's Spelled  "K O L O C" , just want that warm credit to be 
correctly directed.  

>  ..   ..  ..  TFTR has in fact achieved 6.5 atmospheres of 
>pressure and has a plasma beta (nkT pressure vs. mag
>field pressure) of a few percent.  

Oh!  really?? and at what sustained temperature?? for what tau 
(time).  And was that just after gas puffing or plasmoid 
injection?   I'm interested in the SUSTAINED tau average pressure 
at ignition temperature.  I think for a tokomachen that's
about order one second, if I remember their rare density 
range.         

High pressure arcs have gone to thousands of atmospheres
so 6.5 atmospheres isn't significant if the other criteria
aren't their simultaneously.  

>                                     Paul claimed plasma pressure
><<< less than magnetic pressure, which is false.  

I said or meant to say "<<", not "<<<",     But given, "<<" 

 -- Wanna bet!   
       I think you may have been FLIM FLAMMED.  

The Beta you are discussing is the poloidal Beta or nkT with 
respect to the poloidal magnetic field pressure B^2 (p).   The 
ENGINEERING pressure is the critical value and that is the MINIMUM 
HIGHEST pressure an engineer must use to keep the machine in 
working order. It could be called the working pressure and 
corresponds to a "working Beta".
 
The plasma Beta calculated by using SAID PRESSURE is "<Beta*>" 
or Beta star and is nkt/(B[Tor]^2} "for tokamaks".  Beta star, 
in a Spheromak can be 3 or more while the best Beta star for 
a tokamak is .0065 (by your own teachings above).    

TO WIT:    

    6.6 atm/1000+atm (B^2 at the inner toroidal field coil).     

Now I call that <<less than one.  The Beta star for a PMK will 
be 3-5 or say 3.5000  and giving it a similar number of decimal 
places.     :-)    Compare!  --  A factor of 2000 or so better 
leverage?   
              
 Don't you think 
                       THAT'S a BREAK-THROUGH
                        In and Of Itself ? 
                              And 
                             Why ? 

Well, that (Beta*) multiplies (times) the much greater >> external 
(engineering) pressure (up to 50kBar), that can be applied, by 
comparison to coil current of a tokamak (1kbar).  This will 
generate enormous pressure for a colossal fusion fuel compression.  

For example:    20Katm (external) * 3.5 Beta* = 70 kilobars nkt plasma
                                                pressure .  
We expect to be able to reach 200 katm within 50 years.  

Now that's Heating, 
and that's density 
and that's aneutronic fuels 
and that's temperature
and that's self similar ideally stable adiabatic compression 
and that's about as good as one could dream it could be.  

Hope there is more that's positive just in case I've overlooked a 
key artifact.    

See footnotes for definition of <Beta*> (Beta Star) in: 

M. Bussac, H. Furth, et al., "Low-Aspect Ratio Limit of the Toroidal 
        Reactor: The Spheromak," IAEA CN-37, Innsbruck, 1978.

Tor mag pressure is generated by the TOROIDAL FIELD Coils, and 
this must be at least 20 times stronger than the poloidal flux, 
otherwise the plasma discharge will kink and flop around 
intercepting the wall and disrupting.  (It's akin to the Kink
instability in linear discharges.)   

The toroidal field actually stiffens the plasma so it remains quite 
toroidal and well behaved and off the walls of the toroidal vacuum 
chamber.  The TOROIDAL field DOES NOT "COMPRESS THE PLASMA" as DOES 
the POLOIDAL field.  Consequently, it adds to the denominator but 
not the numerator in the computation of Beta star*.  

Notice how understanding that fusion requires simple pressure
to work; try these Queries as follows: "Where is the pressure?,  
and How well is it utilized or how available is it for utilization 
in various concepts?".  Answering these questions and optimizing 
the answers, will help develop concepts that are functionally 
excellent fusion power generators.  I mean picking up the first 
piece of meat you come to and trying to make a marriage out of 
it is nuts.  But ... this is basically what the DoE did as soon 
as it made it to puberty.  And now it has .. a virial condition.  
                       :-)

When your friends tell you your "flame's a bust ..er..  a fire 
belching a dinosaur .. out of sync, take a hint and TRY to see 
things from a more simple and global view.  It could be 
illuminating and it could help your future and that of your 
country. So if your technology has developed a jargon of itsown
it maybe that  that jargon has swallowed up you ability to 
express your thoughts in a manner which can consider or 
generalize the technology you are working on to relate it
with every thing else you know and have experienced in 
action an journal.  If that's the case, it's time for you 
to write a dictionary so that others totally alien to 
your technology can understand it, and then use it in 
reverse to pull yourself above your technology and fit
it back prospectively with other things of a similar ilk
so that cross fertilization of idea can begin.  Tokamak
is in such bad shape it has become a religion.    

>                                     .. ..The plasmak may
>be inherently better in this regard, and I look forward to reading
>about it.  But I have to inquire about the other parameters of
>the plasmak - density?  confinement? temperature?  If $10
>million is all you need to test the plasmak, I'm willing to
>spend it...  But I want more facts first!

Great!  Read and if you don't understand ...give me a buzz. I 
will see it or a watch dog will let me know.  However, as a 
graduate student you are not allowed to go off your strict 
course diet, so I would be cautious about getting addicted to 
distraction here.   

That's interesting! A wealthy person willing to take a serious
risk, if the numbers look interesting and strangely enough
they are most interesting.   

Hmmm! if this casual offer were only true.   

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR : PLASMAK(tm) PMK : Virial vs Divergence Theorems.   
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR : PLASMAK(tm) PMK : Virial vs Divergence Theorems.   
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 14:05:13 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2eq66jINNinv@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <CI4Hs7.6uy@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <2enblsINNd6o@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>>In article <CI2GLK.36C@prometheus.uucp>,
>>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>The PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (PMK) differs from a common or ideal
>>Spheromak in essentially two ways:  It has a conduction shell of 
>>plasma supported by an isobaric fluid (gas blanket) (and is therefore 
>>magnetically omnigenous), and  which can be compressed from one or 
>>two atm to 10 (d-He3) to 20 katm in the case of a p-B11 burn.  
>>
>>                        SECONDLY, 
>>the PMK is hyper*conducting due to energetic electrons.    
>>
>>    * HYPERCONDUCTIVITY ===  5 - 7 orders better than copper conductivity.  
>>
>>That should give you enough information to calculate their energy and
>>internal structure.  say for a 10 cm radious ball with a boundary pressure
>>of 1 atm (5 kggauss) external interfacing surface of the internal vacuum
>>poloidal field.  Remember Spheromaks have toroidal fields internal within
>>the central or plasma ring and this gives the beastie an aspect ratio
>>about 2.  (alpha = R/r)
>>
>>Otherwise, read: ...
>
>Paul. This sounds very interesting. I now have some bedtime reading
>for a while. Thanks,
>
>Actually, it sounds startlingly similar to an idea I worked on for a
>a short while a few years ago. Basically, the idea was that you could
>set up a similar solition structure like a Spheromak. It would have a
>non-zero wall pressure like your plasmak idea seems to (but not thousands
>of atmospheres).

>The first thought is that the pressure allows a good mechanism for 
>confinement (provided you don't mind having a liquid first wall).

Actually, liquid DENSITY, but it IS IN THE PLASMA STATE at the PMK
Mantle always and throughout the blanket after burn.  

>But there is a really neat trick. Usually one has to live with the
>need for external coils because "as everyone knows" a plasma cannot
>be contained by use solely of its own magnetic field. 

Technically, this is not true, as stated.  What is true is that 
"external PRESSURE" is needed regardless of form. 

That is magnetoplasma, plasmomagnetic, pneumatic, piston, etc. etc. 

Problem is that program managers have a serious want of imagination.  
So the DoE PMs think magnetic fields are only to be created by 
currents within solid rigid coils and not from anything else!!.  

They would still be doing the currentless Stellarators if the 
Russians didn't at least convert one coil current to a plasma
current (became the tokamak).   

Technologically mag fields are a sort of pressurized (vector) fluid. 

>                                     .. .    This is the
>virial theorum argument that Shafranov uses to prove it in his Rev.
>Pl. Phys. article. However, in that argument, there is an assumption
>that you can integrate over a control volume that is large enough so
>that it contains all pressure gradiants.  

But that is because it assumes another thing that there are 
essentially NO or are ignorable pressure boundaries. For example 
a toroidal field generated by poloidal currents on nested toroidal 
surfaces would have tensile strength only along the flux lines in 
each current surface. But in the orthogonal direction there is no 
tensile strength so the current surface is free to expand limitlessly.   
That is, a donut surface stuffed only with toroidal magnetic pressure 
has an expansion growth in the minor radial direction.  So the donut 
tends to be short and fatter and fatter.  Since the field lines wrap 
the longway around inside the toroid but around its major axis, 

The toroid's major circumference is impeded from growth, while its 
minor radius is free to grow to its limit which depends on its 
magnetic field's orientation.  Certainly the shape would become 
more and more like a racing bicycle tire.  The relative aspect ratio 
alpha is: 
                  
                       alpha =  Major Radius/minor radius
       
If the plasmoid had a poloidal field then a toroidal tube of
current only generates flux outside the current tube and that 
flux encircles the torus around its minor radius. With only
this field present a plasmoid ring bearing current toroidally 
will tend to expand along the major radius so shape is altered 
toward a larger diameter wheel with a much narrower rim, thus 
a more racing bicycle tire look.       

The most interesting case is that of the Spheromak class of 
plasmoids.  This is because a current carrying nested toroidal 
tube now carries a resultant heliform current meaning it has 
both poloidal and toroidal currents.  That gives rise to two 
orthogonal mag vectors fields which can't add since one is 
on the outside (poloidal) and the other is only in the inside of 
each hyperconducting current tublet. Consequently, the fields 
can't mix!!!  No valid Dot product here!!!   
                       So what's  up???

Well this.  The virial theorem is an oxymoron, that is it is not
a theorem, and it's not very virile. That is it is really an
engineering rule of thumb which is a special case of the 
divergence theorem applied where there are no " SOURCES or SINKS" 
"S&S" (pressure bearing surfaces) within the region. 

To apply the Virial Theorem correctly, the region of integration 
over the surface containing the volume of interest must have an
absence or want of S & S.  Further the outer perimeter must be
knownable, constant and accessible and the only source of
pressure.  The first two cases (poloidal, only or toroidal field 
only) qualify since no pressure bearing surfaces (no two 
dimensional tensioned surfaces) exist.  For example STP air 
surrounds BL plasmoids, and has an energy density of ~ 1joule/cc.        
Vertical magnetic fields are also constant (beyond the 
separatrix).   

Now the trouble comes with the Spheromak like configuration which
does have enhanced Beta stars or higher internal pressures, etc.
etc. all signs that the usual glib answer from VT doesn't apply.   

First of all let's look.  The Spheromak/PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoids
clearly contain within them a Kernel plasma which has a pressure
bearing surface. For simplicity assume that all the currents flow
on a single toroidal surface in the Kernel plasma.  In this, as above
there is an internal toroidal field with the flux lines bearing 
pressure against the poloidal component of current in the current
surface and there is an external poloidal flux which bears pressure
against the toroidal component of current in the Kernel toroid shell.  
So we have a pressure bearing surface with strands of imbedded 
orthogonal tensile strength.  We have a magnetoplasma surface 
tension toroidal bubble.  Now the toroidal field links the poloidal
field and vice versa.   

So we are stuck, because the pressures, though equalibrated over the
current surface at each point and axis-symetric to the major axis
are still not uniform over the surface.  The innermost innerface 
of equatorial circumference (around the inside of the hole of 
toroid) has poloidal outside torus) and toroidal (inside torus) 
interfacing each other with a common pressure bearing current 
sheet between them.  The electrons have essentially no force so the
pressure equilibration is down by volume adjustments of the flux
on either side.    

However, there is another equatorial circumference.  This is the one
which is outer most to the current toroid.  The pressures equilibrate
here too.  However, the pressure is much less on this one than the
inner must one (about 25% for an aspect ratio 2 Spheromak/PMK), 

But elsewhere we aren't so sure what the pressure or energy density
values are so we are toast as far as fixing up and still trying
to use the virial theorem.  We simply must fall back and use
the full Divergence theorem; here do the volume integration over
each contribution.  .  

That means we can NOT and do NOT use the virial theorem and we do
go directly to the divergence theorem.  Models may be now more
sophisticated and require this procedure more often, but with today's 
desktop computing power in 10% of the computing households there 
exists plenty of computational power to solve this problem to
a reasonable accuracy.  So at last, the occasional inappropriately 
utilized virial theorem can finally take a break.  

>Sooo, the free lunch idea is that maybe you can create equilibria
>that have very very low external magnetic fields and therefore only
>a need for very small external coils. This is the soliton reactor, or 
>"magnetic fusion without magnetics" idea.

Remember we need density, Temperature and the hold time for fusion
temperatures and densities to exist. . T* n is pressure. (nkT) if 
we add Boltzsman's contribution.  So this fluffy approach isn't 
going to work very well; certainly won't work in the long run.     

Actually, current flowing in any conducting surface will generate
a field, or if I open a soda can, clean it out, dunk it in liquid 
N2 and drop an osmium magnet into the hole in the top of the super
cooled can, I can momentarily trap flux in the can.  That current
in the walls is called an image current, but it is real and opposite
in circulation to the "virtual currents generating" the mag fields
in the osmium magnet. 

The mag field of the magnet acts like a vector or flow field
of gas moving out through space, around  and back again on the
back end. It can be thought of as generating pressure on any 
conducting surface, whether it be a source or a sink (better a
magnetic field neutralization current.   Anyway the point is this 
"gas" like character will generate a "pressure" on the walls of 
the chilled aluminum can when the magnet is dropped in.   

If the Al walls were a perfect conductor than the field would be
trapped in there for a long time and would float as far from the
walls as it could get and that's the middle.  The same is true
of the PMK's Kernel, since it "floats and lodges in the middle"
and bounces around restoratively if the Mantle is bounced off
things and changes direction suddenly.  Magnetic insulation
makes it cushy and with the drag of the Mantle -- very stable.  
   
In order for Shafranov to do the problem he assumed a lazy (more
bicycle tire like) toroidal topology.  This was  so the pressure 
differences between the inner and outer surfaces would be  
ignorable.  And that was so he didn't have to use a computer.
Too bad, because there is not much difference between a weak 
torus in air and a smoke ring.  

Still this configuration is unique, since with both toroidal 
and poloidal components, only the slightest bath of isobaric 
gas pressure was sufficient to bring the system to stability.  
Of couse as he pointed out, the neutral particle diffusion into 
the torus would generate catastrophic disruptions quickly.  That's 
why it is important to keep the atmosphere off the Kernel plasma.
He gave up too quickly on this core idea as a BL concept, and 
never added the concept of the Mantle.  That will teach him not 
to take a bit of astronomy or geology.  

Then with very very high magnetic poloidal pressure a very dense
atmosphere can be hung on the external poloidal flux surface, as 
is the case in magnetic stars.   No!  I don't think the gentle
sea breeze pressures are going to turn this trick.  

>It is written up briefly in the Institute for Fusion Studies Report
>number 474 "Toroidal Plasma Reactor with a Low External Magnetic Field"
>by Beklemishev, Gordin, Kharutdinov, Petviashvili, and Tajima.

>Maybe you can use some of these ideas in the PLasmak. ---- hmmm.

Well I thought through this stuff a few yaron back. But thanks
for the suggestion  
Keep slogging.  
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Arthur Carlson /  Re: Princeton has Fusion?
     
Originally-From: awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Princeton has Fusion?
Date: 18 Dec 1993 15:42:14 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <2ev80iINNn0a@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, awc@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de 
(Arthur Carlson, that's me!) writes:

|> The only source I could put my hands on right away* has ...

Sorry, I forgot to include the reference:

*Krakowski and Delene, "Connections between Physics and Economics for Tokamak 
Power Plants", J. Fusion Energy, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1988, pp. 49-89.

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnCarlson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec 19 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR: Huge Disapointment/Success : Heeter/Koloc EPIC Yawn 
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR: Huge Disapointment/Success : Heeter/Koloc EPIC Yawn 
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 17:47:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CI83Et.CH7@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <2erke1$mr2@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>>In article <2engn8$cmv@clarknet.clark.net>,
>>Joseph Davidson - Interguru <jdavidson@clark.net> wrote:
>>>Reality:
>
>>>Promises
>>On the contrary, these were not promises but new goals proposed
>>since TFTR was doing better-than-expected, and funding levels
>>were expected to rise, rather than drop to half their previous
>>value over the next few years.  If you want to look at promises,
>>you should look at the ORIGINAL TFTR design specifications.  See
>>below.  
>
>I have seen the designed performances schedules from the 70's, which
>were appropriate to DT tests in 1983.  They weren't met and they
>were not done.  Conclusion:  The tokamak is a plasma physics
>plaything and not a serious commercial fusion contender.   

Well, give me the references if you're so certain.  Inquiring
minds want to know, not listen to unsupported assertions.
In particular I'd like to know when they planned D-T tests
in 1983 - that would only have given the reactor a very few
years to learn anything before it was shut down.

< More unsupported stuff deleted. >

>>Here's what I learned:
>
>>(Acknowledgements to those who gave me the information
>>which I am paraphrasing / summarizing / explaining below.)
>
>>First question:  Has TFTR lived up to its original design goals?
>
>>(i.e., have they kept their promises?)
>
>>Answer: Yes.
>
>Who are we asking, the foxes running the raid on the hen house???
>Wrong..  they kept their revised promises (some after the fact).  

I gave you the design criteria and the achieved parameters.
If you'd like to show me *specifically* what was incorrect,
and give me the references to back up your claim, I'll listen.
Until then you're just ranting.

>>Evidence:

Note that Paul deleted my list...

>>Second Question:  Is TFTR over budget?  
>
>>Answer:  the 1983 planned cost (over project lifetime) to take
>>TFTR through the D-T phase was $200 million more than it will
>>actually cost.  (I can get references for this.)
>
>Oh...  Well since it was supposed to do DT burns in 1983, then
>I suppose at that time it was over budget and behind schedule WITH
>INCREASING BUDGETS.  

Give me the reference that shows DT in '83, and I'll listen.

>>Third Question:  Is TFTR behind schedule?  (If so, why?)
>
>>Answer:  DOE stopped D-T preparations on TFTR three times
>>during the 1980s.  Funding for D-T preparations was not
>>provided until 1991.  
>
>Well, I don't think this was done in a vacuum, it was done at PPPL's
>request!  

And I suggested it was because congress wanted to preserve the
program without funding a new machine right away.  Again,
show me the reference that says PPPL "requested" a delay...

<< Aspersions about European and Japanese stupidity, assorted
ranting, and comments about the "asses of the American tax
payers" deleted. >>

***************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
First Year Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 / FRED BACH /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: music@erich.triumf.ca (FRED W. BACH)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: 18 Dec 1993 15:02 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility

In article <1993Dec17.042144.6321@csis.dit.csiro.au>, prl@csis.dit.csiro
au (Peter Lamb) writes...
#cremin@panix.com (David Cremin) writes:
# 
 [stuff deleted]
# 
#>By the way, this is not a novel idea. I remember that in the fifties and
#>sixties in Europe, there existed hub-mounted generators built into the
#>front wheel.
# 
#Yep. Their main problem is that you can't fit enough poles into the hub
#to avoid getting heavy modulation of the light intensity when you're
#riding slowly.

   The beginning of this thread is gone here, but I take it you are talking
 about using AC to power the bicycle lighting.  This would work, in general.

  For problems with the low frequency, well that's where DC is so useful.  If
 you converted the low-frequency AC to DC, that is where rechargeable
 batteries would came in.  They could smooth out that modulation.  The trouble
 here is voltage regulation, since the AC frequency and voltage seem to fall
 together in the AC bicycle generator.

  There are many things that can be done with low-frequency AC,  and a few
 types of converters that I can imagine -- as long as the voltage didn't drop
 too low.  Even if it did, there is a clever inductive trick using a couple of
 solid-state switches and a single inductor (some military equipment uses this)
 that rectify and can boost the voltage very effectively for storage on a 
 capacitor or rechargeable battery (which is just a chemical capacitor
 anyway).

  I played around with this a long time ago in my younger years.

#Anyway, conventional driven-by-friction-from-the-tyre generators
#also use a stationary coil and rotating magnetic field, as the good Lud
#suggests might be patentable. This means you can avoid having a commutator
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#or slip rings.

   Somehow I doubt it.  It can't be a new idea, it doesn't seem anything
 other than trivial.  I would imagine it's been done already, although
 the strength, cost and durability of permanent magnets have improved in 
 recent years.

#-- 
#Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)

 Fred W. Bach ,    Operations Group        |  Internet: music@erich.triumf.ca
 TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility)    |  Voice:  604-222-1047 loc 327/278
 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS            |  FAX:    604-222-1074
 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA   V6T 2A3
  Damien says " If you don't STAND for SOMETHING, you'll FALL for ANYTHING "
 These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
 They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmusic cudfnFRED cudlnBACH cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 / Barry Merriman /  Re: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (Part 2) - J.P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (Part 2) - J.P. Vigier
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 02:00:47 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <931217210002_70047.3047_EHB41-1@CompuServe.COM>  
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> T 2.7  New Hydrogen (Deutrerium) Bohr Orbits in Quantum Chemistry and "Cold 
> Fusion" Processes.
> 
> Jean-Pierre Vigier, Universite Paris
> "c) As basis for the new phenomena one can add to the Coulomb Potential 
> (utilized in Hydrogen and Deuterium) spin-spin and spin orbit interactions. 
>  Usually neglected, they would manifest themselves when [the vectors] L, 
> M1, M2 are oriented (parallel) (due to electromagnetic interactions) when H 
> and D are in condensed form in various types of electrodes. 

It sounds like, in physical terms, he is simply proposing a lower
energy state in which, apparently due to the solid state (?), the
electrons spins and orbital magnetic moment are all aligned. 

if that is so, the energy decrease should just be ~ that of the magnetic
moment alignments. I don't have the data handy---anyone care to 
calculate how many eV of energy that amounts to? And whether that
is enough to account for the excess heat observed?


--
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 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.18 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 23:24:37 EST

         I said:
>                                                ...  The earlier PLT
>(Princeton Large Torus) machine had a calculated Q value of .02 for
>DT.
         Robert Heeter asked
>Is there a reference for that PLT value that I could
>have?  (For my archives.)  ...

         The same article:
         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 59)
         "In the PLT the equivalent deuterium-tritium fusion power is
about 50 kilowatts corresponding to a Q value of .02, a record in
fusion research to date."
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjbs cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 05:06:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <19931218.203202.839@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         I said:
>>                                                ...  The earlier PLT
>>(Princeton Large Torus) machine had a calculated Q value of .02 for
>>DT.
>         Robert Heeter asked
>>Is there a reference for that PLT value that I could
>>have?  (For my archives.)  ...
>
>         The same article:
>         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
>Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 59)
>         "In the PLT the equivalent deuterium-tritium fusion power is
>about 50 kilowatts corresponding to a Q value of .02, a record in
>fusion research to date."

Thanks!  I'll have to go get the article.  Can you tell me when
these PLT values were obtained?  It makes a difference whether
it was before or after TFTR was designed, at least in the context
of our original discussion.  I would try looking, but right now
I'm on vacation and nowhere near the lab library.

***********
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

Usual disclaimers apply...





cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 / C Mackay /  hydrogen fusion without tritium?
     
Originally-From: ud907@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Christopher L. Mackay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 11:27:05 GMT
Organization: The Victoria Freenet Association (VIFA), Victoria, B.C., Canada


 I'm posting this for friend without net access, so please forgive me for
any mistakes I might make regarding this subject:

 He is looking for any current research on hydrogen fusion without
tritium(he said triterium, but it didn't sound right to me.) I'm not sure
in what ways he was referring to the tritium. So far as I have gathered
from browsing the newsgroup, tritium is a natural by-product of what
happens when hydrogen is 'fused.' Am I wrong? If so, please correct me,
and if possible direct me to appropiate books or text files available via
anonymous FTP. Thanks for your help, and if possible, please reply via
e-mail as I don't go through here very often.

-- 
Chris Mackay                 | "Whatever you can do, or dream you can do,    
Victoria Freenet Association |  do it. Boldness has genius, power, and
ud907@freenet.victoria.bc.ca |  magic in it       - Goethe
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenud907 cudfnChristopher cudlnMackay cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Bill Page /  Secret Source
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Secret Source
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 01:13:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:
<<
My source writes:

  Bill has the abstracts right there in
  front of him. If he opens it up to page C 3.7, "Anomalous Heat
  Evolution from SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors During
  Absorption/Desorption of Deuterium in Alternate Electric Field"
  he will find:

     "The heat generation from the proton conductor in the
     experiment of deuterium-containing hydrogen gas was
     estimated to be approximately 50 watt (~100 watt cm^-2) over
     20 hrs, or ~3.6 MJ in total. The input power given to the
     sample was + 18 V, +- 40 (mu) A, or 7.2 x 10^-4 watt.
     Accordingly, the input-to-output power ratio was estimated
     to be as large as 7 x 10^4."
>>

John,

You are right.  I am sorry if my orginal post sounded negative.  I was 
really only expressing the fact that I felt overloaded with results and 
claims during the conference.  I do think that this is an important result 
along with several other reported results in the area on non-electrolytic 
excess heat.  I am concerned though about the lack of details, 
substantiation, and replication ... but then what should I expect from an 
abstract!  Like many other papers at the conference, I am ansiously waiting 
to receive the full paper.

BTW, as we review more of the material presented at ICCF-4, I seem to be 
tending towards a conclusion that is somewhat at odds with the postings of 
Steve Jones.  I am starting to feel that despite the rather poor quality of 
some of the papers and presentations, the overall effect if the conference 
has been to lower my level of disbelief considerably.  I.e. I *do* think 
that there are results here that are new and interesting.  I just wish 
there were some reproducible results that everyone could agree with.

Cheers.

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 /  PAUL /  RE: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
Date: 19 DEC 93 15:41:03 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: ud907@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Christopher L. Mackay)

> He is looking for any current research on hydrogen fusion without
>tritium(he said triterium, but it didn't sound right to me.) I'm not sure
>in what ways he was referring to the tritium. So far as I have gathered
>from browsing the newsgroup, tritium is a natural by-product of what
>happens when hydrogen is 'fused.' Am I wrong? If so, please correct me,

-- 
>Chris Mackay                 | "Whatever you can do, or dream you can do,    
>Victoria Freenet Association |  do it. Boldness has genius, power, and
>ud907@freenet.victoria.bc.ca |  magic in it       - Goethe
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


The fusion process most commonly proposed for commercial use is
D + T => He + n
This is the easiest to get going.  One problem is the tritium is radioactive
and must be produced via some fission reaction either in a standard fission 
reactor or by reactions involving the neutron in the above reaction and
lithium. The other problem is the neutron can cause all sorts of damage to 
the structure and make it radioactive.  

Another aproach is DD fusion
D+D=> T +H or  D+D=> He3 + n   
this avoids the tritium processing  but requires someting like a factor of
10 improvemnet in the confinement time of the plasma.  

The last aproach is D + He3 => He4 + H  
This works almost as easily as the DT reaction.  The problem is that there is 
very little He3 on earth.  THere is a lot on the moon though.  

H = hydrogen
D = deuterium
n = neutron
He3 = Helium 3 (2 protons one neutron)
He4 = helium 4 (2 protons two neutrons)


PaulStek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 /  tbailey@sun.cc /  Some basic questions
     
Originally-From: tbailey@sun.cc.westga.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some basic questions
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 13:01:44 PST
Organization: University System of Georgia (PeachNet)


I am a mathematician and have just started with this forum out
of interest in and respect for the field.  Please note that I
am a tyro in this area. I have some basic questions:

1. How do you raise the temperature of the plasma?
2. Does the plasma go in circles?  If so, what is the
   diameter at Princeton?
3. How is the plasma controlled so that no blast occurs
   is in an H-bomb?
4. How will heat be extracted from the system?
5. Please describe how the inertial method works
   
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentbailey cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 / Chuck Sites /  Deuteron spin. Spin again.
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Originally-From: "SCOTT CHUBB" <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
Subject: More Usenet posts
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 17:25:29 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


Hi Folks,

   From all the posts on the ICCF4 it sounds like it was a great conference.
Thanks to Tom Droege, Steve Jones, Bill Page, and Mark Hittinger for writing 
up their impressions on the talks and sharing their ideas with us folks who
couldn't make it. I'm really looking forward to seeing the full conference
proceedings in the coming months as it sounds like there were several 
interesting results discussed.  Steve obviously sent the message out:
Cold nuclear fusion in deuterated metals does not happen, at least not
without some exotic external mechanism to induce it.  I sometimes wonder 
about the branching ratio skewing to He4 and lowering neutron emmisions, 
but I look at the problem as one of what is possible and what is not. 
This is quite different from the question what is probable and what is
not.  
    I find it more and more interesting that the experiments are using
stronger external stimulation to induce measurable effects.  For example
I noticed a few using resonating magnetic fields to induce cathode heating.
This type of modification looks to me like the only way to beat the 
replication problem of CNF.  From my vantage point,  all the components are
there for cold nuclear fusion, except that the average deuteron separation
in PdD is too large to allow it.  This is why understanding the quantum 
wave function of the intersitual deuterons is so important.  There may be
a few surprises that the experimentalist can use to initiate an interaction.
So while it is discouraging to see Steve Jones retract his early Nature 
claim, you have to accept it as progress and continue on.  
 
   Anyway, before ICCF4 there was a discussion by Terry Bollinger, Robert
Eachus, Dick Blue, and Matt Kennel on the spin state of deuteron in a Bose
condensate which I forwarded to Scott Chubb.  Scott sent back this reply.
If you followed that discussion, I think you will find this interesting:

Posted with permission:          
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
when? /  SCOTT /  More Usenet posts
     
Originally-From: "SCOTT CHUBB" <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: More Usenet posts
To: "Chuck" <chuck@coplex.coplex.com>

Hi Chuck,

I think a key point concerning the spin situation is closely tied to
a second point that many in the group don't seem to be getting.  It
is this notion of Born-Oppenheimer separability (as it refers to
the coordinates in the deuteron wave function) that people have not
appreciated.

     What I am referring to is that the center of mass motion
of each nucleon or proton-neutron pair must be independent of the separation
between each nucleon from the remaining nucleons;  when this limit applies,
the total wave function psi(r1,....rn) of a collection of n nucleons
factors into a functional form involving a slowly varying band state function
multiplied by a second function psinucleon(r1-rcm,.....,rn-rcm)  (where rcm
is the center of mass of the collection of nucleons).  The point is that
psinucleon carries the spin information and the basic information concerning
nuclear wave function behavior.  The delocalization aspect as you have so
nicely explained is embodied in the band wave function.  

     Another way of looking at the situation is that nuclear physics 
as described in free space involves a well-defined location and well-defined 
particles.  Neither of this is true inside a lattice.  (I know 
that I am preaching to the choir when I tell you this;  but I think it is 
the basic point that is beginning missed.)  The key point seems to be that 
none of the "negativists" seems to be thinking about the actual wave 
function.  Instead, they seem to be thinking about the free particle wave 
function.

     An important point about spin is that through psinucleon, important
selection rules must be at work that are associated with spin.  The fact
is, for example, because D+D->4He involves a transition between two spin
one states to a spin zero state, there are a number of intrigueing selection
rules that are at work.  In particular, it certainly is true that spin is
playing a role but not in the occupation of the initial state;  it enters
through the possible modes of interaction.  

     A very intrigueing point is that a superconducting state "does not like" 
magnetism (the Meissner effect at zero temperature involves an explicit 
expulsion of magnetism). This means that by occupying a 4He state in 
a direction perpendicular to the greatest spin state of the D+D initial 
state, the system can potentially lower the energy of the system.  A 
prediction of this arguement is that preferentially alligning D-spins in 
planes parallel to the surface, it may be possible to enhance 4He production 
in planes normal to the surface. Since it does seem that an important step 
in turning on the process appears to be the need to require that 4He 
readily leave the electrode, it may be that Cold Fusion can be initiated 
more readily by anistropically  introducing a magnetic field parallel to 
the surface of a well-ordered crystalline electrode.

     I had previously seen Terry's wave function overlap comments.  He
actually got some of the ideas, I think, about He, possibly, from our
latest paper.  He has made a number of mistakes.  I have written to
him about them.  (The upshod is that quantum mechanics is based on
boundary conditions and the notion of preferentially preparing a system
in a particular manner, not the artificial imposition of a classical limit.)

     Thanks again.  I appreciate your keeping me abreast.

Cheers,

SCOTT
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

    I hope this clarifies the some of the questions raised in the 
discussion of the spin-spin interaction in a deuteron condensate.
I think you can see that Scott is advocating a more active experimental
configuration than simple(?) electrolysis gives.  Fundamentally, if it
can be shown that branching ratios for DD fusion are altered in metals
as a consequence of the condensation effect, I think it would be a major 
break through in nuclear science regardless of the final yield.

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.coplex.com



  
       


cudkeys:
cudenCHUBB cudlnSCOTT cudszM 
------------------------------
1993.12.19 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 23:19:50 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

ud907@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Christopher L. Mackay) writes:


>  ...   tritium is a natural by-product of what
>happens when hydrogen is 'fused.' Am I wrong? If so, please correct me,

It depends on what you start with.  If you start with pure deuterium
(which is probably what your friend had in mind) then the fusion reactions
are d+d-->p+t and d+d-->n+He3, with about equal probabilities, where p, d,
and t stand for proton, deuteron, and triton.  The triton is the nucleus 
of a tritium atom.  In this case you are right: tritium is a by-product.

-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: The TFTR burn was desperation
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The TFTR burn was desperation
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 00:50:27 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
>lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.

>Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
>TFTR program after the radioactivity problems reared their ugly head
>in the middle of populus Princeton, NJ, but Hirsch wanted them to be
>done with it so the fusion program could get on with pursuing technologies
>that might have a chance of commercial success, which included, in his
>opinion, reverse pinch machines, spheromak and, of course, electrostatic
>confinement.

>By delaying the TFTR burn for years and then doing it right on the date of
>the "cold fusion" conference, Princeton has demonstrated it has more political
>than technical savvy.

Considering the ultimate end of the Texas supercollider I think that the
Princeton guys were more worried about the continuity of their grants than
with knocking cold fusion.  Fusion was going to make the papers because
of the conference and the timing was ideal to gain a little more public
spotlight than normal.  I don't think it was a good idea, nearly everyone
I speak with is in favor of deleting big science.  It has grown too large,
consumes too much resources, and is overburdened with bear-o-crats.

If you apply the same financial scam models of cold fusion to the hot
fusion programs and include the amount of money spent so far you will
get pretty mad about it.
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.17 / Robert Eachus /  Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A tokamak question:  Whence the tritium?
Date: 17 Dec 93 13:11:19
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <2ei4gu$osf@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

  > Yep.  It works out.  Also, do not forget that there is a *lot* of 
  > tritium in storage at DOE facilities, not to mention Russian ones. 
  > Hazel O'Leary just announced the numbers.  They are impressive numbers. 
  > Even with decay over the next 30-40 years, there will be plenty left 
  > to clean up and use as seed for these reactors.  In addition, there 
  > must be massive quantities of Li-6 available for breeding purposes. 

  Hmmm!  What are the numbers?  As I remember it tritium has a little
over a ten year half-life for the beta decay, t --> He3 + e-, so that
after 40 years there should be a lot of He3 around.  Since 

	d + He3 --> He4 + p

  is not a much harder fuel cycle than d + t, maybe the first fusion
plants will burn helium-3.  Helium-3 does require higher temperatures,
but since both product particles are charged and can remain trapped in
the plasma, it is not significantly harder.  Of course, since no
neutrons will be produced (well not by this reaction, there will
always be some from stripping and from d+d--> n + He3), materials
issues are a lot easier, especially at the first wall.  I've always
thought that a d+He3 cycle might be preferable, even if you have to
create the He3 using fission plants.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Dec 20 04:37:03 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 03:23:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec19.172529.24799@coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:

>as described in free space involves a well-defined location and well-defined 
>particles.  Neither of this is true inside a lattice.  (I know 
>that I am preaching to the choir when I tell you this;  but I think it is 
>the basic point that is beginning missed.)  The key point seems to be that 
>none of the "negativists" seems to be thinking about the actual wave 
>function.  Instead, they seem to be thinking about the free particle wave 
>function.

    Exactly the opposite.  The idea of 'bose condensation' seems to have
    arisen as an analogy with free particles.  However, in a lattice, you've
    got thermal jiggles all over the place.  The lattice atoms are moving,
    and the little D's are moving, electronic fields interact all over the
    place.  There are states galore.

    We can play mystical quantum mumbo-jumbo all night, but there are two 
    key unanswered questions: 1) why does anyone think 'bose condensation'
    occurs in a lattice at 293 K or higher since there are a plethora
    of mechanisms knocking ions out of the single state you desire, including 
    the unavoidable mechanical response of the lattice?
    2) Who cares if they're all in a single state since that doesn't
    seem to induce fusion in the atomic situations in which bose condensation
    actually occurs?

    I've never seen 1) answered in any way, so the miracle of 2) seems
    right out.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Dieter Britz /  RE: TFTR timing, and questions to Bill Page
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR timing, and questions to Bill Page
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 07:53:21 GMT
Date: 16 Dec 93 16:59:33 -0700
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1815
Date: 16 Dec 93 16:59:33 -0700

[...]
>Also, Bill cited Fleischmann as saying the deuteron moved as d+ in the lattice
>-- I agree that F was surprisingly insistent on that point.  Why?
>And didn't Dr.  Li of Savannah
>River Labs. contradict that notion (also Scott Chubb) saying that the most
>probable (lowest energy) state of the deuteron was slightly negative, i.e.,
>with associated electrons in the Pd lattice?  Can you clarify?

I, too, wonder why this point was made so insistently. It seems generally to
be taken as given that deuterium in PdD is in the form of deuterons; while
this might make some sense, there is at least some small doubt about it. E.g.
there is this item in the bibliography:

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. He marshalls a lot of previous
evidence for this. The tiny fraction of deuterons can easily fuse with the D-,
as there is a small Coulomb barrier. Furthermore, Li will be deposited in the
electrolysis in LiOD electrolyte, and LiD certainly has negative deuterium.
                                                                 Mar-90/Nov-90
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If deuterons (I don't understand why Fleischmann would have said protons) ARE
the dominant species, I still don't buy the electrophoresis argument, i.e.
that one can make the deuterons diffuse faster by applying a high voltage.
Just as Dick Blue's argument about electrons quickly neutralising voltages
across fractures before deuterons get a chance to accelerate across them, so
they would do the same trick in a bar of PdD. What is more, any electrochemist
knows that there is a problem at the end of the conduction path, i.e. at the
interface between the PdD and whatever it is in contact with; deuterons can't
just jump out of the end of the PdD piece. This stuff is highly spurious, and
I suspect Fleischmann is being misinterpreted or misquoted here. I hope.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / Bill Page /  Recombination is endothermic?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recombination is endothermic?
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 01:12:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:
<<
>I asked Dr. Vigier if his theory could account for the 
>observation by Mills/Farrel that excess heat is not observed if a catalyst 

>is used in their system.  He stated that yes it does, because 
recombination 
>of hydrogen in its tightly bound state with oxygen is endothermic.

The implication is that one can arrange these dissociations and 
recombinations
such that heat is moved "up hill" without the input of net outside energy.
>>

No, I don't think we are talking about a violation of entropy here.  Net 
energy input would be required for the recombination.  The implication, it 
seems to me, is that this system would make a darn good heat pump.  
Hydrogen and its putative new sub-ground state functions like the phase 
change in freon etc.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Show me your wave function if your not afraid
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Show me your wave function if your not afraid
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 01:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Scott Chubb thinks "None of the 'negativists' seems to be thinking about
the actual wave function.  Instead they are thinking about the free
particle wave function."

That line is getting old, Scott, and I say it is just bull!  You aren't
thinking about real wave functions that apply to real systems involving
real deuterons.  Let's start with what we seem to agree on, i.e. that
the initial system is going to be described by a wavefunction that
is separable (in some manner) into a factor which describes the
internal coordinates of the deuteron and a factor which deals only
with the center-of-mass motion of the deuteron.  Once that has been
said, I assume that the deuteron's internal motion part of the
wave function is pretty much the same old familiar deuteron wave
function we have known for years - the one that has served well to
describe all that was known about deuterons until the CFers sought
to revolutionize our thinking.  Please let me know if I have misread
the Chubb approach to this problem thus far.

Now parking a bunch of deuterons in a palladium lattice would ordinarily
not be expected to change much, but you and others insist that some
kind of band structure gets involved in the description of that part
of the wave function that would have been been something like plain
waves had the deuterons remained free.  Instead we must have something
like a shallow potential well for each deuteron, or rather a lattice of
deuterons sitting in shallow potential wells.  Thus instead of a set
of sharp eigen values for the energy levels in the wells, there is
a set of bands.  That is perfectly acceptable to me, but SO WHAT?
Let's move from this qualitative description to something with some
real meat on its bones.  Give us some estimates of real numerical
values of the significant observables in this problem and show how
the bands are going to effect deuteron separations and reaction rates.
My understanding is that several theorists have looked at this problem
and concluded that they can find no way to bring reaction rates
up to the level required for CF.  What has Scott Chubb got to bring
to bear on the problem that can change that?  

I didn't find anything in the Chubb message that sheds any light
on the problem.  Just restating simple truths found in elementary
quantum texts is unlikely to reveal a key to the alteration of
nuclear reaction rates by chemical means, and it certainly is not
going to explain anything like the total suppression of neutron
emission that was CF gospel until ICCF4.  As a dyed-in-the-wool
negativist I still don't see anything that can be called "theory"
to explain cold fusion even though I claim to be free of the
taint of free particles or plasmas or whatever may define an
inability to accept reasoned thinking about cold fusion.

And while I am on my soap box, the notion that one is going to
solve this problem by rewriting the Hamiltonian to include
spin-spin and spin-orbit interaction terms is so laughably
absurd I can't imagine why the audience doesn't hiss and
boo anytime the idea is brought up.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / Bill Page /  Questions for Bill Page
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Bill Page
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 01:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
Bill made the remark "the strange feeling I mentioned I an earlier posting 
that
felt like I was (we are) being deliberately manipulated."  In what ways, 
Bill?
Can you elaborate?

Also, Bill cited Fleischmann as saying the deuteron moved as d+ in the 
lattice 
-- I agree that F was surprisingly insistent on that point.  Why?  
And didn't Dr.  Li of Savannah
River Labs. contradict that notion (also Scott Chubb) saying that the most
probable (lowest energy) state of the deuteron was slightly negative, i.e.,
with associated electrons in the Pd lattice?  Can you clarify?

Finally, Bill, you posted:  "we must now believe, following the recent
resolution of the long standing EPR paradox, that it [the wave amplitude]
is nonetheless, REAL."   Again, I'd appreciate clarification -- how was the
EPR paradox recently resolved?  

Thanks, Steven Jones

>>

Well, last question first.  This is a fairly new and important result in QM 
that is, unfortunately not widely appreciated by those no who are actively 
engaged in  theoretical physics.  Please forgive me if you find this a 
rather long winded reply.  Rather than try to "wing it" however, its 
probably best if I mostly quote some material from an up to date QM text: 
"Modern Quantum Mechanics", J.J. Sakurai, Addison-Wesley, 1985, page 223.  
(I think there is now a slightly revised second edition.)

"Consider a two-electron system in a spin-singlet state, that is, with a 
total spin of zero.  We have already seen that the state ket can be written 
as [see (3.7.15d)]

                     1
  |spin singlet> = ---- (|z+;z-> - |z-;z+>)                       (3.9.1)
                    \2

[Note: read \2 as "root 2".]

where we have explicitly indicated the quantization direction [z is a unit 
vector in position space].  Recall that |z+;z-> means that electron 1 is in 
the spin-up state and electron 2 is in the spin-down state.  The same is 
true for |z-;z+>.

Suppose we make a measurement on the spn component of one of the electrons. 
 Clearly, there is a 50-50 chance of getting either up or down because the 
composite system may be in |z+;z-> or |z-;z+> with equal probabilities.  
But if one of the components is shown to be in the spin-up state, the other 
is necessarily in the spin-down state, and vice versa.  When the spin 
component of electron 1 is shown to be up, the measurement apparatus has 
selected the first term, |z+;z-> of (3.9.1); a subsequent measurement of 
the spin component of electron 2 must ascertain that the state ket of the 
composite system is given by |z+;z->.

It is remarkable that this kind of correlation can persist even if the two 
particles are well separated and have ceased to interact provided that as 
they fly apart, there is no change in their spin states.  This is certainly 
the case for a J=0 [intrinsic angular momentum] system disintegrating 
spontaneously into two spin 1/2 particles with no relative orbital angualr 
momentum, because angular-momentum conservation must hold in the 
disintegration process. 

To be more pictorial we consider a system of two spin 1/2 particles moving 
in opposite directions, as in Figure 3.8.  Observer A specializes in 
measuring Sz of particle 1 (flying to the right), while observer B 
specializes in measuring Sz of particle 2 (flying to the left).  To be 
specific, let us assume that observer A finds Sz to be positive for 
particle 1.  Then he or she can predict, even before B performs any 
measurement, the outcome of B's measurement with certainty: B must find Sz 
to be negative for particle 2.  On the other hand, if A makes no 
measurement, B has a 50-50 chance of getting Sz + or Sz -.

                                             /|\
                       Particle 2             |
               B   <---------------  O  ---------------->  A
                         |                 Particle 1
                        \|/

            Figure 3.8  Spin correlation in a spin-singlet state.

...

The actual quantum-mechanical situation is far more sophisticated than 
that!  Theis is because observers may choose to measure Sx in place of Sz.

... To sum up:

1.  If A measures Sz and B measures Sx, there is a completely randum 
correlation between the two measurements.

2.  If A measures Sx and B measures Sx, there is a 100% (opposite sign) 
correlation between the two measurements.

3.  If A makes no measurement, B's measurements show random results.

... It is as though particle 2 "knows" which spin component of particle 1 
is being measured.

The orthodox quantum-mechanical interpretation of this situation is as 
follows.  A measurement is a selection (or filtration) process.  When Sz of 
particle 1 is measured to be positive, then component |z+;z-> is selected.  
A subsequent measurement of the other particle's Sz merely ascertains that 
the system is still in |z+;z->.  We must accept that a measurement on what 
appears to be a part of the system is to be regarded as a measurement on 
the whole system.


           Einstein's Locality Principle and Bell's Inequality

Many physicists have felt uncomfortable with the preceding orthodox 
interpretation of spin-correlation measurements.  Their feelings are 
typified in the following frequently quoted remarks by A. Einstein, which 
we call Einsteins locality principle: "But on one supposition we should, in 
my opinion, absolutely hold fast: The real factual situation of the system 
S2 is indepent of what is done with the system S1, which is spacially 
separated from the former."  Because this problem was first discussed in a 
1935 paper of A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, it is sometimes known 
as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen [EPR] paradox.*

* To be historically accurate, the original EPR paper dealt with 
measurements of x and p [location and momentum].  The use of composite spin 
1/2 systems to illustrate the EPR paradox started with D. Bohm.

...

Until 1964, it could be thought that the alternative theories [of hidden 
variables] could be concocted in such a may that they would give [these 
results].  It was then pointed out by J.S. Bell that the alternative 
theories based on Einstein's locality principle actually predict a 
*testable inequality relation* among the observables of spin-correlated 
experiments that *disagrees* with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

...

We now consider more complicated situations where the model [originally 
concieved by E. P. Wigner, that incorporates the essential features of the 
hidden variable, Einstein local theories] leads to predictions different 
from the usual quantum mechanical predictions. This time we start with 
three unit vectors a, b, and c which are, in general, not mutually 
orthogonal.

[Consider a pair of correlated particles labelled 1 and 2.]

Let P(a+;b+) be the probability that, in a random selection, observer A 
measures S1.a to be + and observer B measures S2.b to be +, and so on.  
[S1.a denotes the spin state of particle 1 measured in the direction of 
vector a, etc.  I omit for brevity a lengthy discussion of the eight 
possible +/- spin states involving the vectors a, b, and c and the 
probability relations between them. Then,]

  P(a+;b+) <= P(a+;c+) + P(c+;b+).                 (3.9.9)

This is Bell's inequality, which follows from Einsteins's locality 
principle.  [I appologize if it seems I have trimmed too much from the 
presentation to see exactly why this is so.  There are several good books 
on this subject now, please take the time to check them out.]

Several experiments have been performed to test Bell's inequality.  In one 
of the experiments spin correlations between the final protons in 
low-energy proton-proton scattering were measured.  In all other 
experiments photon polarization correlations between a pair of photons in a 
cascade transition of an excited atom (Ca,Hg...), or in the decay of a 
positronium (e+ e- bound state in 1S0) were measured.

The results of all recent precision experiments have conclusively 
established that Bell's inequality was violated, in one case by more than 
nine standard deviations.  Furthermore, in all these experiments the 
inequality relation was violated in such a way that the quantum-mechanical 
predictions were fulfilled within error limits.  In this controversy, 
quantum mechanics has triumphed with flying colors.

The fact that the quantum-mechanical predictions have been verified does 
not mean that the whole subject is now a triviality.  Despite the 
experimental verdict we may still feel psychologically uncomfortable about 
many aspects of measurements of this kind.  Consider in particular the 
following point:  Right after observer A performs a measurement on particle 
1, how does particle 2 - which may, in principle, be many light years away 
from particle 1 - get to "know" how to orient its spin so that the 
remarkable correlations [predicted by QM] are realized?  In one of the 
experiments to test Bell's inequality (performed by A. Aspect and 
collaborators) the analyzer settings were changed so rapidly that A's 
decision as to what to measure could not be made until it was too late for 
any kind of influence, traveling slower than light, to reach B.

We conclude this section by showing that despite these pacularities we 
cannot use spin-correlation measurements to transmit any useful information 
between macrosopically separated points.  In particular, superluminal 
(faster than light) communications are impossible.

...

[End of quotations.]

So, what I really meant by my earlier remark on the need to accept the 
reality of the QM wave amplitude, in spite of not being able to measure it, 
is that Bell's inequality and the experiments that show that it is violated 
tell us that nature is fundamentally non-local.  The wavefunctions of QM 
allow us to calculate these non-local correlations exactly.  There are some 
alternatives to accepting non-locality but because of Bell's inequality, 
these alternatives must all fail in other deeper aspects that violate 
"reality" in other even less satisfactory ways.

Fundamental non-locality means that the intuitive models that we build to 
illustrate the theory are not going to be very consistent with everyday 
experience.  When we talk about de-localized electrons, we are beginning to 
accept a change in the way we think about things.

I'd be glad to continue this discussion, but it may be straying too far off 
the topic of CF.  E-mail welcome.

Cheers.

Bill Page.

PS. I have not forgotten the other two questions.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Qian Qian /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: qianqian@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Qian Qian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 16:23:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <19931217.153814.562@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
>Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 60)
>         "The attainment of Q values somewhat greater than 1 is a
>realistic prospect for the next generation of tokamak experiments.  Two
>of the large tokamaks currently under construction will be capable of
>demonstrating this type of operation on a short-pulse basis in actual
>deuterium-tritium plasmas.  The devices, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
>(TFTR) at Princeton, which is scheduled for completion in late 1981,
>and the Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in England, scheduled for
>1982, will have plasma currents of about three million amperes, neutral-
>beam heating powers of tens of megawatts and expected fusion-generated
>output powers of between 10 and 100 megawatts.  The minor radius of the
>plasma in the TFTR and the JET will be respectively two and three times
>larger than the minor radius of the plasma in the PLT; it is estimated
>that the cost of each of the new facilities will be on the order of
>$300 million."
>         In view of the above I do not see how the actual results to
>date can be characterized as other than disappointing.
>                          James B. Shearer
I think there is some misunderstanding here. 
first of all, Furth claimed the output is in range of 10 and 100MW on
either TFTR or JET. Since TFTR already got 6MW, it'll not be difficult
to get more than 10MW next year when operating parameters are optimized
such as increasing density, magnetic field, etc.
second, as I know, JET is bigger machine than TFTR and has better optimized
engineering design than TFTR. It's reasonable to expect JET will get
more than 10MW ouput once JET starts its DT operation phase.
Therefore, TFTR's goal of more than 10MW output as Furth projected in 1979 
will be accomplished. Hope this will help you a little bit.

Qian

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Real physics is originated from simplest systems!       | PPL, P.O.Box 451
                                          ---Qian Qian   | Princeton, NJ 08540
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenqianqian cudfnQian cudlnQian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Qian Qian /  Re: Some basic questions
     
Originally-From: qianqian@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Qian Qian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Some basic questions
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 17:36:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2f25ia$ihq@news-feed-2.peachnet.edu> tbailey@sun.cc.westga.edu writes:
>
>I am a mathematician and have just started with this forum out
>of interest in and respect for the field.  Please note that I
>am a tyro in this area. I have some basic questions:
>
>1. How do you raise the temperature of the plasma?
since plasma has conductivity, you can apply eletric potential to drive plasmas
to higher energy(called Ohmic Heating). However, OH has limitation because of
limited loop voltage. second approach is called Neutral Beam Injection. By
injecting high energy neutral particles into plasma and get ionized inside
plasma, you can get high temperature plasma directly. NBI is main power input
on TFTR. thirdly, it was proposed within ten years that you can launch
some radio waves into plasma to resonate with plasma particles with frequency 
matching some natural frequencies
of plasma particles, and pass energy directly onto plasma. this is called
RF heating. OH, NBI and RF are three most successful heating methods right now.
>2. Does the plasma go in circles?  If so, what is the
>   diameter at Princeton?
plasma particle is go in circles and basic movement consists of gyration around
the magnetic field lines and precession of its orbits. Check out F.F. Chen's
textbook about plasma and you can easily understand trajectory by looking
at those well-drawn graphs. the most important diameter for plasma particles
are their gyro-radius which is very small(probably order of 10^(-6) meter). I
can't remember those numbers.
>3. How is the plasma controlled so that no blast occurs
>   is in an H-bomb?
plasma is confined by strong megnetic field. as pointed out before, particles
are flying around magnetic field lines in very small radius. there is no
blast in controled fusion because the density in fusion device is very small
compared H-bomb. In fact, the pressure in typical tokomak device is much
smaller than air pressure. Even the temperature inside TFTR is 10 times higher
than core of sun, probably you won't be able to bake a turkey for dinner
inside TFTR device because of low density plasma. Remember temperature is
a statistical number and the real stuff you care about is the heat density 
which is
proportional to the plasma density as well as temperature. Taking into account 
the huge volume of TFTR, the heat density per volume inside TFTR probably
is smaller than a microwave oven in your kitchen.
Any way, back to the point, the difference between H-bomb and controlled
fusion device is that, H-bomb is realized with extremely high density and
most of particles gain high energy to fuse together instantaniously and
release huge amount of heat in a very limited dimension. on the contrary,
the controled fusion is realized by heating plasma to high temperature that
small amount of plasma particles gain enough energy to fuse together and
release energy, part of which is used to sustain the temperature of plasma
and part of which is extracted.
>4. How will heat be extracted from the system?
the released energy is in form of energetic neutrons which is chargeless and
fairly transparent to vacuum wall. A layer of blanket which consists of 
special material is placed behind vacuum wall to absorb neutrons and transfom
into heat.
>5. Please describe how the inertial method works
inertial method is just like ignite a tiny H-bomb. Energetic charged particles
are accelerated and smashed into some target or each other to induce
fusion reaction. By optimizing the amount of fusion reaction each time,
it is believed controled fusion is feasible in this way.
Hope, this will help you a little bit.



-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Real physics is originated from simplest systems!       | PPL, P.O.Box 451
                                          ---Qian Qian   | Princeton, NJ 08540
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenqianqian cudfnQian cudlnQian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 15:43:59 EST

         I said:
>         The same article:
>         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
>Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 59)
>         "In the PLT the equivalent deuterium-tritium fusion power is
>about 50 kilowatts corresponding to a Q value of .02, a record in
>fusion research to date."
         Robert Heeter replied:
>Thanks!  I'll have to go get the article.  Can you tell me when
>these PLT values were obtained?  It makes a difference whether
>it was before or after TFTR was designed, at least in the context
>of our original discussion.  I would try looking, but right now

         The PLT numbers appear to have been obtained in 1978.
         If in fact the TFTR design is significantly suboptimal
because the design was frozen before these PLT results were obtained
this would appear to indicate extreme incompetence by the program
managers.
         In any case the results were known as of 1979 when Furth
was predicting TFTR and JET would demonstrate Q values greater than
1.  In "Fusion", edited by Edward Teller, Academic Press, 1981, Furth
(p. 223) lists Q values of [about] 2 for TFTR and >>1 for JET.
         You have suggested that lack of funding explains TFTR's
failure to reach breakeven.  Perhaps you can explain exactly what
features of TFTR planned in 1979-1981 were deleted and what effect
this had on the achievable Q values.  While you are at it perhaps
you can explain what went wrong with JET as well.
         You and someone else have suggested that achieving 10 million
watts of power when 10-100 was expected does not constitute a dis-
appointing result.  I disagree.
         Finally the real problem with the Tokamak fusion has nothing
to do with whether this machine or that machine met its goals or not.
The real problem is that there is no realistic prospect that a Tokamak
fusion power reactor will be economically competitive with fission
reactors in the foreseeable future.  I actually do not see how any
objective observor can doubt this in view of the vastly greater engi-
neering difficulties involved in building fusion power reactors.
Since fission is currently not economically competitive with coal in
the US I see no reason for the US government to continue to fund the
fusion program at current levels.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjbs cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Norton Bretz /  Bad Address
     
Originally-From: bretz@pppl.gov (Norton Bretz)
Originally-From: stav@gav.gat.com
Originally-From: stav@gav.gat.com (Marion Stav)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bad Address
Subject: TFTR Updates
Subject: TFTR Updates
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:19 -0500
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 93 16:58:48
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 13:47:18 +0300
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

        I think I got this by mistake.   Norton Bretz

Date: Wed, 08 Dec 93 16:58:48
Originally-From: stav@gav.gat.com
Subject: TFTR Updates
To: bretz
Cc: 

Message-Id: <9312082146.AA20356@pppl.gov>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 13:47:18 +0300
To: tftr_news_info@pppl.gov
Originally-From: stav@gav.gat.com (Marion Stav)
Subject: TFTR Updates

Kathryne Thorpe would like to be added to this distribution.  Her e-mail is:
                        thorpe@vaxd.gat.com

Thank you.
Marion H. Stav
Assistant to David Overskei
Senior Vice President
General Atomics
619/455-2493 (phone)
619/455-2496 (fax)


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbretz cudfnNorton cudlnBretz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 /  holland@itergp /  misdirected messages
     
Originally-From: holland@itergps.naka.jaeri.go.jp
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: misdirected messages
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:20 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

I am geting e-mail directed to you.  Others also appear to be getting stuff
for you and their messages to you are also coming to me.
e-mail  holland@itergps.naka.jaeri.go.jp

phone   81-292-70-7791

fax     81-292-70-7460

address:
ITER Naka Joint Work Site
801-1 Mukouyama, Naka-machi
Naka-gun, Ibaraki-ken
311-01 Japan

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenholland cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Charles Karney /  [rhawryluk@pppl.gov: TFTR Update Dec. 6, 1993]
     
Originally-From: Charles Karney <karney@theory.pppl.gov>
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [rhawryluk@pppl.gov: TFTR Update Dec. 6, 1993]
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 6, 1993
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:21 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 10:20:39 EST
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 10:20:39 EST
To: tftr_news_info@pppl.gov
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
X-Sender: rhawrylu@pobox.pppl.gov
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 6, 1993
Cc: rhawryluk@pppl.gov

Status:

The Department of Energy has concluded their safety appraisal of TFTR's
readiness to proceed with full D-T operations.  This appraisal was
conducted by a joint team led by Linda Freeman and composed of members of
the DOE Operational Readiness Evaluation Team, PPPL- Operational Readiness
Review Team, and the DOE-Office of Environment, Safety and Health. On
Friday, C. Langenfeld, Manager Chicago Field Office, has designated "TFTR
as a Low Hazard Category 3 Facility" which will enable us to go ahead with
full D-T operations.

We have requested Savannah River Plant to ship 4gm of tritium the week of
December 6 in preparation for full D-T operation.

This week we received an additional shipment of trace tritium (2%
concentration) from LANL.  This gas is now on-line and supports operations.

A water pump which is part of the standby diesel generator was replaced and
tested. 

Machine operations in deuterium focussed on performing set-up shots for the
upcoming trace tritium experiments and full D-T experiments. The machine
appears to be very well conditioned and the plasmas are reproducible.

Six trace tritum experiments using gas puffs were conducted on Friday to
study particle transport.

Analysis of the previous trace tritium experiments using both gas puffs and
beams is ongoing.  Preliminary results are:

>From the gas puffling experiments, it appears that the tritium fueling
efficiency is similar to the deuterium gas fueling efficiency.  The fueling
efficiency is taken to be the ratio of the tritium in the plasma discharge
to the amount puffed from the gas valve.

Preliminary transport simulations of gas puffing using trace tritium has
been performed.  In these simulations, the transport coefficients for trace
tritium were assumed to be the same as obtained in previous He gas puffing
experiments conducted in similar conditions.  The simulations are in
reasonable agreement with the experimental data.  However, there is a small
discrepancy in the time to peak for the neutron signal response to the gas
puff.  This may be indicative of slightly faster transport than observed in
the helium experiments and is being studied further.

An important part of the initial trace tritium experiments was to evaluate
diagnostic performance especially the neutron detector systems.  The five
TFTR neutron detection sytems worked extremely well and many shots were
used to cross-calibrate and cross check the different detector systems.

We also studied neutron-induced noise from two shots in which protective
shutters were closed. Some diagnostics observed an increase of 2.5 to 3
times the fluorescence noise for D-T neutrons compared with a D-D neutron. 
This fiber fluorescence is being studied further at present.

Plans:
 
Complete the trace tritium experiments including set-up shots for full D-T
operations and an evaluation of neutron production as a function of
injection angle and beam direction.

Receive the shipment of tritium from Savannah River Plant.  

Checkout the tritium system with pure tritium in the process lines.

Perform perturbative tritium transport experiments with small gas puffs of
tritium.(DT-16)

Condition a neutral beam source with tritium to establish operational set
points.

Perform single source tritium shots to establish a baseline for the lost
alpha detector and evaluate the 14MeV neutron detectors at higher flux.
(DT-1 and DT-7)

Begin high power D-T experiments.(DT-7)

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkarney cudfnCharles cudlnKarney cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Charles Karney /  [rhawryluk@pppl.gov: TFTR Update Dec. 8, 1993]
     
Originally-From: Charles Karney <karney@theory.pppl.gov>
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [rhawryluk@pppl.gov: TFTR Update Dec. 8, 1993]
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 8, 1993
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 08:18:10 EST
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 08:18:10 EST
To: tftr_news_info@pppl.gov
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
X-Sender: rhawrylu@pobox.pppl.gov
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 8, 1993
Cc: rhawryluk@pppl.gov

Status:

We have received from Savannah River Plant, in three cannisters, 4.2 gm of
tritium in preparation for full D-T operation.  One cannister with 2.4 gm
has been loaded on a uranium bed.

Regeneration of the gas (including tritium from the trace experiments) on
the neutral beam cryopanels into the Gas Holding Tank has occurred.  The
gas in the Holding Tank will be processed. A disposable molecular sieve bed
in a type A waste container will be loaded and prepared for disposal.  This
container will be replaced by a disposable molecular sieve bed sized for a
type B  shipping container.


Sixteen trace tritium experiments using neutral beams were conducted on 
Monday to simulate the forthcoming high power D-T experiments (DT-7) and to
evaluate the effect of injection angle and depth of penetration on neutron
production. (DT-6)  Good plasma performance was obtained.  A total of  59
trace tritium shots have been performed to date.

Plans:

The following is our experimental schedule for the next few days.  As one
would expect at this stage, this schedule is subject to change.

Checkout the tritium system with pure tritium in the process lines. (Wednesday)

Perform perturbative tritium transport experiments with small gas puffs of
tritium.(DT-16) (Wednesday and/or Thursday)

Condition a neutral beam source with tritium to establish operational set
points. (Wednesday and/or Thursday)

Perform single source tritium shots to establish a baseline for the lost
alpha detector and evaluate the 14 MeV neutron detectors at higher flux.
(DT-1 and DT-7) (Thursday or Friday)

Begin high power D-T experiments.(DT-7) (Friday)

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkarney cudfnCharles cudlnKarney cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update (Dec. 9, 1993)
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update (Dec. 9, 1993)
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:23 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (Dec. 9, 1993):

Checkout of the tritium system with pure tritium in the process lines in
support of high power D-T experiments was successfully performed.  The
plenums for the neutral beam tritium gas injectors as well as for the torus
gas injectors have been filled with tritium.

Perturbative tritium transport experiments with small gas puffs of tritium
were performed at 1.15MA and 2.0MA. (DT-16)    Thirteen discharges with
pure tritium gas puffs were studied.  Very good data has been obtained with
the neutron collimator.

A neutral beam source has been successfully operated with tritium to
establish operational set points. In four attempts, the source operated
successfully each time at 102kV.

Plans:

The following is our experimental schedule for the next two days.  As one
would expect at this stage, this schedule is subject to change.  At
present, we are approximately half a shift ahead of schedule compared with
yesterday's schedule.

A disposable molecular sieve bed in a type A waste container will be 
prepared for disposal.  This container will be replaced by a disposable
molecular sieve bed sized for a type B  shipping container.

Perform single source tritium shots to establish a baseline for the lost
alpha detector and evaluate the 14 MeV neutron detectors at higher flux.
(DT-1 and DT-7) (Thursday or Friday)

Begin high power D-T experiments.(DT-7) (Thursday or Friday)

The plasma parameters for DT-7 experiments were established previously in
deuterium.  The following are representative values:
R=      2.52m
a=      0.87m
I=      2.0MA
B=      5T
Pnb=    30MW
ne(0)=  8e19m-3
Ti(0)=  29keV
Te(0)=  9.0keV
taue=   0.15sec
Sn=     3.4e16neutrons/sec in D-D

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update Dec. 10, 1993
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 10, 1993
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:24 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (Dec. 10, 1993):

Last night, we began high power D-T experiments on TFTR.  Five experiments
were performed.  The first four experiments were with one tritium neutral
beam source and varying numbers of deuterium sources The total power was
varied from 5MW to 28MW to evaluate the performance of the neutron
detectors and other diagnostics. The fifth shot was with 24MW of power and
a nearly "50-50" D-T mix.  This experiment was conducted about 11:08 PM . 
About three megawatts of fusion power were produced.  The data from these
experiments is being further analyzed.

The machine parameters for these experiments was:
R=              2.52m
a=              0.87m
I=              2.0MA
B=              5T


There was significant press interest in beginning the D-T experiments and 
front page articles in the N.Y. Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Newark Star
Ledger, Washington Post and the Trenton Times have appeared. This list is
not comprehensive.

Plans:

Continue high power D-T experiments in accordance with DT-7 today and
increase the fusion power during the next week.

News Alert:

The following News Alert was distributed to the staff today:

"TFTR set a world record of about three million watts of controlled fusion
power, during the first approximately 50-50 deuterium-tritium (D-T)
experiment. The first high power shot occurred at 11:08 pm on Thursday
night, December 9," said PPPL Director Ron Davidson. This was the world's
first magnetic fusion experiment utilizing a plasma made up of equal parts
of deuterium and tritium in a tokamak-the mix required for practical
amounts of fusion power.

        "These results are products of years of hard work by an
extraordinarily dedicated and creative staff," said TFTR Project Manager
Rich Hawryluk. One approximately 50-50 deuterium-tritium experiment was
run. D-T experiments will resume Friday morning, according to Hawryluk.

        "This world record is a great step in the development of fusion
energy," remarked Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary. "It highlights the
enormous progress being made in the field. This is the most significant
achievement in fusion energy in the past two decades. I commend the
Princeton staff for the years of hard work and dedication."

        Manager of the DOE's Princeton Area Office Milton Johnson observed,
"The U.S. Congress and the American taxpayers have demonstrated their
support for-and their fascination with-the development of fusion energy for
years. This important milestone shows their faith well placed, and we
welcome the opportunity to show that their investment will pay off in the
future."

        Said Davidson, "The TFTR team is to be congratulated for this
superb accomplishment. We now look forward to the rest of the D-T
experimental campaign with great pride and anticipation." Theoretically, a
50-50 mixture is optimal for commercial fusion power. TFTR is performing
the world's first tokamak experiments with D-T mixtures at concentrations
up to 100 percent tritium, allowing for unprecedented studies of the plasma
behavior expected in a reactor.

        In a letter to PPPL, anticipating the D-T experiments, New Jersey
Governor Jim Florio wrote, "As Governor of New Jersey, I extend best wishes
and congratulations to the staff of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
as you begin the deuterium-tritium experiments on the Tokamak Fusion Test
Reactor. I have followed the accomplishments of PPPL with great interest,
and I expect these experiments to put the crowning touch on the decade-long
series of successes from the TFTR Project. With your concern for safety
today and a safe, abundant energy source for the future, you bring credit
to the State of New Jersey."

        Added Secretary O'Leary, "This research exemplifies three elements
of the Department's mission; to achieve diverse energy sources, a
productive and competitive economy, and improved environmental quality.
Fusion offers the promise of a safe, environmentally acceptable,
inexhaustible source of energy in the next century."

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Tests
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Tests
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 01:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

T1  Heat Pipe Tests Start

This weekend was spent trying to make a heat pipe work.  It did not work (very 
well).  That seems to be how life functions for me.  I start out working on 
something that others understand, and get lousy results.  Then I work hard on 
it for months, and at the end I am able to make whatever it is work.  When I 
look to see what I am doing different at the end, I can see no difference in 
procedure from what I was doing at the start, only now the process works.  I 
remember distinctly doing this developing low noise JFET amplifiers.  It took 
about six months before I could make one work.  Then later I trained another 
engineer to design them.  It took him six months too, with me there to help 
all the way.  

So I am not discouraged, and I do not need any help yet (only sympathy).

What I am testing is the inner cell holder for the new calorimeter.  It looks 
like:
                     
                 _______              _T2____
                 T3|   |              |   |
                  R|   |              |   |R
                   |   |              |   |
                   |   |              |   |
                   |   |      Cup     |   |T3
                   |   |T1    Heater  |   |
                T4 |   |______________|   |
             ______|______________________|_T5___
                             T6
I have shortened the drawing to save paper.  This is a section through a 
double walled tube.  The outer tube is 2" dia 1/16" thick brass.  The inner 
tube is 1 1/2" dia 0.040" wall brass tube.  The tubes are soldered to a ring 
at the top with an overlaping flange.  The bottom circle has a step in it to 
center the tube.  The top ring is brass, and the bottom disk is 0.090" copper.  
The bottom of the inner tube is 1/8" brass.  The structure is 6" tall (not to 
scale above).  There is a 1/16" brass fill pipe soldered into the top flange. 
There is a single layer of cheese cloth wrapped around the inner cup which
loosely fills the space between the cups.  

I am working through my liquor cabinet getting rid of old stuff and am now 
using "Montezuma" brand Tequila (80 Proof) for the fill.  This bottle was 
cheap stuff so there was no worm to contaminate it.  

R shows the location of 12 ea 3 watt, 18 ohm resistors epoxyed around the 
tube at the top.  They are arranged in series parallel to give two separate 12 
ohm resistors.  Each 12 ohm resistor made up from six 18 ohm resistors 
symmetrically arranged around the top of the cell holder.  I also fill the cup 
with "Mazola" oil, and insert a tea cup heater run from a variac.  

I have fired up the "old faithful" CLUB AT 286 and am using six of the 
thermometers from the Mark II.  T1 is in the oil fill.  T2 is on the top rim.  
T3 is half way down the side.  T4 is on the side at the bottom.  T5 sits on 
the bottom copper rim.  T6 is imbedded in the water cooled plate.  The poor 
old 286 is on its last legs.  It has run almost continuously for 5 years doing 
"cold fusion" and a year or two before that photoplotting.  I can no longer 
persuade it that it has a hard disk.  In fact, the hard disk may or may not be 
turning.  Since the fan started making so much noise 2 years ago, I can't 
tell.  So I am running DOS 3.3.  (Please, I have a basement full of computers 
- 17 at last count, though I never get the count right, but a hooked up, 
debugged, and functioning system should be appreciated, even if it has 
peculiarities.) 

For tests, I sit the cell holder on the water cooled plate of the Mark II, and 
paste it down with thermal grease.  When I want to cook the pipe, I just lift 
it up off the cold plate and wrap it in fiberglass.  I am presently holding 
the plate at 25 C with the chiller.  The first test was to set the heater at 
12 watts and see what the temperature drop is through the structure with the 
heat pipe in air and no fill.  The drop was 27 C from T2 to T4.  The 
conduction path between T2 and T4 is about 5" of 2" dia 1/16" wall brass 
tubing.  This is 2*pi*1/16 or .4 sq inches /144=0.00272 sq ft. div by 5/12 ft 
= 0.00654 ft.  The thermal conductivity of brass is 64 BTU/hr-ft-F.  This 
gives 0.419 BTU/hr-F or 2.38 F/(BTU/hr) or 1.3 C/(BTU/hr). Now 12 watts is 
3.413*12=40.9 BTU/hr. 1.3*40.9=54.3 C. The expected temperature rise is thus 
54 C.  I measured 27C.  A factor of two is not bad.  Some of you may want to 
check me out.  Now that I think of it, 5" is a little far for the separation 
of T2 and T4.  A better estimate might be 3".  Will check it tonight.  There 
are also convection losses which would reduce the measurement.  So all in all 
not bad.   

The weekend has been spent cooking, loading, evacuating and performing various 
rituals and curses.  The lowest I have been able to get the T2-T4 reading at 
12 watts has been 5C.  

Tom Droege


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Andy Holland /  Re: Princeton has Fusion?
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Princeton has Fusion?
Date: 20 Dec 1993 14:26:10 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <2ev80iINNn0a@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <2esh5hINNm73@daisy.pgh.wec.com>, zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com 
>(Andy Holland) writes:
>
>|> Fusion power, if it ever comes, will be strictly baseload, and huge 
>|> (5000+ MWe). 
>
>This may be true, just as it may be true that fusion will never work, but
>it cannot be stated as a fact. 

I did not state that fusion would never work as fact, and I certainly hope it
does work, I just wouldn't bet on it for a while. If it does work, I would
personally and professionally profit from it, so I am cheering for it. My 
company would likely be building alot of its components.

>What's your source? The studies I remember
>generally talk about 1 to 1.5 GWe, but can go as low as 0.5 GWe. The only 
>source I could put my hands on right away* has a figure (19) showing cost
>of electricity as a function of net electric power ranging from 6 cents/kWhr
>at 900 MWe down to about 4.5 cents/kWhr at 1800 MWe, which is a strong 

We used to talk mils/Kwhr in the nuclear fission field. Those were the
studies in the heady days of fission, besides, 6 cents/kw-hr for generation
is not cheap.                                                   

>incentive to get bigger, but not an imperative.
>

Unfortunately I no longer have the source available, and am recalling 
graduate class work in fusion engineering over 10 years ago. If I am
correct, the source I recall for 5000 MWe+ was from a 1970's vintage
report. It may have been the proposal for the FED, which was a fusion
reactor concept proposed at that time. This number was quoted quite 
often by my professors at that time. 

I should never have quoted that number, as I have been out of it for a
long time.

As I recall, correct me if I am wrong, there were some fundemental limitations
on minimum size. There is probably on optimal size given particle mean free path,
plasma density, instablilties, magnetic field strength, polodial current density 
etc.. Your first reactors would be designed to take advantage of these fundamentals,
as the first fission reactors used fuel lumping, optimal geometries, and other 
tricks to make the things work. I believe the fundementals of fusion reactions
favor large reactor designs (like the sun). Large reactor designs require large
capital investments, and hence large amounts of power production.

Again, if I am wrong on this, please correct me. 

Ironically, it was the ability to build large plants that gave nuclear fission 
its initial big boost. Those economies have all but vanished.

| Andy Holland		            |        
| Westinghouse NMD	            |  A Penny saved is a Penny.      
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |         Richard Shelton Holland
| Views Expressed here are soley my |  
| own and are not representitive of |  
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |  
| etc...                            |  
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / John Cobb /  Bowery/Cobb Ad Hominem Degeneration was Re: The TFTR burn was propaganda
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bowery/Cobb Ad Hominem Degeneration was Re: The TFTR burn was propaganda
Date: 20 Dec 1993 09:56:08 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <m0pAjil-0000bTC@crash.cts.com>,
Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>>Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
>>>lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.
>>
>>and then Jim gives his hearsay testimony about Hirsch's opinions
>>
>>>Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
>>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                  do you know this was their reason?
>>                                  how do you know?
>>                                  can you document their sliminess?
> 
>This was the implication from the speech, and I assume that since Hirsch 
>was giving this speech before the advisory committee (including PPPL 
> guys) that anyone could have called him on the "insinuation" at that time.

And of course, there is no chance that you mis-understood or misconstrued.

Have you ever stopped to consider that some new physics was discovered that
was worth investigating before remote handling was required? such as
fishbone modes? I don't know for sure, but I'm not arrogant enough to
appoint myself spokesman for labs or individuals who can speak for themselves.

> 

>do you think holds the patent on the spheromak?  What do
>you think PPPL has to say about this particular inventor?
> 
>Until you post the answer to these two questions in this public forum,
>I submit that you have no business discussing anything related to the 
>spheromak, PPPL or "slander."
>

I don't know. Perhaps you'll enlighten me. I didn't even know that the
spheromak was patented, I thought it was in the public domain. Are you talking
about the concept itself or a particular type of spheromak (i.e. non-solid
first wall) ?
 

>PS:  I have a hard time deciding whether University of Texas at Austin 
>Princeton or University of Chicago win the booby-prize for doing the
>most damage to life on this planet not to mention civilization.

Well, you've stated your paranoia about UT Austin and Princeton, but what's
your beef with Univ. of Chicago? Another conspiracy?


PPS:  Are YOU receiving any of my tax dollars for fusion work, Mr. Cobb?

Not right now. I have in the (recent) past. So what's your point?
Are you saying that if some cheese-head make a stupid remark that he is
innoculated from comment because he pays taxes?

Def: Zealot --- 1) Someone who does what he knows God would do if God
had all the facts 2) See Jim Bowery

-john .w cobb








cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 16:15:59 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

I promised some time ago to comment on the posting from several weeks ago
by W. Bernecky that was entitled "Conditions for Bose Condensation."  I
will try to keep the evaluation short.

....

The early parts appeared to be largely paraphrases and/or quotes (not always
clearly marked) from the Quantics book.  No big problems there, although I
think that in such pieces it would be useful to follow Bill Page's habit of
clearly marking where quoted material ends and personal thoughts begin.
Such delineations of standard and non-standard materials would at the least
help keep innocent readers from being taken too far down a very thorny path.

....

Starting with the discussion of "symmetric" and "antisymmetric" band states,
the piece completely fell apart and consequently went no where.

Symmetric and antisymmetric are terms used to describe how the wavefunctions
for _two or more_ identical particles should be combined mathematically.  If
it is done one way, they show a tendency to "join together."  Wave functions
that combine in this way are called _symmetric_, and they are the basis of
Bose-Einstein (boson) statistics.

If wave function combining is done the other way (there are only two choices
possible), the particles show a tendency to "push apart."  Wave functions
that combine in this way are called _antisymmetric_, and they are the basis
of Fermi (fermion) statistics.

Mr. Bernecky appears to have confused the above two cases with the utterly
unrelated problem of the energy states of a two adjacent cells.  The latter
case of the energy levels of two adjacent cells is an example of a _loosely
couple pendulums_ problem, and it is discussed in great detail in Feynman
Lectures I and III.

The energy states of two adjacent cells are derived primarily from the
physical structure of the cells and the probability of a particle tunneling
between them.  Fermi and Bose statistics are essentially irrelevant to the
_definition_ of the states, although they are crucial in understanding how
multiple particles will _fill_ those states.

As a result of trying to apply bose/fermi terminology and concepts to what
is really just a problem in resonant (stationary or standing-wave) modes in
a multi-cell system, Mr. Bernecky proceeds to proposes and discard a series
of utterly unreal wave functions (ones that include point discontinuities
and arbitrary "flips" of adjacent cell pairs) in an attempt to support his
final conclusion that delocalized bose hydrogen species will tend to occupy
the _highest_ possible band state instead of the lowest one.  The argument
is invalidated fundamentally by the failure to use accurate representations
of the band states, as well as by other comparatively lesser problems.

....

Incidentally, the final discussion in that piece on why the top band state
should be a pair of Dirac discontinuities in momentum (k) space is _almost_
correct, but quite misses the point that this would be true only in a one-
dimensional world.  Real 3D band states form hollow polyhedra when shown in
momentum space, not isolated pairs of points.  Also, _all_ band states have
such polyhedral structure, not just the top (Fermi surface) band states.


				Cheers,
				Terry


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update Dec. 13, 1993
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 13, 1993
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:25 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (Dec. 13, 1993):

On Friday, we completed the first set of high power D-T experiments.  We
achieved our programmatic milestone of 5MW of fusion power this year.  The
maximum fusion power was about 6MW.

In addition, we obtained valuable data on the confinement of a D-T plasma,
recycling of hydrogenic species from the walls, and checkout of diagnostics
in a D-T environment.

A three hour meeting was held today to review last week's data. 
Preliminary indications are that: the confinement in a D-T plasma is
somewhat better than in a deuterium comparison shot; deuterium wall
recycling is important in determining the ratio of deuterium to tritium in
the plasma core; enhanced alpha particle loss has not been observed and
nearly all diagnostics are functioning well in high power D-T experiments
and are providing high quality data.  


Plans:

A current scan is being performed today to establish a baseline of first
orbit loss to the lost alpha detector.  This utilizes a single neutral beam
source operating in tritium along with other deuterium neutral beam
sources.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the present cannister of tritium gas will be
replaced with another cannister with about 8kCi of tritium.  Gas on the
cryopanels will be regenerated and processed.  Experiments will be
conducted in deuterium to evaluate wall retention and set up conditions for
high power D-T experiments.

On Thursday and Friday, the emphasis will be the study of the confinement
in D-T plasmas and evaluate alpha heating effects.

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update Dec. 16, 1993
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 16, 1993
Date: 20 Dec 1993 17:38:26 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (Dec. 16, 1993):

On Monday Dec. 13,  a current scan from 0.6MA to 1.8MA was performed  to
establish a baseline of first orbit loss to the lost alpha detector.  This
utilized a single neutral beam source operating in tritium along with other
deuterium neutral beam sources. Eleven tritium shots were taken.  At low
plasma current   differences in the MHD activity were observed in the D-T
shots resulting in decreases in the neutron emission.  This is under
investigation.

On Tuesday, Dec. 14, the neutral beamlines were regenerated after the high
power experiments. as part of the experimental proposal DT-23.  An analysis
of the overall tritium inventory is in progress.

On Wednesday, Dec 15, another cannister of tritium was loaded into the
tritium receiving glovebox to replace the one which had been used during
the first set of high power experiments.  Deuterium shots were taken for
comparison shots for previous experimental proposals and diagnostic
checkout.

The number of D-T shots to date is:

Trace tritium experiments (<2% mixtures)        59
Tritium gas puffing experiments                 13
Tritium neutral beam experiments                21

Plans:

On Thursday and Friday, the emphasis will be the study of the confinement
in D-T plasmas and evaluate alpha heating effects.

Next week, activities will be underway to process the tritium and transfer
it to the uranium-bed in preparation for the scheduled holidays and
maintenance period during the first week in January.

R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / John Logajan /  Re: ICCF-4 secret source
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 secret source
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 07:50:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Another "secret source" [B] wishes to ask John Logajan's "secret source" [A] 
>a couple of questions, all on the QT, of course.  

It was all in fun -- and all my doing.  I had a private correspondence which
I desired to quote, but the permission would have required 24-48 hours via
e-mail.   So I simply quoted the relevent material and left the author's
name off.  The author had no fore-knowledge that I was going to publish
excerpts from his private e-mail to me.

There was nothing cloak and dagger except what I made of it in my playful
attempt.  I would feel bad now if it reflected poorly on the original
author, who is, in fact, totally innocent of anything except posting to
me his impressions of ICCF4.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / BERNECKY R /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 01:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
> Starting with the discussion of "symmetric" and "antisymmetric" band states,
> the piece completely fell apart and consequently went no where.

Terry, let us take a step back and re-synchronize. My objective is to
find an energy state in a multi-cell system that will result in 
narrow (restricted) values in momentum space. The resonant 
(stationary or standing-wave) mode in a multi-cell system that 
will do that is a waveform that looks as closely as possible to
a *continuous* sine wave over the entire system. If we assume a 
relatively narrow barrier, then the resonant mode at the top of
the band which consists of an integral (whole) period wavelength 
(per cell) results in the desired standing wave.
If you do not agree to that, then could you please describe the 
standing wave that corresponds to the top of the energy band 
for the case of integer wavelength (per cell) where the integer is 1.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Jim Bowery /  Ethics and judgement day
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ethics and judgement day
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 01:13:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <m0pAjil-0000bTC@crash.cts.com>,
>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>>Jim Bowery <jim@pnet01.cts.com> wrote:
>>>>Dr. Hirsch gave a speech, years ago, where he criticized the Princeton
>>>>lab for delaying the introduction of tritium into the TFTR.
>>>
>>>and then Jim gives his hearsay testimony about Hirsch's opinions
>>>
>>>>Princeton was delaying this burn because it would mean the end of the
>>>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>                                  do you know this was their reason?
>>>                                  how do you know?
>>>                                  can you document their sliminess?
>> 
>>This was the implication from the speech, and I assume that since Hirsch 
>>was giving this speech before the advisory committee (including PPPL 
>> guys) that anyone could have called him on the "insinuation" at that time.
>
>And of course, there is no chance that you mis-understood or misconstrued.
>
>Have you ever stopped to consider that some new physics was discovered that
>was worth investigating before remote handling was required? such as
>fishbone modes? 
 
If that were the case then they should have been able to satisfy Congress 
of this fact.  If they weren't able to satisfy Congress, they should have
just gone ahead and done the burn the way they were supposed to.  Obviously
Congress wasn't satisfied and they didn't do the burn.  Is it any 
surprise Congress started getting a bit cantankerous?
 
>I don't know for sure, but I'm not arrogant enough to
>appoint myself spokesman for labs or individuals who can speak for
themselves.
 
Good for you.  
 
>>Who do you think holds the patent on the spheromak?  What do
>>you think PPPL has to say about this particular inventor?
>> 
>>Until you post the answer to these two questions in this public forum,
>>I submit that you have no business discussing anything related to the 
>>spheromak, PPPL or "slander."
>
>I don't know. Perhaps you'll enlighten me. I didn't even know that the
>spheromak was patented, I thought it was in the public domain. Are you
talking
>about the concept itself or a particular type of spheromak (i.e. non-solid
>first wall) ?
 
I'm not going to do your homework for you.  If you want any credibility 
when you talk about spheromaks, PPPL or "slander" (which you implied I 
 was guilty of) then you had better answer my challenge.
 
Besides, if I told you, why would you believe me?  ;-)
 
I'll repost this challenge everytime you start talking about spheromaks, 
PPPL, etc. until you answer it.
 
>>PS:  I have a hard time deciding whether University of Texas at Austin 
>>Princeton or University of Chicago win the booby-prize for doing the
>>most damage to life on this planet not to mention civilization.
>
>Well, you've stated your paranoia about UT Austin 
 
Oh, I forgot Inman's MCC which located at Austin.  I was familiar with 
it at its inception (working at CDC at the time).  Really an example of 
how NOT to enhance technology competitiveness.
 
>and Princeton, but what's
>your beef with Univ. of Chicago? Another conspiracy?
 
You are you accusing me of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist.  If
untrue you have committed slander.
 
Justify your assertion or retract your slander.
 
What distinguishes a paranoid conspiracy theorist from someone who
is making rational, but perhaps justifiably cynical, observations
of the political system?  Exactly in what way do I cross that boundry?
 
>PPS:  Are YOU receiving any of my tax dollars for fusion work, Mr. Cobb?
>
>Not right now. I have in the (recent) past. So what's your point?
 
And you may in the (not-too-distant) future.  My point is that you are
part of a community which benefits from receiving taxpayer dollars 
and you are, in this dialogue with me, engaging in political action 
supporting the allocation of more taxpayer dollars for your community.
While this isn't nearly as bad as someone like Heeter, who actually
works at PPPL right now, your insolent tone IS rather grating.  I have
been able to put up with Heeter till now, but you, dear boy, are making
me think that it might be time to draw attention attention to Heeter's 
political abuse of his government funding.
 
Taxation with representation exists NOT so that some taxpayers can
advocate that more money be given to themselves to "empower" them to
advocate that more money be given to themselves to "empower" them to
advocate that more money be given to themselves to "empower" them to
...
 
Taxation with representation exists so that taxpayers can protect 
themselves from precisely this sort of run-away positive feedback system 
developing in their government.  Things got out of hand with the New Deal 
and they had to pass the Hatch Act of 1939, but it was almost immediately 
subverted with the onset of WW II.  Then the Cold War's military industrial 
complex took over from there and spun-off all kinds of "civilian" feedback 
loops which were ultimately accountable ONLY to the political process 
(military at least being accountable to the weapons of the enemy).  These
programs included NASA and fusion (first AEC and now DoE).  Their similar
failure modes derive from the same failure of philosophy:  Technosocialism,
which assumes that the incentives of a political process are adequate 
to discipline the development of technology.  They aren't.
 
>Are you saying that if some cheese-head make a stupid remark that he is
>innoculated from comment because he pays taxes?
 
If that cheese-head is making a political comment and the response is
a political comment by someone whose bills are being paid by the political 
program at issue then, yes, he is sovereign and therefore innoculated.
The fact that YOU are not AT THIS TIME receiving such money does little to
reduce your ethical liability.  You clearly could be "rewarded" for your
political loyalty to DoE and have it appear to be some sort of technical
project for which you are uniquely qualified.  Ethical thinking is 
founded on such "paranoid conspiracy theories".  I think you could use 
a little more "paranoia" in your ethics.
 
>Def: Zealot --- 1) Someone who does what he knows God would do if God
>had all the facts 2) See Jim Bowery
 
"God" will pass ultimate judgement, not me.  But there are various
levels to this "God" -- for example, what if, in the future, it becomes
apparent that the DoE fusion program did, indeed, delay the introduction
of a clean source of energy long enough that there was a significant
rise in both the actual and potential damage to all life?  "The opinion
 of history" will look back rather dimly on those who had abused their
public trust and authority in such a way as to self-servingly victimize 
those who were already putting themselves and their families at 
significant risk trying to advance fusion.  
 
Now if you and your kind are lucky, it will be discovered that this 
technosocialism was due to an easily correctable cultural abberation of 
the era, unlikely to rear itself ugly head in the future.  All will be
forgiven.  But what if "technosocialism" and related social failure modes 
turn out to have genetic correlates?  If you and your kind are lucky 
there will be some simple way to modify the expression of the gene so 
that these failure modes aren't as likely to put the entire planet at 
risk in the future.  (BTW, to the U of C guys reading this, remember that 
 the sooner society IN GENERAL allows such genetic research to go on without 
 slanderous accusations of "Naziism", the sooner such benign measures 
 will be found which are practical and effective).  But what if people 
don't discover how to accuratly control expression?  History is being 
recorded in this forum.  Genetic fingerprints are already upon us.  It
is mere political posturing to state that these sorts of things don't 
have very significant genetic components.  Think about it.
 
I usually keep the "judgement of history" in mind when deciding
what course of action I should take.  We are all privileged to be
alive at this moment in "history".  Is that why I am sensitive to
future history?  I don't know and I don't particularly care.  It's 
a "spiritual" sort of thing and my best materialistic hypothesis for 
it appears above.  
 
I am also aware that intentions count for NOTHING.
 
Are you?
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 846 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 846 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 01:13:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,

a couple more before Xmas. The Tsarev and Chechin typifies the Russian school
of cnf theory, that is, fluctuations. I am leery of equations, having seen
papers with very dignified looking equations that don't actually do very much.
And I think I am allowed to quote Greg Kuperberg, who confirms my feeling by
writing privately to me that some papers simply write equations to dress up
the vague words (I am paraphrasing Greg here). The paper below may not fall
into that class, Tsarev is - as far as I know - a respected physicist. OK,
maybe the tails of energy distributions can enhance cold fusion in a solid.

Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper, already referred to by
Mark Hittinger, I think it was. The team went about their experiment very
carefully, did lots of controls, and found significant levels of tritium. We
have talked about where one sets sigma; well, here it is up to 50 or so; is
that enough? From his criticism of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and
I know him as a solid electrochemist. The one niggling doubt in this work is
that it was a batch of Pd wire (the 2 mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that
produced tritium. What was Wolf's source? Anyone know? However, Will et al did
look for T in the same wire, not put through the cell, and found none, so this
niggling suspicion seems to be laid to rest. I will add this paper to my small
list of quality positives.

Lastly, I was sent a copy of a copy of an item out of the Dallas Morning News,
concerning the "alchemy affair". The persons who sent this believe, I feel,
that this affair damns Bockris; but I read it as vindicating the man to a
large extent. He did not fall for it just like that, he was skeptical. But he
also liked the idea of all the money he was offered, and took it in the end.
Certainly by now (the money is mostly used up), he dissociates himself from
these two shady people. I interpret this affair as Bockris being short of
research funds as well as giving a charlatan (Champion) the benefit of doubt
for a while - rather than as Bockris getting senile or cracking up, and
suddenly believing in alchemy.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 21-Dec-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 846


Journal papers: files cnf-pap1..6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsarev VA, Chechin VA;      Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. 1992 (9-10) 47 (in Russian).
"On the nonstationary quantum-mechanical nature of anomalous nuclear effects
in a solid".
** A model of nuclear fusion enhancement in a solid matrix is proposed, in
which Coulomb barrier penetration is increased by the breaking of the
stationary state of deuterons in the crystal lattice. This effect is said to
be well known, and confirmed. Roughly, the argument hinges on the tails of
energy distributions, and some mathematics such as Joost functions, Fourier
transforms and ikonal functions are invoked to support this.          Nov-92/?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will FG, Cedzynska K, Linton DC;         J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161.
"Reproducible tritium generation in electrochemical cells employing palladium
cathodes with high deuterium loading".
** Reproducible generation of tritium during the electrolysis of heavy water
is reported here; it takes place when loading ratios D/Pd near unity are
achieved. A closed cell design is used, with gas recombination, and the head
space analysed for tritium before and after electrolysis. A light water cell
in series with the heavy water cell was run every time as a control; there
were also Pd controls. A glass frit was used to physically separate the liquid
cathode and anode compartments. The electrolyte was 0.5 M D2SO4, to avoid
alkali leaching of the cell walls by LiOD. Cathodes were 1 and 2 mm cold-drawn
Pd wire, and 2x0.5 mm cold-rolled ribbon Pd alloyed with 5% Li. To achieve
high loading, repeated charging and discharging at low current densities were
required (described in a patent appl.). Only the 2 mm Pd wires produced T, and
none was produced in the control cells. Enhancement factors, that is
T(after)/T(before) of up to 50-60 were found in the four successful runs, and
amount to around 10^5 T atoms/cm^2/s, or of the order of 10^11 atoms/cm^2 over
the whole run; a survey of previous work by others (10 groups) shows a range
of 10^9 - 10^15 T/cm^2. Most of the T is in the liquid phase; but the four Pd
wires that were successful also had more tritium inside the PdD after the
experiment than before, so this must have a nuclear origin.      Jan-93/Nov-93
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary: File cnf-cmnt
^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss J;                 Dallas Morning News Wed, Nov. 17, 1993, p. 1A and ff.
"Texas A&M embroiled in questionable alchemy project".
** The whole story of how Bockris was offered $200,000 by financier William
Telander, working with or goaded by Joe Champion, who is now in prison.
Bockris was not unskeptical, but eventually did take the money and allowed
Champion into his lab initially. The piece ends with: "You know, he was the
goose laying the golden eggs", Dr. Bockris said of Mr. Champion. "It wasn't
until December 1992 that I saw, I think this is the right phrase, that the
eggs were cracked".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Recombination is endothermic?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination is endothermic?
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 17:42:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>>>I asked Dr. Vigier if his theory could account for the 
>>>observation by Mills/Farrel that excess heat is not observed if a catalyst 
>>>is used in their system.  He stated that yes it does, because 
>>>recombination of hydrogen in its tightly bound state with oxygen
>>>is endothermic.
 
>>The implication is that one can arrange these dissociations and 
>>recombinations such that heat is moved "up hill" without the input
>>of net outside energy.

>No, I don't think we are talking about a violation of entropy here.  Net 
>energy input would be required for the recombination.  The implication, it 
>seems to me, is that this system would make a darn good heat pump.  
>Hydrogen and its putative new sub-ground state functions like the phase 
>change in freon etc.

Well, we know from general experience (and from Droege's specific
experiments) that recombination is spontaneous when H2 gas and O2 gas
are exposed to Pd/Pt catalytic agents.  Any "endothermicity" occuring
during that spontaneous combustion can be transported to a remote location.
Thus sucking up ambient thermal energy.

So I guess the question is at the other end, does the heat released at the
dissociation end exceed that which one would expect of a highly efficient
heat pump?  If you are getting gains greater than 2:1 output heat to 
electrical input energy, then this *is* more than just a heat pump, it
is an entrophy reverser.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: ICCF-4 secret source
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 secret source
Date: 20 Dec 93 13:43:16 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Another "secret source" [B] wishes to ask John Logajan's "secret source" [A] 
a couple of questions, all on the QT, of course.  
Let's set the stage by reviewing
a bit of dialogue wherein John quotes his "secret source":

In article <931215143314_70047.3047_EHB24-2@CompuServe.COM>, 70047.3047@
ompuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> John Logajan writes:   [quoting "secret source" A ]
> <<
>    Mizuno (Hokkaido U) has developed a solid state deuterated "sandwich"
>    device....  he runs at high temperature externally imposed by his steel
>    cylinder calorimeter. 

"Secret source" B wants to know what type of "steel cylinder calorimeter" was
used -- is it state-of-the-art following Droege criteria?  Why is "high
temperature externally imposed"?  What are the calorimetric constants of this
calorimeter?

> He inputs a trickle charge in the milliwatt level,
>    and gets out hundreds of watts continuously for days. 
Oops.
"Secret source" B quotes a different story from the Mizuno abstract from the
ICCF-4 meeting:  "The heat generation... was estimated to be approximately
50 watt over 20 hours."   Did source A exaggerate the xs heat?

> In other words, 
> the
>    "gain" or input to output ratio is around 1:10,000.
> 

"Secret source" B notes that the statement that input power was "estimated to
be approximately 50 watt" is rather vague and unsupported:  no numbers or
calibrations are mentioned.  "Does source A have the input data?", he asks.

>    Miley (U. Illinois) crashed through the upper limits to power density
>    established by P&F last year by an order of magnitude or two. He is
>    working with thin film and getting tens of thousands of watts per cc. 
> Now,
>    of course, his problem is that they turn on and Ffffft! -- vaporized 
> thin
>    film.

"Secret source" B (who wishes to remain anonymous as long as "secret source"
A does so) asks whether Miley claimed excess heat generation, or production
of any nuclear products?
> 
> Thanks to my "secret" source for the above report.

And thank you, John, for protecting his anonymity.

>>>  [end Logajan quote, start Page quote:]
> 
> That's strange, I was there and I don't recall claims of this magnitude.  
> Certainly these papers did not radically alter many people's views.  As 
> usual, if you were a TB then almost all reports confirmed one's belief, if 
> you were a sceptic then there obviously were faults in the experimental 
> procedures and inadequate data.  For the rest of us, these reports were 
> probably just mentally filed along with the reems of similar 
> positive-sounding results.  Hey! What does it take to be convincing, 
> anyway?
> Bill Page.
> 

It takes state-of-the-art detectors/calorimeters, as several of us have
discussed (e.g., Tom Droege, Dick Blue, Dieter Britz and myself) on this net,
having several detectors giving quantitative agreement, reproducibily.  Nobody
has done this yet.

"Secret source" B wishes to direct a final question to "secret source"
A, if you would be so kind, John:

"Do you have tassels on your shoes?"

Don't ask me, John-- I'm just an innocent intermediary like you...

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Yes, we have no excess heat/ENECO
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yes, we have no excess heat/ENECO
Date: 20 Dec 93 14:55:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tom Droege's comments on the paper by Miyamuru, Chimi, Inokuchi and Takahashi
pointed out that Akito Takahashi was indeed represented at the ICCF-4, although
he did not speak.  (I need to correct any misunderstanding I may have generated
on that point, when I pointed out that Takahashi did not speak, nor did
Yamaguchi or Ikegami.)

This is an interesting paper for what was *not* seen.  The abstract notes that
the D/Pd ratio reached 0.87 -- which is beyond the "magic" threshold for seeing
cf effects, according to McKubre, etc.  Yet, the abstract dutifully reports that
"no significant excess heat  and helium generation was [sic] observed.  
The amount of helium was less than detection limit (approximately 10^13 atoms)."

Perhaps the null results explain why Dr. Takahashi was so quiet at the
meeting?  One also wonders about recent (non-)results at NTT since Yamaguchi
left.

I should also note that Prof. Haven Bergeson and Steve Barrowes have looked
diligently for excess heat in recent University of Utah experiments --
and they, too, failed to find any excess heat in P&F-style electrolytic cells.
  (They also reported at ICCF-4.)
I think that these failures help explain the willingness of the University of
Utah to part with their licenses to the P&F/U.Utah patents 
to this new company we have been hearing about, ENECO.  
There are ethical questions here which I will not
pursue since I do not have all the information.

Note to Mark Hittinger:  could you check whether ex-Univ. of Utah president
Chase Peterson is one of the investors in ENECO?
Curious business this.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Dec20.144743.1193@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Dec20.144743.1193@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 93 14:56:07 -0700

cancel <1993Dec20.144743.1193@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec 22 04:37:05 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Phil Andrews /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 12:11:26 -0500
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I'd like to thank James Shearer for an excellent and fair posting on the
expectations
for TFTR in the late '70s. I was a graduate student at the PPL  during
77-82 and 
enjoyed working with a great group of people,  but  my belief must be that  the
TFTR  results have been disappointing.

 If the design had been delayed a few years,  then somewhat better performance 
could have been produced, but even  the JET design, which many believe to be 
superior, has not performed enormously better.

There is a discussion in print of TFTR expectations considerably later
than '79. The
popular scientific magazine "Discover" ran a cover article "Some Still
Like It Hot",
sometime after the initial "Cold Fusion" announcements. They had already
interviewed
Harold Furth and Ron Davidson (still at MIT at that time) plus other
proponents and
were looking for an opposing viewpoint. Someone suggested my name (I had just 
decided to leave the field) and they called me up for an interview. 
What followed was 
an interesting display of how popular magazines stimulate desired quotes.

The interviewer seemed very pro-fusion at that point with both the tokamak and
laser fusion guys having assured him that  breakeven was imminent, I
tried to be fair
and pointed out that the laser field had to progress from around 2 shots
per day to 
30 Hz or so  to produce meaningful power output and that I doubted that
TFTR would
ever reach breakeven. To try to be even handed I pointed out that DIII-D
tokamak
at General Atomics in San Diego (where I had also worked)  had been
doing some very 
nice work on advanced plasma profiles for higher beta values (those
comments didn't
make it into print).

A few  weeks later, a more senior editor at the magazine called me,
checked my identity 
and my previous quotes, then extracted one more from me. He said "so you
don't think
TFTR will reach breakeven",  "that's correct", I replied,. He followed
with "Well we've
just talked with Harold Furth and he said that was nonsense and they'd
have breakeven
in the next few weeks !". Stung into a reply I said "Harold will be
saying that the week
they take the machine down !" (In the parlance of the field, experiments
are "brought up"
and "taken down"). Applying some journalistic license, that quote made
it into print
as  something like "Harold will be saying that when TFTR turns to dust !".

In any case, for those interested there was at least one discussion in
print as to TFTR's
prospects for breakeven in the not too distant past. Perhaps someone who
kept his
back issues (I was never a subscriber) could post any interesting
quotes; I've completely
forgotten what was actually printed.

-Phil Andrews, Scientific Visualization Coordinator, Pittsburgh
Supercomputing Center
Who is solely responsible for any views he expressed here, and, I hope,
anywhere else.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudfnPhil cudlnAndrews cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 /  PAUL /  RE: D + T fusion, naughty or nice?
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: D + T fusion, naughty or nice?
Date: 21 DEC 93 13:25:29 GMT
Date: 15-DEC-1993  01:35:10
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Date: 15-DEC-1993  01:35:10
Description: D + T fusion, naughty or nice?

>As far as troublesome reaction products, there
>really are none except those evil 14 MeV neutrons.  It is what happens
>to those neutrons that ultimately plays a vital role in whether a
>fusion reactor is naughty or nice.

>Just pulling a
>number off the wall, I believe the thickness for steel in which 1/2
>would interact is about 3 inches.  
The steel involved in these machines is a lot.  ITER will have a 
12 inch thick vacuum vessel.  There is plenty more needed to support the 
TF magnets.  Our little machine here at MIT has about 30 inches of SS top and
bottom and 8inches on the sides.  
>Of those that do interact some fraction
>induce an (n,alpha) reaction which is bad news for the structural
>properties and a variety of activities of which 60Co is perhaps the
>most bothersome from a disposal standpoint.  It has a 5 year half life,
>no where near the age of the pyramids.
I think the bigger concern is the damage done to the walls due to the
neutrons.  I believe this is the same problem that fission reactor have
called embrittlement.  Fission reactors have the advantage of having 
lots of room for shielding between their fuel and the containment 
vessel.  Fusion does not.  I am not an expert at this, but lets make a 
stab here.  If we assume that 5% of the energy from the neutrons in a
reactor gets absorbed by the structure.  Maybe 10% of that energy causes
dislocations in the structure.  Assume 5eV per dislocation.  A 500 MW
reactor probably requires 3GW thermal after you take all your 
efficiencies and current drive into acount.  3e9*.05*.10/(5*1.6e-19)=
2e25 dislocations/sec. =6e32 dislocations/year
This gives 5e4 tons of dislocated matterial per year assuming you use iron.  
I am no expert at this, so my numbers are sure to be well out of line.  
Hopefully someone with training in Nuke E. can clarify things a bit.  

>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU


Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

I do not speak for MIT, DOE, Alcator, or the Plasma Fusion Center 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Clandestine Correspondence reveals Russian Experiments.......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clandestine Correspondence reveals Russian Experiments.......
Date: 21 Dec 93 22:33:51 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 It appears that "JL" is not alone with his covert sources......
 Recent Clandestine Correspondence has revealed that certain Russian
experiments with thin films have produced very interesting and
controversial results. I can say no more now as my lips are sealed
by honour, but......
 Perhaps this time Gorsky will rise and walk.....

					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Recombination is endothermic?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination is endothermic?
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 10:28:09 GMT
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 17:42:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 17:42:21 GMT

>70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>>>>I asked Dr. Vigier if his theory could account for the
>>>>observation by Mills/Farrel that excess heat is not observed if a catalyst
>>>>is used in their system.  He stated that yes it does, because
>>>>recombination of hydrogen in its tightly bound state with oxygen
>>>>is endothermic.

[.. stuff about energy going uphill...]
>Well, we know from general experience (and from Droege's specific
>experiments) that recombination is spontaneous when H2 gas and O2 gas
>are exposed to Pd/Pt catalytic agents.  Any "endothermicity" occuring
>during that spontaneous combustion can be transported to a remote location.
>Thus sucking up ambient thermal energy.

>So I guess the question is at the other end, does the heat released at the
>dissociation end exceed that which one would expect of a highly efficient
>heat pump?  If you are getting gains greater than 2:1 output heat to
>electrical input energy, then this *is* more than just a heat pump, it
>is an entrophy reverser.

The real question, that noone seems to have asked is: what basis does Vigier
have for assuming that the reaction of shrinkie-hydrogen with oxygen is
endothermic? Is this grabbed out of thin air, or is there some rational reason
for the assumption?
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: More Maui Reflections
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Maui Reflections
Date: 21 Dec 93 15:20:14 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1993Dec15.124617.1185@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
                                                 ...
>"Hal Fox contacted and received favorable reactions from the following..."
>Robert Bass...

Is this the same Robert Bass who conceived the topolotron?  And by
the way is said topolotron still an active subject?  I haven't heard
from it in years.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Recombination is endothermic?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination is endothermic?
Date: 21 Dec 1993 16:31:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <931220160833_70047.3047_EHB44-2@compuserve.com>,
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Hydrogen and its putative new sub-ground state functions like the phase 
>change in freon etc.

You know, I never saw an answer to my question about this, which is if this
sub-quantum state exists, why has the 304 Angstrom He II background not 
caused all of the H to fall into one of these "states" (which happens to
have the same energy spacing) by stimulated emission?  As I pointed out,
all you need is one H atom to go, and you'll have shades of ice nine. . .

					Richard Schultz

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Recombination is endothermic?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recombination is endothermic?
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 07:21:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Dec21.174221.3197@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>So I guess the question is at the other end, does the heat released at the
>dissociation end exceed that which one would expect of a highly efficient
>heat pump?  If you are getting gains greater than 2:1 output heat to 
>electrical input energy, then this *is* more than just a heat pump, it
>is an entrophy reverser.

John, one of the features of CNF is that no one that has demonstrated
a positive response has also run reliable energy budgets for the system.

Without these _reliable_ budgets it seems rather rediculous to claim anything
whatsoever. But what do I know?

BTW, on Nova tonight they had tapes of interviews with Richard Feynman and
I was reminded of your comments about his feelings towards being used
to 'finger' the O-ring seals on Challenger. He repeated what he wrote
in his book and what I saw was a man totally chagrined to have been used
in the manner that he was. So that is in total agreement with your assessment
of his writings.

I must say, though, that he wasn't _misused_ however great the danger for
such a thing might be.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Theory Papers (part 3) Laughing at spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (part 3) Laughing at spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 01:13:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
And while I am on my soap box, the notion that one is going to solve this 
problem by rewriting the Hamiltonian to include spin-spin and spin-orbit 
interaction terms is so laughably absurd I can't imagine why the audience 
doesn't hiss and boo anytime the idea is brought up.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU
>>

This gives me a good opportunity to review another theory paper that was 
presented at ICCF-4.

T2.3  Comments on Exotic Chemistry Models and Deep Dirac States for Cold 
Fusion

R.A. Rice and Y.E. Kim, Purdue University

M. Rabinowitz, EPRI

In the presentation of this paper (during the first parallel theory 
session, chaired by Mario Rabinowitz) as well as the one presented during 
the theory plenary (which Steven Jones has briefly discussed here), Dr. 
Rabinowitz was very careful to state his discomfort at critizing people who 
have been his teachers and whose work on other subjects he considers very 
highly.  He made it clear that these comments applied especially to Dr. 
Vigier as well as some others. But, as he pointed out, physics *is* (or at 
least attempts to be) an objective and empircal science.  There does not 
need to be but there often is, a strong emotional component to the 
endeavour.  I thought the way he and the other authors approached this 
critique was exemplary of how to carry out this kind of surgery.  I wish 
that our interactions on the net could be as civilized.

Rabinowitz pointed out that the level and tone of the discussions and 
disagreements on cold fusion are actually quite mild in comparison to the 
fire and brimstone discussion that typified (and apparently still typifies) 
the high temperature superconductor field.  As an expert in that field, 
Rabinowitz pointed to some similarities in the way that HTSC and CF are 
evolving.  Of course, HTSC is now much more successful at reproducing the 
phenomena, but such was not always the case.

In this paper, the authors discuss and dismiss the model of Mills and 
Kneizys (hydrinos) on the basis of the lack of evidence for a spectral line 
that would accompany the transition to the putative sub-ground state.  In 
fact this critisism applies to almost all of the exotic chemistry theories. 
 Perhaps they just did not want to deal with a theory so far out of the 
main stream.

Cerofolini's theory of a super-bound state for D2+ also does not fair well. 
Quoting from the abstract "The most critical region is barely at the 
boundry of applicability of the equations.  An exact solution for the 
entire region under consideration will likely yield a potential with no 
local minimum.  Thus the meta-stable state may not be present in a more 
rigourous analysis.

Vigier's theory is considered along with those pubished by Gryzinsky and 
Barut.  Note that in this paper, of necessity, the critque covers only the 
theories that had been previously published.  In some cases - and Vigier's 
is one such case - there has been considerable advance and/or change in 
emphasis.  Again, quoting from the abstract:

"Gryzinsky and Barut present analyses to substantiate the existence of the 
metastable D2+ state based on three body calculations for two d's and one 
electron.  Gryzinsky treats the problem mainly classically, but neglects 
radiation effects for his oscillating electron as allowed by quantum 
mechanics.  Barut's analysis is based on the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization 
principle, and obtains a binding energy of 50 KeV.  Both authors, 
independently, conclude that a "superbound" (D2+)* molecular ion can exist 
in which an electron that is exactly half-way between between the d's 
provides an attractive force and screens the d Coulomb replusion.  Vigier 
presents [ICCF-3, 1992] an analysis almost identical to that of Barut.  For 
Barut, Gryzinsky, and Vigier, the analysis is predicated on very unlikely 
precise symmetry.  The electron must be exactly the same distance on a line 
between the two d's.  The tightness of the orbit appears to violate the 
uncertainty principle.  Although a non-relativistic analysis may be 
warranted for the large mass H isotopes around the electron, a 
non-stationary electron will require a relativistic treatment because it 
will attain a velocity close to the velocity of line due to its small mass. 
 Perhaps a full relativistic calculation including spin-spin and spin-orbit 
coupling may save this model, but this has not been presented as yet." **

It will be very interesting to see what these authors have to say about 
Vigier's more recent work.

Of particular interest is the critique of a paper by Maly and Va'vra which 
proposes tightly bound electron orbits on the basis of irregular solutions 
of the relativistic Dirac equation.  The authors of this critique state 
bluntly that "The results of Maly and Va'vra are incorrect, since they 
assumed erroneously that the irregular solution is a general solution 
independent of the regular solution."

Also mentioned were the resonance/nuclear reaction theories of Spence and 
Vary, as well as Mayer and Reitz which have also apparently been over 
turned due to a more accurate treatment by McNeil.

 ----------------------------------------
** Here are a few notes I've collected on the spin-spin and spin-orbit 
interactions in hydrogen:

"Quantum Mechanics" Volume 2, by Cohen-Tannoudji et al. Chapter XII entitle 
"The Fine and Hyperfine structure of the hydrogen atom" and in particular 
Complement A to that chapter contains a very treatment of this subject.

Although Vigier states that these interactions are "usually neglected", 
this is not quite accurate.  They are, in fact, treated as very small (and 
very very small, respectively) *perturbations* of the usual Coulomb 
interaction.  The origin of these treatments is to explain the fine 
structure and hyperfine structure observed in very accurate measurements of 
the hydrogen spectra.  Given Vigier's reputation and long experience in 
quantum mechanics, I think it very unlikely that he is unaware of this.  I 
hope it is mentioned in the full paper.

The point is that the standard treatment is a perturbative one.  This is 
quite normal because as a recent physics professor of mine patiently 
explained to me: "Physics is an *emperical* science.  It only attempts to 
explain that which has been measured."  At first, spectroscopy was such 
that just the Coulomb potential was sufficient to explain all of what was 
known about the hydrogen atom.  This was very good news for early quantum 
mechanics.  In fact, it was this success that was the cornerstone of almost 
all of early QM.  But gradually experimental technique improved and theory 
was forced to follow.

Exact solutions in quantum mechanics can be very difficult.  Luckly there 
are various approximation techniques which can be applied to simplify these 
calculations.  Usually these involve starting by assuming that the solution 
that is desired is in some way "close" to a previously known exact solution 
(or some other approximation).  It turns out that the spin-orbit and 
spin-spin interactions lead to approximate perturbative corrections to the 
standard Coulomb potential which very nicely explain the spectral line 
splitting that has been observed.

The trouble with these approximation techniques is that I can see no 
apriori reason why we should believe that they are *complete*.  I.e. as 
corrections to known solutions they seem to be very good, but how can we be 
sure that these are the only solutions allowed if we were to solve the 
system exactly?

Vigier claims to have an *exact* solution to the Schrodinger equation which 
includes the spin-orbit and spin-spin interactions and does, in fact find 
that there are two other classes of solutions in addition to the well known 
one (which includes the perturbative corrections).

----------------

Are you still laughing and hissing, Dick?

Cheers and season's greetings!

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 01:13:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,

In article <1993Dec22.211608.17351@ns.network.com>
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:

> |                      _                                       _
> |              _  ,". / \ ,".  _                       _  ,". / \ ,".  _  
> | Ground+2:  /---V---V---V---V---\---^---^---^---^---/---V---V---V---V---\
> |                                  "  `_' \ / `_'  "  
>
> Not to be nit-picky (well, okay, maximally nit-picky) but AM radio
> modulation is not the addition of two waveforms (as shown above) but the
> multiplication of two waveforms (as shown below):
>
>                         ,                       ,
>                     , | | | ,               , | | | ,
>                   | | | | | | |           | | | | | | |
>                 | | | | | | | | |       | | | | | | | | |  
>        . . . .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . . . 
>                | | | | | | | | |       | | | | | | | | |
>                  | | | | | | |           | | | | | | |
>                    ` | | | `               ` | | | '
>                        `                       `

I stand corrected!  [Actually, I'm sitting.  :)  ]

And you're _not_ nit-picking.  I very much appreciate this sort of
correction, as otherwise I could wind up really confusing people who are
trying to understand such a thing for the first time, and who aren't
familiar enough with the topic (as you are) to realize the difference.

				Cheers,
				Terry

P.S. --	On that last Bockris post I _meant_ to say near the beginning that
	Bockris should not be reprimanded seriously _unless_ everybody else
	who has taken H-to-He transmutation seriously is treated in the same
	way.  I think I inadvertantly stuck one to many negatives in the
	sentence, so it reads pretty weirdly.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Tests
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Tests
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 01:13:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Looks like I have a leak in the test heat pipe.  It takes a while to 
recognize such things.  It is part of the process of going from not being
able to do a thing to having success.  Even though it was barely working, I 
was able to do the experiment where I broke the vacuum on the test heat pipe
and saw its thermal conductivity decrease by 30%.  Try to explain *that* if
you did not know there is such a thing as a heat pipe.  

Still we are a long way away from where I need to be.  I want at least a factor
of 100

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Jim Bowery /  Trade Union
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trade Union
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 01:13:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>Tom Droege comments that the TFTR experiments were timed to coincide with the
>Cold Fusion conference.   This I rather doubt.  However they were delayed a
bit
>to not interfere with the Hubble repair.
 
I see there now exists a de facto trade union for technosocialist parasites.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 06:19:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <1993Dec19.172529.24799@coplex.com>,
>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:

>>as described in free space involves a well-defined location and well-defined 
>>particles.  Neither of this is true inside a lattice.  (I know 
>>that I am preaching to the choir when I tell you this;  but I think it is 
>>the basic point that is beginning missed.)  The key point seems to be that 
>>none of the "negativists" seems to be thinking about the actual wave 
>>function.  Instead, they seem to be thinking about the free particle wave 
>>function.

I just wanted to make a correction here.  That quote above was from 
Scott Chubb.  But I do agree with his observations. 

>    Exactly the opposite.  The idea of 'bose condensation' seems to have
>    arisen as an analogy with free particles.  However, in a lattice, you've
>    got thermal jiggles all over the place.  The lattice atoms are moving,
>    and the little D's are moving, electronic fields interact all over the
>    place.  There are states galore.

Well, you just described an HTC superconductor as well. That particular 
piece of phenomenology has all the same problems (perhaps more) with
lattice 'jiggles', electric fields and such.  The difficulty with deuteron
condensates as I see it, is in the mass of the deuteron and spacial extent of 
it's deBroglie wave (obviously considered in the context of a multibody 
system.) 
         
>    We can play mystical quantum mumbo-jumbo all night, but there are two 
>    key unanswered questions: 1) why does anyone think 'bose condensation'
>    occurs in a lattice at 293 K or higher since there are a plethora
>    of mechanisms knocking ions out of the single state you desire, including 
>    the unavoidable mechanical response of the lattice?

The underlying question here is whether the deBroglie waves of the 
bose individuals are overlaped, which if they are, you will give a
condensate.  In the context of the band state there is implied 
an overlap. It takes some investigation to see it, but it's there.
Which leads to the next question:         
    
>    2) Who cares if they're all in a single state since that doesn't
>    seem to induce fusion in the atomic situations in which bose condensation
>    actually occurs?

Subjectivly, there are very few Bose particle systems that will condense,
a handful at the most. Of those the only one with the potential for a 
stable nuclear interation is a deutron condensate.  The condensation of
plasma phase deuterons via strong magentic focusing is being done at
Cornell, so it is a question being worked on.

Best to you all during the holidays,

Have Fun
Chuck Sites 
chuck@coplex.coplex.com
 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 21:16:08 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>_All_ band states are continuous sine waves, ones that are "modulated" on
>top of the resonances of the individual cells.  The form of this modulation
>is quite similar to AM radio modulation, where a lower-frequency sine wave
>is "added" to a much higher frequency one to give a wave form like this:
>                       _                                       _
>               _  ,". / \ ,".  _                       _  ,". / \ ,".  _  
>  Ground+2:  /---V---V---V---V---\---^---^---^---^---/---V---V---V---V---\
>                                   "  `_' \ / `_'  "  

Not to be nit-picky (well, okay, maximally nit-picky) but AM radio modulation
is not the addition of two waveforms (as shown above) but the multiplication
of two waveforms (as shown below):

                         ,                       ,
                     , | | | ,               , | | | ,
                   | | | | | | |           | | | | | | |
                 | | | | | | | | |       | | | | | | | | |  
        . . . .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. . . . 
                | | | | | | | | |       | | | | | | | | |
                  | | | | | | |           | | | | | | |
                    ` | | | `               ` | | | '
                        `                       `

If we take two instantaneous waveform amplitudes (carrier C and modulation M)
and add them we get the first waveform (Terry's) above.   The frequencies
contained in the resultant waveform are just C and M.   For voice
commumication, M will be of low frequency and will not propogate over the
airwaves to the remote radio receiver.  All that the radio will see will be
unmodulated carrier.

When we multiply the two waveforms as shown in the second waveform above,
we generate two additional frequencies upper sideband (U) = C+M and lower
sideband (L) = C-M.  M will still not propogate beyond the xmitter antenna,
but now U and L have been created which are high frequency and will carry
the modulation information.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Albert Chou /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 15:10:28 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <CI69AD.AHM@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <CI57o1.E3H@seas.ucla.edu> albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu
(Albert E. Chou) writes:
>>In article <CI4C6H.4tL@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>>Gosh!  No Wonder Every Thing Will Work Out ..  IT's All Been  DONE BEFORE!!!
>>>Sorry Al, but you were wide open on this one.
>
>>I think this comment was unwarranted.  Did you really infer that was what
>>I meant?
>
>Apparently my judgement isn't always correct;  my apology.  
>Best regards
>Paul
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 222, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737  |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****  |
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Thanks, Paul.  I know misunderstandings are much too easy in this medium.
Glad this was just a misunderstanding and not something intentional.

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Albert Chou /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 16:07:06 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <19931220.132219.308@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>         Finally the real problem with the Tokamak fusion has nothing
>to do with whether this machine or that machine met its goals or not.
>The real problem is that there is no realistic prospect that a Tokamak
>fusion power reactor will be economically competitive with fission
>reactors in the foreseeable future.  I actually do not see how any
>objective observor can doubt this in view of the vastly greater engi-
>neering difficulties involved in building fusion power reactors.
>Since fission is currently not economically competitive with coal in
>the US I see no reason for the US government to continue to fund the
>fusion program at current levels.
>                          James B. Shearer


However, the issue is not really whether new sources of energy will be
economically competitive with fossil fuels in the traditional sense.  There
are other factors to consider, such as impact on the environment and long
term availability of fuel.  Fusion and fission don't need to be as cheap
as coal in a strictly monetary sense (although it is possible to try to cast
things like environmental impact into the form of monetary value), they
just need to be not outrageously more expensive.  We shouldn't pretend that
energy is necessarily ever going to be as cheap as it's been in the past
few centuries.  The fact that nobody ever wants to pay more for something
they already have is irrelevant.  That's human nature, but that doesn't
make it right.

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuteron spin. Spin again.
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 15:46:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec22.061917.4818@coplex.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Dec19.172529.24799@coplex.com>,
>>Chuck Sites <chuck@coplex.coplex.com> wrote:
>
>>>as described in free space involves a well-defined location and well-defined 
>>>particles.  Neither of this is true inside a lattice.  (I know 
>>>that I am preaching to the choir when I tell you this;  but I think it is 
>>>the basic point that is beginning missed.)  The key point seems to be that 
>>>none of the "negativists" seems to be thinking about the actual wave 
>>>function.  Instead, they seem to be thinking about the free particle wave 
>>>function.
>
>I just wanted to make a correction here.  That quote above was from 
>Scott Chubb.  But I do agree with his observations. 
>
>>    Exactly the opposite.  The idea of 'bose condensation' seems to have
>>    arisen as an analogy with free particles.  However, in a lattice, you've
>>    got thermal jiggles all over the place.  The lattice atoms are moving,
>>    and the little D's are moving, electronic fields interact all over the
>>    place.  There are states galore.
>
>Well, you just described an HTC superconductor as well. That particular 
>piece of phenomenology has all the same problems (perhaps more) with
>lattice 'jiggles', electric fields and such.  

     Unless you've got a theory that shows that high temperature
     superconductors are 'bose condensates', it's irrelevant.
     I don't recall anyone suggesting that all the atoms
     (or whatever other poorly understood phenomenon mediates 
     high T_c superconductivity) are in the same state.

     And it has far fewer 'problems' since the phenomenon is experimentally
     verified.

>The difficulty with deuteron
>condensates as I see it, is in the mass of the deuteron and spacial extent of 
>it's deBroglie wave (obviously considered in the context of a multibody 
>system.) 

     The difficulty is with kT, *and* with everything else.

>>    We can play mystical quantum mumbo-jumbo all night, but there are two 
>>    key unanswered questions: 1) why does anyone think 'bose condensation'
>>    occurs in a lattice at 293 K or higher since there are a plethora
>>    of mechanisms knocking ions out of the single state you desire, including 
>>    the unavoidable mechanical response of the lattice?
>
>The underlying question here is whether the deBroglie waves of the 
>bose individuals are overlaped, which if they are, you will give a
>condensate.  In the context of the band state there is implied 
>an overlap. It takes some investigation to see it, but it's there.
>Which leads to the next question:         

      This avoids the question.  Who cares if 'the deBroglie waves
      of the bose individuals are overlapped' as long as there is always
      a 'perturbation' knocking the wavefunction out of a single state?

      Further, in this case, 'the deBroglie waves' are significantly localized
      leading to such expressions as 'the ion', ''the lattice site'.

>>    2) Who cares if they're all in a single state since that doesn't
>>    seem to induce fusion in the atomic situations in which bose condensation
>>    actually occurs?
>
>Subjectivly, there are very few Bose particle systems that will condense,
>a handful at the most. Of those the only one with the potential for a 
>stable nuclear interation is a deutron condensate.  The condensation of
>plasma phase deuterons via strong magentic focusing is being done at
>Cornell, so it is a question being worked on.

     I must have missed the definition phase: How are we 
     defining a 'stable nuclear interaction' and why doesn't He4
     qualify?  And by what means do we think *we're* imposing a single state
     in the lattice.

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update Dec. 21,1993
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update Dec. 21,1993
Date: 22 Dec 1993 13:19:35 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (Dec. 21, 1993):

On Thursday, Dec. 16, we continued high power D-T experiments focused on
documenting the changes in confinement and heating as the beam composition
was changed from deuterium to deuterium-tritium to all tritium sources.  A
total of six discharges were made using tritium neutral beam injection.

The goal of this experimental proposal (DT-9) was to test the alpha-heating
predictions by measuring the central Te.  This is a difficult experiment
because of the competing effects of isotope scaling.  The  result from
Thursday was that the T-T discharges had about 2/3 of the neutrons observed
in a DT discharge.  This would suggest that there is a considerable
deuterium recycling at the walls and that there is about 30% deuterium in
the core of a nominally T-T plasma.       

Tritium isotope effects are apparent in the data from both DT-7 and 9. 
Over the weekend the analysis group ran about 20 TRANSP runs and these runs
are being studied at present.

Testing of the tritium systems with high concentration tritium have
revealed some deficiencies which will be corrected in January after the
holidays.
 
The number of D-T shots to date is:

Trace tritium experiments (<2% mixtures)        59
Tritium gas puffing experiments                 13
Tritium neutral beam experiments                27


Plans:

Activities are underway to process the tritium and transfer it to the
uranium-bed in preparation for the scheduled holidays  (December 23 to
January 2) and maintenance period  in January.

I wish you a Happy Holiday Season and look forward to the New Year as we
continue the D-T experiments.


R. J. Hawryluk
609-243-3306
e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov


P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 18:40:40 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

In article <9312211826.AA04960@suntan.Tandem.com>
BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R) writes:

> | Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
    ...
> | Starting with the discussion of "symmetric" and "antisymmetric" band
> | states, the piece completely fell apart and consequently went no where.
> 
> Terry, let us take a step back and re-synchronize. My objective is to
> find an energy state in a multi-cell system that will result in narrow
> (restricted) values in momentum space...

Fair enough.

> The resonant (stationary or standing-wave) mode in a multi-cell system
> that will do that is a waveform that looks as closely as possible to a
> *continuous* sine wave over the entire system...


_All_ band states are continuous sine waves, ones that are "modulated" on
top of the resonances of the individual cells.  The form of this modulation
is quite similar to AM radio modulation, where a lower-frequency sine wave
is "added" to a much higher frequency one to give a wave form like this:
                       _                                       _
               _  ,". / \ ,".  _                       _  ,". / \ ,".  _  
  Ground+2:  /---V---V---V---V---\---^---^---^---^---/---V---V---V---V---\
                                   "  `_' \ / `_'  "  

Note that when shown this way, the ground+2 state is represented by a very
gradual gradual change in the amplitude of the individual cells, including
two crossover points:

             |        _ _                                     _ _        |
             | _ - "       " - _                       _ - "       " - _ |
  sine part: +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
             |                     " - _       _ - "                     |
             |                            " "                            |

             .                                                           .
            /|\                                                         /|\
             |                                                           | 
             `----------- opposite walls of a metal crystal -------------' 


Note that in the way I've just shown it, the band states are really not
much more than the resonant states for a _free_ electron trapped inside
of a box (at least for the lower states -- see below).  This is called the
_pseudopotential_ model of conduction electrons and states.

From this viewpoint, the band states are just sinusoidals with wavelengths:

             2 u
    lambda = ---         ( N = 1, 2, 3,... )
              N

N numbers these states, and also describes the total number of peaks and
troughs in the wave form.


FERMI SURFACE BAND STATES

I should note that the particle-in-a-box perspective of band states gets
more complicated when the wavelength of the particle begins to approach
twice the distance between unit cell, or this form:

     ,_______________________________________________________________.
     |,-.|   |,-.|   |,-.|   |,-.|   |,-.|   |,-.|   |,-.|   |,-.|   |
     /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /   \   /
     |   |`-'|   |`-'|   |`-'|   |`-'|   |`-'|   |`-'|   |`-'|   |`-'|
     `"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'

The problem is that _wave diffraction_ (which obviously could not occur
in a true pariticle-in-a-box problem) begins to have a significant effect
at these higher frequencies.  It is these diffraction effects, rather than
anything to do with the symmetries of a wave, that defined the upper states
or _Fermi surface_ of an electron band.

By Braggs law, anything with shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies)
will be diffracted constructively by the crystal lattice and thus severely
scattered by the cell structure.  (Ref: Encyclopaedia Brittanica or just
about any physics dictionary or encyclopedia.)  Or stated another way, the
lattice is "transparent" to wavelengths longer than the one shown above,
and "opaque" to wavelengths that are shorter:

                                BRAGG'S LAW

          incoming        `.                   .'     diffracted
         wave front         `.               ,'       wave front
                    `.        `.        ,--,'        __,
                      `.|     | `.    ,' .'          ,'|
                      ""`      `. `. / .'\         ,'         
    first                      / `--`.'   \
    layer ----`. -------------/ -----------\-------------- ,'----   -.-
  (or "cell     `.          in      /|\   -still-        .'          |
    wall")        `.       phase   / | \  in phase     .'            |
                    `.     /      /  |  \     \      .'              |
                      `.  /      /   |   \     \,--.'                |
                      | `.      /    |    \   ,' .'                unit
                       `. `.   /     |     \ / .'                 spacing
                         `--`./_     |      \,'                     (u)
                              `. ',  |     ,'                        |
                             _. `. ' |   .' |                        |
             1/2 lambda _____/|   `.|| .' ,'  <----- 1/2 lamda       |
    second                          `.'--'                           |
    layer -------------------------------------------------------   -^-
  (or "cell                                                      
    wall")                    \_____________/
                                     |
                                     |
                    "Added path" of reflection from each
                   new layer must give a total of N*lambda
                  (N wavelengths) of additional distance to
                 result in "in phase" reflections from layers.
                  N is the _order_ of diffraction.  The above
                   diagram shows first-order diffraction.


In the above diagrammatic representation of Bragg's Law, note that _any_
wavelength that is shorter than twice the distance between the layers will
result in (at least) first-order diffraction.

As wavelengths grow shorter still, higher orders of diffraction (second,
third, and so forth) begin to apply as it becomes possible to insert two,
three, or more whole wavelengths into the lower part of the Bragg diagram:

      Wavelength range            Applicable orders of diffracton
   ---------------------        -----------------------------------
   2u   >= lambda >  u          First
    u   >= lambda > 2u/3        Second, first
   2u/3 >= lambda >  u/2        Third, second, first
    u/2 >= lambda > 2u/5        Fourth, third, second, first
   2u/5 >= lambda >  u/3        Fifth, fourth, third, second, first
          .....                               .....

The net result of this accumulation is that for wavelengths substantially
shorter than u, the diffraction becomes fairly random in its effects and
thus corresponds more to the conventional concept of scattering.

However, it's important to note that the effects of _any_ diffraction --
especially first-order -- has a critical limiting effect on band states.
Band states with frequencies shorter than 2u are forbidden because they
the lattice is "opaque" to those frequencies, and will not permit them to
exist at appreciable amplitudes.


Returning now to the posting:

> If we assume a relatively narrow barrier, then the resonant mode at the
> top of the band which consists of an integral (whole) period wavelength
> (per cell) results in the desired standing wave.

Note that by Bragg's Law, the frequency you have just described (lambda = u)
will be be subject to both first and second order diffraction.  Moreover,
it is _twice_ the frequency of the top state of the lowest-energy band, and
thus is far from obvious as being "the" most favored state.

Also, the Feynman Lectures III include a nice discussion about how higher
frequency band states that could nominally exist in a true particle-in-a-box
problem can turn out to have no indepenedent physical meaning in in the
pseudopotential model.  The problem is that they "work out" to give exactly
the same amplitudes per cell as the lower frequencies, and thus cannot be
distinguished from them.  You might want to take a look at that section.


> If you do not agree to that, then could you please describe the standing
> wave that corresponds to the top of the energy band for the case of
> integer wavelength (per cell) where the integer is 1.

My intuition (I need to check my texts) is that the state you have just
described _could_ exist, despite the "aliasing" issue I've just mentioned.

But I am absolutely baffled as to why you feel it to be unique.  Why _not_
the more traditional lambda = 2 u state instead?  Or for that matter the
higher frequencies of lambda = 2u/3, u/2, 2u/5,...?  As far as standing
waves go, _all_ of these use "integer wavelengths" that just happen to be
"folded back" on themselves in the cases of 2u, 2u/3, 2u/5...

I would note that the "half wavelengths" of fermions are quite different,
corresponding to literally 1/2 of a wavelength "folded back" on itself.
This is a trick that is hard to do with a real wave, since (unlike the
Bragg diffraction cases above) it _should_ destructively self-interfere
and cancel itself out.  1/2 spin objects are thus strange in a more
fundamemtal way than can easily be shown with ordinary models.

.....

Summary:  I appreciate and admire your efforts in this.  But I really think
you are trying to hard to reach the conclusion you _want_ to be true, and
for that reason are not paying enough attention to some of the details of
what band theory says _can_ be true.  When you get to the point that you
can open up a standard QM text and say "ah, I undestand without any major
questions what is being said in this section about band theory," I think
you will find that your own ideas will start to look different to you, too.

Why not give it a shot?  You have already studied more of this than have
most particles physicists, so it's not like you're starting from scratch.
Beat the _mathematics_ of those books until you are sure you understand
them.

(And yes, anyone who thinks I'm "down on math" for QM problems has a very,
very wrong impression.  I just don't like math applied without first using
common sense and _a real understanding of the problem_.)

Soooo... are we starting to get re-synched or not?

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Errata: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errata: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 19:13:09 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

In article <1993Dec22.184040.4787@asl.dl.nec.com> I said:

> From this [pseudopotential model] viewpoint, the band states are just
> sinusoidals with wavelengths:
> 
>              2 u
>     lambda = ---         ( N = 1, 2, 3,... )
>               N

This equation should have been:

>              2 L
>     lambda = ---         ( L = crystal length;  N = 1, 2, 3,... )
>               N

Sorry about that.  I would ask that anyone who might be planning to send
a copy of that posting to anyone else please append this correction to it,
or make it as an annotated change in the body of the post.

This, if you stop and think about it, was a most appropos typo to make at
Christmas time, as the nature of the mistake was:

    No "L", no "L", no "L", no "L"...   ;-)

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec 23 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hydrogen diffusion according to Alfred Coehn
Date: 22 Dec 1993 12:43:42 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

In article <CI3AGD.26n@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     I'm quite confused.  Wasn't it Fleishmann *himself* that claimed
>     the fugacity business *was* the motivating factor?  

Yes, but P&F have lied before, so there is no reason to trust them now.
They have lied about their neutron data, lied about the double blind
helium testing, lied about having done light water experiments before
their 1989 press conference.  This is just one more lie; the more interesting
question is: why?  Why should P&F now want to distance themselves from
fugacity and get closer to Coehn?

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Robert Eachus /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 20 Dec 93 17:20:26
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <19931214.160544.93@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:

  >	    You appear to be implying that missing breakeven by a factor of
  > 3 is not important.
  >	    However according to Matt Kennel:
  > >Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales
  > >as the volume.

  >	    This would appear to imply that the results of TFTR mean that
  > a commercial fusion reactor will need to be 3 times bigger in linear
  > dimension and 27 times bigger in power than was believed when TFTR was
  > designed.  Is this correct?   This would appear to have extremely
  > negative implications for the commercial feasibility of fusion.

  I'm defending tokamaks?  Well...

    First of all, the fact that the first few tritium runs are not at
breakeven says little about what will happen in the next year,
although this does count as "close to breakeven" as of when TFTR was
built.  (However, I doubt TFTR will reach breakeven, although JET
might.)

    Second, of course any commercial hot fusion power plant will be
much larger than the 270 MW that your post suggest.  Many BWR and PWR
(nuclear) power plants are around 3 to 4 GW(t), or around 1000 to 1400
MW(e) output.  (The t is for thermal, the e is electrical, or output.)
Commercial hot fusion plants would probably be around this size or
larger, although efficiencies are expected to be higher.

    So the TFTR results are not discouraging in that direction.  Of
course, there is still about a factor of ten in plasma temperature to
go, and that is what proposals like ITER are all about.  However, the
Alcator people may have something to say in this area, as they have
consistantly gotten higher temperatures with small plasma dimensions
than other experimentors.  (But I'll let them respond.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Steven Robiner /  PALLADIUM
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PALLADIUM
Date: 22 Dec 1993 13:55:47 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Could some kind soul out there tell me what other uses (besides cold fusion)

Palladium is used for?  Also, why is this element so essential to cold
fusion.

Please e-mail responses to srobiner@pollux.usc.edu and I'll summarize to
this group, since I do not normally read this group.

Thanks in advance,
=steve=



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Steven Robiner /  WHERE ARE P & F ?
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WHERE ARE P & F ?
Date: 22 Dec 1993 13:58:31 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Does anyone know what has become of Pons and Fleischman?  Last I heard
they were rumored to be in the south of France continuing their research.


Please e-mail replies to srobiner@pollux.usc.edu and I'll summarize to this
group, since I do not normally read this group.

Thanks in advance,

=steve=


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.20 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lasers/Masers Using Bose-Condensed Inverted Populations?
Date: 20 Dec 93 17:56:44
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9312142204.AA13011@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:

  > Or whether the remote possibility of a coherent bursts of very deep (gamma)
  > photon radiation might actually be a directly or indirectly observed
  > astronomical phenomenon?  I realize that such a question is a very long
  > shot, but it probably doesn't hurt to ask anyway.

    Short duration gamma-ray bursts are definitely a major area of
study in gamma-ray astronomy.  Read the recent article in Scientific
American on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory.  These bursts were
originally discovered by the Vela satellites (which were designed to
detect nuclear weapons tests/explosions).  There are (astronomically)
extremely short bursts (less than 1 sec.) which are much brighter than
the rest of the gamma ray sky.  I don't know how accurately the
duration of the bursts has been measured, but I suspect that, for
events believed to be either outside our galaxy or at cosmological
distances that would be an extremely small amount of smear.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 22:20:45 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

Well, about two minutes ago I caught a sound bite of Dr. Bockris defending
himself on the Wed 3:00pm (CST) CBS national radio news update.  (The slight
English (Commonwealth?) accent surprised me -- I somehow had him pegged in
my mind as a native Texan.)

Because it caught me quite off guard, I only caught part of it -- he said
something like "People think my work is bogus.  My work is _not_ bogus,"
and it was preceded once again by a commentary on the mercury-to-gold idea
and a pointed remark about "holding the [Texas A&M] university up for
ridicule."  In short, it was about as friendly as you might expect such a
radio blurb to be.  Not very!

....

Lest anyone wonder, 'twasn't _me_ who sent that Dallas Morning News item to
Dieter.  I never saw it, although given that it popped up on the local radio
at about the same time as the news item, judging by its date.

I would note that frequently when the press "latches on" in this fashion to
a specific, identifiable event of bad judgement (accepting funds from a very
dubious source) in some figure who is associated with a publicity-sensitive
insitution, it is frequently the beginning of the end for that person's
career.  The escalation of the Bockris news item from paper to local radio
to national radio may not bode well for what will go down in the next few
months, I would judge.


A CALL FOR FAIRNESS

I note that for whatever it's worth, I personally do not think that letting
this incident destroy Bockris academic career is uncalled for _unless_ it
also includes every serious physicist who has ever, at one time or the other,
taken the equally or more ludicrous prospect of chemical hydrogen-to-helium
transmutation seriously.  Such a dismissal would, I believe, need to include
several Nobel laureates at a minimum.

Or to broaden the scope and fairness of it all, why not a general dismissal
of _anyone_ who was enough of a sucker to seriously consider such an idea
at some time in the last five years?  Such a list should probably include,
oh, let's say:  Schwinger, Nathan Lewis of Caltech (just because he later
severely critiqued the idea it doesn't mean he didn't _once_ take it pretty
seriously), Hagelstein, Frank Close (he _considered_ it!), Douglas Morrison
(ditto!), Yours Truly, Dieter Britz, Steven Jones, most of the folks in NSF
who ever funded anything remotely connected in any way to "cold fusion," a
number of corporate CEOs and high-level company officers, three-fourths of
the state of Utah, Dan Rather, most of the physics staff of many major
science magazines (including Science and Nature), a lot of folks who work
for the Wall Street Journal, and half of the literate people in the world.

And EVERY ONE of these blinking fools has been willing, _at one time or
another_, to seriously consider nothing more or less than what Bockris fell
for:  Someone claiming chemical transmutation of the elements.  The main
difference is that the one _he_ fell for (mercury to gold) is very minor
in terms of its implied consequence to society, whereas the other one
(hydrogen to helium) would have utterly transformed the path of history.

So off with ALL of their heads, I say!

After all, Bockris fell for the Little One, folks -- a mere increase in the
supply of a metal that's _almost_ as pretty as irridescent cellophane and
practically worthless in any technical applications other than reducing
corrosion on electrods and coloring glass a really neat red color.

A lot more of us, including Bockris, fell for the Big One, the transmutation
that would have utterly transformed the direction of human history and even
opened up the planets and even the stars for exploration.  No one bothered
Bockris about funding for _that_ issue.  So why now the big stew about this
much less technically significant mercury-to-gold chemical transmutation?

Well, the single big difference is that Bockris just happened to be enough
of a twit to fall for a smooth con artist of the type most university
professors have far too little experience dealing with.  The whole essense
of how such con artists operate is to _find the thing that the sucker wants
more than anything else, then give it to him on a silver (gold?) platter_.

This particular con artist clearly new _what_ it was that Bockris (and the
rest of that rather large list of people given above) wanted:  transmutation
of elements, whether to make gold or energy.  Energy was too hard to fake
(tritium can be _so_ messy!), so the fellow instead dug into the centuries
of experience in the mercury-to-gold transmutation gig.  My read is that to
sweeten the pot, the fellow latched onto a real professor whom he judged to
be _so_ convinced of H-to-He transmutation that he would be willing to at
least listen to the comparativley lesser Hg-to-Au gig.

And Bockris fell for it.  Not for _long_, apparently, but just long enough
to create some pretty serious damage to his reputation.


In summary, I think Bockris should be reprimanded by A&M for being more of
a silly twit than than he he should have been, and perhaps sentenced to a
one week of walking around some parts of New York City to gain a little
practical experience in the dangers of taking goods offered to you at face
value.  After that, the whole thing should be dropped and the poor man left
alone.

There but by His grace go a lot of us, you know.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 17:45:09 EST

         I said:
  >	    You appear to be implying that missing breakeven by a factor of
  > 3 is not important.
  >	    However according to Matt Kennel:
  > >Tokamak losses scale vaguely as the surface area, but power scales
  > >as the volume.

  >	    This would appear to imply that the results of TFTR mean that
  > a commercial fusion reactor will need to be 3 times bigger in linear
  > dimension and 27 times bigger in power than was believed when TFTR was
  > designed.  Is this correct?   This would appear to have extremely
  > negative implications for the commercial feasibility of fusion.

         Robert I. Eachus responded:
>  I'm defending tokamaks?  Well...
>
>    First of all, the fact that the first few tritium runs are not at
>breakeven says little about what will happen in the next year,
>although this does count as "close to breakeven" as of when TFTR was
>built.  (However, I doubt TFTR will reach breakeven, although JET
>might.)

         I am assuming that their stated hope to obtain 10MW is their
maximum expectation based on the DD runs.
         Robert I. Eachus added:
>    Second, of course any commercial hot fusion power plant will be
>much larger than the 270 MW that your post suggest.  Many BWR and PWR
>(nuclear) power plants are around 3 to 4 GW(t), or around 1000 to 1400
>MW(e) output.  (The t is for thermal, the e is electrical, or output.)
>Commercial hot fusion plants would probably be around this size or
>larger, although efficiencies are expected to be higher.

         This is incorrect.  270MW would be the size of a breakeven
machine.  It is my understanding that a commercial reactor would need
to reach ignition at Q=5.  This is another factor of 5 in linear
dimension, 125 in power.  Hence the power would be 33.75GW.  This
compares to 30*125MW or 3.75GW if TFTR were achieving breakeven.  (My
first post was in error in suggesting the multiplier was 27.  I was
incorrectly comparing to the power of the actual TFTR machine instead
of to the hypothetical breakeven TFTR.  The correct multiplier is 9.)
As you note a 3.75GW(t) plant is plausible.  Can the same be said for
a 33.75GW(t) plant?
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjbs cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: More Maui Reflections
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Maui Reflections
Date: 22 Dec 93 12:27:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2f747e$7k4@vice.ico.tek.com>, hall@vice.ico.tek.com
(Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
> In article <1993Dec15.124617.1185@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>                                                  ...
>>"Hal Fox contacted and received favorable reactions from the following..."
>>Robert Bass...
> 
> Is this the same Robert Bass who conceived the topolotron?  

Yes.

> And by
> the way is said topolotron still an active subject?  I haven't heard
> from it in years.

No.  Topolotron was dropped about 15 years ago.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 /  jbs@watson.ibm /  Re: Technological development (was TFTR)
     
Originally-From: jbs@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Technological development (was TFTR)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 15:40:30 EST

         Robert Heeter posted:
>Ahh, now I see where you're coming from.  One might also ask
>how it is that robots are now effectively performing jobs that
>were once done by manual labor, considering the "vastly greater
>engineering difficulties involved".  And cost-effectively, too.
>There are any number of historical examples where a technologically
>more-advanced device has achieved advantages over a less-advanced
>device, *once the technology was mastered*.  I'm sure you're aware
>that the engineering difficulties *may* be soluble, and that if
>they are, fusion will have some substantial advantages over
>fission.  I certainly hope your views towards technological
>development don't reflect the views of IBM as an organization...

         The views I express are of course my own and not those
of IBM.
         I was unaware that there was anything controversial
about my views on technological development.  I believe
    1.)  Society should attempt to maximize the returns on its
investments.  This means prioritizing investment opportunities
and funding the ones with the greatest expected returns.  Tech-
nological development is just one possible area of investment.
    2.)  All other things being equal:
       a) Investments with short payback periods are preferable
to investments with long payback periods.
       b) Investments with certain returns are preferable to
investments with uncertain returns.
       c) Investments with certain costs are preferable to
investments with uncertain costs.
       d) Small investments are preferable to large investments
(ie diversification is good).
    3.)  There is no payoff for finding the second best way of
doing something.
    4.)  Rival technologies should be evaluated by the methods
of traditional economics (ie cheaper is better).
    5.)  Evaluation of investments should be based on objective
reality not the dreams of proponents.
    6.)  Some investments do not work out.  Current funding should
be based on current prospects not on how much money has already
been invested or how promising the investment looked at one time.
(Of course one must consider transaction costs when deciding
whether to switch investment from one area to another.)
         Do you disagree with the above or just with my specific
judgement that funding tokamak machines is a bad investment for
the US at this time?
         What criteria do you believe the US government should
apply in deciding whether to fund ITER?
         Do you agree that Tokamak investment is objectively less
attractive now than it was in 1980?
         Under what circumstances would you advocate ceasing to
fund Tokamak research at current levels?
         Robert Heeter added:
>I will do the research on TFTR that you suggest, and see what comes
>up.

         I trust you will post the results.  I will defer further
comment on your TFTR posts until you do so.
                          James B. Shearer
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjbs cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.21 / Chris Perrott /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: chris@toshiba.tic.oz.au (Chris Perrott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: 21 Dec 93 02:08:42 GMT

In <2edfmb$84i@panix.com> cremin@panix.com (David Cremin) writes:

>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

>By the way, this is not a novel idea. I remember that in the fifties and
>sixties in Europe, there existed hub-mounted generators built into the
>front wheel.

I bought a Sturmey-Archer Dynohub generator in 1978 or 1979, in Belgium,
but it was imported from the UK. Mine was for the front wheel, but another
model was a combined three-speed hub gearbox and generator, for the
rear wheel.

It felt much more efficient than a friction-driven generator -- the drag
was unnoticeable to the pedaler.  I assumed this improved efficiency was
what Ludwig had in mind. If Ludwig had expected to get electric power
out without putting mechanical power in, he would have called it a
perpetual motion machine.
-- 
Chris Perrott  (chris@toshiba.tic.oz.au)             Phone: 61-2-428-2077 
Toshiba International Corporation Pty Ltd            Fax  : 61-2-418-7791
Private Bag 29, Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia 
 * Any opinions expressed above are not necessarily held by anyone *
--
Chris Perrott  (chris@toshiba.tic.oz.au)             Phone: 61-2-428-2077 
Toshiba International Corporation Pty Ltd            Fax  : 61-2-418-7791
Private Bag 29, Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia 
 * Any opinions expressed above are not necessarily held by anyone *
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchris cudfnChris cudlnPerrott cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  test - please ignore
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: test - please ignore
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 20:29:46 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  test - please ignore
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: test - please ignore
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 22:23:38 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
Date: 22 Dec 1993 22:12:25 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <bpcCIB253.5tM@netcom.com>,
Benjamin P. Carter <bpc@netcom.com> wrote:
>ud907@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Christopher L. Mackay) writes:
>
>
>>  ...   tritium is a natural by-product of what
>>happens when hydrogen is 'fused.' Am I wrong? If so, please correct me,
>
>It depends on what you start with.  If you start with pure deuterium
>(which is probably what your friend had in mind) then the fusion reactions
>are d+d-->p+t and d+d-->n+He3, with about equal probabilities, where p, d,
>and t stand for proton, deuteron, and triton.  The triton is the nucleus 
>of a tritium atom.  In this case you are right: tritium is a by-product.

Actually, I think that the overwhelming majority of the T produced
will be more-or-less-immediately converted to He-4 via the D-T 
reaction.  In an environment in which the temperature is right for
d+d reactions, the d+t reaction will also occur for whatever t is
present, and much more rapidly than the d+d reaction.  The cross-
section for the d+t reaction is a lot bigger (which is equivalent
to saying that tritium is a lot more reactive with deuterium 
than deuterium is).

As usual, that's about 10 times more of an answer than was needed,
but hopefully it's clear.

***************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (Disclaimers Apply)



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 03:17:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec22.222045.8149@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
>And Bockris fell for it.  Not for _long_, apparently, but just long enough
>to create some pretty serious damage to his reputation.
>
>In summary, I think Bockris should be reprimanded by A&M for being more of
>a silly twit than than he he should have been, and perhaps sentenced to a
>one week of walking around some parts of New York City to gain a little
>practical experience in the dangers of taking goods offered to you at face
>value.  After that, the whole thing should be dropped and the poor man left
>alone.

     Reprimanded by A&M?  What in goodness sakes for?  Being a credulous 
     nimnull isn't exactly a reprimandable offense no matter how much 
     embarassing press coverage comes their way.

     On the other hand, his 'sentence' is going to be guffaws trailing his
     footsteps.  And his 'poorness' is well-mitigated by realizing that
     con-men only act on greed of one form or another...

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR
Date: 22 Dec 1993 22:38:55 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <19931220.132219.308@almaden.ibm.com>,  <jbs@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>         I said:
>>         The same article:
>>         "Progress toward a Tokamak Fusion Reactor" by Harold P. Furth
>>Scientific American, August 1979, p50-61. states (p. 59)
>>         "In the PLT the equivalent deuterium-tritium fusion power is
>>about 50 kilowatts corresponding to a Q value of .02, a record in
>>fusion research to date."
>         Robert Heeter replied:
>>Thanks!  I'll have to go get the article.  Can you tell me when
>>these PLT values were obtained?  It makes a difference whether
>>it was before or after TFTR was designed, at least in the context
>>of our original discussion.  I would try looking, but right now
>
>         The PLT numbers appear to have been obtained in 1978.
>         If in fact the TFTR design is significantly suboptimal
>because the design was frozen before these PLT results were obtained
>this would appear to indicate extreme incompetence by the program
>managers.

Given the number of other factors involved, plus the fact that
TFTR was (I believe) under construction at the time, and the fact
that neither of us knows whether TFTR's design was suboptimal,
the insinuation that the program managers were incompetent
appears to be wholly unjustified.  Or do you have more context
to justify such a suggestion?

>         In any case the results were known as of 1979 when Furth
>was predicting TFTR and JET would demonstrate Q values greater than
>1.  In "Fusion", edited by Edward Teller, Academic Press, 1981, Furth
>(p. 223) lists Q values of [about] 2 for TFTR and >>1 for JET.
>         You have suggested that lack of funding explains TFTR's
>failure to reach breakeven.  Perhaps you can explain exactly what
>features of TFTR planned in 1979-1981 were deleted and what effect
>this had on the achievable Q values.  While you are at it perhaps
>you can explain what went wrong with JET as well.

I wasn't so heavily into the TFTR history business until recently,
and I'm about 1000 miles from the lab right now, and everyone at
the lab is on vacation for the next 10 days, but if you don't
mind being patient, I'll see what I can find out.  

>         You and someone else have suggested that achieving 10 million
>watts of power when 10-100 was expected does not constitute a dis-
>appointing result.  I disagree.

Once again, I must point out that 10 is not the maximum that
is currently expected, but the minimum.  Furthermore, the 10-100
million that was expected some 13-15 years ago was expected
at a time when the program was headed in a very different direction,
and the machine parameters that were used to derive that 
expectation do not necessarily reflect those of the current machine.
As I explained in a previous post, there are a number of
reasons why you might be disappointed with the results, but
you aren't justified in blaming either the scientists or
the machine itself.  You can't expect to get what you
don't pay for.

>         Finally the real problem with the Tokamak fusion has nothing
>to do with whether this machine or that machine met its goals or not.
>The real problem is that there is no realistic prospect that a Tokamak
>fusion power reactor will be economically competitive with fission
>reactors in the foreseeable future.  I actually do not see how any
>objective observor can doubt this in view of the vastly greater engi-
>neering difficulties involved in building fusion power reactors.

Ahh, now I see where you're coming from.  One might also ask
how it is that robots are now effectively performing jobs that
were once done by manual labor, considering the "vastly greater
engineering difficulties involved".  And cost-effectively, too.
There are any number of historical examples where a technologically
more-advanced device has achieved advantages over a less-advanced
device, *once the technology was mastered*.  I'm sure you're aware
that the engineering difficulties *may* be soluble, and that if
they are, fusion will have some substantial advantages over
fission.  I certainly hope your views towards technological
development don't reflect the views of IBM as an organization...

I will do the research on TFTR that you suggest, and see what comes
up.

**************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (Disclaimers Apply)




cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: hydrogen fusion without tritium?
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 08:28:36 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

>Actually, I think that the overwhelming majority of the T produced
>will be more-or-less-immediately converted to He-4 via the D-T 
>reaction.  In an environment in which the temperature is right for
>d+d reactions, the d+t reaction will also occur for whatever t is
>present, and much more rapidly than the d+d reaction.  The cross-
>section for the d+t reaction is a lot bigger (which is equivalent
>to saying that tritium is a lot more reactive with deuterium 
>than deuterium is).

This is true about fusion in a plasma.  In muon-catalyzed fusion,
however, the tritium generated from a D-D fusion may or may not
carry the muon away with it.  If it does not, then it probably won't take
part in any subsequent reaction.  In general, some tritium is produced
by muon catalysis in initially pure deuterium.  


-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.24 / BERNECKY R /  Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conditions for Bose Condensation
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1993 01:13:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
>Soooo... are we starting to get re-synched or not?

Yes, I believe that you are now following where I am trying to lead. 

>My intuition (I need to check my texts) is that the state you
>have just described _could_ exist, despite the "aliasing" issue
>I've just mentioned.

That is progress.
 
 >But I am absolutely baffled as to why you feel it to be unique.
 >Why _not_ the more traditional lambda = 2 u state instead?  Or
 >for that matter the higher frequencies of lambda = 2u/3, u/2,
 >2u/5,...?

 The flip answer is that traditional paths lead to traditional results.
 To find new discoveries (and pitfalls) one must follow the
 non-traditional avenues. 

 The real answer is that I tried to get you to focus on the state
 where lambda = u  but I certainly am including in my analysis states
 for lambda = u/2, u/3, u/4,...  Why do I dismiss the states for
 lambda = 2u, 2u/3,...?  My math tells me that for some of these cases,
 the corresponding momentum state is not as restricted as it needs to be
 and my common sense tells me that adjacent cell quantons are not
 invariant (in amplitude and phase). Those two characteristics (unique
 momentum and spacial invariance), I believe, will be necessary for
 Boson condensation.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Paul Karol /  Bockris
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 10:40:23 -0500
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from clari.tw.science: 22-Dec-93 Top Texas A&M profs seek
demotion of colleague over alchemy re.. (2042) by 
>From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
>Subject: Top Texas A&M profs seek demotion of colleague over alchemy research
>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 13:17:00 PST
> 
>        COLLEGE STATION, Texas (UPI) -- Texas A&M University's top professors
>have petitioned for the demotion of a colleague, saying his research
>project on turning mercury into gold is as bogus as ``mining green
>cheese on the moon.''
>        The group, which included a Nobel Prize winner, called on the
>university provost Tuesday to strip John O'M Bockris of his title as
>distinguished professor of chemistry.
>        The petition said, ``We believe that Bockris' recent activities have
>made the terms 'Texas A&M' and 'Aggie' objects of derisive laughter
>throughout the world among scientists and engineers, not to mention a
>large segment of the lay public.''
>        Bockris, whose research at Texas A&M included a project that
>purported to change mercury into gold, has been the center of several
>internal investigations at the school. He has denied any wrongdoing.
>        The petition, signed by 23 of the school's 28 distinguished
>professors, said, ``For a trained scientist to claim, or support anyone
>else's claim to have transmuted elements is difficult for us to believe
>and is not more acceptable than to claim to have invented a gravity
>shield, revived the dead or to be mining green cheese on the moon.''
>        In response to the petition, Bockris said Wednesday, ``I obviously
>wouldn't do something that was bonkers, would I? I am in full command of
>my senses.''
>        ``He categorically denies any allegation of scientific misconduct and
>I believe the evidence will show that he didn't engage in any
>misconduct,'' said Bockris' lawyer, Gaines West.
>        Interim Texas A&M President E. Dean Gage has already ordered an
>internal inquiry into Bockris' project. The academics signing the
>petition have labeled the project fraud. They said the project was
>underwritten by a man who was later charged with federal securities
>fraud in an unrelated case.
>        A&M officials were trying to determine whether the project violated
>professional standards or was an improper expenditure of money that was
>intended for research.
>        Among the petitioners was Sir Derek Barton, a Nobel naureate.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
Date: 23 Dec 1993 17:49:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Dec22.222045.8149@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:

>A lot more of us, including Bockris, fell for the Big One, the transmutation
>that would have utterly transformed the direction of human history and even
>opened up the planets and even the stars for exploration.  No one bothered
>Bockris about funding for _that_ issue.  So why now the big stew about this
>much less technically significant mercury-to-gold chemical transmutation?

Actually, according to my CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (ca. 10
years old), the reaction

196          197   EC  197
   Hg + n ->    Hg -->    Au

is exothermic by about 7 MeV.  (196Hg has 0.2% natural abundance and 197Au
has 100% natural abundance according to the same table.)

So it seems to me that all you need is a source of thermal neutrons (the 
table of the isotopes that these numbers are taken from says that the thermal
neutron capture cross section for 196Hg is about 3000 barns), and you can get
mercury to gold transmutation without much trouble. 

Three disclaimers: (1) I may not have calculated the exothermicity correctly,
but the overall reaction is exothermic if you believe the numbers in the table.
(2) Since the numbers came out of the CRC, they may not be believable after
all. (3) I missed the part where they said where he gets his thermal neutrons
from.

Also note that since you are using a low abundance isotope of mercury and since
gold is soluble in mercury (I believe), it's almost certainly going to be 
less of a bother to simply go and buy some gold obtained in the more usual
fashion.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 24 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.23 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 22:27:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

More of my assertions-for-discussion about Mossbauer.  The quick summary is:

 a) Mossbauer _must_ involve "instantaneous" momentum distribution to exist.

 b) The coherent phonon mechanism is actually a _cooling mechanism_ that
    permits first atomic (super solid) and then _nuclear_ (nuclear super
    solid) Bose-Einstein condensates to form, with the nuclear super solids
    (my own term) then being the ones responsible for the Mossbauer effect.

 c) Rotating a solid may either extinguish or significantly modify the
    underlying condensates that permit the Mossbauer effect to exist, since
    an ordinary rotating solid is not a valid solution to Schroedinger's
    equation.  Either the condensates will disappear, or they will form
    quantum vortices of the same type seen in spinning pools of liquid
    helium.  Such vortices may be experimentally detectable if they exist.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOSSBAUER AND MOMENTUM

Isn't momentum transfer in the Mossbauer effect _necessarily_ instantaneous?

My own "home grown" argument for why the distribution of gamma photon
momentum in Mossbauer must be instantaneous like this:

  Mossbauer is characterized by a single nucleus absorbing [emmitting] the
  energy of a gamma photon, while the _momentum_ of the gamma photon is
  absorbed by a zero-mode phonon condensate of many, many identical atoms.
  Since the distribution of momentum to a very large number of atoms gives
  the effect of making nuclear recoil insignificant, this results in very,
  very sharp frequency signatures -- the Mossbauer effect.

  Mossbauer thus consists of two closely correlated events:

    (1) Absorption of a photon by a single nucleus, and

    (2) Distribution of momentum to a very large number of atoms.

  Event (1) is extremely rapid, consisting of a change in the energy state
  of the nucleus due to a photon "passing by" at the speed of light.  I
  would suggest that a rough estimate of how quickly this event proceeds
  can be made by observing that the time required for the photon to cross the
  nucleus (~10^-12 cm) in a classical analysis is only about 3x10^-23 s.  The
  excitation would (I would think) need to be completed within such a time
  period.

  But (2) must be correlated with (1) in order for (1) to exhibit the lack
  of recoil that is the hallmark of Mossbauer.  This in turn _should_ mean
  that the momentum transfer to other atoms must be accomplished within the
  same time frame as the energy absorption event, or roughly 3x10^-23 s.

  This time limit thus defines a "propagation sphere" of atoms to which the
  momentum can be transferred by any finite-speed mechanism.  Anything that
  is outside that sphere cannot contribute to the sharpness of the Mossbauer
  effect, since it will not be "reached" until after the photon has already
  been absorbed [emitted].

  Using c as the maximum possible propagation speed for 3x10^23 s thus gives
  a maximum propagation sphere with the same diameter as the nucleus, and
  thus should correspond to ordinary maximum-recoil gamma photon absorption.

  From this I would conclude that momentum transfer in Mossbauer must be
  instantaneous, as the alternative of finite propagation appears to lead
  to an inconsistent conclusion.

I have always thought of Mossbauer as the solid-state equivalent of "spooky
action at a distance."  I believe it would be easy to show why the above
analysis does _not_ lead to infinite propagation speed of data for any sort
of message as defined by Shannon, but it nonetheless would seem to qualify
as a doggone interesting case of a somewhat Bell-like QM "paradox".

Comments/references, anyone?


MULTI-STAGE BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION?

I would note that if the above argument is valid, it would seem to give
some intriguing support my earlier asserion/question that Mossbauer may
be a solid-state Bose-Einstein condensation (super solid) effect, and _not_
just a coherent phonon mode effect.

The reason is that if momentum transfer does in fact take place within time
periods as short as 3x10^-23 s, then whatever is going on must take place
_entirely_ at the level of the nuclei.  There is simply not enough time for
the momentum propagation to involve phonons or even the comparatively huge
atomic electron wave functions.

Instead, the implication would be that the _nuclei themselves_ are Bose-
Einstein condensed, and capable at a quantum level of behaving as a single
quantum unit for the receipt and distribution of momentum.

If all that is true, the phonon model of Mossbauer would either be just an
indirect way of stating key requirements for the formation of a super solid
(actually a _nuclear_ super solid) interspersed throughout the matrix.  The
equivalence would be strong enough (only atoms in the zero phonon mode would
be able to participate) that the resulting system could easily "masquerade"
as simply being a quasiparticle (phonon) effect, when in fact something a
good deal more profound is going on.

Even more interesting to me is that the zero mode phonon condensation might
not be just a "requirement," but actually part of a process that I'll call
"multi-stage" Bose-Einstein condensation, for lack of better term.  Here's
how such an idea would work:

 1) First the phonon quasiparticles would Bose-Einstein condense, as in the
    usual model for Mossbauer.  Since phonons have low mass/energy, this
    is relatively easy to accomplish.

 2) But phonon condensation implies that the degree of relative motion of
    participating atoms will drop drastically.  Stated another way, their
    _temperature_ relative to each other (but not necessarily relative to
    surrounding atoms not in the phonon condensate) should drop to a value
    extremely close to absolute zero.

    Thus the phonon condensation event could be interpreted as an unusually
    effective cooling mechanism, albeit one that will be largely hidden in
    the thermal noise in the non-condensed parts of the system.  However,
    _relative to each other_ the atoms will be cooled to an extent probably
    not easily accomplished by more conventional cooling mechanisms.  This
    in turn should lead to macroscopic delocalization of the wave packet
    representations of this collection of atoms (due to the extreme relative
    precision of their momentum values), and consequently (for integer spin
    atoms) _atomic_ Bose-Einstein condensation comparable to that of super-
    fluid helium.  In other words, a super solid.

    By parallel with Mossbauer, this super solid should be capable of
    absorbing and distributing the momenta of photons in the electron
    cloud energy range (light, high infrared, and UV).  (I do not know if
    anyone has ever looked for this kind of atomic-level Mossbauer effect.)

 3) Finally, the cooling of the atoms could in principle induce the same
    sort of "internal cooling" of the nuclei themselves, thus permitting
    them to Bose-Einstein condense, also, if their spins are integer.  (I
    would note that even non-integer spin nuclei could perhaps contain
    sufficiently well-defined integer spin subgroups -- the alpha particle
    sub-group comes to mind, certainly -- that might perhaps be capable of
    undergoing condensation via this route.)

    It would be this final _nuclear_ super solid, rather than the atomic
    one, that would be responsible for Mossbauer.

I would note that if in fact the above analyses and arguments are correct
or nearly correct, one absolutely fascinating conclusion would be that a
cooling mechanism of potentially phenomenal effectiveness exists within
any medium that supports the existence of phonons and other integer-spin
quasiparticles.  By "tickling" the light-weight phonons or other quasi-
particles into Bose-Einstein condensations, the result could be a cascade
of coolings and condensations extending all the way down to the nuclear
level.  Thus even a room-temperture system could contain "accidental"
components with self-relative temperatures that are orders of magnitude
lower on a log scale than anything that has been achieved with conventional
cooling mechanisms.  A delightful irony, _if_ (big if!) such a thing exists!

Comments/references, anyone?

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO ROTATING MOSSBAUERS?

Trying to detect Mossbauer in a rotating object presents obvious Doppler
problems that could make it difficult to do.

However, I would suggest that there could be something a bit more fundamental
involved.  Classically rotating objects are not valid solutions to the
Schroedinger equation, and Mossbauer is nominally an effect that is due to
a zero-mode phonon condensate.  This is the same problem that first led
Richard Feynman to conclude that rotating quantum liquids such as superfluid
helium must form "quantum vortices," or molecular-level discontinuities in
the fluid.  These have been detected experimentally in the last few years.

Since the phonon condensate of Mossbauer also must follow Schroedinger's
equation, this would seem to argue that the classically rotating embedded
atoms of a solid object will not be able to enter into a valid solution
that would permit such a condensate to form.  Alternatively, perhaps some
sort of "Mossbauer quantum vortices" would be the result, at least in some
classes of media that would permit such an event.

Such Mossbauer quantum vortices should be detectable.  Also, a general
failure of the Mossbauer condensate to form should be experimentally
distinguishable from the simpler case of Doppler "masking" of a condensate
that _does_ exist.

Comments/references, anyone?

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.23 / Robert Heeter /  FYI on Fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI on Fusion
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 05:23:58 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


The following is one of the FYI circulars produced by the
American Instute of Physics.  I thought fusioneers might be
interested.  I disclaim any implied correlation between
anything in here and anything I believe.  And as usual, I also
disclaim any correlation between anything here and anything 
PPPL officially believes.  For that matter, I can't attest
to any correlations between any of the above and the truth. :)

***  Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu  ***


>   
>The Department of Energy's Fusion Energy Program                  
>                                                                  
>FYI No. 164, December 20, 1993 
>
>"This is a great day for science." - DOE Secretary Hazel R. O'Leary
>
>As widely reported, the Department of Energy's Princeton University
>Plasma Physics Laboratory was successful in producing over three
>million watts of controlled fusion power on December 9.  This
>success comes at a critical time, as the Department of Energy's
>budget request for FY 1995 is nearing completion.  
>
>Published reports have stated that DOE is trying to prevent deep
>cuts in its FY 1995 request.  DOE's current budget is $19.6
>billion; it is thought that its "internal" request to the Office of
>Management and Budget is in the $18 billion range.  There is
>speculation that OMB wanted to reduce this request by $1 billion. 
>Indications are that Secretary O'Leary may have been successful in
>getting OMB to agree to a reduction in the $300-$500 million range,
>following a meeting with the president. 
>
>O'Leary's reaction to the Princeton development was probably aimed
>as much at the administration and Congress as it was the public. 
>She said, "It's also a great day for those who worry about the
>economy and the safe production of power.  It's a tremendous
>breakthrough and it matches so conveniently the themes of our
>administration."
>
>Princeton's success will also be significant on Capitol Hill.  As
>late as November 22, the House rejected the Penny-Kasich Deficit
>Reduction Plan which included a 20% reduction in fusion energy
>research and development, or a $375 million cut over five years. 
>The House rejected this plan by a vote of 219-213; fusion funding
>was not a major factor in the vote (see FYI #153.) 
>
>Congress has been supportive of the fusion energy program.  The DOE
>request for the current year of $347,595,000 was fully funded.  In
>the accompanying report, Congress instructed DOE to give the
>Princeton research at the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, site of the
>December 9 record, "highest priority" in this year's fusion energy
>program.  This reactor will be decommissioned in the fall of 1994,
>replaced by a long pulse, advanced device, the Tokamak Physics
>Experiment (TPX).  Current year funding for TPX is $20,000,000 for
>design work (see FYI #145.) 
>
>TPX research will be applied towards the development of the
>International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, now being
>designed by the U.S., the European Community, Japan and the Russian
>Federation.  The projected cost of ITER is $7-$10 billion, to be
>shared by the participants.
>
>The outlook for the U.S. fusion program is mixed.  In early
>November, Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana), a key figure
>in fusion funding, strongly criticized the administration's
>management of the program.  Johnston wants the administration and
>Congress to make firm commitments to fusion, obviously to avoid
>another SSC-type outcome (see FYI #148.)  The DOE fiscal year 1995
>budget request, to be released on February 7, will indicate in
>dollars-and-cents the administration's response to Johnston and the
>success earlier this month at Princeton. 
>
>###############
>Public Information Division
>American Institute of Physics
>Contact: Richard M. Jones
>(301) 209-3095
>###############



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 25 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.24 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Happy Christmas & merry new year to all .......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Happy Christmas & merry new year to all .......
Date: 24 Dec 93 19:43:45 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Seasons greetings to all,
 Dieter asked me yesterday if I had sent him a reference to a paper by J.T. 
Dickinson et al titled "The emission of electrons and positive ions from
fracture of materials" published in "J.Mater.Sci.16 (1981) 2897".
 I have that paper but, regretfully, did not think you would be interested
and therefore did not post the ref. to you.  In order to atone for my
transgression I would like to refer you to a much later paper by
Dickinson et al titled "Fracto-emission from deuterated titanium: Supporting
evidence for a fracto-fusion mechanism " published in "J.Mater.Research,
Vol.5, No.1, Jan 1990 ". In early November I promised to post about 
fracto-fusion (sorry, I didn't) and was going to use the material of this
later paper as one of the corner stones of the article. More very intersting
papers have come recently to hand concerning fracto-fusion and I shall
try to post an article on it in the new year. Until then this abstract
of the Dickinson  et al paper will have to do ......

"Measurements of the emission of charged particles, photons, and radio
frequency signals accompanying the deformation and fracture of
polycrystalline Ti metal and deuterated Ti are described. Preliminary 
evidence for charge seperation created by crack propagation is presented 
which supports a proposed fracture mechanism to explain neutron bursts
observed during treatment of deuterated metals ".

 Happy Christmas and a merry new year to all.....

						  Kind Regards,
						  Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.24 / David Harper /  Bockris in the news
     
Originally-From: dharper@NeoSoft.com (David Harper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris in the news
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1993 17:46:00 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services -- +1 713 684 5969

The following is from The Houston Chronicle, Friday, December 24, 
1993.  Quoted without permission.

- David



"Loophole reportedly let funds go to alchemy research"

COLLEGE STATION (AP) -  A Texas A&M University professor who 
tried to turn mercury to gold found a loophole to gain funds for 
the controversial research, according to a published report.

The Bryan-College Station Eagle, quoting internal university 
memos, reported Thursday that John Bockris found a way to escape 
a 43 percent overhead charge on money donated for his research,

Bockris is under internal scrutiny for accepting $200,000 to 
conduct the alchemy research.

While his methods are not illegal, critics suggest Bockris' 
direction of research funds to his project was unethical.

Twenty-three of 28 distinguished professors signed a petition 
asking that Bockris be demoted, stripped of his title of 
distinguished professor of chemistry.  The appeal was presented 
to the university provost Tuesday.

"We believe that Bockris' recent activities have made the terms 
'Texas A&M' and 'Aggie' objects of derisive laughter throughout 
the world among scientists and engineers, not to mention a large 
segment of the lay public," the petition stated.

"The 'alchemy' caper is everywhere, a sure trigger for sniggering 
at our university.  And so it should be.  For a trained scientist 
to claim, or support anyone else's claim, to have transmuted 
elements is difficult for us to believe and is no more acceptable 
than to have invented a gravity shield, revived the dead, or 
(mined) green cheese on the moon," the petition stated.

But Bockris has defended his work.

"It goes without saying that my work couldn't be bogus or I 
wouldn't be doing it," he told the Eagle on Wednesday.  "What 
professor would be doing bogus work?"

Bockris referred other questions to his Bryan attorney Gaines 
West, who said he and Bockris are responding to accusations of 
scientific misconduct, and "the proper forum to do that is at the 
university."

E. Dean Gage, interim president of Texas A&M, has ordered an 
internal inquiry into Bockris' project.

Texas A&M memos obtained by the Eagle reveal new insights into 
Bockris' research -- known as the Philadelphia Project.

The project was partly funded by California businessman William 
Telander, who is now under investigation by the Securities 
Exchange Commission and recently indicted for a string of fraud 
cases.

In an Aug. 13, 1992 memo from Bockris to Telander business 
partner Joe Champion, the professor wrote that "in order to avoid 
the draconian overhead ... it is necessary for the monies to be 
given according to a formula which says it is being given as a 
gift for Texas A&M to use as it pleases."

The donor must then add a request that the money be devoted to a 
specific research project under the "direction of Bockris."

Bockris writes: "This formula is 100 percent foolproof as proved 
out by me since 1981."

Several Texas A&M distinguished chemistry professors who saw this 
memo said they were outraged by it.

"A person involved in alchemy research on a chemistry faculty is 
like having the devil as a member of the college of cardinals.  
It's that extreme.  It's black art."  said one professor, who 
asked the Eagle for anonymity.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendharper cudfnDavid cudlnHarper cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.25 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: 25 Dec 1993 00:01:05 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: Nope, no plutonium here.  Some people *have* proposed using the
: neutron fluxes from a fusion plant to deliberately activate other
: materials, either to generate more power via a fusion-fission 
: hybrid reactor, or to "clean up" radioactive waste by inducing it
: to decay more quickly.  These proposals are pretty far-out at the
: present, since we still don't have a good working fusion reactor.
: I suppose if you really tried you could use uranium instead of
: lithium in your blanket, and generate plutonium that way, but
: my guess is that it's easier to do that in an ordinary fission reactor.

What about using fissile materials in a hybrid indirect-drive
ICF scheme?  I.e. use a semi fissile hohlraum surrounding the fusion
core.  I.e. amplify the fast neutrons from the fusion with the fission---
can the fission energy help continue the fusion reaction or is it already
too late by then?

There ought to be lots of (classified) info on this method.

Is the waste problem (vaporizing fissile materials and waste) too
ugly?

: Bob Heeter
: Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (disclaimers apply)
: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.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:
cuddy25 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Bockris in the news
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris in the news
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 93 05:28:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dharper@NeoSoft.com (David Harper) writes:
>The following is from The Houston Chronicle, Friday, December 24, 

>For a trained scientist 
>to claim, or support anyone else's claim, to have transmuted 
>elements is difficult for us to believe and is no more acceptable 
>than to have invented a gravity shield, revived the dead, or 
>(mined) green cheese on the moon," the petition stated.

Too bad the signers of this petition are more interested in PR than
in scientific precision.  Since we all know that transmutation of
elements is possible, the only question is whether it can be made
economically feasible.  So why would they misstate the question?
It makes them look like the buffoons they are trying to claim they are not.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.25 / Albert Chou /  Re: Fusion Questions
     
Originally-From: albert@stratus.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Questions
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1993 09:48:43 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <2ffvs1INNnhu@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
>What about using fissile materials in a hybrid indirect-drive
>ICF scheme?  I.e. use a semi fissile hohlraum surrounding the fusion
>core.  I.e. amplify the fast neutrons from the fusion with the fission---
>can the fission energy help continue the fusion reaction or is it already
>too late by then?

No idea whether this would work, though as Matt notes:

>Is the waste problem (vaporizing fissile materials and waste) too
>ugly?

It does seem fairly dirty.  It would be preferable, I think, to avoid
fission byproducts in the attempt to increase efficiency, if possible.

>There ought to be lots of (classified) info on this method.

Not necessarily all classified these days.  What was that figure quoted in
one of the recent AIP news summaries?  80% of ICF information declassified?

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.26 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Sigh
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sigh
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 08:59:07 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,


W.R. Bernecky:  Mr. Bernecky, best of luck with whatever it is you feel
you are doing.  I will generally try to avoid any further comments on your
postings, at any rate.


Bill Page:  I gather from your latest posting of a Vigier critique that
the essential error in Vigier's equation is that he assumed electrons
to be wave-like in one dimension (the radial one) and classical in the
other two (the ones perpendicular to the radius).

This is very droll, as it is very nearly the logical complement of the
Mills "orbitspheres."  Those made the _radial_ dimension classical and the
other two dimensions wave-like.  As I said, very droll, that.

I would also note that once you assume "radial dimension wave-like and the
other two classical," I would be most surprised if you did _not_ wind up
with multiple people coming up with neat-looking, quite "precise" (heh!)
sets of equations for the _same_ "compressed" D2+ state.  That's because
lateral compression has the net effect of making the electron look more
point-like as far as the two protons are concerned, and thus capable of
additiona "classical collapse" until the remaining wave-like dimension
"kicks in" and prevents a total "classical" collapse.  (Recall that for
a purely classical situation one charge will _always_ bind two opposing
charges and cause the system to collapse indefinitely.  If you don't buy
that, try it with three flat, round magnets with one whose top pole is
the opposite of the other two.)

By picking and choosing classical/quantum dimensions, both Vigier and Mills
grotesquely violate some very deep symmetries of space (the rotational and
translational symmetries) and the Planck uncertainty principle.

I'd state the latter point a bit more bluntly than than, however.  Saying
that such models "violate Planck uncertainty" is a nice way of saying that
that such models introduce spatial Dirac discontinuties (delta functions)
into their electron wave equations, and thus would require an _infinite_
amount of energy to construct.  Not to mention that the resulting beasts
would also "explode" infinitely rapidly through momentum dispersion even
if they could be constructed.

The part about spin coupling reads like a bad joke, as this really is a
very weak effect indeed, one whose effect on atomic spectra was so miniscule
that for a long time it was overlooked.


				Bleh,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Dec 27 04:37:03 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.26 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 26 Dec 93 14:31:06 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <1993Dec23.222725.18797@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi folks,
> 
> More of my assertions-for-discussion about Mossbauer.  The quick summary is:
> 
>  a) Mossbauer _must_ involve "instantaneous" momentum distribution to exist.
> 
>  b) The coherent phonon mechanism is actually a _cooling mechanism_ that
>     permits first atomic (super solid) and then _nuclear_ (nuclear super
>     solid) Bose-Einstein condensates to form, with the nuclear super solids
>     (my own term) then being the ones responsible for the Mossbauer effect.
> 
>  c) Rotating a solid may either extinguish or significantly modify the
>     underlying condensates that permit the Mossbauer effect to exist, since
>     an ordinary rotating solid is not a valid solution to Schroedinger's
>     equation.  Either the condensates will disappear, or they will form
>     quantum vortices of the same type seen in spinning pools of liquid
>     helium.  Such vortices may be experimentally detectable if they exist.
> 
> 				Cheers,
> 				Terry Bollinger
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...   [lengthy and detailed description of items a,b and c follows]

With all due respect, these ideas do not appear to be useful improvements
over the conventional understanding of the Mossbauer effect.  I will
confine myself to a few remarks.

Concerning (a), you argue that the time necessary for absorption of the
photon equals the time needed for a photon to cross a nucleus, but that time
is only a *lower* limit.  Consider the complementary recoilless emission 
process:  the photon is emitted over a time of the order of the mean nuclear 
lifetime.  For the most common Mossbauer nuclide, 57Co, the nuclear lifetime 
is about  100 ns, so that the length of the photon's "wave train" is about
(3 x 10^8 m/s)x(100 ns)= 30 m.  Your "propagation sphere" thus can
encompass quite a hunk of solid, and not a single nucleus.  Most 
Mossbauer levels are low-lying and have lifetimes in the range 1-100 ns.

Concerning (b), you describe some kind of quantum condensation phenomenon
for which there does not appear to be any experimental evidence.  The
conventional view is that the emission or absorption of the gamma ray 
takes place without annihilation or creation of phonons, so that the 
quantum vibrational state of the crystal is the same after the event as
before.  Is there any evidence for cooling or condensation phenomena?
Also, what do you mean by nuclear cooling?  A change in the energy state of
the nucleus?  Where does the energy go?

Concerning (c), back in the 1960's in the early days of Mossbauer spectro-
scopy, experiments were carried out using rotating sources or absorbers
to establish a constant relative velocity of motion between the source and
absorber.  By varying the speed of rotation, the velocity could be varied.
Results were essentially the same as obtained using velocity transducers
that moved the source and absorber directly toward each other.  Perhaps this
has some bearing on your speculations.

Regards,
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencollins cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.26 / L Plutonium /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: 26 Dec 1993 23:32:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <chris.756439722@csdc_14>
chris@toshiba.tic.oz.au (Chris Perrott) writes:

> In <2edfmb$84i@panix.com> cremin@panix.com (David Cremin) writes:
> 
> >Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> 
> >By the way, this is not a novel idea. I remember that in the fifties and
> >sixties in Europe, there existed hub-mounted generators built into the
> >front wheel.
> 
> I bought a Sturmey-Archer Dynohub generator in 1978 or 1979, in Belgium,
> but it was imported from the UK. Mine was for the front wheel, but another
> model was a combined three-speed hub gearbox and generator, for the
> rear wheel.
> 
> It felt much more efficient than a friction-driven generator -- the drag
> was unnoticeable to the pedaler.  I assumed this improved efficiency was
> what Ludwig had in mind. If Ludwig had expected to get electric power
> out without putting mechanical power in, he would have called it a
> perpetual motion machine.
> -- 
> Chris Perrott  (chris@toshiba.tic.oz.au)             Phone: 61-2-428-2077 
> Toshiba International Corporation Pty Ltd            Fax  : 61-2-418-7791
> Private Bag 29, Lane Cove, NSW 2066, Australia 
>  * Any opinions expressed above are not necessarily held by anyone *
> --

   Does anyone know where I can mail order for a " Sturmey-Archer
Dynohub." I have 3 mountain bicycles-- a German Kettler, a Trek 7600,
and a Trek 9800. I have 3 Union lights but the friction Union sidewall
tire generator is not mountable. The bracket that comes with Union
generators does not fit oversized tubes. I am eager to try other
generators for I have a fascination beyond bicycling for these
generator lights. I have tried Sanyo brand also but would like to try
this Sturmey-Archer Dynohub or any other quality generator. The three
bicycle mail orders here in the USA-- Colorado Cyclist, Performance,
and Nashbar sell only battery lights. I say piss-on the battery lights.
Any help? Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Bockris in the news
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris in the news
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 04:28:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec25.052836.9602@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:
>dharper@NeoSoft.com (David Harper) writes:
>>The following is from The Houston Chronicle, Friday, December 24, 
>
>>For a trained scientist 
>>to claim, or support anyone else's claim, to have transmuted 
>>elements is difficult for us to believe and is no more acceptable 
>>than to have invented a gravity shield, revived the dead, or 
>>(mined) green cheese on the moon," the petition stated.
>
>Too bad the signers of this petition are more interested in PR than
>in scientific precision.  Since we all know that transmutation of
>elements is possible, the only question is whether it can be made
>economically feasible.  So why would they misstate the question?
>It makes them look like the buffoons they are trying to claim they are not.

     Besides, reviving the dead occurs regularly too. 

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.27 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update (total now 846 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update (total now 846 papers, 133 patents/appl.).
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 14:13:14 GMT
Date: 24 Dec 93 19:43:45 +1100
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,

Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au in FD 1839:
Date: 24 Dec 93 19:43:45 +1100

>Seasons greetings to all,
[...same to you...]
> Dieter asked me yesterday if I had sent him a reference to a paper by J.T.
>Dickinson et al titled "The emission of electrons and positive ions from
>fracture of materials" published in "J.Mater.Sci.16 (1981) 2897".
> I have that paper but, regretfully, did not think you would be interested
>and therefore did not post the ref. to you.  In order to atone for my
>transgression I would like to refer you to a much later paper by
>Dickinson et al titled "Fracto-emission from deuterated titanium: Supporting
>evidence for a fracto-fusion mechanism " published in "J.Mater.Research,
>Vol.5, No.1, Jan 1990 ". In early November I promised to post about
[...]

I have the early Dickinson, as you see below, and it seems that it was not
Darryl who made me aware of it. Whoever you were, thanks. It was someone I was
arguing with in this group, only a few weeks ago. How quickly one forgets.

Anyway, this paper is interesting in several ways. Its list of references go
back to 1970, and include a 1980 paper by, among others, Deryagin, who is now
heavily into fractofusion. Fractoemission is clearly a well established field,
and there seems to be no doubt that largish voltages can arise upon fracture
of an ionic solid. Whether this can lead to fusion, is another question. I
tend now to doubt it. The other Dickinson paper, by the way, is in the
bibliography already. The abstract says that it supports the notion of fracto-
fusion but worries about voltage decay times. As some of you might remember,
Dick Blue has suggested an additional worry, that electrons, being much
lighter, would quickly neutralise the charge separation, out from under the
feet of the deuterons, as it were, so the latter would never get accelerated.
I think this demolishes fractofusion; but some I have emailed this opinion to,
tell me that there is doubt as to the ability of electrons to just fly off the
surface of the PdD. Well, they have no problems flying off all these
insulators, so why not metals or a metal deuteride? Or, to go back to Klyuev
et al (1986), why not from insulating LiD? Going back to my newly found doubt
(or better: dismissal) of ALL neutron results in this field, after Steve
Jones' revelations about artifacts, I don't see ANY experimental fractofusion
results at all, worth constructing a theory for.

Happy New Year.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 27-Dec-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 846


Peripheral papers: files cnf-peri
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dickinson JT, Donaldson EE, Park MK;            J. Mater. Sci. 16 (1981) 2897.
"The emission of electrons and positive ions from fracture of materials".
** A number of (insulating) materials were subjected to breaking, and the
emission of electrons and positive ions, as a result of the breaks, measured.
Up to 15 kV have been observed to be produced from such experiments. Here,
too, emissions were observed and the decay times appear to be strongly related
to electrical conductance (up to 1s for insulators like quartz, down to 10
microsec for graphite), and electron emission densities up to 10^8/cm^2 were
seen. There are 33 references, going back to 1970.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 / Jim Bowery /  TFTR, Spheromak, Pinches and Hirsch
     
Originally-From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR, Spheromak, Pinches and Hirsch
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 01:12:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For those who want to read exactly what Robert Hirsch said in his
1985 speech where he criticized PPPL for delaying the introduction
of tritium to the TFTR, here is the reference:
 
Robert L. Hirsch, "Whither Fusion Research?" (Speech to the American
 Nuclear Society, 5 March 1985).
 
You can probably obtain a copy of this speech from:
 
Steve Dean, President 
Fusion Power Associates
2 Professional Drive
Ste 248
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
        
 
Here are some relevant excerpts from "Fusion:  The Search for Endless Energy"
by Robin Herman (a Princeton alumnus):
 
BEGINNING OF EXCERPTS
 
In the summer of 1984, Congress chopped the Reagan Administration's
$483 million 1985 budget request for fusion down to $440 million.
It was the first downturn in fusion funding in the field's history.
The DOE and the lab directors were faced with postponing the big
experiments or snuffing out many of the smaller support projects.
So Princeton's long-awaited breakeven test, scheduled for 1986, was
ordered put on hold for another two or three years.
 
[section on termination of alternate concepts]
 
The bitterness in the fraternity was palpable.  Even past alliances
seemed to be crumbling.  In a 1985 speech to the American Nuclear
Society, Bob Hirsch shocked and infuriated the fusion community by
denouncing the tokamak as an impractical reactor design.
 
As the former "young man in a hurry", it was Hirsch himself who
had launched the era of the big tokamak in the 1970's before
leaving government to become deputy manager of science and technology
at Exxon and then a research vice-president at Arco.  Through that
time he had remained a key figure in the DOE's Energy Research
Advisory Board.  Now, he was saying years of "heroic efforts" had
not removed "the fatal flaw of the tokamak concept:  It is inherently
a complex maze of rings and a toroidal chamber inside of other rings.
In my view, this complex geometry must be maintained and serviced
rapidly and at low cost.  In that world, simple geometries are
essential."
 
Instead, Hirsch had more shocking advice:  Go ahead immediately
with a tritium-fueled breakeven experiment at Princeton and then
abandon the tokamak and try something else.  With the money saved,
other, more practical designs should be pursued -- designs that
would make attractive reactors -- even if the current physics
knowledge about them was lacking.  He suggested increased research
into modern "pinch" machines and the SPHEROMAK, a compact torus.
 
[jab -- please note here that our own Paul M. Koloc was issued the 
 original patent on the SPHEROMAK and that his more recent patent, 
 the PLASMAK(tm) is a plasma shell SPHEROMAK using pinch effects.]
 
He agreed with the mothballing of the gian mirror, suggesting
mirror research be pursued at a smaller scale until it could
justify such a big leap.
 
Hirsch's denunciation of the tokamak -- the machine he had 
championed a decade earlier -- had worldwide reverberations.
He was not an obscure engineering professor like Lidsky but the
former head of the U.S. fusion program and currently a member of
the president's energy advisory board.
 
[reactions to Hirsch's pronouncement]
 
Hirsch was especially irked by the fact that TFTR, more than THREE
YEARS AFTER ITS FIRST PLASMA, WAS NOT YET RUNNING ON TRITIUM AND 
REACHING FOR BREAKEVEN.  "That great big machine in Princeton costs
an enormous amount of money to run as a hydrogen machine for 
hydrogen physics,"  he said.  "It's hard to justify.  To do that for
three or four years is insane.  IT MEANS THAT A WHOLE LOT OF 
UNIVERSITIES AND NEW IDEAS ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY THEY NEED."
[jab -- emphasis mine].  Hirsch blamed Harold Furth as much as the
DOE for the foot dragging by the Princeton researchers.  "Ever since
we built that machine they've wanted to do hydrogen plasma physics,
period, and at the end they'll do some deuterium and tritium.  That was
a management issue for me from the outset." ...  "Harold Furth is
delighted to be able to his plasma physics in a big machine because
that's his world," Hirsch spat.
 
END OF EXCERPTS
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
   The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjim cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.27 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  test - please ignore
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: test - please ignore
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 17:18:15 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.27 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 17:26:39 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

There are definitely dangers to skimming through this group too fast.  Just
yesterday I finally noticed a rather specific remark Scott Chubb made about
me, somewhere near the end of a large posting from Chuck Sites.

I have previously had some quite amiable email conversations with S. Chubb,
but I think that from this point on any further physics discussions between
S. Chubb and myself should take place solely via postings to this group, not
private emails.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1993Dec19.172529.24799@coplex.com>
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:

> From: "SCOTT CHUBB" <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil>
  ...
> I had previously seen Terry's wave function overlap comments.  He
> actually got some of the ideas, I think, about He, possibly, from our
> latest paper...

Horse hockey.

Your great and insightful paper, whatever it is, sits unopened in the same
envelope in which you sent it to me back in July 93.  You will be able to
verify this for yourself, as I am mailing the package back to you "as is"
this afternoon.

I have no flipping idea what you mean by "some of the ideas ... about He".
Do you mean my posting here with the text diagrams showing the boson and
fermion levels of interaction in superfluid helium?

If so, dream on buster.  Right, wrong, smart, or asinine, that posting was
100% my own work, done by nothing more than sitting down and asking myself
"how can I explain what I know from reading Feynman and other standard QM
texts in a way that would be fairly understandable to folks who might not
see the point from an equation?"  I didn't even crack a book to do it, let
alone go rummaging through some pile of papers.  What that posting did
reflect was several years of reading college and post graduate physics books
and articles at lunch and at home, and genuinely enjoying doing it.  I don't
claim to know much, mind you, but I do try hard to _understand and remember_
key points about how quantum physics works.

Or did you mean my posting about possible magnetic behavior in hypothetical
D+ condensates -- the one that was entirely a result of responding to some
good questions by Robert Eachus?  That one had nothing to do with helium,
but I guess it could have been the one you meant.  Robert gets credit for
asking some tough and interesting questions, but once again the relationship
of my answers to anything from your paper or papers was _zip_.  My replies
to Robert were based on a combination of understanding a few general ideas
and simple logical elimination of the possibilities, nothing more.  Indeed,
my impression from the one earlier paper of yours that I _had_ read closely
was that you had _not_ paid much attention to the magnetic field issue at
that time.

If you feel you have such great ideas, why not just _post them here_ so there
will be no ambiguity about when and where they came from?

Anyway, back to the unopened envelope.  The paper remains unopened because:

 a) I was getting very tired of the Bose condensation nonsense, which by
    the time I received you paper I had pretty well (and very much on my
    own) decided had next to nothing to do with "cold fusion."  My earlier
    objections based on 6N dimensional models are well documented in this
    group, and they go back a long way.  The idea of helium bands I find
    to be outrageously absurd, given the extreme immobility of helium in Pd,
    and the idea that delocalization _necessarily_ gives increase fusion
    rates I feel to be exactly the opposite of what the real case would be.

    Feynman explains in a few clear, easy-to-read paragraphs in Lectures III
    why composite boson interactions _don't_ apply at close range, while the
    Chubb papers go on an on with often obscure terminology and references
    to prove why they _do_ apply.  Pardon me for being a foolish computer
    type, but I think I'll stick with Feynman.

    My brief interest in Chubb condensation ideas was based on results that
    have since proven to be irreproducible (quick, submit to JIR!), which in
    turn briefly rekindled interest in my own most outrageous of farfetches,
    Twist of Ribbon.  I had a very biased interest in the subject, folks.
    A D+ bose condensate might have been useful for constructing extreme-
    configuration quantum wave functions similar to kinks in polyacetylene.
    I never really re-considered the large-scale D-to-He hypothesis, which
    in my mind died over four years ago.  And since the critical result has
    never been reproduced by anyone, I don't give licketty-split.  Twist was
    a conditional farfetch, not a theory, and in the absence of any driving
    evidence it is nothing more than a thorough search for the culprit in a
    mystery that never happened.

 b) I was tired of wading through papers in which the key concepts (and in
    some cases fallacies) are buried under an excessive barrage of fancy-
    sounding physics references and phrases.  It has been my experience that
    papers that use too many terms generally are the _weaker_ ones in terms
    of real content.  It's like the difference between a fishing spear and
    a fishing net.  If you nail something down with a sharp, precise thrust
    of the spear, there's no ambiguity at all about what has been done.  If
    you instead insist on tossing out a huge net that covers many things
    without ever focusing firmly on any one key issue, it starts to get a
    lot harder to discern what really is valuable and what is not.


> ... He has made a number of mistakes.

Not where _you_ seem to think I made them, bub.  Dream on.

(And this from someone who thinks an "equilibrium" of 2D+ <--> He+2 between
delocalized D+ and He+2 bands is just hunky-dorey standard physics?  Shall
we list all the "miracles" involved with _that_ little gig?  Maybe a working
physicist like Dick Blue could give you a run down on that one some time, so
that you don't have to take only the word of a poor, bewildered computer
jockey like me.)


> I have written to him about them...

Yes, extensively.  Your _last_ email finally addressed the issue of 6N space
wave functions, and it _did_ cause me to do some rethinking:  You don't need
6N dimensions.  You can get by nicely with 3N dimensions, since they will
"encode" the other 3N dimensions via Fourier-like transforms.  (Which, I
should note, was _not_ the point you intended to make in that email.)

True confessions:  At one point I told you I "still going through your last
email."  I lied.  Believe it or not, I didn't want to hurt your feelings
by admitting that I never got past the first paragraphs with the interesting
comment about 6N spaces.  Why?  Primarily lack of time, and somewhat less
because of lack of interest.  I work in telecommunications and have four
little kids.  I don't have unlimited time for all this nonsense.


> (The upsho[t] is that quantum mechanics is based on boundary conditions
> and the notion of preferentially preparing a system in a particular manner,
> not the artificial imposition of a classical limit.)

Yes, and the nature of rumination is quantified by the catenary curve of
the didactic asymmetries of eclectic thought.

Now that we've both had a chance to cleanse our digestive systems, would you
care to try to tell us again what your point was?  Preferably in clear, easy
to follow English and/or well-selected equations?  Silly me, that one went
right over my head, whoosh, and I don't feel inclined to chase after it.

				Noticeably Annoyed,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.27 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 21:29:57 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

In article <1993Dec26.143106.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:

> In article <1993Dec23.222725.18797@asl.dl.nec.com>,
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
  ...
> | More of my assertions-for-discussion about Mossbauer. The quick summary is:
> | 
> | a) Mossbauer _must_ involve "instantaneous" momentum distribution to exist.
> | 
> | b) The coherent phonon mechanism is actually a _cooling mechanism_ that
> |    permits first atomic (super solid) and then _nuclear_ (nuclear super
> |    solid) Bose-Einstein condensates to form, with the nuclear super solids
> |    (my own term) then being the ones responsible for the Mossbauer effect.
> | 
> | c) Rotating a solid may either extinguish or significantly modify the
> |    underlying condensates that permit the Mossbauer effect to exist, since
> |    an ordinary rotating solid is not a valid solution to Schroedinger's
> |    equation.  Either the condensates will disappear, or they will form
> |    quantum vortices of the same type seen in spinning pools of liquid
> |    helium.  Such vortices may be experimentally detectable if they exist.
  ...
> 
> With all due respect, these ideas do not appear to be useful improvements
> over the conventional understanding of the Mossbauer effect...

No respect needed, I may be totally over the garden fence on the lot of them.
But I genuinely appreciate your feedback, as my assertions for discussion
really are that -- assertions for discussion.

> I will confine myself to a few remarks...

         remarks
        r  HEY! r
        e LEMME e
        m  OUT! m
        a   @   a
        r >-+-< r 
        k   |   k
        s _/ \_ s
         remarks 


MEAN-TIMES-BETWEEN-EVENTS VERSUS EVENT DURATIONS

> Concerning (a), you argue that the time necessary for absorption of the
> photon equals the time needed for a photon to cross a nucleus, but that time
> is only a *lower* limit.  Consider the complementary recoilless emission 
> process:  the photon is emitted over a time of the order of the mean nuclear 
> lifetime...

(I would note that these are time-symmetric processes, so the arguments for
both adsorption and emission should give the same conclusions.)

Hmm.  Hmm I say.

Some nuclei emit alpha particles with half lives of, say, 100 million years
or so.  If I am correctly understanding your argument (and I freely grant
that I may not be), wouldn't this mean that the duration of an "alpha
emission event" is also about 100 million years?  Even though a very nearly
identical alpha emission event can occur in other isotopes in a span as
short as a millisecond or so?

I think we are talking apples and oranges here.  Even for quantum tunneling
events such as alpha emission, I really don't think one can directly equate
the _mean time between events_ with the duration of the event itself.  That
is, although Humpty Dumpty may have sat on the wall for many hours, the
actual _duration_ of his fall was probably no more than a second or two.

Bottom line is that I cannot readily accept your initial premise as valid,
and thus cannot accept the rest of your well-stated argument either.

> ... For the most common Mossbauer nuclide, 57Co, the nuclear lifetime 
> is about  100 ns, so that the length of the photon's "wave train" is about
> (3 x 10^8 m/s)x(100 ns)= 30 m.  Your "propagation sphere" thus can
> encompass quite a hunk of solid, and not a single nucleus.  Most 
> Mossbauer levels are low-lying and have lifetimes in the range 1-100 ns.

See above.


HIGH-TEMP SUPERCONDUCTORS?

> Concerning (b), you describe some kind of quantum condensation phenomenon
> for which there does not appear to be any experimental evidence.  The
> conventional view is that the emission or absorption of the gamma ray 
> takes place without annihilation or creation of phonons, so that the 
> quantum vibrational state of the crystal is the same after the event as
> before.  Is there any evidence for cooling or condensation phenomena?...

Well, I guess you could argue that _something_ is helping to create Bose-
Einstein condensates of charged quasiparticles in high-temperature super-
conductors.  I believe they are now up to a tentative 250 K in eight-layer
copper oxides.  The simple dependence of that effect on the number of even
copper oxide layers would seem to be decently compatible with the idea of
finding unexpected phonon condensation effects.

Thus the idea of "phonon condensation cooling" (PCC) might actually be quite
handy in the high-temp SC case.  Assuming that PCC even exists, that is.

In most cases "PCC" would be irrelevant because most electron-based charge
carriers are fermions, so conspicuous effects such as superconductivity
would not necessarily be much more common with PCC than without it.  For
neutral condensates a Mossbauer-like super-rigidity to momentum would seem
to be the most likely feature, and that would sort of beg the point.

Perhaps neutron diffraction?  An embedded condensed lattice should give a
Mossbauer-like "super sharp" diffraction signal buried within the overall
diffraction.  Unfortunately, it would probably be a very weak signal indeed,
given the spacing and relatively random mixing of ordinary and condensed
atoms.  Dunno if it would even be detectable, if you think of it that way.

Anywho, I'd look for how phonons in an indefinitely large lattice of copper
oxide layers might be able to:  a) help form -2e quasiparticles of some
sort (yeah right!), and  b) condense and take the quasiparticles with them.


FERROMAGNETS?

Also, don't forget that ferromagnetism is _still_ not considered a fully
solved problem.  Spin alignments of both atoms and atomic electrons is a
pretty easy thing to come up with if you permit Bose condensation, as the
very nature of Bose-Einstein condensation is to line everything up and make
the properties of individual atoms behave collectively.

So do good ferromagnets have conspicuous phonon modes that lend themselves
to "locking up" (Bose condensing) in a fashion that could take whole atoms
with them into some form of atomic or atomic-pair condensates?


KEEP DEM NUCLEI HOT!

> Also, what do you mean by nuclear cooling?  A change in the energy state of
> the nucleus?  Where does the energy go?

Whoa!  All I said was something about _relative_ nuclear ordering, of the
same general type seen in spin-alignment of the nuclei at far cryo temps.

I absolutely was _not_ making a statement about changes in the energy state
of the nucleus, nor would I consider that to be a valid interpretation.
The point is that nucleus-to-nucleus ordering is not going to affect the
_internal_ alignments of a single nucleus.  Multi-stage BE condensation, if
it can exist at all, would work _only_ with increasingly small subcomponents
of a single physically large medium -- a trillion phonons, then a trillion
atoms, then a trillion nuclei.  Never the relative states of particles in
a _single_ nucleus, which is what you just asked about.


OLD SPINNERS

> Concerning (c), back in the 1960's in the early days of Mossbauer spectro-
> scopy, experiments were carried out using rotating sources or absorbers
> to establish a constant relative velocity of motion between the source and
> absorber.  By varying the speed of rotation, the velocity could be varied.
> Results were essentially the same as obtained using velocity transducers
> that moved the source and absorber directly toward each other.  Perhaps this
> has some bearing on your speculations.

Quite possibly.  Alas, that speculation would require a lot more calculation
and analysis (both doable with time -- the assertion is readily quantified
using standard QM) than I have to spend on it.  The results you mention
sound like Doppler-only, and perhaps indeed that is all there is to it.  But
without quantified limits about the rate of spin and such, it's hard to say.

Quantum vortices in superfluids are quite tiny, and it took several decades
from their prediction (by Feynman) to their actual experimental observation,
I would note, and they would be nominally _easier_ to detect than any sort
of phonon condensate vortices.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.27 /  jonesse@physc1 /  F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper
Date: 27 Dec 93 15:19:56 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:

"Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper...  From his criticism
of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and I know him as a solid
electrochemist.  The one niggling doubt in this work is that it was a batch of
Pd wire (the 2mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that produced tritium. ...
I will add this paper to my small list of quality positives."

Will is indeed a solid electrochemist.  And he claimed no excess heat
production in his extensive electrolytic-cell experiments at NCFI before its
demise.  But does this mean that he is competent to claim tritium production?
He boldly states in this paper:  
"it is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd;  only nuclear
reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
tritium."  (F. Will et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176.)

"Whose nature is unknown"... what could it be?  How can they be so sure of a
nuclear reaction, if there are no other evidences, such as MeV-scale energies
associated with the reaction?  In particular, if tritons are produced via
nuclear reactions, where are the *secondary* reactions such as
  t + d (there is abundant deuterium available in the Pd) --> 4He + n.

The neutron in this case carries 14.1 MeV and is readily detectable -- or did
they not look for neutrons?  With the quantity of tritium production they
claim, "2.1 X 10^11 tritium atoms" in one case, copious neutron production is
expected; about a million neutrons in the mentioned case.  Oddly, their paper 
does not mention looking for neutrons at all.

But they *did* look for neutrons, using "two 3He counters", and they found no
significant neutron production from the 4 electrolytic cells that purportedly
produced tritium via nuclear reactions -- certainly nothing at the
million-neutron level, which they were easily capable of detecting.

This information I had to dig out by going to the 1991 paper by the same three
authors as appears in the 1993 paper -- and the *same data* -- published in the
Final Report, "Investigation of cold fusion phenomena in deuterated metals,"
Volume 1, pp. 1-131 - 1-150, 1991, U. of Utah NCFI.

I talked to Fritz about looking for neutrons at the meeting in Maui, privately.
He said that they had looked, but that he was glad they had not mentioned
neutrons in their 1993 paper since neutron production now looked so 
questionable.

But he missed the crucial point:  *absence of neutrons* effectively rules
triton production via nuclear reactions, in deuterated Pd!  Secondary t+d
reactions have a threshold of only tens of keV; energetic tritons cannot be
stopped from producing tell-tale neutrons -- but the neutrons *were not there!*

This absence of neutrons I find damning to the conclusion that "tritium was
generated inside the Pd; only nuclear reactions, whose nature is as yet
unknown, could have produced the observed tritium."  
And damning to the 1993 paper is the failure to report that neutrons were
looked for, and that no neutron production was found corresponding to the 
level of tritium "production."

Indeed, the absence of (sufficient) secondary neutron emissions is 
damning to claims of
tritium production generally, including claims of Thomas Claytor at Los Alamos
(but Tom acknowledges the problem).

I would ask Britz to reconsider his assessment of this as a "quality positive"
for cold fusion claims.

Finally, I quote from a paper in which Kevin Wolf et al. of Texas A&M
*retracted* their earlier claims of tritium production in electrolytic cells:

"In contrast to radiochemical measurements of tritium beta decay,
[such as used by Will et al.]
the direct observation of signals indicative of a primary nuclear reaction
would be less subject to contamination and thus more convincing.  The
experiments performed here were monitored over the entire cell lifetimes for
fast neutrons (energy greater than 1 MeV) and thermal neutrons...  In addition
a high resolution intrinsic germanium gamm-ray detector continuously monitored
the bank of electrolytic cells ... with the principal purpose to search for
Coulomb excitation gamma rays in the 300-500 keV region.

"Samples of Pd stock were vacuum annealed and 4 cm lengths were cut in
alternating fashion for D2O and H2O cells, respectively.
... The 0.1 M LiOD and LiOH solutions and the D2O stock were assayed frequently
for tritium content. "
  [ Note that Will et al. did not take such precautions, although they did run
controls.  And Wolf et al. found evidence for tritium contamination:   ]

"Several samples associated with *one lot of palladium stock* showed latent
tritium levels well above background.    No evidence was obtained for the
occurrence of nuclear reactions in the electrolytic cells."

[My emphasis; note that it was just one lot of Pd stock that showed tritium
"production" in the Will experiments...  This fact was what gave Dieter
some doubts about the NCFI experiments.]

"All of the reports of tritium generation from electrolytic cells to date are
not definitive, and may have one or more sources of possible error -- from
outside contamination, counting errors or separation factors  --  and often
more than one source is possible...  Logic errors and claims of what is known
cannot be accepted in the place of scientific proof."

[K. L. Wolf, et al., "Tritium and tritons in cold fusion," p 552-571 of
AIP Conf Proc. 228, S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi and D. Worledge editors, 1991.]

--Steven Jones

P.S. to Dieter:  do you still consider the Miles et al. papers to represent
a "quality positive"?  How about the Yamaguchi et al. paper?
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Dec 28 04:37:05 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 16:26:18 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <1993Dec28.120127.1969@coplex.com>
chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:

>    Terry is obviously annoyed by a comment from Scott.  First, I want to
> say, that piece was from an email exchange Scott and I have been carrying
> on.  It was not written as a post.  I asked *him* if I could post it,
> becuase I though his comments on the deuteron spin discussion by Terry,
> Robert Eachus, and Dick Blue where interesting.  I knew the last comment
> about the He4 would probably ruffle your feathers Terry, but as I told
> Scott, "He's a good guy. I think he can handle it"...

Chuck, the comment amounted to an explicit suggestion that I was stealing
"good" ideas from Chubb without properly acknowledging them.  Do you recall
who it was who stuck his neck out to _defend_ Chubb a few months ago as the
originator of the Bloch-Bose Condensate (BBC) idea?  Can you see why that
might make such a suggestion particularly upsetting/disappointing to me?

(In fact, I think _I_ owe William R. Bernecky an apology:  Mr. Bernecky, I
made a total arse of myself by defending someone else as the originator of
your Bose Wave Object (BWO) concept.  Seems to me you have every right to
call BWOs your own concept, whatever their value.)

Anyway, Chuck, I'm glad you did post it.  If that is what S. Chubb thought
was going on, then it's probably good for him to hear my side of it.

> ... The He comments had to do with a paper by Scott that describes the
> electron configuaration of He4, and a posting by Terry from sometime back
> that discussed a similar problem.

Chubb thought I got _that_ from a paper of _his_?  I don't get it.  That
was a critique of Chubb's _mis_understanding of wavefunctions, and I don't
recall ever seeing anything in his earlier papers that even hinted at such
an approach to analyzing the helium atom.  Chubb did indeed write back about
that posting, but the effect of his arguments was exactly the opposite of
what he seems to have assumed -- I became _more_ convinced that my own views
were correct, not less.  Perhaps he thought that when I said his comments
were "very interesting" that I meant they were _valid_ arguments.  I don't
use the word "interesting" that way.

At any rate, Chuck, thanks for braving further reactions and your kind
words, which I would judge to be kinder than I deserve.  I'm still angry,
but will probably calm down to user-safe levels in a week or two.

				Some Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 28 Dec 1993 20:01:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Dec27.212957.29725@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:

>I think we are talking apples and oranges here.  Even for quantum tunneling
>events such as alpha emission, I really don't think one can directly equate
>the _mean time between events_ with the duration of the event itself.  That
>is, although Humpty Dumpty may have sat on the wall for many hours, the
>actual _duration_ of his fall was probably no more than a second or two.

In the previous post on this subject, you estimated the time for the 
nuclear excitation to be 10^-23 second.  Now, the frequency of the gamma
ray doing the exciting is about 10^18 Hz.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 
does this mean that you are suggesting that the absorbing nucleus goes from
the ground to the excited state in 1/100,000th of a period of the light
doing the exciting?  If so, could you explain how this happens?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: OrbitFun!
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 19:08:39 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


QUESTION:

   What do you get if you mix up _classical_ and _quantum_ behaviors in
   electron orbitals?

ANSWER:

   OrbitFun!


HOW TO PLAY "ORBITFUN"

Electron orbitals are normally described by Schroedinger's equation.  This
is a three-dimensional wave equation that defines how a special quantity
(called the _amplitude_) changes as you move from one point to another in
the electron orbital.  This amplitude measures two things at each point in
the 3-dimensional space occupied by the orbital:  the "height" of the wave,
and the "phase" (like a position on the face of a clock).

As with any kind of wave, both the height and phase of this amplitude
must change smoothly from point to point.  This is true regardless of
the direction you move in (as described by Schroedinger's equation).


But what if you arbitrarily decide that Schroedinger's equation applies
only in _selected_ directions, with the remaining directions following the
rules of "classical" behavior?  How will this affect the shape and behavior
of electron orbitals?

This kind of arbitrary selection of quantum (wave-like) and classical
(particle-like) "directions" is the essence of OrbitFun, a game that I've
named in honor the earliest known example of it, the Mills OrbitSphere.

Here are just a few of the fun shapes and surprises you can find by playing
OrbitFun!


ORBITSPHERES!

Orbitspheres are the original shapes of the OrbitFun game.  You can create
them by making the _radius_ of an electron around a proton classical.  This
results in a hollow, spherical shell called (by Mills) an "orbitsphere."

These delightful little fantasies are fun to play with, but could be a bit
hard to use for building real chemical systems, as the nuclei would be as
likely to stick to the _sides_ of the orbitspheres as to stay at the center
of them.  As with a real orbital, the wave behavior within the shell of an
orbitsphere would tend to expand the orbitspheres outwards, and a positive
charge would tend to pull the sphere back to a smaller size.  And like a
real orbital, orbitspheres would also tend to resist _too much_ compression
after a certain point was reached, since the energy costs within the wave-
like shell would start to grow too high as the radius dropped too much.

Orbitspheres are of course pure fantasies, since the assignment of radial
classical behavior is a rather grotesque violation of translational and
rotational symmetries of space.  (That's a fancy way of saying "how do you
figure out which direction _is_ the "radial" direction at any given point
in space?")  Furthermore, if you try to "integrate" classical physics with
quantum physics by simply treating it as an extremely sharp wave function,
you find that orbitspheres (and all the other OrbitFun objects described
below) require an _infinite_ amount of energy to construct.


ORBITNEEDLES!

This delightful shape came well after the orbitspheres, but has the honor
of being developed and promoted by the editor of a major physics journal!

Unfortunately, it's not as cleanly described as was the Mills entity, so
that the reader may not immediately recognize it as very closely akin to
the Mills construction.  But OrbitFun it is, and an especially fun-to-play
variation of it at that.

To create an OrbitNeedle, just keep _one_ Cartesian coordinate wave-like,
and make the other two coordinates classical:

                ORBITNEEDLE
       y
       |
       |     -'\/\/\/e\/\/\/`-
       |
       +-------------------------- x
      /
     /
    z

Now what is really _great_ about OrbitNeedles is the same thing that is so
great about a really good magic trick:  You can slide the slippery part in
so fast that _most folks will never see it_!  (In fact, you may not even
see it yourself!)

OrbitNeedles are slippery critters because if you do something like this:

         PROTON-ORBITNEEDLE-PROTON
       y
       |
       |    (p)\/\/\/e\/\/\/(p)
       |
       +-------------------------- x
      /
     /
    z

... your equations can just sort of conveniently _forget_ about those other
two dimensions (y and z) of the electron wave function, and instead treat
X much as you would one of those simplified one-dimensional Schroedinger's
wave functions that you see in most introductory quantum mechanics texts.
Presto chango and... voila!  You have a very impressive set of equations
that _even look the same as quantum equations in real text books_!

Pretty neat stuff if you're into magic!

Another fun thing about orbit needles is that, with only a little bit of
analysis, you can "prove" that the above diagram will result in a rather
dramatically shrunken H2+ molecule!  You can see why if you stop and think
about it.  By whacking off two quantum dimension, the OrbitNeedle presents
a much more concentrated "charge" than would a real electron (whose wave
function would be spewing out like mad in the y and z dimensions if you
tried to force it into the above configuration).  Since in any truly
classical system of two +1 and one -1 charges would _totally collapse_
into a single +1 particle, the selective conversion of only two out of
three dimensions simply allows such a collapse to go farther than is would
be possible with a real electron.


ORBITPANCAKES!

Mills and his OrbitNeedle imitators have but scratched the surface, of
course.  How about making only _one_ Cartesian coordinate classical?  What
would you wind up with in that case?

Why _OrbitPancakes_, of course!

OrbitPancakes would bind two protons more closely than real electrons,
but not as closely as OrbitNeedles.  The protons would sit on opposite
sides of the pancakes.


ORBITRINGS!

Now here's another case:  Take an OrbitNeedle and curve it around until
it meets itself.  What is the result?

An Orbit Ring!  Properties somewhat akin to OrbitPancakes.


ORBITTUBES!

Take the OrbitPancake and wrap it around tamale-style.

The result is an OrbitTube!  Feel free to analyze and submit to some real
journal.  (Physics Letters A??)


ORBITMOBIUSSTRIPS!

Cut the OrbitTube, give it a half twist, and reconnect.  You've created the
infamous OrbitMobiusStrip!  Not only is this a really neat OrbitFun shape,
but you will probably do horrible, horrible things to the wave function
by sticking that flip-over into it!


ORBITANYTHING!

Has anyone noticed a problem with the general trend here?

Once you say that _some_ direction or directions can be classical in an
electron orbital, it's not at all clear where the upper limit to is all
is going to be.  If the orbital can be compressed into a sheet, who is to
say how that sheet may or may not be folded?  If compressed into a line,
who is to say how that line may or may not be bent?

Schroedinger's equation has not problem with any of this, of course, since
it _makes no distinctions whatsoever between any directions in 3D space_.

But once you introduce selective dimensional restriction, anything goes,
and the OrbitFun game never ends.  So I end this with a challenge for
those of you who would like a shape more challenging than simple rings,
tubes, spheres and needles.

What would be the wave equation for my personal favorite OrbitFun shape:

  OrbitMickyMouse?

You can start by taking the orbitsphere and simply deforming it.  I wonder
where the protons would go?  Probably to the ears, don't you think? 

Hey, I wonder if ear-to-ear positioning of _deuterons_ instead of protons
might, you know, _enhance_ the chances of DD fusion?  Hey, I need to think
about that one a bit folks... wow, like I may be _onto_ something!!... 


			Tongue firmly but seriously in cheek,
			Terry Bollinger


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 28 Dec 93 13:13:24 -0800
Organization: Washington State University

In article <1993Dec27.212957.29725@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi folks,
> 
> In article <1993Dec26.143106.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
> 
>> In article <1993Dec23.222725.18797@asl.dl.nec.com>,
>> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>   ...
>> | More of my assertions-for-discussion about Mossbauer. The quick summary is:
>> | 
>> | a) Mossbauer _must_ involve "instantaneous" momentum distribution to exist.
>> | 
>> | b) The coherent phonon mechanism is actually a _cooling mechanism_ that
>> |    permits first atomic (super solid) and then _nuclear_ (nuclear super
>> |    solid) Bose-Einstein condensates to form, with the nuclear super solids
>> |    (my own term) then being the ones responsible for the Mossbauer effect.
>> | 
>> | c) Rotating a solid may either extinguish or significantly modify the
>> |    underlying condensates that permit the Mossbauer effect to exist, since
>> |    an ordinary rotating solid is not a valid solution to Schroedinger's
>> |    equation.  Either the condensates will disappear, or they will form
>> |    quantum vortices of the same type seen in spinning pools of liquid
>> |    helium.  Such vortices may be experimentally detectable if they exist.
>> |    [lengthy description by Terry Bollinger deleted]
>>      ...

>> Concerning (a), you argue that the time necessary for absorption of the
>> photon equals the time needed for a photon to cross a nucleus, but that time
>> is only a *lower* limit.  Consider the complementary recoilless emission 
>> process:  the photon is emitted over a time of the order of the mean nuclear 
>> lifetime...

> ...
> Some nuclei emit alpha particles with half lives of, say, 100 million years
> or so.  If I am correctly understanding your argument (and I freely grant
> that I may not be), wouldn't this mean that the duration of an "alpha
> emission event" is also about 100 million years?  Even though a very nearly
> identical alpha emission event can occur in other isotopes in a span as
> short as a millisecond or so?
> 
> I think we are talking apples and oranges here.  Even for quantum tunneling
> events such as alpha emission, I really don't think one can directly equate
> the _mean time between events_ with the duration of the event itself.  That
> is, although Humpty Dumpty may have sat on the wall for many hours, the
> actual _duration_ of his fall was probably no more than a second or two.
> 
> Bottom line is that I cannot readily accept your initial premise as valid,
> and thus cannot accept the rest of your well-stated argument either.
> 

Alpha and photon emission are not the same.  Alpha emission has no classical
analog, while photons are emitted (radiated) when charges accelerate.  Such
acceleration of charges occurs when the ground and excited states of the 
Mossbauer nucleus are "mixed" together:  the frequency of emission is given
(in good approximation) by  f= E/h, in which E is the energy difference
between the ground and excited states and h is Planck's constant.

Now if we were to assume, as you suggest, that the photon was emitted 
in time t= 10^-23 seconds, then the uncertainty in its energy would be about
deltaE= hbar/t, in which hbar= 6.6 x 10^-16 eV-seconds is Planck's constant
divided by (2 pi).  This works out to be deltaE= 70,000,000 eV (!), enormously
larger than the photon's energy of about 10-100 keV.

As a check, an experimental upper limit on deltaE can be obtained from 
the width a Mossbauer absorption dip.  Routine measurements using the
14,400 eV Mossbauer level in 57Fe yield a width corresponding to a Doppler
shift of deltav= 0.25 mm/second, from which deltaE= 0.6 x 10^-8 eV.
Working backwards from the experimental value of deltaE, the photon must
have been emitted over a time period at least as long as
t= hbar/deltaE= 1.1 x 10^-7 seconds.  This turns out to be equal to the
lifetime of the excited Mossbauer level of 57Fe.

Thus, the photon really *is* emitted over the entire lifetime of the 
excited state.  

>> ... For the most common Mossbauer nuclide, 57Co, the nuclear lifetime 
>> is about  100 ns, so that the length of the photon's "wave train" is about
>> (3 x 10^8 m/s)x(100 ns)= 30 m.  Your "propagation sphere" thus can
>> encompass quite a hunk of solid, and not a single nucleus.  Most 
>> Mossbauer levels are low-lying and have lifetimes in the range 1-100 ns.
> 
> See above.

See above.

>  ...
>> Concerning (b), you describe some kind of quantum condensation phenomenon
>> for which there does not appear to be any experimental evidence.  The
>> conventional view is that the emission or absorption of the gamma ray 
>> takes place without annihilation or creation of phonons, so that the 
>> quantum vibrational state of the crystal is the same after the event as
>> before.  Is there any evidence for cooling or condensation phenomena?...
> 
> Well, I guess you could argue that _something_ is helping to create Bose-
> Einstein condensates of charged quasiparticles in high-temperature super-
> conductors.  ...  ferromagnets ...  nuclear ordering ...

Whoa!  I thought you were discussing about the Mossbauer effect.

> ...
> 				Cheers,
> 				Terry
> 
Regards,
-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencollins cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 23:00:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <2fq3ab$7j5@agate.berkeley.edu>
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

> In article <1993Dec27.212957.29725@asl.dl.nec.com>,
> <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
> 
> | I think we are talking apples and oranges here.  Even for quantum
> | tunneling events such as alpha emission, I really don't think one can
> | directly equate the _mean time between events_ with the duration of
> | the event itself.  That is, although Humpty Dumpty may have sat on the
> | wall for many hours, the actual _duration_ of his fall was probably no
> | more than a second or two.
> 
> In the previous post on this subject, you estimated the time for the 
> nuclear excitation to be 10^-23 second.  Now, the frequency of the gamma
> ray doing the exciting is about 10^18 Hz.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 
> does this mean that you are suggesting that the absorbing nucleus goes from
> the ground to the excited state in 1/100,000th of a period of the light
> doing the exciting?  If so, could you explain how this happens?

Alright!  Now that's more like it!

The idea that the duration of a gamma absorption event is of the same order
of magnitude as one period of the photon is doggone reasonable, and does not
suffer from the problem I discussed earlier of distinguishing mean times
between events from event durations.  It's a genuninely persuasive argument
and a darned good observation.

Of course, it is also wrong.  Let me explain by asking _you_ a question:

    Can an object the size of a marble totally and completely absorb a
    wave whose wavelength is roughly the length of a desk?

If your answer was "no," you might want to check out this followup question:

    How large is on atom compared to a single photon of light, if the size
    of the photon is defined as being one wavelength?

For those of you who don't have a book handy, you may be surprised to learn
that one wavelength of visible light is _hundreds_ of times larger than
most atoms.  Photon absorption is a case of the mouse swallowing the lion!

Now all of this seems especially perplexing because in _classical_ waves
such as those you see in a swimming pool, you really _do_ need to have at
least one wavelength in the absorber to get decent "capture" of the wave.
This is why antenna work a lot better if their sizes are comparable to the
wavelengths they are emitting or absorbing.

But what happens if you lower the intensity of the wave?  Say down to the
point where a beam of light would contains only one or two of the entities
we call "photons"?  What does the wave look like then?

Surprisingly, it looks very much the same.  There is still a broad wave
that can interfere with itself and show the properties we usually expect
from waves, _even though that wave now contains only one measly photon_.

The photon shows up _only_ when the wave is absorbed by some object.  The
photon in that case looks remarkably like a _point object_ that is "guided"
by the wave and is most likely to hit where the wave is most intense.  But
when it does "hit," the impact of the photon is remarkably similar to what
you might expect from a conventional point particle, such as an electron.

It literally slams into a _single_ atom, even though from a "wave" viewpoint
the photon should be huge!  Yet when it is absorbed, the photon is no less
or more "pointlike" than would be an electron hitting an atom.

So in summary:  In _quantum_ wave absorption, you _can_ have a wave that
is very much large than the object that is absorbing it, yet the wave will
be absorbed totally as if it was a _single point like object_.


Now you should be saying by now (or before now!) that "Hey, I was asking
about _time_, not _size_!  So this is just a smokescreen, isn't it?"

Nope, just a lead in to the next point:  In quantum electrodynamics, there
is a profound symmetry between space and time.  In fact, one _period_ of a
photon in time is very closely related to one _wavelength_ of the photon
in space.  When represented in a spacetime (Feynman QED) diagram, a "one
period/wavelength" representation of the size of a photon would look
something like this:

         |     ,-. 
         |    :   : 
    time |   _.`-'
         |  ,'|
         |,'
         +---------
            space

(In such a QED diagram, relativity keeps you from even making absolute
distinctions between space and time -- one persons space-like measurement
may be another's time-like measurement.)

In the above diagram, the time "length" of the photon simply translates
into an uncertainty about _when_ the photon will be absorbed, just as a
the large size translates into an uncertainty about _which atom_ will
actually absorb it.

But when the absorption occurs, it should be just as discrete in time as
it was in space:  Only one atom will be excited, and only at one specific
moment in time.


TIME TO BORROW JOHN BELL'S "PILOT WAVE APPROACH"

In fact, if you think back to that "tiny point particle embedded in a big
diffuse wave" model I mentioned earlier (it's called the "pilot wave" model
in case you were wondering), the short duration of the absorption no longer
looks so mysterious:  It's simply the very brief moment when the photon,
_represented as an indefinitely small point particle object_, slamms into
an atom and is converted into a excited atomic state.

While the pilot wave model has some serious problems in terms of trying to
reconcile it with the phenominally successful QED methodology of Feynman,
it really is handy in cases like this one, where it is easy to get lost in
fretting about Terribly Strange Quantum Ambiguities And Dualities.  The
late (and great) John Bell of CERN strongly recommended it as a tool for
wading through silliness and getting to the point of quantum problems, and
claims that using pilot wave models helped him come up with the famous Bell
Inequality for which he is best known.

In the case of photon absorption times in the Mossbauer effect, the message
of a pilot-wave interpretation is remarkably simple:  The very-point-like
gamma photon hits a nucleus dead center, _SPROING_, and within an extremely
short period of time (comparable to the speed of light, which limits how
fast the impact can cross the nucleus form the final metastable state) it
excites the nucleus.

I stand by my conclusion, firmly.  Mossbauer _cannot_ exist unless it is
a quantum effect that involves nominally "instantaneous" interactions,
interactions that are just as "spooky" as those of the Bell Inequality.

....

Thanks for the excellent question, Richard.  I had not considered before
just how well Bell's "pilot wave" style of analysis helps clarify the issue
of how photon absorption should operate.

I deeply regret that he is not still alive to pass such a question along
to him via some of our net contacts in this group.

				Cheers,
				Terry
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 29 Dec 1993 01:02:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Dec28.230025.15210@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:

>I stand by my conclusion, firmly.  Mossbauer _cannot_ exist unless it is
>a quantum effect that involves nominally "instantaneous" interactions,
>interactions that are just as "spooky" as those of the Bell Inequality.

Unfortunately, your conclusion is still wrong.  I suggest that instead
of reading advanced QED books, you check out an undergraduate physical 
chemistry text sometime.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Huh?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Huh?
Date: 28 Dec 1993 02:26:25 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (logajan@ns.network.com) wrote:
: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
: >>3.  I forgot to mention my attendance of the Vigier lecture on Monday 
: >>afternoon.  He mentioned that the people detecting He4 with mass spectroscopy
: >>may be actually detecting D2-bar - a special molecule of D.
: >
: >Double Huh?

: As I understand it, Vigier thinks two D's (or H's) rotate around a
: stationary electron.  

How the f*** does the electron stay still?  Last time I looked both
the proton and electron had the same magnitude charge, but the electron
was still a whole lot lighter.

: -- 
: - John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
: - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853

--
-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 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.28 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 12:01:27 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

Hi Folks,

   Terry is obviously annoyed by a comment from Scott.  First, I want to
say, that piece was from an email exchange Scott and I have been carring on.
It was not written as a post.  I asked *him* if I could post it, becuase I
though his comments on the deuteron spin discussion by Terry, 
Robert Eachus, and Dick Blue where interesting.  I knew the last comment 
about the He4 would probably ruffle your feathers Terry, but as I told
Scott, "He's a good guy. I think he can handle it".  The He comments had 
to do with a paper by Scott that describes the electron configuaration of He4,
and a posting by Terry from sometime back that discussed a similar problem.  

My appoligies to Scott and Terry.  
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  vnoninski@fscv /  An Open Letter
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An Open Letter
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 01:28:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Open Letter to the 23 Distinguished Professors from Texas A&M University
Who have Signed the Petition for the Demotion of Dr. Bockris

Dear Colleagues,

I read with a great displeasure the announcement that 23 of you have signed
a petition to demote Dr. John Bockris of your University from his rank of
Distinguished Professor. In connection with this incident I feel quite
uncomfortable to have to write something which I thought was considered
evident. Disagreements in science, even most fundamental ones, are not
something unusual. It is not an usual practice, however, to resolve such
disagreements through demotion of a colleague. Indeed, there are well
known precedents in this respect in the recent history of some countries
which these countries are not proud of. Similar attitudes caused great damage
to whole branches of science in these countries such as genetics, cybernetics
etc. The problem, as I see it, is that you have undertaken steps which,
if taken seriously, may have unforseeable consequences. If nothing else,
I feel you are denying a scientist one fundamental freedom typical for the
Academia -- the freedom to be wrong when honestly pursuing the truth. Also,
I think that with this act of demotion of a colleague because of his views
you are presenting your University in a light which does not make it
attractive for creative individuals.

Probably, I should add that since the time of Frumkin's death in the USSR
Bockris has been the most prominent contemporary electrochemist. He will
remain a distinguished scientist through his contributions in science
despite of the proposed action of demotion by 23 colleagues.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Vesselin C. Noninski                     December 27, 1993 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvnoninski cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Bockris and Alchemy
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris and Alchemy
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 01:28:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bockris has really stirred up the establishment.  So alchemy is no longer 
respectable, eh?  Seems to me that alchemy has been a proper occupation of 
university researchers for far more years than it has been out of favor!  The 
establishment "knows" that alchemy is false today.  A few years from now, they 
will "know" something else is false.  When I grew up the establishment removed 
almost everyone's tonsils!  The establishment tends to get it wrong.  What is 
understood today is rigidly clung to as if it were "truth".  No deviations are 
allowed.  But only by deviating from such a path of "truth" do we find new 
"truth". 

Somewhere along the way, Universities invented that most wonderful concept, 
tenure.  While it has its faults, tenure allows the Bockris's of the world to 
take fliers on the investigation of new knowledge.  Sure, most such adventures 
are wrong.  But I salute Bockris for having a fling at it.  Having a Nobel 
prize does not make you smart or daring, and laureates that put their names on 
petitions are suspect to me.  My favorite Nobel winner continues to prove to 
me how smart he is by never putting his name on anything except physics papers 
(Jim Cronin). 

What really made the university establishment mad is that Bockris found a way 
to beat the overhead tax!  This proves to me that he has wit!  OK, so it 
proved to be an old scam.  Really old it seems.  

Someone commented that gold dissolves in mercury (as when made by neutron 
activation of the proper mercury isotope - let's see, we shield our Tokamak 
with Mercury?).  My brother points out that this was known in the middle ages.  
Some enterprising alchemist figured it out.  He would dissolve a small amount 
of gold in mercury, and would amalgamate the surface of a suitable heavy metal 
bar (silver would work great).  Now he would use an alcohol blow pipe to 
evaporate the mercury from the surface.  This would leave a beautiful gold 
surface plating (electroplating was far in the future).  Lee says his path 
could be traced across Europe from the "artifacts" that were left behind.  Lee 
figured he had a pretty good life until he became a "Mad Hatter".  Not many 
lived to old age then, so likely a net plus life! 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 01:29:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Under the heading "F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper" 
Steven Jones writes:
____________________________________________________________________________
In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:

"Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper...  From his criticism
of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and I know him as a solid
electrochemist.  The one niggling doubt in this work is that it was a batch of
Pd wire (the 2mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that produced tritium. ...
I will add this paper to my small list of quality positives."

Will is indeed a solid electrochemist.  And he claimed no excess heat
production in his extensive electrolytic-cell experiments at NCFI before its
demise.  But does this mean that he is competent to claim tritium production?
He boldly states in this paper:
"it is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd;  only nuclear
reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
tritium."  (F. Will et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176.)

"Whose nature is unknown"... what could it be?  How can they be so sure of a
nuclear reaction, if there are no other evidences, such as MeV-scale energies
associated with the reaction?  In particular, if tritons are produced via
nuclear reactions, where are the *secondary* reactions such as
  t + d (there is abundant deuterium available in the Pd) --> 4He + n.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotation ended here although there is much more.

I am confused.  If we do not understand the primary reaction, then how can 
Steve be so sure that there must be a secondary reaction?  How does x --> t 
guarantee that t + d --> 4He + n???  Steve Jones' assumption seems to be that 
the t must be created with high energy and so later fuses with a d.  The logic 
seems to be that we don't know what happens, but if it happens it must happen 
in a certain way.  We have a miracle, but it must be a conventional miracle.  

I agree that it would be nice if there was a multi-MeV particle coming off.  
We could all measure that.  Until there is, we must try to understand the 
experiments as presented.  

I am surprised that Steve Jones did not mention the Fritz Will paper at ICCF4.  
For me, it was one of the better presentations at the conference.  150 control 
samples were sliced and diced and measured for tritium.  Is this the same old 
data Steve?  To me, the paper looks like an heroic effort to use a variety of 
controls to insure that the tritium somehow appeared in the experimental 
samples.  150 control samples were cut from the supply spool interleaved with 
the active test samples of a few times 4.  You got it folks, many more control 
samples than test samples.  Also H2SO4 control runs to compare with the D2SO4 
runs.  Seems to me that this paper only offers 3 possibilities: 

1) a) The data has been falsified.  and/or
   b) Gross error and incompetence.

2) The experiments produce tritium.

3) Tritium/pseudotritium can appear to hide in certain batches of Palladium so 
   that it cannot be detected by dissolving the Palladium and using 
   conventional tritium measurement.  Electrolysis "uncloaks" the 
   tritium/pseudotritium so that it can be detected.  

Fritz Will seems to have a good reputation, so one easily rules out 1) b).  Is 
there a possibility for 1) a)?  I assume that Will has tenure, so it is hard 
to figure a reason for 1) a).  2) is unthinkable, so we are left with 3).

With 3) there appear to be much better chances for a "miracle".  My 
investigation into the measurement of tritium indicates that it is not all 
that easy.  Remember that early on I talked to my physicist friends about 
whether to look for neutrons, tritium, or to do heat.  I chose to look for 
heat, not because it looked easy but because neutrons and tritium are likely 
beyond any basement experimenter.  As I understand it, tritium analysis is 
performed by dissolving the sample, then mixing it with a liquid scintillator 
and putting the result in a "whole body" counter.  One must shield the mess 
from cosmic rays and veto out what makes it trough the shielding.  This I 
thoroughly understand.  What I do not understand is the alchemical brew that 
makes up a liquid scintillator.   One mixes in tiny amounts of the stuff in 
those odd branches of the periodic table.  Now we need only to chemically 
change by electrolysis some impurity in the "good" palladium so that the 
likelihood of seeing a scintillation flash is improved.  I know that this is 
unlikely (the direction is wrong - Murphy normally decreases sensitivity), but 
this is in an area where there is already a lot of fussing going on.  

I am told that there are real problems with liquid scintillators.  They can 
"glow" for a while after mixing, so it is necessary to wait for the glow to 
die down before counting.  What if some impurity in the "good" palladium 
is activated by electrolysis so that it produces a delayed fluorescence which 
extends into the counting period?  Seems to me that this sort of speculation 
is not even in the "astounding" class, much less a "miracle".  

OK, you experts can now jump me.  I likely have it all wrong.  But I will 
persist in looking for the good work of Dr. Murphy when faced with an 
astounding result.  Very likely something has gone wrong.  Very careful 
workers like Fritz Will can sometimes be had by the good Murphy because they 
are so careful and repeat the exact process that caused the error.  

So to me Fritz Will's experiment looks good as far as it goes.  He now has a 
nice result, so it is time to "break it" by learning how to fool the tritium 
analysis.  While Dieter knows him as a "solid electrochemist" he may have less 
than solid tritium measurement advice. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Tests #3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Tests #3
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 01:29:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

T3  Heat Pipe Tests Continue

After much effort, I gave up on what I am calling  HP1.  I have gone back to 
HP0 which is a 6" length of 3"od by 1/16" wall with a 2" dia 1/16" tube 
inside.  This has a 1/16" layer of fiberfrax on each wall.  

I am having great fun with my computer, heat pipe and vacuum pump.  

As you all may recall, I finally got HP1 to become a slightly poorer conductor 
when the heat pipe was opened to air.  This makes a nice test.  Set up the 
heat pipe with a line of thermometers.  Heat it at one end and cool it at the 
other and note the temperature difference between two of the thermometers.  
Now break the seal and see if the temperature difference changes.  The record 
for HP1 was a 30% increase in thermal resistance when the vacuum was broken. 

I now have a 5/1 increase for HP0.  Already this makes the heat pipe 
structure a better conductor than if it were made of solid brass.  It is 
worrysome that it is a better design than HP1 as it has all that fiberfrax on 
the inner surfaces while HP1 just had a thin piece of cheese cloth in it.  But 
we shall see.  I likely do not yet know what I am doing.  But I stick with my 
"this is not yet a plea for help".  I just know that I have to pay the toll to 
learn something new.  I am back to using a fresh bottle of "Gordens" gin.  
Possibly, Tequila is not good.  Possibly it is a NAFTA problem.  
                                                                  
Tom Droege


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec 29 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 00:52:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec28.230025.15210@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
>But when the absorption occurs, it should be just as discrete in time as
>it was in space:  Only one atom will be excited, and only at one specific
>moment in time.

     There's another profound thing called the Uncertainty Principle.
     And currently it does not appear to be only a limitation on
     how well we can 'see', but a fundamental limitation on how
     we can describe a 'specific moment in time'.   If delta t is zero,
     delta E is infinite, so your energy transition must be infinite.
     On the other hand, if delta E is measured accurately,
     there is a *fundamental* limit on the emission time, delta t.  
     Quantum mechanics collapses if we figure out a way to evade this 
     deep result in the manner suggested.  May I suggest Landau 
     and Lifschitz's Nonrelativistic QM as a place to read a 
     discussion on this?

>TIME TO BORROW JOHN BELL'S "PILOT WAVE APPROACH"

     If we do, we've stepped out of QM and into the unfinished unknown.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 01:16:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Dec28.120127.1969@coplex.com> chuck@coplex.coplex.com
(Chuck Sites) writes:

>   Terry is obviously annoyed by a comment from Scott.

The mind is somewhat boggled by that exchange. Scott suggests that one of
Terry's ideas may have come from him. He has even written a letter to
Terry proposing something similar to what Terry has said.

Terry throws a snit and returns the letter unopened because he thinks that
it would reflect poorly on his intellect were it known that someone else
might have had the same idea earlier.

Let's see a show of hands of those who think this was, uh, less than adult
behavior.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OrbitFun!
Date: 29 Dec 93 01:27:59 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1993Dec28.190839.12656@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:

> ORBITSPHERES!
> 
> 
> Orbitspheres are of course pure fantasies, since the assignment of radial
> classical behavior is a rather grotesque violation of translational and
> rotational symmetries of space.  (That's a fancy way of saying "how do you
> figure out which direction _is_ the "radial" direction at any given point
> in space?")  

Not really, since it could just be a theory of an isolated, simple 
molecule in steady state---perhaps it is a small part of a larger
theory, much like debroglie matter waves preceded full QM.


> Furthermore, if you try to "integrate" classical physics with
> quantum physics by simply treating it as an extremely sharp wave function,
> you find that orbitspheres (and all the other OrbitFun objects described
> below) require an _infinite_ amount of energy to construct.

So?---Mills doesn't claim it is a wave function, or that it is compatible
with QM when considered as such. Its supposed to be a sort of charge
density.

> 
> 
> ORBITNEEDLES!
> 
> 
> To create an OrbitNeedle, just keep _one_ Cartesian coordinate wave-like,
> and make the other two coordinates classical:
> 
> 
> ORBITPANCAKES!
> 
> Mills and his OrbitNeedle imitators have but scratched the surface, of
> course.  How about making only _one_ Cartesian coordinate classical? 

There is really nothing wrong with these sorts of restrictions, as
long as there is some container to restrict the wave function. The
contained directions become uninteresting, and perhaps ignorable
(this does *not* really mean we consider them to be classical, rather,
we just assume a reduced dimension for the Schrod eqn, because the
confiened dimensions are assumed to have a know form for the wave
eqn, e.g. uniform.) For example, I believe such approximations have been 
used to describe electrons in long, narrow semiconductor device channels.



I don't endorse any of the above theories, but your objections to them
are not valid.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 29 Dec 1993 06:05:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Dec28.230025.15210@asl.dl.nec.com>,
:  <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:

: >I stand by my conclusion, firmly.  Mossbauer _cannot_ exist unless it is
: >a quantum effect that involves nominally "instantaneous" interactions,
: >interactions that are just as "spooky" as those of the Bell Inequality.

: Unfortunately, your conclusion is still wrong.  I suggest that instead
: of reading advanced QED books, you check out an undergraduate physical 
: chemistry text sometime.

What does this cryptic comment mean?  

Guess: Namely that 'being in a lattice' involves atomic forces 
mediated by good-old electromagnetism.  And the interactions at a distance
are about as "spooky" as radio.  The quantization of the *quasi particles*
in the phonon field of atomic vibrations is only valid within the constraints
of that model, which is harmonic oscillators with electromagnetic
restoring forces.

Most really fast nuclear reactions don't feel anything with the lattice,
right?  

The important point is that in both Moessbauer and the EPR spooky
stuff the key is conservation laws: linear momentum in the first and
spin/angular momentum in the second.

But there's a nice-old local way to conserve linear momentum if things
get too hairy for nuclear decays.

: 					Richard Schultz

--
-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:
cuddy29 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Ng Kiat /  Re: An Open Letter
     
Originally-From: eng10123@leonis.nus.sg (Ng Tze Kiat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Open Letter
Date: 29 Dec 1993 11:09:44 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

In article <00977B0C.9C513220.8972@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>,
 <0099vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu wrote:
: Open Letter to the 23 Distinguished Professors from Texas A&M University
: Who have Signed the Petition for the Demotion of Dr. Bockris

: Dear Colleagues,

: I read with a great displeasure the announcement that 23 of you have signed
: a petition to demote Dr. John Bockris of your University from his rank of
: Distinguished Professor. In connection with this incident I feel quite
: uncomfortable to have to write something which I thought was considered
: evident. Disagreements in science, even most fundamental ones, are not
: something unusual. It is not an usual practice, however, to resolve such
: disagreements through demotion of a colleague. Indeed, there are well
: known precedents in this respect in the recent history of some countries
: which these countries are not proud of. Similar attitudes caused great damage
: to whole branches of science in these countries such as genetics, cybernetics
: etc. The problem, as I see it, is that you have undertaken steps which,
: if taken seriously, may have unforseeable consequences. If nothing else,
: I feel you are denying a scientist one fundamental freedom typical for the
: Academia -- the freedom to be wrong when honestly pursuing the truth. Also,
: I think that with this act of demotion of a colleague because of his views
: you are presenting your University in a light which does not make it
: attractive for creative individuals.

: Probably, I should add that since the time of Frumkin's death in the USSR
: Bockris has been the most prominent contemporary electrochemist. He will
: remain a distinguished scientist through his contributions in science
: despite of the proposed action of demotion by 23 colleagues.

: Sincerely yours,

: Dr. Vesselin C. Noninski                     December 27, 1993 

	As an outsider, I will write this letter without addressing
anyone, although it is clear I am implicitly addressing all parties. I
have had similar separate experience of all parties, namely Dr John
Bockris as one party, Dr Vesselin C. Noninski as another party and the 23
Distinguished Professors from Texas A&M University who have signed the
petition for the demotion of Dr. Bockris, as yet another party.
	My intention is neither to support any party nor to impose my
opinion on any party, but I am very disturbed (purely personal opinion) .
I wish something (I have something specific in mind) could be done.  When
I write this letter, I fully understand that I do not know the full
details of the nature of disagreements that the third party disagrees with
the first. I love science (purely personal opinion). My message might have
to be deduced by the reader.
	I have noticed many tip-top (really the respective number ones in
their chosen area of specialisations) researchers are not obsessed with
personal gains. I do not respect (purely personal opinion) those top
researchers who are obsessed with personal gains. By the way, is a
researcher's ranking determinable, if so, is a non-subjective ranking
possible? (This is not a question. I wish it could bring in some
perspective in this present case.)
	I have great admiration (purely personal opinion) for certain
persons in this present case. Best wishes for a happy ending to all
parties concerned. 



Tze-Kiat Ng

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudeneng10123 cudfnNg cudlnKiat cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Bill Page /  Re: ICCf-4 Theory Papers (part 2)  J. P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCf-4 Theory Papers (part 2)  J. P. Vigier
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 12:43:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary S. Collins writes (private email):
<<
I am not sure that your "string" analogy is appropriate, however.  The 
string would need to correspond to the wavefunction of the electron (whose 
square gives the probability density).  Suppose that the wavefunction looks 
like one wavelength of sin[kx] along the length of the string.  If the 
wavefunction is wrapped around twice, then the WF will in general have two 
different values at each point in space.  But the WF (and probability 
density) must be single-valued.  Thus, it doesn't seem that you can wrap 
around twice.
>>

Yes, you are right.  The string analogy is not a good one.  However, when I 
said "wrapped around twice" I should have clearly indicated I was still 
thinking in terms of an orbital precession.  The second wrap does not 
overlap the first.  In fact for the n = 1/2 case, the second wrap would 
have to be "everwhere spherically predendicular" to the first... I doubt 
that this statement is very clear, sorry.  Think of a way of wrapping the 
string around twice that maximizes the distance between corresponding 
points.  Maybe the baseball stiching was not such a bad model.

Also, I should have made the analogy a little different - using a ball half 
the size of the first, instead of a string that was twice as long. The idea 
is that the electron stays in its normal coulomb ground state (one wave 
length) and the sub-ground state uses this coulomb ground state but with a 
different more compact geometry.

With your premission, I would like to post your question and this response 
to the net.

Thanks.

Cheers and season's greetings.

Bill Page.

<<

You have my permission, of course, to post my comment on the net. 
Regards and Merry Christmas.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
>>

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 15:34:07 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <tomkCIrvK5.IF1@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>
>Let's see a show of hands of those who think this was, uh, less than adult
>behavior.
>
Let's go back to talking physics.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 20:47:03 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

(Ah, _that's_ better!  This group has been so _dull_ lately...)


CLASSICAL EVENTS?

In article <1993Dec28.131324.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:

> Alpha and photon emission are not the same.  Alpha emission has no classical
> analog, while photons are emitted (radiated) when charges accelerate...

Neither event is classical.  You know that.

If an excited nucleus radiated classically, the resulting EM burst would
be neither unique in frequency, nor capable of "waiting" as long a 100 ns
before radiating.  Nor would a gamma detector pick it up the resulting
gamma photon as a unique, particle-like event.  Nor indeed would the idea
of a gamma photon even have much meaning.

On the flip side, alpha particles can be modeled just about as "classically"
as gamma emission by using a "liquid drop" or evaporation model.  It's wrong
in the details, of course.  But so is any attempt to seriously model gamma
emission as being "classical," as it is very nearly a contradiction in terms
to speak of _quantized_ gamma photons as being "classically" radiated.

You thus of course mean "classical analog" in a highly restricted sense.
Or possibly you have confused the Maxwell wave representation of a single
photon with the Schroedinger wave-packet representation, which is similar
in form (e.g., the frequencies and wavelengths are identical) but deals
only with _amplitudes_, not EM waves.  The later is the form that must be
used for single-photon problems, to avoid assertions about the effects of
very-low-level EM waves that would have no physical meaning when quantized.


AH!  ENERGY/TIME UNCERTAINTY WAS THE POINT, HMM?

> Such acceleration of charges occurs when the ground and excited states of
> the Mossbauer nucleus are "mixed" together:  the frequency of emission is
> given (in good approximation) by f= E/h, in which E is the energy difference
> between the ground and excited states and h is Planck's constant.
>
> Now if we were to assume, as you suggest, that the photon was emitted 
> in time t= 10^-23 seconds, then the uncertainty in its energy would be about
> deltaE= hbar/t, in which hbar= 6.6 x 10^-16 eV-seconds is Planck's constant
> divided by (2 pi).  This works out to be deltaE= 70,000,000 eV (!),
> enormously larger than the photon's energy of about 10-100 keV.

Ah!  So _that_ was your point:  Energy/time uncertainty!  Why didn't you
just _say_ that in your first reply?  You might have converted me on the
spot with that approach.

So...  Extremely short reception times translate into extremely high energy
uncertainties.  Thus to get the remarkably precise frequencies (and thus
energies) of Mossbauer, the gamma photon really must be a _wave packet_
that covers a very large number of wavelengths.  And the "receipt" of that
wave packet thus must proceed over a commensurate period of time.  Nice!


So how about if we follow through on that one a bit, just so I can be sure
I follow?  I'm strictly an amateur, mind you (as I'm sure is abundantly
clear to any real physicists), so I don't want to miss any key points...

The photon of which you speak must contain many, many wavelengths, both
along its "length" and "width."  So perhaps I'm not _too_ far off the mark
to say that a _wave packet_ representation of the gamma photon would look
something like this, perhaps?

         |        ( (
         |       ) ) ) )
         |    ( ( ( ( ( (
         |     ) ) ) ) ) )
    time |    ( ( ( ( ( (
         |   _.  ) ) ) )
         |  ,'|   ( (
         |,'
         +------------------
                 space

That's pretty crude, of course, since an accurate representation of the wave
form in space (wavelengths) and time (periods) would need more dimensions
than can easily be represented on an ascii diagram.  But the basic idea is
pretty simple:  a big, round "ball" (Gaussian package in 1:1 scaled space-
time) of fully coherent wave forms, traveling along at the speed of light.

Now the above diagram would, as you say, necessarily extend for distances
that are well in excess of those of a single nucleus or a single atom.
E.g., as you mentioned before, a 100 ns wave packet would cover _tens of
meters_ of distance when traveling at the speed of light.

But a skinny wave packet alone won't do it, will it?  Spatial compression
_also_ implies momentum (and thus frequency) uncertainty, and so the
wave packet will also need to be pretty wide, as shown above.  Would you
grant me that it should be, oh, probably tens of meters _wide_ in space,
also, to ensure that frequency uncertainty in not introduced in that way?


OOPS.  WHAT ABOUT SPACE/MOMENTUM UNCERTAINTY?

Now the question:

   Wouldn't absorption by _one_ atom only an Angstrom across of a wave that
   is 30 meters across necessarily run awry of exactly the same sort of
   quantum principle (space/momentum uncertainty) that messes up the idea
   of very rapid receipt of gamma photon (time/energy uncertainty)?

Well now... what would _you_ say?

I would note that at least part of the problem can be resolved by realizing
the same distinction I mentioned earlier.  That is, the waveform shown in
the diagram is a _wave packet_, and _not_ the photon itself.  A wave packet
only gives probabilities of finding the photon, not the physical extent of
the photon EM field.  The later idea of a Maxwell equations EM wave simply
_has no physically definable meaning_ at the level of individual photons.

And that in turn would mean that the photon is indeed a point particle in
the following sense:  There is _no_ lower size limit for how small of an
object can absorb a photon -- period.  And the reducto absurdum of that
premise is that _even a point particle such as an electron_ is capable of
_absorbing and emitting_ any kind or wavelength of photon.

Just like in, say... a Feynman diagram?


Incidentally, if you will look back on one of my earlier comments on
Mossbauer in this group you will note that I made the comment that the
problem of non-information transfer could probably be handled by looking
at a wave packet representation of the photon that "covered" the entire
Mossbauer medium.  I didn't realize that a lot of this data already did
exist in terms of these timing issues.  Interesting.


MOSSBAUER MONOCHROMATIC ==> HIGHLY DELOCALIZED ATOMS/NUCLEI

I would note that the problem raised by Dr. Collins has some fascinating
implications.  In particular, I don't think there _is_ a direct out for
either the time/energy uncertainty point he raised, or for the closely
related space/momentum uncertainty counter question I raised.

That is, if as an external observer of the Mossbauer effect you ever
manage to identify either _where_ or _when_ the photon was absorbed by a
specific atom, _the Mossbauer effect must necessarily disappear_ for that
particular atom and gamma photon.

Does anyone see a way around that conclusion?  I sure don't.  And it fits,
really, as any conceivable "probe" for finding the gamma event nucleus
would also (I hate this term) "disturb" it in a way that would know out
the remarkable positioning needed for Mossbauer.

But stop and think about what that means:  It means that the _entire gamma
of absorption/emission event must be macroscopically delocalized_ -- that
is, it must have a wave function representation that (like the gamma photon)
is spread throughout the medium in which the Mossbauer effect takes place.

That is in some ways a pretty drastic conclusion, but I don't see any easy
way to wriggle out of it.  If there is _any_ way the wave function of the
nucleus "locks it down" to a single location in space, then the Mossbauer
effect _cannot_ overcome the implied "smearing" of energy via time/energy
or space/momentum uncertainty.  Thus the only alternative is a truly
_delocalized_ nuclear wave function that, like the photon wave function,
is large enough to cover most of the Mossbauer medium.  This idea of highly
delocalized nuclear wave functions also meshes quite well with the idea of
the nucleus having an extremely well-defined momentum (zero!) throughout
the absorption/emission event.


DELOCALIZATION ==> FIRST STEP IN BOTH CONDENSATION AND BANDING

Such atomic and nuclear delocalization would also be very nicely compatible
with my original assertion-for-discussion that Mossbauer involves some sort
of Bose-Einstein condensate.  Why?  Because the first step in the formation
of such a condensate is for the particles in question to delocalize until
they occupy the same physical space.

The implication of Mossbauer atomic/nuclear delocalization thus cannot
_prove_ condensation -- "same space" wave functions can still have different
momenta, as with bands -- but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Incidentally, by the same logic:  If Mossbauer-event nuclei are delocalized
_fermions_, shouldn't they be forced by Pauli exclusion to compete for some
very-closely-spaced band states?  I wonder if such band-state distinctions
could be visible in the Mossbauer effect?

Dr. Collins:  Along that chain of thought, I was sort of expecting/hoping
you would cut to the chase on the Bose/Fermi issue and say something like
"_HA_ Terry, there are XX isotopes with odd spins that exhibit Mossbauer,
so you are clearly full of stale dog biscuits for trying to make them out
to be Bose-Einstein condensate effects."  Well?  Must I nail myself?


BACK TO THE NEWS, DAN

> As a check, an experimental upper limit on deltaE can be obtained from 
> the width a Mossbauer absorption dip.  Routine measurements using the
> 14,400 eV Mossbauer level in 57Fe yield a width corresponding to a Doppler
> shift of deltav= 0.25 mm/second, from which deltaE= 0.6 x 10^-8 eV.
> Working backwards from the experimental value of deltaE, the photon must
> have been emitted over a time period at least as long as
> t= hbar/deltaE= 1.1 x 10^-7 seconds.  This turns out to be equal to the
> lifetime of the excited Mossbauer level of 57Fe.
> 
> Thus, the photon really *is* emitted over the entire lifetime of the 
> excited state...

_No_.  This is just plain wrong.

You can if you wish say something like "the _wave function_ of the photon
is established over the entire lifetime of the excited state."  But what
you said in the last sentence makes it sound as though you've got some
sort of classical rotating dipole in the nucleus, and that it's going to
whistle merrily away at constant speed for the entire 100 ns.  If you care
to work that one out according to classical physics, I believe you would
find the result to be an unbelievably energetic and continuous burst of
laser-like gamma energy in all directions.  That's plain silly, and not
sufficiently accurate even to serve as a helpful analogy.

The real explanation is very much quantum, and deals far more with the
inability of an observer to see _when_ and _where_ the gamma is being
generated than with anything from classical physics.


SEE BELOW.

>>> ... For the most common Mossbauer nuclide, 57Co, the nuclear lifetime 
>>> is about  100 ns, so that the length of the photon's "wave train" is about
>>> (3 x 10^8 m/s)x(100 ns)= 30 m.  Your "propagation sphere" thus can
>>> encompass quite a hunk of solid, and not a single nucleus.  Most 
>>> Mossbauer levels are low-lying and have lifetimes in the range 1-100 ns.
>> 
>> See above.
>
>See above.

See above.  :)


>> Einstein condensates of charged quasiparticles in high-temperature
>> superconductors.  ...  ferromagnets ...  nuclear ordering ...
>
> Whoa!  I thought you were discussing about the Mossbauer effect.

Nah, I just throw in such terms to raise the hackles of relatively young
physics PhD's.  You can watch with me and see if any of them bite...  ;-) 

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 21:22:21 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


In article <tomkCIrvK5.IF1@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> ...(Chuck Sites) writes:
> | Terry is obviously annoyed by a comment from Scott.
>
> The mind is somewhat boggled by that exchange. Scott suggests that one of
> Terry's ideas may have come from him. He has even written a letter to
> Terry proposing something similar to what Terry has said.
>
> Terry throws a snit and returns the letter unopened because he thinks that
> it would reflect poorly on his intellect were it known that someone else
> might have had the same idea earlier.
>
> Let's see a show of hands of those who think this was, uh, less than adult
> behavior.

Hey, you've got my vote!  What a brat!  (No degree in physics, either!)  :-)

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Raymond Butte /  Re: OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: rrb@locus.com (Raymond Butte)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OrbitFun!
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 19:12:08 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1993Dec28.190839.12656@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> 
> QUESTION:
> 
>    What do you get if you mix up _classical_ and _quantum_ behaviors in
>    electron orbitals?
> 
> ANSWER:
> 
>    OrbitFun!
> 
> 
> HOW TO PLAY "ORBITFUN"
> 
[...]
>
> ORBITSPHERES!
> 
[...]
> 
> ORBITNEEDLES!
> 
[...]
> 
>                 ORBITNEEDLE
> 
[...]
> 
>          PROTON-ORBITNEEDLE-PROTON
> 
[...]
> 
> ORBITPANCAKES!
> 
[...]
> 
> ORBITRINGS!
> 
[...]
> 
> ORBITTUBES!
> 
[...]
> 
> ORBITMOBIUSSTRIPS!
> 
[...]
> 
> ORBITANYTHING!
> 
[...]
> 
>   OrbitMickyMouse?
> 
> Hey, I wonder if ear-to-ear positioning of _deuterons_ instead of protons
> might, you know, _enhance_ the chances of DD fusion?  Hey, I need to think
> about that one a bit folks... wow, like I may be _onto_ something!!... 
> 
> 
> 			Tongue firmly but seriously in cheek,
> 			Terry Bollinger

Hmmm.  Sounds like... ORBITUARY!

8^)

-rrb

-- 
---
rrb@locus.com			Less heat, more light...
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrrb cudfnRaymond cudlnButte cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: An Open Letter
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An Open Letter
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 22:19:48 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

I thought that Dr. Noninski's appeal for common sense in A&M's handling of
the recent Bockris "alchemy" episode was appropriate and well-stated.

However, since I'm being "naughty" this week, I think I'll state a similar
view of the incident, one that may be a bit more blunt:

   Is it really Dr. Bockris and his work that the signatories are worried
   about, or is it the fun that the press has been having with the episode?

If the latter, I think the signatories may find they will have accomplished
more harm ultimately to the research reputation of Texas A&M than any number
of alchemy incidents by Dr. Bockris.  I find the Dr. Bockris episode amusing
and a little sad, and something that speaks only of one professor who went
of on a wild goose chase.  I find the petition effort ominous and a pretty
poor reflection on the entire _school_.  Apparently few people at A&M are
willing to really stick their necks out, but quite a few others are more
than happy to group together to help chop off the heads of those who do.

This does not bode well for research in general at that facility, regardless
of what the topic is.  Unless things change there, I can no longer easily
imagine sending my own kids there when they get older, especially if they
show any interest in scientific research.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OrbitFun!
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 22:52:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

Barry Merriman _never_ ceases to surprise me, I must say.

I won't bother going through his comments in detail.  I would tend to
paraphrase my reading of them as:

  "Well, you _can_ extend quantum theory in the direction of restricted
   dimensions, if you so desire."

I certainly cannot disagree with _that_, because _all_ theories can in
principle be extended in some fashion.  In the case of QM it gets pretty
tricky because QM "ties down" so many things, but I have little doubt that
the total number of ways it _could_ be extended is infinitely large.

The real questions are:

  1) Does experimental evidence _require_ the extension?

  2) Is the proposed exention logically self-consistent?

  3) Doe the proposed extention _work_ for explaining/predicting new effects?


I do appreciate this _explicit_ acknowledgement that dimensional restriction
of the Schroedinger wave function really is the name of the game.  My real
annoyance of Vigier's work is how excrutiatingly difficult his papers seem
to make it for many folks to see just where the "gotcha" really is.

I like the miracles to be stated up front.  Bohr did, and succeeded very
well indeed by opening the way for QM.  Most miracles, and the folks who
propose them, aren't so fortunate.


I would comment briefly on Barry Merriman's remark about reduced dimensions:

> There is really nothing wrong with these sorts of restrictions, as
> long as there is some container to restrict the wave function. The
> contained directions become uninteresting, and perhaps ignorable
> (this does *not* really mean we consider them to be classical, rather,
> we just assume a reduced dimension for the Schrod eqn, because the
> confiened dimensions are assumed to have a know form for the wave
> eqn, e.g. uniform.) For example, I believe such approximations have been 
> used to describe electrons in long, narrow semiconductor device channels.

Reduced dimension systems are a rich and fascinating area of solid state
physics, but of course (as I think you are also saying) they do not "undo"
Schroedinger's equation.  They just represent cases where the _interesting_
things are going on in only one or two dimensions of the wave equation,
with the other dimension either narrow Gaussian (e.g., for the cross
sections of quantum wires such as polyacetylene), or a sufficiently broad
Gausian that they can be considered "uniform" for the part of the system
under consideration.

It is extremely difficult to see how any of these cases could be applied
to a single molecule with spherical or near-spherical symmetry.  (I'm
trying to be nice now...!)

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 23:21:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec29.204703.26684@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
>> As a check, an experimental upper limit on deltaE can be obtained from 
>> the width a Mossbauer absorption dip.  Routine measurements using the
>> 14,400 eV Mossbauer level in 57Fe yield a width corresponding to a Doppler
>> shift of deltav= 0.25 mm/second, from which deltaE= 0.6 x 10^-8 eV.
>> Working backwards from the experimental value of deltaE, the photon must
>> have been emitted over a time period at least as long as
>> t= hbar/deltaE= 1.1 x 10^-7 seconds.  This turns out to be equal to the
>> lifetime of the excited Mossbauer level of 57Fe.
>> 
>> Thus, the photon really *is* emitted over the entire lifetime of the 
>> excited state...
>
>_No_.  This is just plain wrong.
>
>You can if you wish say something like "the _wave function_ of the photon
>is established over the entire lifetime of the excited state."  But what
>you said in the last sentence makes it sound as though you've got some
>sort of classical rotating dipole in the nucleus, and that it's going to
>whistle merrily away at constant speed for the entire 100 ns.  

     No, actually he's making it sound like there's some quantum
     emission going on.  And for a Delta E of a certain number, one
     must get an emission time of Delta t that is related to that
     number by the Uncertainty Principle.  This can be a precise number
     since one can determine delta E to arbitrary precision.

     Again, if you find a way to evade this, QM collapses.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Robert Eachus /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 29 Dec 93 18:01:59
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <19931222.151019.751@almaden.ibm.com> jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:

 > As you note a 3.75GW(t) plant is plausible.  Can the same be said for
 > a 33.75GW(t) plant?

    Probably not. Hmmm... I've said before, and I'll say again, if the
only issues were technical, building a "commercial" mirror machine
should only require engineering.

    However:

    1) Any mirror machine we could build based on what we know today
would be in the 50 GW(e) or higher range.

    2) Any such plant would probably not be competitive compared to
the second such plant built, and anyone associated with the first
plant would get fried by press and the like:  "Should have built a
smaller plant first..."

    So politics dominates.

     For those lost by what I am saying, the losses in a mirror
machine would mostly be at the ends.  You can connect these together
(Actually you build two side by side mirror machines, and feed the
"lost" particles from one into the other.)  However last time I played
this game the "best guess" dimensions for ignition were seven to eight
hundred meters long, and about one to two MW(t) generated per meter...
(Unlike tokamaks, in mirror machines ignition really is ignition, once
you are there, you turn off the pumping and generate useful power.)


					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:
cuddy29 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 23:32:13 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

> There's another profound thing called the Uncertainty Principle.  And
> currently it does not appear to be only a limitation on how well we can
> 'see', but a fundamental limitation on how we can describe a 'specific
> moment in time'. If delta t is zero, delta E is infinite, so your energy
> transition must be infinite.  On the other hand, if delta E is measured
> accurately, there is a *fundamental* limit on the emission time, delta t.  
> Quantum mechanics collapses if we figure out a way to evade this deep
> result in the manner suggested...

Wow.  Dale got right to the point in a _hurry_.

I didn't read your posting until after I finished my earlier reply today to
Gary Collins, but you have probably already seen that.  It addresses the
t*E uncertainty issue, and adds in x*p to the mix for good measure.

> May I suggest Landau and Lifschitz's Nonrelativistic QM as a place to
> read a discussion on this?

You bet!  Actually, I believe I may have a copy of that one at home already.
(At the very least I recall _trying_ to get a copy of it.)

Thanks for the reference.


> | Time to borrow John Bell's "Pilot Wave Approach"
>
> If we do, we've stepped out of QM and into the unfinished unknown.

Hmm.  Well, as far as "point photons" go, I really probably shouldn't have
even bothered invoking pilot models.  Point-like photons are an equally
fundamental precept of quantum electrodynamics.  Since both Schroedinger's
equation and Maxwell's equations can in principle be derived from _how_
those point photons and electrons interact under the rules of QED, the
message there seems pretty clear -- points first, photon "waves" only a
a consequence of how said points interact with each other and elecrons.

I've not usually seen pilot wave models described as that radical, however.
More often labels like "clumsy" and "inelegant" and "untestable" seems to
have been the source of their disfavor.  They are quite old, dating all
the way back to DeBroglie, who developed the first pilot wave model after
his initial key insight about "matter waves."  His interpretation later
lost out to the Copenhagen school of (non-pilot) interpretation.  I would
judge that QED greatly increased the weight of evidence in favor of NON-
pilot interpretations, since it fully explains _everything_ purely in terms
of electrons and photons and their amplitudes for various jumps.  QED _has_
no room for "pilot waves" that I can see, which is probably why Feynman
was not very tolerant of approaches that smacked of it.  He had cause.

To my knowledge neither school changes the mathematical framework of QM,
though, just how one "reads it."  In that sense both Copenhagen and pilot
wave schools are perhaps little more than more than frameworks of general
ideas for how to _set up_ QM problems.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 23:41:54 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <2fqkvt$bfp@agate.berkeley.edu>
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

> In article <1993Dec28.230025.15210@asl.dl.nec.com>,
> <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
> 
> | I stand by my conclusion, firmly.  Mossbauer _cannot_ exist unless it is
> | a quantum effect that involves nominally "instantaneous" interactions,
> | interactions that are just as "spooky" as those of the Bell Inequality.
> 
> Unfortunately, your conclusion is still wrong.  I suggest that instead
> of reading advanced QED books, you check out an undergraduate physical 
> chemistry text sometime.

Er...  Was that the argumentive equivalent of telling me that my mother
wears army boots, or were you genuinely trying to point something out?

				Baffled,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenterry cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Bockris in the news
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris in the news
Date: 29 Dec 93 18:44:32
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

   >The following is from The Houston Chronicle, Friday, December 24, 
   
   >For a trained scientist to claim, or support anyone else's claim,
   >to have transmuted elements is difficult for us to believe and is
   >no more acceptable than to have invented a gravity shield, revived
   >the dead, or (mined) green cheese on the moon," the petition
   >stated.

   In article <1993Dec25.052836.9602@ns.network.com>, John Logajan
<logajan@ns.network.com> wrote:

   > Too bad the signers of this petition are more interested in PR
   > than in scientific precision.  Since we all know that
   > transmutation of elements is possible, the only question is
   > whether it can be made economically feasible.  So why would they
   > misstate the question?  It makes them look like the buffoons they
   > are trying to claim they are not.


In article <CIoF3I.A86@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

   > Besides, reviving the dead occurs regularly too. 

   Don't forget Robert Forward's proposed mechansim for neutralizing
tidal effects near neutron stars... I've also heard a real proposal
for building one to get a true zero gravity enviroment (instead of
"microgravity") in earth orbit.

   But I don't know of anyone proposing to mine lunar green cheese. ;-)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec 30 04:37:04 EST 1993
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 29 Dec 93 16:39:21 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1993Dec29.204703.26684@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi folks,
> ...
> In article <1993Dec28.131324.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
> ... 
>> Such acceleration of charges occurs when the ground and excited states of
>> the Mossbauer nucleus are "mixed" together:  the frequency of emission is
>> given (in good approximation) by f= E/h, in which E is the energy difference
>> between the ground and excited states and h is Planck's constant.
>>
>> Now if we were to assume, as you suggest, that the photon was emitted 
>> in time t= 10^-23 seconds, then the uncertainty in its energy would be about
>> deltaE= hbar/t, in which hbar= 6.6 x 10^-16 eV-seconds is Planck's constant
>> divided by (2 pi).  This works out to be deltaE= 70,000,000 eV (!),
>> enormously larger than the photon's energy of about 10-100 keV.
> 
> Ah!  So _that_ was your point:  Energy/time uncertainty!  Why didn't you
> just _say_ that in your first reply?  You might have converted me on the
> spot with that approach.
> 
> So...  Extremely short reception times translate into extremely high energy
> uncertainties.  Thus to get the remarkably precise frequencies (and thus
> energies) of Mossbauer, the gamma photon really must be a _wave packet_
> that covers a very large number of wavelengths.  And the "receipt" of that
> wave packet thus must proceed over a commensurate period of time.  Nice!

Well put.

      [Bollinger proposes some ideas about photon wavepackets]

>> [Collins uses the measured uncertainty in the energy of recoilless
>>  Mossbauer gamma rays of 57Co and the uncertainty relation to show 
>>  that the gamma ray is emitted over the entire nuclear lifetime.]
>> Thus, the photon really *is* emitted over the entire lifetime of the 
>> excited state...
> 
> _No_.  This is just plain wrong.
> 
> You can if you wish say something like "the _wave function_ of the photon
> is established over the entire lifetime of the excited state."  

That sounds about the same as what I wrote.  Do you still think that 
the emission or absorption takes place in only 10^-23 seconds, Terry?  
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Collins, Physics, Washington State Univ. (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencollins cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 / John Blanton /  Re: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
     
Originally-From: blanton@mksol.dseg.ti.com (John F Blanton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris quoted on national (CBS) radio network
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 23:46:00 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

terry@asl.dl.nec.com wrote:
: Hi folks,

: Well, about two minutes ago I caught a sound bite of Dr. Bockris defending
: himself on the Wed 3:00pm (CST) CBS national radio news update.  (The slight
: English (Commonwealth?) accent surprised me -- I somehow had him pegged in
: my mind as a native Texan.)

I just finished Gary Taubes' excellent book on the subject (Bad
Science).  Apparently Bockris was a refugee to England about the time
of WWII and was Fleischmann's mentor at Imperial College (I think).

He later decided the US was where the action was and went there.  He
became disillusioned with the US in the early '70s and went to 
Australia, returning to the US (at TAMU) after a short job interview
there.  Taubes had little good to say about Bockris' record of
publications after his early splash in the UK.

My own conclusion after reading the Taubes book and the continual
sorry saga in The Dallas Morning News is that Bockris' troubles
are of his own making.

John Blanton
blanton@lobby.ti.com
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblanton cudfnJohn cudlnBlanton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 00:35:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Dec29.233213.28637@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the reference.
>

     You're quite welcome.

>> | Time to borrow John Bell's "Pilot Wave Approach"
>>
>> If we do, we've stepped out of QM and into the unfinished unknown.
>
>Hmm.  Well, as far as "point photons" go, I really probably shouldn't have
>even bothered invoking pilot models.  Point-like photons are an equally
>fundamental precept of quantum electrodynamics.  

     Depends on what you mean by 'point photon'.  If you mean something
     that exists at a 'particle' level beyond delta E delta t ~ hbar or
     delta p delta x ~ hbar, then your mental model has led you astray...

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 06:17:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Dec29.212221.27112@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>Hey, you've got my vote!  What a brat!  (No degree in physics, either!)  :-)

Well, I think you got the point. That sort of misunderstanding is what
is really holding back CNF. Everyone's ideas have at least the merit of
their own. There is nothing new under the sun -- or at least very little.
Who's to say that some classical Greek 2,500 years ago hadn't the universe
figured out. Yet such a discovery would be of interest to me should I
be the one to stumble across it no small time later. :-)

Your ideas are yours, but others could be completely capable of having the same
revelation from the same evidence.

If we must argue physics at least let's argue with the understanding that
we could _all_ be wrong. (And probably are.)

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Albert Chou /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 06:48:32 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <EACHUS.93Dec29180159@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

>     For those lost by what I am saying, the losses in a mirror
>machine would mostly be at the ends.  You can connect these together
>(Actually you build two side by side mirror machines, and feed the
>"lost" particles from one into the other.)  However last time I played
>this game the "best guess" dimensions for ignition were seven to eight
>hundred meters long, and about one to two MW(t) generated per meter...

To further elaborate, there were other ideas tried to reduce the overall
particle loss from mirrors, such as electrostatic wells (e.g., the Tandem
Mirror Experiment that still resides in one of the buildings we "own" at
LLNL at the moment).  The basic idea is still to put caps of some sort on
the ends of the main mirror chamber; usually the cap is a small mirror.


Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Bill Page /  Re: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (part 2) J. P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 Theory Papers (part 2) J. P. Vigier
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 12:57:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes:
<<
Bill Page:  I gather from your latest posting of a Vigier critique that
the essential error in Vigier's equation is that he assumed electrons
to be wave-like in one dimension (the radial one) and classical in the
other two (the ones perpendicular to the radius).
>>

And in a later posting Terry writes:
<<
QUESTION:

   What do you get if you mix up _classical_ and _quantum_ behaviors in
   electron orbitals?

ANSWER:

   OrbitFun!

[ ... orbitspheres, orbitneedles, orbitpancakes ... ]

			Tongue firmly but seriously in cheek,
			Terry Bollinger
>>


Terry, what the devel *are* you talking about?

Could you be more clear about how you gathered these ideas from my postings 
on Vigier's model?

If you go back and re-read an introductory QM text, you will see that the 
use of a "radial equation" (with an appropriately modified potential) is 
the usual way in which the solution of Schrodinger's equation for the 
hyrdogen atom is obtained.  Or, at least, one half of it.  Angular momentum 
considerations and spherical coordinates allow one to separate the solution 
into the product of two functions - one for the radial dimension and one 
for the polar angles.  

I fail to see how you can say that Vigier is treating some the of 
dimensions in a classical way.  Of course I am referring now to his most 
recent paper - not the earlier ICCF-3 paper.

May I kindly suggest you spend a few more lunch breaks reading the 
*beginning* of a few QM texts rather than just the last few interesting 
chapters? <friendly grin>

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Dieter Britz /  Re: F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 14:07:21 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University

In <1993Dec27.151957.1200@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:

>"Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper...  From his criticism
>of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and I know him as a solid
>electrochemist.  The one niggling doubt in this work is that it was a batch of
>Pd wire (the 2mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that produced tritium. ...
>I will add this paper to my small list of quality positives."

[...]
>The neutron in this case carries 14.1 MeV and is readily detectable -- or did
>they not look for neutrons?  With the quantity of tritium production they
>claim, "2.1 X 10^11 tritium atoms" in one case, copious neutron production is
>expected; about a million neutrons in the mentioned case.  Oddly, their paper 
>does not mention looking for neutrons at all.

>But they *did* look for neutrons, using "two 3He counters", and they found no
>significant neutron production from the 4 electrolytic cells that purportedly
>produced tritium via nuclear reactions -- certainly nothing at the
>million-neutron level, which they were easily capable of detecting.

[...]
>But he missed the crucial point:  *absence of neutrons* effectively rules
>triton production via nuclear reactions, in deuterated Pd!  Secondary t+d
>reactions have a threshold of only tens of keV; energetic tritons cannot be
>stopped from producing tell-tale neutrons -- but the neutrons *were not there!*
[...]
>I would ask Britz to reconsider his assessment of this as a "quality positive"
>for cold fusion claims.

Alright: Britz reconsiders, agrees with the above, and will not put this paper
into the qual+ list.

[...]
>--Steven Jones

>P.S. to Dieter:  do you still consider the Miles et al. papers to represent
>a "quality positive"?  How about the Yamaguchi et al. paper?

No, and no. In fact, as you will soon see, I have lost all vestiges of faith
in ANY positive CNF work.

Dieter alias kemidb@aau.dk
 -------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 30 Dec 1993 16:11:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1993Dec29.234154.28826@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>In article <2fqkvt$bfp@agate.berkeley.edu>
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, your conclusion is still wrong.  I suggest that instead
>> of reading advanced QED books, you check out an undergraduate physical 
>> chemistry text sometime.
>
>Er...  Was that the argumentive equivalent of telling me that my mother
>wears army boots, or were you genuinely trying to point something out?

Well, you keep writing how you don't know what you are talking about, and I
just was taking the opportunity to agree with you.

More seriously, the whole reason that the Moessbauer effect keeps coming up
on this forum is that there seems to be a group of people who are claiming
that "since the Moessbauer effect is a mysterious spooky thing that happens
in lattices, then the mysterious dispersal of 24 MeV of energy from d+d fusion
can just as easily happen."  Now you can talk about the Moessbauer effect
in terms of Feynman diagrams, or pilot waves, or wave packets, or any hi-tech
nu-wave way you want.  But all that this complicated talk does is serve to
obscure the fact that anyone who thinks that the Moessbauer effect can 
possibly have anything to do with "cold fusion" really has no clue about what
the Moessbauer effect is.  That is why I suggested an undergraduate physical
chemistry textbook, which will explain the origins of the Moessbauer effect
in a way that ought to make the distinction clear.

					Richard Schultz
anything to do with cold fusion 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / N Redington /  Re: OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OrbitFun!
Date: 30 Dec 1993 16:03:45 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The Mills theory does not attempt to combine classical and quantum
physics, but to start modern physics over in 1913. It has a very
respectable pedigree. The existence of stable non-radiating classical
moving charge distributions was made by Ehrenfest long before the Bohr 
model. These distributions - orbitspheres and orbitrings - were the
basis of the various "plum-pudding" atomic models: the electrons didn't
radiate because they were on orbitsurfaces inside a blob of positive
atom-stuff. Why no-one made the obvious modification (i.e. the Mills
theory) after Rutherford found the positive charge to be all con-
centrated in the nucleus I have no idea.

If someone had, would life be different? Well, I doubt we'd believe
in orbitspheres today, any more than we believe in Bohr-Sommerfeld
elliptical orbits. But the founders of quantum mechanics would have
had a different image of what atoms "look like", and would probably
have formulated a different paradigm...
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 31 04:37:03 EST 1993
------------------------------
